HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPAC_2004_08_23G PAC_2004_08_23
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AGENDA
August 23, 2004
7:00-9:00 p.m.
OASIS Senior Center
5th and Marguerite
7:00
I.
Call to Order
7:05
II.
Approval of Minutes
July 12, 2004
July 26, 2004
August 9, 2004
•
7:15
III.
Presentation of Land Use Alternatives
Airport Business Area
Balboa Peninsula
Banning Ranch
Corona del Mar
Fashion Island/Newport Center
Mariner's Mile
Old Newport Boulevard
West Newport Industrial
West Newport Residential
8:35
IV.
Guiding Principles for the General Plan
8:45
V.
Discussion of Future Agenda Items
Distribution of Updated Meeting Schedule
8:50
VI.
Public Comments
E
u
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, July 12,
2004, at the OASIS Senior Center.
Members Present:
Roger Alford
Louise Greeley
Marie Marston
Ronald Baers
Bob Hendrickson
Carl Ossipoff
Phillip Bettencourt
Mike Ishikawa
Larry Root
Carol Boice
Mike Johnson
John Saunders
Elizabeth Bonn
Bill Kelly
Hall Seely
Gus Chabre
Donald Krotee
Jan Vandersloot
John Corrough
Lucille Kuehn
Tom Webber
Grace Dove
Phillip Lugar
Ron Yeo
Nancy Gardner
Barbara Lyon
Raymond Zartler
Members Absent:
Patrick Bartolic
Laura Dietz
Kim Jansma
Kariene Bradley
Florence Felton
Catherine O'Hara
Lila Crespin
Tom Hyans (sick leave)
Charles Remley
Staff Present:
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner
George Berger, Program Manager
Patrick Alford, Senior Planner
Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant
Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant
Linda Tatum, EIP Planner
Members of the Public Present:
Dan Daniels
Carol Hoffman
Ned McCune
Mark Murrel
Marice White
• I. Call to Order
Nancy Gardner called the meeting to order.
II. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the June 215t meeting were approved as submitted.
III. Subcommittee Discussions
Committee members broke into subcommittees discussing land use options for Fashion
Island/Newport Center, Mariners Mile, Old Newport Boulevard and West Newport
Industrial. Staff was assigned to each table to provide assistance if needed.
IV. Discussion of Future Agenda Items
The next meeting, July 26th, will be for the Mariner's Mile Subcommittee only. All of the
other subcommittees concluded their discussions.
VI. Public Comments
No comments offered.
Ll
2
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, July 26,
2004, at the OASIS Senior Center.
Members Present:
Ronald Baers
Nancy Gardner
Charles Remley
Gus Chabre
Mike Ishikawa
Hall Seely
John Corrough
Mike Johnson
Jan Vandersloot
,Laura Dietz
Phillip Lugar
Ron Yeo
Members Not Assigned to Subcommittees:
Roger Alford
Grace Dove
Lucille Kuehn
Patrick Bartolic
Florence Felton
Barbara Lyon
Phillip Bettencourt
Louise Greeley
Marie Marston
Carol Boice
Bob Hendrickson
Catherine O'Hara
Elizabeth Bonn
Kim Jansma
John Saunders
Karlene Bradley
Bill Kelly
Raymond Zarder
Lila Crespin
Donald Krotee
Members Absent:
Tom Hyans (sick leave) Larry Root
Carl Ossipoff Tom Webber
Staff Present:
Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner
George Berger, Program Manager
Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant
Members of the Public Present:
Dan Daniels Carol Hoffman Mark Murrel
is
I. Call to Order
•
II. Subcommittee Discussion
The Mariner's Mil
the area.
III. Public Co
No comments off
•
11
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of the 'General 'Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, August 9,
2004, at the OASIS Senior Center.
Members Present:
Phillip Bettencourt Mike Johnson
Elizabeth Bonn Catherine O'Hara
Members Not Assigned to Subcommittees:
Roger Alford
Ronald Baers
Patrick Bartolic
Carol Boice
Gus Chabre
John Corrough
Lila Crespin
Laura Dietz
Grace Dove
Members Absent:
Karlene Bradley
Louise Greeley
Staff Present:
Florence Felton
Nancy Gardner
Bob Hendrickson
Mike Ishikawa
Kim Jansma
Bill Kelly
Lucille Kuehn
Phillip Lugar
Barbara Lyon
Tom Hyans (sick leave)
Donald Krotee
Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner
Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant
Members of the Public Present:
Jennifer Irani
James Quigg
Mark Tabbert
Virginia Vaughan
Terry Welsh
Sharon Wright
Jan Vandersloot
Ron Yeo
Marie Marston
Charles Remley
Larry Root
John Saunders
Hall Seely
Tom Webber
Raymond Zartler
Carl Ossipoff
Ara Zarelzini
I. Call to Order
II. Subcommittee Discussion
The Banning Ranch Subcommittee met to complete discussions on land use options for
the area.
III. Public Comments
Members of the public in attendance made comments in support of open space at
Banning Ranch.
•
2
0
AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA
AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA
• In determining proposed land uses, existing land uses in the ABA as well as those in
the neighboring Irvine area were considered. The goal is to provide a good mix of land
uses so that the ABA will be self-sufficient in support services, minimizing traffic
impacts to other areas of the city. Those support services will also attract revenue from
those living in the new residential areas of Irvine, capturing income for the city. There
are two proposed land use alternatives:
*Option A -Mixed Use Excluding Residential
*Option B-Mixed Use Including Residential
OPTION A -MIXED USE EXCLUDING RESIDENTIAL
This sees the land use of the ABA remaining essentially what it is today with some
refinements and a few changes. Overall, office space would dominate, but there would
a. mix of uses with a good balance of support services (restaurants, office supplies,
cleaners) and guidelines to encourage better use of existing space (vertical parking).
To promote a general upgrading of the area and the desired balance, the consolidation
of parcels and bonus densities would be considered. The ABA should also be
considered as an alternate site for a new civic center.
Designations:
Block A --mixed use, excluding industrial, with the possibility of a hotel, parking
structures and office.
. Block B-Primarily retail, hotel
Block C-Possible site of new civic center or mixed use, excluding industrial
Block D-mixed use, excluding industrial -good potential for upgrade, mixed use
Block E-office
Block F-Hotel
Block G-office (phase out restaurants because of accessibility)
Block H-mixed use (Hotel, office, entertainment)
Block I -mixed use (office, industrial, retail, entertainment)
Block J-industrial
Block K-mixed use -supermarket (first floor of a multi -story building) and other retail and
service facilities to attract residents in the area as well as those working in the area.
Block L-mixed use (courthouse, restaurant, office)
Block M-office
Block N-mixed use (auto sales)
OPTION B-MIXED USE INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL
Newport Beach has housing needs imposed by SCAG. These needs are difficult to
meet in most of the city's villages and planned communities. The ABA is an area
where higher densities, if well planned, could help Newport meet work force and other
housing needs while minimizing traffic impacts. The plan clusters residential areas and
necessary supporting uses (markets, for example) near those in Irvine for synergy, and
sites them near existing lakes and green areas for an attractive ambience. The land
use designations would be the same as Option A with the following exceptions:
0
Block F- possible conversion from hotel to Single Room Occupancy
Block [-mixed use including high rise residential
• Block K-mixed use (supermarket, etc.) with mid rise residential.
Key to Blocks (working from figure 2-2 of Discussion Paper
A -Campus strip from CdM Freeway to MacArthur.
B-CdM Freeway frontage from Birch to Dove
C-inside parcel bounded by Birch and Westerly, Quail and Dove
D-Inside parcel next to Radisson, bounded by Dove
E-Triangular parcel bounded by Westerly, Quail and Dove
F-Radisson
G-Area between Dove and MacArthur with restaurants and bad access
H-Section east of MacArthur, bounded by Von Karman and Birch
I-Koll area
J-Conexant
K-parcel between Campus and Birch, bounded by Von Karman and court house
L-court house parcel
M-MacArthur Court area
N-parcel between Dove and MacArthur, bounded by CdM freeway (Lexus)
•
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERALPLAN
LAND USE SCENARIOS
AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA
NdbReblad Cary .l
�1Bp k*Re W
_ MUMT.N Cam.bl
RoiesdaxY onbc96.�:a,eumiea�Nel
CorcunvMv Comm cbl
Dma Resiwwni. FW Food ReAaaagl
1b14
IndublMl
Li ht 1bd Obl
® BJSbB55 Mb bdmw
WMTe 0btluMl
Feel
e: eX/d We0.'e lwc�. Cc'wdvm,Mely Bl
memv. MN'�Yao&t Wc0v0Vi Ria1u hMh NUL
wp9PbaeMn�W F.erM.SWlenWe.#W.
PROJECT NUMBER: 10579-01
Regies by HLR Crta by MJNP
CA1B: M13/
EIP
Cl
OPTION 2
A - 1 Reuse and Intensify Uses
with Moved Use
B - 1 New Support Commercial
or Office Uses on vacant Lot
C - 1 Possible site of new Civic Center
2 Reuse or intensify mixed use
(Commercial and Office)
D - 1 Mixed Use Developments
with Commercial and Office
E - 1 Maintain and Intensify
Existing Office
F - 1 Conversion From Hotel to
Single Room Occupancy
G - 1 Replace Restaurant with
Office
H - 1 Moved Use with Intensification of
Office and New Entertainment Uses
I - 1 Reuse of Office Uses for Residential
J - 1 Expand Existing Industrial Uses
K - 1 New Mixed Use with Residential
over Supermarket
L - 1 Replace Office with
Restaurants
M - 1 Maintain Office Uses
N - 1 Intensify Commercial Uses
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE SCENARIOS
AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA
Existing Lana use
comet fcial
A,1, Rebled C.bl
FB 11(11.
Bceabnv eaai
� rr,nuenam commerold
ProtBBebtgl oe�awet
CorrrnlnRy Ca rcbl
(♦ O h Rat M. FWt Foos Res Wa t
Fblel
In�fhlal
ugm Bb�
- IWSFiB55 Pak In wmi
MJB4iemM laiushbl
hMYulionaVOpen Bpoce �-`
PWA[�SernlPWlb
�B Bo,HM
-..- CM Ba-fty
PROJECT NUNb IDBIDUI
Reque4ea by: HlR Crea�ea W. W11
Dote DBltyO�
EIP
Date: May 31, 2004
• To: Members — GPAC Peninsula Sub -Committee
From: Grace Dove
Subject: Notes From Planning Session 5/24/04
Following are notes from subject planning session that focused primarily on
Balboa Village. Please feel free to comment or add to them based on any notes
you may have taken. According to the City schedule, we should finalize
recommendations on the three assigned planning areas of the Peninsula at the
meeting next Monday, June 7. Hard to believe! Hopefully these notes will help
you think through any additional recommendations for Balboa Village in order to
wrap it up and then venture into recommendations for McFadden/Cannery
Village and Lido/City Hall.
• The Balboa BID was formed for the economic and social betterment of
Balboa.
o Implementation of the improvement plan is in the second of three
phases. Results have been positive so far.
• o Balboa business owners do not want dramatic change and like
mixed residential/commercial use.
o They feel there should be "facelifting" and a better business mix in
order to make Balboa a destination for tourists.
• The land use map prepared by the consulting firm has some inaccuracies
and should include the waterside uses that greatly impact the use and
nature of Balboa.
o Additions to the map should include charter boats (fishing),
Catalina Flyer, boat rentals, harbor tour boats, fuel docks, the
Balboa pier and Ruby's. Unique uses such as the Fun Zone,
restaurants and mixed uses should be identified.
o There are about 700 parking spaces that are rarely filled. Parking
is impacted by users of the Catalina Flyer and sportfishing boats,
many of whom arrive early and use neighborhood street parking.
o The Balboa Theatre is the lynch pin of revitalization. The City
hopes that the theatre will attract new businesses and clientele.
A new focus could be created such as art. High rents are a
• problem with business installation and retention.
• o The committee should look at the whole of the Peninsula for traffic
and land use balancing opportunities. Peninsula wide all the
villages have similar land use and water use issues, especially
access. Access now includes walking, biking, public bus as well as
auto.
Although there was no copy of the Balboa Village Design Guidelines
available for review, it was felt that a great deal of work had gone into
them and that they should probably not be changed. There are
outstanding issues of the amount of mixed use.
Ideas for alternative uses and policies include:
o An overlay on the telephone company building for senior affordable
housing.
o No commercial zoning west of Adams (existing uses would be
grandfathered).
o Allow only visitor serving commercial uses, historical uses and
boating related uses waterside from Bay Avenue from the Angling
Club to Newport Landing. Residential mix drives out water
dependent uses.
o Create a beach on the bay in the commercial core as it was
• historically.
o Implement additional transportation opportunities including a trolley
and water taxis. Encourage use of hotel vans and use of the
ferry/walking to access the commercial core.
o Additional access by water should be implemented including guest
slips for visiting boaters and a landing opportunity for shore boats
arriving from cruise ships.
•
An historic overlay zone should be placed to preserve the integrity of the
architecture and nature of Balboa Village. Regulations would preserve
buildings of significance, would include incentives, would encourage
upgrading and preservation of contributing buildings and would ensure
that new construction would follow design guidelines to maintain
compatibility.
AA
DATE: July 12, 2004
• TO: Tamara Campbell, City of Newport Beach
FROM: Grace Dove, GPAC Member
RE: Addendum to Peninsula Notes
Following are some additional thoughts, based on my notes, from the Peninsula
group. I also am sending my notes from the first session, most of which Ron
incorporated into his notes (but there are a few extras):
A separate bike path was a very controversial idea and there was no
consensus.
The land use maps should be corrected; several inaccuracies were found
and, at this planning level, they are at a minimum, distracting. (Personal
note — Showing mixed use buildings as such, would demonstrate their
historic use as a basis for recommendations.)
The concept of there not being enough to entertain a non -beach using
tourist in any one village was discussed. The idea of connectivity among
the villages (Lido, Cannery, McFadden and Balboa) generated the
concept of having a tram and water taxi system that actually works. The
parking on weekends could be the new, proposed City Hall parking
structure which would be primarily vacant on weekends. There would be
a charge for parking but the trams would be free. The trams would be
comfortable, physically easily accessed, reliable and would not have a
place to carry "beach stuff' thus discouraging their use by beach -goers.
The tram would go to the Wedge in order to encourage Peninsula Point
residents to use the shops and restaurants during periods when one does
not want to move a car.
It was strongly suggested that portions of McFadden Square be
designated as an historic district just as Balboa Village is.
• There should be a "fun" sign program identifying the villages and giving
directions to them.
• 1 believe the idea of Residential as a Marinapark alternative was not
discussed by the group (I would have given a tidelands lecture at that
point).
• It was recommended that City Hall be retained in its current location.
