Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPAC_2004_05_24n f� L CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA May 24, 2004 7:00-9:00 p.m. 7:00 I. Call to Order 7:05 II. Approval of Minutes May 10, 2004 7:15 III. Subcommittee Discussions Banning Ranch Airport Business -Area Balboa Peninsula OASIS Senior Center 5th and Marguerite 8:45 IV. Discussion of Future Agenda Items JUNE 7th MEETING LOCATION: OASIS SENIOR CENTER Sth & Marguerite Avenue 8:50 V. Public Comments CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, May 10, 2004, at the Police Department Auditorium. Members Present: Roger Alford Nancy Gardner Ronald Baers Louise Greeley Phillip Bettencourt Bob Hendrickson Carol Boice Mike Ishikawa Elizabeth Bonn Kim Jansma Karlene Bradley Mike Johnson Gus Chabre Bill Kelly John Corrough Donald Krotee Lila Crespin Lucille Kuehn Laura Dietz Phillip Lugar Grace Dove Barbara Lyon Florence Felton Marie Marston Members Absent: Patrick Bartolic Barbara Johnson Tom Hyans (sick leave) John Saunders Staff Present: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant Conn! Pallini, EIP Planner Members of the Public Present: Cora Newman I. Call to Order Catherine O'Hara Carl Ossipoff Charles Remley Larry Root Hall Seely Ed Siebel Jan Vandersloot Tom Webber Ron Yeo Raymond Zartler Phillip Lugar called the meeting to order. Mr. Lugar introduced the new member of the Committee Ron Baers. 3 • II. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the April 26, 2004 meeting were approved as submitted. III. Discussion Paper 2: Guiding Principles for Community Character Louise Greeley asked what was next in the process with the guiding principles. Sharon Wood explained that at the earlier GPUC meeting they reviewed the Guiding Principles for Mobility, Environmental Conservation, Community Character and Affordable Housing. In June, all the Guiding Principles will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council at a joint study session for their approval. Conni Pallini led the discussion on Community Character taking comments on each principle. Tom Webber asked about Commercial Areas on page 5, he asked why Balboa Island had not been included in the list Specific Plan Areas. Ms Wood pointed out that the list refers to the areas identified in the current General Plan. Mike Johnson pointed out that Huntington Beach should be included as a bordering city under Natural Setting. Hall Seely asked why Santa Ana Heights had not been included in areas needing revitalization and areas appropriate for mixed -use. Ms. Wood indicated that the areas • listed came from the Visioning Process and added that the Specific Plan for that area is fairly recent and no planning issues have been raised for the area. Ron Baers asked why the Back Bay was not specifically mentioned under Visual Resources. Ms. Wood pointed out the last sentence in the second bullet refers to the Bay. Laura Dietz asked about Residential/Commercial Interface, and suggested adding lighting as another conflict issue. Jan Vandersloot asked if the statement was true that Newport Center is not in close proximity to residential neighborhoods. Ms. Wood responded that it is generally separated by arterial roads which reduces the number of complaints received. Woodie Tescher added that the section was referring to areas like Corona del Mar where commercial areas are directly adjacent to housing. Principle #1 Catherine O'Hara asked to change the word "respect" to be more specific; the discussion states, "protect and enhance". Philip Bettencourt pointed out that the use of "natural setting" needs to be addressed; many areas are not historically natural, they were created. Ms. Wood suggested using "physical" instead of natural. Grace Dove stated the principle seems to encourage development which would not • protect the natural setting. 2 Mr. Vandersloot disagreed with changing the word "natural". Ms. Wood asked if • "existing physical setting" would take care of both sides. Nancy Gardner added that most people understand the meaning of natural setting. Ms. Gardner stated the last sentence in the first paragraph under discussion refers to "large areas of open space" which could imply we don't need any additional areas. Ms. Wood suggested changing the sentence to "Open space has been preserved...." Mr. Seely asked if there was an inventory of the City's view corridors and open spaces. Ms. Wood indicated that the information was in the Technical Background Report and LCP. Principle #2 Ms. Wood indicated GPUC had made a couple comments on this principle. First, they indicated that not all areas of the City had the kind of character we want to protect. GPUC also suggested deleting the sentence in the second discussion paragraph, "the City has a history of tourism and benefits economically from its attractiveness to visitors"; they felt that benefits from tourism were irrelevant to the community character of the City. Carl Ossipoff stated the benefits were well documented in the Technical Background Report; also if tourism wasn't beneficial, why are some cities trying to attract additional tourists by building hotels and enhancing beachfronts. Ms. Gardner pointed out the first sentence also indicated that tourism has influenced community character. John • Corrough added that if attention was not given to maintaining community character, the City would be less of a tourism destination. He stated it could also be argued that the benefits of tourism enable many of the community enhancements in the City. Mr. Lugar made a motion to take the sentence out. The motion failed after a vote was taken. Kim Jansma asked what the meaning of the discussion was in regard to the real estate market and larger homes; it seems to only say it is a challenge. Mr. Tescher responded by saying the strategies will be addressed through policy at a later date and it won't affect us at this point when creating the land use plan. Ms. Wood added that Principle 3 addresses the issue. Ron Yeo suggested changing the wording to "beneficial and unique character". Carol Boice asked to add language in the last paragraph of the discussion to indicate any additional urban uses in the airport area should not negatively impact residential areas. Ms. Wood pointed out the paragraph was not encouraging additional development; it just suggests some planning tools. Ms. Gardner added that the language was included in the mobility principles. Principle #3 Mr. Webber suggested changing the word "maintain" in the principle to allow for possible change; he suggested using "consider the current scale" instead. Ms. Wood • added "future development shall consider..." 3 3 Principle #4 • Ms. Gardner pointed out that indoor recreational opportunities are not bountiful and suggested deleting that language in the discussion. She also thought the reference to "maintaining healthy lifestyles" was unusual. Mr. Corrough agreed and thought the language should be in broader terms. Principle #5 Bob Henderickson asked for clarification on the relaxation of development requirements for historic structures. Mr. Baers stated there is a historic building code that allows restoration of older buildings. Ed Siebel stated that people remodeling older houses have problems keeping the houses in tact while complying with current codes; we need to provide flexibility in those cases. Mr. Lugar agreed that the language was confusing. Barbara Lyon asked who would make the decision about what buildings are historical. Ms. Wood indicated it would be the City Council; however a citizen group put together a possible list 15-20 years ago. Currently only 2 buildings have been officially called historic structures —Balboa Pavilion and Balboa Theater. Mr. Siebel thought preserving the ambiance of a neighborhood was more important than the designation of historic and the Planning Commission/City Council need to have the flexibility to decide if a house is worth preserving. Ms. Wood indicated there is sometimes a distinction drawn between historic preservation and community preservation which could address this issue. Mr. Lugar suggested using "significant" • instead of "historic". Mr. Webber suggested "historic or significant". Ms. Wood added that the language in the principle was very broad and the details would come with policy development. Mr. Webber suggested removing the reference to reducing the permitted size of buildings because it has nothing to do with protecting historic resources. Ms. Wood pointed out it was just addressing ways it could be accomplished. Mr. Lugar suggested deleting the language. Mr. Krotee indicated that based on his experience with other cities handling this locally with the General Plan would be a better way to handle it versus creating special districts under a national register. Mr. Ossipoff asked if the owner or City Council would make the determination. Mr. Tescher answered it would depend on the community, many tools are available and property rights issues are also involved. Principle #6 Ms. Wood reported that GPUC had recommended deleting this principle because it had already been covered in Mobility with similar language. Karlene Bradley made a motion to delete the principle. After a vote, the motion was approved. 0 C. IV. Discussion Paper 5: Guiding Principles for Affordable Housing Ms. Wood reported that GPUC had discussed this paper and because the City had just received certification of the Housing Element they suggested this set of guiding principles be deleted. Mr. Krotee asked if the Housing Element and General Plan were on the same track. Ms. Wood indicated that according to State Law, we have 2 more years until the next update and recertification; however it is likely cities will receive an extension due to the budget situation of the State. Karlene Bradley moved to delete this set of principles. Lucille Kuehn strongly disagreed with deleting the principles. She stated there is a great need for affordable housing in the City, not only for low income households but also for the workforce here in Newport Beach. She felt it is a different issue than the Housing Element and that it should be addressed. Mr. Henderickson asked if rezoning of underdeveloped commercial areas and mixed -use were addressed in the Housing Element. Ms. Wood answered yes. Mr. Ossipoff asked if the City was required to build affordable housing. Ms. Wood indicated that we are obligated to have land zoned to accommodate the required number of units and have programs to facilitate the development of housing for all income levels; however the City is not obligated to build the units. • Ms. Wood suggested that even though GPUC recommended deleting these principles, it may be a good idea to keep them as a reminder to consider affordable housing when developing land use alternatives. Mr. Ossipoff asked if the principles could derail or corrupt the Housing Element. Mr. Tescher indicated it would not because this would be complementary to it. He added that some communities had changed the name affordable housing to "workforce housing" to include City employees, teachers, etc., who cannot afford to live the city they work for. Ms. Bradley withdrew her motion. Mr. Remley asked where the 25 very low income housing units mentioned in the paper were located and suggested that information be included. Ms. Wood thought it was Amigos but would check and include it. Mr. Webber asked that word "attitude" be replaced in the first bullet at the top of page 5. He also asked if the first bullet on page 3 was true which indicates GPAC favors mixed -use development in all appropriate areas because he didn't recall a poll being taken on this issue. Ms. Wood stated it referred information collected in the Visioning Process and Mr. Webber was not on the Committee at that time. Principle #1 Roger Alford asked if the City will be required to provide financial assistance for workforce housing to provide the balanced residential community. Ms. Wood answered that the City is not required to provide assistance and added that "provide" may be the wrong word. Ms. )ansma suggested "promote". 5 Bill Kelly pointed out that if the title is being changed to workforce housing it eliminates • the housing need for seniors. Mr. Tescher suggested "workforce and special needs housing". Principle #2 Mr. Baers suggested changing "redevelopment" to "renewal". Princi le #3 Mr. Vandersloot suggested changing "encourage" to "consider". Ms. Dove asked why mixed -use was included and pointed out that the Cannery Village mixed -use development is not affordable. Ms. Wood responded that it didn't have to be affordable; it is producing more housing to keep up with demand that is the issue. Principle #4 Mr. Corrough asked to have "encourage" changed to "consider" so that the underperforming waterfront area would not be developed with housing. Principle #5 Ms. Gardner asked that "will" be changed to "shall" 0 V. Discussion of Future Agenda Items Mr. Tescher reminded everyone that the next several meetings will be held at the OASIS Senior Center and will be Subcommittee discussions on the geographical sub- areas. Discussion papers will be sent out and he encouraged everyone to read the material prior to the meetings as well as review the Technical Background Report. All discussion papers will be provided to the full committee, not just the individual groups. He stated that each Subcommittee would be asked to submit no more than three credible land use options for each area that will be submitted for further study. Mr. Tescher also told the group that although the public is invited to the meetings, the meetings are meant for GPAC discussions and deliberations and public comments will be held until the end of the meeting. Ms. Wood indicated that there would be a few invited guests from the Corona del Mar BID, Balboa BID and the Mariner's Mile Business Owners Association who would provide background to the Subcommittees discussing those areas. Mr. Tescher added that if Subcommittees felt they needed more time, additional meetings could be scheduled; however all discussions should be concluded by the July 26t' meeting. VI. Public Comments Handout was provided to the Committee with a message from Terry Welsh. r1 E • City of Newport Beach General Plan Update GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR POLICY FORMULATION P May 412, 2004 EIP Associates Urban Crossroads Applied Development Economics Introduction Beginning in May 2004, the Newport Beach General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) will initiate its discussion and deliberations to determine the appropriate designations for land use throughout the City. These will indicate the areas of the City in which existing uses and densities will be conserved and those areas in which change is anticipated or may be encouraged. General direction regarding these areas was received from the public during the Visioning Process. As a result, a number of specific sub -areas have been identified by the General Plan Update Committee (GPUC) as "targeted areas" for which the GPAC will consider one or more land use alternatives. Illustrative of the areas to be considered are Banning Ranch, the John Wayne Airport business park/industrial area, Mariners Mile, West Newport Industrial area, Old Newport Boulevard, and Central Balboa. • As the first step in the upcoming process, the GPAC will define the Guiding Principles that it will use as the basis for framing and assessing the land use alternatives. Essentially, these constitute the "non-negotiable" rules, or benchmarks, by which all alternatives will be judged. They will elaborate and expand upon the Vision Statensent that was defined through the public process during the past year and a half. These Prindbles may apply to environmental values that can influence the location and density of development, such as a principle that "no development shall be permitted in riparian coastal canyons." They may apply to values regarding community character, such as a principle that "new development shall respect and maintain the scale, character, and quality of the community." Additionally, they may apply to specific economic sectors such as supporting economic activities associated with the harbor or supporting the revitalization of older commercial areas. In terms of the level of detail for the Guiding Ptznciples, they may be thought of on a level with General Plan goals, from which more detailed policies and implementation measures will be developed. Many, if not all, of the Guiding Principles will be expressed in some form as goals in the draft General Plan, but for now the focus is on their function as benchmarks for developing and evaluating the land use alternatives. Once the Guiding Principles have been defined, the GPAC will identify one or more land use alternatives for the twelve "targeted" sub -areas of the City in its May through July meetings. For each sub -area, Discussion Papers will be distributed that summarize its existing conditions, key planning constraints and opportunities, and possible land use strategies. Following their identification, the alternatives will be evaluated for their comparative impacts on traffic, fiscal costs • and revenue, and environmental resources. The impact analyses will be presented to and reviewed Guiding Principles for Community Character • with the GPAC and at workshops designed for input from the general public in September. Based on the input received, a Ptrfertrd Laud Ure Plan will be selected during October. The following section summarizes community character issues raised in the Visioning Process, as described in the document, "Community Directions for the Future." The subsequent section summarizes the consultant's technical analysis of the existing city setting. Based on these summaries, the paper provides a set of suggested Guiding Principles for community character, for consideration by the GPAC. It is useful to define "community character" to understand what influences and impacts the way a community identifies itself. Community character relates to a place's identity- how a place or collection of places is perceived by its residents, property and business owners, and by visitors. It encompasses physical, social, economic, and environmental aspects of a community. Depending on the geographic boundaries, the term "community" may refer to an entire city or several areas that together make up one distinct area. For this discussion, we use community character to refer to the identity of residential neighborhoods and combination residential and commercial areas, or "villages", as they are often described, in addition to the city of Newport Beach as a whole. Community character can be described by a place's primary function - residential neighborhood, commercial district, or industrial district, or combination of those. The natural setting, such as coastal and upland environment, also provides a distinctive quality. Another way character can be • identified is by its built environment, the urban form and design of structures, roadways, landscape, etc. A place's history also shapes its character, as does the cultural and recreational opportunities it currently offers. Lastly, the pace of life, whether suburban or urban, can influence community character. All of these aspects together combine to offer a unique sense of place to community members. Summary of Community Character Issues THE VISIONING PROCESS The City initiated a Visioning Process in January of 2002 that culminated in publication of the Community Directions for the Future report in January 2003. The Visioning Process included a series of events, meetings and public information gathering programs and resulted in a vision statement for Newport Beach and substantial public input on a wide range of issues for consideration in the General Plan Update. The summary information presented here is limited to statements and issues related to economic development or the fiscal health of the City. The vision for the future of Newport Beach describes the City's desired end state and what the community hopes to have achieved by 2025. Under the heading, "Community Character," the vision states: We have preserved and enhanced our character as a beautiful, unique residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods. We value our colorful • past, the high quality of life, and our community bonds. The successful balancing of Guiding Principles for Community Character • the needs of residents, businesses and visitors has been accomplished with the recognition that Newport Beach is primarily a residential community. The Visioning Process also gained public input on a range of more specific issues. There was broad community consensus on some issues that influence community character, and more diverse opinion on others. The issues with consensus include the following. • The vast majority of residents view Newport Beach as primarily a residential beach town. While most recognize the City's attractiveness to tourists, they were less interested in defining the City's identity as a tourist destination. • In a survey of business owners, the City's location within the County, its physical beauty, and the purchasing power of the community are listed as exceptionally attractive attributes. • General consensus exists that the City's harbors and beaches must be protected and enhanced as the most cherished resources. Specific areas of the City exhibit physical deterioration, economic obsolescence, or a lack of cohesiveness affecting the quality of the areas' image and character. People are in general agreement that certain areas of the City need revitalization, including Balboa Village, Mariner's Mile, Old Newport Blvd., Cannery Village, pillage, -McFadden • Square, West Newport, and the mixed residential/industrial area above Hoag Hospital. • A couple of the visioning events raised the issue of mixed -use, integrating housing and commercial or office space. Areas deemed appropriate for mixed -use include Balboa Village, Mariner's Mile, Cannery Village, Lido Marina Village, McFadden Square, the Airport Business Area and Newport Center. Mixed -use development has been used by other communities as a method to enhance community character by integrating housing and commercial uses in proximity to one another, and to unify fragmented areas. • Protection of public view corridors has been stated as a priority by Visioning participants. A divergence of opinion exists on the following issues that contribute to community character. Participants in the visioning program events were overall in favor of tourism, but divided on providing more tourist accommodations, including lodging. However, if new hotels are to be built, most respondents agree they should be concentrated in the Airport Business Area and Newport Center. While people want the City to set firm constraints on development, including expansion of employment centers and hotels, additional development may be acceptable in certain areas under certain conditions. • Guiding Principles for Community Character • • A majority of participants are concerned with traffic congestion, but views differ over how to mitigate the problem. Additionally, no clear consensus exists regarding the method(s) to remedy traffic impacts on neighborhoods. • Visioning participants have expressed a desire for the City to preserve tidelands and public open space, both of which have the potential to contribute to visual quality, while some participants have indicated the importance of developing some tidelands for recreational uses and economic gain. While larger homes and their effects is a trend of concern to many in Newport Beach, residents have mixed opinions on whether existing regulations are sufficient for now. The appropriate scale varies by neighborhood and geographic area. Larger homes may also affect views of bluffs from lower lying areas. According to Visioning participants, development on or near coastal bluffs needs to balance land use controls with the rights of property owners. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND REPORTBYEIPASSOCIATES (EIP) EIP has prepared a technical study, published in March 2004. The following is a synopsis of issues and information gained from this work. Natural Setting • The City of Newport Beach is sited on a coastal plain and is bounded on two sides by developed urban lands of Costa Mesa. Huntington Beach and Irvine. Development in Newport Beach has been designed to capture views of the ocean, capitalizing on the tidgelines and hillsides as vantage points. The Upper and Lower Newport Bay, draining an area of 118 square miles via the San Diego Creek, bisects the City, creating a dominant physical land feature that includes estuaries, beaches, coastal bluffs, and meandering waterways unique to Newport Beach. From the higher elevations in the City, views to the north include the rolling slopes of the San Joaquin Hills, and in the distance the Santa Ana Mountains. This combination of hills, canyons, bluffs, and water features create a visually dynamic landscape. Visual Resources Open space areas provide visual relief from urbanized areas and scenic view opportunities for motorists, pedestrians, and residents. Open space is distributed throughout Newport Beach including the beach, bay, and parks. Undeveloped areas such as Banning Ranch, and canyons, hillsides and bluffs of Newport Ridge/Coast contribute to these visual resources, although some development may occur there in the future. The Pacific Ocean provides the predominant visual setting for the majority of Newpores • scenic attributes. The ocean can be seen from residences atop coastal bluffs and hilltop 11 Guiding Principles for Community Character • ridges, from the offices of high-rise development, and can be enjoyed by visitors of the beaches, shopping areas and from many of the major north/south corridors. Associated with the ocean, the bay and harbor areas also provide picturesque nautical views. While the City has Shoreline Height Limitation regulations, the construction of larger homes upland from the coast may affect the community character of certain neighborhoods and have secondary visual impacts. In addition, the City has no regulations that determine the placement of development on bluffs in existing subdivisions. • There is an opportunity to provide viewing areas and interpretative signs to add to the quality of life fox residents and visitors. Future Development As the City's available vacant properties planned for development are built out, any additional development will occur as infill or re -use of existing properties, possibly including structures that integrate housing with commercial uses (mixed -use), and providing an opportunity to influence or enhance existing community character in established "villages" or districts. • Mixed -use represents an opportunity to enhance community character in areas such as • Balboa Village, McFadden Square, Cannery Village, Airport Business Area, Lido Village, Newport Center, and Mariner's Mile. Ensuring the compatibility of types of commercial uses with residential uses, along with building design, to maintain the existing community character will be a challenge of new mixed -use development. Some older residential areas (e.g., Corona del Mar and Lido Isle) have been developed with two housing units built on three legal lots. Legally, these homes could be demolished and replaced with housing built on each legal lot of record, increasing overall development densities and changing existing community character. Commercial Areas Several areas of the city have been identified as lending unique identity and function to Newport Beach, and as such merit efforts to preserve or enhance existing community character. Six areas have been identified as Specific Plan areas in the existing land use element: Mariner's Mile, Cannery Village/ McFadden Square, Newport Shores, Santa Ana Heights, Central Balboa, and Old Newport Blvd. In addition, the General Plan designates Corona del Mar as a Specific Plan area. • Programs intended to improve community character have been developed for several community areas, including the Balboa Sign Overlay and Design Guidelines, Mariner's Mile Design Framework, Central Balboa Public Improvements and Design Guidelines, and Corona del Mar Vision Plan. 0 Guiding Principles for Community Character • Commercial areas such as Mariner' Mile, Lido Village, Old Newport Blvd/West Newport Industrial are characterized by a wide diversity and a fragmented pattern of uses: marine, highway oriented, local -serving retail, etc. and require consideration of what are the appropriate type, mix, and scale of uses and future development, including the appropriateness of marine and visitor -serving uses for the areas. Vacancies or underdeveloped parcels provide opportunities for new development in such areas, presenting an opportunity to influence the character of these areas by establishing guidelines and a vision for private development of these areas. The Airport Business Area is also subject to this condition. Multiple property ownerships may complicate coordination of a cohesive pattern of development in the older commercial districts in the City. Residential/ Commercial Interface • Rezoning of underutilized commercial lands for residential or mixed -use development has been suggested, particularly in Balboa Village. • With the exception of the Airport Business ar-es Area and Newport Center, most commercial areas are in close proximity to residential neighborhoods, which can create conflicts due to traffic, parking, li hand noise. Maintaining the compatibility between adjoining commercial and residential neighborhoods is a challenge as parking, • noise and litter from commercial customers can affect the charm and tranquility of residential neighborhoods. This is of particular concern on Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, Corona del Mar, and to a lesser extent in Mariner's Mile. • Similarly, the impact of traffic on residential neighborhoods throughout the City is an ongoing concern. Special Issue Areas Santa Ana Heights appears to lack most neighborhood serving commercial uses, such as grocery stores, banks, gyms, and restaurants. As a recent annexation, much of the existing development does not comply with Newport Beach's standards and municipal code violations are frequent. • There is question whether City Hall is still located centrally for its residents. City Hall is considered to be too small to function as the administrative center of the City. Requests for large-scale, multi -lot developments in Cannery Village could impact the area's character with increased traffic and parking demand, and a reduction in the variety of architectural styles. • Traffic congestion on Pacific Coast Highway may conflict with the intended pedestrian nature of the Corona del Mar area. In addition, parking deficiencies present conflicts Is Guiding Principles for Community Character with adjacent residential neighborhoods as customers encroach upon residential street parking. Marine Industry • The marine industry and maritime uses have figured prominently in Newport Beach's history and physical development, but have decreased recently as land costs have increased. Suggested Community Character Guiding Principles 1. R-espeet-theProtect and enhance the natural setting that has eenttibutedcontibutes to the character and identity of Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its residents and visitors. Discussion. Community members have noted the City's location and physical beauty are exceptional attributes along with its harbors and beaches. Harbor, bay and coastal features have greatly influenced urban form in Newport Beach and differentiate the city from other coastal communities. Much of development in Newport Beach has been designed to capitalize upon its natural setting —beaches, bluffs, canyons, harbor, bay, and ocean — creating the urban form and character that is visible today. Mtge areas of apes O en space have has been preserved to be enjoyed as amenities or to provide habitat. •As much of Newport Beach's character and sense of place derives from its natural setting, it is important to protect and encourage development that enhances the natural setting. This will protect the community's character and its high property values. Alteration of the natural setting of Newport Beach may result in change to the overall community character if it is not managed and directed in a manner consistent with this guiding principle. Yet protecting Newport Beach's natural resources while allowing for their use and enjoyment is a challenge. For instance, owners of commercial waterfront property and older homes on coastal bluffs desire to upgrade and redevelop their properties with larger buildings, which may change public views of the water or require more alteration of the bluff face. Private development rights will need to be balanced with the protection of natural resources. 2. Maintain and enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods and business districts that together identify Newport Beach. Discussion. The City of Newport Beach has developed as a variety of small communities, or villages. Communitymembers recognize each of the City's distinct neighborhoods and commercial areas contribute to the character of Newport Beach. The older coastal areas are comprised of neighborhoods of one-time summer and cottage -type homes on small lots. These neighborhoods have a specific community character that is unlike the newer planned communities in the upland areas. These coastal neighborhoods in particular are subject to the effects of the real estate market's rising land values and consumer preferences for larger • homes, resulting in tear down and replacement of smaller properties with larger homes. 7 Guiding Principles for Community Character Since lots are small and structures compact, new larger structures can disrupt the rhythm and feel of the existing neighborhood altering the small town, coastal community character. Balancing the rights of property owners with the goals of maintaining and preserving community character will be a future challenge. While Newport Beach residents recognize the community as primarily residential, tourism has also influenced community character in Newport Beach. The City has a history of tourism and benefits economically from its attractiveness to visitors. In its older commercial villages, Newport Beach exhibits a beach culture representative of Southern California but unique to Newport Beach. Visioning participants have identified these villages as needing assistance to maintain their physical and economic vitality. Many areas exhibit the opportunity to maintain and reinforce districts, to make those that are fragmented, more cohesive, and to foster a sense of place. Programs such as the Balboa Sign Overlay and Design Guidelines, Mariner's Mile Design Framework, Balboa Public Improvements, and Corona de Mar Vision 2004 Plan, have been developed with such improvements in mind. The general plan land use plan can be utilized to identify the villages, districts and neighborhoods that should be preserved and maintained. Specific plans, design guidelines, overlay zones, and special design and performance standards may be applied to appropriate areas to ensure use compatibility and character preservation. Distinctions between different types of development densities such as rural, suburban and urban could be recognized to • allow for a variety of lifestyle choices. This will allow for certain areas to maintain their existing character and have the types of uses and development that occurs there regulated. This could allocate more urban uses to the Newport Center and Airport Business area, while allowing Santa Ana Heights to maintain a more rural character and the planned development areas of Newport Coast to retain a suburban character. 3. Future dDevelopment shallrespeet-and— maintainconsider the scale, urban form, design, character and quality of the community. Discussion. A region's built urban form defines its character and sense of place, and contributes to the overall quality of life. For example, urban form can distinguish socially and economically vital pedestrian districts from auto -oriented districts. Urban form is defined by the density of development; location, lot coverage, interrelationships, massing, modulation and design of buildings; and the landscape and design of the intervening spaces that connect buildings. Urban form allows for the differentiation of residential neighborhoods, commercial centers and corridors, and industrial districts. Newport Beach is recognized as an attractive community with a strong community identity. Its villages are mostly small scale, intimate residential and commercial areas, with differing character yet exhibiting a unifying theme of quality places to live, shop, play and work. There also are more "urban" areas of Newport Beach, such as Newport Center and the Airport Business Area, where taller buildings and more dense development are the accepted norm. Threats to community character and quality such as residential through -traffic from Guiding Principles for Community Character • commercial areas, and commercial encroachment on residential neighborhoods are extremely important to address in existing and new development. New, infill or re -development can be directed to reflect and complement existing community character. If identified in the general plan land use plan, new development can be planned to complement existing land uses. Development can also be designed to be consistent with the scale of existing development and building massing in the surrounding area. Mixed -use development can be employed as an infill strategy in appropriate areas of the City. Additionally, architectural standards and guidelines can be developed for new development to ensure quality design that is contextually appropriate for the surrounding area. Visioning participants axe in agreement regarding the importance of regulating development to protect the existing character and quality of the community. They have divided views on the issue of "inansionizadon" in residential areas; some residents support the increase in property values from larger homes, while some oppose unchecked building "supersizing" as a threat to the character of a "small town" beach community feel. The threshold for size varies by neighborhood and geographic area. Visioning participants have noted the need to create urban design guidelines and/or specific plans to address design, especially in areas targeted fox revitalization. Community members have also expressed that new design and building scale should complement and emphasize • the characteristics of existing neighborhoods and villages. New development must also consider existing community amenities and be sensitive to those such that views remain protected, trees and landscape ate enhanced and preserved, and light pollution minimized. 4. Balance developed lands with adequate open space and recreation areas and preserve opportunities for maintaining healthy lifestyles in Newport Beach. Discussion: Newport Beach's natural setting facilitates active lifestyles and enjoyment of the city's physical resources. The presence of parks, art and cultural facilities, libraries and educational quality directly contribute to the residents' quality of life. Outdoor and indoor recreational opportunities a • R include hiking, biking and aquatic related activities. Open space provides visual relief from the urban built environment; open space preservation allows for the enjoyment of views and supports habitat for wildlife. It is essential to maintain the open space, park, beach, and trail areas for the enjoyment of residents and visitors, and to ensure adequate opportunities for healthful activities. Visioning participants emphasized the importance of meeting the needs of residents, businesses and visitors recognizing that Newport Beach is primarily residential. In meeting residents' needs for recreation, the city can also achieve its goals for providing a viable business and tourism environment that is dependent on the open space and recreational amenities of Newport Beach. The challenge will lie in meeting the needs of all while maintaining the quality of recreation and open space lands. 4) Guiding Principles for Community Character is 5. Preserve the community's heritage. Discussion. Newport Beach is renowned for its coastal lands and harbor. These resources, along with marine industry and maritime uses, have figured prominently in Newport Beach's history and physical development. Along with this acknowledgement and respect for the City's coastal and nautical history, interest has been expressed in preservation of historic buildings and locations (e.g., Balboa Pavilion and McFadden Square) that have contributed to Newport Beach's unique sense of place. Some of these resources may be eligible for recognition, but are not included on the official State or National register. They could be demolished or substantially altered, as there are no local historic preservation standards in place. 9 There also are residential and commercial neighborhoods with a distinct historic character, such as Corona del Mar, Balboa Village and Balboa Island. This guiding principle supports the visioning participants' interest in protecting these historic commercial and residential villages. Protection of historic or siguifimnt resources could be accomplished through telaxatien-modification of development tequitements-standards that inhibit preservation of€er historic structures, limn -limitation of certain uses permitted in some commercial areas, adepting-Adoption of design and development guidelines, and adeptaig-adoption of more Specific Plans to regulate development r r . Another way to protect these historic resources is for the City to adopt local preservation standards for these resources. IN • City of Newport Beach General Plan Update GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR POLICY FORMULATION May 12, 2004 EIP Associates Urban Crossroads, Inc. Applied Development Economics Introduction Beginning in May 2004, the Newport Beach General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) will initiate its discussion and deliberations to determine the appropriate designations for land use throughout the City. These will indicate the areas of the City in which existing uses and densities will be conserved and those areas in which change is anticipated or may be encouraged. General direction regarding these areas was received from the public during the Visioning Process. As a result, a number of specific sub -areas have been identified by the General Plan Update Committee (GPUC) as "targeted areas" for which the GPAC will consider one or more land use alternatives. Illustrative of the areas to be considered are Banning Ranch, the Airport Business Area, Mariners Mile, West Newport Industrial area, Old Newport Boulevard, and Central Balboa. As the first step in the upcoming process, the GPAC, will define the Guiding Principles that it will use as the basis for framing and assessing the land use alternatives. Essentially, these constitute the benchmarks, by which all alternatives will be judged. They will elaborate and expand upon the Vision Stateiuent that was defined through the public process during the past year and a half. These Principles may apply to environmental values that can influence the location and density of development, such as a principle that "no development shall be permitted in riparian coastal canyons." They may apply to values regarding community character, such as a principle that "new development shall respect and maintain the scale, character, and quality of the community." Additionally, they may apply to specific economic sectors such as supporting economic activities associated with the harbor or supporting the revitalization of older commercial areas. In terms of the level of detail for the Guiding Principles, they may be thought of on a level with General Plan goalr, from which more detailed policies and implementation measures will be developed. Many, if not all, of the Guiding Principles will be expressed in some form as goals in the draft General Plan, but for now the focus is on their function as benchmarks for developing and evaluating the land use alternatives. Once the Guidistg Principles have been defined, the GPAC will identify one or more land use alternatives for the twelve "targeted" sub -areas of the City in its May through July meetings. For each sub -area, Discussion Papers will be distributed that summarize its existing conditions, key planning constraints and opportunities, and possible land use strategies. Following their • identification, the alternatives will be evaluated for their comparative impacts on traffic, fiscal costs Guiding Principles for Workforce and Special Needs Housing • and revenue, and environmental resources. The impact analyses will be presented to and reviewed with the GPAC and at workshops designed for input from the general public in September. Based on the input received, a Preferred Land Use Plan will be selected during October. The following section summarizes the affordable housing issues raised in the visioning process as reflected in "Community Directions for the Future". The subsequent section summarizes the issues related to affordable housing contained in the Housing Element of the City's General Plan, adopted in August 2003. Based on detailed information in the Housing Element, and the Housing Section of Chapter 2, Community Development, of the recently completed Technical Background Report prepared by EIP Associates, this paper provides a set of suggested Guiding Principles for affordable housing for consideration by the GPAC. "Worl-force and special needs" housing has been used herein to describe Newport Beach's particular need of affordable housing. Summary of Affordable -Workforce and Special Needs Housing Issues THE VISIONING PROCESS The City initiated a Visioning Process in January of 2002 that culminated in publication of the Community Directions for the Future report in January 2003. The Visioning Process included a series of events, meetings and public information gathering programs and resulted in a vision statement for Newport Beach and substantial public input on a wide range of issues for • consideration in the General Plan Update. The information presented here includes the statements and issues from this process related to housing development in the City, and affiEt-dftbleworkforce and special needs housing in particular. Much of the discussion in this section, and the Housing Element section that follows, is related to opportunities to provide additional housing capacity in the City. However, to achieve the City's goals for providing an appropriate share of the region's affordable housing need, there are a number of strategies and tools that may be used to create ffiardable-worlcforce and special needs housing units from the additional housing capacity that may be created in the land use plan. These strategies are discussed in the following section of this paper. The vision for the future of Newport Beach describes the City s desired end state and what the community hopes to have achieved by 2025. Under the heading, "Growth Strategy, Land Use and Development," the vision states in part, that " There is a range of housing opportunities that allows people to live and work in the City." This statement reflects the community's acknowledgement that the availability of a variety of housing opportunities is a critical component of a desirable, viable, livable community. The Visioning Process gained public input on several specific issues related to housing development and 4. ferdsbleworkforce and special needs housing. The housing development issues discussed below are included because they represent the capacity for housing to which the City's a`= erdable orce and special needs housing strategies can be applied, as appropriate, to achieve the City's affordable housing goals. From the visioning process, there was broad community consensus on some issues related to housing development, and more diverse opinion on others. The • issues with consensus include the following: Guiding Principles for Workforce and Special Needs Housing • I ■ Areas suitable for Mixed —Use. Mixed -use development, by definition, typically includes a residential component and therefore provides the opportunity to add additional units to the City's housing stock. From input collected at the Visioning Festival and the City's website, specific areas were deemed appropriate for mixed -use development integrating housing and commercial or office space. These areas include Balboa Village, Cannery Village, Mariner's Mile, McFadden Square, Lido Marina Village, the Airport Business Area and Newport Center. The GPAC favors mixed -use development in all -appropriate sites, and believes each site should be studied for its specific suitability. The development of mixed -use projects in any of these areas recognizes the value that a housing component adds to the project as well as to the community as a whole. ■ Use of Underutilized Commercial Land. GPAC members and Festival participants strongly agreed that the City should consider re -zoning excess and underutilized commercial lands for residential or mixed -use development. Festival participants leaned more toward mixed -use development. The consideration to expand the areas in the City in which mixed -use is allowed supports the City's attainment of housing production goals in the Housing Element as well as its improved fiscal health through the revitalization of underutilized properties. is I A divergence of opinion existed on the following housing development and a€€etdableworkforce and special needs housing issues. Banning Ranch. Banning Ranch is one of the few remaining opportunities for the City to develop additional housing in a large land holding. Community opinions are split as to whether development should be allowed at Banning Ranch or if this property should be preserved as open space. Forty-six percent of those familiar with the area support preserving the entire area as open space, and another forty-four percent support half of the land to be used fox residential and limited light industrial with the remaining half reserved as open space. GPAC members had varied opinions as well. Some support using a portion of the land for affordable housing, arguing that Banning Ranch is one of the few remaining places for this use. Summit participants who were supportive of development favored affordable housing and public facilities, such as for seniors and youth. Development of some portion of this site for housing presents a unique opportunity because of the limited availability of undeveloped land remaining in the City. ■ Potential Development Areas. Overall, the responses supported the City setting firm constraints on development including expansion of employment centers and hotels. However, under certain conditions, there was support for additional development. Some Summit attendees favored fnbEed trsemixed-use development in Newport Center and stressed the need for more a `afetArrolewoAforce and special needs housing in particular. Specific suggestions included high-rise residential units and condominiums. • • Guiding Principles for Workforce and Special Needs Housing THE HOUSING ELEMENT The California State Legislature has identified that a major housing goal of the State is the attainment of a decent home and suitable living environment for every California resident. To further the attainment of this goal, State law requires local governments to prepare and adopt a Housing Element as a component of their General Plan and that the Element include the following: ■ Identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs, ■ Resources and constraints, ■ Statement of goals, policies, and quantified objectives, ■ Programs for the development, improvement and preservation of housing, ■ Identification of adequate sites for housing, and ■ Adequate provision for existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. In August 2003, the City Council adopted an updated Housing Element that is a comprehensive statement of the City's housing policies and serves as a specific guide for implementation of these policies. The Element covers the planning period from the year 2000 to 2005 and examines current housing need, estimates future housing need, and establishes goals, policies, and programs pertaining • to those needs. The