Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - Study Session Minutes - 01-28-2003February 11, 2003 Agenda Item No. 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session January 28, 2003- 4:30 p.m ROLL CALL Present: Heffernan, Proctor, Ridgeway, Adams, Nichols (arrived at 4:35 p.m.), Webb, Mayor Bromberg Absent: None CURRENT BUSINESS CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Regarding Item 12 (Traffic Signal and Roadway Improvements on Newport Coast Drive at Sage Hill School), Council Member Webb indicated that some of his questions were answered earlier. He stated that the City will eventually receive a contribution from Sage Hill School and The Irvine Company to help reimburse the City for some of the work. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked why the contract amount is $161,930, but the budget amendment is for $300,000. Public Works Director Badum reported that, in order to expedite the process, the City ordered the traffic signal poles, cabinets, etc. because of the time lag in the ordering process. He indicated that no budget amendment was done at that time because they wanted to see what the total cost would be with the construction contract. He noted that the budget amendment is for the entire project, the award of contract is for the installation, and the total cost is about $300,000. Regarding Item 15 (Annual City Recycling Report), Council Member Proctor asked how this is affected by the recycler that was working without the benefit of a contract. City Manager Bludau clarified that the report covers 2001 and that the contractor was involved with the City in 2002. Council Member Heffernan asked if the City has conducted a study about recycling green waste. He indicated that he will bring this up at tonight's meeting. Regarding Item 4 (Non- exclusive Franchises with Adelphia and Cox Cable Telecommunications), Council Member Heffernan stated that the agreement for Cox Cable (Exhibit B, Section 1) should be amended so the extension goes to January 2004, not 2003. 2. A SUMMARY OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE VISIONING PROCESS — JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION. Assistant City Manager Wood reported that the last of the public input events occurred in November. She indicated that they have been working with the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) to pull all the information together and finalize the report. Carolyn Verheyen, Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc. (MIG), stated that she has been honored to work with everyone in the first phase of the General Plan Update (GPU) process and thanked everyone for their participation in the year. Volume 55 - Page 574 IIN13D►:1 General Plan Update Visioning Process (68) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 28, 2003 INDEX long activities. She utilized a PowerPoint presentation to highlight the results of the first phase of the GPU and explained that they are taking a two phase approach in order to allow for a lot of community discussion about an overall vision and to establish a sense of direction. She reported that they came up with a vision statement and also tackled over 50 questions that were developed by the General Plan Update Committee (GPUC) last year to explore optional direction related to many City issues. Ms. Verheyen stated that visioning means taking the long view into the future, setting the course, developing a picture of where the City is going, and determining what type of City everyone wants to have. She indicated that, where they could not get a clear sense of direction, they framed the issues to provide a foundation for further discussions in phase 2. She reported that they tried to provide options during the visioning process and provided website interaction, displayed information, sent out a newsletter series, conducted a Vision Festival with 350 people in attendance, 12 GPAC meetings, neighborhood workshops, and telephone interviewed over 1,000 residents and 175 business owners. Ms. Verheyen stated that MIG developed a draft vision statement based on some of the early activities of the visioning process, GPAC debated the words, and a subcommittee met four times to craft the specific vision statement. She pointed out that each word in the vision statement was carefully chosen. Ms. Verheyen stated that there was discussion about the choices facing the City and reported that all the activities occurred through careful analysis that was included in a set of findings that they sorted into 1) Areas of General Agreement and 2) Areas of Divided Opinion. She stated that "general agreement" does not mean consensus in every case, but does mean that the community has come together through careful analysis of all the findings in at least 16 of the directions for the future. Regarding the identity as a City, the summary indicates that it is recognized as a beach and residential town, and as a premier tourist destination. Further, the beach and residential aspects should be emphasized into the future. She indicated that the community has agreed on what makes the City special and is satisfied overall with the services for seniors and youth, but some have requested more after school programs. She reported that the community feels that the harbors and beaches are the most cherished resources and should be protected and enhanced. Further, water quality should be improved. Ms. Verheyen reported that the community also wants to protect the coastal bluffs and preserve the remaining public view corridors and create more views if possible. She indicated that the community also provided strong comments about protecting the villages because these make the City special, varied, unique, and gives the City