HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPAC_2002_11_04GF
NEWP
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
VISIONING PROCESS CH
General Plan Advisory Committee
MEETING #11
November 4, 2002 Police Department Auditorium
7:00-9:30 p.m. 870 Santa Barbara Drive
AGENDA
7:00 I. Welcome and Introductions
A. Agenda Overview
B. Committee Communications
7:15 II. Q and A with Bryan Godbe of GRA (Survey Consultant)
• 7:45 III. Discussion of Revised Vision Statement
8:00 IV. Small Group "Area Visioning" Discussions
A. Airport Business Area
B. Balboa Peninsula Commercial
C. Lido
D. Mariner's Mile
E. Larger Houses
9:00 V. Discussion of Future Agenda Items
9:05 VI. Next Steps
9:15 VII. Public Comments
@oEff@MMW whdiq %HER o a o ° ESQ NO NO
Oasis Senior Center
(5t' and Marguerite in Corona del Mar)
• 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 diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods. We value
our colorful past, the high quality of life, and our community bonds. The
successful balancing of the needs of residents, businesses and visitors has been
accomplished with the recognition that Newport Beach is primarily a residential
community.
Growth Strategy, Land Use and Development
We have a conservative growth strategy that emphasizes residents' quality of
life —a strategy that balances the needs of the various constituencies 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 satisfy the community's desire
• for the maintenance of its particular neighborhoods and villages. Public view
areas are protected. Trees and landscaping are enhanced and preserved.
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 estuary are flourishing ecosystems with
high water quality standards
Efficient and Safe 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
hands on educational experiences in the environmental sciences.
is Our streets are safe and clean. Public safety services are responsive and
amongst the best in the Nation.
Draft #4
10128102
Recreation Opportunities
Newport Beach 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.
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 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. This has resulted in a level of Airport operation that
preserves our unique character and land values.
IJ
Responsive Government
Elected officials and city staff listen and respond to the interests of residents and
the business community.
Draft #4
10128102
MARINER'S MILE BUSINESS OWNERS A S S O C I A T I O N
CITY OF N E W P O R T BEACH
• October 9, 2002
General Plan Advisory Committee
City of Newport Beach
Attn: Sharon Wood, Asst. City Manager
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: Mixed Uses in Mariner's Mile
Dear Committee Members:
My association commends the Committee for its stated support of the revitalization of
Mariner's Mile. MMBOA, together with City Staff, wrote the Mariner's Mile Strategic
Vision and Design Framework which the City Council adopted as development policy.
It says in pertinent part on page 37, "allow a range of residential uses where feasible":
• We believe that one of the key elements to revitalization is to allow a wide range of uses,
including residential. That will allow for creative design solutions (e.g. enhanced
pedestrian access) and complimentary land uses that will enhance the Mariner's Mile
experience.
The Specific Plans for both Cannery Village/McFadden Square and Central Balboa
allow for a wide range of mixed uses, including visitor -serving, commercial, marine -
related and residential uses. The addition of residential uses to the Mariner's Mile area
will therefore be consistent with other areas of the City and could potentially result in
reduced traffic impacts in this important area of the City.
We respectfully request Committee consideration of our request and offer to attend
your meeting with a presentation to further articulate our proposal. Please contact our
association for further information and for scheduling further discussions of this
proposal.
Sincerely,
Ned McCune, Chair
Mariner's Mile Business Owners Association
424 EAST 16T" STREET • COSTA MESA. CALIFORNIA • 92627
PHONE: 949-646-2076 • FAX: 949-548-2384
1.
A New Century —
a New Urban Form:
Location and Affordability
of Housing in a
Postmodern World
John K. Mcllwain
John K. Mcllwain
,Is OLI'senlor rest•
dent fellow for
housing and the
ULVJ. Ronald
he lack of housing that is both affordable for a wide range of the U.S.
Terwilliger Chair
for Hoaxing.
population and readily accessible to employment centers is being recog-
•
nized as a significant problem of the early 21st century. Over the next
20 years, the population of the United States is projected to grow by mote than
20 percent, adding 50 million to 60 million people. Not since the 1950s have
Americans faced a comparable surge in population coupled with an acute
housing crisis.
At the same time, metropolitan areas are evolving into interwoven networks
made up of urban centers, each providing jobs and housing, surrounded by
small suburbs. Thus, the absence of a transportation network that serves multiple
urban centers, rather than a single hub, exacerbates the jobs/housing mismatch.
It will be essential for the country to understand the nature of this new urban
form and to address the urgent need for workforce housing if it is to absorb the
next population boom successfully.
Comprehension of this new urban form has been further complicated by the
events of September 11. The security -conscious post-9/11 environment that now
. prevails —and that for many may result in a greater reluctance to live in central
cities —stands to spread households further and to drive the growth of these
multiple urban centers.
40
The Emerging New Urban
Form
The best way to see the form of American cities is
• to fly across the country -at night. Looking out the
window at the lights sparkling 30,000 feet below
1 like jewels set in black velvet, an observer can see
two kinds of urban form:
■ There are smaller cities with the old-style form
of a brightly lit central -city downtown, gradually
decreasing density farther from the center, and spokes
of light along the major roads. This is the classic city,
with its dense downtown and concentric rings of sub-
urbs, each less dense than the one closer in.
■ There also are larger cities, where the new urban
form is developing. There is the central downtown,
and there are satellite urban centers spread through-
out the metropolitan region with brightly lit roads
interlinking them.
The dramatic growth of America's cities over the
past 50 years is leading to a new urban form —a
form that encourages concentrated, intensive
development surrounded by areas protected for
watersheds, natural habitat, and farming. The
result is a wiser, more sustainable use of land and
other natural resources. It will, in time, incorporate
the following three trends:
■ The well -established "urban renaissance." Central
cities are growing and developing 24/7 residential
downtowns. This trend —tracked and commented
on extensively over the past few years —is real, but
its impact has been overestimated. Central -city
growth will continue, but slowly.
■ The new "suburban renaissance' Redesigned
and redeveloped suburban downtowns with the
look and feel of central -city downtowns —only
smaller and friendlier —are emerging. This is a
newer, less observed phenomenon, and is an evolu-
tion of Joel Garreau's "edge cities." (See the recent
ULI publication Transforming Suburban Business
Districts and the work of ULI senior resident fellow
William H. Hudnut III on the transformation of
older, inner -ring suburbs.)
■ The coming revolution in the shape and design
of the urban fringes —the new suburbs and unin-
corporated areas just outside them, also known as
the "edge-burbs." Urban centers are just beginning
to develop on the metropolitan edges, either as
small, formerly rural, towns grow larger or as new
towns are developed on former farmlands. Of the
three trends, this will be by far the most important,
since the edge-burbs—where 80 to 90 percent of all
new homes are being built —are where the real heart
of sprawl occurs.
The urban centers emerging in the edge-burbs are
the most critical, and least mature, part of the new
urban form. They are the primary alternative to
the current pattern of endless low -density culs-de-
sac, because not even the growth of central cities
and the suburban renaissance will accommodate
the rapid increase in population. And there is
The best way to
see the shape
of American
cities is to fly
across the
country at night.
41
Ll
The urban cen-
reason to believe that urban centers in the edge-
ters emerging in
burbs are the wave of the future.
the edge-burbs
• are the most
An urban center, as the term is used here, includes
critical, and
some or all of the following elements, with the
least mature,
part of the new
most successful examples including them all:
urban form.
■ Housing that is affordable to a wide range of
households;
■ Mixed uses, including homes, stores, offices,
schools, and such amenities as parks, churches,
temples, sports facilities, and libraries;
■ Compact, walkable, "feet -first" development
designed for people, not cars, and that have
streetscapes instead of surface parking lots; and
■ Development that is transit friendly internally
and tied to the central city and suburban down-
towns by both transit and roads.
These are the principles of new urbanism and
smart growth, which are being used more fre-
quently simply because they work —that is, they
add market value.
This mix in urban centers will allow the surround-
ing areas to include:
■ Traditional suburbs —old-style street grids and
white picket fences, as well as culs-de-sac;
■ Rivers and shorelines protected by greenways;
■ Other natural areas protected as wildlife habitat,
including forests, fields, and wetlands; and
■ A web of roads —and, in some cases, rail lines —
linking the central city with the surrounding satel-
lite urban centers.
This emerging new urban form will allow land to
be preserved for farms and natural habitat, will
require far less driving —saving residents time and
gasoline, and reducing pollution —and will provide
a wider range of lifestyle choices for American
households. Its emergence is being driven less by
planners than by a series of factors coming togeth-
er that are molding urban development in ways
that differ dramatically from 50 years ago.
The primary factor in this change is America's cur-
rent unprecedented population explosion —a surge
that has put pressure on natural resources that
once were seen as limitless, such as clean air and
water. Recognition of the finiteness of natural
resources is, in turn, driving profound changes in
the way communities work: it is no longer possible
for a single community, acting alone, to put poli-
cies in place that provide clean air and water or
prevent traffic congestion. Communities instead
are interlinked parts of an organic network where
the decisions of each directly and indirectly affect
all others.
42
r
r
r
•
F
Past and Future Population
Growth
Understanding the future of urban areas begins with
the fact that the United States is now adding more
people to its population than at any time in its his-
tory. As fast as the population grew in the 1950s
(adding 28 million people and creating the baby
boom generation), the.population of the country is
climbing even more dramatically in absolute terms
now, and is projected to continue to do so over the
next 20 years. A total of 32.million people were
added to the U.S. population in the 1990s, and pro-
jections are that,the population will grow by another
25 million to 30 million in each of the next two
decades. That will put U.S. population in 2020 at
330 million to 340 million people, an increase over
30 years of 80 million to 90 million people --equal
to the entire U.S. population in 1910.
As.the United States confronts this -population
explosion, the demand for new housing has never
been greater. The National Association of Home
Builders (NAHB) estimates that 18 million homes
(including replacement units) will be built by 2010;
if one assumes that population growth continues at
the same pace, another 18 million will be needed in
the following decade. This growth is occurring and
will continue primarily in the West and South: the
U.S. Census Bureau estimates that there will be
rapid growth in Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida,
Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas,
Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, while Iowa, Michi-
gan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia will
grow only slowly. That means that most of the 50
million to 60 million new Americans —equivalent
to almost eight New York Citys—and the 36 mil-
lion new housing units they will need will be in the
West and South. And most of these homes will be
built in the edge-burbs.
As the population has grown, urban forms also
have changed dramatically. In the 1990s, central
cities saw their population grow, on average, 8.7
percent, double the rate of the 1980s., Most popu-
lation growth, however, has taken place far away
from the central city. The fastest -growing counties
with populations over 10,000—such as Douglas
County, Colorado, in the Denver area, and
Loudoun County, Virginia, in the Washington,
D.C., area —are all in the edge-burbs.2 And -the
rapid population growth is taking place on the
periphery of both rapidly growing cities and cities
with stable or declining population?
According to a Brookings Institution report,
"Population gr6wthih the 1990s`was faster in
unincorporated,areas and in new suburbs [the
edge-burbs] than in existing suburbs:'4In the 35
metropolitan areas studied in the Brookings report,
the rate of growth for the edge-burbs was 21.7 per-
cent. In contrast, older suburbs grew 14.2 percent
and central cities grew by 7.75 percent 5
In testimony last year before the Millennial Housing
Commission (created by the U.S. Congress to
assess American housing conditions), David Hill,
CEO of Kimball Hill, one of America's largest
homebuilders, stated:
Over the past 25 years, far less than 10 percent of
all new housing units, whether rental or for sale,
have been delivered in inner urban areas. While
this percentage is being approached and even in a
few areas exceeded today, market forces and9and
use policies continue to cause well over 80 percent
of new housing units to be built.in the maturing
and newly developing suburbs.
In the next 20
years, there
will be 50 mil-
lion to 60 million
new Americans
needing 36 mil-
lion new hous-
ing units. Most
of these homes
will be built In
the edge-burbs.
I
43
L
Between 1950,
and 2000, the
number•of-cars
irrthe United,
States rose. by,
230 percept,
which helps,
explaimwhy,
roads are.so
'crowded today.
aPtfrlrYis�°� : • m -
The growth and rapid sprawl of urban areas began in
the 1950s, but the world is very different today. In fact,
the growth of the past 50 years has been so extensive
that it has changed the fundamentals of metropolitan
areas, though many may not have noticed.
Look Homeward, Angel:
Comparing 1950 with Today
As great as U.S. population growth has been over
the past 50 years-130 million people —the cumu-
lative annual growth rate has been only 1.25 per-
cent. For a culture that looks to the next quarter
FIGURE 1: THE UNITED STATES,
1950 VERSUS 2000
1950
2000
Population 151 million
281 million
Growth in Next
20 Years 52 million
50-60 million
(projected)
People per Square Mile 42.6
79.6
Housing Units 46 million
115 million
Housing Units
j per Square Mile 13.0
32.8
Private'Cars 40 million
132 million
People per Car 3.76
2.12
Homeownership Rate 55 percent
67.8 percent
- , Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
and the next year-end, such a rate of -change is
hardly noticeable. Looking back to 1950, however,
the differences are striking. (See Figure 1.)
Not only is the population growing, but the coun-
try also is almost twice as densely developed now
as in 1950. While the population grew by 86 per-
cent between 1950 and 2000, the number of hous-
ing units grew by 150 percent as a result of smaller
families and the boom in second homes. Mean-
while, the number of cars rose by 230 percent,
which certainly helps explain why roads are so
crowded these days. And, thanks to strong govern-
ment policies, homeownership climbed to an all-
time high in 2000.
There are other critical differences as well. In the
1950s, growth was occurring on the edge of the
central cities, and commute times to jobs were 20
to 30 minutes. Today, with the new suburbs 20 to
30 miles from central cities and with more than
three times the number of cars on the roads as in
1950, commute times exceed 45 minutes in many
urban areas, despite the construction of miles of
high-speed freeway lanes in an attempt to make
driving easier.
Also different today is the role environmental con-
cerns play in development decisions. In the 1950s,
there was a consensus supporting growth of the
suburbs. Today, the environmental movement —
unheard of in 1950—is working to control or limit
44
the construction of new subdivisions. Most locali-
ties today also seem to be opposed to new develop-
ment of any kind.
Also in the 1950s, air pollution came from city
factories —a prime reason people moved to the
suburbs —and the supply of water was a problem
only in the deserts of the West. Today, even though
many factories are closed, air pollution —to which
automobiles make a major contribution —is a prob-
lem throughout metropolitan areas, including the
suburbs. Clean air and clean water, once thought
to be unlimited natural resources available free to
everyone, now are in short supply, though commu-
nities continue to be treat them as though nothing
has changed.
Finally, increases in the cost of housing have not
been matched by growth in workforce incomes.
This has led to the emergence of a new, more com-
plex challenge —the provision of affordable, work-
force housing.
The Current Affordable
Housing Shortage
As in the 1950s, the United,States is
facing a shortage of affordable, mod-
erately priced housing for its workers.
In the 1950s, the cause was obvious —
lack of housing production during
World War II and the number of
returning veterans looking for homes.
1
Today, it is police officers and fire-
fighters, nurses and teachers, data
h'
clerks, service workers, and other
members of the workforce who are
unable to afford decent housing in
many cities and suburbs. However,
national averages hide the problem:
both the National Association of
°I]
Realtors and the NAHB affordability
indexes show that nationally homes
k
are affordable.
Nevertheless, in March, the National
Housing Conference's (NHC) Center
for Housing Policy released the third
in its series of reports on the housing
problems faced by working families.
The -report states:
Statistics on overall housing needs
mask a disturbing trend. In 1997,
three million working families [earn-
ing between the full-time minimum
wage equivalent of $10,712 and 120
percent of the metropolitan area
median income] had critical -housing needs; by
1999, this number had increased by 28 percent to
some 3.9 million. In contrast, the number of non-
working or marginally employed families with
critical housing needs fell by about the same
amount —from 6.4 million in 1997 to 5.5 million
in 1999.6 [Emphasis added.]
The report defines "critical housing need" as either
housing that costs more than 50 percent of house-
hold income or housing that is seriously deterio-
rated. By far the largest percentage of critical need
was due to the cost of the housing rather than its
quality; this would not have been the case in the
1950s, when the housing stock was in far worse
condition than it is today. There are additional mil-
lions of households paying more than the accepted
standard of 30 percent but less than 50 percent of
their income for their housing, indicating that the
shortage of affordable workforce housing is even
more severe than that reported by the NHC. And
according to the NHC, this is not a city problem
alone: more households with critical housing needs
are in the suburbs than cities.
FIGURE 2: MEAN HOUSEHOLD INCOMES BY
QUINTILE, 1968-2000
1Constant 1999 Dollard
—
$130,000
$120,000
-- -------- --- -------- ---.._---- ---- -- -----_.—__
$110.000
Top Quintile
._ .. ... _.__-.
$100.000
— — _ --
$90,000
$80,000
-----------------------------------"—
$70,000
$60.9o9
Second Quintile
$50,000
Third Quintile -+
$40,000
$30,000
Fourth Quintile
$20,000
Bottom Quintile _ _
$10,000
$o
1970 lu75 'lueu lueo ,aeu mou
Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
Ep
0,
The lack of work-
force.housing is
a major problem
for central cities
and mature sub-
urbs.that.need
teachers nurses,
and municipal
workers.
FIGURE 3: LOWEST THREE INCOME
QUINTILES AND THE COST OF
HOUSING, 1975-1999
1975 1999 Change
Third Quintile Income
$34,942
$40,879
17%
Fourth Quintile Income
$21,356
$24,436
140/6
Bottom Quintile Income
$8,694
$9,940
12%
Average Home Price
$104,324
$131,818
26%
Sources: Income figures—U.S. Census Bureau; home
price figures —Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies
The State of the Natlon's Housing: 2001 (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2001),
Appendix A-4, adjusted to 1999 dollars.
Why do the national averages hide this crisis? The
answer lies in the structure of income growth in
the country over the past several decades, and in
where affordable housing is now being built.
The Rising Income Tide Has
Failed to Lift All Boats
Incomes in the bottom three quintiles —which
constitute the U.S. workforce —have failed to keep
up with incomes of the top two quintiles. (See
Figure 2.) Meanwhile, the increase in incomes of
the bottonrthree income quintiles has failed to
keep pace with the cost of housing. (See Figure 3.)
To make matters worse, in large or fast-growing
urban areas, there is a dramatic disparity between
the cost of decent housing in the central city and
close -in suburbs and the cost in edge-burbs. As
Robert Dunphy, ULI senior resident fellow for
transportation policy, reports:
A significant component of traffic growth in recent
years is the growing distance between homes and
jobs, reflecting consumers' need to spend more time
on the road in return for affordable housing. A ULI
study of Portland, Oregon, found that for the same -
sized home, new homebuyers could save about $2 a
day in morigage costs for every mile they moved
farther out, adding additional congestion to the
roads and emissions to the enviromnenC
Not only is most housing built in the edge-burbs,
but housing there is far less expensive than housing
built closer in, where land and infrastructure costs
are higher. One real estate broker puts it in these
terms: she says she has to take many would-be
homebuyers "on the drive to qualify" —driving
them far enough out into the edge-burbs to an
area where they can afford a home and qualify for
a loan to buy it.
The lack of workforce housing is a major problem for
central cities and mature suburbs that need teachers,
nurses, and municipal workers. Likewise, businesses
are moving closer to the edge-burbs to be
near where their workers can afford to live.
The situation is becoming a barrier to the
'economic growth of many cities: in repeated
surveys, government officials and business
leaders have identified inadequate and over-
priced housing as a prime threat to the eco-
nomic growth of their communities.
The growth of the past 50 years has caused
profound and unforeseen changes. In fact, at
some point in the past five decades, gradual
growth pushed the country across a thresh-
old into a world of a different order —one in
which localities within an urban area, once
isolated from the impact of decisions made
elsewhere, now are directly affected by every
other area locality. As a result, growth in the
coming decades is unlikely to continue in the
same way it has over the past 50 years.
Do the Past 50 Years
Predict the Next 20?
In the next 20 years, the number of new
homes built in America will equal almost 80
percent of all the housing in place in 1950.
(See Figure 4.)
46'
FIGURE 4: POPULATION NIAND,
HOUSING UT$, 1950-2626
1950 2000 2020
(projected)
Population 151 million 281 million 340 million
Housing Units 46 million 115 million 150 million
Sources: 1950 and 2000 data—U.S. Census Bureau;
2020 population —author's projection based on Census
Bureau data; 2020 housing units —author's projection
based on NAHB estimate for 2010.
To continue to build the next 35 million homes in
the same pattern of low -density sprawl would devas-
tate the economic and physical health of urban
regions, and would use up increasingly scarce natur-
al resources. For example, the impact of this growth
on Los Angeles would be appalling if past growth
patterns were to continue. Gloria Ohland, southern
California campaign manager for the nonprofit
Surface Transportation Policy Project, has noted
that, "[bjetween 1970 and 1990, the population of
southern California grew 50 percent and developed
lands grew 300 percent." At a recent ULI Leadership
Forum, Professor Steven Eirie of the University of
California —San Diego made the following prediction
about growth in the Los Angeles region:
I
By the year 2020, the five -county Los Angeles
region will absorb 5.2 million new residents, for a
total,population of 22.1 million. This amount of
growth is equivalent to adding &o Chicagos, or a
Los Angeles and San Diego combined.... [A]dding
more than 5 million new residents may generate
2.7 million new automobiles on the roads. If each
car requires five to seven parking spaces, the
region would need more than 130 square miles
of paved parking lots. That is equivalent to
paving over the San Fernando Valley.
If current trends continue, predictions such as this
could be made for any rapidly growing metropoli-
tan region in the United States. There is reason to
believe, however, that the current pattern of urban
sprawl may be ending and that due to limited nat-
ural resources and demographic changes, the new
urban form described here may be emerging.
Sprawl development, popular as it is with so many
Americans, makes extravagant use of natural resources
such as gasoline, air, water, and land —a fact uncon-
tested even by sprawl's most ardent supporters.
And while there are many who claim that natural
resources are unlimited —that there will always be
plenty of oil, clean air and water, and land for farms,
forests, and natural habitats —those who would
bank on,such beliefs are backing a high -risk gam-
ble and taking a short-term view. Now that the
population of the planet has topped 6 billion —and
is climbing by another billion every 15 years —and
the U.S. population is adding more people than
ever, the effects of the extravagance of sprawl can
be seen. Looking 20 years, and further, into the
future, gradual changes occurring now can be
foreseen to have impacts more profound than the
changes of the past 50 years. Among the trends to
watch are the following:
■ Continuing failure by major U.S. urban areas to
comply with federal Clean Air Act standards;
■ Declining underground water tables, and
growing —and unfunded —costs of maintaining
aging public water and sewer systems;
IN Declining construction of new roads, from Cali-
fornia Governor Gray Davies proclamation that no
new highways would be built in California, to trends
in the use of federal highway dollars for road repair
and maintenance rather than new construction;
Gradual changes
occurring
today —such
as,declining
underground
water4ables
and the growing
costs otmain-
taining aging
public water and
sewer systems—
will likely have
profound Impacts
in the future.
47
FIGURE 5: PROJECTED PERCENTAGE
OF U.S. HOUSEHOLDS WITH
,CHILDREN, 2000-2026,
Married Couples with Children
''- Single Parents with Children
C A
2000 2010 2020
24.3% 21.8% 20.1%
8.5% 7.7% 7.2%
Source: Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, The
State of the Nation's Housing: 2001(Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2001), Table
A-5, page 32.
■ Lengthening average commute times in many
major urban areas: and
■ Growing resistance to new development in rural
areas near edge-burbs.
These trends are gradually making sprawl develop-
ment patterns less affordable and less attractive to
homebuyers. This is already beginning —slowly —
to spur denser, mixed -use development in the
edge-burbs and older suburbs.
It is important to watch the price of gasoline as
well. Today, gasoline costs the same or less than it
did in the 1,8,50s, when adjusted for inflation. If
gasoline prices rise, due to supply constraints
prompted by either Middle Eastern politics or the
widely predicted peaking of global oil production
this decade as demand rises, the cost of low -
density, automobile -dependent sprawl will no
longer seem so affordable.
At the same time, other trends are encouraging
denser development patterns. These include:
■ A growing number of baby boomers whose chil-
dren have left home are moving downtown instead
of to golf course communities;
■ Their children, the "echo boomers," are in their
20s and are renting apartments in vibrant urban
settings; and
■ The percentage of households with school -age
children, a cohort less amenable to downtown liv-
ing, is fallings (See Figure 5.)
Also encouraging denser development is the new
suburban renaissance —the rebuilding of many
older suburban areas, including suburban shopping
districts and malls, into vital, mixed -use urbanized
centers. These centers are becoming small towns
and villages of their own, and frequently are tied
into mass transit or located next to an existing
major highway. Many former cul-de-sac residents
are moving to these suburban downtowns to reduce
the amount of time they spend in their cars, whether
to commute to work, to shop, or to go to restau-
rants. Many find it an easier, more resource -
efficient lifestyle.
Taken together, these trends are shaping the new
urban form. There will always be suburbs and culs-
de-sac, gated communities and golf -course com-
munities; this is a large and diverse country, and
some people will always want to live this way.
Gradually, however, more people are opting for the
new old way of living —residing in denser, more
vibrant neighborhoods that are less car dependent.
The change will continue over time, and through
education and policy choices, the process can be
accelerated.
Conclusion—Indra°s Jeweled Net
There is an ancient Buddhist metaphor of the jew-
eled net of the god Indra. The image is of a vast net
where a jewel lies at each juncture. Each jewel
reflects all the others in a cosmic matrix and so is
intrinsically and closely connected to all the others.
For this reason, anything that affects one jewel
affects all the others.
Flying over a city on a clear night, one can see the
jewels on Indra's net —the lights of neighborhoods
with interwoven destinies. Changes in any one
of these neighborhoods will affect —directly or
indirectly —all the other communities in the net
just as one jewel reflects all the others.
Much current thinking regarding local land use is
founded upon concepts once true but that now are
profoundly mistaken. Localities have lived as enti-
ties separate from each other for most of history:
what one town did had little or no effect on the
quality of life in other towns --even those nearby.
There were exceptions, of course, -as when a disease
in one town was transmitted to another by travel-
ers, but they were rare. The interconnectivity of
neighborhoods was first observed at the end of the
19th century, when pollution from city factories
and disease from overcrowded slums led people to
move out of the city. It also led to the current form
of euclidian zoning, in which different uses are
separated in the belief —now acknowledged as
mistaken —that spatial separation will protect
homes from the harm done by pollution. The
ability of towns to'live in this lovely isolation
ended during the last century, largely as a result
of the overwhelming growth of the U.S. and
global populations.
48
Today, actions taken by one locality directly affect,
all the other localities in the metropolitan area. In
the new urban form, regional cooperation to fulfill
metropolitan housing demand is more critical than
ever. Some have suggested that as a matter of prag-
matism, the post —September 11 demands for
improved emergency response systems —ones that
operate regionally —will provide a new impetus for
cooperation among local jurisdictions. Without
such a regional approach to housing and urban
growth, a rapidly growing jurisdiction on the
urban edge can downzone—as Loudoun County,
on the western edge of the Washington, D.C.,
metropolitan area, did in 2001 when it reduced
the number of housing units it would allow to
be built —forcing the entire region to absorb the
overflow population and the increase in traffic
and pollution that accompany it.
Americans live today in a new world, one far more
complex and interlinked than ever before in the
country's history, yet America's land use decisions
are based on concepts of zoning and political juris-
dictions that are 50 years out of date. As well, Amer-
ica is beginning to push the limits of its natural
resources. Fortunately, the trend is toward develop-
ing new urban patterns. But more needs to be done.
Understanding the ways urban neighborhoods
interact and finding ways for neighborhoods to
determine what is in their best interests as part of ;
an interlinked whole are important challenges.
Educating local citizens about the inevitability of
growth and the best ways to address it also will do
much to accelerate positive changes. There are
many other important tasks ahead if all urban areas
are to develop in the new urban form. Among the
most important is finding ways to develop afford-
able workforce housing in the three types of urban
centers. Other challenges include altering zoning
and building codes and developing new financing
techniques for mixed -use development.
There is much to be done over the next 20 years to
best accommodate the 60 million new Americans
in an urban pattern that will stand the test of time.
The good news is that there are trends that are
helping and many people in the building, develop-
ment, and public realms that understand the chal-
lenges ahead.
Notes:
1. Edward L. Glaeser and Jesse M. Shapiro, City Growth
and the 2000 Census: WJtich Places Grew, and Why (Wash-
ington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Center on Urban &
Metropolitan Policy, May 2001, available at www.brook.edu/
dybdocroot/es/urban/census/whygrowth.pdf), p.1.
2. Haya El Nasser, "Suburbs Continue to Sprawl, Census
Data Shows," USA Today, 12 March 1999, p. 3A.
3.Ibid.
4. William H. Lucy and David L. Phillips, Suburbs and
the Census: Patterns of Growth and Decline (Washington,
D.C.: Brookings Institution Center on Urban & Metro-
politan Policy, December 2001, available at www.broolcedu/
dybdocroot/es/urban/census/lucypdf), p.1.
5. Ibid., p.10; central city percentage derived by author
from data in the report, p. 5, Table 4.
6. Joseph M. Harkness, Sandra J. Newman, and Barbara
J. Lipman, "Housing America's Working Families: A Fur-
therExploration, New Century Housing 3, (March
2002), available at www.nhe.org/nhcimages/workingfam
3final.pdf. page v.
7. Robert Dunphy, Cross Cutting Issues Conference: Part-
nerships for Linking Transportation and Sustainable Com-
munities, report to the General Accounting Office, 2001.
S. Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, The State of
the Nation's Housing: 2001 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2001), p. 32.
,In the metaphor
of the jeweled net
of the Buddhist
god Indra, each
jewel reflects all
the others and so
is intrinsically
connected to all
the others in a
cosmic matrix.
Flying over a city
on a clear night,
one might com-
pare the lights of
neighborhoods
with the jewels
on Indra's net.
49
• What Californians Think About
•
Growth and Development
California's population is booming, and that means Californians
need more housing, more infrastructure and more local ser-
vices. But a recent survey shows that Californians are ambivalent
about growth in their local communities. How much is too much?
Are Californians prepared to accept sprawl and a diminished quality
of life in exchange for a stronger economy?
This information is presented as part of Western City's housing and growth series.
The Field Institute survey information is reproduced with permission. For more about
the Field Institute, see page 14.
