HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS2 - General Plan Update - Land Use AlternativesC�
J
COUNCIL AGEN A
NO.S50- I u US
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
SUPPLEMENTAL CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Study Session Agenda Item No. 4
December 14, 2004
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Planning Department
Tamara J. Campbell, AICP, Senior Planner
(949) 644 -3238, tcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: General Plan Update — Land Use Alternatives
The Planning Commission considered the General Plan Land Use Alternatives at a
study session on Thursday, December 9, 2004, which was after completion of the City
Council staff report for this item. This supplemental report provides the Council with an
update on the Planning Commission's discussion.
The Planning Commission agreed that nearly all the land use alternatives developed by
• the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) should receive further study, but two
changes were proposed. The Commission suggested an additional alternative for the
Fashion Island /Newport Center study area and the deletion of one of the options in the
Mariner's Mile study area.
For Fashion Island /Newport Center, the Commission would like to include a third
alternative that studies only an increase of the development potential for residential
uses, and leave office, retail and hotel uses as in the existing General Plan. This
recommendation was based on the Commission's concern that increases, especially in
office development, would not be acceptable to the community.
In addition, the Planning Commission recommended deletion of Option 2 in the
Mariner's Mile study area, an alternative that included the realignment of Coast Highway
and infill for mixed use and retail uses. The Commission felt that such an alternative
would be infeasible and should therefore not be further evaluated.
Prepared by:
1����w"ti CRS
• Tamara J. Campbe I, AICP
Senior Planner
Submitted by:
4 �
Sharon Z. Wood
Assistant City K06ager
• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Study Session #SS4
December 14, 2004
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Planning Department
Tamara J. Campbell, AICP, Senior Planner
(949) 644 -3238, tcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: General Plan Update — Land Use Alternatives
RECOMMENDATION:
Review land use alternatives for further study in the General Plan update.
DISCUSSION:
• The General Plan update work program calls for the evaluation of land use alternatives
to be developed by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). GPAC organized
into subcommittees who met over two months developing alternatives for various
geographic subareas, completing their work in August. It is important to note that these
are alternatives and not recommendations; they were developed for the purpose of
further study to determine potential traffic, fiscal, and environmental impacts. GPAC,
staff and the City's consultants will use the results of these impact studies to make land
use adjustments and develop a preferred land use plan.
For each of the following geographic areas, which had been identified in the original
scope of work for the update, a subcommittee developed two to four alternatives for
future land use.
• Airport Business Area
• Balboa Peninsula (including Cannery Village, McFadden Square, Balboa Village,
Lido Village /Civic Center)
• Banning Ranch
• Corona del Mar
• Fashion Island /Newport Center
• Mariner's Mile
• Old Newport Boulevard
• West Newport Industrial
• • West Newport Residential and Highway Corridor
General Plan Update — Land Use Alternatives
December 14, 2004
Page 2
•
The General Plan Update Committee (GPUC) reviewed the alternatives at their
meetings on August 23 and November 15, 2004. The second review took place after
the defeat of Measure L and when more information comparing the alternatives to the
existing General Plan was available. GPUC made minor adjustments to three
geographic subareas: Cannery Village (adding the Albertson's shopping center), Lido
Village (adding a third alternative that does not include lodging) and McFadden Square
(deleting Marinapark). Changes recommended by GPUC have been incorporated into
the data presented in the tables and charts attached to this report.
A narrative summary of the various land use alternatives is provided as Exhibit A.
Exhibit B includes an analysis of each alternative on a Table entitled GPAC Land Use
Alternatives and on bar charts showing, by land use type, the amount of existing
development, the amount of development allowed by the existing General Plan, and the
amounts of development that would result from the alternatives. This information
should provide the easiest means of understanding the alternatives and how they
compare to existing conditions.
Before any further analysis begins, staff is presenting the alternatives to the Planning
Commission and City Council for information and to provide an opportunity for "course
correction" if the Commission or Council see something in the alternatives that they
think should not even be considered, or if they identify an important alternative not yet •
identified for analysis. Again, the only purpose for these alternatives is to provide the
basis for further analysis. We are not asking the City Council to select a preferred land
use plan at this point.
The Planning Commission will review the alternatives at their study session on
December 9, 2004. A supplemental report describing the Planning Commission's
actions will be distributed to the City Council on Friday, December 10.
After City Council review, the alternatives will be analyzed using our traffic and fiscal
impact models and standard analysis for other environmental impacts. The analysis
method approved by the General Plan Update Committee will result in identification of
impacts for each alternative by geographic area, and best and worst case Citywide
summaries. This information will be presented in a newsletter that will be mailed to all
residents in late winter and will be the basis for discussion at a public workshop
scheduled for early spring. With the results of the impact analysis and public input from
the workshop, GPAC's next task will be to refine their land use work, and recommend a
preferred land use plan for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council.
•
•
•
Prepared by:
I
Tamara J. 4arKpbelISI CP
Senior Planner
General Plan Update — Land Use Alternatives
December 14, 2004
Page 3
Submitted by:
Sharon Z. Woo
Assistant City M6nager
Attachments: Exhibit A - Narrative Text dated November 2, 2004; "Summary of GPAC
Alternatives"
Exhibit B - GPAC Land Use Alternatives Table and Bar Charts
Exhibit C — GPUC Minutes 11/15/04
0
0
EXHIBIT
NARRATIVE TEXT -
SUMMARY OF GPAC ALTS.
E
• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND USE
ALTERNATIVES
SUMMARY
REVISED December 2, 2004
The following summarizes the land use alternatives identified by the General Plan
Advisory Committee (GPAC) for the twelve areas targeted for special study for the City
of Newport Beach General Plan Update. The GPAC's objective was to specify a range of
credible options to the existing General Plan's land use plan that will be evaluated for
their traffic, fiscal, and environmental impacts to be compared with one another and the
existing General Plan. Information derived from these analyses will provide a
framework for the GPAC's and public's review and input for the selection of a preferred
updated Land Use Plan.
This document presents a general overview of the conceptual and quantitative differences
among the land use alternatives. The narrative description is accompanied by a series of
tables and bar charts that compare the existing land uses of each sub -area with the
buildout of the City's existing General Plan and each of the alternatives. It should be
• noted that, for some of the alternatives, the buildout estimates include development
potential of lands adjoining the designated study areas as the statistical tabulation areas
( "Traffic Analysis Zones ") are larger than the designated study areas. The key issues,
objectives, and concepts of each alternative are more fully described in the summary
reports prepared for each planning sub -area by the GPAC (available from the Planning
Department).
■ OVERVIEW
Generally, the City's existing General Plan provides for increments of growth above
existing development in many of the study areas, while the GPAC's alternatives represent
a mix of strategies that have capacities that in some cases exceed and others are less than
the General Plan. The alternatives encompass strategies for the preservation of sites as
open space (an option for Banning Ranch), infill and expansion of existing uses, and re-
use for other purposes such as mixed use structures. These fall into four basic categories:
a. Study area alternatives facilitating the infill of underutilized parcels and re -use with
increments of growth that are greater than existing uses and the capacities of the
General Plan.
• Airport Business Area (with one option comparable to the existing General Plan's
commercial, office, and industrial capacities with the addition of housing)
• Fashion Island/Newport Center
• • West Newport Industrial
GPAC LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY
• Mariners Mile (primarily through the development of mixed use projects)
b. Study area alternatives allowing for increments of growth with planned development •
capacities below those permitted by the existing General Plan. While the housing
capacity of some alternatives may exceed the General Plan, this is more than offset by
reductions in their commercial and office capacities.
Banning Ranch
• Lido Village (north of Via Lido and along harbor frontage)
• Me Fadden Square (northeast of Newport Boulevard)
• Corona del Mar
c. Study areas characterized by a mix of development alternatives, whose growth
capacities are both above and some below the existing General Plan.
• Lido Village (south of Via Lido and Civic Center)
• Old Newport Boulevard
• West Coast Highway
• Balboa Village
d. Study areas options that provide for increments of growth equivalent to the existing
General Plan.
Mc Fadden Square (west of Newport Boulevard)
■ AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA
Two alternatives were identified by the GPAC for the Airport Business Area that provide
for the infill of a number of properties considered as underutilized due to their extensive
coverage with surface parking and re -use of properties immediately adjoining the John
Wayne Airport (the "Campus Tract ").
As a baseline, the existing General Plan provides for increases of approximately 9% of
commercial and office development and 8.5% of industrial development in excess of
existing development.
One GPAC alternative reduces the General Plan's commercial capacity by about I%,
while increasing its office capacity by approximately 17 %. Cumulatively, the retail and
office uses would be increased by approximately 15% greater than the existing General
Plan, or 25% above existing development. This alternatives' capacity for industrial uses
is approximately 10% greater than the General Plan, or 19% above existing development.
•
The second alternative provides for the development of multi - family housing, while
reducing the area's capacity for retail and office development, as opportunities for people
to live in proximity to jobs in the Airport and surrounding areas and help meet Newport
Beach's share of regional housing needs. This is intended to reduce vehicle trip lengths
and would complement planned residential projects in business areas to the north in the •
City of Irvine. With the exception of housing, this alternative's capacity is comparable to
KI
GPAC LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY
the existing General Plan. It has capacity for approximately 2,400 housing units, none of
• which are included in the existing General Plan, reduces the commercial capacity 4.1 %
below that permitted by the existing General Plan and increases the office capacity by 2%
(cumulatively 1.1 % above the existing Plan) and industrial capacity by 10 %.
There was no clear direction on the Airport Area from the Visioning Process. Although
63% of Visioning Festival participants indicated that the City should expand in this area,
the survey found that 65% of residents supported no change while 66% supported new
low -rise office development and 73% supported hotel development. At the Visioning
Summit, mixed use development with high- density residential also was supported.
■ BALBOA VILLAGE
Six alternatives were identified by the GPAC for the Balboa Village planning sub -area.
Generally, these provide for a reduction of the area designated for commercial uses,
concentrating these in proximity of the ferry terminal, and re- designate these areas for
mixed -use structures (integrating housing with retail), overnight accommodations, and
housing (maximum of two units per lot).
Two alternatives specifically provide for the re -use of isolated commercial properties
outside of the core on Balboa Boulevard for housing, resulting in a small number of
additional units. Another maintains the mix of uses accommodated by the existing
General Plan, but targets commercial properties to uses that are marine and recreational -
oriented.
• The fourth land use alternative provides for the evolution of many properties developed
with commercial and office uses for mixed use structures, with retail and restaurant uses
located on the ground floor to enhance street pedestrian activity and housing on upper
levels. While the existing General Plan provides for a 4.6% increase in housing capacity
above existing development, this alternative would provide for a 36% increase
(approximately 425 housing units). At the same time, commercial and office capacity
would be reduced by 7.2% below the General Plan, a 23% increase above existing
development.
