The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSS4 - General Plan Update - Land Use AlternativesCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Study Session Agenda Item No. 4 December 14, 2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Tamara J. Campbell, AICP, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3238, tcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: General Plan Update — Land Use Alternatives The Planning Commission considered the General Plan Land Use Alternatives at a study session on Thursday, December 9, 2004, which was after completion of the City Council staff report for this item. This supplemental report provides the Council with an update on the Planning Commission's discussion. The Planning Commission agreed that nearly all the land use alternatives developed by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) should receive further study, but two changes were proposed. The Commission suggested an additional alternative for the Fashion Island /Newport Center study area and the deletion of one of the options in the Mariner's Mile study area. For Fashion Island /Newport Center, the Commission would like to include a third alternative that studies only an increase of the development potential for residential uses, and leave office, retail and hotel uses as in the existing General Plan. This recommendation was based on the Commission's concern that increases, especially in office development, would not be acceptable to the community. In addition, the Planning Commission recommended deletion of Option 2 in the Mariner's Mile study area, an alternative that included the realignment of Coast Highway and infill for mixed use and retail uses. The Commission felt that such an alternative would be infeasible and should therefore not be further evaluated. Prepared by: Tamara J. Campbell, AICP Senior Planner Submitted by: SA�e -1�� Sharon Z. Wood Assistant City ager • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Study Session #SS4 December 14, 2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Tamara J. Campbell, AICP, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3238, tampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: General Plan Update — Land Use Alternatives RECOMMENDATION: Review land use alternatives for further study in the General Plan update. DISCUSSION: • The General Plan update work program calls for the evaluation of land use alternatives to be developed by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). GPAC organized into subcommittees who met over two months developing alternatives for various geographic subareas, completing their work in August. It is important to note that these are alternatives and not recommendations; they were developed for the purpose of further study to determine potential traffic, fiscal, and environmental impacts. GPAC, staff and the City's consultants will use the results of these impact studies to make land use adjustments and develop a preferred land use plan. For each of the following geographic areas, which had been identified in the original scope of work for the update, a subcommittee developed two to four alternatives for future land use. • Airport Business Area • Balboa Peninsula (including Cannery Village, McFadden Square, Balboa Village, Lido Village /Civic Center) • Banning Ranch • Corona del Mar • Fashion Island /Newport Center • Mariner's Mile • Old Newport Boulevard • West Newport Industrial • • West Newport Residential and Highway Corridor General Plan Update — Land Use Alternatives December 14, 2004 Page 2 • The General Plan Update Committee (GPUC) reviewed the alternatives at their meetings on August 23 and November 15, 2004. The second review took place after the defeat of Measure L and when more information comparing the alternatives to the existing General Plan was available. GPUC made minor adjustments to three geographic subareas: Cannery Village (adding the Albertson's shopping center), Lido Village (adding a third alternative that does not include lodging) and McFadden Square (deleting Marinapark). Changes recommended by GPUC have been incorporated into the data presented in the tables and charts attached to this report. A narrative summary of the various land use alternatives is provided as Exhibit A. Exhibit B includes an analysis of each alternative on a Table entitled GPAC Land Use Alternatives and on bar charts showing, by land use type, the amount of existing development, the amount of development allowed by the existing General Plan, and the amounts of development that would result from the alternatives. This information should provide the easiest means of understanding the alternatives and how they compare to existing conditions. Before any further analysis begins, staff is presenting the alternatives to the Planning Commission and City Council for information and to provide an opportunity for "course correction" if the Commission or Council see something in the alternatives that they • think should not even be considered, or if they identify an important alternative not yet identified for analysis. Again, the only purpose for these alternatives is to provide the basis for further analysis. We are not asking the City Council to select a preferred land use plan at this point. The Planning Commission will review the alternatives at their study session on December 9, 2004. A supplemental report describing the Planning Commission's actions will be distributed to the City Council on Friday, December 10. After City Council review, the alternatives will be analyzed using our traffic and fiscal impact models and standard analysis for other environmental impacts. The analysis method approved by the General Plan Update Committee will result in identification of impacts for each alternative by geographic area, and best and worst case Citywide summaries. This information will be presented in a newsletter that will be mailed to all residents in late winter and will be the basis for discussion at a public workshop scheduled for early spring. With the results. of the impact analysis and public input from the workshop, GPAC's next task will be to refine their land use work, and recommend a preferred land use plan for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. L1 • Prepared by: Tamara J. I ampbell, ICP Senior Planner General Plan Update — Land Use Alternatives December 14, 2004 Page 3 Submitted by: Sharon Z. Woo Assistant City nager Attachments: Exhibit A - Narrative Text dated November 2, 2004; "Summary of GPAC Alternatives" Exhibit B - GPAC Land Use Alternatives Table and Bar Charts Exhibit C — GPUC Minutes 11/15/04 E • 0 0 EXHIBIT NARRATIVE TEXT - SUMMARY OF GPAC ALTS. • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY REVISED December 2, 2004 The following summarizes the land use alternatives identified by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) for the twelve areas targeted for special study for the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update. The GPAC's objective was to specify a range of credible options to the existing General Plan's land use plan that will be evaluated for their traffic, fiscal, and environmental impacts to be compared with one another and the existing General Plan. Information derived from these analyses will provide a framework for the GPAC's and public's review and input for the selection of a preferred updated Land Use Plan. This document presents a general overview of the conceptual and quantitative differences among the land use alternatives. The narrative description is accompanied by a series of tables and bar charts that compare the existing land uses of each sub -area with the buildout of the City's existing General Plan and each of the alternatives. It should be • noted that, for some of the alternatives, the buildout estimates include development potential of lands adjoining the designated study areas as the statistical tabulation areas ( "Traffic Analysis Zones ") are larger than the designated study areas. The key issues, objectives, and concepts of each alternative are more fully described in the summary reports prepared for each planning sub -area by the GPAC (available from the Planning Department). ■ OVERVIEW Generally, the City's existing General Plan provides for increments of growth above existing development in many of the study areas, while the GPAC's alternatives represent a mix of strategies that have capacities that in some cases exceed and others are less than the General Plan. The alternatives encompass strategies for the preservation of sites as open space (an option for Banning Ranch), infill and expansion of existing uses, and re- use for other purposes such as mixed use structures. These fall into four basic categories: a. Study area alternatives facilitating the infill of underutilized parcels and re -use with increments of growth that are greater than existing uses and the capacities of the General Plan. Airport Business Area (with one option comparable to the existing General Plan's commercial, office, and industrial capacities with the addition of housing) Fashion Island/Newport Center • • West Newport Industrial GPAC LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY • Mariners Mile (primarily through the development of mixed use projects) b. Study area alternatives allowing for increments of growth with planned development • capacities below those permitted by the existing General Plan. While the housing capacity of some alternatives may exceed the General Plan, this is more than offset by reductions in their commercial and office capacities. • Banning Ranch • Lido Village (north of Via Lido and along harbor frontage) • Me Fadden Square (northeast of Newport Boulevard) • Corona del Mar c. Study areas characterized by a mix of development alternatives, whose growth capacities are both above and some below the existing General Plan. • Lido Village (south of Via Lido and Civic Center) • Old Newport Boulevard • West Coast Highway • Balboa Village d. Study areas options that provide for increments of growth equivalent to the existing General Plan. • Me Fadden Square (west of Newport Boulevard) ■ AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA Two alternatives were identified by the GPAC for the Airport Business Area that provide for the infill of a number of properties considered as underutilized due