HomeMy WebLinkAbout22 - General Plan UpdateCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 22
April 25, 2006
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:. City Manager's Office
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
949 - 644 -3222, swood @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: General Plan Update: Land Use and Circulation Elements
APPLICANT NAME: City of Newport Beach
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Receive public comments on the referenced elements of the draft General Plan.
2. Provide directions to staff on revisions to the referenced elements of the draft
General Plan.
3. Continue public hearing to May 9, 2006.
DISCUSSION:
Background:
The City Council held a public hearing on the following elements of the draft General
Plan on April 11, 2006: Harbor and Bay, Historical Resources, Recreation, Arts and
Cultural, Natural Resources, 'Safety and Norse. This is the first public hearing on the
Land Use and Circulation Elements. The Planning Commission held their first public
hearing on these elements on April 20, and their comments and recommendations are
summarized in this report.
Areas of Change and Development Potential:
The draft General Plan includes land use change and development potential in several
areas of the City. The attached Plan Capacity table shows the quantities of use, by
major land use category, that are existing as of 2005, permitted in the existing General
Plan, proposed in the draft General Plan, and studied in the General Plan environmental
impact report (EIR). The last column in the table indicates the differences between the
existing and draft General Plans. It shows that, while increases in residential,
commercial and hotel land uses are proposed, these are offset by proposed decreases
in office and industrial land uses.
General Plan Update
April 25, 2006
Page 2
Some of this change and development potential is included in the existing General Plan,
and most of that has been carried forward to the proposed plan. In some cases, the
City has no or limited ability to change this development potential. For example,
Newport Coast and Newport Ridge have potential for the development of approximately
1,170 residential units. This development potential is "vested," or protected, through a
development agreement approved by the County of Orange and a pre- annexation
agreement between the City and The Irvine Company. The City may not reduce this
entitlement without the agreement of The Irvine Company. The Irvine Company has
agreed to reduce entitlement by approximately 370 units, and this is reflected in the
draft Land Use Element. Also reflected in the draft General Plan is The Irvine
Company's agreement to reduce residential development potential by approximately
300 units in Bonita Canyon, Upper Castaways, Newporter North, and the freeway
reservation parcel.
Another area where the City is not likely to change development potential is Santa Ana
Heights. Both the existing and draft General Plans allow the development of 200,000
square feet of office and retail space. This is consistent with the Specific Plan for this
area, which was in place at the time of annexation. Our experience with this
neighborhood is that the residents are very happy with the Specific Plan, and are not
interested in any changes.
The potential for additional housing units in various other areas is in both the existing
and draft General Plans. This potential includes approximately 530 units on the Balboa
Peninsula, 960 units on Balboa Island and 360 units in Corona del Mar as a result of
two - family zoning designations, as well as 300 units on Lido Isle due to underlying lots.
Much of this development potential has existed since 1988 or longer without being
exercised, and staff does not expect it to be fully exercised during the life of the updated
General Plan. While the potential of this development occurring is low, it has been
included in the environmental analysis to show worst case impacts and to allow for
flexibility in decisions on the final land use plan. And while unlikely to be exercised, this
development potential is important to some property owners as a "nest egg" or for
flexibility to upgrade or expand as needs change over time. Staff and the General Plan
Advisory Committee (GPAC) have suggested the following areas where residential
development potential could be reduced.
■ West Newport, Balboa Beacon Bay — Change land use designation from
duplex to single - family residential (reducing development potential by
approximately 1,500 units) to reflect current development trends and strengthen
owner occupancy in West Newport. Staff suggested this change for the Balboa
Peninsula as well, but GPAC did not recommend it, in response to public input on
this proposal.
■ Lido Isle — Reduce residential potential
existing lot and ownership patterns,
undersized lots.
General Plan Update
April 25, 2006
Page 3
by approximately 300 units to reflect
and require mergers of underlying,
It is in the subareas selected for special study as part of the General Plan update that
City Council decisions regarding land use, development and traffic generation will be
the most significant.
General Plan Subareas:
The Planning Commission discussed three subareas on April 20, 2006, the Airport
Area, Newport Center /Fashion Island, and West Newport Mesa. Part of their discussion
included the traffic generation impacts of land use changes, and staff and the traffic
consultant used basic model formulas. to estimate trip generation changes, and
displayed them on a screen during' the discussion. This report includes as an
attachment the Daily Trip Generation Summary from the traffic study, showing the
number of trips with existing landr use as of 2002 by subarea (and as of 2005 Citywide),
and projected trips by subarea with full buildout of the existing and draft General Plans.
The "With Project" numbers, based on buildout of the General Plan proposals analyzed
in the EIR, is the starting point for this exercise. Also attached is a copy of the
spreadsheet showing the reductions in trip generation resulting from the land use
changes on which the Planning Commission reached preliminary agreement. (The
Commission understands that information in the EIR and additional public input may
lead to different recommendations at the conclusion of their public hearings.) The
Planning Commission recommendations so far result in 9,425 fewer trips than analyzed
in the EIR.
Airport Area:
The Planning Commission considered whether this is an area of Newport Beach in
which more housing opportunities should be; provided, including the City's responsibility
to meet our share of regional housing needs, the potential for housing affordable to
people who work locally'the,;likelihood that people would live and work in the same
area, and the potential traffic benefits — not only from people living near their jobs, but
also from people commuting in the opposite direction at peak hours and reducing
impacts on intersections in the area. The Commission then took straw votes on the
following items:
1. Number of units -- None of the Commissioners supported 4,300 units, the
number analyzed in the EIR. The majority felt that 3,300 units is appropriate,
and two Commissioners felt that the number should be lower, primarily because
of their concern that the Airport Area should continue to be the primary office
center in Newport Beach.
