Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 - General Plan UpdateAgenda Item: 2 August 30, 2005 • PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD P. O. BOX 1768 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658 -8915 Memorandum To: City Council From: Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3219 gram irez(a)city. newport- beach.ca. us Date: August 26, 2005 • Re: August 30, 2005 General Plan Update Meeting Attached are the following documents related to the next General Plan Update Meeting: 1. A table that outlines the preferred land use alternatives recommended by the Planning Commission and those selected by the City Council for six of the ten Sub - Areas. 2. A letter from the traffic consultant, Urban Crossroads, that discusses and identifies preferred alternative Circulation Element (Roadway) system assumptions. 3. A report from the Economic Development Committee that identifies their preferred land use recommendations. Refer to the July 20, 2005 EDC report included in your earlier package for their report on the Sub -Areas not discussed in this report. n LJ 0 0 0 Results of Planning Commission and City Council Meetings of August 16, 2005 Sub Area Planning Commission Recommendation City Council Action West Newport Highway As recommended by GPAC except: As recommended by GPAC 1. Evaluate an additional 19,492 square feet of except: commercial area instead of 10,000 square feet. 1. Evaluate existing Two - 2. Evaluate existing Two Family Residential (Area D) as Family Residential (Area Two Family not as Single Family D)as Two Family not as Single Family 2. The easternmost "Area B" should be commercial not multi - family residential. West Newport As recommended by GPAC except development capacity for As recommended by GPAC Industrial residential should be clarified to state 32 dwelling units per and the Planning Commission acre average, were individual parcels may be developed at higher densities provided the average is not exceeded. Old Newport Boulevard As recommended by GPAC except that 3 story mixed use As recommended by the should be studied on both sides of Old Newport Boulevard Planning Commission Areas A and B). Balboa Peninsula As recommended by GPAC except that mixed use should As recommended by the also be studied in Lido Marina Village (Area A) and the bay Planning Commission front properties in Area G. Balboa Village As recommended by GPAC except that mixed use should be As recommended by the studied in Area A. Planning Commission Mariner's Mile As recommended by GPAC except that mixed use should be As recommended by the added to Area A provided that a minimum lot frontage of 200 Planning Commission lineal feet is provided, the existing 26 foot height limit is adhered to and that a minimum of 50% of the permitted square footage of any mixed use development is devoted to coastal related or visitor serving uses. August 25, 2005 Suite 300 Irvin 959.660.1994 main ;.� www.ur6anxroadsconr.` s' r Mr. Woody Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Subject: Preferred Alternative Circulation Element (Roadway) System Assumptions Dear Mr. Tescher: The General Plan Preferred Alternative that will be analyzed in the environmental impact report (EIR) will consist of a combination of a Preferred Land Use alternative and a Preferred Alternative Circulation Element (Roadway) system alternative. This letter provides our recommendation regarding the Preferred Alternative Circulation Element roadway system. For the traffic analysis of the land use alternatives developed by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), the General Plan Update Committee approved the use of a "constrained network' as an assumption in the traffic model. This constrained network was developed in response to visioning process input that residents want to minimize further widening and extension of the arterial roadway system, as well as staff and consultant information on roadway improvements that are uncertain due to political or funding issues. Key roadway changes reflected in the constrained network (versus the Currently Adopted General Plan Circulation Element) include: • No extension of the SR -55 Freeway. • No widening of Coast Highway through Mariner's Mile. . No extension of 19th Street across the Santa Ana River. Mr. Woody Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES August 25, 2005 Page 2 • No widening of Jamboree Road north of Ford Road. • No grade separation at MacArthur Boulevard /Jamboree Road • No extension of 17th Street • No extension of 15th Street to Coast Highway For the EIR project description, our opinion is that the most prudent approach is to reflect a relatively constrained future system that reflects political and financial realities. However, it is also desirable to include future roadway infrastructure that is likely to be needed to serve future traffic demand. If desired, elimination of these improvements can be adequately analyzed through additional sensitivity analysis, after the model runs using the preferred roadway system are complete. Based on the aforementioned criteria, it is recommended that the Preferred - Alternative • Circulation Element roadway system analyzed the EIR be largely consistent with the . constrained network that was used to evaluate the preliminary alternatives, with the following exceptions: • The 1gth Street / Hamilton Avenue connection / crossing of the Santa Ana River should be included. • Widening of Coast Highway to 6 through lanes through Mariner's Mile (Newport Boulevard to Dover Drive) should be included. Future traffic deficiencies that would require local roadway widening above and beyond the currently adopted Circulation Element roadway system can be expected in the absence of these roadway additions / widenings. It is our opinion that, if necessary, the overall analysis can still be structured in a manner that addresses the elimination of these improvements in a manner that adequately addresses the environmental analysis requirements associated with the General Plan update. This will allow the decision - making process to explicitly consider the need for these specific improvements. . Mr. Woody Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES August 25, 2005 • Page 3 Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide this letter summarizing our guidance related to the General Plan update process. Please feel free to contact me at (949) 660- 1994 x210 if you wish to discuss this matter further. Sincerely, Carleton Waters, P.E. Principal CW:js JN:01232 -20 • a��T iO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U�, �Rp�T' ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE General Plan Update Land Use Alternatives Options Review and Recommendations to Planning Commission and City Council August 17, 2005 INTRODUCTION On June 22, 2005, the Economic Development Committee established a subcommittee to review the proposed land use alternatives for the general plan update developed by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). The charge of the subcommittee was to examine the proposed Options and report back to the entire EDC for consideration and adoption of formal recommendations to GPAC and the City Council. At their regular meeting of July 20, 2005, the full EDC discussed the subcommittee's report and voted to forward recommendations for ten (10) geographic sub -areas (See Attachment 1). The Committee then continued the discussion until its August 17, 2005 regular meeting, to complete discussions on the remaining seven (7) sub - areas. These recommendations are provided below for the Planning Commission and City Council meetings on August 30, 2005. GENERAL DISCUSSION As noted in the fiscal analysis of the General Plan Alternatives, the City has the potential for increased annual revenues in a wide range of between $317,000 and $10.7 million per year, depending upon which of the various Options for each sub -area is selected. Significantly, increases in lodging (short-term hotel and vacation home rental) and retail sales are projected to provide the largest contributions to increased revenue. However, in order to provide balance for the City and its quality of life, the EDC discussed and agreed a number of 'overriding principles' affecting the discussion, and by which the committee's conclusions were guided. 1. Changes to the General Plan should show an overall positive fiscal impact on the City, although not necessarily in each geographic sub -area. • Page 1 of 6 2. It is clear that the City's residents do not believe a general citywide increase in traffic • is acceptable. Therefore the "true maximum" Option —which in most areas increases traffic within a sub - area —will not be the EDC's recommended Option unless there are overriding issues or mitigating factors that would recommend otherwise. 3. It may be advantageous to recommend an Option that would anticipate additional traffic in a few geographic sub - areas; if in exchange, the Option adds substantial fiscal benefits, and that results in less overall potential traffic impact in other sub - areas. 4. All of the recommendations regarding the General Plan require a balancing of trade- offs— between providing for increased revenue for the City; increasing traffic; addressing environmental concerns; and quality of life. 5. The Committee notes the comments of the Harbor Commission regarding the fact that the harbor is an economic engine for the City, and notes that there is a need to preserve marine uses where possible, while allowing for market activity to enhance those uses. 6. The Committee notes that the financial data used in the Fiscal Analysis of the General Plan Alternatives is three years old, taken mainly from the FY 2002 -2003 budget. If possible and practicable, the EDC suggests that staff examine the cost and feasibility of updating the numbers to the newly adopted FY 2005 -2006 budget when the model is used to analyze the preferred land use plan. 0 RECOMMENDATIONS BY SUB -AREA Mariner's Mile: The Harbor Commission, in a letter to the City dated September 10, 2003, pointed out that the marine industry accounts for over 1,000 jobs and generates nearly $2.7 million in annual net revenues to the City of Newport Beach. This places marine revenues in 3"d place in the category of business that provides net revenue to the City behind lodging (1') and retail (2nd) . The marine industry produces 5% of total sales tax revenues, ahead of light industrial and hotels. It also produces 5% of gross City revenues; below lodging, but still ahead of light industrial and service commercial. The fiscal impact model shows the marine industry revenues growing only $0.3 million over 22 years . with no change in expenditures over the same 22 year period; yet the industry maintains a net positive balance to the City of approximately $3 million, remaining third in net revenue producer behind lodging and retail. The Harbor Commission deems this lack of a proactive stance by the City in encouraging marine uses a 'passive no growth alternative.' The Harbor Commission urged the City to avoid the 'passive no growth' alternative for marine industry related uses in order to avoid the "potentially catastrophic decline in the role of marine industry uses as a Newport Beach economic engine." The Commission • recommended that the City: (1) adopt a proactive sustainable growth plan for the Page 2 of 6 harbor; (2) review the revenue sources allocated to marine uses in the model; (3) add • marine tourism uses and revenue sources to marine uses in the general plan update; and (4) expand consideration of tidelands uses to new water -based uses. These options would: conserve key waterfront locations and important marine uses; enhance user -pay public access; improve the harbor environment; and allow for the multiplier of secondary economic benefits to the City and harbor. However, Mariner's Mile presently accommodates many commercial uses other than marine. The automobile sales presence in Mariner's Mile is one of the most successful in the City. There is a retail /personal service "commercial village" in the area between Riverside and Tustin that is again becoming successful, and the restaurant presence along the bay front is one of the most well -known in the City. However, a number of the current office developments in Mariner's Mile are required by marine - related zoning regulations to devote at least 40% of their property to marine - related or marine - enhanced operations. These regulations were adopted as a method to satisfy California Coastal Commission requirements for public access as well as to conserve marine uses adjacent to the water itself. These uses may include restaurants, marine architects, brokers, and other office -based marine uses, as well as boat sales, boat yards, marine equipment sales and service, and similar uses. However, in order to address the market concern for general use office space, the elimination of the 40% marine use requirement has been requested by some of the Mariner's Mile property and business owners as a part of the General Plan updates. Additionally, allowing residential use within Mariner's Mile is becoming an attractive economic opportunity, and the allowance . of it may be a necessary step toward seeing full redevelopment of some properties. Recommendation: The EDC recommends that the following be adopted within the General Plan for Mariner's Mile, subject to allowing the maximum flexibility of uses in accordance with the recommendations articulated by the City Council at their 8/16/05 meeting: • On the bay side of Coast Highway, commercial development with a marine and visitor - serving component, with the exception that residential land use could be allowed if a property has 200 or more linear feet of bayside frontage, subject to the following restrictions: 50% of the total floor area must be devoted to marine or visitor - serving land uses; and the property is subject to conformance with a 26' height limitation; • On the west end of the inland side of Mariner's Mile (approximately from 'Arches Bridge' to Riverside Avenue) general commercial development only; • On the east end of the inland side of Mariner's Mile (from approximately Rocky Point to Dover Avenue) general commercial development only; • In the central "Mariner's Village" area of the inland side of Mariner's Mile (approximately from Riverside to Tustin and from Coast Highway to the foot of the bluff behind Avon Street) vertically- oriented mixed -use commercial & residential development; • In the eastern "Mariner's Village" area of the inland side of Mariner's Mile • (approximately from Tustin Avenue to Rocky Point, and from Coast Highway to the Page 3 of 6 foot of the bluff) horizontally- oriented mixed -use commercial and residential • development. An additional recommendation by the EDC is that public visitor - serving guest boat slips should be added in Newport harbor wherever it makes appropriate physical sense. These visitor accommodations add little if any increase in traffic, but users of the slips will provide an additional source of revenue to area businesses, which in turn benefits the City fiscally. McFadden Square East: The addition of a hotel for this area does not appear practical because of traffic and parking problems. The existing general plan provides for mixed use development, and the possibility of additional condominiums. Recommendation: The EDC recommends no change from the existing General Plan characteristics. McFadden Square West: The proposed option allows the reuse of properties occupied by commercial for mixed - use- buildings that integrate housing above ground level retail uses, with overnight accommodations (bed and breakfast, small scale boutique hotel.) The option has a positive fiscal impact for the City. • Recommendation: The EDC recommends Option 1 for this sub -area. Old Newport Boulevard: The existing general plan provides for limited expansion of retail with infill of adjoining residential neighborhoods consistent with current zoning. Recommendation: The EDC recommends supporting the recommendation of the Planning Commission and City Council, as articulated in their public meetings of 8/16/05 for this sub -area. West Newport Highway, adioining residential, including Mobile Home Park: The existing General Plan provides for little additional development in Block A and a modest fiscal benefit. Option 1 provides for some mixed -use residential and commercial redevelopment, with some reduction in the existing lodging rooms in the area. This results in a negative fiscal impact of $669,000 per year; Option 2 results in a $1.4 million negative impact on the City. Options 3 & 4 are similar, with minimal economic difference between them. There are no proposed changes to the General Plan for Block B Page 4 of 6 E • In Block C it is proposed that vertical mixed -use 2 -3 story redevelopment occur at the two signalized intersections, to provide commercial nodes that support the surrounding housing. Option 2 provides for the addition of a new hotel, although the Committee does not feel it is practical. The Committee has concluded that maintenance of the area's existing affordable hotel rooms is beneficial to the City for economic and social reasons. The redevelopment of the mobile home park as primarily open space and parking /staging areas for the proposed Orange County River Park is problematic for practical economic reasons. However beneficial that scenario seems on a conceptual level, the Committee feels that there would be little real incentive for the owner to let the property change hands, and the current situation would continue for the future. A practical solution might be to recommend commercial and /or residential development for the site, and incorporate any necessary parking /staging if the River Park becomes a reality. Recommendation: The EDC recommends that a flexible land use strategy be adopted that encourages economically- viable redevelopment; including, but not limited to: affordable and moderately - priced hotels, mixed -use development; and possibly multi- family residential development. West Newport Industrial Area: • The Committee analyzed the fiscal impacts of the General Plan alternatives on a City- wide basis. From that perspective, it is clear that not all sub -areas will maintain positive fiscal situations; in fact, other considerations might warrant that the City accept some negative fiscal impacts in specific areas. All Options proposed for the West Newport Industrial Area indicate that the fiscal situation might be somewhere between $1.1million and $1.6 million negative, primarily due to the fact that Hoag Hospital is a non - profit institution and does not pay property taxes. The Committee concludes, however, that Hoag Hospital is an important institution that provides benefits to the community far in excess of the benefit of whatever property taxes might be collected if the property was in tax - generating use. Further, the Committee feels that the area's medically - related characteristics should be enhanced and supported to the greatest extent possible, while minimizing the loss of revenue to the City. Option 3 appears to best address the strong demand for medical office without the excessive $428,000 revenue loss to the City suggested with Option 2. Ultimately, the difference is a potential $1.6 million loss from Option 2 versus a potential $1.1 loss from Option 3. Further, Option 3 provides for a mix of housing types that could provide more employee - accessible housing (for the hospital and elsewhere in the City) and may produce some minor reductions in traffic congestion. One hitch in the Committee's support of Option 3: the Newport Technology Center is a property designated for research and development, with only limited office development • permitted. Option 3 could not accommodate the critical need for the conversion of this Page 5 of 6 property to medical office use, and the Committee viewed this as a special issue to be examined. One final reason for the Committee's support of Option 3 is that it will allow not only additional office space, but continuing industrial space that would help maintain the viability of some of those marine - related uses not dependent upon a water - adjacent location. Recommendation: The EDC recommends the support of Option 3 for this sub -area. Attachment 1: July 20, 2005 Recommendations Page 6 of 6 • • 49 - � -30-05- 2 0 MDWEiaCOwurmn A QgifigemC Po4 n yIYMMNkp MTOVmvMUYbI>vY.Pob . mC W^tlbbawroMxOMCN�o .O-a B<ml u.0 rux q�� WJf1G PMG 916x8 b Ce.wn9vup SY1sYtlpfsEl M.11q IxTeY xxos[f �y�y 5 C� 7 0 Newport Beach General Plan Update °nendati®ns Other Land Use Areas Sub -Area 8: Property West of Big Canyon Reservoir, North of Pacific View Drive Re- designate as "Multi- Family Residential' from "Government, Educational, & Institutional" Newport Beach General Plan Update Citywide Entitlement Reductions Housing Units • Newport Coast /Newport Ridge -373 • Bonita Canyon -1,461 • Upper Castaways -147 • Newporter North -63 • Freeway Reservation Parcel -36 Commercial (Square Feet) • Bayside Center - 11,579 • The Bluffs Center -3,430 • Eastbluff Village Center - 15,224 • Harbor View Center -6,907 • Newport Hills Center -8,407 • Newport North Center -3,089 • Westcliff Center -4,047 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION /CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 1 August 16, 2005 TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager's Office Sharon Wood, Assistant-City Manager 949 -644 -3222, swood @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Review of General Plan Update Land Use Recommendations and Selection of Preferred Land Use Plan /Project Description for Environmental Impact Report ISSUE: What is the "Preferred Land Use Plan" that the Planning Commission and City Council wish to be used as the project description to be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan update? RECOMMENDATION: Review recommendations from the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and the staff /consultant team, and recommend /approve a project description for use in preparing the EIR. DISCUSSION: The land use alternatives prepared by GPAC, with some modifications by the Planning Commission and City Council, have been analyzed using the traffic and fiscal impact models, and reviewed by the public at a workshop conducted on June 25, 2005. Using all of the information and input collected through the Visioning and General Plan update processes, the GPAC has made recommendations on a preferred land use plan to the Commission and Council. It is now time for the Planning Commission to recommend, and the City Council to approve, a land use plan that will be used in preparation of the EIR on the updated General Plan. Review of General Plan Land Use Recommendations August 16, 2005 Page 2 0 Purpose of the Preferred Land Use Plan /Proiect Description It is important to understand that the land use plan to be selected over the course of the meetings of August 16 and 30 is only for the purpose of preparing the EIR. This is not a final decision on the General Plan Land Use Element, and the land use plan selected now could very well change as a result of the EIR's findings and additional public input before the Commission and Council take action on the proposed General Plan. The limited use of the preferred land use plan at this time should not diminish the importance of the recommendation and decision, though. It is important that the project analyzed in the EIR be close to what the Commission and Council would consider recommending and adopting at the end of the process, so that the EIR's analysis will be meaningful. However, staff recommends that the EIR project description include some flexibility for future changes. It is possible to approve a project that is less intense than that analyzed in an EIR, but approving a more intense project can be problematic. Therefore, it is better to err on the high side at this point, even if you would not be inclined to approve that level of development at the end of the process. Focus of Preferred Land Use Plan Discussion The attached report on GPAC's Land Use Recommendations includes recommendations on vision, uses and development capacity, and some policy discussion for each sub area. The most important things for the Commission and Council to focus on at this point are the land use and development capacity recommendations, as they are needed to begin the EIR technical studies. We have included vision statements and some preliminary policy discussion to assist the GPAC, Commission and Council in understanding the thinking behind, the implications of, and some clarifications or qualifications of the recommendations. These statements are not proposed as General Plan policy statements; those will be developed as the next step in the update process and brought to the GPAC, Commission and Council for review. If the Commission and Council have comments on these statements now, we will note them and use them as we get further into policy development, but we do not need these comments yet. Information Provided There are several attachments to this report: 1. General Plan Advisory Committee Land Use Recommendations Narrative report with a section for each sub area selected for special study, including description, map of existing land use, recommendations on vision, uses and development capacity, policy discussion and basis for recommendations. GPAC and staff /consultants also considered land use adjustments in various Review of General Plan Land Use Recommendations August 16, 2005 Page 3 • other parts of the City. Discussion and recommendations on these other land use areas will be sent separately on August 10. 2. GPAC Recommendation Daily Trip Generation Comparison to Existing General Plan Table showing, for each sub area and other land use areas, daily trips generated with buildout of the existing General Plan and buildout of the GPAC recommendation, as well as the change in number and percent. GPAC's recommended land use plan results in a decrease of 3.55% from the existing General Plan. 3, Comparison Tables Spreadsheets for each sub area showing quantities of each land use for the following. • Existing land use • Existing General Plan buildout and growth above existing use • GPAC alternatives and recommendation buildout • GPAC alternatives and recommendation growth from existing use • • GPAC alternatives and recommendation deviation from existing General Plan These quantities were used to calculate trip generation numbers to be used in the traffic model, and therefore include entire traffic analysis zones (TAZs), which are not always coterminous with the sub areas. (Maps showing the TAZ boundaries are included with the tables.) In some cases, this results in land use quantities being shown for a larger area than the sub area that was studied. The most obvious example of this situation is Mariner's Mile, where the TAZ includes Newport Heights and Cliff Haven and the several hundred residential units in those areas. Sections 4 and 5 of the spreadsheets, showing growth from existing use and deviation from existing General Plan, are the sections that best show the land use changes being considered, because no changes are recommended outside the study sub areas. 