Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-12-11_BVAC_AgendaCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BALBOA VILLAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA ExplorOcean 600 East Bay Avenue Wednesday, December 11, 2013 - 4:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Committee Members: Michael Henn — Council Member (Chair) Tony Petros — Council Member Gloria Oakes — Balboa Peninsula Point Association Ralph Rodheim — Balboa Village Merchant Association Member Grace Dove — Central Newport Beach Community Association Tom Pollack — ExplorOcean Representative Jim Stratton — At -Large Representative Staff Members: Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer Fern Nueno, Associate Planner I. Call Meeting to Order II. Public Comment on Non - Agendized Items (comments limited to 3 minutes) III. Approval of Minutes (Attachment 1) Recommended Action: Approve November 13, 2013 Minutes. IV. Non - Residential Parking Requirements Recommended Action: Confirm Modified Parking Requirements V. Public Comment VI. Adjournment Next Meeting Date: Wednesday, January 8, 2014, 4:00 p.m.to 5:30 p.m. Please refer to the City Website, http:// www .newportbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?page =2196, for additional information regarding the Balboa Village Advisory Committee. AN AGENDA FOR THIS MEETING HAS BEEN POSTED AT LEAST 72 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING AND THE PUBLIC IS ALLOWED TO COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS. IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO COMPLY WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) IN ALL RESPECTS. IF, AS AN ATTENDEE OR A PARTICIPANT AT THIS MEETING, YOU WILL NEED SPECIAL ASSISTANCE BEYOND WHAT IS NORMALLY PROVIDED, THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH WILL ATTEMPT TO ACCOMMODATE YOU IN EVERY REASONABLE MANNER. PLEASE CONTACT LEILANI BROWN, CITY CLERK, AT LEAST 72 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING TO INFORM US OF YOUR PARTICULAR NEEDS AND TO DETERMINE IF ACCOMMODATION IS FEASIBLE (949- 644 -3005 OR CITYCLERKCNE WPORTBEACHCA.GOV). 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BALBOA VILLAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES Regular Meeting Location: ExplorOcean, 600 East Bay Avenue Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 4:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. i. Call Meeting to Order Chair Henn called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. The following persons were in attendance: Balboa Village Advisory Committee Members: Michael Henn — Council Member (Chair) Tony Petros— Council Member Gloria Oakes— Balboa Peninsula Point Association Ralph Rodheim — Balboa Village Merchant Association Member Grace Dove —Central Newport Beach Community Association Tom Pollack— ExplorOcean Representative Jim Stratton — Member -At -Large Representative Staff Members: Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer Fern Nueno, Associate Planner u. Public Comment on Non - Agendized Items (comments limited to 3 minutes) Interested parties were invited to address the Committee on Non- Agendized Items. Howard Hall reported that the last meeting, there was a problem with the order for public comments that has usually been followed on agendas. He stated that when he asked for comments, these didn't matter but all that seemed to matter was to get the vote through. He stated he was unable to provide his comments at the correct time due to the order at the meeting. Committee Member Petros reported speaking with Mr. Hall and has apologized to him as Committee Member Petros was mistaken. He stated that the question was asked as to when it would be time for public comments and Committee Member Petros, when Mr. Hall spoke, thought it was the public comment section of the meeting, not public comment on that item. Committee Member Petros indicated that he was wrong and asked Mr. Hall to accept his apology. 2 There being no others wishing to address the Committee, Chair Henn closed the Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items portion of the meeting. ui. Approval of Minutes (Attachment 1) Recommended Action: Approve October 9, 2013 Minutes. Chair Henn noted his recusal from the matter since he was not in attendance at the October 9, 2013 meeting. Fern Nueno, Associate Planner, acknowledged receiving written comments from Council Member Petros and noted corrections made to the minutes. Interested parties were invited to address the Committee on this item. Howard Hall reported that all of his comments were made when Council Member Petros opened the public comments portion of the meeting and that it appears that he commented prior to that, in the minutes. He stated that his comments should be under the public comments portion of the meeting. Staff noted that Mr. Hall commented after the vote and therefore, his comments remained in that position as it was reflecting the specific item. Mr. Hall indicated he would prefer if his comments were placed under public