The fifth alternative allocates a portion of the mixed -use structures for new overnight
accommodations. This would result in a tenfold increase above the existing General Plan
in hotel and bed and breakfast rooms (330 rooms) and 20% increase in housing, while
reducing retail commercial and office capacity by 32% (or 8% below existing
development).
The sixth alternative provides for the conversion of all commercial and office properties
for low- moderate density housing (maximum of two units per lot). This would increase
the housing supply by approximately 100 units (7.2 1/6) about the existing General Plan
and 166 units (12 %) above existing development, and eliminate approximately 300,000
square feet of commercial and office use.
Visioning Process participants supported the revitalization of Balboa Village and its
• suitability for mixed use development, especially for underutilized commercial land.
3
GPAC LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY
■ BANNING RANCH
Four alternatives were identified by the GPAC for the Banning Ranch planning sub -area, •
currently occupied by oil extraction activities and open space. These express four
fundamentally different visions for the future use of the property.
As the baseline, the current General Plan designation (Orange County) provides capacity
for 2,735 housing units (225 single family and 2,510 multi - family), 50,000 square feet of
retail commercial, 235,600 square feet of office, and 164,400 square feet of industrial
use.
The first GPAC provides for the preservation of the property as open space, with the
consolidation and long -term removal of oil activities, site acquisition and remediation,
and, where appropriate, habitat restoration. While a majority of the property would be
maintained in a natural state, a portion may be developed as active parklands and
integrated into a regional open space system along the Santa Ana River.
A second alternative provides for the development of a mixed use "residential village"
containing a mix of housing types, small hotel, supporting retail, parks, and school. The
majority of the site would be preserved as open space. Reflecting the plans previously
prepared for Taylor Woodrow, this alternative would accommodate 1,765 housing units,
75,000 square feet of retail, and 75 hotel rooms. Cumulative, these represent a significant
reduction of capacity from the County of Orange's land use designations for the site
(36% for residential, 74% for retail commercial and office, and 100% for industrial).
The third alternative limits development to the least environmentally sensitive portions of •
the site, primarily on the mesa in its southeast. Development capacity of the second
alternative would be reduced approximately in half, representing a housing decrease from
the existing Plan of 68 %, retail and office decrease of 88 %, and 100% for industrial.
Capitalizing on the site's coastal location and adjacency to the Santa Ana River and
habitats, the fourth alternative would provide for the development of a destination resort
of comparable scale of the Montage Resort in Laguna Beach. Uniquely, the site may be
developed to attract eco- tourism. Approximately, 260 rooms, 75 housing units, and
25,000 square feet of retail would be accommodated, with the balance of the site
preserved as open space.
In the Visioning Process, 46% of those surveyed support preserving the entire areas as
open space, even if such requires a parcel tax for site acquisition, while 44% support half
of the land to be utilized for residential and limited light industrial with the remaining
half reserved as open space.
■ CANNERY VILLAGE
The Cannery Village planning area was divided into two sub - areas, east and west of
Newport Boulevard. For the properties to the east, generally encompassing the properties
bounded by Newport Boulevard's commercial frontages, Lafayette Avenue, and 32 "d
Street, two alternatives were identified by the GPAC. •
4 r/
D
GPAC LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY
As a baseline, the existing General Plan provides for a 255% increase in housing units, a
• 3% increase in retail commercial, and 11 % increase in office use.
The first GPAC alternative provides for the evolution of the area for mixed use structures
that integrate retail and housing in a distinct neighborhood environment. Street level
retail is intended to promote intensive pedestrian activity, with the housing enhancing the
market for local commercial uses and services. It would add approximately an
additional 200 housing units above the existing General Plan (94.4% increase), while
reducing retail commercial and office capacity by 9.5% below existing development and
17% below the General Plan while eliminating new industrial uses.
Retail and office development would be precluded by the second alternatives, which
would provide for the exclusive development of low- moderate density residential (a
maximum of two units per lot). This would result in maximum of approximately 150
units, an increase of 90 above existing development and 60 less than permitted by the
existing General Plan.
For the commercial properties located to the west of Newport Boulevard (Albertson's
market and other retail uses), staff has identified the alternative of redeveloping the area
for mixed uses (retail and housing). Presently, the area contains approximately 92,000
square feet of office and retail uses and the existing General Plan would increase this by
approximately 3,500 square feet (a 4% increase). The staff alternative would
accommodate approximately the same amount of retail and office development and add
192 housing units.
• Visioning Process participants supported the revitalization of Cannery Village and its
suitability for mixed use development, especially for underutilized commercial land.
■ CORONA DEL MAR
Two alternatives were identified by the GPAC for the Corona del Mar planning sub -area.
While the study focuses on the properties along the Coast Highway commercial
frontages, the type and scale of uses defined are highly interrelated with the residential
neighborhoods to the north and south.
As a baseline, the existing General Plan provides for a 32% increase in retail commercial
and a 74% increase in office development.
The first GPAC alternative provides for the continuation of the area's pedestrian- oriented
character and community serving function, with opportunities for the development of
mixed -use structures at key intersection nodes along the highway. This would reduce
commercial and office capacity by approximately 19% (a 13% increase above existing
development), while accommodating an additional 180 housing units on lands currently
limited to commercial and office development.
The second alternative would consider the development of parking lots on residential
properties abutting the commercial frontages, with a buffering alley. This would result in
• a reduction of 46 (one lot depth) to 92 (two lot depth) housing units.
GPAC LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY
■ FASHION ISLAND /NEWPORT CENTER
Two alternatives were identified by the GPAC for the Fashion Island/Newport Center •
planning sub -area. These build upon the existing mix of retail, office, entertainment,
residential, visitor - serving, and public uses, providing opportunities for infill
development primarily on properties now occupied by surface parking.
As a baseline, the existing General Plan provides for the development of an additional
380,500 square feet of retail space (24% increase), 395,000 square feet of office (12%
increase), and 111 hotel rooms (12% increase).
The first GPAC alternative increases the area's General Plan capacity for commercial,
office, and entertainment by approximately 11 %. This includes the opportunity to
develop a grocery store to support residents in nearby housing. At the same time, it
increases the capacity for housing as an opportunity for persons to live in proximity to
Newport Center's jobs and for seniors, providing an additional 825 housing units. This
alternative also would accommodate the development of a new civic center and
additional hotel rooms (46% greater than the existing General Plan).
The second alternative reflects concepts previously developed for a draft Long Range
Plan. It provides a slightly greater amount of capacity for office and commercial
development (28% above existing development and 13% above the existing General
Plan), though most of this would consist of office development (40% greater than
existing development and 24% greater than the existing Plan). Its capacity for hotel
rooms is comparable to the General Plan, while its housing capacity is substantially •
below the first alternative, but still a 22.6% increase above the existing Plan.
The Visioning Process found contradictory results regarding future development of
Fashion Island. Sixty-eight to 70% of resident participants and 61% of business survey
respondents indicated a preference for little or no change. However, there was support
for the expansion of existing stores (67% resident and 66% business), as well as for
moderate increases to attract new retail businesses (62% resident and 68% business).
GPAC noted that the existing General Plan allows for the addition of approximately
395,000 sq. ft. of retail space, and was concerned that adding to that could increase traffic
congestion.
The results for Newport Center were similar, with 68% to 71 % of residents and
businesses preferring little or no change. Once again, survey respondents showed support
for the growth of existing companies (57% resident and 61 % business), and GPAC
concurred. Resident survey respondents were less supportive of development to
accommodate new businesses (48 %) and mixed use development (45 %), while business
respondents supported both (63% and 56 %). Over 50% of both groups supported the
location of a new hotel in Newport Center. Support for mixed use, high -rise residential
and hotel development was expressed at the Visioning Summit.
■ LIDO VILLAGE
•
GPAC LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY
Distinct land use alternatives were identified by the GPAC for each of three sub -areas of
• the Lido Village planning sub -area: northeast area along the bay front, south of Via Lido,
and the Civic Center site.
For the northeast/bayfront area (the "Village "), the existing General Plan essentially
provides for no change. The first GPAC alternative provides for the development of
mixed -use buildings that integrate housing with retail uses and overnight
accommodations. Ground floor retail uses are intended to reinforce the area's pedestrian
character, while the housing is intended to increase its customer base. It would provide
capacity for approximately 250 housing units (only 12 exist today), a 15% decrease of
retail and office commercial below the existing General Plan, and increase of 200 hotel
rooms (none exist). The second alternative provides for a mix of retail and overnight
accommodations, without housing. It's commercial and office capacity would be
approximately 9% less than existing development and 10% less than the existing General
Plan, which would be offset by the addition of 200 hotel rooms.
For the commercially developed properties immediately south of Via Lido, the existing
General Plan provides for approximately 16,500 square feet of additional commercial and
office development (14% increase). The GPAC's first alternative provides for infill
commercial and housing. It would provide capacity for 120 housing units (none exist)
and an approximate 20% increase in retail commercial in excess of existing development
and 13% increase above the existing General Plan, with corresponding decreases of
office development. The second alternative provides for infill commercial with mixed -
use structures that integrate housing with commercial uses. It would accommodate 60
• housing units with a 33% increase of retail and office above existing development and
17% increase above the General Plan.
For the Civic Center area, the existing General Plan anticipates an increase of
approximately 55,000 square feet of development. Two options were identified by the
GPAC assuming the possible relocation of the existing civic facilities to another site in
the City. One provides for the development of mixed -use structures that integrate
housing with commercial. It would accommodate approximately 215 housing units and
110,000 square feet of commercial and office development, a 72% increase above the
existing building area. The second provides for the redevelopment of the site as a
commercial and office center, of equivalent size to the first alternative.
Visioning Process participants supported the consideration of mixed use development in
Lido Marina Village, especially for underutilized commercial land. Survey respondents
did not support Lido Marina Village as a suitable hotel location, with 63% of residents
and 57% of businesses opposing it.
■ MARINERS MILE
Three alternatives were identified by the GPAC for the Mariners Mile planning sub -area.
Generally, these provide for the evolution of the predominately highway- oriented uses
into a series of distinct districts, which would be complemented by unifying streetscape
elements.
•
11 X
`kk-
GPAC LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY
As a baseline, the existing General Plan provides for the development of approximately
an additional 346,000 square feet of commercial and office use (38% increase) in the •
Mariners Mile study area.
The first GPAC alternative provides for the development of projects that horizontally
integrate commercial and housing along the central portion of the harbor frontage,
buildings that vertically integrate commercial and housing on inland properties, including
reinforcement of the local - village character at the base of the bluffs east of Riverside
Avenue, and infill of retail uses. This would accommodate approximately 700 housing
units on properties currently limited to commercial uses and retail and office
development of comparable scale to the existing Plan (a 42% increase above existing
development).
