HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 - General Plan UpdateCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 12
July 11, 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
APPLICANT NAME: City of Newport Beach
Receive public comments on all elements of the Draft General Plan, provide direction to
staff on revisions, and continue the public hearing to July 25, 2006.
DISCUSSION:
Airport Area Policies
At the public hearing on June 22, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed and
received public testimony on policies for residential development in the Airport Area.
The Commission directed staff to prepare revised policies for the Commission's
consideration at their hearing of July 6, 2006, and the City Council concurred with this
direction at their hearing of June 27, 2006. There were three unresolved issues:
1. The ability to include land with a different land use designation in the 5 -acre
minimum for the first phase of residential development in a village, if that land is
used for parking for the residential development.
2. The requirements for joint planning for residential development in the area where
infill residential development is allowed.
3. The number and size of residential villages.
The Planning Commission reviewed policy revisions to address these issues on July 6,
2006. The Commission also recommended revisions to clarify policies regarding site
planning and architecture in the Campus Tract and regarding neighborhood park
dimensions. Their recommendations are included in the revisions to the Airport Area
General Plan Update
July 11,2006
Page 2
policies attached to this report. The strikeout/ underline shows all changes from the
published draft of the General Plan. The newest revisions are summarized below.
■ Policy 6.15.2
Residential restriction in 65 CNEL contour, per Planning Commission direction
■ Policy 6.15.5
Changes to AO land use category, per City Council direction
■ Policy 6.15.8
Clarification of requirements for Campus Tract
■ Policy 6.15.10
Reference to Conceptual Development Plan Area
■ Policy 6.15.11
Deletion of maximum number of residential villages; addition of 10 -acre minimum
village size
Clarification that residential development (except 550 infill units) must replace
existing non - residential permitted uses
Inclusion of contiguous property in 5 -acre first phase minimum
Exemption from 5 -acre minimum for Conceptual Development Plan Area
■ Policy 15.12
Language correction
■ Policy 6.15.16
Conceptual Development Plan requirements
■ Policy 6.15.17 (new number)
Separate policy for Development Agreement requirements
■ Policy 6.15.18 (new number)
Correction to Park Dedication requirements
Clarification of required neighborhood park dimensions
■ Remainder of policies re- numbered
Staff has met with the interested property owners and conferred with our consultants at
both EIP Associates and ROMA Design Group on these policy revisions. It is our
General Plan Update
July 11, 2006
Page 3
collective opinion that the basic objectives of the original framework for residential
development in the Airport Area would still be realized with the proposed policy
revisions. The Planning Commission agreed with staff, and recommended the policy
revisions, with some minor language changes.
The number of residential villages was originally called out in the framework for
residential villages because the villages were natural collections of the original
opportunity sites. With the changes to eliminate land within the 65 CNEL contour from
the mixed use designation, reduce the number of dwelling units allowed, and allow 550
units as infill development, the boundaries of the villages (which never were clearly
defined nor intended to be regulatory) have become less clear. The size of each
residential village, and the first phase of development within a village, remains
important. Minimum sizes for each are provided in the revised policies.
There are two exceptions to the minimum of 5 acres for the first phase of residential
development. The first is to allow a portion of a contiguous non - residential property to
count towards the 5 acres, if it is used to provide parking, open space or other amenity
for the residential development. The policy is written so that this inclusion is not
automatically allowed, but requires the City to find that the parking or other amenities
are functionally proximate to the residential development and that a sufficient portion of
the contiguous property is used for these purposes. World Premier Investments, the
property owner most interested in this exception, requested that the policy be revised
further to allow all of a contiguous site to count in the 5 -acre minimum. The Planning
Commission did not recommend this change because it would have the effect of
changing the land use designation of the
amendment to the General Plan, and beca
for a first phase of residential development.
contiguous property without an appropriate
use it would weaken the 5 -acre requirement
The second exception from the 5 -acre requirement is for the area in which infill
residential development may occur (Jamboree /MacArthur /Birch triangle). A single
conceptual development plan is required for that area to demonstrate how the planning
objectives for residential development in the Airport Area can be achieved. Although
the proposed policy requires a single conceptual development plan as an intermediate
level of planning between the General Plan and the regulatory plan, the policy allows
the individual property owners to develop regulatory plans for villages within the larger
area more independently — but still meeting the requirement of a minimum of 10 acres
for a residential village. In addition, the regulatory plans would need to be consistent
with the conceptual development plan.
In discussion at the Planning Commission hearing of June 22, 2006, there was not a
clear understanding of the required dimensions for neighborhood parks in the Airport
Area residential villages. The policy was written to require "a minimum dimension of
150 feet," and it was unclear whether this dimension applies to one or both dimensions
of the parks. At the hearing of July 6, 2006, the Commission discussed the urban
General Plan Update
July 11, 2006
Page 4
nature of the residential development anticipated in the Airport Area, the
appropriateness of uniform, rectangular parks in this setting, and the objective of
providing parks that are large enough to throw or kick a ball, but not to provide formal or
regulation size sports fields. The Commission recommended deleting the specific
dimension requirement of 150 feet, and substituting the requirement that the parks
"...be of a size and dimension to accommodate informal playfields."
Lido Isle
A change in the land use policy for Lido Isle was considered by the City Council on June
13, 2006. The discussion in that report indicated that, after meeting with the board of
the Lido Isle Community Association, a policy that would reduce the potential growth on
Lido Isle would be acceptable so long as property owners with multiple whole lots could
revert to the underlying subdivision. At that time, it was estimated that 75 -125
residential units of growth could be eliminated. Staff has conducted additional analysis
on the actual growth reduction that would result from such a policy, and found that the
reduction potential is less than the original estimate. The reduction is closer to 50 units.