General Plan Update
April 25, 2006
Page 4
2. Residential use in 65 CNEL contour -- A majority recommended that the mixed
used designation allowing residential development not be used within this noise
contour, to assist Newport Beach in being deemed a consistent agency by the
Airport Land use Commission (ALUC), to avoid the need for the City Council to
override ALUC denials of residential projects, and to avoid the need for a
statement of overriding considerations on the General Plan approval due to
significant environmental impacts resulting from permitting residential
development within this noise contour. Two Commissioners felt that the
possibility for residential use in this area should remain in the plan to provide
greater flexibility, especially as aviation technology may reduce noise levels
during the life of the General Plan. This reduction in mixed use land area did not
change the Commission's recommendation on number of units. The
Commission asked staff to prepare a recommendation on the boundary between
the mixed use and office designations (e.g., follow the noise contour exactly,
follow property lines approximating the contour, a combination of the two).
3. Minimum land area and density for 1St phase of development -- The Commission
was unanimous in supporting the plan as drafted in these areas.
4. Designated residential sites vs. broad permission for residential --
Commissioners were concerned about the fairness of a system in which the
amount of land designated for mixed use could accommodate more residential
units than the number allowed, which would be administered on a "first come,
first served" basis. To provide flexibility for property owners over time, and after
hearing that the existing. office entitlement is administered on that basis, the
Commission agreed to retain the mixed use designation across a large part of
the Airport Area (except the 65; CNEL as discussed above), rather than limiting
it to the residential neighborhoods illustrated in the concept diagram prepared by
ROMA Design Group.
5. Additive Residential Use — The residential concept developed by ROMA and the
recommendations from GPAC assumed that residential development would
replace office and industrial development on the west side of MacArthur
Boulevard, but could be in addition to those uses in Koll Center Newport. The
Commission had some concerns about the fairness of this difference, but their
conclusion was to support additive residential in Koll Center because the surface
parking lots have the potential to be good residential sites and there are
amenities in Koll Center that could form the framework for open space,
pedestrian connections, etc. as part of a residential village. The Commission
asked staff to include the reasons for allowing additive residential in the General
Plan, and to add policy that allows it only if there is no loss of significant
landscaped areas and,other amenities.
General Plan Update
April 25, 2006
Page 5
Newport Center /Fashion Island
The Planning Commission took straw votes on the following items.
1. Number of residential units -- There was discussion of the origins of the two
numbers considered during the update process, 450 units being the request of
the primary property owner, The Irvine Company, and 600 having been
recommended by GPAC. Staff noted that other property owners are interested in
residential development, and an application for 16 units is on file. A majority
recommended reducing the number to 450, while two Commissioners supported
600 units, believing that Newport Center is a desirable residential area and
additional office space is not likely to be developed here. Commissioners also
compared Newport Center to the Airport Area as opportunity areas for housing
development, and noted that the Airport Area is more likely to support housing
affordable to first -time buyers and people who work in Newport Beach.
2. Size of mixed used land area - The Commission considered whether the mixed
use designation allowing residential development is applied to too many sites in
the draft land use plan, and recommended the following changes:
a. Designate Corporate Plaza West CO -R, Regional Commercial Office
b. Designate Newport Beach Country Club parking lot PR, Parks and
Recreation
c. Designate the landscape arcs at the corners of Coast Highway and
Newport Center Drive OS, Open Space (This is a map correction.)
The Commission considered removing the hotel sites from the mixed use
designation, but instead recommended an additional policy that would prohibit
using the residential entitlement to convert hotel rooms to full -time residential
use.
West Newport Mesa
The Commission was concerned about the amount of development the draft General
Plan would allow in this subarea, and the resulting trip generation, especially in light of
traffic concerns at intersections in the area.,: At the same time, the Commission was
interested in accommodating the reuse of Newport Technology Center for medical uses.
They recommended that the residential designation be changed to the lower density
classification of RM -B, Medium Density Residential (which allows a maximum of 20
units per acre), and that the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for medical office be
reduced to .75.
Circulation Element:
Staff suggests that the City Council not make recommendations on circulation
improvements and policies until a recommended land use plan begins to emerge and
the traffic generation consequences of that plan are known.
Environmental Review:
A Draft EIR has been completed and provided to the State clearinghouse, beginning the
45 day public review period on April 21, 2006. Copies of the Draft EIR will be available
to the City Council and the public on approximately April 25. The remaining public
hearings on the General Plan will also be hearings on the EIR.
Public Notice:
Notice of this public hearing, and subsequent public hearings on the General Plan
update and EIR, was provided by a quarter page display advertisement in the Daily Pilot
on April 8, 2006. Government Code Section 65091 provides that, when the number of
property owners to whom notice would be required to be mailed is greater than 1,000
(which is the case with a comprehensive General Plan update), notice may be provided
by placing a one - eighth page advertisement in the local newspaper.
Submitted by:
Sharon Wood
Assistant City Manager
Attachments: 1. Plan Capacity Table
2. Daily Trip Generation Summary — Table ES -1
3. Running Trip Generation Totals from Planning Commission
Discussion of April 20, 2006
Uzz
0
CD
�i
.,.�
LU
mmm
n
a)"a
Af)
10
N
It
4-0
W
}1
V
L
CD
UJ;
LO
_U
Q
y-
_0)4
O
ti
uj
0
N
�
�
k
a•'
yy/ 3
.�f
S
.-0
W
U
OL
(a
N,
m
0E
N
O;
Z
-0
G
co
Uzz
0
CD
�i
mmm
h
z
O_
w
w aa'
Q W
z
H w
a
a
J
a
n
ES -3
J Zi
'l
e
e
e
e
e
e
OR
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
7MM
OR
q
oq
MOO
mMV;
e'r
rr
°
m�
N�-.�
MO
N,
mN00M�
N
N
I
V'
nOON
MYf
CDM
p
a'
m
W
r�NONOMmNr
w
C4
N
V'
m
m
Nn00m
V_�M,r
vMr
MO
lVn
NfV
d'N
00N
M
N
Y�
�-N
0)
W
a
4N-
NCD
F
O
g
Mm
0LOOr�0)r
�imo
-�cmo�
SinO
mm
00
OONMMf0L
aC
NN�ON,
NN.a'
mMN
�Op�Op
V'
Co
Co
F
C
S
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
o
e
e
e
o
e
e
e
e
r`S
OOr
r
n700
N
cl
M
MM40
F-.
