Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPAC_2005_07_16*NEW FILE* G PAC_2005_07_16 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA July 16, 2005 9:00 a.m. - noon 9:00 I. Call to Order 9:05 II. Approval of Minutes April 25, 2005 May 2, 2005 • May 9, 2005 May 16, 2005 Central Library Friend's Meeting Room 1000 Avocado Avenue 9:15 III. Selection of Preferred Land Use Alternatives for: West Newport Highway Banning Ranch West Newport Industrial Old Newport Boulevard Balboa Penninsula (Cannery/Lido/McFadden Square) Balboa Village 11:50 IV. Public Comments Public Comments are invited on items generally considered to be within the subject matter jurisdiction of this Committee -- Speakers are asked to limit comments to 5 minutes. Before speaking, please state your name and city of residence for the record. *Reports are available on line at www.nbvision2025.com DRAFT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, April 25, 2005, at the OASIS Senior Center. Members Present: Phillip Bettencourt Carol Boice Elizabeth Bonn Gus Chabre John Corrough Lila Crespin Laura Dietz Nancy Gardner Gordon Glass Louise Greeley Members Absent: Roger Alford Ronald Baers Patrick Bartolic Staff Present: Ledge Hale Bob Hendrickson Mike Ishikawa Kim Jansma Mike Johnson Bill Kelly Donald Krotee Phillip Lugar William Lusk Marie Marston Grace Dove Tom Hyarls (sick leave) Lucille Kuehn Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia Temple, Planning Director Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant Carleton Waters, Urban Crossroads Members of the Public Present: Allan Beek Jim Candelmo Marcia Dossey I. Call to Order Brandon Johnson Jill Kanzler Carol Martin Phillip Lugar called the meeting to order. Jim Naval Charles Remley Larry Root John Saunders Hall Seely Jan Vandersloot Tom Webber Ron Yeo Raymond Zartler Barbara Lyon Catherine O'Hara (sick leave) Coralee Newman 3 • U. Approval of Minutes The minutes for the March 7, 2005 meeting were approved as submitted. III. Methodology for Minimum/Maximum Alternatives for Traffic Model Analysis Carleton Waters reviewed the report provided with the agenda packets. Ron Yeo asked if traffic on Jamboree took into account the fact that Irvine has the residential and Newport has the jobs. Mr. Waters said yes, this information is considered in the modeling process. Lila Crespin asked for a more clear explanation of the adjustments made for the coastal areas. Ms. Wood explained that the model uses standard trip generation rates, and a model run was completed for existing conditions. When the results were compared to the actual traffic counts, they found the model numbers were much higher than the actual numbers in the coastal areas, so the model was adjusted to make the numbers match the actual traffic counts. Kim Jansma asked why the high-rise developments generate less traffic. Mr. Waters explained that the type of people who choose to live in these homes have smaller families or are professionals who have no children. Data from areas with high-rise • developments show a decrease in traffic generation reduction between 35%-50%. Ms. Jansma also asked about mixed use developments. Mr. Waters stated a good mixed use project would include housing, commercial and neighborhood serving commercial. Jan Vandersloot asked about the reductions and asked if that meant that more density equals less traffic. Mr. Waters explained that he was not saying that, he explained that if you were to put 20 units where there were previously 5, instead of the traffic increasing by 400%, it would only increase by 360%. There would be increases but not on a 1 to 1 basis. He added that they have been very conservative when determining the reductions, they do not want to understate what the City is facing in terms of traffic generation. Don Krotee asked if the same assumptions and reductions were used in the last general plan. Mr. Waters indicated that this process was modified from the previous structure, however Rich Edmonston indicated that this process is very consistent when what he has seen previously. John Corrough asked why beaches were not listed on Table 1. Mr. Waters indicated that beaches draw people mostly on the weekends and during the summer. The data collected was for the shoulder season weekdays. Mr. Waters indicated that most visitors during this time also come for dinner or shopping so he felt the numbers were collected. • Gordon Glass asked about the regional traffic and if those numbers were included. Mr. Waters stated they were included as background assumptions for every alternative. 2 2 • Regional projections have been entered as well as some land uses for the cities of Irvine and Costa Mesa. Mr. Yeo asked if traffic counts had been taken during the summer months also. Mr. Waters stated they had been and had been presented to this committee in an earlier report. Mr. Vandersloot indicated according to Tables 20 and 21, if our primary focus is on traffic we should keep the currently adopted General Plan in 9 areas of the City. Ms. Wood explained that might be one option, however there may be other changes that could be made to reach the same goal. Ms. Gardner added that we are looking at several studies and we have to weigh all the factors, not just traffic. Marie Marston asked about the use of PM peak hour versus AM peak hour and if the model assumed there would be no improvements to any of the deficient intersections. Mr. Waters indicated that the PM peak hour was used due to the extra volume of traffic during that hour. He also indicated that the model would evaluate each of the alternatives using the same intersection configuration so that we would be comparing apples to apples. Gus Chabre asked if the study areas on the peninsula would be grouped together in order to get a feel for the type of traffic issues on Balboa Blvd. and Newport Blvd. Mr. Waters indicated that will be done in the modeling process. • IV. Environmental Analysis of Land Use Alternatives Woodie Tescher reviewed the Environmental Impacts Comparative Summary provided with the agenda packets. He reported there was a technical glitch in the data which dropped all of the single family residential in Corona del Mar out of the model, corrected tables will be distributed at the next meeting. Mr. Glass asked if there was a real chance high-rise developments would work in Newport Beach given the saturation of the market in Irvine and Santa Ana. Mr. Tescher suggested asking the fiscal analysis consultant that question. Ms. Wood added she had the same question, however developers have shown interest in bringing residential developments in our airport area. Patty Temple added that whenever properties become available there are more inquiries about residential than commercial development. Carol Boice asked about schools for the 1200 new students projected for the high-rise developments. Mr. Tescher thought the projection number was probably high however it would not bring it down to zero. He also pointed out that it is the responsibility of the school district to provide the schools. Ms. Boice also asked about the lack of data regarding the 7-12 grade students. Mr. Tescher indicated they were going to go back to the school district to check the information, because that is where this data • originated. 3 6 • Phillip Bettencourt asked about what school district covers the airport area. He also pointed out that some of the areas report number of students and others use percentages. Mr. Tescher indicated that in areas without residential they used percentages, however agreed it would be best for comparison if they were consistent. Mr. Bettencourt also pointed out that in the Banning Ranch area, even if the open space alternative was selected, it would be disingenuous to report that a 20 acre public park would not generate a demand and cost for electricity, traffic signals, street lighting, public restrooms, trash collection, etc. Tom Webber pointed out that the tables reporting a 90,000% increase is not really informative, the amount could have gone from a fraction to a manageable number, it might be more helpful to report the kilowatts instead of percentages. Mr. Tescher indicated they have that data, however they were attempting to simplify it for review purposes. Ledge Hale agreed that reporting kilowatt hours would be much easier to digest. Mr. Webber also asked if we could get the total number in Newport Beach today. Mr. Tescher explained that might be more difficult since they ran the calculations only on the study areas and not the full City, so it would not be a fair comparison. Mr. Vandersioot asked why the comparison did not include the currently adopted general plan. Mr. Tescher indicated that could be done. Ms. Boice asked if City Hall and a conference center were still part of the Newport • Center area. Mr. Tescher said to scratch City Hall. Ms. Wood did not recall a conference center in the area. Mr. Yeo said he recalled discussion of a conference center as part of Option 1, and found a table dated August 23rd showing it in Block G. Mr. Tescher indicated he would check on it. Charles Remley asked if pollution from the airplanes at the airport as well as auto exhaust was included in the report. Mr. Tescher explained that this is strictly a calculation of amount of pollutants generated by the uses and the airport was not included. An air quality modeling study is different than what is required for general plans. Ms. Wood added she thought that may have been included in the EIR for the settlement agreement with the airport. She also added that this is the percent increase for land uses in Newport Beach and the airport is not in the City. Bob Hendrickson asked if we get all our water from the Metropolitan Water District. Ms. Gardner responded that we get some from our well. Mr. Tescher indicated information on this could be found in the technical background report. Marcia Dossey, Newport Beach, asked for clarification about why the airport fallout was not being considered, especially for the peninsula. Ms. Gardner indicated we are only evaluating land uses in the City, we are not evaluating the overall air quality within the City. Ms. Wood added that we are evaluating the impacts if changes were made to our • current general plan. 2 b • Hall Seely asked if the City is attempting to negotiate situations at the airport that would impact the level of use. Ms. Wood stated we are, however that's a long range plan. V. Discussion of Future Agenda Items Mr. Tescher indicated that next week Doug Svensson would be at the meeting to discuss the fiscal impacts of the land use options. Then the following two meetings Carleton Waters will be back to review the traffic analysis. He also reminded everyone about the public workshop scheduled for Saturday, June 25tn Kim 7ansma asked for an explanation of the summary received tonight. Ms. Wood explained that after GPAC developed the land use alternatives for further study, they were presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council. After presentation, they made some changes and this is a summary of the changes they recommended. Mr. Yeo asked if this committee had been given a new matrix with the changes. Mr. Tescher said not yet, but it could be done. Mr. Bettencourt asked if staff could provide information on the public facilities component due to some of the properties that have been taken out of this process, i.e. Marina Park, City Hall, school sites, etc. Ms. Wood thought that would be too specific at this point. . Ms. Boice asked if there was no location for a new school in the airport area, would that mean reducing the density of the plan. Ms. Gardner said that's what we are going to look at, if we look at an area and the plan doesn't make sense we can remove that option. VI. Public Comments No comments offered. 5 I DRAFT • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, May 2, 2005, at the OASIS Senior Center. Members Present: Roger Alford Patrick Bartolic Phillip Bettencourt Carol Boice Elizabeth Bonn Gus Chabre John Corrough Lila Crespin Laura Dietz Grace Dove Members Absent: Ronald Baers Tom Hyans (sick leave) Bill Kelly Staff Present: Nancy Gardner Gordon Glass Louise Greeley Ledge Hale Bob Hendrickson Mike Ishikawa Kim Jansma Mike Johnson Donald Krotee Lucille Kuehn Phillip Lugar Marie Marston Jim Navai Charles Remley Larry Root John Saunders Hall Seely Jan Vandersloot Tom Webber Raymond Zartler William Lusk Ron Yeo Barbara Lyon Catherine O'Hara (sick leave) Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant Doug Svensson, Applied Development Economics Members of the Public Present: Phil Arst Kelly Hillman Allan Beek Carol Hoffman I. Call to Order Nancy Gardner called the meeting to order. Dolly Shaw q • II. Fiscal Analysis of the General Plan Alternatives Doug Svensson reviewed the Fiscal Analysis report provided with the agenda packets. Gordon Glass asked if the study included the Council revisions adding residential into the airport area because in previous charts the residential shows as a fiscal negative. Mr. Svensson indicated that the additional units were included and added that because the residential would be mixed with commercial uses, it becomes a fiscal positive. Charles Remley asked about Table 12 and pointed out that the total doesn't equal the parts. Mr. Svensson explained that while manually transferring the numbers, some of the lodging didn't get into the table. Lucille Kuehn asked about the possibility of the dissolution of Prop. 13 in the future and if that was taken into consideration. Mr. Svensson said it was not accounted for. John Saunders asked if it would be appropriate to discuss how the City spends money and the requirement of 20% affordable housing. Sharon Wood pointed out that the 20% for affordable housing is included in the housing element of the general plan and we would be looking at all the elements. Phillip Bettencourt commented on Banning Ranch and indicated he understood that the cost for acquisition is not included in the study because this is a service analysis, however there isn't any debt service expense for park development either. He asked if • that would be seen as part of the acquisition costs. Mr. Svensson indicated it would not be included and he didn't have an estimate at this time. Mr. Bettencourt also commented that the economic viability for the resort option at Banning Ranch is worth taking a closer look at because the location is much different than the Montage resort in Laguna Beach, which is what it is being compared to during discussions. Ms. Kuehn asked about the level of income required for affordable housing . Ms. Wood indicated there are three income levels: moderate income is 120% of the County median, low income is 80% of the median and very low income is 50% of the median. Patrick Bartolic asked if the numbers in Figure 2 for residential uses were driven by actual costs or if a percentage was used to calculate the result. Mr. Swensson explained that the analysis of existing land uses were taken from the current City budget and actual service demands. Mr. Glass asked how we would balance the results from the visioning process where the residents indicated their least popular uses were tourism/lodging and the fact that these type uses are where the money is fiscally. Ms. Wood indicated that would happen when developing the preferred land use plan; it may be found that part of the City would be more acceptable for these uses than others. Laura Dietz asked what element of municipal service costs are going to increase, stay • the same or decrease in the next few years. Ms. Wood indicated that would get into the inflation question and we are not addressing inflation during this analysis. 2 EIIIIIII • Gus Chabre asked how the increases in property values were accounted for. Mr. Svensson indicated that once the preferred land use plan was approved they would go back to the model and try to project the increases; that is the reason some of the residential is showing as a positive fiscal benefit. Jan Vandersloot thought the $800,000 for single family units is probably higher and the negative impact of $7.7 million is too low. Mr. Svensson explained that the minus $7.7 million is the actual deficit on existing assessed value. When houses are sold they get a lot more than the assessor is charging today. The figures also include the 20% affordable units; they were trying to capture a very broad range of product in the tables. Mr. Glass pointed out that residential real estate is cyclical and questioned how much longer can the current trends continue. Mr. Svensson indicated he could not predict, however they are trying for a snap shot of development and stay conservative when trying to look at buildout. Mike Johnson asked if the City Hall project was considered in this report. Mr. Svensson indicated it was not included. Jim Navai asked about long term liability issues/costs facing the City were considered. Ms. Wood indicated that the City's budget includes costs for insurance, risk management and liability. Mr. Bartolic asked what are the actual gross revenues generated by residential and for the biggest hospitality/lodging generator. Mr. Swensson said the estimate for residential uses generated $45 million or about 45% in revenue; however that use generates about $51 million in costs. He added that total lodging is approximately $9 million in revenue and costs are much less. Don Krotee asked if marine uses provided a positive or negative outcome. Mr. Swensson thought they might have a neutral impact. Carol Hoffman, Newport Beach, asked if any differentiation had been made between gated and non -gated communities with respect to costs. Mr. Svensson indicated the analysis did take into account private streets and neighborhoods and they made adjustments to various costs. III. Discussion of Future Agenda Items Mr. Tescher provided replacement charts from the Environmental Summary last week. Mr. Glass asked about adding the large amount of residential units in the airport area without services. Ms. Gardner indicated the Airport Area Subcommittee had discussed adding a market and other services to that area along with the residential. Mr. Tescher added that when the group makes land use recommendations, you can add that • residential is contingent upon adding the supporting services. 3 1A • Mr. Bartolic asked about data for the Westcliff/Dover Shores area. Ms. Wood indicated that area was not one of the special study areas. Mr. Krotee asked how staff would deal with CEQA when shoulder season data was used instead of worst case. Mr. Tescher indicated that as long as supporting data was presented there is no problem with it. Ms. Wood added that shoulder season data has always been used. Ms. Kuehn asked for a definition of shoulder season. Ms. Wood stated it was spring and fall. Mike Johnson asked about new legislation regarding affordable housing. Ms. Wood indicated the latest requires more density bonuses for affordable/workforce housing developments. Mr. Bartolic asked if water use would become a problem with the larger buildout options. M Mr. Teschi presented; IV. Pub No comme is • DRAFT • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, May 9, 2005, at the OASIS Senior Center. Members Present: Roger Alford Grace Dove Philip Lugar Patrick Bartolic Gordon Glass Marie Marston Phillip Bettencourt Ledge Hale Jim Navai Carol Boice Bob Hendrickson Charles Remley Elizabeth Bonn Mike Ishikawa Larry Root Gus Chabre Mike Johnson Jan Vandersloot John Corrough Bill Kelly Ron Yeo Lila Crespin Donald Krotee Raymond Zartler Laura Dietz Lucille Kuehn Members Absent: Ronald Baers Kim Jansma John Saunders Nancy Gardner William Lusk Hall Seely Louise Greeley Barbara Lyon Tom Webber Tom Hyans (sick leave) Catherine O'Hara (sick leave) Staff Present: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patty Temple, Planning Director Rich Edmonston, Transportation/Development Services Manager Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant Carleton Waters, Urban Crossroads Members of the Public Present: Allan Beek Kelly Hillman Coralee Newman Laura Curran Brandon Johnson Sharon Wright Mike Erickson Carol Martin I. Call to Order Phillip Lugar called the meeting to order. 15 II. General Plan Traffic Study Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Carleton Waters reviewed the Traffic Study report provided with the agenda packets. Jan Vandersloot asked about the number of current deficient intersections existing today. Mr. Waters indicated he would provide that to the committee next week. Laura Dietz pointed out that existing would be as of 2002. Mr. Waters agreed, that was when the data was collected. Lucille Kuehn asked about signal synchronization and the intersections at Avocado/San Miguel/MacArthur. Mr. Waters agreed that the intersection of MacArthur and San Miguel is showing up as a problematic one, the short distance between the intersections doesn't leave a lot of room to stack vehicles there and synchronization may help. Patty Temple added that efforts to synchronize signals on Coast Highway are adversely affected by the attitude of CalTrans. Gordon Glass asked if the City would be willing to redesign intersections, for example Newport and 17th Street, to improve the flow. Ms. Wood pointed out that the intersection of Newport and 17t" Street is not within the City limits. Mr. Glass then pointed out that on Table ES-6, the data shows 1 out of 5 intersections are currently deficient and using the maximum alternative will drop that to 1 out of 4, so what is being gained with the increases. Ms. Wood reminded everyone that the alternatives are proposals for further study, if impacts are not acceptable then the proposals will not be recommended. Charles Remley pointed out that the general public's perception of the airport area is that we can increase development; however the fact is that currently there are four unacceptable intersections. Carol Boice asked about a study of the noise pollution with regard to traffic and what mitigation efforts will be recommended. Mr. Tescher stated that part of the process will include going back and looking at the that issue again based on the decisions made for land uses. Phillip Bettencourt asked about Table ES-3 and indicated the intersection of Bluff Road and Coast Highway is listed as LOS F under the currently adopted general plan and the Subarea Maximum, he asked if it should be listed as does not exist instead. Mr. Waters indicated the DNE under the True Minimum and Subarea Minimum assumes the intersection will not be constructed under those options. Mr. Glass asked if the improvements requiring additional lanes were suggested irregardless of existing right of ways. Mr. Waters indicated the improvements may not 'be acceptable, but they would be necessary to increase the LOS in the intersections listed. • Patrick Bartolic asked how making some areas more people friendly fit into the traffic model. Mr. Waters said it fits in well, during the decision making process 'the 2 14 • committee will decide what is acceptable for each portion of the community. For example, LOS F for one hour a day might not be considered a bad thing in return for preserving the community character. Ms. Kuehn asked how we can convey all the information we have been provided to the public to help them understand the methodology behind the decisions the committee will be making. Ms. Wood indicated that at the Public Workshop we will share the information with everyone who attends and get their feedback. Ms. Kuehn thought it would take more than one meeting to get the word out. Ms. Wood added that there will also be a newsletter sent out soon and when we have a preferred land use plan more information will be sent out to residents. Mr. Tescher stated we will also be talking more about committee members taking the information out to homeowners/business association meetings. 