Because of the limited benefit of this reduction to the traffic growth projected in the City,
because the City's only direct communication with property owners on Lido Isle has
been with the Board of Directors of the Lido Isle Community Association, and because
the City Council has decided to retain existing residential development potential in West
Newport, Balboa Peninsula and Balboa Island, staff now recommends that no changes
to the land use policies for Lido Isle be included in this General Plan Update.
All General Plan Elements
The subject of this public hearing is not limited to any specific elements of the General
Plan, and the City Council should receive public testimony on all General Plan
elements. If the Council wishes, they should also direct staff to make final revisions to
any elements of the General Plan. Attachment 2 to this report is the text of the General
Plan, showing all revisions through June 27, 2006 in stikeo tlunderline. A final draft,
incorporating maps and revisions through the City Council hearing of July 11, 2006 (and
possibly the Planning Commission hearing of July 13, 2006) will be provided for the
hearing of July 25, 2006. Resolutions for City Council action will also be presented at
the hearing on July 25.
In addition to revisions directed by the Planning Commission and City Council during
their public hearings on the General Plan, the attached July draft includes additional
revisions that staff and the consultant have made. These revisions are in response to
comments on the Draft EIR, and comments on the draft General Plan from the Airport
Land Use Commission (ALUC), the public and property owners. Revisions also correct
errors in the draft plan, and reflect the current agreement between the City and County
of Orange regarding sphere issues. Finally, policy revisions have been made as staff
and the consultants have had additional time to consider the clarity, applicability,
General Plan Update
July 11, 2006
Page 5
practicality of policies, as well as new ideas for the General Plan to protect the quality of
life in Newport Beach. The most significant of these revisions are summarized below.
LU 3.8 ALUC review of land use regulations and projects
LU 5.1.9 Airport Area and Newport Center multi - family residential architectural
quality to be regulated by policies specific to those subareas
LU 5.2.2 Buffering residential areas (EIR comment)
LU 5.3.4 Minimum sizes for uses in mixed use areas impractical for existing small
lots (e.g., Cannery Village)
LU 5.3.5 Airport Area and Newport Center mixed use architecture to be regulated
by policies specific to those subareas
LU 5.5 New goal and policies regarding industrial use category
LU 5.6.5 ALUC requirements for heliports and helistops
LU 6.2.7 New language to pursue legislation regarding over - concentration of
recovery homes or sober living homes
LU 6.4.1 Ability of Banning Ranch owner to pursue development permits during
time for open space acquisition
LU 6.5.2 Size of community park consistent with Recreation Element
LU 6.5.4, 6.5.5 Additional lighting provisions for Banning Ranch (EIR comment)
LU 6.14.3 Transfer of development rights policy for Newport Center from existing
General Plan
LU 6.14.7 Additional Fashion Island streetscape language
HB 8.7, NR 3.7 Additional language regarding water quality enforcement for
upstream dischargers
Housing Element Revisions to introduction/background for clarity
H 3.2 Housing not allowed in JWA 65 CNEL (ALUC)
Recreation Element Corrections re: Newport Coast parks
R 1.12 Notification of aircraft overflight and noise (ALUC)
General Plan Update
July 11, 2006
Page 6
CA 1.4, 2.2 Added reference to Orange County Museum of Art, Newport Theatre Arts
Center and Balboa Theater
CA 2.3 New policy regarding library facilities
NR 8 Consolidation of construction emission policies
NR 9 Corrections to JWA air quality policies
NR 10.3 Deleted; duplicates NR 10.5 (new number)
NR 10.10 Biology study required for Banning Ranch development (EIR comment)
NR 11 Updates for consistency with sphere issues agreement with Orange
County
NR 16.2 New policy to coordinate Big Canyon Creek Restoration Project
NR 19 Corrections to mineral resources policies for consistency with City Charter
Figure S5 New figure showing JWA clear zone /runway protection zones and
accident potential zones (ALUC)
S4.7 New policy regarding seismic studies for new development (EIR comment)
S8.6 New policy regarding JWA clear zone /runway protection zones and
accident potential zones (ALUC)
Noise Element Corrections to introduction and Table N2
N 1.2 Correction regarding development requirements to attenuate noise
In addition to revisions directed by the Planning Commission and City Council during
their public hearings on the General Plan, the attached July draft includes additional
revisions that staff and the consultant have made. These revisions are in response to
comments on the Draft EIR, and comments on the draft General Plan from the Airport
Land Use Commission (ALUC), the public and property owners. Revisions also correct
errors in the draft plan, and reflect the current agreement between the City and County
of Orange regarding sphere issues. Finally, policy revisions have been made as staff
and the consultants have had additional time to consider the clarity, applicability,
practicality of policies, as well as new ideas for the General Plan to protect the quality of
life in Newport Beach. The most significant of these revisions are summarized below.
