Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCENTRAL BALBOA AD HOC COMMITTEECENTRAL BALBOA AD HOC COMMITTEE RESOLUTiOP NO. 9.1_57 tt „)tESOLUTION Or THE'.CI•TY•. COUNCIL OF THE CITY,'bF Ni*PORT BEACH, 'ESTABhI AI'NO •AN AD HOC COMMITTEE :'.;FOR:Zk CENTRAL'BAL$CA SPECIFIC AREA PLAN` WHEREAS, the6 adoption ;of the' -.General Plan Vpda6e;in; October of 1988 provided for the•'adoption of a specific plan for the Central•'Balboa area; and WHEREAS, there'is'o need for public participation I$ the preparation of a specific plan for Central Balboa. NOW, THEREFORE, ,•BE IT RESOLVED• that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby establish an -.'Ad Hoc Committee for the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan, 11 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Committee shall have the following responsibilitiea'and characteristics: 11 Memberalip.shall•aonsiat og'ten (10) members: a) ,Two ,(2) City Council•,memberat , b) .:*,Two (2),representatives and two' (2) alterndtes selected ? by the Ctii 'Central Balbo&.Homeownera' Aaaociaont ' c) 'Two .(2) rep'reaentatives and two (2) alternates selected • • �•�' by;,ttie'.•Peni'r�suld 't�a�.ri� Aaaoaiationt �• •• d)':::.,Four (4) represent8tive3 and lour (4) alternates selected .' • by.the,�Balb'oa• 8naine'md•Asboaiation. Alt'ernat'es",shall not- vbte� •-when regular members attend Committee meet�'Ngs, 'Alternates e,Yr`41 have the right to vote only if the regular representative,doeS not attend. 2. The duties. and responsibilities of the Committee•ahall be to provide -Input and',guidanoe°#or preparation and adoption of the Central Balboa Specifii" Area Plan. 3, The meeting -schedule of ;bhe Committee shall be as -determined by the -Committee., 9. The term of' -the Committee•shall•be until the draft of the Central Balboa Specific Area PlIn is acted upon by the City Council. ADOPTED this 78th -day of May, 1991. •• •• May ,; ATTEST: ; RESOLUT100 NO.�1-57 A BE$ LIITION OF-THE'CTT7C•.COUNCIL OF THE CITY NEWPORT BEACH, 'ESTABI,I•S9ING AN AD HOC COMMITTEE ;FOR:THE CENTRAL BP.L$OA SPECIFIC AREA PLAN' WHEREAS, the adoption'of the .(3eneral Plan Update: in- October of 1980 provided for the••adopt.'on of a specific plan for the Central'Balboa area; and WHEREAS, there'is'a need for public participation is the preparation of a specific plan for Central Balboa. NOW, THEREFORE, -BE IT RESOLVED• that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby establish an -.'Ad Hoc Committoe for the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan, BE IT -FURTHER RESOLVED that ; th'e Committee shall have the following responsibilities and characteristics: 1, Membership.'shall;consist o€'ten (10) members; a) ;'Two .(2) • City' Council ,members; b) :.'Two (2) repzesentatives and two (2) alternates selected ' by fhb Central Balboa.Homeowners' Association; c) .TiQ •(2)"repzesentati4es and two (2) alternates selected by;;the;.Peni'risula 'P•o�ril� Association; d)':;Four (4,) represenfatives and four (4) alternates• selected :by -the. -Balboa Business Association. Alt'ernat'es'•shall not• vote when regular members attend Committee meet gs; ,Alternates shall have the right to .vote only if the regular representative does not attend. 2. The duties and responsibilities of the Committee shall be to provide•'ir}put and.guidance'.for preparation and adoption of the Central Balboa,Specifia Area Plan. 3. The meetin$•scheduie of `the Comaittee shall be as -determined by the -Committee. 4. The term. o£•the Committee•5hall be until the draft of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan is acted upon by the City Council. ADOPTED this 281-h •day of May, 1991. ATTEST: ayo Ci�_Y_Clerk/ 1 City Council Meeting February 12. 1990 ,may Session Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: CENTRAL BALBOA SPECIFIC AREA PLAN (Discussion) Subsequent to the completion of the General Plan Update in October of 1988, staff began preparation of the necessary background information for the preparation of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan. During this same time period the Off -Street Parking Committee was evaluating the "in lieu" parking program and making recommendations to the City Council. PARKING DEFICIENCIES In April of 1989, the attached Central Balboa Specific Plan Area Parking Study was prepared. The. Study indicates a significant shortage in parking for the commercial uses in Central Balboa., -Following is an indication of the shortage: COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES Code Required Parking 2,169 Parking Provided On -Site 568 Deficit... 1,601 OTHER PARKING DEMAND Beach Users Boat Passengers PUBLIC PARKING On -Street Metered Municipal Lots (3) Total... COMMERCIAL GROWTH (varies) 1,588 Peak Daily (includes Catalina Flyer and other charters) 150 $04 954 With the adoption of the new General Plan in October of 1988 and the Floor Area Ratio Ordinance in 1989, future commercial growth within the Specific Plan Area boundary will be limited as follows: TO: City Council - 2 Existing Development Future Growth Total (Buildout)... (1/1/87) 226,866 square feet 72.239 square feet 299,105 It should be noted that this projection is a maximum. It assumes that all existing buildings which exceed .5 FAR will remain and that all properties developed at less that .5 FAR will be expanded to .5 FAR. This projection does not assume conversion to mixed -use commercial/residential, which will probably be the predominant new land use for this area. It is very likely that there will be a long term reduction in commercial development in this area. INFORMAL CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE Recognizing the potential for divergent opinions regarding the approach to the Specific Area Plan and the need for public participation and community support, staff met with the Mayor (Councilman Strauss) and suggested the formation of an informal committee consisting of himself, Mayor Plummer, and Planning Commissioner Pers6n. The committee was to participate in meetings with members of the residential and commercial community in the area, and give direction to staff on the preparation of a plan. Meetings were held with representatives of the Balboa Improvement Association, Balboa Peninsula Point Association, and Central Newport Beach Community Association during March -and April of 1989. - It was apparent from these meetings that there were significant differences of opinion as to what approach was desirable. Of particular concern was the desirability of expanding public parking in the area. During May of 1989, staff prepared a Summary of Issues and Concerns (attached) for distribution to the informal committee. The summary illustrated the position of each of the three associations on various issues. Staff met with the committee and discussed alternative approaches to the preparation of the Specific Area Plan. It was the consensus of the committee that: 1. The major issues regarding land use, floor area ratios and building bulk had been addressed adequately by the new General Plan. 2. There did not appear to be 'strong interest in a major landscape and street improvement program (the Cannery Village/McFadden Square assessment districts appeared to be meeting substantial resistance at this time). 3. The areas of consistent concern were circulation and parking. Staff suggested to the committee that planning efforts be focussed on circulation and parking, and that a Scope of Services be prepared and reviewed with the committee and associations prior to the selection of a consultant and the commencement of a study. The committee concurred and staff informed the associations of this approach, and indicated that they would have the opportunity to review the Scope of Services when a draft was prepared. TO: City Council 3 / PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY SCOPE OF SERVICES During August of 1989, staff met several times and discussed the approach to be used in the study, however the Scope of Services was not prepared and circulated as anticipated. At the City Council Study Session of January 9, 1990, the City Council discussed the status of the Specific Area Plan for Central Balboa and requested that staff prepare the Parldng and Circulation Scope of Services for the February 12, 1990 Study Session. There is $50,000 in the current budget for the preparation of a Specific Area Plan and necessary environmental documentation. The attached Scope of Services was prepared by the Public Works and Planning Department staff for review by the City Council. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By 9i 92, 147 �"Zf } ROBERT P. LENARD Advance Planning Manager Attachments: 1) Summary of Issues and Concerns 2) Parking Study (April 1989) 3) Parking and Circulation Study Scope of Services INTEREST GROUPS ••> Balboa Improvement CONCERNS Association t) ParkinB��::.w.v....v: vw.vwv..v.vvvv..v.v:vvvvv.v. a) On -Site Requj(aments Need to rely (if not eliminate) or •reM re- development will Occur (i.e.; ena Inemtive•) .......................... b) Provisision of "ILiaut .................................................. Most definitely. need to coordinate expenaion of Municipal Parking •- on beach lot (most likely •Aw Street) with change In ��. the Beach circulation pattern of Pier lot to increase the .. ........................... rsmber of spaces .................................................. C) Provision of Additional Question if redly feesible, would hurt business; Municipal Parking .. also query municipal S support; is a possibility off the Peninauls for employee shuttle program (combined with per- mit/short meter system) -- but question how would enforce .......................... d) Cmbine-a) and b) .................................................. Best solution .......................... e) Change the Meter Pro- .................................................. O.K. if sake It short ten for business, as lag Gres as additional parking &"liable elsewhere for Longer ten commercial then -- would actually .......................... provide rare street -side parking .................................................. f) Resident mPemit% Park- Only if combined with other solution ing Program .......................... 0 In -Lieu Program .................................................. Keep what have now and do net raise the fees as - .......................... eased for each space .................................................. h) Structure As percale boar available, City should combine and build a structure for more parking support ............ ..svuuum 2) Tres Service Ouestfm If redly ftulble,�would hurt business; also query dtleipsl $ support; Is a possibility for employes shuttle program (combined with per- .... mit/short meter system) ,...:�[9ClrculatlonnPattern Design so out a -straight in shot- (i.e., force turn-s-round of cruisers), also, redesigh present ferry loop so more efftefent and not take spaces ..v...v.:.....: away frm Pier lot 4) Cruising Move to decrease; affects business �--�especially restaurants; query If mptaminge can change the ocurnrce .... 5) Commercial Activities v.v....e.w..vv.v.v.....vmw.vv.v a) "Schlock- businesses Too mMy t•shirt, fast food types, these cater to the -wrong cliental- trying to attract, especially at night Balboa Penimulo Point Association ....................................1............. NEVER III -- this will attract additional tourists and boat were Recognize that "boat users- hurt the other com er- clol business by occupying eeny of the lot spaces -- suggest requiring ell beaten be required to park off -Balboa S shuttle on with beaches No [because of a)] .................................................. Like the idea world provide for more use of area by locals; "gat a different (Seattle/Laudon) system for lot metering .................................................. would force tourists off the streets and into the lot where they should be (recogntze would work on- ly If force boaters out of the Pier lot by tat- ting the hours could woe) .................................................. "Scrap the programla -- it has only extended the parking problem .................................................. Yes, for boaters and beach- gars; if no ten cost- lyl Improve circulation pattern to canter cruising; pay Lifoor or on INOEPENOANT study for afresh" recomrn- The biggest problemi; this affects quality of v.. residential [life; +not getting S•s worth from the Police manpower wed (in-cmtistent enforcement) Too ouch schlock; enact an ordinance to limit the nsnber and type of businesses Attachment 1 Central Newport Beach cemmnity Association NEVER III Necessary No ibecause of a)] .................................................. Limit the time can we a meter] beef [p the meter- msld/tow-a-way enforcement; limit lot we to a 3.4 hour maximrm Ides has potential, but question if this would not Just increase mgridlockf at critical times Yes, for boaters and beach- •Sears; if no too cost- lyl Get traffic in and out[ Clearly the. . most important v.vvv:v If limit the amber and type, this will address and help eliminate the cruisers ,n - INTEREST GROUPS •.> Balboa Irprovmatnt CONCERNS ...a ..... .. . .....Association .. ......................... b) Nore 'Locals' Estab- .................................................. Not sure if would be successful) would require lishments addressing parking questions .......................... c) "Downzone" to Residm- .................................................. Perhaps on the extended am of the specific plan tial me area mlyl •----- ---- ------------------------------- ' *...... ......... �.e...J) Cep -Boating. .......................... a) Use Pen It Requirements .................................................. 6) Coenr,cM "Building" Standards A) Height/Bulk Should allow us to increase the height and bulk to encourage redevelopment (ospeciatty if going to micro* parking standards) .......................... b) Setbacks .................................................. Would be smeanible to different setbacks which would encourage Landscapepeetreatonts and beautify • •"•• ....a....: .... ....................... 7) Streetscape e) Special Lighting Encourage "Tivoli" type lighting to eneowrage UP- F ................................. i........ de of area and Sake it a 'neighborhood' ...gra.... ... .....". .._•............ b) Kain Street Pedestrian A good ides, but gmstfm if it would work with Kali the existing or revised circulation system .................................................. .......................... c) unproved Signage .......................... d) Ihdergrmndln+g Utilf- .................................................. Would irprove physical mdnfence of area ties asanent for laprovenmts Ming to pay to limited degree, if (and only if) ••• city also supports financially ....: ......a.....m.aavo......vaam... ....""v.. 9) Architectural R*viow 10) SZmeburds ..n,m...::.a...o.......o.,no....:: Enact an ordinance against these in the carmrciat are, Balboa Peninsula Point Assoclatim .................................................. Need Sore service businesses with m-sfte parking Feel visbla and eKoun➢e became •residential tend worth Sor* than cmeemisl there-; and too rany businesses as it is .................................................. Sap the maker of charter/ffshfng/etc, boating bminesses In the area, and require parking on- site/off-Balboa for what there now .................................................. Require we permit for coasercfal uses to provide support for "upland" (perking, etc.) met Decrease the bulk already In existemst -- so re- sidents can ace the bay and ocean again) suggest allow Increase in residential standards U&awara to the idea Nore and acre dramttie to warn people off before they arrive at the Central Balboa bottleneck ...v.v...s..v....t"a..ta.mas.m"..a.a.a.a.as For special focus upon waterfront uses .. .m.....m..>m.o=..:...tots. Central Newport Beach ..Co anii..ty.Asssocciiaa...a.. .................................................. Reed pore lout type business with m-site/ttreet- fide parking provided want to ace water through view corridors -- provi- b•/ ins bulk Look at setback standards to decrease size and s.open ...Lip atStreets ..ay..:v...ea....ea.....:.u.v. ................................................ a ,\ Attacnment L 03 April 1989 THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Department CENTRAL BALBOA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA Parking Study During the 1987-8 General Plan Update program, Staff prepared an up-to-date database of existing land use information. This data was gathered on a parcel by parcel basis for all "commercial" areas of the City, including Central Balboa, and then organized into both parcel and block reporting denominations. Subsequently, the Planning Department was also asked, by the City Council, to prepare a parking inventory for the Central Balboa Specific Plan Area. Current parking code requirements, and the existing on -site (off-street) provided parking were determined for each parcel within the area. In addition, on -street parking spaces were also counted, but on a block -by -block basis only. This information has been 'attached' to the existing database and is similarly organized into both parcel and block reporting tables. The attached Central Balboa Specific Plan Area "Parking Summary" and "Parking Study"• tables detail the results of this parking inventory on a block -by -block and parcel -by -parcel basis (respectively). A map of the Central Balboa, delineating the specific plan area, the block identifiers, the individual parcel street addresses, and the number and location of the `area' municipal parking lots, is also included for your reference. This information indicates that there is a severe parking shortage in the Central Balboa area, and can be summarized as follows: # of Code Required Parking spaces 2,169 # of Parking Spaces "On -Site" .568 # of Parking Spaces "On -Street" 150 DEFICIT # of Parking Spaces (1 451)- Of the 113 individual parcels in Central Balboa, only 28 presently satisfy the number of "off-street" parking spaces required by the current parking code. And, of the 27 blocks, only two (2) (L -- developed with the Great American Savings Association building, and S -- developed with mixed general commercial uses) meet these same parking "on -site" parking standards. If we provide for the number of parking spaces located in the three (3) area municipal parking lots -- 804 spaces, then this "deficit" is decreased to Dn-1-Y 647 spaces. However, this summary does not take into consideration the parking demand created by the beach and pier users, or the 'Catalina Flyer' and other charter boats operating out of Newport Landing and the Fun Zone. Our best estimate is that they number in excess of 1,588 passengers. Based upon the existing land uses in the Central Balboa Specific Plan Area, and the number of "In -Lieu" spaces which have been sold to commercial interests in the area -- 256 (please see the attached "In -Lieu Parking Requirements"); at least 1,550 parking spaces have either been waived or are not provided CENTRAL BALBOA Parking Study (page #2) "on -site" because a building was constructed prior to the City's current parking code requirements and is a legal/non-conforming use ("grandfathered"). Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWiCKER, Director BRET B- B Associate Planner Attachments C:\WP\CNBALPRK.STD r /�I n•. CENTRAL BALBOA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA BA Y NEWPORT.��,��,..... Ak P n � ABI yf 7A7 m �� xanafxa sr eF'-:!� r g 51� Y rR°* 8�pC8 PU$LIc ?011 BAL80A PIER I IJI CENTRAL BALBOA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA -- Parking Summary by "Block" designation Block Designation B C D E F G H J K L M N P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC TOTAL(s) 27 Existing Provided Off -Street On -Street TOTAL Parking Parking Parking [# sp.] [# sp.] [# sp.] 209 6 215 17 12 29 0 6 6 9 9 18 6 3 9 16 13 29 3 2 5 17 5 22 14 7 21 10 0 10 23 3 26 15 2 17 9 6 15 6 3 9 0 2 2 11 12 23 29 16 45 9 11 20 13 4 17 47 6 53 45 0 45 10 8 18 12 0 12 24 6 30 10 0 10 4 8 12 0 0 0 568 150 718 r Required SURPLUS / Parking (DEFICIT) [# sp•] [# sp.] 274 (59) 51 (22) 126 (120) 338 (320) 37 (28) 46 (17) 10 (5) 44 (22) 29 (8) 26 (16) 17 9 25 (8) 41 (26) 26 (17) 38 (36) 70 (47) 37 8 109 (89) 59 (42) 78 (25) 66 (21) 263 (245) 153 (141) 57 (27) 99 (89) 50 (38) 0 0 2,169 (1,451) m I:+ Street Number ------------- 503 301 309 100 104 3-06 806 808 810 812 814 710 712 716 711 205 207 100 501 503 505 209 600 700 706 700 703 301 303 400 807 809 811 813 815 300 304 300 302 304 306 310 320 324 328 330 205 404 406 408 CENTRAL BALBO. SPECIFIC PLAN AREA --' Parking Study tQdby Parcel Street Name ------------ EDGEWATER AVE E PAIH ST PALM ST MAIN ST MAIN ST MAIN ST OCEAN FRONT E OCEAN FRONT E OCEAN FRONT E OCEAN FRONT E OCEAN FROM E BALBOA. BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E BAY AVE_E MAIN ST ; MAIN ST - BALBOA PIER BAY AVE E BAY -AVE E BAY AVE E PAIR ST EDGEWATER AVE E BAY AVE E BAY AVE E EDGEWATER AVE E EDGEWATER AVE E MAIN ST MAIN ST MAIN ST BAY AVE E BAY AVE E BAY AVE E BAY AVE E BAY AVE E MAIN ST MAIN ST BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E 'BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E CYPRESS ST BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD F. EXISTING Off-S.treet Block Parking Designation -- -(# spaces) ------------ ---------------- A A A AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AB AB .AB AB AB AB AC B B B B C D D D D D D D E E E E E E E F F F F F F F F C C ti ti ft 209 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 O 0 0 2 0 8 7 ;0 .O .9 0 0 0 " 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 O 0 2 2 3 0 3 3 3 3 0 0 4 REQUIRED Off -Street Parking (# spaces) 90 31 153 41 8 35 3 3 3 3 3 6 8 7 .2 24 3 0 5 2 6 38 126 38 12 1 12 54 42 179 2 2 3 3 3 10 14 5 5 3 9 11 3 5 5 5 5 11 3 . -71 .D Street Number 412 416 204' 206 208 500 510 207 600 608 209 700 702 704 206 202 204 810 301 311 313 315 317 403 407 409 411 413 415 417 421 423 501 503 505 507 509 511 109 500 502 504 506 508 510 105 600 601 605 615 page #2 Street Name -------------------- BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E ADAMS ST ADAMS ST ADAMS ST BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E PALM ST BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E WASHINGTON ST BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E WASHINGTON ST MAIN ST MAIN ST BALBOA BLVD Z BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA, BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD E PALM ST OCEAN FRONT E OCEAN FRONT E OCEAN FRONT E OCEAN FRONT E OCEAN FRONT E OCEAN FRONT E PALM ST BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA BLVD •E BALBOA BLVD E BALBOA'BLVD E EXISTING REQUIRED Off -Street Off -Street Block Parking • ' Parking Designation. • (# spaces) (# spaces) -- = R ------ ---- .-------.-------- 4 3 H 4 3 J 4 3 J. 4 3 J 4 3 J 2 20 K 10 14 K 0 12 ' L 23 17 M 15 25 M 0 0 N 0 3 N 0 14 N 0 24 N 9 0 Y 0 19 v P 6 7 Q 0 38 R 0 9 R 0 48 R 7 7 R 2 3 R •2 3 S 2 9 S 4 9 S .0 2 S' 6 2 S 3 3 S 3 3 S 5 3' S 3 3 S 3 3 T 0 5 T 0 2 T 9 2 T 0 9 T 0 7 T 0 12 T 0 72 U 2 5 U 3 2 U 2 2 U 2 3 U 2 3 U 2 3 U 0 41 V 23 17 V 0 10 V 3 8 V 21 43 iZ7 1 a page #3 EXISTING REQUIRED Off -Street Off -Street Street Street Block Parking Parking Number Name Designation. (# spaces) (# spaces) ----------- ------------- 703 -------------------- BALBOA BLVD E ------------ .-------- X -------- 2 25 705 BALBOA BLVD E X 4 23 707 BALBOA BLVD E X 0 147 709 BALBOA BLVD E X 4 61 105 MAIN ST Y 0 144 700 OCEAN FRONT E Y 4 3 702 OCEAN FRONT E Y 4 3 704 OCEAN FRONT E X 4 3 801 BALBOA BLVD E Z 22 45 813 BALBOA BLVD E Z 0 9 815 BALBOA BLVD E Z _2 3 27 568 2.169 TOTAL(s) 113 I J IN -LIEU PARKING REQUIREMENTS (as of 2/6/89) APPLICATION NAME ADDRESS NO. OF SPACES UP 931 Balboa Inn 105 Main Street 66 UP 1053 Le Biarritz 414 N. Newport Blvd. 3 UP 1460 Beach Ball .2116 W. Ocean Front 11 UP 1476 (Amended) Studio Cafe 100 Main Street 37 UP 1581 (Amended) Red Onion 2406 Newport Blvd. 3 UP 1606 Perry's Pizza 2108 3/4 W. Ocean Front 3 UP 1717 (Amended) Rick Lawrence 2106 W. Ocean Front 12 UP 1757 (Amended) El Ranchito 2800 Newport Blvd. 5 UP 1778 (Amended) Hemingway's Rest. 2441 E. Coast Hwy. 2 UP 1783 (Amended) Rumplestilskins 112 McFadden Place 18 UP 1816 Beachcomber's 2633 W. Coast Hwy. 7 UP 1832 Seaview Gardens 810 E. Balboa Blvd. 15 UP 1852 Hassan's 3325 Newport Blvd. 8 UP 1854 T. K. Burger 2119 W. Balboa Blvd. 2 UP 1865 B.J.'s 106 Main Street 22 UP 1872 Mamie Van Doren 428 31st Street 5 UP 2045 (Amended) Bubbles Rest. 111 Palm Street 233 UP 3031 Stop -In 703 E. Balboa Blvd. 4 UP 3034 (Amended) Newport Sea Shack 110 McFadden Place 4 UP 3042 Balboa Bakery 301 Main Street 3 UP 3046 Stuff'd Bun 704 E. Balboa Blvd. 4 UP 3058 The Place 2920 E. Coast Highway 132 lThe City required that 23 in -lieu parking spaces be provided. However, the Coastal Commission required that $7,140.00 be deposited in the City's In -Lieu Parking Fund on an annual basis. 2Eight additional in -lieu parking spaces will be required if the 8 off - site parking spaces on the abutting properties are not maintained. J In -Lieu Parking Requirements Page 2 UP 3065 Woody's Wharf 2318 Newport Blvd. 10 UP 3076 Newport Landing 503 E. Edgewater Pl. 253 UP 3095 China Palace 2800 W. Coast Hwy. 134 SPR 36 and 41 Turnstone Corp. 2431-2439 W. Coast Hwy. 14 + 45 UP 3129 Bangkok 3 101-103 Palm Street 12 UP 3158 (Amended) The Grill 105 Main Street 24 (in the Balboa Inn) UP 3188 Balboa Thai 209h Palm Street 3 *UP 3240 Blue Beet 107 21st Street 4 *SPR 43 Commercial Bldg:" 3519 E. Coast Hwy. 4 UP 3063 (Amended) Office Building 2800 Lafayette Ave. 10 UP 3287 Britta's Cafe 205 Main Street 3 City Agreement Doan Trust - - - - - 476 * In -Lieu Parking fees are not required as of this date, since the commercial use is not in operation, or has not expanded. 3Required by the Coastal Commission as long as tandem parking spaces are needed to meet the parking requirements. 4Parking permits were required on an annual basis and not in -lieu parking spaces in this particular case. 5The Coastal Commission required 4 additional in -lieu parking spaces for the development. However, the City will permit said 4 spaces in the Mariner's Mile Municipal parking lot on a temporary basis only. The applicant will have to provide the parking spaces elsewhere at a later date. 6The City has entered into an agreement that permits the Doan Trust an option to purchase up to 47 in -lieu parking spaces in the Cannery Village Municipal Lot until April 7, 1990. Said spaces may be applied to satisfy the parking requirements for any development on the former Cafe Lido Restaurant property and the adjoining Pelican Market site, but only between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. daily. / _f Attachment 3 CENTRAL BALBOA PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY SCOPE OF SERVICES The City is seeking consultant assistance in the preparation of a parking and circulation study for the Central Balboa business district. The study area will include the portion of the peninsula from Cypress Street to C Street. It will include the following interrelated considerations: I. PARKING A. Amount of parking - previous studies have identified the amount of parking currently available and compared that to the number of spaces that would be required by the Zoning Code for existing development. There are differing opinions regarding the desirability of developing additional parking that need to be identified and discussed. Specific areas to be addressed are: 1. The need for and the feasibility of additional parking lots 2. Balboa Pier Lot - Revise layout and operation - Build structure on existing lot - Expansion of surface lot 3. Amount of time there is a parking shortage 4. Traffic impact of additional parking spaces 5. Parking for tour busses and school. busses B. Parking operations - The existing parking program in the area should be reviewed for appropriateness to the various desires. The onstreet parking should be analyzed to determine the best mix of timed parking and loading zones as well as the rates. The Balboa Pier Lot operation should be examined in terms of parking rates, parking permits and the impact of implementing a parking validation system. II. CIRCULATION A. Discussions with merchants and area residents have identified various areas of concern with the traffic circulation in the Central Balboa area. The areas to be reviewed are: 1. Main Street - It has been suggested that Main. Street between Balboa Boulevard and the Ocean Front be converted to a pedestrian mall. This would require a change in the vehicular circulation to accommodate traffic from the parking areas as well as the Orange County Transit District busses. a II. CIRCULATIOWz(cont'd) 2. The existing one-way street system shall be examined for appropriateness to existing land use and circulation patterns. Additional one-way streets shall also be considered. 3. The entrance and exit areas to the Balboa Parking Lot should be analyzed to evaluate alternate locations or designs. 4. The backup of traffic waiting for the Balboa Island Ferry extends onto Balboa Boulevard with the potential to block through traffic. Alternative methods for dealing with this problem should be examined. 5. Traffic trying to leave the Central Balboa and Peninsula Point areas experience significant delay on a number of afternoons, generally during the summer. Methods of relieving this congestion shall be examined. 6. Alternatives shall be considered to minimize the impact of traffic on emergency vehicle response to the area. 7. Recommendations shall be made to enhance the signing program In Central Balboa to.help visitors find their destinations as well as to guide them off the peninsula when they wish to leave. The consultant will conduct at least two evening meetings to allow input from the merchants and residents. The purpose of the meetings will be to discuss the topics listed above as well as to solicit any additional areas for consideration. The consultant will act as a facilitator during these meetings to promote the free discussion of concerns and to identify any consensus on priorities. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER October 15, 1991 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: PATTY TEMPLE AM OCT 16 1991FM 71 A1011111211121314151G FROM: City Manager ! SUBJECT: REVIEW OF BALBOA INN IN -LIEU PARKING During the Study Session of October 14th the City Council requested that the attached memo be referred to the Balboa Specific Area Plan Committee for their review of the parking arrangements for the Balboa Inn. Of particular concern to the City Council is the reduced price of $30.00 per space per year. The City Council doesn't necessarily. recommend that the fee be changed, but believes it would be appropriate to have the Committee review it in the event the Committee wishes to make any recommendation concerning the fee, number of spaces, etc. for the Balboa Inn. ROBERTL. WYNN RLW:kf /cc: P. Alford Attachment -J .._ City Council Meeting October 14, 1991_ Study Session Item No. 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Report from the Planning Department regarding the in -lieu parking requirements of the Balboa Inn, the collection of in -lieu parking fees, and the ownership of the parcel oceanward of the East Ocean Front sidewalk. Background At its meeting of September 23, 1991, the City Council requested information regarding the Balboa Inn located at 105 Main Street on the Balboa Peninsula. The requested information included the requirement of in -lieu parking fees for the Balboa Inn, the collection of said in -lieu parking fees, and the ownership of the parcel oceanward of the East Ocean Front sidewalk. Current Status of In -Lieu Parking According to the Finance Department,the Balboa Inn is current in its payments of the in - lieu parking fees for 66 parking spaces (66 spaces @ $30.00 per space per year) and will be paid in full by the end of the year. The existing restaurant facility (Paradise Cafe) in the Balboa Inn complex, is currently the subject parking fees 24 spaces ac sught by the @ $ 50 00 perspa oce f the City per year) fororney yearsfor 1990 and 1991t of in -lieu P g ( P Establishment of Requirement of In -Lieu Parking Fees The in -lieu parking fees for the Balboa Inn facility were established by Use Permit No. 931 that permitted structural alterations to the Balboa Inn, and an off -Street Parking Agreement approved in 1963. A copy of the original Off -Street Parking Agreement is attached for Council review. This agreement was later amended in July,1974 when Use Permit No. 1690 was approved for proposed new uses in the Balboa Inn facility. Staff and the Office of the City Attorney have determined that the portion of the new agreement which pertained to the Balboa Inn facility does in effect supersede the former agreement approved in 1963. However, that portion of the new agreement which pertained to a proposed cocktail lounge in the former cabana oceanward of the East Ocean Front sidewalk is not in effect, inasmuch as that portion of Use Permit No. 1690 was not exercised and has since expired. TO: City Council - 2. Balboa In Property Fee Title According to the Orange County Assessor's Tax Rolls, the Balboa Inn property consists of two tax parcels. The main hotel structure is located on Lots 12 through 16, Block 10 of the Balboa Tract (Parcel No. 7 on the Attached Assessor's Parcel Map) and the swimming pool and former cabana structure are located on the ocean side of the East Ocean Front sidewalk and consists of the easterly 135 feet and northerly 55 feet of Lot D of the Balboa Tract (Parcel No. 5 on the attached Assessor's Map). An excerpt of the Assessor's Parcel List showing the current owners of record is also attached for the Council's information. The private property oceanward of the main hotel facility was originally used as a cabana and a swimming pool for guests of the Balboa Inn. The swimming pool is still being used for hotel guests. However, for the past 16 years, the former cabana has been leased to the Ocean Front Wheel Works, which conducts a retail business on the site. The facility presently rents and sells bicycles; roller skates, and beach accessories to beach visitors. The shop has also historically sold T-shirts and packaged food items, such as canned soft drinks, potato chips, ice cream, and candy. In 1985, the Planning Commission recommended the denial, and the City Council sustained the decision of the Planning Commission, of a request to permit the establishment of a take-out restaurant serving hamburgers and' soft drinks in the subject building (i.e. Use Permit No. 3156). PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By. Javier S. Garcia Senior Planner Attachments: Original Off -site Parking Agreement dated May 23, 1963 Amended Off -site Parking Agreement dated July 10, 1974 Assessor's Parcel Map Excerpts of Assessor's Parcel Lists Site Plan (Aerial Photograph of the site) JAY-G\SR\BALINN.CC P.%.r OFF-STREET PARKING AGREEMENT •lii �. 2 _ V THYS AGREEMENT, made' and entared.into `•E day Of 3I the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACus haruinaftar 1963;. by. and between.. - 4 i ?i g, RICE. and AUDREY . , ItICS, rafe=ad to iia_ "City ,' 4nd•.RICHARD 5 .:.:,:.••: 6 i it inaftsr rifarred tb'as'"Owners"j InTNBSSEM: 7 erty described as y�g�, owners own all of the real Prop s of Block 10'of.Balboa Tract, as ahown g Lots 12 through 16, inclusive$ s Records 10 on a map recorded in Book 4, page 11, of-Midcellaaeous Map , of Orange County, California, and that portion of $lock D of said 11 - 12 Balboa Tract described as•followst corny of said Block D, Commencing at the most Easterly of 13 thence Southwesterly along the-Southras*srly line to r;•:. rl xolongation, said Block D, and its Southw�ste• Southwesterly of, 14 an.antersection with a line l� n$ Pan to, and distant 55.0 facts measured at right 15 angles from the Nor �heasterlq l aralleliline ak D, 16 thence Northwesterly along said P to an inter - distance of 135.00 feet, more • orprolongation of the Block 1section with the Southwesterly of said 17 Northwest,thence line of Northeasterly along said Southwesterly Tract, tinned ' 18 prolongation to an intersectionwence heutheassta ly w•• 19 Northeasterly line of Block D, . along said Northeasterly iinaa f beginings 0 f fact, more or lase, to the point 20 Property; r; 21 hereinafter collectively referred to as tics Balboa inn 22 and 23 WHEREAS. zoned C-1-Z, with the Balboa I= Property is 24 the exception of the portion of Block D described above which is 25 in an Unclassified zones and • ,Lots 12 through 16 of said property are improved WIMREAS 26 and 27 with a hotel building kucwn as tba Balboa Inns WHEREAS + owners intend to redevelop said property by • 28 29 making structural alterations to the Balboa Inn and by constructing auant to variance No. 30I additional improvements on said property P ur 31I 734 and Use Permit 931 which were appronad by the Planning Commis- 321 lion of tha City of Newport Beach at its regular meeting on N.arch 3 • 4. 2I3 41 .5I 6I 71 8� 9� 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 �,.. 18 t<• 20 Jilin'' 21 22 a:• 23 a 24 25 26 29 2( V 31 3: 3 219 1963; and WHE&EAs. section 9104.31 o7E the Newport Beach Municipal Code sets forth off-street parking requirements which are appli- cable to said property; and .1 said section further provides that the City Council may waive said off-street parking requirements when a municipal parking lot is located ao'aa`to be useful in connection r osed use on the building site; and iv3 the P of Aril 22, WSMWO the City Council at its meeting P 1963, did waive such parking requirement on'condition that A contract between City and owners be. executed whiCh"woald authorize and require owners to provide off-street parking on the municipal marking lot known as the Balboa Lot which is adjacent to the Balboa Inn Property; • tion o£ the NOW, 0gg, in consideration of the ac City Council in waiving the off-street parking requirements as herainbefore stated and the mutual covenants of the parties hereto, it is agreed as follows: of£ -street 1. owners agree to provide th?rty'"E°ux.(34) Parking spa ces on the Balboa Lot Eor the •use of tha'ocaupants of the apartments to be constructed on-tha'Balboa Ina'Property. in two (32) off-street park - addition, owners agree to provide thirty ing spaces for use by employees• whose place of employment is on the Balboa Inn Property- 2. City agrees to permit owners to use Balboa Lot as' herein provided to the extent parking apace is available therein at the time use is sought for the compensation hereinafter stated so long as said lot is maintained as a public parking lot by City 0 or its successors or Assigns up to the full term of this agreement. 3. Owners agree to pay City an annual fee of Fifteen- L Dollars ($1.5) for the use of each off-street parking space 2, required under this agreement. For the calendar Year 19630 the <f . 1 3I 41 51 6 7 9 K;•, . ' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 �'• I 18 19'. 20 22 is 23 24 '` 26 i4f . g�... 2E L�• �•�'� 2S y: 3� 3 amount of said fee will be Seven Dollars and fifty cents ($7.50) for sach off-street parking space. 'If the City .in subsequent years raises the annual fee eharged,geaerally for parking on City parking lots, the City may inareaaa•_` annual fee charged owners by an equivalent percentage. The Au=&l•fee for the calendar year 1963 shall be payable on July 181963s, and for years subsequent to 1963 the fee shall be payable on December 1 of each preceding year ecoxmenciag December' i. 1963, 4. Per the calendar year•1963, the City will issue to owners a transferable parking Pass for each`required parking space which Will entitle the possessor theraof to occupy one parking Space on the Balboa Lot without charge to:the extent that parking . time use of'thwParkin8•space is sought. space is available at.ths Should City in years subsequent to i963 disoontinus the isauance'of parking Passes for the use of said lots Owners will continue to pay the annual fee for the privilege of occupying the required parking spaces so long as City shall continua to mak8 Said spaces available 5. To the extent that oRmars,proeida•tha required off- street parking spaces or portion of thern'at a location approved by the City Council. other than on the Balboa Lots, the obligation hereby imposed to use the Balboa Lot -and to pay an annual fee for such use shall be extinguished. or proportionately reduced. 6. By entering into this agreement, City does not became obligated to continue to maintain the Balboa Lot as a park- s the right to alter the present size, shapes or ing lot and reserve t should method of operation of said lot; provided, however• tha City cease to make off-street parking spaces available to Owner on the Balboa Lot, owner has no further obligation for payment or obligation to provide alternate off-street parking spaces. 7. It is understood that this contract will be executed by City only after preliminary building plans have been submitted 31 to and approved by the City Council. owners agree to make no ;. .-5` 1 I rr.. 1; 2I 4! 5 6� 7 8 9 10 11 .12 13 14 15 16 17 18I 19 20 21 22 23 24 2: 2E 2' Z 2 3 3 oaterial deviation from said pleas without obtaining prior approval) h person to whom the City Council may from the City Council or sue pe right. of owners to obtain delegate such power of approrval. The; Par space is the Balboa Lot shall not become binding and efgeative until complatioa of construction is accordance frith the roved by the City Council. building plans submitted to and agp , inspection by the Construction shall be deemed campleta upon fin81 D-P&rOosnt of Building and Safety of City 8. The tern of this contract sbali begin upon the date Of execution by City and end an April 150 1988. eement $ball be'biudiug uPon the successors 9. This agr of City and ovraersi providedp however, that it is not transferable irithout the consent of the City CouaCii`until it has become effect- rovided is Paragraph 7 hereof.•' ive asp the parties. this agreement shall 10. Upon execution by in the be recorded at the oEEics of the lLecordnr of-Orangd'Couaty chain of title of the Balboa I p�xC •hereto have Owouted this IN WITNESS WMU= s theagreement as of the day and Year f#st'sbove `rrittea: . CITY OF N91PORT BEACH _1�.�--�---- By yor Attest$ • /j CITY 3 C� 3; OI 1� 21 _ '- I 3i 41 5i 6 7 8 9 10 STATE. OF .CkL?FORNU , the' undersigned; g gyred 1963, bafOre uta; d states sonally'aPp Notary public Ju t GEgYiSCNR�ER',�°� to O to be tha %d for FIk•RT and 1SE1R OF 2iETriPOit RT auJu and en CH&pJ,ES so respocti elaraosuthcribed to tb�eand instr �i� Clark, on bahalf of t ba the parsons wbosedsed tntYy executed thn a and acknOtlgch. of NewF S hand and official seal. Notary public is and for said County.aad state Illy Commission r1plres January 9,1953 14 11 . 12 STATE OF �'� u � 5 S 88 13 cot, C OF IGE j6�,,J before ma. tbB u°deYai�ed,appearod 7 6 A? 8l a$ , 1963s Id State, POTsonnlly exaone 17 14 On or said Coup y�� to me to ba the P Notary l 'ich ,d AU aitn' Instrument and ac oytladged 15 RICHARD H• and AUDREy18 nnme�cutad sthe 9=eibed to the 16 tbutwhotthey 19 17I WITNESS Uy hand sad official seal. �% O^ 20 21 '" ,•' ' No ublic in and Por 19 �nty and State � 2 + ;:... 20 My.Commiss;an Crpiras Jaa�ury 9,1955 2 •.,,,; . ;. '=.• 21 2 22 2 f 23 24 2511 26 27111 • 28 29 II30 s�' .804 .•')07•'3• J EXEMPT" 8PT" RECORDED IN OFFICIAL, RECORDS •.:. • . L C' ANG COUNTY, CALIFORNIA• , 9:05 A.M. JUL •.2'2 -ffi%4. . . "AME?MENT TO'. :.. •• :. .. :b IKYtIE CANLY' OFFSITE': PARgIITG''AGREEMENT"'' :. '`•: rE,tyPeCorder (Balboa 'Inn.) TgIS'AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 1974, by and between the CITY OF /v r day of I,,,f a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to NEWPORT BEACH, hereinafter as ,City,,) an BALBOA INN, a Limited Partnership referred to as "Owner"): R E C I T A L S 1. Owner has title to all of the real property described as: Lots 12 through 16, Block 10,' and a portion of Block D, Balboa Tract, East Side Addition, located at 105 Main Street, northerly and southerly of East Ocean Front, on the west e Balboa Peninsula, more commonly known side of Main Street on th as the Balboa Inn Property. 2. n interest under an offsite Owner is the successor i parking agreement between the City of Newport Beach and 1963, providing Richard H. Rice and Audrey W. Rice, dated May 23, for the use of sixty-six (66) offsite parking spaces on the adjacent municipally owned Balboa Parking Lot, at an annual rate of Thirty Dollars ($30) per parking space. 3. Said offsite parking agreement satisfied the parking requirements for the existing uses of the rpropertysr 4 Owner proposes to refurbish the (IT} f$oo� and offices on the first floor: and .the residential •apartments on the second aiic :i hircl 's; of the.'&alboa .In acldktion, ' :."• hment of a restaurant on the first Owner proposes the establis floor of the Inn and conversion of the former Pavilion Room into a detached cocktail lounge. 5. on October 4, 1973', the Newport Beach Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 1690 allowing for the proposed new uses of the Balboa Inn, subject to the condition that an additional thirty-five (35) parking spaces for the cocktail lounge must be provided. 6. The Southern California Regional Coastal Zone Conservation Commission has approved the remodeling of the Balboa Inn subject to the condition that an additional sixteen (16) parking spaces be provided. 7. Section 20.38.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides for off-street•parking on a separate lot,.provided. certain conditions are satisfied. 8. Section 12.44.125(B) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that a commercial business may provide its required off-street parking in a municipal fee -owned lot, under certain circumstances, by paying an annual fee as required pursuant to Section 12.44.120 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 9. On February 11, 1974, the Newport Beach City Council approved an amendment to the aforementioned offsite parking agreement to increase the number of parking spaces by 7 40 fifty-one.(51).•for a- total of one hundred:and,segenteen (117) :..spaces:" 10. At said meeting, the City Council -found and sed use of the Balboa Inn was not determined that the propo a greater area than that originally being extended to occupy could provide all of his require occupied, and that Owner parking in the adjacent municipal Balboa Parking Lot by paying an annual fee of thirty dollars ($30) per parking space. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE ,'IN CONSIDERATION of the approval by the City of Owner's intended use of the Balboa Inn property, the parties hereto agree as follows: A.' The offsite parking agreement between the City of Newport Beach and Richard H_ Rice and Audrey W. Rice, dated amended to provide for an additional May 23, 1963, is hereby s, to be provided in the municipally - fifty (50) parking space owned Balboa Parking Lot. All other terms and conditions of said agreement shall remain in effect. and are binding on Owner. B. City agrees to permit Owner to use the Balboa Parking Lot, as herein provided, to the extent parking space is available therein at the time use is sought, for the compensation hereinafter stated, so long as said lot is main- tained as a public parking lot by City. C. Owner agrees to pay City an annual fee of Thirty 'Dollars ($30) per parking space for the use of one hundred and seventeen (117) off-street parking spaces required under this Agreement. D. If City in subsequent years increases the annual /O tom: f^ DX 11201 PG •807 arking -in City parking lots, the fee charged 'generally 1•for• p • City may increase ,the annual' fee charged' Owner) by an 'egtiivalerit.. percentage. nt..tc..�Agreemeat shall.run with...the,: E. This•.Amendme real:.property described in Paragraph l-•hereinaboVa; and'. - shall -bind. they. heirs, successors- and assigns of the parties heretto.:+ F. Upon execution by the parties, this Amendment to ded in the Office of the Orange 'County Agreement shall lie recor Recorder, in the chain of title of the Balboa Inn property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to Agreement as of the day and year first above written.. OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY BALBOA INN, A LIMIT P TNERSHIP By:�Aw,ok /n /`aa�Gw By: OWNER DDO:mh 5/24/74 1 1201 PG 808 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) SS, County of Orange ) On -To L y � � 1974, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally,app DONALD A. MCINNIS, known to me to be the Mayor, and LAURA LAGIOS, known to me to be the City Clerk of the municipal corporation that executed the within instrument, known to me to be the persons who executed the within instrument on behalf of the corporation therein the named, and instrumentpursuantto aed to me hat such resolutionrofritsoCity Counccuted il. within instrument p WITNESS my hand and official seal. �.- MARGARET L. HARPER TI-j s Notary Public - California 4orange County My Commission Expires ,,; :• August 25, 1976 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) SS County of Orange ) On �iC�/ I� 1974, before me, a.Notary Public in a d for said State, personally THOMAS M.. LINDEN„ General Partner, known, to me to whose name is subscribed to the within instrument that he executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. the undersigned, appeared be the person and acknowledged MARGARET L. HARPER.. l Nolary Pubiic • California ` orange County - . r , My Commission Expires r ( 4 ` August 25. 1976 Not ry k lic in 'and for s d State 10 r: / • te QE Q m n ., "m`"/NCJON BL'K.? 0 M s m s.• AVENUE i NOTE = ASSESSOR'S BLOCK BI `L MM .4-// PARCEL AMBERS - 10A M. 8-37 M.M.6-15 SHOWN /N CIRCLES .... _.-at-.: oaf....__-.... ,__.:.±�•�:r3.:+,waJ1:',t.t�`*�s�15XC��41:�1ai_=ii.: Q`°_'rSti%h 1p ASSESSOR'S MAP BOOK 48PAGE/3 CD OF ORANGE zyQ�-�� d�^T:'i�+.lf����`-s«.�i.:w+� 1 ('C•:::'. 'S'•�`b *i:z.y'i,3:fPy yi. a xsr :e •'• - HEAL LSIAIL INFURMAIION SLRVICLS __.-•, ORANGE COUNTY PARCEL LIST 1990-91 EDITION OWNER ADDRESS / CARE OF EX -ZIP . TYPE YEAR SQ.FT.-F ROOM CT. UMTS SITUS DATE HC/STS PHONE PARKING A P LOTSIZE DOCLMENT-X 5 — 0 4 ON 1956-2 7 18,•, •. ' D16 CITY TFR VAL FULL VAL-YRR l�Pii re + o BOX 835 BBN.BOA WD 92661 0 4 8 -13 �y� 6- 30 2-Q 52,Fi7� 77,785-751 CA BALBOA fR BLK 10 LOT 2 2 701E BALBOA9 LVD 7 500-F! .I WILSON LE ROY G *913 W BAY AYE *NEWPCRT BEACH CA 92663 — 3 — 1907 2,565 12501 8 1 00 ' ALB DNMVANDI DAMES R * 3 5 — 7 Can 1930 2431E-3 5/ 0/9qpp 105 1 2,628,477 MAIN ST NB 4,019,133-87 * HEW OMER * SEE SITUS BALBOA TR LOT 12 BLK 10(LOTS 13 TO 16 INC BLK 10 12,825 90-�50549-G MAIN ST NS ROY E *COLLINS, EVELYN F *NEWPORI BEACH,CA CP 92663 — — ; 9404-2 4,g6p 111 3/24/83 87 211 4-75 83-125478-G 111,R3 *42 S RD 'BALBOA OT 6 ELK 10 AND LOTS / AND 8 BLK 10 0 4 8- 1 3 5— 1 0 2310 2 702E OCEAN NB READ DAMES W *P 0 BOX 780 9661 'P� 2,565 , 6 82,131-75. *BALBOA CA BALBOA fR BLK 10 L ATACHD 0 4 8 - 1 3 5 — 1 1 79 2310 110/14/ OCEAN FROM NB 15,S9P S BAY FRONT N5 SHERREITT VICTOR BROWNE *BALBOA ISLAND CA 92662 673-6640 ATACHD 2,565 b6- 3-6 216,777-77 SALBOA TR BLK 10 LOT 11 (714) O 4 8 - 1 3 5 — 1 2 APT 2310 2/09/Q; 700 JEAN 2�R 1 LEVOHIAN RENDEt L TR *P 0 BOX 75 90660 83-0=6-H 77,402 236,126-78 *PICO RIVERA CA BALBOA TR BLk 10 LOT 9 ATACHD 0 4 8 — 1 4 1 - Z 3 Q 376-2 908E BALBOA BLVD N3 560 1pp4 HAYNES PATRICIA MAE *WALLACE DAMES F *SAMA VAJ'1CA 92 5 �,g40.0 3 1ZZ/27/85 85-519223-G 35,32 59s,336-86, *2422 N FAIRMONT AVE BALBOA TR LOT 4 BLK 13 ALL -INC POR ABAN ST DTA 2 4 APT 3391 ZZ 910 E BALBOA BLVD NB WALLACE FREDERICK J TR *910, E BALBOA BLVD 92661 0 1 - 1973 4,680 6/OS/89 89-294801-G 131 925 91,�46 223,371-75 CA BALBCA fR LOT 5 BLK 13 ALL -INC POR ABAN ST BALBOA TACHD 3539 912 E 9A7L1BOA8BLVD NB DI SANO GIND *912 E BALBOA BLVD 92 T 8 — 1 4 1 - Ag 4,656 11/12/,775 115631993 61,;884667 253,315-75 *BALBOA CA BALBOA fR LOT 6 BLK 13 ALL -INC POR ABAN ST ATACHD 0 4 8— 1 4 1— 2 6 APT 3 914 E BALBOA BLVD m �4 8833 SARACINO MATTHEW A TR *P 0 BOX 940 *NEWPORT BEACH CA 92661 ATACHD 1948 4,62 899/-162437-G 760,6099 717,645-85 BALBOA TR LOT i BLK 13 ALL -INC POR ST 0 4 8 - 1 4 1 - 2 7 APT 1271 916 E BALBOA BLVD N8 31 925 NIELSEH SVElD H TR *916 oA BLVD NIE*eALBOA 92661 1970 4,560 84/1 1 61,f61 193,286-75 CA BALBOA fR LOT 8 ELK 13 INC POR ABAN ST (714) 675-0597 918 E BLVD NB HILBERT LOTA C TR *3531 GERANIIM AVE 9625 0 4 8— 1 4 1— 2 8 1 4 W2 - -5 p 7/07/g6 86- 9312-G 1 6 t99,438-75 , BALM TR BLK 13 ALL -INC POR ABAN ST (714) 673=9209 4,5pp00 E NO LLOYD J *920 E BALBOA BLVD 0 4 8- 1 4 1— 2 9 R 15� 25 16 194;56� 360 O CA fRALOT 10 ELK 13 ALL -INC POR ABAN ST 92661 2 5 83/5762139u MT 2507 2 508 E pOpCpEAN FROM OOD-L IEVERETT DONALD W *540 VISTA GRANDE 9266600 0 4 8-12 2 —1 5 1%1 8g 01588664-G 67 188 46 *NF3IPORT BExLH,CA ATACHD 2,565 �-- BALBOA TR BLK 6 LOT 13 „ •. �- �i-- , /-800-527-9663 ORANGE COUNTY PARCEL LIST 1990-91 EDITION N15 -�Kv,•• HC/STS PHONE PARIRNAa A r w.....•-. ____.._ 2 510E - OCEAN F AS *510 E OCEAN FRONT H-ND 048-1 22-1 6 APT 2507 2/25/72 07-75 6,607-75 36 % • D*BALB011 CA 92661(714) 673-1072 ATACHD .•1%t 2,565 000150036 NB • .B,ILBBA fR BLx T ,• SM 048-123—Q1 Cal 21OD-2 601 7/20/87 39 29 3LJD 01 239,292 �SSF PARTIN M B *3420 E 3RD 92625 - 1909 2,565 87-41 193,656 *CORONA DEL MAR,CA ` 'SALBOA TR BLK 8 LOT, 048-123-02 COM 764 _ 603 E BALSOA BLVD NB 7D, 604 FUCHS MEL.LVINE TR *P 0 BOK 644 *LA FILL *BALBOA1 •TR 92661 (714) 673-2924 1914 2�5� -036795-H 781,OSQ-80 BALBOA TR BLK 8 LOT 2 048-1 23-03 LaN t 605 E BA.BOA BLVD Ne 35,845 KDVER KITH M TR *SD34 GONAN RD TR M30 1909 ,565 77/23/87 87-65722Q-4 7,676 43,52Y7I *LASBALBA � EGAS K 8 LOT 3 048-123-08 3g00 675 6/30/89 BALBOA BLVD NB 1 077 000 1 p50 000-F, ASS BALBDA ASSOCIATES *3491 VIA LIDO *NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92 1928 72,825 89-347678-6 824,576 1,895,176-'90 *SUITE TR LOT 4 BLK 8 AND LOTS 5 TO 8 INC BLK B PRDJECT 932-16 NB BALBOA 04 1 -09 VAC-LA1D * - 000000DOO TR 7599 *3300 NEWPORT BLVD X-X% 8-1 24 1 NHX VAC -LAMA) 3/21171 ND SITUS 22,402 22,402-75 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH *P 0 BON 1768 *NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 9,947 0132307 BALBOA TR SIX A X-XX 048-125-01, W L'�D 3/21/71 NO SITUS 11,373 11,373-75 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH *3300 NEWPORT BLVD *NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 0132307 A, 0 BOX 1768 BALBOA TR BLX B 048-126-01 WHX VAC -LAND 1/7 NO SITUS 11,373• CITY OF WWPORT BEACH *3300 RT CH CVO 9266�3 01 11,373-75 *P 0 BOX 1768 BALBOA TR BLK C 048-130-01 NH% YAC-LAND NON SITUS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH' * NENPORT BLVD PoRT BEACH,CA X-XX 9260 4,674-75 *P 0 am 1768 SABOA TR LOT E ELY - 048-130-02 WIIX VAC -LAND 4, TUS CITY of NEWPORT CN *3300 CH,CVD 9z� 14,031-75 *P 0 BOX 1768 BALBOA TR E ALL -EX ELY 54 FT- 0 4 8 —13 0- 0 4 WO VAC -LAND 701 L. OCEAN FRONT ND 8,805 BEACH *3300 NEWPORT BLVD *NEWPORT BEACH,CA X-XX 92663 880 ' ,LiIPtt 1768 OA TR LOT D ALL -EX ELY 135 FT- D r?a 707 E_ OCEAN FROM BLLVflt 1(ESTLA(E VILLAGE - *PROPERTIES saoza 048-130—05 1cm ;•y. •*6753 HOlLYW00D BLVD N701*HOLLYWOOD CA - 7,425 BALBOA TR LOT C, ELY 135 FT HLY 55 Ff _ _n ADT 141 rcoo, ATACHO 2•RA - REAL ESTATE INFORMATION SERVICES - ORANGE COUNTY PARCEL LIST 19901 EDITION OF -VST P C N • TYPE FT Ac PHONE PARKING Y LRO SI 1-500-527-9663 015 I CITY 1 TFR VAL FULL VAL-YR TR *12531 EL ROY DR TR —1 N.T 1921 1054 813 E 9/18/85 BAY AV 51311 3,�340 54,651-75 TUCKER LFURLES J CHA 927D5 2,700 85-355674-6 *SAVER CA BALBOA TR 6LK 11 LOT 6 (714) 54 YEAR ROOM CT. SC -FT: F' LNITS YEAR ROOM CT. S4.FT: F UNITS A0 ONAL STRUC 1907 4-2-1.0 910- 817E 0 4 8-131-0 3 A972 1325 2107/86 319 208 176 0000-L 449,M8-86 *350 17 TH *COSTA NESA,CA 9261 ATACHD 2, 86-053314-G 730,600 **SUIIOTED11R07D BALBOA TR BLK 11 LOT 5 048-131-04 • tDN 958 809 E 90 BAY AV 220 41 N13 NATL SANG SO CAL - 1913 2,700 90-3 -A �E000 301,920---89 * NEW OWNER BALBOA TR SIX 11 LOT 4 SEE 1,80 SAY 9 984 N) SWDER DARRELL H TR SLUDER*BALBO 0 SOX Y30 926T61 048-131-05 199226 1,800 8/05/82 82-271642-H 6 54,B50-75 CA BALBOA11 LOT 3 1 N-Y 60 FT 048,—,131,-06- C In 2520' MIN MAIN B 374 544 NB /�--- '6 x •MILLIAMS C S J •*704.AIN S7 -.•, ON 92667-.. -_.My! L.:,.•::,:;•-,:-: " . 7910 .3,600o;.•gV�6� 6 265,677 1-88 � � n ,y?r,'AIN � PLY 60�FT(AND NLY 60 FT LOTr:?:"%'"': � u '-�•'r � y -rr n iy ..... - �`„f .i•..� �< C'4'T� �ryyp��-�-11�}��/,>:yt.f 11r.••+.4. ,Aye T"� a ED ' � ii 5 2 1 .Y � ; r. F.` r ' .•e.D'� i� : � `���"1 r• a .� ". p y �'• i. �4r ,•tylj' 'Y• 6 � � a a h jlr� - ='•"1 Yb ?41 �r { t� Iµ.p��Yy rt•! tr �' I r a D 3 1n fY A y f ;a Ia __ff at e }_ ryyt ~• A r Irk Wit •": • e'�`�•♦ - v .. at�i 4e /Illy lJ t n•,' l� a t i x l � �f v .�, •JT.t. � tilt- hY" 11.7 f 01,01 i i / • 1 Alternative Circulation Improvements Ausft-Foust Associates, Inc. 2020 North Tustin Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92701 APRIL 1091991 Y �Nlll A MWA 1 1 ` I I 1 I 7 7 I I 1 �• of �• xA, i i 1 I A r FOR LOOM. BUSINESSES, SERNCE MEKICIES AND BUSES BfRY LEGEND I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII6IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII QIII II g NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL ALTERNATIVE 7 '"• EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL 144 ADDITIONAL SPACES y{« 35 LANDSAPED SPACES N)S NET ADDITONAL SPACES —uAPu M7MMP107Mnc IxMM 04POM PARKING STUDY ® ®AUSTW-FO!/ST ASSOCIATES, INC BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT BALBOA ISLAND FERRY TRAFFIC SIGNAL ! NO PARKING STORAGE FOR ENTERING PARKING GARAGE 43 1 w �z �o [� LT ARROW iI NEWPORT BALBOA PIER I PACIFIC OCEAN BAY ST PARKING STRUCTURE CIRCULATION AlISM-FOWTASSOA6 M4Iq� BALBOA n C6 N — W RESIDENTIAL UA ENTRY I 2 ' I �( MONUMENT N i I 4; / BLVD. Dl 32' RADIUS I o in I A111 7' CURB PARKING AREAS --AFA File: 017.028 BALB.DWG 3:10 PM ®S�Al/STAWFOLfST ASSOCIATES AMC CIRCULATION STUDY BALBOA STREET ALTERNATIVE I J BALBOA Do N — — 00 LLI RESIDENTIAL L ENTRY Ix Ix I 2 MONUMENT co 32' RADIUS I 7' CURB PARKING AREAS --AFA File: 017.028 BALB2.DWG 3-50 WA®AOSTAV-FO!/ST ASSOCIATES, dVC /,I Vi 'A V, BLVD. F71 CIRCULATION STUDY BALBOA STREET ALTERNATIIVE II CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT November 23, 1993 Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 RE: Policy on Sidewalk Cafes Dear Pat: -i7 Ara�alr pEl�AIR ?1ENT + t B wr"t v t)PT SEW": p,P''J 2'',' 1993 PM AM "dt8t9t10illt12t�t�t3t4t5t6 Attached is the policy used by the City of Chula Vista in regulating sidewalk cafes in the Town Centre No. 1 Redevelopment Area. I was informed by Ms. Pamela Buchan of the Community Development Department that this policy is currently under review to make the policy easier for restaurant owners to use. However, the specifics of the revisions are unknown at this time. I hope this is of use to you in your work. If you have any questions regarding this policy, please contact Ms. Buchan at (619) 691-5047. Regards, Yn LA'- R �►r'''� Martin Miller Associate Planner cc: Steve Griffin, Principal Planner Pamela Buchan, Principal Community Development Specialist 276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691-5101 Revised 10/82 City of Chula Vista, California Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency Policy Pertaining to the Use of the Public Sidewalks of the Town Centre No. I Project Area by Sidewalk Cafes (Outdoor Restaurants) A. GOAL The purpose of the following statements of policy are to authorize the establishment of sidewalk cafes on the public sidewalks of Town Centre No. I, under certain prescribed circumstances, where these uses would not conflict with the provisions of the Town Centre Redevelopment Plan, the Town Centre Design Manual, or the City of Chula Vista's interest in the maintenance of its sidewalks as safe and accessable paths for pedestrians. B. STATEMENT Of POLICY 1. Sidewalk cafes shall be confined to Subarea 1 of Town Centre No. 1. Sidewalk cafes shall not be established within Subarea 1 unless encroachment permits have been granted by the City Engineer. 2. Sidewalk cafes shall not directly or indirectly endanger or inconvenience pedestrians to a significant extent, and that a minimum 6'-wide, unencumbered pedestrian way will be maintained. 3. Sidewalk cafes shall not adversely affect the trade or business of nearby commercial or professional uses, or adversely affect residential enjoyment. 4. Sidewalk cafes shall not be injurious to the landscape, irrigation, street furniture or paving installed within the public walkways. 5. Operators of sidewalk cafes shall be required to carry liability insurance and hold the City of Chula Vista and the Redevelopment Agency harmless from damages occurring as the result of the operation of the cafe. 6. All requests for permission to locate sidewalk cafes on the sidewalks ' of Subarea 1 shall be reviewed by the Town Centre Project Area Committee, and the City Engineer. Their findings and recommendations shall be forwarded to the Redevelopment Agency. 7. This policy, and all sidewalk cafe permits shall be annually reviewed by the Redevelopment Agency for recommendation to alter or continue the policy or permits. . e �i (&4,C IItcL&dk v7 P Xc hZf Q'/�a ate) EXHIBIT A Page 2 D. GENERAL RULES All permitted sidewalk cafes shall be established and maintained in conformity with the following general rules. 1. All sidewalk cafes shall adjoin and be operated in conjunction with indoor restaurants or food stores licensed to sell food for consumption on the premises. 2. Sidewalk cafes shall not be self -serviced. Tables will be served by waiters or waitresses. 3. All restaurant equipment and furniture located on a sidewalk shall be portably. 4. All sidewalk cafes shall be enclosed within non -permanent architectural or landscaped barriers or screens, as approved by the Town Centre Design Review Board. 5. A sidewalk cafe shall not be established• until the applicant has posted a bond or furnished proof of insurance which 'adequately protects the City and the Agency from liability related to the proposed cafe. 6. The operator of a sidewalk cafe shall pay the City of Chula Vista an annual permit fee for the use of the public sidewalk. The annual rent for sidewalk usage will be $2.00 per square foot; the calculation of square feet shall include the space occupied by the architectural or landscaped barrier or screen, as well as, the actual eating area. WPC 0398H s ITEM TITLE: SUBMITTED BY: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT Item 2 Meeting Date 11/4/82 Resolution 395 Adopting Sidewalk Cafe Policy for the Town Centre Redevelopment Project Subarea No. 1 Community Development Directo/6ths Vote: Yes No X ) At the meeting of October 7th, the Agency reviewed the proposed policy to allow sidewalk cafes on public sidewalks within the Town Centre Redevelopment Area. The Agency requested that the policy be rewritten and certain requirements be added including a provision covering the minimum width of passable sidewalks; the requirement that all tables., chairs, equipment and barriers used for sidewalk cafes be portable; and, a stipulation for the annual review of the policy and permits. A redraft of the proposed policy, including the items specifically indicated by the Agency, is submitted for your review. It is, therefore, my RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency review, and adopt the attached resolution establishing a Sidewalk Cafe Policy for the Town Centre Redevelopment Project Subarea No. 1. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Project Area Committee recommends adoption of the enclosed policy. DISCUSSION: After several meetings with the Planning and Engineering Departments, the enclosed policy is considered to be a flexible and not an unduly restrictive policy to meet the needs of the Town Centre Redevelopment Plan. The changes that the Agency members have requested were made with adequate attention to be as specific as possible. The question of pedestrian safety is addressed by having a. 6' minimum sidewalk width for pedestrian through traffic. The rental rate is recommended to be $2 per sq. ft. for the cafe area enclosed by the barriers. This annual rate is determined to be a reasonable rate based upon the premise that the Agency wishes to encourage the sidewalk cafe on Third Avenue. Since we have no previous experience with such an outdoor amenity, I feel that a per square foot rate is fair and easily understood in the marketplace and the dollar amount can be redefined after we have some experience. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Fees received from sidewalk cafe licensing are placed in the City's General Fund and should be more than adequate to cover staff expenses in administering the program. AGENCY ACTION: Resolution adopted as amended.�.��%�J DZ:FK/nr WPC 0409H/ �/ 0 RESOLUTION NO. 395 4 RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE SIDEWALK CAFE POLICY FOR THE TOWN CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SUB AREA NO. 1 WHEREAS, the existence of sidewalk cafes in the Town Centre area will add to the charm, vitality, and urban image of the downtown area; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency deems it desirable to allow sidewalk cafes in the downtown area with proper authorization and regulation; and, WHEREAS, a policy for the authorization and regulation of sidewalk cafes within the Town Centre Redevelopment Project, Sub Area No. 1, has been prepared and submitted to the Agency. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista approves and adopts the Sidewalk Cafe Policy for the Town Centre Redevelopment Project, Sub Area No. 1, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though fully set forth, and authorizes staff to process applications for such uses. Presented by a�,, - esr e Community Development Director Approved as to form by /s/ George D. Lindberg George U. LlnaDerg Agency Attorney A December 9, 1991 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F-9(c) TO: City Council FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL POLICY L-6 PROHIBITING PAY TELEPHONES FROM ENCROACHING INTO PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF - WAY RECOMMENDATIONS: Adopt an amendment to Council Policy L-6, "Private Encroachments in Public Rights -of -Way", prohibiting pay telephones from encroaching into public rights -of -way. DISCUSSION: On October 28, 1991, the City Council granted a temporary Encroachment Permit to C. J. Williams to maintain nine existing pay telephones mounted on private property but projecting up to one foot into public sidewalks in Central Balboa. The permit was to be good until the City Council either adopted a policy governing the location of pay telephones which impact public sidewalks, rights -of -way or property; or adopts a Balboa Area Specific Plan. (A copy of the October 28th, 1991 Council memo regarding the Williams appeal is attached for reference.) Existing Council Policy L-6, "Private Encroachments in Public Rights -of -Way" governs private encroachments into public rights -of -way. The proposed amendment to Policy L-6 will add an item A.10. Pay telephones to Part A, "Private Encroachments prohibited." Attached is a proposed revised Policy L-6. The only change is the addition of item A.10. If the Council desires to permit C. J. Williams to retain nine existing telephones, it could make a minute order allowing his October 28, 1991 appeal from a denial by the Public Works Department of Encroachment Permit Application No. EP 91- 268. However, a permanent permit for Mr. William's installations is not recommended because of the narrow sidewalks and interference with pedestrians mentioned in the October 28, memo, and because of the undesirable precedent which could be set. Benjamin B. Nolan Public Works Director KLP:so Attachments ie L-6 PRIVATE ENCROACHMENTS IN PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY It is the general policy of the City that the public rights -of -way are to be reserved for public use or open space; and that the rights of the public, present and future, are not to be diminished by the installation of private improvements within the public rights -of -way. Categories of private encroachments and improvements are listed below, together with the permit requirement for each category. A. Private encroachments prohibited: 1. Structural encroachments not otherwise listed; including, but not limited to, fences, walls, patios, raised planters, etc., which encroach in excess of 1 foot.into the public right-of-way, or exceed 5 feet in height, measured from the top of curb elevation/or from sidewalk elevation where sidewalk exists. 