0 Ms. Boice asked where the students in the high rise residential in the airport area would attend school. Ms. Wood indicated they would be in the Santa Ana School District. Mr. Tescher pointed out that when contacting other cities he found the number of students is much less for the high rise residential than the typical single family residential environment, so the impacts are different. Don Krotee asked about Irvine Avenue as it turns into residential, he suggested maybe a different standard should be applied to neighborhood traffic to help retain the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Wood asked if it was possible to establish and measure a standard in intersections that aren't signal controlled. Mr. Waters .indicated it was possible. John Corrough felt that if the committee was going to get down to that level of detail Balboa Island needed to be considered also. Mr. Waters stated that this topic would be considered when we get to the policies and Circulation Element of the General Plan. Marie Marston asked about Mariner's Mile and how can we weigh the difference between the economic boost the area needs and the traffic. Ms. Wood pointed out that in that area there is a lot of pass through traffic. Philip Lugar asked how different LOS standards would be applied in the City. Mr. Waters indicated that in Irvine they have a tiered LOS standard where they apply LOS E in the business complex and spectrum areas and in residential areas they want LOS D. He added that in other cities they draw boundaries in parts of the city. Lila Crespin asked if there was a way to address the traffic problems on Coast Highway in Corona del Mar that is being transferred into the neighborhoods making it difficult for residents to get around. Mr. Waters agreed that was a tough question. Mr. Bartolic stated he has seen other cities block roads to make it harder to cut through residential areas. Mr. Waters indicated that if the major arterial roads were kept at acceptable LOS standards there would be less neighborhood intrusion. 3 16 • Mr. Bettencourt stated he hoped we would not reject road alternatives because they may involve condemnation because this city has condemned property in the public interest for at least half a century. Mr. Vandersloot asked about the number of deficient intersections/locations under existing conditions. Mr. Waters indicated he could provide that data next week. Mr. Vandersloot asked if we could develop an alternative that improves upon the existing conditions. Mr. Waters indicated that they developed improvements that would provide acceptable conditions at every intersection which is better than existing conditions. Mr. Vandersloot stated that some of the improvements were unacceptable. Ms. Wood pointed out that if he was talking about land uses instead of intersection improvements, it would require demolishing some existing development. Mr. Vandersloot thought that is something that should be discussed if it can improve existing intersection capacity. Mr. Tescher added that even if we were to freeze everything as it is today traffic would still increase due to visitors coming into and through the City. III. Discussion of Future Agenda Items Ms. Wood stated at the next meeting there would be additional discussions of the traffic impacts. IV. Public Comments • Kelly Hillman, Newport Beach, asked how the Level of Service standards were established. Mr. Waters indicated that LOS C was the common standard in the early 1980's, moving to LOS D in the late 1980's. The City of Newport Beach moved to LOS D in the 1990's and now more jurisdictions are accepting LOS E. Ms. Hillman stated Irvine is a planned community with very few places where shortcuts through neighborhoods make sense, so comparing Irvine to Newport Beach is not a good model. Brandon Johnson, Corona del Mar, stated the theory of two different LOS standards won't work because people will follow the path of least resistance, so they will eventually equal out. He also commented on trying to stop growth in Newport to improve traffic, he asked how much traffic was generated by residents and how much is generated by the visitors. He added that if there was no growth in Newport Beach, how much growth would then occur in Irvine, Huntington Beach, etc. and still increase traffic here. Mr. Waters indicated that approximately 20% of vehicles drive straight through the city without stopping, approximately 25-30% of the traffic is generated by residents who stay within the City. Laura Curran, Corona del Mar, asked if OCTA future plans were considered in the model, because they are working on a general plan for the next 20 years which includes adding train service and more buses. Mr. Waters indicated the model is based directly on the OCTA travel demand. 2 ib • Alan Beek, Newport Beach, stated he had talked to Mr. Waters earlier about the affects from the rest of Orange County and was told that all of the examples are run through based on regional traffic at 2025 levels. So the differences are those we do to ourselves. He also stated that LOS D.is when you start waiting for the red light to turn twice. 0 I'l n U CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, May 16, 2005, at the OASIS Senior Center. Members Present: Roger Alford Phillip Bettencourt Carol Boice Elizabeth Bonn Lila Crespin Laura Dietz Grace Dove Nancy Gardner Gordon Glass Members Absent: Ronald Baers Patrick Bartolic Gus Chabre John Corrough Staff Present: Louise Greeley Ledge Hale Bob Hendrickson Mike Ishikawa Kim Jansma Mike Johnson Donald Krotee Lucille Kuehn William Lusk Tom Hyans (sick leave) Bill Kelly Philip Lugar Barbara Lyon Marie Marston Jim Navai Charles Remley Larry Root Hall Seely Jan Vandersloot Ron Yeo Raymond Zartler Catherine O'Hara (sick leave) John Saunders Tom Webber Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Rich Edmonston, Transportation/Development Services Manager Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant Carleton Waters, Urban Crossroads Members of the Public Present: Allan Beek Brandon Johnson Terry Welsh Mike Erickson Coralee Newman I. Call to Order Nancy Gardner called the meeting to order. II. General Plan Traffic Study Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Carleton Waters reviewed revised tables distributed with the agenda packets. -Ray Zartler pointed out that pedestrian overpasses were not on the list. Mr. Waters indicated it was a viable improvement if an intersection was deficient because of the number of pedestrians. Laura Dietz stated she raised the issue years ago and was discouraged from pursuing it because of the cost factor. Lila Crespin asked why the intersection of MacArthur and Coast Highway didn't make the list of deficient intersections. Mr. Waters indicated the intersection was included in the analysis however he suspected that the deficiency there didn't occur during the entire peak hour. Ms. Gardner added that it is probably due to the roadwork being done in Corona del Mar. Kim Jansma asked why the intersection at Irvine and 17th Street also was not included. Mr. Waters again thought it might be a 15-30 minute situation when traffic causes the deficiency. Phillip Bettencourt asked about Table ES-8 regarding the open space option for Banning Ranch, stating it appeared the Bluff Road has been eliminated from the master plan of arterial highways. Even if the area was entirely open space, there would need to be a road for the adjacent active park. Mr. Waters indicated nothing has been eliminated • from the master plan, however without substantial development to provide the mechanism to have the roadway constructed we are not counting on it. Based on his experience, a two lane road would allow plenty of access to the adjacent park. Ms. Wood reminded everyone that the assumptions are for the purposes of analysis only, not recommendations. Jan Vandersloot stated he didn't think we are balancing land use with the circulation system when the true minimum triples the number of deficient intersections. Gordon Glass pointed out that on the Possible Causes chart, it indicates that 4 out of the 6 issue corridors are regional conduits with traffic beyond our control, and asked if we were wasting time talking about something we can't control. Mr. Waters agreed that it was a difficult issue, however he has presented improvements that could bring all intersections to LOS D. Mr. Glass thought the only alternative we would support would be the true minimum based on this information. Mr. Tescher indicated that would be true if traffic is the sole determinant, however there may be tradeoffs in certain areas where we will choose to accept a lower LOS to preserve community character. Bob Hendrickson indicated he thinks the biggest problems are regional issues we have no control over. Ms. Gardner asked if the Irvine development had been factored in. Mr. Waters said yes they had. Mr. Vandersloot indicated both Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach had reduced their • general plan recently and thought that Newport Beach should do the same. 2 0 • Roger Alford asked if each of the alternatives assumed improvements which may be required of the developer if new development was added. Mr. Waters stated Table ES- 8 lists improvements that would be needed to improve conditions to the current LOS standard which could be linked to the new development. Hall Seely asked if the improvements listed on Table ES-8 would change the color of the intersections on the Deficient Intersection Summary. Mr. Waters explained that if all the improvements listed on Table ES-8 were implemented, it would bring all the intersections up to current LOS standards. Mike Johnson asked about page 2 of ES-8 and why improvements on Birch would not carry over to the Subarea Maximum. Mr. Waters explained that when adding residential to that area you create a more efficient development pattern with homes and jobs closer together and you end up with less roadway improvement needs. Carol Boice asked why the improvements on MacArthur are the same when the alternatives for Newport Center add 7,000 for options 2 & 3 and 23,000 for option 1. Mr. Waters explained that what the analysis tells us is the increase in numbers isn't enough to change the improvements needed in that area. Ms. Boice also asked about the intersection of Jamboree at Eastbluff/Ford and why it is only LOS D in the AM because of all the traffic caused by the schools. Mr. Waters stated it sounds like a focused problem that doesn't last an entire hour. . Charles Remley asked if GPUC and the City Council would consider reducing the buildout to existing levels and not consider all the options we've developed. Mr. Waters explained that the forecasts for the intersections under the alternatives considers the conditions outside the City as well as the options within the City in trying to represent what we think we will be facing. Ms. Wood pointed out that when the alternatives were brought before GPUC she made it clear which areas were showing an increase in development over the existing general plan and asked if we should have one that shows reduced levels, GPUC did not recommend doing that. They recommended going forward with the analysis on the alternatives GPAC recommended, which is what we are doing. She added that the Planning Commission and City Council are waiting to see what recommendations come out of this committee. Mr. Tescher asked for a discussion about the airport area and the options we might consider in that area. Mr. Vandersloot indicated he would prefer to have the all of the, affordable housing requirement put in that area. Ms. Gardner added that the subcommittee discussed this idea because the area is already urbanized, and if we accept some deficiencies there other areas where community character or open space come into play could be saved. Mr. Remley disagreed with that idea, he thought there was a potential for "ghettoization." Ms. Gardner pointed out that the subcommittee talked about the area • where the Pacific Club is located instead of right next to the airport. 3 9-I • Ms. Boice asked if the airport traffic had been combined with the Newport Center traffic to determine what the impacts would be on Jamboree and MacArthur if the maximum options were recommended for both areas. Mr. Waters pointed out that the data shows only one additional deficient intersection on MacArthur during the PM peak hour for the maximum in both areas. Ms. Gardner suggested adding some service industry development to capture some of the money from people moving into the area. Mr. Hendrickson pointed out that the intersection improvements in the airport area seem doesn't sound like an expensive list. Don Krotee stated he sees the airport area as the most urban and would accept the sacrifices in that area. Mr. Vandersloot asked about Table 2-7 and suggested when adding residential that generalcommercial and office should be subtracted so we don't have traffic problems. Mr. Tescher then moved the discussion to Newport Center. Ms. Boice asked about Option 3 and with the students increasing by 226% how can the school district absorb that many students. Mr. Vandersloot asked why we are not decreasing the office and commercial when the • residential is increasing. Ms. Gardner asked about the cultural learning center in Option 1. Mr. Krotee asked what logic the City Council used when they suggested more residential in this area. Ms. Wood stated she thought it was the Planning Commission who asked to leave the commercial at the current level and add residential because they thought the traffic impacts would be too great if both were increased. Ms. Gardner didn't remember hearing the recommendation for more commercial space. Mr. Alford said he was on the subcommittee and they just talked about buildout levels. Mr. Hendrickson agreed. Laura Dietz recalled a concept discussed where office and housing were in one. structure. Ron Yeo asked about getting a spreadsheet which would provide environmental, economic and traffic impact together. Mr. Glass stated he thought the airport area and Newport Center were the only two areas that hold the possibility of some land use changes and if that should be conveyed in the public workshop. Mr. Tescher added West Newport Industrial, Banning Ranch and Mariner's Mile could be added to that list. E 0- • III. Discussion of Future Agenda Items Mr. Tescher reminded everyone about the public workshop scheduled for June 2P at the OASIS Senior Center. Ms. Gardner asked the group if meeting on two Saturdays in July would' be more productive at this point rather than the Monday evening meetings. Mr. Tescher added that the plan was to meet on July 16th and 23rd to get through all the areas in a timely manner. After discussion, it was agreed to meet half day July 16th and a full day on July 23rd Mr. Bettencourt asked if the schedule shared with GPUC today would be made available to this group. Mr. Tescher indicated once the dates were confirmed that could happen. Mr. Vandersloot asked for two more pieces of information, one is on Table ES-7 provide a combined number of the a.m. and p.m. intersections. Mr. Waters indicated that is on Table ES-6. Mr. Vandersloot also asked for information on the surrounding cities as to what they did with their general plans the last go around. Mr. Tescher indicated they would do research on that. IV. Public Comments Cora Newman, Newport Beach, commented on the Costa Mesa general plan stating they are going through a similar process. They are not looking at broad brush reductions, they are looking at progression and a lot of movement toward mixed use development. Ms. Newman also stated that people throughout the county are looking to live near airports, railroads and transportation. She was also concerned about the discussion tonight regarding the Bluff Road and at the same time the 19th Street Bridge. The bridge has gone through a lengthy public process involving tremendous community debate whereas the Bluff Road has not. Allan Beek, Newport Beach, stated he felt a big piece of data was missing, revenue is projected for the increased development however the costs for improvements is not known. Mr. Beek felt it would be worthwhile to make an effort to get that cost figure. Terry Welsh, Costa Mesa, stated the Banning Ranch Task Force was still working on acquiring Banning Ranch for open space and told the group about their efforts. Brandon Johnson, Corona del Mar, agreed with Mr. Beek's comments. Mr. Johnson commented that the efforts of the Greenlight Committee had shot down proposed development in the last couple years and asked how the recommendations by GPAC would interact with Greenlight. Ms. Wood responded that if the recommendations that were approved by the Planning Commission and City Council exceeded the thresholds outlined in Measure S, the plan would be put to a vote of the residents. Ms. Gardner added the public comment we are going to receive will help with the final plan. Mr. Vandersloot asked Ms. Wood if that was the official position of the City. Ms. Wood • responded that Measure S is the law and the City intended to follow it. 5 �.3 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 1 • FOR GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION July 16, 2005 West Newport Highway Banning Ranch West Newport Industrial Old Newport Boulevard Balboa Peninsula (Lido Village, Cannery Village, & McFadden Square) Balboa Village CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TIT - A' n,i{1, In association with URBAN CROSSROADS ■ APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS 3 • TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction West Newport Highway Banning Ranch West Newport Industrial Old Newport Boulevard 1 3 7 12 16 Balboa Peninsula (Lido Village, Cannery Village, and McFadden Square) 19 Balboa Village • L 25 5 • INTRODUCTION Two meetings are scheduled for the Newport Beach General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) to prepare its land use recommendations, with the planning sub -areas divided between the two meetings. This document provides the framework for the GPAC's deliberations and recommendations. Unlike prior discussion papers, where the study areas were presented alphabetically, they have been organized sequentially from west to east to enable the GPAC to ensure that adjacent areas can be considered together. This report presents the City of Newport Beach staffs and consultant team's recommendations for preferred land use alternatives for: ■ West Newport Highway ■ Banning Ranch ■ West Newport Industrial ■ Old Newport Boulevard ■ Balboa Peninsula (encompassing the Lido Village, Cannery Village, and McFadden Square study areas) ■ Balboa Village These recommendations are intended to serve as a framework for the GPAC's discussion in selecting the final land use recommendations for each sub -area at the July 16 meeting. • Recommendations for the remaining study areas will be distributed to the GPAC prior to the July 23 meeting. At that time, recommendations from the Economic Development Committee's review of the fiscal impact analysis will also be available. The recommendations are based on consideration of the benchmark documents prepared for the General Plan Update including the Community Directions for the Future developed during the General Plan Update Visioning Process, the Guiding Principles and Land Use Alternatives formulated by the GPAC with modifications to reflect Planning Commission and City Council input, and the Land Use Alternatives Traffic, Fiscal, and Environmental Impact Analyses prepared by the consultant. Additionally, our recommendations were influenced by the public input received at the June 25 Land Use Alternatives Public Workshop. Finally, we have considered the goals of property owners -with whom we have met, as well as our professional judgment. Cumulatively, the study area land use recommendations represent selections from the alternatives defined by the GPAC, the combination of elements from one or more of these, and modifications of these in consideration of their comparative traffic, fiscal, and environmental impacts and public input. In determining the recommendations, it is acknowledged that the City of Newport Beach will continue to experience some population and employment growth, though it is almost fully developed with few remaining vacant lands. The challenge is to accommodate the incremental growth in a