Cl
COO;
e$
r-
Mm
M
w0
w01
M
f.:
IV
f.:N
r
N
MIG
C4
V'm
N
r
Q
r
W
p
O
m
=
M
t07oMNNn
r
co
cm
0
0)
r
MM
N
i
m
�r
N
m
M�a
M
r
OD
fir
cn
Ya
f0
N
.-
�N
mcn
OIw
W
�
r
cm
r00
07
mco
�
�
z w
W
V'
WO
�C7
Moorm`.aro-evmauoo�
M
0�-�-0
0n
00ooO
u
I-.-
y
IL
Imo
r
0iNivam
C;
0;
oicor
00
rr
yui
N,
MrM
r
.-
<n
V•
OOD
V•
iD
m
iD
Of
Ol
nce)
(ommMO�mrnr�i
W
rfDM
OMr
0�
MN
nM
MO
-e
m
R
Z
V7
n.
O�
r�v_O
rI
00
ao
Nip
m
.-
NM
My
n
00
R
w
z
z
w
°
w
z
z
z
z
Z°
W
°
HN_
LU
Q
z
°
¢
O
0
a
Q
y
y
=Q
>
c
N
y
y
W
u'j�
y
W
yy
F-F
W
W
ma
Q
W
mF
-F-a'
�%.
00
00
�zs�WJ�WaOO
W0
LL
LL.
g�
OONN
>pO�zFa��
WLL,
W
F
Ur
a'
2r
W
W
00
1-1-
0
OOOZW0>Z°azNN
a
W�
�_�_
�¢¢¢oocLL>w9ww
mm6O-
(z03�
a'a'
CEO
ES -3
J Zi
z
O
W
Z
w
O
a
a
N
z
O
U
a
g
z
Z
O
Q
z
Z
W
g
g
O
U
W
w
O
z
z
J
IL
w
°o
N
N
J_
a
E
g Q
0 3 y
=
C O V ILL. N
On
UZ
o a�'
d
°o
va 0 011
N 'O O c
Z2
0
o c
O
�0 y�
a.00'O.O+
z
QU
O �a0
E o
O
E
VN tlr
7 N O •-
e.. E
c
0
az
�m�
Ir
�oMgw
W
to
N
N
N
(7
1
w
O
V
a
Q
�
n
of
u1
Q U
�
w
0
M
h
O
w
'7
M
r
N
l
J
r
W
M
W
W
r
two
11
0`,f
�
Otl.'
Q
10
q'
M
M
ci
t
f0
N
W
O
N
N
M ,
y
O
001
Owl
0
I1=
00i
0V
r
ti
O
N
W
M
O
N
O
e
4.
g
10
�'
M
'
M
N
w
O
w
G
V
a
0
w
M
w
CO
co
e-
N
m l
H
00
l
rL
f00
v
M
M
N
n
M
M
M
h
aG
Go
co
00
P
=
LL
=
LL
i
1W-
O
O
M
0
n
ola
°°
1G
K a
z
Z
z
z
Z
y f'J
0- N
N
O
O
O
t�
I-
W
F
W
a�
Q
U
J F
Z
O
M
r
t0
n
Z
W 7
J
va
r
M
0>
a
LL c
LL
a
OI
LU
Ir
W
Z
K
W
w
�=
W
W 1
U
Ix
z
d
IW-
w
I
a
LL
-'
S
I
F
Z
z
a
d
0
..
G
w
LL
Z a
1
O
a
>
J
U
D
a Z
IL
J
0
O
W
d
c,'i
0
ZLUZ
z
Z f
`
W
E
2
E
- E
_
ITWU4
I
U
y
z
Y
N
a
C
'C
b
t'.
W
w
LL
12
a f
w
oI_wi
- E
G0
U'
Q
0
Q
¢
mz000.0
i
J
Q
M
N
M
Q
Z
Cl)
N
U
C
F-
I-
a
O
S W
IL a
a
N
Q
z U
z g
Contents (Land Use Element)
CHAPTER 3 Land Use Element ...................................................................................... 3-1
Introduction.................................................................................................................. 3-2
Our Starting Point—Newport Beach's Existing Land Uses ......... ............................3 -4
Goalsand Policies .......................................................................................................
3-5
Role and Character of Newport Beach ("Who We Are") ............................3
-5
Uses to Be Accommodated ("What Uses Contribute to Our
Community?") ..............................................................................................
3-6
Organization and Form of Uses ("How Are Land Uses Distributed?") .........
3-8
LandUse Diagram ........................................................................................
3-11
Community Character ("Maintaining the Character of Our
Neighborhoods and Districts") ..................................................................
3-11
Residential Neighborhoods ....................................................................
3-12
Multi-Family Neighborhoods ...................................................................
3-49
Commercial Districts ................................................................................
3-51
Mixed-Use Districts and Neighborhoods ...............................................
3-53
All Commercial and Mixed-Use Districts ...............................................
3-55
Office and Business Parks ........................................................................
3-56
All Neighborhoods, Districts, and Corridors ..................... ...........................3
-58
Neighborhoods, Districts, and Corridors ("Places That Distinguish
NewportBeach") .......................................................................................
3-58
Public and Institutional Uses and Districts .............................................
3-58
Residential Neighborhoods ....................................................................
3-60
Districts.......................................................................................................
3-63
BanningRanch ...........................................................................................
3-63
WestNewport Mesa ..................................................................................
3-73
BalboaPeninsula ........................................................................................
3-76
LidoVillage .................................................................................................
3-76
CanneryVillage ......................... . .............................................................
3-79
McFaddenSquare ....................................................................................
3-80
BalboaVillage.......- ................................................................... . .............
3-80
Areawide....................................................................................................
3-82
LidoVillage .................................................................................................
3-83
CanneryVillage .........................................................................................
3-84
InteriorParcels ................................................................................ ..........
3-84
BoyfrontParcels ........................................................................................
3-87
McFadden Square, West and East of Newport Boulevard ....................3
-87
BalboaVillage ............................................................................................
3-88
Newport Center /Fashion Island ................................................................
3-91
AirportArea ................................................................................................
3-95
Business Park Districts ...............................................................................
3-97
CampusTract ...........................................................................................
3-97
CommercialNodes ..................................................................................