In general, the concepts were preservation, retain scale, improve quality by
consolidation and enhancement and connecting the villages by multi -modal
means. If you have any questions or want us to try to reassemble for additional
work, please let me know.
Thank you,
0
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN
A - 1 Mixed Use (Commercial and Residential]
2 Residential
LAND USE SCENARIOS
CANNERY VILLAGE
-
VIA MALAGA _
EIILTtgLOW J.
ReFltle I
9/
9
f
a
RB Nul, ShjaFan* Rest lbl
MRMFamNReSbenRal
0
G
RNO STREET
COTlllerobl
Puto-ftelol6tl Carunacid
`y
o -
��A.'� A ��A��1'
1
o
r
[ ._..
_
.'
V
i
Q
MailrreJiebletl C�bl
Peubrwl Sete FRnewGAma
SP�u, walssaY.fuhlue.
nl
� l ��. ��
.
I'll s ET--
.'
'.. i;�.
_
0
\
n
Rote ofllcellWSlt�fsRrletlkaLM1'et
p an
F nang,c murlty camre�cla.
J Iw, estaumnt. FmtFootl Resloumnt
�\� �... \\\
■
\\ Y
Hotel
� v�na.emrg
-
\
Z
WRSmaI
Mwv0penrlMu6M1bl
E< 10r IT
5s.
__....
ri�
T
I \
ImNMonaVC HSpate
Wblk/SBn4 RbXC. CtxFCbeNR&ggtu Wa
=OOen Sfwoi PoM1 X�
Publk
Vacant BJikl
\
®Option RauWary
1
At
\
\
e
q \*\
i,,T, 5fAEEi
/
O h VVV
\ �
`\ �� ryfS�'S
/
I
J
M
4xwY. oym wwon P.an.a.wa FtlnlN'A.U.pI
Lwrb.'i I.W ffit. /ucM hiFw' UJI. RW.0.Y%w EW:
OiY�AMcdYw htl YuaM79-01 XPt
R30xR!Edb MR CrealeO by: MJ?P
STREET
16
t
'�
o
p�
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
A 1 Overlay Lodging District
B 1 Retain Mixed Use Developments
- --- C 1 Convert Existing Uses to Resort with
GENERAL PLAN
Al Areas not zoned
Commercial and Residential/Offices
Marina and Other Public Benefits
Residential Used for
on Upper Floors
2 Convert Existing Uses to Active and
Hotels and B&Bs
Passive Recreational Use
LAND USE SCENARIOS
MCFADDEN SQUARE
Y
?7
I
busting Land Use
Re nW
Res nbN. SWannlf Re9tlenMl
_ WMFu ly Reakenik4
Commercial
PBI60ng15&vICes
1 Sp klry Retail
MUM-Tenam Car Inl
_ Pmfes nal OfAce/&rsF1e:yMetlkawel
No Co wiry Comenerclol, D4niong
DElein Reg ,, Fad Foaa Re9wu
Ihg
nde C'
Maine Indu
Xu11awVOpen ss
IMoots
RbgU$erni Plbik O
Ome
e_ 1Va �
® Dp1 Bamaay
V
0 ICO Xp JW
fe01
Ssx'a: CJIId Grtl�. [wod Rn lh tW].CM
iv/baV�9111 ixM �Gi SN. NaeRLt4Y NJ]:
f YY YnwKry. SYMenCw. ]LQt
P JECTMWER: 105790
Reou gs Uy: M Creo Uy. WRP
Dole: 0810141N
OPTION 1 CITY PRIAN CH
GENERA
Convert Existing Commercial Use for Multi -Family
Residential at 20 units/acre LAND USE SCENARIOS
BALBOA VILLAGE
_ �.. ,
'T
t�t�et't.
NO,, LaM Uea
Re=a�Ma�
ResbeMol SVK/ufonMy Redder0iol
MUI1LfamNy ReLyentbl
w. Imemb
P.SeMces, Fllresy(iyms
Ap eVAaceaeory, 5p b"tal
- MTLierOM CdrvTelCbl
- Pptessbml OIRc�aNe$hleatabvai
ConYf Y Ca of FOOd Stde6
f)InBNI R¢:ta N,Fap FO ResiwnaM
Ibtal
- fnfetldnment, NSXa-servtg
InCinlrbl
Moshe Irwlushbl
PInsftulowren sporo \r`
ubYdSerti P�bXc
i P. O
t)Xta
- Pubic PmYlg
re VaLpM Bu1tlVg
Op Optbn Ew..tlory......e
o
PROJECT NUMBER. 105N 01
RequesiM b✓, HLR CleMed by, WMP
E 1 P
OPTION 2
Maintain exlsting commerclal uses, rezone the rest for
residential uses at 2 unns/acre
A
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE SCENARIOS
BALBOA VILLAGE
Exhing LaM Wa
Resl M.l
MUh
MuNF l l Singk-FamIN Rpsitlantlol
� �anlN Re5ltlenibl
Commeiclol
RasgM $BMces, FRresYGwns
WM Al eVAx6p , Spe b N Retail
_ MUh Tee nt Commaclol
- hgleebnd OMce/&nhes5?A .wv
Cammunlly Canmei I.Fo Stain
DlF h Re5 WOO.. FW Fa RB51mwt
�tel
� Emetmnmem. wsna-serwng
NwaRe mwsmol .`
Im1lMbruyDpen Span
RipIW561i�Rblt ��
Pa Ns Q
Olher
- F11bNC Patl1g
♦g : VOCOni BUIkYRO
_� NP,ion BUurdary
% JECTNUMKR. 10599-01
r gUeSie m H1 Gear W: w1w
r�: EIP
Option 4
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
Reuse and Encourage Mixed Use Developments with
GENERAL PLAN
Residential Uses Over Commercial
Option 6
Conversion of Commercial Uses to Residential and
LAND USE SCENARIOS
Small Scale Visitor Accommodations
BALBOA VILLAGE
..
/ � / /I /
/ i ,. `— / / \
�ll!1/�1 �
LgWing tar u>e
ResbeMnt ��gb-FamW ReGtlenMul
MUA-FamWliasitlanlbl
$Eh1CB3. F11n35.
� / ✓// /
Apwr'.11
dty R
��ienaN C Pal Retoii
COrm¢vcbl
l � / /
MUII-IenaM
� Pioiossbnol 011bai&.umeiVMetllcayVet
Comnn n, y CarMnaabl ii o Stoles
w
�
Dine in Reslovml, kat FOW R &auunl
EmE, wta nment. VWbr-saN9
Musnbl
Maine lMusfibl
PubblSerrY wblk:
Perks
FF
web O
Vmi BO%
Wing
\\\� i
_.
wacaM
p� Oplbn Bouixiary
.� �
PRO.IECTN KR', 1M79-01
Reouesietl W'. HN Created by. MJ1PP
EIP
OPTION 5
CITYof NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN
Reuse and Encourage Mixed Use Developments with
Residential and Msitor Serving Accommodations
LAND USE SCENARIOS
BALBOA VILLAGE
R tiaenlol
� -
McMl F 11 50gle bl Realtlenikl
Mnm�FamlN ResNenikl
commemw
Peisond SeMces. Ftlr�Yrs+ris
-a4 A) VAC e5564y, Sp c ity Retail
Mum TmQot Conm a
�'� � %
Froleslaal 01k.Ak sinesyM dtl .Ihoi
CommunlN Commacbl, Footl Stoles
v
� -
J no in Reslmmm, Fasf FObtl Re auianl
HOIH
� fnlamFvrient, Vi9lasaKg
-�-
.
MaAne lrqusMol
/r
� �n'k �4E✓
1, 10ro.VOp n5p
Rublk/SemIPLLMk
Qr
PF o
�
OMv V
o Vm.ntBukiFIr
aeoip
Opibn Bourgwy
menwe�un-u
�EFnM1 'ReM1f
~
ain n l
D
u
/ /
i�,.vt
/
ar
l,EftfE)
�
-, SavVaYer.
/
PR ECTNUMBER. 10579-01
ReeuesledW IILR Crea by MIT
E)oo 08114iN
El
of NEWPORT
Areawide Option CITYGENERAL PLAN
BEACH
Convert Existing Spot Commercial
to Residential Uses at 2 unitMot LAND USE SCENARIOS
BALBOA PENINSULA
IS
/ � ...� l"V/ HIV a/ 4 ReskJenlbl
t ���� T!/I// F� l i oesaeMbl. sm�e-rvnlN Reswembl
/�. .. -Muhl-FanIN Re9VJ«tlbl
Ae 4* CORSSO. PoIK Mu
mrwleunL�nrv. s�lmn Retau
�/ /// -MUIIlielmM coon,«col
••� - v / 1��� � Prolesiolwl pfllc«8u9neaN,letlicaWet
/'1, Cammunlry Car 01, Faoa S".,
/ ptrlein RestauaM. Fa# faoU �ant
�R HARBOR Ho
.'ISLAND tel
COLLINSnlelQ nfT«If. Y15101-6«11D'� ISLAND
S
t L 1 ID ISLANDND IntlusVlol
Intlusr
As
Space ran«OQ _
-- 1I BAY
}�1p�1�,���,,��,,jj�����j� i E ' ISLAND PWMWV
-"
-Illlll7tl'rf"Si# N L —J! 1 w �y� Qe Opibn Bpuntlary
AX
0 40
-_
o ess eeo
PROJECINOMMR: 105)9A1
Requestetl W HIR Creased by W"
wle. oenaoa
07/02/2004 10:56
JUL-01-04 03:lOPN
9496443229
FRON-
Fam.
R L7N F
V
CNB PLANNING
PAGE 02
T-117 P.001/00t F-700
lot tjTl Ki &
(toe; pA55,eNGERS WRe D I O
Slfo7wAl
R C}SJC
.. ,. !go ,
R
07/02/2004 10:56 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 03
JUL-01-04 03:10PM FROM- T-917 P.002/007 F-790
■rr.:�s�i7� �•'a7�a��Yl►'I '7(u'R�l' _ L� ► is
,v „' a G YC ,_lam' ►
" 2 ".I► J r) A i L"
► y J
WA
/ p"MAN
J
oK AW?acoNX Tb � �1iuA{�57
CAR-
07W
0,7/02/2004 10:56 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 04
JUL-01-04 0800PM FROM- T-917 P.002/007 P-706
Mc
r' y
VtSUAI, MC1 Pl+Y-vld4{. ACC.1rSS -p I
. 1T,,4N N�tS'ic�.Rl'G DI ,5' j7�IL7' —
f2
cot�P.6�L i�.M_r x�ausC-v_rr t2rMVic.+ end t_ AvQ -
�rs1Tb�..a
07/02/2004 10:56 9496443229
JUL-01-04 03:11PM FR01J-
CNB PLANNING
PAGE 05
T-917 P-004/007 F-790
C
:., Jf l � �L � r • t/ � r Si/I�
/i. ril �Y..7a ii 5.. iY
M a-JoR R
' P kI�UC��VL�S�iV4�Nn17d�A7 �� ,-__
I.,1) �i9 ► .7! _ ' r it , _
`RE' X.I. M121
r'
07/02/2004 10:56 9496443229
A-01-04 03,11PM FROM-
CNB PLANNING
PAGE 07
T-917 P.003/007 F-793
L'�J
'ttl TO
y �• wr.
J` d r
-,33&�'F-O?D.vT ._k.UD. _ _CArA wC SLtUAf z V14 'F1 _
i iD �-- U)&--)IZLOC'k -.
P •ll� l it 't l J • / // !� �,
L2C ctlL>t_Ga..'o .off1,rvSU,ah, SiT5 AND.
07'/02/2004 10:56 9496443229
JUL-01-D4 03:1xp1J pRON-
m
CANE PLANNING
PAGE 00
7-917 P.007/007 F-798
B 1 Intensity Existing Retail Uses
A 1 Intensty Mixed Use Developments
C 1 Add Residential Uses at 25
D 1 Replace CMc Center with Higher
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
with ResidenflalMsItor-SeMng
unils/acre
Intensity Residential Uses over
GENERAL PLAN
Accommodations over Commercial
2 Add Mixed Use with Residential
Commercial
2 Intensity Mixed Use Developments
anclVisitor-Serving Accommodatons
2 Replace Civic Center with Higher
with Commercial and
Visitor -Serving Accommodafions
Intensity Office Uses over Commercial
LAND USE SCENARIOS
LIDO VILLAGE
- t
_ ----—
i / -
- .. -
/
E Mctl uee
ReYaerval
J
R¢sltlFM of?� tictl sltlenrbl
�M1Nin-FamW ResHanibl
MalrlaReblaa COrmiarcbl
_
/
Persore9 Serdces, Fmie,G tts
PppweVgcceswry. FuniNie.
MoeC
—
Mum-Tewntrerwnr corrvnewal
Prot� OlRcasBuslrre.WMe t www
Catmerclol.
Sloes
_ D�n RBSIIXnOM FO51 FOW RB6rduranl
- - -
---. q
VaIB
VapaseMnp A
1n 0,fal _ `T
Marne kiWsinal �Z`_`
MUM-renonrl
InAINIbrwVOpel Spy,
Pibllc/Seml Rblk, Clwchevitelgbus Uses
Oven space
O[fter
PWIF Pahing
Vacant ottlh0
VtlW MLot
S1
Oplbo 9oun0ory
'-T. ^ /p,
B
� �
p
MJECr NUMBER. IOS)Js.a+.w..xms.
RequeW- F<a Creolatl W: MJRF
W]
Data DB1JNd
LLLII�LJ �� �
City of Newport Beach General Plan
BANNING RANCH LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
. c o rn rn 1 t t e e R e p .
For GPAC Review and Confirmation -August 12, 2004
EIP Associates
Note: The following indicates the changes to reflect technical inaccuracies and GPAC
subcommittee recommendations at the August 9 meeting. Additions are indicated by
underline and deletions by strikeout:
Introduction
As the first step in determining the land use designations for the City as part of the General Plan
update, the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC, identified potential land use alternatives
for each of the twelve subareas. For the Banning Ranch geographic planning subarea, the GPAC
members met on May 24, June 7, and -June 21, and August 9 of 2004 to discuss the potential re-
use and development options. This GPAC Subcommittee report provides a summary of key
background information and issues regarding re -use and development of the Banning Ranch site,
• followed by a description of each of the development options being considered, and suggest
criteria for review of these options. The next step is the evaluation of the comparative traffic,
fiscal, and environmental impacts of these options, which will be performed by the consultant
team.
•
Background
Located within the City's Sphere of Influence (SOl), the Banning Ranch planning subarea
encompasses approximately &4 412.5 acres, excluding lands previously subject to wetlands
restoration. Of these, approximately, 362.2 of whieh 465 acres are under the jurisdiction of
Orange County; and -- 50.3 acres are within the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach. A 4-0
11.4 acre area located in the eastern portion of the site between 161h and 17a' Streets is owned by
Newport Mesa Unified School District.
