Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGP Update - Land Use AlternativesCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item NoZ 5 September 9, 2004 TO: I PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Planning Department Tamara J. Campbell, AICP, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3238, tcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: General Plan Update — Land Use Alternatives RECOMMENDATION: Review General Plan update land use alternatives. DISCUSSION: . The General Plan update work program calls for the evaluation of land use alternatives developed by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). GPAC organized into subcommittees who met over two months, and has completed its work on the alternatives. For each of the following thirteen geographic areas, which had been identified in the original scope of work for the update, a subcommittee developed two to four alternatives for future land use. • . Airport Business Area • Balboa Peninsula (including Cannery Village, McFadden Square, Balboa Village, Lido Village /Civic Center) • Banning Ranch Corona del Mar • Fashion Island /Newport Center • Mariner's Mile • Old Newport Boulevard • West Newport Industrial West Newport Residential and Highway Corridor Before the analysis begins, staff is presenting the alternatives to the Planning Commission and City Council for information and to provide an opportunity for "course correction" if the Commission or Council see something in the alternatives that they think should not even be considered, or if they find that an important alternative has not General Plan Update — Land Use Alternatives September 9, 2004 Page 2 been identified for analysis. The alternatives that GPAC developed are very preliminary, and should not be considered recommendations. They were developed for analysis purposes, to show what the impacts of different levels of development might be, and how that compares to the impacts of development allowed in the existing General Plan. After Planning Commission and City Council review, the alternatives will be analyzed using our traffic and fiscal impact models and standard analysis for other environmental impacts. The analysis method approved by the General Plan Update Committee will result in identification of impacts for each alternative by geographic area, and best and worst case Citywide summaries. This information will be presented in a newsletter that will be mailed to all residents in the fall, and it will be the basis for discussion at a public workshop scheduled for Saturday, January 22, 2005. With the results of the impact analysis and public input from the workshop, GPAC's next task will be to refine their land use work, and recommend a preferred land use plan for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. Prepared by: Submitted by: Tamara J. Abell, P Sharon Z. Woo Senior Plann r Assistant City anager Attachment: GPAC Subcommittee Reports and Geographic Subarea Maps 0 0 AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA ki AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA In determining proposed land uses, existing land uses in the ABA as well as those in the neighboring Irvine area were considered. The goal is to provide a good mix of land uses so that the ABA will be self - sufficient in support services, minimizing traffic impacts to other areas of the city. Those support services will also attract revenue from those living in the new residential areas of Irvine, capturing income for the city. There are two proposed land use alternatives: *Option A -Mixed Use Excluding Residential *Option B -Mixed Use Including Residential OPTION A -MIXED USE EXCLUDING RESIDENTIAL This sees the land use of the ABA remaining essentially what it is today with some refinements and a few changes. Overall, office space would dominate, but there would a mix of uses with a good balance of support services (restaurants, office supplies, cleaners) and guidelines to encourage better use of existing space (vertical parking). To promote a general upgrading of the area and the desired balance, the consolidation of parcels and bonus densities would be considered. The ABA should also be considered as an alternate site for a new civic center. Designations: Block A- -mixed use, excluding industrial, with the possibility of a hotel, parking structures and office. Block B- Primarily retail, hotel Block C- Possible site of new civic center or mixed use, excluding industrial Block D -mixed use, excluding industrial -good potential for upgrade, mixed use Block E -office Block F -Hotel Block G -office (phase out restaurants because of accessibility) Block H -mixed use (Hotel, office, entertainment) Block I -mixed use (office, industrial, retail, entertainment) Block J- industrial Block K -mixed use - supermarket (first floor of a multi -story building) and other retail and service facilities to attract residents in the area as well as those working in the area. Block L -mixed use (courthouse, restaurant, office) Block M -office Block N -mixed use (auto sales) OPTION B -MIXED USE INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL Newport Beach has housing needs imposed by SCAG. These needs