to their extensive coverage with surface parking and re -use of properties immediately adjoining the John Wayne Airport (the "Campus Tract "). As a baseline, the existing General Plan provides for increases of approximately 9% of commercial and office development and 8.511% of industrial development in excess of existing development. One GPAC alternative reduces the General Plan's commercial capacity by about 1%, while increasing its office capacity by approximately 17 %. Cumulatively, the retail and office uses would be increased by approximately 15% greater than the existing General Plan, or 25% above existing development. This alternatives' capacity for industrial uses is approximately 10% greater than the General Plan, or 19% above existing development. • The second alternative provides for the development of multi - family housing, while reducing the area's capacity for retail and office development, as opportunities for people to live in proximity to jobs in the Airport and surrounding areas and help meet Newport Beach's share of regional housing needs. This is intended to reduce vehicle trip lengths and would complement planned residential projects in business areas to the north in the • City of Irvine. With the exception of housing, this alternative's capacity is comparable to 2 W GPAC LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY the existing General Plan. It has capacity for approximately 2,400 housing units, none of • which are included in the existing General Plan, reduces the commercial capacity 4.1 % below that permitted by the existing General Plan and increases the office capacity by 2% (cumulatively 1.1 % above the existing Plan) and industrial capacity by 10 %. There was no clear direction on the Airport Area from the Visioning Process. Although 63% of Visioning Festival participants indicated that the City should expand in this area, the survey found that 65% of residents supported no change while 66% supported new low -rise office development and 73% supported hotel development. At the Visioning Summit, mixed use development with high- density residential also was supported. ■ BALBOA VILLAGE Six alternatives were identified by the GPAC for the Balboa Village planning sub -area. Generally, these provide for a reduction of the area designated for commercial uses, concentrating these in proximity of the ferry terminal, and re- designate these areas for mixed -use structures (integrating housing with retail), overnight accommodations, and housing (maximum of two units per lot). Two alternatives specifically provide for the re -use of isolated commercial properties outside of the core on Balboa Boulevard for housing, resulting in a small number of additional units. Another maintains the mix of uses accommodated by the existing General Plan, but targets commercial properties to uses that are marine and recreational- oriented. The fourth land use alternative provides for the evolution of many properties developed with commercial and office uses for mixed use structures, with retail and restaurant uses located on the ground floor to enhance street pedestrian activity and housing on upper levels. While the existing General Plan provides for a 4.6% increase in housing capacity above existing development, this alternative would provide for a 36% increase (approximately 425 housing units). At the same time, commercial and office capacity would be reduced by 7.2% below the General Plan, a 23% increase above existing development. The fifth alternative allocates a portion of the mixed -use structures for new overnight accommodations. This would result in a tenfold increase above the existing General Plan in hotel and bed and breakfast rooms (330 rooms) and 20% increase in housing, while reducing retail commercial and office capacity by 32% (or 8% below existing development). The sixth alternative provides for the conversion of all commercial and office properties for low- moderate density housing (maximum of two units per lot). This would increase the housing supply by approximately 100 units (7.2 %) about the existing General Plan and 166 units (12 %) above existing development, and eliminate approximately 300,000 square feet of commercial and office use. Visioning Process participants supported the revitalization of Balboa Village and its • suitability for mixed use development, especially for underutilized commercial land. .-P GPAC LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY ■ BANNING RANCH • Four alternatives were identified by the GPAC for the Banning Ranch planning sub -area, currently occupied by oil extraction activities and open space. These express four fundamentally different visions for the future use of the property. As the baseline, the current General Plan designation (Orange County) provides capacity for 2,735 housing units (225 single family and 2,510 multi - family), 50,000 square feet of retail commercial, 235,600 square feet of office, and 164,400 square feet of industrial use. The first GPAC provides for the preservation of the property as open space, with the consolidation and long -term removal of oil activities, site acquisition and remediation, and, where appropriate, habitat restoration. While a majority of the property would be maintained in a natural state, a portion may be developed as active parklands and integrated into a regional open space system along the Santa Ana River. A second alternative provides for the development of a mixed use "residential village" containing a mix of housing types, small hotel, supporting retail, parks, and school. The majority of the site would be preserved as open space. Reflecting the plans previously prepared for Taylor Woodrow, this alternative would accommodate 1,765 housing units, 75,000 square feet of retail, and 75 hotel rooms. Cumulative, these represent a significant reduction of capacity from the County of Orange's land use designations for the site (36% for residential, 74% for retail commercial and office, and 100% for industrial). The third alternative limits development to the least environmentally sensitive portions of • the site, primarily on the mesa in its southeast. Development capacity of the second alternative would be reduced approximately in half, representing a housing decrease from the existing Plan of 68 %, retail and office decrease of 88 %, and 100% for industrial. Capitalizing on the site's coastal location and adjacency to the Santa Ana River and habitats, the fourth alternative would provide for the development of a destination resort of comparable scale of the Montage Resort in Laguna Beach. Uniquely, the site may be developed to attract eco- tourism. Approximately, 260 rooms, 75 housing units, and 25,000 square feet of retail would be accommodated, with the balance of the site preserved as open space. In the Visioning Process, 46% of those surveyed support preserving the entire areas as open space, even if such requires a parcel tax for site acquisition, while 44% support half of the land to be utilized for residential and limited light industrial with the remaining half reserved as open space. ■ CANNERY VILLAGE The Cannery Village planning area was divided into two sub -areas, east and west of Newport Boulevard. For the properties to the east, generally encompassing the properties bounded by Newport Boulevard's commercial frontages, Lafayette Avenue, and 32nd Street, two alternatives were identified by the GPAC. • D Al GPAC LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY As a baseline, the existing General Plan provides for a 255% increase in housing units, a • 3% increase in retail commercial, and 11% increase in office use. The first GPAC alternative provides for the evolution of the area for mixed use structures that integrate retail and housing in a distinct neighborhood environment. Street level retail is intended to promote intensive pedestrian activity, with the housing enhancing the market for local commercial uses and services. It would add approximately an additional 200 housing units above the existing General Plan (94.4% increase), while reducing retail commercial and office capacity by 9.5% below existing development and 17% below the General Plan while eliminating new industrial uses. Retail and office development would be precluded by the second alternatives, which would provide for the exclusive development of low- moderate density residential (a maximum of two units per lot). This would result in maximum of approximately 150 units, an increase of 90 above existing development and 60 less than permitted by the existing General Plan. For the commercial properties located to the west of Newport Boulevard (Albertson's market and other retail uses), staff has identified the alternative of redeveloping the area for mixed uses (retail and housing). Presently, the area contains approximately 92,000 square feet of office and retail uses and the existing General Plan would increase this by approximately 3,500 square feet (a 4% increase). The staff alternative would accommodate approximately the same amount of retail and office development and add 192 housing units. • Visioning Process participants supported the revitalization of Cannery Village and its suitability for mixed use development, especially for underutilized commercial land. ■ CORONA DEL MAR Two alternatives were identified by the GPAC for the Corona del Mar planning sub -area. While the study focuses on the properties along the Coast Highway commercial frontages, the type and scale of uses defined are highly interrelated with the residential neighborhoods to the north and south. As a baseline, the existing General Plan provides for a 32% increase in retail commercial and a 74% increase in office development. The first GPAC alternative provides for the continuation of the area's pedestrian- oriented character and community serving function, with opportunities for the development of mixed -use structures at key intersection nodes along the highway. This would reduce commercial and office capacity by approximately 19% (a 13% increase above existing development), while accommodating an additional 180 housing units on lands currently limited to commercial and office development. The second alternative would consider the development of parking lots on residential properties abutting the commercial frontages, with a buffering alley. This would result in • a