Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBPPACBALBOA PENINSULA PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE Wednesday, September 6, 1995 5:00 P.M. City Council Conference Room AGENDA 1. Review 15 Point Plan recommendations to the City Council 2. Discussion on future work program 3. Public Comments BRLBOA PENINSULA PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE Wednesday, July 12,1995 5:00 P.M. City Council Conference Room AGENDA Presentation to City Council on July 24, 1995 Study Session 2. Public Comments 3. Adjournment CITY OF NEW PORT BEACH HearingZate: August 12, 1996 �gwapRr C� A COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Agenda Item No.: 34 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Staff Person: Sharon Z. Wood • u �,<„oa ,� 53w NEWPORT BOULEVARD (714) 644-3222 NEW PORT BEACH, CA 92658 (7'4) 644-SUO; FAX (714) 644-3250 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL PROJECT: APPOINTMENT OF CITY COUNCIL AND AT -LARGE MEMBERS TO THE BALBOA PENINSULA PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE (BPPAC) AND EXTENDING ITS TERM SUGGESTED ACTION: Adopt the attached resolution, and appoint City Council members and an at -large member to BPPAC • The Balboa Peninsula Planning Study is nearing completion. From the outset of the study, the Council, BPPAC members and staff all have been committed to the study resulting in some action to improve the Peninsula. Staff expects that the recommendations to be presented to the Council this Fall will include implementation actions for both the near and longer term. City Council Participation Follow-through on implementation will benefit from continued effort from BPPAC, and from direct Council participation in the implementation program. The Economic Development Committee (EDC) is a good model for an action -oriented, implementation committee, as it has completed a number of projects for the City. One of the things that has been critical to the EDC's success is the active participation of Councilmembers, and staff is suggesting a similar arrangement for BPPAC. In addition, staff is suggesting that the term of the Committee be extended beyond the current sunset date of August 31, 1996, to June 30, 1996. This additional time should allow BPPAC to get a good start on implementation of its recommendations. The attached resolution amends the BPPAC membership provisions to include three City Council members, and extends the term of the Committee. Staff has discussed this proposal with BPPAC's co-chairmen, Fritz Duda and Tim Collins, and they would welcome Council participation. . At -Large Member There is an existing vacancy on BPPAC for an at -large member. The Committee is recommending Michael Kranzley to fill this position. Mr. Kranzley has lived in West Newport and currently resides on the Peninsula, has participated in the Peninsula Planning Study for the 0 Central Balboa District, and is a member of the Planning Commission. His previous activities • include the Bicycle Trails Committee and the Lido Sands Homeowners' Association. Submitted by: SHARON Z. WOOD Assistant City Manager Attwb=t r� 0 0 RESOLUTION NO.96- • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADDING CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO THE BALBOA PENINSULA PLANNING ADVISORYCOMMITTEE AND EXTENDING ITS TERM WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 95-32 on March 13, 1995, establishing the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee; and WHEREAS, Resolution 95-32 provides that the membership of said Committee shall consist of three members at large and three members who live in and shall represent the Peninsula/Lido Area; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 96-31 on April 8, 19K extending the term of the Committee to August 31, 1996; and WHEREAS, the Committee is involved in the Balboa Peninsula Planning Study and intends to make recommendations to the City Council in September 1996; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires an implementation program for those recommendations it elects to approve, which will require continued effort by the • Committee and participation by City Council members; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach as follows: Section 1. Membership of the Committee is expanded to include three members of the City Council. Section 2. The term of the Committee is extended to June 30, 1997. ADOPTED this day of , 1996. MAYOR ATTEST: • CITY CLERK 7 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin J. Murphy, City Manager SUBJECT: City Council Participation in BPPAC Study Implementation DATE: July 12,1996 The Balboa Peninsula Planning Study is nearing completion, and we are planning to bring its recommendations to the City Council in September. The Council, BPPAC members and I all are anxious for there to be some action resulting from this study, and I expect the recommendations to include implementation actions for both near and longer term. The Economic Development Committee has helped the City accomplish a number of things, and I believe it is a good model for an action -oriented committee. One of the things that has been critical to the EDC's success is the active participation of Councilmembers. With their leadership, understanding of the issues and support for EDC's programs, resources have been assigned to high priority projects and they have been approved by the Council. As BPPAC enters its implementation phase, I think it would be well served by the participation of one to three Councilmembers. Staff has discussed this idea with the chairman, Fritz Duda, and he would welcome Council participation. If you are supportive of this idea, and some of you are willing to take on the assignment, I will prepare an amendment to the resolution creating BPPAC for your consideration. Real Estate Investment Builders • Developers 0 3471 Via Ldo Suite 207 Newpon Beach, CA 92663.3929 (714) 723-7100 FAX (714) 723.1141 One Gallem Tower 13355 Noel Road, LB 3 Suite 1315 Dallas, TX 75240.6603 (214) 934.2244 FAX (214) 991.5184 DATE: May 10, 1996 MEMORANDUM RL%#Wvru ¢iY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT 8EACH MAY 131996 78191MIU112111218141516 A TO: Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee Tim Collins Rush Hill William Wren Tim Strader Jim Dobrott Robert Shelton Anne Gifford Don Dabney CC: Sharon Wood John Douglas Patty Temple FROM: Arlene Biron for Fritz Duda RE: Updated Membership List Enclosed is an updated list for the BPPAC membership. If there are any errors or changes, please let me know. Also enclosed is some correspondence for your info�m^"^^ /ab Enclosur • BALBOA PENINSULA PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE LIST OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Fritz L. Duda, Chairman Fritz Duda Company 3471 Via Lido, Suite 207 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3929 Phone: 714-723-7100 FAX: 714-723-1141 Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone: 714-644-3222 FAX: 714-644-3250 John Douglas Patty Temple Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone: 714-644-3200 FAX: 714-644-3250 Rush Hill The Hill Partnership, Inc. 115 22nd Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone: 714-675-6442 FAX: 714-675-4543 Tim Strader The Legacy Company 840 Newport Center Dr., Suite 420 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: 714-719-6365 FAX: 714-719-6366 Tim Collins, Co -Chairman T. C. Collins & Associates 3600 Birch Street, Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: 714-863-9099 Voice Mail: 714-451-3108 FAX: 714-863-9010 William Wren William A. Wren Company 1118 East Balboa Boulevard Balboa, CA 92661 Phone: 714-673-6662(H)/645-8177(W) FAX: 714-673-4894 Anne Gifford J-A-M-S ENDISPUTE 500 N. State College Blvd., Ste. 600 Orange, CA 92668 Phone: 714-939-1300 or 937-8247 FAX: 714-939-1787 Home Phone: 714-6734572 Home FAX: 714-673-5530 Robert Shelton 4700 Surrey Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Phone: 714-760-0390 FAX: 714-760-1136 Jim Dobrott 329 Via Lido Soud Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone: 714-673-2825 FAX: 714-675-5279 Don Dabney 122 Via Ithaca Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone/FAX: 714-673-7635 (C: HMOPPAC.MBR) MAY 10, 1 m 0 BALBOA PENINSULA PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE LIST OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Fritz L. Duda, Chairman Fritz Duda Company 3471 Via Lido, Ste. 207 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3929 Phone: 714-723-7100 FAX: 714-723-1141 Kenneth J. Delino Assistant City Manager City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone: 714-644-3002 FAX: 714- 644-3339 Rush Hill The Hill Partnership, Inc. 115 22nd. St. Newport Beach, CA 926 " Phone: 714-675-6442 FAX: 714-675-4543 Tim Collins T.C. Collins & Associates 3600 Birch Street, Ste. Newport Beach, CA 926 Phone: 714-863-9099 FAX: 714-863-9010 Tim Strader The Busch Firm 2532 Dupont Drive Irvine, CA 92715 Phone: 714-474-7368, E FAX: 714-474-7732 William Wren William A. Wren Co. 1118 East Balboa Blvd. Balboa, CA 92661 Phone: 714-673-6662 Carol Hoffinan The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: 714-720-2000 FAX: 714-720-2501 Anne Gifford 705 W. Bayfront Newport Beach CA 92663 Phone: 714-939-1300 FAX:714-939-1787 Jim Dobrot 329 Via Lido Soud Newport Beach, CA 92663 1 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BALBOA PENINSULA PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOTICE OF MEETING Wednesday, June 280 19959 5:00 P.M. City Council Conference Room 3300 Newport Boulevard AGENDA 1. Overview of Linda Congleton Study Ken Delino, Assistant City Manager 2. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Work Program Bill Wren and Tim Collins 3. Public Comments 4. Adjournment L CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BALBOA PENINSULA PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOTICE OF MEETING Wednesday, June 7, 19950 5:00 P.M. City Council Conference Room 3300 Newport Boulevard AGENDA 1. Roil Call 2. Review of Central Balboa Activities 3. Review proposal by Langdon-Wilson 4. Items for Next Agenda 5. Public Comments CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BALBOA PENINSULA PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOTICE OF MEETING Tuesday, May 16, 19959 5:00 P.M. NOTE: LOCATION CHANGE TO: Fire Conference Room 3300 Newport Boulevard - Upstairs - Building Behind City Hall AGENDA 1. Introductions 2. Review of Data 3. Discussion on Work Program 4. Comments to City Council Re: Hooters and Atlantis 5. Comments on Balboa Palms Treatment Center 6. Public Comments 7. Schedule Next Meeting and Agenda Items 0 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BALBOA PENINSULA PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOTICE OF MEETING Wednesday, May 3, 1995, 5:00 P.M. City Council Conference Room 3300 Newport Boulevard AGENDA 1. Review Data 2. Discuss Work Program 3. Discussion of Additional Members 4. Items for Future Agenda 5. RAP�bliZ c Cots�mre� sr�1 'wa-- h o 6. Adjournment rR^ �� Sy q ;q I c 0 F� s4v d '�71i0 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BALBOA PENINSULA PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOTICE OF MEETING Wednesday, April 19, 1995, 5:00 P.M. City Council Conference Room 3300 Newport Boulevard AGENDA 1. Introductions 2. Review of Data - City Staff & Consultants 3. Develop Study Design: Discussion and Possible Action 4. Nomination of Additional Members S. Schedule and Items for Future Agendas 6. Public Comments 40 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BALBOA PENINSULA PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOTICE OF MEETING Wednesday, April 5, 1995, 7:00 P.M. City Council Conference Room 3300 Newport Boulevard AGENDA 1. Introductions 2. Project Overview - Fritz Duda 3. Nomination of Additional Members 4. Schedule and Items for Future Agendas 5. Public Comments RESOLUTION NO. 95-32 RESOLUTION OF THE CITHE TY COBALBOAUNCIL F THE CITY F PENINSULA NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE. WHEREAS, the City Council has received communication from residents and busPeninessinsulapdoes noteole at the type and we I serve the residents lionof thePeninlsuula andment on the Balboa he City as a whole; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to investigate the nature and extent of this problem and to seek solutions; and WHEREAS, the City Council in addressing this problem desires to appoint a Commitl of whom are commerical redevelopment and some of members of whomlive land work on the P n nsulaeable in NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby establishes the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee as follows: MEMBERSHIP: The Chairman of the Committee shall be Fritz Duda. The remaining members shall consist of three members at large and three members who live in and shall represent the Peninsula/Lido Area. TERM: The Committee shall sunset upon presentation of its final report to the City Council or December 31, 1995 which ever occurs first unless the term is extended by action of the City Council. FUNCTION AND DUTIES: I. Qeveloo a Study Design. The initial task of the Committee shall be to investigate the general scope of the problem and to determine how best to address it in terms of the precise geographical boundaries, the staffing and/or consultant requirements and a work program. The work program shall provide ample opportunities for public hearings and citizen input. 2. Determine Funding Reauiement The Committee shall determine what funds or other resources are necessary to complete the study outlined in the first task and shall seek to secure such funds by making recommendations to the City Council, seeking grants or other appropriate means. 3. Cr d ^`e ^^d Monitor the Study Program In concert with City staff, the Economic Development Committee or others as appropriate, direct and participate in the study process and ensure that periodic progress reports are made to the City Council. 4. Recommend Imniementation Measures. Upon completion of the study program and the identification of solutions, this financial commitments necessary to Implement the preferred aten t yes izational and 0 Page 2 STAFFING: The Committee shall receive assistance primarily from the Assistant City Manager and periodically from other City departments as necessary. The Economic Development Committee shall also provide assistance and coordination as necessary. ADOPTED this 13th date of ATTEST: I /L-J MAYOR March 1995. 06/10/96 16:20 r 0002/003 T.C. Collins & Associates Consultancy to Management -on Matters of Corporate Finance June 10, 1996 'Honorable John Redges City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 96658-8915 Re: City Budget- Capital Projects -1997 Dear John, Via Facsimile As discussed with City staff during our Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee meeting last Wednesday, due to the preliminary recommendations being generated by our community workshops, we respectfully request that the City Council defer final approval of project specific budgets for public works on the Peninsula until we have the opportunity to submit our consensus needs. It is highly likely that the priorities and scope of certain projects identified in the draft budget will change as the result of our deliberations over the four planning areas. We trust there is some procedure to allow for update of the capital budget without unduly interfering with your approval cycle. Be assured of our cooperation in this regard. Very truly yours, Timothy C. Collins Co -Chairman TCC/jg C: Fritz Duda, Co -Chairman Kevin Murphy, City Manager Members of theCity Council 3600 Birch Street. Suite 100 (t 14) 863-9099 Newport Beach. California 92660 FAX (7714) 863-9010 Real Estate Investment Buie • Developers 0 3471 Via Lido Suite 207 Neu}vvt Beach, CA 92663.3929 (714)723.7100 FAX 1714) 723.1141 One Callena Tower 13355 Noel Road, LB 3 Suite 1315 Dallas, TX 75240.6603 (214)934.2244 F.kX (214) 991.5184 DATE: May 22, 1996 MEMORANDUM RI:GCIVtu' tar PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MAY 2 S 1996 71819t10tllt]2t1t213t4t5t6 b TO: Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee Tim Collins Rush Hill Don Dabney Tim Strader Jim Dobrott William Wren Anne Gifford CC: Robert Burnham Patty Temple John Douglas Sharon Wood Kevin Murphy FROM: Fritz Duda RE: Newspaper Article Attached is a short news release detailing the California District Court of Appeals affirmation that cities may target bars and liquor stores for extraordinary enforcement costs. Incidentally, this is nothing new in many other states and cities. The Peninsula would appear to be the classic case for extraordinary ordinances of this type. FLD:ab Attachment .r i s' T H E • O R A N G E ti TUESDAY, MAY 21, 1996 BTA�� Crime tax on bars, liquor stores upheld Oakland can impose a S600 fee on bars and liquor stores to pay for costs of crime around the establishments, without violat- ing the state's authority to reg- ulate liquor sales, a state ap- peals court ruled Monday. In a case watched closely by cities across California, the 1st District Court of Appeal said Oakland was exercising its le- gal authority to protect public health and safety. is C 0 U N T 1 Real Estate Investment Butldets • Developers 0 3471 Via Ltdo Suite 207 Vatcpm Beach. CA? rca-3929 17141 723.71CC FAX t 7141 723-I141 One Galleria Tower 13355 N.ml Read. L6' _tote 1315 Dallas. TX 7524'-W, 1214) 934.22- * FAY t2141 991.5154 May 9, 1996 Ms. Miriam Mayell Miriam Mayell Interior Design 37 Whitewater Drive Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Dear Miriam: Thank you for your letter of April 10, 1996. 1 share your concern regarding the tour boat and charter boat operations in Newport Harbor. Indeed, the entire issue of Bay management needs to be addressed in the planning process. In that regard, I am enclosing a copy of the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee's 15 Point Plan which addresses Bay management as a critical issue to be dealt with in the planning process. Personally, my concerns are similar to yours. I would hope the Harbor Quality Committee would consider the following: Exhaust, fuel and related contamination is exacerbated in the Bay by these boats which principally operate at very low speed and much of the time at Idle. 2. The City's regulatory scheme derives very little revenue from this activity. Visitors take up valuable parking and generally do not patronize any Newport Beach businesses. 3. In effect, Newport Bay has become a venue for floating bars and restaurants with little or no benefit to the City. At the end of the day, residents pay the bill for this activity and the infrastructure to support it. The Balboa Peninsula already has an unregulated and extraordinarily high rate of on and off -sale liquor licenses. When you add the floating cocktail parties, the community pays an extremely high price for law enforcement and related maintenance. Ms. Miriam Mayell May 9, 1996 Page 2 I do maintain a residence in Chicago and am familiar with how the City solved a similar problem. It was with tough actions that set standards and eliminated the free for all approach. In addition to the tour boats, there are also businesses operating at the bayfront which have an adverse impact not only on the quality of the bay but the quality and nature of the visitor and the attendant problems associated with permitting attractions and uses that invite visitors who create social and law enforcement problems as well as bay contamination. I am hopeful the Balboa Peninsula planning process will stimulate the Council to address these long standing problems. While I understand you are not looking for more rules and regulations, the wrong rules and regulations don't work either. Historically, Newport Beach has followed a liaise faire attitude regarding many of the uses that now pose a problem. In this transitioning social fabric, cities are more and more becoming the product of what they have historically permitted and prohibited. I trust that interested members of the community will get together behind these important long term planning issues to ensure that we do not wind up being the early Venice of Orange County. I have forwarded a copy of your letter to all of the BPPAC members and I am sure they will appreciate your comments. FLD:ab Enclosure cc: BPPAC Members A 1Y1 1v1 MIRIAM MAYELL INTERIOR DESIGN April 10, 1996 Mr. Fritz Duda Fritz Duda Company 3471 Via Lido, Ste.#207 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Fritz: Since we were unable to connect on the for my call in a note in the hope that call but help with my request. APR 1 5 1996 FRITZ DUDA CO. phone, I am putting the reason you will not only remember my Some time age Jean Watt had a conversation with you regarding a harbor that you knew of which had affected regulations relating to charter boat activity. I am thinking that since your home is in the Chicago area perhaps that harbor is the place you discussed. At any rate, the Harbor Quality Committe, of which I am a member, has some concerns over the size and number of Charter Boats operating in Newport Harbor. There have been some incidents of questionable safety, involving sail boat racers and tour boats, and of course, complaints about noise and congestion in the summer. It seems to some waterfront home owners that the parade of weddings and parties is endless and the clogging of the turning basins with boats is extremely unpleasant. If you do have any information on how other areas may be handling such problems I would apprieciate your response. We are not necessarily looking toward more rules and regulations but rather a peaceful solution for all who use our beautiful harbor. Sb incelely, 1b". Miriam Mayell Harbor Qualit cc: Jean Watt 37 WHMEWATER DRIVE CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92825 PHONE/FAX (714J 759.1376 r Real Estate Investment Bulls • Developers 0 3471 Via Lido Suite 207 Newport Beach, CA 92663.3929 (714) 723.7100 FAX (714) 723.1141 One Oallena Tower 13355 Noel Road, LB 3 Suite 1315 Dallas, TX 75240,6603 (214) 934.2244 FAX (214) 991.5184 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 30, 1995 RLvL1YW BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACP AM NOV 0 21995 FM 71819110111112111213141516 A TO: Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee Members Ken Delino Rush Hill Tim Collins Tim Strader William Wren Carol Hoffman Anne Gifford Jim Dobrott CC: Kevin Murphy Bob Burnham FROM: Fritz L. Duda Newport is not alone in the challenge of tour boats. Enclosed is an article summarizing Chicago's solution. All use permits were, in effect, revoked as operators were not providing quality or major revenue to City. Navy Pier Redevelopment opened area and eliminated shoddy arcades and attractions. Much was a result of Urban Land Institute study recommendations. Anyone desiring a copy of the original ULI Study, please call Stephanie Jones (723-7100), and we'll secure one for you. The vocal minority clinging to sub -standard vestiges of the past and "buddy relationships" were even pleased with results. The big losers are operators who can't compete with quality, as their exclusive franchises were eliminated. Newport could learn some lessons here. Long-standing monopolies can be changed and improved by new quality standards and properly managed competitive bidding. Trying to teach the rabbit to kill the lion is a waste of time and money. LI E Memorandum to BPPAC Members October 30, 1995 Page 2 To update you on what we are doing during this "time out". Mayor Hedges has requested that we meet with several community leaders and City staff to discuss the BPPAC 15 Point Plan. Tim Collins and I are arranging these sessions and will report the results at our next meeting, which will not be scheduled until this process is completed. At that time, we will be in a position to determine whether it is feasible to move ahead with a next phase of the Committee's work. FLD:sj Enclosure CRAIN'S CHICAGO BUSINESS SEPTEMBER 25, 1995 City stirs water for boat lines ByJEFFBORDEN Chicago hopes to raise up to $1 million annually by seeking competitive bids for the use of 10 city -owned docks along the Chicago River between Michi- gan Avenue and Orleans Street. The city's plan has major im- plications for well-known boat operators working the river, in- cluding Wendella Sightseeing Boats Inc. and Mercury Sight- seeing Boats Inc. Funds raised by the bids would be used for major river - front renovations, including structural improvements to sea- walls and staircases, the addition of electricity and water service, installation of ticket booths and beautification efforts. The city collects just $200,000 or less a year from the tour and party boat operators using the docks —from rental fees and a 2.5% tax on gross sales. "We believe the revenues will increase significantly," Director of Revenue Ernest R. Wish says. "Those docks are probably un- dervalued, but that will be deter- mined by the marketplace. "Traditionally," Mr. Wish adds, "the same operators have renewed their licenses over a long period of time, sometimes as long as 50 years. We'll in- crease our revenues through the (bidding) process (and) improve the quality of service to tourists and Chicagoans." He refuses to speculate on how high the bids may go, but some city officials believe a total of $1 million annually is achiev- able. That figure does not in- clude any tax on gross sales. The city is running legal no- tices requesting bids in a Chi- cago newspaper, and in national publications aimed at the com- mercial boating industry, in hopes of drawing interest from operators outside the area. Winners earn the right to oper- ate from April 1 to Nov. 15 each year from 1996 through 1998. Owners of sightseeing boats now operating on the river could lose prime docking space if they're outbid. "There's always a possibil- ity," says Michael Borgstrom, Wendella's vice-president of operations, which sails three boats from two docks on the north side of the river at Michi- gan Avenue. "Tbe city isn't telling us what the alternatq ve is if we don't win the bid," Ife adds. "We've been booking artery trips for next year for everal months now." Mr. ish, who says he hopes "the isting boat owners will prevail in this process," says cash raised by the competitive bids will be plowed into river - front improvements. "The beautification process will be long," Mr. Wish says. "But people will see the impact next year." IReal Estate Investment Me • Developers • ' 3471 Via Lido Suite 207 Newport Beach, CA 92663.3929 (714) 723.7100 FAX (714) 723.1141 One Gallerla Tower 13355 Noel Road, LB 3 Suite 1315 Dallas, TX 75240.6603 (214) 934-2244 FAX (214) 991,5184 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 18, 1995 TO: Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee Members Ken Delino Rush Hill Tim Collins Tim Strader William Wren Carol Hoffman Anne Gifford Jim Dobrott CC: Kevin Murphy Newport Beach City Council Members FROM: Fritz L. Duda In recent readings, I came across the enclosed "Trends" article by Dr. Claude Gruen. Given our extensive discussions regarding establishing a "sense of place" on the Peninsula along with the unanimous concern that a cultural identify and civic tradition be fostered, Dr. Gruen's comments are most provocative. I am also enclosing our final approved version of the 15 Point Plan, which includes Rush Hill's comments, for which I thank him. RLLrya&� By FLD:sj PLANNING DEPARTMENT Enclosures CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM OCT 2 0 1995 PM 718,9110111112111213141516 6 THE INSTITUTIONAL REAL ESTATE LETTER TRENDS, August 1995 by Dr. Claude Gruen Differences in civic culture best explain the economic disparity between northern and southern Italy. The March "Trends" mentioned this as one of the important findings of Robert Putnam's long research in Italy. As discussed in his fascinating 1993 book, Making Democracy Work (Princeton University Press), Putnam started out 25 years ago to measure the institutional effect and performance of the 20 new regional governments set up by the Italian Reform Act of 1970. He found striking evidence of much better governmental performance in the northern regions. The Putnam research team traced the differences to divergent patterns of historically influenced civic traditions. The path of the South seemed set in 1130, when the great Norman ruler Roger 11 conquered Sicily, Apulia, and Calabria. After further wars, his successor, Frederick II, conquered all of Italy south of the Papal States. He set up an autocratic government that replaced the despair of the Dark Ages with prosperity in cities like Palermo, Amalfi, Naples, Messina, Bari, and Salerno. But with generations of prosperity came a heritage of "uncivic" mutual distrust and dependence on hierarchical authority. Even 800 years later, the least civic areas of Italy are the traditional southern villages. Here history has implanted what Putnam calls "amoral individualism," with every family a supplicant before a higher up protector and benefactor. At the same time that Norman feudalism was imposed on southern Italy, the towns of northern and central Italy began to evolve a form of communal republicanism. In the 12th century, communes in Florence, Venice, Bologna, Genoa, and Milan began learning social attitudes of participation in government and cooperation very similar to those that Alexis de Toucqueville's Democracy in America described in the 19th Century. The seeds of public and private behavior planted in northern Italian towns in the 11th and 12th centuries gave fruit to a subconscious heritage of trust, cooperation, and ability to participate within a rule of law in a horizontal society that facilitated creative compromises to implement shared goals. Putnam calls this social capital a "civic community." All Italian regions suffered much destruction and chaos in the years before the Risorgimenta, or resurgence, led to the unification of Italy in 1870. Putnam's research makes it clear that the performance of the regional governments setup 100 years thereafter could still best be explained by civic patterns whose roots went back to the 1100's. By 1970, differences in the wealth and socioeconomic conditions of the North and South were very evident. Yet, the greater economic development of the North did not account for the better performance of their governmental institutions. Putnam found that the same civic attitudes that fostered better government also facilitated economic development. Consider the economic performance of Emilia-Romagna, the northern region found to have the most civic culture, versus Calabria, with the least civic of Italian regional cultures. Between 1970 and 1988, GDP in Emilia-Romagna jumped from 45th to 17th place among the eighty regions of the European Community, the biggest gain of any region in Europe. Calabria remained locked in last place throughout the period. Even though Italy spent more national funds on economic development in the South, the North's mid-1980's per capita income was more than 80 percent higher. The lesson for the regions of all countries, including the United States: economic development is fostered by private and public civic attitudes of trust, networks of civic engagement, and norms of reciprocity among equals under the law. Conversely, economic development is stifled by norms of clientelism that link individuals and families to higher-ups or bosses, whether those on the top of the hierarchy are politicians, kings or mafiosi. The lack of a positive civic tradition and code of behavior has counteracted the massive program of public investment in Mezzogiosna for the last 40 years —and left it in poverty. Today, when the civic tradition that America has inherited is being challenged in many regions of the United States, neither investors seeking real estate appreciation nor any citizen seeking economic growth can afford to ignore Putnam's research. In describing the civic attitudes that are the most economically productive form of social capital he wrote: "IMlost fundamental to the civic community is the social ability to collaborate for shared interests." This is what he calls "generalized reciprocity." Uncivic cultures are made up of special interests who are unwilling to compromise for the common good, appealing instead for special entitlement from governments. My own reading of Making Democracy Work is that neither real estate appreciation nor the well-being of most citizens will long be enhanced within regions that adopt such uncivic cultures. Dr. Claude Gruen is a Principal with Gruen Gruen + Associates, a research firm with offices in San Francisco, Chicago and San Diego. THE INSTITUTIONAL REAL ESTATE LETTER TRENDS, July 1995 by Dr. Claude Gruen As the economy enters its fifth year of growth, are we planting the seeds of future real estate disasters? To consider power centers in some areas and the overpromotion of entertainment centers — before we even know what they are — suggests the answer could be yes. Yet most current real estate investment, restructuring, and new development programming decisions appear rational and restrained. The specter of unresolved workouts for failed projects and the overhang of excess supply still before us motivates the current era of sound real estate decisions. But it still may be worthwhile to remind ourselves of the risks we need to check out before investing or building in response to the top down and bottom up research discussed in the last "Trends" column. Before considering the primary risks, let me suggest a mantra for all real estate and land -use policy decision -makers: "The demand for real estate cycles with changes in the growth rate of space users." In line with that mantra, watch out particularly for the following market risks: during the boom years of the 80s. This is particularly important for industrial and office space. Past absorption rates are not likely to extrapolate into future increases in the demand for worker space. And watch out for declines In office density as hotaI11ng and telecommuting increases. • Demographir changes aren't all that will affect retail markets. Pay close attention to operating cost differences between regional and community centers. The costs associated with relatively large amounts of common space and amenities within enclosed malls will have to be offset by size, good tenant mix, and special attractions that provide volume - attracting dominance. • As hotel opportunities expand, watch the pipeline so that too many rooms don't hit the viable locations at the same time. • In underwriting properties, analyzing REIT stock analysis, and programming, land residual analysis should be used in addition to comparables when estimating rents, prices, and values. • While employment growth The changing tone of is picking up in most legislation will somewhat regions, the next five years reduce the environmental will add considerably fewer risks associated with all jobs than were added real estate. Yet they will most certainly not be eliminated, so the checking for toxins, asbestos, and the land mines of endangered species can never be ignored. • While most corporate and financial balance sheets are in good shape, we still can't turn off the financial risk radar. Overseas investments are particularly susceptible to unforeseen changes in the reality of deals and partners. • Local entitlement, impact fees, and exactions are still around to derail projects not yet built. And changing land uses to meet new market opportunities cannot proceed without local regulatory approvals. These realities mean that we must not forget the preferences and constraints of the public sector partner in most real estate projects. As real estate opportunities expand, the next few years will be good times to be heads up about risk. Dr. Claude Gruen is a Principal with Gruen Gruen + Associates, a research firm with offices in San Francisco, Chicago and San Diego. 11 00 BALBOA PENINSULA PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE BALBOA PENINSULA PLANNING POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS (Revised October 11, 1995) DESIGNATE BALBOA PENINSULA AS A SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICT. DEVELOP A PLAN POLICY ELEMENTS FTOHAT MEETS BOTH TRANSITIONAL RESIDENTIALR COMMERCIAL. -PLANNING AND AND LONG- TERM OBJECTIVES. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH POSITIVE - P CHANGES. IT 1, Balboa Peninsula - Sense of Place: Provide specific plans that will create a mission and sense of place to differentiate unique roles of the four principal commercial areas: • Lido - Civic Center • McFadden Square • ,Cannery Village • Central Balboa Z, Mission Statement: Adhere to mission statement for a quality community which would include: • Enhance and expand residential element. • Consolidate and redevelop concentrated quality commercial elements. • Enhance landscape and streetscape for residential and commercial elements. • Consider Redevelopment Agency and comprehensive Redevelopment Area plans. • Revise planning and zoning ordinances to provide incentives for both transitional and long term plan objectives. -1- 3. Residential Compatibility: • Encourage resident -compatible commercial -retail uses. 4. Strategy for Attracting Quality Visitors: • Encourage uses that attract visitors who make a positive economic and social contribution. • Discourage uses that attract visitors who make a negative economic and/or social contribution. • Focus on key historicaland cultural sites that provide greatest improvement potential. g. Crime and Security: • Reduce and control quality of on and off sale liquor license establishments. • Consider limitations and restrictions on liquor stores, bars and theater -nightclubs. • Increase patrol levels. • Consider highly visible police substation at or near Central Balboa. 6. Parking Management Plan: Establish and implement a Peninsula Parking Management Plan that: • Restrict visitor parking in residential areas. • Gives resident users priority privileges. • Allocates financial burdens to high impact users which adversely impact residential and commercial -retail businesses and which provide little or no economic benefit to City. -2- • Prohibits credit for remote parking facilities in entitlement process without appropriate mitigation (i.e., provision for shuttle or transportation services). • Reduce dependency for vehicular access and parking. Encourage pedestrian access. 7. Ooen Bay Front: • Open bay front in Central Balboa and selected key areas for visiting yacht facilities to provide access by bay and bring tourists to area by water. • Establish Bay Management Plan to enhance service and control for yachting, recreational and resident users. • Discourage negative influences and uses that interfere with stated objectives. 8. Quality Hospitality: • Establish Bed and Breakfast zones • Establish key sites and incentives for quality lodging and hospitality facilities • Vigorously enforce short term lodging ordinance and establish minimum hospitality quality standards as a condition to permitting short term rentals. 9. Maintenance and Code Enforcement: Increase code enforcement and establish a maintenance ordinance to address deferred and declining commercial and residential elements. 10. New Sign Ordinance: Establish a comprehensive sign ordinance for the Peninsula Villages. 11. Traffic Circulation: Develop a new traffic circulation plan which recognizes: • The necessity for a new circulation plan at McFadden Square. -3- • Peninsula capacity limitations and residents' necessity for reasonable ingress, egress and compatible commercial -retail elements. 12. Opportunities: Maximize opportunities and existing economic strengths. Key examples: • The Bay as an amenity. • Marine sales and service industry. • Visiting yachting and regatta participants. • 15th Street Marina, hospitality, lodging and yachting center potential. 13. Transfer Traffic and Parking Imoacts: Transfer high traffic and parking impact uses off Peninsula. 14. Community Issues Management: Institute a community issues management strategy to clearly understand the community issues and develop support for key elements of the plan. Prioritize the key catalysts that stand for quality change. Coordinate planning program with Economic Development Program. 15. Transitional Interim Measures: City Council must be willing to invoke urgent transitional ordinances and zoning controls designed to: • Prevent addition of commercial uses that are inconsistent with stated objectives. • Control expansion or transfer of existing undesirable uses. • Proactively seek desirable uses for strategic sites. • Control existing enforcement costs. • Demonstrate to community at large that City is committed to change. (BPPACPLN.REC) -4- L To: Ken Delino From: Chan Lefebvre Date: 9/7/95 Sub;ect: BPPAr. Memo PLANNING DEPARTMENT PITY OF WrWP®PT SEA(` AM SEP 111995 PM 7'80110t11t1211t2t314IN6 k Ken, you made a comment at yesterday's BPPAC meeting -something to the effect that the BPPA supported the purchase of the Wells Fargo parcel for resident parking. I'm not sure whether you were kidding, but I do want to make the BPPA position clear. BPPA has expressed through the Balboa SAP Ad Hoc Committee and other public forums our strong reservations about whether Point residents will shop in Balboa -whether there is more convenient parking or not. Congleton and others have forcefully made the point that shopping patterns have changed dramatically and that residents on the Point will not likely bring much more business to Balboa. Certainly residents will not pay to park and shop as is presently the case. There is a real question whether residents will walk a block and a half to Main Street to the Balboa Pharmacy or cross Balboa Blvd., even with free parking. The Balboa Market and the liquor store have plenty of free convenient parking and do not draw strongly from the residents. The City should not bet much on resident shopping to cure Balboa's problems. Under what circumstances would a smart retailer or developer go• into business/or develop retail space in Balboa with more liberal regulations? The answer may well be - under no circumstance short of major redevelopment and maybe not then. Mayor John W.Hedges Mayor Pro Tem Jan Debay Council Members John C. Cox, Jr. Thomas Edwards Norma J. Glover Dennis D.O'Neil Jean watt Mr. Fritz Duda Fritz Duda Company 3471 Via Lido Suite 207 Newport Beach, CA Dear Fritz: 46 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE MAYOR (714) 644-3004 92663-3929 September 4, 1995 VIA FAX 723-1141 Thank you for your letter of August 21, 1995. As usual, your comments are thoughtful and well -taken. Ken Delino has been working on a comparison matrix which will allow the City Council to adopt a unified approach to Peninsula planning. He will be in touch with you to review the recommendations. I agree with you that the Balboa Peninsula is a special planning area with a special set of problems. As you so succinctly stated, those problems reflect deficiencies in the City's regulatory format and a lack of comprehensive planning. Because I am flying this week, I will be unable to attend the September 6 meeting of BPPAC. Perhaps one or more of the other Councilmembers may attend. Thank you for your time and dedication to the improvement of our neighborhoods. I look forward to seeing you. JWH:mb cc. City Council City Manager Rush Hill, Chairman—EDC Re$ ectfully, hn W..Hedges Mayor City Hall- 3300 Newport Boulevard • Newport Beach, California 92663-3884 I P.O. BOX 826 August 25, 1995 CALIFORNIA 92661 Honorable John Hedges and City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mayor and City Council members: The Board of Directors of the Balboa Peninsula Point Association (BPPA) supports in principle the comprehensive 15 point plan submitted to the City Council by the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee. The BPPA did not lobby or make a presentation to the Committee; but the group comprised of business people from the entire community independently came to support many of"the positions advocated by the BPPA for a number of years concerning traffic; crime, sign ordinances, appropriate businesses serving the residents, parking controls, etc. The recommendations are in preliminary outline form and we will want to know the details as they are formulated. At this early review, there were numerous questions regarding certain areas of the Plan and several members of the BPPA Board expressed opposition to the establishment of a Redevelopment Agency. We thank Fritz Duda for transmitting a copy of the Plan to the Association and look forward to being included in the meetings of the various groups and city agencies involved in planning the future of the Peninsula. Please put the BPPA on all notification lists. Very truly yours, Mary Ann Javelera cc: Fritz Duda, Chairman of BPPAC Kenneth Delino, Assistant City Manager Kevin Murphy, City Manager Real Estate Investment AS • Developers 1 M - 3471 Via Lido Suite 207 Newport Beach, CA 92663.3929 (714) 723.7100 FAX (714) 723.1141 One Gallena Tower 13355 Noel Road, LB 3 Suite 1315 Dallas, TX 75240.6603 (214) 934.2244 FAX (214) 991-5184 August 21, 1995 Mayor John Hedges CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2134 Miramar Drive Balboa, CA 92661-1519 Re: Balboa Peninsula Planning Dear John: Thank you for your letter of July 27, 1995. I appreciate the confidence expressed in the efforts of the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee ("BPPAC"). We share your concerns with the process that is required in order to effectuate "change" in a meaningful transition for both the commercial and residential elements on the Balboa Peninsula. Based upon the response of some Council members at our preliminary report on July 24th, it is apparent that there is some confusion and possibly misunderstanding of those steps that are necessary in order to accomplish the goals that are often articulated. Our Committee is chasing "results", not "rhetoric". In that regard, I have the following observations: 1. A Village Plan: We start with the proposition that no meaningful transition can occur without a cohesive Peninsula plan. All of the quality areas the City seeks to emulate are products of long-standing village plans and policy that have been strictly adhered to in the implementation process over an extended period of time. Indeed, many of the plans are historic and were formulated by civic leaders when these communities were in their infancy. Other successful plans are the product of positive action taken by communities as a result of transitional forces, both economic and social. Indeed, the Peninsula problems reflect years of social and economic transition without comprehensive planning and a complete overhaul of the regulatory format imposed by the City. Instead, we have a litany of reactionary entitlements that have been micro -managed by City staff and Council. r1. • • Mayor John Hedges August 21, 1995 Page 2 2. BPPAC's 15 Point Plan: The preliminary 15 Point Plan outlined at the policy report given July 24th is simply the first step in the process. Given the history of the City's extended studies and lack of implementation of recommendations that would provide a catalyst for change, we do not believe it is prudent to expend public funds without endorsement by the Council of the policy recommendations reflected in the 15 Point Plan. While there may be confusion in some quarters, we were heartened by the many supportive comments we received from members of both the commercial and residential sectors in the community. The next step on BPPAC's agenda (assuming endorsement by the City Council) is to transfer the 15 Point Plan into a both visual and articulated set of planning guidelines that will provide a framework for the City to finalize the policy by adopting ordinances and take the other necessary steps to implement the new policy and plan. This is not "minor surgery". It will take bold action by the Council. We hope that responsible City leadership will dispense with politics in favor of the wants and needs of the taxpayers and community. 3. The Economics of Planning: At our preliminary report, it became apparent that at least some Council members are confused with economic development as opposed to the process of adopting and implementing a new plan for the Peninsula. Our Committee feels strongly that a discussion needs to be held at the Council level to ensure there is no future misunderstanding of the differences. As you may recall, it was initially suggested that BPPAC become part of the Economic Development Committee. All of our members heartily endorse the goals and objectives of economic development efforts and believe the City is fortunate to have Rush Hill and his colleagues activating these programs. On the other hand, we do not believe the problems associated with the Balboa Peninsula can find fruitful solutions in economic development activities or the expenditure of funds for retail consultants' reports. "Dressing this pig for market" will be no more cost effective than attempting to bring back the Edsel. BPPAC's objective is to produce realistic visions for the Peninsula that will provide fodder for real economic development to occur. 4. Focused Implementation: We have said from the outset that the Balboa Peninsula is a special planning area with a special set of problems. With I Mayor John Hedges August 21, 1995 Page 3 the "cultural change" going on in City government, our group has recognized and discussed at length the problems associated with how existing and limited City staff can accomplish the goals and objectives outlined in our 15 Point Plan. I hope the Council recognizes that the members of BPPAC have had extended professional experience and none have taken the issues facing the City and the Balboa Peninsula lightly. We have heard many explanations as to why the Peninsula is in its present state. Since we believe the "future is now", I don't feel those discussions are productive. The residents of the community want results, not excuses. What is important is an understanding that out -sourcing professional planning and regulatory expertise is critical to the success of our process. It will be more economical and less distracting for a new plan and regulatory scheme to be authored (consistent with the policy recommendations) by a professional planning firm. Indeed, it may be advisable for a three to five year period to out -source processing under a new plan with the private sector on a contract basis to ensure a positive process and the cultural change you refer to within the City. BPPAC's next meeting is September 6th at 5:00 PM. I believe it would be extremely helpful for you to attend the meeting and discuss with BPPAC how we can be helpful in the process outlined above. In the interim, I will be pleased to meet with the City's Legislative Committee and senior staff. L. Duda FLD:sj cc: City Council Members City Manager Bob Burnham, Esq., City Attorney Rush Hill, Chairman - EDC BPPAC Members 08/15/95 16:54 FAS 714 6 1141 FRITZ DUDA CO CA . 0002/004 9 1k Fed E-- )nvesmietu Builders • Devebpm Lkb Si m207 NcrpmtBmr1%CA9M 3929 (714) 723.71W FAX (714) 723,1141 owchm ria7b„u DaUnkTX75740affi 1 4) 934.2Z44 FAX (Z14) 991.5194 VIA FAX MEMQRANDUM DATE: August 15, 1995 TO: Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee Members Ken Delino Rush Hill Tim Collins Tim Strader William Wren Carol Hoffman Anne Gifford Jim Dobrott FROM: Fritz L. Duda I am enclosing a letter from Mayor John Hedges regarding our activities to date, Prior to the meeting scheduled for Wednesday, August 16th, we had hoped to have accomplished the meeting referred to by Mayor Hedges. Unfortunately, scheduling conflicts and vacation plans are such that it does not appear we will be in a position to meet for at least another week. In the interim, some of our group have indicated they cannot attend the scheduled meeting tomorrow night, and I have tentatively rescheduled the meeting for Wednesday evening, September 6th. I would like to have everyone present at that date and,before final scheduling, I am requesting that each of you telephone Stephanie Jones by the end of the day Wednesday to confirm your availability. The meeting will begin at 5:00 PM, and I anticipate we can complete our work by 5:00'PM. Should any of you have any questions or if you would like to share your reaction with me regarding Mayor Hedges' letter, please don't hesitate to give me a call. I am drafting a response regarding our concerns, which I will forward to you. Many thanks for your patience. FLD:sj Attachment 08/15/95 16:35 FAX 714 6 1141 FRITZ DUDA CO CA • IA003/004 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE MAYOR (724) 644-M" Moyer John W. sedges Mayor Pro Tem Jan Debay COunall MambM John C. C &. Jr. Thomm Edwards No= J. Glover Deno' D.O'Neil Jean watt Mr. Rush N. Hill, I , AIA Chairman Economic Development Committee July 27,1995 R E 6; E I V E a Mr, Fritz Duda Chairman Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee Mr. XCen Dehno Assistant City Manager Planning and Building City of Newport Beach Dear Rush, Fritz, and Ken: AUG - 3 1995 FP.l77 n!10A Co. I have read the Economic Development Committee report and recommendations dated July 24, 1995, the Balboa Peninsula Planning Committee policy report and recommendations given July 24, 1995, the Linda S. Congleton and Associates report dated July 17, 1995, and the Assistant City Manager's report and goals dated July 24, 1995. The reports are excellent. The activities and results of the work of the EDC and BPPAC have exceeded the expectations of even its most optimistic supporters. Congratulations! As you know City government is in the midst of an accelerating "culture change." Recognition on the part of the City Council, its Commissions, and the support staff of the proper role, purpose, and goals of government is essential to continuing the enhancement of our service delivery, planning function, and economic development policies. City Ball 9 3300 Newport Boulevard • Newport Beach, California 92663-3884 08/15/95 16:85 FAX 714 6 1141 FRITZ DUDA CO CA • IM004/004 .. `. Page 2 At present many talented people are expending a tremendous amount of energy in identifying and proposing solutions to problems, situations, and ways of -conducting the business of government. 'Vast amounts of "paperwork" are being produced. As such, our decision makers and staff are being overwhelmed with sometimes (apparently) conflicting recommendations. To the greatest extent possible we need to reconcile those recommendations among our professional, staff, Council -appointed committees, and paid consultants. I do not believe the groups which each of you lead are at odds with one another. Each group has taken its own approach, and, as such, hai e developed conclusions which bear directly on that group's definition of the "problem." Perspectives, differences in semantics, and even committees' enabling resolutions have contributed to some confusion on the .part of senior staff and the Council as to where and how to proceed. X would like to meet with all of you and a City Council committee (perhaps the Legislative Committee composed of Council Members Cox and Edwards) along with senior staff to spend an afternoon or evening setting forth recommendations to the City Council for the next steps. Given our limited resources and staff, it is essential that we "target our prey" and not shoot aimlessly in many directions so as to lose that momentum which is so precious. The Council secretary, Marion Brockman, will be in touch. Respectfully, r John W. Hedge Mayor JWH:mb cc. City Council City Manager City Attorney 07/26/95 11:59 FAX 714 7W141 Reg Flom Iavesmun[BWdas • Dmbopm FRITZ DUDA CO CA • 0002/002 3471 ViaLdo Suite 207 ( ewpm713.7�100 CA WO 3929 FA)1(714)723.1141 Oo" C+1 eriaTower 13355Nor1Rmd,1B3 Suite 1315 Della, TX 75240fi6M (2I4) 934.2244 FAX (214) M-5164 MEMORANDUM VIA FAX DATE: July 26, 1995 TO: Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee Members Ken Delino Rush Hill Tim Collins Tim Strader William Wren Carol Hoffman Anne Gifford Jim Dobrott FROM: Fritz L. Duda Several committee members have requested that we schedule a meeting for Wednesday, August 2, at 5:00 PM. Our Council presentation was interesting and we will discuss the reaction of certain members of the Council at our meeting. As an observation, it is somewhat telling that the Council is willing to expend lots of energy in limiting library hours, discussing fees for non-resident usage, etc. The idea of limiting the sale of alcohol on the Peninsula to a midnight curfew brought little response from the esteemed leadership of the City. A discussion of "whore wo go from here" will be held at the Wednesday meeting.. Hope all of you can attend. FLD:sj 0 Balboa Merchants [Owners Association Ken Delino, Director of Planning City of Newport Beach P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Ken, C7 RFt;mv,,.. BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT .= fY OF NFWPOPT REAV July 20, 1995 AM JUL 2.41995 PM 7t8i911utlhlt4l2A4A6 We wanted to extend our sincere thanks to the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee for their invitation to join their ranks for a Peninsula wide study. We have carefully considered the positive aspects of such a move; however, in the final analysis, the Board. of Directors voted to keep moving in our current direction and decline their kind offer. We would like to continue attending their meetings and sharing any kind of data or information that may be helpful to both of us and we welcome their input. We have been working hard for two years and we feel that we are gaining both City and Resident respect for our efforts. Any change could very well impede or at best slow down our progress and we feel strongly we should continue proceeding as we are. Thank you very much. Kindest regards, Dayna Pettit, President For the Board of Directors CC: Mayor John Hedges Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council Tim Collins Bill Wren P.O. Box 840 Ba[boa, CA., 92661 Balboa BU the Sea - A Wowderj4,1 Place to Be! C � FROM :THE IRVINE CC • 714 720 2S01 kAM 1995 11 08:14 y'#297 P.02/03 Fritz Duda TO: Carol Hoffman FROM: DATE: July 11, 1995 r li• In i iq. .i�.� r_ .• 9 M E ho aN < _ !t� ....-.. tY �'•.. _'� .. >� `QYi r v�8 M9'ih :i FILE C00E NO: CC: BALBOA PENINSULA PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE S�u�.iiir�`i«�i�iv'rar0•w wwww..w�w��ki :+::i'�':�.? �Ji'r nk°inn n .rr.Y.f. t 7.1J.gX:J�kP.iRA:. ...��.t�' i��. Per our discussion you know I will be on vacation from July 11, 1995, through August 1, 1995. 1 am forwarding the names of three planning firms which could provide excellent planning assistance to the work of our committee. Recognizing that the peninsula needs a very practical plan that addresses fundamental planning issues and provides very pragmatic recommendations, the following firms should be considered: The Planning Center 1300 Dove St., Ste. 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 851-0444 FORMA 3100 Bristol St_, Ste. 100 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 540-4700 PBR 18901 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA 92714 261-8820 For possible interim planning department staffing, I would recommend: TELLUS A Company of Hogle-Ireland and JBZ,Dorius 2415 Campus Dr., Ste. 200 Irvine, CA 92715 250-0977 In the .event it is decided to separate out the Central Balboa area from the overall peninsula study, I believe we should make some policy recommendations including but not limited to: 1. Development of a parking plan with procedures for limiting long-term parking and/or a shuttle program for Catalina Flyer patrons. 'w FRO/ ITHE IRVINE CO • 714 720 2SO1 1995• 11 09:14 #297 P.03/03 Page 2 2. Creation of visiting yacht facilities to bring tourists to the area by water. 3. Creation of resident serving uses and parking privileges. 4. Creation of a comprehensive signage program. S. Consideration of residential uses within the commercial district. 6. Institution of a Community Issues Management Strategy to clearly understand the community issues and develop support for key elements of the plan. I hope these ideas are constructive. I apologi2e for not being available in person to discuss these matters. ((-Dictated? ((Dictated, but not signed. 05/17/95 15:12 FAX 714 6 1141 FRITZ DUDA CO CA. 10002/00$ w 4 Real Estate Investmcnt Builders • pcvrlopers 3471 Via lido SVI[e 207 NewporrBcach, CA 92663.3929 (714) 723.7100 FAX (74) 723.1141 One Galleria Tower 13355 Noel Road, LA 3 Suite 1315 Dallas, TX 75240-6603 (214) 934,2244 FAX (214) 991-5184 Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 May 17, 1995 Re: Balboa Peninsula Alcohol and Rehabilitation Clinics and Facilities Dear Members of the Council: At a meeting of the Committee held on Tuesday, May 16, 1995, a discussion was held with respect to the operation of alcohol and drug clinics on the Balboa Peninsula. In that regard, members of the public attended the meeting and advised the Committee with respect to the following concerns which impact the health -and safety of residents and visitors to this area: 1. The Committee was advised that numerous alcohol and rehabilitation clinics are in operation on the Peninsula. We were further advised that these facilities have expanded and proliferated in recent years within the residential areas of the community. 2. According to City Staff, the City has no apparent ability to regulate or control the existence of these facilities and does not have an inventory or other database that would identify or locate the number, location, or operators of these facilities. According to Staff, certain California state laws provide preemptive rights with respect to local zoning laws with regard to operation of these facilities in residential areas. 3. The Committee was advised that some of these facilities are housing critical and crisis patients who require intensive care and confinement. Further, the Committee was advised that some of the facilities -have occupancy levels in excess of those permitted by normal residential standards and that the nature and intensity of care provided requires attendants, confinement and security measures. O5/17/95 15:12 FAX 714 723 1141 FRITZ DUDA CO CA• lj�003/OO8 Newport Beach City Council May 17, 1995 Page 2 4. The Committee was also advised that the operation of these facilities involves extremely profitable proprietary activities by the operators who, in some instances, charge as much as $5,000.00 per week for the treatment, care and housing of seriously afflicted patients. By virtue of the economics of the operation of these facilities, concern was expressed that their existence and proliferation can cause a reduction in affordable and otherwise available housing for residents on the Peninsula. With multiple patient occupancy, these economics and the profits associated with them impact otherwise affordable residential stock. Notwithstanding the existence of certain State and/or Federal regulations, the Committee urges the City Council to: a) take all necessary action to consider and determine whether or not these facilities are being operated by licensed and qualified operators; b) whether critically afflicted patients may be confined and secured in residential neighborhoods as opposed to reputable and regulated facilities such as Hoag Hospital and similar facilities within the community; and c) the identity of these operators and the ability of such proprietors to utilize residential properties for critical care and secured confinement. Further, to the extent that the City, is not in a position to regulate, license or otherwise control the proliferation and operation of these facilities, we would urge the City to immediately propose such amendments to State law as may be necessary in order to assure public health, safety and compatibility with respect to uses in the community. For example, limiting the operation of these facilities within close proximity to school and/or children's recreational facilities may be appropriate and'feasiblis. 