In April 2002, a survey of public opin-
ion about growth and development in
California was conducted by the Field
Institute, a nonpartisan public policy
research organization devoted to the
study of public opinion on social, eco-
nomic and political issues. The survey
revealed some very interesting facts,
including the following:
• Californians display ambivalence
and have contradictory attitudes
about issues of growth in their
own community: While residents
•overwhelmingly support the idea of
encouraging commercial development,
at the same time a majority feels popu-
lation growth in their community
should be discouraged. This ambiva-
lence is most prominent among Cali-
fornians living in the suburbs.
• By a two -to -one margin, Californians
believe that new single-family housing
should be encouraged in their commu-
nity. Renters and lower income Cali-
fornians are most likely to feel this way.
• However, about two in three residents
describe suburban sprawl as a very
important or somewhat important
problem in their region. This view is
shared by majorities in all areas of the
state and is particularly strong among
those living in the nine -county San
Francisco Bay Area.
• More traffic and longer commuting
time is mentioned most often as
the biggest problem associated with
sprawl. Two other problems frequently
•cited include a loss of open space/
poor land management and increasing
costs to local communities for provid-
ing public services.
Opinions are also divided when it
comes to whether a regional plan
should be used to guide growth and
land use decisions or whether such
decisions should be left up to each
city and county. Statewide, 53 percent
support making such decisions at the
regional level, while 43 percent favor
retaining this authority within their
own local governments. Residents of
rural areas or small- and medium-sized
towns are more apt to favor retaining
local control.
More detailed survey findings, includ-
ing some demographic information,
appear on the following pages. For the
comprehensive survey findings, visit
www.field.com.
Cal-ifomians Are Ambival'erit Ab t GYowth.
Question: Do,you.feel'lhat.population growth shoulfte,encouraged,irryour
communitydlri.ihd next several'years?
Question: Do you'feel that commercia4growth business and�economic devel-
opment—shouldfbe encoumged=in,your cormmunity in the,next,several.years?
^ - 01ace,of. residence (self -described)
'
-��
:rg;cIty]Suburb
near
large city
FSmallmr'
size towr
rural arei
j 'COMMERCIAL
GROWTH
I
j. Encourage,
78'/d
78%
83%
770/c
1 Strongly
. 45-
48,
45,
45
Somewhat'
33'
30
38
32
Discourage -
18%°
19%
16%
19%
Somewhat
12'
13
11'
13
C Strongly
'6
6
5
6
l No opinlon
- : 4%
3"/°PoPULAT
IONS
( GROWTH
��
Encourage
40%
40%
320/6
450/c
Strongly
12
16
8
13
Somewhat -
,2&
24
24 �i
32 .
t Discourage
52%
63%
61n/°
470/c
,Somewhat
'36_
33, -
42 iL32Strongly
17
20.
19 ' "'N�
o opinion
8%,
7%
7%
State housing experts tell us that California should'bebuilding 22o,000 new
housing units per year through 202o, because the state's population Willgrow
bymore thin5oo;000 people annually between now and then. How�do these
figures stackup against Californians' feelings about growth and development?
By a gteaterthan four-td-one margin, residents strongly, support the idea of en-
cout'aging commercial growth in their�comtnunities over the next several years.
On the other hand, a majority of Californians (52 percent), believes that one of the
byproducts of commercial growth — population growth — should be discouraged
in their community.
While large majorities ofresidents in all -areas of the state support the idea of
encouraging commercial development in their communities over the nut,several
years, some differences are evident impublic attitudes toward population,,depend-
ing on,one•s place -of residence.
Those living,iwthe�suburbs, while just as likely as othei Californians to favor
commercial development, are the most likely group to.feel'that population
growthdn their area should be discouraged (62 percent discouraged versus
3r percent encouraged). ,
• By contrast, people who residein small- or medium-sized towns or in rural areas
hold more divided opinions with regard to population -growth, with-45 percent feel-
ing itshould be encouraged and 47 percentsaying it should be discouraged.
continued
www.westerncity.com
Western City, September 2002 11
What Californians Think About Growth, continued I"
• Support for More New Single -Family Housing
Question: Do you feel that new single -family -detached housing development
should be encouraged in your community in the nextseveral years?
Should beji "Shoulfte-' No opinion T$` By a two -to -one -margin (6o percent
,l encouraged discouraged, 9j to 30 percent), Californians beheve
that new single-family housing should
� _ Statewide i' 60% " 30% _ 10% be encouraged in their community.
iL
Support for new single-family hous-
HHO�MEOWNERSHIP/ I !
y' VALUE OF HOME ing is'greatest among renters and
d lower income Californians, while
Renter j 68% 22% 10% homeowners living in more expen-
sive homes and people with annual
Homeowner (total) +i 54 1! 37 9 incomes of $8o,000 or more are
Less than $300,000 ! 60 31 if 9 more divided in their views on this.
$300,000 or morek 45' i! 47 -8
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Less than $40,00,0 4� 71% T5'�
- 8%
{ $40,000--$79,999 57 I; 8
f ;
$80y000•ormore p 50 42 �8�
Advisors to Aq
Local Governments TheCompany
Management Consulting & Executive Search .
Financial Services & Fiscal Analysis
Economic Development & Redevelopment
MICHAEL DAVIS
TOM SINCLAIR
JIMWILLIAMS
555'University Ave. #116
1275 Arrow Court
11150 Santa Monica Blvd., #230
Sacramento, CA 95825
Auburn, CA 95602
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Ph. 916.567.9510
Ph. 530.878.9100
Th. 310.479.9079
Fax 916.567.9540,
Fax 530.878.8999
Fax 310:575.9739
iviv w. davisco. org
12 League of California Cities www.cacities.org
• Traffic Seen as the
Biggest Problem
Associated with Sprawl
E
•
Question: What are the biggest
problems associated with sprawl?
More traffic/longer
commutes 22%
Loss of open•space/toomany
houses, shopping malls/poor
land management 13%
Increased -costs to suburban
governments to provide new
sewers, roads, schools,
services 111%
Too many people/
overcrowding 7%
Deterioration ofthe,cities/
leading to more crime, more
drug problems 6%
More pollution, poorer air
quality 6%
Affordable housing becoming
harder to find 50/0
Lack of water/water supply,
problems 4%
Loss of lobs in•the,cities 4%
Loss of a sense•of
neighborhood, community 2%
Other mentions 10%
Don't know/no answer 290/6
(Total adds to more than 100 percent
due, to multiple mentions:)"
When Californians are asked
to state in their own words what
they believe are the biggest prob-
lems associated with sprawl, the
most commonly volunteered xe-
sponse xelates.to,more traffic
and longer commuting time.
continued
,
=Employees in today's workforce want to
/ support causes that reflect their values and
needs. For over 30 years, Community Health
Charities of California has built bridges
between employees and the health charities
they care about.,,y�
Come see how you can add
Community Health Charities
of California to your workplace
giving campaign.
Booth # 351
ommunio.
Health Charities
WORKING FOR A HEALTHY CALIFORNIA,. 4
www.westernc[tY.com Western City, September 2002 13
•
•
What Californians Think About Growth, continued �w
r P1
Prom
r Recricit
t' in
Services
�L•-' Since 1972...
Visit us at the League of Califorrtia Cities Conference
Booth 141
RALPH ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES
Serving Clients from
Sacramento • Fresno • Tucson • Dallas
corporate office
4240 Rocklin Road, Suite 11
Rocklin, CA 95677
916.630.4900
• Off -Grid Stand -Alone Lighting
• Underwriters Laboratories Listed
• Caltrans Approved
• Lab Tested Photometrics
• Certified for California Wind Load
SOLAR
OUTDOOR
usxnxc
WORLD LEADER IN
SOLAR POWERED
OUTDOOR LIGHTING
4 About the Series
k As California's•population contin-
ues to -increase at a dramatic
rate, the issues associated with
housing and growth have taken
omg7eater significance and
urgency. Since April"2002,
i Western_City has, published a
series of articles exploring a
r wide range of perspectives and
{ solutions, iman effortto rally
stat&dnd locableaders around
these crucial and often contro-
versial issues, (see "A Call for
'Leadership on,Housing and
! Growth,",page 17).
b These. articles -are -available
I online -at the WesternCity web -
site at www.westerncity.corn.
Click on "articles," which •links to
a, page, displaying,recent issues.
i The articles in the series are
p grouped together, in each issue,
S beginning with.April, under
"Housing and Growth Series."
About the Field Institute
ThwField`Institute is a nonpar-
tisampublic policy research orga-
,4zatioh devoted to the study of
,public opihlomon a variety of
'social,,economic.and political
'(ssues. It undertakesregularly
'scheduled opinion and attitude
faurvays.asvdell as ad,hoc stud-
lesdn Callfornla, its primary area
of focus. The'Field'institute's
services are available to all
,) sectors -of the public, In addition
programs, it accepts research
contracts from public, or private
organizations, but not from parti-
san,interest%°AlLdata from, Field
Institute studies are archived for
use•by scholars, policymakers
another individuals onorgani-
zations.,Archived.data sets are
available from more than 250
statewide,studies conducte&by
the Field Institute and the -Field
PolLsince 1956.
Visit,the Field`Institute, online at
www.field.com.
continued on page 18
www.eacities.org
14 League of California Cities
Miat Californians Think About Growth,
&V�
emnimred from page 14
Sprawl Is an Important Regional Problem Throughout the State
Question: How important a,problem is sprawl in.the region where yowlive?
- s y Very Somewhat,, Not t� No
i Important Important Important opinion
Statewide L®i - r Statewide
--_..,..e.....-_•w ...-s°,.^'11 ��------.---.-..s-yr.--T----._—...� �., w..•.....
REGION :"" "k �'':'•
Los Angeles County 40% & 280/6� 28% 4% 1
Other Southern California 36 f 24 34 6 4 .
Central'Valley 36 29 32 3
San Francisco Bay Area 48 30 20 , ! 2
Other Northern,Califomla 37 22 j; 38 3 r' • r' • • �
The beliefthat.sprawl is a major regional problem,is sbaredby the majority of residents in all areas : "
of the state; particularly among those living in the nine -county San Erandsco+Say Area.
u
LJ
0
Sharpe Bud eter/Bid Anal
f .;, .7"y
.,
Visit Sharpe Software a
Booth # 851 in Long Beach
at the League of California
ities Annual Expositio
Tired of using National Averaged data for your Engineers Estimates?
Start using real time data based upon the costs in your area.
Use data from actual bids placed by contractors in your area for more
-- - ----- detailed control and closer estimates on future jobs.
Eliminates redundant data entry and increases productivity.
Complete bid analysis available on bid day.
For more information, contact
Sharpe Software Inc., 800-777-0786
visit us at www.sharpesoft.com or _
e-mail us at sales@shal'pesoft.com y
18 League of California Cities www.CaCities.org
'Rb�1/A
LW
• Divided Opinions About Local Control Over Land Use Decisions
Question: Do you thinicthat the city and county governments in your region•should.get together and agree on,a regional
plan related to growth and management issues, or should each city and county in your region -be allowed to make its own
-decisions on growth and.land•use issues within its•own jurisdiction?
L. J
9
Regional
control i
Statewide
PLACE OF RESIDENCE
,Large city 61% {
Suburb near large city 56
Small/medium town/rural area 9l 46 IE
Cities/counties 'No
make own. 4 opinion
decisions
35% ;p 4%
41 3
50 4
Opinions are divided when state -residents are asked'whether a regional plan should guide
growth and land use decisions in their area or whether decisions about this should.be left up -
to each city and county.
Statewide, 53 percent favor the,idea ofmaking. growth, and land use decisions at the regional
level, while 43 percent favor retaining, this decision making authority within their own local
city or county government.
While the majority of residents living in large cities and suburban areas around large cities
favor a regional approach, many residents of rural areas or small- or medium-sized towns
favor retaining local control. 13
Statewide,' "
Since 1990 Citygate Associates, LLc has been a leader in public
sector evaluation and improvement. We provide professional
management consulting services to assist elected officials and
managers in:
• Performance Audits • Fire Planning and Assessment
• Improvement • Facilitation and Change
f S wry A O
J S l i--
David C. DeRoos, MPA, CMC, President
Ronny J. Coleman, MA, Principal Dwane N. Milnes, DPA, Principal
705 Gold Lake Drive, Suite 100 • Folsom, CA 95630
Phone (916) 355-1385 or 1-800-275-2764
FAX (916) 355-1390
www.citygateassociates.com
www.westerncitycom Western City, September 2002 19
NEWP
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
VISIONING PROCESS
Resident and Business
Survey Report
•
o
Prepared by Godbe Research & Analysis
In association with Moore lacofano Goltsman (MIG), Inc.
November 4, 2002
is
=,1
Table of contents
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables.
1V
Introduction............................................................................................................................... I
ExecutiveSummary ................................................................ ................................................. 3
Methodology............................................................................................................................
16
CityRegulations - Resident Survey .........................................................................................
24
Accommodating Visitors - Resident Survey .............................................................................
27
Traffic- Resident Survey ........................................ 11 ........................................ ...................... 28
Development within the City -Resident Survey ......................................................................
31
Economic Development- Resident Survey ............................................................................. 40
Hotel Development- Resident Survey ..................................................................................... 42
Airport Construction - Resident Survey ...................................................................................
49
Demographic Description of Residents ...................................................................................
52
Important Attributes of the City- Business Survey
............................................ .................... 56
CityRegulations - Business Survey .........................................................................................
59
Accommodating Visitors -'Business Survey.............................................................................
61
Traffic- Business Survey .............................................................
.................................... I .... 1.62
Developmentwithin the City - Business Survey ......................................................................
64
Economic Development - Business Survey .............................................................................
71
Hotel Development- Business Survey .....................................................................................
73
Airport Construction - Business Survey ........................................................
.......................... 77
Employee Recruitment - Business Survey ...............................................................................
79
Demographic Description of Businesses .................................................................................
81
L
My of fieuporl Bwcb 6-&eReswn;b&Ana4s* •
Paget
List of Figures
List of Figures
Figure 1.
Regulations Regarding the Size of Homes.................................................................................
24
Figure 2.
Perceived Strength of Regulations Protecting Views..................................................................
25
Figure 3.
Protection of Coastal Bluffs........................................................................................................
26
Figure 4.
Improvements to Accommodate Visitors of Newport Beach's Coast ...........................................
27
Figure5.
Traffic Congestion.......................................................................................................................28
Figure 6.
Road Widening to Reduce Traffic...............................................................................................
29
Figure 7.
Support for Traffic Improvements ................................ .............. ............................................
I... 30
Figures.
Familiarity with Banning Ranch................................................................................................31
Figure 9.
Recognition of Banning Ranch After Description......................................................................31
Figure 10.
Development of Banning Ranch.................................................................................................
32
Figure 11.
Familiaritywith Area Near John Wayne Airport.........................................................................
33
Figure 12.
Development of the Airport Area..................................................................................................34
Figure 13.
Traffic Congestion in the Airport Area.........................................................................i...............35
Figure 14.
Familiaritywith Fashion Island Shopping Mall.......................................................................
36
Figure 15.
Support for Growth of Retail Space at Fashion Island...............................................................
37
Figure 16.
Familiarity with Newport Office Center.......................................................................................
38
• Figure 17.
Growth at Newport Center..........................................................................................................
38
Figure 18.
Smith vs. Jones - Economic Development..................................................................................
40
Figure 19.
Development of Hotels in Newport Beach...................................................................................
42
Figure 20.
Conditional Support for Development of Hotels in Newport Beach ...........................................
43
Figure21.
Hotel -type Preference...................................................................................................................
44
Figure22.
Location of New Hotel..................................................................................................................
44
Figure 23.
Development of Publicly Owned Waterfront...............................................................................47
Figure 24.
Construction of Airport at El Toro ...............................................................................................
49
Figure 25.
Conditional Support for Construction of New Airport at El Toro ...............................................
50
Figure26.
Length of Residence.....................................................................................................................52
Figure 27.
Children Under the Age of 18......................................................................................................
53
Figure28.
Home Ownership.........................................................................................................................
53
Figure29.
Employment Status.....................................................................................................................53
Figure 30.
Annual Household Income..........................................................................................................
54
Figure31.
Respondent Gender......................................................................................................................54
Figure32.
Age................................................................................................................................................
54
Figure33.
Household Party Type..................................................................................................................55
Figure 34.
Importance of Newport Beach Attributes....................................................................................
56
Figure 35.
Difficulty of Opening or Starting a Business...............................................................................
59
Figure 36.
Difficulty of Business Operation..................................................................................................59
•
City of Neuporl Beach
a4e Research &Anal,) *
Pageff
W of FISUM
Figure37.
Difficulty of Business Property Expansion ................................................................. ................ 60
Figure 38.
Strength of Regulations Regarding Signs .................................................................................. 60
Figure 39.
Improvements to Accommodate Visitors of Newport Beach's Coast ..........................................61
Fjgure40.
Traffic Congestion .......................................................................................................................
62
Figure41.
Road Widening ............................................................................................................... ............
62
Figure 42.
Support forSpecific Traffic Improvements .................................................................................
63
Figure 43.
Familiarity with Area Near John Wayne Airport .........................................................................
64
Figure 44.
Future of the Airport Area ........................................... ................................................................
65
Figure 45.
Traffic Congestion in thekirportArea ........................................................................................
66
Figure 46.
Familiarity with Fashion Island Shopping Mall .......................................................................
67
Figure 47.
Growth of Retail Space at Fashion island ..................................................................................
68
Figure 48.
Familiarity with Newport Office Center ............. : ........................................................................
69
Figure 49.
Growth at Newport Center ........................ .............................................................................
70
figure 50.
Smith vs.jones - Economic Development ..................................................................................
71
Figure 51.
Development of Hotels in Newport Beach ...................................................................................
73
Figure 52.
Conditional Support for Development of Hotels in Newport Beach ...........................................74
Figure53.
Hotel -Type Preference ............................................. ...................................................................
75
Figure54.
Location of New Hotel .................................................................................................................
75
Figure 55.
Development of Publicly Owned Waterfront Property ................................................................
76
Figure 56,
Conditional Support for Construction of New Airport at El Toro ...............................................78
Figure 57.
Difficulty,in Finding Qualffied,Employees .......................... ................... ........... ......................
79
Figure 58.
Availability of Affordable Housing in Newport Beach .................................................................
79
figure 59.
Length of Stayin Newport Beach ................................................................................................
81
Figure60.
Position at Firm ........................................................................... 11 ................ ............. I .............
82
Figure6l,
Newport Beach Residents ...........................................................................................................
82
Figure 62.
Percentage of Employees living in Newport Beach .......................... .........................................
82
Figure63.
Gender .........................................................................................................................................
83
Figure64.
Number of Employees ..................................................................................... ..........................
83
Figure65.
S.I.C. Code ................................................................................................. 1. ..... I .... I ... I ........ I .... ...1.83
0
LJ
City of Neupor, BXch Go,& Rcmrch & Anal)w •
Page ill
•
•
•
nst of Tables
List of Tables
Table 1.
Methodology Overview for the Resident Survey ..............
Table 2.
Methodology Overview for Business Survey ...................
Table 3.
Naming Labels for the Resident Survey ..........................
Table 4.
Naming Labels for the Business Survey ..........................
Table 5.
Margin of Error for the Newport Beach Resident Survey
Table 6:
Margin of Error for the Newport Beach Business Survey
Table 7.
Table 9.
Table 8.
Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.
Table 13.
Table 14.
Table 15.
Table 16.
Table 17.
Table 18.
Table 19.
Table 20.
Table 21.
Table 22.
Table 23.
Table 24.
Table 25.
Table 26.
Table 27.
Table 28.
Table 29.
Table 30.
Table 31.
Table 32.
Table 33.
Table 34.
Table 35.
Table 36.
Example:
16
17
17
18
20
21
22
'Means' Questions and Corresponding Scales for the Business Survey ...................................... 23
'Means' Questions and Corresponding Scales for the Resident Survey ......................................
23
Regulations Regarding the Size of Homes by Voter Status and Age . ..........................................
25
Protection of Coastal Bluffs by Voter Status and Area.................................................................
26
Traffic Congestion by Voter Status and Area...............................................................................28
Road Widening by Voter Status and Children Under 18.............................................................
29
Development of Banning Ranch by Voter Status and Income ...................................................
32
Development of Banning Ranch by Area...................................................................................
33
Development of the Airport Area by Voter Status and Children under 18
.................................. 35
Traffic Congestion in the Airport Area by Voter Status and Age ................................................
36
Support for Growth of Retail Space at Fashion Island by Voter Status ......................................
37
Support for Growth at Newport Center by Voter Status and Area ..............................................
39
Economic Development by Voter Status and Income................................................................
40
Economic Development by Employment Status.........................................................................
41
Development of Hotels by Voter Status and Area ...........
Development of Hotels by Age .........................................
New Hotels in the Airport Area by Voter Status and Area
42
43
45
New Hotels in Newport Center by Voter Status and Area.............................................................
45
Support for New Hotels in the Newport Dunes by Voter Status and Area ...................................
46
Development of Publicly Owned Waterfront by Voter Status and Age........................................47
Development of Publicly Owned Waterfront by Area..................................................................
48
Construction of Airport at El Toro by Voter Status and Area ......................................................
49
Construction of Airport at EI Toro by Income............................................................................
50
Conditional Support for Construction of New Airport at EI Toro by Voter Status and Age........
51
Importance of Newport Beach Attributes by Number of Employees ..........................................
57
Importance of Newport Beach Attributes by SIC Code................................................................
58
Road Widening by Perceived Traffic Congestion........................................................................
63
Future of the Airport Area by Number of Employees..................................................................
66
Growth of Retail Space at Fashion Island by Industry Type ......................................................
68
tarty of Naceod Beach
Goehe Research &Anal1jb*
Page it,
Oat of Tables
Table 37. Growth at Newport Center by Number of Employees................................................................70
Table38. Economic Development by Industry Type ................... I ...... ...... :................................................ 72
Table 39• Development of Hotels by RespondenPs Residence ...................................................................73
Table 40. Construction of Airport at El Tom..............................................................................................77
Table 41. Construction of Airport at El Toro by Number of Employees.....................................................77
Table 42. Availability of Affordable Housing by Difficulty Recruiting Employees....................................80
•
COY ofNeupodBemb GO&Remra&sAwl* •
Page o
•
•
•
introduction
Introduction
Godbe Research & Analysis (GRA) and Moore, Iacofano, Goltsman Inc.(MIG) are pleased to
present the results of a public opinion research project conducted for the City of Newport
Beach. This report is organized into the following sections:
Eteculive Summary The Executive Summary includes a summary of theKey Findings from the resident and
business survey.
Afelhodology The Methodology section explains the methodology used to conduct this type of survey
research. This section also explains sampling error and how to use the detailed
crosstabulation tables in Appendix B.
Summary of Resulls In the body of the report, we present a question -by -question analysis of the survey. The
discussion is organized into the following sections:
I. Resident Survey
is City Regulations
■ Accommodating Visitors
■ Traffic
■ Development within the City
in Economic Development
■ Hotel Development
■ Airport Construction
■ General Demographic Description of Residents
H. Business Survey
■ Important Attributes of the City
is City Regulations
■ Accommodating Visitors
■ Traffic
■ Development within the City
■ Economic Development
■ Hotel Development
■ Airport Construction
■ Employee Recruitment
■ General Demographic Description of Businesses
City ofNeuporl Beach - DRNTREPORT
Goehe Research &AnMA
Page 1
Introduction
Appendices We have included the following three appendices
■ AppendixA, which presents the questionnaire and topline data for, both surveys.
■ Appendix B, which presents the cross -tabulations for both surveys.
■ Appendix C, which presents the verbatim responses given to open-ended questions.
NOTE: Appendix A has been distributed to GPUC and GPAC previously.
Appendices B and C are available from City staff.
0
•
MyojNatpor[Bwcb-DWRBPORT GoaeRaw rcB&AnalIA •
Pege2
•
ExecmrveSummary
Executive Summary
Based on an analysis of the survey data, GRA offers the following executive summary for
both the resident and business survey.
Please note that the executive summary and the body of the report only include the results of
different subgroups that are of particular interest, in this case the respondents voter status, or
those subgroups that reveal notable differences in the level of support or agreement on a
given question. Should readers wish to conduct a closer analysis of subgroups for a given
question, the complete breakdowns appear in Appendix B. These crosstabulation tables
provide detailed information on the responses to each question by all subgroups that were
assessed in the survey.
Key Findings from the Resident Survey
City RegnlaRons The first section of the resident survey examined multiple issues related to City regulations.
Residents were first asked to indicate their opinion on the City's current regulations to
restrain the size of new or remodeled homes. Approximately 41 percent of respondents
thought the City's regulations were just right' as they related to restraining the size of new
• or remodeled homes. Twenty-seven percent of residents felt that the City's regulations were
'Not strong enough', whereas 13 percent felt the regulations were 'Too strong'. The
remaining 20 percent of respondents were undecided or declined to state their opinion.
In further examining residents' opinions regarding the City's regulations to restrain the size
of new or remodeled homes, their voter status and age was taken into consideration. Older
residents were more likely to view the current home size regulations as 'Not strong enough',
whereas residents 18 to 29 years of age were more likely to rate the regulations as 'Just right'
or 'Too strong' when compared to their older counterparts.
Respondents were next asked to rate how well the City's building regulations, plant and tree
regulations, and business sign regulations protected the views of Newport Beach residents.
On all three accounts, over 40 percent of respondents felt each regulation was 'Just right'
whereas approximately a quarter to a third of residents indicated that the current regulations
were 'not strong enough'. Examining the results closer, respondents viewed 'Plant and tree
regulations' as 'Too strong' with greater frequency than the other two regulations (13%vs.
9%, respectively). Thirty-two percent of respondents felt that 'Building regulations' were 'Not
strong enough' and approximately 50 percent of residents felt that 'Plant and tree
regulations' as well as 'Business sign regulations' were 'Just right'.
Respondents were next informed of the conflict between the City's obligation to protect
coastal bluffs and the desire for property owners to have control over development on their
property. Respondents were asked to reveal which should be the City's priority, protecting the
• erty of Newport Beach -DR*TRBPORT 6WbeResearch &AnalA
Page3
Executive Summary
•
Coastal bluffs orprotecting the rights of homeowners. The majority of respondents (56%) felt
that protecting fire bluffs should take priority overprotecting the rights of property owners.
Thirty-eight percent of respondents felt more strongly about property rights and seven
percent did not reveal their opinion.
A closer look at responses to the coastal bluff question took into account respondents' voter
status and the area of the City in which they lived. Examining residents' views by geographic
area revealed that 'Upper West' residents displayed more support for protection of Coastal
Bluffs (62%) than respondents residing in other areas of the City.
Aagnnnodating Milos The next question of the resident survey shifted the focus from City regulations to support for
City improvements to further accommodate visitors. Specifically, respondents were asked
whether the City should do more to accommodate people who visit Newport Beach's coast
and harbor by providing more restrooms, shuttle buses, parking, and retail stores.
The findings revealed that approximately half of respondentsfelt the City should make
improvements to accommodate visitors in regards to restrooms, shuttle buses, and parking
(48%, 51%, and 50% respectively) with an almost equally large percentage of residents
saying the City should not engage in these City improvements for visitors. When asked about
retail stores, however, an overwhelming majority of respondents (74%) did notsupport •
increasing retail stores to -accommodate visitors.
vraf/ic por the next series of questions, residents were asked their perception of Newport Beach
traffic. When asked to rate the level of congestion on the roads they regularly used, 57
percent of residents felt the roads were 'Somewhat congested', 27 percent felt the roads were
'Very congested', and.14 percent felt they were'Not congested at all'. The remaining two
percent of respondents did not reveal their opinion.
When residents' traffic congestion ratings were examined by their voter status and the
geographic area of the City in which they lived, overall, mom non -voters than voters rated
traffic as 'Very congested' (31%vs. 27%, respectively). Examining traffic ratings by
geographic area revealed that residents of 'Corona Del'Mar' rated traffic on roads as 'Very
congested' with greater frequency (367o) than respondents residing in the other regions of
the City.
Next, respondentswere asked if theywould supportwidening the roads they regularly used in
an effort to reduce traffic congestion or if they would prefer to leave the roads as they
currently are, despite future growth. Overall, 62 percent of respondents felt the City should
not widen the roads (leave them 'as is'), whereas 30 percent of respondents felt the City
should indeed widen the roads. The remaining seven percent of respondents did not reveal
their opinion.
CityofftporlBwch- DRAFT RRPORT Coa5eRemrrb &Analpis
Page
0
Executive Summary
Further examination of the issue of road widening in the City of Newport Beach looked more
closely at the residents' support for road widening and took into consideration their voter
status and whether or not they had children under 18 living in the home. Overall, more
voters and respondents with children present in the home felt roads in the City should be left
alone when compared with their subgroup counterparts.
The next question of the survey presented respondents with several types of improvements
that could be made to the City's traffic circulation system and asked them to indicate
whether they would support or oppose each type of improvement. For each potential
improvement tested, the majority of residents (between 52% and 71% expressed opposition.
Of the improvements tested, wideningJamboree Road and Macarthur Boulevard received the
highest percentages of opposition, with 71 percent and 68 percent, respectively.
Comparatively, building an overpass at Macarthur and Jamboree received the highest
percentage of support from residents, with 39 percent.
Development roRbin lie City For the next section of the resident survey, respondents were asked to reveal their opinions
about the development of Banning Ranch, the business area near john Wayne Airport,
Fashion Island, and Newport Office Center.
• Banning Ranch Respondents were first asked if they were familiar with Banning Ranch. Over three quarters
of respondents (78.396) were not familiar, 20 percent of respondents were familiar with
Banning Ranch, and two percent of residents did not respond to this question.
Respondents who were not familiar with Banning Ranch and those who declined to state
their familiarity were read a short description of Banning Ranch and were asked if they now
recognized the area that had been described. After being read the short description of
Banning Ranch, 68 percent of respondents indicated recognition of Banning Ranch, and 30
percent of respondents were still unfamiliar with the area after the description.
Respondents who indicated familiarity or recognition of Banning Ranch were next Oven two
options for the development of Banning Ranch and asked which option they thought was
most appropriate for the area. The results revealed a near split decision on the options. Forty-
six percent of the residents who were familiar with Banning Ranch chose 'Option 2', which
would preserve the entire Banning Ranch area as open space and would require alocal tax
increase of 250 dollars per parcel per year for 15 years along with state matching funds to
pay for the entire area to be preserved. Forty-four percent of residents familiar with Banning
Ranch chose 'Option P, which would allow for half of the land at Banning Ranch to be
developed for residential and some light industrial uses with the remaining half of the land
reserved as open space. The remaining ten percent of respondents were undecided on the
topic.