manner that is consistent with, complements, and does not incur undue impacts on the qualities that uniquely distinguish the City. Important among the staffs and consultant's considerations for the recommended land use alternatives are the following goals: ■ Traffic impacts —reduction of citywide traffic volumes below those that would result from continued implementation of the existing adopted General Plan. PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 1 • ■ Fiscal impacts —attainment of a net fiscal benefit (citywide revenues exceed costs), while providing jobs and services for residents. ■ Environmental impacts —minimization of impacts on public services, infrastructure, natural resources, and scenic quality. ■ Community character —maintenance of the character of the City's distinct neighborhoods and commercial and business districts. ■ Community viability —assurance of the economic viability of the City's uses through improvement of underperforming and incompatible mixes of land uses and reinforcement of key business sectors that support the vision for the role and character of Newport Beach. n Inherently, it is recognized that it is impossible to optimize each of the goals in each of the sub -areas and trade-offs among these may be necessary. For example, the maintenance of a pedestrian - oriented "village" character for Corona del Mar, where the objective normally would be to slow traffic, may conflict with intentions for efficient traffic flows on Coast Highway. As a result, in selecting the recommendations, it has been necessary to prioritize the most important goal, or goals, for each planning sub -area in consideration of the choices and trade-offs that may be required. The staffs and consultant's considerations in submitting the recommendations are documented in this report. To facilitate review, information pertaining to the,existing characteristics and visioning process input for each planning sub -area previously distributed to the GPAC has been incorporated in this document. Land use recommendations, supplemented by a discussion of their related policy implications and basis for selection, are graphically presented in a text box to facilitate access. The latter includes a summary of applicable input from the June 25 Land Use Alternatives Public Workshop. PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 2 8 0 • WEST NEWPORT HIGHWAY Description West Newport Coast Highway Corridor is located along Coast Highway, which runs northwest to southeast, from Summit Street to just past 60th Street. This is a mixed commercial and residential area, with the former serving the Newport Shores residential neighborhood closest to Banning Ranch, the West Newport Residential neighborhood south of Coast Highway, and beach visitors. The Corridor consists of commercial uses along the north side of Coast Highway, at about one block in depth on average. Residential uses are interspersed between commercial uses, with approximately half of those being multi -family residential and half being mobile homes. A portion of the mobile homes are situated along Semeniuk Slough and the Army Corps restored wetlands, while a number of the single-family homes outside the area are also located along the Slough. A mobile home park containing older units, many of which appear to be poorly maintained, is located on the westernmost parcels and a portion of the tidelands. This site serves as the "entry" to the City and as a portal to the proposed Orange County River Park The Corridor "commercial strip" serves residential neighborhoods as well as beach visitors. Primary commercial uses include community -related retail such as a dry cleaners, liquor store, deli, and grocery. A few motels are interspersed among the commercial uses. There are also a number of dine -in, family -style restaurants, as well as a handful of fast-food establishments. Many of the commercial structures appear to have been built in the 1960's to 1980's although some hotels have been recently upgraded. The area's overall appearance, in terms of architecture and maintenance, is not attractive and few commercial buildings have undergone the same upgrades as adjoining residences. The commercial area is mostly highway -oriented, with parking lots fronting many of the commercial uses. Many of these parking lots are of substandard size and configuration due to past widening of West Coast Highway. This area is governed by an adopted Specific Plan, which was intended to promote its orderly development and provide service commercial uses for nearby residences. Recommendations Vision A corridor that includes a gateway to the community with amenities that support the Orange County River Park, as well as commercial clusters that serve local residents and coastal visitors at key intersections, interspersed with compatible residential development. Uses (refer to Figure 1) Designate the westernmost parcel, occupied by the trailer park, for open space and, as an alternative use, for multi -family housing. If and when funding is available, portions of the site should be used as a staging area for Orange County River Park with parking, park -related uses, and an underpass to the ocean. ■ Establish clusters of retail, restaurant, and hotel uses near the intersections of Orange and Prospect Avenues and encourage the redevelopment of intervening parcels for 'housing (duplexes or townhomes). PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 3 ILI LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS OCommercial Node - Local and Visitor -Serving Uses © Mufti -Family Residential aa\ im, Multi -Family Residential and River Park Staging Area OConvert "R-2" to "R-1" CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Figure 1 WEST NEWPORT HIGHWAY CORRIDOR AND RESIDENTIAL Existing Land Use Reid.,fil MunFFamiN Retiaenlal :;: MobWe Haines Comnwind euianryHaNwa Faiin svis l -M T.it Cwn.1a - Ppfassbnd OlNce/@idnesYMeUicatNel ' t raad Shies _ Dhah Restaxont Iw ._..-. CIN Bouneary 0 M 14?WECTM R'. 1W79-01 RaMesleq W'. HLR Cre ea b : Wff oma: (i • E • ■ Commercial uses should include a mix of convenience retail serving adjoining residents and, near Prospect Avenue, visitor -serving uses. Development Capacity ■ Retail: 1.0 FAR ■ Housing: 18 — 22 units per acre, except for affordable units, where a bonus density may be provided, pursuant to State law. Policy Discussion ■ Promote the clustering of retail and hotel uses by the aggregation of individual parcels into larger development sites through incentives such as density bonuses or comparable techniques. ■ Design guidelines should be considered to guide development in the corridor to improve its visual and physical quality. ■ Implement streetscape improvements to enhance the area's character and image as a gateway to Newport Beach and develop a stronger pedestrian environment. Basis for Recommendations 1. The Visioning Process found that the Coast Highway Corridor is among those that require revitalization. To this end, the City may be proactive in creating a vision for its improvement that would help to guide future private development. 2. The clustering of commercial uses would enhance their economic vitality and improve the appearance of the area. Depending on the scale, aggregation of individually owned parcels could provide for more efficient building footprints and parking. Generally, this approach received support in the Public Workshop (in excess of 50% indicated moderate to strong agreement). Improvement of the quality of commercial development on the Highway would enhance property values of adjoining residential neighborhoods, as well as provide revenue to off -set the costs associated with maintaining the City's affordable housing. 3. Alternatives providing for the redevelopment of existing commercial parcels for housing would remove a number of uses that serve'the surrounding community, including restaurants, and coastal visitors. Public Workshop input opposed their conversion (65% indicated moderate to strong disapproval) and the Coastal Act prioritizes the development of uses that support coastal visitors. 4. While mixed -use development (defined as the integration of housing in buildings above ground level retail was supported in the Public Workshop (61% indicating moderate to .strong agreement), the area's two-story height restriction, also supported in the Public Workshop, would preclude such development (minimum of 3 stories required for a financially viable project). 5. Redevelopment of the westernmost parcel occupied by the trailer park was strongly supported in the Public Workshop (78.3% indicating moderate to strong agreement). Of these, 83% supported the development of a staging area and trailhead for the Orange County River Park. As such facilities would require only a portion of the site and the demand for affordable housing is high, it is feasible todevelop both uses on the property. PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 5 • • 0 6. Among the Guiding Principles that support the recommendations are: a. Encourage the revitalization of older commercial areas. b. Protect the high value of residential property. c. Support the careful expansion of visitor -serving businesses and facilities, including hotels. d. 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. e. 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. f. 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. where feasible, • BANNING RANCH Description Located within the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI), the Banning Ranch area encompasses approximately 518 acres, of which 465 acres (includes 47 acres of water features) are under the jurisdiction of Orange County, and 53 acres are within the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach. Banning Ranch is located in the western -most portion of the Newport Beach Planning Area, north of Coast Highway and the Newport Shores residential community, just east of the Santa,Ana River, and west and south of residential and industrial uses. The eastern portion of the site is higher in elevation and contains the western edge of Newport Mesa that slopes gently from east to west. Bluffs form the western edge of the mesa, and are located in the central portion of the Banning Ranch area. The western portion of the site, which is lower in elevation, historically contained a tidal marsh associated with the Semeniuk Slough and Santa Ana River. The site is located within the coastal zone boundary and is subject to the provisions of the Orange County Local Coastal Program (LCP). However, the site is referred to as a "white hole" since the County's LCP does not provide land use designations for the Banning Ranch area. Currently, the Banning Ranch area is primarily undeveloped with some historic oil extraction infrastructure located in the central and southern portions of the site that includes wells, pipelines, buildings, improved and unimproved roads, and open storage pipes and machinery. There are 65 active oil wells and four active injection wells located throughout the Banning Ranch area. Oil • extraction activities date back at least 75 years. Although the Banning Ranch site contains an assemblage of diverse habitats that have been historically disturbed, when this area is considered with the contiguous Semeniuk Slough, it provides wildlife with a significantly large, diverse area for foraging, shelter, and movement. Biological studies performed for Banning Ranch indicate that, while disturbance associated with oil activities diminishes the quality of existing habitat to some extent, overall, the area should be regarded as relatively high -quality wildlife habitat due to its size, habitat diversity, and continuity with the adjacent Semeniuk Slough. A preliminary field evaluation of Banning ,Ranch was conducted by the consultant as a general indicator of the presence of habitat and species that may be subject to regulatory review. Based on this analysis, the property is estimated to contain approximately 69 acres with a habitat value rank of 1," which are primarily concentrated in the northwestern portion of the site. These areas are considered to have a high biological resource value, and are likely to require a resource permit from federal and/or State agencies prior to development. Other areas scattered throughout the site may also be of biological value but to a lesser extent. Areas with a rank of "2" (approximately 96 acres) may need a resource permit for development, where additional studies would be required to make this determination. More than likely, areas with a rank of "3" (approximately 118 acres) contain habitat and species that are not likely to require resource permitting for development. Resource permitting would likely result in the need for mitigation measures associated with development such as payment of mitigation fees, habitat restoration, or off -site habitat replacement. The actual acreage subject to environmental permitting will be determined in subsequent studies to be conducted in accordance with state and federal regulations. PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 7 19 • • I— L-1 Rank Acres 1 69 2 96 3 118 Total 283 Recommendations Vision Preferably a protected open space amenity, with restored wetlands and habitat areas. If acquisition for open space is not supported by the voters, a high quality residential community with supporting uses that provides revenue to restore and protect wetlands and important habitats. Uses (refer to Figure 2) ■ Open space, including limited active parklands, if the site is acquired through public funding. ■ If not acquired for open space, the site may be developed as a residential village, containing a mix of housing types, limited supporting retail, visitor accommodations, school, and parklands, with a substantial portion of the property (66-75%) preserved as open space. ■ Oil operations that are relocated and clustered. Development Capacitv (as an alternative'to open space) ■ Housing: 1,765 units ■ Retail: 75,000, square feet ■ Overnight accommodations: 75 units ■ Note: These represent general development capacity estimates, with the property's ultimate development footprint and capacity determined through required federal and state regulatory environmental permitting processes and a planned community development plan approved by the City of Newport Beach. Policy Discussion ■ Acquisition of the Banning Ranch as permanent open space may be accomplished through the issuance of state bonds, environmental mitigation fees, purchase by private entities, developer dedication, and similar techniques. ■ Should the entire site not be acquired as open space, its development should be located and designed to preserve wetlands, drainage courses, bluff faces, and other important resources and located to be contiguous and compatible with existing and planned development along its eastern property line. ■ Site grading and infrastructure should be designed to prevent runoff, pollution, or other degradation of wetlands and habitats. PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 8 WI LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS A. Open Space and Parks B. Residential Village with Convenience Retail, School, Parks, and Overnight Accommodations (if not acquired as Open Space) SANTA ANA RIVER JETTY 7 41 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Figure 2 BANNING RANCH * Development Footprint to be determined by State and Federal Permitting Agencies i P S yWp PROJECT NLMPER. 105)G-01 0717 Re9ueW HIR Creotetl W: hNIPP Do1B: 0I/)N5 EIP • • • ■ A major ungated thoroughfare should be provided through the property linking Coast Highway with Newport Boulevard to relieve congestion at Superior Avenue, if the property is developed. Basis for Recommendations 1. The majority of the Banning Ranch is located on unincorporated lands in the County of Orange, with development approvals subject to its General Plan and regulatory authorities. The property owner can request annexation to Newport Beach, which would give development review authority to the City. 2. During the Visioning process, residents were divided in opinion regarding the future of Banning Ranch. Some residents preferred preserving Banning Ranch as open space, while others supported development for needed housing. 3. At the Public Workshop, the majority of participants supported the preservation of the Banning Ranch as open space, with limited parklands (58.1 %). 4. During the Visioning process, 46% of the survey respondents supported preserving Banning Ranch as open space if it requires a tax increase of $250 per parcel for 15 years, along with other funds for the restoration of the site. A similar percentage of Public Workshop participants supported an annual tax of $50 to $100, with 14.5% supporting a tax of $500. Some indicated a preference for funding through state bonds, use of environmental mitigation fees, and/or acquisition by a private or non-profit agency. 5. In an informal poll, a majority of Public Workshop participants indicated their willingness to support some development of the property if it would generate revenue to help fund the preservation of the majority of the property as open space. In general, they were almost equally divided between a residential village that would be smaller than the Taylor -Woodrow proposal or a resort hotel. Approximately 5% supported the existing General Plan's uses and 6.5% the Taylor -Woodrow proposal. 6. While a resort hotel may result in the least traffic and environmental impacts, its inland location with no beach access, views of the sewage treatment plant, and competition from more desirable sites in the City and Huntington Beach would likely inhibit its market for development. Inclusion of a small hotel or vacation rentals into a residential village would benefit from the other uses and contribute additional revenue to the City. 7. Visioning participants indicated the desire to protect and preserve the bluffs located within Banning Ranch and public view corridors. Some supported restricting the height and size of homes, establishing large setbacks to protect the bluffs. These opinions were reiterated in the Public Workshop, where participants indicated that any development should be located and designed to assure maximum protection of the wetlands, important habitats, natural drainages, and bluff faces and clustered, to the extent feasible, adjacent to surrounding residential and industrial development. 8. A roadway connection connecting Coast Highway and 15 Street is important to relieve traffic congestion at Superior Avenue. 9. Proposed land uses would result in approximately 500 fewer peak hour trips than the existing General Plan and a net annual fiscal benefit of approximately $700,000. 10. Among the Guiding Principles that support the recommendations are: PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 10 t(P • 0 a. Support the careful expansion of visitor -serving businesses and facilities, including hotels. b. 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. c. Balance developed lands with adequate open space and recreation areas and preserve opportunities for maintaining healthy life styles in Newport Beach. d. 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. e. Protection, rehabilitation, or enhancement of terrestrial and marine habitats through careful siting of future development. f. Encourage the maintenance of natural landforms. Protect and, where feasible and appropriate, create public viewsheds within the PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 11 I'7 n U WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL Description The area is generally bounded by Newport Boulevard to the east and 16th Street to the north. Southwest of the West Newport Industrial area lies residential and condominium developments, beyond which Banning Ranch is located. The City of Costa Mesa is located directly north of the area. West Newport Industrial area is a mix of residential (41.8 percent), industrial uses including the Newport Technology Center business park (32.9 percent), and commercial uses (17.3 percent). Other uses include public uses such as the City Corporation Yard and Carden Hall Elementary School on Monrovia Avenue. Development in the area dates back to mid -twentieth century. Commercial uses in the area include professional/medical office (13.2 percent) and auto -related uses (1.8 percent). There are few neighborhood -serving retail uses in the area (about 2.0 percent of the area). Some of the commercial uses are under -performing. While not located within the area, Hoag Hospital just south of the area is a strong presence. The proximity of Hoag Hospital to the West Newport Industrial area may act as an economic attraction for new medical and related uses, and has the potential to cause the existing uses and character of these areas to convert to a more medical focused district. There are significant amounts of multi -family uses (32.1 percent) in the center of the area, separating industrial uses to the north and south of the area. Light industrial uses (30.0 percent) • account for the majority of industrial uses in the area, while marine -related industry and multi -tenant uses .together account for less than 3.0 percent of the area. The mix of industrial and residential uses is not always complementary within and at the edges of the area. 0 The City's current General Plan Circulation Element identifies several streets in the area for widening and reconfiguration. The streets planned for widening include 151h Street between Monrovia Avenue and Superior Avenue and Placentia Avenue from Superior Avenue to Hospital Road. New road extensions are planned west of the area for 15th Street, 17th Street and 19th Street (in Costa Mesa). These streets are planned to extend to a new road to be constructed, Bluff Road, located in the Banning Ranch area to the west. Recommendations Vision A district that concentrates health care uses and provides housing for employees, resulting in reduced trips to/from outlying areas. Uses (refer to Figure 3) Medical related uses on properties abutting Hoag Hospital and the Newport Technology Center site (sub -area "A"), including offices, laboratories, supplies, pharmacies, assisted living facilities and group quarters, and similar facilities. PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 12 Iq LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN iA? Medical -Related Uses Multi -Family Residential (E) Single -Family Residential Figure 3 B; Ught Industrial !D) Commercial WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL J r Emm�g Lard lAe Reebenlbl Retldenibl. 