05/17/95 15:12 FAX 714 723 1141 • FRITZ DUDA CO CA• tQ 004/008 Newport Beach City Council May 17, 1995 Page 3 Based upon the information disseminated at our Committee meeting, we view this issue as one of urgency requiring a comprehensive investigation and review by appropriate City and/or relevant agencies, FLD:ab cc: Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee Members Q`/17/95 15:13 FAX 714 723 1141 FRITZ DUDA CO CA Real Estate Investment Bo ers - Developers • o005/008 3471 Via Lido Suite 207 Newport Beach, CA 92663.3929 (714) 723,7100 FAX (714) 723.1141 One vallem Tower 13355 Noel Road, LB 3 Suite 1315 Dallas TX 75740-6603 (214) �34,2244 FAX (214) 991.5184 May 17, 1995 Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-13915 Re: Use Permit No. 1581 - Hooter's Restaurant Dear Members of the Council: The Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee has been asked by the Council to discuss and, make recommendations with respect to the above use permit request. The request involves an amendment to a previously approved use permit so as to change the operational characteristics of an existing restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages, live entertainment, dancing and valet parking, on property located In the commercial area of The Cannery village - McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. The gist of the proposal involves the addition of a 750 square foot outdoor dining deck near the entrance of the facility and an expansion of the on -site parking lot onto the adjoining property. At the Committee's meeting on Tuesday, May 16, 1995, a discussion was held regarding this matter. The applicant was present and explained the nature of the improvements being proposed. Based upon these discussions, the Committee would recommend the following modifications to the approval previously granted by the Planning Commission: That the applicant be required to provide a full comprehensive landscape plan of improvement to be approved by City Staff which would adhere to the approximately 15% requirements previously waived by the City. The Committee deems this element a critical issue with -respect to approval even if it requires the elimination of additional parking spaces contemplated by the expansion of the parking lot onto adjoining property. The applicant has indicated concurrence with this provision. D5/17/95 15t13 FAX 714 1141 FRITZ DUDA CO CA� 10006/008 Newport Beach City Council May 17, 1995 Page 2 2. The Committee recommends that measures be to assure the valet parking circulation plan ensures that parking and vehicle movements occur on -site and do not interrupt the flow of traffic on Balboa Boulevard. 3. The Committee recommends and the applicant has indicated concurrence with a provision in the use permit acknowledging that The Cannery Village - McFadden Square Specific Plan Area is the subject of traffic and circulation studies which may change or alter the future location of ingress and egress to the facility. The applicant has indicated he will cooperate with respect to any such future comprehensive modifications for traffic circulation at this location. Subject to -the above recommendations, the Committee believes that the parking expansion should be approved and will mitigate the current parking arrangements at this location. �.a1Yr7 � • _ FLD:ab cc: Ken Delino - Ass't City Manager I 05/17/95 15:13 FAX 714 723 41 FRITZ DUDA CO CA Real Bsiace Investment Buildeis • Developers 16007/008 3471 Via Lido Suite 207 Newport Beach, CA 92663.3929 (7l4) 723.7100 FAX (7t4) 723.1141 Une OallcriaTowu 13355 Noel Ro•1d, LB 3 Suite 1315 Dallas TX 75240-6603 (214)64.2244 FAX (214) 991.51N4 Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 May 17, 1995 Re: Balboa Palms Apartments Dear Members of the Council: Please be advised that some weeks ago we forwarded information to Ken Delino, Assistant City Manager, with respect to the above captioned property which is adjacent to a city owned lot and the Las Arenas Park, children's playground and related facilities. Information regarding this property was forwarded to Mr. Delino based upon our understanding that the property has been an the market for sale and is a key and strategic parcel with respect to the ultimate redevelopment and parking needs for community recreation and other potential redevelopment efforts at this location. In this regard, we would like to call the council's attention to the following considerations and urge the Council to consider acquisition of this property for the following reasons: 1 • The existing recreational facilities do not provide adequate parking. By combining the existing city lot and the Balboa Palms property, higher and better uses for these consolidated properties may be considered. 2. The City already is in fee ownership of an existing mobilehome park, American Legion property, small lot and park facilities at this location. Acquisition of this property would be critical to arranging a long term plan of redevelopment that would afford comprehensive higher revenue producing uses at this location, The Committee considers these consolidated properties to be of prime importance in long term planning efforts with respect to providing cultural, recreational, visitors' lodging and related amenities for this community. 05/17/95 15:14 FAX 714 72 141 FRITZ DUDA CO CA 10 008/008 IV• Newport Beach City Council May 17, 1995 Page 2 3. The small substandard lot owned by the City fronting on Balboa Boulevard (and contiguous to this property) affords the only undeveloped Balboa Boulevard frontage for access to the City owned bayfront properties. Acquisition of this property would afford sufficient Balboa Boulevard frontage for long term planning and redevelopment of this area. For the above stated reasons, we would urge the Council to consider acquisition of the property on a voluntary basis; or in the alternative, to exercise its powers of eminent domain in order to accomplish the above stated objectives. FLD:ab cc: Ken Delano, Ass't City Manager Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee Members * 04/26/95 09:38 FAX 714 4 1141 FRITZ DUDA CO CA tQ 002/003 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 24, 1995 TO: Fritz L. Duda FROM: J. Patrick Galvin, IS \`P/ Jr, t IV C < RE: 3444 Via Lido (Bank of America Building) � �h I spoke with Bruce Kahl at Sperry Van Ness who has the listing on the above described property. The property was purchased for $550,000 just over a year ago by Stanley Black, a Westside investor you may be familiar with. Black apparently had a lease for the whole thing to Prudential Realty, which apparently fell through when the local principal passed away. Prudential was apparently going to sublease the adjacent 3,000 feet, reducing the ground floor area to approximately 6,000 square feet. Bruce initially stated he could deliver the property for an amount between $850,000 and $900,000 with 30% down, seller financing for at least one year. After questioning him on the only acquisition cost, he said Black recently turned down a $750,000 all cash offer and is interested in a very short contingency period. Bruce Is apparently working on a number of lease possibilities but no signed deals yet. He Is still talking to Blockbuster and has been authorized to do a traffic engineering study to attempt to obtain ten (10) drive -up spaces for Blockbuster in order to make the deal work. This would include five (5) drive - up spaces on Central Avenue, and an additional five (5) spaces on the small triangular piece owned by Chrismann (via Jerry King). Apparently this triangle property was subject to a dispute with Cal Trans regarding the previous widening of Newport Blvd. which Is near resolution. Also, Tilly's (Levi's) and a number of nightclubs have expressed interest; according to Kahl, Stanley Black is probably not interested in those uses. The pro -forma parameters shown in the attached offering were premised upon the Prudential deal. 04/26/95 09:38 FAX 714 1141 FRITZ DUDA CO CA� 10003/003 April 24, 1995 3444 Via lido (Bank of America Bldg) Page Two With a substantial renovation of the building exterior, enhanced integration between the parking structure and the building, this space might be desirable for high profile video and/or music use which we do not currently have the square footage to accommodate. On the other hand, the incredibly poor access to the site, as well as the inefficiency of the current parking situation may be insurmountable. a\34"'dal.boa Real Estate Investment Sk •Developers • 3471 Via Lido Suite 207 Newport Beach, CA 92663.3929 (714) 723.7100 FAX (714) 723.1141 One Gallena Tower 13355 Noel Road, LB 3 Suite 1315 Dallas, TX 75240.6603 (214) 934.2244 FAX (214) 991,5184 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 24, 1995 TO: Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee Ken Delino Rush Hill Tim Collins Tim Strader William Wren Carol Hoffman FROM: Fritz L. Duda, Chairman RE: Organizational Meeting - Wednesday, April 5 RECEIVE ar MAR 271995tg DEPUTY CITY IAARADIR aiTy OF Wli?ORT DUN We have scheduled an initial organizational meeting of the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee for Wednesday, April 5, 1995, at 7:00 PM at the City Hall -- Council Conference Room. For your review prior to the meeting, I am enclosing herewith a copy of the resolution of the City Council known as Resolution No. 95-32, which was unanimously passed by the City Council on March 13, 1995. I have deferred appointing two members to the Committee pending a discussion of the initial Committee appointees. I intend to appoint a Committee member from the Lido Peninsula area as well as a Committee member at large, which will complete our membership. I would like to discuss these appointments at our initial meeting. I anticipate we will be able to complete our agenda by 9:00 PM and look forward to seeing you on April 5th. I am hopeful all members will be able to attend our initial meeting; however, if you are unable to attend, please telephone Stephanie Jones at (714) 723-7100. FLD:sj Enclosure CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AGENDA BALBOA PENINSULA PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE June 26,1996 5:00 p.m. City Council Conference Room I. McFadden Square Circulation Concepts - Webb/Edmonston II. Progress Report on Balboa Peninsula Planning Study Workshops - Jack Camp. 4u,,,�^'d" 5 III. Appointment of At -Large Member • Please bring suggested candidate names and background for discussion IV. Discuss Role of BPPAC • Critique of area workshops • Integration and prioritization • Dissemination of information V. Discussion of Need for Special Planning Areas and Public W • Formation and appro ch� VI. Carts/Kiosks Proposal VII. Public Comments VIII. Other Business orks Matters. FA ... \BPPAC\AGENDAS\96-06-26.DOC ,4 CC CY` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AGENDA BALBOA PENINSULA PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE June 5,1996 5:00 p.m. City Council Conference Room I. Appointment of At -Large member (Bob Shelton was unable to serve due to family commitments). - Please bring suggested candidate names and background for discussion II. Progress report on Balboa Peninsula Planning Study workshops. III. Discussion of need for special planning areas and public works matters. IV. Interim controls and stopgap measures. V. McFadden Square Farmers Market proposal VI. Welcome Bill Blurock to the Balboa Peninsula Planning Study - discuss role CAWIN...WPACWMAGENDAIDOC .0 �,Emvogr CrrY of NEWPORT BEACH o s�" PLA,%"NrNG/8U1LD1NG DEPARTMENT •' 33� NEWPORT BOULEVARD o\ ` e„ o��,• NEwPORT BFACtL CA 92651 (74) 6449c�, FAX (7'4) 644-VSO Hearing Date: Agenda Item No.: Staff Person: Kenneth J. Delino-- (714) 644-3222 1 REPORT TO THE MAYOR ANT CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Planning and Economic Development Priorities ACTION: Review, and it desired, approve work load priorities based on the existing Planning Department work load and recommendations from the Economic Development Committee and the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee. Sb-iNOIARY: The City Council is requested to review and approve Planning and Economic Development priorities expressed as a work program which then will be used to identify appropriate staffing levels and expertise. Chronoloev On the July 24, 1995 meeting, the Council began this process but requested staff to reconcile the various recommendations from the Economic Development Committee, the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee and Consultant, Linda Congleton. Since that time, staff has met with all three to compile the information presented in this report. The Council approved priorities will provide the basis for a reexamination of the current staff organization and levels of expertise to devise several reorganization alternatives for Council review. Planning Priorities Ongoing functions, programs and projects of the department are listed below by priority. These priorities are staff recommendations based on interpretation of Council policy and direction. HIGHEST PRIORITIES Process all plans cnuiperarfts This refers to all day to day activities to provide information at the counter and by telephone and to process all development permits both discretionary and non -discretionary. This includes Code Enforcement Activities and the issuance of Residential Building Reports. This also includes all Modifications Conunittee, Planning Commission and City Council functions related to permitting and entitlements. • Process major projects. This includes all items related to the review and approval of major projects (such as Corona del Mar Plaza) which may involve general plan and zoning amendments environmental It2 documentations, traffic studies and similar requirements. (Many initiated general plan anwndments may enter this category at the applicant's discretion.) • Review caul revise the entire Zoning Corte for cofWstetrey, readability, and streamlining of administration. This effort has been underway for over two years and its completion will respond to the reed for more efficiency and productivity. Structural and language rev►siow will simplify and facilitate development processing to benefit applicants and decrease staff workloads. Also included will be substantive changes consistent with the proposed commercial d'istrid policy in the Land Use Element of the General Plan Another item on the Council agenda initiates this amendment and summarizes all the proposed changes. HIGH PR10RMES Revietv/Revise Local Coastal Program mud Pursue Certt/Ication (EDC 98) • GPA 94-1(C) Circulation Element, Dover Drive • GPA 95-1(4) CalTrans West Residual Parcel • Complete the Old Neu port Botilevard Speci iic Area Platt • Complete Coastal Commission Processing of Central Balboa Spec fic Area Plan (ParkingMmaigement Plan) • Administer Community Development Block Grmit Program • GPA 95-I (B) Revisiolu to Calculated Density mid Inteialty Policy (Mariner's Mile Entllements) • Ford Lwid Affordable Housing Task Team • GPA 90-3(B) Recreation caul L• tivirownental Open Space (Assist Community Services Sta, ffl DtEDR1M PRIORMES • GPA 91-3(G) Circulation Element Update • Nenport CoastAtuiexation Cost/Revenue Study p k" • Neviport Information System Mapping mud Data Base Upkeep 5�n" • Housing cnzlHomelessCommittee Meetings 1 Lp.�, • Monitor Air Qualitylssties • Attend Growth Maiuigent ent mud Congestion Mm)agement Meetings s� LAW PRIORMES • GPA 88-2(D) Public Safety Element Update • GPA92-1(D)RegulationXVFacilitiesFloor Area Amendment • Review/Retise Plamted Community Texts • Park Dedication mud Fee Update Eociei�a r4i«itia [?xobr9,1995 Paget ! 0 Economic Development Priorities The Economic Development Committee has spent over two years analyzing City finances, interviewing experts and consultants, and meeting amongst themselves to develop work programs. Their efforts were aided by the Linda Congleton study of retail constraints and opportunities. The EDC approved a set of sixteen recommendations which were presented to the Council on July 24, 1995, and reaffirmed at the EDC meeting of September 27. Additionally, the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee (BPPAC) made recommendations which are, in many ways, similar to those of the EDC. BPPAC presented their recommendations to the City Council on July 24, after which, BPPAC revised their recommendations after consultation v,ith the EDC. The EDC then formally endorsed the BPPAC recommendations on September 27. Copies of these two sets of recommendations and a comparison matrix are attached. These recommendations are listed below, by priority, as recommended by staff based on interpretation of the policy and direction of both these committees and the City Council. HIGHEST PRIORITIES Complete Zoning Code revisions to ease restrictions on r1oii-0ccupiable space, proilde '•unite procedures, implement streamlining procedures mid promote resident -serving mid resident - compatible uses (EDC #1, 2, mud S. BPPAC #2D, 5, 8, 10 mid 15.) Adopt commercial district policies (GPA 95-1(C)) (EDC =3. BPPAC #2B, 3, cord 15) Create (maintain) development review committee. (EDC =5) HIGH PRIORMES op Establish BIDS in commercial districts mid commence efforts to create individual village identities. (EDC #IOA mid 14B. BPPAC #1, 4, 6, 9 mid 10.) ,,-r Promote outdoor dining. (F.DC #6. BPPAC #2B mld 4.) • Expand rise tax accrual program. (EDC #11) apard "Shop Neuport"program(EDC #12. BPPAC#3.) • Recruit teilalusfor tiacmit retail space. (EDC #IS. BPPAC #3.) �• Compile benchmark reports (EDC #16.) , o, Investigate increasing con Terence facilities (FDC # 13. BPPAC #4 and 12.) • Review/revise Traffic Phasing Ordinance. (EDC #7.) Develop parking niaragemenl programs (F.DC #4. BPPAC #6.) • Orgaihe harbor task force to enhance and promote harbor inuliistries (BPPAC #4, 7 mid 12.) MEDIUM PR10RMES EDCIP =dM9 NOrWa Odoba 9.1995 Page 3 0 9 • Erplore laud rose chaiges in airporl aid older 111d1'Lolal w= (F.DC #9.) • Comnrunily issues malagemem. (BPPAC #14.) IOW PRIORITY • Traffic circulalion clum+ges on peniluula. (BPPAC #11) RECOMMENDATION Review, modify as desired and approve the priorities for the planning and economic development functions. I Kenneth J. Delino Assistant City ltlanager, Building and Planning Ce,ecsyin`du,'ce.�riaaa EDOTWl inrdauia oww 9l.1"S Page4 July G4, lye, Page 4 • uld summarize the recommendations for improvement contained ' e report as: • Create king management plans in our business dist • Get involve ' creating incentives for re-merch ising, re -tenanting and re- habing our older ess areas and • Create marketing implement on plans for our business districts The information cont ' in the Conigi-elonreportwill be very helpful as we undertake the a tion and policy m'aking a 'ties that will be required to achieve our of returning our older business distrf?t5AQthe quality front doors and r ue producing assets of our community we so rately want and rve them to be. EDC RECOMMENDATIONS I would now like to share with you the EDC's Phase 3 recommendations which have been formulated over the past six months. Some items are new thoughts, while others are continuations of previously highlighted needs for change. All are in support of the City's Economic Development Policy . We believe our recommendations are consistent with our VISION that municipal revenue is increased by adding value to our business community, and MISSION to achieve a nationally recognized, business friendly city that generates adequate municipal revenue to provide quality services to our residents and visitors. The EDC's Services Committee continues to focus on making the development process faster and more user friendly, while seeking incentives to encourage quality, private sector redevelopment of our older areas. They recommend: • Within the framework of Staffs decision to accomplish a comprehensive rewrite of the City's zoning code, we believe you should add to our list of previously requested zoning changes the need to re-examine the definitions and restrictions related to floor area ratio's, building bulk and mass, and commercial district land use regulations as they relate to non -occupiable space, equipment and generator rooms and building areas considered to be support to but not income producing or traffic generating building components. _Enact a code section to provide for a Variance process to be achieved through discretionary action of the Planning Staff, Planning Commission and/or City Council. 3 'Prepare and process an amendment to the City's General Plan, Land Use Element that adds an Economic Development Policy specifically identifying the (, goal of creating an economically healthy business environment within the City. T • Establish Parking Districts and create specific parking management plans for s.• appropriate business districts. • The continuation of the re -engineering of Building and Planning department functions/staff working with consultant(s) that utilize staff empowerment processes to achieve lasting and meaningful change. We further recommend the following areas be explored as part of the re engineering processes: �A The creation of a Development Review Committee similar to our Restaurant Review Committee v�6 • Clearly defined, consistently applied procedures and standards for planning and building processing A h REMARKS BY EAHAIR RUSH N. HILL, It, AIA July 24,1995 Page 5 c • Utilization of privately contracted services for overload or peak activities in plan check, grading engineering services, EIR review, etc. and $u • The creation of a centralized, one contact permit processing function 6 - The approval of an outdoor dining ordnance related to restaurant and specialty food use 7 • Review and further refine the City's Traffic Phasing Ordnance ^ 8 # Review and revise the Local Coastal Plan, seeking certification by reaching a political solution to our special and unique requirements Explore land use changes in the airport and older industrial areas of the city The EDC's Marketing Committee continues to believe that business should join together to achieve the maximum impact on area marketing. The ultimate goal is to capture a larger share of the Southern California retail and hospitality market. We recognize that successful efforts in selling our strengths can make the pie bigger. The.Marketing Committee recommends: 109 • The continued development, of our business districts into formal BIDs O& :The creation of a City wide Restaurant Improvement District Expansion of the use tax self-accruat program I a , Expansion of the Shop Newport program 13 ,• Evaluation of the financial feasibility of a Visitors and Conference Center _ 14 • Continued involvement with consultant(s) to identify appropriate business district personalities which would allow individual BID's to play to the strengths of their unique area. IS" • The retention of consultant(s) to identify and secure the best possible tenants for our vacant retail space -ILJBENCH MARK REPORTS Of special interest to the EDC is the creation of a Bench Mark reporting process so as to be able to judge the progress we are making in encouraging business activities that will lead to improving city revenue and increasing property value. Staff is working with City Coungil and EDC members to develop a simple reporting tool that will provide us with regular updates on key measurement statistics. EDC PRIORITIES Following this presentation, you will view the work priorities of the Planning and Building Departments. Staff has worked with us in an attempt to incorporate our recommendations into the priority system. Should you wish to add or delete an item, or change a priority, you will have that opportunity. As you will see, the workload is substantial. OUR NEXT PHASE As part of the EDC's continuing program working to achieve our identified 1995 goals, the EDC is ready to begin Phase 4. Under your direction, we see our next era as a continuation of Phase 3 activities (monitoring of implementation and generation of more in-depth recommendations for Services and Marketing activities) along with tackling the tough 'quality" issue of how to increase economic activity while retaining and in many instances, achieving an improved, R1 T_ y 09/21/95 15:51 FAX 714 72f141 FRITZ DUDA CO CA �003/006 BALBOA PENINSULA PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE BALBOA PENINSULA PLANNING POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS (Revised September 21, 1995) DESIGNATE BALBOA PENINSULA AS A SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICT. DEVELOP A PLAN FOR COMMERCIAL PLANNING AND RESIDENTIAL POLICY ELEMENTS THAT MEETS BOTH TRANSITIONAL AND LONG- TERM OBJECTIVES. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH POSITIVE CHANGES. 1. Balboa Peninsula - Sense of Place: Provide specific plans that will create a mission and sense of place to differentiate unique roles of the three principal commercial areas: • Lido - Civic Center • McFadden Square • Cannery Village • Central Balboa 2. Mission Statement: Adhere to mission statement for a quality community which would include: • Enhance and expand residential element. • Consolidate and redevelop concentrated quality commercial elements. • Enhance landscape and streetscape for residential and commercial elements. • Consider Redevelopment Agency and comprehensive Redevelopment Area plans. • Revise planning and zoning ordinances to provide incentives for both transitional and long term plan objectives. im 1\ %1\ 00/21/9S 15:51 PAL 7141141 FRITZ DWA CO CA RIONOTEMl . • Encourage resident -compatibly commercial -retail uses. 4. Strateav for Attracting Quality Visitors: • Encourage uses that attract visitors who make a positive economic and social contribution. • Discourage uses that attract visitors who make a negative economic and/or social contribution. • Focus on key historical and cultural sites that provide greatest improvement potential. 5, Crime and ecurity: • Reduce and control quality of on and off sale liquor license establishments. • Consider limitations and restrictions on liquor stores, bars and theater -nightclubs. • Increase patrol levels. • Provide highly visible police substation at or near Central Balboa. 6. Parking Management Plan: Establish and implement a Peninsula Parking Management Plan that: • Restrict visitor parking in residential areas. • Gives resident users priority privileges. • Allocates financial burdens to high impact users which adversely impact residential and commercial -retail businesses and which provide little or no economic benefit to City. -2- A 09/21/95 1s:51 FAX 714 7?P1141 FRITZ DUMA CO CA . ®005/ooa • Prohibits credit for remote parking facilities in entitlement process without appropriate mitigation (i.e., provision for shuttle or transportation services). Reduce dependency for vehicular access and parking. Encourage pedestrian access. 7. Open Bay Front: • Open bay front in Central Balboa and selected key areas for visiting yacht facilities to provide access by bay and bring tourists to area by water. 0 Establish Bay Management Plan to enhance service and control for yachting, recreational and resident users. • Discourage negative influences and uses that interfere with stated objectives. 8. Quality Hospitals . • Establish Bed and Breakfast zones • Establish key sites and incentives for quality lodging and hospitality facilities 0 Vigorously enforce short term lodging ordinance and establish minimum hospitality quality standards as a condition to permitting short term rentals. 9. Maintenance and Code Enforcement: Increase code enforcement and establish a maintenance ordinance to address deferred and declining commercial and residential elements. 10. New Sign Ordinance: Establish a comprehensive sign ordinance for the Peninsula Villages. 11. Traffic Circulation: Develop a new traffic circulation plan which recognizes: The necessity for a new circulation plan at McFadden Square. -3- 09/21/93 15:52 FAX 71i 1141 FRITZ DUDA CO CA _IjI00i/006 �_ • Peninsula capacity limitations and residents' necessity for reasonable Ingress, egress and compatible commercial -retail elements. 12. opportunities: Maximize opportunities and existing economic strengths. Key examples: • The Bay as an amenity. • Marine sales and service industry. • Visiting yachting and regatta participants. • 15th Street Marina, hospitality, lodging and yachting center potential. 13. Transfer Traffic and Parking impacts: Transfer high traffic and parking impact uses off Peninsula. 14. Community Issues Management: Institute a community Issues management strategy to clearly understand the community issues and develop support for key elements of the plan. Prioritize the key catalysts that stand for quality change. Coordinate planning program with Economic Development Program. 15. Transitional Interim Measures: City Council must be willing to invoke urgent transitional ordinances and zoning controls to: • Prevent addition of commercial uses that are inconsistent with stated objectives, • Control expansion or transfer of existing undesirable uses. • Control and dictate uses for strategic sites. • Control existing enforcement costs. • Demonstrate to community at large that City is committed to change. (9PPACPLN.REC) ^4- 66Iz . BALBOA PENINSULA PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE PRELIMINARY REPORT - NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL JULY 24, 1995 I. INTRODUCTION A. Describe City Council charter to Committee B. Introduce and provide Biographical Summary of Committee Members 11. PENINSULA PROFILE A. Summarize key population and demographics data B. Summary of physical characteristics • Residential elements - quality and median values • Commercial elements - broad summary of uses and appearance • Bay and boating element C. Summarize economics of commercial and residential elements • Commercial contribution - sales tax • Residential contribution - property tax III, ISSUES THAT IMPACT THE PLANNING PROCESS A. Seasonal visitor - economic cost vs. contribution B. Crime and security -1- �J C. Competitive retail -commercial - Fashion Island - South Coast - Costa Mesa D. Constraints - access and capacity E. Recreational and cultural amenities F. On and off sale liquor licenses G. Positive influences IV. COMMITTEE WORK PROGRAM A. Central Balboa • Segregate economic development program • Summarize policy recommendations for effective planning transition B. McFadden Square and Lido -City Hall planning areas • Catalysts for change - key elements • Selection of planning firm • Budget and staff requirements IWAURE11MI -2- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING AND BUILDING 644-3222 September 12, 1995 TO: Members of Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee From: Kenneth J. Delino, Assistant City Manager, Planning/Building SUBJECT: Review Items Attached for your review are the: • GPA 95-1 (c) reviewed by the Planning Commission • Pages 4-6 of the EDC recommendation report • September 1lth, City Council Agenda Item on the Local Coastal Plan These items will be discussed at the next meeting. kjd:gav y E�ro crcY or. NLwpoYLT-BEACH Hearing Date: Augusti$, 1995 PLANNING/BUILDING DEPARTMENT %ntAAi- )A. 4 53� NEWPORT BOULEVARD taff Person: Kenneth J. Delino D NEWPORTBEACH, CIA g1658 (714)644-32 (74) 644 S2o ; FAX (7 4) 644 S350 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT POLICY SUMVIARY: This Policy proposed for inclusion in the Land Use Element of the General Plan would provide guidelines and focus to the City's efforts to revitalize these areas. ACTION: Review and discuss draft of General Plan Amendment 95-1(c) PROCEDURES: General Plan Amendment 95-1 (c) was initiated by the Planning Commission on February 9, 1995 and by the City Council on February 21, 1995. The original version of the Policy and Commission minutes are attached. The Policy was reviewed by the Environmental Quality Affairs committee and the Economic Development Committee and their comments are attached. Staff has revised the original version to reflect recent studies and the recommendations of the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee and the Economic Development Committee. After this informal review by the Planning Commission, public hearings can be scheduled. Purpose and Intent: The City Council has given a high priority to upgrading the commercial districts which form the City's villages. Several studies and groups have or are addressing this issue, and the Council has asked staff to summarize these efforts and present a unified recommendation. This Policy can serve that purpose and will also provide the basis for amending the zoning and other codes to promote commercial district revitalization A more complete verbal report will be made at the Planning Commission meeting. Kenneth J. ino kjd:gav pc\82495%=0dipo.doc General Description of the Land Use Plan OVERALL CITY FORM The City of Newport Beach has developed as a grouping of small communities or "villages," primarily due to the natural geographic form of the bay, which provides both physical division and unity, in the sense of a common, shared resource. Many of the newer developments, located inland from the bay, have been based on a "Planned Community" concept, resulting in a furtherance of the village form even where no major geographic division exists. The various villages provide for a wide variety of type and style of development, both residential and commercial. The City includes lower density single family residential areas, as well as more intensively developed residential beach areas. Commercial areas range from master -planned employment centers to marine industrial and visitor commercial areas. This wide range of development types provides both visual interest and community diversity. The Land Use Element proposes that the City build on this existing "grouping of villages" form and character, and, where possible, strengthen both the physical identity and func- tional efficiency of this form through such means as: 1. Use of open space corridors and buffers; 2. Assuring harmonious groupings of land uses in each village area; 3. Encouraging the development of anindividual characterfor each village area, rather than attempting a city-wide, monotonous conformity; 4. Provision of high quality and prosperous neiglAxnhoad commercial centers to serve both the village areas and the City at laree; 5. Provision for public and semi-public facilities (schools, parks, churches, etc.) to serve each village area; 6. Controlling residential development (as discussed herein and in the Housing Ele- ment); 7. Controlling the intensity and character of commercial development. The City shall encourage the formation of independent homeowners and merchant groups and associations within each of the villages that make up the City, and the City will cooperate with such groups and their representatives for the improvement of the environ- ment, economy and physical facilities within its villages. GPA 95-1(c) DRAFT (for discussion only) 8/13/95 Community Commercial Districts Policy The City shall promote the prosperity of its several community commercial dWots through the adoption and application of its planning, zoning, building and public works codes, regulations, policies and activities. The City shall encourage its community commercial districts to reflect and complement the high quality of its residential areas. DISCUSSION: Importance. In addition to necessary goods and services, community commercial districts provide Identity to the City's villages, foster a sense of community, and offer a center for socializing and public events. Community commercial districts provide employment and income opportunities as well as municipal revenue to support essential services Problems. Vacancies are increasing, property values are decreasing, maintenence is being deferred, and uses are proliferating that neither serve residents nor are compatible with nearby residential areas. This detracts from the value of residential uses and decreases municipal revenues while increasing costs for public safety and maintenance. As their quality declines, the City's community commercial areas attract less of the City's residents. Tourists and visitors needed to support the City's community commercial districts are declining in number and spending power. Research indicates that the amount of building space within these districts far exceeds that necessary to serve the number and spending patterns of residents. Malls and outlets attract the largest proportion of the consumer dollar and have successfully recruited away specialty stores from the City's commercial districts. The large number of restaurants In the City historically relied on the proximity to the ocean and bay, but are now faced with increasingly stiff competition. Visitors with high spending power are increasingly drawn to inland shops and attractions which provide more amenties, a broader range of goods and lower prices. Revitalization. Considering their importance, the City's community commercial districts must receive the same support and advantages provided in privately managed malls and government redevelopment areas to keep pace with customer preferences and changes in retail marketing. This includes upgraded design, landscaping, pedestrian facilities, vehicle access, parking management programs, flexibility in building use, marketing research, joint advertising, tenant recruitment and a variety of similiar programs normally included within revitalization programs. Promise and Potential. Throughout the nation, revitalized historic commercial districts with charm and character create both pride and profits. These aspects of Newport Beach community commercial districts, coupled with their proximity to the ocean and bay, provide unique benefits unavailable to other cities. With these advantages and proper management, Newport Beach commercial districts can compete effectively with those In other cities to better serve the City's residents. IMPLEMENTATION Guidelines 1. The City desires to promote quafdy community commercial areas which reflect the City's attractive, enjoyable and valuable residential areas. Attractive in the sense of architecturally and aesthically stylish with enduring designs, materials and landscaping. Enjoyable in the sense of both pride of ownership and compatibility with neighbors and community goals. Valuable in the sense of both market price and municipal revenue, 2. The City recognizes that Its regulations and requirements have a significant effect on the success and the viability of commercial districts and individual businesses. 3. The City recognizes that its community commercial districts are village•like and thus pedestrian and outdoor oriented and that enhancement of these attributes is necessary for successful revitalization. 4. The City recognizes that the older and historic buildings within its community commercial districts often require special consideration and concessions. 5. The City recognizes that "Looking Good is Good Business" and that well designed and maintained business districts are the most successful. S. The City recognizes that to be successful its business districts must appeal to residents, visitors and tourists. 7. The City recognizes that the success of community commercial districts may require the amount of commercial space to be reduced. organization and Financing 1. The City shall promote and support the formation of Business Improvement Districts, Merchant Associations and similar organizations within community commercial districts to provide financial, marketing and management assistance to individual businesses. 2. The City shall encourage and support the formation of assessment and parking districts and shall pursue grants, publiUpdvate partnerships, low interest loans and other mechanisms to finance public and private improvements. draft 8/13/95 • Planning and Building 1. The City shall encourage and support design project s 2. The City shall encourage the refurbishment, remodeling and modest expansion of older, non- conforming buildings within community commercial districts by grand fathering such non- conforming uses when feasible and practicable. 3. The City shall continually seek to streamline -its permitting processes to minimize paperwork and shorten time frames including the requirements for obtaining Use Permits. 4. The City shall review its onsite vehicle parking requirements within community commercial districts and consider district -wide parking solutions. 5. The City shall, in the application of its codes and regulations, give special consideration to the needs of restaurants in recognition of the high level of benefits they provide to the local economy. 6. The City shall utilize the less stringent historical building codes whenever feasible and practicable to promote the restoration of older commercial buildings. 7. The City shall consider density bonuses or other incentives to encourage conversion of commercial structures to other uses in identified portions of community commercial districts. Such other uses may include bed and breakfast inns, churches, schools, boating facilites, multifamily residential and similiar establishments which are compatible with commercial uses and which provide a reasonable economic return to land owners. 8. The City shall review uses permitted within community commercial areas with a view to replacing commercial space and providing more resident serving and resident compatible uses. Public Works 1. The City shall approve designs for streets, sidewalks and other public improvements to complement the pedestrian orientation of its community commercial districts. 2. The City shall review its capital Improvement programs for their impacts on the pedestrian orientation and other important aspects of community commercial districts. 3. The City shall approve encroachments or rental agreements in the public right of way when practicable and feasible to foster commercial building restoration, outdoor dining and other techniques to support revitalization of community commercial districts. draft 8/13/95 REMARKS BY EAHAIR RUSH N. HILL, II, AIA July 24, 1995 Page 4 rVo,uld summarize the recommendations for Improvement contained a report as: • Create Ing management plans (n our business dis • Get involve creating incentives for re•merch sing, re tenanting and re - ling our older ass areas and • Create marketing implement on plans for our business districts The information cont in the Congle report will be very helpful as we undertake the a tion and policy making a as that will be required to achieve our of returning our older business dIstFrdt94Q the quality front doors and r ue producing assets of our community we so a ant and dosdrve them to be. EDC RECOMMENDATIONS I would now dike to share with you the EDC's Phase 3 recommendations which have been formulated over the past six months. Some Items are new thoughts, while others are continuations of previously highlighted needs for change. All are in support of the City's Economic Development Policy. We believe our recommendations are consistent with our VISION that municipal revenue is increased by adding value to our business community, and MISSION to achieve a nationally recognized, business friendly city that generates adequate municipal revenue to provide quality services to our residents and visitors. The EDC's Services Committee continues to focus on making the development process faster and more user friendly, while seeking Incentives to encourage quality, private sector redevelopment of our older areas. They recommend: • Within the framework of Staff's decision to accomplish a comprehensive rewrite of the City's zoning code, we believe you should add to our list of previously requested zoning changes the need to re-examine the definitions and restrictions related to floor area ratio's, building bulk and mass, and commercial district land use regulations as they relate to non•occup(able space, equipment and generator rooms and building areas considered to be support to but not income producing or traffic generating building components. • Enact a code section to provide for a Variance process to be achieved through discretionary action of the Planning Staff,, Planning Commission and/or City Council. 3. • Prepare and process an amendment to the City's General Plan, Land Use Element that adds an Economic Development Policy specifically Identifying the goal of creating an economically healthy business environment within the City. • Establish Parking Districts and create specific parking management plans for appropriate business districts. S • The continuation of the re -engineering of Building and Planning department functions/staff working with consultant(s) that utilize staff empowerment processes to achieve lasting and meaningful change. We further recommend the following areas be explored as part of the re -engineering processes: q • The creation of a Development Review Committee similar to our Restaurant Review Committee b • Clearly defined, consistently applied procedures and standards for planning and building processing REMARKS, BY EDAAIR • RUSH N. HILL, ll, AIA July 24, 1995 Page 5 C Utilization of privately contracted services for overload or peak activities in plan check, grading engineering services, EIR review, etc. and a • The creation of a centralized, one contact permit processing function e— • The approval of an outdoor dining ordnance related to restaurant and specialty food use b • Review and further refine the City's Traffic Phasing Ordnance • Review and revise the Local Coastal Plan, seeking certification by reaching a political solution to our special and unique requirements 8 • Explore land use changes in the airport and older industrial areas of the city The EDC's Marketing Committee continues to believe that business should join together to achieve the maximum impact on area marketing. The ultimate goal is to capture a larger share of the Southern California retail and hospitality market. We recognize that successful efforts in selling our strengths can make the pie bigger. The Marketing Committee recommends: q • The continued development of our business districts into formal BIDs / 0 • The creation of a City wide Restaurant Improvement District �• Expansion of the use tax self -accrual program 1-,• Expansion of the Shop Newport program 13 • Evaluation of the financial feasibility of a Visitors and Conference Center I4 • Continued involvement with consultant(s) to identify appropriate business district personalities which would allow individual BID's to play to the strengths of their unique area. 15_�• The retention of consultant(s) to identify and secure the best possible tenants for our vacant retail space (� BENCH MARK REPORTS Of special interest to the EDC is the creation of a Bench Mark reporting process so as to be able to judge the progress we are making in encouraging business activities that will lead to improving city revenue and increasing property value. Staff is working with City Council and EDC members to develop a simple reporting tool that will provide us with regular updates on key measurement statistics. EDC PRIORITIES Following this presentation, you will view the work priorities of. the Planning and Building Departments. Staff has worked with us in an attempt to incorporate our recommendations into the priority system. Should you wish to add or delete an item, or change a priority, you will have that opportunity. As you will see, the workload is substantial. OUR NEXT PHASE As part of the EDC's continuing program working to achieve our identified 1995 goals, the EDC is ready to begin Phase 4. Under your direction, we see our next era as a continuation of Phase 3 activities (monitoring of implementation and generation of more in-depth recommendations for Services and Marketing activities) along with tackling the tough "quality" issue of how to increase economic activity while retaining and in many instances, achieving an improved, 0 REMARKS BY EDC CHAIR RUSH N. HILL, 11, AIA July 24, 1995 Page 6 higher profile, spending -visitor and resident appealing business. district environment. As the City's policy setting body, the City Council must establish an incentive based concept of desirable land use, tenant mix and level of aesthetic that can be achieved while restoring economic vitality to our city. At the center of this task will be the need to define the concept of quality. It is this quality quantified policy City Staff will be called upon to promote and interpret for compliance. The EDC, with support of staff and consultants, Is now ready to tackle this issue, placing before the Council recommended policy. Policy that balances property rights Issues, economics and desired levels of aesthetics with common sense and flexibility in a political achievable solution. Three years ago, at the Inception of the EDC, most of us probably hoped that by now the challenging economic environment and municipal budget wrestling exercises would be behind us But of course it isn't, and in fact there Is little we see on a National, State or County level to say we are not in for more of the same. We now know with more certainty, that the City Must be proactive to create a healthy business environment which will in turn generate sustainable revenue sources for City services. It is with this in mind that the EDC will approach this next phase of our work. ADDITIONAL SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION As part of this EDC update, you will find additional information relating to our recommendations and support documents as follows: • July 24, 1995 EDC Recommendations • City Council Economic Development Policy • December 9, 1994 Statement of EDC Mission, Vision and Goals • Summary of Economic Development Activities 1993-1995 • Current EDC Membership and Organization Chart • EDC Enabling Resolution • November 22, 1993 Findings and Recommendations of the EDC THANK YOU On behalf of the Economic Development Committee, I thank you Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council, for your continued support. We look forward to continuing to work with you and City Staff, meeting the challenges ahead. aEWPpRr CITY OF 7VEY4?MRT BEACH Hearing Date: September 11, 1995 � @ PLANNING\BIBLDING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item No.: I.? 8 T t� 33o NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: PatriciaL. Temple �[lFpPP�* NEWPORT MACK CA 92&P (714)644-3228 (7 4) 644-52—; FAX (714) 644 3250 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Local Coastal Program Certification SLTAU IARY: A status report on the certification of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program. The City has a certified Land Use Plan. Program certification requires the adoption of implementing zoning ordinances. DISCUSSION: In 1993, the Planning Department commenced an effort to complete the certification of the City's Local Coastal Program. Staff developed a work program and reviewed the task list with the staff of the Coastal Commission. The work program was then reviewed with the City Council at its meeting on October 25, 1993. A copy of that staff report is attached for the information of the City Council. As indicated in the report, there are several major obstacles to completion of the certification program. The most significant are: 1. Loss of the categorical exclusion for single family dwelling and duplexes. Coastal staff had initially indicated that many areas in the City's current categorical exclusion areas would no longer qualify, and would, therefore, be subject to the new Coastal Development Permit hearing procedures. 2. Coastal Access requirements to private beaches. After receiving the report in 1993, the initial reaction of the City Council was to abandon the certification program. However, staff recommended that fiuther discussions with the Coastal Commission staff be pursued in order to develop an acceptable solution to the major issues identified. Subsequent to that City Council meeting, staff continued discussions with the Coastal Commission staff to try and resolve the issue of the categorical exclusion areas. Coastal staff at that time was willing to consider alternative processing for these areas, and several discussions occurred on this issue. No final resolution was ever achieved, however, and eventually other workload priorities caused the level of effort on this project to be reduced. Currently, the project is assigned to Senior Planner Patrick Alford, and it is anticipated that the project will become active again after the processing of the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan and the adoption of the revised Zoning Ordinance. The certification of the LCP has also been discussed by the Services Sub -committee of the Economic Development Committee. The interest of the committee is in fiuther streamlining the processing requirements for those projects which currently require Coastal Development Permits. In response to those discussions a member of the committee, Jerry King, has been working with both the City and Coastal Commission staff on fiuther resolving the outstanding certification issues. Mr. King has made additional progress on the categorical exclusion area problem, and it appears that the Coastal staff is prepared to accept a Coastal Permit process for these areas which will not require a public hearing at the local level. 0 ft l On a parallel path, Hoag Hospital has been considering applying for a segmented LCP certification for the hospital master plan. As part of that process, the hospital has indicated that they would be willing to absorb the cost of preparing the administrative procedures for the adoption of Coastal Development Permits at the local level. This part of the certification program is considered by Coastal Commission staffto be the most difficult part of any certification effort. The Economic Development Committee is very interested in pursuing the certification of the Local Coastal Program as a priority project. It is estimated that preparing the certification documents and processing the program will take a minimum of 12 to 18 months if prepared in house. The effort could be expedited if consultant assistance is utilized. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT PatriciaL. Temple Planning Manager Attachment: City Council 5taffReport of October 25,1993 PLT1—Q.1SOPPICL•1WINWORDIC=P9.11.95X0C Local coastal Program Cafiaation September 11,1995 Paget City Council Meeting October 25, 1993 Study Session Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Draft LCP Certification Work Program Attached to this report is a fifteen page matrix outlining the work program needed to certify the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program. This matrix details the policies contained in the certified Land Use Plan and the action needed to implement each policy. This work program has been reviewed with the Coastal Commission staff, and reflects their input regarding the level of detail and necessary codification of the land use plan to achieve certification. While the Coastal Commission staff has requested additional time to make further comments, it is our opinion that any additional comments will result in a greater definition of level of detail, and will not significantly affect the substance of the work program. The matrix consists of three columns. The first is titled TOLICY' and is a restatement or summary of the actual policies currently contained in the City's certified Land Use Plan. The second column is titled DEVICE' and indicates the City regulatory document which will contain the implementation procedure. The third column is titled 'ACTION and states the ordinance, policy or program to be adopted. The purpose of this report is to review the draft work program with the City Council in order to solicit comments or concerns with the specifics of the program, inform the City Council of the magnitude of the certification effort, and to inform the City Council of certain problems which have been defined by City and Coastal Commission staff which may influence the decision to seek certification. Background In order to certify an LCP and receive the authority to issue Coastal Development Permits from the Coastal Commission, a locality must adopt implementing ordinances which establish procedures for the full enforcement of LUP policies and specific development criteria of the Coastal Act and Administrative Regulations. In effect, the City will become the Coastal Commission for the purpose of issuing development permits in most areas of the City. Initial Approach of City Staff In order to make the certification documents as simple and easy to use and update as possible, City staff developed an initial approach which would have made heavy utilization of the Council Policy Manual as a means of implementing many of the policies which would not be directed to 3 Mayor and Members of the City Council - 2. the regulation of private development. Unfortunately, the Coastal Commission staff attorney has ruled that the Policy Manual is not an appropriate implementation vehicle in most cases, since it can be changed by simple, action of the City Council, and may not provide the Coastal Commission sufficient leverage against the City should it choose not to comply with one or more of the adopted policies. As a result, ordinances will have to be adopted which "commit" the City to the maintenance of some of its normal operations. For example, public access policy 1 states that the City shall continue to maintain and operate all existing bay and ocean beaches. We argued that this did not require implementation since it is a part of our normal operations as a City, or at most could be formalized in the Policy Manual, Coastal legal staff determined, however, that an ordinance is necessary to provide the Coastal Commission maximum enforcement potential should the City reduce or eliminate bay and beach maintenance. The fact that the City has provided beach maintenance for decades seemed irrelevant to the Coastal Commission staff attorney. Identified Certification Problems The City Council is aware that successful certification will cause the City to address development and condition projects in ways currently done by the Coastal Commission. As a result, we will be adopting standards and procedures similar to Coastal regulations, such as residential string -line setbacks. Based on recent permit actions, we anticipate that there will be some effort to make our commercial and residential parking standards in the coastal zone more stringent, and possibly limit the City's ability to reduce or waive parking requirements in beach areas. There are, however, other problems recently identified which may impact the City Council's determination to pursue certification. The most important of these is related to the City's existing Categorical Exclusion. Categorical Exclusions In 1977 the Coastal Commission adopted Categorical Exclusion Order E-77-5 for the City of Newport Beach. It allowed for the exclusion from the Coastal Development permit process all single family dwellings and duplexes not on the waterfront. The exclusion areas are illustrated on a map which will be on display at the Study Session. All projects which meet the criteria of the exclusion need not go to the Coastal Commission. Rather, during the course of initial zoning plan check, a notice is filled out and sent to the local Coastal Commission office. If no comment is received within 10 days, no Coastal Development Permit is required. Since its adoption, hundreds of exclusions have been issued with none called up for permit review. This Categorical Exclusion Order automatically expires upon certification of the LCP. In order to maintain the provisions of the Categorical Exclusion Order, a new exclusion must be requested and approved after certification. This approval is certainly possible and the City will design its process so that there is no "lag time between the certification of the LCP and the adoption of a new categorical exclusion. Unfortunately, all the areas approved for categorical exclusion in 1977 may not qualify for the same exclusion in 1993, due to a refinement of certain definitions by the Coastal Commission staff over the years. As a result, no development on Balboa Island, Lido Isle, the Balboa Peninsula, West Newport, Shore Cliffs and Cameo Shores will qualify for the new exclusion, although all non -waterfront portions of these areas are subject to the existing exclusion. The result is that as many as 70 projects per year which currently TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council - 3. qualify for the exclusion will become subject to full Coastal Development Permit requirements, including a public hearing, after certification of the City's LCP. Aside from the obvious problems with subjecting approximately 70 projects per year to new coastal permit requirements, this will also substantially affect the overall workload of the Coastal Permit issuance process. For the past five years an average of 122.6 projects per year have been required to seek a Coastal Development Permit from the Coastal Commission. Many, but not all, were also required to achieve a City permit, such as a Use Permit or Modification. After certification these projects will still be subject to Coastal Development Permit, but the City will be the issuing agency in most cases, and the CDP approval can be accomplished concurrently with any other City permits. It should be noted that the CDP process always requires a public hearing. After certification it is estimated that an average of 194 projects per year will be required to request a Coastal Development Permit from the City. For approximately 50% of the projects, the CDP will be the only discretionary permit required, an average of 82 permits per year. This represents a 31% increase .in separate new permits requiring a public hearing from the current department work load of an average of 264.4 permits (5 year history for use permits, variances, modifications, tract maps, resubdivisions,. amendments, PC's, and site plan reviews). If existing categorical exclusion were to be maintained, the average permit processing workload increase would be nominal, perhaps an average of 15 to 20 additional permits per year. Staff has requested the Coastal staff to review the existing categorical exclusion to determine if there is any way the existing exclusion areas can be maintained. This review is currently taking place, but Coastal staff was not very encouraging, stating that the definition of what would qualify for exclusion is technical and not subject to interpretation by staff or the commission, and that if an exclusion had been issued in error in the past, it would not be a justification for a re -issuance of the exclusion now. Staff will keep the Council posted as this issue resolves itself. Adjudicated Lines of Mean High Tide Many parts of Newport Bay have lines of mean high tide adjudicated through a series of Superior Court decisions made in the 1930's. Often these adjudicated lines bear no relationship to the actual mean high tide line. As a result, there are a number of private beaches which are wholly within private property. The Coastal Act sets many of its public access requirements in relationship to the inter tidal zone, which is a definition related to the actual high tide lines. This may have the effect of requiring the City to consider public access programs to beaches which are clearly private. Staff has requested the Coastal Commission legal staff to study this problem and provide us with additional direction. Resolution may take some time because Coastal staff has not been confronted with this situation in the past. Areas which may be affected by this issue are Bayside Place, Bayshores, Balboa Coves, Linda Island, and Bay Island. Additional Comments There are a few facts related to certification which the City Council should be aware of should we embark on this process. These are related not to argue against proceeding, but to make sure that the City Council is comfortable with some of the negative impacts of certification. 