• Ctlyoffi porlBeach-DRAPTREPORT 664cRerearrG&AnallA
Page5
,Executive summary
0
Support for each option concerning the development of land at Banning Ranch was exam-
ined by residents' voter status and household income, Respondents who indicated an annual
household income between $150,000 to $200,000 and voters were more likely to support
'Option 1- Which allows residential -and light industrial development' than their subgroup
counterparts. Lower.income respondents ($60k or under) were more likely to decline to state
their opinion compared with respondents in other income brackets.
An examination of the support for each Banning Ranch option byrespondents' geographic
area of residence showed that respondents living in the 'Upper West' and 'Corona Del Mar'
areas of Newport were more likely to support Option 2: preserving the area as open space
than respondents living in other areas. At the other end of the spectrum, respondents in the
'Newly Annexed' areas and 'Sub-Divisions'were more likely to support Option 1: Developing
half the land for residential and light industrial and donating the other half as open space
than respondents residing in other areas of the City.
John Ma}meAirport Respondents were next asked if they were familiar with the business area near theJohn
Wayne Airport The finding from the survey revealed that almost all respondents were
familiarwith the area.
As.adollow-up question, respondents who were familiarwith the business area near the
airport were asked to indicate their support for six different options for the future of the •
airport area. Overall, respondents indicated opposition (as evidenced by the negative ratings)
to four of the six options tested. Of those tested, respondents revealed the most opposition to
'More car dealerships', followed by 'More industrial uses'. Residents indicated the most
supportfor'No change' to the airport area in the future.
Respondents who indicated familiarity with the business area near John Wayne Airportwere
next asked about traffic congestion in that area. The findings reveal that 64 percent of
respondents felt that it was acceptable to have more traffic congestion in the airport area
than in other parts of the City, whereas 31 percent felt'it was not acceptable. The remaining
five percent did not reveal their opinion.
When responses to the airport area traffic congestion question were broken down by voter
status and age, non -voters and older residents (50 years of age or more) indicated they were
less likely to accept more traffic in the airport area compared with residents under 50years of
age.
Fasblon/sland Respondents were next asked if they were familiarwith, the Fashion Island shopping mall.
Ninety-six percent of all respondents were familiar with the site, whereas only three percent
were unfamiliar with Fashion Island.
CilyojNeuporlBeatb-DW- RMT Go&Ramch&And)= •
Fage6
Executive Summary
As a follow-up question, respondents who were familiar with Fashion Island were asked to
reveal their support for changes in the amount of retail space at Fashion Island. Of the three
growth options tested, respondents showed the most support for Fashion Island to remain as
it is, with little or no change, followed by 'Increasing slightly so that existing department
stores can expand', and 'Increasing moderately to attract new stores to the area'.
ivetuport center Respondents were next asked if they were familiar with the Newport Center office area. The
results of the survey showed that 72 percent of respondents were familiar with the area and
26 percent were not familiar with the Newport Center office area.
As a follow-up question, respondents who were familiar with the Newport Center office area
were asked to indicate their support for the size and amount of future buildings in Newport
Center. Of the growth options presented for the future of Newport Center, respondents
revealed the most support for leaving the size and amount of buildings as they currently are,
with little or no change, followed by'Increasing to allow existing companies to grow, like
Pacific Life'.
Respondents' opinions about the size and amount of future buildings in Newport Center
were examined by voter status and the geographic area of each respondent. Voters, residents
• from'UpperWest' Newport, and residents of the'Lower Bay area were more likely to support
increased growth at the Newport Center than non -voters and residents from other areas of
the City.
Economic Development The next section of the resident survey addressed economic development. For this question,
residents were read the opinions of two hypothetical Newport Beach residents and were asked
to indicate which opinion was closest to their own. The survey found that the majority of
respondents (57%) agreed with first opinion, which discourages economic development and
33 percent of respondents identified with the second opinion, which encourages economic
development.
Further investigation of residents' views on economic development broken down by voter
status and their household income showed that respondents in the $200,000 or more income
range were more likely to agree with the second opinion, encouraging economic
development, whereas respondents in the $60,000 to $100,000 range were more likely than
their counterparts to agree with the fast opinion, discouraging economic development.
Hotel Development The next section on the resident survey addressed hotel development in Newport Beach.
Respondents were asked whether they supported or opposed developing new hotels in the
City. The findings indicated that approximately 52 percent of respondents opposed the
development of new hotels, 27 percent supported new hotel development, and 20 percent of
respondents had 'No opinion' on the topic.
• city ojNemport Beadi - DRAPTRBPORT co o Reaearrb &Anallpt
Page
ExaUlivesummary
0
Additionally, respondents' supportfor hotel developmentwas examined by their age. Overall,
older residents (over 50 years of age) showed more opposition to the development of new
hotels in the city than their younger counterparts.
Examining the,tople more specifically, respondents were asked whether they favored or
opposed developing new hotels in the City to support local stores and restaurants, business
conferences, tax revenue for the City, and tourism. The finding revealed that more than 50
percent of respondents still opposed hotel development under each of the conditions tested.
Under the assumption that new hotels will be built in the future, respondents were asked to
reveal the We of buildings they felt would be most appropriate for Newport Beach. When
asked about 'New large hotels with conference facilities, like the Four Seasons' and 'New
medium-sized extended stay, business hotels, like Courtyard Marriott', less than half of all
respondents (43%and 4476 respectively) felt they were appropriate. When asked about 'New
smaller -sized Inns with no buildings over three stories', over half of respondents, 61 percent,
felt they were appropriate for.future development.
Next, respondents were asked if they would support or oppose building a hotel in six specific
locations. Of the areas tested, hotel development in the airport area received the most
support (73%) from respondents. On the opposite end of the spectrum, hotel development in
Marina Park received the least amount of support (28%) from respondents. It should be
noted that those respondents that opposed all four of the items in question 21,were not asked •'
any of the items in this question, therefore overall support for these areas would be lower if
we assumed those respondents would oppose each of the locations.
For the Interested reader, the locations that received the highestsupportpercentages were
broken down by respondents' voter status and geographic area of residence. With regard to
the airport area, 'Upper West' Newport residents were more likely to support new hotel
development than respondents from other areas, in addition, 'Lower Bay' residents were
more likely to support new hotel development in Newport Center and NewportDunes
compared with respondents from the other geographic areas within the City.
The next question of the resident survey asked respondents to indicate their support for
developing certain parts of the publicly owned waterfront property at Newport Dunes and
Marina Park for visitor service uses such as hotels, restaurants, inns, and recreation. Over
half of respondents (54%) revealed that they would oppose development and 41 percent of
respondents would support development of certain parts of the publicly owned waterfront
property.
Responses to the waterfront development question were then examined by respondente voter
status and age. Although residents in general were not supportive of the development of
public property at Newport Dunes and Marina park, residents under the age of 50 indicated
they were more likely to support development compared to theirolder counterparts.
a6,offtuporl Beach-DRINRBADRT &4beRaeawh &Anal6o*
Page 8
•
•
•
•
raecuuvc Summary
When responses to the waterfront development question were broken down by respondents'
geographic area, residents of 'Corona Del Mar' were the most likely to oppose the
development of public property at Newport Dunes and Marina park compared to residents
living in other areas of the City.
Airport Construction The final substantive section of the resident survey addressed airport construction. Residents
were first asked to asses their support for the construction of an airport at El Toro. The
findings revealed that 68 percent of respondents would support construction of an El Toro
airport, 26 percent would oppose construction, and the remaining six percent of residents
declined to reveal their opinion.
For the interested reader, a closer look at respondents' support for an El Toro airport by their
voter status and geographic area of residence showed that, overall, voters and'Upper Bay'
residents were more likely to support airport construction compared with non -voters and
residents living in other geographic areas of the City.
When respondents' support for an El Toro airport was examined by their household income,
respondents in the highest income bracket showed the highest level of support for airport
construction, whereas respondents in the lowest income bracket showed the lowest level of
support.
As a follow-up question, respondents were asked if they would be more likely to support air-
port construction after learning that planes would not fly over any part of Newport Beach
including Newport coast. Overall, 58 percent of residents revealed they would be'Much more
likely' to support construction after being told that flights from the new airport would not fly
over any part of Newport Beach.
Key Findings from the Business Survey
important Atinbutea ofihe city The first substantive question of the business survey asked respondents to rate the
importance of eight Newport Beach attributes. The results revealed that respondents rated'all
attributes somewhere between 'somewhat important' and'very important. Newport Beach's
location and beauty ranked at the top of the attribute list, along with having a good business
address. 'Proximity to John Wayne Airport' ranked least important of the attributes
examined in this question.
Further examination of the Newport Beach attributes that were tested took into consideration
the reported number of employees in each firm. Firms with over 50 employees rated the
overall purchasing power of the community as most important while firms with zero to two
employees rated the City's location within Orange County as the most important attribute
evaluated.
City ofNeuporlBearb-DRAFTWORT GodbeResmrcb &Anal}w
Page9
EeecutireSumm21Y
•
For the interested reader, responses to the Newport Beach,attribute question were broken
down by SIC codes. Both Retail Trade and Financial, Insurance, and Real Estate (F.I.R.E)
businesses rated 'The location within Orange County and 'A good business address'
somewhere between 'very important' and 'extremely important'.
City ReSula0ons The next section of the business survey addressed City regulations. Respondents were fast
asked their opinion on how dificultitwas to start a business in Newport Beach. The survey
revealed that 44 percent of respondents felt that itwas" Not at all difficult' to open or start a
business in Newport Beach and slightly more than a quarter of respondents felt it was
'Somewhat difficult' (27%). Only ten percent of respondents indicated that it was 'Very
difficult' to start a business in Newport Beach and 18 percent of respondents did not indicate
their opinion on this question.
As a follow-up, respondents were asked to Indicate how difficult it Was to operate a business
in Newport Beach. The finding&revealed that over half of respondents (57%) felt itwas 'Not
at all difficult' to operate a business in Newport Beach and 31 percent indicated it was
'Somewhat difficult'. Only five percent of respondents mentioned that itwas 'Very difficult'
to operate a business in Newport Beach and six percent of respondents declined to state their
opinion.
The next question in the business survey next asked respondents to assess the difficulty of •
regulations related to changing or expanding to businesses in the City. The results showed
that 44 percent of respondents felt the City's regulations were either'Somewhat difficult'
(28%) or'Verydifficult' (16%) as they related to expanding or changing their business. Over
30percent of respondents indicated that it was 'Not at all difficult' to make changes to their
business and 23 percent of respondents did not have or give an opinion on this question.
The final City regulation question for businesses asked about the City's current sign
regulations for Newport Beach's business environment, Just over half of respondents felt the
sign regulations were just right (51%), with 18 percent of respondents indicating they were
'Too strong' and ten percent of respondents stating they were 'Not strong enough'. Twenty
percent of respondents did not indicate an opinion on this question.
Accommodating Parlors The next section of the survey evaluated the level of support in the business communityfor
making improvements In the City to further accommodate visitors. Respondents were asked
their opinion on whether the City should do more to accommodate people who visit Newport
Beach's coast and harbor including providing more restrooms, shuttle buses, parking, and
retail stores. The findings revealed that in regards to restrooms, shuttle buses, and parking,
over half of respondents (51%, 62%, and 74% respectively) felt that the City should provide
more. Increasing parking received the highest support (74%). when asked about retail
stores, however, only a third of respondents (30%) supported increasing the number to
accommodate visitors.
CiryajNeuparf Bweb-DW)?EPORT GWUR=rcb GAnalyfts
Page 10
0
Executive Summary
Trafic The next section of the business survey addressed Newport Beach traffic and the first question
asked respondents to rate the level of congestion on the roads they regularly used. The results
showed that over half of respondents (57%) felt that the roads they regularly used were
'Somewhat congested'. About a third of respondents felt that the roads were 'Very congested'
and nine percent felt they were 'Not congested at all'. Only one percent of respondents did
not reveal their opinion on this inquiry.
Afollow-up question asked respondents if they would support widening the roads they
regularly used in order to reduce traffic congestion or if they would prefer to leave the roads
in their current state, despite future growth. It was found that 60 percent of respondents
thought the roads should be left 'as is'. A third of respondents felt that the City should
'Widen' the roads and seven percent of respondents declined to reveal their opinion.
The support and opposition for widening the roads was then examined by how employers
rated the level of traffic congestion within the City. Those employers that rated traffic as very
congested were more likely to support widening the road.
Respondents were next asked if they would support or oppose potential traffic improvements
in the City. When asked about each suggested improvement, over 40 percent of respondents
expressed opposition. Traffic calming measures and widening Jamboree Road received the
• highest percentage of opposition with 66 percent and 62 percent respectively. The overpass at
Macarthur4amboree received the highest percentage of support with 52 percent.
Development within the city The next section of the survey addressed development within different regions of the City.
The specific areas considered in the business survey included the business area near John
Wayne Airport, Fashion Island, and Newport Office Center.
John Wayne Airport Respondents were first asked 9 they were familiar with the business area near John Wayne
Airport. The survey found that 90 percent of respondents were familiar with the area and ten
percent were not familiar with the area.
As a follow-up question, respondents who were familiar with the airport area were asked to
assess their support for six options for the future of the airport area. As indicated by the
results, the most supported proposals evaluated were 'New low-rise office buildings in the
area', followed by 'More retail stores'. Overall, respondents indicated the highestlevel of
opposition to 'More car dealerships' in the airport area.
When support for the different airport proposals was delineated by the number of employees
at each firm, firms with over 50 employees were most likely to support'More industrial uses
in the airport area', whereas firms with zero to two employees were the most likely to support
'New low-rise office buildings'.
• City ofW uportBeach-DR*TRRPORT GodbeResearrb &Anal*
Page 11
Ex"utive5ummary
Next, respondents were asked about traffic congestion in the airport area. The findings
showed that 68 percent of respondents felt that itwas acceptable to have more traffic
congestion in the aiiportarea'than in other parts of the City, whereas 31 percent felt that it
was not acceptable. The remaining one percent did not reveal their opinion.
Fasbion Island Respondents were next asked if they were familiar with the Fashion island shoppingmall.
For this area of the City, the finding revealed that 91 percent of respondents were familiar
with this location.
As afollow-up question, respondents who were familiar with Fashion Island were then asked
to asses their support for changes in the amount of retail space allowedatFashion Island.
The survey found that business respondents were somewhat supportive of all.three proposals
for dealing with the amount of retail space allowed at Fashion Island. 'Increasing
moderately to attract new stores to the area' received a slightly higher support score than
'Increasing slightly so that existing department stores can expand' which was slightly higher
than'Remaining as it is, with little or no change.
For the interested reader, the support for growth of retail space atFashion Island was
examined by SIC Code. Businesses in retail trade were more likely to support growth at
Fashion Island to attract new firms than businesses in other industry types.
•
Newpori Cenier Respondents were then asked if they were familiar with the Newport Center office area. The
survey revealed that just over two-thirds (67%) of respondents were familiar with the area
and 32 percent were not familiar with the area.
As afollow-up question, respondents who were familiar with the office area were asked to
assess their support for the size and amount of future buildings in Newport Center.
Responses to this question suggest that respondents were more supportive of the proposal
'Remaining as they are, with little or no change' to the size and amount of future buildings
in Newport Center. Respondents gave a more neutral'response, on average, to the three other
proposals for the size and amount of building in Newport Center, beginningwith'Increasing
to allow existing companies to grow, like Pacific life', followed by'Increasing to attract new
businesses to the area', and the least support for'Increasing to allow for residential and
mixed use buildings to be developed'.
Support for the size and amount of future buildings in Newport Center was then delineated
by the number of employees in each firm. Businesses with over 50 employees were most
likely to support 'Increasing to allow existing companies to grow, like Pacific fife' and
'Increasing to attract new businesses to the area'.
EconomicDeoelopmenr The next section of the business survey addressed economic development Respondents were
first read the opinions of two hypothetical Newport Beach residents and asked which opinion
0yojNeupodlimeb-DR*TREPORT GoAvRes mh&Amdj= •
pap 12
•
•
Executive Summary
they most agreed with. Results from this question revealed that opinions were split relatively
evenly between the two opinions offered on economic development. Forty-five percent of
respondents agreed more with the first opinion, which suggested that economic development
benefftted residents, whereas 42 percent of respondents agreed more with the second opinion,
which suggested economic development is detrimental to residents. Five percent of
respondents indicated they did not agree with either opinion, six percent agreed with both
opinions, and three percent did not indicate a preference.
For the interested reader, responses to the economic development question were then broken
down by industry type. Newport Beach businesses in the Financial, Insurance, and Real
Estate (F.I.R.E) Industry were more likely to support overall economic development as a
benefit to residents in Newport Beach than businesses in other industries.
Hotel Development The next section of the business survey examined the level of support for developing new
hotels in the City. The survey found that 41 percent of respondents would'Support' the
development of new hotels in Newport Beach, whereas 30 percent of respondents indicated
they would 'Oppose' new hotel development in the City. Over a quarter (2791.) of respondents
indicated they did not have an opinion on the topic.
As a follow-up question, respondents were asked if they favored or opposed developing new
hotels in the City to support local stores and restaurants, business conferences, tax revenue
for the City, and tourism. The results found that more than 50 percent of respondents
favored hotel development if each of the topics presented would benefit. This represents a 13
to 19 percent increase in support for developing new hotels within the City from the previous
question.
Under the assumption that new hotels will likely be built in the future, respondents were
asked to reveal the type of buildings they felt would be most appropriate for Newport Beach.
When asked about 'Large hotels with conference facilities, like the Four Seasons', slightly
more than half of the business respondents (54%) felt they were appropriate and 42 percent
felt they were inappropriate. 'Medium-sized extended stay business hotels, like Courtyard
Marriott' had an equivalent percentage of respondents who felt they were appropriate
compared with the percentage of respondents who felt they were inappropriate (47% each).
'Smaller sized Inns with no buildings over three stories', were considered appropriate by 49
percent of respondents and inappropriate by 47 percent of respondents.
Respondents were next asked if they would support or oppose building a hotel in various
locations throughout Newport Beach. Hotel development at the airport area received the
most support (706) from respondents, followed by Newport Center (58%), and Newport
Dunes (56%). At the other end of the spectrum, hotel development in Marina Park received
the highest level of opposition (599) from respondents, followed closely by Lido Marina
Village (57%), and Mariner's mile (53%).
City ofNewporl Beach • DW7RRPORT Godbe Research OAnalisls
Page 13
Executive Summary
0
The final hotel development related question in the business survey evaluated support for
developing publicly owned property at Newport Dunes and Marina Park. The proposed
development would be for visitor uses such as hotels,, restaurants, and recreation. The
'findings revealed that over half of business respondents were either strongly supportive
(29%) or somewhat supportive (27%) of the proposal. Approximately 40 percent of
respondents indicated they were opposed to the proposal either somewhat (11%) or strongly
(3091.) and,threepercent declined to state their opinion,
Airport Construclion The next section of the business survey addressed airport construction in Orange County.
Residents were first asked if they supported the construction of an airport atEI Toro. The
findings showed that 55 percent of respondents would support construction of the El Toro
airport either strongly (38%) or somewhat (17%) and 38 percent of respondents would
oppose construction. of the airport either strongly (27%) or somewhat (10%). Seven percent
of respondents did not reveal their opinion on this question.
For the interested reader, support for construction of the El Toro airport was delineated by
number of employees at each respondents firm. Businesses with more than 11 employees
were most -likely to support construction of -the El Togo airport.
As a follow-up question, respondents were asked if they would be more likely to support
construction of the El Toro airport after learning that planes would not fly over any part of •
Newport Beach, including Newport coast, Overall, 39 percent of respondents indicated they
would be 'Much more likely' to support construction if fligbtsfrom the new airport would
not fly over any part of Newport. Eighteen percent of respondents noted they would be
'Somewhat more likely' to support construction after learning about the conditional flight
pattern,11 percent would be'Somewhat less likely' to support, and 24percent of respondents
indicated theywould be'Much less likely' to supportconstruction of afuture El Toro Airport.
Employee Recruitment The last substantive section of the business survey addressed issues related to employee
recruitment Respondents were first asked to reveal the level of difficulty they experienced
when hiring qualified employees for their business. Forty-two,percent of respondents felt it
was 'Not difficult at art' to hire qualified employees, 33 percent indicated it was 'Somewhat
difficult', and 18 percent felt hiring qualified employees was 'Very difficult'. The remaining
six percent of respondents declined to state their opinion on the topic.
As a follow-up question, respondents were asked iftheyfelt affordable housing affected
recruitment Fifty percent of respondents agreed that affordable housing availability did
indeed have an impact on requiting qualified employees, 42 percent disagreed, and the
remaining seven percent declined to state.
CilyojNeuporlBW-DRAffREMRT Cb&J?ettwrrb &Amallau'
page 14
L_J
Methodology
Methodology
Research Objectives At the outset of this project, the City of Newport Beach, GRA, and MIG identified several
research objectives for this study. Viewed broadly, the City of Newport Beach was interested in
using survey research to gather unbiased, representative data on residents' opinions of topics
included in the City's General Plan update, such as:
■ gather opinions of City issues including development, City regulations, and issues related
to economic development;
■ compare survey results with input received from neighborhood workshops, visioning fes-
tival, the website, and the General Plan Advisory Committee;
■ identify differences in residents' opinions, and perceptions with respect to the geography
of the City of Newport Beach and
■ identify needs that may be priorities for City attention in the near future.
Resident Survey
Sample and lVelgliling Table 1 briefly outlines the methodology employed in the resident survey portion of this
project. One thousand residents completed the survey, representing a total universe of
approximately 59,018 adult residents in the City of Newport Beach. Interviews were
conducted on September 27th through October 13th, 2002, and each interview typically
lasted 12 minutes.
Table t. Methodology Overview for the Resident Survey
Technique
Telephone Interviewing
Universe
Newport Beach Residents (Voters and Non -voters)
Field Dates
September 27th through October 13th, 2002
Interview Language
English
Interview Length
12minutes
Sample Size
1,000
Because of the research objectives underlying this study and the City of Newport Beach's
interest in being able to make reliable estimates of opinions not only city-wide, but also
within six regions identified in the City, the sampling frame was designed to sample a repre-
sentative proportion of voters throughout the six regions. The sampling plan also included
gathering a representative sample of non -voters throughout the City.
Once collected, the data were compared with Census 2000 information, as well as a 2002
voter file to examine possible differences between the sample and the adult population of the
City of Newport Beach -DRAPTRBPORT CodbeReseardr &Analyrls
Page 15
NamingLabefs
Methodology
0
City of Newport Beach on major demographic variables including, age, gender, and regis-
tered voting status. The data have been weighted to co'nectfor deviations in age and voter
status so that they accurately represent the population of adult residents in Newport Beach.
Business Survey
Table 2 briefly outlines the methodology employed in the business survey -portion of this
project. One hundred and seventy-five businesses completed the business survey interview,
representing a total universe of 14,688 businesses in the City of Newport Beach. Interviews
were conducted on October7th through October 14th, 2002, and each interview typically
lasted 12 minutes.
Table 2. Methodology Overview for Business Survoy
Technique
Telephone Interviewing
Universe
Newport Beach Business Owners
FleldDales
October 71h through October 141h, 2002
Interview language
English
Interview Length
12minutes
SampleSize
175
The following labels are used in the report and crosstabulation tables:
Table 3. Naming Labels for the Resident Survey
Age
Individuals were grouped Into one of the following age brackets:
18 to 29,30 to 39, 40 to 49, 50 to 64, and65+ (65 years or older)
Children Under the Age 18
Respondents were grouped by whether they had children under
the age of 18 in the home.
Gender
Male and female respondents were Identified by their appropri-
ate labels.
Home Ownership
Individuals were grouped according towhether theyrented or
owned their home,
Employment Status
Respondents were categorized according to their current
employment status: Full-time (employed), Part-time
(employed), Self-employed, Student, Homemaker, Retired, Not
employed
Income
Residents were grouped according to their total household
Income: A or under, 60.1k to lbOk,100.1k to 150k,150.1k to
200k, 200,1k or more
City ojNaporl Bean)-DWREPORT WoRtsmnb fidnalbs*
Page 16
0
•
•
Alcihodolop
Table 3. Naming Labels for the Resident Survey
Develop New Hotels in the City
Respondents were grouped according to whether or not they
thought the City should allow new hotels to be developed.
Party
individuals were placed into their affiliated political party: Dem-
ocrat, Republican, Other, or DTS (Declined to State).
Household Party Type
individuals were grouped into the following household party
types: 'Democrat l'--one Democrat in the household, 'Democrat
2+'--two or more Democrats, 'Republican 1'—one Republican,
'Republican 2+'--two or more Republicans, 'Olher'—Otherpar-
tisans, 'Mixed' -- household members who differ in their parti-
sanship.
Area
Individuals were grouped according to their precinct of resi-
dence. Six areas were identified:
Economic Development
Respondents were grouped according to their response on
whether encouraging economic development was in the best
Interest of residents (Smith) or not Oones).
Voter
Respondents' voter status was identified as either a registered
voters (voter) or a non -registered voters (non-voter).
Years of Residence
Respondents were grouped according to the number of years
they had lived in the Newport Beach Area:
Table 4. Naming Labels for the Business Survey
Post tionatPirm
Respondents were grouped according to their current position at
the firm.
Newport Beach Resident
Respondents were grouped according to whether they lived in
Newport Beach or not.
Percentage of Employees that Live
Businesses were grouped according to the percentage of employ -
in Newport Beach
ees that live within the City.
Available Affordable Housing
Respondents were grouped according to their response on
whether affordable housing in the community affects the busi-
nesses ability to recruit employees
Economic Development
Respondents were grouped according to their response on
whether encouraging economic development was in the best
interest of residents (Smith) or not Qones).
Develop New Hotels in the City
Respondents were grouped according to whether or not they
thought the City should allow new hotels to be developed.
Gender
Male and female respondents were identified by their appropri-
ate labels.
Number of Employees
Businesses were grouped by how many employees worked at
each company.
aty ofNewporl Bead) -DRAFTREPORT GodbeRersvrcb &Ana!•tars
Page 17
6felhodology
SIC Code
Businesses were grouped according to thelr2 digit SIC code. The
four categories Include: Retail Trade (52- 59), F.I.R.E. (Finan-
cial, Insurance, and Real Estate 60 - 67), Services (70-87 &
89), and other.
Years of Business in Ne port Beach
Respondents were grouped according to the number of years
their business had been operating in the Newport Beach Area.
Randomization ofQuesrions To avoid the problem of systematic position bias - where the order in which a series of
questions is asked influences the answers to the questions - many of the questions in both
surveys were randomized such that respondents were not consistently asked the questions in
the same order. The series of items within questions were randomized for each interview in
the resident survey, this included Questions 3, 5i 8,11,13,16,18,19, 21, and23. The series
of items within questions were randomized for each interview in the business survey, this
included Questions 2, 7, 10, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 22.
UnderslandingThe WarginofError' Because a survey only.intervlewsalimited number ofpeople who are part ofalarger
population group, by mere chance alone there will almost always be some difference
between a sample and the population from which it was drawn. For example, researchers
might collect information from 400 adults in a town of 25,000 people. Because not all
people in the population were surveyed, there are likely to be differences between the results
obtained from interviewing the sample respondents and the results that would be obtained if ..
all people in the population were interviewed. These differences are known as 'sampling
error' and they can be expected to occur regardless of how scientifically the sample has been
selected. The advantage of using a scientifically drawn sample, however, is that the
maximum amount of sampling error can be determined based on four factors: the size of
the population, the chosen sample size, a confidence level and the dispersion of responses to
a survey question. Of the four factors, sample size is the most influential variable.
Tables-5 and 6 show the possible sampling variation that applies to apercentage result
reported from a probability -type sample. Table 5 shows that if a sample of 1,000 respondents
is randomly.drawn from approximately 59,018 residents of the City of Newport Beach, one
can be 95% confident that the margin of error, due to sampling, will not vary by more than
the,indicated number of percentagepoints:(plus or minus) from the result thatwould have
been obtained if the interviews had been conducted with all people in the universe
represented in the sample.
As Table 5 indicates, the maximum margin of error for all aggregate responses is between
1.84% and 3.07% for the sample of 1,000 residents. This means that for a given question
answered by all 1,000 respondents, one can be 95% confident that the difference between the
percentage breakdowns of the sample population and those of the total population is no
greater than 3.07%. The percentage applies to both sides of the answer, so thatfor a question
ab, gfftporl Beath- DRAFTREMRr CodbeR=rrb &Analpu
Page 18
•
•
Methodology
in which 50% of respondents said yes, one can be 95% confident that the actual percent of
the population that would say yes is between 53.07% and 46.93%.
The actual margin of error for a given question in this survey depends on the distribution of
the responses to the question. The 3.07% refers to questions, such as a 'yes or no' question,
where opinions are evenly split in the sample with 50% of respondents saying yes and 50%
saying no. If that same question were to receive a response in which 10% of respondents say
yes and 90% say no, the margin of error would be no greater than 1.84%. As the number of
respondents in a particular subgroup (e.g., gender or age) is smaller than the number of
total respondents, the margin of error associated with estimating a given subgroup's
responses will be higher. For this reason GRA cautions referencing subgroups with fewer
than 25 respondents.
Table S. Margin of Error for the Newport Beach Resident Survey
n
Distribution of'Res onses
90%110% 80%/20% 70%/30% 60%/40% 50%/50%
2,000
1.29%
1.72%
1.97%
2.11%
2.15%
1,600
1.45%
1.93%
2.21%
2.37%
2.42%
1,400
1,200
1.55%
2.07%
2.37%
2.54%
2.59%
1.68 /0
2.24%
2.57%
2.74%
2.80%
„7000,
�800
1.89 /0,.�:-
2,46% _
-_2:82°/nc,
3.0156._1-_3.07%,_
600
2.06%
2.75%
3.15%
3.37%
3.44%
2.39%
3.18%
3.65%
3.90%
3.98%
400
2.93%
3.91%
4.48%
4.78%
4.88%
200
4.15%
5.53%
6.34%
6.78%
6.92%
150
100
4.79%
6.39%
7.32%
7.83%
7.99%
5.88%
7.83%
8.97%
9.59%
Table 6 shows the possible sampling variation for the business survey. The table shows that
for the sample of 175 respondents that are randomly drawn from the approximately 14,688
registered businesses in the City of Newport Beach, one can be 95%confident that the margin
of error, due to sampling, will not vary by more than 7.36 percentage points (plus or minus)
from the result that would have been obtained if the interviews had been conducted with all
individuals in the universe.