comments. Community Development Director Brandt stated the minutes reflect her attendance, but that she was absent. Jim Mosher noted typographical errors in the minutes. There being no others wishing to address the Committee, Chair Henn closed public comments on this matter. Committee Member Stratton moved to approve the minutes of the October 9, 2013 meeting as amended, Committee Member Rodheim seconded the motion; which carried, with Chair Henn, abstaining. IV. ULI Balboa Technical Assistance Panel Report (Attachment 2) Recommended Action: Review Recommendations and Provide Direction, as appropriate Community Development Director Kimberly Brandt reported receiving a final version of the ULI Balboa Technical Assistance Panel Report, and noted that hard copies have been printed for the Committee's use and that it will be placed on the City's website. She stated that the recommendations will be reviewed in detail but stressed that this is one more document that has 3 been created for use as the Committee moves forward with recommendations for improvements for Balboa Village. She added that not all of the ideas have to be implemented immediately; but that the document is one more resource of information available. She noted that it provides "out of the box" thinking about possibilities for the Village. Committee Member Rodheim requested that an official letter of commendation be written to Bob Voit thanking him for his support in making this happen. He noted that the report is comprehensive and forward - thinking. In addition, he suggested sending a letter to the Urban Land Institute (ULI) for their work and commented positively on the organization and its professional representatives. Staff clarified that thank you letters were sent to the ULI Panel and now that the final report is available, a letter will be sent to Mr. Voit on behalf of the Committee. Discussion followed regarding the possibility of holding a study session with City Council to review the document. Chair Henn suggested reviewing the document at the Committee level to get a better sense of the group's views about the recommendations. He stated the process was never intended that the report and recommendations become action items and indicated that the recommendations need to be vetted. His expectation is that the Committee will selectively pull from the report those items that are worth follow up and see how they can be integrated for action by the City. Deputy Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski reported that the document addresses many concepts that overlap, and that ideas and recommendations have been combined to present towards the end of the presentation. She reported that the beginning of the report provides background regarding ULI and the vision of the area, opportunities and constraints, and the scope of the analysis. At this time, focus will be on the recommendations made. She addressed arrival into the Village and looking at Adams and Balboa Boulevard as the main entry points into the Village. Toward this goal, landscape improvements and signage were suggested as well as capitalizing on the authenticity of the area through design guidelines and focusing on the existing historic resources such as the Balboa Theater. In response to Committee Member Petros's inquiry regarding special requirements to bridge a highway or right -of -way, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine stated that he is not aware of any special requirements. It was noted that it will need to be at a certain height to allow trucks to travel under it and it was suggested that if it involves a sign, that it be a lighted. Ms. Wisneski addressed fagade improvements that have been discussed, simple updates and design guidelines to ensure that changes are consistent with the authenticity of the area. Discussion followed regarding form -based zoning, the orientation of buildings on Palm Street towards the Bay, and addressing them at staff level rather than through a form -based code. 4 Committee Member Petros addressed a sense of discovery and stated he liked a form -based concept, not necessarily another level of zoning. Lesley Miller commented on the 3rd Street Promenade and Palm Desert and wondered how the recommendations interface with the City's Master Plan and whether there are redevelopment funds available. Chair Henn noted there is a Master Plan and suggested that Ms. Miller review the same for a better understanding. Ms. Wisneski continued with the presentation and addressed activating streets and alleys, and making buildings two- and three -sided for opportunities to tie activities to the street. Discussion followed regarding challenges with providing dining experiences on the sand, the concept of outdoor activities, and utilizing alleys. Ms. Wisneski presented important focal points to focus on including the Pavilion, the Ferris wheel, Balboa Park, Ruby's, and enhancing connections from Palm Street into the parking lot. It was noted that the orientation of the facilities need to be reviewed. Ms. Wisneski addressed improving upon