reduction of 46 (one lot depth) to 92 (two lot depth) housing units. L GPAC LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY ■ FASHION ISLAND /NEWPORT CENTER • Two alternatives were identified by the GPAC for the Fashion Island/Newport Center planning sub -area. These build upon the existing mix of retail, office, entertainment, residential, visitor - serving, and public uses, providing opportunities for infill development primarily on properties now occupied by surface parking. As a baseline, the existing General Plan provides for the development of an additional 380,500 square feet of retail space (24% increase), 395,000 square feet of office (12% increase), and 111 hotel rooms (12% increase). The first GPAC alternative increases the area's General Plan capacity for commercial, office, and entertainment by approximately 11 %. This includes the opportunity to develop a grocery store to support residents in nearby housing. At the same time, it increases the capacity for housing as an opportunity for persons to live in proximity to Newport Center's jobs and for seniors, providing an additional 825 housing units. This alternative also would accommodate the development of a new civic center and additional hotel rooms (46% greater than the existing General Plan). The second alternative reflects concepts previously developed for a draft Long Range Plan. It provides a slightly greater amount of capacity for office and commercial development (28% above existing development and 13% above the existing General Plan), though most of this would consist of office development (40% greater than existing development and 24% greater than the existing Plan). Its capacity for hotel rooms is comparable to the General Plan, while its housing capacity is substantially • below the first alternative, but still a 22.6% increase above the existing Plan. The Visioning Process found contradictory results regarding future development of Fashion Island. Sixty -eight to 70% of resident participants and 61 % of business survey respondents indicated a preference for little or no change. However, there was support for the expansion of existing stores (67% resident and 66% business), as well as for moderate increases to attract new retail businesses (62% resident and 68% business). GPAC noted that the existing General Plan allows for the addition of approximately 395,000 sq. f[. of retail space, and was concerned that adding to that could increase traffic congestion. The results for Newport Center were similar, with 68% to 71 % of residents and businesses preferring little or no change. Once again, survey respondents showed support for the growth of existing companies (57% resident and 61 % business), and GPAC concurred. Resident survey respondents were less supportive of development to accommodate new businesses (48 %) and mixed use development (45 %), while business respondents supported both (63% and 56 %). Over 50% of both groups supported the location of a new hotel in Newport Center. Support for mixed use, high -rise residential and hotel development was expressed at the Visioning Summit. ■ LIDO VILLAGE • 46- GPAC LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY Distinct land use alternatives were identified by the GPAC for each of three sub -areas of • the Lido Village planning sub -area: northeast area along the bay front, south of Via Lido, and the Civic Center site. For the northeast/bayfront area (the "Village "), the existing General Plan essentially provides for no change. The first GPAC alternative provides for the development of mixed -use buildings that integrate housing with retail uses and overnight accommodations. Ground floor retail uses are intended to reinforce the area's pedestrian character, while the housing is intended to increase its customer base. It would provide capacity for approximately 250 housing units (only 12 exist today), a 15% decrease of retail and office commercial below the existing General Plan, and increase of 200 hotel rooms (none exist). The second alternative provides for a mix of retail and overnight accommodations, without housing. It's commercial and office capacity would be approximately 9% less than existing development and 10% less than the existing General Plan, which would be offset by the addition of 200 hotel rooms. For the commercially developed properties immediately south of Via Lido, the existing General Plan provides for approximately 16,500 square feet of additional commercial and office development (14% increase). The GPAC's first alternative provides for infill commercial and housing. It would provide capacity for 120 housing units (none exist) and an approximate 20% increase in retail commercial in excess of existing development and 13% increase above the existing General Plan, with corresponding decreases of office development. The second alternative provides for infill commercial with mixed- use structures that integrate housing with commercial uses. It would accommodate 60 housing units with a 33% increase of retail and office above existing development and 17% increase above the General Plan. For the Civic Center area, the existing General Plan anticipates an increase of approximately 55,000 square feet of development. Two options were identified by the GPAC assuming the possible relocation of the existing civic facilities to another site in the City. One provides for the development of mixed -use structures that integrate housing with commercial. It would accommodate approximately 215 housing units and 110,000 square feet of commercial and office development, a 72% increase above the existing building area. The second provides for the redevelopment of the site as a commercial and office center, of equivalent size to the first alternative. Visioning Process participants supported the consideration of mixed use development in Lido Marina Village, especially for underutilized commercial land. Survey respondents did not support Lido Marina Village as a suitable hotel location, with 63% of residents and 57% of businesses opposing it. ■ MARINERS MILE Three alternatives were identified by the GPAC for the Mariners Mile planning sub -area. Generally, these provide for the evolution of the predominately highway- oriented uses into a series of distinct districts, which would be complemented by unifying streetscape • elements. l� X GPAC LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY As a baseline, the existing General Plan provides for the development of approximately an additional 346,000 square feet of commercial and office use (38% increase) in the • Mariners Mile study area. The first GPAC alternative provides for the development of projects that horizontally integrate commercial and housing along the central portion of the harbor frontage, buildings that vertically integrate commercial and housing on inland properties, including reinforcement of the local - village character at the base of the bluffs east of Riverside Avenue, and infill of retail uses. This would accommodate approximately 700 housing units on properties currently limited to commercial uses and retail and office development of comparable scale to the existing Plan (a 42% increase above existing development). The second alternative provides for the relocation of Coast Highway inland to the base of the bluffs, creating larger parcels adjoining the waterfront and allocating these for mixed use development. This would increase the area's housing capacity by approximately 390 units (total of 1,090 units) and reduce its cormercial capacity slightly (2 % below existing General Plan and 35% above existing development). The third alternative maintains the mix of uses provided for by the first alternative, restricting 40% of the commercial properties for marine- related uses. Visioning Process participants identified Mariners Mile as an area that should be reutilized and would be appropriate for mixed use development. ■ MC FADDEN SQUARE • Distinct land use alternatives were identified by the GPAC for two sub -areas of the McFadden Square planning area: lands abutting the Pier, west of Newport Boulevard; harbor front and properties east of Newport Boulevard. Adjoining the Pier, the existing General Plan provides for an additional 13,000 square feet of commercial and office development. One option defined by the GPAC maintains the basic mix of uses accommodated by the existing Plan and provides incentives for the development of additional overnight accommodations. Commercial uses would be increased from the existing General Plan by an additional 2,500 square feet (less than 3 %), while overnight accommodations would be increased by 650% above existing use and the Plan (total of 186 rooms). In the harbor front area, the existing General Plan essentially maintains the current type and level of development. The first GPAC alternative provides for the development of buildings that integrate housing with retail commercial uses in a "village- like" environment, with incentives for the development of overnight accommodations. Ground floor retail is intended to enhance the area's pedestrian character, with upper level housing increasing its customer base. This alternative accommodates an increase of 28 units of housing above the existing General Plan (total of 190 units) and 90 additional hotel/bed and breakfast rooms above existing and Plan uses, which would be offset by a 20% reduction of commercial and office development. • A" GPAC LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY Support from participants of the Visioning Process for a hotel on the Manna Park site • was low as 66% of residents and 59% of business owners surveyed opposed this use. Most participants also felt that waterfront property within the City, such as the Marina Park site, should be preserved. Specifically, 54% of respondents opposed development, of which 41 % strongly opposed development in areas such as Marina Park. ■ OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD Three alternatives were identified by the GPAC for the Old Newport Boulevard planning sub -area. As a reference, the existing General Plan provides for approximately an additional 67,000 square feet of commercial and office development (a 46% increase above existing use). The first GPAC alternative provides for the development of medical offices and retail on the west side of the boulevard, capitalizing