4. Economic Development Committee Recommendations The work program for the General Plan update includes development of an economic development strategic plan, and the Economic Development Committee (EDC) is the advisory committee with responsibility for that effort. Because of this element, EDC has reviewed the market studies and fiscal impact reports prepared for the update, and is making land use recommendations. EDC Review of General Plan Land Use Recommendations August 16, 2005 Page 4 • was not able to complete their recommendations for the meeting of August 16, but their recommendations on five areas are attached. The remaining five areas will be discussed at their meeting of August 17, and provided to the Commission and Council for the August 30 meetings. Environmental Review: This action is the selection of a land use plan that will be the project description for an EIR on the updated General Plan. No environmental review is required for this action. Public Notice: A display advertisement was published in the Daily Pilot for the meeting of August 16, and another will be published prior to the meeting of August 30. Both meetings also have been announced on the General Plan update website. Submitted by: Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager C I T Y OF N E W P O R T B E A C H G E N E R A L P L A N GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PLANNING COMMISSSION & CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH EIP In association with URBAN CROSSROADS ■ APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS h TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 West Newport Highway 3 Banning Ranch 7 West Newport Industrial 12 Old Newport Boulevard 16 Balboa Peninsula (Lido Village, Cannery Village, and McFadden Square) 19 Balboa Village 25 Mariners' Mile 29 Newport Center /Fashion Island 34 Corona del Mar 38 John Wayne Airport Area 41 • 0 I INTRODUCTION Two meetings are scheduled for the City Council and Planning Commission to provide direction regarding preferred land uses for the updated City of Newport Beach General Plan. This document provides the framework for the Council's and Commission's deliberations and recommendations. Unlike prior discussion papers, in which the study areas were presented alphabetically, they have been organized sequentially from west to east to enable the Council and Commission to consider the relationships among adjacent areas. For each planning sub -area, this paper presents: ■ Background information regarding existing conditions and issues; ■ GPAC recommended vision, land uses, and development capacity (density), and stafflconsultant recommendations, where they are different; ■ Key policies that will be expanded in subsequent drafts of the updated Plan; and ■ Bases for recommendations. The GPAC and staff/consultant recommendations considered the benchmark documents prepared for the General Plan Update including the Community Directions for the Future developed during the General Plan Update Visioning Process, the Guiding Principles and Land Use Alternatives formulated by the GPAC with modifications to reflect Planning Commission and City Council input, and the Land Use Altematives Traffic, Fiscal, and Environmental Impact Analyses prepared by the consultant. Additionally, the recommendations were influenced by the public input received at the June 25 Land Use Altematives Public Workshop. Finally, the staff and consultant recommendations . to GPAC considered the goals of property owners with whom we have met, as well as our professional judgment. In framing the recommendations, it is acknowledged that the City of Newport Beach will continue to experience some population and employment growth, though it is almost fully developed with few remaining vacant lands. The challenge is to accommodate the incremental growth in a manner that is consistent with, complements, and does not incur undue impacts on the qualities that uniquely distinguish the City. Important among the staffs and consultant's considerations for the recommended land use alternatives are the following goals: ■ Traffic impacts— reduction of citywide traffic volumes below those that would result from continued implementation of the existing adopted General Plan. ■ Fiscal impacts— attainment of a net fiscal benefit (citywide revenues exceed costs), while providing jobs and services for residents. ■ Environmental impacts— minimization of impacts on public services, infrastructure, natural resources, and scenic quality. ■ Community character — maintenance of the character of the City's distinct neighborhoods and commercial and business districts. • Community viability— assurance of the economic viability of the City's uses through improvement of underperforming and incompatible mixes of land uses and reinforcement of key business sectors that support the vision for the role and character of Newport Beach. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 1 0 Inherently, it is recognized that it is impossible to optimize each of the goals in each of the sub -areas • and trade -offs among these may be necessary. For example, the maintenance of a pedestrian - oriented "village' character for Corona del Mar, where the objective normally would be to slow traffic, may conflict with intentions for efficient traffic flows on Coast Highway. As a result, in selecting the recommendations, it was necessary to prioritize the most important goal, or goals, for each planning sub -area in consideration of the choices and trade -offs that may be required. Land use recommendations and a discussion of related policy implications are graphically presented in a gray highlighted box to facilitate your review. The bases for the recommendations are presented thereafter, including public input from the Visioning and Land Use Alternatives Workshops. 0 • GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 2 01 WEST NEWPORT HIGHWAY Description West Newport Coast Highway Corridor is located along Coast Highway, which runs northwest to southeast, from Summit Street to just past 60th Street. This is a mixed commercial and residential area, with the former serving the Newport Shores residential neighborhood closest to Banning Ranch, the West Newport Residential neighborhood south of Coast Highway, and beach visitors. The Corridor consists of commercial uses along the north side of Coast Highway, at about one block in depth on average. Residential uses are interspersed between commercial uses, with approximately half of those being multi - family residential and half being mobile homes. A portion of the mobile homes are situated along Semeniuk Slough and the Army Corps restored wetlands, while a number of the single - family homes outside the area are also located along the Slough. A mobile home park containing older units, many of which appear to be poorly maintained, is located on the westernmost parcels and a portion of the tidelands. This site serves as the "entry" to the City and as a portal to the proposed Orange County River Park The Corridor "commercial strip" serves residential neighborhoods as well as beach visitors. Primary commercial uses include community- related retail such as a dry cleaners, liquor store, deli, and grocery. A few motels are interspersed among the commercial uses. There are also a number of dine -in, family -style restaurants, as well as a handful of fast -food establishments. Many of the commercial structures appear to have been built in the 1960's to 1980's although some hotels have been recently upgraded. The area's overall appearance, in terms of architecture and maintenance, is not attractive and few commercial buildings have undergone the same upgrades as adjoining residences. The commercial area is mostly highway- oriented, with parking lots fronting many of the commercial uses. Many of these parking lots are of substandard size and configuration due to past widening of West Coast Highway. This area is governed by an adopted Specific Plan, which was intended to promote its orderly development and provide service commercial uses for nearby residences. Recommendations Vision A corridor that includes a_ gateway to the community with amenities that support the Orange ,.Co River Park, as well as..comniercial . clusters:that serve: local'residents and coastal visitorsa .. s•a;, n,,,....... ,,.,.... .. y_.,. :..,.. �.w: -�,.. intersections, interspersed With.compatible.Yesidential development: -. Uses (refer to Figure 1) �- - •- f^ > - � -- a.•r ■ : Designate: the . westerr altemative `use . for mu should be. 'used as'a.st and an underpass:to.th ■ Establish.clusterst:oVr zoccipied by.ien ` ailerk' P k foif:open'.s �if _ i sng:t:.1 an fundil§ih0:available, pi r:OFange,Coun River .Park with parking,- I i•. 1.. el yrj'st,.,� e,.j'l: •.y:' Sri anckno�t, se s•nearrthe.Jn�t [section ::the : redev {it o Ointery ening :par G P A C LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 3 0 0 • '. CITY of NEWPORT BEACH + GENERAL PLAN Figure 1 WEST NEWPORT HIGHWAY 4 CORRIDOR AND RESIDENTIAL Ezlsling Land Use • C): R.tl fld "' $♦}jpr Mu11FF..$,P.Cdental . Cwn Fdd BaklingMpt suPpt✓ISUn � I. cam/ fclall - Murodenont Cammelclal . � .. _ Rolessbml ORlcelBULnesvMecNrcWe1 . .,,.•. F. Stags [)[.h Rest.,l is Hotel i 0 Conon Boundary Girt, BOUT ' D A 115 lead ' ba•e cMJi:a.ou MU:v6emNM.u,'MyfM ��rv.�/w Nle wrF.Rw .r]t HN -...e, ektl Fwrcry tzpentenwl. PROJECT NWBER: 10510.01 LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS Regl.9M try: HER Cleoted by. AAe pots: 0/0/05 (A) Commercial Node - Local and Visitor- Serving Uses (C) Multi - Family Residential and River Park Staging Area ^ 1Q ..� Multi - Family Residential CD) Convert "R -T to "R -1 _r , 0 0 ` �� . \ e\ CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN � � •, � •• Figure 1 ", . �e .� ��'\ WEST NEWPORT HIGHWAY CORRIDOR AND RESIDENTIAL �� - � ., •'� ••••^• -• -I •• (�',- w � y- "i�, r,,ws'�... ".^: � .'' ' ..1 �, �. �"�.A ';• �' / /(j\1 r.�~s ti �x r• slLunci Use Restlenflal j - / ie ®MPIIFFa M �Xii p � � B '�� /�� ` wu commemial Bu0tlIn4M1lbrOwaRlGbiban SuPPNISUA i�l - -V: 5+y '• A -: % (( n x - 7 -MWY.ienoM C.m.md /. `CC< \- l F.0 SM. %/- /, // \ v✓ yin\ \,, Y /' (/s, > -DY R.�W oPllan ewlaan �<____ ,; Vii: `< - � Fl�,`�.,;., ._ ,i p ,>a -;` • M•.xW][wt n . .......... sue,: cwmwwu s.an a.Ma w,.+.smr cm vRO1EQN 105]C0 by: W: HL q MV Reglestatl CreaRtl by: /PP LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS oma: 07 /75 n OCommercial Node - Local and Asltor- SerNng Uses ©Multi -FamIN Residential and River Park Staging Area ® Mulfl -FamIN Residential O Convert "R -2" to "R• 7" ■' Commercial uses.should include a mix of convenienc near Prospect-Avenue; visitor- serving uses. _,� y4' ■ Residential Pcel's'ioned as "R -2" on the coast e i accomriiriilete :a srngle. family dwelling with an' ss limited in size to.be"consistent with the "small beach rer DeveloomentCauacity a, �r ■ Retail: 1.0 FAR to a maximum addition of 24,000'sgw cw, existing General Plan. (Original staff /consultant` rece square feet above existing General Plan.) , etail; serving adjoining residents and, :oast Highway will be refesignated to second unit by right,% which shall be character.. ;T . l.;' feet, or 10,000 square feet above the iendation was a maximum `of 19,492 ■ Housing: 18 — 22 units per. acre, except for affordable units, where a bonus density may be provided, pursuant to State law. ■ Re- designate Area D, south of Coast Highway, from duplex to single family residential. Policy Discussion • Promote the clustering of retail and hotel uses by the aggregation of individual parcels into larger development sites through incentives such as density bonuses or comparable techniques. • Design guidelines should be considered to guide development.in the corridor to improve its visual and physical quality. • Implement streetscape improvements to enhance the area's character and image as a gateway to Newport Beach and develop a stronger pedestrian environment. Basis for Recommendations 1. The Visioning Process found that the Coast Highway Corridor is among those that require revitalization. To this end, the City may be proactive in creating a vision for its improvement that would help to guide future private development. 2. The clustering of commercial uses would enhance their economic vitality and improve the appearance of the area. Depending on the scale, aggregation of individually owned parcels could provide for more efficient building footprints and parking. Generally, this approach received support in the Public Workshop (in excess of 50% indicated moderate to strong agreement). Improvement of the quality of commercial development on the Highway would enhance property values of adjoining residential neighborhoods, as well as provide revenue to off -set the costs associated with maintaining the City's affordable housing. 1 Alternatives providing for the redevelopment of existing commercial parcels for housing would remove a number of uses that serve the surrounding community, including restaurants, and coastal visitors. Public Workshop input opposed their conversion (65% indicated moderate to strong disapproval) and the Coastal Act prioritizes the development of uses that support coastal visitors. 4. While mixed -use development (defined as the integration of housing in buildings above ground level retail was supported in the Public Workshop (61% indicating moderate to strong 0 GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 5 1 s agreement), the area's two -story height restriction, also supported in the Public Workshop, would preclude such development (minimum of 3 stories required for a financially viable project). 5. Redevelopment of the westernmost parcel occupied by the trailer park was strongly supported in the Public Workshop (78.3% indicating moderate to strong agreement). Of these, 83% supported the development of a staging area and trailhead for the Orange County River Park. As such facilities would require only a portion of the site and the demand for affordable housing is high, it is feasible to develop both uses on the property. 6. Among the Guiding Principles that support the recommendations are: a. Encourage the revitalization of older commercial areas. b. Protect the high value of residential property. c. Support the careful expansion of visitor - serving businesses and facilities, including hotels. d. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the natural setting that contributes to the character and identity of Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its residents and visitors. e. Promote a balanced residential community, comprised of a variety of housing types, designs, and opportunities for all social and economic segments including very low, low, moderate, and upper income households. f. Maintain quality residential development through the application of sound planning principles and policies that encourage the preservation, conservation and appropriate renewal of the City's housing stock. • g. Improve, where feasible, parking. • GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 6 �� BANNING RANCH Description Located within the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI), the Banning Ranch area encompasses approximately 518 acres, of which 465 acres (includes 47 acres of water features) are under the jurisdiction of Orange County, and 53 acres are within the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach. Banning Ranch is located in the western -most portion of the Newport Beach Planning Area, north of Coast Highway and the Newport Shores residential community, just east of the Santa Ana River, and west and south of residential and industrial Uses. The eastern portion of the site is higher in elevation and contains the western edge of Newport Mesa that slopes gently from east to west. Bluffs form the western edge of the mesa, and are located in the central portion of the Banning Ranch area. The western portion of the site, which is lower in elevation, historically contained a tidal marsh associated with the Semeniuk Slough and Santa Ana River. The site is located within the coastal zone boundary and is subject to the provisions of the Orange County Local Coastal Program (LCP). However, the site is referred to as a "white hole" since the County's LCP does not provide land use designations for the Banning Ranch area. Currently, the Banning Ranch area is primarily undeveloped with some historic oil extraction infrastructure located in the central and southern portions of the site that includes wells, pipelines, buildings, improved and unimproved roads, and open storage pipes and machinery. There are 65 active oil wells and four active injection wells located throughout the Banning Ranch area. Oil extraction activities date back at least 75 years. • Although the Banning Ranch site contains an assemblage of diverse habitats that have been historically disturbed, when this area is considered with the contiguous Semeniuk Slough, it provides wildlife with a significantly large, diverse area for foraging, shelter, and movement. Biological studies performed for Banning Ranch indicate that, while disturbance associated with oil activities diminishes the quality of existing habitat to some extent, overall, the area should be regarded as relatively high - quality wildlife habitat due to its size, habitat diversity, and continuity with the adjacent Semeniuk Slough. A preliminary field evaluation of Banning Ranch was conducted by the consultant as a general indicator of the presence of habitat and species that may be subject to regulatory review. Based on this analysis, the property is estimated to contain approximately 69 acres with a habitat value rank of "1," which are primarily concentrated in the northwestern portion of the site. These areas are considered to have a high biological resource value, and are likely to require a resource permit from federal and /or State agencies prior to development. Other areas scattered throughout the site may also be of biological value but to a lesser extent. Areas with a rank of "2" (approximately 96 acres) may need a resource permit for development, where additional studies would be required to make this determination. More than likely, areas with a rank of "3" (approximately 118 acres) contain habitat and species that are not likely to require resource permitting for development. Resource permitting would likely result in the need for mitigation measures associated with development such as payment of mitigation fees, habitat restoration, or off -site habitat replacement. The actual acreage subject to environmental permitting will be determined in subsequent studies to be conducted in accordance with state and federal regulations. G P A C LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 7 • Rank Acres 1 69 2 96 3 118 Total 283 Recommendations Vision Preferably a protected open space amenity, with restored wetlands and habitat areas. If acquisition for open space is not supported by the voters, a high quality residential community with supporting uses that provides revenue to restore and protect wetlands and important habitats. Uses (refer to Figure 2) Open space, including limited active parklands that serve adjoining residential neighborhoods; if the site is acquired through public funding. If not acquired for open space, the site may be developed as a residential village, containing a mix of housing types, limited supporting retail, visitor accommodations, school, and parklands, with a substantial portion of the property (66 -75 %) preserved as open space. ■ Oil operations that are relocated and clustered. Development Capacity (as an alternative to open space) ■ Housing: 875 units (Original stafflconsuitant recommendation was 1,765 units.) ■ Retail: 3000 square feet (Original stafflconsultant recommendation was 75,000 square feet.) ■ Overnight accommodations: 75 units ■ Note: These represent general development capacity estimates, with the property's ultimate development_ footprint and capacity determined through required federal and state regulatory environmental permitting processes and a planned community development plan approved by the City of Newport Beach. Policv Discussion • Acquisition of the Banning Ranch as permanent open space should be actively pursued; which may be accomplished through the' issuance of state bonds, environmental mitigation fees. purchase by private entities, developer dedication, and similar techniques. • Should the entire site not be acquired as,open space, its development should be located and designed to preserve wetlands, drainage courses, bluff faces, and.other important resources and located to be contiguous and. compatible with existing and planned development along its eastern property line. ■ Some active recreation should be included with eKher land use.' GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 8 l5 LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS A. Open Space and Parks B. Residential Village with Convenience Retail, School, Parks, and Overnight Accommodations (if not acquired as Open Space) s . SANTA r ANA ETTT RIVER 7C!F /C. o� Fq� / r ga . m CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Figure 2 " Development Footprint to be determined by State and Federal Permitting Agencies e em ,roo rip a�w : Marw.m�wevc.:.0 nm+M am. arren.nm. W N RM>. Cw�l W. Mil' Nli. N <w�� 4�aa Pw CM WA %MCFR Ma Kd,ra:p,3W/; ogHMCgM1\ MACr NUMBER: 10579 -01 R q.$red W: HLR C.I d by' WMP ogre: 0717M E I P [a�I ILI e em ,roo rip a�w : Marw.m�wevc.:.0 nm+M am. arren.nm. W N RM>. Cw�l W. Mil' Nli. N <w�� 4�aa Pw CM WA %MCFR Ma Kd,ra:p,3W/; ogHMCgM1\ MACr NUMBER: 10579 -01 R q.$red W: HLR C.I d by' WMP ogre: 0717M E I P • 0 LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS A. Open Space and Forks B. Residential village with Convenience Retail, School, Parks, and Overnight Accommodations (it not acquired as Open Space) CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Figure 2 BANNING RANCH SUBAREA ' Development Footprint to be determined by State and Federal Permitting Agencies w6. Wld I.I�ni NEWPORT SHORES . ao9 tam r r� SANTA ANA w,�, crcae.�«o-am„a am cwm..w,. RIVEN JETTY ewwre.. ��. wa�o�. mwv moz meesw0.ma. ate? o- n PROJEQNUMBER 1057901 p�C Req to by'. KLR C btwo, MVRP /� Ji5to Dote: 07pN5 (, .." 'r' C 5 M Fq ti ■ Site grading and infrastructure should be designed to prevent runoff, pollution, or other degradation of wetlands and habitats. ■ A major ungated thoroughfare should be provided through the property linking Coast Highway with Newport Boulevard to relieve congestion at Superior Avenue, if the property is developed. ■ Development should be coordinated with development in the adjoining West Newport Industrial area. Basis for Recommendations 1. The majority of the Banning Ranch is located on unincorporated lands in the County of Orange, with development approvals subject to its General Plan and regulatory authorities. The property owner can request annexation to Newport Beach, which would give development review authority to the City. 2. During the Visioning process, residents were divided in opinion regarding the future of Banning Ranch. Some residents preferred preserving Banning Ranch as open space, while others supported development for needed housing. 3. At the Public Workshop, the majority of participants supported the preservation of the Banning Ranch as open space, with limited parklands (58.1 %). 4. During the Visioning process, 46% of the survey respondents supported preserving Banning Ranch as open space if it requires a tax increase of $250 per parcel for 15 years, along with other funds for the restoration of the site. A similar percentage of Public Workshop participants supported an annual tax of $50 to $100, with 14.5% supporting a tax of $500. Some indicated a preference for funding through state bonds, use of environmental mitigation fees, andlor acquisition by a private or non -profit agency. 5. In an informal poll, a majority of Public Workshop participants indicated their willingness to support some development of the property if it would generate revenue to help fund the preservation of the majority of the property as open space. In general, they were almost equally divided between a residential village that would be smaller than the Taylor- Woodrow proposal or a resort hotel. Approximately 5% supported the existing General Plan's uses and 6.5% the Taylor- Woodrow proposal. 6. While a resort hotel may result in the least traffic and environmental impacts, its inland location with no beach access, views of the sewage treatment plant, and competition from more desirable sites in the City and Huntington Beach would likely inhibit its market for development. Inclusion of a small hotel or vacation rentals into a residential village would benefit from the other uses and contribute additional revenue to the City. 7. Visioning participants indicated the desire to protect and preserve the bluffs located within Banning Ranch and public view corridors. Some supported restricting the height and size of homes, establishing large setbacks to protect the bluffs. These opinions were reiterated in the Public Workshop, where participants indicated that any development should be located and designed to assure maximum protection of the wetlands, important habitats, natural drainages, and bluff faces and clustered, to the extent feasible, adjacent to surrounding residential and industrial development. • GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 10 ^ 1 8. A roadway connection connecting Coast Highway and 15 Street is important to relieve traffic congestion at Superior Avenue. 9. Proposed land uses would result in approximately 500 fewer peak hour trips than the existing General Plan and a net annual fiscal benefit of approximately $700,000. 10. Among the Guiding Principles that support the recommendations are a. Support the careful expansion of visitor - serving businesses and facilities, including hotels. b. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the natural setting that contributes to the character and identity of Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its residents and visitors. c. Balance developed lands with adequate open space and recreation areas and preserve opportunities for maintaining healthy life styles in Newport Beach. d. Promote a balanced residential community, comprised of a variety of housing types, designs, and opportunities for all social and economic segments including very low, low, moderate, and upper income households. e. Protection, rehabilitation, or enhancement of terrestrial and marine habitats through careful siting of future development. f. Encourage the maintenance of natural landforms. g. Protect and, where feasible and appropriate, create public viewsheds within the City. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 11 .) WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL Description The area is generally bounded by Newport Boulevard to the east and 16th Street to the north. Southwest of the West Newport Industrial area lies residential and condominium developments, beyond which Banning Ranch is located. The City of Costa Mesa is located directly north of the area. West Newport Industrial area is a mix of residential (41.8 percent), industrial uses including the Newport Technology Center business park (32.9 percent), and commercial uses (17.3 percent). Other uses include public uses such as the City Corporation Yard and Carden Hall Elementary School on Monrovia Avenue. Development in the area dates back to mid - twentieth century. Commercial uses in the area include professional /medical office (13.2 percent) and auto - related uses (1.8 percent). There are few neighborhood- serving retail uses in the area (about 2.0 percent of the area). Some of the commercial uses are under - performing. Hoag Hospital is located immediately south of the planning area and is a major activity center of the City. Its proximity to the West Newport Industrial area may act as an economic attraction for new medical and related uses, stimulating the conversion of existing uses into a medical campus that creates an attractive and convenient place where people can live and work. There are significant amounts of multi - family uses (32.1 percent) in the center of the area, separating industrial uses to the north and south of the area. Light industrial uses (30.0 percent) account for the majority of industrial uses in the area, while marine - related industry and multi- tenant uses together account for less than 3.0 percent of the area. The mix of industrial and residential uses is not always complementary within and at the edges of the area. The City's current General Plan Circulation Element identifies several streets in the area for widening and reconfiguration. The streets planned for widening include 15th Street between Monrovia Avenue and Superior Avenue and Placentia Avenue from Superior Avenue to Hospital Road. New road extensions are planned west of the area for 15th Street, 17'" Street and 19'" Street (in Costa Mesa). These streets are planned to extend to a new road to be constructed, Bluff Road, located in the Banning Ranch area to the west. Recommendations Vision A medical districUcampus with Hoag Hospital as the primary stimulus to attract peripheral medical services and research into an attractive and well - planned neighborhood, reducing automobile trips t to and from outlying areas. Uses (refer to Figure 3) ■ Medical related uses on properties abutting Hoag Hospital and the Newport Technology Center site (sub -area "A "), including offices, laboratories, supplies, pharmacies, assisted living facilities and group quarters, and similar facilities. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 12 � 1 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Figure 3 WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL WON law Use Resldenllal Attached Retidentid M Md FOMIY ReSMnXd C hi.ld Au eloletl Conn l lol 0 MaksaRe w Cpmmerclal Peaond se ., FltnesVGY supply, SiMkilly Retal le/GOrtlen M MuII4Tenwl CCavnercld M ProleWOnal OMCe/BWheWM lCaWet Communlly Comer U, Dfl kww, Foal Srores m Dlnaln Restaurant IwuslBal 9. :` Light lndustdd MOM. IndulMd ® M.Wenant Indushld InstllulionaMpon Space rZI PUUk nni Publlc m Schppb om« j Vacant Building Vacant Lot O Option Bouwary ...... (`XV lkvrnr4ci sw=.: wnr..w...m. a..arrn.rxw.w rdaN, sar ms, war om. zav, wm aue. aw: PROhCT NUMBER: 10579 -01 ReQRSIed by. lYlt Cleated by: W/pp a • LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS �A) Medical - Related Uses {C) Multi- Family Residential iB) Lighilndustrial (D) Commercial I I I I 1 �cJ CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Figure 3 WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL Fxbllnq lorq Use 2eslae nq. cned Resew nl sW Muni iamiN Resltlennd comm t.