HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPAC_2003_05_1211111111111111111111111111111111111111111,III lill
*NEW FILE*
GPAC_2003_05_12
I•
K]
It
May 12, 2003
7:00-9:00 p.m.
7:00
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AGENDA
I. Call to Order
7:05 II. Approval of Minutes
April 14, 2003
7:10 III. Attendance Policy
Police Department Auditorium
870 Santa Barbara Drive
7:20 IV. Fiscal Impact Analysis of Existing Development
8:30 V. Appointment of Subcommittee to Review LCP
8:40 VI. Discussion of Future Agenda Items
8:50 VII. Public Comments
n�.
E
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, April 14,
2003, at the Police Department Auditorium.
Members Present:
Phillip Bettencourt
Bob Hendrickson
Karlene Bradley
Mike Ishikawa
Gus Chabre
Kim Jansma
John Corrough
Mike Johnson
Laura Dietz
Bill Kelly
Grace Dove
Lucille Kuehn
Florence Felton
Phillip Lugar
Nancy Gardner
Catherine O'Hara
Louise Greeley
Carl Ossipoff
Members Absent:
Roger Alford
David Janes
Patrick Bartolic
Alex Kakavas
Dorothy Beek
Todd Knipp
Carol Boice
Donald Krotee
Tom Hyans
Alan Silcock
Ernest Hatchell
Staff Present:
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
Patricia Temple, Planning Director
Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner
Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant
Carleton Waters, Urban Crossroads
Members of the Public Present:
Maria White
Allen Beek
Charles Remley
Larry Root
John Saunders
James Schmiesing
Ed Siebel
Jackie Sukiasian
Jan Vandersloot
Jennifer Wesoloski
Ron Yeo
I. Welcome and Introductions
• Nancy Gardner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. Approval of Minutes
Phillip Lugar commented that the minutes were brief and requested that staff prepare
the minutes a little more descriptive. Ms. Wood responded that typically the minutes
have been more descriptive but because the main event was a presentation by Woodie
Tescher and copies of the slides were attached to the minutes. Mr. Lugar felt that the
questions and answers would have been interesting to read.
Phillip Bettencourt moved to approve the March 24, 2003 minutes. Mr. Lugar
seconded the motion. Motion passes.
III. Communication between GPAC & Planning Commission/City Council
Ms. Wood commented that the Update Committee and Scoping subcommittee discussed
this item. The Scoping subcommittee had a joint meeting with the Planning
Commission, and a lot of questions were raised about how are GPAC and GPUC going to
• keep the Planning Commission and City Council apprised of what they are doing so the
process does not potentially take off down some track that the Commission and Council
are not comfortable with. The recommendation that has been made by the General
Plan Update Committee is to have some study sessions of the City Council and the
Planning Commission at key decision points in the process so that they can hear what
the recommendations and discussion of the two committees have been to that point.
For example, one of the key points is when we select which alternatives are going to be
analyzed, using both the traffic model and the fiscal impact model.
IV. Traffic Model Results for Existing Development & Existing General Plan
Buildout - Woodie Tescher of EIP Associates and Carleton Waters of Urban
Crossroads — [Slide presentation attached to minutes.]
Mr. Tescher commented that there are two perspectives of traffic in the City. The first
is sort of analogous to flying over the City, taking a snap shot and describing and
documenting what you see on the ground in terms of existing traffic conditions. The
first part of the presentation is what is there today, what is happening today, and what
are the characteristics and conditions of traffic in the City.
The second part that is the perspective of asking "what if." What if the existing General
Plan that is in place is the adopted policy of the City of Newport Beach and carried to its
conclusion. What happens to traffic if build -out to what is currently permitted under
• that plan occurs. The second perspective is also asking what happens with all the
current General Plan recommendations for transportation improvements. If they are
implemented with that additional increment of growth, how will traffic change.
2
• This will provide us with a couple of benchmarks as we go further through this General
Plan process during which we will be identifying some alternatives. Some of the
alternatives may ask what happens if we don't build all those roadways or
improvements or what happens if we build some other improvements? We may test
those in the subsequent stages of this planning process. We may also ask ourselves,
what if that is not a realistic projection of the amount of growth we are going to
accommodate in the City? How will that affect the conclusions?
The second General Plan analysis is required by State law. The California
Environmental Quality Act requires that in the General Plan process, one of the
benchmarks you measure any modification of the General Plan against is the current
General Plan. By State law, it is technically known as the "no -project" alternative
under the California Environmental Quality Act. These should indicate the starting
points and is not a conclusion or the final analysis but a beginning to frame the
discussion we are moving toward in the next few months. Mr. Tescher reiterated again
that this is an Executive Summary document and there is voluminous research that
backs up what you are hearing here today.
Carlton Waters explained what things look like from a traffic perspective in the City
today with traffic count data based on surveys that have been performed, such as
• following vehicles from key locations that are in the City to see whether they are going
through the City or they are ending up someplace within the community.
Mr. Waters explained the primary study area for the updated Newport Beach Traffic
Model includes all of the City of Newport Beach and its sphere of influence, and it also
includes key portions of adjacent communities, such as parts of Huntington Beach,
Costa Mesa and Irvine, as well as communities that are farther away that directly affect
traffic conditions in the City of Newport Beach.
Mr. Waters began the PowerPoint presentation. Following are the some of the
questions posed during the trip generation portion of the presentation:
Trips are typically 20 percent of the total trips and the data for Newport Beach is
consistent with the region
• Home to Other (social/recreational/any activity that does not fall into a strict
shopping category or a work trip) are nearly twice as many as anything else. Is. this
is also typical, Mr. Waters responded yes. All of the percentages are within the
normal ranges of the kinds of trips that people are making.
• If you work at home, where are you driving? They are all trips that relate to what
kind of mode of transport. In the City of Newport Beach there is a relatively high
non -motorized home to work trip component, which is probably related to a very
. high number home business or a business that is located near to the home.
• How radically do you think this will change in 12 years? One of the basic premises
of travel demand model building is that behavior is expected to change slowly;
3
• therefore, Mr. Waters said that these are fairly consistent percentages and should
stay fairly consistent.
• Trip generation, what type of trips is referred to? These are trips relating to
Newport Beach that could have started "at-home" in Newport Beach or may have
started at a "commercial establishment."
• Work at Home clarification — At one time it was very common for shop keepers to
live upstairs from the shop, and over time there got to be a very, very few people
that were actually working at home. In today's information and technology age, the
regional surveys ask the question so they can gauge whether or not there is a
significant change in that kind of activity occurring. Technically, the question is, "do
they really travel anywhere?" The answer is no, they did not travel to work but
after they were done with their work, they might have embarked on a home/other.
• Home to Other — Does that include Home to School if you use a car pool lane to go
to day care or pre-school? Yes, that is Home to Other.
• Was demographic information considered and would your, forecast include the
changing demographics for the City? Aging population will add more trips to doctors
and not trips to work so how is that included in this chart? — This is an existing
travel pattern, and the that type of demographic change could effect these statistics
in the future forecasting but right now, assuming we are going to have less traffic
because we have a higher proportion of retired population, in a sense you could say
these forecasts might be a little conservative if you see this huge change in the
• demographic.
• What is not typical in this chart? — This is a fairly typical chart. People might ask if
Newport Beach is an unusual community but this chart says that Newport Beach is
in fact a typical community and there are not a lot of retired people that do not have
to work.
• Would we be similar to our neighbors, Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, and Laguna
Beach? Would you expect the chart to be the same? Mr. Waters responded that he
would expect the chart to be very similar although they have not done an of analysis
for the other communities. Looking at the more generalized statistics from the
region wide, as well as basic background on travel behavior, these types of statistics
of home to other is very important, home to shop trips — very typical statistics.
• You would expect them to have similar situations? — Similar — There is one table that
was dropped out of the Executive Summary package, which dealt with a lot of
obscure time of day relationships that are not that important but they describe what
proportion of the AM peak hour trips occur during the 3-hour AM peak period, what
proportion of daily trips are the AM peak hour trips. That table shows that the City
of Newport Beach has a very traditional traffic peaking characteristic. Twenty years
ago, the rule of thumb was that you PM peak hour traffic volume would be around
10 percent of the total daily traffic. In most of the Southern California Region,
traffic is spread a bit more than that because of things like congestion effects or the
need to live farther from your job.
• How was this information actually gathered? — This information is based on the
• home survey data that was collected as part of this origin destination survey. There
is a statistically significant sampling of people in each community in the region. This
particular data is originating in Newport Beach, at least for the home -based trips.
IH
• The following slides are the reverse, people that started from other points and were
destined for the City of Newport Beach.
• How did you count the people coming to Newport Beach? — This survey was
conducted region -wide. There were several thousand surveys conducted in Ventura
County, even more in Los Angeles County because the survey is weighted to try and
capture a statistically valid sampling throughout the region. There are surveys that
were done for people that live in Costa Mesa and were asked about their travel
behavior for that particular day. Irvine, Newport Beach and another location.
• Re the Pie Chart — If you were to provide a good local transportation system, you
may be able to lessen the amount of traffic. — Mr. Waters said that the issue for us
as transportation planners or as people trying to facilitate an efficient transportation
system is that you have to have good local coverage and be able to compete with
the automobile. The automobile is ready to leave whenever you are; you never
have to stand to wait for it to show up. Because we set our standards fairly high in
terms of mobility, a level of service is needed for the City and so a very efficient
alternative transportation is needed. Mr. Waters agreed that the thought that you
could provide good local transport of some sort would potentially satisfy a lot of
demands.
Where does Riverside County fit in the pie chart? — Other
• Los Angeles County? — Los Angeles County is a larger percentage than the
combination of Riverside and San Bernardino County. Riverside and San Bernardino
• Counties combined account for perhaps 1.5 million population. Los Angeles County
alone accounts for 10 million. Proportionately to the number of people, there is
more interaction on a percentage basis with the population of those two counties
since it is only one -tenth of Los Angeles. If it were a proportionate population, then
the other category which is San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, would be 0.3%.
• Did your firm do the survey? — No, this is data that is available from the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG). We went through the process of
analyzing those records that are specific to the City of Newport Beach.
• How current is the survey that SCAG did? This was based on a 1991 Origin -
Destination Survey.
• Is this chart what is referred to as regional traffic? These trips are strictly trips that
were destined for a location in the City of Newport Beach. They have nothing to do
with regional traffic. Does that include beach traffic? Yes. So the only thing it
would not cover is the trips through traffic to Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach,
Irvine, etc. — Correct. There are separate slides for those.
• Is it correct that this is a shoulder season survey — so beach traffic that we are used
to in the summer time is not reflected here? — Mr. Waters responded that he could
not say for sure when they did the survey. — Some of the committee members
responded that it does include fall and spring. Mr. Waters responded that this data
may have been collected any time during the course of the year. They tend not to
like doing the survey during the summer months when people are not doing their
• normal routine. A committee member responded that beach traffic is a normal
routine for Newport Beach residents every year.
• The information in this study says that these surveys were done in the fall and
spring. Is the data that you accumulated also in the fall and spring? — Mr. Waters
5
. responded that all the data that they have been responsible for was collected during
those shoulder seasons. This data is a large-scale survey done throughout the
region and feels that it would not be the summer but would be reflective of those
shoulder seasons because they like to do these surveys when they get a typical
travel pattern. They would most likely not reflect the beach travel.
• When you say "through -traffic," does that mean, except maybe stopping for gas,
they are going directly through the community? — If they stop for gas, they stop in
the community. That would be an internal trip as well. A through trip is travel on
through without stopping.
• One of the questions that came up at the GPUC meeting is, what were your
statistical contents in these percentages? — Mr. Waters made a guess and promised
to get this information into the final version of this Executive Summary.
• In response to a committee member's question — We were directed to purposely
point our sampling towards periods when we thought we would capture maximum
through traffic so we collected 30 of those samples in the AM peak period, 30 in the
PM peak period, and the remaining 40 percent during the middle of the day
sometime. We did that for all three survey locations. It could be considered to be
somewhat conservative because we tried to capture times when the regional people
would be most likely to choose this route.
• Where were you picking up the people north of Newport Coast Drive? — South of
Newport Coast Drive. This diagram does not tell you exactly what route people took
. to get someplace.
• Is the volume of traffic on Pacific Coast Hwy expected to change at the mid -point
where the volume is 51,000? We can use the model to answer that question — This
is an actual survey and tried to follow a mix of all the different vehicles that were
crossing those points. When looked at how it validated against this data, results
suggest that the model is very close to the same type of statistic today. Mr. Waters
said he would not expect that percentage to change a lot. The growth of the City is
lower than the growth County -wide.
• In response to a committee member's inquiry — Mr. Waters pointed on the slide that
the going back again from that direction has a similar percent. 7 percent of the
traffic crossing the Santa Ana River on Coast Highway southbound was destined for
someplace beyond the City limit at the south end of town. Unlike the cordon they
were just looking at, the lines for external or the through traffic going elsewhere are
much smaller — no 5 or 7 percents as in the last slide. Everything is one and two
percents. The total traffic crossing for Santa Ana River into town, perhaps 15
percent of that traffic is through traffic bound for someplace outside the City of
Newport Beach, and everybody else is ending up in Newport Beach.
Regarding the incidental increase in trips question — Ms. Gardner suggested that
because, some of these questions require judgments and might be evaluated better at
the end of the presentation to focus the questions on areas where an explanation is
needed as to what we are seeing in the slides. This is definitely shoulder season data
. and trying to understand a little bit about what the summary is important to this
community, and in discussions with staff, we recognize that importance. Those topics
2
come under the heading of special issues. This kind of data collection analysis might be
very appropriate for the summer time.
Peak time — have we done anything about the rush hour? — This data is 60
percent collected during the peak time and about 40 percent collected during the
off peak. There are tables that break data down by repeat in the off peak areas.
That kind of information is available.
How long did it take to conduct this 3-point survey? — We probably spent about
two to three weeks of having staff technicians go out and collect this data
depending on the availability of our technicians. It was collected over a period of
two or three weeks. We tend to survey during Tuesday, Wednesday, and
Thursday conditions because we do not think Monday and Friday is
representative of the typical week day.
Summer impacts — Ms. Gardner suggested this is an item for the end of the
presentation.
Delineate the six intersections? — Listed on page 37 of Executive Summary.
Statistical average or estimate as to what might be likely to be built -out? - Question for
end of presentation
• Mr. Waters finished the presentation and discussion was opened.
John Saunders questioned the 100 percent buildout projection. Doesn't that overstate
what will really happen in the future? Ms. Temple responded by introducing the start of
a thought process to begin trying to help the GPUC come up with what the planners
and consultants will be looking for by way of what kinds of alternatives to look at
because what John is alluding to is the basic data structure of this part of this exercise.
One of our mandates based on CEQA and other parts of State Planning law is that
projecting our existing General Plan buildout, both land use and circulation system
improvements is something that we are required to do and that is one of our first base
line analysis.
In terms of what that particular component of this traffic modeling process means is
that it is full build out of Newport Beach land use and roadways. The projected growth,
both land use growth and transportation improvement growth, for the rest of the region
(the entire six county SCAG region) to the year 2025. They do not go all the way to
build out, they go to a planning horizon currently 2025.
In terms of what John's question is, as we as local planners know, there is little
likelihood that every single house will be built that could be built under the zoning and
general plan and not ever will there be 100 percent of all those square feet built. There
is always going to be a property owner that elects to use his property differently. Case
in point — what is our greatest trend on Balboa Island? Each lot is allowed two houses.
What are most people building? One.
7
• One thing to start thinking about by way of alternatives is whether one alternative to
assess is one that does not really look at actual changes to entitlements but looks at
looking at a projection based on our current trends. In other words, if we are only
growing by x-houses per year citywide and we know the concentration is in these four
geographic areas to look at pushing that projection out to 2025 is going to be
substantially less than what the General Plan numbers are. That may be an interesting
point of beginning just to get a handle for what we technically would call the planning
horizon. We are working with a 2025 horizon at this time. The General Plan is
supposed to be fluid and when we next update this plan 5 to 10 years after this one,
we will be throwing the horizon out again another 25 years so that we are not getting
behind the game but are dealing within a planning universe that one might actually be
able to reasonably project.
The committee members might want to think about this even before thinking about
land use alternatives in terms of lets rezone this or change this from commercial to
residential, try and get this area open space, etc., which are important but there may
be a progression of alternatives that will help this committee as well as Planning
Commission, City Council and the community to see what the opportunities are.
One other thing that Carlton wanted me to help you understand was the issue of the
• projected growth, where some of that is so that you might get a handle on how likely it
is to actually occur. One thing that some members of GPUC were questioning, is if you
look at it on a Citywide basis, there are about 2 million square feet of un-built non-
residential development, and they are going where? Most of the un-built entitlement in
Newport Beach is in areas that I call the older on -street commercial districts. Ms.
Temple commented that if she had to pick out the four that constitute the majority of
that number, well over half, probably almost three quarters, it is four areas: Mariners
Mile (from Dover to Arches bridge), Old Newport Boulevard (the old Newport Boulevard
on the easterly side of Newport Boulevard across from Hoag Hospital), the industrial
area behind Hoag Hospital, and an area by the airport that I call Campus tract, which is
an old Irvine industrial subdivision between Birch and Campus, Bristol and Macarthur
Boulevard. Those areas all have several hundred thousand square feet of non -yet
implemented General Plan entitlement. Therefore we are looking at areas that are
somewhat geographically diverse although three of them are in the West Newport area
and one by the Airport but we are also not talking Newport Center, Koll Center
Newport, and those areas that, in the past, were the primary sources of our commercial
and jobs growth. When you look at the charts and you see x-percentage of job growth,
and you think about where that growth can occur right now, one might think, "you
know, I'm not sure that projection is reasonable for the next 25 years." As John said,
maybe it is only 10 or 15 percent of that and we can look at some of those scenarios to
help get a grasp as to where we are headed.