The second alternative provides for the relocation of Coast Highway inland to the base of
the bluffs, creating larger parcels adjoining the waterfront and allocating these for mixed
use development. This would increase the area's housing capacity by approximately 390
units (total of 1,090 units) and reduce its commercial capacity slightly (2 % below
existing General Plan and 35% above existing development).
The third alternative maintains the mix of uses provided for by the first alternative,
restricting 40% of the commercial properties for marine- related uses.
Visioning Process participants identified Mariners Mile as an area that should be
reutilized and would be appropriate for mixed use development.
■ MC FADDEN SQUARE •
Distinct land use alternatives were identified by the GPAC for two sub -areas of the
McFadden Square planning area: lands abutting the Pier, west of Newport Boulevard;
harbor front and properties east of Newport Boulevard.
Adjoining the Pier, the existing General Plan provides for an additional 13,000 square
feet of commercial and office development. One option defined by the GPAC maintains
the basic mix of uses accommodated by the existing Plan and provides incentives for the
development of additional overnight accommodations. Commercial uses would be
increased from the existing General Plan by an additional 2,500 square feet (less than
3 %), while overnight accommodations would be increased by 650% above existing use
and the Plan (total of 186 rooms).
In the harbor front area, the existing General Plan essentially maintains the current type
and level of development. The first GPAC alternative provides for the development of
buildings that integrate housing with retail commercial uses in a "village- like"
environment, with incentives for the development of overnight accommodations. Ground
floor retail is intended to enhance the area's pedestrian character, with upper level
housing increasing its customer base. This alternative accommodates an increase of 28
units of housing above the existing General Plan (total of 190 units) and 90 additional
hotel/bed and breakfast rooms above existing and Plan uses, which would be offset by a
20% reduction of commercial and office development. •
GPAC LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY
Support from participants of the Visioning Process for a hotel on the Marina Park site
• was low as 66% of residents and 59% of business owners surveyed opposed this use.
Most participants also felt that waterfront property within the City, such as the Marina
Park site, should be preserved. Specifically, 54% of respondents opposed development,
of which 41% strongly opposed development in areas such as Marina Park.
■ OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD
Three alternatives were identified by the GPAC for the Old Newport Boulevard planning
sub -area. As a reference, the existing General Plan provides for approximately an
additional 67,000 square feet of commercial and office development (a 46% increase
above existing use).
The first GPAC alternative provides for the development of medical offices and retail on
the west side of the boulevard, capitalizing on the presence of Hoag Hospital, and
buildings that integrate commercial with housing on the east side. Approximately 286
additional housing units would be accommodated on properties currently limited to
commercial and office uses and 125,000 square feet of office and retail (58% increase
above existing Plan).
Mixed use buildings would be accommodated on the west side of Newport Boulevard
and low- moderate residential on the east by the second alternative. It would have the
capacity for approximately 320 housing units on properties currently limited to
commercial and office uses, while reducing commercial and office capacity from the Plan
• by 44% (14,000 square feet less than existing development and 94,000 square feet less
than the existing Plan).
The third alternative provides for the development of mixed use buildings on the west
side of Newport Boulevard and affordable housing on the east. It has the greatest
capacity for housing, accommodating an increase of 400 units on commercially -
designated properties, while reducing commercial and office capacity to the levels of the
second alternative.
Visioning Process participants identified Old Newport Boulevard as an area that should
be revitalized.
■ WEST COAST HIGHWAY
Distinct alternatives were identified GPAC for the westernmost parcels abutting the Santa
Ana River (existing mobile home park) and remaining mixed commercial and residential
frontage of the West Coast Highway planning sub -area. Generally, these are intended to
establish more cohesive districts and identity than currently exist, as well as better serve
adjoining residential neighborhoods.
For the western parcels, the first alternative provides for their redevelopment for multi-
family housing. Approximately, 14 additional units would be accommodated. The
second option targets the site for the development of "special needs" housing, adding
• approximately 30 units above existing uses. The site would be acquired and redeveloped
9
la
X
GPAC LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY
as a park by the third alternative and as a parking lot to support adjoining under- parked
uses as the fourth alternative. •
For the commercial- residential corridor frontage along Coast Highway, three alternatives
to the existing General Plan have been defined. As a baseline, the Plan provides for a
42% increase of the area's retail commercial. As an option, the first GPAC alternative
provides for the corridor's redevelopment for buildings that integrate housing with
commercial uses. An additional 270 housing units in excess of the existing General Plan
and 37,000 square feet of additional commercial (74% increase above the Plan and 146%
increase above existing use) would be accommodated by this alternative. The second
would convert the corridor exclusively for low- moderate housing and overnight
accommodations. Its housing capacity would be comparable to existing development,
while increasing hotel /ovemight accommodations by 200 rooms (a 222% increase above
existing and General Plan development). The final alternative would provide for infill
commercial development, contingent upon lot consolidation to assure adequate on -site
parking. Its capacity would be approximately 22,400 square feet greater than the existing
General Plan (a 45% increase above the Plan and 105% increase above existing
development).
■ WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL
Alternatives were identified by the GPAC for a diversity of sub -areas within the West
Newport Industrial planning area. Generally, these provide opportunities for the
development of additional medical offices in support of Hoag Hospital, supporting retail, •
and industrial infill. As a baseline, the existing General Plan provides for a 75% increase
of commercial and office development, 62% increase in industrial development, and 4%
increase of housing units in the study area outside of the existing Technology Park site.
GPAC's alternatives would increase the commercial and office capacity by an additional
35% (approximately 266,500 square feet of building area), maintain the housing capacity,
and slightly reduce the industrial capacity (less than I%).
For the Technology Park site bounded by Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard, two
options to the General Plan were identified. The latter would accommodate a 3%
increase in office and 128% increase in industrial development. The first GPAC
alternative accommodates an additional 328,000 square feet of medical and related office
uses supporting Hoag Hospital (increase of 350% above the General Plan and 370%
above existing development), while eliminating industrial uses (reduction of 298,120
square feet provided for by the General Plan). A mix of housing and research and
development uses would be accommodated by the second alternative. This would
increase the area's housing supply above the existing Plan by approximately 260 units
(110% increase) and high technology industry by approximately 200,000 square feet
(66% above existing development and 29% below the existing General Plan).
The West Newport Industrial Area was identified in the Visioning Process as one that
should be revitalized, although no specific ideas were offered or tested.
•
10 1 j(
0
0
EXHIBIT B
GPAC ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY TABLE
AND BAR CHARTS
�5�
•
I
J
A
c
A
F
A
4) _
?a
� E
` m
�O
QO
A W
N
� J
c �
J
U
6
,:o'
—
o
00
00EE
E
U
U
U
U
U U
U U
U
e
Om°
�
_
¢�
b5
-0011
10l
Hold
syed
Au P $
—
w' -N
U
(Pwuee°)
li'b5
m°
$$
CIS
F
x°
��A
°00
0Y.$$
_
li b$
m
00
IoiPaW
li'b5
J
mn
n
(oWweuun
li.
$n-ro
$$25000
5�
�i ai$mmw
°m
ry��
$m
c��i
IemJmH
iaJn41
H<$
u�gi�c°n0
$w °m
°O$
°w$
00
.li .b5
°
01
000000
0
AryawmroJ
v�v
saV!@ %i aeJ
sPa6
IxwoH Eurs�nN
wroth q!WW
SyuN
a° 10
C
000000
,ylwei q�P1s
eR
m
m'm
m
m m
VaY ¢IW
Nxuei q&ns
mPn
�
m i
gssgg
8S
$ m
AnO���
.
a>i
°S
igwagma
3
spun
°
00
°
f
maawwoJ
b5
°°
m'o
_
b
Ea
>
89p3
$am3
QE 2u
UP,
.
$
°�rymmm
E
o_!�m
mxs
3
a
�4
3
5
o
m
M
oo
°
=m
�_o
°'gym
14
gm
cES
o'c
oA
�
oo�
Ego
..
°
o_
�amym
om 0�0"'v�O�O"'o
0
Ey0000E5000000m000000
0�a
�Eaam=
om0�
m
�maURn
= m
mg
p
acimo5s
�w(9
COm
ed
w'Cmi
eiu
U'u
,:o'
%f
0
0
g /
.' w
!
a
2§�g
2
%
)
§
!§R
0
/:
!
0
§8
§7§
bs
:
)
°
1111
1111
G
~
q
;Gy:
9
a;,
q
qrRR�
#a
qR
G
`� - _
,
a
\
g
� -
•-
- ��
9 Q
�
q9�§8
!
;
E
a
_
.
_-�~
N§
�
a0
8
,
.
_.
_
|
!
!
/)`q
�`
!
!!5!«Q]eS-
!
/
w#))
IRS
!0
Sd
eeGdd
/000
/8888Se
G
wl
D
�!s�R
=�gbE
%f
0
0
•
•
m
a
m
F
Z
m
Ev
y
m^
>a
�• m
m
r0
aw
m
m�
°cam
U
a
o„
n
.6
m
as
ryed
n
o°
o,
iryapp
wo
°
nooWS
na
(P..)
lj e5
g
o
•dN5
i
Ij e5
!oicaw
id
x
�
(ww•uu•
g
�
R
R
R ry
��,�
o
$ °
1000
- -
�grduH
s
,a�•«u
n•as
m
mm
iAVawwn
I
8
$
pwoH �!•+•N
s
auroH ana•w
ryu
III
H
kuudlxnw
wu
`°
aa'a•PV
N!urea �B•!s
ayu
o 0
wwnw
kw•d wfi s
wu
$
5
!meawna
m!u
NON
o
o
m
o m
!ew•wuw�
id-
00
IN
o_
_
o
2
5
E
pEp
E
5
EQ
m
EQ
m
E
6
d
—
i
Q
vm
3jj
mE
O
O
3'Y
m��
63^2
KZ
-_
K�O
33033
j3
i3 �O
i3i
cc
Cc�cC
�•/m°
0
E
^
0tl
E¢'.1ewE
Trry
O�rvriEI
a°
Idr
pm
�rrv0�
pmpm
�m,
Ep
P(
°
c.
