HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPAC_2005_07_23111111111 lill 11111111111111111111
*NEW FILE*
rraer* 2nn- n7 21
•
July 23, 2005
9:00 a.m.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL -PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REVISED AGENDA
Central Library
Friend's Meeting Room
1000 Avocado Avenue
I. Call to Order
II. Rezoning of R-2 Areas to R-1
III. Selection of Preferred Land Use Alternatives for:
Mariner's Mile
Newport Center/Fashion Island
Corona del Mar
Airport Area
IV. Reconsideration of Land Use Alternatives
West Newport Highway
Banning Ranch
West Newport Industrial
Old Newport Boulevard
Balboa Penninsula (Cannery/Lido/McFadden Square)
Balboa Village
V. Public Comments
Public Comments are invited on items generally considered to
be within the subject matter jurisdiction of this Committee --
Speakers are asked to limit comments to 5 minutes. Before
speaking, please state your name and city of residence for the
record.
*Reports are available on line at www.nbvision2025.com
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
r
Memorandum
To: GPAC
From: Patricia Temple, Planning Director
Date: July 18, 2005
Re: Rezoning of R-2 Areas to R-1
The possible reclassification of certain two-family residential areas was previously discussed and generally
found acceptable by GPAC. The areas discussed were the portions of West Newport ocean ward of Coast
Highway, the Balboa Peninsula and Balboa Island. The reasons staff asked for this consideration were two-
fold: to recognize the growing trend to single family development in these areas, and as a way to eliminate
projected traffic that might never be realized. At the West Newport Beach Association vision meeting and at
the recent public workshop, we have received feedback that this idea is strongly supported in West Newport.
GPAC recommended this change for West Newport at the last meeting's discussion on the West Newport
Highway sub -area.
• Through discussions with some community members on Balboa Island (although we are still trying to meet
with the Associations on Balboa Island to confirm this), staff believes that this idea is also supportable.
However, feedback received to date from the Balboa Peninsula has not been supportive of this idea. Therefore,
we would like direction from GPAC on whether the Balboa Peninsula should continue to be considered for this
change. This question will be on the agenda of the next GPAC meeting on July 23`d.
As an alternative to rezoning strictly to R-1, some accommodation of small "Second Dwelling Units" could be
provided for through the application of an overlay zone. There are provisions in State Law which encourage
second dwelling units in single family areas, as a means to improve housing supply and to provide more
affordable housing. Second units typically are limited in size, and may be subject to alternative development
standards. If this concept in incorporated into this rezoning concept, the possibility of a second unit would be
permissible, but not mandatory.
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN_
PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS II
FOR GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION July 23, 2005
Mariner's Mile
Newport Center/Fashion Island
Corona Del Mar
John Wayne Airport Area
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
EIP
In association with URBAN CROSSROADS ■ APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
•
Introduction
Mariner's Mile
Newport Center/Fashion Island
Corona Del Mar
John Wayne Airport Area
•
•
1
3
8
12
15
\J
INTRODUCTION
Two meetings are scheduled for the Newport Beach General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) to
prepare its land use recommendations, with the planning sub -areas divided between the two
meetings. This document provides the framework for the GPAC's deliberations and
recommendations for the second group of sub -areas, to be discussed at the July 23 meeting. Unlike
previous discussion papers, where the study areas were presented alphabetically, they have been
organized sequentially from west to east to enable the GPAC to ensure that adjacent areas can be
considered together.
This report presents the City of Newport Beach staff's and consultant team's recommendations for
preferred land use alternatives for:
■ Mariner's Mile
■ Newport Center/Fashion Island
■ Corona del Mar
■ John Wayne Airport Area
The recommendations are based on consideration of the benchmark documents prepared for the
General Plan Update including the Community Directions for the Future developed during the
General Plan Update Visioning Process., the Guiding Principles and Land Use Alternatives
formulated by the GPAC with modifications to reflect Planning Commission and City Council input,
and the Land Use Alternatives Traffic, Fiscal, and Environmental Impact Analyses prepared by the
• consultant. Additionally, our recommendations were influenced by the public input received at the
June 25 Land Use Alternatives Public Workshop. Finally, we have considered the goals of property
owners with whom we have met, as well as our professional judgment.
Cumulatively, the study area land use recommendations represent selections from thealternatives
defined by the GPAC, the combination of elements from one or more of these, and modifications of
these in consideration of their comparative traffic, fiscal, and environmental impacts and public input.
In determining the recommendations, it is acknowledged that the City of Newport Beach will continue
to experience some population and employment growth, though it is almost fully developed with few
remaining vacant lands. The challenge is to accommodate the incremental growth in a manner that
is consistent with, complements, and does not incur undue impacts on the qualities that uniquely
distinguish the City. Important among the staffs and consultant's considerations for the
recommended land use alternatives are the following goals:
■ Traffic impacts —reduction of citywide traffic volumes below those that would result from
continued implementation of the existing adopted General Plan.
■ Fiscal impacts —attainment of a net fiscal benefit (citywide revenues exceed costs), while
providing jobs and services for residents.
■ Environmental impacts —minimization of impacts on public services, infrastructure, natural
resources, and scenic quality.
■ Community character —maintenance of the character of the City's distinct neighborhoods
and commercial and business districts.
PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 1
■ Community viability —assurance of the economic viability of the City's uses through
• improvement of underperforming and incompatible mixes of land uses and reinforcement of
key business sectors that support the vision for the role and character of Newport Beach.
•
L�
Inherently, it is recognized that it is impossible to optimize each of the goals in each of the sub -areas
and trade-offs among these may be necessary. For example, the maintenance of a pedestrian -
oriented "village" character for Corona del Mar, where the objective normally wouldbe to slow traffic,
may conflict with intentions for efficient traffic flows on Coast Highway. As a result, in selecting the
recommendations, it has been necessary to prioritize the most important goal, or goals, for each
planning sub -area in consideration of the choices and trade-offs that may be required. The staffs
and consultant's considerations in submitting the recommendations are documented In this report.
To facilitate review, information pertaining to the existing characteristics and visioning process input
for each planning sub -area previously distributed to the GPAC has been incorporated in this
document. Land use recommendations, supplemented by a discussion of their related policy
implications and basis for selection, are graphically presented in a text box to facilitate access. The
latter includes a summary of applicable input from the June 25 Land Use Alternatives Public
Workshop.
PREI
0
MARINER'S MILE
Description
Mariner's Mile is a primarily auto -oriented area located along Coast Highway, which runs west to
east, from the Arches Bridge on the west to Dover Drive on the east end. Commercial uses account
for 82.9 percent of land uses in the study area: a mix of marine -related commercial uses (boat sales,
sailing schools, and marina), some auto -related uses (auto dealerships and service) and
neighborhood -serving commercial are located throughout the area. The Balboa Bay Club and
Resort, a hotel and a private club located on City tidelands, represents 19.4 percent of uses in the
area. Marine related uses account for 12.8 percent of the area, while auto -oriented uses account for
9.0 percent of the area. Multi -tenant commercial uses that combine a number of related or
complementary uses in a single building or buildings that are connected physically or through
design, account for almost 25 percent of area land uses.
Waterfront development, such as dockside restaurants, is concentrated on the southern side of
Coast Highway, while there are more general commercial uses along the northern side. Secondary
uses include salons, restaurants, apparel, and other specialty shops ranging from wine stores to
home furnishings stores. There are a high number of vacancies in Mariner's Mile relative to the other
areas; 8.5 percent of the area contains vacant buildings. Many of these vacancies are sites with
development potential.
The City has recently embarked on a plan, Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Plan (adopted
by City Council in 2000), to accomplish the following: create a pedestrian -friendly retail district along
the northern portion of Coast Highway in the vicinity of Tustin Avenue, Riverside Avenue, and Avon
Street; improve the auto -oriented strips located on the north side of Coast Highway, in the western
and easternmost portion of the area; create a vibrant public waterfront south of Coast Highway;
upgrade the visual character of the area with new landscaping and streetscape amenities; and
improve private development standards associated with signage, architecture, and lighting. Parts of
the area may not easily adopt a pedestrian character as there are commercial uses with parking in
the front and traffic on Coast Highway is heavy. In addition, there is a possibility that Coast Highway
could be widened in this area in the future, which would detract from the intentions of a more
pedestrian -friendly environment by potentially narrowing sidewalks and allowing more traffic in the
area. An issue to consider is how future development will affect the character of Mariner's Mile, and
what kind of uses the community would like to have in this area.
The western half of this area is within the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan has
designated the bay side of Coast Highway for Recreational and Marine Commercial, which allows for
the following: (1) continuation of marine -oriented and visitor -serving uses; (2) maintains the marine
theme and character of the area; and (3) encourages public physical and visual access to the bay.
For the area inland of Coast Highway, the Specific Plan allows for Retail and Service Commercial
uses, which is intended to serve as an active pedestrian -oriented retail area with a wide range of
visitor -serving, neighborhood commercial, and marine -related uses.
PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 3
•
0
Recommendations
Vision
A corridor that reflects and takes advantage of its location on the Newport Bay waterfront, supports
and respects adjacent residential neighborhoods, and exhibits a quality visual image for travelers on
Coast Highway.
Uses (refer to Figure 7)
■ Bay frontage properties (sub -area "A"): marine -related and visitor -serving retail commercial,
restaurant, hotel, institutional, and recreational uses.
■ Inland side of Coast Highway: a mix of visitor and local -serving retail commercial, residential,
and public uses.
• All property frontages on Coast Highway shall be developed for commercial uses.
• The rear portion of properties generally east of Tustin Avenue and the southerly projection of
Tustin Avenue (sub -area "D") may be developed for free-standing multi -family residential.
• Inland parcels generally between Riverside Avenue and Tustin Avenue (sub -area "C") may
be developed for commercial or mixed -use buildings with housing integrated above ground
level retail or office uses.
• Remaining parcels (sub -area "B") maybe developed for commercial uses.
Development Capacity
■ Retail: 0.35 FAR and 0.5 FAR with lot consolidation.
■ Mixed use: 1.5 FAR.
■ Residential: 18 — 22 units per acre.
Policy Discussion
■ Consider adopting design guidelines so that the development of inland properties with a mix of
commercial and residential uses does not create land use conflicts, provides adequate
circulation and parking and preserves views of the water. These should also provide for the
protection of the bluff faces.
■ Consider options for the relocation of the City parking lot on Avon Street to better support the
corridor's retail uses.
■ Consider options for the relocation of the postal distribution center to reduce parking impacts in
the immediate area.