on the presence of Hoag Hospital, and buildings that integrate commercial with housing on the east side. Approximately 286 additional housing units would be accommodated on properties currently limited to commercial and office uses and 125,000 square feet of office and retail (58% increase above existing Plan). Mixed use buildings would be accommodated on the west side of Newport Boulevard and low- moderate residential on the east by the second alternative. It would have the capacity for approximately 320 housing units on properties currently limited to • commercial and office uses, while reducing commercial and office capacity from the Plan by 44% (14,000 square feet less than existing development and 94,000 square feet less than the existing Plan). The third alternative provides for the development of mixed use buildings on the west side of Newport Boulevard and affordable housing on the east. It has the greatest capacity for housing, accommodating an increase of 400 units on commercially - designated properties, while reducing commercial and office capacity to the levels of the second alternative. Visioning Process participants identified Old Newport Boulevard as an area that should be revitalized. ■ WEST COAST HIGHWAY Distinct alternatives were identified GPAC for the westernmost parcels abutting the Santa Ana River (existing mobile home park) and remaining mixed commercial and residential frontage of the West Coast Highway planning sub -area. Generally, these are intended to establish more cohesive districts and identity than currently exist, as well as better serve adjoining residential neighborhoods. For the western parcels, the first alternative provides for their redevelopment for multi- family housing. Approximately, 14 additional units would be accommodated. The second option targets the site for the development of "special needs" housing, adding • approximately 30 units above existing uses. The site would be acquired and redeveloped 18 GPAC LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY as a park by the third alternative and as a parking lot to support adjoining under- parked uses as the fourth alternative. • For the commercial- residential corridor frontage along Coast Highway, three alternatives to the existing General Plan have been defined. As a baseline, the Plan provides for a 42% increase of the area's retail commercial. As an option, the first GPAC alternative provides for the corridor's redevelopment for buildings that integrate housing with commercial uses. An additional 270 housing units in excess of the existing General Plan and 37,000 square feet of additional commercial (74% increase above the Plan and 146% increase above existing use) would be accommodated by this alternative. The second would convert the corridor exclusively for low- moderate housing and overnight accommodations. Its housing capacity would be comparable to existing development, while increasing hotel /overnight accommodations by 200 rooms (a 222% increase above existing and General Plan development). The final alternative would provide for infill commercial development, contingent upon lot consolidation to assure adequate on -site parking. Its capacity would be approximately 22,400 square feet greater than the existing General Plan (a 45% increase above the Plan and 105% increase above existing development). ■ WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL Alternatives were identified by the GPAC for a diversity of sub -areas within the West Newport Industrial planning area. Generally, these provide opportunities for the development of additional medical offices in support of Hoag Hospital, supporting retail, • and industrial infill. As a baseline, the existing General Plan provides for a 75% increase of commercial and office development, 62% increase in industrial development, and 4% increase of housing units in the study area outside of the existing Technology Park site. GPAC's alternatives would increase the commercial and office capacity by an additional 35% (approximately 266,500 square feet of building area), maintain the housing capacity, and slightly reduce the industrial capacity (less than 1 %). For the Technology Park site bounded by Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard, two options to the General Plan were identified. The latter would accommodate a 3% increase in office and 128% increase in industrial development. The first GPAC alternative accommodates an additional 328;000 square feet of medical and related office uses supporting Hoag Hospital (increase of 350% above the General Plan and 370% above existing development), while eliminating industrial uses (reduction of 298,120 square feet provided for by the General Plan). A mix of housing and research and development uses would be accommodated by the second alternative. This would increase the area's housing supply above the existing Plan by approximately 260 units (110% increase) and high technology industry by approximately 200,000 square feet (66% above existing development and 29% below the existing General Plan). The West Newport Industrial Area was identified in the Visioning Process as one that should be revitalized, although no specific ideas were offered or tested. 10 • I� 0 0 EXHIBIT B GPAC ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY TABLE AND BAR CHARTS E 5 l � E • `J m r A �o IA - a ry > a � m `m «_ O Q � 0W N 7 W C J Q a u m 0 00 00'.0.E1 UIU UUU ' le o! �ele v a e e I I O H sa a 1 jb5 — 5 10 I i I o�' �o o000o mId'65 oia'a:o u� syed s I Sl 1 W oN WS o slaoy�s I (Faweuu) 1A'bs o o o mI 4 4 I i i I stlil �; vv ve a oo f I II mIo Imlml 01 1 e w w I o1 vj a I Ir�paw ib'bs t i (paweuun b �I� g °e °e lO o o m mN IeutlmH i I21eaV1 5'lea 'O u°i p N u°i I °. mIm m 8 S S �w w m oo� m_ $o ss InciawwoJ JA $ o ml rvlry s"'., a,eo saae (aWOH Bu,. awoH all9ow 4up — NlWedibnW rc S,UN e'e V V m °m m m 000 oo. 'ylwaj 216 $ sV� 0(°y 00000 Nm NNNNNCI °pm pall elaQ NI ed aiBwS suu ul n °v� °v� �, w m m 1el�amsaa o 0 0 0 0° �° o 1-1--i H 2 leaawwop �j'b 00 m p ° o 3 E e a E e m0 QEQ E2 0 o o a 0 c rctvm 3nc_ E �9 IcE �1 ¢,3Ee_l E�nUm a=r 35,O EN � e NmU (o w° I- I E@Ute= T5 ' 2° =0 ° ° °ac o.o,5.oc= `_ `_I o _'8' 0 a Qa00 9 0 000 sE0 0000 @m wg�rvme wo.-ry _ _ c �'ul —Qm�ry UimdUm •w�ad�m a m r Z m 8 N � >n A 0 2 ° —0 Q° 0 W b > c c � J Q a c� 1-1�� • • - is I I Y m° 0. 00 O Y� Swed c o6 ^po dd � ^ao sWWni u sryeoWs o' o a6 00?0 0??6 6 °_°0 (Paweun) ii x` sdy i —O sumo 0 00 o��r -11N I-100-1 s 1 6 00 o00 44 o0 Ie +IreYY 'Id'b l3'b ° °o �� c0 0 00 000. mP usaa�j Rmnr Olo Iwld -H � ;sayy fle 55�� 25 Qq E QQ $ S 5qj 25 q A QQ N ON 5� InvewumJ li' ° s ilmei wry MMH dwsvnN sPS9 sumH MIWW ryu E H!wei-IUnW N V W ^ w C HlweJ s SY.Y rl N ° IXNW� Hlwy gdws suu 'Ao ..'�i° Eye &r 44 4T °-° Ie Va WU = o ry `V m E leaawwo•,] .1i 'b5 IT ° n 3 � �0 �oB �3B cB ovgm. m 0e orrrc �rrivo�rrivE' orrawo�ra $ 0e 3rc2y¢ ry0 °wa'�'L €o r'II ct �noua0000mO000,A0000 jm °E3 ao 00mOOs00 cd 6$S �° Smm ma(�m u'i (�m6C9m u'i t�na�edd w(j 1-1�� • • - is • • • m 'n r r EN N - m� E u Q� m W aw c� m J Q a u I I i i I � Om° it dp m -bs � °° I i � saved nn �m°oioOO 0 m %uaPnl i p -o � spoy�g I °I (Paweunl ld -bS vl I - stll i l i � III 9. 3 b I I � h!Paw Id I 0 0l0 0 0 $ m i(�aue0 ii bS rv( IeY.4soH smeeyl slea �m o I mim ° o ° o o mo Inv wwo0 Ij -b a NdN _ sa ere0 OH6 rowou seivnly awOH %!4ow ryu N!wedNnW Nu o °i o 0 0 2 o rc I PaNeNtl FI!wej nv Nun � 0 0 0 0 patpepp Nlwvd %BwS ryun WIPWISaH Nun J m m m m a lea�awwoo tj' E E E A a 3� 3� nay KZ ¢Za¢i - �i o = 4 ��mo8imm.e aka ieAi�i��n mA �m ZK'��ZKwEK'� KK�KKwKK E m o m tEj'm E . _ _ _ m c _ m c c C c J _ cat C 0 Aui a °mdm�n nCm a °m 0 m0'0 0 000 m 00 9mda a m C` 1 C and COm O (9 •w" m wc9 m a A F A N i m m m C n� Q � mw n � c� A Q a n I + + I I 1 $w I j 0 a I ap syed m °m ° 0 )o N ;o sloo4a5 sau I twweun) .�d. - sans s" I i woo S,�„ So8 mo rry _ ld p g Im!PaW l� d CB o (Pawnun m° v ,ol luaua� +d.^ o n m +eytlma spa ,v1Ay1 +'1e :nvewwo� ��'b o ig F saun°ei ue3 ° +aumN 6wunN spa m m o awaH aMw Nu - — — # fywediN ^W zyu m � � � m K wv+euv N:wed gBwS wwwao kwed alBwS Null z u�wawwo� m B o o O1 °? 8 � _ �o coo°? wc3 E: e�E�NCE w$ m� mm mx E a °so me °s = E'E EE�EE rc� -rcia °"'rcv° >? o oho U IU'.� -n F6�r m U�m ry�U'Iry�E�r1° U'm �U_:EI � �� caFao�,�s � °= 000eoso�566 -' ep 55585 ga�� °po °o mloo�oo °a g'� °a000 moQ00,000 -'m omo Ao wOm6i9m WU°matpm wc9 mdc➢w 6 y� C • • • • W f Z N p 7 0 N - w � >a e p1 r O Q 0 W W 7 J 9 W C� 0 U a O y8 m Q N N a N V` ca c CU c ~P ~P at° ~P ~p mU NU' um mt7 o0 0000 oOoO m U Oq SB W i A N T 1 0T �O D o >U _3 sWed w 0 1B o 0 U 51004]$ uI s I g g (paweunl lj D sdi i t 9 s swooa m a I ae Inmaw 'U b - _L3 O (paweuun 808 20 lol lWeoa� - v - I"d.H leleeyy stews le•iuWwoO 'Ij'Ds m 'a r senn!+Bjmq Bw /awoN LW!SInN _ awoH al!goW s,., _ N!wed�tlnW ryu N N m MWeUb ryu Nlwej e,Ws e e e e FWIIa ryu N1weja is IewBp!BBa Pf Ie!mawwo0 'Ij'Ds TIE fi =a9 s s s 0 0�o m� a igc 0= c crw 0 0 0 fr y E &0 0 EO m0 m a E =o O 00 E Os a o o a'o Um' laj m Ill l'mJ n a 6'U m O m n T m N - m" m `m m � V ao mW N N W C V Q a V J � I ON I n -6m saved s muwms - m °1 - san (paweunl id'e � = f sal z >7aoo � x cs In�ww lj os o o� im x (v weeee Iw!dwH I +TeWy Aea O O O » O O m O O Invewuron lj'E n 10 ° ^ 4 4 4 W R P+wloej a+e° �woH Mw , s� ..H a14-N Nu N!wej,unry Nu m o o m m o o m ¢ d DeYa @b {yu p » O O m O Nwej asu!s N � Nun o »on o0o 0m O Om » »» Nwaj �6uIS Yv' m !e ua ..na Nun o to o m v N m rl NNN Z 1¢YLawwO'J Ij'e5 om om o00 o 0 P N N q L �mL mL 09y qm�m Um� 'rca arc¢ `¢a X33 `�Ee n�3_ qBb° cLam> > c.40_oc.8. .� Aa °oaa000EOOO,y000 _e _umgam�rvnc Cow a,10 0 n A\ • • m • • • • m a N f r Ee E r m >n m m m .. O Q O 0 W a� N aW c � U Q I i m l e I I I oy_E 1 I li bs ` a� i � I m sWed saa N�I "� s1uaPTS ,a a I slaowS laaweum ii'bs I� sdl � I —'" x swooa m mo 000000010°,0 ICI 9 °0�$ �I _ .ti bs I IwIPaW 'id b I F 0 (paweuun ,Id ,b iol leiaua9 I Ieytl50N 5Pa9 +T¢a41 P¢a$ leiwwwop 'ld'b ° o 0 . . I 1 sablwei aiep spag MWOH Bu,s' , ..OH ePW W sou rc wwnro n Wiwej TB.us wwTaa N�wy TBmS syu �o m J Imwaasaa eu¢ io 0 0 0 � $1 f leryawwon ;j 'b o 0 0 o im _ @rq _ o t- E m _ E c -° P- E m E° V c o n iV c o c w m i O i0U'_^ Mo. �U(J 1 r ri e" A ri@ ri ri � W 0 n m o 0 o C• CO O O O_ C o c O O Oo i. O _ cda��Bom0A 00a�om� 0 0oo00 �000r00 0c 0 Wac a "oc gm m ' ; m -- w Um' m n O m 6 F r m �r N p � Y G m V �o 'ao m w mN c � J Q a k-C C5 • • m • j � qJ NN Ny °o ao as r III Hill Ill I u� sVed s X1°0 ol0 I 0 0 qu V lo 'O 0 10 avows = n' sou ! tPNe��1 ii.p f t — c aa�1 sm s sw� qq n 11 .YS nl mio v Yi a o - mm I '11' 01 I.PW Y �m r HIPe�o m j nle I RWsoH �� !w Ppay� aea i ' I `� �'m 8 53 lemrewuw� �i' IT 0 s OH ,n �dWOH EwLIIN SP °o0 .H o114oW syu RE _ kureiwnW J Pm m ryu N!wy alfiu!g Pawula0 kmml aleu�s suu m m m m o 0 1�!wawsaa a?