LU 3.8 ALUC review of land use regulations and projects
General Plan Update
July 11, 2006
Page 7
LU 5.1.9 Airport Area and Newport Center multi - family residential architectural
quality to be regulated by policies specific to those subareas
LU 5.2.2 Buffering residential areas (EIR comment)
LU 5.3.4 Minimum sizes for uses in mixed use areas impractical for existing small
lots (e.g., Cannery Village)
LU 5.3.5 Airport Area and Newport Center mixed use architecture to be regulated
by policies specific to those subareas
LU 5.5 New goal and policies regarding industrial use category
LU 5.6.5 ALUC requirements for heliports and helistops
LU 6.2.7 New language to pursue legislation regarding over - concentration of
recovery homes or sober living homes
LU 6.4.1 Ability of Banning Ranch owner to pursue development permits during
time for open space acquisition
LU 6.5.2 Size of community park consistent with Recreation Element
LU 6.5.4, 6.5.5 Additional lighting provisions for Banning Ranch (EIR comment)
LU 6.14.3 Transfer of development rights policy for Newport Center from existing
General Plan
LU 6.14.7 Additional Fashion Island streetscape language
HB 8.7, NR 3.7 Additional language regarding water quality enforcement for
upstream dischargers
Housing Element Revisions to introduction /background for clarity
H 3.2 Housing not allowed in JWA 65 CNEL (ALUC)
Recreation Element Corrections re: Newport Coast parks
R 1.12 Notification of aircraft overflight and noise (ALUC)
CA 1.4, 2.2 Added reference to Orange County Museum of Art, Newport Theatre Arts
Center and Balboa Theater
General Plan Update
July 11, 2006
Page 8
CA 2.3 New policy regarding library facilities
NR 8 Consolidation of construction emission policies
NR 9 Corrections to JWA air quality policies
NR 10.3 Deleted; duplicates NR 10.5 (new number)
NR 10.10 Biology study required for Banning Ranch development (EIR comment)
NR 11 Updates for consistency with sphere issues agreement with Orange
County
NR 16.2 New policy to coordinate Big Canyon Creek Restoration Project
NR 19 Corrections to mineral resources policies for consistency with City Charter
Figure S5 New figure showing JWA clear zone /runway protection zones and
accident potential zones (ALUC)
S4.7 New policy regarding seismic studies for new development (EIR comment)
S8.6 New policy regarding JWA clear zone /runway protection zones and
accident potential zones (ALUC)
Noise Element Corrections to introduction and Table N2
N 1.2 Correction regarding development requirements to attenuate noise
N 3 Revisions and additions regarding development within JWA 65 CNEL
(ALUC)
N 3 Revisions and additions regarding development within JWA 65 CNEL
(ALUC)
Environmental Review:
The Draft EIR for the proposed General Plan was released for public review on April 24,
2006, and the public review period closed on June 13. Responses to comments
received on the Draft EIR will be considered by the Planning Commission on July 13
and July 20, and by the City Council on July 25, 2006.
General Plan Update
July 11, 2006
Page 9
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 July 1, 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. Revised Airport Area Policies
2. Revised General Plan text
ATTACHMENT 1
Airport Area
LU 6.15
A mined -use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity,
with pedestrian - oriented amenities that facilitates walking and enhance livability.
URBAN FORM AND STRUCTURE (refer to Figure LU22)
LU 6.15.1 Land Use Districts and Neighborhoods
Provide for the development of distinct business park, commercial, and airport -
serving districts and residential neighborhoods that ate integrated to assure a
quality environment and compatible land uses. (Imp 1.1, 2.1)
LU 6.15.2 Airport Compatibility
Require that all development be constructed in conformance with the heivht
restrictions set forth by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Federal
Aviation Regulations (FAR, Part 77, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and that
residential development be located outside of areas exposed to the 65 dBA.
CNEL noise contour specified by the AiMort Environs Land Use Plan
(AELUP) for John Wa }me Airport, dated December 19. 2002. amp 2.1 3.1, 4. 1,
12.1, 12.2, 19.31
R" °0^ k-Mixed Use Dlsfficts (Subarea C, "MU -B2 H2" designation)
LAND USES
LU 6.15.23 Priority Uses
Accommodate office, research and development, and similar uses that support
the primary office and business park functions such as retail and financial
services as prescribed for the "CO -G" designation, while allowing for the re -use
of properties for the development of cohesive residential villages that are
integrated with business park uses. (Imp 2.1, 12.1)
LU 6.15.34 Underperforming Land Uses
Promote the redevelopment of sites with underperforming retail uses located on
parcels at the interior of large blocks for other uses, with retail clustered along
major arterials (e.g., Bristol, Campus, MacArthur, and Jamboree), except where
intended to serve and be integrated with new residential development. (Imp 2.1,
34.6)
Error! No text of specified style in document.
Campus Tract (Subarea B, "141148 AO" designation)
LAND USES
LU 6.15.45 Primary Uses
Accommodate professional office;; ' aviadon retails automobile rental
sales; and service, subject to discretionary review by the Planning Commission;
hotels;; and ancillary retail, restaurant, and service uses that are
related to and support the functions of John Wayne Airport, as permitted by the
"G6 -E✓_AC_Y" designation, vAtile &Uevoiftg for the redevelopment of pixopetties
(Imp 2.1, 12.1)
STRATEGY
LU 6.15.56 Economic Viability
Provide incentives for lot consolidation and the re -use and improvement of
properties located in the "Campus tract," west of Birch Street. (Imp 2.1, 34.6)
LU 6.15.67 Automobile--Rental and Supporting Uses
Work with automobile rental and supporting uses to promote the consolidation
and visual improvement of auto storage, service, and storage facilities. (Imp
12.1, 34.6)
LU 6.15.78 Site Planning and Architecture
Encourage and, when property inptovements are subject to °_'_--°'__—°e
discretionary review require property owners within the Campus Tract to
upgrade the a appearancestreet- frentages of their properties with expanded and
well maintained landscapinge, well- designed signage, ands other appropriate
amenities that improve the area's visual quality. (Imp 12.1)
Commercial Nodes (Subarea A, "CG -C^ designation)
LU 6.15.89 Priority Uses
Encourage the development of retail, financial services, dining, hotel, and other
uses that support the John Wayne Airport, the Airport Area's office uses, and,
as developed, its residential neighborhoods, as well as automobile sales and
supporting uses at the MacArthur Boulevard and Bristol Street node. (Imp 2.1,
12.1, 34.6)
Newport Beach General Plan
Errorl No text of specified style in document.