■ Consider modifying the Shoreline Height limit (26') on the inland side of Coast Highway to
accommodate mixed use buildings provided that the limits fully protect views of the water.
PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 4
0
!I
LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS
A) Coastal Marine -Related Commercial and Institutional Use `C) Neighborhood -Serving Retail and M xed-Use Buildings (Housing Above Retail)
(B Commercial D Retail on Highway Frontage, Residential Behind
L�
o
170M.ms
m 1=1
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN
Figure 7
MARINER'S MILE
mm.o iaee R.e
ex M.l
MW-FOMPy ReN fiol
ammercipl
lwlo-Reloletl COMY10iClol
- MaMe-Rdia Commet Ial
Perspml SeMces
NnXure
. MJtI-Tenant Commercial
. R embnal OI cC u&rewlcavvet
Ca Mmfty Commei u
- NA e h RB6t Imt. Fast Fa Restaumnr
Hotel
�Ofla
MWM Tenant lwus
sMummVopan Space
PibIIGSeM PLbtlo
- 5cnaot
me,
� Fudic Pcv"
vacant ailahg
V..,t W
option Bountlary
xes. rilsum ernacmn.uswmre.mree.xuxv. zei
R
a. IXyalXwNnBwcv�Gwad Nm ,Wy7md,ON
mom+/NOWa PobMWM Smb+Cn IDll. M,Ra AU:
�Oequesletl� HN Createtl by: MJ(PP
El P
•
•
•
■ Development on 'the Bay frontage should implement amenities that assure access for coastal
visitors, including views of the Bay from Coast Highway and a pedestrian promenade along the
Bayfront.
Basis for Recommendations
1. Visioning process participants identified Mariner's Mile as a location that needed revitalization
and suggested that an overall vision be defined to meet this objective. It was also defined as a
location appropriate for mixed -use development integrating housing and commercial or office
space. A majority of survey respondents opposed hotel development in Mariner's Mile.
2. Participants in the Public Workshop (22 people) were almost equally divided on the questions of
preserving opportunities for coastal -related uses in Mariner's Mile and whether the City should
require or offer incentives to assure such uses. A number of participants indicated that high land
values and rents limit the number of marine -related uses that can be economically sustained in
the area.
3. ADE's study of the local marine industry found that rising costs have resulted in fewer firms
serving the demand for boat service and parts, and businesses that do not have to be on the
water have moved to inland locations. There is a possibility that reduced availability of boat
services in Newport Beach could cause boat sales businesses to move inland as well, costing
the City sales and property tax revenues.
4. Approximately 83% of the Workshop participants supported the development of housing in
Mariner's Mile. This was evenly split between those who believed that housing should be
located on both sides of Coast Highway and those who favor limiting it to inland parcels.
5. The Coastal Act prioritizes the development of coastal -related uses over the development of
housing in the Coastal Zone and Coastal Commission staff have advised the City that provision
of marine -related uses must be made along the Newport Beach waterfront.
6. Housing developed as free-standing structures or in buildings that integrate housing above
ground level commercial uses can serve as a transition from Coast Highway's intensive
commercial development and upland residential neighborhoods.
7. Inland properties flanking Riverside and Tustin Avenues offer the opportunity for the
development of additional retail uses that support upland residential neighborhoods. These can
be located and designed to promote active pedestrian activity, and, with adjoining housing
development, could establish a "village" character, as proposed in the Mariner's Mile Strategic
Vision and Design Plan.
8. Among the Guiding Principles that support the recommendations are:
a. Encourage the revitalization of older commercial areas.
b. General Plan land use policies should facilitate an economically viable concentration of
marine uses.
c. Support the careful expansion of visitor -serving businesses and facilities, including hotels.
d. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the natural setting that contributes to the character and
identity of Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its residents and visitors.
PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 6
0
•
•
e. Encourage the redevelopment of under -performing commercial areas to allow residential or
mixed -use development.
f. Encourage the maintenance of natural landforms.
g. Encourage the protection and, where feasible and appropriate, creation of public viewsheds
within the City.
PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 7
C,
FASHION ISLANDINEWPORT CENTER
Description
Newport Center is generally located in the center of the city, north of Coast Highway between
Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Newport Center is a regional center of business and
commerce that includes major retail, professional office, entertainment, recreation, and housing in a
master planned mixed -use development. Fashion Island, a major retail shopping center, forms the
nucleus of Newport Center, and is framed by this mixture of office, entertainment, residential, and
housing. Newport Center Drive, a ring road that surrounds Fashion Island, connects to a number of
interior roadways that provide access to the various sites within the Center and to the four major
arterials that service this development. High-rise office and hotels buildings to the north of the Center
form a visual background for lower rise buildings and uses to the south and west.
Newport Center is essentially built out with the exception of a couple of vacant strips of land in the
eastern portion of the site. There is entitlement for 111 additional rooms on the Four Seasons hotel
site and just less than .300,000 square feet of entitled undeveloped retail space in Fashion Island.
Combined, Newport Center and Fashion Island contain commercial land uses that represent 57.4
percent of this sub area. Fashion Island, a regional mall with a mix of specialty shopping, accounts
for 15.8 percent of the uses within the sub area. Newport Center consists of professional office uses
(26.6 percent of the study area), two hotels (6.3 percent), multi -tenant commercial (5.9 percent),
public and semi-public uses such as the Police and Fire Departments and Orange County Museum
of Art and Sports Museum (2.9 percent), and entertainment (1.5 percent) uses along the perimeter of
• Newport Center Drive. The Center is also the site of a transportation center, located at San Joaquin
Hills Drive and MacArthur Boulevard that includes a Park and Ride.
A large open space area (26.1 percent) adjacent to Coast Highway and Jamboree Road in the
western portion of the sub area is the site of the Newport Beach Country Club and Balboa Bay
Tennis Club. Single- family attached residential uses (10.4 percent) also are located in this quadrant.
There is a considerable amount of vacant land (approximately 16 acres) between MacArthur
Boulevard and Avocado Avenue. Newport Center is largely built out, but there has been discussion
of future development of office, hotel, retail, and residential uses in this area.
•
Recommendations
Vision
A successful mixed -use district that combines an economic and commercial center, which serves the
needs of Newport Beach residents and the sub -region, with expanded opportunities to live close to
jobs, commerce, entertainment, and recreation, and is supported by a pedestrian -friendly
environment.
Uses (refer to Figure 8)
■ Fashion Island: retail, restaurant, entertainment, and comparable uses. Opportunity should be
provided to accommodate the development of an additional anchor tenant and supporting uses.
■ Newport Center: professional office, hotel, entertainment, housing, and recreational uses.
Opportunity should be provided to expand housing, and hotel uses, but additional office
development should be limited to existing buildings.
PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 8
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS Retail - + 425,000 Square Feet Housing - + 450 Units GENERAL PLAN
Figure 8
Office - + 44,000 Square Feet Hotel - + 111 Rooms NEWPORT CENTER/
FASHION ISLAND
I
I
� L:c—J� I 1
� aall.l use
F,�11L�177� R9itleMlol
Resibentlal, SNgle-Fanlly Regbentlal
MUIR-Family Resibenhol
om AUto-
nuto�Rebtetl Commeabl
I Personal Senses, Rhless/Gyrns
SpecloHy Retail, Shopping Mal
Muh-Tenant ComsneRdct
_Profess lOfAce/&sslnesyMetllcaWe'
Dhe-In Restaurant
Hotel
Enterlalrment
InetBRhonaVDpen 9pssce
PublaISeml-Pubic
104 Open Space
oP�e
Vacant Lot
Op Option Boantlay
mems,�.. ram
t
m
o soR tzn
PROJECT NUMBER 105]9,01
( 1 Reques bv: HLR Crew by. MN/PP
Dale: 07113/05
L1P
CJ
is
■ "Newport Village" site, north of the Library, shall be developed as a City park.
Development Capacity
■ Retail/entertainment: increase entitlement by approximately 125,000 square feet (for a total of
425,000)
■ Office: increase entitlement by 40,000 square feet
■ Housing: increase entitlement by 450 dwelling units
■ Hotel: no change to 111 room entitlement
Policy Discussion
■ Pedestrian access and connectivity should be improved with additional walkways and
streetscape amenities.
■ Additional retail entitlement should not be used for office development.
Basis for Recommendations
1. in the Visioning process a majority of residents and businesses supported little or no change to
Newport Center, but some were willing to allow growth for existing companies. At the same
time, a majority supported keeping retail space at current levels, but many were willing to support
expansion of existing stores and moderate increases for new businesses. Some participants
favored mixed -use development and stressed the need for more affordable housing in particular.
A majority of resident and business survey respondents supported building new hotels in
Newport Center.
2. In the Public Workshop, approximately, two-thirds of the participants expressed moderate to
strong support for the expansion of retail and entertainment uses in Fashion Island and about
half supported the development of another retail anchor. Over half were opposed to further
office development, while two thirds indicated support for additional hotel rooms. Development of
additional housing was strongly supported by three-quarters of the participants.
3. The flexibility to develop retail space and hotel rooms will enable Fashion Island to respond to
market demands as they evolve over the next 20 years and help to maintain its economic
viability.
4. Additional hotel, retail, and residential uses will contribute to the City's fiscal well-being, while
more office development would not pay the full costs to provide needed City services.
5. Increased residential entitlement will enable a larger number of persons to live close to their jobs,
commerce, entertainment and recreation, reducing vehicle trips and length, energy consumption,
and air pollution below those resulting from more dispersed patterns of development. Newport
Center residents who commute to jobs outside the area will be traveling in the opposite direction
of peak hour traffic.
5. Among the Guiding Principles that support the recommendations are:
a. Support City efforts to optimize retail sales capture in the
PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 10
0
•
b. Facilitate the development and retention of a variety of business types that strengthen the
vitality of the local economy.
c. Capitalize on market and demographic changes and opportunities that emerge in key
economic centers of the community
d. Support the careful expansion of visitor -serving businesses and facilities, including hotels
and meeting facilities
e. Consider mixed -use development as a means to create additional housing opportunities.
f. Consider urban scale development in areas where there is potential for development
patterns that will minimize traffic.
g. Additional development entitlement needs to demonstrate significant fiscal, economic or
other community benefit.
h. Establish land use and density/intensity limits that will have less impact on peak hour traffic.
PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 11
0
•
CORONA DEL MAR
Description
The Corona del Mar planning area is located along Pacific Coast Highway from Avocado Avenue to
Hazel Drive. Figure 6-1 shows the regional location of the Corona del Mar area. Commercial land
uses front Coast Highway with residential land uses directly to the east and west of the commercial
uses. This area is primarily commercial (78.6 percent), with a mix of neighborhood -serving
commercial (approximately 10.0 percent) and specialty shops (6.0 percent). Primary retail uses
include restaurants (more than 8.0 percent), home furnishings, and other specialty shops ranging
from apparel to architectural design services. Many commercial uses (about 40.2 percent of the
area) are located in multi -tenant buildings with retail on the first floor of buildings and professional
services located on the second floor. While there were a few commercial vacancies at the time of the
land use survey, the most prominent was that of the Port Theatre located at the corner of Coast
Highway and Heliotrope.
Sherman Library and Gardens (about 9.0 percent of the area) is a private facility and research library
open to the public. There is an assisted -living residential complex representing 7.4 percent of land
uses in the area. Corona del Mar is pedestrian -oriented with a dense mix of commercial uses,
streetscape amenities, street medians, and a limited number of signalized crosswalks.
The Corona del Mar Business Improvement District (BID) was established in 1996 to enhance the
shopping district of Corona del Mar to create an exciting, pedestrian and resident friendly
experience. In 1999, the BID developed the "Vision 2004" Plan to implement community
improvements for Corona del Mar. The plan envisions the creation of a linear park -like environment
along Coast Highway from Avocado Avenue to Seaward Drive. The plan also calls for sidewalk
landscaping, street furniture, street lighting fixtures, pedestrian activated crosswalks, parking lanes
and various other improvements. A Specific Plan has also been contemplated for this area, but one
has not been developed.
Recommendations
Vision
A pedestrian -oriented "village" that serves as the center of community commerce, culture, and social
activity and provides identity for Corona del Mar.
Uses (refer to Figure 9)
■ Retail, office, cultural, and civic uses (comparable to and compatible with existing development).
■ Shared parking structures, provided that the ground floor of the street frontage contains retail
uses.
■ Surface parking on parcels directly behind commercial uses.
Development Capacity
■ Retail commercial and office uses: 0.5 FAR (per existing General
PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 12
LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS Retail and Office on Coast Highway Per Existing General Plan
Possible Acquisition of Adjoining Residential Lots For Parking
Shared Parking Facilities with Street -Facing Retail
IAN
. ? ]Tl
AX
CBY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN
FIGURE 9
CORONA DEL MAR
Edsting Lmd Use
Re5l pfld
R.etl fld
MU FamNROVOOMial
C4migralal
Auto Related Commercbl
Pe l Sema
AmcmlPkccessory, Fur m.
ButongEHard!/arcVGardea Supply
MuwTeraM Commend
ProfesOmal 0EBCe1Suv lvtwIaaWet
Dmp , Community Cammercd,
Footl Stores
Nnah Raslaurml, Fast Food Rmiu.l
helButbnWOpen Space
rfs Publk /J ml Publb, Chu,a S/
Relgbus Uses
D B
LwJ Vacant BWItlYrg
Vocal Lot
O OpNm Boundary
nn. 6tlOYi Pp�v�m-GR/sFw, We 6N'M\ frt.
W
a zse aco
FwE
moe, anuewMmar.ow.asb.+Nana an
So.mw. w,w >om. w�.� mwew Sao. wm. ocow aao>
oa ses.wawrm uwiwr, x.o�.+m.. XOS.
MJECT NUMBER: IM79-01
Req a by, HUE Created W. W/PP
Dote: 07/13/05
C
•
•
•
Policy Discussion
■ Permit the use of residential properties adjoining commercial parcels for surface parking,
requiring that it be designed to mitigate visual, noise, vibration, lighting, and other impacts on
residents.
■ Explore other methods to provide parking convenient to commercial uses, such as a parking
district or relocation of the City parking lot at the old school site.
■ Consider adopting design guidelines to promote pedestrian activity along Coast Highway.
■ Continue implementation of Vision 2004 streetscape improvements that contribute to the
corridor's pedestrian character.
Basis for Recommendations
1. Visioning process participants expressed support for protecting Corona del Mar as an important
historic village of,the City.
2. Approximately two-thirds of the Public Workshop participants indicated moderate to strong
support for the enhancement of Corona del Mar as a pedestrian -oriented commercial center that
serves its adjoining neighborhoods. A significant majority (61%) indicated moderate to strong
opposition to the development of mixed -use buildings at key intersections and more (70%)
opposed the clustering of commercial at intersections and redevelopment of intervening parcels
for housing.
3. Redevelopment of residential properties abutting commercial uses for parking was supported by
slightly more than half of the Workshop participants and opposed by about one-third.
4. Development of centralized parking facilities would provide opportunities for customers to park
once and walk among the corridor's businesses, reducing vehicle trips and pollution.
5. Among the Guiding Principles that support the recommendations are:
a. Facilitate the development and retention of a variety of business types that strengthen the
vitality of the local economy.
b. Enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods and business
districts that together identify Newport Beach.
c. Preserve the community's heritage.
PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 14
•
JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT AREA
Description
The Airport Area covers approximately 360 acres and is bound by Campus Drive to the north, Bristol
Street North/Corona del Mar Freeway to the south and Jamboree Road to the east. As the study
area name implies, the area is adjacent to the John Wayne Airport. It is also in close proximity to the
University of California, Irvine.
This proximity has influenced the many uses in the area that support the airport and the university,
such as research and development, high technology industrial and visitor -serving uses, such as
hotel and car rental agencies. This area consists of 83.7 percent commercial uses with
administrative, professional, and financial office uses accounting for 62.0 percent of the area's land
uses. Multi -tenant commercial accounts for 7.5 percent of the area's land uses and provide support
retail and services for office and industrial employment centers in the area. A number of industry
headquarters are located in the Airport Business Area including Conexant and Jazz Industries, along
with other major businesses located in Koll Center at MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road.
Industrial related uses account for 13.1 percent of the study area.
Three large hotel developments account for 4.5 percent of the area's land uses. Also significant are
a number of auto -related commercial uses located primarily in the northwest portion of the area.
These auto -related uses include carwash, auto -detailing, rental, repair, and parts shops.
The Airport Area is surrounded by John Wayne Airport in the County of Orange on the west, and the
• City of Irvine on the north and east. Recent development activity in the City of Irvine's Business
Complex has included the transfer of development rights, bringing more intense development closer
to the AirportBusiness area, and resulting in the conversion of office to residential entitlement. This
activity is changing the area to a mixed -use center.
•
Recommendations
Vision
A mixed -use center that provides jobs, housing, and supporting services in close proximity, with
pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitate walking and enhance livability.
Uses (refer to Figure 10)
Office and hotel uses on parcels not targeted for residential development.
Retail services that support local housing, such as a grocery store, office tenants, and supporting
uses (sub -area "A").
■ - Residential development and buildings that integrate housing with retail or office uses (sub -area
PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 15
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN
FIGURE 10
AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA
Comm clal
P 0 Relored Commemlal
AW FltneWGy s
swialryRetail
Muttl-Tenant Comm lal
Pra mllonol OBbe/[!W eWMedlcaWet
M Cartvnunity Com mlal
pine-In RaSloutant Fast Food Raelaumnt
Ibtal
Intludrbl
Light lnduslllal
r Business P ik lndusMal
Multi Te .a llwu al
MR CTNUMBER10579UI
Requesledby. AM Cealed by NMRP
•
•
•
■ Non-residential uses such as office, industrial, airport -related, and residential -supporting retail in
the Campus tract (sub -area 'B") A higher development intensity than exists should be allowed
as an incentive for redevelopment (within prescribed airport height restrictions).
Development Capacity
■ Retail: maximum of 100,000 square of additional development (50% less than existing General
Plan).
■ Office: no net increase above existing use, with transfer of capacity from sites redeveloped for
housing to other locations such as the Campus tract (reduction of 350,000 square feet from
existing General Plan)
■ Industrial: maximum of 43,000 square of additional development (per existing General Plan).
■ Hotel: additional 600 rooms.
■ Residential: maximum of 3,500 units as re -use of properties currently developed for office,
industrial, and retail uses with corresponding reduction of their development capacity on parcels
where residential replaces existing office.
Policy Discussion
■ Establish development standards and design guidelines to assure that residential development
creates a cohesive district that is compatible and integrated with adjoining office, retail, and
industrial uses. At a minimum, the guidelines should address site planning, architectural
character, landscape, site access/driveways, parking, streetscape/urban design elements, and
inclusion of open space and recreational amenities.
■ To assure compliance with State Noise Guidelines and the Airport Environs Land Use Plan,
housing should be located outside of areas exposed to a 65 dBA CNEL.
■ Underperforming retail uses located on parcels at the interior of large blocks should be
redeveloped for other uses, with retail clustered along major arterials (e.g., Bristol, Campus,
Macarthur, and Jamboree).
■ Incentives should be given to encourage lot consolidation and the re -use and improvement of
properties located in the "Campus tract," west of Birch Street.
Basis for Recommendations
1. Visioning process participants prefer revitalization of the Airport Area with income generating
land uses over undirected growth. Generally, a range of development types were acceptable as
long as traffic is not adversely affected. There was strong support for new hotels and broad
consensus on mixed -use development with residential and revenue -generating uses. Survey
respondents were comfortable with low-rise office buildings, and opposed to more car
dealerships and industrial uses. There was split support for high-rise development and retail.
2. A majority of Visioning process participants believe it is acceptable to have more traffic
congestion in certain locations of the City, such as the Airport Area, than in other parts of the
PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 17
0
•
•
3. Almost 80% of the Public Workshop participants expressed moderate to strong agreement that
the Airport Area is urban in character, different than other City neighborhoods, and suitable for
additional development.
4. Almost 80% of Workshop participants supported the development of housing in the Airport Area.
Of those, about 60% favored a mix of low and mid -high rise buildings and the remainder
supported high rise.
5. Almost all Workshop participants supported the revitalization of economically underperforming
properties, such as the Campus tract, for office, industrial, and other uses. An equal number
indicated that allowing somewhat higher densities was acceptable as an incentive for the area's
revitalization.
6. Strong market demands and nearby development in the Irvine Business Complex make the
Airport Area suitable for housing, provided that it is developed to achieve a cohesive district that
is integrated with adjoining office/ retaillindustrial uses, as well as incorporates amenities that
support an urban residential neighborhood.
7. Development of housing with the office uses provides the opportunity for residents to live close
to jobs, reducing vehicle trips in the sub -region, air pollution, energy consumption, and noise.
Airport Area residents who commute to jobs outside the area will be traveling in the opposite
direction of peak hour traffic.