3-98
Residential Villages .......................................................................... . .......
3-98
Corridors...................................................................................................
3-107
WestNewport ...........................................................................................
3-108
Old Newport Boulevard ..........................................................................
3-110
Mariner's Mile ...........................................................................................
3-117
Coronadel Mar .......................................................................................
3-124
U)
W
W
J
m
f
W
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(�
OV
M
O9hM
rn
rn
n
O
M
Z
r
C?C
('�
r
Lf)
V
r
x
OO
OO
O
OO
['�
N
CO
ap
M
h
if)
V
n
n
W
('
ow
N00n
n
V
00,
0
00
n
O
W
It
N
ON
S
N
OD
Cl)
r'-
m
OD
M
V•
W
M
Z
nM
r7
V
OD
-It
OD
C4
N
O
¢
r
M
M
x
H
OD
M
O
V
CON
O
V
V
M
M
ll)
CD
n
OD
W
CO
rn
M
n
O
O
O,
V'
01
O
(>
CO
OD
N
M
N
CO
N
0)
Cl)
O
0)
1,
O
O
r
W
OD'
q
V'
O
V'
Cfi
Cfi
N'
Op
V'
O
7
O-
CO
CO
N
N
N
�
��
CO
w>
co
a
w
0O
0—
CL
x
�S
O
cnaon0mfZ,0n
COO
OON
O
O
scow
a00
M
�-
J
V
O)
O
V
OO
V
V
M
OO
0
0
a-
N
n
Q
�
ai
N
N
4
Vt
CO
M
NCO
M
o
0
m
Co
vt
is
w
ui
Z F
r
'd
W
Wa
IX
7Q~
U
z
Q
Q
J
Q
W
0'
Z)
2 Z
W2
W
F
e-
W
Q-'
w
2:
W
Q
<
w
0m
ca
¢
UUQ�
W
zl
-INK¢
LL
a
Q
z
(D
J
J
w
J
w
K
O W
O�
O
7
<
J
K
W
a
w z
w
e
W
¢
o
K
W
Z
W
O
W
Z Z
Z
w
z
0
�z
zQazF
–
Q
K¢¢¢O
-iF¢nO¢Uw
pw-
¢
m
m
U
U
�
m
m
Z
O�
Q�
N
R
U
ES -3
K
w
v
H
u
O
w
x
m
w
x
a
d
v
U
O
a
m
d
h
x
p
d
0
Q
u
W
H
e ncy
r,
3
��AJ.1J
C)
N
Lri
N
Q
UQ
UCO
a)
U I-
O
O
a)
E
CIS
L.
LL
OVA
of ACy
O� a
+y {11J
Ai
_N
�X
N
O
Q
.M
W
0
N
ca
d
C
�
co
a)
�
�
L
�
(6
U
>
_0
0
a�
cn
c
a)
cu
E
o�
o
cu
cu
c
06
�
o
o
'�n
>
o
cu
cn
0
O
a�
o
E
•-
.�
i
-O
1--j
C
N
Q'
a)
N
N
c�
,�_
«�
cu
U
a)
C
O
C�
C
N
}'
�
U
U
'cn
't
•0
�
'�
C:
N
O
N
O a)
O
a)
a)
Q L
4-
CL
CL
Cn
E
�a)
I.L
�
0
o
0
E
4-0 U i
co CU O
U!
•>
O co 06
cn
C
= N
• C
r� E -cn
v
0-0
Jc: cu
—
C: cn
0 N
O N
>+y-
O
•CU Cl)
E
L
c '
C
LL C
■
AC
yF i i
i t•
ry G
Y� IlIJ
N
C
O O C
Q
Cy) (D 0) O
C: C L
•N -a
ttf O
co C • Q
Q.2 Ct)
NU O (o
N C 75-
co O C OC U
L E N •�
O U
C-) _�
ON" •> U C
Em0 cu N
1-0 6 O 0 E
to O U
U Co�
U cra 0- w U c
-� O
—
a)
E 4–
(� cu_ U O
co �= Q
C •� O
O N
0 cu -Q N
� 5 -0
> 0 N
.. +� 0) O
}' O C -C
r� N Cl) +r N
V �Lca CC
O to O
06 -W — N
0 •�
O
O .� U O
CO a) N 0
a)
cu
.0) N
•E
U
� N � a) N
U. ■ ■
t� .�+cy
ne .w E i
e
v
U
ca
Q
E
C
O
Q
co
06
.co
N C
�O Q E
C L
.C: ;
Co -1.-0 O
C: cm
o
U-0 a)
_O
0--co O
-L U
O Q
O cn Cl)
U ca O�
■ ■
rtgP.ncy
a4 ,-. s
2 k �i
��A11J
06
E
C:5
.0-0
—
O
O
p
�
N
CO
.p
U
Q
�
�
UO
U
E
—
U
.,
C
cn
C:
CU
(n
O
N
p
;—�
N
U
O
N
�'
p
0.
N
C:
CU
E
�
cu
�
O0.
.0
04.0
�
cn
E
>
(a
°
cn
_
•X
c6
cn
N
cn
cu
O
o-
ca
cn
0�U
E
E
S
0�C
O
O
p
N
UID
U)ccoZ
FpFACy
np s
p
i '
�� lll]
U
CL
U
n
O>
.E
L
co
> �L
0-1..
W
co
W
L
c O
.N
0 U
L
_0
40-
O
N
vj
.1--f
C
E
O
QO
E
E
O
O
o
o
U
>
-0
2t
to
I
n
��','
u
iyl
iw�
it
Q
ftr
Q
V
(l"..
V CO
co
Q
CO
Q
�.ncy
O �,
a
��un
O
G
P ACl�
H
��Al(� L
a
E W
u
(h
ad
Q
z
W
E
E
S
v
N
$-
O
C
L
co
a)
0
•E
E
lo
:3
a)
Q)
C
cn
a)
a)
C
C
N
O
E
>
U
a)
0
N
'V
4-0i
O
-0
L+=
N
a)
a.
-0
-0
.E
■
suol3oasia;ul ;o jagwnN
G
tiA
QR _
y ,r >
m '. z
ro � � �2
°Oain
F
0
0
W
g
V
JA 5 _
�5= E- Ili
I
J
al f
.