are difficult to meet in most of the city's villages and planned communities. The ABA is an area where higher densities, if well planned, could help Newport meet work force and other housing needs while minimizing traffic impacts. The plan clusters residential areas and necessary supporting uses (markets, for example) near those in Irvine for synergy, and sites them near existing lakes and green areas for an attractive ambience. The land use designations would be the same as Option A with the following exceptions: Block F- possible conversion from hotel to Single Room Occupancy Block I -mixed use including high rise residential Block K -mixed use (supermarket, etc.) with mid rise residential. Key to Blocks (working from figure 2 -2 of Discussion Paper A- Campus strip from CdM Freeway to MacArthur. B -CdM Freeway frontage from Birch to Dove C- inside parcel bounded by Birch and Westerly, Quail and Dove D- Inside parcel next to Radisson, bounded by Dove E- Triangular parcel bounded by Westerly, Quail and Dove F- Radisson G -Area between Dove and MacArthur with restaurants and bad access H- Section east of MacArthur, bounded by Von Karman and Birch I -Koll area J- Conexant K- parcel between Campus and Birch, bounded by Von Karman and court house L-court house parcel M- MacArthur Court area N- parcel between Dove and MacArthur, bounded by CdM freeway (Lexus) 0 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item NoZ6 September 9, 2004 TO: I PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Planning Department Tamara J. Campbell, AICP, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3238, tampbell@city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: General Plan Update —Land Use Alternatives RECOMMENDATION: Review General Plan update land use alternatives. DISCUSSION: The General Plan update work program calls for the evaluation of land use alternatives developed by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). GPAC organized into subcommittees who met over two months, and has completed its work on the alternatives. For each of the following thirteen geographic areas, which had been identified in the original scope of work for the update, a subcommittee developed two to four alternatives for future land use. • Airport Business Area • Balboa Peninsula (including Cannery Village, McFadden Square, Balboa Village, Lido Village /Civic Center) • Banning Ranch • Corona del Mar • Fashion Island/Newport Center • Mariner's Mile • Old Newport Boulevard • West Newport Industrial • West Newport Residential and Highway Corridor Before the analysis begins, staff is presenting the alternatives to the Planning Commission and City Council for information and to provide an opportunity for "course correction if the Commission or Council see something in the alternatives that they • think should not even be considered, or if they find that an important alternative has not 0 E AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA 3 AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA In determining proposed land uses, existing land uses in the ABA as well as those in the neighboring Irvine area were considered. The goal is to provide a good mix of land uses so that the ABA will be self- sufficient in support services, minimizing traffic impacts to other areas of the city. Those support services will also attract revenue from those living in the new residential areas of Irvine, capturing income for the city. There are two proposed land use alternatives: 'Option A -Mixed Use Excluding Residential 'Option B -Mixed Use Including Residential OPTION A -MIXED USE EXCLUDING RESIDENTIAL This sees the land use of the ABA remaining essentially what it is today with some refinements and a few changes. Overall, office space would dominate, but there would a mix of uses with a good balance of support services (restaurants, office supplies, cleaners) and guidelines to encourage better use of existing space (vertical parking). To promote a general upgrading of the area and the desired balance, the consolidation of parcels and bonus densities would be considered. The ABA should also be considered as an alternate site for a new civic center. Designations: Block A- -mixed use, excluding industrial, with the possibility of a hotel, parking structures and office. Block B- Primarily retail, hotel Block C- Possible site of new civic center or mixed use, excluding industrial Block D -mixed use, excluding industrial -good potential for upgrade, mixed use Block E- office Block F -Hotel Block G -office (phase out restaurants because of accessibility) Block H -mixed use (Hotel, office, entertainment) Block 1 -mixed use (office, industrial, retail, entertainment) Block J- industrial Block K -mixed use - supermarket (first floor of a multi -story building) and other retail and service facilities to attract residents in the area as well as those working in the area. Block L -mixed use (courthouse, restaurant, office) Block M -office Block N -mixed use (auto sales) OPTION B -MIXED USE INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL Newport Beach has housing needs imposed by SCAG. These needs are difficult to meet in most of the city's villages and planned communities. The