2. Driveway approaches not conforming to Council Policy L-2. 3. Ocean front street end, or Bay front street end improvements not conforming to Council Policy L-10. 4. Ocean front alley end improvements not conforming to Council Policy L-10. S. Modifications to original design concepts approved by the City. 6. Private signs except as provided for in the Building Code. 7. Lighting. 8. Parkway surfacing of loose rock, gravel, or any surfacing other than standard concrete or brick installed at grade. 9. Private dwellings and appendages including raised patios and decks, except as provided for in the Building Code. 10. PAY TELEPHONES B. Private encroachments requiring a permit from the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department: 1. Tree planting and removal. 2. Shrub planting and removal. 3. Ocean front street end, and Bay front street end improvements defined in Council Policy L-10. C` October 28, 1991 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM No. F-15 TO: City Council FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: Appeal of C.J. Williams to construct nine pay telephones encroaching into the public right-of-way of Balboa Blva., Main Street and Bay Avenue (EP 91-268) RECOMMENDATION: 1. Deny the appeal. 2. Direct the staff to prepare a proposed Council Policy governing the location of pay telephones in locations which impact public property or public rights -of -way. DISCUSSION: On October 7, 1991, the Public Works Department denied an application by C.J. Williams of 104 Main Street, Balboa, to maintain nine existing pay telephones mounted on private property but projecting up to one foot into public rights -of -way. The specific locations are: one at 104 Main Street; 1 at 303A Main Street; 2 at 306 Main Street on the Bay Avenue side; 2 at 307 Main Street on the Boardwalk side; 2 at'710 E. Balboa Boulevard on the Main Street side; and 1 at 712 E. Balboa Boulevard. The locations are shown on the attached sketches. The application was denied because City policies have no provisions for permitting privately -operated pay telephones to occupy or project into public property or public rights -of -way. The public rights -of -way in question are sidewalks located in Central Balboa. Persons standing on the sidewalks using or waiting to use the telephones interfere with pedestrians on the sidewalks. The sidewalks around the Pavilion, along Main Street, and Balboa Boulevard in this area are some of the most heavily used sidewalks in the City during the summer and on weekends. The actual projection of the telephone instrument into the public right-of-way (7" to 1211) is not as much of a problem as the amount of room a person using the phones will take up. When using a phone a person facing the phone takes up 2k' to 3' feet of sidewalk space. The Bay Avenue sidewalk is only 4'-5" wide. People using the phones on Bay Avenue force other y Subject: Appeal of C.J. Williams to construct nine pay telephones encroaching into the public right-of-way of Balboa Blvd., Main Street and Bay Avenue (EP 91-268) October 28, 1991 Page 2 pedestrians into the street unless the user stands against the wall. on Main Street and Balboa Boulevard the sidewalks are wider, but they also serve more pedestrians. The phone usage is blocking a portion of the sidewalks causing increased congestion on the.sidewalk. The Business License Division has received several complaints from businessmen in the area about sidewalk congestion caused by people using the phones. Because of the location and amount of pedestrian traffic, it is recommended that the appeal be denied and that the phone be removed. in addition to the nine telephones owned by the applicant, there is a similar installation at 100 Main Street owned by someone else; and three telephones at Dillman's parking lot which do not encroach into Main Street, but people using the telephones obstruct the sidewalk. An example of an installation that does not interfere with the public sidewalk is at Winchell's donut shop at Adams Street and Balboa Boulevard where the telephones are on private property open to the public but located far enough back from the public sidewalk that users do not obstruct the sidewalk. A survey of public pay phones•in the Central Balboa area indicates that there are 36 pay phones in or adjacent to the public sidewalks. Attached is a drawing showing the locations. Fourteen (14) phones are installed adjacent to the public sidewalks in a manner that users do not stand in or block the public sidewalk. Five (5) of these are installed on City property - 1 at the Washington Street restroom and 4 at the Balboa Pier restroom. Nine (9) phones are installed adjacent to the public sidewalk in a manner that causes the user to stand in the sidewalk area and block pedestrian traffic. 7 of these could be rotated either 900 or 1800 to get the users off of the public sidewalk. Thirteen (13) phones are installed so that all or a major part of the phone is in the public walkway area. 9 of these are the subject of this memo and were installed by Mr. Williams. They are all on heavily used sidewalks and both the phone fixtures and their users block a portion of the public sidewalk. 1 of the 4 remaining phones is in a public area but it and its users do not block a public walkway. Subject: Appeal of C.J. Williams to construct nine pay telephones encyoaching into the public right-of-way of Balboa Blvd., Main Street and Bay Avenue (EP 91-268) October 28, 1991 Page 3 If the City Council wishes to establish a City Council Policy to allow pay phones in the public right-of-way, the staff should be directed to prepare a policy for consideration. The following categories could be considered: I. II. No permit from Public Works Department would be required. A permit from the Public Works Department would be required, but only after the Traffic Affairs Committee has determined that public convenience and necessity require the installation. Prohibit unless ordered by a public agency and only after the Traffic Affairs Committee has determined that public convenience and necessity require the installation. The applicant has questioned why newspaper racks are permitted on public sidewalk. Leaving aside any discussion of First Amendment considerations, newspaper racks are ideally located between the unobstructed portion of a sidewalk and the curb in the same area of the parkway shared by tree wells, street lights, fire hydrants, and regulatory signs, thus leaving a continuous un'.peded lane for pedestrian use. 4--'Benjamin B. Nolan Public Works Director KLP:so Attachments 1k CM a K October 14, 1991 Hjeeat t City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 Subject: Pay telephones in public rights -of -way (EP 91-268) To the Mayor Philip Sansone and the members of the City Council: Dear Council members: I wish to appeal the denial of the office engineer for my pay phones. My name is C.J. Williams, and I have been a resident on the Bal- boa peninsula since 1975 and ha-ie been in business here for eleven years. In 1981 I established a retail clothing store called Albatross West at 104 Main Street and South Swell at 712 East Balboa Blvd. in 1986. In response to the denial by the public works department of my application to obtain a permit for operating public pay phones mounted on private property, I am requesting an appeal that -this denial be presented to the council for discussion and review. I feel that these pay phones provide the public with convenient access to phone service. They are regularly monitored and main- tained by me and have been in operation since 1989 without any problems. I use the income from the pay phones to maintain the fronts of my stores. In this recession, I need this income for this expense. Sincerely, C%'lGL�.z� C.J. Williams 104 Main Street Balboa, California Date /d COPIES SENT TO: 92661 Mayor o Coundimm "anagor i Attorney :i Bldg. Dit Genfty tt JPB&A DIE 3 Planning Dir Police Chief ✓. P.W. Dir 1 Other 0 7 1 ?hoop 57UG(_Q W"N t_L_. ILrrX4,r l.��r�l t✓'DS 11 ( \vA�TC RE�1 Dl—rrJC l=_) F�orrr Wll.t_-/�rr15� fF f I�J11s_ o NUUv�Lf- c IZ t VIFv-I GG \jl LET ':-S , q \,A) 359 'F2p NT V 1 i✓—vJ BUD �:lUb Stt)GLp ' JA�t_ : 5zve GA >/ SFr:�ILp� _ I U4• 1^n!�-1 y,,> '='T' �l�'t'r car-�-• i _..NJyv�jG R•S o �71t�% c7J.�11�1 Y �}iordE FFlr1 .J,i2 fLC'iiUt: ( 1 ilFroflo 'I! —to repolo i 1 IA15bPul upsi,t, %pN�b F1'f(AGl� T� S�'G1l.Dh )t}' o i r 1 VA • ( Y� i-ror r u'' .trfT)r�r.6••r� o �-�ry-)(�y5.-.�7uf.. _. `i`i; �� l�7S'-io /5''� i r + i� I J1 F'R_ni)-r \tic\ s 5cttt�J i--. _—..--_. _ wo.,_ i�hl; VtCN UJlL4:l.I"i:V✓t`—, . r,}/.lr•ry o iSis I:L .^t 11, i 1 i'lzzA ,/ Gp \ Cam! r - I , I Wmcli 6D 1 _ lb, I NTt) 5�►' I C•1�YE: Zt, t, /I [F pFFGGF.I�G �01 I _N E W P 0 A CENTRAL BALB OA SPEClFI C PLA:N___ AREA -r �U$LlC ^E-t Pi-lOSo"�J-f A R T Z; B A Y. ;. (/Y eil e' e ^ { t�Ju_yv {^— 'lam t t i tom------y�Y�3 1 . 7t"�i^ as its FgoO °!Y B�iA k RkIWE5 M5"rAi_LED To PU 5LIc W4tiLl�.LL A L6 C9) PWNES M&TALC.t=D ADJACE To PUSL(G L0 4LKla q W HEp.F (35ES STPY14 D ; a BLOG{C, u1 AL.KW 4- (t 3) P410MV& i Nsr AtLE➢ ► &I CK � R)6LtC Cv ►' LVJA) A4 B� _--� SOS A Gil po 100f -LOT 6'16 pUBL�G l l 1 JUII-29-192 1,1011 10:21 ID:EIgGIIVEERII�rn-PLFI�IqIIqG TEL Iy0:619 96u-4�64 4035 P02 2510 Reconstruction of SaAconforming Building Partially or Totally Destroyer! A nonconforming builditly ameLsvyc%l to the extant of no more than SO percent Of its replacement value at the time of its destruction by fire, .explosion or other casualty or Act of God, or the public enemy, may be restored and the occupancy or use of such building or part thereof which existed at the time of such partial destruction may ho r_nntinued subject to all other provisions of this Article. A nonconforming residential building in any zoning district destroyed to the extent of more than 5o percent of its replacement value at Ltiw Liuiw uc jLw arszruction by tire, expiosion or other casualty or Act of God, or the public enemy, may be restored to its original density, sizs, height, design, configuration or condition and the use or occupancy of such building or part thereof which exlsteq at the tlule us t3uv31 uCOL.1,1Ati6Jv1& may Lu wu6l,tusu iuLPJ=%..6 Lv all other provisions of this Article provided ouch nonconformitiosr aro not inoroaced in donaity or intnncity, and that tharw is nn reduction in the amount of off-street 17arking that existed on site prior to such destruction. Compliance with current development standards of the underlying zone, particularly required yard areas, is anvotisrwyod whorovor poa.aible. For residential projects consisting of five or more legally created dwelling units, the following finding must be made by the authorized agency: I '%� A. That there are no additional negative impacts to the character of the neighborhood beyond the assumed negative impacts of the nonoonformitioa which had axiotad prior to destruction. ss11 Commission to Determine conditions of Abatement when a determination of nonconformity has been made by the planning Director, he shall schedule a public hearing by the Planning Commission to establish the conditions of abatement and the abatement period. 3312 Hearing, Notice Notice of said nearing shall be given as required by Article 45. 95l2 Zoaring, Xvidonoo The commission shall consider at the public hearino all pertinent data to enable it to arrive at an equitable abatement period which ...1]1 y..s ...LruL Lf.r y..t .111 si i.:.w tka.r ow .= oi' 1 J �Y�M� 35-4 MIN-P9-19? 19f1N tpl:P4 TD: FI*4r iIJFFR T Hr-PI NrvNi NFi TFI IJPI: r, 19 5nn-41 64 UK-%F, PRI 331.0 Reconstruction of Nonconforming Building eartially or Totally Destroyed. • A nonconforming building destroyed to the extent of no more than 50 PowcenL oa AM% Lwv1dV- IIIWII1. vn9ur ni. aa... L1111s ur ILw dsalc uu Lluu Ly fire, explosion or other casualty or Act of God, or the public anvmy,'may be restored and the occupancy or use of such building or part thereof which existed at the time of such partial destruction may be continued subject to all other provisions of this Article. A nonconforming residential building in any zoning district destroyed to the extent of more than 50 percent of its replacement value at the time of its destruction by fire, explosion or other aaaualty or AoU of Cod, or the public onomy, may bo rae•sorad to iee original nensity, size, nsignt, oesign, conrigurauicn or aonaition and the use or occupancy of such building or part thereof which existed at the time of such destruction may be continued subject to Kii other provisions of thlx Az'tivle provldetl tsuuh nunuunfucmiLiea are not increased in density or intensitv. and that there is no reduction in the amount of off-stroet parking that cxint*d on nit* rrinr rn Dinh A^%trrnrrinn. rnmpilanr:a with rnrrant dava7nnmant standards of the underlying zone, particularly required yard areas, is encouraged wherever possible. For residential projects consisting of five or more legally created dwelling units, the following finding must be made by the authorized agency: h• wi,wu Li.p4V wiw I.w VaQl6.LV..wi V./ %,I-- Vi.MYMvt.i Y' of the neighborhood beyond the assumed negative impacts of the nonconformities which had existed prior to destruction. 3511 Commission to Determine Conditions at Abatement When a determination of nanoonearmity has been made By rho Planning Director, he shall schedule a public hearing by the Planning Commission to establish the conditions of abatement and the abatement period. 3312 Hearing, Notice Notice of said hearing shall be given as required by Articles 49. 3513 Hearing, Hvidence The Commission shall consider at the public hearing all pertinent data to enable it to arrive at an equitable abatement perioa which will protect tha public: wclydrt:, ynL will dllow this owner of 36�4 L-6 PRIVATE ENCROACHMENTS IN PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY It is the general policy of the City that the public rights -of -way are to be reserved for public use or open space; and that the rights of the public, present and future, are not to be diminished by the installation of private improvements within the public rights -of -way. Categories of private encroachments and improvements are listed below, together with the permit requirement for each category. A. Private encroachments prohibited: 1. Structural encroachments not otherwise listed; including, but not limited to, fences, walls, patios, raised planters, etc., which encroach in excess of 1 foot into ,the public right-of-way, or exceed 3 feet in height, measured from the top of curb elevation/or from sidewalk elevation where sidewalk exists. 2. Driveway approaches not conforming to Council Policy L-2. 3. Ocean front street end, or Bay front street end improvements not conforming to Council Policy L-10. 4. Ocean front alley end improvements not conforming to Council Policy L-10. 5. Modifications to original design concepts approved by the City. \ 6. Private signs except as provided for in the Building Code. 7. Lighting. 8. Parkway surfacing of loose rock, gravel, or any surfacing other than standard P.C. concrete or brick installed at grade. 9. Private dwellings and appendages including raised patios and decks, except as provided for in the Building Code. 10. Pay telephones. B. Private encroachments requiring a permit from the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department: 1. Tree planting and removal. 2, shrub planting and removal. 3. Ocean front and Bay street end improvements defined in Council Policies I-12 and I-1, respectively. 4. Ocean front alley improvements defined in Council Policy I-15. 5. Median landscaping. If, in the opinion of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department, the approved planting is not being maintained for view and safety clearance, Chapter 10.50, "Public Nuisance Abatement," of the Municipal Code shall be used to remove offending plant material. C L-6 PRIVATE ENCROACHMENTS IN PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY - Page 3 E. Private encroachments not requiring a permit: 1. Parkway lawn and ground cover. 2. Parkway sprinkling systems. 3. Use of public streets and projections over public property which are covered by the Uniform Building Code under a valid building permit issued by the City. F. Application for any permit as required by this policy shall be filed with the Public Works Department on a form to be provided by the City and shall show the proposed planting or work and the nature thereof. If the application is for a permit required under Section A, it shall be forwarded to the City Clerk for submission to the City Council. If the application is for a permit under Section B, it shall be processed by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. Drawings for encroachment permits requiring City Council review shall be prepared to scale. Plan and elevation drawings shall accurately depict location, height, and extent of the proposed encroachments. No building permit shall be issued on a parcel whose access requires City Council review for an encroachment permit on public property, until said encroachment permit has been issued. C. Variances from the strict application of this policy shall not be granted unless individual circumstances indicate that approval will be consistent with the public interest. Adopted - August 25, 1969 Amended - August 14, 1989 Amended - February 14, 1972 Amended - November 27, 1989 Amended - August 11, 1975 Amended - December 9, 1991 Amended - February 9, 1981 Amended - November 23, 1981 Amended - October 27, 1986 Amended - January 26, 1987 Amended - July 13, 1987 Amended - February 13, 1989 PRIVATE ENCROACHMENTS IN PUBLIC WAYS ENDING AT THE OCEAN FRONT OR AT NEWPORT BAY 1. GENERAL L-10 It is the general policy of the City that streets, alleys and other public ways ending at the ocean front or at Newport Bay are reserved for public use or open space; and that the rights of the public, present and future, in said public ways are not to be diminished by the installation of private encroachments in said public ways. A. Private encroachments will not be permitted in said public ways unless individual circumstances indicate that approval will be consistent with the public interest. Such circumstances are: 1. The improvements do not create an impression in the mind of the average member of the public that any portion of the public way is private property. 2. The improvements do not decrease the ease of access to the beach for emergency and utility vehicles or pedestrians. 3. The improvements do not result in the loss of legal parking spaces, except for driveway approaches conforming to Council Policy L-2, "Driveway Approaches." 4. The improvements do not eliminate views of the beach from the nearest alley or cross -street that is parallel to the ocean front. II. TYPES OF PRIVATE ENCROACHMENTS A. Private encroachments requiring prior approval of the City Council and a permit from the, Public Works Department: 1. Structural encroachments not otherwise listed, including, but not limited to, fences, walls, patios, raised planters, etc., which encroach in excess of one foot into the public right-of-way, or exceed three feet in height. 2. Driveway approaches not conforming to Council Policy L-2. 3. Modifications to original design concepts approved by the City. 4. Signs. 5. Lighting. 6. Parkway surfacing other than standard Portland cement concrete, textured concrete, or brick installed at grade. % l 1. 10 PRIVATE ENCROACHMENTS IN PUBLIC WAYS ENDING AT THE OCEAN FRONT OR AT NEWPORT BAY - Page 3 d. A four -foot -wide sidewalk will be provided on each side of the street right-of-way adjacent to the property line. e. A minimum of 12 feet of unobstructed access to the beach in the center of the right-of-way will be surfaced with brick, asphalt, concrete or artificial turf, or an equivalent surfacing approved by the City. (1) Portland Cement Concrete. Six inches over compacted native material. (2) Asphalt Concrete. Two and one-half inches of asphalt concrete over a six -inch -thick aggregate base. (3) Brick. Brick installed over four inches of imported aggregate base. A dry mix of one-to-one cement and clean plaster sand to be swept into the 1/4 inch to 1/2 inch space between bricks. The dry mix will be moistened with a fine spray of water after it is in place. f. Planters five feet wide will be provided between the side and the center access along a portion of each side of the street with a heavy emphasis on drought resistant plant materials. Plant material will be installed to City specifications. A six-inch to 18-inch high lip of concrete, brick or rock may be installed as part of the planter. g. Special provisions will be made in the design when garage access is required from street ends. h. Where unusually large quantities of sand exist in a street -end area, the City will assist the adjacent owners by moving the same to an area determined by the City. 3. Unimproved alleys that end at the ocean front may be improved under the following conditions: a. Improvements will be installed at the expense of the adjacent property owner. b. All work will be installed to grades established by the Public Works Department. C. Landscaping or potted plants will be permitted in the portion of the alley right-of-way that terminates at the ocean front sidewalk. A six -foot -wide inviting passageway will be maintained for pedestrian access. L-10 PRIVATE ENCROACHMENTS IN PUBLIC WAYS ENDING AT THE OCEAN FRONT OR AT NEWPORT BAY - Page 5 V. MAINTENANCE All improvements made under the provisions of this policy shall be maintained by and at the expense of the owners of adjacent property. VI. Enforcement of this policy shall be the responsibility of the Public Works Department. In the event that private encroachments constructed under the provisions of this policy are not maintained, the Public Works Department shall give written notice to the permittees to restore said improvements to an acceptable condition, and further, setting forth a specified date by which time the improvements must be restored. Failure to restore said improvements within the period of time specified shall be cause for the General Services Department to remove the improvements from the public right-of-way without further notice to the permittee. Adopted - August 24, 1981 Amended - November 8, 1982 Minor clarifications - November 27, 1989 C L-14 OCEANFRONT ENCROACHMENT POLICY The City Council has approved Amendment No. 23 to the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program, which established specific restrictions and conditions on the installation of private improvements in the public right of way along the oceanfront from the Santa Ana River Channel to Channel Road. Existing encroachments are located on a very small portion of the sandy beach and do not impact any of the 89 street ends and other public facilities which provide beach access through oceanfront residential communities. However, encroachments could impact access to, and public use of, the beach in the absence of an equitable and enforceable City policy limiting the extent, size and nature of the encroachments. This policy is intended to implement Amendment No. 23 by establishing a procedure for approval of permitted encroachments, removal of prohibited encroachments, limiting the extent of encroachments, and clarification of improvements permitted within each encroachment zone. A. Definitions. 1. For the purpose of this Section, the following words and phrases shall be defined as specified below: (a) Existing encroachment shall mean any encroachment or improvement installed or constructed before May 31, 1992. (b) New encroachment shall mean any encroachment or improvement installed or constructed after May 31, 1992. (a) Improvements or Encroachments shall mean any object or thing: (i) within or oceanward of any encroachment zone described in this policy; (ii) within or oceanward of the north edge of the Oceanfront Boardwalk, between 36th Street and A Street; or (iii) oceanward of any residential parcel from a point 250 feet southeast of E Street to Channel Road. (d) Encroachment permit shall mean the permit issued by the Public Works Director authorizing the maintenance or installation of encroachments or improvements within the encroachment zones described in this policy. (e) Application shall mean any application for an encroachment permit pursuant to the provisions of this policy and the land use plan of the local coastal program. (f) Oceanfront Boardwalk, Oceanfront Walk, or sidewalk, shall mean the concrete walkway along the oceanside of ocean front residential properties between 36th Street and a point approximately 250 feet southeast of E Street. L-14 OCEANFRONT ENCROACHMENT POLICY - Page 3 Works Director may approve minor dimensional tolerances for patio slabs and decks only upon a finding that the improvement is consistent with the spirit and intent of this policy and the cost of strict compliance is disproportionate to the extent of the nonconformity. Determination of grade will be made as provided in Section J. 2. Walls and/or fences less than 36 inches in height above grade or the finished floor grade of the existing residence. The Public Works Director may approve minor dimensional tolerances for walls and/or fences upon a finding that the improvement is consistent with the spirit and intent of this policy and the cost of strict compliance is disproportionate to the extent of the nonconformity. Determination of grade will be made as provided in Section J. 3. Existing improvements which were constructed in conjunction with development for which a building permit was issued may be approved by the Public Works Director upon a finding that the improvement is consistent with the spirit and intent of this policy and the cost of strict compliance is disproportionate to the extent of the nonconformity. 4. In no event shall the Public Works Director approve a permit for an encroachment or improvement that varies more than 12 inches from the horizontal dimensional standards of this policy. CE. Prohibited Improvements. 1. Any structural, electrical, plumbing or other improvements which require issuance of a building permit. 2. Pressurized irrigation lines and valves. 3. Any object, including ppalm trees planted pursuant to City policy, which exceeds 36 inches in height. F. Permit Process. 1. An encroachment permit shall be required for all permitted improvements. The application shall be filed with the Public Works Department on a form provided by the City. The application shall be signed by the owner of the property, or an agent of the owner if the application is accompanied by a document, signed by the owner, granting the agent the power to act for the owner with respect to the property. The application shall be accompanied by a site plan, drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, which accurately depicts the location, height, nature and extent of all proposed improvements and objects within the encroachment zone. Applications with incomplete information and/or inadequate drawings will not be accepted. 2. Applications for existing encroachments must be filed on or before May 31, 1992. Applications for new encroachments shall be filed before any encroachment or improvement is installed. No new encroachments or improvements shall be installed C`• without an encroachment permit. L-14 OCEANFRONT ENCROACHMENT POLICY - Page 5 (c) The applicant is in compliance with all of the provisions of this policy. Standard Conditions. 1. The Public Works Director shall impose standard conditions of approval on all encroachment permits. These standard conditions shall include, without limitation, the following: (a) The obligation of permittee to comply with all of the provisions of this policy and all conditions imposed upon the permit. (b) The right of the Public Works Director to revoke any permit after notice and hearing if the permittee is in violation of this policy or conditions to the permit. (a) The right of the City to summarily abate encroachments or improvements which are prohibited bqq this policy or conditions on the permit upon ten (10) day's written notice. (d) The obligation of permittee to pay all costs incurred by the City in summarily abating any prohibited improvement. C (e) The obligation of permittee to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its employees harmless from and against any loss or damage arising from the use or existence of the improvements or encroachment. (f) Permittee's waiver of any right to contest the City's street and public access easement over property within or oceanward of the encroachment zones. (g) The right of the Public Works Director or his designee to inspect improvements within the encroachment zone without notice to the permittee. (h) The right of the City to cancel or modify any, or all, encroachment permit(s) upon a determination by the City Council to construct a public facility or improvement within or adjacent to the encroachment zone. 2. The construction of any seawall, revetment or other device necessary to control erosion, shall occur as close to private property as feasible. Erosion control devices shall not be placed or installed closer to- the ocean to protect improvements or encroachments. 3. The Public Works Director may impose additional standard conditions necessary or appropriate to insure compliance with, or facilitate City administration of this policy. J. Determination of Grade. 1. The nature of the beach makes a precise determination of grade difficult. The level of the sand changes with wind, storm, and tidal conditions. The Public Works Director shall determine the level from which the height of encroachments and improvements is to be measured. In making this determination, the Public Works Director shall consider the following criteria: L-14 OCEANFRONT ENCROACHMENT POLICY - Page 7 (a) Revoke the permit after giving the permittee notice and an opportunity to be heard upon a determination that there is substantial evidence to support a violation of this policy. The Public Works Director shall establish the specific procedures designed to insure that permittee receives due process of law. (b) Summarily abate any encroachment or improvement violative of this policy after giving the permittee or property owner ten (10) day's written notice' of its intention to do so in the event the permittee or property owner fails to remove the encroachment or improvement. The permittee or property owner shall pay all costs incurred by the City in summarily abating the encroachment or improvement. The determination of the Public Works Director with respect to abatement shall be final. M. Amendment No. 23 Land Use Plan of Local Coastal Program Mitigation Plan. To mitigate any impact on beach access resulting from the encroachments, the City shall: 1. Reconstruct thirty-three unimproved street ends between 36th Street and Summit to provide additional parking and approved access in accordance with the following: (a) The reconstruction shall provide a minimum of two parking spaces per street end and shall proceed in substantial conformance with the standard drawing, attached as exhibit "A." (b) The City shall use at least eighty-five percent (85%) of the fees to fund reconstruction of street ends until all have been improved. The City will use its best efforts to improve three or more street ends per year (except during the year when vertical handicapped access is constructed), and anticipates that funding will be adequate to do so. (c) West Newport street -end parking spaces shall be metered in the same manner as the West Newport Park in order to encourage public use of the spaces. 2. Within three years after Council approval of this Resolution, City shall construct a hard surface walkway perpendicular to Seashore Drive at Orange Avenue. The walkway shall extend oceanward a sufficient distance to allow a view of the surfline by an individual seated in a wheelchair. At least one handicapped parking space shall be designated at the Orange Avenue street end. City shall designate at least one other handicapped space at one of the first three street ends improved. 3. Subsequent to the reconstruction of all West Newport street ends, at least eighty-five percent (85%) of the fees generated by encroachments will be 'used for the construction of improvements which directly benefit the beach going public such as parking spaces, rest rooms, vertical or lateral C.' walkways along the beach and similar projects. C. r-� PUBLIC BEACH ARER--`� ------------� 1►J ;, REDUCED SCALE 1 DRIVEWAY EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS (CONCRETE) 30' 1 c, I O rA l i I I i i SIDEWALK (CONCRETE) —� I 1 DRIVE APPROACH (CONCRETE) R STREET PAVEMENT 1 (ASPHALT) 1 L r - ------------± - I J ENCROACHED AREA I > i R I Lln I cj i un M1 40 LOCATIONS VARY FROM 55' TO 90' SERSHORE DRIVE �.. 14 IOCRTIONS @ 75' U T U OF NEWPORT BERCH PUBLIC u�WORRKSI--DEPA`SRTMENT TYPICAL 75 FEET EXHIBIT DESIGNED DAW A STREET ENDS ( DRAFT) CHECKED JW JDRTE FT 1/29/91 L-16 CITY ENTRANCE AND VILLAGE SIGNS General 1. Two types of signs are approved for various interior and exterior entrances to the City. 2. One sign will be known as the City entrance sign as depicted by the attached diagram. This sign will be used at locations of exterior entrance to the City, i.e., entering the City from another jurisdiction. 3. A second sign, the village sign, also depicted by the attachment, will be used to identify various interior entrances to specific areas of the City such as Corona del Mar, etc. Cost Sharing of Sign Manufacture 1. A community or business association may request by letter to the City Manager a sign or signs be manufactured and installed to identify a specific area. This letter should include the number and type of signs requested as well as the recommended sign locations or other incidental information. 2. The association requesting said sign will be responsible for 1/2 the cost of manufacturing the sign. The City will be responsible for the remaining 1/2 of cturing mode, etc., the cost and will approve any design changes, purchase requisition, manufaassociated with sign manufacture. The letter of request should also acknowledge the cost sharing provision. (\ Installation 1. The Council will approve all locations for entrance or village signs. 2. City crews will be responsible for the installation and maintenance of signs. 3. The City Traffic Engineer will be responsible for acquiring sign installation permits from County or State agencies when necessary. (Refer to Attachment) Adopted - October 28, 1991 EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH -- OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS MINIMUM DIMENSIONS OF PARKING SPACES AND AISLES "A0 uBn I uCn "Du I aEn ANGLE WIDTH ! DEPTH OF SPACE WIDTH WIDTH OF SPACE OF OF PERPENDICULAR OF PARALLEL TO PARKING SPACE TO AISLE! AISLE AISLE 300 8'-6" 16' 10' 17' 450 8'-6" 18, 11' 12' 600 8'-6" 19' 18' 900 8'-6" 17' 26' 8'-6" 1. ' Parking spaces parallel to a property line shall be not less than 8'-0" by 22'-0" per vehicle. 2.' Spaces..shali be marked with approved:traffic markers or painted white lines not less than 4" wide. 3. Aisles and entrances intended for two -directional travel shall not be less than 24' wide. 4. Parking lots and areas shall be paved with asphalt, concrete or other street surfacing material of a permanent nature. 5. • Parking lots and areas shall be graded and .improved so that surface water drains directly from the parking lot or area into a street, alley or approved drainage structure. 6. Parking lots shall be so designed that cars leaving the lot will not be permitted to back out on the portion of street right-of- way (excepting alleys) used for vehicular travel. 7. Direct access to parking spaces will be 'permitted from alleys providing not over 10 feet of the alley right-of-way is used for the rear portion of the required aisle width, and provided the spaces are set back from the alley the minimum distances shown in the following table: Alley Width 15'-0" or less 15'-1" to 19'-11" 20'-0" or more Minimum Setback 5'-0" 3'-9" 2'-6" 8. Direct access to parking spaces will be permitted from streets providing the allowable curb opening is not exceeded and provided the space is set back a minimum of 2'-0" from right-of-way line. OFF-STREET PARKING•STANDARDS 9. Parking will not be permitted on slopes greater than 5%. 10. The maximum ramp slope shall not exceed 15%. 11. Changes'in ramp slope shall not exceed 11% and may occur at five foot intervals. 12. The width of spaces next to walls or similar obstructions shall be V -0". 13. Structural elements shall not encroach into the required, stall, with the exception that they will be allowed in a one foot square area at the front corners. I I I/ 1 1 1 �f �c'EET S 74NGARG Go/aE 5" _ high bumpers required on all exterior spaces except where a wail or other physical barrier' prevents any encraachnient beyond property line. i *Minimum setback unless othein ^lan^i^n Anil 7nninn rarnilatinns_ -CITY OF Nr_WP©RT BE PUBLIC V4OgKS UEPARME ro v ✓G - Cam, UC r`'. 7 • 11 PROPOSED THEMATIC STREET LIGHT p�flCOONCRETE SIDEWRU< «ani RXK sLT FINM : =. PAVERS PROPOSED DECORATIVE SIDEWALK CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT "®" PROPOSED STREETLIGHT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 58 (CANNERY VILLAGE) EXHIBIT "D" n 2 AA YKUPOSE-0- .3 Com. FAR: 0.50 Commemkak Density: 2375.00 TFR DuW.. 1,000.00 Cam. P 6fi-aXLS Bonus FAR: 0.60 Comm Bonus Density. 1250.00 NC FAR: 0.00 Res. Parking: 2.00 REQUIREDPARMNG REQUIREDPARNING WRMNiUS GP PARCEL BLK SITESTREET LOTSQFT TOTAL SF DU COMTOT MAX FAR MAX DU -BONUS-FAR BONUS DU COMMERCUIL RE31DENrw COMMERCIAL. RENDENN L BLOCK "A" RSC 04811209 A EBay Ave 1,934.00 0 0 967.00 0 1,160.40 1 3 0 4 2 RSC 04811218 A E Edgewater Ave 3,293.00 0 0 1,646.50 1 +975F80- 2 5 2 6 4 RSC 048112 19 A E Edgewater Ave 6,141.00 6707 0 3,595 3,070.50 2 3,684.60 4 9 4 11 8 RSC 048112 21 A "No Site Address" 4,000.00 0 0 9,680 2,000.00 1 2,400.00 3 6 2 7 6 RSC 04811222 A Palm St 18,038.00 0 0 9,019.00 7 10,822.80 14 26 14 31 28 RSC 048112 23 A "No Site Address' 4,349.30 0 0 2,174.65 1 2,609.58 3 7 2 8 6 37,755.30 6707 0 13,275 18,877.65 15 .2266&.46— 30 54 30 65 60 BLOCK "AA" RSC 048 132 07 AA Main St 2,430.00 1860 0 2,430 1,215.00 1 1,458.00 1 3 2 4 2 RSC 04B 132 08 AA Main St 2,430.00 2400 0 1,800 1,215.00 1 1,458.00 1 3 2 4 2 RSC 048132 09 AA Main St 2,835.00 2923 0 2,835 1,417.50 1 1,701.00 2 4 2 4 4 7,695.00 7,065 3,847.50 3 4,617.00 6 10 6 13 12 BLOCK "AB" RSC 048134 01 AB Bay Ave 3,000.00 2415 3 100 1,500.00 1 1,800.00 2 4 2 5 4 RSC 048134 02 AB E Balboa Blvd 5,990.00 5212 4 3,600 2,995.00 2 3,594.00 4 8 4 10 8 8,990.00 3,700 4,495.00 3 5,394.00 7 12 6 15 14 BLOCK "B" RSC 048 115 04 B Palm St 6,750.00 2490 0 2.900 3,375.00 2 4,050.00 5 9 4 11 10 6,750.00 2,900 3,375.00 2 050.0& 5 9 4 11 10 BLOCK "C" RSC 048112 20 C Palm St 34,311.00 17585 3 17,740 17,155.50 14 20,586.60 27 49 28 58 54 34,311.00 17,740 17,155.50 14 20,586.60 27 49 28 58 54 BLOCK "D" RSC 048133 01 D "No Site Address" 600.00 0 0 300.00 0 360.00 0 0 0 1 0 RSC 048 133 02 D E Bay Ave 660.00 0 0 330.00 0 396.00 0 0 0 1 0 RSC 048133 03 D E Bay Ave 1,920.00 0 0 960.00 0 1,152.00 1 2 0 3 2 RSC 048133 04 D E Edgewater Ave 9,100.00 24090 0 17.500 4,550.00 3 5,460.00 7 13 6 15 14 RSC 048 133 05 D E Edgewater Ave 3.060.00 925 0 1,530.00 1 1,836.00 2 4 2 5 4 RSC 048133 06 D E Bay Ave 3,000.00 3270 2 3,140 1,500.00 1 1,800.00 2 4 2 5 4 Page 1 Can FAR: 0.50 CMMUCW Densely. 2375.00 TFR DMrAT.. 1,000.00 Com. PQQTpI XLS Bonus FAR: 0.60 Canm. Bonus Densely: 1250.00 NO FAR: 0.00 Res. PRAdng: 2.00 REQUIRED PARIONG REQUIREDPARgNG WIBONUB GP PARCEL BILK SITESTREET LOTSQFT TOTAL SF DU COMTOT MAX FAR MAX DU BONUS FAR BONUS DU CDMMERCUIL RESIDENTW. COMMERCMI. RElWOMA. RSC RSC 048 133 07 048133 08 D D E Bay Ave E Bay Ave 3,420.00 3,420.00 3852 0 0 0 3,000 1,710.00 1,710.00 1 1 2,052.00 2,052.00 2 2 4 4 2 2 5 5 4 4 RSC 048 13310 D Main St 2,700.00 4725 1 2,600 1,350.00 1 1,620.00 2 3 2 4 4 RSC 048 133 15 D E Bay Ave 3,300.00 3247 0 3,000 1,650.00 1 1,980.00 2 4 2 5 4 RSC 04813316 D E Bay Ave 500.00 0 0 250.00 0 300.00 0 0 0 0 0 RSC 04813317 D Main St 6,750.00 11109 0 6,000 3,375.00 2 4,050.00 5 9 4 11 10 38,430.00 35,240' 19,215.00 16 23,058.00 30 54 32 65 60 BLOCK "E" RSC 048 131 06 E Main St 3,600.00 2520 2 2,700 1,800.00 1 2.160.00 2 5 2 6 4 RSC 048131 07 E Main St 2,700.00 1560 0 2,500 1,350.00 1 1,620.00 2 3 2 4 4 6,300.00 5,200 3,150.00 2 3,780.00 5 9 4 10 10 BLOCK "J" RSC 048 115 07 J E Balboa Blvd 6,198.00 1188 0 1,000 2,599.00 2 3,118.80 4 7 4 8 8 5,198.00 1,000 2,599.00 2 3,118.861 4 7 4 8 8 BLOCK "K" RSC 048115 11 K E Balboa Blvd 8,400.00 2035 0 4,200.00 3 5,040.00 6 12 6 14 12 RSC 04811512 K Palm St 3,000.00 575 0 3,000 1,500.00 1 1,800.00 2 4 2 5 4 11,400.00 3,000 5,700.00 4 8,840.00 9 16 8 19 18 BLOCK "IL" RSC 048 116 01 L "No Site Address• 6,000.00 0 0 3,000.00 2 3,600.00 4 8 4 10 8 RSC 048116 02 L *No Site Address" 3,000.00 0 0 1,500.00 1 1,800.00 2 4 2 5 4 RSC 048 116 03 L Palm St 7.645.00 4226 0 4,070 3,822.50 3 4,587.00 6 10 6 13 12 16,645.00 4,070 8,322.50 7 9,987.00' 13 23 14 28 26 BLOCK"M" RSC 048 116 04 M E Balboa Blvd 11,000.00 5275 0 6,050 5,500.00 4 6,600.00 8 15 8 18 16 RSC 048116 05 M Washington Ave 3,000.00 0 0 1,500.00 1 1.800.00 2 4 2 5 4 14,000.00 6,050 7,000.00 5 8,400.00 ` 11 20 10 24 22 BLOCK "N" RSC 048134 03 N E Balboa Blvd 2,980.00 2937 3 700 1,490.00 1 1,788.00 2 4 2 5 4 Page 2 Com FAR: 050 Commen:ial DemkT. 2375.00 TFR Density: 1.000.00 Cam pg" H"XLS Bonus FAR: 0.60 Comm Bonus Demdy: 1250 00 NC FAR: 0.00 Res. Parldng: 200 5,980.00 700 2,990.00 2 3,588.00 4 8 4 10 8 BLOCK "P" RSC 048 13109 P E Balboa Blvd 3,010.00 2909 3 3.500 1,505.00 1 1,806.00 2 4 2 5 4 3,010.00 3,500 1,505.00 1 1,806.00 2 4 2 5 4 BLOCK"Q" RSC 048 131 10 Q E Balboa Blvd 3,414.00 3412 0 4,000 1,707.00 1 2,048.40 2 4 2 5 4 3,414.00 4,000 1,707.00 1 2,048.40 2 4 2 5 4 BLOCK'T' RSC 048122 01 T E Balboa Blvd 2,565.00 2086 3 1,282.50 1 1,539.00 2 3 2 4 4 RSC 048 122 02 T E Balboa Blvd 2,565.00 488 1 1,282.50 1 1.539.00 2 3 2 4 4 RSC 048 122 03 T E Balboa Blvd 2,565.00 955 1 1,282.50 1 1,539.00 2 3 2 4 4 RSC 048122 04 T E Balboa Blvd 2.565.00 3548 3 800 1,282.50 1 1,539.00 2 3 2 4 4 RSC 048122 05 T E Balboa Blvd 2,565.00 2574 3 1,000 1,282.50 1 1,539.00 2 3 2 4 4 RSC 048122 06 T E Balboa BIVd 2,565.00 3827 3 2,400 1,282.50 1 1,539.00 2 3 2 4 4 RSC 048 122 07 T E Balboa Blvd 5,130.00 5388 3 4,968 2,565.00 2 3,078.00 4 7 4 8 8 20,520.00 9,168 10,260.00 8 '12,312.00 16 29 16 35 32 BLOCK "U" RSC 048 122 08 U Palm St 5,415.00 9568 7 3,100 2,707.50 2 3,249.00 4 7 4 9 8 5,415.00 3,100 2,707.50 2 3,249.00 4 7 4 9 8 BLOCK "V" RSC 048 123 01 V E Balboa Blvd 2.565.00 2100 2 2,500 1,282.50 1 1,539.00 2 3 2 4 4 RSC 048123 02 V E Balboa Blvd 2,565.00 764 1 1,282.50 1 1,539.00 2 3 2 4 4 RSC 048 123 03 V E Balboa Blvd 2,565.00 1076 0 2,000 1,282.50 1 1,539.00 2 3 2 4 4 RSC 048 12310 V E Balboa Blvd 2,739.20 0 1 1,000 1,369.60 1 1,643.52 2 3 2 4 4 RSC 04812311 V E Balboa Blvd 2,739.20 0 1 1,000 1,369.60 1 1,643.52 2 3 2 4 4 RSC 04812312 V E Balboa Blvd 7,346.60 0 3 2,500 3,673.30 3 4,407.96 5 10 6 12 10 20,520.00 9,000 10,260.00 8 IZ312.00 ` 16 29 16 35 32 BLOCK "X" Page 3 Cm. FAR: 0.50 Cammmial Density. 2375.00 TFR Densdy: ##tgWk com. FaQi BWvo2.XLS Bonus FAR: 0.60 Comm. Bonus Density: 1250.00 NC FAR: 0 00 Res. Paddng: 200 RSC 048135 03 X E Balboa Blvd RSC 048135 04 X E Balboa Blvd RSC 048135 05 X E Balboa Blvd RSC 048135 09 X Main St BLOCK "Y" RSC 048135 07 Y Main St RSC 048 13510 Y E Ocean Front RSC 04813511 Y E Ocean Front RSC 04813512 Y E Ocean Front BLOCK "Z" RSC 048 132 02 Z E Balboa Blvd RSC 04813219 Z E Balboa Blvd UNCLASS 048 11213 N/A *No Site Address• UNCLASS 04812501 N/A *No Site Address* UNCLASS 04812601 NIA *No Site Address• UNCLASS 04813001 NIA *No Site Address• UNCLASS 04813002 NIA *No Site Address• UNCLASS 04813004 N/A E Ocean Front RSC 048130 05 N/A E Ocean Front TOTALS: t• 2,565.00 3078 0 2,350 1,282.50 2,565.00 1956 1 1,018 1,282.50 2,565.00 1896 2 1,700 1,282.50 7,695.00 9404 6 4,900 3,847.50 20,520.00 16,568 1 10,260.00 12,825.00 24316 32 41,119 6,412.50 2,565.00 2310 2 1,282.50 2,565.00 2310 2 1,282.50 2,565.00 2310 2 1,282.50 20,520.00 41,119 10,260.00 2,565.00 2565 0 2,200 1,282.50 15,390.00 4788 0 3,600 7,695.00 17,955.00 5,800 8,977.50 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 7,425.00 0 0 4-,00 3,712.50 7,425.00 Ay700` 3,712.50 312,753.30 111,431.60 50 193,895 156,376.65 Page 4 1 1,539.00 2 3 2 4 4 1 1,539.00 2 3 2 4 4 1 1,539.00 2 3 2 4 4 3 4,617.00 6 10 6 13 12 8 12,312.00 16 29 16 35 32 5 7,695.00 10 18 10 21 20 1 1,539.00 2 3 2 4 4 1 1,539.00 2 3 2 4 4 1 1,539.00 2 3 2 4 4 8 12,312.00 16 29 16 35 32 1 1,539.00 2 3 2 4 4 6 9,234.00 12 21 12 26 24 7 10,773A0 14 25 14 30 28 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 3 .4;455:001 5 10 6 12 10 3 aijliilN■ 5 10 6 12 10 117 187,651.98 234.00 426.00 233.00 519.60 468.00 Pa*179-A1 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) Chapter 20.64 SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT (CENTRAL BALBOA) Sections: 20.64.010 Establishment of Specific Plan District 20.64.015 Purpose and Intent 20.64.020 General Controls 20.64.025 Design and Development Guidelines 20.64.030 Retail and Service Commercial , SP-1 (RSC) District 20.64.035 Commercial District Development Standards 20.64.040 Residential Districts: SP-1 (R-2) and SP-1 (MFR) 20.64.045 Residential District Development Standards 20.64.050 Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities, SP-1 (GEIF) District 20.64.055 Governmental, Educational and Institutional District Development Standards 20.64.060 Open Space, SP-1 (OS) District 20.64,065 Open Space District Development Standards 20.64.070 General Regulations 20.64.080 Reconstruction of Nonconforming Structures 20.64.090 Public Improvement Component 20.64.010 ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT -CENTRAL BALBOA. The provisions of this Specific Area Plan shall apply to all parcels within the boundaries of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan area, as shown on the Land Use Plan Map incorporated herein, and as shown on Districting Map No. 11, as referred to in Section 20.01.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. (Ord. 86-7, May 28, 1986) 20.64.015 PURPOSE AND INTENT. The purpose of this Specific Area Plan is to establish policies to guide the orderly development and improvement of the Central Balboa Area. Development Standards are included in this Specific Plan to set minimum standards for public and private improvements. A. The specific goals of this Specific Area Plan are as follows: Page 179-A2 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) To consolidate, preserve, and enhance the traditional central business district character of the area. 2. To create visual interest and a pedestrian scale along street -facing facades and a harmonious relationship between buildings. To preserve the historic character of the area and maintain compatibility with the scale and mass of existing structures, while allowing opportunities for architectural diversity. 4. To provide a year-round, active commercial and recreational area serving the needs of the permanent residents and visitors of the Balboa Peninsula. 5. To provide public improvements designed to enhance the visual quality of the area, encourage safe pedestrian movement and bicycle transportation, and to facilitate the flow of vehicular traffic. 6. To locate and develop new public parking areas, while minimizing encroachment into existing open space and recreational areas. 7. To use architectural design and public improvements to define the commercial district and establish a clear line of demarcation with residential areas. B. It is the intent of this Specific Area Plan to ensure consistency between the stated goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. This will be achieved through the equitable application of the provisions of this plan. C. The Land Use Plan Map, as incorporated herein, and the accompanying design guidelines and development standards provide for the orderly development of property within the Central Balboa area, consistent with the stated goals, policies and objectives of the City's General Plan and Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. This will be achieved through the equitable application of the provisions of this plan. The majority of the Central Balboa area is designated for Retail and Service Commercial land uses. This designation is intended to provide the Central Balboa area with commercial services for permanent residents and visitors of the area. Two Family Residential, Multi -family Residential, Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities and Open Space designations reflect existing land uses and development. 20.64.020 GENERAL CONTROLS. A. APPLICABILITY. The provisions of this section shall apply to all property in the Central Balboa Specific Plan District, unless otherwise noted. Page 179-A3 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS REGULATED. No building, structure, or sign shall be erected, reconstructed or structurally altered in any manner nor shall any building or land be used for any purpose, other than as permitted by, and in conformance with this Plan and all other ordinances, laws and maps referred to herein. Where other sections of the Municipal Code conflict with any provision of this Plan, the provisions of this Specific Plan shall take precedence. 2. NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES. Nonconforming uses and structures shall be governed by the provisions of Section 20.64.080 of this Chapter and in Chapter 20.83. B. LAND USE DESIGNATIONS. The following land use designations are established: 1. Retail and Service Commercial, SP-1 (RSC) District. 2. Two Family Residential, SP-1 (R-2) District Multi -Family Residential, SP-1 (NOR) District. 4. Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities, SP-1 (GEIF) District. Open Space, SP-1 (OS) District. The designations, locations and boundaries of these uses are delineated upon the map entitled "Central Balboa Specific Area Plan, Land Use Plan Map", which map and all information and notations thereon are made a part of this section by reference. (Ord. 94-**, * *, 1991; Ord. 86-7, May 28, 1986) C. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. Land use and development regulations shall be those of the base district with which the "SP" Specific Plan District symbol is applied, unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Chapter. In cases where the Specific Plan District regulations conflict with the base district regulations, the regulations of the Specific Plan District shall apply. D. ALTERATIVE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. In order to permit flexibility in development regulations and allow opportunities for innovative and superior urban design, alternative development regulations may be proposed through the site plan review process in accordance with the provisions of Section 20.01.070. The Planning Commission shall approve or conditionally approve the development upon the finding that: Pagc 179-A4 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) The proposed site plan is consistent with the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan and other applicable policies. 2. The proposed site plan is compatible with surrounding development. The proposed site plan provides the potential for superior urban design in comparison with the development under Specific Plan District regulations that would apply if the site plan were not approved. 4. The deviations from the Specific Plan District regulations that otherwise would apply are justified by compensating benefits of proposed the site plan. 5. The proposed site plan shall ensure that the public benefits derived from expendi- tures of public funds for improvement and beautification of streets and public facilities within Central Balboa Specific Area Plan area shall be protected. 20.64.025 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES. These design and development guidelines are intended to provide criteria for all new development and the redevelopment of existing properties, and to assist the City staff and Planning Commission in reviewing applications for site plan review or use permits. A. DESIGN THEME. The objective is to preserve and enhance the traditional central business district character of the Central Balboa area. Essential to realizing this objective is the maintenance and strengthening of pedestrian orientation of the commercial district. The siting of buildings, architectural design and street and sidewalk improvements should foster pedestrian activity. Design elements that may be applied to achieve this objective include: Avoiding monotonous, visually unappealing structures by providing vertical and horizontal articulation to break up building mass. 2. Designing structures to create transitions in form and scale between large buildings and adjacent smaller buildings. Designing buildings to be visually connected rather than creating gaps in the streetscape system. 4. Relating the scale and character of new development, and the redevelopment of existing properties, to the pedestrian functions and spaces. Pa•179-A5 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) Wherever possible, new structures and the redevelopment of existing properties, should expand the pedestrian spaces provided by the sidewalk. Examples of this include recessed building entries or internal courtyards, patios, plazas, or malls. 6. Extending paving material to sidewalk in front of building entrances and using paving patterns to identify building entrances and to add visual interest. 7. At block comers, structures should utilize a form which creates an open space pedestrian environment, such as a corner plaza. 8. Site and design buildings and parking areas to minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. 9. Wherever possible, locating parking to the rear or to the side of buildings, and entries on side streets and alleys. B. ARCHITECTURAL THEME. No specific architectural theme is recommended for the Central Balboa area. The intent is to preserve the historic character of the area, maintain harmony with the existing structures, and allow opportunities for architectural diversity. Design should therefore focus on providing a pedestrian scale and utilize materials and features consistent with the historic structures in the area, with the Balboa Pavilion and the Balboa Inn serving as focal points. Architectural elements that may applied to achieve this objective include: Commercial structures which face public streets should be designed to create visual interest and a pedestrian scale along street -facing facades and a harmonious relationship between buildings. 2. Walls abutting pedestrian walkways or sidewalks of commercial areas should be primarily non -reflective glass affording views of merchandise and store within. Avoid large blank walls and long stretches of walls without windows. 3. Storefronts should provide attractive and varied window displays, including, but not limited to, window recesses, special trim, mullions, and multi -pane glass. 4. Where appropriate, awnings or other devices for weather protection should be encouraged. Such devices should relate to the overall scale of architectural details. 5. Exteriors materials and finishes should be in keeping with the historic character of the area. Natural materials which provide texture and visual interest, such as brick, wood, unpolished stone and stucco, are encouraged. Use of reflective glass, Pag?179-A6 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) metal panels (with the exception of decorative roofing), plastic materials, split face block, exposed concrete block and other exterior materials which are similarly out of character with the area should be avoided. 6. Exterior colors should be those which are in keeping with the established character of the area. The dominant color of the building should relate to the inherent color of its exterior material. Subdued colors are recommended for the overall color theme. Bright and excessively dark colors should limited to accents intended to enhance the overall appearance of the building. 7. The use of decorative lighting to accent rooflines and architectural elements is encouraged. C. CIRCULATION AND PARKING. 1. Circulation and parking design and improvements are intended to achieve the following: a. Minimizing traffic congestion and ensuring access to the beach and bay for residents and visitors. b. Avoiding the channeling non-residential traffic into residential areas. C. Minimizing conflicts with pedestrian movement. and bicycle transportation. d. Discouraging 'bruising" in the commercial district and on the Peninsula. e. Providing adequate, accessible parking for private and public uses. 2. The above objectives can be achieved by applying the following guidelines to circulation and parking improvements: a. Directing non-residential traffic off of Balboa Boulevard to parking areas and other destination points while within the boundaries of the commercial district. b. Minimizing traffic on Main Street while maintaining adequate access to businesses and services. Page 179-A7 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) C. Establishing parking standards for private development that are consistent with the unique needs and the physical constraints of the area. d. Establishing time limits for on -street public parking that are consistent with the parking durations typical for business districts. e. Configuring public parking facilities to maximize available parking, while providing adequate landscaping and minimizing encroachment into open space areas. f. Configuring public parking facilities to provide parking areas and time limits that meet business and recreational needs. g. Providing parking areas and programs oriented to the needs of area residents. 3. Circulation and parking improvements shall be in association with the establishment of a system of remote parking areas and a shuttle service. D. STREETSCAPE. I. Streetscape design and materials are intended to achieve the following: a. Enhance the visual quality of the Central Balboa area while reinforcing its recreational and historic character. b. Encourage pedestrian activity. C. Promote bicycling for transportation and recreation. d. Reduce visual clutter created by street fixtures, signs and graphics.in order to enhance the aesthetic quality of the area and to facilitate the flow of vehicular traffic. e. Clearly delineate the boundaries of the commercial area and discourage commercial and recreational activities from intruding into residential areas. 2. The above objectives can be achieved by applying the following guidelines to street improvements: Page 179-A8 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) a. Enlarged Pedestrian Areas. Enlarged pedestrian areas should be provided by extending sidewalks to create "bulb -outs" at selected intersections. b. Paving. Decorative paving treatments should be used to breakup large areas of concrete; to differentiate pedestrian areas and walkways; to identify building entrances and driveways; to accent tree wells, lighting fixtures and bus stops; and to add visual interest. C. Bollards. Bollards should be provided where appropriate to provide separation of pedestrian and vehicular areas. d. Street Lighting. Street light fixture designs should be reflective of the historic character of the area. Street light fixtures should be kept to a pedestrian scale (12 to 18 feet). Street light fixtures should accommodate vertical banners for use in identifying the commercial area and promoting civic events. e. Street Furnishings. Benches, kiosks, trash receptacles, planters and other street furnishings should be of design and materials consistent with the character of the area. Wherever possible, street furnishings should be consolidated to avoid visual clutter and facilitate pedestrian movement. f. Signs and Graphics. Wherever possible, traffic control, directional and other public signs should be consolidated and grouped with other street fixtures and furnishings to reduce visual clutter and to facilitate vehicular and pedestrian movement. A system of directional signs should also be established to direct traffic within the commercial district and away from residential area. to A graphic denoting the Central Balboa areashouldbe incorporated into the standard street name signs used within the Specific Plan District. g. Street Trees. Street trees should be used to provide shade, soften building forms, and to enhance the street environment. However, the height and density of the leaf canopy should not overly obscure adjacent businesses. Flush -mounted tree wells with steel grating and/or brick surfaces should be used to protect the trees, and to allow free pedestrian movement. h. Entry Signs. Entry signs, such as ornamental arches, banners, or similar structures, should be constructed on Balboa Boulevard at Adams Street and at A Street. • Page 179-A9 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) i. Utilities. The undergrounding of all existing overhead utilities, including electric power, telephone and cable television, is recommended to improve the visual quality of the streetscape and to eliminate the need to prune street trees away from power lines. 3. Main Street's storefront character, pedestrian orientation and tree -lined canopy should be preserved and enhanced. 4. Palm Street should be improved to emulate Main Streets setting. This will provide a major pedestrian link from the Balboa Pier parking lot to the Balboa Island Ferry. This will also create a major pedestrian loop through the area via Palm Street, the East Ocean Front boardwalk, Main Street, and the Edgewater Place Public Walk. 5. Adams Street, East Balboa Boulevard, East Bay Avenue and Washington Street should be improved with enhanced sidewalk treatments and, street furniture and fixtures to promote pedestrian activity and create active shopping streets. These streets will also serve as secondary pedestrian corridors. E. LANDSCAPING. 1. Landscaping should serve as a unifying element within the Central Balboa area. The landscape palette should provide continuity, yet allow opportunities for creativity, contrasts and variety. 2. Landscaping should complement architectural design. Landscaping can be used to identify building entrances, bring building elements to a human scale, soften building exteriors, and to provide interesting shades and shadows. 3. Landscaping should be used to support the pedestrian environment. Landscaping can be used to separate outdoor dining areas from pedestrian areas, provide pedestrians with protection from the elements, and add visual interest to pedestrian areas. Along storefronts, the use of plants and flowers in raised planters, window boxes and other containers are encouraged. 4. Where appropriate, landscaping should be used to screen parking, loading, storage, service and utility areas from public view, while maintaining safe sight distances. 5. In parking areas, landscaping should be used to break-up expanses of pavement, provide separation from pedestrian areas, and to create canopies and shade. Page 179-A10 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) 6. The use of water conservation design concepts, such as xeriscape and drip irrigation, should be encouraged. 7. Landscaping in public areas near the beach and bay should be chosen for their aesthetic qualities, low maintenance requirements, and their ability to withstand strong prevailing winds and salt -laden air. 20.64.030 RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL, SP-1 (RSC) DISTRICT. It is the intent of this section to provide for retail sales, personal service, commercial, and professional uses that offer service to the area residents and visitors. A. USE OF LAND OR STRUCTURES. Uses permitted in commercial districts and' uses permitted upon the approval of the Planning Director, Modifications Committee, or Planning Commission shall be as provided in Table 20.64. B. SPECIAL FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR FOOD USES. In addition to the findings established in Chapter 20.72, the Modifications Committee, Planning Commission, or City Council, as the case may be, shall make the following findings in order to approve a drive- in, take-out or specialty food service use: That the operator of the food service use will be responsible for the clean-up of all on -site and off -site trash, garbage and litter generated by the use. 2. That the operator of the food service use has submitted a practical program for the monitoring and implementing the clean-up of site and adjacent areas. 20.64.035 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following standards shall apply to all properties and developments in the SP-1 (RSC) District as set forth herein: Pa4g?179-All SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) A. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. 1. First Floor Front Yard Setback (Interior Lots): A minimum of forty percent (40%) of the first floor building face shall be set back an average of three (3) feet from the front setback line on interior lots. 40% of � Frontage OR%" Frontage 2. Side Yard Setback: Where the side of a lot abuts a residential district, a minimum setback of five (5) feet shall be maintained. 3. Rear Yard Setback: Where the rear of a lot abuts a residential district, a minimum setback of five (5) feet shall be maintained. 4. Allgy Setback: Where a rear -lot line adjoins an alley with a width of less than twenty (20) feet, a setback of ten (10) feet shall be maintained. 5. Corner Setback: On comer lots, the first floor of a building shall not extend beyond an imaginary line that connects a point on each of the street front property lines which is distant from the corner property line by a length eight (8) feet. • P#179-Al2 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) 6. Bulkhead Setback; A minimum setback of ten (10) feet shall be maintained from the bulkhead line. B. REQUIRED BUILDING LINES. A minimum of sixty percent (60%) of the building surface facing East Balboa Boulevard, Main Street and Palm Street shall be located within five (5) feet of the property line. E .................................................. �f 6o%of Street C. REQUIRED VERTICAL ARTICULATION. No wall surface adjacent to a public street shall run in one continuous direction for more than fifty (50) feet without a recess or offset break measuring at least five (5) feet in depth and at least ten (10) feet wide. Cornices, eaves, ornamental features, raised planters up to 18 inches and open balconies and stairs may project into this area. Paqg'179-A13 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) D. REQUIRED HORIZONTAL ARTICULATION. Walls adjacent to any public street shall be setback at least one and one-half (1.5) feet for every foot in excess of above nineteen (19) feet above grade. Twenty percent (20%) of the length of the building facade may exceed the nineteen (19) foot height limit up to the height limits specified in Chapter 20.02, in order to accommodate towers, spires, cupolas, dormers, gables, and chimneys. 