E00
5—
c�Q
`55
=
v
o
O=
°c
FS95y°
—O
s o�
Woym
—
O_�m
p
oE
ro
O
•wc)m6Um
m6�m
•u'i
t)m6Um
•w'tm'J
0
a
m
t
r
i
Eg
b -
0 �
3 c
c
90
aw
.N
aW
e �
J
U
6
O
m°
I
I
o°$
g
vi
Yiw
444
gyed
v
60
°O
8p
ood
°O
gg
°O
og�
ro
u alYOWS
Y
(gwevn)
13 b
Wl
i
i
swoo
°
rv�
8
8 8
m
o
g
_
g
le:?VaW
li-
S
X
Iq d.H
mvYmYm�
ii'
�
�m�
g
_
a>rmei a,ro
$
$
p
$
m $
,wnH wIS,YH
mYnH aeaYn
s
MYeda^n
4
$
p
$
$ $
$
$ $
e
ua�PenY
aq
�'
n
$
8
0
fumy aP�S
R!IYaf.!sGy
e/Y
N
O
n
O
O
O
`�
m
$.$
S
p
m
m m
m
m
Z
lel'YHYYYOp
'ti'
o
o
-
vNv
m
�
E
—c
o
5
W?
c
S
v
.E.
o
c L
OE.
$
=
�°
5O
'E
—
u`
0w4
nc;E
=�'E
°o
m°a
E
ycC,
E
—
—
�S
gmd°ma"
mo.
I
Elry
m
�Ypc3�Y
I
c .,
4U�•
JE9
€€
°
o
W
�ooEOo
0000E000a000
o
mQn
�8�
wci
.nam
d
womnc�mwc$mncim
5'
C
•
•
E
171
m
a
m
�o
m
a ^'
m
>a
m 0
°
�0
Q �
m W
N
= W
C �
J
U
a
o
1`r
Y
3 "a
0
0
„-
co
`�
�b
=O
-`
`�`�
-'
„�
--
`Z`o
„a
-`
F
F
F
oy
_
_
o'o
0
T Od
Au
—
to P
JO H ON
° SIOOIpS
as
g
g
�
8
IvawePPl
'a -es
%drl
o
s
maoa
�
m
o
In�Payy
lj'
,ol lvauxJ
ii os
_
US
J 1 d.H
sp
+61r
Ar+S
sayipe j ae�
(wqi WyPN
aIP°H a,,A
qu
Eku,-
a
nWn
AN
ry
ry
`
m
g
P
kP><Pall'j q ePls
e
e
e
DaW�WO
kwy sans
mP
°
ImPapsaa
mP
s
Imawwo�
Ij -es
—
c
3
—
fi
fi
o
sus
_
o
00>
o
o
=
of
-6
`o
E O
o
U
i
i
0
n
F
Z
E°
m�
> a°
a E
E°
�o
a❑
oy
a_
o�
J
Q
a
0
0
•
•
off
e
_GNU
a�
a d
an
A�
� AooY>S
=
6
AW
(Mweun]
ld'
•WS
Y
ro°
io)
1nN�x
�gv°wwo�
li'da'
m
n
�is+ro
.we
wnl •ecow
nu
Ru�+i om!s
3
a�
a
n'wai
n
o
m o
dsiai news
El
es
6$
°tea
�ii�ubof$
„i
g�x8A'�m�.e
Ve
fim
❑ifi
ffi
.000,roob
:Jn$a
s°000
wu
°uon
d
0
•
•
L I
•
m
a
m
t-
Z
Ec
En
m .
mm ry
it
N q
� t1
.m.0
Q �
m W
q �
J�
c�
U
a
S
a
a'
aE
a+Ved
A aDm
t
01",
it
—
a'o
°
4
Awlp$
(Vawebb)
y bs
—
sdl
i
3
x
nuooa
o°.0
000
°O
$ °o
F
m ?rew
y
E
— —
— —
— —
R't
0
Iwwabw
gyp) �mwa°
ii
it
IApsmN
+Pa9
+ataWl
Apa
'li'
o
n$
IRmawmop
�
m.
0
0
sap!nai a+n
lawnll &uunN
auroH A!tlbW
A!u
11
IT,
kwpianw
A!u
I°.m°°3
01M
0
a
papepy
Nmmi q&u$
PmPa1W
5
Imwan.aa
$
F
lemaawwo'j
li'
°
o
o
Em
°m5�
EF
-y
E
S ms-
E
rba
E®
_-
Et5
P
� •p
chi
E
4c°
>mcp
E,n
da
>ocp°
Emma°
,
>mcp
�Nn
�NanL
�Na)14�
tV •3W
tV
a%�v�
t
V an
Sm
o=
`afiza
?ofioe=
=° _co
,0o_oQ
3�0
o`§o
3000
•g
FE—
?SOOOOa�ro000
amao
ooma
c,�0000
.5000
m
OOOOrd
m
o$m
000
�aaEm'o
Qa
°mm
of
m�m
aMIT
m'mm
omm_
cCm
�a
m'm
_
nn
_
wc+ASC�m
o
S
m
a
Z
m
7 �
h -
0 `
>a
c �
m0
Q O
oW
m N
II W
C p
J
U
Q
6
d
I
I
LL
N
N
�
a
'md
NN
I
°1°
O
Om
OD
O
O
5
ON
n�
sy,ed
s
S °O
wGms
W 'oN
U
swmws
as
(paweun)
'y'
_
O
S88
88
lb"-
oR
O
g m
�$
sab2Kd ae�
ti BuismN
mwN all4olY
sYwl
too
_
kaedrynw
w!un
� $
O m
^nm
O
s
N!°md sews
0�
kaed sews
W.
ma
Oo
imww 8
w.n
i�eNawuq�
ld'
o
io
0
55
5
c
c
e�
ay
e`a
E
E
z
2fF
2rFa2rA
23
2�m2'2
3
2R
$
2 f
�IA2
mE
ran
°
�
U'c�c�
°
t7 .n
fryUl
2
€ €
°c
pogo
€ =•'°
=.00
°o
'p_�n
oe.o
_�o$
_>_.
m °x000
EOOOwO00�muJ��00m00�00
E�
OOEOO
m00
�=
6
_>
m
Ias
a
-_peas
5
=mmam
_
"o�
_
omsam�
_
r8
a�
=a
��
w'�oem°
°ec`ed
c
°
�'�c�dnc°9d
•
I
•
m
n
F
Z
E <o
J ry
ul
m
c g�g
ri
aw
p N
Cq�
J
Q
a
pI
O y
13
- =
ate.
li
sVed
swo
N
N
p
bm
O
pI.WS
IWwevn)
13'05
it
—
swl5
S
S
x
sv+oo
°8
0
`m
8N
�e
lies
oq
lenpgq
lies
0
(Wwevun
0$
�p)IweuaO
05
I:
r
Igpzmtl
,geayy
IgwWwpJ
li'
Nil
o
0
/pwgl Bgainry
TO
awoH wll o
mn
_
Aewe3Neq
mw
.0
pe�WAV
Nlwei g0v5
�
RNwei geus
mwglrspa
3
Ie4dwumJ
lj'
5
5
5
i
E
E
E
E
s
r
i
r.:
m
a
cm
e
r$0mO
o
�0—mpO
0o
50mZa0No
50—m`o
F�a
5iOmC
�Om
Sm0—c
a
Z
z
z
iTO
i
N p
C
c
�a—
amO_�Qnm
0N EC
a5m
E50m`o
0
am
3ca
u
N_
w
W
Um'o.e
U'n
WVgbcm
AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA
2,50.^.
2000
1,500
1,000
5at
Residential (dus)
Commercial (Sq Ft)
• 11 11 -
_a
' 11 111
. 11 111
11 111 �� .•. J
• 11 111 ����{:,��i � �. j
]a
l .:�:� .� . .
--
11 111 1.:� t� .ya.
1 6a�T
1
8.000,000
7,000,000,
6,000,000
5,000,Wo
4,000.000
' 3,000 OOC
j2,000000
1,000jax)
1 Existing Use Existing
General Plan
oplio, 1 Option 2
7,000,000
6.000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
Existing Existing Option 1 Option 2
Use General
Plan
700,[-00
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
i Existing Use Existing Option 1 Option 2
General
Plan
Cornl &Office
_ _ 6,092,352
6,658,416
7.644,567
6.734,616
Office (Sq Ft)
Industrial (Sq Ft)
A-<
Residential
Commercial
Office
Industrial
isting Use
0
665,019
5,427,333___
508,75!
.fisting General Plan
0
87 1.500
5,786,916
551,931
Option 1
0
861.750
6.782,817
606,371
Option 2
2,367
835.535
5.899.081
606,3T
2,50.^.
2000
1,500
1,000
5at
Residential (dus)
Commercial (Sq Ft)
• 11 11 -
_a
' 11 111
. 11 111
11 111 �� .•. J
• 11 111 ����{:,��i � �. j
]a
l .:�:� .� . .
--
11 111 1.:� t� .ya.
1 6a�T
1
8.000,000
7,000,000,
6,000,000
5,000,Wo
4,000.000
' 3,000 OOC
j2,000000
1,000jax)
1 Existing Use Existing
General Plan
oplio, 1 Option 2
7,000,000
6.000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
Existing Existing Option 1 Option 2
Use General
Plan
700,[-00
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
i Existing Use Existing Option 1 Option 2
General
Plan
Cornl &Office
_ _ 6,092,352
6,658,416
7.644,567
6.734,616
Office (Sq Ft)
Industrial (Sq Ft)
A-<
Residential
.xisting Use 0
xisting General Plan 2,735
)pt 1 -ol3en Space 0
)pt 2-Taylor Woodrow 1,765
)pt 3-Reduced Taylor Woodrow 882'
5DA 4-Resort 94
3,000
2,500
2.000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Office (sq ft)
41 250,0010
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
Residential
BANNING RANCH
,ornmercial Office
50W00 235,600
0.
0.
75,000
0.
35,000
0*
25.000
0
0
L ' 1-1 �, l
G.r ,W S. VX... R..
PIV, T"o,
ww .
180.000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100000
Industrial
Industrial
'0:000
COMI/Off
0
0
60000
164_,460_
- - 6
40,000
0
20,000
75,000
b
75
0
0
262
25,666
G',,I
�
W Repucp
PlanV
Ta.,
WVVm
Industrial
Hotel
COMI/Off
0
0
0
164_,460_
- - 6
0
0
—6
75
75,000
b
75
_35,666
0
262
25,666
Commercial (sq ft)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Hotel (rooms)
. .1 4e. N.]- Opt 3 Opt 4-
Gene.l Open T.,1cx RWpcW Rests
Pup Space Wtx,d. TIt,1c,l
M
t
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Hotel (rooms)
. .1 4e. N.]- Opt 3 Opt 4-
Gene.l Open T.,1cx RWpcW Rests
Pup Space Wtx,d. TIt,1c,l
M
'Existing Use
Existing General Plan
Opt 1 -Com to Res
Opt 2 -Res
Opt 3 -Water Rel Uses
Opt 4 -Mix Use coml /res
Opt 5 -Mix Use coml /visitor
Opt 6 -Coml to res, w /visit
I�
I
I
• I
BALBOA VILLAGE
Residential Commercial
",369
203,360
'1,43_2
217,340
438
214,340.