8. Areas generally west of Birch Street are within the 65 dbA CNEL for John Wayne Airport and
unsuitable for housing development, based on State noise guidelines. While housing can be
insulated, experience indicates that this would result in higher energy costs that contradict
community conservation objectives, and outdoor spaces would be adversely impacted.
9. Increasing hotel and residential uses, while reducing office and industrial entitlement, will have a
positive fiscal impact.
10. Clustering of retail uses along the major arterials will enhance their economic viability, provide
shopping services for workers and residents in the Airport Area, and draw customers from
Irvine's residential developments, increasing fiscal benefits for Newport Beach.
11. Among the Guiding Principles that support the recommendations are:
a. Encourage the revitalization of older commercial areas.
b. Facilitate the development and retention of a variety of business types that strengthen the
vitality of the local economy.
c. Additional development entitlement needs to demonstrate significant fiscal, economic, or
other community benefit.
d. Offer a distinct land use concept and policy framework for the Airport Area.
e. Encourage the redevelopment of under -performing commercial areas to allow residential or
mixed -use development.
f. Consider establishing a different level of service standard for the airport area, subject to
evaluation of possible impacts on residential areas.
g. Consider urban scale development in areas where there is potential for development
patterns that will minimize traffic.
h. Establish land uses and density/intensity limits that will have less impact on peak hour traffic.
PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 18
•
Guiding, the
Irvine Business
Complex
Particlpants:ln a weeklong,
series of meetings created
proposed guideline's for future
development in the Irvine
Business Complex,
Existing residential
[i charter' Apartments
403 units
The:14etr6politan
261condos
Villa Siena'Apartments
1,442 units
13 Toscana Apartments
563 units
U 1 Watermarke
535 units
Sources: city of hv6ie
0-16552 Von Kerman
104'apartments
Avalon Bay
290 Apartments
® 2801 Alton Park*ay
184 condo units
�2851.Alton
171condos
2801.2823 MCGBw
305 apartments
2801 Kelvin
and'17,421 Murphy
248 units and 71 units
0
Retail centers
® Main Street
Plaza
®,Michelson
Market'
�G Jamboree
Promenade
Olgmond ,x
Jamboree
CAI �. �i' •' � � A �'�. �' ;��`•-. -
� � ,1�J, is �••. r"''YP�t���,, ;�' e
Projects approved or pending approval:
O Essex
O'110 boson/Legacy
132 units
290 units
(a, Irvine Crossings
2400 Michelson
752units
185 condos
0 O2323 Main
(jl 2132.2168 Michelson 317apartments
444cond3Ma
Central Park
O
n
1,380 ut
units
1929-20
7819Gillette
306apartments,
0Marquee,atParkPlade
798 units
Q MetLlfo
® Carlyle @ Colton Plaza
481 units
. 156 condo units
Whe'!.Ots 0 Von Kerman
115'dnlls
91Martin street'
Condominiums
82vnits
Campus Center
394 units
Q Plaza -Irvine
357 units
Graphics reporting by
Jett Rowe, The Register
• 4 �gW PpRT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
General Plan Update Land Use Alternatives
Options Review and
Recommendations to GPAC
July 20, 2005
INTRODUCTION
On June 22, 2005, the Economic Development Committee established a subcommittee
to review the proposed land use alternatives for the general plan update developed by
the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). The charge of the subcommittee was to
examine the proposed Options and report back to the entire EDC for consideration and
adoption of formal recommendations to GPAC and the City Council.
At their regular meeting of July 20, 2005, the full EDC discussed the subcommittee's
• report and voted to forward the following recommendations for ten (10) geographic sub-
areas. The Committee then continued the discussion until its August 17, 2005 regular
meeting, to complete discussions on the remaining seven (7) sub -areas. These
recommendations will be provided for the Planning Commission and City Council
meetings on August 30, 2005.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
As noted in the fiscal analysis of the General Plan Alternatives, the City has the potential
for increased annual revenues in a wide range of between $317,000 and $10.7 million
per year, depending upon which of the various Options for each sub -area is selected.
Significantly, increases in lodging (short-term hotel and vacation home rental) and retail
sales are projected to provide the largest coritributions to increased revenue. However,
in order to provide balance for the City and its quality of life, the EDC discussed and
agreed a number of 'overriding principles' affecting the discussion, and by which the
committee's conclusions were guided.
1. Changes to the General Plan should show an overall positive fiscal impact on the
City, although not necessarily in each geographic sub -area.
2. It is clear that the City's residents do not believe a general citywide increase in traffic
• is acceptable. Therefore the "true maximum" Option —which in most areas increases
Pagel of 5
traffic within a sub -area —will not be the EDC's recommended Option unless there are
• overriding issues or mitigating factors that would recommend otherwise.
3. It may be advantageous to recommend an Option that would anticipate additional
traffic in a few geographic sub -areas; if in exchange, the Option adds substantial fiscal
benefits, and that results in less overall potential traffic impact in other sub -areas.
4. All of the recommendations regarding the General Plan require a balancing of trade-
offs —between providing for increased revenue for the City; increasing traffic; addressing
environmental concerns; and quality of life.
5. The Committee notes the comments of the Harbor Commission regarding the fact
that the harbor is an economic engine for the City, and notes that there is a need to
preserve marine uses where possible, while allowing for market activity to enhance
those uses.
6. The Committee notes that the financial data used in the Fiscal Analysis of the
General Plan Alternatives is three years old, taken mainly from the FY 2002-2003
budget. If possible and practicable, the EDC suggests that staff examine the cost and
feasibility of updating the numbers to the newly adopted FY 2005-2006 budget when the
model is used to analyze the preferred land use plan.
• RECOMMENDATIONS BY SUB -AREA
•
Airport Business Area:
The addition of 6,600 residential units under Option 3 appears to be excessive for the
area because of the 65 CNEL restriction, height restrictions, land use restrictions and
CC&R's. Residential use is a good idea for the area along with a mixed -use concept,
but with less housing. By concentrating increased traffic in the airport area, the City is
projected to have a 16% increase in traffic as a trade-off for a $2.8 million increase in
annual revenue. The increase in traffic concentrated in an area with good arterial
roadways and three major freeways appears to be a good trade-off for the additional
revenue.
Recommendation: The EDC recommends Option 2 with a reduction of the potential
6,600 residential units to an amount consistent with the ability of the area to
accommodate growth. The EDC also recommends that residential use be considered
throughout the Airport Area, including the 'Campus Tract.'
Balboa Village:
The EDC does not support the addition of 300 hotel rooms in Option 5. We conclude
that it is impractical for the area. Options 1, 2, and 3 provide for 34 infill hotel rooms
which we feel is more consistent with the scale of the area.
Page 2 of 5
•
Recommendation: The EDC supports Options 1, 2 and 3 and rejects Options 4 & 5.
Banning Ranch:
The purchase of the entire property for open space by the City is prohibitive, and debt
service on this single project would utilize all of the potential City-wide increases iri net
revenue; therefore, that is not a readily -viable option. Second, the idea of a large hotel
or a resort overlooking a sewer plant is not realistic and does not make economic sense.
However, a viable solution may be the provision of a mix of housing types with generally
local -serving commercial development for the upper area, along with the use of much of
the lower area as open space and a tie-in to a potential trail system. The mix of housing
would provide a positive fiscal benefit to the property owner and the City, and would
provide the fiscal resources to restore the degraded oil field property to a viable open
space tract.
Recommendation: The EDC recommends Option 2.
Cannery Village West:
There is an ongoing need for the neighborhood retail and services now in place to
continue to provide necessary goods and services to the area, and the potential for
increased long-term revenues to the City are minimal.
isRecommendation: The EDC recommends no change to the existing General Plan
designations for this sub -area.
•
Cannery Village East:
The proposed increase in vertical residential -over -commercial mixed -use development
will have a mutually beneficial relationship with the existing commercial stock, and will
help keep it viable as well. The residential community, then, can be served by the
commercial development with minimal additional traffic impacts.
Recommendation: The EDC recommends Option 1, with the bay front remaining in land
uses that support recreational and marine commercial use.
Corona del Mar:
The existing commercial area in Corona del Mar is a very viable pedestrian -oriented
retail and service strip that provides a net economic benefit to the City, by serving both
the local community and by bringing in substantial sales tax revenues from non-
residents.
Recommendation: The EDC recommends no change to the existing General Plan
designations for this sub -area.
Page 3 of 5
• Lido Isle:
The subcommittee's review notes that the Option to amend the existing General Plan
designation regarding Lido Isle does not address economic or fiscal issues related to
new revenue, but is primarily an option addressing residential lot line adjustments
related to existing housing units already on the island.
Recommendation: The EDC makes no recommendation, as the Option is not within the
purview of the Committee.
Lido Village North:
Although both Options 1 and 2 include the allowance of mixed -use development in Lido
Village North, Option 1 includes the potential for a small amount of boutique -style
lodging space. And although they differ in land uses, because of the potential for a hotel
both Options 1 and 2 provide substantial economic benefit to the City of approximately
$1.3 million annually. In addition to its general recommendation for this area, the
committee further recommends that the current program of tideland boat slip permits be
shifted to a program of leases, which would increase revenues to the City. It also
recommends providing additional visitor boat slips in this sub -area, which accommodate
and enhance marine tourism while having few traffic impacts.
Recommendation: The EDC recommends Option 1.
• Lido Village South:
Option 1 would increase the retail development potential and reduce the amount of
potential office space; while Option 2 proposes mixed -use residential and retail space
and no new office space. Both of the Options are positive fiscally; however, Option 2
performs much better at $78,000 per year in revenue.
Recommendation: The EDC recommends Option 2
Newport Center / Fashion Island:
The subcommittee's review notes that the projected retail revenue from the Fashion
Island is underestimated as a result of the technical aspects of the fiscal impact model;
the current model divides property zoned as " commercial" into 40% "service
commercial" and 60% "retail commercial" throughout the City without reference to area.
Service commercial generates a lower sales tax ratio than retail commercial. For
Fashion Island, however, this assumption is not reasonable; and tends to understate the
sales tax revenue from a center that has almost all retail commercial. Staff will work with
the City's consultants in the next update of the economic model to adjust the sales tax
revenue estimates from Fashion Island.
However, the EDC notes that Option 1 provides for the addition of 480 hotel rooms and
• 1,100 housing units, with only limited increases of retail and office space. The estimated
Page 4 of 5
potential for a $3.9 million increase in annual net revenue to the City represents almost
• 40% of the greatest possible increase suggested in the entire General Plan alternatives.
Almost 98% of this increase is related to the increased lodging (hotel rooms). The EDC,
mirroring the community survey results, supports the construction of an additional hotel
or additional hotel rooms in the Newport Center/Fashion Island sub -area if proposed.