existing signage. Discussion followed regarding the design and functionality of the bus - parking area. The importance of providing for bus parking was noted. Ms. Wisneski addressed specific improvements and discussion included the need for wider sidewalks, landscaping, the gateway, orienting buildings, vertical building edge, night lighting, and the possibility of lighting the palms on Palm Avenue. Discussion followed regarding closing Bay Avenue to vehicular traffic and the possibility of doing so for special events and improvements of circulation during peak periods. It was suggested to form a Sub - Committee to review each of the items and develop recommendations. Ensuing discussion pertained to traffic and the possibility of establishing a tram system, bus parking on the pier lot, removing some of the parking on Bay Avenue, generation of parking revenues, and access for delivery and trash vehicles. The importance of Bay Avenue, from a circulation stand - point, was noted. Discussion followed regarding practices in Europe where streets are tight and their implementation of poles to control street traffic. It was suggested that the use of Bay Avenue for walking, street -front shopping, and dining is necessary. 0 Ms. Wisneski addressed recommendations for special events for residents and visitors on a year - round basis. Committee Member Rodheim reported that the Christmas -tree Lighting Ceremony will be held on December 7, 2013, at 5:00 p.m. and that activities will be held throughout the day from 2:00 p.m. on. He noted the need for volunteers on November 30, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. to help with decorating. He added that the Village is trying to spruce up for the Holiday Season. Additionally, he reported that thanks to the efforts of Visit Newport Beach, a championship football game will be held following the Rose Bowl and noted that 6,000 room nights have been sold. He stated that a Taste of Balboa is planned and lots of good things are happening in the Village. Chair Henn added that the idea is to have on -going events throughout December, leading up to the Boat Parade. Committee Member Rodheim stated that residents are working hard to bring activities for residents back into the Village and that thereby, tourists will come. Ms. Wisneski continued with the presentation addressing connectivity, pedestrian access, landscaping medians and right -of -ways, and recommendations for a plaza to create a "core" for the Village. Discussion followed regarding potential challenges with the Coastal Commission, the need to address present and future parking needs and the possibility of installing a "park /plaza" area over covered parking or a parking structure and trade -offs to doing so. Ms. Brandt noted this is a very important area of the community and stated that the concept provides many different alternatives that could be considered. Discussion followed regarding the possibility of implementing a shuttle system, eliminating parking in Balboa Village, and the need to provide parking elsewhere in the City. Committee Member Petros commented on the possibility of having immediate effects by implementing certain recommendations over others. Ensuing discussion pertained to the central park plaza concept and the possibility of implementing it for special events, in the short -term. Ms. Wisneski presented a summary of the recommendations and projects that are currently being implemented. Chair Henn commented on closing Bay Avenue and changing the parking lot into a central plaza, noting that, realistically, those ideas need to "morph" in a different direction. 0 Ms. Brandt referenced a two -year work program established for the Committee and reported that a parking component is in process. She suggested, after the New Year, to review the various components and the work program, and infuse some of the ideas into the work program as to what the Committee would like to accomplish during the upcoming year. She suggested taking a fresh look at the work program next year to see what can be implemented, reasonably. Chair Henn added that once the Committee has an idea as to how the recommendations can be incorporated into a new work program, then that may provide a good opportunity to report to Council. Members of the Committee agreed. Ms. Brandt reported that the Planning Commission and Council are aware of what took place and that the document is on the City's website. Discussion followed regarding the timing of way- finding signage, the possibility of providing a memo to Council regarding the Committee's intention and plan, and providing a presentation to Mr. Voit at a future Council meeting in appreciation of his efforts and support. Ms. Brandt stated that she will follow up on the matter. Ensuing discussion pertained to challenges with presenting the plan to the general public and possible misinterpretations. Chair Henn indicated that an explanation of the Committee's plans can be provided to avoid confusion with appropriate disclosures. The use of correct nomenclature was suggested. Discussion followed regarding having perspective, the possibility of holding a contest to stimulate interest as with banners and the status of the parking program. v. Public Comment In response to a question by Committee Member Rodheim, Ms. Nueno noted the upcoming schedule will address and wrap -up the parking strategies including employee parking and a validation program. There were no other public comments. V1. Adjournment There being no further business to come before the Balboa Village Advisory Committee, Chair Henn adjourned the meeting at 5:15 p.m. PEI Next Meeting Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013, 4:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. 