Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReview GP Update Circulatiion System & Selection of Project Description - EIRPLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD P. O. BOX 1768 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658 -8915 Memorandum To: Planning Commission From: Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3219 c aramirezOcitv.newport- beach.ca. us Date: August 26, 2005 Re: August 30, 2005 General Plan Update Meeting Attached are the following documents related to the next General Plan Update Meeting: A table that outlines the preferred land use alternatives recommended by the Planning Commission and those selected by the City Council for six of the ten Sub - Areas. 2. A letter from the traffic consultant, Urban Crossroads, that discusses and identifies preferred alternative Circulation Element (Roadway) system assumptions. 3. A report from the Economic Development Committee that identifies their preferred land use recommendations. Refer to the July 20, 2005 EDC report included in your earlier package for their report on the Sub -Areas not discussed in this report. 4. A copy of the GPAC Land Use Recommendations power point presentation. W) N ( r N 7 Q O N N O C C N O c a O U) O —•tiQv + = V U (D CO O L m m'V U 3Q 2N Q ~— C a E E 7 T m E U . ' T E a a T N � X- (D E ".a $ 5 .2 :LLLD5 -T N 7~ p E 76 E E c m w y p W lL 0 fn I- m C U a V r N Q ax) c Uy Q ui C7 E >'O a � 0 E m p p V L ¢ m L •O w a a N p EU O c . E C ¢a L Y C >+O N 100 a2 E N p E O C N •C C Qa t C > O y aS2-0w CD a p E O C O •C L C Qa¢IL L Y pT • 0 N p E O C N .0 C U) m � Y >, .0 .0 °o 0 w as a) v n ° a a p O O => O UJ a 4i ca m a) O N uJ O y O a) O vJ C O a Q ... U O O a X p a) W p m C C U E m 7 m 7 7 0= a) y E N N O Q N N N N O O� VYi X X X- L r E d 7 v y O a C Co p E E E Y CL p° E y 5 a) > M E N a) fY6 Z a fY6 ¢ N O (Y6 p w E o N E O .0 O O •F' Q: .T (Q CL LL E m a) m {Z o Y o Y� a� Y a Y .0 N Lo (D Qi n E 0) a vs d U 0 co a) U p m> pad U m U V U m C p a) 7 QI X LL W X +-. d CO a) X a) m a X m 0 X a) X. y E 7 C (D m •- � cUca(MD i3 °O U 3 C) Uc U UwaXiEy O Q o C y Q •i = Q L Q m Q Q a Q) C X N N . CU c C7 v a-0C7s (Dao m0 ( '0- � ' N O m N C Q To tl) L .Q .0 a) 2.0 O J Q .0 m Eam�N�' O U aaNO.aa a) a) a) ' ac.Ga a) ._ _ p Q aO�L i a)< > Y O O YL L C L C a m C a C = m a Q C pa) = E c a) rn y 0) � .— 0) V ) d m (6 +N E > mp m m EwEQ E< —. —>o E LLj EsQ E E E o o E.2 .0 Uw o� i 8-0 m �o � 0 ( m 2 `a t N ) `O `) O ` a L s . m <2<aaco wQc° Q °0+ N m w0 > 3 � s d O 7 C C m c m 0 Q• 0. O d cc .�� m dR a Q z Z b m m co m Q) 7 z o Q p c •L U) 3 ic 5 O m �./Q� m 1 t'6c{xorate PSP14 - fax 2005 August 25, 2005 Mr. Woody Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Subject: Preferred Alternative Circulation Element (Roadway) System Assumptions Dear Mr. Tescher: The General Plan Preferred Alternative that will be analyzed in the environmental impact report (EIR) will consist of a combination of a Preferred Land Use alternative and a Preferred Alternative Circulation Element (Roadway) system alternative. This letter provides our recommendation regarding the Preferred Alternative Circulation Element roadway system. For the traffic analysis of the land use alternatives developed by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), the General Plan Update Committee approved the use of a "constrained network' as an assumption in the traffic model. This constrained network was developed in response to visioning process input that residents want to minimize further widening and extension of the arterial roadway system, as well as staff and consultant information on roadway improvements that are uncertain due to political or funding issues. Key roadway changes reflected in the constrained network (versus the Currently Adopted General Plan Circulation Element) include: No extension of the SR -55 Freeway. No widening of Coast Highway through Mariner's Mile. • No extension of 19th Street across the Santa Ana River. Mr. Woody Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES August 25, 2005 Page 2 • No widening of Jamboree Road north of Ford Road. • No grade separation at MacArthur Boulevard /Jamboree Road • No extension of 17th Street • No extension of 15th Street to Coast Highway For the EIR project description, our opinion is that the most prudent approach is to reflect a relatively constrained future system that reflects political and financial realities. However, it is also desirable to include future roadway infrastructure that is likely to be needed to serve future traffic demand. If desired, elimination of these improvements can be adequately analyzed through additional sensitivity analysis, after the model runs using the preferred roadway system are complete. Based on the aforementioned criteria, it is recommended that the Preferred A4ternative Circulation Element roadway