• Carl Ossipoff observed that this is frightening if they are trying to accommodate traffic
and the growth. He said his idea was to try and make Mariners Mile more pedestrian
than mixed use. Mr. Ossipoff asked if they are just creating a conduit to run vehicles
1.1
through, doesn't that create bottle necks in places like Corona del Mar or Mariners Mile?
is Ms. Temple responded there is a good thing and a bad thing about widening a road. As
Carlton noted, by widening the road you may relieve some of your congestion inthe
short-term but you may also be creating a more attractive road for more people to use,
and would they go another route if there was more congestion? Ms. Temple noted that
is a judgment call for the community.
Mr. Corrough referred to the uniqueness of this community as a desirable destination
place the region, it tends to get a tremendously asymmetrical loadings on a very limited
number of access routes to the beach. Mr. Corrough commented that he knows they
are not anticipating building out beaches and that is probably why beaches are not
listed but beaches are a trip generator in the sense of being a destination point and
eventually a larger point for the home -bound route. Mr. Corrough said that he is
presuming they are not covered under part or any other use but somehow hopes they
are covered under the total list of trip generating categories.
Ms. Temple commented that is a question, and once again, they are stepping aside
from the summer season for this purpose, but are not going to avoid it altogether.
Basically, trips to the beach otherwise tend to be covered within the actual other uses
in areas like the Peninsula. When you look in the first shoulder seasons and how much
commercial we have down there, what we are probably doing is sort of assigning it to
• all of the commercial uses even though they might be under performing or even closed
during those times. But basically what happens from a modeling point, is we try to get
the model to reflect the actual trips that are on the road regardless of their purpose,
and I think that what we have found is by using usually more typical generation factors
for the other uses in the area, including the beaches and the homes and everything
else, that it tends to account so the numbers come out okay because it is really hard to
figure out whether that trip is going to B.J.'s or whether they are going to the beach.
They're probably doing both.
Mr. Corrough commented that we tend to count the trips coming down to the water's
edge for things like our commercial vessels and use in terms of the primary use that
contains the operator so for that so we look at it as an office use, in which there are
four to six people and maybe two or three others on -site and is that properly parked'
and how many trips to they generate? Also Mr. Corrough said that he is not sure that
they are counting the average number of people and trips generated by the commercial
vessels and the persons on each of those vessels. The problem with peak and off peak
shoulder season, etc. is the Chamber of Commerce and the business community is
praying for those shoulder seasons. The traditional effort of any community like this
with a moderate climate as opposed to colder climates that have a very discreet
summer season and gets boat usage of over 60-percents of boats going out on any
week -end day, we are lucky if we get 15 percent usage here. The problem is we tend
to stretch out the impacts on these amenities, on transportation systems, demands on
the public services, etc. Even though we have a tremendous peak in the summer, we
are pushing these shoulder seasons out, and it is the tendency for that industry and
those communities to have to deal with this extending now not over 3 to 4 months but
0
• 6 to 7 months. We get other people coming into the area, we are in the right season
and they are freezing somewhere else, we get those peaks around Christmas and New
Years that belies the question. We get not only the Christmas shopping but we also get
the Christmas visitors. All of these key areas, the beaches, commercial boats and the
Harbor itself hinge on a couple of very important gateways and essentially a dead-end
transportation system and limited capacity out on the Peninsula and Pacific Coast
Highway corridor.
Catherine O'Hara — What is a realistic analysis for General Plan Build -out?
Improvements that were assumed, are they realistic? Executive Summary — Exhibit E,
page 16, ways we can try to change traffic patterns —It looks like if we did not charge
money for Newport Coast road, that traffic is 7 percent per 62,000 trips, 37,000 trips —
could we get rid of those trips off our streets by just having no toll. The question is it
worth it to evaluate each of those hundred and narrow it down to something that is
acceptable. Or is it political. Do we have a chance to get the TCA to agree to getting
rid of the toll.
Mr. Tescher responded to Catherine's question about the evaluation of alternatives, and
said he thought he raised the question about, that happens if not all those roadway
improvements get constructed." The alternatives will look at, not just land use, but will
address those kinds of issues as well, so what are the alternatives, the consequences of
• removing a lane off of Pacific Coast Highway or any other improvement that is there.
That is part of the testing that will occur during the next phases of this process as well.
Ms. Wood commented that they will be looking for input from this committee, as well as
the Update Committee to help define which alternatives we are going to analyze both
with this model and with the fiscal impact model.
Ms. O'Hara turned to page 20 and asked if those trips originated inside or outside of
Newport Beach. Mr. Waters commented that these are trips that originated outside of
Newport Beach or could actually have originated in Newport Beach but are already
destined definitely for locations in Newport Beach. Fifty percent of these trips both
started and ended in Newport Beach, but all of them ended in Newport Beach. Ms.
O'Hara commented that compared with other cities, this seems very untypical. Mr.
Water said that within the City of Newport Beach, that home to other trip purpose that
was doubled in size of any other part of the pie is more than double the trips that are
destined for Newport Beach from Newport Beach. The first column areas, the trips that
were 50 percent that were both starting and ending in Newport Beach, the next step of
ours is related to that 28 percent that were destined to Newport Beach from the
adjacent cities. The home to other trips is not as important proportionately as the
home to work trip. The home to work bar for the adjacent cities has now become the
second largest of the bars. If you go to places even farther away from the City the
home to work bar becomes dominant. The reason for the majority of those people to
0 come to Newport Beach is to go to work.
10
Mr. Bettencourt commented that he understood the condition of the debt service on the
San Joaquin Hills corridor segment is already at least less than satisfactory from the
standpoint of bond holders. Any further erosion of their revenues would probably look
at in a very unfavorable light, not that there couldn't be some sort of a buy-out or
subsidy because it does affect travel patterns. Also from the standpoint of Newport
Coast residents, Mr. Bettencourt said he thought they were servicing about 70 million
dollars of debt to pay for the road that other Newport Beach property owners are not
paying for. Mr. Bettencourt felt that most Coast residents would take a dim view of
being a dumping ground for regional traffic.
Mr. Chabre referred to page 22 where 53 percent of the traveling within the City and
others adjacent 28 percent is not typical. Is that correct? Mr. Waters responded that
he did not know if he would say it is not typical but it might be slightly higher and that
professional judgment on his part is based on the fact that the longest trip purpose is
home to work trips. Because the community has nice quantity of jobs, it is a high
possibility that the citizens of Newport Beach are employed within the City. In response
to inquiry, Mr. Waters commented that the model itself definitely deals with the
automobile mode of transport but this survey data is multi -mobile. All of these pie
charts are looking at all modes of transport.
Jennifer Wesoloski referred to page 40 and commented on the build -out for day care,
• pre-school for children under the age of 2 and then referred to page 40 where they are
expecting 58 hundred and 20 thousand employees in our City and thought that was
something that, at some point, would have to be looked at. Ms. Gardner agreed that
was an issue for another evening.
Ron Yeo asked what does staff and consultants expect the committee to do in terms of
what direction they want to review. Mr. Tescher responded that tonight was just
informational for background but in subsequent meetings they would be looking at
alternative patterns of land uses and alternative transportation systems.
Ms. Gardner noted that there were a couple of comments from the committee that were
particularly interested in "summer" aspects of it so we do not totally ignore the special
impacts of summer, and the "beaches" and the fact that we are on the beaches.
Kim Jansma commented that the question of Mariners Mile keeps coming and thought it
is a problem area. Ms. Jansma wondered if that would be something the committee
would have any input in and it is definitely something that needs to come up. Ms.
Gardner agreed that is something the committee will definitely want to get into,
identifying those areas that they feel most need to be address and what they want to
do with them.
Mike Ishikawa commented that Newport Heights is within three of the four major build -
out areas and thought there was a traffic study being done. Ms. Gardner asked if there
is a separate traffic study being done in Newport Heights? Rich Edmonston responded
that there is going to be one that has not officially started yet. They have a lot of data
11
already on the amount of traffic, the speed of traffic on different streets in the Heights
• and that project will look at what sorts of things might be done in the Heights to
discourage cut -through traffic, control speeds and behaviors of people. It is not
directed correlated with this project. There will be a series of public meetings and
notices will be sent to all the homeowners and business in the area in about six weeks.
Ms. Gardner commented that this is not the last time they will be talking about traffic so
they do not need to cover everything tonight.
Mr. Waters commented that there are a couple of other issues that he heard tonight as
the discussion took place. What is the shoulder season, how broad is that shoulder
season and how different is it from the summer.
Mr. Waters said what he also heard was that typically we focus on week -day conditions
because it is the week -day commute that drives traffic issue and we need to have a
little knowledge about week -day versus week -end traffic patterns. We have issues with
week -end traffic patterns that we need to be sensitive to because they are worse than
the week -day. Part of the issue from the Traffic Engineering standpoint is that when
we design a roadway for the one highest day of the year because no one can afford to
pay for a traffic system that accommodates the maximum but week -days, something
that occurs 200 or 252 days a year and everybody knows you have to design for that.
• But one of the things we might try to think through is, if it is a week -end something
that we do somehow have to be concerned with.
Mr. Chabre questioned the reliability of the date, some of it is really old.
V. Discussion of Futures Agenda Items
Ms. Gardner noted that rather than spending a lot of time discussing Future Agenda
Items, it is important, however, that we bring these up because we want to shape the
agenda and be sure that we are touching the issues, not only that staff brings to us but
that the committee feels are important to discuss. GPUC has a list of things that they
feel they want to get discussed too.
Mixing and matching these global briefings with a work shop sessions where committee
members feel more fulfilled in the process.
Ms. Wood commented that the next meeting will be May 12t', and we will be having a
similar presentation to tonight's but this will be from the fiscal consultant on the Fiscal
Impact Model and what it shows for our existing development.
VI. Public Comments
• Ms. Wood commented on the Brown Act for the benefit of the newer members of the
committee. A memo from the City Attorney on the Brown Act was included in the
"welcome packet" to the new members. Ms. Wood commented on the most important
12
things to remember. The Brown Act is a State law that required that the public conduct
• its business in public and that is why we need to prepare agendas and post them ahead
of the meeting. They are always posted at City Hall the week before, and that is why
we can only discuss what has been put on the agenda. If somebody has an idea of
something to talk about and we have not put it on the agenda, it has to wait until the
next meeting so that it could be noticed to the public.
Ms. Wood noted that committee members could unwittingly cause an unnoticed
meeting to happen if a few committee members get together to talk about an issue or if
Laura calls Phil who calls Florence who calls Jim because that is what is then called a
serial meeting. What you cannot do is have a meeting that consists of a quorum of this
committee without proper public notice and this committee has 38 members so it takes
a while until you actually get to a quorum and you would be in violation of the law. Ms.
Wood said she felt they should be more careful about because it should be happening
in the public and that is the whole point of this process, and also because you never
know if you talk to two or three people, how many people are going to have the same
conversation, so you could without knowing it cause a meeting to happen that is
improper. Ms. Wood said that she expected as they got further along in this process
they would be having some subcommittees working on specific issues and so they will
have to be careful on those of the number of people we have on the subcommittee and
cautioning even more not to then be discussing those issues with other people on this
• committee who are not on your subcommittee.
Ms. Gardner adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
40
13
f
E
URBAM
cno�snonos
2
URBANcnosanonom
3
N
4
I
E
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LAND USE BASED 2002
SOCIOECONOMIC DATA SUMMARY
VARIABLE
QUANTITY
Occupied Single Family Dwelling Units
13,842
Occupied Multi -Family Dwelling Units
20,409
Total Dwelling Units
34,251
Group Quarters Population
661
P o ulation
75,817
Employed Residents
44,379
Retail Employee
10,198
Service Employees
24,594
Other Employees
36,246
Total Employees
71,038
Elem/Hi h School Students
9,164
5
13�L
i
U1RBAIM
cnossnonos
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2O02TRIP GENERATION
Y4
TRIP PURPOSE
PRODUCTIONS
-ATTRACTIONS
PRODUCTIONS -
ATTRACTIONS
PRODUCTIONS
/ATTRACTIONS
Home Based Work
57,568
88 618
-31050
0.65
Home Based School
11424
8,730
2,694
1.31
Home Based Other"
125,826
107,619
18 207
1.17
Work Based Other
55,625
59,778
-4153
0.93
Other - Other
91946
90 492
1454
1.02
TOTAL
342,3891
355,2371
-12 848
0.96
OVERALLTOTAL 697626
1 Home -Work includes Home -Work and Home -University trips, consistentwith OCTAM mode choice output
" Home -Other includes Home -Shop and Home -Other trips, consistentwith OCTAM mode choice output
11
b
0
URBAN
URBAN
cnommno^Mm
Adjacent
289
North Orange Cot
11%
South Orai
4
Lc
3%
Other
2%
L,
Newport Beach
52%
4P
URBAN
CROSSRO AOS
WORKAT HOME
1%
OTHER -WORK
17%
OTHER -OTHER
14%
HOME -WORK
22%
HOME -OTHER
38%
URBAIM
cnornowo�
Adjacent
2&%
North Orange Cou
10°%
South Oran
0
Los
3% 2%
10
Newport Beach
53%
I � W
URBANcno�sno nos
M
NEWPOHFOFA0ITPAFFICTAODELVMATEN ottffF CMNi•0046014 IK
11
URBAN
c nossnonas
12
U
CA
URBANc nossnonns
Q
r
M
13
URBAN 1
14
Y� Pw
C 1T055K0J1D5 � _- � � • . i � •
29
9 ft 13 Y 40
1 4 u ps
µ ' 0 16
30
S' all,
1 18 3 6
xr 5 iO*
i Inu bn 34 6 r.O
t9 O 64
E ..W.4T
4x 35 48 49
i 20 55
e 36
S� o+a 3 40
> 21 41 50 56 60
i wvlm 38
—M
23 •• 4Y 53 �1
2A 5 4 yF `
,ml 1 snm a - 65
!� M. 39 Ha"A.V i Cy 6t
�4 4 5257
um v.
Y t
Y IIIN , 5
d 4 2
LEGEND:
5 • - INTERSECTION COUNT LOCATION
\ tl 6 PAC{FU: 65 -INTERSECTION ID
\S`R 3 °u�nq
N n[H-BEACH TIWHCMODEL UPDATE Ne.P d Bead,, C01d N-00450-28 03114(03
15
b
URRAPJ
c rto�sno�os
16
.4
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BURDOUT
LAND USE SUMMARY
NBTM
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
2002
QUANTITY
BUILDOUT
QUANTITY
GROWTH
%GROWTH
1
Low Density Residential
DU
14,841
15,213
372
2.51%
Dens' Residential
DU
12,939
17,723
4,784
36.97%
A artment
DU
7,622
8,468
846
11.10%
Elder Residential
DU
348
348
-
0.00%
Mobile Home
DU
894
749
-145
-16.22%
EMedium
Motel
ROOM
210
256
46
21.90%
Hotel
ROOM
2,745
2,799
54
1.97%
Re ionalCommercial
TSF
1,259.000
1,633.850
374.850
29.77%
General Commercial
TSF
2,926.160
3,692.980
766.820
26.21%
Commercial/Recreation
ACRE
5.100
5.100
-
0.00%
13
Restaurant
TSF
640.520
850.900
210.380
32.85%
15
Fast Food Restaurant
TSF
78.031
94.540
16.509
21.16%
Auto Dealer/Sales
TSF
288.320
323.290
34.970
12.13%
Yacht Club
TSF
54.580
73.060
18.480
33.86%
Health Club
TSF
63.500
100.940
37.440
58.96%
020
Tennis Club
CRT
60
60
-
0.00%
Marina
SLIP
1,055
1,055
-
0.00%
Theater
SEAT
5,489
5,475
-14
-0.26%
Ne ortDunes
ACRE
64.00
64.00
-
0.000/c
23
1 General Office
TSF
10,900.190.
11,760.423
860.233
FYI
URB,AIM
cnommno^M=
NBTM
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UkvS
2002
QUANTITY
BUILDOUT
QUANTITY
GROWTH
%GROWTH
24
MedicalOffice
TSF,
761A59
895.420
133.961
17.59%
25
Res e arch &Development
TSF
327.409
809.330
481.921
147.19%
26
Industrial
TSF
1,042.070
1,060.762
18.692
1.79%
27
Mini-Storage/Warehouse
TSF
199.750
199.750
-
0.00%
28
Pre-school/Day Care
TSF
55.820
56.770
0.950
1.70%
29
Elementary/Private School
STU
4,399
4,455
56
1.27%
30
1 Junior/HighSchool
STU
4,765
4,765
-
0.00%
31
Cultura I/Le a ming Center
TSF
35.000
40.000
5.000
14.29%
32
Library
TSF
78.840
78.840
-
0.00%
33
PostOffice
TSF
53.700
73.700
20.000
37.24%
34
Hospital
BED
351
1,265
914
260.40%
35
Nurs ing/Conv. Home
BEDS
661
661
-
0.00%
36
1 Church
TSF
377.760
467.210
89.450
23.68%
37-1
Youth Ctr./S e rvice
TSF
149.560
155.410
5.850
3.91%
38
Park
ACRE
113.970
94.910
-19.060
-16.72%
39
RegionalPark
ACRE
-
45.910
45.910
N/A
40
GolfCourse
ACRE
305.330
1 298.330
-7.000
-2.29%
m
cu
URBANcnon�nonos
CITy OF 'NEWP6RT BEACH LAND US-E 'BASED
SOCIOECONOMIC DATA COMPARISON
VARIABLE
„; 2002
QUANTITY
BUILDOUT
QUANTITY
GROWTH
% GROWTH
Occupied Single Family Dwelling Units
13,842
14,250
408
3%
Occupied Multi-FamilyDwelling Units
20,409
25,453
5 044
25%
Total Occupied Dwelling Units
34,251
39,703
51452
16%
Group Quarters Population
661
661
0
0%
P opulation
75,817
87,886
12,069
16%
Employed Residents
44,379
51,268
6,889
16%
Retail Employee
10,198
12,675
2,477
24%
Service Employees
24,594
28,442
3,848
16%
Other Employees
36,246
40,040
-3,794
10%
Total Employees
61,038
81,157
20,119
33%
Elem/High School Students
9,164
9,220
56
1%
19
CV
N
URBANcnosnnono-
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BULDOUT TRF GENERATM
TRIP PURPOSE
PRODUCTIONS
ATTRACTIONS
PRODUCTIONS -
ATTRACTIONS
PRODUCTIONS /
ATTRACTIONS
Home Based Work'
70,469
103,146
-32 677
0.68
Home Based School
14,125
8,845
5,280
1.60
Home Based Otherz
167,202
133,461
33,741
1.25
Work Based Other
66,150
70,850
-4 700
0.93
Other - Other
113,964
112,461
1503
1.01
TOTAL
431,9101
428,7631
3,147
1.01
OVERALL TOTAL 860,673
' Home -Work includes Home -Work and Home -University trips, consistentwith OCTAM mode choice output
2 Home -Other includes Home -Shop and Home -Other trips, consistent with OCTAM mode choice output
20
I'd
•
URBAIM
cnosnno^Mn
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TRIP GENERAT>ON COMPARISON
TRIP PURPOSE
DAILY TRIP ENDS
GROWTH
PERCENT
GROWTH
W
EXISTING
GENERAL PLAN
BUILDOUT
Home Based Work Productions'
57,568
70,469
12,901
22.41%
Home Based Work Attractions
88,618
103,146
14,528
16.39%
Home Based School Productions
11,424
14,125
2,701
23.64%
Home Based School Attractions
8,730
8,845
115
1.32%
Home Based Other Productions2
125,826
167,202
41,376
32.88%
Home Based Other Attractions
107,619
133,461
25,842
24.01 %
Work Based Other Productions
55,625
66,150
10,525
18.92%
Work Based Other Attractions
59,778
70,850
11,072
18.52%
Other - Other Productions
91,946
113,964
22,018
23.95%
Other - Other Attractions
90,492
112,461
21,969
24.28%
TOTAL PRODUCTIONS
342,3891
431,9101
89,5211
26.15%
TOTAL ATTRACTIONS
355,2371
428,763
73-,5261
20.70%
OVERALL TOTAL
697,6261
860,6731
163,0471
23.37%
Home -Work includes Home -Work and Home -University trips, consistent with OCTAM mode choice output.