2 Memorandum CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949)644-3297 To: Balboa Village Advisory Committee From: Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director Date: December 4, 2013 Re: Parking Standards /Requirements The Balboa Village Parking Management Plan recommends eliminating minimum parking requirements in the short term for nonresidential uses within Balboa Village. Residential development would continue to provide the required parking. To determine if this recommendation is appropriate for Balboa Village the following details: 1) Existing Parking Regulations, 2) Existing Parking Supply, 3) Existing Parking Occupancy or Demand, and 4) Potential Future Parking Demand. Cities have been using minimum parking requirements for decades as a means to account for a given land use's parking demand to ensure that an adequate parking supply is available. Minimum parking requirements, however, have emerged as one of the biggest obstacles to many cities' efforts to encourage new residential and commercial development in downtown areas, and ultimately undermine many cities' efforts to create attractive, vibrant, and walkable communities. In Balboa Village, minimum parking requirements have been shown to: • Make it difficult, if not impossible, for new businesses to locate in the village if their parking requirements are higher than the previous use; • Require new development to dedicate tremendous amounts of land for parking which is difficult to accommodate on small parcels; • Potentially require new development to construct a structure to accommodate parking which could degrade project's form, design, and aesthetics; • Limit the ability to do urban "infill" projects; and • Make projects more expensive and reduce overall profitability Existing Parking Regulations How Many Parking Spaces are Required for New Uses or New Development? Chapter 20.40 of the Newport Beach Zoning Code describes the minimum number of parking spaces that each land use must provide. For nonresidential uses, minimum parking requirements are predominantly based on building square footage, but some are based on occupancy. Minimum parking requirements for some of the nonresidential land uses found in Balboa Village are shown in Table 1. Retail sales, financial institutions, and offices all are required to have one space per 250 square feet while restaurants and bars require more parking per square foot. I Table 1 Existing Parking Requirements for Primary Commercial Land Uses Land Use Minimum Requirement Retail Sales 1 per 250 sq. ft. Food Service 1 per 30 -50 sq. ft. of net public area, including outdoor dining areas, but excluding the first 25% or 1,000 sq. ft. of outdoor dining area, whichever is less. Bars, Lounges, and Nightclubs 1 per each 4 persons based on allowed occupancy load Financial institution and related service 1 per 250 sq. ft. Offices— Business, Corporate, General, Governmental (non- medical) 1 per 250 sq. ft. net floor area (only applies to first 50,000 sq. feet and then changes) Changes in use and enlargement or intensification of an existing use shall require compliance with the parking requirements. If a use or structure does not provide the required parking, as is commonly the case in Balboa Village, they would be considered "nonconforming." The nonconforming uses may be changed to a new use without providing additional parking, provided no intensification or enlargement (additional floor area) occurs. Intensification of a use may occur, if the increase of spaces is provided either on -site or off -site with an agreement. Recognizing the number of nonconforming structures in Balboa Village, Chapter 20.38.040 of the Zoning Code allows existing nonresidential nonconforming structures to be demolished and reconstructed to their preexisting height and floor area; provided that not less than the preexisting number of parking spaces is provided. Can the Required Parking be Adjusted? Yes, the required number of parking spaces may be reduced if certain criteria is met and a conditional use permit (CUP) is approved. Chapter 20.40.110 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code describes mechanisms for reducing the number of parking spaces required. With approval of a CUP, parking requirements may be reduced if a Parking Management Plan is provided indicating parking demand would be less, or other parking is available (city lot nearby, on- street parking, walkability of area, mixed use development). Alternatively, a CUP may include provisions for joint use of parking facilities for multiple adjacent businesses that have distinct and differing peak parking demands, or if a business locates parking off -site on another property. The existing parking requirements do not necessarily support the existing character of Balboa Village or future plans to enhance the safety, accessibility, and walkability of the community. The process for adjusting parking can be subjective and onerous for intensification of use or redevelopment. Therefore, it is recommended that minimum parking requirements for all nonresidential land uses in Balboa Village be modified or eliminated. Existing Parking Supply As shown in Table 1, a total of 1,204 spaces were documented in the on- street blocks and off - street lots of Balboa Village. There are a total of 76 on- street spaces, representing 8% of the publicly - available parking supply. A total of 1,128 spaces exist in various off - street lots, both public and private. Of the on- street spaces, the vast majority (78 %) are metered. Virtually all of the surveyed off - street parking is located in Balboa Village; the residential sub -area only has one off - street lot (an 8 -space lot 10 at the Public Library on Balboa Boulevard and Island Avenue). Error! Reference source not found. shows on- street parking regulations in the study area. Table 1 Balboa Village Parking Inventory and Type Figure 1 Parking Locations 1 Unmarked spaces are defined as those with no posted restrictions; Metered spaces are defined as those with public parking meters; Green spaces are defined as those with posted short -term time limits (green curb); Loading spaces are defined as those reserved for loading purposes only (yellow or white curb); Disabled spaces are defined as those reserved for handicapped individuals with appropriate placards (blue curb). z Includes private and public parking lots. 11 Parking Occupancy' Target occupancy rates of 85% and 90% are effective industry standards for on- and off - street spaces, respectively. In other words, maintaining 15% and 10% vacancy rates for corresponding on- and off - street stalls will help ensure an "effective parking supply." It is at these occupancy levels that roughly one space per block is available, making searching or "cruising" for parking unnecessary and allowing off - street lots to maintain adequate maneuverability. Occupancy rates below these targets indicate a diminished economic return on investments in parking facilities. Extensive field surveying was conducted in the spring and summer 2013. Surveying was conducted on a Thursday and Saturday in March 2013. And, surveys were conducted on Thursdays and Saturdays in the months of June, July, and August 2013. Detailed survey results are provided under separate memo. Findings of the survey data are: 1. While the parking supply is underutilized during weekdays, various "hot- spots" of demand exist. On Thursday counts, at no point did overall on- or off - street utilization reach target levels, though some of the mostly unregulated blocks along Bay Avenue, Balboa Boulevard, and Adams Street reached or exceeded target levels. 2. On summer weekends, district -wide parking supplies generally met overall demand at most times, though during peak periods most facilities met or exceeded target utilization rates. On Saturday, utilization peaked at 88% during the 4 -6 pm count period in March, but peaked at 96% during the 2 -4 pm count period during the summer. During these peak periods, the majority of the study area's on- and off - street facilities met or exceeded target utilization rates. While some over - utilized on- and off - street facilities are located in relatively close proximity to facilities with significant capacity, it is clear that during weekends the parking supply in the study area is utilized above target rates. 3. Comparing spring occupancy levels to summer rates, overall utilization is higher in the summer, but follows the same general trends as observed in the spring. During all collection efforts, off - street facilities exhibited a gradual peaking in the early afternoon and on- street spaces were utilized most heavily in the late evening. 4. The sub -areas exhibit different parking utilization and turnover trends. Occupancy was typically lower in the Balboa Village sub -area than in the residential sub -area, though the peaking of demand was much more heavily pronounced in Balboa Village. On Saturday, utilization in Balboa Village surpassed that of the residential sub -area during only two count times, peaking at 98% (2-4 pm). The turnover data shows that between the two sub - areas, vehicles parked for much shorter periods of time in the Balboa Village than in the residential sub -area on both days, as expected given the differences in land use. The Balboa Village's shops, restaurants, and other venues attract short -term parkers, while the on- street blocks of the residential sub -area are most likely used by long -term parkers such as employees, Catalina Flyer patrons, and residents. Tables 3 (Thursday) and 4 (Saturday) depict the occupancy levels for municipal lots (referenced as Lots A, B, D and L in Figure 3) and on- street parking in Balboa Village. These parking areas provide 887 metered parking spaces within the Village. As shown, the area experiences occupancy levels beyond 90% less than 50% of the time on Thursdays, but this level is commonly experienced on Saturdays both off- season (March) and during the summer. Therefore, it could be concluded that the Balboa Village regularly exceeds the target occupancy rate of 85% to 90% on weekends even during the off - season, particularly if warm weather is in effect. 