HomeMy WebLinkAboutECONOMIC_BASE_ANALYSIS_AND_PROJECTIONS_GENERAL_PLAN_1973 *NEW FILE*
ECONOMIC_BASE_ANALYSIS_AS
ND_PROJECTION _GENERAL_
PLAN 1973 '
1 '
1
SUMMARY REPORT
' ECONOMIC BASE ANALYSIS
AND PROJECTIONS
' GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM
Newport Beach, California
1
1
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
A Subsidiary of Boaz,Allen&Hamilton Inc.
' LOS ANGELES • NEW YORK WASHINGTON CHICAGO • SAN FRANCISCO
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES ,F'��stl"
' 731 SOUTH FLOWER STREET LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017
:8 1plL'.l b l iI I
(AREA CODE 213) 626-2342 TELEX: 69.1287 ; C�LmC�WLJ�J
' November 19, 1973
2387. 01
' Mr. Richard V. Hogan
' Director
Community Development Department
City of Newport Beach
City Hall
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92660
Dear Mr. Hogan:
Development Research Associates is pleased to provide you with twenty-five
copies of our final report summarizing the major economic studies performed
by DRA for the Newport Beach General Plan Program, as per our agreement
' for consulting services.
Over the course of our consulting effort, we have provided the Community
' Development Department with the technical reports summarized in this report,
as well as other memoranda dealing with detailed aspects of the General Plan
Program. This report represents a summary of the most important of these
' many documents.
Throughout this lengthy and complex effort we have received the complete
' cooperation of the Community Development Department Staff, and have enjoyed
an effective professional working relationship on such critical joint efforts
as the development of the Cost/Revenue System and the detailed Growth
Projections for the 47 General Plan Statistical Areas.
o �
,� LOS ANGELHS CHICAGO • NEW YORK • )VASHINGTON
Mr. Richard V. Hogan
Page Two
' November 19, 1973
I,
Development Research Associates is pleased to have been of assistance in this
important planning effort for the City of Newport Beach.
' Respectfully submitted,
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
C. Corrough
Senior Associate
Project Manager
J. Richard McEl ea �%�%
y
President
1 JCC:JRM:jsa
1
II
1 I
I
1 SUMMARY REPORT
' ECONOMIC BASE STUDIES
GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
1 '
1
0.D 0 Rry'G:•
SPA+® "PTV'ppY
�4'ami 6eGs® i
fdCa=5R+1ALba5111t�
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATESr; ; Ga86JILiI�
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
' Letter of Transmittal
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC BASE ANALYSIS AND PROJECTIONS
Introduction 1
Purpose and Scope 1
Purpose 1
Scope 2
Regional and Newport Beach Growth Outlook 5
Regional 5
Newport Beach 6
Major Economic Determinants and Indicators of
Trend Growth 6
Population 7
Income 7
Employment 8
Land Uses 8
Dwelling Units 9
III Retail 9
Office 10
Industry 11
Hotel/Motel 11
Other Land Uses 13
Statistical Area Growth 13
Assumptions for Statistical Area Projections 18
General Assumptions for Statistical Areas 18
Assumptions for Individual Statistical Areas 20
Area Al 20
Area A2 21
Area A3 22
Area B1 22
Area B2 23
Area B3 23
Area B4 23
Area B5 23
Areas C1 and C2 24
1 Area Dl 24
Area D2 24
Area D3 25
Area D4 25
Areas El, E2, and E3 25
Area Fl 25
4� yid 10GL1
' �l_ �e#i�wOVma�IX�JNBtl1A@
41b2�R.Idf'aillSlAli
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
1 �
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Areas F2 and F3 25
Area F4 26
Areas F5, F6, F7 and F8 26
Area Gl 26
Area Hl 26
Area H2 26
Area H3 26
Area H4 27
Area J1 27
Area J2 27
Areas J3 - J4 27
Area J5 27
Area J6 27
Area Kl 28
Area K2 - K3 28
Area L1 28
Area L2 28
Area L3 28
Area L4 29
Area Ml 29
Area M2 29
Area M3 29
Area M4 29
Area M5 29
' SUMMARY OF HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS AND PROJECTIONS
Introduction 30
Purpose and Scope 30
Current Housing Trends and Characteristics 35
Orange County 35
Housing Supply Factors 35
Housing Demand Factors 35
The Newport Beach Housing Market Area 36
Housing Supply Factors 36
Housing Demand Factors 36
Newport Beach 46
Housing Supply Factors 46
I Housing Demand Factors 61
Projection of Future Housing Characteristics 61
Orange County and NBHMA 61
Newport Beach 64
Existing Housing Obstacles and Constraints 73
Supply/Demand Levels 74
7,
e's
L9LY5'9PiiN16'-gppWII(-
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES i:c l! L+.21F.J.1 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
SUMMARY OF COST REVENUE SYSTEM AND ANALYSIS
Introduction 75
Purpose and Scope 76
Purpose 76
Scope 76
The 1972 "State of the City" Cost/Revenue Model 78
Potential Revenue Sources 81
REVIEW OF GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT
Introduction 84
Background and Parameters of Review 84
Alternative Futures 84
Assumptions 85
General Economic Implications of the Land Use Element 86
Effect on City's Fiscal Structure 86
Projected Land Use Amounts Versus Market
Demand for Uses 88
Absorption Rates 90
Effect on Property Owner 92
Effect on General Economy 93
Effect on Real Estate/Development Activities 93
1 •
� 1
�tl ®Wp4lIL'H
cy5n+?r tesiiuwoilwl
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report briefly summarizes the major economic consulting efforts of
Development Research Associates in assisting the Newport Beach Community
Development Department in the development of the Newport Beach General
Plan.
The overall scope of the consulting effort included the research,analysis,and
documentation of three major studies:
o Economic Base Analysis and Projections
Io Housing Market Analysis and Projections
o Cost Revenue System and Analysis
Additionally, several technical and policy memoranda concerning analysis of
specific issues and elements of the General Plan Program were prepared during
the course of the planning program.
' The memorandum covering the review by DRA of the Land Use Element of the
General Plan has been incorporated in this summary report because of its
important linkages with the economic projections and cost/revenue analysis.
TThe detailed technical reports and memoranda have been provided to the
Community Development Department during the course of the study and are
considered to be the more detailed technical "background" for this summary
report. Each section of this report is preceded by an introductory description
of the purpose and scope of its analysis.
1 It should be noted that the studies summarized in this report were completed
during 1972 and early 1973, utilizing 1970 and 1972 base data and assumptions
1 and were reviewed throughout 1973. As new data and assumptions become
available and applicable it is recommended that the Community Development
Department staff revise and update the DRA technical studies and data base as
appropriate.
�ow,P�ry> a exi
MUM
ra Q•.ny f8��'�namana
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
T
SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC BASE ANALYSIS AND PROJECTIONS
1
...4�®7&s.'IJ6i1
ppnn RYAthN
`C,�Fjrsn<�o���f9YG�1
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES :' iii:G
1
INTRODUCTION
This memorandum briefly summarizes the findings of Development Research
Associates with respect to major existing and projected Newport Beach
economic indicators and land uses forming the basis for development of a
"trend growth" plan by Newport Beach Community Development Department
Istaff.
The detailed technical report covering these and other economic and land use
elements of the community and region from which this summary has been de-
veloped, has been previously submitted to the CD staff.
Companion reports on housing and a cost/revenue analysis have also been com-
pleted, and furnish additional economic factor/land use input to the General
Plan effort. These are also on file with the Community Development Department.
It should be noted that this summary represents only data findings and does not
deal with questions of growth oP 1icy, which are the subject of other phases of
the General Plan Study effort, as alternative plans and implementation
strategies were developed and analyzed, and a plan alternative selected.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
IPURPOSE
1 This report summarizes major points of the economic base information compo-
nent of the Newport Beach General Plan Program, and is substantially
based upon a technical document used by the Community Development
Department in their development of General Plan Alternatives.
As a basis for the General Plan Study, it was necessary to establish a "probable
future" for Newport Beach, as a baseline against which some alternative
" ossible futures" could be developed and measured in economic,
environmental, social, and physical terms. This "probable future" is called
the "trend growth model, " and is based upon assumptions which portray the
future as essentially an extension of the near-term past (approximately the past
decade).
Thus, the essential role or purpose of this report in the General Plan Study
effort has been to show the trend growth projections for Newport Beach,
providing a view of growth which was then illustrated by the CD staff as an
' existing trends plan. '
qss-
�M1b e'gt
ji'aram��e
fJC E9[W�]EP�li[At6N
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
This study thus differs in intent, and to some extent in its numerical findings,
from others currently or recently performed within the County and general
market area of Newport Beach, for significant reasons:
0 It is performed from the point of view of Newport Beach,
rather than from the point of view of a larger regional juris-
diction such as the County, and thus goes into considerably
greater detail for Newport Beach than necessary for a
county wide or other large-scale study. Thus the detailed
view of what is in, and what may happen to, Newport Beach
may differ from the large-scale view of Newport Beach.
o It is performed for a public entity, but with recognition
I of the operational characteristics of the private sector.
Thus it does not seek to either optimize or be pessimistic
about the existing or potential development characteristics
of various land uses as a market study done for the private
sector might, and merely reports what has happened, what
is happening, and based upon these views, what is "most
likely" to happen, not what "might, " "could, " or "should"
happen.
Therefore, any attempts to draw comparisons between the findings of this
study and other studies which include Newport Beach may meet with statistical
inconsistencies due to different data bases, different assumptions, and different
objectives for the studies themselves.
1 SCOPE
This report considers Orange County as the major regional growth context for
Newport Beach, with appropriate additional consideration given to those
economic factors which operate within the Los Angeles County -- Orange County
region, and those which are localized within a Newport Beach "market area, "
which varies from the scale of the city itself to an area including the city and
surrounding communities, and in some cases, the entire county.
The time frame of the study involves: historical data dating generally from
1960; current dataof the 1970-1972 period; and projection years of 1980 and
1990. In some cases where growth activity can be identified as extending
beyond 1990, this fact is noted.
I For the purposes of defining a "trend growth" Newport Beach city land area
and city boundaries for 1990, the Statistical Areas map utilized in the General
Plan Study (Figure 1) has been accepted as representing the Newport Beach of
-2- iltq
L9^_'9? 116R9GtiA1P1
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
a� � r r r � �r rr r rr r rr r �r i■r r rr r rr
g
14
iVv
\` �-•F. `.�,` � :`$y, ��•� �— `\' + I'•L S`�Y' fit\ i� G-� zk._
L2 MS
N Q•�
ro � ; '.V rc '•�1'�R�G9%9=S '/'tJ�'V��m=-]n{ 45�-'�,�� ; .; � -�i• �� a. `` M =
IP Al
r] y' �, i01- 1-1-%i��_'; ,al �` �..--... �<.. �$,i� M •7.1• :v��
KC
.- � `�••_ — �_ lee l\� IN
h7 �;7rt- �� � e �l�"'^ �• ifabn� J' '�pb1 3 � 'et K _ _ ° _�� a'-, ��`a`'_'.''`s'r
a ..�- ,v .�q„�, .,�j>•- <7���..Y aOC37Gl
�z A2
O
-----
a U
IT
'',•,r. E < .z = CITY OF NEWPOiir BFACN
•„'-V�'4'�+."'�e'J ` Population and Housing Data Statistical Areas A Am�mml Drvniom
.. smatlwl Amor
febrwEy 19y2
l}39343t199®���E�1��
F 3^ a��TitB•EE
that point in time, including the annexation of unincorporated county areas
1 included in the statistical areas of this map.
The report deals initially with the Orange County and Newport Beach Market
Area(s) "inventory" items, including population, employment, income, and
land use, and includes county and market area projections for these elements,
based upon assumptions described in the accompanying text. Projections for
Newport Beach based upon a "share" assignment of total County or market area
growth potential are also included in this section.
These projections are followed by projections for the 47 Newport Beach
General Plan Statistical Areas, including related assumptions, aggregated
"small area, " totals, and total Newport Beach projections.
In effect then, the potential trend growth of Newport Beach has been projected
by two different methods:
o A "market potential" approach in which a projected
capture rate, or percentage allocation of total regional or
market area growth is ascribed to Newport Beach,
irrespective of the city's actual physical capability to
accommodate this growth.
o A "holding capacity" approach based upon the actual
physical and zoned growth capacity" of each of the 47
statistical subareas to accommodate trend-induced
growth. Thus, vacant land, potential recycling of land
uses and intensities, zoning, street patterns, and other
"real world" factors determine these projections, which
are considerably more accurate than those of the market
potential approach.
' Because of the greater accuracy of the holding capacity projections, they have
been utilized for development of the trend growth projections.
' Market potential-based projections, along with holding capacity projections
(based upon alternative land areas and boundary configurations) were utilized
in structuring alternative plans during the remainder of the General Plan Study.
It should be noted that regional/market area projections deal primarily with
nonresidential uses, and that the regional housing market context and Newport
Beach existing stock are shown here only in summary fashion, since they are
dealt with in detail in another section of this summary report.
Total existing and projected dwelling units and populations, utilized for
"existing trend" planning purposes, are shown in the Statistical Areas
Projections section of this report. 1-,,,...,._.15K-
r, voeosma�cu
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES ::`:E9fE5E:=�C¢E-h�
REGIONAL AND NEWPORT BEACH GROWTH OUTLOOK
Regional
Most economic indicators point to a continued intensive pace of economic
1 expansion, and resultant regional growth over the next two decades in the 5-
county Southern California Area and Orange County in particular, though not at
the same rate as in the past decade, which saw these two areas as the fastest
growing in the nation.
Orange County, operating on the momentum of 15 years of accelerated growth
1 is expected to have a significant share, between 1970 and 1990, of the total 5-
county growth picture in several significant areas.
o Approximately one-third of the annual 5-county growth in
employment is expected to be in Orange County.
o Orange County's share of total 5-county population will
increase from 10 percent to nearly 18 percent.
o The county-wide median family income is expected to
increase from $12, 245 in 1970 to $36, 400 by 1990 (1970
dollars).
o Anticipated growth in urban areas will find nearly 63 percent
' of the county's total land area in urban uses, in contrast to
the 31 percent in these uses in 1970.
' The most significant aspect of economic growth is that continued growth of
population and employment, as well as economic activity "centers" is resulting
in a change from the county acting as a residential suburb and satellite
employment area for Los Angeles, to a more independent economic unit with
a strong emphasis on home and work being both located in the county.
Thus, much of the future economic activity in the county will concentrate not
only in newly developing non-urban areas, but will represent a second growth
wave of infill in areas "leapfrogged" over in the rush of the 60's and of
"recycling" of older areas developed just prior to, and just after the Second
World War.
Within this context, Newport Beach will continue to be an area of concentration
of these regional growth forces.
!]I 1 0
[]L�t II1[Nu!NftfN
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES ;'uirL'�E9uh�3
Newport Beach
Newport Beach will continue to be the focus of considerable growth potential
from within the 5-county and Orange County regions due to its past and current
image as a favorable environment for business, residence, and leisure
activities. Based upon trends of the past decade, this growth can be expected
' to consist largely of high value uses and higher income residents than most
other communities in the county, and, as available land within the city is used
I up, the demand/supply imbalance is expected to put increasing economic
pressures on the older built up areas of the city, including pressures in the
early 80's on areas which have been developed since 1960.
' "Trend" growth will thus be duplicated at the scale of Newport Beach,
particularly as the surrounding "buffers" of as-yet-undeveloped Irvine areas,
other vacant areas, and Costa Mesa "leapfrogged" areas become developed,
thus placing Newport Beach in an economic context which extends beyond
current city boundaries, and more closely approximates the "sub-region" in
' nature, much as portions of the Los Angeles Basin now behave.
The extent to which Newport Beach "embraces" this trend or attempts to
"bend" or divert it, how and when the various alternatives might occur, and
what their respective "costs" and "benefits" are (economic, physical, social,
environmental and political) is essentially the basis of the General Plan Study.
I The detailed summaries of current and projected economic indicators which
follow generally indicate that, even with the opening up of new growth areas in
' the continued urbanization of Orange County, Newport Beach's "share" of the
growth potential will continue to, in most cases, exceed its current holding
capacity to accommodate this growth potential.
MAJOR ECONOMIC DETERMINANTS AND INDICATORS
OF TREND GROWTH
1 The major economic determinants of physical growth, (as represented by land
use development) are:
o Population
o Income
o Employment
\jin. n w
71.
CY�71.9 N.N
uc=.. rz+�oywiusin
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES ":: :CrJ¢tc�i�I9
These factors are described in the following sections, in terms of existing and
1 regional growth, and with respect to the anticipated Newport Beach "share" of
growth, as well as the Newport Beach "holding capacity" potential for growth.
Population
Orange County population is expected-to grow from a 1970 level of 1,420, 386
to approximately 1, 928, 700 in 1980, and 2, 445, 300 in 1990.
Newport Beach is expected on a "share" projection basis, to increase from a
49, 422 1970 level to 97, 300, by 1980 and 110, 000 by 1990, representing an
increased share of Orange County population from 3. 5 percent in 1970 to 5. 0
percent in 1980, to 4. 5 percent in 1990.
If the Newport Beach Statistical Area is utilized as the assumed basis for the
trend plan, then the estimated 1972 population of 56, 000 in this area (54, 000
estimated in city in 1972) could rise as high as 129, 000 by 1990.
The potential "holding capacity" population of the overall Statistical Area by
1980 would be 96, 700, and by 1990, 109, 300. If only the 1972 city area is
considered in these holding capacity projections, then the totals are: 1972,
53, 919; 1980, 90, 052; and 1990, 97, 668.
From the above, it can be seen that for the 1972 city area alone, "share"
population growth would exceed "holding capacity" by approximately 7, 250 in
1980, and 12, 350 in 1990.
Income
1 Orange County median family income was $12, 245 in 1970, (up from $7, 219 in
1960), and is expected to increase to $21, 400 by 1980 and $36, 400 by 1990
(1970 dollars for 1980, 1990).
