Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStudy Session – Beach/Edinger Corridor Study: A presentatio �f- Market Impacts ® Edinger Corridor January 7, 2008 John Yonai im u renan Assignment ® Revitalization Plan • Linda S. Congleton & Associates studied current market conditions • Tierra West Advisors translating market findings into economics supporting feasible investment recommendations • Goal to assure Specific Plan stimulates new investment 1 Watt Genton Economic Benefits Current uses, Petco, CVS, Howards, Michaels,food, laundry, service, '/z of smaller tenants are non-taxable uses Minimum mixed use +/-60 units per acre +/- 14 acre site: Standard shoppinq Center Mixed Use Difference Public Revenues $321,817 $2,160,432 $1,838,615 Development in High Land Value Environments 0 Study and Analyses Conclusions • Insufficient Office Market Demand to encourage new Office Developments • Retail Demand is limited • Two Anchored Centers are supportable—Up to 300,000 sqft • Overbuilt situation exists with smaller centers • Evidenced by uses other then traditional retail tenants • Development Sites are limited • Retail Rents limit new developments • Residential Rents and Sales values limit Development • Land Values are limiting new development • High Land Values necessitate Developer encouragement • Public Revenues are needed to support project fiscal costs 10 Development in High Land Value Environments o Recommendations 0 Tools to Encourage Development • Mixed use Developments help offset high land costs • Provide for development of both Commercial and Residential uses on sites • Allow for increased FAR/Density on parcels • Commercial uses based upon increased density&parking • Residential uses minimum of 60 units per acre • Desired Tenant Mix for Anchored Commercial Sites • National and Regional names • Crate and Barrel,Williams Sonoma,Apple Stores,H&M, Whole Foods,Gelsons,11 Forniao,Sushi Roku/Boa's, Houston's, etc. • Retailers who can afford project feasible rents • Create local and regional shopping draw 11 Beach Boulevard&Edinger Avenue Corridors Specific Plan Enabling Near Term Opportunities: The Vision for the Edinger Corridor City Council Study Session January 71h,2008 - Study Session Purpose 1. To present recommendations for the revitalization of the Edinger Ave Corridor. 2. To report on focus group and community workshop participant input on these issues. 3. To receive comment and informal direction in response to the recommendations presented. Orientation 1 Corridor Specific Plan Team • City Staff Core Team - Everything • Freedman - Corridor Revitalization Tung & Land Use,Urban Design& Bottomley Development Regulations • Tierra West Advisors - Market and in partnership with Fiscal Analyses Linda S.Congleton& Associates • Austin-Foust - Circulation& Associates Access Beach/Edinger Corridors Specific Plan Study Area W. X' 1,4 Definition of Terms. The Corridor" 4= 2 f ) The Corridor is Generally Defined by the Residential Transition Line d `'6` `._°= , q _ f;= er 3.1.A 'r . x-� X l ,fit- �„ �>.`•, ::,_�,<"�,-�:Wyi'4 g.�-':�,'�.� ,€,�,... � .•€- Buildings _ - N1 �.,���-■ �ro�r� _ A F]r=f A Specific Plan is the community's most powerful tool to guide change to "make a better city" The Specific Plan 1. Community Intent The Envisioned Future Corridor Corridor Revitalization Strategy 2. Development Regulations 3. Planned City Actions 3 ( 1r PLAN FRAMEWORK: KEY COMMUNITY MEETINGS-TO DATE • Focus Groups • Community Workshop 1: Existing Conditions and Community Aspirations • Community Workshop 2: Revitalization Concepts- Broad Brush Alternatives and Trade-Offs • Community Workshop 3: Traffic • Community Workshop 4: Making The Most of Near Term Opportunities:The Vision for Edinger • City Council/Planning Commission Study Session: Making the Most of Near Term Opportunities:The Vision for the Edinger Avenue Corridor PLAN FRAMEWORK: KEY COMMUNITY MEETINGS - NEXT • City Council/Planning Commission Study Session o tional : Land Use&Development Policy Approach to Implementing the Vision for Edinger. • Community Workshop 5: Design Character& Identity for