3 All occupancy calculations omit the 24 spaces in Lot E (on Balboa Boulevard between Main Street and A Street) from the total inventory because that facility was closed for construction during the count periods. 12 Table 3 Parking Occupancy in Municipal Lots (Thursday) 2� Lots A & B Lot L On— Street Lot D MARCH 8am to loam loam to 12 12 to 2pm 2pm to 4pm 4pm to 6pm 6pm to 8pm 9pm to llpm JUNE 8am to lo loam to 12 to 2p2pm to 4 4pm to 6pm 6pm to 8pm 9pm to 11pm JULY 8am to loam 10am to 12 12 to 2pm 2pm to 4pm 4pm to 6pm 6pm to 8pm 9pm to 11pm AUGUST Sam to 10am 10am to 12 12 to 2pm 2pm to 4pm 4pm to 6pm 6pm to 8pm 9pm to 11pm 2� Table 4 Parking Occupancy in Municipal Lots (Saturday) Parking Occupancy Less than 75% 75 to 89% 90% or More 14 Lots A & B Lot L On -- Street Lot D MARCH Sam to loam loam to 12 12 to 2pm 2pm to 4pm 4pm to 6pm 6pm to 8 JUNE Sam to loam 10am to 12 12 to 2pm 2pm to 4pm 4pm to 6pm 6pm to 8pm JULY Sam to loam loam to 12 12 to 2pm 2pm to 4pm 4pm to 6pm 6pm to 8pm AUGUST Sam to 10am 10am to 12 12 to 2pm 2pm to 4pm 4pm to 6pm 6pm to Spm Parking Occupancy Less than 75% 75 to 89% 90% or More 14 Potential Future Parking Demand The other piece to the puzzle is what new development would occur if parking requirements were eliminated. Some may be concerned that if the parking requirements are eliminated, the parking demand created by new development would exceed the existing parking supply. Currently, nonresidential development within Balboa Village totals 286,926 gross square feet. Applying the requirement of 1 parking space per 250 square feet, existing development would be required to provide 1,148 parking spaces. Existing Nonresidential Development 286,926 square feet Required Parking Per Code 1 space per 250 square feet Total Required Per Code 1,148 Parking Spaces (286,926 _ 250) Total Existing Spaces (public and private) 1,204 Parking Spaces Parking Spaces Beyond Required 56 Spaces Parking requirements are not the only challenge to redeveloping in the Village. Small parcel sizes and limited development standards are also factors which determine the desirability of redevelopment. Existing development standards limit commercial development to no more than a .75 floor area ratio, while mixed use development is limited to a 1.5 floor area ratio. Many of the structures in the village already are close to or exceed these floor areas. Recommendations for Consideration The ultimate goal to evaluating the parking standards is to remove barriers to new development, renovation of existing buildings, and change of businesses. The following presents options for achieving this goal: 1. Eliminate Parking Requirements: The Balboa Village Parking Master Plan recommends eliminating parking requirements in the short term. By eliminating minimum parking requirements, the City of Newport Beach can: a. Facilitate a "free market' for parking that is more realistically determined by actual parking demand, as opposed to conventional parking standards, b. Reduce development costs and provide additional flexibility to developers, especially on smaller lots or with historic structures, and c. Help to ensure that existing parking supply is efficiently utilized before building additional parking supply. It is important to note that eliminating requirements could result in potential spillover problems if other recommendations are not implemented, depending on the amount and type of development in Balboa Village in future years. Depending on the level of development in the long -term, The Master Plan also recommended that a "parking multi - modal" impact fee could be applied to all new nonresidential development and any change of use resulting in a more intensive land use. The fee would allow for a wide range of potential expenditures, including demand management programs, as well as improvements to parking, bicycle, pedestrian and transit facilities. 