ABA is an area where higher densities, if well planned, could help Newport meet work force and other housing needs while minimizing traffic impacts. The plan clusters residential areas and necessary supporting uses (markets, for example) near those in Irvine for synergy, and sites them near existing lakes and green areas for an attractive ambience. The land use designations would be the same as Option A with the following exceptions: Block F- possible conversion from hotel to Single Room Occupancy K m LL � o 5oo� u i5 � ��� -- ���a _g� � g � � � � � � � g C C °cs � P ffi E s � �, �����g��o����� ��M`�1 1111 �' 11 x ++ V �' �� � 0 9 BALBOA PENINSULA . Date: May 31, 2004 To: Members — GPAC Peninsula Sub - Committee From: Grace Dove Subject: Notes From Planning Session 5/24/04 Following are notes from subject planning session that focused primarily on Balboa Village. Please feel free to comment or add to them based on any notes you may have taken. According to the City schedule, we should finalize recommendations on the three assigned planning areas of the Peninsula at the meeting next Monday, June 7. Hard to believe! Hopefully these notes will help you think through any additional recommendations for Balboa Village in order to wrap it up and then venture into recommendations for McFadden /Cannery Village and Lido /City Hall. • The Balboa BID was formed for the economic and social betterment of Balboa. Implementation of the improvement plan is in the second of three phases. Results have been positive so far. . o Balboa business owners do not want dramatic change and like mixed residential /commercial use. o They feel there should be "facelifting" and abetter business mix in order to make Balboa a destination for tourists. • The land use map prepared by the consulting firm has some inaccuracies and should include the waterside uses that greatly impact the use and nature of Balboa. o Additions to the map should include charter boats (fishing), Catalina Flyer, boat rentals, harbor tour boats, fuel docks, the Balboa pier and Ruby's. Unique uses such as the Fun Zone, restaurants and mixed uses should be identified. There are about 700 parking spaces that are rarely filled. Parking is impacted by users of the Catalina Flyer and sportfishing boats, many of whom arrive early and use neighborhood street parking. o The Balboa Theatre is the lynch pin of revitalization. The City hopes that the theatre will attract new businesses and clientele. A new focus could be created such as art. High rents are a problem with business installation and retention. is DATE: July 12, 2004 TO: Tamara Campbell, City of Newport Beach FROM: Grace Dove, GPAC Member RE: Addendum to Peninsula Notes Following are some additional thoughts, based on my notes, from the Peninsula group. I also am sending my notes from the first session, most of which Ron incorporated into his notes (but there are a few extras): A separate bike path was a very controversial idea and there was no consensus. • The land use maps should be corrected; several inaccuracies were found and, at this planning level, they are at a minimum, distracting. (Personal note — Showing mixed use buildings as such, would demonstrate their historic use as a basis for recommendations.) • The concept of there not being enough to entertain a non -beach using tourist in any one village was discussed. The idea of connectivity among the villages (Lido, Cannery, McFadden and Balboa) generated the concept of having a tram and water taxi system that actually works. The parking on weekends could be the new, proposed City Hall parking structure which would be primarily vacant on weekends. There would be a charge for parking but the trams would be free. The trams would be comfortable, physically easily accessed, reliable and would not have a place to carry "beach stuff' thus discouraging their use by beach - goers. The tram would go to the Wedge in order to encourage Peninsula Point residents to use the shops and restaurants during periods when one does not want to move a car. • It was strongly suggested that portions of McFadden Square be designated as an historic district just as Balboa Village is. There should be a "fun" sign program identifying the villages and giving directions to them. • 1 believe the idea of Residential as a Marinapark alternative was not discussed by the group (I would have given a tidelands lecture at that point). • It was recommended that City Hall be retained in its current location. In general, the concepts were preservation, retain scale, improve quality by consolidation and enhancement and connecting the villages by multi -modal means. If you have any questions or want us to try to reassemble for additional work, please let me know. 0 Thank you, I� 0T/02 M4 10:56 9496443229 JM -81.04 IMAM PRO#- CNB KA KING PAGE 00 t-ili P.00UNT P-M �1 V RZ 9 l: e ii.'' :�►.. "7 .l ti. �1 y N Q s 00, r' Ms co L�++ W� U 6� "E og �n rg Z/w/� �Z z §5$ c w €p��yp� �m1 wit $yy. IF gig O OG f WWg m _ �� •Q ° E gg C y 35 15 z 111 1_ 11_111 ®0 g C LL IS V �I �� Is1 1111:: 1$111 ®� = N t- g Z < N < Zw O(D �a Da Z a g O 0 U 'N E E O C U 0 N D } C) H O w c I--- > 3 0 vA(,IL _C/) o O ,L J J cog z_ �so O Cc LL Z m V �• a V Z Z t!1 0 CO) a a s gc d-0 8 o (D co C3 E m o o a m m = g 5 Q o $� F -6 C ES m 1�1 I 1111 1A I� 0 LD L N C 0 N a) co 7 U U 0 c E 0 N 01a ca N fo Z m o Q c:i-- F-- c N 0 a� cn § k^ I } . k LU 20- U > L 7\kk)! ) Iy « $a£[\[® % ! _ ,�| vl\ | 2 z z O 4! aS�= ! k2 ,!