system analyzed the EIR be largely consistent with the constrained network that was used to evaluate the prelim inary- •alternatives, with the following exceptions: The 19th Street / Hamilton Avenue connection / crossing of the Santa Ana River should be included. • Widening of Coast Highway to 6 through lanes through Mariner's Mile (Newport Boulevard to Dover Drive) should be included. Future traffic deficiencies that would require local roadway widening above and beyond the currently adopted Circulation Element roadway system can be expected in the absence of these roadway additions / widenings. It is our opinion that, if necessary, the overall analysis can still be structured in a manner that addresses the elimination of these improvements in a manner that adequately addresses the environmental analysis requirements associated with the General Plan update. This will allow the decision - making process to explicitly consider the need for these specific improvements. Mr. Woody Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES August 25, 2005 Page 3 Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide this letter summarizing our guidance related to the General Plan update process. Please feel free to contact me at (949) 660- 1994 x210 if you wish to discuss this matter further. Sincerely, Carleton Waters, P. E. Principal CW JS JN:01232 -20 y �� T Q CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 0 �1+iYTap�' ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE General Plan Update Land Use Alternatives Options Review and Recommendations to Planning Commission and City Council August 17, 2005 INTRODUCTION On June 22, 2005, the Economic Development Committee established a subcommittee to review the proposed land use alternatives for the general plan update developed by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). The charge of the subcommittee was to examine the proposed Options and report back to the entire EDC for consideration and adoption of formal recommendations to GPAC and the City Council. At their regular meeting of July 20, 2005, the full EDC discussed the subcommittee's report and voted to forward recommendations for ten (10) geographic subiweas:.�See< Attachment 1). The Committee then continued the discussion until its August 17, 2005 regular meeting, to complete discussions on the remaining seven (7) sub - areas. These recommendations are provided below for the Planning Commission and City Council meetings on August 30, 2005. GENERAL DISCUSSION As noted in the fiscal analysis of the General Plan Alternatives, the City has the potential for increased annual revenues in a wide range of between $317,000 and $10.7 million per year, depending upon which of the various Options for each sub -area is selected. Significantly, increases in lodging (short-term hotel and vacation home rental) and retail sales are projected to provide the largest contributions to increased revenue. However, in order to provide balance for the City and its quality of life, the EDC discussed and agreed a number of 'overriding principles' affecting the discussion, and by which the committee's conclusions were guided. 1. Changes to the General Plan should show an overall positive fiscal impact on the City, although not necessarily in each geographic sub -area. Page 1 of 6 2. It is clear that the City's residents do not believe a general citywide increase in traffic is acceptable. Therefore the "true maximum" Option —which in most areas increases traffic within a sub - area —will not be the EDC's recommended Option unless there are overriding issues or mitigating factors that would recommend otherwise. 3. It may be advantageous to recommend an Option that would anticipate additional traffic in a few geographic sub - areas; if in exchange, the Option adds substantial fiscal benefits, and that results in less overall potential traffic impact in other sub - areas. 4. All of the recommendations regarding the General Plan require a balancing of trade- offs-- between providing for increased revenue for the City; increasing traffic; addressing environmental concerns; and quality of life. 5. The Committee notes the comments of the Harbor Commission regarding the fact that the harbor is an economic engine for the City, and notes that there is a need to preserve marine uses where possible, while allowing for market activity to enhance those uses. 6. The Committee notes that the financial data used in the Fiscal Analysis of the General Plan Alternatives is three years old, taken mainly from the FY 2002 -2003 budget. If possible and practicable, the EDC suggests that staff examine the cost and feasibility of updating the numbers to the newly adopted FY 2005 -2006 budget when the model is used to analyze the preferred land use plan. RECOMMENDATIONS BY SUB -AREA Mariner's Mile: The Harbor