The increased traffic from hotels does not occur at peak travel times, and thus the traffic
impact is mitigated to some extent. Conversely, the increase in housing units by 1,100
units proposed in Option 1 appears to be excessive, and the EDC has concluded that a
smaller number of units may be more appropriate.
Recommendation: The EDC recommends Option 1; however, with a reduction in the
proposed number of housing units from 1,100 to an amount consistent with the area's
ability to accommodate growth.
ADDITIONAL COMMENT
1. A motion was approved by the EDC to recommend that the Marinapark property
discussion be included in the General Plan Update, if it would not unduly delay the
process. Although the EDC is aware that a separately -appointed Council committee is
addressing this matter, it is also clear that General Plan land use decisions affecting the
use of the harbor do have a significant impact on the economic and fiscal health of the
City and its residents, and on the quality of life in Newport Beach. Further, the EDC
• recommends that any project on the Marinapark site incorporate additional visitor boat
slips, which are almost non-existent outside of yacht clubs, and which enhance marine -
related tourism that has little traffic impact on citizens.
0
•
•
Summary of recommendations
and'Fiscal Impact
•
Traffic Impact
Yr. Net
I
j
I
I
I.,
Service
I
-
I
Dailyt l
Subarea
Option
Revenues
Housing
Office
Retail
Industrial
Lodging
Marine
Commercial
Institutional
Public
increases
Airport Business Area
2
Balboa Village
1,2,3
Banning Ranch
2
Cannery Village West
Ext GP
Cannery Village East
1
Corona Del Mar
Ext GP
Lido Isle
NR
Lido Village North 1452
1
Lido Village South 1463
2
Mariner's Mile
McFadden Square East
McFadden Square West
Newport Center/Fashion Isle
1
Old Newport Blvd.
W. Newport Hwy. A
W. Newport Hwy. C
West Newport Industrial
S2,809,528
$80,465 (5233,614) $141.331 ($42,868)
$2,984,052
$0
$50,632
($88,402)
($82,068)
17,623
16%
($93,547)
($70,558) ($36,041) $4,530
so
$0
$0
$5,880
$0
$2,642
(324)
-2%
$702,731
$213.592 $0 $34,389
$0
5489,691
$o
$6.457
($33,792)
($7,606)
(5,319)
-24%
($746)
($2,590) $0 $1,427
$0
$0
$o
$298
$0
$119
0
0%
$66,862
$31,836 $49,612 $26,367 ($39,144)
$0
S0
($1,461)
$0
(5348)
1,218
12%
$129,552
586,603 ($34,302) S54,370
$0
So
So
$15,827
$0
$7,054
0
0%
$64,569
$63,271 $0 50
$0
$0
50
$o
$0
$1.298
0
0%
$1.368,587
$17,848 $49,014 $54,089
$0
$1,301,961
($1,893)
$0
($52,432)
$0
3.191
51%
$78,307
$14,384 $12,832 $41,972
$0
So
$6,958
$o
$2.161
$0
1,655
28%
Recommendation from EDC forthcoming.
Recommendation from EDC forthcoming.
Recommendation from EDC forthcoming:
$3,931,206
551,529 ($118,438) $264,749
$0
S3,839,177
so
$68,599
(551,672)
($122,738)
22,734
21%
Recommendation from EDC forthcoming.
Recommendation from EDC forthcoming.
Recommendation from EDC forthcoming.
Recommendation from EDC forthcoming.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
HARBOR COMMISSION
September 10, 2003
Ms. Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
Dear Ms. Wood:
The Harbor Commission has reviewed -the current (May 2003) draft of the "Fiscal Impact
Analysis & Model -Newport Beach General Plan Update" process prepared by the City's
• GP update economic consultant, Applied Development Economics, Inc.
•
As a result of this review,(see Summary sections below), the Harbor Commission has
identified a number of harbor —related land/water-use, economic and financial factors
which it wishes the City, its consultants and GPAC to seriously consider in the
continuing input to,'and refinement of, the update process. These factors are covered In
the 'Recommendations" section at the end of this letter.
Summary -Marine Industry Land Use, Economic & Fiscal. Characteristics &
Trends-20'03
As summarized on pages 31 and 32 of the consultant's report, marine uses, and
the marine industry "...account for over 1000 jobs and generate nearly $2.7
million in net revenues..." to the City of Newport Beach.
The report summary accurately describes the steadily -evolving reduction in
numbers of Newport Beach Marine Industry uses and their total revenues, as
well as "leakage" to other market locations resulting from general marine industry
attrition, consolidation, environmental regulation, and increasing land and
operations costs.
�7
J
• The implications of the loss to the City of significant positive net revenues by
further unchecked shrinkage and leakage of Marine Uses is noted in the report
and by the Commission.
Finally, the (seeming) inability of the Newport Beach Marine Uses to hold position
or expand/diversify in Newport Beach in the face of these larger forces is also
noted. The potential cooperative roles of private and public sector in creative
solutions to these problems and arresting the trend of decline are described in
the report summary.
Summary- Fiscal Analysis of Existing General Plan Marine Uses-2003
This analysis (Table 13-pp24&25) shows Marine Uses in 5th place (of 91,
contributing an estimated/allocated $4.6 million of City Revenues, and in 7 h
place in terms of City Expenditures at $1.9 million, with a net positive balance
to the City of $2.67 million, putting it in 3`d place in this category, behind
Lodging (1s10) and Retail (2"d)
This role of Marine Uses is significant in illustrating their importance to the
City and its citizens/taxpayers, since it is one of the very few positive -
balance uses offsetting the negative -balance Residential, Office, Industrial
and Public uses, and enabling the City to show a modest positive balance
• overall.
Boat and Marine Equipment Sales Tax Revenues represent 5% of the total sales
tax revenues generated by all of the land use categories , placing Marine Uses in
4th place in the 9 categories , ahead of light industrial and hoteis.(p22-Fig 1)
•
Marine Uses Gross Revenues are also 5% of gross City revenues , tied for 5th
with public uses, and behind lodging, but still ahead of light industrial and service
commercial, etc. (p22-Fig 2)
Summary.; Fiscal Analysis of Potential General Plan Marine Uses at GP Buildout -
2025
The projected General Plan Buildout (pp 41&42) indicates growth by 2025 in all
land use categories and in visitor levels, except for Marine Uses.
The consultant's Fiscal Analysis GP Buildout Marine Uses Development
Summary -2025 (Table 20-pp43&44) shows Marine Uses slipping to 6th place,
with an estimated $4.9 million In City Revenues, reflecting only $0.3 million
increase in 22 years. It shows Marine Uses holding in 7th place in terms of City
Expenditures at $1.9 million, also no change in 22 years. Marine Uses although
not increasing substantially, retain their net positive balance to the City of
approximately $3 million, staying in 3rd place in this category, behind
Lodging (Vto) and Retail (2"d).
2 jl
4.
The report summary states: "We have not assumed, however, a
commensurate Increase in the marine industry or the number of boats
moored in Newport Harbor. The general plan buildout projection does not
include additional marina berths, and as discussed earlier, some elements
of the marine industry are tinder pressure from rising real estate prices and
may not be able to expand readily In Newport Beach."
Harbor Commission Recommendations
Recommendation 1-Analyze Both No -Growth and Growth Alternatives for Marine
Uses
The current GP update projection for Marine
essentially a passive "hold -the -line" position for
Newport Beach.over the next 22 years, which the
overly conservative and not a reasonable basis 1
current experience of Newport Beach and
communities.
Uses, as noted above, assumes
Marine Uses in the community of
Harbor Commission believes to be
or future planning based upon the
other waterfront/marine industry
The Harbor Commission believes that there are actually two alternative
scenarios/choices which should be analyzed for Newport Beach marine uses in
• the General Plan Update process, in order to provide perspective for GPAC/City
decision -making:
A. Passive -No Growth: Experience indicates that a passive, non -proactive
approach to a dynamic land use and economic element such as marine uses and
related activities would not maintain the status quo, as permitted in the existing
General Plan. Rather there would be a significant, potentially catastrophic decline
in the role of marine industry uses as a Newport Beach "economic engine',
employment and visitor generator, and as an important image maker over the
next two decades through complacency and inaction and through market forces.
This condition should be unacceptable to the Newport Beach community, but it Is
important that its negative implications for City fiscal health, overall economics,
image and heritage should be fully examined in the General Plan update effort, to
serve as a cautionary example of potential decline. The Harbor Commission
feels that this issue requires a more comprehensive discussion of the
potential negative economic impacts on Newport Beach of a decline In
marine uses and revenues, supplementing the existing consultant report
text and financial projections, to serve as a cautionary example for City,
GPAC and consultant analysis, and to lend perspective to an alternate,
preferred approach, described below.
B. Proactive -Sustainable Growth: The Harbor Commission and its predecessor
Harbor Committee have, over several years, had numerous discussions on the
potential evolution of the existing marine uses and activities, as well as their
•
revenue potentials, on the land and water areas of Newport Harbor. These
discussions, also incorporating the experience of other evolving waterfront
communities, project a diversification and consolidation as well as more efficient
grouping of the Newport Beach marine uses and related water -dependent
activities on both land and water. Numbers, types, locations, and combinations of
uses and activities will chanbe and evolve, as will their primary and secondary
economic, • people, environmental and image benefits. Rather than a "wishful
thinking projection this positive evolution of marine uses and activities would be
the result of proactive efforts already underway by the Newport Beach private
and public sectors to retain and strengthen this important sector of the
community. Thus this active and developing trend, rather than a simple projection
of existing conditions, should be considered by the General Plan update process.
It is the position of the Harbor Commission that the Proactive -Sustainable
Growth option for marine uses in Newport Beach needs to be analyzed and
discussed in more detail among City Staff, Harbor Commission
representatives, GPAC and the City's consultants during the current GP
update process. It can then be refined and integrated into a updated
General Plan through City, GPAC and consultants as the desirable
choicelbasis for General Plan policies, objectives and implementation
strategies for marine uses, using the already -adopted Harbor and Bay
Element, in conjunction with the other elements of a new General Plan.
Recommendation 2- Expand Marine Uses SIG/NAICS Categories, Revenue
Sources
The Commission feels that the sources and amounts of "Marine Industry"
revenues potentially ascribable to this category, need to be reviewed as to the
comprehensiveness of its SIC and NAICS subcategodes(see attached list), as
well as all other related revenue sources, in subsequent GPAC discussions and
In GP consultant/staff analysis.