5 6 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council - 4. 1. To the extent that any existing policies, resolutions or ordinances are part of the certification documents, any alterations will be subject to the review and approval of the Coastal Commission. For example, in order to implement Coastal Dependent Uses Policy 9, the City will codify the existing resolution identifying those street ends where dinghy launching is allowed. If there is a need in the future to add or delete a street end from the list of allowed locations, it will require Coastal Commission approval. 2. The Coastal Commission will require that the notification and hearing procedures for Coastal Development Permits be exactly as set forth in the administrative procedures of the Coastal Act. The Commission does not accept similar existing local procedures as functional equivalents. Since it would be very confusing and inefficient to maintain two separate but similar notification and hearing procedures, staff is likely to propose that our procedures be altered to match the coastal procedures. Some of the changes would affect who gets notified, the timing of hearings, and posting requirements. 3. Any portion of the City's regulatory documents which are part of the certification package will become subject to the review and approval of the Coastal Commission when amended. This means that staff will have to carefully consider the extent to which we develop separate but parallel coastal zone regulations. The specific areas of concern are parking requirements and permitted land uses. The City will have to weight the serious concern over the potential confusion and interpretive errors which could arise as a result of two complete but separate sets of regulations versus occasionally being required to process an amendment to the certified LCP when the change is requested by a project outside of the coastal zone. Additionally, any change to broadly applied zoning districts (such as RSC, APF, R-1 and R 2) will require the approval of the Coastal Commission if the City wishes to maintain consistent zoning districts throughout the City. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT DAMES D. HEWICICER, Director sy A a Patricia L. Temple Advance Planning Manager Attachment: Draft Certification Work Program Matrix PLT:.AWINWORDUcp-rptdoc L.J • POLICY DEVICE ACTION rUVILU t1\i\iGJJ 1 VnvaW 1. The City shall continue to maintain and operate Municipal New maintenance, use and lease all existing bay and ocean beaches. Code of public property ordinance. 2. The City shall maintain all existing public street Municipal New maintenance, use and lease ends and walkways. Code of public property ordinance. 3. All existing vista points on public property shall Municipal New maintenance, use and lease be wotected and maintained. Code of publicproperty ordinance. 4. Public access in coastal areas shall be maximized. Municipal New public access ordinance. Code 5. Lateral access shall be provided in new Municipal Part of Public Access development by means of dedication of Code Ordinance easements for public access along beach and bay shoreline except where adequate access exists nearby.. 6. Vertical access from the nearest public roadway Municipal Part of Public Access to the shoreline shall be provided in new Code Ordinance development by means of dedication of easements except where adequate access exists nearby... 7. Policies 4, 5, and 6 shall be implemented in such Municipal Part of Public Access a way that it takes into account the need to Code Ordinance regulate the time, place and manner of public access, depending on such circumstances as: The capacity of the site to sustain use The fragile resources of the area The proximity to residential uses The securityof upland and adjacent water uses The need to provide for the collection of litter These policies do not pertain to existing residential areas where no sandy beach exists. 8. Coastal access sign program. Municipal Develop new sign program, and Code include in public access ordinance 9. Prescriptive rights Municipal Part of public access ordinance. Code I 11 POLICY DEVICE ACTION Unhlie Urnnartv T.ensehnid Minim 1 VRe-leasing public land shall consider public Municipal New maintenance, use and lease access and the provision of coastal -dependent Code of public property ordinance. land uses. 2. Leasing of public property shall consider the Municipal New maintenance, use and lease consistency of the use with the public interest, Code of public property ordinance. and leases shall be at fair market value unless it is in publids interest to do otherwise. 3. Leases shall be considered at a public hearing. Municipal New maintenance, use and lease Code of public property ordinance. 4, Tidelands leases shall be at full market value, the Municipal New maintenance, use and lease moneys received segregated in a separate Code of public property ordinance. account, and used for maintenance related to visitor serving facilities and the acquisition of coastal properties. 5. Public access shall be required when the City Municipal New maintenance, use and lease leases or re -leases public land, including the Code of public property ordinance. beaches leased to the Lido Isle Community Association. f�9rnnlefinn Unliriae 1.Y The Local Coastal Program Circulation System No implementing action Plan is the same as the City of Newport Beach required. Master Plan of Streets and Hi hwa s. 2. The City shall require a ride sharing/carpooling Municipal New Ordinance for Coastal plan as a condition of approval for all new, non- Code Development Standards, coastal related developments of 10,000 sq. ft. or more in the Coastal Zone. Plans will require employer incentives, and employer financial support for ride sharing and car-pooling. 3. City shall implement bikeway system; bikeway Municipal New maintenance, use and lease improvements may be required as part of Code of public property ordinance, development approvals. Coastal Development Standards Ordinance 4. The City shall work with OCTD to provide Policy New Policy P-1; Letterfrom efficient public transit; City shall request OCTD Manual, City to OCTD to institute summer bus service for the Balboa Letter from Peninsula. city 2 0 C C� POLICY DEVICE ACTION 5. The City shall develop a municipal transit plan; Policy New Policy P-2 regarding the shall consider utilization of existing remote Manual design and financing of a local parking of offices and businesses on weekends shuttle system, and a time frame with tram service to the beach as well as a place- for implementation. to -place shuttle. Areas to be served are: • Corona del Mar State Beach from the Bank of Newport • Service between Newport Center and the Peninsula/Lido Village/McFadden Square • Balboa Peninsula Shuttle The City shall evaluate and identify the means for financing such a system, including an assessment district, in -lieu fees, and other means, and select the means to finance the system. 6. In conjunction with the establishment of a Completed, City prepared a comprehensive transit system, the Balboa comprehensive transit/trolley Peninsula shall be studied as a means of easing train study in 1985. traffic congestion and improving circulation. 7. All development shall provide adequate street Municipal Refer to existing on -site parking to meet the requirements of the Newport Code parking requirements in the Beach Municipal Code Coastal Development Standards Ordinance 8. The City shall locate and develop new public Policy New Public Parking Policy parking. Manual P-3. 9. City shall continue to deposit in -lieu parking fees Municipal New Ordinance into a parking fund and not the General Fund Code 10. The City may continue the residential parking Policy New Public Parking Policy program on Newport Island so long as there is no Manual P-3. net adverse effect on public access; similar programs cannot be implemented if there is an adverse effect on public access. 11. City shall require new commercial development Municipal Part of Coastal Development in the Coastal Zone to make parking provided by Code Standards Ordinance the project available to the public when hours of operation allow joint use and the project is either in proximity to coastal resources or near adequate transit. Parking fees may be imposed. 12. If remote parking and transit is established, an Policy New Public Parking Policy extensive u)1icity program will be developed. Manual P-3. 3 -! 0 POLICY DEVICE ACTION 13. A pool parking management program shall be developed. Municipal Code Part of Coastal Development Standards Ordinance. 14. Variable FAR limits based upon trip generation Municipal Completed. Flexible FARts shall be developed. Code Ordinance adopted in 1989. 15. Commercial, recreation or destination visitor Municipal Part of Coastal Development serving facilities in and around the harbor shall be Code Standards Ordinance; designed and controlled -to min;mize traffic Completed (Chapter 17.41 of congestion and parking shortages, ensure access NBMC). to the water for residents and visitors, as well as maintain the high quality of life and unique residential areas; the City shall control commercial activities conducted in the harbor... Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas and Unique rnae}n1 Rnennrnpa 1 Environmentally Sensitive areas shall be Municipal Part of Coastal Development preserved. The following habitats shall be Code Standards Ordinance or a new considered to be sensitive: ESHA Ordinance • Areas supporting rare or endangered species Riparian Areas Freshwater marshes Saltwater marshes • Inter tidal areas • Other wetlands • Unique or unusually diverse vegetative communities 2. Structures will not be allowed in the sensitive Municipal Part of Coastal Development areas listed, as determined by the Planning Code Standards Ordinance or a new Commission. ESHA Ordinance. 3. Policies 1 & 2 are not intended to prevent public Municipal Part of Coastal Development agencies and private property owners from Code Standards Ordinance or a new maintaining drainage courses and facilities, ESHA Ordinance. sedimentation basins, public infrastructure and related facilities; not intended to prohibit public infrastructure when adverse impacts can be mitigated or benefits outweigh adverse impacts 4. The City of Newport Beach shall continue to Completed; 208 Program work with other agencies such as the City of adopted and implemented Irvine, County of Orange, and the California Department of Fish and Game to achieve sedimentation solution in Upper Newport Bay. 5. The City will coordinate with the Department of Completed; DFG has adopted a Fish and Game in developing a management plan management plan. for the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. 4 10 POLICY DEVICE ACTION 6. Public use of the reserve shall be maintained to No action, not the jurisdiction the extent it is consistent with the preservation of of the City. sensitive resources Dredging, Diking and Filling in open Coastal Waters, 1. Only the following types of development are Mums permitted in the parts of Newport Bay which are Code not within the Ecological reserve: • Construction or expansion of port/marine facilities • Construction or expansion of coastal - dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities, haul -out boat yards, commercial ferry facilities • New or expanded boating facilities, including slips, access ramps, piers, marinas, recreational boating, launching ramps, haul - out boat yards, and pleasure ferries. • Maintenance of existing and restoration of previously dredged depths in navigational channels and turning basins using the 1974 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers maps for Newport Bay depths. • Incidental public services such as burying cables and pipes, inspection of piers and the maintenance of existing intake and outfall 2. New development on the waterfront shall take Muni into consideration existing usable water area for Code docking facilities. Residential and commercial structures shall not be permitted to encroach beyond the bulkhead line. No filling between and existing bulkhead and the bulkhead line in order to create usable land area shall be permitted except where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative and where New Ordinance on Dredging, Diking and Filling in Newport Bay Part of De Ordinance mitigation is provided. 3. The City shall examine proposals for construction Municipal New Ordinance on Shoreline of anti -erosion structures, offshore breakwaters, Code Protection Devices. or marinas; and regulate the design of such structures to harmonize with the natural aooearance of the beach. POLICY DEVICE ACTION 4. The following policy applies to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve: Dredging, diking or filling will be permitted only if there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and shall be limited to the following: • Wetland restoration • Nature Study Dredging or construction designed to enhance the habitat values of environmentally sensitive areas shall be allowed. 5. The following mitigation measures required for dredging projects: • Dredging and spoils disposal must be planned and carried out to avoid significant disruption to marine and wildlife habitats and water circulation. Maintenance dredging in Newport Bay shall be encouraged, and materiel dredged shall be used to restore or replace natural sandy sloping beaches in order to retain the current profiles of Newport Bay. Maintenance dredging activity shall have the approval of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and shall meet applicable Environmental Protection Agency Standards. Dredged material not suitable for beach replenishment shall be disposed of at a designated EPA disposal site. Temporary dewatering of dredged spoils may be authorized within the Bay's drainage if adequate erosion controls are provided and the spoils are removed. A bond or'a contractual arrangement shall be a precondition of dredging of the material, and final disposal of the dewatered material on the approved dump site shall be accomplished within the time period specified. Dredged spoils shall not be used to fill Municipal New Ordinance on Cod I Diking and Filling Municipal New Ordinance -on Dredging Code Diking and Filling; most of these policies are for projects which remain in the original jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission for which no implementation is required. P (Z • POLICY DEVICE ACTION • Other mitigation measures may include opening areas to tidal action, removing dikes, improving tidal flushing, or other restoration measures. • Dredge spoils suitable for beach replenishment should be transported for such purposes to appropriate beaches or into suitable long shore currents stems. 6. If the project involves diking or filling of a Municipal Part of Wetland Impact wetland, required minimum mitigation measures Code Ordinance; Most projects will are the following: remain in the original jurisdiction of the California • If an appropriate restoration site is available, Coastal Commission the applicant shall submit a detailed restoration plan which includes provisions for purchase and restoration plan which includes provisions for purchase and restoration of aft equivalent area of equal or greater biological productivity and dedication of the land to a public agency or otherwise permanently restricts its use for open space purposes. The site shall be purchased before the dike or fill development may proceed. • The applicant may, in some cases, be permitted to open equivalent areas to tidal action or provide other sources of surface water. This method of mitigation would be appropriate if the applicant already owned filled, diked areas which themselves were not environmentally sensitive habitat areas but would become so, if such areas were opened to tidal action or provided with other sources of surface water. • However, if no appropriate sites are available, the applicant shall pay an in -lieu fee of sufficient value to an appropriate public agency for the purchase and restoration of an area of equivalent productive value, or equivalent surface area. 0 0 0 POLICY DEVICE ACTION The third option would be allowed only if the applicant is unable to find a willing seller of a potential restoration site. The public agency may also face difficulties in acquiring appropriate sites even though it has the ability to condemn property. Thus, the in -lieu fee shall reflect the additional costs of acquisition, including litigation, as well as the costs of restoration. if the public agency's restoration project is not already approved by the City, the public agency may need to be a co -applicant for a permit to provide adequate assurance that conditions imposed to assure that the purchase of the mitigation site shall occur prior to the issuance of the permit. In addition, such restoration must occur in the same general region (e.g., within the same estuary) where the fill occurred. 7. A preferred restoration program would remove Municipal Part of Wetland Impact fill from a formerly productive wetland or estuary Code Ordinance; Most projects will which is now biologically unproductive dry land remain in the original and would establish a tidal prism necessary to jurisdiction of the California assure adequate flushing. Since restoration Coastal Commission projects necessarily involve many uncertainties, restoration should precede the diking of filling project. At a minimum, the permit will be conditioned to assure that restoration will occur simultaneously with project construction. Restoration and management plans shall be submitted with the permit application. 8. In addition, any project which includes diking, Municipal Part of Wetland Impact filling or dredging of a wetland or estuary must Code Ordinance, Most projects will maintain the functional capacity of the wetland or remain in the original estuary. Functional capacity means the ability of jurisdiction of the California the wetland or estuary to be self-sustaining and to Coastal Commission maintain natural species diversity. In order to establish that the functional capacity is being maintained, the applicant must demonstrate all of the following: • That the project does not alter presently occurring plant and animal populations in the ecosystem in a manner that would impair the long-term stability of the ecosystem; i.e., natural species diversity, abundance and composition are essentially unchanged as a result of the project. • That the project does not harm or destroy a species or habitat that is rare or endangered. Iq rI POLICY DEVICE ACTION • That the project does not harm a species or habitat that is essential to the natural biological functioning of the wetland or estuary. • That the project does not significantly reduce consumptive (e.g., fishing, aqua culture and hunting) or non -consumptive (e.g., water quality and research opportunity) values of the wetland or estuarine ecosystem. 9. If new or expanded boating facilities are to be Municipal Part of Wetland Impact provided in Newport Beach, they shall be Code Ordinance; Most projects will developed in natural, harbors, protected water remain in the original areas, and in areas dredged from dry land. jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission Entrance channels for new or expanded boating facilities may be permitted in wetlands, subject to all other requirements for development of wetlands in 1 3 4 5 and 6 above. rVawa UW 1. The Cit, permittE activitie among i adequat pollutio: all busir fixed ph 2. The Cit of persc assignee tideland adoptioi the num the watt associat marine quality 3. The Cit, offshore constmi as may 1 operatic ity sho POLICY DEVICE ACTION • Continue to monitor the federal government's offshore leasing programs to insure the City and its citizens are fully aware of all proposed offshore activities which could adversely affect the coastal environment, including participation in the Local Government Coordination Program or similar programs. • Oppose and lobby against proposed lease sales off the coast of Orange County and elsewhere in the Southern California region which could adversely affect the environment or economy of the City of Newport Beach and assist jurisdictions in other areas ofthe state which are opposed to offshore lease programs in their vicinity. Tle.rnhn.nnnh nF(�noe4ol Rlni#'a 1. Bluff regulations for all building sites (the same Municipal Part of Coastal Development as that currently in the P-C Zoning District). Code Standards Ordinance. 2. Bluff development standards for all subdivisions, Municipal Part of Coastal Development if residential the standards will apply to Code Standards Ordinance and Public development of 4 or more units (same as that Access Ordinance. currently,in the P-C Zoning District). TX ..n A A-nue AA{ V t 1. No structures shall be permitted in areas of Municipal Part of Coastal Development potential geologic hazard, except as provided in Code Standards Ordinance, Policy 2 below. 2. When the environmental review process Municipal Part of Coastal Development demonstrates the adverse impacts can be Code Standards Ordinance. mitigated to an acceptable level, or that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts, the Planning Commission may approve a development plan in an area of potential geologic hazard. 3. Hydrologic analysis shall be required for all Municipal Completed by the adoption of projects located within flood hazard areas. Code NBMC Section 20.02.025 (2). 4. The Emergency Disaster Plan shall be Policy Adopt Council Policy P-5 for periodically reviewed to insure adequate ability to Manual Review of Disaster Response respond to flooding and other natural disasters. I I Plan. 10 1 b POLICY DEVICE ACTION Archaeological, Paleontological, and historical Archaeological, paleontological and historical Munn resources in the Coastal Zone shall be investigated in Code accordance with acceptable scientific procedures in accordance with regular City policy. Prior to development, archaeological, paleontological and historical resources shall be mapped and Completed by adoption Council Policies A 15, K-5 and K-6; Policies will be converted to Ordinance form and added to the Municipal Code I,OaSLaI V 1Gw5 1. Where coastal views exist from existing Municipal Part of Coastal Development roadways, any development on private property Code Standards Ordinance. within the sight lines from the roadway shall be sited and designed to maximize protection of the coastal view. This policy is not intended to prohibit development on any site. 2. The City shall preserve beaches, surf action, and Municipal Part of the Ordinance on coastal shoreline in a manner that will maintain Code Maintenance, Use and Lease of their aesthetic and natural value. public properties V1S1LO1 OV V111 1'AVu L VO 1. The City shall preserve, in its natural state, the Municipal Part of the Ordinance on ocean beaches, water, surf action, and coastal Code Maintenance, Use and Lease of shoreline in a manner that will ensure their public properties. availability for continued public use and enjoyment. Proposals for the construction of anti -erosion structures, offshore breakwaters, or future marinas shall be examined in light of this policy, 2. The City shall also preserve and enhance the Municipal Part of the Ordinance on upper bay and marine coastal preserves which Code Maintenance, Use and Lease of support varied species of plant, marine, and public properties wildlife populations to ensure their availability and continued use for ecological, educational, and aesthetic purposes. 3. Consistent with all other policies to protect and Municipal Completed; implemented by the enhance the quality residential character of the Code provisions of the RSC and community, the City shall encourage and protect RMC Districts. both public and private water -oriented recreational and entertainment facilities as a means of providing public access,to the waterfront. 0 POLICY DEVICE ACTION 4. Provision and maintenance of public restroom Policy Add Council Policy P-6 facilities is a top priority. the City should Manual regarding the provision of immediately commence planning and acquisitions restroom faciilties.(This may be necessary in order that public restrooms with required to be codified) appropriate signing be constructed as soon as possible. The size and location of the facilities shall take adjacent residences into consideration. Construction of restrooms is contingent on -the City's financial ability to construct said restrooms. Prior to construction of additional facilities, the City shall ensure that adequate resources are available for proper maintenance. • A permanent restroom facility should be constructed at West Jetty Park. • A permanent restroom facility should be constructed in the vicinity of the Balboa Branch Library. • A permanent restroom facility should be constructed at Las Arenas Park. • A permanent restroom facility should be constructed between Orange Avenue and the Santa Ana River. • The City should commence a signing program to direct the public to restrooms, access points, and boat launching. 5. Adequate marine sanitation facilities, including Municipal Implemented by adoption of pump -out stations and conveniently located Code Chapter 17.30 of the NBMC. public restrooms in the harbor area, shall be provided in order to reduce the risks of water pollution and health problems. 6. Drinking fountains shall be provided in Policy Part of new Council Policy conjunction with restroom facilities as a means of Manual P-6 on public restroom ensuring their distribution throughout the Coastal facilities.(May need to be Zone, while minin=Wng the costs of extending codified) water lines. Also, exterior showers shall be provided in conjunction with these facilities. 7. Bicycle racks shall be provided throughout the Municipal Part of the Ordinance on Coastal Zone. If available, locking, pay -your- Code Maintenance, Use and Lease of way bicycle racks shall be used. public properties 8. The City shall encourage and support the No implementing action provision of guest slips, moorings, and necessary. anchorages in Newport Harbor, and shall continue to work with the Orange County Harbor Department to provide these facilities where feasible. 12 )V POLICY DEVICE ACTION 9. The City of Newport Beach currently provides No implementing action overnight accommodations in all price ranges. necessary; amendment to this The City shall encourage the maintenance of section of the LCP is necessary overnight accommodations in all price ranges, toamendCondominium including the maintenance of existing summer . Conversion regulations. weekly rentals as a means of providing overnight accommodations. 10. The City of Newport Beach shall encourage the No implementing action County of Orange to continue to provide necessary, part of County LCP; recreational vehicle camp areas in the Newport project on the ground. Dunes area as a means of providing alternative overnight accommodations. 11. Development of the lower part of Bayview Amendment to the LCP needed Landing should be coordinated with the for consistency with the actions development in the Newport Dunes. taken related to the CIOSA agrBement. 12. The City of Newport Beach shall protect and Municipal Completed by adoption of the encourage the maintenance of lower -cost Code RSC and RMC Districts. commercial visitor -serving Facilities. 13. The City shall actively pursue the provision of a Municipal Ordinance to codify City's public launching facility for small sailboats on Code obligation to maintain the lower Newport Bay along with the required launching area provided on ublic arkin . 18th Street Beach. 14. The City shall allow short-term beaching of small Municipal Ordinance to codify the existing craft in designated areas. Code resolution identifying beach end launching areas. Coastal Dependent Uses 1. Coastal dependent development shall have Municipal Completed by adoption of priority over other developments on or near the Code RMC District, Mariner's Mile shoreline. Coastal dependent uses shall be Specific Plan and Cannery defined as those uses which require a site on or Village/McFadden Square adjacent to the sea to be able to function at all. Specific Plan. This policy will be amended as part of the consideration of alterations to marine incentive use provisions of these districts. 2. Commercially and industrially zoned areas in the Municipal Completed by adoption of Coastal Zone shall be designated for coastal Code RMC District, Mariner's Mile dependent, coastal related, and visitor serving Specific Plan and Cannery uses as priority uses. Coastal related Vidlage/McFadden Square development means any use that is dependent on Specific Plan. This policy will a coastal dependent development or use. be amended as part of the consideration of alterations to marine incentive use provisions of these districts. 13 �� POLICY DEVICE ACTION 3. Facilities which serve commercial fishing shall be Municipal Add to existing harbor permit encouraged and maintained unless the demand for Code policies and codify. the facilities no longer exist. 4. In view of the Citys attraction as a regional and Policy New Council Policy P-7 statewide recreation area, the growing regional Manual regarding the development of and statewide demand for water oriented new recreation areas. recreational facilities, and the limited capacity of the City's harbor and ocean front resources to fully satisfy such demands, the City shall encourage the opening and development of adjoining ocean and waterfront areas outside Newport Bay, so long as any adverse environmental impacts are mitigated, in a manner which may best serve to distribute the increasing public need for water -oriented recreational facilities. S. The City shall protect and maintain the necessary Municipal Implemented by RSC, RMC support facilities and services for marine Code and GEIF Districts and the recreation and educational activities, including application of those districts in marine ways and services, launching facilities, gas the Land Use Plan and related and pump -out stations, parldng facilities, Zoning Districting Maps. restrooms, showers, concessions and education facilities such as the Sea Scout Base and Intercollegiate Rowing Facilities. 6. The City shall protect and enhance public visual Municipal Part of Coastal Development access to the waterfront. New development Code Standards Ordinance. (including landscaping), public or private, shall be sited and designed to protect public views of the ocean or other coastal scenic areas. 7. The City shall designate a site for the eventual Municipal Implemented by adoption of provision of additional boat pump -out facilities. Code I Chapter 17.30 ofthe NBMC. 8. The City shall restore electrical service and Completed. provide potable water to the Rhine Channel sea wall for use by commercial fishing vessels. 9. The City shall allow dinghy launching at all safe Municipal Adopt ordinance to codify street ends and'beaches in lower Newport Bay. Code existing resolution on street end For purposes of this policy, a dinghy shall be launching areas. defined as a single hull craft with a maximum length of 12'6" and a maximum beam of 51. Oceanfront Encroachments Oceanfront Encroachment Policy Municipal Adopt ordinance to codify Code existing Council Policy L-14. 14 ap P POLICY DEVICE ACTION T -A TT- Uf., Residential'' Commercia Open Space GEIF Distri Density Lirr Subdivision Residential. Coastal Deg PLT:..\WM 0- 0 BALBOA PENINSULA CAPITAL PROJECTS 1. Arches Interchange/Bridge Improvements $10 million, 1997 (special use funds) 2. Balboa Blvd drainage improvements, 12th to 15th streets. $1 million, Jun - Sep 1995 (includes median landscaping) 3. Wells Fargo parking lot, Balboa and Palm, $HOOK aquisition, $100K construction, June 1995 4. Beach erosion control, $190K ongoing 5. Various/Miscellaneous/Ongoing a. alley replacements b. street and sidewalk replacement C. water/sewer reline/replacement d. annual pier inspections and repairs ($50K) e. Balboa Pier hand rail replacement ($90K) f. 21st Street left turn lane g. public pier and float maintenance($10K) h. street end sand replacement i. east jetty repairs ($50K) j. Washington St water valve replacement ($25K) 6. On-line Projects a. Add 109 spaces to Balboa Pier lot(1996?) b. Beach access (finger) sidewalks (1996?) 7. Recently completed projects. a. Newport Blvd. and channel bridge widening b. Balboa Blvd widening c. McFadden Square streetscape improvements d. Cannery Village curbs, gutters, street lights, meters and 30th Street parking lot E LINDA S. CONGLETON & ASSOCIATES Real Estate Marketing Analysis 8 Research DRAFT EXHIBITS CENTRAL BALBOA RETAIL CONSULTAT JUNE 28, 1995 18011 Sky Park Circle, Suite P Irvine, California 92714 (714) 474.7910 FAX (714) 474.9047 r 0 L1NDA S. CONGLETON & ASSOCIATES Real Estate Marketing Analysis & Research 18011 Sky Park Circle, Suite P Irvine, California 92714 (714)474.7910 FAX (714)474.9047 July 17, 1995 Mr. Ken Delino P-298 Assistant City Manager City of Newport Beach 330 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 SUBJECT: Summary Of First Phase Newport Beach Retail Consultation Dear Mr. Delino: The purpose of this executive summary letter report is to summarize the key conclusions and recommendations of our recently -completed first stage retail consultation pursuant to our contract dated April 12, 1995. Linda S. Congleton & Associates was retained by the City of Newport Beach to provide a general assessment of on -street retail conditions within various shopping districts of the City; to participate in on -site retail evaluations, meetings and presentations at your request; and to provide preliminary, more detailed research, conclusions and recommendations for the Central Balboa area. We would be pleased to continue this work with follow-up research for Corona Del Mar, Balboa Island and Mariners Mile, as well as second phase detailed implementation action plan programs for Central Balboa. NEWPORT BEACH'S ON -STREET RETAILING DYNAMICS City's Aging Demographics Result In Diminishing Retail Needs A number of Newport Beach's structural demographic conditions constrain the amount of future retail spending the City can expect to capture from local residents. As shown on EXHIBITS 1-2, the median age of Newport Beach citizens is over 40 years, with over a quarter of its population (26.2%) in the pre -retiree and retiree age categories (over age 55). Our national research in•retirement communities has shown that pre -retirees and retirees are very weak retail spenders, even when the households are very affluent, as in they are in Newport Beach. Retirement households are not generous shopping center spenders primarily because most of their home furnishings needs have long ago been met and because apparel needs are significantly less pressing in a casual, non -working lifestyle. In addition, their family apparel needs are diminished because their children are now typically adults living outside the community. Many retirees are highly concerned about their health and on restricted diets and they are therefore not big spenders 0C • • Linda S. Congleton & Associates at take-out and quick food establishments. Moreover, in contrast to dual working couples, such as those that abound in Irvine, retirees are poor consumers of time -saving foods such as gourmet cookies and pre-cooked deli items, because they have more time to cook. And finally, many retirees --even very affluent ones --are simply poor consumers in general because they tend to view their retirement savings as fixed in a very uncertain world with health concerns looming large on the horizon. Discretionary funds tend to be allocated for travel, retirement hobbies, grand -children gifts and perhaps children finishing their college education. Prime retail consumers are growing families, such as those found in the City of Irvine (see EXHIBITS 3-4.) In contrast to Newport Beach's aging population, the City of Irvine's median age is ten years younger (31.6 years), with only 11.2% of its population over the age of 55 years. A quarter of Irvine's population is under the age of 18, and an additional 13.7% between the ages of 18 to 24 years, for a total of nearly 40% (38.7%) under the age of 24 years. In contrast, the City of Newport Beach contains 14.3% under the age of 18 years and 9% between the ages 18 and 24 years, for a total of only 23% under the age of 24 years. Moreover, Irvine's retail centers benefit from expected continued residential growth rates of nearly 6% a year, with recent average annual rates ranging from 6% to 7%. In contrast, most of the City of Newport Beach is built out, with virtually no growth in households experienced in recent years. To the extent growth is occurring, it is contained within the Newport Coast area, located some distance from most of the residentially -oriented neighborhood shopping within the City; moreover, new neighborhood -oriented facilities are planned to meet these new residents' weekly shopping needs. While Newport Beach's median household income is only 12% higher than Irvine's ($64,400 versus $57,500), the lifestyle composition of Irvine households is more favorable for long-term for retail purchases. Whereas Irvine is expected to continue to attract growing families to its City, the higher pricing of Newport Beach housing will limit households to existing, aging couples and older, well -established families and retirees; the luxury and water -oriented housing of Newport Beach will be outside the financial means of most young, growing families,. Therefore, as Newport Beach's residents continue to age in their existing homes, immediate retail demand will tend to diminish. Importance Of Non -Resident Spending Newport Beach's on -street shopping districts are not supportable without patronage from those living outside the City limits. If the City were to adopt a policy that discouraged visitation from out-of-towners, and encouraged only retail uses supported by immediate residents, most of the City's existing retail and dining businesses would require demolition because the resident spending potential is insufficient to support all the square footage that currently exists. Cities popular with visitors, such as beach communities, typically contain large amounts of retail/dining space dependent upon out-of-town spending. -2- 0 . Linda S. Congleton & Associates Our retail research of other Southern California coastal retail projects has shown that the dominant shopping/dining groups consist of a combination of immediate residents and regional residents, with most frequent visitation coming from those who live closest to the shopping districts. Most of the "tourists" or visitors, therefore, are not those staying in overnight accommodations, but rather regional Southern California residents making a day visit to the beach, with those living closest, within perhaps a twenty minute drive time, coming more frequently than those who live farther away. The greater the popularity of the beach community, the more it draws visitors from outside its immediate residential base and the greater the amount of retail space it can support. Hotel visitors certainly play a critical role in a popular beach area such as Newport Beach, because overnight visitors, particularly vacationers, tend to spend more per shopping trip. However, the absolute annual numbers of visitor trips by overnight hotel guests are typically not as great as the trips generated by regional visitors due to the relatively greater ease of travel for Southern Californians. Newport Beach has historically been a popular dining and beach visit trip for Orange County residents --not just those living within Newport Beach. Frequently, regional residents also bring out-of-town friends and relatives for a special day or evening visit. For many years, businesses within the water -oriented areas of Newport Beach have promoted their operations to area -wide office workers, hotel guests and regional Orange County residents, as well as local residents. In fact, because of the premier, upscale image of the City, Newport Beach restaurants have long served a wide Orange County dining market. In order to highlight the importance of visitor patronage to Newport Beach businesses, we performed an expenditure potential demand analysis for Balboa Peninsula households to determine the amount of supportable resident -serving neighborhood center space (see EXHIBIT 9.) Because of the physical and psychological barrier created by the Peninsula, resident -serving neighborhood -type (such as grocery/drug store -anchored) retail uses are primarily supported by those living on the Peninsula and not those in other parts of Newport Beach because: (1) Other neighborhood centers located on the mainland side of Newport Beach serve off -Peninsula residents; and (2) Traffic congestion along the Peninsula during beach -going periods makes travel to these centers inconvenient. When mainland Newport Beach residents make day trips to the beach, they are indeed likely to shop and dine at grocery, food and retail establishments; during these trips, however, they are functioning as beach "visitors," whose visitation is less frequent than a resident who patronizes a neighborhood shopping center on a weekly basis. Our supportable square footage methodology has proven effective for a myriad of master -planned and community settings and has been validated by operating shopping center sales and resident trade area figures. The capture rates used for convenience goods (50�-60%), restaurants/cafes (10%-15%) and shoppers goods (apparel, gifts, home furnishings and other general merchandise, 5%-6%) are based on analogous trade area captures of residents' total spending for neighborhood center types of goods and services. Neighborhood type retail uses do not capture 100% of the -3- Linda S. Congleton & Associates spending potential because other types of centers, such as regional malls, power centers, discount value centers and specialty centers, as well as other shopping centers located outside the immediate resident trade area, capture portions of the residents' spending potential. Whereas our research has shown that a single neighborhood center requires at least 4,000 to 7,000 occupied households for viable, thriving support, the Balboa Peninsula contains only 6,142 occupied households (see EXHIBITS 5-6) supporting a maximum of 94,400 square feet of resident -serving neighborhood center uses pursuant to our expenditure potential model (see EXHIBIT 9), equivalent to about one sizable center or two small shopping centers. This figure of 94,400 supportable square feet is based on strong sales -per -square -foot productivities for successful shopping centers. Indeed, the Peninsula contains two small shopping centers, one anchored by Lucky and one anchored by Vons Pavilion (currently undergoing renovation), as well as several small convenience markets. Resident -serving neighborhood retail is adequately supplied by these two centers and convenience markets, and the remaining amounts of retail space are primarily serving off -Peninsula visitors. Included in the 94,400-square-foot figure is a maximum of 7,500 square feet of restaurant space supportable, based on strong sales productivities, from Peninsula resident patronage. Therefore, Peninsula residents support a portion of the restaurant/cafe sales within numerous locations along the Peninsula, with selected restaurants catering more to residents and others catering more to off -Peninsula visitors. Because Peninsula residents' neighborhood center type needs are primarily met by the Lucky and Vons Pavilion -anchored grocery store centers, a high percentage of the remaining retail space is dependent upon off -Peninsula resident patronage. Not surprisingly, many of the restaurants, in particular, as well as beach -oriented apparel and merchandise, are directly targeting visitors from outside the immediate area. For example, most of Central Balboa's retail is supported by off -Peninsula residents. According to City data and our estimates, Central Balboa contains about 154,000 square feet of retail space (see EXHIBIT 10), most of which is supported by those living off the Peninsula. One of the primary reasons Peninsula residents have a diminished need to shop many of Central Balboa's retail shops is the lure of high -name -recognition local, regional and national chain specialty stores located within Newport Beach's upscale, department -store -anchored 1.2 million -square -foot Fashion Island regional mall. The mall serves many of the Peninsula and other Newport Beach residents' fashion, gift, home furnishings and other general merchandise needs. Unlike other affluent beach city residents without a close regional shopping center (such as Laguna Beach), Newport Beach city residents enjoy an extremely wide choice of general merchandise (i.e., shoppers goods) offerings in a convenient, one -stop shopping location at Fashion Island. -4- • Linda S. Congleton & Associates 1 Impacts Of New Regional Competition Because Newport Beach's on -street shopping districts are highly dependent upon patronage from regional Orange County resident visitors, fierce competition from new and re -merchandised regional shopping/dining destinations in Orange County is the single most important factor affecting their vibrancy. Newly -introduced specialty retail and dining offerings located closer to regional Orange County residents' homes have negatively impacted Newport Beach's on -street shopping districts. This phenomenon is not unique to Newport Beach. Many Southern California coastline communities and waterfront specialty projects are currently impacted by two broad retailing and dining competition trends: (1) During the middle 1980s, traditional regional malls experienced an explosion of new specialty retail offerings as owners expanded, renovated and revitalized their centers with new design elements and added square footage. These increased specialty offerings within department -store -anchored malls lessened the consumers' perceived need to seek all types of unanchored specialty shopping areas for unique gifts, apparel and home furnishings purchases. (2) During this same period, many new, highly successful themed restaurant concepts were introduced, frequently in non -waterfront locations within easy drive times of upper -middle income neighborhoods. As traditional regional -serving retail centers experienced rapid growth in specialty retail and dining opportunities, most Southern California waterfront specialty center owners/managers and on -street shopping district landlords did little to improve their physical appearance significantly and generally did not upgrade key tenants by aggressively providing tenant improvement allowances to attract the best operators. In fact, most locations tended to do nothing, under the assumption that the strength of the water -oriented site would continually bring the needed customers. This inappropriate assumption did not recognize the power of competition. While most water -oriented locations were difficult to access, particularly those located some distance from a major freeway (as in Newport Beach), and offered only limited, paid parking, traditional retail settings frequently provided safe, convenient, often freeway -accessible, fun shopping environments with free parking. Our national research reveals that most consumers coming to water -oriented specialty shopping/dining destinations view the visit as a recreational trip to the waterfront, similar to the trip motivations of visitors to festival marketplaces such as Harborplace in Baltimore and Faneuil Hall in Boston. In other words, visitors' primary reason for coming is not to shop or eat, but rather simply to go for an outing to the waterfront. Because waterfront visits serve as an inexpensive leisure -time activity for modest income households and individuals (such as teenagers), in recent years many Southern California water -oriented -5- • 0 Linda S. Congleton & Associates projects have experienced disproportionately higher percentages of visitation from modest or low-income visitors who spend little or nothing and relatively lower proportions of local, middle or upper -middle income regional residents, the customer segment with the greatest propensity to spend. Although modest income individuals have frequented Southern California's waterfront specialty retail/dining areas for many years, this phenomenon did not become a problem for coastline businesses as long as high numbers of households with greater spending power also visited and spent shopping and dining monies at water -oriented restaurants, quick foods and shops. But not only did traditional shopping and dining competition destinations located closer to affluent, regional Orange County residents reduce the perceived desire to travel farther to water -oriented destinations for a unique dining or shopping experience, new recreational/entertainment choices also became available to compete for the leisure -time dollars of upscale regional residents. Affluent Orange County families enjoy a higher number of recreational, cultural and educational activities competing for their time than lower -income households with constrained spending power. For example, the Irvine Recreational Center, the introduction of virtual reality entertainment venues and new cinema/retail/dining entertainment projects, such as Triangle Square, all compete for the regional residents' share of recreational spending. These competing activities are often more complex, entertaining and compelling than a loosely structured day at the shoreline. As competitive recreational choices have proliferated for affluent Orange County baby boomer families, the families' entertainment expectations have increased, diminishing the overall appeal of older water -oriented specialty venues, such as those found along the Balboa Peninsula, that have not kept up with contemporary retailing, dining and entertainment merchandising. CENTRAL BALBOA'S MAJOR RETAIL ISSUES Central Balboa Contains Excellent Demographics --But Too Few Of Them The resident trade area for Central Balboa retailing is contained within an area bounded by census tract 628, which includes all households living from Peninsula Point in the south to 19th Street. The effective trade area is actually somewhat smaller, because residents living from about 15th to 19th Streets are more likely to be drawn to competitive neighborhood -serving facilities farther north along the Peninsula. However, for ease of quantification analysis, we cut off the resident trade area at the census tract boundary. Central Balboa's resident trade area contained only 2,430 households, as of the 1990 census, and a population of 4,959 persons. Although median and average household incomes are high ($53,900 and $121,560 respectively), and 100% of the households are categorized by the highest expenditure potential lifestyle clusters (see EXHIBITS 7-8), there are too few households to support even a single resident -serving neighborhood shopping center. As discussed above, a minimum of 4,000 to 7,000 households are required to support even the smallest • 0 Linda S. Congleton & Associates neighborhood -oriented shopping center, and Central Balboa has about half the households needed to support a thriving retail node. A common phenomenon that occurs in very affluent communities is the vocal outcry for services and shops to meet their upscale needs. Frequently, we are retained by cities with pockets of small, but very wealthy residents, who want to see the "best" retail and dining venues within a short distance of their homes. This phenomenon frequently occurs in low density, semi -rural estate home areas or other physically separated pockets of affluence, such as the Balboa Peninsula. What these residents fail to understand is that retail businesses require high quantities of homes --not just affluence of individual homes --to be successful. For example, a single household spends a relatively fixed amount on grocery, drug, services (such as cleaners) and dining; although wealthy households will spend more on luxury goods, even their households have a rigid limit to the amount that is spent weekly on neighborhood, resident -serving uses. Typically, the more affluent a family, the more that is spent on non -neighborhood -serving goods and services, such as private schools, cars, travel, homes, furniture, etc. Even for discretionary apparel, jewelry and gifts purchases, at a certain point this amount of spending is also fixed, and to the extent these households do spend more, they tend to do so at department -store -anchored regional malls and other big -box -anchored centers. Not surprisingly, therefore, the 154,200 square feet of Central Balboa retail and dining square footage is highly dependent upon non-resident support. Because only about half the number of households exists to support even the smallest center (say, 60,000 square feet), and because we believe much of the resident spending is being siphoned off to the two grocery -store -anchored centers to the north, dominant support for Central Balboa businesses must be coming from those living outside the immediate Central Balboa area. Because of. Central Balboa businesses' dependence on non -Peninsula patronage, the City must make the following, critical policy decision: Either the Central Balboa area must be enhanced and improved to encourage visitation by non-resident spenders or the area will continue to suffer and lose retail sales, thereby resulting in vacant, non -vital retail space, and eventually demolition of space that can not be sustained with thriving businesses. Estimated Sales Indicate Many Central Balboa Businesses Are Suffering Based on our confidential analysis of retail sales tax data and our estimated square footage allocations, we determined that a number of businesses are performing at weak, unhealthy sales productivity levels. Moreover, our estimated average sales productivities by retail categories indicated that restaurant/cafes and take-out/specialty foods are the two strongest retail categories, whereas shoppers goods (i.e., apparel, gifts, jewelry, hobby, etc.) represents the weakest category. Given the leisure -time nature of the Central Balboa visitor's trip motivation, the strength of food uses over shoppers goods purchases is not surprising. In fact, our research at other Southern California coastline projects indicates similar results: dining venues tend to outdo shoppers goods or specialty shop performances. One of the primary -7- 0 • Linda S Congleton & Associates reasons for the differential in performance is the outstanding competition specialty retail shops face from small shops within the best department -store -anchored regional malls, such as South Coast Plaza and Fashion Island. In contrast, waterfront restaurants, particularly view -oriented venues, can frequently offer environments superiot to regional mall restaurants --particularly those without entertainment -oriented or unique interiors. Of the estimated total of 154,200 square feet of Central Balboa space, 22.5%, or about 34,650 square feet, consists of personal and financial services and recreation/entertainment space. An estimated 4% or nearly 6,000 square feet is estimated to be vacant. Excluding the service, recreational/entertainment uses and vacant spaces, most of Central Balboa's remaining 113,600 square feet of retail space consists of food and drinking space either in the form of grocery, take-out, specialty, cafes, restaurants and bars/lounges (see EXHIBIT 10). About 75,600 square feet, or two-thirds (66.5%) of the 113,600 square feet, consists of food/drinking uses, with only about 38,000 square feet (or one-third) dedicated to shoppers goods businesses. Although shoppers goods businesses account for only about 38,000 square feet of the total area, these businesses are clearly suffering the most. Whereas strong shoppers goods retailers will typically perform at a minimum level of $200 to $250 per square foot, our estimated sales productivity level for this category is only about $130 per square foot, based on 1993-1994 data and estimates for non -reporting uses. Based on existing patronage drawing conditions, there is a significant over -supply of shoppers goods space. If the area is unable to improve its ability to draw spenders to its shops, the health of shoppers goods space is likely to continue to deteriorate. Under current conditions, only about 25,000 square feet of shoppers goods is supportable based on a minimum of $200 per -square -foot sales productivity; the area therefore contains an excess of about 13,000 square feet. Although restaurants/cafes are performing well above shoppers goods tenants at an estimated average of about $270 per square foot, it should be recognized that $300 to $350 per square foot productivities represent minimum acceptable productivities at strong on -street shopping districts, and that although several individual restaurants are performing at exceptionally high sales productivities, a number of others are showing very weak figures. Moreover, fast-food enterprises are truly suffering, with figures estimated at below $180 per square foot; excellent fast food outlets average $350 to $600 per square foot and higher. These mediocre figures are the clearest indicator of weak traffic from customers who spend, because small fast-food outlets are the most dependent upon high shopper traffic volumes. Quick and specialty foods are also experiencing unimpressive figures, estimated at $260 per square foot; excellent operations should exceed an average of $300 to $350 per square foot. Again, under current conditions, an over -supply of fast and quick foods exists based on under -performing revenue figures. M80 0 0 Linda S. Congleton & Associates Parking Policy Encourages Non -Spenders The City's parking policies for Central Balboa do not reward shoppers and diners who spend money within shops and restaurants, and the metered spaces most convenient to the retail businesses are not managed in a manner that would discourage their use by non -spender beach -goers. The pricing structure of most Central Balboa parking sites are organized to accommodate all day beach -goers, not short-term (two -to -three-hour) shoppers or diners. The largest lot, the city -owned Balboa Pier Lot, charges $1.00 per twenty minutes or $3.00 per hour up to a maximum of $7.00 per day (see EXHIBITS 11-12). Therefore, a shopper or diner wishing to stay only two to three hours must pay $6.00 to $7.00--the same price a beach -goer pays for staying all day. Spending patrons in Central Balboa are not rewarded in any manner for shopping in Central Balboa; in fact, the current pricing structure discourages shoppers and diners from coming for a short-term stay because numerous, competitive locations can be found throughout Orange County that offer free, valet ($1.00 tip) or favorable, validated parking. Metered parking spaces at "A" and "B" Streets and about half the spaces in the lot at Washington Street charge $.25 for 15 minutes or $1.00 per hour, or only one-third the cost of the Balboa Pier Lot. Parking in the remaining Washington Street lot spaces and at the on -street meters in front of businesses is even less expensive, at only $.25 per hour. Meters are limited to either two hours, one hour or thirty minutes. However, the time limits simply mean that a user must go back and feed the meters at the prescribed time period; nothing prevents the same user from staying in the same spot all day as long as the meters are fed. Therefore, very favorable pricing of the meters encourages some use of meters by all -day beach -goers and takes away valuable spots for those intending to spend at shops and restaurants. And because many beach -goers bring their own food and drinks and do not spend at shops, a high percentage of non -spenders are potentially absorbing valuable parking spaces for shoppers and diners. In contrast, the City of Laguna Beach has instituted a parking management policy that ensures rotation of the short-term parking spaces in the business district by utilizing a parking patrol system that marks vehicles and distributes parking violations to those that stay in the same space longer than the limit stated. This management mechanism ensures a constant rotation of the parking in the business area. Laguna Beach also issues parking stickers to local residents allowing them to park at meters without paying. This has allowed the city to extend the meters into adjacent residential areas without complaint from the residents. Other cities, such as the City of Pasadena's Old Town and Downtown Long Beach, have instituted a parking validation system that rewards those who spend in shops and restaurants by providing them with favorably priced parking over those who spend nothing. Newport Beach's parking policies provide none of the systems described above, and the City's businesses are sorely lacking any management program that encourages visitation by spending patrons. By implementing a comprehensive parking management plan, the City of Newport Beach can wo Linda S. Congleton & Associates increase its mix of spenders and decrease the number of non -spenders who absorb parking spaces near the on -street shopping districts. Central Balboa's Need For Re -Merchandising & Physical Upgrading On -street shopping districts that have been successful in the 1980s and 1990s are those that have distinguished themselves from the traditional retail settings in terms of physical environment and tenant composition. A successful on -street shopping district requires two key components: (1) The structural demographics of those living within about a twenty minute drive time must include a significant quantity of middle, upper -middle and affluent households; and (2) A distinguishing retail concept must be developed that is highly differentiated from a traditional regional mall setting. Central Balboa clearly has strong demographics living within a twenty drive time --although the best demographics are those living just outside the immediate city limits. However, the on -street building stock and tenant mix have not been refurbished and revitalized, respectively. In contrast to strong on -street dining/shopping districts, such as Old Town Pasadena and Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica, building, renovations and re -tenanting efforts have been minimal. Although Central Balboa may not have as much historic building stock as Old Town Pasadena, buildings such as the historic Pavilion structure and the history behind the Red Car lines that used to travel to the site are colorful, nostalgic set -pieces that distinguish the area from traditional retail settings. We encourage the City of Newport Beach and Central Balboa businesses to consider a second stage of research and marketing implementation action plan work aimed at realistically revitalizing the Central Balboa area. We would be pleased to continue our efforts in implementing the second stage of work. Please give us a call if we can be of assistance. Very truly yours, LINDA S. CONGLETON & ASS Linda S. Congleton Principal -nda .. ,,.,.iglet.,.... Also.....,,,., NBCITYIIM 07/20/95 -------------------------------------------------------- Avg. Population Annual In Group Quarters Year 1/ Change 8 _ _ - No. 1990 65,943 1.1% 700 1995 68,381 0.7% 1.0% 711 2000 70,798 0.7% 1.0% 722 EXHIBIT 1 SUMMARY OF SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA ---- P O P U L A T I O N D A T A ------------------------- [------------ AGE DISTRIBUTION -------------- Median 0-17 18-24 25-44 45-54 55-64 65. Age 13.3% 10.1% 35.9% 13.9% 11.3% 15.58 39.4 14.3% 9.0% 34.8% 15.6% 10.4% 15.8% 40.3 14.0% 8.7% 32.8% 17.4% 10.5% 15.3% 41.3 [------- ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION -------] Hispanic Origin Black Asian Other 4.1% 0.3% 2.9% 5.1% 0.4% 4.0% 6.2% 0.6% 5.1% ____________________________________________ ______________________________________ -"-"'-""""" ___ ---_Fi O U S E H O L D D A T A is I Occupied Avg. Annual Owner- Renter- Average [------------- HOUSEHOLD INCOME -------------] Yeat Households Change Occupied Occupied HH Size Median Average 1990 30,870 55.6% 44.4% 2.14 $60,338 $97,662 2995 32,157 0.8% 57.1% 42.9% 2.13 $64,417 $120,650 2000 33,374 0.7% 58.3% 41.7% 2.12 $75,860 ------------------------------- $146,645 • ' I/ Population figures do not include persons in group quarters. ' source: 1990 U.S. Census; 1995 Estimate and 2000 Projection per Urban Decision Systems, Inc. O Linda S Congleton & Associates NBCIYPZ EXHIBIT 2 NEIGHBORHOOD LIFESTYLE CLUSTERS - 1994 OCCUPIED HOUSEHOLDS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA _______________-----________ _ HIGHER INCOME/ ENDITURE CLUSTERS _____ --- Cluster Name Percent 1/ I Cluster Name Percent 1/ --- Cluster Name --- 07/20/95 ________________________________________________ ___ Percent 1/ I --- Cluster Name Percent 1/ ELITE SUBURBS ................ 