Commission, in a letter to the City dated September 10, 2003, pointed out that the marine industry accounts for over 1,000 jobs and generates nearly $2.7 million in annual net revenues to the City of Newport Beach. This places marine revenues in 3rd place in the category of business that provides net revenue to the City behind lodging (15') and retail (2nd) . The marine industry produces 5% of total sales tax revenues, ahead of light industrial and hotels. It also produces 5% of gross City revenues; below lodging, but still ahead of light industrial and service commercial. The fiscal impact model shows the marine industry revenues growing only $0.3 million over 22 years with no change in expenditures over the same 22 year period; yet the industry maintains a net positive balance to the City of approximately $3 million, remaining third in net revenue producer behind lodging and retail. The Harbor Commission deems this lack of a proactive stance by the City in encouraging marine uses a 'passive no growth alternative.' The Harbor Commission urged the City to avoid the 'passive no growth' alternative for marine industry related uses in order to avoid the "potentially catastrophic decline in the role of marine industry uses as a Newport Beach economic engine." The Commission recommended that the City: (1) adopt a proactive sustainable growth plan for the Page 2 of 6 harbor; (2) review the revenue sources allocated to marine uses in the model; (3) add marine tourism uses and revenue sources to marine uses in the general plan update; and (4) expand consideration of tidelands uses to new water -based uses. These options would: conserve key waterfront locations and important marine uses; enhance user -pay public access; improve the harbor environment; and allow for the multiplier of secondary economic benefits to the City and harbor. However, Mariner's Mile presently accommodates many commercial uses other than marine. The automobile sales presence in Mariner's Mile is one of the most successful in the City. There is a retail/personal service "commercial village" in the area between Riverside and Tustin that is again becoming successful, and the restaurant presence along the bay front is one of the most well -known in the City. However, a number of the current office developments in Mariner's Mile are required by marine - related zoning regulations to devote at least 40% of their property to marine - related or marine - enhanced operations. These regulations were adopted as a method to satisfy California Coastal Commission requirements for public access as well as to conserve marine uses adjacent to the water itself. These uses may include restaurants, marine architects, brokers, and other office -based marine uses, as well as boat sales, boat yards, marine equipment sales and service, and similar uses. However, in order to address the market concern for general use office space, the elimination of the 40% marine use requirement has been requested by some of the Mariner's Mile property and business owners as a part of the General Plan updates. Additionally, allowing residential use within Mariner's Mile is becoming an attractive economic opportunity, and the allowance of it may be a necessary step toward seeing full redevelopment of some properties. Recommendation: The EDC recommends that the following be adopted within the General Plan for Mariner's Mile, subject to allowing the maximum flexibility of uses in accordance with the recommendations articulated by the City Council at their 8/16/05 meeting: • On the bay side of Coast Highway, commercial development with a marine and visitor - serving component, with the exception that residential land use could be. allowed if a property has 200 or more linear feet of bayside frontage, subject to the following restrictions: 50% of the total floor area must be devoted to marine or visitor - serving land uses; and the property is subject to conformance with a 26' height limitation; • On the west end of the inland side of Mariner's Mile (approximately from 'Arches Bridge' to Riverside Avenue) general commercial development only; • On the east end of the inland side of Mariner's Mile (from approximately Rocky Point to Dover Avenue) general commercial development only; • In the central "Mariner's Village" area of the inland side of Mariner's Mile (approximately from Riverside to Tustin and from Coast Highway to the foot of the bluff behind Avon Street) vertically- oriented mixed -use commercial & residential development; • In the eastern "Mariner's Village" area of the inland side of Mariner's Mile (approximately from Tustin Avenue to Rocky Point, and from Coast Highway to the Page 3 of 6 foot of the bluff) horizontally- oriented mixed -use commercial and residential development. An additional recommendation by the EDC is that public visitor - serving