§ © ] °! - »; # ., " « �0/ { \\ k -It «/2§`. 2 m ! ! k _� ` a �!!!! ;!!a_a� -# 2 k! n t3 > rol O !!!K! »,E00a:wm $!: \& : - y: ° 2222\ N m o U �w p� �y� Cu W Q ca J,'Jr ♦ g Fa x L t H C � C� _0 C o Q -0 _O 0C C C �0 U � Q C N N � O O } O 5 � w p O H N d 7 w 0 Q o g m 9z O0- W N z d w O CD 0 m it U O U O E i�! _O U° N Cl a� C� o w� t m oc Q U o k � � \■ 2§ \ fk2g2$)§ �20� 15 , � t �= a§k ®k ( §!)§ §2` k$$k! k£a2\ 2 ;5 0 ff ��k11 ug 2 1] BANNING RANCH 9 iCity of Newport Beach General Plan BANNING RANCH LAND USE ALTERNATIVES For GPAC Review and Confirmation - August 12, 2004 EIP Associates Note: The following indicates the changes to reflect technical inaccuracies and GPAC subcommittee recommendations at the August 9 meeting. Additions are indicated by underline and deletions by strikeout: Introduction As the first step in determining the land use designations for the City as part of the General Plan update, the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) identified potential land use alternatives for each of the twelve subareas. For the Banning Ranch geographic planning subarea, the GPAC members met on May 24, June 7, and -June 21, and August 9 of 2004 to discuss the potential re- use and development options. This GPAC Subcommittee report provides a summary of key background information and issues regarding re -use and development of the Banning Ranch site, followed by a description of each of the development options being considered, and suggest criteria for review of these options. The next step is the evaluation of the comparative traffic, fiscal, and environmental impacts of these options, which will be performed by the consultant team. Background Located within the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI), the Banning Ranch planning subarea encompasses approximately &19 412.5 acres, excluding lands ands previously subiect to wetlands restoration. Of these, approximately, 362.2 of which 465 acres are under the jurisdiction of Orange County, and -53,50.3 acres are within the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach. A 41-0 11.4 acre area located in the eastern portion of the site between 16`h and 17`h Streets is owned by Newport Mesa Unified School District. Currently, the Banning Ranch planning subarea is primarily undeveloped with senie4ii steFie -oil extraction infrastructure located in the central and southern portions of the site that includes wells, pipelines, buildings, oil treatment, storage, and shipping facilities, improved and unimproved roads, and open storage pipes and machinery. Currently, there are approximately 3i 68 active oil wells, of which 16 are owned and operated by the City of Newport Beach. Approximately, -and 382 wells are inactive and abandoned onsite ^ ells leeate'° ,w..,.,,,.hout the Banning Ranch afea. Oil extraction activities date back 4 leases 5 years.to the 1940's. 1 3? Total 1 283 Non -Rank Areas 1 235129.5 For the purposes of determining the amount of land that may be considered for development in the Banning Ranch planning subarea as a base planning scenario, the subcommittee established criteria that included the avoidance of (a) all areas in When exeluld:ng a rank 1 habitat areas, and- abutting areas classified as the rank 2, and areas within a 50 -foot buffer of these• b , the bluffsiand- uearthquake setbaek fault zone, and habitat restereAien areas, Application of this criteria results in a potential development area of approximately 216-develepable-acres, as shown on Figure -1. on Banning 47 meh site. it should be noted that this is a gross estimate _. my ,,.u.:..hmay be revised upward or d,.,,,..,, and ,,pen r,,,.ther detailed review and analyses- This is only one indicator of constraints, with the estimate of developable land varying upward or downward depending on the criteria used. The actual re -use, development, and/or restoration acreage would be determined through resource agency permitting procedures. Potential Land Use Alternatives As a result of the GPAC subcommittee meetings, four land use alternatives for the Banning Ranch area were selected for further evaluation. These alternatives are discussed in detail below, and shown in Table 1. It should be noted that implementation of any alternative would not result in- exclude development on habitat areas with a rank of 1, or--rank 2 areas adjasent- abutting and itn4 contiguous with to -rank 1 areas, the bluffs, and earthquake setbael� fault zones, a i nin consistent with base criteria defined by the subcommittee. OPTION 1: OPEN SPACE Under this development option, the entire 344 412.5 acres of the Banning Ranch site- planning subarea would be preserved as open space. "n,.,,: °iii— _F "he -it- f r ♦This pufpese -would require acquisition of the property by a public or private entity with compensation paiatent-to the property owners, including the Newport Mesa Unified School District: Following the consolidation, or buyout and removal, of oil production facilities, Tthis option would allow