personality. Regarding where zoning could be reduced, Ms. Verheyen indicated that some areas are named, but the focus was that the City should be proactive in guiding the decisions that are site specific. She reported that the areas to revitalize are named in the report, but the main finding is that the City should be proactive in creating a complete revitalization vision to guide development, rather than respond to development proposals as they come in. She indicated that mixed uses are favored overall, but each site needs to be carefully evaluated. Further, the community feels that underused commercial land should be rezoned for residential or mixed use, but the City should be careful to preserve the character and scale of the neighboring community. Regarding tidelands and other public lands, Ms. Verheyen stated that they should be preserved as open space and Volume 55 - Page 575 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 28, 2003 INDEX that there were strong feelings about the future of the waterfronts, particularly with Newport Dunes and Marinapark. She indicated that businesses and residents were split on this topic. She reported that open space and parks were discussed in several of the different activities and the strong feeling is that the City should be more proactive in acquiring open space and parkland wherever possible. Regarding residential neighborhoods and parking impacts, she stated that many solutions are supported but GPAC is cautiously against a blanket approach to solutions. Ms. Verheyen stated that the community believes that the City should have a land use strategy to prevent the expansion of John Wayne Airport (JWA) and have a lot of support for an airport at El Toro. Regarding what the City should have as its funding priority, she stated that there was always discussion about maintaining and enhancing infrastructure, open space, beaches, parks, water quality, and public safety. Ms. Verheyen stated that, in the areas of divided opinion, they were not able to find a clear direction for the City to guide future decision making. She indicated that these areas require further study and more information. She reported that any topic potentially related to future development was controversial. Further, other controversial topics included job growth, potential development areas, allowing mixed use /commercial/residential areas, open space, larger homes, tourism, hotel issues, transportation, residential neighborhoods and traffic impacts, and economic development. Ms. Verheyen reported that GPUC's subcommittee is working on scoping the General Plan. She wished the City well in manifesting the future of the designs. Mayor Bromberg commended Ms. Verheyen and her team for doing a very good job, and asked Council and the Planning Commission to be seated at the conference table. The Planning Commissioners in attendance included Commissioners Steven Kiser, Earl McDaniel, Larry Tucker, Shant Agajanian, Anne Gifford, Michael Toerge, and Ed Selich. He reported that the General Plan process started in November 2001 and that it will be over a year before it is completed. He stated that, when the GPU is completed, Council will ultimately vote on it after it goes before the Planning Commission. He explained that the purpose of Today's meeting is to discuss the summary. Mayor Bromberg explained that the GPAC is made up of 38 citizens and GPUC is made up of three Planning Commissioners (Anne Gifford, Michael Toerge, Shant Agajanian), three Council Members (Gary Adams, Steve Bromberg, John Heffernan), a Greenlight designee (Allan Beek), an Environmental Quality Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC) designee (Barry Eaton), an Aviation Committee designee (Tom Anderson), a Harbor Commission designee (Tim Collins), and an Economic Development Committee (EDC) designee (Robert Dunham). Council Member Adams, Chair of GPUC, stated that GPUC is charged with overseeing the entire General Plan Update process. He indicated that, when they were first formed, they spent a lot of time talking about how they expect the process to proceed, noting that there were a lot of unresolved details. He stated that they moved forward and initiated the visioning process. He noted that there is a significant amount of input from the community that is organized and ready for use in the development of the GPU. He indicated that all the details need to be ironed out and that a subcommittee was formed to meet with staff and the consultants to decide exactly how to proceed. Council Member Volume 55 - Page 576 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 28, 2003 INDEX Adams believed that it is important that the subcommittee meet with the Commissioners because of their expected role in this and so the subcommittee can form a recommendation to GPUC. He stated that he would feel more comfortable if the Commission provided input. Mayor Bromberg requested that GPUC and GPAC members in the audience raise their hand. He noted that they are the citizens who have been dedicating their time on this effort. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway noted that everything that has occurred since November 2001 was done without the technical studies. He asked when the studies will be ready and what studies will be created and distributed. Ms. Wood reported that an update to the traffic model is being worked on now, and an economic analysis and first phase report of the traffic model was presented to GPUC, GPAC, and the Economic Development Committee (EDC). Further, the EDC has a draft fiscal impact report regarding existing conditions in the City. She indicated that this will probably be the next report GPAC receives. She reported that the consultants will be developing a fiscal impact model which will make this and the traffic model the main tools to analyze different land use alternatives. She added that a biological study and a study of hazards are underway and need to be done for the Local Coastal Program. Council Member Adams stated that GPAC's original role was to oversee the visioning process; however, GPUC felt that GPAC was a valuable group and invested so much into the process that it was valuable to have them move forward and continue with the process. He indicated that GPAC initially did not sign up for that so they were individually asked if they could continue. He reported that the majority of the GPAC members have agreed to stay on the committee, but there are some vacancies that he will be recommending Council fill in order to have a full group. Council Member Adams agreed that they would have preferred that the technical studies were completed concurrent with the visioning process, but added that GPUC also determined that they want GPAC's comments, input, and discussions on the technical studies. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway expressed his support for the recommendation that the Planning Commission be involved and very critical because they are the City's land use and traffic matter experts. Mayor Bromberg added that there will be numerous checks and balances throughout the process. He stated that the idea of a GPU is to look to 2025. He reported that GPUC picked the GPAC members from hundreds of detailed applications and indicated that they looked for a diversity of people. Larry Tucker, Planning Commissioner, stated that the visioning process defined a series of choices on the items that people are not exactly in concurrence. He indicated that, at some point, a decision needs to be made about what to do about those items. He asked if the Commission will be receiving the decisions or will they be the body that makes the initial recommendation to Council. Council Member Adams stated that those are some of the details the subcommittee is charged with and that they will be giving a recommended roadmap of where the City is today to get to an updated General Plan. He indicated that this is why he is suggesting that the subcommittee meet in public with the Commission to get their ideas and have dialogue about how they will be involved. Mayor Volume 55 - Page 577 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 28, 2003 INDEX Bromberg added that the Commission will be receiving the results of the telephone survey and the visioning summit. He indicated that there will be some difficult decisions, i.e. people have traffic concerns, but they do not want streets widened; property rights are a major issue, but some people do not want their neighbor's house bigger than theirs. He stated that Council Member Adams' suggestion to have the subcommittee meet with the Commission will probably save people hours of work and be very productive. Council Member Adams clarified that he envisions this to be a Planning Commission agenda item and that he expects this to happen soon. Noting the timeline in the summary, Council Member Heffernan asked why some of the technical studies were not done pursuant to the timeline and, once received, will they challenge what the report already surmised. Council Member Adams emphasized that the report is the vision of the community and the objective is to come up with what people want to see, what their concerns are, etc. He indicated that what the technical studies tell them is something that needs to be combined with what the community thinks in order to make the hard decisions. He stated that a lot of them felt that it would have been good to have the technical information for the community to digest as part of the visioning process; however, he thinks that there may be some benefit to not having them done because they got a viewpoint from the public that is not influenced by the facts. Mayor Bromberg emphasized that nothing is set in stone and will not be set in stone for some time, Further, the people in the City have to decide what they want and the direction they want to go. Steven Kiser, Planning Commission Chair, asked how many Commission meetings they perceive them to have regarding the GPU. Council Member Adams stated that he envisions them initially having one or two meetings with the subcommittee to help develop the plan. He indicated that, in those meetings, the Commission would provide input to the subcommittee as to how many times you want to meet and how interactive you want to be with the process. He stated that he wants to hear how the Commission feels they want to be involved via the subcommittee. Commissioner Kiser believed that some of the meetings should be with the seven Planning Commissioners so everyone could provide their thoughts. Further, he would like the traffic and economic studies available before they finish providing their input. Mayor Bromberg stated that the Commissioners would need to see everything GPUC, GPAC, and Council sees. He clarified that the subcommittee is made up of Commissioners Toerge and Agajanian, Mr. Beek, and Mr. Eaton. Ms. Wood also clarified that Council Member Adams is suggesting that the subcommittee meet with the full Planning Commission once or twice to develop the plan of attack (the scope and how the Commission will be involved), not the plan itself. Council Member Heffernan asked about the timeline. Ms. Wood stated that the General Plan Consultant has estimated this process to take another two years. Further, Mr. Eaton who, as a Professional Planner, has done general plan updates in other communities is giving it the same time estimate. Robert Shelton, Chair of GPAC, expressed GPAC's appreciation for being selected to assist in this important task. He