Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout83-42 - General Plan Amendment 81-2RESOLUTION NO. 83-42 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING AS COMPLETE AND ADEQUATE THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81-2 (GPA 81-2) WHEREAS, Draft Environmental Impact Report 81-2 (DEIR 81-2) provided environmental impact assessment of proposed amendments to the Land Use, • Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Element of the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, DEIR 81-2 was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State EIR Guidelines and City Council Policy K-3; and and WHEREAS, DEIR 81-2 was circulated to the public for comment and review; WHEREAS, DEIR 81-2 was reviewed by the Citizen's Environmental Quality Advisory Committee (CEQAC); and WHEREAS, written comments were received from the public and CEQAC during and after the public review period; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach conducted public hearings to receive all public testimony with respect to DEIR 81-2; and WHEREAS, such comments and testimony were responded to through response to comments (Attachment No. 1 to the DEIR 81-2) and staff reports submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, such comments and testimony were fully and adequately responded to in the manner set forth in California Administrative Code Section 15146(b); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach has reviewed all environmental documentation comprising EIR 81-2 and has found that EIR 81-2 considers all environmental impacts of proposed General Plan Amendment 81-2 and is complete and adequate and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach • recommended to the City Council in their Resolution No. 1088 that EIR 81-2 be certified as adequate and complete; and WHEREAS, this City Council has reviewed all environmental documentation prepared to evaluate the proposed GPA, including all elements of the Final ESR and the recommendation of the Planning Commission, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby certify Final EIR 81-2 as complete and adequate in that it addresses all environmental effects of the proposed General Plan Amendment and fully complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines. Said Final EIR 81-2 is composed of the following • elements: a) Volume I - Draft EIR b) Volume II - Technical Appendices c) Volume III - Attachments 1 and 2 including comments and responses, additional information, and Planning Commission staff reports and minutes d) Additional Planning Commission minutes e) Planning Commission Resolutions f) City Council minutes g) City Council staff reports (with attachments) h) Comments and responses received prior to final action and not contained in a) through g) above. All of the above information has been and will be on file with the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663, (714) 640-2197. ADOPTED this 9th day of May , 1983. ATTEST: City Clerk l PLT:nma - 2 - 4/22/83 11111111 ilii 1111111111111111111111 *NEW FILE* E 1 R099 r - City Council Meet*April 11, 1983 Agenda Items No. D-1 & D-2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: . Planning Department SUBJECTS: D-1. General Plan Amendment 81-2 (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan and the acceptance of an environmental document. COMPONENTS: (a) CalTrans West LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned). GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open Space ZONE: O -S (Open Space) District PROPONENT: State of California, Department of Transportation (b) Fifth Avenue Parcels LOCATION: A: Westerly of Marguerite Avenue between Fifth Avenue and Harbor View Drive. B: Northerly of Fifth Avenue between Marguerite Avenue and Buck Gully. C: Along the eastern City boundary between Fifth Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road. GENERAL PLAN: Low Density Residential and Recreational and Environmental Open Space ZONE: R -1-B (Single Family with B combining) District PROPONENT: The Irvine Company (c) Big Canyon Area 16 LOCATION: Southwesterly of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open Space ZONE: P -C (Planned Community) District i T T0: City Cou - 2 0 i PROPONENT: The Irvine Company (d) Newport Center - Block 400 LOCATION: Northeasterly of Newport Center Drive East and San Miguel Drive. GENERAL PLAN: Administrative Professional, and Financial Commercial ZONE: C -O -H (Commercial) District PROPONENT: Newport Center Medical Buildings, Inc. (e) Campus Drive LOCATION: Area bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street, Orchard Avenue, and Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue. GENERAL PLAN: General Industry, Administrative Professional and Financial Commercial, and Retail and Service Commercial ZONE: M -1-A (Industrial) District, A -P (Administrative, Professional) District, and C-1 (Commercial) District PROPONENT: The City of Newport Beach INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach D-2. Amendment No. 2 to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program for the Caltrans West site. LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned). LCP: Recreational and Environmental Open Space ZONE: 0-S PROPONENT: State of California, Department of Transportation INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Suggested Action Hold hearing; if desired; take straw votes on each component, sustaining, modifying, or overruling the recommendations of the Planning Commission in T0: City Coil - 3 • each case, and continue the public hearing, directing staff to prepare resolutions, mitigation measures, and statements of facts and overriding considerations, incorporating the results of the straw votes, for consideration and adoption at the City Council meeting of Background on June 4, 1981, the Planning Commission initiated General Plan Amendment 81-2 consistent with City Council Policy 9-1 in effect at that time. Eight areas were originally set for possible