housing programs in the City's Housing Element are responsive to current and future needs and are constructed within the context of available community, State, and federal economic and social resources, and realistic quantified housing objectives. The City is committed to achieving its housing production goals through a land use plan that facilitates appropriate additional residential capacity. Housing capacity alone, however, is not sufficient to create a€fetdableworkforce and special needs units. Thus, the City may want to consider policy approaches that result in a high probability of achieving its a€ferflableworkforce and special needs housing goals. A combination of strategies that include incentives --such as density bonuses, and requirements --such as inclusionary housing ordinances, works well for many communities to facilitate the production of A F&I dablewoxkforce and special needs housing units. The City currently has a number of strategies and programs that may be appropriate to reconsider or prioritize to assist in this important goal. Issues and Constraints Opportunities for new housing units are very limited as the City is essentially built out with few remaining vacant parcels. ■ Limited land availability means that new housing opportunities will occur on a limited basis as infill or reuse of existing properties, e.g. mixed-usemixed-use development. ■ The City's beauty, coastal location, land values, and continuing housing demand combined with the high median income of residents contribute to housing prices that severely limit the • I availability of af-ferdableworkforcc and special needs housing. Ell Guiding Principles for Workforce and Special Needs Housing • ■ Continued housing demand relative to availability has resulted in higher housing prices and lower vacancy rates that further reduce the availability of housing for the local workforce. There are strong community attitudes -concerns regarding not only increased commercial and office development, but also higher density residential development due to concerns about traffic congestion and limitations on infrastructure. These attitudes and concerns also reflect strong public sentiment in favor of preserving the suburban character of the City. ■ Measure S may prove a constraint to housing development if a development proposal exceeds current General Plan levels, which may deter builders who look at increasing housing density as a way to make housing more affordable. Housing Need The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) allocates Newport Beach a share of housing units required to satisfy housing needs resulting from growth in the region. To accommodate projected growth in the region, SCAG estimates the City needs to target a housing production goal of 476 new housing units. State law requires SCAG to distribute new units based on income to avoid further impaction of localities with relatively high proportions of low-income households. Using the SCAG formula for households earning below 80 percent of the County median income and paying more than 30 percent of their income towards housing, the regional housing need allocation for Newport Beach is • 476 units. These units ate to be constructed over the Housing Element planning period of 2000 — 2005 and fall into the following income categories: Percentage Income Categ-oty Units of RHNA Very Low Income 86 15 Low Income 53 11 Moderate Income 83 • 17 Above Moderate 254 53% Total 476 100% In addition to the above RHNA allocation, the City has agreed to the transfer of a portion of the County's RHNA for the Newport Coast. The allocation for the Newport Coast area is 95 units for low-income households and 850 units for above moderate- income households for a total of 945 units for the area. The City will work with the County of Orange and the Irvine Company to ensure that these affetd-tbleworkforce and special needs housing commitments are met. In addition to the above housing needs allocation, the Element also identifies population groups with special housing needs. These groups may have a more difficult time finding decent affetdableworkforce and special needs housing due to special circumstances or household needs and include the elderly, disabled persons, large families, female -headed households, farm workers, and 0 Guiding Principles for Workforce and Special Needs Housing • the homeless. Special needs populations in the City that have been identified by available census data include the following: ■ 10,318 senior citizen residents, ■ 1,734 female -headed households, ■ 2,117 disabled persons with self -care limitations, ■ 171 farm workers, and ■ An undetermined number of homeless persons. The housing element includes Goal 5 to specifically address the City's special needs population. Senior citizens, defined as age 65 and above, are now the largest age -group segment in the City at 16.8 percent of the total population. The City will continue to use a portion of its affordable housing resources on this population, but will also address the needs of other segments, including families. Currend rAvailable 2t0ordableWor/{force and Special Needs Housing There are ten developments in the City that provide a total of 321 income-restticted units for very low to moderate -income households based on the use of government subsidies in their financing or operation. Of the ten projects listed in the Housing Element, only two are scheduled to lose their • affordability restrictions during the five-year term of the Element. One project lost its income restriction in 2002. However, the Lutheran Church managing the project has indicated that it has no intention of converting the 100 low-income units to market rate, and such a conversion would require an amendment to the use permit. The other- NtejeetDomuigo Drive Apartments, which contains 25 very -low income units, is eligible for conversion to market rate units in 2005. Housing Opportunities and Resources The programs and activities below are a summary of Housing Element provisions that provide opportunities for the construction of new housing units including incentives and requirements that facilitate the production of affordable housing units. These programs also include housing resources currently available in the City to facilitate the maintenance of existing housing units that are more affordable relative to other housing opportunities such as some mobile home parks and condominium conversions. Undeveloped Residentially Zoned Sites. The Housing Element identifies three vacant sites that are currently zoned for residential development. The sites range in size from 3.2 to 45.2 acres and have a capacity for approximately 582 units. This unit count may be exceeded under the density bonus provisions contained in the Housing Element. These sites, further described in the Housing Element, include Banning Ranch, Avocado -MacArthur, and Bayview Landing. 0 Guiding Principles for Workforce and Special Needs Housing • I Mixed -Use Zoning. Newport Beach has a "Residential Overlay Zone" that allows mixed residential and commercial developments. Many commercial properties include an "R' Overlay designation and may integrate residential uses with commercial uses at a density of one unit for each 2,375 square feet of land area. This designation provides additional opportunity to provide housing in the City. Redevelopment and Infill Opportunities. Since the City is essentially built out with the exception of a few vacant parcels, and land costs continue to escalate, the primary opportunities for new housing have been identified in infill and/or the redevelopment of existing properties. These properties are typically located in older areas of the City that were developed during a time when less intense utilization of the parcel was more typical than what now occurs. According to the City's Planning Department, based upon the consolidated acreage of these properties, the potential exists to add 1,100 additional units. It should be noted that as these are individual properties and not large land holdings, they are not likely to produce large numbers of units at one time, but rather slow and intermittent redevelopment with the incremental addition of units over time. ■ Annexation Areas. The Newport Beach Sphere of Influence (ultimate incorporated city limits) includes additional opportunities for future residential development in `Bay Knolls" and "West Santa Ana Heights". The City will explore opportunities to increase housing opportunity in these areas. • Densijy Bonus. The City will grant a density bonus or provide other incentives of an equivalent financial value to developers who agree to construct housing for low- and moderate -income households. ■ Requirement to provide affordable units (or in -lieu fees) in new residential developments. The City will continue this program with a goal of an average of 20 percent of all new housing units developed to be affordable to very low- and low-income households over the five-year planning period of the Housing Element. ■ Require affordable housing in new residential developments within the Coastal Zone. The City requires the provision of affordable housing, where feasible, in projects of ten (10) or more units proposed in the Coastal Zone areas of the City. ■ Mobile Home Parks. There are currently ten (10) mobile home parks in the City, many of which are occupied by permanent residents. Space rents range from $500 to $3,000 depending on location in proximity to Newport Bay and size of the mobile home. Based on rent data reflected in the Housing Element, several mobile home parks remain affordable housing options relative to other types of conventional housing available in the City. ■ Condominium Conversion Ordinance. The conversion of an existing apartment building to an ownership condominium is typically more affordable than the construction of a similar unit. In the mid 1990's, the City of Newport Beach adopted a new ordinance to ease • restrictions on condominium conversions as a means to promote first time home -buyer Guiding Principles for Workforce and Special Needs Housing • opportunities and the rehabilitation of smaller more affordable housing units. Since 1995, the City has approved the conversion of 167 units. Suggested Affordable -Workforce and Speclal Needs Housing Guiding Principles 1. Pievide-Promote a balanced residential community, comprised of a variety of housing types, designs, and opportunities for all social and economic segments including very low, low, moderate, and upper income households. Discussion. In much the same way that the City must balance land uses and provide a variety of business types to maintain a positive fiscal balance, the City should strive to balance the variety of housing types, designs and opportunities available for all segments of the community. Such a balance contributes to a vital economy because people tend to shop where they live; adds to quality of life and reduces traffic congestion to the extent that more individuals can live in the City where they work; and enriches the social fabric through the variety of household types in the community ranging from unmarried singles, to young families with children, to elderly single person households. Each group has different housing needs and contributes in its own way to enrich the community experience. Further, • a variety of housing types affordable to all economic segments of the community allows greater opportunity for resident's children to afford housing in the community in which they grew up rather than having to move away due to the cost of housing. This concern is increasingly expressed in communities throughout the region as land values and housing prices continue to escalate. As summarized above, the Housing Element outlines current City resources and programs that support and facilitate this guiding principle. 2. Maintain quality residential development through the application of sound planning prineipalsprinciples and policies that encourage the preservation, conservation and appropriate redevelopment -renewal of the City's housing stock. Discussion, This principle confirms the idea that Newport Beach is primarily a residential community, and that new development should preserve and protect that quality, not diminish it through inappropriateness or excess. The desire to provide a variety of housing types and opportunities, including a€€ai!dableworkforce and special needs units, in no way diminishes the need to maintain an appropriate community standard in the quality of residential development. This principle relates to the need to insure not only that residential development is maintained at an appropriate level of quality, but that community character is maintained by ensuring the new commercial or business development is appropriate in scale to nearby residential. fe Guiding Principles for Workforce and Special Needs Housing 3. ESneeurage-Consider mixed -use development as a means to create additional housing opportunities. Discussion: Due to the limited availability of vacant land to construct new housing, each opportunity that allows and or encourages housing development should be strongly supported. Based on the City's ability to provide incentives such as a density bonus, and local requirements for affordable housing or in -lieu fees, each mixed -use project provides a potential opportunity to add : `t fet!&bleworkforce and special needs units to the City's housing stock. Community support for mixed usemixed-use development was acknowledged in the Visioning Process and the City's Economic Development Committee (EDC) has indicated support for increasing opportunities for mixed -use in Newport Beach. Support for mixed -use is also reflected in Guiding Principal 4 of the Economic Development discussion paper. Mixed -Use development can take the form of multiple uses, in which residential, retail or office uses may be sited adjacent to each other, or be in the form of single development projects that combine mixed uses into multiple stories of development, such as retail commercial on the ground floor with residential or office space above. It is important to encourage land use combinations that are mutually supportive. Residential development creates local spending power to support retail development. Office uses also create daytime • spending power as well as creating jobs for residents who may occupy the same building or adjacent units. For Newport Beach, it is also critical to maintain the proper scale for mixed - use development. There are many good mixed -use urban design projects in smaller city downtowns, which are appropriately scaled to the residential community environment desired by Newport Beach residents. Examples in Santa Barbara, Los Gatos and Brea have proven that it is critical that these developments maintain very high quality standards to avoid overcrowding or other negative aspects of higher development intensities that have occurred in older forms of mixed -use development, particularly in some of the eastern cities. 4. €sneeurage-Consider the rezoning of under -performing commercial areas to allow residential or mixed -use development. Discussion: The commercial Market Analysis conducted by ADE for this general plan update found that some commercial areas are underutilized and under -performing, such as the Balboa Peninsula and West Newport. Participants in the Visioning Process strongly agreed that the City should consider rezoning these areas to allow residential and trxixed asemixed-use. Rezoning these areas, where appropriate, provides an opportunity for redevelopment that can benefit the City economically by recycling to more viable commercial land uses and provide additional housing opportunities in a market with strong housing demand, and address the City's need for additional units to meet Housing Element goals. This principle is supported by Guiding Principle G in the Economic Development discussion paper that discusses designating commercial land uses in a manner that can be supported by the market. Guiding Principles for Workforce and Special Needs Housing • I 5. General Plan policies tvill-shall protect the high value of residential property. Discussion. Protection of the City's residential values is a critical component of the City's fiscal strength and its community character and identity. The provision of additional housing, including af€exdableworkforce and special needs housing, must be consistent with this principle and Guiding Principle No. 2 above. This principle also confirms the idea that Newport Beach is primarily a residential community, and that economic development should preserve and protect that quality, not diminish it through inappropriate or excessive development. It also relates to the need to ensure that commercial and business development is appropriate in scale to nearby residential neighborhoods. This principle, included as Guiding Principle 9 in the Economic Development discussion paper, further reinforces the conclusion of the fiscal analysis that higher value residential units pay for themselves in terms of generating sufficient tax revenues to pay for neighborhood services. • 0 10 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Geographic Sub Areas Land Use Discussion Papers GPAC SUB -COMMITTEE DISCUSSION GUIDE May 12, 2004 Ob ectives 1. Formulate land use alternatives for each Geographic Sub -Area of the City, based on information presented in the Discussion Papers provided by City staff and the EIP Associates consultant team. It should be noted that the alternatives defined in these papers are only intended to prompt the Sub -Committee's discussion and not intended to limit those to be formulated by the GPAC. It is not the intent to achieve consensus regarding the alternatives at this time, but to identify the range of credible options that the Sub -Committee merits further analysis and public discussion. Each alternative will be subsequently evaluated for its traffic, fiscal (costs and revenue), environmental, and community character impacts. The alternatives and their impacts will be presented at a general public workshops and the input summarized for the • GPAC's selection of a preferred land use plan in the fall. 2. A minimum of one and maximum of three alternatives may be defined for each planning sub -area. • 3. "In some cases, the Sub -Committee should define distinct alternatives for the entire planning sub -area. Banning Ranch, for example, may vary the types of use to be accommodates (e.g., all residential, a mix of residential and local -serving commercial, and all open space). 4. For others, there may be a diversity of alternatives for specific locations within the planning sub -area and any one may be independent of any other. For example, the McFadden Square Discussion Paper lists possible options for several locations within the sub -area that.may be considered independent of one another. In these cases, we request that the GPAC identify one to three cumulative list of land use options that they recommend should be considered for the sub -area. 5. At a minimum, the land use alternatives shall identify: a. Uses to be permitted within the sub -area, including the depiction of their specific locations on a base map. (1) Where housing is defined as an option, the type of housing unit desired should be defined (e.g., single family detached units, small lot single family, townhomes, multi -story condominiums, apartments, etc.). In some areas, this could encompass a mix of housing types. GPAC Discussion Leader Guide/Geo Sub-Areas/ECT/EIP/5.9.04 (2) Where mixed -use buildings are defined as an option, the type of use permitted • on the ground floor of the structure should be defined (e.g., retail commercial, professional office, or other). (3) Where mixed use projects are defined as an option (e.g., Banning Ranch), the relative proportion among the uses should be defined (e.g., 50% residential, 10% local -serving commercial, and 40% open space). b. While the density (units per acre) or intensity (floor area ratio) of use must ultimately be defined, the Sub -Committee may choose to define building height to represent the scale of development that would be considered (two, three, four stories, and so on). c. Uniquely defining development characteristics intended for an area should be identified. Examples may include: (1) Pedestrian oriented commercial districts, where buildings are sited adjacent to sidewalks and public open spaces and whose ground floors must contain "pedestrian -active" uses. (2) Residential "Villages," where a mix of housing units may be accommodated that are located to surround a park, school, local services, or a community center that serves as the focal point of neighborhood activity and identity. (3) Development setbacks to preserve riparian habitat, wetlands, and other important natural environmental resources. • (4) Public streetscape amenities to improve the identity, visual quality, and pedestrian environment of an area (e.g., street trees, benches, sidewalk and crosswalk paving, pedestrian -oriented lighting, and other). (5) Vertical setbacks of building heights in commercial districts as a transition with adjoining residential neighborhoods. (6) Districts within which there should be a priority for the development of public or shared parking facilities to offset existing deficiencies or to foster pedestrian activity. (7) Other, as defined by the GPAC Sub -Committee. 6. Sub -Committee recommendations should be documented by text and on base maps. Information should be presented simply, with brief text or bullet points, and extensive explanation is not required. • Sub —Committee Process 1. Review the objectives for the Sub -Committee discussions (as presented above). 2. Review the Geographic Sub -Areas Discussion Papers, particularly focusing on the issues defined through the Visioning Process, Technical Background Report, and City staff input and the Guiding Principles. Also, review the Existing Land Use Map for your sub -area (provided by staff). Ask your group to identify any additional issues GPAC DIscusslon Leader Guide/Geo Sub-Areas/ECr/EIP/5.9.04 that they believe are relevant for the planning sub -area. Record any input on a flip • chart. 3. Review the Discussion Paper's defined alternatives and discuss the Sub -Committee's comments on each. Important "pros" and "cons" should be recorded on a flip chart. 4. Identify the land use alternatives defined by the Discussion Paper or others that the Sub -Committee merit fiuther evaluation and public review. This should encompass the information specified in Number 5, above. Votes need only betaken to narrow the list of options to a maximum of three. 4. Remember, it is not the purpose of this exercise to select a preferred plan, but a range of credible options. It particular, the alternatives that define the outer limits of what may be acceptable to the Community should be articulated. For example, based on Visioning Process input, alternatives for Banning Ranch could range from a mixed density residential community with open space preserves and parklands to the preservation of the entire site as open space. Discussion Management 1. The Discussion Leader will be responsible for facilitating the discussion and input of each GPAC Geographic Area Sub -Committee. City and consultant staff will monitor and be available as a resource and to support the Sub -Committee's discussion. • 2. The Sub -Committee discussions are intended to serve as a primary forum for GPAC deliberations and input. While open to the general public, they are intended to accomplish GPAC business. Workshops will be subsequently conducted to enable the general public to provide input regarding the alternatives. As such, it is recommended that the input from any non-GPAC members be limited to the final five or ten minutes of the meeting. This excludes time allotted for the input from selected groups or organizations. is 3. The number of meetings allocated for each geographic sub -area is based on staff s estimate of the amount of time that may be necessary to fully address the issues and recommendations. Additional meetings may be scheduled on non-GPAC nights if necessary to conclude Sub -Committee business. Additional meetings should be confirmed with City staff. 4. We are seeking input regarding the basic planning options and precisely defined or worded alternatives are not necessary. 