Recommendation 3- Add Marine Tourism Uses and Revenue Sources to Marine
Uses
The Harbor Commission believes that the important existing (and potential) roles
of the Marine Uses in the General Plan, and in the economic and fiscal "balance"
of uses in the community are not yet fully addressed in the General Plan update
process to date, and need to be expanded to encompass all harbor -related, uses,
both traditional "marine", as well as marine tourism and water -related uses.
Ongoing marine industry data gathering and analysis efforts and results need to
be provided to the City, GPAC and consultants for use in this marine tourism
analysis.
Recommendation 4- Expand Consideration of Tidelands Uses to New Water -
Based Uses
0
• The Commission feels that the consultant's analysis of potential economic and
fiscal sources and solutions needs to be extended to the water areas of the City.
General Plan options with additional implementation recommendations should be
considered for City actions and public/private partnerships. These options would
conserve key waterfront locations and important marine uses, enhance user -pay
public access and uses atton the harbor, sustain and improve the harbor
environment, improve harbor operations and sustain and create uses and
activities providing secondary economic benefits to the City and harbor.
The Harbor Commission sees the potential for a sustained and growing marine user
base to contribute needed revenue for dredging and other harbor quality initiatives of
the Commission. Absent same, the burden will fall solely upon the waterfront residential
users and boaters, or in combination, a further burden on City expenditures.
We stand ready to support the ongoing processes by City staff, consultants, and GPAC.
Respectfully Submitted,
Newport Beach Harbor Commission
• Timothy C. Collins, Chairman
40
1�.
• Recommendation #2 Attachment
Comments/ Questions Related to Marine Land Use Definitions by SIC/NAICS Codes
(Appendix A of Fiscal Impact Analysis and Model -Newport Beach General Plan Update)
Background
The Harbor Commission acknowledges and is pleased that the Fiscal Impact Study
consultant has provided a very useful distinction between marine and general land uses
by their creation and analysis of a separate category of marine uses in the GP update.
In a harbor -based community such as Newport Beach, with numerous marine services,
berthing, and water -based tourism and transportation uses which are evolving from a past
dominant role, scale and mix to still -important current and future new roles, it is essential
to be able to define and measure this change, see important trends and plan the future
proactively in documents such as the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, RAMP, etc. '
It is understood by the Harbor Commission that the Marine Uses data available to the
consultant for this study may not have been assembled by, or available from, the data
sources in a number of the SIC/NAICS categories and subcategories of "marine uses".
It is further understood that data for many specialized land use subcategories may have
• been aggregated, either at the sources or by the consultant for simplification purposes,
since this is only one of a number of land uses being considered in the broader scope of the
overall General PIan Update process.
Questions
In asking these questions, The Harbor Commission does not propose to extend the
scope, tinting or cost of the consultant's work or City Staff effort, or to delay the GP
update process, but rather to seek clarification on:
1. whether certain general categories of data were computed and analyzed
including some key subcategories,
2, if other data sources were consulted to determine revenues and costs and,
"3. if allocations of revenues and costs for Tidelands areas were proportionately
allocated between the harbor/bay area and the ocean beaches/related areas.
Question 1- Comprehensiveness of Categories/Subcategories Data Inclusion
a. SIC4493/NAICS713930 Marinas & NAICS713990 Boating Clubs w/o Marinas
Do these categories include data on subcategories: Boating Clubs w/Marinas,
Sailing Clubs w/Marinas, Yacht Basins, Yacht Clubs w/Marinas, Recreational
Kayaking, Recreational Rowing Clubs, Parasailing, Charter Fishing?
0
V
/ 1
L_J
b. SIC 7997/7999 Beaches, Piers, etc.
Do these categories include data on subcategories: Bathing Beaches, Beaches, Beach
Clubs, Beach Amusement/Regreation Services, Fishing Piers?
Question 2 - Inclusion of Other Data Sources
Are/where are the revenue and cost sources listed below included in the analysis?
It is assumed that some are grouped under Tidelands, others under general retail,
etc. Can we get a clarification? If not can these issues/sources be flagged for future
consideration and analysis by the City, others?
a. Moorings (offshore and shore), including annual and visitor sources, OC costs
b. Private piers and docks (presumed estimated thru permits)
c. Commercial piers and docks (" 11 11 11)
d. Public piers, launch ramps, dry storage of vessels
e. Beach parking, other water -related uses parking (public, lessees)
f. Institutional/non-profit/educational marine uses and activities
S. Waterfront/water-related tourism and retail (boat rentals, restaurants, etc.)
• Has there been any research into sources of tourism data other than that from the
annual NB Visitors Bureau estimates which might be able to define the magnitude
of "marine/water-related tourism economic impacts? (universities, private sector?)
Are any of the unique* direct and indirect revenues/economic benefits to the
community of marine/waterfront land use -based events and activities included?
(Christmas Boat Parade; Newport to Ensenada Race, major regional, national,
international sailing & rowing regattas; other YC and BBC events; NH Nautical
Museum Events/Tall Ships Visits; OCC Sailing Center events; Scout Sea Base
events; NH Aquatic Center events, Backbay Fireworks, other events; In -Water Boat
Shows, BI Art Walk, etc.
* (It should be noted that most of these activities are unique to a harbor
community Iike NB with a protected water area and a varied -uses, public -
access waterfront. They are seasonally/annually cyclical and economically
very significant in their attendance levels, as differentiated from the general
flow/levels of beach -city tourism focused primarily on the ocean beach(es)
and pier(s). In the state, only San Francisco Bay and San Diego Bay have
similar activity diversity/.added value from an enclosed harbor/waterfront
uses. The Newport Beach economy significantly benefits from these water -
uses events, and is/will be increasingly dependent on their economic
• benefits, derived from a balanced mix of key waterfront uses and activities.)
17
Question 3- Tidelands Areas Revenues/Costs Allocation
Is it possible to differentiate or proportionally allocate between those Tidelands
costs and revenues ascribable�to the ocean beaches and related areas and services
and those ascribable to the harbor and bay and their interior beaches, wetlands and
services? This would be helpful in attempting to project and allocate future costs
and services associated with both areas, setting of lease and rental rates; fees, etc, on
appropriate user-pay/balanced-budget approaches. It would also be helpful in
defining and weighing land use, public use planning choice -making for the
Tidelands areas during the GP update process.
n
U
0
Jul 22 05 12:37p Rera Energy 7145779149 p.2
July 22, 2005
City of Newport Beach
General Plan Advisory Committee
c/o Ms. Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (GPAC)
PROPOSED LAND USE ALTERNATIVE
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH
(TRANSMITTED BY FAX)
Dear Ms. Wood:
This letter is written on behalf of the owners of the Banning Ranch property and
in response to the current GPAC land use recommendation which was selected
at its July 16t' meeting. As you know, I attended this meeting as well as several
others along the way to in an effort to share background information about the
property and to try understand the evolution of thoughts and ideas being
• considered for our land. I would like to commend City staff, your consultant team
and last, but not least, the outstanding community volunteers that have devoted
so much time and effort to help shape the vision for Newport Beach in the
coming years. Although the bulk of our property remains in unincorporated
Orange County territory, it remains our sincere preference to work with the City
on future planning and processing for the Banning Ranch.
Nevertheless, we urge you to reconsider the recommendation adopted by GPAC
last Saturday morning. We have serious concerns related to the economic
feasibility of the selected Reduced Taylor Woodrow Alternative (RTWA). It
remains unclear to us how the RTWA came to be. It appears to be only an
arbitrary cutting in half of the so-called Taylor Woodrow Proposal (TWP). Over
the many months of shaping the proposals for the City's General Plan, we have
heard several references to a need to address affordable/workforce housing with
an eye on the Banning Ranch as perhaps one of the City's few remaining
candidate sites. The massive reduction in allowable units in the RTWA conflicts
with our ability to work with the City in attempting to address this important issue.
As you know, the Banning Ranch has been and continues to host an active
producing oil field. A comprehensive, and expensive, oil field abandonment and
clean-up pursuant to stringent oversight agency requirements and consolidation
of these operations to smaller drilling and producing islands is a fundamental
• prerequisite to any reuse or potential public access to portions of the land in the
Aera Energy LLC • 3030 Saturn Street, Suiie 101 • Brea, CA 92821 • (714) 577-9154
Jul 22 05 12:37p Rera Energ9 7145779149 p.3
• reasonably near future. The land use yield reductions set forth in the RTWA
diminish the incentives to the owners to accelerate these clean-up activities. In
addition to these costly efforts, a host of other local, State and Federal agencies
will have to be consulted and permits obtained before reclamation of the Banning
Ranch property can be implemented. It is typical that these permits and
approvals involve significant additional financial commitments.
In light of the above, we continue to believe the TWP (as was suggested in your
staff report) represents a reasonable foundation for a viable project with benefits
to all stakeholders. This alternative was developed on the basis of several years
of detailed technical studies and, in our view, would provide the best hope for a
near term, high quality redevelopment of the property that will include substantial
open space complementing the ongoing efforts in support of the Orange Coast
River Park. In fact, the TWP is consistent in its open space design with those
concepts in circulation from the River Park advocates. The TWP also
incorporates a commitment to a "State of the Art" water quality treatment
program that will handle not only on site drainage and run-off but upstream
discharges from existing urban lands that drain onto and across our property
towards the ocean. It is also very important to remember the TWP represents a
very significant density, use and traffic generation reduction from the City's
currently adopted General Plan. All of these factors are clearly consistent with
the expressed GPAC priorities.
We are also deeply concerned about the discussion regarding what appeared to
be an "in effect" moratorium regarding some kind of mandatory acquisition
process of the property for open space. In addition to the obstacles discussed
above related to oil field clean-up and consolidation (or buy-out), we don't believe
it appropriate to incorporate a delay to the owner's ability to plan, entitle and
develop its property.