No differentiation can be made, or is valid, between incomes on a "share"
basis and a "holding capacity" basis, since the latter is a physical-area
related factor. Therefore, income projections for Newport Beach have been
based on extensions of current census data, in 1970 dollars, assuming a
slightly increased average annual rate for the 1970-1980 period, and a
slightly lower one for 1980-1990, based upon continued growth of the area
through 1980, and some stabilization and differentiation after 1980. (Rates:
average annual arithmetic -- for 1960-1970 for Newport Beach 9. 2 percent;
1970-1980, 9. 5 percent, 1980-1990, 9. 0 percent. County rates are 7. 0 percent,
7. 5 percent and 7. 0 percent same periods. )
Ci�NAPdp
UMwW l8 ifi6drn
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES H.
i ;L®E C:F" �
Newport Beach median family income rose from $8, 571 in 1960 to $16, 435 in
' 1970, and is projected to be approximately $32, 000 by 1980, and $60, 000 by
1990 (1970 dollars).
Employment
Employment in Orange County is expected to increase from the 1970 level of
475, 500 to 692, 400 in 1980, and 887, 600 in 1990, having risen to the 1970
level from a 1960 figure of 199, 500.
Estimated Newport Beach employment is based upon a 1972 survey by
Community Development staff of existing employment levels within the
Statistical Area, and 1980 and 1990 DRA estimates for the same area.
In 1972, approximately 22, 280 employees were located in the NBSA, while
1980 projections indicate an increase to 40, 630, and a 1990 level of 60, 240
employees.
The growth of employment will, of course, be at a lower rate than in the past,
due to the tapering off of the 1960's boom, and the introduction of fewer
labor-intensive industries.
1 Retail and services employment are expected to continue current steady
increases, while government employment will also increase significantly.
LAND USES
The physical growth resulting from the above economic factors is divided into
several major land use categories, which are described in the remainder of
1 this section.
The "demand" for population-based public uses such as government services,
1 parks, open space, schools and related quasi-public and institutional uses will
be determined by CD staff, based upon DRA population estimates, policy, and
other considerations, and is not discussed here. (Commercial recreation,
marinas, and other potentially privately operated uses serving the general
public are covered in the DRA technical report. )
1
x sp r
.41F3�p;•.,n
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
i
Dwelling Units
While the subject of housing supply and demand is covered in greater detail in
a companion study, a general determination of housing demand and supply has
been made in this analysis. In 1970, Orange County had approximately
326, 000 single family units and 138, 600 multiple family units for a total of
464, 900 units with 70 percent of the total being single family units, a figure
expected to drop to 65 percent by 1975, 60 percent by 1980, and to 52 percent
by 1990, reflecting the current trend toward construction of multiple family
units. It should be noted that "multiple family' in current terms also includes
condominiums and other "attached" sales (rather than rental) units and does
not apply only to rental apartments.
Newport Beach in 1970, had approximately 22, 200 year round occupied dwelling
units, or approximately 4. 8 percent of all county units, while the Newport
Beach Statistical Area in 1972 had approximately 25, 900 units of all types and
approximately 25, 000 in the city alone. Vacancy rates range throughout the
city from 6. 8 percent city wide in October, 1971, to as high as 31 percent in
some areas during the "off season. "
The NBSA in January, 1972, had 12, 920 "detached" single family units, and
' 10, 800 duplex and multi family units, as well as 1, 136 mobile home units
(would be counted as single family), representing a 57 percent - 43 percent
ratio of single to multiple family. If the current "share" of total County growth
were maintained, Newport Beach (city only) could have the potential for 39, 900
total dwelling units in 1980 (county total of 767, 900),and 50, 300 in 1990, (county
total of 1, 006, 000) with the probable single family-multi family split being 50-
50 in 1980 and in 1990, 45-55. However, "holding capacity" projections show
that the city area only could "hold" 35, 450 dwelling units at maximum build-out
"capacity"capacity regardless of build out year, while the total holding capacity of the
NBSA would be approximately 46, 000 units, thus it can be seen that by "market"
projections, the current city 'capacity' to accommodate these dwelling units
would be exceeded by nearly 4, 500 units in 1980, and by nearly 15, 000 units in
' 20 years.
Retail
Retail commercial land use of all types currently occupies an estimated 3, 535
acres in Orange County in 1972. Estimated gross building square footage de-
voted to retail commercial uses on a county-wide basis is 40, 000, 000 square
feet. Estimated county growth of retail land uses is expected to result in a
total land area of 5, 000 by 1980 and 8, 000 by 1990. Retail gross square
footage in 1980 is estimated at 60, 000, 000, while 1990 square footage will
ii �emmiete�?: RM is
sP"u�1
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES i(aE�IiiF J115a-11
' approximate 90, 000, 000. 1972 Newport Beach retail use land area was 170
acres, and building area was 1, 705, 000 square feet, including approximately
800, 000 square feet of retail uses in Newport Center.
' Because of the strong regional impact of the Newport Center, Newport Beach
has a greater than proportionate (based upon land area, population, or other
incremental factors) share of retail land use and building square footage and
for that reason, to project future growth based upon current "share" would
result in unrealistically high figures. Future growth will consist primarily of
"rounding out" of Newport Center and community/local scale retail growth
serving subareas of Newport Beach. Projected total retail growth based upon
per capita retail expenditures related to potential population growth in Orange
County and Newport Beach is also therefore not an accurate indicator, because
per capita expenditures are higher than standard rates, and sales levels are
also inordinately high for useful projections. Projected "holding capacity"
retail growth in the NBSA would approximate 200 acres and 2, 170, 000 square
feet of building area by 1980, and 270 acres and 2, 740, 000 square feet by 1990,
and present a better approximation of projected retail growth.
Office
Total Orange County office space in 1972 has been estimated to be 2. 9 million
gross square feet of space in high rise structures (9 stories and above) and 4. 2
million g, s. f. in low and medium rise structures for a total of 7. 1 million g, s. f.
Anticipated growth by 1980 is expected to result in a high rise total of 7 million
gross sq. ft. , and 8 million g. s. f, of low rise space totaling 15 million g. s. f. of
space. 1990 totals are expected to be; 11 million gross square feet in high rise
and 13. 5 million gross square feet in low rise, totaling 24. 5 million. The
current Newport Beach office space inventory in April, 1972 was 1. 1 million
gross square feet in high rise and 1. 8 million gross square feet in low rise
structures. 1980 high rise space is expected to approximate 4. 6 million gross
square feet, with 1980 low rise space estimated at 3 million gross
' square feet,totaling 7. 6 gross square feet. By 1990, high rise space will have
grown to 7 million square feet and low rise to 5 million square feet for a total
of 12 million..•It should be noted that these figures do not take into account
absorption rates, and are based upon current and estimated plans for office
construction in the Newport Beach, Irvine area which effectively represents
the immediate Newport Beach "capture" area of total Orange County growth.
A more accurate estimation of what the total scale of office space construction in
Newport Beach will be is provided by the holding capacity projections, which
indicate 5, 000, 000 g. s. f, of office space of all types (high and low rise) by 1980
and 8, 000, 000 g. s. f, by 1990, as compared with market based projections of
7. 6 million for 1980 and 12 million for 1990
-10- WEI
J •�e@is"�
uy. �_✓umm¢saeeu
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
Industry
Industrial land use in Orange County currently (1972) occupies 13, 500 acres,
' and is expected to grow to 18, 800 acres by 1980 and 24, 300 acres by 1990.
Current Newport Beach Industrial Market Area (Newport Beach, Irvine, Costa
Mesa, Laguna Beach and Huntington Beach) development totals approximately
2, 000 acres, and is expected to maintain its 15-16 percent share of total
market, totaling some 3, 000 acres by 1980 and 4, 000 acres by 1990.
Land within the Newport Beach General Plan Statistical Area in industrial use
in 1972 totaled 741 acres, and is expected to decline based upon holding capacity
projections, due to elimination of some areas in industrial use for other uses,
resulting in 723 acres by 1980 and 404 acres by 1990. This acreage includes
projected industrial development in large planned areas such as Koll Center,
' Emkay and others. (The primary area of industrial use decline is represented
by the areas currently in oil field use in West Newport (Statistical Area Al)
which represent 442 acres projected for conversion to other uses. )
Hotel/Motel
Orange County currently has approximately 15, 000 hotel and motel rooms, with
approximately 2, 500 in the Newport Beach Market Area and 886 located in the
City of Newport Beach. (Anaheim had 7, 760 rooms in June, 1972. )
Orange County hotel/motel room growth due to continuing increases in tourism,
business visitor, and convention activity, is expected to result in 19, 000 rooms
by 1980, and 25, 200 rooms by 1990, county wide.
Newport Beach Market Area hotel/motel rooms are expected to increase to
4, 780 by 1980, and 5, 850 by 1990 based upon current known development plans
and extrapolation of existing trends. These projections do not take into.account
questions of absorption rates, market saturation, and other factors affecting
market demand, and which could materially affect the pace of development.
Newport Beach Statistical Area hotel/motel room projections are based upon
holding-capacity-limited areas and development parameters, and indicate that
approximately 2, 200 rooms would be developed by 1980 and approximately
3, 350 by 1990.
..b,p4a, •^Y��
•a asp }�
,6peA.$p,® i•eiu,ri.
>'asr r
q�;;;r ne®�oaenciu
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM
SUMMARY OF CURRENT AND PROJECTED ECONOMIC INDICATORS
1972, 1980, 1990
1972 1980 1990
' NBSA(2) NBSA(3) ' NBSA NBSA
ECONOMIC INDICATORS County NBSA(1) ' County Share Capacity ' County Share Capacity
Population (persons) 1,420,386 56,000 ' 1,928,700 101,000 96,700 ' 2,445,300 129,000 109,300
Family Income (dollars) $12,245(4) $16,435(4)' $21,400(4) $32,000 $36,400(4) $60,000(4)
Employment (full time employees) 475,500 22,280 ' 692,400 n,a, 40,630 887,600 n,a. 60,240
LAND USE ELEMENTS
C Residential (total dwelling units) 464,900 25,900 ' 767,900 39,900 30,500 ' 1,006,000 50,300 35,450
C Retail (gross square feet) 40,000,000 1,705,000 '60,000,000 n.a. 2, 170,000 ' 90,000,000 n,a. 2,740,000
p Office (gross square feet) 7,100,000 2,900,000 115,000,000 7,600,000 5,000,000 24,500,000 12,000,000 8,000,000
It
Industry (acres) 13,500 2,000(5), 18, 800 3,000(5) 24,300 4,000(5)
yHotel/Motel (rooms) 15,000 2,500(5), 19,000 4,780(5) 2,200 25,200 5,850(5) 3,350
U!
a (1) Newport Beach General Plan Statistical Area
,> (2) Newport Beach General Plan Statistical Area share of county growth projection
O (3) Newport Beach General Plan Statistical Area holding capacity projection
'f, (4) 1970 base figures, 1970 dollars for 1980, 1990 projections
9 (5) Newport Beach Market Area (Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Irvine, Laguna Beach, Huntington Beach)
W
rD
O
O
M
9
H
i w•r,.,
C'= - ysr- �tllll.i
l
' Other-Land Uses
1 Additional land uses covered by the economic base analysis and projection effort
' are included in the technical report available at the CDD offices.
1 STATISTICAL AREA GROWTH
Growth of the 47 Statistical subareas which constitute the entire Newport Beach
Statistical Area will occur at varied rates and in varying magnitudes over the
next 20 years.
' The following three tables illustrate this growth, by statistical subarea, of three
important factors:
1 o Population
1 o Dwelling units
o Employment
' The statistical subareas can be grouped into four major categories based upon
the rate and magnitude of "change" (type or intensity of land use, land use
1 patterns, etc. ) of land use during the projection period:
o No change 1972-1990 (some minimal change, but less than
1 percent of total)
o Major change by 1980 (possibly lasting past 1980)
1 o Major change after 1980 (possibly lasting past 1990)
1 o General continuing change 1972-1990 (general evolutionary
recycle)
1 No change 1972-1990
C1, C2
D4
F1, F5, F6, F7, F8
J2, J3, J4
1 K2, K3
Ml, M2, M4
w �r >a.r,,C
1l s a. p.^'YT•
a-rm e
ut:.sr+nuRmePl}eda
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
Major change by 1980 (1980+ = change continuing past 1980)
B5 (1980+)
G1
' H1 (1980+)
Jl (1980+), J5
K1 (1980t)
L2, L3 (1980+), L4 (1980+)
M3, M5
Major change after 1980
Al, A2, A3
' F4
F4
J6
General continuing change 1972-1990
' B2, B3, B4
Di, D2, D3
El, E2, E3
F2, F3
H2, H3
Ll
f ' '11. X.
f:,I.sLiOQ69Tld9[9
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES fEIL:�IOh��
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN PROJECTIONS
' POPULATION BY STATISTICAL AREA
(Trend Growth Model)
Statistical Area 1972 1980 1990
' A 1 --- 864 8,640
A2 593 2, 836 4,765
A3 640 1, 470 2, 272
B 1 1, 566 1,483 1, 885
B2 1, 279 1, 953 2,450
B3 1, 977 2, 158 2,402
B4 1, 720 2,458 2,875
B5 956 956 1, 174
C 1-C2 2, 257 2, 622 2,320
D 1 1,205 1,580 1,672
D2 656 1, 028 1, 198
D3 1,616 2, 392 2,640
D4 1,653 2, 103 2, 142
E 1 1, 036 1, 390 1,508
' E2 1, 315 1, 978 1, 922
E3 1, 256 1, 845 2, 068
F 1 1, 076 1, 082 1, 087
F2 1,453 1, 556 1,721
F3 1, 943 2, 580 3, 037
F4 2, 198 2, 384 2,716
F5 753 927 927
' F6 411 411 411
F7 411 420 420
F8 516 522 522
' G1 586 2, 330 2, 330
H 1 795 936 1, 383
H2 1, 912 2, 033 2, 112
H3 1, 311 1, 539 1,652
' H4 1, 270 1, 270 1,270
11 1, 537 3,608 3, 608
J 2 2,472 2,472 2,472
' J 3 1,435 1, 587 1, 587
J 4 2, 057 2, 094 2,094
J 5 778 2,621 2,621
J 6 1, 496 1, 312 750
' K L 1,434 5, 334 5, 334
K2 2, 656 3, 984 3, 984
K3 1,509 1, 509 1, 509
' L1 - 170 3, 020 3, 020
L2 31 6, 091 6, 091
L3
L4 36 --- ---
' M 1 1, 305 2,549 2,549
M2 1,462 1, 56 1 1, 561
M3 390 1,602 1,602
M4 2, 927 3, 333 3, 333
' M5 --- 5, 621 5, 621
Totals 56, 055 95,404 108, 657
Source: 1972- Community Development Department Data
1980, 1990- Development Research Associates h9•m s:g•,
ULyf '.fJT[u61SIL91
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATESifEiLiJ66`�'I��I
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN PROJECTIONS
' DWELLING UNITS BY STATISTICAL AREA
(Trend Growth Model)
' Statistical Area 1972 1980 1990
A 1 --- 455 4, 550
A 2 318 1, 418 2, 518
A3 356 668 1, 136
B 1 543 593 794
B2 645 781 980
B3 998 1, 079 1, 201
B4 871 983 1, 151
B5 609 609 618
C 1-C2 868 874 889
D1 744 790 836
D2 427 514 599
' D3 1, 072 1, 196 1,320
D4 692 701 714
E 1 609 632 754
E2 759 860 961
E3 704 802 899
F 1 446 448 458
F2 743 778 859
' F3 1, 139 1,290 1,438
F4 1, 104 1, 192 L, 367
F5 259 317 317
' F6 142 142 142
F7 142 145 145
F8 177 179 179
G L 277 932 932
H1 328 468 598
H2 696 726 771
H3 541 570 612
H4 519 436 436
11 432 1,443 1,, 443
J 2 1, 976 1, 976 1, 976
' J 3 446 461 461
J 4 620 631 631
J 5 386 L, 303 1, 303
J6 486 386 250
K 1 1, 147 2, 097 2, 097
K2 1, 137 1, 707 1,707
K3 460 460 460
L 1 --69 1, 569 1, 569
L2 10 2, 136 2, 136
L3
L4 13 --- ---
' M L 408 805 805
M2 457 499 499
M3 166 676 676
M4 914 1, 044 1, 044
M5 --- 1,735 1,735
Totals 25,856 39, 506 46, 766
Source; 1972- Community Development Department Data
' 1980, 1990- Development Research Associates ;
r�c.ti,_oc.da•�cin
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
' NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN PROJECTIONS TOTAL
AND RETAIL EMPLOYMENT BY STATISTICAL AREA
' (Trend Growth Model)
' 1972 1980 1990
Statistical Area Total Retail Total Retail Total Retail
Al 52 0 40 0 1, 262 161
' A2 3, 160 7 2,485 220 3, 068 278
A3 201 7 137 0 70 0
B1 66 17 72 20 122 85
' B2 7 0 0 0 0 0
B3 0 0 0 0 0 0
B4 55 20 55 20 55 20
' B5 1, 774 388 2,038 400, 2,424 488
C1 & C2 6 0 6 0 0 0
D1 117 5 117 5 114 5
D2 52 8 52 8 52 8
D3 301 75 320 60 352 50
D4 0 0 0 0 0 0
E1 53 9 53 9 51 9
' E2 0 0 0 0 0 0
E3 282 141 276 135 271 130
F1 83 0 85 0 85 0
F2 29 0 29 0 29 0
' F3 0 0 0 0 0 0
F4 1,170 289 1, 111 270 1, 043 229
F5 3 0 3 0 3 0
' F6 0 0 0 0 0 0
F7 0 0 0 0 0 0
F8 0 0 0 0 0 0
G1 533 205 585 205 600 205
' H1 270 41 203 30 129 21
H2 38 0 38 0 38 0
H3 313 0 323 0 333 0
' H4 1, 136 210 1,287 270 1,419 302
Jl 0 0 73 15 105 17
J2 1,055 168 1,055 168 1,055 168
J3 0 0 0 0 0 0
J4 0 0 0 0 0 0
J5 15 0 15 0 15 0
J6 70 12 430 25 3, 931 95
' K1 320 13 560 90 622 105
K2 273 44 291 44 313 44
K3 0 0 0 0 0 0
L1 4,466 1, 358 10,337 1,400 13,856 1, 525
' L2 8 8 10 10 10 10
L3 1,805 5 4,260 150 6,645 255
L4 4,374 45 13,991 200 21, 732 319
' M1 40 0 45 0 125 33
M2 19 0 19 0 19 0
M3 123 94 200 94 250 94
M4 0 0 0 0 0 0
' M5 10 0 30 0 40 0
Totals 22,279 3, 169 40,621 3,848 60,238 4,656
gMeyt;1?4..� wpm.