City ofNewporl Beaeb-DROTREPORT Codbe Reseanb &Anal o*
Page 19
hlelhodologr
Table S. Margin of Errorrfor the Newport Beach Business Survey
n
Distribution of Responses
90% /10% '80%./20% 70% /30% 60% /40% 5001./50%
300
250
3.36%
4.48%
5.13%
5.491/6
5.60%
3.69%
4.92%
5.63%
6.02%
6.15%
225
200
3.89%
5.19%
5.94%
6.35%
6.48%
4.13%
5.51%
6.31%
6.74%
6.88%
_
175__ ,
.4,42%
5.89%
6,75%
7.221/o
7.36%
_
150
125
100
75
50
25
4.78%
6.37%
7.30%
7:80%
7.96%
5.24%
6.98%
8.00%
8.55%
8.73%
5,86%
7.81%
8.95%
9.57%
9.77%
6.77%
9.03%
10.35%
11.06%
1129%
8.30°k
11.07%
12.68%
13.56%
13.84%
11.75%
15.67%
17.95%
19.19%
19.58%
How to Read a Crosslaba/alion The questions discussed and analyzed in this report comprise a subset of the various
Table crosstabulation tables available for each question. Only those subgroups that are of
particular interest or that illustrate aparticular insight are ineluded'in the discussion on the .
fallowing pages. Should readers wish to conduct a closer analysis of subgroups fora given
question, the complete breakdowns appear in Appendix B. These crosstabuladon tables
provide detailed information on the responses to each question by all demographic groups
that were assessed In the survey.
An example cross tabulation table is shown below in Table7. A short description of the item
appears at the top of the table. The number of business owners or managers to whom the
question was administered (in this example„n =175) is presented in the first column of
data under'Overall'. In many cases, the number of individuals to whom the question was
administered is equal to the entire sample size. However, In some cases a question is only
administered to a subset of the sample if appropriate. The results to each possible answer
choice of all,respondents are also presented in the first column of data under'Overall'. The
aggregate number of respondents in each answer category is presented as awhole number
and the percentage of the entire sample that this number represents is just below the whole
number. For example, among respondents overall,18people Indicated it was 'very difficult'
to open or start a business In the City of Newport Beach, and 18 people represents 10.3% of
the 175 respondents to whom the question was administered. Next to the 'Overall' column
are other columns representing opinions of male and female respondents. The data from
these columns are read in exactly the same fashion as the data in the'Overall' column,
although each group makes up a smallerpercentage of the entire sample.
city ofNeapod Beach -DR*TREMRT Come Raanrh &Atwllsb
Page 20
�J
Methodology
Table 7. Example:
-den
der
Overall
Male
Female
Base
175
98
77
Very difficult
18
10.3%
11
11.2%
7
9.1%
48
21
27
Somewhat difficult
27.4%
21.4%
35.10o
Not at all difficult
77
44.0%
52
53.1%
25
32.5%
32
14
18
DI4NA
18.3%
14.3%
23.4%
Understanding a Mean' Many results in this report are discussed with respect to a descriptive 'mean'. Means are
simply averages of the overall responses to a particular question. To derive a mean that
represents perceived importance of attributes provided by the City (Question 3 - Business
survey), for example, a number value is first assigned to each response category. In this case,
'extremely important' = +3, 'very important' = +2, 'somewhat important' = +1 and'not
• too important' = 0. The answer from each respondent is then assigned the corresponding
number (from +3 to 0 in this example), with the exception of respondents offering a'don't
know' or'no answer', who are excluded from the analysis. Finally, all respondents' answers
are averaged to produce a final number that reflects the average perceived importance of the
service. Means always adhere to the scale used for the question (see Tables 8 and 9) and can
be interpreted accordingly.
• City ofNemporl Beach-DRAPTREPORT We Resasrrb &Analysis
Page 21
Methodology
Now to Read a Weans'Table 1n many tables included in the report and Appendix B, mean scores are used to represent the
data. As discussed above, these mean scores represent the average response of each group.
The table below references the scale used for each corresponding question. Pleasemote that
responses of 'don't know' and'no answer' are not included in calculating the means for any
question.
Table 8. 'Means' Questions and Corresponding Scales for tho,Resident
Survey
Question
Measure
ca o -
Values
uppo or Ully.proposaFJ-1,2
= D1ini e y oppose
als
1= Probably oppose
1 = Probably support
= Defnitoly support
Table 9. 'Moans' Questions and Corresponding Scales for the Business
Survey
ues o,n
measure r
boas
values
y ssues
o0 i *ram
TT Nottoo Important
+1 = Somewhat Important
+2 =Very Important
+3 = Extremely Important
1 , 15, y
Support ior City propos-
o +
= Dallnitely oppose
als
.1 - Probably oppose
+1 = Probably support
+2 = Definitely support
A Note on The Tables To present the data in the most accurate fashion, we display many of the results to the first
decimal point in the tables and figures. -For the purposes of discussion, however,
conventional roundingrules are applied, with numbers that include 0.5 or higher rounded
to the next highest whole number and numbers that include 0.4 or lower, rounded to the
next lowest whole number. -Because of this rounding, the reader may notice that percentages
in the discussion may not sum to 100% due to rounding conventions. Moreover, the decimal'
numbers shown in pie charts may vary somewhatfrom the decimal numbers shown in the
tables due to software requirements that pie charts sum to exactly 100%. These disparities are
confined to the first decimal place. Additionally, because weighting the data involves
assigning precise weights to the data that are carried out to the fifth decimal place, rounding
the results (in terms of 'number of respondents') to a whole number is required to
meaningfully discuss the findings of the study. Thus, the reader should note that after
weighting, the total number of respondents depicted in the resident surveyis 999.
0
Cilyo%NetportBeacb-DR*TRMORT GbabeResearch &Aaalysis •
Page 22
•
r11
�J
0
City Regulations - Resident survey
City Regulations - Resident Survey
Qz. Next, /-d like to ask you some
The first section of the resident survey addressed various topics related to City regulations.
questions aboutplanning
Residents were first asked to indicate their opinion on the City's regulations to restrain the
regulations in the City. In general,
size of new or remodeled homes. As shown in Figure 1, approximately 41 percent of
do you lbink that the City's
respondents thought the City's regulations were `Just right' as they related to restraining the
regulations to restrain The size of
size of new or remodeled homes. Twenty-seven percent of residents felt that the City's
new or remodeled homes are too
strong, not strong enough, or just
regulations were `Not strong enough', whereas 13 percent felt the regulations were 'Too
right?
strong'. The remaining 20 percent of respondents were undecided or declined to state their
opinion.
Figure 1. Regulations Regarding the Size of Homes
DRINA
,..,rig.,
40MA
Too strong
133-1.
Not strong enough
2gb%
Table 10 shows residents' opinions regarding the City's regulations to restrain the size of new
or remodeled homes by their voter status and age. Overall, more voters indicated that the
regulations where 'Not strong enough' compared with non -voters, whereas more non -voters
than voters viewed the regulations as 'Just right'. Examining differences by age, older
residents were more likely to view the current home size regulations as 'Not strong enough',
whereas residents 18 to 29 years of age were more likely to rate the regulations as 'Just right'
or'Too strong' when compared to their counterparts.
City Regulailons. Resident Survey
11
Tablo 10. Regulations Regarding the Size of Homes by Voter Status and Age
Voter
Age
Overall
Voter
Noe'
18 to`29
3DWS
4b to49
50 to 64
65 or
voter
years
years
years
years
older
Base
999
857
142
140
200
172
237
201
Taos. �'
133
118
16
21
23
24
32
19
13.3%
13.7%
11.0%
15.3%
14.6%
13.7%
1&5%:
9,3%
Notslronge enough
265
232
33
26
47
43
70
66
26.6%
27.1%
23.6%
18.6%
235%
24M
8%
296%
328%
Justright
405
340
64°
64°
7840.5%
39.7%
45.6%
45.8/0
38.9%b4t�14
195
167
28
26
4619.6%
19,5%
19.9%
202%
23.OYo
93. Are current city regulations Respondents were next asked to rate howwell the City's building regulations, plant and tree
regarding. - that
regulations, and business sign regulations protected the views of Newport Beach residents.
interferewitb views too strong, not
On all, three accounts, over 40 percent of respondents felt each regulation was' Just right'.
strong enough, or just rigbi in
the jorNeuport
proteBeach
Examining the results closer, respondents viewed `Plant and tree regulations' as 'Too strong'
residents?
Bearb residents?
with greater frequency than the other two regulations (13%vs. 9%, respectively Thirty-two
g 4 ei'Y ••
percent of respondents felt that'Building regulations' were'Not strong enough' and
approximately 50 percent of residents felt that 'Plant and'tree regulations' as well as
'Business sign regulations' were `Just right'.
Figure 2. Perceived Strength of Regulations Protecting Yews
BTooetrong OJustrlght 11111otslrongenough ■MMA
Building regulations
Plant and tree
regulations
Businees sign
regulations
City offtiportBeech -DRAFTREPORT 6odbeRaairrh&Alu;I) r
Paget!
U
r�
J
Q4. The coastal act requires The City
to protect the coastal bluffs of
Newport Beach whlleproperty
owners in the City wish To have
control of development on their own
properly. which should be a greater
priorrtyfor lbe City - increasing
protection of the Coastal Bluffs or
protecting the rights of owners of
Coastal Bluffs?
n
•
City Regulalions - Resident Survey
Respondents were next informed of the conflict between the City's obligation to protect
coastal bluffs and the desire for property owners to have control over development on their
property. Respondents were asked to reveal which should be the City's priority, protecting the
coastal bluffs or protecting the rights of homeowners. The majority of respondents (5691o)•felt
that protecting the bluffs should take priority over protecting the rights of property owners.
Thirty-eight percent of respondents felt more strongly about protecting property rights and
seven percent did not reveal their opinion.
Figure 3. Protection of Coastal Bluffs
CK(NA
use
Protect d0hts of owners 5, Protection of Coastal Bluffs
3rV1.
SM.
Table 11 illustrates responses to the coastal bluff question by respondents' voter status and
the area of the City in which they lived. Overall, slightly more non -voters than voters felt
there should be an increase in protection of the Coastal Bluffs (59%vs. 55%, respectively).
Examining residents'views by geographic area revealed that'UpperWest' residents displayed
more support for protection of Coastal Bluffs (6296) than respondents residing in other areas
of the City.
Table 11. Protection of Coastal Bluffs by Voter Status and Area
Vbter
. Ares •" -
Upper.
Lower
Canna
11DP,s n;
,Sir I
NeMy
0"IMI
Voter
Nonvote
YJest :Bay.:
.PdW,
,k6iq
I fWisi=re.,Ann_e>tod
Base
999
857
142166
202
110
145
175
60Inoease
gaeo5on of.
655
472
83103
I
102
58
76
102
29
Coa55.6%
550%
58.9%22%
50.7%
633%
52.7%
58.4%
48.9%
Proleotntihlsof
379
326
5165
85
48
59
57
24
owners of Coastal
379%
382%
360%33%
42.1%
43.9%
404%
32.7%
39.8%
Bluffs
65
58
7
8
15
3
10
16
7
p41JA
6.5%
1 6.7%
5.1%
4.5%
1 7.2%
1 29%
1 69%
1 90%
1 11.4%
City ofNewporl Beach - DRAPPRBPORT
Codbe RaYwrdi F Anallais
Page25
Accommodating Visilon - anidenl Suncy
Accommodating Visitors - Resident
Survey
Q5.Switchiaggearsabit: Doypu
The next question ofthe resident survey sliffted the focus from City regulations to support for
think the My should do more to
City improvements to further accommodate visitors. Specifically, respondents were asked
acremmodatepeopteWe visit
whether tine City should do more to accommodate people who visit Newport Beach's coast
Newport Beach s eoaet and harbor?
Specifically, should the
and harbor by providing more restrooms, shuttle buses, parking, and retail stores.
City: to accommodate
visitors?
Figure 4 reveals that approximately half of respondents felt the City should make'
improvements to accommodate visitors in regards to restrooms, shuttle buses, and parking
(48%, 51%, and'50% respectively), When asked about retail stores, however, an
overwhelming majority of respondents (74916) did not support increasing retail stores to
accommodate visitors.
Figure 4. Improvements to Accommodate Visitors of Newport Beach's Coast
More restroom
Shuttle Our
More parkin
More retell store
6yos c No ■ DKNA
®�Now
® 0
®yrtl_ea���1
zo.ea 1 �
City ofNeuportBeach -DRAPI'RRPoRT Co4eR=46Ana6ars
Page 26
•
•
•
Traffic - Resident Survey
Traffic - Resident Survey
QG. Now let's talk about traffic in
For the next series of questions, residents were asked to reveal their perception of Newport
Newport Beach. How wouldyou rate
Beach traffic. When asked to rate the level of congestion on the roads they regularly used, 57
the level of trafftc congestion on the
percent of residents felt the roads were 'Somewhat congested', 27 percent felt the roads were
roads that you regularty use in the
'Very congested', and 14 percent felt they were 'Not congested at all'. The remaining two
City? Abutd you say that they are
very congested, somewhat congested,
percent of respondents did not reveal their opinion.
or not at all congestedwhenyou
Figure 5. Traffic Congestion
travel on them?
Not at all congeslod DK(NA
144X 157.
Varycoagesled
272Y.
Table 12 shows residents' traffic congestion ratings by their voter status and the geographic
area of the City in which they lived. Overall, more non -voters than voters rated traffic as 'Very
congested' (31%vs. 27%, respectively). Examining traffic ratings by geographic area
revealed that residents of 'Corona Del Mar' rated traffic on roads as 'Very congested' with
greater frequency (36%) than respondents residing in the other regions of the City.
Table 12. Traffic Congestion by Voter Status and Area
Voterr59,7%
_ - Area
Lower
coinninz
ypo(Bel,
Sub
N&*
owrall
Voter
Non•wte
Bay
�Ddair
Fmlian
,Dvisions
Annexed
ease.
999
857
142
202
110
145
176
60
271
228
43
58
40'
38
35
12
Verycongesled
272%
266%
30.6%
288%
360%
26.1%
20.2%
19.7%
10gonad'
569
488
81
112
63
83
iQi
30
,somewhat
57.0%
66.9%
57.1%
55.7%
57.1%
57.1%
57.6%
60.7%
144
129
15
24
7
2A
35
18
Notatalltageslo0
,_ L144%
15.0%
107%
12.1%
68%
16.3%
20.1%
29.7%
2
7
1
4
-
11152
%
1.4%
1.5%
3.4%
05%
2.1%
City ofNewporl Beach - DRr1Pl'RBPORT
Coahe Rawrrh &Analysta
Page 27
Traffic • Resident Sunny
Q7.7binboftbemain roadsyou
Next, respondents were asked if theywould support widening the roads they regularly used in
typically use in the city when jvu
an effort to reduce traffic congestion or if they would prefer to leave the roads as they
travel. lrould jvu prefer to widen
currently are, despite future growth, Overall, 62 percent of respondents felt the City should
!berg roads to reduce
traJcongor
not widen the roads (leave them 'as is'), whereas 30 percent of respondents felt the City
efiet
them as Is bt eiperrre or leave
them as k and eaperiwice more
should indeed widen the roads. The remaining seven percent of respondents did notaeveal
g P P
tragic congestion lasting longer,
their opinion.
than it does now.
Figure S. Road Widening to Reduce Traffic
DIM
7A%
Lunm t.
tan%
Men
aoa%
For the interested reader, Table 13 reveals support for road widening by residents'voterstatus
and whether or not they had children under 18 living irrthe home. Overall; morevoters and
respondents with children present in the home felt roads in the City should be left alone •
when compared with their subgroup counterparts.
Table 13. Road Widening by Voter Status and Children Under 18
Voter
Children Under
'the Age of 18
Non-
Overall
Voter
voter.
'Yes
No
Base
855
729
126
224
622
Widen
259
216
43
62
194
30.3%
29.7%
33.7%
27.6%
31.2%
Leave asis
533
458
74
153
378
62.3%
62.9%
58.9%
68.2%
60.8%
63
54
9
9
50
D 4 4A
7.4%
7.4%
7.4%
4.2%
CityojNeuportBard) -DRAPI'RMRr
aYbe Research GAnd)Sie
Page28
is
Q8. But, I'm going to read you
several types of improvements (bat
can be made to the tnfc
circulation system in !be City. For
each one, please tell me whether you
would support or oppose the
improvement. Here is the Urslluast)
one. ?Mouldyou
support or oppose this improvement
to the trafc arculation system?
is
Traffic - Resident Survey
Question 8 presented respondents with several types of improvements that could be made to
the City's traffic circulation system and asked them to indicate whether they would support
or oppose each type of improvement. For each potential improvement tested, the majority of
residents (between 52% and 71%) expressed opposition. Of the improvements tested,
widening Jamboree Road and Macarthur Boulevard received the highest percentages of
opposition, with 71 percent and 68 percent, respectively. Comparatively, the overpass at
Macarthur and Jamboree received the highest percentage of support from residents, with 39
percent.
Figure 7. Support for Traffic Improvements
Support ❑Oppose mDK/MA
Widening PCH
Overpass at
MacarthurNamboroe
Overpass at
JamboroelPCH
Widen Jamboree
Road
Widen Macarthur
Blvd.
Traffic calming
measures
®® �.._.
,
2.
t..a.tuc.v.
0% 25% 50% 75% 100.1.
City oJNeu po rt Beads - DWT REPORT
Cmdbe Research f Analysis
Page 29
Dnmlopment WILhin the oly- Reudentsunuy
0
Development within the City - Resident
Survey
For the next section of the resident survey, respondents were asked to reveal their opinions
about the development ofBanning Ranch, the business area near john Wayne Airport,
Fashion island, and Newport Office Center in the future.
Banning Ranch
Q9.Tbefurstarea bBanning Road. Respondents were first asked if they were familiar with Banning Ranch. Over three quarters
Areyou familiar with Banning of respondents (78.3%) were not familiar, 20 percent of respondentswere familiar with
Rand? Banning Ranch, and two percent of residents did not respond to this question.
Figure B. Familiarity with Banning Ranch
DR/NA
1A% jas
t89X
No
M%
Q10. Banning Rancb is the large
Respondents who were not familiar with Banning Ranch and those who declined to state
PropertyoffofPacifucCoast Higbway
theirfamiliaritywerereadashortdescriptionof.BanningRanchandwereaskediftheynow
narl to the Santa Ana River
recognized the area that was just described. After being read the short description of Banning
currently used for oil drilling. Do
Ranch, 68 percent of respondents indicated recognition of Banning Ranch, whereas 30
yrou recognize the area tbat bas just
percent did not
p
been described?
Figure 9. Recognition of Banning Ranch After Bescrlption
DRmA
2S%
No
29.8%
f .r
Yea
67.7%
City ofNedporlBond) -DROTRP.PORT CortheReswrob&Ana!}sis •
Page30
QII.Ok, now I'd like to read you
two optionsfor the development of
Banning Ranch. Please choose the
option that you think is most
appropriatefor the area. Option One
- would allowfor half of the land at
Banning Ranch to be developed for
residential and somelight industrial
uses will) the remaining half of the
land reserved as open space. Option
Two - would preserve the entire
Banning Ranch area as open space.
Thwoption would requirea local tax
increase of 25o dollars per parcel
per year for 15 years along with
state maicbing funds to payforThe
entire area to bepreserved.
•
is
Development within the Cny - Resident Survey
Respondents who indicated familiarity or recognition of Banning Ranch (from Question 9
and 10) were next given two options for the development of Banning Ranch and asked
which option they thought was most appropriate for the area. Figure 10 reveals a near split
decision on the options. Forty-six percent of the residents who were familiar with Banning
Ranch chose 'Option 2', which would preserve the entire Banning Ranch area as open space
and would require a local tax increase of 250 dollars per parcel per year for 15 years along
with state matching funds to pay for the entire area to be preserved. Forty-four percent of
residents familiar with Banning Ranch chose 'Option 1', which would allow for half of the
land at Banning Ranch to be developed for residential and some light industrial uses with
the remaining half of the land reserved as open space. The remaining ten percent of
respondents were undecided on the topic.
Figure 10. Development of Banning Ranch
Option 1
449%
Option2
45S%
For the interested reader, Table 14 displays support for each option by residents' voter status
and household income. Respondents in the $150,000 to $200,000 salary rage and voters
were more likely to support 'Option 1' than their subgroup counterparts. Lower income
respondents ($60k or under) were more likely to decline to state their opinion compared
with respondents in other income brackets.
Table 14. Development of Banning Ranch by Voter Status and Income
Voter _
Income, -
I Non' �
,dW r,
60k1d,"
Id0k,to
156k4o
200kmir
Overall
;Voter,
',voter,
under
�',10,OJ,t,:
-,150k
'200k
!,more
Base
740
640
100
112
183
127
77
120
`.Optlon•1,-halfland
328
287
41
49
79
57
39
57
devel'oped;;llalf.open
443%
449%
40.8%
43.6%
43.1%
44.9%
50.4%
47.7%
space
Option 2; preserve
entire area,as open
337
287
50
50
89
60
32
54
space„tax thcrease,of,
45.5%
44.9%
49.5%
44.8%
48.3%
47.5%
41.3%
44.9%
$250 Penparcel,
75
65
10
13
16
10
6
9
10.2%
10.2%
9.8%
11.6%
8.6%
City of Newport Beach - DRAFTRBPORT
CodbeReseardi &rDurlysh
Page31
Q12. 7be first area is the budness
areaneartbeJobn Mayne Airport.
Areyou familiar witb this area?
Development within die City. Resident Suney
Table 15 displays the support for each option by respondents' geographic area of residence.
Respondents living in the 'Upper West' and `Corona Del Mar' areas of Newport were more
likely tosupportOption 2: Preserving the area as open space than respondents living in other
areas. Contrarily, respondents in the 'Newly Annexed' areas and'Sub-Divisions' were more
likely to support Option 1: Developing half the land for residential and light industrial and
donating the other half as open space than respondents residing in other areas of the City.
Table 15. Development of DanningManch by Area
Area'
Upper
Lovrer
Corona
Upper Bay
Sub-
Newly
Overall
,West
-Bay
Del Mar
Mwlro0s,
Ohrlstons
Annexed
Base
740
131
166
82
110
131
30
Option 1, half land
developed, hair open
328
55
69
30
52
65
16
44:3%
42.3%
44.1%
36.9%
472%
49.2%
54.1%
space ,
Opfion 2, preserve
enilre area as open
337
65
69
40
49
52
11
space, tax increase of
45.5%
49.8%
44.3%
49.0%
44.8%
39.7%
37.9%
$250 per parcel
OKINA
75
10
18
12
9
14
2
10.2%
7.8%
11.5%
14d%
0.0%
11.D%
8.0%
John Wayne Airport
Respondents were next asked if'they were familiar with the business area near the John
Wayne Airport. Figure 11 reveals that almost all respondents (94.2%) were familiar with the
area.
Figure 11'. Familiarity with Area Near John Wayne Airport
QyofNeuporl Beach -DRIFT REPORT CalbeRomn-b &Anallsts
Pdga32
0
0
•
f ,
L
•
Derelopmel t Whin the City- Resident Survey
g13.1'm Soft to provide you will)
As a follow-up question, respondents who were familiar with the business area near the
six different opiionsfor tbefuture of
airport were asked to indicate their support for six different options for the future of the
theabport area, andl'd like to
airport area. Responses were receded according to a support scale where 'definitely support'
know wbether you would support or
= +2, 'probably support' = +1, 'probably oppose' = -1, and 'definitely oppose' = -2.
oppose rsil
option. Here s the UAD
Responses were then aggregated to form a mean, which is simply a summary statistic
pp y �
next) one: (READ
one.-
ITEM). (Gould you support or oppose
obtained by taking the overall average of the response codes for the entire question. A mean
ibis optionforlbefutureofthe
of+l,for example, indicates that,overall, respondents would'probablysupport'the option
airport area? (GETANSWER, THEN
presented. The order in which the items were read was randomized to avoid a systematic
ASI): Would that be definitely
position bias.
(support/oppose) orprobably
(supporuoppose) ibis option?
Overall, respondents indicated opposition (as evidenced by the negative ratings) to four of
the six options tested. Of those tested, respondents revealed the most opposition to 'More car
dealerships' (-1.05), followed by'More industrial uses' (458). Residents indicated the most
support for'No change' to the airport area in the future (0.67).
Figure 12. Development of the Airport Area
013a No change in lMort area
0131, Now low-rise office buildings In airpor
013d More retail alone In airport also
013c Now high-rise oflico buildings In alrpc
0131 More Industrial uses In airport area
013e Moro car dealerships In airyort area
Por the interested reader, Table 16 shows the mean support ratings for each of the
development proposals for the airport area by respondents' voter status and whether or not
they had children under the age of 18 in the home.
• cgofNewtioriBeach -DRANREPORT GodbeResearch &Analysle
Page33
Doelopment within the City- Ruldmi Sunry
•
Table 16. Development of the Airport Area by� Voter Status and Children
under 18
Voter
Children Under
the Age of 16
Non-
Overall
Voter
Voter
Yes
fJo
Base
-0.15
-0.16
-0.11,
-0.02
40 0
Q13a No change In
0.67
0.66
0.68
0.66
0.66
airport area
Q13b,Newtow•dse
office bulldings,in
0.54
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.50
airport area
Q13d More relail'stores
in airport area
p 12
-0.13'
•0.08
0.13
•0.21
Q13c New high-rise
officebuildings'In
-0.37
.0.35
-0.53
-0.18
-0.44
_ airport area
Q13f More Industrial
uses in airport area
-0.58
-0.62
-0,26
-0.45
-0.63
613e More car
dealerships in airport
-1.05
-1.04
-1.11
-0.94
-1.08
area
L J
Q14. Do you lbink lbal it is Respondents who indicated familiarity with the business area near John Wayne Airport were
acceptable to bane tore lrafic next asked about traffic congestion In that area. Figure 13 reveals that 64 percent of
congestion in The airport area Than respondents felt that it was acceptable to have more traffic congestion in the airport area
in otberparlsofThe City? than in other parts of the City, whereas 31 percent felt it was not acceptable. The remaining
five percent did not reveal their opinion.
Figure 13. Traffic Congestion in the Airport Area
Table 17 displays responses to the airport area traffic congestion question broken down by
voter status and age. Non -voters and older residents (50 years of age or more) indicated they
were less likely to accept more traffic in the airport area compared with voters and residents
under 50 years of age.
CYlyofNaiporlBeadi•DWTRBPORT GoAvRamrdi &Arwlybri
Page34
•
•
Development within the City -Resident 5orvey
Table 17. Traffic Congestion in the Airport Area by Voter Status and Age
Voter
Age
29
30 fo 39
40 fo 49
5010'64
65oi
Overall
Voter
rs
years
years
years,
olden
Base
942
818
5
188
170
226
183
606
520
138
120
137
86
Yes
64.4%
63.6%
%
740to0soto,
73.7%
70.9%
60.4%
47.3%
293
262
42
46
81
80
No
31.1%
32.1%
%
22.4%
27.2%
35.7%
43.8%
42
35
7
3
9
16
�KMA
45%
4.3%
%
3.9%
2.0%
3.9%
8.9%
Fashion Island
Q15. 71ienor/ area is the Fashion Respondents were next asked if they were familiar with the Fashion Island shopping mall.
Island shopping mall. Are you Figure 14 reveals that 96 percent of all respondents were familiar with the site, whereas only
familiar with this area? three percent were unfamiliar with Fashion Island.
Figure 14. Familiarity with Fashion Island Shopping Mall
No DKINA
3.0% 07-A
j
Yes
903%
Q16. 7binking of the future of As a follow-up question, respondents who were familiar with Fashion Island were asked to
Fashion Island, would you support reveal their support for changes in the amount of retail space at Fashion Island. Responses
or oppose the amount of retail were coded according to a support scale where 'definitely support' = +2, 'probably support'
space: ? (GE' = +1, 'probably oppose' = -1, and 'definitely oppose' = -2. The responses were then
ANSWER, 7su ppo SIQ: Wouose) o that be aggregated to form a mean and the order in which the items were read was randomized to
definitely (suppart/oppose) or
probably (support/oppose) this avoid a systematic position bias.
option?
Of the three growth options tested, respondents showed the most support for Fashion Island
to remain as it is, with little or no change (0.81), followed by 'Increasing slightly so that
existing department stores can expand' (0.58), and 'Increasing moderately to attract new
stores to the area' (0.37).
City ofNewpon Beach - DA*7REPORT Coelbe Researdi G Analls(e
Page 35
Development within the City -Resident suney
Figure 15. Support for Growth of Retail Space at Fashion Island
Q16a M..nndwga
0161, slight Incmno ao W. a con oapaM
QI6e Moderate 1n am to attic{ how top
For the interested reader, Table 18 shows the support ratings for growth of retail space at
Fashion Island by respondents' voter status.
Table IS. Support for Growth of Retail Space at Fashion Island byNater
Status
Vold'r'
'von -
Overall
Voter
otervootete
r
Base
0.58
0.59
0.55
Q16a Little or no
0.81
0.82
0.68
change
Q1 6b Slightincrease so
0.58
0.60
0A
stores can ekpand
116c Moderate
Increase to attract new,
0.37
0.35
0.54
stores
City oJNeaporlEeacb-DWREMRT Godbeftwrrb DAnafljW
Page36
•
U
•
Development within the City- Resident Survey
Newport Office Center
Q17. Me nest area is the Newport Respondents were next asked if they were familiar with the Newport Center office area.
G iter once area. Are you familiar Figure 16 reveals that 72 percent of respondents were familiar with the area and 26 percent
will) this area? were not familiar with the Newport Center office area.
Figure 1G. Familiarity with Newport Office Center
DKINA
26Y
No
25.7%
- i
Yes
71.r/.