Residential Villages (Subarea C and Subarea B, "MU -BS H2" designation)
LAND USES
LU 6.15410 Residential and Supporting Uses
Accommodate the development of a maximum of 2,200 muld - family residential
units, including work force housing, and mixed -use buildings that integrate
residential with ground level office or retail uses, in areas and-along-with
supporting retail, grocery stores, and parklands. This may -eeexrResidendal units
may be developed only in*s —tlze replacement of undadving permitted non-
residential uses When a development phase includes a mix of residential and
non - residential uses, the number of tips generated bby cumulative development
of the site shall not exceed the number of trips that would result from
development of the underlying permitted non - residential uses. exist
bail Erw, withHowever_ a maximum of 550 units of asLg be developed as
infill on surface parking lots on properties within the Conceptual
Developmentmptdumeive Plan Area depicted on Figw e LU 22 [note: figure to
be revised for land use designations and Comp Plan boundarvl, provided
that the parking is replaced in n- site. k%eft a develonment
aces (Imp 2.1, 12.1, 12.2)
MINIMUM SIZE AND DENSITY
LU 6.15.191 Number and Size of Residential Villages (refer to Figure LU23)
Allow development of mixed use residential villages,
each containing a minimum of 10 acres and centered on a neighborhood park
and other amenities (as conceptually illustrated in Figure LU23). The first phase
of residential development in each vifte neighberkeed -shall encompass at least
+G L5 gross acres of land, exclusive of existing rights -of -way. Theis 10 acres
acreage may include multiple parcels provided that they are contiguous or face
one another across an existing street. This acreage may also include part of a
cont4mous property in a different land use category, if the Cite finds that a
sufficient portion of the contiguous property is used to provide functionally
proximate parking, on_ en space or other amewty for the residential development.
mixed use neighbor-hood and aehieves the objee-tives fer the t At! e--- The
"Conceptual Developmenttmprehensive Plan' —' $Area shown on Figure LU22
development plan described in Policy LU 6.15.16 shall be muired.(Imp 2.1, 3.1,
4.1, 12.1, 12.2)
Newport Beach General Plan on
Error! No text of specified style in document.
1.0 6 15 12 Overall Density and Housing Types
Require that residential units be developed at a minimum density of 30 units and
maximum of 50 units per net acre averaged over the total area of each
4e1,E.4Fip phaseresideutial village. Net acreage shall be exclusive of existing
from townhomes to high -rises to accommodate a variety of household types
and incomes and to promote a diversity of building masses and scales
LU 6.15.4413first Phase Development Density
Requite a presidential density of 45 to 50 units per net acre, averaged
over the first phase for each residential village. This shall be applied to 100% of
properties in the first phase development area whether developed exclusively for
residential or integrating service commercial horizontally on the site or vertically
within a mixed use building. On individual sites, housing development mad
exceed or be below this density to encourage a mix of housing types Tprovided
that the average density for the area encompassed by the first phase is achieved
Net ftereage shall be efelasive of ey4sting and new tights of way, public
(Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 12.1, 12.2)
LU 6.15.-1214Subsequent Phase Development Location and Density
Subsequent phases of residential development shall abut the first phases or shall
face the first phases across a street. The minimum density of residential
development (including residential mixed -use development) shall be 30 units per
net acre and shall not exceed the maximum of 50 units per net acre .Sdet- acreage
shall be exelesive of existing and -new tights of way, peblie pedesbian w*yis, an
neighborhood parks. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 12.1, 12.2)
271wN
STRATEGY AND PROCESS
LU 6.15.145 Regulatory Plans
Require the development of a regulatory plan for each residential village, which
shall contain a minimum of 10 acres to coordinate the location of new parks,
streets, and pedestrian ways, set forth a strategy to accommodate neighborhood-
serving commercial uses and other amenities, establish pedestrian and vehicular
Newport Beach General Plan
Error! No text of specified style in document.
connections with adjoining land uses, and assure compatibility with office,
industrial, and other nonresidential uses. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 15.1)
LU 6.15.16 Conceptual Development Plan Area
compatibility and cohesive integration of new housing, parking structures open
spaces and recreational amenities pedestrian and vehicular linkages and other
improvements with existing non - residential structures and uses. To the extent
existing amenities are proposed to satisfy Neighborhood Park requirements the
plan shall identify how these amenities will meet the recreational needs of
residents — iri- adclitietrte Each residential village in the Conceptual Development
Plan Area shall also comply with all the elements required for all - regulatory
plans defined by Policy 6.15.15.