1,435
214,340
'1,432
217,340_
1,857
284,386
1,725
207,550
'1.535
2.400
Residential (dus)
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10.000
0
c Jy¢aQ x�`Q,c'
' ;
�ti
OQ `q ¢¢p
• he OQ `y b`S D3 X00
OQ h� 6
� QQ QQ
O 1
Oq
Q
OQ h�� Q6
OG O
Office (Sq Ft)
89,260;
34
89,260
34
89,260
34
60,000
34
0.
34
0
330
0
330
Coml & Office
226,280
306,600
303,600
303,600
277,340
284_,386
207, 550
2,400
CDMm MW (Sq F1j
350
300
250
200
Hotel (Rooms)
150
100
50
0
. c Jye�Q ac o eyh�oy yey ���ey\,`' o�
J
o
L pQ OQ cy� Q
OQ �
day
�R
•
•
•
Total Commercial 8 Office (sq ft)
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150.000
100,000
BALBOA VILLAGE
44
e�J F JS
5° oe of CO �Q- yc' of P.
`v
OQ CR
1 •
•
•
CANNERY VILLAGE-EAST OF NEWPORT BOULEVARD
Residential Commercial Office Industrial • Corel & Office
Existing Use 60 196,270 91,320 47850 287,590
Existing General Plan 0:
13 201,780 101,500 303,280
601—ion 1-Mixed Use 414 260,180 0 0• 260,180
Option 2- Residential 152 53,270 0 0 53,270
Residential (dus)
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
so ai
0
Existing Use Option I Option 2
General Mixed Lse Residential
Plan
r
Commercial (sq it)
300,00
250.017,
200.00
150,00
100,00
50.00
Total Commercial & Office (sq it)
350.000
300'No
250,000
200,000
150,0150
100,000
50,000
15,000
Existing
Existing Option 1- Option 2-
Use
General Mixed Use Residential
0
Plan
120,000
100,000
e0,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Industrial (sq it)
Office (sq it)
50,0150
45,0150
40.0150
35,000
30,0,00
25,000
10,0150
15,000
10,000
5,C-00
0
Existing
Existing Option I- Option 2-
Use
General Mixed Use Residential
Plan
�Ck
•
CANNERY VILLAGE -WEST (ALEERTSON -S)
Residential Commercial Office Coml & Office
Existing Use 87 71,440. 20,020 91,460
Existing General Plan 95: 74,900 _20_,_020 94,920
Alternative 287 96,050 0 96,050
F--
I
u
r�o
Residentail (dus)
�I
Use Existing Ge, .l Allemative
Plan
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Existing Use Existing Memative
General Plan
ice (sq ft)
100,000
90,000
8"000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
97,000
96,000
95.000
94.000
93.000
92,000
91,000
90,000
89.000
Existing Use Existing Alternative
General Plan
Commercial (sq ft)
Total Commercial & Office (sq ft)
CORONA DEL MAR
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40.000
20,000
0
Existing Use Existing Option 1
General Plan
•
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
Existing Use Existing
General Plan
Option 1
3`
) Residential Commercial Office
Cornl & Office
xistin Use
`existing
2,952. 406,842
84,921
491,763
General Plan
3,267 538,630:
148,060
686,690
L
Option 1
-- - - --
3,448 428,839
124,721
553,560
Residential (dus)
Commercial (Sq Ft)
3,500 F :,;E;. ! 1
600,000
3,000
f
500,000
2,500
400,000
2,000
i
-
300,000
1,500
200,000
1,000
100,000
500
0
0
Existing Use Existing Option 1
Existing Use Existing Option 1
' General Plan
General Plan
Office (Sq Ft)
Total Commercial & Office (sq ft)
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40.000
20,000
0
Existing Use Existing Option 1
General Plan
•
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
Existing Use Existing
General Plan
Option 1
3`
FASHION ISLANDMEWPORT CENTER
t
Residential
Commercial
Office
Hotel
Public
sting Use -- ..
664
---
1,556,320
3,240,794'
—.. _
925
100,0C
—
�cisting Gee neral Plan
664
- _.._..
1,936,820
3,635,670
1,036
105,0(
Opt 1 -GPAC _
1,489
2,060,248
4,101,004:
1,513
223,OC
t 2 -Lon Rge Plan
O an
814
11776,980
4,519,802
1,036
105,OC
1,600
1.400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
Existing Use Existing Opt 1-GPAC Opt 2 -Long
General Range Plan
Plan
Coml & Office
4,797,114
5,572,490
6,161,252
6,296,782
Residential (dus) 1 Hotel (rooms)
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
Existing Use Existing Opt 1 -GPAC Opt 2 -Long
General Range Plan
Plan
Commercial (sq ft)
7,000,000
6,000,000
5A00,000
4,000,000
3.000.000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
Existing Use Existing Opt 1- Opt 2 -Long
lip General GPAC Range Plan
Plan
Total Commercial & Office
1,601
1,401
1,20
1,00
80
60
40
20
Existing Existing Opt 1- Opt 2 -Long
Use General GPAC Range Plan
Plan
Office (sq ft)
5,000,000-
4,500,000
4,000.000
3.500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
Existng Existing Opt 1- Opt 2 -Long
Use General GPAC Range Plan
Plan
Public (sq ft)
250A00
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
Existing Existing Opt 1- Opt 2 -Long
Use General GPAC Range Plan
Plan
9
LIDO VILLAGE
Northeast& Bay Front
Residential
Commercial
Office
Hotel
Coml & Office
fisting Use
12
129,280.
90,220
0
219,500
xisting GO
12
130,516
90,220
0
220,730
Opt 1: MU w/visitors
. -
250
187,679
0
200
187,679
Opt 2 Retail w/visitors
.
0
199,1376-
6
200
.
1-96,679
OP t 3: Mixed Use
312
187,679
0
0
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
Residential (dus) I F
I : Commercial (sq ft)
Hotel (rooms)
�E
7
Total Commercial & Office (sq ft)
- I ;
rA3
7 7
I :J
Hotel (rooms)
�E
7
Total Commercial & Office (sq ft)
- I ;
rA3
LIDO VILLAGE
>uth of Via Lido Residential Commercial Uffice Goml S Uffice I
xisting Use
0
105,120
11,810
116,930
Existing GP
0
111,532
21,896
133,428
Opt 1: Retail infill, hsg
120
125,714
0
125,714
Opt 2: Retail infill, MU
E1
155,988
0
155,988
r--
Residential (dus)
i
Commercial (sq ft)
120 ' �i$Y''?•'?.�`: tf� 160.000
100 " �= *` 140,000
80 120,000
> _ • ,F".:_k` "' 100.000
60 s' j=
1 � 80,000
40 P;.3.ti 60.000
a
20 has. I 40,000
0 20,000
Existing Existing Opt 1: Opt 2: 0
Use GP Retail infill, Retail infill, Existing Use Existing GP Opt 1: Retail Opt 2: Retail
hsg MU J', infill, hsg infill, MU
Office (sq ft) Total Commercial & Office
25,000
20,000
15,000
10.000
5,000
0
Existing Existing Opt 1: Opt 2:
Use GP Retail infill,Retail infill,
hsg MU
•
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Existing Use Existing GP Opt 1: Retail Opt 2: Retail
infill, hsg infill, MU
34
Ivic Center Residen
xisting Use
Existing GP
Opt 1: Mixed Use
Opt 2: Retail & office
'1.50
200
150
100
50
c
Existing Ex,shng Opt 1. Opt 2.
Use GP Mixed Use Retail &
office
Residential (dus)
LIDO VILLAGE
ai uommerclal umce
0 0 64,680
0 0 119,917
213 111,339; 0
0 461391 64,94b'--
Commercial (sq ft)
Office (sq ft)
I
1 111
•1 111 1 ' r,..
1 111
120,000
100.000
80,000
60.000
40,000
20,000
0
Existing Use Existing GP Opt 1: Mixed Opt 2: Retail
Use & office
Total Commercial & Office (sq ft)
_3S
:1 111
i.•. •�
.• .' .
4.
.1111
"�
1,_ ' ±, .1 ;�
•1111
r �t
l
1
Existing
Existing •. O
Use
SP Mixed Use Ret,"
office
I
1 111
•1 111 1 ' r,..
1 111
120,000
100.000
80,000
60.000
40,000
20,000
0
Existing Use Existing GP Opt 1: Mixed Opt 2: Retail
Use & office
Total Commercial & Office (sq ft)
_3S
MCFADDEN SQUARE:
Pier Area (sw of Newpt Blvd)
Residential
Commercial
Office Hotel Coml & Office
cisting Use
133
74,270
3,550 25 77,820
General Plan
120
K,79-0 .
�,00b 25� qv&o
. ........ . .. .....
,;-isting
Opt 1- Lodging Incentive
138
93,218
0 186 93,218
I.
4
nawLOap�ep booms)
1 M 11
waa
INA, •Wite isq ft)
Harborfront (NE of Newpt BI) Residential Commercial Office Hotel C o m 1—&—Office
PWL�?.�3i:�'i'
°_� ,: l
,.1
MARINERS MILE
2,50
2,00
1,50
1,00
50
Residential (dus)
Coml & Office
900,220
_ _1,245,990
1,29_7,132
1,219,813
1,297,132
—]F— Commercial (sq ft)
500,000
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
•
Existing Existing Opt 1- Opt 2. Opt 3-40%
Use General Mixed Coast Hwy Marine
Plan Uses Realign Uses
Office (sq ft)
1,000,000
900,000
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,OOC
400,000
300.000
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
Existing Existing Opt 1- Opt 2- Opt 3 -00%
Use General Mixed Uses Coast Hwy Marine
Plan Realign Uses
Total Commercial & Office (sq ft)
I.
Residential
GOmmerclal
Vf ice
sting Use -
1,076
633,950,
266,270
xisting General Plan
1,093
779,800'
o
466.190
16
- --
Opt 1 -Mixed Uses
—1 —
,782•
933,575
363.557
Opt 2 -Coast Hwy Realign
2,169
933,575
286,238
Opt 3 -40% Marine Uses
1,485
933.575:
363,557
2,50
2,00
1,50
1,00
50
Residential (dus)
Coml & Office
900,220
_ _1,245,990
1,29_7,132
1,219,813
1,297,132
—]F— Commercial (sq ft)
500,000
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
•
Existing Existing Opt 1- Opt 2. Opt 3-40%
Use General Mixed Coast Hwy Marine
Plan Uses Realign Uses
Office (sq ft)
1,000,000
900,000
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,OOC
400,000
300.000
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
Existing Existing Opt 1- Opt 2- Opt 3 -00%
Use General Mixed Uses Coast Hwy Marine
Plan Realign Uses
Total Commercial & Office (sq ft)
I.
OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD
1,(
Residential (dus)
180.000
160.000
140,000
120.000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20.000
0
EdiSting Existing Opt 1: Opt 2. Opt 3.
Use GP Mad off. MU. resid MU,
mi. MU afford hsg
Existing Existing Opt 1: Opt 2: Opt 3:
Use GP med off. MU, resid MU, afford
rtI, MU hsg
Office (sq ft)
E
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
ry �v
Commercial (sq ft)
Total Commercial 8 Office
350,000
Residential
Commercial :
Office
Coml & Office
Ling Use
_ 392
48,700:
_ 97,74_0._
146,440
ling GP
592
- -- --
66,380
- - -- . ..
147,020
— -
213,400
- .. --
-
1: med - off, AV, MU
876
169,786'
169,231
339,017
2: MU, resid
909
120,879
0
120,879
3 MU affnrd hsa
995
120.8797
0
120.879
1,(
Residential (dus)
180.000
160.000
140,000
120.000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20.000
0
EdiSting Existing Opt 1: Opt 2. Opt 3.
Use GP Mad off. MU. resid MU,
mi. MU afford hsg
Existing Existing Opt 1: Opt 2: Opt 3:
Use GP med off. MU, resid MU, afford
rtI, MU hsg
Office (sq ft)
E
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
ry �v
Commercial (sq ft)
Total Commercial 8 Office
350,000
300.000
250,000
200.000
150,000
100.000
50,000
0.
Exisbng Existing Opt 1: Opt 2:
Opt 3:
Use CP med off, MU, resid
MU,
I'll, MU
afford
hsg
i
i
1
J
I9
WEST COAST HIGHWAY
fe
le L
3�
2-4
mom
90
90
0
290
0
Corr ,CW Isq NI
E
Commercial Frontage
Residential
Commercial
Existing Use
35,350
Existing General Plan
80
50,030
Opt 1-Mixed Use (vert)
348
86,902
Opt 2-Housing & Lodging
73
0
Opt 3-Commercial w/Lo-t-6o-n-s-o--Ii-cla-t-i-o--n
0
72,419
fe
le L
3�
2-4
mom
90
90
0
290
0
Corr ,CW Isq NI
E
•
WEST COAST HIGHWAY
Existing Use
_
Existing General Plan
60
Opt -Multi-family housing_
74
Opt 2-Spec needs housing
91
Opt 3-Park, open space
0
Opt 4-Parking lot
0
V.
1'
wan lamayro�np Pecos now.y max
A
Roeide.bal (d.e)
�\
Area Excl Tech Park & Adjacent
(isting Use
existing General Plan
Opt 2 -Med Office, Res, Coml
I m.
.w
.v
Residenlul ldus)
WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL
Residential
Commercial
Office
Industrial
Coml & Office
2,622
72,170
364,250
550,711:
436,420
2,771
72,170
692,660
893,602:
76_4,830
2,771
121,021
910,292
888,882!
1,031,313
r�mms.na Isa m
i�
T.1 C. r..Ib M( (sa R)
Mnee Isa xl
Ind.Md I 1 R)
�F'r lun'��•n+ Cp l.W plm ly.fai
W
I ech Park & Adjoining Sites
existing Use
Existing General Plan
Opt 2 -Tech Pki Med Off
Opt 3 -Tech Pk: Res & R &D
L-
1
4
Ramem,agdus)
WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL
Residential Commercial
Office
Industrial
Coml & Office
_
223
89,280
130,590
89,280
240
91,620
298120
91,620
240
419,409
01
419,409
503
91,620'
213,063'
91,620
•
R&D
-Y
11
aA.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Ad Hoc General Plan Update Committee
Minutes of the Ad Hoc General Plan Update Committee Meeting held in the Friends Room,
Central Library, City of Newport Beach, on 11- 15 -04.
1. Call to Order
Members present:
Steven Bromberg, Chairman /Mayor Pro Tern
Allan Beek, Measure S Supporter
Kevin Weeda, EDC Designee
Chris Trapp, EQAC Alternate Designee
Tim Collins, Harbor Committee Designee
Jeffrey Cole, Planning Commissioner
Barry Eaton, Planning Commissioner
Mike Toerge, Planning Commissioner
Members absent:
Steven Rosansky, Council Member
Tom Anderson, Aviation Committee Designee
• Staff present:
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
Patty Temple, Planning Director
Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner
Shirley Oborny, Administrative Assistant
Consultants Present:
Woodie Tescher, EIP
Members of the Public:
Ron Baers
Philip Bettencourt
Don Bowers
John Corrough
Nancy Gardner
Gordon Glass
Charles Griffin
Carol Hoffman
Jennifer Irani
Bill Lusk
James Quigg
Darwin Reinglass
• Ann Watt
Sharon Wright
females. From District 4, there are a number of female candidates and candidates in the •
younger age group. It would be good to get back some of the balance we lost by
considering one of them for appointment. Because the candidates were invited to this
meeting it would be interesting to hear from them what their willingness is to get up to
speed.
Mr. Beek said I think we should keep GPAC up to full membership. The most important
work is yet to be done and I think they would come up to speed rapidly. They've shown a
lot of interest by their attendance here tonight.
Mr. Cole said he is most concerned with the imbalance of the geographic breakdown. I also
believe a lot of the important work is still to come.
Chairman Bromberg invited members of the public and GPAC candidates to speak to the
committee as to whether they thought it would be appropriate or not appropriate to fill the
vacancies. The following people made comments in favor of filling the vacancies:
• Gordon Glass
• Charles Griffin
• Jennifer Irany
• Darwin Reinglass
• Ann Watt
Chairman Bromberg said GPUC should decide whether to fill the contingent, not fill the
•
contingent, or bring it back to GPAC to be determined there as Ms. Gardner suggested. Mr.
Toerge moved to appoint the full committee. Mr. Beek seconded the motion. All members
were in favor.
Chairman Bromberg said in the past we have given the City Council two or three names
from each district. Chairman Bromberg invited candidates to make comments about why
they would like to be a member of GPAC. Candidates who spoke were:
• Don Bowers — District 5
• Gordon Glass - District 4
• Charles Griffin - District 4
• Bill Lusk - District 5
• Darwin Reinglas — District 4
• Ann Watt - District 4
The committee nominated the following candidates:
District 3
• Mr. Beek nominated Jim Navai because he was a runner -up the last time the City
Council filled vacancies.
• Mr. Eaton nominated C. Edward Wolfe.
District 4
• Mr. Beek nominated Gordon Glass because he was also a runner -up the last time the
•
City Council filled vacancies.
• Mr. Eaton nominated Ann Watt.
3
1
0
Mr. Toerge asked how many studies or alternatives are budgeted. Ms. Wood said the
budget has four model runs. After GPAC finished developing these alternatives, because
they vary so much with all the geographic areas (some have three and some two), we didn't
think the permutations would be manageable. We decided to do two model runs for the
start, in addition to the base we already have with the existing General Plan. After we see
what kind of results we get, we will make some adjustments to the land use alternatives
and use the remaining budgeted model runs to look at the adjusted alternatives.
Mr. Toerge asked whether they were on a citywide basis. Mr. Tescher agreed. We are
going to do two on a citywide basis for traffic but at the same time we will be taking a look
at quantifying the impacts. For example, for Banning Ranch we have four distinct options.
We'll take the high end and low end to show the range for citywide traffic impacts. The
other two will be in between somewhere. For our analysis we'll quantify those two in
between but not incorporate them in the citywide model. We will also quantify the
environmental changes, for example, loss of habitat.
Mr. Toerge asked for clarification as to what is being asked of GPUC. Ms. Wood explained
that GPAC has developed these recommendations. On nine of them we are asking GPUC
whether it thinks they are sufficient or whether we should add one more to make sure we're
studying enough of a range.
• Mr. Eaton asked Mr. Tescher how he decided which are the low end and the high end in
cases where there are two options that are very different from each other, in order to run
with the low end model and the high end model. Mr. Tescher said for each one we will
quantify this, and end up with an accumulative peak hour trips before running the model so
well know which generates the biggest number of trips. The same would apply to the
fiscal, what contributes the greatest revenue and which has the greatest cost to the City.
Mr. Collins asked whether there is enough money in the budget to evaluate the first two
passes of the options presented in this packet. Ms. Wood agreed.
Mr. Cole asked how GPAC came up with these options in order for GPUC to determine
whether we should come up with another option. Ms. Wood said for each area there was a
subcommittee of GPAC. For each area EIP and staff presented discussion papers that gave
background information including.what we heard in the visioning process for these areas.
We suggested some land use alternatives for them to consider. In some cases they went
with ours and in some they developed their own. It varied from subcommittee how much
they relied on visioning vs. some other information vs. what they knew or felt themselves.
Mr. Cole said going back to the visioning process, these are two good alternatives because if
there is going to be office development this is the location for it. I would be hesitant to put
a third alternative in this area.
Mr. Toerge said the Planning Commission has reviewed a number of different projects. I
• want to know if they fit into this model where we might be converting some properties into
self- storage or auto rental uses. Are those encapsulated within ranges of these studies? I
think they should be. Ms. Wood said they are such small increments they won't even show
up in the model.
s
41
DRAFT
BANNING RANCH •
Mr. Toerge asked if the designation from the County is factored into the existing General
Plan Study. Mr. Tescher said they are in the traffic model. Mr. Toerge said I don't see any
reason to study the original Taylor- Woodrow larger plan since it's modified to be somewhat
reduced. Chairman Bromberg commented that he felt the same about it in the beginning,
but he was in the minority. Mr. Eaton said I thought the Taylor- Woodrow plan was a
reduction of the existing General Plan. Mr. Tescher said it is.
CANNERY VILLAGE
Ms Wood said the boundary in this geographical area does not included the Albertson's
shopping center on 32nd Street but staff has recently been approached by somebody asking
whether the City would consider commercial and residential on that site. Ms. Temple
remembered a lot of discussion when the specific plan was done, and it was a conscious
decision by the people working on that project not to include residential use. With that
question raised, we are asking GPUC whether they want us to expand this boundary area
and include two alternatives for that site, one being the commercial as it is today and the
other being the mixed use that would add some residential. Mr. Eaton asked if the existing
boundary goes all the way out to Newport Blvd. Ms. Wood responded that if they did
expand the boundary they would include the parcels on Newport Blvd.
Mr. Beek moved to expand the boundary to include that area. Mr. Weeda seconded the
motion. Mr. Beek, Mr. Weeda, Mr. Collins, and Mr. Cole were in favor. Chairman Bromberg, •
Mr. Toerge, and Mr. Eaton were opposed. Ms. Trapp abstained. The motion passed four to
three.
CORONA DEL MAR
Mr. Toerge referred to the handout and asked whether the graphs show one option or two.