- lwto- ReWted Commeiclal '+ 4 Malice- Rebted Canmerclal Personal Servbes. hl. VGWns Fuinnure. Buldirlghiardwai&Gartlen SuppN. SpeclalN 2etol _ WRI Tenantc mmemid Prdesslo ORkelBUtln.WM.d .VVel Cta MM N Commeralal. DmFiW Footl Sta,es ..m DnWn 2astomant Indushbl Lgd Indusldal Manna IntlusMal Mulfldenanl lnduslllal IMMUbnayepen Spxe row. PudlGSeml PuUlb = Satetls inner H Vacant BUWdlnq Vacant Lt ap Opi B.ndary ..... CIN Boundary 3 '01 e GYaw,«W �zh Fwrd rrn M'wa.try f4�� Mry TYI, prtq IXYla TOf 0.u4 ac4Y`er ip�1 PROJECT NUMBER: 10579 01 Reauesled by: HLR Cleatetl W: wff Date: DIII31Y)B E1P ■ Research and development and light manufacturing uses, on properties north of Production Place.(sub -area "B "). ■ Multi- family housing on properties northwest of Superior Avenue, west of Monrovia Avenue, and the existing mobile home sites (sub -area "C"). - ■ Retail commercial uses on the west side of Superior Avenue (as currently developed in sub -area Development Capacity • Medical office and ancillary uses- 10 FAR and height up to 5 stories (current limit is 3 stories) • Research and development/ manufacturing: 0.5 FAR • Housing: 32 units per acre. Policy Discussion ■ Develop a master plan for properties that are related to and support Hoag Hospital to establish a cohesive integration of medical, medical- supporting, commercial, residential, and industrial uses. ■ Provide incentives for the relocation of marine -based Newport Beach businesses to properties retained for industrial purposes (sub -area "B "). ■ Encourage the conservation and enhancement of the existing mobile home parks as a source of affordable work force housing. Basis for Recommendations 1. Visioning process participants indicated that the West Newport Industrial area would benefit from revitalization. 2. The development of additional medical offices and other facilities supporting Hoag Hospital was widely endorsed by participants at the Public Workshop (in excess of 76% indicated moderate to strong agreement). 3. An almost equal number of participants supported the development of additional housing in the area (74% indicated moderate to strong agreement). 4. Participants were divided in their support for the retention of industrial uses (approximate 45% indicating moderate to strong agreement and 55% indicated moderate to strong disagreement). The retention of the lands north of Production Place for light manufacturing purposes provides opportunities for jobs, start-up businesses, and essential "support" uses that are not accommodated elsewhere in Newport Beach and can serve as a transition between the area's multi - family housing and Costa Mesa's more intensive industrial uses. 5. Expansion of medical offices and housing, while replacing some existing industrial uses (e.g., Technology Center) will reduce peak hour trips from the existing General Plan. The development of additional housing allows a greater number of residents to live closer to their jobs, reducing the length of vehicle trips. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 14 a 6. Additional height for medical office and ancillary buildings, while holding the permitted density constant, provides the opportunity to reduce the land area occupied by the building increasing ground level open space and parking. 7. Among the Guiding Principles that support the recommendations are: a. Facilitate the development and retention of a variety of business types that strengthen the vitality of the local economy. b. Capitalize on market and demographic changes and opportunities that emerge in key economic centers of the community. c. Promote a balanced residential community, comprised of a variety of housing types, designs, and opportunities for all social and economic segments including very low, low, moderate, and upper income households. d. Maintain quality residential development through the application of sound planning principles and policies that encourage the preservation, conservation and appropriate renewal of the City's housing stock. e. Preserve, promote and respect the existing goals and policies set forth in the City's currently certified Housing Element. G P A C LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 15 3- OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD Description This area is situated east of Newport Boulevard and runs from 15th Street at the north end to Catalina Drive at the south end. Old Newport Boulevard was formerly the primary roadway leading into the city from the north. A residential neighborhood lies directly to the east, while Hoag Hospital is situated to the west across Newport Blvd. This area is primarily commercial (71.3 percent of the area) comprised mainly of professional offices, and multi- tenant commercial uses. Secondary uses include personal services, restaurants, and specialty shopping such as home furnishing stores and beauty salons. Most specialty retail appears to occupy converted residential buildings. Recently, this area has experienced a transition towards increased medical office uses. This transition is likely attributable to the proximity of Hoag Hospital. There are two vacant buildings at the northern end of the study area, (3.5 percent of the area), as well as a few auto - related uses (4.7 percent) such as auto service repair. The mix of uses is not always complementary, with auto repair uses adjacent to hair salons and /or specialty retail. This area is not pedestrian- oriented. While there are some walkable areas, the boulevard is wide and there are a mix of uses and lot configurations that do not create a consistent walkway. This area is governed by a Specific Plan. Recommendations Vision A district that supports Hoag Hospital and adjoining residential neighborhoods. Uses (refer to Figure 4) • Convenience retail that serves adjoining residential neighborhoods, as well as medical office uses supporting Hoag Hospital on the west side of Newport Boulevard. • Mixed use buildings that integrate housing above ground level retail or office uses on the east side of Old Newport Blvd. Development Capacity • Retail: 0.5 FAR. • Office: 0.5 FAR, up to 2 stories. • Mixed use and live/work facilities: 1.5 FAR, up to 3 stories. Policy Discussion ■ Preclude the development of highway- oriented and "heavy" retail uses such as automobile supply and repair facilities. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 16 ,� 3 LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ONeighborhood-Orlented Convenience Commercial, Same as "A", with Mixed Use Buildings Including Medical- Related Uses (Housing above Retail or Office) Figure 4 OLD NEWPORT BLVD li �V ..... ..... 141' NN. x V 7 1�4�& x X! of ... ... - - - - --------- 1�j -41 0 N Nl� N, XN, V, X. Y/ NN IN Y/ /\4 V > N, > \,X < < /N.. N, > 0 N Y.. Ex,fthg Land !). RwMntid Resl htoi. Sngl ly Realdentol MIl1 ngy ibos a M Commercial Amto-Roiclsd Cohvhorcloi OoMageipled Commercial Pond Sohlow. FR.WGy =Sr=5'r r wd.n "61enont Comh a cid fth,'" oft.111ine5yMe hooww C= Com nwciol, DwKhg. Din R,tvuu.nt Mai Light inoustdcl moN hdus VkWenont inc m 1 Xsooe W P'rmI Puw schods 011*1 Vocantllu Mg Mac.nt Lot Op Option ow ry cffyBoundary Reo res by. HLR Cwteo by'. WRP 079105 E-1 P LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS _ CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN f,) Neighborhood - Oriented Convenience Commercial, (g) Some as r'A ". with Mixed Use Buildings Including Medical- Related Uses (Housing above Recall of Office) Figure 4 OLD NEWPORT BLVD -- -- Ewa, LmE U. RefbenXd Resltlenlld. AngbAOmN Resitlenlinl 5 yp MuAFFtlmlry Resbenlld z Comme ` AUIO- O�Rekdetl COtMIerCbl :65 Mahe-Rdaletl Cant 101 r P.1.01 Selvbes, FAresYGyrns Sa tj.. Bu bft, w tlwU�e /Galtlen Su5]PN SpaCbRy RalU9 ° - hbRidenml COmmacid E. Pi nal ORbel&6l s l . 41 CI E "mu MCombi. DNki,,, �2 qo F o Sb es r 9a n: -: Dbe,N Restaumnl ILIghl meendd lnduseid Maine hftu al Will -tM.N lntlu,t" Inslffwb llomn SROae W, PUNWSBITI PUdk .a`'- .'9.0 E — SchdNs r OIM1aI roj VOCOnI OuYtling Vo�wt Lot apron eoaxJaP, 4yy�v NOSPIP 9l AOAO r = ES`�N • I urrrn 3 - , oso �w ` roar ' e GrydronpMprtry Genatl Pl�L/MSIry . � d'�+mv.Agm]], MCM. ncAVa TU1. FbsL. CCk4er NrL] r. 1 ae uru re10519 ,79- . r PROJECT NUMBER: 1 -DI r R.q.9W b,. HLR Createtl by: MVIPP 1 Date: OIIINS r= EIP s ■ Promote the clustering of uses by the aggregation of individual parcels into larger development sites (as prescribed by the existing General Plan and the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan). ■ Encourage the development of public uses that serve adjoining neighborhoods, such as a seniors center. ■ Sidewalks and street crossings should be improved to facilitate pedestrian access to Hoag Hospital and discourage automobile trips. Basis for Recommendations 1. The majority of seven Public Workshop participants opposed the development of uses supporting Hoag Hospital, additional retail and office development, and housing. In general, they supported the preservation of the status quo. However, there is a strong market for medical support uses, as reflected in recent development activity, with insufficient market to maintain the current mix of retail commercial uses throughout the corridor. Medical offices can be designed and scaled to be compatible with adjoining residential neighborhoods and improved pedestrian connections can help to reduce automobile trips. Resident serving retail uses will be more compatible with the adjoining neighborhood than the existing "heavy" uses. 2. Workshop participants supported the development of mixed -use buildings that integrate housing with ground floor retail on the east side of Old Newport Boulevard as a transition with adjoining residential neighborhoods (71% in favor), with a smaller percentage (57 %) supporting the development of townhomes. 3. Adjoining residential neighborhoods are sufficiently high that they will not be impacted by three story development in the mixed -use area on the east side of Old Newport Boulevard. 3. Among the Guiding Principles that support the recommendations are: a. Encourage the revitalization of older commercial areas. b. Encourage mixed -use development. c. The quantity of land designated for commercial use and the development standards that regulate such uses should reflect the market support that can reasonably be anticipated during the General Plan time horizon. d. Capitalize on market and demographic changes and opportunities that emerge in key economic centers of the community. e. Future development should consider the scale, urban form, design, character and quality of the community. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 18 �L5 BALBOA PENINSULA (Lido Village, Cannery Village, and McFadden Square) Descriptions Lido Village and Civic Center This sub -area is comprised of two distinct locales, Lido Village and the Civic Center, which comprises the area in which City Hall is located. Lido Village is bounded by Finley Drive to the south, the Lido Channel to the north and east, and Newport Blvd to the west. Primary uses in Lido Village include salons, home furnishings, apparel, and other specialty shops ranging from jewelry stores to wine merchants. Lido Village includes Lido Marina Village, a waterfront development situated between the Lido Channel, Newport Boulevard, and Via Lido, and is adjacent to City Hall. Lido Marina Village is primarily a pedestrian- oriented retail area, with a mix of neighborhood- serving commercial uses and specialty shopping. A parking structure, located in the center of Lido Village, accounts for 8.3 percent of the land area. The area also contains the historic Lido Theatre located on Via Lido, and civic /social uses such as the Elks Lodge. Commercial land uses predominate at 53.5 percent of the area, with some residential condominiums (2.9 percent of the area) located along Via Lido. While Lido Village contains specialty retail and restaurants, the Civic Center area is more public -use oriented. This area primarily contains public /semi - public uses, with City government offices, a church and a fire station. It consists of the City Hall complex, a Fire Station, a public parking lot, and a • stretch of landscaped parkway along Newport Boulevard; these uses account for 24.8 percent of the study area. In addition, the area contains multi- tenant commercial uses such as (38.0 percent of the study area), located in the commercial strip on Newport Boulevard west of City Hall between Via Lido and 32nd Street. Vacancies account for 3.1 percent of land uses in the study area. Cannery Village Cannery Village is the historic center of the City's commercial fishing and boating industry and has a mix of small shops, art galleries, and professional offices and service establishments. This area is bounded by 32nd Street to the north, Balboa Boulevard to the west, Lido Channel to the east, and 26th Street to the south. The area is primarily commercial (71.3 percent of the sub area) with a variety of neighborhood- serving commercial and specialty shops. Residential uses comprise 15.4 percent of the area; these are mostly multi - family and /or attached homes. A new loft -style development has recently been constructed. Additionally, older developments in the area include some single - family residential units combined with commercial uses on single lots. Specialty retail in the area includes home furnishings and art galleries, and architectural and design offices. There are also professional offices, located mostly in the northern portion of the area. Community- related commercial uses, such as Albertson's grocery and gyms, are located in the area. Dine -in and fast food restaurants account for more than 7.0 percent of the land area. Marine - related commercial (boat sales) and marine - related industrial uses (boat repair) can also be found between Newport Boulevard and the Lido Channel, representing 2.2 percent and 1.5 percent of the area respectively. Religious institutions are located in the northwest portion of the area and represent 4.8 percent of land uses. Public parking is available on several small lots throughout the area, accounting for 3.1 GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 19 /- a percent of land uses. Vacant lots or buildings account for less than 2.0 percent of the area. This area . is included within the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan. Properties west of Newport Boulevard are developed for community - serving commercial uses, including a grocery store and fast -food restaurants. McFadden Square McFadden Square lies south of Cannery Village, and is bounded by 26th Street to the north, 19th Street to the south, and Ocean Front and the Pacific Ocean to the west. It features commercial operations from restaurants, beach hotels, dory fishing boats, and tourist - oriented shops to service operations and facilities that serve the Peninsula. An important feature of this area includes the Newport Pier, which attracts many visitors. The McFadden Square area is known for its marine - related industries such as shipbuilding and repair facilities on the harbor, some of which have been in continuous operation for over fifty years. Commercial land uses are largely concentrated in the commercial strips of Balboa and Newport Boulevards, with residential along Ocean Front. This area is a combination of residential (39.6 percent) and commercial (27.8 percent) uses, with multi- tenant and visitor - serving commercial uses, such as t -shirt shops, and rental shops. Dine -in and fast food restaurants account for 7.0 percent of the area. There are also many bars and clubs in the area with some featuring live music, especially along Ocean Front. The Newport Pier extends from McFadden Square, and there are many nearby recreational uses (bike rentals, surf shops, etc.). Other uses in the area include industrial and public uses. There are a number of marine - related industrial uses (boat storage, restoration and repair, etc.) between Newport Boulevard and the West . Lido Channel. Balboa Community Center is located just south of the pier and accounts for 7.0 percent of the land uses within the area. Public parking (22.1 percent of area land use) is available in two lots, of which the easternmost one is separated from commercial uses by residential uses. These lots primarily serve the beach users, tourists, and the restaurant patrons. Much of the McFadden Square area is pedestrian- oriented, with storefronts facing the street, the presence of signage at a pedestrian scale, outdoor furniture, and landscaping to provide a pleasant environment. However, certain areas present difficulty for pedestrian street crossing. Specifically the intersection of Newport and Balboa Boulevards, known as "Mixmaster' is one such crossing as the roadway configuration at this location allows traffic flow from different directions and the street is wide. Improvements at this intersection are currently under construction. Recommendations Vision A series of commercial, visitor - serving, marine related, civic districts, and residential neighborhoods that are differentiated by their functional characteristics and, at the same time, integrated by walkways, streetscape amenities, and urban form. These districts are evocative of Newport Beach's history and the Peninsula's unique location between the ocean and bay. Although important to provide for coastal visitors, the area's capacity for commercial uses is reduced to a level that can be supported by the market and augmented by residential uses that provide customers year- round. Urban Form Concept ■ Balboa Peninsula's urban form should evolve as a series of distinct centers/ nodes and connecting corridors. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 20 ■ Lido Village and McFadden Square should be reinforced as the Peninsula's: pnmary activgy centers, separated by a predominately residenb4neighborhood in inland portions of Cannery; . Village (east of New Boulevard), and linked etail and marine related coinmerCial corridors along Newport Boulevard and the Bay frontag `•. . Uses (refer to Figure s) J .. a Lido Village.: • Visitor - serving and retail commefC al: with ,small lodging facilities'(bed ari.d.b(eakfas(s, inns) (sub area *Al. ??zt." �.:'.: . • Mixed -use buildings that integrate housin area bounded;by Via Lido,,Via,Oporto, and Via Malaga (sub -area "B'j} a.: i- 0 C. f. El • New office uses should be discouraged to improve the area's pedestrian character. Cannery Village (sub -area "C properties generally bounded by Via - Malaga ;'2r Street... the Newport Boulevard commercial frontage: and 32nd Street) ■ Mufti- family 'housing including townhomes and live/work- buildings, at. street intersections. ■ Mixed -use structures with residential above retail permitted in: any location and required at street intersections. Limits are defined for the amount of ground. floor retail square footage-. (see below). ' Albertsons Market property (sub -area "D° —west of Newport Boulevard and south`of 32"d Street)'' ■ Neighborhood - serving.retafl commercial. 'fit^ Mixed -use structures with residential above retail::.;3� • ^' 7 ;WV McFadden Square; west.of Newport Boulevard (sub -area 'E7 ■ Visitor - serving retail• commercial and small scale overnight accommodations i:. .;.. r!2gi, . McFadden Square, east of Newport Boulevard (sub area " ■ Water - oriented oommercial and supporting r''' '' ` J7 g�,� PPortin9 uses: :`?r' ■ Mixed use sfruc res,with residential above retail: >:, f ,gx"5 .� Outside of study'af?as: ;'.. -.. �I'I Newport 13ouleva d: su.. area' +H`): hi y: ' "` +F ( l ghwa oriented: ietail4commercia a d.m txt Lse r�,,...- ..., p ..buildings that iritearate hnusim with �' 4' . - +: •.din•• ■ Bayfront properties" east` of`�afa and supporting uses. 4* .metcial;uses:j yette• vq: .•� -t ..... L flvenue {su a�ea'"jWa. r -o GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 21 0 l LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS (A) Visilor- Serving and Retail Commercial, Small Overnight Lodging Facilities and Inns (Bj Mixed Use - Housing above Retail (d, ' Mixed Use Permitted in any Location and Required at Street intersections, Krr (Di Neighborhood - Serving Retail or Mixed Use CE) Visilor- Serving Commercial or Mixed Use (F) Highway Commercial and Unifying Streetscape Amenities (G) Morine - Related Commercial 0 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Figure 5 BALBOA PENINSULA LIDO VILLAGE / Rasitlanllol Resbenlbl. SincJe -FartNy Resbenlnl A Mdli -FamN RaLdentlul Cammerdal ANo-Rebletl Commercbl r.a Morirta- Rebletl CommwcC Persanal Sernces. FBness/Gyms Idly Reb15 Y. Furnllue, - Nuni-lanonl Commerdal Prolessbno OmCe/BU51rte:5lMedcdN01 DrI.W Comnwnily CO mercid, Footl Sae F� Dlneln Restourad, Fasl FO Restaurod 10t.1 � wsBOr -servVg tl lrbl Mo�ne _ Multl- I¢mrtant nl lnd Intlustrid In5111u11onal/Open Space SM NNW l Public. Chu,c .e /F Wgbus Usss Open Space Omer Pudic Paring w I V..t BUibirg -L VmCCanl Lot e. woes mm I rues 1111'rl.'•i�111 0 XXI b] •! leer CYyd lWgan epxn, Gnrdtl Nr .h. ury W+4ry MOV A]I. b.:M kCw NXn .� , �ne�M.�SeowrLV If4t FROJECr NUMBER: 10579.01 fkxt. letl W. cP Gedeb by. MV Dale', 0117/05 Y, EI 7 9 0 r y NFWIOIIi II1. LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS Q Visitor- Serving and Retail Commerclal, Small Overnight Lodging Facilitles and Inns 3 fl Mixed Use - Housing above Retail © • Mixed Use Permitled In any Location and Requked at Street Intersections, .. ' Multi Family Residential and Townhomes -any location except Intersections c0 s CITY / y/ /�(/ /.•�;`� Ai% GENERAL PLAN BALBOA PENINSULA S' LIDO VILLAGE / CANNERY VILLAGE / MC FADDEN SQUARE leeMn, ww Use ReedonAd. 5ngl F.1ly Re90enllal %'.,..5.•'- LA� .� f r MuAFFQn* Resbenfld I ".._;_.: ... .. ANORehteO COlrmelcbl \ Personal S es. ntns NGy , sSpO� CCgMry'PUmIINe, Re \\ M Tenant COlrmeraol DdnWr bM 011k&&uNesinerdd. DMprg� Colrlmuniry Calrmerdtl. Food Soles 0 D'r1eJn RestwfanU FaA Food Reslawnf Hotel - WMOraeMng "Willal ' W Mahe IndusAlal f = M Tenant lndusmol IIUAMIonaVOPen space • i'1; ^,, [in PUNCI5e1N PubIc. CNnctteOellglcus Uses " open Space Vacant BuWN [� \s Vacant la Q Nelghborhood- Serving Retail or Mixed Use QE Visitor -serving Commerclal or Mixed Use Hlghway Commercial and Unifying Streetscape Amenities © Marine - Related Commerclal F. 9nrt.: CNOl1lryr4Naf�Gnygn L/'IW].CN !o- /CT. MT'M).NUL0.YL�"MI.PmLLhtEV Xd: PROJECT NUMBER: 10579 -01 Regmled by. CP cleated by: MJ Dale: 010/05 E -IF Development Capacity • Retail • Lido Village and McFadden Square: 1.0 FAR • All other areas: 0.5 FAR • Mixed Use • All areas except interior parcels In Cannery Village: 1.5 FAR 'with no restriction on commercial square footage • Cannery Village parcels: 1.5 FAR, with retail limit of 0.25 FAR except at intersections where it shall be 0.5 FAR ■ Housing: 12 -18 units per acre Policy Discussion • Streetscape improvements should be implemented to improve the area's visual quality, image, and.pedestrian character. This should include clearly defined linkages among individual districts, between the ocean and Bay, and along the Bay frontage. . • The City should provide incentives for owners to improve their properties and achieve the community's vision for this area. • The City should provide incentives for the retention and development of marine- related uses along the harbor frontage (sub -areas "A" and "G "). Basis for Recommendations 1. There is an oversupply of land zoned exclusively for commercial uses on the Balboa Peninsula based on ADE's market analysis. The concentration of retail uses in limited locations and re -use of other properties for residential uses would improve the area's economic and social vitality throughout the year and reduce peak hour trips from the existing General Plan. 2. Participants in the Visioning process indicated that both Cannery Village and McFadden Square need continuing revitalization and the City could be proactive in creating a vision for revitalization to help guide future private development. 3. While overnight lodging has not been supported in the Visioning process survey and public meetings, we believe that smaller bed and breakfast and boutique hotels could be designed and scaled to complement the pedestrian- oriented village character of Lido Village and McFadden Square, as well as help the City's fiscal balance through the revenue that would be contributed. 4. Approximately 56% of Public Workshop participants supported the reinforcement of Lido Village and McFadden Square as primary activity nodes with the interior of Cannery Village allocated for housing or mixed -use development. 5. The majority of Visioning process and Public Workshop participants indicated their support for mixed -use buildings in Lido Village, McFadden Square, and portions of Cannery Village. While this may be feasible in a number of locations, the immediate bayfront may be restricted to non- residential coastal- dependent uses as required by the Coastal Act. G P A C LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 23 6) 3 11 6. The Visioning process indicated support for the protection of historic commercial and residential villages, such as Lido Village. 7. Suggestions of tools to protect the villages including the narrowing of permitted uses, adopting design and development guidelines, establishing a design review process, and adopting specific plans. 8. Among the Guiding Principles that support the recommendations are: a. Facilitate an economically viable concentration of marine uses. b. Encourage the revitalization of older commercial areas. c. Encourage mixed -use development. d. The quantity of land designated for commercial use and the development standards that regulate such uses should reflect the market support that can reasonably be anticipated during the General Plan time horizon. e. Support the careful expansion of visitor - serving businesses and facilities, including hotels and meeting facilities. f. Encourage the redevelopment of under - performing commercial areas to allow residential or mixed -use development. g. Enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods and business districts that together identify Newport Beach GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 24 3( BALBOA VILLAGE Description Balboa Village is the historic center for commercial, recreational, and social activities in the community. Balboa Village is located on the Balboa Peninsula between Coronado Boulevard to the northwest, and A Street to the southeast. This study area has 19 acres, of which a mix of commercial uses represents 33.5 percent (6.4 acres) of land uses within the area. Of the retail uses, multi- tenant buildings with a variety of commercial uses are the largest commercial land use, representing 15.3 percent (2.9 acres) of the area. The retail uses are a mix of neighborhood- serving and visitor - serving commercial, i.e., ice cream, bike rentals, and T -shirt shops. Fast food and dine -in restaurants, apparel and specialty shops predominate along Balboa Boulevard and Main Street. A "fun zone" along Edgewater Place includes entertainment uses such as an arcade, amusement park rides, fast food restaurants, and souvenir shops. Marine - related commercial uses such as ferries to Balboa and Catalina Islands, and harbor tours are present in the area. There are a number of commercial vacancies throughout the area, as well as in the multi- tenant complexes along Edgewater Place. This study area is pedestrian- oriented with articulated building facades, and signage that is pedestrian scale. The single largest land use category in the study area is public parking. Two parking lots account for 36.9 percent (7.0 acres) of the area's land uses, providing parking for the adjacent beach area as well as the study area. This is appropriate in an older pedestrian- oriented area where buildings typically have zero lot lines (built to the property line), and limited private parking areas. Residential land uses accounting for 21.5 percent (4.1 acres) of the area are located primarily within the western portion of the study area from Adams Street to Coronado Street, at the eastern boundary of the area, and along Ocean Front. A large park, Peninsula Park, accounts for 4.8 percent (0.9 acres) of the area. The City has embarked upon a number of public improvements in the area within the last few years, which include the addition of street furniture, lighting, landscaping, widened sidewalks, and decorative paving. This study area is within a Specific Plan area. The Balboa Peninsula Planning Study was conducted in 1996. The study concluded the area has a strong marine heritage, and has drawn fishermen, recreational boaters, summer residents, and beachgoers. Over time, the area has experienced a transition to year -round residential use while the visitor uses have continued, with no comprehensive planning to ensure the compatibility of these uses. Parking supply has been improved through the construction of a new parking lot at Palm and Balboa Boulevard and the refurbishment of the beach lot to improve access for short-term users. Cumulatively, there is more commercial space than can be supported by local residents, and marginal commercial space is used by businesses that are seasonal and do not promote a quality image for the Peninsula. In 1997, the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee (BPPAC) published its vision for Balboa Village. The vision consisted of aesthetic improvements such as landscaping, pedestrian amenities, and design standards. The vision addressed property maintenance standards, parking district implementation, and circulation improvements. The vision also sought to establish a "family marine recreation theme," upgrade the Fun Zone, and improve the quality and mix of commercial tenants. In excess of $5 million has been invested by the City for landscape, streetscape, and parking improvements and Design Guidelines were adopted for Balboa Village in 2002. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 25 l 3 Oc Recommendations Vision A pedestrian oriented village that serves local residents and recreational visitors, providing housing in proximity to retail uses, entertainment, and recreation. Uses (refer to Figure 6) ■ Visitor and local- serving retail commercial or mixed use buildings that integrate housing with ground level retail on properties generally bounded by Bay Avenue, Balboa Boulevard frontage, Adams Street, and Main Street frontage (sub -area "B). ■ Water- dependent, marine - related. retail and services, visitor - serving retail on commercial properties between Bay Avenue and the Bay (sub-area 'A'). ■ Small scale overnight accommodations, such as bed and breakfast facilities and boutique hotels. ■ Housing on existing commercial properties on Balboa Boulevard west of Adams Street, developed at "R -2" densities. Development Capacity ■ Mixed -use buildings: maximum density of 1.5 FAR and height of 2 - 3 stories. ■ Retail commercial: net reduction of approximately 23,000 square feet. . ■ Office: net reduction of approximately 90,000 square feet from existing General Plan. ■ Overnight accommodations: net increase of approximately 90 rooms. ■ Residential (in mixed -use buildings and single family detached units): net increase of approximately 220 units from existing use. (We should be consistent in describing changes as from existing GP or existing use. W. Newport Highway compared to existing GP.J Policv Discussion • The City should provide incentives for owners to improve their properties, . achieve the community's vision for the area, and protect the value of nearby residential neighborhoods- ■ Incentives should be provided for the development of retail uses that serve adjoining residential neighborhoods. ■ The City should promote marine uses on the Bayfront. ■ Completion of enhancements to Balboa Village's sidewalks and street crossings would contribute to the area's visual quality and character as a pedestrian- oriented environment. Basis for Recommendations 1. Participants in the Visioning process indicated the need for revitalization of Balboa Village. 2. Year -round tourism on Balboa Peninsula is inadequate to support all commercial areas and interest has been expressed to rezone areas for residential or mixed -use development. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 26 33 3. A significant majority of the Public Workshop participants (82 %) supported the concentration of commercial uses in the core of the Village and re -use of outside commercial properties for housing. 4. A similar majority, 75% of the participants, supported prioritizing water - oriented and visitor - serving commercial uses. 5. A somewhat smaller number of participants, though still a majority, supported the development of mixed -use buildings that integrate housing with ground level retail uses (54 %). This is consistent with input from the Visioning process, where the Village was identified as a suitable location for mixed -use development. Development of mixed use buildings would expand the customer base for retail commercial uses and services and enhance the area's pedestrian activity. 6. Consolidation of commercial uses coupled with the re -use of underperforming commercial properties for mixed -use and housing would expand the customer base for local retail uses, helping achieve economic development objectives, conform to the community's vision, and protect property values in nearby residential neighborhoods. Development of additional housing in Balboa Village and reduction of commercial capacity would increase pedestrian activity and reduce vehicle trips, benefiting traffic conditions on the Peninsula. 7. Among the Guiding Principles that support the recommendations are a. Encourage the revitalization of older commercial areas. b. The quantity of land designated for commercial use and the development standards that regulate such uses should reflect the market support that can reasonably be anticipated • during the General Plan time horizon. c. Enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods and business districts that together identify Newport Beach d. Preserve the community's heritage. e. Encourage the redevelopment of under - performing commercial areas to allow residential or mixed -use development. G P A C LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 27 2 1j • 0 0 c° LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN { A) Visitor- Serving Commercial -B Commercial or Mixed -Use (Housing above Retail) C� Residential - Townhomes Figure 6 BALBOA VILLAGE EA01 Eaw Use ResaenXal Resltlentlal. SINIe-Famlty Remdentol MUltl-Famity Residential comme¢lal PeswalSeMCez. FtlnesJGymz Till ppweVR Ce Dry, Saectairy R.1,10 - mm Tenant COmmecal -Rofez aO al Oflite/BaAnezyMedlcaWel 4 community Carry ugcIal, Food Stores i� MFR Dine In Restaurant. Fast Food Reztanant Hard EnteRainment, VultorseMrg A Intlusltlal A Matlne lntluzhbl InAlluHanaVOpen Spoce rill Public S l F bllc °•h, ♦ t" m P.*, '°okra Fr d °rr, OMer ° — Fudlc D.WN ♦ /� l• F,.� / \ I Fs 1 l�D // ve I Vacant Mild, pO Option Boundary mm w.t,�m, xwna rro� °�Eeh w r y �aNr i I—. . - o im xm so-.�e cwmrvs�nr,�,e,aro,,. u.mw.cw za„mn�uw�z. w.o=wc.�xm.am. n:ro.rzm♦. ., PMACT NUMKIr: 10579 -01 .. R,..tFa by: HER CGeaied by: W/K Date: 0717MS r, E I P c° • 9 • LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Visitor- Serving Commercial O Commercial or Mixed -Use (Housing above Retail) Residential - Townhomes Figure 6 BALBOA VILLAGE " �.:•�. R 94srAlU fle]Itl9 amPy Re / i`t I .�Ir� � J _ + PBNOn Ppp«aYACCevoryF 6Uecl�p Reia] + v - MtM -ieMnt Cgmmerou 2tlk B rcflfl �aammercb Fa ®Dalai etlavtanl. Fmi FOOtl flBSfOmO i + / .......'`.. ; o.' Pace ........................ 1� <' e< eM PebPc h ` + • • ;' - ParyN Pegk 9 .... .. .- ...; ............... :.. + ] r::... / , « an i evanq OpOm BO]mtlory .. x PN[ ... ... ... .� + W+ ••.. \\ � :.f \� . [ .......� \ % ....................�/ r.......' .. - �V'4 MOJECTNUMBER: 10519 -01 fleque]Ie0 b(. HN decree W: NNfPP + -,; Date: 019105 MARINER'S MILE Description Mariners Mile is a primarily auto - oriented area located along Coast Highway, which runs west to east, from the Arches Bridge on the west to Dover Drive on the east end. Commercial uses account for 82.9 percent of land uses in the study area: a mix of marine - related commercial uses (boat sales, sailing schools, and marina), some auto - related uses (auto dealerships and service) and neighborhood- serving commercial are located throughout the area. The Balboa Bay Club and Resort, a hotel and a private club located on City tidelands, represents 19.4 percent of uses in the area. Marine related uses account for 12.8 percent of the area, while auto-oriented uses account for 9.0 percent of the area. Multi- tenant commercial uses that combine a number of related or complementary uses in a single building or buildings that are connected physically or through design, account for almost 25 percent of area land uses. Waterfront development, such as dockside restaurants, is concentrated on the southern side of Coast Highway, while there are more general commercial uses along the northern side. Secondary uses include salons, restaurants, apparel, and other specialty shops ranging from wine stores to home furnishings stores. There are a high number of vacancies in Mariner's Mile relative to the other areas; 8.5 percent of the area contains vacant buildings. Many of these vacancies are sites with development potential. The City has recently embarked on a plan, Mariners Mile Strategic Vision and Design Plan (adopted by City Council in 2000), to accomplish the following: create a pedestrian- friendly retail district along • the northern portion of Coast Highway in the vicinity of Tustin Avenue, Riverside Avenue, and Avon Street; improve the auto - oriented strips located on the north side of Coast Highway, in the western and easternmost portion of the area; create a vibrant public waterfront south of Coast Highway; upgrade the visual character of the area with new landscaping and streetscape amenities; and improve private development standards associated with signage, architecture, and lighting. Parts of the area may not easily adopt a pedestrian character as there are commercial uses with parking in the front and traffic on Coast Highway is heavy. In addition, there is a possibility that Coast Highway could be widened in this area in the future, which would detract from the intentions of a more pedestrian - friendly environment by potentially narrowing sidewalks and allowing more traffic in the area. An issue to consider is how future development will affect the character of Mariners Mile, and what kind of uses the community would like to have in this area. The western half of this area is within the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan has designated the bay side of Coast Highway for Recreational and Marine Commercial, which allows for the following: (1) continuation of marine - oriented and visitor - serving uses; (2) maintains the marine theme and character of the area; and (3) encourages public physical and visual access to the bay. For the area inland of Coast Highway, the Specific Plan allows for Retail and Service Commercial uses, which is intended to serve as an active pedestrian - oriented retail area with a wide range of visitor - serving, neighborhood commercial, and marine - related uses, GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 29 30 • Recommendations Vision A corridor that reflects and takes advantage of its location on the Newport Bay waterfront, supports and respects adjacent residential neighborhoods, and exhibits a quality visual image Coast Highway. ge for travelers on Uses refer to ) ■ _ Bay frontage properties (sub -area "A "): marine - related and visitor - serving retail commercial, restaurant, hotel, institutional, and recreational uses. ■ Inland side of Coast Highway: a mix of visitor and local- serving retail commercial, residential, and public uses. • All Property frontages on.Coast Highway shall be developed for commercial uses. • The rear portion of properties generally east of Tustin Avenue and the southerly Irvine Avenue (sub -area "D" ma y be developed for free- standing multi- family residential. of • Inland parcels generally between Riverside Avenue and Tustin Avenue (sub -area "C ") may be developed for commercial or mixed -use buildings with housing integrated above ground level retail or office uses. • Remaining parcels (sub -area "B ") may be developed for commercial uses. Development Caoac' • Retail: 0.35 FAR and 0.5 FAR with lot consolidation which results in a minimum frontage of 200 feet. • Mixed use: 1.5 FAR. • Residential: 18 — 22 units per acre. Policy D_ ism ■ Consider adopting desi90 guidelines so. that the development of inland properties with a mix of commercial, and residential uses does:.iioi- create land use conflicts, provides adequate circulation and, parking.arid :preserves vjews of the water. These should also provide for the protection of the'bluff faces .'`'" • Consider options for, the relocation corridor's retail uses. -- ., of the City parking lot on Avon Street to better support the ■ Consider options for the relocation of the the immediate area. Postal distribution center to reduce parking impacts in ■ Consider modifying g fY g the Shoreline Hei ht limit accommodate mixed use building . (26'). on the inland side of Coast Highway to s provided that the limits fully protect views of the water GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 30 q LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS CITY of NEWPORT BEACH Q� Coastal Marine-Related Commercial and institutional Use Neighborhood- Serving Retail and Mixed-Use Buildings (Housing Above Retall) GENERAL PLAN Commercial 0 Retail on Highway Frontage, Residential Behind Figure 7 MARINER'S MILE < I I!! um Y < < < Autc-R� ��,U Calmec" X. Nw� sewas \' X �T..nl Commemid ...... ...... Z V < j '� '4Y K-, >/ h0e nd Offlc�lne�odk�ei 0 j - I I O�in Restoumni, FMI FOatl P.,I.u,,, / Y\ N 0 I "W-VI Space Na NWlS Publ. sc� r /> Or NX, 7 VWtk4dng pWWq I- po Vp t L& opron SI V .17 ..... .. .. . 4- PROAMINUMER: 107941 W 41.11 C.WW by: WRP Req � �W 0711 B X EIP W o < 0 0 0 0 LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS {A� Coastal Marine - Related Commercial and Institutional Use C) Neighborhood - Serving Retail and Mixed -Use Buildings (Housing Above Retail) CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN (B) Commercial {D) Retail on Highway Frontage, Residential Behind Figure 7 MARINER'S MILE iii Land J. R69tledlal • iiii Mufti 'ci ity Resitlential Commerdal ' AuloRetaled Commercial jy�L[ MonneRebietl Cammerclul Personal$rycei bandit. Y - Multi Tananl Cornmercid ` _ROlessbnd ORiae/BUSIrKSS/Med[Wyel ,z Comm mm uaNcoercld • * - .. .. Li DNe -In Restaaant, Fast Food Restaurant 'g• Fbiel '19 ImJUSldal Multi Tanana Tanana lrHU9tlol Inelilutl onaVOpen SOace FublklSarnl Pubic Schools sv` other ii table Pai t � u Vacant Bui . IVacant lot r` : o Cpllan Bountlary as cN, MAEr i 4D titI C �nMT X01. NCi IN1.PmM. acRLa•3bJ]. •I ;ICI' .. .., awry U.xm„r°u M[nw.s�p,m m. 6 o FROJECTNUMi 10519.01 ..... 9' Requested by HLR Dacniduy: Wy Dula: 0I112I05 0 ■ Development on the.Bay frontage should implement amenities that assure access for coastal visitors, including views of the Bay from Coast Highway and a pedestrian promenade along the Bayfront. Basis for Recommendations 1. Visioning process participants identified Mariner's Mile as a location that needed revitalization and suggested that an overall vision be defined to meet this objective. It was also defined as a. location appropriate for mixed -use development integrating housing and commercial or office space. A majority of survey respondents opposed hotel development in Mariner's Mile. 2. Participants in the Public Workshop (22 people) were almost equally divided on the questions of preserving opportunities for coastal - related uses in Mariner's Mile and whether the City should require or offer incentives to assure such uses. A number of participants indicated that high land values and rents limit the number of marine - related uses that can be economically sustained in the area. 3. ADE's study of the local marine industry found that rising costs have resulted in fewer firms serving the demand for boat service and parts, and businesses that do not have to be on the water have moved to inland locations. There is a possibility that reduced availability of boat services in Newport Beach could cause boat sales businesses to move inland as well, costing the City sales and property tax revenues. 4. Approximately 83% of the Workshop participants supported the development of housing in Mariner's Mile. This was evenly split between those who believed that housing should be located on both sides of Coast Highway and those who favor limiting it to inland parcels. 5. The Coastal Act prioritizes the development of coastal - related uses over the development of housing in the Coastal Zone and Coastal Commission staff have advised the City that provision of marine - related uses must be made along the Newport Beach waterfront. 6. Housing developed as free- standing structures or in buildings that integrate housing above ground level commercial uses can serve as a transition from Coast Highways intensive commercial development and upland residential neighborhoods. 8. Inland properties flanking Riverside and Tustin Avenues offer the opportunity for the development of additional retail uses that support upland residential neighborhoods. These can be located and designed to promote active pedestrian activity, and, with adjoining housing development, could establish a "village" character, as proposed in the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Plan. 9. Among the Guiding Principles that support the recommendations are: a. Encourage the revitalization of older commercial areas. b. General Plan land use policies should facilitate an economically viable concentration of marine uses. c. Support the careful expansion of visitor - serving businesses and facilities, including hotels. d. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the natural setting that contributes to the character and identity of Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its residents and visitors. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 32 C 39 e. Encourage the redevelopment of under - performing commercial areas to allow residential or mixed -use development. f. Encourage the maintenance of natural landforms. g. Encourage the protection and, where feasible and appropriate, creation of public viewsheds within the City. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 33 16 NEWPORT CENTER /FASHION ISLAND • Description Newport Center is generally located in the center of the city, north of Coast Highway between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Newport Center is a regional center of business and commerce that includes major retail, professional office, entertainment, recreation, and housing in a master planned mixed -use development. Fashion Island, a major retail shopping center, forms the nucleus of Newport Center, and is framed by this mixture of office, entertainment, residential, and housing. Newport Center Drive, a ring road that surrounds Fashion Island, connects to a number of interior roadways that provide access to the various sites within the Center and to the four major arterials that service this development. High -rise office and hotels buildings to the north of the Center form a visual background for lower rise buildings and uses to the south and west. Newport Center is essentially built out with the exception of a couple of vacant strips of land in the eastern portion of the site. There is entitlement for 185 additional hotel rooms and just less than 300,000 square feet of entitled undeveloped retail space in Fashion Island. Combined, Newport Center and Fashion Island contain commercial land uses that represent 57.4 percent of this sub area. Fashion Island, a regional mall with a mix of specialty shopping, accounts for 15.8 percent of the uses within the sub area. Newport Center consists of professional office uses (26.6 percent of the study area), two hotels (6.3 percent), multi- tenant commercial (5.9 percent), public and semi- public uses such as the Police and Fire Departments and Orange County Museum of Art and Sports Museum (2.9 percent), and entertainment (1.5 percent) uses along the perimeter of Newport Center Drive. The Center is also the site of a transportation center, located at San Joaquin Hills Drive and MacArthur Boulevard that includes a Park and Ride. A large open space area (26.1 percent) adjacent to Coast Highway and Jamboree Road in the western portion of the sub area is the site of the Newport Beach Country Club and Balboa Bay Tennis Club. Single- family attached residential uses (10.4 percent) also are located in this quadrant. There is a considerable amount of vacant land (approximately 16 acres) between MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue. Newport Center is largely built out, but there has been discussion of future development of office, hotel, retail, and residential uses in this area. Recommendations Vision A successful mixed -use district that combines an economic and commercial center, which serves the needs of Newport Beach residents and the'sub- region, with expanded opportunities to live close to jobs, commerce, entertainment; and recreation, and is supported by a pedestrian - friendly environment. Uses (refer to Fiqure 8) • Fashion Island: retail, restaurant, entertainment, and comparable uses. Opportunity should lie provided to accommodate the development of an additional anchor tenant and supporting uses.. • Newport Center: professional office, hotel, entertainment, housing; and. recreational uses. Opportunity should be provided to expand housing, and hotel uses, but additional office development should be limited to existing buildings. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 34 11 0 0 0 9 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS Retail - F 425,000 Square Feet Housing - + 450 Units GENERAL PLAN Figure 8 Office - + 44,000 Square Feet Hotel - + 1 I 1 Rooms NEWPORT CENTER/ FASHION ISLAND tml,q Lano 1M ' ResloeMal, Single -Famlry Rasltlentiol M W- F=RVResb Mhl . i CwrvnnGd Auto- 4ebtetl Commercld Pe,sonal S es. F1lrress/G� ' . l Specblly Retail, Shopping Moll Mult-Ter ow Commarcbl ,w 1 P,olenieosl ofte/Bustewss/M ca Wet + Dine -In Restaurant Hotel _ Entertainment a .n.VO on sp«e a ' PubW,/Sami -Pub(b Open Space d y{ Vacant Lot . ®Optbn 6ounlb r wansnm.uwu {{ �.1 /�•.•. o eoo ^am Fwi CMdxrrycnMM nvaYlb�Lllltll. py � "Y � � j ' '` wl�Y I , I I �1 % • , '• - iavby,im�irvw.Ty.4gamp mv.ocwrm'f. M "ECT Lll) ER. 1057"] 1 I I I 7 . _ , , t I toastetl bY: HM C,"W W: w/p, Elp 9 0 0 • 1 ClfYof NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS Retail - + 425,000 Square Feet Housing - + 450 Units Figure 8 NEWPORT CENTER) Office - + 44,000 Square Feet Hotel - + 1 1 1 Rooms FASHION ISLAND E.WM Lard We Rsrebnlid Residential, SingleFamiN Reslden0al 1� MVR4FamW ResicenOd . Commercial AutoaRelplad Commerclal Personol Sen•t�es, Fltft VGy W) specialty Retail, Shoppiryj Mall -MAIN- Tenont commercbl - Professbnd OiNCe/BuslrtesyMedlcaWet yYJ Nne -In Restaurant a'•M1 Hotel i - rmorlolomenl . j vwmn�Ow sl «e 9 MW Public/Semi- Publle Open Space /' aner Vacant Lot t, ® option Boandory e[O I)ro I aae >wFwdrw+r...w..>ea,mm. mm. PROJECT NUMBER: 1057901 Requesled by: HLR created Try: WRP Oat.. m113ro5 Elp 1 ■ "Newport Village" site, north of the Library, shall be developed as a City park. Development Capacity ■ Retail /entertainment: increase entitlement by approximately 125,000 square feet (net increase of 425,000 square feet above existing use) ■ Office: no change from existing entitlement (net increase of 40,000 square feet above existing use) ■ Housing: increase entitlement by 600 dwelling units ■ Hotel: increase entitlement by 65 rooms (net increase of 250 rooms above existing use) Policy Discussion • Pedestrian access and connectivity should be improved with additional walkways and streetscape amenities. • Additional retail entitlement should not be used for office development. Basis for Recommendations 1. In the Visioning process a majority of residents and businesses supported little or no change to Newport Center, but some were willing to allow growth for existing companies. At the same time, a majority supported keeping retail space at current levels, but many were willing to support . expansion of existing stores and moderate increases for new businesses. Some participants favored mixed -use development and stressed the need for more affordable housing in particular. A majority of resident and business survey respondents supported building new hotels in Newport Center. 2. In the Public Workshop, approximately, two- thirds of the participants expressed moderate to strong support for the expansion of retail and entertainment uses in Fashion Island and about half supported the development of another retail anchor. Over half were opposed to further office development, while two thirds indicated support for additional hotel rooms. Development of additional housing was strongly supported by three - quarters of the participants. 3. The flexibility to develop retail space and hotel rooms will enable Fashion Island to respond to market demands as they evolve over the next 20 years and help to maintain its economic viability. 4. Additional hotel, retail, and residential uses will contribute to the City's fiscal well- being, while more office development would not pay the full costs to provide needed City services. 5. Increased residential entitlement will enable a larger number of persons to live close to their jobs, commerce, entertainment and recreation, reducing vehicle trips and length, energy consumption, and air pollution below those resulting from more dispersed patterns of development. Newport Center residents who commute to jobs outside the area will be traveling in the opposite direction of peak hour traffic. 6. Among the Guiding Principles that support the recommendations are: • a. Support City efforts to optimize retail sales capture in the community. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 36 43 b. Facilitate the development and retention of a variety of business types that strengthen the vitality of the local economy. c. Capitalize on market and demographic changes and opportunities that emerge in key economic centers of the community d. Support the careful expansion of visitor - serving businesses and facilities, including hotels and meeting facilities e. Consider mixed -use development as a means to create additional housing opportunities. f. Consider urban scale development in areas where there is potential for development patterns that will minimize traffic. g. Additional development entitlement needs to demonstrate significant fiscal, economic or other community benefit. h. Establish land use and density /intensity limits that will have less impact on peak hour traffic. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 37 0 CORONA DEL MAR Description The Corona del Mar planning area is located along Pacific Coast Highway from Avocado Avenue to Hazel Drive. Figure 6 -1 shows the regional location of the Corona del Mar area. Commercial land uses front Coast Highway with residential land uses directly to the east and west of the commercial uses. This area is primarily commercial (78.6 percent), with a mix of neighborhood- serving commercial (approximately 10.0 percent) and specialty shops (6.0 percent). Primary retail uses include restaurants (more than 8.0 percent), home furnishings, and other specialty shops ranging from apparel to architectural design services. Many commercial uses (about 40.2 percent of the area) are located in multi- tenant buildings with retail on the first floor of buildings and professional services located on the second floor. While there were a few commercial vacancies at the time of the land use survey, the most prominent was that of the Port Theatre located at the corner of Coast Highway and Heliotrope. Sherman Library and Gardens (about 9.0 percent of the area) is a private facility and research library open to the public. There is an assisted - living residential complex representing 7.4 percent of land uses in the area. Corona del Mar is pedestrian- oriented with a dense mix of commercial uses, streetscape amenities, street medians, and a limited number of signalized crosswalks. The Corona del Mar Business Improvement District (BID) was established in 1996 to enhance the shopping district of Corona del Mar to create an exciting, pedestrian and resident friendly experience. In 1999, the BID developed the "Vision 2004" Plan to implement community • improvements for Corona del Mar. The plan envisions the creation of a linear park -like environment along Coast Highway from Avocado Avenue to Seaward Drive. The plan also calls for sidewalk landscaping, street furniture, street lighting fixtures, pedestrian activated crosswalks, parking lanes and various other improvements. A Specific Plan has also been contemplated for this area, but one has not been developed Recommendations Vision A pedestrian - onented "village" that serves as the center of community commerce, culture, and social activity and provides identity for Corona del Mar. Uses (refer to Fiaure 9) ■ Retail, office, cultural, and civic uses (comparable to and compatible with existing development). ■ Shared parking structures, provided that the ground floor of the street frontage contains retail uses. ■ Surface parking on parcels directly behind commercial uses. Development Capacity • ■ Retail commercial and office uses: 0.5 FAR (per existing General Plan), GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 38 i5 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN p USE RECOMMENDATIONS Retail and Office on Coast HlghwoY Pef Existtng Genefal Plan FIGURE 9 Posstbte Acqulsitlon of AdIdning Residential Lois For Parking CORONA DEL MAR Shared Parking Focillt{es with Street. Facing Retail Fxwino land V30 . •.. noWennd ,:J_.- ,j:,i,.: C, r, %.'^ � '^ �;h`'". - (" <.. '".c. .w.. ,.r..... ��'y .�, � <,,. �.�,.•. Ewa: /,• \/� ... _\ / . . � ` '% / ,jL \ i i t ��� \ ` �\ `' � •• `°c' < /�l � l• J :(. c . .j ` y NaOO"RaCeae'6�°,,¢', y Y Die., own �E � • °�' ..�. ,/� f x� � con+�n +comme,ow• �� \ > ,ev � � T\\'�.\. \;L �°!.` •i� •' \;' • .�.?.�.^ i JY.1 foo0 Fosl FOOD Ra.,wron, \. '�.. _ <" •C � A<v \.,\ \d✓' \vC�. �., .(/ ♦'./ ......: � tir' -.l�.a ,,• �fAnabneNw'°,L , '. <: %'.� '(�`\�i\ \�!\\ ✓��� \ \ _.'tvr• .!\ ,..\ •/ .. `C .1�, �\�.., i\ ImRNAO,wVOGan SPrrce \\ \��� `L /\/ •(`.�`y,�c J� \ \�" d\ � .rF1y�.`(.,�' .\ ,, ....' )::''.;.., ;.�.