19' E. BUILDING MATERIALS. 26' 0101 m.%% oll, h1 Not more than forty percent (40%) of any exterior building elevation above the first floor shall consist of glass or a similar material. 2. Opaque, reflective or dark tinted glass shall not be permitted. 88 6I� t Pa4g 179-A14 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) F. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. Residential uses shall be permitted above the first floor. The following standards apply to residential units above commercial or retail uses: 1. Residential uses are permitted on the second floor or above only. 2. A minimum of 2,375 square feet of land area is required for each dwelling unit, provided, however, that a minimum of one (1) dwelling unit per lot shall be permitted. 3. Developments in the SP-1 (RSC) District which consolidate existing legal lots to provide unified site design shall be granted a density bonus in accordance with the following schedule: Consolidated Land Area Residential Density 5,000 - 15,000 sq. ft. 1 unit per 1,500 sq. ft of land area 15,000 sq. ft. or more 1 unit per 1,250 sq. ft. of land area 4. The total gross floor area and building bulk in all structures on any site -shall be specified in Chapter 20.07. 5. The commercial or retail portion shall be limited to a floor area ratio between 0.25 and 0.50. Commercial or retail portions with floor area ratios of less than 0.25 shall require a use permit as specified in Chapter 20.07. 6. The residential portion of the structure shall be limited to a maximum floor area ratio of 0.75. 7. A minimum of one hundred (100) square feet of outdoor living space per dwelling unit shall be provided. This outdoor living space area shall have a minimum dimension in any direction of at least six (6) feet and shall be open to the sky or open on at least one side. Architectural features may project into this area as permitted in Section 20.64.070 (A) of this Chapter. 8. Off-street parking for residential uses shall be provided in accord with the following schedule: 1.5 spaces, including 1 covered, for studios and one -bedroom units up to 750 square feet in floor area. • Page 179-A15 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20:64 (DRAFT) 2 spaces, including 1 covered, for units with 2 bedrooms or more or for units with floor areas in excess of 750 square feet. G. SIGNS. The following standards shall apply to all signs within the SP-1 (RSC) District: 1. Wall Signs. a. Number. Single tenant buildings shall be permitted one (1) primary wall sign. Multi -tenant buildings shall be permitted one (1) wall sign per business. b. Area. Two (2) square feet of sign area for each lineal foot of frontage, up to one hundred (100) square feet. Frontage is computed on an individual basis in multi -tenant buildings. Building frontage shall be measured along that side of the building for which the sign is proposed. C. Length. The length of a primary wall sign shall not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the building frontage. d. Accessory Signs (including logos). Single tenant buildings shall be permitted two (2) additional accessory wall signs of twelve (12) square feet each. 2. Ground Signs. a. Frontages. Ground signs shall be permitted only on properties with a minimum frontage of one hundred (100) feet. b. Area. The area of ground signs shall not exceed forty (40) square feet (single face). C. Height. The height of ground signs shall not exceed four (4) feet. 3. Awning/Canopy/Shade Signs. a. Area. Signs may be placed on the outer faces of an awning, canopy, or shade if they are made a part thereof and do not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the exposed surface area. b. Placement. Signs placed perpendicular to the building face under an awning, canopy, or shade will be permitted at each building entrance • Page 179-A16 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) provided each sign does not exceed six (6) square feet (single face) and the bottom of each sign shall be clear of the sidewalk by not less than eight (8) feet. C. Materials. Awnings, canopies, and shades shall be constructed of non-combustible frames. Awning, canopy and shades coverings shall consist of an opaque fabric, tested and classified as nonflammable. d. Illumination. Awning, canopy, and shade signs shall be illuminated from exterior lighting sources only. 4. Marquee Signs. a. Area. Signs may be placed on the outer faces of a marquee, if they are made a part thereof and do not exceed the limitations of a marquees. Cutout letters, up to eighteen (18) inches in height, may be installed on top of marquees. b. Placement. Signs placed perpendicular to the building face under a marquee shall be permitted at each building entrance provided each sign does not exceed six (6) square feet (single face) and the bottom of each sign shall be clear of the sidewalk by not less than eight (8) feet. 5. Window Signs. a. Number. One (1) per window b. Size. No permanent window sign shall cover more than twenty percent (20%) of the visible window area. C. Materials. Permanent window signs shall be applied directly to the window surface and shalt be limited to individual lettering and transparent or translucent logos. 6. Projecting Signs. a. Number. One (1) projecting sign shall be permitted per building face. b. Area. Two (2) square feet for each lineal foot of building frontage, -not to exceed twenty-five (25) square feet (single face). Pa a 179-A17 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) C. Clearance and Height. The bottom of the sign shall be clear of the sidewalk by not less than eight (8) feet. The maximum height of the sign, excluding supporting structure, shall be sixteen (16) feet. d. Projection. No sign shall project more than four (4) feet over public property and may not project to within two (2) feet of the curb line. Subject to all limitations in this Chapter, the distance any sign may project over public property or beyond the building line is governed by the following table: Distance Above Sidewalk or S'•1l1' IW-IT 12_14' 14_w Grade Immediately Below Sign. Maximum Projection Over 1' 2' 3' 4' Property Line or Building Line. e. Thickness of Projection. The thickness of any portion of a sign which projects over public property or beyond a building line shall not exceed three (3) inches. f. Illumination. Projecting signs shall be illuminated from exterior lighting sources only. 7. Special Purpose Signs. a. Directional Signs. Signs used to give direction to traffic or pedestrians or give instructions as to special conditions shall not exceed a total of six (6) square feet (single face) in area and may be permitted in addition to the other signs listed in this section in instances where necessary for traffic safety reasons. Said signs shall not contain names, logos, or advertising messages. b. Directory Signs. Multi -tenant buildings shall be permitted one (1) twenty-- five (25) square foot wall or freestanding building directory sign listing tenants. C. Ancillary Signs. Signs displaying business hours, credit cards, and other such items shall not exceed a cumulative square footage of two (2) square feet. 8. Temporary Signs. Page 179-A18 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) a. Number. One (1) per building or building site, not including temporary window signs. b. Size. No temporary sign shall exceed sixty (60) square feet in area. Temporary signs of rigid material shall not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet in area, or six (6) feet in height. A temporary window signs shall not cover more than twenty percent (20%) of the visible window area. C. Duration. Temporary signs may remain in place for a period not exceeding two (2) thirty (30) day periods per calendar year. 9. Design Criteria. a. Signs permitted under this section are subject to the criteria set forth in Section 20.06.070. 10. Permits. All signs, consistent with this section, or approved by an Exception Permit, including temporary window signs, shall be required to obtain a sign permit from the Building Official. 11. Exceptions. a. The Modifications Committee shall have the authority to approve modifications from any of the provisions of Section 20.64.035 (G) in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.81. 12. Non -Conforming Signs. a. Signs existing at time of adoption of this Chapter which do not comply with the provisions hereof shall be regarded as legal nonconforming signs and shall be subject to the provisions of Section 20.06.110. H. LANDSCAPING. The following landscape standards shall apply to all properties within the SP-1 (RSC) District: 1. A minimum of eight percent (8%) of the site shall be landscaped. Up to one-half of the site's landscaping may be in the form of decorative paving; such as brick, stone or tile. Page 179-A19 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) 2. In exterior parking areas in excess of seventy-five hundred (7,500) square feet, a minimum of five percent (55/o) of the parking area shall be devoted to planting areas distributed throughout the parking area. Parking area landscaping may contribute towards meeting overall site landscaping requirements. Exterior parking areas shall provide a perimeter planting area a minimum of three (3) feet wide when the perimeter line abuts a public street, five (5) feet when the perimeter line abuts a residential district. 4. In exterior parking areas in excess of seventy-five hundred (7,500) square feet, a minimum of one (1) tree for every six (6) spaces shall be distributed throughout the exterior parking lot. 5. Landscaping shall be provided on the upper floors of parking structures where these structures are visible from public streets, pedestrian pathways, or adjacent buildings. 20.64.040 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. It is the intent of this section is to preserve the existing residential districts within the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan area, and to maintain the development standards that have guided the orderly development of these districts. A. USE OF LAND OR STRUCTURES. Uses permitted in commercial districts and uses permitted upon the approval of the Planning Director, Modifications Committee, or Planning Commission shall be as provided in Table 20.64. 20.64.045 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following standards shall apply to all properties and developments in the SP-1 (R-2) and SP-1 (NOR) Districts as set forth herein: A. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. 1. Front Yard Setback: A front yard setback area of five (5) feet shall be required, except for the south side of the 800 block of East Bay Avenue, which shall have a setback of ten (10) feet. 2. Side Yard Requirements: Each side yard shall not be less than three (3) feet wide on building site forty (40) feet wide or less, or four (4) feet on lots wider than forty (40) feet; provided, that the side yard on the rear twenty (20) feet of the street side of a comer lot, where there is reversed frontage, shall not be less than the front yard required or existing on the adjacent reversed frontage. Pa• 179-A20 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) 3. Rear Yard Setback: A minimum ten (10) foot setback area shall be shall be main- tained. 4. Alley Setback: Where a rear -lot line adjoins an alley, a setback of five (5) feet shall be maintained. B. REQUIRED COURTS 1. Courts Opposite Interior Properly Line: The minimum depth of a court for a required window for a habitable room shall be ten (10) feet measured from the property line. 2. Court Dimensions: Courts shall be twelve 12 feet, six 6 feet on either side of the ( ) () Habitable centerline of the required window, and 12, Room 1a shall be open to the sky, provided eaves Window may project eighteen (18) inches into a court. COURT OPPOSITE INTERIOR PROPERTY LIN C. OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE. A minimum of one hundred (100) square feet of outdoor living space per dwelling unit shall be provided. This outdoor living space area shall have a minimum dimension in any direction of at least six (6) feet and shall be open to the sky or open to at least one side. Architectural features may project into this area as permitted in Section 20.64.070 (A) of this Chapter. 20.64.050 GOVERNMENTAL, EDUCATIONAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES, SP-1 (GEIF) DISTRICT It is the intent of this section to provide for the orderly Page 179-A21 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) development of public, quasi -public, and institutional uses, or the expansion of existing facilities, within areas designated for these uses in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. A. USE OF LAND OR STRUCTURES. Uses permitted in the Government, Educational and Institutional District and uses permitted upon the approval of the Planning Director, Modifications Committee, or Planning Commission shall be as provided in Table 20.64. 20.64.055 GOVERNMENTAL, EDUCATIONAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following standards shall apply to all properties and developments in the SP-1 (GEIF) District as set forth herein: A. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. The Planning Commission, or City Council upon review or appeal, shall establish front, side, and rear yard setback requirements for each proposed development in conjunction with the approval of a use permit. 20.64.060 OPEN SPACE, SP-1 (OS) DISTRICT It is the intent of this section to prohibit intensive urban development of those areas of the City designated for recreational and environmental open space in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. A. USE OF LAND OR STRUCTURES. Uses permitted in the Open Space District and uses permitted upon the approval of the Planning Director, Modifications Committee, or Planning Commission shall be as provided in Table 20.64. 20.64.065 OPEN SPACE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following standards shall apply to all properties and developments in the SP-1 (OS) District as set forth herein: A. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. The Planning Director or Planning Commission, or City Council upon review or appeal, shall establish front, side, and rear yard setback requirements for each proposed development. 20.64.070 GENERAL REGULATIONS A. PROJECTIONS INTO SETBACK YARDS. Projections into required setbacks shall be permitted as specified below, provided that encroachments into alley setbacks shall provide a minimum ground clearance of eight (8) feet. P# 179-A22 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) 1. Cornices, eaves, ornamental features, window boxes: two (2) feet, provided such features shall not project closer than two (2) feet from a side property line. 2. Bay and greenhouse windows, located on the first floor and not exceeding eight (8) feet in width: two (2) feet, provided such features shall not project closer than two (2) feet from a property line. 3. Raised planters up to eighteen (18) inches in height: eighteen (18) inches, except in an alley setback. 4. Open porches, patios, terraces, platforms, decks and subterranean garages, not more than three (3) feet in height: three (3) feet in a side yard or rear yard. 5. Marquees, awnings, and shades: to the front property line. 6. Columns, vertical supports and raised planters up to eighteen (18) inches in height, covering no more than ten percent (10%) of the corner setback area. B. PRIVATE ENCROACHMENTS INTO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. Private encroachments into the public right-of-way may be permitted in accordance with City policy, provided further such encroachments are in compliance with the following criteria: 1. The encroachment is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the specific area plan. 2. The design and materials of any structures encroaching into the public right-of- way shall be consistent with those of surrounding properties and standards established by the specific area plan. C. AWNINGS, CANOPIES, AND SHADES. Awnings, canopies, and shades may extend over public property, subject to the following conditions: 1. The owner of the property has applied for, and received, an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 2. Such devices meet with the construction, projection and clearance requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 3. Such devices shall not extend more than three (3) feet above or below the floor to which it is attached. Pa•179-A23 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) 4. Awnings, canopies, and shades shall be constructed of non-combustible frames. Awning, canopy and shades coverings shall consist of an opaque fabric, tested and classified as nonflammable. 5. Such devices displaying advertising shall be subject to the sign regulations contained in this section. D. REFUSE STORAGE AREAS. Refuse storage areas shall be screened on all sides by a six (6) foot solid wood or masonry wall, or located within a building. E. SCREENING OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. All exterior mechanical equipment, except solar collectors shall be screened from view on all sides. Screening materials may have evenly distributed openings or perforations averaging fifty percent (50%) F. OFF-STREET PARKING. Off-street parking shall be provided on the building site as specified in Chapter 20.10 for residential districts and in Chapter 20.33 for non-residential districts, except as provided in this section. 1. Off -Street Parking Required a. Retail Stores and Specialty Food Uses: b. Restaurants: 2. Special Provisions For Tandem Parking 1 parking space/350 sq. ft. of gross floor area. 1 parking space/50 sq. ft. of net public area; 1 parking space/35 sq. ft. of net public area when live entertainment is present. Up to 200 sq. ft. of restaurant outdoor seating is permitted without providing additional parking provided the area faces and is open to a public street. Tandem parking up to a maximum of two (2) vehicles in depth shall be permitted, subject to the following conditions: Page 179-A24 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) a. In the SP-1 (RSC) District, signs shall be posted on the business frontage which advises patrons of the availability and location of parking spaces. The location, size and color of the signs shall be approved by the Planning Director. b. In mixed use development, the enclosure of parking may be permitted, subject to the conditions specified in Section 20.30.030 (C). 3. Roof Parking In the SP-1 (RSC) District, the parking of vehicles on the -roof of a building is permitted with the approval of a use permit. G. BULKHEADS. All bulkheads shall be constructed to an elevation of nine (9) feet above mean low water (6.27 feet above mean sea level). H. FLOOR AREA RATIO, BUILDING BULK AND BUILDING HEIGHT. The total gross floor area and building bulk contained in all buildings on a buildable site in any commercial district shall be as specified in Chapter 20.07, except as provided in this section. The building height limit shall be as specified in Chapter 20.02. 1. Floor Area Ratio Bonus for Lot Consolidation. Developments in the SP-1 (RSC) District which consolidate existing legal lots to provide unified site design shall be granted a floor area bonus in accordance with the following schedule: Consolidated Land Area FAR Bonus 7,500 - 15,000 sq. ft. 0.05 15,000 sq. ft. or more 0.10 2. Conversion of Uses. The Planning Director may approve the conversion of a lawfully existing Maximum FAR use to a Base FAR use or to a Reduced FAR use, or the conversion of a Base FAR use to a Reduced FAR use upon finding that: c Page 179-A25 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) a. A significant portion of the traffic generated by the use originates within a mile of the site; or a. A significant portion of the traffic generated by the use consists of pass -by traffic or traffic that is diverted less than a mile from its primary destination; or b. The scope and scale of the use is such that it does not constitute a significant increase in the traffic generation potential; or C. That the use's operational characteristics are such that the conversion will not result in a significant increase in the traffic generation potential. Such characteristics include, but are not limited to, hours of operation, the type of goods or services offered, and the composition of its principal clientele. The Planning Director may require the applicant to provide survey data or other information substantiating the request for the conversion. I. PUMP -OUT FACILITIES REQUIRED. On waterfront sites where the proposed use includes public marinas, yacht clubs, boat charters or rentals, sports fishing establishments, commercial fishing facilities, marine service stations, gas docks, boat launching facilities, or other similar uses, either public or private, boat holding tank pump -out facilities shall be provided in each case, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission or City Council on review or appeal of a site plan review or use permit. Said pump -out facilities shall have adequate capacity to accommodate all vessels anticipated at each site. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Marine Director shall approve all plans and specifications of pump -out facilities. J. PUBLIC ACCESS TO BAY FRONT. In approving a site plan review or granting a use permit for development on a building site with frontage along the bay, the Planning Commission or City Council, upon review or appeal, shall require the dedication of vertical and lateral public access easements, except where adequate public access already exists or where the provision of access is inconsistent with public safety or the protection of fragile coastal resources. The following standards shall be applied to all lateral and vertical public access easements: Public access easements shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in width. 2. Public access easements may be provided within required setback areas. All dedicated public access easements shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder's Office in a manner satisfactory to the Public Works Department. (Ord. 90-24, June 28, 1990; Ord: 89-19, Sept.13, 1989; Ord. 86-7, May 28, 1986) Page 179-A26 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) 20.64.080 RECONSTRUCTION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES. A. Commercial structures in SP-1 (RSC) District that have been rendered nonconforming due to gross floor area or parking may be permitted structural alterations or demolition and reconstruction, involving up to one hundred percent (100%) of the existing gross floor area, subject to the following conditions: 1. Verification by the Planning Director of the gross floor area of the structure legally in existence shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits for alteration or reconstruction. 2. Alteration or reconstruction of structures shall conform with all current SP- 1 (RSC) District land use regulations and development standards, with the exception of floor area ratios and required parking for commercial uses. 3. Residential development shall be permitted within the preexisting gross floor area limits structure area pursuant to Section 20.64.035 (F) of this Chapter. 4. Off-street parking for residential development shall be provided on the building site as specified in Section 20.64.035 (F-7). 5. Alteration or reconstruction shall not result in a reduction in the amount of off-street parking that existed on the site prior to alteration or reconstruction. 6. Reduced F.A.R. uses legally in existence within a period six (6) months prior to alteration or reconstruction shall be permitted provided there is no increase in floor area devoted to those uses. All new uses shall be limited to base F.A.R. and maximum F.A.R. uses. 7. A Coastal Residential Development Permit (CRDP) shall be required pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 20.69 should the alteration or reconstruction of structures result in the following: a. The demolition or conversion of eleven (11) ormore dwelling units in two or more structures; or b. The demolition or conversion of three (3) or more dwelling units in one structure; or P#179-A27 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) C. The construction of ten (10) or more new dwelling units. B. COMBINING OF LOTS AND PARCELS. Lots and parcels in SP-1 (RSC) District with commercial structures that have been rendered nonconforming due to gross floor area or parking may be combined and structural alterations or demolition and reconstruction of said structures into new designs and configurations may be permitted provided the provisions of this Section are met and the owner or owners of said lots or parcels has caused to be executed and recorded a covenant and agreement to hold said lots or parcels as a single building site. 20.64.090 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT COMPONENT. The following are the public and private improvement projects for the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan area. Projects are listed by priority, with a general description of each project. The City's ability to fund its share of each project, where applicable, is based upon the allocation of limited financial resources throughout the City. Each year during the preparation of the City's annual budget, the City Council will determine which projects or portion thereof are to be funded by the City, their costs, and specific schedule for implementation. For those projects using gas taxes or other sources of revenue for a portion of the funding, the specific projects to be funded must also be determined annually, based upon, the availability of funds and demand from other projects throughout the City. A. PRIORITY I: IMPLEMENTATION WITHIN TWO YEARS BALBOA BOULEVARD, MAIN STREET, A STREET SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS Install sidewalk improvements on the north and south sides of the 500, 600, 700, and 800 blocks of Balboa Boulevard; the east and west sides of the 100, 200, and 300 blocks of Main Street; the north and south sides of the 800 block of East Bay Avenue; and the west side of the 100, 200, 300 blocks of A Street. These improvements include 12.5% flashed brick pavers and a rock salt finish. Additional improvements are to be installed on sidewalks at the intersections of Balboa Boulevard and Main Street, Balboa Boulevard and Palm Street, and East Bay Avenue and Main Street. These improvements include 66% red flashed pavers and rock salt finish. Install enlarged pedestrian areas by extending sidewalks to create "bulb -outs" at the intersections of Balboa Boulevard and Main Street and Balboa Boulevard Pa•179-A28 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) and Palm Streets, provided adequate turning radii and drainage can be provided. 2. BALBOA BOULEVARD, MAIN STREET, PALM, STREET, EAST BAY AVENUE CROSSWALKS Install special paving treatment at pedestrian crossings at the intersections of Balboa Boulevard and Palm Street; Balboa Boulevard and Main Street; and at Main Street and East Bay Avenue. 3. BALBOA BOULEVARD, MAIN STREET, A STREET LIGHTING Install decorative street light fixtures with vertical banners on the north and south sides of the 500, 600, 700, and 800 blocks of Balboa Boulevard; the east and west sides of the 100, 200, and 300 blocks of Main Street; the north and south sides of the 800 block of East Bay Avenue; and the west side of the 100, 200, 300 blocks of A Street. 4. MAIN STREET LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS Install new street trees on the east and west sides of the 100, 200, and 300 blocks of Main Street. Tree wells are to be flush -mounted with steel grating with brick paver trim and/or brick surfaces. 5. MAIN STREET FURNISHINGS Install new benches and trash receptacles on the east and west sides of the 100, 200, and 300 blocks of Main Street. 6. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ON BALBOA BOULEVARD, MAIN STREET, A STREET Undergroundirlg of all existing overhead utilities, including electric power, telephone and cable television, in the 800 block of East Bay Avenue; the west side of the 200 and 300 blocks of A Street; and in the alleys contained in Blocks E, P, and Q. Undergrounding includes including electric power, telephone and cable television, provision of underground utilities to the property line, where a connection would be made to existing service above ground. 7. WASHINGTON STREET TRAFFIC SIGNAL Page 179-A29 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) Install a new traffic signal at the intersection of Balboa Boulevard and Washington Street, if required by revised circulation plan. 8. TRAFFIC CONTROL AND DIRECTIONAL SIGNS ON BALBOA BOULEVARD, MAIN STREET, EAST BAY AVENUE, AND A STREET Install traffic control, directional and other public signs on the 500, 600, 700, and 800 blocks of Balboa Boulevard; the 100, 200, and 300 blocks of Main Street; the 800 block of East Bay Avenue; and of the 100, 200, 300 blocks of A Street. 9. BALBOA BOULEVARD ENTRY Install entry signs or semi -permanent banner on Balboa Boulevard at Adams Street and at A Street. 10. BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS Modify the configuration of the Balboa Pier parking lot to provide the following: a. A net gain of approximately 109 parking spaces without a substantial reduction in the amount of landscaping. b. Inbound circulation at Palm Street, outbound circulation at Washington Street. C. A widened entry aisle. d. Restricting Main Street to bus, local business patron, and service vehicle traffic. e. Relocation of the bus stop/layover to the pier area at Main Street. f. Addition of a landscaped buffer between the parking lot frontage road and Rendezvous condominiums. B. PRIORITY II: IMPLEMENTATION BETWEEN TWO AND FIVE YEARS. 1. PALM STREET SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS • Page 179-A30 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) Install sidewalk improvements on the east and west south sides of the 100, 200, and 300 blocks of Palm Street. These improvements include 12.5% flashed brick pavers and a rock salt finish. Additional improvements are to be installed on sidewalks at the intersection of Palm Street and East Bay Avenue. These improvements include 66% red flashed pavers and rock salt finish. 2. PALM STREET AND EAST BAY AVENUE CROSSWALKS Install special paving treatment at pedestrian crossings at the intersections of Palm Street and Balboa Boulevard and at Palm Street and East Bay Avenue. 3. PALM STREET LIGHTING Install decorative street light fixtures with vertical banners on the east and west sides of the 100, 200, and 300 blocks of Palm Street. 4. PALM STREET LANDSCAPING Install street trees on the east and west sides of the 100, 200, and 300 blocks of Palm Street. Tree wells are to be flush -mounted with steel grating with brick paver trim and/or brick surfaces. 5. PALM STREET FURNISHINGS Install benches and trash receptacles on the east and west sides of the 100, 200, and 300 blocks of Palm Street. 6. BALBOA PIER APPROACH IMPROVEMENTS Install decorative paving treatments, bollards, decorative lighting, benches, kiosks, trash receptacles, and planters and trees on the approach to the Balboa Pier. 7. TRAFFIC CONTROL AND DIRECTIONAL SIGNS ON PALM STREET Install traffic control, directional and other public signs on the 100, 200, and 300 blocks of Palm Street. 8. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ON PALM STREET Undergrounding of all existing overhead utilities, including electric power, telephone and cable- television in the 200 block of Palm Street. Under- . PO 179-A31 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) grounding includes provision of underground utilities to the property line, where a connection would be made to existing service above ground. C. PRIORITY III: IMPLEMENTATION WITHIN FIVE TO SEVEN YEARS. 1. EAST BAY AVENUE, WASHINGTON STREET SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS Install sidewalk improvements on the north and south sides of the 500, 600, and 700 blocks of East Bay Avenue and on the east and west sides of the 100, 200, and 300 blocks of Washington Street. These improvements include 12.5% flashed brick pavers and a rock salt finish. 2. EAST BAY AVENUE AND WASHINGTON STREET LIGHTING Install decorative street light fixtures with vertical banners on the north and south sides of the 500, 600, and 700 blocks of East Bay Avenue and on the east and west sides of the 100, 200, and 300 blocks of Washington Street. 3. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ON EAST BAY AVENUE, WASHINGTON STREET, AND ADAMS STREET Undergrounding of all existing overhead utilities including, electric power, telephone and cable television, in the 500, 600, and 700 blocks of East Bay Avenue; the 200 block of Washington Street; the 500 block of Adams Street; and the alleys contained in Blocks B, J, and K. Undergrounding includes provision of underground utilities to the property line, where a connection would be made to existing service above ground. 4. TRAFFIC CONTROL AND DIRECTIONAL SIGNS ON EAST BAY AVENUE AND WASHINGTON STREET Install traffic control, directional and other public signs on the 500, 600, and 700 blocks of East Bay Avenue and on the 100, 200, and 300 blocks of Washington Street. D. PRIORITY IV: IMPLEMENTATION WITHIN SEVEN TO TEN YEARS. 1. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN REMAINING ALLEYS Spage 179-A32 - SPECIFIC FLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) Undergrounding of all existing overhead utilities including, electric power, telephone and cable television, in the alleys contained in Blocks T and U, V and W, X and Y, and Z and AA. Undergrounding includes provision of underground utilities to the property line, where a connection would be made to existing service above ground. TABLE 20.64 TYPE OF USE RSC R-2 MFR GEIF OS A"1101 d Re�Wstlon Residential Uses Single -Family Dwellings YES YES YES NO NO (A) Two -Family Dwellings YES YES YES NO NO (A) Multi -Family Dwellings YES NO YES NO NO (A) Congtegate Residences Congregate Care Facilities UP NO NO NO NO Elderly Residential UP UP UP NO NO Group Residential NO NO NO NO NO Single Room Occupancy UP NO NO NO NO Public Seml -Pubtle Uses Churches, Synagogues, and Temples YES (L-1) NO NO UP (L-2) NO Civic Centers NO NO NO UP (L-2) NO Community Centers UP UP (L-3) UP (L-3) UP (L-2) UP Daycare Facilities UP NO NO UP (L-2) NO Fire Stations and Police Stations UP NO NO UP (L 2) NO Hospitals NO NO NO UP (L-2) NO Libraries NO NO NO UP (L-2) NO Lodges/Community Service Organizations UP NO NO UP (L-2) UP Museums NO NO NO UP (L-2) NO Post Offices (Federal) NO NO NO UP (L-2) NO Reservoirs NO NO NO UP (L-2) NO A179-A33 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) OF USE RSC R-2 NUR GEIF OS Addiaonal Regulattow Schools, Public or Private NO NO NO UP (L-2) NO Social Halls UP NO NO UP (L-2) NO Transit Facilities UP NO NO UP (L-2) NO Utilitiy Substations, Public and Private UP UP (L-3) UP (L-3) UP (L-2) UP Animal Sales and Services Animal Hospitals UP NO NO NO NO Pet Shops UP NO NO NO NO Dog Groomers UP NO NO NO NO Art or Instructional 1 acilities Art Studios YES NO NO NO NO Dance Studios UP NO NO NO NO Handicraft Establishments YES NO NO NO NO Music/Art Studios UP NO NO NO NO Photography Studios YES NO NO NO NO Private Instructional Facilities UP NO NO NO NO Automobile -Related Uses Auto Rental (Office Only) YES NO NO NO NO Commercial Parking UP UP (L-4) UP (L-4) NO NO Municipally -Operated Parking Lots YES UP UP NO NO Banks and Savings ,and •Loans YES NO NO NO NO Food Uses Restaurants UP NO NO NO NO 03) Specialty Food Service MOD NO NO NO NO (B), (C) Take Out Restaurants UP NO NO NO NO (B), (C) gage 179-A34 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) TYPE OF USE RSC R 2 KM GEIF OS Ad"wd Ne{alMtow 1lftdne Was Boat Charter (Boats Present) UP NO NO NO NO Boat Sties (Boats Present) UP NO NO NO NO Marine Service Station UP NO NO NO NO Penohal Services Acupunture YES NO NO NO NO Barbers YES NO NO NO NO Beauty Parlors YES NO NO NO NO Cleaners/Laundries (Limited) YES (L-5) NO NO NO NO Cleaners/Laundries UP NO NO NO NO Fortune Telling YES NO NO NO NO Laundromats YES NO NO NO NO Massage Parlor YES NO NO NO NO Mortuaries UP NO NO NO NO Repair of Small Appliances YES NO NO NO NO Shoe Repair Y13S NO NO NO NO Tailors YES NO NO NO NO Other Personal Services YES NO NO NO NO Professional Services Accountants YES NO NO NO NO Attorneys YES NO NO NO NO Chiropractors YES NO NO NO NO Dental Office YES NO NO NO NO Engineers YES NO NO NO NO Interior Decorators YES NO NO NO NO Marine -Related Office, Including: YES NO NO NO NO Boat Charter (Office Only) YES NO NO NO NO Boat Sales (Office Only) YES NO NO NO NO Medical Office YES NO NO NO NO Printers YES NO NO NO NO FO 179-A35 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) OF USE RSC R-2 MBR GEIF OS Addlaonal Reyalnaom irs/Escrow YES NO NO NO NO Professional Services YES NO NO NO NO Assembly/Clubs )riums UP NO NO NO NO e Clubs UP NO NO NO NO Clubs UP NO NO NO NO Us UP NO NO NO NO Club UP NO NO NO NO Centers UP NO NO NO NO stional Facilitics d Parlors UP NO NO NO NO UP UP (L-3) UP (L-3) NO NO i Club/Aerobics Studios UP UP (L-3) UP (L-3) NO NO and Playgrounds UP UP (L-3) UP (L-3) NO YES itional Facilities UP UP (L-3) UP (L-3) NO YES Retail Uses Art Galleries YES NO NO NO NO Appliance Stores YES NO NO NO NO Bakeries YES NO NO NO NO Book Stores YES NO NO NO NO Clothing Stores YES NO NO NO NO Delicatessens YES NO NO NO NO Department Stores YES NO NO NO NO General Retail Sales YES NO NO NO NO Gift Shops YES NO NO NO NO Hardware Stores YES NO NO NO NO Jewelry Stores YES NO NO NO NO Mini -Marts YES NO NO NO NO Outdoor Sales UP NO NO NO NO Pharmacies YES NO NO NO NO Ike 179-A36 ` SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) TYPE OF USE RSC R-2 MR GEW 05 AiWdo#W Ae2"00r Plant Nurseries YES NO NO NO NO Retail Marine Sales YES NO NO NO NO Shoo Stores YES NO NO NO NO Specialty Shops YES NO NO NO NO Supennarkc4 YES NO NO NO NO General Retail Sales YES NO NO NO NO Visitor Aceonumdadons Bed and Breakfast Inns UP NO NO NO NO Hotels UP NO NO NO NO Motels UP NO NO NO NO OthcrUaes Helistops Up To 90 Days PD UP UP NO NO (D) Helistops Over 90 Days UP NO NO NO NO Outdoor Lighting UP UP UP NO NO (E) Relocatablo Buildings NO NO NO NO NO (F) Temporary Uses Up To 90 Days PD NO NO NO NO (0) Temporary Uses Over 90 Days UP NO NO NO NO (0) Watchman/Catetaker Residence U/A NO NO NO NO YES = PERMITTED ANC = PERMITTED IF ANCILLARY MOD = SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE MODIFICATIONS COMMITTEE PD SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR UP — PERMITTED WITH USE PERMIT U/A = PERMITTED WITH USE PERMIT IF ANCILLARY TO AN ALLOWABLE USE NO = PROHIBITED The letter "L" references certain limitations prescribed under "Limitations on Specified Uses." Letters in parentheses in the "Additional Regulations" column refer to "Additional Regulations" following the table. A179-A37 SPECIFIC PLAN (CENTRAL BALBOA) Chapter 20.64 (DRAFT) Limitations on Specified Uses L-1 Freestanding structures not permitted. L-2 In GEIF, approval of a Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.80 of the Municipal Code is required for the establishment of any new use permitted by this Section, or any expansion or changes in the operational characteristics of an existing use within this zoning district, unless said use is owned and or operated by a governmental agency that is exempted from the provisions of this Section by constitutional or statutory law, and is acting in its governmental capacity. (Ord. 88-27, August 24, 1988). L-3 Limited to facilities developed as part of a residential development. L-4 Permitted only when adjacent to a commercial district. L-5 No plant on premises, limited to collection only. Additional Regulations A. For the RSC District, see Section 20.64.035 (F): Residential Development. B. See Section 20.72: Restaurants. C. See Section 20.64.030 (B): Special Findings For Food Uses. D. Heliports and helistops. No helicopter shall land or take off and no heliport or helistop shall be established within the Central Balboa Specific Plan District unless a Use Permit shall first have been secured for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of such use. The Community Development Director may approve temporary helistops in any zoning district of the City for a period not to exceed 90 days for use in connection with major construction sites if he determines that such helistops will not unduly interfere with the health, safety, and welfare of persons owning property in the surrounding area and he may attach appropriate conditions to such approval. E. Outdoor lighting. No swimming pool, tennis court or other use which, in the opinion of the Planning Commission is of a similar nature, and which is located closer than two hundred feet to the boundary of any "R" District, shall be lighted externally unless a Use Permit shall first have been secured for the installation, maintenance, and operation of the lighting fixtures. (Ord. 1446; June 26, 1972). F. Relocatable (portable) buildings. No building permit or relocation permit shall be issued for the'ereetion or placement of a reloeatable building unless the applicant for said building permit has first applied for and obtained a use permit from the Planning Commission to maintain said relocatable building at a specific location (Ord. 1774 (part), § 3, 1978). Y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT January 10, 1994 TO: Central Balboa SAP Committee FROM: Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner;� SUBJECT: Corrections to the Draft Central Balboa Specific Awa Plan Teat The text of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan sent out on January 6th contained an old draft of Table 20.64. Attached are replacement pages containing the current draft of Table 20.64. I apologize for any confusion. If you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 644-3235. ATTACHMENT: Replacement pages 179•A31 to A37 of the CBSAP text 1] CENTRAL BALBOA SAP SUMMARY OF REMIONS EXISTING/PROJECTED (1987 estimates) Commercial Floor Area: 226,866/299,105 sf Dwelling Units: 219/319 du CURRENT PLAN Commercial Floor Area: 179, 826.15 sf Commercial Dwellings: 133 du Residential Dwellings: 100 du Req. Commercial Parking: 702 spaces (comm.), 266 (res.) 968 spaces (total) Req. Residential Parking: 200 spaces PROPOSED PLAN Commercial Floor Area: 181, 198.53 sf Commercial Dwellings: 220 du Residential Dwellings: 130 du Req. Commercial Parking: 496 spaces (comm.), 440 (res.) 936 spaces (total) Req. Residential Parking: 260 spaces 1. Allows alternative development regulations via the site plan review process. 2. Requires on -site, off -site clean-up and monitoring program for food uses. 3. Revised development regulations: a. Front setback increased from 0'-0" to an average of T-0" on 40% on first floor. 0 E b. New corner setback of 10% of frontage or 10'-0", whichever is less. C. Requires buildings on East Balboa Boulevard, Main Street, and Palm Street to place 60% of the building surface to be placed within 5'-0" of the property line. d. Requires vertical and horizontal articulation on walls adjacent to public streets. e. Limits the use of glass as an exterior material above the first floor. 4. Revised standards for commercial mixed -use projects: a. Grants a density bonus for projects that consolidate existing legal lots. b. Requires 100 square feet of outdoor living area for each residential unit. C. Lowers parking requirement from 2 to 1.5 spaces for one -bedroom and studio units. d. Grants a FAR bonus for projects that consolidate existing legal lots. 5. Revised sign regulations. 6. Revised landscaping regulations. 7. Revised standards for residential development: a. Requires courts on habitable room windows adjacent to property lines. b. Requires 100 square feet of outdoor living area for each residential unit. 8. Requires screening of refuse storage areas and mechanical equipment. 9. Revised commercial parking requirements: a. Reduces requirement for retail uses from 1 space per 250 square feet to 1 space per 350 square feet. b Reduces requirement for restaurants from 1 space per 40 square feet to 1 space per 50 square feet of net public area (1 space per 35 square feet when live entertainment is present). C. Allows up to 200 square feet of restaurant outdoor seating without additional parking when the area is open to and adjacent to a public street. d. Establishes standards for tandem parking. 0 10. Allows for reconstruction of structures nonconforming in FAR and parking. 11. Public improvement program: a. New sidewalks with enhanced paving. b. Crosswalks with special paving. C. Decorative lighting fixtures. d. Street furnishings. e. New street trees. f. New traffic signal and directional signage. g. Undergrounding of public utilities. h. Entry banners. i. Improvements to Balboa Pier parking lot to provide 109 additional spaces. j. Improved paving and landscaping to Balboa Pier approach. December 30, 1993 Mr. Patrick J. Alford Senior Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 'AAING LI", . ,% kh"' i" OF KWPORT KnC. AM DEC 3 11993 PM 7A9001641A814016 92658 Re: Special Meeting Central Balboa SAP Committee SALISBURY ENTERPRISES, INC. Dear Patrick: I received your memo this afternoon in respect to the special meeting of the Central Balboa SAP Committee scheduled for next Tuesday at 10:30 a.m. I wanted to let you and John know that I will not be able to attend due to a prior commitment that cannot be changed at this late date. I am sorry that I will not be able to attend. I would also like to take this opportunity to again thank you for all of your strong support and input over the past couple of years. It was a real pleasure to have gotten to know you better and to see the many talents of Patrick Alford. I hope you had a wonderful Christmas and will have the happiest of New Yearls! Warm regards, Doug L. Salisbury President General Partner/Landing Associates DLS:jh 17042 Gillette Avenue • Irvine, California 92714 • (714) 251-4880 • Fax (714) 251-0524 December 30, 1993 Mr. Patrick J. Alford Senior Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658 Re: Special Meeting Central Balboa SAP Committee Dear Patrick: SALISBURY ENTERPRISES, INC. I received your memo this afternoon in respect to the special meeting of the Central Balboa SAP Committee scheduled for next Tuesday at 10:30 a.m. I wanted to let you and John know that I will not be able to attend due to a prior commitment that cannot be changed at this late date. I am sorry that I will not be able to attend. I would also like to take this opportunity to again thank you for all of your strong support and input over the past couple of years. It was a real pleasure to have gotten to know you better and to see the many talents of Patrick Alford. I hope you had a wonderful Christmas and will have the happiest of New Year's! Warm regards, Doug L. Salisbury President General Partner/Landing Associates DLS:jh 17042 Gillette Avenue • Irvine, California 92714 • (714) 251-4880 • rax (714) 251-0524 C1TX OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: Kevin Murphy, City Manager FROM: Jim Hewicker, Planning Direct06* DATE: November 16, 1993 SUBJECT: USE OF PARKING FUNDS TO FINANCE CENTRAL BALBOA IMPROVEMENTS At the November 10, 1993 Central Balboa Specific Area Plan Committee meeting, Council Member John Hedges proposed using revenues from the Balboa Pier parking lot to finance public improvements in the Central Balboa area. These improvements include special sidewalk paving treatments, street lighting fixtures, street furniture, and landscaping. The Committee supported this concept and expressed interest in expanding it to include sales and transient occupancy tax revenues generated in the Central Balboa area. The Planning Department is investigating the method of implementing this proposal and the possible ramifications. In the meantime, I thought that you should be aware that this concept is being discussed. Balboa Pavilion Company 400 Main Street. Balboa. California 92661 (714) 673.5245 November 15, 1993 P; i\,e %G DEPARTMENT `a OF NFUVPGRT QEACH AM NUv 171993 PM 718,9110111112111213141516 A Mr. Patrick Alford Senior Planner Newport Beach CA 92660 Dear Patrick, I thought you might find these numbers from the Marine Department interesting. I suspect a survey would show at least 40% coming from the various activities at the Balboa Pavilion. incerely, %j L Phil Tozer cc: John Hedges Chairman Central Balboa SAP Committee PT/b MARINE RECREATION CENTER Sportfishing / Catalina Passenger Service / Harbor Cruise / Tale of the Whale Restaurant / Oceanology NOV-10-93 WED 16:22 NEWP BCH MARINE DEFT 714673 056 P.01 .a�WF'4A. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Marmi a Department FAX -mmm FAX November 10, 1993 FROM: RAY GARNER TO: MAPJLYN FAX # 673-8340 I am sending you the groan revenue figures for the Balboa Municipal parking lot from January though October 1993, as requested. Additionally I have sent you a more detailed first quarter report showing the decrease in vehicles using the parking lot. Please give me a call if I may be of further assistance. A total of 3 pages was transmitted (including this cover letter). If you do not receive all pages, or if the copy. is not legible, please call out office (714) 644-3044 as soon as possible, OUR FAX NUMBER IS 714) 673-3056 r 0 m��-,��,� ojor 1 � �, /C:,-� b^0 $.s r& %)¢Y,t 4Q :TA.V% � v� A pry / mjk , / /7/ 97S� -TON / / I, 14v7 '�) 4� 1 3.11 ,. /9 93 a Z0'd 9S9££t9bTt 1d34 21NI2JVW HOH dM3N ZZ:9T Q3M £6-9T—AON MONTHLYPAREVG LOT REPORT FOR OCTOBER 1993 1992 1993 DIFFERENCE Y T D Y T-D DIFFERENCE 1992 1993 BALBOA REVENUE WAGES L HRS. $65,280.33 $%292.96 884 $597392.50 $7,337.90 744 ($5,887.83) $489,227 ($1,955.06) $45,739 (140) 43,797 $458,527 $36,704 4,155 ($305,700) ($9,035) -641 # OF VEHICLES 20,612 191,505 1,107) 139,815 127,757 -127058 CDM REVENUE $14,923.00 $13,762.00 ($1,161.00) $316,779 $322,421 $5,642 WAGES EI1 TL, IRS. $2,480.52 261 $2,169.64 235 $310.88) (26) sl%m0 2,083 $17,248 13962 ($2,053) -121 # OF VEHICLES 3,530 3,414 116) 709104 605030 -10,074 BOTH LOTS VENUE AGES ENUL. HRS. $80,203 $111773 1044 $73,155 $9,508 979 ($7,049) ($2,266) (165) $806,006 $65,039 69880 $7809948 $53,951 6,117 ($255059) ($119088) -763 # OF VEHICLES 24,142 22,919 (1,223) 209,919 187,787 -22,132 m e N w m E w A m 1 w w m M 04 0 . ...... 0 Central Balboa SAP Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Notes November 10, 1993 10:00 am City Council Chambers PRESENT: Council Member John Hedges, Chairman Douglas Salisbury, BIA Phil Tozer, BIA Bob Black, BIA (Alternate) Kent Maddi, BIA (Alternate) M. B. Martin, BIA (Alternate) W. Chan Lefebre, BPPA Doug Boyd, BPPA Don Elder, BPPA (Alternate) Stephanie L. Houghton, CNBHA Fred Thompson, CNBHA Tom Hyans, CNBHA (Alternate) STAFF: Patrick Alford, Senior Planner PUBLIC: Anne Gifford, Planning Commissioner Virginia Herberts Dayna Pettit Butch Miller Adopt agenda Adopted without amendment. Comments from the public None. Approve November 4. 1993 meeting notes Adopted without amendment. Discussion Mr. Black stated that he would like the Committee to reconsider the circulation plan approved at the last meeting. He said that he believed that both of the home owners' associations are opposed to it. Chairman Hedges pointed out that the matter had been discussed numerous times and that it needed to be resolved. Mr. Tozer said that there was no support for the circulation plan. Mr. Lefebre suggested that a fresh look by an outside consultant was needed. Chairman Hedges reiterated the need to resolve the issue. Mr. Thompson indicated that he wanted to reconsider the circulation plan. Mr. Tozer suggested that design of Main Street was the key to the plan. Ms. Houghton indicated her support for reconstructing Main Street in a manner similar to Lido Village. Mr. Hayes said that he also supported special paving on Main Street. He also suggested making Main Street one-way out to Balboa Boulevard. Mr. Alford suggested that it was difficult for a committee of this size to establish a circulation plan that was agreeable to everyone. He suggested that the Committee put forward general policy statements on circulation issues and, if necessary, bring in an outside consultant to develop a plan to implement them. He informed the Committee that staff had prepared policies and objectives in the draft specific plan text under Section 20.64.025 "Design and Development Guidelines," under the heading "Circulation and Parking." Mr. Lefebre said that the residents like the idea of making Main Street a pedestrian mall, but do not want a third traffic signal on Balboa Boulevard. Mr. Boyd said that the Committee must balance the recommendations of residents and businesses. He added that otherwise, all their efforts would be rejected. Mr. Lefebre said that Peninsula Point would not support any plan that inconveniences them 365 days a year for a problem that occurs only 50 days out of the year. Chairman Hedges stated that the Committee had to decide whether or not to make changes to the circulation plan. He added that he would support substantial changes or no changes, but that either way the Committee had to move forward. Mr. Lefebre stated that people had lost confidence in the City's ability to keep its promises regarding circulation. Mr. Tozer asked why the signals had not been -synchronized. 4 9 0 Chairman Hedges responded that the signals were working better, but that the traffic control system has its limitations. Mr. Lefebre again stated that there was a lack of confidence in the City's ability to make positive changes in the circulation system. Commissioner Gifford said that the draft policies provided the balance the Committee was seeking. Ms. Herberts suggested that the Committee did not want to change the circulation system. She also spoke against bringing in another outside consultant. Chairman Hedges spoke of the different needs of residents and businesses. He added that he still believed that they could reach an agreement. There was a general discussion of the draft circulation and parking policies. Mr. Black moved to adopt the draft policies. Mr. Maddi said that traffic circulation works fine the way it is. He added that he would rather see the money for circulation improvements go towards providing more parking. Mr. Hyans stated that the policies place too much emphasis on providing more parking. Mr. Black said that the business community would disagree with that view. There was a general discussion on how the policies would be implemented. Mr. Black restated his motion to adopt the circulation and parking' policies. Mr. Salisbury seconded the motion; the motion passed without opposition. Mr. Alford said that the only section that was not complete was the public improvement component. He said that the Committee is recommending street, sidewalk, drainage, and landscaping improvements, reconfiguring the Balboa Pier parking lot, and the undergrounding of utilities. He said that he needed direction on funding and priorities. Chairman Hedges stated that he supported directing parking revenue funds to public improvements. Mr. Boyd questioned whether those funds actually exist or if they only exist on paper. The Committee decided that reconfiguring the Balboa Pier parking lot should occur first. Also, that street, sidewalk, drainage, and the undergrounding of utilities should be conducted concurrently. The Committee also favored using parking funds to finance these improvements, and using an assessment district to fill any gaps in funding. The Committee went on to review the revised specific plan text. The Committee directed staff to remove the provision prohibiting the use of tandem parking for commercial uses. Adiournment The meeting was adjourned at approximately 12:00 pm. CENTRAL *PORT BEACH COMMUNITY ASSO&TION c/o Thomas E. Hyans; President 217 Nineteenth Street Newport Beach, CA 92663-4507 (714) 673-0333 November 7, 1993 Mr. Ken Delino Deputy City Manager 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Ken; I enclose a new roster of the officers of the CNBCA for your use. Please address all timely notices on general subjects to my personal mailing address shown above. Our representation on the Balboa Specific Area Planning Committee will remain as before: Stephanie Houghton and Fred Thompson, with Harry Meily and Tom Hyans, Alternates. Please change our representation on the McFadden Square and Newport Pier Task Force, if such is appropriate, to be: Bill Martin and John Berchild, with Tom Hyans, Alternate. We will be contacting Dayna Pettit or Bob Black, shortly, regarding representation on the newly formed Balboa merchants and residents organization. Fred Thompson and Cameron Fryer, with Tom Hyans, Alternate. Once again, thanks for your help and coordination efforts on the programs important to those of us who live in these old parts of town. We do appreciate your work. r 7-61Y, ��- Tom Hyans, Pres. cc: Jim Hewicker, Planning Director i17 AM PloV c 1993 PM 0 Central Balboa SAP Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Notes November 4, 1993 1:00 pm City Council Chambers PRESENT: Council Member John Hedges, Chairman Douglas Salisbury, BIA Phil Tozer, BIA Bob Black, BIA (Alternate) M. B. Martin, BIA (Alternate) W. Chan Lefebre, BPPA Fred Thompson, CNBHA Tom Hyans, CNBHA (Alternate) STAFF: Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer PUBLIC: Curt Herberts Dayna Pettit Butch Miller Adopt a eg nda Adopted without amendment. Comments from the public Mr. Miller expressed concern about the circulation plan proposed in the RIUDAT report. He believed that it would block access to the Fun Zone parking structure and eliminate needed loading zones. Mr. Herberts also expressed concern about the circulation proposals. He said that closing access to sections of East Bay Avenue would make it difficult for service vehicles to maneuver. He also questioned the value of that,the proposed diagonal parking on Balboa Boulevard and Washington Street traffic signal. He concluded by stating the existing circulation system works and should not be changed. Approve October 28 1993 meeting notes Adopted without amendment. Continued discussion of the R/UDAT Report A. Circulation and Parking Mr. Alford distributed diagrams illustrating the circulation patterns of the 1991 Austin -Foust plan, the 1992 Austin -Foust plan, the R/UDAT plan, and the preliminary plan sketched out at the last meeting. Mr. Edmonston stated that no significate study of the R/UDAT recommendations has been conducted. He said that it is not known if the streets are of sufficient width for the design. Chairman Hedges asked Mr. Edmonston for guidance in determining if a significant change in the circulation plan is needed. Mr. Edmonston stated that he was concerned about the plan to use Washington Street as a major circulation point, in that it was the narrowest street in the area. He also expressed concern about the proposed narrowing of Balboa Boulevard east of Washington. Mr. Black stated that he and Mr. Kent Maddi walked the area to study the circulation system. He said that they concluded that the existing system works fine and should not be changed. Mr. Salisbury asked Mr. Edmonston if it would be difficult to do a full evaluation of all four plans. Mr. Edmonston replied that it would not be difficult. Ms. Temple suggested that the Committee look at specific elements of each plan, rather that each plan as a whole. Mr. Hyans stated that the diagrams did not show the entire plan, noting that parking areas and traffic signals were not shown. Mr. Alford said that the diagrams only show the proposed traffic patterns, not physical improvements. Mr. Lefebre asked if the Washington Street signal was proposed to accommodate the additional parking spaces proposed for the Balboa Pier parking lot. Mr. Edmonston replied that the Washington Street signal came about as a way to reduce traffic on Main Street. Mr. Lefebre asked if the curb -to -curb width of Washington Street is sufficient to empty the parking lot. Mr. Edmonston responded by saying that it was tight, but sufficient. He added that it could accommodate left -turns with the new signal. Y Mr. Lefebre said that he has observed a great deal of use of the two minute parking spaces in front of the post office. He said that the R/UDAT proposal to move the spaces onto Balboa Boulevard would not work. He added that he was not sure if any of the proposed plans would work. He concluded that the potential negative effects outweigh the potential benefits. Mr. Tozer said that a year had been spent with the Austin -Foust plan. He said that the conclusion was that the Balboa Pier parking lot traffic should enter through Palm Street and exit through Washington Street with a new signal. Mr. Lefebre asked if it was true that the Committee acted to hire a new consultant to review these plans at the last meeting. Chairman Hedges said that was not correct. He went on to state that the circulation pattern south of Balboa Boulevard was agreed on and that the Committee should concentrate on the area to the north. Mr. Thompson said that he believed that the "visitor traffic loop" concept had been dropped by the Committee. Chairman Hedges said that was not decided. Mr. Lefebre stated that he also believed that the consensus was to drop that concept. Mr. Salisbury suggested moving forward with the "preliminary plan." Mr. Martin stated that he originally support the Main Street mall concept, but now has second thoughts. He said that he supports keeping the present circulation system. Mr. Tozer suggested that the loss of the short-term parking on Main Street could be made up by making spaces on Balboa Boulevard for thirty minute parking. Chairman Hedges asked for a vote on Mr. Salisbury motion to proceed with the plan worked out at the last meeting. The Committee voted to direct the Traffic Engineer to review the "preliminary plan" (see attached). Mr. Herberts asked how outside traffic would know how to access Main Street. Mr. Black said that signs would provide direction. Chairman Hedges said that those details would be included in staffs analysis. 3 • B. Landscape and Streetscape Mr. Alford presented the differences in the Committee's pedestrian circulation plan and the R/UDAT proposal. He said that the Committee's plan was based on Palm/Ocean Front/Main/Edgewater pedestrian loop, while the R/UDAT plan was based on an Edgewater/Main "L". He said that both plans call for an informal system of secondary pedestrian walkways on the other streets. He noted that the R/UDAT plan was much more ambitious in terms of landscaping and street/sidewalk improvements. He added that he did not believe that many of the narrow sidewalks in the area could accommodate the improvements called for by the R/UDAT report. Mr. Black asked if widening of sidewalks were proposed. Mr. Alford stated that both plans call for "bulb outs" at key intersections. Ms. Pettit asked if the plan to provide hanging baskets would be included in the specific plan. Chairman Hedges said that some details would not be appropriate for a zoning ordinance, but could be supported in other ways. There was a general discussion on encroachments for structures such as newspaper racks, telephones, and seating. Staff was directed to develop language to address this issue. Schedule next meeting November 10, 1993 at 10:00 am. Adiournment The meeting was adjourned at approximately 2:30 pm. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT October 29, 1993 TO: Central Balboa SAP Committee FROM: Patrick L Alford, Senior Planner SUBJECT: November 4th Meetine The next meeting of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan Committee will be on Thursday, November 4, 1993, at 1:00 pm, in the Fire Department Conference Room. The main topic will be the continued discussion of the Central Balboa Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team (R/UDAT) report. If you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 644-3225. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft meeting agenda 2. October 28, 1993 meeting notes 11 Central Balboa SAP Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Notes October 28, 1993 2:00 pm City Council Chambers PRESENT: Council Member John Hedges, Chairman Council Member Jan Debay, Vice Chairman Phil Tozer, BIA Bob Black, BIA (Alternate) Kent Maddi, BIA (Alternate) M. B. Martin, BIA (Alternate) Doug Boyd, BPPA Don Elder, BPPA (Alternate) Tom Hyans, CNBHA (Alternate) STAFF: Patrick Alford, Senior Planner PUBLIC: Virginia Herberts John Vallely Gary Malazian Kathleen Childs Michelle Rae Danya Pettit Adopt agenda Adopted without amendment. Comments from the public Danya Pettit stated that she was working hard with the downtown group. She also said that they were looking forward to forming an assessment district and the construction of street improvements. Approve October 12 1993 meeting notes Adopted without amendment. Continued Discussion of the R/UDAT report Mr. Alford stated that the R/UDAT report calls for maintaining the existing road and parking 6 infrastructure, but placing a greater emphasis on traffic and parking management. He said that The R/UDAT circulation plan is a variant of the 1991 Austin -Foust traffic study, He said that the R/UDAT plan emphasizes separating residential and non-residential traffic within the commercial district with the Washington/East Bay/Palm loop and narrowing of east -bound Balboa Boulevard east of Washington. He said that the plan also differs from the Austin -Foust study by the proposal to limit all of Main Street to service vehicles only, by the closing of the 500 and 700 blocks of East Bay, and by the design of the Balboa Pier parking lot. He said that the plan would also replace the parallel parking spaces on sections of Balboa Boulevard with diagonal ones to provide convenient, short-term parking oriented to the needs of residents. He cautioned that this concept is far from being translated into actual engineering plans. He said that the plan also calls for reconfiguring the Balboa Pier parking lot to create short-term, medium -term, and long-term areas and to provide additional spaces, similar to the plan recommended by the Committee. He added that the proposal to "soften the edge" of the Balboa Pier and A Street parking lots could limit the ability to provide additional parking. He said that the plan calls for closing the 700 block of East Bay Avenue and portions of the alleys in the 600 and 700 blocks to incorporate them into the existing surface lots between Washington Street and Main Street. He pointed out that only the Washington Street parking lot is under City control and that the City cannot require that the Wells Fargo and Balboa Market parking lots be restriped unless new development or a substantial change in use is proposed. He also said that properties on the north side of the 700 block of East Bay Avenue have legal access to the street and the plan could deny these properties their legal access rights. He stated that the plan calls for designating the A Street and B Street parking lots for residential permit parking only. He said that this would remove 130 parking spaces currently available to the general public. He said that this would create an inconvenience to users of the adjacent grassy recreation areas. He concluded by stating that the proposed resident short-term parking permit and the remote parking with a shuttle service have already been discussed by the Committee and approved in concept. Mr. Black asked how the City would administer the time limits in the Balboa Pier parking lot. Mr. Alford replied that the R/UDAT did not provide detailed information on how it would be administered. Chairman Hedges said that the Committee only had to decide whether or not to adopt the concept, actual implementing methods would be left to staff. He then suggested that the Committee address the plan point by point. The Committee discussed the merits of the basic circulation plan. The Committee then decided to continue to support the original Austin -Foust circulation plan along with a program of directional signage. The Committee then entered into a discussion of the proposal to narrow east -bound Balboa Boulevard east of Washington and replace the parallel parking spaces with diagonal ones. The Committee directed staff to prepare language supporting the plan as an option, provided the engineering design was feasible and can accommodate anticipated traffic volumes. The Committee then discussed the plan to close portions of East Bay Avenue and incorporating them into existing surface lots: The Committee decided to maintain this option, but to use more generalized language to support the concept. The Committee then proceeded to address the issue of closing Main Street to all but service vehicle traffic. The Committee considered various options concerning access to Main Street and the flow of traffic. The Committee directed staff to investigate the various options and report back at the next meeting. The Committee then discussed the proposal to limit the A Street and B Street parking lots to long-term residential use. The consensus of the Committee was to support continuing the current method of general public parking with long-term parking permits. The Committee moved on to the proposal to provide resident parking permits for short-term parking. The Committee reiterated its support for this plan and directed staff to include language to address permits for commercial district employees. The Committee then discussed the plan for off -site parking and a shuttle service. After questioning the practicality of such a service, the consensus of the Committee was to continue with the adopted policy statement. Schedule next meeting Thursday, November 4, 1993 at 1:00 pm. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at approximately 3:45 pm. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Memorandum TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Central Balboa Specific Area Plan Committee DATE: October 20, 1993 SUBJECT: POTENTIAL CITY ACOUISITION OF WELLS FARGO BANK PROPERTY At its October 12, 1993 meeting, the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan Committee voted to recommend that the City Council take steps to acquire the Wells Fargo Bank property located at 600 East Balboa Boulevard. The purpose of this acquisition is to provide a central, short-term, public parking facility to primarily serve the resident -serving businesses in the area. The Committee's goals include preserving the business district and maintaining a balance between visitor -serving and resident -serving commercial uses. Essential to realizing these goals is the provision of convenient, short-term, public parking oriented to serve area residents. Currently, public parking facilities are skewed in favor of long-term use (time limits, over 2 hours) and directed to serve beach -users. Parking that is most needed by a business district (time limits under 2 hours, within 200 feet) is at a premium. The Wells Fargo Bank property is ideally suited for filling this need. It is located in the center of the business district and is easily accessible. It is of sufficient size to provide enough spaces for short-term, high turn -over parking that is characteristic of small business districts. Current market conditions make this property available at a substantially reduced price. The Committee believes this presents a window of opportunity that should not be ignored. Sincerely, Council Member John Hedges Chairman Council Member Jan Debay Vice Chairman Attachments: Map of subject property 41 • WELLS FARGO BANK PROPERTY APN 048-116-019 029 03 '® 1 0p0p©C I I I11 BLK. 2 POR S.W. //,f, SEC 55, T.6 S., R /0 W. 60-04 -��'1L`-Waver BAY i=� �/•-�io � � 11 XI rtAlr <AMMM 50-05 1) 48- 11 aSm' I �•13• I W TRACT xy_ �--r�r--;r--ir--p---R a i nusrsr-sr-ww�l s BA&Ddl 16 „M ur ®a S ie iR a Iz Ile; i 11O - 1I BLAII .r " 1 T!%CT XA 1 /r,4w•1 j NO. AMW BAL • O O' Q I13 nrw"r us.a O O 0? FFF I� M7. /0/35 N SRLN/NC , I I 1 (1 i r.AMAwr ~sreEEr= A« , . . � tpQ•'.'. I+ T 116 � Q i ANWCN HI! A � a�•. r. ••ao"- �Li r Y, DOIKENIRO i. 1f 1 1 OAL60A IL :11 N011 AS S•I1000� S MAP • y MN:lI NUNIux 100519 RAGE 11 ( 90 ) 71/•J i 12 SNOWN W OKIO LWNK Of OAAN0E !.1-// a C •.• EAST BAYAVE. EA5T OMAWMONT _� Central Balboa n rovement5 0 Z z EA5T BALOA gLVD 6A��A PIER Fp gr INGr-OT •.. ram.. LEGEND New street trees O 51dewalk13WL-Out" ----- Sidewalks w/Pavers ........... Textured Crosswalks �Q Entry Banner AUSTIN-FOUST 1991 ti O 2 2 91 � � PARKING STRUCTURE EAST 6AYAVE. EA5T BALBOA 6LVD• E yT OGEAN FKONT �l AUSTIN-FOUST 1992 PLAN ■�M EAST IW AVE PARKING 5TRULTURE v =FERRYi NT EAyT OCEAN_ O z z ME EAST 6AL60A 151 Ili..11lll F R/UDAT PLAN e Z i .__....t..........i...._._.:...._.._�........___-----:..._..-- , f t i i E W ..... (� E u e ae• a. iFERRYa. � � � —_.. . .--- J W f I _............ ..... ....... _... 2 W i............................... t woo p j _...._....__._......... ___......_....__._..._._ O • ......... o _........_....... zooms • ■ m •a■aa �•�a ........... i .........ABLVD• • EASt BALED RN AROUN � w a•a■aaa■ �SrcDR a x • Z U • � 0 1? F � s ■ p[ • to O ■ Z ` EAST OCEAN FKO F-OUN .W.1V1 •Salk•& • E STOGEAN FRONT EAST 6A680A %VO' PRELIMINARY PLAN P FA 1 ■ as, ■ MAIN 5T. TRAFFION ■ a lb i u CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT October 18, 1993 TO: Central Balboa SAP Committee FROM: Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner /7A SUBJECT: October 28th Meeting The next meeting of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan Committee will be on Thursday, October 28, 1993, at 2:00 pm, in the City Council Chamber. The main topic of discussion will be the Central Balboa Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team (R/UDAT) report. If you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 644-3225. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft meeting agenda 2. October 12, 1993 meeting notes • AGENDA C QV'IRAL BALBOA SPECIFIC AREA PLAN CC)N%ff 'BE October 28,1993 2-00 pm Crrr COUNCIL C11Atvetes I. Adopt agenda II. Adopt October 12,1993 meeting notes III. Comments from the public IV. Continued Discussion of R/UDAT report A. Circulation and Parking 1. Separating visitor and residential traffic 2. Parking management 3. New parking areas 4. Alternative transportation 5. Pedestrian circulation B. Landscape and Streetscape C. Architecture D. Implementation V. Schedule next meeting VI. Adjournment 10 Central Balboa SAP Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Notes October 12, 1993 10:00 am City Council Chambers PRESENT: Council Member John Hedges, Chairman Doug Cavanaugh, BIA Phil Tozer, BIA Bob Black, BIA (Alternate) Kent Maddi, BIA (Alternate) Doug Boyd, BPPA Don Elder, BPPA (Alternate) Stephanie L. Houghton, CNBHA STAFF: Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner PUBLIC: Anne Gifford, Planning Commission Virginia Herberts I. Adopt agenda Adopted without amendment. II. Comments from the public None. III. Approve September 28 1993 meeting notes Adopted without amendment. IV. Discussion of the R/UDAT Report Land Use Districts Mr. Alford stated that the R/UDAT report establishing seven land use districts (Edgewater, Local Resident -Serving, Beach/Entertainment, Multi-Family/Mixed Use, Two Family Residential, Beach/Open Space, and Parking/Utility) instead of the single SP- RSC commercial proposed in draft specific area plan. He said that the Edgewater, Local Resident -Serving, and Beach/Entertainment commercial districts are intended to separate and clarify the three basic commercial activities of the area. He said that strict land use controls would be needed in order to implement the proposed districts He said that the Committee would need to address the issue of which uses are to be allowed and which uses are to be prohibited within these districts. He said that the Committee will also have to decide if residential uses (within mixed use projects) should be permitted in the Edgewater and in the Beach/Entertainment districts in light of their proposed nature. Chairman Hedges asked if the land use concept should be formally adopted by the Committee. Mr. Black said that he was against such restrictions and that he believed that the separation of uses occurs naturally . Chairman Hedges pointed out that the specific plan could change the situation. Mr. Black stated that such regulations would place a hardship on property owners. Ms. Houghton commented that similar regulations are in effect in Cannery Village and Mariner's Mile. Ms. Temple replied that the land use regulations in Cannery Village and Mariner's Mile were more incentive based. She also stated that it was not achieving the desired goal of preserving marine -oriented uses and may be changed. Chairman Hedges pointed out that Central Balboa was a small area with only a handful of property owners. He questioned whether such land use restrictions would appropriate. Ms. Gifford agreed and suggested offering incentives for resident -serving uses. The 'Super Block' Mr. Alford stated that the proposed "super block" development would provide residential, commercial, and a 4 story parking structure. He said that this translates to a residential density yield of about 1 unit per 700 square feet of lot area. He said that overall, the yield would be 125 units and 89,945 square feet of floor area. Chairman Hedges pointed out that the "super block" could be seen as a potential goal, not as an actual project. Mr. Alford pointed out that the Multi-Family/Mixed Use land use designation is also proposed for two blocks south of Balboa Boulevard, including the Rendezvous Condominium site. He stated that he was not sure if that was the intent of the R/UDAT members. He suggested that they may have intended to provide as less intensive version of this land use type. It was the consensus of the Committee not to formally adopt the "super block" concept. Development Standards Mr. Alford stated that the R/UDAT report calls for increasing the permitted residential density in commercial areas from 1 unit per 2,375 square feet of lot area to I unit per 1,210 square feet of lot area. He said that the minimum lot size for development would increase from 2,000 square feet to 5,000 to encourage lot consolidation. He added that this recommendation was similar to incentives discussed by the Committee, but with a higher yield. Mr. Boyd asked if there would be sufficient parking. Mr. Alford stated that the R/UDAT only addressed parking in terms of the overall supply planned for the area. Chairman Hedges reminded the Committee that they had considered loosening the parking standards somewhat to encourage non -conforming buildings to provided some parking on - site. Mr. Alford added that staff had earlier suggested reducing the parking slightly to allow commercial development to achieve the 0.5 FAR permitted under the general plan. He said that parking requirements for a 27 foot wide lot limits actual development to a FAR of 0.39. Chairman Hedges indicated his support for the incentives proposed prior to the R/UDAT. Mr. Elder asked what the aims of the incentives were. Chairman Hedges replied that the current standards penalize new development and private redevelopment. Ms. Temple added that consolidating lots would provide more efficient parking designs. Chairman Hedges stated that the Balalis project was built under the current standards and most agree that the parking design does not function well. W. Boyd asked about "sun setting" commercial west of Palm Street. Ms. Temple replied that the area could be rezoned, as recommended earlier. The Committee agreed to reclassify the south side of the 400 block of Balboa Boulevard from commercial to two family residential. There was a general discussion about future land uses for the Pacific Telephone property in the 300 block of Balboa Boulevard. The Committee agreed to classify the property GEIF until such time residential land uses are proposed. 1] There was a general discussion on possible acquisition of the Wells Fargo property. The Committee directed staff to draft a letter to the City Council recommending that the property be purchased to provide centralized, short-term, public parking to serve area businesses. V. Schedule next meeting October 26, 1993 at 10:00 am VI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:15 am. City Council Meeting November 23. 1992, Study Session Item No. 6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Planning Department oil - - - -- To provide the City Council with information regarding a potential Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team (R/UDAT) study for the Central Balboa specific plan area. At the November 10, 1992 Central Balboa Specific Area Plan Committee (CBSAPC) meeting, Mr. Ronald Baers, a local architect and Balboa Peninsula resident, proposed a R/UDAT study for the Central Balboa specific plan area. He stated that the Orange County Chapter of the American Institute of Architects has expressed an interest in organizing a, R/UDAT study for the Central Balboa area. The CBSAPC expressed interest in the concept and directed staff to submit the matter to the City Council. Analysis The Urban Planning and Design Committee of the American Institute of Architects has a program which sends teams to cities and regions that have requested assistance in dealing with urban design issues. Known as R/UDAT, it involves a team of design professionals that conducts an intensive study of a project area over a three to four (34) day period. The R/UDAT study culminates with a written report illustrating potential design concepts for the improvement of the project area. In June 1983, a R/UDAT study was conducted for the Cannery Village/McFadden Square area. Several of the R/UDAT recommendations were eventually incorporated into the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan. The 1983 Cannery Village/McFadden Square study was a full national R/UDAT project. It involved bringing in professionals from across the nation. However, the Orange County A.I.A. also organizes local R/UDAT projects using local urban design TO: City Council - 2 professionals. The Orange County A.I.A. has organized R/UDAT projects for the City of San Clemente, Tustin Old Town, and Midtown Santa Ana. The R/UDAT professionals would volunteer their time and expertise. The City would be provide meals, meeting facilities, materials, equipment, and clerical and professional staff. The City would also be responsible for printing of the written report. The costs to the City would likely be in the range of three thousand to tbirty-five hundred dollars ($3000 to $3500). Sueeest Action If desired, accept the draft letter to the president of the Orange County Chapter of the American Association of Architects expressing the City's interest in conducting a R/UDAT project for the Central Balboa area and requesting further information. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By.9! Patrick . Alford Senior Planner Attachment: (raft letter to Orange County Chapter A.LA. President November 23, 1992 Roberta Jorgensen, President Orange County Chapter AIA 3200 Park Center Drive Suite 100 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Dear Ms. Jorgensen: The City of Newport Beach is in the processing of preparing a specific area plan for the Central Balboa business district. Since July 1991, a committee consisting f Central Balboa residents and business owners have been meeting to direct the drafting o4lecific area plan. On November 10, 1992, Mr. Ronald Baers approached the committee and suggested that a Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team (R/UDAT) study would be a useful in assisting them in their efforts. The committee was intrigued by the concept andrecommended that the City Council make a formal request for a'R/UDAT study. Central Balboa is a unique commercial area that has served as an ocean and bay front commercial and recreational area for over a hundred years. In addition to shops and restaurants, Central Balboa provides a small amusement park and facilities for fishing boats ' harbor tours, whale watching, parasailing, and Catalina Island excursions. more historical points of interest include the Balboa Pavilion, built in 1905�.r►d listed on the National Register of Historic Places; the Balboa Inn, a 1930 jpanish (colonial hotel; the✓ Balboa Island Ferry, which has provided service continuously since 1905; and the Balboa Pier, a nine hundred (900) foot recreational pier. Despite its many assets, Central Balboa has experienced problems in recent years. Like many small central business districts, Central Balboa seen many of its resident-✓ serving businesses close or relocate to suburban shopping centers. Seasonal and other tourist -oriented businesses have become dominant in the area. There are also on -going problems associated with traffic congestion and parking shortages, particularly during peak summer months. Cruising and loitering on week -end evenings has created inconveniences for residents and has hurt local businesses. These problems, along with the physical constraints of small lots and narrow streets and alleys, have impeded efforts to revitalize the area. Central Balboa Specific Area Plan Committee has already done considerable work in developing a specific plan for the area. The committee has identified a number of issues and has articulated policy goals and objectives. It is hoped that a R/UDAT study can build and expand upon this work and provide a fresh perspective. The study would focus on 3 Roberta Jorgensen November 23, 1992 Page 2 developing strategies to improve the Central Balboa commercial district, but may expand outward to address Peninsula -wide issues relating to circulation and parking. The City of Newport Beach would like to explore the possibility of conducting a R/UDAT study of Central Balboa. Therefore, it would be greatly appreciated if your organization could provide an approximation of the scheduling of such a study and a brief outline of resources that would be necessary. Please direct your response to the Planning Director, Mr. James D. Hewicker. If you require any additional information, please contact Mr. Hewicker at (714) 644-3225. Sincerely, PHIL SANSONE MAYOR 0 Central Balboa SAP Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Notes November 10, 1992 3:00 p.m. City Council Chambers Present: Council Member John Hedges, Chairman Council Member Ruthelyn Plummer, Vice Chairman Doug Salisbury, BIA Doug Boyd, BPPA Phil Tozer, BIA Bob Black, BIA Bill Wren, BPPA Fred Thompson, CBA Kent Maddi, BIA Chan Lefebvre, BPPA C.J. Williams, BIA Staff: Jim Hewicker, Planning Director Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Robert Kavert, Planning Aide I. Adopt agenda The agenda was adopted without revision. II. Adopt Aueust 25. 1992_meetine notes The meeting notes were adopted without revision. III. Comments from the public Mr. Ronald Baers, architect and resident of Balboa Peninsula, presented the R/UDAT (Regional Urban Design Assistance Team) program to the Committee for consideration. Mr. Baers is involved with the local AIA Chapter and R/UDAT program. He commented that R/UDAT is an available resource, but does not necessarily have to be tied in with the SAP process. The R/UDAT program is a workshop to evaluate an area and consider some solutions and ideas to problems. The team could consist of architects, planners, economists, social planners, and community members. The workshop format is flexible and generally takes three days, from Friday to Sunday. The cost to the City would be approximately $3,000. Vice Chairman Plummer commented that she was involved with the R/UDAT in 1983 that Central Balboa SAP Meeting Notes - 2 studied the Cannery Village/McFadden Square area. She was impressed with the team's work. She added that circulation has slowed the Central Balboa Committee down, and that the expertise of a R/UDAT should be considered. Mr. Hewicker commented that it took about 8 years after the last R/UDAT before any plans were actually adopted. He added that there are advantages to bringing in outside professionals, but some of their ideas may not be compatible with City policies or fiscal resources. There was a general discussion regarding the R/UDAT program, and a motion was made to request a proposal for the R/UDAT services. There was no Committee opposition expressed. IV September 16th "town meetin&" on circulation Mr. Alford summarized the meeting, indicating that the general consensus seemed to be that the proposed circulation solutions were worse than the problem. Mr. Lefebvre suggested that the Committee drop the A Street B Street connection proposal. Mr. Salisbury commented that he felt the proposal was a good idea. He stated that there is a major parking deficit which contributes to traffic congestion. He added that doing nothing is not a solution, but the A Street B Street proposal is a workable solution to the problem. Chairman Hedges, in a response to a comment from the public that there was too much cheap or free parking in Balboa, stated that the Main parking lot has had a recent fee increase, and parking meter fees in the area will increase soon. Mr. Lefebvre suggested that the actual number of days when the parking supply is at maximum capacity are relatively few, and that from a business standpoint, these peak periods are not the problem days. He added that the problem is attracting people to the Balboa businesses during the off-peak periods. Chairman Hedges commented that the Zoning Code prohibits uses that cannot provide adequate parking. He added that the on -site parking requirements keep some prospective businesses out. There was a general discussion regarding providing additional parking in the downtown commercial area. Central Balboa SAP Meeting Notes - 3 V. Discussion on site design and parking strategies Mr. Alford presented a study on site design and parking strategies. He stated that new development is being impeded by existing parking regulations. He offered four options that could be considered by the Committee as potential development strategies to encourage new development: Option No. 1 would be a waiver or substantial reduction of required on -site parking, and maximizing floor area ratios. This approach would expand the development envelope, but add to the parking deficit. Option No. 2 would be to revise existing development standards to encourage parking over commercial structures. This approach has the potential to provide all required parking on -site, but may not be cost effective. Option No. 3 would be a centralized parking structure located in the downtown commercial area. This approach would provide additional convenient parking, but only reduce existing deficit by 200 spaces. Option No. 4 would be a combined approach; slightly reducing on -site parking requirements, providing FAR and residential density bonuses to encourage lot consolidation, and allowing in -lieu parking options with increased fees. Mr. Boyd questioned how much sustainable commercial space there is in Balboa. Mr. Hewicker commented that the Planning Department is currently working with a consultant on an economic base study. Mr. Lefebvre stated that perhaps the Committee should wait for the results of the economic base study before proceeding with some of these issues. Chairman Hedges requested that the Committee review staffs proposed development standards, and be prepared to discuss them at the next meeting. VI. Schedule next meeting The time and date of the next meeting is to be announced. I Chairman Hedges adjourned the meeting at 4:35 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT November 2, 1992 TO: Central Balboa SAP Committee FROM: Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner %� SUBJECT: November 10th Meetine The next meeting of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan Committee will be on Tuesday, November loth at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. The focus of the meeting will be a discussion on approaches to site design and parking. If you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 644-3225. A G E N D A CENTRAL BALBOA SPECIFIC AREA PLAN COMMITTEE November 10, 1992 3:00 pm I. Adopt agenda II. Adopt August 25th meeting notes M. Comments from the public IV. September 16th "town meeting" on circulation V. Discussion on site design and parking strategies VI. Schedule next meeting VII. Adjournment IN 0 Central Balboa SAP Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Notes August 25, 1992 3:00 p.m. City Council Chambers Present: Council Member John Hedges, Chairman Council Member Ruthelyn Plummer, Vice Chairman Phil Tozer, BIA Stephanie Houghton, CBA Doug Boyd, BPPA Chan Lefebvre, BPPA Bob Black, BIA Kent Maddi, BIA Stu Berkshire, CBA Doug Salisbury, BIA C.J. Williams, BIA Staff: Jim Hewicker, Planning Director Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager Rich Edmonton, Traffic Engineer Steve Badham, Project Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Bob Kavert, Planning Aide I. Adopt agenda The agenda was adopted without revision. II Adopt June 26. 1992 meeting notes The meeting notes were adopted without revision. III Comments from the public There were no comments from the public. IV Z pdate on potential assessment district Chairman Hedges introduced Mr. Steve Badham, Public Works Department, to present an update on the potential assessment district. Mr. Badham stated that the Public Works Department is in the process of acquiring estimates from the utility companies regarding the cost of undergrounding their respective utility services. He added that the Public Works Department may conduct a survey to 3 0 determine what type of decorative improvements are desired by the affected property owners. The Public Works Department needs an accurate consensus on the extent of decorative improvements to sidewalks and street lighting in order to estimate potential assessment district costs. Mr. Boyd commented that the Fun Zone property may present a problem because it is undergoing foreclosure. V. Discussion on finalizing specific area .plan text Mr. Alford informed the Committee that the SAP text is about 99% complete. The two remaining items to be worked out are circulation and parking, and capital improvements. Mr. Alford anticipates that the Committee will finalize the circulation and parking issues in the next few meetings, but that the capital improvement issues will depend on what happens with the proposed assessment district. Mr. Alford recommended that the Committee adopt generalized language relating to capital improvements at this time, rather than hold up the entire SAP while the proposed assessment district is developed. Mr. Alford anticipates that the SAP could be ready for public hearings in October or November. VI Discussion on proposed circulation and parking improvements Chairman Hedges reviewed some of the circulation goals of the Committee. These goals included a plan addressing the 'bruising" problem in the event that the 15th Street turn- around is eliminated, and to provide some type of delineation between the commercial and residential districts. Chairman Hedges commented that pedestrian traffic causes congestion at Washington and Balboa, and that Austin -Foust recommended a traffic. signal be installed at that intersection. He then introduced Rich Edmonston to provide an overview of the Austin -Foust conceptual plans. Mr. Edmonston referred to two conceptual exhibit plans prepared by traffic consultants Austin -Foust Associates Inc. Mr. Edmonton stated that the two conceptual plans could be modified if desired, and implemented separately or together. The first exhibit was a proposed turn -around, north of Balboa Boulevard, circulating north on Washington, east on Bay and south on Palm back to Balboa (Attachment No. 1). Mr. Edmonton explained that the turn -around was designed to divert "cruising" traffic off of the peninsula in the event that the 15th Street turn -around was eliminated. The Committee discussed several issues in connection with the conceptual turn -around, including loss of parking, possible eminent domain process, traffic signal placement, circulation patterns and general feasibility. Mr. Edmonton referred to the second exhibit (Attachment No. 2), which was a conceptual plan to connect the A Street and B Street parking lots, and provide additional parking. Mr. Edmonton commented that this proposal could include signage, and or a median on Balboa Boulevard indicating a transition from the commercial district to the residential district. He added that parking would be located further away from existing residential dwellings, and up to 99 additional parking spaces could be created with this conceptual design. 2 The Committee discussed key issues regarding the conceptual plan, including the heavy utilization of the grass field by youths and other organized team sport enthusiasts, child safety, loss of park space, beach encroachment, Coastal Commission concerns and limited access to garages fronting Balboa Boulevard. Mr. Williams stated his support for this conceptual plan. Mr. Tozer and Mr. Salisbury concurred. Mr. Lefebvre and Mr. Boyd requested the opportunity to present the two conceptual plans to their association to get feedback. Chairman Hedges suggested that the representatives should decide now, rather than hold up the entire process for a vote that may be a foregone conclusion. The Committee discussed the request of the homeowner association, and decided to conduct a joint meeting with the business and homeowner associations. The Committee concurred that it would be in the best interest of everyone involved to have an unbiased presentation of the conceptual plans. The Committee requested that City staff present the plans at a "Town Hall" style meeting. Therefore, a public meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, September 16th, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Chairman Hedges suggested the following issues be placed on the scheduled.public meeting agenda; a) the conceptual "cruise control" turn -around b) the conceptual A and B Street connection c) the possibility of closing Main Street south of Balboa Boulevard, exiting the main parking lot at Washington, restriping the main parking lot, and installing a traffic signal at Washington and Balboa Chairman Hedges scheduled the next Committee meeting for Friday, September 25th, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. VII. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. Attachments: 1) Conceptual "cruise control" turn -around 2) Conceptual A and B Street connection 3 f 4 NALIO 'wi ♦ 1 1 w � Y � 1 � J � � i Jlv .�I 1 +1 1 +1 ial ♦ +1'1 W W W 1 i 1 1 W W W W W 1 W V i V y w •r W V v 1 i V 1 V 1 V 1 V W a V- V n 1 v r w V- V V V• V V V 1 n V V W W v •w W V 1 W i V W 1 Y V 1 i V V W 1 1 1 1 1 W i •w V W 1 i♦ i i V W i V W Y W W 1 W Y 1 1 W W 1 1 W W W V W Y V W 1 W Y 1 1 1 W 1 W 1 Y 1 V i i v 1 V 1 1 1 1 V W V Y W 1 W Y 1 i 1 Y W W W 1 1 W 1 V Y 1 1 1 V V 1 V 1 1 i W v.W 1 V V v W W W V' 1 1 •e V •w i V' W V V 1 V 1 V V 1 W+ i 1 V W 1 +• 1 Y W 1 1 V 1 1 1 1 1 W. W •w W W 1 W W W Y 1 V W 1 Y 1 Y 1 1 v V 1 1 1 W 1 Y W W 1 V W W i Y W W V W W i W V 1 o ♦ �. W W i W Y III HIMIll Mill W i W V W 1 Y♦ W W 1 W Y W w Y 1 1 W 1 1 \ sl". W �V 1 � 1� 1 1,1 •1. 1 �L1..'x. V �L 1 YJi 1 t 91 V1111111111111111111111 III�.Ivl Y111111111111111 Y IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIw IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII --AfA fN• DIT.yO MLM-O:.DFD 25! PY 'A/16/➢2 TUNAROUND STUDY (ALT 1) ®�®AUSThV FOUST ASSOCIATES, BALBOA BLVD. - NEWORT BEA-H r BAY +...�4 ERRY STORAGE 0.VlY__ � m ...... . O •Ngtfy r� ® ............ ` N ? 1 1 f 1! 1 i' t rl NO LT DURING SPECIAL FERICD f• I � ` I�r11/M M71/1 ,y1111 ty� rt l�G.1111LU11 1 •... y • / ............................... ...._... ham+ i~ r�p�1 1-R-7I� h®+ i Y'.""i ...- �..........................................._..................... :•• h®+®i h®+®i r H F F F H .� — r • • �•-•• • •► • •—• •—• BALBOA ** • ♦ •• •, H h�+r=i h[`Trim+mmi hr=+rrni h®+�®i h®+�i h0®+Cni h®+®i li I •¢+ ' NORMAL SIGAAL `EOUENCE BLVD. L VORNIAL SIGN FOR wn-MIW10 d NO AT DURING S-ECIA_ PERIM 1 I SPECIAL SIGNAL SEOUENCE 1 czszy 3 LL oR� V-v ®r®AiVST/N-FOUST ASSOC/ATES, AMC. TURNAROUND STUDY SAIBOA ST. - NEVRORT BEACH a � P.O. BOX 826 Mr. Patrick Alford City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Patrick, PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM SEP 2 11992 �'� 8 i 91101 ll l 12111213141 g PRI Sept. 17, 1992 Due to the press of business, Mr. Walter Thompson has resigned as a Balboa Peninsula Point Association alternate member to the Balboa Specific plan ad -hoc committee. The BPPA board has appointed me to fill this position. cerely. Dona e E. Ider President 1107 E. Balboa Blvd. Balboa, CA 92661 LANNING DEPAR 0 kialit V J CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM SEP 2 11992 r71 "d�8,91101ll1]21212131!' "::; L September 17, 1992 City of Newport Beach City Planning Department P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92659-1768 Attn: Patty Temple Advance Planning Re: Balboa Business Area Specific Plan - Town Hall Meeting September 16, 1992 Ladies & Gentlemen: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced matter. I was in attendance at the meeting, and I believe that the citizens made the following points very clear. The additional signal light at the intersection of Washington and Balboa is a very bad idea. This would make three signal lights in a, very short area, which will do nothing to help the community. If you were to make Main Street a one hundred percent (100%) walking area from the pier to Balboa Boulevard, you -could enhance the area, but, any mixing of cars and people will not help the present situation. Trying to limit the number of cars is hopeless. You either eliminate the cars or let it stay as is becuase the effort to limit the cars will be fruitless. 2. The additional parking on the beach between "A" and "B" street is on the sand and is not a good idea. There is no reason to use up valuable beach area to park additional cars. Enough Southern California beaches have been. black topped. The proposed turnaround by which cars would circle around the existing park using "A" and "B" Street makes no sense at all. This simply creates congestion at the intersection of "B" Street and Balboa instead of further up in the commercial area. This does nothing more than extend the commercial area another block closer to the end of the peninsula. 3. The Balboa area is not large enough to support the commercial district that currently exist. The peninsula is not large enough to allow adequate traffic to develop the commercial area. The people who have started businesses in the commercial area, started with the condition that currently exist and now cannot expect the City of Newport Beach ("City") to attempt to increase traffic in that very tight area in the hopes of enhancing their businesses. r 0 0 City Newport Beach City Planning Department Patty Temple September 17, 1992 Page 2 4. Any perceived increase(s) by the City in sales tax revenues will be more than offset by the degradation and property values and the loss of property taxes. You must remember that although not much of the property -taxes ends up in the general revenue funds of the City, those property taxes do support a higher lifestyle in our community. 5. The legislature that created the Coastal Commission did not intend for every square foot of the beach be accessible. The beach has been opened between Newport Beach and Corona del Mar and in .many other areas. To continue increasing the encroachment of parking onto the beach at Newport Beach will not enhance anyone's ability to enjoy the beach, but, rather, will degrade that very enjoyment which the legislature wanted to accomplish. 6. If the business owners wish to acquire more local business, then they should be fighting to reduce, not increase, the traffic congestion in the area and establish types of businesses which will be used by the local community. The local community does not need more t-shirts. All efforts should be made to maintain and enhance the turnaround at Fifteenth Street. 8. Cruisers are not good candidates as customers of business establishments which would appeal to the local community. Yours Truly, A CONCERNED RESIDENT OF BALBOA PENINSULIA cc: Rich Edmonston, City Traffic Engineer SIGN -IN SHEET NARE ADDRUS all . AE00SENTING 1 0 '�►Te•d � �c�Z; c . �al►l.R4 /V 9 L. 4 � tea' �rri IoZ'a 8alb NB aaz`I fsA% � Vlp 4�. 726 a4elL-1 C.` 3 z-2 a (-V) v it ' 2ao 1Ql�> , ( /Ile M .D PP A $� ►l Lesl��Mar s 10 l3 a. Ea lbo� n0Itr- (000 E bor��f�cP. �u(boa �c )'1 f 8 E . O '� r°atp-j, ate., .�2, X'a S 4 • d ! Wi 6 ��/�!2 ,pis- ��P�! 09/16/92 0 SIGN -IN SHEET NtE ADDRESS CITY REPRESENTING z 14 1- Ra to dl 2-�nrp, ( a[ It cr !1 8/ E. Q arc o a P� 2a ��, 1bou_ 10,21 G'✓erg) c sJe 13oS G ��6a� ✓�4✓ f3�1J04 09/16/92 SIGN -IN SHEET NAME ADDRESS CJTY REPRESENTING (Z I�= C-LA-(�kC 9 0= O C G D �L�.P.vwl l��l M/lc�ydJie., �aa�tl G Z� 09/16/92 0 1] SIGN -IN SHEET NAMERPR$ENi C: [_G cS' v- t 09/16/92 SIGN -IN SHEET NAME ADDPESS City 'PonsumNe G . 1• 09/16/92 , PLANNING NPARTMEW t'ITY OF NEVVPORT BEACH DONA .COLOMBERO F AM AUG 251992 P1;N REAL ESTATE BROKER 7181911D11111211121314 N6 A 1003 EAST BALBOA BLVD. PHONE 1714) 673.6372 BALBOA, CALWFORNIA 92661 August 20, 1992 JOHN HEDGES, COUNCILMAN NEWPORT BEACH, CA DEAR JOHN: - - - - -- ENCLOSED YOU'LL FIND SOME LETTERS SIGNED BY PEOPLE CONCERNED, AS I AM, ABOUT THE B STREET PARK, AND B STREET BEING CONSIDERED AS PART OF A TRAFFIC FUNNEL. JOHN, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR ADVICE ABOUT GETTING PEOPLE INVOLVED - AND, AGAIN THANKS TO YOU, WE CAN ALL WORK TOGETHER ON THIS. ALSO ENCLOSED IS A LETTER FROM GREG ROBERTS, A DIRECTOR OF THE JR. LIFE GUARD PROGRAM, AND A COPY OF THE LIST OF GRADUATES THIS YEAR. I GUESS MOST OF THE FAMILIES IN NEWPORT BEACH HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS PROGRAM AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER. THANKS AGAIN FROM YOUR PAL, DONA COLOMBERO CC: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, PLANNING COMMISSION, MARINE DEPT., PB&R, BPPA 1992 Junior Peter Chris Katie per wise. Miss Mare, A.M. Charge Alshuler, Shannon Backus, Ryan Buist Shaun Buttennore, James Guilty, Taylor Govaars, Ty Harper, Andy Kalam, Natalie Knl- Ivila, Allison Lent Aubree Marshall, Daniel Mar- shall, Mike Metkovich, Heather Pappas, Cody Parker, Kelly Parker, Brad Bothwell, Virginia Sena, Andrea Shut, Lauren Skellem, Todd Swanson, Ginny Warmington, Riley Watson. Miss Maze, P.M. Christina Amati, Dane Barton, John Bradford, Sarah Bunnell, Robbie Bums, Tiffany Byrne, Amanda Dietz, Courtney Hoffman, Molly O'Me- am, Chris Skawinski, Nick Skawinsld, Kirsten Storm, Adam Swofford, Lindsey Wells. Mr. Putman, A.M. Vinessa Badenbrock Jesse Collins, Kate En- dquez, Lyndsee Rtzgeorge, Tnpp Fitzgeorge, Katie Gausewttz, Michael Gayer, Paul Lancaster, Kerslin Manderson, Scott Marshall, Janad Mid- lik, Buddy Molway,,Clint Peetz, Thomas Red- outey, Megan Schuler, Rachel Slayback Mr. Putman, P.M. Blake Almond, Michael T. Brady, Travis Co- chran, Steve Gray, Chris Holland, Jarrcs Nevins, Casey Patterson, Christopher Pope, Brooke Schmidt, Scott Swick, Brandon Wren. Mr. Motiasevich, A.M. Edo AmendL Jett Barnett, Jenne Barto, Brady Wales, Eric Wohl, Paul Wright Miss Jacobson, A.M. Nettie Alshuler, Jennifer Blair, Graham Donath, Stephen Duffy, Lance Emery, Judah Gilbert, Gar- rett Harvey, Dan Hedley, Lauren Hletbdnk, Katie Hostetler, Sarah Johnston, David Long, Elliot Marks, Brett McKinley, Jon McPherson, Eliza- beth MkIIIK Stacy Nichols, Ryan Niedringhous, David Roger, Sarah Ray, Evan Schiff, Ken Schwarz, Jamie Swarberg, Ryan Williams. Miss Jacobson, P.M. More Alipou, Mike Baldwin, Tyler Bmwer, Morgan Bunnell, Jesse Day, Tuan Do, Aaron Frey, Frank Fukumato: Megan Hilbert Garrett - Jansma, Shaun McClean, Kyle McNichols, Chris Mokede, Esan MozayeN, Nicole Newfield, Will' Riccio, Sam Ruppert, Yanko Saldano, Shannon Swofford, Lisa Sweet Kris Wagoner, Brian Weir. Mr. Fairborn, A.M. Megan Andud, Erin Baker, Cody Chavez, Meghaon Clark Monet Corso, Katherine Cov- Ington, Kelly Covington, Shllo Donnelly, Scott Dore, Michael Feted, Austin.George, Morgan Harrison, Jared Jones, Patrick Keefer, Tale Lu- esebrink, Tommy Miller, Jeremy Moses, Sarah Peal. Lauren Peyton. Marshall Bothwell, Su - Kevin Wkken, Scot Wigken, Ked ri mas Zavala. Mr. Fairborn, P.M. Jett Banks, Ryan Collins, metra Edwards, Michael s, Chris Kraus, Jenne Ma - Stephens, Vasteding, Mr. Likins, A.M. Thin Andrews, Ryan Benedict Brian Bissell, Derek Boucher, Ted Boucher, Matt Caldwell, 'Jimmy Celalia, Robert Courant Patrick Cory, Cherry. Jeff Cullen, Andrew Evans, Sean Fenton, Christine Harrington, Cud Herberts, Julie Jacob- son, Klerstin Johnson, Adrienne Kosky, -Peter Lang, Ashley Lent Lauren Lindroth, Charles Lumpkin, Nikki Martin, Allison Parker, Paul Pe- ters, Katie Riley, Radford Sechdst David Tomp- son. Mr. Matiasevich, P.M. Julie Anderson, Janae' Bausema, Brent Bear- den, Adam Cooper, Jessica Edwards, Noah Goldman, Alec Hanson, Dimitra Havdluk Casey Luchesi, Greg Marohioriattl, Elizabeth Morse, Ellen Orbe, Kacey Starzyk Cate Slockstill, Melinda Tucker, Matt Thlede, Erin VanHom. Mr. Stickler, A.M. Dennis Alshuler, Marcus Avila, Brady Barto, Christy Benbow, Ramsey Bllbelsl, Nick Bobroff, Erin Boler, Courtney Conwell, Brad Craig, Jesse David, Kip Danalh, Jeff Fracalosy, Mark Hatfield, Krystal Kelly, Paul Kepner, Nate Lemmerman, Matt Marshall, Ashley McFadden, Molly Melum, P.J. O'Brien, Justin Sbea, Chdsite Shinn, Beth Mr. Stickier, P.M. Landcl Beaver, David Beser,Traigh Con - cannon, Kimmy DeMille, Gram German. Omar Kaftan, Bdan Katusian, Nick Langsdort, Craig Levine, Trevor McNichols, Ali Messenger, Wendy Messenger, Kalen Morrison, Jonathan Neal, Kelly Overby, Casey Peterson, Justin Ruiz. Miss Gattney, A.M. Devin Burlingham, Ede Birkelbach, Matt Dunn, Grant Fstabrook Carde Foss, Trevor Jenkins, Casey Johnson, 'Kaly Johnson, Patricia Kdz, BJ Lightvoet Ryan Meeks, David Mittman, Rory Parker, Sasha Perimeter. Travis Frusta, Milan Rousset John Ruran, Wyatt Shateman, Shawn WtM, Michael WDGams, Cady Wdson. M!sa Gaftery, PAR. Tawny Bobbft, Allison Crane, Elizabeth Buffer, Jennifer GIBI, Brennan Howes, Justin Jacobs, Kevin Kramer, Brent McNichols, Christopher Heather Estabrook, Jason Franklin, McKinzie George, Garrett Govaars, Stacy Healy, Peter Hogan, Michael Hollem, Austin Jayred, Ryan Johnson, Aaron King, Nicholas Lumpkin, Toney Martz, Katie Mitchell, Sean Moss, Colby Northridge, Michael Pliha, Jake Sahagen, Ele- nom Serra, Bradley Stevens, Peter Wall, Ted Whalen, Bob Williams, Derek Zahler, Brandon Zinke. Mr.-Likins, P.N. Austin Ahfgren, Ptr9p Birdsong, Hannah Ber- Pome, Ryan Fenn, Beth Godber, Graham Bustin, Jordana HavrDid6 Justin Hawke, Hilary Hoover, Ryan Lewis, Malkel Makena, Chris Perry, Brooke Reese, Jessica Reynolds, Deane Satter, Brooke Schmidt, Megan Tucker, Erik Weigand, Ethan Wells, Casey Wiedemann, Liz Winkelman, Andreas Xagorarakis, Josh Yoches. Mr. Edler, A.M. Jason Arrow, Nolan Bibb, Madah Bonner, Matthew Boll, DeAnne Bryson, Noel DIOdscl, Edit Edler, Jeffem Falk Michael Galardo, Kelly Hoffman, Reed Johnson, Shayne Laughlin, Johnathan Maschelli, Robby McClalre. Jes- samyn Miller, Daniel Nelson, Wendy O'Bden, Daniel Offing, Ede Padilla, Melissa Pomeroy, Lindsay Ringwald, Rise Sansevied, Joe Sdglich, Bradford Sbaln, Milk Yuill. Mr. Edler, P.M. Andrea Anderson, Matt Armstrong, Mike Az- onion, Chdstoph Baranec, Bdaq Barton,_ChdsBan Blackburn, Beau Burcheg, Darcl CeCrona, Kelly Eikermann, Anne Fluor,. Eric ,Freemad', Chris Jongeward, Scott Mosier, Greg P,ntterson, Ash; leY Rette, Gantt Roth, Kasey St James, Rob- erto Torres, Tyler Wilson. Mine Schutz, A.M. Joanna Banks. Jim Beauchamp, Jordan Ofl- "ifil, Lauren Billing, Kdsla-Biorkquist John En- dquez, AaNe Rnnell. McCall-Froundt Suiame Garcia, Tara Glover, Shawns Gormley, Bill Gul- ley, Kristy Havock Jannell Heinlein, Wendy Meddock, Alyssa Paul, Jon Schrank, Cameron Sinclair. Mr. Harshbarger, A.M. Nolan Bobroff, Tyler Boucher, Christian Bren- nan, Ryan Durocher, Jake Edler, Sarah Goethals, Jessica Griffith, Kristin Hardy, Brendan Inglls, Mitchell Johns, Lucas Ken, Hillary Killelea, Evan Marks, Andy Ode, Matt Petry, Elizabeth Reed, Adam Ross, Mark Rowe, Skyler•Serrano, Adam Tomalas, Michael Tunney. Mr. Harshbarger, P.M. Joseph Alani, Chris Edwards, Robert Hawkins, James Lugo, Justin Reynolds, Micah Schiesel, Blake Sinclair, Kurt Thayer, Patrick Towersey, Zach Wells, Paul Wilson, Kevin Yoch- es. Mr. Rocco, A.M. Mike Ams-Tmhe, Brett Baker, Johnny Bald. win, Megan 'Beal, Gary Conwell, Robyn Coleman, Amy Davis, David Fracalosy, Scott Fracalosy, Chip Going, Michael Hayes, Jeff Leeper, Gray Lunde, Innes MacDonald, Rachele Marsh, Nicole Matson, Autumn Milliken, Cary Morrell, Ben Pearce, Philip Peters, JP Price, An- drew Roth, Gretchn Stlenbroner. Mr. Rocco, P.M. Erin Bates, Carrie Bobbltl. Todd Breilhaupt Lauren Bums, Erik Carlson, Kyndra Cox, Griffin Grogan, Kandice Johns, Rusty Hill, Maggie IRuo, Erin Kennedy, Chdssy Long, Mollie Mason, MacKenna Mosier, rely Petersen, Nate Reynold, Amber Steen. Mr. Roberts, A.M. Charlotte Backus, Nadia Badenbrock, Laura Blair, Kenny Brown, Chris Coleman, Brian Coombe, Michelle Dahn, Karen Bohn, Tarin Ely - McGregor, Taylor Foss, Nick Gabdel, Lindsey Grubbs, Megan Henning, John Lanni, Jim Lopez, Kate MacDonald, Natalee Mallory, Tyler Molway, Jennifer Heal, Bian Newqulst, Jackie Overman, Nicole Snell, Tyler Strateman, Chad Towersey, Anne Turner, Ryan Varner, Bonnie Watson, Ian Hart, Cory Hearst, Chris Henrinn, Jennifer Janes, Wendt Medley, Tiffany Mercado, Nicole Pinkslon, Edo Riedl, Laura Roche. Miss Schulz, P.M. Luke Alvarado, Kylie Cooper, Ryan Cooper, Kdsti Comwell, Chris Crane, Bret•Ebdghl, Mark Galmari ' Lauren.Ghtozi, Shannon Gibson, Matt Gorman, Dustin Hein, Bryan, Kramer, Chris Kramer, Scott Kramer, Chapin Kreuter, Chas Laper, ilothew Moreau, Ethan Poll, Chris Polovina, Jerry Roberts, Libby Stockstill. Mr. MitchelUMr. Cooper, A.M. Tyler Andrews, Chris Auchledonie, Stacey Bldckman, Jonathan Bloomfield, Chad Bol- lenbach, Josh DelRlo, Meghan Doyle, Liberty Edwards, Ashley Foss, Jacob Ffluell-Arciniega, Main Gaffney, Alan Gillett, Robb Haag, Michelle Hargrove, Graham Harvey, Melissa Hoop, Ryan Horton, Justin Ken, Kelly Lewis, Cole Lunde, Katie Marsh, Mergreta Ann McDonald, Joey Miller, Stephanle Moto, Nikl Noya, Jake Opp, .Dan Overton, Jennifer Parker, Daniel Pearce, Mike Peetz, Kevin Redford, Elise Redouley, Chris Richardson, Amanda Richmond, Chdsto- pher Robertson, Lie Roussel, Brice Schilling, Nick Schrank Dan Shabtal, Kelly Silver, Dorian Smiley, Brent Steele, Chris Strong, Kevin Swln- ney. Mr. MIlchelyMr. Cooper, P.M. Holly Aase, Steve Addison, David Allpou, Da- mien Alvarado, Michael Berger, Michelle Bigoss, Dedle Blackburn, Erica Bower, Shona Dietz, Melissa Favorite. Todd Franke, Treavor Frost, Christine Hayes, Lod Hoffman, John Jones, Jacob Jongeward, Andy Langsdorf, Faith Leep- ar, Misty Mallory, Sarah McGregor, Ryan McLean, Jennifer Miskov, Jamie Montague, All Muzayenl, Gregory Newfield, Lauren Packard, Chris Rette, Sherry, Rezvani, Kristine Schaup- pner, Sara South, John Stansbury, Mandy St- relff, Nick Boom Kurtis Van Hom. - 7 7 August 4, 1992 John Hedges, Chairman Balboa Specific Plan Committee City of Newport Beach Dear Councilman Hedges: The inkent of this letter is to voice my opinion about the proposed street that will cut across Peninsula Park. As a 10 year Junior Lifeguard Instructor for the City of Newport Beach I have seen and know the value of the park as a recreational facility, not only for junior lifeguards but for the general public as well. Since 1984 the junior lifeguard program has produced a positive and safe image for youths ages 9 to 15. I am concerned that this image may change if the kids need to keep an eye out for passing traffic as they conduct their normal routines of excercise and water safety instruction. Furthermore, the park has served two vital functions for the junior guard program's family involvement department. For one, we conduct our annual family hotdog dinner in which our attendance reaches over 2000 participants. Finally, the end of the year awards ceremony takes advantage of the parks locajusttion enoughaspacentovholdass thearea familieshofythe all 600dof juniorelifeguards. is I hope that this letter can shed some light on the importance of maintaining the park as a recreational area rather than a transportation center for drivers looking for a parking space and:not at. a child crossing its path. Thank you for your time and consideration. July 29, 1992 JOHN HEDGES, Chairman Balboa Specific Plan Committee City of Newport Beach Dear Councilman Hedges: We are shocked to learn that the AD HOC COMMITTEE for the BALBOA SPECIFIC PLAN is considering a proposal to run a street across Peninsula Park, from A to B Street ---in order to create a MAJOR TRAFFIC TURNAROUND. WHY? in fact, A Street is the end point of the Balboa Commercial Zone. It is bordered by single family homes and residential units. The continuation of multi -residential zoning from A to B Streets creates a natural buffer to the commercial area, leading to the single-family homes which comprise the balance, and the majority, of the Peninsula. A and B Streets are used primarily by visitors to the Park, Fire Pits and Picnic Areas. Peninsula Park is also used by a variety of City Programs, including the Marine Division Junior Life Guard Program. In addition, the Park is a source of revenue from rents collected from the many group users. Constructing a heavily trafficked corridor around this many -faceted PARK would certainly create a dangerously unsafe situation for the families, local and visitor, who enjoy the PARK, BEACH, FIREPITS and FACILITIES year round. We respectfully request that the COMMITTEE eliminate any plans for making any part of the PENINSULA -PARK a street. Signed Address Rd'"l 34L"GA F. t39lbcq 6tvd. Z661 gt9 E. d�l�,� �l.re1 , `c2661 July 29, 1992 JOHN HEDGES, Chairman Balboa Specific Plan Committee City of Newport Beach Dear Councilman Hedges: We are shocked to learn that the AD HOC COMMITTEE for the BALBOA SPECIFIC PLAN is considering a proposal to run a street across Peninsula Park, from A to B Street ---in order to create a MAJOR TRAFFIC TURNAROUND. WHY? In fact, A Street is the end point of the Balboa Commercial Zone. It is bordered by single family homes and residential units. The continuation of multi -residential zoning from A to B Streets creates a natural buffer to the commercial area, leading to the single-family homes which comprise the balance, and the majority, of the Peninsula. A and B Streets are used primarily by visitors to the Park, Fire Pits and Picnic Areas. Peninsula Park is also used by a variety of City Programs, including the Marine Division Junior Life Guard Program. in addition, the Park is a source of revenue from rents collected from the many group users. Constructing a heavily trafficked corridor around this many -faceted PARK would certainly create a dangerously unsafe situation for the families, local and visitor, who enjoy the PARK, BEACH, FIREPITS and FACILITIES year round. We respectfully request that the COMMITTEE eliminate any plans for making any part of PENINSULA PARK a street. J` g�d // 3d 6. �.(� s Y'V .. July 29, 1992 JOHN HEDGES, Chairman Balboa Specific Plan Committee City of Newport Beach Dear Councilman Hedges: We are shocked to learn that the AD HOC COMMITTEE for the BALBOA SPECIFIC PLAN is considering a proposal to run a street across Peninsula Park, from A to B Street ---in order to create a MAJOR TRAFFIC TURNAROUND. WHY? In fact, A Street is the end point of the Balboa Commercial Zone. It is bordered by single family homes and residential units. The continuation of multi -residential zoning from A to B Streets creates a natural buffer to the commercial area, leading to the single-family homes which comprise the balance, and the majority, of the Peninsula. A and B Streets are used primarily by visitors to the Park, Fire Pits and Picnic Areas. Peninsula Park is also used by a variety of City Programs, including the Marine Division Junior Life Guard Program. in addition, the Park is a source of revenue from rents collected from the many group users. Constructing a heavily trafficked corridor around this many -faceted PARK would certainly create a dangerously unsafe situation for the families, local and visitor, who enjoy the PARK, BEACH, FIREPITS and FACILITIES year round. We respectfully request that the COMMITTEE eliminate any plans for making any part of PENINSULA PARK a street. __ a Address July 29, 1992 Cit of New ort Beach Dear Councilman Hedges: users. year round. Qi rmed July 29, 1992 Dear councilman Hed es: users. year round. dd ess July 29. 1992 Dear Councilman Heftes: source of revenue from rents coiieczeu Lrcuu �.._ .«a.. users. Constructing a heavily trafficked corridor around this Address /o/5�. r- July 29, 1992 JOHN HEDGES, Chairman Balboa Specific Plan Committee City of Newport Beach Dear Councilman Hedges: We are shocked to learn that the AD HOC COMMITTEE for the BALBOA SPECIFIC PLAN is considering a proposal to run a street across Peninsula Park, from A to B Street ---in order to create a MAJOR TRAFFIC TURNAROUND. WHY? In fact, A Street is the end point of the Balboa Commercial Zone. It is bordered by single family homes and residential units. The continuation of multi -residential zoning from A to B Streets creates a natural buffer to the commercial area, leading to the single-family homes which comprise the balance, and the majority, of the Peninsula. A and B Streets are used primarily by visitors to the Park, Fire Pits and Picnic Areas. Peninsula Park is also used by a variety of City Programs, including the Marine Division Junior Life Guard Program. in addition, the Park is a source of revenue from rents collected from the many group users. Constructing a heavily trafficked corridor around this many -faceted PARK would certainly create a dangerously unsafe situation for the families, local and visitor, who enjoy the PARK, BEACH, FIREPITS and FACILITIES year round. We respectfully request that the COMMITTEE eliminate any plans for making any part of PENINSULA PARK a street. a; ,, e a Address �},/ July 29, 1992 JOHN HEDGES, Chairman Balboa Specific Plan Committee City of Newport Beach Dear Councilman Hedges: We are shocked to learn that the AD HOC COMMITTEE for the BALBOA SPECIFIC PLAN is considering a proposal to run a street across Peninsula Park, from A to B Street ---in order to create a MAJOR TRAFFIC TURNAROUND. WHY? In fact, A Street is the end point of the Balboa Commercial Zone. It is bordered by single family homes and residential units. The continuation of multi -residential zoning from A to B Streets creates a natural buffer to the commercial area, leading to the single-family homes which comprise the balance, and the majority, of the Peninsula. A and B Streets are used primarily by visitors to the Park, Fire Pits and Picnic Areas. Peninsula Park is also used by a variety of City Programs, including the Marine Division Junior Life Guard Program. In addition, the Park is a source of revenue from rents collected from the many group users. Constructing a heavily trafficked corridor around this many -faceted PARK would certainly create a dangerously unsafe situation for the families, local and visitor, who enjoy the PARK, BEACH, FIREPITS and FACILITIES year round. We respectfully request that the COMMITTEE eliminate any plans for making any part of PENINSULA PARK a street. July 29, 1992 JOHN HEDGES, Chairman Balboa Specific Plan Committee City of Newport Beach Dear Councilman Hedges: We are shocked to learn that the AD HOC COMMITTEE for the BALBOA SPECIFIC PLAN is considering a proposal to run a street across Peninsula Park, from A to B Street ---in order to create a MAJOR TRAFFIC TURNAROUND. WHY? In fact, A Street is the end point of the Balboa Commercial Zone. it is bordered by single family homes and residential units. The continuation of multi -residential zoning from A to B Streets creates a natural buffer to the commercial area, leading to the single-family homes which comprise the balance, and the majority, of the Peninsula. A and B Streets are used primarily by visitors to the Park, Fire Pits and Picnic Areas. Peninsula Park is also used by a variety of City Programs, including the Marine Division Junior Life Guard Program. In addition, the Park is a source of revenue from rents collected from the many group users. Constructing a heavily trafficked corridor around this many -faceted PARK would certainly create a dangerously unsafe situation for the families, local and visitor, who enjoy the PARK, BEACH, FIREPITS and FACILITIES year round. We respectfully request that the COMMITTEE eliminate any plans for making any part of PENINSULA PARK a street. AddressSigned July 29, 1992 JOHN HEDGES, Chairman Balboa Specific Plan Committee City of Newport Beach Dear Councilman Hedges: We are shocked to learn that the AD HO C WHY? in fact, A Street is the end point of the Balboa Commercial Zone. It is bordered by single family homes and residential units. The continuation of multi -residential zoning from A to B Streets creates a natural buffer to the commercial area, leading to the single-family homes which comprise the balance, and the majority, of the Peninsula. A and B Streets are used primarily by visitors to the Park, Fire Pits and Picnic Areas. Peninsula Park is also used by a variety of City Programs, including the Marine Division Junior Life Guard Program. in addition, the Park is a source of revenue from rents collected from the many group users. Constructing a heavily trafficked corridor around this many -faceted PARR would certainly create a dangerously unsafe situation for the families, local and visitor, who enjoy the PARK, BEACH, FIREPITS and FACILITIES year round. We respectfully request that the COMMITTEE eliminate any plans for making any part of the PENINSULA PARK a street. Address I /Signed ((. �'/,� /�/V G� ri%� /� h/t' /ZA '-/- //` /'I�VL(�J Q%Uil • 6WCi iiC,. ,t i 12 ef /2 lC P3lc� . July 29, 1992 JOHN HEDGES, Chairman Balboa Specific Plan Committee City of Newport Beach Dear Councilman Hedges: We are shocked to learn that the AD HOC COMMITTEE for the BALBOA SPECIFIC PLAN is considering a proposal to run a street across Peninsula Park, from A to B Street ---in order to create a MAJOR TRAFFIC TURNAROUND. WHY? In fact, A Street is the end point of the Balboa Commercial Zone. it is bordered by single family homes and residential units. The continuation of multi -residential zoning from A to B Streets creates a natural buffer to the commercial area, leading to the single-family homes which comprise the balance, and the majority, of the Peninsula. A and B Streets are used primarily by visitors to the Park, Fire Pits and Picnic Areas. Peninsula Park is also used by a variety of City Programs, including the Marine Division Junior Life Guard Program. In addition, the Park is a source of revenue from rents collected from the many group users. Constructing a heavily trafficked corridor around this many -faceted PARR would certainly create a dangerously unsafe situation for the families, local and visitor, who enjoy the PARR, BEACH, FIREPITS and FACILITIES year round. We respectfully request that the COMMITTEE eliminate any plans for making any part of PENINSULA PARK a street. Siqned Address rfr &A4 ar t July 29, 1992 JOHN HEDGES, Chairman Balboa Specific Plan Committee City of Newport Beach Dear Councilman Hedges: We are shocked to learn that the AD HOC COMMITTEE for the BALBOA SPECIFIC PLAN is considering a proposal to run a street across Peninsula Park, from A to B Street ---in order to create a MAJOR TRAFFIC TURNAROUND. WHY? In fact, A Street is the end point of the Balboa Commercial Zone. It is bordered by single family homes and residential units. The continuation of multi -residential zoning from A to B Streets creates a natural buffer to the commercial area, leading to the single-family homes which comprise the balance, and the majority, of the Peninsula. A and B Streets are used primarily by visitors to the Park, Fire Pits and Picnic Areas. Peninsula Park is also used by a variety of City Programs, including the Marine Division Junior Life Guard Program. In addition, the Park is a source of revenue from rents collected from the many group users. Constructing a heavily trafficked corridor around this many -faceted PARK would certainly create a dangerously unsafe situation for the families, local and visitor, who enjoy the PARK, BEACH, FIREPITS and FACILITIES year round. We respectfully request that the COMMITTEE eliminate any plans for making any part of PENINSULA PARK a street. Address July 29, 1992 JOHN HEDGES, Chairman Balboa Specific Plan Committee City of Newport Beach Dear Councilman Hedges: We are shocked to learn that the AD HOC COMMITTEE for the BALBOA SPECIFIC PLAN is considering a proposal to run a street across Peninsula Park, from A to B Street ---in order to create a MAJOR TRAFFIC TURNAROUND. WHY? In fact, A Street is the end point of the Balboa Commercial Zone. It is bordered by single family homes and residential units. The continuation of multi -residential zoning from A to B Streets creates a natural buffer to the commercial area, leading to the single-family homes which comprise the balance, and the majority, of the Peninsula. A and B Streets are used primarily by visitors to the Park, Fire Pits and Picnic Areas. Peninsula Park is also used by a variety of City Programs, including the Marine Division Junior Life Guard Program. In addition, the Park is a source of revenue from rents collected from the many group users. Constructing a heavily trafficked corridor around this many -faceted PARK would certainly create a dangerously unsafe situation for the families, local and visitor, who enjoy the PARK, BEACH, FIREPITS and FACILITIES year round. We respectfully request that the COMMITTEE eliminate any plans for making any part of PENINSULA PARK a street. Address July 29, 1992 JOHN HEDGES, Chairman Balboa Specific Plan Committee City of Newport Beach Dear Councilman Hedges: We are shocked to learn that the AD HOC COMMITTEE for the BALBOA SPECIFIC PLAN is considering a proposal to run a street across Peninsula Park, from A to B Street ---in order to create a MAJOR TRAFFIC TURNAROUND. WHY? In fact, A Street is the end point of the Balboa Commercial Zone. it is bordered by single family homes and residential units. The continuation of multi -residential zoning from A to B Streets creates a natural buffer to the commercial area, leading to the single-family homes which comprise the balance, and the majority, of the Peninsula. A and B Streets are used primarily by visitors to the Park, Fire Pits and Picnic Areas. Peninsula Park is also used by a variety of City Programs, including the Marine Division Junior Life Guard Program. In addition, the Park is a source of revenue from rents collected from the many group users. Constructing a heavily trafficked corridor around this many -faceted PARK would certainly create a dangerously unsafe situation for the families, local and visitor, who enjoy the PARK, BEACH, FIREPITS and FACILITIES year round. We respectfully request that the COMMITTEE eliminate any plans for making any part of PENINSULA pMK a street. Signed Address v� % 5/8Q0 )9'yXk ACE A6Zyo aA7- ad_eXVy663 31 July 29, 1992 JOHN HEDGES, Chairman Balboa Specific Plan Committee City of Newport Beach Dear Councilman Hedges: We are shocked to learn that the AD HOC COMMITTEE for the BALBOA SPECIFIC PLAN is considering a proposal to run a street across Peninsula Park, from A to B Street ---in order to create a MAJOR TRAFFIC TURNAROUND. WHY? In fact, A Street is the end point of the Balboa Commercial Zone. It is bordered by single family homes and residential units. The continuation of multi -residential zoning from A to B Streets creates a natural buffer to the commercial area, leading to the single-family homes which comprise the balance, and the majority, of the Peninsula. A and B Streets are used primarily by visitors to the Park, Fire Pits and Picnic Areas. Peninsula Park is also used by a variety of City Programs, including the Marine Division Junior Life Guard Program. In addition, the Park is a source of revenue from rents collected from the many group users. Constructing a heavily trafficked corridor around this many -faceted PARK would certainly create a dangerously unsafe situation for the families, local and visitor, who enjoy the PARK, BEACH, FIREPITS and FACILITIES year round. We respectfully request that the COMMITTEE eliminate any plans for making any part of PENINSULA PARK a street. July 29, 1992 JOHN HEDGES, Chairman Balboa Specific Plan Committee City of Newport Beach Dear Councilman Hedges: We are shocked to learn that the AD HOC COMMITTEE for the BALBOA SPECIFIC PLAN is considering a proposal to run a street across Peninsula Park, from A to B Street ---in order to create a MAJOR TRAFFIC TURNAROUND. WHY? In fact, A Street is the end point of the Balboa Commercial Zone. It is bordered by single family homes and residential units. The continuation of multi -residential zoning from A to B Streets creates a natural buffer to the commercial area, leading to the single-family homes which comprise the balance, and the majority, of the Peninsula. A and B Streets are used primarily by visitors to the Park, Fire Pits and Picnic Areas. Peninsula Park is also used by a variety of City Programs, including the Marine Division Junior Life Guard Program. In addition, the Park is a source of revenue from rents collected from the many group users. Constructing a heavily trafficked corridor around this many -faceted PARK would certainly create a dangerously unsafe situation for the families, local and visitor, who enjoy the PARK, BEACH, FIREPITS and FACILITIES year round. We respectfully request that the COMMITTEE eliminate any plans for making any part of PENINSULA PARK a street. 1■■1 �_..