guest boat slips should be added in Newport harbor wherever it makes appropriate physical sense. These visitor accommodations add little if any increase in traffic, but users of the slips will provide an additional source of revenue to area businesses, which in turn benefits the City fiscally. McFadden Square East: The addition of a hotel for this area does not appear practical because of traffic and parking problems. The existing general plan provides for mixed use development, and the possibility of additional condominiums. Recommendation: The EDC recommends no change from the existing General Plan characteristics. McFadden Square West: The proposed option allows the reuse of properties occupied by commercial for mixed - use- buildings that integrate housing above ground level retail uses, with overnight accommodations (bed and breakfast, small scale boutique hotel.) The option has a positive fiscal impact for the City. Recommendation: The EDC recommends Option 1 for this sub -area. Old Newport Boulevard: The existing general plan provides for limited expansion of retail with infill of adjoining residential neighborhoods consistent with current zoning. Recommendation: The EDC recommends supporting the recommendation of the Planning Commission and City Council, as articulated in their public meetings of 8116105 for this sub -area. The existing General Plan provides for little additional development in Block A and a modest fiscal benefit. Option 1 provides for some mixed -use residential and commercial redevelopment, with some reduction in the existing lodging rooms in the area. This results in a negative fiscal impact of $669,000 per year; Option 2 results in a $1.4 million negative impact on the City. Options 3 & 4 are similar, with minimal economic difference between them. There are no proposed changes to the General Plan for Block B Page 4of6 In Block C it is proposed that vertical mixed -use 2 -3 story redevelopment occur at the two signalized intersections, to provide commercial nodes that support the surrounding housing. Option 2 provides for the addition of a new hotel, although the Committee does not feel it is practical. The Committee has concluded that maintenance of the area's existing affordable hotel rooms is beneficial to the City for economic and social reasons. The redevelopment of the mobile home park as primarily open space and parking /staging areas for the proposed Orange County River Park is problematic for practical economic reasons. However beneficial that scenario seems on a conceptual level, the Committee feels that there would be little real incentive for the owner to let the property change hands, and the current situation would continue for the future. A practical solution might be to recommend commercial and /or residential development for the site, and incorporate any necessary parking /staging if the River Park becomes a reality. Recommendation: The EDC recommends that a flexible land use strategy be adopted that encourages economically - viable redevelopment; including, but not limited to: affordable and moderately- priced hotels, mixed -use development; and possibly multi- family residential development. West Newport Industrial Area: I =t _ The Committee analyzed the fiscal impacts of the General Plan alternatives on a City- wide basis. From that perspective, it is clear that not all sub -areas will maintain positive fiscal situations; in fact, other considerations might warrant that the City accept some negative fiscal impacts in specific areas. All Options proposed for the West Newport Industrial Area indicate that the fiscal situation might be somewhere between $1.1million and $1.6 million negative, primarily due to the fact that Hoag Hospital is a non - profit institution and does not pay property taxes. The Committee concludes, however, that Hoag Hospital is an important institution that provides benefits to the community far in excess of the benefit of whatever property taxes might be collected if the property was in tax- generating use. Further, the Committee feels that the area's medically - related characteristics should be enhanced and supported to the greatest extent possible, while minimizing the loss of revenue to the City. Option 3 appears to best address the strong demand for medical office without the excessive $428,000 revenue loss to the City suggested with Option 2. Ultimately, the difference is a potential $1.6 million loss from Option 2 versus a potential $1.1 loss from Option 3. Further, Option 3 provides for a mix of housing types that could provide more employee- accessible housing (for the hospital and elsewhere in the City) and may produce some minor reductions in traffic congestion. One hitch in the Committee's support of Option 3: the Newport Technology Center is a property designated for research and development, with