the Beac Edinger Corridors. • Community Workshop 6: Envisioned Future /Revitalization Strategy for Beach Boulevard. • City CouncillPlanning Commission Study Session: Recommended Plan Framework. • Planning Commission Hearing(s)—Specific Plan Review. • City Council Hearing(s)—Specific Plan Review and Adoption. Community Aspirations & Project Intent Focus Groups Results of Market Analysis: RETAIL: • Retail generally fully built out- oversupplied • Need anchors for successful centers, merchants of 50,000 sq. ft. or more (groceries, specialty retail) • Anchors generally all accounted for, perhaps 1 or 2 more (gourmet or specialized grocery) • Unanchored centers struggle • Much retail space occupied by service businesses rather than retailers—no sales tax Hurdles for current owners to redevelop: • Collecting enough current income that demolition & new development not a viable option • Don't see enough upside in rent to undertake significant remodeling — maintain status quo • Rent to anyone, retail or service (sales tax generating or non-sales tax generating) to maintain cash flow 2 Additional Market Findings: OFFICE: Office rents too low to support new speculative development • Possible opportunities for smaller owner-occupied buildings • Possible opportunities for "build-to suit" pre-leased or pre-sale; no market risk Market Findings ® continued: RESIDENTIAL: Demand for residential units still strong 0 Workforce affordable housing is an issue— need units market can afford 0 Depth of residential demand provides the economic engine for new investment Near term opportunity is luxury for-rent residential projects 3 Additional potential uses: HOTEL: Developers have expressed an interest in building possibly 2 hotels along Edinger Corridor +/- 150 units each Land cost always a challenge Proposed Economic Goals for Edinger Corridor • Attract younger professional residents with discretionary spending potential, support restaurants, quick foods, electronics, fashion and accessories and services, thereby spinning off additional retail spending • Attract urban-oriented residents who enjoy walking to shopping/entertainment adjacent to or near their residences • New residents will increase demand for retail • High density housing will provide a village atmosphere 4 Market Recommendations: DEVELOPER PRICING PARAMETERS EDINGER&BEACH CORRIDORS PRODUCT PROGRAM 3�4b�,�,�" ���Rt7i311v`T � 1 �ILDIIstG` �A£R�y� �i'i4l;IfiltalG^aPA`�GE��S P �Nt'd' � Luxury For-Rent/Ground Fl—Retail 150-200 Units 3.0 - 4.0 225 - 300 $40,000 - $45,000 (minimum) (minimum) Condominiums/Ground Floor Retail 150-200 Units 3.0 - 4.0 225 - 300 $80,000 - $80.000 (minimum) (minimum) Limited Service Hotel 200 Rooms 3.5 - 3.5 200 - 200 $15,000 - $20,000 (5-Levels) Existing Retail Project Land Value Retail Rent vs Land value 160 00 a$100 00 �.�. � m $60 00 € s s •� R $20 00 J $0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 Monthly Rent(NNN) S Residential For Sale vs. For Rent Land Values $160 __... _.__.. _ _ ...._........ _.._.....__. .._....._.. $140 0 w $120 • $100 —Land value-tor sale o. $� —Land Value-for rent $60 rs v $40 m $20 $0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Units per acre Costs vs. Benefits to the City 0 Properties in 2 categories for owners based upon current rents vs. development (risk vs. reward): • Not producing income: • Montgomery Ward (DJM) • Producing marginal income • Michael's (Watt Genton) • Del Taco(Red Oak) • Levitz 6 Bella Terra II (Montgomery Ward) 0 Current use, vacant, approximately 14 acres 0 Example projections*: • +/- 156,000 sq. ft. of retail Approximately 36 units per acre (rental and for sale) "Based upon DJM Presentation Bella `terra II Economic Benefits Existing Mixed Use Difference Public Revenue $40,609 $1,784,875 $1,744,266 annual 7 Levitz Site •Current use: Levitz furniture store, EZ Lube • Levitz store closing, future use unknown • Existing lease & renewal option expire 2021 +/- 10 acres Levitz Potential Economic Benefits 0 If redeveloped: Standard shopping center current code Mixed Use Difference Public Revenue $233,000 $668,874 $435,874 8 