� 10 1 Address (7 0 1 1 R AdA AR 2 July 29, 1992 JOHN HEDGES, Chairman Balboa Specific Plan Committee City of Newport Beach Dear Councilman Hedges: We are shocked to learn that the AD HOC COMMITTEE for the BALBOA SPECIFIC PLAN is considering a proposal to run a street across Peninsula Park, from A to B Street ---in order to create a MAJOR TRAFFIC TURNAROUND. WHY? In fact, A Street is the end point of the Balboa Commercial Zone. It is bordered by single family homes and residential units. The continuation of multi -residential zoning from A to B Streets creates a natural buffer to the commercial area, leading to the single-family homes which comprise the balance, and the majority, of the Peninsula. A and B Streets are used primarily by visitors to the Park, Fire Pits and Picnic Areas. Peninsula Park is also used by a variety of City Programs, including the Marine Division Junior Life Guard Program. In addition, the Park is a source of revenue from rents collected from the many group users. Constructing a heavily trafficked •corridor around this many -faceted PARK would certainly create a dangerously unsafe situation for the families, local and visitor, who enjoy the PARK, BEACH, FIREPITS and FACILITIES year round. We respectfully request that the COMMITTEE eliminate any plans for making any part of PENINSULA PARK a street. Address n TO: Ye FR`U,�- SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT IFto Central Balboa Alford, Senior Planner"� Attached are conceptual diagrams proci and use. The first diagram illustrates tl second diagram illustrates a potential "c illustrates the circulation plan proposed diagram illustrates the potential reconfi from the 1991 Austin -Foust traffic stud-' C= �2 Lzzs S�C�7 :d by Austin -Foust Associates for your study A Street/B Street turnaround concept. The ising" control configuration. The third diagram the 1991 Austin -Foust traffic study. The last ration of the Main Beach Parking -lot (also ri tZr Lt..w - - - - Iw/c_.d 2044 A /&"w 7 P `dh B&w AL-3 4IL400 (A AO d;rd3 W-- ,• 1 tt 1 kt� . .,...,—..-•rr,-.:.Rn2nr,� , �..q �=.� ,.if..'.913?"; �' ; ...::1t�}3 3.�.'��i > >� 7,":,i, d3}ir. � ahi}� . � �?:;;u,� i3�3:� ;3� f Hedses 171.7cs7S93S3 P.01 To (company): Attention: John W. Hedges Phone: 714-675.5185 Fax: 714-675-9333 Pam Pq 4., � Notes: Ca /VMt 13J C,p. e Number of Pages (including cover page): +TY OF NE+WOK r3Et.r, SEP 10 1992 AA! ` i Hedges 17146759333 W boa To n' Meeting Se tember 17t' 7:00 PM CIO E'all The Balboa Ad floc Comm. : has nearly coi; :,Ieted its work on the Downtown Balboa Specific Area Plan. Many o. to votes are split -- homeowners representatives on one side and Balboa businessmen or a other. It is clear that our chairman, John Hedges, favors, in general, the downtown It ;nesses on those issues where there is a split. HERE ARE THE CRITICAL 17STIONS: 0 Do you favor spend 55 30,C 00 to ex•.:urd the pler' parking lut drld ro construct a new parking area •veen "A'. and "B" Streets? Do you favor consn ag a new stop light at Washington Street? �i Do you favor taki: .3me of the grass paxk and/or sandy beach to provide additional parking? 0 Do you, pardcularl, :se residents liv:;ig on Balboa Blvd. closest to downtown, favor providing a n; of alleviating L;. U-tunas on Balboa Blvd, by construction of a connecdng str,: ',Weer: "All and ";," Streets m form a loop around Lhe park? 6-f Is it likely that you, :i Point resident, will be ;more likely to shop in downtown Balboa if the additi, parking outline:-! above is provided? If not, what realistic steps could be tak .> substantially 'nerease resident shopping, and thereby contribute to the ec nlc health of do .vntown? Ii', rrx� co u. ;.bov,: ;jiestions is NO, then n ow is ter e to i,.:conx.; .11 irlvol•ved participant rather than a I ..Ardor, and p..:naps a victim; we do not have the voi )n the Commi .tee to prevail. Pla: attend the Ser ember 10 BPPA Board Meeting to share yot• :as with your C munittee representatives. They need your inp : establish their ,final position on this very important issue. Als. in to attend the .ialboa Town Meeting on September 16 at 7:0 t at City Hall. :ome hear our ciry planners and traffic en?, r give their recommendations on downtown Balboa. P.02 6 i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT August 26, 1992 TO: Central Balboa SAP Committee FROM: Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner�� SUBJECT: PARKING AND CIRCULATION CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAMS Attached are conceptual diagrams produced by Austin -Foust Associates for your study and use. The first diagram illustrates the A Street/B Street turnaround concept. The second diagram illustrates a potential "cruising" control configuration. The third diagram illustrates the circulation plan proposed by the 1991 Austin -Foust traffic study. The last diagram illustrates the potential reconfiguration of the Main Beach Parking lot (also from the 1991 Austin -Foust traffic study). l �Allp� « . Y 4 MLYD. r- W W Y v Y W r W v Y W Y v r Y y W W W W W 1 Y yr W W W V W W W W W W J Y W W Y 1 1 Y W W W Y Y W W 1 y W W W W 1 W 1 W W i 1 W W W W Y W W W W 1 W t Y W Y 1 W v W W W W W W 1 W Y W 1 W Y W 1 W W W 1 W Y Y W +Y WW W Y W W yl 71 Y1 --A(A i 017 =8 BAI-A-BiDM. IM GY A/I6/93 TURNAROUND STUDY (ALT 1) ®A®Al/ST/N--FOUST ASSOCIATES, /NC. BALBOA BLVD. - NEWPDBT BEACH BALBOA NO LT DURING SPECIAL FERICO mi ~ ~ f0-► — — y BAY QrI`------------ f"emu....._....._.........eRRY SrORAG f.Y ®®® AYE• 1 I 1 h®+®i h® +®i h®+ i F� i ••• F®+®i h®h® i F ~ • • •--• • -►• • •—• •--• ' Z NOR4AL SMAL SEQUENCE BLVD. VOPAIAL SIGN _ SIGN 1" ....._ !OR OR TUMTURN-ARO.NO UN Z NO RT DURING S'ECIA, PERIOD SPECIAL SIGNAL SEQUENCE 1 YxG f-» 1 TURNAROUND STUDY I®r®AffSnN--FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. BALBOA ST. - NEWPORT BEACH m --KA F OR.MB EAL A-80 ljY W O /]4/99 IA®AIMIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES, /HC. TURNAROUND STUDY BALBOA BLVD - NEWPORT BEAZH Ll �ik --Ate n 017 We eft -A -Sant sm N 0/ 9/92 TURNAROUND STUDY �®AUST/N-FOUST ASSOCIATES /NC. BALBOA BLVD. - NEWPORT BEACH a Central Balboa SAP Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Notes August 25, 1992 3:00 p.m. City Council Chambers Present: Council Member John Hedges, Chairman Council Member Ruthelyn Plummer, Vice Chairman Phil Tozer, BIA Stephanie Houghton, CBA Doug Boyd, BPPA Chan Lefebvre, BPPA Bob Black, BIA Kent Maddi, BIA Stu Berkshire, CBA Doug Salisbury, BIA C.J. Williams, BIA Staff: Jim Hewicker, Planning Director Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager Rich Edmonton, Traffic Engineer Steve Badham, Project Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Bob Kavert, Planning Aide I. Adopt agenda The agenda was adopted without revision. 11 Adopt June 26. 1992 meeting notes The meeting notes were adopted without revision. III. Comments from the public There were no comments from the public. IV Update on potential assessment district Chairman Hedges introduced Mr. Steve Badham, Public Works Department, to present an update on the potential assessment district. Mr. Badham stated that the Public Works Department is in the process of acquiring estimates from the utility companies regarding the cost of undergrounding their respective utility services. He added that the Public Works Department may conduct a survey to 1] determine what type of decorative improvements owners. The Public Works Department needs decorative improvements to sidewalks and street assessment district costs. are desired by the affected property an accurate consensus on the extent of lighting in order to estimate potential Mr. Boyd commented that the Fun Zone property may present a problem because it is undergoing foreclosure. V. Discussion on finalizing specific area plan text Mr. Alford informed the Committee that the SAP text is about 99% complete. The two remaining items to be worked out are circulation and parking, and capital improvements. Mr. Alford anticipates that the Committee will finalize the circulation and parking issues in the next few meetings, but that the capital improvement issues will depend on what happens with the proposed assessment district. Mr. Alford recommended that the Committee adopt generalized language relating to capital improvements at this time, rather than hold up the entire SAP while the proposed assessment district is developed. Mr. Alford anticipates that the SAP could be ready for public hearings in October or November. VI Discussion on proposed circulation and parking improvements Chairman Hedges reviewed some of the circulation goals of the Committee. These goals included a plan addressing the "cruising" problem in the event that the 15th Street turn- around is eliminated, and to provide some type of delineation between the commercial and residential districts. Chairman Hedges commented that pedestrian traffic causes congestion at Washington and Balboa, and that Austin -Foust recommended a traffic signal be installed at that intersection. He then introduced Rich Edmonston to provide an overview of the Austin -Foust conceptual plans. Mr. Edmonston referred to two conceptual exhibit plans prepared by traffic consultants Austin -Foust Associates Inc. Mr. Edmonston stated that the two conceptual plans could be modified if desired, and implemented separately or together. The first exhibit was a proposed turn -around, north of Balboa Boulevard, circulating north on Washington, east on Bay and south on Palm back to Balboa (Attachment No.1). Mr. Edmonton explained that the turn -around was designed to divert "cruising" traffic off of the peninsula in the event that the 15th Street turn -around was eliminated. The Committee discussed several issues in connection with the conceptual turn -around, including loss of parking, possible eminent domain process, traffic signal placement, circulation patterns and general feasibility. Mr. Edmonton referred to the second exhibit (Attachment No. 2), which was a conceptual plan to connect the A Street and B Street parking lots, and provide additional parking. Mr. Edmonton commented that this proposal could include signage, and or a median on Balboa Boulevard indicating a transition from the commercial district to the residential district. He added that parking would be located further away from existing residential dwellings, and up to 99 additional parking spaces could be created with this conceptual design. 2 • The Committee discussed key issues regarding the conceptual plan, including the heavy utilization of the grass field by youths and other organized team sport enthusiasts, child safety, loss of park space, beach encroachment, Coastal Commission concerns and limited access to garages fronting Balboa Boulevard. Mr. Williams stated his support for this conceptual plan. Mr. Tozer and Mr. Salisbury concurred. Mr. Lefebvre and Mr. Boyd requested the opportunity to present the two conceptual plans to their association to get feedback. Chairman Hedges suggested that the representatives should decide now, rather than hold up the entire process for a vote that may be a foregone conclusion. The Committee discussed the request of the homeowner association, and decided to conduct a joint meeting with the business and homeowner associations. The Committee concurred that it would be in the best interest of everyone involved to have an unbiased presentation of the conceptual plans. The Committee requested that City staff present the plans at a "Town Hall" style meeting. Therefore, a public meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, September 16th, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Chairman Hedges suggested the following issues be placed on the scheduled public meeting agenda; a) the conceptual "cruise control" turn -around b) the conceptual A and B Street connection c) the possibility of closing Main Street south of Balboa Boulevard, exiting the main parking lot at Washington, restriping the main parking lot, and installing a traffic signal at Washington and Balboa Chairman Hedges scheduled the next Committee meeting for Friday, September 25th, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. VIT. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. Attachments: 1) Conceptual "cruise control" turn -around 2) Conceptual A and B Street connection 3 PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (BALBOA BUSINESS DISTRICT) A proposed Assessment District could encompass all commercially zoned property within the sphere_of influence of the Balboa Business District and the Balboa Pier. The key elements which could be constructed by a proposed assessment district are . decorative sidewalk, crosswalks, thematic street lighting, and park improvements in the vicinity of the Balboa Pier. In general, these improvements will improve appearance, property value, pedestrian safety, and establish a unified theme throughout the commercial area. The project could be similar to the work which was done at the McFadden Square/Newport Pier area. City policy, in general, provides that decorative or nonconforming improvements may be constructed in the public right of way by encroachment permit or assessment district. These improvements must be funded by private monies. However, there may be opportunities to receive contributions from the City in the form of a credit for repair work which may be scheduled within the City's normal maintenance and rehabilitation programs. Under an assessment district project, decorative sidewalk could be constructed involving the removal and replacement of existing sidewalks with concrete sidewalk with rock salt finish, accented by transverse brick paver "ribbons" at specified densities. The new sidewalk would duplicate the widths and dimensions of the existing sidewalks. Costs for decorative walks can range from $5.50 to $20.00/ square foot depending on the density of the decorative pavers (see attached exhibit). The construction of thematic street lighting could include the installation of antique style street lights and appurtenant facilities. These street lights, once installed, would be operated and maintained by the City. Estimated costs vary greatly depending on the lighting type and spacing. If the assessed cost was spread on a 30 foot frontage basis, street lights similar to those in McFadden Square,( double lighting heads & 120' spacing), would cost approximately $ 2500 /30' lot. Park improvements including the construction of decorative sidewalks, landscape planters, landscape irrigation, plaza furniture, and lighting could be included in a proposed assessment district. The cost of constructing the above mentioned work could be funded by the proposed assessment district recognizing that these improvements may benefit the general public as well as property owners. This would be similar the construction of the plaza at the Newport Pier in which the City contributed 50% of the plaza construction costs. In addition to the above mentioned construction costs, there are other costs such as engineering design, administration costs, and financing costs. These costs generally range from 30 to 40%. 12.5% RED FLRSHED BRICK PAVERS ESTIMATED COST = $5.50/SOLMr FOOT TYPICAL COST FOR R SIX FOOT SIDEWALK RLONG R 30 FOOT FRONTAGE = $910 ROCK SRLT OR STANDARD CONCRETE FINISH BUILDING FACE (R/W) 1 Y-9-04 33% RED FLRSHED BRICK PRVERS ESTIMATED COST = $9.00/SM R;E FOOT TYPICAL COST FOR R SIX FOOT SIDEWALK ALONG R 30 FOOT FRONTRGE = $1,485 42% RED FLASHED BRIG( PAVERS ESTIMATED COST = $10.50/SQUARE FOOT TYPICAL COST FOR R SIX FOOT SIDEWALK ALONG R 30 FOOT FRONTRGE = $1,735 f:iIjif iwi ,ieitalAM[ti"t1 " m ME"1 la e 1 6' 66% RED FLRSHED BRICK PAVERS ESTIMATED COST = $14.50/SQURRE FOOT TYPICAL COST FOR A SIX FOOT SIDEWALK ALONG A 30 FOOT FRONTAGE = $2,400 ROCK SALT OR STRNDRRD CONCRETE FINISH CURB BUILDING FACE (R/W) BRICK PAVERS (12"X4') RCCESS RAMP J,-, 100% RED FLRSHED BRICK RIVERS ESTIMATED COST = $20.00/SQUARE FOOT TYPICAL COST FOR A SIX FOOT SIDEWALK FLANG A 30 FOOT FRONTAGE = $3,300 BUILDING FACE (RAW) BRICK PRVERS (12"X4') Aph i I V SIGN-UP SHEET NAME ADDRESS CITY REPRESENTING w� O 'loco E f--- `�eo G(�C Yii e.i « O er �IDpL �< ( --e (4 V _Q 9015 CJ %CA) 13)vj 3 N U F d5 �r � 1 �� 41A hoc l 2,6&3 a2 % E. 8 aq /.%v Ir IF-2c f G�.�r i�n�t. /J47 `c (V 0 -t61 4;�77/91,1 LA pV//Y� ! �LrQ �y�}L�/9 CAZ� -L ha _F1 e �j/ edTJ 2 ZC o6j11iyeL U , ZL130/9LG L136�1-:>VZO r 1 pj-_7v-'7 t � � 9 r SIGN-UP SHEET i / � f. /.LLB i. � / �_ /.._ • ..%�'/a REPRESENTING •ate... J J d: 0 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659-1768 Dear Property Owner: This letter is to invite you to a discussion on the public improvements planned for the Central Balboa area. The meeting will be on Wednesday, August 5, 1992 at 2:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 3300 Newport Boulevard. The meeting will be informal and no official action will be taken. It is only for purposes of discussion and determining interest in this project. However, your participation at the meeting is important since the City is seeking guidance on how these facilities should be reconstructed and funded. This is your opportunity to present your ideas on how Central Balboa should be improved. The City would like to discuss interest in the construction of enhanced street improvements in the Central Balboa area. Enhanced street improvements are treatments such as brick pavers, decorative street lighting, and landscaping designed to improve the appearance of the area. The City is currently working on a specific area plan to upgrade the appearance of the Central Balboa area and improve its attraction as a commercial and recreational area for residents and visitors. Public improvements are seen as the key to achieving these goals. The City is already preparing plans for the repair or replacement of street pavement, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and drainage facilities. Circulation and parking improvements are also being studied. The City is committed to funding these standard public improvements as part of its capital improvement program. However, any enhanced treatments will have to be funded by other sources. The formation of an assessment district is the most common method of funding such treatments. Under such an arrangement, the City would pay the costs of the standard improvements, while the costs of additional treatments would be paid by the property owners within the assessment district. The enhanced treatments recently constructed in the Newport Pier area were financed under such an arrangement. The construction of these improvements presents a unique opportunity to upgrade the appearance of the Central Balboa area. Constructing such enhanced treatments concurrently with standard improvements would allow the coordination of designs and materials and would minimize the disruption of the area during construction. The nature and scope of these improvements will affect your property. Therefore, it is important that you present your views. Your attendance and participation at the meeting is needed and will be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please call the City of Newport Beach Planning Department at (714) 644-3225 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach CENTRAL BALBOA COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNERS JULY 1992 GLADYS E SIMPSON S. C. EICHENBAUM 550 N OSBORN AVE 20350 VENTURA BLVD #110 WEST COVINA, CA 91790 WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91364 DOUGLAS L SALISBURY 10742 GILLETTE AVE IRVINE, CA 92714 D00 AND SONS INC SUITE 1710 3250 WILSHIRE BLVD LOS ANGELES, CA 90010 ROLANDFRANK VALLELY-'Rc741 0/ 500 WASHINGTON SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 ROLAND FRANK VALLELY 508 S BAY FRONT BALBOA ISLAND, CA 92622 GIUSEPPINA IOFFRIDA 408 E BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 MARION G PERRAULT 520 HAWTHORNE ST SO PASADENA, CA 91030 MELLVINE FUCHS PO BOX 686 BALBOA, CA 92661 MARSHALL FAMILY TRUST 510 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 KAY SWOFFER PATTON 259 PARK AVE LONG BEACH, CA 90803 STANDARD INSURANCE CO PO BOX 1600 ROWLETT, TX 75088 RICHARD H KRUSE 34392 STARBOARD LANTERN DANA POINT, CA 92629 RAYMOND KOFDARALI 510 E BALBOA BLVD BALBOA, CA 92661 ANDRA LACHO 204 ADAMS ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 RICHARD KRUSE 34392 STARBOARD LANTERN DANA POINT, CA 92629 LAGUNA FEDERAL SAVINGS 610 A ST SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 WILLIAM ROCKLOFF 1960 OAK KNOLL DR BELMONT, CA 94002 PROFESSIONAL BUILDING MANAGEMENT INC 3030 LANGS BAY COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ISABELL M WRIGHT 407 E BALBOA BLVD BALBOA, CA 92661 MICHAEL EUBANKS 409 E BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 SPENCER HENRY 2744 ROBERTA DR ORANGE, CA 92669 HAROLD C HARRIMAN 3221 NEBRASKA PL COSTA MESA, CA 92626 DENIS W KIDD 22874 PICO ST GRAND TERRACE, CA 92324 ALLEN WAH 19826 DINAFL CHATSWORTH, CA 91311 ROBERT R PILLING 7418 E CHEROKEE DR DOWNEY, CA 90241 0 CENTRAL BALBOA COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNERS JULY 1992 ALFRED J MURPHY MEURS CO 536 EL MIRADOR DR 300 MAIN ST FULLERTON, CA 92653 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 EVERETT H MICHAEL 507 E BALBOA BLVD BALBOA, CA 92661 RONALD W ROSE 40833 CALLE BANDIDO MURRIETA, CA 92362 JAY M GOLDNER 11560 ACAMA ST STUDIO CITY, CA 91604 BUBBLES BALBOA CLUB LTD P O BOX 939 BALBOA, CA 92661 JAMES G WEST 22111 CAPE MAY LN HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 M B MARTIN 3420 E 3RD CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 PAUL LAGONE P O BOX 644 BALBOA, CA 92661 RUTH M KOVER 5034 GOWAN RD LAS VEGAS, NV 89130 BALBOA ASSOCIATES SUITE 213 3491 VIA LIDO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 WESTLAKE VILLAGE PROPERTIES 6753 HOLLYWOOD BLVD HOLLYWOOD, CA 90028 DARRELL H SLUDER P O BOX 930 BALBOA, CA 92661 CHARLES J WILLIAMS 104 MAIN ST BALBOA, CA 92661 2 HARRY S HOLLEY 1441 FULLBRIGHT AVE REDLANDS, CA 92373 JOANNA TOOKER VOGEL 564 S SUNKIST ST ANAHEIM, CA 92806 LAM C KWONG 211 AMETHYST AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92662 FREDERICK J WALLACE 910 E BALBOA BLVD BALBOA, CA 92661 4 SAILS HOME DEVELOPERS 2005 E OCEAN BLVD BALBOA ISLAND, CA 92663 TIMOTHY N MEAD 308 HOLMWOOD DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 / HARRY ALEXON 457 S ALEXANDRIA LOS ANGELES, CA 90020 NAK K KIM 801 E BALBOA BLVD BALBOA, CA 92661 JOSEPH M FERGUSON 901 VIA LIDO NORD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 VIRGINIA L TUCKER 12531 EL'ROY DR SANTA ANA, CA 92705 HELEN B NORTON 300 E COAST HWY #17 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 BALBOA PAVILION COMPANY 400 MAIN ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 CENTRAL BALBOA COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNERS JULY 1992 JOHN L WESTREM 1006 E BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 VIRGINIA L HERBERTS 2290 CHANNEL RD BALBOA, CA 92661 JOHN L WESTREM 1006 E BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NADA NADINE HANNAFORD 456 SERRA DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 FRANCIS R WERNER P O BOX 802 BALBOA, CA 92661 ROGER WHITNEY HANNAFORD P 0 BOX 568 BALBOA, CA 92661 LEOPOLD T AVALLONE 1367 AVENIDA DE CORTEZ PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 CHARLES J WILLIAMS 104 MAIN ST BALBOA, CA 92661 WALNUT INVESTMENT CO 5445 SUNSET BLVD LOS ANGELES, CA 90027 GARY E MALAZIAN 4827 CORTLAND DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 VIRGINIA DEE BARNETT P O BOX 835 BALBOA, CA 92661 LE ROY G WILSON 913 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JAMES R DAMAVANDI ^ Ae 6753 HOLLYWOOD BLVD LOS ANGELES, CA 90028 EVELYN F COLLINS 421 KINGS RD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JAMES W READ P O BOX 780 BALBOA, CA 92661 VICTOR BROWNE SHERREITT 400 S BAY FRONT #5 BALBOA ISLAND, CA 92662 RENDEL L LEVONIAN P O BOX 756 PICO RIVERA, CA 90660 6 6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT July 24, 1992 TO: Central Balboa SAP Committee FROM: Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Central Balboa Commercial Property Owners Meeting This is to inform you that Council Member John Hedges and staff will be meeting with Central Balboa commercial property owners on Wednesday, August 5, 1992 at 2:00 pm in the City Council Chambers. The purpose of the meeting is to determine property owner interest in an assessment district to fund enhanced street treatments. This will not be a Central Balboa Specific Area Plan Committee meeting, therefore attendance is not required. If you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 644-3225. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: Council Member John Hedges FROM: Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner DATE: July 16, 1992 SUBJECT: Draft Text On Nonconforming Structures Per the your direction, I have prepared a draft text for the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan which would allow the reconstruction of structures that have nonconforming floor areas or parking. Currently, Patty Temple and Jim Hewicker are reviewing the draft. I hope to have their comments tomorrow. The draft text would allow the owners of these structures to construct improvements, up to and including demolition and reconstruction, as long as there is no increase in floor area or loss of parking. In order to minimize potential problems with this policy, seven (7) conditions are included. These conditions are intended to insure that all other policies and standards are complied with by subsequent development. These conditions require the following: 1. Verification of the existing floor area and parking. 2. Compliance with current commercial development standards (setbacks, required articulation, etc.), other than floor area limits and parking. 3. Compliance with standards for residential development standards (density, location, etc.) for mixed use projects. 4. Providing on -site parking for residential units in mixed use projects. 5. No net loss in the amount of preexisting parking 6. Limiting new commercial uses to "Base FAR" and "Maximum FAR" uses Preexisting "Reduced FAR" uses (restaurants, social clubs, theaters, etc.) can continue, provided they do not exceed their previous floor areas. 7. Compliance with the LCP policies regarding housing in the Coastal Zone (administered through a Coastal Residential Development Permit). u Cm. John Hedges July 16, 1992 Page 2 A provision has also been included regarding the consolidation of properties. This provision clarifies that parcels that are consolidated and developed jointly would still be permitted to utilize this policy. If you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 644-3225. CC., Council Member Ruthelyn Plummer Jim Hewicker, Planning Director Patty Temple, Advance Planning Manager 0 20.64.080 RECONSTRUCTION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES. A. Commercial structures in SP-* (RSC) District that have been rendered nonconforming due to gross floor area or parking may be permitted structural alterations or demolition and reconstruction, involving up to one hundred percent (100%) of the existing gross floor area, subject to the following conditions: 1. Verification by the Planning Director of the gross floor area of the structure legally in existence shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits for alteration or reconstruction. 2. Alteration or reconstruction of Structures shall conform with all current SP-* (RSC) District land use regulations and development standards, with the exception of floor area ratios and required parking for commercial uses. 3. Residential development shall be permitted within the preexisting gross floor area limits structure area pursuant to Section 20.64.035 (F) of this Chapter. 4. Off-street parking for residential development shall be provided on the building site as specified in Section 20.64.035 (F-7). 5. Alteration or reconstruction shall not result in a reduction in the amount of off-street parking that existed on the site prior to alteration or reconstruction. 6. Reduced F.A.R. uses legally in existence within a period six (6) months prior to alteration or reconstruction shall be permitted provided there is no increase in floor area devoted to those uses. All new uses shall be limited to base F.A.R. and maximum F.A.R. uses. 7. A Coastal Residential Development Permit (CRDP) shall be required pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 20.69 should the alteration or reconstruction of structures result in the following: a. The demolition or conversion of eleven (11) or more dwelling units in two or more structures; or b. The demolition or conversion of three (3) or more dwelling units in one structure; or C. The construction of ten (10) or more new dwelling units. 0 B. COMBINING OF LOTS AND PARCELS. Lots and parcels in SP-* (RSC) District with commercial structures that have been rendered nonconforming due to gross floor area or parking may be combined and structural alterations or demolition and reconstruction of said structures into new designs and configurations may be permitted provided the provisions of this Section are met and the owner or owners of said lots or parcels has caused to be executed and recorded a covenant and agreement to hold said lots or parcels as a single building site. 0 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: Council Member John Hedges FROM: Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner DATE: June 24, 1992 SUBJECT: June 26th CBSAPC Meeting on Public Improvements The public improvement program is the single most important component of the proposed Central Balboa Specific Area Plan. The specific area plan relies heavily on public improvements to upgrade the appearance of the area and solve parking and circulation problems. Furthermore, in lieu of any mandatory programs, public improvements are intended to serve as the primary incentive to stimulate the renovation of private properties. The June 26th Central Balboa Specific Area Plan Committee meeting will be the first opportunity to discuss public improvement issues in depth. It is therefore appropriate to review some of the associated issues prior to the meeting. These issues involve the scope, timing, funding and property owner support for the proposed improvements. Scope of Improvements A preliminary report' by Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates (RBF) on the condition of existing street improvements within the Central Balboa business district indicates the need for extensive public improvements. These improvements will involve the repair or replacement of street pavement, drainage facilities, curbs, gutters and sidewalks that are either substandard, damaged or deteriorated. A cost estimates report by RBF is expected in August. In addition to the improvements described above, a number of improvements have been proposed by the Committee to address specific problems in Central Balboa. These include streetscape treatments and pier area improvements (pavers, decorative light standards, landscaping, etc.) to upgrade the appearance of the area; the A Street/B Street connection to provide additional parking and a turn -around; street improvements Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, May 29, 1992 Balboa Business District Street Improvement DesignStudy Preliminary Findings Report. E Cm. John Hedges June 25, 1992 Page 2 to control cruising; and the remodeling or relocation public restrooms to address public nuisances. Timing It is fortuitous that methods for upgrading the appearance of Central Balboa are being considered at the time extensive infrastructure improvements are planned. This presents the opportunity to coordinate designs and materials and to minimize the disruption of the area during construction. However, this process has become complicated, due to current budget constraints. It is possible that implementation of these public improvements may have to been deferred for two years or more. Furthermore, it is likely that the improvement program will have to be phased over several years. Under the most likely scenario, the highest priority would be given to the replacement of non-standard or non-functional improvements and a lower priority for those required for "cosmetic" purposes. However, many of the proposed cosmetic treatments (such as pavers) will have to be installed along with the more "standard" improvements. It is therefore possible that budget constraints could force the City to forego these additional treatments. Fnin The standard public improvements will be funded by the City as part of an ongoing program to improve the City's infrastructure. Those improvements which are more cosmetic in nature, including those which enhance appearance of standard improvements, will likely be funded through the formation of an assessment district. All property owners would be assessed to the degree of their benefit using some objective criteria, such as street frontage and/or proximity to improvements. Since the first meetings of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan Committee, the formation of an assessment district has been presented as the most likely method for funding public improvements over and above basic repair and replacement. However, no formal endorsement of this method has been made by the Committee. Therefore, the degree of support for an assessment district is unclear. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Committee's views may not be reflective of those of the property owners that would be assessed. Half of the Committee members are residents who live outside of the project area; therefore, they will not be assessed. Furthermore, many of the Balboa Improvement Association representatives are business tenants, not property owners. Cm. John Hedges June 25, 1992 Page 3 Proper Owner Support A majority of benefitting property owners will have to support the formation of the assessment district. Given current economic conditions, property owners may balk at imposing what could be a substantial assessment. The assessment to the property owners for the McFadden Square improvements, for example, was $620,000. While the cost factors will vary with the Central Balboa improvements, it is likely that the assessment will be just as substantial. Conclusions 1. The public improvement component is the primary catalyst for implementing many of the goals of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan. 2. Scheduled infrastructure improvements present an opportunity to incorporate many of design features proposed in the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan. 3. Budget constraints could delay or prohibit the construction of many infrastructure improvements and treatments intended to upgrade the appearance of the Central Balboa area. 4. Strong private property owner support will be needed in order to finance and construct proposed designs and treatments over and above standard public improvements. cc: Council Member Ruthelyn Plummer Jim Hewicker, Planning Director Patty Temple, Advance Planning Manager 0 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT June 22, 1992 TO: Central Balboa SAP Committee FROM: Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner P�- SUBJECT: June 26th Meeting The next meeting of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan Committee will be on Friday, June 26th at 1:00 p.m. in the Fire Department Conference Room. The first discussion item is a update on efforts by Austin -Foust Associates to develop new circulation and parking designs. As of this writing, Austin -Foust is continuing to investigate approaches for controlling cruising and directing traffic away from down - peninsula residential areas. Staff hopes to have further information on this subject at the June 26th meeting. The second discussion item is on public improvement projects. The specific area plan text requires a public improvement component. The public improvement component will consist of a general description of each project, a priority list, and proposed funding sources. To facilitate this discussion, staff has prepared exhibits illustrating the public improvement projects proposed at previous meetings. The third discussion item is reexamination of incentives for neighborhood -serving uses and the upgrading of commercial properties. The Committee last discussed land use and development incentives at the March 25th meeting. At that meeting, the Committee chose eight methods to encourage neighborhood -serving uses and the upgrading of commercial properties. These incentives are as follows: 1. Revising time limits on certain existing metered spaces for short-term parking. 2. Providing new public parking areas for short-term parking. 3. Reconfiguring the main beach parking lot to designate an area for long-term visitors, an area for beach -users, and an area for short-term commercial parking. 4. Increasing the number of metered spaces allowing permits for area residents. 5. Increasing density for commercial/residential mixed use development from 1 dwelling unit per 2,375 square feet of lot area to 1 dwelling unit per 1,800 square feet of lot area. 6. Lowering parking requirements to 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit for studio and one -bedroom 0 0 CBSAPC June 22, 1992 Page 2 units. Establishing a "Main Street" style program to upgrade and promote area businesses. 8. Establishing a storefront rehabilitation program. The last discussion item on the agenda is a review of the latest draft of the specific area plan text. This draft was distributed to the Committee on May 15th. Staff would like to hear any comments and recommendations the Committee may have. If you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 644-3225. Attachments: 1. Meeting agenda 2. April 13th and 17th meeting notes 3. Conceptual public improvement exhibits E Ll May 28, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: Central Balboa SAP Committee FROM: Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner�Ji SUBJECT: Update on Circulation and Parking The purpose of this memorandum is to bring the Committee up-to-date on recent discussions on circulation and parking issues. Council Member Hedges, Council Member Plummer and staff met with Mr. Joe Foust of Austin -Foust Associates on May 27th. The purpose of the meeting was to review revised circulation and parking designs. As you may recall, Mr. Foust was asked to expand upon the July 1991 parking and circulation study. Specifically, Mr. Foust was directed to explore various circulation improvements with the aim of controlling cruising and to directing traffic away from down -peninsula residential areas. Mr. Foust presented several circulation improvement scenarios. However, he was directed to concentrate on those which minimized encroachment into private property. Council Member Hedges, Council Member Plummer and staff will met with Mr. Foust again once further refinements have been made. The revised circulation plans will then be presented to the Committee at a meeting to be scheduled later. If you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 644-3225. 0 May 15, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: Central Balboa SAP Committee FROM: Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Revised Specific Area Plan Text Currently, staff and the traffic consultant are continuing to analyze various approaches to the circulation and parking issues discussed at the last meeting. It would be appropriate to use this time to review the revised draft of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan text. Staff has continued drafting the text since it was last discussed in February. Therefore, the revisions that have been made are substantial. The following summarizes the sections which have been added or significantly revised: Section 20.64.020 (D) Alternative Development Regulations (Page 179-A4): At previous meetings, the Committee chose fixed development standards over design review. However, the Committee also supported the option of permitting flexibility through the site plan review process. Under this approach, proposed developments complying with the development standards would be processed through the normal building permit procedures. In addition, property owners would have the option of using the site plan review process to propose alternative designs. Staff has added a set of mandatory findings to insure that proposed design alternatives comply with the intent of the specific area plan and provide a superior design. Section 20.64.025 (C) Circulation and Parking (Page 179-A6): This portion of the Design and Development Guidelines section will be drafted once the Committee has completed its review of circulation and parking issues. Section 20.64.025 (D-2a) Enlarged Pedestrian Areas (Page 179-A7): The Committee requested that staff investigate the feasibility of widening the narrower sidewalks in the area. However, widening sidewalks would involve either eliminating a substantial number of on - street parking spaces or reducing an already constrained building envelope on private property. As an alternative, staff is proposing the widening of sidewalks at certain intersections. These "bulb -outs" would provide more space at the areas where pedestrians congregate and would visually open up the intersections (see attached illustration). In addition, this approach would be less expensive, less disruptive and the impact to on -street 0 0 CBSAPC May 15, 1992 Page 2 parking would be minimal. Staff is studying designs to determine the feasibility of the "bulb -out" improvement. Staffs major concern is maintaining adequate turning radii for large vehicles, particularly buses and emergency vehicles. Conflict with potential circulation designs to control "cruising" is another major concern. However, if the design concept proves feasible, the Main/Balboa and Palm/Balboa intersections are the mostly likely locations to construct the "bulb -outs." Section 20.64.030 (B) Special Findings and Conditions for Food Uses (Page 179-A10): This section establishes mandatory findings and conditions for drive-in, take-out and specialty food service uses. These findings and conditions require the operator to be responsible for the clean-up of all on -site and off -site trash, garbage and litter generated by the use. Section 20.64.035 (B) Required Building Lines (Page 179-All): This proposed development standard requires that buildings facing East Balboa Boulevard, Main Street and Palm Street have at least sixty percent (60%) of the building located within five (5) feet of the setback line. The proposed standard is intended to provide a strong street presence and locate parking to the rear or to the side of buildings. Section 20.64.035 (F) Residential Development (Page 179-A13): This section contains the revised standards for residential development in the RSC District. The Committee indicated its support for these standards earlier. The revised standards raise the density for mixed use development from 1 unit per 2,375 square feet of lot area to 1 unit per 1,800 square feet of lot area. Parking requirements are lowered from 2 to 1.5 spaces per unit for studio and one -bedroom units. The density increase is intended to encourage smaller, more marketable units, the redevelopment of existing properties, and the consolidation of lots to provide unified development. Also, smaller units would be less likely to be shared by several unrelated individuals, thus reducing overflow parking on public streets. The parking requirement reduction reflects the fact that smaller units are less likely to be occupied with people having more than one vehicle. Section 20.64.035 (G) Signs (Page 179-A14): This section contains the proposed sign standards for the RSC District. These standards reflect the Committee's direction to reduce the size and number of signs. The proposed changes in the sign standards are depicted in the attached exhibits. Section 20.64.035 (H) Landscaping (Page 179-A18): The proposed landscaping standard for parking areas has been revised to apply only to parking areas larger than 7500 square feet. Staff has determined that the proposed standard would be difficult to achieve in smaller parking areas. 6 • CBSAPC May 15, 1992 Page 3 Sections 20.64.040 and 20.64.045 Residential Districts (Page 179-A19): These sections contain proposed land use regulations and development standards for the residential districts. The proposed regulations and standards are similar to existing zoning, save for the required courts and outdoor living space. These standards were added to provide adequate air and light and outdoor living space. Sections 20.64.050 and 20.64.055 GEIF District (Page 179-A20): This section contains proposed land use regulations and standards for the Governmental, Educational and Institutional District. The proposed regulations and standards are essentially the same as the existing GEIF District. Sections 20.64.060 and 20.64.065 Open Space District (Page 179-A21): This section contains proposed land use regulations and standards for the Open Space District. The proposed regulations and standards are essentially the same as the existing O-S District. Section 20.64.070 General Regulations (Page 179-A21): This section contains proposed standards that apply to one or more zoning districts. Most standards are the same as those contained in the current zoning code. However, new standards have been added for awnings, refuse storage areas, the screening of mechanical equipment, and tandem parking. Please review the revised text and attached materials. A meeting will be scheduled to discuss these revisions after the parking and circulation issues have been resolved. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 644-3225. Attachments: Illustration of proposed sidewalk "bulb -out." Proposed sign standards exhibits. Draft Specific Area Plan (with maps). • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT April 21, 1992 TO: Council Member John Hedges FROM: Patrick Alford, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Draft April 20th letter to Chan Lefebvre Paragraph #1 1. You should mention that the Land Use Element and the Local Coastal Plan encourage recreation and coastal -dependent uses, as well as visitor -serving uses. 2. The Coastal Act should be referred to as the Coastal Act of 1976, not 1977. 3. The Coastal Act not only "encourages" recreation, visitor -serving uses, and coastal - dependent uses, it also requires that suitable land be reserved for such uses and that they be given priority over other uses. Paragraph #2 1. It should be noted that the 1600 parking space deficit figure pertains to commercial businesses. The figure was derived by subtracting the number of parking spaces provided on -site from the number of code required parking spaces. It does not include other parking demands, such as those by beach users and charter boat passengers. 2. If you would like more precise references on non -conforming uses: Chapter 20.83 contains the provisions for non -conforming structures and uses. Non -conforming structures, uses, and parking are addressed in Sections 20.83.030, 20.83.040, 20.83.050, respectively. Paragraph #6 I believe that Mr. Lefebvre was referring to the land use designations when he stated that 'Balboa represents the worst sort of planning." In other words, he is stating that the April 21, 1992 Page 2 commercial land uses are inappropriate, not the development standards (setbacks, height, and parking). Since he believes that the commercial land uses are the fundamental problem, he is likely to view revised development standards as a superficial attempt to solve the area's problems. If you have any questions, please call me at 644-3225. Hede es • 17146759333 • P.02 mayor Phllsaosone Mayor Pro Tent Clarence J. Turner Council Members John C. Cox, Jr. Evelyn R, Hart John W, Hedges Ruthelyn Plummer Jean Watt CITE' OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF CITY COUNCM April 20, 1992 W, Channing Lefebvre 2112 Bast Balboa Blvd. Balboa, CA 92661 Re: Letter dtd April 16,1992 Dear Chan: I have read carefully your lette % Thank you for taking the time to give your thoughts. I will respond to your comments in the order given in your letter. 1. It is true that the primary gc al of our efforts should be to produce a plan for the revitalization of Balboa with a view to better serve the residents. However, that revitalization of ort should not and cannot discourage or eliminate visitor -serving uses. Indeed, that stance is contrary to the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Land Use flan of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) (manda -ed by the Coastal Act of 1976) which encourage recreation and coastal -dependent uses as well as visitor -serving uses, The Coastal Act of 1976 .iot only requires that communities develop and encourage recreation, visitor -serving, and coastal -dependent uses as a means of increasing public acce ss to the coastal areas, but also requires that suitable land be reserved for st ch u: es and that they be given priority over other uses. Of course, these n quirl:me,ts fall most heavily on those of us who reside in the coastal zone. The point is that the Coastal Commission oversees and would likely, dent' any attempt on the part of the City to "zone out" visitor -serving uses Ou • ch;.rge should be to minimize the disruptive effects while ensuri g th , viability of the commercial area and its attractiveness to the surrol din: res dential community. Therein lays the reason for our pa, t-years t k, As for parking, the Central B-- : c )ecis c Plan A Tea is deficient by some 1600 spaces. This figs re was c .;la ed 1 r subtrac:inl; he number of parking spaces provir'od on-si "ro i th number of a ,de -required parking spaces. It does not include otl a kind demand:., s- u h as those by beach users and charter boat passeng :is. vluca of the deficiency results from legal nonconforming uses creai �d b; zoning code changes over the years. City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • P.O. Box 1"68 • Newport Beach, California 92659-1768 Hedses 17146759333 a • y • It is unlikely that these uses will "go away" even if we wanted them to cease business. Sections 20.83.030, 20.83.040, elnd 20.83,050 of the Municipal Code address the non -conforming use provisions. The high cost of land and the present (and past!) economic climate make economically prohibitive the redevelopment of existir,a structures with observance of — the present *and sometimes unworkable zoning code parking and floor area ratio requirements. Hence, we are witnessing the deterioration of the commercial area which will in all likeW ood result in blight unless we take bold steps. I believe that given ihi, conundrum, it is incumbent on the City to consider the acquisition or cr WIon of additional public parking spaces. Money collected from the operation of p iblic metered parking is deposited into subfunds dedicated to the areas fror i which it is collected. This money is largely not that of the Newpor Beach taxpayer. It is more akin to user fee revenue. Presently, the park ag subfunds allocated to the A Street, B Street, and Main Balboa lots tot 1 approximately $580,000. Our ordinances retluire this money (represer ting 50% of total revenues derived from the operation of these lots) be expended to acquire additional parking in those areas from which is col ected. No money from these subfunds has ever been spent. I respectfully decline your proposal to of point a panel to advise the Committee on the parking question. Tho issues of parking as they relate to time rates, ices, permits, acquisition, end satellite lots fall outside the scope of the Specific Plan Committee an, 1 will not be included in the Specific Area Plan. My purpose to discuss those issues is to formulate policy recommendations to the City Cou acil to reinforce the goals of the Specific Plan. The present sitting committee as a whole is well -qualified to perform that function. 2. One of the purposes of the Specific PI to discussions is intended to develop an integrated comprehensive plan of parking and circulation for Balboa. This goal must necessarily cons! ler paradigms grounded in available scientific data (traffic counts) v ith due consideration given to anecdotal evidence derived from the exf erier ces of those living and working there. By direction of the Comi iittet-, Joe Foust is using the "hard" data he has in order to develop sc me i ieas put forth by the Committee. One of the reasons that we -ecei-ed it "watered-down" report last July is that Mr. Foust attempted (ant fails il) to achieve a solution that was palatable in a highly -charged politic. I atr..osp sere. As a res tit we were given what we demanded; that is, t pal Jal ; olution of q ak stionable value. I think you agree that the presen' situ Lion is unteneblt : nd bodes ill for both Central Balboa and Peninsulz Poh t. S )me of the recommendations we are likely to see _zE a re! ult t f unrealit tic c Jn5 train tS having been removed from Mr. Foust's � •udy may be contravt r Jal. But we must view them with an open mind nd i n e) 2 to the Lml erm. P.03 Heds es „ 17146759'a33 • P. 04 3. I do not believe that "we're all going to have to give up something for the benefit of the community." The cor ununity, meaning both the business area and the adjacent residend,%I neighborhoods, will benefit from the improvements to zoning and c rculation that we are considering. The business community should not be -penalized for trying to operate a successful, profitable concerns. At prese it there is a large bias toward visitor -serving uses. This bias is a resul of nuances in the zoning code, the large visitor population, and the ger eral non-support by the permanent residents of permanent resid ant -serving uses. The City must take the first step before we are likely to see any additional financial participation from already marginal permanent resident -serving businesses. To answer your question on the issue of an assessment district. I believe that the property own.,rs will commit to an assessment district once the benefits of their particip ation become apparent. 4. I realize that you copied the attached "General Plan Land Use Element Policies" from the handout prepared by ;he planning staff. However, that information was for background use in i orming a framework for specific plan discussion. It was not intended to )e all-inclusive or to limit the scope and intent of the specific plan. TY ose development policies supported by the discussion and implen,entation statements must be taken in the context of the entire general plan. The'policles do not necessarily "stand alone" in a manner w arch may form a conflict with other policies or statements. "For exampl the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program is quite specific in its h eatment of visitor -serving facilities. The Land Use Element of the General Plan is likewise specific in its requirement that its policies be interl reted in a manner consistent with the Local Coastal Program. I have attached copies of the appropriate pages which will amplify those policy statements you underlined. The California Coastal Commission is quite aggressive in its desire to improve and -enhance public access. If we can improve our lot in the process, then so much the better. 5. I believe that the staff has done a gooc' job with coming up with some creative proposals. Nobody knows Balbc i better than we residents and business owners. I have challenged the Comi nittee to come up with our own creative proposals, and we have in r iost rases responded. The staff will fine-tune our suggestions and codify then i for us. But this has been and must continue to be a citizens comm ttee Jedi rated to the improvement of Balboa. 6. I agree that Balboa does not conform t ) me Derr -day plannvig standards. Our Conurdttee purpose is in end( d to mitigate soi:i( of the problems. We have made substantial pr( ;res . B� it I believe t i� t in and of itself that merely chopping down the ; ze c = the commercial a -ea is overly -simplistic and does not address th � rea prc :)lems of 3al�oa; that is, 1. Hede es 17146759333 • P.05 poor circulation, lack of redevelopment, aging infrastructure, and general economic decline. While we will probably yet recommend the rezoning of some of the commercial area, our real responsibility lays in applying some creative ideas to deliver a structural solui ion to the bad planning situation. Allowing purely residential p,ojects wholly within the commercial area results in spot -zoning vnith no dear direction given for the area. The problems of the Rendezvous building are well known. That particular project probably would never gain approval today. A residential development of that sort does not fit i-n 'veil as a stand-alone project in the middle of a commercial zone. 7. I expect that any proposed particular change will entail public comment, approval, or opposition. Most people a± a suspicious if not fearful of change. However, it is important to vie v suggested changes in the context of their contribution to the total progra :t for the community and the benefits intended to derive to that corn:.uruty. The part of any person to attempt to derail a particular change wi hout observing the above is grossly irresponsible. It is equally irresl onsible to make decisions about the usefulness or propriety of changes i i the absence of the justification or reasons for those changes. In summary the work we have perform d will go a long way toward improving Central Balboa by way of the Specific Plan. We have to remember that this is a long-range pia± ning document intended to address the problems and strengths uni lue to the area. It is of overriding importance that we approach the prob :ms with open minds without putting unnecessary and unrealistic cor straints in our search for the proposed solutions to the nettlesome pi oblems of Central Balboa. Respectfully, John W. Hedges Ph. 675-5185 FAX 675-9333 cc. Ruthelyn Plummer, Council Memb ar Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Don Elder, Balboa Peninsula Point Nssc elation --- Hedges 17146759333 John V. Hedges � Phone: " 14- 575-5185' Fax: 714-675-9333 To (Company):f— Attention: Rom' Notes: <r,-r3r, ' Ypar n W Number of Pages (including cover I e): _ P. 01 Central Balboa SAP Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Notes April 17, 1992 4:00 p.m. Fire Department Conference Room Present: Council Member John Hedges, Chairman Council Member Ruthelyn Plummer, Vice Chairman Bob Black, BIA Doug Boyd, BPPA Chan Lefebvre, BPPA Fred Thompson, CBA Bill Wren, BPPA Walt Thompson, BPPA Charlie Bauman, BIA Douglas Salisbury, BIA Phil Tozer, BIA Staff: Jim Hewicker, Planning Director Bob Burnham, City Attorney Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer Bob Kavert, Planning Aide Public: Don Elder, President of BPPA Traffic Consultant: Joe Foust I. Adopt Agenda The agenda was adopted without revision. IT. Comments from the public Mr. Boyd introduced Don Elder as the new president of BPPA. III Continued discussion on circulation and arking Chairman Hedges announced that Vice Chairman Plummer, Patrick Alford, Rich Edmonston and himself had met with Joe Foust, of Austin -Foust and Associates, on Wednesday, April 15 to discuss the Committee's concerns and needs regarding circulation and parking. Chairman Hedges introduced Joe Foust to the Committee. i Mr. Foust identified several areas that required additional analysis; these include a turn- around in the commercial district, a possible connection between the A Street and B Street parking lots, restricted vehicle access on Main Street, Adams Street access to the Main Beach parking lot, and cruising controls. He displayed two graphic exhibits illustrating the size and magnitude of possible turn- arounds in the commercial area. The first exhibit was a small turn -around, about the size of a commercial cul-de-sac, shown at the intersection of Palm and Balboa. He indicated that this small turn -around would probably not be able to handle the volume of traffic that currently exists in Central Balboa. The second exhibit showed a large traffic circle, approximately the size of the traffic circle in the City of Orange, at the intersection of Pahn and Balboa. Mr. Foust indicated that this exhibit was displayed only to show the magnitude and scale of the type of tam -around that would be required to handle the traffic volume efficiently (The traffic circle had a 115 foot radius that nearly covered the entire block between Balboa Blvd. and E. Bay Ave). He discussed the possibility of utilizing the property in the center of the traffic circle, indicating that it would probably not be viable for commercial uses, but that nothing should be ruled out. He added that this type of scenario might be used to turn cruisers around, or it could possibly exacerbate the cruising problem. Mr. Foust stated that they were in the process of analyzing various treatments for the intersections of A Street and Balboa Blvd., and B Street and Balboa Blvd. He added that if the A Street and B Street parking lots were connected, a traffic signal or directional signage may be added at Balboa Blvd. to route visitors into the parking lots and not into the residential areas of the peninsula. He stated that the intersection could be designed such that visitors would be inclined to turn into the parking area rather than continue down Balboa Blvd. Mr. Boyd commented that the BPPA strongly opposes paving over any portion of park or beach open space. There was a general discussion regarding the A Street and B Street parking, and the possibility of connecting the two areas. The resident associations expressed strong opposition to any additional paving for a connecting road or parking. Mr. Foust continued with the presentation, indicating that they have considered the possibility of exiting the main parking lot on Washington Avenue, rather than Main Street. He added that most of the vehicular traffic could be eliminated from Main, except perhaps buses and delivery trucks. This could create a pedestrian oriented streetscape on Main, south of Balboa Blvd. He added that vehicular traffic on Main Street north of Balboa Blvd. could be restricted in the same fashion. Mr. Foust stated that they were analyzing the possibility of utilizing Adams, south of Balboa Blvd, to bring vehicles into the main parking lot to improve circulation. He added that the 2 0 parking lot could be reconfigured to gain approximately 109 parking spaces. He added that the possibility of a remote parking lot and some type of shuttle is also being considered and analyzed. Mr. Foust acknowledged the cruising problem but stated that it was not within the scope of work specified for the original study. Mr. Burnham advised the Committee that the 15th Street check point is legally the "absolute maximum" that the Police Department can do to control cruising. He added that the California Vehicle Code is preemptive to what cities can do on public streets. Chairman Hedges added that the 15th Street check point is a tenuous situation, and suggested that the Committee consider alternatives to control the cruising problem. He added that he receives numerous complaints from residents near 15th Street. There was a general discussion regarding cruising and the 15th Street check point. Mr. Tozer commented that they have tried many solutions to the cruising problem, and that the 15th Street check point has been the most successful. Mr. Lefebvre asked Chairman Hedges if the Committee has a commitment from the City Council to keep the 15th Street check point in operation. Chairman Hedges responded that he would support the checkpoint for as long as he could. He added that he was doubtful that the check point would stand up to legal review. There was a general discussion regarding remote parking, and other ways of transporting visitors to the area. Vice Chairman Plummer stated that there was no opportunity to substantially increase the amount of parking in Central Balboa. She added that remote parking was the only practical solution. She went on to say that the circulation problem had to be resolved before the parking problem. Chairman Hedges stated that a commitment was needed to look at the available options with an open mind. Mr. Fred Thompson asked if any federal funds were used on Balboa Boulevard. Mr. Edmonston replied that funds from the federal gas tax have been used. Mr. Fred Thompson suggested that the City forego these funds in order to exercise more control of traffic on the Boulevard. 3 10 0 • Chairman Hedges asked if Mr. Thompson was suggesting privatizing the Boulevard. Mr. Burnham stated that privatization would not be possible since there would remain a high expectation of public use. Mr. Fred Thompson stated that Newport Beach was the only city in Southern California that provides free beach parking. Mr. Edmonton responded that he is aware of plenty of free parking in Huntington Beach. Mr. Walt Thompson stated that the consultant needed to finalize his plan before the Committee meet again. Chairman Hedges asked Mr. Foust how much time would be needed. Mr. Foust replied that he would need a couple of weeks. Mr. LeFebre suggested that the consultant consider "temporary' circulation solution, such as closing off certain streets at certain times. Mr. Foust stated that such option have already been examined. Mr. Tozer asked if the restaurant association had developed a plan to bring customers into the area. Mr. Salisbury stated that the association had proposed a "fast lane," but that it was being rethought. He added that the 15th Street check point has hurt local businesses considerably since it went into effect. Chairman Hedges restated a need for a commitment by the Balboa Improvement Association if the plan is to work. There was a general discussion on the level of participation by the B.I.A. IV. Schedule next meeting Chairman Hedges stated that the next meeting be scheduled after the traffic consultant has revised his proposals V. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:45 pm. R\...\BALBOA.sAr\ArrRu..ir rl 0 April 16, 1992 TO: John Hedges FROM: BPPA RE: Balboa SAP Committee 1. You have stated that the primary goal of our efforts is to produce a plan for the revitalization of Balboa with a view to better serve the residents. Aside from discussions regarding a more restrictive sign ordinance and architectural controls, the -major proposal is to provide additional -parking. Three areas are being considered: a) The Pier Lot (100 spaces); b)Tozer's proposal to add parking between the A and B St. lots (about 75 spaces); and c) the Wells Fargo property (35 spaces). We are unconvinced that the first two proposals will help achieve the goal articulated by you. We suggest two steps: Ask Austin Faust, using data they may already have accumulated,, to tell us how many of the additional spaces would be useful for businesses catering to the residents. Secondly, appoint an informal panel of shopping center developers and property managers to advise the Committee on this critical question. Their —insight from the perspective of businessmen willing to put their cash at risk should be invaluable. We wholeheartedly support the idea of a lot more curb side parking designed to facillitate resident shopping. 2. On your point that the Committee has unanimously adopted the goal of providing additional parking; the Point representatives have consistently maintained the position that additional parking for downtown Balboa would be supported only as part of an integrated comprehensive plan dealing with all the problems of the area, particularly cruising, traffic, and the appearance of Balboa. 3. John, your statements that we're all going to have to give up something for the benefit of the community concerns us. The downtown owners.will be.the primarybeneficiariekof themeasures" we've-di5oussed: What are they going to contribute? Are they rr_ 4 o willing to commit to pay for an assessment district to share a substantial share of the cost or do they expect taxpayers to shoulder the entire cost? Their silence on this subject is a pretty good indication, we fear, that they are not. Are Tozer and the other boat businesses willing to bus in a few loads of Catalina passengers and fishermen during peak summer weekends in order to free up some parking spaces or come up with other ideas. We've not heard one property owner step forward and volunteer that he would remodel his storefront if the City would offer a package of improvements. In� fact, the only owners who show substantial interest are Tozer and i Doug Cavanaugh -hardly an impressive showing. 