Source: Development Research Associates
L1G��:Iy60'Stl:.al't
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES "iirfiiuLiJS6CJEU��
ASSUMPTIONS FOR STATISTICAL AREA PROJECTIONS
' Assumptions utilized for the detailed projections of population, dwelling units,
' employment, and land uses for each of the 47 statistical areas utilized in the
General Plan Study derive from three sources:
o Existing Physical and Statutory_Parameters and
Constraints, including: boundaries of statistical areas;
existing and available land area; permitted development
' based on zoning; existing development types, ages and
intensities; streets, water, natural features; and other
similar elements.
' o Information and Assumptions about Growth of
"Transitional Areas" and "Large Vacant and Under-
developed Areas", Furnished by CD Staff, including:
plans proposed or underway by developers; building
conditions and/or land values creating growth potential;
recycling of areas to higher intensities of same land use
based upon existing zoning; areas of potential zoning
variation pressures and other factors.
o Information and Assumptions about Each of the Individual
Statistical Areas, combining the above two categories, as
well as DRA current field research and, professional
judgment based upon past experience, and additional
information provided by CD staff during course of the
analysis.
Additionally structuring the detailed statistical area assumptions are general
assumptions about the Newport Beach area, some of which are based upon the
regional assumptions described in an earlier chapter and others which are based
upon observations of city wide trends extending over a period of years.
' All of the assumptions pertaining to the statistical areas are strongly shaped by
the fact that this is a trend-growth analysis and projection exercise,
GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS FOR STATISTICAL AREAS
' o The boundaries and land area of Newport Beach in 1980
and 1990 will be identical to the area contained within the
' —18 pP{T1l89Wo
IJLJC :L9T5 APdYlI]
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES ii: :L�Iti�:hilE
1 boundaries of the "Planning Area" as shown on the entire
Newport Beach Statistical Areas Map shown in Figure 1.
Current unincorporated county "islands" and appendages
within this boundary will be annexed to the city on a
Igradual basis.
0 The current zoning and building regulations of Newport
Beach and Orange County applicable to the statistical
areas, are assumed to continue in force during the
projection period,and the current enforcement policies
will also be applied during this same period.
0 Reflecting existing overall density and development
' trends, the maximum density and development potentials
for total units in residential areas currently permitted
by zoning will not be reached, as a general rule, through-
out the City/Statistical Area.
0 All currently master planned areas, whether approved
or pending, will be built essentially as currently
described in their master plans -- Koll, Emkay, and
Irvine developments.
' 0 Mixed-use areas will be permitted within various overall
zoning destinations, continuing the unique existing nature
of much of the waterfront and specialty use areas within
the city.
1 o The Pacific Coast Freeway will not be built within the
"new" city limits within the 20 year projection period.
A widened and improved Pacific Coast Highway is
assumed. Other upgrading efforts to major arterials
are assumed, as in some new construction of arterials
to complete continuity, improve capacity, etc. as
currently programmed.
0 Other capital improvements, public services, and
1 administrative activities will continue as they now
operate, with normal maintenance activities and pro-
grammed capital improvements based upon incremental
population growth and needs of specific growth areas.
Tax rates and revenue sources are assumed to bear the
same relationship toward satisfying costs during this
_19-
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES !'•iiiiiFE_7[6:Ji�:�I
Zperiod as they currently do, implying also similar
proportional relationship among city, county, school,
and special district tax rates, but higher numerical
rates, in keeping with actual and inflationary cost
increases.
o A general restructuring of current slips and moorings
within Newport Harbor will occur, increasing potential
capacity to 10,000 - 12,000 boats, as well as providing
more open water area, through a greater use of ships
by public and private sectors. City will go into "marina
business" through development of major public marinas,
with some operations handled by private concessionaires.
Other major marinas will be developed by private enter-
prise, largely through upgrading existing facilities.
o The same general income/social structure/population
mix as currently exists in the city, will continue into
the future. No major change in family size is expected
during this period, except that lowered birth rates may
affect total population size in the late 1980's and 1990's.
1 o Automobile traffice may be restricted or prohibited in
some very dense, limited access portions of the city,
involving strategically located parking lots and structures
supplemented by low-speed mini-bus or PRT transit
systems, as well as various pedestrian systems for both
major residential and non-residential areas.
ASSUMPTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL STATISTICAL AREAS
These assumptions represent summarizations of information furnished by CD
staff, and developed by DRA, during the course of this study for each of the
individual statistical areas. Each of these areas was discussed in detail, .and
only major trend growth assumptions are listed here.
Area Al
This area, along with A2, A3, B1 and B2 is expected to have substantial growth
resulting from the development of a major marina during the 1980-1990 period,
-20-
m_
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
involving the development of existing vacant land and extensive recycling of
adjacent areas (A2, A3, B1, B2).
The assumption is of a smaller version of the Marina del Rey type of inter-
locking water and land "fingers" with an intensive development of both land and
water areas. Approximately 60 percent of the existing land area is assumed
to be utilized for water areas in the new marina, including an 800 feet wide
main access channel to the ocean paralleling the Santa Ana River jetty on the
south, while the remaining 40 percent would be utilized for land based develop-
ment.
1 Major elements of the development, located within Al would be;
0 250 hotel rooms (2 acres)
0 60,000 square feet shopping area (15 acres)
0 800 restaurant seats (4 acres)
0 15 acres of marine-related commercial land use
0 5 acres of institutional land use (yacht club, etc. )
0 8 acres of public parks, uses
0 8 acres of office land use
0 3,000 boat slips (based upon "design" boat size)
0 4, 550 dwelling units (apartments, condominiums, etc. )
Area A2
As described above, future growth in A21s northern portions would primarily
relate to the development of the marina, involving a considerable growth in
residential units and a gradual conversion of some non-residential areas in
this area to residential use. Commercial and industrial uses would be clustered
in the eastern portion of the area, reinforcing existing uses in this area, and
relating to the possible terminus of the Newport Freeway at the city boundary
there.
-21- (' J
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOC
IATES
Major growth elements in this area would be:
' 0 20 acre community scale shopping area
0 200 seat restaurant
0 Growth of Hoag Hospital within existing related areas
0 150, 000 square feet of medical, professional and
general office space
0 15 acres public use
Some non-residential uses are expected to remain in the industrial areas to
the east of A3 recycling after 1990 due to better opportunities for these uses
elsewhere.
Area A3
This entire area, currently of mixed residential and non-residential uses, is
a county "island" which it has been assumed will be annexed by Newport Beach,
and which due to pressures from A2 on the west, southwest and northeast,
would eventually recycle to multi-family residential by 1990, with perhaps some
compatible office and general commercial remaining.
This remaining non-residential use would be located in the southeast portion,
adjacent to similar, existing and new uses in A2.
Area B1
Approximately four acres are expected to be lost to development because of the
marina channel and other "adjustments".
1 A small commercial area would remain on Coast Highway related to both the
new development around the marina and the existing residential areas, provided
that a "tie-in't with the area to the north is provided.
-22- '
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
l
Area B2
This area retains existing residential uses while losing a small marginal
highway commercial development to Pacific Coast Highway widening, and
approximately five to six acres to the new marina main channel. The primary
growth efforts in this area will concentrate on a general intensification of
residential densities over the 20 year period.
Area B3
This area remains in residential use and undergoes a gradual conversion to
higher residential densities and intensities of development reflecting potentials
of existing zoning categories.
Area B4
This area will undergo an "upgrading" of residential uses through gradual con-
version to higher intensities of residential use.
Area B5
This area, representing "downtown" Newport will experience changes of several
types.
o Civic center will expand in its existing location, including
new structures and a park/green-space.
o Existing commercial areas on Via Lido will remain,
but parking and access will be rationalized.
o Lido Peninsula, with exception of existing shipyard will
convert to high density residential.
o McFadden Place commercial area will develop into mixed
neighborhood/specialty-seasonal commercial area
centered on Newport Pier, with some high density resi-
dential in mixed use.
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
o Commercial uses along water edges of this area will
be either marina related or specialty types reflecting
higher value land and water orientation,
o Commerical areas on the west side of Newport Boulevard
will remain generally "as is" with possible introduction
of more commerical/professional office space across
from Civic Center.
o Mixed use "triangle" south of Civic Center (32nd Street -
Lafayette - Newport Boulevard) will convert to: office
space across from Civic Center, specialty commerical,
hotel, services throughout remainder, gradually replacing
marginal older small lot uses. Parking also introduced
as a major use in this area.
Areas C1 and C2
These areas will experience little change during the projection period with only
existing vacant residential lots being built upon.
Area D1
Most non-residential uses in this area, with the exception of a small motel will
remain in essentially their same locations as in 1972.
A general intensification of residential densities will occur through new con-
struction, with most single family homes replaced except those in RI zones.
Area D2
This area will undergo a general intensification of residential densities similar
to that of Di. All other uses remain as currently developed.
' -24- :.
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
1
Area D3
This area will undergo some "rationalization" of existing uses, with generally
I
ncreased residential densities throughout, and a clustering of existing and new
commercial uses between Main and Adams.
This commercial area will include neighborhood and specialty commercial,
public parking areas, and some possible mixed residential/non-residential
use. Total area currently occupied by commercial will shrink in favor of
closer-knit area surrounded by parking/open space buffer between commercial
uses and surrounding residential, where possible.
Area D4
This area will not change substantially with only recycling of a few single
family residential lots to newer construction of same type.
Areas El, E2 and E3
No change in land uses with only continuation of existing trend to higher resi-
dential densities through conversion of existing lots, retention of newer resi-
dential uses.
Area Fl
iThis area will undergo little change except infill of existing vacant areas along
water edge by more residential and a possible additional marine related uses -
'� yacht club.
Areas F2 and F3
This area will recyle to higher density residential as permitted by zoning.
-25-
(.......•:•
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES "`!'"M'• '- --- '•a
1 Area F4
The residential uses in this area will recycle similarly to those of F2, with
commercial uses remaining essentially stable except for some reshuffling in
response to possible Pacific Coast Highway improvement.
Areas F5, F6, F7 and F8
No change over existing situation except infill of any vacant residential lots.
Area G1
No change in existing general use patterns, full development of current water-
oriented residential area as master planned.
Area Hl
This area is expected to recycle much of the marginal existing industrial and
commerical use to high density residential, while "rationalizing" remainder of
non-residential uses into small cluster. Existing residential uses gradually
recycle to higher intensity/density.
Area H2
No substantial change except for gradual spot recycling of residential uses,
some infill of vacant areas.
Area H3
No substantial change in residential except for infill, recylce. Some slight
growth in office uses.
" q
-26- e ;
t
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
Area H4
This area will continue trends of recent years, except that more intensive
development/recycle of commercial uses is anticipated on the north side of
Pacific Coast Highway, once freeway concept is totally abandoned. Mixture of
marine related, specialty, and general commercial will continue; some
multi-story structures anticipated due to parking needs.
Area J1
Current Irvine Master Plan for all undeveloped portions of this area will be
implemented.
Area J2
Some slight expansion in non-residential uses on existing sites, no change in
residential uses.
Areas J3 - J4
No change in existing uses or use intensities.
Area J5
Irvine Company plans for residential development will be implemented; all other
uses will remain the same. Upper Bay area retained as natural preserve.
Area J6
1 Heavy economic and physical impact on existing residential, marginal
non-residential uses due to development of L4, adjacent areas related to
Orange County Airport.
1
-27-
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
Effect will be to concentrate new non-residential uses along Bristol Street,
gradually recycle some existing residential areas in 1980-1990 period, with
some residential uses remaining along Mesa Drive at that point.
Heavy concentration of office, hotel, retail uses along Bristol, industrial uses
in interior of site after 1990, Some area retained as open space related to
Upper Bay natural preserve.
Area Kl
Developed along Jamboree as extension of existing high density residential,
expansion of Newporter Inn. Bayside Trailer Park area developed to marina,
specialty commercial, marine related commerical, commercial recreation,
with replacement of existing trailer park by mixed residential/non-residential
uses, public park.
Areas K2 - K3
Build out in K2 in near future. Then no change from existing uses or intensities.
Area L1
Developed substantially by 1990 as per current Irvine Company Master Plan,
with some 50 to 70 acres not yet developed by 1990 due to absorption; other
factors in market area.
Area L2
Developed as per current plans for area.
Area L3
Developed as per current plans with some change in land use mix, location to
reflect non-industrial uses at Bristol - Jamboree - McArthur intersection
(hotel, retail, office) as well as small retail commerical on major arterials
serving both entire site and external areas.
�. :
-28- „-I
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATE$
No development of old riverbed area until after 1980 or open space link
Iquestion settled.
Area L4
Developed as per most current version of master plan for area, although post
1980 absorption slower than originally indicated.
Area Mi
Remains basically as currently developed, with build-out of remaining potential
convenience commercial (four acres plus) by 1990.
Area M2
1
No change to existing built-out condition.
Area M3
Build-out to 1990 as currently master planned, including expansion of retail and
related uses to ultimate size largely by 1980. Minor increase in office use by
1980 (professional/medical). Residential units increase to master planned total
by 1980.
Area M4
No change in existing built-out condition.
Area M5
Permitted residential uses developed by 1980. Existing and proposed public and
institutional uses developed as per current Master Plan and City approvals.
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES ::i;:�l.:.i—�e��—•-��
1
1
i
1
SUMMARY OF HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS AND PROJECTIONS
� a
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
INTRODUCTION
This study, "Housing Market Analysis and Projections, " summarizes the sec-
and in a series of three prepared by Development Research Associates, com-
prising the economic component of the Newport Beach General Plan Study.
This report also includes projections for both "holding capacity" and "market
share" approaches to growth potential, as described in the economic base re-
port, and in the text of this report.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The basic purpose of this report is twofold -- first, to provide an overview of
general housing market conditions within the planning area, and within the county;
second, to provide a major input to City staff preparation of the Housing Element
portion of the Newport Beach General Plan as required by state law (Section
65302 of the Government Code).
In fulfilling these two roles, the study has drawn extensively on past housing
studies performed in Orange County by Development Research Associates, 1970
U. S. Census Data, information furnished by Community Development Department
staff, local realtors, and numerous governmental and business publications
dealing with the residential market.
The scope of this report is similar in time frame to others of this series,
drawing on recent data of 1970 thru 1972 historical data (Census and other in-
formation sources dating back to 1960) and developing projections for the two
periods ending in 1980 and 1990 which conform to the General Plan projection
periods.
The geographic scope of the report includes, in increasing degrees of detail,
historical data and projections for: Orange County, the Newport Beach Housing
Market Area (NBHMA or Market Area) and the Newport Beach Statistical Area
(NBSA or Statistical Area or Newport Beach) which substantially represents the
City of Newport Beach in 1972, and is the basic planning area of the entire
General Plan Study. (The NBSA also contains or is 'overlaid" by 47 statistical
subareas, 12 statistical divisions and 10 census tracts -- see Figures 1, 2,
and 3 of this chapter,)
RCS"!�1i�A�p'�E
f:(41il?i=a
�E iI iJ9a:
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES E !EE:L�FSuIIJ�
/ II
The Newport Beach Housing Market Area, defined in more detail elsewhere in
this report, encompasses Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa,
Laguna Beach, the South Irvine Ranch (Downcoast) Area, and the South Laguna/
Laguna Niguel Area.
IThe content of the study includes:
o An inventory of current housing characteristics and trends
in the County, NBHMA, and NBSA, involving all factors of
size, type, age, price/rental range, vacancy and other
considerations.
o An analysis of current levels of supply and demand_ within
these same three geographic/market areas for all types of
housing, with particular emphasis on those types applicable
to the NBSA.
o Projections of anticipated levels of supply and demand
through 1990 based upon population growth, locational and
amenity considerations, "holding capacity" and "market
share" considerations, known and assumed proposed major
developments (primarily Irvine downcoast, others).
o Existing and potential obstacles and constraints to complete
market accommodation of all types of demand, as prescribed
by State Department of Housing and Community Development
Guidelines.
Emphasis is made that this report is not intended, nor does it follow the format
of a housing market report typically performed for the private sector, in that it
draws no conclusions as to what should be built, at what price, where and when.
It is an overview of current conditions and projected general demand and supply
constraints and opportunities within which it is expected that the housing market
will probably operate, with respect to Newport Beach, over the near future,
based upon current trends.
1
i
1
6a^ AOR'�rYi�
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES i:ii't':iiL-lL'B..E1.1
i
- ----- ----------- I\
c' txr onm Am
- -
IT
I It
__N. I L9y Jb\I.'\•VV Mix.W.IF ADD E\UN \\
N. p WJpbO lNP \\\
gg4ty .p PAP \\
q w •1• .:. _a 1 _ e.F RaNf.EiNpnVE E•SP� 1
'' � V •.IV...f N✓NNI I .\\1 1' I111\.C.F iNlI.1{ AVE c % 1
It
u r41'.tA ad dIVeH`:�i �:Ly VE q\ 111
o A• unrAlN Av[_ p p t,' m Ir
DA� y 3 TAFTAVE ' = Ti 0(•OB jp 111
t � o U 1
r
y.... ..A.. .. ..a....NAiEE AVE
n Y j f •��• OIIINS AVE y1E 1\\
HAPNANAVE w S 1
m i w 9 ANKH 1\
v <Gdnrpu DAROIN(N'6vL am 'A '¢ InN e0fovp° \I\
GROVE FAVY G aA
N � vm o •aP 0 m 1
��• �+ I Sf P P S9Nt �IIVI \
•Y IINLSA AVE Q IST Sf SF NAIIVI N
N<FADDEN AVE m M[FPODEN
Fn'nr.tn A\.
� irFD1NGEfl AVE
M HAII DFO'1 hF
NAIIIIOON y %A n
WPANFfl PVC
NGE hAo
COUT
w , li war. °UNY 90p
o ` aIRPODT C � Opq r�l!
'!A O = C ' pAnFI1 AVkpl� Jy0 LY Qp PJW O
i1i = ZAOaMSAVE 3 p/ ..F qD (r \Ah,. �
HUNTINGTON BEACH ""' J NIVERSITYC
r ,\�aS n{t J iCA 1NIINE'A ¢ OC •,
t B AMPUS O
2 [
COSTA MESA
a\PUD
NEYIPODT
BAY
NEWPORT BEACH !