2 Home -Other includes Home -Shop and Home -Other trips, consistent with OCTAM mode choice output.
21
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFICMODEL UPDATE, Newport Bead, Caldorna-00400`42 rev.04(11/03 Seen
22
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
AND MODEL
NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
May 2003
Prepared for the
City of Newport Beach
Prepared by
Applied Development Economics, Inc.
2029 University Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 548-5912
1029 J Street, Suite 310, Sacramento. CA 95814
u
0 CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................... 1
APPROACHTO THE ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 2
ExistingLand Uses ....................................................................................................................... 3
BudgetOverview ......................................................................................................................... 4
BudgetAdjustments ....................................................................................................... 5
Revenue and Cost Calculations by Land Use ........................................................................... 7
MajorRevenues............................................................................................................... 7
OtherRevenues ............................................................................................................. 12
MajorCost Categories .................................................................................................. 13
CapitalImprovement Prograrn. .................................................................................. 18
PerCapita Costs and Revenues ................................................................................... 19
ANALYSIS OF FISCAL IMPACTS BY LAND USE TYPE .........................................................21
21
CitywideSummary .....................................................................................................................
21
Revenues.....................................................................................................
22
Costs...........................................................................................................
26
Hospitalityand Visitor Sector ..................................................................................................
•
Marine Industry ..........................................................................................................................
27
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF NEWPORT COAST FISCAL IMPACTS 33
Introduction............................................................................................................ 33
ProjectDescription .................................................................................................. 34
FireProtection Services ................................................................................ 35
PoliceServices ............................................................................................. 35
Summary of Fiscal Impact ........................................................................................ 36
GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT ........................................................................................ 41
APPENDIX
Appendix A: Land Use Definitions by SIC and NAICS ......................................................45
Appendix B: Distribution of Use of Property Revenues By Land Use .............................47
•
LIST OF TABLES
1. Land Use Descriptions..........................................................................................................................4
2.2002-03 Budget Revenues Included in Fiscal Analysis.....................................................................6
3.2002-03 Budget Expenditures Included in Fiscal Analysis..............................................................7
4. Assessed Value and Property Tax Estimates by Land Use..............................................................8
5. Sales Tax Revenues by Land Use.........................................................................................................9
6. Transient Occupancy Tax by Lodging Type....................................................................................11
7. Business License Revenue by Land Use...........................................................................................12
8. Police Department Budget 2002-2003..............................................................................................14
9. Police Department Cost Analysis......................................................................................................15
10. Analysis of Summer Peak Demand for Police Services...............................................................16
11.2002-03 CIP Expenditures Included in Fiscal Analysis...............................................................19
12. Unit Costs and Revenues..................................................................................................................20
13. Summary of Fiscal Analysis..............................................................................................................24
14. Retail Employment and Fiscal Impacts...........................................................................26
15. Fiscal Impact of Visitors to Newport Beach.................................................................................28
16. Newport Coast Development: Year 2000 and 2025.........................................................23
17. Newport Coast Impact Year 2000.................................................................................. 37
• 18. Newport Coast Impact at Full Buildout..........................................................................39
19 Growth Rates, 2002 — Buildout.......................................................................................41
20 Fiscal Impact of Existing General Plan Buildout..............................................................43
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Sales Tax Revenue by Land Use Type...............................................................................22
2. Gross Revenues by Land Use...........................................................................................22
3. Economic and Fiscal Relationships in Newport Beach......................................................27
INTRODUCTION
This report discusses how various land uses and business types contribute to the
revenues and costs for city government. The focus of this discussion is on the
existing land use mix in Newport Beach, although it also includes an analysis of the
future buildout of the existing General Plan. As the General Plan update process
moves forward, a similar analysis will be conducted to determine the potential fiscal
impact of future land use alternatives.
It is important to recognize that the point of this analysis is to understand how the
mix of land uses in Newport Beach contributes to the revenues needed for municipal
services for both residents as well as businesses. For purposes of the General Plan,
the goal of the fiscal analysis is to identify the best mix of land uses to balance the
revenues generated with the cost for municipal services in the City. Therefore, the
fiscal "performance" of individual land uses should be viewed from an overall
citywide perspective.
The report is written to provide a detailed explanation of the methodology,
• assumptions, and data sources used to estimate fiscal impacts for each land use. This
analysis is intended to serve as a planning tool for decision makers in the General
Plan update process. Based on this analysis, ADE will develop an interactive
software program for the City to use in estimating fiscal impacts, not only for
General Plan land uses, but also for individual development projects that may be
proposed in the future.
•
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 1
APPROACH TO THE ANALYSIS
City government uses a variety of revenue sources to fund the operation of local
services and the construction of public facilities. Some of these revenue sources are
more affected by the land use mix in the City than are others. For example, property
taxes and sales taxes are directly related to the type of property and the business mix
in the City. On the other hand, the City s federal entitlement of Community
Development Block Grant funds is affected by the population size of the City but is
otherwise not a function of the land use mix in the City.
Also, because Newport Beach is a Charter City (as opposed to a "General Law' city)
the Newport Beach City Council has the ability to set certain tax rates and fees, such
as the business license tax rate or building permit fees. However, the Council has
only limited authority to set other tax rates, such as the property tax or the sales tax,
or to apply additional taxes or fees, without the consent of a simple majority or a
supermajority of electors responding in an election. In considering the effect of
existing and future land uses on the City budget, it is important to sort out the types
of revenue and costs that are most pertinent.
. In general, it is most important to isolate the effect of development on revenues
which the City has less ability to raise, such as general taxes, than on direct charges
for services which can be increased to meet rising costs as necessary. Consequently,
the analysis is focused more on services funded by general tax revenues, such as the
property tax and the sales tax among others, than on services funded by direct
charges such as the water and sewer enterprise funds, building permit and plan check
fees, or other fees charged directly to customers at City Hall. At this point, our
assumption is that fees charged for specific services are adequate to cover the costs
of those services.'
At this stage in the process, the fiscal analysis addresses the effect of land use,
including related population and business activity, on municipal operating costs and
revenues. In the present report, such costs are primarily estimated on an average
basis with only a brief discussion of the marginal costs to serve future development.
As we move forward with a projection of the effects of potential future land uses, it
' A more in-depth study of City operations would be necessary to verify this assumption. However, if
• it is not the case, it is within the authority of the City Council to adjust the fee schedules.
DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 2
• will be important to consider the existing capacity in the city's service system and
determine whether or not the incremental, or marginal, cost of serving new
development is the same as the average cost of serving existing development. That
analysis will likely depend to some degree on the location of the proposed new
development in addition to the type of land use.
This chapter begins with an overview of land uses in Newport Beach, followed by a
discussion of the City budget to help clarify some of the distinctions between costs
and revenues raised above.
EXISTING LAND USES
Newport Beach's physical setting encompasses about 25 square miles of land, of
which approximately three-quarters is developed into a mix of residential (70 percent
of developed land) and non-residential (30 percent of developed land) uses. The
remaining one quarter of undeveloped land, including the City's coastal beaches, is
primarily used for recreation and open space 2.
Currently, the City is estimated to have about 36,600 dwelling units. Approximately
• 40 percent of housing units are single-family units and 60 percent are multi -family
units. The average assessed valuation for existing housing is $625,000 for single-
family units ($814,000 in Newport Coast) and $431,000 for multi -family units. In
2001, the median price of "for sale" housing in Newport Beach was $718,400.'
While residential development is treated as a single land -use category for purposes of
this fiscal analysis, non-residential uses were split into seven distinct categories:
office, retail, light industrial, lodging, marine -related, service commercial, and
institutional. Newport Beach businesses were segmented into one of these categories
based on their standard industrial classification (SIC) code through an analysis of the
City's business license records. Appendix A shows the detailed SIC code definitions
for each category, and a general description of the business types included in each
category is provided in Table 1 below.
2 NwpoitBrw& Csmvu Condition, Haan GY o es, November 2001, p. 26.
. 3 Ibid. p. 28.
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 3
TABLE 1
Land Use Descriptions
Land Use Category
Description
Al retail stores (including auto dealerships) and eating and drinking places,
Retail
except those that are included in one of the categories below
Business and professional services, financial institutions, health care services,
Office
etc.
Construction contractors, wholesale distributors, manufacturing,
Industrial
transportation, public utilities, etc.
Primarily includes personal services (e.g. beauty salons, dry cleaners), repair
Service Commercial
services, entertainment e.. movie theaters), and recreation e.. health clubs
Lodging
Hotels, motels, B&Bs, vacation rentals, etc.
Institutional
Schools, churches, social services, membership organizations, etc.
Several detailed business types that would otherwise fall within one of the
categories above, but which have a direct relationship with activity along the
Marine
Newport Beach coast. Examples include yacht building and maintenance,
boat dealers and repair services, marinas, equipment manufacturers for
marine vessels, sport fishing outfitters, etc.
The most significant component of this category is the beaches, which attract
Public
most of the visitors to Newport Beach.
• BUDGET OVERVIEW
The total budgeted expenditures according to the 2002-2003 budget for the City of
Newport Beach are $158.9 million, of which $34.5 million are for Capital
Improvement Projects. Estimated General Fund expenditures for the current fiscal
year are $94.5 million, while revenues are estimated at $95.5 million ('Table 2). The
top three revenue categories — property tax ($36.8 million), sales tax ($19.8 million),
and transient occupancy tax ($8.3 million) — account for nearly seventy percent of
total General Fund revenues. On the expenditure side, Police ($30.6 million), Fire
($20.1 million), and Public Works ($20.3 million) account for three-quarters of all
service costs (Table 3). The General Fund also includes about $4 million of
appropriations for projects within the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP),
excluding rebudgets.
In addition to the General Fund, three other major funds are of importance for the
fiscal analysis. The first is the Tidelands Fund (also known as the 'ride and
Submerged Lands Fund'), which collects revenue from the use of public property
4 Rebudgeted funds for ClP projects appear in Table 3 as adjustments to expenditures, since the fiscal
• analysis is intended to match revenues from the current fiscal year with current year expenditures.
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 4
• that the State of California designates as "tidelands" (i.e. land once under water or
currently below the mean high tide line). The Tidelands Fund has total 2002-03
revenues of about $6.5 million and expenditures of $3 million, including C1P projects
but excluding transfers to the General Fund. The Tidelands Fund provides about
$3.4 million to the General Fund in 2003-03 to pay for Tidelands -qualified city
services in the coastal area.
The second fund is the Gas Tax, which is funded from the State based on primarily
population in each city. According to State law, these funds must be accounted for
separately and used exclusively for repair, construction, and maintenance of the
street and highway system. Newport Beach has a total of 2002-03 Gas Tax revenues
of approximately $1.5 million.
Finally, the Measure M Fund is funded in part from the county sales tax for
transportation programs and in part from competitive grants from the countywide
pool of Measure M funds. Measure M revenues for 2002-03 are approximately $2.2
million. Of these, however, only the annual "turn back" revenues are included in the
fiscal analysis as net revenues.
Both the Gas Tax and Measure M funds are used exclusively for projects within the
• City s CIP.
Budget Adjustments
Some adjustments were made to the original budget figures, as shown in tables 2 and
3, in order to account for budget items that are not annually recurring. On the
revenue side, these include intergovernmental grants (e.g. `competitive' Measure M
funds), fees for zoning and building activities, and construction -related permits. On
the cost side, the value of development —related fees and permits are deducted from
the budgets of the planning and building departments.' These adjustments are made
for development -related costs and revenues because they typically occur at the
building, planning and construction phase and do not represent an ongoing cost of
government services once the buildings are completed.
5 Adjustment include the following budget accounts: Intergovernmental: 4824-4827,4858, 4862, 4893,
4896-4898; Charges for service: 5000-5004, 5007, 5023; Licenses and permits: 4610, 4612, 4614, 4616,
• 4618, 4622.
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 5
• The total estimated General Fund Budget after adjustments (i.e. net revenue) is
approximately $92.3 million for 2002-03, with another $9.2 million of revenue in the
Tidelands, Gas Tax, and Measure M Funds, for total revenues of $101.5 million.
Adjusted General Fund Expenditures are $96.2 million, plus $5.3 million in
expenditures within the other three funds included in the analysis. The overall budget
figure upon which this analysis is based is approximately $101 million.
TABLE 2
2002.03 Budget Revenues Included In
Fiscal, Analysis
REVENUE
ADJUSTMENTS
NET BASIS
General Fund
Property Tax
$36,880,101
$36,880,101
Sales Tax
19,841,351
19,841,351
transient Occupancy tax
8,08,000
8,298,000�
Franchises
2,390,000
2;390,000
Business Licenses
2,365,000
2,365,000
Motor Vehicle -In -Lieu
1,700,000
1,700,000
Other Intergovernmental
1,990,127
426,174
1,563,9531
Charges for Service
9,515,855
1,048,300
8,467;5551
Fines, Forfeitures, Penalties
3,125,250
3,125,250
Licenses/Permits
1,819,860
1,446,200
373,660
Use of Property
5,284,288
5,284,288!
• Other Revenue
730,435
175,000
555;4351
Interest Income
1,500,000
1,500,000
General Fund Subtotal
95,440,267
3,095,674
92,344,593
T delands Fund
— '
m_ Y_
I
LicenseslPeimitslFees
1,153,000
1,153;000,
Charges for Service
33,500
33,500
Use of Money and Property
5,359,492
5,359,492
State Gas TaxFund
1',457,000
1,4-5-7,0001
Measure M Fund
2,2051580
110051580
1,200,000,'
Subtotal Other Funds
10,209,072
1,110,580
8,047,492
Source: ADE, Inc., based on City of Newport Beach, Ffual year2002.03 Btx*Detad.
DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 6
TABLE 3
2002.03 Budget Expenditures Included In Fiscal Analysis
COST ADJUSTMENTS NET BASIS
GENERALFUND
General Government
$9,368,986
$9,368,986
Police
30,132,466
30,132,466
Fire
21,525,002
21,525,602
Public Works [a]
20,3891515
20,389,515
Community Development
4,747,238
2,494,500 2,252,738
Community Services
8,293,665
8,293,665
CIP -Streets
2,366,000
1,061,000 1,T05;0001
Other CIP Projects
4,766,265
1,873,115
21893,1501
General Fund Subtotal
1011596,546
8,127,868
96,167,931
TIDELANDS FUND
Harborkesources
1,282,138'
1,282,138j
Oil and Gas
351,887
351,8871
CIP Projects
1,466,442
400,785
1,065,657
GAS TAX FUND
2,274,721
716,334
1,558,387
MEASURE'M'FUND
2'DR,665
1y005,580
1,056,62N
Subtotal Other Funds
7,436,793
2,122,699
5,314,094i
TOTAL
109,033,339
10,250,567
101,482,025
Source: ADE, Inc., based on City of Newport Beach, Ftscalyazr 2002.03 BudgetLWad-
. [a] Includes public Works, General Services and Ut ides.
REVENUE AND COST CALCULATIONS BY LAND USE
Major Revenues
The major revenue categories of property tax, sales tax, transient occupancy tax
('TOT) and business license tax were allocated among the various land uses based on
actual 2001 data provided by the City Revenue Division. Each of these revenues and
how they were distributed across land uses is described below.
Property Tax
In general, the City receives about 17 cents of every property tax dollar paid by
property owners within the city's boundaries. The distribution of property tax
revenue across the various land uses was based on an analysis of assessed valuation
(AV) data obtained from the Orange County Assessor. This data set includes over
29,000 records with detailed parcel information such as owner name and address, site
address, valuation, and a set of land use codes used by the Orange County Assessor.