�n I 3 F1¢Wawum� li' m� m� Si Si ti zo io 5 5 zmo ow 0 o. z E E E Em €mu E@ `5 va v o mqm xmNmgq_ ---ml m o d o pc PQ$m c 00 S 0 S SO aOq .c e • - , i Q! F Z- Zo 6 V- E O j m c c c o - c o � �m ao o ° 0 0 E _c . m o O. _m 'y _ no_ 55 = EO0O =Z�a_ '_y —O a am O O Oo °a O am Oo O 0m ,OE n_� S - Qf � — "10 ` a0O CQUQ mv � -iOrO�J N _ PA W mO mri V'm LSO O�Om nuVn k-C C5 • • m • • • • m n f Z A E°o m . m� >n A m Q � 0W N J aw C � A J Q a I. ,III I!i — _ c Id bs — m np Id bs I ii sWed san I ` i srvaxms of ;« mom i U aaWS !O'aN Im s IT �paweun) �a bs seals f — swo^a H 11111 111111 r 0� rvI — — m m i I mH o (Pdweuun � g o HI � ,oi le�a^a� i.bs N�io I Q mi InitlsaH I spag i ,eRAl 9¢ 00 sa @IPed aep m I �aw¢H fimvnN awaH al!Vow sxun _ Allwe! ^xnw sxun o n K Pauaeud .(liwed g6Ws sxyn Da4ae 6., Nlw¢j al6uiS syu 0 0 0 0 �j o o J IenpaP!saa squ f Iea,awWO'J Ij bs Z E Z E Z E ° �a 0 mi mo m, 7 a . o m� �doo�7 mi $ � �iw z a 1. @ o o I ,0oo om .ol o amo o_ o 3N OEoogoo = c »TWO c vti' w�mac°fm wc�macxm a Existing General Plan Optlion 1 O ion 2 i i i Residential (dus) Existing Use Existing Option 1 Option 2 General Plan Commercial (Sq Ft) Existing Existing Option 1 Option 2 Use General Plan Total Commercial 8 Office (sq ft) Existing Use Existing Option 1 Option 2 General Plan Office (Sq Ft) 7,000,000 .I 6,000,000 it 5,000,000 2,000,000- AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA Coml & Office I Commercial Office Industrial 0 5,427,333 508,759 6,092,352 _665,019 0 871,500_ 5,786,916 551,930 _ _ 6,658,41_6 0 861,750 6,782,817 _ 606,370 7,644,567 i7 835,535 5,899,081 606,370 6,734,616 Residential (dus) Existing Use Existing Option 1 Option 2 General Plan Commercial (Sq Ft) Existing Existing Option 1 Option 2 Use General Plan Total Commercial 8 Office (sq ft) Existing Use Existing Option 1 Option 2 General Plan Office (Sq Ft) 7,000,000 .I 6,000,000 it 5,000,000 2,000,000- 1,000,000- I 0 Existing Existing Option 1 Option 2 Use General Plan Industrial (Sq Ft) 700,000 i 600,000 400,000 300,000 200.000 - - 100,000 - - - i 0 Existing Use Existing Option 1 Option 2 General Plan BANNING RANCH Residential Commercial (sq ft) Exist,,USe Exi.,, 00l -Open Opt 2- Taylor ON 3- Opt 4-Ras0d General space Wool RMUCed Plan Taylor W WOmw Office (sq ft) i Existu'g USe Enst. ON Lien 002 Taylor Opt ON4,Resort General Space Woodmw Reduced Plan Taylor Woodrow Industrial Existing U. Emsunp 0,1 Open 0, e- Taylor Opt Opt 4 -Resod General Space Woodrow Reduced Plan Taylor Woodmw /_' 0 0 M. -� ® ■ ■ 4 111 /M Exisurg USe Ivs , — 0%2.Taylar ON 3. Opt 4 -Re »d General Plan Space Woodmw RMUCM Taylor Woodrow Total Commercial & Office (sq ft) General Space Woodrow Reauced Plan Taylor Woodrow Hotel (rooms) Enstlog Existing Opt 1- Opt 2- Opt 3- Opt 4- Use General Open Taylor Reduced Resod Plan Space Woodrow Taylor I I Residential Commercial Office Industrial Hotel ComllOff ling Use 0 0 0 0-- 01 0 ling General Plan 2,735 50,000 235,600 164,400 0 285,600 1 -Open Space 0 0 0 0 0 0 2- Taylor Woodrow 1,765 75,000 0 0 75 75,000 3-Reduced_ Taylor Woodrow 882 35,000 0 0 75 35,000 4- Resort 94 25,000 0 0 262 25,000 Residential Commercial (sq ft) Exist,,USe Exi.,, 00l -Open Opt 2- Taylor ON 3- Opt 4-Ras0d General space Wool RMUCed Plan Taylor W WOmw Office (sq ft) i Existu'g USe Enst. ON Lien 002 Taylor Opt ON4,Resort General Space Woodmw Reduced Plan Taylor Woodrow Industrial Existing U. Emsunp 0,1 Open 0, e- Taylor Opt Opt 4 -Resod General Space Woodrow Reduced Plan Taylor Woodmw /_' 0 0 M. -� ® ■ ■ 4 111 /M Exisurg USe Ivs , — 0%2.Taylar ON 3. Opt 4 -Re »d General Plan Space Woodmw RMUCM Taylor Woodrow Total Commercial & Office (sq ft) General Space Woodrow Reauced Plan Taylor Woodrow Hotel (rooms) Enstlog Existing Opt 1- Opt 2- Opt 3- Opt 4- Use General Open Taylor Reduced Resod Plan Space Woodrow Taylor I I 0 Existing Use Existing General Plan Opt 1-Corn to Res Opt 2 -Res Opt 3 -Water Rel Uses Opt 4 -Mix Use coml /res Opt 5 -Mix Use coral /visitor Opt 6 -Coml to res, w /visit BALBOA VILLAGE 1,369 2_03,360 22,920 34 226,28 1,432 217,340 _ 89,260_ 34 306,60 1,438 214,340 89,260 34 303,60 1,435 214,340 89,2_60 34 303,60 1,432 217,340 60,0.00 34 277,34 1,857 284,386 0 34 284,38 1,725 207,550 0 330 207,55 1,535 2,400 0 3301 1 2,40 Residential (dus) C....,6.1IS, Fp 1P � `° F° Qry F °\J �'� t`� � i \c� e °I Oo O `i J„° °° r 0 Office (Sq Ft) lid 1F 90, 80,00 70,00 so,00 so,00 ao 00 zo,00 10,00 t� *y cGec� G °� OQ ¢, �ze Jeep e8� o x` z Act OR � p� '5 oQ oQ OQ d'9 8 Cip C y OQ�\ Hotel (Rooms) .Aye Q a� o e5`L�,e� `�ye5tc�ie�,y dam\ 5 Q. +y Gece`aV�� O�ae�� JSee e °e��o�ay y 5co OQ � p`sr + GaF OQ 0 O OQ BALBOA VILLAGE 0 Total Commercial & Office (sq R) \c Jy¢a \Q \2e\�zyN.,V Z \Jyz 4o `c OP i �y�,y�oy ;ytr y c "r- e e e� �O� y OQ\ O � p 0�+ ��'Go 04. OQ� OQ .0 0 • CANNERY VILLAGE -EAST OF NEWPORT BOULEVARD Residential (dus) Existing Use Existing Option 1- Option 2- ' General Mixed Use Resldenbal Plan j Commercial (sq ft) J 300.000 1 I 250.000 1 I office (sq ft) Existing Use Exi>: nq Option 1- Option 2- Existing Existing Option 1- Option 2- General Mixed Use Residential Use General Mixed Use Residential Plan Plan Total Commercial & Office (sq ft) Existing Existing Option I. Option 2- Use General Mixed Use Residential Plan Industrial (sq ft) Residential Commercial Office Industrial Coml & Office Existing Use 60 196,270 91,320 47,850 287,590 ._._� Existing General Plan 213 - _ 201,780 - --` -- -. ._ 101,500 0 ._...- --- 303,280 Option 1 -Mixed Use 414 260,180 0 Op ton 2- Residential _ 152 53,270 _0 0 0 _260,180 53,270 Residential (dus) Existing Use Existing Option 1- Option 2- ' General Mixed Use Resldenbal Plan j Commercial (sq ft) J 300.000 1 I 250.000 1 I office (sq ft) Existing Use Exi>: nq Option 1- Option 2- Existing Existing Option 1- Option 2- General Mixed Use Residential Use General Mixed Use Residential Plan Plan Total Commercial & Office (sq ft) Existing Existing Option I. Option 2- Use General Mixed Use Residential Plan Industrial (sq ft) A CANNERY VILLAGE -WEST (ALBERTSON-S) Residentail(dus) E Isnng Use Fisting General Alternative Plan Office (sq ft) 1F- Commercial (sq ft) 10 Total Commercial & Office (sq ft) Existing Use Existing Alternative ! General Plan Residential Commercial Office Coml & Office Existing Use 87 71,440 20,020 91,460 Existing General Plan 95 74,900 20,020 94,920 Alternative 287 96,050 0 96,050 Residentail(dus) E Isnng Use Fisting General Alternative Plan Office (sq ft) 1F- Commercial (sq ft) 10 Total Commercial & Office (sq ft) Existing Use Existing Alternative ! General Plan CORONA DEL MAR Existing Use Residential Commercial Office 2,952_ 406,842 _84,921 Existing General Plan 3;267 _538,630 148,060 Option 1 3,448 428,839 124,721 Coml & Office 491,763 686,690 553,560 Residential (dus) Commercial (Sq Ft) 3,000 I 2,500 _ 2,000. 1,500 1,000 500 0 Lt 'I Existing Use Existing Option 1 General Plan Office (Sq Ft) 160,000.1'.A 140,000 i 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000,`i�` . r~ 40,000 -'- 20,000 ,;:;_� Existing Use Existing Option 1 General Plan 1 ,• 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 .. 100,000 t 0 Existing Use Existing Option 1 General Plan Total Commercial & Office (sq ft) ' Existing Use Existing Option 1 General Plan 7Ct 1 FASHION ISLANDINEWPORT CENTER Residential (dus) Hotel (rooms) IF Existing Use Existing Opt 1 -GPAC Opt 2 -Long General Range Plan Plan Total Commercial & Office Existing Use Existing Opt 1- Opt 2 -Long General GPAC Range Plan Plan 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1.000.000 Existing Existing Opt 1- Opt 2 -Long Use General GPAC Range Plan Plan Office (sq ft) Existing Existing Opt 1- Opt 2 -Long Use Residential Commercial Office Hotel Public Coml & Office Ling Use 664 1,556,320 3,240,794 925 100,000 4,797,114 250,000 ting General Plan _664 1,936,820 3,635,670 1,036 105,000 5,572,490 1-GPAC 1,48_9 _2,060,248 4,101,004 1,513 223,000 6,161,252 2 -Long Range Plan 814 1,776,980 4,519,802 1,036 105,000 6,296,782 0 Residential (dus) Hotel (rooms) IF Existing Use Existing Opt 1 -GPAC Opt 2 -Long General Range Plan Plan Total Commercial & Office Existing Use Existing Opt 1- Opt 2 -Long General GPAC Range Plan Plan 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1.000.000 Existing Existing Opt 1- Opt 2 -Long Use General GPAC Range Plan Plan Office (sq ft) Existing Existing Opt 1- Opt 2 -Long Use General GPAC Range Plan Plan iPublic (sq ft) 250,000 ' 200,000 150,000 . 100,000 :. 50,000 0 Existing Existing Opt 1- Opt 2 -1-ong Use General GPAC Range Plan i Plan 39, LIDO VILLAGE Northeast & Bay Front Residential Commercial Office Hotel Coml & Office Existing Use 12 129,280 - -. -. -.- __ 90,220 0 219,500 Exi_sting GP _ _ 12__— - 130,510 90,220 _ 0 - -- Opt 1: MU w /visitors _ 250 187,679 0 200 _220,730 187,679 Opt 2: Retail w /visitors 0 199,679 0 200 19909 Opt 3: Mixed Use 312 187,679 0 0 187,679 Residential (dus) Commercial (sq ft) Existing Use Existing GP Opt 1: MU Opt 2: Retail Opt 3: M.saprs w /msitprs Mixed Use I Office (sq ft) 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 Rn nnn i I r -- Hotel (rooms) Existing Use r,s -9 GP Opt 1: MU Opt 2: Retail Opt 3: Mixed w /visitors wlv."[.,s Use Total Commercial & Office (sq ft) i 225,000 220,000 215,000 210,000 195,000 190,000 185,000 180,000 175,000 170,000 Eeletmg Use Eesttng GP Opt 1'. MU Op12. Retail Opt 3: M'ued w1msna5 wivsitom Use 33 Existing Use Existing GP Opt 1: Retail infill, hsg Opt 2: Retail infill, MU Residential (dus) LIDO VILLAGE ial Commercial Office 0 105,120 11,810 0 111,532 21,896 120 125,714 0 61 155,988 0 Coml & Office 116,93( 133,42E 125,71,d 155,98E Commercial (sq ft) I!� Existing Existing Opt 1: Opt 2: p Use GP Retail infill, Retail infill, Existing Use Ex ;sting GP Opt 1: Retail Opt 2: Retail hsg MU infill, hsg infill, MU I 25.000 .. 