LAGUNA BEACH ,
®MARKETAREA 4AGUNANIGUEL
SOUTHLAGUNA
' 1
nUPNA PDINT
HAnllon
I
/
�l
Figure 1
ORANGE COUNTY & NEWPORT BEACH -�
HOUSING MARKET AREA
fi
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATESI: 1?Cu.1e �!.? '
al' ; 11�� l.,'��! •e 020.01 /ram \ '<o
�ilIse I
��; r ,r:�i/ �� t ,I�.� V ���w •wea• t .C / u, a �j II
Q6 �'ff J�." \'l/ r Iq
V� c1'<>��= '^V;51 •'•./ / / /! ' 4��� �' F.f(f \. 1' 926.02
:+`� �,, .% •l *, -tM1, �, �.f E- � f i ,1 ... J ,Sri{ ``
- `!• / :i'� •' 1 "F'f� , \ ' �.`�"tE:- :r�._JY,:j:.. f}f-a'''i�� !J5� i 'f�K • ' 'F? \
vw"' .\`-%-:• ',i - •' 1.�.� r'�',`_S ��1't ktt2,AY .JL(��' 1(.��:•�I �: ..
d `=5'%��•F'�:`��\•<\mom-.-1\Nai r•��j;+il j � si t, •ii% c 1 \''�� "."'� ":'�i
CfJ �' :;�.>5'�s•5`\`�\7 '>.,i' . .�*./`�'*•�•F, i' rr'c•• , �\ t.:.� �4\ \ i�✓''�;!!' I �
[� =—�Lri 'i;,,'':.`�.t%/.`' �yy�t+ •�•4Ji�:�3X:-�..,;��-1i�fYY30^5►l:. tti; 1. ``- r L2 f•�i-- ��.,
O ; r�s ,` V'�' t:.�•i T;:_.i -Gti/.:::� -•i 7 xt/i J• ` — '
�l\.�c`r\\'.Jfi3'c'tsi6•'\�-'I\''t �e��f1 f`' \.CJ `,•. _ �/ •.•n6:10./1:'3 � '..y J t;; 113 M$
A y ,r" � :,!�/�'.�I�?nq E �l5�=' l��i�I-•�(:G.2 � j'�1q'�1��. '\ ;7"' f r'�•�` `�:: ' -,.�
h] �; 'S . /! �••! -' i.%\5> osSf-`��%"$••`n •,4-....:f.`��:••,9-1 -N'- r� /� -.,1' _ /
658.0 tf,
Ir`-X Y +.f _�C�f rd Ll''' < 1 � � ,1, f 1 ::'.. it:•a.; �`:-F��; .5
Y//- f• _ : )q�" % c/'{�(�\� .J �1l II.Az ��;:1_- .1n�1^ he
LA
_fir ` pi °gq�fl i=1 ..ram•-T i� `ti.i ^`$--('!:\:`l�.
(i7t:1j _ ..i`,,.
A _�y�j�
MI a 8:3 '3VG1,.- cq'� _ .t ''.':!• $;CL¢., T. -,
_ _ ... 7••••..'•. A2 I ^�- - il'+ar�EM1l� x_:31^'"ie,i \ :� '4-f+ e• /
9 PFP ' f J'4��fS l } yam l"f•\`,'`! .^^ Y:L- r� :; Y, Jam' b
(A rI liii" 4`.—v !'. ' ^—.—..� .i..=S-:-.. rT'.. •�.,�,..1�'�+t�•._ - t t''`:FS!..:�rI_ (r` t mot.
o - - 'T _ `'•'�^,2�•'4- el••..1 lt\`.\�ij. .3•l G2 /�:, y t�*.:rr �' t'ol .���'.i" j.' '` -
O f illl llltli -iiil��iii;. ' � '`.�c7:�l+=t'"-// 2pl:��l'.-�.":';'�.—=��_''•�i"\�\ ,..=. `F•.��'f;fpf-r'�_ 5
Ir1�51 /fJ(}jn�^!'!'i
a —_Y y�� p LJ •IYJ� ', � 1]1+6JJ".•:H,i4 55��%' �, N�p v (L OWO —_
Figure 2
gip' —S1. 1 .1 mviswns
NEWPORT BEACH CENSUS TRACTS ,m1
f February 1972 12s
c ,
m MOM M r r
1�, � •. � c� ram, \
VN
�: �:�,. \:-'•,i .\/ram�t�Fy^,•g.Y'� .�46,,, j- ,r�'3
q C`../ V� ��� \�..•:'• . L"arm )I
r
Us
%,\\�J.'" .. : v: Ott\tc'�J�� )WSF '•)\v E* _
1!l.t /.•'� � •' ��`"l`/•Wi� `4tr�`lY`-:��'." '•ll. \ i�jlj 'vl-�', +_—__ . �.
"- � Y �v' \ u%i^��Y,s.'! --v1 ,[�l��E �F t. � (�" ' ..•". r'S':� -
C\ 11't
a\ ...:d lL � 't �.to _ EEO Tk`Z
c'�yP�.1L,NZ. f;�-�`` \>y t L� � +:4 =,I,r,�i� ry, J L2 r .n, �
h7 1 Mpg '•� �+j•�' \Z 'rt�?•�\\ y p /i-�`!•� oVy9, „ 1•., .♦ `,%I '_ r- -, MS
.\s��.' ri rk-�"�''-�t�r ,_�c '_ T�4.-'•�t`.�;•\` ., ,;j_ .'! r'
r i� '3d I, ♦xo3� I4FF'�"y-• i,df_--z \ c
O
+� - i/ ��`• , x 1.r- t .^ 4!` t to i i` i„ ���,:�` • L u
• ^ / -\c " '..,11 'FF �.�✓ ah 5=.: E�,ti r• •.•:LED
. ,
-cam .ivl:-'�._ - rSi :. —. - l.�ii— .s \.• _ 'rYu'��i. t7+7 i I,I / -
tj]"'1j �. r' � Y•l•-i '•.l.tl,. � - .a �s fr�� �'e,rn„�
1 lllllt 'iiu ti 1.ai�:(> '� +'h �' . ' n
Ul / � A � �r�,rxi�'�f•., c`�G �• `^ oac�=���t' r`
Y
y r
L=J (Al pvntenx
(n Figure 3
POPULATION & HOUSING
DATA STATISTICAL AREAS
February 1972
f _
= x
r
CURRENT HOUSING TRENDS AND CHARACTERISTICS
1
Orange County
rI
rHousing Supply Factors (See tables in next section for detailed statistics)
Orange County's total housing stock more than doubled in the decade following
the 1960 Census and totaled 462, 397 units in 1970. The proportion of single-
family dwellings in the total stock dropped from 83. 0 to 68. 2 percent in the
face of a major surge in multi-family construction. Mobile homes showed a
small relative increase, but constituted only 4. 6 percent of the stock in 1970.
Thanks to the rapid growth which occurred during the preceding 20 years, 87
percent of all Orange County units in 1970 had been built since 1950. Over half
the 1970 stock had been built since 1960. The percentage of aging units (over
20 years old) declined from 19. 6 to 13. 0 percent between 1960 and 1970.
Despite a continuing preference for home ownership, owner-occupancy declined
from 71. 8 to 64. 6 percent by 1970 due largely to the increased cost of new
construction. Vacancies accounted for 5. 7 percent of all year-round units in
Orange County.
' The median cost of home ownership jumped 71. 1 percent over its 1960 level --
from $15, 900 to $27, 200. Increases in the cost of renting were somewhat
lower, but the median monthly rent for Orange County rose 53. 3 percent from
$90 to $138.
Housing Demand Factors (See tables in next section for detailed statistics)
' The number of households in Orange County climbed by 232, 225 (113 percent)
between 1960 and 1970, for an average annual increase of 11. 3 percent.
Families as a proportion of all households declined slightly from 87. 4 to 82. 3
percent over the same period.
r A slight reduction in average family size combined with the increased percentage
of nonfamily households to lower the average household size from 3. 4 to 3. 2
persons per household. Household income in 1970 averaged $12, 477 for Orange
County.
1 -3 5- l:
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
r
The Newport Beach Housing Market Area
1
The NBHMA has been defined as the primary market area for dwellings
offering a combined housing and amenity "package" comparable to that available
in Newport Beach.
rHousing Supply Factors (See tables following this page)
Total dwelling units in the NBHMA grew faster than the total in Orange County
between 1960 and 1970. The total stock in 1970 consisted of 101, 773 units --
an increase of 122. 3 percent. Huntington Beach increased its stock by nearly
8 times its 1960 level -- from 4, 600 to 35, 996 units. It was followed in relative
rates of growth by Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, and lastly the
unincorporated areas of the South Irvine Ranch and South Laguna/Laguna Niguel.
Single-family units declined from 76 to 67. 5 percent of the total stock while
multi-family units grew from 21. 5 to 29 percent of all units. Owner-occupancy
increased during the decade from 61. 5 to 62.4 percent of all occupied units.
' The impact of seasonal factors on overall vacancies declined substantially in
the market area between 1960 and 1970, but remained the major contributor to
a high 8. 5 percent vacancy rate in 1970. Vacancy rates varied considerably
within the NBHMA, and were generally higher in the more resort/recreation-
oriented sections.
The number of aging dwelling units (20 years or older) dropped from 28. 1 to
15. 2 percent of the total stock between 1960 and 1970. Roughly 65 percent of
the total 1970 stock had been built during the preceding decade.
' With the exception of already high-priced Newport Beach, the median cost of
r owner-occupied units in the NBHMA rose more rapidly than that for Orange
County. Increases ranged from low of 74 percent to 124. 2 percent in Huntington
Beach. Median monthly rents tended to be less rapidly in increase, but still
Irose faster than the median for the County in all but Costa Mesa.
Housing Demand Factors (See tables following this page)
Total households in the NBHMA increased by 56, 528 between 1960 and 1970, for
an annual growth rate of 15. 5 percent -- substantially greater than in the County
as a whole. Although the proportion of family households declined in most of
the NBHMA, an increasingly proportion of families in Huntington Beach held the
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
Table 1
NEWPORT BEACH MARKET AREA
CHANGE IN HOUSING STOCK
1960 - 1970
Increase: Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of
All Housing Primary Market Increase: Primary Market Increase: Primary Market Increase: Primary Market
Units Increase Single Family Increase Multiples Increase Mobile Homes Increase
Primary Market Area
Costa Mesa 11,832 21.1% 5,066 9.0%u 6,368 11.4% 398 0.7%
Share of Change 21.1%
Huntington Beach 31,366 56.0% 22,793 40.7% 6,930 12.4% 1,643 2.9%
Share of Change 56.07,
Laguna Beach 1,983 3.5% 1,129 2.0% 846 1.5T.
Share of Change 3.5%
South Laguna/Laguna Niguel' 1,960 3.5% 1,714 3.IT. 246 0.40/6 ** --
d Share of Change 3.5%
Newport Beach 8,273 14.8% 3,733 6.7% 4,175 7.57. 365 0.7%
Share of Change 14.8
bSouth Irvine Ranch 570 1.0% - 506 - 0.9% 1,076 1.9%
Share of Change
ZTotal; Primary Market Area 55,984 100.0% 33,929 60.7% 19,641 35.101. 2,406'*' 4.3%
H
� Percent of Secondary Market
Change by Type 23.87. 26.77. 20.2% 21.9%
W
h7 Secondary Market Area
Orange County 235,411 127,011 97,408 10,992
x Share by Type 100.070 54.07. 41.4% 4.6%
**Defined by Census Tracts.(See definition section.) Mobile homes are included in the single family count
Ol ***No basis for comparison
O Includes only Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, and Newport Beach.
Q
M
> Sources: 1960 Census
3970 Census
p1 U) Development Research Associates
Table 2
NEWPORT BEACH MARKET AREA
HOUSING VACANCIES
1970
e; Percent of
All All Percent Vacant Percent All Other Vacant for Other
Year Round Year Round Percent of Vacant of for of Year Round Percent of Occasional Year Round
Housing Units Vacant Units Total Units For Rent Vacant Sale Vacant Vacant All Vacant Use Vacant
Orange County 462,397 26,277 5.7%n 12,553 47.8% 5,856 22.310 7,868 29.9% 3,931 50.0%
Newport Beach Market Area
Costa Mesa 24,805 901 3.6 586 65.0 116 12.9 199 22.1 60 30.2
Huntington Beach 35,966 2,291 6.4 1,418 61.2 488 21.3 385 16.8 103 26.8
Laguna Beach 7,605 1,008 13.3 239 27.7 104 10.3 665 66.0 548 82.4
a
South Laguna/Laguna Niguel 3,864 677 17.3 84 12.4 93 13.7 500 73.9 N.A. N.A.
d Newport Beach 22,212 2,932 13.2 1,110 37.9 289 9.9 1,533 52.3 1,280 83.5
C
South Irvine Ranch' 7,187 875 12.2 51 5.8 281 32.1 543 62.1 N.A. N.A.
OTotal Newport Beach Market Area 101,773 8,684 8.51. 3,488 40.2% 1,371 15.8% 3,825 44.0% 1,991 71.6%***
ro
**Defined by Census Tract. See definition section.
***Includes vacant for occasional use.
Percentage excludes South Laguna/Laguna Niguel and South Irvine Ranch.
t�
(n
Sources: 1970 Census
> Development Research Associates
n
x
a
0
0
M
a
H
t�
W
■r r� r� r� r� r� ■r rr r r r ■r ■r r �r ■r �r rr r
Table 3
AGE OF HOUSING STOCK IN APRIL, 1970
10 Years or Less 10 - 20 Years 20 Years Plus
All Units* Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Orange County 462,367 258,410 55. 9% 143, 803 31. 1% 60, 154 13. 0%
Newport Beach Market Area
Costa Mesa 24,820 12, 890 52. 0 9,057 36. 5 2,873 11. 5
Huntington Beach 35,922 31, 371 87. 3 2,471 6. 9 2,080 5. 8
Laguna Beach 7, 625 2, 283 29. 9 1,661 21. 8 3, 681 48. 3
South Laguna/Laguna Niguel 3, 196 2, 607 81. 6 427 13. 4 162 5. 0
C
r Newport Beach 22, 180 9,684 43. 6 6,223 28. 1 6, 309 28. 4
#x
� South Irvine Ranch 6, 387 6,023 94. 3 284 4. 4 80 1. 3
z
y Newport Beach Market Area
Totals 100, 130 64,858 20, 123 15, 185
100% 64. 8% 20. 116 15. 2%
Y Dxcludes vacant units
efined by Census Tracts
m
m
c0i Source: 1970 Census
yDevelopment Research Associates
m
_e_1f-
Table 4
NEWPORT BEACH MARKET AREA
HOUSING VALUES AND RENTAL RANGE
Owner-Occupied Housing Renter Occupied Housing
Median Value Median Monthly Rent
Percentage Percentage
1960 1970 Change 1960 1970 Change
Orange County $15, 900 $27, 200 + 71. 1% $ 90 138 53. 3%
NBHMA
Costa Mesa 15,600 27, 300 + 75. 0 94 135 43. 6
Huntington Beach 12,800 28,700 +124. 2 72 147 104. 1
Laguna Beach 21,700 38,600 + 77. 9 90 144 60. 0
d
South Laguna" 23,600 44,252 + 87. 5 81 155' 91. 4
r
b Newport Beach 31, 100 49,000 + 57. 6 105 175 66. 7
z
South Irvine Ranch' 22,900' 39,851 + 74. 0 82' 152' 85. 4
H
h7 m„Weighted average of tract medians.
Defined by Census Tracts for both 1960 and 1970.
o
x Sources: Orange County Progress Report 1971
1960 Census
IQ
O 1970 Census
9 Development Research Associates
m
C
Table 5
NEWPORT BEACH MARKET AREA
VALUATION OF OWNER-OCCUPIED UNITS, 1970
Under $20,000 $20,000 - $35,000 Over $35,000
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Orange County 33, 522 14. 0% 152, 110 63. 6% 53,452 22. 4%
Newport Beach Market Area:
Costa Mesa 1,422 13. 5 7,401 70. 1 1,733 16. 4
Huntington Beach 1, 623 7. 9 14, 371 69. 6 4,643 22. 5
Laguna Beach 130 4. 5 1, 046 36. 0 1,726 59. 5
C M.
South Laguna 69 4. 0 498 29. 2 1, 139 66. 8
r
b Newport Beach 226 2. 6 1,724 20. 0 6,667 77. 4
z South Irvine Ranch 17 0. 6 1,030 37. 8 1,675 61. 5
H
Z Market Area Totals 3,487 26,070 17,583
m
y Percentage of all Owner-Occupied Units 7. 4% 55. 3% 37. 3%
z
0
x
m "Defined by Census Tracts.
0)
O
O
y Sources: Orange County Progress Report, June 1971
1970 Census
Development Research Associates
Mh
I
4 i
Table 6
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
NEWPORT BEACH HOUSING MARKET AREA
1960 1970
Total Unrelated Family Total Unrelated Family
Orange County 203, 895 25, 630 178, 265 436, 120 75, 967 360, 153
NEWPORT BEACH HOUSING MARKET AREA
Costa Mesa 11, 467 1, 664 9, 803 23, 904 5, 765 18, 139
Huntington Beach 3, 758 763 2, 995 33, 675 4, 080 29, 595
Laguna Beach 4, 424 N .A. N.A. 6, 597 2, 804 3, 793
C
South Laguna/
r Laguna Niguel 1, 479 419 1, 060 3, 227 960 2, 267
O
4 Newport Beach 9, 972 2, 420 7, 552 19, 280 6, 198 13, 082
t17
2
H South Irvine Ranch m 5, 367 1, 905 3, 462 6, 312 1, 413 4, 899
% 32, 043 7, 171 24, 872 92, 995 21, 220 71, 775
m
y m Defined by Census Tract.