60.2% I URBAN UPTOWN................. 26.9% 1 SECOND CITY SOCIETY .......... 0.8% 1 LANDED GENTRY ................ 0.0% Blue Blood Estates 12.5% Urban Gold Coast 3.0% Second -City Elite 0.0% Country Squires - 0.0% Winner's Circle 25.0% Money & Brains 4.3% Upward Bound 0.08 God's Country 0. 08 Executive Suites 14.3% Young Literati 27.2% Gray Power 0.8% Big Fish Small Pond 0.0% Pools & Patios 8.5% American Dreams 0.4% Greenbelt Families 0.0% • Kids & Cul-de-Sacs 0.0% Bohemian Mix 2.1% THE AFFLUENTIALS............. 5.28 EXUABAN BLUES................ 0.08 COUNTRY FAMILIES ............. 0.08 Young Influentials 5.2% New Homesteaders 0.0% Big Sky Families 0.0% TOTAL HIGHER INCOME/ New Empty Nests 0.0% New Eco-Topia 0.0% EXPENDITURE CLUSTERS....... 93.2% Boomers & Babies 0.0% Suburban Sprawl 0.0% Blue -Chip Blues ------------------------------------------------------------------ 0.0% [--------------- SELECTED SUMMARY OF HIGH PERCENTAGE CLUSTERS 2/--------------- --- Cluster Name ----------- Characteristics -------- Percent 1/ TOTAL HIGH PERCENTAGE CLUSTERS ........................................ 85.4% Winner's Circle [ New Money, Exec. Suburban Families J 25.0% Young Literati [ Upscale Urban Singles & Couples ] 17.2% Executive Suites [ Upscale White -Collar Couples J 17.1% Blue Blood Estates [ Elite Super -rich, Suburban Families ] 12.5% Pools & Patios [ Established Empty Nesters ] 8.5% Young Influentials [ Young Urban Professionals ] 5.2% --- Cluster Name --- Percent l/ REMAINING LIFESTYLE CLUSTERS. 14.6% Money & Brains 4.3% Urban Gold Coast 3.0% New Beginnings 2.2% Bohemian Mix 2.1% Upstarts & Seniors 1.1% Gray Power 0.8% Urban Achievers 0.7% American Dreams 0.4% New Empty Nests 0.0% 1/ Percent of Distribution of 1994 Occupied Households. 2/ Includes all clusters representing about 5% or greater of percentage distribution only. See Appendix for Definitions of Neighborhood Lifestyle Clusters. Source: PRIZM Clusters by C3aritas Corporation; 1994 estimates by Urban Decision Systems, Inc. TOTAL PERCENTAGE ............. 100.0% • Linda S. Congleton & Associates IRVDEMOG 07/20/95 EXHIBIT 3 SUMMARY OF SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CRARACTERISTICS CITY OF IRVINE, CALIFORNIA ---------------------------------------------------------------- P O P U L A T I O N D A T A___----___-_--_____-_----------_-_-_-____-______-____--------___� Avg. [------------ AGE DISTRIBUTION --------------I [------- ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION -------] Population Annual In Group Quarters Median Hispanic Year 1/ Change 8 No. 0-17 18-24 25-44 45-54 55-64 65♦ Age Origin Black Asian Other 1980 59,408 5.1% 3,221 28.6% 12.7% 39.5% 9.3% 6.2% 3.7% 29.3 6.8% 1.5% 7.6% 3.4% 1990 108,157 6.2% 2.0% 2,173 24.4% 13.9% 38.8% 11.7% 5.6% 5.8% 31.3 6.3% 1.8% 18.1% 2.2% 1994 126,12d 3.9% 1.4% 1,737 25.0% 13.7% 37.0% 13.0% 5.4% 5.8% 31.6 7.1% 1.6% 20.0% 2.0% 1999 145,110 2.8% 0.9% 1,324 25.0% 13.7% 34.6% 14.7% 5.9% 6.1% 32.0 8.5% 1.8% 22.2% 2.0% Year 1980 1990 1994 1999 H O U S E H O L D D A T A ___________________________. Avg. I [------------- HOUSEHOLD INCOME-------------j Occupied Annual Owner- Renter- Average Households Change Occupied Occupied HH Size Median Average 21,296 72.7% 27.3% 2.79 $38,709 $35,076 40,257 6.6% 62.5% 37.5% 2.69 $56,306 $68,754 53,039 7-.1% 60.3% 39.7% 2.38 $57,529 $72,890 70,801 5.9% 59.1% 40.9% 2.05 $63,243 $77,501 1/ Population figures do not include persons in group quarters. Source: 1980 and 1990 U.S. Census; 1994 Estimate and 1999 Projection per Urban Decision Systems, Inc. !I • 1 Linda S. Congletan & Associates IRVLIFE 07/20/95 EXHIBIT 4 NEIGHBORHOOD LIFESTYLE CLUSTERS - 1994 OCCUPIED HOUSEHOLDS CITY OF IRVINE, CALIFORNIA _______________________________________________________ HIGHER INCOME/ ENDITURE CLUSTERS _____________________________________________ _________________ --- Cluster Name ___ Percent 1/I --- Cluster Name ___ Percent 1/1 --- Cluster Name --- Percent 1/ I --- Cluster Name Percent l/ ELITE SUBURBS ................ 71.7% URBAN UPTOWN................. 0.0% SECOND CITY SOCIETY.......... 1.7% LANDED GENTRY................ 0.0% Blue Blood Estates 9.2% Urban Gold Coast 0.0% Second -City Elite 0.0% Country Squires 0.0% Winner's Circle Executive Suites 26.9% 25.9% Money b Brains Young Literati 0.0% 0.0% Upward Bound Gray Power 0.0% 1.7% God's Country Big Fish Small Pond 0.08 0.0% Pools 6 Patios 0.8% American Dreams 0.0% Greenbelt Families 0.0% Rids s Cul-de-Sacs 9.0% Bohemian Mix 0.0% THE AFFLUENTIALS............. 18.8% EXURBAN BLUES................ 0.0% COUNTRY FAMILIES............. 0.0% Big Sky Families 0.0% Young Influentials 14.6% New Homesteaders 0.0% TOTAL HIGHER INCOME/ New Empty Nests 4.2% New Eco-Topia 0.0% EXPENDITURE CLUSTERS....... 92.2% Boomers 6 Babies 0.0% Suburban Sprawl 0.0% Blue -Chip Blues 0.0% I [--------------- SELECTED SUMMARY OF HIGH PERCENTAGE CLUSTERS 2/---------------] --- Cluster Name ----------- Characteristics -------- Percent 1/ --- Cluster Name --- Percent 1/ TOTAL HIGH PERCENTAGE CLUSTERS ........................................ 95.8% ii _ _____ REMAINING LIFESTYLE CLUSTERS. 4.2% IJ TOTAL PERCENTAGE............. 100.0% Winner's Circle [ New Money, Exec. Suburban Families ] 26.9% Gray Power 1.7% Executive Suites [ Upscale White -Collar Couples ] 25.9% Military Quarters 1.0% Young Influentials [ Young Urban Professionals ] 14.6% Pools a Patios 0.8% Blue Blood Estates [ Elite Super -rich, Suburban Families ] 9.2% Hometown Retired 0.6% Kids 5 Cul-de-Sacs [ Upscale Suburban Families ] 9.0% Family Scramble 0.2% Town S Gowns [ College Town Singles ] 6.0% New Beginnings I Young Mobile City Singles ] 4.2% 1/ Percent of Distribution of 1994 Occupied Households. 2/ Includes all clusters representing about 55 or greater of percentage distribution only. See Appendix for Definitions of Neighborhood Lifestyle Clusters. Source: PRIZM Clusters by Claritas Corporation; 1994 estimates by Urban Decision Systems, Inc. Linda S. Conglelon & Associates PENDEMOG 07/20/95 EXHIBIT 5 SUMMARY OF SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS BALBOA PENINSULA, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 1/ (________________________________________________________________ P O P U L A T I O N D A T A______-___________-_______-_-______-_--_________________________] Avg. (------------ AGE DISTRIBUTION --------------] [------- ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION ------- Population Annual In Group Quarters Median Hispanic Year 2/ Change 8 No. 0-17 18-24 25-44 45-54 55-64 65a Age Origin Black Asian Other 1990 13,003 0.0% 0 8.9% 17.5% 40.6% 10.6% 9.6% 12.9% 33.7 4.8% 0.3% 1.6% 1.4% 1995 12,995 0.0% 0.0% 0 10.3% 16.1% 40.1% 11.6% 8.7% 13.2% 34.5 5.7% 0.4% 2.5% 1.4% 2000 12,973 0.0% 0.0% 0 12.3% 15.1% 38.0% 13.2% 8.7% 12.7% 35.5 6.9% 0.4% 3.3% 1.6% (_________________________________________________________________ H O U S E H O L D D A T A AVg. [------------- HOUSEHOLD INCOME -------------] Occupied Annual Owner- Renter- Average Year Households Change Occupied Occupied HH Size Median Average 1990 6,109 43.5% 56.5% 2.13 $53,310 $93,806 1995 6,142 0.1% 43.0% 57.0% 2.12 $57,380 $113,982 2000 6,151 0.0% 42.5% 57.5% 2.11 $66,828 $136,336 • 1/ Includes census tracts 628, 629 6 635 in Newport Beach, CA. 2/ Population figures do not include persons in group quarters. Source: 1990 U.S. Census; 1995 Estimate and 2000 Projection per Urban Decision Systems, Inc. Linda S. Congfeton & Associates I PENINPZM 07/20/95 EXHIBIT 6 i NEIGHBORHOOD LIFESTYLE CLUSTERS - 1994 OCCUPIED HOUSEHOLDS BALBOA PENINSULA, NEWPORT BEACH, CA /1 ______________________________________________________________ HIGHER INCOME/ ENDITURE CLUSTERS _______________________ _____________________ _____------- _------ j --- Cluster Name Percent 2/ I --- Cluster Name Percent 2/ --- Cluster Name --- Percent 2/ I --- Cluster Name Percent 2/ I ELITE SUBURBS ................ 22.7% URBAN UPTOWN................. 60.7% SECOND CITY SOCIETY.......... 0.08 LANDED GENTRY................ 0.0% Blue Blood Estates 0.0% Urban Gold Coast 0.0% Second -City Elite 0.0% Country Squires 0.0% Winner's Circle 9.8% Money & Brains 10.8% Upward Bound 0.0% God's Country 0.0% Executive Suites 12.9% Young Literati 37.0% Gray Power 0.0% Big Fish Small Pond 0.0% Pools & Patios 0.0% American Dreams 2.1% Greenbelt Families 0.0% Kids & Cul-de-Sacs 0.0% Bohemian Mix 10.6% THE AFFLUENTIALS ............. 16. 68 I EXURBAN BLUES ................ 0.0% Young Influentials 16. 68 New Homesteaders 0.0% New Empty Nests 0.08 Boomers & Babies 0.0% I Suburban Sprawl 0.0% Blue -Chip Blues 0.0% [--------------- SELECTED 1 SUMMARY OF HIGH PERCENTAGE CLUSTERS 3/---------------] --- Cluster --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name --- -------- Characteristics -------- Percent 3/ TOTAL HIGH PERCENTAGE CLUSTERS ........................................ 97.9% Young Literati [ Upscale Urban Singles & Couples ] 37.0% Young Influentials [ Young Urban Professionals ] 16.6% Executive Suites [ Upscale White -Collar Couples j 12.9% Bohemian Mix [ Bohemian Singles & Couples ] 10.6% Money & Brains [ Sophistocated Townhouse Couples ] 10.8% Winner's Circle [ Executive Suburban Families ] 9.8% COUNTRY FAMILIES ............. 0.08 Big Sky Families 0.0% New Eco-Topia 0.0% TOTAL HIGHER INCOME/ EXPENDITURE CLUSTERS....... 100.0% --- Cluster Name --- Percent 2/ REMAINING LIFESTYLE CLUSTERS. 2.18 II TOTAL PERCENTAGE ............. 100.08 American Dreams 1/ Includes Census Tracts 628, 629 and 635. 2/ Percent of Distribution of 1995 Occupied Households. 3/ Includes all clusters representing about 58 or greater of percentage distribution only. See Appendix Ear Definitions of Neighborhood Lifestyle Clusters. Source: PRIEM Clusters by Claritas Corporation; 1995 estimates by Urban Decision Systems, Inc. 2.1% Linda S. Congleton & Associates ' CSALDEMO 07/21/95 EXHIBIT 7 SUMMARY OF SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS CENTRAL BALBOA, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 1/ [________________________________________________________________ P O P U L A T I O N D A T A__-___________________________________-__--____________-_ Avg. [------------ AGE DISTRIBUTION --------------] [------- ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION ------- Population Annual In Group Quarters Median Hispanic Year 2/ Change ! No. 0-17 18-24 25-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Age Origin Black Asian Other 1990 4,959 0.0% 0 10.3% 13.5% 41.7% 11.1% 10.1% 13.4% 33.7 5.1% 0.3% 1.2% 1.5% 1995 4,888 -0.3% 0.0% 0 11.6% 11.6% 41.3% 12.5% 9.4% 13.6% 34.5 6.4% 0.5% 1.9% 1.6% 2000 4,802 -0.4% 0.0% 0 13.4% 10.4% 39.0% 14.5% 9.78 13.0% 35.5 8.1% 0.6% 2.7% 1.7% (_________________________________________________________________ H O U S E H O L D D A T A-______-_--__-_____________-___________-__--__________-__________] Avg. [------------- HOUSEHOLD INCOME -------------] (--------HOUSEHOLD SIZE-----------] Occupied Annual Owner- Renter- Average 1 2 3-4 5+ Year Households Change, Occupied Occupied HH Size Median Average person persona persons persons 1990 2,430 42.4% 57.6% 2.04 $46,301 $96,295 35.3% 39.1% 22.8% 2.7% 1995 2,416 -0.1% 43.0% 57.0% 2.02 $53,962 $121,562 35.5% 38.8% 23.1% 2.7% 2000 2,390 -0.2% 43.6% 56.4% 2.01 $63,940 ' $149,650 35.6% 38.6% 23.1% 2.7% 1/ Includes census tract 628 in Newport Beach, CA. 2/ Population figures do not include persona in group quarters. Source: 1990 U.S. Census; 1995 Estimate and 2000 Projection per Urban Decision Systems, Inc. • I • L Linda S. Congleton & Associates CRALPZM --- Cluster -Name -- Percent 2/ ELITE SUBURBS ................ 57.78 07/21/95 EXHIBIT 8 NEIGHBORHOOD LIFESTYLE CLUSTERS - 1994 OCCUPIED HOUSEHOLDS CENTRAL BALBOA, NEWPORT BEACH, CA /1 ._____________________ HIGHER INCOME/EXPENDITURE CLUSTERS ____ --- Cluster Name --- Percent 2/ --- Cluster Name --- Percent 2/ 1 --- Cluster Name --- Percent 2/ URBAN UPTOWN ................. 0.08 SECOND CITY SOCIETY.......... 0 09 LANDED GENTRY 0 08 . ................ . Country Squires God's Country Big Fish Small Pond Greenbelt Families 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Blue Blood Estates 0.0% Winner's Circle 24.8% Executive Suites 32.9% Pools s Patios 0.0% Rids N Cul-de-Sacs 0.0% Urban Gold Coast 0.0% Money a Brains 0.0% Young Literati 0.0% American Dreams 0.0% Bohemian Mix 0.0% Second -City Elite 0.0% Upward Bound 0.0% Gray Power 0.0% THE AFFLUENTIALS............. 42.3% EXURBAN BLUES................ 0.0% COUNTRY FAMILIES............. 0.0% Big Sky Families 0.0% Young Influentials 42.3% New Homesteaders 0.0% TOTAL HIGHER INCOME/ New Empty Nests Boomers a Babies 0.0% 0.0% Raw Eco-Tapia 0.0% EXPENDITURE CLUSTERS....... 100.0% Suburban Sprawl 0.0% Blue -Chip Blues 0.0% [--------------- I SELECTED SUMMARY OF HIGH PERCENTAGE CLUSTERS 3/---------------) _________________________________________________________ --- Cluster Name ----------- Characteristics -------- Percent 3/ --- Cluster Name --- Percent 2/ TOTAL RIGS PERCENTAGE CLUSTERS ........................................ 100.01h REMAINING LIFESTYLE CLUSTERS. 0.0% TOTAL PERCENTAGE............. 100.0% Young Influentials [ Young Urban Professionals ] 42.3% • Executive Suites [ Upscale Wbite-Collar Couples ] 32.9% Winner's Circle [ Executive Suburban Families j 24.8% l/ Includes Census Tract. 2/ Percent of Distribution of 1995 Occupied Households. 3/ Includes all clusters representing about 5% or greater of percentage distribution only. See Appendix for Definitions of Neighborhood Lifestyle Clusters. Source: PRIEM Clusters by Claritas Corporation; 1995 estimates by Urban Decision Systems, Inc. • • Linda S Congleton & Associates EXPENPOT Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT 9 Supportable Retail Expenditure Potential & Theoretical Supportable Retail Space for Traditional Grocery -Anchored Center: --- BALBOA PENINSULA PRIMARY TRADE AREA --- ---- TODAY'S RESIDENT MARKET ---- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- HOUSEHOLDS 1/ 6,142 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME 1/ $57,380 TOTAL DISPOSABLE INCOME (000) 2/ $296,491 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SELECTED SHOPPER'S GOODS: 3/ Expenditure Potential (000) $37,002 $37,002 Estimated Optimum Capture Rates 5.0% - 6.0% Supportable Sales Estimate (000) $1,850 $2,220 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- RESTAURANTS/CAFES: 4/ Expenditure Potential (000) Estimated Optimum Capture Rates Supportable Sales Estimate (000) ------------------------------------------ CONVENIENCE GOODS: 5/ Expenditure Potential (000) Estimated Optimum Capture Rates Supportable Sales Estimate (000) ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- $15,032 $15,032 10.0% - 15.0% $1,503 - $2,255 $51,382 $51,382 50.0% - 60.0% $25,691 - $30,829 TOTAL BALBOA PENINSULA PRIMARY TRADE AREA: Expenditure Potential (000) $103,416 $103,416 Overall Capture Rate 28.1% - 34.1% Total Supportable Sales Estimate (000) $29,044 - $35,304 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- • • Linda S Congleton & Associates EXPENPOT Page 2 of 3 EXHIBIT 9 Supportable Retail Expenditure Potential & Theoretical Supportable Retail Space for Traditional Grocery -Anchored Center: --- BALBOA PENINSULA PRIMARY TRADE AREA --- ---- TODAY'S RESIDENT MARKET ---- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [---------------- T 0 T A L P R O J E C T S A L E S----------------] SELECTED SHOPPER'S GOODS: 3/ Total Project Supportable Sales Estimate (000) $1,850 $2,220 Estimated Space Supported 7,400 - 11,101 (based on $200 - $250/s.f.) , --------------------------------------------------------------------------- RESTAURANTS/CAFES: 4/ Total Project Supportable Sales Estimate (000) $1,503 - $2,255 Estimated Space Supported 4,295 - 7,516 (based on $300 - $350/s.f.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONVENIENCE GOODS: 5/ Total Project Supportable Sales Estimate (000) $25,691 - $30,829 Estimated Space Supported 46,711 - 61,658 (based on $500 - $550/s.f.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL SHOPPER'S GOODS, RESTAURANTS/CAFES AND CONVENIENCE GOODS (excludes Recreation/Community, Financial/Personal Services and Office Space): Total Supportable Sales Estimate (000) $29,044 - $35,304 Total Estimated Space Supported 58,406 - 80,275 Total Estimated Sales per Square Foot $497 - $440 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADD RECREATION/COMMUNITY AND FINANCIAL/PERSONAL SERVICES: Percent of Total Square Footage 12.0% - 15.0% Estimated Space Supported 7,964 - 14,166 Total Supportable Retail Square Footage 66,371 - 94,441 Linda S. Congleton & Associates EXPENPOT Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT 9 Supportable Retail Expenditure Potential & Theoretical Supportable Retail Space for Traditional Grocery -Anchored Center: --- BALBOA PENINSULA PRIMARY TRADE AREA --- ---- TODAY'S RESIDENT MARKET ---- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- FOOTNOTES: l/ See EXHIBIT 3 "Summary of Selected Demograohic Characteristics: Balboa Peninsula." 2/ Per 1990 Survey of Current Business Data. 3/ Shopper's Goods include expenditures made at apparel and accessories stores, small home furnishings, shoes, jewelry, books, sporting goods, gifts, luggage and miscellaneous shopper's goods stores; per 1990 Survey of Current Business Data. V Restaurants/Cafes include expenditures made on purchased meals and beverages; per 1990 Survey of Current Business Data. 5/ Convenience Goods include expenditures made at grocery stores, foods -to -go, drug stores, liquor stores, medical supplies/ prescriptions, auto accessories, plants, and cleaning/polishing supplies; per 1990 Survey of Current Business Data. E 0 Linda S. Congleton & Associates sqftsmry EXHIBIT 10 ESTIMATED SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOCATIONS BY BUSINESS CATEGORY (1) Central Balboa Area Businesses ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Estimated Category of Business Square Feet I CAFES AND RESTAURANTS (2) 10 Operations; Average Size 3950 square feet; Total: 39,500 Percent of Area Total: 25.6% II BARS, TAVERNS & COCKTAIL LOUNGES 3 Operations; Average Size 1800 square feet; Total: 51400 Percent of Area Total: 3.5% III FAST-FOOD RESTAURANTS (2) 13 Operations; Average Size 1100 square feet; Total: 14,300 Percent of Area Total: 9.3% IV TAKE-OUT AND SPECIALTY FOODS (2) 8 Operations; Average Size 625 square feet; Total: 51000 Percent of Area Total: 3.2% Food Service Total: 64,200 Percent of Area Total: 41.6% Percent of Total Food Service, Convenience & Shopper's Goods: 56.5% V GROCERY/DRUG/CONVENIENCE GOODS (3) 3 Operations; Average Size 3800 square feet; Total: 11,400 Percent of Area Total: 7.4% VI SHOPPER'S GOODS (4) 38 Operations; Average Size 1000 square feet; Total: 38,000 Percent of Area Total: 24.6% Total Food Service, Convenience & Shopper's Goods: 113,600 Percent of Area Total: 73.7% VII PERSONAL AND FINANCIAL SERVICES 10 Operations; Average Size 1000 square feet; Total: 10,000 Percent of Area Total: 6.5% VIII RECREATION & ENTERTAINMENT (5) 17 Operations; Average Size 1450 square feet; Total: 24,650 Percent of Area Total: 16.0% IX VACANT RETAIL SPACE 7 Spaces; Average Size 850 square feet; Total: 5,950 Percent of Area Total: 3.9% Grand Total: 154,200 n; I • • Linda S. Congleton & Associates NOTES: (1) Estimated square-footages derived from total building square-footages provided by City of Newport Beach Planning and Building Dept. and LCA field observations. (2) Restaurants" are defined as food service establishments with table service; "Fast-food" establishments have counter service only; "Take-out" indicates no on -site dining area. (3) Convenience Goods include expenditures made at grocery stores, drug stores, liquor stores, medical supplies/prescriptions, auto accessories plants and cleaning & polishing supplies; per 1990 Survey of Current Business Data. (4) Shoppers Goods include expenditures made at apparel and accessories stores, small home furnishings, shoes, jewelery, books, sporting goods, gifts, luggage, and miscellaneous shopper's goods stores; per 1990 Survey of Current Business Data. (5) Does not include Balboa Theater; currently closed. • Linda S. Congleton & Associates EXHIBIT 11 CENTRAL BALBOA BUSINESS AREA PARKING ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Location Type No. of Spaces Rates Balboa Pier Lot Attended 611 $1.00/20 mins. (foot of Palm St.) Lot max $7.00 Washington St. Lot Metered 27 $0.25/15 mins. (foot of Washington) Lot max $6.00 for 6 hrs. 29 $0.05/12 mins max $0.50 for 2 hours "A" Street Lot Metered 87 $0.25/15 mins. (foot of "A" St.) Lot max $6.00 for 6 hrs. "B" Street Lot Metered 43 $0.25/15 mins. (foot of "B" St.) Lot max $6.00 for 6 hrs. Balboa Boulevard On -street 31 $0.05/12 mins (from "A" St. to Meters max $0.25 ,for 1 hour Adams St.) 11 $0.05/12 mins max $0.15 for 30 mins. Bay Avenue On -street 36 $0.05/12 mins (from Main St. to Meters max $0.50 for 2 hours Adams St.) Bay Avenue Lot Metered 7 $0.05/12 mins Lot max $0.50 for 2 hours Palm Street On -street 6 $0.05/12 mins (from Balboa B1. Meters max $0.25 for 1 hour to Oceanfront) Palm Street Lot Metered 38 $0.05/12 mins (under const.) Lot max $0.50 for 2 hours Edgewater Place Valet 230 $1.00/20 mins. Structure Only max $7.00 $2.25 total w/ Newport Landing validation Total 1156 Businesses with parking for their own clientele. Dillman's Restaurant Balboa Pavillion Balboa.Market Pavillion Realty Bal Harbor Liquor Pizza Hut Britta's Cafe 24 20 (valet only) 16 10 9 6 4 Total 85 0 • Linda S Congleton & Associates Location Balboa Pier Lot (attended lot at foot of Palm St.) Washington St. Lot (metered lot at foot of Washing- ton Street) "A" Street Lot (metered lot at foot of "A" St.) "B" Street Lot (metered lot at foot of "B" St.) Balboa Boulevard (on -street meters from "A" St. to Adams St.) Bay Avenue E. (on -street meters from Main St. to Adams St.) Bay Avenue Lot (metered lot on Bay Ave. between Main & Wash. Ste.) EXHIBIT 12 QUALITATIVE FACTORS AFFECTING PARKING Convenience Main St, businesses 1-4 blocks Balboa B1. businesses 1-5 blocks Fun Zone 2-4 blocks Newport Landing 3-5 blocks Main St. businesses 0-3 blocks Balboa B1. businesses 1-3 blocks Fun Zone 3 blocks Newport Landing 5 blocks Main St, businesses 1-3 blocks Balboa B1. businesses 1-3 blocks Fun Zone 4 blocks Newport Landing 6 blocks Main St. businesses 3-5 blocks Balboa Bl. businesses 3-5 blocks Fun Zone 6 blocks Newport Landing B blocks Main St. businesses 0-4 blocks Balboa B1. businesses 0-4 blocks Fun Zone 2-3 blocks Newport Landing 2-6 blocks Main St. businesses 0-4 blocks Balboa B1. businesses 1-4 blocks Fun Zone 0-2 blocks Newport Landing 0-3 blocks Main St. businesses 1-2 blocks Balboa B1. businesses 1-2 blocks Fun Zone 1 block Newport Landing 3 blocks Palm Street Main St. businesses 2-4 blocks (on -street meters Balboa el. businesses 0-3 blocks from Balboa B1. Fun Zone 2-3 blocks to Oceanfront) Newport Landing 3-4 blocks Security Fair - attendant present until 10 p.m. but can be dark at beach end. Good - heavy foot traffic, businesses adjacent. Fair - heavy foot traffic, can be a little dark. Poor - very remote from any activity. Good - heavy foot & auto traffic. Fair - little traffic on street. Fair - poorly visible behind businesses. Good - heavy foot traffic, businesses adjacent. Palm Street Lot Main St. businesses 1-3 blocks Good - excellent (metered lot under Balboa B1. businesses 0-3 blocks visibility & construction at Fun Zone 1 block heavy foot & Palm St. & Bay Ave.) Newport Landing 1-2 blocks auto traffic. Other Largest Sot in area; 611 cars. Pricing is oriented to beachgoers; $3.00 for 1 hour, only $7.00 all -day. Very convenient for both beach & shopping. Less expensive than Pier Lot lot $1.00/ hr vs. $3.00. Lot most convenient to beach and pier. Primarily beach parking: located outside BID and very inconvenient to stores & restaurants. Oriented to shoppers, meters max at either 30 minutes or one hour. One-way street, can be difficult to access. Very small city -owned lot, difficult to access. 6 spaces, all between Balboa B1. & oceanfront. New city lot still under construction. When done, thin will be an asset to businesses. Edgewater Place Main St. businesses 2-5 blocks Excellent - Privately owned structure; Structure Balboa B1. businesses 1-5 blocks attendant & valets all parking is done by (structure on Adams Fun Zone 2 blocks present. valets; expensive for St. at Bay Ave.) Newport Landing 0 blocks shopping & can be a wait. Other parking: There is a limited amount of unmetered on -street parking in some of the residential side streets. This tends to be monopolized by local residents and very early beach -goers. There are a limited number (about 12) 10-minute loading and unloading only spaces located in front of the Post office and some of the restaurants. E • Linda S. Congleton_ & Associates DEFLIF2 PAGE 1 OF B DEFINITIONS OF NEIGHBORHOOD LIFESTYLE CLUSTERS .................................................................................................................................. ELITE SUBURBS (Educated Affluent Executives A Professionals in Elite Metro Suburbs) Characterized by a) top eocio-economic status, b) college -plus educations, c) executive and professional occupations, d) expensive owner -occupied housing, and e) conspicuous consumption levels for many products, goods and services. Predominantly white, this cluster now also has high concentrations of wealthy Asian and Arabic immigrants. - BLUE BLOOD ESTATES (Elite Super -Rich Families) America's wealthiest neighborhoods, populated by super - upper established manngera, professionals, and heirs to "old money," accustomed to privilege, and living in luxurious surroundings. one in ten is n multi- millionaire, and there In a considerable drop from these heights to the next level of affluence. WINNER'S CIRCLE (Executive Suburban Families) The second most affluent households are typified by "new money," living in now mansions in the suburbs of the nation's major metros. These are wall -educated, mobile executives and professionals with teen -aged children. Big producers, prolific spenders, and global travelers. - EXECUTIVE SUITES (Upscale White -Collar Couples) Yoaterday'a Young Influentlala, these young families are on their way to the winner's Circle. Many have married, have moved into condos or starter homes and have pre-school kids. Leas affluent than those in the winner's Circle, they are not lean educated or ambitious, simply ten years younger. POOLS & PATIOS (Established Empty Nesters) Many of these older, established couples in executive, professional, sales and communications fields have reached their "golden" poet -child years. Dual incomes support a rich, active life of travel, leisure and entertainment. - RIDS & CUL-DE-SACS (Upscale Suburban Families) Thin affluent cluster has more married couples with children and large, 6+-person families than any other in the country. Picture a noley medley of bikes, doge, carpools, rock music and sports. II. URBAN UPTOWN (Educated, White -Collar Singles, Couples 6 Ethnics in Upscale Urban Areas) Clusters in the second most affluent social group are concentrated in the most populous urban communities, with large numbers of executives and professionals in business, flnnnce, entertainment and education. They have recently absorbed a wave of upscale Immigrants from Eastern Europe, Asia and the Middle East. - URBAN GOLD COAST (Elite Urban Singles & Couples) This unique cluster in the most densely populated, with the highest concentration of one -person households in multi -unit, high-rise buildings and the lowest of auto ownership. Other masts: most employed, white-collar, professional, rented, childless. This cluster, concentrated in New York, has the highest per -capita income in an urban area. - MONEY & BRAINS (Sophisticated Townhouse Couples) This cluster is just behind Urban Gold Coast in affluence. These neighborhoods are typified by,ewank, shipshape townhouses, apartments and condos, occupied by older married couples with relatively few children. These residents, many of them dual -income couples, are sophisticated consumers of adult luxuries --apparel, restaurants, travel. - YOUNG LITERATI (Upscale Urban Singles i Couples) Lees affluent but more educated than those in Money & Brains, these residents are younger, with a mix of executives, professionals and students living in multi -unit apartments, condos and townhouses, often in the surrounds of private urban universities. With very few children, these bons vlvantn are free to pursue art, fitness and travel. - AMERICAN DREAMS (Established Urban Immigrant'Families) If any cluster typifies the dream of success in America, this one doom. These are multi -racial, multi-lingual neighbor- hoods populated by immigrants and descendants of many ancestries. Unlike any other�Urban Uptown families, theme families tend to be large. Multiple incomes from trade and public service have brought affluence to these families. - BOHEMIAN mix (Bohemian Singles & Couples) It's only a $5 cab ride from the East Side to the Village, but the drop in income and shift in perspective are dramatic. This is America's Bohemia, an integratad, singles -dominated, high-rise hodgepodge of executives, students, actors, artiste writers and races. An interesting phenomenon --households are chiefly found in major harbor cities. • • Linda S. Congleton & Associates DEFLIF2 PAGE 2 OF S DEFINITIONS OF NEIGHBORHOOD LIFESTYLE CLUSTERS ................. —...... ........................ ...................................... .......................................... III. SECOND CITY SOCITY (Affluent and Upper -Middle Seniors and Families with Children in Smaller Cities) These three clusters compries the upper dock in hundreds of America's "second" and "odge" cities. Education and incomes are both high here, an well as home Ownership and employment as executives and professionals in essential local industries such as business, finance, health, law, communications and wholesale. They are far more conservative than their upscale peers in the suburbs of major matron. - SECOND -CITY ELITE (Upscale Executive Families) These residents are the movers and shakers of our second cities, found coast to coast with the archetypal example in the wealthy enclaves of Huntsville, Alabama. Primarily married with teenaged children, they first focus on their families, homes and clubs, then steal away to play in Europe. - UPWARD BOUND (Young Upscale White -Collar Families) Spread as ubiquitously across the country as the Second City Elites, those residents are younger, college -educated, computer -literate, dual -income, frequent -flying executives and professionals. They are primarily married, with pre-school and school -aged children in new owner -occupied single-family homes. - GRAY POWER (Affluent Retirees in Sunbelt Cities) This cluster represents over 2 million upscale senior citizens who have chosen to pull up their roots, move to the country, the sunbelt, or both, and retire amongst their peers. Though found across the nation, almost half are concentrated in 13 retirement meccas. They are health and golf fanatics with fat portfolios. IV. LANDED GENTRY (Affluent Executives and Professionals in Rural and Exurban Communities) Found scattered throughout the U.S., these clusters consist of large, multi -income families with school - aged children, headed by well-educated executives, professionals and techles. Above all they share serenity, for these neighborhoods lie far outside the metro beltways, many in the nation's most spectacular coastal areas and uplands. - COUNTRY SQUIRES (Elite Exurban Families) Picture a private -mansion island off the coast of Maine, an elegant restored Colonial village in the Barkmhiree, lush fenced -in horse farms in Leesburg, VA, or manicured gardens in Carmel by the Sea. The wealthy residents of this cluster have escaped urban stream to live in rustic luxury: big bucks in the boondocks. - GOD'S COUNTRY (Executive Exurban Families) These educated, upscale, married executives and professionals have chosen to raise their many children in the far exurbs of major matron, the outskirts of second cities, and many scenic towns. Their affluence is supported by multiple incomes. LSfeetyles center an family and the outdoors. - BIG FISH SMALL POND (Small Town Executive Families) These residents are as family -oriented as those in God's country, but they are lees affluent and more conservative, and they live in older neighborhoods. Best described as the captains of local industry, they invest in their homes and clubs and vacation by car in the U.S. - GREENBELT FAMILIES (Young, Middle -Class Town Families) slightly lees affluent than the Big Fish Small Pond residents, this cluster is younger, a bit mote married with more children, half the size, and more concentrated in smaller second cities and uplands. These young pioneers, mortgaged to the hilt, devote full energy to family entertainments and outdoor sports. , 0 Linda S Congleton & Associates DEFLIF2 PAGE 3 OF 8 DEFINITIONS OF NEIGHBORHOOD LIFESTYLE CLUSTERS ................................................................................................................................... V. THE AFFLUENTIALS (Uppor-Middle Pre- and Post -Child Couples and Families in the Suburbs) These upper -middle income residents of the Suburbs of major metropolitan areas Share above -average incomes and rentals, an eclectic mix of homes, condos and apartments, a broad spectrum of businese, technical and public service jobs, daily commuting --and little else. - YOUNG IFFLUENTIALS (Upwardly Mobile Singles B Couples) The "Young Urban Professionals," hot in the eighties, were the educated, high-tech, metropolitan sophisti- cates, the "awinglee" and childless live-in couples whose double incomes bought the good life in Boomtown USA. Then they married. At half the size, this cluster is the Last of the Yuppies. - NEW EMPTY NESTS (Upscale Suburban Fringe Couples) only a little Joao affluent than the Young Influentiale, these residents are very different. This Is a prior generation, more skewed to the northeast and far more conservative. Affluence was achieved by education and career achievements in many professions and industries. They are mostly married, poet -child, with dual incomes. - BOOMERS a BABIES (Young White -Collar Suburban Families) There are more total households with children, including many pro-schoolars, in this cluster than in any other. Skewed to the West, these residents are well -employed executives and techieo in many fields, but, with fewer high incomes, they have far lase affluence. - SUBURBAN SPRAWL (Young Suburban Townhouse Couples) Multi -racial, multi-lingual neighborhoods are typically found In the centers of major matron; this cluster is the exception, showing above -average concentrations of both native and foreign -born ethnics who have used education to become executives, administrators and technicians, moving up to the suburbs and relative affluence. - BLUE-CHIP BLUES (Upscale Blue -Collar Families) Theme large suburban families, headed by dual -income, high -school -educated parents --the top of -the blue-collar ladder --formed one of the largest clusters for twenty years. But the children have grown up and left, and blue-collar employment has declined. A 2% core remains, geographically centered in the Great Laken region. VI. INNER SUBURBS (Middle -Income Suburbs of Major Herres) These clusters straddle the national average in affluence; otherwiss, they are markedly different, two having more college -educated white collars, two with more high -school - educated blue collars, two young, one old, one mixed, and all showing distinct, variant patterns of employment, lifestyle and regional concentration. - UPSTARTS S SENIORS (Middle -Income Empty Nesters) This cluster demonstrates that youths and seniore, if employable, single and childless, have much in common. Here they share average educations and incomes in several fields such as business, finance, retail, health and public service, live in condos and apartments, and prefer the nationae retirement targets in the aunbolt and west. - NEW BEGINNINGS (Young Mobile City Singles) Concentrated in the boomtowns of the southeast and Texas, the southwest and Pacific, this cluster is a magnet for new starts. It is populated by well-educated youths, many from minority backgrounds, some divorced, others solo parents. Most live in multi -unit rentals and work in a wide variety of low-level white-collar jobs. - MOBILITY BLUES (Young Blue-Collar/Service Families) In many of the same markets but less affluent, these young, ethnically mixed, highly mobile families are the blue-collar equivalent of New Beginnings. This cluster thaws high indices for Hispanics, large families and children, with primary employment in the military, industry, transportation and public service. - GRAY COLLARS (Aging Couples in Inner Suburbs) For almost twenty years we read about the decline of the "Naar Halt": the Great Lakes industrial region, decimated by foreign takeovers in steel and automobiles and the lose of a million jobs. As a result, most of the kids took off. But the parents stayed, and here they are, highly skilled, and now enjoying a major U.S. resurgence. Linda S. Congleton & Associates PAGE 4 OF 8 DEFLIF2 DEFINITIONS OF NEIGHBORHOOD LIFESTYLE CLUSTERS .................................................................................................................................. vii. URBAN MIDSCALE (Middle -Income, Urban -Fringe Singles A Families) These middle -income residents are concentrated in the most populous metropolitan areas. Below the mean in affluence, these clusters share high population densities, ethnic diversity, public transportation, and all the perks and risks of urban life, yet are otherwise unique. - URBAN ACHIEVERS (Mid -Level White -Collar Urban Couples) More affluent than the other Urban Midecale residents because of a higher level of education, these clusters are often found in the surrounds of public urban universities. The neighborhoods show ethnic diversity and a bi-modal, young -old age profile, mixing single students with older professionals in business, finance and public services. - BIG CITY BLEND (Middle -Income Immigrant Families) Thin is the most ethnically diverse of the Urban Midecale clusters, with high concentrations of Aoinns, Hispanics and other foreign -born immigrants, with a skew to the West. Lees affluent than the Urban Achievers, these residents include an even mix of low-level white collar and blue-collar jobs, and big families living in stable, old, urban row -house areas. OLD YANKEE ROWS (Empty -Nest Middle -Class Families) Centered in the Northeast, these neighborhoods, the moat multi-lingual in this group, are magneto for recent Immigrants, especially from countries in Latin America and Asia. Lees affluent than Big City Blend residents, these have the same white -/blue-collar job mix, but run to singles in rented multi -unite. - MID -CITY MIX (African -American Singles S Families) Centered in the Northeast and Great Lakes regions, this cluster shows above -average ethnic diversity and a mix of white- and blue-collar employment. These neighbor- hoode are two-thirds black, living in urban row -house fringes, with strong college enrollments. - LATINO AMERICA (Hispanic Middle -Class Families) VIII. SECOND CITY CENTERS (Mid -Income Singles i Families in Edge and Second Cities) These five clusters represent the midscale, middle -density "edge" cities surrounding major metros, as well as many smaller, second -tier cities. With higher incomes and a lower cost of living, these residents are generally better off than their Urban Midecale peers. With minor exceptions, they are predominantly white. Otherwise, they are diverse In age, marriage, education, occupations and lifestyles. - MIDDLEBURG MANAGERS (Mid -Level White -Collar Couples) These are the people who keep the wheels rolling in our second cities, the business executives, bankers, doctors, lawyers, retailers and city -hall chiefs. Half are older, married, poet -child, half are younger, single, pre -child, affording, with above -average incomes in all brackets, an active leisure pattern of clubs and sports. - BOOMTOWN SINGLES (Middle -Income Young Singles) Much long affluent, this cluster plays host to the youth of a hundred fast-growing second cities in the Bouthern, Mid -Western and Pacific regions. These are young professionals and techles in a broad range of public and private service industries. Living in multi -unit rentals, they favor music and the Caribbean. - STARTER FAMILIES (Young Middle -Class Families) This cluster's significant drop in affluence is the price of early marriage and parenthood. This cluster has more blue-collar jobs, large families and solo parents with young children. To compensate, many live in natural beauty, with a skew to the Pacific, the Rockies and the northwestern Canadian borderlands. - SUNSET CITY BLUES (Empty Nests in Aging Industrial Cities) On a par with the Starter Families in effluence, this cluster takes us to the other side of middle age. These are skilled blue -collars, policemen, firemen and technicians who have reached the end of their careers. A few retire to the mountains or "St. Pete," but most stay home and rock on. porches near the Great Lakes and Mohawk Valley. - TOWNS S GOWNS (College Town Singles) Dominated by Latin Americana, and with the nation's This cluster contains most of our college tOwna and highest concentration of foreign -born immigrants, this university campus neighborhoods. with a typical mix of half cluster represents a giant step in achievement. Concen- locals (Towne) and half students (Gowns), residents include trated in New York, Miami, Chicago and the Southwest, thousands of penniless 18-24 year-olda plus highly educated these large young families, in rented homes and blue- professionals, all with a taste for prestige products beyond collar jobs, are college -bound and moving up. their evident moans. I • • Linda S. Congleton & Associates PAGE 5 OF B DEFLIF2 DEFINITIONS OF NEIGHBORHOOD LIFESTYLE CLUSTERS .................................................................................................................................. IX. EXURBAN BLUES (Middle s Lower -Middle Families in Second Cities a Small Towne) These clusters cover the midscalo low -density towns lying at the outskirts of all major matron and second titles alike. Most comparable to the Inner Suburbs, Urban Midecale and Second City Centers groups in affluence, three of these clusters are predominantly white, show an even age distribution, own homes, marry and raise children. The fourth defines lifestyles in military group quarters and is unique. - NEW HOMESTEADERS (Young Middle -Class Families) Thin is the only Exurban Blues cluster showing average college educations, with executives and professionals in most of the necessary fields of local service such an administration, communications, health and retail. Most are married, the young with children, the elders without, and living in homespun with crafts, camping and eporta. - MIDDLE AMERICA (Miducale Families in Midsire Towns) These families sit smack on the U.S. median for income. These are family neighborhoods, with a high index for married couples with children. They are found coast to coast in approximate balance with the U.S. population. Kids, doge, fast food, sports, fishing, camping and TV dominate their lifestyles. - RED, WHITE A BLUES (Small Town Blue -Collar Families) Just below Middle America In affluence, this cluster is far more industrial and blue-collar, with skilled workers primarily employed in mining, milling, manufac- ture and construction, and Is centered in the Appalachians, Great Lakes industrial region and Western highlands. The lifestyle is very outdoor oriented. - MILITARY QUARTERS (OIe 6 Surrounding Off -Base Families) These demographics, depicting the military life, with personnel in group quarters, are wholly atypical. Located only on and near military bases, its map skews to the nationta principal harbors and defense perimeters. It has the highest index for adults under 35; in fully integrated; and favors bare, fast care, and action sports. X. COUNTRY FAMILIES (Middle -Income Families in Rural Areas) These clusters confirm a continuing trend -to strong economic growth in rural Americas this group new rivals the Inner Suburbs, Urban Midscale, Second City Centers and Exurban Blues in midscale affluence and, with far lower living costa, suffer lose poverty. Collecting hundreds of small towns and remote exurbs, this group in largely composed of white, married couples, many with children, in industrial and agrarian occupations, living in owned houses and mobile homes - BID SKY FAMILIES (Midecale Couples, Kids i Farmland) With average college educations, thin cluster has income levels well above the U.S. median. Residents are well -paid, skilled craftsmen, machinists and builders living in scenic locales from New England and the Tidewater to the Great Laken and Rockies. Lifestyles are family -centered and devoted to hobbles, hunting and boating. - NEW ECO-TOPIA (Rural White-/Blue-Caller/Farm Families) Centered in the northern Pacific, the Rocky Mountains and northern Now England, this in the only Country Families cluster with above -average college educations, an even mix of white- i blue-collar jobs and a high index for personal computers, reflecting several new high-tech industries in these pristine ecological sanctuaries. - RIVER CITY, USA (Middle -Class Rural Families) This cluster cuts a broad swath from New England and the Mohawk Valley through the Corn, Drain and Dairy Belts to the Pacific orchards. Solid blue-collar citizens in towns like Utica, Zanesville and Butte, raising sturdy, Tom-Sawyer-ish children in decent front -porch houses. July dth parades are still boffo in River City. - SHOTGUNS a PICKUPS (Rural Blue -Collar Workers i Families) This is the least affluent of the Country Families clusters, centered in the East, both north and south, in the Great Lakes and Piedmont industrial regions. They lead the group in blue-collar jobs, are mostly married with school -age children, and go to church. They also bowl, hunt, sew and attend auto races. Linda S. Congleton & Associates DEFLIF2 PAGE 6 DF S DEFINITIONS OF NEIGHBORHOOD LIFESTYLE CLUSTERS .................................................................................................................................. XI. URRAH CORES (Low -Income Ethnically Mixed Single XII. SECOND CITY BLUES (Lower -Income Singles F Families 5 Families in Urban Areas) in Second Cities) These three clusters are heavily concentrated in highly urban areas and have the nation's lowest incomes and highest poverty ration: thin is the least affluent group. Together, theme clusters share multi -racial, multi-lingual communities of dense, rented row and high- rise apartments, with high indices for singles, solo parents with pre-school children and perennial unemployment. - SINGLE CITY BLUES (Ethnically -Mixed Urban Singles) This cluster Is found in most Eastern mega -cities, also in the new Went, and is the third most single place in America. often found near urban universities, it hoots a fair number of students. With very few children, it in a mixture of races, transients and night trades, and is beet described as "poor man'* Bohemia." - HISPANIC MIX (Urban Hispanic Singles 6 Families) This cluster collects the nation's bi-lingual, Hispanic barrios, which are chiefly concentrated in the Atlantic metro corridor, Chicago, Miami, Texas, Los Angeles and the Southwest. The neighborhoods are populated by large families with many small children. They rank second in percent foreign -born, first in transient immigration. - INNER CITIES (Inner City, Solo -Parent Families) These are the natlon'e poorest neighborhoods, with over twice its unemployment level, and many times the average in public assistance dollars. Eight out of ten households are African -American; seven in ten households with children have single parents. These�clueters cover the downtown neighborhoods of second cities and edge titles on the fringes of major matron. With low incomes but lower costs of living, these clusters are better off than their big -city cousin* in the Urban Cores. Coupled with pockets of unemployment, broken homes and solo parents, residents also have a wide range of occupations, including clerical, retail, labor, transportation, agrarian, public and private services. - SHALLTOWN DOWNTOWN (Older Renters i Young Families) Highly skewed west of the Mississippi, this cluster has received a flood of migrant* from the East, mostly very young and single. Often found near city colleges, the cluster has many students but, in the main, it In a place for fresh starts and first jobs, most as lower -echelon white-collar salespeople, clerks and technicians. - HOMETOWN RETIRED (Low -Income Older Singles i Couples) This cluster is three rungs down from Smalltown Downtown and at opposite ends of the nation and age spectrum. Barring a few hot spots in the Went, it is highly concentrated in the Appalachians and central Florida. Ranking third in singles, second in ages over 65 and first in retirement, these residents do bus tours, collect stamps, play cards and chase. - FAMILY SCRAMBLE (tow -Income Hispanic Families) Geographically centered across the Southwest and Pacific, this cluster ranks third in Hispanic population, with an overlay of Native Americans. Ranked last in higher educations, these residents show all the scars of poverty, but many are employed in transport, labor and service. - SOUTHSIDE CITY (African -American Service Workers) This cluster is almost entirely concentrated in the Southeast in the smaller cities of the Mississippi delta, the Gulf and Atlantic states. Over 70% of its households are black. Ranking filet in median household incomes, these residents are very poor, but low living costs and a mix of labor and service jobs keep them afloat. 0 Linda S. Congleton & Associates ' DEFLIF2 PAGE 7 OF 8 DEFINITIONS OF NEIGHBORHOOD LIFESTYLE CLUSTERS .................................................................................................................................. xIII. wourNG TOWNS (Low -Income Families in Small Towns) The four Working Town clusters collect thousands of remote exurbs and satellite towns, lying well outside our major matron and second cities. This group is considerably better off than the Urban Core and Second City Blues groups. These clusters share lower educations and incomes, with predominantly blue-collar occupations, an equal mix of owned and rented single - unit houses, religion, home crafts and a lot of awesome scenery. Otherwise, they are distinct. - GOLDEN PONDS (Retirement Town Seniors) Found coast to coast and corner to corner, this cluster collects a myriad of rustic towns and villages in scenic coastal, mountain, lake and valley areas, where seniors in cottages choose to retire among country neighbors. Not an old, urban or affluent an other retireea, a few play golf, but most prefer to adopt local customs. RURAL INDUSTRIA (Low -Income Blue -Collar Families) Dropping considerably in affluence, we reach the moot Industrial of the Working Town clusters. Once dependent on railroads and major markets, light industry was freed by "18-wheelare" to move ever outward seeking low -coat, non -union labor. They found it here --hundreds of blue-collar mill towns on America's rural bnckroads. - NORMA RAE-VILLE (Young Families, BS-Racial Mill Towna) This cluster is centered in the South, in the Mississippi delta, and in the Gulf and Atlantic states, which have become the center of the nation's non- durable Industries such as clothing and home furnishings. With minimal educations, a black/white population mix and unskilled labor, thin is among the poorest clusters. - MINES a MILLS (Older Families, Mine a Mill Towne) on a,par with Norma Rae -Ville in Income, this cluster is a very different place. Following a line down the Appalachians, across the Ozarks to Arizona and up the Missouri to the coal fields of Montana, this cluster is exactly what its name implies. The population is older, largely single, with fewer children, all in the midst of scenic splendor. xIV. HEARTLANDERS (Middle -Income Rural Families) The two clusters in this group describe the nation's agrarian heartland, broadly centered in the Great Plains, South Central, Mountains and Pacific, with a few pockets in the East. This group is hardly the jet set, but, as they are comparatively self-sufficient, with a low cost of living, they are not deprived. As a group, they share large, multi - generation families, long residential tenure in low -density houses and mobile homes, a mix of Hispanics and Native Americana, and a fierce independence. - AGRI-BUSINESS (Rural Farm -Town a Ranch Families) In cenoun parlance, this title covers farming, forestry, fishing, ranching, mining and other rural occupations. As a consequence, this cluster is more affluent and more skewed to the greater northwest from Lake Michigan to the Pacific. It is famous for very large families with many children, countless animals, apple pie, and going fishing. - GRAIN BELT (Farm Owners a Tenants) Thin is America's breadbasket and, on occasion, the world'e. It In centered In the Great Plains and South Central regions, and shown a high index for Latino migrant workers. Here, life Is linked to the land, ruled by the weather, and centered on family and home. Largely self-sufficient, these residents are poor only in money. -; I 0 9 Linda S. Congleton & Associates DEFLIF2 PAGE S OF B DEFINITIONS OF NEIGHBORHOOD LIFESTYLE CLUSTERS .................................................................................................................................. XV. RUSTIC LIVING (Low -Income Families in Rural Areas) These five clusters describe thousands of remote country towns, villages, hamlets and reeervatione scattered across the U.S. Residents are neither affluent nor destitute. In fact, as the five clusters have lower -middle incomes and their coat of living is minimal, they are a promising market. As a group, they share marriage, plus many elders, mobile homes, children, carpools, craftsmen and laborers in agriculturn, mining, transport and construction. - BLUE HIGHWAYS (Moderate Blue-Collar/Farm Families) on moat maps, the interetates are red, the old highways blue. This cluster follows these rondo, far off the beaten track, through our mountains and coasts, deserts and lakeahores. They are Rustle Living's youngest neighborhoods, with its largest families and the most children. They hunt and fish, love country music, camp out and attend "tractor pulls." - RUSTIC ELDERS (Low -Income, Older Rural Couples) This is the third moot elderly cluster in America, with the lowest incidence of children in the Rustic Living Group. It covers the nation but is concentrated in Appalachia, the Great Plains and the West coast. The lifestyles are pure country, with a few surprises like high indices for country clubs, power boats, sailboats, volleyball and health walks. - BACK COUNTRY FOLKS (Remote Rural/Town Families) Centered in the Eastern uplando, along a wide path from the Pennsylvania Pocono@ to the Arkansas Ozarke, these are the moot blue-collar neighborhoods in America, as anyone who has visited their playgrounds in Branson, MO, or Gatlinburge, TN, could testify. Centered in the "Bible Belt," many are hooked on Christian and country music. Source: PP.IZM Clusters by Claritas Corporation, 1994. - SCRUB PINE FLATS (Older African -American Farm Families) The most geographically concentrated of all the cluetere, found mainly in the coastal flatlands of the Atlantic and Gulf states from the James to the Mississippi rivers, these are humid, sleepy rural communities with a 35/65% mix of blacks and whites, most cut from similar cloth, in a seemingly timeless agrarian rhythm. - HARD SCRABBLE (Older Families in Poor Isolated Areas) The term "hard scrabble" in an old phrase meaning to scratch a hard living from hard soil; thus, this cluster represents our poorest rural areas from Appalachia to the Colorado@, and from the Texas border to the Dakota badlands. This cluster has the nation's peak indices for Native Americans, mining occupations and chewing tobacco. U. LtAPRM 1995 Overview of the Orange County Real Estate Market Including potential impacts of thefinancial crisis on market segments MARKET AREA. Orange County (identical to the Anaheim/Santa Ana MSA) enjoys a premier location at the hub of Southern California. It is bounded by Los Angeles County to the north, San Diego County to the south, the Inland Empire (Riverside and San Bernardino Counties) to the east, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The county includes 31 incorporated cities and numerous unincorporated communities within its nearly 800 square miles. Strategic location and quality of life are primarily responsible for Orange County's rapid evolu- tion from a predominantly rural, agricultural region into an urbanized commercial and high-tech cen- ter. During the 1950s and 1960s, economic growth in Los Angeles County fueled the suburbanization of Orange County. The acceleration of commercial and industrial development in Orange County in the 1970s and 1980s transformed the county into a mature urban center. Despite the severity of the 1991-1993 recession, Orange County retains its stature as one of the most eco- nomically vibrant components of Southern California and is well positioned for active growth during the balance of the 1990s and beyond. THE ECONOMY. Orange County's economic base evolved into one of the strongest and most diverse in the nation during the 1980s. The county gained nearly 340,000 jobs between 1980 and 1990, a compound annu- al growth rate of 3.4 percent. The first item of good news about Orange County's economic outlook is that Orange County is not Los Angeles County, and Orange County's recession is nowhere near as severe as Los Angeles County's depression. This means that the forces causing Orange County's recession are much weak- er than those operating on Los Angeles, and thus should reverse sooner. The second item of good news is that there will probably be little or no growth in Orange County in 1994. This is good news because no growth is much better than the large annual job losses of the last three years. The third item of good news is that a number of indicators point to significant job growth in 1995 and strong job growth for a few years after that. Orange County's recession approximates California's recession in terms of percentage job loss. It has been a serious recession, the deepest and longest since the 1930s, with a loss of an estimated 65,000 jobs in Orange County between June 1990 and June 1993, a 5.5% decline of 1990 employ- ment. By contrast, Orange County lost only 16,000 jobs (1.8%) during the 1981-1982 recession. Unlike Los Angeles County where every sector lost substantial numbers of jobs, three sectors of Orange County's economy had very small job gains or losses (Mining; Transportation, Communica- tion and Utilities; Government) and one sector, Services, actually gained a significant number of jobs. Orange County's job losses were largely concentrated in three sectors: Construction, Manu- facturing (primarily defense related) and Retail Trade. One positive indicator in 1994 is that the per- centage of jobs lost each month during 1994 compared to the same month in 1993 has been steadily declining. This declining rate of job loss indicates that monthly job change is expected to turn posi- tive by the end of 1994. Nevertheless, the county's unemployment rate of 7 percent is among the A PERIODIC REPORT OF INSIGHT AND ANALYSIS PUBLISHED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE OF KENNETH LEVENTHAL & COMPANY Compound Annual Growth 1980.1994 1980 1985 1990 19941 (Percent) Total Population (Thousands) 2 1,932.9 2,143.6 2,410.6 2,596.5 2.0% Nonagricultural Employment (thousands) 3 836.4 978.0 1,172.4 1,113.8 1.9% Retail Sales (Millions) $8,452.0 $13,007.4 $17,486.4 $17,503.9 5.0% Median Household Income $22,557.0 $36,692.0 $45,922.0 $49,631.0 5.4% 1 Estimated and projected. 