for the preservation of all habitat types; and the restoration of degraded wetlands that are adjacent to the Semeniuk Slough and, as appropriate, other important habitats. There would be up blic costs associated with site remediation, habitat restoration and long -term .maintenance. The Banning Ranch planning subarea, when considered with the slough, provides wildlife with a significantly large, diverse area for foraging, shelter, and movement. Passive recreational uses could be allowed under this option, and provide opportunities for nature observation and education. Active playfields could also be incorporated in the uplands, located in the southern and eastern portions of the area in areas suitable for re -use, where there are limited deyei,,pme.,t nenst .n:.,ts, as shown in Figure 1. Existing oil operations would be consolidated to a few areas onsite under this development option, which may also necessitate public funding: 3 6 0 Preliminarily, it is assumed that such a resort would be comparable in scale with the recent developed Montage Resort in Laguna Nwim+W Beach which occupies approximately 30 acres Supporting commercial space would also be included to serve the visitors of the area. A community amenity, such as a senior center or an education center that can serve a larger population of Newport Beach would be included under this option. Active recreational uses, which are needed for this portion of Newport Beach, could be accommodated, while the remainder of the site would include the restoration and preservation of existing wetlands and other habitat types. The bluffs and the earthquake setbaek fault zones would not be affected under this option. Table 1 Banning Ranch Development Options Suggested Criteria The following represents the GPAC subcommittee's suggested criteria for review of the land use alternatives. Further studies and detailed analyses will be required to determine impacts associated with implementation of each land use alternative. 1. How additional traffic will affect the mobility of the area, including consistency with the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. 2. Availability of public transit. Fiscal impacts to the City, comparing the costs of services to the development with the revenues to be generated by these uses. 4. Jobs formation and employment opportunities 5. Impacts on the school system. -5-.6. Less ef Impacts on important biological habitats, including potential losses as well as opportunities for restoration and public ownership- Residential Commercla7 units S ace Hotel sF Oil parks Acre Acre Room Acre nd Open Operatio Development Option units s SF s s s (acres) School Space ns 'a18 1 Open Space 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD No 412.5 Yes acres 2 Taylor Woodrow 0'75 200 0 '00 17 75 10 77 Yes, 10 acre 204 98.5 Yes s acres 3 Reduced Taylor 3788 667 70,00 351 Yes, 438 Woodrow 75 5 0 0 60 5 40 10 acre 312.5 Yes — — — s acres Resort Based) 4 Community 0 To TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD No TBD Yes Amenity Suggested Criteria The following represents the GPAC subcommittee's suggested criteria for review of the land use alternatives. Further studies and detailed analyses will be required to determine impacts associated with implementation of each land use alternative. 1. How additional traffic will affect the mobility of the area, including consistency with the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. 2. Availability of public transit. Fiscal impacts to the City, comparing the costs of services to the development with the revenues to be generated by these uses. 4. Jobs formation and employment opportunities 5. Impacts on the school system. -5-.6. Less ef Impacts on important biological habitats, including potential losses as well as opportunities for restoration and public ownership- I VT, 10 1 - x 0 R to 0 ❑\I ............ Ij z fill KMI I ;C1 Z Z LLJ Z 0 g=), o Z OCL LU LLI Z Z Z CO -j Lij *6 0 z > ui ov 0 co I VT, 10 1 - x 0 R to 0 ❑\I ............ Ij z fill KMI e 0 W I e 0 W U 95Um Z o s W� tP "'(g m z W9 ui Q (D v' � gm U d Q cn C N Q 0 N N r Z O 0 � O N H o � P W = v � OU z 0 a �� z z Mzy o (D U d . c � vM cv O 9 Q. a� U) zc :F= a 30 a 0 0 CL— a8 s o� 8m 0 �x o� mE 0 N z 0 a 0 r T Rrfn �9 J Co LU Qz Z p .re U J w> VrW �( 8 � 100 O C N N c N N z= } N D Q OU) 0 C O fl. �O o: _0 o 0 8 O U co E _ O O coi E 7E cU am no O Z gZ¢ n d W W Z Z 'ZS o U' Z N gm U N E E O U c N Q 'c E_ O U� m a U Co C t -O � O c N N O Z S qq z 0 0 C U C s � $0U 2 Q V�w 0 O S zig CORONA DEL MAR u • CdM Sub -Area Discussion Monday, June 21, 2004 GPAC Subcommittee Generally, the existing land uses (commercial strip along Coast Highway, and adjacent residential from Ocean on up the hill crossing the highway) would remain unchanged, with specific plan refinements for all of the "Old Corona Central Village" – both commercial and residential. Additional issues should be addressed in other elements of the General Plan (Recreation & Open Space, Public Safety, etc) Commercial: • Parking — conduct a new parking study that could work toward a parking authority • Expand & improve parking in a "strip" behind the businesses off of the alley to provide parking and landscape strip/buffer for residents • Look into provision of a tax incentive for commercial businesses keeping their `residentially- zoned' property in the parking pool • Parking needs to be more centralized and easy to find • Provide improved "directional signage" to alert visitors to locations where parking is available. • Look at provision of parking areas at both ends and at center of the corridor • Look at all options for parking (private /public /public purchase or lease of private property. • • Investigate the feasibility of a "no- cost" trolley to tie centralized parking and pedestrian- scaled retail /restaurant commercial together with a limited -basis shuttle (e.g.