stated that it has been a privilege and an interesting experience. He indicated that they have met 12 times and have become more familiar with what they are charged to do. He stated that, although some of them were concerned that the technical studies were not Volume 55 - Page 578 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 28, 2003 INDEX available when they were supposed to be, he agreed that they may have done a better job at looking at the big picture without being confused by the facts. However, he believed it is important to have that information prior to the joint meetings with the Planning Commission. He stated that, if they were able to spend more time on the areas of disagreement they might have been able to narrow them down and suggest various approaches to resolving them. He noted that Council will ultimately have to have defined choices and expressed hope that what remains of GPAC's assignment would include helping to define those choices. Mayor Bromberg agreed that, because of the nature of what everyone is doing, there will be disagreements, but you work through them. He emphasized that the common goal is for the betterment of Newport Beach. He stated that this has been a civil process and added that he is proud to talk to other cities about the City's progress. Nancy Gardner, Co -Chair of GPAC, stated that they did come to a lot of consensus even with the diversity, noting that they crafted a visioning statement that the entire committee concurred on. She indicated that she feels very confident the City as a whole will be able to find consensus. She stated that they are looking forward to the continuing process and participation. She also thanked them for the opportunity to serve on GPAC. Barry Eaton, EQAC designee to GPUC, stated that he is the chair of the GPUC subcommittee. He agreed that it was remarkable that the widely diverse GPAC was able to come to an almost unanimous consensus on the vision statement (page 7). He believed that it is valuable that the Planning Commission and Council have public hearings and consider adopting the statement as the cornerstone of the GPU. At the request of Mayor Bromberg, Mr. Eaton explained that he is a retired Professional Planner and has served as a consultant for developers and various cities in Southern California. He added that he has been involved in six or seven general plan updates. Karlene Bradley, GPAC, stated that she has been a member of GPAC since its inception. She commended Ms. Verheyen for taking everyone's ideas and putting them together fairly. She believed that none of them would take issue with the way she phrased the ideas or put it together, believing that the summary represents all of the diverse opinions. Tom Billings stated that it was wonderful to see the fair representation of what GPAC came up with. He believed that there are areas that still need to be looked at, including potential development areas (page 14) like Fashion Island, Newport Center, and the airport area. He read the first paragraph to reiterate what the people who participated in the phone survey and visioning process felt. Louise Greeley, GPAC, thanked them for the opportunity and appreciated their decision to continue GPAC as she is looking forward to completing the job. Philip Bettencourt, 10 Sugar Pine Road, GPAC, agreed with his fellow GPAC colleagues about the remarkable degree of civility that occurred given the wide philosophical differences on the committee. He stated that they agonized for hours over the vision statement, but commended its merits. He thanked his colleagues and looks forward to whatever role Council and the Planning Volume 55 - Page 579 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 28, 2003 Commission have for them in the future. Mayor Bromberg stated that more issues will come up and there will be philosophical difference, but everyone has been able to work through those difference so far by being flexible. Coralee Newman, 2809 Broad Street, stated that she has not participated as a formal member of the committees, but has attended many of the meetings. She indicated that, as a parent of small children, she applauds these efforts because it makes her feel positive about the future of the City in terms of establishing a vision. Regarding page 12 and areas suitable for mixed uses, she stated that the subcommittee included Mariners Mile, but it was inadvertently omitted from the summary. She requested that the document reflect this. Mayor Bromberg thanked everyone who sits on GPUC and GPAC, noting that most of them showed up at the visioning summit. He indicated that he asked Mr. Lugar (Co -Chair of GPAC) how many people attend the GPAC meetings and was told that everyone shows up all the time. He also thanked the consultants, noting that he was one of the loudest, vocal critics of how the process was initially moving forward. However, they rose to the occasion and displayed the highest level of professionalism. He also commended Assistant City Manager Wood and Senior Planner Campbell. PUBLIC COMMENTS -None. ADJOURNMENT - at 5:35 p.m. to Closed Session to discuss two lawsuits (Teter and Robinson); give direction to the labor negotiators regarding the potential agreement with the Marine Safety Officers Association; and give direction to negotiators regarding discussions involving Balboa Bay Club's proposal to bifurcate the existing lease (1221 West Coast Highway). City Attorney Burnham reported that the Adelsohn case is on the Closed Session agenda, but will not be discussed. * rya* etee� * * *etxtxetxtx * *i:i:i:i:i:i: The agenda for the Study Session was posted on January 22, 2003, at 2:30 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. City Clerk Recording Secretary Mayor Volume 55 - Page 580