The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About17 - General Plan UpdateCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 77 May 9, 2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager's Office Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager 949 - 644 -3222, swood @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: General Plan Update: Land Use and Circulation Elements, Implementation Program and Draft Environmental Impact Report APPLICANT NAME: City of Newport Beach RECOMMENDATION: Receive public comments on the referenced elements and Implementation Program of the Draft General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR); provide direction to staff on revisions to the referenced elements of the Draft General Plan; and continue public hearing to May 23, 2006. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission continued their review of the Land Use Element on May 4, 2006, and made recommendations to the City Council regarding three sub areas: Airport Area, Mariners' Mile and Old Newport Boulevard. The Commission's discussion focused on developing options for each sub -area that result in average daily trip (ADT) generation that is the same or less than would result from the existing General Plan. Airport Area As the staff and consultant team was trying to prepare alternatives for this area that would be "trip neutral" with the existing General Plan, we realized that is not possible while at the same time allowing "additive" residential development, unless residential density is reduced in areas where replacement residential may occur. Because additive residential development would not replace existing development or entitlement, it would result in a net increase in trips, which would have to be balanced by a net reduction in trips from other properties. A net reduction in trips could be achieved by eliminating more office space than assumed in the draft Land Use Element and traffic study and /or eliminating industrial development, a lower trip generator. Eliminating more office space General Plan Update May 9, 2006 Page 2 would result in the residential development being spread over more land area at densities lower than recommended by ROMA Design Group and included in the draft Land Use Element. As the Commission recognized these relationships, they were concerned that both infill and an average residential density of 50 units per acre were important components of the ROMA planning concept, and that eliminating all infill and /or reducing the density and number of dwelling units would result in development that may not function as an "urban village" and provide benefits to traffic flow, even if ADT is reduced. Some Commissioners were also concerned about preserving the City's ability to provide housing affordable to the local workforce. Staff presented two options to the Commission. Both options reduce the total number of dwelling units to 2,200 and allow a maximum of 550 of those units to be additive. If the elimination of all industrial space on the Conexant site and the elimination of 40 acres of office space are assumed, the difference in trips from the existing General Plan would be 29. If the industrial space is retained, the trip difference would be 3,046. The trip difference in the EIR analysis is 11,208. The Commission recommended that the Council consider the following four options. Staff will provide the trip results of these options at the City Council meeting. 1. 3,300 dwelling units with no infill /additive development 2. 3,300 dwelling units of which 400 may be infill /additive development 3. 2.200 dwelling units with no infill /additive development. 4. 2,200 dwelling units of which 400 may be infill /additive development The Commission also suggested that the Council consider limiting the land area on which residential development is allowed, to preserve the urban densities and potential to improve traffic flow. Finally, it was suggested that a maximum density be established, to ensure that residential development is spread over a number of properties, resulting in the elimination of office and industrial space. Mariners' Mile Staff presented two options for the Commission to consider in this area Option 1: • Residential portion of mixed use on the Harbor reduced from 25 to 12 dwelling units per acre • Commercial portion of mixed use on Harbor limited to 0.5 FAR (instead of 0.75 in draft Land Use Element) • Commercial use on inland properties east of Rocky Point limited to 0.50 FAR General Plan Update May 9, 2006 Page 3 • 1,714 fewer trips than existing General Plan Option 2: • No residential use on Harbor • Commercial portion of mixed use on Harbor limited to 0.5 FAR • Commercial use on inland properties limited to 0.50 FAR • 608 more trips than existing General Plan The Commission determined that Mariner's Mile is an area where it is important to reduce trip generation, due to the existing high volume of traffic on Coast Highway and the difficulties experienced