20,000 15, 000 10, 000 5,000 0 Office (sq ft) 0 Existing Existing Opt 1: Opt 2: Use GP Retail infill, Retail infill, hsg MU 1 1 1 1 Total Commercial & Office Existing Use Existing GP Opt 1: Retail Opt 2: Retail infill, hsg infill, MU 3i Existing GP Opt 1: Mixed Use Opt 2: Retail & office Residential (dus) 0 0 213 LIDO VILLAGE nercial Office Coml & Office 0 64,680 64,680 0 119,917 119,917 111,339 0 111,339 46,391 64,948 111,339 Commercial (sq ft) ii I u Office (sq ft) Existing Existing Opt 1: Opt 2: Use GP Mixed Use Retail & office i .I I I _J Total Commercial & Office (sq ft) Existing Use Existing GP Opt 1: Mixed Opt 2: Retail Use & office 35 4 Existing General Plan Opt 1- Lodging Incentive Residential (dual MCFADDEN SQUARE ial Commercial Office Hotel CO 133 74,270 3,550 25 138 82,750 8,000 25 138 93,218 0 186 Commercial (sq n) hisWp Use tAmgmq eceMwe Total Commercial 8 Office I, R) Hotel/Lodging (rooms) Harborfront NE of New pt BI Residential Commercial Office Hotel Coml &Office 3iG ^leti MCFADDEN SQUARE Use 60 66,640 35,750 General Plan 162 67,590 35,750 J, lodging incentive 190 46,790 35,000 Residential(dus) Ei Inn, USe E-tr, Ga,eral Ran 0, 1.MU, I-,, i.."r Moe (sq N) MotelalLOdging (rooms) 16 102,390 16 103,340 90.. _._. 81,790 Commercial (sq k) E,eI,, U. E"f d'iv'a +a OpI tMU, loEgi,g iruMive Total C.mme,ml & O ice Isq HI Evsmg lse Ensurg Geeeral Ran Opl YInLL IMgug ircan:ne 31 I* MARINERS MILE 2. 1 I 1 Existing Existing Opt 1- Opt 2- Opt 3 -40% Use General Mixed Coast Hwy Marine Plan Uses Realign Uses Office (sq ft) I & Office 900,220 1,245,990 1, 2_97,132 1,219,813 1,297,132 Commercial (sq ft) Existing • s: ^g Opt 1 -Mixed Opt 2 -Coast Opt 340% Use oeneal Uses Hwy Realign Marine Plan Uses Total Commercial & Office (sq ft) 1,400,000 Residential Commercial Office xisting Use _ 1,076 633,950 266,270 Existing General Plan 1,093 779,800 466,190 Opt 1 -Mixed Uses 1,782 933,5_75 363,557 Opt 2 -Coast Hwy Realign 2,169 933,575 286,238 O t 3 -4010 Marine Uses 1,485 933,575 363,557 Existing Existing Opt 1- Opt 2- Opt 340% Residential (dus) Use General Mixed Uses Coast Hwy Marine 2,500 —' I '. 1,000.0( 2. 1 I 1 Existing Existing Opt 1- Opt 2- Opt 3 -40% Use General Mixed Coast Hwy Marine Plan Uses Realign Uses Office (sq ft) I & Office 900,220 1,245,990 1, 2_97,132 1,219,813 1,297,132 Commercial (sq ft) Existing • s: ^g Opt 1 -Mixed Opt 2 -Coast Opt 340% Use oeneal Uses Hwy Realign Marine Plan Uses Total Commercial & Office (sq ft) 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000- 200,000 0- Existing Existing Opt 1- Opt 2- Opt 340% Use General Mixed Uses Coast Hwy Marine Plan Realign Uses OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD t?1 xisting Use 392 _ 48,700 97,740 146,440 Existing GP 592 —876 66,380 -- — 147,020 -------d39,017 ,_ 213,400 1: med off, rtl, MU Opt 1: 876 169,786 169,231 339,017 Opt 2: MU, resid 909 1201879 0 120,879 Opt 3: MU, afford hsg 995 120,879 0 120,879 i 1 1 0 Residential (dus) j '• Commercial (sq ft) i Existing Existing Opt 1'. Opt 2: Opt 3: Use GP med off, MU, resid MU, afford 10, MU hsg office (Sol ft) . i 40,000 i 20,000 0 60,000- i Eu :IUq VSe I —".1 V1 tumor( N. opu mu.«ye opu MU. eXam 1 Mu hn i Total Commercial & Office I Existing Existing Opt t: Opt 2: Opt 31 Use GP Medoff. MU, re5id MU, 10, MU afford hsg 3� le • • WEST COAST HIGHWAY Commercial Frontage Residential Existing Use 80 Existing General Plan 80 _ Opt 1 -Mixed Use (vent) 348 — - � —... Opt 2- Housing & Lodging - 73 Opt 3- Commercial w /Lot Consolidation 0 3A i 3W I I :Sp 1W 1W . II a Ensl nB Use Evslin5 Residential loans) 50,030 90 86,902 0 0 290 72,419 0 Commercial (sq ft) HMeI/LOEBing (rooms) 300 I 2m w f: �t s 0 Euswq UW EbSlvj General Op', I M,4 Um Opi:- Hw$Ing6 Op13Lemm ntl I Plan IIenl I.,, whol �nsolla anon ' Iv • _J 0 WEST COAST HIGHWAY Existing Use 60 Existing General Plan 60 Opt 1- Multi- family housing 74 Opt 2 -Spec needs housing 91 opt-3-Park, open space 0 Opt 4- Parking lot 0 Residential (dus{ EAOIN USe Eu NGeneral ON 1-Mal, Opf 3 -Spec Opt J.Pae.. open 004.Pankine bf Plan femilll tswN , .dpep.pll SpdfG Ar i Commercial (sa M1) Mce (sp R) 1,031 I Total Commercial 6 Mica J, M1) Enisrg�ss Er.,W, Genial Ran op,2 -MM GIfce, Rec Cn, Intlus✓ial Asa tl� WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL Area Excl Tech Park 8 Adjacent Residential Commercial Office Industrial Existing Use 2,622 72,170 364,250 550,711 Existing General Plan 2,771 72,170 692,660 893,602 Opt 2 -Med Office, Res, Coml 2,771 121,021 910,292 888,882 Resmemiai )ausl i Commercial (sa M1) Mce (sp R) 1,031 I Total Commercial 6 Mica J, M1) Enisrg�ss Er.,W, Genial Ran op,2 -MM GIfce, Rec Cn, Intlus✓ial Asa tl� WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL Tech Park & Adjoining Sites Residential Commercial Office Industrial Coml & Office Existing Use 223 89,280 130,590 89,280 Existing General Plan 240 91,620 298,120 91,620 Opt 2 -Tech Pk: Med Off 240 419,409 0 419,409 _ Opt 3 -Tech Pk: Res & R &D 503 91,620 — – 213,063 91,620 Residential laud Oiflce lsq fll Inavprial Isq M) Emslvp UU Eeady Gmerd %s Po� ±TZ�R MrE 011 Poi�T:1�Rld RdO 41 -d A3 0 DRAFT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Ad Hoc General Plan Update Committee Minutes of the Ad Hoc General Plan Update Committee Meeting held in the Friends Room, Central Library, City of Newport Beach, on 11- 15 -04. 1. Call to Order Members present: Steven Bromberg, Chairman /Mayor Pro Tern Allan Beek, Measure S Supporter Kevin Weeda, EDC Designee Chris Trapp, EQAC Alternate Designee Tim Collins, Harbor Committee Designee Jeffrey Cole, Planning Commissioner. Barry Eaton, Planning Commissioner Mike Toerge, Planning Commissioner Members absent: Steven Rosansky, Council Member Tom Anderson, Aviation Committee Designee • Staff present: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patty Temple, Planning Director Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner Shirley Oborny, Administrative Assistant Consultants Present: Woodie Tescher, EIP Members of the Public: Ron Baers Philip Bettencourt Don Bowers John Corrough Nancy Gardner Gordon Glass Charles Griffin Carol Hoffman Jennifer Irani Bill Lusk James Quigg Darwin Reinglass • Ann Watt Sharon Wright DRAFT 3 / • females. From District 4, there are a number of female candidates and candidates in the younger age group. It would be good to get back some of the balance we lost by considering one of them for appointment. Because the candidates were invited to this meeting it would be interesting to hear from them what their willingness is to get up to speed. Mr. Beek said I think we should keep GPAC up to full membership. The most important work is yet to be done and I think they would come up to speed rapidly. They've shown a lot of interest by their attendance here tonight. Mr. Cole said he is most concerned with the imbalance of the geographic breakdown. I also believe a lot of the important work is still to come. Chairman Bromberg invited members of the public and GPAC candidates to speak to the committee as to whether they thought it would be appropriate or not appropriate to fill the vacancies. The following people made comments in favor of filling the vacancies: • Gordon Glass • Charles Griffin • Jennifer Irany • Darwin Reinglass • Ann Watt Chairman Bromberg said GPUC should decide whether to fill the contingent, not fill the • contingent, or bring it back to GPAC to be determined there as Ms. Gardner suggested. Mr. Toerge moved to appoint the full committee. Mr. Beek seconded the motion. All members were in favor. Chairman Bromberg said in the past we have given the City Council two or three names from each district. Chairman Bromberg invited candidates to make comments about why they would like to be a member of GPAC. Candidates who spoke were: • Don Bowers — District 5 • Gordon Glass - District 4 • Charles Griffin - District 4 • Bill Lusk - District 5 • Darwin Reinglas — District 4 • Ann Watt - District 4 The committee nominated the following candidates: District 3 • Mr. Beek nominated Jim Naval because he was a runner -up the last time the City Council filled vacancies. • Mr. Eaton nominated C. Edward Wolfe, District 4 • Mr. Beek nominated Gordon Glass because he was also a runner -up the last time the • City Council filled vacancies. • Mr. Eaton nominated Ann Watt. 3 / 0 DRAFT Mr. Toerge asked how many studies or alternatives are budgeted. Ms. Wood said the budget has four model runs. After GPAC finished developing these alternatives, because they vary so much with all the geographic areas (some have three and some two), we didn't think the permutations would be manageable. We decided to do two model runs for the start, in addition to the base we already have with the existing General Plan. After we see what kind of results we get, we will make some adjustments to the land use alternatives and use the remaining budgeted model runs to look at the adjusted alternatives. Mr. Toerge asked whether they were on a citywide basis. Mr. Tescher agreed. We are going to do two on a citywide basis for traffic but at the same time we will be taking a look at quantifying the impacts. For example, for Banning Ranch we have four distinct options. We'll take the high end and low end to show the range for citywide traffic impacts. The other two will be in between somewhere. For our analysis we'll quantify those two in between but not incorporate them in the citywide model. We will also quantify the environmental changes, for example, loss of habitat. Mr. Toerge asked for clarification as to what is being asked of GPUC. Ms. Wood explained that GPAC has developed these recommendations. On nine of them we are asking GPUC whether it thinks they are sufficient or whether we should add one more to make sure we're studying enough of a range. is Mr. Eaton asked Mr. Tescher how he decided which are the low end and the high end in cases where there are two options that are very different from each other, in order to run with the low end model and the high end model. Mr. Tescher said for each one we will quantify this, and end up with an accumulative peak hour trips before running the model so we'll know which generates the biggest number of trips. The same would apply to the fiscal, what contributes the greatest revenue and which has the greatest cost to the City. Mr. Collins asked whether there is enough money in the budget to evaluate the first two passes of the options presented in this packet. Ms. Wood agreed. Mr. Cole asked how GPAC came up with these options in order for GPUC to determine whether we should come up with another option. Ms. Wood said for each area there was a