5. Comments and input from all members of their Sub -Committee are desired. GPAC Discussion Leader Guide/Geo Sub-Areas/ECT/EIP/5.9.04 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Geographic Sub Areas Land Use Discussion Papers SUB -COMMITTEE DISCUSSION LEADER GUIDE REVISED May 12, 2004 Objectives 1. Formulate land use alternatives for each Geographic Sub -Area of the City, based on information presented in the Discussion Papers provided by City staff and the EIP Associates consultant team. It should be noted that the alternatives that have been defined in these papers are only intended to prompt the Sub -Committee's discussion and are not intended to limit those to be formulated by the GPAC. It is not the intent to achieve consensus regarding the alternatives at this time, but to identify the range of credible options that the Sub -Committee merits further analysis and public discussion. Each alternative will be subsequently evaluated for its traffic, fiscal (costs and revenue), environmental, and community character impacts. The alternatives and their impacts will be presented at a general public workshops and the input • summarized for the GPAC's selection of a preferred land use plan in the fall. 2. A minimum of one and maximum of three alternatives may be defined for each planning sub -area. 3. In some cases, the Sub -Committee should define distinct alternatives for the entire planning sub -area. Banning Ranch, for example, may vary the types of use to be accommodates (e.g., all residential, a mix of residential and local -serving commercial, and all open space). • 4. For others, there may be a diversity of alternatives for specific locations within the planning sub -area and any one may be independent of any other. For example, the McFadden Square Discussion Paper lists possible options for several locations within the sub -area that may be considered independent of one another. In these cases, we request that the GPAC identify one to three cumulative list of land use options that they recommend should be considered for the sub -area. 5. At a minimum, the land use alternatives shall identify: a. Uses to be permitted within the sub -area, including the depiction of their specific locations on a base map. (1) Where housing is defined as an option, the type of housing unit desired should be defined (e.g., single family detached units, small lot single family, townhomes, multi -story condominiums, apartments, etc.). In some areas, this could encompass a mix of housing types. GPAC Discussion Leader Guide/Geo Sub-Areas/ECT/EIP/5.9.04 (2) Where mixed -use buildings are defined as an option, the type of use permitted on the ground floor of the structure should be defined (e.g., retail commercial, professional office, or other). (3) Where mixed use projects are defined as an option (e.g., Banning Ranch), the relative proportion among the uses should be defined (e.g., 50% residential, 10% local -serving commercial, and 40% open space). b. While the density (units per acre) or intensity (floor area ratio) of use must ultimately be defined, the Sub -Committee may choose to define building height to represent the scale of development that would be considered (two, three, four stories, and so on). c. Uniquely defining development characteristics intended for an area should be identified. Examples may include: (1) Pedestrian oriented commercial districts, where buildings are sited adjacent to sidewalks and public open spaces and whose ground floors must contain "pedestrian -active" uses. (2) Residential "Villages," where a mix of housing units may be accommodated that are located to surround a park, school, local services, or a community center that serves as the focal point of neighborhood activity and identity. (3) Development setbacks to preserve riparian habitat, wetlands, and other important natural environmental resources. • (4) Public streetscape amenities to improve the identity, visual quality, and pedestrian environment of an area (e.g., street trees, benches, sidewalk and crosswalk paving, pedestrian -oriented lighting, and other). (5) Vertical setbacks of building heights in commercial districts as a transition with adjoining residential neighborhoods. (6) Districts within which there should be a priority for the development of public or shared parking facilities to offset existing deficiencies or to foster pedestrian activity. (7) Other, as defined by the GPAC Sub -Committee. 6. Sub -Committee recommendations should be documented by text and on base maps. Information should be presented simply, with brief text or bullet points, and extensive explanation is not required. Sub -Committee Process 1. Review the objectives for the Sub -Committee discussions (as presented above). 2. Review the Geographic Sub -Areas Discussion Papers, particularly focusing on the issues defined through the Visioning Process, Technical Background Report, and City staff input and the Guiding Principles. Also, review the Existing Land Use Map for your sub -area (provided by staff). Ask your group to identify any additional issues • GPAC Discussion Leader Guide/Geo Sub-Areas/ECT/EIP/5.9.04 that they believe are relevant for the planning sub -area. Record any input on a flip chart. 3. Review the Discussion Paper's defined alternatives and discuss the Sub -Committee's comments on each. Important "pros" and "cons" should be recorded on a flip chart. 4. Identify the land use alternatives defined by the Discussion Paper or others that the Sub -Committee merit further evaluation and public review. This should encompass the information specified in Number 5, above. Votes need only be taken to narrow the list of options to a maximum of three. 4. Remember, it is not the purpose of this exercise to select a preferred plan, but a range of credible options. It particular, the alternatives that define the outer limits of what may be acceptable to the Community should be articulated. For example, based on Visioning Process input, alternatives for Banning Ranch could range from a mixed density residential community with open space preserves and parklands to the preservation of the entire site as open space. Discussion Management 1. The Discussion Leader will be responsible for facilitating the discussion and input of each GPAC Geographic Area Sub -Committee. City and consultant staff will monitor and be available as a resource and to support the Sub -Committee's discussion. 2. The Sub -Committee discussions are intended to serve as a primary forum for GPAC deliberations and input. While open to the general public, they are intended to accomplish GPAC business. Workshops will be subsequently conducted to enable the general public to provide input regarding the alternatives. As such, it is recommended that the input from any non-GPAC members be limited to the final five or ten minutes of the meeting. This excludes time allotted for the input from selected groups or organizations. 3. The number of meetings allocated for each geographic sub -area is based on staffs understanding of the amount of time that may be necessary to fully address the issues and recommendations. Additional meetings may be scheduled on non-GPAC nights if necessary to conclude Sub -Committee business. Additional meetings should be confirmed with City staff. 4. We are seeking input regarding the basic planning options and precisely defined or worded alternatives are not necessary. 5. Each Discussion Leader should attempt to attain comments on input from all members of their Sub -Committee. If a member is silent, he or she may be prompted to respond by asking whether or not he or she concurs with the comments that have been offered by his or her colleagues. 0 GPAC Discussion Leader Guide/Geo Sub-Areas/ECT/EIP/5.9.04 • City of Newport Beach General Plan GEOGRAPHIC SUBAREAS LAND US FORMULATION D i s c u s s i o n P a p e r 1 B a n n i n g R a n c h GPAC REVIEW • May 24, 2004 EIP Associates Urban Crossroads, Inc. Applied Development Economics Introduction Beginning in May 2004, the Newport Beach General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) will initiate its discussion and deliberations to determine the appropriate designations for land use throughout the City. The first step will be the identification of possible land use alternatives for the 12 subareas that have been selected by the General Plan Update Committee (GPUC). Following identification, the consultant team will evaluate the comparative traffic, fiscal, and environmental impacts of these options. These Geographic Subarea Discussion Papers are intended to serve as a framework for the GPAC's discussion in defining the land use alternatives for each of the following geographic • subareas within Newport Beach: Banning Ranch, Airport Business Area, Lido Marina Village/Civic Center, Balboa Village, Cannery Village/McFadden Square, Corona del Mar, West Newport Coast Highway Corridor, West Newport Residential, Mariner's Mile, West Newport Industrial, Newport Center/Fashion Island, and Old Newport Boulevard. It is understood that these encompass areas in which change is likely and/or policy intervention is necessary. Other areas of the City will be addressed by "global" policies that will be subsequently defined during the planning process. These papers present an overview of existing conditions, as well as a summary of key planning issues/findings affecting each subarea's land uses, as identified through the Visioning Process and the analyses in the Technical Background Report, and raised by City staff. Guiding Principles that pertain to or affect land use development of the subarea are also provided. Lastly, initial land use options for each subarea are identified for GPAC to consider, and to stimulate their identification of additional land use alternatives. The impact analyses will be presented to and reviewed with the GPAC and at workshops designed for input from the general public in September. Based on the input received, a Preferred Land Use Plan will be selected in October. Description of Banning Ranch Located within the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI), the Banning Ranch area encompasses approximately 412 acres, of which 362 acres are under the jurisdiction of Orange County, and 50 acres are within the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach. As shown in Figure 1, Banning Ranch is located in the western -most portion of the Newport Beach Planning Area, north of • Coast Highway and the Newport Shores residential community, just east of the Santa Ana River, • and west and south of residential and industrial uses. The eastern portion of the site is higher in elevation and contains the western edge of Newport Mesa that slopes gently from east to west. Bluffs form the western edge of the mesa, and are located in the central portion of the Banning Ranch area. The western portion of the site, which is lower in elevation, historically contained a tidal marsh associated with the Semeniuk Slough. The site is located within the coastal zone boundary and is subject to the provisions of the Orange County Local Coastal Program (LCP). However, the site is referred to as a "white hole" since the County's LCP does not provide land use designations for the Banning Ranch area. Currently, the Banning Ranch area is primarily undeveloped with some historic oil extraction infrastructure located in the central and southern portions of the site that includes wells, pipelines, buildings, improved and unimproved roads, and open storage pipes and machinery. There are 65 active oil wells and four active injection wells located throughout the Banning Ranch area. Oil extraction activities date back at least 75 years. Although the Banning Ranch site contains an assemblage of diverse habitats that have been historically disturbed, when this area is considered with the contiguous Semeniuk Slough, it provides wildlife with a significantly large, diverse area for foraging, shelter, and movement. Biological studies performed for Banning Ranch indicate that, while disturbance associated with oil activities diminishes the quality of existing habitat to some extent, overall, the area should be regarded as relatively high -quality wildlife habitat due to its size, habitat diversity, and continuity with the adjacent Semeniuk Slough. • Banning Ranch contains areas with a habitat value rank of 1, which are primarily concentrated in the northwestern portion of the site, as shown in Figure 2. These areas are considered to have a high biological resource value, and would require a resource permit from federal and/or State agencies prior to development. In addition, other areas within the site, which are scattered throughout Banning Ranch, may also be of biological value but to a lesser extent. Areas with a rank of 2 may need a resource permit for development, where additional studies would be required to make this determination. More than likely, areas with a rank of 3 would not require resource permitting for development. Resource permitting would likely result in the need for mitigation measures associated with development e.g., payment of mitigation fees, habitat restoration, or off -site habitat replacement. • Banning Ranch Issues The following issues/findings were identified for the Banning Ranch area in the Visioning Process, findings of the Technical Background Report (TBR), and by input from City staff. VISIONING PROCESS 1. Residents are divided in opinion regarding the future of Banning Ranch. Some residents want to preserve Banning Ranch as an open space opportunity, while others want to develop it for needed housing. 2 • 2. Visioning participants indicated the desire to protect and preserve the bluffs located within Banning Ranch. Some support was expressed for restricting the height and size of homes, establishing large setbacks to protect bluffs. 3. Protection of public view corridors has been stated as a priority by Visioning participants. 4. Visioning participants have expressed a desire for the City to preserve the Banning Ranch area as public open space, even though this option may require a local tax increase. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND REPORT Banning Ranch is currently designated as open space under the Land Use Element of Orange County's General Plan. 2. Under the Orange County Zoning Code, the majority of the site is designated for Multi - Family Residential/Oil Production overlay. A strip of land in the northern boundary is designated as Light Industrial/Oil Production overlay, and a strip in the southern boundary adjacent to Coast Highway is designated as Local Business/Oil Production overlay. 3. Newport Beach has designated the site primarily for single-family attached residential uses, with some multi -family residential, recreational and environmental open space, and mixed commercial consisting of administrative, professional, financial commercial, and industrial uses under the General Plan Land Use Element. • 4. The Newport Beach Zoning Code designates the site as Planned Community (PC), and the land uses and densities of this designation are consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element. 5. Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) has projected a housing need for the City of 1,421 new households of varying income levels for 2000-2005. Some of these units could be accommodated onsite. 6. The Newport Beach Housing Element identifies approximately 45 acres of the Banning Ranch area, located within the City's boundaries, able to accommodate 406 multi -family affordable residential units. Certification of the Housing Element is contingent on the City continuing to encourage construction of affordable units at Banning Ranch. 7. There are opportunities for acquisition of park sites; active parks are a particular need on the west side of the city. 8. There are several environmentally sensitive areas that may merit preservation, and provide opportunities for passive recreational uses such as nature observation and hiking. 9. Several arroyos within the site carry stormwater runoff from the surrounding areas, and flow capacity will need to be preserved. 10. The Banning Ranch area contains significant visual resources such as bluffs, which contribute a unique visual backdrop to the area as well provide views overlooking a large • portion of the site. While the Draft Local Coastal Program has established design 3 • guidelines and setback standards to protect views of resources, these are not applicable to Banning Ranch unless this area is annexed into the City. 11. Future development of the Banning Ranch area could require remediation and clean up of lands previously utilized for oil extraction, as well as be impacted by existing oil operations. 12. Portions of the site have the potential to be subject to 100-year floods, reservoir inundation, tsunami inundation, and liquefaction. An active fault line also runs through the site. Enhancement of biological habitat can occur at these specific locations. CITYSTAFF 1. Although the City of Newport Beach does not have complete jurisdiction over Banning Ranch as the majority of the site is under County jurisdiction, the City does control three regional roadway connections, and a one -foot strip around the entire property. Guiding Principles The following guiding principles from the Economic Development, Community Character, Environmental Conservation, Affordable Housing, and Mobility Discussion Papers are pertinent to land use development within the Banning Ranch area. ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT • 1. General Plan policies will maintain the City's positive fiscal balance. 4. The General Plan should encourage mixed -use development. 8. Additional development entitlement needs to demonstrate significant fiscal, economic or other community benefit. 11. The General Plan shall support the careful expansion of visitor -serving businesses and facilities, including hotels and meeting facilities. COMMUNITYCHARACTER Protect and enhance the natural setting that contributes to the character and identity of Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its residents and visitors. 3. Future development shall consider the scale, urban form, design, character and quality of the community. 4. Balance developed lands with adequate open space and recreation areas and preserve opportunities for maintaining healthy lifestyles in Newport Beach. 6. Establish a high quality entry to Newport Beach from the west. [This Guiding Principle is for GPAC discussion, and is unique to the Banning Ranch area.] 0 • WORKFORCE AND SPECIALNEEDSHOUSING 1. Promote a balanced residential community, comprised of a variety of housing types, designs, and opportunities for all social and economic segments including very low, low, moderate, and upper income households. 3. Consider mixed -use development as a means to create additional housing opportunities. MOBILITY 1. Establish General Plan land uses and density/intensity limits that will have less impact on peak hour traffic. 3. Regional traffic will be included in the analysis of land use alternatives, but such traffic should not be the sole reason for rejecting a land use alternative that would have net benefits to Newport Beach. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 1. Protect, and rehabilitate or enhance, terrestrial and marine habitats located within the City through careful siting of future development. 3. Minimize air quality degradation through land use practices and circulation improvements that reduce reliance on the automobile. • 4. Encourage the maintenance of natural landforms. 5. Encourage the protection and creation of public viewsheds within the City. Potential Land Use Alternatives for Discussion PRIOR DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS For the Banning Ranch site, there are several development options that have been previously proposed as discussed below. Proposed land uses of these alternatives are shown in Table 1-1, below. 1. Oranue County General Plan Under the Orange County General Plan Land Use Element, the Banning Ranch site is designated as open space. Mineral extraction sites are considered consistent with this designation, as are passive recreation uses. As such, under this development option, the site could continue to be used for resource recovery, specifically for oil extraction. This development option would be consistent with the Environmental Conservation Guiding Principles (ECGP) by protecting biological resources, maintaining natural landforms, and protecting public viewsheds. With no new development under this County General Plan, traffic congestion would be minimized, consistent with the Mobility Guiding Principles (MGP). Preservation of existing habitats and protection of open space would be in support of Community Character (CCGP), although it is unlikely that any habitat restoration or enhancement would occur. • 2. Existing City of Newport Beach General Plan The existing Newport Beach General Plan (adopted in 1988 and amended in January 2000) allows for the development of approximately 2,600 dwelling units, 235,600 square feet (sf) of office space, 164,400 sf of industrial uses, 50,000 sf of neighborhood commercial uses, and 21 acres of parkland on the Banning Ranch site. The City's General Plan proposes various densities for residential uses, with a mix of residential types, ranging from apartments to single-family homes. Development of a mix of uses with open space under this land use alternative would be consistent with identified Economic Development, Guiding Principles (EDGP) and CCGP, as described above. With implementation of differing types of residential uses on site, this alternative would help meet the City's housing need and present an opportunity to provide workforce and special needs housing. The preservation of areas containing highly valued biological resources will be consistent with the guiding principles of preserving these resources. These preserved areas can also offer an opportunity for passive recreational use. Providing additional parkland will also help meet Newport Beach's need for more active recreational space, especially in the western portion of the City. The ECGP of maintaining natural landforms and protecting public viewsheds, as well as CCGP of maintaining the natural setting of the surrounding community, would need to be taken into consideration when determining types and scale of development on the bluffs. 3. West Newport Oil Company The West Newport Oil Company proposed a project similar to what is allowed under the City's • General Plan but excluded office and commercial uses. Under this alternative the same number of residential units would be developed, more open space would be available, and a park and school were included. With less development overall, more habitat preservation would result, which would be in support of ECGP 1, as stated above. Without office or commercial uses onsite, automobile trips to access these uses would be increased. At the same time, there would be a decrease in the cumulative vehicle trips generated by the site's uses, which supports the MGP of having less impact on peak hour traffic. Preservation of much of the natural setting along with dedication of open space areas would support the CCGP of balancing developed land and open space. The residential component of the project will help the City meet its housing need, and provide opportunities to provide affordable housing, consistent with identified guiding principles. However, this proposal does not fully achieve the EDGP, when compared with what is allowed under the City's existing General Plan, as less revenue would be generated with no office or commercial space onsite. n LJ 4. Taylor Woodrow Homes The Taylor Woodrow homes proposal included 1,750 residential units, a 75-room hotel, 70,000 square feet of visitor -serving retail uses, a school, parkland, and 195 acres of open space. The hotel and retail uses will help contribute positively to the City's fiscal balance and the proposed mix of uses are all in support of EDGP. The mix of uses that include development and open space would be consistent with the CCGP. Implementation of parkland will help meet the City's need for these facilities, especially on the west side of the City. As previously discussed, additional residential uses are needed within the City, and can serve low, moderate, and upper 0 • income households, consistent with the Workforce and Special Needs Housing Guiding Principles (WSNHGP). 5.Open Space Another proposal for the Banning Ranch site considered during the Visioning Process was to preserve the entire area as open space to be included as part of the Orange Coast River Park. With no new development, all types of habitat will be preserved, public viewsheds will be protected, and natural landforms will not be altered, while the site would be conserved as open space, consistent with ECGP. However, under this option, clean up of the degraded habitat from existing oil operations would not occur, and would not fully support the ECGP. This land use development option would also maintain the natural setting of the area, which would be in support of the CCGP. Further, implementation of this option would be in support of those Visioning participants who wanted Banning Ranch to be preserved as open space. OTHER DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS Additional development options for the Banning Ranch site that may be considered are described in detail and shown in Table 1-1, below. These options are not mutually exclusive and could be implemented in combination with one another and/or other alternatives developed by GPAC. 6 Concentration of Uses Under Existing Newport Beach General Plan This land use alternative includes uses similar to those allowed under the City's existing General • Plan, but concentrates development away from the areas containing biological resources with a rank of 1, such as on the mesa near Coast Highway, at a higher density. With development concentrated away from these areas, more land would be left as open space when compared to implementation of the City's existing General Plan (Option 2). Similar to implementation of the City's existing General Plan, the proposed mix of uses under this option would be in support of EDGP through contributing positively to the City's fiscal balance, and CCGP by maintaining a balance of development and open space areas. High -density residential uses would help meet the City's need to provide additional units, and if affordable housing were included, it would be in support of the WSNHGP. Implementation of this option would also result in much of the lowlands being preserved and possibly restored, which would minimize potential effects of exposing people to coastal, seismic, and flooding hazards. However, with development concentrated near Coast Highway, structures would be located in the higher elevation areas of the site, which may alter the bluffs and associated viewsheds. Lastly, with a mixed -use, high - density development, less vehicle trips may be made, which will support the previously identified MGP. 7. Resort This land use alternative includes the creation of a resort -like development with a 150-room hotel, 50,000 .sf of restaurants/retail space, and 500 residential units, with the remainder of the area as open space. This development option would capitalize on the site's proximity to the ocean. Implementation of this alternative would support the EDGP of maintaining a positive fiscal balance, implementing mixed -use, and providing visitor -serving businesses and facilities. is The provision of residential units would help meet the City's need for additional units, which 7 • would be in support of WSNHGP, though to a lesser extent when compared to other land use alternatives due to the smaller number of units. Active and passive recreational space, as well as habitat preservation could be incorporated onsite, which would be in support of the ECGP. Siting of this development needs to consider maintaining the natural landform of the bluffs and preserving public viewsheds. Additionally, the exact design and scale of development needs to be consistent with the surrounding community character, in order to support the CCGP. Lastly, implementation of this option would generate additional traffic and increase peak hour traffic on a congested roadway, Coast Highway, and not support MGP. S. Business Park The Business Park development option can be implemented by itself or in combination with any other options, as described above. Development under this land use alternative would include a business park as the primary use on a minimum of 100 acres with 50,000 sf of ancillary retail uses, while the remainder of the site totaling just over 300 acres would be preserved as open space. Depending on the exact mix of uses, implementation of this development option could contribute to maintaining the City's fiscal balance, in support of identified EDGP. Through the balancing of open space and developed lands, this option would be consistent with CCGP. Given that the lowlands (western portion of the site) are subject to coastal flooding and seismic hazards, the business park could be concentrated in the eastern portion of the site, which is higher in elevation, to minimize these effects. However, exact siting and scale of these uses need to consider the guiding principles of protecting the bluffs and public viewsheds. The western part of • the site could be preserved and/or include passive recreational uses in areas with important biological habitat, while the remaining areas could accommodate active recreational uses, consistent with identified ECGP. If this option is implemented alone, it would generate additional traffic on Coast Highway during peak hours, though to a lesser extent than other options since it involves less development overall. This would not be fully consistent with the MGP. is N. Geographic Subareas Land Use Policy Formulation: Banning Ranch Table 1-1 Banning Ranch Development Options Development Option Residential Units Office Space Industrials ace CommercialSpace Parkland (acres) Open Space Other Units Acres SF I Acres SF Acres SF Acres 1' Orange County General Plan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yes Oil extraction 2 Newport xsting General Plana Z600 470.3e 235,600 13 164,400 12 50,000 5 21 Yes School 3' W. Newport Oil Company Z600 NIA 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yes Yes School 4• Taylor Woodrow Homes 1,750 200 0 0 0 0 70,000 17c 77 118acres School, Hotel (75 rooms) 5' Open Space 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 No 412 acres No 6 Concentration of Uses Under Existing Newport Beach General Plan 2,600 NIA 235,600 9 164,400 8 50,000 3 Yes Yes No 7 Resort 500 10 0 0 0 0 50,000 5 Yes Yes Hotel (150 rooms) 8 Business Park 0 0 200,000 50 200,000 1 50 50,000 4 10 No 302-308 acres No • Options in italics denote prior development proposals • The acreages for the various land uses under the General Plan are approximabons. n 470 3 acres represents the entirely of two sta8sbcel areas that include lands adjacent to Banning Ranch; of these, 92 acres are restored wetlands, 21 acres are reserved for neighborhood and view parks and 5 acres are reserved for neighborhood shopping center. In addition to the 70,000 at of commercial uses, the 17 acres would also accommodate the hotel use. HABITAT VALUE RANKING .y t i WINf l Y v " t 3> 2 fib;+ 1 2 4 7'7r •• i ." s �,`;.,-y ., 3 �i r it t y 2 A .' : ems- 2 i 3 - 3 r,1R" $$ t fgldl - .a 3 2 3�� , r 3 2- a 2Rol- .