Mr. Tescher said they do not show the one with the parking lot. Mr. Toerge asked if we
were to do that, would the commercial sector expand. Ms. Temple said it's something for
discussion. Usually when we're approached with these kinds of ideas from the existing
business property owners, it's to provide parking for existing development. It would be a
way to provide.more parking but not be used to justify intensification beyond the existing
General Plan projection based on the current FAR of .5 on the commercial designated
properties. We might even leave them zoned as residential.
FASHION ISLAND /NEWPORT CENTER
Mr. Eaton asked if the traffic generation would be computed and the high and low would be
assigned based upon that. Mr. Tescher agreed.
Ms. Wood asked the committee if they were sure they didn't want staff to do anything else
even though both are increases. Mr. Eaton said as long as the existing General Plan
remains a viable option. Ms. Wood agreed.
LIDO VILLAGE: NORTHEAST /BAYFRONT
Ms. Wood said the hotel is the question I had for the committee. In reviewing the report •
from the visioning process, there was not support for hotel at Lido Village. I wasn't sure
56
0
MCFADDEN SQUARE: MARINA PARK
Ms. Wood said the City Council just asked for a Study Session to start talking about where
we go from here for this site. I think a planning process for this site will probably be on its
own track and might not fit neatly into the General Plan update. Maybe we should leave in
Option 2 and take out the hotel because GPAC didn't know what we know now having had
the election. Chairman Bromberg said I agree with Ms. Wood. The entire committee
decided to delete the whole area.
OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD
Chairman Bromberg said this area comes up a lot in the City Council regarding medical. Mr.
Beek said there's not much point looking at anything other than medical for this area. Ms.
Temple said by keeping in things that have some housing options, in the medical context,
there are all kinds of uses for residential or housing for employees at the hospital.
WEST COAST HIGHWAY: CORRIDOR
Mr. Beek asked if lot consolidation is something we can do to them or whether they must
volunteer. Ms. Temple said we can incentivize them. An example is the Old Newport Blvd.
Specific Plan where there was a program to encourage lot consolidation by allowing certain
parking credits when they provided more curb space for parking.
• WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL: EXCLUDING TECHNOLOGY PARK
Ms. Wood said this is an area I called to GPUC's attention because it's one of the four areas
where all the alternatives show increases over the existing General Plan. The Committee
did not request any changes to the alternatives for this area.
Chairman Bromberg invited members from the public to speak on this agenda item:
Phil Arst - I am the spokesperson for the Greenlight committee. Referring to a brochure
(Attachment 3), Mr. Arst said this chart dated December 2003, shows a buildout level of
congestion throughout the City. There are 18 intersections that are not satisfactory. More
recent data from the City increases that number. This chart is optimistic because it
assumes the 19th Street bridge is going to be built, the Costa Mesa freeway will be
extended, and PCH will be widened along with Jamboree. On each of these alternatives,.
the question is will the streets around that area support the level of traffic generated. I'm
seeing a huge intensification of traffic and development throughout.the City. The Visioning
Festival sa d'66% of the voters opposed the Marinapark hotel. It turned out to be 67 %.
Continuing, Mr. Arst said I think we should heed the voters. They are. going to have to vote
on the work product of the General Plan update. My suggestion is to have Level of Service
D throughout the City. What we have is Level of Service F and E in 18 intersections. I
propose GPUC put together an alternative that asks what we need to shrink in terms of
existing entitlement in order to provide as close as possible Level of Service D throughout
the City. That will give a baseline to start and then add some needed community
• improvements such as medical offices for Hoag Hospital. We urge worthy projects be
added. We should base our projections of what it would cost to run the City for the next 25
years. Why are we putting all this development in if we don't need money from it? Office
buildings lose money for the City and that should be considered.
9
)1
DRAFT
staff indicates that while the property could be maintained as open space, a portion may be •
developed as active parklands. In addition the City's park and open space element assumes
about 30 acres of active -park within the Banning Ranch so those would not be uses without
trips.
Continuing, Mr. Bettencourt referred to the airport business area studies. Because of the
use of the chart showing the arrow for residential use off the chart, it could frighten those
who are worried about it being a pro - growth alternative. By way of example we have
assisted Brookfield Homes and Fletcher Jones in filing the first residential land use
application within the area. It's. a comprehensive filing for 86 condo units with the Spruce
and Quail property. That property produces fewer trips than would be produced under the
current land use on the site. Should that be approved or considered it removes trips and
commercial and industrial entitlement from the mix. I think that planning district is worthy
of looking at residential alternatives just as the committee has recommended.
Charles Griffin — We need to think about the number of trips that are added to property use.
We need to limit traffic and the number of trips generated. Concerning the airport complex,
we need to be careful that the development brings in business to that area to the point the
wealth generated controls the City and the people elected to run the City. This perhaps
would allow more growth to the flights thus providing more adverse impacts to the
residents. The airport impacts a small percentage of the City but we need to look after
those people, perhaps changing the zoning of that area of residential to commercial by •
relocating them and whether we can use the taxes and profits to the economy to relocate a
small percentage of the area. There is a corridor that's priceless for residential so we need
to limit the airport. The balance there is sophisticated. This is where the master planning
comes in. We need to be careful. The City is thinking about being an owner or part
operator of the airport. We need to think about property values that bring in property
taxes. Orange County only receives $.07 per dollar. The City needs to work on changing
that for our County so we get more of our property taxes locally utilized in this County so
we don't depend on retail, sales tax, and hotel tax. We need to emphasize the residential
nature of our City.
Chairman Bromberg clarified that the City is not looking into an ownership or operating role
of the airport.
Mr. Toerge suggested the Planning Commission receive the minutes of this meeting because
they will discuss this.topic on December 9h.
5. Report on Local Coastal Program
Ms. Temple said Mr. Alford is putting together the implementation plan. Chairman Bromberg
added that the Coastal Commission has asked for a year extension.
6. Comments from the Public
No further comments were made.
7. Items for Future Agendas •
No items for future agendas were discussed.
u
"RECEIVED AFTER AGE uu ^A
c; I;TEI�:" SS i2 .
• Greenlight
2601 Lighthouse Lane
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949 - 721 -1272 /philiparst(a),coxnet
Mayor Tod Ridgeway and Members of the Newport Beach City Council. December 14, 2004
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: Study Session Agenda Item #4
Ref: General Plan Update — Land Use Allowances
Dear Mayor Ridgeway and Members of the City Council
This is to express the alarm of the Greenlight Organization upon reading the current options
proposed for the General Plan Update (GPU.)
MAJOR CONCERNS
The proposals disregard the Godbe Survey of the statistically valid sample of the wishes of
Newport Beach residents. (Ref 1 & enclosure)
• The proposals make a bad situation of adding a projected 170,000 ADP's and creating close to
20 LOS E & F intersections in the city (Ref. 2 & enclosure) worse by adding to these already
unacceptable totals.
The traffic model for the proposals disregards the stated wishes of the residents expressed in the
Godbe Survey that major arterials not be widened. Instead, PCH, Jamboree Rd. and other
arterials are shown as widened. Additionally, the traffic model assumes that the 19`h St. Bridge
will be built and the Route 55 Freeway extended. No alternative is considered for the very likely
event that these heavily or unfounded projects are not built. Representing the circulation element
as desired by the residents would produce even greater congestion than the 19 -20 unsatisfactory
intersections already projected by the Ref. 2 traffic study.
In general, the proposals examine the maximum amount of additional intensified development
that can be added to the city in clear violation of the Coastal Act and the wishes of the vast
majority of the residents.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS
The base case GPU alternative should be named and configured to reduce traffic congestion to
LOS D throughout the city as required under city policies and the desire of the majority of the
residents. This must involve'reduction of the excessive entitlements that remain in the General
• Plan as they violate city policy to maintain LOS D throughout the city and add unwanted
intensification. Even the city's official traffic model calls the resultant traffic congestion •
"General Plan Deficiencies."
Only named beneficial increases in intensity and traffic should be proposed (i.e. more medical
offices for Hoag Hospital.)
The Beach/Bay high quality residential character of Newport Beach must be preserved.
A small number of 6 -10 desirable projects (i.e. more medical offices for Hoag Hospital, etc.)
should be named and the GPU propose priorities for them while eliminating all existing
entitlements unless they can be shown to not increase traffic through already unsatisfactory
traffic intersections.
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT MUST BE ANSWERED BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER
Is the General Plan Update subject to a Greenlight vote? A response that this has not been
determined as of this date is unacceptable as it is the opinion of our attorney that the wording of
City Charter Section 429 is clear that it does. An initial city opinion as to the applicability of City
Charter Section 423 is also required by the Measure S Guidelines.
Does the city claim that by reducing developments in some areas they can substitute
intensification in others? The minutes of city council hearings on Measure S specifically exclude
any credit for reductions.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Detailed backup for all of these statements is available. I will not burden you with that additional
reading unless requested by specific council members.
As my health improves over the next month or two, I will be actively providing inputs from the
Greer light Steering Committee. Greenlight's policy will be to faithfully follow the wishes of the
residents and small businesses as expressed in the Godbe Survey.
We will be open to try to work out a small number of needed projects instead of the wholesale
intensification being considered. This is a far preferable approach to opposition.
Thank you in advance for you cooperation on this matter.
Greer light
(original signed)
Philip L. Arst
CC: Greenlight Steering Committee
Ref 2:Traffic Model by Urban Crossroads dated Dec. 3, 2003 (Revised.) •
Ref I:Godbe Survey Overview (see below)
• CITY TRAFFIC STUDY ILLUSTRATION OF
UNSATISFACTORY INTERSECTIONS
EXSiiBIT X
W. RRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN DEFICIENCIES
c'
• r p ,. � ..� /f / ''i .max �., • •A�°trMOECiaExa
�a^ w! �FTnAF t+�snDT.un.w�eNa.�eniomarm �v., City of CoxEa Mesa Dap fm NewjwrtBlvd �
•
O
0
O
N �
C
•
� C
e
L O
0)
rn �.