subcommittee of GPAC. For each area EIP and staff presented discussion papers that gave background information including what we heard in the visioning process for these areas. We suggested some land use alternatives for them to consider. In some cases they went with ours and in some they developed their own. It varied from subcommittee how much they relied on visioning vs. some other information vs. what they knew or felt themselves. Mr. Cole said going back to the visioning process, these are two good alternatives because if there is going to be office development this is the location for it. I would be hesitant to put a third alternative in this area. Mr. Toerge said the Planning Commission has reviewed a number of different projects. I • want to know if they fit into this model where we might be converting some properties into self- storage or auto rental uses. Are those encapsulated within ranges of these studies? I think they should be. Ms. Wood said they are such small increments they won't even show up in the model. cl F': CORONA DEL MAR Mr. Toerge referred to the handout and asked whether the graphs show one option or two. Mr. Tescher said they do not show the one with the parking lot. Mr. Toerge asked if we were to do that, would the commercial sector expand. Ms. Temple said it's something for discussion. Usually when we're approached with these kinds of ideas from the existing business property owners, it's to provide parking for existing development. It would be a way to provide more parking but not be used to justify intensification beyond the existing General Plan projection based on the current FAR of .5 on the commercial designated properties. We might even leave them zoned as residential. FASHION ISLAND /NEWPORT CENTER Mr. Eaton asked if the traffic generation would be computed and the high and low would be assigned based upon that. Mr. Tescher agreed. Ms. Wood asked the committee if they were sure they didn't want staff to do anything else even though both are increases. Mr. Eaton said as long as the existing General Plan remains a viable option. Ms. Wood agreed. LIDO VILLAGE: NORTHEAST /BAYFRONI Ms. Wood said the hotel is the question I had for the committee. In reviewing the report • from the visioning process, there was not support for a hotel at Lido Village. I wasn't sure 50 • BANNING RANCH Mr. Toerge asked if the designation from the County is factored into the existing General Plan Study. Mr. Tescher said they are in t-ie traffic model. Mr. Toerge said I don't see any reason to study the original Taylor- Woodrow larger plan since it's modified to be somewhat reduced. Chairman Bromberg commented that he felt the same about it in the beginning, but he was in the minority. Mr. Eaton said I thought the Taylor- Woodrow plan was a reduction of the existing General Plan. Mr. Tescher said it is. CANNERY VILLAGE Ms Wood said the boundary in this geographical area does not included the Albertson's shopping center on 32nd Street but staff has recently been approached by somebody asking whether the City would consider commercial and residential on that site. Ms. Temple remembered a lot of discussion when the specific plan was done, and it was a conscious decision by the people working on that project not to include residential use. With that question raised, we are asking GPUC whether they want us to expand this boundary area and include two alternatives for that site, one being the commercial as it is today and the other being the mixed use that would add some residential. Mr. Eaton asked if the existing boundary goes all the way out to Newport Blvd. Ms. Wood responded that if they did expand the boundary they would include the parcels on Newport Blvd. Mr. Beek moved to expand the boundary to include that area. Mr. Weeda seconded the motion. Mr. Beek, Mr. Weeda, Mr. Collins, and Mr. Cole were in favor. Chairman Bromberg, • Mr. Toerge, and Mr. Eaton were opposed. Ms. Trapp abstained. The motion passed four to three. CORONA DEL MAR Mr. Toerge referred to the handout and asked whether the graphs show one option or two. Mr. Tescher said they do not show the one with the parking lot. Mr. Toerge asked if we were to do that, would the commercial sector expand. Ms. Temple said it's something for discussion. Usually when we're approached with these kinds of ideas from the existing business property owners, it's to provide parking for existing development. It would be a way to provide more parking but not be used to justify intensification beyond the existing General Plan projection based on the current FAR of .5 on the commercial designated properties. We might even leave them zoned as residential. FASHION ISLAND /NEWPORT CENTER Mr. Eaton asked if the traffic generation would be computed and the high and low would be assigned based upon that. Mr. Tescher agreed. Ms. Wood asked the committee if they were sure they didn't want staff to do anything else even though both are increases. Mr. Eaton said as long as the existing General Plan remains a viable option. Ms. Wood agreed. LIDO VILLAGE: NORTHEAST /BAYFRONI Ms. Wood said the hotel is the question I had for the committee. In reviewing the report • from the visioning process, there was not support for a hotel at Lido Village. I wasn't sure 50 r� L MCFADDEN SQUARE: MARINA PARK Ms. Wood said the City Council just asked for a Study Session to start talking about where we go from here for this site. I think a planning process for this site will probably be on its own track and might not fit neatly into the General Plan update. Maybe we should leave in Option 2 and take out the hotel because GPAC didn't know what we know now having had the election. Chairman Bromberg said I agree with Ms. Wood. The entire committee decided to delete the whole area. OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD Chairman Bromberg said this area comes up a lot in the City Council regarding medical. Mr. Beek said there's not much point looking at anything other than medical for this area. Ms. Temple said by keeping in things that have some housing options, in the medical context, there are all kinds of uses for residential or housing for employees at the hospital. WEST COAST HIGHWAY: CORRIDOR Mr. Beek asked if lot consolidation is something we can do to them or whether they must volunteer. Ms. Temple said we can incentivize them. An example is the Old Newport Blvd. Specific Plan where there was a program to encourage lot consolidation by allowing certain parking credits when they provided more curb space for parking. • WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL: EXCLUDING TECHNOLOGY PARK Ms. Wood said this is an area I called to GPUC's attention because it's one of the four areas where all the alternatives show increases over the existing General Plan. The Committee did not request any changes to the alternatives for this area. Chairman Bromberg invited members from the public to speak on this agenda item: Phil Arst - I am the spokesperson for the Greenlight committee. Referring to a brochure (Attachment 3), Mr. Arst said this chart dated December 2003, shows a buildout level of congestion throughout the City. There are 18 intersections that are not satisfactory. More recent data from the City increases that number. This chart is optimistic because it assumes the 19th Street bridge is going to be built, the Costa Mesa freeway will be extended, and PCH will be widened along with Jamboree. On each of these alternatives, the question is will the streets around that area support the level of traffic generated. I'm seeing a huge intensification of traffic and development throughout.the City. The Visioning Festival said 66% of the voters opposed the Marinapark hotel. It turned out to be 67 %. Continuing, Mr. Arst said I think we should heed the voters. They are. going to have to vote on the work product of the General Plan update. My suggestion is to have Level of Service D throughout the City. What we have is Level of Service F and E in 18 intersections. I propose GPUC put together an alternative that asks what we need to shrink in terms of existing entitlement in order to provide as close as possible Level of Service D throughout the City. That will give a baseline to start and then add some needed community • improvements such as medical offices for Hoag Hospital. We urge worthy projects be added. We should base our projections of what it would cost to run the City for the next 25 years. Why are we putting all this development in if we don't need money from it? Office buildings lose money for the City and that should be considered. E DRAFT staff indicates that while the property could be maintained as open space, a portion may be • developed as active parklands. In addition the City's park and open space element assumes about 30 acres of active -park within the Banning Ranch so those would not be uses without trips. Continuing, Mr. Bettencourt referred to the airport business area studies. Because of the use of the chart showing the arrow for residential use off the chart, it could frighten those who are worried about it being a pro - growth alternative. By way of example we have assisted Brookfield Homes and Fletcher Jones in filing the first residential land use application within the area. It's a comprehensive filing for 86 condo units with the Spruce and Quail property. That property produces fewer trips than would be produced under the current land use on the site. Should that be approved or considered it removes trips and commercial and industrial entitlement from the mix. I think that planning district is worthy of looking at residential alternatives just as the committee has recommended. Charles Griffin — We need to think about the number of trips that are added to property use. We need to limit traffic and the number of trips generated. Concerning the airport complex, we need to be careful that the development brings in business to that area to the point the wealth generated controls the City and thE! people elected to run the City. This perhaps would allow more growth to the flights thus providing more adverse impacts to the residents. The airport impacts a small percentage of the City but we need to look after those people, perhaps changing the zoning of that area of residential to commercial by • relocating them and whether we can use the taxes and profits to the economy to relocate a small percentage of the area. There is a corridor that's priceless for residential so we need to limit the airport. The balance there is sophisticated. This is where the master planning comes in. We need to be careful. The City is thinking about being an owner or part operator of the airport. We need to think about property values that bring in property taxes. Orange County only receives $.07 per dollar. The City needs to work on changing that for our County so we get more of our property taxes locally utilized in this County so we don't depend on retail, sales tax, and hotel tax. We need to emphasize the residential nature of our City. Chairman Bromberg clarified that the City is not looking into an ownership or operating role of the airport. Mr. Toerge suggested the Planning Commission receive the minutes of this meeting because they will discuss this topic on December gin 5. Report on Local Coastal Program Ms. Temple said Mr. Alford is putting together the implementation plan. Chairman Bromberg added that the Coastal Commission has asked for a year extension. 