73
0
x
9 Source: 1960, 1970 Census
w Development Research Associates
O
O
a
H
M
7 --�
Table 7
PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE
NEWPORT BEACH HOUSING MARKET AREA
1960 1970
Area Total Unrelated Family Total Unrelated Family
Orange County 3.4 1.2 3. 7 3. 2 1. 3 3. 6
Newport Beach Housing Market
Area
Costa Mesa 3. 2 1. 2 3. 5 2. 9 1. 1 3. 5
Huntington Beach 3. 0 1. 3 3. 4 3. 4 1. 5 3. 7
CLaguna Beach 2. 1 -- -- 2. 2 1. 3 2. 9
South Laguna/Laguna Niguel" 2.4 -- -- 2. 4 1. 3 2. 9
ro
Newport Beach 2. 6 1. 3 3. 1 2. 6 1. 4 3. 1
z
y South Irvine Ranch" 2. 2 -- -- 2. 7 1. 4 3. 1
m
�7
Y
Defined by Census tracts.
x
a
m Sources: 1960, 1970 Census
0 Development Research Associates
0
M
PT _
1
Table 8
' HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 1970
ORANGE COUNTY AND NEWPORT BEACH MARKET AREA
' N umber of Average Average
Area Households Household Size Household Income
' Orange County 436, 120 3. 2 $12, 477
Newport Beach Market Area
Costa Mesa 23, 904 2. 9 $10, 382
Huntington Beach 33, 675 3. 4 $13, 216
' Laguna Beach 6, 597 2. 2 $11, 779
' Newport Beach 19, 280 2. 6 $17, 700
Weighted Averages for Market-Area 2. 97 $13, 326
1
1Excludes South Irvine Ranch and South Laguna/Laguna Niguel areas for lack of
data, and non-relevance to historical trend base for 1970 data.
' Sources: 1970 Census
' Development Research Associates
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES 'li:ElGjsame --
1
Table 9
' ALLOCATION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME FOR HOUSING
NEWPORT BEACH HOUSING MARKET AREA AND ORANGE COUNTY
Renter Households: Home-Owner Households:
Household Income Rent/Income Ratio Ratio of Home Value/Income
' $ 0- 2, 400 NA* NA �*
' $ 2, 401- 4, 700 38% NA**
$ 4, 701- 6, 300 25%n NA**
' $ 6, 301- 8, 100 23% 3. 0
' $ 8, 101- 9, 600 20%u 2. 9
$ 9, 601-11, 400 19% 2. 5
$11, 401-13, 000 17%u 2. 2
$13, 001-16, 100 15% 2. 1
t $16, 101-24, 400 14. 5%u 2. 0
$23, 400t 11%u 1. 7
J.
' mNot available, however, experience indicates a typical range in
Southern California of 35 to 45 percent.
' Not available, however, experience indicates a typical range in
Southern California of 3. 0 to 3. 5.
' Sources: 1970 Census
Development Research Associates
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
' overall percentage of families in the market area nearly constant. Families
' constituted 77. 2 percent of all households in 1970.
The average NBHMA household remained smaller than the County average, but
varied from 3. 4 persons in Huntington Beach to 2. 2 persons in Laguna. The
greater overall affluence of households in the NBHMA is evident in the fact that
while average household size was roughly 7. 2 percent smaller than the County
' average in 1970, average income was 6. 8 percent higher -- an average of
$13, 326 per household.
' Analysis of household expenditures for shelter confirmed that the percentage of
household income spent on housing varies inversely with the absolute level of
income in both the County and NBHMA.
Newport Beach
Housing Supply Factors (See tables following this page)
' The Newport Beach housing stock increased by 77 percent between 1960 and 1972
to accommodate a population which doubled during the same period. Twelve
point four percent of the net increase occurred in the 21 months preceding
' January, 1972. The number of new additions to the housing stock has signi-
ficantly exceeded the number of net additions since 1970 -- indicating a sub-
stantial number of older units are being "recycled. "
Influenced heavily by the amount of recycling, composition of the total stock has
undergone major changes since 1970. Duplex units have increased from 14. 3 to
' 22. 6 percent of the total stock while single-family units dropped from 66. 6 to
52. 6 percent. Multi-family structures with three or more units also enlarged
their share -- from 19. 1 to 24. 7 percent. All multi-family units increased
' from 33. 4 to 46. 3 percent. (Most changes reflect conversion as well as new
construction. )
' The bulk of the new duplex units built since 1970 have gone into peninsula and
beach-front areas including Balboa Island and other locations related to the Bay
itself, replacing substantial numbers of older single-family units.
In 1970, 43. 5 percent of the total stock had been built in the preceding decade
and 28. 5 percent was "aging" -- over 20 years old. Unit sizes varied with the
dominant unit type in a given area, but over half the stock contained more than
' five rooms (exclusive of bathrooms, storage areas, and corridors, etc. )
Housing over 20 years old is considered to have a high potential for recycling
' to higher value residential usage. _
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
Table A
' COMPARABILITY OF 1970 CENSUS TRACTS
WITH NEWPORT BEACH STATISTICAL AREAS
Census Tract Newport Beach Statistical Areas
' 626. 03 =k Stat. Division M
627 Stat. Division F -- Excluding F-6, F-8
628 Stat. Division D (Upper Corner of D-1 'k=k
Falls in Tract 629)
629 Stat. Division C -- Plus Upper Corner of
D-1 ,.
630. 01 Stat. Division J -- Excluding J-6
' 631. 03 No Comparable Area - Includes Small
Corner of Stat. Area J-5
' 633 Not Comparable - No Residential Area
Shown on N. B. Part of Tract
' 634 Stat. Division H (Upper Protrusion of H-2
Extends into Tract 633) +
' 635 Stat. Areas B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5
636. 03 Stat. Areas A-1, A-2, A-3, B-1
Note: Split Tract - Only Newport Beach Part Included
=k In Calculations Tract 628 Includes All of Div. D, and Tract 629 Includes
only Div. C.
+ In Calculation Tract 634 is Considered Comparable to Div. H.
6 �i - 77
r
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES iaiciiiii:L
Table 10
NEWPORT BEACH
LOCATION, TYPE, AND CHANGE IN HOUSING STOCK
MARCH 1970 -JANUARY 1972
March 1970 January 1, 1972 Change, 1970 - 1972
Change
Census+ Total Conventional Mobile Total Total In
Tracts Sin le Duplex Multiple Total Single Home Single Duplex Multiple Total Single Duplex Multiple Total Total
626.03 1,377 0 107 1,484 1,659 0 1,659 0 286 1,945 + 282 - + 179 + 461 31.10/6
627 2,787 538 377 3,702 1,903 0 1,903 1,530 400 3,833 - 884 + 922 + 23 + 131 3.5
628 1,436 440 798 2,674 1,098 58 1,156 710 1,070 2,936 - 280 + 270 + 272 + 262 9.8
629 805 32 83 920 773 0 773 38 57 868 - 72 + 6 - 26 - 52 5.7
630.01 1,736 26 1,344 3,106 1,862 99 1,961 36 1,863 3,860 + 225 + 10 + 519 + 754 24.3
630.02 2,176 716 505 3,397 1,715 287 2,002 1,358 1,273 4,633 - 174 + 642 + 768 +1,236 36.4
630.03 622 17 42 681 471 0 471 0 69 540 - 151 - 17 + 27 - 141 -20.7
tj 631.03 112 6 18 136 ------------------------------- No Comparable Area - Partly in Division J ------------------------------
< 633 128 0 0 128 --------------- Not Comparable - No Residential Units Shown For Newport Beach Part of Tract -------------
t+ 634 1,576 69 424 2,069 1,493 46 1,539 26 519 2,084 - 37 - 43 + 95 + 15 + 0.7
b635 1,337 1,288 332 2,957 715 272 987 1,850 286 3,123 - 350 + 562 - 46 + 166 + 5.6
636,03 669 41 216 926 411 149 560 30 271 861 - 190 - 11 + 55 - 65 - 7.0
'l Totals 14,761 3,173 4,246 22,180 12,060 911 12,971 5,578 6,094 24,683 -1,550
+2,411 +1,866 +2,758
�3 Percent Change By Unit Type -10.5%a +76.07u 43.9% +12.47u
Percent of Totals 66.6%a 14.3% 19.17. 100.0% 48.9% 3.7% 52.6% 22.67. 24.77o 100.07.
U]
+See Table A for comparability of census tracts with Newport Beach Statistical Area. This table excludes units in areas not comparable with tracts.
„includes al units in commercial locations.
Excludes units in statistical area F-6 and F-8.
t4 Sources: 1970 Census
> City of Newport Beach (1972 figures)
0) Development Research Associates
W
0
A
H
h]
i
w rs r r r m r
Table 11
NEWPORT BEACH
AGE OF EXISTING HOUSING UNITS - 1970
All
Year
Census Round 15 Months 15 Months 5 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30
Tract Units or Less to 5 Years Years Years Years 30 Years +
626. 03 1,484 630 360 449 45 0 0
627 3,702 87 145 617 1, 547 932 374
628 2, 674 33 159 268 743 504 967
629 920 8 35 77 497 212 91
630. 01 3, 106 1,088 423 904 675 5 11
630. 02 3, 397 286 874 445 399 744 649
C 630. 03 681 49 206 360 61 5 0
631. 03 136 9 36 53 34 4 0
N 633 128 0 5 0 89 21 13
p 634 2, 069 108 98 153 1,063 481 166
ro 635 2,957 30 226 669 962 474 596
636. 03 926 10 197 551 108 32 28
z
H
Total 22, 180 2,338 2,764 4, 546 6,223 3,414 2,895
�7
a
Percent 100. 0% 10. 5% 12. 5% 20. 5% 28. 1% 15. 4% 13. 1%
z
0
x -----------(0 - 10 Years)------------ (10 - 20) ----- (20+ Years) -----
( Years )
43. 5% 28. 1% 28. 5%
O
9
Note: Number of units may differ among tables due to inconsistencies in 1970 Census data.
H
�7
m
Sources: 1970 Census
""'-'� Development Research Associates
:R'-; ;
.,� in r �■■� �. r r r M r � r r r r r r >r
Table 12
NEWPORT BEACH
TENURE AND VACANCY STATUS - APRIL, 1970
Total All Owner Renter Vacant
Census Year-Round Occupied Occupied Total Vacant Other Units
Tracts Housing Units Units Units Vacant For Rent Vacant For Sale
626. 03 1,495 1, 175 136 184 11 21 152
627 3, 703 1,809 1,593 301 98 160 43
628 2,650 848 1,219 583 207 371 5
629 863 596 165 102 9 80 13
630. 01 3, 169 1, 561 1,059 549 440 93 16
630. 02 3,411 1, 517 1,347 547 116 389 42
630. 03 685 572 79 34 20 13 1
C 631. 03 132 112 15 5 0 5 0
633 129 73 47 9 3 5 1
634 2, 086 1,249 695 142 83 53 6
r 635 2, 972 832 1, 701 439 ill 319 9
636. 03 917 466 414 37 12 24 1
�7
H 22, 212 10, 810 8,470 2,932 1, 110 1,533 289
l�=J 100. 0% 48. 6% 38. 1% 13. 2% 5. 0% 6. 9% 1. 3%
m
�7
Y
Note: Number of units may differ slightly from table to table due to inconsistencies in the Census data.
x
a
m
Sources: 1970 Census of Population and Housing
O
Development Research Associates
a
777'
H
W
Sia^ _71
G .
Table 13
NEWPORT BEACH ANALYSIS OF VACANCIES, 1970
(NBSA)
Newport Beach Total Occupied Vacant Statistical Area Statistical
Statistical Area Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Units Vacancy Factor Division Factor
Division
A Al __ __ -_ --
A2 318 304 14 4.47,
A3 _-
Total Division A(City only) 318 304 14 4.40/, 4.4%
B B1 543 522 21 3.710
B2 645 535 110 17.11.
B3 998 827 171 17.17o
B4 871 745 126 14.501.
B5 609 540 69 11.31,
Total Division B 3,666 3,169 497 13.67o
Total Division C 868 755 113 13.070
D DI 744 585 159 21.4%
D2 428 294 134 31.3%
D3 1,072 755 317 29.6% ,
D4 692 568 124 17.9%
Total Division D 2,936 2,202 734 25.0%
E El 609 473 136 22.3%
E2 759 562 197 26.0%
E3 704 546 158 22.4%
Total Division E 2,072 1,581 491 23.7%
F F1 446 409 37 8.3%
F2 743 692 51 6.7%
F3 1,139 948 191 16.870
F4 1,104 1,032 72 6.5%
F5 259 251 8 3.11.
F6 142 137 5 3.5%
F7 142 137 5 3.5%a
F8 177 172 5 2.81,
Total Division F 4,152 3,778 374 9.0%
Total Division G 277 227 50 18.5%n
H H1 328 318 10 3.074
H2 696 683 13 1.9%
H3 541 489 52 9.6%
H4 519 474 45 8.7%
Total Division H 2,084 1,964 120 5.8%
J Jl 432 420 12 2.81.
J2 1,976 1,358 618 31.3%
J3 446 417 24 6.57,
J4 620 598 22 3.5%a
J5 386 367 19 4.9%
J6 --
Total Division J 3,860 3,160 700 18 17,
K K1 1,147 788 359 31.37.
K2 1,137 1,093 44 3.9%
KS 1 0.2%
Total Division K 2,745
745 2,341
341 404 14.7%
L L1 69 63 6 8.77,
L2 10 9 1 10.07,
L3 -- '- -7
L4 13 12 1 .7%a
Total Division 92 84 8 8.7%a
M Ml 408 384 24 5.9%
M2 457 430 27 5.91.
M3 166 156 10 6.07,
M4 914 861
M5
Total Division M 1,945 1,831 114 5.9% r
Total City 25,015 21,396 3,619 14.5%
Sources: City of Newport Beach
U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
r r M, M W M " M so Mao M M am M M M r
Table 14
NEWPORT BEACH
VALUE OF OWNER OCCUPIED UNITS, 1970
All
Owner
Census Occupied Under
Tract Units $10,000 $10 - $14,999 $15 - $19,999 $20 - $24,999 $25 - $34,999 $35 - $49,999 50 000+ Median
626.03 1,169 0 0 0 1 34 389 745 $50,000+
627 1,591 1 2 13 60 277 524 714 47,700
628 661 2 2 9 26 89 191 342 50,000+
629 575 0 0 1 1 9 73 491 50,000+
630.01 1,488 2 1 2 9 209 421 844 50,000+
G 630.02 646 2 7 15 9 33 164 416 50,000+
630. 03 438 14 - 2 0 0 13 242
631.03 81 0 0 1 1 167 46,800
C 5 36 38 49,000
0]
633 70 1 1 22 26 14 6 0 22,100
0 634 1,137 5 21 71 150 396 294 200 33,100
4 635 424 0 7 17 42 115 87 156 40,300
Z 636.03 337 1 0 4 38 167 94 33 32,500
`3 8,617 28 43 155 363 1,361 2,521 4,146 49,000
(0.3%) (0.5%) (1.8%) (4.2%) (15.8%) (29.3%) 48. 1%
02
[9
6. 8%-----------------------
a
Q
x
9 Note: Totals may vary slightly from table to table due to variations in Census data.
0)
N
O
O Sources: 1970 Census
yDevelopment Research Associates
C9
O
Mao r M M now am Mao M M M M ■ . M M M M
Table 15
NEWPORT BEACH
MONTHLY RENTS, 1970
All No
Census Rental Under Cash
Tract Units 60 60 - 79 80 - 99 $100 - $149 $150 - $199 $200 - $249 250+ Rent Median
626.03 136 0 0 0 1 45 57 25 8 $216
627 1,592 31 31 69 388 607 210 209 47 171
628 1,219 38 82 126 355 328 98 134 58 147
629 165 2 1 0 9 27 25 91 10 277
630.01 1,053 1 9 9 83 459 261 201 30 195
630.02 1,339 18 33 51 283 339 203 372 40 189
630.03 79 1 9 6 3 1 1 52 6 300+
631.03 15 1 0 0 4 2 4 4 0 206
C 633 47 1 4 8 25 8 0 0 1 124
r 634 686 14 29 46 265 144 60 96 32 145
b 635 1,700 38 54 121 430 523 303 202 29 168
636.03 412 10 10 8 56 143 79 99 7 191
C9
H Totals 8,443 155 262 444 1,902 2,626 1,301 1,485 268
100% 1.810 3.1% 5.3% 22.5% 31.1% 15.4% 17.6°/u 3.20/,
----------- 10.21- ---------
> --------------- 69.0% -------------
0
9 Note: Totals may vary slightly from table to table due to variations in the Census data.
U1
U]
0 Sources: 1970 Census
H Development Research Associates
a
H
0
1
' Table 16
NEWPORT BEACH
POPULATION IN HOUSEHOLDS 1970
Census Total Family Households Non-Family Households
Tract Households Number Percent Number Percent
626. 03 1, 311 1,206 92. 0% 105 8%
627 3,402 2,253 66 1, 149 34
628 2,067 1,221 59 846 41
629 761 604 79 157 21
630. 01 2, 620 1,862 71 758 29
630. 02 2,864 1, 739 61 1, 125 39
630. 03 651 552 85 99 15
631. 03 127 116 91 11 9
633 120 88 73 32 27
634 1, 944 1,470 76 474 24
635 2, 533 1, 325 52 1, 208 48
636. 03 880 646 73 234 23
Totals 19, 280 13,082 68% 6, 198 32%
' Sources: 1970 Census
Development Research Associates
I
i
1 P IIO ^-1
E ' IpL'„'. T•
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
1 Table 17
NEWPORT BEACH
ESTIMATED PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD 1970
(Averages)
Census All Family Non-Family
Tract Households Households Households
626. 03 3. 4 3. 6 1. 5
627 2. 2 2. 8 1. 2
' 628 2. 3 3. 0 1. 4
629 2. 9 3. 3 1. 4
630. 01 2. 8 3. 4 1. 4
630. 02 2. 3 2. 8 1. 5
630. 03 3. 2 3. 6 1. 2
631. 03 3. 7 3. 9 1. 3
633 2. 8 3. 3 1. 4
634 2. 6 3. 1 1. 3
635 2. 3 2. 8 1. 7
636. 03 2. 6 3. 1 1. 4
1 Average For
Newport Beach 2, 6 3. 1 1. 4
ISources: 1970 Census
Development Research Associates
r
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
Table 18
NEWPORT BEACH
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD SIZE, 1970
Median Household Size
Census Owner Renter All
Tracts Occupied Occupied Households
626. 03 3. 5 2. 0 3. 3
627 2. 2 1. 8 2. 0
628 2. 3 1. 8 2. 0
629 2. 8 2. 1 2. 6
630. 01 3. 4 1. 5 2. 4
' 630. 02 2. 1 1. 9 2. 1
630. 03 3. 3 2. 1 3. 1
631. 03 3. 5 4. 0 3. 6
633 2. 8 2. 3 2. 5
634 2. 4 2. 0 2. 3
635 2. 0 2. 0 2. 0
636. 03 2_4 2_2 2_3
Averages 2. 7 1. 9 2. 3
J.