O d
m
y
C°y _�
0)
vi
o
c
d
O Y A
0
N
N
m
td
n
E
m
a)
a
a
m
o o h
;
m
c
o
0
E
N
o -p
E
O
�
°
10
N
Cl)
Cl)
CA
Cl) N
'o
o
N
7
N
Cl)
O
N o C
0
rn
O
0
w
a)
w
a)
w
a)
w w
a) a)
O
o°
0
a)
a
3
0
`O
O.
o a) m
a) w
e
e
e
e
e e
Y
=$
U
> a)
3
r�
N
O CO
y
rn
0
0
o C)
o
'It
V
0
0
0 0
C
o
0
)O
a) O
O p
cr)
0
0
0
0
0 0
O
IT
LOwE
CT°
r)
z
z
z
z
z z
)O
CD
x
y
°
m
o
v
o
°moo
o
°
a) m
.N
0)
e
e
0 o v
3
O
0
co N
C
Y
t= O
N
y
O
t
N w
L a
d
_
raCU
CL
o
LO
y
e
y
N
C
o
L
m
m
CO
_�
7 o
O
N
d
O
N
N y
C
vi
o
0
)
9 a) �
C
e
N
N
LO
O
O
N
O°
m
N
O
N m
E
o
0
y
C
y
c
m
a
y es
m
>
3
Y
o y
a
s
°
m
L
m
°
'__c�
3
0
0
C
m
°r
E'm
aa))
o
eee
ee
-Y
o
cCL
c
ee
•
O
aa)
N
cam)
o
E
0
�p
vvCOr�
('7
N
N ('7
a
r)
m0-0
atS
0)
C
O
O
rn
N
('7
('7
co
3—
C
m
('7
('7
L
w
O
c y
y a)
CO
a)
N
N m
r`
0
Q
r0
...
:.:
!C
C
y
�E
°
������
as
CL
a`)
e
a°i
)
aa)
os-m°'
a)
o
v
rNio
c
O
a
oy
ariy
3
eeeeeeY
p
��w
Y
>
>"
>m
r�NO
mo
mw
a
w
O
H
o
o L
O
o
f0
0
e
LO
LO
CD
r`
CO CO
C
° a)
c
\°
\°
U
Q:
N y
m
m��
Ww
y
0
co
CC
"i
N
Cf)
1°O
z
z
z
z
z z
0
Cn
S. m
O
CO
vi
m
E
y
o
m
>m
s
L
a
m
o
3
m
�w
0
d
o
mo
0
m
E
CL
O
'y
m
m
m
°'
U
m
m
a)
m
o
E
'
a)
o.
E
C'.
O
G
3
0
E
o
E
�°
m
a)
0
O.
O
m
c
m
00
E
N
y
rn
@
E
m
C
aa)
E
m
c
c
aa))
X
Q
a)
w
a)
aa)
o
o
m
a)
m�
m
CL
a
-
L
.N
m
°.cu
°
0
2¢x
a)LCn.S
C
or
c
r_
fA
�_
o
c
t
y
m
m
a
a°
yQ o
m
3
3
m
U�
°
��0
E
CO
o
O
m
o
��°
my
O 'y
U
y
y
m
�`
c
c
'm
-0
d
w
m'
°"
o
.N
°
y
0
c
c
3
d
fa
y
a`) L
C ra
c
p_
c
c L
a)
-�
0°
L
o
O
-O
-ON
L
O
L
L
L
N
N
N
O
O C
2
N
m>
C
O
>
U
m
-
O�
z�
z
z
z
Cy
'-
N
ce)
It
10
co
r�-
co
0)
0
C14
Ce)
•
c
O
O
C
L
F
•
o
>
co
m
_
N
L
C
V
O
o
C
CN
n
0
c
o
O
a
O
a
O
a
o
O
"O
a
a
a
N
N
N
N
o
N
N
N
N N
N
N
N
Cr)
J
7
J
(D
O
O
O
o
m
O
O
O
O O
O
O-
0
0
0
O
O
O
aaaa
a
aaa
aaaa
O
as
as
as
O
O
O
p
M
-
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
p
O
O
O
0 0
0
0
L V
'O
'0'0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 o
Y
o
0
o
Y
o 0
0
0
0
-
w
(U
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
V
m
. -
V
m
m
o
O CO
(O
N
rn
O (U
N
V
Cl)
O)
r.-
r--
O
10
M
10 M
o
M
N
N
Cl) Cl)
Cl)
V
N
L
CL
V
V
V
N
10
10
10
M
M
O
co
:J
s
N
M
o
.J
a
O
O
O
O Z
3
0
0
0
3
0 0
0
0
L
ai
J 'O
(n
`O
`O
O`
`O
`O
O`
`O
O
o
CL
O.
CL
O.
O.
O.
O. O.
CL
CL
a)
a
C
CL
CL
O.
CL
CL
O.
O.
CL
O.
CL
0.
o.
o. o
cl
O
0.
o.
o.
p
a a
a
a
o a)
a
3 c
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
o.
J
J
J
J co
Y
J
7
J
c
Y
J 7
7
J
J C
O O
J
J
J
J
7
J
=3
7
J
7
rn
rn
rn
rn O
....
rn
rn
rn
_
rn rn
rn
rn
cu
r-
rn p
Cam,
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
0
0
0
o N
o C
o (U
o
o
c
o
0
0
0
0
0
of
M
of
N
O
r
O
of
O
b
M
O
10 >
O.
co J
V
f�
O)
V
f�
10
CO
O
of
V
co
r
V }
O
O
O
to co
O
LO
V
V 0
LO J'
10
V
V
M
M
M
10
10
C
O
y
Y•�
i.y
O
C
L
}
o
Nf
LO
0
o
N
�
\°
C
O
M
N
m.
N
a)
\°
N
CD
N°
N N
N
N
N
'0
LO
7
J
J
(D
N
N
N
N
N
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
0
O
O
0
0
0
O O
O
O
N
_C
_-
-
0
0
0
n
n
O.
n
n
O.
O.
3
O. O.
O.
O.
U
LO
-y
C
C
[1
[1
C
O.
C
O.
[1
C
O.
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
3
a
0
a
0
a
0
p
a a
o o
a
o
a
o
N
0
0
aaa
0
0
a
0
a
0
a
0
a
0
a
0
a
0
•
p
0,
O
w
0
0
0
0 o
Y
o
0
o
Y
o 0
0
o
Q)
CO
m
O
N
O
r
o
(O m
co
y
0
-
0 Q)
N
O
O
M
O
(D
M
O)
co
(O
O
r
(D M
o
N
M
M
N (`')
O
M
Q)
L
n L
M
M
M
O
O
..
n
o`
0
0
0 2
3
0
0
0`
3
0 0
0
0
LwC
J
w°
'0
000
000000
CL
a
a
a-
0
a
a
a
p
a a
a
a
0 (n
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
CL
a
a
ao
c
n
a
n
o
a a
a
a
a)
a
3 c
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Y_
y
y
fA
fA
fA
fA
aY..
fA
fA
fA
fA
fA
fA
"'
0
C =
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
fA
fA
0
0
0
0 y
C
o
0
o
C
o 0
0
0
0 0
o C
o Q)
O
r
0 0
0
O
r
N
O
r
CO
M
M>
r O.
N Jt
M
V
M
N
CO
N
O
O
O
O
N
M}
r
ID
O
r M
O
O
M
N O
O cr
O
O
r
M
N
M
O
M
m
G_
E
E
W
O
J
O
LL
m
O
m
n
Cl.
co
Cl.
Q)
rn
-0
O
N
O
N
N
y
O
U
d
m
Cl
y
a
0))
co
y
c
C
C
y
0
co
d
N
�
'E
p
Q)
y
Q)
m
0
o
c
C
0
0
y
N
d
m
coo
m
y
a)
d
>
w
c
Q)
,,
y
d
Q)
d.
y
_
m
C
O
Q)
d
Q)
a
c
E
a
y
a
L
N
'p
Q)
-
u)
Y
E
m
o
J
d
co
y
a°
N�
p
_
y
N o
y_
Q)
E
y
E
d
`0
0
0
°�
00
0
d
U
N O
0
C
o
U
m
0
N
0
p
Cl
L
L
L C
'C
N
N
j Q
°
c
cl
0
y
0
L
0
U
L
,X
N-0
0
3
y
N
C
X
O
Q) a
Y
co
y
ao
Q)
°`a
m
3
co
U
d
3
°)
C
C
o
c
-o
°�
d>
C
C
(n
CL..
N
m
N
O
Q)
co
co
7
N
-
'O
rn
LL
O
'O
Q)
N
O
"O
N 0
0
0
C
y
d
N
-
J N
N
rn
C
U
Q
y
m
U
N
y
m
N C
c
C
in
C
O
3
N
C
L
d
c
-m
o
co
c
m
'0
O�
y
y
m
--
0
a
v
E
Q
Co
`o
`o
N
N
Q)
N
L-
L m
(o
0
-M
O
L
7-
.c
O
d
Q)
¢
cl
`o
E
s
s
U
m
-°0
m
0 a)
d
0
as
3
co
m
a
m
a) a
C)
'L
0
3
3
o
O
C
C
C
Z
y>>
>
>
Z
UO
n>>
>
Z
W
UO
Z~>
co
co
Cn
> y
Q
2
J
Z
Z
•
Iq
LO (
co
m
O
N
M
N
N
N
N
ai ai ai ai ai ai ai ai ai
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
N N 7 0 N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O
a a a a a a a a s
y y y y y y y y y
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
('7 N N
l(o N N N N N m 7 7 Nr�-
.E-
0)
U A 0 C cu
C J 0
< — C
Q ^. U) C m N
C m a) w U
a) C3 0 > > a) O m m
N C cu y O O) y
00 0 a) m E ym
Q a y o a o 0
a ° o o m
c
s a) aE
O
t o 1 cu 'a a) O a -o a) )
O. O m L
cu a) o
C y m= aNi m C 0 m U
m 0 m a m m 0 Y a a am) L o
3 c Q y c U m m a Q Q m '�c_,,, --�' m
0
a) 0 m o o aa)) U y 0 0$ Lo o EQ2 o.o.-oQ) m a s m
sm °"m 0-0o a'i m ��aci HFO-� �0
Q J J Z Z U m Q W W Z Q Q •
N cc m N N
m
U �
O
O
O
N
-O
O.
O.
CL
O`)
CL
O
a
O
o
O
y
_
o
-
o
7
�
�
N o
V N
O
CL
O
a
O
CL
a
U N
CL
a
a
y
y
a)
0
0
0
0 0
N
)n
r�-
0
ai ai ai ai ai ai ai ai ai
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
N N 7 0 N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O
a a a a a a a a s
y y y y y y y y y
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
('7 N N
l(o N N N N N m 7 7 Nr�-
.E-
0)
U A 0 C cu
C J 0
< — C
Q ^. U) C m N
C m a) w U
a) C3 0 > > a) O m m
N C cu y O O) y
00 0 a) m E ym
Q a y o a o 0
a ° o o m
c
s a) aE
O
t o 1 cu 'a a) O a -o a) )
O. O m L
cu a) o
C y m= aNi m C 0 m U
m 0 m a m m 0 Y a a am) L o
3 c Q y c U m m a Q Q m '�c_,,, --�' m
0
a) 0 m o o aa)) U y 0 0$ Lo o EQ2 o.o.-oQ) m a s m
sm °"m 0-0o a'i m ��aci HFO-� �0
Q J J Z Z U m Q W W Z Q Q •
N cc m N N