2 Data revised In 1993 for the prior years, including 1985 and 1990. 3 California Employment Development Department. Data revised in September 1993 for prior years, Including 1985 and 1990. Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census; California Department of Finance, California Employment Development Department, California State Board of Equalization, Chapman University and Kenneth Leventhal & Company lowest of California counties. In summary, the economic recovery is expected to be slow during the next one to two years as a result of the broad -based character of the recession, continued tight credit markets, further layoffs in the defense industry, and only gradual improvement in the retail trade and con- struction industries. The Orange County economy is expected to return to econom- ic growth during 1995, and should reach an average annual growth of 25,000 to 30,000 jobs during the remainder of the decade. Orange County has a well-bal- anced economy, with all sectors repre- sented in approximately the same proportions as in the California and U.S. economies. That is a,good situation for the county since it is not overly dependent on one or two sectors. Surprisingly, Orange County is somewhat over -repre- sented in manufacturing, but this sector should approach California and U.S. per- centages as the aerospace/defense reduc- tions continue for a number of years. The county is under -represented in the gov- ernment sector, primarily because Orange County does not have a large number of state government employees, who are more concentrated in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento. The county's recovery from the recession and growth during the 1990s will be propelled by several sectors that have good prospects for solid growth, including the following: (1) residential construction started in 1994; (2) office, industrial and hotel building construction later in the decade; (3) retail building and nonbuilding construction, which provide a solid and slowly growing base of employment and economic activity; (4) some high-tech manufacturing industries; and (5) high growth services industries. Several sectors will neither particu- larly contribute to nor restrain Orange County's economic growth, but will fol- low the trend of the overall economy. These sectors include the following: (1) transportation, communications and utili- ties; (2) wholesale and retail trade; (3) finance, insurance and real estate; and (4) some services industries. Orange County's economic growth rate during the decade will be restrained by the following sectors, which will con- tinue to decline for a number of years: (1) defense -related manufacturing; (2) low value added, low cost manufacturing; and (3) federal government military and civilian employment, and federal govern- ment local purchases of goods and ser- vices, due to the base closures. DEMOGRAPHICS. Orange County's mild climate, recre- ational lifestyle and strong growth in new jobs generated rapid population growth during the 1970s and 1980s. Over 1.1 million new residents have been added since 1970, an average of nearly 50,000 people per year. The current population is 2.6 million, making Orange County the 15th largest metropolitan area in the nation. The outlook is for continued strong growth, with an average annual gain of 35,000 to 40,000 residents through the 1990s. The large number of better paying technical, professional and management jobs in the county's highly urbanized economy has resulted in an estimated median household income of almost $50,000,.tenth highest among U.S. metro- politan areas and second highest in Cali- fornia. The relative affluence of Orange County households contributes to annual retail sales of approximately $17.5 bil- lion, making the county one of the largest markets in the nation. Although the 1993 level was nearly 3% below the peak in 1990, the trend has been upward since the trough was reached in 1992. PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES. Like most California metropolitan areas, Orange County's rapid economic and residential growth during the 1970s and 1980s placed a heavy burden on the county's infrastructure. Worsening traf- fic congestion was the most visible prob- lem. Voters responded by passing Measure M in November 1990, which imposed a 1/2 percent sales tax over a 20- year period to improve the county's tmns- portation system. Projected revenues of $3 billion are being used to improve 200 miles of "superstreets," widen freeways, improve freeway interchanges, add car pool lanes and fund development of rail projects. Over $260 million has been spent to date, including $100 million for freeway improvements and $125 million for expansion of commuter rail service connecting Orange County to Los Ange- les and San Diego. Measure M has also provided funds for widening the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway and to the county's 31 cities for local road improvements. Orange County is developing the first tollways in the state with three toll - way projects planned or underway. Dur- ing 1993, a 3.2-mile segment of the Foothill transportation corridor was opened in Lake Forest, with an adjacent 4.3-mile section under construction and expected to be completed in 1995. The 30-mile Foothill tollway will eventually link the north Irvine area with San Clemente in extreme southern Orange County. In addition, despite continuing environmental challenges, grading began in September 1993 on the 17-mile San Joaquin Hills transportation corridor. Construction of the San Joaquin Hills tollway, which will provide an alternative to the severely congested San Diego Free- way, has been funded by a $1.1 billion bond issue. The tollway's scheduled 1997 completion date will make it the first major tollway completed in Califor- nia. The public tollway system, which will eventually be financed by a combina- tion of tolls, development fees and feder- al and state contributions, is supported by a majority of Orange County residents as an important step towards a long-term solution to freeway congestion. In addi- tion, under 1989 state legislation that allows for four private tollways in Cali- fornia, a private consortium is currently building a 10-mile tollway along the median strip of the Riverside Freeway, which will improve commuter access from bedroom communities in the Inland Empire. Together, the planned tollway sys- tem and Measure M improvements repre- sent a proactive approach, in a joint public -private effort, towards solving the serious transportation infrastructure prob- lems that surfaced in the county during the rapid growth of the 1970s and 1980s. The public policy response to three potential future development projects will affect Orange County land use into the next century. The first is Wescot, a major theme park and resort complex planned by the Walt Disney Company. The esti- mated $2.75 billion project, which would be located on the existing Disneyland parking lot and adjacent properties, is similar in concept to Epcot Center in Florida. The project is expected to create thousands of construction jobs and per- manent positions, as well as an estimated $150 million in annual tax revenues. Also of great interest to county residents is the closure of the El Toro and Tustin Marine Air Bases. The ultimate land use for the two bases will have an important impact on the long-term character of cen- tral and southern Orange County. Sup- port for Measure A, the reuse of the 4,700-acre El Toro Marine Base as a commercial airport, is growing particular- ly among northern county residents who believe the project will create jobs and boost the economy. However, there is still strong opposition from south county residents. EFFECT OF ORANGE COUNTY BANKRUPTCY. On December 6, 1994, the county of Orange filed for bankruptcy, which was the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history. The cause of the bankruptcy was a huge deterioration in a $7.5 billion investment pool managed by the county treasurer. The treasurer had borrowed $12 billion and invested it in bonds and derivatives betting that interest rates would decline. Instead, interest rates rose and the value of the bonds and derivatives went down sharply. The lenders of the $12 billion have sold most of the bonds that were collateral for the loans, and the loss to the pool is at least $1.7 billion of the $7.5 billion invested. One hundred eighty-seven munici- palities and agencies had funds invested in the pool. The impacts on these investors appear to be the following: ■ Short-term liquidity problems for some investors since all pool funds are frozen by the bankruptcy. ■ Large reductions in budgeted interest income from the pool for all investors. ■ Delays and possible cancellation of numerous construction projects that were to be financed from pool funds. ■ Downgrading of the ratings of tax- exempt bonds issued by Orange County entities. ■ Difficulty in issuing tax-exempt bonds in the future until the pool problem is resolved, and then proba- bly higher interest and credit enhancement costs for a time. ■ Loss of several thousand existing or potential future jobs by investors who have lost pool interest and prin- cipal. Fortunately, Orange County is start- ing into rapid growth as the county's economy recovers from its recession. Most private sector firms are relatively untouched by the bankruptcy and the pool investors' financial problems. These firms are adding jobs rapidly, but job growth for the next 2 to 3 years will be less than anticipated due to municipality and agency layoffs and project delays and cancellations. The Orange County econ- omy is sound and vigorous, and the coun- ty's bankruptcy and current financial problems will be resolved in 2 to 3 years, at which time Orange County should resume normal and strong economic growth. Residential Market DEVELOPMENT/INVESTMENT ACTIVITY. Tight credit markets and weak demand for move -up housing caused a precipitous decline in construction of new houses of over 60%, from nearly 17,000 units in 1989 to approximately 6,400 units in 1993. In 1994, the Orange Coun- ty residential market is expected to add over I1,000 units, the first significant increase in construction since 1986. 3 Homebuilders have responded to reduced demand for higher priced homes by dropping prices and building smaller, less expensive houses. A number of major builders are now offering detached houses priced from $180,000 to $220,000, levels not seen in the county on a widespread basis since 1987. Median Ah --- - --- household income, on the other hand, is with several condominium conversion significantly higher than it was in 1987, projects priced below $100,000. which combined with low interest rates, In 1994, specific residential devel- has resulted in vastly improved housing opment/investment activity included affordability. Homebuilders are now Walt Disney Company's proposal to offering a greater proportion of afford- build 650 timeshare condominiums able townhomes and condominiums, gen- along the Newport Coast, Sam Zell's erally priced from $100,000 to $170,000, purchase of three apartment complexes 1985 1990 1992 1993 1994(1) Total Households a 736,501 827,066 846,093 853,463 858,966 Housing Inventory a Total Units 773,647 870,908 895,162 902,404 908,477 Single -Family (2) b 513,436 568,062 578,412 582,087 585,631 Multifamily (3) 260,211 302,846 316,750 320,317 322,846 Owner -Occupied 422,015 496,819 508,248 512,675 515,981 Renter -Occupied 314,486 330,247 337,845 340,788 342,985 Annual Construction Total Units (4) 20,383 11,979 5,943 6,410 11,200 Single -Family c 8,965 3,352 3,582 4,507 7,200 Multifamily(3) 11,418 8,627 2,361 1,903 4,000 Manufactured Housing (5) 362 100 25 12 13 Rental Vacancy Rate (6) 1.0% 3.5% 4.7% 4.0% 4.5% Annual Sales New Units Sold - 7,722 5,418 5,441 8,000 Existing Units Sold - 29,101 24,934 25,242 33,833 Typical Sale Price for New Units Detached Single -Family d $ 171,000 $ 275,500 $ 235,600 $ 217,000 $ 220,700 Townhouses e - $ 175,100 $ 177,600 $ 177,600 $ 178,500 Apartment Condominiums f - - $ 136,700 $ 117,200 $ 123,000 Typical Rent for New Units One -Bedroom g $ 624 $ 6B5 $ 697 $ 692 $ 694 Two -Bedroom h $ 741 $ 877 $ 875 $ 874 $ 881 Typical Price for Lots$ Single -Family Lot I - $ 83,600 $ 67,500 $ 62,500 $ 65,000 (1) - (6) See Appendix. a Data revised in 1993 for prior years, including 1985 and 1990. b Includes single-family detached, single-family attached (townhomes and duplexes) and mobile homes c Includes single-family detached, single-family attached (townhomes and duplexes) d Average of sample detached single-family houses ranging from 1,000 to 2,800 square feet. a Average of sample attached townhouse ranging from 1,000 to 2,000 square feet. f Average of sample condominium units ranging from 600 to 1,400 square feet. Average unfinished one -bedroom, one -bathroom apartment. h Average unfinished two -bedroom, two -bathroom apartment. I Average of rough -graded residential lots to builders, with potential four to ten units per acre. sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census California Department of Finance, County of Orange Administrative Office, Real Estate Research Council of Southern Csll- fomia, TRW REDI Property Data, Research Network Ltd., COMPS Inc., Construction Industry Research Board and Kenneth Leventhal & Company. 4 A with plans to acquire additional projects, the transformation of one-half of the 286- acre Hughes Aircraft Company's Fuller- ton site into a 600-home master -planned community and Irvine Apartment Com- munities' plan to build approximately 2,000 apartment units by 1995. LOCATION. A large proportion of new (and future) residential developments are located south and east of the Newport/Costa Mesa Freeway (Route 55), including parts of the cities of Tustin, Irvine, Mission Viejo, Laguna Hills, Lake Forest and Laguna Niguel; and the unin- corporated areas of Rancho Santa Mar- garita and Aliso Viejo. Because developers of several large planned com- munities control the bulk of the devel- opable land in the county, most residential development is well planned and emphasizes the high -quality, recre- ationally oriented lifestyle that differenti- ates Orange County from other parts of the nation. Master -planned communities currently under development include Rancho Santa Margarita, Foothill Ranch, Aliso Viejo, Tustin Ranch, and Newport Coast. Although the majority of new res- idential construction is concentrated in south Orange County, new residential developments are also located in the cen- tral and northern regions of Orange Coun- ty, including parts of Anaheim Hills, Yorba Linda, La Habra, Brea and Hunt- ington Beach. Most of the smaller horne- builders are concentrating in northern Orange County, resulting from competi- tion from the larger publicly traded builders focusing in the south county and a decreasing supply of ready -to -build housing lots. SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING. Prices for new detached single-fami- ly houses have declined 15 to 25 percent since 1989 but appear to have reached a cyclical low in 1994. Detached houses of 1,500 to 2,000 square feet are now priced from $180,000 to $280,000 in the newer planned communities, although some new homes in good coastal or infill loca- tions are priced higher. The substantial incentives offered to homebuyers in the early part of the recession have become much less common with builders opting instead to adjust base price, home size and features. Sales of new houses in 1993, estimat- ed at approximately 5,400 units, were approximately one-half of the level expe- rienced during the boom years of 1986 to 1988, when 11,000 to 12,000 new houses were sold each year. In 1994, sales of new houses are expected to increase to approximately 8,000 units, with housing sales continuing to exhibit strong growth in 1995 and 1996. Although consumer confidence is at its highest level in five years, relative to the boom years of 1986 to 1988, the recent recession has still dampened demand throughout 1994. Sales of existing houses were slow during 1993, with an estimated 25,200 units sold (compared to 38,000 resales in 1989). Sales of existing houses in 1994 are expected to rebound with an estimated 34,000 units sold. Sales of bulk builder lots were infre- quent in 1994 as a result of slow demand and the shortage of construction financ- ing. Among the few land transactions that occurred, price levels rebounded slightly from depressed levels in 1993. Most builder lots of 4,000 to 6,000 square feet have been selling for $55,000 to $75,000, down significantly from the peak of the market in 1989, when lot prices averaged $85,000. TOWNHOUSES AND CONDOMINIUMS. The affordable townhouse and con- dominium market has been less dramati- cally impacted by the county's economic downturn. In 1991 low inventories of condominiums priced under $150,000 caused a surge of apartment conversions to for -sale housing. The price of a typical 1,300 square foot townhouse in Orange County ranges from $160,000 in less expensive inland locations to $185,000 or higher in coastal locations. Smaller townhouses and condominiums have con- tinued to sell well during the recession, with sales rates commonly more than one unit per week. RENTAL HOUSING. The apartment market remained strong through the early part of the reces- sion, with countywide vacancy rates remaining stable at 3.5 percent during 1990 and 1991. Continued job losses and Alk the increasing number of young adults postponing the formation of independent households pushed the vacancy rate to 4.0 percent in 1993 and 4.5 percent in 1994. The outlook for the apartment market is good due to the growing California econ- omy, continued strong population growth, home prices that remain out of the reach of a large portion of county res- idents, and a sizeable number of young singles and others who prefer the mobili- ty of renting. The addition of approxi- mately 2,000 apartment units in 1995 is not expected to significantly impact the Orange County rental market. PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES. Due to rapid escalation of home prices in the 1970s and 1980s, a substan- tial number of the 1.1 million workers in Orange County found they were unable to afford a new house suitable for their needs, resulting in a sizable rental market. Developers, in association with govern- ment planners, responded to the shortage of affordable housing by planning for higher -density, lower -priced for -sale product, including condominiums, affordable townhouses and moderately priced detached houses on small lots. The combined impact of housing price defla- tion, low mortgage interest rates and these public and private efforts have resulted in a level of housing affordabili- ty in Orange County not seen since the mid-1970s. OUTLOOK. Construction and sales of new hous- es, propelled by relatively low interest rates, affordable price levels and strong population growth, are expected to improve steadily during the next several years as the economy recovers and financing for housing development becomes more readily available. Move - up housing will be slower to recover, but will be favored in the long run by the maturing of the baby boomers and Orange County's continued high house- hold income levels. EFFECT OF ORANGE COUNTY BANKRUPTCY. An important concern to the Orange County housing industry is the impact that the bankruptcy will have on the psy- chology and confidence of homebuyers. 6 Purchasing a home and buying into a community are highly emotional deci- sions that are strongly impacted by a myr- iad of psychological factors. A major negative like the county bankruptcy can throw cold water on a buyer's mental willingness to change his or her financial situation and take on new debt. Additional impacts of the bankruptcy on the residential market include: ■ Increased difficulty in selling bonds to finance such projects as affordable multifamily housing or tax-exempt debt financed public improvements. ■ A delay or scrapping of projects dependent on municipal support for infrastructure. ■ A shortage of finished lots could result due to the lack of development of finished lots during the last three to four years. This would result in an imbalance of demand over supply and upward pressure on lot prices. ■ A supply and demand imbalance coupled with municipalities' need to generate more revenue, may create an entitlement environment in which government would be more inclined to allow new development and high- er densities in exchange for higher fees. ■ A temporary reduction in the rate of job growth will have a moderating effect on overall housing sales. Each of these impacts is expected to contribute to some short-term delays in housing unit production and home sales. However, as the ramifications of the bankruptcy become clearer and a workout plan is adopted, the delayed purchase and production decisions should return to the residential market. Retail Market DEVELOPMENT/INVESTMENT ACTIVITY. Orange County has 12 regional shop- ping centers and 300 neighborhood and community shopping centers. Included in the regional centers are two major dis- count -oriented projects, Tustin Market- place (760,000 square feet) and Anaheim Hills Festival (600,000 square feet). These projects were developed in response to mainstream consumer prefer- ences for value pricing. By including an entertainment component, including restaurant pads, a food court and cinema complex, new discount centers are posi- tioned as an alternative to regional malls. Future projects are dominated by large discount centers. Foothill Ranch Town Centre, a proposed 1.3 million square foot discount center in the Foothill Ranch planned community, has signed Wal-Mart, HomeBase, Mervyn's and Target as anchor tenants. Other proposed retail centers include Marketplace at Laguna Niguel (500,000 square feet), Mission Viejo Freeway Center (290,000 square feet) and Santa Margarita Town Center (300,000 square feet). Metro Pointe Mall, a proposed 450,000 square foot open-air shopping center, has been approved by the Costa Mesa City Council and is due to open in time for the 1995 holiday season. Anaheim Plaza, Orange County's first shopping mall, is being converted into an open-air discount cen- ter. Several other discount -oriented shop- ping centers are under construction or planned in southern Orange County com- munities, including Rancho Santa Mar- garita, Mission Viejo and Laguna Niguel. REGIONAL CENTERS. Since 1989, most of the regional cen- ters in Orange County have undergone renovation or expansion in heated compe- tition for market share and retail sales. Although the impact of the increased number of discounters is yet to be seen, improved personal income and retail sales in 1994 continue to support high sales per square foot in the county's'larg- er regional centers. NONREGIONAL CENTERS. Active formation of city redevelop- ment agencies during the 1980s encour- aged the construction and renovation of community and neighborhood shopping centers in infill locations. In addition, actively developing master -planned com- munities in south Orange County typical- ly include shopping centers as a component of the plan. Because of the limited availability of prime retail sites in growing new communities, it is possible to achieve higher rents than in the older, northern sections of the county. RENTS/LEASE TERMS. Rental rates for regional malls range from $25 to $40 per square foot, triple net, in premier centers. New neighbor- hood centers typically rent for $10 to $20 per square foot, triple net. Retail land prices have been stable for the past sever- al years as a result of the continued expansion of major supermarkets and dis- count retailers in the county. PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES. Because of the revenue from sales taxes that shopping centers generate, cities offer various incentives to attract retail centers, including reduced land costs in redevelopment areas, sales tax rebates, accelerated development pro- cessing, and density or parking bonuses. High -volume, warehouse -type outlets and power centers are the most sought- after retail developments, because they generate a substantial amount of revenue to the city from sales taxes. OUTLOOK. Competition among regional centers will result in continued renovation and expansion of the older malls, including planned improvements to the older Mis- sion Viejo mall and Laguna Hills mall in southern Orange County. Discount cen- ters will continue to be developed in response to consumer demand, and most of the new retail center construction will occur in south Orange County (south and east of the 55 freeway) where most of the housing units will be built. EFFECT OF ORANGE COUNTY BANKRUPTCY. The December 1994 county bank- ruptcy filing could have several short- term impacts on the retail real estate market. These impacts include: ■ A temporary reduction in the job growth rate resulting from the finan- cial crisis will slow the growth in consumer purchases and, in turn, will reduce increases in demand for retail space. ■ An overall reduction in the growth of demand for retail space could delay several of the county's planned major retail expansions. Prior to the bankruptcy, the county was experiencing a downward trend in retail real estate vacancy rates. For the reasons outlined above, the financial crises could put a short-term delay in this trend. Office Market DEVELOPMENT/INVESTMENT ACTIVITY. Office rents are generally well below the level necessary to justify new projects in Orange County. In 1994,the Santa Ana Xerox Center (a 210,000 square foot class A office building) was completed and"1 the only major office project to be developed since 1991, when six office projects, representing 2 million square feet of space, were completed. The dearth of new development is likely to continue for several years, until an eco- nomic rebound generates enough office employment to fill up a significant por- tion of the approximately 11.6 million square feet currently vacant. The 1985 1990 1992 1993 1994(1) Disposable Personal Income (Millions) a $40,047 $58,983 $60,343 $62,940 $66,206 Retail Sales (Millions) b $13,007 $17,486 $16,819 $16,726 $17,504 Regional Centers (2) 0 32,58 600,000 0 0 Annual New Construction (sf) (3) 0 0 New Centers (sf) p 0 0 600,000 p 0 Expansion of Existing Centers (SO 0 32,566 0 0 Rehabilitation of Existing Centers (sf) 0 2,174,782 0 0 Number of Centers 11 12 — 12 11 % 12 8% 12 7% Vacancy Rate (4) — Non -Regional Centers (5) Annual New Construction (So (3) 1,427,205 687,383 1,276,000 615,000 503,000 New Centers (sf) 1,427,205 687,383 1,276,000 615,000 503,000 Rehabilitation of Existing Centers (SO 603,000 1,052,307 1,914,500 430,000 1,692,661 Number of Centers 189 7.7% 253 8.1 % 281 9.3 % 285 9.19/0 308 8.4% Vacancy Rate (4) Typical Rates for Leases (per sf per year) and Percentage Rate Applied (6) Regional Centers Women's Ready -to -Wear (7) Men's Wear (8) Family Shoes (9) Non -Regional Centers Supermarkets (10) Cleaners (11) Typical Price for Land (per acre) Regional Centers c Nonregional Centers (12) (1) - (12) See Appendix. a Total personal Income b Taxable retail sales c No land purchases for regional centers in recent years. — $26.85 0%) $25.00 (61A) $25.00 (6%) $27.00 (s%) — $25.70 (696) $24.00 (6%) $24.00 (6%) $25.00 (696) — $27.14 (6%) $26.00 (696) $26.00 (6%) $27.00 (6%) $13.12(i.2s%) $12.50(1.26%) $12.50(ia5%) $11.50(1.42%) $22.60(s.75%) $22:00(s.75%) $22.00(5.75%) $24.00(e.6o%) $620,000 $620,000 $580,000 $540,000 Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census; Cellfomle Department of Flnance, California State Board of Equalization, National Research Bureau, The Irvine Company, COMPS Inc, and Kenneth Leventhal & Company. improved supply -demand balance will likely drive vacancy rates towards single digits, eventually forcing rents up to lev- els that make new projects financially feasible. The countywide inventory of multi - tenant class A office space now stands at 55 million square feet. From 1988 to 1991, over 80 percent of the office space added was in mid- and high-rise buildings (4 to 21 floors). During the past few years, low rent levels have encouraged a migration from industrial space, older office buildings, and class B and C into class A space. Orange County has also benefited from a flight of business from older areas of Los Angeles County. As a result, the class A airport office market experienced a decline in vacancy from nearly 21 percent in 1992 to under 17% in 1994. In 1994, overall absorption of office space increased at about the same rate as in 1992 and 1993. All areas of Orange County realized positive net absorption with the exception of the cen- tral Orange County office market. Orange County lacks a traditional central business district or downtown. The greater Orange County Airport area, with nearly 50 percent of the county's office inventory, is the financial and busi- ness center of the county. A second major office node includes the commer- cial areas of Anaheim, Santa Ana and Orange in central Orange County, and a third commercial node is emerging at the Spectrum in east Irvine. CORE AREA MARKET. The airport area, the dominant com- mercial core of Orange County, has over 25 million square feet of mid- and high- rise office space, most of it built since 1980. Tenants are generally financial, business service, real estate, and medical technology firms. During the 1980s, absorption in the airport area ranged from 1.5 million to 1.9 million square feet each year, representing 45 to 50 percent of the countywide total. Declining lease rates have allowed users who would not tradi- tionally occupy class A space to enter this market, thus much of the new high-rise space absorbed in the airport area has come at the expense of existing low-rise space and even some industrial projects. The airport area includes both multi- use developments and individual office towers. Buildings completed in the late 1980s tend to be of higher quality and more distinctive architectural design; larger office developments typically include amenities like hotels, restaurants, health clubs, and concierges. Lack of available land, lengthy and complex development processing procedures, traf- fic congestion, and proponents of slow growth could constrain long-term office development in the airport area. Very few office sites have been sold in recent years, but it is estimated that land values have decreased substantially as a result of falling lease rates and slowed absorption. SUBURBAN MARKETS. The remaining commercial areas of Orange County are more suburban in character. Significant suburban office centers are located in the cities of Brea and Anaheim in the northern part of the county, in Orange and Santa Ana in the central section, and in east Irvine, Laguna Hills, and Mission Viejo in the southern section. The northern market area is charac- terized by low- and mid -rise office space occupied by back -office financial, insur- ance, and business service firms. This office/service center has evolved as a result of good access to the labor pool in adjoining Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The central county tends to attract a wide variety of insurance and business service companies and law firms that enjoy convenient access to the court- house facilities in Santa Ana, while the south county is dominated by smaller engineering, R&D, biomedical, other high-tech firms, and local service estab- lishments. The availability of office land in the Spectrum, and an extensive interest in redevelopment in the central county, should lead to increased market shares, at the expense of the airport area, during the latter part of the decade. BUSINESS PARKS. The business park/R&D market, which offers a mixture of office, R&D, high-tech, and flex -tech space, accounted for 1.5 million to 2.5 million square feet annually of space constructed during the mid to late 1980s. Space offered is typi- cally in two-story buildings with 50 to 70 percent office space and the balance open warehouse or high -bay space, a parking ratio of three spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area, and lease rates signifi- cantly less than garden -style office build- ings. As with other office -related uses, the value of land in business parks has declined significantly. The major new business parks located in southern Orange County include Irvine Spectrum, Rancho Santa Margarita Business Park, Pacific Park in Aliso Viejo, Pacific Com- mercenter, Foothill Ranch Business Park and Rancho San Clemente Business Park. FINANCING. Financing for new speculative office projects in Orange County has become non-existent because of unfavorable eco- nomic and market conditions and the gen- eral shortage of capital for development. New speculative construction activity is unlikely to return for several years, which should benefit existing building owners as rents return to more normal levels. RENTS/LEASE TERMS. The highest office rental rates are in the newer high-rise towers in the airport area, where average annual asking rates typically range from $19 to $20 per square foot, full service gross. Asking rental rates for suburban mid- and high- rise buildings range from $17 to $20 per square foot, full service gross, and those for low-rise garden -style buildings from $15 to $18 per square foot, full service gross. In the past, the substantial inventory of vacant office space led to significant concessions in the form of free rent, above -standard tenant improvements and free parking. Recently, however, the trend has been toward reduced coupon rents and fewer concessions. In lieu of free rent, many leases are being signed with substantial discounts in the first year of the term with an increase to market rent in the second year. STANDARD LEASE TERMS FOR NEW OFFICE SPACE Original Lease Length: 5 years Number of Renewals: 1 Length of Renewal Term: 1-5 years Free Rent: None Escalation Clauses: Flat over term of original lease Tenant Improvement Allowances: $27-$30 per usable square foot for shell space Pass Throughs: Above base year stop or about $8.00 per square foot Other Concessions: Parking negotiated Typical Size of Space Leased: 5,000 square feet Effective Rent: $18.00 per square foot per year (full service gross) PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES. million square feet per year, with the New office development activity will heaviest concentration in the airport area, be minimal until projects again become the central county, and the Spectrum. In financially feasible. In the long-term, the the near term, however, property owners impact of commercial development on and developers will continue to face low local traffic congestion threatens to limit rents and continued severe constraints on development in some municipalities. the availability of capital for new con - However, other cities have shown an struction. Declining vacancies have interest in attracting mixed -use projects already begun to benefit some well-locat- to revitalize older urban areas. ed class A properties, with associated reductions in concessions. Quality prop - OUTLOOK. erties stand to experience steadily As the economy expands, net absorp- improving conditions as the economy tion is expected to rebound to two to three recovers. Anticipating the growing econ- 1985 1990 1992 1993 1994(1) office Employment Indicators (2) a FIRE 72,900 95,900 94,400 92,300 90,000 Business Services - 77,300 80,600 86,400 86,700 Office Inventory (sf) b 35,891,840 60,452,870 62,915,390 62,894,390 63,130,810 Annual Construction (sl) 7,090,530 2,939,000 0 210,000 0 High Density (sf) c - 2,381,000 0 210,000 0 Low Density (st) d - 558,000 0 0 0 Annual Absorption (SO (3) 3,040,700 2,545,900 732,300 858,200 800,000 Vacancy Rate (4) 16.3% 16.8% 20.8% 18.4% 18.4% Orange County Airport Area - 16.0% 20.5% 17.5% 16.6% Suburbs - 17.4% 21.1 % 19.1 % 19.9% Typical Rate for Leases (per sf per year) e Orange County Airport Area $24.24 $24.18 $19.98 $19.56 $19.68 Suburban High -Rise f - $19.58 $18.53 $18.05 $17.88 Office Park (5) - $16.99 $15.91 $15.31 $15.10 Typical Price for Land (per sf) Orange County Airport Area 9•I - $35.00 - - - Suburban High -Rise h.I - $30.00 - - - Office Park (5) if - $19.75 - - - (1) - (5) See Appendix. a California Employment Development Department. Data revised September 1993 for prior years. b Total of vacant and occupied multitenant speculative office space over 25,000 square feet. c Buildings with four or more floors. d Buildings with one to three floors. e Asking rents for leasable space, full service gross. Effective rents average 8 to 12 percent less. f Buildings with four or more floors outside the Orange County Airport area. s For a site for a building of four or more floors with an allowable FAR of 0.6 to 2.0. h For a site for a building of four or more floors outside the Orange County Airport area with an allowable FAR of 0.6 to 1.5. 1 For a site for a building of one to three floors with an allowable FAR of 0.3 to 0.5. I No significant land purchases for office space In 1992 -1994. Sources: Caffomfe Employment Development Department, The Newport Economics Group, COMPS Ina and Kenneth Leventhal & Company. omy, over 24 million square feet of new office construction is planned for 1996 and beyond, with most of the future construc- tion to be built in the northern, central and Newport Beach/airport regions of Orange County. Limited build -to -suit construc- tion may begin in 1995 and The Irvine Company has plans to build additional office buildings at the Spectrum. Signifi- cant new speculative construction will probably not be seen for 2-3 years until vacancies decline further and rents increase to the level of financial feasibility. EFFECT OF ORANGE COUNTY BANKRUPTCY. The Orange County bankruptcy may have several impacts on the office real estate market. However, the full scope of the financial crises on the office market is still being determined. Identified impacts include: ■ The potential consolidation of the county and other agency workforces may lead to increased vacancy rates in the central county market. This consolidation could result in a signif- icant adverse effect on the central county class B office market. ■ From the perspective of an individual property owner, with the county as a tenant, the bankruptcy allows the county to "reject" existing leases. "Reject" basically means terminate, with the resulting claim treated as a general unsecured claim, with a low priority. ■ A temporary reduction in the rate of job growth resulting from the finan- cial crises will somewhat reduce overall demand for office space in the short term. Prior to the bankruptcy, the county was experiencing a downward trend in office vacancy rates. For the reasons out- lined above, the financial crises could put a short-term delay in this trend. Industrial Market DEVELOPMENT/INVESTMENT ACTIVITY. Despite a lack of new speculative industrial development in Orange County during the past year, vacancies decreased to 11.4 percent, representing about 26 million square feet of the 226 million square feet of industrial inventory in the county. The vacant inventory is primari- ly made up of approximately 20 million square feet located in the northern and airport/industrial market areas. New con- struction over the next two to three years is expected to range from 50,000 to 150,000 square feet. The county has a variety of industrial product types, including light manufac- turing/assembly, showroom, incubator, and high-tech/R&D space. Light indus- trial projects dominate the northern and central sectors of the county, where a shortage of available land should limit additional development. In contrast, the south county has extensive industrially zoned land within the major business parks, which should see the bulk of future development. Relatively high land prices will continue to force many low -end users to less expensive markets (primarily in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties). In 1994 the average price for most types of industrial land in Orange County fell to under $9.00 per square foot. Land for R&D space was priced somewhat higher, at an average of approximately $12.00' per square foot. Net absorption decreased from 1993 levels from 2.5 mil- lion square feet to 1.5 million square feet in 1994. RENTS/LEASE TERMS. Average rental rates for industrial and R&D space have remained flat in 1994, primarily as a result of substantial vacancies. The average asking rate for R&D space, often containing 50 percent or more office space, is $7.70 per square foot per year, triple net. Asking rates for traditional concrete tilt -up, light industri- al buildings (generally less than 30 per- cent office space) average $4.60 per square foot per year, triple net and aver- age asking rates for warehouse space average $4.00 per square foot, triple net. Effective rates, after considering conces- sions, are estimated at 10 to IS percent less. PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES. The county's industrial base for the most part is made up of clean light manu- facturing, warehouse, R&D, and corpo- rate headquarters buildings. Public policy precludes any manufacturing of hazardous materials or heavy, industrial uses, and high land costs tend to result in land uses consistent with this policy. OUTLOOK. Although the outlook for the indus- trial market is positive in the long-term, rental rates will remain flat over the near term due to the large inventory of vacant space. Leasing activity should rebound during the next several years as the econ- omy recovers. New construction will pick up as vacanciesAeclinaand rents increase to a level of financial feasibility. EFFECT OF ORANGE COUNTY BANKRUPTCY. The Orange County bankruptcy is expected to have a minimal effect on the industrial real estate market. The bank- ruptcy is expected to slow down overall county job growth, but the fiscal crises should have only a short-term dampening effect on the downward trend in industri- al vacancy rates. One uncertainty is whether lessors will be able to obtain lease commitments which pass through property taxes to lessees. The effect of the bankruptcy on the tax appeal and refund process is an extremely complicated legal issue which will take time to resolve. Landlords and tenants should continue to seek prudent advice and counsel to reduce exposure to property taxes. Hotel Market TRENDS. Due to overbuilt market conditions continuing throughout Orange County and the resulting decline in occupancies and/or average room rates over the past few years, little new hotel construction has occurred in the county since 1989, other than a handful of smaller, moderate- ly priced hotels. Most hotel development plans in all areas of the county have been put on hold or abandoned. Orange Coun- ty hotels have realized marginal -to -little economic growth due to the recent inverse trend between occupancy rates and average daily room rates. From 1992 to 1993,total Orange County hotels increased 3 occupancy points(60.6% to 63.5%) while average daily room rates decreased $2.00 ($62.00 to $60.00). In 10 Industrial Employment (2) a Manufacturing b Wholesale Trade Industrial Inventory (sf) (3) c Annual Construction (So d Industrial Space (sf) (4) Hybrid Industrial / Office Space (sf) (5) Annual Absorption (so a Industrial Space Of) (4) Hybrid Industrial / Office Space (sf) (5) Vacancy Rate (6) Typical Rate for Leases (per sf per year) f High -Tech / R & D 9 General Manufacturing f Warehouse (7) Typical Price for Land (per acre)1 Industrial Parks (8)1 Hybrid industrial / Office Space (9) k 1985 1990 1992 1993 1994 (1) 235,800 244,000 218,800 209,000 206,500 59,000 81,400 79,200 75,600 73,000 197,855,000 223,396,000 225,243,000 225,480,000 225,558,000 5,971,000 5,347,000 704,000 237,000 78,000 1,956.000 3,462,000 1,729,000 2,459,000 1,500,000 9.4% 10.8% 13.8% 12.8% 11.4% — $8.57 $8.01 $7.36 $7.70 — $5.64 $4.84 $4.63 $4.62 — $5.37 $4.29 $3.94 $4.00 — $440,000 $400,000 $400,000 $340,000 — $6DO,000 $540,000 $540,000 — (1) - (9) See Appendix. ■ California Employment Development Department. Data revised in September 1993 for prior years. b In durable and nondurable goods. c The Inventory of space is effected by the changing ability of properties held as owner/user facilities, In addition to construction and demolition. d Speculative construction. a Net space leased. f Triple net rent, excluding real estate taxes, operating expenses, and Insurance. o Countywide average for single -tenant buildings with 50 to 90 percent office space. h Countywide average for single -tenant buildings wtih light manufacturing with less than 30 percent office space. I Average of sample sales. I Site with an allowable FAR of 0.2 to 0.4. x Site with an allowable FAR of 0.3 to 0.5. Sources: California Employment Development Department, Ca Commercial, Torto Wheaton, COMPS Inc. and Kenneth Leventhal & Company. 1994, occupancy decreased 1-1/2 points while average daily rates increased $1.50. In 1993, as average daily rates decreased, all quality segments of the Orange County hotel market modestly improved with respect to occupancy. The luxury (Four Seasons, Ritz Carlton), upscale (Doubletree, Marriott, Hyatt, Hilton, Westin) and mid -price (Court- yard) market segments realized increases in occupancy of 3% to 41/o while the econ- omy (La Quinta) and budget (Motel 6) segments realized 1% to 2% increases in occupancy. The higher -priced hotels realized higher occupancy increases pri- marily due to the fact that they were the hotels that suffered the most in prior years during the recession. in mid-1994, overall Orange County occupancy decreased. South Orange County hotel occupancy rates remained flat or increased slightly. Almost all areas and quality segments of Orange County realized about a 2% increase in average daily rates. The luxury market segment was the only segment to realize increases in both occupancy and average daily rates. For 1995, the airport hotel market of Orange County should show the strongest increase in occupancy with mid-price/all-suite segments continuing to out -perform other hotel types. In comparison, as overall Orange County hotel occupancy levels declined in 1994 over 1993 levels, most major metropolitan U.S. markets have realized gains in occupancy in 1994 over 1993 levels, including Los Angeles. This is largely due to the Anaheim hotel market which comprises a significant amount of the overall Orange County hotel invento- ry. Anaheim has suffered from a decrease in convention attendance and a decrease in tourism to Disneyland. (It should be noted that overall attendance at Disney- land has not realized significant declines due to a larger percentage of attendance from locals who do not use hotel rooms.) Another negative impact to the hotel mar- ket over the past few years has been due to the large defense cut -backs. The largest impact of these cut -backs has been to the aerospace industry, where less inbound travel to aerospace -related plants in north Orange County has reduced demand for hotel rooms. OUTLOOK. As a result of the recent recession and the continued difficulty of securing capital for construction financing, a limit- ed supply of new hotel construction is expected. The short-term outlook for the Orange County hotel market is driven by this anticipated slow growth in supply, the overall economic recovery of Califor- nia and the growing economy in the east- ern United States, which has historically provided a significant demand for Orange County hotel rooms. As the overall Cali- fornia economy grows stronger, overall occupancy for Orange County hotels is expected to increase to about 65% by 1995 and potentially grow at annual rates of one to three percentage points until occupancy stabilizes at approximately 70% by 1997. In most areas of Orange County, average daily room rates are expected to increase $1.00 to $2.00 per year. With no expected major additions to supply, Orange County hotels may have an opportunity to push average daily room rates to a growth level at or above the level of inflation. As a result, Orange County hotels should realize increasing profitability due to stronger occupancy and average daily room rates coupled with decreasing fixed costs. Fixed costs include interest and property taxes which have been reduced for a majority of hotels over the past few years through restruc- turing of loans and property tax appeals. New hotel construction is expected to remain minimal for 3 to 4 years until occupancies and average daily room rates increase significantly. The long-term outlook for the north Orange County hotel market will be impacted by Dis- ney's decision to expand Disneyland. At the printing of this article, Disney has yet to make a formal decision to proceed with an expansion plan defining the size and magnitude of the Wescot theme park. Disney is continuing to finalize the financing of the infrastructure and deter- mine the economics of an overall resort development. It is expected that the majority of the $750 million of infrastruc- ture capital may come from federal, state and/or county government funding. The total resort development, if Wescot is built as approved, is estimated at $2.75 billion. Numerous developers have sub- mitted plans and are expected to expand existing hotels and/or build new hotels in the Disneyland area if Wescot goes for- ward as planned. Disney has already been approved to build approximately 6,000 additional rooms if the Wescot theme park is built. The city of Anaheim is in the process of funding the expan- sion/renovation of the Anaheim Conven- tion Center. For the long-term, this should positively impact the demand for hotels as Orange County is determined to compete against the renovated conven- tion centers built in Los Angeles and Long Beach and the new convention cen- ter in San Diego. EFFECT OF ORANGE COUNTY BANKRUPTCY. The Orange County bankruptcy could deliver a serious blow to the pro- posed Wescot expansion. The bankruptcy could cut off municipal funding for free- way and infrastructure improvements and publicly financed parking structures. Additional impacts to the county hotel industry could include: ■ An increase in hotel occupancy taxes ■ Slower growth in hotel occupancy rates resulting from: ■ A lower growth in tourism result- ing from the county's deteriorat- ing public image. ■ Delays in new business forma- tions. ■ Decisions by businesses not to locate or expand in the county. This report was prepared by the real estate consulting group of the Orange County office of Kenneth Leventhal & Company. The author, David Savlowitz (assisted by Ronit Whiteside and Megan Yohe), under the direc- tion of Walter Hahn, Ph.D. and Pete Maque- ra, acknowledges contributions from California Department of Finance, California Employment Development Department Cali- fornia State Board of Equalization, CB Com- mercial, Chapman University, Commercial Property Information Services (COMPS, Inc.), Construction Industry Research Board, County of Orange Administrative Office, Grubb & Ellis Research Services Group, National Research Bureau, Newport Econom- ics Group, Real Estate Research Council of Southern California, Realty Research Associ- ates, Research Network, Ltd., State Census Data Center, The Irvine Company, Torto/Wheaton, TRW Redi Property Data, U.S. Bureau of the Census and various public agencies. 12 Appendix • RESIDENTIAL MARKET t Estimated and projected. 2 Both detached and attached units, regardless of their occu- pancy status (occupied versus vacant), tenure status of the occupants of occupied units (owner -occupied versus renter - occupied), and the activity status (for sale, for rent, or not on the market) of the units. 3 Does not include units in duplexes, townhouses, or other attached single-family units, which are included in note 2, but does include all other units in multiple -unit structures, regardless of the occupancy, tenure, and activity status of the units. 4 Total building permits issued. 5 "Mobile homes" and other factory -built housing shipped to the site as completed or semicompleted structures. Manufac- tured housing as itemized here, is not added to obtain total units. Since some single family housing is manufactured, there may be some manufactured housing contained in Total Units. 6 Percent of total active rental units that is unoccupied. RETAIL MARKET t Estimated and projected. 2 Centers with at least one full -line department store and gen- erally no smaller than 300,00 square feet of GLA; includes super regional centers. 3 New, first -generation space added to the total inventory, including expansions of existing centers but excluding reha- bilitation. 4 Percent of finished retail inventory that is unoccupied. 5 Any centers not classified as regional or super regional — typically convenience, neighborhood, and community cen- ters from 50,000 to 300,000 square feet of GLA; includes power centers. 6 Percentage of sales beyond the break point that goes to the center's owners. 7 Base rent excluding percent of sales, and percentage rent rate (in parentheses) for a women's ready-to-wear store in the most recently opened regional centers with a total GLA of more than 300,000 square feet. s Base rent excluding percent of sales, and percentage rent rate (in parentheses) for a men's wear store in the most recently opened regional centers with a total GLA of more than 300,000 square feet. 9 Base rent excluding percent of sales, and percentage rent rate (in parentheses) for a family shoe store in the most recently opened regional centers with a total GLA of more than 300,000 square feet. nl Base rent excluding percent of sales, and percentage rent rate (in parentheses) for a supermarket in a recently opened neighborhood shopping center in an average -income area. t t Base rent excluding percent of sales, and percentage rent rate (in parentheses) for a cleaners in a recently opened neighborhood shopping center in an average -income area. 12 For a seven- to 10-acre land parcel, located in an area of new, middle -income residential development and zoned and serviced (or capable of being zoned and serviced) for a one - or two-story neighborhood shopping center. OFFICE MARKET t Estimated and projected. Employment in establishments falling into the SIC cate- gories of FIRE, business services, or legal services is known to be largely comprised of office workers. It is not the total office employment in a market, as smaller shares of employ- ment in establishments with other SIC codes also comprise office workers, but employment in establishments catego- rized as FIRE, business services, or legal services then con- stitutes a reliable floor and yields a base figure for office employment. 3 Net change in occupied space. Percent of total active space in single- and multitenant build- ings that is unoccupied. For office space in a prime, well -located, new office park. INDUSTRIAL MARKET t Estimated and projected. 2 Employment in establishments falling into the SIC cate- gories of manufacturing and wholesale trade is largely com- prised of workers in plants producing both durable and nondurable goods and warehousing and distribution facili- ties. 3 Includes all leasable finished space, regardless of the occu- pancy status (occupied versus vacant), tenure status of the occupants of occupied industrial space (owner -occupied ver- sus tenant -occupied), and activity status (for sale, for lease, or not on the market). 4 Buildings suited for general manufacturing or warehouse uses (containing no more than 10 percent office uses). 5 Buildings suited for high-tech manufacturing, R&D, and ancillary office uses. 6 Percent of total active industrial space that is unoccupied. 7 For space suited for warehouse/distribution uses, in a well - located, new industrial parks. 8 For well -located land suited for general (light mahufactur- ing, distribution) industrial parks. 9 For well -located land suited for hybrid (high-tech manufac- turing, R&D, ancillary office uses) industrial parks. 13 KENNETH LEVENTHAL & COMPANY FINANCIAL AND CONSULTING SERVICES Kenneth Leventhal & Company is one of the nation's largest certified public accounting firms and is preeminent in pro- viding accounting and consulting services for the real estate and financial services industries. The firm follows an interdisciplinary approach to solving problems for clients, combining traditional accounting and tax services with a wide range of consulting disciplines. We are committed to developing and implementing innovative real estate strategies based on broad expertise and an understanding of trends in real estate finance, economics, region- al and local markets, and the political and regulatory environment. Our number one priority is to assist our clients in finding workable solutions to the challenges of successfully operating in the rapidly changing real estate industry. We offer a variety of services which we tailor to the unique needs of each of our clients and to their particular business situations and objectives. Some of the services we provide are listed below: MANAGEMENT CONSULTING SERVICES Entity Services: Strategic and business planning Diagnostic reviews Organization structuring and executive compensation Systems planning and selection Systems implementation Capital acquisition (IPOs, REITs, securitization, joint ventures, debt and equity) Property and Transaction Services: Regional economic studies Market and site selection Pre -development planning Project feasibility studies Financial projections and analysis Valuations and appraisals Infrastructure finance planning Acquisition analysis/due diligence FINANCIAL ADVISORY AND TAX CONSULTING SERVICES Financial Advisory Services: Audit and accounting services Transaction structuring Due diligence services Litigation consulting and expert testimony Restructurings Private placements Public offerings Insolvency services Tax Consulting Services: Tax structuring for entities and individuals Tax deferral strategies Income tax projections and planning Wealth preservation structuring Estate planning Tax compliance services Federal and state audit representation Property tax appeals We have more than 100 experienced real estate accountants and consultants ready to serve you in our Orange Coun- ty Office. For more information and to learn more about the services we can provide for your company, please call us at (714) 640-5000. 