In closing, we appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and want to
reiterate our desire to work with the City and its residents on future planning of
the Banning Ranch. We ask only that the foundations outlined in the City's
General Plan create the positive framework and incentive for continued
coordination in what firmly believe can be very high quality community addition to
Newport Beach. We would be happy to meet with you to further discuss these
matters at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Geor Basyev
Vice President
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Roger Alford
Ronald Baers
Patrick Bartolic
Phillip Bettencourt
Carol Boice
Elizabeth Bonn
Gus Chabre
John Corrough
Lila Crespin
Laura Dietz
Grace Dove
• Nancy Gardner
Gordon Glass
Louise Greeley
Ledge Hale
Bob Hendrickson
Tom Hyans
Mike Ishikawa
Kim Jansma
Mike Johnson
Bill Kelly
Donald Krotee
Lucille Kuehn
Philip Lugar
William Lusk
• Barbara Lyon
1
r '►
Marie Marston
• Jim Naval
d
Catherine O'Hara
Charles Remley
Larry Root
John Saunders
Hall Seely
Jan Vandersloot
Tom Webber
Ron Yeo,
Raymond Zartler
•
L�
T GENERAL PLAN AASORY COMMITTEE
Saturday, July 23, 2005
PUBLIC SIGN -IN
NAME ADDRESS/PHONE
E-MAIL ADDRESS
Mp(w1"I1i✓b✓a,
7q-3! W, ' jI NWy,`Y`2-Co �?n)1��y2�'�, t
✓jtYl'h/!'r����YIUr/2�•torn
>S� V v, i
2,077ti , Co�rT ra �v3 9LG G�
��,.� e/s e �r/fSti�w�✓, oa
S-ry I C, Iz r
120 S �v elk, �`L4 (� l
lAM 4-� - k."
PA."�cl �St� Q SYicE�s a
14
54i-fluovrz
C�73-1 o70
.. Zj
0
Mill
r
GENERAL PLAN AXISORY COMMITTEE
Saturday, July 23, 2005
PUBLIC SIGN -IN
NAME ADDRESS/PHONE
E-MAIL ADDRESS
ak M07S
iqz& w
.�A T2 �G L
Sia- ��� y7G�X��DS �
(LA(LEN T2ni�q��mrN.co�
�I � \Ilut �
��'Ii �jovvv�°� � ��•��
• GENERAL PLAN AASORY COMMITTEE
Saturday, July 23, 2005
PUBLIC SIGN -IN
NAME ADDRESS/PHONE
E-MAIL ADDRESS
�c nna
33115 e-tjporf Zo3
,�. B, c A 9 z6'63
6
A. Co
1Zyu; Q(� kq�� st
c� L � ,
W 04� w'i-N 2W Q 6✓f - L�2gC (�
��o r Wge54 ,
- a GENERAL PLAN AASORY COMMITTEE
Saturday, July 23, 2005
PUBLIC SIGN -IN
NAME ADDRESS/PHONE
E-MAIL ADDRESS
GENERAL PLAN ARISORY COMMITTEE
Saturday, July 23, 2005
PUBLIC SIGN -IN
NAME ADDRESSIPHONE
E-MAIL ADDRESS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Saturday,
July 23, 2005, at the Newport Beach Central Library.
Members Present:
Roger Alford
Phillip Bettencourt
Carol Boice
Elizabeth Bonn
John Corrough
Lila Crespin
Laura Dietz
Grace Dove
Nancy Gardner
Members Absent:
• Ronald Baers
Patrick Bartolic
Gus Chabre
Kim Jansma
Gordon Glass
Louise Greeley
Ledge Hale
Bob Hendrickson
Mike Ishikawa
Mike Johnson
Bill Kelly
Donald Krotee
Lucille Kuehn
Philip Lugar
Marie Marston
Jim Naval
John Saunders
Hall Seely
Jan Vandersloot
Ron Yeo
Raymond Zartler
Tom Hyans (sick leave) Charles Remley
William Lusk Larry Root
Barbara Lyon Tom Webber
Catherine O'Hara (sick leave)
Staff Present:
Patricia Temple, Planning Director
Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner
Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant
Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant
Carleton Waters, Urban Crossroads
Members of the Public Present:
Seymour Beek
Steve Koen
Mark Murrell
Walt Boice
Robert Launsbury
Nelson Nio
Robert Brower
C. Lush
Dennis O'Neil
Dan Daniels
Adele Mann
Dolores Offing
Mike Erickson
Mel Mann
Mayone Saweps
Magdi Hanna
Carol McDermott
Dolly Shaw
Jack Hardy
Stu McKenzie
Karen Tringali
Kelly Hillman
Craig Morissette
• I. Call to Order
Philip Lugar called the meeting to order.
II. Rezoning of R-2 Areas to R-1
Patty Temple reviewed the memo distributed with the agenda packets and the feedback
received from some of the community associations regarding this issue.
Raymond Zartler asked why some people considered it a bad idea. Ms. Temple stated
there were two concerns: one from people who rely on the second unit for retirement
income and the other from those who feel it would reduce the housing supply.
Gordon Glass asked if the process included a vote of the affected properly owners. Ms.
Temple indicted it did not, however they must be notified by mail.
Philip Bettencourt asked if R-1.5 would reduce the building bulk/mass and still allow the
opportunity for income. Ms. Temple indicated R-1.5 is still two family zoning with a FAR
difference. She added that the areas being discussed are already R-1.5.
John Corrough asked if creating a second unit overlay would address some of the
concerns. Ms. Temple thought conceptually it would give someone the right to have
the second unit within certain parameters.
Ron Yeo didn't recalling discussing this change for Balboa Village. Ms. Temple
confirmed we had not discussed Balboa Village. Mr. Yeo asked if it would remain the
same if we did nothing. Mr. Tescher indicated It would.
John Saunders suggested a compromise which would be to change the zoning to R-1,
• however build in very generous grandfathering/rebuilding provisions.
Jim Naval pointed out that parking is an important issue to consider so we don't
increase the problem. Ms. Temple indicated that the second units are usually granted a
lower parking requirement because of the size of the unit.
Nancy Gardner pointed out that the second units have assisted first time home buyers
get into the market.
Mike Ishikawa asked if any parking was lost when making the change to R-1. Ms.
Temple indicated that many of the existing duplexes do not provide the amount of
parking that would be required if built today; the parking requirements have changed.
Lucille Kuehn asked if it would be possible to allow the current owner to take advantage
of the second unit and when the property changed hands go to the lower density. Ms.
Temple explained that existing units would still be legal, just non -conforming which
would limit the amount of modification allowed. However if a new owner wanted to
tear down the structure they could only build a single unit.
Bill Kelly pointed out that there was no reason to change the zoning, the trend is
already taking place. Ms. Temple indicated we base traffic projections on the zoning
which assumes there are two units; which could penalize the city has a whole when
trying to get an accurate picture of traffic conditions for the future. Mr. Tescher added
• that there could also be impacts to the infrastructure systems.
2
• Mr. Yeo pointed out that in Corona del Mar people are tearing down single family units
and replacing them with two large units.
Mike Johnson thought that we should not discourage owners who want to retain their
duplex units from remodeling a structure that may be 25-40 years old.
Mr. Lugar opened the discussion to the public.
Craig Morrisette, Central Newport Community Association, stated he had received input
from association members regarding this issue. They are concerned with what would
happen if their homes were destroyed by fire or natural disaster —would they be
permitted to rebuild their duplex units and they were also concerned about income from
the second units. They don't want the City second guessing what they may want to do
with their properties in the future. They feel there is no compelling reason to rezone
the area to R-1. He pointed out that developers who are purchasing multiple lots, are
rebuilding single family units due to the market today. He feels this is a temporary
trend that will not last. He added that granny units are for people 62 and over,
however these units are usually on the second floor and not conducive to seniors. He
stated that the Central Newport Association supports the enforcement of current code
and reinforced their major concerns.
Stewart McKenzie, Newport Beach, stated he was involved in the last down zoning
when the area went from R-3 to R-2 which also affected the height of structures. He
also pointed out that parking is reduced when you go to a single family unit. He
• pointed out when homes are over 2,000 square feet at least 3 parking spaces are
needed and R-2 provides 4 parking spaces. He felt that we are trying to change the
peninsula into something it really isn't.
Jack Hardy, Newport Beach, pointed out that lenders do not like to loan on non-
conforming structures, so it may be difficult to resell these properties.
Mr. Yeo made a motion to retain the decision to change West Newport to R-1 and
rescind previous actions taken for Balboa Island and the peninsula.
Mr. Glass suggested amending the motion to leave Balboa Island open for discussion
until staff has met with the homeowner associations to determine how they feel about
the issue. Mr. Yeo accepted the amendment.
Mr. Lugar called for the vote. Motion passes.
III. Selection of Preferred Land Use Alternatives for:
Mariner's Mile
Woodie Tescher reviewed the staff recommendation for the area. Ms. Temple reported
that the Economic Development Committee reviewed the alternatives and could not
come to any firm conclusion for this area.
• Don Krotee asked what the traffic impacts would be for the staff recommendation.
Carleton Waters indicated that adding residential to the area would be a positive impact
with a slight reduction in peak hour traffic.
3
• Jan Vandersloot pointed out that the alternatives summary showed an increase in
traffic. Mr. Tescher indicated that summary was based on the GPAC alternatives not
the staff recommendation.
Mr. Navai is concerned about preserving the views from the parks and homes located
above this area. Mr. Tescher pointed out that this issue would be addressed in policy
and added that staff recommended the mixed use in the back of the property so the
buildings would not impact the views.
Mr. Yeo made a motion to approve the staff recommendation.
Mr. Johnson asked if the staff recommendation considered moving the post office. Mr.
Lugar indicated that would be a policy decision. Mr. Johnson was also concerned with
the safety of bicyclists in the area and asked how we could address the issue. Mr.
Tescher indicated Mr. Waters was making a notation and it would be discussed when
we deal with the Circulation Element. Ms. Dietz suggested additional signage might
help with the situation.
Mr. Vandersloot pointed out that the staff recommendation is being presented without
the benefit of analysis we have been able to review for previous alternatives. He would
have liked to see the analysis prior to voting on the recommendations.
Mr. Lugar opened the discussion to the public.
Carol McDermott, Government Solutions, stated she was representing property owners
isin the area and participated extensively with the subcommittee discussions. She
offered the committee wording changes to the staff recommendation document. She
recommended adding residential as a permitted use on the bay side of the highway.
She felt that a mixed use development would spur revitalization for the area, and
recognized that the Coastal Commission would have to evaluate each request. She also
recommended adding housing above retail or office uses on the Coast Highway
frontages. She also asked that the words "rear portion" be removed from 'the bullet
referring to Sub Area D with the recommendation to take into account the views of the
residents above. Under development capacity, Ms. McDermott recommended adding
"which results in a minimum frontage of 100 feet" to the requirement for .5 FAR. She
pointed out that discussion of height limits might be more of a zoning issue rather than
a General Plan issue.
Dan Daniels, Ardell Marina, pointed out the need for revitalization in Mariners Mile. He
felt that restaurants do not do well because of the complaints of noise from residents of
Lido Isle. He added that most residents surveyed during this process have objected to
a hotel on Mariners Mile. He stated that he was very excited early in the process when
residential was considered for the area and felt that without residential there won't be
revitalization on the bay side. He added that without additional development the
walkway will not happen.