5rgp-FomIN gmrlWrina Mu 4.111N Refbenl'nl Cwrmercial hAo-gelatetl Commerc:bl MOMaRebted Ca.urercd PelsonW sources. FlkgSy'C>!m6 FmMuie, BUIIWIrr�yHa�Wwcxe�Gatben MuinnNien.nt .3Retal t� MWC. Cammcvcbl i Roles i O Cer&ivresYMetlbaww Commun�N Commacbl. pnwq, F. atrnes Gne-n Restaamnf ndWfto Mane MustrWl Mute -tenant ntlu511b IMIIWIbnWOpan Space PubNclsemi Nbllc - Sclook B w Vocanl Builtling VWCWM to Op Optlpn gpnKlOry o...= -.- Clry OounWry PROJECT NUMBEq: )W9V gegnetlad W'. NIR CieasaW W'. WM oae: om,m EIP • • 1.J ■ Research and development and light manufacturing uses on properties north of Production Place (sub -area "B"). ■ Multi -family housing on properties northwest of Superior Avenue, west of Monrovia Avenue, and the existing mobile home sites (sub -area "C"). ■ Retail commercial uses on the west side of Superior Avenue (as currently developed in sub -area "D"). Development Capacity ■ Medical office and ancillary uses: 1.0 FAR and height up to 5 stories (current limit is 3 stories) ■ Research and development/ manufacturing: 0.5 FAR ■ Housing: 32 units per acre. Policy Discussion ■ Encourage the preservation of the existing mobile home parks as a source of affordable and work force housing. Basis for Recommendations 1. Visioning process participants indicated that the West Newport Industrial area would benefit from revitalization. 2. The development of additional medical offices and other facilities supporting Hoag Hospital was widely endorsed by participants at the Public Workshop (in excess of 76% indicated moderate to strong agreement). 3. An almost equal number of participants supported the development of additional housing in the area (74% indicated moderate to strong agreement). 4. Participants were divided in their support for the retention of industrial uses (approximate 45% indicating moderate to strong agreement and 55% indicated moderate to strong disagreement). The retention of the lands north of Production Place for light manufacturing purposes provides opportunities for jobs, start-up businesses, and essential "support" uses that are not accommodated elsewhere in Newport Beach and can serve as a transition between the area's multi -family housing and Costa Mesa's more intensive industrial uses. 5. Expansion of medical offices and housing, while replacing some existing industrial uses (e.g., Technology Center) will reduce peak hour trips from the existing General Plan. The development of additional housing allows a greater number of residents to live closer to their jobs, reducing the length of vehicle trips. 6. Additional height for medical office and ancillary buildings, while holding the permitted density constant, provides the opportunity to reduce the land area occupied by the building increasing ground level open space and parking. 7. Among the Guiding Principles that support the recommendations are: a. Facilitate the development and retention of a variety of business types that strengthen the vitality of the local economy. PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 14 a( • • b. Capitalize on market and demographic changes and opportunities that emerge in key economic centers of the community. c: 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. d. 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. e. Preserve, promote and respect the existing goals and policies set forth in the City's currently certified Housing Element. PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 15 .2y • OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD • E Description This area is situated east of Newport Boulevard and runs from 15th Street at the north end to Catalina Drive at the south end. Old Newport Boulevard was formerly the primary roadway leading into the city from the north. A residential neighborhood lies directly to the east, while Hoag Hospital is situated to the west across Newport Blvd. This area is primarily commercial (71.3 percent of the area) comprised mainly of professional offices, and multi -tenant commercial uses. Secondary uses include personal services, restaurants, and specialty shopping such as home furnishing stores and beauty salons. Most specialty retail appears to occupy converted residential buildings. Recently, this area has experienced a transition towards increased medical office uses. This transition is likely attributable to the proximity of Hoag Hospital. There are two vacant buildings at the northern end of the study area, (3.5 percent of the area), as well as a few auto -related uses (4.7 percent) such as auto service repair. The mix of uses is not always complementary, with auto repair uses adjacent to hair salons and/or specialty retail. This area is not pedestrian -oriented. While there are some walkable areas, the boulevard is wide and there are a mix of uses and lot configurations that do not create a consistent walkway. This area is governed by a Specific Plan. Recommendations Vision A district that supports Hoag Hospital and provides for the shopping needs of residents of adjoining neighborhoods. Uses (refer to Figure 4) ■ Convenience retail that serves adjoining residential neighborhoods, as well as medical office uses supporting Hoag Hospital on the west side of Newport Boulevard. ■ Mixed use buildings that integrate housing above ground level retail or office uses on the east side of Old Newport Blvd. Development. Capacity ■ Retail: 0.5 FAR. ■ Office: 0.5 FAR, up to 2 stories. ■ Mixed use: 1.5 FAR, up to 3 stories. Policy Discussion ■ Preclude the development of highway -oriented and "heavy" retail uses such as automobile supply and repair facilities. PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 16 M u 0 LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS CITY of NEWPORT BEACH O,4 Neighborhood -Oriented Convenience Commercial, GENERAL PLAN includingMedical-Related Uses Some as "A", with Mixed Use Buildings (Housing above Retail or Office( Figure 4 OLD NEWPORT BLVD �I Existing LaM the Resltlanllal ResklenM1ol, SrglaFarnN RtigtlenrlW MuflisamN R�OenM1d Commelcitl ANO-ROk]rE[I CORImCICIG Malhe-Itebretl Cammalcipl i PBlmll] SfMCCs. FIh1E5SICt s FunAure, BUIgkryHalCwple/Galaen Suppry. SpecroN Retai . Mltl4ienant Commercial - RClestloml oftelD�ic.wm Fo�otl S, Comme da D@Mkg, aa„,a Re ,ont bu and ugnr MtluSMal MIXInB Mu511itl M04.N n,wsmle mnlulbnaVOpen Space Publk/SeM Pubic - $CrINtG „] VacaM bIWIRg vR, vacant lot ®°r'ib" Baxraary -- CMv Bburlgay cMaxerwl9esn Caprtl� ,.h1, Wu,CM M �rI.xM NV, cHhMn m YCcttw Xu\ mf FWEUN Y9R: 1 M11 %el PRascr NurmER. ro5�var Reauasi by IN! Cleo W: W" Date: 0717M5 EIP CJ L J Promote the clustering of uses by the aggregation of individual parcels into larger development sites (as prescribed by the existing General Plan and the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan). Sidewalks and street crossings should be improved to facilitate pedestrian access to Hoag Hospital and discourage automobile trips. Basis for Recommendations The majority of seven Public Workshop participants opposed the development of uses supporting Hoag Hospital, additional retail and office development, and housing. In general, they supported the preservation of the status quo. However, there is a strong market for medical support uses, as reflected in recent development activity, with insufficient market to maintain the current mix of retail commercial uses throughout the corridor. Medical offices can be designed and scaled to be compatible with adjoining residential neighborhoods and improved pedestrian connections can help to reduce automobile trips. Resident serving retail uses will be more compatible with the adjoining neighborhood than the existing "heavy" uses. 2. Workshop participants supported the development of mixed -use buildings that integrate housing with ground floor retail on the east side of Old Newport Boulevard as a transition with adjoining residential neighborhoods (71% in favor), with a smaller percentage (57%) supporting the development of townhomes. Adjoining residential neighborhoods are sufficiently high that they will not be impacted by three story development in the mixed -use area on the east side of Old Newport Boulevard. 3. Among the Guiding Principles that support the recommendations are: a. Encourage the revitalization of older commercial areas. b. Encourage mixed -use development. c. The quantity of land designated for commercial use and the development standards that regulate such uses should reflect the market support that can reasonably be anticipated during the General Plan time horizon. d. Capitalize on market and demographic changes and opportunities that emerge in key economic centers of the community. e. Future development should consider the scale, urban form, design, character and quality of the community. PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 18 as • BALBOA PENINSULA - (Lido Village, Cannery Village, and McFadden Square) Descriptions Lido Village and Civic Center This sub -area is comprised of two distinct locales, Lido Village and the Civic Center, which comprises the area in which City Hall is located. Lido Village is bounded by Finley Drive to the south, the Lido Channel to the north and east, and Newport Blvd to the west. Primary uses in Lido Village include salons, home furnishings, apparel, and other specialty shops ranging from jewelry stores to wine merchants. Lido Village includes Lido Marina Village, a waterfront development situated between'the Lido Channel, Newport Boulevard, and Via Lido, and is adjacent to City Hall. Lido Marina Village is primarily a pedestrian -oriented retail area, with a mix of neighborhood -serving commercial uses and specialty shopping. A parking structure, located in the center of Lido Village, accounts for 8.3 percent of the land area. The area also contains the historic Lido Theatre located on Via Lido, and civic/social uses such as the Elks Lodge. Commercial land uses predominate at 53.5 percent of the area, with some residential condominiums (2.9 percent of the area) located along Via Lido. While Lido Village contains specialty retail and restaurants, the Civic Center area is more public -use oriented. This area primarily contains public/semi-public uses, with City government offices, a church and a fire station. It consists of the City Hall complex, a Fire Station, a public parking lot, and a • stretch of landscaped parkway along Newport Boulevard; these uses account for 24.8 percent of the study area. In addition, the area contains multi -tenant commercial uses such as (38.0 percent of the study area), located in the commercial strip on Newport Boulevard west of City Hall between Via Lido and 32nd Street. Vacancies account for 3.1 percent of land uses in the study area. Cannery Village Cannery Village is the historic center of the City's commercial fishing and boating industry and has a mix of small shops, art galleries, and professional offices and service establishments. This area is bounded by 32nd Street to the north, Balboa Boulevard to the west, Lido Channel to the east, and 26th Street to the south. The area is primarily commercial (71.3 percent of the sub area) with a variety of neighborhood -serving commercial and specialty shops. Residential uses comprise 15A percent of the area; these are mostly multi -family and/or attached homes. A new loft -style development has recently been constructed. Additionally, older developments in the area include some single-family residential units combined with commercial uses on single lots. Specialty retail in the area includes home furnishings and art galleries, and architectural and design offices. There are also professional offices, located mostly in the northern portion of the area. Community -related commercial uses, such as Albertson's grocery and gyms, are located in the area. Dine -in and fast food restaurants account for more than 7.0 percent of the land area. Marine -related commercial (boat sales) and marine -related industrial uses (boat repair) can also be found between Newport Boulevard and the Lido Channel, representing 2.2 percent and 1.5 percent of the area respectively. 401 Religious institutions are located in the northwest portion of the area and represent 4.8 percent of land uses. Public parking is available on several small lots throughout the area, accounting for 3.1 PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 19 21 • percent of land uses. Vacant lots or buildings account for less than 2.0 percent of the area. This area is included within the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan. Properties west of Newport Boulevard are developed for community -serving commercial uses, including a grocery store and fast-food restaurants. McFadden Square McFadden Square lies south of Cannery Village, and is bounded by 26th Street to the north, 19th Street to the south, and Ocean Front and the Pacific Ocean to the west. It features commercial operations from restaurants, beach hotels, dory fishing boats, and tourist -oriented shops to service operations and facilities that serve the Peninsula. An important feature of this area includes the Newport Pier, which attracts many visitors. The McFadden Square area is known for its marine - related industries such as shipbuilding and repair facilities on the harbor, some of which have been in continuous operation for over fifty years. Commercial land uses are largely concentrated in the commercial strips of Balboa and Newport Boulevards, with residential along Ocean Front. This area is a combination of residential (39.6 percent) and commercial (27.8 percent) uses, with multi -tenant and visitor -serving commercial uses, such as t-shirt shops, and rental shops. Dine -in and fast food restaurants account for 7.0 percent of the area. There are also many bars and clubs in the area with some featuring live music, especially along Ocean Front. The Newport Pier extends from McFadden Square, and there are many nearby recreational uses (bike rentals, surf shops, etc.). Other uses in the area include industrial and public uses. There are a number of marine -related industrial uses (boat storage, restoration and repair, etc.) between Newport Boulevard and the West • Lido Channel. Balboa Community Center is located just south of the pier and accounts for 7:0 percent of the land uses within the area. Public parking (22.1 percent of area land use) is available,in two lots, of which the easternmost one is separated from commercial uses by residential uses. These lots primarily serve the beach users, tourists, and the restaurant patrons. Much of the McFadden Square area is pedestrian -oriented, with storefronts facing the street, the presence of signage at a pedestrian scale, outdoor furniture, and landscaping to provide a pleasant environment. However, certain areas present difficulty for pedestrian street crossing. Specifically the intersection of Newport and Balboa Boulevards, known as "Mixmaster" is one such crossing as the roadway configuration at this location allows traffic flow from different directions and the street is wide. Improvements at this intersection are currently under construction. • Recommendations A series of commercial, visitor -serving, marine related, civic districts and residential neighborhoods, differentiated by their functional characteristics but integrated by walkways, streetscape amenities, and urban form, and reflecting their history and unique location between the ocean and bay. Although important to provide for coastal visitors, the area's capacity for commercial uses is reduced to a level that can be supported by the market and augmented by residential uses that provide customers year-round. Urban Form Concept ■ Balboa Peninsula's urban form should evolve as a series of distinct centers/ nodes and corridors. PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 20 -qS • • • ■ Lido Village and McFadden Square should be reinforced as the primary pedestrian -oriented activity centers, separated by a residential neighborhood with mixed -use buildings in inland portions of Cannery Village (east of Newport Boulevard), and linked by retail and marine -related commercial corridors along Newport Boulevard and the Bay frontage. Uses (refer to Figure 5) Ia. Lido Village ■ Visitor -serving and retail commercial, with small lodging facilities (bed and breakfasts, inns). ■ Mixed -use buildings that integrate housing in the area bounded by Via Lido, Via Oporto, and Via Malaga. ■ New office uses should be discouraged to improve the area's pedestrian character. b. Cannery Village (properties generally bounded by Via Malaga, 28t" Street, the Newport Boulevard commercial frontage, and 32"d Street) ■ Multi -family housing including townhomes and live/work buildings, except at street intersections. ■ Mixed -use structures with residential above retail permitted in any location and required at street intersections. Limits are defined for the amount of ground floor retail square footage - (see below). c. Albertsons Market property (west of Newport Boulevard and south of 32"d Street) ■ Neighborhood -serving retail commercial. ■ Mixed -use structures with residential above retail. d. 32"d Street north frontage between Balboa Boulevard and Newport Boulevard ■ Residential (as exists) ■ Mixed -use structures with residential above retail, if the Albertson's property is redeveloped for mixed -use. e. McFadden Square, west of Newport Boulevard ■ Visitor -serving retail commercial and mixed -use buildings that integrate housing with retail. McFadden Square, east of Newport Boulevard ■ Water -oriented commercial and supporting uses g. Outside of study areas: ■ Newport Boulevard: highway oriented retail commercial ■ Bayfront properties, east of Lafayette Avenue: Water -oriented commercial and supporting uses PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 21 LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS Visitor-Serong and Retail Commercial, Small Overnight Lodging Faciltlles and Inns © Mixed Use -Housing above Retail © * Mixed Use Permitted In any Location and Required at Sheet Intersections, * Mum Family Residential and Townhomes - any location except Intersections '., Qo NelghbothoodServing Retail or Mixed Use Q Residential or Mixed Use if Subarea D Redevelops for Mixed Use Marine -Related Commercial © Visitor -Serving Commercial or Mixed Use QH Highway Commercial and Unifying Sheetscape Amenities GENERAL PL4 Figure 5 LIDO Resi fid.Shgx,For,*rte6 fld Mulli-FamN Re^JtlenXd Commercial Mno-RHOIM Cammembl Man_n_E`JRelafetl Commercbl Pa�M O $erviCH. , Fumfte. 6 1 swpareVPccesl FumINe. Mil-TeryRecall MWII-tenant Cammercbl �Fidessbnalomrer&Ctlne6sMtedbtsYvet DiINb CommunNCOmmercid. Uo Sores pre-'!1 ReslaumM. FOBf FOOtl Re6taalanf Hdel tlushd M eindubl - kHICVenont IPbi IrmXMlaneV po l Sil � PudlCrSernl Pudk. Chirche¢rttelgbus L6e6 Cpen Space Ome PaNv'P.M,&11p re V' Fg Vac.ant LM I 0 M N eat ate.. arva n.,wnrou.� vuem aw �w.cm m�mr�wvxooa�wsw. osce. amx womoada mm. P ECTNUMBM IM7941 Requefifetl CP Creates d0: MV Dote: 07O105 {, EIP • Development Capacity ■ Retail u • • Lido Village and McFadden Square: 1.0 FAR • All other areas: 0.5 FAR ■ Mixed Use • All areas except interior parcels in Cannery Village: 1.5 FAR with no restriction on commercial square footage • Cannery Village parcels: 1.5 FAR, with retail limit of 0.25 FAR except at intersections where it shall be 0.5 FAR ■ Housing: 12-18 units per acre 1. Streetscape improvements should be implemented to improve the area's visual quality, image, and pedestrian character. This should include clearly defined linkages among individual districts, between the ocean and Bay, and along the Bay frontage. 2. The City should provide incentives for owners to improve their properties and achieve the community's vision for this area. Basis for Recommendations There is an oversupply of land zoned exclusively for commercial uses on the Balboa Peninsula based on ADE's market analysis. The concentration of retail uses in limited locations and re -use of other properties for residential uses would improve the area's economic and social vitality throughout the year and reduce peak hour trips from the existing General Plan. 2. Participants in the Visioning process indicated that both Cannery Village and McFadden Square need continuing revitalization and the City could be proactive in creating a vision for revitalization to help guide future private development. 3. While overnight lodging has not been supported in the Visioning process survey and public meetings, we believe that smaller bed and breakfast and boutique hotels could be designed and scaled to complement the pedestrian -oriented village character of Lido Village and McFadden Square, as well as -help the City's fiscal balance through the revenue that would be contributed. Approximately 56% of Public Workshop participants supported the reinforcement of Lido Village and McFadden Square as primary activity nodes with the interior of Cannery Village allocated for housing or mixed -use development. 5. The majority of Visioning process and Public Workshop participants indicated their support for mixed -use buildings in Lido Village, McFadden Square, and portions of Cannery Village. While this may be feasible in, a number of locations, the immediate bayfront may be restricted to non- residential coastal -dependent uses as required by the Coastal Act. 6. The Visioning process indicated support for the protection of historic commercial and residential villages, such as Lido Village. PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 23 Q • u • 7. Suggestions of tools to protect the villages including the narrowing of permitted uses, adopting design and development guidelines, establishing a design review process, and adopting specific plans. 