Red oak Site o Rip Curl Project •Current Uses: Del Taco, food, liquor, spa, nails, postal, tanning, office, %2 of tenants are non-taxable • Developer Proposal: • Retail +/- 12,000 sq. ft. • +/-120 units per acre apartments • Example Projections: • Based upon an estimated model at a lower density than being proposed by the Developer Red oak Economic Benefits Standard Shopping Center Mixed Use Difference Public Revenue $84,269 $269,116 $184,847 9 r Chamber of Commerce • Huntington Beach residents and visitors would like better local shopping opportunities,especially apparel and quality grocery.Potential for major retailers limited because of proximity of Costa Mesa and Westminster malls • Need for driveway consolidation on Beach • Beach Boulevard needs aesthetic upgrade—not a proper entry to the City • Many successful and stable businesses along both corridors Property Owners, Developers • HB not a desirable office address.Residential"missing" in Edinger corridor.Interest in creating a mixed use place,with some single use projects. • Beach is not a positive entry:need a"Wow"factor,and "eye appeal" now it looks like"junky flea market' Upgrades need to be aesthetic.and economic • Property owners want intensification of entitlements and streamlining of process. Change will take a long time, they want flexibility in terms of use.Stand alone residential is probably what would develop most quickly Property Owners, Developers • Concern that traffic issue will"shut it down,"i.e.limit increases in intensity."Have to make traffic flow." Interest in transit potential within and to City • North HB businesses losing customers because of mall— especially delis,etc. • On Beach,there is"huge demand"for office,especially medical.Small parcels big development challenge • Parking"drives everything" Many over-parked properties,"sea of unused parking" • Some properties ready for submittal now—Red Oak, DIM 5 r � CalTrans • Caltrans owns Beach Boulevard • Changes in the Edinger corridor have major impact on Caltrans facilities(405 and interchanges) • All changes to Beach will require Caltrans'full agreement and participation • Caltrans will comment on changes in Edinger; City will be required to analyze traffic in conformance w/Caltrans procedures Community Aspirations & Project Intent Community Workshops Community Workshop I - Comments • Beach Boulevard is our gateway to the City and to the Pacific Ocean. —Accessibility transportation —Pleasant drive —Surf city identity • Nothing unique about Beach Blvd. • Keep"flavor"of Beach Blvd. • Terrible eyesore • Limited depth on Beach Blvd. parcels • There has been a history of citizen meetings regarding Beach Blvd. 6 Community Workshop 1 - Comments • Beach is not a good"walkable"street • Beach Blvd —sea of concrete • Setbacks and other devices to deal with wide highway • More landscape setbacks on Beach Blvd. • Need innovation to keep flow of traffic Community Workshop 1 - Comments • New Horizontal mixed-use development would be a good idea • Convert commercial property to residential property • Boeing will need housing in corridor - Healthy,affordable mix of housing • Need for increased residential density - Modes of increased density • Affordability attracts a young and vibrant population • Mixed-use reduces traffic • Plaza Almeria is a good example of vertical mixed-use • Need a variety of housing options What Aspects of the Corridors Have We been Studying? 7 i Wil terra z-11 3f •`+ Five Points Shopping Center Aerial of Beach Blvd.—1959 Context: ., Retail ' Centers Citywide q3� f f Context: Citywide Pattern of Development z• 93 Q Segment Character: Commercial Strip �r': ��"�• bpi '.�,`- .' ",�'�" � -. j Edinger Ave.—Existing Conditions Ground Floor Land Use -. "-«., e.m....x .:- ri.,ye-•,w.� a.•,m�x,�� mow,rw�:s--xv _ ' 9 1 ?i',;rW WIN Ga—y S1—Anr d Nelghborh-dC¢— and Trade A— ion frci:ery iron Amhnred Neichlx.+rhocd f.Pnn�s and Traon Area - "i--'^= - F n S ' r r . Othcas.nd Medical SEr•.ice, ,i-"-- 10 - j Market Trends & Demand INSERT REPRESENTATIVE IMAGE FROM TIERRA WEST PRESENTATION 11 Traffic Conditions .zg. ng rr,nYa„i,3 ® "`s'etiEPi I®em mil ®a. Strrr�,�nd Htrf1.fve'.wnnt >"'— ,;;ll M, +soh 12 General Plan Oo""i" :in,Zlan R—h. 0 7- VfJnefbbaiiy t�Cha•gr .,",= � �"�-- "Vulnerable to Change" r..