only limited office development permitted. Option 3 could not accommodate the critical need for the conversion of this Page 5 of 6 property to medical office use, and the Committee viewed this as a special issue to be examined. One final reason for the Committee's support of Option 3 is that it will allow not only additional office space, but continuing industrial space that would help maintain the viability of some of those marine - related uses not dependent upon a water - adjacent location. Recommendation: The EDC recommends the support of Option 3 for this sub -area. Attachment 1: July 20, 2005 Recommendations Page 6 of 6 � \ \ »\ Ilk U) L C r V � r V �o � � 05_z " � c mU LL ZCD L C N V � r V � � � c W f', N G 0 A- LO cys ti C.0 LO OD LO r-- Ci cvi CN co: LO cys ti C.0 E ta 1 ' � gg \\ rr r 4 � r `1 } r C. 3 s WE IV C d U) A m E E i- J syiun O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O N V M M N N � r yaa=i aienbs to l0 65 a C7 3S U a C7 w yf6 Y' a xN_ W C J L �C d fop N V <O+] N O O swoon I Mv m ro a dS 1 1 � j Z` i, syiun O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O N V M M N N � r yaa=i aienbs to l0 65 a C7 3S U a C7 w yf6 Y' a xN_ W C J L �C d fop N V <O+] N O O swoon I Mv m ro a dS 1 0 m v 0 m m u O O O O O O O O O O O LO O O 07 N N r r 19e=1 ajenbg O O O O O O O O O O O co O O O O O W [- COO M N rO 199j ajenbg U a c7 m � A c m N m a c7 Nx_ W 1 A a c7 xN W Y N 3 C O O O O O O O O LL O LOO O tO0 m N N n.un O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m O O Lb CO V N l99=1 ajenbg U a 0 � I a N J :i m a M W !0 m m A L m u mom U a c7 w m a y Lb laaj aienbg O O O O O Lo O O N O ' � N 3aaaj ajenbg c m a a m �L Y M C M N swn U a c7 w 3S O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ;ae j ajenbg 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 laaj aienbg O O O O O Lo O O N O ' � N 3aaaj ajenbg c m a a m �L Y M C M N swn U a c7 w 3S O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ;ae j ajenbg 11 ld- d U_ A d V La 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 laa_� ajenbg 0 0 0 0 0 0 iri o �n o Sri N N laaaj aienbg U a c� w U) IL N_ U a C7 a Q dS �o c m a 'w d Ell si!un U a 0 a C7 m 3S d i� E j1 d _V R d E raj O O O O O O O O O O O p O p p O O V N N O O O O O V l0 00 O N laa.1 ajenbg O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p O n O N a M N 1999=1 aienbg w N o_ x(/1 W c a J L W C d u R YC d a N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N W (O E N O 00 fp a N swooa OD I- fD LO syun P. m o_ c� xN_ W U a (7 w U) a x_W W iY Jill Ib #ll I I &1lIIII I I RE S 5 L 60 hH I -� q T I � r!) .7 J L � � f+ A, W w T!' C ++ A0 r L � Q S 5 L 60 hH I -� q T I � r!) .7 J L � � f+ N d _V �a m` E E S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N fm9 aaa=l aienbg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (O -0 cl O O (O V N 199=1 ajenbg U a 0 m 65 a xN_ W c J L 01 L O a m a d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O W 1� O O V fh N SWOON N N � s;iun U a m U) V 41 W U a m a m Lb g6 LE. O I Im k-I mw� IN 04 Q LO laaj aienbS Q< (OD I a- laaazi ajenbS 0 12 N swn C) (<L (D Lb A'3- NO I PrA Qi 0 CL Z m C 0 ca LL d _V m d L O O O O O laa j ajenbg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O laaa.1 ajenbg U a C7 m cz a- 0 xN_ W U a (7 a- 0 c J L C d u R C d a d M N N swOOa O O O O O O O O sliun U a C7 w `m o_ x_y W w V1 a N W a °! %I, a 2 8 f6 m E UN °o °o °o ° 0 0 0 0 0 (°O V M I laaj ajenbg U a 0 ca a �xx W U a `m a cD Nx_ W yaaaA ajenbg R C d V N d silun U a C7 `i t0 �IdS '?I tot /\ \ \ .: ly 2 H do \ \. /� � � �� ` :s � \� . J1 Cam: w L Q1 C t 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o o o 0 0 V t`m N� O N M V o 0 O leaf ajenbg O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LL� O Lo O N O V) O laa9=1 aienbg U a m IL C7 xN_ W R w c a ayi m y O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 M M CV N swn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O u7 O O O O O N o 0 N 7 V M M N N 399.1 ajenbg U a 0 w m a U _m Lb U a C7 m 05 a. ; W a4 P-1 Le, A _ d .� W t� zz s *A P L L I 4 c m 'gin c L •L . ., Jo _ d .� W t� zz s *A P L L I IPA AL O 4- (D 0 Mill r o Wo, co MC- UY LU 7- All 46. kl IPA AL ct Y� CL V 3 0 j ca i E c Q E mi o U o Q Lo CL CD- O t l a"' 9 � DNen — j N cn M ti O•, C) ct Y� CL L 0 +�+ i E c L E mi o U o Q Lo CD- t l a"' 9 � DNen — j cn M ti L O L 0 +�+ i E E 3 C O t a"' 9 DNen — j c� J U Q nsl Q:` a L � c � o to y m m r- CD O Q � .6 Cl) Z -t7 �� idL (D 11, Ol E IWL cu LL 0 LU cc E *0 it -t7 �� idL (D 11, Ol cu ?' 5Y 06 �E j «t cv LL = V ' O _! CL O aU a 1 In cv z l a � � a m o y o W > U) in Cc L 'cc , =mm L g err r 5Y D 0 f6 _! CL O aU a In z (D a m .6 > U) in N M T- 1` co) to 0) O v 11111 14- O) 1` Mco cc CO) M N O O co V t~A V- N O) . V 0 in .. Lo•. (C CO M �t � �S� •��, 4�� 3 � � ,� � . T1 ..i. :�I � � �; yPl1 Si,�T ` Y •i+ ��' nS� � a. +k ;$� �,,,