8. Among the Guiding Principles that support the recommendations are: a. Facilitate an economically viable concentration of marine uses. b. Encourage the revitalization of older commercial areas. c. Encourage mixed -use development. d. The quantity of land designated for commercial use and the development standards that regulate such uses should reflect 'the market support that can reasonably be anticipated during the General Plan time horizon. e. Support the careful expansion of visitor -serving businesses and facilities, including hotels and meeting facilities. f. Encourage the redevelopment of under -performing commercial areas to allow residential or mixed -use development. g. Enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods and business districts that together identify Newport Beach PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 24' 32 • • BALBOA VILLAGE Description Balboa Village is the historic center for commercial, recreational, and social activities in the community. Balboa Village is located on the Balboa Peninsula between Coronado Boulevard to the northwest, and A Street to the southeast. This study area has 19 acres, of which a mix of commercial uses represents 33.5 percent (6.4 acres) of land uses within the area. Of the retail uses, multi -tenant buildings with a variety of commercial uses are the largest commercial land use, representing 15.3 percent (2.9 acres) of the area. The retail uses are a mix of neighborhood -serving and visitor -serving commercial, i.e., ice cream, bike rentals, and T-shirt shops. Fast food and dine -in restaurants, apparel and specialty shops predominate along Balboa Boulevard and Main Street. A "fun zone" along Edgewater Place includes entertainment uses such as an arcade, amusement park rides, fast food restaurants, and souvenir shops. Marine -related commercial uses such as ferries to Balboa and Catalina Islands, and harbor tours are present in the area. There are a number of commercial vacancies throughout the area, as well as in the multi -tenant complexes along Edgewater Place. This study area is pedestrian -oriented with articulated building facades, and signage that is pedestrian scale. The single largest land use category in the study area is public parking. Two parking lots account for 36.9 percent (7.0 acres) of the area's land uses, providing parking for the adjacent beach area as well as the study area. This is appropriate in an older pedestrian -oriented area where buildings typically have zero lot lines (built to the property line), and limited private parking areas. Residential land uses accounting for 21.5 percent (4.1 acres) of the area are located primarily within the western portion of the study area from Adams Street to Coronado Street, at the eastern boundary of the area, and along Ocean Front. A large park, Peninsula Park, accounts for 4.8 percent (0.9 acres) of the area. The City has embarked upon a number of public improvements in the area within the last few years, which include the addition of street furniture, lighting, landscaping and decorative paving. This study area is within a Specific Plan area. The Balboa Peninsula Planning Study was conducted in 1996. The study concluded the area has a strong marine heritage, and has drawn fishermen, recreational boaters, summer residents, and beachgoers. Over time, the area has experienced a transition to year-round residential use while the visitor uses have continued, and there has not been comprehensive planning to ensure the compatibility of these uses. Parking supply has been addressed, but there has not been a plan to provide adequate parking for the convenience of residents, their guests, and shoppers. There is more commercial space than can be supported by residents alone, and marginal commercial space is used by businesses that are seasonal and do not promote a quality image for the Peninsula. In 1997, the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee (BPPAC) published its vision for Balboa Village. The vision consisted of aesthetic improvements such as landscaping, pedestrian amenities, and design standards. The vision addressed property maintenance standards, parking district implementation, and circulation improvements. The vision also sought to establish a "family marine recreation theme," upgrade the Fun Zone, and improve the quality and mix of commercial tenants. As of 2004, landscaping, pedestrian amenities, and design standards have been implemented for the area. PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 25 33 Recommendations Vision A pedestrian oriented village that serves local residents and recreational visitors, providing housing in proximity to retail uses, entertainment, and recreation. Uses (refer to Figure 6) ■ Visitor and local -serving retail or mixed use buildings that integrate housing with ground level retail on properties generally bounded by Bay Avenue, Balboa Boulevard frontage, Adams Street, and Main Street frontage. ■ Visitor -serving retail on commercial properties between Bay Avenue and the Bay. ■ Housing on existing commercial properties on Balboa Boulevard west of Adams Street, developed at "R-2" densities. Development Capacity ■ Mixed -use buildings: maximum density of 1.5 FAR and height of•3$stories, with setbacks of the third and fourth floors to reduce the visual impact of building mass on the streets. ■ Retail and office (independent or in mixed use buildings): maximum additional 75,000 square feet. • ■ Residential (in mixed -use buildings and single family detached units): 500 units. Policy Discussion 1. The City should provide incentives for owners to improve their properties, achieve the community's vision for the area, and protect the value of nearby residential neighborhoods. 2. Completion of enhancements to Balboa Village's sidewalks and street crossings would contribute to the area's visual quality and character as a pedestrian -oriented environment. Basis for Recommendations 1. Participants in the Visioning process indicated the need for revitalization of Balboa Village. 2. Year-round tourism on Balboa Peninsula is inadequate to support all commercial areas and interest has been expressed to rezone areas for residential or mixed -use development. 3. A significant majority of the Public Workshop participants (82%) supported the concentration of commercial uses in the core of the Village and re -use of outside commercial properties for housing. 4. A similar majority, 75% of the participants, supported prioritizing water -oriented and visitor - serving commercial uses. 5. A somewhat smaller number of participants, though still a majority, supported the development • of mixed -use buildings that integrate housing with ground level retail uses (54%). This is consistent with input from the Visioning process, where the Village was identified as a suitable PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 26 3`j • location for mixed -use development. Development of mixed use buildings would expand the customer base for retail commercial uses and services and enhance the area's pedestrian activity. 6. Consolidation of commercial uses coupled with the re -use of underperforming commercial properties for mixed -use and housing would expand the customer base for local retail uses, helping achieve economic development objectives, conform with the community's vision, and protect property values in nearby residential neighborhoods. Development of additional housing in Balboa Village and reduction of commercial capacity would increase pedestrian activity and reduce vehicle trips, benefiting traffic conditions on the Peninsula. 7. Among the Guiding Principles that support the recommendations are: a. Encourage the revitalization of older commercial areas. b. The quantity of land designated for commercial use and the development standards that regulate such uses should reflect the market support that can reasonably be anticipated during the General Plan time horizon. c. Enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods and business districts that together identify Newport Beach d. Preserve the community's heritage. e. Encourage the redevelopment of under -performing commercial areas to allow residential or mixed -use development. PRELIMINARY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 27 36 LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS (A) Visitor -Serving Commercial (B) Commercial or Mixed -Use Mousing above Retail) ;_- - f j" . rC/ Residential - Townhomes n u T x` 4y1 e` M r Aw -B� V9 .s; 1 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Figure 6 BALBOA VILLAGE Fxb gLom Use ReFW Ml Retb'en". SirgleFamk Res ial Mum-FamiN ResNentipl Commmclol ,... Pers SeN s. F&hre 'Gri Appple4Ac..s .. 5W.* Retail _ Mul T.t Carerer l _Rotessiwwl alnceiB ewmgcscaWel ;jam' Communlly COmmerdol, foptl Siwps _ nne-In Res .N, F Fa ReAawnt HINd Enlabinment. vauq Wg B Mahe IndusNal MMINunoYOpen Space � PUdlc/$eml iVdk _ Pohs �l � Pudk PaMng vactml BUWilg r.e ne Sax.GNNxewM . ron+Mzvu.M �✓�rvil]l� Imr All. Fuy hKEs'®l. hwrcv. smanea. w'i. MJECTNUMBM IWNM l Reaue M Wy HLR Crealetl W. W/PP EIP CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Comparison of Land Use Recommendations with Existina GP & GPAC Alternatives July 11, 2005 --,E-1-P,---- A i 5 0 C 14 T c v" n U 1. EAsting Land Use 2. Existing General PI a. Buildout b. Growth above 3. Buildout a. GPAC Alternat (1) Option 1—r infill (2) Option 2—< with reside (3) Option 3- w/expande b Staff Recommi 4. Growth from Existir a. GPAC Altemal (1) Option 1—i infill (2) Option 2—; with reside (3) Option 3—i w/expands b. Staff Recomm, 5. Deviation from Exi: a. GPAcC (1) Option 1—i infill (2) Option 2, with reside (3) Option 3, w/expands b. Staff Recomm Balboa Village Use Mixed Use Residential Commercial I Sub -Total Theaterl General Residential I Commercial Office Hotel Marna Comml Recreabo Public, Religious Commemaal Residenfial SFR I SFA I MFR y LL O I O I O G 1 H LL ne E K g #14 m J LL 1. Existing Land Use 01 0 5771 6141 178 4401 203.360• 1.3691 203.3601 22.9201 341 4 13,470 2. Existing General Plan I I I Ip a. General Plan Buildout 01 0 375 815 242 350 217,3401 1.4321 217.340 89,260 34 14 4 13,470 b. General Plan Growth from Eustin 01 0 .2021 201 64 -90 13,980 fi3 4.6 13,980 69 66,340 289A 0 00 0 0 0 3 Buddoul I I 01 a. GPAC Altematives 01 1 (1) Option 1-single block commercial to residential 0 0 381 815 242 350 214.340: 1.438 214,340I 89,260 34 14 4 13,470 (2) Option 2-single block commercial to residential OI 0 378 815 242 350 214,3401 1,435 214,340 89,260 34 14 4 13,470 (3) Option 3-water related commercial 0 0 375 8151 242 350 217,340 1.432 217.340 60,000 34 14 4 13.470 4 Option 4-commercial to mixed use 281,986 440 360 815 242 350 2.400; 1,857 284.386 0 0 14 4 13,470 (5) Option 5-commercial to mixed use and Iodginn 205,150I 308 360 815 242 350 2,4001 1.725 207,550 0 330 -14 4 13.470 b. Staff Recommendation 89.0611 158 3601 8281 242 350 114,5631 1.5881 1 203,624 1 0 1 75 14 4 13.470 4. GrovAh from Existing Use I I a. GPAC AItematives (1) Option 1-single block commercial to residential 0 0 .196 -90 10,980; 69 5.1 10.980 5.4 66.340 289.4 0 0.0 0 0 0 (2) Option 2-single block commercial to residential 0 0 -199 -90 10,980! 66 4.8 10,980 54 66,340 289.4 0 00 0 0 0 (3) Option 3- ter related commercial 0 0 -202 J21464 -90 13,9801 63 4.6 13,980 6.9 37.080 161.8 0 0.0 0 0 0 (4) Option 4-commercial to mixed use 281,98E 440 -217 -90 -200,960 488 35.E 81,02E 39.8 -22,920 -100.0 34 -100 0 0 0 0 (5) Option 5-commercial to mixed use and lodging 205,150 308 -217 -90 -200,9601 356 26.0 4,190 2.1 -22,920 -100.0 296 869.7 0 0 0 b. Staff Recommendation 89.0611 158 -217 -90 -88,7971 219 16.0 264 01 -22,920.100.0 41 1206 0 0 0 5. Deviation from Existing GP a. GPAC Alternatives (1) Option 1-single block commercial to residential 0 0 6 0 0 0 -3,000 6 04 3,000 -1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 (2) Option 2-single block commercial to residential 0 0 3 0 0 0 3,000! 3 0.2 -3,000 -1A 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 (3) Option 3--water related commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 -29.260 32.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Option 4-commercial to mixed use 281.986 440 -15 0 0 0 -214,940 425 297 67,046 30.8 39,260 -100.0 -34 -100 0 0 0 0 (5) Option 5-commercial to mixed use and lodging 205,150 308 -15 0 0 0 -214,940i 293 20.4 -9.790 -4.5 -89,260 .100.0 296 8697 011 0 0 b. Staff Recommendation $9,0611 158 -15 13 01 01-102,7777• 15610.9 -13.716 -63 -89.260-100.0 411 120.61 01 01 0 Banning Ranch Use Residential Commercial Office IndustrialAHotelSchool Park SFR MFR Total O o N e N o m o ¢ G 1. Existin Land Use 01 14 141 01 01 01 02. Existin General Plan I I I I a. Bwldout 225 2,510 2,735 50,0001 235,600 164,400 0 0 b. Growth from Existing225 2,496 2,721 NA 50,0001 NAI 235,6001 164.400 NA 01 NA 0 0 3. Buildout I a. GPAC Alternatives 1 Option 1—O en Space 0 14 14 0 0 0 0 0 20 2 Option2-Ta IorWoodrow 875 890 1,765 75,000 0 0 75 10 77 3 Option 3-Tafor Woodrow Reduced 436 453 889 35,000 0 0 75 10 40 (4 Option 4-Resort 0 94 94 25,000 0 INA 0 262 0 10 IT -Staff Recommendation 1,765 75,000 01. 0 751 10 77 4. Growth from ExistingUse a. GPACA]temafives 1 Option 1—Open Space 0 0 0 NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 NA 0 20 2 Option 2-Taylor Woodrow 875 876 1,751 NA 75,000 NA 0 A NA 75 NA 10 77 (3 O tion 3-Ta for Woodrow Reduced 436 439 875 NA 35,000 NA 0 0 NA 75 NA 10 40 4 Option 4-Resort 0 80 80 NA 25.000 NAI 0 NA 0 NA 262 NA 0 10 IT -Staff Recommendation I 1,751 NA 75.000 NAI Of NA 0 NAI 75 NA 10 77 5. Deviations form Existing General Plan II I II a. GPAC Alternatives (1) Option 1—Open Space -225 -2,496 -2,721I-995 -50.000 -100.0 -235, 000 - 000 -164,400 -100 0 NA 0 20 2) Option 2-Taylor Woodrow 650 -1.634 -970 -35.5 25,000 50.0 -235.600 -100 -164,400 -100 75 NA 10 77 3) Option 3-Taylor Woodrow Reduced 211 -2.071 -1,860 -68.0 - 55,000 -30.0 -235,600 -100 -164,400 -100 75 NAI 101 40 4 Option 4-Resort -225 -2,416 -2,641 -96.6 -25,000 -50.0 -235,600 -100 -164,400 -100 262 NA 0 10 IT Staff Recommendation -970 -35.5 25,000 50.0 -235,600 -100.0 -164,400 -100.0 75 NAI 101 71 Cannery Village Muced Use Commercial; Sub -Total I Residential Commercial Office Industrial Commercm I Recreation Ycuth Center Commercial Residential mO � LSFRI U- li IL m IL TAZ 1449/CANNERY VILLAGE WEST I I I I I I I 1. Existing Land Use 01 0 91 78 71,440 871 71.4401 20,0201 01 0 0 2 ExistingGeneral Plan I I _ 011 Oil 0 a. Bwldout 0 0 01 95 74,900• 95 74,9001 20,020 0 0 0 b. Growth above ExistingUse -91 17 3.4601 8 9.2 3.460 4.8 0 0.0 0 NA 0 0 3 Buildout a. GPAC Altemahves 1 Block B-mixed use 96,050 192 0 01 0, 192 96,050 0 0 0 0 2) Other TAZ 0 0 0 951 01 95 0 Ol 0 0 3) Tatal TAZ 96,050 192 0 95 0' 287 96,0501 11 0 0 0 b. Staff Recommendation 96,050 192 0 95 0. 287 96,050 0 0 0 0 4, Growth above Basting Use I a. GPAC Alternatives 96, 550 192 -9 17 -71,440 200 23001 24,610 34.41 -20,020 .100.0 0 NAI 0 0 b. Staff Recommendation 96.050 192 -9 17 -71.440• 200 22991 24,610 34.4 -20.020 -100.0 0 NAI 0 0 5, Deviation from Emsting General Plan • a. GPACAIIematives 96.050 192 0 0 -74,900192 202.2 21,150 28.2 -20.020 -1000 0 NA 0 76 b. Staff Reoommendation 96,0501 192 01 0 -74,9001 1921 202.1 21,150 28.2 -20.0201-1000 01 NA 0 0 TAZ 1464/CANNERY VILLAGE EAST I I I I I I T. ExistingLand Use 01 0 41 I 19 196,270. 601 196,2701 91,3201 47,850 1 4,650 2. ExistingGeneral Plan a. Bwldout 0 0 41 172 201,780 213 201,780 101,500 0 1 4.656 b. Growth above Existing Use 0 0 0 153 5,510• 153 255.0 5,510 2.8 10,180 11.1 -47.850 -100.0 0 0 3. Bwldout I a. GPACAitematives (1) Option 1 1 a Block A-maed use 206,910 414 01 0 0• 414 206.910 0 0 1 4,650 b) Other TAZ 0 0 01 0 53,270• 0 53,270 0U-47.8500 0 0 c) Total TAZ 206,910 414 0 0 53,2701 414 260.180 0 1 4.650 (2) Option 2 a) Block A -residential 0 0 0 152 0• 152 0 0 1 4,650 b) Other TAZ 0 0 0 0 53.270 0 53,270 0 0 0 c Total TAZ 0 0 0 152 53.2701 152 53,270 0 1 4,650 b. Recommendation 56,000 129 01 228 114.020' 357 170,020 45,000 1 4,650 Ah a 4. GrovAh above Existing Use a. GPACAltematives 1 Option 1 206,910 414 41 -19 -143,000 354 589.7 63.910 32.6 -91.320 -100.0-100.0 0 0 2 Option 2 0 0 411 133 -143,000' 92 153.3 -143,000 .72.9 -91.320 -100.0.100.0 0 0 bf Staff Recommendation 56,000 129 411 209 -82.250; 297 -26,250 -46.320 0 0 5. Deviation from Existing General Plan I a. GPACAItematives 1 Option 1 1 206,910 414 41 -172 -148,510• 201 94.3 58,400 28.9 -101,500 .100.0 OF0 0 2 Option 2 0 0 41 -20 -148,510• -51 -286 -148,510 -73.6 -101,500 -100.0 0 b. Staff Recommendation 56,000 129 41 56 -87.7601 144 -31,760 56,500 Oil Corona Del Mar Use Mixed Use Residential omimer=4 Total Residential Commercial Office Public Parks Instit ommerciaResidential MFR SFR N m ii N N 0 N O V- I N W 0 o LL to a LL to e LL y N Q LL m 1. Existing Land Use 01 0 701 2,882 406,842; 2,9521 406,8421 84,9211 4,300 6 12.340 2 Existing General Plan I - - - a. Buildout 0 0 54 3,213 538,630 3,267 538,630 148,060 4,300 6 12,340 b. Growth above Existin Use 0 0 331 131,788• 331 112 131,788 32.4 63,139 74.4 0 0 0 3. Buildout a GPAC Alternatives (1) Option 1-mixed use nodes a Stud Area Use 90,256 181 0 24 428,839• 205 519,096 124,721 4,300 6 12,340 b Use Outside Study Area, in TAZ 0 0 54 3,189 0• 3,243 01 0 0 0 0 c Total TAZ 90,256 181 54 3,213 428,8391 3,448 519,096 124,721 4.300 6 12,340 (2) Option 2-commercial nodes w/residential reuse of selected corridor blocks 1 a Stud Area Use 90,256 181 99 24 335,412: 304 425,668 4,879 0 0 0 b Use Outside Study Area, in TAZ 0 0 54 3,189 01 3.243 01 0 4,300 6 12,340 c Total TAZ 90,256 181 153 3,213 335.4121 3,5471 425.668 4,879 4,300 6 12,340 b. Staff Recommendation 01 0 54 3,213 538.630• 3,2671 538,6301 148,060 4.300 6 12,340 4. Growth from Existing Use a GPAC Alternatives 1 Option 1-mixed use nodes 90,256 181 -16 3311 21.997i 496 16.8 112,254 27.6 39,800 46.9 0 0 0 (2) Option 2-commercial nodes w/residential reuse of selected corridor blocks 90,256 181 83 331 -71.430' 595 20.2 18,826 4.6 -80,042 -94.3 0 0 0 b. Staff Recommendation 0 0 -16 3311 131,788i 315 10.7 131,788 32.4 63,139 74.4 0 0 0 S. Deviation from Existing General Plan 1 a. GPAC Alternatives 1 Option 1-mixed use nodes 90,256 181 0 0 -109,791 • 181 5.5 -19,534 -3 6 -23,339 -15.8 0 0 0 (2) Option 2-commercial nodes w/residential reuse of selected corridor blocks 90,256 181 99 0 -203,2181 280 8.6 -112,962 -21.0 -143,181 -96.7 0 0 0 b. Staff Recommendation 0 0 0 01 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 Lido Village Mne4 Use RealBMul Cammerdal, i Revd<Mal Sb-Total Theater 01fi a wd Rbtel In Commartul RasbaMal MFR SFA Cpmmercvl a a a t otv rc U0O VILLAGE NORTH I I 1 1 ExISQMLand Use 0 0 01 12 129280• 12 1292801 0 90220 0 6000 2 Ews➢rq Geneal Plan a Bu4m 0 0 0 12 130510 12 IM510 0 90220 0 6.000 0 GraMh frm ExisOM Use 0 0 0 0 12301 0 00 1230 10 0 0 00 0 NA 0 3. a. GF a. IemNes 2 OPI a Opal t-rmttsewMAtol' acmm 18]199 250 0 0 0, 2501 18]'1991 0 0 200gNMAO b Oplrn2i WWMMoraccom 0 0 0 0 1996791 0 M9 91 0 0 200 e. Op5rn3mxw0 18Z199 312 11 0 0 312 187.199 0 0 0 D Smff Re ,Q;m iMbm 199.679• 12 199679 0 45.000 120 4 GraMhirom Ezi wUse 1 a GPAC AttemWes a. Optrn1 187.199 250 0 -12 -129280 238 NA 57919 448 0 .90M.1 000 200Op9rn2 0 0 0 -12 70399• -12 -f000 70.399 5i5 0 -90220-1000 200e Cpirn3+nxetluse 187199 312 0 •12 -129280. 300 NA 57,919 448 0 •90,220 -1000 0]03% 01 00 703991 545 0 -05220 501120GPACWa temives1a Op➢rnt a Ool 187199 250 01 -12 -130.510, 434 0 200D. �Qrn2 0 0 0 -12 69,169 -12 .12 -1000 -1000 69169 M1M 530 0 W220two -90220-1000 200Op➢.3 elu 187199 312 0 0 AM 510 312 26000 M639 438 0 -90220-1000 0bf SlaffReconpne tcn 69.10: 0 00 6910 530 0 -05.2201 -W1 120 U00 VILUQGE SOUTH I 1 I I 1 1 FAmtwd Use 1 a Bkxk B(es0 0 0 0 0 87.178 0 87178 685 11.810 0 0 D BkrBC(es[) 0 0 0 0 17942' 0 17.9 2 0 0 0 0 c To1a18kKks88C 0 0 0 0 105,120• 0 105120 685 11810 0 0 2 En mGeneral Pmn a Buwl (1) Bbck B(es0 0 0 0 0 92496• 0 92496 685 21896 0 0 121 Bbck C(esU 0 0 0 0 19,036• 0 19036 0 0 0 0 (31 Total B& 0B B C 0 0 0 0 111 532 6 111532 685 21696 0 0 D GroMhfrom Eve➢rp Use I (118bck e(es0 0 0 0 0 5,318 0 5318 0 10086 0 0 (2) BIO_BCleS) 0 0 0 0 1.094• 0 1.094 0 0 0 0 (31 TOIa1 Blocks6 SC 0 0 01 0 6.412 0 6412 61 0 10085 B54 0 0 3 BuboW 1 a GPACMemaWes (1) O0t.I - a) 5b B ewtnu 0 0 0 0 125714. 0 12571d 685 0 0 0 b) Block Pre dtl d 0 0 no 0 0 120 0 0 0 0 0 c) TOml Bb .BaC 0 0 120 0 125.714 1201 125.714 685 0 0 0 2) Qon2 al Bbck Biefa11M1 0 0 0 0 125714, 0 1W ]14 685 0 0 bl 30,270 61 0 0 0 fill 30274 0 0 0 6 0 TOtlBC SBtl CretaiLtesitl q TotalBbchm 30,274 61 0 0 t25,714 61 155,9881 685 0 0 0 b SbO RecomMnda➢on 18274 60 0 0 92496• 60 110 ]]0 685 8000 68 0 4 GrmvN fran En Use I a G)Opf.IaWes 1 1) Qant a) 6btlt Bietatl mfii 0 0 0 0 38.536• 0- 385361 0 -11810 0 0 b) Bbtic Gres0emal 0 0 120 0 -1],942. 