— Laguna Beach's First Thursday program) to run at certain times - maybe for Saturdays, Sundays and evenings • Maintain and improve the pedestrian commercial environment • Ratify "Vision 2004 Plan" • Encourage more sidewalk cafds with even more flexible regulations (by possibly easing parking requirements or tax incentive for those cafe's that provide sidewalk seating. • Preserve and enhance "resident- serving" businesses • Discourage businesses that are strictly "tourist-" or "general public- serving" (e.g. —t -shirt shops, auto - oriented businesses) • Relax regulations for uses that support pedestrian scale and general pedestrian neighborhood "vitality ". • Address the character of the tree species in the Specific Plan landscape standards —palm tree/Hong Kong orchid are ornamental, but aren't very pedestrian - oriented... some sort of shade tree might be phased in— though still allowing for the visibility of building signage 082304 CDM discussion.doc Page 2 Yb ,Ewro•r, =v a-L- BOA ISLAND (INE RRACE THE WEDGE VICMGE CORONA del MAR.90-UNDARY • SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD. to the OCEAN • JAMBOREE to MORNING CANYON SPECIFIC PLAN Ak / LITTLElq CORONA CENTRAL VILLAGE AREA tV AVOCADO to BUCK GULLY %f GRANT HOWALD PARK /OASIS to the 01 5 %G w tF HARBOR )ZEW 1 SHORE IFFS CAMEO 3WR I SCENIC CORRIDORS •—� - PARKS, GREENBELTS 61 , i' ORT EAST COAST HWY, BAYSIDE DR. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS, MACARTHUR, GOLDENROD, MARGUERITE, BUCK GULLY OVILLAGE COMMERCIAL CENTERS G PAC EDUCATIONAL /RECREATIONAL /CULTURAL CENTERS \ C/) o Q d g LL 2 00- U C/) v A O a o $°�- LU w 0 z U ° 3 E o �9 w 5E ¢ 5 o Z W O �j U O oa tq a �� �� v FE ��¢� °o�U°' dE� �o ffix o CF c U U C me �¢� a�'mg a �S :ci� 8 O u _•- -g U N E H O =U ,0 20 o y _ate U _ E Z U E o � c j 0 0 'a r- -I u 0 FASHION ISLANDMEWPORT CENTER • Jamboree Road/Mae Arthur Boulevard Area (Statistical Division L) This area is comprised of the major commercial and residential planned communities, including Newport Center, Big Canyon, Aeronutronic FordBelcourt, North Ford, San Diego Creek North, Jamboree/MacArthur, Koll Center Newport and Newport Place, as well as the Campus Drive Industrial Tract. Newport Center (Statistical Area Ll) The Newport Center area is bounded by East Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Development is allocated to Newport Center on a block -by -block basis, as set forth in the following discussion. All landscaped entry areas of Newport Center are designated for Recreational and Environmental Open Space. Transfers of development rights in Newport Center are permitted, subject to the approval of the City with the finding that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and that the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. It is proposed that Newport Center be rezoned to the Planned Community District, with a comprehensive Planned Community Text developed and adopted. All development limits are exclusive of parking. 1. Block O - Corporate Plaza. This site is bounded by Newport Center Drive, Farallon Drive, Avocado Avenue and Coast Highway. The site is designated for Administrative, • Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 432,320 sq. ft. of office development. 85,000 sq. ft. of this total was transferred from Newport Village as part of the Library Exchange Agreement (Amendment No. 728). Support retail commercial uses are also allowed within this development allocation. 2. Block 100 - Gateway Plaza. This area is bounded by Newport Center Drive, Anacapa Drive and Farallon Drive. The site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 197,545 sq. ft. of office development. [GPA 99 -2(E)] Support retail commercial uses are also allowed within this development allocation. Block 200 - Design Plaza. This area is bounded by Newport Center Drive, Block 300, Avocado Avenue, Farallon Drive and Anacapa Drive. The site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 199,095 sq. ft. [GPA2004 -001] of office development. Support retail commercial uses are also allowed within this development allocation. 4. Block 300 - Theater Plaza. This area is bounded by Newport Center Drive, San Miguel Drive, Avocado Avenue and Block 200. The site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 104,158 sq. ft. of office development and 2,050 theater seats [GPA 94 -1 (B)]. Support retail commercial uses are also allowed within this development allocation. • Land Use Element Page 73 �3 NEWPORT CENTER / FASHION ISLAND u LAND USE OPTIONS 1) Maintain East Newport Village as open space (Area E) to be developed as a improved City Park for walking and reading; no ball fields or recreation areas. 