Mark Murrell, Mariners Mile property owner, pointed out that communication among the
• property owners is better than it has been in 25 years. The property owners want
revitalization for Mariners Mile. He added that they had just worked with CalTrans to
III
• get streetlights for the area. He acknowledged that redevelopment could be difficult
due to the number of small parcels owned by families/trusts. He asked the committee
to allow mixed use on both sides of the highway and also to consider softening the
requirements for marine uses.
Dolores Offing, Newport Beach, indicated she appreciates the rights of property owners
however she feels there may come a day when you won't see water anywhere in the
city.
Seymour Beek, Balboa Island, indicated he had attended the Economic Development
Committee meeting when they discussed the area and the committee was split on
whether to allow residential on the bay side of the highway. He felt that if residential
was allowed it will take over and marine uses will suffer.
Ms. McDermott disagreed with Mr. Beek stating that the Coastal Commission has the
ultimate control and is required to balance the provisions of the Coastal Act. She
believes that residential could not take over because of those provisions.
Mr. Vandersloot pointed out that there has been a lot of degradation of views from the
parks above for many years and this may be the last chance to preserve the remaining
view. He added that in the document Ms. McDermott presented she suggested striking
out the word "preserve" and replace it with "consider" under the policy discussion
regarding views. He is also concerned with traffic in the area and even though it was
stated that the staff recommendation would reduce traffic he would like to see it in a
• document he could study.
Ms. 'Dietz asked for clarification of what views were being discussed, she felt that we
have a large number of public view sites already in the city. She pointed out that we
need to balance the loss of view against what is economically beneficial.
•
Mr. Bettencourt stated he supported residential on the coastal side of the highway.
Ms. Dietz suggested an alternate motion accepting Ms. McDermott's changes under
Uses. Mr. Yeo did not accept the alternate.
Lucille Kuehn stated that when she was on the City Council in 1974 they were talking
about revitalization of Mariners Mile and it hasn't succeeded yet. She felt we need to
take into consideration all that we have seen in presentations from other areas of the
state in order to make it work.
Mr. Corrough added that this area is trapped in 1974 and other communities have
found ways to work with the private sector to seek creative proposals. He added that
the Harbor and Bay Element of the General Plan and the LCP are currently treated
passively by the City.
Roger Alford indicated he would be voting against this motion because he agrees that
the uses need to be expanded to include residential and allow owners to take full
advantage of their property.
5
Mr. Bettencourt also indicated he would be voting no because he felt that with proper
• design standards developments could still provide view protection and provide public
access along with residential uses.
Mr. Johnson asked if we allowed residential would there be any impact for the City from
the Coastal Commission. Ms. Temple responded that she really didn't know how the
Coastal Commission would view this type of development.
Hall Seely stated he would also vote no on this motion because he felt residential would
create no more of an impact on the marine environment than a hotel or other
commercial use. He felt that providing flexibility to the property owners was important.
Mr. Glass pointed out that the reason some of the restaurants have failed on the bay
side is because they were trying to become more of a nightclub instead.
Carol Boice asked about the traffic impacts of residential on the bay side of the
highway. Carleton Waters responded that the addition of residential compared to the
staff recommendation would increase traffic.
Mr. Lugar called for a vote. Motion Passes.
Newport Center/Fashion Island
Woodie Tescher reviewed the staff recommendation for the area. Ms. Temple reported
that the Economic Development Committee reviewed the alternatives and favored
• Option 1 which added 480 hotel rooms and 1,100 housing units.
Ms. Boice pointed out that adding residential to the area increases traffic as well as
impacts the local schools which are already overflowing.
Bob Hendrickson felt that the additional 40,000 sq. ft. for office was not going to be
adequate considering the amount existing in that area. He added that the
subcommittee thought allowing more hotel use would have positive fiscal affects.
Ms. Boice added that with the amount of traffic that would be generated in the area the
noise levels would be higher than 65 CNEL at the airport which would impact the
neighborhoods on MacArthur, Jamboree and Coast Highway.
Mr. Yeo made a motion to accept the staff recommendation.
Mr. Vandersloot was concerned with the additional trips generated by the staff
recommendation and made an alternate motion to stay with the existing general plan
instead. Mr. Yeo did not accept the alternate motion.
Mr. Krotee asked what the impact on traffic would be if the housing was cut in half and
the hotel numbers were doubled. Mr. Waters thought it would be a slight reduction in
overall trip generation.
Mr. Glass offered an alternative motion to accept Option 3 instead of the staff
recommendation. Mr. Yeo accepted this alternative.
11
Mr. Vandersloot pointed out that Option 3 adds approximately 600 peak hour trips. Mr.
• Glass questioned that amount because there is less office and the hotel traffic is trickle
traffic.
Ledge Hale pointed out that Option 3 adds 1,226 housing units versus the staff
recommendation of 450 units. Mr. Tescher added that Option 3 triples the housing
units and does not provide for another anchor in Fashion Island.
Ms. Kuehn asked what the fiscal impact would be if the additional anchor was deleted
and housing was increased. Mr. Tescher indicated there would be a significant impact
however did not have the exact amount.
Mr. Glass withdrew his motion because he felt it did not make economic sense. He then
offered another motion to accept Option 3 and add the additional anchor.
Mr. Yeo accepted that alternative motion.
Lila Crespin asked what type housing was recommended. Mr. Tescher indicated it
would be multi family units.
Ms. Gardner was concerned with the amount of housing because recent legislation
increases housing numbers by 35%. Mr. Tescher indicated pending legislation may
require minimum density be 30 units per acre.
Ms. Boice again pointed out that the schools in the area cannot handle the number of
students that would come from the additional housing.
• Mr. Lugar called for a vote. Motion failed.
Mr. Yeo made a motion to accept the staff recommendation.
Mr. Krotee recommended an alternative motion to limit the housing to 600 units and
raise the hotel rooms to 200. Mr. Hendrickson agreed adding that the hotel should be
250 units instead. Mr. Yeo agreed to the changes.
Ms. Dietz asked if the Marriott renovations had been factored into the numbers. Ms.
Temple indicated that the Marriott had reduced their current unit numbers.
Ms. Kuehn asked about the rationale of decreasing the housing units when the
community needs housing. Ms. Gardner responded that we added approximately 2,000
units at last week's meeting and we have some large numbers in the airport area also.
Mr. Lugar called for a vote. Motion passes.
Corona del Mar
Woodie Tescher reviewed the staff recommendation for the area. Ms. Temple reported
that the Economic Development Committee reviewed the alternatives and
recommended the retention of the existing general plan.
Mr. Glass pointed out that even though the study did not include the strip behind the
• commercial, this area is a section that could make a difference.
7
Mr. Yeo pointed out that there is a lot of parking behind the commercial areas that is
currently zoned residential. He indicated there is concern about loosing that parking
due to the current market. He made a motion to accept the staffs recommendation
and grandfather existing buildings to allow a maximum 1.0 FAR under development
capacity.
Mr. Lugar opened the discussion to the public.
Walt Boice, Newport Beach, told the group that the current .5 FAR discourages
redevelopment of the older buildings in Corona del Mar and asked the group to consider
allowing the leeway similar to Balboa Village to encourage redevelopment.
Ms. Crespin asked how this would affect parking. Ms. Temple explained that in Balboa
Village allows for complete reconstruction of non -conforming buildings without required
parking. Ms. Dietz pointed out we should keep in mind that is a walking community.
Ms. Crespin added that the restaurants get more visitors than any other area and
parking impacts the residents who live near them. Ms. Gardner agreed and asked if
there was a way to encourage added parking.
Mr. Vandersloot pointed out that Option 2 causes the least amount of traffic.
Mr. Lugar called for a vote. Motion passes.
Airport Area
Woodie Tescher reviewed the staff recommendation for the area. Ms. Temple reported
that the Economic Development Committee reviewed the alternatives and
recommended Option 3. They didn't think the area could accommodate the 6,600
dwelling units so their recommendation was consistent with the staff recommendation.
Mr. Yeo asked if the City was trying to take over the airport. Ms. Temple responded
that the City was talking with the County about becoming part of the management of
the airport.
Mr. Kelly asked if the housing would be multi -story buildings. Mr. Tescher indicated
there was a separate study going on looking at a variety of housing types for this area.
Mr. Seely pointed out that the subcommittee thought part of Area A would also be
suitable for housing, currently one story office buildings between Teller and Von
Karman. Mr. Tescher indicated the dilemma was that there were so many property
owners there and staff felt that the area would not be redeveloped because of that.
Mr. Seely stated the property owners he knew were waiting for redevelopment
opportunities and would not be opposed to residential. Mr. Tescher indicated he would
get that information to the people doing the study.
Mr. Bettencourt indicated he was going to abstain on this issue and reviewed the
Brookfield project he is working on in the area.
Mr. Corrough asked where the Council thought 6,000 housing units would fit in this
• area. Mr. Tescher indicated the analysis had not been done at the time Council
indicated they thought residential would work in this area.
A
Mr. Saunders made a motion to accept the staff recommendation with the addition of
residential in Area B and in the area of Area A referred to by Mr. Seely.
Ms. Kuehn asked where the affordable housing would be designated in this area. Mr.
Tescher indicated that would be a policy, not a designated area on the map.
Mr. Vandersloot indicated he was in favor of more residential in the area however felt
we should subtract other elements to make it traffic neutral. Mr. Tescher indicated the
motion would have slightly higher traffic numbers. Mr. Vandersloot asked to have the
motion amended to neutralize the traffic impact. Mr. Saunders asked how much office
would need to be eliminated to do this. Mr. Waters indicated it would be approximately
600,000 square feet. Mr. Saunders agreed to amend his motion to reduce office by
300,000 square feet.
Mr. Lugar opened the discussion to the public.
Carol McDermott, Newport Beach, distributed a document with language changes to the
recommendations presented to the Committee. She agreed that housing is appropriate
in Area C and thought the most logical place will be in existing parking lots. She felt the
amended language would make it clear housing would be allowed as replacement of an
existing building or parking lot.
Steve Koen, Newport Beach, stated he agreed with the motion made by Mr. Saunders
which allows 3,500 units plus any exchange of office space that will neutralize the
• traffic concern.
Mr. Lugar called for the vote. Motion Passes.
III. Reconsideration of Land Use Alternatives
West Newport Highway
Banning Ranch
West Newport Industrial
Old Newport Boulevard
Balboa Penninsula (Cannery Village/Lido Village/McFadden Square)
Balboa Village
The Committee did not want to reconsider any of the Land Use Alternatives decided for
any of the areas discussed at the meeting.
IV. Public Comments
No additional comments were offered.
N