Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20 - General Plan UpdateEWOOq, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: January 11, 1999 4 o m COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Agenda Item No.: 20 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: Patricia L. Temple NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3200 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: General Plan Update ACTION: Receive and file report, and direct staff to prepare a grant application for LCP Certification for consideration by the City Council on January 25, 1999. This report has been prepared to provide preliminary background and discussion on a potential comprehensive General Plan update. Background There have been some initial discussions by City committees expressing interest in an update of the City's General Plan. Similarly, the Planning Commission has discussed looking at the General Plan as they have considered specific development requests. Environmental Quality Advisory Committee At their meeting on June 15, 1998, the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC), made a recommendation to the City Council that it consider commencing a comprehensive update of the General Plan. The reason for this recommendation was a concern that individual projects would be better evaluated when there is a better long -range plan for an area. Additionally, the Committee felt that it may be time to consider an update, since the last one occurred 10 years ago. Upon receiving the recommendation on July 13, 1998, the City Council directed staff to return with an outline of what a general plan update would entail. This report has been prepared to respond to that direction, as well as to respond to various requests of City Council related to this project. EQAC has subsequently received a presentation from staff on the general plan program as provided for in State planning law and the State General Plan Guidelines, as a preliminary to further efforts to support a comprehensive general plan update. A copy of the staff presentation to EQAC is attached to this report. Economic Development Committee The Economic Development Committee has a sub - committee working on strategic planning for economic development. This sub - committee's concept is that the process would involve developing a vision for the future of Newport Beach, with the subsequent development of General Plan policies to guide City decisions (a generai plan update). Issues identified for further discussion are: ➢ what proposals from Newport Tomorrow carry over to today's issues ➢ regional changes and development ➢ revitalization of deteriorating areas ➢ preservation of older areas subject to change ➢ commercial and tourism development ➢ replacement of older infrastructure ➢ filling "holes" in the existing General Plan, such as aesthetics, commercial activity in the Bay, and the protection of water views Harbor Ouality Citizens Advisory Committee A sub - committee of the Harbor Quality Citizens Advisory Committee has been discussing ways to better manage the resources in the harbor (lower bay). One of the ideas which has come forward is to develop a Harbor Element of the General Plan. It is felt that such an element could provide a more coordinated policy framework for Bay management. This would differ from the City's current approach, a variety of regulations in Council Policy and the Municipal Code which are the responsibility of various City Departments to administer. TPO Working, Committee This committee has been working with staff on amendments to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The amendments currently being suggested are those necessary to address some legal and operational problems of the current ordinance. While it may be desirable to consider additional changes to the TPO (such as a different target Level of Service in the Airport Area), the Committee generally believes that these more significant potential changes would not reach a consensus in the committee absent a more comprehensive planning program. Plannine Commission Recent development projects considered by the Planning Commission have also raised questions related to a General Plan update. Specifically, some recent projects which required General Plan Amendments, which are fairly small in the overall context of Newport Beach, still raised questions as to whether their approval could restrict other property owners from exercising their already existing entitlements. Of particular concern is additional new General Plan entitlement in areas where the predicted capacity of the streets is already over the City's goal of Level of Service "D." Additionally, in analyzing and discussing these projects in relation to existing General Plan Policies in the Land Use Element, both staff and the Commission believe that there is little guidance beyond certain policies related to circulation system capacity to guide the land use decision making process. Since there are no goals set forth for the unique areas of the City, there is very little basis other than traffic impacts for whether a land use or entitlement change should be approved or denied. Further, this particular lack of area goals affects the simpler land use approvals such as Use Permits. With no policies or goals in the General Plan indicating how an area should function or look in the future, both staff and the Planning Commission can only analyze these projects in relation to the standard health and welfare finding. This makes it more difficult to develop supportable findings General Plan Update Page 2 for denial of a specific project that may not be consistent with the community's presumed vision for an area. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Existing General Plan As part of the discussion of the issues by EQAC, staff prepared a summary of our view of the strengths and weaknesses of the existing General Plan. This part of the presentation generated a lively discussion between committee members and the staff. We have, therefore, included those observations below, for the Council's consideration. Strengths of the existing plan: • Level of specificity prevents questions related to actual entitlement and limits of land use designations. • Is strong in the area of the Housing Element, with a comprehensive set of policies and programs which have enabled the City to maintain certified compliance with State Guidelines since 1989. • Has a good Recreation and Open Space Element, which focuses on and acknowledges the fact the City is largely built out. Weaknesses of the existing plan: • Does not provide a "vision" for the future of the community. • Provides no goals or desired development patterns for the individual and unique commercial districts. • Is more regulatory than policy in nature. • Level of specificity requires frequent amendments. This tends to diminish the policy stature of the plan. • Has minimal policy guidance related to the use of the Bay, either in the Land Use Element or the Recreation and Open Space Element. • Addresses the City's role as a visitor destination only in the context of protecting and preserving residential areas from the negative impacts from visitors. Provides no goals or policies aimed at reasonably managing or improving the quality of the visitors who inevitably will come here, and how they impact local resources. • Does not include any specific construction technique requirements as a result of the hazards identified in the Public Safety Element. What Would a General Plan Update Program Look Like? Typically, comprehensive General Plan updates involve all elements of a city's general plan. This is not, however, a requirement. Our own 1988 General Plan review only involved the Land Use and Circulation Elements, and was undertaken primarily to add intensity limits to commercial land use classifications, satisfying the correlation requirement between those two elements. In determining General Plan Update Page 3 whether to commence a General Plan update, one consideration should be the scope of the program. That is, should we look at some or all of the General Plan Elements; should elements be totally re- written or just expanded, fine -tuned or updated; and should elements be added (such as the previously mentioned Harbor Element)? The City also would need to decide whether to use consultants, in -house staff, or a combination thereof. The use of outside consultants to prepare the updated documents can provide an outside view and a fresh perspective on a community's planning issues. However, the use of outside consultants can result in a "canned" General Plan, that is, a slightly modified version of other general plans the consultant has prepared for other communities. Many communities decide to have the revisions prepared by in -house staff. While this approach will take more time and impact staffs ability to complete other projects, in -house staff are familiar with the unique aspects and needs of the community, can readily focus on the community's most important issues, and can usually better anticipate where areas of controversy might arise. The City should also develop a process and procedures under which a General Plan update would be conducted. For example, would the City include a visioning program similar to the Newport Tomorrow as a preliminary step in the process? What type of oversight or review of the consultant's or staffs preliminary or draft work products would occur (steering committee, public circulation of working drafts, etc.)? What type of overall community outreach is necessary? One additional consideration is the relationship of the General Plan to the Local Coastal Plan. A comprehensive or partial General Plan update will certainly trigger parallel changes to the LCP. However, changes to the LCP which are part of a comprehensive update of the General Plan could provide an opportunity to develop information and improved policies which could facilitate the certification of the LCP, with its added benefit of returning full permit authority to the City in most areas of the Coastal Zone. Staff has also been made aware that there is grant funding available to assist in the certification of our LCP. The application for this funding was received by staff on December 14, 1998, and applications are due by January 29,1999. With the concurrence of the City Council, staff will prepare the application for consideration by the Council on January 25, 1999. Submitted by: SHARON Z. WOOD Assistant City Manager Prepared by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director RA Attachment: Pres tion to EQAC General Plan Update Page 4 The Role of the General Plan (quoted from the State General Plan Guidelines) A General Plan provides a basis for rational decision making regarding a City's long -term physical development. A developing community is like an incomplete and evolving puzzle. A General Plan serves a generalized and dynamic picture of the puzzle. California state law requires each city to adopt a general plan "for the physical development of the city, and any land outside its boundaries which... bears relation to its planning." The role of each community's general plan is to act as a "constitution" for development, the foundation upon which all land use decisions are to be based. It expresses community development goals and embodies public policy relative to the distribution of future land use, both public and private. At one time, the local general plan was looked on as a set of broad policies that had little actual role in development decisions. Changes to the law occurring since 1971 have vastly boosted the importance of the plan. A general plan may no longer be merely a "wish list" or vague picture of the community's future; it must now provide concrete direction for decision making. Preparing, adopting, implementing and maintaining a general plan serves to: • Identify the community's land use, circulation, environmental, economic and social goals and policies as they relate to land use and development. • Provide a basis for local government decision making, including a nexus to support development exactions. • Provide citizens with opportunities to participate in the planning and decision making process of local government. • Inform citizens, developers, decision - makers, and other cities of the ground rules that will guide development within the community. The general plan bridges the gap between community values and actual physical decisions. 