Ql8. 7hinking ofthefutureNewport
As a follow-up question, respondents who were familiar with the Newport Center office area
Center, would you support or oppose
were asked to indicate their support for the size and amount of future buildings in Newport
thesize and amount of
Center. Responses were coded according to a support scale where'definitely support' = +2,
buildings—_? Mould
'probably support' = +1,'probably oppose' = -1, and'definitely oppose' = -2. The responses
that be definitely (support/oppose) or
•
were then aggregated to form a mean and the order in which the items were read was
probably (support/oppose) this
option?
randomized to avoid asystematic position bias.
Of the growth options presented for the future of Newport Center, respondents revealed the
most support for leaving the size and amount of buildings as they currently are, with little or
no change (0.84), followed by'Increasing to allow existing companies to grow, like Pacific
Life' (0.28).
Figure 17. Growth at Newport Center
qua Lltd. or no change
018b Increasing foruxtsgng wmpantes
Olga Increasing to attract businesses
018d increasing for mined use develops
u.-o:aa
y
f
i�
0
City ofNewpord Beach - DRAFTRBPORT adbe Research &Analicr's
Page37
Dudopment within the City -Resident Survey
Table 19 shows respondents' opinions about the size and amount of future buildings in
Newport Center by their voter status and geographic areaof residence. At the overall level,
voters residents from 'Upper West' Newport, and residents of the 'Lower Bay' area were more
likely to support increased growth at the Newport Center than non -voters and residents from
other areas of the City.
Table 19. Support for Growth at Newport Center by Voter Status and Area
Vdor
I Area
O.W
Vdor
NAVA
U
lcw
Carona
�
W�
8'aY
Dd Mr
m'
D&W"
'Amazed
Bolo
022
0.24
0.09
OA2
0,44
.0.14
028
0.10
, 02B
O18a Uebarno
dwrge
0.64
0.87
OM
0.61
081
090
1.10
0.07
091
O18bkvmskVior
a 65brocvnWie3b
028
0.29
0.13
0.65
0.60
-0.33
02r
aim
OA8
9m
O18ckaomirgb
ahmd tuskq
I -0.04
.0.03
-0.11
027
026
-053
-001
-028
0.00
O18dimomb9br
ntwd umdmvd p ohl
-0.18
.0.17
-024
0.14
0.09
OM
-024
-or-028
0
0
OydjNeupodBeadi- MIN REPORT CdrlGeRe=nh&Nralyete •
Page
•
Qi9.Ok, now I'd like to read you the
opinions of two Newport Beach
residents. Please choose the opinion
That is closest to your own. Smith
thinks that encouraging economic
development in the City is in the best
interest of residents. By allowing for
more hotels, ofice space and retail,
it will generate revenue to payfor
improved maintenance and
operations, improved service
provision, and a variety of City
projects. Jones thinks tbal
encouraging economic development
in the City is not in the best interest
of residents, because it will lead to
more buildings, bigger buildings,
more trafc congestion, and will
change the character of the City
•
Economic Development - Resident survey
Economic Development - Resident
Survey
The next section of the resident survey addressed economic development. For this question,
residents were read the opinions of two hypothetical Newport Beach residents and were asked
to indicate which opinion was closest to their own. Figure 18 reveals that the majority of
respondents (57%) agreed with Jones' opinion, which discourages economic development
and 33 percent of respondents identified with Smith's opinion, which encourages economic
development.
Figure 18. Smith vs. Jones - Economic Development
Both DKINA
Neither 2.9% t.9Y.
aa%
Smith
33A%
Jone_
sr mi
For the interested reader, Table 20 shows residents' views on economic development broken
down by voter status and their household income. Respondents in the $200,000 or more
income range were more likely to agree with the Smith opinion encouraging economic
development, whereas respondents in the $6o,000 to $100,000 range were more likely to
agree with the Jones opinion discouraging economic development than their counterparts.
City of Newport Beach - DIMPTRBPORT
CodbeRaord &Anafjois
Page39
Economic Deeelopm°nl- Resident Surrey
11
Table 20. Economic Development by Voter Status and Income
Voter
Intone
Overall
Voter
Non-
60k or
60k to
look to
150k to
200k or
voter
Under
look
150k
200k
more
Base
999
857
142
171
249
156
92
160
Smith
334
290
44
61
80
54
31
64
33.4%
33.8%
31.2%
36.0%
32.3%
34.9%
33.1%
40.1%
Jones
569
484
85
95
151
85
51
88
67.0%
56.4%
60.1%
55.4%
60.7%
54.8%
55.4%
54.9%
Neither
38
31
7
10
8
6
6
3
12.2%
3.8°%
3.6%
4.8%
5.8%
3.1%
3.9%
5.9%
Both
29
25
4
3
7
5
3
3
2.9%
2.9%
2.9%
1.9%
DM
29
27
2
2
3
5
2
2
2.9%
3.2%
1.1%
0.9%
For the interested reader, Table 21 shows responses to the economic development question by
respondents' employment status. Overall, self-employed, part-time employed, and full-time
employed respondents were more likely to agree with the Smith opinion encouraging
economic development than respondents in other employment status groupings, however •
even with employed residents, a higher percentage chose discouraging economic
development (jones) than encouraging it (Smith).
Table 21. Economic Development by Employment Status
EmOwmdril
Slabs
Overoll'
Fu46ee
PaMinlo'
emP self-
Studonl
k
RelUed'
' Not
B ot
Baso
999
388
67
189
39
72
214
23
Smith
334
142
26
75
11
23
52
5
33A%
36.6%
39.0%
39.7%
273%
31.3%
24.3%
21J%
569
220
33
95
26
42
136
15
57.0%
56.7%
49.0%
50.0%
662%
58.6%
63.5%
642%
Nalther
38
11
5
12
1
7
1
3A.
3.0%
7.8%
6A%
1.2%
3A%
4.5%
Both
29
5
1
8
3
4
6
2
2.9%
1.3%
1.6%
3.2Yo
6.5%
6.1%
3.0%
1
7.4%
,per
29
9
2
1
-
2
12
0
I
2.9%
2.4%°
2.7%
0.7%
2.6%
5.7%
22%
Cilpq(MruporlBmdh-D94PPRBPOR7' C,oAaRamrrh&Aaa)s11 •
Page 40
0
n
Ilotel Development • Resident Survey
Hotel Development - Resident Survey
Q20 Next I'd like to ash you about The next section on the resident survey addressed hotel development in Newport Beach.
botels in Newport Beacb. In general, Respondents were asked whether they supported or opposed developing new hotels in the
do you support or oppose developing City. Figure 19 reveals that approximately 52 percent of respondents opposed the
new hotels in the City, or do you not development of new hotels, 27 percent supported new hotel development, and 20 percent of
have an opinion?
respondents had 'No opinion' on the topic.
Figure 19. Development of Hotels in Newport Beach
DKRIA
Noopinlon 12% Support
27.3%
n
Oppose
520°/.
For the interested reader, Table 22 shows respondents' support for hotel development in the
City by their voter status and geographic area of residence.
Table 22. Development of Hotels by voter Status and Area
Votod
- Ar'ea
Lovmf
comon,
UppWI•
t 4-
A,41y-.-
ter
Noiwoter3O6%
Dd Mai
,Fmrae-
Misbid
Anne£ed
7
142
202
110
145
175
60
3
39
63
20
43
42
15
Support
%
27b%
31.3%
18.5%
29.6%
23.8%
24.6%
tZ72%272%
6
74
109
65
72
91
30
0%
521%
54.1%
59.9%
49.6%
53.9%
50.7%
6
28
28
22
29
34
15
No apt
3%20.1%
13.0%
19.6%
20.3%
19A%
24.7%
2
3
2
1
6
-
..%
1.6%
1.9%
06%
2b%
-
Table 23 shows respondents' support for hotel development by their age. overall, older
residents (over 50 years of age) showed more opposition to the development of new hotels in
the City than their subgroup counterparts.
City ojNewportBeadi-DR4FTRBPORT GoAeRem rch &Anallls6
Page 41
Hold Derelopmenl- Resident survey
Table 23. Development of Hotels by Age
Age
Overall
'18 to 29
30 to 39
4d to 49
50 to 64
'65 or
years
years
years
years
older
Base
999
140
200
172
237
201
Support
PP
273
43
55
50
64
42
27.3%
30.9%
27.3%
29.1%
26.9%
'21.0%
Oppose
620
71
100
82
127
120
52.0%
50.7%
49.6%
47.8%
53.5%
59.6%
No Opinion
194
24
42
39
45
35
19.5%
17.3%
21.1%
22.5%
18.8%
17.5%
DKINA
12
1
4
1
2
4
1.2%
1.1%
1.8%
0.6%
0.8%
2.0%
Q21. Let me be morespectfrc. Do
Examining the topic more specifically, respondents were askedwhether they favored or
youfavor or oppose developing new
opposed developing new hotels in the City to support local stores and restaurants, business
bolels in the City ofNeaport Beach to
conferences, tax revenue for the City, and tourism. Figure 20 reveals that more than 50
support: ?
percent of respondents still opposed hotel development under each of the conditions tested.
Q22. Assuming that any new hotels
will be built in the future, what type
ofhotel buildings doyou think are
approprrale forNewport Beacb?Are
appropriate
or lnappropriale for future
development.
figure 20. Conditional Support for Development of Hotels in Newport Beach
■ Favor 0 Oppose ■ Dk/ NA
Support local
storostrostouranla
Support business
conferences
Support tax rovenut
for the cily�
Support tourlam
0% 25% 50% 76% 100%
Under the assumption that new hotels will be built in the future, respondents were asked to
reveal the type of buildings they felt would be most appropriate for Newport Beach.NCthen
asked about'Newlargehotels with conference facilities, like the Four Seasons' and'New
medium-sized extended stay business hotels, like Courtyard Marriott', slightly less than half
of all respondents (43% and 44% respectively) felt they were appropriate, When asked about
"New smaller -sized Inns with no buildings over, three stories', well over half of respondents,
61 percent, felt they were appropriate for future development.
CityofNeuponBeacb-DRAl9'RBPORT 664vRemrch &Anaf/5ts
Page 42
11
LJ
w
llotel Development - Resident Survey
Figure 21. Hotel -type Preference
O Appropriate ❑ Inappropriate i DK/ NA
Now large hotels
Now medium-sized
hotels
Now smaller -sized
hotels
,`t� .ter_
r r
SCYiii1•"
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Q23. Neer, /'m going to list several
Next, respondents were asked if they would support or oppose building a hotel in six specific
areas of Newport Beach. For each
locations. Of the areas tested, hotel development in the airport area received the most
area, please fell me ifyou would
support (73%) from respondents. On the opposite end of the spectrum, hotel development in
support or oppose locating a new
Marina Park received the least amount of support (28%) from respondents. dt should be
dotel is the area. Here is rite7oul /
nett) area: . !Gould
noted that those respondents that opposed all four of the items in question 21 were not asked
P PP
you support or oppose locating a
any of the items in this question, therefore overall support for these areas would be lower if
new hotel in ibis area?
we assumed those respondents would oppose each of the locations`.
Figure 22. Location of New Hotel
o Support D Oppose ■ DK/NA
Airport area
Mariner's mile
Marina Park
Lido Marina Village
Newport Dunes
Newport Cantor
cam::
r
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
'Approximately 15 percent of respondents opposed the development of hotels for all four items in
question 21. These respondents did not answer any of the items in question 23.
City offic uporl Beach- DRAFTREPDRT
"a Research &AnalA
Page 43
Iletel Development • Ruldent Surmy
For -the interested reader, Tables 24, 25, and 26 show the locations that received the highest
support percentages broken down by respondents' voter status and geographic area of
residence.
Table 24 reveals that with regard to the airport area, 'Upper West! Newportresidents were
more likely to support new hotel development than respondents from other areas. As
displayed in Tables 25 and 26, 'Lower Bay' residents were more likely to support new hotel
development In Newport Center and Newport Dunes compared with respondents from the
other geographic areas within the City. Table 27
Table 24. Now Hotels in the Airport Area by Voter Status and Area
Voles
Area^
UPPa
tnxvr
Capra
UppaBa
51b
NMW
o+eal
Voter
N,,Vo r
Well
Bay
DOM r
yEWm..
Mies
Amexed
Base
864
736,
128
145
171
85
132
151
62
Support
632
535
96
114
129
66
88
101
39
73.1%
727%
752%
782%
75b%
717%
663%
66-W
760%
Oppose
201
174
27
27
34
17
42
43
10
232%
236%
218%
18.8%
19.7%
20A%
31.7%
2a7%
203%
DOA
32
27
5
4
8
2,
4
7
2
3.7%
36%
4.0%
aD%
4.7%
1.9%
3A%
4A%
36%
Table 25. New Hotels in Newport Center by Voter Status and Area
Voter
Area
Overall
Voter
Non-
Upper
.Lower
Corona
Upper
Sub -Di-
Newly
voter
Wdsr
bay,
'Del Mar
Bay...
vlstons
Anne -
Base
864
736
128
145
171
85
132
151
52
Support
463
400
63
80
108
37
73
73
28
53.6%
54.3%
49.4%
55,2%
632%
44.1%
55.0%
48.6%
54.3%
Oppose
325
277
48
52
48
43
45
69
21
37.7%
37.7%
37.6%
36.0%
27.9%,
60.6%
34.1%
45.4%
39.9%
DKINA
76
69
17
13
15
4
14
9
3
8.7%
6.0%
13.0%
8.8%
8.9%
6,3%
10,9%
0.0%
5.8%
talyajNeaporlBald -ORAPTRBMRT CodbeRa arcLDAna!}sir
Pago 14
0
0
9
0
Ilotel Development - Resident Survey
Table 26. Support for New Hotels in the Newport Dunes by Voter Status and
Voter
A{eA
Noo-
Upper
Lower
Comma
Upper B-
Sub
I Newly
Overall
Voter
voter
West
Bay
Del Mar
ay, Envi...
DMsbns
jAnnexed
Base
864
736
128
145
171
85
132
15l
52
380
323
56
66
B4
34
53
63
24
Support
44.0%
43.9%
44.0%
45.7%
49.0%
40.0%
40.1%
41.6%
45.6%
423
357
66
64
75
46
71
82
20
Oppose
49.OYo
48.6%
51.3%
44.1%
44.0%
53.9%
537%
54.0%
38.2%
61
55
6
15
12
5
8
7
8
Dfr/NA
7.1%
7.5%
4. %%
10.2%
7.0%
6.1%
6.2%
4A%
162%
Table 27. Support for New Hotels in Marina Park by Voter Status and Area
Area
Upper
Lower
'Corona
Upper Bay
Sub-
-Newly
Overall,
_ West.
Bay,
Del -Mar
, Envimns
_Divisions
Annexe&
Base
864
145
171
85
132
151
52
241
50
35
23
43
41
16°
Support,
27.9%
34.2%
20.6%
27.3%
32.7%
27.3%
30.2 /0
569
87
121
55
84
101
33
Oppose
659%
59.7%
70.9%
65.2%
632%
67.0%
64.2%
53
9
15
6
5
9
3
DWNA
6.tYo
6.1°k
8.5%
7.5%
4.1%
5.7%
5.6%
City off
024. IPould yeu support or oppose
the City dwel oping portions of the
publidJy owned waterfront property
at Newporl Dun asandAlarina Park
for visitor serving uses sucb as
bbtels, restaurants, inns and
recreation? Mould that be strongly
(snppori/oppose) orsomewhal
(support/oppose)?
Hold Development - Resident 6uney
Question 24 asked respondents to indicate their support for developing certain parts of the
publicly owned waterfront property at Newport Dunes and Marina Park for visitor service
uses such as hotels, restaurants, inns, and recreation. Over half of respondents (549o)
revealed that they would'oppose development and 41,percent of respondents would support
development of certain parts of the publicly owned waterfront property.
Figure 23. Development of Publicly Owned Waterfront
DKINA
11% Slrong"upport
20.7x
1�>r��
Suonglyopposo
'may' Somowhateupporl
2aax
Somewhatoyypose
130%
Table 28 shows responses to the waterfront development question by respondents' voter
status and age. Although residents in general were not supportive of the development of
public property at Newport Dunes and Marina park, residents under the age of 50 indicated
they were more likely to support development compared to their older counterparts.
Table 28. Development of Publicly Owned Waterfront by Voter Status and
Age
Voter
Age
Non-
I , 8lo2G
3010 39
4016�49
50do 64
0or
overall
• Voter'
Voter
years
years
years'
years
older
Base
999
657
1 142
140
200
172 .
237
201
Strongly support
207
179
28
33
43
39
50
35
20.7%
20.9%
19.6%
23.3%
21.7%
22.8%
20.8%
17.3%
Somewhat support
204
166
37
32
48
36
43
33
20A%
19A%
26.3%
22.8%
23.1%
21.2%
18.2%
162%
Somewhat oppose
130
115
15
15
31
19
37
22
13.0%
13.5%
10.3%
11.0%
16.6%
11.0%
Strongly oppose
407
349
58
55
72
71
85
84
40.8%
40.8%
40.9%
51
47
4
5
8
6
13
18
afMA
6.1%
5b%
2.9%
3.4%
3.8%
3.6%
Table 29 shows responses to the waterfront development question broken down by
respondents' geographic area, Residents of 'Corona Del Mar' were the most likely to oppose
the development of public property at Newport Dunes and Marina park compared to
residents living in other areas of the City.
City ofNeaporl Bomb - DWTREPORT
Gac&Resa rd &AnaIysie
Page 46
0
Ilotel Development - Resident Suncy
•
Table 29. Development of Publicly Owned Waterfront by Area
Area
.
Uppbr
Lower
',doiona,
Uppeirtay,
SU6•-
Neivly
Overallypesl
Bay,
'DebMer
Egvirons,
D isions
Ande%ed!
Base 999
166
202
110
145
175
60
207
40
41
18
36
34
11
Stronglysupport 20.7%
24.4%
20.3%
16.0%
24.6%
19.3%
18.2%
204
38
43
15
25
32
14
Somewhat support
20A%
22.9%
21.3%
13.5%
17.0%
18.3%
23.1%
130
24
30
17
12
21
10
Somewhat oppose
13.0%N14.61%15.0%
15.9%
8A%
12.2%
16.5%
40777
5368073
22
Strongly oppose 40.8%38.4%
483%
47.1 /0
41.6%
35.9 /0DIONA
5110
7
4
15
4
5.1%4.9%
6.4%
2.9%
8.5Yo
6.3%
City oJNeaporlBearb-DRAFTRBPoRT
Got&ResaarcbGAna!4w
Page 47
_025.1 would like to ask you abort
tbefutureofEll'oro. Doy»nsupport
or oppose the construction ofan
airport at El
Toro: ? Mould tbat
be strongly (supporlloppose) or
somewhat (support/oppose) this
action?
Airport Construction - Resident Suney
Airport Construction - Resident Survey
The linal,substantive section of the resident survey addressed airport construction. Residents
were first asked to asses their support for the construction of an airport at El Toro. Figure'24
reveals that 68 percent of respondents would support construction of anEl Toro airport, 26
percent would oppose construction, and the remaining six percent of residents declined to
reveal their opinion.
Figure 24. Construction of Airport at El Toro
DR/NA
W.
stron9Hopposo .
195%
somewhatoppose
B7%
Sarnowhalsuppol_
120%
Strungty SSsuB%pport
For the interested reader, Table 30 shows respondents' support for an El Toro airport by their
voter status and geographic area of residence. Overall, voters and 'Upper Bay' residents were
more likely to support airport construction compared with non -voters and residents living in
other geographic areas of the City.
Table 30. Construction of Airport at EI Toro by Voter Status and Area
Voter
Aron
Voter
Non•Voto
Upper
West
. Lowar
Bay
Corona
Dal Mar
1lppor
6rthans
' Sub
Mhskro
Around
Base
657
142
166
202
110
145
175
Be
Saongfysuppod
500
57
77
130
58
105
103
25'
58.3%
40.6%
40.6%
64.6%
53.3%
72.5%
60.8%
42.4%
Somewhat support
98
22
20
24
13
13
20
8
r12.0%
11.4%
15.4%
11.6%
11.8%
12.1%
92%
11.2%
13.8%
l oppose
51
16
10
10
10
5
12
4
6.0%
114%
5.9%
6.1%
92%
35%
7.0%
6.0%
strovyoppose
159
384529
1918
29
18
18.5%
252%
270%
14.5%
17.6%
12.5%
168%
29.9%
OIGt1A
501/14
e
8
5.8%
7.5%
e.6%
4.0%
7.7%
'Fable 31 shows respondents' supportfor an El Toro airport by their household income.
Respondents in the highest income bracket showed the highest level of support for airport
construction, whereas respondents in the lowest income bracket showed the lowest level of
support.
City of Neeport Beach - DRAFTRP.PORT
Corlbe Resa7rcb 6Auaitt
Page 48
0
•
•
0
Q26. Ifyou knew tbal flights from a
future El Toro Airport would notJly
over anypart ofNewporl Bead)
including Neuporlcoast, wouldyou
be more or less likely to support
construction of a new airport at El
Toro? Would that be much (more/
less) likely or somewhat (morelless)
likely to support construction of an
airport at El Toro?
Airport Consimction - Resident Survey
Table 31. Construction of Airport at Ell Toro by Income
—T
Income
-Overall
60kor'113.3%
100kto
150kId,
200kor
under150k
200k
more,_
Base _
999
171156
92
160
557
71
82
64
112
Stron I su ort
9 Y PP
55.8%
41.4%52.3%
69.7%
69.9%
120
27°21
9°
16
Somewhat support
12,0%
15.6 /0
9.3 /0
9.8 /o
67
13
19
14
9
5
Somewhat o ose
PP
6.7%
7.4%
7.6%
8.8%
10.0%
3.0%
195
51
52
31
8
24
Strongly oppose
9 Y
19.5%
29.8%
21.0%-
19.6%
9.0%
14.8%
60
10
14
9
2
4
�K/NA
6.0%
5.7%
5.7%
6.0%
1.9%
2.5%
As a follow-up question, respondents were asked if they would support the airport construc-
tion after leaming that planes would not fly over any part of Newport Beach including New-
port coast. Overall, 58 percent of residents revealed they would be 'Much more likely' to
support construction after being told that flights from the new airport would not fly over any
part of Newport Beach.
Figure 25. Conditional Support for Construction of New Airport at EI Toro
DKINA
70Y.
Muchksslikely
1S1%
Somvwhatloss4kely
SAI.
somoMml mom likely
1A9%.
Much mom likely
S&D°t.
For the interested reader, Table 32 shows respondents' support for the El Toro airport after
learning about the conditional flight patterns by their voter status and age.
6"cResearch &Analyvlt'
Page 49
Airport Congm°uon-Raidem Surrey
Table 32. Conditional Support for Construction of Now Airport at El Toro by
Voter Status and Ago
Voter
Age_
'Voter
N0R'
48 to29
3d to 3
40 to 49
50 io.64
65.or
'Overall
voter
years,
years
years'
years
rider
Base
999
857
142
140
200
172
237
201
Much more likely to
579
614
65
71
104
104
146
128
support;
57.9°A
59.9%
45.8%
50.4'/°
'51.9%
60.7%
61.3%
63.9%'
Somewhat maelikely
139
114
25
19
36
25
33
18
to support
13.9%
13.3%
17.6%
13.4%
18.1%
14.6%
13.9%
9.2%
Somewhatlesslikelyto
54
41
18
22
11
4
8
7
support
5.4%
4.8%
9.3%
15.5%
5.3%
2.3%
3.2%
3.3%
Much less likely to
151
122
29
18
37
28
29
30
support
15.1%
14.2%
20.5%
13.0%
18.3%
16.4%
12.0%
15.0%
DIM
76
67
10
11
13
10
23
17
7.6%
7.8%
6.80/
7.7%
6.4%
5,9%
9.6%
8.6%
City ofNeuport Reach -DRAFTREPORT 6o& Ramrrb &biatoak
Page50
•
•
r -I
L
•
E
i
Demographic Description of Residents
Demographic Description of Residents
Figures 26 through 33 present a graphic representation of the demographic composition of
the sample. Because of the methodology of this study, the sample is representative of the
adult population (18 years and older) of residents in Newport Beach. Although the primary
motivation for collecting the demographic information was to provide a better insight into
how responses to the substantive questions of the survey vary across demographic
characteristics, this information is also useful for better understanding the profile of adult
Newport Beach residents.
Demographic details can be summarized as follows:
■ 45% of respondents have lived in Newport Beach for'More than 14 years.' The second
highest percentage (27%) was '0-4years' (Figure 26).
to Almost three quarters of respondents (72%) did not have children under the age of 18
(Figure 27).
■ Almost three quarters of respondents (73%) owned their home. 26% rented (Figure 28).
■ 39% of respondents work full-time. Retirees represent the next highest group at 21 %
(Figure 29).
■ 41 % of respondents reported over $look as their annual household income (Figure 30).
■ Respondent gender was split evenly: 51%female, 49%male (Figure 31).
■ Almost half of the respondents (45%) were over the age of 50 (Figure 32).
■ Respondents' political affiliation was predominately Republican (48%) (Figure 33)•
QL 7b begin, how many years have Figure 26. Length of Residence
you lived in Newport Beach?
DwNA
Moremnn14yean;
447%
City ojNeuporl Beach - DRAFTREPORT
10.74yn
Ioay.
u4ymra
zesi
Corlbe Resmrrh &Analtcis
Page51
ftemognphle Description of Residents
PA. Do you currently have children Figure 27. Children Under the Age of 18
tender the age of 18living in your
hone? Refused
No
721%
QB.Doyouown orrentpurhonle? Figure 28. Home Ownership
QC. which ofthefollowing would
you say best describes your
employment status? Mould you say
you are employedfull time,
enlployedpart tinge, self-employed,
a student, a homemaker, retired, or
are you not currently employed
rightnow?
Refused
Rant
25.5%
own
Tie%
Figure 29. Employment Status
Employed rulF4me
Retired
Self-employed
Homemaker
Employed part-time
Student
Not employed
DKINA
_
"leek
F 21.4
7.2%-
ar
i
3.9%
i
�
u
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 80%
ayyofNeuporiBrach -DRAPTRBPORT (txURCSwrrb &Analysic
Page53
•
L..J
•
K]
QD. lastly, l'm going to read several
income categories. Please stop me
when l reach the category the
matches your annual housebold
income?
QE. Respondent' Gander
QF. Age
Demographic Description of Residents
30. Annual Household Income
Refused _ -- - - —` d7.1
200kormore -' _ ' ' -t, ' 4 O:5 '
150kto20Dk -- - 9131/d
100kto150k - - ...... "15.6° 80k to 100k —_ '"s'• '' f 12.9%:
60k to 80k - .:c"�''12:0%
40k to 60k OW
40k or under
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Figure 31. Respondent Gender
Femala;Mal.
508% 492'h
Figure 32. Age
65arolde
20..7%
So m64years
2456
City ojNevport Beach - DRAF7REPoRT
40b49ysars
17.7%
5years
4w^/°
30to39yays
20.7%
CodbeRmairch &Analia'ir
Page 53
—OH, Household Parly Type
Demognphlc Desedp0on of Residents
Figuro 33. Household Party Type
Mixed
Demeaal & Other
Democrat & Republican
Other (2)
Other (1)
Republican (2•)
Republican (1)
Demoaal (24)
Democrat (1)
No reply
2.3%
0.2%
.4y.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
CrlyofNeuporl Berrrh • DWTR90RT GodheRemrrh &AnallA
Page54
I 1
U
•
•
•
•
important Atlnbule5 of the City- Business Survey
Important Attributes of the City -
Business Survey
Q2. Next, Pm going to read a list of
The first substantive question of the business survey asked respondents to rate the
atlnbutesforNeuiporl Beach. For
importance of eight Newport Beach attributes. In each case respondents were asked whether
each one, please tell me ifyou think
they thought an issue was'extremely important', 'very important', 'somewhat important' or
that attribute is 'extremely
not too important'. Responses were coded according to an importance scale where
important', 'very important'',
'not
extremely important = +3, 'very important = +2, somewhat important' = +1, and'not
somewhat important', or too
important' in havingyour business
too important' = 0. The responses were then aggregated to form a mean. The order in which
located in Newport Beach. Here's the
the items were read was randomized to avoid a systematic position bias.
(firalnert) one: . Is
this attribute extremely important,
Figure 34 reveals that respondents rated all attributes somewhere between 'somewhat impor-
very important, somewhat
taut' and'very important'. Newport Beach's location and beauty ranked at the top of the
important, or not too imporlantp
attribute list, along with having a good business address. 'Proximity to John Wayne Airport'
ranked least important of the attributes examined in this question.
Figure 34. Importance of Newport Beach Attributes
Old Th. I ... do. within Orange County
Me A good business oddre"
O2a Physical beauty of Newport Beach
02h Overall purchaing power of the communit
Mc no Water quality In the City
021, The Waterfront and harbor
Me Amount or tnflic passing by your businss
@f Proximity to John Wayne Airport
i 184 .� n
11.27
raa»
Table 33 shows the mean importance score for Newport Beach attributes broken down by
number of employees in each firm. Firms with over 50 employees rated the overall
purchasing power of the community as most important while firms with zero to two
employees rated the City's location within Orange County as the most important attribute
evaluated.
City of Newport Beach -DAlPTRBPORT Godbe Research GAnalitris
Page55
Important Attributes of rh! My • Business Sormy
Table 33. importance of Newport Beach Attributes by Number of4Bmployees
Number of Employees
Overall
10 to 2
3 to 10
11 to
Over
50
50
Base
1.58
1.61
1.6b
1.61
• 1.59
02d The location within
1.94
1.90
2.00
2.13
1.86
Orange County
Me A good business
address
1.84
1.88
2.02
1.96
2.43
Q2a Physical beauty of
Newport Beach
1.84
186
1.89
1.88
1.43
42h Overall purchaing
power of the
1.80
1.52
2.00
1.91
2.57
conrnunity
McTheWaferquality
1.45
1.24
1.45
2.00
1.71
In the City
02b The Waterfront
and harbor
1.35
1.37
1.19
1.54
1.14
Q2g Amount of traffic
,passing by your
1.27
1.20
IA7 •
1.68
1.00
business
02f Proximity to John
120
1.08
1.23
1.50
0.57
Wayne Airport
For the interested reader, Table 34 shows responses to the Newport Beach attribute question
broken down by SIC codes. Both Retail Trade and Financial, Insurance, and Real Fstate
(F.I.R.E) businesses rated'The location within Orange County and'A good business
address' somewhere between 'very important' -and 'extremely important'.