�. . t ter= .4 2 2 , i- I� 2 3 . 2 •2 2 ' 3 2 1 ��� P% l , " i 2 197 Xi VIA yf 2 1 t. ® - - 1 2 •, 3 2 ai e r 3�+ e 3 ~ x 3 t . - 9 -"`y: 3 fit• w` i HABITAT VALUE RANGING FAX- 1 3 n 2w 2 r 3 r l 3i y� s. f \ " a 3 4 2 -; Zr, " ON i l \ 3 l L �. fwi 2fl �r 2 3 2 ^" 3 elIs `d 4 ?fir �'f.. 1 ; � _'` s� _\.. � r i �J'• ' - " � .r � }j� r rf f F' 3 F T t10 x 3 r t i¢w h ir.. Lh t .. r, S R I 1 Is gig I7s, 3 3 \p2 •. '. .'.:. a�.�- ""jyy>,, 'P: mow. ,� wr.- 3 3 • i _ r a e Is 14 45 44 F. • City of Newport Beach General Plan GEOGRAPHIC SUBAREAS LAND US FORMULATION GPAC REVIEW • May 24, 2004 EIP Associates Urban Crossroads, Inc. Applied Development Economics Introduction Beginning in May 2004, the Newport Beach General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) will initiate its discussion and deliberations to determine the appropriate designations for land use throughout the City. The first step will be the identification of possible land use alternatives for the 12 subareas that have been selected by the General Plan Update Committee (GPUC). Following identification, the consultant team will evaluate the comparative traffic, fiscal, and environmental impacts of these options. These Geographic Subarea Discussion Papers are intended to serve as a framework for the • GPAC's discussion in defining the land use alternatives for each of the following geographic subareas within Newport Beach: Banning Ranch, Airport Business Area, Lido Marina Village/Civic Center, Balboa Village, Cannery Village/McFadden Square, Corona del Mar, West Newport Coast Highway Corridor, West Newport Residential, Mariner's Mile, West Newport Industrial, Newport Center/Fashion Island, and Old Newport Boulevard. It is understood that these encompass areas in which change is likely and/or policy intervention is necessary. Other areas of the City will be addressed by "global" policies that will be subsequently defined during the planning process. These papers present an overview of existing conditions, as well as a summary of key planning issues/findings affecting each subarea's land uses, as identified through the Visioning Process and the analyses in the Technical Background Report, and raised by City staff. Guiding Principles that pertain to or affect land use development of the subarea are also provided. Lastly, initial land use options for each subarea are identified for GPAC consideration, and additional land use alternatives may be identified through this process. The impact analyses will be presented to and reviewed with the GPAC and at workshops designed for input from the general public in September. Based on the input received, a Preferred Land Use Plan will be selected in October. Description of Airport Business Area The Airport Business Area covers approximately 360 acres and is bound by Campus Drive to the north, Bristol Street North/Corona del Mar Freeway to the west and Jamboree Road to the 0 • southeast. As the study area name implies, the area is adjacent to the John Wayne Airport as can be seen in Figure 2-1 below. It is also in close proximity to the University of California, Irvine. • • COSTA MESA awn U. �!' �, IRVINE ,a, �= F i �fSy 9 s" C � �,a F � as It Figure Figure 2.1 Regional Location of Airport Business Area This proximity has influenced the many uses in the area that support the airport and the university, such as research and development, high technology industrial and visitor -serving uses, such as hotel and car rental agencies. This area consists of 83.7 percent commercial uses with administrative, professional, and financial office uses accounting for 62.0 percent of the area's land uses. Multi -tenant commercial accounts for 7.5 percent of the area's land uses and provide support retail and services for office and industrial employment centers in the area. A number of industry headquarters are located in the Airport Business Area including Conexant, and Jazz Industries, along with other major businesses located in Koll Center at MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. Industrial related uses account for 13.1 percent of the study area. Three large hotel developments account for 4.5 percent of the area's land uses. Also significant are a number of auto -related commercial uses located primarily in the northwest portion of the area. These auto -related uses include carwash, auto -detailing, rental, repair, and parts shops. The Airport Business area is surrounded by John Wayne Airport in the County of Orange on the west, and the City of Irvine on the north and east. Recent development activity in the City of Irvine's Business Complex has included the transfer of development rights, bringing more intense development closer to the Airport Business area, and resulting in the conversion of office to residential entitlement. This activity is changing the area to a mixed -use center. 2 • Airport Business Area Issues and Opportunities The following issues were identified for the Airport Business Area through the Visioning Process, Technical Background Report (TBR) analyses, and by staff. VISIONING PROCESS 1. There is consensus that portions of the Airport Business Area are good candidates for revitalization. 2. Overall, the community prefers revitalization of the Airport Business Area with income generating land uses, but there is also support for expansion of development. 3. Generally, there is support for a range of development types in this area as long as traffic is not adversely affected. 4. Survey respondents were comfortable with low-rise office building, opposed to more car dealerships, and opposed to industrial uses. GPAC members are supportive of non -airport, non -peak hour uses that will discourage airport expansion. 6. There was broad consensus and support for new hotels in the Airport Business Area. 7. There is support for mixed -use development with residential and revenue -generating • businesses such as hotels and entertainment. 8. There is split support for high-rise development and retail. 9. There was no consensus regarding support for "big box" retail uses. 10. A majority* of Visioning participants believe it is acceptable to have more traffic congestion in certain locations of the City, such as the Airport Business Area, than in other parts of the City. GPAC members felt that "more" traffic should be defined before moving ahead with significant development. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND REPORT 1. The Airport Business Area has a number of under -performing land uses that present an opportunity for re -use or redevelopment. 2. Multiple and fragmented ownership of properties may constrain new development proposals. 3. A portion of the area is located adjacent to and subject to compliance with the Orange County Airport Land Use Plan in terms of uses and height restrictions. 4. The Airport Business Area has been identified as a possible target location for "big box" retail, service commercial/flex space and car dealerships. In particular, "big box" retail has been suggested to capture large sales leakages in general merchandise, family • clothing, discount department stores and home improvement store categories. This area, • with its proximity to SR 73 and large under-utilized properties was seen as a more favorable and central location than tourist oriented coastal areas for such uses. 5. There is potential for the transition of older properties in the area to more intensive use including the addition of major retail uses on sites currently occupied by industrial or office uses. CITYSTAFF 1. There are special land use restrictions (SLURS) on properties in the area between Birch Street and Campus Drive. These restrictions, which will be in place another 10-15 years, limit development in this area to the existing land uses and development intensity. 2. There,are older properties in the area that are unattractive and underutilized. 3. Automobile services, including auto parts sales, repair, and leasing and rental are scattered throughout the area. 4. There is potential for infrll higher -density housing and affordable housing opportunities in the area. 5. Staff identified .the following "issue and opportunity areas" within the Airport Business Area. These areas are discussed below, and alternative land uses specific to these areas are presented for consideration in the Potential Land Use Alternatives section of this • discussion paper. Campus Tract (between Birch Street and Campus Drive South of MacArthur Boulevard). This area is adjacent to the John Wayne Airport and currently contains a mixture of retail, automotive service, airport and flight related uses such as a flight school, and light industrial. (Re)development in this area is limited by the SLURS and the Orange County ALUP, which restrict the use, height, and intensity of development of properties in this tract. The SLURS on these properties will be valid for another 10-15 years, so it is not likely that significant redevelopment will occur in the area during this time. Height and use restrictions further limit development potential of this tract, but several viable options remain for viable long-term uses in this area. There is the opportunity for 300,000 square feet of entitled development to be built in this area. Further, consideration must be given to the long-term development of this area due to the small lot subdivision pattern in this area that is unlike the larger parcelization of other properties in the area. The smaller lots will make consolidation of sites more difficult to achieve a modern scale of development. The City may consider incentives that support and encourage such lot consolidation to facilitate desired land use alternatives. • Multi -Tenant Industrial (between Birch Street and Westerly Place, west of Dove Street). This multi -tenant industrial area contains a mixture of older industrial, office, and R & D uses. This area also includes uses that support the airport and other uses in the area. This area may be considered for a variety of uses to complement other land 13 • use alternatives proposed, or it may be considered for reuse / or expansion of existing uses. Community Commercial Area (at Birch and Dove Streets) south of Radisson Hotel. This commercial area contains a variety of under -performing uses include a multi - tenant center, offices, and automotive related uses. There are opportunities for this area to be expanded and/or reused to provide a greater variety of support services to complement the long term redevelopment of the area with mixed -use projects that include housing and thus the need for expanded services such as day care and services such as dry cleaners, markets, shoe repair, and related commercial uses. Conexant (at Jamboree Road south of Birch Street). Conexant is one of the City's largest and most viable employers. Land use alternatives for areas adjacent to this area may consider opportunities for the future expansion of Conexant, and similar users in the immediate area. Campus Drive Condominiums (Located on Campus Drive at Von Karman Avenue). These are older, low-rise condominiums. Koll Center (MacAruthur Boulevard between Jamboree Road and Birch Street). Koll Center is an office park of low to mid -rise office buildings. This area also includes support commercial uses and a hotel. There are large expanses of surface parking. • Guiding Principles The following guiding principles are from the Economic Development, Community Character, Environmental Conservation, Workforce and Special Needs Housing, and Mobility Discussion Papers, and are pertinent to land use development within the Airport Business Area. EcommiCDEmopm= 4. The General Plan should encourage mixed -use development. General Plan policies will support City efforts to optimize retail sales capture in the community. 9. General Plan policies will protect the high value of residential property. 10. General Plan policies shall prepare the City to capitalize on market and demographic changes and opportunities that emerge in key economic centers of the community. 11. The General Plan shall support the careful expansion of visitor -serving businesses and facilities, including hotels and meeting facilities. 12. The General Plan shall offer a distinct land -use concept and policy framework for the Airport Business Area. • • COMMUNITYCHARACTER 2. Maintain and enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods and business districts that together identify Newport Beach. 3. Future development shall consider the scale, urban form, design, character and quality of the community. WORKFORCE AND SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING 1. Promote a balanced residential community, comprised of a variety of housing types, designs, and opportunities for all social and economic segments including very low, low, moderate, and upper income households. 3. Consider mixed -use development as a means to create additional housing opportunities. MOBILITY 1. Establish General Plan land uses and density/intensity limits that will have less impact on peak hour traffic. 2. Consider the potential benefits and costs (housing, social, community character, fiscal and economic) of land use and circulation system alternatives before adopting goals regarding acceptable levels of service for the circulation system. • 6. Consider establishing a different level of service standard for the Airport Area, with consideration of possible impacts on residential areas. is 8. Consider urban scale development in areas where there is potential for development patterns that will minimize traffic. 9. Increase City strategies and programs to enhance the development and use of alternative transportation modes and transportation systems management. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Minimize air quality degradation through land use practices and circulation improvements that reduce reliance on the automobile. Potential Land Use Alternatives for Discussion The potential land use alternatives discussed below may be considered for this area, in particular for the "issue and opportunity" areas identified by Staff. These land use alternatives are presented in a matrix at the end of this discussion that correlates the alternatives to specific geographic areas for which they may be considered. Figure 2-2 depicts the issue areas and the various land use alternatives considered for each area. lij • 1. Hieh-Density Residential One land use alternative to consider for this area is infill high -density residential development. The Airport Business Area provides a unique opportunity for the location of high density residential where housing can be built within the existing high intensity development context. The location is close to regional roadways that would minimize local roadway trips during peak hour travel consistent with the Mobility guiding principle to consider traffic impacts in identifying future land uses. Further, residential in this area would be within a major employment center and in close proximity to other regional employment centers in the Irvine Business Complex. The development of housing in this area also provides the opportunity for the City to meet its housing element production goals, including the provision of affordable housing. It is also consistent with several economic development guiding principles related to the economic revitalization of the Airport Business Area and maintaining high -value residential in the City. Residential may be considered in the Koll Center, the Campus Drive condominiums and the possible conversion of the Radisson Hotel to high-rise residential. This alternative may also be considered in combination with Alternative G. as support retail would likely be a viable secondary use to residential uses. 2. Mixed -Use Development This land use alternative may include vertical mixed -use with commercial development on the ground floor and residential on the floors above, or on larger parcels an integrated development that includes residential and commercial uses in separate buildings as occurs in Newport Center. • The Airport Business Area is a major employment center in the City and the addition of housing to the area along with related support services would support and strengthen the economic vitality of the area and enhance its attractiveness for complementary uses that support the existing businesses and potential residents such as specialty food markets, day care, and recreational opportunities. Mixed -use development is consistent with several guiding principals including Environmental Conservation to improve air quality due to the reduced trips that result from mixed -use projects relative to single use development projects. It is also consistent with Economic Development and Workforce and Special Needs Housing guiding principles that encourage the consideration of mixed -use in appropriate areas. The Airport Business Area was identified in the Visioning process as a potential location for mixed -use development. With land assembly and incentives from the City for lot consolidation, sites large enough for attractive functional mixed -use projects may be considered; redevelopment of the Campus Drive condominiums may be one such site. There may be other areas in the Airport Business Area suitable for smaller scale mixed -use projects that have not been identified here such as the properties with frontage to Bristol North. 3. Hotels This land use alternative is for new hotels in the Airport Business Area. There are a few hotels in the area currently, and there was consensus during the Visioning process that if the City were to support the development of additional hotels to attract tourists and visitors and enhance the City's economic base, they should be located in this area. The advantage of the area for new • hotels is its proximity to the airport, major freeways, and location in and near major employment • centers in the region. Further, the area has the availability of underutilized properties that have the potential for redevelopment. Hotels are consistent with several Economic Development principles including capitalizing on market and demographic changes and opportunities that emerge in key economic centers of the community, and the expansion of visitor -serving businesses and facilities including hotels and meeting facilities. Properties in this area that may be considered for new hotel development include the Koll Center, the Campus Tract, and the Birch Street Commercial. Hotels may also be considered for other properties in this area that have not been identified as an issue area, such as along the North Bristol Street corridor adjacent to the Corona del Mar Freeway. 4. Aviation Corridor An aviation corridor for airport service uses such as flying schools, airplane sales, airplane rental and lease, and support services for the owners of private airplanes is an alternative to consider for the properties in the campus tract between Birch Street and Campus Drive. This location, adjacent to the airport is less ideal for more sensitive uses such as residential and is better suited for more intensive uses, which is consistent with the Economic Development guiding principle to capitalize on opportunities that emerge in key economic centers of the community. The City's goal with this alternative is to attract economically viable businesses in this corridor that do not merely support John Wayne Airport, but also provide fiscal benefit to Newport Beach. 5. Auto Sales / Services Auto sales and/or service are another alternative to consider in this area based on the availability • of large areas of under -performing properties and the fiscal benefit of this land use to the City. Ideally, this alternative would consider consolidating the existing auto serving uses in this area to a larger site within the Campus Tract or the Multi -Tenant Industrial area. The location of such uses in this area is preferable to coastal locations or other areas more desirable for tourist or visitor serving uses. Automobile sales was identified as a potential land use consideration in the Economic Study completed for the General Plan Update and is consistent with the Economic Development guiding principle regarding capitalizing on market and demographic changes and opportunities that emerge in key economic centers of the community. However, no consensus for auto sales was achieved through the visioning process. Locations for these uses could include Bristol North or MacArthur Blvd. frontages, which provide the visibility needed for auto sales. 6. Retail and Support Service Uses Retail and support uses currently exist at various locations throughout this area including in Koll Center, the Campus Tract, along MacArthur Boulevard, and North Bristol Street. The greatest concentration of commercial exists in the Birch Street and Bristol North commercial areas. These uses primarily provide retail sales and commercial services to the employee base in this area. However, based upon the Economic Study for this General Plan update, the Airport Business area, based upon its location, may be considered for additional retail sales such as big box stores and/or auto dealerships. The area was also identified as the possible location for major retail sales during the Visioning process. This area would need additional support retail and services should the higher density development alternatives such as residential and mixed -use be implemented. Retail sales are consistent with the Economic guiding principle to capitalize on • market and demographic changes and opportunities that emerge in the City's key economic • centers. Possible location for retail and support uses include the Campus Tract, Community Commercial area, the Multi -Tenant Industrial area; and areas along North Bristol Street adjacent to the Corona del Mar Freeway. 