-_ U,j .: 13 "Vulnerable to Change" F Why Are We Looking at Edinger First? 14 Uneven Distribution of Real Estate Value 41 Investigation of Beach/Edinger Opportunities 'tea..._--.�• -. � � '�'` 8 I I tr,.esmxn:c:ermoe �, I I I I I I I I I I ( I I I � I I I l Investigation of Beach/Edinger Opportunities a i IF I I I I le I I I I Opportunity Sites In, eeltn pid'MMn.��ierm rore:� "Oo�:rtniry Sh:r Idm::af tr.,Go�ani�; 15 ...... Opportunity Sites ..... „ P' 1 2 and 3Acre Sites i`. Opportunity Sites and Investment Generators Best Current Opportunities: Large Assembled properties at Edinger/405Interchange Zone Longer Term Opportunities: Distributed Throughout Beach Blvd.north of Yorktown. r 1 16 RN, `N�;.nz•.:4..• .. mod'�': Nikkt 'WA Al �` yew -,;,: •.,�11��� Why are We Looking at Edinger First? 1. Most if not all assembled opportunity sites ready for new investment to start revitalization are clustered along Edinger. 2. Owners of large assembled properties along Edinger have the financing and motivation to proceed rapidly with new investment. 3. Waiting for the entire Beach Edinger planning to be completed may jeopardize capturing available near-term investment opportunities. 17 How Do We Decide What Would be Best for the Edinger Corridor? CONDITIONING COMMUNITY TOOLS FACTORS INTENT Existirg, p-- 1 ��Development \ -� Market oo � Regulations I ��,�� "Trends �` i I . Traffic ooc� • I ��\ Plan Gty C'n" 15 Existing Conditions along Edinger The Existing Pattern of Development in the Edinger Corridor& Environs � Isolated low intensity single use development in an auto- 18 . . ' 19 INSERT MARKET ASSESSEMENT PRESENTATION BY TIERRA WEST HERE Market Trends 2.0 Forces of Change effecting Shopping Malls and Environs The shopping industry is evolving dramatically, 20 1970s—90s: Malls Dominated the Industry Shopping Mall Customer: Woman, Age 25 - 45 • Social life revolves around the Mall • 3— 5 visits/month • 2— 5 hour visit with girlfriends • Visits every shoe store • Walks THRU the mall • Highest sales at main crossroads court • Not Brand Loyal • Today: She Does Not Exist Today's Shopper • Children • Career • Night School • She doesn't cross-shop • In and Out of Department Store without walking thru the Mall • Brand Loyal e.g. Anne Klein 21 . . . As A Result . . . • 80s, 90s: 20 Malls/year • Today, less than 1 Mall/year • Existing Malls Vulnerable: 20% "greyfields"i.e. redevelopment candidates. ,. -�•' Reasons for Mall's Decline • Shift in Customer Preference to retail formats that —Accommodate the much busier lifestyles of particularly female shoppers who no longer spend as much time in the mall—"lifestyle centers"found to deliver more$/s.f./min. than regional malls. —Accommodate the baby boomer generation's current preference for city life 1:06 Angeles(me'o C'AL'FLIR+`+'IA More Shoppin„linlls Going Alfresco •D—k-T,en hope Io dupllmtt damllom,erpevlence in avhntba wIW open-a�t'elLs' c BY ruhrTnnwAl,'limo>F—I W.I. M.).the t-1.ofine,.:hm.he:oy Oat d..&,robed m+@loon o,d f—I am•u h,aN,w n•„e�-e.+•� ,wr„d m,art.nl.n,mMun- d«.hmn..n xtaton I').wetnpe-s arc• , raonfic,mveworedma7lxfxnm ke:eyah,^+i,.tl:nlamknr..nN,q nid.ury uR>`Owd.xv .thnl:mx hm=i6.m:Airril....nth?vY-b..svam.,M1'gi+.dnw+r hw ,,,xb+dumraui.Ybv Ik'v+wn ssxashrl,rrwm<.nra Alei4a Imvv+ivdn Ol,nv,w W'.Ic"vllx,"„Y«-r n+««m.rs ir.t'.ou,ie,ny rl+ennn++11.11,iuC l.,+q 1...I The uzpd cnnnm:es i,:2,nsaux,tiv'hdnm un.l:^2n11iwKlon A.s3i,where devub,}we h:n'�'r raa+i:Ji.' doxnksvr eperin,ee uGsts:u, ,:Rr•7;:omn a,hndam anm,muw 'M.,n;-pxq'Ir liv,rn o�cmrm:li.x.el;..ell:eris nrv:a roan she,¢whe,.We?can walk,vi:,ml,nv.cp m,.lm nmpte"ad lll.r+ +,+h+xg:h-a xql ro .a111nCi.iCzns-tier the Y,Hv'IY.v,nn+" 22 All j, 77 XA sue;" Shift in Customer/Investor Preference to Urban Formats - .