City ofNettWrl Beach-DWRMRT G040Re3mtc6 fiNtaf}5k
Page56
0
•
Important Attributes of the city- Business Sumy
•
Table 34. Importance of Newport Beach Attributes by SIC Code
SIC Code
Overall
RetaTtrade
F.I.R.E (6040
Services;(7,0
,Other
(52-59)
67)
to'87,
Base
1.58
1.77
1.76
1.51
1.43
QZd The location within
1.94
2.06
2.15
1.87
1.81
Orange�County
Q2e-A-g6odb1jslness.
184
2.16
2.00
1.81
1.46
address
,Q2a Physical beauty of
1.84
1.92
1.85
1:85
132
Newport Beach
Q21h Overall purchaing,,
power oFllhe
1.80
2.14
1.96
1.63
1.68
community.
Q2c The Water quality
1.45
1.67
1.62
1.35
1.30
in the City
'Q2bThe'Waterfront
1.35
1.36
1.69
1.20
1.39
and harbor
02gAmountof rafBc
•passing'byyour
1.27
1.84
1.23
1.17
0.91
business
•
Q2f Proximity to John
1.20
1.05
1.58
1.16
1.14
Wayne Airport
•
City ofNeaporl Beach - DWTRBPORT
GodbeResmmh &AnallA
RageS7
city Retuladana - Business Survey
•
City Regulations - Business Survey
93.Nor/,Pdtiketoaskyonsome The next section of the business survey addressed City regulations. Respondents were tint
questions about business
asked their opinion on how difficult it was to start a business in Newport Beach. Figure 35
regulations in the City. In general,
shows that 44 percent of respondents felt that it was'Notat all difficult"to open or start a
bow di icullisittoopenorstarta
business in Neluporl Beach, oeiy
business in Newport Beach and slightly more than a quarter of respondents felt it was
d(ficult, somewbatdif/iadr, or not
Somewhat difficult (27%).Only ten percent of respondents indicated that itwas 'Very
diSicultatall?
difficult' to start a business in Newport Beach and 18 percent of respondents did not indicate
their opinion on this question.
Figure 35. Difficulty of Opening, or Starting a Business
DBMA VoydlricuR
1aeu
SomawhatdlHWt
27A%
Natal alidlf....,
40%
•
94. How dificult is it to operate a k a follow-up, respondents were asked to indicate how difficult it was to operate a business
Business inNewport Beach, very in Newport Beach. Figure 36reveals that over bag ofrespondents (57%)felt itwas 'Not atall
di cult; somewhat diSkult, or not difficult' to operate a business in Newport Beach and 31 percent indicated it was 'Somewhat
d(picultatall? difficult'. Only five percent of respondents mentioned that it was 'Very difficult' to operate a
business in Newport Beach and six percent of respondents declined to state their opinion.
Figure 36. Difficulty of Business Operation
DV/NA VaydiMmIt
63% 'S1%
SomawhotdBOwIt
31.4%
Notatetl difflm l
572%
City ofNeuport Beach-DRAPPREWRT Co& R=rrh C,Analpe&
Page58
City Regulations - Business Survey
Q5. How di(rcull are the City's
The next question in the business survey next asked respondents to assess the difficulty of
regulations regarding changes or
regulations related to changing or expanding to businesses in the City. Figure 37 shows that
erpansions to your business
44 percent of respondents felt the City's regulations were either'Somewhat difficult' (28%)
property. very dif'icult, somewhat
or 'Very difficult' (16%) as they related to expanding or changing their business. Over 30
dfcult, or not dificult at ally
percent of respondents indicated that it was 'Not at all difficult' to make changes to their
business and 23 percent of respondents did not have or give an opinion on this question.
Figure 37. Difficulty of Business Property Expansion
DKMA
2
Not at all o1fB.,...
very 110Y. It
Sonnewhatililcult
28.E
Q6. Are current City regulations
The final City regulation question for businesses asked about the City's current sign
regardingsigns too strong, not
regulations for Newport Beach's business environment. just over half of respondents felt the
strong enough, or jtlsl rightfor
sign regulations were just right (51Q, with 18 percent of respondents indicating they were
Newport Beach's business
•
Too strong' and ten percent of respondents stating they were `No[ strong enough,. Twenty
environment?
percent of respondents did not indicate an opinion on this question.
Figure 38. Strength of Regulations Regarding Signs
•
DK/NA
Just right
51b%
City ofNewporl Beach - DRAPPRBPORT
Too strong
itim/.
Not strong enough
9•7
CodbeRe=rrh f Analbt*
Page59
Accommodating Vishors - Dualnm survey
Accommodating Visitors - Business
Survey
Q7. SwilclirngSears a bit•. Do you
The next section of the survey evaluated the level of support in the business community for
!Link the City should do more to
making improvements in the City to further accommodate visitors. Respondents were asked
acconnnodalopeople who visit
their opinion on whether the City should do more to accommodate people who visit Newport
Newport aeacbscoast andbarbor?
Specifically, sbotdd the
Beach's coast and harbor including providing more restrooms, shuttle buses, parking, and
City: to accommodate
retail stores. Figure 39 reveals that in regards to restrooms, shuttle buses, and parking, over
visitors?
half of respondents (51%, 62%, and 74% respectively) felt that the City should provide more.
Increasing parking received the highest support (7496). When asked aboutretail stores,
however, only a third of respondents (3096) supported increasing the number to
accommodate visitors.
Figure 39. Improvements to Accommodate Visitors of Newport Beach's
Coast
®yes 0140 ■ DK1NA
Build more
rostrooms
shuttle Bus sarvlco
More parkin
Moro total] store
and restaurants
0
oW30.4% ..di •
31.4%
23
0 .4%
s f 61.1%_~ -
NP/ .
0% 25% 150% 75% 100%
•
City ofNeuport Beaeb -DWREW Codbe Ramrcb &Analljw
Page 60
•
U
•
Q8 Now let's talk about traffic in
Newport Beach. How would you rate
the level of traflic congestion on The
roads that you regularly use in the
City? (Gould you say that they are
very congested, somewhat congested,
or not at all congested when you
travel on themr
.p9.7hink of the main roads you
typically use in the City when you
travel. (Gould you prefer to widen
these roads to reduce tralic
congestion in the future or leave
them as is and experience more
trafc congestion lasting longer
than it does now.
Traffic - Business Survey
Traffic - Business Survey
The next section of the business survey addressed Newport Beach traffic and the first question
asked respondents to rate the level of congestion on the roads they regularly used. Figure 40
reveals that over half of respondents (57%) felt that the roads they regularly used were
'Somewhat congested'. About a third of respondents felt that the roads were 'Very congested'
and nine percent felt they were 'Not congested at all'. Only one percent of respondents did
not reveal their opinion on this inquiry.
Figure 40. Traffic Congestion
UWNA
Not at all congested 1A%
91%
Verycongosted
326%
SomewhateongosteL
572%
A follow-up question asked respondents if they would support widening the roads they
regularly used in order to reduce traffic congestion or if they would prefer to leave the roads
in their current state, despite future growth. Figure 41 reveals that 60 percent of respondents
thought the roads should be left 'as is'. A third of respondents felt that the City should indeed
'Widen' the roads and seven percent of respondents declined to reveal their opinion.
Figure 41. Road Widening
DK/NA
7A%
Widen
33.1 %
t
i'
Leavoasis
59S/.
City ofNeuport Bead - DRA"REPORT
CorQieRemrrL &Anal*
Page 61
Q10. Not, ] in going to readyou
several types ofimprooemonrs tbat
can he wade to the trafic
circulation system in The City. For
each one, please tell me whether yeu
mould support or oppose the
improvement. Here is the UrsUncro
one: 7 Morddyou
supporl or oppose this improvement
to thelra,Ftc circulation system?
Tame • Business Survey
For the interested reader, Table 35 reveals the support and opposition for widening the roads
by how employers rated the level of traffic congestion within the City. Those employers that
rated traffic as very congested were more likely to support widening the road.
Table 35. Road Widening by Perceived Traffic Congestion
Q81.evel of traffic congestion
Overall
Very
Somewhat
Not'atall
DKINA
congested
congested
congested
Base
175
57
100
16
2
Widen
58
28
24
6
-
33:1%
49A%
24.0%
37.5%
-
Leave as is
104
26
69
8
1
59.4%
45:6%
e9.o%
50.0%
50.0%
13
3
7
2
1
DKINA
5.3%
7.0%
12.5%
50.0%
Respondents were nextasked if they would support or oppose potential traffic improvements
in the City. Figure 42 reveals the level of support for various improvements to the City's
traffic circulation system. When asked about each suggested improvement, over 40 percent
of respondents expressed opposition. Traffic calming measures and widening jamboree
Road received the highest percentage of opposition with 66 percent and 62 percent
respectively. The overpass at Macarthuroamboree received the highest percentage of support
with 52 percent.
Figure 42. Support for Specific Trafrro Improvements
m Support OOpposa
Wldoning PCH
Overpass at
urthurlJamboree
Overpass at
JamboreeTPCH
Niden Jamboree
Road
Niden Macarthur
Blvd.
Traffic calming
measures
cityojNeupord Beach- DRAITRBPORr Corllie Rawxh DAnal6b*
Page 62
•
•
Dnelopment within the City • Bushim Survey
•
Development within the City - Business
Survey
The next section of the survey addressed development within different regions of the City.
The specific areas considered in the business survey included the business area near John
Wayne Airport, Fashion Island, and Newport Office Center.
John Wayne Airport
Q11.7befirsiarea xsThe business Respondents were first asked if they were familiar with the business area nearjobn Wayne
area near tbejobn inayneAlrporl. Airport. Figure 43 reveals that 90 percent of respondents were familiar with the area and ten
AreyoujandliarwitbIbis area? percent were not familiar with the area.
Figure 43. Familiarity with Area Near John Wayne Airport
No
18.3Y.
•
1 ,I
LJ
Yes
89..71%
Development within the City- Business Survey
•
Q]z.Pon going loprouideyouwilb
AS afollOW-up question, respondents who were familiar with the airport area were asked to
six different opatensforibefutureof
assess their support for six options for the future of the airport area. Responses were coded
lbeairporlarva,andi'dlibelo
according to a support scale where 'definitely support" =+2,'probably supporf=+1,
know wbelberyou world support or
oppose web oplion. Here is The Ursd
` probably oppose' = -1, and 'definite] oppose' = -2. The responses were then, aggregated to
p y pF y pp F
nex9 one: would
form a mean, The order in which the items were read was randomized to avoid a systematic
3ousupport oroppose this oplienfor
positton'bias.
tbefulure ofThe airporl area? Would
lbatbItdef tRely (supparaoppose) or
Figure 44 reveals the mean scores for each of the six proposals evaluatedfor the airport area;
probably (supporr/oppose) this
'New.low-rise office buildings in the area' (0.48), followed by'More retail stores' (0.35) were
Option?
the most supported of the proposals evaluated. Overall, respondents indicated the highest
level of opposition to'More car dealerships' (-1.13) in the airport area.
Figure 44. FNture of the Airport Area
012b NeW low-rise office buildings In airport area
Q12d More rape: ports In airport are.
Q12a No change In airport area `
Q12c NaW heglrrhe office buildings In airport area
r
Q12t More Industrial uses In airport area qq
012. Mon car dealerships In airport area '
Table 36 reveals the mean support scores for the different airport proposals delineated by the
number of employees at each firm. Firms with over 50 employees were most likely to support
'More industrial uses in the airport area', whereas firms with zero to two employees were the
most -likely to support'New low-rise office buildings'.
E
my ofNeuportEmcb-DRAFTRMRT CrlodbeRe xhFvrind!}r!r
Page 64
r 1
U
Development mihin the City- Busnem Survey
Table 36. Future of the Airport Area by Number of Employees
- -
Number ofEmployees
_
Overall
0 to 2
$ to 10
11 to
'Over
50
50
Base
-0.08
-0.18
-0.24
-0.12
0.26
Q12b New low-rise
ofricebuildings,in
0.48
0.69
0.12
0.19
0.57
`airport area
Q12d'Idofe retail stores
0.35
0.24
0.38
-0.19
0.29
in airport area
Q12a,Nb'changeln,
airport area,
0,31
0.16
0.38
0.52
0.86
Q12c;New hlgfl-rise
office buildings In
-0.12
-0.02
-0.39
-0.19
-0.14
airport•drea
Q12f MoreAndustdal
-0.40
-1.00
-0.76
0.29
1.00
uses in airport area
Q12e More•car
dealerships In airport
-1.13
-1.22
-1.14
-1.40
-1.00
area
• Q13• Do you think that it is Next, respondents were asked about traffic congestion in the airport area. Figure 45 reveals
acceptable to have more rraffrc that 68 percent of respondents felt that it was acceptable to have more traffic congestion in
congestion in the airport area than the airport area than in other parts of the City, whereas 31 percent felt that it was not
in otberparls of the City? acceptable. The remaining one percent did not reveal their opinion.
•
Figure 45. Traffic Congestion in the Airport Area
DMA
1.3%
No
31_J. ;
�S J�
Yes
67.7/
Cdy ofNetoport Beads - DRAPTREPORT
CodbeRM16 &Anallrk
Page 65
DMclopment u11hin the Chy- Business Suwer
Fashion Island
•
Q14.7benertarea istbeFasbiou Respondents were next asked if they were familiar with the Fashion Island shopping mail.
Islandshopplagmail. Areyou Figure 46 reveals that 91 percent of respondents were familiar with this location.
familiar with ibis area?
Figure 46. Familiarity with Fashion Island Shopping Mail
No DKINA
epq 1.1X
Yes
90-W
Q15.7binkhtgoftbefulureof
Asafollow-up question, respondents who were familiar with Fashion Island were then asked
Fosbion Island, vould you support
to asses their support for changes in the amount of retail space allowed at Fashion Island.
or oppose The amoantofretail
Responses were coded according to a support scale where 'definitely support'=+2,
ldthat
space rely(srrpporuoppose)or
'probably support'=+'i,'probably oppose' =-1, and 'definitelyoppose' =-2.The responses
•
probably (supportioppose) this
were then aggregated to forma mean. The order In which the items were read was
option?
randomized to avoid a systematic position bias.
Figure 47 reveals that business respondents were somewhat supportive of all three proposals
for dealing with the amount of retail space allowed at.Fashion Is] and. 'Increasing
moderately to -attract, newstores,to the area' received a slightly higher support score than
'Increasing slightly so that existing department stores can expand' which was slightly higher
than'Remaining as it is, with little or no change'.
•
Gyty ofmvporl Bmcb-I)RABTRBPORT Co& Re m d 6Ana1, w
Page 66
•
•
Development tvnhin the City - Business Survey
Fgure 47. Growth of Retail Space at Fashion Island
e15c Madaralo Increase to attract case businesses
e156 Slight Increase to expand comet occupants
e15a Unix or no change
For the interested reader, Table 37 shows the mean support score for growth of retail space at
Fashion Island based on SIC Code. Businesses in retail trade were more likely to support
growth at Fashion Island to attract new firms than businesses in other industry types.
Table 37. Growth of Retail Space at Fashion Island by Industry Type
Overall
'Retell Vade
"F!I:R•E(60 toy
,$ervlcesg70+I
Other
(52-59)�
671
_ Base
055
0.79
0.45
0.54
042
I 015c Moderate
Increase to attract,new-
062
1.06
0.17
0.51
0.74
businesses
Q15b Slight Iricrease to
expand current
0.56
0.56
0.58
0.55
0.59
occupants
Q15a 1.11116 crag, -
048
0.75
0.62
0.55
•0.06
change
City ofNewport Beach - DRAFTREPORT
Codbe Raraxrdli &Arra4b*
Page 67
Development %ithin the City- BU IRUSSurvey
•
Newport Office Center
Q16. Menexl area is lbeA'ewporl Respondents were then asked if they were familiar with the Newport Center office area.
Censer o�cearea. Areyoufamiliar Figure 48 reveals that just over wo-thirds (67%) of respondents were familiar with the area
wilb lbu area? and 32 percent were not familiar with the area.
Figure 48. Familiarity with Newport Office Center
DNMA
oax
No
920Y.
�k' `�^ •.�'� Yea
WAY.
Q17.minkingoftbejaiureiveupori
Asafollow-up question, respondents who were familiar with the office area were asked to
Center, wouldyousupporiaroppose
asses their support for the size and amount of future buildings in Newport Center. Responses
lbesizeandamountof
buildings: ? Mould
were coded according toa support scale where 'definitely support! =+2,'probably support'
That be definitely (supporl/opposr) or
= +I, 'probably oppose' = -1, and 'definitely oppose' = -2. The responses were then •
probably(suppori/oppose)this
aggregatedtoformamean, The orderinwhich the items were read was randomized toavoid
Option?
a systematic position bias.
Figure 49 reveals that respondents were moresupportive of the proposal 'Remaining as they
are, with little or no change' to the size and amount of -future buildings in Newport Center.
Respondents gave a more neutral response to the three other proposals for the size and
amount of building in Newport Center, beginning with 'Increasing to allow existing
companfesdo grow, like Pacific life', followed by'Inereasing to attractnew businesses to the
area', and the least support for 'Increasing to allowfor residential and mixed'use buildings
to be developed'.
•
CtlyofNeuporiBcah-DR,iPTMMRT Got& Reswrch & Awb! *
Page a
0
Development within the City- Business Survey
Figure 49. Growth at Newport Center
m1. unx «m.mny.
one N.nuhq 11. Y..t.dbdwn
pnc IrcnnYy b .MS Eu.Nn.af
one m.rnYno to MUW uw ovYopn.m
'.,oar- n,
M
Table 38 reveals the mean support scores for the size and amount of future buildings in
Newport Center delineated by the number of employees in each firm. Businesses with over 50
employees were most likely to support'Increasing to allow existing companies to grow, like
Pacific life' and 'Increasing to attract new businesses to the area'.
Table 38. Growth at Newport Center by Number of Employees
Numberof
--
�-
Employees
Overall
31or10,
- 1.1 to
. Ove"r
i , --=
: 50,
50,
Base
0.38
0.41
0.41
0.09
0.64
Q17a L Us or no
0.67
0.59
0.90
0.00
0.43
change
Q17b 'Incfeasigg
growth.at,ctirrent
0.37
0.69
0.21
0.00
0.86
companies
Q17c Increasing to
0.34
0.24
0.46
0.36
0.86
attract businesses
Q17d Increasing for
Mixed use development
0.15
0.14
0.08
0.00
0.43
Oly ofNewporl Beach-DRARfRBPoRT
Goahe Research &Nral w
Page 69
p18. Ok, nowl'd like to read you the
opinions of live Newporl Bead;
residents. Please choose the opinion
That is closest to your own. Smith
thinks that encouraging economic
development in the City is in The best
interest of residents. By alloildugfor
more hotels, once mace and retail,
it will generate revenue to payfor
improved maintenance and
operations, improved service
provision, and a variety ofOly
projects. Jones thinks that
encouraging economic development
in the City is not in the best interest
of residents, because it will lead to
more building's, bigger buildings,
more traflic congestion, and will
change the character of the City
Economic Dmdgmenl- Business Sdacy
Economic Development - Business
Survey
The next section of the business survey addressed economic development. Respondents were
first read the opinionsof two hypothetical Newport Beach residents and asked which opinion
they most agreed with. The two opinions that were offered were:
■ SMITH - Who thinks that encouraging economic development in the City is In the best
interest of residents. By allowing for more hotels, office space and retail, it will generate
revenue to pay for improved maintenance and operations, improved service provision,
and a variety of City projects.
■ JONES- Who thinks that encouraging economic development in the City is not in the best
interest of residents, because it will lead to more buildings, bigger buildings, more traffic
congestion, and will change the character of the City.
Figure 50 reveals that opinions were split relatively evenly between the two opinions on
economic development. Forty-five percent of respondents agreed more with Smith, who
believed economic development benefitted residents, whereas 42 percent of respondents
agreed morewith]ones, who believed economic development is detrimental to residents. Five
percent of respondents indicated they did not agree wift either opinion, six percent agreed
with both opinions, and three percent did not reveai.their opinion.
Figure 50. Smithms. Jones -,Economic Development
Neither
_.
Jonas
arax
Both DKONA
&7% 2 %
tatty ofNeupon.6mob - DW- REPORT
Smith
44.6%
CodbeRairarrb &Anailsts
Page70
11
•
•
Economic Development - Business survey
For the interested reader, Table 39 shows responses to the economic development question
broken down by industry type. Newport Beach businesses in the Financial, Insurance, and
Real Estate (F.I.R.E) Industry were more likely to support overall economic development in
Newport Beach than businesses in other industries.
Table 39. Economic Development by Industry Type
SIC -Code,
Overall
Retail trade
F IRE (604d
Services,(70
Other
(52-59)
67)
to 87,89)
Base
175
37
26
75
37
78
12
15
38
13
Smith
44.6%
32.4%
57.7%
50.7%
36.1%
74
18
8
29
19
Jones
42.3%
48.6%
30.8%
38.7%
51.4%
8
1
1
4
2
Neither
4.6%
2.7%
3.8%
5.3%
5.4%
Both
10
4
-
3
3
5.7%
10.8%
-
4.0%
8.1/R
5
2
2
1
-
DKM
2.9%
5.4%
7.7%
1.3%
-
City ofNew/wrl Beach - DRAFTWORT
"itRetmrch &Arwlp*
Page 71
Ilolel Dnelopmenl • BullnmSurvey
Hotel Development - Business Survey
Q19.YVaTi Pet fike to ask you about
The next section of the business survey examined the level of support for developing new
LotelsinNeeporl Beacb, In general,
hotels In the City. Figure'51 reveals that 41 percent of respondents would'Support' the
do yousupporf oropposodevetopfng
development of new hotels in Newport Beach, whereas 30 percent of respondents indicated
newGoletsin_1keCity, ordoyounot
pave an opinion?
they would'Oppose'newhotel development in.theCity. Over aquarter (27%)ofrespondents
indicated they did not have an opinion on the topic.
Figure 51. Development of Hotels in Newport Beach
Noopinlon
27A%
oppow
30A
DKINA
1.1%
Support
41.1%
•
For the interested reader, table 40 shows responses to the hotel developmentquestion broken •
down by respondents' residence status.
Table 40. Development of Hotels by Respondent's Residence
Newport°Beach
Resident
OVerall
7es
No
Bose
175
83 '
91,
Support
72
35
37
41.1%'
42.2%
40.7%
Oppose
53e
27
25
30.3/0
32.6%
27.5%
No opinion
48
20
28
27.4%
24,1%
30.8%
DKNA
2
1
11.2%
1
1.1%
1.1%
•
City ojNaepod Beaob-DRAFTREPDRT Co&dR=rch GAnatysrs
Pago72
•
0
•
Hotel Development - Business Survey
Q20. Let me be more specific. Do
As a follow-up question, respondents were asked if they favored or opposed developing new
you favor or oppose developing new
hotels in the City to support local stores and restaurants, business conferences, tax revenue
botels in the Crty of Newport Beacb to
for the City, and tourism. Figure 52 reveals that slightly more than 50 percent of respondents
support. ?
favored hotel development if each of the topics presented would benefit. This represents a 13
to 19 percent increase in support for developing new hotels within the City from the previous
question.
Figure 52. Conditional Support for Development of Hotels in Newport Beach
Support local
Memel restaurants
Support business
conferences
Support tax revenue
for the City
Support tourism
O Favor O Oppose
54 3�rC
Is
®®®
® ,®
✓ :1 .:1.1C3n
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Q21. Assuming tbat anynewbotels
Under the assumption that new hotels will likely be built in the future, respondents were
Wit be built in thefuture, what type
asked to reveal the type of buildings they felt would be most appropriate for Newport Beach.
ofhotel buildings do you think are
When asked about'Large hotels with conference facilities, like the Four Seasons', slightly
approprialeforNewport Beach?Are
more than half of the business respondents (50o) felt they were appropriate and 42 percent
appropriate
or mappropriateforfuture
felt they were inappropriate. 'Medium-sized extended stay business hotels, like Courtyard
development.
Marriott' had an equivalent percentage of respondents who felt they were appropriate
compared with the percentage of respondents who felt they were inappropriate (47% each).
'Smaller sized Inns with no buildings over three stories', were considered appropriate by 49
percent of respondents and inappropriate by 47 percent of respondents.
City of Newport Beach-DRAF7REPORT GodbeRermrrb PeAnall51's
Page 73
Q22. Nurt, Pat going to list several
areas ofNewport Beacb. For each
area, please tell me ifyou would
support or oppose locating a new
bole( in The area. Here is the (fi it
nerl) area: . Mould
you support or oppose locating
new botel in Ibis area?
Ilotel Doelopment • Ousiness Survey
Figure 53. Hotel -Typo Preference
o Appropriato 0Inapproprlata
Now large hotels
Now medium-sized
hotels
Now smeller•slsoe
hotels
Respondents were nextasked if they would support or oppose building a hotel in various
locations throughout Newport Beach. Hotel development at the airport area received the
most support (74%) from respondents, followed by Newport Center (58Q, and Newport
Dunes (56%). At the other end of the spectrum, hotel development in Marina Park received
the highest level of opposition (59%) from respondents, followed closely by Lido Marina
Village (06), and•Mariner's mile (53%).
Figure 54. Location of NowHotel
ll Support ciopposo
Alrpoi
Mariner'
Morin,
Lido Marina I
Newport
Newport
alyofNa port Beach • DRAFI'RBFORr
Qft Remlrb &Mattes*
Fage74
•
0
0.
•
0
0
Hotel Development • Business Survey
Q23. Would you support or oppose
The final hotel development related question in the business survey evaluated support for
the city deoelopingportions of the
developing publicly owned property at Newport Dunes and Marina Park. The proposed
publicly otoned euaterfroniproperty
development would be for visitor uses such as hotels, restaurants, and recreation.
at Newport Dunes and A9arina Park,
for ls, restaurants, to s an as
t
hotels, restaurants, runs and
Figure 55 reveals that over half of business respondents were either strongly supportive
g p g y pp
,
recreation? Would that be strongly
(29%) or somewhat supportive (27%) of the proposal. Approximately 40 percent of
(support/oppose) orsomewbal
respondents indicated they were opposed to the proposal either somewhat (11%) or strongly
(supporuoppose)?
(30%) and three percent declined to state.
Figure 55. Development of Publicly Owned Waterfront Property
DKFNA
3A. Slronglysupport
Slronglyupposo 2M.
29r/.
Somewhat oppose Somawhatsupport
109% 27M.
0yofNewport Beacb -DRAFT REPORT
GodbeResearch GAnalys(r
Page 75
Q24. l mould like to ask jnu about
tbejutureojElToro. Do)nusupport
or oppose the constrttclion of an
airport al El
Toro: ? Mould tbal
be strongly(support/oppose) or
somembal (sutport/oppose) ibis
action?
Airport Construction - Business Suncy
Airport Construction - Business Survey
The next section of the business survey addressed airport construction in Orange County.
Residents were first asked if they supported the construction of an airport at El Toro. Figure
40 reveals that 55 percent of respondents would support construction of the El Toro airport
either strongly (38Yo) or somewhat (17%) and 38 percent of respondents would oppose con-
struction of the airport either strongly (27%) or somewhat (10%). Seven percent of respon-
dents did not reveal their opinion on this question.
Table 41. Construction of Airport at Ell Toro
oKINA
ra%
strwglyoppo°o r-�. strongly supPO4
V4% 3s3'h $01"°"'IM3% O SoirwM tsupport
10.3% IM
For the interested reader, Table 42 reveals support for construction of the El Toro airport
delineated by number of employees at each respondents firm. Businesses with more than 11
employees were most likely to support construction of the EI Toro airport.
Table 42. Construction of Airport at EI Toro by Number of Employees
Nuniberof Employees
Overall
0'to 2
3_to 10
11 +
Base
175
51
53
31
Strongly support
9 y pPo
67
18
19
14
38.3%
35.3%
35.8%
45.2%
Somewhat su ort
pp
29
16.6%
8
15.7%
6
11.3%
5
16.1%o
Somewhat ose
pp
18
10.3%
8
15.7%
4
17.5%
1
3.2%
Strongly oppose
46
16°
18
9
27.4%
31.4/0
34.0%
29.0%
13
1
6
2
DIM
CityoJNeuporl Bwcb-EWTREPORT Ga&Restrarb &Anali:*
Page76
0
0
•
u
Nrpon COnSIMOIun • Business Survey
Q25. #'you knew that flighlsfiom a
As a follow-up question, respondents were asked if they would be more likely to support
future El Toro Airport would not fly
construction of the El Toro airport after learning that planes would not fly over any part of
over any par! of Newport Beach
Newport Beach, including Newport coast. Overall, 39 percent of respondents indicated they
includmgNewporicoast, would you
would be 'Much more likely' to support construction if flights from the new airport would
more less likely to support
not flyover an art of Newport. Eighteen percent of respondents noted the would be
y p � � p p y
construction oja new airport a! El
construction
co
Toro? Inould ibal be much (more/
'Somewhat more likely' to support construction after learning about the conditional flight
less) likely or somewhat (more/less)
pattern,11 percent would be'Somewhat less likely' to support, and 24 percent of respondents
likely to support construction ofan
indicated they would be 'Much less likely' to support construction of a future El Toro Airport,
airport at El Toro?
Figure 56. Conditional Support for Construction of New Airport at El Toro
City ofNe
DK/NA
Much Inns Ik* „ , Much mom Ilkuiy
24.0-1. _ 38.0°/.
SomrM 11low Iikety
11A% Somcwhaln /, ty lllm
nri
Emplarce Recruilmenl - Basins suncy
Employee Recruitment - Business
Survey
Q26. How a f eult is it forpur The last substantive section of the business survey addressed issues related to employee
business to hire qualifredemployees, recruitment. Respondents were first asked to reveal the level of difficulty they experienced
verydficrdt, somewbat dfrailt, or when hiring qualified employees for their.business. As shown in Figure 57, 42 percent of
not d crdlatall? respondents felt it was 'Not difficult at all' to hire qualified employees, 33 percent indicated it
was 'Somewhat difficult', and 18 percent felt hiring qualified employees was 'Very difficult'.
The remaining six percent of respondents declined'to state their opinion on the topic.
Figure 57. Difficulty in Finding nualified Employees
Q27. ftuld you agree that The
availability of affordable boWng in
Newporl Beach, q&& your
busines' ability to recruit qualified
enrplo)=? Vrordd tbal be defrnilely
(agree/doagree) or somewhat
(agree/disagree) that the availability
of affordable bousing in the City
affectsyour business' ability to
recruit qualified employees?