120 NA -17.942 0 01 0 0 c) Total Bbcks BBC 0 0 120 0 20594 120 NA 205941 196 0 •11.810.1000 0 0 (2) trn2 a) B Bieb1=l 0 0 0 0 38536' 0 38536 0 -11810b 0 0 D) BbckCmxetluse, reUa e.d 30274 61 0 0 -17942• 61 NA 12332 0 00 0 C) TafalB s88C 30274 51 0 0 2059d 61 NA 50,868 484 0 -1i.810 0 0 D B HRemmmentla➢rn 18274 60 0 0 -12624 60 NA 5650 54 0 3810 M Nh 0 5 Oewatrnfmm Fw Geneal Pmn I a. GPACM,:M Qrnt al Block BietvUMll 0 0 0 0 332181 0 33218 0 -21.8 0 0 bl Bbck Gms 0 0 120 0 -19036' 120 Y90361 0 0 0 0 0 Be c)-Taul6bcks88C 0 0 120 0 14.182• 120 MI 14.182 127 0 -21896 .1000 0 0 (2) 0plan2 a) Bb, B ell u 1 0 0 0 0 M.2181 0 33 218 0 -21896 0 b) BbKk xell rate Fe 302]4 61 0 0 -19036 61 t1238 0 0 W111A 0 C) Tolel Bbcks B BC 30.274 61 0 0 14.182• 61 NA 44,456 399 0 -21.896-10000 b Stan Rerommtm➢on 182]4 60 0 0 -19036 60 NN -762 -13 0 -13896 -2118 0 1. Existing Land 2. EAstina Gem a. Bwldout b. Growthfr 3 Buildout a. GPACAII (1) Opbc use c a) F c) l (2) Optic comr a) F c) l b. Staff Rec 4. Growth from I a. GPAC Al a. Optic use: b Optic comr b Staff Rec 5. Deviation fror a. GPAC AI a. Optic use b. Optic come b. StafF Rec McFadden Square Use Mixed Use Residential Office Sub Residential -Total Commercial - Industnal Hotel/Motel Youth Center Office lResidenhai SFR SFA MFR Office 1 LL N N I IL y 1L IL IL y � LL MCFADDEN SQUARE -EAST T. Existing Land Use 01 0 21 551 3 35.750 601 35,7501 66,6401 1 11,1001 161 0 2. -Existing General Plan a. Buildout 0 0 0 159 3 35,750, 162 35,750 67,590 0 16 0 b. Growth from Existing Use 0 0 -21 104 0 0 102 170.0 0 0.0 950 1.4 -11,100 -100.0 0 0.0 0 3. Buildout I1 a GPAC Altematives 1 Block A -overlay lodging 0 0 0 159 3 01 162 0 45,085 0 90 0 (2) Block B-mix use integrating residential with office uses 114,650 131 0 0 0 131 114,650 0 0 0 0 3 Outside study area 01 0 0 0 0 0• 01 01 36.705 01 0 0 4 Total TAZ 114,6501 1311 0 159 3 0 293 114.650 81.790 0 90 0 b. Staff Recommendation at 01 0 159 3 35,750• 162 35.750 67,590 0 16 0 4 Growth from Existing Use I a GPAC Alternatives 114,650 131 -2 104 0 -35,750 233 388.4 78,900 220.7 15,150 227 -11,100 -1000 74 463.6 0 b Staff Recommendation 0 0 -2 104 0 0' 102 0 950 -11.100 0 0 5. Deviation form Existing General Plan a. GPACAItematives 114.650 131 0 0 0 -35,7501 131 809 78.900 220.7 14.2001 21.0 0 NA 74 4636 0 b Staff Recommendation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 01 0 0 MCFADDEN SQUARE -WEST I I I I I I I I I 1. Edstling Land Use 01 0 221 1061 5 3,550• 1331 3.5501 74,2701 1 01 251 6,000 2. -Existing General Plan I 1 0 1 1 I a Buildout 0 0 221 1101 51 8,000• 137 8.0001 750 0 25 0 b. Growth from ExistingUse 0 0 0 4 0 4.450, 4 30 4.4501 125.4 8,480 11 4 01 01 0.0 -6,000 3. Buildout I I I a GPAC Alternatives 0 0 22 110 5 0 137 0 93,218 0 186 6,000 b Staff Recommendation 45,084 90 22 110 5 0. 227 01 82.750 0 25 6,000 4. Growth from Existing Use a. GPAC Alternatives 0 0 0 4 0 -3,550 4 3.0 -3.5501-100.0 18.948 25.5 0 161 645.7 0 b. Staff Recommendation 45.0841 90 0 4 0 -3.550• 94 70.7 -3.550 -100 0 8.480 11.4 0 5. Deviation form ExistingGeneral Plan 1 1 1 'a. GPACAItematives 0 0 0 0 0 -8,0001 0 0.0 -8.000 -100.0 10,468 12.7 0 161 645.7 6,000 b. Staff Recommendation 45,084 90 0 0 0 -8,000' 90 65.7 1.000 ...... 0 0 0 0 01 0.0 6,000 Newport Center/Fashion Island Use Residential Commercial Once Hotel Tennis Club Golf Cours Civic/ Public SFA MFR Sub -Total Retail Theater Medical I General Sub -Total a O O ;e ' O O 1. Existing Land Use 4191 245 6641 1,556,3201 I 3,774 351,9501 3,240,130 3,592,080 9251 22 99 100,000 2. Existin General Plan - a. Buildout 419 245 664 1,936,820 3,850 351,950 3,283,720, 3,635.670 1,036 22 99 105.000 b. Growth from ExistingUse OI 0 0 00 380,500 24.4 76 01 43.5901 43,5901 1.2 1111 12.0 0 0 5.000 3. Buildout a. GPAC Altematives (1) Option 1-retail and office expansion, w/residential 419 1,321 1.740 2,060,248 3.850 530,002 3,570,802, 4,100,804 1,513 22 99 105,000 (2) Option 2-reduced retail, expanded office, wArnited residential 419 395 814 1,776.980 3,850 351,950 4,167,652� 4,519,602 1 1,036 22 99 105,000 ' (3) Option 3-existing GP, w/expanded residentia 419 1,471 1,890 1,936,820 ( 3,850 351,950 3.283.7201 3,635,670I 1,036 22 99 105.000 b. Staff Recommendation I 1,1141 1,981,320 I 3,850 I 3.636,080I 1,0361 22 99 105,000 4. Growth above Existing Use a. GPAC Alternatives (1) Option 1-retail and office expansion, w/residential 0 1,076 1,076 162.0 503,928 32 4 76 178,052 330,672i 508,724 14.2 588 63.6 0 0 5,000 (2) Option 2-reduced retail, expanded office, wAimited residential 0 150 150 22.6 220,660 14.2 76 0 927,522i 927,522 25.8 111 120 0 0 5,006 (3) Option 3-existing GP, w/expanded residential 0 1,226 1,226 1846 380,500 24.4 76 0 43,590•t 43,590 12 111I 120 0 0 5,000 b. Staff Recommendation 450 67.8 425,000 2773F 76 44,000 1.2 111 12.0 0 0 5,000 5. Deviations from Existing General Plan a. GPAC Alternatives (1) Option 1-reta l and office expansion, w/residential 0 1,076 1,076 162.0 123,428 6.4 0 178,052 287,082 465.134 128 477 46.0 0 0 5,000 (2) Option 2-reduced retail, expanded office, w/Ilmited residential 0 150 150 22.6 -159,840 -8 3 0 0 883,932i 883,932I 24.3 0 00 0 0 0 (3) Option 3-existing GP, w/expanded residential 0 1.226 1,226 184.6 0 0.0 0 0 01 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 b. Staff Recommendation 450 67.8 44.500 2.3I 0 410 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 Old Newport Boulevard Use Mixed Use Residential Commercial' Sub -Total Office Industrial Hotel Commercial Residential MFR SFD SFA Sci Ft Residential Commercial General Medical , Sub -Total m LL m 3 N N N N I I N LL LE I a I C IL y EE 1. Existing Land Use 01 0 81 2901 104 48,700' 3921 48.7001 90,3401 7,400, 97,7401 300 23 2. Existing General Plan 1 I 1 0 a. Buildout 0 0 8 205 379 66,380 592 66,380 135,730 11,290 147,020 0 53 b Growth from Existing Use 0 0 0 -751 275 17,680• 200 51.0 17,680 363 45,390 3,890' 49,280 504 -300 30 3. Buildout I I I I I a GPAC Altematives I1 j (1) Option 1 a) West side-medcal office & ret 0 0 0 0 0 25,38501 25,385 0 169,231 • 169.231 0 53 b) East side mixed use, vertical 144,4011 289 01 01 0 0i 2891 144,401 0 0 0 0 0 c) Outside Study Area 0 0 8 2001 379 01 587 0 0 01 0 0 0 d) Total TAZ 144,401 289 8 2001 379 25.385; 876 169,786 0 169,231169,2311 0 53 (2) Option 2 a) West side -mix use, vertical 120,8791 242 0 0 0 01 242 120,879 0 0• 0 0 53 b) East side -residential 0 0 0 01 80 01 80 0 0 01 0 0 0 c) Outside Study Area 0 0 8 200 379 0' 587 1 01 01 0' 0 0 0 d) Total TAZ 120,879 242 8 200 459 0, 908 120,879 01 0, 0 0 53 (3) Option 3 a) West side -mix use, vertical 120,879 242 0 0 0 01 2421 120,879 0 01 0 0 53 b) East side -affordable housing 0 0 1661 0 0 0' 1661 0 0 0' 0 0 0 c) Outside Study Area 0 0 8 200 379 0, 587 0 0 0, 0 01 0 d) Total TAZ 120,879 242 1741 200 379 Or 995 120,879 0 01 0 0 53 b. Staff Recommendations 25,308 145 8T 205 379 43,0621 737 68,3701 36,154 131,156i 167,310 0 53 4. Growth from Existing Use a. GPAC Altematives 1 [ (1) Option 1 144,401 289 0 -80 275 -23,315• 484 12341 121,086 248.6 -90,340 161,831 71,491 73.1 -300 30 (2) Option 2 120,879 242 8 -80 355 -48,700 524 133.8 72,179 1482 -90,340 .7,400-97,740 -100.0 -300 -23 (3) Option 3 120,879 242 166 -80 275 -48,700• 603 153.7 72,179 148.2 -90,340 -7,400'-97,740 -100.0 ' -300 -23 b. Staff Recommendations 25,308 145 0 -75 275 -5,638, 3451 88.0 19,670 40.4 -54,186 123,756, 69,570 71.2 -300 30 5. Deviations from Existing General Plan I 1 a. GPAC Alternatives (1) Option 1 144,4011 289 0 -51 0 -40,995' 284 479 103,406 1558 -135,730 157,941' 22,211 15.1 0 _ 0 (2) Option 2 120,8791 242 0 -51 80 -66,380, 316 53.4 54,499 82.1 -135,730 -11,290.-147:025 -100.0 0 0 (3) Option3 120,8791 242 166 -5 0 -66,380 403 68.0 54,499 82.1 -135,730 -11,290-147,020 .100.01 01 0 a IT Staff Recommendations 1 25,3081 1451 01 of 0 -23,3181 1451 74.5 1,990 3.0 -99,576 119,8661 20.2901 13.81 01 0 West Newport Highway Use Mvetl Use I Commemml Residential ResMentel MFR SFR Sut>Total Commem�al Resldent¢I Commemal Hotell Motel ILL a 1 LL ( LL o 1 Existing land Use 01 0 2921 462 35.350 7541 - 35.3501 90 Existing General Plan , 0 01 a. Sulldout 0 0 293 462 50,030755 50,030 90 b Growth from Fwsbng Use 0 0 i 0 14,680 1 14,fi80 0 3 Bulldout a GPAC Altemtetwes (1) Study Area Use ) a) West Entry -Block A Option 1(multi-family res 0 0 74 0 0. 74 0 6 Option 2 (spec needs housing) 0 0 91 0 0 91 0 0 Option 3 ark, open space) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Option 4(parking lot) 0 0 0 0 0! 0 01 1 0 b Black a no change, est emst dus 0 0 28 11 0 39 0 0 c) Pnma Comdor.BlockC Option 1 ertical mined use 86,902 348 0 0 0' 348 86,902 0 Option 2 dus & hotel 0 0 73 0, 73 0 290 Option 3 ceml wAot consold 0 0 0 0 72.4191 0 72.4191 0 Option 4 limit rtl, hs , & hotel 0 0 73 0 18,105 73 18,105 145 2 Non -Stud Area Use est 0 0 172 451 0. 623 0 0 b Staff Reccmmendaton 01 0 334 462 69,522 796 69,522 145 Chan efrom Enstin Use 1 a GPAC AItemta[rves (1) West Ent-BlackA a s tion 1 mutt'.familfey 0 0 14 0 0 14 0 0 b Option 2 s ec needs housln) 0 0 31 0 0' 31 0 O c O tion3 ark open sace 0 0 -60 0 0, -fiO 0 0 tl O hon 4 arkln lo[ 0 0 -60 0 OI -60 0 0 2 Black B no change. est. emst dus 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 (3) Pnma Comdor-BlockC a Option 1 vertical mixed use 86,902 348 -80 0 -35.3501 268 51.552 -90 b Option 2 (dus & hotel 0 0 -7 0 -35.350 -7 35.3501 200 c Option 3 (coml Mot consold) 0 0 -661 of 37,069• -661 37.0691 - 00 d Option 4 limit rtl, hag. & hotel 0 0 -7 0 -17.245 -71 -17,2451 55 b Staff Recommendation 0 0 421 0 34.1721 421 5.6 34.1721 967 55 S. Deviation from asting General Plan I I I a GPAC Altemtatwes _ (1) West En-BlockA 1 a Option 1 mulb-Tamil res 0 0 14 0 0 14 1_ 0 0 b O tion2 ispec needs housing) 0 0 31 0 0• 31 01 0 c Option 3(park open space) 0 0 -60 0 O -60 _ 0 0 d O hon 4 arson lot 01 0 -60 0 0 -60 0 0 2 Block 8 no change. est. exist dus 0 0 0 0 (3• 0 - 0 1 0 (3) Fnmary Comdor-BlockC 01 0 a) Option 1 (vertical mused use) 86.902 348 -80 0 -50,0301 268 36,872 -90 b Option 2 dus & hotel 01 0 -7 0 -50,030' -7 50,030 200 c Option 3 ooml w/lot consoltl 0 0 -6fi 0 22,389. -66 22.389 - -90 d Option 4 (Imt rtl, hs , & hotel 0 0 -7 0 31,925 -7 - 31,925 55 0 Staff Recommendation 0 0 41 0 19,492 411 54 19.4921 390 55 � s � West Newport Industrial MFR N > SFR N I > Residential NursConv. Home 1 V I m Sub -Total N O de Use Commercial Office Hospital Industrial School Instlt, Day Care General Medical Sub -Total 1 LL c N 2' IL p N LL f LL c � rn 9 I m m e LL c re a D' 4l LL rq 1. Emsting Land Use 2,4721 1061 593. 2,5801 72,1701 150,6301 302,900; 453,5301 3511 678.5301 622 7,700 2. Existing General Plan I 1 0 1 1 0 a. General Plan Bwldout 2,649 98 593 i 2.747 72.1701 431,130 410,550 841.680 1,265 1.191,722 622 7,700 b. General Plan Growth from ExistingUse 177 -101 0, 167 65 0 0.0 280,500 107,650, 388,150 85.6 914 260.41 513,192 76.6 0 0 3. Bwldout I a. GPAC Alternatives 1) Option 1-no change 2,649 981 593. 2,747 72,170 373,730 410,550• 784,280 1,265 1.191.722 622 7.700 (2) Option 2 0 0 Planning Area-infill med office and residential, w/reduced Industrial 907 0 1 169' 907 70,110 67,160 I 961,401' 1,028,561 0 48,002 0 0 RemainderofTAZ 1.912 98 424, 2.010 50.910 239,510 61.630. 301.140 1,265 840,880 622 7,700 Total TAZ 2.819 98 593 2.917 121.020 306.670 1.023.037 1,329,701 1,265 888,882 622 T7 00 (3) Option 3-expanded residential, w/exist GP office and reduced industrial 3.172 98I 534- 3.270 72,170 502,030 348,920- 850.950 1.265 499.457 622 7.700 b. Staff Recommendations 2.982 981 593 3.080 54.4101 1,206,938 1.265 525,000 622 7,700 4. Growth from Existing Use a. GPAC Altematives 1 Option 1 177 -10 0, 167 6.5 0 00 223,100 107,650, 330,750 72.9 914 260.4 513,192 756 0 0 (2) Option 2 (total TAZ)-infill med office and residential, w/reduced industrial 347 -10 1 0' 337 13.1 48,850 67.7 156,040 720.131' 876,171 193.2 914 260.4 210,352 31.0 0 0 3 Option a 700 -10 -59. 690 267 0 0.0 351,400 46,020. 397,420 87.6 914 260.4 -179,073 -26A 0 0 b. Staff Recommendations 510 -101 0 500 194 -17.760 -24.6 I 753,408 166.1 914 260.4 -153,530 .22.6 0 0 S. Deviations from Existing General Plan a GPACAltematives 1 Option 1 0 0 0• 0 0.0 0 00 -57,400 0, .57.400 5 8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 (2) Option 2 (total TAZ)-infill med office and residential, w/reduced industrial 170 0 1 0' 170 62 48,850 67.7 -124.460 1 612.481: 488.021 58.0 0 0.0 •302,840 -25.4 0 0 (3) Option 3-expanded residential, w/exist GP office and reduced industrial 523 0 591 523 19.0 0 001 70.900 .61.6301 9,270 1.1 0 0.0 592.265 58.1 0 0 b. Staff Recommendations 333 0 0 333 12.1 -17,760 -24.6 365,258 434 0 0.0 -666,722 -55.9 0 0 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN PLANNING SUBAREAS OPlanning Subarea City Boundary Highway Local Road Waterbody I Note: GIS Data Rolectbn CA State Plone, Zone 6, NAD83. Feet. 0 0.5 I Miles Source: City or NewpoR Beach, City Boundary, Nary 2003, Roads, October 2003; and DP Associates Subareas, September. 2003. PROJECT NUMBER: 10579-01 Requested by: HLR Created by: MV/PaPr Date: 05/22/05 EIP Balboa Peninsula Number of cards 42 1. As a general overview, do you agree with the vision to enhance the development patterns of Balboa Peninsula (encompassing Lido Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square, and the commercial corridors) as a series of cohesive and distinct commercial and mixed -used districts and residential neighborhoods • 1 8 8/42 19.05% 2 2 2/42 4.76% 3 0 4 2 2/42 4.76% 5 1 1/42 2.38% 6 2 2/42 4.76% 7 3 3/42 7.14% 8 3 3/42 7.14% 9 2 2/42 4.76% 10 13 13142 30.95% 2. If so, should Lido Village and McFadden Square areas serve as the primary activity nodes connected by commercial corridors (on Newport Boulevard and the waterfront), with the interviewing areas evolving to housing or mixed -use buildings that integrate housing with retail? Indicate your agreement on a scale of "1" ,to "10", with "1" Indicating that you strongly disagree and "10" indicating that you strongly agree. 1 7 7/42 16.67% 2 1 1/42 2.38% 3 4 4/42 9.52% 4 1 1/42 2.38% 5 1 1/42 2.38% 6 2 2/42 4.76% 7 2 2/42 4.76% 8 3 3/42 7.14% 9 1 1142 2.38% 10 13 13/42 30.95% 3. Lido Village north of Via Lido. Which of the following four options should be considered for this area? 3a. Commercial and office uses 7 7/42 16.67% 3b. Mixed -use buildings (retail and housing) and visitor • accommodations (per LVN 1) 14 14/42 33 33% 3c. Retail uses and visitor accommodations only, without housing (per LVN 2) 4 4/42 9.52% 3d. Mixed use buildings, without visdor accommodations (per LVN 3) 9 9/42 21.43% 4 Lido Village south of Via Lido. Which of the following three options should be considered for this area? 4a. Entire area: commercial and office uses only 15 15/42 35.71 % 41b. Properties east of the existing commercial center, 4bl . Redevelopment for low-rise, 2- to 3-story townhomes and condominiums 11 11/42 26.19% 02. Redevelopment for mixed -use buildings (per LVS 2) 10 10/42 23.81% 5. Cannery Village West (Albertsons Site). Which of the following two options should be considered for this area? 5a Retail commercial development only 21 21142 50.00% 5b. Mixed -use buildings (per CVW 1) 15 15142 35.71% 6. Cannery Village East (excluding commercial frontages). Which of the following three options should be considered for this area? 6a. Retail commercial and Industrial uses 14 14/42 33.33% 6b. Pedestrian -oriented mixed -use buildings (per CVE 1) 19 19/42 45.24% 6c. Redevelopment for low-rise, 2- to 3-story townhomes and condominiums (per CVE 2) 6 6/42 14.29% 7. Mc Fadden Square East. Which of the following options should be considered for this area? 7a. Retail commercial only 19 19/42 45 24% 7b. Redevelopment for pedestrian -oriented mixed -use buildings (per MSE 1) 18 18/42 42.86% • 8. Mc Fadden Square West (pier area). Which of the following options should be considered for this area? 8a. Retail commercial only 16 16/42 38.10% 8b. Increased development of pedestrian -oriented mixed use building 22 22142 52.38% •9. Residential areas zoned as "R-2." Should the City consider re -zoning these areas as "R-1," with the possible development of smaller second units on the property, to reflect current development trends and promote home ownership? yes 14 14/42 33.33% no 25 25/42 59.52% Notes (by question number): 1 • Confusing statement • (10) Smart growthl Make us walk as a community • (9) keeping the marine character 2 • Or any development in good taste • (10) but not as the expense of discouraging marine commercial character 3 • None of these - leave as is • Coastal dependent uses • (3b) small B&B or boutiques only • (3b) limited to B&Bs and small boutique hotels only • (3b) add water/coastal dependent uses per GPVC/Harbor commission 4 • (4a) North of City Hall 5 • Controlled growth maintaining the integrity of the environment • (5a) definitely do not want higher density development that would increase traffic • Leave as isl 6 • (6b) Let property owner choose any option: private home, commercial or a mix of both • (6b) with marine commercial allowed • (6a and 6b) either-or / horizontal • (6a) retain community character- require coastal dependent • Beautification should be the vision • 7 • (7a) maintain boat yard • (7a) north of Crab Cooker • (7a) existing GP • (7a) coastal dependent • (81b) Is this MSW 1? If so, parking has to be required. • (8a) existing GP • (8b) word "increased" is wrong. Should be "enhancement at existing scale". 9 • (yes) save marine -uses where possible, keep traffic as low as possible when deciding a land use. • (no) concern that existing duplexes would not be replaced and would decay because of their Income value as existing structures. • (no) property owners and market should determine the plan; mixed -use should be horizontal in CVE • (no) change the code to allow both • (no) it would be stealing owners property values and income. Old units would stay forever] General • City should maintain existing traffic levels or lessen the existing traffic levels • The area on Ocean Front from the pier to 24th Street or 25th Street (i.a all the property facing the • All development needs parking so it does not leak into the residential areas. City should provide leadership and Incentives for parking. • All changes on the peninsula and Newport Beach should maintain the character and beauty of the community. Revitalize and Improve all areas that need It, maintaining the charm and fine reputation that we are known for. Gy Corona Del Mar Number of cards 36 1. Do you agree with the vision of the Corona Del Mar corridor as a pedestrian -oriented commercial center serving the adjoining neighborhoods? Indicate your agreement on a scale of"1" to "10", with 1" indicating that you strongly disagree and "10" indicating that you strongly agree. 1 1 1136 2.78% 2 1 1/36 2.78% 3 3 3/36 8.33% 4 0 5 5 5/36 13.89% 6 0 7 3 3/36 8.33% 8 2 2/36 5.56% 9 3 3/36 8.33% 10 16 16/36 44.44% 2. Should new housing be integrated in the Corona Del Mar commercial corridor in mixed -use projects (buildings that integrate housing with ground level retail) at key intersections (per CDM 1)? Indicate your agreement on a scale of "1" to "10", with'T indicating that you strongly disagree and "10" indicating that you strongly agree. 1 16 16/36 44.44% 2 4 4/36 11.11 % 3 2 2/36 5.56% 4 0 5 5 5/36 13.89% 6 1 1/36 2.78% 7 2 2/36 5.66% 8 3 3136 8.33% 9 1 1/36 2.78% • 10 1 1/36 2.78% 3. Should retail commercial and office uses be clustered at key nodes and intervening properties re -used for housing? Indicate your agreement on a scale of "1" to "10", with "1" indicating that you strongly disagree -and "10" indicating that you strongly agree. 1 17 17/36 47.22% 2 2 2/36 5.56% 3 4 4/36 11.11 % 4 2 2/36 5.56% 5 3 3/36 8.33% 6 2 2/36 5.56% 7 0 8 2 2/36 5.56% 9 1 1/36 2.78% 10 2 2/36 5.56% 4. Should the City permit residential properties abutting commercial uses to be redeveloped for parking supporting uses in the Coast Highway corridor? Indicate your agreement on a scale of"1" to "10", with 1" indicating that you strongly disagree and "10" indicating that you strongly agree. 1 10 10/36 27.78% 2 1 1/36 2.78% 3 1 1/36 2.78% 4 0 5 4 4/36 11.11 % • 6 2 2/36 5.56% 7 2 2/36 5.56% 8 5 5/36 13.89% 9 1 1/36 2.78% 10 9 9/36 25.00% 3 5. Rank each of the land use alternatives (Existing GP, CDM 1, and CDM 2) according to your support on a "1" to 10" scale, with "9" indicating the least acceptable and "10" indicating the most acceptable. Existing GP CDM 1 • 1 2 2/36 5.56% - 1 6 6/36 16.67% 2 1 1/36 2.78% 2 2 2/36 5.56% 3 2 2/36 5.56% 3 0 4 0 4 0 5 0 5 2 2/36 5.56% 6 2 2/36 5.56% 6 2 2/36 5.56% 7 2 2/36 5.56% 7 3 3/36 8.33% 8 5 5/36 13.89% 8 3 3/36 8.33% 9 0 9 1 1/36 2.78% 10 11 11/36 30.56% 10 2 2/36 5.56% CDM 2 1 9 9/36 25.00% 2 2 2136 5.56% 3 0 4 1 1/36 2.78% 5 0 6 2 2/36 5.56% 7 2 2/36 5.56% 8 2 2/36 5.56% 9 2 2/36 5.56% 10 0 Notes (by question number): • 4 • Maybe the linear lot would help spread the traffic out. • as long as there is not eminent domain envoked. 5 • Frequent Parking Lots (linear) behind Comm. Most convenient. General • Widen PCH • Should have more communication to residents before voting. • How can we control traffic from Laguna Beach to our community, and drivers go 80-90 mphl Police seen to ignore our area! • Traffic: Newport Beach buy the toll road portion between Bison and Newport Court Road. • I agree with a toll road through CDM • 4 lanes of traffic in CDM are inadequate for future use and will enhance traffic blockage tremendously. Toll road should not charge to bypass CDM. • Would like to see limiting permitted uses in residential areas (multiple uses) as well as commercial. • Mariners Mile Number of cards 29 1. Do you believe that it is important to preserve opportunities for the development of coastal -dependent uses in the Mariners Mile area, as mandated by the California Coastal Act (per MM 2)? Indicate your .agreement on a scale of'T to "10", with "l" indicating that you strongly disagree and "10" indicating that you strongly agree. 1 4 4/29 13.79% 2 3 3/29 6.12% 3 4 4/29 13.79% 4 2 2/29 6.90% 5 2 2/29 6.90% 6 0 7 1 1/29 3.45% 8 0 9 4 4/29 13.79% 10 4 4/29 13.79% 2. If so, what techniques can be used by the City to preserve these opportunities? 2a. Restrict the percentage of land that can be used for non coastal -dependent purposes (60% per current policy) 8 8/29 27.59% 2b. Continue City policy prioritizing development of coastal - dependent uses, without zoning restriction, in accordance with the existing General Plan 7 7/29 24.14% 2c. Provide economic development incentives such as business recruitment, loans and subsidies, or other techniques 4 4129 13.79% 2d. No restriction or incentive 12 12129 41.38% 3. Should housing be developed in the Mariners Mile corridor and, if so, where? 3a. On the Bay side of Coast Highway, integrated with retail and other uses (per MM 1) 3 3/29 10.34% • 3b. On the inland side of Coast Highway, in mixed -use projects that incorporate housing on the upper floors of retail uses (per MM 1) 10 10/29 34.48% 3c. In either location (per MM 1) 11 11/29 37.93% 4. Should new retail uses be permitted in Mariners Mile to serve and be accessible to residents located on the bluff tops? Indicate your agreement on a scale of "1" to "l0", with "l" indicating that you strongly disagree and ".10" indicating that you strongly agree. 1 0 2 1 1/29 3.45% 3 2 2129 6.90% 4 2 2/29 6.90% 5 6 6/29 20.69% 6 0 _ 7 1 1/29 3.45% 8 5 5/29 17.24% 9 4 4/29 13.79% 10 8 8/29 27.59% 5. Would you support more development in the Mariners Mile corridor if this requires the widening of Coast Highway? Indicate your agreement on a scale of "1" to "10", with 1" indicating that you strongly disagree and "10" indicating that you strongly agree. 