2) Add a conference center near current hotels for increased local and visitor meeting and entertainment space. 3) More hotels rooms in addition to those already allowed at the Four Seasons. This may mean a new hotel. 4) Allow and encourage mixed -use residential in all areas designated multi - tenant commercial and professional office/ business/ medical. 5) Maintain Site D, Avocado North, for affordable housing (mid -rise). 6) Allow expansion of retail/entertainment in Fashion Island with no residential. 7) There is no support for single - family residential in the Southwest quadrant of Site H , as has been suggested by the city. 8) Maintain designated open space currently known as the Newport Beach County Club, but allow a small area to be used for central meeting facilities. See #2 above. 9) Encourage increased medical office uses in the area designated as Corporate Plaza which is surrounded by Pacific Coast Highway, Avocado Avenue and Farallon Drive. 10) Do not allow significant increase of office space in Newport Center block #800. Allow Pacific Life to expand as desired in block #900. 11) Encourage reuse and redevelopment in Design Plaza. 12) Encourage entertainment uses in Gateway Plaza & Design Plaza along with parking improvements. 0 0 P 0 MARINER'S MILE 5c� . 08/16/2004 12:40 3102698175 EIP ASSOCIATES PAGE 82/03 I* Mariner's Mile Sub- Committee July 269 2004 PugRose: To identify a list of credible options that the sub- cottuaktee melts further agnlysis mud discussion. Each alternative will be subsequently "run through the paces" for fiscal costs and revenue, traffic, environmental and community character impacts. . 1) A minimum of three alternatives may be defined for Mariner's Mile 2) At minimum, the land use alternatives shell identify: a Uses to be pannitted within the sub -area i. Where housing is defined as an option, the type of housing unit desired ii. Where mixed use buildings are defined as an option, the type of use permitted on the ground floor should be defined W. Where mixed use projects rue defined as an .option the relative proportion among the uses should be defined (i.e. 50% residential, 10% local - serving, 40%s open apace) yt ng the Marine_ ?s Mile Stra ak Vision & Dcaiga Fri�nework lmpcum the auto oriented commercial strip through iimplemeamtion of design and d"riopment standards. Creation of a pedestrian- vactwed retail district "Mariner's Vdlage" (Seercao #3) is also a vision for the area north of Coast Highway, near Tustin Avenue, Riverside Avenue, and Avon Street. Implementation of a comprehensive parking strategy Relocating'the United Stares Postal Service (USPS) Distribution. Streetsape improvements to upgrade the visual character of the area. Discontinuing a requirement of the Mariner's Mile Specie Plan regarding the provision of marine noes currently at 40 %. Creation of a Boardwalk along the Bay (Scenerio #7) Create Patlting Structure where City paddng lot adets (landseaped, beautified, safe and inviting) Encourage armed use (% by building TBD) % Rtsidential, % Mixed Use, %Hot k 1] vl� 0 OLD NEWPORT BLVD. ui ? Old Newport Boulevard Sub -Area Committee July 12, 2004 Meeting Summary 0 The meeting focused on the identification of possible Land Use Alternatives for Old Newport Boulevard. Two broad and general concepts were put forward, each having a certain similarity to the overall General Plan Visioning Process findings and to the existing Specific Plan direction. Key aspects shared by both Concepts were: The development of design guidelines that would more closely regulate architectural density, appearance (especially as it can serve the'Community Character portions of the Guiding Principals identified in the discussion paper of july 11th), landscape, lighting, signage and street furniture. The narrowing of Old Newport and the vacation of land to each side to be developed in a unified attractive edge, giving the entire area a cohesive theme, supportive of the community character identified in the Visioning Process, and lowering the velocity of the auto along the ultimate ROW. This new width would promote limiting curb -cuts, and increasing the use of shared vehicular access and parking for parcels fronting the Boulevard. This would allow more area for parkway landscaping. A possible common parking facility could be located on the west side of the Boulevard to service several area uses. Concept 1 The items within the Concept 1, put forward by the group, included the following: 1. No new automotive uses. 2. On the east side of the Boulevard, continue and promote mixed -use land use' as this provides a transition toward the residential easterly of this area. The upper floor on the east side parcels would be residential. Live work studio would be an acceptable use. 3. On the west side of the Boulevard, one to three -story medical and professional space, restaurant and limited retail uses, subject to the design guidelines. Strict adherence to parking standards, measured'per use' would, require that a restaurant, for example, in such an area have parking requirements quite different than professional