14 0 0 Kennetventhal Company 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714)640-5000 t NEWPORT - BALBOA BALBOA PENINSULA PLANNING ISSUES AND STRATEGIES 1. EXISTING COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL ELEMENTS The commercial -retail elements situated on the Balboa Peninsula are in a state of transitional decline. The decline is generally evidenced by the following conditions: a. Service Retail Has Moved. Quality service retail which primarily serves the needs of Peninsula residents has either closed or deteriorated in scope and quality during the past several years. Service retail includes grocery, drug, shoe repair, banks, hardware, dry cleaners, barbers, etc. b. Quality Specialty Retail Is Sparse. The quality of specialty -tourist retail has declined and, for the most part, has been eliminated. Quality specialty retail includes art galleries, jewelry stores, boutiques and related specialty retail serving both residents and quality tourist elements visiting the Peninsula. C. Fast Food & Low Quality Retail Predominates. Current retail elements are dominated by lower quality businesses including T-shirt shops, fast food operators, low quality tourist clothing, etc. Recently, alternative clothing stores, tattoo parlors and more fast food have been established which are representative of low quality retail -commercial elements found in Venice and similar commercial strips. d. Resident -Serving Retail Is Inadequate. Resident -serving retail and service oriented business has left the area, requiring residents to leave the Peninsula and Lido for 17th Street in Costa Mesa. More trips and more traffic. e. Fun Zone Is "No Fun". The fun zone basically attracts a low quality visitor. The arcades and other elements compound the declining nature of the area. f. West Newport. West Newport's well -publicized problems negatively impact establishment of quality retail. E NEWPORT - BALBOA BALBOA PENINSULA PLANNING Page 2 2. PHYSICAL APPEARANCE HAS DETERIORATED Both the aesthetics and quality of exterior elevations, store interiors, signage and retail storefront presentation are in a blighted condition. These physical elements result from the following: a. Low Quality of Stores. Deterioration of the quality of retail -commercial typically coincides with unattractive storefronts, cheap store fixtures and interiors, unattractive signage and deferred maintenance. b. Municipal Policy. Lack of an aggressive municipal policy and comprehensive plan for strict design standards, quality and control of signage, lighting, strict code enforcement and planning policies and planning ordinances necessary to encourage quality retail commercial design and redevelopment. C. Competitive Surrounding Communities. Surrounding communities (Costa Mesa) have implemented redevelopment areas which encourages relocation of higher quality retail elements away from the Peninsula. These economic policies have encouraged redevelopment of retail - commercial elements including grocery, drug, financial services and specialty retail. The City of Newport Beach has not provided this economic infrastructure. d. Retail Changes. During the past ten years the retailing industry has seen major changes. Small shop retailing has declined while large space users have proliferated. Grocery and drug chains require more space to merchandise and be competitive. Small shop specialty retailers and artisans need high quality commercial neighborhoods and design standards to attract customers. Neither of these realities have been provided for in timely Peninsula planning or economic policy of the City. The Peninsula, as a practical matter, cannot accommodate major space retailers and must face the reality that resident -serving shops, arts, crafts, and high quality specialty shops are most appropriate. The market cannot support the retail -commercial space that currently exists. With the expansion of Fashion Island, South Coast and Costa Mesa, it is foolish to believe the retail -commercial area on the Peninsula can be "revitalized". It must be downsized with strict controls and incentives to encourage quality redevelopment in specific planned critical areas. • NEWPORT - BALBOA BALBOA PENINSULA PLANNING Page 3 3. THE TRAFFIC AND PARKING MYTH The myth that traffic and parking prevents quality commercial -retail redevelopment must be confronted. This oft quoted reason cited by City staff and others misses the mark for the following reasons: a. Resident Traffic. Traffic (not to mention inconvenience) is exacerbated by residents of the trade area driving back and forth (on and off the Peninsula) in order to obtain retail goods and services that are now unavailable on the Peninsula. b. Quality Without Adequate Parking. High quality retail -commercial is not necessarily consistent with adequate parking and traffic mitigation. Laguna Beach, Monterey -Carmel, Balboa Island and other similarly situated communities have exceptionally high quality commercial -retail elements with minimal parking and substantial traffic impacts. Parking is nice and is needed but isn't the motivator of cuality retail. Many national studies support this hypothesis. Existing blighted strip commercial should be reduced and zoned residential in favor of larger nodes (Balboa, McFadden, Lido -Civic Center) that would more adequately respond to redevelopment. C. Principal Causes. The state of the Peninsula's retail -commercial elements are a direct result of many years of a lack of City comprehensive planning and realistic redevelopment and economic policies necessary in order to be competitive and respond to the needs of the community and its residents. It also results from a failure to understand and respond to the major transitional impacts of South Coast, Fashion Island and Costa Mesa. 4. THE OPPOSITION MYTH This myth contends area residents, including Lido, Peninsula Point, etc., are opposed to change and want to maintain the status quo. This myth points to the problem and not the solution in consideration of the following: 1] NEWPORT - BALBOA BALBOA PENINSULA PLANNING Page 4 a. Current Frustration. Most area residents are understandably dissatisfied with the quality and appearance of retail -commercial elements. Without a constructive plan, "just say no" has become the only alternative for area residents. Residents are understandably upset with the quality of visitor the low quality commercial attracts to their neighborhoods. b. Quality Residential Investment. While residents of the community have heavily invested in new residential construction and rehabilitation, deterioration and decline of the commercial -retail elements adversely impacts values. This frustration produces opposition. C. Quality Of Visitors And Tourists. Low quality retail and a predominance of fast food and fringe commercial operators attracts low quality tourists and visitors. Alternative clothing stores attract those that prefer alternative lifestyles. Residents of the community are concerned with the nature and quality of tourists and visitors. The Balboa fun zone might better be described as a "war zone". Clinging to what was a historical tradition makes no sense given the low quality visitor it now attracts. This translates into opposition where the subject of commercial redevelopment is raised. d. The Transition Paradox. The paradox here is that while residential elements of the Peninsula and trade area have transitioned to year round occupancy and high quality redevelopment, adequate commercial -retail elements are not available to serve this population nor encourage patronage by high quality visitors. Everyone loses here including the City's sales tax revenue and police protection costs. Property owners lose since deterioration of the commercial -retail elements in any area ultimately adversely impacts the value of residential properties. It would be difficult to identify another city or area where such a divergence exists between quality of residential and commercial elements. 5. THE "MORE IS BETTER" MYTH A popular excuse in Newport Beach is that the commercial quality has deteriorated on the Peninsula due to excessive restrictions, processing requirements and similar constraints imposed by the bureaucracy of City government. This myth is memorialized in the establishment of the Economic NEWPORT - BALBOA BALBOA PENINSULA PLANNING Page 5 Development Council to streamline approvals and encourage business development. The following is a lot closer to the truth: a. Reduce Strip Commercial. Much of the strip commercial on the Peninsula should be transitionally down -zoned to residential. The magnitude of retail -commercial established in Fashion Island, Costa Mesa and South Coast mandate a substantial reduction in the commercial -retail element on the Peninsula. Resident -serving and quality tourist commercial must be re-established. b. Restrict Uses. In fact, the City of Newport Beach has failed to provide adequate planning and comprehensive restrictions for design, FAR's, signage and resident -serving uses. Any good planning policy requires an inventory of what is needed to serve residents and visitors. The City has ignored these elementary disciplines, resulting in the proliferation of liquor stores, T-shirt, tattoo, taco stands and low quality retail. What they have received in return is a lower quality visitor and tourist along with the attendant social and enforcement costs. Sales tax is also impacted by cheap goods. Which would the City prefer -- $9.95 T-shirt sales or $995.00 in art or other quality sales? C. Economic Development. Providing economic development mechanisms should be a priority after a cogent and meaningful inventory and plan (with workable tax incentives and funding mechanisms) is developed. Stimulating business revitalization on the Peninsula at this point is a misguided effort to put lipstick on the proverbial pig. 6. COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGIES How can a strategy be implemented to encourage and stimulate quality redevelopment? The following ingredients are necessary: a. Present Issues. A cogent presentation of the issue to members of the community and City leadership. It is clear that members of the business community have no clear direction except to process approvals quicker. b. Form Coalition. The forming of a coalition of responsible commercial - retailers, residents and community groups. NEWPORT - BALBOA BALBOA PENINSULA PLANNING Page 6 C. Retain Outside Consultants With Public Input. The retention of appropriate outside third party consultants to recommend comprehensive planning and economic policies to be implemented by the City. An example of this type of comprehensive work can be expedited by initiating a qualified panel of The Urban Land Institute or third party consulting group to study the issues and prepare a comprehensive public report to members of the community at large and City officials. d. Develop A Strategy And Theme For Each Area. This comprehensive planning process and economic redevelopment policy must include consideration of the three principal commercial -retail elements: (1) Lido -Civic Center -Cannery (2) McFadden Square (3) Central Balboa e. Political Process. City Council representatives must allocate high priority to the process. City staff must be encouraged to expedite solutions rather than identify problems. The City`s leadership must recognize that the Peninsula requires action. To "get", the City must "give". This means tax increment financing and interim pledge of additional sales tax for quality redevelopment and infrastructure. It also means dramatic measures to change past practices which have allowed substandard signage, uses and improvements. Transitional Enforcement. Deterioration of the commercial -retail element inevitably attracts delinquency, noise, graffiti and criminal elements. Start the clean-up with strict policies now. City policy must emphasize strict traffic, beach curfew and related policies to prevent vagrancy, gang assemblage and traffic impacts resulting from cruising, etc. Sign and interim use ordinances must be established. g. Reduce Commercial Strips. Provide interim incentives and take a hard line on code enforcement to encourage conversion to residential redevelopment in lieu of commercial along designated areas of Newport and Balboa Boulevards. NEWPORT - BALBOA BALBOA PENINSULA PLANNING Page 7 h. Don't Put The Cart Before The Horse. Establishing assessment districts or spending money on beautification projects is a waste until a comprehensive planning process with realistic use restrictions and guidelines is adopted. Results from a comprehensive planning and redevelopment process will take many years to demonstrate positive results. In the interim, the current state of the commercial -retail elements on the Peninsula demonstrate striking early reminders of places such as Venice, Sunset Boulevard and similar Southern California commercial - retail area. The future is now. (FRMNEWP•BILL.PLN) 10/21/94 • MARINAPARK STUDY ALTERNATE USES ' r jl �, � .r,• , yAlynr', M MARINAPARK STUDY ALTERNATE USES Study Committee JAMES CAPRETZ Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commissioner City of Newport Beach, and Study Chairman RAE COHEN Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commissioner, City of Newport Beach THOMAS HYANS Community Representative SUE FICKER Central Newport Beach Community Association RONALD A. WHITLEY Parks, Beaches & Recreation Director, City of Newport Beach JEFFREY C. KOLIN Recreation Superintendent, City of Newport Beach SANDY GENIS Associate Planner, City of Newport Beach TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. CURRENT FISCAL ANALYSIS, PROPOSED FISCAL IMPACTS. . . . . 3 III. STUDY JUSTIFICATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 IV. PROPOSED DESIGN ELEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 LIST OF EXHIBITS LOCATION MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 PROPOSEDPLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3I M*11111W BACKGROUND The City acquired the nucleus of the Marinapark property between 15th and 16th Streets from the Pacific Electric Land Company on July 7, 1919. The parcel was originally utilized as a city operated short-term visit campground until 1944. The area was widened with the acquisition of an additional parcel to 19th Street on March 7, 1923. H. L. Sherman's "History of Newport Beach," published in September, 1931 reported: "The public campground during the course of its existence has been the cause of considerable difference of opinion with respect to custodian, the maximum period campers should be allowed to use its privileges, and the general desirability of maintaining such facilities." On March 6, 1944, a one-year lease vlas granted to the South Coast Company for the purpose of installing wharfs for boat berthing and repairing. On December 26, 1945, the City Council approved a plan for the campground to be converted and operated as a travel trailer park. On May 9, 1955, the City Council adopted a revised plan providng for a further redevelop- ment of the travel trailer park as a mobile home park and also a public beach between 16th and 19th Streets. Various improvements were made between 1955 and 1957 to bring the park to its present status. -1- WIM f • • The Marinapark is located at 1770 West Balboa Boulevard, situated on a 4.34 acre parcel of City of Newport Beach property on the Balboa Peninsula. The current use is a luxury mobile home park with fifty-eight rental pads on 924 feet of frontage on the public beach of Newport Bay. In 1972 a study was completed, "A Unique Opportunity for Public Shoreline," that provided recommendations for public development of the Marinapark site. This report was approved by the City Council. Although approved, the City Council elected to extend the leases in order to allow the existing mobile home tenants an opportunity to adjust to the new planned use. The leases were again extended to 1985. This current study is proposing that public development occur at the termination of the existing leases. In order to aid the City Council and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission in making a determination as to the public uses which could be accommodated on the Marinapark parcel, the Study Committee has identified and discussed the advantages and disadvantages of several potential design elements that could be incorporated in a Marinapark public land utilization plan. The recommended uses are of a parks and recreation nature. The recommended plan that is presented for consideration contains design elements that will satisfy recreational needs identified by the Committee. 53 -2- SECTION II REVENUE AND EXPENSES To analyze the fiscal liability and the actual cost of the proposed land use alternatives, the data listed below is provided. The current revenue and current expenses are actual and the proposed revenue and proposed expenses are estimates based on similar operations or historical data. CURRENT ANNUAL REVENUE Trailer Space Rentals $255,510 CURRENT ANNUAL EXPENDITURES Manager, Gardener, etc. $ 48,000 PROPOSED ANNUAL REVENUE Small Boat Launching Fees $ 6,000 Parking Fees, including trailers $ 6,000 Concession Lease Revenue $ 25,000 PROPOSED ANNUAL EXPENDITURES Maintenance Personnel $ 20,000 Operational Personnel $ 12,000 Supplies and Equipment $ 5,000 Current net revenue is in the $200,000 range. For a parcel conservatively estimated to be $5 million in value, if public uses are not implemented, current business practices would suggest that income should produce at least 10% of value, or $500,000 annually. -3- SECTION III STUDY JUSTIFICATIONS In 1985, at the conclusion of existing leases, the Marinapark should be converted into a marine oriented park facility. It is the recommendation of the Study Committee that the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission submit to the City Council a recommended plan for the conversion of the Marinapark to a public facility of park and marine related functions. Such a plan should be adopted for the following reasons: 1. Park Plan Consistent With Tidelands Trust Agreement A substantial portion of the Marinapark property is filled tidelands, owned by the people of the State of California, granted in trust to the city to adminster. A water oriented park and recreation plan would be more in keeping with the Tidelands Trust Agreement than the present private land use. 2. Lease or Sale of Waterfront Property Requires Vote of People Section 1402 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach, entitled "Waterfront Property," provides in part that, "The City Council shall not sell or convey any waterfront or beach;;property, excepting to the State or to the County, for use as a public beach or park. "No such property owned by the city shall be leased by the city unless and until the leasing thereof shall have been approved by a majority of the electors voting on such proposition at any general or special 357 -4 • municipal election, provided, however, that this section shall not invalidate any lease of such property in existence at the time of the effective date of the Charter nor the future leasing or releasing of any such property under lease at the effective date of this Charter." This section of the Charter was approved within the original Charter, effective January 7, 1955. Since many of the original Marinapark leases were already in effect on January 7, 1955, there is apparently no restriction upon the leasing or releasing of the sites. 4. Reservation of Marinapark Public Beach in Perpetuity. Section 1402 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach was amended by a vote of nearly three to one on April 10, 1956, to provide as follows: "There shall be reserved forever to the people the public use of a strip of bayfront land above :3 6 -5 mean Ph tide.not less than eighty -fit feet in depth of the city -owned waterfront property bounded on the west by the southeasterly line of 19th Street and bounded on the east by a line parallel thereto, Line 349.90 feet northwesterly of the northwesterly line of 15th Street, said frontage to be bay frontage." This amendment to the City Charter was made effective January 11, 1957, as a result of voter concern that the Marinapark development would eventually encroach even further into the public's property and further diminish the use and availability of public utiliza tion of one of the last -remaining city bay beaches. 4. Park Development Consistent With Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan. The "Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan" as approved by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, the Planning Commission and the City Council, recommends that this area become a community aquatic park. 5. Park Development Would Maximize Educational and Recreational Opportunities for Utilization of Newport Harbor. It is the policy of the City Council to maximize recreational and educational opportunities for public utilization of Newport Harbor, incl.uding such activities as boating, swimming, sun bathing, fishing, picnicking, and marine and wildlife observation. The recommended plan would help meet this objective. 37 -6- 6. Public Inost Requires Utilization of PrAties Owned by the People of the City for the People. The people of the community have repeatedly indicated that there is an extreme shortage of publicly owned waterfront parcels available for general use within the City of Newport Beach, despite the fact that the City of Newport Beach has substantial waterfront holdings. With the properties leased to the Balboa Bay Club, the Beek Company, the American Legion, and the Marinapark tenants, there is nearly one mile of public shoreline. Except for limited beach front property in front of Marinapark, not one inch of these leased properties is available for general use by the people of the City. 7. Park Development Plan Would Demonstrate that Local Government Can Be Responsible and Sensitive to the Needs of all the People in Administering State Owned Tidelands, The state legislature of California comes increasingly close each year of taking from city control the supervision of its public tidelands. The pro- ponents of such measures, including the Sierra Club, California Coastal Alliance, League of Women Voters, and other environmental action groups maintain that local agencies are inept and selfish in their stewardship of the tidelands. The California Coastal Alliance has apparently filed sufficient petitions to force a November vote on a stern coastal legislative measure that would effectively tie the hands of local officials to administer their beach properties, The Study Committee believes that a responsible action such as converting this private use to a public use would demonstrate the good faith of local government to provide reasonable access and utilization to the shoreline. 38 -7- 8. Reclaiming of Marinapark Property for Use by all the People of the Community Represents Last Opportunity for Major Open Space on Newport Harbor, It is conservatively estimated that it would cost approxi- mately $5,000,000 to acquire an equivalent amount of fee owned shoreline. 9. The Need for Park and Recreation Amenities to Supplement Beach and Oceanfront is Perceived as a High Priority, As the peninsula has developed, the density of housing and number of residents has increased. What once was an oceanfront summer vacation spot has become a year round home to thousands. As population and density have increased, the amount of public open space has become limited. Marinapark offers the last available site to provide park and recreation amenities for peninsula residents. Residents of the peninsula do not have a community building where recreation activities can be held. Senior citizens must drive to Corona del Mar; recreation class students to Mariners Park or the Theatre Arts Center. Aquatic programs have grown tremendously in recent years. Many residents and visitors alike learn their basic sailing skills from city instructors. A classroom is needed for lectures and instruction with a boat storage area for sabots nearby. The city's present instructional program operates out of a restroom building at 19th Street. Each area of the city has a public facility available for meetings, social activities, special events, classes and recreation. The peninsula's buildings are located on the Marinapark site but have been leased to the Girl Scouts and Balboa Power Squadron. These structures are 30 plus years old and in poor repair and have limited public access time available. ?17cl The Study Committee has perceived a need for a multi -purpose facility which would include rooms for scouting activities, community meetings, rentals and instructional activities. They feel that Marinapark location is ideally situated to serve the needs of peninsula residents. When combined with open space, turf, small boat launching facilities, half court basketball and restroom facilities, the recreation and parks needs of the community would be well served. During the past five years, the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission has, during Commission meetings, heard many issues and problems which concern the residents of the Balboa'Peninsula. In 1977-78, the Commission conducted an extensive study on small boat launching, a perennial problem for residents and boat owners in Newport Beach. In 1982 and 1983 the Commission studied beach volleyball and tournament locations. In 1981 the Commission studied the replacement of the 19th Street restroom facility, a perennial source of complaints from neighboring residents. In the same year the Commission searched for a site to locate a City sailing instruction center. In 1975 and 1982 the Commission discussed the future widening of Balboa Blvd, and its effect on 38th;Street Park. The conflicts between the 18th Street small boat launching area and the protected swimming area between 18th Street and 19th Street has been a topic of concern for the Commission at several meetings through the years. In every instance the concern for adequate parking and consideration of congestion and traffic has been expressed by the community. The 18th Street launching area often backs up traffic to Balboa Blvd, with cars and trailered boats waiting to be launched. The parking available between 18th and 19th Streets is always filled to capacity and is not designed for vehicles with trailers. The combination of small boat -9- launching, residential parking, beach -goers, and protected swimming within the compact area often leads to congestion. At the present time it is all we have available. The Marinapark preliminary plan, as outlined in the next section, offers solutions to and relief from these problems. In some cases it is just a beginning to a total solution, but in each case the plan favorably impacts many of the problem areas which residents have brought to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission over the past five years. The Marinapark Study Committee is recommending that the proposed design elements outlined in the next section be adopted as soon as possible. The Committee feels that a final and permanent determination as to the use of the site needs to be made. The Committee is opposed to a further extension of the leases and feels the revenue from the final two years of the c Marin by th -ql SECTION IV PROPOSED DESIGN.ELEMENTS The following are basic design elements that have been proposed in the park plan. The Council may select those elements it believes have the most merit. However, the Committee feels that all elements as presented should be included. 1. Public Swimming Beach. Convenient public access to much of the \� k existing beach is not available. The present sand area is relatively�O D �a� small and should be expanded. The proposed development will return the area on Bay Avenue between 18th and 19th Streets to a protected swimming area with no conflict with small boat launching as currently 6✓ found. In addition, the expanded sand area as proposed will in- crease the utilization of the area as a public swimming beach. 2. Open Space and Public Landscape, The return of the Marinapark Trailer Park to the people of Newport Beach would provide the last opportunity for a major public vista on the south side of Newport Harbor. There is no other location of public property or funds available to acquire such important shoreline. The uncluttered harbor vista that the park contemplates should measurably enhance the value and desirability of adjacent residential properties. For the first time in more than three decades, a major public vista can be restored on Newport Harbor. In addition, the effective use of landscape material will highlight and enhance all components of the proposed plan. 3. Bicycle and Pedestrian Access. With the increasing popularity of bicycling as a mode of transportation on the peninsula, the park contemplates the construction of a bicycle path and a bicycle parking, rest area as an important design element meandering through the park. Because of the limited amount of off-street parking provided in the 43, -11- tentative des,* and the popularity of bicyclirtf, the bicycle path would be one of the most popular methods of recreational transportation for peninsula residents. Also included in the plan are convenient pedestrian paths to -provide access to amenities within the facility. 4. Small Boat Launching Area. Because of the extensive erection of / piers, docks and shore connected floats on city bay beaches, there 1 �� are only a limited number of public locations for small hand O� launched boats. The existing beach at this location is the longest area of unobstructed public beach available on Newport Harbor. With the relocation of restrooms,, the opening up of a public promenade and meeting area adjacent to the beach, and the inclusion of off- street parking, this area should be most popular for recreational and instructional sailing. 5. Public Parking. A limited number of public parking spaces (approxi- mately 110) have been included in the tentative development plan. It is noted with interest that the proposed facility contains no more parking spaces than those already retained by the exclusive private use of tenants within the Marinapark. There should be no additional anticipateq trpffic service difficulties in the area. Construction of this facility would help particularly during the winter months to reduce the impact upon the limited number of on -street parking spaces in the area by providing reasonably priced, conveniently located public parking. Newport Beach residents, through the purchase of annual parking permits, could make widespread use of this facility. 6. Boat Trailer *king. To improve traffic flow4por the small boat launching area, a parking lot designed to provide double spaces for trailer and vehicle parking is proposed. A revenue producer, this addition will assist in reducing street parking problems now found connected with this activity. 7. Community Multi -purpose Building, It is proposed to build a two story building adjacent to the American Legion property. The top story of the building would accommodate community programs providing seniors and youth with a variety of activities. 8. Aquatic Sailing Center. The development of a municipal sailing center would provide the necessary facilities in an ideal location to expand the city's popular learn to sail program. A building for classroom instruction and boat storage is contemplated. Piers and I floats for instructional purposes would be constructed perpendicular to Bay at the extension of 16th Street. o �(0 9. Public Restroom-Showers. Proposed for the bottom floor of the Community Multi -purpose Building would serve all users of the park. 10. Concession Operation. Proposed to be operated from the ground floor of the Community Multi -purpose Building, this activity would be a revenue generator to produce income from the facility. 11. Volleyball Courts. The plan contemplates the construction of three sand field volleyball courts. Volleyball is an increasingly popular past time among all age groups and is a sport in which the entire family may participate. It is anticipated that with the installation of these low cost facilities, volleyball would be a major family activity within the proposed park. d4 -13- 12. Basketball Courts. There are only a limited number of public basketball courts available in the Central Newport and Peninsula areas. The tentative plan contemplates the construction of addi- tional half court areas. Basketball is among the most popular recreation past times of young people while at a beach facility. These courts would provide a wholesome recreation outlet and exercise for all ages. C-/- ESTIMATES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COSTS Listed below are cost estimates for specific uses as identified in the proposed design. Public Swimming Beach $25,000 to include import sand. Open Space and Public Landscape $80,000 to include turf, shrubs, trees and irrigation. Bicycle and Pedestrian Access $45,000 to include all access sidewalks and bike paths. Small Boat Launching Area $10,000 Public Parking $60,000 to include all asphalt paving for two parking lots and access roadways. Community Multi -Purpose Building 6,000 s.f. @ $65.00 per $390,000 Design fees $40,000 Furnishings to include restrooms $20,000 and showers for public beach use -q 5- -14- Aquatic Sailing Center $80,000 Basketball and Volleyball Courts $25,000 CONTINGENCY: $75,000 ESTIMATED TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS $850,000 6 -15- L I II If It II �i li II II 'I II 'I I II li I - sEL MAP NO H Si_ E MAP NO 6 O N C` o C'1 L 4 c z eZa�' C.lip -1 � � tQ u \ o-' "w eAY ¢ •�. `1p<—HEAL � �' `s. R•3 "s. 8 lY b R-s R-3 1,• R 1-s- -z— \ A L' � •s Qt,� .s• EST .� I: h �= BAY � R\� _^ ry0 R4 tir R-3 3 agGBOA % s R 3 R-3 C'1 R'2 '(o- •GIBE J 9 s- a R,p R3 8 -s.R3 � 0 PLE 6YEST 0 oc R"4 ^ tit s R.3 �UGE(igQO R I -s. R-3 EAN 's" R"8 6 s. R4 C•I ti e ( R_3s 1 8 r' 1 FPONT e ( rO-R-4 R-3 Z R-q ; 9 IV 43, x 1.. eo p. NO 77 !e% /.It /)/f /fIK.O(k /I7 +�• �"' ORD. w CITY TAILER PARK. ' 10 R-3 U 6` Wo IDOO QEZOYtl IPTb Dion FeamMGi i0 a-3---"•--. E CAO ltli .M.To umEI1.0 1,1Rfl.SER,21V C10TRT0-••"`-^•...., C NIGN TOE UNE FWu C2 W CDN (411i) ••"--. y qq QE. IYNKU 6F•C.D I.,. J•.•0•Cr1i C•• ILOCN V. --- --"• ....w.... .............. .. DISTRICTING MAP NEWPORT BEACH - CALIFORNIA R—A AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL R-9 MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1 LIGHT COMMERCIAL R-2 DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL C-2 GENFRAL COMMERCIAL SCALE OF FEET R-3 RES* MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL N-1 fI NANUFAGTURING ORD NO G35 MAP NO 9 s coo .00 cao .ae QB �—H COMBINING DISTRICTS _ Front Yard Depth Sn Feet Bho m T1NS:-I UNCLASSIFIED DEC- aG. lqS BAY AVE. m PARKING- 70 VEHICLES Rrtrt WEST F— w w (r I- U) L 00 r ------------ -- . _ SMALL BOAT L A N SAILING .CENTER � r� ' ENTER-_ � . r � " �y. . - , err^M Ilryen , COMMUNITY C PARKING _ i'��?'t+ MULTI -PURPOSE ROOM r------Y CONCESSION _ [VEHICLES &TRAILERS ' � � I � � RESTROOMS VVLLtYBALI{ .." SHOWERS t�•►�:- , �i7C� � I /, ��i�/� Ojai Pl�llllnu i��ll N�Y�iN I ��II ��NI I IN I IUWW, `!!.� I, �`- ��a��' '���� .���I�•;i►!11�:�.ini7►�71��.■, ; , � I��/+.i�a���.w+ '��`iliii.:�i1�ly �' '� � +agn ►/� � — �" 51 .rwl I nllu.ol a 1 I u ii . ""� Su 1 Wu�ni1�Iy. IUIi II; �k ��IIINn,Nn„- Nutll - i s 1 II,I�.11NY41x.1I��ir:��lI �NIWXM5nl 6'lllAlllll'I FINRIXIIMIOI� ��'�111 �II�'iNIN � M��! „;•����"� �i�Iw����iYY�����!.'i� IM�.�.ui �• � � II rno w w cc I— U) L T J Real Estate Investment Builders • Developers 3471 Via Lido Suite 207 Newport Beach. CA 92663.3929 (714) 723.7100 FAX (714) 723.1141 One Galleria Tower 13355 Noel Road, LB 3 Suite 1315 Dallas, TX 7524C•6603 (972) 934.2244 FAX (972) 991.5134 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 18, 1997 TO: Kevin Murphy Sharon Wood CC: Tim Collins FROM: Fritz Duda h%6%0+1 V W. V ,LAiNNINIG DEPARTMEN 1 :ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FED 2 0 1997 AM { A10111112111213141516 RE: BPPAC Composition - Finance Subcommittee It would be helpful if we could counsel (even by telephone) with respect to where we are taking BPPAC and what role, if any, it should play in connection with implementation phases of BPPAC's report and recommendations. Please note the following: Finance Subcommittee. You had requested that BPPAC appoint a finance subcommittee to work with City staff in its development of a financing plan. Tim Collins has been in contact with some outstanding professionals who would assist (on a pro bono basis) with regard to the financing plans. Should they not be appointed by Council? 2. At -Large Members. During the BPPAC study phase, at -large members were limited inasmuch as we needed to focus on the workshop process and principally involve peninsula residents appointed by the Council. Since the report, several able community members from "up on the hill" have expressed a desire to become involved. We have asked Mike Kranzley to step up his efforts off -peninsula in the community education process. From the preliminary responses, it is apparent that there is a large difference in attitudes. Surprisingly, many people on the hill look at this as a semi -disaster area and simply do not permit their children to come down here. The entrenched element on the peninsula is, of course, also with us. Broad community participation is necessary. Perhaps the appointment of at least three new at -large members should be considered. FLD:ab Real Estate Investment Builders • Developers 3471 Via Lido Suite 207 Newpon Beach, CA 92663,3929 (714) 723.7100 FAX (714) 723.1141 One Gallena Tower 13355 Noel Road, LB 3 Suite 1315 Dallas, TX 75240-6603 (972) 934.2244 FAX (972) 991.5184 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 10, 1997 TO: Michael Kranzley Tim Collins CC: Kevin Murphy Sharon Wood FROM: Fritz Duda RE: Blockbuster REUr.iYO by .4ANNING DEPARTMENT ITY OF NEWPORT BEAC14 MAR 111997 AN 811191U Al112tsti41516 9 k The BPPAC recommendations regarding 32nd Street will be dealt a major setback if the proposed Blockbuster occupancy at the old Wells Fargo Bank is permitted without adequate parking or signage controls. Blockbuster signs have a national reputation. The in and out traffic congestion has been handled by ordinance in many communities, however, 1 do not believe Newport Beach has adequate controls in this area. If the City's existing ordinances are insufficient to -deal with both traffic, parking and signage issues, I would recommend the City consider an immediate urgency ordinance to require a Conditional Use Permit with relevant controls at this location. FLD:lc Real Estate Investment Builders • Developers 3471 Via Lido Suite 207 Newport Beach, CA 92663.3929 (714) 723.7100 FAX (714) 723.1141 One Gallena Tower 13355 Noel Road, LB 3 Suite 1315 Dallas, TX 75240.6603 (972) 934-2244 FAX (972) 991.5184 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 5, 1997 RECEIVED dY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AN MAR 0 71997 PM VAOXA]21; R1814A6 i TO: Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee Members Tim Collins Anne Gifford Dennis O'Neil Don Dabney Rush Hill Tim Strader Jan Debay Michael Kranzley William Wren Jim Dobrott John Noyes CC: Kevin Murphy Sharon Wood FROM: Fritz Duda RE:' Balboa Peninsula I thought you would enjoy reading the enclosed Consumer Research from February's edition of Urban Land. While the article addresses new .communities, the research underlines what people want today. As you can see, walking and biking paths, architectural styles, sidewalks and security all rate as high priorities. I thought it was interesting to compare the Balboa Peninsula to these consumer preferences. Clearly, the traffic engineers and lack of planning have left us with an extended task. The good news is our BPPAC recommendations go a long way towards addressing the important issues highlighted in the research. Incidentally, Toni Alexander of Intercommunications, Inc. is based in Newport Beach, California. If the membership desires, I would be happy to have Toni speak at our next BPPAC meeting. FLD:ab Enclosure ; S 0 Consumer preferences are changing when it comes to features and amenities in the ideal master -planned community . Looking for I lometown America BROOKE WARRICK AND TONI ALEXANDER oday's homebuyers are not content to settle for what developers often have handed them —sterile -looking, homogeneous suburbs. They want attractive, friendly neighborhoods with tree -lined streets, a big mix of housing styles, and walking and biking trails. The rules are changing everywhere. Two recent joint surveys conducted by American LIVES, Inc., and Inter- CommunicationsInc noted the following changes in consumer preferences in community features and design. • The change from mass market standards to niche market differentiation, both by life stage and by lifestyle. One prob- lem with the thinking of conventional builders and de- velopers is that it does not distinguish lifestyle from life stage: the stages of maturation in family life that call for different kinds of housing —from first-time buyers, to February 19Y7 • Urban Lard 27 lllvil Low traffic area 93% Cul-de-sac streets, circles, and courts_ 77: Natural, open space 77.1 Walking and biking paths TA � 74S Established schools .11111111111FIM 69" Architectural styles and lot sizes controls jmm�a= 69% Sidewalks along one side of all streets 66% Security guards patrolling by car at night 65Y Easy to meet people within the community t�J 60% Easy access to freeway _�J 60% Gardens with native plants and walking paths 56% Cluster of convenience -oriented retail stores 55% Wilderness areas 52% Outdoor swimming pool — 52% Community/recreation center — 52Y Easy to walk to parks, stores, etc. — 52% Shopping center adjacent to the community — 51Y Interesting little parks 50% Exercise/fitness center 50% Town center with shops, coffee bars, meeting places 48Y Community or neighborhood recreational activities -__ 47% library to check out books or sit and read 47Y Churches or other worship places i' 48% Preservation of historic sites 46% Parent interaction around child -centered activities'— 46Y thing in an area where I will meet lots of people — 4401 Open, yet clearly marked entrance MY Organized program for young children 41% Tennis courts 392 Goff course within the community 39% Organized sports programs (e.g., swimming, tennis) 37%t Teen center with organized programs 36 Participate in community clubs, interest groups ,��' 36%i Distinctive community entrance ,' i,,, 35% Goff clubhouse with lockers, pro -shop and storage I , ,,1 ��' 33% Amphitheater for public events and shows •.StT:- J 26'% Community that has a nature interpretive center r IK 25'. Organizer to get clubs and community events started .M J 23'. Community concierge W J 18'. Source. Amencon LIVES, Inc., and InlerCammunicadons Inc. nnzvc-up buyers who want to dispin status, to empty - nester, move -clown buyers. By lifestyle, most sociologists refer to the vari- ous WAS of life that consumers follow. The best predictors to actual lifestyles are the values and world views held by different market segments. By understanding consumers' values and the meaning that consumers attach to home and community, de- velopers can better segment the market. As American society has aged, the most active part of the market has moved from a relatively un- differentiated, entry-level mass market, to more ma- ture buyers who are buying a second or third home. For those buyers, communities are differentiated in- to small niche markets, each catering to a specific lifestyle within a life stage. Though baby boomers are the single largest seg- ment of the population, they are not all alike. Many upper -middle-class groups live different lifestyles worlds apart; what one group wants is scarcely im- portant to another. Community developers and home - builders need to be aware of these differences. At its best, each master -planned community should appeal to a collection of market niches by life stage. This helps to maximize the number of markets and range of buyers and spreads the risk for developers and builders. This does not mean, however, that de- velopers should appeal to all conceivable market niches. A community can be differentiated by its dominant lifestyle —a neotraditional "new urban- ism" community, or a golf- and tennis -oriented recreational community, or a master -planned con- temporary community. • The change fromYtnplanned suburbs to master -planned communities. One survey showed that people are willing to pay a 513,500 premium for a house in a master -planned community compared with a $10,000 premium for the same house in an established sub- urban neighborhood. What do these potential buyers desire and expect in a master -planned community: They expect an emphasis on the natural environment (open space, wilderness areas, nature center, historic sites), walks and parks (small parks, walking and bik- ing paths, gardens with native plants and walking paths), cul-de-sac neighborhoods (circles and courts instead of through -streets; quiet, low -traffic areas), community facilities and shopping (amphitheater, concierge, retail stores, shopping center, institutions of worship, library), and a strong community en- trance (distinct, open, and clearly marked). • The change fir in hard iefiastructare to soft promelm- ming. Lifesryle elements are supported by hard and soft amenities alike. Soft programming Features in communities can increase the value to buyers-, at the same time, they can be easily changed or eliminated. Some of the soft programming elements that were identifier( in one survey include opportunities for parents to interact around child -centered activities; 28 Urban Land • February /')()7 ozonized programs for young children; a teen cen- ter with organized programs; opportunities to par- ticipate in community clubs and interest groups; and a community organizer to ger clubs and community events started. To manv families, these features are likely to outweigh amenities like golf or tennis. More important, because they are not fixed, hard infra- structure, these activities can respond to the chang- ing lifestyles of buyers over the life, of the project. Soft programming also is considerably less expensive and less risky in the face of a changing marketplace. • The change from golf courses to open space. While a substantial 39.5 percent of one survey's respondents indicated that a golf course within the community is `very or extremely important," 60.5 percent did not. Thev rated amenities and features such as open space, wilderness areas, and gardens much higher than golf courses. These findings suggest that buyers in the 1990s are looking for communities that use open space as an important feature in their master -planned communities. The good news for the developer is that the cost of preserving open space is less than the cost of fixing up a golf course and the market preferring it is much larger than the market prefer- ring golf. What is more, today's buyers are willing to pay a premium for this amenity. • The change frwn single purpose infrazwcttme to multi- function uses. When features and amenities can serve more than one purpose, they will likely accommo- date more needs of a diverse population, adding to the probability that they will create value for more customers. This results in a more competitive product. Biking and walking trails, parks, and outdoor amphi- theaters, for example, are multifunction amenities. • The chtunge fi•orn suburban anonwnht , and indiv idualian to a yem nung for community people are disillusioned with the lack of conununity. Merely being able to buy the "right" house in the "right" neighborhood does not seem to be enough for a majority of the 1990s homebuyers—not if it means suburban anonymity. The desire of residents to feel rooted in the com- munity thev live in is growing, but it is not being satisfied by the new housing and communities that builders and developers are providing. Better master planning is needed to meet a strong, already -existing market demand for real community. a The change fi om contemporary styling to neotraditional styling. Over the last several years, a growing num- ber of architects and planners have returned to many of the architectural roots of smalltown America by proposing designs for neotraditional styling in houses and neighborhoods. This design goes well beyond mere decoration and Victorian houses with gables, gingerbread ornamentation, and picket fences. Some of these communities have town centers with cafes and walking spaces that encourage people to gather. They are less automobile -oriented, and they may have apartments over stores. Neighborhoods near the center of town have narrow streets, small lots, and many large trees. Traditionally styled houses hide garages behind them that are reached by driveways from the front or off an alley. Large front porches encourage socializing with neighbors. Reactions to new urbanism in one survev showed that 20.8 per- cent favored it respondents liked the whole concept, including the higher densities. Forty-eight percent liked the image but wanted larger lots; they liked the town center idea but could not buy into the new urban- ism idea because they found too many things wrong xvith it, all associated with density and automobility. Thirty percent rejected the new urbanism; they continued on page 51 Potential buyers in master -planned communities expect an emphasis on the natural environment, (Left Boca West, Boca Baton, Florida; center and right, Weston, FloddaJ Soft programming features in master - planned communi- ties that can in- crease the value to buyers include opportunities for parents to interact around child - centered activities, as well as orga- nized programs for young children. (Weston, Florida.) P'ehrua y 1997 • Urban Land 29 HOMETOWN AMERICA anrtinned jrpw page 29 like the suburbs the %lay they are and ob- jected to the higher densities, though some are attracted to neotradiuunal +ri, ling, • 'lhr there{tsar finor onip-cnnunrrnal cuhru$un ,prawl to c'onrpaet, h(rbly definerl ton:vr centem I luntebuyers do not want uncontrolled sub- urban growth spreading across the landscapei they want urban growth to create nicely buundeel small-town cells that have nuclei that tire town centers. Eighty-six percent of the survey sample wanted a "town center that has it village green surrounded by shops, civic buildings, churches, etc. The town cen- ter is the focal point for residential neigh- borhoods clustered around it." • The change front stares display to autbentidiy in cmmntatity and streebzapes. Homebuyers are leaning toward less showy housing eleva- tions, in favor of more differentiation in ele- vation among houses. This enables the com- munity to feel more natural. Homebuyers also are questioning the value of big, status - oriented entry monuments that serve no purpose other than show. • The change front unprotected open suburbs to the safety and security of bounded or evert walled rind gated communities. Homebuyers' security fears have been steadily rising over the last decade. This is not an issue that developers can afford to get wrong. Feeling safe usually starts with the sense that the residential com- munity has a clear boundary Boundaries can be created with fences, but landscaping can be just as important. Gated communi- ties may not solve the problem because most people realize their weaknesses: more than one car can enter if the gate is not manned; the time between the breakdown of carded Homebuyers' fears about security have been steadily rising over the last decade, evi- denced by the change from unprotected open suburbs to bounded or even walled and gated communities. (At right, main entry gatehouse at Jacksonville Goff and Country Club, Jack- sonville, Florida; inset, Broward sheriff deputy at station located at Weston, Flarida's enhyJ gates and their repair can be Inn_ enough fin• many intruders to get through: and.ur- cess code+ to autumauc gates can he discovered by the w rong people. Installing eleuronac ecuritt systena, as a standard feature in all home, of a subJr%t- sion, rather than offering them tint' :as an option, not onl}' reduces crime but al%o get, the %%ord out on the street that the commu- nit• is protected. -lie buyers. it says that se- curity in the conununttw is not negutiahle. S1hen builders make deals with installers of security systems to delayer so man; units per %.car, they can bring do%%n the cost to under S200 for an electronic systern connected to all doors and windows, it heat sensor to iden- tify mo%ement, and remote monitoring capa- bilities. By contrast, the perceived value of such a systern to homebuyers is S700 to 5900. Other types of protection can include designing some houses for retired seniors. Older retired residents are home most days and can act as an important early warning system about anything that looks suspicious. first-rate, community -based security force can often be set up for the cost of donuts and coffee. Special home discount programs also have been created to attract hornebuy- ers who are policemen, detectives, and other security professionals. Though predictions are fallible, some fear- less forecasts can be made by taking into ac- count trends that are already in motion to- day as well as some current behaviors that cannot continue long into the future. • Developers may bury tap old inner-ringsaburbs where the housing stock and infr astr u ture have long since dearyed and depreciated in order to re- ,h% 1pp the,/a,uv :,ream ion, trgl,tlr bounded, ,nn,n rn'e rnananrnln•%. 5c%ct al lacton—such a, convutter dcw;uul liar closer -in cnnnuu- oiue, that arc sale —favor this approach. An :Jill property that has enough units to make the econnnties aork %%ill ha%e the added at- traction nl infrastructure that is alread%' in place. Several ncot'adittonal infill properties .Ire e%peco ng their absorption rate and profit- ability• to far c%cecd %imilar-sitcd de%cluptnents along the traditional suburban growth path. • 77,r u,.•r of'nun111Miu.4-t,`ac prnes, trine, and ttur,,;,:aims—tmq' get co high that development will become dense along bigl,-speed hrnrsit corri- dor,• or that the expansion ofratellite cities around the ailan,arrTzrlllintenvh,. The United States needs to take a close look at the real costs of cheap energy to its cities. It needs to do more of what the Europeans have done for decades: make it more expensive to drive and restrict autontobilit•.:imerica's love af- Fair with the automobile may have to give way to better public transit that meets the needs of more commuters. One conse- quence of this shift could be that develop- ment patterns will be oriented around high- speed transit corridors. Another interesting possibility is that satellite cities will emerge ltebrtmnl 1997 0 Urban Land 51 in areas that arc served by these high-speed transit corridors. . 6Vhat is nrro a niche inarket fir neon alition- al evinntunities nuuy gain store sn•engtb and be- come it urn jor• part of the land cape. An impor- tant new trend has been emerging: city planners are encouraging the development of neotraditional communities and discour- aging traditional suburban developments by making the approval process easier for the former ant[ more difficult for the latter. Shoppers and homebuyers strongly favor neotraditional styles but have doubts about the high -density features of currently pro- posed neotraditional town designs because high density implies noise problems, lack of visual privacy, and streets that are unsafe for children. While all of these issues can be overcome by design, to date they have not yet been resolved. • The majority ofAmericansstayset zip offices for businesses at home and/or for telecommuting. The home office becomes universal as an extra room in the house. Builders and devel- opers are routinely including home offices as part of their development strategies. To some, this simply means putting in a dedi- cated power source and extra telephone tines. But increasingly, it means that rooms dedicated to the home office have a separate entry, are sound -buffered from the rest of the house, or are situated near the front door so when clients visit, the part of the house that is "lived in" is not visible. Some builders are actually offering furniture and built-in office units designed expressly for the needs of the home office worker and are offering to put the costs in the mortgage. Home office workers may create a demand for copying and other business services within the community. • Communities designed for the special needs of seniors are becoming more differentiated and a major part of the turban and social landscape. The senior market is becoming more differ- entiated because seniors have more dispos- able income, and hence, more choice. Many seniors want a lifestvle that is made up of people like themselves and that does not in- clude children. But a much larger age- and income -qualified group of seniors will reject active adult communities as "siren city," a place where the old go to die. These seniors want to live in areas where there is as much diversity in age as there is in lifestyle. They want to move down to a smaller home be- cause the kids are gone, but they still want all of the urban or suburban amenities and services they are accustomed to in their pre- sent communities. Continuing care retirement coniniuni- tics ((:CRCs) are becoming highly differen- tiated, going well beyond the old idea of nursing homes. These communities are rapidly evolving and improving as they rec- oguize the opportunity to gn upscale (there are indeed seniors who are willing to pay a lot of money to live in if CCR(:). They are also discovering that they are not in the shelter business as much as thev are in the business of providing a safe and secure envi- ronment for people to socialize and make strong friendships with other community members. What CCRCs, like builders and developers, are now learning is that as much attention needs to he paid to the soft side of people's inner needs —their psychological and social world —as to the actual physical development, the "bricks and moor." • Developers should become users ofsocial re- search. The developer will need to look at community and design issues not only from a marketing standpoint, but also within a social context. Understanding changes in society having to do with values, crime, ag- ing, and women's issues will result in the de- velopment of communities that meet the needs of a greater variety of homebuyers. Successful developers will anticipate the f i- ture, keep abreast of upcoming trends, and change how their communities are built ac- cordingly. Having social researchers as con- sultants could prove very helpful. • Entuimmeutal issues will become increasingly important in dea•elopment. De%elopers can lead the way in showing how a community can he desilmed for ecological sustainability and still bean enjoyable place in which to live. A commitment to ecotlesigns can con- tribute niore to the developers bottom line than most community features. Since com- munities will last forgcnemtions, developers can guarantee their personal place in local history by leaving a legacy of development that respects the cnvironnient. • : l dr: ebiper., i epntation adds to the credibility ,vpa,d gl•a crinammdty. The developers repu- rannn is a major facto• in the sales potential of a new conmumity. Credibility capital is w hat business ,fruit call "good will." There is every reason to believe that the impor- tance of"credibility capital" will only grow in the future. Any developer who under- takes good community relations as a strate- 6ry should be expected to prevail in the long run. Consumers want to buy from a devel- oper and a builder who care. • Forts snategie prtrmerships ber••eert develop- os and technology cimipauies. Technology will play an increasing role in community design, as can be seen by Disney's Celebration com- munity in Orlando, Florida (see page 32). It combines the latest in fiber optics, interac- tivity, and consumer electronics in the schools and in the home to flexibly support innova- tive developments later on. As the world continues to shrink, there will be a continu- ing demand for technology that improves the way people live. The face of the American consumer is becoming steadily harder to recognize. Yet, a common thread may link various lifestyles and life stages: many consumers are looking for a hometown —a place where neighbors nod in recognition, friends tote picnic lunches to concerts in the park, and families trek happily through nature trails. Today's new communities can well respond by being less concerned about the tangible components like country clubs, exclusive golf courses, and flashy gated entryways, and more con- cerned about the ideological components like environmental respect, cultural history, friends, family, and most of all —a strong sense of community. -*- Brooke Warrick is president of.-lmerican LIVES, Inc., a market research company located in San Francisco, California, that specialk-es in primary, data collection and analysis in propri- etary studies far clients. Toni Alexander it president of InterCotinnunicationsInc, a fid6ser- vice marketing commmncations firm located in .Newport Seach, CaI;Joitda, with as emphasis on the developtneot of marketing communication programs for the real estate, retail, resort, and recreation industries. Eaeb year, American LIVES, life., and interConmunicationslnc jointly sponsor research our new developments in communities for the budding industry. One joint survey conducted in 1994 rated chokes ofeon- tnanity features of'3,300 people, half ofwbon had pnrebased a borne in a planned community and hrtlf•nf wham were prospective buyers.: l n- orher survey conducted in I rJ9) compared reac- tinus aJ• l,((f bautebyer, ,awl pra,pekt;re larye»' to design elements of neoniulitional communities and standard suburbs. Febritaq 1997 • Urban Land 53 Real Estate Investment Builders • Developers 3471 Via Lido Suite 207 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3929 (714) 723.7100 FAX (714) 723.1141 One Galleria Tower 13355 Noel Road, LB 3 Suite 1315 Dallas, TX 75240.6603 (972) 934.2244 FAX (972) 991-5134 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 18, 1997 A wvwl x Mw" T tdLANNING DEPARTMEN -°ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Tim Collins CC: BPPAC Members Kevin Murphy Sharon Wood John Douglas Patti Temple FROM: Fritz Duda RE: Bay Management Issues - Charter Boat Alliance FES 2 C 1997 7 PM 1819110111112111213141516 Tim, it is apparent that the Charter Boat Alliance group is hard at work attempting to discredit certain of the bay management sections in BPPAC's report. This past weekend I witnessed the Southern'California Yacht Racing Association mid -winter regatta in Newport Bay. What an embarrassment! The Homblower "Entertainer" paid a visit along with the other stable of party boats hanging out on the bay. Fortunately (because of the time of year) the Emerald Forest Tiki boat and the Balboa tour boats were scarce. With light wind, the turning basin was cluttered. Private boats repeatedly barged through junior classes with no harbor patrol in sight. Early Saturday morning, as I took a walk along the bayfront, the plastic glasses, cigarette butts and other constant reminders of the incredible pollution in this bay were strung along the high tide line. This, of course, in February - one of our less intense months. Naturally, the charter boat and tour boat group is not solely responsible. Indeed, the entire state of affairs with regard to bay management in Newport Bay underlines the fractured and unqualified bay management by several governmental agencies. In order to properly address and respond to the charter boat special interest alliance, I would like to suggest the following: Tim Collins February 18, 1997 Page 2 2. A special effort should be made to discuss these issues with the "Defend the Bay' group or similar interested parties. Newport Bay has many competing interests and in many ways mirrors the planning challenges on the Balboa Peninsula. Historically (and for decades) we have attempted to cram ten pounds into the proverbial five pound bag. Perhaps other members of BPPAC have suggestions that would assist in connection with the bay management issues. I would encourage all to chip in here to make sure this initiative does not sit on the shelf. Thank you. FLD:ab CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Department -Memorandum- April 18, 1995 TO: Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee FROM: Advance Planning Manager SUBJECT: Land Use Data The following is a list of the land uses and amounts on the Balboa Peninsula from Coast Highway to loth Street. Single Family Dwelling Units 206 DUs 2 to 4 Dwelling Units 754 DUs 5+ Dwelling Units 108 DUs Mobile Homes 58 DUs Motel 39 rooms A Hotel 22 rooms Neighborhood Commercial 96,520 square feet General Commercial 244,790 square feet Unclassified Commercial 29,620 square feet Restaurant 146,630 square feet Fast Food Restaurant 45,730 square feet Health Club 5,260 square feet Theater 685 seats Office 275,690 square feet Medical Office 1,790 square feet Industrial 60,440 square feet Pre-school/Day Care 13,440 square feet Elementary School 389 students Governmental Offices 45,480 square feet Fire Station 7,000 square feet Church 27,720 square feet Utility 0.05 acre Parking 126,660 square feet 19 I • I' 1 O F N b N N q N N b N � N V n1 N N N N ry M H b N N O O N y N N N ry �tl p N b � N M N n N o � rl u N ^ N ^ N N F N N N N 00 O CD a N n N O n 00 00 N n N O 01 _ b K N N � N O�0 C ^•1 N 00 ' ONO N EH v N o N N 00 Sw a r v M o ir, F_i c oo N b n uSm y ON ^ O N b h N V n b � N _ b h b n n O 193 00 e o ry n 0 � p0 V N � N �.� '.' N '.'� N b n � b .M•n v�i ^ O T NWi O O0 vl yl N D\ .b. .tn.