1 10 10/29 34.48% 2 2 2/29 6.90% 3 0 4 0 5 2 2129 6.90% • 6 1 1/29 3.45% 7 2 2/29 6.90% 8 3 3/29 6.12% 9 3 3/29 6.12% 10 5 5/29 17.24% 5 6. Rank each of the land use alternatives (Existing GP, MM 1 and MM 2) according to your support on a 1" to "10" scale, with "1" indicating the least acceptable and "10" indicating the most acceptable. Existing GP MM 1 1 8 8/29 27.59% 1 1 1/29 3.45% • 2 3 3/29 6.12% 2 1 1/29 3.45% 3 0 3 0 4 2 2/29 6.gD% 4 0 5 1 1/29 3.45% 5 1 1/29 3.45% 6 2 2/29 6.90% 6' 1 1/29 3.45% 7 0 7 3 3/29 6.12% 8 1 1129 3.45% 8 0 9 0 9 4 4/29 13.79% 10 1 1129 3.45% 10 6 6/29 20.69% MM2 1 6 6/29 20.69% 2 3 3/29 6.12% 3 0 4 2 2/29 6.90% 5 2 2129 6.90% 6 0 7 2 2/29 6.90% 8 2 2/29 6.90% 9 0 10 5 5/29 17.24% Notes (by question number): 2 • a. Raise •3 • Nol • No 4 • Just not on water 5 • Nd parking at busy times. 6 • Ex. GP: Blighted area to continue? I don't think so. • MM 2: if Marine businesses can't make it, allow more freedom to enhance views and let something else work. • Ex. GP: too much office space General • Widen not to create a thoroughfare for Huntington Beach but widen to allow cars to turn into businesses and improve merging at Dover going N. and ramp from peninsula going South. • More hotel lodging Is OK as well. A village integrated development of compatible uses allowing for public access and at least 2 public crossings over PCH Integrate good structure parking (2 story brick - architecture appealing) similar to what Laguna Beach has done in some locations. • Need more walkways, bike paths on water front shops and retail. F !a C Newport Center/Fashion Island Number of cards 24 1. Do you support the -development of additional housing in the Newport Center/Fashion Island area to provide additional opportunities for residents to live close to their jobs, retail, dining, and entertainment (per NC 1 and NC 3)? Indicate your agreement on a scale of "1" to "10", with "1" indicating that you strongly disagree and "10" indicating that you strongly agree. 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 3 3/24 12.50% 6 2 2/24 8.33% 7 1 1/24 4.17% 8 4 4/24 12.50% 9 4 4/24 16.67% 10 10 10/24 41.67% 2. Do you support the opportunity to expand retail to provide more shopping opportunities and enhance the City's fiscal base (per NC 1 and NC 3)? Indicate your agreement on a scale of "1" to "10", with "1" indicating that you strongly disagree and "10" indicating that you strongly agree. 1 0 2 0 3 3 3/24 12.50% 4 2 2/24 8.33% 5 0 6 2 2/24 8.33% 7 2 2/24 8.33% 8 2 2/24 8.33% 9 6 6/24 25.00% 10 6 6/24 25.00% 2a. If yes, do you support the development of another retail anchor at Fashion Island? Indicate your agreement on a scale of "1" to 10", with "1" indicating that you strongly disagree and "10" indicating that you strongly agree. 1 6 6/24 25.00% 2 1 1/24 4.17% 3 2 2/24 8.33% 4 1 1/24 4.17% 5 1 1/24 4.17% 6 0 7 3 3/24 12.50% 8 1 1/24 4.17% 9 5 5/24 20.83% 10 4 4/24 16.67% 3. Do you support the development of additional entertainment uses in Newport Center/Fashion Island? • Indicate your agreement on a scale of "1" to "10", with "1" indicating that you strongly disagree and " 10" indicating that you strongly agree. 1 0 2 0 3 2 2/24 8.33% 4 2 2/24 8.33% 5 0 6 3 3/24 12.50% 7 1 1/24 4.17% 8 5 5/24 20.83% 9 6 6124 25.00% 10 5 5/24 20.83% 4. Do you support the development of additional office uses in Newport Center/Fashion Island (per NC 2)? Indicate your agreement on a scale of "1" to '10", with 1" indicating that you strongly disagree and "10" Indicating that you strongly agree. 1 4 4/24 16.67% 2 4 4/24 16.67% ` 3 1 1/24 4.17% 4 1 1/24 4.17% 5 4 4/24 16.67% 6 1 1/24 4.17% 7 2 2/24 8.33% 8 0 • 9 4 4/24 16.67% 10 1 1/24 4.17% 5. Is Newport Center a good location for the development of additional hotel rooms? Indicate your agreement on a scale of "1" to "10", with "1" indicating that that you strongly disagree and "10" indicating that you strongly agree. 1 1 1/24 4.17% 2 1 1/24 4.17% 3 1 4 3 3/24 12.50% 5 1 1/24 4.17% 6 0 7 3 3/24 12.50% 8 3 3/24 12.50% 9 5 5/24 20.83% 10 4 4/24 16.67% • R 6. Rank each of the land use alternatives (Existing GP, NC 1, NC 2, and NC 3) according to your support on • a I to "10" scale, with "1" indicating the least acceptable and "10' indicating the most acceptable. Existing GP NC 1 1 3 3/24 12.50% 1 2 2/24 8.33% 2 0 2 2 2/24 8.33% 3 0 3 1 1/24 4.17% 4 0 4 3 3/24 12.50% 5 1 1/24 4.17% 5 2 2/24 8.33% 6 1 1/24 4.17% 6 1 1/24 4.17% 7 0 7 2 2/24 8.33% 8 1 1/24 4.17% 8 3 3/24 12.50% 9 0 9 2 2/24 8.33% 10 1 1/24 4.17% 10 3 2/24 12.50% • 0 NC 2 1 4 2 2 3 2 4 0 5 6 6 0 7 2 8 0 9 2 10 1 i•I:M? 4/24 16.67% 1 1 1/24 4.17% 2/24 8.33% 2 1 1124 4.17% 2/24 8.33% 3 0 4 1 1/24 4.17% 6/24 25.00% 5 1 1/24 4.17% 6 0 2/24 8.33% 7 3 3/24 12.50% 8 3 3/24 12.50% 2/24 8.33% 1/24 4.17% Notes (by question number): 1 • (10) provided it is subsidized for employees 3 • (9) as long as they don't integrate with housing General • Woody gave a clearer explanation of the options • Open space for land above library • A great mixed -use project that can be improved • A good example of good planning • A great location to work on an improved integrate • Dog Ct Museum of Art need better parking - so n old Newport Boulevard Number of cards 7 •1. Should the Old Newport Boulevard corridor accommodate uses that support Hoag Hospital such as medical offices, pharmacies, and care facilities (per ONB 1)? Indicate your agreement on a scale of "1" to "10", with "'I" indicating that you strongly disagree and "10" indicating that you strongly agree. 1 2 2/7 28.57% 2 1 117 14.29% 3 0 4 2 2/7 28.57% 5 1 1/7 14.29% 6 0 7 0 8 1 1/7 14.29% 9 0 10 0 2. Should housing be located in the Old Newport Boulevard corridor to serve as a transition to abutting residential neighborhoods to the east (per ONB 2 and ONB 3)? Indicate your agreement on a scale of "1" to "10", with "1" indicating that you strongly disagree and "10" indicating that you strongly agree. 1 1 1/7 14.29% 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 2 2/7 28.57% 6 0 • 7 1 1/7 14.29% 8 0 9 1 1/7 14.29% 10 1 1/7 14.29% 2a. If so, should this be located in mixed -use projects that incorporate housing on the upper floors of ground level retail and/or offices? yes 5 517 71.43% no 1 117 14.29% 2b. Or, should this be developed as free-standing townhomes and condominiums without retail or office•uses? yes 4 4/7 57.14% no 1 1/7 14.29% 3. Should the Old Newport Boulevard corridor be redeveloped for retail and office uses, without residential (per the existing General Plan)? Indicate your agreement on a scale of "1" to "l0", with "1" indicating that you strongly disagree and "10" indicating that you strongly agree. 1 2 217 28.57% 2 1 1/7 14.29% 3 1 1/7 14.29% 4 0 5 1 1/7 14.29% 6 1 1/7 14.29% • 7 0 8 0 9 0 10 0 tl •4. Rank each of the land use alternatives (Existing GP, ONB 1, ONB 2, and ONB 3) according to your support on a "1" to "10" scale, with "1" indicating the least acceptable and "10" indicating the most acceptable. Existing GP ONB 1 1 0 1 2 217 28.57% 2 0 2 0 3 0 3 1 117 14.29% 4 0 - 4 0 5 0 5 0 6 1 117 14.29% 6 1 1/7 14.29% 7 1 1/7 14.29% 7 0 8 2 2/7 28.57% 8 1 1/7 14.29% 9 0 9 0 10 1 1/7 14.29% 10 0 ONB 2 ONB 3 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 1 1/7 14.29% 3 1 117 14.29% 3 0 4 0 4 1 117 14.29% 5 0 5 2 2/7 28.57% 6 0 6 1 1/7 14.29% 7 1 1/7 14.29% 7 0 8 0 8 0 9 1 1/7 14.29% 9 0 • 10 2 2/7 28.57% 10 0 Notes (by question number): 2 • (5) with mixed -use; no more intensity 2a • (Yes) if no more increased density 2b • (Yes) a mix of both 4 • Mixed usage and existing GP • With mixed -use housing • (Existing GP: 10) no more intensity than existing GP; residential okay with mixed -use General • Keep Old Newport Blvd. charming and very low rise. Don't bring in more traffic. Newport Heights is residential. Maintain the community environment. • Get rid of neighborhhod adjacent bar next to family neighborhood. • West Newport Coast Highway Number of cards 23 1. West Node/Entry. Should the existing mobile home park be redeveloped for other uses? Indicate your agreement on a scale of "I" to "10", with "1" indicating that you strongly disagree and "10" indicating that you • strongly agree. 1 1 1/23 4.35% 2 2 2/23 8.70% 3 0 4 0 5 1 1/23 4.35% 6 0 7 0 8 2 2/23 8.70% 9 1 1/23 4.35% 10 15 15/23 65.22% la. If so, what uses should be accommodated (Select one)? 1al. Multi -family residential (per WNH 1) 1 1/23 4,35% 1 a2. Special -needs housing, such as seniors units (per WNH 2) 2 2/23 8.70% 1a3. Open space that serves as a trailhead for the Santa Ana River corridor (per WNH 3) 19 19/23 82.61 % 1a4. Parking to support commercial uses and lodging to the east (per WNH 4) 2 2123 8.70% 2. Corridor. 2a. Should existing commercial properties on the West Coast Highway corridor be redeveloped for • mixed use projects that incorporate housing on floors above ground level retail (per WHN 6)? Indicate your agreement on a scale of "1" to 10", with "1" indicating that you strongly disagree and "10" indicating that you strongly agree. 1 2 2/23 8.70% 2 1 1/23 4.35% 3 1 1/23 4.35% 4 0 5 2 2/23 8.70% 6 2 2/23 8.70% 7 1 1/23 4.35% 8 3 3/23 13.04% 9 2 2/23 8.70% 10 6 6/23 26.09% 2b. Should existing commercial properties on the West Coast Highway corridor be redeveloped for townhomes or apartments and expanded overnight accommodations (per WHN 7)? Indicate your agreement on a scale of "1" to "10", with "1" indicating that you strongly disagree and "10" indicating that you strongly agree. 1 7 7/23 30.43% 2 2 2123 8.70% 3 3 3/23 13.04% 4 1 1/23 4.35% 5 2 2/23 8.70% • 6 7 1 1/23 4.35% 1 1/23 4.35% 8 1 1/23 4.35% 9 0 10 2 2/23 8.70% 13 2c. Should retail uses on West Coast Highway be enhanced by the aggregation of multiple parcels, including adjoining housing, into larger properties that can support viable retail uses with adequate parking (per WHN 8)? Indicate your agreement on a scale of "1" to "10", with "1" indicating that you • strongly disagree and "10" indicating that you strongly agree. 1 0 2 1 1/23 4.35% 3 2 2/23 8.70% 4 0 5 3 3/23 13.04% 6 2 2/23 8.70% 7 1 1/23 4.35% 8 3 3/23 13.04% 9 2 2123 8.70% 10 6 6/23 26.09% • 2d. Should the West Coast Highway corridor be redeveloped with concentrated clusters of retail, lodging, and housing (per WHN 9)? Indicate your agreement on a scale of T' to "10", with "1" indicating that you strongly disagree and "10" indicating that you strongly agree. 1 2 2/23 8.70% 2 0 3 1 1/23 4.35% 4 0 5 3 3123 13.04% 6 1 1/23 4.35% 7 3 3/23 13.04% 8 2 2/23 8.70% 9 1 1/23 4.35% 10 5 5/23 21.74% 3. Residential areas zoned as "R-2" on Ocean Side of Coast Highway. Should the City consider re -zoning these areas as "R-1," with -the possible development of smaller second units on the property, to reflect current development trends and promote home ownership? Indicate your agreement on a scale of "1" to "10", with "1" indicating that you strongly disagree and "10" indicating that you strongly agree. 1 3 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 1 1/23 4.35% 6 0 7 0 8 2 2123 8.70% 9 1 1/23 4.35% 10 10 ,.A 4. Rank each of the land use alternatives (Existing GP and WNH 1 through WHN 9) according to your support on a "1" to "10" scale, with "1" indicating the least acceptable and "10" indicating the most acceptable. GP WNH 1 •'Existing 1 11 11/23 47.83% 1 5 5/23 21.74% 2 2 2/23 8.70% 2 0 3 0 3 3 3/23 13.04% 4 0 4 1 1/23 4.35% 5 0 5 0 6 2 2/23 8.70% 6 0 7 0 7 2 2/23 8.70% 8 1 1/23 4.35% 8 1 1/23 4.35% 9 0 9 0 10 1 1/23 4.35% 10 6 6/23 26.09% WNH 2 1 WNH 3 1 3 3/23 13.04% 1 5 5/23 21.74% 2 0 2 2 2/23 8.70% 3 1 1/23 4.35% 3 1 1/23 4.35% 4 0 4 1 1/23 4.35% 5 0 5 1 1/23 4.35% 6 0 6 0 7 0 7 1 1/23 4.35% 8 1 1/23 4.35% 8 1 1/23 4.35% 9 2 2/23 8.70% 9 0 10 11 11/23 47.83% 10 6 6/23 26.09% *WNH 4 WNH 5 1 1 1/23 4.35% 1 3 3/23 13.04% 2 2 0 3 3 0 4 4 1 1/23 4.35% 5 ' 5 7 7/23 30.43% I 6 6 1 1/23 4.35% 7 - 7 0 8 1 1/23 4.35% 8 3 3/23 13.04% 9 9 0 10 10 3 3/23 13.04% WHN6 WHN 7 1 7 7/23 30.43% 1 4 2 3 3/23 13.04% 2 1 1/23 4.35% 3 2 2/23 8.70% 3 1 1/23 4.35% 4 2 2/23 8.70% 4 1 1/23 4.35% 5 1 1/23 4.35% 5 1 1/23 4.35% 6 1 1/23 4.35% 6 0 7 0 7 2 2/23 8.70% 8 1 1/23 4.35% 8 5 5123 21.74% 0 9 0 •g 10 0 10 3 3/23 13.04% v 16 WHN 8 1 4 4/23 17,39% 2 1 1/23 4.35% •3 4 0 4 4/23 17.39% 5 2 2/23 8.70% 6 0 7 1 1/23 4.35% 8 3 3/23 13.04% 9 1 1/23 4,35% 10 2 2/23 8.70% Notes (by question number): 1a • (10) combined parking • (1a3) for park 2a • (8) two -stories only, not three -stories 2b • (8) not apartments 2d • (7) not enough,space for this General • very confusing card WHN 9 1 1 1/23 4.35% 2 3 4 1 - 1/23 4.35% 5 6 i 7 8 9 10' 1 1/23 4.35% West Newport Industrial Number of cards 42 • • 1. Should the West Newport Industrial Area accommodate uses that support Hoag Hospital such as medical offices, pharmacies, and care facilities (per WN 1 and WN 2)? Indicate your agreement on a scale of "1" to "10", with "1" indicating that you strongly disagree and "10" indicating that you strongly agree. 1 3 3/42 7.14% 2 1 1/42 2.38% 3 0 4 1 1/42 2.38% 5 7 7/42 16.67% 6 1 1/42 2.38% 7 3 3/42 7.14% 8 5 5/42 11.90% 9 8 8/42 19.05% 10 15 15/42 35.71 % 2. Should new housing be located in the West Newport Industrial Area, providing residents with access to jobs and services? Indicate your agreement on a scale of "1" to "l0", with "l" indicating that you strongly disagree and "l0" indicating that you strongly agree. 1 4 4/42 9.52% 2 0 3 2 2/42 4.76% 4 0 5 6 6/42 14.29% 6 1 1/42 2.38% 7 1 1/42 2.38% 8 1 1/42 2.38% 9 8 8/42 19.05% 10 20 20/42 47.62% 3. Should all or a portion of the West Newport Industrial be preserved for research, manufacturing, and other industrial uses to provide jobs for local residents and land necessary to accommodate "heavier" uses needed to support local residents? Indicate your agreement on a scale of "1" to "10", with "1" indicating that you strongly disagree and "10" indicating that you strongly agree. 1 9 9/42 21.43% 2 2 2/42 4.76% 3 3 3/42 7.14% 4 3 3/42 7.14% 5 5 5/42 11.90% 6 2 2/42 4.76% 7 4 4/42 9.52% 8 3 3/42 7.14% 9 2 2/42 4.76% 10 6 6/42 14.29% 11 4. Rank each of the land use alternatives (Existing GP, WN 2, and WN 3) according to your support on a 1" to "10" scale, with "1" indicating the least acceptable and "10" indicating the most acceptable. Existing GP WN 2 1 5 5/42 11.90% 1 7 7/42 16.67"/ 2 • 1 1/42 2.38% 2 0 3 2 2/42 4.76% _ 3 1 1/42 2.38% 4 4 4/42 9.52% 4 3 3/42 7.14% 5 6 6/42 14.29% 5 1 1/42 2.38% 6 3 3/42 7.14% 6 2 2/42 4.76% 7 2 2142 4.76% 7 1 1/42 2.38% 8 1 1/42 2.38% 8 7 7/42 16.670/c 9 1 1/42 2.38% 9 8 8/42 19.050/c 10 5 5/42 11.90% 10 6 6/42 14.290/c WN3 1 7 7/42 16.67% 2 0 3 0 4 2 2/42 4.76% 5 2 2/42 4.76% 6 1 1/42 2.38% 7 1 1/42 2.38% 8 4 4/42 9.52% 9 5 5/42 11.90% 10 12 12/42 28.57% •Notes (by question number): 2 • affordable • If it's not cleaned up crime will become worse and into Newport Beach. 3 • Not Heavy Industrial • (10) Above Production Rate • (5) Can't understand question • Remove 99% Industrial • WN 2: (10) & WN 3: (10) Not too much difference except more housing, which could happen in 4 either case. • Very confusing • Out with the old - in with the new. Need affordable housing (illegible) comp is too high even for Newport. General • You also want to consider a sports and entertainment complex - minor league baseball, soccer fields, etc. Alternative to major league. High school, college, semi -pro. • This should be up to the landowners to decide. The council should merely cooperate to avoid incompatible neighbors. • The City and/or GPAC should view west Newport Industrial as a site of future affordable housing (especially as a site for affordable housing that would have otherwise have been built on Banning Ranch). • Medical is not (illegible) sober living. • Regarding Industrial: I wouldn't give so so industrial much play. But industry the City or hospital • needs is important esp. allowing Hoag to recycle its waste in an efficient environmental closed system. Mixed use on Superior or shops supporting visitors to medical centers and nursing homes needed. Thanks. • Consider parking, and current density and traffic. 1� • GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE -tftnd� July 16, 2005 0/7-/ Roger Alford Ronald Baers Patrick Bartolic Phillip Bettencourt Carol Boice Elizabeth Bonn Gus Chabre John Corrough Lila Crespin Laura Dietz Grace Dove Nancy Gardner Gordon Glass Louise Greeley Ledge Hale Bob Hendrickson Tom Hyans Mike Ishikawa Kim Jansma Mike Johnson Bill Kelly Donald Krotee Lucille Kuehn Philip Lugar William Lusk Barbara Lyon i ,RM i ///��, 1 - N- Marie Marston • t Tim Navai Catherine O'Hara Charles Remley Larry Root John Saunders Hall Seely Jan Vandersloot Tom Webber Ron Yeo Raymond Zartler • • 7 GENERAL PLAN AAVISORY COMMITTEE Saturday, July 16, 2005 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRFSS/PHC)NF F_MA11 A1)1'1RFCR 4`r✓I S k <((93 f'��t:,c_ �'r,���sr^-� /u� �arlfi t�7�.S �.t�,.� �y- M���t�soa @,ef1•F'.c�.�-r �SI=� rtW�L� I'i°l3 Ca,pe+owv� rae CO ( Nleya CA .qa4oL� i [ i> �L(SOV\ -Son 'PG��. NsZwport-��z.Z �ne�So�_��o@�ca�t�o coil /-f(,F1 %QCI�tf ry¢ r �Y�J GoZlo�(� h�6Y/r%A%CAiC &2-0008� I/ /U /f mo -21 1i GENERAL PLAN AID9ISORY COMMITTEE Saturday, July 16, 2005 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESS/PHONE (fl Z icl1275-aZ> Ii i P_Mnn GnnRFCC • GENERAL PLAN AXISORY COMMITTEE • Saturday, July 16, 2005 PUBLIC SIGN -IN IVHIVI C E-MAIL ADDRESS • P CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH u x GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Cg41 FpR�P Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Saturday, July 16, 2005, at the Newport Beach Central Library. Members Present: Roger Alford Ronald Baers Patrick Bartolic Philip Bettencourt Carol Boice John Corrough Lila Crespin Laura Dietz Grace Dove Members Absent: Nancy Gardner Gordon Glass Louise Greeley Ledge Hale Bob Hendrickson Mike Ishikawa Mike Johnson Donald Krotee Lucille Kuehn Phillip Lugar Marie Marston Jim Navai Charles Remley John Saunders Hail Seely Jan Vandersioot Ron Yeo Raymond Zartler Elizabeth Bonn Bill Kelly Larry Root Gus Chabre William Lusk Tom Webber Kim Jansma Barbara Lyon Tom Hyans (sick leave) Catherine O'Hara (sick leave) Staff Present: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia Temple, Planning Director Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant Marlie Whiteman, Urban Crossroads Members of the Public Present: Teresa Barnwell Jeffrey Lambert Dennis Wood Mike Erickson Carol Martin Cynthia Young -West Lynda Feffer Nelson Nio Brandon Johnson Marice White • I. Call to Order Nancy Gardner called the meeting to order. II. Approval of Minutes Don Krotee pointed out a correction in the minutes of April 25t", page 3, the last word in his comment should have been "income." Jan Vandersloot also pointed out a correction in the minutes of April 25th, page 4, in his comment he stated the comparison did not include the "existing conditions as well as the adopted plan." The minutes of the April 25 meeting were approved with the corrections. The Minutes of the May 2, May 9 and May 16 meetings were approved as submitted. III. Selection of Preferred Land Use Alternatives for: West Newport Highway Woodie Tescher reviewed the staff recommendation for the area. Mr. Vandersloot pointed out that in the introduction today it was stated that we are trying to reduce traffic and the staff recommendation for this area adding development • which would increase the traffic. He suggested staying with the current general plan or another plan that would reduce the amount of traffic. Mr. Tescher reminded the group that the goal of reducing traffic was Citywide and that the added commercial in this area is less than half the size of a typical grocery store. Mr. Krotee asked what affects the additional square footage would be on traffic as well as fiscally. Mr. Tescher indicated retail use creates positive benefits and the thought is to provide commercial that benefits the surrounding neighborhood as well as visitors. Ron Baers had a .concern about multi -family adjacent to the busy traffic corridor. He also pointed out that on the opposite side of the highway effort was made to create a buffer for the residential community and thought the same should be done for the north side of the highway. Sharon Wood pointed out that was covered in the 3rd bullet under the policy discussion. Patrick Bartolic asked how the area would look with the added square footage, he didn't see how it could be achieved and still provide the required parking. Mr. Tescher stated the number had been derived using the existing FAR, and that any development would have to provide adequate parking. Marie Marston pointed out that the responses from the workshop indicated people strongly disagreed with the multi -family housing in this area. Ms. Wood stated that the comments she heard indicated they did not support residential along the highway, they felt that was not a good use on the frontage. • Bob Hendrickson pointed out that the business serving uses suggested in this area would not affect the peak hour traffic. 