7 Reuse and/or Expansion of Existing Development The reuse of existing under -performing or under-utilized sites should be considered as an alternative land use. For example, the extensive surface parking that exists to service the Koll Center may be reused for new development in conjunction with the construction of parking structures. Another example of a reuse opportunity is to consolidate the location of the car rental uses into one area and utilize the properties for other uses such as those discussed above. The expansion of major employers such as Conexant may be also considered. However, as a past Koll expansion was not approved through the Greenlight process, this alternative would have to demonstrate clear and significant benefits to Newport Beach to achieve Greenlight approval. This alternative may be considered in any area where there are viable uses that the City would like to encourage retention and expansion through policies that encourage and facilitate lot consolidation. This alternative is consistent with the Economic Development guiding principle regarding capitalizing on market and demographic changes and opportunities that emerge in key economic centers of the community. The Community Character guiding principle to enhance beneficial and unique business districts could be achieved by careful application of design and development standards for new uses. This alternative would be consistent with the Mobility guiding principle to consider urban scale development since this area currently contains high-rise • and industrial uses of a more urban character. The guiding principle to consider a different level of service for the Airport Business area would also be met through the selection of this alternative as reuse and/or expansion of some uses could result in increased vehicle circulation in the area. Table 2.1 Airport Business Area Development Options by Opportunity Area OpportunityAroas N 4 E E m 4b V Developmont Options a� 1 High -Density Residential X X 2 Mixed -Use Development X X X 3 Hotels X X X 4 Aviation (Corddor) Uses X 5 Auto Sales I Services X X 6 Retail & Support Service Uses X X 7 Reuse I Expansion of Existing Uses X X X X X X FIGURE 2-2 • • CAMPUS TRACT 3. Hotel 4. Aviation Corridor Uses 5. Consolidate Auto Sales/Service Uses 7. Re-use/Expansion Existing Uses MULTI -TENANT INDUSTRIAL 2. Mixed -Use 5. Consolidate Auto Sales/Service Uses 6. Retail/Support Services 7. Re-Use/Expansion Existing Uses COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL 3. Hotel 6. Retail/Support Services 7. Re-Use/Expansion Existing Uses CAMPUS DRIVE CONDOMINIUMS 1. High Rise Residential 2. Mixed -Use 7. Re-Use/Expansion Existing Uses CONEXANT 7. Re-use/Expansion of Existing/Similar Use KOLL CENTER 1. High Rise Residential 2. Mixed -Use 3. Hotel 7. Re-use/Expansion Existing Uses AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA POTENTIAL LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Existing Land Use Commercial Auto -Related Commerc of Fitness/Gyms M Specialty Retail Mum -Tenant Commercial Professional Office/Business/MedlcoWet IM Community Commercial Dine -in Restaurant, Fast Food Restaurant Hotel Industrial Light Industrial Business Park industrial Mufti -Tenant Industrial InslltutionaUOpen Space W Public/Semi Public Other Vacant Lot - ,,- City Boundary Nctle: GIS Data TOIBChaa-USlote Plane. Zoe 6. N4D33. Feet. I o nm Boo Feel Souce: COY W NewPae eaocM1, Gerard Pion AkY M)3. Crj Bourtl Ma/ =, Poce6.Ocb 2003. Rood$ Ocro 2003: a EF Asocl n VW", Sepkreber. 2003. PROJECT NUMBER: 1 D579-01 Requested by CP Created by: My Dote: 03M3/04 • City of New Beach General Plan GEOGRAPHIC SUBAREAS LAND Ut FORMULATION GPAC REVIEW • May 24, 2004 EIP Associates Urban Crossroads, Inc. Applied Development Economics Introduction Beginning in May 2004, the Newport Beach General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) will initiate its discussion and deliberations to determine the appropriate designations for land use throughout the City. The first step will be the identification of possible land use alternatives for the 12 subareas that have been selected by the General Plan Update Committee (GPUC). Following identification, the consultant team will evaluate the comparative traffic, fiscal, and environmental impacts of these options. These Geographic Subarea Discussion Papers are intended to serve as a framework for the • GPAC's discussion in defining the land use alternatives for each of the following geographic subareas within Newport Beach: Banning Ranch, Airport Business Area, Lido Marina Village/Civic Center, Balboa Village, Cannery Village/McFadden Square, Corona del Mar, West Newport Coast Highway Corridor, West Newport Residential, Mariner's Mile, West Newport Industrial, Newport Center/ Fashion Island, and Old Newport Boulevard. It is understood that these encompass areas in which change is likely and/or policy intervention is necessary. Other areas of the City will be addressed by "global" policies that will be subsequently defined during the planning process. These papers present an overview of existing conditions, as well as a summary of key planning issues/findings affecting each subarea's land uses, as identified through the Visioning Process and the analyses in the Technical Background Report, and raised by City staff. Guiding Principles that pertain to or affect land use development of the subarea are also provided. Lastly, initial land use options for each subarea are identified for GPAC to consider, and to stimulate their identification of additional land use alternatives. The impact analyses will be presented to and reviewed with the GPAC and at workshops designed for input from the general public in September. Based on the input received, a Preferred Land Use Plan will be selected in October. Description of Lido Village and Civic Center Area This sub -area is comprised of two distinct locales, Lido Village and the Civic Center, which comprises the area in which City Hall is located. Figure 3-1 below shows this area within a regional context. Lido Village is bounded by Finley Drive to the south, the Lido Channel to the • north and east, and Newport Blvd to the west. Primary uses in Lido Village include salons, home • furnishings, apparel, and other specialty shops ranging from jewelry stores to wine merchants. Lido Village includes Lido Marina Village, a waterfront development situated between the Lido Channel, Newport Boulevard, and Via Lido, and is adjacent to City Hall. • • Lido Marina Village is primarily a pedestrian -oriented retail area, with a mix of neighborhood - serving commercial uses and specialty shopping. A parking structure, located in the center of Lido Village, accounts for 8.3 percent of the land area. The area also contains the historic Lido Theatre located on Via Lido, and civic/social uses such as the Elks Lodge. Commercial land uses predominate at 53.5 percent of the area, with some residential condominiums (2.9 percent of the area) located along Via Lido. While Lido Village contains specialty retail and restaurants, the Civic Center area is more public -use oriented. This area primarily contains public/semi-public uses, with City government offices, a church and a fire station. It consists of the City Hall complex, a Fire Station, a public parking lot, and a stretch of landscaped parkway along Newport Boulevard; these uses account for 24.8 percent of the study area. In addition, the area contains multi -tenant commercial uses such as (38.0 percent of the study area), located in the commercial strip on Newport Boulevard west of City Hall between Via Lido and 32°d Street. Vacancies account for 3.1 percent of land uses in the study area. 4M.. COSTA MESA ya ua 14 f xww IRVINE rw , It,Alf QI"C s M �a Figure 3A Regional Location of Lido Village and Civic Center Subarea 2 • Lido Village and Civic Center Subarea Issues and Opportunities The following issues were identified for the Lido Village and Civic Center area through the Visioning Process, Technical Background Report (TBR) analyses, and by staff. VISIONING PROCESS There is community support to protect historic commercial and residential villages such as Lido Village. 2. Suggestions of tools to protect villages include narrowing permitted uses; adopting design and development guidelines; establishing a design review process; and adopting specific plans. 3. Lido Village was identified as an area suitable for mixed -use development integrating housing and commercial or office space. 4. There is a question as to whether City Hall is still centrally located for residents. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND REPORT 1. Lido Marina Village, Lido Plaza and California Beach Building have experienced a high number of vacancies. At issue is the appropriate type and scale of development to enhance its character and viability. • 2. Lido Marina Village, Lido Plaza and California Beach Building may see pressure for redevelopment as retail uses under -perform. 3. Parking in this area may be inadequate to support full occupancy of the commercial space available in the Village. 4. Multiple ownership of properties inhibits cohesive and integrated development. 5. City Hall is considered too small to function as the administrative center for the City. CITYSTAFF Multiple owners of properties and fragmented land and property leasing agreements inhibit redevelopment in the area. 2. The Lido Marina Village area is not large enough to be a destination location. 3. The commercial area has limited visibility from Newport Boulevard. 4. There is insufficient parking for full occupancy of uses in the Village and the fragmented location of available parking is an issue. 5. The existing parking structure in Lido Marina Village is underutilized because it is: ■ Too expensive ■ Not well designed, not open enough, and not well lit 0 • ■ Not visible from Via Lido. 6. Commercial strip across Newport Blvd is dated and lacks adequate parking. 7. Via Lido is a wide street that results in unsafe vehicle speeds. 8. Newport Boulevard is not an attractive entry to the Balboa Peninsula. 9. The Lido Theatre is a community resource (historic building). 10. Staff identified the following "issue and opportunity areas" within Lido Village and Civic Center. These areas are discussed below, and alternative land uses specific to these areas are presented for consideration. These areas are identified on Figure 3-2 Lido Village and Civic Center Land Use Alternatives Map and are discussed in the Land Use Alternatives section. Lido Marina Village. This small triangular site is located west of Newport Boulevard between Via Oporto and Via Lido. There are several retail shops located here, but a large portion of the land area of the Village is occupied by the parking structure that serves the entire area. Lido Channel. These properties, part of the Lido Marina Village, are located along the Lido Channel between 32"d Street and Central Avenue. The Channel properties contain a mixture of commercial, residential, and civic/social uses (Elks Club). There • is some pedestrian access to the Channel in this area, and a Coastal Commission requirement that new development provide pedestrian access to the Channel. It is a long-term goal of the City to have a pedestrian promenade that runs the entire length of the Channel that links pedestrians shopping in the Village to the Channel and facilitates easy travel between the two areas. Lido Village South. This is the larger southerly portion of Lido Village located west of Newport Boulevard between Via Lido and 32"d Street. As discussed in the description above, this area primarily contains retail shopping and services in the shops along Via Lido and the commercial center along Finley Street north of City Hall. This portion of the Village also contains the historic Lido Theatre, a treasured City and Village resource. City Hall. The City Hall complex includes City Hall and a Fire Station. The outstanding issue regarding the future of this area is whether City Hall will relocate to a different part of the City or be rebuilt and expanded at this location. No decision has been made regarding the future of City Hall, so the land use alternatives discussed later in this paper consider both scenarios. Newport Boulevard Commercial. This area is located north and west of City Hall along Newport Boulevard between Via Lido and 32"d Street. This strip commercial has some healthy, established businesses, but also suffers vacancies. The size and depth of these properties limit their use for any major development project, but may be suitable for residential uses, visitor -serving commercial or the reuse and expansion • of the existing viable commercial uses. 4 • Guiding Principles The following guiding principles are from the Economic Development, Community Character, Environmental Conservation, Workforce and Special Needs Housing, and Mobility Discussion Papers, and are relevant to land use development within the Lido Village and Civic Center area. ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT 4. The General Plan should encourage mixed -use development. 5. General Plan policies will support City efforts to optimize retail sales capture in the community. 9. General Plan policies will protect the high value of residential property. 10. General Plan policies shall prepare the City to capitalize on market and demographic changes and opportunities that emerge in key economic centers of the community. 11. The General Plan shall support the careful expansion of visitor -serving businesses and facilities, including hotels and meeting facilities. COMMUNITY CHARACTER 2. Maintain and enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods and business districts that together identify Newport Beach. is 3. Future development shall consider the scale, urban form, design, character, and quality of the community. WORKFORCE AND SPECIAL NEEDS MOUSING 1. Promote a balanced residential community, comprised of a variety of housing types, designs, and opportunities for all social and economic segments including very low, low, moderate, and upper income households. 3. Consider mixed -use development as a means to create additional housing opportunities. MOBILITY 1. Establish General Plan land uses and density/intensity limits that will have less impact on peak hour traffic. 2. Consider the potential benefits and costs (housing, social, community character, fiscal and economic) of land use and circulation system alternatives before adopting goals regarding acceptable levels of service for the circulation system. 8. Consider urban scale development in areas where there is potential for development patterns that will minimize traffic. 9. Increase City strategies and programs to enhance the development and use of alternative • transportation modes and transportation systems management. 5 • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 3. Minimize air quality degradation through land use practices and circulation improvements that reduce reliance on the automobile. Suggested Land Use Alternatives The potential land use alternatives discussed below may be considered for this area, in particular for the "issue and opportunity" areas identified by staff. These land use alternatives are presented in a matrix at the end of this discussion that correlates the alternatives to specific geographic areas for which they may be considered. These options are not mutually exclusive and could be implemented in combination with one another and/or other alternatives developed by GPAC. Figure 3-2 depicts the issue areas and the various land use alternatives considered for each area. • u • DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS FOR LIDO VILLAGE AND CIVIC CENTER 1. Create a "Super Block" One alternative that takes a comprehensive approach to the redevelopment of the Village is to create a "super -block" that achieves a critical mass to attract viable commercial uses. The super block would involve consolidation of properties in the southern portion of the Village from Newport Boulevard to the Lido Channel. This proposal includes the abandonment of Via Malaga and Via Oporto south of Via Lido to add additional acreage to the block. This alternative would be coupled with the necessary street improvements to 32°d Street so that it becomes the main entry to Lido Isle. The super block consolidation could result in larger parcel sizes and enhance the ability to attract "destination" entertainment and cultural uses to complement the Lido theatre and enhanced visitor serving retail and service uses in the Village. This alternative could also facilitate the ability to provide shared parking uses for the area in one central location. The super block concept is consistent with several Economic Development Guiding principles such as revitalizing older commercial areas, converting underperforming retail, increasing visitor serving uses in the City, and capitalizing on market opportunities in key economic centers of the community. With careful design and attention to maintaining the character of the Village, this concept could also be consistent with Community Character guiding principles that speak to maintaining the character and small town feel of the City's Villages such as Lido Marina. 2. HWher-Density Residential is Medium density housing is a land use option to consider for Lido Village especially for Lido Channel properties along the waterfront. Given the small size of the Village, commercial uses should be encouraged in the central Village areas with higher density residential considered in areas such as channel front properties or locations in the Lido Village South furthest from the central Village area. The provision of additional housing opportunities is consistent with the Economic Development guiding principles to maintain high value residential and to increase retail sales capture by improving the retail market that remains by reducing the amount of under- performing commercial uses. Further, additional housing increases the local customer base for commercial uses in the Village and reduces traffic for those who may live and work in the Village. It would also provide additional housing opportunities for a major City employment base, Hoag Hospital. Residential opportunities could also be designed as part of mixed -uses in the area. 3. Mixed -Use Development This land use alternative may include vertical mixed -use with commercial development on the ground floor with residential on the floors above, or on larger parcels an integrated development that includes residential and commercial uses in separate buildings such as currently exist in Newport Center. Lido Marina Village is nearby to Hoag Hospital, a major employment center in the City. The addition of housing to the Village would support and strengthen its economic vitality and attractiveness for complementary entertainment, cultural and recreational uses. Mixed -use is consistent with several guiding principals including Environmental Conservation to • improve air quality due to the reduced trips that result from mixed -use projects relative to single 7 . use development. It is also consistent with Economic Development and Workforce and Special Needs Housing guiding principles that encourage the consideration of mixed -use in appropriate areas. With land assembly and incentives from the City for lot consolidation, mixed -use could be developed in the area and smaller mixed -use projects may be considered for Lido Channel properties. 4. Entertainment / Cultural Uses Entertainment, cultural uses, art galleries, art schools, and specialty museums, etc. may be considered for appropriate locations in the Village. These uses should be concentrated in the central Village areas along Via Lido so that they are easily visible. These uses are consistent with Economic Development principles as these uses are a type of visitor service use and they have the potential to enhance the viability of the Village consistent with the guiding principal to capitalize on market opportunity in key areas of the community. These uses would also be consistent with Mobility guiding principles regarding land uses that consider the traffic impacts since these uses are not peak hour traffic generators. 5. Hotels with Specialty Retail Another alternative to consider for this Village is lodging. This land use alternative may be in the form of boutique hotels in the Village with a specialty retail or bed and breakfast establishments. The Visioning process and Economic Development studies identified the need and desirability for hotels as a way of attracting additional business to the community. The advantage of this area • for hotels is its proximity to the coast and near a major employment center. Lido Village South as well as Lido Channel properties are potential locations in the Village for specialty hotel/lodging opportunities. Hotels are consistent with several Economic Development principles including capitalizing on market and demographic changes and opportunities that emerge in key economic centers of the community, and the expansion of visitor -serving businesses and facilities including hotels and meeting facilities. • 6. Visitor -Serving Commercial This land use alternatives covers a broad range of commercial uses from retail commercial, to hotels, to ice cream parlors, and restaurants. There are several vacant and/or underutilized properties in the Village that would be suitable for these uses including, the area south of Via Lido, properties north of Via Lido adjacent to the parking structure, and Lido Channel properties. This alternative is consistent with Economic Development guiding principles to increase visitor - serving uses and to capitalize market opportunities in key community areas. 7. Reuse/Expansion of Existing Uses Continuation of existing uses through expansion or redevelopment is another land use option for properties in this area. In particular, the City encourages the retention of the Lido Theatre and uses that complement and support the theatre. This land use alternative does not generate the economic opportunity of some of the more ambitious proposals such as development of the super block, but expansion and/or reuse is consistent with Community Character guiding principles to maintain the small town feel and character of established Villages such as Lido. I 0 S. Street/Corridor Improvements The following considerations for street and streetscape improvements have been identified: ■ Improve the streetscape along Newport Boulevard so that it is a more attractive entry to the City and/or the Peninsula. ■ Improve the streetscape along Via Lido to make it more pedestrian friendly, i.e. add angled parking, narrow the travel lanes, etc. ■ Implement a pedestrian promenade along the Lido Channel that facilitates pedestrian connections between the Village shops and Channel frontage. ■ Reconfigure 32nd Street so that it serves as the primary entry to Lido Isle. The improvements proposed to Via Lido will slow traffic and facilitate the use of 32nd Street as the main entry to Lido Isle. This improvement was also a recommendation of the Balboa Peninsula Planning Area Study completed in September 1996. 9. Relocate City Hall This option would allow redevelopment of the Civic Center properties with the land use alternatives discussed above. The City Hall is located on property that is approximately one- fourth of the land area of the Village and provides opportunities for a full range of development options discussed. Refer to 1-6 above. 10. Rebuild Citv Hall in the Current Civic Center Area The City has the option to demolish and rebuild City Hall at its current location using a more efficient design. The issue has been raised as to whether City Hall is centrally located to efficiently serve all residents and there have been discussions about possible relocation. One idea would be to apply the super block concept and share parking between City Hall and Village uses. Table 3.2 Lido Village and Civic Center Area Development Options by Opportunity Area 0 r iortunit Aroa E T oavolopmontopuOns b b a U 3^ 1 Super -Block X X 2 Higher -Density Residential X X X X 3 Mixed -Use Development X X X X 4 Entertainment / Cultural Uses X X 5 Hotels with Specialty Retail X X X X 6 Visitor -Serving Commercial X X X X X 7 Reuse/Expansion of Existing Uses X X X X X 8 Street/CorrldorImprovements X X X X 9 Relocate City Hall X 10 Rebuild City Hall in Civic Center Area X 0 COSTA MESA .5 ------------ y b... BANNING y� RANCH OF.. ♦� E 'r a Pr • . yP > IRVINE i ♦♦ NEWPORT! AP SHORES •- ''Vy ♦ rr : O ROAD 1� MLLLS yP o` r • ;� R ..