at some intersections in the area. They also agreed with staff that a floor area ratio of 0.5 is realistic for the shallow properties east of Rocky Point, because they cannot be developed to the currently allowed .75 FAR while providing required parking. The Commission recommended Option 1, but felt that the City Council should consider both options, and decide on the overall land use policy issue of whether residential use on the Harbor in this location is appropriate. Staff had considered a third option for the Ardell properties, which would provide the incentive of a greater residential density on the inland portion in exchange for significant view corridors on the bayside portion. Because we believe that height limits would prevent the provision of a residential density high enough to be a real incentive to forego development on the Bay side, staff and the Planning Commission did not pursue this option. Old Newport Boulevard Staff discovered an error in the traffic study for this area, the result of counting 168 apartment units twice. Correcting this error eliminates 1,209 trips, and reduces the difference between the existing and draft General Plans to 3,048 trips. Staff presented three options to the Planning Commission. Every option reduces the floor area ratio for office use from 0.75 to 0.5. This reflects what staff believes is a more practical development intensity, especially considering the need to provide parking for medical offices. The trip results for each option include the correction discussed above. Option 1 • Designates entire area for medical office 115 more trips than existing General Plan General Plan Update May 9, 2006 Page 4 Option 2 Designates entire area for general office (which permits medical as well as other office uses) • 3,024 fewer trips than existing General Plan Option 3 Retains mixed use on east side of Old Newport Boulevard, with general (30 %) and medical (70 %) office on first floor Designates west side of Old Newport Boulevard for general office, with maximum 70% medical office • 39 more trips than existing General Plan The Planning Commission recommended Options 1 and 3 for further consideration by the City Council. Although some Commissioners foresee a continuing trend toward medical office, rather than residential, for this area, others were persuaded by GPAC's rationale that mixed use on the east side of Old Newport Boulevard would provide a good transition to the neighboring residential area. Newport Center /Fashion Island Because The Irvine Company is still considering the additional reductions in retail space that the City Council suggested on April 25, this area was not discussed in detail by the Planning Commission. Staff expects to have additional information to present at the Council meeting. The Commission did discuss the policy recommended at the April 20 hearing regarding the conversion of hotel rooms to residential use, and confirmed that the intent was to limit conversion of existing hotel rooms. For clarity, the Commission recommended that the added Land Use Element policy provide that future hotel entitlement may be converted to residential, at a rate that would not generate more trips than the hotel entitlement. Environmental Review: The Draft EIR for the proposed General Plan was released for public review on April 24, 2006, and the public review period will close on June 8. The City Council will receive public comments on the Draft EIR, as well as make comments of their own. Public Notice: Notice of this public hearing, and subsequent public hearings on the General Plan update and EIR, was provided by a quarter page display advertisement in the Daily Pilot on April 22, 2006. Government Code Section 65091 provides that, when the number of property owners to whom notice would be required to be mailed is greater than 1,000 General Plan Update May 9, 2006 Page 5 (which is the case with a comprehensive General Plan update), notice may be provided by placing a one - eighth page advertisement in the local newspaper. Submitted by: Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager Attachments: Daily Trip Generation Plan to Plan Comparison General Plan Update May 9, 2006 Page 6 TABLE ES -1A DAILY TRIP GENERATION PLAN TO PLAN COMPARISON I AREA CURRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN % TRIPS TRIPS CHANGE CHANGE AIR PORT 117, 4301 128, 6381 11,208 10% IBALBOA VILLAGE I 19,9811 20,8491 868 4% BANNING RANCH 1 22,0751 14,2961 -7,779 -35% CANNERY VILLAGE 14,190 10,342 -3,848 -27% CORONA DEL MAR 54,431 54,534 103 0% LIDO VILLAGE 13,871 15,653 1,782 13% MARINERS MILE 51,410 55,576 4,166 8% MCFADDEN SQUARE 8,490 12,988 4,498 NEWPORT CENTER 110,372 118,395 8,023 OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD 9,816 14,073 4,257 WEST NEWPORT HIGHWAY AND ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL 9,076 9,901 825 1430% WEST NEWPORT MESA 46,038 54,769 8,731 SUBAREA TOTAL 477,180 510,014 32,8341 REMAINDER OF CITY 488,5311 486,094 -2,437 0% CITYWIDE TOTAL 965,711 996,108 30,397 3% c. Doaimenis and Settings\sauood\ Local Settings\ Temporary Internet Files\OLK7BD\[TableES- lA.xls]ES -1 I ...