� ^ N h 7 ^ R tn N N M 141 go V M �j M M W ti .bi H tn N e ^ r y M C M .y ry • O U 00 O M n N ' O p�M.. P N F O � Census Tract 635 "West Newport" Source 1990 Census AGE---____-- TOTAL------____-- MALE FEMALE ---______ 0-4 126 83 43 5-17 248 143 105 18-24 1,465 892 573 25-44 2,898 1,888 1,010 45-64 865 483 352 65+ 580 242 338 TOTAL 6,182 3,731 2,451 MEDIAN AGE 30.4 29.9 31.9 PERSONS IN (Source 1990 HOUSEHOLDS 1 Person 846 2 Persons 1,111 3 Persons 595 4 Persons 241 5 Persons 59 6 Persons 19 7 Persons 4 TOTAL 2,875 HOUSEHOLDS (2.15 Persons EDUCATION (Source 1990 CensusZ_ Less Than 9th 23 0.4% Grade 9th To 12th No Diploma_______-184 3.2% High School Graduate 1,006 17.3% Some College, No 33.5% Associate Degree _ 428 8.2% B_a_chelo_r's_D_ee —1,800 31.0% Graduate or Professional 418 7.2% Degree TOTAL 5,808 ABC LICENSES (Source ABC) ---------------------------p. 47 On -Sale 1 For Each 132 People 10 Off -Sale 1 For Each 618 People County Standard is On -Sale i For Each 852 People Off -Sale 1 For Each 1,494 Peop Source 1990 Median Household $51,234 Families $64,148 Census Tract 635 "West Newport" Source 1990 Census TENURE BY (Source 1990 Census) AGE Age __________Owner Occg2i:S Renter Occupied -------- Total ---------------- 15-24 8 371 379 25-34 85 972 1,057 35-44 182 317 499 45-54 145 117 262 55-64 274 88 362 65-74 179 35 214 75+ 82 8 90 TOTAL 955 33.3% 1,908 66.6% 2,863 Census Tract 628 "Peninsula" Source 1990 Census) - AGE TOTAL MALE ------------------ FEMALE ---_____- 0-4 --------------- 168 93 75 5-17 413 208 205 18-24 622 299 323 25-44 2,140 1,198 942 45-64 964 516 448 65+ 652 281 371 TOTAL 1,4,959 2,595 2,364 MEDIAN AGE 35.3 34.9 35.6 PERSONS IN H_O_USEHOLI I Person 2 Persons 3 Persons 4 Persons 5 Persons 6 Persons 7 Persons TOTAL (Source 1990 Census) •-------------- 852 955 360 204 55 8 8 2,442 ABC LICENSES (Source ABC) --- ------------------------— 18 On -Sale 1 For Each 276 People 7 Off -Sale 1 For Each 709 People County Standard is On -Sale 1 For Each 852 People n£f_Caie 1 For Each 1.494 Peovb EDUCATION @ource 1990 CensusZ INCOME ___—(Source 1990 Census)__ Less Than 9th 84 1.9% Median Grade 9th To 12th No Household $48,000 Diploma................................ 277........................... 6 :3%................ High School Families $61,030 Graduate ........................................................................................................................ 450 10.2% Some College, No .Degree....................................1,443......................_33.0% o _............ .Associate Degree.........04 ... _.................. - ............................. 4 . .............. Bachelor's De ree .,,11195.................... 27.3%0 Graduate or Professional 525 12.0% Census Tract 628 "Peninsula" TENURE BY (Source 1990 Census) AGE Age Occuied _____ Renter Occuvied Total __________Owner 15-24 6 134' 140 25-34 77 581 658 35-44 142 344 486 45-54 162 165 327 55-64 324 82 406 65-74 189 58 247 75+ 130 36 166 TOTAL 1,030 42.3% 1,400 57.6% 2,430 1990 Census Tracts ( Newport Beach ) 626.11 626. / �• \` �. •':`yi `� �/ \\�%� \% / ��%�Q y=: 7 �' off Y 1/ 626.14 s`Ks'w�-.-f `.f'; :� .�e♦.� \ •a-„l '+ir,j�yt � !-'a ;� -""' "f �r� ' :., i•:r• {r.�.d �_;a'�•' - ♦ ` J„� may. ♦ :� `�� ,..6t r` -�_ .._+� •? J}t, �.�•-�-��.�" ��� •il ,:� �__ ?x+�a-1ti.'_ f. w� ,�W/_', /y'�,:R/i. Y` l� �T !;=•f It�{)�jL��, 1, '• `�'-_ ���. ��\� -•• �- d-\♦ \' j'. , ly.�• 1. Ju'4U0'f, r i i .� % .C. =„•.', _. �" y 1. ♦ \ !' •�� "! . — �., ♦ `� \ `: o•' t63,6. 7�'» 7Ja 7 ,~ � •�- �1 a:i -'=•�.:�.1 ♦� y''''• ..� 1 n\`♦••iJ•In.'.=F• i�� 1 i-I Tl'� �.I �••Ii p.1+.� .,. ✓�i -- / jrJ•L;,'~•: 1FGt'•�Y=L"I+Jb,'rl? •1-'�='lPy •'Fi;��'��•'/ P �; 6 `f 6\ '+.P/R ii 4 �i", ��i!' +urr'1 `\��-- �y'♦ /Y 's � pJ0 G� r. •.- - : �,�. .\J�i'r:• 'r'�' lul7�.-.e•� S•'•♦�.,�1 L33aC-♦ �' !•'• ` •. �i7,p�it ' • Ci SIC ' _ .e � \Ly .. ,. � �. � ' — � J^=''-`. i•\ u \ .i:�Ml."rY''-' 7t �G �}��'p��y.1CJUp��.FL - -`� •.,,..IPA• _ :'-'✓' "'/.��k :� II I nit ittif :I n _ = fY,.9, Al \`..�.``...., Rf :'7+,.L(!T(�=' �f`n'_ � _ c 63SJiJ•,,i�+;>.� 1''"�1\�• a'w' `✓r iY.%a>�'�1`'>. ,.,f:t_.v.a'v _.. :ert —h� ,i .0 •J`J♦.*'�"�+: S.9>a,♦ ��'yrT�. wy'L.L1 1'='1!'_�_ _::��.!. - .1 'L'+iP�j\ - �� �Jp y, :f'�•'Y Q h—� \— u.r ��11."`'�.� -- \ •_ • :��• " :r-S- r •'�: ' CITY OF Ncxroet Revlsed January 1994 a . • City of Newport Beach Planning Department MEMO April 19, 1995 TO: Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee FROM: Scot E. Ferris, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Land Valuation and Taxes Generated The following is a list of Residential and Commercial land valuations and the amount of taxes returned to the City from these properties. The subject area is indicated on the attached page. Residential Parcels Total Valuation Total Tax Paid Tax to City (17% of I%) (Approximately. 1% of Total Valuation 950Parcels $282,170,470 $2,852,127 $484,862 11 260 Parcels $151.234.063 $1.496.533 .19754411 1 61pc) � 5v,"o �0o Peninsula Residential Data DATA Point Balboa Residential Island Finley/Lido Residential ' Total Total %of city DWELLING UNITS Single Family Detached 637 139 562 848 672 553 3.411 14,541 23.46% Single Family Attached 8 49 121 0 173 14 365 6,258 5.83% Duplex 26 111 492 7 1,373 293 2,302 3,169 72.64% Multi Family 60 277 504 98 503 43 1,485 9.509 15.62% Owner Occupied 404 172 454 698 873 427 3,028 17.207 17.60% Rented Occupied 184 268 948 139 1.774 426 3,739 12,653 29.55% Vacant 151 145 375 119 469 93 1.352 4.001 33:7b% ar 12 200 51 148 162 281 158 1,000 6,167 16.220/a 13-to 18 67 40 60 113 216 84 580 2.747 21.11% 19 to 30 301 377 1,184 271 3,257 924 6,314 19,023 33.19% 31 to 55 520 270 850 767 1.326 580 4,313 24.056 17.93% r55 254 168 480 578 722 312 2.514 14.124 17.80% 6 V CS M v vi- m r6att I�PCIS�c� S`JS'PM4 S ChecKC -ZIP cocl�S o- >Yae�e� SCd�n/ Page 1 LM • 06-29-1995 12:31PM FRQL TO• 6443250 P.02 iLIN ee "J5 10:06RM C1 MUIPORT REACH P.1 SOt> 1 1 select vi.Wuse_met)•1000 2 from pia _uses 3 where use eoele rot in(3,4,S,6,7,8,9,10,16,21,24,25,26r27,33,34,35,42,63,45,47,50,53) 4 end tog In 5 (select tag free &area) 6e SOLa / Enter value for area: perwWint Old 51 (select tap from &area) new 5: (select tag from penrpmint) [mist value for Brea( eanbal old 53 ("teat tag from &area) new S: (aelaet tap from eanpal) StMWeS _Alr)e10oo �,£,ti; .e1 fin ,,m�,� ll�r POC-" /�c PEOSV� SOL> / Or Enter value for area: balrea old 6: (&sleet t&0 from &are&) new 5: (select tap from betre&) SU11(U&f .....1000 #� i P Y 0 V 'v 103205 sole / Enter value for great mefad �N� 1 NINV $— Ad 5: (a&lact tag from bare&) +aw St (select tap from mkfad) .\Am(llSE Ar(T)e1000 - MGPwn�fa inter ve(wt for area: cannery - G (ftry , 323+ ,Id 5: (select tap from &area) mw Sl (select tap from Cannery) UR(UK—M1T)•1000 CA" 4MY Aa� I S�0 S� • �. oU / rater value for area- (ldohaii ld 5: (seteat tap from &ere&) rw 5: (select tap from tidehall) a(.SE tuft..loco I I D t� � Ca%i Nm1t L 3S6195 ICI �IfU6 CIR Ihlti' lid A 4- (Salem tap from "tea) w 5: (select tap from lidapern) Peninsula Crime 1994 CIFUME CITY RD 11 RD 12 RD 13 RD 15 RD 16 Peninsula Total Percent ARSON 15 0 0 0 1 0 1 6.67% ASSAULT 437 8 27 17 98 25 175 40.05% BURGLARY 891 13 16 25 82 50 186 20.88% G.THEFr 318 8 15 18 42 20 103 32.39% HOMICIDE 3 0 0 0 1 1 2 66.67% LARCENY 2181 31 89 82 231 109 542 24.85% • RAPE 18 0 0 0 1 1 2 11.11 % ROBBERY 47 1 3 0 8 4 16 34.04% TOTAL 3910 61 150 142 464 210 1027 26.27% Percent 100.00% 1.56% 3.84% 3.63% 11.87% 5.37% Pagel t � • Report: COPS402Z Breakdown Summary of 'Part One' Crimes .for all RPage: 1 Sorted by Crimes Date: 02/06/95 From 01/01/94 To 12/31/94 Arson Total: 15 Assault Total: 437 Burglary Total: 89t G. Theft Total: 318 Homicide Total: 3 Larceny Total: 2181 Rape Total: 18 Robbery Total: 47 Total Number of 'Part One' Crimes: 3910 r Report: COPS403Z Breakdown Summary of 'Part One' Crimes by RD Page: 1 Sorted by Report Districts Date: 02/06/95 From 01/01/94 To 12/31/94 Report District 11 Assault Total: 8 Burglary Total: 13 G. Theft Total: 8 Larceny Total: 31 Robbery Total: 1 RD: 11 Total Number of 'Part One' Crimes: 61 Report District 12 Assault Total: 27 Burglary Total: 16 C. Theft Total: 15 Larceny Total: 89 Robbery Total: 3 RD. 12 Total Number of 'Part One' Crimes: 150 Report District 13 Assault Total: 17 Burglary Total: 25 G. Theft Total: 18 Larceny Total: 82 RD: 13 Total Number of 'Part One' Crimes: 142 Report District 14 Arson Total: = 2 Assault Total: 3 Burglary Total: 16 G. Theft Total: 1 Larceny Total: 21 Rape Total: 1 RD: 14 Total Number of 'Part One' Crimes: 44 Report District 15 Arson Total: 1 Assault Total: 98 Burglary Total: 82 G. Theft Total: 42 Homicide Total: 1 Larceny Total: 231 Rape Total: 1 Robbery Total: 8 RD: 15 Total Number of 'Part One' Crimes: 464 Report District 16 Assault Total: 25 Burglary Total: 50 G. Theft Total: 20 Homicide Total: 1 Larceny Total: 109 r IReport: COPS403Z Breakdown Summary of 'Ane' Crimes by RD Page: 2 Sorted by Report Districts Date: 02/06/95 From 01/01/94 To 12/31/94 Rape Total: 1 Robbery Total: 4 RD: 16 Total Number of 'Part One' Crimes: Report District 17 Arson Total: 1 Assault Total: 10 Burglary Total: 25 G. Theft Total: 10 Larceny Total: 66 Rape Total: 3 Robbery Total: 3 RD: 17 Total Number of 'Part One' Crimes: Report District 21 Assault Total: 1 Burglary Total: 5 'G. Theft Total: 4 Larceny Total: 7 RD: 21 Total Number of 'Part One' Crimes: Report District 23 Assault Total: 3 Burglary Total: 31 G. Theft Total: 13 Larceny Total: 79 Rape Total: 2 Robbery Total: 1 RD. 23 Total Number of 'Part One' Crimes: Report District 24 Arson Total: 1 Assault Total: 23 Burglary Total: 53 G. Theft Total: 23 Larceny Total: 86 Robbery Total: 4 RD: 24 Total Number of 'Part one' Crimes: Report District 25 Assault Total: 21 Burglary Total: 36 G. Theft Total: 12 Larceny Total: 56 Robbery Total: 1 RD: 25 Total Number of 'Part One' Crimes: Report District 26 Report: COPS403Z Breakdown Summary of 'Part One' Crimes by RD Pager 3 sorted by Report Districts Date: 02/06/95 From 01/01/94 To 12/31/94 Assault Total: 12 Burglary Total: 24 G. Theft Total: 7 Larceny Total: 67 Rape Total: 1 Robbery Total: 1 RD: 26 Total Number of 'Part One' Crimes: 115 Report District 27 Arson Total: 1 Assault Total: 21 Burglary Total: 35 G. Theft Total: 15 Larceny Total: 96 Rape Total: 3 Robbery Total: 2 RD: 27 Total Number of 'Part One' Crimes: 173 Report District 28 Assault Total: 2 r Burglary Total: 13 G. Theft Total: 5 Larceny Total: 61 Robbery Total: 1 RD: 28 Total Number of 'Part One' Crimes: 82 Report District 29 Assault Total: 4 Burglary Total: 11 G. Theft Total: 3 Larceny Total: 25 RD: 29 Total Number of 'Part One' Crimes: 43 Report District 31 Arson Total: 1 Assault Total: 14 Burglary Total: 18 G. Theft Total: 6 Larceny Total: 32 RD: 31 Total Number of 'Part One' Crimes: 71 Report District 32 Assault Total: 3 Burglary Total: 4 G. Theft Total: 1 Larceny Total: 22 Robbery Total: 1 RD: 32 Total Number of 'Part One' Crimes: 31 Report District 33 Report: COPS403Z Breakdown Summary of 'Part One' Crimes by RD Page: 4 Sorted by Report Districts Date: 02/06/95 From 01/01/94 To 12/31/94 Arson Total: 1 Assault Total: 3 Burglary Total: 10 G. Theft Total: 1 Larceny Total: 15 RD: 33 Total Number of 'Part One' Crimes: 30 Report District 34 Assault Total: 15 Burglary Total: 82 G. Theft Total: 27 Larceny Total: 163 Rape Total: 1 Robbery Total: 4 RD: 34 Total Number of 'Part One' Crimes: 292 Report District 35 Assault Total: 16 Burglary Total: 23 Larceny Total: 32 a Robbery Total: 2 RD: 35 Total Nuber of 'Part One' Crimes: 73 Report District 36 Assault Total: 9 Burglary Total: 23 G. Theft Total: 11 Larceny Total: 51 Robbery Total: 1 RD: 36 Total Number of 'Part One' Crimes: 95 Report District 37 Arson Total: 1 Assault Total: 12 Burglary Total: 16 G. Theft Total: 5 Larceny Total: 47 Rape Total: 1 RD: 37 Total Number of 'Part One' Crimes: 82 Report District 38 Assault Total: 4 Burglary Total: 11 G. Theft Total: 3 Larceny Total: 30 RD: 38 Total Number of 'Part One' Crimes: 48 Report District 39 Assault Total: 16 • Report. COP5403Z Breakdown Summary of 'Part One' Crimes by RD Page: 5 sorted by Report Districts Date: 02/06/95 From 01/01/94 To 12/31/94 Burglary Total: 58 G. Theft Total: 19 Larceny Total: 259 Rape Total: 2 Robbery Total: 1 RD: 39 Total Number of 'Part One' Crimes: 355 Report District 41 Assault Total: 9 Burglary Total: 37 G. Theft Total: 6 Larceny Total: 52 RD: 41 Total Number of 'Part One' Crimes: 104 Report District 42 Assault Total: 10 Burglary Total: 31 G. Theft Total: 5 Larceny Total. 72 Robbery Total: 1 RD: 42 Total Number of 'Part One' Crimes: 119 Report District 43 Assault Total: 2 Burglary Total: 11 G. Theft Total: 3 Larceny Total: 12 RD: 43 Total Number of 'Part one' Crimes: 28 Report District 44 Arson Total: 1 Assault Total: 17 Burglary Total: 45 G. Theft Total: 14 Larceny Total: 84 Rape Total: 1 Robbery Total: 5 RD: 44 Total Number of 'Part Report District 45 Arson Total: 1 Assault Total: 6 Burglary Total: 24 G. Theft Total: 7 Larceny Total: 68 Rape Total: 1 Robbery Total: 3 RD: 45 Total Number of 'Part Report District 46 v • Report: COPS403Z Breakdown Summary of 'Part One' Crimes by RD Page: 6 Sorted by Report Districts Date: 02/06/95 From 01/01/94 To 12/31/94 Assault Total: 2 Burglary Total: 5 0. Theft Total: 1 Larceny Total: 2 RD: 46 Total Number of 'Part One' Crimes: 10 Report District 47 Arson Total: 1 Assault Total: 1 Burglary Total: 16 0. Theft Total: 3 Larceny Total: 19 RD: 47 Total Number of 'Part One' Crimes. 40 Report District 48 Assault Total: 1 G. Theft Total: 1 Homicide Total: 1 Larceny Total: 19 LI r RD: 48 Total Number of 'Part One' Crimes: 22 Report District 49 Assault Total: 2 Burglary Total: 12 Larceny Total: 22 RD: 49 Total Number of 'Pi Report District 51 Assault Total: 7 Burglary Total: 13 G. Theft Total: 2 Larceny Total: 9 RD: 51 Total Number of IN Report District 52 Assault Total: 8 Burglary Total: 9 G. Theft Total: 1 Larceny Total: 11 RD: 52 Total Number of IN Report District 53 Assault TotaL• 3 Burglary Total. 7 G. Theft Total: 1 Larceny Total: 35 RD: 53 Total Number of IN Report District 99 9eport: CRNSIDIZ by Uarious City 050 C-Offense Search 0 PCB// c/. Page: 2 Sorted RD Areas, Case Hiutber, Date : 04/06/95 Case Number City Offense Description Date Time RD Location 95-002386 594.4PC UANDALISN LESS $1000-11 03/01/95 18:00 15 24TH MEAN FRONT 95-002431 594.4PC UANDALISN LESS S1000-11 03/02/95 10:15 16 100 41ST 93-002448 459PC-CON11 BURGLARY-CONNERCIAL-F 03/04/95 2:OD 17 4500 COAST 95-002457 487.1PC-DIKE GRAND THEFT OF BICYCLE-F 03/02/95 21:00 15 600 CLUBHOUSE 95-OOZ497 459PC-GARG- ' BURGLARY-GARAGE-F 03/04/95 12:00 15 IOD 315T 95-D02533 !' 487H,(A)PC-AUTO GRAND THEFT OF AUTO/05299 Wows 1:00 17 6200 COAST 95-002563 488PC-AUTO PETTY THEFT FROM AUTO-N 03/06/95 20:00 13 1200'BALBOA 95-002596 459PC°RE5 BURGLARY-RESIDENTIAL-F 03/07/95 7:15 14 200 UTA LIDO NORD 95-002601 459PC-COl1N BURGLARY-CONNERCIAL-F 03/07/95 22:00 13 1900 BALBOA 95-0026Z7 459PC-PES BURGLARY-RESIDENTIAL-F 03/02/95 10:30 16 5200 NEPTUNE• 95-002628 459PC-MS BURGLARY-13ESI➢ENTIAL-F 03/06/95 6:45 16 5200 NEPTUNE 95-DOZ64D 459PC-AUTO BURGLARY-AUTO-F 03/09/95 4:00 15 HEHPORT /30TH 93-002641 459PC-AUT0 BURGLARY-AUTO-F 03/09193 1:00 12 BALBOA /NEDINA 93-002642 959PC-AUTO BURGLARY-AUTO-F 03/08/95 20:30 13 BALBOA /DOT" 95-002672 594.4PC UANDALISN LESS S1000-11 03/10/95 1:10 15 3400 UTA LIDO 95-002733 459PC-AUTO BURGLARY-AUTO-F 03/10/95 22:30 15 3400 UTA LIDO 95-002734 4j, PC -AUTO _ BURGLARY-AUTO-F 03/10/95 22:30 15 3400 VIA LIDO 9S-OOZ740 664/459PC-RES ATTEMPT BURGLARY -RESIDENT 03/10/95 20:16 13 1800 BALBOA 95-002748 459PC-RES BURGLBRY-RESIDENTIAL-F 03/10/95 14:00 12 500 OCEAN FRONT 95-002786 594.4PC UANDALISN LESS $1000-11 03/1Z/95 3:55 15 100 28TH 95-002796 459PC-AUTO BURGLARY-AUTO-F 03/12/55 30 13 200 10TH 95-002830 487.IPC-DIKE GRAND THEFT OF BICYCLE-F 03/13/95 1:00 16 4600 COAST 95-002837 459PC-GARS- BURGLARY-GARAGE-F 03/13/95 12:00 15 3500 SEASHORE 95-002847 487H(A)PC-AUTO GRAND THEFT OF AUTO/057.99 03/13195 21:05 16 49TH /HEP'TUNE r 95-002876 48711MM-AUTO GRAND THEFT OF AUTO/05299 03/15/95 6:00 15 OCEAN FRONT /22ND 95-002099 459PC-CARG BURGLARY-GARAGE-F 03/15/95 13:00 13 200 20TH 95-002934 459PC-AUT.O BURGLARY-AUTO-F 03/15/95 23:00 15 100 7.6TH 93-002939 459PC-RES BURGLARY-RESI:DENTIAI: F 03/16/95 20:45 13 1000 BALBOA 95-002996 459PC-BOAT BURGLARY-BOAT-F 03/18/95 7:50 15 3300 UTA LIDO 95-003010 4¢7H(A)PC-AUTO GRAND THEFT OF AUTO/057.99 03/18/95 12:30 16 46T'H /SEAiHORE 95-003047 487.1PC•-BIKE GRAND THEFT OF DICYCLE-F 03/18/95 20:00 13 1300 BAY 95-003090 459PC-RES ➢URGLARY-RESIDENTIAL-F 03/21/95 2:40 15 100 33RD 95-003137 459PC-RES ➢URGLARY-RESIDENTIAL-F 03/17/95 12:00 17 6200 0CEP1i FRONT 95-003145 459PC-RES BURGLARY-RESI:DENTIAL-F 03/20/95 17:00 13 1100 OCEAN FR01i1 95-003205 459PC-RUTO - BURGLARY-AUTO-F 03/73/95 23:00 15 34C0 Ulf. LIDO 95-003207 `r94.4PC UANDALISN LESS $1000-11 03/24/95 1:35 15 MOO OIT: LIDO 95-003244 487.1PC-AUTO GRAND THEFT FROM AUTO-F 031ZZ/95 Z2:30 16 4500 CORSI 95-003263 459PC-COND BURGLARY-CONNERCIAL-F 03/25/95 30 13 700 0AY 95-003264 459PC-BOAT BURGLARY-BOAT-F 03/24/95 18:00 13 700 BAY 95-003361 459PC-AU10 BURGLARY-AUTEI-F 03/26/95 22:30 17 CANAL /TERN 95-003409 499PC-AUTO BURGLARY-AUTO-F 03/Z6/95 18:00 17 ZOO CANAL 95-003417 488PC-BIKE PETTY THEFT OF BICYCLE-N 03/Z4t95 16:30 17 300 PWIPECT 95-003431 459PC-AUTO BURGLARY-AUTO-F 03/28/95 15:30 13 1200 BALBOA 95-003470 459PC-GARG BURGLARY-GARAGE-F 03/27/95 7:00 17 700 DALAAIT 95-003486 459PC-RES BURGLARY -RESIDENTIAL: F 03/29/95 MIS 16 4900 SELIRMI: 95-003488 459PC-RES BURGLARY-RE8IDENTIAI: F 03/30/95 30 16 100 46TI{ 95-003490 488PC-B:LKE PETTY THEFT OF BICYCLE-N 03/29/95 7:00 16 TOO 4)ST 95-003496 459PC-AUTO BURGLARY-AUTO-F 03/25/9, 21:00 15 ?IC TAODE'H LOi /OCEAN FRONT 95-003516 647gPC PROUL,'LOI7ER,LIMGER ON PR 03/31/9S 4:15 15 3400 OCEAN !-NONT 95-003517 459PC•RES BURGLARY-RESIDENTIAL-F 03/30/95 23:30 1'6 100 KIM! 95-003518 487H(A)PC•AUTO GRAND THEFT OF AUT0/052.99 03/30/95 Z1:10 11 490 SFUILLE 95-003524 459PC-RES BURGLARY-RESIDENTIAL-F 03/31/95 12:20 16 5100 LIDO SAMOS Total for this Reporting District Area : 52 Figure 3.2.1-1 city of Newport Beach Police Department Reporting Districts 3-5 PAGE I (GRFPARMS) City or Nrrwport Heach FILTER PARAMETERS 04I24l95 GRIP Report I 21:00 ACTIVE IN THE FOLLOWING REPORTS Type of Generator: Revenue Generator Goo Areas: CHPT: CENTRAL NRnPORT Revenue Source Scope- All Revenue Elements of Selected Entities Revenue Source Range by- Revenue Amounts Number of Revenue Entities: 1,415 'Mc ev S �� U C � l Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Page 1 (GRA190) City of Newport Beach 04124l95 GRIP Report 21:00 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 42,760 23RD WEST 42.761 3345 MULTIPLE 1,419 3418 VIA LIDO ASSOC 5,040 3444 LIDO PTNRS 42,762 4ADESIGN 5.471 503 LIDO PARTNERS LTD. 238 711 FOOD STORES 42.769 72O VENTURE GROUP 29,890 720 WIRELESS INC. 22,734 A PLACE FOR NAILS 42,008 ABBOTT MICHAEL 38,137 ABDELMUTI MIKE 13,185 ABERCROMBIE KATHERINE 30.333 ACADEMY OF LANGUAGES 7,421 ACE PARKING INC. 25 ACKERMAN PROPERTY 31.566 ACTIVITIES INC. 34.869 ACTORS CLUB 42,795 ADVENT MEMORY INC. 13,894 ADAMS JERRY D 31.893 ADLER MARVIN TUNSTALL CH 37.846 ADRAYLOTTFIE 31.596 ADVENT MEMORY CO INC. 11.890 AGAJANIAN ART SUSAN 37.377 AHN JOHN HEUNG KYO 40,128 ALATRISTE SILVIA MARIN 39,511 ALAVEKIOS STEVEN 1.463 ALLEN BECK FLOWERS GIFTS REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Report A190c Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Business SaleslUse Property Trans. Fran. Feel State Revenue Ind. Cum. Lic. Tax Tax Tax Occup. Tax Utility Subv. Contribution Pct Pet Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue $2,944 0.01% 0% $100 $2,844 S $1,206 0.00% 0% $1,206 0% $1,144 0.00% 0% $1,144 $5,965 0.01% 0% $140 $5,825 0% $138 0.00% 0% $120 $18 $190 0.00% 0% $120 $59 $11 $5 0.00% 0% $5 $43 0.00% 0% $43 $552 0.00% 0% $465 $8 $130 0.00% 0% $130 $3 0.00% 0% $3 0% D% ass 0.00% o% $ss 0% $513 0.00% 0% $513 $110 0.00% 0% $110 $50 O.00% 0% $50 $115 0.00% 0% $105 $10 $618 0.00% 0% $521 $9 $66 0.00% 0% $66 $15 0.00% 0% $15 $21 0.00% 0% $21 $2.771 0.01% 0% $2,771 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only ReportA190c Page 2 (GRAIN) City of Newport Beach WI24N5 GRIP Report 21:00 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 14,586 ALLEN RICHARD D 4.333 ALLEN THOMAS WHITESIDES 203 ALLEYWESTINC 771 ALTA COFFEE -ROASTING CO 18,72E ALTAIR MARINE INC. 31.908 ALTONI DETECTIVES SECURITY 33,093 ALTONI THOROUGHBREDS 597 AMERICAN AIRLINES INC. 18.692 AMERICAN NATIONAL LEASING 31.911 AMERICARE FINANCIAL SERVICES 20.441 AMERKHANIAN RUBEN 33,107 AMG BOOKKEEPING SERVICES 5,677 AMIN AFAF M 1.424 ANDERSON ERIC MARIE 18,429 ANIMAL CLINIC OF BALBOA 10.176 ANNETTES PLACE 42,854 ANNIES 15,741 ANNIES OC GOURMET LUNCHBO%E 32,538 ANSARi NASRIN 42,857 ANTIQUE TIFFANY HOUSE 17,813 APOLLO TRAVEL SERVICES PA 40 APSI CHEVRON MINI MART 1,844 ARCHER RONALD A MICHELE D 30,796 ARMBRUSTER STANLEY G 33.127 ARMSTRONG DESIGN 40,427 ARMSTRONGJOHN 42,882 ARNOLDS HIDEOUT REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shawn for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Business Sales/Use Property Trans. Fran. Fee/ Revenue Ind. Cum tic. Tax Tax Tax Occup. Tax Utility Contribution Pet Pct Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue $4 0.00% 0% $:4 $1,338 0.00% 0% $1.128 $18,200 0.04% 0% $300 $17,764 $146 $4,710 0.01% 0% $165 $4,534 $11 $302 0.00% 0% $302 $110 0.00% 0% $110 $100 0.00% 0% $100 $39 0.00% 0% $39 $20 0.00% 0% $20 $110 0.00% 0% $110 $246 0.00% 0% $100 $123 $100 000% 0% $100 $1.118 0.00% 0% $942 $2,257 000% 0% $2.257 $312 0.00% 0% $205 $107 $722 0.00% 0% $110 $612 0% $423 0.00% 0% $125 $298 $108 0.00% 0% $100 $8 - 0% $10 0.00% 0% $10 $987 0.00% 0% $987 $2,399 0.01% 0% $2.022 $125 0.00% 0% $125 $100 0.00% 0% $100 $13 0.00% 0% $13 0% Report A190c State Subv. Revenue $2 $17 $37 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential DocumentRestricled to Authorized Personnel Only Report A180c Page 3 (GRA190) City of Newport Reach 04124/05 GRIP Report 21:00 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 1.766 ART DIMENSIONS 42,886 ART PEASE 33,138 ARTS BEVEL CRAFT 30.910 ARTS LEATHER DESIGN 10,785 ASPIN JENNIE DAMON 20,267 ATALLA M M KERRY D 7,903 ATALLA MARTIN M 668 ATKINSONS MENS CLOTHING 31.925 ATLANTIC BRIDGE CORP 21,767 ATLANTIS 1.741 ATLANTIS NIGHT CLUB 31.926 ATTITUDE SPORTS MARKETING 33,147 AUSTIN MARINE 6.635 AUTORE UMBERTO ROSANA 675 AVALLONE LEOPOLD T 19.843 AVALON SALON 31.928 AVCAL MGMT 33,149 AVERY CO 23.508 AVILAS EL RANCHITO 4 INC. 41.325 AVR NATIONAL SALES ORGANIZATIO 36.866 AVR NATIONAL SERVICE ORGNZATN 16.393 AYLOUSH ABBOTT CYNTHIA 42.914 B J RESTAURANT 5.223 B JS BY SEA 2.608 BA PROPERTIES INC. 29.932 BACCHUS 15,686 BACK BAY COMMUNICATIONS 11.379 BAILEY CHARLEN REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution - Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Business SaleslUse Property Trans. Fran. Feet Revenue Ind. Cum. Lic. Tax Tax Tax Occup. Tax Utility Contribution Pct Pct Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue $2.479 0.01% 0% $105 $2,374 0% $100 0.00% 0% $100 $123 0.00% o% $100 $23 $686 0.00% 0% $578 $251 0.00% 0% $251 $878 0.00% o% $740 $5,319 0.01% 0% $100 $4,821 $398 $110 000% 0% $110 0% $2,508 0.01% 0% $140 $2.368 $110 0.00% 0% $110 $100 0.00% 0% $100 $1,002 0.00% 0% $100 $760 $1.139 0.00% 0% $1.139 $263 0.00% 0% $200 $58 $5 $110 0.00% 0% $110 $100 0.00% 0% $100 $177 0.00% 0% 5177 $8 0.00% 0% S8 $80 0.00% 0% $80 $396 0.00% 0% $396 0% $1,175 O.Oo% 0% $105 $1,070 $253 0 00% 0% 5253 $137 0.00% 0% $75 $62 $427 0.00% 0% $210 $217 $649 0.00% 0% 5547 Report AtlOc State Subv. Revenue $14 i 1 $10 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190c Page 4 (GRA190) City of Newport Beach 04124195 GRIPReport 21:00 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 31.608 BAIN MICHAEL 34,680 BAJA LOBSTER GROUP OF 7,572 BAKER EDWARD GEORGE 33,160 BAKER JAMES FISH 1,074 BALBOA ASSOC 24,024 BALBOA CORONA LTD. PARTNERS 6.024 BALBOA IMPORTS 118 BALBOA NEWPORT REALTY 1.923 BALDYS TACKLE STORE 219 BANK OF AMERICA NT SA 1,106 BARBARA BILL PAGEN INC. 6.481 BARELY THERE SWIMWEAR 19,349 BARGE RENE 2.755 BARGE RENE ANDRE 11,558 BARKER JEFFREY HILL SANDY 34,9W BARNACLE BILLS OF ORANGE COLIN 9,059 BARRETTSTEVE 8.089 BARRONE GERALD D 5,675 BARRY FAMILY REAL ESTATE CORP 19,047 BARRYJOHNASSOC 5.110 BASIC INTERNATIONAL 39,177 BASKETS DONNE 14,792 BASKIN ROBBINS ICE CREAM STORE 30.614 BASSETT GRAPHIC DESIGN 12,921 BAUMBUSH BRUCE 8,937 BAZZY RICHARD J 799 BEACH BALL RESTAURANT REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S: - Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Report A190c Total Business SalesAlse Property Trans. Fran. Feet State Revenue Ind. Cum Lic. Tax Tax Tax Occup. Tax Utility Subv. Contribution Pct Pct Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue $115 0.00% 0% $115 $99 0.00% 0% $99 . $910 0.00% 0% $767 $14 $100 0.00% 0% $100 $783 0.00% 0% $660 $12 $168 0.00% 0% $168 $979 0.00% 0% $100 $858 $21 $30,061 0.06% 0% $100 $29,961 $2,329 0.01% 0% $230 $2,099 $1.077 0.00% 0% $741 $336 $3,554 0.01% 0% $3,554 $1,021 0.00% 0% $100 $921 $281 0.00% 0% $281 $1.769 0.00% 0% $1,789 $639 0.00% 0% $100 $539 0% $17 0.00% 0% $17 $17 0.00% 0% $17 $128 0.00% 0% $128 $197 0.00% 0% $130 $67 $1.195 0.00% 0% $100 $1,095 $24 0.00% 0% $24 $468 0.00% 0% $120 $348 $128 0.00% 0% $100 $28 $566 0.00% 0% $477 $B $am 0.00% 0% $678 $12 $4,616 0.01% 0% $135 $4,477 $4 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only ReportA190c Page 5 (GRA700) City of Newport Beach 04124195 GRIP Report 21:00 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 17,759 BEACH BURGER 25,427 BEACH CITIES MEDICAL GROUP 25.431 BEACH ELECTRIC 31,065 BEACH PROPERTIES 1,828 BEACH STORE 33,195 BEAUTY WORLD 18,629 BECK JOHND 397 BEDFORD RD INC. 40,559 BEGIN SUSANNA OR RAIG 3,779 BENITOS 15.550 BERGMAN RAY S 23.680 BERGOUGNAN JACQUES OR 4.066 BERGSTROM ROBERT L 14.165 BERNAMONTI DON TRUSTEE 18.107, BERNARD J MILLER 37.679 BERNICE, UHLYARIK 31.069 BETTY BRITE CLEANERS 23,313 BIGHORN VENTURES INC. 33,215 BIGHORN VENTURES INC. 32,710 BIGTIME ENTERPRISE INC. 42,982 BILLCAGNEY 42,985 BILL MCDOWELL 32.587 BILLY JOS CAFE 761 BLACKIES BY SEA RESTAURANT 42.992 BLACKIES BY SEAL 1,117 BLACKMAN LTD. JEWELERS 41,826 BLODGETT FREDRICK OREN 21,273 BLOOMBERG L P REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUALTOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City'sTotal Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Revenue Contribution $338 $150 $150 $120 $2,411 $100 $305 $7.033 $12 $1.457 $432 $174 $1.393 $498 $323 $55 $120 $155 $100 Business Ind. Cum. Lic. Tax Pct Pct Revenue 0.00% 0% $100 0.00% 0% $150 000% 0% $150 0.00% 0% $120 0.01% 0% $120 0.00% 0% $100 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% $107 0.00% 0% $4,759 0.01% 0% 0% $3.545 0.01% 0% $6 0.00% 0% $25 0.00% 0% $130 $120 $100 Salesluse Tax Revenue $238 $2,291 Property Tax Revenue $305 $6.150 $12 $1.327 $432 $174 $1.174 $420 $272 ;z $100 $7 $125 $4.606 $120 $3,334 $155 $28 $91 $6 $25 Trans. Fran. Feet Oceup.Tax Utility Revenue Revenue Report A100c State Subv. Revenue 0 $88 $21 $7 $5 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190c Page 6 (GRA190) City of Newport Beach 0412,11% GRIP Report 21:00 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 33.223 BLOOMINGFIELDS 1,066 BLUE BEET CAFE 33,224 BLUE DOLPHIN YACHT SERVICE 30,353 BOAT YACHT INSURANCE LTD. J 39,797 BOKENKO JOHN R MATHEWS 23.509 BON APPETIT CATERING 40,866 BOSTONROBERTA 31,709 BOSTWICK GRIFFIN INC. 42,269 BOULAY TOM 29,796 BOUSEH 43.007 BOUTIOUEANGELIOUE 41.497 BOYCE EDWARD C OR BETTY 7,562 BRANCATO PEARL 18.651 BRASELLE DESIGN CO 16.054 BRENNAN LAWRENCE W 12,386 BRITT LTD. DESIGNS 4,323 BRITTAN ROGAN 31.431 BROCKE ROBERT DESIGN 33.249 BROOKE INTERIORS 38.459 BROOKS CARL 2,188 BROOKS LEON 23.884 BROOKS SIMS PRODUCE DISTRI 31.466 BROWN A W CO INC. 41,531 BROWN EDWARD J JR 33,255 BROWN MARILYN MFCC 3.360 BROWN PATRICKJ 5.255 BROWN WILLETH REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CRY'S: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Business SaieslUse Property Trans. Fran. Feel Revenue Ind. Cum. Lic, Tax Tax Tax Occup. Tax Utility Contribution Pct Pct Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue $100 0.00% 0% $100 $3,667 0.01% 0% $3.667 $100 0.00% 0% $100 $130 0.00% 0% $130 $18 0.00% 0% $18 $82 0.00% 0% $82 $10 0.00% 0% $10 $113 0.00% 0% $110 $3 $4 0.00% 0% $4 0% 0% $7 0.00% 0% $7 $910 0.00% 0% $910 $305 0.00% 0% $100 $155 $50 $204 0.00% 0% $172 $595 0.00% 0% $100 $495 $1.342 0.00% 0% $100 $1.242 $118 0.00% 0% $100 $18 $100 0.00% 0% $100 ' $36 0.00% 0% $36 $2,120 0.00% 0% $1.787 $170 0.00% 0% $170 $117 0.00% 0% $100 $17 $7 0.00% 0% $7 $100 0.00% 0% $100 $1.173 0.00% 0% $1.173 $1,170 0OD% 0% $1.170 Report A160c State Subv. Revenue E2m • $33 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only ReportA190c Page 7 (GRA790) City of Newport Beach 04124195 GRIP Report 21:00 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 22.489 BRUNMARKCO 20,738 BRYAN THOMAS HACK 42,682 BUCHANAN DAVID S 42.558 BUCK NANCY 33.262 BUILDER DEV MAGAZINE 39.907 BURDEN KAY 31.956 BURNS CHARTERS 37,945 BURNS ROBERT G 14,363 BURYFRANCESA 42,246 BUSQUTACO BRAULIO 36,640 BUTCHER RALPH L 8.633 BYRNEMARKJ 39.902 BYRNE MICHAEL 33.276 C P TECHNICAL SERVICES 32,447 C S D GROUP 43.063 CAD TRAIN 6.648 CADARETTE RICHARD P DENEEN 42,103 CAFE BALBOA 6.330 CAFE LIDO 2,055 CAFFE LE FARRO 2,704 CAGNEYWILLIAMJ 43.065 CAL EVALUATION SERVICES 38,926 CALAPRICE JOHN R 20.501 CALDWELL MICHAEL 303 CALIFORNIA BEACH RESTAURANT 39.595 CALIFORNIA ENGINE CORE 13.874 CALIFORNIA KABOBS 43.082 CALIFORNIA PARKING CO REVENUE GENERATORS'ANNUALTOTAL REVENUE RANKING Sbown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITYS: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of* 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Revenue Cnntrihurinn $194 $237 $2 $3 $100 $17 $110 $47 $218 $4 $89 $824 $17 $100 $110 $999 $5 $1.037 $2,221 $1.814 $28 $244 $11,441 $20 $514 Business Sales/Use Ind. Cum. Lic. Tax Tax Pct Pct Revenue Revenue M00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% $100 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% $110 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% $100 0.00% 0% $100 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.02% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0% Property Tax Revenue $164 $237 $2 $3 $17 $47 $218 $4 $75 $694 $17 $10 $842 $5 $1,037 $115 $2.106 $1.814 $28 $244 $230 $11,211 $20 $100 $414 Trans. Fran. Feel Occup.Tax Utility Revenue Revenue Report A190c Stale Subv. Revenue M u 0 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only ReportA190c Page s (GRA190) City of Newport Beach M4195 GRIP Report 21:00 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 29,711 CALIFORNIA VALET PARKING 31,017 CALVIN G ROHRS FMLY 367 CAMELOT RESTAURANTS 43,091 CANERY VILLAGE TAILORING 16,166 CANNELL JOSEPH KNAPP 12,900 CANNERYPAINTS 149 CANNERY RENTALS 78 CANNERY RESTAURANT 35,105 CANNERY TILE WORKS 326 CANNERY VILLAGE INVESTMENT 15,809 CANNERY VILLAGE REALTY 32.485, CANNERY VILLAGE TRAVEL 31,093 CAREEE CO 40,235 CAREYDONALD 119 CARLSJR RESTAURANT 33.304 CARMS CONEYS 3,613 CARNITAS LA VILLA 40,558 CASADOS JANET H 14.055 CASE MERIAM BRASELLE 532 CASSIDYS RESTAURANT 33,314 CASTROREALE PATRICIA A 274 CATELLUS DEV CORP 9,786 CEDROS CORP 35,129 CERTA PRO PAINTERS 40,531 CETINELIAN AGAVNI A 37,271 CHALMERS FRANCIS R JANET 43,125 CHAMBERS PROPERTY SERVICES REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Report A190c Total Business Sales/Use Property Trans. Fran. Fee/ State Revenue Ind. Cum. Lic. Tax Tax Tax Occup.Tax Utility Subv. Contribution Pct Pct Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue $140 0.00% 0% $140 $121 0.00% 0% $121 $9.372 0.02% 0% $300 $8,990 $82 0% $322 0.00% 0% $271 $5 $567 0 00% 0% $100 $356 $111 $25.073 0.05% 0% $140 $25 $24.908 $43.586 0.09% 0% $770 $40,862 $1,954 $95 0.00% 0% $95 $10,594 0.02% 0% $10.594 $420 0.00% 0% $340 $80 $109 0.00% 0% $100 $9 $120 0.00% 0% $120 $15 0.00% 0% $15 $12.633 0.03% 0% $200 $12,211 $222 $100 0.00% 0% $100 $1,497 0.00% 0% $100 $1,397 • $12 0.00% -0% $12 $505 0.00% 0% $505 $6,527 0.01 % 0% $115 $6,412 $100 0.00% 0% $100 $5,156 0.01% 0% $5,156 $747 0.00% 0% $110 5637 $95 0.00% 0% $95 $12 0.00% 0% $12 $71 0.00% 0% $71 0% Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190c Page 9 (GRA190) City of Newport Beach "MAW GRIP Report 21:00 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 25,805 CHAMLEY LANDSCAPE 8,577 CHANOUX JOHN WILLIAM 6,190 CHAO PEI CHUNG 33,328 CHAPMAN CO 904 CHARLIES CHILI RESTAURANT 862 CHARLIES LOCKER 38.648 CHARLIES LOCKER INC. 2,879 CHARTER MEMORIES 18,339 CHASE WEENA TAN 41,368 CHAVEZ STEPHANIE 17,094 CHELF FREDERICK NORMAN 31,585 CHI RHO YOU 42.714 CHIC FOR LESS 43,137 CHICKEN EXPRESS 39,996 CHILDS THOMAS H CHILDS 39.508 CHIN STANLEY 5,289 CHINS KITCHEN 40,565 CHLEBOWSKI MICHAEL 30.089 CHOICE LEASING 10.883 CHRISMAN BARBARA JEAN 3,789 CHRISTELS 41,765 CHRISTENSE NANCY SUTTON 32,713 CHRISTMAS CALIFORNIA STYLE 33.343 CHUCKS BARBER SHOP 1,697 CHUGAY NIKOLAS V 43.150 CHURCH I ST CHRIST SCIENTIST 23,003 CIAO BELLA CAFE 38,555 CIRAULO JOE CAROLE REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Report A190 : Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) Cily'sTotal Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Business Sales/Use Property Trans. Fran. Feel State Revenue Ind. Cum Lie. Tax Tax Tax Occup. Tax Utility Subv. Contribution Pct Pct Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue $150 0.00% 0% $150 $827 0.00% 0% $827 $1,055 O.00% 0% $889 $100 0.00% 0% $100 $4.171 0.01% 0% $150 $4,021 $4,332 0.01% 0% $105 $4,227 $33 O.OD% 0% $33 $898 0.00% 0% $898 $314 0.00% O% $265 $4 $8 0.00% 0% $e $368 0.00% 0% $310 $5 $115 0.00% 0% $115 $1 0% $1 0% $16 000% 0% $16 $21 0.00% 0% $21 $1,164 0.00% 0% $1,164 $12 0.00% 0% $12 $134 0.00% 0% $110 $24 $680 0.00% 0% $680 $1.454 0.00% 0% $110 $1,344 $6 0.00% 0% $6 $105 0.00% 0% $105 $100 0.00% O% $100 $8 0.00% 0% $8 0% $186 0.00% O% $100 $86 $34 0.00% 0% $34 1 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190c Page 10 (GRA190) Report A190c City of Newport Beach REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING 04MM GRIP Report Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S: 21:00 -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of* 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Total Business SaleslUse Property Trans. Fran. Feel State Rev Revenue Ind. Cum. Lic. Tax Tax Tax Occup.Tax Utility Subv. Rank Revenue Generator Contribution Pct Pot Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue 30.522 CIRCUIT PLUS INC. $130 0.00% 0% $1D0 $23 $7 31,976 CIRCULATION PLUS $110 0.00% 0% $110 40,115 CISNEROS TONY GARCIA $15 0.00% 0% $15 24,001 CITI DONUT $168 0.00% 0% $105 $63 37.211 CITY HOPE $74 0.00% 0% $62 S1 1,905 CITY NATIONAL BANK $118 0.00% 0% $118 93 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH $8,433 0.02% 0% $4.487 $3,946 38.677 CLARK BARBARA JUNE $32 0.00% 0% $32 43,165 CLEANER DEL MAR 0% 33,350 CLEMENTINA CRUISES $100 0.00% 0% $100 43.167 CLOSED FOR SEASON 0% 25,883 COASTAL COLOR $150 0.00% 0% $150 33.365 COASTAL PROPERTIES COASTAL $100 0.00% 0% $100 38,447 COASTLINE INVESTMENTS $36 0.00% A% $36 42,138 COCHRANE STUART $5 0.00% 0% u 22,010 COCOS CONSIGNMENT FASHIONS $206 0.00% 0% $206 39.297 COFFEE PEDDLER $23 0.00% 0% $23 21.045 COFFEE PUB OF NEWPORT $229 O.OD% 0% $229 43,178 COL CO CORP 0% 18,797 COLCO INVESTMENT CO $300 0.00% 0% $300 37.688 COLEJOHNVERNET $55 0.00% 0% $55 6,602 COLLINS BUDGE $842 0.00% 0% $710 $13 36,829 COLLINS INTERIOR DESIGN GIFT $01 0.00% 0% $15 $56 $1 3,874 COMDISCO INC. $7 0.00% 0% $7 31,818 CONCORD LEASING CO US $111 0.00% 0% $111 9.854 CONE CARROLL DAVID JR $742 0.00% 0% $625 $11 33.381 CONQUER DOROTHY J $100 0.00% 0% 5100 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190c Page 11 (GRA190) City of Newport Beach (IM41115 GRIP Report 21.00 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 11,587 CONRECODE EDWARD J 17.380 COOK TED K 10.637 COOK WILLIAM B JULI S 7,457 COPPEL ERNESTO 13,597 COPPER CHIMNEY CUISINE OF INDI 29.507 CORE CONSTRUCTION MGMT 24,808 CORGIAT RICHARD GARRY 33,386 CORIAT LIVING TRUST 30,987 CORNELL NORBY WESTERN ART 39.010 CORRIGAN D J MARYNELL 37.470 COSBY GALLERY 35.217 COUNTRY ELEGANCE 36,730 COVINGTON VAUGHN T 33.398 COX PACIFIC GENERAL 83 CRAB COOKER 6,701 CRAIG KINDIG DENTAL CERAMICS 30,697 CRAIG WILLIAM 19.188 CRAMER PETER T 9.488 CREAN JOHN 38,623 CREATIVE BUSINESS LEASING 4,745 CREOLE GARY Z991 CREW WEST MARINE ELECTRONICS 21.375 CRISP DESIGNS 9,981 CRISTOBAL EDWARD POL WONG 33,409 CROSS BORDER SURPLUS 300 CROWN CRAFT OFFSHORE YACHTS 1,649 CROWS NEST NEWPORT BEACH 35,228 CRUISING ENTERPRISE REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Report A190c Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITYS: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of. 1) Each Revenue Generaloes Total Revenue 2) Cily's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Business SalesRlse Property Trans. Fran. Feel State Revenue Ind. Cum. Lic. Tax Tax Tax Oecup.Tax Utility Subv. Contribution Pct Pct Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue $637 0.00% 0% $537 $10 $354 0.00% 0% $354 $695 0.00% 0% $W $0 $921 0.00% 0% $776 $14 $529 0.00% 0% $115 $414 $144 0.00% 0% $115 $29 $153 0.00% 0% $153 $100 0.00% 0% $100 $121 0.00% 0% $100 $21 $27 0.00% 0% $27 $63 0.00% 0% $63 0% $86 0.00% 0% $86 $100 0.00% 0% $100 $1,241 0.00% 0% $1,241 $100 0.00% 0% $100 $129 0.00% 0% $129 $287 0.00% 0% $287 $766 000% 0% $766 $9 0.00% 0% $9 $1.255 0.00% 0% $1.088 $16 $1.696 0.00% 0% $115 $1.581 $221 0.00% 0% $100 $121 $736 0.00% 0% $620 $11 $100 0.00% 0% $100 $11.546 0.02% 0% $150 $11.380 $16 $2,626 0.01% 0% $2,626 $95 0.00% 0% $95 1 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190e Page 12 (GRA190) City of Newport Beach 04124195 GRIP Report 21:00 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 15.793 CRULL MARY CATHERINE 41,256 CRULL TIMM FOR MARGARET 33.413 CURLEW CHARTERS 40,540 CURTIN DAVID E 42,375 D D GALLERY 389 D PS SPORTS BAR 24,502 DANAS BOUTIQUE 30,275 DANKA INDUSTRIES INC. 38.528 DARNELL SHERRIE 32.014 DATA PROCESSING NETWORK 31,367 DAVE KIRKEY P ADRIENNE 24,214 DAVID FRASER INC. 29.469 DAVID SCHEPPERS CPA 38,164 DAVID WISHART GIBSON 38,922 DAVIDSON MARK OR MC 2,963 DAVIS LORRAINE 37.969 DAWSON PETER E 39.731 DAY DALE F 38.628 DE CEW GARTH 33.431 DEKREEKJOYCE 16,502 DELALOZAARTHUR 7,24D DE LELLIS ANTHONY MARION M 10,725 DE PERINE GARY A MARY E 42,330 DENIS R PARENT REAL ESTATE APP 5.019 DENNYTHOMASJ 18,988 DENTIS R STEVEN BALLBACK DDS 741 DESAI RAJENDRA G REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generators Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Revenue Contribution $421 $8 $100 $12 $4 $8.767 $160 $4 $35 $110 $119 $164 $145 $43 $28 $356 $46 $19 $33 $100 $941 $6119 $4 $52 $294 $233 Business Ind. Cum. Lic. Tax Pet Pct Revenue 000% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% $100 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.02% 0% $160 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% $110 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% $110 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% $100 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% $160 0.00% 0% $100 Sales/Use Property Trans. Fran. Feel Tax Tax Occup.Tax Utility Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue $421 $8 $12 $4 $8.352 $255 $160 $4 $35 $119 $164 $35 $43 $28 $300 $46 $19 $33 $793 $SB1 $4 $52 $134 $133 Report A130e Stale Subv. Revenue 10 SS • $14 $to Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190c Page 13 (GRAIN) Report AI90c City of Newport Beach REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING M1241H GRIP Report Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CIWS: 21:00 -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution - Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Total Business Sales/Use Property Trans. Fran. Feel State Rev Revenue Ind. Cum. Lic. Tax Tax Tax Occup.Tax Utility Subv. Rank Revenue Generator Contribution Pct Pct Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue 33,448 DESIGN SCAPE ASSOC $100 0.00% 0% $100 9.309 DESIGN SOURCE $684 0.00% 0% $684 10.084 DETAILS $100 0.00% 0% $100 37.083 DEVELOPMENT MGMT MARKE $75 0.00% 0% $75 6,278 DI SAND GINO $601 0.00% 0% $601 40,781 DIAMOND BERNARD $11 0.00% 0% $11 36,788 DIMEN FINANCIAL GROUP INC. $83 0.00% 0% $Bs 30,370 DIMEN MARINE FINANCIAL SERVICE $130 0.00% 0% $130 37.748 DIXON GERALD E DORIS $53 0 00% 0% $53 15,931 DIXON JOAN LUCILLE $414 0.00% 0% $414 747 DMA COMMUNICATIONS INC. $1,793 0.00% 0% $110 $584 $1.099 39.793 DO LIEM VAN $18 0.00% 0% $18 1,982 DOAN THOMAS W $1,157 0.00% 0% $1.157 33.465 DOBBIE SCHLEY ASSOC $100 0.00%- 0% $100 42,041 DOBBIE STEVEN $5 0.00% 0% $5 19.080 DON MIGUEL $290 0.00% 0% $105 $185 42,530 DONAHUE FRANK C $3 0.00% 0% $3 17,023 DONALD RAY RALPH $371 0.00% 0% $371 • 38.840 DONAT KURT $30 0.00% 0% $30 32.642 DONAT KURT ARCHITECT $100 0.00% 0% $100 17,265 DONOVAN PUBLISHING CO $361 0.00% 0% $110 $154 $97 32,498 DORIS DANIEL F $109 0.00% 0% $109 127 DORYMANS INN $27,888 0.06% 0% $210 $76 $27,603 43.307 DOUBLE VISION DESIGN 0% 2,750 DOUGHER DONALD J $1,318 0.00% 0% $1,111 $20 39.785 DOWDEN THOMAS F MARLYN R $18 0.00% 0% $18 660 DOYLEJERRY $1,664 0.00% 0% $368 $1.227 $6 '.. 7.611 DOYLE SAIL MAKERS $905 0.00% 0% $905 1 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190c Page 14 (GRAI") City of Newport Beach M74195 GRIP Report 21:00 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 43.316 DR CHUGAY 30,123 DR PETER L RICH 6,390 DRANEY INFORMATION 32,722 DREYER CHARLES S AUCTIONEER 9,001 DREYER DOUGLAS W 31,412 DREYERYOUNG 11.380 DROBENKO BOHDAN NALYWAYKO 32,976 DUDAS WILLIAM A 39.341 DUERR ROGER PEGGY 5,402 DUNN JACK O DOLORES A 10.039 DURANT THOMAS MARIA 38,906 EAP KONG 38,749 EAP KONG EAP HENG 33,488 ECONO PRODUCTS 76 EDWARDSTHEATRES 10.034 EILERTSEN ROBERT M 6.745 EINHORN NORMAN REVA 307 EKLEKTIK DESIGNS 42.189 EKLUND CLAES-EYVIND 13.381 EL BAYAR HISHAM MD 435 EL RANCHITO MEXICAN 41,409 ELCO ENTERPRISE INC. 43.364 ELEGANT NAIL BOUTIQUE 31,404 ELEGANT NAILS BOUTIQUE 43.370 ELKS CLUB 33.494 ELYJILLM 32.811 EMERALD YACHT SHIP REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING shown for Each Revenw Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S: -Total Revenue and Told Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Revenue Contribution $134 $1,030 $105 $363 $118 $649 $102 $22 $587 $731 $28 $31 $100 $1.543 $731 $988 $11.350 $4 $541 $7,769 $8 $118 $100 Ind. Cum Pct Pct 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.02% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.02% 0% 0.00% 0% 0% 0.00% 0% 0% 0.00% 0% 0% Business SalestUse Property Lim Tax Tax Tax Revenue Revenue Revenue $110 $105 $100 $100 $150 $7.484 $115 $3 $100 $24 $263 $18 $547 $86 $22 $495 $616 $28 $31 ,$180 $616 $833 $11,223 $4 $456 $135 $8 Trans. Fran. Feet Occup. Tax utility Revenue Revenue t Report A100e State Subv. Revenue i $16 $8 I Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only ReportA190c Page 1s (GRA700) City of Newport Beach 047241M GRIP Report 21:00 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 24.824 EMETT ROBERT TRUSTEE EMETT 14,250 EMMES DAVID 8.574 ENERCALC ENGINEERING 332 EPIC PROPERTIES 38,901 EPPERSON WILLIAM H 16,912 ERIKSSON ELSIE 35.354 ERIKSSON ELSIE MCCLINTIC H 2,772 ETC INTERIOR DECOR 9.982 ETHERINGTON ROGER F BARBARA 33,520 EVELYNS BARBER SHOP 39,722 EVENSON MARGARET H 43,398 EXODUS 10,584 EZZET LAITH B 1,601 FAINBARG ALLAN OR SANDY 44.821 FAR OUT SPORTSWEAR 1,537 FARAH MICHAEL P 40.607 FARLEY GEORGE HENRY 17,034 FAUBERT MARYA 13.221 FEATHERSTON ROGER A 37.331 FEDERAL SIGNAL CORP 30.672 FERGUSON ROBERT CO 37.578 FERRAROCARLM 42,4B4 FEUERSTEIN ROBERTA 38,095 FEUERSTEIN ROBERTA OR 974 FILANC RICHARD J JR 43,424 FINCO 33,651 FINISHING TOUCH 21,530 FINN FRANK REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Report A190C Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CnY'S: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generators Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Business Sales/Use Property Trans. Fran. Fed State Revenue Ind. Cum. Lie. Tax Tax Tax Occup.Tax Utility Subv. Contribution Pct Pct Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue $153 0.00% 0% $153 $493 0.00% 0% $'L93 $732 0.00% 0% $732 • $3.594 0.01% 0% $2.573 $810 $21 $28 0.00% 0% $28 $252 0.00% 0% $212 $4 $95 0.00% 0% $95 $100 0.00% 0% $100 $736 0.00% 0% $620 $11 $100 0.00% 0% $100 $19 0.00% 0% $19 0% $698 0.00% 0% $588 $11 $1.619 0.00% 0% $1.619 $-71 -0.00% 0% $-71 $28 0.00% 0% $28 $12 0.00% 0% $12 $370 0.00% 0% $370 • $550 0.00% 0% $464 $8 $66 0.00% 0% $66 $127 0.00% 0% $120 $7 $59 0.00% 0% $50 $ $3 0.00% 0% $3 $45 0.00% 0% $45 $3.965 0.01% 0% $3.342 $62 0% $100 0.00% 0% $100 $217 0.00% 0% $217 1 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190c Page 1i (GRA190) City of Newport Beach 04=95 GRIP Report 21.00 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 37.319 FIRST CHURCH CHRIST SCIENTIST 10,641 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK 38,985 FISERV FRESNO INC. Z394 FISHER HARRY 542 FISHERMANS RESTAURANT 40.811 FISHERMENS SUPPLY CENTER 33.562 FIT FOR ONE 39.398 FITSCHEN JERRY TODD 13.504 FLANDERS ROBERT N 42,106 FLEMINGANTHONY 12,453 FLEMING ANTONY CALLUM 33.50 FLEMING YACHTS 38,419 FLINN MICHAEL E 6.391 FLOWERFIELD LTD. 43.441 FLUFF FOLD 335 FLUTER RUSSELL 1,646 FLUTER RUSSELL E 5.812 FOIGELMAN NORBERT 32,660 FOREVER YOUNG ANTIQUES 11,881 FORGIT MARGUERITE E 42,310 FOSTER DONALD COURT 36.578 FOSTER NANCY 39.552 FOSTER NANCY FOSTER 38,465 FOXHOLE 43.454 FRAN BURY 18,497 FRANKEL SAM 32,592 FRASER CHARTERS INC. REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Revenue Onnfdhufinn $695 $16 $1,991 $6,452 $10 $100 $22 $533 $5 $592 $100 $37 $1,030 $484 $2.034 $1.102 $10 $619 $4 $92 W $310 $107 Ind. Cum Pct Pet 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.01% 0% 0.00% 0% 000% 0% 0 00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% Business Salesfuse Property Lic. Tax Tax Tax Revenue Revenue Revenue $69 $695 $16 $1.678 $6.452 $10 $100 $22 $533 $5 $592 $100 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% $100 $10 E $37 $B68 $415 szO34 $929 $619 $4 $92 $310 $7 Trans. Fran. Feel Occup.Tax Utility Revenue Revenue Report A190c State Subv. Revenue $16 1 $6 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only ReportA100c Page 17 (GRA190) City of Newport Beach 04124195 GRIP Report 21:00 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 31.570 FRASER DAVID INC. 39.184 FRASER YACHT INSURANCE 30,771 FRASER YACHT INSURANCE 39,755 FREDENSBURG JEFFREY LEE 38,441 FREIMAN WAYNE 14,624 FREY ENVIRONMENTAL INC. 22,940 FREYSTEVE 3.408 FRIEDMAN ROBERT D 17,501 FRITZ DUDA CO 164 FRITZ DUDA CO A CORP 5.052 FUCHS MELLVINE 39,234 FUKUNAGAJAN 33,589 FURNESS KAREN 23,129 G H FELGEMAKER 43,466 GMENTERPRISE 6.324 GAEDE SUSAN K 37,582 GAFFOGLIO MARC F OR JOHN 1,677 GAGERMAN MELVIN NORMIE 18.612 GARNET VIRGINIA MCCULLOCH LIVI 40.837 GARNETT EQUIPMENT LEASING 3,063 GARVEY MICHAEL D 33.599 GARY L DIETZ CO 33,600 GARY PETERS DC 41.931 GASPER JEFF 43,478 GAY REED 43,479 GDS DESIGN GROUP Z020 GE CAPITAL COMPUTER LEASI 24,825 GE WEAR REVENUE GENERATORS'ANNUALTOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shawn for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S, -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution - Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Revenue rinnr.ihtdsnn $115 $24 $125 $19 $36 $475 $187 $1,551 $22,702 $233 $24 $100 $184 $1,037 $59 $2,593 $165 $10 $1,665 $100 $100 $5 $24 $153 Business Ind. Cum. Lic. Tax Pct Pct Revenue 0.00% 0% $115 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% $125 0.00% o% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% $220 0.00% 0% $100 0.00% 0% $100 0% 0.05% 1% 0.00% 1% 0.00% 1% 0.00% 1% $100 0.00% 1% $100 1% 0.00% 1% 0.00% 1% 0.01 % 1% 0.00% 1% 0.00% 1% 0.00% 1% 0.00% 1% $100 0.00% 1% $100 0.00% 1% 1% 1% 0.00% 1% 0.00% 1% $100 Sales/Use Property Trans. Fran. Feel Tax Tax Occup. Tax Utility Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue $24 $19 $36 $255 $87 $1,451 $84 $53 $22.702 $196 $24 $874 $59 $2,593 $165 $10 $1,409 ERJ $24 Report A190c Stale Subv. Revenue 0 $3 $16 0 $25 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only ReportA190c Page is (GRA190) City of Newport Beach REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING GM411111 GRIP Report Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITYS: 21:01 - Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Total Business SaIeslUse Property Trans. Fran. Feel Rev Revenue Ind. Cum. Lie. Tax Tax Tax Occup.Tax utility Rank Revenue Generator Contribution Pet Pet Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue 20,512 GEIB MARIAN L $244 0.00% 1% $206 41,348 GELLERMANARLENE $8 0.00% 1% $8 3,671 GERMAN AUTOS $1,485 0.00% 1% $105 $785 $595 22.654 GERMAN HOME BAKERY $192 0.00% 1% $100 $92 41,350 GIFFEN CHUCK $8 0.00% 1% $8 17,564 GILLIN JUANELLC $348 0.00% 1% $293 36,8W GINAS PLACE $83 0.00% 1% $83 37,553 GINGOLD JACK $60 0.00% 1% $W 524 GIORGIO LA TRATTORIA RSTRNT $1,913 0.00% 1% $130 $1,596 $187 42,533 GITTELSON AMY M $3 0.00% 1% $3 2,638 GLENDALE FEDERAL BANK $274 0.00% 1% $274 22.085 GLOCKWILFRIEDH $2D4 0.00% 1% $204 2.190 GOLDNERJAYM $1.080 000% 1% $910 30.699 GONDOLA CO OF NEWPORT $127 0.00% 1% $100 $24 $3 634 GONDON MAX DIANA $1,137 0.00% 1% $1.137 4.353 GOODELL KEITH T LYDIA T $573 0.00% 1% $573 33,623 GOODYEAR SIMO YACHT $100 0.00% 1% $100 40.263 GORMAN STEVE $10 0.00% 1% $10 33.626 GORONKIN DANA $100 0.00% 1% $100 15,800 GRACE FRANCIS H $420 0.00% 1% $354 17.489 GRACE WEDEKIND INTERVIVOS $350 0.00% 1% $350 32,084 GRAND BANKS YACHTS LTD. $110 0.00% 1% $110 43,S09 GRAPHIC DESIGN%DVERTISING 1% 12,620 GRAPHIC HOME $580 0.00% 1% $100 $480 33,630 GRAPHIC LINES CONSULTING $100 0.00% 1% $100 40,681 GRAPHICS II CORP $11 0.00% 1% $11 23.197 GREAT AMER FIRST SAVINGS BANK $46 0.00% 1% $46 Report A190C State Subv. Revenue $17 ) 0 $6 1 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190c Page 19 (GRA190) City of Newport Beach REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING 04HM9S GRIP Report Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S: 21:01 -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Total Business Sales/Use Property Trans. Fran. Feel Rev Revenue Ind. Cum Lic. Tax Tax Tax Occup.Tax Utility Rank Revenue Generator Contribution Pct Pct Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue 32.088 GREEK ISLE CHARTERS $110 0.00% 1% $110 32,089 GREEN HOUSE PRODUCTIONS $110 0.00% 1% $110 33,637 GREESON GAYLE A $100 0.00% 1% $100 5.928 GREGG INDUSTRIES INC. $1,087 0.00% 1% $1.087 7.340 GREGORY GALLERY $931 000% 1% $100 $831 17,705 GREGORY LINDA G $31 0.00% 1% $31 22,494 GREGORY WILLIAM DILLEN $195 0.00% 1% $195 33.638 GREYSTONE SALON $100 0.00% 1% $100 43.523 GREYWALK 1% 37.893 GRIBBEN GLENDA TEPICH $48 0.00% 1% $48 23.390 GRIMES FRED 1 $179 0.00% 1% $151 26.671 GROCHOW ED ELECTRIC $150 0.00% 1% $150 31.572 GROOVEY CLUB CO $115 0.00% 1% $115 21,289 GROSS ROBERT E $223 0.00% 1% $188 30,061 GROSSLIGHT STEVEN F $134 000% 1% $134 33,644 GRUNDY BILL REALTOR $100 0.00% 1% $100 41,314 GUILLORY GEORGE $8 0.00% 1% $8 5,013 GUITYMEHRDAVOOD $1,211 0.00% 1% $1.021 33.652 H2O BEACH BAY U S RESOURCE $100 0.00% 1% $100 41,830 HADINGER WILLIAM J $6 0.00% 1% $6 32.780 HAIR DESIGNS BY MARLA $105 0.00% 1% $100 $5 43.536 HAIR TRESSELS SALON 1% 18.555 HAIR WEST $308 0.00% 1% $200 $108 15,988 HANCOCK WARREN D $413 0.00% 1% $348 32,096 HANEDAACCUPRESSURE $110 0.00% 1% $110 9,327 HANEY WILLIAM J $778 0.00% 1% $656 38.435 HANOURJON $37 0.00% 1% $37 40,360 HANSHAW FJ $14 0.00% 1% $14 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190c State Subv. Revenue $z I $3 1 09 1 $6 $12 1 Report A190c Page 20 (GRA190) City of Newport Beach 04IMS GRIP Report 21:01 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 7,123 HARBOR BLUEPRINT 4,396 HARBOR INN 43,547 HARBOR MFG. CO 33.665 HARBOR TRAVEL 33,667 HARBOUR MARINE DIVING SERVICE 14,049 HARDING EDWARD J 38.566 HAROLD TIM 10,382 HARRIS MARY TRUSTEE HARRIS 26,733 HARTWELL CONSTRUCTION 18,925 HASSANS CAFE 40.625 HAST GORDON MCDEVITT 34,723 HATCH LEHMANN SADA E 20.005 HAUTE WHITE 33,677 HAYDEN INSURANCE SERVICES 41,822 HAYDEN MIKE 43.571 HEATHER ROONEY OFFICE SERVICE 41,824 HEINMILLER WESLEY H 42,508 HELENE C PARKER RN PHD 30.003 HELENS VELVET HANGER 37.429 HELM DONNA 42,532 HEMPHILL RICK 22,618 HENLEY JOHN JILL 43,578 HENRYQUIMM 1,833 HENRYS GROCERY 35.522 HERCULES ENERGY CORP Z041 HERLIHYJOHNH 26.767 HERMANSEN PLUMBING CO REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage oL• 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Revenue Cnnlrih�Ainn $952 $1.327 $100 $100 $505 $34 $711 $150 $297 $12 $97 $259 $100 $6 cue $3 $135 $64 $192 $2.406 $95 $2,213 $150 Business SalesAlse Ind. Cum. Lie. Tax Tax Pct Pct Revenue Revenue 0.00% 1 % $110 $842 0.00% 1% $110 $1,217 1% 0.00% 1% $100 0.00% 1% $100 0.00% 1% 0.00% 1% 0.00% 1% 0.00% 1 % $150 0.00% 1 % $100 0.00% 1% 000% 1% 0.00% 1% $95 000% 1% $100 0.00% 1% 1% 0.00% 1% 0.00% 1% 0.00% 1% $105 0.00% 1% 0.00% 1% 0.00% 1% 1% 0.01% 1% $115 0.00% 1 % $95 O.00% 1% 0.00% 1% $150 $197 Property Tax Revenue $12 $82 $164 $6 $6 $30 $64 $s $192 $2,291 $2,213 Trans. Fran. Feel Occup. Tax Utility Revenue Revenue ReportAISOe State Subv. Revenue 0 $11 $1 • Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorised Personnel Only Report A190c Page 21 (GRA190) City of Newport Beach 04aMS GRIP Report 21:01 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 2.576 HERTZOG FRANCIS C JR 38,767 HEWITT TON] CARROLL 11.019 HIGGINSROBERTJ 33.702 HIGH TECH AUTO DESIGN SALES 18,9W HILL PARTNERSHIP INC. 33,704 HILL RUSH FORGIT BUILDING 38,804 HILLETHOMASM 22.853 HILTON DAN C 36.636 HILTON GUADALUPE 5,721 HIRAOKAYUKO 808 HIROTA EIICHI 518 HO SUM BISTRO 8.668 HOAG GEORGE GRANT II 10.714 HOBIE NEWPORT 40.270 HODAD SLAMMER ART GALLERY 6.755 HODSON G ROBERT 17.317 HOGAN BETTY J 4.674 HOGAN MARGARET M 23,469 HOLDEN HELEN P 30,091 HOLLAND CHUCK 269 HOME SAVINGS OF AMERICA 13.793 HOMI MARY 24,109 HOMI MARY PUBLIC RELATIONS 6.010 HOPPER L C 8.018 HOSMAN PAUL 2.329 HOT DOG ON A STICK 30.641 HOT IMPRESSIONS FOIL STAMPING 41,360 HOWARD RANDALL ROY REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY's: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Business SalesfUse Property Trans. Fran. Feel Revenue Ind. Cum. Lic. Tax Tax Tax Occup.Tax Utility Contribution Pct Pct Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue $1.878 0.00% 1% $1,878 - $31 0.00% 1% $31 $258 0.00% 1% $217 $100 0.00% 1% $100 $294 0.00% 1% $190 $104 $100 0.00% 1% $100 $30 0.00% 1% 1 $30 $189 0.00% 1% $100 $89 $89 0.00% 1% $76 $1,112 0.00% 1% $937 $4.559 0.01% 1% $4.559 $6,536 0.01% 1% $185 $5,691 $660 $822 0.00% 1% $693 $690 0.00% 1% $100 $590 - $14 0.00% 1% $14 e $273 0.00% 1% $230 $359 0.00% 1% $359 $1,269 0.00% 1% $1.070 $178 0.00% 1% $150 $99 0.00% 1% $95 $4 $792 0.00% 1% $792 $517 0.00% 1% $436 $166 0.00% 1% $140 $26 $1,076 0.00% 1% $907 $868 0.00% 1% $868 - $880 0.00% 1% $100 $760 $128 0.00% 1% $110 $18 $8 0.00% 1% $8 Report A190c State Subv. Revenue 0 $12 $4 $2 $8 $16 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190c Page 22 (GRA190) City of Newport Beach REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Report A1lOe MJZ M GRIP Report Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S: 21:01 -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of., 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Total Business SateslUse Property Trans. Fran. Feel State Rev Revenue Ind. Cum Lic. Tax Tax Tax Occup. Tax Utility Subv. Rank Revenue Generator Contribution Pct Pct Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue 15.714 HRONIS SOPHIA $425 0.00% 1% $425 21,147 HUDSON ENTERPRISE $226 0.00% 1% $105 $121 38,390 HUNT BARTLEY H $37 0.00% 1% $37 34,844 HURST DARWYN $95 0.00% 1% $95 15.448 HURST JEWELRY LOAN $437 0.00% 1% $110 $327 43.605 HURST SON JEWELERS 1% 4.087 HUYNH HAD OUANG TRAN $1,389 0.00% 1% $1.389 26,858 HYDROCLEAR WINDOW CLEANING $150 0.00% 1% $150 8.111 IBMCREDITCORP $3 0.00% 1% $3 31.563 ILLUSIONS $115 0.00% 1% $100 $15 17,131 ILONKA DESIGN $366 0.00% 1% $100 $266 32,972 IMAGINETHAT $100 0.00% 1% $100 2,646 IMOTO KATSUMI $489 0.00% 1% $489 33.741 IMOTO KATSUMI HELEN $100 0.00% 1% $100 31.147 INCOMETAXMAN $120 0.00% 1% $120 39,479 INCOME TAX MAN INC. $21 0.00% 1% $21 29.475 INLINE ROLLERWORKS $145 0.00% 1% $145 30,925 INNERVISION DYNAMICS $95 000% 1% $95 33.750 INTEGRATED TERMINAL EXCHANGE $100 0.00% 1% $100 33.751 INTERACTIVE TECHNOLOGIES $100 0.00% 1% $100 1,659 INTERIOR DESIGN INC. $2,621 0.01% 1% $100 $2.521 8,477 INTERIORS BY CHARLOTTE $833 000% 1% $105 $725 $3 33.756 INTERNATIONAL CAREERS AGENCY $100 O.00% 1% $100 32,124 INTERPORTLTO. $110 0.00% 1% $110 42,071 IRVIN RALPH IRVIN $5 0.00% 1% $5 32,130 IRVINE COAST CHARTERS $110 0.00% 1% $110 42,684 IRVINE NANCY $2 1% $2 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190c Page 23 (GRA190) City of Newport Beach REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING ReportA190e 04124M GRIP Report Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S: 21:01 -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Total Business Sales/Use Property Trans. Fran. Feel State Rev Revenue Ind. Cum. Lic. Tax Tax Tax Occup.Tax Utility Subv. Rank Revenue Generator Contribution Pct Pct Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue 43.643 IRWIN APTS 1% 43,646 ISLANDER BEACH FASHIONS 1% 32,733 ISSUES OF LIFE FOUNDATION $105 000% 1% $105 9,500 ITALIAN YACHT CHARTER CO $615 0.00% 1% $615 20.643 J M PARKING $240 0.00% 1% $240 21,051 JACKS ON 23RD $229 0.00% 1% $100 $129 229 JACKS SURF BOARD $16.196 0.03% 1 % $145 $16,051 1,936 JACKSON ROY P $1,461 0.00% 1% $100 $1.361 43.660 JACOBS REALTY 1% 33.780 JACOBS REALTY INC. BETTER HOME $100 0.00% 1% $100 33.781 JACOBY JANET KIMBERLEIGH $100 0.00% 1% $100 534 JACQUELINES BOUTIQUE $3,246 0.01% 1% $105 $3,141 40,202 JAHN WILLIAM JOSEPH $15 0.00% 1% $15 33.782 JAIMIE ALTERATIONS CLEANERS $100 0.00% 1% $100 29.739 JAKOSKY PROPERTIES $140 0.00% 1% $140 38.090 JAKOSKY PROPERTIES INC. $45 0.00% 1 % $45 15,216 JAMAICAN STYLE $447 0.00% 1% $100 $347 33.786 JAMES E-MIZELL II CPA $100 0.00% 1% $100 22.277 JAMES L PIRDY AIA 1% 12,679 JAN MARXEN ASID INTER DESIGN $274 0.00% 1% $200 $74 39,695 JANDRO CLAY $19 0.00% 1% $19 18,243 JANE ELLIOTT $318 0.00% 1% $100 $218 6,085 JANELLES $1.198 0.00% 1% $1.198 17.623 JANESANTIQUES $345 0.00% 1% $100 $245 32,734 JANNELLES $105 0.00% 1% $105 31,156 JAPAN SHIATSU CENTER $120 0.00% 1% $120 32.137 JAQUELINES BOUTIQUE $110 0.00% 1% $110 20.753 JAY C SHARI ANN $237 0.00% 1% 5237 t Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190c Page 24 (GRA190) Report Al"c City of Newport Beach REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING 041241" GRIP Report Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITYS: 21:01 -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Gmerator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Total Business Sales/Use Property Trans. Fran. Feel State Rev Revenue Ind. Cum Lic. Tax Tax Tax Occup. Tax Utility Subv. Rank Revenue Generator Contribution Pct Pet Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue 32.853 JAY L REED ANDREW $104 0.00% 1% $104 21.068 JAZZZ HAIR SALON $100 0.00% 1% $100 23,439 JEM FINE ART $178 0.00% 1% $178 42.497 JENG JANICE COMMODORE $3 0.00% 1% $3 41.225 JENNA GROUP INC. $8 0.00% 1% $8 20.822 JESSUP ANDREW T JR TRUSTEE JES $235 0.00% 1% $198 $3 652 JEWELRYBYMARDO $5,447 0.01% 1% $105 $5.263 $79 882 JIM SLEMONS MARINE INC. $4,253 0.01% 1% $4,253 43,679 JOANNE DIXON 1% 37,9% JOHN JOLLIFFE MFCC INC. $45 0.00% 1 % $45 30.834 JOHN R SHEPPHIRD $124 0.00% 1% $105 $19 38,404 JOHN RSHULLJR $37 0.00% 1% $37 30.397 JOHN VON SZELISKI AIA $130 0.00% 1 % $130 16,410 JOHNSON HENRY $387 0.00% 1% $100 $242 $4 638 JOHNSONJUNEI $5.553 0.01% 1% $5,553 20,671 JOHNSON P FRED $240 0.00% 1% $202 $3 11,502 JOHNSON WARREN ADMINSTRATOR $642 0.00% 1% $642 18,011 JOSEPH POSITO ASSOC $327 0.00% 1% $100 $227 42.473 JOY CHARLESD $3 000% 1% $3 38.461 JUST PLANE NOVELTIES $36 0.00% 1% $36 43,692 JVS ARCHITECTURE 1% 17,185 KALATSCHAN STEVE $229 0.00% 1% $229 33,821 KAMALI MANDANA $100 0.00% 1% $100 20,793 KAPELA WILLIAM $141 0.00% 1% $119 $2 21.398 KAR KARE PARKING SYSTEMS INC. $110 0.00% 1% $110 35.646 KAYCO 1% 17,242 KEEFER THOMAS E PATRICIA M TRU $362 000% 1% $362 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidentla I Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A100e Page 2S (GRAIN) City of Newport Beach 04MM GRIP Report 21:01 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 39,020 KEELER JANE E 6.482 KELLER MICHAEL W 420 KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN 41.701 KEPRTA MICHAEL 10.927 KETCHAM BILLIE L 15,917 KEUYLIAN ASDGHIG 40,320 KHA HIEN DIANA TRIEU 17,896 KIEHLER ELDON E 35.658 KIEHLER INTL 42,671 KIERNAN DONALD PETER 2,383 KILLIAN DENTAL CERAMICS 2.053 KIM ELWOOD H 30,329 KIM HO 33.834 KIMS ALTERATIONS 13,112 KITTS DONALD T 33.80 KM COMPANIES 38,163 KNICKERBOCKER J J DIAL 34,668 KNOLL LARRY F 2,070 KONTNY VINCENT L JOAN D TRUSTE 37,559 KOON 9,389 KOUCHI ROY 5.241 KUHLMANN KENNETH G 40,084 KUO PHILIP 43.738 L D PROPERTIES INC. 32,164 LTARCO 38,857 LA PATOU 20,117 LA VIE EN ROSE 16.954 LA VONNES FLORIST REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generatces Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Business SalestUse Property Trans. Fran. Feel Revenue Ind. Cum. Lic. Tax Tax Tax Occup. Tax utility Contribution Pct Pct Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue $27 0.00% 1% $27 $1,021 0.00% 1% $1.021 $3.501 0.01 % 1 % $130 $3,371 $6 0.00% 1% $6 $676 0.00% 1% $575 $415 0.00% 1% $415 $14 0.00% 1% $14 $333 0.00% 1% $281 $95 0.00% 1% $95 $2 1% $2 $1,997 0.00% 1% $105 $1.870 $22 $557 O.OD% 1% $469 $130 0.00% 1 % $130 $100 0.00% 1 % $100 $555 0.00% 1% $468 $100 0.00% 1% $100 $43 0.00% 1% $43 $99 0.00% 1% $99 $2,208 0.00% 1% $1,861 $50 0.00% 1% $60 $773 0.00% 1% $100 $673 $700 0.00% 1% $5W $16 0.00% 1% $16 1% $110 0,00% 1% $110 $29 0.00% 1% $29 $256 0.00% 1% $105 $151 $105 0.00% 1% $105 Report A190c State Subv. Revenue Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190c Page 26 (GRA160) Report All10c City of Newport Beach REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING 04 Ml6 GRIP Report Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CrrrS: 21:01 -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) Cily's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Total Business Sales/Use Property Trans. Fran. Feel Stale Rev Revenue Ind. Cum Lic. Tax Tax Tax Occup. Tax Utility Subv. Rank Revenue Generator Contribution Pet Pet Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue 6.184 LACROIXE RENE $1,055 0.00% 1% $889 $16 33,863 LADIES LOUNGE $100 0.00% 1% $100 42,183 LANDSTROM JOHN B TRUST $4 0.00% 1% $4 21,707 LANGHAM ROBERT G OR $213 0.00% 1% $213 36,557 LARKIN DANIELS $92 0.00% 1% $92 32,741 LAST MANGO VEGETARIANREST$105 0.00% 1% $105 6,418 LATEST THING $1,027 0.00% 1% $100 $927 24,829 LAURENCE P FEELEY $153 0.00% 1% $153 43.753 LAW OFFICE 1% 5.900 LAWRENCE RICHARD LEE $578 0.00% 1% $578 13,054 LAWRENCE W BROWNE $7 0.00% 1% $7 11,199 LAYER JAMES A $660 0.00% 1% $660 942 LE BISTRO WINE CHEESE CULINRY $4.054 0.01% 1% $175 $3,879 14,927 LE CANARD INTERIORS ANTIQUES $461 0.00% 1% $105 $356 37,346 LEASE PARTNERS CORP $8 0.00% 1% $8 37,660 LEASECOMM CORP $15 0.00% 1% $15 30,737 LEBANIKTHOMASW $126 0.00% 1% $126 • 24,670 LEE ALTON JR CPA $156 0.00% 1% $100 $56 33,889 LEE LINDA $100 0.00% 1% $100 1.319 LEFT BANK FABRIC $3,089 0.01% 1% $115 $2,974 43.769 LEFTBANKFABRICS 1% 11.381 LEINEN DOUGLAS $649 0.00% 1% $547 $10 42,332 LEPAGE DOUG $4 0.00% 1% $4 41.198 LEPANTE RICHARD $9 0.00% 1% $9 38,880 LEPOREVINCENTJ $29 0.00% 1% $29 19,718 LEVY THEODORER $268 0.00% 1% $268 836 LIDO BOOK SHOPPE $4.454 0.01% 