_
L+R
laf f s y
1— e� tl
1 f €g ,
f"22g 'z
-1
� M1
e e e a D�S�
JOE a .k
Jill
O
U
O
L
W
C
■
O
C C
Co O
U
Co
N Q CU
E 'w _O
CL tU 4L
O
O O .�_ +�
Q U C
.E 0 '�
.9
s
D'g
1
j5
HARRY S. RINKEA
April 21, 2006
TO: COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
RE: April 25te City Council Hearing
Circulation Element of the General Plan
Of Santa Ana Heights
"IiECEI U F AGENDA
PRI;J7EG:"
I am a resident of 2342 Mesa Drive, having built our home and moved in 39 years ago in
1967. The enclosed photographs graphically illustrate the conditions of the Mesa Drive
properties in the event the two fences are approved to accommodate an additional horse
trail along Mesa Drive. The routing of the existing trail and proposed additional trail is
shown on the enclosed plan entitled "Santa Ana Heights Recreation Plan". The existing
trail (marked green) runs from north to south on Cypress, dead - ending at Mesa Drive then
turns west for a short distance to the Santa Ana Wash and then continues down the Santa
Ana Wash where there are no houses to the Back Bay. The few horse owners in Santa
Ana Heights want to have an alternative trail (marked blue) to turn left on Mesa Drive "to
circulate their ride" to go to the east side of the Back Bay so that they would not have to
retrace their ride back up the Wash, etc.
All of our neighbors on Mesa Drive are most alarmed at the possibility of this horse trail
being installed to the devastation of our landscaping and property. My next -door neighbor
John Crean is most concerned; however, at this time he is in poor health and was not sure
that he would be able to write a letter to your Council. However, he did request that I
express his dissatisfaction along with the others to the trail being approved.
Specifically, it is our request that at this meeting you "delete the proposed equestrian trail
along Mesa Drive from the plans being approved ". While we respect the equestrian
heritage of the community, although it is small, we believe that the EXISTING trail is
sufficient to meet their needs without the impact on our homes and properties of
additional trails.
Thank you for your consideration; I plan to attend your Council meeting to answer any
questions. Mr. Buck Johns, another neighbor who is vitally concerned is in Europe and
may be unable to make the iI Meeting and John Crean will not be at the meeting.
Encls.
POST OFFICE BOX 7260 • NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 82938 -7250
TEL: 714/970 -8300 • FAX: 714/970 -3327
W,7
I lam.
%
Ll
_N
..
t.
441
IL
10
•11
07
LLJ
F_
C3)
0
Q)
-0
LLJ
cu
Q)
C:
0,
0
.-T--
E
'CL
T)
-0
-0
x
Lij
<
4J,
441
IL
4J,
441
10
•11
-
.... ..
-
#
V •� I
i
Y
J_� 1
R�
f
>A'r
�i
�� :�
� __ -t.
i
,' s.. ,.
'' 3� {
±`�.^ =`
*e r ... .. � '
JOAIIRRPORT
Orange County, California
Alan L. Murphy
Airport Director
3160 Airway Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA
92626 -4608
949.252.5171
949.252.5178 fax
www.ocair.com
i-
hP
41�F0R�
"RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA
April 24, 2006
City of Newport Beach
City Council
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Subject: Comment on Draft General Plan Update (Agenda Item 22)
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the City of Newport
Beach General Plan Update. Attached for your consideration are John
Wayne Airport's comments on the Draft Land Use Element, previously
submitted to the City's Planning Commission on April 20, 2006. These
comments include suggestions for revising portions of the Draft Land Use
Element to ensure airport compatibility. It is important that John Wayne
Airport and the City continue to work together to protect the operation of
the airport, as well as protect the public from the adverse affects of airport
noise, by carefully considering compatible land uses within the 65 dB
CNEL aircraft noise contour.
Should you have any questions or require additional information related to
JWA operations, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Alan L. Murphy
Airport Director
cc: James W. Silva, Supervisor, District 2
Airport Land Use Commission
Gregg Ramirez, City of Newport Beach
C'3
z;
o m
zi
rs e�
M
0
rF
4
M
rSrr
N
a) C-)
111
Q"
M
M C')
nrn
=�
— M
N
1 AIRPM MAYM
Orange County, California
Alan L. Murphy
Airport Director
3160 Airway Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA
92626 -4608
949.252.5171
949.252.5178 fax
www.ocair.com
J ;A OAZ
O M
�911P08�¢•
April 20, 2006
City of Newport Beach Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Subject: Comment on Draft General Plan Update — Land Use Element
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the City of Newport
Beach Draft General Plan Update. The County of Orange /John Wayne Airport
(JWA) respectfully requests consideration of the following comments on the Draft
Land Use Element of the General Plan Update to be reviewed at your Planning
Commission meeting scheduled for April 20, 2006. Additional comments on
Draft Elements may follow when the Commission considers these elements at
future meetings.
As stated in prior correspondence, the ability of JWA to ensure the continued safe
operation of the airport and to protect the public from the adverse affects of
airport noise is of primary importance. Therefore, it is important for JWA to
work with surrounding cities, including the City of Newport Beach, to ensure
compatible land uses in the vicinity of the airport. In our review of the Draft
Land Use Element, we have identified several areas where revisions can be made
to ensure compatibility between the airport and City land uses in the area
surrounding JWA. We offer comments on the following specific areas that we
believe need clarification within the Draft Land Use Element:
1) Figure LU23, Airport Area Residential Villages Illustrative Concept
Diagram, shows both the Settlement Agreement 65 dB CNEL contour and
the 1985 Master Plan 65 dB CNEL contour. The Settlement Agreement
contour was not adopted for planning purposes around JWA. The 1985
JWA Master Plan contours should be used in the City's General Plan
Update.
2) The Draft Land Use Element shows planned residential (allowed within
the MU -132 designation) and open space development within the JWA
Master Plan 65 dB CNEL contour (Figures LU22- Airport Area and LU23-
Airport Area Residential Villages Illustrative Concept Diagram). The
County of Orange and JWA oppose new residential development within
this 65 dB CNEL contour and we request that the proposed land use
within the contour be revised to reflect only non - residential uses.