LU 6.15.17 Devel6pmentAgreements
A Development Agreement shall be required for residential and mixea -•-
dtnT epment all projects ° ithi� ea that include infill residential units -..
w1kiehThe Development Agreements shall define the improvements and public
benefits to be provided £et—by the developer in exchange for the City's
commitment for the number, density, and location of the housing units. (Imp
2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 15.1)
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT
Neighborhood Parks
LU 6.15.46178- Standards
To provide a focus and identity for the entire neighborhood and to serve the
daily recreational and commercial needs of the community within easy walking
distance of homes, rye dedication and improvement of at least eight
percent of the gross land area (exclusive of existing rights -of -way) or one -half
acre. whichever is greater. of the first phase of development in each
neighborhood as a neighborhood park. This requirement may be waived by the
City where it can be demonstrated that the development parcels are too small to
feasibly accommodate the park or inappropriately located to serve the needs of
local residents, and when an in -lieu fee is paid to the City for the acquisition and
improvement of other properties as parklands to serve the Airport Area.
In every case, the neighborhood park shall be at least ane aefe Tight percent of
the total Residential Village Area or one -h-Af acre in area, whichever is greater,
and shall be of a size andhave-f, rzimc m dimensions to accommodate informal .
playfieldso "9 feet. Park acreage shall be exclusive of existing or new rights -of-
way, development sites, or setback areas. A neighborhood park shall satisfy
some or all of the requirements of the Parkland Dedication Ordinance, as
prescribed by the Recreation Element of the General Plan.
Newport Beach General Plan'
Error! No text of specified style in document.
- -
....
LU 6.15.4 6159 Location
Require that each neighborhood park is clearly public in character and is
accessible to all residents of the neighborhood. Each park shall be surrounded
by public streets on at least two sides (preferably with on- street parking to serve
the park), and shall be linked to residential uses in its respective neighborhood
by streets or pedestrian ways. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 12.1, 12.2)
LU 6.15.4209Aircraft Notification
Require that all neighborhood parks be posted with a notification to users
regarding proximity to John Wayne Aimort and aircraft overflight and noise.
On -Site Recreation and Open Space
LU 6.15.241 Standards
Require developers of multi- family residential developments on parcels eight
acres or larger, to provide on -site recreational amenities. For these
developments, 44 square feet of on -site recreational amenities shall be provided
for each dwelling unit in addition to the requirements under the City's Park
Dedication Ordinance and in accordance with the Parks and Recreation
Element of the General Plan. On -site recreational amenities can consist of
public urban plazas or squares where there is the capability for recreation and
outdoor activity. These recreational amenities may also include swimming pools,
exercise facilities, tennis courts, and basketball courts. Where there is insufficient
land to provide on -site recreational amenities, the developer shall be required to
pay cash in -lieu that would be used to develop or upgrade nearby recreation
facilities to offset user demand as defined in the City's Park Dedication Fee
Ordinance.
The acreage of on -site open space developed with residential projects may be
credited against the parkland dedication requirements where it is accessible to
the public during daylight hours, visible from public rights -of -way, and is of
sufficient size to accommodate recreational use by the public. However, the
credit for the provision of on -site open space shall not exceed 30% of the
parkland dedication requirements. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 12.1, 12.2, 44.3)
Streets and Pedestrian Ways
LU 6.1548242 Street and Pedestrian Grid
Create a pattern of streets and pedestrian ways that breaks up large blocks,
improves connections between neighborhoods and community amenities and is
Newport Beach General Plan
Error! No text of specified style in document.
scaled to the predominantly residential character of the neighborhoods. (Imp
3.1, 4.1, 11.1, 12.2, 21.1)
LU 6.15.442-23Walkable Streets
Retain the curb -to -curb dimension of existing streets, but widen sidewalks to
provide park strips and generous sidewalks by means of dedications or
easements. Except where traffic loads preclude fewer lanes, add parallel parking
to cahn traffic, buffer pedestrians and provide short -term parking for visitors
and shop customers. (Imp 3.1, 4.1, 12.2, 21.1, 29.1)
LU 6.15.28244 Connected Streets
Require dedication and improvement of new streets as shown on Figure LU23.
The illustrated alignments are tentative and may change as long as the routes
provide the intended connectivity. If traffic conditions allow, connect new and
existing streets across Macarthur Boulevard with signalized intersections,
crosswalks, and pedestrian refuges in the median. (Imp 11.1, 12.2, 21.1)
LU 6 .15.21245 Pedestrian Improvements
Require the dedication and improvement of new pedestrian ways as shown on
Figure LU23. The alignment is tentative and may change as long as the path
provides the intended connectivity. For safety, the full length of pedestrian ways
shall be visible from intersecting streets. To maintain an intimate scale and to
shade the path with trees, pedestrian ways should not be sized as fire lanes.
Pedestrian ways shall be open to the public at all hours. (Imp 11.1, 12.2, 21.12)
Parking and Loading
LU 6.15.22246 Required Spaces for Primary Uses
Consider revised parking requirements that reflect the mix of uses in the
neighborhoods and overall Airport Area, as well as the availability of on- street
parking. (Imp 2.1)
Relationship of Buildings to Street
LU 6.15.23267 Building Massing
Require that high -rise structures be surrounded with low and mid -rise structures
fronting public streets and pedestrian ways or other means to promote a more
pedestrian scale. (Imp 3.1, 4.1, 12.1, 12.2)
Newport Beach General Plan
Error! No text of specified style in document.
-
-
LU 6.15.2 27Sustainable Development Practices
Require that development achieves a high level of environmental sustainability
that reduces pollution and consumption of energy, water, and natural resources.