The analysis involved sorting the data by land use and, in some cases, site address in
is order to calculate the total assessed valuation by land use and then the local share of
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE?
the property tax revenue. e The results of this analysis are summarized in the table
below:
TABLE 4
Assessed Valuation And Property Tax Estimates By Land Use
Assessed
Property Tax
% of
Land Use Category
g ry
Valuation
Estimate
Total
(millions)
(millions)
Residential
15,740
29.31,
79.5%
Office
1,697
3.16
8.6%
Service Commercial
761
1.42
3.Ro I
Light Industrial
690
1.28
3.5%
Marine Industry
282
6.62
1.4%
Lodging
236
0.44
1.2%
Institutional
2066
0.38
1.06/0
Retail
192
0.36
1.0%
Total
19,803
36.88
100%
Source: ADE, Inc, based on data provided by the City of Newport Beach Revenue Division.
Significantly, residential properties — which account for about 70 percent of
developed land in Newport Beach - generate nearly eighty percent of the property
tax for the City. At under 10 percent of property tax revenue, office development is a
• distant second.
Sales Tax
The city receives one cent of every dollar spent within the city's boundaries on
taxable products. Taxable transactions occur not only at retail stores, but at a wide
variety of commercial locations throughout the city. For example, many taxable
business -to -business transactions, in which products are sold to end users rather than
to entities with resale permits, occur at office and light industrial locations. Examples
of non -retail businesses that generate sales tax revenue in Newport Beach include
parts manufacturers for marine vessels, food processing equipment distributors,
landscaping product wholesalers, medical equipment suppliers, and software
developers.
In addition, many service commercial businesses generate sales tax by carrying
products related to their service, such as beauty salons that sell shampoos and
cosmetics. This category also includes auto rental firms. Large hotels also have
G For properties within Newport Beach, the City receives approximately 17 percent of the one percent
• property tax levy.
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 8
• ancillary retail shops and food services that generate sales tax revenue. The marine
category includes a number of sales tax generating businesses that are both retail and
industrial in nature, including sales of new and used boats, marine fuels, and
manufacturing and sales of boat parts. Finally, sales tax revenue that is attributed to
the residential category is the result of taxable sales that occur at home -based
businesses in Newport Beach.'
The sales tax revenue that accrues to the city was distributed across the various land
uses through an analysis of 2001 sales tax data provided by the Revenue Division!
TABLE 5
Sales Tax Revenue By Land Use
Estimated Sales
'/o of
Land Use Category
Tax Revenue
Total
(1,000s)
Retail
13,922,674
70.2%
Office
1,938,437
9.8%
gervice Commercial
1,438,043
7:20/o
Marine Industry
_ _ 978 688
_ 4.9%
Light Industrial
892,789
4.5%
Lodging
594,391
3.0%
Residential
76,329
0.4% ;
Institutional,
•
0
0,0%
Total
19,841,351
100%
Source: ADE, Inc., based on data provided by the City of Newport Beach Revenue Division.
Table 5 displays the results of the analysis of this important revenue source. Over 70
percent of Newport Beach's sales tax revenue is derived from retail establishments,
and nearly 10 percent are from taxable transactions at office -based businesses. The
remaining 20 percent is divided into the other categories as shown.
7 Sales taxes are distributed to cities based on the location of the point of sale, not the residency of the
buyer. Thus, Newport Beach gets a portion of all the sales generated by Fashion Island and other
retail businesses in the City, whether or not the customers are Newport Beach residents. Conversely,
if residents shop outside the City, Newport Beach receives none of that sales tax. For this reason,
residential uses generate sales tax revenue indirectly, through resident spending at Newport Beach
businesses, as well as directly, through taxable sales at home -based businesses.
8 Annual audit report of Newport Beach sales tax prepared by NIBIA. All Newport Beach businesses
that generate sales tax are assigned a State Board of Equalization (BOE) business code, which was the
primary basis for the sales tax analysis. The data was cross-referenced with the other primary data
. sourced used in the fiscal analysis for consistency.
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 9
• It is important to note that the figures in Table 5 reflect the direct impact of each
type of business, and not the indirect impact of their employees. For example, in the
office category, the figures include only the actual sales taxes generated by office -
based businesses. In addition, office employees spend money at retail establishments,
which could be considered an indirect benefit of office development in Newport
Beach. However, the analysis treats this revenue as the direct impact of the retail
businesses, not the office businesses.
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
The TOT, also known as the Hotel Bed Tax, accrues to the City at the rate of 9
percent of room charges (with an additional 1 percent going to the Newport Beach
Conference and Visitors Bureau). The City separates TOT into two land use
categories: lodging and residential. Newport Beach has several major hotels such as
the Four Seasons and the Hyatt Newporter, as well as numerous smaller inns and
motels. Altogether, these lodging facilities provide a total of about 2,600 guestrooms.
In addition, there are approximately 625 seasonal vacation rental properties that also
generate TOT if they are rented for less than a month at a time.'
A detailed analysis of the Cit/ s 2001 TOT revenue is shown in Table 6 below. For
• the current 2002-03 budget year, the City's is expecting this revenue source to decline
somewhat and has projected revenues of about $7.45 million in TOT from hotels
and motels/inns, plus $840,000 from vacation rentals.
Business Licenses
Total annual business license revenue is approximately $2.4 million according to the
2002-03 budget. Nearly half the business license revenues are derived from
residential -based businesses and out of town businesses.10 Business license revenue
from home -based businesses is about $358,000 (15 percent of the total), while out-
of-town businesses generate about $685,000 (29 percent). Revenues from out-of-
town businesses and in -town residential businesses are of particular benefit to the
9 Importantly, "timeshare" units, many of which already exist or are planned for development in the
Newport Coast area, are not subject to TOT unless the timeshare operator rents the unit(s) on a
nightly basis.
io "Out of town" businesses are those that provide services in Newport Beach but have no permanent
is
physical or mailing address in the City
DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 10
• Citybecause such businesses do not carry the same service costs that are associated
with commercial locations within the City.
The total amount of business license tax revenue from all commercial land uses
within Newport Beach is approximately $1.7 million. These revenues were
distributed among the various land uses based on SIC code. The full results of the
analysis of the City's business license tax revenues are displayed in Table 7 below.
TABLE 6
2001 Transient Occupancy Tax By Lodging Type
Name
Address
Number of
Rooms
2001TOT
Amount
Inns and Motels
Newport Classic Inn
2300 Coast Hwy W
50
Newport Beach Inn/Best Western
6208 Coast Hwy W
46
BalboaTnn
105 3vIain St, Balboa CA
34
Newport Channel Inn
6030 W Coast Hwy_
30
Bay Shores Inn
1800 Balboa Blvd.
24
Little Inn by the Bay
2627 Newport Blvd
18
Portofino Beach hotel
2306 Ocean -Front -Way
15
Dotyman's Oceanfront Inn
2102 Ocean Front West
10'
Marriott Suites
500 Bayview Circle
250
Balboa Bay Club
1221 W Coast Hwy
123
• Subtotal,
600
$1r78b,42O1
Major Hotels
Marriott Hotel & Tennis
900 Newport Center Dr.
570
The Sutton Place
4500 Macarthur Blvd.
435
'Hi ate Newpoiter
'1107 ree Rd_
Jambo .
" 405 V
Radisson Hotel
4545 Macarthur Blvd.
335
Four Seasons
690 Newport Center
295
Subtotal
2,040
$ 6,588,259
Vacation Rentals
625 Units
$958,771
Grand Total
2,640rooms,
$9,333,450
625 vac. rentals
Source: ADE, Inc., based on data provided by the City of Newport Beach Revenue Division.
is
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 11
TABLE 7
Business License Revenue By Land Use
No. of
Business
Land Use Category
Active
License Tax
% of Total
Businesses
Revenue
Office
4,055
742,200
30.9%
Retail
1,145
240,299
10.0%
Service Commercial
951
210,064
8.7%,
Light Industrial
630
112,668
4.7%
Marine Industry
100
26,993
1.1%
Institutional
85
18,417
0.8%
Lodging
39
10,585
" 0:4%
Subtotal
7,045
1L718,733
56:6%
Residential -based
3,388
357,567
14.9%
Out-of-town
4,174
684,641
28.5%
Total
14,607
$2A M11ion
100%
Source: ADE, Inc., based on data provided by the City of Newport Beach
Revenue Division.
Other Revenues
All of the other recurring general fund revenues included in Table 13 were calculated
based on employment and population factors, with the following exceptions:
❑ Franchise fees were estimated on a per capita basis (not including visitors,
however), with the additional assumption that 60 percent of these revenues are
generated by business uses and the remainder by residents." This split reflects
the typical distribution of utility usage for a city like Newport Beach.
❑ Revenues categorized under "Use of Money or Property" in both the General
Fund and the Tidelands Fund were categorized based on the nature of the
activity associated with the revenue. A table summarizing each of these revenues
is provided in Appendix B. City parking lot revenues were allocated to both
public and commercial land uses based on the business types located in the
ll Franchise fees are paid to the city by private companies that have contracts with the City to provide
services such as gas, electricity, cable TV and solid waste disposal. The company that provides towing
services for the Police Department also pays a franchise fee; however, these fees are included in the
Lia-ims and Fermis category. The 60/40 split between non-residential and residential uses is based on
analysis of franchise revenues in other California communities in lieu of specific data pertaining to
• Newport Beach.
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS
12
• vicinity of each lot, as well as their proximity to visitor -serving public areas such
as the beaches.
❑ The Marine category also included an estimate of property tax revenue derived
from boats that are moored in Newport Beach marinas. According to data
provided by the Revenue Division, there are 3,535 boats from which the City
currently receives unsecured property tax revenue. The total assessed valuation
of these vessels is approximately $133 million.
❑ Interest income was estimated at a rate of 1.6% of all other revenues, based on
the ratio of total interest income to all other revenues for the current budget
year.
Major Cost Categories
In general, costs were calculated on a per capita basis as described in the next
section, with the following exceptions or refinements:
General Government
• The General Government category, with a total budget amount of approximately
$9.4 million, was allocated among the various land uses in proportion to each land
use's share of all other expenditures. The underlying assumption of this approach is
that general government services are essentially administrative overhead and a direct
function of the costs of services provided by the City's various departments.
Fire and Lifeguards
Eighty percent of Fire Department costs (less the $2.7 million cost for lifeguards,
which was wholly ascribed to public uses) were distributed on a per -capita basis; the
remaining 20 percent of fire costs were allocated among the various land uses in
proportion to their assessed valuation. This approach is based on information
provided by the NBFD that indicates that, aside from the lifeguarding function, 80
percent of their activity is associated with responding to EMS calls and 20 percent is
'for fire fighting and prevention.
Police
The Police Department is organized into four divisions, in addition to the office of
the Chief of Police: Traffic, Patrol, Detective and Support Services (Table 8). In
order to estimate the distribution of police activities by land use category, we
• reviewed police records on the types of services provided both citywide and by
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS
PAGE 13
• reporting district. Most of the Police Department reporting districts contain a mix of
land uses. Therefore, in order to isolate the services provided to specific types of
development, it was necessary to use a modified per -capita approach. Table 9
summarizes this analysis.
TABLE 8
Police Department Budget
2003.2003
Division Budget
Police Chief $1,387,010
Traffic Division $3,769,036
Patrol Division $12,106,233
Detective Division $5,295,066
Support Services $7,582,531
Total $30,139,876
Source: ADE, Inc., based on City of Newport Beach, Rndyav 2002.03 BudgzDetad
In the left hand column of Table 9, the resident population, the average visitor
population, and the number of employees by business type are presented. The
• employment figures are further allocated to visitor -serving and non -visitor serving
business activity. The total average "daytime population" in Newport Beach is
151,732, including all of these resident, visitor and worker groups.12 Of the total
daytime population, residents comprise about 50 percent, visitors (on average) are 13
percent, workers serving visitors are four percent and the remaining workers are 33
percent.
An important consideration in Newport Beach is the extent to which police services
are related to visitor activity and visitor -serving businesses. As shown in Table 9,
visitors represent 13 percent of the daytime population on an average basis,.but
visitorship peaks heavily in the summer months. The change in demand for police
services during the summer months may be expected to indicate the effect of visitors
on police services overall. Table 10 shows five main types of police activity. calls for
service, citations, crimes, arrests, and traffic accidents. The table shows the monthly
average for each type of activity for the September to May (non peak) period and the
June to August (peak) period. In every case, there is a measurable peak during the
summer months. For example, calls for service are 28 percent higher during the
12 In actuality, some Newport Beach residents commute out of the city to work, but for the purposes
• of standard fiscal impact methodology, the term "daytime' population includes all residents.
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 14
• summer months while other citations are more than doubled. This peak effect, when
measured against the annual service load, represents about 7 percent of total police
activity (and more than 30% of non -vehicle code citations)."
TABLE 9
Police Department Cost Analysis
Per Capita Per Cap Traffic Patrol Detective
Land Use Factors Share Division Division Division Other Total Percent
Residential Pop.
75,662
48.4%
$1,753,582
$5,939,544
$2,445,043
$4,295,384$14,433,553
47.9%
Visitors
19,671
12.6%
216,564
995,136
580,341
759,260
2,551,301
8.5%
Employees
Visitor Serving
5,456
3.5%
161,216
823,471
480,205
620,652
2,085,545
6.9%
Retail
3,317
2.1%
98,013
719,180
419,410
523,930
1,760,533
5.8%
Lodging
2,139
1.4%
63,203
104,29i
60,M'
96,723
325,012
1:10%,,
Non -Visitor Serving
55,.423
35.5%
11637,630
4,34&096 ,
1,7891484
3,294,235
11,069,445
_ 36.7%
Office
30,802
19.7%
910,134
1,631,296
671,252
1,361,164
4,573,846
15.2%
Retail
7,740
5.0%
228,698
1,822,770
750,35_2
1,187,088
3,988,908
13.2%
Industrial
11,332
7.3%
334,837
600,151
246,953
500,770
1,682,710
5.60/4
Service Commercial
3,039
1.9%
891796
160t948
661227
1542296
451,267
1.5
Marine
1,152
0.7%
34,039
61,011
25,105
50,908
171,063
0.6%
Institutional
1,358
0.9%
40,126
71,921
29,594
60,011
201,652
0.7%
Total Employment
60,879
39.0%
1,798,846
5,171,567
2,269,689
3,914,887
13,154,990
0
Total
156,212
100.0%
$3,769,036
$12,106,233
85,295,066
$8,969,541$30,j39,879
100.00/q
• Total Visitor -Serving
25,127
16.1%
$377,780
$1,818,607
$1,060,546
$1,379,912
$4,636,846
15.4%
Residential
46.5%
49.1%
46.2%
47.9%
47.9%
Visitor -Serving
10.0%
15.0%
'20.0%
15.4%
15.4%
Business (non-Vis)
43.5%
35.9%
33.8%
36.7%
36.7%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Source: Applied Development Economics,
Inc
Although not nearly in similar numbers, many visitors do come to Newport Beach
during off-peak seasons. Business travelers alone represent 21 percent of total
visitors to the city. Assuming their trips are more evenly distributed throughout the
year, it is likely that visitors represent at least 6-8 percent of the average daytime
population during non -peak months. Thus, the impact of visitors appears to
represent about 13-15 percent of total police services." This is about the same as the
13 This calculation measures the additional incremental service load during the three summer months
against what the service load would be for 12 months if there were no peak
14 With the exception of lifeguards, neither the Police Department nor the Fire Department add staff
. during summer months to handle peak service demands. Existing staff are re -distributed to activities
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 15
• per capita share that visitors, plus visitor -serving employment, represent of the
daytime population.
TABLE 10
Analysis Of Summer Peak Demand For Police Services
Monthly Averages
Calls for
Veh. Code
Other
Total
Part 1 and Part
Total
Time Period
Service
Citations
Citations
Citations
2 Crimes la]
Arrests
Accidents
Sep -May
4,253
1,595
278
5,612
538
306
117
Jun -Aug
5,433
1,854
674
7,208
739
431
150
Peak Effect
27.8%
16.3%
142.3%
28.4%
37.4%
40.7%
28.5%
Peak as Percent of Annual
6.9%
4.1%
31.4%
7.1%
9.3%
10.4%
7.2%
Source: ADE, Inc., based on data provided by Newport Beach Police Department
[a] As defined by the FBI, Part 1 crimes are the 8 most serious crimes (homicide, forcible rape, robbery,
aggravated assault, burglary, larcenTtheft, auto theft, and arson). Part 2 crimes are all other lesser offenses such
as forgery, &mud, embezzlement, vandalism, prostitution, etc
The following sections address the cost estimates for each division.
Traffic Division: The Traffic Division includes the parking enforcement, animal
control, accident investigations and other moving vehicle violations. (The Patrol
• Division also issues vehicle code citations and responds to traffic related incidents).
Based on the distribution of labor costs for parking enforcement, this function is
estimated to require 21 percent of the Traffic Division budget. Parking enforcement
records indicate that about 53 percent of this activity occurs in residential
neighborhoods and 47 percent in commercial areas, and the parking enforcement
costs have been attributed in this analysis accordingly. (parking meter revenue is
attributed solely to business and public uses since few meters exist in residential
neighborhoods). All animal control costs are attributed to residential land uses, about
11 percent of the Division budget.
The remaining budget for the Traffic Division is distributed on the basis of
estimated traffic generation in the City. Based on the land use mix in the City and the
trip generation rates used in the General Plan Update traffic model, it is estimated
that approximately 36 percent of all vehicle trips in the City are generated by
that require more attention during the summer. Therefore, the annual averages are suitable indicators
• of cost impacts on these departments.
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 16
• residential uses, and 64 percent by business and public land uses.15 This is clearly an
approximate split. There is some overlap between trips from residents to retail stores
and employment centers and these figures do not account for through -traffic that is
unrelated to land use in Newport Beach. However, the 36/64 percent split provides
a reasonable basis for allocating the $2.56 million in non -parking and animal control
enforcement costs for the Traffic Division. In the calculations, visitors were limited
to 10 percent of total cost for this division, to reflect the lower effect on vehicle
citations, as shown in Table 10.