Currently, the Banning Ranch planning subarea is primarily undeveloped with seme'•'��ie oil
extraction infrastructure located in the central and southern portions of the site that includes
wells, pipelines, buildings, oil treatment, storage, and shipping facilities, improved and
unimproved roads, and open storage pipes and machinery. Currently, there are approxima�
68 active oil wells of which 16 are owned and operated by the City of Newport Beach.
Approximately, -and 382 wells are inactive and abandoned onsite.wells leeated dffeugheut the
Banning R-fflsh-cFes. Oil extraction activities date back 4leas s-. o the 1940's.
1
•
•
•
DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS
The Banning Ranch planning subarea has development constraints that include the bluffs,
earthquake fault 6et13aek-zones, habitat areas of ya3dnyalue, and candidate habitat restoration
areas, as shown in Figure 1. The bluffs. some of which are degraded and failin& extend along the
northern boundary, through the central part of the site, and continue along West Coast Highway.
Comprised of three separate areas, the earthgxalee-designated Alauist-Priolo Earthquake F€ault
eethaek-zones are located in the eastern portion of the site, while the habitat restoration areas are
situated in the northern and western parts of the property. Presently, untreated urban runoff
flows onto and across the property from the adiacent developed areas in Costa Mesa and
Newport Beach.
The Banning Ranch planning subarea contains a diversity of plant and wildlife habitats -areas,
some of which are intact and others that have been degraded. An independent field survey of
undeveloped properties in the City's planning area including Banning Ranch, by a professional
species for which permitting by federal and/or state agencies would be required for any
disturbance development and/or restoration,• category 2 to areas that would require further study
to determine the presence of listed species,• and category 3 to resource areas for which permitting
is unlikely. This survey is intended only as a general indicator for planning purposes of the
habitat delineation and resolution with applicable resource agencies.
of value .1 « .-a-age-age in at -A , .1,,.,.,,,.1,_3_a A se T gure 2�reas within the Banning
Ranch planningsubarea cate og rized with a habitat value rank of 1 are primarily concentrated in
fine- its northwestern portion, primarily owlands and riparian drainage corridors that bisect the
rp overt o f«--onne ske. These aFeas are eensider-ed s have a high ,,iele,.ioal r e e Value ..a
would `1 r
site, '
ef met), alse be ioal value but te a lesser- eiktent. Areas with a rank ef 2 ma;y need- a r-esearee pefmi
d 1 r . ' where dditi .., studieswould be ,, thisdet a fi _M a than
likely,afeas >, a Fan, of 3 ,.la net fequire reseuFee i3eEmW.ing c ae....,,.,....ent. Category 2
areas encompass much of the remaining lowland areas that have been more extensively used for
oil operations the northeastern part of the property, and other scattered low and mesa sites. The
highland mesa along the property's eastern periphery and in the south are largely covered with
resources that are unlikely to require permitting _(Category 3). Resource permitting would likely
result in the need for mitigation measures associated the re -use and with -development e.g.,
payment of mitigation fees, habitat restoration, habitat relocation on -site, or off -site habitat
replacement.
Rank Acres
1 69
2 96
3 118
2
• Total 283
Non -Rank Areas 235129.5
For the purposes of determining the amount of land that may be considered for development in
the Bannina Ranch planning subarea as a base planning scenario, the subcommittee established
criteria that included the avoidance of (a) all areas in:When the rank 1 habitat areas,
arid -immediately abutting areas classified as the -rank 2, areas that are adjacent `e fanlE 1 with —And
areas within a 50-foot buffer of these: ft-as— el * the bluffsLand-aearthquake sethask fault
area of it is estimated that `here may -he -approximately 216 ae-�, e-acres. as shown on
Figure —1. on 4,- Banning D i site. It should be notedthat this is -gress
w h may upwardw a er d rupondetailed �,A er _, nd analyses. This is
only one indicator of constraints with the estimate of developable land varvina upward or
downward depending on the criteria used. The actual re -use, development, and/or restoration
acreage would be determined through resource agency permitting procedures.
Potential Land Use Alternatives
As a result of the GPAC subcommittee meetings, four land use alternatives for the Banning
Ranch area were selected for further evaluation. These alternatives are discussed in detail below,
and shown in Table 1. It should be noted that implementation of any alternative would net reselt
• ix -exclude development on habitat areas with a rank of 1, er-rank 2 areas adjaeeat abutting and
contiguous with to --rank 1 areas, the bluffs, and earthquake setbaek- fault zones, erhabitat
-ester-atie areas. consistent with base criteria defined by the subcommittee.
OPTION I: OPEN SPACE
Under this development option, the entire -544 412.5 acres of the Banning Ranch site- planning
subarea would be preserved as open space. "equ-,.<,a,.,, -- 0- s;+' r -.-This parpese-would
require acquisition of the property by a public or private entity with compensation payment -to
the property owners including the Newport Mesa Unified School District- Following the
consolidation or buyout and removal, of oil production facilities, Tthis option would allow for
the preservation of all habitat types; and the restoration of degraded wetlands that are adjacent to
the Semeniuk Slough and• as appropriate, other important habitats. There would be up blic costs
associated with site remediation, habitat restoration and long-term maintenance. The Banning
Ranch planning subarea, when considered with the slough, provides wildlife with a significantly
large, diverse area for foraging, shelter, and movement. Passive recreational uses could be
allowed under this option, and provide opportunities for nature observation and education.
Active playfields could also be incorporated in the uplands, located in the southern and eastern
portions of the area, in areas suitable for re -use, y4lere there are limited a_.,_1,....,,ent cen streifits,
as shown in Figure 1. Existing oil operations would be consolidated to a few areas onsite under
this development option, which may also necessitate public funding:
0
• OPTTON2: FORMER TAYLOR WOODROWPROPOSAL
This development option is ia�4-would accommodate development consistent with the
previously proposed Taylor Woodrow project. This encompasses 1,750
residential units on 200 acres, 70,000 square feet of supporting commercial space on 17 acres, a
school on 10 acres, and a 75-room hotel on approximately 10 acres i*eu'a bA insluded ensite.
The residential uses would comprise a mix of single and multi -family housing,-Preduets ranging
fiem single f ", • rii*s to multi F rAly tac. As shown in Table 1, approximately 77 acres
would be used as parkland, and the remaining 200 acres would be preserved as open space. Note
that with the implementation of the proposed option development on the site would be a
reduction from what is currently allowed under the City's existing General Plan. This option
primarily allocates development to the upland areas and avoids most of the important biological
habitat. As such, the wetlands would be restored, and other habitats of value located in the
lowlands would be preserved. Existing oil operations would be consolidated and integrated as
part of a comprehensive oil field abandonment and remediation program that would enable the
"near -term" implementation of preservation restoration and recreational opportunities
associated with the new development. Elements of the City and County Master Plans of Arterial
Highways would be implemented connecting West Coast Highway with 10" and 17t' Streets
through the BanningRanch anch planning subarea.
OPTION3: REDUCED FORMER TAYLOR WOODROWPROPOSAL
• hiffiplementafien 44This option represents a reduced project that is situated on a smaller footprint
than the previously proposed Taylor Woodrow project to provide increased habitat protection.
As shown in Figure 1, approximately 100 acres located north of West Coast Highway and along
the southeastern portion of the site could be developed wMeul a ff e':ffT `he im eFta '-while
meserving a larger biological habitat, including upper mesa lands in the northern portion of the
property. the wetland restoration area, bluffs, er-�and earthquake setlj�fault zones. With a
smaller development footprint, '—uses could be hHple^�.=an*� eveloped on less
amenty-ef-land area which would allow for the preservation and restoration of additional habitat,
as well as inclusion of more open space. Specifically, 3; &875 presidential units. a
mix of single and multi -family. would be incorporated on 6 75 acres, 70,000 square feet of
supporting commercial uses on 13-10 acres, a school facility on 10 acres, and a hotel on
approximately 5 acres, and -aettve-playf olds on the remaining 4 aeres as shown in Table 1.
Similar to the Taylor Woodrow proposal, existing oil operations would also be consolidated to a
few areas onsite and continue its current activities as partof an oil field abandonment and
remediation program.
OPTION4: RESORTBASED/COMMUNITYAMENITYDEVELOPMENT
Under this development option, a resort based facility such as a hotel with a community amenity
would be ieeerperate&dOMloped on the Banning Ranch site. The development will -would be
located north of West Coast Highway and along the southeastern portion of the site, as shown in
Figure 1. The size of the resort will be based on a minimum acreage that could accommodate a
facility tha ___"_ in a eMieal mass of a^'elepr ent (i.e., hotel rooms and supporting
commercial uses) of sufficient scale neeessff-y to achieve an economically feasible development.
4
• IPreliminarily it is assumed that such a resort would be comparable in scale with the recently
developed Montage Resort in Laguna Tel Beach which occupies approximately 30 acres.
Supporting commercial space would also be included to serve the visitors of the area. A
community amenity, such as a senior center or an education center that can serve a larger
population of Newport Beach would be included under this option. Active recreational uses,
which are needed for this portion of Newport Beach, could be accommodated, while the
remainder of the site would include the restoration and preservation of existing wetlands and
other habitat types. The bluffs and the earthquake setbae� fault zones would not be affected
under this option.
Table 1 Banning Ranch Development Options
J
Residentla/Units
CommercialSace
Here/
S
Open
Oil
Perhland
Development Option
Units
Aples
Sf
Acres
Roams
Acres
!acres!
School
Space
Operations
1
Open Space
0
0
0
0
0
0
TBD
No
618412.5
Yes
acres
1
Taylor Woodrow
1,750
200
70,000
17
75
10
77
Yes,
10
204-98.5
Yes
acres
acres
3
Reduced Taylor
67887
6075
70,000
4�10
60
5
Yes,
4-M 2.5
Yes
Woodrow
5
10 acres
acres
4
ResortBasedl
0
0
TBD
TBO
TBD
Tan
TBD
No
TBO
Yes
Community Amenity
Suggested Criteria
The following represents the GPAC subcommittee's suggested criteria for review of the land use
alternatives. Further studies and detailed analyses will be required to determine impacts
associated with implementation of each land use alternative.
1. How additional traffic will affect the mobility of the area. including consistency with the
Master Plan of Arterial Highways.
2. Availability of public transit.
3. Fiscal impacts to the City, comparing the costs of services to the development with the
revenues to be generated by these uses.
4. Jobs formation and employment opportunities.
5. Impacts on the school system.
3 6_Less-e Impacts on important biological habitats including potential losses as well as
opportunities for restoration and public ownership.
6-j_Consistency with the City's Housing Element of providing the 406 multi -family
residential units on site.
5
• I -7-8_Consistency with the Parks and Recreation Element, which identifies the site for
active recreational use.
8.9_Costs of site acquisition, and—remediation restoration, and long-term maintenance
9:10. Environmental hazards associated with use of the site from past oil operations. This
could potentially include contaminated residue of remediation activities that could be
discharged from the site through runoff.
49:11 Assumptions regarding the continued oil operations.
44-12. Compatibility with adjacent uses.
0
E
:IIY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERALPIAN
Rgure 7
BANNING RANCH
SUBAREA
DEVELOPMENT
CONSTRAINTS
mSubarea Bonadaq
111 P
�1 Ddhquskee lbackZmo
® Habitat Value Ranldnp"
% ConmGCeted 01 Opeobmu
tbfac
• &11Y�car]es 100 foo1WRel
" Remote PartNXHB ie�MeE md'or aom
kimHa�d�nOm�w o �1 iesa��oCatcttlos
a W foot dater
eaa++oRo�-mao�
0a+abPireNc -21-908¢res
roaBmiearea =210 epee
can
OPTION 1 Preserve as Open Space
C Y GENERAL PLANEACH
LAND USE SCENARIOS
BANNING RANCH
SUBAREA
Ex1511tg WM Ike
Recaenibl
Bky��ye�-�Fompyy� Defocnetl
Sh, FQ P,Al hd
Tw Fa ResO "
� MUMFomW ResaerllM
Commr
. ......
R.fdl
M NelgO� SBMnO
� CorrmuxN Serve y
Hlghw 011enled
\�\\ �;..
-Fo k&[WMB Est immml
A nk4 Nolae6blal, FY clol
�' evmmncld, cent d indumld
ANp & MOaie Reared
Ira sM l
.\\\�\� \•.
. 'V�� V A V
`.�\
\\ \ \
_MUAI-ienmtlnd.LSAW
Ir¢tlNlbnoVOPen Epme
fovenvnenf, EducalY.xal, InslttuW.nd
,
Recrepflm & Ernironmenld Open Spore
Vpc Lof
\
\\\\\ \�
r
<J V.mf a kk,
r=—1 OPlan Boundary
BorrYlq (tancll
,
\\
\\\\�
NE WPORT
SHORES
\\ \
e
ANA RIVER ,\ rJ
RIVER JETTY
sw�. wo �. an aw.wmmrv.
vo, rq ro
�amwa-i. w.mnw. mu.
P
pp
PF.b TNUMBER 1057001
Requested bv'M Cre wbV: WIPP
�¢'"P
Wee'. OBfl.11OR
UP
CITY of NEWPORT BEACHGENERAL
OPTION 2 Former Taylor Woodrow Proposal with New Residential,
PLAN
Commercial, Hotel, School, and Open Space Uses
LAND USE SCENARIOS
BANNING RANCH
SUBAREA
&kXig LOM Uce
Resitl
Snpe-fanN
'
SYge'f®nNA1k�CM1atl
1nafIXnN Resaennd
� rAenPanw a�amana
('.omn,xcbl
- Retal
s.,2g g
\\ \ \ \�''.
\\\\�\\\\.�,.._
_ GOOtl & 0.Nbg EslabNshrt,eF
AtliVA[Imprx. RUeSLawl, FLw¢Id
- CIXnnarcld, GenLN ISM1bI
Aura & MIXYre Rebfetl
•
f
V�A'� w A
\\
`
M,�tlLiow F,QuIiIG
IMMYm04q�e
M Gwartnrlent. f. EAdwlbrJ, butmiXoref
�\\�. �
\
� Reaeplbn & EnrTan�re�k1 Open Space
�
(♦ Qxd-PLIc
®V�&A*V
8
.......... .........