2 • Charles Remley stated he didn't think that the mix of residential and visitor serving uses from the Santa Ana River to the end of the peninsula should change. Ron Yeo asked what the housing density was now for the area. Patty Temple stated in the older beach areas (R-2 & MFR), the density ranges from 24 to 36 units per acre. Mr. Yeo asked how these recommendations would affect the LCP process. Ms. Wood explained that if something different comes up in this process, the LCP would be changed to match it. John Corrough pointed out that the green portal as entry to the City makes a lot of sense however as the park is developed it will add to traffic and destroy the concept. Ms. Gardner pointed out that the Orange Coast River Park is not designed to be the kind of park to create massive entry and exit problems. Mr. Corrough pointed out that if parking is available there, it may be used for other purposes than what it .was designed for. Mr. Bartolic asked for an explanation of the logic behind the increase in retail square footage. Mr. Tescher explained it would provide property owners with flexibility. Ms. Wood added that it is not expected that all property owners will build out to the full FAR, however if you ratchet the number down too tightly there is no incentive to improve the area. John Saunders thought it would be helpful to know how many trips would be associated with the additional retail and pointed out it might require 95 new parking spaces. • Philip Bettencourt asked what a map would look like with the desired policy alternative sitting on top of a land use designation. Mr. Tescher referred to the first bullet which states there is an objective to create some open space with an underlying land use for multi -family residential. Mr. Vandersloot asked if the Council were to vote to retain the existing general plan then could we still do other things, like open space? Mr. Tescher indicated that we could take each area separately, the portal area and then the balance. Gordon Glass pointed out that the area we're talking about is very small scale and because of the highway only serves the inland residents. He also thought that if there was a demand for more retail it would be there. He added that the area provided part of our responsibility for affordable housing. Carol Boice asked about an ordinance that would restrict a property owner who wanted to rebuild to 50% of the original building size. Ms. Wood indicated there was no such ordinance. Mr. Vandersloot made a motion to accept the staff recommendation for the first bullet regarding the westernmost parcel. Ms. Gardner opened the discussion to the public. Marice White, Government Solutions, pointed out that in this part of town with free • parking near the beach, there would always be a lot of traffic. She stated that with the 91 phenomenal commercial area to the north we are missing opportunities to have existing property owners make improvements in this dying commercial area. Ms. Gardner called for a vote on the motion. Motion passes. Mr. Vandersloot made a motion to retain the existing general plan for the second area. Ms. Wood clarified the motion stating it would cover the rest of the corridor except for the area labeled "C." Ms. Gardner announced the motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Krotee made a motion to accept the staff recommendation except split the 19,000 square feet for additional commercial in half. Mike Johnson asked how this would impact the current application from the owner of the Spagetti Bender. Ms. Temple indicated the application will be heard by the Planning Commission at their next meeting and that current regulations allows consideration of the project; increased entitlements would make the process easier. Lucille Kuehn asked about the economic impact of arbitrarily cutting the number in half. Ms. Wood indicated it would be minimal because the increase was not that great when looking at the whole City. Ms. Marston asked if the number was cut in half, what replaces it. Ms. Wood responded that it just doesn't happen, there would be no replacement. • Hall Seely asked if the motion was based on the existing general plan and would not adopt the recommendation for additional housing units. Ms. Gardner pointed out it did not affect the housing number. Mr. Tescher explained it was the existing general plan plus half of the 19,000 square feet for commercial. Mr. Yeo asked if there could be a vote on Sub Area D separately, converting to single family. Mr. Tescher reminded the group that this issue had already been approved at a prior meeting. Ms. Wood indicated a separate discussion could take place. Ms. Gardner called for the vote on the motion. Motion passes. Mr. Yeo made a motion to adopt the staff recommendation to convert R2 to R1. Ms. Gardner called for a vote on the motion. Motion passes. Banning Ranch Woodie Tescher reviewed the staff recommendation for the area, which included a primary plan and a fall back alternative. Mr. Baers wanted to add a comment to the policy discussion regarding the deficiency in recreational resources in West Newport and the opportunity exists within Banning Ranch to help with that deficiency. Mr. Vandersloot pointed out that the staff recommendation is the so-called Taylor • Woodrow plan and he made a motion to accept the reduced Taylor Woodrow plan instead. 12 Ms. Kuehn asked what mechanisms were available for acquiring the area as open • space. Ms. Gardner explained several options were being explored. Ms. Kuehn asked if those options should be made explicit before deciding on the use of the property. Ms. Wood indicated it was too early to know what would be feasible. Mr. Saunders asked to amend the motion to include stronger language that the City actively pursue and try to create a large open space on Banning Ranch. Mr. Vandersloot agreed to amend the motion. Ms. Boice asked if the reduced Taylor Woodrow plan would include the access road. Mr. Bettencourt indicated he would not be voting on this area; however he pointed out that the Taylor Woodrow plan had included approximately 200 acres of open space and a large public trail network system. He also pointed out that this area included a piece of property owned by the Newport -Mesa School District. Mr. Hendrickson added that he didn't think this was a viable area for a resort, he also thought it was a mistake cutting the housing units because it would not allow economic flexibility. Laura Dietz asked if there should be a time limit on how long we should wait for the land to be acquired for open space. Mr. Bartolic thought' the reduced Taylor Woodrow seemed to be a realistic and fair compromise. • Mr. Johnson asked about the impact of having the County controls on Banning Ranch, he felt that if we put too many limitations on the property it would be developed under the County rules/regulations instead of the City's. Mr. Baers pointed out that the benefit to some development is restored open space, he thought the motion was a reasonable compromise. Mr. Vandersloot stated he didn't think we had to rely on a developer for the restoration and pointed out that the money used for Bolsa Chica came from the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. Ms. Boice asked what type school was planned for the Newport -Mesa property. Mr. Bettencourt responded that it was acquired for an elementary school; however they found it was not suitable for that purpose, so it is surplus land. Louise Greeley asked if the figures from the Hoag Hospital expansion plan were considered. Ms. Wood indicated they were in the Citywide numbers. Roger Alford pointed out that when you arbitrarily cut the project in half it might not provide the economic viability for the project. Mr. Lugar agreed and suggested taking away the financial feasibility might mean nothing happens to the property. Ms. Gardner reminded the committee that when you talk about housing numbers, new legislation requires increasing the number by 35%. Mr. Corrough stated that he was against limiting numbers purely for statistical reasons • when the underlying policy suggests flexibility for future decision makers. 0 Mr. Seely pointed out that he did not think the reduced Taylor Woodrow plan was arbitrary, he understood it was recommended after carefully considering the impacts of the plan. Mr. Yeo agreed and added that the Taylor Woodrow plan required a huge amount of grading and the subcommittee wanted to preserve more of the bluffs. Mr. Glass suggested that the transportation corridor should be included with any of the options selected. Mr. Bettencourt pointed out that if Banning Ranch was acquired for open space the City would loose the affordable housing site currently listed in the Housing Element of the General Plan. Mr. Vandersloot pointed out that we have discussed the airport area for additional affordable housing, he also added that the developer at Bolsa Chica was very happy with the 349 units allowed on that site. Mr. Vandersloot thought the reduced Taylor Woodrow plan gives plenty of economic incentive and flexibility for a developer. Mr. Bartolic stated when he attended the Public Workshop, the public overwhelmingly supported the open space concept. Mr. Baers asked if we shouldn't hold off on determining the development program because the site will have to go through a lengthy planning and permitting process with several agencies. Mr. Tescher stated they recognize that fact, however legally we have 'to determine numbers for the general plan EIR so that impacts can be evaluated. • Ms. Boice asked what percentage of the land would be covered by the recommended development? Mr. Tescher indicated that it would be difficult to determine the footprint at this point because it will be affected by regulations, setbacks, wetland delineations, etc. Ms. Boice asked if the remaining land would be left as open space. Ms. Wood recalled that with the Taylor Woodrow plan it was estimated 35% would be open space and with the reduced plan it would be approximately 75%. Mr. Bartolic stated he would rather see fewer high quality units on the property. Mr. Vandersloot added that a developer may choose to build estates like Bolsa Chica where the Coastal Commission approved 1,200 units and the developer came in with 349 units based on the housing market. Ms. Gardner opened the discussion to the public. George Basye, Aero Energy, stated he was representing some of the Banning Ranch property owners and the Taylor Woodrow plan was the result of several years of study and research. He added that the ownerships are complex on the property and felt somewhat skeptical that all the obstacles could be overcome to acquire the property for open space. He also pointed out that there was a lot more flexibility with the Bolsa Chica property than there is with Banning Ranch. He stated the owner preference was the Taylor Woodrow plan which was a significant reduction from the current General Plan and allowed a lot of flexibility. Marice White, Government Solutions, pointed out that this as the last area where • incentive from the City could get some densities for affordable units. She didn't feel this area was comparable to Bolsa Chica because that area is adjacent to equestrian 9 . estates and Banning Ranch is adjacent to industrial manufacturing. She also pointed out that residential units near the airport are already nearing the seven figure range. She added that the more flexibility you give to developers, the more you'll get from them. Brandon Johnson, Newport Beach, stated he felt we would not get the full buildout amount or 100% open space for this property. He said personally he would not pay the $20,000 which would be required of each citizen to acquire the property for open space. He thought in order to get something to happen in the next 5 to 10 years we should accommodate a reasonable density on a smaller portion of the property with a quantity of open space. Ms. Gardner called for the vote. Mr. Bettencourt abstained. Motion passes. West Newport Industrial Woodie Tescher reviewed the staff recommendation for the area. Ms. Dietz pointed out that she would like to see affordable housing near medical facilities and asked if affordable units above medical would be considered medically related use or residential use. Mr. Tescher indicated housing was not recommended above medical uses, however the residential area in Sub Area A and C is nearby. Mr. Baers asked that Hoag Hospital be added to the map since it is an important part of • the area. He also pointed out under the policy discussion it suggests encouraging the preservation of the existing mobile home parks and felt that housing should not be restricted to mobile homes. Mr. Saunders suggested increasing the FAR to 1.0 from the current .5 to allow flexibility for the medical and office uses in the area. Mr. Corrough pointed out that the marine uses leaving the city were just outside the boundaries of this area and would be well suited for Sub Area B. He felt that at the policy level we could consider offering incentives to get the uses back into the City. Mr. Bettencourt stated he did not recall giving special validation or recognition to the mobile home park and didn't think we should limit the property owner to only that type housing. Grace Dove asked if there were special parking standards for medical offices. Ms. Temple indicated the parking requirement was higher than for general office. Mr. Vandersloot pointed out that the office space is tripling in this area and he was unclear what the traffic impact would be. Marlie Whiteman indicated it would add approximately 4,000 daily trips, however only 300 peak hour trips. Mr. Vandersloot again pointed out that our goal was to improve traffic, not make it worse. Ms. Wood pointed out these were raw numbers and adding medical office near the hospital could possibly reduce the number of trips. • Mr. Yeo asked if it was possible to have an overlay on Sub Area B. Mr. Tescher indicated that could be dealt with on a policy level. 7 Mr. Yeo made a motion to adopt the staff recommendation. Ms. Gardner called for a vote after no comments were offered from the public. Motion Passes. Old Newport Boulevard Woodie Tescher reviewed the staff recommendation for the area. Mr. Baers pointed out that all the neighborhood serving retail has left this area as the medical office use intensified. Ms. Dietz stated she would like to consider putting a new senior center on this side of town because OASIS is bulging. Ms. Kuehn pointed out there is one now. Ms. Wood stated it was the West Newport Community Center. Mr. Hendrickson thought that site would be too small for a senior center. Mr. Bartolic made a motion to accept the staff recommendations. Mr. Baers asked for an amendment to the motion because he feels neighborhood retail is not feasible in the area. Mr. Bartolic rejected that amendment. Ms. Gardner called for the vote after hearing no comments from the public. Motion Passes. • Balboa Penninsula (Cannery Village/Lido Village/McFadden Square) Woodie Tescher reviewed the staff recommendation for the area. Mr. Vandersloot questioned the theory of mixed use versus the practice, stating it was supposed to be residential above retail or commercial however the commercial is not being used and they are ending up with a 3 story residential unit. Mr. Tescher indicated mixed use does work however there is just so much demand for the retail use which is why the recommendation for mixed use is only required at the intersections to cluster the uses. Mr. Vandersloot asked if it wouldn't be better just to make it all residential. Mr. Tescher said that could be considered. Mr. Glass pointed out he thought we were getting into spot zoning where we're practically telling each owner what they can do with their property. He also questioned the change to Sub Area E because of the small lot size and asked where parking could be placed. Mr. Tescher indicated the intent was that if the Albertsons property changed to mixed use, the other side of the street would mirror those uses. Mr. Saunders made a motion to accept the staff recommendations except also allow mixed use in Sub Area H. Mr. Baers asked if small scale visitor accomodations were included in Sub Area G. Mr. Tescher indicated that was the intent. Mr. Yeo asked how public safety was integrated with these changes. Mr. Tescher said • there was a section of the plan for public safety that we would get to. Charles Remley suggested an amendment to the motion which would eliminate the . proposal for Sub Area E. John Saunders agreed to the amendment. Mr. Lugar asked Ms. Temple about the enforcement of mixed use buildings to prevent them from becoming a 3 story residential unit. Ms. Temple indicated they usually start out with some type of office/commercial activity which sometimes is no more than a home office; however we did not have a good way to enforce the use. She added that the new mixed use development is functioning as it was portrayed and that is live/work. Ms. Wood added that current regulations allow you to have residential only if you provide commercial on the ground floor and the market isn't supporting that. She added that what is being suggested is that mixed use be an option except for the corner parcels in the interior of Cannery Village. This would allow someone to build a two story unit if they only wanted residential. Mr. Bartolic asked about the height limit on a mixed use structure. Ms. Temple indicated it was the current commercial height limit, 26 feet. She added that the three story buildings were approved with a use permit which allowed them to go to 35 feet. Mr. Bartolic suggested that if residential would be mixed in that all the buildings should have the same residential height restriction of 29 feet. Mr. Tescher pointed out that in order to make mixed use work, it must be three stories. Mr. Bartolic felt that if some buildings were allowed to go to 35 feet the residential units would find a way to get to that limit also. Ms. Wood indicated that not every project is allowed to go to 35 feet, there were strict findings that must be met before being approved. Mr. Vandersloot • agreed that some people take advantage of the system to get the added room. Mr. Corrough suggested that in Sub Areas A and F we should consider incentives for the development of water and coastal dependent uses when we get into policy issues. Mr. Glass pointed out the guiding principles state we will facilitate an economically viable concentration of marine uses, however he heard that South Coast is on its way to becoming condominiums. Ms. Wood indicated there was an application, but not to assume it would be approved. Mr. Glass asked if this process was too late to affect that application. Ms. Wood indicated it was; however we have an existing Harbor & Bay and Land Use Element that will affect it. Ms. Gardner asked for comments from the public. Carol Martin, Central Newport, asked about the rationale to the conversion of some of the properties to single family units which were currently condominiums. Ms. Gardner pointed out that she was talking about areas outside the area we were currently discussing. Brandon Johnson, Newport Beach, asked about the uses listed for Sub Area A, he pointed out these were the same type uses that are not working now. He suggested coordinating the entire south side along with the north side and making it all residential mixed use. 9 Ms. Boice asked if someone had a commercial building and we rezone the area to mixed use, can they rebuild commercial? Mr. Tescher indicated this is permissive, so it lists what you can get within the area. Ms. Gardner called for the vote. Motion Passes. Balboa Village Woodie Tescher reviewed the staff recommendation for the area. Mr. Baers asked if visitor accommodating uses could be listed for Sub Areas A and'B to make it clear. Mr. Tescher indicated that could be done. Ms. Dove pointed out that the chart showed no mixed use and she thought that was an error. She also pointed out that this area is virtually all multi -family. Ms. Temple agreed that the yellow areas (single family) on the map are currently multi -family. Mr. Remley pointed out that most the of the visitor serving retail in Sub Area A fail and we need to emphasize residential serving retail/commercial wherever possible. Ms. Wood pointed out we have to say both in this area because of the Coastal Commission requirements. Mr. Baers asked about the first bullet under Development Capacity, it lists 3-4 stories. Mr. Tescher indicated that was an error and should be 2-3 stories. Mr. Hendrickson indicated at the Public Workshop there was an emphasis on trying to • promote marine uses as well as more recreational uses that would be both visitor and local serving. Mr. Baers made a motion to accept the staff recommendation as modified. Mr. Bartolic indicated he was in the area recently and it was filthy, he asked if there was something we could do. Ms. Wood pointed out that it was included in the Policy Discussion; to provide incentives for property owners to make improvements and completion of enhancement to the Balboa Village sidewalks and street crossings. Ms. Boice asked about rebuilding a commercial building that burned down. She asked if the owner could only be rebuild 50% of the building. She felt this would be a deterrent to revitalization. Ms. Wood pointed out that she might be talking about the FAR requirement. Ms. Temple pointed out that the Balboa Village Specific Plan allows for reinstatement of non -conforming buildings. Mr. Vandersloot pointed out that more mixed use was added to this area and we don't really have experience with mixed use in the City. Ms. Dove pointed out that there is a dynamic to the retail in this area and is concerned about the mixed use becoming a home office when the need in this area is for visitor serving retail. Ms. Boice pointed out a couple articles reporting that developers say they can't make mixed use pencil out and that studies are finding that traffic is not reduced because people are keeping their cars in the mixed use areas. Mr. Tescher said this is a new 10 • report and that the study is finding traffic is being reduced by 1/2 a trip per person not per unit. The full study is due out in 2006. Mr. Baers indicated that Balboa is mixed use so we do have some experience with the use. Mr. Hendrickson suggested an amendment to the motion which would require visitor serving retail in mixed use developments. Mr. Baers accepted the amendment. Ms. Gardner asked for comments from the public. 9 Charlie Douglas pointed out this area isn't mixed use, it I mostly old beat up retail stores. He feels soon it will be residential because that's where the money is. He added that there is no incentive with the retail and so you're not going to improve the neighborhood. Ms. Gardner called for the vote on the motion. Motion Passes. Ms. Wood suggested that the Committee should revisit the R2 to R1 issue at the next meeting. Mr. Tescher agreed and the item will be placed on the next agenda. IV. Public Comments Carol Martin spoke about the conversion from R2 to R1 requesting that the Peninsula area be left as R2. She added there were no suggestions at the public workshop about this conversion in this area. 11