3) The City's General Plan Land Use Element should incorporate language
related to airport compatibility based upon criteria and policies defined in the
Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for JWA, California Public Utilities
Code Section 21670, and the "Height Restriction Zone" and "Obstruction
Imaginary Surfaces" as defined by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77.
4) Table LUl (page 3 -44) and the Land Use Plan Classifications found on page 3-
46 of the Land Use Element should be updated to incorporate building height
restrictions, as specified by the FAA FAR Part 77 regulations, for the land use
categories designated Mixed Use B2 and General Commercial (CG -D) in the
designated Airport Area.
5) Policy LU 5.3.4, Districts Integrating Residential and Nonresidential Uses,
states that Airport Area standards for integrating residential and nonresidential
uses are specified by Policy 6.5.10. However, Policy 6.5. 10 could not be found
within the Land Use Element.
6) On page 3 -96 of the Land Use Element there is a Policy Overview section for
the Airport Area. Within the overview section the document states that "Housing
and mixed -use buildings would be.restricted from areas exposed to noise levels of
65 dBA CNEL and higher." When discussing noise contours related to these land
use restrictions, the 1985 JWA Master Plan 65 dB CNEL contour as referenced in
the JWA AELUP should be specified. We also suggest stating in this section that
development within the Airport Area must be in compliance with FAA, Caltrans
Division of Aeronautics and ALUC policies and procedures in addition to any
City requirements. Reference to these policies, procedures and regulations should
also be included within the LU 6.15 Goals on pages 3 -97 through 3 -107 where
applicable to Airport Area development.
7) Within the Implementation Program (Imp) of the General Plan (Chapter 13)
under Uses and Density Policy (c) of Imp 2.1 (page 13 -7), when discussing
development standards for the Airport Area and amending the Zoning Code for
Consistency with the approved General Plan, we suggest that both documents
address building height restrictions and the need for ALUC, Caltrans Division of
Aeronautics and FAA review of projects in this area.
8) Building height restrictions as specified in FAA FAR Part 77 should be
included in the Implementation Program of the General Plan, for land uses within
the Airport Area. Specifically, on page 13 -11 within Imp 3.1, Preparation of New
Specific Plans, and within Implementation Plan 4.1, New "Planned Community"
Plans.
More specific policies are recommended as follows for the City to consider incorporating
into the Land Use Element:
Height Limitations: Include General Plan policies addressing height limitations
on all John Wayne Airport Area development to limit the height of any permanent
or temporary structure, to a height under 203.68 feet Above Mean Sea Level
( "AMSL "), reference National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29),
consistent with current Orange County Surveyor Adjustment Datum and under the
imaginary surfaces as defined by FAA FAR Part 77.
Obstruction Lighting and Marking: Include policies addressing lighting and
marking on all John Wayne Airport residential development to comply with the
conditions and recommendations by the Federal Aviation Administration ( "FAA ")
with respect to obstruction lighting and/or marking consistent with the criteria
provided in FAA Advisory Circulars 70/7460 -1 and 70/7460 =1K.
Disclosure of JWA Proximity: Include policy for occupancy disclosure to be
provided in future sales literature and sales /rental/lease agreements for the
residential developments stating that the property is located in the vicinity of
JWA.
Deed Disclosure Notice: Include policy for deed disclosure notification on all
John Wayne Airport Area residential development units that require a "Deed
Disclosure Notice" of the avigation easement. This disclosure notice must be
submitted to the City and signed as a part of each sales/rental/lease agreement.
Signage: Include policy for signage on all "John Wayne Airport Area" parks and
recreational development that requires every local park, recreational area, and
private recreational facility to place appropriate signage indicating the presence of
operating aircraft.
Thank you for considering these comments and requested revisions to the Draft Land Use
Element prior to action by your City Council. Should you require additional information
please contact Kari Rigoni at 949.252.5284 or via email at krigonikocair.com.
Sincerely,
Alan L. Murphy
Airport Director
cc: Airport band Use Commission
Greg Ramirez, City of Newport Beach
9
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
ORANGE COUNTY
FOR ORANGE COUNTY
3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 - 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.6012
April 24, 2006
City of Newport Beach
City Council
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
"RECEI D AFTER A ENDA
PrV'fv' ED:" p
Subject: Comment on Draft General Plan Update — Land Use Element
M
-[ c-1
Q�
'+1 n
z"
�m
CD C->
rn C->
Dm
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
The Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) offers the following
comments on the City of Newport Beach Draft General Plan Update for your
consideration. Our current comments focus primarily on the Draft General Plan Land
Use Element that is agendized for your April 25, 2006 City Council meeting.
As noted in prior comments to the City, Figure LU23 Airport Residential Village
Illustrative Concept Diagram shows both the Settlement Agreement 65 dB CNEI
and the 1985 JWA Master Plan 65 dB CNEL contour. The Settlement Agreemer
contour was not adopted for planning purposes around JWA, nor included in the
AEL UP. In order to be consistent with the AEL UP for JWA, the General Plan sh
reference the JWA Master Plan 65 dB CNEL contour contained in this AEL UP.
The Draft L�
designation)
CNEL comr:
and
-o
A
IV
contour
A
MU -B2
5 dB
al Villages
Illustrative Concept Diagram) We request that the proposed land uses within the contour
be revised to reflect only non-residential uses.
Table LU 1: Land Use Plan Classifications found on page 3 -46 of the Land Use Element
should be updated to incorporate building height restrictions, as specified by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, for the land
use category Mixed Use B2. The majority of the Airport Area is within this Mixed Use
B2 designation.
The Airport Area also contains General Commercial (CG -D) land use designations. We
recommend that Table LU 1 on page 3 -44 of the Land Use Element be updated to
incorporate building height restrictions, as specified by FAA FAR Part 77, for
development in this area.
City of Newport Beach
April 24, 2006
Page 2
Policy LU 5.3.4: Districts Integrating Residential and Nonresidential Uses, states that
Airport Area standards for integrating residential and nonresidential uses are specified by
Policy 6.5.10. However, Policy 6.5. 10 could not be found within the Land Use Element.