- - 23 Egg- Village of Rochester Hills Most Recently: City Centers 24 i y Commons '. &>' ,y 5KK' el � y Arai: 7Y ya ti a a L } • •s` 99 M • `�, '4 ' a i 25 . HF+ aw 26 A �9 r is s 27 i k ' M rc� a+: Pedestrian Amenity&Housing are now considered essential to'success 28 1963 9' 1964 ... . ...... w. :.. s s: Enlarged Retail Formats Com ete with Older Malls gg a 29 1980 Now v T 1 / 1\ l 30 0 .'SPY� `Es.:..�'•�"";f e',�'�,�°�.K q?�� v xA' l \ f 'v PM COMMUTE ^ iL9 '�(\'ems, OPHOOb'• �-• i•..A•yw'CENfEP TO WN CENTER . 3 V Pattern of City Centers to Revitalization Framework 31 ACE �, is 7N,� •�.%° �ate° _. Bella Terra: hybrid mall + lifestyle center Missing: Housing, Pedestrian Connectivity 32 Lingering Disinvestment = Opportunity to bolster the performance of Bella Terra/Edinger. . . x..=s';, �•:'a'� - .,,�. ,1 ry .36..'. ` ... "; jai . . .and enhance the identity of this part of the City How Do We Decide What Would be Best for the Edinger Corridor? CONDITIONING COMMUNITY TOOLS FACTORS INTENT Conditions o�� �Development a M � I �—�� Regulations ' T ends FT,-fflc, a� • tl` Plan-„ � Acz CiTy . Traffic 33 PLAN FRAMEWORK: KEY COMMUNITY MEETINGS • Focus Groups • Community Workshop 1: Existing Conditions and Community Aspirations • Community Workshop 2: "Broad-Brush" Revitalization&Planning Concepts • Communit ry Workshop 3:Traffic • Community Workshop 4: Making the Most of Current opportunities:The Vision for the Edinger Corridor • City Council/Planning Commission Study Session: Recommended Plan Framework Summary 1. The Corridors are in need of investment&revitalization; there is market demand to provide it. 2. Current mobility problems are a cause of concern in the community. 3. A package of near-term improvements will be necessary to a) improve mobility to acceptable standards, and b)allow new near- term investment without violating those standards. Eveninq Traffic: Existing Conditions in the Weekday P.M. Peak North 34 Edinger Corridor - Signal Timing Improvements � � a S S � #1. Edinger/Beach Intersection Improvements iDtNFER AYE. y� �Yh Potential Short-Term Investment � ( £ North . 35 PM Peak Hour: Short-Term Scenario with Traffic Improvements North Intersection Improvements Community Standard Traffic is met 11{ Traffic Volume _ •Capacity Increases Volume -Volume can increase while maintainingIL - standard Potential Medium-Term Investment + Traffic Improvement Locations ` I d North Y ' 36 Mid-Term #1. Beach/Warner Intersection Improvements BEACH BIVO. \ Mid-Term #2. Additional Beach/Talbert Intersection Improvements BEACH BLV� PM Peak Hour: Mid-Term Development Scenario with Mid- Term Improvements �® 4 North ? e 37 What We Have Learned 1. The Community has the Potential to Choose to Accommodate Reinvestment while enhancing mobility. 2. The amount of new investment that can be accommodated within the community's standard for traffic mobility is limited to that tested in the Mid-Term Scenario. Why Bother with New Development? Using new Investment & Re-investment to Enhance Future Mobility Orange County Orange County 1947 Now y tj 38 In 1950 People Today People Traveled Around Travel Over 10 miles per day 40 miles per day 5 miles to Newport Beach 20 miles to Dana point The cause. a sprawling development pattern served by a conventional transportation network of highways and arterials. Design of environment discourages walking, bicycling, transit stop waiting. / i%% r��`., 39 Uniform low-density development does not warrant the development of transit facilities . Tf AR This existina pattern of development is no longer sustainable in terms of energy, water and other resource consumption. Growth over the next 30 years is projected to roughly equal the past 30 years. Po"utdti©n eharf'e 1970r'2000 LA 2,492,270 San Diego 1,460,030 Orange 1.423,310 Riverside 1,098,950 San Bernadino 1,034,650 Po'[Aatign ahan"a 20M203Q Riverside 1,524,530 LA 1,469,470 San Diego 1,345,740 source. San Bernadino 1,152,200 Woods& Oran e 1,134,370 on)ie- 9 Nationwide County Rank 40 How Can We Plan for Continued Investment & Revitalization that does not degrade the Quality of Life in our City? Principles for Growing Smarter Single Use Everywhere vs. Some Mixed-Use Centers BENEFITS OF MIXED-USE: * REDUCED TRIPS& * FEWER MILES TRAVELED i a 27 FF i Wy 7a � 3 Destinations 3 Destinations 6 ITE Trips 2 ITE Trips Disappearing Trips 41 Principles for Growing Smarter Superblock vs. Fine-Grained Street Network 4 r MR-1 ,aA'• ��<,`,'-T�' Pmi'8.6jt OTC - t -. �y< j4Y!,.