DKMA
GXA
Noidlincullatall
A23%
vvymmwK
102%
mcxlutdiftuK
111%
As a follow-up question, respondents were asked if they felt affordable housing affected
recruitment. Fifty percent of respondents agreed that affordable housing availability did
indeed have an impact on requiting qualified employees, 42 percent disagreed, and the
remaining seven percent declined to state.
Figure 58. Availability of Affordable Housing In Newport Beach
DKINA
TA%
DOMnalydiupoo
RAD%
SomnNwldlsay..
IM
�+ .. 11.7%
DonnItelygna
City ofNeuporl Bwcb-DRAFTRRPORT Go&R=nh 6Analiais
Page 78
E
•
•
Employee Recruitment - Business survey
•
For the interested reader, Table 43 shows whether respondents agreed or disagreed that
affordable housing affected recruitment by their degree of difficulty hiring qualified
employees.
Table 43. Availability of Affordable Rousing by Difficulty Recruiting
Employees
Q26 Difficultyor hiring qualified employees
Very
somewhat
l4ot.difficult
Overall
di(flcult
diffi
at all,
DI�JA
Base
175
32
58
74
11
570
170
21
17
2,
Definitely agree
32.6 /0
53.1 /0
36.2%
23.0%
18.2 /0
31
3
17
10
1
Somewhat agree
17.7%
9.4%
29.3%
13.5%
9.1%
Somewhat disagree
32
18.3%
5
15.6%
12
20.7%
15
20.3%
-
-
'Definitely disagree
440%
188%
121%
35.1%
273%
13
1
1
6
5
DKM
7.4%
3.1%
1.7%
8.1%
45.5%
•
City ofNewporlBead) -DRAPPREPORT adbe Research &Analbstr
Page 79
Demognphie EmripUu9 of ➢usinmu
Demographic Description of Businesses
Figures 59 to 65 present a graphic representation of the demographic composition of the
sample,
Demographic details can be summarized as follows:
■ More than a third of respondents (37%) have operated their business in Newport Beach
for more thatH years (Figure 59)•
■ Forty-seven percent of respondents were Owners/Principals/Partners (Figure 60).
■ Forty-seven percent of respondents were Newport Beach residents (Figure 61).
■ For more that half of respondents (5496), the number of employees who were also
Newport Beach residents was less than 25 percent (Figure 62).
■ Respondent gender was split as follows: 56% male, 44%female (Figure 63).
■ Almost 60 percent of respondents had less than ten employees (Figure 64).
■ Forty-three percent of respondent were in the Services industry (Figure 65).
91. To begin, bore long basyonr Figure 59. Length of Stay in Newport Beach
business been located in Newport
Bends
DKNA
1.1y. o4yo
2&7%
M=Um14yoan4
,y�e`; "' "
3&G%
say
1&9%
10.14yous
17.77.
OtyofNeuport Bead -DWTREMRT 6bdeR=rcb Bdrmllays
Page 80
•
C J
LI
•
Demographic Description of Businesses
QA. What isyouposition atyou Figure 60. Position at Firm
firm?
Owner/PdncipallPartner
General Manager/CEO
Managing
Supervisor/Supervisor
Department Manager
Other(speclfy)
Vice President
DKMA
1.15.4%
q Ice
I
�
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
QB. Areyou currently a resident of Figure 61. New port Beach Residents
Newport Beach?
Refused
0.6°/.
No Yes
520% 47A41%
y
QC. Whatpercenfageofyour Figure 62. Percentage of Employees living in Newport Beach
employees live in Newport Beach?
DKINA
21.7%.
761ot00pereent 0to25 rcenl
0.1 % 53.8%
51 to 76 Wconl
40%
26to 50 porwnl
11A%.
City ofNeluportifeach - DRAFTREPORT
Ga,&Raaarch &Analysis
Page 81
QD. Respondent's Leader
QE. Number of Employees
QG. Industry Code (SICand/or
NAICS)
I
Demogophic Dm6pdon of Businesses
63. Gender
Feolal&
440%.
Figure 64. Number of Employees
Nolcodad
2L
omsoampluyma
4.0%
11 b50anpbyaa
ta7'a
Figure 65. S.I.C. Code
Other
sewlna (Tob8r.89)
42 %
a1y of Neuporl Bearb - DRARP REPORT
Mal&
.%Q%
0tu2ampWm
29.1%
Retail 4id&(5239)
21.1%
FJ.W60 to
149%
Code Resnomb $Allalystl
Page 82
•I
•I
•
October
25
November
16
Visi
22
December
2
GPAC
Strat
30
January
9
Plann
SD Dc
14
Cit
Docur
February
10
March
3
10
A A
N BGPU/Schedule/EI P/ECT/1021.02
MARINER'SMILE BUSINESS O W N E R S A S S O C I A T I O N
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
is October 9, 2002
General Plan Advisory Committee
City of Newport Beach
Attn: Sharon Wood, Asst. City Manager
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: Mixed Uses in Mariner's Mile
Dear Committee Members:
My association commends the Committee for its stated support of the revitalization of
Mariner's Mile. MMBOA, together with City Staff, wrote the Mariner's Mile Strategic
Vision and Design Framework which the City Council adopted as development policy.
It says in pertinent part on page 37, "allow a range of residential uses where feasible":
• We believe that one of the key elements to revitalization is to allow a wide range of uses,
including residential. That will allow for creative design solutions (e.g. enhanced
pedestrian access) and complimentary land uses that will enhance the Mariner's Mile
experience.
The Specific Plans for both Cannery Village/McFadden Square and Central Balboa
allow for a wide range of mixed uses, including visitor -serving, commercial, marine -
related and residential uses. The addition of residential uses to the Mariner's Mile area
will therefore be consistent with other areas of the City and could potentially result in
reduced traffic impacts in this important area of the City.
We respectfully request Committee consideration of our request and offer to attend
your meeting with a presentation to further articulate our proposal. Please contact our
association for further information and for scheduling further discussions of this
proposal.
Sincerely, /
Ned McCune, Chair
Mariner's Mile Business Owners Association
424 EAST 16T° STREET COSTA MESA CALIFORNIA 92627
PHONE: 949-646-2076 • FAX: 949.548-2384
Page 1 of 1
Lektorich, Debbie
• From: Rhonda Knipp [knipps2@hotmail.comj
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 9:47 AM
To: dlektorich@city.newport-beach.ca.us
Subject: Nov. 4th GPAC
Hi Debbie,
My work schedule will cause me to miss this week's meeting. Could you pass along these
comments?
Fellow GPAC'rs,
I just wanted to point out what should be obvious to all of you. Working families (those with kids
under age 18) were clearly under -represented in the phone survey. Based on my knowledge of the
City and specifically my neighborhood, it seems that 72% might better represent the number of
households with children under the age of 18. This should serve as reminder that this demographic
is least likely to have the time to commit to community involvement let alone political activism. All
of us involved in the General Plan Update process should keep in mind that we are trying to set the
course for the future of our City and allow our children the same opportunities that we had.
On another note, being that I kind of proffered the question about time for creative process and
ideas, could you volunteer me for a spot on the "Airport Area" small group discussion. I would like
•to suggest an "Urban Center" idea with residential high rise buildings surrounded by a "life -activity"
area. Shops, Small concert / theater venues, restaurants, night spots, you name it. Just an idea.
•
Have a great meeting.
Sincerely,
Todd Knipp
knipps2C&hotmail.com
(949) 650-7068
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
11/04/2002
Page 1 of 1
Lektorich, Debbie
From: George Jeffries [gjj4@cox.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 3:36 PM
To: beekd@aol.com; wboice@adelphia.net; karlyjob@aol.com; gardnerncy@aol.com;
Iturner@broadcom.com; louisesg@pacbell.net; Evelyn Hart; ehatch@pacbell.net; Tom Hyans;
ges@cenprowest.com; jonv3@aol.com; rootis@adelphia.com
Cc: Swood@City. Newport -Beach. Ca. Us; DebbieL@city.newport-beach.ca.us
Subject: Flawed City Survey
To Selected GPAC Members
I have attached a four -page memo criticizing the Update Committee's secrecy procedure with detailed comments
on many of the survey questions from the pre -preliminary (residents only) survey response provided to the
GPUC. My view is that some answers were no better than the poor questions that spawned them, and many
responses would have been more anti -development oriented had the questions been framed properly. I was also
exercised by the questions being prepared behind closed doors with no public pre -survey review. You may or
may not agree with my concerns. The memo is wordy, and you may wish to skip the "executive summary,"
particularly if you are not an executive.
At the last GPAC meting, after I prepared the memo, a staff member disclosed that current entitlements in NB
total more than one million feet including 200,000 square feet of buildable area at Newport Center. This
information was not disclosed to survey respondents. What does this do to the answers to many survey
questions?
•We now have the more complete "preliminary" report with more descriptive analysis, charts and tables. It
provides a response by business owners. However, it provides no breakdown by resident business owners vs.
non-resident business owners, which could be useful if the resident business -owners confirmed the conservative
responses of residents who do not own businesses.
•
If the survey questions were asked of our committee I can not help but wonder how representative of the
residents' responses our responses might be.
I have sent this memo to a few of you on the GPAC. I have copied Sharon Wood and Debbie Lektorich. I have
not included other members of the committee because of potential Brown Act issues.
George Jeffries
949-759-0400
11/04/2002
. TO: GPUC/GPAC, City Staff, and concerned residents
FROM : George Jeffries
RE: Flawed and Slanted Residents' Survey
DATE: October 19, 2002
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Politics and personalities aside, and with respect for
and thanks to the subcommittee responsible for the questions, the general plan
survey, recently conducted is not only flawed but slanted to favor unplanned for
development. Although, the results suggest strong anti -traffic and anti -
development sentiment among our residents in several areas, the results could
have been more so had the surveyors leveled the field.
In my former profession as a lawyer, I questioned witnesses for over forty years.
In my opinion, the issue driven polling questions, prepared over objection, in
secret, without public review, fail to meet minimum objective standards for
obtaining accurate and helpful responses. More particularly, among other flaws,
they either are: 1) Drafted so loosely as to imply the answer; or 2) Involve
complicated issues without providing balanced views to be considered; or 3)
Require "yes" or "no" answers without other options; or 4) Fail to ask questions
• on essential facts; or 5) Fail to seek follow-up answers which might be more
informative than generalized initial responses.
The problems are pervasive, but limiting comments to the residents'
questionnaire, questions on residential size, views, hotels, Fashion Island,
Newport Center, economic development, and traffic, with the airport area cleverly
interwoven, have led to answers which are no better than the questions asked.
When one injects politics into the stew, the failure of the consultant and city staff
to provide city-wide responses of eligible voters, from a computerized survey,
until November 4, one day before a city election, after providing the initial reports
on about October 18, is inexcusable.
BRIEF HISTORY AND DISCUSSION: In late August, and at the last GPUC
meeting, I raised several concerns about the proposed "statistically valid" general
plan survey of Newport Beach voters, non -voters, resident and non-resident
business owners. Of course, the term "statistically valid" is highly misleading.
The most that can be said of the current residents' sample is that it is "statistically
suggestive" of the electorate's views. Less can be said of the business sample,
which includes an equal number of resident and non-resident business owners.
In addition to the questionable sample to be drawn upon, I objected to the secret
• procedure by which the questions were prepared privately by the staff and a
small sub -committee of the GPUC. The pretext for secrecy was fear of public
• disclosure through local publications, which "would ruin the poll." Of, course local
publications, in the public interest, did not intend to publicize the questions, but
this did not alter the procedure. The questions were produced behind closed
doors and not disclosed even to GPUC members prior to the survey.
I respect and admire each of the volunteers on this project and intend no
personal criticism from my review of this work product. However, I submit that
most people, carefully reviewing the questions, would find that it is not only
flawed, it is slanted in several areas.
My prior concern, expressed before the GPUC, was about politics and the lack of
due process from the absence of any pre -poll public review of the sub-
committee's work product. Without seeing the questions, I suggested four ways
in which skilled, or unskilled questioning could lead to skewed results, and, sure
enough, examples of all four appear frequently the poll — garbage in - garbage
out.
My prior caveats:
1. Questions will be asked which imply the answers.
2. Questions will be asked involving complex analysis without providing
balancing views to be considered
• 3. Questions will be asked with "yes" or "no" answers where respondents
might be more inclined to agree or disagree "mildly" or "strongly," requiring
a greater variety of choices in the answer
4. Questions on essential points, or containing essential facts, will not be
asked
In my former profession as a lawyer, I dedicated considerable time to framing
questions to witnesses to get the answers I wanted, and to avoid those which I
wanted to avoid. I also spent time analyzing the questions of my adversaries.
This poll is instructive in this wily craft. In some cases, the questions are just
poor. Other questions appear to be crafted carefully to direct or shade the
answer or avoid a negative answer. Some questions on important or clarifying
points were simply not asked.
EXAMPLES: The problems appear to be pervasive, and this commentary is not
comprehensive. Some examples of these problems from the residents' survey:
RESIDENTIAL SIZE: Question 2: "In general, do you think that the City's
regulations to restrain the size of new or remodeled homes are too strong, not
strong enough, orjust right?" Only one question on "house size"? The use of
the qualifying term, "in general" almost totally rules out concerns over
mansionization in specific areas, which I assume is the principal issue. Does
• anybody reading this question know what the regulations are? The question
implies the answer, and 47% said the regulations are "just right." The flaw is that
• the question should not have focused on `regulations." It should have been
about house sizes. Lastly, this question was ripe for follow up questions in
specific geographic areas, but there were no such questions. A major failing on
a major issue.
VIEWS: (3) No "in general' phrase, but the same basic objections as for
regulations for residential size. View issues are important to property values of a
minority of residents whose concerns should be considered. Another wasted
opportunity on an important issue
HOTELS: Questions 20, 21, 22, and 23 and 24, relate to hotels and provide
minimal guidance. The questions largely either ignore the pros and cons or inject
the positive benefits without mentioning the negatives. Question 21. is
especially onerous: It asks if you favor or oppose building hotels in the city to
support: "local stores and restaurants; business conferences; tax revenue for the
city; and tourism." No mention anywhere about evaluating the negative
desirability of hotels because they will bring more airport flights, non-resident
employment, traffic, and parking problems to our"congested" city streets.
The hotel questions, separately or selectively, can be interpreted in almost any
way one wants. If I were pushing for a large hotel in the airport area, I would
emphasize that over 40% of polled persons favor hotels for local stores and
• restaurants, business conferences, tax revenue for the city, and'tourism. Over
42% like large hotels with conference facilities, and 73% favor hotels at the
airport area. This is despite the answers to other questions suggesting NB
respondents favor "smaller sized Inns with no buildings over three stories." Does
this also mean at the airport? We cannot tell. Airport area development
advocates were well served by this poll.
Why were there no questions about future hotels down -coast?
INCREASING SIZE OF FASHION ISLAND: (16) No balancing mention of non-
resident employment, additional traffic congestion, currently beyond LOS D, and
parking problems at this crowded venue.
NEWPORT CENTER EXPANSION: (18) How would questions concerning
Newport Center expansion have been answered if the questions invited the
respondent to consider additional parking restrictions, possible metered parking,
more employment for non-residents, office space expansion, and traffic
congestion beyond LOS D.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY: (19.) The poll presented only two
views, those of Jones and Smith. But how about Green? He asks: 'Before we
discuss economic development in the city, should we receive assurances from
. independent experts to our city council and residents that the burgeoning city
bureaucracy is maintaining high levels of service efficiently, economically, and
with appropriate levels of accountability?" THEN ASK FOR JONES AND SMITH
QUESTIONS.
TRAFFIC: (6-8, 14) Poll respondents acknowledge a serious traffic problem with
traffic congestion at this time, but appear not to want to do anything about it.
How curious. Questions providing respondents' basis for this decision would
have been helpful and might have led to a reassessment of answers to the
original question. In discussing traffic issues, there is no mention of LOS D, as
is prescribed by the current general plan.
Traffic in the airport area: Note that a question about airport area traffic (#14) is
in a separate area of the poll from the remaining questions on traffic. Clever in
placement and phrasing, question 14 asks: "Do you think it is acceptable to have
more traffic congestion in the airport area than other parts of the city?" What
does the 64% positive response mean? The response defies analysis for too
many reasons to discuss.
How about a more proper question to the effect: "During rush hour gridlock in the
airport area, how many signal cycles are you willing to sit through at each major
intersection: 1? 2? 3? More than 3?" Many concerned residents believe that
traffic is the key restriction on major development in the airport area, and
question 14 appears positioned and slanted to bury the issue to permit future
major development while encouraging traffic degradation to a level probably not
contemplated by the poll respondents.
The foregoing is only a small sample of problems with the residents' poll in just a
few issue areas. The business poll, which includes answers of non-resident
business owners, has similar problems.
f�
Newport Beach General Plan Update Visioning Phase
EMERGING STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS
Newsletter
Neighborhood
Overall Finding
#
Key Question
website
Maiiback
Visioning Festival
WorkshopsandTelephone
Surveys*
GPAC
(Areas of clear direction
Questionnaire
Youth Council
are highlighted)
1A
How would you
Beach town,
Beach town,
"Beach town" may
Beac -town-(SII ti -more tha
characterize Newport
residential town,
residential town,
connote too much of a
esidential town
Beach's identity today?
tourist destination
tourist destination
party atmosphere.
Residential taw
) Toudst destination (SiamficantiY les
ooular
I
And what would your
Beach town,
Beach town,
Beach town and
Beach tow
preference be for
residential town
residential town,
residential town,
Residential tow
Newport Beach's future
tourist destination
primarily
Tourist destinatio
identity?
2
What is your vision for
(See draft vision
(See revised draft
fSee revised draft vision statement
Newport Beach in the
statement in Festival
vision statement)
year 2025?
Summary Report)
7
What are the
Categories:
Important attributes for business
road -consensus on Newport_Beac -
characteristics that
Community character,
location: 74% location within
umerous assets and oveell ua al eoflif
distinguish Newport
Governance, Freeway
Orange County/S. Cal; 70% a
Beach as a special
access, Environment,
good business address; 69%
place?
Community design,
physical beauty; and 65%
Community service,
communitypurchasing power.
Recreation
B2
* Please refer to the telephone questionnaire for exact question phrasing. Normal text refers to resident survey and bold/italicized to business survey.
Newsletter
Neighborhood
Overall Finding
#
-Key Question
Website
Mailback
Visioning Festival
Workshops and
Telephone Surveys*
GPAC
(Areas of clear direction
Questionnaire
Youth Council
are highlighted)
9
How should the City
1) Allow for
51% agree/42% disagree that
encourage and facilitate
development of
affordable housing availability
housing for those who
buildings that integrate
affects employee recruitment
work here?
housing on the second
B27
and higher floors of
retail commercial and
office structures
2) Require developers
to incorporate a min. %
of units that are
affordable for the work
force
3) Developers should
pay in -lieu fees for
housing construction
10
Does the City provide
Expressed satisfaction
(Community members aie'se "sfie
adequate services and
with services
facilities for seniors? If
not, what additional
services and facilities
are needed?
11
Does the City provide
Support is for
Expressed satisfaction
Youth: Support is for
om un -members_ re eneral
adequate services and
improving recreational
with services
improving recreational
aMs
facilities for youth? If
opportunities,
opportunities,
not, what additional
acquiring parks and
acquiring parks and
services and facilities
playing fields for
playing fields for
are needed?
younger residents, and
younger residents,
increasing organized
and increasing
recreation leagues.
organized recreation
leagues.
* Please refer to the telephone questionnaire for exact question phrasing. Normal text refers to resident survey and bold/italicized to business survey.
Newport Beach General Plan Update —Visioning Phase MIG, Inc.
Emerging Strategic Directions — October 31, 2002 Page 2
Newsletter
Neighborhood
Overall -Finding
#
Key Question
Website
Mailback
Visioning Festival
Workshops and
Telephone Surveys*
GPAC
(Areas of clear direction
Questionnaire
Youth Council
are highlighted)
12
Should the City
11 out of 18 said "yes"
198 out of 353 said
Answer depends on
Split opinion.
continue to
"no"
the types of jobs and
By a small majority, respondents not
accommodate job
the associated impacts
n
think accommodatingtBeachimore jobs in
growth when we are
(e.g., traffic). Some
Newport Beach is a good idea. And
already job rich?
say we should stay
many others think that the City can
"job rich", some say we
"accommodate" but should not 'promote"
should accommodate
additional employment opportunities.
but not actively
promote jobs.
13
Should the City better
81% said yes
Better utilize,
Water quality
Members agree with
he overwhelming consensus is that ou
utilize its harbors and
Primarily through
especially for visual
concerns, especially
the overall consensus.
arbors and beaches must be protecte
beaches as a visual,
pollution clean up and
resources and
in Districts 1 and 2
They think that if
nd revitalized. Majority wants to rotec
recreational and
revitalization of beach
recreation.
harbors and beaches
esg areas as visual -resources
economic resource? If
areas
are improved as
so, how?
recreational resources,
then visual and
op is"sues: improved recreational areas
economic benefits will
ater "uali and- ollution clean u
follow.
Water quality must be
improved; public
access enhanced.
* Please refer to the telephone questionnaire for exact question phrasing. Normal text refers to resident survey and bold/italicized to business survey.
Newport Beach General Plan Update — Visioning Phase MIG, Inc.
Emerging Strategic Directions — October 31, 2002 Page 3
i 0
#
Key Question
Website
Newsletter
Mailback
Questionnaire
Visioning Festival
Neighborhood
Workshops and
Youth Council
Telephone Surveys*
GPAC
Overall Finding
(Areas of clear direction
are highlighted)
14
How far should we go to
56% support City protection of the
The group agreed that
majority agrees that coastal blu
protect our coastal
coastal bluffs. 38% favor the
there are specific
ust be protected as required b tfi
bluffs?
protection of private property rights.
coastal bluff areas that
oastal Act
R4
are of geographic and
cultural significance
and should be
protected. (Ninanly old
Comna del Mar, Sunset
Ridge, Casta-ways, Banning
Ranch; also Caltrans East
and Sunset View; between
Morning Canyon and Crystal
Cove Park and in Buck Gully
and Morning Canyon)
Need to enhance code
enforcement, and
create specific plans to
guide planning and
design in each area.
15
How should the City
Limit public and private
Limit public and private
Dist 7- Would like to
Recommends
pub is view co d6preserve
its remaining
development in these
development in these
implementa"view
identifying existing
create mws whereve
public view corridors,
areas. City should
areas
equals value" view
view corridors and
[,eseve-rerr:aining
sible. Con inventory o
for example, the
look into purchasing
preservation law.
offering redevelopment
ting publicorridors and crea
Coastal Bluffs or views
these lands.
incentives to enhance
m lic
of or from other
and create additional
prominent natural
corridors and
features?
pedestrian view
opportunities. There is
a need for policy
regarding public right
to view versus private
property rights.
* Please refer to the telephone questionnaire for exact question phrasing. Normal text refers to resident survey and bold/italicized to business survey.
Newport Beach General Plan Update — Visioning Phase MIG, Inc.
Emerging Strategic Directions — October 31, 2002 Page 4
�J
#
Key Question
Website
Newsletter
Mailback
Questionnaire
Visioning Festival
Neighborhood
Workshops and
Youth Council
Telephone -Surveys*
GPAC
Overall Finding
(Areas of clear direction
are highlighted)
16
What should the City do
Dist 2 and 6-
Not a strong community concern.
to protect historic
1) Narrow the
commercial and
permitted uses in
residential villages?
some commercial
What should the City do
areas
to protect areas that
may not be historic by
2) Adopt design and
definition, but give the
development
community a sense of
guidelines
identity and are
3) Establish a design
important points of
review process
reference in the
Dist 3 and 5- All of the
community, such as
above and these also:
"Cannery Village?'
Adopt more Specific
Plans for areas,
Reduce the permitted
size of buildings in
residential
neighborhoods
18
What City area(s) are
Primarily yes
63% (256 responses)
46% wanted
Support expansion of retail space.
Fashion Island: LOS
Split opinion, leaning toward the status
A
suitable for additional
said no to increased
expansion at Fashion
70% keeping it as is. 67% slight
"D" as goal; prompt
quo.
development? Fashion
development
Island.
expansion. 62% moderate
mitigation.
Island
increases. R15,16
Split opinion with
Support expansion of retail
support for status quo
space: 68%new stores, 66%
(as built) and for
expansion of existing, and 61%
limited expansion (to
no change option. B14,15
195k, as entitled in
current GP, or more).
Any expansion will
increase existing traffic
congestion.
* Please refer to the telephone questionnaire for exact question phrasing. Normal text refers to resident survey and bold/italicized to business survey.
Newport Beach General Plan Update — Visioning Phase MIG, Inc.
Emerging Strategic Directions — October 31, 2002 Page 5
u
#
Key Question
Website
Newsletter
Mailback
Questionnaire
Visioning Festival
Neighborhood
Workshops.and
Youth Council
Telephone Surveys*
GPAC
Overall Finding
(Areas of -clear direction
are highlighted)
18
What City area(s) are
Pdmarily yes
63% (264 responses)
52% wanted
Support. 71% little or no change for
Newport Center: LOS
Split opinion, leaning toward very limited,
B
suitable for additional
said no to increased
expansion at Newport
Newport Center. 57% allowing
"D" as goal; prompt
well -considered development.
development? Newport
development
Center
existing companies to grow. 48%
mitigation.
Center
new businesses.
Split opinion with
45% support (and 51% oppose)
support for status quo
residential and mixed use
(as built) and for
buildings. R17,18
limited expansion (to
Support expanding Newport
1-2,000, as entitled in
Center: 68% no build option.
current GP, or more).
63% attracting new business.
Provide flexibility to
61 % allowing existing business
allow specific projects.
to grow. 56% mixed -use
No strong support for
buildings. B16,17
mixed -use buildings.
18
What City area(s) are
Primarily yes
252-No to expansion
63% said yes to
Support 65% no changes. 66%
Airport Office Area:
Split opinion, leaning toward low-rise
C
suitable for additional
at Airport Office Area
expansion in the
new low-rise buildings.
Allow non -airport, non-
expansion. Opposition to car dealerships
development? Airport
Airport Office Area
Oppose: 58% new high-rise
peak hour uses to
and industrial uses.
Office Area
buildings (40% strong opposition).
discourage airport
64% more car dealerships. 62%
expansion.
more industrial uses. Split on more
Consider trade-off
retail stores: 47% yes149% no.
between building
R12-14
heights & the amount
Support: 68% new low-rise bldgs
of remaining open
and 63% more retail stores. Split
space on the site.
over the no change and high-rise
Consider targeting.for
options. Oppose: 79% more car
revitalization.
dealerships and 57% industrial
uses. 811-13
Consider traffic
impacts.
Consider transferring
development rights.
* Please refer to the telephone questionnaire for exact question phrasing. Normal text refers to resident survey and bold/italicized to business survey.
Newport Beach General Plan Update — Visioning Phase MIG, Inc.
Emerging Strategic Directions— October 31, 2002 Page 6
Newsletter
Neighborhood
Overall -Finding
#
Key Question
Website
Mailback
Visioning Festival
Workshops and
Telephone Surveys*
GPAc
(Areas of clear direction
Questionnaire
Youth Council
are highlighted)
18
What City area(s) are
44%146% split over Banning Ranch
Partner with County to
Split opinion, leaning toward no or very
D
suitable for additional
partial versus complete
secure open space
limited development.
development? Banning
preservation as open space.
(e.g., as addition to
Ranch
119-11
Orange Coast River
Park).
Consider affordable
housing.
Development
concerns:
• Costs of environ-
mental clean up.
■ Need to preserve
geological hazard
areas and natural
slope areas.
■ Traffic congestion
and emergency
vehicle access.
■ Density
18
What City area(s) are
West Newport
E
suitable for additional
Industrial area: convert
development? West
back to residential,
Newport Industrial
with senior facilities.
area
19
What City area(s)
Fashion Island (3),
Banning Ranch (30),
Issue is very
Issue is very community -sensitive and
should reduce zoning
Newport Center (3),
the Corona del Mar
community -sensitive
each area must be reviewed.
capacity?
and De Anza MHP (3).
Res. Area (22), Balboa
and each area must be
Village (16), and
reviewed.
Newport Heights (16).
* Please refer to the telephone questionnaire for exact question phrasing. Normal text refers to resident survey and bold/italicized to business survey.
Newport Beach General Plan Update — Visioning Phase MIG, Inc.
Emerging Strategic Directions — October 31,2002 Page 7
• • i
#
Key Question.
Website
Newsletter
Mailback
Questionnaire
visioning Festival
Neighborhood
Workshops and
Youth Council
Telephone Surveys*
GPAC
Overall Finding
(Areas of clear direction
are -highlighted)
20
What City area(s) need
Same areas cited at
Balboa Village (48)
Revitalization: making
Most people believe these areas are in
revitalization?
the Festival
Old Newport Blvd. (27)
something nicer,
need of revitalization: Old Newport
Cannery Village (27)
without making it
Boulevard, Balboa Village, Central
Mariners Mile (32)
bigger, respecting
Balboa Peninsula, Cannery Village,
Central Balboa
historic places and
McFadden Square and Mariners Mile.
Peninsula (23)
ambiance; creating high
McFadden Square (18)
pedestrian areas with
terrific restaurants
Set revitalization goals
to guide future
development.
Possible areas: Old
Newport Blvd., Balboa
Village, Central Balboa
Peninsula, West Newport,
Banning Ranch, Hoag
area commercial,
Industrial area near Costa
Mesa, Mariners Mile and
Airport area
Pursue creative
approaches (e.g., Office
Airport Area: new hotels
& residences. Mariners
Mile: move PCH, create
pedestrian -friendly
area, use old PCH as
parking, open views to
water). Consider
publidprivate
partnership.
* Please refer to the telephone questionnaire for exact question phrasing. Normal text refers to resident survey and bold/italicized to business survey.
Newport Beach General Plan Update — Visioning Phase MIG, Inc.