4. The attached "General Plan Land Use Element Policies" taken as a whole, do not say to us that the emphasis should be to provide a more attractive environment for visitors; to the contrary, the needs of residents carry the higher priority. t - ' "__- 5. Do you feel that now would be the time to challenge our own staff to come up with some creative proposals? After all they have far more experience and education in these matters than us. 6. The indisputable fact is that Balboa represents the worst sort of planning -the wrong uses in the wrong place. If a substantial t portion --more than we've discussed-- of the existing commercial could be converted to residential, both the residents and the S1 downtown property owners would be well served. The rezoned downtown land would carry higher value as residential, the remainder commercial land would be better served by existing parking and should be more successful, and the traffic impact on the residents would be mitigated by the reduction of visitor attracting facilities. The rezoned residential property might be required to be larger projects similar, but smaller, to the Rendevous building, or two story buildings similar to the 28th Street Marina buildings. 7. From the standpoint of public support, there two issues which we believe, will develop strong opposition: A third stop light and taking any substantial portion of the existing soccer/baseball/kite flying park. Vencrw irimi taut, Uoc cloncul rUlicicb • POLICY A. The City shall provide for sufficient diversity of 14nd uses so that schools, employment, recreation areas, public facilities, churches atidtneighborhood sl:oppin�centers are in close proximity to each resident of the community. IMPLEMENTATION 3. City shall prepare specific area plans for the commercial/retail sections of Old Corona del Mar, Old Newport Boulevard, and Central Bal .-- with the view towards retention of uses that serve adjoining and nearby residential areas. POLICY C. D Commercial, recreation or destination visitor serving facilities in and around the harbor shall be controlled and regulated to miniimmrz_e tM c congestion and parking shortages, to ensure access to the water for residents and visitors, as well as matntam t e igh quality of life and the unique and beautiful residential areas that border the harbor. DISCUSSION The residents of Newport Beach have, for many years, expressed concern about heavy summer weekend traffic, especially on Balboa Peninsula, and localized congestion in and around the more intensely developed waterfront areas such as Lido Marina Village and Mariner's Mile. Traffic congestion and the absence of available parking makes it difficult for visitor and r sident alike to access the beach and bay and enjoy the many activities along the waterfront�The�y intends to insure that visitor -serving facilities provide adequate offstreet parking to accommodate their customers and clients and thereby Insure as many as possible will be available to IMPLEMENTATION 3. `t The City shall maintain, to the maximum extent permitted by law, control over commercial activities conducted in the harbor to ensure, among other things, that such businesses provide adequate parking to accommodate their customers and clients and provide adequate marine sanitation facilities to minimize pollution of the bay. Regulations shall extend to all businesses, whether or not operating from a fixed place of business. POLICY D. The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to insure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs. POLICY F. The City shall develop and maintain suitable and adequate standards for landscaping sign control, site and building design, parking and undergrounding of utilities and other development standards to insure that the beauty and charm of eristing residential neighborhoods is maintained, that commercial and office projects are aesthetically pleasing and compatible with surrounding land uses and that the appearance of, and activities conducted within.... 0 i Central Balboa SAP Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Notes April 13, 1992 11:00 a.m. Fire Department Conference Room Present: Council Member John Hedges, Chairman Council Member Ruthelyn Plummer, Vice Chairman Fred Thompson, CBA Phil Tozer, BIA Doug Salisbury, BIA Chan Lefebvre, BPPA Bob Black, BIA Walt Thompson, BPPA Stephanie Houghton, CBA Staff: Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer Steve Badum, Civil Engineer - Project Manager Bob Kavert, Planning Aide I. Adopt agenda The agenda was adopted without revision. H. Approve March 25, 1992 meeting notes The meeting notes for March 25, 1992 were approved without revision. III. Comments from the public There were no comments from the public. Chairman Hedges announced that the City Council would discuss the possible acquisition of the Wells Fargo Bank property later that day at the City Council Study Session. Mr. Lefebvre commented that one of the objectives of the Committee is to provide additional parking for businesses that serve the community. He added that there is not a lot of support from the BPPA to acquire the bank property for additional parking. He questioned whether or not additional parking would actually benefit the area. Mr. Lefebre asked if there was a City fund to acquire property and establish municipal parking. Mr. Hedges replied that there is 1.1 million dollars in the City's parking fund, and it is up a to the City Council to decide where those funds are spent. Mr. Tozer commented that it seems that very little of the parking fund is actually spent on parking. Mr. Edmonston replied that the parking funds have been used for the Cannery Village parking lot, Mariner's Mile parking and the 32nd Street parking lot. He explained that the City is divided into sub -areas, but the revenue collected is commingled into one fund in order to generate enough money to be able to acquire the property required to establish new parking areas. IV. R/UDAT update Chairman Hedges asked Mr. Alford to update the Committee on the R/UDAT (Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team) program. Mr. Alford stated that he had contacted the AIA (American Institute of Architects) and they had indicated that there were two levels of the R/UDAT program, a national level and a local chapter level. He added that the AIA expressed interest in a Central Balboa project, but they would require a time period of a "few months" before the R/UDAT project could commence. Chairman Hedges commented that the R/UDAT program sounds like a good idea, but he would prefer that it be done in a more timely manner. V. Discussion on circulation and parking Chairman Hedges referred to the circulation and parking study prepared by Austin -Foust and Associates. He reviewed the recommendations of the report, which included; reconfiguring the Main Beach parking lot to gain 109± parking spaces; closing Main Street, south of Balboa Boulevard to most vehicular traffic; exiting traffic out of the Main Beach parking lot on Washington; and installing a traffic signal at Washington and Balboa. Mr. Fred Thompson commented that three traffic signals in two blocks is too many. He added that exiting traffic from the Main Beach lot on Washington Avenue would make the cruising problem worse than it already is. Mr. Lefebvre also expressed concern over too many traffic signals on Balboa Boulevard, and how they would affect traffic flow. Mr. Edmonton stated that the signals can be programmed to help traffic flow more efficiently. He added that staff collects data ahead of time to determine established traffic pattern, and then programs the computer to control the traffic signals. He added that staff has the ability to program different times of day and different days of the week, depending 2 S 0 on changing traffic demands. Mr. Lefebvre commented that on cruising nights, a problem is created east of Main Street as people realize they have left the business district and want to turn around. He suggested eliminating parking on Balboa Boulevard on weekends, and making a left turn lane onto Main Street. Chairman Hedges commented that Main Street and Bay Avenue are very narrow streets and probably could not handle very much traffic volume. Mr. Tozer suggested connecting the A Street and B Street parking lots to provide additional parking and a turn -around. Mr. Alford stated that he had discussed this possibility with the Traffic Engineer, and estimated that up to 90 additional parking spaces could be created, however, this would also take up over a half an acre of park or beach open space. He added that a connecting road without parking would lessen the encroachment into park and beach open space. Vice Chairman Plummer suggested that a connecting road could wrap around the park area, so as not to pave over any grass area. Mr. Lefebvre suggested that connecting A Street and B Street parking lots would not solve the parking problem. He added that the problem is due to too much commercial area in the wrong location, and that the Committee should consider substantial reductions in the amount of commercial area, rather than increasing the amount of parking. He felt that the Committee was going about the problem backwards. Vice Chairman Plummer disagreed with Mr. Lefebvre, stating that Central Balboa was a commercial hub for many years, and it is the residential population that has increased greatly in recent years. Mr. Lefebvre stated that connecting the A Street and B Street parking lots will enhance tourism, not help residents to park and shop. He added that residents will not park in these lots and walk to the shops. Chairman Hedges suggested the Committee meet with Austin -Foust again. Mr. Edmonton stated that if the Committee gives Austin -Foust additional direction, they would be able to develop additional analysis and alternatives. Chairman Hedges asked what direction the Committee would like to pursue. Mr. Lefebvre responded that the Committee needs additional alternatives to a turn -around. 3 11 11 There was a general discussion and consensus that the Committee meet with the traffic consultants Austin -Foust. V1. Schedule next meeting The next meeting was scheduled for Friday, April 17, at 4:00 p.m. in the Fire Conference Room. VII, Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 12:20 p.m. R\... \BALBOA.SAP\APRIL.13 4 M 0 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY April 10, 1992 TO: Patrick Alford, Senior Planner FROM: Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney SUBJ: Possible Conflict Of Interest With Ad Hoc Committee Member You have asked me whether Stephanie Houghton, who has been appointed to the Ad Hoc Committee for the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan, has a conflict of interest, with regard to her employment as an agent for Wells Fargo. The Ad Hoc Committee is made up of ten members, including two Councilmembers. The Committee was formed to make recommendations to Planning staff for the preparation of a Specific Plan for the Central Balboa area of Newport Beach. The potential conflict arises out of Ms. Houghton's position as a real estate agent with Coastal Pacific Properties. The Ad Hoc Committee has discussed the purchase by the City of the Wells Fargo property at 600 East Balboa Boulevard for use as a community center and to provide additional public parking. You have not indicated in what capacity Ms. Houghton is serving as an agent for Wells Fargo, however, for purposes of this memo, it is assumed that she is serving as a real estate agent and, if the Wells Fargo property is sold to the City, she would receive a commission or other compensation for the sale of the property. Therefore, it would appear that in the event the City purchases the property, Ms. Houghton would have a financial interest in the contract of sale. The Fair Political Practices Act provides that no public official at any level of state or local government shall make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use his official position to influence a governmental decision in which he knows or has reason to know, he has a financial interest. The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) Regulations provide that "a public official at any level of state or local government" means any natural person who is a member, officer, employee or consultant of a state or local government agency. "Member" includes, but is Patrick Alford, Senior Planner April 10, 1992 Page2 not limited to, salaried or unsalaried members of boards or commissions with decision -making authority. The board or commission possesses decision -making authority whenever (a) it may make a final governmental decision, (b) it may compel a governmental decision, or it may prevent a governmental decision, either by reason of an exclusive power to initiate the decision or by reason of a veto which may not be overridden, or (c) it makes substantive recommendations which are, and over an extended period of time have been, regularly approved without significant amendment or modification by another public official or governmental agency. Since the Ad Hoc Committee may not make a final governmental decision, nor may it compel a governmental decision or prevent the governmental decision, the remaining question would be whether the Ad Hoc Committee makes substantive recommendations to the Council which, over an extended period of time, have been approved by the Council without significant amendment or modification. The Ad Hoc Committee was formed for a specific purpose, and it is not a board or commission with continuous decision -making authority. Since the Ad Hoc Committee has not yet, and probably will not, make substantive recommendations to the Council over an extended period of time, Ms. Houghton would not be a "member" as that term is defined in the regulations and, therefore, not subject to the conflict of interest provisions of the FPPC. Section 608 of the City Charter prohibits members of the City Council, Department heads or other officers and members of any board or commission from being financially interested directly or indirectly in any contract, sale or transaction to which the City is a party. Ad Hoc Committees are not included as a defined appointive board or commission in Article VII of the Charter. Therefore, it appears that his Section was not meant to apply to Ad Hoc Committee members. However, it is not clear whether the Charter prohibition would apply or not. In the event of a challenge, we cannot predict what a Court would do. Government Code Section 1090 also prohibits public officials from being financially interested in any contract made by them in their official capacity or by any body or board of which they are members. "Public officials" have been defined in the case of City Council v. McKinley, (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 204. First, there must be a tenure of office which is not transient, occasional or incidental, but is of such nature that incumbents succeed one another and which does not cease to exist with the termination of the incumbency, and second, the delegation of a portion of the sovereign functions of government, either legislative, executive or judicial. Because the nature of the Ad Hoc Committee is transient and occasional, and there is no incumbency to the position (it is merely advisory for a single purpose with no decision -making • 0 Patrick Alford, Senior Planner April 10, 1992 Page3 power), it does not appear that Ms. Houghton would have a conflict under Section 1090. This memorandum is based upon the facts outlined in your memorandum and the assumptions detailed above. This memorandum operates solely as a review of the conflict of interest law and requires a self-analysis by Ms. Houghton in accordance with the letter and intent of the law. My opinion does not insulate Ms. Houghton from civil and criminal liability in the event the FPPC conflict thresholds are satisfied. That protection can be afforded only by the opinion written by FPPC staff. An FPPC opinion takes a minimum of 21 working days and there may not be sufficient time in advance of a scheduled decision to obtain FPPC assistance. In the event there is sufficient time, and you require such an opinion, please let us know. RF:gr cc: Ruthetyn Plummer, CounciLmember Kevin Murphy, City Manager gr/aLford.mem • Central Balboa SAP Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Notes March 25, 1992 3:00 p.m. Fire Department Conference Room Present: Council Member John Hedges, Chairman Council Member Ruthelyn Plummer, Vice -Chairman Charlie Bauman, BIA Stephanie Houghton, CBA Fred Thompson, CBA Phil Tozer, BIA Bill Wren, BPPA Doug Boyd, BPPA Staff. Kevin Murphy, City Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Bob Kavert, Planning Aide Public: Virginia Herberts The Meeting notes from March 13th were approved without revision. Chairman Hedges reviewed a letter he had received from Mr. Lefebre requesting that the Committee review a request to transfer a commercial harbor activities permit. The consensus was that the matter was not within the Committee's purview. Continued discussion on development options Vice -Chairman Plummer commented that at the last City Council Study Session she had asked staff to consider the possibility of acquiring the Wells Fargo Bank building. She added that the City Council approved a $90,000 infrastructure study for Balboa, and that the Committee needs to determine what type of improvements should be made to sidewalks, streets etc. Mr. Bauman responded that the Committee needs the input of the local businesses on both sides of Balboa Blvd. Vice -Chairman Plummer suggested that the BIA hold a meeting to decide if the business owners would like any special treatment worked into the design of the sidewalks and other public improvements. 0 Mr. Thompson commented that the ingress and egress to the main parking lot issue needs to be resolved before the Committee goes too far with public improvements. Mr. Alford explained that conceptual site plans were prepared in response to the Committee's request to see illustrations of the new development options. He added that the site plans show proposed changes, and how they would work out on a typical lot, developed with various scenarios. He pointed out that by consolidating lots, more effective parking designs are possible. Chairman Hedges commented that there are a lot of single lot ownership, and asked if there were any provisions for two adjacent property owners to share a development project in order to create a more effective parking design. Mr. Kavert replied that improvements over $5,000 can not be constructed over a property line unless a new parcel map is approved, thereby consolidating the adjacent lots into one buildable parcel. There was a general discussion regarding owner -occupied dwelling units. Mr. Thompson commented that they have been trying to increase owner -occupied units in Balboa for years. Vice Chairman Plummer commented that the City Council is moving towards structural changes that will make owner occupied units more advantageous. Referring to the conceptual site plans, Mr. Tozer asked if 24' was enough room to maneuver into the parking spaces. Mr. Alford answered that the Traffic Engineer supplied the size requirements of the parking spaces and aisles. He then added that a mixed -use design is an incentive to develop. Vice -Chairman Plummer commented that Balboa has utilized mixed -use development for many years. Mr. Tozer stated that the real residential demand in Balboa is for small units. There was a general discussion, and approval of development options #5 and #6 (March 23rd Committee memo). Mr. Alford reviewed options #1 - #4 (parking options). There was a general discussion regarding City issued parking permits and resident parking permits. 2 Chairman Hedges suggested the possibility of free parking for residents with a permit. Vice -Chairman Plummer commented that it would be very difficult to determine who would be eligible, particularly with rentals. She added that if there was a 3 bedroom unit with only one garage, then in effect the City would be .subsidizing parking, and that should not happen. Chairman Hedges asked how much the residents pay for parking permits on Newport Island. Vice -Chairman Plummer responded that they pay $10 for a 3 month permit. Mr. Boyd stated that in Laguna Beach, residents can park at meters in the downtown area with a $5 annual resident permit. Mr. Wren stated that short-term parking would generate higher turnover, and this is what would create more parking for residents. Mr. Alford presented existing data on the number of existing metered spaces, and their associated time limits. There was a general consensus that more short-term parking was needed in the area. Mr. Wren commented that it would be more beneficial to change the time limits on the meters, rather than issue special resident permits. Vice -Chairman Plummer suggested that perhaps the merchants could' validate parking receipts from the main parking lot, rather .than issue special resident permits. Ms. Houghton suggested adding short-term blue meters. There was a general discussion regarding the possibility of making the parking lot near the Rendezvous Condominiums a short term lot. The question was raised as to where the condominium residents currently park, and do they need that lot? Ms. Houghton suggested using the Rendezvous lot for restaurant valet parking. The Committee discussed various parking options, utilizing varied time limits for short and long-term parking throughout the main lot. It was noted that Ray Garver, from the Marine Department, manages the main parking lot. Chairman Hedges directed staff to evaluate the various time limit options and report back to the Committee with staff s proposals. He then asked Mr. Alford to review items #7 and #8. 41 6 Mr. Alford explained that the "Main Street Program" is a private/public partnership created to upgrade and promote an area as a single shopping area through advertising and special events. He explained that a "storefront rehabilitation program" is a program where the City provides low cost loans, grants and expertise to encourage business owners to upgrade facades and storefronts. There was a general discussion on the R/UDAT program. The Committee directed staff to obtain additional information on the program, and how it may be utilized for. Central Balboa. Mr. Wren announced that he and Mr. Boyd are switching positions on the CBSAP Committee. Mr. Wren is now representing the Balboa Peninsula Point Association as the alternate, and Mr. Boyd is now the representative. F:... \SCOT-F\BALBOA.s"\mARCH.Z5 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT March 23, 1992 TO: Central Balboa SAP Committee FROM: Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner SUBJECT: March 25th Meeting The next meeting of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan Committee will be on Wednesday, March 25th at 3:00 p.m. in the Fire Department Conference Room. At the March 13th meeting, the Committee reviewed a list of eleven options intended to encourage neighborhood -serving uses and the upgrading of commercial properties. On staffs recommendation, the Committee rejected the options involving floor area ratio (FAR) bonuses and parking waivers. Instead, the Committee chose to pursue the remaining options. These options are listed below: 1. (2B) Revise time limits on certain existing metered spaces for short-term parking. 2. (2C) Provide new public parking areas for short-term parking. 3. (2D) Reconfigure the main beach parking lot to designate an area for long- term visitors, an area for beach -users, and an area for short-term commercial parking. 4. (2E) Increase the number of metered spaces allowing permits for area residents. 5. (3A) Increase density for commercial/residential mixed use development from 1 dwelling unit per 2,375 square feet of lot area to 1 dwelling unit per 1,800 square feet of lot area. 6. (3B) Lower parking requirements to 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit for studio and one -bedroom units. 7. (4A) Establish a "Main Street" style program to upgrade and promote area businesses. 8. (4B) Establish a storefront rehabilitation program. CBSAPC March 23, 1992 Page 2 Per the Committee's request, staff has prepared a set of exhibits illustrating how Options 5 and 6 (formally Options 3A and 3B) might be implemented. Attached are two sets of conceptual site plans. Each set illustrates how a property could be developed under existing and proposed development standards. The intent is to suggest that the proposed standards offer an incentive to consolidate lots and provide more effective parking configurations. Attachments: 1. Meeting agenda 2. March 13, 1992 meeting notes 3. Conceptual site plans 0 0 Central Balboa SAP Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Notes March 13, 1992 3:00 p.m. Fire Department Conference Room Present: Council Member Ruthelyn Plummer, Vice Chairman Phil Tozer, BIA Doug Boyd, BPPA Harry Meily, CBA Bob Black, BIA Kent Maddi, BIA Walt Thompson, BPPA Stephanie Houghton, CBA Chan Lefebre, BPPA Staff: Jim Hewicker, Planning Director Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Bob Kavert, Planning Aide Public: Virginia Herberts Note: Neither the Chairman nor Vice -Chairman were present to preside over the meeting, so the Committee chose to begin discussion of land use incentives without calling the meeting to order formally. Mr. Hewicker opened the discussion on neighborhood -serving use incentives. Mr. Alford reviewed the four different incentive options that were outlined in the March 13th memo to the Committee. He stated that staff had concerns regarding Options 1 A,1-B and 2 A, since these options would grant a permanent benefit for a potentially transitory one. He added that all of the remaining options had merit, particularly if they were implemented as a part of an comprehensive policy program. The Committee discussed the options, and the implications each may have on specific uses. It was noted that Mariner's Mile is having a hard time keeping the commercial buildings occupied, at least in part because of the mandatory marine -related use incentive provision in their specific area plan. Mr. Tozer commented that neighborhood -serving uses are leaving Balboa because they can not make money, and visitor -serving uses have filled the vacancies. He added that even the visitor -serving uses are faced with difficult times right now. Mr. Hewicker asked why the neighborhood -serving uses were not economically viable. 0 Mr. Tozer replied that people seem to drive to the regional malls to do their shopping. Mr. Meily added that people's shopping habits have changed, and that saving money is more important than convenience. Mr. Tozer commented that he has observed three economic cycles in Balboa over the last 30 years. Mr. Hewicker asked if the Committee believed that there was too much commercial area in Central Balboa for all of it to be economically viable. He questioned whether a possible reduction in the amount of commercial area should be considered. This lead to a general discussion on the possibility of redesignating some of the commercial properties to residential uses. The Committee had discussed this possibility at previous meetings and considered redesignating six commercial properties to residential land use, however this was not formally adopted. Vice -Chairman Plummer arrived at approximately 3.20 p.m. and presided over the meeting. Vice -Chairman Plummer commented that in the 1930's and 1940's there was a much smaller population in Central Balboa that supported the commercial district, but many businesses closed during the winter. She stated that today the population is much larger, and businesses are staying open all year long. She added that Balboa has always been a visitor - serving area, and that residential -serving uses were incidental. Mr. Alford stated that a goal of the Committee is to have a mix of visitor and neighborhood -serving uses. He added that the market will still dictate which uses are successful, but incentives may encourage businesses to orient at least a portion of their business towards neighborhood -serving uses. Mr. Boyd asked how the parking meter revenue was used by the City. Ms. Temple explained that the City is divided into five or six districts, and the parking meter revenue collected in a district goes into a parking fund for that district. There was a general discussion regarding parking meter revenue, the revenue collected from parking tickets, and how it is allocated. The Committee discussed Option 2, the possibility of revising time limits on certain existing metered spaces for short-term parking. Mr. Maddi commented that the Wells Fargo Bank site is on the market, and suggested that it could provide additional parking for the area if the City were to buy the site. Mr. Lefebre suggested that perhaps the City could obtain a portion of the lot for parking, inasmuch as it appears that more parking exists on the site than is required for that particular use. There was a general discussion regarding the parking requirements for the bank building, and the possibility of the City acquiring the property. It was noted that there is a large meeting room on the second floor of the bank building. Vice Chairman Plummer stated that PB&R is looking for a community center near Central Balboa, and perhaps they would be interested in the bank building. She added that the parking could be utilized as a municipal lot. Ms. Heberts stated that a community center project is in the PB&R budget, in conjunction with the Marine Department. There was a general discussion regarding the value of the bank property. Ms. Houghton commented that she had done some comparisons with comparable properties in the area. Vice -Chairman Plummer suggested that the Committee continue discussion on Option 2 to the next meeting. Mr. Alford explained that Option 3 offered an incentive to redevelop properties and provide smaller, more marketable dwelling units. Mr. Alford added that Option 3 also offered an incentive to consolidate lots. The reduced parking standard reflected the fact that studio and one bedroom units generally require less parking than two to four bedroom units. The Committee discussed the number of tenants that generally live in the larger units. It was noted that it is not uncommon to have up to six tenants in a three bedroom unit which only provides two off-street parking places. It was discussed that smaller units would be more affordable, attract fewer tenants and fewer cars. Vice -Chairman Plummer asked staff to prepare exhibits depicting the proposed mixed use development incentives, and provide the Committee with more data to evaluate. Mr. Alford reviewed Option 4. He explained that it called for on -going public -private cooperation in upgrading and promoting the area after the S.A.P. is adopted. The meeting notes for February 27 were approved without revision. The next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, March 24 or Wednesday, March 25 at 3:00 in the Fire Conference Room (subject to the approval of Chairman Hedges). CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT March 6, 1992 TO: Central Balboa SAP Committee FROM: Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner �� SUBJECT: March 13th Meeting on Land Use The next meeting of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan Committee will be on Friday, March 13th at 3:00 p.m. in the Fire Department Conference Room. The main topic of .the meeting will be the continued discussion of land uses. This discussion will include a review of potential incentives for neighborhood -serving uses. At the February 20th meeting, the Committee directed staff to develop a program of incentives to encourage neighborhood -serving uses in the Central Balboa area. The Committee also expressed an interest in policies which would encourage upgrading of commercial properties. In response, staff has prepared a list of options for the Committee to consider. Option 1: FAR Incentives A. Permit property owners to rebuild existing structures up to their existing FAR if specified neighborhood -serving uses are provided; possibly also require compliance with the architectural concepts specified by the specific area plan. B. Increase FAR limits from 0.5 to 0.75 for specified neighborhood -serving uses; possibly also require compliance with the architectural concepts specified by the specific area plan. Discussion: Option 1-A would allow property owners to rebuild or substantially upgrade their properties without losing their non -conforming FAR status. This would offer an incentive for upgrading properties and provide neighborhood -serving uses without significantly altering the status quo. The major problem with this approach is that it offers a permanent benefit for a potentially 0 CBSAPC March 6, 1992 Page 2 transitory one. A neighborhood -serving use could be provided initially, close down, then be replaced by a use that is not neighborhood -serving. A covenant could be recorded on the property requiring occupancy by a neighborhood -serving use. However, if the market cannot support such uses, the owner would be forced to keeping all or part of the building vacant. Enforcement of the convenient could prove difficult. Option 1-A also raises the question of fairness. An older, non -conforming property like the Balboa inn would be able to redevelop up to a FAR of 3.2. However, a more contemporary property with on -site parking like the Pizza Hut would only be able to develop to a FAR of 0.5. Option 1-B would offer a FAR bonus to properties providing neighborhood -serving uses. Nearly all neighborhood -serving uses fall under the base development allocation FAR of 0.5. Thus, an increase to 0.75 provides an incentive for upgrading properties and providing neighborhood -serving uses. The increase is substantial, however market forces would likely limit its use to a small number of commercial properties. Therefore, traffic and parking impacts would likely be limited as well. Both approaches do not guarantee that neighborhood -serving uses are provided after the entitlement is granted. Also, they may not be effective without a corresponding reduction or waiver of parking requirements, particularly on smaller properties. Option 2: Parking Incentives A. Reduce or waive existing parking requirements for neighborhood -serving uses; possibly also require compliance with the architectural concepts specified by the specific area plan. B. Revise time limits on certain existing metered spaces for short-term parking. C. Provide new public parking areas for short-term parking. D. Reconfigure the main beach parking lot to designate an area for long-term visitors, an area for beach -users, and an area for short-term commercial parking. E. Increase the number of metered spaces allowing permits for area residents. Discussion: Option 2-A would allow property owners to rebuild or substantially upgrade their properties without meeting current off-street parking standards. This approach could offer either a reduction or a complete waiver of current parking requirements. The loss of F CBSAPC March 6, 1992 Page 3 parking could be mitigated by providing additional parking in existing public lots or by acquiring sites for new public lots. This approach also requires granting permanent development entitlements for land use controls. Once again there is the problem insuring that the desired uses are provided and maintained after development. If this Option 2-A is pursued, the parking reduction or waiver should not be extended to residential requirements in mixed use projects. While commercial uses can function with off site parking, it would be more difficult for residential units. Options 2-B, 2-C, and 2-D concentrate on providing more short-term public parking spaces. The presumption is that by making more short-term parking available, area residents would be more likely to patronize local businesses. Currently, there are few convenient, short-term parking spaces available to residents. Only 4% (11 spaces) of the metered spaces have 30- minute limits and 15% (47 spaces) have 1-hour limits. All of these spaces are located along Balboa Boulevard, with the exception of a few 1-hour spaces on Main Street. About 26% (75 spaces) of the metered spaces have 2-hour limits and are located on East Bay Avenue, the Washington Street lot, and the two metered lots north of the main beach parking lot. The remaining 55% (157 spaces) are 12-hour limit meters located at the A Street and B Street lots and in the two lots north of the main beach parking lot. Option 2-B would simply redesignate some of the existing meters to provide more 30-minute and/or 1-hour parking. Meters on East Bay Avenue, in the Washington Street lot, and in the two lots north of the main beach parking lot are the most likely candidates. Option 2-C requires the City to acquire new sites for short-term parking. Expanding existing beach parking areas has been suggested, but is in conflict with the Committee's goal of not encroaching into existing open space and recreational areas. Also, several sites have been suggested for condemnation by the City to provide more parking. An assessment district and substantially higher in -lieu parking fees have been suggested as possible financing mechanisms. Option 2-D involves designating areas in the main beach parking lot for long-term and short-term commercial parking. The idea is to have the areas closest to the beach for the long-term use by beach -goers, areas closest to the commercial area for short-term use by business patrons, and the remaining areas for long-term use by cruise and fishing boat passengers. This approach could be done in conjunction with the proposed plan to reconfigure of the main beach parking lot to provide additional parking spaces. Option 2-E would provide more "blue pole" metered spaces. 'Blue pole" metered spaces allow vehicles with permits purchased from the City to park without paying. Currently, only CBSAPC March 6, 1992 Page 4 66 spaces in the A Street and B Street lots allow City parking permits. Providing additional meters closer to the commercial area may encourage use of local businesses by area residents. Option 3: Mixed Use Development Incentives A. Increase density for commercial/residential mixed use development from 1 dwelling unit per 2,375 square feet of lot area to 1 dwelling unit per 1,800 square feet of lot area. B. Lower parking requirements to 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit for studio and one - bedroom units. Discussion: At a previous meeting it was suggested that smaller, more marketable dwelling units were needed in mixed use projects. By allowing additional dwelling units, Option 3-A would provide these units and offer an incentive to redevelop existing commercial properties. It would also offer an incentive to consolidate lots and provide unified development. For example, two lots developed jointly would be permitted 3 units, instead one each if they were developed independently. Finally, the residents of these units would also be potential customers for local businesses. The density increase would increase the number of potential units in mixed use development from 136 to 180. However, this is well below the 223 units allocated by the General Plan. The parking reduction in Option 3-B is associated the proposed density increase. The proposed 1.5 space per unit standard reflects the fact that one bedroom and studio units are less likely to occupied with people having more than one vehicle. This standard is in effect in a number of communities, including most of Newport Beach. Adoption of the 1.5 space standard would require a Local Coastal Plan amendment. However, staff believes that a strong case can be made to the Coastal Commission for this standard, given its limited impact and association with the overall specific area plan. Option 4: Promotional/Rehabilitation Programs A. Establish a "Main Street" style program to upgrade and promote area businesses. B. Establish a storefront rehabilitation program. 0 0 CBSAPC March 6, 1992 Page 5 Discussion: Option 4-A would involve on -going public and private sector cooperation in revitalization of the area. In addition to the infrastructure improvements already discussed, the City would cooperate with local businesses promoting the area. This usually involves promoting the area as a unified shopping area and staging various community activities to attract customers. Option 4-13 would establish a City program to encourage commercial property owners to improve the appearance of their storefronts. Under such a program, a city typically provides low-cost loans, block grants, and/or free design consulting services as incentives. Recommendation: Staff has serious concerns regarding the linkage of development entitlements with land use incentives proposed in .Options 1-A, 1-B and 2-A. However, there are merits to the other approaches. If implemented as a part of an integrated development and policy program, they could be effective in realizing the Committee's goals. Attachments: Meeting agenda February 27, 1992 meeting notes 40 Central Balboa SAP Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Notes February 27, 1992 3:00 p.m. Fire Department Conference Room Present: Council Member John Hedges, Chairman Charlie Bauman, BIA Phil Tozer, BIA Fred Thompson, CBA Bob Black, BIA Walt Thompson, BPPA Staff: Jim Hewicker, Planning Director Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Bob Kavert, Planning Aide Public: Virginia Herberts Is Adopt A¢enda The agenda was adopted without amendments. Comments from the public Chairman Hedges introduced Virginia Herberts, a Balboa resident and property owner. II UXtri* Mr. Fred Thompson pointed out that Stephanie Houghton was, incorrectly identified as a CBA alternate in the February 12th meeting notes. He stated that she was a representative. Mr. Tozer commented that the merchants were not adequately represented at the February 12th meeting. He felt that the contributions of the fishing and cruse boats were not fairly presented. Mr. Bauman added that if not for the Catalina Flyer and the fishing boats, no one would be in business in Central Balboa. Mr. Black commented that the boat patrons spend a lot of time and money in Central Balboa, before and after their boating excursions. Mr. Tozer added that they,patronize many businesses while in Balboa, including the bakery, 0 drugstore, liquor store and restaurants. He objected to the statement made at the February 12th meeting, that the City is subsidizing the boat operations. He,did not feel that this was an accurate statement. Chairman Hedges indicated that that particular comment was an individual opinion, not that of the entire Committee. Mr. Tozer commented that during the summer months, the beach users occupy two-thirds of the main parking lot. He suggested that the beach goers just come and go, and do not support the local businesses as much as the boat patrons. He estimated that during the winter months two-thirds of the vehicles in the main parking lot are from the boat patrons. Mr. Fred Thompson commented that he has experienced a lot of the boat patrons parking in the residential areas. Mr. Black responded that they encourage them to use the municipal parking lot. Chairman Hedges acknowledged that the business representatives were not adequately represented at the previous meeting, and suggested that the Committee continue the discussion on sign regulations. M Continued discussion on Sign regulations tions Mr. Alford reviewed the previous Committee discussions on sign regulations. He stated the Committee's general consensus that there were actually few abuses of the current City regulations, but the existing regulations were not very restrictive. He added that it had been suggested that a program reflecting the historic character of Central Balboa be implemented. Mr. Alford then referred to the cities of Orange and San Luis Obispo's historic sign regulations, which have been distributed to the Committee. He stated that both of these cities use some sort of design review to implement the regulations, and suggested that it would be difficult to implement this type of program in Central Balboa without a design review process. Mr. Hewicker stated that the Committee could regulate the size, number and materials used for signs, even without design review. Chairman Hedges commented that if Central Balboa is to be designated as a historical district, then specific sign regulations would probably help to achieve that goal. The Committee could require some sort of design review. Mr. Tozer questioned whether the existing sign regulations were not restrictive enough. Mr. Alford replied that the regulations pertaining to temporary signs are somewhat restrictive, but generally the sign regulations are "quite generous". He added that the current regulations do not include or restrict signage on the inside,of windows, provided they do not flash or blink. 1,0 • 0 Chairman Hedges asked if the Committee would like to develop a historical theme for signage. He added that a specific time period or theme could be selected. Mr. Black commented that it would be nice to have uniform signs in the area, but it could take a long time for existing signs to change. Mr. Hewicker commented that in the past staff attempted to revamp the sign regulations, and it was not well received throughout the City on a whole. He added that it may work on a smaller scale, such as in Central Balboa. Chairman Hedges asked if signs in windows could be regulated. Mr. Alford replied that this would be possible, and that it would also help promote the Committee's goal of increased pedestrian activity. Mr. Bauman commented that merchants also place signs on the inside of glass doors, and when the doors are left opened it looks very cluttered. He added that the liquor and drug stores have too many "tacky" signs in their windows. Chairman Hedges asked the Committee if they would like to pattern sign regulations after those of San Luis Obispo and Orange. Mr. Tozer commented that there is a difference between Orange and Balboa. In the downtown area of Orange, all of the buildings are of a similar architectural style, while in Balboa there are several different styles from different time periods. Chairman Hedges responded that things will change over time, if incentives were offered. Mr. Tozer suggested that the Committee use the existing sign ordinance, but cut down on allowable size and regulate signs in windows. Chairman Hedges commented that no one is maximizing the existing ordinance anyway. Mr. Hewicker suggested that the Committee could regulate window signs and also regulate internally illuminated signs. He added that externally illuminated signs tend to be made of wood, rather than plastic. Mr. Tozer commented that he personally likes sand blasted wood signs, but they do, not work on all buildings. Mr. Alford summarized two approaches the Committee could take: The Committee could offer incentive uses, and the business would then be obligated to adhere to a sign program. Secondly, the Committee could establish general concepts for the area, but allow for deviation for buildings that have different architectural styles. He added that the Committee may wish to retain some of the older signs that may have some historical significance. 0 Mr. Tozer asked. if staff could prepare some regulations for the Committee to consider. Mr. Alford responded that staff would prepare sign regulations with the direction of the Committee thus far. V. Items not on the agenda which members may wish to discuss Mr. Alford stated that the Committee still has public improvements, circulation and parking, and land uses still to consider. Mr. Hedges commented that the Public Works Department is designing improvements from Central Balboa to McFadden Square, and they are looking for Committee input if anything is desired beyond the standard sidewalks, streets etc. He suggested that the Committee could incorporate an assessment district, if there is enough money and interest, with the Public Works projects. Mr. Black commented that the Committee had discussed modifying certain sidewalks and streets, and perhaps those areas should be identified. There was a general discussion regarding circulation and parking. The Committee discussed the traffic consultant's possible solutions, including a traffic circle, a pedestrian mall and new traffic patterns. Ms. Herberts stated that, if need be, the residents would circulate a petition stating their opposition to the proposed closing of Main Street to vehicles. She added that the residents needed the Main Street parking in order to use the post office and shops. Chairman Hedges responded by stating that the Committee was only exploring possible solutions. He added that the Committee is considering providing more short-term parking for residents. Mr. Bauman suggested that the study failed to resolve the circulation issue. Chairman Hedges agreed and indicated that the consultant should have provided a technical solution, not a political one. There was a general discussion of the problems associated with people "cruising" the area and possible solutions. Mr. Tozer stated that the merchants and the police department had been working hard to solve the cruising problem. He suggested that there may be not a conclusive solution. i Chairman Hedges stated that he is determined to end the cruising problem. He added that he often visits the area in response to complaints. He suggested that there are certain businesses open in the late evening that contribute to the area's appeal as a "hang out." He concluded by calling for a long-term, structural solution. �2 6 0 Mr. Alford informed the Committee that the City's traffic engineer has offered to attend the meetings. Chairman Hedges replied that it would be beneficial for the Committee to "brain storm" before calling in the traffic engineer. Ms. Herberts stated that a consensus was needed on the solution. There was a general discussion on the reduction of business hours at the Wells Fargo Bank and its implications. Ms. Herberts asked how the residents could give their input to the Committee. Chairman Hedges provided the names of the Peninsula Point Association representatives on the Committee. He added that all representatives were required to have the authority to speak in behalf of their associations. VI Schedule next meeting Chairman Hedges informed the Committee that the next meeting will be held on Friday, March 13th at 3:00 p.m. He added that the main topic would be land use incentives. R\... \RALWA-SAP\FMRUARY.27 13 0 i W Central Balboa SAP Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Notes March 13, 1992 3:00 p.m. Fire Department Conference Room Present: Council Member Ruthelyn Plummer, Vice Chairman Phil Tozer, BIA Doug Boyd, BPPA Harry Meily, CBA Bob Black, BIA Kent Maddi, BIA Walt Thompson, BPPA Stephanie Houghton, CBA Chan Lefebre, BPPA Staff: Jim Hewicker, Planning Director Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Bob KaveM Planning Aide Public: Virginia Herberts Note. Neither the Chairman nor Vice -Chairman were present to preside over the meeting, so the Committee chose to begin discussion of land use incentives without calling the meeting to order fonnally. Mr. Hewicker opened the discussion on neighborhood -serving use incentives. Mr. Alford reviewed the four different incentive options that were outlined in the March 13th memo to the Committee. He stated that staff had concerns regarding Options 1 A,1 B and 2 A, since these options would grant a permanent benefit for a potentially transitory one. He added that all of the remaining options had merit, particularly if they were implemented as a part of an comprehensive policy program. The Committee discussed the options, and the implications each may have on specific uses. It was noted that Mariner's Mile is having a hard time keeping the commercial buildings occupied, at least in part because of the mandatory marine -related use incentive provision in their specific area plan. Mr. Tozer commented that neighborhood -serving uses are leaving Balboa because they can not make money, and visitor -serving uses have filled the vacancies. He added that even the visitor -serving uses are faced with difficult times right now. Mr. Hewicker asked why the neighborbood-serving uses were not economically viable. Iq 0 Mr. Tozer replied that people seem to drive to the regional malls to do their shopping. Mr. Meily added that people's shopping habits have changed, and that saving money is more important than convenience. Mr. Tozer commented that he has observed three economic cycles in Balboa over the last 30 years. Mr. Hewicker asked if the Committee believed that there was too much commercial area in Central Balboa for all of it to be economically viable. He questioned whether a possible reduction in the amount of commercial area should be considered. This lead to a general discussion on the possibility of redesignating some of the commercial properties to residential uses. The Committee had discussed this possibility at previous meetings and considered redesignating six commercial properties to residential land use, however this was not formally adopted. lice -Chairman Plummer anfved at approximately 3.20 p.m. and presided over the meeting. Vice -Chairman Plummer commented that in the 1930's and 1940's there was a much smaller population in Central Balboa that supported the commercial district, but many businesses closed during the winter. She stated that today the population is much larger, and businesses are staying open all year long. She added that Balboa has always been a visitor - serving area, and that residential -serving uses were incidental. Mr. Alford stated that a goal of the Committee is to have a mix of visitor and neighborhood -serving uses. He added that the market will still dictate which uses are successful, but incentives may encourage businesses to orient at least a portion of their business towards neighborhood -serving uses. Mr. Boyd asked how the parking meter revenue was used by the City. Ms. Temple explained that the City is divided into five or six districts, and the parking meter revenue collected in a district goes into a parking fund for that district. There was a general discussion regarding parking meter revenue, the revenue collected fiom parking tickets, and how it is allocated. The Committee discussed Option 2, the possibility of revising time limits on certain existing metered spaces for short-term parking. Mr. Maddi commented that the Wells Fargo Bank site is on the market, and suggested that it could provide additional parking for the area if the City were to buy the site. Mr. Lefebre suggested that perhaps the City could obtain a portion of the lot for parking, inasmuch as it appears that more parking exists on the site than is required for that particular use. There was a general discussion regarding the parking requirements for the bank building, and the possibility of the City acquiring the property. It was noted that there is a large meeting room on the second floor of the bank building. Vice Chairman Plummer stated that PB&R is looking for a community center near Central Balboa, and perhaps they, would be interested in the bank building. She added that the parking could be utilized as a municipal lot. Ms. Heberts stated that a community center project is in the PB&R budget, in conjunction with the Marine Department. There was a general discussion regarding the value of the bank property. Ms. Houghton commented that she had done some comparisons with comparable properties in the area. Vice -Chairman Plummer suggested that the Committee continue discussion on Option 2 to the next meeting. Mr. Alford explained that Option 3 offered an incentive to redevelop properties and provide smaller, more marketable dwelling units. Mr. Alford added that Option 3 also offered an incentive to consolidate lots. The reduced parking standard reflected the fact that studio and one bedroom units generally require less parking than two to four bedroom units. The Committee discussed the number of tenants that generally live in the larger units. It was noted that it is not uncommon to have up to six tenants in a three bedroom unit which only provides two off-street parking places. It was discussed that smaller units would be more affordable, attract fewer tenants and fewer cars. Vice -Chairman Plummer asked staff to prepare exhibits depicting the proposed mixed use development incentives, and provide the Committee with more data to evaluate. Mr. Alford reviewed Option 4. He explained that it called for on -going public -private cooperation in upgrading and promoting the area after the S.A.P. is adopted. The meeting notes for February 27 were approved without revision. The next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, March 24 or Wednesday, March 25 at 3:00 in the Fire Conference Room (subject to the approval of Chairman Hedges). CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 20, 1992 TO: Central Balboa SAP Committee FROM: Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner SUBJECT: February 27th Meeting The next meeting of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan Committee will be on Thursday, February 27th at 3:00 p.m. in the Fire Department Conference Room. The main topic of the meeting will be the continued discussion of sign regulations within the Central Balboa area. At the January 29th meeting, the Committee directed staff to investigate sign regulations used in historic districts in other communities. The Committee requested this information to examine the possibility of adopting similar standards for the Central Balboa area. Attached are sign standards for historic districts established in the cities of Orange and San Luis Obispo. The City of Orange's Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for Old Towne establishes a limited range of architectural styles. Regulations for sign types, sizes, materials, colors, letter styles, and locations are designed to be compatible with these architectural styles. All signs are subject to a design review process. The City of San Luis Obispo's Downtown Improvement Manual uses a more generalized approach in establishing architectural styles and sign regulations. Regulations are more conceptual in nature, with few specific standards. At least some signs are subject to a design review process. Finally, there was a request at the last meeting for more information on the State of California's Main Street program. Copies of Main Street publications are attached. Attachments: 1. Meeting agenda 2. February 12, 1992 meeting notes 3. City of Orange's Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for Old Towne 4. The City of San Luis Obispo's Downtown Improvement Manual 5. Main Street program material. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 12, 1992 TO: Central Balboa SAP Committee FROM: Patrick J. Alford, Senior Plannerl� SUBJECT: Historic District Sign Regulations At the last meeting, the Committee directed staff to investigate sign regulations used in historic districts in other communities. The Committee requested this information to examine the possibility of adopting similar standards for the Central Balboa area. Attached are sign standards for historic districts established in the cities of Orange and San Luis Obispo. The City of Orange's Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for Old Towne establishes a limited range of architectural styles. Regulations for sign types, sizes, materials, colors, letter styles, and locations are designed to be compatible with these architectural styles. All signs are subject to a design review process. The City of San Luis Obispo's Downtown Improvement Manual uses a more generalized approach in establishing architectural styles and sign regulations. Regulations are more conceptual in nature, with few specific standards. At least some signs are subject to a design review process. Central Balboa SAP Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Notes February 12, 1992 3:00 pm Fire Department Conference Room PRESENT: Council Member John Hedges, Chairman Council Member Ruthelyn Plummer, Vice Chairman Fred Thompson, CBA Stephanie Houghton, CBA W. Chan Lefebre, BPPA Doug Boyd, BPPA (Alternate) Charlie Bauman, BIA STAFF: Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Robert Burnham, City Attorney PUBLIC: Jerry King, J.A. King and Associates Adopted without amendment. lj None. Adopted without amendment. Chairman Hedges summarized the Committee stated goals relating to land uses. He stated that the Committee is seeking to provide a better balance between resident -serving and visitor -serving uses. He then introduced the City Attorney, Mr. Robert Burnham. Mr. Burnham spoke of the constitutional protections afforded to some of the uses the Committee was concerned about. He stated that the courts have ruled that businesses such as fortune tellers and tatoo parlors are communicative in nature, therefore protected under the First Amendment. Mr. Burnham went on to say that it is difficult to make distinctions in personal services. He indicated that a tatoo parlor can be equated to a beauty salon. He suggested that the Committee could differentiate visitor -serving uses from resident -serving, seasonal uses from year -around uses. He stated that the Committee could prohibit, require a use permit or place locational requirements on certain categories of uses, such as those which are visitor - serving. He cautioned that such restrictions would have to apply to all visitor -serving uses, however. Mr. Lefebre stated that the Committee has not presented a "clear vision" regarding land uses. Mr. Thompson suggested that visitor -serving uses were encouraged. Mr. Lefebre disagreed and stated that such a policy was never asserted at past meetings. Mr. Burnhamcommented that he was not sure that any use could be supported by local residents alone. Ms. Houghton suggested that specialty foods uses could be supported by area residents. Mr. Burnham indicated that such uses were also used by tourists, such as those using the Catalina Flyer. He asked what the residents need in the way of businesses. Mr. Lefebre stated that there was too much commercial and suggested that the equivalent of a small neighborhood center would be sufficient. He added that the buildings were too old and residents do not patronize local business do to the lack of parking. He stated that he would like to see the area upgraded and more short-term parking for convenience shopping. He indicated that the fishing and cruise boats place a drain on parking. He suggested removing as much commercial as possible. Chairman Hedges speculated that the cruise boats may be supporting businesses that would not otherwise exist. He asked what would happen if the cruise boats were not there. Mr. Lefebre replied that more parking would be available for beach users. Mr. Thompson suggested that people using the cruise boats spend very little money in Central Balboa. There was general agreement with Mr. Thompson's assertion. Chairman Hedges added that these uses place a drain .on parking in the mean time. He then asked what incentives could be offered to encourage neighborhood uses. Mr. Burnham suggested that parking requirements could be waived. He went on to suggest 3 that a short-term parking lot and a shuttle service could be provided. He added that this would not guarantee local patronage. Mr. Lefebre suggested that the residents were not optimistic that the area could be transformed into a neighborhood center. He added that the area could be improved, however. Ms. Houghton stated that half hour parking would be helpful. Chairman Hedges asked why the Balboa Island commercial area was successful. Vice Chairman Plummer commented that Balboa Island does not have beach users, suggesting that they do little shopping. She suggested conducting a survey of beach users to find out how much they patronize the area. Mr. Burnham stated that Balboa Island had more destination commercial and a ,pleasant streetscape. He added that Central Balboa's commercial was off of the main drag. He suggested that there was a need to change people's perception of the area. Mr. Alford suggested that apart from the specific area plan process, area businesses might consider participating in a Main Street program. He explained that the State of California's Main Street program assists local government and businesses in upgrading and promoting declining downtown areas. Mr. Lefebre asserted that ,the General Plan does not allow Central Balboa to become a destination commercial area. He added that he did not want to bring more people in from the outside and become another Carmel. Vice Chairman Plummer responded by stating that upgrading the area would not create that much of a draw. Mr. Lefebre stated that the streets could be upgraded, but questioned if that would not guarantee that the storefronts would be upgraded. Mr. Bauman replied that the costs of rehabilitation are often prohibitive, citing the example of the Balboa Hardware building. Mr. Lefebre expressed that the limited market area deviates from current marketing approaches. He asked what were the expectations for the area once it is upgraded. Vice Chairman Plummer replied that the private sector would do their own improvements based on the guidelines. She added that the a plan needed to be adopted first. Mr. Lefebre questioned the wisdom in investing in public improvements on the assumption that the private sector would follow. He stated that a commitment was needed from the property owners. Ms. Houghton asked Mr. Lefebre to be more specific. Mr. Lefebre replied that the property owners should upgrade their storefronts. Vice Chairman Plummer suggested that property owners have neglected the area because the City had not provided any improvements in the area in some time. Chairman Hedges recommended that the Committee proceed with the land use issues and concentrate on possible incentives. He suggested that the parking requirements may be too restrictive. Mr. Burnham suggested encouraging mixed use development. Mr. Lefebre commented that mixed use was already allowed on a limited scale. Ms. Houghton stated that mixed use has not worked because the units were too large. She suggested allowing smaller, more affordable units. Mr. Alford asked if she was suggesting increasing the residential density in mixed use projects. Ms. Houghton answered yes. There was a general discussion on the viability of mixed use projects. Chairman Hedges commented that the Zoning, Code may be locking out reinvestment. Mr. Thompson stated that convenient parking was needed to attract tenants. Vice Chairman Plummer suggested increasing the number of parking spaces as an incentive. Mr. Burnham asked how many buildings were slated for seismic retrofit. Mr. Alford replied that there were a number of the high risk structures in Central Balboa. Mr. Boyd added that he believed that there were six structures in the area. Mr. Burnham suggested that the seismic retrofit could be the start of a general upgrade. Mr. Boyd advocated establishing a historic district and waiving parking in exchange for a facade easement. Mr. Alford stated that seismic retrofits were already exempted from parking standards. Ms. Houghton asked if facade easements had been done before. Mr. Burnham replied that one was done for the Balboa Inn. Mr. Bauman suggested that restoring the Balboa Hardware building would be a start. Ms. Houghton suggested reserving parking spaces for shoppers. Vice Chairman Plummer indicated that the parking and circulation design had to be resolved before that could be addressed. Mr. Boyd suggested acquiring property near the Class of '44 as remote parking. Vice Chairman Plummer replied that the concept would have to be brought to the Parking Committee. Chairman Hedges asked Mr. Burnham if there would be any difficulties with condemnation. Mr. Burnham replied that he did not foresee any problems. He added that since a clear benefit could be established, part of the costs could be paid through an assessment district. Mr. Lefebre stated that there would still be no mandate for storefront improvements. He added that some form of "quid pro quo' was needed since the City did not favor architectural review. Mr. Burnham suggested offering incentives such as waiving parking requirements and increased floor area ratios in exchange for design review. Mr. Alford informed the Committee that the Newport Pier Association has suggested a similar approach for the McFadden Square area. Vice Chairman Plummer asked Mr. Burnham if the Committee could recommend this approach as part of the specific area plan. Mr. Burnham answered yes, but added that consideration had to be given to the Coastal Commission's parking requirements. Mr. Lefebre asked if a consultant should be hired since parking, circulation and design criteria were all related. Chairman Hedges encouraged the Committee to look for innovative solutions. Mr. Boyd recommended that the Committee avoid the mistakes of other communities. He cited examples of downtown areas that were upgraded without a corresponding change in uses. Mr. Bauman commented that the businessmen in the area once considered hiring a consultant to develop a plan. M ! 