+���, 6^4'tvq�,�;gar ✓ BENEFITS OF A CONNECTED NETWORK: SMALLER STREETS&MORE CAPACITY z z a me Total Lanes apacity 4 •Clearance Time •Signal Phase 42 Principles for Growing Smarter Uniform Low Density vs. City Centers with Greater Density - x1 ems, 1... .01: .,�._.. ..Vti<i ..... .,�.Im +�•fin ero 1 i Jf1:..+,...t:ur�<t,t..o'.'.,.�.'1'• ...+ .�i•+l.t,+c,. .. �.,� " J _ t .:v,.s +:al v+ui�u IY'�0 i.:•i�c Nod;i_ar.+l na I'repxnmmv of .. I ,� m.,l::•�,,,4,,I,�u,..�?..f y.:ar�w.s�s�xce ..•�,' BENEFITS OF HIGHER DENSITY:SUPPORTS TRANSIT H rc. 4 � 55 DENS— ~� DENSR — om spy ��d6ti e4u �•-�� x .� Yl� 43 Principles for Growing Smarter Patterns that Discourage Walking, Bicycling vs. City Patterns that Encourage Walking, Bicycling, Transit- riding BENEFITS OF BIKINGIPEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE: LESS VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED HEALTHIER PEOPLE MORE ATTRACTIVE ENVIRONMENT r How Can We Plan for Continued Investment & Revitalization that does not degrade the Quality of Life in our City? 44 Specific Plan — Near Term Strategy • Implement Near Term Network Improvements; Enforce community Standard of Mobility. Use the SPPLN to limit new development to amount that these new improvements can accommodate (within community std.) Specific Plan: Medium to Long Term Strategy Use the SPPLN to ensure that new development replaces existing development patterns with: • City Centers with mixed-use and appropriate levels of density; • Connected streets and walkable scaled blocks; • Infrastructure to accommodate walking, bicycling, and transit use. Community Workshop 3 —Traffic Comments 45 Concerns • People who move here want to live the medium- low density California Lifestyle and drive cars. • I have heard there is not a big difference between Single Family Homes and Centers. How much reduction in traffic is there really? • I'm Concerned about the extent of the benefit you get from this type of development. • Shouldn't we direct investment so it doesn't go in the wrong place? • Under current transportation system,more intensity is planning for more cars • If we get the density/housing,will we get transit? So Far So Good • Thanks for listening about traffic • We are getting more people;The only solution is high density&mixed-use • I'm in support of the network improvements and mixed-use • I agree with the idea of phasing development Strong Support For Transit • We need to look 30 years out to plan for transit. • I want to see us do more planning for transit • Beach,Ellis,and Main is a perfect place for a transportation center • We do need to move forward with more emphasis on transit 46 Overall,Participants Wanted To Look More Closely At The Vision "This strikes me as an exhilarating process. I haven't heard'I disagree totally'but I do hear some caution. Let's definitely go to the next stage" Envisioned Infill Essential Characteristics for New Investment along Edinger No le .W.O . %OL- 47 How Do We Decide What Would be Best for the Edinger Corridor? CONDITIONING COMMUNITY TOOLS - FACTORS INTENT Existions _S Developme5i `\ ] �—� RegulaT�on I p� TrerMs ��— Crt �L -- � Actoi 5 ) �� -Place- J The Existing Pattern of Development in the Edinger Corridor& Environs % <r 1 � I yx 7 } I1 ] C r=� Isolated low intensity,singl e use developmentin an auto- dominated eny'ronment Revitalization Framework Ten° i ="¢,_ ri Center Neighborhood 1 Inf dl Goldenwerr �"�'' 4 Town " 'AesyeFl�mi Ne�Merkaaa��;� �.1 1�.� es5:+knt:dneyRbxhoad Connected mixed use development in a pedestrian friendly environment,oriented to a city center I 48 Development Framework: Enhanced Corridor Structure ;. .. : Town Center j Town, / Neighborhood �;�,,, Center ''""'` " Town Boulevard ' 1 Center .,���r`r.••.• � Core /1" i eatc�rr Residential Industrial Neighborhoods !, Corridor I� i Realigned with market trends, principles of sustainability. Town Center Core TOWN t �•� CENTER CORE i ( T..i Edinger v it 3 iil o c j I Heil Bella Terra: Encourage Future Intensification in Keeping with Market Trends to Bolster Demand ..1 '. . 