Sounding Board -- Tod Ridgeway

As we’ve been going through our “visioning” process to get started on

updating the general plan, I’ve been hearing comments from residents that

make me concerned that people may not really understand what this project

is all about. I hope I can provide some clarity on the general plan

update in this letter.

The first thing I’d like to tackle is the notion that Newport Beach is

a “built-out” city. I happen to think that’s true -- but it doesn’t

lessen the importance of the general plan update.

Having completed much of the development that was planned in the 1988

Land Use and Circulation Elements makes it all the more important for

Newport Beach to take a fresh look at the policies for a more mature

city. And I don’t think that anyone on the City Council thinks we’re

updating the general plan to change our built-out status by looking for

more places for major new development. What we’re doing in terms of land

use and development policies is creating a place where we have economic

growth even though the population isn’t growing.

Taking a look at the differences between the original general plan of

the early 1970s and the Land Use and Circulation Elements of 1988 help

illustrate my point.

In the early ‘70s, the city was planning for a major wave of growth,

as development made its way into central Orange County and The Irvine Co.

was ready to develop the Newport Beach portion of the Irvine Ranch.

It was important for that general plan to provide for the land use and

development that was expected, and accepted, at the time. By 1988, we

could see and feel the effects of the earlier general plan. A new general

plan effort started to put more controls on development that resulted in

a stronger tie between land use and circulation to lessen the effects of

development.

Now we’re one step further in the evolution of the city. We’re close

to the planned capacity of both our land and our circulation system. We

have fewer opportunities to add things that will benefit our community,

and people are much more sensitive to every increment of development.

The rebuilding of new homes in the older parts of the city is creating

new issues never before imagined. That is why this general plan update is

so important. We need to consider very carefully what development

opportunities remain, and what is the best way to use them to complete

Newport Beach. But, this process must also take into consideration

providing an environment for economic growth to provide for the high

level of services for our population.

City revenue is not keeping pace with the increased cost of services

and infrastructure. The rising property tax base from our stratospheric

rise in housing prices will not in and of itself cover the future

anticipated deficit. As an affluent and educated population, we are

capable of creating economic growth without impairing our quality of

life. However, some change to our policies during this general plan

update process is necessary.

Some of the opportunities may not be apparent, and they may involve

change in the development and use of land. Many people probably think of

more high-rise office buildings in Newport Center as the obvious

development opportunities in Newport Beach. I do not think any additional

growth on the coast is appropriate. But I think the city should be more

concerned about areas that have smaller properties in multiple

ownerships, with development that is reaching the end of its useful life.

I’m talking about the 15th and 16th streets area behind Hoag Hospital,

and the triangle bounded by Campus Drive, MacArthur Boulevard and Bristol

Street (the interior, not the major streets). I challenge people to drive

through those areas and tell me their vision is for those areas to remain

unchanged for the next 20 to 25 years, especially the single story

buildings on Birch Street.

The city must continue to invest in our infrastructure, continue our

high level of services and create an environment for redevelopment in

certain area of our city. While I respect the conflict between growth and

these who wish no growth, limited growth that is logical and reasonable

and tied to traffic improvements, is appropriate. Our quality of life is

served not only by infrastructure and services but also by a strong

economy.

I believe that some change is inevitable and necessary, but change

doesn’t necessarily mean growth. Change can have more positive than

negative effects -- if we plan for that change and manage it well.

So these are the questions we need to answer in the visioning process,

and convert into policies for the updated general plan. Which areas do we

want to change? How do we want them to change? What do we want them to

become? What incentives can the city provide to facilitate the kind of

change we want? Which areas do we want to maintain in their current

condition? How should we respond to trends (e.g., “mansionization,”

condominium conversions, increasing density by using old lot lines, etc.)

to preserve these areas?

That is what I think the general plan update is about.

* TOD RIDGEWAY is the mayor of Newport Beach.