0 Mr. Burnham stated that the Committee could either bring more people into the area or change their purchasing habits. Vice Chairman Plummer suggested that a consultant could be hired once all of the plan's segments had been worked out. Chairman Hedges invited Mr. Jerry King to present his comments. Mr. King recalled that in -lieu parking fees did not work in Laguna Beach initially because the fees were too low and no new parking areas could be provided. He added that when the fees were substantially increased, local businesses were forced out and replaced by businesses that could afford them. He then suggested that the Committee consider regulating land use by its traffic generation potential as an alternative. He also warned that an outside consultant would try to bring more people into the area. Mr. Alford commented that existing FAR limits regulate high traffic generators. Chairman Hedges suggested that FAR limits may be an ineffective way to regulate land use. Mr. Thompson stated that traffic generation, parking requirements and FAR limits were all interrelated. Chairman Hedges directed staff to look into possible parking and FAR incentives. Mr. Alford asked Chairman Hedges to clarify if his intent was to link these incentives to design review. Chairman Hedges answered yes. Mr. Lefebre reminded the Committee to consider traffic impacts. Mr. Thompson commented that the fishing and cruise boats create a greater parking demand than do the other businesses. Chairman Hedges recommended restripping the beach parking lot and reserving a section for short-term meters. Mr. Boyd suggested shuttling cruise boat users to remote lots. Mr. Burnham stated that the City had investigated that option. Mr. Lefebre spoke of the ambiguity in the passenger capacity limits the cruise boat operate under. He then suggested that the City is subsidizing the boat businesses. MM _r_r r r r r r. r r r �1i9 None. Chairman Hedges informed the Committee that the next meeting would focus on sign regulations and that land use discussion would be taken up again at the following meeting. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 4:45 pm. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 11, 1992 TO: Jim Hewicker, Planning Director Patty Temple, Advance Planning Manager Bill Laycock, Current Planning Manager Bill Ward, Senior Planner Bob Burnham, City Attorney Steve Badum, Civil Engineer FROM: Patrick J. Alford, Senior Plannerlpl� SUBJECT: Revised Draft Central Balboa Specific Area Plan Text Based on comments received from the City Attorney and the Current Planning staff, I have prepared a revised draft of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan text. Please review the revised draft and return any comments and recommendations by MONDAY, FEBRUARY 2401992 If you have any questions, or require additional information, contact me at Ext. 3235. Attachments: 2/6/92 memorandum from the City Attorney Revised CBSAP text (Revision 7) P February 6, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: Central Balboa SAP Committee FROM: Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner SUBJECT: February 12th Meeting The next meeting of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan Committee will be on Wednesday, February 12th at 3:00 p:m. in the Fire Department Conference Room. The focus of the meeting will be the continued discussion of land use regulations within the Central Balboa area. To facilitate the discussion, staff has prepared a draft set of land use regulations. These regulations are contained in Table 20.64. In the table, a "YES" in the column indicates that the use is permitted by right. "ANC" indicates that the use is permitted if it is ancillary to an permitted use. "MOD" indicates that the use is subject to the approval of the Modifications Committee. "PD" indicates that the use is subject to the approval of the Planning Director. "UP" indicates that the use is permitted with use permit. "U/A" indicates that the use is permitted with use permit if it is ancillary to a permitted use. A blank space indicates that the use is not permitted in that district. The letter "L" references certain limitations prescribed under "Limitations on Specified Uses. Letters in parentheses in the "Additional Regulations" column refer to "Additional Regulations" following the table. These symbols serve as footnotes, giving notice that there are certain limitations or additional regulations governing that use. The draft land use regulations generally reflect the existing controls of the existing RSC, R- 2, MFR and GEIF districts. However, certain uses have been excluded which are inconsistent with the proposed goals of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan. The excluded uses are mainly automobile -oriented, such as car washes, auto repair, gasoline stations, and drive-in restaurants. Attachments: 1. Meeting agenda 2. January 29, 1992 meeting notes 3. Draft land use regulations • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY RECEIVtu ut PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FEB 7 1992 MEMORANDIIM A February 6, 1992 TO: Pat Temple, Advance Planning Manager L.Prick Alford, Planning Dept. FROM: Robert H. Burnham SUBJ: Comments to Draft Central Balboa Specific Area Text I have belatedly reviewed the proposed text of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan. This Memo was dictated on first reading and some of my earlier comments be answered or addressed in latter portions of the document. My comments are as follows: 1. Section 20.64.015. I genera subsection A, although I have term "pedestrian scale." You in somewhat greater detail area" the Plan is intended additional objectives should regarding the intent of some area. I would be cautious objective (A-5) until speci found nothing in the Plan th or development of new publi introduction to this Section lly understand the objectives in no clue as to the meaning of the may want to consider describing the "historic character of the to preserve and enhance. Some be drafted if the rumors are true to exclude certain uses from the about the public improvements fic projects are identified. I at would facilitate the location c parking (A-6). Finally, the and subsections B and C all seem to be saying the same thing. Section 20.64.020. Provisions of the Zoning Code relative to specific plan districts are confusing. I read Chapter 29.60 and Section 20.01.070 to impose a site plan review requirement only for properties which are located within SP districts for which no plan has been prepared. Based upon my brief review, the draft Plan does not contain any mechanism to trigger City review of new or remodeled structures to insure conformance with the Plan. The Plan and/or the Code should contain specific provisions, understandable to all, describing the type and extent of development or redevelopment that requires discretionary review, the type of discretionary review that will be required, and the identity of the person, committee, or commission responsible for review. I don't know if this Plan is intended to encourage the tear down of new structures or the remodel of existing buildings, but if the latter is a major objective of the Plan, you probably want to establish procedures which will foster compliance with the design and 0 0 Pat Temple, Planning Patrick Alford, Planning February 6, 1992 Page 2. architectural guidelines. Finally, the reference to Chapter 20.-83 (A-2) effectively erases the significance of A-1 since Chapter 20.83 becomes part of the specific plan. 3. Section 20.64.025. The design theme provisions of this Section probably provide enough guidance to avoid legal challenge by an owner whose project is denied because it doesn't comply with the plan, but greater specificity would be appreciated. Many of the "design elements" seem to be little more than common sense (e.g. A-1, A-2, A-8 and A-9) . The architectural element section is well written and would benefit only from a more specific description of the "historical character" and architectural styles of the key structures that the Plan is intended to preserve and enhance. The City is responsible for implementation of the 11streetscape" section and may serve to create expectations that can't be met because of financial or legal constraints. For example, I am not sure anyone can devise a plan that will "promote bicycling for transportation." While this is a desirable objective, the area is heavily congested with pedestrians and vehicles, and I cannot imagine a way to create dedicated bicycle lanes or paths in the area. Some of the specific objectives may present legal problems. Decorative paving is nice, but always seems to give rise to sidewalk and street trip and fall accidents. Use of banners for identifying the commercial area and promoting civic events will, in the words of the lawyers, "open the forum" and require the City to grant approval for use of banners by any group interested in -conveying a message. I support the use of flush mounted tree wells with steel grating, but these are apparently quite expensive and some need to be custom made given the odd size of certain wells. 4. Section 20.64.030. Again, if certain uses are to be prohibited in the commercial areas, we should explain why (residents need a wide variety of services due to summer traffic and distance between larger retail areas). I do not understand what you are trying to say in subsection A. The special findings for food uses in subsection B look more like mandatory conditions than findings. 5. Section 20.64.035. Subsection C should be revised to read as follows: "Walls adjacent to any public street shall be set back at least 1-1/2 feet for every foot in excess of 19 feet above grade." The subsection F-1 should be revised to read as follows: "Residential uses are only permitted above the second floor." Are the provisions of subsection F-3, F-4 and F-5 internally consistent? 6. Section 20.64.040. I suspect you want to delete reference to uses permitted in commercial district. This whole section Pat Temple, Planning Patrick Alford, Planning February 6, 1992 Page 3. guided the orderly development of these districts" why are we inserting provisions regarding "courts opposite windows"? 7. Section 20.64.050 and 20.64.035(sic). The GEIF district needs some work. 8. Section 20.64.060. Section B-1 should be modified to read as follows: "The owner of the property has applied for, and received, an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department." (The encroachment permit contains the indemnification provisions.) The restaurant off -site parking provisions appear to be identical to those in 20.30.040--why not simply incorporate them by reference? Ditto for Public Assembly Uses. A requirement that parking availability be posted on the front of the business doesn't do much for improving the aesthetics of the area (F-1). While subsection G is slightly different that 20.30.040 (C), the differences are not so significant that you could not incorporate by reference. The City Council has established a moratorium on the use of in lieu parking fees to satisfy code requirements. Also, if you give the Planning Commission and City Council the authority to approve something for commercial land uses, you do not have to specify that the same provisions do not apply to residential uses --the Zoning Code operates on the presumption that what is not expressly permitted is prohibited. 9. Section 20.64.070. I assume a "public and private improvement project" is one involving -creation of an assessment district to fund all or a portion of the project. Obviously, we cannot mandate construction of private improvements. 10. Table 20.64. The chart is very specific, but it would be helpful if the type of use was shown on each page with the abbreviations. The Zoning Code typically lists specific uses followed by the term "or other similar establishments." Is it your intention to limit uses to those specified? If so, we should make sure the list is all-inclusive. 11. Land Use Man. There is one pattern on the Land Use Map that is not reflected in the Legend. This pattern is found at the southeast corner of Balboa and Main, and the northwest corner of A Street and Oceanfront Walk. At least a portion of this area should be designated retail and service commercial, since it encompasses Dillman's and one � her business. i obert H. Burnham City Attorney Central Balboa SAP Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Notes January 29, 1992 3:00 p.m City Council Chambers Present: Council Member John Hedges, Chairman Council Member Ruthelyn Plummer, Vice Chairman Fred Thompson, CBA Chan Lefebre, BPPA Doug Boyd, BPPA Charlie Bauman, BIA Bob Black, BIA Doug Salisbury, BIA Phil Tozer, BIA Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Robert Kavert, Planning Aide Guests: Marianne Zippi C.J. Williams Adopt Agenda The Agenda was adopted without amendments. Comments from the public There were no comments from the public. AWrove December 10. 1992 meeting notes Meeting notes were approved without revision. Discussion on sign regulations Mr. Alford outlined the City's current sign regulations and presented the exhibits depicting how signs might appear on a typical storefront. Chairman Hedges asked if Central Balboa would require a different set of sign regulations, other than what is existing. 3 i 0 Mr. Lefebre responded that Central Balboa does need additional sign regulation, and added that the City's current regulations were probably the most "generous" in the County of Orange. Chairman Hedges asked if there were any signs in particular that were offensive. Mr. Lefebre distributed some photographs of existing signage in Central Balboa, and commented that in order to upgrade the area a better sign ordinance was required. He added that painted plywood signs are unacceptable, and painted wall signs are inappropriate. Vice Chairman Plummer agreed with Mr. Lefebre, and commented' that the area is similar to a shopping mall and that people will see the businesses without large obtrusive signs. She added that the signage in West Newport is a "mess" because business owners are trying to capture the attention of people driving by in their cars. In Balboa, the people are generally already out of their cars. She would like to see staff consider more restrictions for Central Balboa. Mr. Boyd commented that Scottsdale, Arizona represents the other end of the spectrum with regulations that are too restrictive. There was a general discussion regarding various degrees of restrictions. It was pointed out that the Pizza Hut sign was quite bright at night, and was obtrusive to the nearby residential properties. Chairman Hedges commented that the Historic Preservation Committee is considering the possibility of designating Central Balboa as a Historic District. This may have an affect on signage. Mr. Alford commented that there is no particular architectural style established in Central Balboa, and perhaps the Committee could take a similar approach to signage. He suggested using more qualitative standards, rather than a particular theme, to help establish the regulations. Chairman Hedges commented that a common sign standard may help to create a common historic village -type atmosphere. Mr. Tozer commented that the problem with that idea, is determining which historical period would be used as the standard. Mr. Boyd asked if business owners were maximizing the current sign regulations. There was a general consensus that the existing signs were not necessarily maximizing under the current regulations, but that the quality of many of the existing signs was very poor. It was discussed that many of the signs were in a state of disrepair. There was a discussion +M q 0 regarding the City's enforcement, and the business owners compliance with the current sign ordinance. Mr. Lefebre recommended adopting new sign standards. Mr. Salisbury responded that the type of materials and signs that work on one building, may not work on another. Mr. Boyd suggested a reduction in the allowable sign area. Chairman Hedges hypothesized that if the Committee reduces the current allowable sign area, what will that do to improve the area, considering few signs are actually maximizing the current regulations. The Committee discussed various existing signs, and it was agreed that painted plywood signs are inappropriate for the area. Mr. Salisbury asked if signs in windows were regulated. Mr. Alford and Mr. Kavert indicated that is was unclear if temporary sign regulations applied to window signs. Note. Upon further investigation, it was determined that under the existing City regulations, signs are allowed on the inside of windows as long as they do not flash or blink Signs on the inside of windows are not subject to temporary sign regulations, but signs on the outside of windows are subject to the City's sign ordinance. There was a general discussion and consensus that restrictions should be placed on signs in windows. Chairman Hedges proposed to look at the sign regulations in other city's historic districts, and possibly apply some of those standards to Central Balboa. The Committee agreed to this proposal. Discussion on land use regulations Mr. Alford summarized the existing land use regulations. Chairman Hedges questioned whether mixed use was appropriate in the commercial district of Central Balboa. He added that sometimes residential and commercial uses are not compatible. W. Alford acknowledged certain conflicts, but commented that mixed use is compatible 5 with the goals the Committee has established for Central Balboa. He suggested that mixed use could provide year -around patronage for local businesses and contribute towards creating a vibrant pedestrian area. Chairman Hedges commented that the Committee needs to consider permitted uses, and any possible land use or zoning changes. Mr. Alford commented that if one of the Committee's goals is to create a strong street presence, then certain uses would be more appropriate than others. He suggested that automobile -oriented uses could be considered inconsistent with the plan's goals. Mr. Boyd commented that gas stations and automobile repair shops would not be uses that he would like to see in Central Balboa. There was a general discussion regarding preferred uses and undesirable uses. Fortune Telling was singled out as being both undesirable to some, and desirable to others. The Committee expressed interest in controlling specific uses by the Use Permit process. Mr. Alford cautioned the Committee that certain findings must be made in order to regulate or prohibit specific uses, and that the decision making bodies must not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Chairman Hedges commented that it would be useful to have the City Attorney present to discuss land uses at the next meeting. Schedule next meeting The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 12, 1992 at 3:00 p.m. in the Fire Conference Room. Items not on the agenda which members may wish to discuss Chairman Hedges dispersed a letter that was sent to Ms. Evelyn Hart, Chairperson of the Historical Preservation Ad Hoc Committee, from the Balboa Improvement Association, requesting Historical Village designation for Central Balboa. (See attachment) Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m. Attachment M 1 r �a»��►o��L�l�lilr �issoc�:llcio:y 1, u bux 11£'b UALBOA. CALIF 92661 SPECIAL MEETING@ JAN 29,1992 WEDNESDAY PLACE... TALE OF THE WHALE TIME ... 8 A.M.WEDNESDAY JAN 29j1992 TOPICS REVIEW BY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SPEAKER PATRICK ALFORD DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC AREA PLAN WHICH WILL AFFECT ALL BUSINESSESIMERCHANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE CENTRAL BALBOA AREA. NOTE:THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS WILL BE VERY CRITICAL AND IMPORTANT TO ALL CONCERNED.PLEASE ATTEND THIS MEETING AND GET INVOLVED. Charlie Bauman Pres. ***** BUY AMERICAN **** 0 73 9070 111PROMIENT ASSOCIHION P U BOX 82S • BALBOA. CALIF 92661 SPECIAL MEETING@ ,TAN 29,1992. WEDNESDAY PLACE... TALE OF THE WHALE TIME ... 8 A.M.WEDNESDAY JAN 2911992 TOPICS REVIEW BY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SPEAKER DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC AREA PLAN WHICH WILL AFFECT ALL BUSINESSES,MERCHANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE CENTRAL BALBOA AREA. NOTE:THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS WILL BE VERY CRITICAL AND IMPORTANT TO ALL CONCERNED.PLEASE ATTEND THIS MEETING AND GET INVOLVED. THANKS Charlie Bauman Pres. 0 ! 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT January 24, 1992 TO: Central Balboa SAP Committee FROM: Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner SUBJECT: January 29th Meeting The next meeting of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan Committee will be on Wednesday, January 29th at 3:00 p.m. Because the Fire Department Conference Room will be used as temporary staff offices on that day, the meeting will be held in CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. The focus of the meeting will be a discussion of sign regulations. Staff would like direction from the Committee on how the current regulations should be modified for the Central Balboa area, if at all. To facilitate the discussion, staff has provided a summary of the general sign regulations and exhibits. Be prepared to discuss standards relating to sign types, sizes, number, placement and materials. Time permitting, staff would like to begin discussions on land use within the Central Balboa area. Staff would like the Committee's input on which uses should be permitted by right, with a use permit, with special regulations, or prohibited. A summary of current land use regulations is attached. If you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 644-3225. Attachments 1. Meeting agenda 2. December 10, 1991 meeting notes 3. Summary of current sign regulations 4. Conceptual diagrams of current sign regulations 5. Summary of current land use regulations Central Balboa SAP Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Notes December 10, 1991 10:00 a.m. Fire Department Conference Room Present: Council Member John Hedges Council Member Ruthelyn Plummer Doug Cavanaugh, BIA Doug Boyd, BPPA Doug Salisbury, BIA Ralph Kosmides, BIA Bob Black, BIA Stephanie Houghton, CBA Bill Wren, BPPA Chan Lefebre, BPPA Charlie Bauman, BIA C.J. Williams, property owner Ken Lindall, Balboa Island Associations Jim Hewicker, Planning Director Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Steve Badum, Civil Engineer -Project Manager Robert Kavert, Planning Aide Adopt Agenda The Agenda was adopted without amendments. Comments from the public There were no comments from the public. Continued discussion on the proposed RSC District development standards Chairman Hedges announced that after this meeting the Committee will take a break to let the Planning Department review the proposed Specific Area Plan up to this point. He then asked if there were any comments. Mr. Lefebre commented that while he had previously supported awnings in the commercial district, he has recently observed a problem with them. Awnings are temporary, and they get old and ugly. He suggested that the permit process should have a time limit on awnings. Mr. Black suggested that perhaps the Code Enforcement Division could control poorly maintained awnings. Mr. Hewicker commented that there is the same concern with signs, but the City has no legal basis to have them removed because of poor maintenance. Ms. Temple suggested that perhaps the Committee could control the materials used for awnings, if some materials were better than others. Mr. Boyd suggested that awnings be controlled with conditional use permits, which establish time limits. Mr. Hewicker commented that it would not be a good idea to tie up the Planning Commission's time with use permits for awnings. Mr. Lefebre suggested that an awning permit could automatically expire after a predetermined number of years. He added that there are some bad looking awnings in Balboa. Mr. Hewicker commented that if an awning is causing a health or safety problem, then the City can require that it be repaired or replaced. But if an awning is simply in a state of disrepair, then there is nothing the City can do about it. He added that a lot of this could be handled by the local business associations, rather than creating additional governmental regulations. Chairman Hedges urged the Committee to move on to another topic. Mr. Lefebre commented that wood gates on refuse storage areas are not nearly as effective as steel gates. He also asked if residential uses would ever be considered on the first floor of a commercial district. Ms. Temple- responded that allowing a residential use on the first floor would create a residential use in a commercially designated district. It is very unlikely that a commercial use would be developed above a residential use. A property owner has the option of requesting a general plan amendment if he or she would like to build a residential unit in a commercial district. Mr. Alford commented that some of the commercial property in question is already slated for redesignation to residential by the Committee. Chairman Hedges suggested to defer this issue until the Committee was prepared to discuss the section regarding "Uses". Discussion on sidewalk widening Mr. Alford introduced Mr. Steve Badum, from the Public Works Department, to aid the Committee's discussion on possible sidewalk widening. Mr. Badum acknowledged Central Balboa's problems of substandard sidewalk widths and parking. He said the City experienced similar problems during public improvements in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan. The Public Works Department generally builds 6' sidewalks, space permitting. In Cannery Village, they decreased one side of the street sidewalk and increased the other side. This only works if there is no commercial frontage on one side. The elimination of parking is only acceptable if the parking spaces are replaced somewhere else. Decorative paving is an option for the Committee to consider, but generally must be done with an assessment district and paid for, at least in part, by the property owners. The City paid for one half of the McFadden Square Plaza. Mr. Cavanaugh asked if the Committee can expect financial support from the City. Chairman Hedges responded that there is interest on the City Council for providing some financial support for public improvements. He raised the issue of eliminating parking on one side of Balboa Blvd. Mr. Boyd suggested closing Washington, between Balboa Blvd. and East Bay Ave., and redesigning it into a larger parking lot. Mr. Alford stated that there are legal lots fronting Washington that have legal access to Washington. Chairman Hedges asked staff to prepare a exhibit map indicating the right of way widths. He felt that this would benefit the Committee's decision making process. There was a general discussion on the sample development illustrations, in the RSC development standards. Next meetingj,future meeting schedule Ms. Temple reiterated that staff would like to take the RSC District development standards to date, and internally review them based on clarity and enforceability. Chairman Hedges scheduled the next meeting for Wednesday, January 29, at 3:00 p.m. in the Fire Conference Room. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:05 a.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT December 6, 1991 TO: Central Balboa SAP Committee FROM: Patrick J. Alford, Senior Plannep�� SUBJECT: December 10th Meeting The next meeting of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan Committee will be on Tuesday, December loth at 10:00 a.m. in the Fire Department Conference Room. There are two main items on the agenda. The first item is a discussion of possible methods to widen sidewalks in the area. Mr. Steve Badum of the Public Works Department will attend the meeting. The second item is to complete the review of the draft RSC District. A copy of the latest draft is attached. Also attached is a conceptual site plan. The conceptual site plan illustrates how the proposed RSC District regulations would be applied to a typical lot in the area. Attached please find the following: 1. Meeting agenda 2. November 26, 1991 meeting notes 3. Revised RSC District development standards 4. Conceptual site plan If you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 644-3225. Central Balboa SAP Ad l oc Committee • Meeting Notes November 26, 1991 1:00 P.M. Fire Department Conference Room Present: Council Member John Hedges, Chairman Council Member Ruthelyn Plummer, Vice Chairman Chan Lefebre, BPPA Bill Wren, BPPA Fred Thompson, CBA Kent Maddi, BIA Bob Black, BIA Walt Thompson, BPPA Charlie Bauman, BIA Ken Lindall, Balboa Island Association Jim Hewicker, Planning Director Ray Garver, Marine Department Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Robert Kavert, Planning Aide Adopt the agenda The agenda was adopted without amendments. Comments from the public Mr. Ken Undall introduced himself. He represents Balboa Island Association, and was in attendance for information. Discussion of the narlane lot wall aroiect Vice Chairman Plummer asked Mr. Garver (Marine Department) to review the parking lot project for the Committee. Mr. Garver explained that it was a maintenance project in nature. The funds have been appropriated, and the plans have been drawn to replace both the southerly and westerly cinder block walls with concrete walls of the same height. They also plan to relocate the pabn trees outside of the sidewalk. The existing wall is deteriorating and rebar is exposed in several locations, creating hazards. The purpose of the wall is to keep the sand out of the parking lot. Chairman Hedges arrived at approximately 1:15 p.m. Vice Chairman Plummer commented that the Committee should decide if they would like V to delay the parking lot Wall project until their Specific Arealan recommendations have been made. She added that at a previous meeting, Mr. Tozer suggested connecting the A St. and B St. parking lots. Mr. Lefebre commented that both homeowners associations are strongly opposed to any encroachment onto the beach. Chairman Hedges commented that the Committee may want to consider different materials and, or designs for the proposed wall. Mr. Garver asked how long the Committee would consider delaying the project. Mr. Alford presented a rough time schedule for the remaining work to be completed by the Committee. He commented that even under the most optimistic schedule, the Committee's final recommendations for the Specific Area Plan would not be ready for Planning Commission review until July of 1992. Mr. Hewicker commented that the public improvement implementation may take longer than expected, and that the Committee may want to include public outreach meetings in the time schedule estimation. He added that the budgetary process must be worked in during April, May or June, when the City Council goes through the 1991-1992 fiscal year budget. Vice Chairman Plummer commented that the Committee should start requesting the money as soon as possible, because it could take years to receive what may be needed. She also recommended that the Committee consider renovating the restrooms by the pier and on Washington St. Mr. Garver commented that the parking lot wall project could wait until next fall, but not much longer. There was a general discussion, and Committee consensus to proceed with the project now as scheduled. Chairman Hedges asked Vice Chairman Plummer to place the parking lot wall project on the City Council agenda for December 9, 1991. Mr. Alford reviewed the setback and articulation changes, as discussed at the previous meeting. Chairman Hedges left the meeting at approximately 2:20 p.m. Schedule next meeting Vice Chairman Plummer scheduled the next meeting for Tuesday, December 10, at 10:00 a.m. in the Fire Department Conference Room. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at approximately 2:30 p.m. 2 4 0 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 25, 1991 TO: Robert Burnham, City Attorney FROM: Patrick Alford, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Proposed Awnings e�m,mIations in Central Balboa SAP The following language is proposed in the draft Central Balboa Specific Area Plan text: D. AWNINGS AND SHADES. Awnings and shades may extend over public property, subject to the following conditions: 1. The owner of the subject property is granted an encroachment permit and indemnifies and holds the City, its authorized agents, officers, representatives and employees harmless from any liability, suit or action of any description arising out of any accident, loss or damage to persons or property occurring as a proximate result of the encroachment. 2. Such devices meet with the construction, projection and clearance requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 3. Such devices shall not extend above or below the floor to which it is attached. 4. Such devices displaying advertising shall be subject to the sign regulations contained in this section. I would appreciate any comments and recommendations you might have. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT November 22, 1991 TO: Central Balboa SAP Committee FROM: Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner SUBJECT: November 261h Meeting The next meeting of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan Committee will be on Tuesday, November 26th from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. in the Fire Department Conference Room. Attached please find the following: 1. Meeting agenda 2. Revised RSC District development standards If you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 644-3225. Central Balboa SAP Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Notes November 13, 1991 4:00 p.m. Fire Department Conference Room Present: Council Member John Hedges, Chairman Council Member Ruthelyn Plummer, Vice Chairman Bill Wren, CBA Kent Maddi, BIA Fred Thompson, CBA Charlie Bauman, BIA Chan Lefebre, BPPA Bob Black, BIA Stephanie Houghton, CBA Jim Hewicker, Planning Director Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Robert Kavert, Planning Aide Adopt Agenda The agenda was adopted without amendments. Comments from the public There were no comments from the public. Approve October 29 meeting notes There were no revisions to the October 29 meeting notes. Discussion on the proposed RSC District development standards Chairman Hedges suggested that the Committee review the proposed development standards paragraph by paragraph, and comment and discuss where appropriate. There was a general discussion regarding the regulation of specific land uses. Chairman Hedges suggested that the Committee continue the land use discussion at a subsequent meeting. He also suggested that the Committee invite the City Attorney to that particular meeting for advice and consultation. Mr. Alford explained the proposed Setback Requirements (Section 20.64.035, Paragraph A). Vice Chairman Plummer asked how the proposed setback requirements would affect remodels. Ms. Temple explained that it would require a significant remodel before the proposed standards would take effect. She added that the Zoning Code contains a section specifically addressing the development of existing non -conforming structures. Mr. Lefebre commented that the existing sidewalk width should be considered when establishing setbacks, because a 6' sidewalk width is not enough to adequately accommodate pedestrian traffic. Mr. Hewicker commented that the lot sizes need to be considered, because there are rear setbacks also. There was a general discussion regarding setback standards and how they affect the buildable area of a parcel. It was noted that the lots in Balboa are small, and a reasonable portion of a parcel must be made available for potential development. Mr. Alford commented that the intent of the 4001o, 5' first floor setback, was to create space and add architectural articulation. This led into a general discussion of a 3' overall setback, versus a 40%, 5' setback A 3' overall front setback would, in effect, increase the width of the sidewalk. Mr. Hewicker suggested that a possibility to be considered would be to eliminate parking on one side of Balboa Blvd., and use this additional right of way space to increase the sidewalk widths. This would take the burden off the property owners. Ms. Temple suggested that staff will study the existing lot sizes, and provide more information for the Committee to consider at the next meeting. Mr. Alford proposed to make additions to the Setback Requirements (Section 20.64.035, Paragraph A). He suggested a 19 rear setback on the first floor; and a 10' rear setback on the second floor, only when it is being developed as a residential use. A second floor commercial use would have no required setback. The Committee moved on to Required Vertical Articulation (Section 20.64.035, Paragraph B). N Mr. Lefebre asked why vertical articulation standards would apply to side walls. Mr. Alford responded that the intent was to provide a clear guide to developers, and to provide visual architectural diversity to structures. He added that he would change the side wall standard so that it would only apply to side walls "facing a public street." There was a general discussion regarding vertical articulation, and how the standards would be interpreted and applied. The Committee requested alternative vertical articulation standards. They indicated it would be beneficial to consider more options, and have more flexibility. There was a general discussion regarding horizontal articulation. Mr. Hewicker and Mr. Alford graphically demonstrated different examples of the proposed standards. Items not on the agenda which members may wish to discuss A comment was made that perhaps new office uses should provide more that the required 1 parking spot for each 250 sq. ft. of net floor area. Mr. Lefebre commented that in mixed use buildings, a problem is that the garage doors are often closed on the tandem parking garages. Mr. Hewicker responded that a sign should be posted indicating the hours that the doors are to remain open, with a telephone number to call if they are not in compliance. Chairman Hedges added that customers are reluctant to utilize the tandem parking arrangement. Mr. Lefebre commented that every time the City approves a tandem parking arrangement, the parking situation gets worse. There was a general discussion regarding tandem parking, and its shortcomings. Ms. Temple commented that it is not a perfect solution, but the best compromise the City has, considering the small lot sizes in Balboa. Vice Chairman Plummer asked how the Air Quality Management Plan is going to affect parking requirements. She commented that employers may be required to reduce the number of parking spots that they provide. Ms. Temple commented that parking is one of the latter programs to be implemented within the AQMP, if it is implemented at all. She added that part of the burden is to develop more efficient cars and cleaner burning fuel. Chairman Hedges suggested that the Committee pick up with Landscaping (Section 20.64.035, Paragraph P) at the next meeting. He suggested that setbacks and the impact on buildable area could also be discussed. Subsequent issues to be considered by the Committee are: Circulation Parking Land Use Signs Public Improvements Residential Development Standards Schedule next meeting The next meeting is scheduled for Friday, November 22, at 3:00 p.m. in the Fire Conference Room. Adiournment The meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m. El Central Balboa SAP Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Notes October 29, 1991 3:00 p.m. Fire Department Conference Room Present: Council Member John Hedges, Chairman Council Member Ruthelyn Plummer, Vice Chairman Fred Thompson, CBA Kent Maddi, BIA Phil Tozer, BIA Chan Lefebre, BPPA Walt Thompson, BPPA Bill Wren, BPPA C.J. Williams, property owner Al Newman, Newman Public Relations Jim Hewicker, Planning Director Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Robert Kavert, Planning Aide Adopt agenda The agenda was adopted without amendments. Comments from the public Chairman Hedges introduced Al Newman. Mr. Newman indicated that he represented a public relations firm, and was in attendance to obtain information about the area. Review of Balboa Inn parking arrangements Mr. Tozer commented that Austin -Foust Associates had already completed a detailed parking study of Central Balboa, and there is no need for the Committee to start over. Chairman Hedges suggested that the Committee discuss this issue at a subsequent meeting. Discussion of SAP implementation methods 0 Chairman Hedges suggested that Mr. Alford review the four basic methods of implementation, and then each Committee member comment on their preference. Mr. Alford explained and reviewed the four basic methods of implementation, including staffs recommendations. (See Specific Area Plan Implementation Approaches Memo, dated October 25, 1991) Mr. Hewicker commented that the City has utilized approaches #2 and #3, but has not gotten involved with an architectural review process. He added that architectural review would be the most controversial implementation method. He stated that he would not encourage every property to go through a site plan review. Mr. Lefebre concurred with staffs recommendations. Mr. Fred Thompson stated that he agreed with approach #3. He added that this would help to screen undesirable uses, such as head shops, palm readers and tatoo parlors. Mr. Hewicker commented that in order to screen certain uses, you must make certain findings, and this is a very sensitive and difficult process. Chairman Hedges reminded the Committee that they are discussing development policies at this time, and not specific uses. Ms. Houghton concurred with staffs recommendations. Mr. Tozer concurred with staffs recommendations. Mr. Maddi concurred with staffs recommendations. Mr. Wren commented that from a developer's standpoint, site plan review is too restrictive, and he concurred with staffs recommendations. Ms. Temple commented that architectural guidelines can be written into development standards. She asked the Committee how they would like staff to proceed on this issue. There was a discussion, and general agreement that a menu of choices to review and select from would be a good way to proceed. Ms. Temple indicated that staff will prepare development standards that will implement the goals and objectives of the Committee. Mr. Wren commented that the circulation system should be considered when developing development standards. 2 Mr. Alford pointed out that the development standards being discussed are for private property, and should not affect public right of way improvements. Schedule next meeting Chairman Hedges scheduled the next meeting for Wednesday, November 13, at 3:00 in the Fire Conference Room. Items not on_the aeenda which members may wish to di Chairman Hedges asked the Committee what they would like staff to prepare for the next meeting. Ms. Houghton asked if staff had discussed the sidewalks on Palm Ave., between Balboa Blvd. and the boardwalk, with the Public Works department. Ms. Temple responded that she had a brief conversation with a staff member from the Public Works Department, and the sidewalk modification looks like a viable option at this point. Chairman Hedges suggested that the Committee prepare a list identifying the parking problems in the area. There was a general discussion regarding the possibility of eliminating vehicular traffic on Main St., creating a pedestrian -only area. Mr. Tozer commented that the merchants would not want to lose any parking on Main St. Vice Chairman Plummer suggested that if parking places were eliminated on Main St., they could be replaced somewhere else, perhaps in the main parking lot. The rest rooms and trash area on Washington should be eliminated, and this could free up some space for parking. She added that something must be done about the trash area, and maybe the merchants can help to beautify their areas. Chairman Hedges commented that the Committee has an opportunity to alter and modify the existing circulation patterns of Central Balboa. Designating Main St. for pedestrian traffic only, and increasing parking in another location is something to consider. Mr. Tozer suggested that the Committee consider connecting the A Street and B Street parking lots with a new street and additional parking. He added that this would enhance circulation, and increase parking. B Street could be exclusively for residential parking, and A Street could be developed as 1 hour visitor, merchant parking. Chairman Hedges commented that the City has issued "resident only parking permits" on • Newport Island. Vice Chairman Plummer commented that it is important for the Committee to consider the whole area when establishing policies. She encouraged the Committee to make the area more attractive. (Ms. Plummer circulated a photograph of a pedestrian area in Santa Barbara, displaying seating areas, architecturally appealing buildings and decorative paving.) Mr. Lefebre expressed his concern with the "cruising" situation. If someone like the ACLU overturns our cruising policies, and as a result we lose control of cruising, how would we handle the situation? He asked the Committee if this is a possibility and a concern. Chairman Hedges responded that a right of wayturnaround has been discussed as a possible solution to the problem. Mr. Lefebre indicated that he would like more information on the parking study, because as he understands it, there is a 1800 parking space shortfall in the area. He added that much of the shortfall is attributed to marine related uses, and this is not controlled by the Planning Department. He suggested that the Committee invite a representative from the Marine Department to attend one of the meetings. He added that if a 1800 parking space shortfall exists now, where will it be in five years, as commercial development continues to increase. Chairman Hedges commented that Balboa presently has many nonconforming buildings, and that new development must provide on -site parking. Ms. Temple commented that legal existing nonconforming parking requirements are often waived. New development must satisfy parking requirements. She added that in the past, certain water related uses did not require parking. Ms. Houghton asked how many buildings in the area did not meet current earthquake standards. Mr. Hewicker indicated that there were many, but if they are retro fitted to comply with the current standards, they are not required to provide additional parking unless the building is demolished and rebuilt. Chairman Hedges asked Mr. Alford what staff will prepare for the next meeting. Mr. Alford responded that staff will prepare development standards for the Committee to review. Mr. Lefebre stated that there are three architecturally desirable buildings in Central Balboa, the Pavilion, the Fun Zone and Newport Landing. He added that they may not provide the best use, or the optimum bulk, but new development standards should incorporate the best 9 0 0 architectural features that these three buildings have to offer. Mr. Hewicker commented that the problem is that those three projects are on large parcels, and most of the new development is going to be on small parcels. There was a general discussion regarding the old Bank of America Site (Balalis Project). Mr. Lefebre commented that the BPPA originally supported the Balalis project, but they were disappointed with the results. The project lacked in quality and architectural detail. The tandem parking arrangement is also a problem. There was a general discussion comparing the commercial area of Balboa Island with Central Balboa. The discussion centered on why Balboa Island seemed to function better, attracting more shoppers and stable merchants. Vice Chairman Plummer commented that Balboa Island is like a shopping mall, with stores on both sides of the street. They also have better resident participation with the local merchants. On the other hand, Central Balboa attracts different people, with the pier and large parking lot. Chairman Hedges added that most of Southern California is funneled down the Newport Freeway and onto the peninsula. Mr. Hedges then asked the Committee how many of them actually patronize the local merchants in Central Balboa. After a weak response, Mr. Hedges suggested that the Committee must patronize resident serving uses in order to encourage them. Mr. Lefebre responded that there is no where to park. Chairman Hedges suggested that it is up to the Committee to rectify those type of situations, and to make the area more attractive. Ms. Temple commented that the Committee may want to market the commercial area to the residents to encourage local patronage. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at approximately 4:35 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT October 25, 1991 TO: Central Balboa SAP Committee FROM: Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Specific Area Plan Implementation Approaches As discussed at the October 15th meeting, the Committee needs to determine appropriate methods for implementing the Specific Area Plan. In other words, the Committee needs to determine the most effective way of assuring that the plans policies are carried out. There are four basic methods of implementation. The first simply involves establishing the policies as voluntary guidelines. This approach would be the least restrictive to property owners. Thus, the extent to which the policies are adhered to would be left solely to the discretion of the property owner. The obvious shortcoming of this approach is that the policies could simply be ignored. Implementation would be haphazard, at best. The second approach is to establish fixed development standards. This would translate the subjective, generalized policies into a set of objective, specific regulations. This approach offers explicit direction to the property owner and consistency in implementation. However, rigid development standards can severely constrain some properties and preclude innovative designs. The third approach is to require site plan review on all developments. This requires the Planning Commission to review all proposed developments in the specific plan district. This gives the Planning Commission significant discretion in determining how to implement the specific area plan's policies. Such discretion can allow greater flexibility and more options to the property owner. However, this also subjects the property owner to greater uncertainty as to the eventual outcome of the project. It also requires a significant investment of staff time and resources to conduct public hearings. The last approach is to require full design review on all proposed developments in the specific plan district. This differs from site plan review in that the architectural merits of a project would also be considered. This approach provides the greatest degree of control in implementing the specific area plans policies. Consequentially, this approach is the most restrictive and offers the least amount of certainty to the property owner. This would also engage the City in architectural review, a process it has historically avoided. CBSAPC October 25, 1991 Page 2 Staff believes the best approach is to establish fixed development standards, but allow flexibility through site plan review. Under this approach, proposed developments complying with the development standards would be processed through the normal building permit procedures. However, property owners would also have the option of using the site plan review process to propose alternative designs. The most difficult task of this approach involves translating subjective, generalized policies into a set of codified regulations. However, staff is confident that many of the objectives of the specific area plan can be carried out through development standards. For example, one of the ways policies calling for development to facilitate pedestrian movement and expand the pedestrian spaces can be implemented is through a comer setback (see illustration below). Il r10'or10%- Staff requires direction from the Committee on this issue. This issue will be the main topic at the next Committee meeting. This meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 29th at 3:00 p.m. in the Fire Department Conference Room. If you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 644-3225. P Central Balboa SAP Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Notes October 15, 1991 4:00 p.m. Fire Department Conference Room Present: Council Member John Hedges, Chairman Fred Thompson, CBA Tom Hyans, CBA Phil Tozer, BIA Doug Cavanaugh, BIA Doug Boyd, BPPA Bill Wren, BPPA Chan Lefebre, BPPA Charlie Bauman, BIA Stephanie Houghton, CBA Walt Thompson, BPPA Doug Salisbury, BIA C.J. Williams, property owner Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Robert Kavert, Planning Intern Adopt agenda The Agenda was adopted without amendments. Comments from the public There were no comments from the public. Continued discussion on the draft sections of the Central Balboa SAP Chairman Hedges introduced Mr. Williams, and welcomed him to the meeting. Chairman Hedges recommended that the Committee continue reading the draft plan paragraph by paragraph, and comment as necessary. Mr. Hyans requested to clarify a comment that he had made during the previous meeting, on September 27, 1991. He had suggested that smaller properties should be allowed fewer variances and allowances, to encourage lot consolidation. He was not suggesting that smaller properties should have restrictions to encourage lot consolidation. He asked that the meeting notes be amended to reflect this. Mr. Alford stated that he would make the revision. Mr. Salisbury asked why other zoning districts, such as the Specialty Retail and the Recreational and Marine Commercial were not considered. Ms. Temple explained the intent of the RMC district. Mr. Salisbury asked why the lighting section had not been added. Mr. Alford commented that the awning issue is being worked on, but that staff needs some more direction from the Committee regarding illumination and design. There was an open discussion concerning awnings and signs. Chairman Hedges began reading the draft plan at Section 20.64.025, paragraph C, "Streetscape." Mr. Cavanaugh suggested that the term "brick" paving may be too specific, and that brick may not always be the best way to break-up large areas of concrete. Mr. Tozer suggested cobblestone as an alternative. There was a general discussion regarding paving, and it was noted that a material like cobblestone would discourage skateboarders. Mr. Alford responded that he would like to discuss the specifics of paving materials with the Public Works Department before the Committee makes a decision. He added that there are many factors to consider, such as maintenance and liability. Mr. Salisbury suggested that "decorative paving" may be a good way to state it. The general consensus of the Committee was that "decorative paving" would be. appropriate. Chairman Hedges continued reading the draft plan, which led to a discussion on "Bollards." Mr. Alford explained what bollards are, and what they are used for. The Committee then discussed styles and types of street lighting. Ms. Temple commented that lighting may be used as a means of setting the commercial 2 area apart from the residential areas. Chairman Hedges continued reading with the paragraph on "Street Furnishings." Mr. Fred Thompson commented that the comer of Bay and Washington is an eyesore. Chairman Hedges responded that the problem will be addressed in the Public Improvement Section. The Committee discussed the attributes and problems associated with different species of trees. The destructive tendency of ficas trees was discussed. Mr. Fred Thompson suggested that the Horticulture Department at Cal State Poly, Pomona, may be able to help. He stated that Senior students often do projects similar to what the Committee is considering. Mr. Lefebre commented that the City staff is very knowledgeable and capable. Ms. Temple responded that Jack Brooks is the City staff specialist. Mr. Alford commented that at the appropriate time, he can arrange to have the qualified City staff person attend the meeting to assist with particular issues, such as landscaping or traffic issues. Chairman Hedges continued reading. Mr. Salisbury suggested special or unique street signs for the area, similar to those in Cannery Village. There was a general consensus that this was a good idea. Mr. Bauman commented that they used to have a small sail boat on the street signs in Balboa. Mr. Alford responded that he would add the appropriate language. There was a general discussion concerning pedestrian circulation and streetscape. It was suggested that the preservation of Main Street be addressed and added to this Section. Mr. Alford responded that he would add text regarding Main Street to this Section. Mr. Alford explained the pedestrian circulation pattern, indicating the primary pedestrian corridors of Main Street, Palm Street, the Oceanfront boardwalk, and the Fun Zone - Edgewater Place sidewalk. He suggested that an enhanced Palm Street would encourage 3 pedestrian movement, and improve the circulation flow. Mr. Boyd suggested widening the sidewalk on the western side of Palm Street, between Balboa Boulevard and the parking lot. He acknowledged that there is probably not enough room to widen the sidewalks on both sides, but widening the west side only would still improve pedestrian circulation. There was a general discussion and consensus agreement with Mr. Boyd's suggestion. Mr. Salisbury asked the Committee if they should address the undergrounding of utilities at this point. There was a general discussion concerning the undergrounding of utilities. Mr. Hyans suggested that if the Committee addresses undergrounding utilities in the SAP, perhaps the City will help fund the project. Ms. Temple discussed the use of an assessment district in McFadden Square, and the City's phased public improvement program. Chairman Hedges continued reading with paragraph "D, Landscaping." Mr. Lefebre commented that grade level planters often get trampled by pedestrians. There was a general discussion concerning grade level versus raised planters. The issue of liability was raised, as well as maintenance, and longevity. Mr. Bauman commented that some of the merchants had maintained planted flower areas. He noted that the City asked Dillman's Restaurant to remove wooden wine barrels that were being used as planters. Chairman Hedges suggested that the Committee adjourn. Mr. Alford commented that staff is now working on the commercial area of the SAP, and that perhaps at the next meeting the Committee could discuss implementation methods. He added that staff requires Committee direction on implementation in order to proceed. Schedule next meeting Chairman Hedges scheduled the next meeting for Tuesday, October 29 at 3:00 p.m. in the Fire Conference Room. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:35 p.m. 4 E Ll October 11, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: Central Balboa SAP Committee FROM: Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner SUBJECT: October 15th Meeting The next meeting of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan Committee will be on Tuesday, October 15th at 4:00 p.m. in the Fire Department Conference Room. Please note that the meeting has been push back an hour to 4:00 p.m., due to a scheduling conflict. Attached please find the following: 1. Meeting agenda 2. Revised SAP text 3. September 27th meeting notes If you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 644-3225. 0 Central Balboa SAP Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Notes September 27, 1991 3:00 p.m. Fire Department Conference Room PRESENT: Council Member John Hedges, Chairman Fred Thompson, CBA Tom Hyans, CBA Doug Boyd, BPPA Doug Cavanaugh, BIA Phil Tozer, BIA Douglas Salisbury, BIA Ralph Kosmides, BIA Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner I. Adopt agenda Adopted without amendment. II. Comments from the public None. III. Continued discussion on the draft sections of the Central Balboa SAP Chairman Hedges reminded the Committee that they had left off at Section 20.64.020, "General Controls." He recommended that the Committee continue to read over the draft plan paragraph by paragraph, and comment as necessary. Mr. Salisbury, referring back to Section 20.64.015 ("Purpose and Intent"), recommended adding language promoting bicycle use. Mr. Alford responded that he would add such language where appropriate. There was a general discussion on the September 25th Los Angeles Times' article on parking in the Central Balboa area. The consensus of the Committee was that any expansion of parking should not encroach into the beach area. Mr. Cavanaugh stated that he was not present at the last meeting and requested clarification as to the intent of the term "consolidate" in Section 20.64.015. Mr. Boyd explained that the term referred to the proposed change from commercial to residential at 204-208 Adams Street, 501-505 East Bay Avenue and the south side of the 400 block of Balboa Boulevard, reflecting the existing residential development. Mr. Kosmides expressed concern that the term "consolidate" could be misinterpreted. Chairman Hedges stated that the issue would be clarified in the plan. He then suggested that the Committee move onto Section 20.64.020. Mr. Boyd asked how the reconstruction of non -conforming structures would be addressed. Ms. Temple have a brief explanation of the regulations regarding non- conforming structures. Chairman Hedges, referring the sub -section B (Land Use Designations), asked if any other zoning districts were proposed. Mr. Alford responded that the proposed zoning districts mirrored the existing General Plan land use designations. He added that these districts served as a starting point, and that new districts could be created, if necessary. Mr. Tozer asked where the GEIF properties were located. Ms. Temple pointed out the GEIF areas on the land use map. Mr. Boyd suggested adding the term "redevelopment" to the opening paragraph of Section 20.64.025. Chairman Hedges suggested that the term might be misconstrued as a call for an actual redevelopment authority. Mr. Alford suggested revised terminology to clarify the intent. Mr. Salisbury recommended that Section 20.64.025 also include language on bicycle use. There was a general discussion on conflicts between pedestrians and bicyclists. Mr. Alford indicated that he understood Mr. Salisbury intent, and that he would add the appropriate references to bicycle use. There was a general discussion on various approaches to architectural and site review. Mr. Thompson, referring to the policy statement encouraging pedestrian spaces, stated that most properties in the area were too constrained to provide such features. Mr. Alford responded that such features would be provided where appropriate. He indicated that the language would be revised to clarify that intent. Ms. Temple explained the ways such a policy could be implemented. Mr. Hyans suggested that smaller properties should be allowed fewer variances and allowances to encourage lot consolidations. Chairman Hedges responded by stating that the Committee must respect property rights. Ms. Temple suggested that incentives could be provided, based on lot frontage. Mr. Kosmides added that strict regulations could discourage remodels. Chairman Hedges, referring to sub -section B (Architectural Theme), stated that the language needed to be modified to reflect the changes made at the last meeting. Mr. Alford outlined how the introduction would be revised. Mr. Kosmides and Mr. Thompson asked how the architectural theme would be enforced. 