15 By instituting an impact fee, the City of Newport Beach can: a. Provide a valuable revenue source to mitigate potential transportation impacts in Balboa Village by financing not just roadway improvements, but also new or upgraded transit services, parking management measures, bicycle /pedestrian infrastructure, and other TDM programs. Potential drawbacks include: a. This fee would fall under the purview of the California Mitigation Fee Act and would require an additional nexus study, which can be time and resource intensive. b. The development community will likely resist an additional impact fee, as it would increase development costs. c. Given the size of the proposed district and the projected development scenarios, revenue from such a fee would likely be limited. The City of Newport Beach currently has a traffic fee. The City would need to further evaluate the relationship of that fee to a separate fee in Balboa Village, especially in regards to any potential legal issues of two fees. 2. Eliminate Parking Requirements to allow for some Additions to structures and Intensification of Uses: The existing Code allows uses with nonconforming parking to add or intensify up to 10 percent provided additional parking is supplied for the addition or intensification. New businesses are often precluded in the Village because the additional parking is not available and cannot be created. The Code could be amended to eliminate the need to provide the additional parking spaces provided they add or intensify by no more than 10 percent. 3. Eliminate Parking Requirements to allow for Changes of Use: The existing Code requires that all the required parking be provided for a change of use that results in an intensification and increase in the parking requirement. Often these parking requirements are an impediment to redevelopment for a change in use for an existing building or tenant suite. One solution would be to amend the Code to allow changes in use within existing buildings in Balboa Village without requiring the proposed use to comply with current parking requirements. All other Zoning Code standards would continue to be enforced, including any requirements for a use permit or other discretionary review. This allowance would facilitate the development of new or relocated restaurants and other uses that are often precluded for located within Balboa Village due to higher parking requirements. 4. Allow structures to reconstruct while maintaining their existing parking conditions provided the floor area and height is maintained: The current Code allows structures which are nonconforming due to floor area to maintain their preexisting parking conditions. The Code could be amended to allow all structures to redevelop and maintain their preexisting parking conditions. If the structure is increased beyond existing conditions, parking associated with the additional floor shall be provided. 5. Modify Parking Requirements: The parking requirements listed in Table 1 are applied to all uses within the City, regardless of the characteristics of the area. Therefore, uses in a commercial stripe property are required to provide the same number of parking spaces as commercial uses in areas which offer alternative travel modes (bike or walk) or multiple destinations. With the creation of a parking district, parking standards could be tailored to the uniqueness of Balboa Village. Suggested modifications could include: 1% Table 5 Proposed Parking Requirements for Commercial Land Uses in Balboa Village Land Use Minimum Requirement Retail Sales 1 per 258400 sq. ft. Food Service 1 per 50 50 70 sq. ft. of net public area, including outdoor dining areas, but excluding the first 25% or 1,000 sq. ft. of outdoor dining area, whichever is less. Bars, Lounges, and Nightclubs 1 per each 4 persons based on allowed occupancy load Financial institution and related service 1 per 250 sq. ft. Offices— Business, Corporate, General, Governmental (non- medical) 1 per 250 sq. ft. net floor area (only applies to first 50,000 sq. feet and then changes) 6. Increased Shared Parking Opportunities: The Master Plan also recommends formally establishing Balboa Village as a shared parking district. While the Zoning Code allows for parking to be shared with a conditional use permit, creating a district would maximize the efficiency of the parking by establishing a common pool of shared, publicly available spaces. The following would facilitate the creation of a "park once" district: a. Maximize use of the existing parking supply by improving wayfinding and parking information, b. Work with existing property owners and businesses to ensure that private parking is made available to the public when not needed for its primary commercial use, c. Work with property owners and businesses to develop mutually - agreeable operating and liability arrangements for the public's use of private lots, d. Require as a condition of approval that all newly constructed private parking in any nonresidential Balboa Village development or adaptive reuse project be made available to the public, e. Allow parking to be shared among different uses within a single mixed -use building by right, and f. If new public parking supply is needed, first purchase or lease existing private parking lots or structures from willing sellers, and add this parking to the shared public supply before building expensive, new lots /garages. Costs for purchase and leasing of spaces can vary dramatically, but would likely be in the range of $50 -500 per month per space. z7