On page 3 -96 of the Land Use Element there is a Policy Overview section for the Airport
Area. Within the overview section the document states that "Housing and mixed -use
buildings would be restricted from areas exposed to noise levels of 65 dBA CNEL and
higher." When discussing noise contours, specify the CNEL contour referenced in the
AEL UP for JWA. We also suggest stating in this section that development within the
Airport Area must be in compliance with Federal Aviation Administration, Caltrans
Division of Aeronautics and ALUC policies and procedures in addition to any City
requirements. Reference to these policies, procedures and regulations should also be
included within the LU 6.15 Goals on pages 3 -97 through 3 -107 where applicable to
Airport Area development.
Within the Implementation Program (Imp) of the General Plan (Chapter 13) under Uses
and Density Policy (c) of Imp 2.1 on page 13 -7, when discussing development standards
for the Airport Area and amending the Zoning Code for consistency with the approved
General. Plan, we suggest that both documents address height restrictions and the need for
ALUC, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and FAA to review projects in this area..
Throughout the Implementation Program of the General Plan, we recommend referencing
building height restrictions as specified in the FAA FAR Part 77, for the Airport Area.
The Airport Area, discussions on page 13 -11 within. Imp 3. 1, Preparation of New Specific
Plans, and within Implementation Plan 4.1, New "Planned Community" Plans, should
contain such references.
Thank you for considering these comments on the Draft General Plan Update Land Use
Element. We request that these changes be included in your future revisions to the Draft
General Plan Update prior to your approval of the document. Should you require
additional information please contact me at 949.252.5170 or via email at krigoni@
ocair.com.
Sincerely,
e goni t
CJ'
Executive Officer
cc: Airport Land Use Commissioners
Alan L. Murphy, Director, JWA
Gregg Ramirez, City of Newport Beach
v a
AIRPORTS
Orange County, California
Alan L. Murphy
Airport Director
3160 Airway Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA
92626 -4608
949.252.5171
949.2525178 fax
www.ocair.com
.
Q9ec
"RE EIVED AFTE AGENDA
LUC:,
'LANNINC Dtt NU&f I' MEN
CITY OF vElNPORT BEACH
April 20, 2006
AM APR 2 0 2006 PIS
City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 718191I0111 112IlI2I;?I4I5IE
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Subject: Comment on Draft General Plan Update — Land Use Element
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the City of Newport
Beach Draft General Plan Update. The County of Orange /John Wayne Airport
(JWA) respectfully requests consideration of the following comments on the Draft
Land Use Element of the General Plan Update to be reviewed at your Planning
Commission meeting scheduled for April 20, 2006. Additional comments on
Draft Elements may follow when the Commission considers these elements at
future meetings.
As stated in prior correspondence, the ability of JWA to ensure the continued safe
operation of the airport and to protect the public from the adverse affects of
airport noise is of primary importance. Therefore, it is important for JWA to
work with surrounding cities, including the City of Newport Beach, to ensure
compatible land uses in the vicinity of the airport. In our review of the Draft
Land Use Element, we have identified several areas where revisions can be made
to ensure compatibility between the airport and City land uses in the area
surrounding JWA. We offer comments on the following specific areas that we
believe need clarification within the Draft Land Use Element:
1) Figure LU23, Airport Area Residential Villages Illustrative Concept
Diagram, shows both the Settlement Agreement 65 dB CNEL contour and
the 1985 Master Plan 65 dB CNEL contour. The Settlement Agreement
contour was not adopted for planning purposes around JWA. The 1985
JWA Master Plan contours should be used in the City's General Plan
Update.
2) The Draft Land Use Element shows planned residential (allowed within
the MU -B2 designation) and open space development within the JWA
Master Plan 65 dB CNEL contour (Figures LU22- Airport Area and LU23-
Airport Area Residential Villages Illustrative Concept Diagram). The
County of Orange and JWA oppose new residential development within
this 65 dB CNEL contour and we request that the proposed land use
within the contour be revised to reflect only non - residential uses.
3) The City's General Plan Land Use Element should incorporate language
related to airport compatibility based upon criteria and policies defined in ti
Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AEL UP) for JWA, California Public Utilii
Code Section 21670, and the "Height Restriction Zone" and "Obstruction
Imaginary Surfaces" as defined by the Federal Aviation Administration (FA
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77.
4) Table LUl (page 3 -44) and the Land Use Plan Classifications found on page 3-
46 of the Land Use Element should be updated to incorporate building height
restrictions, as specified by the FAA FAR Part 77 regulations, for the land use
categories designated Mixed Use 132 and General Commercial (CG -D) in the
designated Airport Area.
5) Policy LU 5.3.4, Districts Integrating Residential and Nonresidential Uses,
states that Airport Area standards for integrating residential and nonresidential
uses are specified by Policy 6.5.10. However, Policy 6.5.10 could not be found
within the Land Use Element.
6) On page 3 -96 of the Land Use Element there is a Policy Overview section for
the Airport Area. Within the overview section the document states that "Housing
and mixed -use buildings would be, restricted from areas exposed to noise levels of
65 dBA CNEL and higher." When discussing noise contours related to these land
use restrictions, the 1985 JWA Master Plan 65 dB CNEL contour as referenced in
the JWA AELUP should be specified. We also suggest stating in this section that
development within the Airport Area must be in compliance with FAA, Caltrans
Division of Aeronautics and ALUC policies and procedures in addition to any
City requirements. Reference to these policies, procedures and regulations should
also be included within the LU 6.15 Goals on pages 3 -97 through 3 -107 where
applicable to Airport Area development.
7) Within the Implementation Program (Imp) of the General Plan (Chapter 13)
under Uses and Density Policy (c) of Imp 2.1 (page 13 -7), when discussing
development standards for the Airport Area and amending the Zoning Code for
Consistency with the approved General Plan, we suggest that both documents
address building height restrictions and the need for ALUC, Caltrans Division of
Aeronautics and FAA review of projects in this area.