�. .....- ._...__. ..._.... I ... �J 0 Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Draft Land Use Element City Council Tuesday, May 9, 2006 Agenda Item No. 17 May 9, 2006 Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ,AIRPORT AREA • Planning Commission Recommendations 1) 3,300 dwelling units with no infill /additive development 2) 3,300 dwelling units of which 400 may be infill /additive development 3) 2,200 dwelling units with no infill /additive development. 4) 2,200 dwelling units of which 400 may be infill /additive development z Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AIRPORT AREA (continuw), • IF maximum density is established, or residential land is reduced, trip generation same as existing General Plan • Without maximum density, trip generation below existing General Plan possible, BUT densities may not support ROMA design concept and traffic improvements • Assumes all replaced development is office 3 Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AIRPORT AREA "Trip Neutral" Option 5 (CQnu `tmued� ■ 2,200 dwelling units, 550 additive ■ Density in replacement area averages 50 units per acre ■ Replaced Development • 28.3 acres office (85 %) • 4.7 acres commercial (15 %) ■ Conexant remains industrial ■ Designate Campus Tract "Office /Airport Support" r Fj Replacement Area : 1,650 unit @ 50 du /acre average Infill Area: 550 units >Nk 65 C N E L',. Jaa} s� F �� k� i s C r , I I i YM d4ll x 1 I xs t � UNIM' ULS1(:N FlIMIEWONN Newport Beach Airport Business Area t L. A v 4W /I 1 *r�L m L r PF Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MARINER'S MILE Map Change • Designate OCSD parcel inland of Coast Highway Public • 223 trip reduction from EIR Option 1 — 1,937 fewer trips than existing GP Option 2 — 385 more trips than existing GP 0 'bNewport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MARINER'S MILE -New Option 3 • No residential use on Harbor • Commercial use limited to 0.5 FAR, Except • Commercial use on inland properties east of Rocky Point: • 0.3 FAR • 0.5 FAR only with lot consolidation • If 50% properties consolidate, reduces 1,692 trips from EIR • 1,307 fewer trips than existing GP 0 0 Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Mariners' Mile 10 Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE NEWPORT CENTER • Newport Center Only 0 0 Residential: 450 Units Retail: 75,000 square feet Hotel: 60 Rooms Office: 0 square feet 2,990 trip reduction from EIR 11 _ x,Y_ 14 T T - - • • / • Area Development Trip Reduction Reduction From EIR Bonita Canyon 171 dwelling units 1,356 Newporter North 63 dwelling units 544 Freeway Reservation 36 dwelling units 311 Bayside Center 25,676 square feet 982 The Bluffs Center 1,000 square feet 38 Eastbluff Village Center 14,777square feet 565 Harbor View Center 5,453 square feet 209 Newport North Center 2,500 square feet 96 TOTAL TRIPS 4,101 Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE NEWPORT CENTER • Newport Center Traffic Impact Area (Continued) • Redesignate Sherman Gardens Private Institution, 0.3 FAR, 2,303 trip reduction • 6,404 trip reduction from EIR • Newport Center and Traffic Impact Area • 9,394 trip reduction from EIR • 1,371 fewer trips than existing GP 13 u Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Newport Center /Fashion Island 14 A 4V r k,� l4 /f l :A11en,Mullings, & Allen LLP a ■E FAX NO. :714 - 558 -0638 May. 08 2096 02 :01PM P1/3 "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA HARBOR VIEW HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION BARRY L. ALLEN, MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS 1021 White Sails Way Corona del Map, CA 92625 VIA FACSIMILE (949) 644 -3020 & U.S. MAIL May 8, 2006 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Attu: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 Re: Dear. Ms. Wood: General Plan Update MacArthur Boulevard In a recent discussion I had with Mayor Don Webb he indicated the way to get earlier language specifically included in the updated General Plan was by writing to you and requesting that it be put in the proposed General Plan. This letter is a request to include in the proposed General Plan language from the City approval of the Corona Del Mar Plaza project that stated: "Traffic volume of trips generated by the MacArthur Boulevard access drive to the project facility, will be excluded from the calculation of traffic volume which requires the widening of .MacArthur. Boulevard to six .lanes as outlined in the circulation element of the General Plan." This quotation was condition 100 at the Planning Commission on November 9, 1995 and I know that TIC appealed the Planning Commission decision but it was upheld without change by the City council. We also want to include language that is part of the current General Plan by virtue of being part of the circulation element of the General