• f n�P��u�ies Nc. Cnu�cnas7 �. .. ... — 7..__�',. :z -f; � :��y.�� \ �: y;� ` y�. •'.;,;; \ .,.C• �. / �� <`;V�: , c., omwvacum auamn<J - ..:.;�.� /�. Vii' �,�r .r. ` ` '\.��li/:\ ` r �`,• ��.��� J _� ' � / r ( � .. , ,,\ \''. \ may;'\ � t��[_�y�\��\' y, \. \�v��`d�� \�d: �Y'�/�'lC��i�'��\\ / r .: ^,�;•T:.. t� %T'� \�� •� '; °. ' �NJ l�i��./ �\ '' ^/W ' / qJ: i', `� �irj�./'�_�.... �nH/J?_ J it y\ `%4.. J. '�Y.Y�. \ /, mea..xw.•^+,m"°"'"°""°"' •' J %l v .y �� q % 4 <. !,' 1 MOJECi NUM9ER: 105)9 -0Ct�1��. MvRV —�.. .X — % ' . i ., - . / �,. !gyp ♦, ,. l�• ne oe lx, br. om1— p � / "%.['; ,�%Tt�7`T /� . ��\���r �. ` � ,: `C% /.` � \ y <• L�/�`2.`( a Oa07a!2! , , u • 0 LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS Retail and Office on Coast Highway Per Existing General Plan Possible Acquisition of Adjoining Residential Lots For Parking Shared Parking Facilities with Street - Facing Retail a ;l j° f. CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN FIGURE 9 CORONA DEL MAR Existing Land Use Residenxa ResldenNol so MuM.FomM/ Res ntd Commemlal Autp -PdOtW Cpmme�clpl Personals es BJldingalar v ie Caide Supply WM- Tenant COmmelclal _ Roressbnd Oi1keffi S sYhlpd"Wel Olhkltp CgnvlwnM Casune�cipl. F WtlSlIXPS N£h Mph Restwmnt. fast F p Restaurant InAtuh.pnVomb Space i PWN rnl Public. ChurO.V RBIkJlous Uses Other ' VI Vacant Buihng ! VpCant rat Qp OPlbn Bpundpry a_ ars sso Fm m CMOI W.nm1 Brsli, Gpa•I Rrt AN AJ] [ry ewmy.�W Im.t.YUCeY IXucn aW] aecu.¢xm aWl. awev UO�m.•Imrn«aw.xow,o. ams PROJECTNUMBER'. 1057901 Reque W by HM C.1w by: WN Date'. 07/13/05 _- r;x ElP 4 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN FIGURE 9 CORONA DEL MAR Existing Land Use Residenxa ResldenNol so MuM.FomM/ Res ntd Commemlal Autp -PdOtW Cpmme�clpl Personals es BJldingalar v ie Caide Supply WM- Tenant COmmelclal _ Roressbnd Oi1keffi S sYhlpd"Wel Olhkltp CgnvlwnM Casune�cipl. F WtlSlIXPS N£h Mph Restwmnt. fast F p Restaurant InAtuh.pnVomb Space i PWN rnl Public. ChurO.V RBIkJlous Uses Other ' VI Vacant Buihng ! VpCant rat Qp OPlbn Bpundpry a_ ars sso Fm m CMOI W.nm1 Brsli, Gpa•I Rrt AN AJ] [ry ewmy.�W Im.t.YUCeY IXucn aW] aecu.¢xm aWl. awev UO�m.•Imrn«aw.xow,o. ams PROJECTNUMBER'. 1057901 Reque W by HM C.1w by: WN Date'. 07/13/05 _- r;x ElP i t , i 1; f i t CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN FIGURE 9 CORONA DEL MAR Existing Land Use Residenxa ResldenNol so MuM.FomM/ Res ntd Commemlal Autp -PdOtW Cpmme�clpl Personals es BJldingalar v ie Caide Supply WM- Tenant COmmelclal _ Roressbnd Oi1keffi S sYhlpd"Wel Olhkltp CgnvlwnM Casune�cipl. F WtlSlIXPS N£h Mph Restwmnt. fast F p Restaurant InAtuh.pnVomb Space i PWN rnl Public. ChurO.V RBIkJlous Uses Other ' VI Vacant Buihng ! VpCant rat Qp OPlbn Bpundpry a_ ars sso Fm m CMOI W.nm1 Brsli, Gpa•I Rrt AN AJ] [ry ewmy.�W Im.t.YUCeY IXucn aW] aecu.¢xm aWl. awev UO�m.•Imrn«aw.xow,o. ams PROJECTNUMBER'. 1057901 Reque W by HM C.1w by: WN Date'. 07/13/05 _- r;x ElP i i 1; f CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN FIGURE 9 CORONA DEL MAR Existing Land Use Residenxa ResldenNol so MuM.FomM/ Res ntd Commemlal Autp -PdOtW Cpmme�clpl Personals es BJldingalar v ie Caide Supply WM- Tenant COmmelclal _ Roressbnd Oi1keffi S sYhlpd"Wel Olhkltp CgnvlwnM Casune�cipl. F WtlSlIXPS N£h Mph Restwmnt. fast F p Restaurant InAtuh.pnVomb Space i PWN rnl Public. ChurO.V RBIkJlous Uses Other ' VI Vacant Buihng ! VpCant rat Qp OPlbn Bpundpry a_ ars sso Fm m CMOI W.nm1 Brsli, Gpa•I Rrt AN AJ] [ry ewmy.�W Im.t.YUCeY IXucn aW] aecu.¢xm aWl. awev UO�m.•Imrn«aw.xow,o. ams PROJECTNUMBER'. 1057901 Reque W by HM C.1w by: WN Date'. 07/13/05 _- r;x ElP Policy Discussion ■ Allow buildings destroyed by fire or other natural disaster. to be reconstructed to their pre - existing density if they exceed the permitted 0.5 FAR. ■ Permit the use of residential properties adjoining. commercial parcels for surface parking, requiring that it be desig'ned,to mitigate visual, noise; vibration; lighting, and other impacts on residents. ^. t' •r.. ' : iv R> • Explore other methods to provide parking convenient . to, commercial uses, such as a parking district or relocation of the City parking lot at the old School site. • Consider adopting design guidelines to promote pedestrian activity along Coast Highway. ■ Continue implementation of Vision 2004 streetscape improvements that contribute to the corridor's pedestrian character. Basis for Recommendations 1. Visioning process participants expressed support for protecting Corona del Mar as an important historic village of the City. 2. Approximately two- thirds of the Public Workshop participants indicated moderate to strong support for the enhancement of Corona del Mar as a pedestrian- oriented commercial center that serves its adjoining neighborhoods. A significant majority (61 %) indicated moderate to strong opposition to the development of mixed -use buildings at key intersections and more (70 %) • opposed the clustering of commercial at intersections and redevelopment of intervening parcels for housing. 3. Redevelopment of residential properties abutting commercial uses for parking was supported by slightly more than half of the Workshop participants and opposed by about one - third. 4. Development of centralized parking facilities would provide opportunities for customers to park once and walk among the corridor's businesses, reducing vehicle trips and pollution. 5. Among the Guiding Principles that support the recommendations are: a. Facilitate the development and retention of a variety of business types that strengthen the vitality of the local economy. b. Enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods and business districts that together identify Newport Beach. c. Preserve the community's heritage. • GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 40 q1 JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT AREA Description The Airport Area covers approximately 360 acres and is bound by Campus Drive to the north, Bristol Street North /Corona del Mar Freeway to the south and Jamboree Road to the east. As the study area name implies, the area is adjacent to the John Wayne Airport. It is also in close proximity to the University of California, Irvine. This proximity has influenced the many uses in the area that support the airport and the university, such as research and development, high technology industrial and visitor- serving uses, such as hotel and car rental agencies. This area consists of 83.7 percent commercial uses with administrative, professional, and financial office uses accounting for 62.0 percent of the area's land uses. Multi- tenant commercial accounts for 7.5 percent of the area's land uses and provide support retail and services for office and industrial employment centers in the area. A number of industry headquarters are located in the Airport Business Area including Conexant and Jazz Industries, along with other major businesses located in Koll Center at MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. Industrial related uses account for 13.1 percent of the study area. Three large hotel developments account for 4.5 percent of the area's land uses. Also significant are a number of auto - related commercial uses located primarily in the northwest portion of the area. These auto - related uses include carwash, auto - detailing, rental, repair, and parts shops. The Airport Area is surrounded by John Wayne Airport in the County of Orange on the west, and the . City of Irvine on the north and east. Recent development activity in the City of Irvine's Business Complex has included the transfer of development rights, bringing more intense development closer to the Airport Business area, and resulting in the conversion of office to residential entitlement. This activity is changing the area to a mixed -use center. Recommendations Vision A.mized -use center that provides jobs, housing, and supporting services in close proximity, wlt pedes'inan- oriented amenities that facilitate walking and enhance livability. ..9.:r:1'111. .. US§eto Figure 1U .: ce;and.hotel uses on parcels not targeted for residential development (all sub areas).',._ • Retail services that support local housing (such as a grocery store), office tenants, industrial employees, and other uses (sub -area "A *) • Housing, mixed -use buildings that integrate housing with retail or office uses, and supporting retail uses (sub -area "C'). (Figure to be amended to include Campus Drive footprint lot development in area "C ".J GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 41 l� 0 LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS (A) Commercial and Office (B) Infill and Re -use of Campus Traci to Commercial, Hotel, and Avpod -Sup Businesses; Housing if this to not exc those resulting from Commercial or Office Uses. (C) Office. Hotel, Residential, Mixed -Use Supporting Retail (with Guidelines to and Development) CRY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN FIGURE 10 AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA Usling Land Uw Comme¢ial Auto ReWted COM..ICbl Flt .WGyms Spe ON Retail - Muhl- Tenant Comme,cid Kolesslond OMCeIBUSInesWMedraWet COmmunlry COmme, " tft gne in Reetauwnt. Fast Fq ReO.a ,.t Hotel mduN,ld Llgnt Indust,Wl td+^ Business Pad Indushlol tAVrT. qnt InM1W.1 Ins11NIb,wVapen Space PubXUSemI PUMk Urn. O1 Vacant lot BWrFBo .ry PROJECT NUMBER: 10579 Requested by. HLR Created by W" Date', 0711=5 ` EIP CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN FIGURE 10 AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA Auto-Relafea Commercial vo ;',� FIMBStK+Nns SpecldN Palo, - MW peen COmmerclal Pmlessbnal 0lACeRw"6WM001CO Wet -°� Community Commercial Dlnaln Restaurant, Fast FOOa Restaurant /W Ind.Adal `•• Light hdus of Bwt Bark Irwwuiol ® MucB.Tenmt lnautRal PROJECT NUMBER: IM79-01 Rewesl cl tY RkR CraareC b1': MV/PP ■' Office, industrial, 'a�i ,i't- related, and residential - supporting retail in the Campus tract (sub -area 'B igher.'_'.e elopment' intensity than exists.sfiould be allowed as an incentive for redevelopment (wthtr�`prescnbed airport height iestnctlons). Housing may be permitted provided that the.total trips generated on the property do not exceed the number of trips that would be genefated by other permitted . us'es: (Original and current staff /consultant recommendation )YI&to permit housing in this•area.) Development Cadacitv'; ■ .Retail: maximurrt',of AGO, 000;square feet of additional development (50% less than existing General Plan).;, ,;., n ■. Office: net reduction'of approximately 675,000 square feet from existing use (1 million square feet less than existing General Plan). ■ Industrial: maximum of 43,000 square of additional development (per existing General Plan). ■ Hotel: additional 125 rooms. (For feasibility, staff /consultants recommend a maximum of 600 additional units, consistent with existing General Plan) ■ Residential: maximum of 3,300 units as re-use and infill of properties currently developed for office, industrial, and retail uses. This limit may be increased for housing development in the Campus Tract provided that the vehicle trips generated for the subject property do not exceed those attributable to the permitted underlying non - residential use. Policv Discussions` n.- ,Establish'.develop nt'standaids. and design guidelines to assure that residential development creates a cohesdfstnd,thaY.is` compatible and integrated with adjoining office, retail, and industrial uses: - ;,(Atha minimum, the guidelines should address site planning, architectural character, landscape; site access/driveways. parking, streetscape/urban design elements, and inGusion of open space.and /ecreational amenifies. ■ To assure '.comp'ilagce„�wlth.State Noise Guidelines and the Airport Environs Land Use Plan, housing should lie'located,outside of areas exposed to a 65 dBA CNEL. Underperforming (,re II uses,.located ' on parcels at the intenor of large blocks should be redeveloped..for -.older. uses, with retail clustered` along major arterials (e.g., Bristol, Campus, Macarthu,r,.and'Jaroboiee), except where intended.to serve and be integrated with new, housing developmehLl; :., -; , . Incentives'shoube giVen'to: encourage lot consolidation and the re -use and improvement of properties located in the 'Campus tract,- west of Birch Street. Basis for Recommendations 1. Visioning process participants prefer revitalization of the Airport Area with income generating land uses over undirected growth. Generally, a range of development types were acceptable as long as traffic is not adversely affected. There was strong support for new hotels and broad consensus on mixed -use development with residential and revenue - generating uses. Survey respondents were comfortable with low -rise office buildings, and opposed to more car dealerships and industrial uses. There was split support for high -rise development and retail. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 43 2. A majority of Visioning process participants believe it is acceptable to have more traffic congestion in certain locations of the City, such as the Airport Area, than in other parts of the City. 3. Almost 80% of the Public Workshop participants expressed moderate to strong agreement that the Airport Area is urban in character, different than other City neighborhoods, and suitable for additional development. 4. Almost 80% of Workshop participants supported the development of housing in the Airport Area. Of those, about 60% favored a mix of low and mid -high rise buildings and the remainder supported high rise. 5. Almost all Workshop participants supported the revitalization of economically underperforming properties, such as the Campus tract, for office, industrial, and other uses. An equal number indicated that allowing somewhat higher densities was acceptable as an incentive for the area's revitalization. 6. Strong market demands and nearby development in the Irvine Business Complex make the Airport Area suitable for housing, provided that it is developed to achieve a cohesive district that is integrated with adjoining office/ retail /industrial uses, as well as incorporates amenities that support an urban residential neighborhood. 7. Development of housing with the office uses provides the opportunity for residents to live close to jobs, reducing vehicle trips in the sub - region, air pollution, energy consumption, and noise. Airport Area residents who commute to jobs outside the area will be traveling in the opposite direction of peak hour traffic. • 8. Areas generally west of Birch Street are within the 65 dbA CNEL for John Wayne Airport and unsuitable for housing development, based on State noise guidelines. While housing can be insulated, experience indicates that this would result in higher energy costs that contradict community conservation objectives, and outdoor spaces would be adversely impacted. 9. Increasing hotel and residential uses, while reducing office and industrial entitlement, will have a positive fiscal impact. 10. Clustering of retail uses along the major arterials will enhance their economic viability, provide shopping services for workers and residents in the Airport Area, and draw customers from Irvine's residential developments, increasing fiscal benefits for Newport Beach. 11. Among the Guiding Principles that support the recommendations are'. a. Encourage the revitalization of older commercial areas. b. Facilitate the development and retention of a variety of business types that strengthen the vitality of the local economy. c. Additional development entitlement needs to demonstrate significant fiscal, economic, or other community benefit. d. Offer a distinct land use concept and policy framework for the Airport Area. e. Encourage the redevelopment of under - performing commercial areas to allow residential or mixed -use development. f. Consider establishing a different level of service standard for the airport area, subject to evaluation of possible impacts on residential areas. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 44 ` J.k g. Consider urban scale development in areas where there is potential for development patterns that will minimize traffic. h. Establish land uses and density /intensity limits that will have less impact on peak hour traffic. 0 GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 45 TABLE 1 GPAC RECOMMENDATION DAILY TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON TO ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN AREA ADOPTED GPAC CHANGE % CHANGE AIRPORT 108,771 108,010 -761 -0.70 BALBOA VILLAGE 18,504 18,136 -368 -1.99 BANNING RANCH 22,335 9,059 - 13,276 -59.44 CANNERY VILLAGE TAZ1449 3,601 4,810 1,209 33.57 CANNERY VILLAGE TAZ1454 10,239 8,854 -1,385 -13.53 CORONA DEL MAR 48,807 48,807 0 0.00 LIDO ISLE 10,021 7,858 -2,163 -21.58 LIDO VILLAGE TAZ 1452 6,229 9,282 3,0531 49.01 LIDO VILLAGE TAZ 1453 B &C 4,743 5,314 571 12.04 LIDO VILLAGE TAZ 1453 OTHER 1,246 1,246 0 0.00 MARINERS MILE 49,783 48,981 -802 -1.61 MCFADDEN SQUARE TAZ 1450 3,955 3,955 0 0.00 MCFADDEN SQUARE TAZ 1451 4,221 5,219 998 23.64 NEWPORT CENTER /FASHION ISLAND 133,288 139,120 5,832 4.38 OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD 8,980 10,9231 1,943 21.64 WEST NEWPORT HIGHWAY AND ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL 8,241 9,1901 949 11.52 WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL 55,959 59,751 3,792 6.78 9USAREA ALTERNATIVES AL 498,923 498,515 408 0.08 DATABASE CLEANUP CHANGES 466 -9,6311 - 13,097 - 377.87 OTHER LAND USE CHANGES 0 17,384 -17,3841- - 17,384 N/A IREMAINDEK OF CITY 1 380,354 380,354 0 0.00 882,743 851,372 - 31,371 U: \U cJobs \_01200 \01232 \TGca Ic \Land UseAItsTGCompare \ForStaffReport050729 \[S ummary-G PAC- AIt050805.xls]ADT TABLE 3PAC RCC—OMMENDATION AM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON TO ADOPTED GENERAL PLAP AREA JADOPTED FG—P—A—C—FCHANGE I % CHANGE AIRPORT 9,692 9,775 831 0.861 BALBOA VILLAGE 1,513 1,499 -14 -0.93 BANNING RANCH 2,163 884 -1,279 -59.13 CANNERY VILLAGE(TAZ1449) 264 363 99 37.50 CANNERY VILLAGE(TAZ1454) 764 667 -97 -12.70 CORONA DEL MAR 4,075 4,074 -1 -0.02 LIDO ISLE 885 694 -191 -21.58 LIDO VILLAGE TAZ 1452 459 6701 211 45.971 LIDO VILLAGE TAZ 1453 B&C 331 3841 53 16.01 LIDO VILLAGE TAZ 1453 OTHER 124 1241 0 0.00 MARINERS MILE 4,122 4,0891 -33 -0.80 MCFADDEN SQUARE TAZ 1450 305 3051 0 0.00 MCFADDEN SQUARE TAZ 1451 313 4081 95 30.35 NEWPORT CENTER/FASHION ISLAND 10,679 11,180 501 4.69 OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD 808 974 166 20.54 WEST NEWPORT HIGHWAY AND ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL 743 822 79 10.63 WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL 5,620 5,924 304 5.41 TOTTu— 42,860 42,836 -24 -0.06 DATABASE CLEANUP CHANGES 1 6021 -6791 ,?!l OTHER LAND USE CHANGES 01 -1,6771 .1,6771 N/Al REMAINDER OF CITY 35,4251 35,4251 ol 0.001 CITY TOTAL 1 78,8871 75,9051 -2,982 - 3.78%, ,U:\UcJobs\ 01200\01232\TGcalc\LandUseAltsTGCompare\ForStaffReportO5O729\[ Summa ry-GPAC-AltO50805.xls]AMhour • 0 • P GENERATION COMPARISON TO ADOPTED GENERAL PLA ._.._... -- - - .._.........— ...... AREA I ADOPTED I GPAC CHANGE % CHANGE AIRPORT 10,168 10,071 -97 -0.95 BALBOA VILLAGE 1,708 1,672 -36 -2.11 BANNING RANCH 2,057 828 -1,229 -59.75 CANNERY VILLAGE(TAZ1449) 334 444 110 32.93 CANNERY VILLAGE(TAZ1454) 950 820 -130 -13.68 CORONA DEL MAR 4,500 4,500 0 0.00 LIDO ISLE 916 718 -198 -21.62 LIDO VILLAGE TAZ 1452 579 863 284 49.05 LIDO VILLAGE TAZ 1453 B &C 441 493 52 11.79 LIDO VILLAGE TAZ 1453 OTHER 117 1171 0 0.00 MARINERS MILE 4,594 4,516 -78 -1.70 MCFADDEN SQUARE TAZ 1450 366 366 0 0.00 MCFADDEN SQUARE TAZ 1451 391 484 93 23.79 NEWPORT CENTER /FASHION ISLAND 12,414 12,953 539 4.34 OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD 830 1,010 180 21.69 WEST NEWPORT HIGHWAY AND ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL 759 847 88 11.59 WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL 5,206 5,,556 350 6.72 TOTAL 46,330 46258 72 0.16 DATABASE CLEANUP CHANGES 1 329 -871 -1,200 - 364.74 OTHER LAND USE CHANGES 1 0 -1,595 -1,595 NIA REMAINDER OF CITY 1 34,9201 34,920 0 0.00 81,5791 78,712 -2,867 -3.51% U:\UCJobS\ 01200 \01232 \IGCaIC \Land Ln CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GPAC Land Use Recommendations Comparisons with Existing Use & GP, GPAC Preliminary Recommendations, & Staff Recommendations August 4, 2005 EIP A S% I' C! A 'I" 4 S • 9 • West Newport Highway V� Use Mixed Use Resitlential Cwnmer[ial Sub -Total Resitlenual Commercial HOWL/ Motel Canmerdal Resitlenua MFR SFR 1. Existing Land Use 0 0 292 462 35 350• 754 35 50 90 2. Exisun General Plan a. Buildout 0 0 293 462 50.030 755 50030 90 b. Growth from Exisun Use 0 0 1 0 14680' 1 14,680 0 3. Buildout a. GPACAItemtauves 1 (1) Stud Area Use a) West Entry- Block A Option 1 multi -lpmii res 0 0 74 0 01 74 0 0 Option 2 (spat needs housing) 0 0 91 0 01 91 0 0 _ Option 3 ark o en space) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Option 4 arking lot 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 b Block no thane est. exist dus 0 0 28 11 Ol 39 0 0 Q Prinnary Corridor-Block C Option 1 vertical mixed use 86,902 348 0 0 0' 348 86.902 0 Option 2 dus B hots 0 0 73 0 0 73 0 290 O tion3 coral allot con.1d 0 0 0 0 724191 0 71419 0 Option 4 limit rtl hs &hotel 0 0 73 0 16,105• 73 18,105 145 (2) Non -Mudy Area Use (W) 0 0 172 451 0• 623 0 1 0 b. Stall Recommendation 0 0 334 462 695221 796 69,522 145 c. Final GPAC Recommendation 0 0 334 462 59 5221 796 59522 145 4. Change from Existing USe a. GPAC Alternbtivas (1) West Entry-Black A 1 a) Option 1 (mufti -family rest 0 0 14 0 0 14 0 0 b) Option 2 (spec needs housing) 0 0 31 0 0• 31 0 0 _ _ c Option 3 ark open s ace 0 0 -60 0 0 -60 0 0 d Option 4 a(king lot 0 0 -60 0 0 .60 0 0 2 Block no thane est. exist dus 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 (3) Prinnary Cooidor -BbckC a Option 1 vortical mixed use 86902 3 48 -80 0 - 35,350 268 1 51.552 -90 b O Lion 2 dus & hots 0 0 .7 0 - 35,350 .7 -35550 1 200 c Option 3 wml allot con soltl 0 0 -66 0 37, - -66 37069 1 .90 d O Uon d lire t Al hs , & hotel 0 0 -7 0 -17,245 -7 -17.245 11 55 b. SlaHRammmendation 0 0 42 0 34,172 42 5.6 34,172 96.7 1 55 a Final GPAC Recommendation 0 0 42 0 24 172 1 42 5.6 24172 68.41 55 5. Deviation from Existing Ceneral Plan a, GPAC Alterntatives (1) West Entffy.Blbck A a 0 tion 1 mufti family res 0 0 14 0 0' 14 0 0 b Option 2 (5 pm needs housing) 0 0 31 0 0, 31 0 0 c Option 3 ark, open s ace 0 0 -60 0 01 -60 0 0 tl Option d arkin lot 0 0 -60 0 0 -60 0 0 2 Block no change, est exist dus 0 0 0 0 0• 0 0 0 (3) P(imary Corridor- SlockC 0 0 a Option 1 vert cal mixed USa 86,902 348 -80 0 -50030 268 36,872 90 b O tion2 (dus &hots 0 0 -7 0 - 50,030' -] - 50,030 200 c) Option 3(com1w /lot canseltl) 0 0 .66 0 22389. -66 22389 -90 tl Option 4 limitni hs &hotel 0 0 -7 0 - 319251 4 - 31,925 55 b, StzHRemmmendation 0 0 d1 0 19,492 d1 5.4 18,492 39.0 55 c .4921 41 5.4 9,492 19.0 55 V� ..................... As' O 1557 ' r > 1442 CRY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN 1558 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES WEST NEWPORT HIGHWAY CORRIDOR AND RESIDENTIAL 59 F- 0 I 12d 2W PRGJEOK%WANR: 1057901 ft.qu br. M Corded tY. WIPP Ode: ON6104 Banning Ranch Use -Park Residential Commercial Office Industrial Hotel School SFR MFR _ Total C3 C3 C3 o to a N o N zq V 1. Existing Land Use 0 14 14 0 0 01 01 0 0 2. Existing General Plan a. Buildout 225 2,510 2,735 50,000 235,600 164,400 0 0 b. Growth from Existing 225 2,496 2,721 NA 50,000 NA 235,600 NA 164,400 NA NA 00 3. Buildout a. GPAC Alternatives P26-2 1 Option 1 -O en Space 0 14 14 0 0 0 0 20 (2) Option 2- Taylor Woodrow 875 890 1,765 75,000 0 0 10 77 _ (3) Option 3- Taylor Woodrow Reduced 436 453 889 35,000 0 _ __0 _ 10 4 O tion 4 -Resort 0 94 94 25,000 0 _ _ 0 10 b. Staff Recommendation 1,765 75,000 0 _ 0 75 c. Final GPAC Recommendation 436 453 889 _ 35,000 0 0 75 10 40 4. Growth from Existing Use a. GPAC Alternatives ' _ (1) Option 1- -Open Space 0 0 0 NAI 0 NA 0 NA 0 NA 0 NA 0 20 2 Option 2-Taylor Woodrow 875 876 1,751 NA 75,000 NA 0 NA 0 NA' 75 NA 10 77 3 Option 3 -Ta Ior Woodrow Reduced 436 439 875 NA 35,000 NA 0 NA 0 NA 75 NA 10 40 4 Option 4 -Resort 0 80 80 NA 25M75,000 000 NA 0 NA 0 NA 262 NA 0 10 b. Staff Recommendation 1,751 NA NA 0 NA 0 NA 75 NA 10 77 c. Final GPAC Recommendation 436 439 875 NA NA 0 NA 0 NA 75 NA 10 40 5. Deviations form Existin General Plan a. GPAC Alternatives (1) Option 1 -Open Space -225 -2,496 -2,721 -99.5 100.0 - 235,600 -100 - 164,400 -100 0 NA 0 20 (2) Option 2- Taylor Woodrow 650 -1,634 -970 -35.5 50.0 - 235,600 -100 - 164,400 100 75 NA 10 77 3 O tion 3 -Ta Ior Woodrow Reduced 211 -2,071 -1,860 -68.0 -30.0 - 235,600 -100 - 164,400 -100 75 NA 10 40 4 O tion 4 -Resort -225 -2,416 -2,641 -96.6 -50.0 - 235,600 -100 - 164,400 -100 262 NA 0 10 b. Staff Recommendation -970 -35.5 50.0 •235,600 -100.0 - 164,400 -100.0 75 NA 10 77 c. Final GPAC Recommendation 211 -2,071 -1,860 -68.0 - 15,000 -30.0 - 235,600 •100 - 164,400 -100 75 NA 10 40 1324 1327 328 1 i 1329 i 904 r 1330 911 914 — _ 918 r \' 1558 1560 14 \ 1557 1438' 1439 NEWPORT sH�RES 1433 14.41 1442 i 1559 SANTA ANA- =J RIVER JETTY 1436 p� Oe 1434 e N. 1443 wIRY� Y 0 3 . !, 1435 z CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES BANNING RANCH SUBAREA OPTION 1 Tramc AnoN4s Zona .� Opibn Bauntlary `_mn I:fp rvra'e �ry N�� nexn. Crtfrm N.r µ:Wl Gry l +mmry GIS PROJECT NUMBER: 1090 -0I P} .p .db HLR CfB IW bV M'IPP Ocle: QA/2610d EI. 0 0 0 West Newport Industrial Residential MFR SFR Num Conv. Sub -Total Home I I O I O O m D Use Commercial Office Hospital Industrial School In5it,0ay Care General Medical Sub -Total W U) e Il. I Il. I Ily. 6 D IL O li 1. Existing Land Use 2472 108 593. 2.580 72,170 150,630 302,900. 453,530 351 678,530 622 7,700 2. Existing General Plan a. General Plan Buildout It. General Plan Growth from Existing Use 2,649 177 98 -10 593 2,747 0• 167 6.5 72.170 0 0.0 431,130 280,500 410,5501 841,680 107,650• 388,150 85.6 1,265 914 22 92 75.6 622 0 7,700 0 3. Buildout a. GPAC Attematives 1 Option 1 -no change 2,649 98 593' 2.747 72,170 373.730 410,550• 784,280 1,265 22 E 622 7,700 (2) Option 2 0 1 0 Planning Area -- infill med office and residential, w /reduced industrial Remainder of TAZ 907 1,912 0 98 169 907 424. 2,010 70,110 50,910 67,160 239,510 961,401 1,028,561 61,630. 301.140 0 1,265 02 80 0 622 0 7,700 Total TAZ 2,819 98 593 2,917 121,020 306.670 1,023,031 1,329.701 1,265 888,882 622 7,700 (3) Option 3-- expanded residential, w/exist GP office and reduced industrial 3,172 98 534! 3,270 72,170 502,030 348,920 850,950 _ 1,265 _ 499,457 _ 622 7,700 b. Staff Recommendations 2,982 98 593 3,080 54,410 1,206,938 1,265 525,000 __ _ 622 __ _ 7,700 c. Final GPAC Recommendation 2,982 98 593 3,080 54,410 1,206,938 1,265 525,000 622 7,700 4. Growth from Existing Use a. GPAC Alternatives 1 Option 1 177 .10 01 167 6.5 0 0.0 223,100 107,6501 330,750 72.9 914 260.4 513,192 75.6 0 0 (2) Option 2 (total TAZ) - infill med office and residential, w /reduced industrial 347 -10 0! 337 13.1 48,850 67.7 156,040 720,131: 876,171 193.2 914 260.4 210,352 31.0 0 0 3 Option 3 700 -10 -59 690 26.7 0 0.0 351,400 46,020 397,420 87.6 914 260.4 - 179,073 -26.4 0 0 b. Staff Recommendation 510 -10 Oi 500 19.4 . 17,760 -24.6 753,408 166.1 914 260.4 - 153,530 -22.6 0 0 c. Final GPAC Recommendation -10 0 500 19.4 - 17,760 -24.6 753,408 166.1 914 260.4 - 153,530 -22.6 0 0 5, Deviations from Existing General Plan a. GPAC Alternatives l 0 tion 1 0 0 0' 0 0.0 - 57,400 0' . 57,400 -6.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 (2) Option 2 (total TAZ). -infill med office and residential, w /reduced industrial 170 0 -0-0.0 01 170 6.2 48,850 67.7 - 124,460 612,4811 488,021 58.0 0 0.0 - 302,840 -25.4 0 0 (3) Option 3- expanded residential, w /exist GP office and reduced industrial 523 0 -59. 523 19.0 0 0.0 70,900 - 61,630 9,270 1.1 0 0.0 - 692,265 -58.1 0 0 b. Staff Recommendations 333 0 0 333 12.1 - 17,760 -24.6 365,258 43.4 0 0.0 - 666,722 -55.9 0 0 c. Final GPAC Recommendation 0 0 333 12.1 - 17,760 -24.6 365,258 43.4 0 0.0 - 666,722 -55.9 0 0 V -\ CA CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN 923 921 TRAFFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES 911 914 918 WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL OPTION 2 __ .. .- _.__._..I �' .... .. . M IIolik Nwlyab Zore 1560 ; 922 fl orn ooew�am9 i I f -�- -- 918 1437 946 1438 t, / I 9 1433 M 1 559 w' r _- .. h LI �' \ / ���x %; �.�.; /'\.>a' iii r y 1�` �: ✓ ",\ \\ -\ \ -\ Y -"�\•\ v%� ,1\ /\ ..i � �.....,. 7 ' � t � `fir 44 2 1434 j PROJECT NUhWER: 10.51Mi �..