Emerging Strategic Directions — October 31, 2002 Page 8
U
Newsletter
Neighborhood
Overall Finding
#
Key Question
Website
Mailback
Visioning Festival
Workshops and
Telephone Surveys*
GPAC
(Areas of clear direction
Questionnaire
Youth Council
are highlighted)
21
What City area(s) are
for mixed -use
Lido Marina Village,
Balboa Village
Cannery Village (39)
and Balboa Village
Generally in favor of
mixed use; examine
from the festivaland thossuitable
ponded to the website a reedevelopment
projects
(20)
possibilities in any
[ttendees
Village, Cannery Village
that integrate housing in
appropriate site.
den uare and Lido Mann
the upper floors of
commercial or office
ach site shoo die studied for III
buildings?
uitability, for mixed use
22
Do we have too much
22% said too much
of anything: housing,
rental housing, 17%
rental, office buildings,
each said too much
etc.?
office and too much
housing
23
How do we protect our
66% said yes
1) Limit the size of new
existing residential
infill housing
neighborhoods?
2) Limit the size of
remodeled housing
24
See Question 9
26
Should excess and
Yes (120)
Excess and
and-underutilized comfnerc a
underutilized
No (56)
underutilized
considered for rezon n
Eevelomen
commercial lands be
commercial lands shall
residential or mixed -us
converted for residential
be considered for
or mixed -use
rezoning for residential
development?
or mixed -use
development.
* Please refer to the telephone questionnaire for exact question phrasing. Normal text refers to resident survey and bold/italicized to business survey.
Newport Beach General Plan Update —Visioning Phase MIG, Inc.
Emerging Strategic Directions — October 31, 2002 Page 9
#
Key Question
1Nebsite
Newsletter
Mailback
Questionnaire
Visioning Festival
Neighborhood
Workshops and
Youth Council
Telephone Surveys*
GPAC
Overall Finding
(Areas of clear direction
are highlighted)
27
Should the City place
Support for the
Expressed concems
Limit the size of new
Major concern in Dist.
41% believe that existing
Many have expressed
Larger homes and their effects is a
restrictions on
suggested solutions
about the impacts: lack
infill housing as a
5,6,7.
regulations are sufficiently
concems about the
distressing trend for some Newport
constructing larger
and lot merger
of privacy, natural
solution to
Youth: Limit the size
effective.
trend toward larger
Beach residents, however the existing
homes that change the
requirement.
sunlight and views.
mansionization.
of new infill housing
27% believe they are too weak.
homes.
regulations may be sufficient for now.
character of existing
Restrict the size of
as a solution to
,
Depends on the area
neighborhoods
remodeled housing.
mansionization.
13 /a say they are too strong.
and the design.
(mansionization)?
Restrict the size of
remodeled housing.
R2
LCP may help address
issue in coastal area.
Create design
guidelines specific to
villages.
Consider stepping
back to allow views
from properties in
center of peninsula.
New construction
helps West Newport.
The tolerance of larger homes depends
on the area and on the proposed design.
29
Should there be more
No (63%)
No (133)
Refer to 18A
retail development in
Yes (37%)
Yes (88)
Fashion Island?
30
Which employment
Newport Center: 64%
Newport Center
Refer to 18B
A
centers should be
said No
expanded (85),
retained at the current
retained (77).
scale and which, if any,
should be expanded?
Newport Center
30
Which employment
Airport office area:
Airport Office area
Refer to 18C
B
centers should be
60% said No
should be expanded
retained at the current
(150), retained at
scale and which, if any,
currentscale (90)
should be expanded?
Airport Office area
* Please refer to the telephone questionnaire for exact question phrasing. Normal text refers to resident survey and bold/italicized to business survey.
Newport Beach General Plan Update— Visioning Phase MIG, Inc.
Emerging Strategic Directions — October 31, 2002 Page 10
#
Key Question
Website
Newsletter
Mailback
Questionnaire
Visioning Festival
Neighborhood
Workshops and
Youth Council
Telephone -Surveys*
GPAC
Overall Finding
(Areas of clear direction
are highlighted)
30
Which employment
Corp. Center retained
C
centers should be
(91), expanded (74)
retained at the current
scale and which, if any,
should be expanded?
Corp. Center
30
Which employment
Mariners Mile
Mariners Mile: mixed
D
centers should be
expanded (107),
uses, acknowledging
retained at the current
retained at current
two components, water
scale and which, if any,
scale (61)
and business.
should be expanded?
Mariners Mile
* Please refer to the telephone questionnaire for exact question phrasing. Normal text refers to resident survey and bold/italicized to business survey.
Newport Beach General Plan Update — Visioning Phase MIG, Inc.
Emerging Strategic Directions— October 31, 2002 Page 11
#
Key Question
Website
Newsletter
Mailback Questionnaire
Visioning, Festival
Neighborhood
Workshops and
Youth Council
Telephone Surveys*
GPAC
Overall Finding
(Areas of clear direction
are highlighted)
31
Oro we want any more
Nine out of 11 website
Seventy percent did
80% of those who
52% oppose and 27% support new
Support for hotels to
Split opinion, with residents primarily
hotels?
respondents felt that
not think that additional
attended District 1's
hotels in the City (20% no opinion)
serve vacationers
opposed to new development and
this industry should
hotel development was
neighborhood
Oppose new hotels to promote the
(e.g., smaller scale,
business slightly in support.
expand.
a good idea.
workshop supported
following: 50% local stores and
"boutique" hotels near
Split opinion on types of hotels, leaning
this sentiment when
restaurants; 54% business
the ocean;15-20 units)
toward smaller inns for vacationers.
the discussion
focused on a
conferences; 53% tax revenues;
Look at rental trends;
ew o e eelopme t avbra e r
proposed hotel for the
and 55%tourism.
fewer rentals than 15-
ifporf area''andewp6 Center
Marina park site on
If hotels were to be built in the City,
v
20 years ago. If so,
the Peninsula.
61% find appropriate smaller -sized
lends support to
inns, 44% medium-sized hotels,
boutique hotels.
Youth want to see
and 43% large hotels.
High -end hotels
fewer.
o
Favored hotel development 73 /° in
generate more
the airport area and 54% in
revenue; NB will lose
Newport Center. Opposition to
that business to
locating in: 66% Marina Park; 63%
adjacent areas and still
Lido Marina Village, 60% Mariner's
have traffic impacts.
Mile, and 49% Newport Dunes.
Residents may favor
R20-23
large hotels more if
educated on revenue
Split over hotel development
generation (TOT).
with 41 % supporting and 30%
opposing (27%no opinion).
Consider mixed office
w/ hotel rooms on top.
Favored hotel development: 61%
tourism, 59% business
Consider impact on
conferences, 57%tax revenue,
JWA demand.
and 54% local stores. Large
hotels are favored as appropriate
by 54% compared with 49%for
small -sized inns and 47% for
medium-sized hotels.
Support for locations of new
hotel: 74%Airport area, 58% NP
Center, and 56% NP Dunes.
Opposition: 59% Marina Park,
57%Lido Marina V1., and 53%
Mariner's Mile. B19-23
ease refer to the telep one questionnaire for exact question ph rasing. Normal textre ers to resi en survey and bold/italicizedo business survey.
Newport Beach General Plan Update — Visioning Phase MIG, Inc.
Emerging Strategic Directions — October 31, 2002 Page 12
L
#
Key Question
Website
Newsletter
Mailback
Questionnaire
33
Should we continue to
76% said Yes
promote and
Primarily for business
accommodate tourism?
travelers and hotel
visitors, followed by
summer renters and
daytimers.
34
What should be the
78% said preserve as
future of the tidelands
open space
and other public lands
(e.g., the Dunes,
Newport Village, and
Marina Park)?
* Please refer to the telephone questionnaire for exact question phrasing. Normal text refers to resident survey and bold/italicized to business survey.
Newport Beach General Plan Update —Visioning Phase MIG, Inc.
Emerging Strategic Directions — October 31, 2002 Page 13
#
Key Question
Website
Newsletter
Mailback
Questionnaire
Visioning Festival
Neighborhood
Workshops and
Youth Council
Telephone Surveys*
GPAC
-
Overall Finding
(Areas of clear direction
are highlighted)
36
Should the City be more
Yes by a four to one
The community highly values open
proactive in developing
margin
space and parks. Many want to see the
open space or parks,
City more proactive in acquiring these
even if it means bond
areas, even if it means bond financing.
financing?
37
What types of
Improved bike lanes
Community shuttles
More public transit and
Dist. 7-PCH widening
Residents and businesses prefer
GPAC needs more
The community would very much like to
transportation
(particularly in the
PCH widening through
through Mariner's
leaving roads as they currently are
information and
see more public transit options in
improvements should
heavily congested
Mariner's Mile
Mile
to widening options by a 2 to 1
discussion.
Newport Beach. Most want the City to
be made in the City?
tourist areas), electric
Dist. 6- better traffic
ratio.
Grade separations and
encourage more walking and biking.
cars, taxis and a light
engineering of roads
50%+ of residents oppose all types
street widenings are
rail
and signals,
of suggested improvements to
controversial.
PCH widening through
tunnellgrade
traffic circulation. Opposition to
Concerns expressed
Mariner's Mile
separations and
widening: 71 % Jamboree and 68%
about the economic
street widening
Macarthur. The options with some
feasibility of transit.
Dist. 7 - signal timing
support 39% building an overpass
at Macarthur and Jamboree, and
GPAC agrees that we
and grade separated
intersections
37% widening the PCH through
need to make the city
Mariner's Mile. R7-9
more bike and
Dist. 4 — opposed to
pedestrian friendly,
grade separations
Split on widening options.
with site -specific
Support: 53% overpass option
solutions.
and 45% PCH widening.
Oppose: 62% widening
Jamboree and 60% Macarthur.
B9-11
57% of both residents and
businesses polled rate traffic as
somewhat congested. 25%+ very
congested. R6, B8
. Please refer to the telephone questionnaire for exact question phrasing. Normal text refers to resident survey and bold/italicized to business survey.
Newport Beach General Plan Update —Visioning Phase MIG, Inc.
Emerging Strategic Directions — October 31, 2002 Page 14
#
Key question
Website
42
How should we protect
our residential
neighborhoods from
—
traffic impacts?
43
How should we protect
our residential
neighborhoods from
parking impacts from
commercial customers
and beach users?
" Please refer to the telephone questionnaire for exact question phrasing. Normal text refers to resident survey and bold/italicized to business survey.
Newport Beach General Plan Update— Visioning Phase MIG, Inc.
Emerging Strategic Directions — October 31, 2002 Page 15
#
Key Question
Website
45
What role should
Newport Beach play in
the airport issues?
. Please refer to the telephone questionnaire for exact question phrasing. Normal text refers to resident survey and bold/italicized to business survey.
Newport Beach General Plan Update — Visioning Phase MIG, Inc.
Emerging Strategic Directions — October 31, 2002 Page 16
Newsletter
Neighborhood
Overall Finding
#
Key Question
Website
Mailback
Visioning Festival
Workshops and
Telephone Surveys*
GPAC
(Areas of clear direction
Questionnaire
Youth Council
are highlighted)
48
What should be the
-Infrastructure
-Improved
Not in ranked order:
o i
City'sfunding priorities?
maintenance,
infrastructure
■ Infrastructure
n s ai e
- Parks and beaches,
maintenance
maintenance
=Ci an
Public safe ty
-Need to revitalize
Need to revitalize
o e s- ocirdarl° om
ai
infrastructure in older
infrastructure in_�-NeeUa_
commercial areas
older commercial
ze" as m_o e
` me
-Acquisition and
areas, including
a a ea
improvement of open
parking
cq_isi o im ve a fo
space and parks
a
•Public safety
Water quality
m ro water ual'
ltq
■ Improved water
publics e
quality
■ Acquisition and
QCity bea r ca oaan Ian scaoin
improvement of
parks and open
space
■ Encourage
businesses thru
non-cashincentives
Revenue -producing
priorities are
necessary and
education is needed to
understand trade-offs.
Ensure fiscal
responsibility and
accountability.
* Please refer to the telephone questionnaire for exact question phrasing. Normal text refers to resident survey and bold/italicized to business survey.
Newport Beach General Plan Update — Visioning Phase MIG, Inc.
Emerging Strategic Directions — October 31, 2002 Page 17
• • s
#
_
Key Question
Website
Newsletter
Mailback
Questionnaire
Visioning Festival
Neighborhood
Workshops and
Youth Council
Telephone Surveys*
GPAC
Overall Finding
(Areas of clear direction
are highlighted)
51
Should the City
67% said yes
57% believe economic
Yes
Split opinion.
encourage growth of
Primarily through small
development will detract from
the local economy to
business development,
quality of life. 33% believe it will be
help pay for municipal
taxes. Fees and
in the best interest of residents.
services and facilities?
licenses, and travel
R19
If so, how?
and tourism
45516 business supports the first
position and 42% the second.
B18
No
Bike trails
* Please refer to the telephone questionnaire for exact question phrasing. Normal text refers to resident survey and bold/italicized to business survey.
Newport Beach General Plan Update— Visioning Phase MIG, Inc.
Emerging Strategic Directions — October 31, 2002 Page 18
• GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Monday, November 4, 2002
Roger Alford
Dorothy Beek
Phillip Bettencourt
Carol Boice
Karlene Bradley
John Corrough
Seth Darling
Julie Delaney
Laura Dietz
Florence Felton `
Nancy Gardner
Joseph Gleason Jr.
Louise Greeley
Evelyn Hart
Ernie Hatchell
Bob Hendrickson
Tom Hyans
Mike Ishikawa
David Janes
George Jeffries
Mike Johnson
Todd Knipp
Donald Krotee
Philip Lugar
Catherine O'Hara
•
Carl Ossipoff
1
• Larry Root
John Saunders
Brett Shaves
Robert Shelton
Ed Siebel
Alan Silcock
•
•
E
GENERAL PLAN AD%%ORY COMMITTEE
Monday, November 4, 2002
-,PUBLIC-SIGN-IN
NAME ADDRESS/PHONE
E-MAIL ADDRESS
GENERAL PLAN ADV%ORY COMMITTEE
Monday, November 4, 2002
PUBLIC SIGN -IN
NAME ADDRESS/PHONE
n
U
E-MAIL ADDRESS
GENERAL PLAN ADAORY COMMITTEE
Monday, November 4, 2002
PUBLIC SIGN -IN
NAME ADDRESS/PHONE
E-MAIL ADDRESS
•
•
NEWP(M
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
VISIONING PROCESS CH
General Plan Advisory Committee
Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday,
November 4, 2002, at the Police Department Auditorium.
Members Present:
Roger Alford
Nancy Gardner
Dorothy Beek
Joseph Gleason
Phillip Bettencourt
Louise Greeley
Carol Boice
Bob Hendrickson
Karlene Bradley
Tom Hyans
John Corrough
Mike Ishikawa
Hoby Darling
George Jeffries
Julie Delaney
Phillip Lugar
Laura Dietz
Carl Ossipoff
Florence Felton
Larry Root
Members Absent:
Evelyn Hart
Donald Krotee
Ernest Hatchell
Catherine O'Hara
David Janes
Brett Shaves
Mike Johnson
Jackie Sukiasian
Todd Knipp
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:
Carol Hoffman
Dolores Offing
Dick Nichols
John Saunders
Robert Shelton
Ed Siebel
Alan Silcock
Jan Vandersloot
Don Webb
Jennifer Wesoloski
Ron Yeo
I. Welcome and Introductions
• Bob Shelton called the meeting to order. The minutes from the previous meeting
were not complete at the time of this meeting and will be presented at the next
meeting. However, Carolyn Verheyen noted that she did incorporate comments
from the last meeting into the matrix.
II. Q and A with Bryan Godbe of GRA (Survey Consultant)
Bryan Godbe and Josh Williams of Godbe Research and Analysis were present to
answer any questions regarding the telephone survey and results. George
Jeffries had presented a written response regarding the survey and Joe Gleason
asked for a response to the points raised in the document. Mr. Godbe pointed
out that they conducted a "quantitative" survey limited to 12 minutes and to get
the results Mr. Jeffries would have liked to see, a "qualitative" survey would have
had to be done. The qualitative survey is usually done during community forums
and summits where hours are set aside and "why" questions can be asked and
answered. The quantitative survey does not afford the ability to probe into the
questions. If the survey had taken any longer, it would have been difficult to get
people to agree to participate. Mr. Godbe also felt that the questions in the
survey were unbiased. Mr. Williams added that in order to conduct a 12 minute
• survey, options must be kept short, clear and simple otherwise you start loosing
people. Ms. Wood added that the General Plan Update Committee wanted to
keep the survey short so people would be willing to participate, and there were
complaints about how long the survey took, so to add more questions or try to
go into more depth would have reduced the amount of participation and
increased the number of complaints. Carl Ossipoff (and Todd Knipp by e-mail)
were concerned that 72% of the survey participants did not have children living
at home under 18. Mr. Williams stated they wanted to make sure the data was
representative of gender, geography and age to represent the 2000 census data.
Newport Beach is slightly older than a typical California city, but he was not
surprised to see this result. Mr. Godbe also pointed out that these days it is not
surprising that someone would not say they had children living at home when
they really don't know where this call is coming from, so there is a natural under-
reporting. Also, after checking the ages, which can be confirmed through voter
records, they felt comfortable with the representation. Dorothy Beek asked if
they were predicting that the age distribution will be approximately the same 25
years from now. Mr. Williams said no, they were trying to represent Newport
Beach as it is now. Mr. Williams said he looked at the data from the 2000 census
and felt comfortable with the numbers based on what he saw. Tom Hyans
brought up what he thought was the most obvious question that exemplifies
what Mr. Jeffries was talking about —the question regarding Banning Ranch
development. If the question stated $10 a year, the answer would have been
• grossly different; the structuring of the question is what Mr. Jeffries was talking
about. Ms. Wood stated that she based the estimate on the assumption that
2
50% would be funded through grants and then did research with the County,
• used appraisal information of CalTrans West site and applied an average per acre
cost to only the usable acreage, then asked the Administrative Services
Department to spread that total over a 15 year bond issue, she tried to be
realistic —not scary. Mr. Williams said the objective is to ask about the most
likely scenario, without giving a number the person answering doesn't have any
idea what you are talking about and they would be asking the interviewer. John
Saunders said he agreed that how the questions are asked can influence the
answers, however he felt the process was as fair as you could make it. Karlene
Bradley thought there should have been a question about Banning Ranch without
any financial involvement from the citizens. Mike Ishikawa pointed out to offer
something for free, of course everyone will want it, with the questions there
were options and information provided, the questions about Banning Ranch
provided both, it may not be the answers everyone wanted but it is up to us to
come to our own conclusions based on the information we are getting. Jan
Vandersloot agreed with Ms. Bradley and thought the question should have been
about keeping Banning Ranch as open space without tying it to a tax increase for
Newport Beach. Mr. Williams pointed out that the way the question was set up
forced people to make a decision and make a priority. Mr. Jeffries pointed out
that his motives for questioning the survey were to be constructive and he hoped
to enhance the quality of the process. Bob Shelton found it difficult to extract
what the bottom line is with respect to the attitude toward hotels, by residents
• and businesses. Mr. Williams found that both residents and businesses were
generally not supportive of new hotels. The confusion comes from starting off
with a very general question and then pushing specifics; in some areas there is
strong opposition, some areas there is not as much. If you look at the details
the information is there, both big picture data and very specifics. Laura Dietz
wanted to know if all of the businesses interviewed were also residents. Mr.
Williams said the business universe was randomly drawn from active business
license data, then clustered and stratified. The information is available in the
cross tabulations, you can determine just the answers of the resident business
owners. Ms. Wood reminded everyone that Appendix B is 300 pages long, so if
it was not duplicated, however it is available. Mr. Gleason asked if the resident
and business surveys would be given equal weight. Ms. Wood said that would
be up to this committee, GPUC, Planning Commission and the City Council.
III. Discussion of Revised Vision Statement
Nancy Gardner reviewed the changes made to the Vision Statement. At the
Subcommittee's meeting last week, they only addressed the areas where
comments had been sent to them. The first change was in the order of the
paragraphs. Under Community Character they cleaned up some language thanks
to Joe Gleason and they received a detailed note about balance from Carol Boice,
• with that they came up with the last sentence "The successful balancing of the
needs of residents, businesses and visitors has been accomplished with the
3
recognition that Newport Beach is primarily a residential community." Under
Growth Strategy and Land Use they said, "We have a conservative growth
•' strategy that emphasizes residents' quality of life —a strategy that balances the
needs of the various constituencies...". In the second paragraph there was a
word change "...characteristics that satisfy the community's desire..." The only
other change was that estuary was used in both singular and plural, so the
subcommittee decided to make it singular throughout the statement. The last
question the Subcommittee discussed was regarding Responsive Government
and whether it should be included in General Plan Vision Statement; after the
discussion it in the statement. Karlene Bradley moved to accept the Visioning
Statement as presented. Bob Shelton called for discussion before the vote on
the motion. Jan Vandersloot asked why the plural form of estuary was changed
to singular. Ms. Gardner didn't feel there was a strong feeling one way or the
other. Tom Hyans said the discussions were always in reference to the Upper
Bay. Mr. Shelton pointed out that with all the talk about the Santa Ana River,
maybe it should be plural and members of the committee agreed. Joe Gleason
wanted to make his argument to remove the Responsive Government paragraph,
he pointed out that there is no Responsive Government element of the General
Plan and he feels it is a function of the voters and may be a shot at the current
City Council and not appropriate for this document. Dorothy Beek wanted the
word navigability added. Mr. Shelton pointed out it is in the last sentence of
Boating and Waterways. Bob Hendrickson said he had a problem with the
• Airport section, because it is not visionary, it talks about preserving property
values but doesn't provide a vision. Mr. Shelton stated there had been many
opportunities to comment and if there is enough concern we might need to
revisit that area, however for now we would be voting on what was presented.
Mr. Gleason moved to amend the motion to remove Responsive Government.
Mr. Hyans said asked the group to look at why greenlight was on the books here,
it was because enough people felt government was not responsive, not listening
and he feels there needs to be a reminder in these documents of what we're
doing and what needs to be done in the future. Mr. Shelton called for a vote on
the amendment. 12 were in favor of deleting the Responsive Government
section and 14 opposed —the amendment failed. He then called for a vote on
the main motion. A majority favored the statement as presented with the
change to estuaries, 2 opposed.
IV. Small Group "Area Visioning" Discussions
Before starting the small group discussions, a discussion regarding the matrix
took place. Carol Boice wanted the same language listed under GPAC for
Question 18A (Fashion Island) "any expansion will increase existing traffic
congestion" to be added to Question 18B (Newport Center) because it is the
same area. John Saunders asked to have the comment about opposition to car
• dealerships removed from the overall findings of Question 18C, it should be listed
in the survey findings however this group disagreed with that so the comment
11
should not be in the overall findings. Tom Hyans brought up Question 13 and
said that under Newsletter Mailback the remaining 12% that seek economic gain
• were not addressed. Mr. Saunders also wanted the airport area added to
Question 20 under Overall Findings and Neighborhood Workshops, Areas
Needing Revitalization. John Corrough felt that findings from the business
survey regarding water quality would fit into Question 13. Mr. Shelton asked
that anyone with additional comments should meet with Ms. Verheyen during the
small group discussions.
The small groups were asked to appoint a recorder who would forward their
notes to Debbie for inclusion in the minutes. Patty Temple explained the
materials provided to each group to aid in their discussions. Groups were given
45 minutes for their discussions.
A. Airport Business Area
Roger Alford Carol Boice Laura Dietz
John Saunders Jan Vandersloot
The discussions centered around the Campus Drive area (Birch Campus Tract)
where there are older, smaller buildings across from the airport and several car
rental agencies. One problem at the meeting was that the areas depicted
. numerically as Zones on the maps at the table did not correspond to the
numerical areas in the General Plan Land Use Element. In general, it appears
that there is roughly 17% more growth allowed in the current General Plan for
Statistical Area L4 (Land Use Element, see page 86. 1,207,497 sq. ft./6,895,065
sq. ft. = 17%), while there is 42% more growth allowed for the Campus Drive
area (Area 3, p. 86, 376,525 sq. ft./885,202 sq. ft. = 42%) under the existing
General Plan Land Use Element.
•
1. Encourage retail, including big box, if economical, and car dealerships
2. Allow residential, let developers decide if practical in an airport area
3. Consider a parking authority
4. Allow minor density bonuses, as long as Traffic Phasing Ordinance
(TPO) is not triggered.
5. Allow flexibility in land use plan
6. Permitted land uses should not attract airport use and expansion
7. Permitted uses should not adversely impact traffic standards in
residential areas (not trip the TPO)
8. Encourage better, newer office use to the extent we can't get retail, if
retail is uneconomical
9. Effort is to encourage revitalizing and upgrading the area
10. Encourage revenue producing businesses in the area
11. Consider lot consolidations to encourage revitalization
5
B. Balboa Peninsula Commercial
• Dorothy Beek Julie Delaney
Florence Felton Tom Hyans
Thoughts and hopes from the group assigned to present their vision of the future
Balboa Peninsula/Commercial Areas:
Balboa Villaoe: Commercial uses are concentrated in the area between A Street
and Adams Street, between Edgewater walk and Oceanfront walk. Commercial
uses are primarily visitor servicing, with a sprinkling of resident serving
businesses. The City -owned and operated Balboa Village Theater complex is a
success and theater -goers provide year round support for businesses.
Fifteenth Street: Mixed use (residential -over -commercial) and multi -family
residential uses in architectural harmony front the street. New median parking in
15th Street provides needed in -lieu parking for both residents and visitors.
McFadden Square: The easterly boundary of the McFadden Square/Cannery
Village District has been held to and includes the east side of 215t Street.
Central Balboa Peninsula: Residential uses, Peninsula -wide, have been
preserved and expanded. Parks and beaches are preserved for residents and
day -visitors. No new construction or paving has been permitted to spoil the
remaining ocean and bay beaches. Hotels are limited to small Bed and Breakfast
Inns which have been located in commercial zones and serve as buffers between
commercial and residential uses.
C. Lido Village
John Corrough Louise Greeley Bob Hendrickson
The three -person Lido Marina Village subgroup discussed, with the drop -by Q/A
input of Sharon Wood and Patty Temple, the following key points/ideas.
1. Land Assembly and key outparcels/buildings, plus evolution of
southerly waterfront edge to residential make this a very problematic
area to develop cohesively. However is critical location for potential
"big thing/big/space" on the harbor suggested in GP Harbor Element.
2. "Chinese wall" problem of views to and from the largest portion of
water in Newport Harbor suggest retaining and enhancing the
waterfront boardwalk, and enlarging to the existing 'peek-a-boo' view
opportunities from adjacent streets/walks.
3. Making a big visual and access link between a renewed civic
• center/city hall complex and the water was a popular idea, and would
give some new identity to the area. Problem is that this was also the
N.
0
best place to put a new centralized parking structure to serve the
under -parked existing and new uses in this area.
4. Closing many secondary streets (except for emergency and service)
and extending the pedestrian concept of the Lido Village pedestrian
street throughout the area, using bridging over the kept streets for
pedestrian access upper level view plazas, etc.
5. Parking structures can be made friendly by articulation, retail uses
around bottom edge, green/plaza, mixed uses on top, with a big
visual/access slot through to the water seemed like a popular idea.
Discussion group is now looking for a creative developer to sell this to.
6. Land assembly problems and inability of City/community/developers to
do something readily done elsewhere will probably continue to
condemn this important area to piecemeal solutions. A continuing
shame.
D. Mariner's Mile
Phil Bettencourt Joe Gleason
Carl Ossipoff Larry Root
Mike Ishikawa Phil Lugar
Alan Silcock Don Webb
Possible continuous bayside boardwalk for pedestrian experience of
the bay and shops.
❖ Possible parcel consolidation could increase the usefulness of lots.
❖ Parking could be resolved by creating parking districts on "inland side"
of Mariner's Mile.
Create pedestrian access to bayside (across PCH) by including a series
of pedestrian bridges (over crossings).
❖ All noted that businesses will have to be active, and "buy in" to the
concept of mixed use if residential were to be included as a possible
use.
❖ Creation of reversible lanes was discussed as a possible method of
reducing traffic congestion. However, due to numerous stated
problems this concept was discarded.
❖ Water quality improvement was discussed as necessary to attract
pedestrians.
•S The group recognized problems may exist with residents
misunderstanding that commercial use may affect their use/lifestyle.
Summary: The group agreed that the basic goal was to increase pedestrian use
and access to the bay side of Mariner's Mile. Maximizing pedestrian access, the
creation of parking districts with pedestrian over crossings, appropriate mixed
use, and a continuous boardwalk along the bayside, will all serve to benefit
Mariner's Mile.
7
E. Larger Homes
• Karlene Bradley Hoby Darling
Ed Siebel Jennifer Wesoloski
0
Nancy Gardner George Jeffries
Ron Yeo
The areas of special concern are Corona del Mar, Newport Heights, Balboa Island
and the Peninsula, although these concerns may apply to other neighborhoods.
INTRO: There is a concern that the character of some of our neighborhoods is
being lost because large homes that do not fit that character are replacing older
homes that established the character. In addition to changing the character,
such homes may also impact the light and air of their neighbors and possibly
diminish the sense of community that is so important to our neighborhoods.
CURRENT REGULATIONS: Modifications are granted too easily and too
frequently, and this is a contributing factor to the problem.
FUTURE REGULATIONS: All regulations should be consistent and relatively
simple to follow. There is a concern that simply controlling square footage is not
the solution; suggestions include the elimination of tandem parking, step -backs
for second stories and the prohibition of third floors, the expansion of required
usable open space, and the acceptance of basements which would not count as
a third floor.
HISTORICAL RENOVATION: Special consideration should be given to those who
have older homes who wish to maintain the character of the home but enlarge it.
DESIGN GUIDELINES: Design guidelines that emphasize the village character
are a possible method to help builders design homes that fit into the particular
neighborhood. Incentives (for example, plan check priority or concessions on
parking) are a way to encourage builders to follow the guidelines instead of
putting up cookie -cutter boxes. An effort should be made to educate current
and future residents about the various areas of the city so that instead of moving
into an inappropriate area and trying to make it fit, they choose an area suitable
to their needs.
PARKING: Thought should be given to parking permits for residents in some of
these areas.
V. Discussion of Future Agenda Items
No discussion.
VI. Next Steps
Mr. Shelton reminded everyone of the Visioning Summit on Saturday, November
16th. Ms. Verheyen advised the group that the General Plan Update Committee
had selected the topics for the Summit, they are: Banning Ranch, the Airport
Area, Hotel Development, Larger Homes, Newport Center/Fashion Island and
Transportation.
Next meeting, Monday December 2"d
VII. Public Comments
No public comments offered.
0