5 The Newport Beach General Plan is comprised of the following elements: Land Use Circulation Recreation and Open Space Housing Noise Public Safety Conservation of Natural Resources Growth Management • Most recently, the City has updated the Recreation and Open Space Element (1998). • The Noise Element was updated in 1994. • The Growth Management Element (adopted as required by regional congestion management mandates) was adopted in 1992. • The Housing Element was last updated in 1992. • The Land Use and Circulation Elements were updated in 1988. • The Public Safety Element was adopted in 1975. • The Conservation of Natural Resources Element was adopted in 1974. While the state general plan guidelines recommend periodic updates, only the Housing Element has a mandatory update schedule. The next mandatory Housing Element update is scheduled for 2000. Key features: Land Use Element: • Detailed and specific to a parcel level (not recommended by the State). • Contains zoning level of specificity in terms of entitlement, such as FAR's, number of hotel rooms, etc. • Contains relatively generic policies, which are City -wide in perspective, but breaks the City down into small segments for the purpose discussion, which are not then not discussed as to how the plan proposed supports the broader policies. • Policies focus on preserving the residential quality of life, but provides little by way of implementation programs to produce results, specifically as it relates to the quality of commercial districts or the role of the visitor. • Covers the entire City planning area, including the Newport Coast, Santa Ana Heights, and West Newport spheres -of- influence. • Is generally designed to support the Zoning Code. Circulation Element: • Includes the Master Plan of Streets and Highways (Map). • Primarily analyzes intersections for the purpose of identifying Levels of Service. • Lists specific design improvements. • Provides a policy basis for TPO, which is the desired intersection level of service goal of "D." • Provides the policy basis for the Fair Share Traffic Contribution Fee Ordinance, which is the completion of the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. Recreation and Open Space Element: • Precisely defines existing and desired park land and facilities. • Focuses on recreation. Housing Element: • Is the most policy oriented element of the General Plan. • Has detailed Guidelines adopted within the State Government Code, and is the only element which must be certified by the State (HCD). 7 • Sets forth the goals and programs for the development of affordable housing in the community, such as: • Providing adequate sites for the accomplishment of the City's housing goals. • Use negotiated development to achieve housing goals through the private development community. • Assist housing for low and moderate income housing using Community Development Block Grant funds. • To approve mixed use, residential /commercial development. • To rehabilitate the existing housing inventory. • To promote a variety of housing choices for the elderly. • To develop a variety of housing types to meet the needs of all income levels of the community. Growth Management Element: • Its purpose and function is to meet regional congestion management' mandates. • Establishes LOS D at intersections, but allows exemptions under the Deficient Intersection List of the CMP. • Requires new development to pay its fair share of the costs associated with that development, including regional traffic mitigation. • Requires a development phasing plan in accordance with the City's TPO. • Commits the City to participate in inter - jurisdictional planning forums. • Commits the City to the preparation of a capital improvement program consistent with the criteria of Measure M and the Congestion Management program. • Includes a policy to foster balanced land use. • Commits the City to promote traffic reduction strategies through TDM measures. Noise Element: • Describes the noise environment of Newport Beach. • Sets for the policies and programs for both stationary and non - stationary sources of noise. • Provides for reduction of noise impacts from transportation related sources through: • Imposition of mitigation measures • The use of walls and berms • Design of transportation improvements • Encouraging the State to adopt vehicle noise standards for cars, trucks, and motorcycles • Consider noise issues in Charter Boat permit process • Incorporate noise considerations into land use planning process by: • Specifying acceptable limits of noise for various land uses • Require acoustic design in new construction • Adopt a Noise Ordinance • Establish a comprehensive program and minimize the impact of noise generated by aircraft departing John Wayne Airport: • Oppose legislation which would impair the County's ability to operate JWA consistent with the settlement agreement. • Maintain membership in NOISE and other groups whose purpose is to preserve the rights of airport operators to establish reasonable restrictions. • Assist the County in implementing a comprehensive noise :cohtrol program at JWA. • Work to extend the settlement agreement. • This is the policy document which led to the adoption of the Community Noise Ordinance. Public Safety Element: • Contains technical information on geologic hazards (including seismicity), flood hazards, and fire hazards. • Is in need of an update to meet the current requirements of State law in the areas of wildland and urban fires, evacuation routes, and peakload water supply requirements and minimum road widths and clearances around structures, as those items relate to fire and geologic hazards. Conservation of Natural Resources Element: • Contains discussion and policies in the areas of bay and ocean water quality, air quality, beach erosion, mineral resources, archeological and paleontological resources, and energy conservation. • Element is the oldest, but most of the program areas are now regulated on a regional basis, through such agencies as the AQMD, the ARB, the RWQCB, the County of Orange, and the Federal Government. 11 Strengths of the existing plan: • Level of specificity prevents questions related to actual entitlement and limits of land use designations. • Is strong in the area of the Housing Element, with a comprehensive set of policies and programs which have enabled the City to maintain certified compliance with State Guidelines since 1989. • Has a good Recreation and Open Space Element, which focuses on and acknowledges the fact the City is largely built out. Weaknesses of the existing plan: • Does not provide a "vision" for the future of the community. • Provides no goals or desired development patterns for the individual and unique commercial districts. • , Is more regulatory than policy in nature. • Level of specificity requires frequent amendments. This tends to diminish the policy stature of the plan. • Has minimal policy guidance related to the use of the Bay, either in the Land Use Element or the Recreation and Open Space Element. • Addresses the City's role as a visitor destination only in the context of protecting and preserving residential areas from the negative impacts from visitors. Provides no goals or policies aimed at reasonably managing or improving the quality of the visitors who inevitably will come here, and how they impact local resources. • Does not include any specific construction technique requirements as a result of the hazards identified in the Public Safety Element. 16