6. Comments from the Public No further comments were made. 7. Items for Future Agendas • No items for future agendas were discussed. ti "RECEIVED RAGE OA PRINTED:" SS I Greenlight 2601 Lighthouse Lane Corona del Mar, C4 92625 949 -721 -1272 /philiparst@comnet Mayor Tod Ridgeway and Members of the Newport Beach City Council. December 14, 2004 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Study Session Agenda Item #4 Ref: General Plan Update — Land Use Allowances Dear Mayor Ridgeway and Members of the City Council This is to express the alarm of the Greenlight Organization upon reading the current options proposed for the General Plan Update (GPU.) MAJOR CONCERNS The proposals disregard the Godbe Survey of the statistically valid sample of the wishes of Newport Beach residents. (Ref. 1 & enclosure) The proposals make a bad situation of adding a projected 170,000 ADP's and creating close to 20 LOS E & F intersections in the city (Ref. 2 & enclosure) worse by adding to these already unacceptable totals. The traffic model for the proposals disregards the stated wishes of the residents expressed in the Godbe Survey that major arterials not be widened. Instead, PCH, Jamboree Rd. and other arterials are shown as widened. Additionally, the traffic model assumes that the 19th St. Bridge will be built and the Route 55 Freeway extended. No alternative is considered for the very likely event that these heavily or unfounded projects are not built. Representing the circulation element as desired by the residents would produce even greater congestion than the 19 -20 unsatisfactory intersections already projected by the Ref. 2 traffic study. In general, the proposals examine the maximum amount of additional intensified development that can be added to the city in clear violation of the Coastal Act and the wishes of the vast majority of the residents. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS The base case GPU alternative should be named and configured to reduce traffic congestion to LOS D throughout the city as required under city policies and the desire of the majority of the residents. This must involve'reduction of the excessive entitlements that remain in the General Plan as they violate city policy to maintain LOS D throughout the city and add unwanted intensification. Even the city's official traffic model calls the resultant traffic congestion "General Plan Deficiencies." Only named beneficial increases in intensity and traffic should be proposed (i.e. more medical offices for Hoag Hospital.) The Beach/Bay high quality residential character of Newport Beach must be preserved. A small number of 6 -10 desirable projects (i.e. more medical offices for Hoag Hospital, etc.) should be named and the GPU propose priorities for them while eliminating all existing entitlements unless they can be shown to not increase traffic through already unsatisfactory traffic intersections. SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT MUST BE ANSWERED BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER Is the General Plan Update subject to a Greenlight vote? A response that this has not been determined as of this date is unacceptable as it is the opinion of our attorney that the wording of City Charter Section 429 is clear that it does. An initial city opinion as to the applicability of City Charter Section 423 is also required by the Measure S Guidelines. Does the city claim that by reducing developments in some areas they can substitute intensification in others? The minutes of city council hearings on Measure S specifically exclude any credit for reductions. GENERAL DISCUSSION Detailed backup for all of these statements is available. I will not burden you with that additional reading unless requested by specific council members. As my health improves over the next month or two, I will be actively providing inputs from the Greenlight Steering Committee. Greenlight's policy will be to faithfully follow the wishes of the residents and small businesses as expressed in the Godbe Survey. We will be open to try to work out a small number of needed projects instead of the wholesale intensification being considered. This is a far preferable approach to opposition. Thank you in advance for you cooperation on this matter. Greenlight (original signed) Philip L. Arst CC: Greenlight Steering Committee Ref 2:Traffic Model by Urban Crossroads dated Dec. 3, 2003 (Revised.) Ref 1:Godbe Survey Overview (see below) CITY TRAFFIC STUDY ILLUSTRATION OF UNSATISFACTORY INTERSECTIONS �*iST x CURRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN DEFICIENCIES h414 - X, Ficcway ON .Acccs� lies Mar's ^� 1�vine/ Z_ Macarthur: je Jamboree/ San Joaquik,,, 0 Ncwp'o#131vdj,' 4 15 Ifi,"& 7 Ste PIC 14 pell, AMDIFICIENC( DEIIOEWY • 'AM,MDEFJCIEKC 1.0s 'o Mesa Dace for Neu- w Ri'd 0 a� o` p c O m mM 0 T 5 C O O L O O � N N N o m N Q� p � Y N N L U � N N N O N 01 N L E O m L 0) O p m C U m O m c C O ° � O a 0 3 O a 0 > N L > LO 0 a) O (n C O O d o Lo 3 (-) o N � ° p o y u o O � � r p 0 N lfJ O) o 0 C) N E o (a c y OE O N �O L m N N�U) y, O lfJ "O m N pa c L C m co a° O 7 J o N m C m O oL 00 E'� ya�j O) w O1 c °o Z O 3 C N .2 y N -mo N N E Q d C O M O c O W c 01 c V � C CM O O N d \° \° \° (!�J C Fo ♦) V m 0 ((J I� 0) 'C (h O O 01 0 T N N N Lo ((J m U (+) Z Z N N Z Z Z E N O L N m L O x 3 Z,w d m o Cs E o.N N d > Gi (= O W O` .0. co O m N ° O O O m m E y `o m a E o ° a m ° N N m CL �3/� v/ co m C N o � � 01 'm N u, O_ m m m O 0 m w m i.' rD > Ulm 0 a� c m 0 N O O N N p N L U � N N N O 01 N L E O m L 0) o p m U m O m c C O a a 3 O a O a L > Q= 0 0 (n C O O d o d 0 3 (-) o u c 0 0 Q p 0 N lfJ V CO (h V CO ch C) N E o L M OE O V T J .0.000000 O 7 Z Z 3 N O O c 01 c V T LO O O O 0000 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 O U (+) Z Z Z Z Z Z x m m co m C N o � � 01 N 0 ? O L o C, o E 0 m a ai � N E 0 0 L > Y 0) O O O O N 0 0 0 o Y p d(n C E o v v CC '; M m O -O Y ° N M M M N N M 0 - C (+1 m 00 .M Q m 0� _ - O w �O- 4 0 � 0 0 c c w v E c a >> s > N 3 r N O 0 0 00 o 0 Y ,.., O -0 O N y c m e LO LO O r O (O V O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0= co w m Q N O (p 0 U m Z Z Z Z Z Z O (n 2 w m O (a it .- N CO V LO (O r W O m N C` Q m O N d Q Q N Q � O O N � O) O L � a� mU 3 L L Z Z N CO a� m N O N p L U � N N C O E L E O m L 0) o m O m c C a m m °U N Q= 0 0 (n C O 0 (-) u C- ° Q o 3 m m m E 0 L m m o O J O 7 Z Z 3 it .- N CO V LO (O r W O m N C` Q m O N d Q Q N Q � O O N � O) O L � a� mU 3 L L Z Z N CO C O O C L � N H o ' _ 6 N L C V 0 O N 0 0 o C O O G G G N N N N 0 N N N^ N N N N (6 � Cl) O O O N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 G G G G >� G G G p G G G G O O O G G G G G G O O O O p O O O C 0 0 0 0 - O Y -p -p -p 0 0 0 0 0 0 O U L ,Q 0 0 0 0 0 y o 0 o Y 0 O (C (C N O L N h 1 h N N N 0 . 0 lc. fh J 0 lO . f J l0 L f. J r . j O N : .tf :` `- o - `_ `- `- `- `Z O o O O O O O O o O O o O O O O O O O `O G G G G 0 G G G C G G G G> O G >i C G G G G G G G G G > w � O C O p o C 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 C 0 N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N c+1 N N C (D 00 O 00 M (D ((') > G c0 O V I� O V I� lD N (D N v (D T>- 0 m (D (D O (D (D (D (D T w v 0 (n o- (D v c M M M (n (D c O O c r > r o ' m If L C (n 0 0 o N N O O O 0 C O M G G G O O O O O 0 0 0^ O O O O N 0 N - +J 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C G G G G G G G G G G >� G G G p G G G ((J O O O O p O O O_ 0 0 0 o 0 O O O G G G G G G O ul L (? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o y o 0 o N O U N lf1 co N N p `p d N O (D V (O m o N M M N M T (f) N L G (D (fJ m N O O O V M O m :. :j N :.; :j :j :r O G G G GZ O O O O - � L 0 0 0 0 0 0 O G G G G G G G G- U1 G ^ G G G G G G G G > > > > 0 0 0 o N 0 O I� T O O O N^ N (D ch > D_ N M M T M N N N V V V T N M>- (O (O '� (() V V m w N O V O" V V (D I� M N M T lf) N r_ E E N p N (L N O 6 N _ C-, co Q N X G Ul d N (2j N C _ 0 0 � E _ m S N N o N _� o o E ;� LL U w p c o U c° o G L L o L c o N N D Q O O U Z C C O 3 N C N O C O _ O m U C C -O 0- % C C LL O N N C O N O O N N O O w N - D 0) N (0 O N N m S O U E .S 3 a a� °� �6 `o `o Z N >> o oo o - Z (n Z C C C W (n Z ` .S Q -:i G G Z Z � (D N O O N c+1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O d d d d d d d d d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O V 0 o W (O (O C N N I�r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 d d 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 d d C) N N W W (a (O o W N t0 N N N c+1 V V (O I� c N `p 'O C J >' Q ^ N N N C 6 N U NC) N O O O O T f6 N C N c m > >, a > 'o r a Q c Z U � d Q Q m D LO o a go`000mo00� � o c Q a s -o m m O O a �@ � r o a m` u' .'oo a3i a3i �_ �_ m � Q J J Z Z U m Q W W Z Q N N N N m 7� U � d d d 01 d d d 0 Cl) N N V 0 o N V d d d U N d d d (O lfJ lfJ lfJ I� lfJ lfJ lfJ O N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O d d d d d d d d d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O V 0 o W (O (O C N N I�r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 d d 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 d d C) N N W W (a (O o W N t0 N N N c+1 V V (O I� c N `p 'O C J >' Q ^ N N N C 6 N U NC) N O O O O T f6 N C N c m > >, a > 'o r a Q c Z U � d Q Q m D LO o a go`000mo00� � o c Q a s -o m m O O a �@ � r o a m` u' .'oo a3i a3i �_ �_ m � Q J J Z Z U m Q W W Z Q N N N N m