\ .i/ �i ^`,/ Jl" /\ .I I \,,. � \f 1i; '✓ �\ Rew�WIPP � fM Crwlea W. • • Old Newport Boulevard 6- c Use Mixed Use Residential Commercial' Sub -Total Office Industrial Hotel Commercial Residealial MFR SFO SFA Sq Ft Residential Commercial General Medical Sub -Total v ` A I LL LL LL. I IL IL N p 1. Existing Land Use 0 0 6 280 104 48,700, 392 48,700 90,340 7,400, 97,740 300 23 2. Existing General Plan 1 0 a. Buildout 0 0 8 205 379 66,380 592 66,380 135,730 11',290,147,020 0 53 b. Growth from Existing Use 0 0 0 -75 275 17,680• 200 51.0 17,680_36.3r 45,390 3,890• 49,280 50.4 -300 30 3. Buildout a. G PAC Alternatives (1) Option 1 a) West side - medical office & ret 0 0 0 0 0 25,385• 0 25,385 0 169,231 • 169,231 0 53 b) East side -mixed use, vertical 144,401 289 0 0 0 0 289 144,401 0 0 0 0 0 c) Outside Study Area 0 0 8 200 379 01 587 0 0 01 0 0 0 d) Total TAZ 144,401 289 8 200 379 25,385' 876 169,786 0 169,231 169,231 0 53 (2) Option 2 a) West side -mix use, vertical 120,879 242 0 0 0 0, 242 120,879 0 0• 0 0 53 b) East side - residential 0 0 0 0 80 01 80 0 0 01 0 0 0 c) Outside Study Area 0 0 8 200 379 0' 587 0 0 0' 0 0 0 d) Totaf TAZ 120,879 242 8 200 459 U. 908 120,879 0 06 0 0 53 (3) Option 3 a) West side -mix use, vertical 120,879 242 0 0 0 01 242 120,879 1 0 0 0 2 53 b) East side - affordable housing 0 0 166 0 0 0' 166 0 0 0' 0 0 0 c) Outside Study Area 0 0 8 200 379 0. 587 0 0 0. 0 0 0 d) Total TAZ 120,879 242 174 200 379 0 995 120,879 0 Ol 0 0 53 b. Staff Recommendations 25,3081 145 8 205 379 43,062 737 68,370 36,154 131,156 167,310 0 53 c. Final GPAC Recommendation 25,308 145 8 205 379 43062' 737 68,370 36,154 131,156' 167,310 0 531 4. Growth from Existing Use a. GPAC Alternatives Ti) Option 1 144,401 289 0 -80 275 - 23,315 484 123.4 121,086 248.6 - 90,340 161,831 71,491 73.1 -300 30 (2) Option 120,679 242 6 -80 355 - 48,700• 524 133.8 72,179 148.2 - 90,340 - 7,400• -97,740 -100.0 -300 -231 {3) Option 3 120,879 242 166 -80 275 - 48,700, 603 153.7 72,179 148.2 - 90,340 - 7,400, - 97,740 -100.0 -300 _ -23 b. Staff Recommendations 25,308 145 0 -75 275 - 5,6381 345 88.0 19,670 40.4 - 54,186 _123,7561 _69,570 71.2 _ -300 _ 30 c. Final GPAC Recommendation 25,308 145 0 -75 275 -5,638 345 88.0 19,670 40.4 - 54,186 123,756 69,570 71.2 _ 30030 5. Deviations from Existing General Plan a. G PAC Alternatives _ - -0 _ - -0 Ti) Option 1 144,401 289 0 -5 0 - 40,995_, 284 47.9 103,406 155.8 - 135,730 157,941, 22,211 15.1 (2) Option 2 120,879 242 0 -5 60 - 66,380 316 53.4 54,499 82.1 - 135,730 - 11,290 - 147,020 -100.0 0 0 (3) Option 120,879 242 166 -5 0 - 66,380' 403 68.0 54,499 82.1 - 135,730 - 11,290• - 147,020 .100.0 0 0 b. Staff Recommendations 25,308 145 0 0 0 - 23,318• 145 24.5 1,990 3.0 - 99,576 119,866• 20,290 13.8 0 0 c. Fin21GPACRecommendafion 25,308 145 0 0 0 -23,3181 145 24.51 1,9901 3.0 -99,5761 119,8661 20,290L 13.8 0 0 6- c CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES OLD NEWPORT BLVD 0 0 is • a BALBOA PENINSULA 3. BW a- Lido Village (2) Bb kC(esp 0 0 0 0 1094• 0 1,094 0 0 0 0 (3)TMIBI k BBC 0 0 0 0 6,412, 6412 fit 0 10086 85.4 0 0 100 1 — �1—I�� GPAC Memmbws I 0 0 • CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES LIDO VILLAGE b r.d fwu: CMd Wm�Ma`AGxW 1N A4]�.CH V/vM.1bl 3 W 1 ravV. Gt1[Ow TV J. Noi IXAW w tD]: ma v mar rw n..er. wd.�s.. mox W10.IEC NUMBER: 10599 -01 Reque by. MR CmIeO by. W/PP s I1-1 6 Cannery Village M Nod Use Residential Commercial• Sub -Total 1 I Residential Commercial Once Industrial Commercia I Recreation Youth Center Commercial Residential SFR SFq I N z r7 o o 1 1 LL $ 1 Dus % S . Ft. % LL $ % LL � lV TAZ 1449 /CANNERY VILLAGE WEST 1. Exlstin Land Use 0 0 9 78 71,440 87 71,440 20,020 0 0 0 2 Existing General Plan 0 0 0 a. Buildoul 0 0 0 95 74,900, 95 74,900 20,020 0 0 0 b. Growth above Existing Use -9 17 3,4601 8 9.2 3,460 4.81 0 0.0 0 NA 0 0 3. Buildoul a. GPAC AMematives 1 Block6- mixeduse 96,050 192 0 0 0! 96,050 0 0 0 0 2 Other TAZ 0 0 0 95 01 95 0 0 0 0 0 TolaITAZ 96,050 192 0 95 0' 287 96,050 0 0 0 0 b. Final GPAC B Staff Recommendation 96,0501 192 0 95 0• 287 96,050 0 0 0 0 4. Growh above Existing Use a. GPAC Afternalives 96,050 192 -9 17 .71,4401 200 230.0 24,610 34.4 - 20,020 -100.0 0 NA 0 0 -- b. Final GPAC & Staff Recommendation 96,050 192 -9 17 - 71,440' 200 229.9 24,610 34.4 - 20,020 -100.01 0 NAI 0 0 5. Deviation from Existing General Plan a. GPACAIIemalives 96,050 192 0 0 - 74,900 192 202.2 21,150 28.2 - 20,020 -100.0 0 NA 0 0 IT Final GPAC&Staff Recommendation 96,050 192 0 0 - 74,900 192 202.1 21,150 28.2 - 20,020 -100.0 0 NA 0 0 AZ 1464lCANNERY VILLAGE EAST 1. Existing Land Use 0 0 41 19 196,270• 60 196,270 91,320 47,850 1 4,650 2. Existing General Plan a. Buildoul 0 0 41 172 201,780 213 201,780 101,500 0 1 4,650 b. Growth above Existing Use 0 0 0 153 5,510' 153 255.0 5,510 2.8 10,180 11.1 - 47,850 -100.0 0 0 3. Buildoul a. GPAC Alternatives ' (1) Option 1 a Block A -mixed use 206,910 414 0 0 0• 414 206,910 0 0 1 4,650 b Other TAZ 0 0 0 0 53,270, 0 53,270 0 0 0 0 c Toal TAZ 206,910 414 0 0 53,2701 414 260,180 1 0 0 1 4,650 (2) Option 2 a Block A- residential 0 0 0 152 0• 152 0 0 0 1 4,650 b Other TAZ 0 0 0 0 53,270 0 53,270 0 0 0 0 c Total TAZ 0 0 0 152 53,2701 152 53,270 0 0 1 4,650 b. Final GPAC & Staff Recommendation 56,0001 129 0 228 114,020' 357 170,020 45,000 0 1 4,650 4. Growth above Existing Use a. GPACAIIemalives 1 Option 1 206,910 414 -41 -19 -143,0001 354 589.7 63,910 32.6 - 91,320 -100.0 - 47,850 -100.0 0 0 2 Option 2 0 0 -41 133 - 143,000' 92 153.3 - 143,000 -72.9 - 91,320 -100.0 - 47,850 -100.0 0 0 b. Final GPAC 8 Staff Recomrnendalion 56,000 129 -41 209 - 82,250. 297 - 26,250 - 46,320 - 47,850 0 0 5. Deviation from Existing General Plan a. GPACAIIemalives 1 Option 1 206,910 414 41 -172 - 148,510• 201 94.3 58,400 28.9 - 101,500 -100.0 0 NA 0 0 (2) Option 2 0 0 41 -20 - 148,510, -61 -28.6 - 148,510 -73.6 - 101,500 -100.0 0 NA 0 0 E Final GPAC & Staff Recommendation 56,000 129 -41 56 - 87,760 144 56,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN 1453 WA MA4ACA T RAFFIC ANALYSIS CANNERYVILLAGE ZONES 'X > ET JET ET 1454 1449.' 449. 21T T 29TH STREET V �x 1455 1v "TH MOACTNUMR: 10579-01 VI RequeStEdby: HM codewby: w1pp 0812sma zV, TP (5- (S7' McFadden Square Use Mixed Use Residential Office Sub Residential -Total Commercial Industrial HoteltMotel Youth Center Office Residential SFR SFA MFR Office LL N N ❑ N ❑ N ❑ N O LL I N h O � � y LL V y lL rl y O O tt LL V y MCFADDEN SQUARE -EAST 1. Existin Land Use 0 0 2 55 3 35750 60 35750 66,640 11,100 16 0 2. Existin General Plan a. Buildout 0 0 0 159 3 35,750 162 35,750 67,590 0 16 0 b. Growth from Existing Use 0 0 -2 104 0 0 102 170.0 0 0.0 950 1.4 -11 100 -100.0 0 0.0 0 3. Buildout a. GPAC Alternatives 1 Block Aoverla lodging 0 0 0 159 3 01 162 0 45,085 0 90 0 (2) Block B -mix use integrating residential with office uses 114,650 131 0 0 0 131 114,650 0 0 0 0 3 Outside stud area 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 36,705 0 0 0 4 Total TAZ 114,650 131 0 159 3 0 293 114,650 81,790 0 90 0 b. Final GPAC & Staff Recommendaf 0 0 0 159 3 35,750• 162 35,750 67 590 0 161 0 4. Growth from Existing Use a. GPAC Alternatives 114,650 131 -2 104 0 -35,7501 233 388.4 78,900 2207 15 150 22.7 - 11,100 -100.0 74 463.6 _ 0 b. Final GPAC 8 Staff Recommendaf 0 0 -2 104 0 0• 102 0 950 - 11,100 01 0 5. Deviation form Existing General Plan a. GPAC Alternatives 114,650 131 0 0 0 - 35,7501 131 80.9 78,900 220.7 14,200 21.0 0 NA 74 463.6 _ 0 b. Final GPAC 8 Staff Recommendatio 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MCFADDEN SQUARE -WEST 1. Existing Land Use 01 0 22 106 5 3,5501 133 3,550 74,270 0 25 6,000 2. Existing General Plan I 1 0 a. Buildout 01 0 22 110 5 8,000' 137 8,000 82,750 A 25 0 b. Growth from Existing Use 0 0 0 4 0 4 450, 4 3.0 4,450 125.4 8 480 11.4 0 0 0.0 -6.0001 3. Buildout I a. G PAC Alternatives 0 0 22 110 5 137 0 93,218 0 186 6,000 b. Final GPAC 8 Staff Recommendatio 45,084 90 22 110 5 -0:- 0, 227 0 82 750 0 25 6,000 4. Growth from Existing Use a. GPAC Alternatives 0 0 0 4 0 -3,550 4 3.0 -3,550 -100.0 18,948 25.5 0 161 645.7 0 b. Final GPAC & Staff Recommendatio 45,084 90 0 4 0 -31550- 94 70.7 -3 550 -100.0 8,480 11.4 0 0 0.0 0 5. Deviation form Existing General Plan a. GPAC Alternatives 0 0 0 0 0 - 8,0001 0 0.0 -8,000 -100.0 10,468 12.7 0 161 645.7 6,000 b. Final GPAC &Staff Recommendatio 45,084 90 0 0 0 - 8,000• 90 65.7 -8,000 -100.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 6,000 0 0 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES MCFADDEN SQUARE 99M 9: CM9lNp.Nrlf�xAfintllN AH'N11.CM 1cv W n. A4rt ]�. locYl IXML�! iJ71.9ttY 4 W �e M). W [i MCbM1�f4p9�Mry.M9MtM.im1. PROJECT NUMBER: 10519 -01 1e lte by: NUR CR Wb( MMRP �; :EIS'.;. Balboa Village Use Mixed Use Residential Commercial I Sub -Total ON ca Holel Marina Comm' Recmatio Q Public, Rehgiovs Commercial Residential SFR SFA MFR Theater General I Residential Commercial N Ii O N N D N N oe �n 1. Existing Land Use 0 0 577 614 1781 440 203.360' 1,369 203,360 22,920 341 14 4 13,470 2. Existing General Plan 0 a. General Plan Buildwil 0 0 375 815 242 350 217,340, 1,432 217,340 89,260 34 14 4 13,470 b. General Plan GruMh from Existing 0 0 -202 201 64 .90 13,980 63 4.6 13,980 6.9 66,340 289.4 0 0.0 0 0 0 3. BUlldout 0 a. GPAC Alternatives 0 (1) Option 1-- single block commercial to residential 0 0 381 875 242 350 I 214,3401 1,438 214.340 69,260 34 14 4 13,470 (2) Option 2-- single block commercial to residential 0 0 378 815 242 350 214,3401 1,435 214.340 89,260 34 14 4 13,470 3 Option 3 - -water related commercial 0 0 375 815 242 350 217,3401 1,432 217,340 60,000 34 14 4 13,470 4 Option 4- commercial to mixed Use 281,986 440 360 575 242 350 2,400' 1,857 284,386 0 0 14 4 13,470 (5) Option 5- commercial to mixed use and lodging 205,150 308 360 8151 242 350 2,4001 1.725 207,550 0 330 14 4 13.470 b. Staff Recommendation 89,061 155 360 828 2421 350 114,5531 1,588 203,624 0 75 14 4 13,470 C. Final GPAC Recommendation 89,061 158 360 828 2421 350 114,563' 1,588 203,624 0 125 14 4 13,470 4. Growth from Existing Use a. GPAC Alternatives (1) Option 1 -- single block commercial to residential 0 0 -196 201 64 -90 10,980' 69 5.1 10,980 5.4 66,340 289.4 0 0.0 0 0 0 (2) Option 2-- single block commercial to residential 0 0 -799 201 64 -90 10,9801 66 4.6 10,980 5.4 66,340 289.4 0 0.0 0 0 0 3 Option 3- -water related commercial 0 0 -202 201 64 -90 13,9801 63 4.6 13,980 6.9 37,080 161.8 0 0.0 0 0 0 4 Option 4- commercial to mixed use 287,986 440 -217 201 64 -90 - 200,960. 488 356 81,026 39.8 - 22,920 .100.0 -34 -100.0 0 0 0 (5) Option 5-- commercial to mixed use and lodging 205,750 308 -217 201 64 -90 - 200,9601 356 26.0 4,190 2.1 . 22,920 -100.0 296 869.7 0 0 0 b. Staff Recommendation 89.061 155 .217 214 64 -90 - 88,797 219 16.0 264 0.1 - 22,920 -100.0 41 120.6 0 0 0 C, at GPAC Recommendation 09.067 158 -2171 2141 64 -90 - 68,797• 219 16.0 264 1 0.1 - 22,920 -100,01 911 267.6 0 0 0 5. Deviation from Existing GP a. GPAC Alternatives Ti) Option 1 -- single block commercial to residential 0 0 6 0 0 0 i - 3,000. 6 04 -3,000 -1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 _ 0 __ 0 (2) Option 2-- single block commercial to residential 0 0 3 0 0 0 - 3,000 3 0.2 -3,000 -1.4 0 0.0 0 00 0 0 0 (3) Option 3- -water related commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0.0 0 0.0 - 29,260 -32.8 0 0.0 0 0 0 4 Option 4- commercial to mixed use 287,986 440 -75 0 0 0 - 214,940. 425 29.7 67,046 30.8 - 89,260 -100.0 -34 .100.0 0 0 0 (5) Option 5-commercial to mixed use and lodging 205,750 308 -15 0 0 0 - 214,940 293 20.4 -9,790 -45 - &9,260 .100.0 296 869.7 0 0 0 b. Staff Recommendation 89,067 155 -75 73 0 0 - 102,777' 156 10.9 - 13,716 -6.3 - 89,260 -100.0 41 120.6 0 0 0 C. Final GPAC Recommendation 69,0511 155 -75 13 0 0 -102,777: 156 10.9 -13.71 -6.3, -89 260 .100.0 91 267.6 0 0 0 OPTION 5 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Reuse and Encourage Mixed Use Developments yr ih Residential and Visitor Serving Accommodations TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES BALBOA VILLAGE :45 ..y8� OPTION i : 1454 _ / Ii, V_�•: R/d1.Y.yN,sR4wg11a, M']OJ >M Hrn Cre dw: Wl" Dare: W2z 4 EIP w, Mariners Mile Use Mixed Use Residential Nurse HOME Q m Commercial Sub -Total Residential CLL o mmercial Office Hotel School Public/ lnstit MFR R O I q N ° LL N ee p K G ? 65 LL tX 1. Existing Land Use 0 0 1881 820 68 633.950 1,008 633.950 266,270 177 2,184 99,410 2. Existmq General Plan a. Buildout 0 0 168 837 68 779.800• 1,025 779,800 466,190 204 2,184 105,260 b. Growth from Existing Use 0 0 0 17 0 145.8501 17 1.7 145,850 23.0 199,920 75.1 27 15.3 0 5,850 3. Buildout a. GPAC Alternatives (1) Option 1-commerical infill, w /mixed use and residential a Planning Area 174,654 603 122 0 0 758,9214 725 933,575 363,557 204 0 0 b) Remainder of TAZ 0 0 152 837 68 0 989 0 0 0 2,184 95,360 c Total TAZ 174,654 603 274 837 68 758,9211 1,714 933,575 363.557 204 2,184 95,36_0 (2) Option 2 (same as Oplipn 1, with 40% commercial -marine relate • .._.. -.- a Planning Area 174,654 603 122 0 0 758,921 725 933,575 363,557 204 0 _ _ 0 b Remainder of TAZ 0 0 152 837 68 0 989 0 0 0 2,184 95,360 c Total TAZ 174,654 603 274 837 68 758,921 1,714 933,575 363.557 204 2,184 95,360 b. Flna1GPAC& Staff Recommendation 80,194 245 284 837 68 659,752 1,366 739,946 342,981 204 2,184 105,260 4. Growth from Existing Use a. GPACANematives a. Option 1-commerical infill, w /mixed use and residential 174,654 603 86 17 0 124,9711 706 70.1 299,625 47.3 97,287 36.5 27 15.3 0 -4,050 b. Option 2 (same as Option 1, with 40% commercial - marine related) 174,654 603 86 171 0 I 124,971, 706 70.1 299,625 47.31 97,287 36.5 271 15.3 0 -4,050 b. Final GPAC &Staff Recommendation 80,194 245 96 17 0 25,802, 358 35.5 105,996 16.71 76,711 28.8 27 15.3 0 5,850 5. Deviation from Existing General Plan a. GPACAtternatives a. Option 1- commerical infill,wlmixed use and residential 174,654 603 86 0 0 - 20,8791 689 67.3 153,775 19.7 - 102,634 -22.0 0 0.0 0 -9,900 b. Option 2 (same as Option 1, with 40% commercial - marine relate 174,654 603 86 0 0 1 - 20,879' 689 67.3 153,775 19.7 - 102,634 -22.0 0 0.0 0 -9,900 b. Final GPAC &Staff Recommendation 80,194 245 96 0 0 - 120,048, 341 33.3 - 39,854 -5.1 - 123,209 -26.4 0 0.0 0 0 Fw—M "T C, �c� 143 /x 1424 142'7 IV CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES MARINER'S MILE OPTION 1 1,.ft N+oryW Zane O opm. 9 V , tir MWECIMMER: ftq.V br. HIR Cre Wby: WPP Newport Center /Fashion Island ' Use Residential Commercial Office Hotel Tennis Club Golf Cours Civic Puhlic SFA MFR Sub -Total Retail Theater Medical General Sub -Total J I LL p r O V LL R 1. Existing Land Use 419 245 664 1,556,320 3,774 351,950 3,240,130 3,592,080 851 22 99 100,000 2. Existing General Plan a. Buildout 419 245 664 1,856,320 3,850 351,950 3,283,720, 3,635,670 1,036 22 99 105,000 b. Growth from Existing Use 0 0 0 0.0 380 500 24.4 76 0 43,5901 43,590 1.2 185 21.71 0 0 5,0001 3. Buildout a. GPAC Alternatives (1) Option l-- retail and office expansion, w /residential 419 1,321 1,740 2,060,248 3,850 530,002 3,570,802, 4,100,804 I 1,513 22 99 105,00 (2) Option 2-- reduced retail, expanded office, w /limited residential 419 395 814 1,776,980 3,850 351,950 4,167,652 4,519,602 1 1,036 22 99 105,00 (3) Option 3 -- existing GP, w /expanded residentia 419 11471 1,890 1,936,820 3,850 351,950 3,283,7201 3,635,670 1,036 22 99 105,00 b. Staff Recommendation 1,114 1,981,320 3,850 3,636,080 1,0361 22 99 105,00 c. Final GPAC Recommendation 1,264 1,981,320 3,850 3,636080 1,101 22 991 105,00 4. Growth above Existing Use a. GPAC Altematives (1) Option l-- retail and office expansion, w /residential 0 1,076 1,076 162.0 503,928 32.4 76 178,052 330,672, 508,724 I 14.2 662 77.8 0 0 5,00 (2) Option 2 -- reduced retail, expanded office, w /limited residential 0 150 150 22.6 220,660 14.2 76 0 927,5221 927,522 25.8 185 21.7 0 0 _ 5,00 ___ _ (3) Option 3-- existing GP,w /expanded residential 0 1,226 1,226 184.6 380,500 24.4 76 0 43,590; 43,590 I 1.2 185 21.7 0 0 5,00 __ b. Staff Recommendation 450 67.8 425,000 27.3 76 44 000 1.2 185 21.7 0 0 5 000 c. Final GPAC Recommendation 600 425,000 27.3 76 _ _� 44 000 1.2 250' 29.4 0 0 5 000 5. Deviations from Existing General Plan a. GPAC Alternatives (1) Option 1 -- retail and office expansion, w /residential 0 1,076 1,076 r22.6 123,428 6.6 0 178,052 287,082 465,134 12.8 477 46.0 0 0 5,00 (2) Option 2 -- reduced retail, expanded office, w /limited residential 0 150 150 - 159,840 -8.6 0 0 883,932 883,932 24.3 0 0.0 0 0 (3) Option 3 -- existing GP, w /expanded residential 0 1,226 1,226 0 0.0 0 0 0i 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 b. Staff Recommendation 450 67.8 125,000 6.7 0 410 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 c. Final GPAC Recommendation 600 90.4 125,000 6.7 0 410 0.0 65 6.3 0 0 0 • 9 0 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES NEWPORT CENTER/ FASHION ISLAND Em T,.MC Marti +zone Q Option Boundary PR AMNUMBM 10519 -01 Rega� ay: M Creofea M: Wff iF rvn. EIP �.i L. Corona Del Mar Use Mixed Use Residential CommerciaC_ Total ! Residential I Commercial Office Public Parks Instit LL Q V! ommerci Residentia MFR SFR v Q y ty LL y J O y J D y J O LL I y Q J ty O o LL. Q ty � LL Q V! o LL Q V! y v U 1. Existing Land Use 0 0 70 2,882 406,842 2,952 406,842 84,921 4,300 6 12,34 2. Existing General Plan a. Buildout 0 0 54 3,213 538,6301 3,267 538,630 148,060 4,300 6 12,34 b. Growth above Existing Use 0 0 331 131,788' 331 11.2 131,768 32.4 63,139 74.4 0 0 0 3. Buildout a. GPAC Alternatives (1) Option 1 -mixed use nodes a Study Area Use 90,256 181 0 24 428,839P 205 519,096 124,721 4,300 6 12,34 b) Use Outside Study Area, in TAZ 0 0 54 3,189 0P 3,243 0 0 0 0 0 c) Total TAZ 90,256 181 54 3,213 428,83 3,448 519,0961 124,721 4,300 6 12,34 (2) Option 2-- commercial nodes w /residential reuse of selected corridor blocks 1 a Study Area Use 90,256 181 99 24 335,412 304 425,6681 4,879 0 0 0 b Use Outside Study Area, in TAZ 0 0 54 3,189 0 3,243 0 0 4,300 6 12,340 c Total TAZ 90,256 181 153 3,213 335,4121 3,547 425,668 4,879 4,300 6 1234 b. Final GPAC 8 Staff Recommendation 0 0 54 3,213 538,630' 3,267 538,630 148,060 4,300 61 12,34 4. Growth from Existing Use a. GPAC Alternatives 1 Option 1- -mixed use nodes 90,256 181 -16 331 21,997j 496 16.8 112,254 27.6 39,800 46.9 0 0 0 (2) Option 2-- commercial nodes w /residential reuse of selected corridor blocks 90,256 181 83 331 - 71,430 595 20.2 18,826 4.6 - 80,042 -94.3 0 0 0 b. Final GPAC 8 Staff Recommendation 0 0 -16 331 131,788 315 10.7 131,788 32.4 63,139 74.41 0 0 5. Deviation from Existing General Plan I a. GPAC Alternatives (1) Option 1- -mixed use nodes 90,256 181 0 0 - 109,791! 181 5.5 - 19,534 -3.6 - 23,339 -15.8 0 0 0 (2) Option 2- commercial nodes w /residential reuse of selected corridor blocks 90,256 1811 99 0 - 203,2181 280 8.6 - 112,962 -21.0 - 143,181 -96.7 10-0 0 b. Final GPAC 8 Staff Recommendation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 J CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES CORONA DEL MAR C3 T,lft AnaWs Zone F=l Oalon —d-y I row.wmn«.nn.ufwa.. m�e.uwvr.e. I a zm sw Fwl %w'. lb tl I1wFU� Fal. awN M1n K 3N]. PN M+O�I. MT' ]fd. gcra IXI,Yi ]re) Pm1 IXYfrml. vtl BlvyMfitevNrv. MHy. All. PROJECt DldhiBER. 1O5i9 -01 Requesletl tN MR Created tN MVIPP Airport Area Use Mixed Use Residential Commeccla Sub -Total Otfice Industrial Hotel Commercial Residential MFR I Residential Commercial M N � li ❑ ❑ I _ LL I to O iR _ LL m o lL rn o IL rn 22 e: 1. Existing Land Use 0 0 0 665,019• 0 665,019 5,427,3331 508,759 974 2. Existing General Plan a. Buildout 0 0 0 871500 0 871,500 5,786,916 551,930 984 b. Growth above Existing Use 0 0 0 206,481 • 0 NA 206,481 31.0 359,583 6.6 43,171 8.5 10 3. Buildout a. GPAC Altematives Ti-) Option 1 -reuse of underutilized properites an infill 0 0 0 911,4141 0 911,414 6,753,535 606,370 1,561 (2) Option 2-- commercial & office per existing G with residential 70,676 294 2,104 790,559 2,398 861,235 5,869,799 606,370 1,431 (3) Option 3- commercial & office reduction, w /ex anded residential 141,352 589 6,633 790,5591 7,222 931,911 5,501,282 0 1,431 b. Staff Recommendation 3,000 765,0001 3,000 765,000 5,227,333 508,759 1,574 c. Final GPAC Recommendation 3,323 768,395. 3,323 768,395 4,753,613 551,930 984 4. Growth from Existing Use a. GPAC Altematives (1) Option 1 -reuse of underutilized properites an Will 0 0 0 246,395 0 0 246,395 37.1 1,326,202_24.4 97,611 19.2 _._._587 (2) Option 2- commercial & office per existing G with residential 70,676 294 2,104 125,5401 2,398 NA 196,216 29.5 442,466 8.2 97,611 19.2 457 (3) Option 3- commercial & office reduction, w /ex anded residential 141,352 589 6,633 125,540 7,222 NA 266,892 40.1 73,949 1.4 - 508,759 -100.0 457 b. Staff Recommendation 3,000 99,9811 3,000 NA 99,981 15.0 - 200,000 -3.7 0 0.0 600 c. Final GPAC Recommendation 3,323 103,376. 3,3231 NA 103,376 15.5 - 673,720 -12.4 43,171 8.5 10 5. Deviation from Existing GP a. GPAcC (1) Option 1- -reuse of underutilized properites an infill 0 0 0 1 39,914• 0 0 39,914 4.6 966,619 16.7 54,440 9.9 577 (2) Option 2•- commercial & office per existing G with residential 70,676 294 2,104 - 80,94112,398 NA - 10,265 -1.2 82,883 1.4 54,440 9.9 447 (3) Option 3- commercial & office reduction, w /ex anded residential 141,352 589 6,633 - 80,941 7,222 NA 60,411 6.9 - 285,634 -4.9 - 551,930 -100.0 447 b. Staff Recommendation 3,000 - 106,500 3,000 NA - 106,500 -12.2 - 559,583 -9.7 - 43,171 -7.8 590 C. Fnal GPAC Recommendation 3 323 -103 105 3,323 NA -103 105 -11.8 -1,033 303 -17.9 0 0.0 6 OPTION 2 A - 1 Reuse and Intensity Uses with Mixed Use B - 1 New Support Commercial or Office Uses on Vacant Lot C - 1 Possible site of new Civic Center 2 Reuse or Intensity mixed use (Commercial and Office) D - 1 Mixed Use Developments with Commercial and Office E • I Maintain and Intensity Existing Office F • 1 Conversion From Hotel to Single Room Occupancy G-1 Replace Restaurant with Office H-1 Mixed Use with Intensification of Otflce and New Entertainment Uses 1.1 Reuse of Office Uses for Residential J • 1 Expand Existing Industrial Uses K • 1 New Mixed Use with Residential over Supermarket L - 1 Replace Office with Restaurants M - 1 Maintain Office Uses N - 1 Intensity Commercial Uses 142._ , _\ � � „F��`;;r'�``•� 3 a 397 � 1 635 378 1�13961 ,f �f1 3 3 pl °39 ' F 99t K 3 6 D 1403 �T393 Iza O 1375 V2///jnV 13 /: 383 39 9 i_. 86 ,1"391 � . N 387. r 14,10 394 1409 1408,. 1472 1405 O 1406 O, F9 LJ CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA 1638 OPTION 2 � rmnz nnaMn zana �Abct 6oanGaM .. -..- CM 6owMary 1642 9 �rt Sart�'CMtlM�nTMtrs� R� .Ch �.ECT � HR; 10679 �1 m PIIOJECf NVMBER: 10.519 -01 fleav IW by: KR Creased by: W,?P Dale: 0U2N .EI - -P • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ;�R a ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE General Plan Update Land Use Alternatives Options Review and Recommendations to GPAC July 20, 2005 INTRODUCTION On June 22, 2005, the Economic Development Committee established a subcommittee to review the proposed land use alternatives for the general plan update developed by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). The charge of the subcommittee was to examine the proposed Options and report back to the entire EDC for consideration and adoption of formal recommendations to GPAC and the City Council. At their regular meeting of July 20, 2005, the full EDC discussed the subcommittee's report and voted to forward the following recommendations for ten (10) geographic sub- areas. The Committee then continued the discussion until its August 17, 2005 regular meeting, to complete discussions on the remaining seven (7) sub - areas. These recommendations will be provided for the Planning Commission and City Council meetings on August 30, 2005. GENERAL DISCUSSION As noted in the fiscal analysis of the General Plan Alternatives, the City has the potential for increased annual revenues in a wide range of between $317,000 and $10.7 million per year, depending upon which of the various Options for each sub -area is selected. Significantly, increases in lodging (short-term hotel and vacation home rental) and retail sales are projected to provide the largest contributions to increased revenue. However, in order to provide balance for the City and its quality of life, the EDC discussed and agreed a number of 'overriding principles' affecting the discussion, and by which the committee's conclusions were guided. 1. Changes to the General Plan should show an overall positive fiscal impact on the City, although not necessarily in each geographic sub -area. 2. It is clear that the City's residents do not believe a general citywide increase in traffic is acceptable. Therefore the "true maximum" Option —which in most areas increases Page I of 5 1 1 traffic within a sub - area —will not be the EDC's recommended Option unless there are overriding issues or mitigating factors that would recommend otherwise. 3. It may be advantageous to recommend an Option that would anticipate additional traffic in a few geographic sub - areas; if in exchange, the Option adds substantial fiscal benefits, and that results in less overall potential traffic impact in other sub - areas. 4. All of the recommendations regarding the General Plan require a balancing of trade- offs— between providing for increased revenue for the City; increasing traffic; addressing environmental concerns; and quality of life. 5. The Committee notes the comments of the Harbor Commission regarding the fact that the harbor is an economic engine for the City, and notes that there is a need to preserve marine uses where possible, while allowing for market activity to enhance those uses. 6. The Committee notes that the financial data used in the Fiscal Analysis of the General Plan Alternatives is three years old, taken mainly from the FY 2002 -2003 budget. If possible and practicable, the EDC suggests that staff examine the cost and feasibility of updating the numbers to the newly adopted FY 2005 -2006 budget when the model is used to analyze the preferred land use plan. 9 RECOMMENDATIONS BY SUB -AREA Airport Business Area: The addition of 6,600 residential units under Option 3 appears to be excessive for the area because of the 65 CNEL restriction, height restrictions, land use restrictions and CC &R's. Residential use is a good idea for the area along with a mixed -use concept, but with less housing. By concentrating increased traffic in the airport area, the City is projected to have a 16% increase in traffic as a trade -off for a $2.8 million increase in annual revenue. The increase in traffic concentrated in an area with good arterial roadways and three major freeways appears to be a good trade -off for the additional revenue. Recommendation: The EDC recommends Option with a reduction of the potential 6,600 residential units to an amount consistent with the ability of the area to accommodate growth. The EDC also recommends that residential use be considered throughout the Airport Area, including the 'Campus Tract.' Balboa Village: The EDC does not support the addition of 300 hotel rooms in Option 5. We conclude that it is impractical for the area. Options 1, 2, and 3 provide for 34 infill hotel rooms . which we feel is more consistent with the scale of the area. Page 2 of 5 6 Recommendation: The EDC supports Options 1, 2 and 3 and rejects Options 4 & 5. Banning Ranch: The purchase of the entire property for open space by the City is prohibitive, and debt service on this single project would utilize all of the potential City -wide increases in net revenue; therefore, that is not a readily - viable option. Second, the idea of a large hotel or a resort overlooking a sewer plant is not realistic and does not make economic sense. However, a viable solution may be the provision of a mix of housing types with generally local- serving commercial development for the upper area, along with the use of much of the lower area as open space and a tie -in to a potential trail system. The mix of housing would provide a positive fiscal benefit to the property owner and the City, and would provide the fiscal resources to restore the degraded oil field property to a viable open space tract. Recommendation: The EDC recommends Option 2. Cannery Village West: There is an ongoing need for the neighborhood retail and services now in place to continue to provide necessary goods and services to the area, and the potential for increased long -term revenues to the City are minimal. Recommendation: The EDC recommends no change to the existing General Plan . designations for this sub -area. Cannery Village East: The proposed increase in vertical residential- over - commercial mixed -use development will have a mutually beneficial relationship with the existing commercial stock, and will help keep it viable as well. The residential community, then, can be served by the commercial development with minimal additional traffic impacts. Recommendation: The EDC recommends Option 1, with the bay front remaining in land uses that support recreational and marine commercial use. Corona del Mar: The existing commercial area in Corona del Mar is a very viable pedestrian- oriented retail and service strip that provides a net economic benefit to the City, by serving both the local community and by bringing in substantial sales tax revenues from non- residents. Recommendation: The EDC recommends no change to the existing General Plan designations for this sub -area. 0 Page 3 of 5 ( ` Lido Isle: The subcommittee's review notes that the Option to amend the existing General Plan designation regarding Lido Isle does not address economic or fiscal issues related to new revenue, but is primarily an option addressing residential lot line adjustments related to existing housing units already on the island. Recommendation: The EDC makes no recommendation, as the Option is not