NEWPORT
SHORES
SANTA ANA
RIVER JETTY
'\
ISS`
ap
uwpw ra,m, �om;c�nn.w wig.. �'irm�
p
Op
(��
LVE.J)CO
PROJECT Mby I* 105)9-01
RepueM113 . HLR Crealeb by: hNRP
WIB: OB/13/OE
'rJ
9.
y
IF
m
F L11
�C
OPTION 3 Reduced Former Taylor Woodrow Proposal with New Residential, CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
Commerclal, Hotel, School, and Open Space Uses GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE SCENARIOS
BANNING RANCH
SUBAREA
ShgI F=By IX.`bCM1fO
SBgleFa "Y Attocnea
Tw FO,A, Ra ffd
� MUMFOmPy Re9tlenlid
ReMI
Nelahlwlpotl S.g
- CIXf rwy S-A d
High" OAcntetl
- VN' IgSe "
- Fg9d & UFMrg Esiml4rnn',t
-CMTYI& e.. iB35bWI. FFNoO::lal
PU10 & MpY,e R6WIe0
IMUYMI
® IrqusM1M
aMn.Tc InQISRIOI
IrcMluBwwLKpan ipOCe
-tk: t,wemn�ent. [oxonorld. nsrenmonFa
p %
M Recimlbrl & EnKarrienM Open Space
Ill
Vacant Ld
V.t k*&V
00e Bey
Bar," R.,
far
Wt MT NUMBER: 10579-01
Reau dx by: HLR CiealeG by: W/PP
E I P
OPTION 4 New Resort Based Community Amenity with Commerclal,
Hotel, and Recreation Uses
\VAV
NE WPORT
SHORES
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE SCENARIOS
BANNING RANCH
SUBAREA
Ex", Larb um
ReNtl Wl
SYga-Fa k L Whe
S*,U9 F.tv At he
- ixo-Fpr,Py Reebanibf
(♦hAY Orri4 RBBgBrltid
CCmlrercbl
Reid
- Nev hmy Swig
Cm urft SeMg
Hghw onarirea
& Yltlly-e I
- A Ofiblg EZIml9TmeN
CmmaCq. Genaal YiQ)FMUF�
Auto & Mpba Rbioletl
IntlusM1bl
tltluslYJ
�T.t bOBlllol
INXINbrnvoO SI .
GON9fIRlBht, uk,t lbM. nsMfiald
FOCtl
- RBONN,'T d FfMMTPlIk1 0J915p5(:B
t� 9wNRllF::
OMnI
Vacmt LIN
Ewjv- t6.41g
BOpt ROJKay
w.
SANTA ANA '•:\�� \\ rJ" rirnw:wcer..�a�.eu.onwin'�
RIVER JETTY \',.• \•" a¢ m.mr.am,cm Nmuwm r+*.srwox:weru ra'm.
P
pp PROJECT NU10.5JCL1
y: HL
. •.. Erj c�`p pole. R Gegietl b! hNIVP
MINIM
�Oqb 5�
S
w;: EI P
CdM Sub -Area Discussion Monday, June 21, 2004
• GPAC Subcommittee
Generally, the existing land uses (commercial strip along Coast Highway, and adjacent
residential from Ocean on up the hill crossing the highway) would remain unchanged, with
specific plan refinements for all of the "Old Corona Central Village" — both commercial and
residential. Additional issues should be addressed in other elements of the General Plan
(Recreation & Open Space, Public Safety, etc)
Commercial:
• Parking —conduct a new parking study that could work toward a parking authority
o Expand & improve parking in a "strip" behind the businesses off of the alley to
provide parking and landscape strip/buffer for residents
o Look into provision of a tax incentive for commercial businesses keeping their
`residentially -zoned' property in the parking pool
o Parking needs to be more centralized and easy to find
o Provide improved "directional signage" to alert visitors to locations where
parking is available.
o Look at provision of parking areas at both ends and at center of the corridor
o Look at all options for parking (private/public/public purchase or lease of private
property.
o Investigate the feasibility of a "no -cost" trolley to tie centralized parking and
• pedestrian -scaled retail/restaurant commercial together with a limited -basis
shuttle (e.g.—Laguna Beach's First Thursday program) to run at certain times -
maybe for Saturdays, Sundays and evenings
0
Maintain and improve the pedestrian commercial environment
o Ratify "Vision 2004 Plan"
o Encourage more sidewalk cafes with even more flexible regulations (by possibly
easing parking requirements or tax incentive for those cafe's that provide
sidewalk seating.
o Preserve and enhance "resident -serving" businesses
o Discourage businesses that are strictly "tourist-" or "general public -serving"
(e.g.—t-shirt shops, auto -oriented businesses)
o Relax regulations for uses that support pedestrian scale and general pedestrian
neighborhood "vitality".
o Address the character of the tree species in the Specific Plan landscape
standards —palm tree/Hong Kong orchid are ornamental, but aren't very
pedestrian -oriented... some sort of shade tree might be phased in —though still
allowing for the visibility of building signage
CDM discussion.doc Page 2
Residential:
• • Irvine Terrace / Cameo Shores & Highlands / Harbor View / Etc. all should be included
in the CdM "sphere of influence" for purposes of General Plan discussion (refer to
attached plan)
• "Incentivized" Design Guidelines for new or major remodeling of homes should be
developed within the context of a Specific Plan for CdM, that addresses bulk, height,
setback and use of outdoor living space but does not attempt to restrict color, style or
other aesthetic matters (e.g. — similar to the concept in the presentation given to the
GPAC by Mark Broder of RRM Design Group.
• Consider that "tandem" parking does not count as two spaces, since the inner one is
typically used for storage not parking.
• Reduce the use of the Modifications Committee to allow small variances and
encroachments into the "gray areas" of creeping mansionization
• Study the benefits and issues of the trend of condo conversions
• Preserve existing residential amenities (e.g.—Oasis Center/Grant Howald C. C. and
Goldenrod pedestrian bridge) Provide landscaped pedestrian linkage throughout the
village from Oasis to the ocean
• Although the CdM residents are creating their own street congestion problem by not
parking their cars in the garage, consider a "Neighborhood Traffic Calming" and
"Transportation Management Program" studies to address the issues of narrow street
congestion and parking in order to maintain the village flavor.
• Mixed -Use:
• In this case, it means `residential above commercial'
• Allow flexibility to accommodate mixed use along the E. Coast Hwy corridor. For
example - when parking for the residential portion is permanently available on -site;
commercial parking could be accommodated at a permanent off -site location
• Mixed Use should be encouraged where lots or existing structures are large enough to
support the two uses; not as a method to gradually eliminate the commercial use (other
than at the "ends" of CdM—see below)
• Allow flexibility for residential or mixed -use conversion at the two "ends" of CdM
commercial strip —do not "force" it, but let market work if necessary. Use specific plan
process to determine what the right blocks for this are... starting with Hazel/Poppy, for
example.
Environmental Quality:
• Improve/Enhance Water quality —complete improvements to:
o Buck Gully
o Morning Canyon
• Enhance, expand and preserve view corridors:
o Begonia Park (bluff end of Begonia)
o End of Ocean at Carnation
• Improve the facilities of the open space park above the Central Library as a view park
is with adequate facilities for people to sit and enjoy it
CDM discussion.doc Page 2
;EwnoAT
OUNES�
�1.
ALBPA j
cp4l, 'E{
�� : \�, /: -1 ';t. •i • ' CORONA _da l,'191C_11l_C7.
'SANJO'AQUIN, ILLS
IL'JA'MBOREE'to'MORN
d
v'\'`.��•. : �"-� Sts.�1�/`yr��`il•�iir.:,•.t?G7G� _ �/1•l\� 1�, c�..�^
VINE
m
.'to fhe'OCEAN'
CANYON
rHE
!fit' ♦ g `� ��� t;
WEDGE B1G `• t \:
CORONA '! SH0 3 IFFS
CAMEOSHORES-
T`- urrcE4 HIGHLANDS�'°b'
SPECIFIC PLAN CORONA
CENTRAL VILLAGE.AREA ' � �, ' �,. EWPORT
AVOCADO to BUCK GULLY •,=?��� `
,•-?'GRANT HOW'AL4 PARK/OASIS to the OCEANS
CAA,
SHORE
�! SCENIC. CORRIDORS EAST COAS NWY, BAYSIDE'DR
• SAN'J ,AQUIN HILLS, MACARTHUR,
PARKS, GREENBELTS GOLDENROD, 'MARGUERITE, BUCK GULLY
OVILLAGE COMMERCIAL CENTERS G
0 EDUCATIONAL/RE.CREATION'AL/CULTURAL CENTERS \
GP'AC
OPTION 1
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN
Convert Commercial Uses to Mixed Use
Development with Residential and Commercial
LAND USE SCENARIOS
CORONA DEL MAR
¢'� � �� „ L)�
,,,�
Existing Land Use,
Resltlentid
�MumsomNRe9aenlld
w J v �! // ( ��
�_\�\ �(T�,��\\ )//
HNo-Reloletl Conrrelcbl
�aelwrwlsaNcas
wunWAacew/ Wmihxe.
�Rofeirs�sglonal CMiceIBJ&ree4�TAetl�aWe1
f'i,'�_ LLI�LLJUY� �_ 7 �
41
/7 /
� 7
/,/ l\+
'� Fo�oC SlaesonmunM CamieFCW.
R%nh t. Fasl F Fx,st N
WNWb, Cfty V
Bengt Uses
Is
I V ( T�
\\ � f
Luca. GMo�ue..t.+�Mu-n.6erra FbWTIv.cN
�i. Mhd4l bw\P:MnAN. mv4 MKevavti
Fnti• ynsFW Frary. sue. mu.
_,
1� Y
Ifj �
PROJECTNUWER: WPM
?Ix xWW W: HLR Cr"sxl W W/PP
Dole'. W11I 4
n
u
P
FASHION ISLANDMEWPORT CENTER
Jamboree Road/Mac Arthur Boulevard Area (Statistical Division L)
• This area is comprised of the major commercial and residential planned communities, including
Newport Center, Big Canyon, Aeronutronic FordBelcourt, North Ford, San Diego Creek North,
Jamboree/MacArthur, Koll Center Newport and Newport Place, as well as the Campus Drive
Industrial Tract.
Newport Center (Statistical Area LI)
The Newport Center area is bounded by East Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, San Joaquin Hills
Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Development is allocated to Newport Center on a
block -by -block basis, as set forth in the following discussion. All landscaped entry areas of
Newport Center are designated for Recreational and Environmental Open Space. Transfers of
development rights in Newport Center are permitted, subject to the approval of the City with the
finding that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and that the transfer will
not result in any adverse traffic impacts. It is proposed that Newport Center be rezoned to the
Planned Community District, with a comprehensive Planned Community Text developed and
adopted. All development limits are exclusive of parking.
1. Block O - Corporate Plaza. This site is bounded by Newport Center Drive, Farallon Drive,
Avocado Avenue and Coast Highway. The site is designated for Administrative,
Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 432,320 sq. ft. of office
. development. 85,000 sq. ft. of this total was transferred from Newport Village as part.of
the Library Exchange Agreement (Amendment No. 728). Support retail commercial uses
are also allowed within this development allocation.
n
LJ
2. Block 100 - Gateway Plaza. This area is bounded by Newport Center Drive, Anacapa
Drive and Farallon Drive. The site is designated for Administrative, Professional and
Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 197,545 sq. ft. of office development.
[GPA 99-2(E)] Support retail commercial uses are also allowed within this development
allocation.
Block 200 - Design Plaza. This area is bounded by Newport Center Drive, Block 300,
Avocado Avenue, Farallon Drive and Anacapa Drive. The site is designated for
Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 199,095
sq. ft. [GPA2004-001] of office development. Support retail commercial uses are also
allowed within this development allocation.
4. Block 300 - Theater Plaza. This area is bounded by Newport Center Drive, San Miguel
Drive, Avocado Avenue and Block 200. The site is designated for Administrative,
Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 104,158 sq. ft. of office
development and 2,050 theater seats [GPA 94-1 (B)]. Support retail commercial uses are
also allowed within this development allocation.
Land Use Element
Page 73
5. Block 400 - Medical Plaza. This area is bounded by Newport Center Drive, San
• Nicolas Drive, Avocado Avenue and San Miguel Drive. The site is designated for
Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 88,173
sq. ft. of office development, and 351,945 sq. ft. of medical office development. Support
retail commercial uses are also allowed within this development allocation.
6. Block 500 - Company Plaza. This area is bounded by Newport Center Drive, Santa Rosa
Drive, San Joaquin Hills Road, Avocado Avenue and San Nicolas Drive. The site is
designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is
allocated 377,170 sq. ft. of office development. Support retail commercial uses are also
allowed within this development allocation.
Block 600 - Financial Plaza. This area is bounded by Newport Center Drive, Santa Cruz
Drive, San Joaquin Hills Road and Santa Rosa Drive. The site is designated for
Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 955,329
sq. ft. of office development and 425 [GPA 97-3 (D)] hotel rooms. Support retail
commercial uses are also allowed within the office portion of this development allocation
[GPA 93-2 (D)].
8. Block 700 - Insurance Plaza. This site is bounded by Newport Center Drive, Santa Maria
Road, San Clemente Drive and Santa Cruz Drive. The site is designated for
Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 327,671
. sq. ft. of office development. Support retail commercial uses are also allowed within this
development allocation.
9. Block 800 - Pacific Plaza. This area is bounded by Newport Center Drive, Santa Barbara
Drive, San Clemente Drive and Santa Maria Road. The site is designated for
Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial and Multi -Family Residential
land uses. The office portion of the block is allocated 240,888 sq. ft. of office
development and 13,096 sq. ft. of restaurant use. Support retail commercial uses are also
allowed within this development allocation. The residential portion of this block is
allocated 245 dwelling units.
10. Block 900 - Hotel Plaza. This area is bounded by Newport Center Drive, the Balboa Bay
Tennis Club, the Newport Beach Country Club, Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Drive.
The site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial and
Multi -Family Residential land uses. The allowed development is 611 hotel rooms with
ancillary hotel support facilities and 19,630 sq. ft. of office development [GPA 94-1 (A)].
The residential site is allocated 67 dwelling units.
11. Civic Plaza. This area is bounded by Jamboree Road, San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz
Drive, San Clemente Drive, and Santa Barbara Drive. The site is designated for
Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial; Retail and Service Commercial
Land Use Element Page 74
NEWPORT CENTER / FASHION ISLAND
• LAND USE OPTIONS
1) Maintain East Newport Village as open space (Area E) to be developed as a
improved City Park for walking and reading; no ball fields or recreation areas.
2) Add a conference center near current hotels for increased local and visitor
meeting and entertainment space.
3) More hotels rooms in addition to those already allowed at the Four Seasons.
This may mean a new hotel.
4) Allow and encourage mixed -use residential in all areas designated multi -
tenant commercial and professional office/ business/ medical.
5) Maintain Site D, Avocado North, for affordable housing (mid -rise).
6) Allow expansion of retail/entertainment in Fashion Island with no residential.
7) There is no support for single-family residential in the Southwest quadrant of
Site H , as has been suggested by the city.
• 8) Maintain designated open space currently known as the Newport Beach
County Club, but allow a small area to be used for central meeting facilities.
See #2 above.
9) Encourage increased medical office uses in the area designated as Corporate
Plaza which is surrounded by Pacific Coast Highway, Avocado Avenue and
Farallon Drive.