` .F ��4' r NORTH P EEAON _�)• o \� OWEPT O NEWPORT NEWPORT RIDGE 1//\//�ws—��r\\, '. DUNES FASHION ISLAND 1 �I • UNOA ISLE p0 93T O p LIDO ISLE ISLANNIL.. D n, U NEWFORT - COLLINS serve NER RAY ISLAND' MILS O ROAD O10 BALBOA ISLAND BALBOA HER 1 1 4' O! WEDGE BID CORONA U LITTLE CORONA CANEO SHORES - NPWPOgT CRYSTAL COYE STATE PARR 'Cq soon gaily Y i : R 1 aE NEWPORT COAST I"• R 1 i .ak }>� COW CE*STAL TE PARR CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Figure 6.8-2 NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS City Boundary �'` Noise Measurement Locations �P Qi Hoag Hospital Q 127 41 st Street -Corner of Balboa O Boulevard Q 204 Via Antibes -Corner of Via Lido Nord Q 601 Via Lldo Nord -Corner of Via Orvieto 0 Park at Look Out Point Q Adjacent to 331 Mayflower-Deanza Trailer Park Qi Southwest corner of Patollta Road and Bonnie Doane Terrace Qe Corner of Park Road and Onyx Road Q 214 Coronado Road To End of Adams Road T i Vacant Lot on Boyside Drive © Front Yard of 415 1 /2 Marguerite Avenue la Crystal Cove Commercial Center -next to housing at south end of parking lot Adjacent to Newport Beach Fire Department © Corner of Pt. Conception and El Capitan 16 North of Sausalito Street on Marguerite Avenue Q Intersection of San Miguel Drive and. Yacht Coquette la 500 yards east of MacArthur Boulevard on Bonita Canyon Drive Ts Eastbluff Drive N.E. of Vista Del Oro ®° Bison and Belcourt Drive North Note: GIS Data Projection - CA State Mane, Zone 6, NAD83, Feet. 0 2000 4000 Few 0 0.5 1 MIMIS Source: City of Newport Beach, General Plan, July 2003. City Boundary, May 2003, Countes, May 2003, CMIc Facilities, October 2003; US Census Bureau, Other City Boundaries, 2WO; ESRI, Major Roads, February 2002; and FIR Associates, GIS Program, November, 2003. PROJECT NUMBER: 10579-01 Request by: HR Created by: MV Dole: 12/26/03 a2E�"r E I P m - ASSOCI M1'I E6 • City of Newport Beach General Plan GEOGRAPHIC SUBAREAS LAND US FORMULATION GPAC REVIEW • May 24, 2004 EIP Associates Urban Crossroads, Inc. Applied Development Economics Introduction Beginning in May 2004, the Newport Beach General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) will initiate its discussion and deliberations to determine the appropriate designations for land use throughout the City. The first step will be the identification of possible land use alternatives for the 12 subareas that have been selected by the General Plan Update Committee (GPUC). Following identification, the consultant team will evaluate the comparative traffic, fiscal, and environmental impacts of these options. These Geographic Subarea Discussion Papers are intended to serve as a framework for the GPAC's discussion in defining the land use alternatives for each of the following geographic • subareas within Newport Beach: Banning Ranch, Airport Business Area, Lido Marina Village/Civic Center, Balboa Village, Cannery Village/McFadden Square, Corona del Mar, West Newport Coast Highway Corridor, West Newport Residential, Mariner's Mile, West Newport Industrial, Newport Center/ Fashion Island, and Old Newport Boulevard. It is understood that these encompass areas in which change is likely and/or policy intervention is necessary. Other areas of the City will be addressed by "global" policies that will be subsequently defined during the planning process. These papers present an overview of existing conditions, as well as a summary of key planning issues/findings affecting each subarea's land uses, as identified through the Visioning Process and the analyses in the Technical Background Report, and raised by City staff. Guiding Principles that pertain to or affect land use development of the subarea are also provided. Lastly, initial land use options for each subarea are identified for GPAC to consider, and to stimulate their identification of additional land use alternatives. The impact analyses will be presented to and reviewed with the GPAC and at workshops designed for input from the general public in September. Based on the input received, a Preferred Land Use Plan will be selected in October. Description of Balboa Village Balboa Village is the historic center for commercial, recreational, and social activities in the community. Balboa Village is located on the Balboa Peninsula between Coronado Boulevard to the northwest, and A Street to the southeast. Figure 4-1 shows the regional location of Balboa Village. This study area has 19 acres, of which a mix of commercial uses represents 33.5 percent • (6.4 acres) of land uses within the area. Of the retail uses, multi -tenant buildings with a variety of 1 • commercial uses are the largest commercial land use, representing 15.3 percent (2.9 acres) of the area. The retail uses are a mix of neighborhood -serving and visitor -serving commercial, i.e., ice cream, bike rentals, and T-shirt shops. Fast food and dine -in restaurants, apparel and specialty shops predominate along Balboa Boulevard and Bay Avenue. A "fun zone" along Edgewater Place includes entertainment uses such as an arcade, amusement park rides, fast food restaurants, and souvenir shops. Marine -related commercial uses such as ferries to Balboa and Catalina Islands, and harbor tours are present in the area. There are a number of commercial vacancies throughout the area, as shown on the table, as well as in the multi -tenant complexes along Edgewater Place. This study area is pedestrian -oriented with articulated building facades, and signage that is pedestrian scale. The single largest land use category in the study area is public parking. Two parking lots account for 36.9 percent (7.0 acres) of the area's land uses, providing parking for the adjacent beach area as well as the study area. This is appropriate in an older pedestrian -oriented area where buildings typically have zero lot lines (built to the property line), and relatively limited private parking areas. Residential land uses accounting for 21.5 percent (4.1 acres) of the area are located primarily within the western portion of the study area from Adams Street to Coronado Street, at the eastern boundary of the area, and along Ocean Front. A large park, Peninsula Park, accounts for 4.8 percent (0.9 acres) of the area. The City has embarked upon a number of public improvements in the area within the last few years, which include the addition of street furniture, lighting, landscaping and decorative paving. This study area is within a Specific Plan area. • The Balboa Peninsula Planning Study was conducted in 1996. The study concluded the area has a strong marine heritage, and has drawn fishermen, recreational boaters, summer residents, and beachgoers. Over time, the area has experienced a transition to year-round residential use while the visitor uses have continued, and there has not been comprehensive planning to ensure the compatibility of these uses. Parking supply has been addressed, but there has not been a plan to provide adequate parking for the convenience of residents, their guests, and shoppers. There is more commercial space than can be supported by residents alone, and marginal commercial space is used by businesses that are seasonal and do not promote a quality image for the Peninsula. E In 1997, the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee (BPPAC) published its vision for Balboa Village. The vision consisted of aesthetic improvements such as landscaping, pedestrian amenities, and design standards. The vision addressed property maintenance standards, parking district implementation, and circulation improvements. The vision also sought to establish a "family marine recreation theme," upgrade the Fun Zone, and improve the quality and mix of commercial tenants. As of 2004, landscaping, pedestrian amenities, and design standards have been implemented for the area. 2 n LI COSTA MESA d IRVINE h{l 4 uoobF ' A4ciR/c IF•r•M, 0c£41V �.I +• ra p Figure 4.1 Regional Location of Balboa Village Balboa Village Issues The following issues were identified for the Balboa Village area through the Visioning Process, Technical Background Report (TBR) analyses, and by staff. VISIONING PROCESS 1. Mixed -use development is considered appropriate within Balboa Village. 2. Visioning participants recognized Balboa Village could benefit from revitalization • efforts. 3 • 3. Rezoning of underutilized commercial lands for residential or mixed -use development should be considered. 4. Year-round tourism on Balboa Peninsula is inadequate to support all commercial areas and interest has been expressed to rezone areas for residential or mixed -use development. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND REPORT 1. Programs developed for the improvement of the area include the Balboa Peninsula Sign Overlay, Balboa Village Public Improvements and Design Guidelines, and City acquisition of the Balboa Theater. 2. The commercial area is in close proximity fo residential neighborhoods, which can create conflicts due to traffic, parking, air and noise pollution. 3. Balboa Village is in the Coastal Zone and development within the zone is governed by policies in the Local Coastal Plan. 4. Commercial uses are underperforming; this is the lowest retail sales per square foot area in the city. 5. There are several vacancies in the area. 6. A number of commercial tenants are dependent on seasonal demand. Much of these uses • are marginal in quality of goods and services provided. CITYSTAFF • 1. Since Balboa Village is located on the Balboa Peninsula, it is relatively remote and has limited access from other parts of Newport Beach and the surrounding region. 2. Customers of the Catalina Flier, a private business, utilize much of the public parking lot near the pier during the peak summer season, reducing the amount of public parking available. Many parcels in the area are small and do not have parking spaces. The rehabilitation and reuse of existing structures is inhibited by the code requirements to provide on -site parking, because doing so would require sacrificing building square footage for parking spaces. 4. The "old time" beach experience is part of the unique charm and character of Balboa Village. There is an opportunity to revitalize and enhance the area perhaps with a Historic District. Guiding Principles The following guiding principles are from the Economic Development, Community Character, Environmental Conservation, Workforce and Special Needs Housing Housing, and Mobility Discussion Papers, and are pertinent to land use development within the Balboa Village Area. El • ECONOMLCDEVELOPMENT 1. General Plan policies will maintain the City's positive fiscal balance. 3. General Plan policies will encourage the revitalization of older commercial areas. 4. The General Plan should encourage mixed -use development. 5. General Plan policies will support City efforts to optimize retail sales capture in the community. 6. The quantity of land designated for commercial use and the development standards that regulate such uses shall reflect the market support that can reasonably be anticipated during the General Plan time horizon. 7. General Plan policies will facilitate the development and retention of a variety of business types that strengthen the vitality of the local economy. 8. Additional development entitlement needs to demonstrate significant fiscal, economic or other community benefit. 9. General Plan policies will protect the high value of residential property. 11. The General Plan shall support the careful expansion of visitor -serving businesses and facilities, including hotels and meeting facilities. • COMMUNITY CHARACTER • 1. Protect and enhance the natural setting that contributes to the character and identity of Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its residents and visitors. 2. Maintain and enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods and business districts that together identify Newport Beach. 3. Future development shall consider the scale, urban form, design, character and quality of the community. 5. Preserve the community's heritage. WORKFORCEAND SPECIAL ]NEEDS HOUSING 1. Promote a balanced residential community, comprised of a variety of housing types, designs, and opportunities for all social and economic segments including very low, low, moderate, and upper income households. 2. Maintain quality residential development through the application of sound planning principals and policies that encourage the preservation, conservation and appropriate redevelopment of the City's housing stock. 3. Consider mixed -use development as a means to create additional housing opportunities. 5 • 4. Consider the rezoning of under -performing commercial areas to allow residential or mixed -use development. 5. General Plan policies shall protect the high value of residential property. MOBILITY 1. Establish General Plan land uses and density/intensity limits that will have less impact on peak hour traffic. 3. Regional traffic will be included in the analysis of land use alternatives, but such traffic will not be the sole reason for rejecting a land use alternative that would have net benefits to Newport Beach. 4. In selecting land use and circulation system alternatives, weight will be given to traffic congestion that is ongoing as well as to congestion that is limited to a few hours of the day or a few months of the year. 7. Improve parking supply and use of existing resources, and reduce congestion in tourist areas. 9. Increase City strategies and programs to enhance the development and use of alternative transportation modes and transportation systems management. • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 3. Minimize air quality degradation through land use practices and circulation improvements that reduce reliance on the automobile. 5. Encourage the protection and creation of public viewsheds within the City. Potential Land Use Alternatives for Discussion DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS For Balboa Village, several development preliminary scenarios have been identified, as discussed below. These options are not mutually exclusive and could be implemented in combination with one another and/or other alternatives developed by GPAC. 1. Existing City of Newport Beach General Plan The existing Newport Beach General Plan allows for total development of approximately 2,739 dwelling units, and 281,859 square feet of retail and service commercial uses in the Central Balboa Statistical Area. The maximum commercial floor area ratio (FAR) is 1.0. Second floor residential development over first floor commercial is permitted at 1.25 FAR. The City's General Plan proposes various densities for residential uses, with a mix of residential types, ranging from single-family to multi -family housing. Government, Educational and Institutional Facilities and Recreational and Environmental Uses are also allowed in the area. Development of additional residential uses would help meet the Workforce and Special Needs Housing Guiding Principle to provide a balanced residential community of varying housing types and offer an opportunity to provide affordable housing. Economic Development Guiding Principles to attain fiscal balance and protect the high value of residential property could also be supported by this scenario. Future development consistent with the existing General Plan would not explicitly further Community Character Guiding Principles, Environmental Conservation or Mobility Guiding Principles because land use strategies are not overtly directed toward these objectives. This alternative does not explicitly address the desire to revitalize the area. 2. Mixed -Use This land use development option includes reuse of underperforming uses with vertical mixed - use structures: housing and/or office uses located above commercial uses. The mix of uses appropriate for this area includes single-family, multi -family residential uses, limited neighborhood commercial uses, and some office/light industrial space. Loft -style and live/work housing are options for the area as they could support cultural and artistic uses in the area. Similar to the BPPAC option, this option supports Economic Development Guiding Principles seeking fiscal balance, revitalization, and local economic vitality by replacing underperforming uses with improved quality uses. It supports retail sales optimization to a lesser extent, as commercial development is only one of many allowed uses. The proposed mix of uses under this option would be in support of the Community Character Guiding Principle to maintain the scale is and unique character of the neighborhood, with mixed -use development contributing to the village character of the neighborhood. Residential uses would meet the Workforce and Special Needs Housing Guiding Principle to provide mixed -use housing and help to meet the City's need to provide additional units. If affordable housing were included, it would be in support of the Workforce and Special Needs Housing Guiding Principle. This option is one of the few that supports the Environmental Conservation Guiding Principle to minimize air quality degradation through land use practices that consolidate complementary uses such as housing and neighborhood serving commercial. While the Mobility Guiding Principle to reduce peak hour traffic impacts would potentially conflict with this option, other principles would be met by adopting an urban scale development pattern to minimize traffic, and improving parking supply by onsite parking provision for mixed -use developments. 3. Destination Use/ Entertainment Venue A variation of implementation of the existing General Plan would be to encourage the establishment of an Entertainment/Destination Center capitalizing on the Village's proximity to the ocean and harbor and existing day time visitor -serving uses such as the Fun Zone, ferry, pier, restaurants, live theatre venue and shops. Additional development would focus on higher quality visitor -serving uses such as restaurants and specialty shops. This option would provide the opportunity to enhance the current visitor -serving character of Balboa Village with an emphasis on replacing underperforming uses with quality retail and supporting uses directed towards daytime visitors. With a renewed focus as a Destination Center, the area could implement shared 7 . parking with shuttle service and/or pedestrian and bikeway improvements to facilitate visitor access and circulation. Similar to the BPPAC option, this option supports Economic Development Guiding Principles seeking fiscal balance, revitalization, retail sales optimization, local economic vitality, and expansion of visitor -serving uses. It supports the Community Character Guiding Principle of preserving community heritage and enhancing the area's unique character. The Mobility Guiding Principles to adopt parking and congestion management strategies and alternative transportation modes would also be met if parking and shuttle improvements were implemented. 4Expand Visitor -Serving Uses (Hotels, Inns. and Bed & Breakfasts) Another variation on the Destination Use option is to focus development on the expansion of visitor -serving uses, specifically hotels and similar uses. Hotels, inns and bed & breakfast establishments could be targeted for development in Balboa Village, again capitalizing on its proximity to the ocean and harbor and the existence of day time visitor -serving uses such as the Fun Zone, ferry, pier, restaurants and shops. This option supports Economic Development Guiding Principles encouraging fiscal balance, retail sales optimization, local economic vitality, and expansion of visitor -serving uses. Differentiating this option from the Destination Use scenario, an additional benefit to the community would result from the increase in transient occupancy tax (TOT) applied to overnight visitors. The Community Character Guiding Principles of preserving the community's heritage as a tourist destination and enhancing Balboa Village's unique character are supported by this option. Mobility Guiding Principles and Workforce and Special Needs Housing Guiding Principle would not explicitly be furthered by this option. The Environmental Conservation Guiding Principle to protect public viewsheds could potentially be supported by thoughtful siting of visitor -serving developments. 5. Consolidate Commercial Uses with Residential West of Adams This option pertains to the area west of Adams Street. The current uses north and south of Balboa Blvd. are a mix of commercial and residential uses. These commercial uses are outside the core Village and tend to be marginal. These may not be the most compatible uses for this area as adjacent commercial and housing uses that were not planned for may experience operational conflicts such as noise, garbage and parking competition. The option proposes to replace commercial uses with residential uses potentially supporting the Workforce and Special Needs Housing Guiding Principle to maintain quality residential development, and rezone under- performing commercial uses for housing uses. It also seeks to consolidate commercial uses, minimizing underperforming uses and creating a synergy of supporting uses, supporting Economic Development Guiding Principles of fiscal viability, market demand, and revitalization. This option also serves the Community Character Guiding Principles to maintain and enhance the beneficial and unique neighborhood character. 0 • City of Newport Beach General Plan GEOGRAPHIC SUBAREAS LAND US FORMULATION GPAC REVIEW • May 24, 2004 EIP Associates Urban Crossroads, Inc. Applied Development Economics Introduction Beginning in May 2004, the Newport Beach General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) will initiate its discussion and deliberations to determine the appropriate designations for land use throughout the City. The first step will be the identification of possible land use alternatives for the 12 subareas that have been selected by the General Plan Update Committee (GPUC). Following identification, the consultant team will evaluate the comparative traffic, fiscal, and environmental impacts of these options. These Geographic Subarea Discussion Papers are intended to serve as a framework for the • GPAC's discussion in defining the land use alternatives for each of the following geographic subareas within Newport Beach: Banning Ranch, Airport Business Area, Lido Marina Village/Civic Center, Balboa Village, Cannery Village/McFadden Square, Corona del Mar, West Newport Coast Highway Corridor, West Newport Residential, Mariner's Mile, West Newport Industrial, Newport Center/Fashion Island, and Old Newport Boulevard. It is understood that these encompass areas in which change is likely and/or policy intervention is necessary. Other areas of the City will be addressed by "global" policies that will be subsequently defined during the planning process. These papers present an overview of existing conditions, as well as a summary of key planning issues/findings affecting each subarea's land uses, as identified through the Visioning Process and the analyses in the Technical Background Report, and raised by City staff. Guiding Principles that pertain to or affect land use development of the subarea are also provided. Lastly, initial land use options for each subarea are identified for GPAC to consider, and to stimulate their identification of additional land use alternatives. The impact analyses will be presented to and reviewed with the GPAC and at workshops designed for input from the general public in September. Based on the input received, a Preferred Land Use Plan will be selected in October. Description of Cannery Village Cannery Village is the historic center of the City's commercial fishing and boating industry and has a mix of small shops, art galleries, and professional offices and service establishments. This area is bounded by 32nd Street to the north, Balboa Boulevard to the west, Lido Channel to the • east, and 26th Street to the south. Figure 1-1 details land uses in the Cannery Village area. The • area is primarily commercial (71.3 percent of the subarea) with a variety of neighborhood - serving commercial and specialty shops. Residential uses comprise 15.4 percent of the area; these are mostly multi -family and/or attached homes. A new loft -style development has recently been constructed. Additionally, older developments in the area include some single-family residential units combined with commercial uses on single lots. • Specialty retail in the area includes home furnishings and art galleries, and architectural and design offices. There are also professional offices, located mostly in the northern portion of the area. Community -related commercial uses, such as Albertson's grocery and gyms, are located in the area. Dine -in and fast food restaurants account for more than 7.0 percent of the land area. Marine -related commercial (boat sales) and marine -related industrial uses (boat repair) can also be found between Newport Boulevard and the Lido Channel, representing 2.2 percent and 1.5 percent of the area respectively. Religious institutions are located in the northwest portion of the area and represent 4.8 percent of land uses. Public parking is available on several small lots throughout the area, accounting for 3.1 percent of land uses. Vacant lots or buildings account for less than 2.0 percent of the area. This area is included within the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan. Description of McFadden Square McFadden Square lies south of Cannery Village, and is bounded by 26th Street to the north, 19th Street to the south, and Ocean Front and the Pacific Ocean to the west. It features commercial operations from restaurants, beach hotels, dory fishing boats, and tourist -oriented shops to service operations and facilities that serve the Peninsula. An important feature of this area includes the Newport Pier, which attracts many visitors. Figure 1-2 details land uses in the study area. The McFadden Square area is known for its marine -related industries such as shipbuilding and repair facilities on the harbor, some of which have been in continuous operation for over fifty years. Commercial land uses are largely concentrated in the commercial strips of Balboa and Newport Boulevards, with residential along Ocean Front. This area is a combination of residential (39.6 percent) and commercial (27.8 percent) uses, with multi -tenant and visitor -serving commercial uses, such as t-shirt shops, and rental shops. Dine -in and fast food restaurants account for 7.0 percent of the area. There are also many bars and clubs • in the area with some featuring live music, especially along Ocean Front. The Newport Pier P] • extends from McFadden Square, and there are many nearby recreational uses (bike rentals, surf shops, etc.). is Other uses in the area include industrial and public uses. There are a number of marine -related industrial uses (boat storage, restoration and repair, etc.) between Newport Boulevard and the West Lido Channel. Balboa Community Center is located just south of the pier and accounts for 7.0 percent of the land uses within the area. Public parking (22.1 percent of area land use) is available in two lots, of which the easternmost one is separated from commercial uses by residential uses. These lots primarily serve the beach users, tourists, and the restaurant patrons. Much of the McFadden Square area is pedestrian -oriented, with storefronts facing the street, the presence of signage at a pedestrian scale, outdoor furniture, and landscaping to provide a pleasant environment. However, certain areas present difficulty for pedestrian street crossing. Specifically the intersection of Newport and Balboa Boulevards, known as "Mixmaster" is one such crossing as the roadway configuration at this location allows traffic flow from different directions and the street is wide. Improvements at this intersection are currently under construction. Issues The following issues/findings were identified for Cannery Village and McFadden Square through the Visioning Process, Technical Background Report (TBR) analyses, and by City staff. VISIONING PROCESS Cannery Village and McFadden Square 1. Both Cannery Village and McFadden Square need continuing revitalization. The City should be proactive in creating a revitalization vision to help guide future private development. 3 • 2. Peak season traffic volumes have been raised as an issue, especially on the Balboa Peninsula. 3. Mixed -use represents an opportunity for development. 4. Parking in the coastal areas such as Balboa Peninsula is generally viewed as inadequate. McFadden Square 5. Rezoning of underutilized commercial lands for residential or mixed -use development should be considered, particularly in McFadden Square. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND REPORT Cannery Villaee and McFadden Square 1. Roadway volume traffic count data indicates that summer weekend daily traffic volumes increase by more than 30% on Newport Boulevard south of Coast Highway. Roadway volume traffic count data also indicates that summer weekday daily traffic volumes increased based on data collected on Newport Boulevard in front of City Hail. The increases on mid -week weekdays (Tuesday through Thursday) compared to shoulder season weekday conditions are approximately half of the increase observed for summer weekend day. Summer traffic volume increases on Mondays and Fridays, however, are very similar to the summer weekend day increases. Cannery Villaee • 2. New mixed -use developments need to consider building design, type of commercial uses, and compatibility of residential uses. 3. Multiple ownership of individual parcels inhibits the area's cohesive and integrated development. CITYSTAFF Cannery Villaee 1. In general, the lot sizes are small and streets are narrow within the area, which preclude any large-scale, significant development. 2. Incompatibility issues associated with noise and parking occur in areas where residential and commercial uses interface. 3. The feeling of Old Newport's historic marine uses provides distinct character to the area that can be capitalized on in the future. 4. Mixed -use developments located away from the commercial corridor do not appear to be successful as the ground floor of these structures does not have active retail uses. 5. Due to the age of some buildings, hazardous materials from marine -related uses could be present and may require remediation prior to redevelopment. McFadden Square 6. The McFadden Square area contains some historic structures in poor condition that can is be enhanced through establishing a historic district and by offering incentives for reuse. 4 • 7. Vehicular access to the area, particularly on the bay side, is somewhat limited. 8. Existing retail and beach uses are successful and the area also has a strong entertainment component that can be capitalized upon. Guiding Principles The following guiding principles are from the Economic Development, Community Character, Environmental Conservation, Affordable Housing, and Mobility Discussion Papers, and are pertinent to land use development within the Cannery Village and McFadden Square Subareas. ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT 1. General Plan policies will maintain the City's positive fiscal balance. 2. General Plan land use policies will facilitate an economically viable concentration of marine uses. 3. General Plan policies will encourage the revitalization of older commercial areas. 4. The General Plan should encourage mixed -use development. COMMUNITY CHARACTER 2. Maintain and enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods and business districts that together identify Newport Beach. 3. Future development shall consider the scale, urban form, design, character and quality of • the community. 5. Preserve the community's heritage. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 4. Minimize air quality degradation through land use practices and circulation improvements that reduce reliance on the automobile. 6. Minimize the exposure of people to noise hazards. 7. Minimize intrusion from light sources. WORKFORCE AND SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING 1. Promote a balanced residential community, comprised of a variety of housing types, designs, and opportunities for all social and economic segments including very low, low, moderate, and upper income households. 3. Consider mixed -use development as a means to create additional housing opportunities. 4. Consider the rezoning of under -performing commercial areas to allow residential or mixed -use development. MOBILITY 1. Establish General Plan land uses and density/intensity limits that will have less impact on peak hour traffic. 7. Improve parking supply and use of existing resources, and reduce congestion in older • tourist areas. 5 Potential Land Use Alternatives for Discussion DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS FOR CANNERY VILLAGE The following development options are suggested for GPAC's consideration for the Cannery Village area. These options are not mutually exclusive and could be implemented in combination with one another and with other alternatives developed by GPAC. The exact siting of these options will also be determined by GPAC. 1. Cannery Villaee/McFadden Square Specific Plan Implementation of the Specific Plan would allow for the following uses within Cannery Village: specialty retail uses from 29" Street to 32°d Street, bounded by Newport Boulevard and Villa Way; residential uses (R2) along Balboa Boulevard where existing multi -family residential is currently located; recreational and marine commercial uses on the east side of Lafayette Avenue; and retail and service commercial uses in the remainder of the area. The intent of the Specific Plan is to enable Cannery Village to serve as an active pedestrian -oriented specialty retail area with visitor -serving, neighborhood commercial, and marine -related uses. The primary focus of this area would be the establishment of a specialty retail district that would be served by a central public parking facility on 30th Street. Single- and multi -family residential uses are allowed on the upper floors of all commercial uses, when the first floor is occupied by a permitted use. The recreational and marine commercial designation encourages the continuation of marine oriented uses along the channel. Specific Plan implementation could involve reuse of existing buildings • or new structures. Implementation of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan would convert single- family and multi -family residential uses to commercial, while allowing residential uses to be incorporated on the upper floors of parcels zoned for commercial uses. Additionally, public/semi public uses in the northeastern portion of Cannery Village would allow for specialty retail uses. This may be consistent with Economic Development Guiding Principles (EDGP) of maintaining the City's positive fiscal balance, and would fully support the guiding principles of revitalizing the area and including mixed -use developments. The recreational and marine commercial designation encourages the continuation of marine oriented uses, which would be in support of the EDGP of facilitating an economically viable concentration of marine uses. u Achieving the Community Character Guiding Principle (CCGP) of maintaining the unique character, scale, urban form or design of Cannery Village would depend on the design of the new buildings and the density and use of the area. If mixed -use projects containing residential and retail are implemented, reduced reliance on the automobile could occur, in support of the Environmental Conservation Guiding Principles (ECGP) and the Mobility Guiding Principles (MGP). However, the commercial uses could expose the residents to additional noise or light sources, which would conflict with the ECGP. Lastly, if additional housing opportunities are provided in the commercial areas, which is allowed under the Specific Plan, this would be in support of the Workforce and Special Needs Housing Guiding Principles (WSNHGP). 3 • 2. Mixed -Use Development This option would allow for the revitalization and conversion of existing commercial and industrial buildings to mixed -use developments consisting of residential and retail uses. New structures containing this type of development could also occur. This option is intended to intensify the number of residents in the area to help support the commercial uses in Cannery Village, and the uses located in the Lido Village and Civic Center area. These types of mixed -use developments would be compatible with existing uses, and could be sited in a variety of locations within the area. Implementation of this option would fully support the EDGP of encouraging revitalization of older commercial areas and mixed -use developments. However, this option may not fully meet the EDGP of maintaining the City's positive fiscal balance if existing commercial and industrial uses are converted for residential uses. Achieving the CCGP of maintaining and enhancing the unique character of the Cannery Village area and preserving the community's heritage would depend on the design of new buildings and the density and use of this area. Implementation of this alternative would result in revitalization of the area, which would improve the quality of the community. However, mixed -use developments could create noise conflicts between residential and commercial uses. Addition of mixed -use developments can encourage people to work and live within the same area, thus minimizing the need to drive an automobile. Implementation of this option could minimize air quality degradation and peak hour traffic, both of which are in support of the ECGP • and the MGP. Lastly, the conversion of some commercial or industrial use to accommodate residents would create additional housing opportunities within Newport Beach, which is in support of the WSNHGP. 3. Artist Lofts, Live/Work Developments Under this option, mixed -use developments consisting of artist lofts and/or live/work developments would be encouraged as part of the revitalization strategy for Cannery Village. Existing residential, commercial, and industrial buildings can be renovated to include these types of projects, or new structures can be implemented. With the recently implemented loft -style developments and the presence of art galleries in the area, the addition of artist lofts would complement the existing uses. The ground floor could accommodate retail uses, such as gallery space for the artists. Live/work developments that could accommodate offices and residences in the same space for architects and designers would also be compatible with existing uses. Similar to the development option described above, implementation of artist lofts and live/work developments would fully support the EDGP of encouraging revitalization of older commercial areas and mixed -use developments. However, these types of developments may not fully meet the EDGP of maintaining the City's fiscal balance if existing commercial or industrial uses are converted to residential uses. Renovation and reuse of existing buildings, as well as new structures, could maintain and enhance the unique character, and the scale and design of the existing buildings within the City, as well as preserving the community's heritage. Implementation of artist lofts and live/work situations would be in support of the CCGP. With 0 these types of developments, people such as architects, designers, or artists of the area could 7 • work and live in the same space, which can reduce vehicle trips. Thus, this option would support ECGP and MGP. Implementation of this option would also support WSNHGP by providing additional housing opportunities. 4. Open Space The island area bounded by 30th Street on the north, Newport Boulevard on the west and east, and 261h Street to the south could be converted to open space such as parkland under this option. Currently, this area contains commercial uses, some of which are in need of revitalization. The City would have to purchase this land and relocate or purchase the businesses to convert it to recreational space. Implementation of this development option would create an aesthetically pleasing space, and provide visual relief from the surrounding urban environment. Conversion of this area would not meet EDGP as recreational use would not generate revenues, and require City funds to maintain the grounds. Additionally, this option would not be in support of WSNHGP as no new housing opportunities would be created. However, conversion of existing commercial uses to open space would be consistent with CCGP, ECGP, and MGP. 5. Shuttle Staeine Area A shuttle to transport beachgoers from the public parking lots could be implemented on the Balboa Peninsula. A staging area for the beach shuttle would be needed and could be incorporated into the Cannery Village area due to its proximity to the ocean. Bounded by 300' Street on the north, Newport Boulevard on the west and east, and 26th Street on the south, the . island area can accommodate the shuttle staging area. The staging area would be located across the street from public parking lots, and be able to serve tourists wanting to visit the City beaches located throughout the Peninsula. As previously discussed, this area presently contains commercial uses that are in need of revitalization. Implementation of this development option would require the City to purchase this land and convert the commercial structures for this use. A shuttle staging area would not support the EDGP since a loss of revenues from the commercial uses and possibly additional City funding to maintain and operate the shuttle would occur under this option. This option would also not support the WSNHGP because no additional housing would be provided. However, this option would be in support of the MGP by minimizing traffic in the Cannery Village area, and the rest of the Balboa Peninsula. Additionally, a shuttle staging area would allow the operation of the shuttle, which would help minimize air quality degradation in the area, consistent with ECGP. DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS FOR MCFADDENSQUARE The following development options are suggested for GPAC consideration of the McFadden Square Subarea. These options are not mutually exclusive and could be implemented in combination with one another and with other alternatives developed by GPAC. 1. Cannery Villaee/McFadden Square Specific Plan In general, under the Specific Plan, the following land uses would be allowed within the McFadden Square area: recreational and marine commercial uses along the Newport Channel; • E: retail service commercial uses between Ocean Front and Balboa Boulevard, as well as alon Balboa Boulevard; and single-family and multi -family residential uses along 20°i and 24` Streets. The recreational and marine commercial designation encourages the continuation of marine oriented uses. Single- and multi -family uses are allowed over commercial uses provided that a permitted use is on the ground floor. Specific Plan implementation could involve reuse of existing structures and construction of new ones. Implementation of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan would convert single- family residential uses to commercial, while allowing residential uses to be incorporated on the upper floors of parcels zoned for commercial uses. This may be consistent with EDGP of maintaining the City's positive fiscal balance, and would fully support the guiding principles of revitalizing the area and including mixed -use developments. The recreational and marine commercial designation encourages the continuation of marine oriented uses, which would be in support of the EDGP of facilitating an economically viable concentration of marine uses. With the conversion of uses in the area and implementation of new structures, the character of McFadden Square could be maintained or enhanced. This may be consistent with the CCGP. If mixed -use projects containing residential and retail is implemented, reduced reliance on the automobile could occur, in support of the ECGP and the MGP. However, the commercial uses could expose the residents to additional noise or light sources, which would conflict with the ECGP. Lastly, if affordable housing or additional housing opportunities are provided in the commercial areas, which is allowed under the Specific Plan, this would be in support of the WSNHGP. • 2. Mixed -Use Development Mixed -use retail and residential uses would be encouraged in the eastern portion of the McFadden Square area, from 26th Street to The Arcade, east of Newport Boulevard. Reuse of existing commercial and industrial structures, as well as new mixed -use developments could continue to accommodate ground floor retail uses, such as outdoor restaurants that could capitalize on its proximity to the Newport Channel. Multi -family residential uses would be encouraged on the upper floors. The retail uses could serve the residents of the building, while attracting visitors to the area. n L.J By implementing mixed -use developments in place of underutilized commercial structures, the City's fiscal balance will be improved, and the area would be revitalized, which would be in support of the EDGP. Additionally, implementation of this option has the potential to generate less vehicle trips since residents could walk to the services in the area, which would support some MGP and ECGP. With high -density housing, there is an opportunity for the provision of affordable housing, which would be consistent with WSNHGP. Achieving the CCGP of maintaining the unique character, scale, urban form or design of McFadden Square would depend on the design of the new buildings and the density and use of this area. Further, mixed -use developments may expose the residents to increased levels of ambient noise and light. This development option would not fully support the ECGP. 6 3. Marine -Related Uses Implementation of this option would allow a concentration of marine -related uses in the northeast portion of McFadden Square, bounded by 26th Street, Newport Boulevard, the Newport Channel, and 21st Street. Currently, this area contains a vacant lot, restaurants, commercial, and marine industrial uses that are in need of revitalization. Reuse of an existing commercial building or a new structure could accommodate the marine -related uses. Conversion of this area to marine -related industry would be compatible with the existing shipbuilding, boat storage, and repair facilities on the harbor. A concentration of marine -related uses would meet the EDGP by contributing positively to the City's fiscal balance, facilitating an economically viable concentration of marine uses, and revitalizing the area. However, revitalizing the area may generate more traffic, which would not be consistent with the ECGP or MGP. Through the conversion of commercial uses to marine - related industry and depending on the design of new structures, the character of the area could be changed, and the CCGP may not be met. Lastly, AFGP would not be achieved as no housing opportunities would be provided under this option. 4. Pedestrian Promenade The eastern portion of the McFadden Square area located along the Newport Channel would be improved under this option to create a pedestrian promenade. Improvements such as the addition of outdoor seating, landscaping, and lighting would complement the restaurants and commercial uses along the harbor. Other streetscape improvements that include landscaping, lighting, and • different types of paving material along 3151 Street to the ocean could also occur under this development option. Thus, the pedestrian promenade would connect The Arcade and provide pedestrian linkages from the Newport Channel to the ocean and along Ocean Front. Through the enhancement of the pedestrian -oriented nature of the area and addition of the promenade, the character of the area will be improved and more visitors will be attracted to McFadden Square. This would be in support of both EDGP and CCGP. More visitors to the area would increase vehicle trips and exacerbate the parking problem in the area, which would not support ECGP and MGP. As no housing would be provided, implementation of a pedestrian promenade would not be consistent with WSNHGP. 5. Streetseave Improvements Implementation of streetscape improvements to enhance the pedestrian -oriented feel could be part of the revitalization effort for the McFadden Square area. Streetscape improvements appropriate for the area include additional lighting, landscaping, street furniture, and paving along Balboa and Newport Boulevards in order to help unify the area and create a more pleasant environment for the pedestrian. Additionally, signs identifying McFadden Square and way - finding signs to the pier, ocean, and Newport Channel could be implemented. Maintenance and improvement of the existing alleyways located between 32nd and 21" Streets would be encouraged under this development option to enhance safety. Development of this option would enhance and maintain the existing character of the • community, and encourage more pedestrian -oriented activities, in support of the CCGP and 10 ECGP. Although City funds would be needed to implement streetscape improvements, the improvements could make businesses more profitable, which would support EDGP. Under this option, no housing would be provided, and the WSNHGP would not be achieved. Additional traffic would not be generated, and have no effect on the MGP. 0 0 VIAMALAGA 32ND STREET 31STSTREET 30TH STREET - - - - 29TH STREET ss e. 16TH STREET - 28TH STREET CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Figure 5-1 CANNERY VILLAGE EXISTING LAND USE Residential Residential, Single-Famly Residential Mum -Family Residential Commercial Auto -Related Commercial Marine -Related Commercial Personal Services, Fitness/Gyms S�Ppor l y ccelory, Furniture, ® Multi -Tenant Commercial Professional Office/Buslness/MedlcaVVet - D Foorinking, d StoCo resmmunity Commercial, Dlne-In Restaurant, Fast Food Restaurant Hotel _ Msltor-serving Industrial Marine Industrial MUM -Tenant Industrial Instltutlonal/Open Space Public/Semi Public, ChurchesrReliglous Uses Open Space Other Public Parking vs i Vacant Building ;.\ Vacant Lot Note: GIS aala Pr Jl Mn - C 5f Plo te, Zone 6, N 3. Feet. I 0 200 400 Feat Souse: CN or Newport Be , Generd Plan, A2y 2003, City Bar Wary. May 2003. Parcels, October 2003, RoWs, OcWb 2003; and EIP Ass btes Real Irrventay, September, 2003. PROJECT NUMBER: 10579-01 Requested by: HLR Created by: MV Date: 05/03/04 BAY 80 ti Yf[ F W W h e, H epA ti l (EY l 7111 I 1 I`I N TORT %ER L............... --r CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Figure 5-2 MCFADDEN SQUARE EXISTING LAND USE Residential Residential, Single-Famiy Residential Mult-Family Residential Commercial Personal Services Specialty Retail Mum -Tenant Commercial Professional Offlce/Business/Medlco Wet ® Community Commercial, Drinking Dine -in Restaurant, Fast Food Restaurant Hotel Visitor -serving Industrial I Marine Industrial Inslitullonal/Open Space 7, Public/Seml Pubic Other Public Parking Vacant Lot Nde: 6 EWn Ralec - CAftte Plwe, Zone 6, NPO33. Feet. I 0 100 200 Fwt Sowce: pry of Newport Bench, Oenerd Plan, MV 2003, Coy BMWUY. MW 2003. POMc , October 2003. Rp 1, October 2003; aril Ew As 10te Field hveMay, September, 2003. PROJECT NUMBER: 10579-01 Requested by CP Created b • MV - - I Date: 03/03/04 I •••I . 1 4 1 1 1 T F . GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Monday, May 24, 2004 Roger Alford Ronald Baers 10/Pr Patrick Bartolic Phillip Bettencourt Carol Boice Elizabeth Bonn Karlene Bradley Gus Chabre John Corrough olk Lila Crespin Laura Dietz . Grace Dove fik Florence Felton Nancy Gardner Louise Greeley Bob Hendrickson Tom Hyans OA- Mike Ishikawa Kim Jansma Barbara Johnson / Lta Mike Johnson Bill Kelly Donald Krotee Lucille Kuehn Philip Lugar • Barbara Lyon Fl6.5� 1 • Marie Marston Catherine O'Hara Carl Ossipolf Charles Remley Larry Root John Saunders Hall Seely ✓ Ed Siebel -P 14' Jan Vandersloot Tom Webber Ron Yeo Raymond Zartler r1 U • ,&A &X V±k, � C Os- I °' PA GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Monday, May 24, 2004 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESS/PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS J P pi P tQ-641. �Ar2n��c�vt e t� v. (3oX�l 5 Z ►J 13 c .ems `� 2 �� P FA 34 sgAFs1vc-, chi 9,0'9y3 Wel-,�7o-3623 �✓heS�yle2-feade 0lte?' I� 415 0v-c_�+Ic,, 566-45�3 Z r ' -p G09 R/LGI�E9GU��@ /4+1ELPH�a icy, W�11�2 a30 meego(� Uy. Dr, ) 3u;te 110ce�j Ne �a (e (e o nvsol corn 1 -. e� � VV �1s fier- M vve'(5Lt l�o� Ma,1, Co,ti v."" 6i.. L' / , I S e'-A^ • GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Monday, May 24, 2004 PUBLIC SIGN -IN F-MAIL ADDRFSS . y. • GENERAL PLAN AD91SORY COMMITTEE Monday, May 24, 2004 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESS/PHONE 0 E-MAIL ADDRESS • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, May 24, 2004, at the OASIS Senior Center. Members Present: Roger Alford Ronald Baers Patrick Bartolic Phillip Bettencourt Carol Boice Elizabeth Bonn Karlene Bradley Gus Chabre John Corrough Laura Dietz Grace Dove Nancy Gardner Louise Greeley Bob Hendrickson Kim Jansma Mike Johnson Bill Kelly Donald Krotee Barbara Lyon Marie Marston Members Not Assigned to Subcommittees: Lila Crespin Florence Felton Members Absent: Tom Hyans (sick leave) Barbara Johnson Staff Present: Mike Ishikawa Lucille Kuehn Phillip Lugar Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner Dan Trimble, Program Manager Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant Harriet Ross, EIP Planner Members of the Public Present: • Bill Dean Paul Mesmer Jeffrey Lambert Carol Starcevic Carol Martin Terry Welsh Catherine O'Hara Carl Ossipoff Larry Root Hall Seely Ed Siebel Jan Vandersloot Tom Webber Ron Yeo Raymond Zartler Charles Remley John Saunders Marice White I. Call to Order • Nancy Gardner called the meeting to order. II. Approval of Minutes Ms. Gardner asked for comments regarding the minutes of the May loth. Jan Vandersloot asked that his comments regarding GPUC be added to the minutes. He also asked for reconsideration of a vote regarding Community Character Guiding Principle #6, which was deleted at the May loth meeting. Karlene Bradley made a motion that we reconsider the deleted principle. After a vote, the motion was approved. Ms. Wood indicated the issue would be added to the next agenda. The minutes of the May loth meeting were approved with the addition of Mr. Vandersloot's comments. III. Subcommittee Discussions Committee members broke into subcommittees discussing land use options for the Balboa Peninsula, Banning Ranch and the Airport Business Area. Staff was assigned to each table to provide assistance if needed. IV. Discussion of Future Agenda Items • Woodie Tescher reminded everyone that the subcommittee discussions will continue at the next meeting which will again be held at the OASIS Senior Center. • VI. Public Comments Terry Welsh addressed the group as a member of the Banning Ranch Park & Preserve Task Force. He stated their goal was to purchase and preserve the entire property as open space. He also invited everyone to their meeting on June 2"d at the Costa Mesa Neighborhood Community Center where his group will present their vision for the property. 2