01-1 r V .. Envisioned:Connected higher intensity,mixed use development 49 Revitalization Framework: Town Center District Town Cenfer 1 f DISR�ci S E' Tmnsr imp. ] Cente �1 , 't<,• ..c,i ,a Town )}f Nei hborhood _ .I •boldarwest �(.� �^•y�•P`. �t .' i CpUege � W� Town , 9idw�'WignWrMoG ? .; ,•• u. �i4 �nui4 NelgM1brrhoce Connected higher intensity ixed use development in a Envisioned Character: Town Center Core ` AR y1 Development Types: Town Center Core 50 Town Center Neighborhood r._- -_._• TOWN i CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD 1 �._. ._. ._._._._._J.�• Edinger i o c t y l.T lieil Revitalization Framework: Town Center District Tro P� Cenrer' � 77 � InfAl college � c�neu C Rezidemld Nngpborhwd ��� RexiEenikflJslghbwheae } ,., Connected higher intensity,mixed use development in a pedestrian friendl�environment . . . Includes best short term opportunity to augment Bella Terra uA r -� iS/ i . -£ .: 51 Z9 pffiRk- w i :<.�1`,< �'a�, -�./ r�/��b+ i�6 yg �gy `� V Aa.,, a�''��i� ',_•„ # F s, *•`: _j,,fig,a".'",t�,�`„'--, �i',,i'9i'%7-;% '/r 5Y3„��- IR w . Gs r y 1� A XN amw �E 1 4 Town Center yr°. N .=y. , r,•N:�: Neighborhood- r Core Edge OT Envisioned Development Types: Core Edge F - 7,n !�.it 9xry -• .as3"� - �- Mixed-Use w/ground floor shops 53 y IN . - ,....x � � ..b:.➢////ice: ::�,w,�m' �... Town vF . r,Av Core Edge Ground Floor _ > ~h § Retail Required Residential, Office, Lodging Above Minimum 2 Stori Maximum 4 Stori Town ,: fr • f Core Edge 3w Ground Floor a.��.•;, L,��" ';>r'.*,v-.a:,� s' ��,,a°. �3;; gc Retail Required Residential, '° Office, Lodging Above Minimum 2 Stor' /; ;<n u' Maximum 4 Storm:': 54 aq , Envisioned Character:Town Center District mg .. . ti OR xs. i iaj � Paz 55 Development Types: Town Center Core Edge i tJ. f Town Center '. Neighborhood Interior ;.. TO NZ-NA V a' 56 r Envisioned Character: Town Center Neighborhood Interior fi Envisioned Character:Town Center Neighborhood =11J 57 Not Permitted ,i✓,.. rig/�o,� s i�� `f sty �:�•" ...� No usable public space; mostly impermeable surfaces k �p t e 4Bk =ssj 58 Envisioned Form: Town Center Neighborhood y Envisioned Form: Town Center Neighborhood . sR ,.. ,,`. ....:: ,,,, ,,•�i,I:t� eel „ �• Housing,Office Lodging, Minimum 2 Stories Corner Store Retail Maximum 6 Stories /E , x 59 Envisioned Character:Town Center District PAR,4 >'• ' Qom .. `�*. '-;�. ,• v,�Y.r, ter: TOWN ri �•` CENTER BOULEVARD �e \ Edinger BOW o, •Li .0 r I � � }�•�: Ileii Urban Design Framework: Re-Structure the Corridor—Town Center District � ro� i c—ror Nn N,e hb { gorhooE �"" � �• Infili rows ; -�.,r --ems:•. � .a —.r- Connected hiaher intensity mixed use development in a 60 Town Center' ""'" �• Boulevard rTF: Edge r'>>. .• .} ..«� ,yam � VIA Envisioned Character:Town Center Boulevard , 41 Retail Office KI Envisioned Form:Town Center Boulevard 61 F � Town Center ` a Boulevard Interior R <. v Wj�%.",_- c�ca;Fesses er�frca cm�r#an t $�5 ,..-_........._....... .. ..........�......._�..�....._...-_.............................._................. ...... ......__..... ...... 1 -7 62 • Existing Transition /v ': ;,. Proposed Transition r Yj t .- Proposed Transition to Residential Neighborhoods roc ^M4, ,9a, F39IE> �^\'� .rye10 x ,,, •;� `:'.'r�s ° s r Envisioned Character:Residential Transition a Housin 63 Envisioned Form:Residential Transition Areas Edinger Ave.—Existing Conditions " Envisioned Character:Town Center District M? ;` z 64 1 CONDITIONING COMMUNITY TCO�S FACTORS rNTENT ��•hons�-. d. IoP Son t �.s -r i' pl— i� Town Center Neighborhood Town ?'" Town Center Boulevard"' ?...%% y„1 Center Core i. I Residential Industrial- fl k Neighborhoods- Corridor i rt - v. Existing z. Zoning (CG) - Permitted Uses `�' �� � Retail Office Public/Semi-Public Building Height: Bella Terra-75 ft. Edinger—50 ft. �? " Minimum Setback: 50 ft. MmPe - ;. ' «. 65 The Existing Pattern of Development in the Edinger Corridor&Environs /' r t1 J k F & i R.s.Mn;'w„wytsxrox� ; ._ _ l(� F.;fnrm nr,yxnr'.