Patrol Division: This is the largest division and is responsible for maintaining beat
patrols as well as responding to traffic incidents, enforcing traffic laws and
responding to most other incidents or calls for service. The costs for this division
have generally been allocated on a straight per capita basis, with one exception. Retail
businesses on average tend to generate more police activity than do other kinds of
businesses. Certain kinds of retail, such as restaurants and bars, generate a
disproportionate amount of alcohol -related incidents. Retail shopping centers create
more opportunity for burglary and theft. The effect of this activity can be seen in
comparing the crime statistics for the Newport Center area and the Airport area.
Both areas have approximately the same total employment, but the Newport Center
• area has three times as many retail employees and a corresponding 20 percent
reduction in other kinds of jobs. Yet the Newport Center area registers twice as
many crimes and three times as many arrests as does the Airport Area. On a per -
employee basis, the disparity between retail and other kinds of business activity is
even greater. Therefore, in the analysis in Table 9, retail businesses are given a
weighting of three times the per capita cost compared to other businesses.
Overall, 49 percent of the cost of the division activities is distributed to residences,
15 percent to visitor -serving uses and 36 percent to other business and public uses.
Looking at the land area distribution in the City, 52 percent of the area is devoted to
residential uses, with 22 percent in business uses and 26 percent in open space. The
per capita allocation fairly well represents the geographic coverage of the patrol
function of this division.
Detective Division: This division is primarily responsible for investigating non -
traffic related crimes that occur in the City and also performs a number of crime
is Trip generation rates were provided by Urban Crossroads, Inc., per a City of Newport Beach study.
• ADE prepared the estimates of the distribution of total trips.
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE
• prevention and proactive criminal pursuit activities. In terms of the activities shown
in Table 10, this division is most involved with investigation of the Part 1 and Part 2
crimes, as well as following up on arrests. Both of these activities show substantial
increases during the summer peak months. Based on the peak effect figures in Table
10 and the additional visitor activity during non -peak months, 20 percent of the costs
for this division have been allocated to visitor -serving uses, 46 percent to residences
and 34 percent to other businesses. As with the Patrol Division costs, retail
businesses are assigned a weighting of three compared to other businesses in the per
capita cost calculations.
Support Activities: The office of the Police Chief includes a number of functions
such as community relations, legal affairs and crime prevention. The Support
Services Division includes communications, records, fleet maintenance, personnel
and a variety of other functions. All of these services and activities represent about
30 percent of the total Police Department budget, or 42.4 percent above the budgets
of the other three divisions. The allocation of costs for this division has been treated
as an overhead function based on the distribution of costs for the other divisions.
Summary. As shown in Table 9, the total police cost allocation by land use works
• out to about 47 percent for residential, nearly 25 percent for visitor serving uses and
less than one-third for other business uses.
Capital Improvement Program
In addition to providing services, the City also incurs annual `capital outlay' costs
associated with the provision of public improvements, on -going projects, and
maintenance programs. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) serves as a plan for
meeting the City's long-term capital needs as well as ongoing maintenance activities.
Projects in the CIP include the construction, repair, and maintenance of arterial
highways and local streets; storm drains; bay and beach improvements; park and
facility improvements; water and wastewater system improvements; and planning
programs. The FY 2002-03 CIP, including rebudgets of revenue from prior years,
totals $34.5 million and consists of over 150 projects.16 Funding for these projects
comes from a variety of sources, including the General Fund, enterprise funds, grant
programs such as CDBG, State subventions, etc.
• 16 City of Newport Beach Capital Improvement Program, pg. I.17.
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 18
As shown in Table 11 below, the four funds that are included in the fiscal analysis
contribute a total of approximately $13 million to the 2002-03 CIF. However, since
the fiscal analysis is intended to match revenues from the current fiscal year with
current year's costs (and then distribute these costs and revenues by land use), funds
that were rebudgeted from 2001-02 have been subtracted from the CIP
appropriations as shown, resulting in approximately $7.9 million in net CIP
expenditures for the current fiscal year.
TABLE 11
2002.03 CIP Expenditures Included In Fiscal Analysis
Total CIP
Rebudget
Net
Appropriation
Amount
Appropriation
General Fund - Streets
2,366,000
1,061,000
1,305,000
General Fund - Other
4,766,265
1,873,115
2,893,150
Tidelands Fund
1,466,442
400,785
1,065,657
Gas Tax Fund
2,274,721
716,334
1,558,387
Measure M Fund
2,061,605
1,005,580
1,056,025
Total
12,935,033
5,056,814
7,878,219
Source: ADE, Inc., based on City of Newport Beach, FL-d Ywr 2002.03 Capital hnpownanAugnVM
These CIP expenditures that relate directly to traffic/circulation improvements —
. including the street projects under the general fund and all of the Gas Tax and
Measure M projects - were distributed across the various land uses on the basis of
trip generation data cited in the discussion above regarding police costs for the
Traffic Division. For the Tidelands Fund, those CIP expenditures that related
directly to beach and other public uses (e.g. lifeguard towers replacement or pier
repair) were attributed to the `public' category, while costs relating directly to boating
activity (e.g. Balboa Yacht Basin Facilities) were attributed to the `Marine' category.
The remaining Tidelands Fund CIP expenditures, as well as CIF spending under the
General Fund that does not relate to traffic/circulation, was distributed across land
uses on a per capita basis, as described in the discussion below.
Per Capita Costs And Revenues
In cases where specific information about the land use origin of certain revenues or
costs could not be determined, we developed unit cost and revenue factors to apply
to each land use. Unless otherwise indicated, the per capita factors shown in Table
12 are based on the three population segments which generate revenues (via
spending on goods and services, payment of fees and fines, etc.) while
simultaneously exerting demand for City services: residents, employees, and visitors.
As described above in the police cost analysis, these groups comprise a total
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 19
•
0
constituency of approximately 156,000 persons. This estimate is based on the current
population of approximately 76,000, plus a citywide employment estimate of 60,879,
and an average of 19,671 daily visitors to Newport Beach.17
TABLE 12
Unit Costs And Revenues
UNIT REVENUES Per Capita UNIT COSTS Per Capita
,c% rGl
Motor Vehicle -in -Lieu
$22.47 Public Works $59.98
Other Intergovernmental
$10.01 Community Development $14.42
Charges for Service
$54.21 Community Services* $109.61
Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures
$20.01
Licenses and Permits
$2.39
Other Revenue
$3.56
Gas Tax Fund*
$19.26
Measure M Fund*
$15.86
Source: ADE, Inc
*Based on residential population only.
17 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the City of Newport Beach had a population of 70,032 in
2000. The Resource Allocation Plan indicates a January 1, 2002 population of 75,662, which includes
newly annexed Newport Coast and is the figure used in this analysis. The employment figures come
from the California Employment Development Department (EDD), adjusted to include an estimate
of self-employment (excluding home -based businesses) . The average daily visitors is based on
estimates obtained from a 2001 study prepared for the Newport Beach Conference and Visitors
Bureau, which indicates that there are 7.2 million visitors to Newport Beach annually.
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS
PAGE
• ANALYSIS OF FISCAL IMPACTS BY LAND USE TYPE
CITYWIDE SUMMARY
Based on the current land use mix in the city of Newport Beach as described above,
Table 13 shows the full results of the fiscal impact analysis, which are summarized
below. This analysis represents the average, existing cost of services for existing land
uses. The incremental cost to serve new development in Newport Beach may be
different.
Revenues
❑ Residential land uses generate about 80 percent of property tax revenues.
❑ Seventy percent of sales taxes, the second largest city revenue, are generated by
retail uses. Table 14 provides a detailed summary of the fiscal impacts of the
retail category. Eating and drinking places (i.e. restaurants) generate the most
sales tax revenue (over $3 million per year) among the various retail categories
• shown in Table 14. However, due primarily to the high employment associated
with restaurants and the number of police incidents associated with some of
these establishments, the net fiscal impact of eating and drinking places is slightly
negative. Besides restaurants, the top retail categories in terms of the sales tax
revenue produced are automobile dealerships, grocery stores, and department
stores. Together, these three categories account for almost half of all the sales
taxes, and all three also result in a significant fiscal benefit to the City"
❑ The remaining 30 percent of the CiVs sales tax revenues are generated by
taxable transactions at Newport Beach businesses as follows: office (10% of sales
tax revenues); service commercial (70/o); boat and marine equipment sales (50/6);
light industrial (40/6); hotels (30/o); and home -based businesses (less than 10/o)
(Figure 1).
❑ The transient occupancy tax equals about eight percent of revenues in the
analysis and is primarily generated by lodging facilities in Newport Beach (i.e.
to Approximately 65% of the net revenues from the retail land use category is derived from auto
dealerships, grocery stores, and department stores (Table 14).
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS
PAGE 2•
•
n
hotels and motels). However, residential properties which are leased as vacation
rentals (of less than 31 days) also generate significant TOT revenue (nearly $1
million annually).
❑ Residential uses generate 40 percent of franchise fees and 100 percent of the
motor vehicle in lieu subvention from the state.
❑ Other revenues are generated approximately in proportion to the population and
employment supported by each land use.
❑ Overall, residential land uses create about 44 percent of the revenues. Retail uses
generate 18 percent followed by office uses at 9.5 percent and lodging at 8.7
percent (Figure 2).
FIGURE I
Sales Tax Revenue by Land Use Type
Hote6
tlYMlridutrk� a Nomo-buW Dulnen
Dart i Marine Equlpmem
M
Swke CommcmW
Rate"
]D%
(FT=14)
FIGURE 2
Grass Revenues by Land Use
Home•beud BuYncu
<S%
NduaHY
Scalar CemmrYY +°"'�"�
Marine
5% RerldrntlY
Costs
❑ Residential uses require about 48 percent of both police and fire department
services, which constitute the largest expenditures for the City (followed closely
by street and facility maintenance performed by the public works department).
❑ Retail businesses require about one -fifth of total police services, while public
land uses, mainly the beaches serving visitors, require about 8 percent. Lodging
facilities are estimated to require just one percent of total police services.
❑ The beaches and other visitor -serving public land uses require about 21 percent
of fire department costs, primarily because of the City's lifeguard services.
Net Impact
❑ In total, residential uses require about 51 percent of municipal services, while
generating slightly less than half the revenue needed to operate city government.
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 22
This results in an annual net cost for residential uses of about $6.7 million per
year for Newport Beach. This is normal for most cities in California, and in fact
is probably much worse in many other communities that do not enjoy the higher
housing values found in Newport Beach.
❑ The lodging sector generates the largest net revenue, at $7.8 million, followed by
the retail sector at about $7.1 million.
❑ The marine industry, including boat sales and manufacturing, generates about
$2.7 million in net revenue, followed by service commercial uses at $1.8 million.
❑ Institutional uses essentially break even, contributing very modest net revenues.
❑ Industrial and office uses currently generate a negative impact ($1.5 million and
-$5.1 million, respectively) due to their high employment, which adds to
municipal costs. However, these uses also create jobs and income that contribute
significantly to the city's economic base, as discussed in more detail below.
❑ Public land uses also reflect a negative impact due to the lack of direct revenues.
However, this should be viewed in the context of the overall visitor impact as
discussed below and summarized in Table 15.
• As mentioned at the outset, the key point in this analysis is to identify how the mix
of land uses in the City provides a balance of revenues to fund services for residents
and businesses alike. Although the analysis indicates that residential, office, and
industrial uses create a negative fiscal impact for the City, this one-dimensional view
does not tell the whole story. Land uses within the City are linked economically and
do not function in isolation of each other. In a broad sense, the city economy is
driven by land uses that draw dollars into the community by selling goods and
services to the outside world (see Figure 3). This includes hospitality and retail
businesses that serve tourists, but office and industrial businesses generate an even
larger share of the City's "economic base." These businesses' create jobs and incomes
for people living in Newport Beach who in turn buy retail goods locally. As Figure 3
illustrates, while retail and visitor -serving businesses generate net tax revenue to help
provide services to other land uses, particularly residential, those land uses ultimately
generate the tax dollars by patronizing Newport Beach businesses. The primary goal,
again, is to maintain a well-balanced land use mix that can support the level of
services desired by residents and businesses alike. The following discussion focuses
on certain prominent economic sectors in Newport Beach.
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 23
Property Tax
Sales Tax
Transient Occupancy Tax
Franchise Fees
Business Licenses
Motor Vehicle -in -Lieu
Other Intergovernmental
Charges for Senn
• Fines, Penalties, and
Forfeitures
Licenses and Permits
Use of Property
Other Reyenue�
Interest Income
SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND
TIDELANDS FUND
iLicenses,Perni(s, and -Fees
Charges for Service
Use of Money and Property
STATEGASTAXFUND
MEASURE9IUND
•
TOTAL REVENUE
TABLE 13
Summary Of Fiscal Analysis
Total Residential Office Retail Industrial
36,879,169
29,311,725 3,160,525
357,210
1,284,735
439,521
524,860
1,416,413
384,180
0
19,841,351
76,329
1,938,437 13,922,674
$92,789
594,391
978,688
--
1,438,043
-- -
0
_ 0
8,298,C00
8'40,000
0
- 0
0 7,458,000
0
0-
0
0
d
2,347„625
963,878
723z649
239,587
266229
0
_ 27,065 ._
_ _ 95,313
_ _ 311904
2,377,807
357,507
742,200
240,299
112,668
10,585
26,993
210,064
18,417
12,807
1,700,000
1,570;193
1,700,000
763,778
0
367,762
0
f01,895
0
113,725
0
21,371
0
113f0
0
40;536
0
13,569
0
196,545
8,501,340
4,135,248
1,666,257
551,678
613,024
1151713
.6L3319
, . 219,470 ,
71463
1,064,136
3,137,719
1,526,259
615,002
203,616
226,258
42,708
23,001
81,003
27,114
392,757
375,151
192,482
73,531
24,345
27,052
5,106
2,750
9,685
3,242
46,959
6284,188•
1,027,671
407,215
675,B&
154,480
53,747
_
991,6S6
_
51,-S53',
91;268
1,832;54i
732r651
271,254
109,101
36188
40T212
7,590
179,088
_ , , 14,196
4;819
69;800
1,420,769
646,827
153,141
257,015
58,634
137,501
44,436
56,207
10,184
56,824
92,466,063
41,802,359
9,897,050
16,610,063
3,789,305
8,886,234 2,871,767
3,632,484
658,160
3,672,373
1,153,o
0
0
51066
d
- - - -- 0
S33,n00
'
6
0
33,500
0
0
0
0
0
33,500
0
0
_ 0
_
5,359,492
2,285,629
6
166,514
6
_
0
997,896
61,800
110,000
1,797,754
1,472,496
1,472,496
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_
1,200,000
4,6 6
117,236
S42'040
53,996
35;949
54191
__
86,972
0
GG
9,218,488
3,762,640
117,236
1,469,554
53,996
35,949 1,723,587
148,772
110,000
1,797,754
01.684.551
45,565,00010,014,287
18,078,617
32843,301
8,922,183 4,595,353
3,781,257
768,160
5,470,127
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 24
TABLE 13 (continued)
Summary Of Fiscal Analysis
Service
EXPENDITURES
Total
Residential
Office
Retail
Industrial
Lodging
Marine
Commercial
Institutional
Public
GENERALFUND
General Government
9,375,524
4,992,066
1,398,235
935,033
515,871
100,576
57,172
179,015
64,582
1,132,973
30,139,845
14,433,553
4,573,846
5,749,441
1,682,710
171,063
451,267
201,652 _
2,551,301
_Police
Fire
21;582,7bb
1'0,S'1Y,64T8
3297,912
1,019,002
1=,195
__325,012
252,287
_
166,345
_ _
540 6
'171,289
4i591,952
Public Works
20,389,453
9,876,089
42012,349
1,328,418
1,476,136
278,632
156,063
528,475
176,897
2,562,396'
Community Development
2,252,731
1,091,161
443,305
146,770
163,691
30,785
16,580
58,30
19,544
283,107
0Community Services
CIP- Streets
8,293,639
1560 006
8,293,639
475, 220
0
224,460
0
506,340
0
13,050
0
27,405
0
b,525
_ 0
_ 32,625
0
' 6,525
0
13,050,
Other ClP projects
2i893;141
1,401,358
569,328
188,495
209,455
39,536
211293
74,987
25,101
363,589
SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND
96,232,099
50,880,533
14,519,435
9,873,40
5,286,506
1,054,233
589,040
1,864,894
665,590
11,498,367
TIDELANDS FUND
HarborResourcesNvisfon
1,282,198
0
0
0
0
_
0
1,2'82,138
0
-
6
-
0
Oil and Gas
351,887
0
0
0
0
0
0
'46,06'
0
0
351,88),
_
CIP
1,065,05
404,495
152,146
50,373
55,04
f0,566
20,639
6,708
324,664
STATE GAS TAX FUND
1,558,388
567,253
268,043
6D4,654
15,584
32,726
7,792
38,960
7,792
15,584
MEASURE FUND
SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS
1,056,024
5,314092
384,393
1,356,14E
181,636
6601,825
409,737
1,dA,7�i4
10,560
82118' ,
_ 22,177
65,469
5,280
1,33 -900
26,401
iW(
5,280
1`9,780
10,560
702,695
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
101,546:191
52,236,67415,121,260
10,938,263
5,368,626
1,119,701
1,924,940
1,950,294
685,370
12,201,063
NET(COST)IREVENUE
138360
(6671675)
(5106973)
7140354
(1525325)
7,802,482
2,670,413
1,830,963
82,790
(6,730,936)
•
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS
PAGE25
•
•
TABLE 14
Retail Employment And Fiscal Impacts
NAICS
Description
No. of
Brunk;
Percent
Sales Tax
Revenue
Percent
Other
Revenue
Costs
Net
Revenue
Percent
4411
Automobile Dealers
613
5.5%
2,345,749
16.8%
219,505
619,895
1,945,359
29.0%
4412
Other Motor Vehicle Dealers
207
1.8%
616,017
4.4%
74,170
209,461
480,726
7.2%
f 442
Furniture an&Home Furnlshings Stores
235
2.1%
520,694
3.7,0/o
84,258
_ _ 237,950
367,00Z
5.5%
4431
Electronics and Appliance Stores
148
1.39/.