Plan as amended in May /June of 1997. . The language from the circulation element in 1997 is as follows: "Widen MacArthur Boulevard from Harborview Drive to the prolongation of the center line of Crown Drive to through lanes in excess of four, so long as an average weekday volume to capacity .ratio of 1.00 on MacArthur .Boulevard exists in the vicinity of Harborview Drive. In adopting this criteria relative to the widening of MacArthur Boulevard, a primary purpose in considering this improvement is the reduction of diversion traffic through the residential streets of Corona Del. Mar. It is anticipated that if the average weekday volume to capacity ratio on MacArthur .Boulevard FROM :Allen, Mullings, & Allen LLP FAX N0. :714 -558 -0638 May. 08 2006 02:01PM P2/3 Page 2 May 8, 2006 Re: General Plan Update MacArthur Boulevard reaches 1.00, diversions to local Corona Del Mar streets such as Marguerite Avenue, Poppy Street, and Fifth Avenue would occur. No construction shall commence until a public hearing is conducted by the Planning Commission and City council to 'verify satisfaction of the criteria and the desirability of the roadway widening." Our association has reviewed in detail the General Plan Public Draft - Chapter 7 Circulation element; the draft E1R for the General Plan 2006 Update - Transportation /Traffic; the Appendix to the E1R dealing with the General Plan Transportation studies by urban cross roads dated 3/22/06. Nowhere in any of those documents does it indicate any scenario under which traffic between PCH. and San Miguel will reach a volume to capacity (V /C) ratio of 1.00. Therefore, it is very important that the limiting language and conditions for the widening of MacArthur Boulevard, that are included for protection of the neighborhood, in the current General Plan, be incorporated into the proposed General. Plan. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Please also forward to me, the staff report wherein you will discuss this matter. Your professional. courtesy and cooperation is sincerely appreciated. Very tr y yours, BARRY L. ALLEN Municipal, Affairs Officer BLA:deu cc: Mayor Don Webb Bud Volberding President Harborview Hills. Community Association MARIO LAZO pp $ { 2391 ORCHID HILL PLACE R i..° E D NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 -0730 May 5, 2006 Mayor Don Webb 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mayor Webb: '06 MAY -9 A 9 :57 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH This is a plea. PLEASE DELETE the proposed horse trail that would run along Mesa Drive in Bay View Heights, formerly known as Santa Ana Heights. We moved into this community precisely because it is an equestrian, community. The riders here ride their horses slowly. and, varefully. We car drivers here do the same. The horse riders, quite young and adult, always respond with waves to our waves to them. The roadside on Mesa Drive is neatly decorated with flowers, rocks and plants. It's beautiful. Please help us. We don't need nor want a trail on Mesa Drive. Sincerely, Fax sent by : 7149793327 RIMMER COMPANY t J6hn C. Crean P.O. Bay 8449. Ne"o" Beach, CA 92658 85 -89 -86 89:81 Pg: 2/2 M8q 3 �86 . Lion. Mayor Arid ounca Members . Cl %l Wi?.ORT 11WACK. 3*... EWd N CA 92b63` ' Dear Webb auw city'codacil Marubms; is I uride rd there is a request..4bc* mmdo to have a double fence horse trail installed on Mesa Drive Cypress to the east eaid. 'Please be advised that Donna and I strongly oppose such an and unsightly stractuft on either side of Mesa Drive that would' destroy our land mid lhr -qualitgeajuymentof our property . W8 the few fames that own horses in Santa Ana Heights to enjoy their riding, including tits: B ` $ay altos: however, they have an existing. horse .trail from Cypress Street west and down food control wash, whwh gives them full and adequate access to the Back Say riding. i g:. I hope" ; Honorabk.Comicil:will remove this uzmecessary double fence from any plan for the 1.. gmet.dfoar npipbu and us, r Co:: : uacr$ludau,CityNfim%cr W y n <F; p 01 m °� m z oc H ON,-< � y-y�q 1 •, M W TABLE ES -1A DAILY TRIP GENERATION PLAN TO PLAN COMPARISON AREA CURRENTLY WITH PROJECT LADOPTED HANGE CHANGE TRIPS TRIPS AIRPORT 117,430 128,638 11,208 10% BALBOA VILLAGE 19,981 20,849 868 4% BANNING RANCH 22,075 14,296 -7,779 -35% CANNERY VILLAGE 14,190 10,342 -3,848 -27% CORONA DEL MAR 54,431 54,534 103 0% LIDO VILLAGE 13,871 15,653 1,782 13% MARINERS MILE 51,410 55,576 4,166 8% MCFADDEN SQUARE 8,490 12,988 4,498 53% NEWPORT CENTER 110,372 118,395 8,023 7% OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD 9,816 14,073 4,257 43% WEST NEWPORT HIGHWAY AND ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL 9,076 9,901 825 9% WEST NEWPORT MESA 46,038 54,769 8,731 19% SUBAREA TOTAL 477,180 510,014 32,834 7% REMAINDER OF CITY 488,531 486,094 2,437 0% CITYWIDE TOTAL 1 965,711 996,108 30,397 3% C: l Documents and Settings \!brown 1 Local Settings \ Temporary Internet Files � OLK7AF \ [Table ES- IA.xls]ES -1