This may be accomplished through the mix and density of uses, building
location and design, transportation modes, and other techniques. Among the
strategies that should be considered are the integration of residential with jobs -
generating uses, use of alternative transportation modes, maximized walkability,
use of recycled materials, capture and re -use of storm water on -site, water
conserving fixtures and landscapes, and architectural elements that reduce heat
gain and loss. (Imp 3.1, 4.1, 12.2, 21.12, 23.1, 25.1 -27.1)
Newport Beach General Plan
"RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA
PRINTED :" �
-kN -
��
July 11, 2006
Prange Countg California City of Newport Beach j
Alan t, tiro City Council.
Airport Director _ 3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Subject: Comment on Draft General Plan Update (Agenda Item 12)
i
3
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: g
1 The County of Orange, John Wayne Airport (JWA) appreciates the
cooperative work effort that has taken place between JWA staff and City of
Newport Beach staff as part of the City's General Plan Update process.
Yesterday, July 10, 2006, we received a transmittal from the City containing
revisions to the proposed General Plan document. The accompanying Ietter
outlined various changes that have been made to the General Plan as a result
of this cooperative review process.. It appears that many of our concerns and
comments have been addressed. However, since we just received the
proposed revisions yesterday, we are still in the process of reviewing these
changes and request that our future comments, when completed, will be given
consideration by your Honorable Council.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the City. of Newport Beach
General Plan Update. We look forward to continued coordination on this
important project as it nears completion. Should you have any questions or
require additional information related to JWA, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
I
Sinter
j an L. Murphy /
Airport Director
3160 Ainvay Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA cc:. James W .. Silva, Supervisor, District 2 -
9262"608 . I Airport Land Use Commission
949252.5171 Sharon Wood, City of Newport Beach
949.252.5178fax i Gregg Ramirez, City of Newport Beach .
www,ocaircom i
i
O
O m
ORANGE COUNTY IRPOIZT LAND USE COMMISSION
FOR ORANGE COUNTY
3160 Airway Avenue *Costa Mesa, California 92626 - 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.6012
July 11, 2006
City of Newport Beach
City Council
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Subject: Comments on Draft General Plan Update (Agenda Item 12)
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
The Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) received proposed revisions
to the City of Newport Beach Draft General Plan Update on July 10, 2006. We are in the
process of reviewing these recent revisions and intend to provide comments to the City
Council and Planning Commission. However, we were not able to complete our review
between the time we received the revised document and your Council meeting today, July
11, 2006. We will'transmit our comments as soon as possible for your consideration.
( 1 it
Thank you for the cooperative work effort on e part of your stafi'to ensure tha flre
Airport Land Use Commission comments are addressed in the General Plan Update
document iwan effort to achieve City consistency with the Airport Environs Land Use
Plan jor John Wayne Airport.
We are committed to eontinuing'nur coordination efforts with the Ciy as this Cseneral
Plan Update moves forward Should you or your require additional ALUC
information please contact me at 949.252.5170 or via email atirigoni&6cair.com.
Sincerely,
Kari A. Rigoni
Executive Officer
cc: Airport Land Use Commissioners
Alan L. Murphy, Director, JWA
Sharon Wood, City of Newport Beach
Gregg Ramirez, ,City of Newport Beach
� E
THE CITY'S GOAL FOR THE AIRPORT AREA:
mixed -use community that provides jobs, residential, and
supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian- oriented
amenities that facilitates walking and enhance livabili .
HOW OUR PLAN MEETS THAT GOAL:
• Integrated, quality environment that combines jobs, residential
and supporting services
• Compatible uses with the airport
• Consolidation and visual improvement of auto storage, rental and service facilities
• Improves areas aesthetic qualities
• Meets minimum 5 -acre first phase requirement for residential development
• Meets the 50 units per acre requirement for residential villages
(averaged over the first phase)
• Development of one Comprehensive Plan for the project due to lot consolidation
• Development of a Regulatory Plan for parks, streets, pedestrian ways,
neighborhood- servicing commercial uses and other amenities to create
a residential neighborhood character
SAUNDERS PROPERTY
6V
6-
C O M P A N
,a
RETAIL I RESTAURANT
AUTOMOBILE SALES
CAR RENTAL CONSOLIDATION
PARKIYG STRIMTUCc
SAUNDERS PROPERTY
CAMPUS TRACT
65 CNEL LINE
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
OFFICE
HOTEL
n q.n
7 -11 -2006
PROJECT CONCEPT + USES
RESIDENTIAL / MIXED - USE VILLAGE
SAUNDERS PROPERTY
RETAIL /RESTAURANT
AUTOMOBILE SALES
CAR RENTAL CONSOLIDATION
PARKING STRUCTURE
65 CNEL LINE
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
OFFICE
HOTEL
>" 7.11.2006
PROJECT USES
CAMPUS TRACT RESIDENTIAL / MIXED - USE VILLAGE
'7 // //o b - -7f -/ a
SANDRA GENIS, PLANNING RESOURCES
1586 MYRTLEWOOD COSTA MESA, CA. 92626 PHONE/FAX (714) 7540814
July 11, 2006
Honorable Mayor Don Webb and Members of the City Council
Newport Beach City Hall .
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92685 -8915
Subject: General Plan Update
Dear Mayor Webb and City Council,
At the City Council meeting of June 27, 2006, I requested clarification regarding future land use
in the Airport Area. While my question was answered, subsequent review of the data raises
additional issues for which I would appreciate clarification.
Specifically, there appeared to be a disparity in the amount of nonresidential development
permitted under the plan, with anticipated office use varying from 4.9 million square feet (Table
3 -3, Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)) to 7.1 million square feet (Table A -2, Draft
General Plan Update). As explained, under the currently proposed plan office square footage
would be expected to vary, since residential units would generally replace office and/or industrial
development, per the council's direction on May 23, 2006. Thus, square footage of
office /industrial development would vary inversely with the number of dwelling units provided.
It was stated that information in Table A2 in the March draft plan was intended to indicate an
either /or situation, whereby either 7.2 million square feet of commercial development would be
provided or some reduced amount of commercial development would be provided along with
residential development. This same table also includes data for other areas where residential
uses in mixed use areas is intended to be additive. The table must clarify where the draft plan
proposes that residential development in mixed use areas to be developed instead of commercial
uses and where the residential uses would be in addition to commercial uses. The general plan
text must also reflect this.
The May 23 Council direction reduced future residential development to 2,200 from the 3,300
units permitted under the March 27, 2006 draft plan update. The March draft plan also stated
that residential uses:
... may occur as replacement of existing buildings or as infill on parking lots,
provided that the parking is replaced in a structure located on -site.
Thus, residential development would have been additive, with no reduction in other development
required. The March draft plan required only that the no- longer - permitted dwelling units in the
Campus Drive tract be allowed only upon reduction of non - residential development. Council
direction of May 23 expanded the policy of equivalent reduction to all but 550 dwelling units.
Page l of 3
The May 9, 2006 staff report and oral presentations indicated that the action ultimately taken on
May 23, 2006 would result in a considerable reduction in trips from that assumed in the EIR
analysis. According to the DEIR, the traffic model assumed a reduction in traffic generation
rates due to mixed use. In that regard, I have a number of questions:
How will the reduction in residential development affect trip generation rates?
What is the minimum proportion of each use which must be provided in order for the
model to reduce trip generation to reflect mixed use?
I also have serious concerns regarding coordination of anticipated traffic and land use. If most of
the residential units are to be provided only in return for reductions elsewhere, then varying the
number of units should not affect traffic generation. If an increase in dwelling units must be
accompanied by a reduction in other uses, then reducing future residential uses and related traffic
would just allow an increase in other uses and related traffic.
In addition, the apparent disparity, now explained, first came to my attention as a result of review
of data in the DEIR. Data in Appendix FF to the EIR traffic study, titled General Plan Buildout
with Project Land Use Change from General Plan Buildout without Project by TAZ, already
shows a reduction in anticipated office use to about 4.8 million square feet and elimination of
551,930 square feet of industrial use under the proposed update (attached table). It thus appears
that the DEIR traffic study anticipated the requirement that residential uses would generally be
permitted only as replacement for another use. Inasmuch as Appendix FF already shows a
reduction in office space to 4.8 million square feet, how can it be asserted that requiring a
reduction in other uses to accommodate residential would reduce trip generation? Does the city
proposed to reduce office uses below 4.8 million square feet?
Similar anomalies appear elsewhere. In the Mariner's Mile area, for example, the March 2006
draft plan would have allowed commercial floor area ratios (FARs) of up to 0.75 on exclusively
retail sites with a FAR of 0.5 permitted for mixed use sites. The existing general plan allows a
base floor area of 0.5, with additional square footage allowed only for low traffic generating
uses. Thus, allowable commercial development would either remain the same on mixed use sites
or increase by up to fifty percent on sites utilized exclusively for commercial use. While data in
Appendix FF does reflect the addition of residential uses, the data also shows a reduction in
commercial uses of about 100,000 square feet. This is peculiar.
The Park Lido area near Hoag Hospital (TAZ's 1713 -1716) is designated for a base FAR of 0.5
under the January 2000 general plan. The March 2006 draft update would have increased the
FAR to a maximum 1.25. The Council has since directed a change in the maximum FAR for the
area to 0.75. In either case, one would expect a significant increase in anticipated development.
Data in Appendix FF show no change at all for the affected area.
These are just a few examples. Other apparent anomalies abound. This raises serious questions
regarding the traffic analyses in the DEIR. Is it possible that Appendix FF (General Plan
Buildout with Project Land Use Change from General Plan Buildout without Project by TAZ),
Appendix EE (General Plan Buildout with Project Land Use) and other appendices to the EIR
Page 2 of 3
Airport Area Land Use
GP buildout
GPU buildout
TAZ
USE
amount
amount
change
AIRPORT
1379
3
0 294
294
1380
(multi - family)
0 334
334
1381
0 275
275
1382
0 609
609
1384
0 132
132
1389
0 132
132
1390
0 87
87
1393
0
338
338
1404
0
180
180
Airport Area Land Use
1383
275.267
202.585
- 72.682
1384
91.756
0
- 91.756
1386
228.21
203.8
-24.41
1387
184.32
177.534
-6.786
1389
201.78
105.807
- 95.973
1390
146.48
99.97
46.51
1391
97.42
72.5
-24.92
1392
160.59
124
-36.59
1396
630.221
630.221
0
1397
104.42
104.42
0
1398
40
40
0
1399
161.49
161.49
0
1400
48.5
48.5
0
14021
1 45.794
0
- 45.794
1403
393.05
393.05
0
1404
434.953
434.953
0
1405
688.16
695.157
6.997
total
5870.013
4764.487
- 1105.53
1401
24 (medical) 1
86.096
86.096
0
1373
26
12.19
0
-12.19
1374
(Industrial)
12.19
0
-12.19
1375
18.29
0
-18.29
1376
19.51
0
-19.51
1377
28.05
0
-28.05
1378
31.7
0
-31.7
1406
430
0
-430
total
551.93
0
- .551.93
1403
37
10.9
10.9
0
(youth ctr /service
�/ ///O� ---it 1a
To: Newport Beach City Council
July 11, 2006
Re: General Plan update.