1% $125 $4.329 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190c Page 27 (GRA1l0) City of Newport Beach 04124/95 GRIP Report 21:01 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 2,565 LIDO BUILDING LTD. 3,909 LIDO COMPUTER SYSTEMS 43,776 LIDO EXTREME 9,654 LIDO GREEK RESTAURANT 23.901 LIDO MARINA VILLAGE 321 LIDO PARK PARTNERSHIP 19,905 LIDO SAILING CLUB 42,049 LIDO STYLE HAIR SALON 30,409 LIDOTRAVEL 10.709 LIKEN MAURICE S TRUSTEE LIKEN 5.187 LILLIE CASUAL 3.799 LIN SHOU CHEN 11,857 LIN SHOU CHEN AKA LEE SHOU CHE 4,890 LINDORA MEDICAL CLINIC 13.031 LINDSAYANNETTEM 33.916 LITCHFIELD PATRICIA COMPLETE H 107 LITTLE INN ON BAY 39.997 LIU MEI C P LIU JEN T 5.448 LIVING CREATIONS 937 LO EL FINE ART 29.747 LOAN PRO FINANCIAL 41,051 LOFTON RUSS 32.897 LONG LIFE MEDICAL CLINIC INC. 41.131 LOOMIS MAURY 19.957 LOOMIS O CHARLES 6,564 LOU METZGER PHTGRPHY VIDEO 35,736 LOWREY ENTERPRISE 6,159 LOWRY HAROLD J SR REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution - Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Business Revenue Ind. Cum. Llc. Tax Contribution Pct Pct Revenue $1.886 000% 1% $100 $1,422 000% 1% $110 1% $756 0.00% 1% $100 $170 0.00% 1% $170 $5,859 0.01 % 1 % $246 000% 1% $180 $5 000% 1% $130 0.00% 1% $M $690 0.00% 1% $1,182 0.00% 1% $100 $522 0.00% 1% $620 0.00% 1% $36 0.00% 1% $560 0.00% 1% $100 0.00% 1% $10D $33.389 0.07% 1% $170 $16 0.00% 1% $1,147 0.00% 1% $125 $4.065 0.01% 1% $105 1% $9 0.00% 1% $103 0.00% 1% $100 $9 0.00% 1% $260 0.00% 1% $1.007 0.00% 1% $95 0.00% 1% $95 $1.059 0.00% 1% SaleslUse Property Tax Tax Revenue Revenue $1,786 $1.312 $656 $5,859 $66 $5 $582 $1.082 $522 $620 $36 $472 $16 $1.022 $3,960 $9 $9 $260 $1,007 $892 Trans. Fran. Feel Occup. Tax Utility Revenue Revenue $33,219 Report A190C State Subv. Revenue $10 U • 1 $16 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190c Page n (GRA190) City of Newport Beach 041241H GRIP Report 21:01 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 16,752 LU GENE 67 LUCKY FOOD CENTERS 16.842 LUNDBERG BARBARA L 37,507 LUNDE MYRAZ 21,165 LUSKTOOLBOX 36.950 LYLE TERRY ALAN M 38,035 M L INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES 33.937 MA BELLE PROVENCE 11,210 MACEDO THOMAS SIGRIT L 16.985 MADDY SCOTT 5.862 MADGE NETWORKS INC. 43.812 MAE GUY MINER 33.944 MAGIC NAILS 40,831 MAHONEY WILLIAM F OR 23.760 MAI JASMINE CORP 33.948 MAIL BOX PLUS 1,308 MAIL BOXES ETC 37,909 MALCOMGRICHARDS 39,016 MANIACI VERA 42,314 MARAVIGLI JOSEPH C 18.298 MARC BRYANT ATTLESEY 9.610 MARCELS GALLERY 18.613 MARCHISSET ROGER 33.954 MARCIGUANO DIANE 8,804 MARCOE JAMES JACQUELINE 24.726 MARDESICH PETE 33,459 MARILYNN B GIL13ERT REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shawn for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CIT": -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) Cily's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Revenue Contribution $382 $25,607 $379 $61 $226 $77 $45 $100 $659 $372 $1,095 Business SalesfUse Ind. Cum Lie. Tax Tax Pct Pot Revenue Revenue 0.00% 1% 0.06% 1% $305 $23.446 0.00% 1% 0.00% 1% 0.00% 1% 0.00% 1% 0.00% 1% $45 0.00% 1 % $100 0.00% 1% 0.00% 1% 0.00% 1% $1,086 1% $100 000% 1% $10 0.00% 1% $172 0.00% 1% $100 0.00% 1% $576 0.00% 1% $48 0.00% t% $27 0.00% 1% $4 0.D0% 1% $316 000% 1% $759 0.00% 1 % $306 0.00% 1% $100 0.00% 1% $814 0.00% 1% $7 0.00% 1% $100 0.00% 1% Property Tax Revenue $382 $1,656 $319 $61 $226 $77 $555 $372 $9 $100 $10 $172 $100 $110 $454 $12 $48 $27 $4 $316 $105 $654 $100 $100 $258 $686 $7 Trans. Fran. Feel Occup. Tax Utility Revenue Revenue Report A196c State Subv. Revenue 01 $to I $4 $12 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190e Page 29 (GRA190) City of Newport Beach 04rL4W GRIP Report 21:01 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 33,960 MARINA PARK CONDOMINIUM 6.685 MARINE INSTRUMENTATION 17,952 MARINE WELDING METAL FABRCTN 38.757 MARINO MICHAEL JACQUELIN 30.605 MARJORIEGOULD 33.965 MARK LUCIA FRESH FISH 3,846 MARKS BARBARA B 15,858 MARRCO COMMUNICATIONS INC. 18.275 MARSHACK IRVING L 14.521 MARSHALL FAMILY TRUST 42.458 MARTIN ILONA 438 MARVIN ENGINEERING CO INC. 31,543 MARY CONLIN CO INC. 39,891 MASON D GADBOIS R 22,667 MASOTTI LOUIS H OR RANDI 42,279 MASTER MARINE INC. 20.848 MATHEWS GLORIA M 14,557 MATHEWS TOM 18,752 MATULICH FRANCES 37,758 MAURICI DOMENICO 36,686 MAVIS INVESTMENTS INC. 37.115 MAXIMILLIAN ASSOC 4.706 MAYO INDUSTRIES INC. 6.693 MC DONALD HENRY H 13.923 MC DONALD K R 37.487 MC GRAW MICHAEL VIRGINIA 42.064 MC KAY GORDON MC KAY 38.325 MC NAUGHTON NANCY C REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution - Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generators Total Revenue 2) City'sTotal Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Business Revenue Ind. Cum Lic. Tax Contribution Pct Pct Revenue $100 0.00% 1% $100 $9% O.OD% 1% $45 $330 0.00% 1% $150 $31 0.00% 1% $100 0.00% 1% $100 $100 0.00% 1% $100 $1,442 0.00% 1% $417 0.00% 1% $220 $317 0.00% 1% $479 0.00% 1% $3 0.00% 1% $3,157 001% 1% $115 0.00% 1% $110 $17 0.00% 1% $191 0.00% 1% $4 0.00% 1% $234 0.00% 1 % $477 0.00% 1% $301 0.00% 1% $53 0.00% 1% $87 0.00% 1% $75 0.00% 1% WE $1.262 0.00% 1 % 513E $974 0.00% 1 % $513 0.00% 1% $62 0.00% 1% $5 0.00% 1% $39 0.00% 1% Trans. Fran. Fee! Occup.Tax Utility Revenue Revenue Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Page 30 (GRA190) City of Newport Beach O4124M GRIP Report 21:01 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 42.517 MC NEILL SANDRA 33.981 MCCLINTOCK YACHT BROKERAGE 33,983 MCCULLOCH CLARENCE 21.928 MCCULLOCH GARNET 38,238 MCDONNELL GORDON R 19,073 MCDOWELL WILLIAM 40.980 MCGURK DAN L 43.863 MCRB SERVICE BUREAU INC 32,206 MCRB SERVICE BUREAU INC. 32,744 MEDIA CONCEPTS 42.685 MEDIA MAINTENANCE 23.501 MEMORY LANE PRODUCTIONS 40,181 MERGENTHALER MICHAEL 31,199 MERIDAN MEDICAL 37.535 MESHKIN MICHAEL 29.542 METRO ONE 7,1188 MICHAEL ABBOTT DESIGN ASSOC 31,202 MICHAEL MESHKIN MD 43,1386 MICHAEL PORTER ARCHITECT 36,603 MICHAELS PATRICKF 24.942 MIDNIGHT JAVA COFFEE HOUSE 38,826 MILAN M DOSTAL APC LOREN 36,786 MILLAR MARY H 13.415 MILLER DOROTHY M 13.174 MILLER KATHY 40.025 MILLER MARY G WALSH 39.427 MILLER OWEN JANICE REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Fach Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Report A190c Total Business SaleslUse Property Trans. Fran. Feel State Revenue Ind. Cum Lic. Tax Tax Tax Occup.Tax Utility Subv. Contribution Pct Pet Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue $3 0.00% 1 % $3 $100 0.00% 1% $100 $100 0.00% 1 % $100 $208 0.00% 1% $100 $108 $41 0.00% 1% $41 $290 0.00% 1% $95 $195 $9 0.00% 1 % $9 1% $110 0.00% 1% $110 $105 0.00% 1% $105 $2 1 % $2 $100 0.00% 1% $100 $15 0.00% 1 % $15 $120 0.00% 1% $120 $W 0.00% 1% $60 $W 0.00% 1% $144 $879 0.00% 1% $100 $779 $120 0.00% 1% $120 1% $91 0.00% 1% $91 $151 0.00% 1% $100 $51 $30 0.00% 1 % $30 $83 0.00% 1 % $70 - $539 0.00% 1 % 3454 $552 0.00% 1% $496 $16 0.00% 1% $16 $21 0.00% 1 % $21 • Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190c Page 31 (GRA190) City of Newport Beach REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Report A1lOc 0454M GRIP Report Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY%: 21:01 -Trial Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) Cily's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Total Business SateslUse Property Trans. Fran. Feel State Rev Revenue Ind. Cum, Lic. Tax Tax Tax Occup.Tax Utility Subv. Rank Revenue Generator Contribution Pct Pct Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue 15.069 MILLER PAMELA $100 0.00% 1% $100 4Z293 MILLER RON $4 0.00% 1% $4 9,468 MILLET JEFFREY H $83 0.00% 1% $83 • 14.943 MINE GUY E $461 0,00% 1% W1 1.821 MINER GUY E $1,724 0.00% 1% $1.724 5,565 MINER TRUST $1,134 0.00% 1% $1,134 2,547 MINYCORP $1,891 0.00% 1% $1,594 $29 42,3D0 MIRFAKHRAEI JAR $4 0.00% 1% $4 18.992 MITCHELL LEE $294 0.00% 1% $248 $4 16.318 MITCHELL RICHARD G $400 0.00% 1% $337 $6 1,565 MITHRUSH BOUTIQUE $830 0.00% 1% $830 31,206 MMP BODYGUARD $120 0.00% 1% $120 9,671 MODERNAMUSEMENT $754 0.00% 1% $754 36.586 MODNICKZELIG $92 0.00% 1% $79 $1 42,522 MOHLER MARCIA N $3 0.00% 1% $3 4.894 MOLINARO EUGENE W DIANE $1,228 0.00% 1% $1,035 $19 8.424 MONROE JERRY VIVIAN $836 0.00% 1% $705 $10 40.610 MONTALBANO FRANCIS $12 0.00% 1% $12 34,016 MONTE LEONE DI ORO $100 0.00% 1% $100 3,105 MORGAN BEVERLYC $1,648 0.00% 1% $1,389 $25 2.239 MORGAN THOMAS H $2.083 0.00% 1% $2,083 38,042 MORGANS LOAN ASSISTING PROC $45 0.00% 1% $45 22,137 MORIARTY KEVIN K DEL $203 0.00% 1% $203 4.440 MORRIS EARL KATHRYN L $1.318 0.00% 1% $1.111 $20 7.593 MORRISON META ROSE $907 0.00% 1% $764 $14 644 MORRISON THERESA CAGNEY $1,198 0.00% 1% $1,198 3.002 MORTAZAVI MOSES $321 0.00% 1% $321 42,500 MOSEN CARL MOSEN $3 0.00% 1% $3 1 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190c Page 32 (GRA190) City of Newport Beach 04124196 GRIP Report 21:01 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 43.914 MOSEN PROPERTIES 34.025 MOZDZEN 6.617 MR DS FINE GIFTS COLLECTION 34.027 MR KLEEN CO 22.793 MRS LOUISE S GREELEY 38.702 MS ACQUISITION CORP 22.029 MS LIBERTY NAILS 2,725 MUENCH MICHAEL F 38,499 MULLER LENA VICTORIA 38.099 MURDOCKJERRYF 231 MUTT LYNCHS RESTAURANT 34,034 MYERS JOHN P MAXINE R 15.558 MYERS JUNE L 29,533 MYLES EQUIPMENT 43,929 N R OTAS MARINA PARTNERS L P 754 NAEGELI MARY D D 40.117 NARWANI BINA NARWANI 8,027 NASSAR ANIS WADIH 21.519 NEALLY VICTORIA L 21.087 NECCI RENATO 21,428 NEECI RENATO 34,051 NETWORKINTL 43.950 NETWORKTOURS 36.726 NEW CONCEPT 31,215 NEW HAIR INSTITUTE NEW LEGS IN 24,294 NEW JERSEYS PIZZA 43,955 NEWCOMB DEV REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution - Total Revenue Percentage af: 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Revenue Contribution $100 $1,004 $32 $205 $1,803 $35 $44 $15,818 $100 $181 $95 $4,792 $15 $867 $217 $228 $220 $100 $86 $120 $162 Business Ind. Cum. Lic. Tax Pct Pct Revenue 1% 0.00% 1% $100 0.00% 1% $230 1% 1% ODD% 1% 0.00% 1% s205 O.OD% 1% 0.00% 1% 0.00% 1% 0.03% 1% $235 0.00% 1% $100 0.00% 1% 0.00% 1% $95 1% 0.01 % 1 % 0.00% 1% 0.00% 1% 0.00% 1% 0.00% 1% 0.00% 1% 0.00% 1% $100 1% 0.00% 1% 0.00% 1% $120 0.00% 1 % $100 1% SaleslUse Tax Revenue Property Trans. Fran. Feet Tax Occup.Tax Utility Revenue Revenue Revenue $774 $32 $1.803 $35 $44 $15,312 $271 $86 $62 $181 $4.792 $15 $MI site $228 $220 Report A160c State Subv. Revenue •3 $3 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A180c Page 33 (GRA190) City of Newport Beaeh 04124196 GRIP Report 21,01 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 34,059 NEWCOMB DEV INC. 37,780 NEWCOMB DEV JENNA 2,391 NEWCOMB JOHNT 12,443 NEWCOMB JOHN T OF NEWCO 34,063 NEWPORTASSOC 39.174 NEWPORT BAY CAPITAL GROUP 30.433 NEWPORT BAY CAPITAL GROUP INC 43.957 NEWPORT BAY CAPITOL 18,255 NEWPORT BAZAAR 4.092 NEWPORT BEACH ALANO CLUB 24,933 NEWPORT BEACH EATERY 32,235 NEWPORT BIKE RENTAL 1.840 NEWPORTBIKINI 43,974 NEWPORT CLUB 29.864 NEWPORT DOG GROOMERS 43.982 NEWPORT DOG GROOMERY 3,416 NEWPORT GLASS CO 34,078 NEWPORT GOLF CLUB PARTNERS 30,438 NEWPORT HARBOR CRUISES 1,757 NEWPORT HARBOR ELKS LODGE 329 NEWPORT HARBOR SHIPYARD 17,455 NEWPORT INTL TRAVEL 34,084 NEWPORT LAND CATTLE CO 34.085 NEWPORT LONG BEACH YACHT 34.778 NEWPORT MARINA WATERFRONT 44.003 NEWPORT OYSTER BAR GRILL 37.128 NEWPORT PENINSULA CENTER 54 NEWPORTPIER REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage at: 1) Each Revenue Generators Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Report A190c Total Business Sales/Use Property Trans. Fran. Fee! State Revenue Ind. Cum. Lic. Tax Tax Tax Occup. Tax utility Subv. Contribution Pct Pct Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue $100 0.00% 1% $100 $52 0.00% 1% $52 $818 0.00% 1% $818 • $591 0.00% 1% $498 $9 1% $24 0.00% 1% $24 $130 000% 1% $130 1% $318 0.00% 1 % $110 $208 $1,388 0.00% 1% $120 $882 $386 $151 0.00% 1% $151 $110 0.00% 1% $110 $2,401 0.01% 1% $110 $2,291 1% $138 0.00% 1% $105 $33 1% $1.549 0.00% 1% $100 $1.449 $100 0.00% 1 % $100 $130 0.00% 1% $130 $2,494 0.01% 1% $135 $1,729 $6W $820 0.00% 1% $820 $257 0.00% 1% $240 $17 $100 0.00% 1% $100 $100 0.00% 1% $100 $96 0.00% 1% $96 1% $75 0.00% 1% $75 $59,964 0.13% 1% $59,964 1 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Docuna.nt Restricted to Apllmrired Personnel Only Report A190c Page 34 (GRA190) City of Newport Beach 04124195 GRIP Report 21:01 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 44,009 NEWPORT PLAZA 34,089 NEWPORT RESOURCE MGMT IN 17,288 NEWPORT SAILING CLUB 1,039 NEWPORT SASH DOOR 44,012 NEWPORT SEA SHACK 31,225 NEWPORTTATTOO 44,025 NEWPORT YACHT CHARTERS 30.130 NEWPORT YACHT SALES 34.098 NEWSLINE PUBLISHERS 10,217 NG ALICE TRUSTEE UDT 36.944 NGUYEN HONG DUC LE HUE TRAN 41,339 NIBLO DEREK 12,D03 NINAS NEWPORT BEACH 15.518 NINJA JAPANESE RESTAURANT 44,027 NINJA JAPENESE RESTURANT 24,165 NISSON DAVID J NICHOLAS SCHOST 36,577 NIVEN JOHN RJR 38.278 NOFERINI GIORGIO 39.410 NORBROTHEN HAROLD R 11,453 NORD YACHTS 10.036 NORRIS RICHARD M JANET L 20,559 NOT ENOUGH TIME 23.976 NOTJUSTJAVA 40,219 NOTT BRUCE E 14,945 NOURMAND STEPHAN S 14,304 NYOUIST FREO W 44,049 OCEAN NAIL SALON REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CFTY'S: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of: i) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Revenue Contribution $100 $335 $3.747 $120 $133 $100 $721 $77 $8 $613 $433 $164 $92 $40 $22 $645 $731 $243 $169 $15 $460 $490 Business SaleslUse Property Trans. Fran. Feel Ind. Cum. Lic. Tax Tax Tax Occup. Tax Utility Pct Pct Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue 1% 0.00% 1% $100 0.00% 1% $250 $57 $28 0.01 % 1% $100 $3.647 1% 0.00% 1% $120 1% 0.00% 1% $110 $1 522 0.00% 1% _ $100 0.00% 1% $606 0.00% 1% $77 0.00% 1% $8 000% 1% $613 0.00% 1% $100 $333 1% 0.00% 1% $138 0.00% 1% $92 0.00% 1% $40 0.00% 1% $22 0.00% 1% $100 $545 0.00% 1% $616 0.00% 1% $243 0.00% 1% $115 $54 0.00% 1% $15 0.00% 1% $460 0.00% 1% $413 1% Report A190e Slate Subv. Revenue i $11 $7 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190c Page 35 (GRA1l0) City of Newport Beach 04 24Hti GRIP Report 21:01 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 34,120 OCEAN NAILS 11,254 OCEAN SPA 8,474 OFF WALL GALLERY 34,124 OIL COFFIN OF SO CALIF 17.565 OLENICK EVERETTJ 39.486 OLGUIN MANUEL OR 38,676 OLSEN OLSEN THEODORE 42,149 OLSON DONALD E 17,113 ON EDGE DESIGN 34,132 ON LINE CONSULTING 34.133 ON SITE SERVICE 4,693 ONE HOUR PRO PHOTO 22,578 OPTICAL FASHION CENTER 34.139 ORANGE COUNTY YACHT 8,896 ORIGINAL PIZZA 36,743 ORTHOAMERICA PRODUCTS INC. 23;909 ORTHOMERICA PRODUCTS INC. 14.761 ORTLUND RAYMOND ELIZABETH, 32.954 OSTWIND MARINE INC. 41.276 OSULLIVAN DENNIS J 34.150 OUTDOOR ADVENTURES OUTINGS 31,607 OVER MOON INC. 24.399 OWSLEY WILLIAM DARITH M 42,327 OZTURK OZHAN 32.258 OZZIES ALTERATIONS 34.154 P M CABINETS PETE MARDESICH 29.8% PACIFIC AVALON MARINE INC. 30.276 PACIFIC COAST ARCHITECTS REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Business SaleslUse Property Trans. Fran. Feel Revenue Ind. Cum. Lic. Tax Tax Tax Occup. Tax Utility Contribution Pct Pct Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue $100 0.00% 1 % $100 $657 0.00% 1% $120 $537 $834 0.00% 1% $105 $729 $100 0.00% 1% $100 $348 0.00% 1% $293 $21 000% 1% $21 $32 0.00% 1% $32 $4 0.00% 1% $4 $367 0.00% 1% $105 $256 $6 $100 000% 1% $100 $100 0.00% 1 % $100 $1.264 0.00% 1% $110 $1,154 $193 0.00% 1% $105 $88 $100 0.00% 1% $100 $806 0.00% 1% $120 $686 $86 0.00% 1% $86 $170 0.00% 1% $170 $469 0.00% 1% $395 $102 0.00% 1% $102 $8 0.00% 1% $8 $100 0.00% 1% $100 1% $161 0.00% 1 % $161 $4 0.00% 1% $4 $110 0.00% 1% $110 $100 0.00% 1% $100 $138 0.00% 1% $120 $18 $131 0.00% 1% $110 $21 Report A190e State Subv. Revenue 0 5 1 07 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190c Page 36 (GRA190) City of Newport Beach O a4195 GRIP Report 21:01 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 34.160 PACIFIC COAST TALENT 10,377 PACIFIC SHELL STORE 27,859 PACIFIC WEST FIRE 17,219 PADEN WILLIAM J 38,469 PADILLA MARIO 4.085 PAGLIACCI 37.902 PAINTER PETER OR RUSTED 36,925 PAK YONG PAK MIN CHU 31.803 PALMER EVERETT 27,878 PALMER FRANK INC. 39,758 PALMERI JAMES J 544 PAOLO GIARDINI 34.183 PARENT CHIROPRACTIC 11,316 PARK PETER S YEON S 13,644 PARK SOON CHA 37.300 PARKYOU 22,320 PARSEL WALTER G JANICE A TRUST 37,133 PARVIN CENTER FOR PATTERNS OF 9.505 PARVINROSE A 22,950 PAT ALLEN PROGRAMS 29.503 PATHE DAVID A DONNA K 2,403 PATRICK WILLIAM H 38.514 PATTY DOUG 34,2ty2 PCS 21 INC. 16.325 PEARLS BY EMIKO 39,466 PEATANDREWJ 19.378 PEDAL PUSHER BICYCLES REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITYS: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contrbution -Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) Cily's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Business Revenue Ind. Cum. Lic. Tax Contribution Pct Pet Revenue $100 0.00% 1 % $100 $710 0.00% 1% $105 $150 0.00% 1% $150 $363 0.00% 1 % $36 0.00% 1 % $1.388 0.00% 1% $100 $48 0.00% 1% $78 $112 $150 $19 $639 $100 $653 $31 $70 $199 $75 $764 $187 $144 $416 $35 $100 $399 $21 $279 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.06% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% $150 $100 $75 $120 Salestuse Tax Revenue Property Trans. Fran. Feet Tax Occup. Tax utility Revenue Revenue Revenue $363 $36 $1,275 $13 $48 $78 $112 $19 $639 $SW $31 $70 $168 $59 1% 1% $100 1% $75 $324 1% 1% $100 $179 $764 $8 $144 $416 EW $21 Report A190e State Subv. Revenue $10 0- Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190c Page 37 (GRA190) City of Newport Beach 04124M GRIP Report 21:01 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 20,661 PEDICINI ZACHARY PH 26 2,440 PEER VIDEO 32,544 PELICAN MARKET 2,998 PENDLETON LILLIAN D TRUST 44,127 PENINSULA CLEANERS 39.092 PENINSULA SHIPYARD 41;880 PENNEY JOHN PENNEY 32,274 PENNEY PENNEY 1,904 PEREZ HECTOR C 20,648 PERFECT NAILS BY LEE 7,833 PERSON JAMES C JR 42,185 PETERS GARY 27,970 PETRONELLA ROOFING REROOFING 2,783 PETS PETS PETS 40,970 PETT RAYMOND A W 3,251 PHAM LONG KIM 40,618 PHAN LEHANG 36,721 PHANUCHARAS NOI 19,640 PHILLIPS THERESAV TRUSTE 44,146 PIAGE 2.534 PIAJEH 32.973 PICTURE PERFECT BROCHURES 34,225 PIGNERI DEV CO 14.088 PIPELINE 2.819 PITTROFF EDWARD J TRUSTEE 17,065 PITTROFF EDWARD JAMES 1.815 PJS SURFRIDER 44.154 PLAYA REALTY Municipal Resource Consultants REVENUE GENERATORS'ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITYM: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution - Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Revenue r,..dru.,m,... $240 $1,955 $108 $1,694 Business SaleslUse Property Ind. Cum. Lic. Tax Tax Tax Pet Pet Revenue Revenue Revenue 0.00% 1 % $240 0.00% 1 % $350 $1.591 $14 0.00% 1% $108 0.00% 1% $1,428 1% $26 MOD% 1% $6 0.00% 1% $110 000% 1% $2.349 001% 1% $110 0.00% 1% $884 0.00% 1% $4 0.00% 1% $150 0.00% 1% $1.778 0.00% 1% $10 0.00% 1% $885 0.00% 1% $12 0.00% 1 % $86 0.00% 1 % $270 0.00% 1% 1% $1,902 0.00% 1% $102 0.00% 1% $100 0.00% 1 % $502 0.00% 1% $1,757 0.00% 1% $369 0.00% 1% $2.421 0.01 % 1 % 1% $26 $6 $110 $2,349 $110 $100 $784 $4 $150 $115 $1.663 $10 $746 $12 $86 $270 $100 $1.802 $102 $100 $125 $377 $1,481 $311 $130 $2,291 Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Trans. Fran. Fed Occup. Tax utility Revenue Revenue Report A790c State Subv. Revenue .01 $27 Report A190c Page 32 (GRAIN) City of Newport Beach 04124195 GRIP Report 21:01 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 39,772 PLOTKIN PETER BETTY R 6.807 PLOTKIN PETER PLOTKIN 34,845 POLNIO GERALD 871 PORT O CALL PASADENA 34,239 PORTABLE OFFICE 34,241 PORTER MICHAEL PATRICK ARCHIT 102 PORTOFINO BEACH HOTEL 44;168 POSTAL BUS SERVICES 1,630 POSTMAN ROBERT PHYLLIS 39,978 POTOMA EVELYN MARY 37,294 POWERS MATT MC DONNELL 34,794 PRECISION CANVAS MARINE 28.028 PREFERRED CONCRETE 36,047 PRICE THOMAS GENERAL 38,228 PRUDENTIAL NEWPORT 298 PRUDENTIAL NEWPORT REALTY 34.266 PUMP AHEAD SYSTEMS 34,268 PURINTON DEBORAH C 41,762 PYLE ELIZABETH 34.276 QUINTUS CYNTANIA NEWPORT 38.450 R BACKDOOR 28,113 R M H ELECTRIC 14.202 RABOT EDOUARD 36,084 RACEFIT 41,233 RACEY JOHN C RACEY 34,283 RACKER BUILDING 3,095 RADAN CIM INC. Municipal Resource Consultants REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITYS: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of. 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Business Sales/Use Property Trans. Fran. Feel Revenue Ind. Cum. Uc. Tax Tax Tax Occup.Tax Utility Contribution Pct Pcl Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue $19 000% 1% $19 $503 0.00% 1% $424 $95 0.00% 1% $95 $4,291 0.01% 1% $135 $4,132 $24 $100 0.00% 1% stoo $100 0.00% 1% $100 $34,788 0.07% 1% $250 $19 $3,601 $30,918 1% 1% $17 0.00% 1 % $17 $70 0.00% 1 % $70 $96 0.00% 1% $96 $150 0.00% 1% $150 $95 0.00% 1% $95 $41 0.00% 1% $41 $10.062 0.02% 2% $120 $9,942 $l0D 0.00% 2% $100 $100 0.00% 2% $100 $6 0.00% 2% $6 $100 0.00% 2% $100 $36 0.00% 2% $36 $150 0.00% 2% $150 $495 0.00% 2% $417 $95 0.00% 2% $95 $8 0.00% 2% $8 $100 0.00% 2% $100 $1,520 0.00% 2% $1,281 Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190c Stale Subv. Revenue 61 01 $7 $23 Report A180c Page 39 (GRA190) City of Newport Beach 04/2495 GRIP Report 21:01 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 40.008 RAFAELWILLIAM 44,225 RAINBOW 18.592 RAINBOW HAIR STUDIOS INTNL 8.713 RAJ PARFUMERIE 30,9W RALPH BTILTON 9.797 RALSKY DANIEL A 20,097 RAPP EILEEN LUCILE 37,917 RAVEN JAMES R 981 RECTOR WARDENS VESTRYMEN OF 2.867 RECTOR WARDENS VESTRYMEN ST 12,610 REED ROBERT R 8.788 REEHL CHRISTY B BROOMALL K M M 41.425 REEL M N BOAT RENTALS 37.875 REESE RONALD LEE OR 31.251 REGETTA CAFE 4.985 REILLY JOSEPH A WORKMAN SUSAN 6,599 REISS HELEN 8,028 REMARCON INC. 573 RENATO RISTORANTE 17,110 RESSEL DOROTHY TRUSTEE ARENS 30.128 REYNOLDS JOHN 9.411 REZNICKJAMESW 44,251 RICHARD ESPARAN7A7 37.561 RICHARD S HATFIELD INC. 19.872 RICKARD GLENN 22,430 RIELLY BRUCE 44.257 RIGGINS PHOTOGRAPHY 9.279 RIGGINS PHOTOGRAPHY SERVICES Municipal Resource Consultants REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S- -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of. 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Business SalesfUse Property Trans. Fran. Feel Revenue Ind. Cum Lia. Tax Tax Tax Occup. Tax Utility Contribution PM Pct Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue $16 0.00% 2% $16 2% $197 0.00% 2% $197 $820 0.00% 2% $100 $720 $121 0.00% 2% $105 $16 $746 0.00% 2% $629 $257 0.00% 2% $100 $157 $48 0.00% 2% $48 $2,574 0.01% 2% $2,574 $1.736 0.00% 2% $1.736 $581 0.00% 2% $490 $815 0.00% 2% $687 $8 0.00% 2% $8 $49 0.00% 2% $49 $120 0.00% 2% $120 $1.215 0.00% 2% $1,024 $1,0D5 0,00% 2% $847 $867 0.00% 2% $731 $6,211 0.01% 2% $95 $6.116 $367 0.00% 2% $309 $133 0.00% 2% $133 $772 0.00% 2% - $651 2% $6 0.00% 2% $6 $262 0.00% 2% $221 $197 0.00% 2% $197 2% $781 0.00% 2% $100 $681 Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190c State Subv. Revenue $11 $9 $12 $19 $15 $1• $5 $12 $4 Report A190c Page 40 (GRA190) City of Newport Beach 041241% GRIP Report 21:01 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 2,151 ROBBINS WILLIAM H 41.466 ROBERT MARION COUCH 7,078 ROBERT OUARTIERI REDMOND 34,325 ROBIN SUMMERS SALON 10,632 ROBINSON RICHARD S 10.669 ROBSON MARK K 44,278 ROCK AND ROLLERS SKATE RENTAL 41,769 ROCK N ROLLERS SKATE RENTAL 357 ROCKIN BAJA LOBSTER BAR 42.474 ROCKWOOD EDWARD R 39.629 ROHDE FREDERICK 750 ROHRS CALVIN G 9.545 ROLFS CHRISTOPHER 40,132 ROLSTADANNE 42,004 ROONEYHEATHER 37,868 ROONEY HEATHER RAVEN 32.816 ROSE 38,487 ROSENSTEIN IRA MARK OR 16,313 ROSIC RICHARD F 40,192 ROSSMAN MARLA 1,362 ROTH ROBERT S 42.620 ROTHBUCHER SANDRA 7.349 ROUBIAN ROBERT 28.282 ROWE LEWIS JENNIFER 1,444 ROXBURGH CLAUDIA D 31.262 RUBEL JR JAMES L 2,457 RUBINOS PIZZA REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generators Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Revenue Ind. Cum Contribution Pct Pct V96 0.00% 2% $7 0.00% 2% $823 0.00% 2% $100 0.00% 2% $4 0.00% 2% $7 0.00% 2% 2% Report A190c Business SalesfUse Property Trans. Fran. Fee/ State Lic. Tax Tax Tax Occup. Tax Utility Subv. Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue $396 $7 $225 $%9 $29 $100 $4 $7 $6 0.00% 2% $6 $9,647 002% 2% $220 $9.427 $3 0.00% 2% $3 $18 0.00% 2% $18 $4.804 0.01% 2% $4,804 $762 0.00% 2% $642 $15 0.00% 2% $15 $5 0.00% 2% $5 $49 0.00% 2% $49 $104 0.00% 2% $100 $4 $35 0.00% 2% $35 $400 0,00% 2% $400 $15 0.00% 2% $15 $3,019 0.01% 2% $3,019 $3 0.00% 2% $3 $134 0.00% 2% $134 $150 0.00% 2% $150 $2.092 0.00% 2% $2,092 $120 0.00% 2% $120 $I'm 0.00% 2% $115 $1.828 01 $12 • Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190c Page 41 (GRA190) City of Newport Beach 04124MS GRIP Report 21:01 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 37.732 RUDESTAM ROLF CARL 503 RUMPLESTILTSKINS RESTAURANT 42.165 RUSSELL CHARLES O 24,542 RYKOFF SEXTON INC. 41.428 RYLAND LORI 30,776 S S PRODUCTIONS INC. SPIRAL W 726 SAILCALIFORNIA 658 SAIL INN MOTEL 44,317 SALES OFFICE 32,329 SALON NEWPORT 39,475 SALVO ANTHONY 10,654 SALVO DESIGN GROUP 40,490 SAMARD EMIKO 44.320 SAME BLDG AS 501 30TH MULTI 4,898 SAMSEI KENKO KABUSHIKI KAISHA 37,560 SANTORO THOMASC 19,973 SANWA LEASING CORP 5.058 SARGEANT BARBARA P 34.361 SARIS DR ANDREW 34,362 SASSOON SALON 16,452 SAVANNAHS HUT 960 SAWYER EARL GRAVES 37,791 SBA SHIPKEY ART 30.734 SCHIFFER ROBERT 1,340 SCHINAIAALFIERI 5,488 SCHINNERER BARBARA E 8.006 SCHNACK FAMILY TRUST 62091 5,076 SCHNEER MALCOLM-A REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Revenue r..,. t,1h.al.,n $6.813 $4 $4 $125 $4.934 $5,364 $110 $21 $693 $13 $1.228 $60 $3 $780 $100 $100 $393 $3.504 $52 $126 $316 $1,142 $869 $6 Ind. Cum Pet Pct 0.00% 2% 0.01% 2% 0.00% 2% 0 00% 2% 0.00% 2% 0.00% 2% 0.01% 2% 0.01% 2% 2% 0.00% 2% 0.00% 2% 0.00% 2% 0.00% 2% 2% 0.00% 2% O.00% 2% 0.00% 2% 0.00% 2% 0.00% 2% 0.00% 2% 0.00% 2% 0.01% 2% 0.00% 2% 0.00% 2% 0.00% 2% 0.00% 2% 0.00% 2% 0.00% 2% Business SaleslUse Property LIc. Tax Tax Tax Revenue Revenue Revenue $54 $180 $6,633 $125 $100 $4.831 $100 $110 $110 $583 $100 $100 $100 $100 $95 $293 $4 $4 $8 $1,900 $21 $13 $1.128 $60 $780 $3.504 $52 $126 3266 $1,142 $774 $6 Trans. Fran. Feel Occup.Tax Utility Revenue Revenue $3.364 Report A190c State Subv. Revenue 0 $5 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A180c Page 42 (GRA190) City of Newport Beach 04f2 M GRIP Report 21:01 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 148 SCHOCKBOATS 1,632 SCHOCK STEVENW 11.025 SCHOCK WILBUR D COTR 39.694 SCHUBERT SCOTT 3,985 SCHWALBE ALANJ 2,695 SCHWARTZ EDWARD F 5.372 SCHWARTZ I T 14.828 SCOTT ROBERT B 3.053 SCOTTYS FISH FRY 14,025 SCUDDER CRAIG 29,258 SEA L 4,251 SEA ROD CHARTER INC. ATTN 22.287 SEA SPRAY 44.347 SEA SPRAY BOAT YARD 31.267 SEACREST CLEANERS 34.369 SEAGONDOLLARZOE 15,701 SEASIDE BAKERY 1,917 SEASIDE MARINE ELECTRONICS 34,375 SEASIDE REALTY INVESTMENTS 4.381 SECHRIST CLIFFORD G ANNIE CUMI 6.837 SECOND TIME AROUND 311 SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BANK 44,357 SEE 43131 ST 3.157 SEGERSTROM NELLIE RUTH 1,094 SERRA PIERO 41.440 SETH RAVI 34.384 SEVEN SEAS YACHT SALES REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUALTOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CRY'S: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of* 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) Cily's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Business Sales/Use Property Trans. Fran. Feel Revenue Ind. Cum Lic Tax Tax Tax Occup.Tax Utility Contribution Pct Pct Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue $25.626 0.06% 2% $405 $25.183 $38 $2.643 0.01 % 2% $2.643 • $162 0.00% 2% $162 $19 0.00% 2% $19 $150 0.00% 2% $150 $1,818 0.00% 2% $1.818 $1.156 0.00% 2% $974 $467 0.00% 2% $100 $309 $1.672 0.00% 2% $120 $1.552 $126 0.00% 2% $126 $100 0.00% 2% $100 $1.358 0.00% 2% $1.358 $200 O.OD% 2% $200 2% $120 0.00% 2% $120 $100 0.00% 2% $100 $426 0.00% 2% $115 $311 $2.339 0.01% 2% $100 $2.236 $3 $100 0.00% 2% $100 $1.330 0.00% 2% $1,121 $979 0.00% 2% $100 $879 $682 0.00% 2% $682 2% $1.632 0.00% 2% $1,375 $247 0.00% 2% $247 $7 0.00% 2% $7 $100 0.00% 2% $100 Report A190c State Subv. Revenue !1 $18 $5 $20 $25 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A790c Page 43 (GRA190) City of Newport Beach 0412M6 GRIP Report 21:01 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 31,559 SHAFER PHI LLIP WILLIAM JOHN R 39.628 SHATAFIAN ROGER 36,474 SHEA ADVERTISING 7,317 SHEA EDMUND H JR 23.357 SHEA MARJORIE A 13,308 SHEA TERRI STEVE 2,784 SHELDON H CLOOBECK 7.435 SHEPARDSON JON A 37,973 SHEPHERD FOUNDATION MARIE 3.706 SHERREITT VICTOR BROWNE 30,712 SHERS ART GALLERY 2,486 SHEWARD SONS INC. 40,088 SHIN TAG KOO 36.679 SHLEMON ROY J 34.402 SILVER LINING YACHT SALES 19,465 SILVERADO MGMT INC. 24.789 SILVERMAN CHARLES L 8,12D SIMS JOE M 30.709 SISK F LEONARD OR 21,600 SIXD FAMILY LAMBERT DENNIS 28,522 SKWEEKY SERVICE 37,658 SLATER HAROLD E JR 36,854 SMITH MICHAEL C OR 34,420 SMITH R WILSON 11 15.896 SMITH RAYMOND W 37,764 SNELL LESLIE ANN 739 SNUG HARBOR RESTAURANT 36,226 SOBER LIVING BY SEA REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generators Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Revenue Contribution $115 $20 $95 $933 $180 $545 $1,778 $923 $46 $457 $126 $979 $16 $88 $100 $776 $153 $497 $127 $216 $150 $56 $80 $100 $416 $52 $4,865 $95 Business Ind. Cum. Lkc Tax Pct Pct Revenue 000% 2% 0.00% 2% 0.00% 2% 0.00% 2% 0.00% 2% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 000% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01 % 0.00% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% SaleslUse Tax Revenue $95 Property Tax Revenue $115 $20 $786 $152 Trans. Fran. Feet Occup. Tax Utility Revenue Revenue $545 $1,778 $T78 $46 $457 $105 $21 $125 $27 $881 $16 $74 $100 $276 $153 $497 $127 $182 $150 $56 $80 $100 $416 $52 $260 $4,453 $152 $95 Report A100c State Subv. Revenue $140 $2 $14 $1 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190c Page 44 (GRA190) City of Newport Beach 04MM GRIP Report 21:01 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 36.892 SODERLING RONALD 42,373 SODERLING RONALD E 19.329 SOFFER SIDNEY L 34,477 SOMETHING NATURAL 38,820 SONG CHE CHUNG SONG 17.751 SOUTH COAST SHELF STORAGE 2.885 SOUTH OF FRANCE 34,432 SOUTHLANDERS REAL ESTATE 18,871 SPARKS ENT 37,588 SPECIAL AUTO RESTORATION 18,822 SPECIAL PARKING SERVICES 32,357 SPIC SPAN LAUNDRY DRY CL 9.962 SPIERS DWIGHT W SAFE Z215 SPORTFISHERS UNLIMITED INC. 1,005 SPORTSMANS LIQUOR 975 SPRINKEL WARREN REED Z947 SPURZEM RICHARD H 44.423 ST JAMES CHURCH 6,152 STAAF CLARENCE R 720 STAG BAR 32,359 STAG HOTEL 1,580 STAG LIQUOR STORE 4.301 STAMPER MARSHALL B 41.807 STARBORST 22,290 STARBUCKS 1,560 STARBUCKS COFFEE CO 44,432 STARBURST PHOTOGRAPHY REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of. 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Business SaleslUse Property Trans. Fran. Feel Revenue Ind. Cum Lic. Tax Tax Tax Oceup.Tax Utility Contribution Pct Pct Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue $79 0.00% 2% $79 $4 0.00% 2% $4 $62 0.00% 2% $62 $100 0.00% 2% $100 $30 0.00% 2% $W $339 0.00% 2% $330 $9 $1.730 0.00% 2% $100 $1,630 $100 0.00% 2% $100 $298 0.00% 2% $251 $59 0.00% 2% $59 M 0.00% 2% $300 $110 0.00% 2% $110 $737 0.00% 2% $737 $2,099 0.00% 2% $2,099 $3,866 0.01% 2% $105 $3.761 $1.732 0.00% 2% $1,732 $1,709 0.00% 2% $1,440 2% $737 0.00% 2% $737 $4,963 0.01% 2% $135 $4,828 $110 0.00% 2% $110 $2,703 0.01% 2% $100 $2,603 $1.347 0.00% 2% $1035 $6 0.00% 2% $6 $200 0.00% 2% $200 $752 0.00% 2% $752 2% Report A190c State Subv. Revenue •1 $4 $21 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only ReportA190c Page 45 (GRA190) City of Newport Beach 04124!!5 GRIP Report 21:01 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 977 STEMLER JOSEPH 7,8e6 STEPHANIE CHAVEZ INTERIOR 39,073 STERIS DARRYL LEONARD 37,313 STEVEN STECHER 37.386 STIEBLING MARY 6.215 STILES CHARLES J 34.448 STILES DEBBI MENS HAIR DESIGN 34.449 STILES DEBORAH 1.769 STILES DONALD 9,086 STODDARD D KENT MARLYNNE 34.451 STOHR ROBERT 34.452 STOIC DESIGN GROUP 37,692 STOLTENBERG DENNIS DAWN 30.526 STONE MARILYN D INTERIOR DESI 34.724 STONEMAN RICHARD M 44.448 STORAGE FOR 7.878 STRAMAN RICHARD E 41.624 STRICH ROBERT OR SHIRLEY 2.139 STUFT T SHIRT RESTAURANT 10,447 STURGEON KENDRA 36,540 STURGIS WILLIAM T 18,226 SUB SHACK 1.120 SUBWAY SANDWICHES SALADS 1.221 SUMNER ENTERPRISE 458 SUMNER PAUL D CYNTHIA S 44.463 SUN GLASSES PLUS 31,025 SUNBREEZE CORP IZ594 SUNGLASS PLUS REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITYS: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Revenue Contribution $22 $879 $26 $69 $66 $1.050 $100 $100 $2,477 $795 $100 $100 $55 $35 $97 $214 $7 $2.160 $706 $93 $3,300 $7,469 Business Ind. Cum. Lic. Tax Pct Oct Revenue 0.00% 2% 000% 2% 0.00% 2% 0.00% 2% 0.00% 2% 0.00% 2% 0.00% 2% $100 0.00% 2% $100 0.01% 2% $95 0.00% 2% 0.00% 2% $100 0.00% 2% $100 O.00% 2% 0.00% 2% 0.00% 2% 2% 0.00% 2% 0.00% 2% 0.00% 2% $125 0.00% 2% 0.00% 2% 2% 2% 0.01% 2% o.oz% 2% 2% $120 0.00% 2% $503 0.00% 2% $ $100 100 $110 Salesfuse Tax Revenue $879 $69 Property Tax Revenue Trans. Fran. Feet Occup.Tax Utility Revenue Revenue $878 $1,341 $670 $55 $35 $82 $214 $7 $2.035 $595 c $3,200 $6.295 $10 $471 $12 Report A190c State Subv. Revenue 01 $16 $16 $12 $1 $1,17 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190c Page 46 (GRA190) City of Newport Beach 041241" GRIP Report 21:01 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 44,472 SURFRIDER 266 SURFSIDE SPORTS 32.378 SUSAN Z SCHWEIGER 41,408 SUZUKI MIND 41,767 SWIFT PETE SWIFT TOM 24,476 SWIFT SLIP DOCK PIER BUILDER 39,843 SWIFT THOMASN 406 SWISS IRVINE INVESTMENTS INC 36,8W SYSTEM CREDIT INC. 19.869 T K BURGER 42,061 TAK MICHAELM 34.478 TALLEY MARGIE 14,734 TALLON JACK M 16,449 TAOUERIA TIA ROSA 28,795 TEAM DETAIL 779 TELLER ROBERT H 42,032 TEMPLIN DOUGLAS SCOTT 36,659 TEN EYCK WARREN E 41,354 TERRY GAIL E 41,737 TESONE JONELLA 10,448 THATCHER REGINALD 44,508 THEODORE KURZE MD , 7.385 THIES RICHARD O 37,872 THIRTIETH STREET 44.510 THIRTIETH STREET ARCHITECTS 13,2D9 THIRTIETH STREET ARCHITECTS IN 8248 THIRTIETH STREET PARTNERSHIP REVENUE GENERATORS'ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of., 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) Cily's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Business SaIesfuse Property Trans. Fran. Fed Revenue Ind. Cum. Lic. Tax Tax Tax Occup.Tax Utility Contribution Pct PM Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue 2% $13,404 0.03% 2% $250 $12,173 $981 $110 0.00% 2% $110 E8 0.00% 2% 48 $6 0.00% 2% $6 $160 0.00% 2% $160 $18 000% 2% $18 $8,254 0.02% 2% $8.254 $80 0.00% 2% $80 $263 0.00% 2% $100 $163 $5 0.00% 2% $5 $100 0.00% 2% $100 $471 0.00% 2% $397 $394 0.00% 2% $100 $294 $150 0.00% 2% $150 $1.369 0.00% 2% $1,154 $5 0.00% 2% $5 $88 0.00% 2% $88 $8 0.00% 2% $8 E6 0.00% 2% $6 $706 0.00% 2% $595 2% $927 0.00% 2% $781 $49 0.00% 2% $49 2% $551 0.00% 2% $100 $451 $850 0.00% 2% $850 Report A190c State Subv. Revenue •1 $7 $21 $11 $14 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190c Page 47 (GRA190) City of Newport Beach 04MM GRIP Report 21:01 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 17,425 THOMAS GEORGE 40.366 THOMAS GEORGE JUNE B 2,906 THOMAS JOSEPH JILL G TRUSTEES 30.659 THOMAS LES ELLEN 9.303 THOMSON TOM W 36,320 THREE SIXTY FIVE 543 TIDE OFFICE SUPPLY 20,098 TIERNANWILLIAMJ 16.291 TIETGEN CHARLEY 32,618 TILLISON JOHN 34,507 TINAS ALTERATIONS 16.662 TIVOLIS SHOE REPAIR 11,451 TOG 5,593 TOKAI FINANCIAL SERVICES 31,8W TOLLYCRAFT OF NEWPORT 38.641 TOLMAN THOMAS E 22.161 TOM GROGG ARTIST DESIGNER .7.091 TOM STANSBURY ANTIQUES 40.934 TOOL BOX INC. 12.882 TORTORELLO JOSEPH J 36,333 TOUCHPOINT COMMUNICATIONS 41,5% TRAN BRIAN PHUOC 16.235 TRAPP DANIEL W 36.891 TRAVAIL INC. 42,342 TRIMBLE ASSOC INC. 18.965 TRIMM TRUST 34.725 TRIPLETT EHLA JO 40.336 TROLL RAYMOND T Municipal Resource Consultants REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITYS: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage ok 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Business Satesluse Property Trans. Fran. Feel Revenue Ind. Cum Lie. Tax Tax Tax Occup. Tax utility Contribution Pct Pct Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue - $354 0.00% z% $298 $14 0.00% 2% $14 $1,726 0.00% 2% $1.454 $127 0.00% 2% $127 $11 0.60% 2% $11 $95 0.00% 2% $95 $6,444 0.01% 2% $125 $6.319 $256 0.00% 2% $216 $400 0.00% 2% $95 $305 $106 0.00% 2% $106 $100 000% 2% $100 $385 000% 2% $100 $285 $645 0.00% 2% $645 $14 0.00% 2% $14 $112 000% 2% $110 $2 $33 0.00% 2% $33 $202 0.00% 2% $100 $tot $956 0.00% 2% $105 $851 $10 0.00% 2% $10 $568 0.00% 2% $479 2% $7 0.00% 2% $7 $121 0.00% 2% $102 $79 0.00% 2% $79 $4 0.00% 2% $4 $295 0.00% 2% $249 $97 0.00% 2% $82 $14 0.00% 2% _ $14 Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190c State Subv. Revenue $5 • if 0 $8 $1 $4 $1 ReportA190c Page 49 (GRA190) City of Newport Beach 041241% GRIP Report 21:01 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 40.959 TRUE COMPUTING 30,208 TSUJI HAROLD K 1.666 TSUNAMI INVESTORS AFFILIATED M 9.733 TURNER LESTER L 36.352 TURNING POINT OF NEWPORT 835 TWENTY THREE WEST 28.922 TYLER J CONST CO 709 ULLMAN SAILS HARDWARE 34,532 ULRIC B BRAY TERMINALS 31,292 ULTRATAN 10,452 UNION OIL CO OF CALIFORNIA 22.757 UNIVERSAL PRODUCTIONS PARVIN 44.569 UNKNOWN: BLDG I0=2633 44.572 UNKNOWN: BLDG ID=W76 4.661 UNSWORTH CHARLES W 34.539 UP SCALE GRAPHICS 17.703 URSINI FRANCISA Z270 V RS PERRYS PIZZA 44,581 VACANT 11.382 VAIRO FRANKANSTATT NINA B 1,761 VALENTINAS PIZZA 44.586 VALENTINOS PIZZA 41.912 VALLEJO JOE FRINK EMORY 24,920 VALLEY SELF STORAGE 22,717 VAN LOON ENTERPRISE 30,311 VAN LOON ENTERPRISE INC. 30,826 VANDER WERFF WILLIAM REVENUE GENERATORS ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Business Sales/Use Property Trans. Fran. Feel Revenue Ind. Cum. Lic. Tax Tax Tax Occup. Tax Utility Contribution Pct Pct Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue $10 0.00% 2% $10 $133 0.00% 2% $133 $2,609 0.01% 2% $2,609 $751 0.00% 2% $633 2% $4.459 0.01% 2% $110 $4.349 $150 0.00% 2% $150 $5.041 001% 2% $175 $4.745 $121 $100 0.00% 2% S100 - $120 0.00% 2% $120 $706 0.00% 2% $706 $190 0.00% 2% $190 2% 2% $1.272 0.00% 2% $1,272 $100 0.00% 2% $100 $341 0.00% 2% $341 $2,066 0.00% 2% $110 $1,937 $19 2% $649 0 00% 2% $547 $2.484 0.01% 2% $125 $2,359 2% $5 0.00% 2% $5 $151 0.00% 2% $125 $16 $10 $190 0.00% 2% $100 $90 $130 0.00% 2% $130 $125 0.00% 2% $105 Report A190c State Subv. Revenue $10 $2 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190c Page 49 (GRA190) City of Newport Beach (IM4116 GRIP Report 21:01 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 34.547 VANDERHYDE LINDA 4,404 VANDERSTAR CORNELIUS 10,464 VANIAN JOHN T 28,984 VARDIMAN ELECTRIC 3,640 VASI ANTHONY D 39,538 VAST ANTHONY D FERN 37,50 VENDOR FUNDING CO INC. 14.365 VIA LIDO BEAUTY SUPPLY SALON 477 VIA OPORTO VENTURE 34,553 VICTORIA LEGEND 4,50 VIDEOZONE 40,142 VIDEO ZONE INC. 112 VILLA RENTALS INC. 1,765 VILLAGE HOME DESIGN 44,608 VIP CLEANER 44.609 VIP CLEANERS 30.507 VIP CLEANERS LAUNDRY 354 VIP PROPERTIES 37,461 VIS DONALD A DIANN 8,324 VISTA DEL LIDO 10.527 VON SZEUSKI JOHN 38 VONS GROCERY CO 22,293 VOYATZIS MARKOS DORY FLEET 37.746 WADE RICHARD L 21.682 , WAHLER ROBERT R 39.203 WALKER KAREN J OR LOUIS 10.331 WALTERS FAMILY TRUST 15,119 WANG CHIEN SHAN HUEI YU REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S: -Trial Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Report A190c Total Business SaleslUse Property Trans. Fran. Feel State Revenue Ind. Cum Lie. Tax Tax Tax Oecup.Tax Utility Subv. Contribution PM Pet Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue $100 0.00% 2% $100 $1.325 0.00% 2% $1.117 $244 0.00% 2% $206 ' $150 0.00% 2% $150 $739 0.00% 2% $739 $21 0.00% 2% $21 $31 0.00% 2% $31 $487 0.00% 2% $100 $387 $7,170 0.02% 2% $7.170 $100 0.00% 2% $100 $1,287 0.00% 2% $100 $1,187 $15 0.00% 2% $15 $29,006 0.06% 2% $150 $21 $28,835 $2,479 0.01% 2% $100 $2,379 2% 2% $130 0.00% 2% $130 $9,720 0.02% 2% $9.720 , $63 0.00% 2% $63 $844 0.00% 2% $728 $11 $33 0.00% 2% $33 $41.620 0.09% 2% $370 $39,035 $2,215 $200 0.00% 2% $200 $53 0.00% .2% $53 $213 0.00% 2% $213 $24 0.00% 2% $24 $714 0.00% 2% $714 $452 0.00% 2% $452 1 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190c Page 80 (GRA190) City of Newport Beach 04124196 GRIP Report 21:01 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 10,041 WANG CHIN JUDY 17,548 WAREHOUSE CHARTERS INC. 88 WAREHOUSE RESTAURANT 737 WARMINGTON EDWARD G 17,225 WARMINGTON RICHARD C 20,140 WARNER PHILIP D 32,417 WASHINGTON CLEANERS 8,538 WATER SPOT 11,606 WATERMAN WAYNE JENNIFER 38,089 WEBSTER WILLIAM F 241 WELLS FARGO BANK 44.653 WESTPORT ENTERTAINMENT 795 WESTREM JOHN L 29,301 WESTREM ROBERT L 113 WHITE BURR REALTOR INC. 23,296 WHITE JAMES OR EMILY 39,850 WHITESELL BARNEY ARDEN 13,192 WILD WILD WEST 37,873 WILKE WILLIAM B GEORGIA 34,600 WILKOSKIJAMES 30,107 WILLIAM F COHEN 1,183 WILLIAM HAROLD JEWELERS 37,989 WILLIAMS DAVID 8,724 WILLIAMS GLORIA M 11,669 WILLIAMS JOSEPH PAUL 41,024 WILLIAMSMARYLOU 40,052 WILLIAMS WILLIAM PRESTON REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RAWING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S: -ToW Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of- 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Report A190c Total Business Salesfuse Property Trans. Fran. Feel State Revenue Ind. Cum LIc. Tax Tax Tax Occup.Tax Utility Subv. Contribution Pet Pct Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue $731 0.00% 2% $616 $11 $348 0.00% 2% $348 • $41,744 0.09% 2% $500 $39.918 $1.326 $635 0.00% 2% $635 $353 0.00% 2% $363 $255 0.00% 2% $255 $110 0.00% 2% $110 $829 0.00% 2% $230 $599 $636 0.00% 2% $536 $10 $45 0.00% 2% $45 $4,797 0.01% 2% $1.204 $3,593 2% $150 0.00% 2% $150 $55 0.00% 2% $55 $31,035 0.07% 2% $120 $30,915 $181 0.00% 2% $181 $18 0.00% 2% $18 2% $49 0.00% 2% $49 $100 0.00% 2% $100 $134 0.00% 2% $134 $3,384 0,01% 2% $110 $3,274 $9 0,00% 2% $9 $819 0.00% 2% $690 $12 $632 0.00% 2% $632 $9 0.00% 2% $9. $16 0.00% 2% $16 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only ReportA190c Page 51 (GRA190) City of Newport Beach 04124/95 GRIP Report 21:01 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 13,497 WILLIAMSON MARY H 5,365 WILLSON TED C 21,456 WILSON GEORGE A 32,431 WILSON NIBLO 41,426 WILSON THOMAS W 13,939 WINCKLER MILENA N 21,819 WINSTONS 32,432 WMAASSOC 17,285 WOODALL MYRA ZANCHI 10,042 WOODWARD DANIEL PATRICIA 44,673 WOOLSHED WEST 7,485 WORD JOHN M III CAROL 36,453 WORLD CHAMPION 212 WORLD OIL MARKETING CO 34,619 WORLD WIDE CUSTOM YACHTS 15,524 WORLDS FINE TREASURES 42,361 WORLDWIDE BOAT BREAKFAS 1.653 WORLDWIDE BOAT BREAKFAST CO 38.517 WRIGHTJEFFREYE 1,731 WRIGHT MYRON A JOSEPHINE S 34,624 WRIGHTIME LANDSCAPING 15.370 WRITER CARL RITA V TRUSTEES WR 38,661 WYATT MARK B 13.795 XANADO SKATE RENTALS 4.651 XEROX CORP 8,364 YACHT CONNECTION 37,579 YACKVICTOR 37,962 YAMADA HARUKI REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKgrG Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITY'S: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution -Total Revenue Percentage of. 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City'sTotal Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Total Business SalesfUse Property Trans. Fran. Feet Revenue Ind. Cum. Lk%Tax Tax Tax Occup. Tax Utility Contribution Pct Pct Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue $533 0.00% 2% $449 $1,089 0.00% 2% $918 $219 0.00% 2% $219 $110 0.00% 2% $110 $8 0.00% 2% $8 $511 0.00% 2% $431 $110 0.00% 2% $110 $110 0.00% 2% $110 $360 0.00% 2% $360 $731 0.00% 2% $616 2% $918 0.00% 2% $783 $95 0.00% 2% $95 $17.132 0.04% . 2% $100 $16,635 $397 $100 0.00% 2% $100 $433 0.00% 2% $200 $233 $4 0.00% 2% $4 $2,624 0.01 % 2% $100 $2,524 $35 0.00% 2% $35 $2.521 0.01% 2% $2,125 $10D 600% 2% $100 $440 0.00% 2% $371 $33 0.00% 2% $33 $518 0.00% 2% $2D0 $318 $4 0.00% 2% $4 $740 0.00% 2% $740 $59 0.00% 2% $50 $46 0.00% 2% $46 Report A190c State Subv. Revenue $8 46 $8 $11 $13 $39 $6 Municipal Resource Consultants Conridential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only ReportA190c Page S2 (GRA1l0) City of Newport Beech 0412M GRIP Report 21:01 Total Rev Rank Revenue Generator 18,585 YEE HARRY K ' 33,032 YEN LY FANN 36,9W YOUNG INTERIORS 12,636 YUNKER JAMES ARTHUR JR 38.444 Z MODNICK OPTICAL FASHION 579 Z PIZZA 1,422 Z PIZZA INC. 42,016 ZAND MARIAM 37.570 ZAPKE WILLIAM 34,636 ZERO GRAVITY 10,939 ZIEG DANIEL A 44,689 ZIGGYS OPTICAL Mcracltiew CY�t�WiRy 1 Total Asm"t- 1 Ali Others ENTIRE CITY REVENUE GENERATORS' ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUE RANKING Shown for Each Revenue Generator is the ENTIRE CITYS: -Total Revenue and Total Revenue Contribution - Total Revenue Percentage of: 1) Each Revenue Generator's Total Revenue 2) City's Total Revenue FILTERED VIEW: See cover page for Filter parameters. Report A190c Total Business SaleslUse Property Trans. Fran. Feel State Revenue Ind. Cum. Lk. Tax Tax Tax Occup.Tax Utility Subv. Contribution Pct Pct Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue $307 0.00% z% $307 $100 0.00% 2% $100 $78 0.00% 2% $78 $579 0.00% 2% $488 S9 $36 0.00% 2% $36 $3.016 001% 2% $125 $2,891 2% $5 0.00% 2% $5 $59 0.00% 2% $59 $100 0.00% 2% $100 $675 0.00% 3% $569 $10 3% $1.392,485 3.00% 3% $63.055 $595.329 $413.810 W.W8,5W 97.00% $1.746,755 $10,536,972 $20.361,884 $235,850 $5,832.848 $46,480,9W 100.00% $1,809,810 $11,132,301 $20,775,694 $6,068,698 $59.964 $24.47 S4,163,495 $244655 * $4.223.459 $2.471.02 Municipal Resource Consultants Confidential Document Restricted to Authorized Personnel Only Report A190c FRITZ DUDA CO CA Q) 002/003 _ 07/17/95 09:15 FAM 71.4 723 1141 v July 13, 1995 FOR SHANNON 10 G U� �' p C�Jc� List of statistics (data) that I need from Ken Delino - we have some of it in our file - Key Data Reauired Total population of Lido - 1) �° d Total population of Peninsula -- 13,00 O Combined total population.ik,ga o Key Demographics - see QV'Acl " Q'0+ s Ages of population - See C' HP'ck"vew1 S Median Incomes - a e e 0 ,p c(i wq%Al � 'Percentages should be attributable to each category Number of total residential units ­8)100 Number of commercial establishments with total square footage of commercial - retail element - 6ee- Wkmat Jt-d AV191 1 3-� 1-7. Economic contribution of residential) element - Property Taxes , w o RK6 0 C- Economic contribution of retail-corriLrcial element - Sales Tax Revenue - s e, Total property valuation of residential element - wo LVIN , aYO Al S Total property valuation of commercial element - a e e tU b I t ON 'tL\iS s V'ac Law Enforcement ? Number of crime arrests on peninsula and percentage of total for City 5 ee i0ble -I- mops Number of DWI arrests and total percentage for City , umava i I Traffic arrests and percentage for City Number of lodging units (hotels, motels) , S ce mem0t d14 AP I '� U( 17 Number of on -sale liquor licenses dL Number of off -sale liquor licenses 07/17/95 09:15 FAS 714 723 1141 ri FRITZ DUDA CO CA • 0003,003 Percentages of both on -sale and off -sale liquor licenses as they relate to County -wide average — s e e Z Percentages as they relate to City of Irvine Break out Central Balboa Commercial Square footage separately Revenue from Central Balboa waterfront concessions to City — S e e a►��e- a -Family Detached a Family Attached Lx Family �r Occupied d Occupied Peninsula Residential Data Point Balboa Residential 637 139 562 8 49 121 26 111 492 60 277 504 404 172 454 184 268 948 151 145 375 Island 848 0 7 98 698 139 Finley/Lido Residential 672 553 173 14 1.373 293 503 43 873 427 1.774 426 469 93 :r 12 200 51 148 162 281 158 13 to 18 67 40 60 113 216 84 19 to 30 301 377 1.184 271 3.257 924 31 to 55 520 270 850 767 1,326 580 ,55 254 168- 480 578 722 312 Page 1 Total Total % of City 3,411 14.541 23.46% 365 6,258 5.83% 2.302 3,169 72.64% 1,485 9,509 15.62% 3,028 17.207 17.60% 3,739 12,653 29.55% 1.352 4.001 33:7�-/. 1,000 6,167 16.22% 580 2.747 21.11% 6,314 19.023 33.19% 4,313 24,056 17.93% 2.514 14.124 17.80% ?tA4 5 10 Linda S Conglelon II A6- CHALDENO 06/20/95 `...... ...................... Avg. Population Annual Year ............................. 2/ Change 1990 4,959 1995 4,888 -0.3% 2000 4,802 -0.1\ .......... ...................... Avg. Occupied Annual Households .... ............M ange ..... EEHISIT I SUMMARY OF SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS r, CENTRAL DAIWA, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 1/ __________________________ .................... P O ............................................................. ( P U L A T I O N D A T A---------------------------------------------------------------- I AGE DISTRIBUTION --------------I Median I ........................................ I------- ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION -------I Hispanic In Group Quarters 9 No. .... 18-26 25-/6 ..... 55-6..... ... Age--.. Origin ....................................... Black Asian Other 0.0% 0 10.3% 13.5% 41.7% 11.1% 10.1% 13.4% 33.7 5.1% 0.3% 1.2% 1.5% 0.0% 0 12.6% 11.6% 41.3% 12.5% 9.4% 13.6% 34.5 6.4% 0.5% 1.9% 1.6% 0.0% 0 13.4% 10.4% 39.0% 1/.5% 9.7% 13.0% 35.5 8.1% 0.61k 2.7% 1.7% H O U S 42 {a E H O L D D A T A----------------------------------------------------------------- I ........................................................................................................................... (_____________ HOUSEHOLD INCOME _____________I (______-_HOUSEHOLD SIZE----------- I 1 2 3-a 5• Owner- Renter- Average 5 Median Average....................P.....rson ........rsons ...................... Oc..pled............... .................... ............ 57 6% 2.04 $48,301 $96,295 35.3% 39. 11k 22.6% 2.7% 1990 2,430 - 1994 2,416 -0.11k 43.0% 57.0% 2.02 $53,962 5121,562 35.5% 38.8% 23.1% 2.7% 1999 2,390 -0.2% 43.6% 56.4a 2.01 $63,940 $149,658 35.6% 38.6% 23.1% 2.7% ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1/ Includes census tract 628 in Newport Duch, CA, 2/ Population figures do not include persons in group quarters. Source: 1990 U.B. Census; 1995 Estieste and 2000 Projection per Urban Decision Systems, Inc. it Lmua S COnglelon d Ass,, PENDEMDG 06/20/95 EABIBIT 3 SUMMARY OF !ELECTED DDIDORNPRIC CHARACTERIS DAIWA PENINSULA, NEWPORT BEACH, CA I/ ---------- _-------------------------------- --------------------- P O P U L A T I O N D A T A---------------------------------------------------------------- I AGE DISTRIBUTION ______________ I (_______ ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION ------- Population Avg. Annual In Group Quarters (____________ Median Hispanic 2/ Change ♦ No. 0-17 10-24 25-44 45-54 55-64 65, Age Origin Black Asian Other Year ......................................................... ........................................................... ....................................... 1990 13,003 0.0♦ 0 8.9♦ 17.5♦ 40.6♦ 10.6♦ 9.6♦ 12.9♦ 33.7 4.8♦ 0.3♦ 1.61L 1.4% 1g?5 12,995 0.0♦ 0.0♦ 0 10.3♦ 16.1♦ 40.1♦ 11.6♦ 8.7♦ 13.2♦ 34.5 5.7♦ 0.4% 2.5♦ 1.4% N2 0 12,973 0.0♦ 0.0♦ 0 12.3♦ 15.1♦ 30.0♦ 13.2♦ 8.7♦ 12.7♦ 35.5 6.9♦ 0.4% 3.3♦ 1.6♦ (_________________________________________________________________ H 0 U S B H O L D D A T A----------------------------------------------------------------- 3 ......... ........................................................................................................................................................ Avg. I - HOUSEHOLD INCOME _____________) (__________________________________) Occupied Annual Owner- Banter- Average Year ................................................................................................................................................................. Households Change Occupied Occupied HH else Median Average 1990 6,109 43.5♦ 56.5♦ 2.13 $53,310 $93,806 1994 6,142 0.1♦ 43.0♦ 57.0♦ 2.12 $57,380 $113,982 1 6,151 0.0♦ 42.5♦ 57.5♦ 2.11 $66,828 $236,336 1/ Includes census tracts 220, 629 i 635 in Newport Beach, CA. 2/ Population figures do not include persons in group quarters. 3/ 1990 Census recorded 2132 persons (16.6♦) in this area enrolled in college or university. This includes full and part-time enrollments. t/ 55 percent of the population of this at" is orals. Sources 1990 U.B. Census; 1995 Eatlmate and 2000 projection per Urban Decision Systems, Inc. !I 01 Lima S C0ngleton d Asa, DEMOMAIN 06/20/95 EXHIBIT 5 SUMMARY OF SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS MAINLAND NEWPORT SEWN AREA (EXCLUSIVE OF BALBOA PENINSULA) /1 ----------------------------_----------------------------------- POPULATION D A T A ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1 .............................................................................................................................................................. (------------ AGE DISTRIBUTION --------------) (------- ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION ------- Avg. Median Hispanic Population Annual In Group Quarters 0-17 18-24 25-44 45-54 55-64 65• Age---. Origin Black Asian Other Year ...... 2/ ............................................. Change ♦ No. ...................................................... .................................... 1990 52,083 1.3% 700 14.3% 0.3% 34.6% 14.8E 11.8% 16.3% 40.8 3.8% 0.3% 3.2% 0.8% 1995 54,569 0.3% 1.3% 713 15.1% 7.4a 33.5% 16.6% 10.9% 16.6% 41.7 4.8\ 0.5% 4.4% 1.0% 2000 57,050 0.9% 2.3% 726 16.0% 7.3% 31.5% 18.3% 11.0% 15.9\ 42.4 5.9% 0.6% 5.5% 1.2% ----------------- H O U S E H O L D D A T A----------- ................................................................................................................................................................. Avg. (------------- HOUSEHOLD INCOME -------------] Occupied Annual Owner- Renter- Average Year Households Change Occupied Occupied HH dire Median Average ................................................................................................................................................................. 1990 24,425 50.6% 41.4% 2.13 $62,784 $99,123 1995 25,695 1.0% 60.4% 39.6% 2.12 $66,244 $122,801 2000 26,921 0.9% 61.8% 38.2% 2.12 $76,604 $249,616 1/ Includes Census Tracts 626.17, 626.18, 627.02, 627.02, 630.04, 630.05, 630.06, 630.07, 630.00, 630.09, 630.10, 634 i 636.03. 2/ Population tiguras do not include persons in group quarters. Bourcas 1990 U.S. Census; 1995 Estieats and 2000 Projection per Urban Decision Systeas, Inc. • \ l.mda S Conglel 3 , HBCITYDH 06/20/95 ( Year 1990 1995 2000 EXHIBIT 7 SUMMARY OF SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA _______________________________________________________ P O P U L A T I O N D A T A_____________-____________________._____________...________-. ................................................................................................................................................. (------------ AGE DISTRIBUTION ______________ I (------- ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION Population Avg. Annual In Group Quarters Median Hispanic Change t No. 0-17 18-24 25-44 45-54 55-64 65� Age Origin Black Asian Other 1/ ................................................ ........................................................... .................................. 65,943 1.1% 700 13.3% 10.1% 35.9% 13.9% 11.3% 15.5% 39-4 4.1% 0.3% 2.9\ 1.0% 68,381 0.7% 1.0% 711 14.3% 9.0% 34.8% 15.6% 10.41 15.8% 60.3 5.1% 0.4% 4.0► 1.1% 70,798 0.7% 1.0% 722 14.0% 8.7% 32.8% 17.4% 10.5% 15.3% 41.3 6.2% 0.6% 5.1% 1.3% H 0 U 3 E H 0 L D D A T A --------- ..................................... Avg. (_____________ HOUSEHOLD INCOME __-__________( Occupied Annual Owner- Ranter- Average Year Households Change Occupied _ Occupied HH Size Median Average 1990 30,870 55.6% 44.4% 2.14 $60,338 $97,662 1995 32,157 0.8% 57.1% 42.9% 2.13 $64,417 $220,650 • 2000 33,374 0.7% 58.3% 41.7% 2.12 $75,860 $146,645 1/ Population figures do ........ not s persona group ...................................................................................................... quarters. Sources 1990 U.S. Census; 1995 Estlswte and 2000 Projection per Urban Decision Dysteae, Inc. Unda S Congleton S AssoD. IAVD@DO 06/20/95 I JOWISIT 9 SUMMARY OF SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS CITY OF IRVINE, CALIFORNIA _______________________________________________________ P O P U L A T I O N D A T A ---------------------------------------------------------------- I .............................................................................................................................................................. Avg. I ------------ AOL DISTRIBUTION ______________I I ------- M:mic DISTRIBUTION ------- Population Annual In Group quarters Median Hispanic Year 1/ Change • No. 0-17 18-24 25-44 45-54 55-64 65♦ Age Origin Black Asian Other ........................................................ ........................................................... ....................................... 1980 59,408 5.1• 3,221 28.6• 12.7• 39.5• 9.3• 6.2• 3.7• 29.3 6.81* 1.5• 7.6• 3.4% 1990 108,157 6.2• 2.0• 2,173 24.4% 13.9• 38.8• 11.71h 5.6• 5.8• 31.3 6.3• 1.8• 28.1• 2.2• 2994 226,120 3.9• 1.4% 1,737 25.0• 13.7• 37.0• 13.0• 5.4% 5.8• 31.6 7.1• 1.8• 20.0• 2.0• 1999 145,110 2.8► 0.9• 1,324 25.0• 13.7• 34.6• 14.7• 5.9• 6.1• 32.0 0.5• 1.8• 22.2• 2.0• H O U 3 H 8 0 L D D A T A ..........................., 80USEUOL0 INCOME ------------- Avg. I_____________ I Occupied Annual Owner- Renter- Average Yur_-- Households ChangeOccupied Occupied MN Size Median Average """________ _____________ .............................................................................. 1960 21,296 72.7• 27.3• 2.79 $38,709 $35,076 1990 40,257 6.6• 62.5• 37.5• 2.69 $56,306 $68,754 1994 53,039 7.1• 60.3• 39.71b 2.38 $57,529 $72,890 1999 70,801 5.9• 59.1• 40.9• 2.05 $63,243 $77,501 1/ Population figures do not include persons in group quarters. Source: 1980 and 1990 U.S. Census; 199E Batimate and 2999 Projection per Urban Decision System., Inc. • I 0 6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Department -Memorandum- July 17, 1995 TO: Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee FROM: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Land Use Data for Central Balboa Area The following is a list of the land uses and amounts on the Balboa Peninsula from 10th Street to Peninsula Point. Single Family Dwelling Units 963 DUs t/ S U 3'G� 2 to 4 Dwelling Units 752 DUs �O> 5+ Dwelling Units 311 DUs Ol Hotel 34 rooms Neighborhood Commercial 5,000 square feet l 4JL4 General Commercial 74,950 square feet Restaurant 61,890 square feet Fast Food Restaurant 12,390 square feet Theater 440 seats Office 24,710 square feet Library 4,800 square feet Post Office 1,700 square feet Fire Station 5,300 square feet Youth Center/Service 4,970 square feet 0 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Department -Memorandum- April 18, 1995 O� ��0 0 0 x19rc,r, 0OTO: Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee FROM: Advance Planning Manager SUBJECT: Land Use Data The following is a list of the land uses and amounts on the Balboa Peninsula from Coast Highway to 10th Street. 6 Single Family Dwelling Units 206 DUs i It 3 3 2 to 4 Dwelling Units 754 DUs too 5+ Dwelling Units 108 DUs Mobile Homes 58 DUs Motel 39 rooms Hotel 22 rooms Neighborhood Commercial 96,520 square feet General Commercial 244,790 square feet Unclassified Commercial 29,620 square feet Restaurant 146,630 square feet Fast Food Restaurant 45,730 square feet Health Club 5,260 square feet Theater 685 seats Office 275,690 square feet Medical Office 1,790 square feet Industrial 60,440 square feet Pre-school/Day Care 13,440 square feet Elementary School 389 students Governmental Offices 45,480 square feet Fire Station 7,000 square feet Church 27,720 square feet Utility 0.05 acre Parking 126,660 square feet n • , Sheets 0 City Revenue from Commercial areas of the Peninsula Business Lic Sales Tax Prop Tax Bed Tax Fran. & Ut. Total Central Balboa $16,600 $184,000 $84,000 $75,000 unk Da McFadden/Cannery/ $63.000 $595,000 $414,000 $236,000 $60,000 $1.368,000 Lido Plaza and Village TOTAL $79,500 $779,000 1 $498,000 1 $311,000 $60,000 $1,727,600 7oC), 4 0©0 g, 000 -= r �- (, IA/ S ��d 00 0 6 �17�pO{ ©� c9- 76 s G uvv Peninsula Crime 1994 CRIME CITY RD 11 RD 12 RD 13 RD 15 RD 16 Peninsula Total Percent ARSON 15 0 0 0 1 0 1 _ 6.67% Z ASSAULT 437 8 27 17 98 25 175 40.05% BURGLARY 891 13 16 25 82 50 186 20.88% G.THEFT 318 8 15 18 42 20 103 32.39% HOMICIDE 3 0 0 0 1 1 1109 2 66.67% LARCENY 2181 31 89 82 231 542 _ 24.85% RAPE 18 0 _ 0 0 1 _ 1 4 2 11.11 % ROBBERY 47 1 3 0 _ 8 _ _ 16 34.04% TOTAL 3910 61 150 142 464 210 1027 26.27% Percent 100.00% 1.56% 3.84% 3.63% 11.87% 5.37% ARRESTS 460 2591 1993 5646 116 404 267 1344 ercent 100% 2.05% 7.16% 4.73% 23.80% 8.15% _ 45.89% Page 1 Figure 3.2.1-1 city of Newport Beach Police Department Reporting Districts 3-5 April19,1995 Page 2 TO IR ICI Uok 6443250 P.03 c e pse S (Based on this County's population and the total number of retail licenses issued, it has been determined that one sale license is allowed for each 1494 residents, and one on -sale license is permitted for each 852 residents. In Newport Beach this breaks down as follows. On Sales ,Census Tract Population Allowed/Existing 626.10 15 0 56 * 626.17 4010 4 1 626.18 7200 8 2 627.01 3002 3 7* 627.02 4755 5 10* 628.00 4959 5 18* 629.00 1862 2 1 630.04 4836 5 5* 630.05 1458 1 7* 630.06 3472 4 9* 630.07 5309 6 3 630.08 366 0 25* 630.09 1814 2 2* 630.10 5836 6 3 631.01 2558 3 13 * 631.03 2478 2 No record 634.00 4990 5 31* Off -Sales Allowed/Existing 0 6 2 0 4 3 3 7* 1 1 3 2 0 1* 2 3* 0 3 1 I* 3 3* 1 3* I No record 3 6* 635.00 6182 7 47 * .4 636.03 5735 6 4 3 10*-�eniws�l4 4* (The number of licenses existing within each census tract is subject to change with each new license issuance or cancellation.) 4� If we determine that there is an overconcentration of licenses issued within a particular census tract, the following will be necessary in order for this Department to consider recommending the application for approval: 1. For non -retail licenses, retail on -sale bona fide eating place licenses (restaurants), certain retail licenses issued to hotels, motels, or lodging establishments, and microbrewery licenses, for instance, the applicant must show that public convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance of the license. (In such a situation, we generally ask the applicant to describe the nature of his business, and how it is unique from all other similarly -licensed establishments within the nearby area.) 13 �s GS 1990 Census Tracts ( Newport Beach ) S 626.11 626.11 \i\!` `��yb`y % �lVwjji �t� I(1;d��..�{?oYyy.}�yyN����'''- S" �.. ` ..! ' 1 `•l - � ` �. : 626.14 11 ��'a�o,•,`/�ai�e•3r'^ -� � \+�! � � � i "t t -l' ` '� yam.. i %•.<� S. t"Ole'=cr' t ~�! mil" .i 7�'" •'1 ;C,=`�F. �''�+• r�:/..1�,. — 6 WO-7 �" �r � �`y,�. y`U��j . _ � - . � : • �, ",tom \" 4 J,.\ y�,�; _1 _ sue•.- xOF, �: 1 � / ..�.,�• ly'w i` 1 � � •�, ' • 1 Ii t,�` ,- � �i — tom_. ,'n' .. it/ +— i ^ \` t\ •" �' i ' FI I� ���' `: 1��. .v'�� J,r..���v�'i � �} 'l.• � tt (� `�•. ;r•� �t �.\:t 63�6. �K� .`;.) Ln' �` t..11 • •-'• ! .7�'r i%' 'jai `/ •[}}� �I I -,�sv iI �'tiTk'1'`'�`\'rt. °� A.F 1.�" 4H `q__ ffyt •l _,., �t� jl�• .Y r{'�•'. L��'�[.+fi1?l+Q�t} 1 v• iyy��L,i /' X Is / 1'�':. 1•\, .I .R.. ". if ids' 1I � � � w_ ...��•�/ ^l636\ ram. O C 15 :\ N env or mrwpolrr MACH N :as 7 Revised January 1994