within the purview of the Committee. Lido Village North: Although both Options 1 and 2 include the allowance of mixed -use development in Lido Village North, Option 1 includes the potential for a small amount of boutique -style lodging space. And although they differ in land uses, because of the potential for a hotel both Options 1 and 2 provide substantial economic benefit to the City of approximately $1.3 million annually. In addition to its general recommendation for this area, the committee further recommends that the current program of tideland boat slip permits be shifted to a program of leases, which would increase revenues to the City. It also recommends providing additional visitor boat slips in this sub -area, which accommodate and enhance marine tourism while having few traffic impacts. • Recommendation: The EDC recommends Option 1. Lido Village South: Option 1 would increase the retail development potential and reduce the amount of potential office space; while Option 2 proposes mixed -use residential and retail space and no new office space. Both of the Options are positive fiscally; however, Option 2 performs much better at $78,000 per year in revenue. Recommendation: The EDC recommends Option 2 Newport Center/ Fashion Island: The subcommittee's review notes that the projected retail revenue from the Fashion Island is underestimated as a result of the technical aspects of the fiscal impact model; the current model divides property .zoned as " commercial" into 40% "service commercial" and 60% "retail commercial" throughout the City without reference to area. Service commercial generates a lower sales tax ratio than retail commercial. For Fashion Island, however, this assumption is not reasonable; and tends to understate the sales tax revenue from a center that has almost all retail commercial. Staff will work with the City's consultants in the next update of the economic model to adjust the sales tax revenue estimates from Fashion Island. • However, the EDC notes that Option 1 provides for the addition of 480 hotel rooms and 1,100 housing units, with only limited increases of retail and office space. The estimated Page 4 of 5 potential for a $3.9 million increase in annual net revenue to the City represents almost 40% of the greatest possible increase suggested in the entire General Plan alternatives. Almost 98% of this increase is related to the increased lodging (hotel rooms). The EDC, mirroring the community survey results, supports the construction of an additional hotel or additional hotel rooms in the Newport Center /Fashion Island sub -area if proposed. The increased traffic from hotels does not occur at peak travel times, and thus the traffic impact is mitigated to some extent. Conversely, the increase in housing units by 1,100 units proposed in Option 1 appears to be excessive, and the EDC has concluded that a smaller number of units may be more appropriate. Recommendation: The EDC recommends Option 1; however, with a reduction in the proposed number of housing units from 1,100 to an amount consistent with the area's ability to accommodate growth. ADDITIONAL COMMENT 1. A motion was approved by the EDC to recommend that the Marinapark property discussion be included in the General Plan Update, if it would not unduly delay the process. Although the EDC is aware that a separately- appointed Council committee is addressing this matter, it is also clear that General Plan land use decisions affecting the use of the harbor do have a significant impact on the economic and fiscal health of the City and its residents, and on the quality of life in Newport Beach. Further, the EDC recommends that any project on the Marinapark site incorporate additional visitor boat slips, which are almost non - existent outside of yacht clubs, and which enhance marine - related tourism that has little traffic impact on citizens. Page 5 of 5 • Summary of rmmenclations and Fiscal Impact Airport Business Area 2 Balboa Village 1,2,3 Banning Ranch 2 Cannery Village West Ext GP Cannery Village East 1 Corona Del Mar Ext GP Traffic Impact NR Lido Village North 1452 1 Yr. Net 2 Mariner's Mile $66,862 McFadden Square East $0 McFadden Square West Service Newport Center /Fashion Ish 1 Daily trip $0 Subarea Option Revenues Housing Office Retail Industrial Lodging Marine Commercial Institutional Public increases % Airport Business Area 2 Balboa Village 1,2,3 Banning Ranch 2 Cannery Village West Ext GP Cannery Village East 1 Corona Del Mar Ext GP Lido Isle NR Lido Village North 1452 1 Lido Village South 1453 2 Mariner's Mile $66,862 McFadden Square East $0 McFadden Square West $0 Newport Center /Fashion Ish 1 Old Newport Blvd. $0 W. Newport Hwy. A $64,569 W. Newport Hwy. C $0 West Newport Industrial $0 C CQ r $2,809,528 $80,465 ($233,614) $141,331 ($42,868) $2. 984,052 $0 ($93,547) ($70,558) ($36,041) $4,530 $0 $0 $0 $702,731 $213,592 $0 $34,389 $0 $489,691 $0 ($746) ($2,590) $0 $1,427 $0 $0 $0 $66,862 $31,836 $49,612 $26,367 ($39,144) $0 $0 $0 $129,552 $86,603 ($34,302) $54,370 $0 $0 $0 $64,569 $63,271 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,368,587 $17,848 $49,014 $54,089 $0 $1,301,961 ($1,893) $78,307 $14,384 $12,832 $41,972 $0 $0 $6,958 28% Recommendation from EDC forthcoming. Recommendation from EDC forthcoming. Recommendation from EDC forthcoming. $3,931,206 $51,529 ($118,438) $264,749 $0 $3,839,177 $0 Recommendation from EDC forthcoming. Recommendation from EDC forthcoming. Recommendation from EDC forthcoming. Recommendation from EDC forthcoming. $50,632 ($88,402) ($82,068) 17,623 16% $5,880 $0 $2,642 (324) -2% $6,457 ($33,792) ($7,606) (5,319) -24% $298 $0 $119 0 0% ($1,461) $0 ($348) 1,218 12% $15,827 $0 $7,054 0 0% $0 $0 $1,298 0 0°% $0 ($52,432) $0 3,191 51% $0 $2,161 $0 1,655 28% $68,599 ($51,672) ($122,738) 22,734 21% September 10, 2003 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HARBOR COMMISSION Ms. Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Ms. Wood: The Harbor Commission has reviewed the current (May 2003) draft of the "Fiscal Impact Analysis & Model- Newport Beach General Plan Update" process prepared by the City's GP update economic consultant, Applied Development Economics, Inc. As a result: of this review,(see Summary sections below), the Harbor Commission has identified a number of harbor— related land /water -use, economic and financial factors which it wishes the City, its consultants and GPAC to seriously consider in the continuing input to, and refinement of, the update process. These factors are covered in the "Recommendations" section at the end of this letter. Summary- Marine Industry Land Use, Economic & Fiscal. Characteristics & Trends -2003 As summarized on pages 31 and 32 of the consultant's report, marine uses and the marine industry "...account for over 1000 jobs and generate nearly $2.7 million in net revenues..." to the City of Newport Beach. The report summary accurately describes the steadily - evolving reduction in numbers of Newport Beach Marine Industry uses and their total revenues, as well as "leakage" to other market locations resulting from general marine industry attrition, consolidation, environmental regulation, and increasing land and operations costs. �5 The implications of the loss to the City of significant positive net revenues by further unchecked shrinkage and leakage of Marine Uses is noted in the report and by the Commission. Finally, the (seeming) inability of the Newport Beach Marine Uses to hold position or expand /diversify in Newp6rt Beach in the face of these larger forces is also noted. The potential cooperative roles of private and public sector in creative solutions to these problems and arresting the trend of decline are described in the report summary. Summary- Fiscal Analysis of Existing General Plan Marine Uses -2003 This analysis (Table 13- pp24 &25) shows Marine Uses in 50' place (of 9 contributing an estimated /allocated $4.6 million of City Revenues, and in 7 place in terms of City Expenditures at $1.9 million, with a net positive balance to the City of $2.67 million, putting it in 3rd place in this category, behind Lodging (1510) and Retail (2 "d) This role of Marine Uses is significant in illustrating their importance to the City and its citizensltaxpayers, since it is one of the very few positive - balance uses offsetting the negative- balance Residential, Office, Industrial and Public uses, and enabling the City to show a modest positive balance overall. Boat and Marine Equipment Sales Tax Revenues represent 5% of the total sales tax revenues generated by all of the land use categories , placing Marine Uses in 40i place in the 9 categories , ahead of light industrial and hotels.(p22 -Fig 1) Marine Uses Gross Revenues are also 5% of gross City revenues , tied for 50i with public uses , and behind lodging, but still ahead of light industrial and service commercial, etc. (p22 -Fig 2) Summary= Fiscal Analysis of Potential General Plan Marine Uses at GP Buildout - 2025 The projected General Plan Buildout (pp 41 &42) indicates growth by 2025 in all land use categories and in visitor levels, except for Marine Uses. The consultants Fiscal Analysis GP Buildout Marine Uses Development Summary -2025 (Table 20- pp43 &44) shows Marine Uses slipping to a place, with an estimated $4.9 million in City Revenues, reflecting only $0.3 million increase in 22 years. It shows Marine Uses holding in 70i place in terms of City Expenditures at $1.9 million, also no change in 22 years. Marine Uses although not increasing substantially, retain their net positive balance to the City of approximately $3 million, staying in 3rd place in this category, behind Lodging (1st0) and Retail (2 "d) "f`I The report summary states: "We have not assumed, however, a commensurate increase in the marine industry or the number of boats moored in Newport Harbor. The general plan buildout projection does not include additional marina berths, and as discussed earlier, some elements of the marine industry are tinder pressure from rising real estate prices and may not be able to expand readily in Newport Beach." Harbor Commission Recommendations Recommendation 1- Analyze Both No- Growth and Growth Alternatives for Marine Uses The current GP update projection for Marine Uses, as noted above, assumes essentially a passive "hold- the -line" position for Marine Uses in the community of Newport Beach _over the next 22 years, which the Harbor Commission believes to be overly conservative and not a reasonable basis for future planning based upon the current experience of Newport Beach and other waterfront/marine industry communities. The Harbor Commission believes that there are actually two alternative scenarios /choices which should be analyzed for Newport Beach marine uses in the General Plan Update process, in order to provide perspective for GPAC /City decision-making: A. Passive -No Growth. Experience indicates that a passive, non - proactive approach to a dynamic land use and economic element such as marine uses and related activities would not maintain the status quo, as permitted in the existing General Plan. Rather there would be a significant, potentially catastrophic decline in the role of marine industry uses as a Newport Beach "economic engine ", employment and visitor generator, and as an important image maker over the next two decades through complacency and inaction and through market forces. This condition should be unacceptable to the Newport Beach community, but it is important that its negative implications for City fiscal health, overall economics, image and heritage should be fully examined in the General Plan update effort, to serve as a cautionary example of potential decline. The Harbor Commission feels that this issue requires a more comprehensive discussion of the potential negative economic impacts on Newport Beach of a decline In marine uses and revenues, supplementing the existing consultant report text and financial projections, to serve as a cautionary example for City, GPAC and consultant analysis, and to lend perspective to an alternate, preferred approach, described below. B. Proactive - Sustainable Growth: The Harbor Commission and its predecessor Harbor Committee have, over several years, had numerous discussions on the potential evolution of the existing marine uses and activities, as well as their 0 i revenue potentials, on the land and water areas of Newport Harbor. These discussions, also incorporating the experience of other evolving waterfront communities, project a diversification and consolidation as well as more efficient grouping of the Newport Beach marine uses and related water - dependent activities on both land and water. Numbers, types, locations, and combinations of uses and activities will change and evolve, as will their primary and secondary economic, people, environmental and image benefits. Rather than a 'wishful thinking projection" this positive evolution of marine uses and activities would be the result of proactive efforts already underway by the Newport Beach private and public sectors to retain and strengthen this important sector of the community. Thus this active and developing trend, rather than a simple projection of existing conditions, should be considered by the General Plan update process. It is the position of the Harbor Commission that the Proactive - Sustainable Growth option for marine uses in Newport Beach needs to be analyzed and discussed in more detail among City Staff, Harbor Commission representatives, GPAC and the City's consultants during the current GP update process. It can then be refined and integrated into a updated General Plan through City, GPAC and consultants as the desirable choicelbasis for General Plan policies, objectives and implementation strategies for marine uses, using the already- adopted Harbor and Bay Element, in conjunction with the other elements of a new General Plan. Recommendation 2- Expand Marine Uses SICINAICS Categories, Revenue Sources The Commission feels that the sources and amounts of "Marine Industry" revenues potentially ascribable to this category, need to be reviewed as to the comprehensiveness of its SIC and NAICS subcategories(see attached list), as well at all other related revenue sources, in subsequent GPAC discussions and in GP consultanttstaff analysis. Recommendation 3- Add Marine Tourism Uses and Revenue Sources to Marine Uses p The Harbor Commission believes that the important existing (and potential) roles of the Marine Uses in the General Plan, and in the economic and fiscal "balance" of uses in the community are not yet fully addressed in the General Plan update process to date, and need to be expanded to encompass all harbor- related uses, both traditional "marine ", as well as marine tourism and water - related uses. Ongoing marine industry data gathering and analysis efforts and results need to be provided to the City, GPAC and consultants for use in this marine tourism analysis. Recommendation 4- Expand Consideration of Tidelands Uses to New Water - Based Uses The Commission feels that the consultant's analysis of potential economic and fiscal sources and solutions needs to be extended to the water areas of the City. General Plan options with additional implementation recommendations should be considered for City actions and public/private partnerships. These options would conserve key waterfront locations and important marine uses, enhance user -pay public access and uses at/on the harbor, sustain and improve the harbor environment, improve harbor operations and sustain and create uses and activities providing secondary economic benefits to the City and harbor. The Harbor Commission sees the potential for a sustained and growing marine user base to contribute needed revenue for dredging and other harbor quality initiatives of the Commission. Absent same, the burden will fall solely upon the waterfront residential users and boaters, or in combination, a further burden on City expenditures. We stand ready to support the ongoing processes by City staff, consultants, and GPAC. Respectfully Submitted, Newport Beach Harbor Commission Timothy C. Collins, Chairman • Recommendation #2 Attachment Comments/ Questions Related to Marine Land Use Definitions by SIC/NAICS Codes (Appendix A of Fiscal Impact Analysis and Model- Newport Beach General Plan Update) Background The Harbor Commission acknowledges and is pleased that the Fiscal Impact Study consultant has provided a very useful distinction between marine and general land uses by their creation and analysis of a separate category of marine uses in the GP update. In a harbor -based community such as Newport Beach, with numerous marine services, berthing, and water -based tourism and transportation uses which are evolving from a past dominant role, scale and mix to still- important current and future new roles, it is essential to be able to define and measure this change, see important trends and plan the future proactively in documents such as the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, HAMP, etc. It is understood by the Harbor Commission that the Marine Uses data available to the consultant for this study may not have been assembled by, or available from, the data sources in a number of the SIC /NAILS categories and subcategories of "marine uses'. . It is further understood that data for many specialized land use subcategories may have been aggregated, either at the sources or by the consultant for simplification purposes, since this is only one of a number of land uses being considered in the broader scope of the overall General Plan Update process. Questions In asking these questions, The Harbor Commission does not propose to extend the scope, timing or cost of the consultant's work or City Staff effort, or to delay the GP update process, but rather to seek clarification on: 1. whether certain general categories of data were computed and analyzed including some key subcategories, 2. if other data sources were consulted to determine revenues and costs and, 3. if allocations of revenues and costs for Tidelands areas were proportionately allocated between the harbor/bay area and the ocean beaches /related areas. Question 1- Comprehensiveness of Categories/Subcategories Data Inclusion a. SIC4493/NAICS713930 Marinas & NAICS713990 Boating Clubs w/o Marinas Do these categories include data on subcategories: Boating Clubs w /Marinas, Sailing Clubs w /Marinas, Yacht Basins, Yacht Clubs w /Marinas, Recreational Kayaking, Recreational Rowing Clubs, Parasailing, Charter Fishing? ."�? 90 N. b. SIC 7997/7999 Beaches, Piers, etc. Do these categories include data on subcategories: Bathing Beaches, Beaches, Beach Clubs, Beach Amusement /Recreation Services, Fishing Piers? Question 2 — Inclusion of Other Data Sources Are /where are the revenue and cost sources listed below included in the analysis? It is assumed that some are grouped under Tidelands, others under general retail, etc. Can we get a clarification? If not can these issues /sources be flagged for future consideration and analysis by the City, others? a. Moorings (offshore and shore), including annual and visitor sources, CC costs b. Private piers and docks (presumed estimated thru permits) c. Commercial piers and docks (" 11 11 ) d. Public piers, launch ramps, dry storage of vessels e. Beach parking, other water - related uses parking (public, lessees) f. Institutional /non - profit /educational marine uses and activities g. Waterfront /water - related tourism and retail (boat rentals, restaurants, etc.) Has there been any research into sources of tourism data other than that from the annual NB Visitors Bureau estimates which might be able to define the magnitude of "marine /water - related tourism economic impacts? (universities, private sector ?) Are any of the unique* direct and indirect revenues/ economic benefits to the community of marine/ waterfront land use -based events and activities included? (Christmas Boat Parade; Newport to Ensenada Race; major regional, national, international sailing & rowing regattas; other YC and BBC events; NH Nautical Museum Events /Tall Ships Visits; OCC Sailing Center events; Scout Sea Base events; NH Aquatic Center events; Backbay Fireworks, other events; In -Water Boat Shows, BI Art Walk, etc. * (It should be noted that most of these activities are unique to a harbor community like NB with a protected water area and a varied -uses, public - access waterfront. They are seasonally/ annually cyclical and economically very significant in their attendance levels, as differentiated from the general flow /levels of beach -city tourism focused primarily on the ocean beach(es) and pier(s). In the state, only San Francisco Bay and San Diego Bay have similar activity diversity /added value from an enclosed harbor/ waterfront uses. The Newport Beach economy significantly benefits from these water - uses events, and is /will be increasingly dependent on their economic benefits, derived from a balanced mix of key waterfront uses and activities.) JI 0 Question 3- Tidelands Areas Revenues/Costs Allocation Is it possible to differentiate or proportionally allocate between those Tidelands costs and revenues ascribable�to the ocean beaches and related areas and services and those ascribable to the harbor and bay and their interior beaches, wetlands and services? This would be helpful in attempting to project and allocate future costs and services associated with both areas, setting of lease and rental rates, fees, etc. on appropriate user- pay /balanced- budget approaches. It would also be helpful in defining and weighing land use, public use planning choice - making for the Tidelands areas during the GP update process. COUNCIL AGENDA N0. 1 R /Ike Io5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE • OTHER LAND USE REVISIONS 0 0 A number of areas have been identified by City of Newport Beach staff in addition to those previously evaluated as exhibiting conditions that may warrant revisions to the current General Plan land use designation or development standards. Generally, these are small in area and do not exhibit the diversity of land use changes that were considered for the targeted study areas. This paper describes the existing conditions, key planning issues, and land use and policy approaches recommended by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) to address these issues for the City Council's and Planning Commission's consideration. Refer to attached figures for the location of each sub -area. LIDO ISLE Sub-Area Description ■ Area is predominantly developed for single - family residential units. ■ It was subdivided originally for 30 foot wide lots; however, properties were sold by the foot rather than the parcel boundary. This resulted in a diversity of actual development, with many instances of housing that spans multiple lots (e.g., two units built on three lots). ■ Under the existing General Plan, theoretical buildout of the original subdivision would result in the construction of as many as 300 additional units. ■ Using typical trip generation factors for single family residential this could result in 3,000 to 3,600 additional vehicle trips per day on Via Lido and the Lido Isle bridge. Basis for Recommendation ■ Reflects predominant pattern of existing development, reducing the number of housing units below the existing General Plan by approximately 300. ■ Maintains and does not worsen existing level of impacts on traffic, parking, infrastructure and service demands, and general community character. ■ If the Planning Commission and City Council support this change, staff will contact the Lido Isle Community Association to inform them and gain their input. •WEST NEWPORT, BALBOA PENINSULA, BALBOA ISLAND, AND BEACON BAY "R -2" AND "R -1.5" ZONES Sub -Area Description ■ West Newport and Balboa Island contain a mix of single family.and duplex housing units. ■ In recent years, there has been a trend to replace duplexes with single family detached units, due to land and housing values. ■ Beacon Bay is somewhat different, in that it is City owned property which is leased to the homeowners. Also, the terms of the leases only allow for one residence. Because of this, the change is fairly straightforward. However, we will still contact Beacon Bay residents to inform them of what is going on in the General Plan Update related to their area. Basis for Recommendation ■ The trend in West Newport and Balboa Island is single family development. Second units are not allowed by lease provisions in Beacon Bay. ■ If only single family units are developed (no small "Second Dwelling Units "), there would be a reduction of approximately 1,500 units below the capacity of the existing General Plan, resulting in a reduction of 11,250 average daily trips. ■ Visioning Process neighborhood workshops revealed that the West Newport community is largely supportive, as this would likely result in higher rates of owner occupancy. At the West Newport Beach Association vision meeting and at the recent public workshop on June 25, 2005, we again received feedback that this idea is strongly supported in West Newport. ■ Through discussions with some community members on Balboa Island (we will meet with the • Associations on Balboa Island on August 13'" to confirm this), staff believes that a change from R -1.5 to R -1 is also supportable in this area. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 2 • ■ Balboa Peninsula property owners did not support this idea in the June public workshop, nor at the July 23"' GPAC meeting. Because of the opposition expressed by property owners on the Balboa Peninsula and the lack of information on the sentiments of the homeowners on Balboa Island, GPAC recommended that these two areas should NOT be considered further. Staff is meeting with Island representatives before the Planning Commission and City Council meetings on August 16'". The outcome of that discussion will be reported to both bodies at that time. ■ If the Planning Commission and City Council support this change, staff will contact Beacon Bay residents to inform them and gain their input. MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREA BOUNDED BY IRVINE AVENUE, 15TH STREET, ST. ANDREWS ROAD, AND CORAL PLACE Sub -Area Description ■ Designated for "multi - family" and developed with a mix of housing units, including older apartments, small lot units, and single family detached units. ■ The area is transitioning, with higher densities being replaced with small lot residential and detached units. Rental units are changing to condominiums. Basis for Recommendation ■ Consistent with current development trend for replacement of higher density apartments for small lot residential and detached units. This would result in a reduction of approximately 110 units and 1,100 average daily trips below the existing General Plan. ■ Provides more opportunities for home ownership, though reduces capacity for affordable units. SOUTHERN FRONTAGE OF WESTCLIFF DRIVE, EAST OF IRVINE AVENUE, AND WESTERN FRONTAGE OF DOVER DRIVE, SOUTH OF WESTCLIFF DRIVE Sub -Area Description ■ Designated for "Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial" uses. ■ Area contains a diverse mix of uses including small professional offices, medical offices, financial institutions, specialty and boutique retail, restaurants, and similar uses. The mix serves both local residents and the greater region. ■ Some properties on Dover Drive are underdeveloped and offer opportunities for intensification. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 3 • ■ Some redevelopment has been occurring. ■ Some conflicts exist with adjoining multi - family housing, where apartment tenants and visitors park in the commercial areas. Basis for Recommendation Consistent with current development trends and provides the opportunity to achieve more affordable housing, as well as cohesive development patterns. CAL TRANS PROPERTY BOUNDED BY THE CORONA DEL MAR /73 FREEWAY, JAMBOREE ROAD, MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, AND UNIVERSITY DRIVE Sub -Area Description • ■ Vacant property; remnant from freeway construction. • ■ The property does not have a General Plan or zoning land use designation. Basis for Recommendation ■ GPAC wishes to preserve the site for open space. ■ In the opinion of the staff and consultant, there is a unique opportunity to develop a portion of the site to enhance economic activity and fiscal benefits, because it is large (5.3 acres), in single ownership, and has freeway visibility. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 4 •REMNANT PROPERTY ADJOINING THE CORONA DEL MAR173 FREEWAY, NORTH OF BISON AVENUE Sub -Area Description ■ Vacant property owned by the Irvine Company, a remnant from immediately abutting residential developments located to the west and functions as drainage corridor. ■ Designated by the existing General Plan as "Undesignated." Basis for Recommendation ■ Preserves open space and local drainage. ■ Topography and configuration limit its suitability for development. NORTH SIDE OF SAN MIGUEL DRIVE, EAST OF SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD, AND WEST OF WEST NEWPORT •HILLS DRIVE (FORMER CHILD CARE FACILITY) Sub -Area Description ■ Single parcel formerly used as a child care facility, abutting multi- family residential uses. ■ Designated by the existing General Plan as "Government, Educational, and Institutional." Basis for Recommendation ■ Consistent with adjoining uses. ■ Provides additional opportunities for affordable housing, resulting in an increase of approximately 196 units. ■ Site size would limit increases in additional local traffic. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 5 •PROPERTY WEST OF BIG CANYON RESERVOIR, NORTH OF PACIFIC VIEW DRIVE Sub -Area • u Description ■ Developed with senior affordable housing. ■ Designated by the existing General Plan as "Government, Educational, and Institutional." Basis for Recommendation ■ Reflects existing developed uses (seniors units) and maintains commitment for affordable housing. CITYWIDE ENTITLEMENT REDUCTIONS In addition to the areas above that were considered by the GPAC, staff looked for other areas throughout the City where development entitlement could be reduced. The following areas, which have been or are being developed by The Irvine Company, have entitlement in the existing General Plan that is unrealistically high. Staff has discussed these areas with The Irvine Company, and they have agreed to the following reductions in entitlement. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 6 �7 oy j B 11 =11 LIDO IS NEWPORT PIER LJ NORTH STAR BEACH % ✓ LINDA ISLE COLLINS ISLAND BAY ISLAND FIGURE 1 Not to Scale Other Land Use Alternatives m94.00 Source: EIP Associates, 2005 City of Newport Beach -will X\A. NEWPORT SHORES SANTA ANA c RIVER JETTY oy j B 11 =11 LIDO IS NEWPORT PIER LJ NORTH STAR BEACH % ✓ LINDA ISLE COLLINS ISLAND BAY ISLAND FIGURE 1 Not to Scale Other Land Use Alternatives m94.00 Source: EIP Associates, 2005 City of Newport Beach • 0 0 a I o p T D C 3 11ii N I d � Cyp ST RF S S ✓gMe0RF�Rp rT Ix co o y Z v B� MgCARTy o s LlJ1 • 0 0 N b }Z CL .Z7 3 1 C a � er q��y if c 2 D doC .4 g � Rya z q� E } a i m � D 0z COUNCIL AGENDA , NO. 1 R/It� 105 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE • OTHER LAND USE REVISIONS • • A number of areas have been identified by City of Newport Beach staff in addition to those previously evaluated as exhibiting conditions that may warrant revisions to the current General Plan land use designation or development standards. Generally, these are small in area and do not exhibit the diversity of land use changes that were considered for the targeted study areas. This paper describes the existing conditions, key planning issues, and land use and policy approaches recommended by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) to address these issues for the City Council's and Planning Commission's consideration. Refer to attached figures for the location of each sub -area. LIDO ISLE Sub -Area Description ■ Area is predominantly developed for single - family residential units. ■ It was subdivided originally for 30 foot wide lots; however, properties were sold by the foot rather than the parcel boundary. This resulted in a diversity of actual development, with many instances of housing that spans multiple lots (e.g., two units built on three lots). ■ Under the existing General Plan, theoretical buildout of the original subdivision would result in the construction of as many as 300 additional units. ■ Using typical trip generation factors for single family residential this could result in 3,000 to 3,600 additional vehicle trips per day on Via Lido and the Lido Isle bridge. Basis for Recommendation ■ Reflects predominant pattern of existing development, reducing the number of housing units below the existing General Plan by approximately 300. ■ Maintains and does not worsen existing level of impacts on traffic, parking, infrastructure and service demands, and general community character. ■ If the Planning Commission and City Council support this change, staff will contact the Lido Isle Community Association to inform them and gain their input. WEST NEWPORT, BALBOA PENINSULA, BALBOA ISLAND, AND BEACON BAY "R -2" AND "R -1.5" • ZONES Sub -Area Description ■ West Newport and Balboa Island contain a mix of single family-and duplex housing units. ■ In recent years, there has been a trend to replace duplexes with single family detached units, due to land and housing values. ■ Beacon Bay is somewhat different, in that it is City owned property which is leased to the homeowners. Also, the terms of the leases only allow for one residence. Because of this, the change is fairly straightforward. However, we will still contact Beacon Bay residents to inform them of what is going on in the General Plan Update related to their area. Basis for Recommendation • • The trend in West Newport and Balboa Island is single family development. Second units are not allowed by lease provisions in Beacon Bay. • If only single family units are developed (no small "Second Dwelling Units "), there would be a reduction of approximately 1,500 units below the capacity of the existing General Plan, resulting in a reduction of 11,250 average daily trips. • Visioning Process neighborhood workshops revealed that the West Newport community is largely supportive, as this would likely result in higher rates of owner occupancy. At the West Newport Beach Association vision meeting and at the recent public workshop on June 25, 2005, we again received feedback that this idea is strongly supported in West Newport. • Through discussions with some community members on Balboa Island (we will meet with the Associations on Balboa Island on August 13'h to confirm this), staff believes that a change from R -1.5 • to R -1 is also supportable in this area. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 2 • Balboa Peninsula property owners did not support this idea in the June public workshop, nor at the • July 23d GPAC meeting. Because of the opposition expressed by property owners on the Balboa Peninsula and the lack of information on the sentiments of the homeowners on Balboa Island, GPAC recommended that these two areas should NOT be considered further. Staff is meeting with Island representatives before the Planning Commission and City Council meetings on August 16"'. The outcome of that discussion will be reported to both bodies at that time. • If the Planning Commission and City Council support this change, staff will contact Beacon Bay residents to inform them and gain their input. • MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREA BOUNDED BY IRVINE AVENUE, 15TH STREET, ST. ANDREWS ROAD, AND CORAL PLACE Sub -Area Description ■ Designated for "multi- family' and developed with a mix of housing units, including older apartments, small lot units, and single family detached units. • The area is transitioning, with higher densities being replaced with small lot residential and detached units. Rental units are changing to condominiums. Basis for Recommendation ■ Consistent with current development trend for replacement of higher density apartments for small lot residential and detached units. This would result in a reduction of approximately 110 units and 1,100 average daily trips below the existing General Plan. ■ Provides more opportunities for home ownership, though reduces capacity for affordable units. SOUTHERN FRONTAGE OF WESTCLIFF DRIVE, EAST OF IRVINE AVENUE, AND WESTERN FRONTAGE OF DOVER DRIVE, SOUTH OF WESTCLIFF DRIVE Sub -Area Description • Designated for "Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial" uses. ■ Area contains a diverse mix of uses including small professional offices, medical offices, financial institutions, specialty and boutique retail, restaurants, and similar uses. The mix serves both local residents and the greater region. • ■ Some properties on Dover Drive are underdeveloped and offer opportunities for intensification. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 3 • Some redevelopment has been occurring. • Some conflicts exist with adjoining multi - family housing, where apartment tenants and visitors park in • the commercial areas. Basis for Recommendation ■ Consistent with current development trends and provides the opportunity to achieve more affordable housing, as well as cohesive development patterns. CAL TRANS PROPERTY BOUNDED BY THE CORONA DEL MAR173 FREEWAY, JAMBOREE ROAD, MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, AND UNIVERSITY DRIVE Sub -Area Description ■ Vacant property; remnant from freeway construction. ■ The property does not have a General Plan or zoning land use designation. Basis for Recommendation ■ GPAC wishes to preserve the site for open space. ■ In the opinion of the staff and consultant, there is a unique opportunity to develop a portion of the site to enhance economic activity and fiscal benefits, because it is large (5.3 acres), in single ownership, and has freeway visibility. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 4 F- IL • REMNANT PROPERTY ADJOINING THE CORONA DEL • MAR /73 FREEWAY, NORTH OF BISON AVENUE Sub -Area Description ■ Vacant property owned by the Irvine Company, a remnant from immediately abutting residential developments located to the west and functions as drainage corridor. ■ Designated by the existing General Plan as "Undesignated." Basis for Recommendation ■ Preserves open space and local drainage. ■ Topography and configuration limit its suitability for development. NORTH SIDE OF SAN MIGUEL DRIVE, EAST OF SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD, AND WEST OF WEST NEWPORT HILLS DRIVE (FORMER CHILD CARE FACILITY) • Sub -Area 11 Description ■ Single parcel formerly used as a child care facility, abutting multi - family residential uses. ■ Designated by the existing General Plan as "Government, Educational, and Institutional." Basis for Recommendation ■ Consistent with adjoining uses. ■ Provides additional opportunities for affordable housing, resulting in an increase of approximately 196 units. ■ Site size would limit increases in additional local traffic. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 5 PROPERTY WEST OF BIG CANYON RESERVOIR, NORTH OF PACIFIC VIEW DRIVE Sub -Area Description ■ Developed with senior affordable housing. ■ Designated by the existing General Plan as "Government, Educational, and Institutional." Basis for Recommendation ■ Reflects existing developed uses (seniors units) and maintains commitment for affordable housing. CITYWIDE ENTITLEMENT REDUCTIONS In addition to the areas above that were considered by the GPAC, staff looked for other areas throughout the City where development entitlement could be reduced. The following areas, which have been or are being developed by The Irvine Company, have entitlement in the existing General Plan that is unrealistically high. Staff has discussed these areas with The Irvine Company, and they have agreed to the following reductions in entitlement. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 6 • C� J • • 0 NEWPORT r...._...... .. SHORES SANTA -Y RNER JETTY 'C' NEWPORT PIER NORTH STAR BEACH 41bo 4, LINDA ISLE` BAY- L 4#*6 COLLINS ISLAND BAY ISLAND,- —' BALBOA ISLAND T FIGURE I Not 10 Scale Other Land Use Alternatives -P 1079"0 Source: EIP Associates, 2005 City of Newport BeachF" 7 ypR 20 P sy i R'ycTOti 4 OJG� NORTH p< STAR BEACH sr 3 c t p< LU �._ WEST COASt � `�. NEWPORT i ��O �• 9 DUNE �Pl /�. -• N / y LINDA JN�o '0. / ISLE SV� ! \•` FIGURE 2 Not to Scale -N- Other Land Use Recommendations (Sub - Areas) 7� �i -1 =_.. 10878.01 Source: EIP Associates, 2005 City of Newport Beach � � ' ' ' ^ '� - • • • • 0 0 0 T OW CL CL 17T 19 CD--- - - ------ 9E Ch o Pal �0 J rl R i D Soak* UE 8 t BIG CANYON P4C R €SERVIOR i v0 Ftl 1 90 � pP y? �S J C7 1 j fff FIGURE 4 Not to Scale - Other Land Use Recommendations (Sub-Areas) t 10515-01 Source: EIP Associates, 2005 City of Newport Beach ' f. J nuv. lo. wee I; b111M BROOKFIELD HOMES 714 427 SS72 SOUTHLAND BUSINESS GROUP 309D Bristol Street, Suite 20D Costa Mesa, Califomia 92626 Phone 714,427,6066 Fax 714.427.6669 brookfi eldsouth l ond.co m 11 BOOOKFIELO H a n e s lives rhD oiPinreneo August 16, zoos Mavor Heffernan and City Council Members Members of the Planning Commission and City Staff City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Subject: General Plan Advisary Committee Recommendation NO. 569 P.2 "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED:" `J Dear Mayor Heffernan, City Council Members, Planning Commissioners and City Staff, Broolifield Homes have been closely monitoring the progress of the City General Plan update, and espocially the recommendations of the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). As a homebuilder already active here on the Newport Coast, we have a particular interest in GPAC recommendations as they concern the airport area. • As you may recall, Brookfield and the Fletcher Jones Family Trust have already filed a General Plan Amendment and other entitlements for the 3,6 acre former Fletcher Jones Motor car property at Spruce and Quail Streets in the Newport.Place Planned Community. Our request includes 96 executive attached homes in a gated master planned neighborhood. The site was previously approved for a 306 unit extended stay hotel so our traffic trip count is Actually less than the original approval. We support the recommendadons of GPAC to allow more residential opportunities in this sector to: Provide additional needed housing close to employment and entertainment areas. • Improve neighborhood vitality in the community during non- business hours to support commercial uses. Provide more affordable pricing and housing segmentation. Your staff has contacted with ROMA Design Group of San Francisco to provide guidance with design standards since this is the first residential development proposal in this sector of the City. Once established, we look forward to working within the ROMA parameters. We would like to thank the GPAC for their efforts and agree the airport area can develop into a d}mamic residential and commercial community that will be a benefit to the entire City. 0 very truly yours, J„ � Brookfield Homes Sollthland, Inc. — _ cam, David E. Bartlett ` z —' c ; Vice President-Land Entitlement ^, � •_..,, • Copy to; Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager n,, u� =5 PRFSSAMSD 7-D : l�NW W1 GjWj% AkM MAW771Y6 GoveknMw t OA4ci^ts end rh Cites wrfR,��a�aswfs 6NWPi i�r�/y ISYver srl1$ 7a ci;aWape IeA+r r Dry �A �N'r polfvi'ioN Aid �1 AZAQds. 8►'Aly �C poles Sri o/� mriC�av A- 16ic deRA CAW;; 4S d��►'y�a+d ?�r►qo� /9�l(dcAry` 17. R lulliMS. m rs'i" s And iyo*; �o. sfill �zPao4.. T1�,.waa /mOA&M .. Al % wels mF Did -pses cwte diefkre � � dice liter rQ4jtdw RB� cu4a s;t'-vm7zw �1 n���oayl lAppmi avJ s� �anbWlwkAIrvil.�Vlu�+ r�x" °mss �rfa+?'I►l has -6a m N dfod. * 1*4 asIM (D4 P,l f �ligl�9 Fnw'Po�w SdR r c► end R ,*;%n Ghef�t Cbv�AaP /30 .sv M Ia ` /x�o >� BQ /ems: cic bo ar J '/R /oa , ) �N Ra t /a o, r dw dall;vd f ,17,3r� aS� ,s h� .• 7 Is /fo ldty 1b r0?Md� (�Mhjj�l�,ct�•v'i J rz^� GtYnMa" ,�J} %tale.! 8�I9�oS i� f3�•'7 Oci s st►ll ey�is*, A*PO4hir� fiovsyn� fio�st. n i 6y Memaa !n.+ar Rno�u hAA oil ft#bJ a .GA Iii s iy 99 smttw ;¢ 6�rcl�� hra�oe. da aoyro2 8 s ; vAmee . 04444 Rpic /oncOsl ►Se dWr4 gee Od �t+ 1 �Ar R8o a9.� clt,�' fa;ls G� � A#Wtvgnwx and Nerg pole`t rye loll q��►nnr Pc�wra.,Cs o M�e 511 /m Fw'PA ,�. Ault At cw 5 mqjeQ SWAF OR lee TMW�' I;L' RIOAY !xw Asm $A*L $tA Roc )a/l /oarCbVA�nnOrs be h mfi f/ of s`(JA bAZ4A4s. p(so zwiswo Mpra R, {f►ve No LOYPIRA"IrON WHO CAN WOMPE SANK NO RANNI C+av CC : Cms7�t MOM col (Owl l cakrfaQ com#wlaf A Cazv�+nxQ r G kFA& 4b. r� OOA S', a C/ /3 l� 9260 99"9- 5f8v�%3 ADD1770NALTHPEA7s TO 15ANN ING �. roR#903m ' So,! �r n7; G�e1`cn /Mof�S Cyr n7" 3ovnc�af oa✓s a, y,/',� Id W� .7L sTd,,�f DNS cvepe grxWv#'s a4 lQ?ez Gnu 20 Ei / /c. UA CPS-��f f u l c r CA Y /ePvcd9 Fga6oci E, CAV I't7es A- NdOA�� '�' a- n1o#ioga �/ ,60,m9d rt 6eds d. Unn qqd olwp Pe %s h, svea(pn oil a to�m�OS 5c�� C,av . CA/ rAAW &XCy4d ^ Ro�c�. N'J�J1oQS //► n S is { 7ia�4� uN sta� -�. 6, A rat digwy6w 2 Erg c%nto'l- ill P, ` C 9 fault„ IS 3t M11PT 101)0-4011(y C&A Co�ks"1 x 1 Newcg-N ' ,MQ Q 3 4d IS- f- e4tR ~ COIYC4e-U46 40, j -- `n/'J//79 &I �i) e �b %�/ r� /SSU!/y �, @wSUriS tvctt 41 6M C� A4 ,75 c% �o o w kf QW ,01/�ge htwfml c,4 s, �'nV'�IUES Ito M,Nll�,(�NN5oevtgs% QO`fyPAIY�J u! L o mtt�Ot.= , " ova All �'- /c� / o Moy seweure dl1c,�1 ouvk / /en� 3 / rao C-o -:2 ► 1 i \S III t i.p ..l'i<IIIPSE: SAIVruAY.I:ERIO ARy 1'.;Wl At U Methane gas threatens homes k" County revokes occupancy permits gr y,Karen Kocher a en Ke —� After learning that potentially ex- plosive levels of methane gas are in he ground beneath an enclave of new North County luxury homes. ;.he county has revolved occupane/ oernits that would have allowed ewers to ciosc escrow and move in. The houses. some of which are :eifing for more than 5700.0W. are west of Interstate 15 and Rancho Bemardo in an area known as Santa Fe Valley. It is near palmed resided. dal developments 4S Ranch and Black Mountain Ranch. The developer. ColRich Commit- aides. has completed 11 houses and has 17 more under construction. Much of the first phase has buyers. Homes Methane gas problems rarely occur in collniv t:,winuedfmm A.1 who have have been told venting systems will be installed to mitigate the problem. The affected houses are in neigh - twrhnnds named Bel Etage. Saven- aa and Salviad. .vIuve -ins scheduled fnr Decent. ber were on hold before the coma .ys action. CoiRich had informed buyers of the problem and the need mitigate it in November. But this week — after reviewing reports on the methane problem prepared by a consultant to the do- :eloper — the cnunry revnked four of the occupancy certificates it is- ;ucd in November. citing safety, con - eem:. Seven hou: es being used as sale! ;nodels cannot he sold until the is, .toe !s resolved. 'W',: are taking this action to pro- Ant potential occupants or purchas- e: agairut harts from the build -up :u methane gas." (van Holier. the . mura building division chief. ITatc to the developer ater a meet - ny Nlunday. "Uccuparcy will not be allowed rolls you have further evaluated the :otenual methane gas hazard and 'rev :dc :i a>:umce that occupancy Venting methane gas CalRich Communities plans to build 213 homes in an unincorporated area known as Santa Fe valley. They will be fitted with venting systems because methane gas has been detected in some places beneath the subdivision. Twentyeight of the homes are under construction and will be retrofitted with venting systems. ©Methane gas passes Membrane: Existing homes have moisture through pipes barriers undertheir foundations, butthose will installed in the be sealed more thoroughly. In homes to be ha built a liquid plastic Mg be used under the through ; foundation to,geatei,ibongarba Mar . pPerinps in-A the roar. r ,� ©Perforated pipes ` beneath the foundation allow the gas to vent. of the premises will be safe both now and in the future." An odorless. colorless gas. meth- ane is considered dangerous be- cause it can explode if confined in a small area in high concentrations and ignited. It also can cause as- phyxiation if fumes leak into a con tined space. Methane can be created by de- composing organic wastes or petro- leum hydrocarbnns beneath the ground. It is typically found near landfills and old oil wells and is a primary component of natural gas. The source of the methane in Santa Fe Valley has not been found. although environmental consultants who reviewed historical photo- graphs have riled out an old landfill or oil well. The best guess is that the meth- ane is "a naturally occurring phe- nomenon" said Stephen Marsh. a lawyer and chemist with the law firm Luce. Forward. Hamilton Sr Scripps. who was retained by Cnl- Rich to oversee environmental wnrk Such a discovery is rare in San Diego County. said Robert Copper. the county executive who oversees the environmental health and build. uug dcaartments. "This is a rather bizarre occur - rence.' Copper said. "Ordinarily. H you tun up methane on a site that means you found landfill activities that you didnt know abnut. What they have found has nothing to do with anything being buried there. As far as I know, it is a naturally occurring pocket of methane. That's very unusual." County officials said it is too sonn on say whether they will require other developers to test for methane gas before they proceed with con structinn. CoMch's plumed homes are iust west of 4S Ranch. a pro- posed development of 4.715 hnuses, and just north of Black Mountain Ranch. a proposed development of 4279 houses, Althnugh Cc ich has knnwn about the methane `or at least six mondus. county otLcials first ]cawed of the problem in late November, when the company sought county approval of its mitigation plan under a voluntary environmental heal ProgIni .After ennsulting with envi mental health officials. the built!' division decided to stop issuing any new building permits or perform ad- ,iitional inspecdons at the project. However. work on homes tinder conswuction can tontine. 4oUer :aW, ColRfch President Colin Seid said his company plans to build a total of _13 houses in Santa Fe Valle}' and will install venting systems in each omc. 'n you do not give the methane a chance to build up in high concern nations. then there is no longer the possibility of ignition." Seid said, -'Il:c whole idea is to not give it a place to build up." Retrotitting the initial phase of _3 :feuse:s wifl coat about :40.10X7 to .r50AN N) per home. which Seid said he will pay for. installing vents and special plastic liners beneath houses to be built will tort about $15.70) each. The wnrk on the completed homes is mote expensive because crews have to cut through the floors to install pipes beneath the founda Unit. The system captures methane in the pipes and vents it up through the 'Halls to the roof. where it is released. Buyers. like Michael Oliver. have been waiting since December to move in. Oliver said he and his wife thought about backing out of the purchase when theywem told about the methane. but stuck with it be- cause they love the house they Pon chased and don't feel they are gouts to be at risk .'lice risk inherently is low and the mitigation steps we are taking '.reduce it even further." Oliver said. Oliver said he feels safer buying a home with the venting system than one that has never been tested for methane. However, county officials say they won't be able to sign off on 'the project until an outside consultanr reviews and approves the mitigation plan The Department of Enviror,- mental Health does not have toe expertise to evaluate the plan. said Gary Erbeck. the department dimc- tor. Seid. who is the president of the Building Industry .Association, said he has never encom terbd_jjF Rk1& OVIR rt —rction. He said he has learned that such discoveries are more com. man in Orange County and Los An- geles, where development is occur- ring atop and near old oil wells. to ie-M standards and a least 1 feel that everyone will be living in safe homes: Seid said - The new, development falls within county Supervisor Pam Slater's dis- trict and she was notified about the methane problem a few weeks agn. Slater agreed with the decisinn.tn revoke occupancy permits for the completed homes, said john Weil. her chief of stall We would not want someone to occupy a home... and gn into their back yard and have a barbecue that would spark an explosinn." Wed said. SUPPLLMENrAL DRAT This Report for Hoag and Vicinity (page 6 section2.4) ENVIRONNILWAL LWACT REPORT NO. 142 FOR Oil property of Hoag and Banning ff.. adjacent. They HOAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN are considered common areas of gas seeps. SCH #89061429 geological APPENDIX L (PPI-13 Sections I.0 -6.0) SUPPLEMENTAL HYDROGEN SULFIDE(METHANE GAS STUDY 3.2 Methane The effects of the local methane seeps in the Newport Beach area have been noted as including minor fires from the trapping-of the gas within a confined space and economic impacts from source control measures and monitoring. The hydrogen sulfide and methane gases are likely to be seepiQg from the soils, with the unknowns associated with the - fractured geologic system, leads us to conclude that the concentrations and locations of gas seepage from the soils are very poorly known Scattered fractures may be acting as conduits for the gases almost anywhere on the subject property. 5.1 )Project Specific Impact The project would result in the excavation of +F8,888 cubic yards of soils to an undetermined A?pth The disturbance of the soils may result in levels of hydrogen sulfide and methane, or another unknown hazardous constituent, in the atmosphere in quantities greater than the NIOSH, OSHA, and ACGIH limits, or in concentrations which may pose the threat of. explosion - • It is recommended that continuous monitoring for methane and hydrogen sulfide be conducted during the disturbance of the soils and during any construction activities which may result in an increase in the seepage of the gases. • A study of other hazardous constituents which may be present in quantities which pose a health risk to exposed individuals should be evaluated prior to the initiation of the project These may include compounds which are directly related tUetroleum, such as benzene and toluene. • potential for • creased fault activity and gas seepage during construction- related activities. • solubilized gases and byproducts in the water runoff form the site. January 14, 1992 Project No. 200160-01 . ... .. .. .. .. .. ....: ... _ .. .... ... _. ... ... - .. _ ...... _.. ...... ......._.'.....rte:_ ..........� SUPPMMENTAL DR.` -r This Report for Hoag and Vicinity (page 6 section2.4) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 142 FOR Oil property of Hoag and Banning #f. adjacent. They HOAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN are considered common geological areas of gas seeps. SCH #89061429 APPENDIX I (PPI -13 Sections 1.0-6.0) SUPPLEMENTAL HYDROGEN SULFIDE(METHANE GAS STUDY 3.2 Methane The effects of the local methane seeps in the Newport Beach area have been noted as including minor fires from thf trapbing -of the gas within a confined space and economic impacts from source control measures and monitoring. The hydrogen sulfide and methane gases are likely to be seeping from the soils, with the unknowns associated with the _fractured geologic system, leads us to conclude that the concentrations and locations of gas seepage from the soils are very poorly known. Scattered fractures may be acting as conduits forthe gases almost anywhere on the subject property. 5.1 Project Specific Impact The project would result in the excavation of dF"B9 cubic yards of soils to an undetermined Aepth. The disturbance of the soils may result in levels of hydrogen sulfide and methane, or another unknown hazardous constituent, in the atmosphere in quantities greater than the NIOSH, OSHA, and ACGIH limits, or in concentrations which may pose the threat of explosion. • • • It is recommended that continuous monitoring for methane and hydrogen sulfide be conducted during the disturbance of the soils and during any construction activities which may result in an increase in the seepage of the gases. A study of other hazardous constituents which maybe present in quantities which pose a health risk to exposed individuals should be evaluated prior to the initiation of the Project. These may include compounds which are directly related t(�yetroleum, such as benzene and toluene. potential for4eased fault activity and gas seepage during construction - related activities. tV/ solubilized gases and byproducts in the water runoff form the site. January 14, 1992 Project No. 200160-01 SLIDES AND SUBSIDY 1. Kenneth Henderson, an official of the State Department of Conservation, Division of Gas and Oil, stated: The State needs additional inspections and test requirements on all old oil fields in our coastal zone. (L.A. Times, 12/29/93, page A3.) 2. The famous Geologist Arthur Sylester reported in the Science Journal: "Coastal oil fields pose a big worry to earth movement when old fault lines and fissures allow subterranean Fluids to weaken and cause hillside disasters." 3. Geophysicists now use G.P.S. "Ground Positioning System" to pinpoint land subsidence within a few thousands of an inch. Also to determine how and where it is occurring. This method uses satellites. California's state law in 1956 required oil, companies to inject as much Fluid as it took out of the ground. This technique prevents subsiHowever, between 19,35and 1956 they created many cavities. Cavities cause movement, even sink holes. On January 15, 1993, Costa Mesa experienced a large sink hole very near the oil property, at Superior and 16"' Street. No thorough investigations were made, but there were several theories. ANOTHER CITY GETS SUED / A city is not required to stabilize a bluff or hillside, but they are responsible to see the builder stabilizes it early in the project. If Banning Ranch is allowed to be developed with all their bluff problems, the safety and welfare of future buyers are at risk. A buyer must be given a full disclosure of the risks he takes. If not, it just presents another liability to be settled in court. There appears to be no time limits or Deep Pockets defendants.