8) Building height restrictions as specified in FAA FAR Part 77 should be
included in the Implementation Program of the General Plan, for land uses within
the Airport Area. Specifically, on page 13 -11 within Imp 3.1, Preparation of New
Specific Plans, and within Implementation Plan 4. 1, New "Planned Community"
Plans.
More specific policies are recommended as follows for the City to consider incorporating
into the band Use Element:
2
Height Limitations: Include General Plan policies addressing height limitations
on all John Wayne Airport Area development to limit the height of any permanent
or temporary structure, to a height under 203.68 feet Above Mean Sea Level
( "AMSL "), reference National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29),
consistent with current Orange County Surveyor Adjustment Datum and under the
imaginary surfaces as defined by FAA FAR Part 77.
Obstruction Lighting and Marking: Include policies addressing lighting and
marking on all John Wayne Airport residential development to comply with the
conditions and recommendations by the Federal Aviation Administration ( "FAA ")
with respect to obstruction lighting and/or marking consistent with the criteria
provided in FAA Advisory Circulars 70/7460 -1 and 70/7460 -IK.
Disclosure of JWA Proximity: Include policy for occupancy disclosure to be
provided in future sales literature and sales /rental/lease agreements for the
residential developments stating that the property is located in the vicinity of
JWA.
Deed Disclosure Notice: Include policy for deed disclosure notification on all
John Wayne Airport Area residential development units that require a "Deed
Disclosure Notice" of the avigation easement. This disclosure, notice must be
submitted to the City and signed as a part of each sales /rental/lease agreement.
Signage: Include policy for signage on all "John Wayne Airport Area" parks and
recreational development that requires every local park, recreational area, and
private recreational facility to place appropriate signagc indicating the presence of
operating aircraft.
Thank you for considering these comments and requested revisions to the Draft Land Use
Element prior to action by your City Council. Should you require additional information
please contact Kari Rigoni at 949.252.5284 or via email at krigoninn.ocair.com.
Sincerely,
Alan L. Murphy
Airport Director
cc: Airport Land Use Commission
Greg Ramirez, City of Newport Beach
3
GRANGE COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
FOR ORANGE COUNTY
3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 - 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.6012
rrtc i,t t:u �,
April 20, 2006 1 LA[VNlhl`x 1'.. f ?Fi dUiFdU
CITY OF N!PAIP+ -1Ff BEACH
City of Newport Beach Planning Commission APR 2 0 2006 AM PM
of Newport Beach 7 $ lO l 1 12 G P;(i
3300 Newport Boulevard (� l{ l l 3 1 9 t,
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Subject: Comment on Draft General Plan Update — Land Use Element
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
The Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) offers the following
comments on the City of Newport Beach Draft General Plan Update for your
consideration. Our comments focus primarily on the Draft General Plan Land Use
Element that is agendized for the April 20, 2006 Planning Commission hearing.
Additional comments on other Elements will follow based upon your hearingschedule
for these Elements._
Figure LU23 Airport Residential Villages Illustrative Concept Diagram, shows both the
Settlement Agreement 65 dB CNEL contour 'and the 1985 Master Plan 65 dB CNEL
contour. The Settlement Agreement contour 'Vas not adopted for planning purposes
around JWA, nor included in the JWA AELUP. To remain consistent with the AEL UP for
JWA, the 1985 JWA Master Plan contours should be used in the General Plan;Update.
The Draft Land Use Element shows planned residential (allowed'withtn the'MU -B2
designation) and open space development within the JWA Master Plan 65 ,dB CNEL
contour (Figures LU22- Airport Area and LU23- Airport Area Residential Villages
Illustrative Concept` Diagram). We request that the proposed land uses within the contour
be revised to reflect only non - residential uses.
Table LU1: Land Use Plan Classifications found on page 3 -46 of the Land Use Element
should be updated to incorporate building height restrictions, as specified by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) Part 77 regulations, for the land use category Mixed Use
B2. The majority of the Airport Area is within this Mixed Use B2 designation.
The Airport Area also contains General Commercial (CG -D) land use designations. We
recommend that Table LU 1 on page 3 -44 of the Land Use Element be updated to
incorporate building height restrictions, as specified by FAA Part 77 regulations, for
development in this area.
Policy LU 5.3.4: Districts Integrating Residential and Nonresidential Uses, states that
Airport Area standards for integrating residential and nonresidential uses are specified by
Policy 6.5.10. However, Policy 6.5.10 could not be found within the Land Use Element.
On page 3 -96 of the Land Use Element there is a Policy Overview section for the Airport
Area. Within the overview section the document states that "Housing and mixed -use
buildings would be restricted from areas exposed to noise levels of 65 dBA CNEL and
higher." When discussing noise contours, specify the 1985 JWA Master Plan 65 dB
CNEL contour referenced in the JWA AEL UP. We also suggest stating in this section
that development within the Airport Area must be in compliance with Federal Aviation
Administration, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and ALUC policies and procedures in
addition to any City requirements. Reference to these policies, procedures and
regulations should also be included within the LU 6.15 Goals on pages 3 -97 through 3-
107 where applicable to Airport Area development.
Within the Implementation Program (Imp) of the General Plan (Chapter 13) under Uses
and Density policy (c) of Imp 2.1 on page 13 -7, when discussing development standards
for the Airport Area and amending the Zoning Code for Consistency with the approved
General Plan, we suggest that both documents address height restrictions and the need for
the ALUC, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and the FAA to review projects in this area.
Throughout the Implementation Program of the General Plan, we recommend referencing
building height restrictions as specified in the FAA Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR)
Part 77, for the Airport Area. The Airport Area discussions on page 13 -11 within Imp
3.1: Preparation of New Specific Plans and within Implementation Plan 4.1: New
"Planned Community" Plans should contain such references.
Thank you for considering these comments on the Draft General Plan Update. We
request that these changes be included in your Draft General Plan Update prior to action
by your City Council. Should you require additional information please contact me at
949.252.5170 or via email at krigoni@ ocair.com.
Sincerely,
g:e6
Kari A. Rigoni d
Executive Officer
cc: Airport Land Use Commissioners
Alan L. Murphy, Director, JWA
Greg Ramirez, City of Newport Beach