Weighted average of tract means.
Sources: 1970 Census
1 Development Research Associates
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
r 1nr r r r r M r " Mt s r r ar r r r r
Table 19
NEWPORT BEACH
PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD 1970
All Distribution Of Household Sizes By Tract
Census Occupied One Two Three Four Five Six
Tract Units Person Persons Persons Persons Persons Persons
626. 03 1,311 89 361 253 324 179 105
627 3,402 1,002 1,362 537 318 130 53
628 2,067 638 744 303 219 95 68
629 761 139 230 154 112 69 57
630. 01 2, 620 608 757 410 410 283 152
630. 02 2, 864 790 1, 160 438 285 133 58
C630. 03 651 95 171 99 135 96 55
r
631. 03 127 11 35 16 28 19 18
633 120 24 37 18 24 13 4
z
634 1,944 404 723 326 274 136 81
H 635 2, 533 721 1,015 437 225 85 50
�i
M636. 03 880 188 300 193 99 56 44
>% Totals 19,280 4,709 6,895 3, 184 2,453 1,294 745
x Percent of Total (24. 4%) (35. 8%) (16. 5%) (12. 7%) (6. 7%) (3. 9%)
Y M Cumulative Percent 24. 4% 60. 2% 76. 7% 89. 4% 96. 1% 100. 0%
m
O
Q
M
y Sources: 1970 Census
Development Research Associates
Mae " ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Table 20
NEWPORT BEACH
FAMILY INCOME IN 1969
Total
Number Income
Census Of All $5,000 - $ 8,000 - $12,000 - $15,000 - $25,000 - Median
Tract Families $0 - $4,99 $7,999 $11,999 $14,999 $24,999 $49,999 $50,000+ Income
626.03 1,192 60 30 51 108 433 415 95 $23,014
627 2,355 249 281 436 237 596 405 151 14,677
628 1,235 194 137 222 213 301 131 37 12,908
629 620 37 53 73 24 143 171 119 23,601
630.01 1,864 105 109 206 174 525 550 195 21,438
C 630.02 1,633 183 168 201 185 426 331 139 16,866
r 630.03 544 50 6 66 23 203 164 32 21,256
0 631.03 118 18 16 6 26 24 28 0 14,192
4 633 65 13 15 4 11 15 7 0 12,136
H 634 1,445 175 179 261 204 443 148 35 13,581
635 1,409 229 173 297 146 406 128 30 12,113
O1
636.03 649 64 65 147 107 159 102 5 13,360
C9 13,129 1,377 1,232 1,970 1,458 3,674 2,580 838
Y
Percent 10.5% 9.4% 15.0% 11. 10/0 28.0% 19.7% 6.4%
Cumulative Percent 10.576 19.9% 34.9% 46.0% 74.0% 93.7% 100.0%
9
p Sources: 1970 Census
Q Development Research Associates
a
H
t4
UP
€s` ;
1
Table 21
NE WPORT BEACH
' RESIDENTS' PLACE OF WORK - 1970
' Place of Work Number Percent
Anaheim CBD 12 0. 1% )
Rest of Anaheim 825 3. 9 )
3, 206
Santa Ana CBD 415 2. 0 ) 15. 2%
' Rest of Santa Ana 1, 629 7. 7 )
Garden Grove City 325 1. 5 )
Balance of Orange County 12,775 60. 7
Total Employed in
Anaheim/Santa Ana/Garden
Grove SMSA 15,981 75. 9
Total Employed Outside SMSA 3,985 18. 9
Total Not Reporting Place of Work 1 ,081 5. 1
Total: All Workers 21,047 100. 0%
' Sources: 1970 Census
' Development Research Associates
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
Table 22
NEWPORT BEACH
RESIDENT EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY, 1970
Number Percent
of of
Industry Employees Total
Construction 961 4. 4%
Manufacturing 4, 276 19. 5
' Durable Goods 3, 239 14. 8
Transportation 529 2. 4
Communication, Utilities and
Sanitary Services 416 1. 9
Wholesale Trade 925 4. 2
Retail Trade 4,216 19. 2
' Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 2, 325 10. 6
Business and Repair Services 953 4. 3
' Personal Services 744 3. 4
Health Services 1, 318 6. 0
Educational Services 2,700 12. 3
Other Professional and Related Services 1, 283 5. 8
' Public Administration 532 2. 4
Other 777 3. 5
' x=
Total Employment 21,955 100. 0%
16 years of age and older
' Sources: 1970 Census
Development Research Associates
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
In April, 1970, 48. 6 percent of all city units were occupied by their owners,
38. 1 percent were rented, and 13. 2 percent were vacant. Rental units
generally dominated the peninsula and beach-front areas, with the balance
shifting to ownership units away from the Bay. Vacancies varied widely within
the Newport Beach Statistical Area -- from under 1 to over 31 percent.
The median price of all owner-occupied units in 1970 was $49, 000, well above
' the median for both Orange County and the NBHMA. Median monthly rents
were relatively lower. Two-thirds of all rents fell between $100-$250 per
month -- a range considered low to moderate for the area in 1970. This trend
' has been partially offset by recent new construction.
Housing Demand Factors (See tables preceding this page)
Household sizes in Newport Beach are predominantly small. Sixty percent of
all households contained two or fewer persons in 1970. Seventy-seven percent
had three or fewer members. Families constituted 68 percent of all house-
holds in 1970, and averaged 3. 1 members. Non-family households averaged
only 1. 4 persons. Median family income was a high $16, 595, well above
County or NBHMA medians.
' Three-quarters of the employed residents of Newport Beach worked inside
Orange County in 1970. This percentage has increased since then with the
' growth of nearby employment centers, particularly Irvine and Newport Center,
and now is estimated to be approximately 80 percent.
' PROJECTION OF FUTURE HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Orange County and NBHMA (See table following this page)
The rate of Orange County's population growth is expected to gradually decline
between 1970 and 1990. Total growth between 1970 and 1980 is projected to be
35. 8 percent, followed by a 26. 8 percent increase between 1980 and 199Q. The
results will be populations of 1, 928, 700 in 1980, and 2, 445, 300 in 1990. `1)
' (1) Source: "SLAG 90" projections, 1972
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
� II
Table W
' PROJECTED POPULATION AND HOUSING UNITS
ORANGE COUNTY AND NEWPORT BEACH HOUSING MARKET AREA
' 1960a 1970a 1980 1990
Orange County
Population 703, 925 1, 420, 386 1, 928, 700 2, 445, 300
' Housing Units 226, 986 462, 397 619, 797 780, 197
Newport Beach
Housing Market Area
' Population 100, 956 279, 423 392, 087 496, 499
Housing Units 45, 789 101, 733 130, 695 155, 156
aActual
' bYear-round units
Sources: 1960, 1970 Census
Southern California Association of Governments
Development Research Associates
1
=j� ^ 7111
cM: 1':11 ill r iF"�
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
Table 24
NBHMA SHARE OF ORANGE COUNTY
TOTAL POPULATION/HOUSING UNITS
Item 1970a 1980 1990
Population 19. 7% 20. 3% 20. 3%
Housing Units 22. 0%b 21. 2% 19. 9%
aBased on 1970 Census counts
bNewport Beach (city only) represented 67o of total county housing
' units in 1970, making remainder of NBHMA 16% of total county
housing units.
' Source: Development Research Associates
' The percentage of single-family units in the County as a whole is expected to
' drop from 68. 2 percent (see Table 16) to roughly 65 percent by 1972, and 60
percent to 52 percent in 1980 and 1990 respectively. These percentages are
expected to be generally reflected in the NBHMA and Newport Beach, based of
course, upon the particular characteristics of each community.
Rising land costs and concurrently declining availability will continue to en-
courage more high density type uses for both rental and owner occupancy.
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES ... ;:;:JC ;::J
Average household size is expected to remain at 3. 1 persons, resulting in a
' net increase in dwelling units of 157, 400 between 1970-1980, and 160, 400 units
between 1980 and 1990. Single-family units in the county as a whole are pro-
jected to decline from roughly 65 percent in 1972, to 60 percent and 52 percent
in 1980 and 1990, respectively. (1
Population in the NBHMA is projected to increase at a faster rate than the
' county (40. 3 percent) through 1980 because of the area's greater desirability
as a residential location. The growth rate will then decline to slightly below
that in the county for the next ten years as the best partially developed and
' undeveloped residential areas are built out. (SCAG 90)
The currently small average household in the NBHMA will increase over the
20 year projection period to slightly above the county average, as the market
area becomes increasingly linked economically and socially with its county
environment. Average household size will rise from 2. 9 in 1970 to 3. 0 in 1980,
' and 3. 2 in 1990. (SCAG 90)
Newport Beach (See tables following this page)
' Based on a "holding capacity" approach for projection of the housing stock in
Newport Beach, the number of dwellings in the NBSA are expected to increase
by slightly over 50 percent between 1972 and 1980 to 39, 506 units. Growth will
' slow to 19. 2 percent between 1980 and 1990 as the holding capacity is approached,
producing a total 1990 stock of 46, 766 units.
' Most areas will reach their capacity "build out" levels by 1980. Over 70 per-
cent of the net increase expected by 1980 will be in the inland areas of the city.
Three-quarters of the development activity between 1980 and 1990 is projected
' for the extreme western beach-front area now devoted primarily to nonresidential
uses, with extensive recycling and intensification of existing residential uses.
For additional perspective, DRA also projected growth as a percentage "capture"
of the Orange County growth base. Using this approach, the NBSA will reach its
II ' projected 47, 000 unit holding capacity "build-out" level by 1985.
1 (1) Source: "SCAG 90" projections, 1972
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES ..........�.:_
Table 25
DWELLING UNITS BY STATISTICAL AREA
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN PROJECTIONS
(Holding Capacity)
Statistical Statistical
Division Area 1972 1980 1990
A Al -- 455 4, 550
' A2 318 1,418 2, 518
A3 356 668 1, 136
A Division Total 674 2, 541 8,204
' B B1 543 593 794
B2 645 781 980
B3 998 1,079 1,201
B4 871 983 1, 151
B5 609 609 618
' B Division Total 3, 666 4,045 4,744
C Cl - C2 868 874 889
C Division Total 868 874 889
' D DI 744 790 836
D2 427 514 599
D3 1, 072 1, 196 1,320
' D4 692 701 714
D Division Total 2,935 3, 201 3,469
E El 609 632 754
E2 759 860 961
E3 704 802 899
' E Division Total 2, 072 2,294 2,614
F F1 446 448 458
' F2 743 778 859
F3 1, 139 1,290 1,438
F4 1, 104 1, 192 1,367
' F5 259 317 317
F6 142 142 142
F7 142 145 145
' F8 177 179 179
F Division Total 4, 152 4,491 4,905
' G Gl 277 932 932
G Division Total 277 932 932
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
' Table .2.5 (Continued)
DWELLING UNITS BY STATISTICAL AREA
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN PROJECTIONS
' (Holding Capacity)
' Statistical Statistical
Division Area 1972 1980 1990
' H H1 328 468 598
H2 696 726 771
H3 541 570 612
' H4 519 436 436
H Division Total 2, 084 2,200 2,417
' J J1 432 1, 443 1, 443
J2 1,976 1,976 1, 976
J3 446 461 461
J4 620 631 631
J5 386 1, 303 1, 303
J6 486 386 250
J Division Total 4, 346 6, 200 6, 200
K K1 1, 147 2, 097 2, 097
' K2 1, 137 1, 707 1, 707
K3 460 460 460
K Division Total 2,744 4,264 4,264
' L L1 69 1, 569 1, 569
L2 10 2, 136 2, 136
L3 -- -- --
' L4 13 -- --
L Division Total 92 3, 705 3, 705
' M M1 408 805 805
M2 457 499 499
M3 166 676 676
' M4 -914 1_044 1_044
M5
' M Division Total 1,945 4,759 4, 759
Totals: All Statistical Divisions 25,856 39, 506 46,766
Source: 1972 - Community Development Department Data
1980, 1990 - Development Research Associates
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES sssNiuz._�ai'I
Table 26
RATES OF CHANGE IN DWELLING UNITS BY STATISTICAL DIVISION
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN PROJECTIONS
GROWTH , 1972 - 1980 GROWTH, 1980 - 1990
Statistical Division # % of Division % of Total Change # % of Division % of Total Change
A 1, 867 277. 0% 14. 376 5, 663 222. 976 75. 9%
B 379 10. 3% 2. 976 699 17. 3% 9.4%
C 6 0. 7% 0. 10/0 15 1. 7% 0. 2%
D 266 9. 110 2. 0% 268 8. 4% 3. 60111
E 222 10. 7% 1. 7% 320 13. 916 4. 3%
F 339 8. 2% 2. 6% 414 9. 2% 5. 570
tl G 655 236. 5% 5. 0% 0 0% 0%
t1iH 116 5. 6% 0. 9% 217 9. 9% 2. 9%
O J 1, 854 28. 1% 9.4% -1361 -2. 4% -1. 8%
ro
IS 1, 520 55.476 11. 7% 0% 0% 070
y L 3, 613 3, 927. 27o 27. 7% 0% 0% 0%
M 2, 814 144. 7% 21. 67o 070 0% 0%
m
Totals: 13, 651 100. 070 7, 460 100. 0%
Q
x
a
0 1Statistical Area J-6 shows a net decrease in dwelling units due to projected expansion of industrial
and commercial uses.
H
Source: Development Research Associates
0 1.inj
Table 27
P ROJECTED UNIT SIZE
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN STATISTICAL AREA
1960 1970 1980 1990
Unit Size Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1 Room 299 2. 1% 577 2. 616 1, 185 3. 076 1,409 3. 016
2-4 Rooms 6, 744 48.416 8, 836 39. 8% 15, 407 39. 076 19, 021 40. 5%
5-7 Rooms 6, 221 44. 6% 10, 347 46. 6% 18, 963 48. 0% 22, 544 48. 0%
8 Rooms t 675 4. 8% 2, 452 11. 0% 3, 951 10. 00/0 3,992 8. 5%
til Totals 13, 939 100. 010 22, 212 100. 070 39, 506 100. 0% 46, 966 100. 0%
C
r
ro
4 Total differs from 25, 856 shown in Table 31 due to differences in area covered by 1970 Census Tracts and NBSA Statistical
zSubareas (Figure 2) . 1980 and 1990 are based on same areas for all tables (NBSA).
H
7i
m
Sources: 1960, 1970 - Census
1980, 1990 - Development Research Associates
0
x
a
m
m
0
0
a
m
__ --
Table 28
' PROJECTED DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN STATISTICAL AREA
' 1972 1980 1990
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Single Family 14, 737 57. 0% 19, 753 50. 0% 21, 134 45. 0%
s
' Multi Family 11, 118 43. 0% 19, 753 50. 0% 25, 832 55. 0%
Total 25, 856 100. 0% 39, 506 1 00. 0% 46, 966 100. 010
Includes duplexes
' Sources: 1972 - Community Development Department Data
1980, 1990 - Development Research Associates
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
Table 29
PROJECTED TENURE AND VACANCIES
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN STATISTICAL AREA
' 1960 1970 1980 1990
All Housing Units 13, 939 22, 212 39, 506 46, 966
All Occupied Units 9, 972 19, 280 36, 029 43,914
Owner occupied 6, 380 10, 810 21, 617 2.6, 348
' Renter occupied 3, 592 8, 470 14, 412 17, 566
Vacant Units 3, 967 2, 932 3, 477 3, 052
Sources: 1960, 1970 - Census
1980, 1990 - Development Research Associates
0EVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
Table 30
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF OWNER-OCCUPIED UNITS BY VALUE I - THROUGH 1990
NEWPORT BEACH STATISTICAL AREA
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION
Value 2 1960 1970 1980 1990
$ 8, 000 or less 0. 4% 0. 2% 0. 1% 0. 0%
$ 8, 000 - 14, 999 3. 6% 0. 4% 0. 2% 0. 1%
$15, 000 - 24, 999 15. 0% 6. 2% 2. 5% 0. 9%
$25, 000 - 34, 999 26. 0% 15. 8% 9. 0% 3. 5%
[Oxi $35, 000 - 49, 999 42. 5% 29. 3% 20. 0% 12. 0%
C
t7
t' $50, 000 - 64, 999 6. 5% 27. 0% 35. 5% 27. 0%
O
ro
4 $65, 000 - 79, 999 2. 0% 10. 0% 14. 5% 21. 516
z
H $80, 000 or more 4. 0 11. 1% 18. 2% 35. 0%
m Totals 100. 010 100. 0% 100. 070 100. 0%
n Median Value2 $40, 119 $49, 000 $57, 500 $66, 250
x
a
m
O
a1Excludes owner-occupied units in multi-family structures and mobile homes.
2In constant, 1970 dollars.
ter,;.•__�.---➢
Sources: 1960, 1970 Census
Development Research Associates
Table 31
RANGE OF MONTHLY RENTS PROJECTED THROUGH 1990
NEWPORT BEACH STATISTICAL AREA
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION
Monthly Rent1 1960 1970 1980 1990
$ 39 or less 0. 4% 0. 910 0. 2% 0. 1%
$ 40 - 79 10. 6% 4. 276 2. 0% 1. 0%
$ 80 - 119 30. 5% 13. 616 5. 5% 2. 5%
$120 - 149 19. 0% 15. 110 11. 0% 5. 5%
$150 - 199 22. 5% 32. 1% 20. 5% 13. 5%
C
0 $200 - 249 11. 5% 15. 916 26. 516 25. 0%� $250 - 299 3. 0% 6. 0% 12. 316 20, 510
z
$300 - 349 2. 0% 4. 0% 7. 076 12. 0%
A
$350 or more 0. 510 8. 2% 15. 070 19. 9%
a
n
Totals 100. 010 100. 0% 100. 070 100. 010
x
> Median Rent $135 $175 $210 $245
co
O
O
N
1In 1970 dollars. Both rental rate distribution and median value
exclude units for which no cash rent is paid.
Sources: 1960, 1970 Census
-` Development Research Associates
Based upon market forces, DRA believes there will be excess of demand over
supply for residential units within the NBSA during the latter part of the 18-
year projection period of the General Plan. Planning measures will have to
be developed by the city to ease the impact of the rapid and intensive develop-
ment which will take place as a result of this excess demand - its economic/
physical effects.