office and require the developer who might plan such a use, to provide parking appropriate for that use. 4. On the west side of the Boulevard, executive housing is possible use .2 5. A pedestrian bridge across Newport Boulevard would achieve a'gateway' image and encourage pedestrian flow across from Hoag. Concept 2 The items within the Concept 2, put forward by the group, included the following: 1. On the east side of the Boulevard, no new commercial uses should be permitted; the thinking here was to maximize the residential character in this area in that the transition to the easterly neighborhood was critical to the community character identification in the Visioning Process. East side possibilities were low- density live work facilities or work force housing as long as the product could be dense enough to make economic sense, but still preserve the community character. 2. Promote the commercial on the west side and the dividing island between and Old and new Newport Boulevard. 3. Encourage low -key food service in lower density building envelopes, designed to cater to the neighboring residents and business. ' This option supports the Economic Guiding Principal to encourage revitalization of older commercial areas. 2 As identified as residential uses possible as presented in the 7- 12- 04- discussion paper. F: \USERS \PLN \Shared \GP Advlsory Committee \082309 Old Newport Boulevard.doc '^4 W • Q7 M2B84 15:18 , 94954432,29 M-"ING . PAGE 82 y 1 1/ n U'_-_�t •A', %' •.7 r u : iii Bskesace: GEOGRA,PIEC SUBAREAS LAMA USE POLICY FORMULATION — D6wm10 FsW 9: Was Newpott k*awW The onset 1Md NO of the abject aces g: BMWs" 41.VA M ft- firmly 32.1% 1 • Ligbt b 4n tw Use 30.0% Maim I Mutt Tmnw Iaritbaa 3.0% cammadmi P101{ae110s•l l Medicd 112% Auto Rdated LVA Rmff Sa Wn 2.0% Devoloptaaad Seasaloar The autfiae of a "Mr, dawkpmat x0 m ios in the x taaoed tapm was Led ss a Vd& in MWoctingthe discussions in dafming the loin use &kmjjdm. I. lia lubw aad Marbe Us" The Nash Secdm to romm as Iuduww land use. AiNW Um not to be Sim specW p m&taeoe since the arrant make witted wet we MkimAl at lest than 3.0%. Marine Uses should be incWW is the Nash Sad= iaduobw land nsa Now Rftr0s"d SPace disarsdm took plow at thin poim: Wed Newpott xe*Wwd U*s tsa'adimd apace. The 13aadag m oPmt will ptaride mmesdoaal space aomd to I c s� �E E m�u� _ag 8U � o0 ° Q a'g u- o 0 �. N 2 3 -UU CC��� - - _o�c o �$ 2 � ro Lam. On o o�g� 0 • WEST NEWPORT RESIDENTIAL AND HIGHWAY CORRIDOR • West Newport Highway Corridor — Summary of Focus Group Meeting The group focused on three primary aspects of this segment of the highway corridor. These aspects were the Mobile Home park, the commercial / residential strip along the north side of the highway, and the street itself. Regarding the mobile home park, it was generally agreed that rezoning would be desirable as the current use is an eyesore. Potential rezoning uses include: multi - family up to 3 stories, special needs housing, park or open space, and parking. It was noted that within the commercial / residential strip, that the commercial primarily serves visitors rather than locals, excepting the restaurants. A desire to encourage businesses that would serve the locals as well as the visitors was discussed. It was noted that lack of adequate parking is a detriment to the commercial uses. Mixed use was discussed as a potential zoning included residential over commercial at a maximum of 2 stories. Block consolidation for commercial uses was also discussed. The group agreed that the Specific Plan is not credible as it is currently focused. A rezone to all residential was also discussed as a credible option and included possibilities of R2, SF (like Lido Sands), mansions, and hotels. Regarding the street, it was noted the high speed and the raised median presents various problems of limited access to businesses, pedestrian access, concern for safety, etc. The group's desire was to slow traffic down, allow more access to businesses, and provide traffic calming. The group briefly discussed the likelihood of the 19th Street bridge crossing not proceeding and what the impact would be on this segment of PCH. It was also mentioned that this area has the opportunity of including an entry monument to the City. West Newport Residential — Summary of Focus Group Meeting The group discussed the area and generally agreed that the existing residential zoning should not be changed. Several other types of ideas, other than zoning, were discussed for the area including: • Providing a separate, continuous bike trail and sidewalk from 39th to the Santa Ana River (connect to the river trail and HB State Park trails) • Traffic calming on Seashore Drive is desirable • Code enforcement on garage use would provide additional street parking • Consideration could be given to the strategic purchase of lots to supply additional parking • Along Neptune Avenue, a "cottage zone" could be implemented • Conversion of Neptune area numbered streets to one -way could provide space for streetscape amenities while calming traffic • Condo conversion without adequate parking is not desired • Additional bike lanes along Seashore are not desired . • A street connection at River / PCH is not desired 1S