174,080
1.3%
53,159
150,123
77,116
1.2%
4441
Building Material and Supplies Dealers
67
0.6%
59,919
0.4%
23,867
67,402
16,385
0.2%
4' 4442
Lawn& Garden Equipment and Supplies, Stores
25
0.2%
164,727
1,;%
9,041
25,531,
148,Z37
2.2%
4451
Grocery Stores
786
7.1%
�1,828;051
13,1°k
281,343
794,528
1,314,86fi
19i6N°
_ _
99
0.9%
69,680
0.5%
35,439
100,082
5,037
0.1%
4452 Specialty Food Stores
4453
Beer, Wine, and Liquor Stores
24
0.20/0
68,566
O.S%
8,679
24,510
52,735
0.8%
V 4461 R
Health and Personal'Care Stores
419
3.8%
314,269
2.3%
150,074
423,816
40,526
061
N 4471
Gasoline Stations
115
1.0%
500�0,0114
3.6%,
g1,225
^ 116,422
924;614
6.3%
574
µ 5.2/.
-700,350
5.0%
205,402
580,067
325,685
4.9%
4481 Clothing Stores
4482
Shoe Stores
21
0.2%
58,350
0.4%
7,594
21,446
44,498
0.7%
4463
Jewelry,'Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
130
1.2%
184,697
1.3%
46;649
�131,741
99,606
1.5%
L_ 4511
Sporting Goods, Hobby, and Musical Instrument Stores
89
0.8%
186,6� 18
1.3%
31,823
89,869
128,571
1.0%
4512
Book, Periodical, and Music Stores
88
0.8%
112,427
0.8%
31,461
88,848
55,040
0.8%
4521
Department Stores and Other General Merchandise
1,295
11.7%
1,989,761
14.3%
463,601
1,309,235
1,144,126
17.1%
4531
Florists
59
0.5%
40,504
0.3%
20,974
59,232
2;246
0.0%
f' 4532
Offlce Supplies, Stationary; and Gift Stores
144,
_ 1.9%
I 104;900
0:8%
$11712
146,031
10,1 4
p.2°LL°
4533
Used Merchandise Stores
24
0.2%
26,120
0.2%
8,679
24,510
10,289
0.2 0
4539
Other Miscellaneous Retailers
194
1.0%
655,425
4.6%
69,412
196,023
'
528,814
8.0%
�'-8,1%d
722 a
Eadng and Drinking Places _
5,77
552.2°/a52.2°/a
3,226,259'
23.2%
2;067,038
58,37,432
-544,335
Total
11,057
100.0%
13,922,674100.00/a
3,959,774
11182625
6,699,823
100.0%
Source: California Economic Development Department, California Board of Equalization, and Applied Development Economics
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS
PAGE 26
•
•
Figure 3
Economic and Fiscal Relationships in Newport Beach
u �Worker_.'earnings
=from biresses
µ6ii6RIENewpotEBeach==
Purchase Newport Beach
products and services
♦ Net Tax Dollars
for5ervices
lobs& Net Tax Dallas
M-....._. Income for Services
Regional
$ Shopping
trseach
I Households
Income !—
local
Purchases
lobs& Net Tax Dalian
Income for Services
Low[ _1
Purchases
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS
Visitor
Spending
Jobs &
Income
Net Tax Dollars
for Services
r Business to Business
Transactions
and Visitor Spending
i
h I
PAGE 27
J
•
TABLE 15
Fiscal Impact Of Visitors In Newport Beach
REVENUES Total Residential Office Retail Industrial Lodging Marine Commercial Institutional Public
rcucom mimn
Property Tax
1,273,612
Sales Tax
4,771,193
Transient Occupancy,Tax
80-9,000
Franchise Fees
79,757
Business Licenses
99,078
Motor Vehicle•in•Lieu
0
'Other Intorgovemmental
248,486
Chargesforgervlce
1,37 1@
Fines, Penalties, and
509,029
Forfeitures
Licenses and Permits
59,368
UseofProperty
2,490,233
OlherRaton ua
90,467
Interest Income
303,149
SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND
19,591,535
TIDELANDS FUND
Licenses, Permits, and Fees
520;000
,Charges for Service
33,500
l ten M Mnnov and PrnnaMv
1,188,814
TOTAL REVENUE
726,928
0
107,163
0 439,521
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,176,802
0 594,391
0
0
0
0
_
840,000
6
0
0 7,458,000
6_
0
6
0
7,881
0
71',876
0 0
_ 0
_ 01
0
0
0
0
72,090
0 10,595
0
0
6
6,403
0
0
0
0 0_
0
0
0
0
0
6
36,'0
0 21,372
-6
0
0
196,545
33810
0
165,503
115i713
_ _0
_ _0 _
0
12064,1313
12,479
6
61,085
_ __0'
0 42,708
0
0
0
392,757
0
0
7,303
0 5,106
0
0_
0
46,959
6
0
$67,556
0 53;747
120,036
_
5f,353
6
1,597,54'1
2�218
0
10,856
0 7,,590
0
0
0
69,803
25,513
0
84,411
0 137,501
1,80
il&
0
53,030
1,648,829
0
5,455,215
0 8,886,234
121,923
52,160
0
3,427,175
0
6
520,006
0 ' 0'
jd
6
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
33,500
_ 0
0
0
0
0
98,900
0 0
37,410
61,806
0
990,704
12,015
0
0
0 0
0
6
0
0
.0
0
252;612
0
0
0
0'
_ 0
tents
0
_
871.512
_ _ _35;949
6 35.949
_
70.910
_ _
61,80 0
0
99004
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS
PAGE 28
•
TABLE 15 (continued)
Fiscal Impact Of Visitors In Newport Beach
EXPENDITURES
Total
Residential
Office
Retail
Industrial Lodging
Marine
Commercial
Institutional
Public
GENERALFUND
General Government
1,584,400
66,292
6
284;559
0'
T00;576i
6
0
0'
0
._ _
0'
6
1,f32,973
2i551,301�
Police
4,925,517
288,671
0
1,760,533
_ 0
325,0012
_ _ _
_ _
Fire
5,286,946
137,006
0
305,701
0
252,287
0
0
0
4,591,952
Public Works
3,320,967
81,414
0
398,525
0
278,632
0
0
0
2,562,396
Community Development
366,917
8,995
0
44§31
0
3085
0
0
6
283,f07
community Services
68,369'
68,369
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
CIP • Streets
204,129
11,772
6
151,062'
6
27,405
0
0
0
13,050
Other CIP Projects
SUBTOTAL GEAERAAL FUND
15,553,117
11,552
650;747
0
0
56,548
2,793,3%(9
0
0
39,536
987,291
_ _0
�0
_ 0
0,
_ 0
0
363,589
31,121,729
TIDELANDS'FUND
HarhorResourcesDivision
0
0
0
0
6
6
_
0
0
_
0
0
Oil and Gas
351,887
0
0
0
0
- f5,ff2
_ 0
0
0
f0,5r
0
0
_ 0
0
0
0
351,887
324,664
CIF
353;429
3;087
STATE GAS' FUND
243,763
14,0V
0
181,396
0
32�726
0
0
'0
15,584
MEASURE M FUND
165,184
9,526
0
M,921
6
22,177
0
0
0
16,566
enarnrnr nruracuerne
1114.263
26.670
0
319.429
0
65,469
0
0
0
702,695
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 29
• HOSPITALITY AND VISITOR SECTOR
According to a recent report presented by the Newport Beach Conference and
Visitors Bureau, the city attracts about 7.18 million visitors per year, of which 81
percent are here on leisure trips.19 Of this number, 86 percent are day visitors, 7
percent stay in local hotels and the balance stay in private homes. About 64% of the
visitors reported visiting the beaches during their stay. This would amount to about
4.6 million visitors, or an annual average of 12,500 per day. During the peak summer
season, this average figure climbs to 100,000. Non -beach goers likely include many
business travelers and other Southern California residents coming to Newport Beach
to shop.
From an economic standpoint, visitors bring substantial income to Newport Beach.
Visitors spend an estimated $1 billion in the city each year, of which about $449
million are retail purchases and $83 million are lodging expenses. These two
categories of spending alone generated about $4.8 million in sales taxes and $8.3
million in Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) for the City budget in 2001. Visitors
generate other revenues as well, including indirect business license and property
taxes, revenues from use of public property, and others. Table 15 summarizes the
comprehensive revenues and cost impact on local government by visitors to
• Newport Beach. Overall visitors generate about $21.6 million per year against $16.7
million in service costs. The service costs include $4.9 million in police services, $2.7
million for beach lifeguards included in the fire department budget, as well as other
emergency medical calls made by the fire department. The net positive fiscal impact
of visitor business activity in Newport Beach, then is about $4.9 million per year, not
counting the net fiscal benefit of the marine industry, discussed below. These are
revenues that contribute toward City services provided to residents and businesses in
the community.
19 CIC Research, Inc. Pmfrleof Kuiton to Neupmt &dor FY2001. November 16, 2001. For purposes of
the study, visitors were defined as persons who lived outside of Newport Beach and were not in the
City for purposes of daily employment. About 18 percent of the survey respondents live in Orange or
Los Angeles counties. An additional 15 percent live in Riverside or San Bernardino counties. Overall,
about 8 percent listed shopping as the main purpose of their trip to Newport Beach. Although this is
not broken down by place of origin, it is likely that many of the visitors from elsewhere in Southern
California come to Newport Beach solely for shopping and would not be considered "tourists" in the
• commonly understood meaning of that term.
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE
• MARINE INDUSTRY
As noted above, marine industries in Newport Beach, which include marina slip
rentals, boat sales, chartered vessels for events and sport fishing, boat repair, and
boat maintenance and manufacturing, account for over 1,000 jobs and generate
nearly $2.7 million in net revenues This positive fiscal result is largely due to property
tax derived from boats moored in Newport Beach matins, sales tax generation
among boat dealers and other marina -related businesses, a marine charter fee, and
lease income from coastal property owned by the State of California but that the City
operates as the State's trustee.
For purposes of the fiscal analysis we have included the City's Harbor Resources
Division in the costs associated with this industry. However, as noted above, there is
significant overlap between the marine industry and the hospitality industry.
The marine industries that manufacture, sell, and service the boats have undergone a
significant transformation in the past twentyyears. There are issues today about the
continued viability of the marine industry in Newport Beach that should be
recognized in the general plan update process.
• Twentyyears ago, there were five to six major boat manufacturers in Southern
California, and a number of smaller outfits. Since that time, all of the major
manufacturers have left California, mostly to Florida. While a few of the smaller
manufacturers remain, others have moved inland to Riverside County. This has
largely been due to increased environmental regulation in California affecting
fiberglass manufacturing processes, as well as real estate price inflation in coastal
communities.
There has been a consolidation among boat supply and servicing companies as well.
As costs have risen, fewer firms are now serving the demand for specialty boat parts,
and boat repair and servicing. Those that do not have to be on the water have
moved to inland locations. Some have found locations in the West Newport
industrial areas, but many have gone further inland to the Costa Mesa, Huntington
Beach, and Long Beach industrial areas, as well as locations in Riverside and San
Diego counties and Mexico.
Those businesses still in the industry report very strong demand for their goods and
services. Although the total number of slips in Southern California is not growing
dramatically, there is a lot of "move up" sales activity as existing boaters purchase
• larger and more expensive boats that require a greater level of support and servicing.
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 31
. Businesses throughout the industry have expressed concern about the real estate
pressure on their locations near the water. This is an issue that continues to affect
businesses leasing space, particularly in the Cannery and Mariner's Mile areas of
town. As noted above, many businesses have moved inland and service boats in the
harbor from more remote locations. If this issue reduces the availability of boat
services in Newport Beach sufficiently, it may cause the consumer market in boats to
shift as well to other locations. Currently, the city realizes significant sales and
property tax revenues from boats and related industries.
•
0
The indirect benefit of the boating industry could also be improved by increasing
access for visiting boats to dock and launch facilities in Newport Harbor. This issue
is complicated by the fact that over 90% of the harbor frontage is in private
ownership. This leaves little opportunity for the City to increase the availability of
public facilities. However, if private entrepreneurs could add to the available
facilities, it would help increase the capture of visitor spending in Newport Beach on
restaurants and other retail goods and services.
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 32
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF NEWPORT COAST FISCAL
IMPACTS
INTRODUCTION
This chapter demonstrates how the fiscal model can be used to analyze future
development in the City by presenting an example of existing and projected
development in the Newport Coast area.
The analysis primarily illustrates the distinction between marginal service costs and
average service costs, which will be important in considering the impacts of future
development in other areas of the City as well. Marginal costs represent the actual
incremental costs of providing services to a new proposed development. In contrast, an
average cost approach would treat the proposed development the same as existing
development in the City and assume that the costs to serve it are similar on a per capita
basis as the costs to serve all other development in the City. The analysis in the previous
chapter is done on an average cost basis, because the intent is to show the levels of cost
the City incurs to provide for the existing residents and businesses.
The true marginal costs, on the other hand, can be either higher or lower than the
average depending on the levels of available service capacity. This can be most easily
illustrated with fire services, as the Newport Coast analysis shows. If the existing fire
stations in the City can serve a proposed development, then the incremental cost of
providing service is likely to be lower than the average since existing facilities, equipment
and manpower can be used. If a new station is needed, then the marginal cost of that is
likely to be higher than the average unless the development is so large that it supports
the need for a fire station all by itself.
As the City considers future development options in the General Plan Update process,
the location of the development and the status of existing services at those locations will
play a role in the fiscal impact analysis.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The land use data for the analysis is taken from the traffic model database for the year
2000 and the projection for the year 2025. The fiscal analysis evaluates the year 2000 as
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 33
•
•
the existing land use case and the year 2025 as full buildout of the area. As shown in
Table 16, buildout is about double the development levels in the year 2000. The traffic
model tracks non-residential development in terms of three employment categories:
retail, services and other. It was necessary for us to make assumptions about the more
specific business types this would entail in Newport Coast, as shown in the table.
The assessed value estimates for both scenarios are based on residential unit values of
$815,000 for single-family units and $600,000 for the condominiums. These values are
based on a review of property tax data in the Newport Coast area, and are higher than
the values obtained for the City of Newport Beach as a whole.
TABLE 16
Newport Coast Development: Year 2000 and 2025
Year2000 Year 2025
Land Use Units Population Assessed Value Units Population Assessed Value
RESIDENTIAL
Single Family
Condominium
Apartment
High Density
Total Residential
NON-RESIDENTIAL
Office
Retail
1,264
3,001
$1,030,160,000
3,063
7,378
$2,496,345,000
1,136
2,697
$681,600,000
1,763
4,223
$1,057,800,000
0
0
$0
0
0
$0
0
0
$0
0
0
$0
2,400
5,699
$1,711,760,000
4,826
11,601
$3,554,145,000
Sq. Ft. Employment
15,000 50
68,600 196
Sq. Ft. Employment
$1,995,000 45,000 150 $5,985,000
$6,311,200 68,600 196 $6,311,200
Industrial
0
0
$0
0
0
$0
Lodging
150,000
250
$15,600,000
297,600
496
$30,950,400
Marine
0
0
$0
0
0
$0
Service Commercial
835,000
835
$100,200,000
1,329,000
1,329
$159,480,000
Institutional
100,000
100
$7,200,000
150,000
150
$10,800,000
Total Nan -Residential
1,168,600
1,431
$131,306,200
1,890,200
2,321
$213,526,600
COST ANALYSIS
At the time of the annexation, City departments made estimates of expected service
costs, both for the initial development levels and for ultimate buildout. In some cases the
full service cost for buildout was funded initially, and in other cases the costs were
deferred until further development occurs. This situation raises the opportunity to
consider both the marginal cost of the initial annexation and the average cost of serving
the area at full buildout.
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS
PAGE 34
• Fire Protection Services
Newport Coast has an existing fire station, designated No. 8 by the City, which was in
place at the time of annexation. At that time, the City estimated the cost of operating the
station at $1.39 million peryear.20 This is less than the average cost of operating other
stations in Newport Beach, estimated at about $2 million, but more than the incremental
per capita cost of adding the amount of development in Newport Coast in 2000. Since
the City assumed operation of the station, we have shown $1.39 million as the cost of
fire protection services in 2000 in Table 17.
As Newport Coast develops further, the City's plan is to move the existing Station No. 5
in Corona del Mar further south to obtain better response times to Newport Coast as
well as CdM. Thus, at buildout the City will serve Newport Coast from two stations.
However, based on the amount of development at buildout and the fact that Station No.
8 would also serve development west of Newport Coast, the net cost effect would be
approximately equal to the cost of one full station. This is estimated by the fiscal model
at nearly $1.9 million (Table 18), not including the cost of moving Station No. 5.
Therefore, the marginal cost of the initial annexation —at $1.39 million —was higher than
• the average per capita cost would have been but, conversely, the marginal cost of
completing buildout of the area —at $487,000—is much less than the average cost.
Police Services
In the case of police services, part of the departmental expansion needed to serve full
buildout of the Newport Coast area was made at the time of annexation, and part was
deferred until a later time. Specifically, the detective division received the entire
complement of personnel needed to serve full development of the area", while the
patrol and traffic divisions received an incremental increase that reflected immediate
service demands at the time of annexation."
In estimating the costs of service, the full detective division cost —estimated at 25 percent
of the total police services cost —was included in Table 17, along with the incremental
cost of the traffic and patrol division as estimated by the fiscal model. This results in a
20 Terry, Ulaszewski, Fiscal/Information Services Manager, Newport Beach Fire and Marine Department.
21 Captain Tim Newman, Detective Division Commander, Newport Beach Police Department
22 Captain Paul Henisey, Traffic and Patrol Division Commander, Newport Beach Police Department.
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 35
• slightly higher cost for police services in Table 17, reflecting the year 2000, than would
be commensurate with the amount of development alone. As with the fire services, the
net increase at full buildout is accordingly less than it would be otherwise, estimated at
$944,000 compared to nearly $1.7 million to serve about the same amount of
development currently.