Attached is an eleven -page petition. It simply states that Newport Beach R2
property owners should retain the two -unit entitlements they paid for when
they acquired their properties.
There are signatures from Newport Beach residents from every part of
Newport Beach.
We thank the Council for the motion made and passed on June 27 to that
effect. Over one hundred and twenty property owners were here to put on
the record, their opposition to any reduction of their R2 entitlements.
We are still reviewing the new drafts and updates and we wish to reserve
the right to challenge any reduction of the two unit entitlements that may be
included in the new General Plan. Those reductions in entitlements may be
a lowering of current maximum and mid range heights, increases in front,
rear or side setback requirements, an increase in the square footage per
dwelling unit requirement, additional off - street parking requirements, etc.
The current entitlements have been scaled down numerous times in the
last thirty years or so. The four on site parking requirements above grade,
open space requirement, second story setbacks have all left property
owners with a building envelope that can just barely accommodate a viable
two -unit building.
Respectfully
George Schroeder Y—
Newport Property. Rights Alliance
We, the undersigned do not support a down zone from R2 to R1 on the
properties in Newport Beach from the Newport Pier to the Santa Ana
River. Property owners should retain the two -unit entitlements they paid
for when they acquired their properties.
Name Address
a�pr
19
MCI
2b 2s7 �
We, the undersigned do not support a down zone from R2 to R1 on the
properties in Newport Beach from the Newport Pier to the Santa Ana
River. Property owners should retain the two -unit entitlements they paid
for when they acquired their properties.
Name Address
DI/laSi ivyNk-IB �-
Ni � e &SS-e i t l 301- Sk 1�'. JpZ-f � &a -� .
sT
W4lfi ( #E4,VV-►f2 211 4-V30-51- .
We, the undersigned do not support a down zone from R2 to R1 on the
properties in Newport Beach from the Newport Pier to the Santa Ana
River. Property owners should retain the two -unit entitlements they paid
for when they acquired their properties.
Name Address
w
�� ��* C'4-�'/ -Z S-2, 1 A, 1 +V) V -S _k,( 0 P)
U vo wt s eJ U
2Z�j 35 IH Tr.
We, the undersigned do not support a down zone from R2 to R1 on the
properties in Newport Beach from the Newport Pier to the Santa Ana
River. Property owners should retain the two -unit entitlements they paid
for when they acquired their properties.
Name
Address
i 1 [� //�� S ��
y 61 ole nk4 -H VC Nf,) VA
Y ? (5- k�C�2 4/t
S tI f.l
y�
t:541/
4-Lett SeQShur-L /t23
5 T<ce 5713 z 3 ;__V_
<'t K_r•.J 3 7 C--?? w ,
AlY 012-((62
ZG63
,Pz.- ,v
9ZUco
2663
( n)3 9T &r.
E
R
We, the undersigned do not support a down zone from R2 to R1 on the
properties in Newport Beach from the Newport Pier to the Santa Ana
River. Property owners should retain the two -unit entitlements they paid
for when they acquired their properties.
Name Address
441PI 3!f sT „J [4t jd , cPf s zc rz
OC-7.
3si �' cra�c� Sac fo. LL;q
i r F „.
A44 �avj s�' �iB
I
We, the undersigned do not support a down zone from R2 to R1 on the
properties in Newport Beach from the Newport Pier to the Santa Ana
River. Property owners should retain the two -unit entitlements they paid
for when they acquired their properties.
Name Address
i�1Y`3e00 CV C), '60
garo (� v,1�r� 2211 a��rrc�v�t OM
A,
M
i
We, the undersigned do not support a down zone from R2 to R1 on the
properties in Newport Beach from the Newport Pier to the Santa Ana
River. Property owners should retain the two -unit entitlements they paid
for when they acquired their properties.
Name Address
JA
l Of _417,11yi����lri�`-Jjlrl�%. (V
Za292 Or&t I r D
We, the undersigned do not support a down zone from R2 to R1 on the
properties in Newport Beach from the Newport Pier to the Santa Ana
River. Property owners should retain the two -unit entitlements they paid
for when they acquired their properties.
Name
M
Address
tl
Z2
c-A— c7262 yy
r
1
Yti--7 / /A llnq ��
'I,
111511171 WI
We, the undersigned do not support a down zone from R2 to R1 on the
properties in Newport Beach from the Newport Pier to the Santa Ana
River. Property owners should retain the two -unit entitlements they paid
for when they acquired their properties.
Name
Address
J4,0
We, the undersigned do not support a down zone from R2 to R1 on the
properties in Newport Beach from the Newport Pier to the Santa Ana
River. Property owners should retain the two -unit entitlements they paid
for when they acquired their properties.
Name
� &4
Address
0
/Z
22 k(
60) Vj
jr V
f
3 s� SY 0, ce 92G 6 3
i
I J SG Au 7Z
1
V-1
IX0
�Zb��
a
We, the undersigned do not support a down zone from R2 to R1 on the
properties in Newport Beach from the Newport Pier to the Santa Ana
River. Property owners should retain the two -unit entitlements they paid
for when they acquired their properties.
Name
Address
J_'a� 40 31-4
36:2z