I DRA projects further changes in the composition of the housing stock. Studio
apartments are expected to increase to three percent of the total stock in both
1980 and 1990, while large units with eight or more rooms will decline from
11 to 8. 5 percent over the same period. Units containing two to seven rooms
will make up 88. 5 percent of the total stock by 1990.
Single-family units are expected to decline from 52 percent of the total stock in f
1972, to 50 in 1980 and 45 percent in 1990 thanks largely to rising land costs.
The percentage of units owned by their occupants is projected to recover some-
1 what from its 56. 1 percent level in 1970, and hold constant at 60 percent of all
units through 1980 and 1990.
Seasonal influences on Newport Beach vacancy levels are expected to decline
substantially over the General Plan projection period as the present trend
toward year-round residency continues. The absolute number of vacant units
will increase through 1980, but constitutes a decreasing percentage of the total
stock.
Even without the inflation factor, the relatively high cost of housing in Newport
Beach is expected to increase substantially over the next 18 years. The
availability of units in all but the most extreme price categories should improve,
however.
EXISTING HOUSING OBSTACLES AND CONSTRAINTS
' The inability of the Orange County housing market to supply adequate shelter to
low, and some moderate-income families creates a substantial gap in overall
availability of housing for all socioeconomic groups in the County. Given
current trends in population growth for the region, and assuming increased
future housing costs, this gap between the number of units the free market can
supply and those that will be demanded is expected to increase over the next 20
years, unless more effective remedial action'- is taken by both the public and
private sectors in the County.
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
Supply/Demand Levels
DRA projects the total number of households in Orange County will increase by
over 305, 000 households by 1990. Growth of this magnitude will create tremen-
dous pressures for construction of sufficient housing at costs that can be afforded
by these new households. Substantial numbers of low-cost units will have to be
built throughout the County to satisfy new demand and to provide for those low-
income households which are presently underhoused.
Orange County has been slow to utilize federal housing assistance programs.
Up to 1970, FHA participation in the County was limited almost exclusively to
market rate programs. Prior to the formation of an Orange County Housing
Authority in November, 1971, no entity existed on a county-wide basis to
coordinate federal programs related to below market rate financing subsidy and
other programs. As of March, 1972, only six cities had indicated an intent to
participate in the county program. Of these, only Huntington Beach and Laguna
Beach are within the NBHMA. The potential impact of this unsatisfied low- to
moderate-income housing demand on the City of Newport Beach is difficult to
determine because, under current economic criteria, no "conventional market"
units meeting the needs of this segment of the housing market could be built in
the city, primarily due to extremely high land costs.
Additionally, the current federal moratorium on the Section 23 housing programs,
and other forms of assistance for low and moderate income housing have effect-
ively "stalled" all such programs nationwide.
Until such time as broadened forms of these ekisting programs or new programs
are available, there appear to exist no economically feasible means by which
low and moderate housing can be introduced into the City of Newport Beach. The
"trickle down" process in which older units become available at lower prices due
to aging etc. , is offset in Newport Beach by the rapid conversion of these older
areas to higher value residential uses due to increased land values. Therefore,
even the normal "conventional market" processes are not applicable to Newport
' Beach, and much more ambitious subsidy or other support programs would
have to be developed at state and federal levels to enable the private develop-
ment sector to build even moderate"income housing iri the current aria projected
Newport Beach housing market economic "climates. "
-74-
r -
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
1
r
1
r '
r
t
1
SUMMARY OF COST REVENUE SYSTEM & ANALYSIS
1
r
1
1
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
INTRODUCTION
The Cost Revenue System and Analysis summarized in this section represents
a "yardstick" by which city growth and change can be measured over time in
terms of "positive" and "negative" dollar flows of public "costs" resulting from
revenues generated by private development.
This analysis method, now coming into extensive use throughout the United States,
was specifically developed for Newport Beach based upon the city's unique
' character and configuration. The precise methodology utilized is detailed in
several technical memoranda developed by DRA and the Community Development
Department and are on file at the CDD offices.
The analysis represented a closely coordinated joint effort between consultant and
I city staff, with DRA providing initial inputs on suggested methodologies, factor
development and analysis, and survey techniques and format, while CDD staff
performed the extensive surveys of city departments, school districts, and
other entities, developed costs and revenue factors, and compiled the results
of the survey. DRA's role was then to "test" the system, its results and the
numerical values developed, against general "benchmarks" for this type of
system and analysis -- other study formats, general order of magnitude of
results, etc.
One important aspect of this testing process has been the recognition by both
consultant and City staff that while other cost/revenue systems developed for
communities throughout the U.S. , and in California provide useful examples of
format and content, each one of these studies is unique with respect to the
characteristics of its respective community. Thus, beyond a general level of
comparability, it is not appropriate to attempt to directly compare specific
factors, their derivations, or the resulting numerical values, since methods
of determining costs and revenues vary widely from city to city, and even over
time in the same city.
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
PURPOSE
The major purposes of this system and its related analysis process are:
1. To provide a means for estimating the probable impact of new
developments on the city's fiscal situation. In its simplest
form -- what will each new development provide the city (and
school district) in terms of revenue, and what will it "cost"
the city (and school district) in terms of services, facilities,
etc. ? These estimates of future costs and revenues associate
associated with various categories of land use have been used
(along with other considerations) in the testing of alternative
General Plan concepts.
2. To provide the commission and the council with a general
picture of the fiscal relationships among current land uses --
which uses are providing revenues in excess of costs and
which are not.
3. To provide estimates of the city's future fiscal situation,
I based on development projections, which will indicate: (1)
anticipated budget surpluses or deficits, (2) the ability of the
city to finance major new capital improvements or increases
1 in levels of service, and (3) the need for new revenue
sources.
SCOPE
The scope of this study appears to occupy a "middle ground" in complexity and
coverage among similar studies completed or underway in California. It is not
as detailed or capable of individual factor analysis as the computerized
examples, but it is more sophisticated than those which merely measure annual
operating costs and revenues ('which do not take into account major "one-time"
capital improvements).
It is intended that the format and factors developed from this "first generation"
study for Newport Beach could serve as the basis for development of a "second
generation" computerized system which could respond to changes, and develop
anticipation of public improvement and service needs well in advance of the
development requiring them.
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES ..:.......®°i_�.__.9
!
To a considerable extent these processes are currently followed by various
city departments (and the school districts) but the need for more readily re-
trievable historical information, and to be able to assess the numerical
aspects of a variety of public improvement and service approaches to a variety
of potential land uses, intensities, and timing situations argue strongly for an
other-than-manual system such as this "first generation" example.
It must be realized that this cost/revenue system is a "first cut" effort and
that the system and factors may undergo further refinement at a later date.
! However, in the opinion of DRA, this "first cut" cost/revenue system does
provide an indication of the respective costs and revenues associated with
I major land use categories, in "order of magnitude" terms, to be useful as both
a physical and fiscal planning tool.
! Recommendations for areas of future revenue generation which might be analyzed
In future cost/revenue studies by the City of Newport Beach are described at the
end of this section.
DRA recommends that these sources be examined in detail by city staff as sources
which may enable the city to offset increasing costs of public services with app-
ropriate revenue sources in the same general category of land use or economic
activity. This "one-for-one" relationship has been successfully accomplished in
a number of communities in the U. S. , who also had, as a major objective, the
! retention of a relatively constant or very slightly increasing, property taxation
1e ve 1.
The following section describes the results of the cost/revenue analysis which
portrays the cost/revenue "State of the City" in 1972.
r
-77- ,, R
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
' THE 1972 "STATE OF THE CITY" COST/REVENUE MODEL
ZThe costs, revenues, and net effect on the city are shown in the accompanying
table. From this table it can be seen that net "losses" between the revenues
generated by land uses and the costs of services provided to them result from
several land use categories -- all but one residential category, boat servicing
and repair, and industry; while all other categories show net gains of city
revenues over city costs, ranging from the modest $165 per acre per year of
3, 000 square foot lot size residential uses to the sizable $10, 667 per acre per
year of hotel and motel uses.
With the exception of the higher intensity residential use categories and the in-
dustrial uses categories, the positive and negative relationships indicated in
this representation of 1972 Newport Beach municipal costs and revenues are
generally similar to those found in other studies of this type which have dealt
with communities of the approximate character and scale of Newport Beach.
These general differences (multi-family residential and industry) indicate that:
' o Other communities may apply different revenue generating
methods to these particular uses (differential taxing rates for
single and multi-family properties, special industrial use
tax).
o These "normal" sources of positive effect on municipal fiscal
structure should be reviewed in later phases of this study to
determine if they can be developed into potentially "positive"
' sources.
Other classic patterns are evident, such as: commercial uses providing a
sizable portion of positive revenue; single-family homes as the perennial
negative revenue class (except for an "aberration' due to very high value
homes on small lots, peculiar to some portions of the Newport area); hotel and
' motel providing considerable additional revenue due to specialized taxes
(transient occupancy tax) similar to sales tax "boost" provided to commercial
revenue picture; restaurants and bars providing a similar favorable revenue
picture.
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES f•' e `. 1
I
1 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL CITY COSTS/•REVENUES BY LAND USE
(Dollars Per Acre of Non-Public Land)
(1972 Data Base)
Land Use Costs Revenues Net Effect
Residential (Single Family)
20, 000 sq. ft. lot $3,477/a $2, 316/a $(-) 1, 161/a
12,000 sq. ft. lot $3, 707/a $2,498/a $(-) 1,209/a
9, 000 sq. ft. lot $3,956/a $2, 729/a $(-) 1,227/a
6,000 sq, ft. lot $4, 217/a $3,039/a $(-) 1, 178/a
3,000 sq. ft. lot $5, 133/a $5, 298/a $ + 165/a
' Residential (Multi-Family)
4, 000 sq. ft. d.u. $4, 075/a $2,933/a $(-) 1, 142/a
2, 500 sq. ft. d.u. $4, 504/a $3,402/a $(-) 1, 102/a
2,000 sq. ft. d.u. $4, 799/a $3, 597/a $(-) 1,202/a
1, 500 sq. ft. d.u.. $5, 256/a $4,092/a $(-) 1, 164/a
1, 200 sq. ft, d.u-.. $5, 746/a $4,753/a $(-) 993/a
1,000 sq. ft. d.u. $6,236/a $5, 610/a $(-) 424/a
' Residential (Duplexes)
Typical Duplex Lot $5,843/a $4, 773/a $(-) 1, 070/a
' Commercial (Convenience Center)
$3,600/a $9,681 /a $ + 6,081/a
Commercial (Strip)
$4, 545/a $9,808/a $ + 5,263/a
Commercial (Scattered)
. $4,477/a $9,808/a $ + 5, 331/a
Commercial (Regional Center)
$3, 501/a $10,056/a $ + 6,555/a
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL CITY COSTS/REVENUES BY LAND USE
(Continued)
1
I '
' Hotel/Motel $4, 114/a $14, 781/a + $10, 667/a
Restaurants/Bars $4, 114/a $13, 908/a + $ 9, 794/a
High-Rise Office Space $3, 501/a $11, 418/a + $ 7, 917/a
Low-Rise Office Space $3, 501/a $ 4, 146/a + $ 645/a
Industry $3, 582/a $ 2, 509 (-) $ 1, 073/a
1
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
' POTENTIAL REVENUE SOURCES
The City of Newport Beach should consider a number of potential revenue sources,
(including expanded existing sources) to determine their feasibility for offsetting
increased costs of city operations, physical plant, and other elements.
DRA recommends the following sources be considered:
o Property Taxes: DRA believes that the current city share
of the property tax rate cannot be maintained at the current
(and recent) level for an indefinite period in the face of in-
creased operating costs, and a predominantly residential
land use base for the tax structure. In lieu of substantial
single increases in the tax rate, a graduated, increase over
time (rather than holding a constant level as at present)
geared to achieving a higher rate in five or more years, or
a substantial broadening of the tax base by adding very high
value residential uses, hotel/motel uses, and increased
office space under controlled development would appear to
represent alternatives.
o Parking: Treating parking as a "public utility" so that ex-
panded public parking could capitalize on high tourism and
visitor peak periods at key locations, would be one method.
Additionally, requiring new developments generating
substantial parking requirements above and beyond site
required parking (visitors to apartments, etc. ) to contribute
an amount to a "parking fund" equivalent to the cost of
acquiring land and building a required number of off-street
spaces to meet the project-generated needs has been
utilized in a number of cities with effective results. The
number of spaces, dollar amount, and legal basis for
enforcement of this possibility should be thoroughly
researched by City staff, however, before consideration of
implementation. Additionally, payment of a city-collected
parking "premium" cost in the • total parking costs of non-
recreational regional attractions should also be considered.
Major locations such as Newport Center, the many popular
restaurants, etc. could generate appreciable additional
revenue at minimal increase in cost. The city parking cost,
say $. 10 per car, would be added as a special "tax" to the
total price of any purchases at these locations, much as the
cost of the parking lots is amortized in the prices of goods
and services sold by these locations. No additional effort or
expenditure would be required of the private businesses
�.
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES .... iF: !JC___.
collecting the tax except to convey it to the city and keep
I records of it. An alternate means of parking-based taxation
is to add an increment to other taxes (business license, etc.)
based upon number of parking spaces per property. All uses
would be required to maintain "adequate" numbers of spaces;
excess off-street spaces would be taxed at a lower rate, less
than required at a higher rate.
o Marine Uses/Activities: The extensive orientation of the
city to marine activities is not commensurate with the
revenue which could be derived from these sources. Significantly
higher lease rates for public waterfront property developed
for private use.; the possibility of more of such leases in the
future; a pier and/or waterfrontage tax for uses directly on
the water and deriving increased value and usage from these
locations; a boat ownership and mooring tax; transient and
I guest boat tax for county dock and all yacht clubs, etc. ;
launching tax; commercial fishing boat trip tax; commercial
tour boat tax; and other sources. These taxes could be
' minimal in nature, but being comprehensive, could generate
substantial revenue from one of the community's major
activities and assets, on a "user pays" concept, where those
who benefit from the amenity pay for its use in a direct,
use-related manner.
o New Development: Many cities in high growth areas throughout
the U. S. have instituted special development "fees" which, as
a "one time" charge, or as small annual charges, contribute
' substantially toward offsetting cost/revenue imbalances
generated by new residential developments. This fee is gen-
erally a function of the intensity or density of development,
' based upon numbers of units, and can represent a portion of
the difference between costs of servicing the project and the
tax revenues generated by it, without changing the property
tax base for the project or use category.
Many school districts also "surcharge" major family-oriented
developments to offset revenue imbalances created by massive
numbers of new children, again without affecting base
property tax rates.
o Vehicle Tax: Often utilized by cities to generate revenue in
' auto o-rich�rareas, this tax (annual) is assessed uniformly
against all vehicles owned by residents and businesses in the
city. Autos and other vehicles owned in excess of off-street
-82- _ 8 .
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
t
ton-property parking spaces available to accommodate them
t are taxed at a substantially higher rate.
o Special Sales and Excise Taxes: Already partly in use (in
form of excise tax) in Newport each, this type of tax,
added to permits, purchases of special services, purchases
of nonconvenience items (meal in restaurant, for example)
t and other money transfer situations could also provide sub-
stantial revenues to the city, particularly if based upon the
level of economic activity of the use taxed, such as level of
t retail sales, etc. This is a "standard" category of additional
revenues which is again a "user-based" tax and thus is more
equitable than an increase in property taxation levels.
tIt must be stressed at this point that DRA is not advocating that any of these
taxes are necessary at this time to enable implementation of the General Plan.
However, DRA strongly believes, based upon extensive experience in other
similar situations, and a thorough understanding of Newport Beach fiscal alter-
natives, that some type of additional revenue sources must be tapped by the
city over the next few years to enable revenues to keep pace with costs.
DRA believes that the most "equitable" of these sources are those that are
t "user" or "benefitted group" related, so that only the appropriate groups and
population segments are affected rather than the community at large, and
recommends that the City of Newport Beach seek to gain additional revenue
sources from these sources, before major incremental increases in the
property tax, or in concert with graduated long-term ,property tax increases.
t
t
t
t
t
t
-83-
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES ... .....��mCk..:_..�
REVIEW OF GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT
P I
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
1
INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the provisions of our agreement for economic consulting
services, Development Research Associates has thoroughly reviewed the
Proposed Land Use Element and Residential Growth Element for the Newport
Beach General Plan.
The purpose of this review has been to provide:
' "An evaluation of various alternative general plan proposals and
the economic implications of the amount, distribution, and
character of future land uses. "
Additionally the review assesses the economic impact of the cost/revenue
factors associated with the proposed Land Use Plan and the earlier-developed
Trend Growth Plan, as developed by the Community Development Department,
and discusses the regional economic and policy contexts within which the plan
will most probably be implemented and accomplished over time.
BACKGROUND AND PARAMETERS OF REVIEW
' Alternative Futures
' The adopted Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan represents
one of a number of "alternative futures" for Newport Beach.
' One of these futures has been portrayed by the "Trend Growth Model" developed
by DRA at the onset of the General Plan Study. To a considerable degree, the
Trend Growth Plan represents a "worst case" alternative future since it portrays
the consequences of quantitative growth without qualitative control, or without
consideration of the environmental, economic, functional, or aesthetic
consequences.
At the other end of the range of alternative futures is a "No Growth" Plan,
which in effect could be represented by "freezing" the physical composition of
Newport Beach as it exists in 1973. However, economic and physical forces
acting from outside of a regionally situated community such as Newport Beach
insure that it cannot (Like an isolated community) remain totally static. This
alternative has not been formally developed, because it is not realistic within
the regional context or policy structure of the General Plan. e
' -84-
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
i
1 'I
1 '
Finally there is the alternative future illustrated by the currently adopted Land
1 Use Element, which represents a "Limited Growth" alternative, and which is
directed at achieving an appropriate balance between quantitative and qualitative
growth for Newport Beach over the next two decades. DRA has reviewed this
limited growth alternative as to its economic consequences.