•
SUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACT
Overall, the analysis suggests that the year 2000 development generates about $770,000
per year in net revenues, while doubling the development to achieve full buildout would
add another $1.1 million per year. Because the marginal costs of the annexation were
higher than the average cost, the second half of buildout of the areagenerates 40 percent
more in net revenue for the City than does the first half. Overall, Newport Coast does
very well for the City —including the residential land uses at buildout—primarily because of
the higher property values obtained in the area.
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 36
TABLE 17
Newport Coast Impact Year 2000
Revenues Total Residential Office Retail Industrial Lodging Marine Commercial aeIrne Institutional Public
GENERALFUND
Property Tax $3,133,213 $2,909,992 $3,392 $10,729 $0
Sales Tax
720,283
5,749
3J f7
246,798
0
Transient Occupancy Tax
1,046,603
6
0
0
0
Franchise Fees
105,712
72,(%
1,178
4,6ll
0
Business Licenses
55,591
0
1,942
7,614
6
,Motor Vehicle-in-Ueu
128792
128,042
6
0
6-
Other Intergovernmental
71,381
57,054
501
1,962
0
Cliarg-as for Service
386,471
308,903
- 2,716
10,624
6
Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures
142,641
114,012
1,000
3,921
0
L_icen_ ses and Permits
17,054
13,631
120
10
0
_
Use of Property
241,183
192,775
1,691
6,630
0
Other Revenue
25,351
z0,263
178
6
_
Interesllncome
112
90
_
1
_6.97
3_
-6
SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND
6,073,036
3,822,516
15,859
294,065
0
TIDELANDS FUND
Ucenses, Permits, and Fees
0
0
0
0
0
Charges for Service
0
- 0
0
0
0
Use o_f_Mon_ey_ Property
0
0
_
0
_ _
0-
0
_and
;OAS TAX -
137,343
109,777
963
3,776
0
MEASURE M
54,770
43777
384
1,506
0
SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS
192,112
153,554
1,347
5,281
0
$26,520
$0
$170,340
$12,240
$0
69,471
0
%J19
0
0
1,046,003
0
_
0
6
0
5,889
0
19,668
2 355
6
9,712
6
32,438
3,995
0
6
6
0
0
0
2,503
6
8,360
1,001
0
13351
-6--
45,262
5,421
0
5,002
0
16,705
2,001
0
598
0
1,997
239
6
8,457
6
28,246
3,383
0
889
0
2,969
356
6
4
0
13
2
_
0
1,188,598
0
721,117
30,882
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,816
6
16,085
1,926
0
- 1,920
0
6,414
768
0
6,736
0
22,499
2,695
0
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 37
TABLE 17 (continued)
Newport Coast Impact Year 2000
Expenditures
Total
Residential
Office
Retail
Industrial
Lodging
Marine
Service
Commercial
Institutional
Public
GENERALFUND
General Government
452,745
375,990
2,272
16,979
0
11,153
0
41,590
4,761
0
Police
1,688,017
1,369,595
11,137
101,916
0
44S31
0
142,330
16,7'OS
6
Fire
1,390,000
1,124,915
7,764
28,033
0
34,891
0
176,110
18,287
0
_
Public Works
936,607
943,827
6416
255,583
6
32,631
0
108,988
'f3,052
-
-0-Community Development
104818
82,182
721
2,827
0
3,605
0
12,642
1,442
6
Community §a ces
624,667
62-4,667
6
6
0
0-
0
6
0
6
CIP Streets
37,765
35,778
364
8,976
0
3,203
0
8,964
480
0
Other CIP Projects
152,048
105,545
926
3;630
6-
4,630
6
15,465-
1,852
0
_
SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND
5,378,668
4,461,500
20,711
187,943
0
137,444
0
565,489
_
56,581
0
TIDELANDS FUND
Harbor Resources
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oil and Gas
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CIP
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
GAS TAX
68,981
42,725
435
10,718
0
3,825
0
10,705
574
0
MEASURE M
46,745
28,952
295
7,263
0
2,592
0
7,254
389
0
SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS
115,726
71,677
730
17,981
0
6,417
0
17,959
963
0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
5,494,394
4,533,177
30,441
205,925
0
143,861
0
523,447
57,543
0
NET (COST)IREVENUE $770,754 ($557,107) ($13,234) $93,421 $0 $1,051,473 $0 $220,169 ($23,967) $0
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 38
TABLE 18
Newport Coast Impact at Full Buildout
Revenues Total Residential Office Retail Industrial Lodging Marine Service Commercial Institutional Public
GENERALFUND
Property Tax
Sales Tax
Transient Occupancy Tax
Franchise Fees
Business Licenses
Motor Vehicle -in -Lieu
Other Intergovernmental
Charges for -Service.-
Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures
Licenses and Permits
Use of Property
Other Revenue
Interest Income
SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND
TIDELANDS FUND
$6,405,042
$6,042,047
$10,175
$10,729
$0
$52,616
$0
$271,116
$18,360
$0
1,034 648
f1,703
9,446
146,798
0
137,570
0
628,9f8
6
0
ip,t6003
0
6
0
0
1,o46,603
0_
0
0-
6
201,251
146 580
3,533
4,617
0
11,683
0 -
- _ R S64
3,5533
0
90,165
0
5,827
7,614
0
19,268
0
51,628
5,827
0
266,695
266,695
6
0
0
6
0
- 0
0
0
139,383
116,146
1,502
1,962
0
4,966
0
13,306
1,502
0
754,64-9
628,837
$,131
10,624 _
0
2'6,886
6
72,039
8,131
6
278,530
232,095
3,001
3,921
0
_
9,923
0
26,589
3,001
6
33,301
27,756
359
469
6
1,186
0
3,f79
3-59
0
476,948
392,434
5,074
6,630
0
16,778
0
44,957
5,074
0
49,502
41,10
533
697
0
1,764
0 _
4,725
533
0
10,175
124,154
_ 748
4,622
_
0
20,886
6
18,638
728
6
10,933,252
8,023,650
48,322
298,683
0
1,349,789
0
1,165,759
47,048
0
Licenses, Permits, and Fees
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_
Charges for Service
0
- 0
---0
0
0
--�- o
-0- -
- -- 0
-- 0
0
Use of Money and Property
0
0
0
0
0
- 0
0
0
0
0
GAS TAX
89,117
89,1-17_
0
0
0
T 0
0
0
0
0
_
MEASURE M
106,947
89,117
_ _�
1,152
1,506
6
_ _ 3,810
0
10,209
1,152
0
SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS
196,064
178,234
1,152
1,506
-0
3,810
0
10,209
1,152
0
TOTAL REVENUE
11,129,316
8,201,884
49,475
300,189
0
1,353,599
0
1,175,969
48,200
0
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 39
0
TABLE 18 (continued)
Newport Coast Impact at Full Buildout
Expenditures Total Residential Office Retail Industrial Lodging Marine"""` Institutional Public
Commercial
GENERALFUND
Police
2,632,223
2,213,648
2P,274
16016
6
.75,365
6
197,346
22;274
0
Fire
1,977,786
1,581,931
16,089
19,365
0
47,820
_
0
193,632
18,949
0
Public Works
1,817,161
1,514,214
19,579
25,583
d
64;74b
6
173,467
19,579
d
Community Development
200,769
167,298
2,163
2,827
_
0
_
7,153
0
19,166
2,163
0
Community Services
3,271,640
1,271,6i40
0
0
0
6
6
0
0
6
_
CIP Streets
104,245
72,833
1,093
8,976
0
_
6,355
0
14,267
721
0
Olher&Pmjects
247,844
114,858
2,778
3,616�
6
9,186
-6
24,614
Z71
6
_
SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND
9,046,335
7,861,228
70,793
179,275
0
_
_ 232,746
0
688,687
73,605
_
6
TIDELANDS FUND
Harbor Resources
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oil and Gas
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CIP
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
GAS TAX
124,486
86,975
1,305
10,718
0
7,589
0
17,038
861
0
MEASURE M
84,357
58,938
885
7,263
0
5,142
0
11,546
583
0
SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS
208,842
145,913
2,190
17,981
0
12,731
0
28,583
1,444
0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
9,255,177
7,947,141
72,983
197,257
0
245,477
0
717,270
75,049
-6-
NET (COST)/REVENUE
$1,874,139
$254,743
($23,509)
$102,932
$0
$1,108,123
$0
$458,698
($26,849)
$0
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 40
• GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT
Buildout of the existing General Plan would maintain an overall positive fiscal balance for
the City, in terms of annual operating costs and revenues. As summarized in the Table 19,
the City s housing units, population and total employment would all grow about 16 percent.
However, within these broad averages are some important variations.
TABLE 19
Growth Rates
2002 - Buildout
PERCENT
VARIABLE
GROWTH
Occupied Single -Family Dwelling Units
3%
Occupied Multi -Family Dwelling Units
25%
Total Occupied Dwelling Units
16%
Group Quarters Population
0%
Population
16%
i Employed Residents
16% y
Retail Employees
24%
• Service Employees
16%
Other Employees
10%
Total Employees
16%
Elementary/High School Students
1%
Lodging Rooms
ig%
Future residential growth is projected to focus heavily on multi -family development, which
will tend to shift the tax base to slightly lower cost housing. However, as noted in the
analysis of Newport Coast, housing prices for all types of units in Newport Beach are rapidly
reaching levels that can generate sufficient property tax to support public services. For the
buildout analysis we assumed a modest 5 to 10 percent real growth in housing prices, which
had a marked positive effect on the net cost of residential uses as shown in Table 20.
Within the employment figures, the buildout projection shows higher growth for retail and
lodging employment, at 24 percent and 19 percent, respectively. As discussed in the earlier
section of this report, these two business sectors are particularly strong net revenue
generators. Along with the growth in hotels rooms and regional population, we have
assumed a 20 percent growth in visitors to Newport Beach over the 20 to 25 years time
period needed to achieve buildout. The increased visitors add sales tax and transient
occupancy tax (TOT) to the City's revenues but would also increase costs for police
• protection and emergency response among others. We have not assumed, however, a
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 41
commensurate increase in the marine industry or the number of boats moored in Newport
is Harbor. The general plan buildout projection does not include additional marina berths, and
as discussed earlier, some elements of the marine industry are under pressure from rising real
estate prices and may not be able to expand readily in Newport Beach.
l_ J
E
As shown in Table 20, the individual land uses perform about the same as in the existing
land use scenario earlier, but the total net revenue is higher as a percent of revenue due to
the increased proportion of sales tax, TOT tax and property tax from residential units. The
analysis also includes the assumption that City would see increased revenues from the use of
public property, as uses on these sites intensify to serve the increased resident and visitor
population.
It should further be noted that this analysis only addresses the annual costs of providing
services and does not include any capital costs or improvements to public facilities needed to
support the growth in the buildout projection. Due to the long time frame (20-25 years) to
achieve buildout, we have not attempted to estimate the marginal costs of expanding or
upgrading city facilities. As these costs are identified through subsequent analysis in the
General Plan Update process, a discussion of financing for public improvements will be
included in the fiscal analysis.
APPLIED DEVELOP)
TABLE 20
Fiscal Impact of Existing General Plan Buildout
REVENUES Total Residential Office Retail Industrial Lodging Marine Commercial Institutional Public
GENERALFUND
Property Tax
44,455,553
Sales Tax
23,850,491
Transient Occupancyiax
9,863,350
Franchise Fees
_ 2,779,920
Business Licenses
2,752,379
MotorVehicle4n•Lieu
1,970,612
Otherintergovemmental
' 1;824,956
Chargesfar Service:
9�88Q680
Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures
3,646,813
Licenses and Permits
436,019
Use of Property
6,234,562
Other Revenue
823,130
Interest income
1,694,369
SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND
110,212,634
TIDELANDS FUND
licenses; Permits,
and Fees
11X 303
�chari;2 forService
33,500
Use of Money and Property
6,248,790
STATEGASTAXFUND
1,689,510
_
MEASURE M FUND
1;453,263
35,821,978 3,768,367
444,014
1,286,946
524,349
524,860
1,631,708
88,479
2,312,702 17,125,217
910,645
709,108
978,688
1,725,652
965;756
0
6
0
8,107,394
6
0
1,108,,179
863,368
297,781
271,554
59,952
27,065
114,376
414,408
885,501
298,665
114,921
12,628
26,993
252,077
1,970,612
0
0
0
0
0
0
878123
367,184
_UZ2 644'
115,490
25,497
11,510
48,643
4,754,333
1,9%OM
685,676
625,284
138,045
62,319
263,364
1,754,754
733,744
253,073
230,783
50,951
23,001
97,204
209,801
87,728
30,258
27,593
6,092
2,750
11,622
1,191,404
__
472,369
837,689
157,570
9,49-6
1,1'49,625
_
56,488
311;864
130,405
44,977
41,016
9 O55
179,088
17;276
777,497
182,460
316,596
59,437
164,986
46,928
66,299
50,247,18811,791,833 20,460,590
3,841,238
10,662,553
3,032,828
4,284,709
0
b
646,303
0
0
633,000
--0-
0
0
6
0
0
33f500
0
2,651,212
0
132,077
6
0
1,157,559
_ _
67,980
1,689,510
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,307
139,872
1;046;5
55,077
42,887
59;191
104,367
453,332 0
0 0
"o 6
37,,_647 0
21,732 14,566
0 0
16,011 235,855
86,687 1,276,964
31,995 471,309
3,825 56,350
105,871 2,199,049,
5,686 83,763
11,099 68,176
774,775 4,406,027
0 0
127,600 2,114361
0 0
0 0
TOTAL REVENUE 120,917,000 54,59391811,931,704 22,285,534 3,896,31410,705,440 4,916,078 4,457,056 902,375 6,518,388
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE43
TABLE 20 (continued)
Fiscal Impact of Existing General Plan Buildout
EXPENDITURES
Total
Residential
Office
Retail
Industrial
Lodging
Marine
Commercial
Institutional
Public
GENERALFUND
General Government
10,977,855
5,804,127
1,666,611
1,161,960
525,374
113,698
57,172
213,326
76,019
1,359,569
Police
35,450,255
16,731,187
5,456,944
7,145,927
1,716,364
387,739
171,063
541,520
237,949
3,061,561
Fire
_
25,300,159
12,11'3,389
3,920,645
1,264,891
L 3,53-6
245,531
166,345
635,51
_
200,446
5,510,342
Public Works
23,792,259
11,448,233
4,787,035
1,651,079
1,505,659
332,408
150,063
634,170
208,738
3,074,875
Community Development
2,628,691
1,264,859
528,996
182,420
166,353
36,726
16,580
70,066
23,062
33%M
community Services
9,613,878
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_ CIP- Streets
_9,613,878
1362;806
550,637
267,798
629,325
13,311'
32,694
63B
39,150
7,700
15,666
_ OthergIPPrjects
_ 3,375,979
1,624,436
679,252
234,278
213,fM
47,167
_ 21,293
89,985
_ 29z619
_ 436,306
SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND
112,701,876
59,150,747
17,307,180
12,269,880
5,384,240
1,195,962
589,040
2,223,233
783,553
13,798,041
TIDELANDS FUND
0
HarborResourcesDivisio6
_ 1,2824138
-0
-66
-_ 0-
6
1,282,138
6
0
_
6
Oil and Gas_
_ 422,264
0
0
0
0_
0
0
0
0
422,264
CIP
1,244,962
468,885
__
181,521
62,608
__ _
57,094
_ _
12,605
_ _ _ _
46,690
_
24,047
_
7,915
389,597
STATEGASTAXFUND
1,866,244
657,552
319,796
751,519
15,896
39,042
7,792
46,752
9,195
18,701
MEASURE M FUND
1,264,639
445,583
216,705
509,258
10,771
26,457
5,280
31,681
6,230
12,672
SU TOTALOTHERFUND3
6,080,248
1,572,021
718,022
1323385
83J60
78,104
1,335,9 00
102,481
23,340
843,234
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
118,782,124
60722,76818,025,20213,593,265
5,468,001
1,274,066
1,994,940
2,325,713
806,893
14,641,275
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 44
•
0
APPENDIX A
LAND USE DEFINITIONS BY SIC AND NAICS
SIC DESCRIPTION NAICS DESCRIPTION
INDUSTRIAL
01 thin 09 Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing
15 thin 17 Construction
20 thin 39 Manufacturing
40 thru 49 TCPU
50 — 51 Wholesale
RETAIL
52 Building Materials and Garden Supplies
53 General Merchandise Stores
54 Food Stores
55 Automobile Dealers and Service Stations
56 Apparel and Accessory Stores
57 Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores
58 Eating and Drinking Places
59 Miscellaneous Retail
OFFICE
60 Depository Institutions
61 NondepositoryInstitutions
62 Security and Commodity Brokers
63 Insurance Carriers
64 Insurance Agents, Brokers, and Service
65 Real Estate
67 Holding and Investment Companies
73 Business Services
80 Health Services
81 Legal Services
87 Engineering and Management Services
SERVICE COMMERCIAL
72
' Personal Services
75
Auto Repair, Services, and Parking
76
Miscellaneous Repair Services
78
Motion Pictures
79
Amusement &Recreation Services
INSTITUTIONAL
82
Educational Services
83
Social Services
84
Museums, Botanical, Zoological Gardens
86
Memberships Organizations
91 thru 97 Public Administration
11
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing
21
Mining
22
Utilities
23
Construction
31-33
Manufacturing
42
Wholesale Trade
48.49
Trans and Warehousing
44-45 Retail Trade
722 Food Service & Drinking Places
52 Finance and Insurance
53 Real Estate
54 Professional, Scientific, &Technical Services
621.623 Health Care
51 Information
561 Administrative and Support Services
81
Other Services
71
Arts, Entertainment' and Recreation
51213
Motion Picture & Video Exhibition
61 Educational Services
624 Social Assistance
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 45
LAND USE DEFINITIONS BY SIC AND NAICS
SIC
DESCRIPTION
NAICS
DESCRIPTION
MARINE
2394
Mfg Of Canvas &Related Products
441222
Boat Dealers, New and Used
2499
Miscellaneous Wood Products Mfg
713930
Marinas
3663
Mfg Of Radio & TV Communications Equip
334220
Marine Radio Comm Equip Mfg
3731
Slip Building & Repairing
336612
Boat yards (Le. boat mfg facilities)
3732
Boat Building & Repairing
811490
Boat, Pleasure, Repair & Maim Services
3993
Mfg Of Signs & Advertising Specialties
713990
Boating Clubs w/o Marinas
4422
Coastwise Transportation - Water
4469
Miscellaneous Water Transportation Services
4489
Water Passenger Transportation
4491
Marine Cargo handling
4492
Towing & Tugboat Service
4493
Marinas
4499
Yacht Maintenance
5063
Electrical Apparatus & Equipment
5091
Sporting&Recreation Goods & Supplies
5099
Miscellaneous Durable Goods Wholesalers
5146
Fish &Seafood
5551
Boat Dealers
7699
Miscellaneous Repair Services
LODGING
•
7011
Hotels & Motels
721
Accommodation
GOVERNMENT
'=z, ° wSiJiare
NA
Not vrdrrdaias ca&M in Bris Lic File
NA
camks,
a umity
yofdyrtBaxNAICrb
darnf' talmro a urriety of din en NAI LS cixla
0
DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE46
APPENDIX B
DISTRIBUTION OF `USE OF PROPERTY' REVENUES BY LAND
USE
GENERALFUND
Properties Residen Office
Retail
Lightlnd. Lodging Marine
Service
Inst. Public ioiai
Visitor -Serving 0 0
667,556
0 53,747 120,636
51,353
0 1,547,5412,490,232
W.J. Carden Telescopes
2,000
2,000
Temp. Slip rentals
1,500
1,500
Galley cafe
20,000
20,000
Orange Co. Dock
40,000
40,000
Garages
36,096 36,096
Pay Telephones
25,000 25,000
CDM Concession
90,000 90,000
Misc. Concessions
2,600 2,600
Parkina Meter Income
344,249
28,573 41,751
26,236
767,5671,208,376
YG�YV„ YV� v+v,vvv
Balboa Yacht Basin 806,520
806,520
Basin Marine Shipyard 60,000
60,000
Electricity
10,000
10,000
Heritage Yacht Brok. 8,000
8,000
Balboa Yacht Club 4,500
4,500
Apartments 27,072
27,072
Intercity Bus Shelters
60,000
60,000
City facility Fees
55,000
55,000
OASIS
108,000
108,000
Library facility
2,000
2,000
Parking Motor Income 216,481 82,124
48,520
347,124
City Parking Lots 190,734 72,357
42,749
305,840
Marinapark 350,000
350,000
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS
PAGE 47
• TIDELANDS FUND
Properties Res Office Retail Light Ind. Lodging Marine Service Inst. Pub. Total
Visitor -Serving 0 0 98,900 0 0 37,410 61,800 0 990,704 1,188,814
W J Carden Telescopes 1,800 1,800
Temp. Slip rentals
1,410
Galley cafe
20,000
Garages
Orange Co. Dock
36,000
Balboa Island Ferry
Balboa Pier Conc.
50,000
Newport Pier Conc.
25,000
Harbor Bait Barge
3,900
Balboa
Em
40,704
1,410
20,000
40,704
36,000
60,000
50,000
25,000
3,900
950,000
------------ - -
Amer. Legion
110,000 110,000
Beacon Bay 650,000
650,000
Balboa Yacht Basin
900,486 900,486
Basin Marine Shipyard
60,000 60,000
Electricity
7,050 7,050
Bayside Yacht Sales 7,614
7,614
Apartments 30,528
30,528
Balboa Bay Club 1,605,000
1,605,000
•Petroleum Royalty
750,000 750,000
Sale of gas
50.000 50,000
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE 48
0
RESOLUTION NO. 2003. 20
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ADOPTING AN ATTENDANCE POLICY FOR THE
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, at its meeting on March 25, 2003, the City Council considered the
importance of regular attendance of members of the General Plan Advisory Committee
during the General Plan Update process, and recommended the adoption of an
attendance policy.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach hereby adopts the following attendance policy for the General Plan
Advisory Committee:
Section 1. If a member of the General Plan Advisory Committee is absent from
(3) three meetings within one year, this fact shall be reported to the Mayor so that
replacement of the appointee can be considered.
ADOPTED this 25th day of March, 2003.
1* "04
"Steven Bror&erg
MAYOR 61
ATTEST:
PO
CITY CLERK $
a` �r
�41 FORS
CJ
I08
FUTURE GPAC/GPUC AGENDASS/1/O3
DATE
GPUC
GPAC
MAY 12, 2003
a) Fiscal Impact Analysis of existing
development
b) Review of EIP Contract
c) Appointment of GPAC member
a) Attendance Policy
b) Fiscal Impact Analysis of existing
development
JUNE 9, 2003
Local Coastal Program
JUNE 23, 2003
Housing Element
JULY 7, 2003
a) Biological Resources Report
b) Hazards Report
JULY 21, 2003
AUG. 11, 2003
AUG. 25, 2003
SEPT.8, 2003
SEPT. 22, 2003
OCT. 13, 2003
OCT. 27, 2003
NOV. 10, 2003
NOV. 24, 2003
DEC. 8, 2003
• GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Monday, May 12, 2003
Roger Alford
Patrick Bartolic
Dorothy Beek
Phillip Bettencourt
Carol Boice
Karlene Bradley
Gus Chabre
John Corrough
Laura Dietz
Grace Dove
Florence Felton
Nancy Gardner
Louise Greeley
Ernie Hatchell
Bob Hendrickson
Tom Hyans
Mike Ishikawa
David Janes
Kim Jansma
Mike Johnson
Alex Kakavas
Bill Kelly
Todd Knipp
Donald Krotee
Lucille Kuehn
Philip Lugar
1
• Catherine O'Hara
Carl Ossipoff
Charles Remley
Larry Root
)ohn Saunders
lames Schmiesing
Ed Siebel
Jackie Sukiasian
Tan Vandersloot
Jennifer Wesoloski
Ron Yeo
•
• Philip L. Arst
2601 Lighthouse Lane
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
(949)721-1272
Mrs. Sharon Wood
Deputy City Manager
City of Newport Beach
Newport Beach, CA
Subject: Review of City Draft Traffic Model Executive Summary Newport Beach
General Plan Update, Existing Conditions and Currently Adopted General Plan Buildout
Forecasts" dated March 26, 2003.
Answers are requested for the following major questions about the subject. It is
requested that corrective actions needed be incorporated into the next draft of the traffic
study.
1. Has growth in air traffic out of John Wayne Airport to the 10.8 MAP level been
considered? There appear to be mismatches with the data provided EIR 582 "John
Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement Amendment Appendix E: Traffic Technical
Report" issued by the County of Orange and this study.
• Please provide a comparison between the EIR and the new traffic study. It is
understood that the County EIR projections only go to 2006. For that time LOS F
is shown as the service level on a part of Route 73 approaching Route 55. LOS
FFFF is forecast for at least one ramp with others at LOS F in the stretch along
Bristol. Please state ensuing mitigating measures to compensate for these
predictions plus growth in traffic as of 2025.
2. Route 73 Freeway LOS and on/off ramp V/C's need to be provided to
demonstrate that the calculations for Bristol, McArthur, Jamboree, Campus and
Irvine have taken the freeway into consideration. This is particularly relevant
because Route 73 traffic loads are shown as doubling by 2025 in the sections
within the Newport Coast section of Newport Beach. Per the comments of the
study consultant, this will force traffic to seek other routes (i.e. possibly city
streets.)
3. Peak summer traffic levels need to be supplied to serve the publics right to know
the traffic situation in the city during the summer months. While it is understood
that a circulation system cannot be designed around this seasonal peak, good
design requires knowledge of them.
4. A section of Costa Mesa is shown as being apart of the NB traffic study. Newport
. Blvd, Route 55 freeway and Route 55 LOS's and Route 55 on/off ramp V/C's for
both the present and extended routes need to be provided to demonstrate that their
extremely high volumes of traffic (double today's traffic loads) have been taken
into consideration.
5. As the 190' Street bridge project is already moribund and the Route 55 Freeway
extension mayor may not be built, please provide alternative forecasts leaving
them out of the model.
6. The 2 million square feet of existing commercial entitlements in the city need
definition.
7. There area number of other unexplained assumptions in the report but these
highlights should be sufficient to show that both a revision of the report is needed,
to cover alternatives and a major revision of the GPAC Vision Statement will
probably result.
8. Staff commented at the last GPUC meeting that some currently unused
entitlement may never be used and should be taken out of the traffic forecast.
These entitlements must be permanently taken off the General Plan, as there is
nothing to prevent the present property owners from selling and.then some.new
owner will use the entitlement to the detriment of our traffic situation.
Thank you for your attention to these comments
Philip Arst
•
0
• Ernest L. Hatchell, Jr.
19 la Rochelle
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949) 721-1272
Mrs. Sharon Wood
Deputy City Manager
City of Newport Beach
Newport Beach, CA
Subject: "Fiscal Impact Analysis and Model, Newport Beach General Plan
Update," May 2003
I have a problem understanding the fiscal analysis approach supporting
the General Plan Update. I suspect others do as well. Perhaps you can provide
the GPAC members with a copy of these comments.
There appears to be no coherence to the fiscal analysis —I'm unable to put
it in any perspective. There is no baseline reference to what is presented in the
subject document nor any obvious alternatives to a continued increase in city
income. Reference (baseline) numbers could result from an analysis of the
funding needs of the city government to maintain current services and
• infrastructure for a relatively stable population, and as compared and contrasted
to other cities. In my view, such a baseline number would be a useful addition to
any Fiscal Impact analysis rather than one that presented merely a myopic,
though useful, presentation of the income generators and consumers.
Obvious alternatives to increasing income includes cost reduction. The
city saved money by privatizing tree trimming. Perhaps privatizing other city
services would result in additional city efficiencies —at least a comprehensive
fiscal analysis would quantify those suspected efficiencies and take the
arguments out of the opinion mode.
The Fiscal Impact Analysis shows that only Retail and Lodging Land Uses
produce revenues that exceed the costs, while office buildings are among the
largest cost burdens. Arguing for office buildings as jobs producers is not
persuasive since the city has a huge job surplus of almost two jobs for every
working resident. Office buildings do add to the congestion and traffic problems.
As 60% of Newport Beach dwelling units are multi -family, and considering
that they increase congestion and traffic and generate less tax when compared
to single family units, it seems clear that multi -family development could be
profitably avoided.
• Sincerely,
GENERAL PLAN ADIAORY COMMITTEE
Monday, May 12, 2003
PUBLIC SIGN -IN
NAME ADDRESS/PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS
-41,t-A l �E�K
GENERAL PLAN AD&ORY COMMITTEE •
Monday, May 12, 2003
PUBLIC SIGN -IN
NAME ADDRESS/PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday,
May 12, 2003, at the Police Department Auditorium.
Members Present:
Roger Alford
Florence Felton
Patrick Bartolic
Nancy Gardner
Dorothy Beek
Louise Greeley
Phillip Bettencourt
Ernest Hatchell
Carol Boice
Bob Hendrickson
Karlene Bradley
Mike Ishikawa
Gus Chabre
Kim Jansma
John Corrough
Mike Johnson
Laura Dietz
Bill Kelly
Grace Dove
Lucille Kuehn
Members Absent:
Tom Hyans
Catherine O'Hara
David Janes
John Saunders
Alex Kakavas
Jackie Sukiasian
Todd Knipp
Jennifer Wesoloski
Donald Krotee
Staff Present:
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner
George Berger, Senior Planner
Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant
Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant
Members of the Public Present:
Allan Beek
Coralee Newman
0
Phillip Lugar
Carl Ossipoff
Charles Remley
Larry Root
James Schmiesing
Ed Siebel
Jan Vandersloot
Ron Yeo
I. Call to Order
• Phillip Lugar called the meeting to order. He pointed out that the agenda for this
evening had times listed next to each item and this will be the format with future
meetings. He stated he would like to stay within those times during the
meetings so it may be necessary to cut discussions short in order to do so.
II. Approval of Minutes
Mr. Lugar asked for comments on the minutes from the last meeting. Louise
Greeley had comments regarding typographical and grammatical errors. Sharon
Wood asked Ms. Greeley to submit the changes in writing. The minutes of the
April 14, 2003 meeting were approved with Ms. Greeley's recommended
corrections.
III. Attendance Policy
Ms. Wood referred to the City Council Resolution 2003-20. The Council
recognizes the importance of this Committee and asked for an attendance policy
to insure continuity in the group. The policy is flexible and the Council realizes
there are circumstances when members may miss more than 3 meetings. In
that case you should talk to staff who will, in turn, discuss the situation with the
Mayor. Mr. Lugar also stressed the importance of attendance at the meetings
and asked that everyone try to be on time.
• IV. Fiscal Impact Analysis of Existing Development
Doug Svensson, Applied Development Economics, Inc., reviewed a Power Point
presentation summarizing the Fiscal Impact Analysis Report. The presentation is
attached. After the presentation he opened the floor for questions.
Jim Schmiesing asked when we will see the breakdown of residential units
(single family vs. multi -family). Mr. Svensson advised that level of detail will be
provided when we start looking at land uses for General Plan alternatives. Mr.
Schmiesing also asked about the method of sharing fire costs between older and
newer housing areas due to newer/remodeled housing brings in more tax
revenue and requires less service. Mr. Svensson acknowledged the point
however pointed out that assessed value doesn't necessarily track the current
condition of the property. Mr. Lugar asked if short-term rentals are included in
the amount of TOT reported. The answer is yes, vacation rentals pay TOT
amounting to approximately $875,000. Gus Chabre asked how dynamic the
model is in terms of looking at alternatives. Mr. Svensson stated the model will
allow a whole range of changes that can looked at one at a time or
simultaneously. The City will also be able to use it on individual development
projects as well as the General Plan. Ms. Wood pointed out that it may come
down to budget, how much are we willing to spend on how many alternatives we
• are going to analyze. Carl Ossipoff asked which is our highest margin asset. Mr.
2
Svensson responded that it is lodging (TOT) followed by retail. Phillip
• Bettencourt asked about the public works allocations in the Newport Coast area,
since the area is made up of mostly private streets, has a private storm drain
network and private street light system. Mr. Svensson stated they used average
costs, however they are still working through the question of how to treat the
private streets in the City. John Corrough asked if there would be alternatives
looked at utilizing the water areas where we could add revenue without adding
more costs. Mr. Tescher said the capability to look at this area is there and he
would discuss it with Mr. Svensson. Grace Dove asked about the effect AB1221
(sales tax/property tax) would have if it passed. Ms. Wood said we have not
looked at this because we don't know if it will pass; however if it does we will
make the necessary adjustments. Nancy Gardner asked about Table 16,
development and retail remain static; however Crystal Cove Promenade is open
now and wasn't in 2000. Mr. Svensson will check into this; they worked with the
same database as the Traffic Model and the categories used were not as detailed
as needed in the fiscal analysis. Lucille Kuehn asked about Table 17 and wanted
to know how a library would be funded in the Newport Coast area. Mr. Svensson
explained that the money listed in Community Services is not just for libraries;
however if the City decided to build a library funding could be found in many
sources if revenue was not enough to cover costs. For example general fund,
bonds, assessment districts, etc. Patrick Bartolic thought there had been money
set aside for community services in Newport Coast. Ms. Wood said she believed
• there was a commitment in the annexation agreement for a community center
using money gained from allowing IRWD to continue to provide water in the
area. Carol Boice stated she remembered hearing funds went to South County
for a library that would serve the Newport Coast area. Mr. Bettencourt pointed
out that the annexation agreement is still posted on the City's website and
maybe this is a good question to have the consultant review. Laura Dietz asked
for a definition of the terms "incremental costs" and "marginal costs". Mr.
Svensson explained the terms mean the same, the technical term is "marginal
cost", and "incremental" was used at times to help the reader understand the
meaning.
•
V. Appointment of Subcommittee to Review LCP
Mr. Lugar asked for volunteers for a subcommittee of any size to review the LCP.
The list below indicates the members who agreed to participate in the
subcommittee.
Nancy Gardner, Mike Ishikawa, Phillip Lugar, Ron Yeo
Section 2 Review - Karlene Bradley, Ed Siebel
Section 3 Review - John Corrough, Laura Dietz, Louise Greeley
Section 4 Review - Gus Chabre, Jan Vandersloot
3
Mr. Lugar would like the subcommittee to meet at least once before the June 9th
• meeting just to get some initial thoughts from the group. Ron Yeo asked when
the document would go to the Coastal Commission. Ms. Wood indicated the
document given to this group (LCP Land Use Plan) was also given to the Coastal
Commission staff. This is only the first half of the LCP, the second part is the
Implementation Plan and can't really be started until comments on the Land Use
Plan are received. It will probably be another year before the whole package is
formally submitted to the Commission. Mr. Bettencourt asked when the
environmental documents would be submitted. Ms. Wood stated the document
is the equivalent of an EIR so additional documentation is not required. Louise
Greeley asked when the comment period closes. Ms. Wood said the period was
extended to accommodate both the GPAC and EQAC meeting schedules, it will
close June 20th. Ms. Dietz asked to have Patrick Alford at the subcommittee's
meeting. Ms. Wood stated he will attend the June 9th meeting and if he was
available, he would probably attend the subcommittee meeting.
VI. Discussion of Future Agenda Items
Ms. Wood referred to the last sheet in the agenda packet, which lists the topics
for the next few meetings. The main topic on June 9th will be the LCP, June 23`d
the Housing Element and July 7th will cover the Biological Resources Report and
Hazards Report. Future meetings may also include guest speakers and
discussions on how other communities, deal with issues that were raised in the
. visioning process.
VII. Public Comments
No public comments offered.
•
IN