10) Do not allow significant increase of office space in Newport Center block
#800. Allow Pacific Life to expand as desired in block #900.
11) Encourage reuse and redevelopment in Design Plaza.
12) Encourage entertainment uses in Gateway Plaza & Design Plaza along with
parking improvements.
0
n
u
13) Support drafting a long-range plan for Newport Center as previously
suggested by the Irvine Company. This plan's guiding principals are
summarized as follows:
• Regulate development intensity by using vehicle trip generation data.
• Promote economic development that provides jobs, services, revenues,
and opportunities in multi -use and fiscally balanced downtown center.
14) Enhance the traffic control at Mac Arthur and San Miguel to relieve
congestion.
u
is
OPTION 1 A - Civic Plaza, Blocks 500 & 600
D - Avocado North - Include Affordable Housing
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN
B - Block 700 -Expand Office Uses
E - Newport Village - Maintain as Open Space
C - Blocks 100-400 -
1 Intensify Medical Office Uses on Block 200-400
G - Block 800 and Southwest Quadrant
LAND USE SCENARIOS
NEWPORT CENTER/
2 Intensify Commercial Uses on Blocks 100-300
Expand Uses and Include New Conference Facility
FASHION ISLAND
f%
Hotel
ReatleResi
Resicentlol, Single FomNy Re5ltleMlal
Mulfl-Fomty Resltlentlal
Ali.
Auto RebleA Commercial
Personal 5enhvs, Rtnee rG M
BpeclaM Retail, WPDWr'g Mall
}' j.
�uIIII_77 �j1
-MUM-ierwnt Commercial
Frofessbwl ORicelBulmexv llcoWet
— pine -In R oulant
Hotel
B A � i
��/ii
InklMbwVOpen Bpoce
SpoRa
Open
�oPen sfpcece
vacant Lot
OpH B d.q
...
P Sk j
•.�'�EII l '
-
- —
Lltii
`�
11ip II
di� i I I
4 ["
✓ �,(
I
P EOI NUMBER. 10.5M
Re4rei by: HLR Created W W/PP
Dale: e8VING4
Y(�✓
0
G
OPTION 2 A - Civic Plaza - Intensify Office Uses
D - Newport Mllage, Blocks 200-300 - Intensify Retail Uses
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
E - Block 100 - Intensify Office Uses
GENERAL PLAN
Long Range Plan B - Block 600 - Intensify Existing Office Uses
that Result in Traffic Trips Equivalent to 150 dus
G -District B - Intensify Office Uses
H - Southwest Quadrant - Expand Open Spac
C - Blocks 400-500, Avocado North
Intensify Office Uses; Convert Some
I - Blocks 700-800 - New Mixed -Use Developments
Residential over Commerclal/Office
with
LAND USE SCENARIOS
NEWPORT CENTER/
Residential to Public Facilities
J - Fashion Island - Intensity Existing Retail Commercial Uses
FASHION ISLAND
'��J
1
Ex4ths, a Use
ReYtlentid
Residential. Single -Family Residential
I1i Muff) Fon ?y Residentnl
(-'
tY4W1l
Personal Services. FftnesuGyrns
i
saocalN RetcC Shopping Mall
HAsm-Tenant Cammealol
P*rersoal officeAtuslnew%edlcowet
L [ll2�.
ll1- r
une-n Restaumnt
'��j.
Entenalnment
I�
I B .•� \
inslnwawYaaen sago
aubib($enY-Public
openSP
`I Vacant Lot
Option Boundary
X,
-T^� .
d{ 7*T0�1 �o -'
E
�
W
.uP•n.xo \
✓F£I�
;
RR ltedlby LMBfR105]9-0Crc.Metl by MVRP
Dale 01311W4
EIP
0B/1B/2004 12:40 31026BB175 EIP ASSOCIATES PAGE 02/03
Mariner's Mile Sub -Committee
• July 26, 2004
Pur ose:
To identify a list of credible options that the sub -committee merits further analysis
and discussion, Each alternative will be subsequently"run through the paces" for fiscal
costs and revenue, traffic, environmental and community character impacts.
1) A minimum of three alternatives may be defined for Mariner's Mile
2) At minimum, the land use alternatives shall identify:
a. Uses to be permitted within the sub -area
#. Where housing is defined as an option, the type of housing unit
desired
ii. Where mixed use buildings arc defined as an option, the type of
use permitted on the ground floor should be defined
W. Where mixed use projects are defined as an option the relative
proportion among the uses should be defined (i.e. 50% residential,
10% local -serving, d0% open space)
OPTION #1
Adoptin,g,the Mariner's Mile Strateldc Vision 8C,Designpramework
Improve the auto -oriented commercial. strip through implementation of design and
development standards,
Creation of a pedestrian -oriented retail district "Mariner's Village" (Scenerio #3) is also a
vision for the area north of Coast Highway, near Tustin Avenue, Riverside Avenue, and
Avon Street,
Implementation of a comprehensive parking strategy.
Relocating the United States postal Service (USPS) Distribution.
Streetscape improvements to upgrade the visual character of the area.
I)Iscontinuing a requirement of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan regarding the provision
of marine uses currently at 40%.
Creation of a Boardwalk along the Bay (Scenerio #7)
Create Parking Structure where City parking lot exists (landscaped, beautified, safe and
inviting)
Encourage mixed use (% by building TBD)
% Residential, % Mimed Use, %Hotel
08/18/2004 12:40
3102688175
EIP ASSOCIATES
PAGE 03/03
OPTION Q
Mariner's Mile (draft for consideration)
This concept relies on the relocation of West Coast Highway
Combination of options....
#3 -- Mixed use village center
#5 — Marine related commercial use
#7 — Waterfront Walkway
This concept relies on the relocation of West Coast Highway inland. This will
afford key benefits of Improving traffic flow; placing parking where it is needed &
giving the best opportunities for improved, enriched and revitalized quality marine
& pedestrian redevelopment.
Recognizing the complexity and cost of this option, the key components include:
1. Convert the existing coast highway into a landscaped pedestrian oriented
parking area. (maintaining the existing utility easements)
2. Utilize the waterfront walkway as a key component in enhancing the
character of the area. This could open up visual windows to the bay and
provide the opportunity of better visitor support to existing and new marine
commercial use.
S. Lot consolidation and shared parking with an intensification of marine -
related commercial and water dependent uses into the "heart of the mile".
4. Implement a residence serving village center mixed use at both sides of
riverside drive.
5. Provide a visual (and perhaps physical) link from the bluff view park &
Newport Theater Arts Center to the "heart" and the bay.
6. Limit building heights in order to protect views
7. Review appropriate and positive uses to solutions for buffering noise &
pollution from the relocated highway (parking, mixed use, landscaped view
lineal park on top of the highway)
S. Allow for higher density residential or "boutique" hotels in appropriate
areas.
9, Encourage lot consolidation of the small lots along the eastern portion of
the mile for commercial, mixed and visitor serving uses.
10. Review and evaluate the City & County controlled "tideland" leases to
optimize public use of the water and visual windows to the bay.
OPTION 1
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
A - Retain Existing Mixed -Use B - Intensify
E - Vertical Mixed -Use with
F - Vertical Mixed -Use with Residential
GENERAL PLAN
with Marine Commercial Commercial
Residential Above Retail
Above Retail
Uses
LAND USE SCENARIOS
MARINER'S MILE
��x
�
EW gL.W WB
—MJII-famW Razkbnllol
NJIo-ReIVIeC CanmewW
_ MwFeReMed Camnrerchl
/
/ �(
•
i of
Muhl ery Corrm. clm
t� ` J
K i�
�� 3"
✓
•
.- r � �
� ProtesbW 01fice1&isbeiN.letllcoWet
LC-q h M I.0aM
l� DFiah Res1w1m1. fmt fooa Resl�aant
i
MW.Eenanthd l
",
;�\_ J'
kMlMbrwLLOPen Space ('\
IVacmt &ivaFg
1
+ J
.. a
T -rT7
F
_
C -Horizontal Mixed -Use D -
Horizontal Mixed -Use -G - Retain Existing Uses
PROJEQ WMKR'. 10579 01
Requo rod HLR c by, M"
with Commercial and with Commercial and
Residential at 12 du/ac Residential at 12 du/ac
Dale oalao4
C 1 1�
l
t= is l
OPTION 2 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
A - Retain Existing Mixed -Use r B - Intensify D - Vertical Mixed -Use with Residential GENERAL PLAN
with Marine Commercial Commercial Above Retail
Uses LAND USE SCENARIOS
MARINER'S MILE
win WW
MUM x�ua
MuM-WHIN ROfbenMal
i Comlrombl
�� ,. �` _.� � nuiorebiea Carrrercbi
'� :� ' .• � MahaReblea Commeicbl
r' \ •1 \�J PBlwMI59Vb%
•;\ F MuM4
MUMervnl Camrnc bl
- Professiawl Ottke/BashesyMetlbaweJ
�+ /" A \ estanmrt�arcky
■ ■ �ry,/�'/ ' � >', - Ortia h R 1. FaO F�
q 1 iy. HOW
/ \> �M
S� ��(� 3 , _• C /., _ _ � MuIY Te 1c 1
`�:•/�//j r����% �Y� / �l S b kO n.VOw krone
II
�n � OVacmiBultlrg
�Optbn BdJMory
T
/ - f
w 11LL�
,
i
j C - Horizontal Mixed -Use E - Retain Existing Uses
with Commercial and
Residential at 12 du/ac
ROJECTNWKR: 10.999-01
fteaueitea by HIR C�m WM
W. 08/1 w
r;; E I P
Old Newport Boulevard Sub -Area Committee
July 12, 2004 Meeting Summary
• The meeting focused on the identification of possible Land Use Alternatives for Old Newport Boulevard.
Two broad and general concepts were put forward, each having a certain similarity to the overall General
Plan Visioning Process findings and to the existing Specific Plan direction. Key aspects shared by both
Concepts were:
The development of design guidelines that would more closely regulate architectural density,
appearance (especially as it can serve the `Community Character portions of the Guiding
Principals identified in the discussion paper of July liw), landscape, lighting, signage and street
furniture.
The narrowing of Old Newport and the vacation of land to each side to be developed in a unified
attractive edge, giving the entire area a cohesive theme, supportive of the community character
identified in the Visioning Process, and lowering the velocity of the auto along the ultimate ROW.
This new width would promote limiting curb -cuts, and increasing the use of shared vehicular
access and parking for parcels fronting the Boulevard. This would allow more area for parkway
landscaping.
A possible common parking facility could be located on the west side of the Boulevard to service
several area uses.
Concept 1
The items within the Concept 1, put forward by the group, included the following:
1. No new automotive uses.
2. On the east side of the Boulevard, continue and promote mixed -use land use, as this provides a
• transition toward the residential easterly of this area. The upper floor on the east side parcels
would be residential. Live work studio would be an acceptable use.
3. On the west side of the Boulevard, one to three-story medical and professional space, restaurant
and limited retail uses, subject to the design guidelines. Strict adherence to parking standards,
measured `per use' would, require that a restaurant, for example, in such an area have parking
requirements quite different than professional office and require the developer who might plan
such a use, to provide parking appropriate for that use.
4. On the west side of the Boulevard, executive housing is possible use.Z
S. A pedestrian bridge across Newport Boulevard would achieve a `gateway' image and encourage
pedestrian flow across from Hoag.
E
Concept 2
The items within the Concept 2, put forward by the group, included the following:
1. On the east side of the Boulevard, no new commercial uses should be permitted; the thinking
here was to maximize the residential character in this area in that the transition to the easterly
neighborhood was critical to the community character identification in the Visioning Process. East
side possibilities were low -density live work facilities or work force housing as long as the product
could be dense enough to make economic sense, but still preserve the community character.
2. Promote the commercial on the west side and the dividing island between and Old and new
Newport Boulevard.
3. Encourage low-key food service in lower density building envelopes, designed to cater to the
neighboring residents and business.
I This option supports the Economic Guiding Principal to encourage revitalization of older commercial areas.
2 As Identified as resldentlal uses possible as presented in the 7-12-04-discussion paper.
C:\Documents and Settings\TCampbell.NEWPORT_MIS\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKA6\01d Newport
Boulevard.doc
A 1 Mixed -Use Residential B 1 Moved Use Residential
CRY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN
Above Commercial Above Commercial
2 Medical Office with Limited Retail 2 Residential (12 du/ac)
3 Retail Commercial 3 Live/Work (25 du/ac(
LAND USE SCENARIOS
OLD NEWPORT BLVD
' ;
Z/
/ \
FxbIM RUbe
egtlentWbl
Re9dlxlfpl, SrpleFarlN flesldanfld
� MU114FQNNN Ileapenlld
CortvrlHcbl
_- :
#
u �\
�: NJAPebled Cortrrelcbl
M AgPeRebletl Carrnercbl
Pe l Servce; FiMeR/G
114
i \
\q. t
p i `/
— '✓ � _ }
�
� � n � ��, ,•/..� ; : •
/.'� I
�"
fvnluB, BuYtlln�den
ML&T 3PecbMy Rebq
NMH C l wrvnelcltl
a king.
F sf
�Dotl es
� OMIe-In RBs10Jlanf
IMUAeLq
Lgf,f lndunvl
MNinB Intlu6 d
_ MUAi4enm11MUFAkf T
InAiluHollaVOpen e
PubkbenY Rb1k
�: o I
VS w
-�
OONI
r]VacmtBupin9
op m
oCo
I �
—Y71
l
lea
�g. mswoi
- � "
Re .MH bw HLR Crea by: MJNP
bale. 00114l04
-
.� EIP
n
L.I
WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL
07/29/2004 15:18 9496443.229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 02
•
•
West Newport Industrial (W" Subcommittee Discussion
Subject
Date: My 12, 2004
com
F .,• .gin,.« C! Urtn an4 cnnl
c a c u�7adel-4ne2
pool g a cbe .
immar _on�adel hie net
cw� city newnort beach ea.us
Participants: Ronald Be=
Phillip Bettencaurt
Gus Chabre
Louise Greeley
Marie Marston
Sharon Wood
GEOGRAPMC SUBAREAS LAND USE POLICY
Reference: Newport Industrial
pOgMTn,p�17,ON—DiscussionPaper 9 : Virest
The curreat land use of the subject area ice:
Multi -family
kd attl
Light Industrial Use
Marine / Multi Tenant
c9mmer9in-1
Professional / Medical
Auto Related
Retail Serving
41.8%
32.1%
30.0%
lessthan 3.00/c
13.2%
1.8%
2.0%
lWelopmeat Scenarios: report was used as a
The outline of specific development scenarios in the r4feran* repo
guide in conducting the discussions in defioing the land use alternatives.
1. Industrial and Mar b" Uses
The North Section to remain as industrial land use.
Marine Uses nut to be given special Prtfemoe since the current marina related
uses are minimal at less than 3.0%. Marine Uses should be included in the North
Section Industrial land use. ,.
Note: Recreational Space discussions took place at this point:
West Newport Industrial lacks recreational space. The Banning
Ranch development will provide recreational space adjacent to
WNI
-07/29/2004 15:18 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 03
• Sunset Ridge will also be in close proximiiy to WNI
2. Residential
Mobile Home Park:
provides affordable housing
Leave as is --- 20 units per acre
Triangle Section
Mix / Use as residential / other
South of 15' Street
Keep as residential
3. Newport Technical Center
Study mix / use ----- Residential and R&D
Leave R&D
Convert to Medical Office
• 4. Intensirication of Medical Related Uses
Turn WNI into a medical campus which includes residential, medical
related businesses and offices.
Study a medical campus concept:
Trailer parks ouly
Entire WNI
Area in close approximation. to Hoag
5. Hospital Road
Redevelopment of the area should require additional parking to assist the
adjacent residents,
Eight Story intensified medical buildings should be studied
Leave it alone
is
OPTION 1 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN
Convert Existing Uses to Medical Office
LAND USE SCENARIOS
WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL
- ResitleMbl
Resbentbl, SkgleFamlN Residential
i � NWnFaniN Residential
'. ColrmeLcbl
a,ro.aelaed CCrtmercbl
- MabeRebted Camlesabl
Personal Sev'ces. FEnessr�iyisw<
�............................ . /_. ,.....,..,..,_................. ...........E ... ,. F e. BWNbsgFlaQ.me/GaiOen
s....� `M Tenant Conmelabl
\ Rotessbnol OMces&ss 01. NbMN, f
Communlry Cgmlercbl, dlntlnp,
" Food Stores
- Ohe-In Reslautant
g U nbh
- Llht Intt slsbl
- 1 ^cs =M1WYte 11tQ1sMal
® M Tenant lnds d
InSXNIbMWpen SlJabe !.
� PudksSeatl Public s�`�
5cnods [^\��r
� Vacmt wuhQ <
N option BourRlay
[ n+"� ♦ �� .... Ctly Bounadry
Mq�va�Maq�GsuglM.µ RCN Ch
n]ay�aN]` ierc4[11.Y�a]fN FwL Cdtlxrl°]l'.
wplg13.
PINJJECi NUMBER', 10505J9-019-01
Reauestedby: HLR Crealetlby: MJIPP
Dote'. 081140E
OPTION 2
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
A - Convert to Mu@i-Family
B - Convert to Medical
E - 1 Retain Existing Uses
GENERAL PLAN
Residential
Related Uses
2 Include New Residential with R&
3 Convert to Medical Office
LAND USE SCENARIOS
WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL
E»enno Land ub
RmldmHol
Re9befOb, Sr�gleFomNReytlentb
� MuM.FanN Resideritld
CommeiWl
Nub-Rdotetl Comnacbl
MaR�efklabd Commercbl
pel{gnpl $gY1ge5. FlhieRNiynu
:�
.............«........-. .........
%
... .... _.
rx crneer
FunRue, BUlbingM1lddwae/Golden
S..
- MNIFi9Mnt COfmglCbl
-Prdes [011iceyB.ismesyMedbayVat
Canal. pintlig,
-Food Stores
� Ok�eAn Itesbaan
IdlusRbl
Lgnl lndiaMal
---
�s
Maine IndusM1ld
/
MURI-TeWnt In Shu �(
Ins111u".VOp nSpace
PubliGSenJ Pubic �`�
� xmas
.,
0 O
.. Vocont Buldb9
A B
-
-
E \ /' •y�'.
Vacant Lot
Q option a nday
crcy llaurMay
T�
�.
J
,;
c
o xas aw
x.a
merv:a w,.m e.o�n w.a ray. ur xoor. w
�Mw mnr�mmw.�:uw mm.
e. maw. �.�on.ana,. sro�a�wwem..o-ae.
PROJECTNUMBER. 10579-0]
Requested by: HLR Cre by: NNlPP
- Medical Related Uses
D - 1 Intensify Medical Related
Uses
Dale. Wll ayoa
2 Maintain Mixed Use (Residential
and Office)
WEST 'NEWPORT RESIDENTIAL
AND HIGHWAY CORRIDOR
West Newport Highway Corridor — Summary of Focus Group Meeting
• The group focused on three primary aspects of this segment of the highway corridor.
These aspects were the Mobile Home park, the commercial / residential strip along the
north side of the highway, and the street itself.
Regarding the mobile home park, it was generally agreed that rezoning would be
desirable as the current use is an eyesore. Potential rezoning uses include: multi -family
up to 3 stories, special needs housing, park or open space, and parking.
It was noted that within the commercial / residential strip, that the commercial primarily
serves visitors rather than locals, excepting the restaurants. A desire to encourage
businesses that would serve the locals as well as the visitors was discussed. It was
noted that lack of adequate parking is a detriment to the commercial uses. Mixed use
was discussed as a potential zoning included residential over commercial at a maximum
of 2 stories. Block consolidation for commercial uses was also discussed. The group
agreed that the Specific Plan is not credible as it is currently focused. A rezone to all
residential was also discussed as a credible option and included possibilities of R2, SF
(like Lido Sands), mansions, and hotels.
Regarding the street, it was noted the high speed and the raised median presents
various problems of limited access to businesses, pedestrian access, concern for safety,
etc. The group's desire was to slow traffic down, allow more access to businesses, and
provide traffic calming. The group briefly discussed the likelihood of the 19t' Street
bridge crossing not proceeding and what the impact would be on this segment of PCH.
• It was also mentioned that this area has the opportunity of including an entry monument
to the City.
West Newport Residential — Summary of Focus Group Meeting
The group discussed the area and generally agreed that the existing residential zoning
should not be changed. Several other types of ideas, other than zoning, were discussed
for the area including:
• Providing a separate, continuous bike trail and sidewalk from 39'h to the Santa
Ana River (connect to the river trail and HB State Park trails)
• Traffic calming on Seashore Drive is desirable
• Code enforcement on garage use would provide additional street parking
• Consideration could be given to the strategic purchase of lots to supply additional
parking
• Along Neptune Avenue, a "cottage zone" could be implemented
• Conversion of Neptune area numbered streets to one-way could provide space
for streetscape amenities while calming traffic
• Condo conversion without adequate parking is not desired
• Additional bike lanes along Seashore are not desired
• A street connection at River / PCH is not desired
n
LJ
2
3
4
nily Residential
to Special
ousing
to Park or
Retain Existing Uses
/ Mph
I Convert Two Family
Residential to
Single Family Residential
, Convert to Mixed Use Developments with
Residential over Commercial
2 Convert to Residential and Hotel
3 Convert to Commercial Uses with
Block Consolidation
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE SCENARIOS
WEST NEWPORT HIGHWAY
CORRIDOR AND RESIDENTIAL
Etlsfing Lana Use
ReHtlenw
- mUaFamIN RBaWenllal
:::.: M]btlFl HGIIFIS
Cpanmwq l
3 f Buptlr9'BlorWmie/Garin&w1r"
- MMI T.0 Canmw a
- Ndessbr�al00w:wHuxlriesvTAetlicaWet
IS' Footl Sbree
- Dkghi Rea�amM
Hotal ��
Onibn dw
.._.. CRyBdxi-tlay Q�
buev: CAyY Wwp[ePdtAGaPCIM, JW 1Ny Cry
lw4n. Ma' T4f. Wc0. R'LLVw.W.. �. avCa 3ttV
f��4w Wtl�+.MT.54Axitr.'fW.
PROJECT NUMBER'. 10579 01
Repuestetl by'. HLR Crc etl by: WIPP
care. 08/1 n
t7w EI P
A S S O C I A T E S
Memorandum
To City of Newport Beach City Council and Planning Commission
From Woodie Tescher, EIP Associates
Subject Guiding Principles for the General Plan Update
Date August 6, 2004
INTRODUCTION
In May 2004 the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) began a process to define Guiding
Principles that will be used as the basis for framing and assessing the land use alternatives for
the General Plan Update. Essentially, these principles will function as benchmarks for the
development of land use alternatives and will constitute the rules by which the alternatives will
be judged. Guiding Principles may be thought of on a level with General Plan goals, from which
• more detailed policies and implementation measures will be developed. The Guiding Principles
elaborate and expand upon the Vision Statement that was defined through the public process
during the past year and a half.
Five sets of Guiding Principle discussion papers were developed that address Economic
Development, Community Character, Workforce and Special Needs Housing, Mobility, and
Environmental Conservation issues. Each discussion paper contains Guiding Principles and
descriptions of their applicability and implications for land use decisions.
The Guiding Principles have been reviewed by the GPAC and revisions were incorporated into
the full text document to reflect the comments received. This was reviewed by the General Plan
Update Committee (GPUC) on May 10, 2004 and a joint study session of the City Council and
Planning Commission on June 22, 2004. GPUC comments were summarized in the meeting
minutes and City Council comments in EIP's July 28, 2004 memorandum. These were
forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration in its deliberations on August 5, 2004.
The Commissions recommended changes to the GPAC-approved Guiding Principles are
presented below, with -additional text indicated by underline and deletions by strikeout.
EIP ASSOCIATES 12301 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD SUITE 430 Los ANGELES, CA 90025
Telephone (310)268-8132 roesimile (310)268-8175
•
LIST OF ALL GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Refer to the fall text Discussion Papers for the summation of key issues, opportunities, and
applications of the Guiding Principles listed below.
Note: The Planning Commission recommended that the Guiding Principles be flexible to
consider trade-offs among potentially competing Principles to account for planning objectives
that may be unique to a specific property or condition. To this end, the mandatory direction of
the GPAC's Principles ("shall" and "will") have been revised as general benchmarks ("should"
and "encourage"), which will be reviewed on selection of a preferred land use plan and may be
re -worded as final plan policies are prepared.
Discussion Paper 1• Guiding Principles for Economic Development
1. General Plan policies will -should maintain the City's positive fiscal balance.
2. General Plan land use policies will -should facilitate an economically viable concentration
of marine uses.
3. General Plan policies will -should encourage the revitalization of older commercial areas.
4. The General Plan should encourage mixed -use development.
• 5. General Plan policies v it should support City efforts to optimize retail sales capture in
the community.
6. The quantity of land designated for commercial use and the development standards that
regulate such uses shall -should reflect the market support that can reasonably be
anticipated during the General Plan time horizon.
7. General Plan policies Y414-should facilitate the development and retention of a variety of
business types that strengthen the vitality of the local economy.
8. Additional development entitlement needs-te-should demonstrate significant fiscal,
economic or other community benefit.
9. General Plan policies will -should protect the high value of residential property.
10. General Plan policies shall -should prepare the City to capitalize on market and
demographic changes and opportunities that emerge in key economic centers of the
community.
11. The General Plan shall -should support the careful expansion of visitor -serving businesses
and facilities, including hotels and meeting facilities.
12. The General Plan shall -should offer a distinct land use concept and policy framework for
the Airport Area.
Page 2
• Discussion Paper 2• Guiding Principles for Community Character
1. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the natural setting that contributes to the character
and identity of Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its residents and
visitors.
2. Maintain and, where feasible, enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different
neighborhoods and business districts that together identify Newport Beach.
3. Future development shall -should consider the scale, urban form, design, character and
quality of the community.
4. Balance developed lands with adequate open space and recreation areas and preserve
opportunities for maintaining healthy lifestyles in Newport Beach.
5. Preserve the community's heritage.
Discussion Paper 3• Guiding Principles for Workforce and Special Needs Housing
1. Promote a balanced residential community, comprised of a variety of housing types,
designs, and opportunities for all social and economic segments including very low, low,
moderate, and upper income households.
2. Maintain quality residential development through the application of sound planning
principles and policies that encourage the preservation, conservation and appropriate
renewal of the City's housing stock.
3. Consider mixed -use development as a means to create additional housing opportunities.
4. Gensidef Encourage the r-ezeningredevelopment of under -performing commercial areas
to allow residential or mixed -use development.
5. General Plan policies shall -should protect the high value of residential property.
6 The General Plan should preserve promote and respect the existing goals and policies set
forth in the City's currently certified Housing Element.
Discussion Paper 4• Guiding Principles for Mobility and Alternative Transportation Modes
1. Establish -Encourage General Plan land uses and density/intensity limits that, on balance,
will have less impact on peals hour traffic.
2. Consider the potential benefits and costs (housing, social, community character, fiscal
and economic) of land use and circulation system alternatives as part of the process of
adopting goals regarding acceptable levels of service for the circulation system.
Page 3
3. Regional traffic will be included in the analysis of land use alternatives, but such traffic
• should not be the sole reason for rejecting a land use alternative that would have net
benefits to Newport Beach.
4. In selecting land use and circulation system alternatives, weight- Qreater scr utinv will be
given to uses that create traffic congestion that is engeing as well as +e occurs throughout
the day compared to uses that create congestion that is limited to a few hours of the day
or a few months of the year.
5. The community will may accept additional congestion when f it chooses to maintain the
current urban form/community character by limiting roadway widening or other
circulation system improvements.
G. Consider establishing a different level of service standard for the airport area, with
„o . ration subject to evaluation of possible impacts on residential areas.
7. Improve, where feasible, parking supply and use of existing resources, and reduce
congestion in tourist areas.
8. Consider urban scale development in areas where there is potential for development
patterns that will minimize traffic.
9 T„,...,.ase City strategies and preg.ams to e;.h n Encourage the development and use of
• alternative transportation modes including bicycles and mass transportation, and
implementation of transportation systems management.
10. Plan the arterial roadway system to accommodate projected traffic at a level of service
acceptable to the community while minimizing neighborhood intrusion.
Discussion Paper 5• Guiding Princlples for Environmental Conservation
1. Encoura eg the Orotection, and-rehabilitatione or enhancement; of terrestrial and marine
habitats located within the City through careful siting of future development.
2. Encoura eg the Pprotection and improvement of water quality within the bay, estuaries,
tidelands, and ocean.
3. Minimize air quality degradation through land use practices and circulation
improvements. fl ' a ' the automobile-.
4. Encourage the maintenance of natural landforms.
5. Encourage the protection and where feasible and appropriate, creation of public
viewsheds within the City.
Page 4
Newport Beach General Plan Update
• PRELIMINARY GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE SCHEDULE
Revised August 23, 2004
•
0
GPAC meetings are scheduled on Mondays preceding City Council meetings (second and fourth
Tuesdays).
Date
I Topic
2004
Aug 23
IFull Committee Review of Land Use Alternatives
Sep 13
Sep 27
TBD
TBD
Oct 1 1
Focused Policy (topic TBD)
Oct 25
TBD
Nov 8
Focused Policy (topic TBD)
Nov 22
Alternatives Impacts I
Dec 13
Alternatives Impact II
Dec 27
No Meeting
2005
Jan 10
TBD
Jan 24
TBD
Feb 7
Preferred Plan I
Feb 21
TBD
Mar 7
Preferred Plan II
Mar 21
Sub -Committees: Conservation & Natural, Public Safety, Historic Resources
Apr 11
Sub -Committees: Conservation & Natural, Public Safety
Apr 25
Sub -Committees: Arts & Cultural, Harbor & Bay, Recreation & Open Space
May 9
Sub -Committees: Land Use, Recreation & Open Space
May 23
Sub -Committees: Land Use, Circulation, Economic Strategic Plan
Jun 13
Sub -Committees: Land Use, Circulation, Growth Management
Jun 27
Sub -Committees: Circulation
Jul 11
Sub -Committees: Housing, Noise
Jul 25
TBD
Aug 7
TBD
Aug 22
Full Committee Review of Sub -Committee Input
Sept 12
No Meeting
Sept 26
No Meeting
Oct 10
Implementation I
Oct 24
Implementation II
Dec 12
Draft GP and EIR Review
2006
IJan 9
1 Draft GP and EIR Review
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Monday, August 23, 2004
Roger Alford
Ronald Baers
Patrick Bartolic
Phillip Bettencourt
Carol Boice
Elizabeth Bonn
Karlene Bradley
Gus Chabre
John Corrough
Lila Crespin
Laura Dietz
Grace Dove
Florence Felton
Nancy Gardner
Louise Greeley
Bob Hendrickson
Tom Hyans
Mike Ishikawa
Kim Jansma
Mike Johnson
Bill Kelly
Donald Krotee
Lucille Kuehn
Philip Lugar
Barbara Lyon
Marie Marston
1
Catherine O'Hara &I, o�
Carl Ossipoff
Charles Remley
Larry Root
Sohn Saunders
Hall Seely
Tan Vandersloot
Tom Webber
Ron Yeo (Banning)
Raymond Zartler
•
0
E?
• GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Monday, August 23, 2004
PUBLIC SIGN -IN
ADDRESS/PHONE
E-MAIL ADDRESS
3a
oCAwier�►l��sar^c-h6.
m
t.
GENERAL PLAN AD91SORY COMMITTEE •
Monday, August 23, 2004
PUBLIC SIGN -IN
ADDKE55/PHONE
E-MAIL ADDRESS
0
S T E P U P T O T H E F U T U R E
a progress report an the general Galan update
some agreement, more discussions ahead
ewport Beach residents, business owners, and commu-
nity leaders have spoken, and in some important areas
your voices are in harmony! In many other sipfficant
areas, we still have mixed opinions and need to contin-
ue our spirited discussions as a community.
A series of successful communtty events were held in „ rW
the first half of 2002: including a Visioning Festival in o ,
January and a series of neighborhood workshops in the N
Spring. 'These activities produced thousands of com-
yl
ments and concerns, which were subsequently translat- '' g
ed into prehnihiary strategic directions for the City. In
October, we conducted a statistically valid community
survey with both residents and business owners to
further test these directions. In addition, the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAQ has
met six times since August to reflect on the key questions facing the City as it charts a course
for the future.
A careful analysis of all the ideas and opinions that have surfaced through these activities
reveals that Issues still remain that need to be further discussed and refined. This newsletter
focuses on the findings from the community survey, highlighting areas of strong agreement, as
well as those areas where we still need to work together to give direction on issues. The
upcoming technical analysis and policy development phase of the Plan Update will provide an
in-depth opportunity to do so. At the Visioning Summit, participants will have a chance to learn
more about where we are aligned as a community, and to provide additional input on the
remaining future directions.
Thank you for your continued involvement in shaping
the fixture of Newport Beach!
Join Us at the Upcoming
Visioning Summit!
Add your voice to the choirl Thousands have
spoken and are in agreement on a number of key
issues affecting our City. Join your neighbors to
learn more about the emerging vision for Newport
Beach, and to help us further clarify our direction
for the future. Attend either session, morning
or afternoon!
10:00 am to 12:30 pm,
Morning Session
1:00 pm to 3:30 pm
Afternoon Session
Located at the corner of 5th St. and
Marguerite St., Newport Beach
re
•
AREAS
OF GEAGREEMENT
ased on die many voices expressing ideas and hopes for the future of
Newport Beach at the Visioning Festival and die neighborhood work-
shops, the General Plan Advisory Committee shaped a vision state-
ment that appeared in the May issue of this newsletter. (Come to the
Visioning Summit to see die final vision smlemend)
In addition, through the many Visioning program activides, including
GPAC discussions, our community has come together on several more
specific topics. Here are die areas of general agreement that have
emerged and will be used to develop policies in the General Plan as
its updated o gr.dhe.nextyrar.
Our Current Identity: The vast majority of `
residents view Newport Beach as primarily a residential
beach town with broad appeal as a tourist destination.
Our Future Identity: Most residents prefer to reinforce
Newport Bunch's identity as bode a beach town and
residentialcommunity into die future.
Senior Services and Facilities: in general, residents
have expressed high levels of satisfaction with services for seniors.
Youth Services and Facilities: people report satisfac-
tion with die City's provision of services to youth. The CiVs Youth
Council supported additional enhancements to recreational opportu-
rides for youth, such as more sports fields and support for leagues.
Harbor and Beaches: overwhelming consensus exists that
our harbors and beaches must be protected and enhanced as our
most cherished resources. Issues that demand attention are improv-
ing water quality and enhancing recreational areas.
Distinctive Characteristics: There is broad
agreement on Newport Beach's numerous assets and
overall quality of life. Residents, for example, cite the
aVs community character, governance and community
design as significant qualities. in a survey of the City's
business community, the City's location within the County,
its physical beauty, and the purchasing power of the com-
munity are fisted as exceptionally attractive attributes.
Coastal Bluffs: Many residents feel strongly that coastal bluff
areas are important and should be protected through stricter codes,
• tougher enforcement and improved planning and design efforts.
56% of residents support City protection of die coastal bluffs as
required by the Coastal Act, while 38% favor the protection of
property owners' rights.
Public View Corridors: Newport residents agree that
the City should preserve remaining public view corridors, including
views of Coastal Bluffs, and create more views wherever possible.
Additionally, a citywide inventory of existing public view corridors
and firmer guidelines were recommended.
Areas Suitable for Mixed Use: From Input collected
at die Visioning Festival and through die website, the areas deemed
appropriate for mixed -use development integrating housing and
commercial or office space are Balboa Village, Cannery Village,
McFadden Square and Lido Marina Village. The GPAC favors mixed -
use development in all appropriate sites, and believes each site
should be studied for its specific suitability.
Use of Underutilized Commercial Land: There
is broad agreement that the City should consider re -zoning excess
and underutilized commercial lands for residential or mixed -use
development.
Tidelands and Other Public
Lands: Most residents concur that tidelands
and other public lands should be preserved as
open space. Some development for public fatuities
is supported. Survey results reveal that 506 of res-
idents oppose the City allowing the development of
portions of waterfront property at Newport Danes
and Marina party with 41% citing strong oppost-
don. Business survey respondents were more split on the issue, with
56% supporting and 41 % opposing, with 30% strongly opposed.
Airport Issues: The vast majority of residents state that the City
should have a land use strategy to prevent the expansion of the air-
port. confirming this view, there is strong support for the construc-
tion of an airport at El Toro: 64916 of residents and 55% of businesses
affirm their support, with 5676 of residents strongly supporting. 27%
of residents and 37% of businesses are opposed. if flights from a new
airport were restricted from passing over the City, survey respondents
would be slightly more supportive of the project
City Funding Priorities: Most participants named the
following as City expenditure priorities: infrastructure maintenance;
citywide improvements to roads; revitalization of infrastructure in
older commercial areas, acquisition and Improvement of open space
and parks; improved water quality; public safety; and City beautiBca-
don and landscaping.
n the following topics, participants in die Visioning program
events had different viewpoints. These areas will require more
discussion to better understand die nature of die disagreement,
consider the results of die fiscal and traffic studies currently
underway, and identify potential points of future agreement.
The recent telephone surveys of residents and business owners
and employees in Newport Beach help to finite the issues.
Potential Development Areas: Overall, people
want the City to set firm constraints on development, including
expansion of employment centers. However, under certain
conditions additional development of employment centers may
be acceptable.
Fashion Island: The surveys revealed somewhat
contradictory results. 70% of resident respondents and
61% of business respondents desire to keep retail space
at current levels, while 67% of residents and 66% of
business support tine expansion of existing stores.
62% of resident respondents and 68 % business would
endorse moderate increases in retail space to attract
new businesses. .
Newport Center: Tile strongest contingent of opinion among
residents (71%) and business (68%) supports little or no change
to the size and amount of buildings. However, both groups are
amenable to allowing existing companies to grow (57% residents,
61% business). Residents are split on the entrance of new
businesses (48% pro/ 48% con) and die development of
residential and mixed -use buildings (45% pro/ 51% con).
Businesses are more supportive of both initiatives: 63% support
the former and 56% the latter.
Airport Business Area: Among residents, two-thirds
would support no changes, or low-rise buildings. On
the other hand, 58% report opposition to new high-rise
buildings (40% strongly oppose) as well as car
dealerships (64%), and industrial uses (62916). There
was a split on adding more retail stores (47% pro/ 49%
con). Business owners also support new low-rise
buildings (68%) and more retail stores (63%). They are
split over the no change and high-rise options, and also oppose
more car dealerships (79%) and industrial uses (57%).
0
Banning Ranch: Residents are divided over how Banning
Ranch should be developed for the future. 44% would allow for
half of the land to be utilized for residential and limited light
industrial use with. the remaining half of die space reserved as
open space; an opposing 46% support preserving the entire area
as open space even though this option may require a local tax
increase of $250 per parcel per year for fifteen years along with
matching state funds to pay for complete preservation.
Hotels: In response to die question of whether.
the City wants more hotels, a majority of resident
survey respondents were opposed. ifhotels were
to be built in the City, 61% of residents find
smaller -sized inns appropriate.
A majority of residents support die building of
new hotels in two areas: 73% support locating a
new hotel in the airport business area and 54%
in Newport Center. Otherwise, residents tend to oppose locating
new hotels in: Marinapark (66%),Lido Marina Village (63%),
Mariner's Mile (60%), and Newport Dunes (49%).
Business survey respondents were split over hotel development,
with approximately 4 supporting for every 3 opposing. Businesses
favor hotel development to support tourism (61%), business
conferences (506), tax revenue (57%), and local stores (54%).
ri ty-four % favor large hotels as appropriate. The two areas that
received strongest support from business for a new hotel are:
airport business area (7491.) and Newport Center (58%). Areas
of strongest opposition: Marinapark (59%) and Lido Marina
Village (57%).
Tourism: Residents are roughly split on the
City providing more tourist accommodations,
including more restrooms (48% pro/ 43% con),
shuttle bus service (51% / 45%), and more
parldng (50%/ 47%). However, three quarters
of residents oppose building more retail stores
and restaurants.
Business respondents are more supportive of
accommodating tourism for each of the above measures except
that they also oppose (61%) more retail and restaurants.
continued on bock
AREAS of D I V I D E D
OPINION
Transportation Improvements: Traffic is a Traffic Impacts on Residential Areas: There is
concern for residents and business, 57% of whom rate no clear direction on how to mitigate traffic impacts on neighbor -
truffle to be somewhat congested. More than a quarter hoods. Only 37% of residents and 29% of businesses support
of residents perceive traffic as very congested. traffic calming measures, such as stop signs, narrowed streets or
Residents and businesses prefer leaving roads as they roundabouts. Some have suggested stricter enforcement of speed
currently are to widening options by a 2 to 1 ratio. limits, and improving transit options and school transportation.
ar No consensus has emerged on how to remedy the traffic
issues. A majority of residents oppose all types of suggested Economic Development: 57%of
Improvements to traffic circulation. The strongest opposition ' i
residents support die position that encouraging
to widening Jamboree Rd. (71 % residents/ 62% business) an ' ' economic development will detract from residents'
Macarthur Blvd. (68% residents/ 60% business). The options quality of fife, whereas 33% believe that economic
with greatest relative support are building an overpass at development will be in the best interest of
Macarthur and Jamboree and widening PCH through Mariner's residents. 45% of business owners support the
Mile. The support for those improvements is stronger from first position and 42% support die second.
business than from residents.
The margin of error for the 175 businesses sorve�ed is 7.3'16� Pleasa refer to the complete report 'of 86rvey results,
which will be available on the website ofter'No'vember 6di (obvision2025.com), an at We bmmun[ty Visioning
Summit on November 1611,
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PRES
3300 Newport Beach Boulevard U.SARD
POSTAGE
P.O. Box 1768 PAID
Newport NEWPORT BEACH, CA
Ne
cop PERMIT NO.82
•
35aV bax Note 7871 r� ( ^ I I
ed
• v C
i a! Sa ■i at go go go
ax g
Table IV-5
0
COSTS AND
REVENUES PER ACRE
o
IRVINE
GENERAL. PLAN
-- o-------------------------------------------------
x---------------------------------
-- - ----•-----------
�
RECURRING REVENUES
Retail_`TnSiltut
ComeerciatfTnduatrial lend uses (peidentfal
Acre)
Res
---•------------•------------•--
Land Uees
Fper Aeret
Heoultice-__Office_ Itnt/uhst t
Motet
_-------`-------`-
--`-
.___-RID-
Rurat)Est
Low
RedIDR
MedNigh
High
PROPERTY TAX
HOTEL DCCUP TAX
533
0
0
0
697
0
636
437
437
546
ISO
560
756
1,310
I'm
FRANCHISE TAXES
333
333
333
0
333
0
333
0
333
56,479
961
0
12
0
0
UTILITY USERS TAX
303
0
463
463
463
463
T 335
0
62
123
308
492
SALES TAX
29822
,
0
0
0
5,755
0
4,656
0
p
0
0
0
CIGARETTE TAX
507
0
0
0
98
D
79
4
0
0
DOC-4RANS TAX
11
0
15
14
9
9
0
17
E9
59
40
BUSINESS LICENSES
465
0
399
399
142
142
25
13
0
42
56
9T
0
ANIMAL LICENSES
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
REC PROGRAM FEES
0
0
0
D
0
0
;
i7
3D
61
93
FINES A FORFEITS
117
117
717
117
117
0
117
D
117
57
12
257
1,418
MOTOR YEN IN -LIEU
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
107
T1
111
269
69
427
LANDSCAPE DISTRICT
80
0
80
80
80
8o
80
15
498
1;
Z,6
Total Revenues
¢zees::
S3Z,173
=ec aza
5450
zaza .a
$2,105
szsczee
$2,042
ccazaaz
$7,434
sazasse
$1,581
:sass:
$64,279
azsRzez
$404
TS
e:zaaiz
ISO
15O
:sass::
375 75
cz RSRac
60D
:esRzzz
------------------------------------
----------------.-._._-•--•--`-------------•`------•-
---.
S1,589
$2,563
$5.183
$6,93t
er DU Revenues
-_----'
_______________
Per Capita Revenues
$404
5318
$256
SZ07
3173
$124
S106
$99
S97
$85
RECURRING COSTS
.-'___________________•__.`-.
Retell
Institut
MedOfffce
Office
MnfrUhse
RID
Motet
Rura UEst
LOW
Medium
------------------------------------------------------------
____
- ---
MedHigh
Sigh
g
COMHUNITY DEVELOPMENT
337
0
337
337
337
337
337
--'
46
_____________________
____ _ ----•I'm
COMMUNITY SERVICES
0
0
0
D
D
0
0
36b
757
PUBLIC SAFETY
1,210
0
1,174
1,378
T,240
1,11047
T,523
Z4d
246
792
1,140
140
1,962
1,962
2,817
4,f48
4,27d
PUBLAC SERVICES
f,288
381
774
378
240
347
523
201
715
4,053
6,151
PusC YORKS
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
1,081
1,815
2,318
GEN"AL GOVERNMENT
168
24
136
112
104
110
121
41
13
13
13
AOHM SERVICES
243
35
198
163
151
160
176
60
176
a
Total Costs
;�--•--
'- .LO.
S453
_`-aaz__
SZ,568
�-E-_--
$2,112
C_6aRD3
$1,955
Rsee:=C
S2,077
azOi os
52,279
ze=t Os
255
¢:GCBs:
424849
424
zzaersa
837
szae T_ps
1,232
:sass::
---------------` -
-$3,159
---------------
$778
$3,314
$5,502
$1II 86B
$15 987
er Costs
Per Capita Costs
$778
$663
$550
$435
S400
-
$239
$220
S212
S203
S197
NET BALANCE PER ACRE
KEY BALANCE PER DU
$29,013
($3)
(5464)
($70)
$5,479
(5496)
$62,000
(S374)
(S1,725)
($2,939)
CS5,685)
(5374)
CS345)
(5294)
(S228)
(S9,053)
($227)
O
i
Orange County Cities Comparative Data
•
Population
Residents/
Rank/Res/ Budget/
Rank
Full Time
Part Time
2003 City Empl
City Empl, i Resident
R/Budget
City Empl. City Empl.
FT03-04 #
# #
#
BEACH CITIES
Dana Point
35,415
1,142
7 $809
7
31
9
Huntington Bch
199,800
190
3 $1,817
4
1050
600
Laguna Bch
23,727
95
1 $2,107
1.
250
150
_ _
Newport Beach 79,392 105
_ _ _
.29*
_ _
_ _ _ _
755 460
,.. .a.._.._.._.._.._..'.._.._.._.._.._.._.------._.._.
San Clemente 60,701 353
5 $1,694
5
_
172 -31
San Juan Cap.
35,215
363
6 $1,531
6
97
17
Seal Beach
24,157
265
4 $2,107
1*
91
112
INLAND CITIES
Aliso Viejo
43,879
4,875
$217
9
0
Anaheim
340,000
170
$3,229
1997
1642
Brea
37,962
106
$1,766
358
132
Buena Park
80,100
272
$812
295
150
Costa Mesa
110,720
189
$1,004
586
191
Cypress
47,263
246
$692
192
125
Fountain Valley
54,978
214
$406
257
33
Fullerton
131,500
200
$1,189
656
96
Garden Grove
169,200
250
$798
678
286
•Irvine
156,000
263
$641
593
304
LaHabra
60,816
203
$988
299
222
LaPalma
15,408
233
$527
66
53
Laguna Hills
33,910
1,356
$398
25
10
Laguna Niguel
65,092
1,328
$478
49
35
Laguna Woods
19,500
2,438
$436
8
0
Lake Forest
76,596
1,532
$341
50
16
Los Alamitos
11,850
198
$1,003
60
50
Mission Viejo
98,268
780
$509
126
0
Orange
132,947
196
$1,108
679
96
Placentia
46,488
342
$545
136
124
Rch Sta Margari
48,478
3,729
$341
13
2
Santa Ana
348,143
194
$1,051
1799
0
Stanton
38,305
1,321
$587
29
6
Tustin
69,078
244
$1,328
283
0
Villa Park
6,120
1,224
$425
5
1
Westminster
90,643
345
$789
263
203
Yorba Linda
62,678
627
$331
100
80
AVERAGES
88,738
855
$813
356
143
COUNTY TOTA $2,854,329 25,589 $34,111 12,057 5,236
COUNTY AVG. $83,951 753 $1,003 355 154
Notes: * = Statistical tie
City Data - All data (except #) from Leage of California OC Cities City Directory 2004 2004
Newport Beach considered tree trimming to be a minor cost and didn't report it.
• s = Subcontracted # - Calculated by Greenlight
•
9)
Budget
"($000)
Total
Privatized Trash
Services
Other
Major
Fire. pojioe' Services
$28,636 8 s s s 4
$363,000 1 s
$50,000 1 s
_..—.._.._.._..—.._.._.._..—.._
$102,837—..�5._.. s ._.. 5._.._S._....3_.._....._....._.._.._
$53,929 3 s s s
$50,904 2 s s
$9,513
6
?
s
s
4
$1,098,000
2
s
1
$67,054
1
s
0
$65,025
5
s
s
3
$111,166
1
s
0
$32,714
2
s
s
0
$22,347
3
s
2
$156,351
6
s
5
$135,086
1
0
$100,000
2
s
s
0
$60,079
8
s
7
$8,118
2
s
s
0
$13,486
7
s
s
s
4
$31,098
6
s
s
s
3
$8,500
8
s
s
s
5
$26,153
5
s
s
s
2
$11,889
2
s
s
0
$50,000
7
s
s
s
4
$147,245
5
s
4
$25,354
2
s
s
0
$16,523
8
s
s
s
5
$365,797
1
s
0
$22,473
6
s
s
s
3
$911722
4
s
s
2
$2,600
3
s
s
s
0
$71,552'
3
s
s
1
r
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, August 23,
2004, at the OASIS Senior Center.
Members Present:
Roger Alford
Nancy Gardner
Catherine O'Hara
Phillip Bettencourt
Louise Greeley
Charles Remley
Carol Boice
Bob Hendrickson
John Saunders
Elizabeth Bonn
Mike Ishikawa
Hall Seely
Gus Chabre
Mike Johnson
Jan Vandersloot
John Corrough
Bill Kelly
Tom Webber
Lila Crespin
Lucille Kuehn
Ron Yeo
Laura Dietz
Phillip Lugar
Raymond Zartler
Florence Felton
Marie Marston
Members Absent:
Ronald Baers Tom Hyans (sick leave) Carl Ossipoff
Patrick Bartolic Kim Jansma Larry Root
Karlene Bradley Donald Krotee
Grace Dove Barbara Lyon
Staff Present:
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant
Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant
Members of the Public Present:
Phil Arst Carol Hoffman Mark Tabbert
Patricia Barnes Ken Johnson Sharon Wright
Alan Beek Jeffrey Lambert
Robin Everett Merrilee Madrigal
I. Call to Order
Nancy Gardner called the meeting to order.
II. Approval of Minutes
The minutes for the July 12, July 26 and August 9 meetings were approved as
submitted.
III. Presentation of Land Use Alternatives
Woodie Tescher reviewed the Land Use Alternatives submitted by the Geographic
Subcommittees. During the presentation, committee members offered comments and
corrections.
Airport Business Area
John Saunders pointed out that the committee thought residential could be
added anywhere in the area, not just the three specific areas listed. Ms. Gardner
stated she recalled the focus on the three areas however thought the language
could be adjusted so residential would not be excluded from other areas. Hall
Seely also recalled the subcommittee discussing residential uses in other areas
within the airport business area.
Carol Boice asked about the density in option 2. Mr. Tescher stated 60-80 units
per acre would be mid -rise.
• Phil Bettencourt stated Brookfield was in the process of preparing a General Plan
Amendment and application for low-rise residential in the area of Spruce and
Quail.
Jan Vandersloot asked about the use of the word "intensify" because he did not
recall the word being used in the subcommittee discussions. Ms. Gardner
pointed out that regarding workforce housing the discussion was that the density
would be higher in this area. Mr. Tescher stated that intensify means addition.
Bob Hendrickson asked if the recommendation in Area B came from the
Subcommittee or Planning staff. Ms. Gardner stated it was a combination of
both.
Mr. Saunders asked about the FAR in Area A, he thought it was .50 now instead
of 1.0. Mr. Tescher stated that an FAR of 1.0 means 2 to 3 story buildings for a
frame of reference.
Balboa Peninsula — Lido Village
Carol Hoffman asked why Area A did not include the waterfront area on the
other side of Via Oporto, John Corrough thought that the uses Area A were
consistent with what the Subcommittee had discussed for the waterfront area,
• he pointed out there was an overlay used by the committee that would show
what was intended for the entire area.
rJ
• Ron Yeo asked how the comments submitted by Ron Baers fit into the land use
for the area.
Mr. Vandersloot pointed out the word "intensify" was used in this area and he
would like the word removed. Mr. Corrough stated the idea was net change, he
stated the group did not assign an amount of change during the discussions.
Ms. Gardner pointed out that the groups were only looking at small areas when
the recommendations were determined and may be too much when looking at
the plan as a whole. Laura Dietz added that intensify could mean by one.
Ms. Wood pointed out that the land uses being presented tonight are not
"recommendations", they are alternatives for study, we are not at the
recommendation stage yet. The subcommittees were asked to provide the best
and worse case scenarios for the areas and then after the analysis we will start
working on what will be acceptable.
Mr. Corrough stated another idea discussed for this area was to get people into
parking garages and then turn them into pedestrians, or have them use trams,
water taxies, etc. for travel down the peninsula.
• Balboa Peninsula — Cannery Village — no comments.
Balboa Peninsula — McFadden Square — no comments.
Balboa Peninsula — Balboa Village
Ms. Hoffman pointed out that under Option 2, two units per acre were listed and
it should probably be two units per lot.
Mr. Vandersloot pointed out the word "encourage" instead of "intensify" in this
area.
Gus Chabre pointed out that it is hard to put on a map the importance of the
relationship between water and the land use; however it is a very important
component in this area. Mr. Corrough agreed and indicated it was discussed at
length. He also indicated water uses had a significant impact on parking in the
area.
Mr. Yeo suggested a map indicating the location of the tidelands would be
helpful.
Ms. Kuehn questioned the language indicating "the Balboa Theater is the lynch
• pin of revitalization".
3
Banning Ranch
Mr. Vandersloot stated he thought the 50 foot buffer in the first paragraph of
page 3 was going to be deleted. He also pointed out that Category 2 areas can
also be found on the upper mesa.
Mr. Bettencourt stated he hoped there would be some latitude in Option 4 to
allow for more acreage to make the resort feasible in that area. Mr. Vandersloot
also recalled that option including 50 units per acre for the 10 acres.
Ms. Kuehn indicated she thought the idea of a senior center would not be
feasible for this area.
Corona del Mar — no comments.
Fashion Island/Newport Center
Mr. Vandersloot pointed out that Area D on the map is currently zoned open
space and stated he felt the General Plan should not take away designated open
space without replacing it somewhere else. Ms. O'Hara pointed out that Banning
Ranch has a large portion recommended for open space.
Mr. Yeo suggested including the area east of Avocado In the Corona del Mar
• planning area. Ms. Wood explained that for General Plan purposes the area is
included in the statistical area for Newport Center and Measure S requires the
City to track by statistical area.
Mr. Vandersloot pointed out that the Newport Center area should be considered
for affordable housing.
Carol Boice asked about the capacity for the 58,000 square foot conference
center compared to the Long Beach Convention Center which has a capacity of
approximately 12,000 people. Ms. Wood indicated she would check the report
where the square footage came up to see if it indicated capacity.
Charles Remley asked why the number of seats where not indicated for the
theaters in Section F as they are in Section C.
Mariner's Mile
Mike Johnson pointed out that in a previous discussion about this area the need
for safe bicycle traffic was an important issue.
Mr. Yeo explained that in the second scenario Area C, the subcommittee was
. stressing water -oriented harbor uses when they came up with this concept.
51.
Mr. Vandersloot indicated the use of the word "intensify" in this area caught his
• eye because the intersection of Riverside and Coast Highway is one of the worst
in the City and to intensify use will increase traffic. He also thought the
community associations should be consulted about Option 2, because he doesn't
think they will go along with the plan to move the highway.
Bill Kelly asked if the subcommittee had discussed elevating the highway. Mr.
Corrough indicated they had not. Mr. Yeo added because of view corridors there
was discussion of compressing it however then there are water problems, that is
when the idea of moving the highway up against the bluff came up.
Old Newport Boulevard — no comments.
West Newport Industrial
Mr. Saunders suggested combining medical and residential which could include
nursing homes and would keep traffic counts and parking needs more
reasonable.
Ms. Dietz asked if there were any restrictions prohibiting medical and senior
housing in the same building. Mr. Tescher indicated certain types of medical
uses may have restrictions due to use of chemicals, etc.; however medical offices
• may not have the same restrictions.
Ms. Greeley asked if nursing homes were considered residential. Mr. Tescher
indicated it depended on how the city defines the code.
•
Mr. Remley pointed out that Area B on the map was incorrectly shown as a
trailer park.
West Newport Residential & Highway Corridor — no comments.
IV. Guiding Principles for the General Plan
Ms. Wood explained that the Guiding Principles with Planning Commission revisions
were provided as information for GPAC. The Guiding Principles will_ be used when we
start developing policies; they will not be adopted as a separate document.
Ms. Boice asked why the Planning Commission deleted the exposure to noise hazards
and intrusion of light sources from Guiding Principles on Environmental Conservation.
Ms. Wood felt the Commission thought those issues would be analyzed as part of an
EIR. She added the General Plan does have a noise element and light could be covered
with policies in community character.
5
0
11
V. Discussion of Future Agenda Items
A new meeting schedule was distributed and discussed.
VI. Public Comments
Robin Everette, Vice Chair of Banning Ranch Park Preserve Task Force and member of
the Sierra Club, spoke in support of the open space option for Banning Ranch.
Patricia Barnes, Sierra Club Outings Leader, also spoke in favor of leaving Banning
Ranch open space and as natural as possible.
Phillip Arst provided copies of documents from Newport Beach, Irvine and the League
of Cities (documentation from visioning process, Table IV-5 Irvine General Plan Costs &
Revenues per Acre and Orange County Cities Comparative Data). He asked the
Committee to remember what the residents want during this planning process.
Committee members responded that they are residents.
2