+:n`. '( R•-'" Isolated low intensity,single use development in an auto- Development under Existing Zoning(CG) IT Regulatory Elements 1. Building Orientation 2. Building Use 3. BuildingHeight ...g ra. I t___,._.._.� 4. Relation to -`` Existing Homes 0 �_' S. Public Frontage 6. Private Frontage a. .. .. "- 7. Setbacks _-..___._.__ _1.__,,• . 8. Frontage Coverage 9. Space Between Buildings ^ 10. Building Length -•. 11. Build-to-Corner 66. Areas with Distinct Urban Form Town Center Core Town Center Neighborhood Town Center Boulevard Residential Transition Areas with Distinct Character Town Center Core Town Center Neighborhood Town Center Boulevard Residential Transition Community Workshop 2 - Comments • I'm worried about transportation. • Will these recommendations increase traffic on Edinger Ave. so that congestion is bad all day long? • Generally I like the recommendations but I'm worried about the interchange as a choke point. • We need to maintain traffic flow. 67 Community Workshop 2 - Comments • We need seamless land-use and transportation planning. • Consider innovative traffic solutions. • The Transit Center and railroad tracks are already in place for us to build on. • Consider transit to get beach traffic of the roads. • Reduce the commute out of the City • Focus on the long term planning process,not just the immediate traffic impacts. • If you live in the City,you avoid the problem intersections. • I like the town center idea. I think it will generate less traffic. • In nodes with higher density housing,more people will walk and they will be less congested. Community Workshop 2 - Comments • Golden West College supports this. • I totally support this, move ASAP. • The vision is Wonderful. Community Workshop 4 Comments - Agree - • Beautiful I agree you need 50 DU to be feasible Absolutely makes sense I like what you are talking about [Would be]a"good piece of Huntington Beach" I think vision is viable • If we are lucky it will work well for adults-What about children? This is a dynamic community Growth will Happen you need to anticipate and channel change This is a lifestyle choice people will mice there Because they want to • Proven across the city There are 80 DU in the city now and people don't know it;Beach south of Adams east of Beach high density example. Asa business owner this might be the right place for workforce housing. 68 r Community Workshop 4 Comments - Agree - • Right-mostly • All for mixed-use concept—condition is not to lose retail • If you build it we will shop there • Concepts make sense • Hotel would seem to be appropriate for that area • Idea of mixed use on Montgomery ward and market is excellent • I like what you have done;so far it has been thorough • I challenge your to ensure the workshop vision matches the(intricate)regulation;If it doesn't you can not get to the vision • The 405 is the most visible gateway to the city • I agree and thing this is a good direction Community Workshop 4 Comments • Instead of train • Quite/Environment • -Monorail,Magrail etc. • You are assuming people are going to walk. • I don't care what you say I am concerned about the traffic. • You can't do 50 DU with existing parking regulations (FTB recommends changing them) • You scarred me—you continue to white wash traffic • Response to recommendation(masterplan mixed use& reduced trips) • Even mixed use density will be more traffic than low density single use • Show traffic volumes—I except full traffic analysis Community Workshop 4 Comments Don't Agree Consider how feasibility is affected by impact fees Mixed use retail downtown has been unstable Luxury rental and affordable housing contradict I have owned this type of unit for 30 years and I hate it You have no idea the problems that occur when you stack that many people I agree high density means higher crime Concerned about eminent Domain—water Wrong direction There are 3 projects(ready to go]in that area. i am concerned what happens if they go before the specific plan You are recommending that City Center type development should only go in 2 or 3 places 69