1 Assumptions
1 In order to properly assess the limited growth alternative in terms of its
potential economic effects, DRA has made a number of assumptions which have
formed the parameters, or limits of definition, of this analysis:
1 o That the local implementation of the General Plan in both
technical and policy terms will proceed generally along the
1 lines implied in the Limited Growth alternative.
o That no outside factors will require major changes in
' approach toward this implementation during the course of the
next two decades. (A reversal to the Trend Growth
alternative, for example. )
1 o That no major changes in the area or land use composition of
1 the city will occur through annexation other than those
described in the plan.
1 o That it is assumed that, in its currently proposed form, the
plan achieves the major environmental, aesthetic, and
functional objectives ascribed to it, and that the subject of
1 this analysis is solely to determine if its general economic
objectives, as well as other economic considerations, might
be achieved.
1 o That there is built-in flexibility to meet specific small-area
needs within the overall plan through the Specific Area Plan
process, and that a periodic assessment of the plan's success
in achieving its objectives will be made, with changes affected
as necessary, within the framework of the plan and its
1 policies.
It should be noted that many communities in the U. S. have maintained effective
plan implementation programs over significant periods of time within this
framework. DRA, believes that the City of Newport Beach has the potential to
implement a positive "second generation" approach to the problems and issues
1 of growth limitation, if the proposed Land Use Element is implemented. 1
9'I�li,c,
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES !'•��• :�--�z4's— '
' GENERAL ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT
' The basic questions to be addressed in determining the Limited Growth
Alternative's economic implications are, we believe:
' o What is the probable effect of the Land Use Element's
recommendations upon the city's fiscal structure over time?
' o Are the amounts of land designated in the various use
categories of the Land Use Element in line with the estimated
Newport Beach "share" of regional market demand for these
uses?
o What is the probable effect of the Land Use Element's
' recommendations upon the current and potential city resident
and property owner's financial situation (Property Taxes,
Property Value, etc. )?
' o What is the probable effect of the proposed Land Use Element
on the general economy of the Newport Beach area (including
' employment levels, retail sales, other expenditures, transfer
payments, etc. )?
' o What is the probable effect of the proposed Land Use Element
on the economic aspects of real estate development, and
construction activities in the Newport Beach area, and in the
' Orange County area?
Answers to these questions have been developed by DRA to the extent that data
and the consultant's role permit. These answers are in the form of statements
of opinion based upon the consultant's experience specific to Newport Beach, as
well as in similar situations. Where available data can be used to illustrate
the conclusion, it has been included, and where we believe further analysis is
needed to establish the validity of a conclusion, this has also been indicated.
' Effect on City's Fiscal Structure
The apparent long term effect of the proposed Land Use Element upon the city's
fiscal structure is positive. The cost/revenue system, can only be utilized as
a measure of the "older of magnitude" of differences related solely to land use,
but as can be seen from Table 1 (Source: Community Development Department)
the Limited Growth Alternative provides a greater surplus than the Trend
' Growth alternative.
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES iiii.!ii»v�1WL1u Lia�
COST/REVENUE ANALYSIS
ESTIMATED COSTS AND REVENUES FOR EXISTING"TREND-GROWTH"
AND PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN DEVELOPMENT
1972 19801 Trend-Growth 1995 Development Land Use Plan 1995 Development
Land Use Category (Net Acres)(t$/A2)=EFFECT (Net Acres)(t$/A2)=EFFECT (Net Acres) (t$/A2)=EFFECT (Net Acres) (t$/A2)=EFFECT
Residential (2,500) (-$900)3 = -$2,250,000 (3,500) (-$900) _ -$3,150,000 (4,000)(-$900) _-$3,600,000 (4,150) (-$900) _ -$3,735,000
Hotel/Motel (29)(+$10,000) _ +$ 290,000 (60) (+10,000) _ +$ 600,000 (87)(+$10,000) _+$ 870,000 (87)(+$10,000) _ +$ 870,000
Restaurant/Bar (36)(+$10,000) _+$ 360,000 (44) (+$10,000) _+$ 440,000 (62)(+$10,000) _+$ 620,000 (62)(+$10,000) _ +$ 620,000
General Commercial (361)(+$5,300) _+$1,913,000 (411) (+$5,300) _ +$2,178,300 (521)(+$5,300) _ +$2,761,300 (516)(+$5,300) _ +$2,734,800
Hi-Rise Offices (25) (+$8,000) _+$ 200,000 (74)(+$8,000) _ +$ 592,000 (113)(+$8,000) _ +$ 904,000 (113) (+$8,000) _+$ 904,000
Low-Rise Offices (103)(+$600) _ +$ 61,800 (150) (+$600) _ +$ 90,000 (200)(+$600) _ +$ 120,000 (315) (+$600) _+$ 189,000
Industry (298)(-$1,000) _ -$ 298,000 (448)(-$1,000) _ -$ 448,000 (619)(-$1,000) _ -$ 619,000 (434) (-$1,000) _ -$ 434,000
___
Vacant Land (2,470) (+$150)4 = +$ 370,500 (670)(+$500) _ +$ 100,500 ___ ___ ___ ---
+$3,195,600 +$4,000,800 +$5,275,300 +$5,317,800
Total+� - 2,548,000 - 3,598,000 - 4,219,000 - 4,169,000
[xj Total-
+$1,056,300 +§1,148,800
� Annual Effect +$ 647,600 +$ 402,800
C" Estimated Cost of Major 5 562 000 562,00 - 562,000 562,000
bNew Capital Improvements ,
7 Net Annual Effect +§ 85,600 -$
159,200 +$ 494,300 +$ 586,800
r.. (Results in a$92,500 increase
M in projected annual surplus)
z
H
11980 Development is expected to be approximately the same under the "Trend-Growth" projection and the Land Use Plan.
W 2All costs and revenues shown in constant dollars; no accounting for inflation has been made.
3-$900 per acre used as average net effect for all residential types and densities.
a
n -Based on estimated average assessed value of$0.30 per sq. ft. for vacant land.
xi 5Includes estimated costs for new fire stations, libraries, parks and expansion of City Hall and City Yard facilities.
9
fn
fD
0
til
M
I
1
The implication of these figures, since the system can only provide a
proportional order of magnitude answer are that the dollar amounts are not
significant, but the relative relationships between amounts and types of land
use (the land use ' mix ') and between the type of land use and its ,per-acre cost
' or revenue (the cost-revenue "factor") are important. Thus it must be
assumed that subsequent actions will be taken by the City of Newport Beach if
and as necessary to maintain or enhance the balance inherent in these_relation-
These actions could include the possibilities of: "phasing land use
development by pace and amount over periods of time increases in tax rates or
other revenue sources for specific types of land use to bring revenues more in
' line with costs; more stringent review of all development proposals, including
cost/revenue impact; restructuring of city service delivery systems related to
land uses to achieve lower costs,
1
Projected Land Use Amounts Versus Market Demand for Uses
The proposed Land Use Element provides for the eventual development (1995)
of the following amounts of land uses: (not including public uses)
' Variation From
1972 (Exist. ) Trend Growth 1995
Residential 4, 150 acres t1, 650 -150
Hotel-Motel 87 acres t 58 Same
Restaurant-Bar 62 acres t 26 Same
General Commercial 516 acres t 155 5
High Rise Office 113 acres t 88 Same
Low Rise Office 315 acres t 212 ±115
' Industry 434 acres t 136 -185
' Total 5, 677 acres t2, 325 -155*
*The Land Use Element proposes an additional amount of open space not
contained within the Trend Growth Plan.
' In its economic base analysis DRA projected that the Newport Beach Market
' Area 1990 capture share of Orange County regional demand in these categories
of land use would approximate: (Newport Beach Market Area varies in size
from city area -- generally larger. )
' -88- � ja
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
Regional Demand Estimated City Share
Residential 6, 500 acres 5, 500 acres
' Hotel-Motel 120 acres 95 acres
Restaurant-Bar 85 acres 75 acres
General Commercial 680 acres 580 acres
High Rise Office 150 acres 120 acres
Low Rise Office 560 acres 450 acres
Industry 1, 200 acres 720 acres
Totals 9, 295 acres 7, 540 acres
As can be seen from the above figures the market demand for land uses in
Newport Beach in 1990 is well in excess of either Trend Growth projections
' (which assumed the maximum utilization of all land in the city under existing
zoning and anticipated use in non-zoned areas) or of the levels of land use
development proposed in the Land Use Element. Thus long range market de-
mand for land uses exceeds Trend Growth by over 1, 700 acres or 29 percent
and the Land Use Element by 33 percent, or 1, 860 acres.
This situation exists in all land use categories but is more critical in some
significant categories. The potential capture of demand for residential, low
rise office and industrial uses is extremely high, and would result in a very
' rapid buildout of all available land as well as pressures to create more land
for these demand categories.
' While at first glance, this might appear to be an enviable position, in which
there will always be an excess of demand over supply, its consequences are
potentially damaging:
' o If the development pace occurs at, or above, theoretical
market demand levels, an overbuild situation could easily
occur, in which high vacancy rates, lower sales levels due to
excess competition, marginal uses, and other problems
resulting from "too much too soon" would be created.
Similar situations have occurred -- in Marina del Rey with
the overbuilding of restaurants requiring a two-year
moratorium, apartment overbuilding in the 169-170-171 period
' throughout Southern California.
*The major exception is the Trend Growth projection for open space use of
' upper Newport Bay.
_89-
LiL I IDIY,IIILltl illll
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
1
' 0 The excessive pressures for rezoning, the "boom and bust"
cycles of property values resulting from heavy speculation,
and other economic pressures would destroy any chance to
retain an essentially low density, "villages" atmosphere in
Newport Beach and implementing the objectives of the General
Plan. The city will need to be extremely selective in
' approving any rezoning requests.
DRA. believes that, by being extremely selective as to type, quality, timing, and
' planning/design of land uses permitted within an overall General Plan frame-
work, the city can achieve the quality levels of development, cost/revenue
"balance, " and overall physical/functional character which are the adopted
' policies and objectives of the General Plan.
DRA also believes that the city will not in general suffer either economic hard-
ship or declining interest as a potential location for development or business
efforts, or for residence, due to adoption of a Limited Growth policy and
General Plan over the next two decades. On the contrary we feel that it will be
' the very concepts of semi-exclusivity, prestigious location, and stability and
enhancement of major use areas, and preservation and enhancement of natural
amenities which will continue to attract the highest quality levels of economic
' potential to the community. Our experience has been that, and our projections
indicate, in a major growth area such as Orange County (and Southern
California), the potentials for economic growth and investment are so great and
' widespread, that the theoretically "untapped" excess demand ascribable to
Newport Beach will be rapidly absorbed in other locations.
Absorption Rates
' A quick review of the potential absorption rates and buildout years under alter-
nature growth assumptions is useful. In all cases, the 1973-1980 period is
' expected to be a period of high growth potential, and consequent high absorption
rates, with rates slacking off somewhat in the 1980-1990 period, as available
land is used up, and as uses built in the high growth period achieve full
' occupancy. (Some exceptions to this change in rate would occur, linked to
increased population. ) Based upon absorption rates indicated by the acreage
figures at 1980 in Table 1 (CD Cost/Revenue Analysis) the average annual
absorption rates by type of land use would be as follows: (1981-1995 estimates
are DRA projections).
' -90-
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES !i�`: iL.J3: �J:S
_
1972 - 1980 1981 - 1995
' Residential 125. 00 acres per year 75. 00 acres per year
Hotel-Motel 3. 90 acres per year 2. 00 acres per year
Restaurant-Bar 1. 00 acres per year 1. 50 acres per year
General Commercial 6. 25 acres per year 8. 00 acres per year
' High Rise Office 6. 00 acres per year 9. 00 acres per year
Low Rise Office 5. 90 acres per year 12. 00 acres per year
Industry 18. 75 acres per year 5. 00 acres per year
' If the projected absorption rates for the various uses in the 1981-1995 are
' maintained through balancing market demand with permitted development
amounts and rates, the approximate final absorption years (year in which all
available land designated for this use within the General Plan is finally
' absorbed by development) for the major land uses would be:
Residential approximately 1990
' Hotel-Motel approximately 1990
Restaurant-Bar approximately 1993
General Commercial approximately 1994
' High Rise Office approximately 1991
Low Rise Office approximately 1994
Industry approximately 1992
' (These estimates do not indicate year of actual completion of construction or
100 percent occupancy -- merely the year in which the land category is com-
pletely "sold out" for its designated use. However, we would estimate that
construction would be completed on most land within one to two years of final
absorption. )
' If an accelerated absorption rate is applied to these land uses, based upon an
"unlimited growth's policy, in response to market demand, final absorption
' years would be much earlier. These final absorption years would be:
Residential 1985 or earlier
' Hotel-Motel 1986 or earlier
Restaurant-Bar 1987 or earlier
General Commercial 1988 (parallels housing development)
' High Rise Office 1986
Low Rise Office 1988
Industry 1985
-91- ` '71
�=
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES - -
I�
Effect on Property Owner
The general effect of the proposed Land Use element on the economic "position"
' of the average property owner will be neutral, to slightly positive. The
reasoning behind this conclusion is based upon the following:
' o A. recognition that some individual property owners will suffer
some negative economic effects, no matter what plan or fiscal
approaches are taken, but that the objective of the plan is to
maximize potential benefits of all types (economic, physical,
etc. ) to the community at large and to avoid creating
' economic hardship on major numbers of people due to actions
affecting them as a group (location, type of ownership, etc. ).
' o That preservation and enhancement of the unique nature of the
community will serve to stabilize, and insure realistic
increases in, property values, and that permitting the
t community to enter additional cycles of speculative economic
"boom and bust" will result in diminished demand for
inflated-value properties.
' o That, under a low/moderate density "villages" concept which
builds on quality levels and density/economic relationships
' already known in the community, the General Plan could
result in a greater economic premium and unit value (both
speculative and "normal market") for than might have been
' the case for higher density uses. This economic phenomenon
requires time to become established, so that noticeable
economic benefits might not occur for several years until the
' image of the areas' potential is changed. Thus, the economic
effects of a zoning rollback on an area are a function of:
' ° The areas' initial quality level
° The amount of physical transition already
present
t The amount of inflated value property present
° The degree of application and continuing
enforcement of the rollback to all properties
' The ability to demarcate specific small areas,
and designate them for a particular zoning
category commensurate with economic market
potentials "believable" in Newport Beach.
-92-
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
1
Effect on General Economy
1
The effect on the general economy of the Newport Beach area of either Trend
1 Growth or Limited Growth plans over time would be positive - that is, there
would be a net increase in all economic indicators over current levels
(discounting inflation, other macro-economic factors).
1 However, the degree and type of effects and particularly, the avoidance of
potential fluctuations are somewhat different between the two alternatives.
1 An "unlimited growth" local economy would be subject to potential fluctuations
1 in several areas: the possible effects of an "overbuild" situation might create
high vacancy rates in housing; excessive competition in some types of retail
and industrial uses could create a higher degree of business failure, with sub-
sequent retail/industrial space vacancies, unemployment, and lowered sales
and sales tax revenues. Additionally, overdependence upon one economic
sector (aerospace phenomenon and tourism, are other potential "hazard" areas)
1 and over expansion in the sector could severely depress the overall economy.
Thus a balanced approach in which tourism related uses are proportionately
1 balanced by non-seasonal employment and sales generators (restuarants, retail,
residential) such as is possible under a limited growth approach would seem to
be favored.
1 Effect on Real Estate/Development Activities
1 We believe that the net, long term effect on the performance these sectors of
1 the economy will be positive.
To a great extent, the potential effects have already been discussed in the
1 preceding sections, but the basic differences between the two plans with respect
to these industries are:
1 o While an explicitly described, consistently implemented
limited growth plan offers some opportunity for rational
private and public decision making, based on announced,
1 quantifiable factors, an "open-ended" unlimited growth plan
provides only a situation in which the maximum possible
economic exploitation of "exceptions" is possible, with
1 "reaction" (in terms of both fiscal and public works action) to
each exception rather than advance planning the only option
for the city.
zm ie.:vor�
1 —93—
L... I_�a^ N Idi i
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES ..........wL:mL.I�
o The competition for a more limited number of development
opportunities offered under a limited growth plan will insure a
high level of performance in terms of private sector develop-
ment, and a counterbalancing high degree of service delivery
quality on the part of the city, to provide incentive and
support of this qualitative approach.
' o The effect on the real estate market and business of a clearly
expressed plan and related implementation policies will be to
stabilize the market's view of the various areas and land uses
within the plan, and hopefully, to "promote" them based upon
the probable positive effects of the plan. Speculation oppor-
tunities would continue to exist, but would be more in line with
II ' with clearly defined potentials (via plan) rather than "pie-in-
the-sky" chances to capitalize upon unknown "possibilities, "
through the absence of definite information as to timing,
I ' location, intensity, etc. This, of course, presumes that the
credibility of the plan to the private sector is maintained by
effective, consistent, and politically/technically sensitive
' enforcement, with continual reports on progress, updating,
etc. made available to the general public.
o The often described potential "loss" of development activity,
construction payroll expenditures, and other revenues, direct
' and indirect, to the community from adopting a less intensive
approach to future growth is, we believe, a fallacy. In the
case of the Limited Growth Plan, the actual revenues to the
II ' city from this plan are expected to exceed those of the Trend
Growth Plan by at least 15 percent, and the revised mix of
land uses could be expected to provide higher "secondary"
I ' revenues as well -- business license fees, sales taxes, etc.
Additionally, the "flow" of development activity would be
more regularly distributed under the Limited Growth
' Alternative, avoiding wide fluctuations in construction activity
and employment, and providing a more stable flow of
construction financing activity.
' o The "image" offered by a Limited Growth Plan in an area of
the known prestige and desirability of Newport Beach would
seem to the consultant to offer endless "promotional"
possibilities for city, chamber of commerce, realtors, local
financing and development entities. A Newport Beach with a
' plan that is intended to be environmentally and functionally
cost effective and politically realistic, while projecting a
concept of a carefully planned collection of villages is
' -94- f' i9
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
' certainly as "saleable" a place as any ever offered by the
major private land developers of Southern California.
Capitalizing on some recognized unique strengths and
' amenities, while avoiding mistakes of others, and borrowing
from successes elsewhere, the plan would appear to have
excellent potential, as well, with state and federal
' government sources who might in the future be approached
for funds for various city projects.
' o The one cautionary aspect of the plan however, is that, unless
the private sector responds favorably to its concept and its
implementation procedures, the plan may suffer from too
many "adjustments" to specific concerns to be meaningful,
and to maintain environmental, functional, and economic
objectives.
1
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES