HomeMy WebLinkAboutGP Update-Land Use AlternativesCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item: Study Session 2
December 9, 2004
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Planning Department
Tamara J. Campbell, AICP, Senior Planner
(949) 644 -3238, tampbell@city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: General Plan Update — Land Use Alternatives
Review land use alternatives for further study in the General Plan update.
DISCUSSION:
The General Plan update work program calls for the evaluation of land use alternatives
to be developed by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). GPAC organized
into subcommittees who met over two months developing alternatives for various
geographic subareas, completing their work in August. It is important to note that these
are alternatives and not recommendations; they were developed for the purpose of
further study to determine potential traffic, fiscal, and environmental impacts. GPAC,
staff and the City's consultants will use the results of these impact studies to make land
use adjustments and develop a preferred land use plan.
For each of the following geographic areas, which had been identified in the original
scope of work for the update, a subcommittee developed two to four alternatives for
future land use.
• Airport Business Area
• Balboa Peninsula (including Cannery Village, McFadden Square, Balboa Village,
Lido Village /Civic Center)
• Banning Ranch
• Corona del Mar
• Fashion Island /Newport Center
• Mariner's Mile
• Old Newport Boulevard
• West Newport Industrial
• West Newport Residential and Highway Corridor
General Plan Update — Land Use Alternatives
December 9, 2004
Page 2
The General Plan Update Committee (GPUC) reviewed the alternatives at their
meetings on August 23 and November 15, 2004. The second review took place after
the defeat of Measure L and when more information comparing the alternatives to the
existing General Plan was available. GPUC made minor adjustments to three
geographic subareas: Cannery Village (adding the Albertson's shopping center), Lido
Village (adding a third alternative that does not include lodging) and McFadden Square
(deleting Marinapark). Changes recommended by GPUC have been incorporated into
the data presented in the tables and charts attached to this report.
A narrative summary of the various land use alternatives is provided as Exhibit A.
Exhibit B includes an analysis of each alternative on a Table entitled GPAC Land Use
Alternatives and on bar charts showing, by land use type, the amount of existing
development, the amount of development allowed by the existing General Plan, and the
amounts of development that would result from the alternatives. This information
should provide the easiest means of understanding the alternatives and how they
compare to existing conditions.
Before any further analysis begins, staff is presenting the alternatives to the Planning
Commission and City Council for information and to provide an opportunity for "course
correction" if the Commission or Council see something in the alternatives that they
think should not even be considered, or if they identify an important alternative not yet
identified for analysis. Again, the only purpose for these alternatives is to provide the
basis for further analysis. We are not asking the Planning Commission to recommend a
preferred land use plan at this point.
After Planning Commission and City Council review, the alternatives will be analyzed
using our traffic and fiscal impact models and standard analysis for other environmental
impacts. The analysis method approved by the General Plan Update Committee will
result in identification of impacts for each alternative by geographic area, and best and
worst case Citywide summaries. This information will be presented in a newsletter that
will be mailed to all residents in late winter and will be the basis for discussion at a
public workshop scheduled for early spring. With the results of the impact analysis and
public input from the workshop, GPAC's next task will be to refine their land use work,
and recommend a preferred land use plan for consideration by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
Prepared by:
1-,� "W
Tamara J. Cknpbell, AICP
Senior Planner
Submitted by:
Sharon Z. Woo
Assistant City Hager
General Plan Update — Land Use Alternatives
December 9, 2004
Page 3
Attachments: Exhibit A - Narrative Text dated November 2, 2004; "Summary of GPAC
Alternatives"
Exhibit B - GPAC Land Use Alternatives Table and Bar Charts
Exhibit C — GPUC Minutes 11/15/04
0
EXHIBIT
NARRATIVE TEXT -
SUMMARY OF GPAC ALTS.
4
• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND USE
ALTERNATIVES
SUMMARY
REVISED December 2, 2004
The following summarizes the land use alternatives identified by the General Plan
Advisory Committee (GPAC) for the twelve areas targeted for special study for the City
of Newport Beach General Plan Update. The GPAC's objective was to specify a range of
credible options to the existing General Plan's land use plan that will be evaluated for
their traffic, fiscal, and environmental impacts to be compared with one another and the
existing General Plan. Information derived from these analyses will provide a
framework for the GPAC's and public's review and input for the selection of a preferred
updated Land Use Plan.
This document presents a general overview of the conceptual and quantitative differences
among the land use alternatives. The narrative description is accompanied by a series of
tables and bar charts that compare the existing land uses of each sub -area with the
buildout of the City's existing General Plan and each of the alternatives. It should be
noted that for some of the alternatives, the buildout estimates include development
potential of lands adjoining the designated study areas as the statistical tabulation areas
("Traffic Analysis Zones') are larger than the designated study areas. The key issues,
objectives, and concepts of each alternative are more fully described in the summary
reports prepared for each planning sub -area by the GPAC (available from the Planning .
Department).
■ OVERVIEW
Generally, the City's existing General Plan provides for increments of growth above
existing development in many of the study areas, while the GPAC's alternatives represent
a mix of strategies that have capacities that in some cases exceed and others are less than
the General Plan. The alternatives encompass strategies for the preservation of sites as
open space (an option for Banning Ranch), infill and expansion of existing uses, and re-
use for other purposes such as mixed use structures. These fall into four basic categories:
a. Study area alternatives facilitating the infill of underutilized parcels and re -use with
increments of growth that are greater than existing uses and the capacities of the
General Plan.
• Airport Business Area (with one option comparable to the existing General Plan's
commercial, office, and industrial capacities with the addition of housing)
• • Fashion Island/Newport Center
• West Newport Industrial
GPAC LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY
• Mariners Mile (primarily through the development of mixed use projects)
b. Study area alternatives allowing for increments of growth with planned development
capacities below those permitted by the existing General Plan. While the housing
capacity of some alternatives may exceed the General Plan, this is more than offset by
reductions in their commercial and office capacities.
• Banning Ranch
• Lido Village (north of Via Lido and along harbor frontage)
• Mc Fadden Square (northeast of Newport Boulevard)
• Corona del Mar
c. Study areas characterized by a mix of development alternatives, whose growth
capacities are both above and some below the existing General Plan.
• Lido Village (south of Via Lido and Civic Center)
• Old Newport Boulevard
• West Coast Highway
• Balboa Village
d. Study areas options that provide for increments of growth equivalent to the existing
General Plan.
• Mc Fadden Square (west of Newport Boulevard)
■AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA
Two alternatives were identified by the GPAC for the Airport Business Area that provide
for the infill of a number of properties considered as underutilized due to their extensive
coverage with surface parking and re -use of properties immediately adjoining the John
Wayne Airport (the "Campus Tract ").
As a baseline, the existing General Plan provides for increases of approximately 9% of
commercial and office development and 8.5% of industrial development in excess of
existing development.
One GPAC alternative reduces the General Plan's commercial capacity by about 1 %,
while increasing its office capacity by approximately 17 %. Cumulatively, the retail and
office uses would be increased by approximately 15% greater than the existing General
Plan, or 25% above existing development. This alternatives' capacity for industrial uses
is approximately 10% greater than the General Plan, or 19% above existing development.
The second alternative provides for the development of multi- family housing, while
reducing the area's capacity for retail and office development, as opportunities for people
to live in proximity to jobs in the Airport and surrounding areas and help meet Newport
Beach's share of regional housing needs. This is intended to reduce vehicle trip lengths
and would complement planned residential projects in business areas to the north in the
City of hvine. With the exception of housing, this alternative's capacity is comparable to
�P
GPAC LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY
• the existing General Plan. It has capacity for approximately 2,400 housing units, none of
which are included in the existing General Plan, reduces the commercial capacity 4.1 %
below that permitted by the existing General Plan and increases the office capacity by 2%
(cumulatively 1.1 % above the existing Plan) and industrial capacity by 10 %.
There was no clear direction on the Airport Area from the Visioning Process. Although
63% of Visioning Festival participants indicated that the City should expand in this area,
the survey found that 65% of residents supported no change while 66% supported new
low -rise office development and 73% supported hotel development. At the Visioning
Summit, mixed use development with high- density residential also was supported.
■ BALBOA VILLAGE
Six alternatives were identified by the GPAC for the Balboa Village planning sub -area.
Generally, these provide for a reduction of the area designated for commercial uses,
concentrating these in proximity of the ferry terminal, and re- designate these areas for
mixed -use structures (integrating housing with retail); overnight accommodations, and
housing (maximum of two units per lot).
Two alternatives specifically provide for the re-use of isolated commercial properties
outside of the core on Balboa Boulevard for housing, resulting in a small number of
additional units. Another maintains the mix of uses accommodated by the existing
General Plan, but targets commercial properties to uses that are marine and recreational-
oriented.
The fourth land use alternative provides for the evolution of many properties developed
with commercial and office uses for mixed use structures, with retail and restaurant uses
located on the ground floor to enhance street pedestrian activity and housing on upper
levels. While the existing General Plan provides for a 4.6% increase in housing capacity
above existing development, this alternative would provide for a 36% increase
(approximately 425 housing units).. At the same time, commercial and office capacity
would be reduced by 7.2% below the General Plan, a 23% increase above existing
development.
The fifth alternative allocates a portion of the mixed -use structures for new overnight
accommodations. This would result in a tenfold increase above the existing General Plan
in hotel and bed and breakfast rooms (330 rooms) and 20% increase in housing, while
reducing retail commercial and office capacity by 32 % (or 8% below existing
development).
The sixth alternative provides for the conversion of all commercial and office properties
for low- moderate density housing (maximum of two units per lot). This would increase
the housing supply by approximately 100 units (7.2 %) about the existing General Plan
and 166 units (12 %) above existing development, and eliminate approximately 300,000
square feet of commercial and office use.
Visioning Process participants supported the revitalization of Balboa Village and its
• suitability for mixed use development, especially for underutilized commercial land.
W
GPAC LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY
• ■ BANNING RANCH
Four alternatives were identified by the GPAC for the Banning Ranch planning sub -area,
currently occupied by oil extraction activities and open space. These express four
fundamentally different visions for the future use of the property.
As the baseline, the current General Plan designation (Orange County) provides capacity
for 2,735 housing units (225 single family and 2,510 multi - family), 50,000 square feet of
retail commercial, 235,600 square feet of office, and 164,400 square feet of industrial
use.
The first GPAC provides for the preservation of the property as open space, with the
consolidation and long -term removal of oil activities, site acquisition and remediation,
and, where appropriate, habitat restoration. While a majority of the property would be
maintained in a natural state, a portion may be developed as active parklands and
integrated into a regional open space system along the Santa Ana River.
A second alternative provides for the development of a mixed use "residential village"
containing a mix of housing types, small hotel, supporting retail, parks, and school. The
majority of the site would be preserved as open space. Reflecting the plans previously
prepared for Taylor Woodrow, this alternative would accommodate 1,765 housing units,
75,000 square feet of retail, and 75 hotel rooms. Cumulative, these represent a significant
reduction of capacity from the County of Orange's land use designations for the site
• (36% for residential, 74% for retail commercial and office, and 100% for industrial).
The third alternative limits development to the least environmentally sensitive portions of
the site, primarily on the mesa in its southeast. Development capacity of the second
alternative would be reduced approximately in half, representing a housing decrease from
the existing Plan of 68 %, retail and office decrease of 88 %, and 100% for industrial.
Capitalizing on the site's coastal location and adjacency to the Santa Ana River and
habitats, the fourth alternative would provide for the development of a destination resort
of comparable scale of the Montage Resort in Laguna Beach. Uniquely, the site may be
developed to attract eco- tourism. Approximately, 260 rooms, 75 housing units, and
25,000 square feet of retail would be accommodated, with the balance of the site .
preserved as open space.
In the Visioning Process, 46% of those surveyed support preserving the entire areas as
open space, even if such requires a parcel tax for site acquisition, while 44% support half
of the land to be utilized for residential and limited light industrial with the remaining
half reserved as open space.
■ CANNERY VILLAGE
The Cannery Village planning area was divided into two sub -areas, east and west of
Newport Boulevard. For the properties to the east, generally encompassing the properties
bounded by Newport Boulevard's commercial frontages, Lafayette Avenue, and 32 "d
• Street, two alternatives were identified by the GPAC.
4
I
GPAC LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY
• As a baseline, the existing General Plan provides for a 255% increase in housing units, a
3% increase in retail commercial, and 11% increase in office use.
The first GPAC alternative provides for the evolution of the area for mixed use structures
that integrate retail and housing in a distinct neighborhood environment. Street level
retail is intended to promote intensive pedestrian activity, with the housing enhancing the
market for local commercial uses and services. It would add approximately an
additional 200 housing units above the existing General Plan (94.4% increase), while
reducing retail commercial and office capacity by 9.5% below existing development and
17% below the General Plan while eliminating new industrial uses.
Retail and office development would be precluded by the second alternatives, which
would provide for the exclusive development of low- moderate density residential (a
maximum of two units per lot). This would result in maximum of approximately 150
units, an increase of 90 above existing development and 60 less than permitted by the
existing General Plan.
For the commercial properties located to the west of Newport Boulevard (Albertson's
market and other retail uses), staff has identified the alternative of redeveloping the area
for mixed uses (retail and housing). Presently, the area contains approximately 92,000
square feet of office and retail uses and the existing General Plan would increase this by
approximately 3,500 square feet (a 4% increase). The staff alternative would
accommodate approximately the same amount of retail and office development and add
192 housing units.
Visioning Process participants supported the revitalization of Cannery Village and its
suitability for mixed use development, especially for underutilized commercial land.
a CORONA DEL MAR
Two alternatives were identified by the GPAC for the Corona del Mar planning sub -area.
While the study focuses on the properties along the Coast Highway commercial
frontages, the type and scale of uses defined are highly interrelated with the residential
neighborhoods to the north and south.
As a baseline, the existing General Plan provides for a 32% increase in retail commercial
and a 74% increase in office development.
The first GPAC alternative provides for the continuation of the area's pedestrian- oriented
character and community serving function, with opportunities for the development of
mixed -use structures at key intersection nodes along the highway. This would reduce
commercial and office capacity by approximately 19% (a 13% increase above existing
development), while accommodating an additional 180 housing units on lands currently
limited to commercial and office development.
The second alternative would consider the development of parking lots on residential
properties abutting the commercial frontages, with a buffering alley. This would result in
. a reduction of 46 (one lot depth) to 92 (two lot depth) housing units.
M
GPAC LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY
■ FASHION ISLAND /NEWPORT CENTER
Two alternatives were identified by the GPAC for the Fashion Island/Newport Center
planning sub -area These build upon the existing mix of retail, office, entertainment,
residential, visitor- serving, and public uses, providing opportunities for infill
development primarily on properties now occupied by surface parking.
As a baseline, the existing General Plan provides for the development of an additional
380,500 square feet of retail space (24% increase), 395,000 square feet of office (12%
increase), and 111 hotel rooms (12% increase).
The first GPAC alternative increases the area's General Plan capacity for commercial,
office, and entertainment by approximately 11 %. This includes the opportunity to
develop a grocery store to support residents in nearby housing. At the same time, it
increases the capacity for housing as an opportunity for persons to live in proximity to
Newport Center's jobs and for seniors, providing an additional 925 housing units. This
alternative also would accommodate the development of a new civic center and
additional hotel rooms (46% greater than the existing General Plan)..
The second alternative reflects concepts previously developed for a draft Long Range
Plan. It provides a slightly greater amount of capacity for office and commercial
development (28% above existing development and 13% above the existing General
Plan), though most of this would consist of office development (40% greater than
existing development and 24% greater than the existing Plan). Its capacity for hotel
rooms is comparable to the General Plan, while its housing capacity is substantially
below the first alternative, but still a 22.6% increase above the existing Plan.
The Visioning Process found contradictory results regarding future development of
Fashion Island. Sixty -eight to 70% of resident participants and 61 % of business survey
respondents indicated a preference for little or no change. However, there was support
for the expansion of existing stores (67% resident and 66% business), as well as for
moderate increases to attract new retail businesses (62% resident and 68% business).
GPAC noted that the existing General Plan allows for the addition of approximately
395,000 sq. ft. of retail space, and was concerned that adding to that could increase traffic
congestion.
The results for Newport Center were similar, with 68% to 71 % of residents and
businesses preferring little or no change. Once again, survey respondents showed support
for the growth of existing companies (57% resident and 61 % business), and GPAC
concurred. Resident survey respondents were less supportive of development to
accommodate new businesses (48 %) and mixed use development (45 %), while business
respondents supported both (63% and 56 %). Over 50% of both groups supported the
location of a new hotel in Newport Center. Support for mixed use, high -rise residential
and hotel development was expressed at the Visioning Summit.
■ LIDO VILLAGE
�0
GPAC LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY
• Distinct land use alternatives were identified by the GPAC for each of three sub -areas of
the Lido Village planning sub -area: northeast area along the bay front, south of Via Lido,
and the Civic Center site.
For the northeast/bayfront area (the "Village'), the existing General Plan essentially
provides for no change. The first GPAC alternative provides for the development of
mixed -use buildings that integrate housing with retail uses and overnight
accommodations. Ground floor retail uses are intended to reinforce the area's pedestrian
character, while the housing is intended to increase its customer base. It would provide
capacity for approximately 250 housing units (only 12 exist today), a 15% decrease of
retail and office commercial below the existing General Plan, and increase of 200 hotel
rooms (none exist). The second alternative provides for a mix of retail and overnight
accommodations, without housing. It's commercial and office capacity would be
approximately 9% less than existing development and 10% less than the existing General
Plan, which would be offset by the addition of 200 hotel rooms.
For the commercially developed properties immediately south of Via Lido, the existing
General Plan provides for approximately 16,500 square feet of additional commercial and
office development (14% increase). The GPAC's first alternative provides for infill
commercial and housing. It would provide capacity for 120 housing units (none exist)
and an approximate 20% increase in retail commercial in excess of existing development
and 13% increase above the existing General Plan, with corresponding decreases of
office development. The second alternative provides for infill commercial with mixed-
use structures that integrate housing with commercial uses. It would accommodate 60
housing units with a 33% increase of retail and office above existing development and
17% increase above the General Plan.
For the Civic Center area, the existing General Plan anticipates an increase of
approximately 55,000 square feet of development. Two options were identified by the
GPAC assuming the possible relocation of the existing civic facilities to another site in
the City. One provides for the development of mixed -use structures that integrate
housing with commercial. It would accommodate approximately 215 housing units and
110,000 square feet of commercial and office development, a 72% increase above the
existing building area. The second provides for the redevelopment of the site as a
commercial and office center, of equivalent size to the first alternative.
Visioning Process participants supported the consideration of mixed use development in
Lido Marina Village, especially for underutilized commercial land. Survey respondents
did not support Lido Marina Village as a suitable hotel location, with 63% of residents
and 57% of businesses opposing it.
■ MARINERS MILE
Three alternatives were identified by the GPAC for the Mariners Mile planning sub -area.
Generally, these provide for the evolution of the predominately highway- oriented uses
into a series of distinct districts, which would be complemented by unifying streetscape
elements.
0
GPAC LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY
As a baseline, the existing General Plan provides for the development of approximately
an additional 346,000 square feet of commercial and office use (38% increase) in the
Mariners Mile study area.
The first GPAC alternative provides for the development of projects that horizontally
integrate commercial and housing along the central portion of the harbor frontage,
buildings that vertically integrate commercial and housing on inland properties, including
reinforcement of the local- village character at the base of the bluffs east of Riverside
Avenue, and infill of retail uses. This would accommodate approximately 700 housing
units on properties currently limited to commercial uses and retail and office
development of comparable scale to the existing Plan (a 42% increase above existing
development).
The second alternative provides for the relocation of Coast Highway inland to the base of
the bluffs, creating larger parcels adjoining the waterfront and allocating these for mixed
use development. This would increase the area's housing capacity by approximately 390
units (total of 1,090 units) and reduce its commercial capacity slightly (2 % below .
existing General Plan and 35% above existing development).
The third alternative maintains the mix of uses provided for by the first alternative,
restricting 40% of the commercial properties for marine - related uses.
Visioning Process participants identified Mariners Mile as an area that should be
is reutilized and would be appropriate for mixed use development.
■ MC FADDEN SQUARE
Distinct land use alternatives were identified by the GPAC for two sub -areas of the
McFadden Square planning area: lands abutting the Pier, west of Newport Boulevard;
harbor front and properties east of Newport Boulevard.
Adjoining the Pier, the existing General Plan provides for an additional 13,000 square
feet of commercial and office development. One option defined by the GPAC maintains
the basic mix of uses accommodated by the existing Plan and provides incentives for the
development of additional ovemight accommodations. Commercial uses would be
increased from the existing General Plan by an additional 2,500 square feet (less than
3 %), while overnight accommodations would be increased by 650% above existing use
and the Plan (total of 186 rooms).
In the harbor front area, the existing General Plan essentially maintains the current type
and level of development. The first GPAC alternative provides for the development of
buildings that integrate housing with retail commercial uses in a "village- like"
environment, with incentives for the development of overnight accommodations. Ground
floor retail is intended to enhance the area's pedestrian character, with upper level
housing increasing its customer base. This alternative accommodates an increase of 28
units of housing above the existing General Plan (total of 190 units) and 90 additional
hotellbed and breakfast rooms above existing and Plan uses, which would be offset by a
. 20% reduction of commercial and office development.
W
,!V
GPAC LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY
Support from participants of the Visioning Process for a hotel on the Marina Park site
was low as 66% of residents and 59% of business owners surveyed opposed this use.
Most participants also felt that waterfront property within the City, such as the Marina
Park site, should be preserved. Specifically, 54% of respondents opposed development,
of which 41% strongly opposed development in areas such as Marina Park.
■ OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD
Three alternatives were identified by the GPAC for the Old Newport Boulevard planning
sub -area. As a reference, the existing General Plan provides for approximately an
additional 67,000 square feet of commercial and office development (a 46% increase
above existing use).
The first GPAC alternative provides for the development of medical offices and retail on
the west side of the boulevard, capitalizing on the presence of Hoag Hospital, and
buildings that integrate commercial with housing on the east side. Approximately 286
additional housing units would be accommodated on properties currently limited to
commercial and office uses and 125,000 square feet of office and retail (58% increase
above existing Plan).
Mixed use buildings would be accommodated on the west side of Newport Boulevard
and low- moderate residential on the east by the second alternative. It would have the
capacity for approximately 320 housing units on properties currently limited to .
commercial and office uses, while reducing commercial and office capacity from the Plan
by 44% (14,000 square feet less than existing development and 94,000 square feet less
than the existing Plan).
The third alternative provides for the development of mixed use buildings on the west
side of Newport Boulevard and affordable housing on the east. It has the greatest
capacity for housing, accommodating an increase of 400 units on commercially -
designated properties, while reducing commercial and office capacity to the levels of the
second alternative.
Visioning Process participants identified Old Newport Boulevard as an area that should
be revitalized.
■ WEST COAST HIGHWAY
Distinct alternatives were identified GPAC for the westernmost parcels abutting the Santa
Ana River (existing mobile home park) and remaining mixed commercial and residential
frontage of the West Coast Highway planning sub -area. Generally, these are intended to
establish more cohesive districts and identity than currently exist, as well as better serve
adjoining residential neighborhoods.
For the western parcels, the first alternative provides for their redevelopment for multi-
family housing. Approximately, 14 additional units would be accommodated. The
second option targets the site for the development of "special needs" housing, adding
approximately 30 units above existing uses. The site would be acquired and redeveloped
9
0
10
GPAC LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY
as a park by the third alternative and as a parking lot to support adjoining under- parked
uses as the fourth alternative.
For the commercial- residential corridor frontage along Coast Highway, three alternatives
to the existing General Plan have been defined. As a baseline, the Plan provides for a
42% increase of the area's retail commercial. As an option, the first GPAC alternative
provides for the corridor's redevelopment for buildings that integrate housing with
commercial uses. An additional 270 housing units in excess of the existing General Plan
and 37,000 square feet of additional commercial (74% increase above the Plan and 146%
increase above existing use) would be accommodated by this alternative. The second
would convert the corridor exclusively for low- moderate housing and overnight
accommodations. Its housing capacity would be comparable to existing development,
while increasing hotel /overnight accommodations by 200 rooms (a 222% increase above
existing and General Plan development). The final alternative would provide for infill
commercial development, contingent upon lot consolidation to assure adequate on -site
parking. Its capacity would be approximately 22,400 square feet greater than the existing
General Plan (a 45% increase above the Plan and 105% increase above existing
development).
■ WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL
Alternatives were identified by the GPAC for a diversity of sub -areas within the West
Newport Industrial planning area Generally, these provide opportunities for the
development of additional medical offices in support of Hoag Hospital, supporting retail,
and industrial infill. As a baseline, the existing General Plan provides for a 75% increase
of commercial and office development, 62% increase in industrial development, and 4%
increase of housing units in the study area outside of the existing Technology Park site.
GPAC's alternatives would increase the commercial and office capacity by an additional
35% (approximately 266,500 square feet of building area), maintain the housing capacity,
and slightly reduce the industrial capacity (less than 1 %).
For the Technology Park site bounded by Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard, two
options to the General Plan were identified. The latter would accommodate a 3%
increase in office and 128% increase in industrial development. The first GPAC
alternative accommodates an additional 328,000 square feet of medical and related office
uses supporting Hoag Hospital (increase of 350% above the General Plan and 370%
above existing development), while eliminating industrial uses (reduction of 298,120
square feet provided for by the General Plan). A mix of housing and research and
development uses would be accommodated by the second alternative. This would
increase the area's housing supply above the existing Plan by approximately 260 units
(110% increase) and high technology industry by approximately 200,000 square feet
(66% above existing development and 29% below the existing General Plan).
The West Newport Industrial Area was identified in the Visioning Process as one that
should be revitalized, although no specific ideas were offered or tested.
10
lEA
E
C.
EXHIBIT B
GPAC ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY TABLE
AND BAR CHARTS
15
£�
N
H N
d
ZE
sis
Q 0
d W
Uk
G
J
Q
a
C7
w
L-j
•
N
1
11
11111111
■111
loll
III
11111111111111111111111111111
IIIIIIII
psi
I■N
MEE
MEN
z
1z
ON
OMEN
I
11z
w
L-j
•
N
1
d
a
F
R
eg
�o
N
N N
N E
` U
Q O
aw
N U)
C
J
V
a
c7
•
m
O
N
m
m
m
N
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
U
w
O
0
0
NN2`'
0
0
4)
fJ
0'
O
N
O
U
UO
O
0
000000
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
000000
v
vd
vvve•vv
O$•
se1O
w
-b
�0
a•m
,Jd•b
0
a
m
oY
O
1c,10
C.)
MMm
l'MM
00000
O000OO
r
T
r
sWed
SOJO
v
sWapnJS
V
iO'ON
SJOOLPS
�
saao
a
o
o
°o
W
m
00
(paweun)
1=41 -b
rn
0)
°w
a°o
q.
Y
$
c
m
$
0
0
m
c
f
sdl I
°
o
vvvaaa
r.-r
o°°oo��Opp
SWOOa
m
W
O
11'1
z
LO
co
N
U)
N
cc���
M°
pp
f0
N
a
N°
M
O
O
O
O
co
O{
N
m
O)
t`7
N
N
.c
0)
0
Cl)
�
cc
r
T
7Jj'
W
mm
epQQ}
P
'a
c
co
1
It
'gM
m
W
a�
N
w
lealPaW
')j 'b
a
M
O
m
M
GppD��
J41
Jd b
"T
ro
V
Qp/ 10
s�
N
pl
pp
(pp
�o) leiaua�
N
O)
d�ryy
OD
O
(j fy
01
N
M
fmV
O
O
O
O
O
T
ONI
ON1
N
N fmV
U)
n
U)M
nm
Mn
V
01r
W
T
fV
N
W
aom
U)
O)O)O
aOmm
m�p
mmMN
f�NNN
N
N
m
m
Uj
T
T�
T
IeJldsoH
spelt
Jewggl
sJee
�
1M n
°�
m
i
1
1
°
1n
0
9
0
4
o
o
o
�
M
M
M
.1=41,b
o
$OD
In
a
,°n
n
L17
n
N (0
Q
°
O
°
°
O0
°0
0
0
OO°
°0
°0
°
00
IplOjewwoo
In
�
c
i
$
M
wa1$6ci
m
�i �i
rn
ttmp
n$
co
�U+11
rnR
ai'o
M
I+i
��
vvr�v`r
O°
000
-li4
c p
CO
N
m
a G
N
o,
r
N
N
N
N
N
N
� N
N
N
m�
N
N
N
SWIPed WOO
RWOH BulsmH
spa8
awol.l allgoW
s>!u�
m
j
.tIIWBj-pinW
SJIU
O
O
O
O
O
O
to
O
m
^
N
N
NNNN
N
fV
t\j
N
N
m
N
N
N
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
Patio Rv
%llWej BIBUIj`
:IBU
Sim
K
m
N
O
U)
N
U)
U)
1
M
0
0
0
0
CO
m
m
m
OD
m
m
W
N
NNNN
M
0
0
POLPO O
Nlwed alaul9
SJlulj
it
I�
N
O
N
N
M
aD
10
0
M
0
M
0
D
O)
w
N
2°
r
N
I�
N(
h
m
M
0
U)
m
N
IT
co
co
IBpuelnsaa
BJIUjj
O
cc
O Cl)
OLD
Coto
O
00
000
V
mm
O
0
000
R
m0
O
O
O
O
V
p
6
O
9
d
flepiewwo'J
'1=1 -b
0
00
O
N
°o
°o
CO
UU)
CO
N
m
O
o
0
00
000c)—
Co
o°o°o
ooO61�o
n
00
N
o
N
N
N
ao
N
0
N
8
EQ'm
E'm
E'v,
_
m
'
m
O
=
m
iL
IO
y
N$
d
9
10
m
m
N
a
O
N
2>?
m
g
N'm
�?
C
O
N
N
3
3�
fi
3
N
D�
C
C
b=
@
O2
x
W
E��
O
N
m
)S
_
0
E
O
yaym
N
W
m
X
m
X
o
m
alit
)S
x
�
ID
0;
0
U�
22
O
50
m
O
�++
rN
C
C
w-r
O C
N
E+-N
u�i
0
m
I
NM�mm
I
I
I
O
�rNM�U)m
I
I
I
I
I
E
OrNMRU)t0
I
I
I
I
l
f
y
O
a
C
C
C
C
C
C
0
0
C
C O
C O
O
C
0
Em
000
m
Ewo
°
.0
aC
aC
n
0k70
00
00
0
0C
0OC
0C
0O
6c
0C
D
D1
0aO
0
.w
0m
5
^
w0maC7
o
a
ti
1u5C7maC7
m
0
d
av
d
6
., r
•
E
E
3
d
Q
N
7
WC
J
a
a
c7
0
N
N
d
D
qU1
W
W
K
•
co
�n■w�
u■�
■n
8
>
ol
•
co
d
a
F
Ea
E°
y N
� (V
d
ao
dw
3
a
IL
Q
w
•
6i
IT
Jill
MEE
mill
Evil
RUN
Mill
Jill
Y
Ul
ui
LU
op
w
•
6i
IT
Q1
a
F
R
E
E
N N
N
>m
W E
� U
0
ao
� W
7>
V W
C �
a
a
a
i
N
U
1u
L N
, U
0
•
OJO
pp
pj
W
UU
E
U
UU
LO
E
T
e
V
W
0
N
Nw
U
N0
U
NN
U
W
c
(D
6
c (D
c 0
c�
c 0
c O
c 6
~oci
F-0,
O
��
h�
FoH
o
NCH
0
CN
140
O
N W
N O
O
O
O
O
$
rn
°rn
rn
Si
°m
O
p
N
N
(N
(V
(V
_ p w•
p
O
C
o
(Q
(G
(U
N
u
.m
7j'6
CL
sped
Se
sluepn
>
10 -0
V
SI004DS
(i
S
sago
IL
(poweun)'
°
o
u°i
co
o
N ao
•
c
sdy
f
=
SWOb
N
Na
(p
(O
(O
p
LQ
p
co
p
W
9
C
04
°o
0
N
IeD!PaW
b
w
rn
m
o
0
p
(paweuun
O
p
°
O
r
O
r
T
N
°O
N
c
Jo) leiauae
o
LO
v°
n
arD
r
N
co
v
N
N
roi
N
Q
9
N
co
()
M
M
irj
Ie4dsoH
spag
Je0e841
Iles
a
n
p
m
o
m
OD
m
n
o
0
vi
Cl)
Cl)
M
'lj'b
O
O
p
W
OD
OD
(`
N
O
O
a°p
w
p
w
o
IelDUawwoo
^
V
C
O
o
(o+i
o
m
O
0)
Q
ro
o
O
N
N
N
f
r
M
C %
Y�
salnlaej Siso
spag
/ewoH BulsmN
awoH a1lgoW
sl,u�
'W
a
v
Nlwed-INnW
sV.0
.n
w
o
w
o
°
a
v
o
'o
OD
o
O
p
N
y�
N
N
O
r
M
OD
W
r
peyDepy
plwejal6ulS
slluft
to
o
O
r
v
o
v
o
°
v
Pa4oe190
Al!wej al6ulg
sllufl
N
N
p
N
O
O
•
leyusplsab
syu�
N
f
Ielojawwop
-lj -b
W
W
cW
n
n
a
•
a
n
c
o
V'
rn
oo
(7
m
o,
oo
— •
c
c
c
Q
20Uo
o
E
i
U
N
J
ID
J
J
D
j
�k
p
r
W
O
N
>
r
N
O
r
N
r
N
�x
��3
��3'
Zc
Scl
m
d
E
d
°
o
«0
o
0iHaag
CL
a
ro
o
o
E0
O
0
O
a 'j�
V
�
� QC 11
••
co
m
Cm
.N.
v
v
._.
W
IL
N
W
0
W .o
a
W
a
V
W
0
W
0
D
(.i
r
N
fV
,
i
N
d
a
F
N
�
I (-
>2
E
iV
0
Y_ 0
ao
w W
to
J
a
a
ICJ
0
Is
N
C U
a i
solo
O N
c $ g`
'b
c V o
�'
°O
�-
a
S5ped
sego
0
sluapn35
>
jo'o
5
SIOOVoS
d
sago
a
(poweun)
'id'b
m
sdll
f
SWOO
N
In
M
MO
Ul
M
M
O
0
0
S
A
C
, 00
�V
O
ON
N
O
IMPaW
-1:1 .b
N
Qr
I,
�M
cop`
uric
m
v
0
so
00
0
oo
$
(Paweuun
n
u
io) leiaua�
.ld .b
$
M
L
$
- -
$ $
M
o3
0
co
$
IvMdSOH
s
JKMLIl
sloe
°o
°m°m
Go
m�$
c7
t� n
w
°m°m
M
M
!e!�awwo3
'id 'b
n
M
�D
M
o
o
°vww
wr
N
C
v
salpl!oej eieo
spa9
/ewOH Bu!smN
awOH SIMO y
SP
m
is
�
m
"a
Nllued-!NnW
sl!u
m
m
o
m
m
o
m
008
a
P040eUY
silu(1
0
°r
0
0
m
U)
0
o
n
o
4wej eIBUIS
M
N
M
V
Cl)
N
t7 N
pa4oelep
S)IU
o
N
$
m
00
N
N
tcoo,
°
m
W
N
/!wedalBUIS
N
lsguap!sea
silo ()
O
0
0
W
N
N
N
N
N
m
N
N N
N N
O
N
N
N
N
N
m
m
K
o°r1°r
onn
o0)
0)
f
lopiewwoo
-j -b
o
0
0
v
m
N
m
N
v
m Oct
N N
pvp
Q
m
N
m
N
C
C
C
p
O
p
8
O
O
O
O
mom
2
m!sm
m
m!�m
y
0
to
D
(1;
m
:2
0
E
y N
0
J
N
m
x
X
X
ti-
u0l
u0i
p
tmn
N
C
p M
V01
C7
✓�
I
10
I I
I
E
I I
•
n
t0n
O—
C
Nt��
C C
-�
N
C C
C
N�
C C
C
�m50E'5a92mnnao"
C
W
O
O O
C
O O
O
C
O O
O
t
n
•MfoE20000E000m000
�WC9
mn
CD
av
U
•
r i
m
ICJ
0
Is
d
a
F�
a
Ev
E °o
3 N
y fV
wE
wo
ao
dW
3�
a�
c
J
U
Q
CL
0
w
u
i
�c-6
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillilillillilI
ME
oil
mom,
liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiI
mm
0111c:
IIIIIIII
mm
01
1111111111
ME
IIIIIIIIIII
11111111101
001111-111
ME
IIIIIII1111
NOON
LU
0
w
u
i
�c-6
m
d
a sa
c
N
c
?0d ld
3rn
0
a Ij
d
K
"Od I s;
;o
s1ooyog
(paweun) 11 'u
MEENgEoo
r
INS
11111111
MENEM
Bosom
Jill
gill
Mimi
loll
III
m
a
h
£v
E°
7 N
N N
N
� Q
Y
ao
W
co
C
U
a
a
i
3
16
E
MIC
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
NO
Hill
M11111.
1111111111111111111111111111
w
III
UNION
1111
ON
III
oil
■
IIIIIIIIIIIIII'lluill
11
�w
NO
IIIIIIIII
11111:11111
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIII
0
111
UNION
0
101110111111
111111111
ON
F7
F7
i
3
16
E
E
AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA
Residential (dus)
Existing Use Existing Option 1 Option 2
General Plan
Commercial (Sq Ft)
Existing Existing Option 1 Option 2
Use General
Plan
Total Commercial & Oftke (eq ft)
Existing Use Existing Option 1 Option 2
General Plan
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
Coml & Office
5,092,352
6,658,416
7,644,567
6,734,616
Office (Sci Ft)
Existing Existing Option 1 Option 2
Use General
Plan
Industrial (Sq Ft)
Existing Use Existing Option 1 Option 2
General
Plan
Residential :. Commercial Office
Industrial
Existing Use
Existing General Plan
0
0
665,019 5,427,333 508,759
871,500 5,786,916: 551,930
Option 1
0
861,750 6,782,817
Option 2 -
2,367
835 35 5,899,081.
_608,370
606,370
Residential (dus)
Existing Use Existing Option 1 Option 2
General Plan
Commercial (Sq Ft)
Existing Existing Option 1 Option 2
Use General
Plan
Total Commercial & Oftke (eq ft)
Existing Use Existing Option 1 Option 2
General Plan
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
Coml & Office
5,092,352
6,658,416
7,644,567
6,734,616
Office (Sci Ft)
Existing Existing Option 1 Option 2
Use General
Plan
Industrial (Sq Ft)
Existing Use Existing Option 1 Option 2
General
Plan
ipace __.
Woodrow
Residential
I
BANNING RANCH
Office (sq ft)
Ga.' Space Space Wooary Reduced
Ran Tanner
Woon.
Industrial
•:1 rlh
0
Industrial
L.,.
Comi/Off
D
164,400
0
0
1111 'q §
285,600
0
11 111
0
0
:1 111
75,000
0
• 1 111 Y ��
{ � ��Er °d� ���
�
'c� T s���s_�
1111 ev r
k ni,J �•'fiP�
1�. ufa'•_
1 111 c , i
A�.'etu.
SIN
1
pawed
Space Wean.
Reaeome
Man
Tanner
0
Industrial
Hotel
Comi/Off
D
164,400
0
0
D
285,600
0
0
0
0
75
75,000
0
75
35,000
0;
262
25,000
Commercial (sq ft)
Opt3 004Reaod
Renured
Taybt
WOOtlTY
Total Commercial & Office (sq ft)
Ga.' Space WO]aeOw RepWd
e
Ran Tab,
Weep.
Hotel (rooms)
Fasting Existing Opt 1- Opt 2- Opt& Opt i-
Use General Open Taylor Reduced Resort
Plan Space Woodrow Tayor
Wopdmw
BALBOA VILLAGE
is
9
Residential (dus)
� odd a� °m'p'"
C�t o$
office (Sq Ft)
�e �
Cam.MWI IN FU
01P �
ce * �g
Hotel (Rooms)
410 �c
oQ oQ` � It
0
an
KeSlUel
Existing Use 1
Existing General Plan 1
Opt 1 -Com to Res 1
Opt 2 -Res
Opt 3 -Water Rol Uses 1
_1
Opt 4 -Mix Use comi /res 1
Opt 5 -Mix Use coml /visitor
1
Opt 6 -Coml to res, w /visit
1
is
9
Residential (dus)
� odd a� °m'p'"
C�t o$
office (Sq Ft)
�e �
Cam.MWI IN FU
01P �
ce * �g
Hotel (Rooms)
410 �c
oQ oQ` � It
0
an
.Total Commercial & Office (eq M
I
I*
0
BALBOA VILLAGE
t
0
F- I
L
CANNERY VILLAGE -EAST OF NEWPORT BOULEVARD
Residential
lCommercial
Office I
Industrial
I COW & Office
Existing Use
Existing General Plan.
60
213
196,270
201,780
91,320
101,500
47,850
0
287,590
303,280
Option 1 -Mixed Use
Option 2- Residential
_ .
414'
152
260,180
53,270
�0
_ 0
260,180
— 53,270
Residential (dus)
Feting Use Existing Option 1- Option 2-
General Mixed Use Residenual
Plan
Commercial (sq iq
Existing Use Existing Option 1- Option 2-
General Mixed Use Residential
Plan
TIAN
Ll
I1 ,I
u
CANNERY VILLAGE -WEST (ALBERTSON -S)
Residential I Commercial
Office : , Coml & Office
Existing Use J 87 71,440_20,
Ecisting General Plan 95; 74,900_
20,02
91,460
94,920
J
Alternative 287 96,050]
0'
96,050
Residentall (dus)
E%iSling U5 Emfing Gene21 AltBrn l
Plan
w
r�
0
CORONA DEL MAR
Residential (dus)
Existing Use Existing Option 1
General Plan
Office (Sq Ft)
Existing Use Existing Option 1
General Plan
Commercial (Sq Ft)
Existing Use Existing Option 1
General Plan
Total Commercial & Office (sq ft)
Existing Use Existing Option 1
General Plan
3k
Residential
Commercial
Office
Coml & Office
Existing Use
Existing General Plan
2,952
3,267:
406,842 84,921
538,630r-11=48 060
491,763
686,690
Option 1
3,44
— 428,839T— 124,721
553,560
Residential (dus)
Existing Use Existing Option 1
General Plan
Office (Sq Ft)
Existing Use Existing Option 1
General Plan
Commercial (Sq Ft)
Existing Use Existing Option 1
General Plan
Total Commercial & Office (sq ft)
Existing Use Existing Option 1
General Plan
3k
Plan
FASHION ISLAND /NEWPORT CENTER
entlal, Commercial I Office I Hotel I Public Coml & Office
664' 1,556,320 3,240,794 925, 100,000 4,797,114
664 1,936,820 3,635,670 _ 1,036 105,000 5,572,490
1,489! 2060,248! 4,101,004 1,513 223,000 6,161,252
814 1,776,980 4,519,802 1,036 105,000 6,296,782
Residential (dus)
Existing Use Existing Optl- GPACOpt2 -Long
General Range Plan
Plan
Commercial (sq ft)
Existing Use Existing Opt 1- GPACOpt 2 -Long
General Range Plan
Plan
Hotel (morns)
Existing Existing Opt 1- Opt 2 -Long
Use General GPAC Range Plan
Plan
Total Commercial & Office I I Public (sq ft)
Existing Use Existing Opt 1- Opt 2 -Long
General GPAC Range Plan
Plan
Existing Existing Opt 1- Opt 2 -Lang
Use General GPAC Range Plan
Plan
LIDO VILLAGE
IOpt 1: MU w /visitors 1 250; 187,679' 01 2001 1 187,6791
Residential (dus)
Exsting Use Existing GP Opt 1: MU Opt 2: Retail Opt 3:
wMis,Wm w1 isitws Mixed Use
Office (sq ft)
Commercial (sq ft)
Existing Use Existing GP Opt 1: MU Opt 2: Retail Opt 3: Mixed
wf »sitws W'stws Use
Total Commercial &Office (sq ft)
Hotel (rooms)
Existing Use Exisgng GP Opt 1: MU Opt 2: Retail Opt 3: MMved
wMshom wMsitam Use
30
LIDO VILLAGE
Residential (dus)
Existing Existing Opt 1: Opt 2:
Use GP Retail infill, Retail infill,
hsg MU
Office (aq R)
Existing Existing Opt 1: Opt 2:
Use GP Retail infill, Retail infill,
hsg MU
0
Commercial (sq ft)
Existing Use Existing GP Opt 1: Retail Opt 2: Retail
infill, hsg infill, MU
Total Commercial & Office
Existing Use Existing GP Opt 1: Retail Opt 2: Retail
infill, hsg infill, MU
134
LIDO VILLAGE
Residential (due)
Existing Existing Opt is Opt 2:
Use GP Mixed Use Retail &
office
Office (sq ft)
Existing Existing Opt 9: Opt 2:
Use GP Mixed Use Retail &
office
0
3�
MCFADDEN SQUARE
Pier Area sw of New pt Blvd
Residential
I Commercial I Office
Hotel
Coml & Office
Existing Use r —�.
133
74,270 3,550
77,820
_
Existing General Plan ��
Opt 1 -Lod in Incentive
_251
138t___ 82,750 8,000: 25
1381 93,218 0 186
90,750
93,218
N.$I Wl(dOQ
Exiniig use Exe111 Gemm Flan ow l -L Cging IM ni-
ore.. t.y m
Comm Ilm R)
EriAi ] Vsa E ,.i, G M,Mi Ran oq I -L.11, I—Mi.
TMI C..MIdl S W. l.V Po
NdellLOdding (t00m.)
E MllurpU Enptirg Genxilpen 00t{ypllp]b-
E -111.- E"k, G.., Rm Gpn- LW.ing lMMMw.
Harborhont NE of New t B/ I Residential Commercial I Office 1 Hotel Coml & Office
30
MCFADDEN SQUARE
Use j r soj_
General Plan 162i
FbWdtakl Idm)
Ex6mg O» Uml., Genial %an 0q1- Mglolgilp �rcemive
OM Mft)
Lammarc4l faV M
Ewsliy Use EA.,, Gore IRl% qA1- MII.I�ig —tlw
Taal Lamm mW&M.("M
Es.", u- E.al Ge.,. Fan .111-MO.IOLgiiq imYntiYa
HN.In ,Mg lrcama)
mmi,U E Ift O. Mn Oq1 -MU, '-�irc irrgnMre
V
MARINERS MILE
Residential (dus)
Existing Existing Opt 1- Opt 2- Opt 3-40%
Use General Mixed Coast Hwy Marine
Plan Uses Realign Uses
office (sq ft)
Coml & Office
900,220
1,245,990
1,297,132
1,219,813
1,297,132
Commercial (sq ft)
Existing Existing Opt 1 -Mixed Opt 2 -Coast Opt 3-40%
Use General Uses Hwy Realign Marine
Plan Uses
Total Commercial & Office (sq ft)
I�
Existing Existing Opt i- Opt 2- Opt 3-40%
Use General Mixed Uses Coast Hwy Marine
Plan Realign Uses
W
Residential Commercial Office
xistin�Use
Existing General Plan
1,076
1,093
633,950266,270
779,800 466,190
933,575 363,557
..
Opt 1 -Mixed Uses 1,782
O pt 2- Coast H�jjRealign
O t 340% Marine Uses
f 2j69j
1,485'
933,5751 286,238
933,575 363,557
Residential (dus)
Existing Existing Opt 1- Opt 2- Opt 3-40%
Use General Mixed Coast Hwy Marine
Plan Uses Realign Uses
office (sq ft)
Coml & Office
900,220
1,245,990
1,297,132
1,219,813
1,297,132
Commercial (sq ft)
Existing Existing Opt 1 -Mixed Opt 2 -Coast Opt 3-40%
Use General Uses Hwy Realign Marine
Plan Uses
Total Commercial & Office (sq ft)
I�
Existing Existing Opt i- Opt 2- Opt 3-40%
Use General Mixed Uses Coast Hwy Marine
Plan Realign Uses
W
OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD
t
t
t
I*
1
Residential (dus)
Existing Existing Opt 1: Opt 2: Opt 3:
Use GP mad off, MU, resitl MU, afford
rd, MU hsg
Office (sq ft)
Existing Existing Opt 1: Opt 2: Opt 3:
Use GP mod off, MU, resitl MU,
rd, MU afford hsg
39
•
0
WEST COAST HIGHWAY
Commercial Frontage Residential Commercial Hotel/Lodging
Existing Use
80
35,350 90
50,0301 90
86,9021 0
0: 290
72,419 0
Existing General Plan J
80
Opt 1 -Mixed Use (vert)
348
Opt 2- Housing & Lodging
Opt 3- Commercial w /Lot Consolidation
73J
ol
RealdetMWl (duo
Z-,, U. EglMing Gemai Opt I Mid Um Opt 2 H us'N & Opt ]f —GiM
Ran (I -) LNgi% w1.
..r llEptton
r
Cam ,Gw(apN
E..,, Ux Eiimtieg G—,l OV I M, eW Um Opt ZH—IN A Opt }C mm A
Fan (14.'1) L JgiN wMtCOnmtmellon
us
•
Plan
housin
0
0
WEST COAST HIGHWAY
ftsWenual(E )
WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL
RUWI�
FJVtly IM E,.IIN Wn., An GNbM., 0111n.Pa. GaN
C." [(W nl
'uistiy VR ENIStIII'd. —I %an Op12- M. ... R f11
TOlal Canmarclal8 �Nlu (cq K1
Ex i.,. Ella, G.-. Plan Opt 1 off- Res C .'
of m(fV fl)
f atirq USe Ewsfvig tLwra Rm Pof 2.u,MGlflse, RS. COry
Maus M M1
F ll,il E tL Ge Mm %p 2.. OIRCe, RU. C '
N
WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL
(=a+(�(
fineano u. b[+W awY.a vim aq ?rsn cx: Mm oa oq aT«n vx'.r a
am
Offl (aQ%
fmwfmi(ma(
0
Ed[Iirp Vw Evsl'vg GmwY Nai X12 -TM' P'R:MW OII Gb13T.�K MeB
Rk0
' i
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Ad Hoc General Plan Update Committee
Minutes of the Ad Hoc General Plan Update Committee Meeting held in the Friends Room,
Central Library, City of Newport Beach,.on 11- 15 -04.
1. Call to Order
Members present:
Steven Bromberg, Chairman /Mayor Pro Tem
Allan Beek, Measure S Supporter
Kevin Weeda, EDC Designee
Chris Trapp, EQAC Alternate Designee
Tim Collins, Harbor Committee Designee
Jeffrey Cole, Planning Commissioner
Barry Eaton, Planning Commissioner
Mike Toerge, Planning Commissioner
Members absent:
Steven Rosansky, Council Member
Tom Anderson, Aviation Committee Designee
Staff present:
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
Patty Temple, Planning Director
Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner
Shirley Oborny, Administrative Assistant
Consultants Present:
Woodie Tescher, EIP
Members of the Public:
Ron Baers
Philip Bettencourt
Don Bowers
John Corrough
Nancy Gardner
Gordon Glass
Charles Griffin
Carol Hoffman
Jennifer Irani
Bill Lusk
James Quigg
Darwin Reinglass
Ann Watt
Sharon Wright
i
� • e
2. Approval of Minutes of 8 -24 -04 meeting
This item was continued to the next meeting because there were not enough members
present from the meeting of August 24, 2004, to vote.
3. GPAC Appointments
Ms. Wood said there are four vacancies. In the process of seeking interest from applicants,
staff- attempted to correct some of the geographical imbalance that occurred after the
redistricting.
The question for the committee is how long should we continue to keep replacing members.
As we get further into the process the background material continues to grow. They have
missed a lot of presentations from outside speakers and consultants. In the past, GPUC has
decided to keep replacing members. Mr. Lugar, Co- Chairman of GPAC, thinks we should not
put new members on GPAC because too much information has been dealt with over the last
two years and a lot of time remains in the future for public comments during community-
wide meetings and public review.
Chairman Bromberg said he also received the e-mail with Mr. Lugar's concerns. A
challenging issue is whether or not a new member could get up to speed.. If we don't fill
the vacancies and then four more resign in the future, we could at that point fill the
vacancies if the committee decides not to do it now.
Chairman Bromberg asked the committee to think about whether or not to fill the vacancies,
keeping in mind the amount of voluminous material a new member would have to read.
Nancy Gardner, Co- Chairman of GPAC, said the material is tremendous. I don't think
reading the material is the same as seeing the presentation. A lot of times we have to
constantly explain things to new members. I think we have enough people to do an
excellent job but if we do lose more people that's a problem. I suggest we do a head count
at the GPAC meeting this evening to find out which members are still committed. Chairman
Bromberg said that's an option.
In response to Mr. Toerge, Ms. Wood said there's about 1 -1/2 years left for the committee
to work. There is still more analysis and discussion papers EIP is preparing. Tonight we are
doing our first one on hotels and tourism, the cost and benefits of that and where
opportunities might be. It's a condensation of a lot of information from previous meetings.
New members can still participate but not with the same depth of understanding. There are
about 10 of those discussion papers coming. The really important information yet to come
is the analysis of the land use alternatives using the traffic model, the fiscal impact model,
other environmental review, and then a serious and long discussion on what would be the
preferred land use alternative they want to recommend.
Mr. Toerge suggested filling the vacancies tonight and perhaps having a recommendation
for the City Council as to whether to appoint alternatives or not. Mr. Eaton said GPUC
strongly strived to get a balanced GPAC with age, gender and geography. We're beginning
to lose it with both gender and age. All the resignations came from the next to youngest
group and we don't have any left from the youngest group. There are 21 males and 13
2
:1,,-
females. From District 4, there are a number of female candidates and candidates in the
younger age group. It would be good to get back some of the balance we lost by
considering one of them for appointment. Because the candidates were invited to this
meeting it would be interesting to hear from them what their willingness is to get up to
speed.
Mr. Beek said I think we should keep GPAC up to full membership. The most important
work is yet to be done and I think they would come up to speed rapidly. They've shown a
lot of interest by their attendance here tonight.
Mr. Cole said he is most concerned with the imbalance of the geographic breakdown. I also
believe a lot of the important work is still to come.
Chairman Bromberg invited members of the public and GPAC candidates to speak to the
committee as to whether they thought it would be appropriate or not appropriate to fill the
vacancies. The following people made comments in favor of filling the vacancies:
• Gordon Glass
• Charles Griffin
• Jennifer Irany
• Darwin Reinglass
• Ann Watt
Chairman Bromberg said GPUC should decide whether to fill the contingent, not fill the
contingent, or bring it back to GPAC to be determined there as Ms. Gardner suggested. Mr.
Toerge moved to appoint the full committee. Mr. Beek seconded the motion. All members
were in favor.
Chairman Bromberg said in the past we have given the City Council two or three names
from each district. Chairman Bromberg invited candidates to make comments about why
they would like to be a member of GPAC. Candidates who spoke were:
• Don Bowers — District 5
• Gordon Glass - District 4
• Charles Griffin - District 4
• Bill Lusk - District 5
• Darwin Reinglas — District 4
• Ann Watt - District 4
The committee nominated the following candidates:
District 3
• Mr. Beek nominated Jim Naval because he was a runner -up the last time the City
Council filled vacancies.
• Mr. Eaton nominated C. Edward Wolfe.
District 4
• Mr. Beek nominated Gordon Glass because he was also a runner -up the last time the
City Council filled vacancies.
• Mr. Eaton nominated Ann Watt.
3
DRAFT
• Chairman Bromberg nominated Tim Brown.
• Mr. Toerge nominated Diane Richardson.
District 5
• Mr. Cole nominated Don Bowers and William Lusk.
• Chairman Bromberg nominated Kathy Leek.
District 6
• Mr. Eaton nominated Hale Ledae and Elliot Vogelfanger.
In response to Mr. Collins, Chairman Bromberg explained that we are filling the vacancies
now and those not appointed would be highlighted. the next time so people would know
they were runners up. Mr. Toerge and Chairman Bromberg discussed not choosing
alternates at this time because the dynamics of the committee might change.
Ms. Wood asked the committee whether she should present to the City Council that the two
nominees from District 3 are recommended for the District 2 vacancy created by Karlene
Bradley, and the rest of the people would follow in line with the district numbers. The
committee agreed.
Mr. Eaton moved to accept the above list of names. Mr. Collins seconded the motion which
passed unanimously.
4. Review of Land Us Alternatives
Ms. Wood explained these land use alternatives were brought to GPUC once before. After
GPAC reviewed the whole package and we heard their comments, we were concerned that
perhaps the alternatives reflected too much development beyond what the existing General
Plan allows. We thought we should bring it back to GPUC as the steering committee to see
if we had a sufficient range of alternatives. There were some areas we wanted to call
attention to outlined in the cover memo.
Mr. Tescher handed out a set of bar chart graphics and explained they re another way to
visualize the information presented at the last meeting.
Mr. Tescher gave a PowerPoint presentation. Only slides with questions from the
committee are mentioned in these minutes.
AIRPORT AREA
Ms. Wood explained staff became concerned after the GPAC review of this area and for the
others well look at, that both options showed an increase over what the existing General
Plan allows. The question for GPUC is whether that's a wide enough range of alternatives to
be studying and running through the traffic and fiscal impact models, or would GPUC like
staff and the consultant to development a third alternative closer to the existing General
Plan, or maybe even less than the existing General Plan? We need to remember these are
not recommendations for future land use, these are alternatives for future study. When we
get the results of these model runs and environmental analysis, well know if there are
problem areas and where they are and then can make adjustments and fine tunings
afterwards.
Mr. Toerge asked how many studies or alternatives are budgeted. Ms. Wood said the
budget has four model runs. After GPAC finished developing these alternatives, because
they vary so much with all the geographic areas (some have three and some two), we didn't
think the permutations would be manageable. We decided to do two model runs for the
start, in addition to the base we already have with the existing General Plan. After we see
what kind of results we get, we will make some adjustments to the land use alternatives
and use the remaining budgeted model runs to look at the adjusted alternatives.
Mr. Toerge asked whether they were on a citywide basis. Mr. Tescher agreed. We are
going to do two on a citywide basis for traffic but at the same time we will be taking a look
at quantifying the impacts. For example, for Banning Ranch we have four distinct options.
We'll take the high end and low end to show the range for citywide traffic impacts. The
other two will be in between somewhere. For our analysis we'll quantify those two in
between but not incorporate them in the citywide model. We will also quantify the
environmental changes, for example, loss of habitat.
Mr. Toerge asked for clarification as to what is being asked of GPUC. Ms. Wood explained
that GPAC has developed these recommendations. On nine of them we are asking GPUC
whether it thinks they are sufficient or whether we should add one more to make sure we're
studying enough of a range.
Mr. Eaton asked Mr. Tescher how he decided which are the low end and the high end in
cases where there are two options that are very different from each other, in order to run
with the low end model and the high end model. Mr. Tescher said for each one we will
quantify this, and end up with an accumulative peak hour trips before running the model so
we'll know which generates the biggest number of trips. The same would apply to the
fiscal, what contributes the greatest revenue and which has the greatest cost to the City.
Mr. Collins asked whether there is enough money in the budget to evaluate the first two
passes of the options presented in this packet. Ms. Wood agreed.
Mr. Cole asked how GPAC came up with these options in order for GPUC to determine
whether we should come up with another option. Ms. Wood said for each area there was a
subcommittee of GPAC. For each area EIP and staff presented discussion papers that gave
background information including what we heard in the visioning process for these areas.
We suggested some land use alternatives for them to consider. In some cases they went
with ours and in some they developed their own. It varied from subcommittee how much
they relied on visioning vs. some other information vs. what they knew or felt themselves.
Mr. Cole said going back to the visioning process, these are two good alternatives because if
there is going to be office development this is the location for it. I would be hesitant to put
a third alternative in this area.
Mr. Toerge said the Planning Commission has reviewed a number of different projects. I
want to know if they fit into this model where we might be converting some properties into
self - storage or auto rental uses. Are those encapsulated within ranges of these studies? I
think they should be. Ms. Wood said they are such small increments they won't even show
up in the. model.
5
DRAFT
Mr. Eaton said this is one of the areas I was concerned about because there was a
substantial growth over the existing General Plan. My concerns are: 1) the area will be
overwhelmed from Irvine traffic anyway; 2) if the extra commercial on Option 1, especially
the extra office, is allocated to the. Campus Tract then it makes sense. That wasn't my
impression from looking at the actual options we got a couple of months ago. If that's
where that growth is focused, it makes sense to me. Mr. Tescher responded that_ it's the
Campus Tract; the infill of the Kohl sites on the parking lot areas, and it's a modest increase
along Bristol.
Mr. Beek said its a little disturbing that all the alternatives involve growth and no shrinkage.
The objective of most of us is to keep traffic under control and not have growth. If we're
going to have alternatives presented, there should be some sort of rationale of what we're
trying to achieve in changing the General Plan. It isn't apparent what they were trying to
achieve. Regarding the airport area, I'm disturbed that the tone in talking about the
General Plan is wrong. What we do know is what's bad and must be prohibited. Our land
use element and zoning are properly a set of prohibitions.
We generally accomplish these prohibitions by using the guiding philosophy. We say, "This
is the only thing you can do." That prohibits a lot, which is wrong to me. Our General Plan
designations should leave as much freedom as possible. We should state what is not
allowed and then turn the property owner loose. We shouldn't consider any alternatives
that increase traffic. That should be the guiding principle for all these alternatives.
Chairman Bromberg said we should keep in mind it's still a work in progress and the traffic,
fiscal, and environmental evaluations have not been concluded.
In response to Mr. Beek, Ms. Wood it's interesting that you used the term "guiding
principle." We had a set of guiding principles for a variety of issues including transportation
and circulation. The one you just stated is not one that was included in those approved
statements. I can't remember if it was one that was brought up at this meeting.
Mr. Toerge pointed out that the airport area was the one area in the visioning document
where there was encouragement for development. As we get into the rest of these, it
probably won't be as explosive.
Chairman Bromberg said because there are no recommendations for adding or reducing the
alternatives, we'll move to the next one.
BALBOA VILLAGE
Mr. Toerge asked whether there are differences between Options 1, 2 and 3. Mr. Tescher
said Option 1 is a single parcel that's a commercial development outside the immediate core
of the village. Option 2 is the entire block changing from commercial to residential. The
numbers are miniscule because the committee wanted to focus on that one block. Mr.
Toerge said he thought the last two options were too extreme and didn't need to be
studied. No other committee member agreed.
D
BANNING RANCH
Mr. Toerge asked if the designation from the County is factored into the existing General
Plan Study. Mr. Tescher said they are in the traffic model. Mr. Toerge said I dont see any
reason to study the original Taylor- Woodrow larger plan since it's modified to be somewhat
reduced. Chairman Bromberg commented that he felt the same about it in the beginning,
but he was in the minority. Mr. Eaton said I thought the Taylor- Woodrow plan was a
reduction of the existing General Plan. Mr. Tescher said it is.
CANNERY VILLAGE
Ms Wood said the boundary in this geographical area does not included the Albertson's
shopping center on 32nd Street but staff has recently been approached by somebody asking
whether the City would consider commercial and residential on that site. Ms. Temple
remembered a lot of discussion when the specific plan was done, and it was a conscious
decision by the people working on that project not to include residential use. With that
question raised, we are asking GPUC whether they want us to expand this boundary area
and include two alternatives for that site, one being the commercial as it is today and the
other being the mixed use that would add some residential. Mr. Eaton asked if the existing
boundary goes all the way out to Newport Blvd. Ms. Wood responded that if they did
expand the boundary they would include the parcels on Newport Blvd.
Mr. Beek moved to expand the boundary to include that area. Mr. Weeda seconded the
motion. Mr. Beek, Mr. Weeda, Mr. Collins, and Mr. Cole were in favor. Chairman Bromberg,
Mr. Toerge, and Mr. Eaton were opposed. Ms. Trapp abstained. The motion passed four to
three.
CORONA DEL MAR
Mr. Toerge referred to the handout and asked whether the graphs show one option or two.
Mr. Tescher said they do not show the one with the parking lot. Mr. Toerge asked if we
were to do that, would the commercial sector expand. Ms. Temple said it's something for
discussion. Usually when we're approached with these kinds of ideas from the existing
business property owners, it's to provide parking for existing development. It would be a
way to provide more parking but not be used to justify intensification beyond the existing
General Plan projection based on the current FAR of .5 on the commercial designated
properties. We might even leave them zoned as residential.
FASHION ISLAND /NEWPORT CENTER
Mr. Eaton asked if the traffic generation would be computed and the high and low would be
assigned based upon that. Mr. Tescher agreed.
Ms. Wood asked the committee if they were sure they didn't want staff to do anything else
even though both are increases. Mr. Eaton said as long as the existing General Plan
remains a viable option. Ms. Wood agreed.
LIDO VILLAGE, NORTHEAST /BAYFRONT
Ms. Wood said the hotel is the question I had for the committee. In reviewing the report
from the visioning process, there was not support for a hotel at Lido Village. I wasn't sure
7
that we wanted to proceed with two alternatives that both included a hotel or whether to
add a third alternative that replaces the hotel with commercial.
Mr. Toerge said he thinks the hotel needs to be removed from all consideration. Mr. Collins
said he would like to see, in lieu of the hotel, marine commercial. In response to Mr.
Tescher, Mr. Collins clarified by saying he is asking for mixed use and marine
retail /commercial, in lieu of Option 2.
Chairman Bromberg said if we do that it will be based solely on the visioning but we have
not considered everything in its entirety. Part of the process is looking at everything
including the fiscal and environmental as well as the visioning. Ms. Wood said we'll still get
the fiscal impact results by keeping it in alternative 1. Chairman Bromberg responded to
Mr. Cole that he would rather add a P alternative rather than take anything out. We're not
making a determination as to what should or should not be there based on the studies or
the visioning process. It's a question or not it should be a hotel. I'm concerned about
taking anything out since GPAC put it in.
Mr. Collins moved to add a 3rd option for Lido Village, northeast Bayfront, without a hotel
and instead include a retail marine commercial. Discussion ensued, with the conclusion that
the motion includes mixed use with residential, visitor serving and marine oriented
commercial. Mr. Cole seconded the motion. No members were opposed.
Mr. Toerge said this will come before the Planning Commission so I want to understand.
Why would we evaluate a hotel in this location given the recent vote, I know it's a different
location, and given the clear indication in the visioning process that hotels are not wanted
on the Peninsula. Why would we take the time to study? I hope somebody from GPAC
would come to the Planning Commission meeting to talk about it. Chairman Bromberg said
he didn't want to second -guess GPAC. The issue of whether a hotel at Lido Village is the
same as a hotel at Marinapark will come up. We're just looking at the issue right now. I
question whether it would ultimately go through. Ms. Wood said potential developers come
to staff and talk to us. about a hotel for that property all the time so it would be good to
know.
MARINERS. MILE
Ms. Wood said this isn't one that staff called out with any particular, questions but I wanted
to make sure GPUC is aware that all three alternatives show residential, which we don't
have today in any significant amount.
MCFADDEN SQUARE: PIER AREA
Mr. Cole asked whether this area currently has a lodging zoning. Ms. Temple said in all our
regular commercial districts, hotels and motels are permitted with a use permit. They're
subjected to the same FAR limits. In other parts of the City our principal hotels are
regulated specifically in the General Plan by hotel room.
Mr. Toerge asked if their impacts would be incorporated in the General Plan study we're
doing. Ms. Temple agreed. In these commercial districts we use traffic generating numbers
that are standard commercial mixes. They include some mixing of all those land uses
including hotels.
8
MCFADDEN SQUARE: MARINA PARK
Ms. Wood said the City Council just asked for a Study Session to start talking about where
we go from here for this site. I think a planning process for this site will probably be on its
own track and might not fit neatly into the General Plan update. Maybe we should leave in
Option 2 and take out the hotel because GPAC didn't know what we know now having had
the election. Chairman Bromberg said I agree with Ms. Wood. The entire committee
decided to delete the whole area.
OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD
Chairman Bromberg said this area comes up a lot in the City Council regarding medical. Mr.
Beek said there's not much point looking at anything other than medical for this area. Ms.
Temple said by keeping in things that have some housing options, in the medical context,
there are all kinds of uses for residential or housing for employees at the hospital.
WEST COAST HIGHWAY: CORRIDOR
Mr. Beek asked if lot consolidation is something we can do to them or whether they must
volunteer. Ms. Temple said we can incentivize them. An example is the Old Newport Blvd.
Specific Plan where there was a program to encourage lot consolidation by allowing certain
parking credits when they provided more curb space for parking.
WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL: EXCLUDING TECHNOLOGY PARK
Ms. Wood said this is an area I called to GPUC's attention because it's one of the four areas
where all the alternatives show increases over the existing General Plan. The Committee
did not request any changes to the alternatives for this area.
Chairman Bromberg invited members from the public to speak on this agenda item:
Phil Arst - I am the spokesperson for the Greenlight committee. Referring to a brochure
(Attachment 3), Mr. Arst said this chart dated December 2003, shows a buildout level of
congestion throughout the City. There are 18 intersections that are not satisfactory. More
recent data from the City increases that number. This chart is optimistic because it
assumes the 19"' Street bridge is going to be built, the Costa Mesa freeway will be
extended, and PCH will be widened along with Jamboree. On each of these alternatives,
the question is will the streets around that area support the level of traffic generated. I'm
seeing a huge intensification of traffic and development throughout the City. The Visioning
Festival said 66% of the voters opposed the Marinapark hotel. It turned out to be 67 %.
Continuing, Mr. Arst said I think we should heed the voters. They are going to have to vote
on the work product of the General Plan update. My suggestion is to have Level of Service
D throughout the City. What we have is Level of Service F and E in 18 intersections. I
propose GPUC put together an alternative that asks what we need to shrink in terms of
existing entitlement in order to provide as close as possible Level of Service D throughout
the City. That will give a baseline to start and then add some needed community
improvements such as medical offices for Hoag Hospital. We urge worthy projects be
added. We should base our projections of what it would cost to run the City for the next 25
years. Why are we putting all this development in if we don't need money from it? Office
buildings lose money for the City and that should be considered.
9
Continuing, Mr. Arst said another output of the Visioning Festival says 57% of residents
support the position that encouraging economic development will distract from residents'
quality of life. Some good compromises could be worked out. The process should start
with the traffic map to see what can be added rather than scatter everything out there. It's
not acceptable to the residents. Most residents prefer to reinforce Newport Beach's identity
as both a beach town and residential community. The residents do not want to change this
City into another Santa Monica. I thank the committee for its time and efforts but I do add
these cautions and recommendations that a baseline is done at looking at what it will take
to restore Level of Service D to the City. Chairman Bromberg said we are doing a traffic
model on the alternatives. We are doing the due diligence. Mr. Tescher said we are also
doing the fiscal.
Jennifer Irani — I live in West Newport near 15th Street and Monrovia. There is a new
Community Center there. It's a very busy street. There is a lot of commercial, industrial
mixed -use, industrial fires and Cal Vac. West Newport doesn't feel like a part of Newport
Beach. I would like to see Banning Ranch as open space. A hotel or residences built
around Back Bay would be exclusionary. It would exclude our home from the beautiful
Banning Ranch development. Open space would integrate us better and give our children a
place to go and people would come from other areas to visit. My family has lived here for
15 years and we've seen Newport Beach grow and change. Some of the best uses are
residential, especially in West Newport. I'd like to see less industrial.
Continuing, Ms. Irani said I don't want Coast Hwy. to become a big wall. like it is at the
Balboa Bay Club. I think we should consider vertical parking and get some of the parking
away from the beach (for example, McFadden Square), and congregate it somewhere and
give people more walking access. I also think the mansionization of Newport Heights is a
shame. It used to be very charming. I have been working with Terry Welsh and Banning
Ranch. We'd like to integrate it with River Coast Park. We're concerned about the habitat
there. I have been canvassing the area for four years letting people know it could be open
space for them. When they do know they are very supportive of it. I hope the committee
will consider my comments.
Sharon Wright — I live on Lido Isle. I remember how Newport Beach was when I grew up
with a lot of open space. It's still beautiful here but there are areas that need improvement,
a lot of old things that can be redone. I compliment all the work that goes on here. I do
agree with the other Banning Ranch speakers. There is no open space here unless you
drive to Huntington Beach or Bolsa Chica. Banning Ranch is the only thing left here.
Philip Bettencourt — I am a GPAC Member nominated by the Building Industry Association.
In regards to Banning Ranch, I would encourage GPUC to maintain the four alternatives in
the carefully crafted consensus among the committee for study. The purpose is to study
them to make sure they get a fair evaluation, not to endorse them. The existing Taylor -
Woodrow alternative is the only one where there is sound technical and scientific data
available. The other end of the spectrum is the open space plan. I would take exception to
the comments that Mr. Tescher made that the open space plan does not have any trip
generation because the open space alternative narrative provided by the consultant and
10
'T1=
staff indicates that while the property could be maintained as open space, a portion may be
developed as active parklands. In addition the City's park and open space element assumes
about 30 acres of active -park within the Banning Ranch so those would not be uses without
trips.
Continuing, Mr. Bettencourt referred to the airport business area studies. Because of the
use of the chart showing the arrow for residential use off the chart, it could frighten those
who are worried about it being a pro-growth alternative. By way of example we have
assisted Brookfield Homes and Fletcher Jones in filing the first residential land use
application within the area. It's a comprehensive filing for 86 condo units with the Spruce
and Quail property. That property produces fewer trips than would be produced under the
current land use on the site. Should that be approved or considered it removes trips and
commercial and industrial entitlement from the mix. I think that planning district is worthy
of looking at residential alternatives just as the committee has recommended.
Charles Griffin — We need to think about the number of trips that are added to property use.
We need to limit traffic and the number of trips generated. Concerning the airport complex,
we need to be careful that the development brings in business to that area to the point the
Wealth generated controls the City and the people elected to run the City. This perhaps
would allow more growth to the flights thus providing more adverse impacts to the
residents. The airport impacts a small percentage of the City but we need to look after
those people, perhaps changing the zoning of that area of residential to commercial by
relocating them and whether we can use the taxes and profits to the economy to relocate a
small percentage of the area. There is a corridor that's priceless for residential so we need
to limit the airport. The balance there is sophisticated. This is where the master planning
comes in. We need to be careful. The City is thinking about being an' owner or part
operator of the airport. We need to think about property values that bring in property
taxes. Orange County only receives $.07 per dollar. The City needs to work on changing
that for our County so we get more of our property taxes locally utilized in this County so
we don't depend on retail, sales tax, and hotel tax. We need to emphasize the residential
nature of our City.
Chairman Bromberg clarified that the City is not looking into an ownership or operating role
of the airport.
Mr. Toerge suggested the Planning Commission receive the minutes of this meeting because
they will discuss this.topic on December 9"'.
S. Report on Local Coastal Program
Ms. Temple said Mr. Alford is putting together the implementation plan. Chairman Bromberg
added that the Coastal Commission has asked for a year extension.
6. Comments from the Public
No further comments were made.
7. Items for Future Agendas
No items for future agendas were discussed.
11
S. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m.
12