0 • Ms. Temple explained that the policies would only serve as guidelines. There was a general discussion on window design. The consensus of the Committee was that the policy statement should be modified to be less specific. Mr. Cavanaugh asked about regulations concerning illuminated awnings. Ms. Temple stated that she would have to research the City's regulations. There was general discussion on the benefits and problems associated with awnings. Chairman Hedges suggested that illuminated awnings might run contrary to the concept planned for the area. He instructed staff to investigate possible approaches to addressing the issue. Mr. Thompson objected to the exception allowing the use of metal roofing. Mr. Alford explained that the exception was added specifically because of the use of metal roofing in the Edgewater Place project. Mr. Cavanaugh suggested revising the language to allow "decorative roofing." Mr. Salisbury suggested adding language allowing for decorative lighting, such as is used on the Balboa Pavilion. Mr. Alford stated that he would draft the appropriate language. Mr. Cavanaugh requested that it be clearly stated that all future City structures would be subject to the architectural guidelines. Chairman Hedges, referring to sub -section C (Streetscape), stated that the relationship between "visual clutter" and traffic circulation was unclear. Mr. Alford responded that the statement was intended to reduce the clutter of directional signs, thereby facilitating the flow of traffic through the area. He stated that the policy statement would be revised to clarify that intent. Mr. Salisbury suggested that it would be appropriate to provide language on bicycle facilities in the Streetscape section. Mr. Cavanaugh presented his concept of constructing archways at the entrances to the Central Balboa commercial area. He stated that the archways would provide the definition of the commercial area the plan calls for. Mr. Alford stated that staff had already discussed the possibility of such an archway with Public Works. He stated that the Public Works staff had suggested that it would be difficult due to the narrow sidewalks, but they did not rule out the possibility. The Committee directed staff to investigate the issue further. Mr. Boyd asked if the undergrounding of utilities should addressed in the Streetscape section. Mr. Alford commented that the issue would be addressed in the Public Improvement section. IV. Schedule next meeting Chairman Hedges scheduled the next meetings for Tuesday, October 15th at 3:00 p.m. and Tuesday, October 29th at 3:00 p.m.. V. Items not on the agenda which members may wish to discuss None. VI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:00 p.m.. .6 • L-A TVAZ�5 °( `Locals Only' Parking Considered for Bal ■ Congestion: ' - 1 Homeowners want a{new structure or expanded lot at the pier, which in turn would open up street parking for visitors. By LISA MASCARO SI'EC IAL TO TI IE TIMES NEWPORT BEACH —Hoping to please both residents and business owners in the central Balboa area, city officials may consider creating a "locals only" parking structure or zone for residents to help solve parking problems in the area. City officials agree a parking structure is a possible solution, but say they would rather expand the existing lot near the Balboa Pier than purchase a site to build a new structure. • . City traffic engineer Richard Edmonston said an additional parking structure would probably impair neighboring views, and that trying to build a basement struc- ture so near the beach would be too costly. Plan boa Area He said that redrawing the lines on the existing lot near ;the flier may be the best way to add spaces but not erode the aesthetk quality of the area.' Edmonston" said. it would be difficult to determine how many spaces could be added to the 100-space lot. ,• A recent report to the' City Council from a committee studying the problem, suggested the•'-lbcals only" structure as a way to give residents needed parking withput taking spaces from merchants: •-� Homeowner groups in.the ilea initiated the plan, and city staff is investigating five possible -sites for .a parking structure. Residents say the area is, con- gested and that it is increasingly difficult to find parking. They,say some apartment units don-t.^offer garage parking, forcing residents to park on the streets. . ' A residents -only lot, they -'said, would ensure homeowners and renters of parking, while• freeing up street parking for visitors. Shop owners'say patrons;iieed more parking spaces and that.inUh of the congestion is due to people looking for open spaces. ._ `.. i 6 Central Balboa SAP Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Notes September 11, 1991 3:00 pm Fire Department Conference Room (Meeting was moved to the Planning Department Conference Room because the Fire Department Conference Room was not available.) Present: Council Member John Hedges, Chairman Council Member Ruthelyn Plummer, Vice Chairman W. Chan Lefebre, BPPA Doug Boyd, BPPA Tom Hyans, CBA Douglas Salisbury, BIA Fred Thompson, CBA Charlie Bauman, BIA Phil Tozer, BIA Bill Wren, BPPA Walt Thompson, BPPA (Alternate) Jim Hewicker, Planning Director Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Steve Badum, Civil Engineer Jim Brahler, Associate Civil Engineer Robert Kavert, Planning Intern Agend The agenda was adopted without amendments. There were no comments from the public. Discussion of the draft land use 121an for the Central Balboa area Mr. Alford presented a brief overview of the draft plan. He explained that staff incorporated the comments and discussions that had resulted from the Committee meetings concerning architecture and land use, and also looked at other cities to form the policies and objectives. The draft plan reinforces the downtown area, addresses pedestrian movement and future development. Chairman Hedges suggested that the Committee read over the draft plan paragraph by paragraph, and comment as necessary. There was a general discussion concerning Section 20.64.015. The Committee expressed concern over architectural control. Vice Chairman Plummer stated that there are two distinct architectural styles in the area, the Balboa Inn style and the Balboa Pavilion style. She felt that these two styles were compatible. Mr. Alford explained that this section of the draft plan was introductory policies, and that architectural themes were addressed in further detail in Section 20.64.025, paragraph B (page 6). Mr. Lefebre suggested that an informal architectural design committee be formed to review proposed projects. Mr. Hewicker commented that the City of Newport Beach has not gotten involved in architectural review for at least twenty years. Chairman Hedges stated that he was not in favor of architectural review. Ms. Temple commented that the Committee can either incorporate architectural guidelines and specifications, or form a non -binding architectural review committee. She stated that she did not feel that architectural review was productive, and that Newport Beach architecture is eclectic and diverse. She added that staff has set guidelines to encourage certain designs in specific areas, and that is as far as the City has wanted to go. Mr. Hewicker supported Ms. Temple's comments, and added that it is difficult to tell an architect that his or her design is bad. He commented that the City has offered guidelines rather than dictate styles. Mr. Hyans asked if the Planning Commission had any control over the design of a project. Mr. Hewicker responded that the Planning Commission or staff has not ever changed a site plan based on architectural design, and are not qualified to do so. Mr. Lefebre asked how the Committee can gain more control over architectural design, and commented that an architect may never know what the community wants. Vice Chairman Plummer stated that she was opposed to architectural review, and that design guidelines are sufficient. She felt that architects would voluntarily comply with design guidelines inasmuch as they would like to fit in with the community. Mr. Hewicker commented that guidelines are not requirements, and that an architect does not have to follow them. Chairman Hedges suggested that the Committee put the design review issue on the back 2 0 • burner, and continue reviewing the draft plan. There was a general agreement within the Committee to return to the review of the draft plan. The Committee continued to review Section 20.64.015 of the draft plan. It was suggested that the Committee add a reference to recreation to point number four, Section number 20.64.020. There was a discussion regarding recreational and coastal dependent uses. A question was raised as to what the residents of the peninsula wanted in Balboa, and what type of shops would they patronize. Doug Boyd replied that Britta's Restaurant was a good example of local preference. Vice Chairman Plummer commented that shopping trends have changed, and now there is a tendency to go to shopping plazas which offer many shops and services. She added that this is lacking in Balboa. Ms. Plummer suggested that maybe a change in the type of retail shops will help the situation, but that she does not believe that there will ever really be a resident -serving area in Balboa. Mr. Boyd stated that water -related businesses, like party boats (charter boats), impact the existing facilities, such as parking, in the Balboa area. There was a general discussion concerning the noise that the charter boat parties generate. Mr. Hewicker explained that the Marine Department has jurisdiction over those type of activities, and that the entire Harbor is subjected to the impacts of charter boats, such as parking and noise. He suggested that it is a City wide problem, and not something that the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan Committee needs to address. Mr. Lefebre stated that his association (BPPA) is against any additional recreational serving uses that may generate more traffic and parking problems. There was a discussion as to whether or not bicycles should be included when addressing pedestrian movement and facilitating traffic flow, in part four of Section 20.64.015. The Committee discussed the last two paragraphs of Section 20.64.015. It was suggested that mixed uses be included in the Retail and Service Commercial District. Mr. Alford explained that residential uses would still be permitted on the second floor in the RSC District. A question was raised about encouraging additional parking. 0 • Mr. Alford explained that parking is addressed in other sections, such as the Public Improvements section. He stated that references to additional parking are too specific for these general goals. Ms. Temple commented that parking will support many of these generalized goals. Items not on the agenda Vice Chairman Plummer announced that the City Council had approved the site in Balboa Park for the flag pole monument commemorating the bicentennial of the Bill of Rights. She added that donations are being accepted for the monument, and that it will contain a plaque recognizing the donors. There will be a number of public improvements in the vicinity, implemented along with the monument. The ceremony is scheduled for Sunday, December 15, 1991. Adjournment Chairman Hedges moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:20 pm. He proposed the next meeting be scheduled for two hours, on Friday, September 27, at 3:00 pm in the Fire Conference Room. F.\...\scar F\IW CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT September 9, 1991 TO: Central Balboa SAP Committee FROM: Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner SUBJECT: September 11th Meeting The next meeting of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan Committee will be on Wednesday, September 11th at 3:00 p.m. in the Fire Department Conference Room. Staff has completed a draft of the first sections of Central Balboa Specific Area Plan. These sections include the statement of purpose and intent, land use plan, and design and development guidelines. The draft text is attached. The proposed specific area plan focuses on preserving the character of the area while upgrading its visual quality. It also places a strong emphasis on promoting pedestrian activity and discouraging commercial activities from intruding into residential areas. The draft plan includes a proposed land use map. Please note that this land use plan includes changing the land use designation on certain properties from commercial to residential. These properties are 204-208 Adams Street, 501-505 East Bay Avenue and those on the south side of the 400 block of Balboa Boulevard. These properties are recommended for redesignation because of existing residential development. The remaining sections, which include the zoning district regulations and the public improvement component, are still under preparation. If you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 644-3225. Attachments: 1. Agenda 2. Draft Specific Area Plan (with maps). Central Balboa SAP Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Notes August 27, 1991 3:00 pm Fire Department Conference Room Present: Council Member Ruthelyn Plummer, Mayor Phil Sansone (Guest) Doug Boyd, BPPA (Alternate) W. Chan Lefebre, BPPA Bill Wren, BPPA Tom Hyans, CBA Fred Thompson, CBA Stephanie Houghton, CBA Ralph Kosmides, BIA (Alternate) Doug Cavanaugh, BIA Charlie Bauman, BIA Walt Thompson, BPPA (Alternate) Phil Tozer, BIA Bob Black, BIA (Alternate) Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Vice Chairman Vice Chairman Plummer chaired the meeting in the absence of Chairman Hedges. Agenda The agenda was adopted without amendments. There were no comments from the public Discussion of positive and negative characteristics of the Central Balboa area Mr. Hyans stated that the positive aspects were Parkers Seafood and Newport Landing (Edgewater Place Project), tree lined Main Street, the crowd gatherings at the park, the pier and near the bay side of Central Balboa. He commented that these public gathering spots spread the people out and kind of separated them from the main commercial strips. Mr. Hyans suggested that a negative aspect was the rundown characteristic of the area. Vice Chairman Plummer suggested that the impending infrastructure improvements to the sidewalks, streets and street lights will help improve the rundown characteristics of the area. Mr. Boyd commented that better City maintenance of the park and other landscaped areas would help make things look nicer. & . 1 Mr. Thompson suggested that the merchants should be able to wash down the sidewalks to keep them clean. Mr. Bauman stated that sidewalk washing has been prohibited by the City, but that it was useful and necessary. Mr. Tozer suggested that deteriorated sidewalks be replaced, and that brick or cobblestone areas be added. He stated that there is not much room for landscaping because of small or nonexisting setbacks. Mr. Alford requested specific suggestions for public improvements. Mr. Tozer suggested that street post lighting, and center median landscaping be added to Balboa Boulevard. Mr. Alford asked how the committee felt about the architectural theme of Central Balboa. Mr. Tozer commented that the merchants should "jazz" up their buildings, but that they are reluctant to spend the money. Mr. Hyans suggested that cobblestone roads, similar to Lido Village, would be a nice improvement. Vice Chairman Plummer suggested that the committee consider eliminating parking on East Bay Avenue to encourage pedestrian foot traffic. She stated that the staff could look into this possibility. Ms. Plummer pointed out that the trash area near Washington Street and East Bay Avenue looks terrible, and needs to be improved. Mr. Bauman stated that the trash area is intended to be used by merchants without alleys. There was a general discussion concerning the trash problem and a consensus that the issue should be addressed in the specific plan. Mr. Alford stated that the Code Enforcement Division can enforce certain things, but the committee should concentrate on setting design standards for the area. Mr. Cavanaugh asked if there were graphic representations from the McFadden Square specific plan that the committee could look at for ideas. Mayor Sansone answered that Don Webb or Steve Badam may still have some graphics. Mr. Lefebre commented that the sidewalks in Balboa are too narrow. He suggested that setbacks be implemented in the specific plan for new development. This would provide 2 more room for landscaping and pedestrians. There was a general discussion on setbacks. Most of the committee members indicated that bigger setbacks would be beneficial. Mr. Kosmides commented that bigger setbacks may discourage new development, because a developer may be reluctant to give up that valuable frontage. Mr. Alford stated that incentives to the developers can be offered along with bigger setbacks. He stated that staff will look into the issue of setbacks. Mr. Hyans suggested that the sidewalks be widened, and the streets be narrowed, or parking eliminated on one side. Vice Chairman Plummer commented that if parking is removed, then it needs to be provided somewhere else, perhaps in the ocean front parking lot. Mr. Tozer stated that there are not many stores that are going to tear down and redevelop. Discussion of architectural design themes Mr. Wren questioned the height limits and the enforcement of such. Mr. Boyd stated that he liked the diversity of styles present in Central Balboa. Mr. Cavanaugh commented that some of the merchants, for example the Art and Things Store, have designed their store fronts with cheap materials and this does not add to the character of the area. Vice Chairman Plummer commented that there are several beautiful historically significant buildings in the area. Mr. Tozer suggested that restrictions on signage could help things look better. Mr. Lefebre stated that the two most recent residential\commercial projects in Central Balboa have been developed within the constraints of the General Plan, but that he did not feel that there were the type of buildings he would like to have. He stated that they were too big. Vice Chairman Plummer asked Mr. Alford if the City had a list of buildings in Central Balboa that do not meet the current earthquake codes. She stated that this may give the committee an idea on prospective new development. Mr. Alford asked the committee what type of architectural elements they would like to encourage or discourage. Mr. Fred Thompson suggested that the Balboa Pavilion be used as a nucleus, and build from that. Mr. Alford stated that staff could prepare language that does not get too specific, but would enhance the general theme and still provide some flexibility. Mr. Fred Thompson stated that the City of Monrovia did a fine job redeveloping their downtown area. Mr. Tozer stated that Balboa has been considered to be designated as a historic village, and that the committee should stay with a historical theme. Mr. Alford stated that staff can have a draft ready in two weeks for the committee. Mr. Wren suggested that there may be federal funds or programs available to help with redevelopment. Mr. Alford commented that the Main Street Program requires a professional redevelopment agency to be involved. Vice Chairman Plummer stated that the McFadden Square committee considered that program and decided against an outside redevelopment agency. Mr. Alford stated that staff would check into the various programs. Mr. Lefebre stated that the AIA will send in a group of architects to help come up with ideas.(R/UDAT) There was a general discussion on the R/UDAT program. Schedule next meeting Vice Chairman Plummer scheduled the next meeting for Tuesday, September 10, at 3:00 pm in the Fire Department Conference Room. (The meeting has subsequently been rescheduled to Wednesday, September 11, at 3:00 pm) Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 pm. R\... \SCOT•F\BAUOA.SAP\AUGI7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT August 22, 1991 TO: Central Balboa SAP Committee FROM: Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner 1 SUBJECT. August 27th Meeting The next meeting of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan Committee will be on Tuesday, August 27th at 3:00 p.m. in the Fire Department Conference Room. The first discussion item on the agenda is intended to provide guidance to staff as the specific area plan is drafted. Staff is seeking the Committee's views on the positive and negative characteristics of the Central Balboa area. That is, those elements that the Committee would like to see preserved and enhanced and those which should be discouraged. Some of the elements to be considered include: ❑ Street Presence - Does the Committee wish to encourage buildings designs with a strong street presence and pedestrian -orientation? ❑ Form and Massing of Buildings - Apart from architectural style, what types of buildings relate positively to street and surrounding properties? What types relate in a negative way? ❑, Landscape and Streetscape - What forms of landscaping, street furniture, street and sidewalk treatments enhance the area? What forms diminish the area? ❑ Public and Semi-public Areas - What are the positive and negative aspects of areas such as parks, plazas, patios, etc.? ❑ View Corridors - Are there any views and focal points that should be preserved or enhanced? ❑ Signs - What types of signs contribute positively to the character of the area? What types negatively affect the area? ❑ Parking and Access - Which designs work? Which do not? CBSAPC August 22, 1991 Page 2 It would be most effective if the discussion would center on the physical characteristics of the area. Discussion of human activities should be addressed in the context of how they can be encouraged or discouraged through design. The next discussion item deals with architectural design. The Committee indicated that a unified architectural theme should be established for the area. Staff therefore requires guidance on what architectural style the Committee would like to see established for the area. Traditionally, the City has not imposed rigid architectural controls. Instead, the City has preferred to encourage generalized architectural themes. These themes attempt to draw upon and enhance the existing architectural character of the area. For example, the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan, for example, simply calls for a "marine" theme. In the Cannery Village area, the recommended theme reflects the design of the old cannery along with nautical and marine elements. The McFadden Square area theme attempts recreate "turn -of -the -century" architecture. The recommended architectural themes are implemented through design guidelines. These design guidelines simply provide examples of the characteristic material and features of a given architectural theme. Such guidelines maintains the generalized theme while allowing variety and individuality in development. The final discussion item pertains to historic preservation. The Central Balboa area contains a number of historic resources. These include the Balboa Pavilion, the Balboa Inn, the Balboa Island Ferry, the Balboa Pier and the sites of Rendezvous Ballroom and Glenn Martin's record over -water flight. Staff would like to know if the Committee wishes to include policies and in the specific area plan for the protection and preservation of these resources. If you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 644-3225. AGENDA Central Balboa Specific Area Plan Ad Hoc Committee August 27, 1991 3:00 pm I. Adopt agenda II. Comments from the public M. Discussion of positive and negative characteristics of the Central Balboa area IV. Discussion of possible architectural design themes V. Discussion of possible historic preservation policies VI. Schedule next meeting (discussion of alternate meeting days) VII. Items not on the agenda which members may wish to discuss VIII. Adjournment r ___Lk-J-0--?� tu oj ""PA w M 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT August 8, 1991 TO: Central Balboa SAP Committee FROM: Patrick L Alford, Senior Planner SUBJECT: August 13th Meetin¢ The next meeting of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan Committee will be on Tuesday, August 13th at 3.00 p.m. in the Fire Department Conference Room. The focus of the meeting will be a discussion of potential goals and objectives of the specific area plan. To assist you, enclosed please find the following materials: 1. Meeting agenda 2. Summary of City goals, objectives and policies 3. Draft outline for the Central Balboa SAP 4. Meeting notes from the July 19th and 31st meetings If you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 644-=5. Central Balboa SAP Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Notes August 13, 1991 3:00p Fire Department Conference Room PRESENT: Council Member John Hedges, Chairman Council Member Ruthelyn Plummer, Vice Chairman Walt Thompson, BPPA Phil Tozer, BIA Stephanie L. Houghton, CBA (Alternate) Tom Hyans, CBA Fred Thompson, CBA Douglas Salisbury Chan Lefebre, BPPA Charlie Bauman, BIA Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner I f 0 . The agenda was adopted without amendments. II. Discussion of goals and objectives of the Specific Area Plan Chairman Hedges requested any additional goals to the list of previously articulated goals by the CBSAPC. Mr. Thompson suggested adding night time curfews, residential limits per square foot, banning sidewalk displays, "shrinking" the commercial area, signage programs and sidewalk curb cuts for the handicapped. Mr. Hyans suggested the committee look at broader issues, and referred to the Cannery Village SAP. He emphasized the intent of the Cannery Village SAP. Ms. Temple explained the General Plan land use designation versus Specific Area Plan land uses. She explained that residential uses may be constructed on the second floor in commercially designated properties. There was a general discussion on the value of residential versus commercial land uses. Mr. Lefebre stated that he was concerned that block "S" could be developed into a restaurant, creating additional parking and traffic problems. He suggested that block "S" be • designated as residential. Vice Chairman Plummer suggested that block "S" can be seen as a transition area from residential into commercial, and that mixed use is beneficial on the fringe areas of the SAP. Ms. Temple explained FAR's, trip generation, City parking requirements and use permits in response to the committee's concern about commercial developmental impacts. Mr. Lefebre commented that he would like to reduce the amount of commercial development in the Balboa SAP. Vice Chairman Plummer suggested that a restaurant would not attract more cars than the existing residential development, siting the City's policy of .3 FAR for restaurants. Mr. Lefebre commented that regarding the latest development in the Balboa SAP, (the former Bank of America site on block "V") there is an insufficient amount of parking for potential customers. He noted that this development was built in compliance with current City regulations, and that it still created problems. Ms. Temple indicated that if parking was not available due to improper signage or City ordinance violation that the Code Enforcement division could investigate the situation. She commented that tandem parking is not the best design, but that developers and the City are constrained by the small lot sizes. Ms. Houghton advised that her office is in that specific development, and that she has never encountered a parking problem. There was a general discussion on residential and commercial parking problems. Vice Chairman Plummer stated that she was not in favor of down zoning block "S" from commercial to residential. Mr. Salisbury suggested that upgrading the commercial area will bring in more desirable businesses.. There was a general discussion concerning the existing Tatoo Parlor. It was felt by some committee members that the Tatoo Parlor brought in undesirable visitors and "Bikers" to the Central Balboa Area. The question was raised as to whether specific uses could be discouraged or disallowed. Mr. Alford suggested that the committee look at specific problems rather than various solutions, and this may give the committee more options. Vice Chairman Plummer asked how the SAP boundaries came about, noting specifically the noncommercial areas of blocks "F","G", and "R". Ms. Temple explained that the boundaries were determined before she was with the City, 0 • but that all of the SAP's in the City have residential elements. She added that a SAP does not mean that land use designation should be all commercial. Vice Chairman Plummer suggested the committee refer to the Cannery Village SAP as a model. Mr. Hyans read from a portion of the Cannery Village SAP (p. 158), substituting Balboa characteristics where applicable. Ms. Temple suggested that the committee may wish to either brainstorm and write a SAP from scratch, or use a SAP from a similar area of the City as a model and adjust it for the Central Balboa area. She emphasizes that the City staff does not want to take control away from the committee, or diminish its valuable input. She adds that planning staff can put together a draft, or model, SAP for the committee to amend. There was a general consensus within the committee that this would be a good way to get started. Ms. Houghton motioned that the staff prepare a draft SAP. Mr. Alford asked the committee if they would like staff to include the 11 goals articulated during the previous meeting to be included in the draft SAP. Chairman Hedges answered that each of the 11 goals should be addressed. Ms. Temple stated that staff will put together a framework based on General Plan Land Use, and give broad ideas regarding issues such as landscaping and sign programs. She added that this will give the committee something to consider, and also provide organization. Chairman Hedges accepted the motion to have staff put together a draft SAP. Ms. Temple indicated that the draft SAP could be available for committee review in four weeks. III Comments from the public. None. IV. Schedule next meeting Chairman Hedges scheduled the next meeting for Tuesday, August 27 at 3:00 pm in the Fire Department Conference Room. V. Items not on the agenda which members may wish to discuss Vice Chairman Plummer discussed the Bi-centennial Bill of Rights Committee's desire to locate a flagpole monument commemorating the bi-centennial of the Bill of Rights. She suggested that the committee may wish to consider a location in the Central Balboa area for the monument. The monument consists of a circular concrete pedestal with the Bill of Rights inscribed, and an 80' flag pole mast with a 20' x 30' flag. VI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at approximately 4:30. E Summary of City Goals, Policies and Objectives Relating to the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan . •* 1. Basic public improvements such as sidewalks, streets and drainage. 2. A better balance of land use intensity and parking. 3. An effective circulation system based on land use. 4. The acquisition of additional parking areas. 5. A unified architectural theme. 6. A coordinated streetscape design. 7. Incentives to provide more resident -serving uses. 8. A more upscale commercial area. 9. Establishing "cruising" controls 10. Better opportunities for valet parking for nighttime uses. 11. More pedestrian -oriented improvements. General Plan Land Use Element Policies POLICY A. The City shall provide for sufficient diversity of land uses so that schools, employment, recreation areas, public facilities, churches and neighborhood shopping centers are in close proximity to each resident of the community. IMPLEMENTATION 3. City shall prepare specific area plans for the commercial/retail sections of Old Corona del Mar, Old Newport Boulevard, and Central Balboa with the view towards CBSAPC Goals/Policies/Objectives Page 2 retention of uses that serve adjoining and nearby residential areas. POLICY C. Commercf44 recreation or destination visitor serving facilities in and around the harbor shall be controlled and regulated to minimize traffic congestion and parking shortages, to ensure access to the water for residents and visitors, as well as maintain the high quality of life and the unique and beautiful residential areas that border the harbor. DISCUSSION The residents of Newport Beach have, for many years, expressed concern about heavy summer weekend traffic, especially on Balboa Peninsula, and localized congestion in and around the more intensely developed waterfront areas such as Lido Marina Village and Mariner's Mile. Traffic congestion and the absence of available parking makes it difficult for visitor and resident alike to access the beach and bay and enjoy the many activities along the waterfront. The City intends to insure that visitor -serving facilities provide adequate offstreet parking to accommodate their customers and clients and thereby insure as many parking spaces as possible will be available to the public. IMPLEMENTATION 3. The City shall maintain, to the maximum extent permitted by law, control over commercial activities conducted in the harbor to ensure, among other things, that such businesses provide adequate parking to accommodate their customers and clients and provide adequate marine sanitation facilities to minimize pollution of the bay. Regulations shall extend to all businesses, whether or not operating from a fixed place of business. POLICY D. The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to insure, to the extent pracdca4 the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs. POLICY F. The City shall develop and maintain suitable and adequate standards for landscaping, sign control, site and building design, parking and undeigrounding of utilities and other development standards to insure that the beauty and charm of existing residential neighborhoods is maintained, that commercial and office projects are aesthetically pleasing and compatible with surrounding land uses and that the appearance of, and activities conducted within,... C CBSAPC Goals/Policies/Objectives Page 3 Related LCP Goals Objectives and Policies Circulation (5) The City shall develop a municipal transit plan for transportation within City boundaries. Specific areas to be considered include utilization of existing remote parking (of offices and businesses) on the weekends with tram service into the beach and bay areas, as well as a place -to -place shuttle system. The specific areas to be serviced are as follows: c) a shuttle along Balboa Peninsula. (6) In conjunction with the establishment of a comprehensive transit system in the City of Newport Beach, the Balboa Peninsula area shall be studied as a means of easing traffic congestion and improving circulation. Implementation of this possibility shall give due consideration to the Balboa Peninsula business areas. (7) The City shall locate and develop new public parking. Implementation is dependent upon the City's financial ability to do so. (8) The in -lieu parking fees currently required by the City shall continue to be deposited into a specifically identified public parking fund, and not the City's general fund. (11) The City, shall require new commercial development in the Coastal Zone to make parking provided by the project available to the public when hours of operation of the proposed uses allow such joint usage, and when the project is in proximity to coastal resources. Imposition of a reasonable parking fee may be permitted. When new commercial developments are not in proximity to coastal resources, but are within the City limits, this requirement may be applied where adequate transit exists to coastal resources within the City. Visitor -Serving Facilities There are several types of specialty merchandise stores in the Coastal Zone. Some stores are aimed at the permanent residential population, selling such items as records, clothing, and furniture. Others deal in tourist merchandise, such as T-shirts, beach supplies, and memorabilia. During the winter months, many of the tourist shops either reduce their hours of operation or close down completely. This often gives an impression of economic stagnation and can detract from the ability of the commercial district to attract customers. CBSAPC Goals/Policies/Objectives Page 4 This is especially true in the central Balboa business district, where the amusement rides and pinball halls are closed for much of the winter. Most of the businesses facing onto Main Street and Balboa Boulevard are open year-round, while the businesses facing the bay are mostly tourist -oriented and drastically reduce their operations during the winter. (4) Provision and maintenance of public restroom facilities is top priority. The City Council should immediately commence planning and acquisitions necessary in order that public restrooms with appropriate signing be constructed as soon as possible. The size and location of the facilities shall take adjacent residences into consideration. Construction of restrooms by the City is dependent upon the City's financial ability to construct said restrooms. Prior to construction of additional facilities, the City shall ensure that adequate resources are available for proper main- tenance. (6) Drinking fountains shall be provided in conjunction with restroom facilities as a means of ensuring their distribution throughout the Coastal Zone, while minimizing the costs of extending water lines. Also, exterior showers shall be provided in conjunction with these facilities. (7) Bicycle racks shall be provided throughout the Coastal Zone. If available, locking, pay -your -way bicycle racks shall be used. Coastal -Dependent Uses (1) Coastal -dependent developments shall have priority over other developments on or near the shoreline. Coastal -dependent uses shall be defined as those uses which require a site on or adjacent to the sea to be able to function at all. (2) Commercially and industrially zoned areas in the Coastal Zone shall be designated for coastal -dependent, coastal -related, and visitor -serving uses as priority uses. Coastal -related development means any use that is dependent on a coastal -dependent development or use. (6) The City shall protect and enhance public visual access to the waterfront. New development (including landscaping), public or private, shall be sited and designed to protect public views of the ocean and other coastal scenic areas. Land Use Designations 0 CBSAPC Goals/Policies/Objectives Page 5 ...In addition, certain areas have been designated for further, more detailed study, leading to the development of Specific Area Plans for physical improvement. These Specific Area Plans may include local street pattern revisions, parking areas, public improvements in the street right-of-way (such as landscaping, lighting, street furniture and signs) and architectural design standards and criteria for private development. It is recognized that Specific Area Plans may take several years to develop and adopt. In the interim, the existing Site Plan Review requirement will assure the accomplishment of Local Coastal Program objectives. Residential Public or no fee private parldng lots for automobiles may be permitted in any residential area adjacent to any commercial area subject to the approval of a use permit. (LCP Amendment No. 11(B). City Council Approval: January 26, 1987; Resolution No. 87-17. Coastal Commission Certification: April 24, 1987.) Single Family Attached. This land use category has been applied to existing townhouse and condominium projects of ten dwelling units or more; and to vacant areas where development is anticipated to follow that product type. These are characterized by individually owned, attached dwelling units constructed on common lots or on footprint lots with common open spaces. Two Family Residential. This land use category has been applied in areas which allow the construction of two dwelling units, either attached or detached, on a single subdivided lot. This category allows either single ownership or condominium development. A minimum of 2,000 sgft. of buildable lot area is required for two-family development. This required lot size shall be the subject of additional study to determine the appropriate minimum lot size for this type of development. Multi -Family Residential. This land use category has been applied where multiple dwelling units are allowed on a single subdivided lot. Smaller condominium and other individually owned attached housing projects are also given the designation, and this category allows either single ownership or condominium development. Commercial Retail and Service Commercial. Areas with this designation are to be predominantly retail in character, also accommodating some service office uses. It is the intent of this designation to provide contiguity of shopping and mutually supportive businesses. Uses allowed include retail sales, offices which provide goods or services to the general public, hotels and motels, restaurants, commercial recreation, and senior citizen housing facilities. 0 CBSAPC Goals/Policies/Objectives Page 6 Office uses which do not provide services directly to the public shall be prohibited on the ground level, but may be permitted on the second level or above where the ground level is occupied by a primary use. Separate "corporate" type offices are not allowed in these areas. Public, Semi -Public, and Institutional Governmenta4 Educational and Institutional Facilities. This land use category applies to areas developed with uses which form the physical and social "infrastructure" of the community. Permitted uses include governmental facilities, such as Newport Beach City Hall, fire stations and libraries, postal service facilities, and the Harbor Department; educational facilities such as schools, and day care centers; and institutional facilities, such as hospitals, churches, utility yards, reservoirs, museums, the YMCA, and senior citizen housing facilities. Recreational and Environmental Open Space. This land use category has been applied to land used or proposed for open space of both a public and private nature. Some areas which carry this designation are included due the particular nature of the geographic land form, including beaches, bluffs, canyons and Newport Bay uplands. These areas provide for active or passive open space use, depending on the nature of the area. Uses permitted in environmentally sensitive areas are passive recreation uses compatible with the sensitive resource nature of these site, and include hiking, picnicking and nature study. Other areas designated for open space can be used for a wide range of public and/or private open space uses, including parks (both active and passive), wildlife refuges, golf courses, yacht clubs, marina support facilities, aquatic facilities, tennis courts, private recreation facilities, drainage courses, interpretive centers, greenbelts and landscaped areas. Wherever the zoning of private property designated as open space in the LCP Land Use Plan is inconsistent with the plan, it is the intent of the City to seek the agreement of property owners for rezoning to the open -space district, or to seek public acquisition of such open -space areas. No changes in land use on property designated for open -space purposes shall be permitted which are not consistent with the policies and objectives of the LCP Land Use Plan. Acquisition by the city or another public agency is dependent upon the City's or public agency's financial ability to acquire the parcels. Land Use Plan (6) Central Balboa (SAP). Central Balboa is the area bounded by Newport Bay, A Street, the ocean beach and Adams Street, plus the lots fronting on Balboa Boulevard between Adams Street and Coronado Street. This area is a unique mixture of visitor -oriented and neighborhood -oriented retail and service uses, CBSAPC Goals/Policies/Objectives Page 7 including coastal -dependent visitor uses such as sport fishing establishments, day -boat rentals, ferry service, fishing docks, and the historic Balboa Pavilion. The area is designated for Retail and Service Commercial land use, with some areas shown for Single Family Attached, Two Family Residential and Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities. The Rendezvous Condominiums are shown for Single Family Attached and are allocated 24 dwelling units, which reflects the existing use. Two -Family Residential areas require 2,375 sq.ft of buildable lot area for duplex development. No subdivision which will result in additional dwelling units is allowed. Areas which are designated for Retail and Service Commercial or Governmental, Educational and Institutional land use are allowed a maximum floor area ratio of 0.511.0. Separate residential uses are prohibited. Residential development is permitted on the second floor in conjunction with ground floor commercial up to a total floor area ratio of 1.25. One dwelling unit is allowed for each 2,375 sq.ft. of buildable lot area with a minimum of one unit allowed per lot. The area is allocated 223 dwelling units. Office uses may be permitted on the second floor or above when the ground level is occupied by a primary use providing goods or services directly to the public. outline for the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan I. INTRODUCTION A. Establishment of Specific Plan District Establishes the location and boundaries of the Specific Area Plan by referencing map and ordinance. B. Purpose and Intent A generalized statement citing the rationale for the plan and what it is expected to accomplish. This statement may consist of a narrative or as a series of goals and objectives. II. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT A. General Controls The provisions applying to all property within the Specific Area Plan boundaries. 1. Land Use Designations a. Commercial districts b. Residential districts C. Other districts (mixed use, specialty, etc.) B. Design Themes The design themes guidelines applying to all new development within the Specific Area Plan boundaries. 1. Architectural a. Architectural concept b. Architectural standards (1) Materials (2) Colors (3) Building form and massing 2. Visual quality a. Relationship to the surrounding area b. View corridors C. D. C. Street presence d. Internal views 3. Landscaping a. Landscape architectural concept (1) Ornamental (2) Streetscape b. Landscape architectural standards (1) Materials (2) Irrigation (3) Handscape 4. Signs a. commercial signs b. Internal informational/directional commercial districts The establishment of zoning districts for commercial land uses. This can be accomplished by developing specialized zones or simply by modifying existing zoning districts. 1. Land use regulations a. Permitted uses b. Uses requiring use permit C. Accessory uses 2. Intensity of Development 3. Development standards 4. Off-street parking/loading 5. Landscaping 6. Signs 7. Performance standards Residential districts The establishment of zoning districts for residential land uses. This can be accomplished by developing specialized zones or simply by modifying existing zoning districts. 1. Land use regulations a. Permitted uses IV. b. uses requiring use permit C. Accessory uses 2. Intensity of Development 3. Development standards 4. Required open space 5. Off-street parking 6. Performance standards Establishing a comprehensive plan for vehicular and pedestrian movement within the Specific Area Plan boundaries. A. Vehicular access 1. Circulation system 2. Parking B. Pedestrian access 1. Internal system 2. Area -wide linkages 3. Coastal access C. Alternative transportation The establishment of a program for implementing the goals and objectives of the Specific Area Plan. A. Administration 1. Site plan review 2. use permits B. Public facilities phasing and financing 1. Phasing plan 2. Financing plan (potential assessment district) Central Balboa SAP Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Notes July 31, 1991 3:00p Fire Department Conference Room PRESENT: Council Member John Hedges, Chairman Council Member Ruthelyn Plummer, Vice Chairman Fred Thompson, CBA Tom Hyans, CBA Stephanie L. Houghton CBA (Alternate) Bill Wren, BPPA Walt Thompson, BPPA (Alternate) Doug Boyd, BPPA (Alternate) Charlie Bauman, BIA Phil Tozer, BIA Douglas Salisbury, BIA Bob Black, BIA (Alternate) Ralph Kosmides, BIA (Alternate) Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer Vice Chairman Plummer chaired the meeting in the absence of Chairman Hedges. AEenda The agenda was adopted without amendments. Discussion of the Central Balboa Traffic Studv Traffic Engineer Rich Edmonston distributed traffic count estimates. Vice Chairman Plummer asked why the 2010 weekday totals were so high. Mr. Edmonston stated that the estimated increase was due to projected growth permitted under the General Plan. He added that the 1988 "down -zoning" is only partially reflected. Vice Chairman Plummer commented that the format was confusing as to the direction of the flow of traffic. She suggested that it be revised. Mr. Kosmides asked if both in and out traffic was counted. Mr. Edmonston stated that entrances and exits over a 24 hour period were counted. There was a general discussion on various approaches to parking demands. Vice Chairman Plummer stated that competition for parking increased with the shift from residential -serving uses to visitor -serving uses. Mr. Hyans asked if the City had data on parking use broken down by street. Mr. Edmonston stated that they only had information based on parking permits. Mr. Hyans noted that most permit holders were residents. Mr. Wren stated that the Peninsula Pointe Association approved of the initial improvements proposed. He added that monitoring is needed to insure that it was working. He suggested that a "quick fix" is to improve traffic signage. Vice Chairman Plummer asked how the signs could be changed. Mr. Edmonston stated that the consultant had looked at signage; however, emphasis was placed on the turn -around proposal. Vice Chairman Plummer if signage improvements could be done by General Services. Mr. Edmonston replied that General Services could handle small signs; however, larger ones were beyond their capabilities. Vice Chairman Plummer suggested that the signs could be painted directly on the street. Mr. Edmonston indicated that he would investigate that approach. Mr. Tozer commented that the Traffic Study provided no conclusions. Mr. Hyans stated that the conclusions were listed under "Proposed Mitigation." He added that the list was very short. He went on to say that the Central Newport Association had no strong concerns with the exception of those involving the main parking lot. He stated that the Association is opposed to diminishing the amount of landscaping. Mr. Edmonston replied that he would have to double check; however, he believed that the landscaping would remain the same. Mr. Thompson expressed concern regarding the proposed traffic light and provisions for enforcement. He added that signage was a "hot topic" and should be addressed. He also commented on the loss of 7 parking meters and suggested that the parking structure should be required to compensate the City. Mr. Boyd stated the Peninsula Point Association had noted the loss of meters in front of the Rendezvous Condominiums. Vice Chairman Plummer asked if the parking meters could be set for 1 hour in order to help the residents. Mr. Edmonston stated that it could be done. Mr. Tozer expressed his hope that the City would acquire land for a short-term parking lot for the residents. He suggested that the Washington Street parking lot be expanded. Mr. Wren suggested that a "locals only" parking lot is possible since residents cars were already "flagged." Mr. Black commented that employers have difficulty keeping their own employees from using the short-term parking spaces. Mr. Boyd stated that parking on "heavy rental" area streets are taken by tenants. He suggested that A Street and B Street be set for short-term parking. Vice Chairman Plummer suggested that the City may have to "rethink" its policy of no meters on residential streets. She added that Mr. Edmonston is looking into a possible solution in the form of a "parking board" (a self-service box where parking fees are inserted). She added that a parking board would not be as obtrusive as a row of parking meters. Mr. Salisbury asked if the City has looked into acquiring more land for parking. He suggested the land next to the pier (currently used for a pool) as a possibility. Vice Chairman Plummer instructed staff to investigate this. Mr. Tozer questioned if acquisition was an option. Vice Chairman Plummer indicated that funds were available, however there were few opportunities available. There was a general discussion on funds from parking meter fees. Staff was instructed to investigate five possible sites: 1. The hotel pool area next to the pier. 2. The parking structure. 3. The area between Palm, Adams, Bay and Balboa. 4. The Wells Fargo Bank property. 5. The phone company building. Vice Chairman Plummer indicated that the issue will be brought to the Parking and Transportation Committee. Vice Chairman Plummer stated that the traffic study was "short on recommendations." Mr. Edmonston replied that this was due to the lack of agreement by workshop participants. The options provided were the ones that were the "most agreeable." Mr. Salisbury asked why increased parking was not considered. Vice Chairman Plummer replied that the focus was on traffic and that parking may already "be maximized." Mr. Salisbury suggested that cars "hunting for spaces" adds to the traffic. Mr. Edmonton stated that analysis of potential parking sites was not an option of the report. Vice Chairman Plummer suggested that "off -Peninsula" parking during the Summer months may be effective. She requested that Austin -Foust submit an analysis. She recommended that the Committee defer their review of the traffic study until this is accomplished. Mr. Wren advocated a comprehensive approach by incorporating such strategies into the specific area plan text. Chairman Hedges (arrived 3:55p) agreed with Mr. Wren. He suggested that the Committee establish goals now and discuss objectives at the next meeting. Establishment of goals for the Specific Area Plan Vice Chairman Plummer stated that the plan should address basic public improvements such as sidewalks, streets and drainage. Mr. Wren recommended that the plan provide for a better balance of land use intensity and parking. He suggested that the area needed an effective circulation system based on land use. He also said that the plan should recommend the acquisition of additional parking areas. Mr. Boyd recommended that the plan provide a unified architectural theme. Ms. Houghton recommended that the plan provide a coordinated streetscape design. She also suggested that the Committee should consider incentives to provide more resident - serving uses. Mr. Kosmides stated that he envisioned a more upscale commercial area. Mr. Thompson stated that "cruising" controls should be considered. Mr. Kosmides stated that better opportunities for valet parking for nighttime uses could be an option. Mr. Tozer suggested that more pedestrian -oriented improvements could be provided. Comments from the public None. Schedule next meeting The next meeting will be held on August 13th at 3:00 pm in the Fire Department Conference Room. VI. Items not on the agenda which members may wish to discuss None. IX. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:05 pm. t� / � � � �( • 9 • /. �I it � .. I _ � / • • ' 4 RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE ''Antral Balboa Specific Area Plan Ad Hoc Committee CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA I. TITLE The official title of this Committee shall be "Central Balboa Specific Area Plan Ad Hoc Committee." II. MEMBERSHIP AND TERM A. Pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 91-57, the Committee shall consist of ten (10) members with alternates appointed and approved by the City Council. Committee membership shall consist of the following members and alternates: ❑ Two (2) City Council Members. ❑ Two (2) representatives and two (2) alternates selected by the Central Newport Beach Homeowners Association. ❑ Two (2) representatives and two (2) alternates selected by the Balboa Peninsula Point Association. ❑ Four (4) representatives and four (4) alternates selected by the Balboa Improvement Association. B. The term of the Committee shall be until the draft of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan is acted upon by the City Council. III. OFFICERS A. The officers of the Committee shall be: 1. Chairman, whose duties shall be to preside at all meetings, and to call all special meetings, appoint subcommittees, and perform all other proper duties of a presiding officer. 0 CBSAP Ad Hoc Committee Rules of Procedure -- 2 2. Vice Chairman, who in absence of the Chairman, or his inability to act, shall preside at all meetings and perform all other duties of the Chairman. B. The City Council representatives shall serve as Chairman and Vice Chairman. IV. ADVISERS The Chairman may, with consent of the Committee, request the attendance at Committee meetings of any officer or employee of the City to assist the Committee in its deliberations in an advisory capacity. V. TIME AND LOCATION OF MEETINGS The time and the location of Committee meetings shall be set by the Chairman with the consent of the Committee. VI. MEETINGS AND AGENDAS A. An agenda shall be adopted by the Committee at the start of each meeting. B. All meetings shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend. C. Every agenda for a regular meeting must provide an opportunity for members of the general public to speak on an item of interest to the public within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Committee provided, however, the agenda need not provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the Committee on any item that has already been considered the Commission at a public meeting wherein all interested members of the public were afforded the opportunity to address the committee on the item, unless the item has been substantially changed since the item was heard. CBSAP Ad Hoc Committee Rules of Procedure -- 3 I 10 1 e I .. A. At any meeting of the Committee, a majority of said Committee shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. B. Alternates shall not vote when regular members attend Committee meetings. Alternates shall have the right to vote only if the regular member does not attend. C. Any vote of the Committee, including a roll call vote, may be registered by the members by answering "YES" for an affirmative vote, or "NO" for a negative vote. If a member is present and does not cast a vote as described above, that member shall be considered as abstaining. VIII. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS A. All meetings shall be conducted under the order of parliamentary procedure as specified in the last revised edition of Robert's Rules of Order to the extent that such rules are not in conflict with these Rules of Procedure. B. All Committee members shall address all questions and comments through the Chairman. C. All persons attending meetings of the Committee shall identify themselves, and address Committee members or other persons present through the Chairman. D. Exhibits: All maps, letters and documents considered by the Committee at any hearing shall become a part of the records of the Committee. E. Motions: Second Not Required. A motion by any member of the Committee, including the presiding officer, may be considered by the Committee without receiving a second. F. Substitute Motions: A substitute motion may be made by any member of the Committee after a motion is on the floor. The substitute motion will suggest a different course of action or the opposite action of the main motion. No more than two substitute motions can be placed on the table for consideration at the same time. If the CBSAP Ad Hoc Committee Rules of Procedure -- 4 substitute motion fails, the main motion remains on the floor. If the substitute motion passes, it will cancel out the main motion. Prior to voting on the substitute motion, any member of the Committee may ask to have the substitute motion treated as an amendment, in which case the substitute motion is treated as an amendment. g, SUBCOMMI=ES The Chairman may appoint such subcommittees as may be deemed necessary to carry out the function of the Committee. Members shall serve at the pleasure of the Chairman. X. COORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS A. It shall be the duty of the Chairman to sign all correspondence necessary for the execution of the duties and functions of the Committee as hereinbefore stated in the rules of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan Ad Hoc Committee. B. Any letter written a Committee member or alternate representing the Committee, or stating any recommendation made, or action taken by the Committee, must be approved by the Chairman before being mailed or delivered. C. Reports and recommendations from the Committee shall be made directly to the City Council and any publications of said Committee shall require authorization from the City Council. XI. ATTENDANCE A. Regular attendance at meetings of the Committee is required of all members to enable the Committee to discharge the duties imposed upon it by law. B. The Chairman, in the name of the Committee, shall notify the City Council of any resignation of a Committee member or alternate and request appointment of a new member or alternate to fill the position CBSAP Ad Hoc Committee Rules of Procedure -- 5 of the member or alternate resigning. XII. POLICY All matters of policy not covered by law may be adopted as a "Resolution of Policy" and when so adopted shall be considered as the official policy of the Committee. X H. AMENDMENT OF RULES A. These rules may be amended or added to by a simple majority vote of the Committee at a regular meeting. B. No amendment of or addition to these rules shall be made unless notice in writing of the proposed amendment or addition shall be filed with the Chairman at the regular meeting next preceding the meeting at which the motion to change is made. XIV. ADOPTION Approved and adopted as the Rules of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan Ad Hoc Committee on the 19th day of July, 1991. COUNCIL MEMBEIR JOHN W. HEDGES, Chairman 0 0 Central Balboa SAP Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Notes July 19, 1991 1:OOp Fire Department Conference Room PRESENT: Councilmember John Hedges, Chairman Councilmember Ruthelyn Plummer, Vice Chairman Charlie Bauman, BIA Chan Lefebre, BPPA Walt Thompson, BPPA Doug Boyd, BPPA Douglas Salisbury, BIA Phil Tozer, BIA Doug Cavanaugh, BIA Tom Hyans, CNBHA Bill Wren, BPPA Jim Hewicker, Planning Director Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer I. Adopt agenda Adopted without amendments. II. Committee procedural rules Chairman Hedges briefly outlined the content of the proposed rules. The rules were adopted without amendments. III. Confirmation of the ability of Committee members to act on behalf of their association Chairman Hedges advised that the membership needed to have the authority to make decisions on behalf of their associations. He advised the membership to have that authority confirmed by their associations as soon as possible. IV. Central Balboa Traffic Study Copies of the Central Balboa Traffic Study were distributed. Chairman Hedges advised the membership to review the study for discussion at the next meeting. 9 0 V. Discussion of the McFadden Square SAP example Patty Temple discussed the fonnat and content of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square SAP. She stated that the Central Balboa SAP would likely be very similar. She indicated that internal circulation, parking, streetscape and land use would be the major issues in Central Balboa. There was a general discussion on how to approach drafting the SAP. The consensus was that the first step should be to establish general goals. There was a general discussion on public notification. It was decided that individual notification was premature. It was decided that information would not be released to the press or the general public until the major issues have been addressed. However, public education would be needed to avoid misinformation. There was a general discussion on what materials the Committee should have. Staff was instructed to compile the information and provide it to the Committee. Rich Edmonton gave a brief presentation on the Central Balboa Traffic Study. Vice Chairman Plummer stated that the Rendezvous Condominium homeowners were inadvertently not included in the representation. After a brief discussion, it was decided to invite the association to attend and to bring the matter to the City Council' attention. VI. Comments from the public None. VII. Schedule next meeting The next meeting will be held on July 31st at 3.00 pm in the Fire Department Conference Room. VIII. Items not on the agenda which members may wish to discuss None. IX. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at approximately 2.15 pm. Z i 9 ��. � .ram.-�-------------- - - - ,07S=r,-- �� r C�vAw� -------- ---- ti, _ -�-i�o,�nP.1'a,v c�.a���z. N,6 �ssUc c:�7.�- 9S'-� b �; - -- - - --- - --- G 7.3 o ?G iGzc—�, v (0S- !��ln'l_ I Mque)-aL? -aaP�_�- �a✓G lAvgwAUGH 1741 wi;17'n,fn2 Sf. (?4-914 MESA- eI? 92lr27 ro (y11rar.e�_' \J704t CG� e. a five. �,rv'.a� q2.-►�'1 I DOUGLAS M.BOYD 2101 E. EALSOA BLVO.-- Q 13AL90A, CALIFORNIA 92661 /n Y g j1 �Kg91 /a /.101 ��ac cd42/hi��� G'60 T,C � �V 7A" o� s /Ocl/o od /�� C1 s� /,, C � - �4 a 9,4 V/VC 6'73 - 7796 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach K. > p� VGA CC) A 0111 L / / V� �J GAO / 17 zsc r C d-f 7" / � ✓Cv • �� �' � cj 74g �V (79, 4 /' 5)x y G-Yall /Xoo�vcroV n // oo E x9U 1b a cJ .g4l//oe) c, p02 z�/ G 73- (56P6 2. /oo wcu 1,2111 el ?n46)7z6& I 0 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach i 0 CENTRAL NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION c/o Thomas E. Hyans; President 217 Nineteenth Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Ju� �� 1991 ( 714 ) 673-0333 NFN�PO S BfPCVS June 14, 1991 Irene Butler, Asst City Clerk City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Subject: Resolution No. 91-57 establishing an Ad Hoc Committee for the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan. We note that subject resolution provides for membership on subject Committee by the "Central Balboa Homeowners Association". To our knowledge, there is no such organization. The Area which is the subject for the Plan is within the geographic boundaries of the CNBCA, therefore we will be pleased to submit our list of representatives and alternates. Representatives: Fred Thompson 124 East Bay Avenue Balboa, CA 92661 673-9520 Alternates: Tom Hyans 217 nineteenth St. Newport Beach, CA 92663 673-0333 Sincerely, Tom Hyan resident cc: Councilman John Hedges Stephanie Houghton 1908 West Ocean Front Newport Beach, CA 92663 673-2030 (Office) Harry Meily 1436 West Bay Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 675-2169 e v RECEIVED IVEMEAT ASSONIO,Y JUN Z 1991 CITY CLERK CITY OF P 0. BOX 825 AEY! apa W.C." BALBOA. CALIF 92661 JU::E 411991 OF?ICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O.BOX 1768 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658-8915 WANDA RAGGIO,CITY CLERK: SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO 91-57 WE ARE SUBMITTING THE FOLLOWING NAMED PERSONS AS OUR REPRESENTATIVES/ALTERNATES TO THE AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR THE CENTRAL BALBOA SPECIFIC AREA PLAN. ALTERNATES DOUG CAVANAUGH (RUBY'S) PHIL TOZER (PAVILION CORP) DOUG SALISBURY (SALISBURY ENT) CHARLIE BAUMAN (BIA) BOB BLACK (CPS) KENT MADDI (BAY ARCADE) NOTE: OUR 3rd & 4 th ALTERNATES ARE BEING SELECTED AND WILL SUBMIT NAMES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. SINCEREL CHARLIE BADMAN PRESIDENT P.O. BOX 825 BALBOA, CALIF 92661 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY CLERK OFFICE RE:BALB.OA SPECIFIC AREA PLAN COMMITTEE MAILING ADDRESSES: �1 r RECEIVED JUL 8 1991 **MEMO** NE& ticx r DOUG CAVANAUGH (RUBY'S) 1721 WHITTIER AV COSTA MESA 92627 PHIL TOZER (PAVILION CORP.) 400 MAIN ST BALBOA 92661 DOUG SALISBURY (NEWPORT LANDING) 17042 GILLETTE AV.IRVINE 92714 CHARLIE BAUMAN (BIA) P.O.BOx 825 BALBOA 92661 BOB BLACK (CPS) 400 MAIN ST 92661 KENT MADDI 311 FERNANDO BALBOA 92661 MEMO CBauman if A A IYEMENT ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 825 BALBOA. CALIF 92661 RECEIVED _� JUL 15 1991 _, Cqy CLERK JUI;Y 14, 1 991 NEWPOB�BFACN r\ OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O.BOX 1768 WANDA RAGGIO,CI'_Y CLERK: SUBJECT:RESOLUTION NO 91-57.WE ARE SUBMITTING THE FOLLOWING NAMED PERSONS TO COMPLETE OUR FOUR(4)ALTERNATES. RALPH KODMIDES 1721 WHITTIER ST COSTA MESA CA 92627 (RUBY'S) ANTHONY MONGELLO 309 PALM ST., BALBOA CA 92661 (PARKERS SEAFOOD) SINCERELY, CHARLIE BAUMAN PRESIDENT