amendment, but three dropped out prior to preparation of the environmental document. In addition to the General Plan Amendments initiated, Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan amendments were set for those proposals in the coastal zone. A draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the City by Phillips Brandt Reddick, Inc. The report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A.) and City Council Policy K-3. The draft EIR has been submitted to state, local, and regional jurisdictions and agencies, and interested parties. Copies of the draft EIR, the Technical Appendices, and Volume Three of the draft EIR were attached to the City Council Staff Report of March 28, 1983. It is requested that the City Council bring the March 28, 1983 staff report with attachments to the public hearing. Discussion At the March 28, 1983 public hearing several questions were raised and requests for additional information made on the various components of General Plan Amendment 81-2. These are responded to in the discussion of each component below. CalTrans West Conceptual Site Plans. The City Council requested development of illustrative site plans for the CalTrans West site. These site plan alternatives are being prepared and will be presented to the City Council at the public hearing. Planning Commission Recommendation on Park Dedication. The Planning Commission has recommended the following language pertaining to park dedication on the CalTrans West site: CalTrans West will be required to comply with the park dedication ordinance. A park of at least five acres in size is to be developed between Coast Highway, Superior. Avenue, 15th Street (extended), and Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extended). The specific size, location, design and the means to acquire and develop the park will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract maps for CalTrans West and/or the adjacent Banning -Newport Ranch residential developments. The park shall be completed concurrent with occupancy of the first residential unit. There are a number of ways these conditions can be used to implement the desired size, location and timing of the neighborhood park in this area. T0: City Coil - A • ^ The park condition recommended is similar to the park condition on the Banning -Newport Ranch approval. If the two projects (CalTrans and Banning) are eventually developed by the same developer, or if the two projects request tentative tract map approval at the same time, the condition as worded poses no problem, in that the park dedication requirements could be coordinated between the two areas. There is also the possibility that, in the event CalTrans is developed prior to the Banning -Newport Ranch, an agreement could be reached between the City, the developer of CalTrans and the Banning interests to implement the five acre park prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit on CalTrans. This would require the cooperation and agreement of the Banning interests and would require the execution of a development agreement or the implementation of a similar mechanism to delineate the manner in which the park dedication occurs and how any park dedication credits are given. There is, however, the possibility that the park dedication requirement as recommended by the Planning Commission could pose a considerable hardship on the eventual developer of CalTrans West. As stated in the March 28, 1983 staff report, the requirement that the minimum five acre park be completed concurrent with occupancy of the first residential unit could result in the entire five acre park being required on the CalTrans West site if it is developed prior to the Banning -Newport Ranch. This could occur if the owner of the Banning area does not cooperate with the City and the developer of CalTrans in the implementation of the five acre park. The wording of the park dedication requirement for both the Banning -Newport Ranch and the CalTrans West approvals has been developed in response to the expressed concern of the surrounding community that no additional residential development be permitted until a five acre park is dedicated and developed. The recommended park dedication language accomplishes this goal. The recommended park language also encourages the acquisition of the CalTrans West site by the owner of the Banning property or a close planning association between the eventual developers of the two properties. At the same time it must be recognized that the proposed language may require the implementation of all five acres of park on the CalTrans site in some circumstances. The City Council may wish to consider the following alternate park.dedication language for the CalTrans West General Plan Amendment: CalTrans West will be required to comply with the park dedication ordinance. A park of at least five acres in size is to be developed between Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, 15th Street (extended) and Buff Road (Balboa Boulevard extended). The specific size, location, design and the means to acquire and develop the park will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract maps for CalTrans West and/or the adjacent Banning -Newport Ranch residential developments. If development of CalTrans West occurs prior to the Banning -Newport Ranch residential area, the development on CalTrans shall be required to dedicate the land required by the Park Dedication Ordinance. This land shall be located in such a manner as to allow for the eventual completion of the five acre park partially on CalTrans West and partially on the Banning -Newport Ranch. Wastewater Collection Facilities. The draft Environmental Impact Report (Page 163) lists the various agencies with wastewater collection facilities in the TO: City Coil - 5 vicinity of the CalTrans West site. These are the City of Newport Beach, the Costa Mesa Sanitary District and the County Sanitation District of Orange County. if development occurs on the CalTrans West site, wastewater collection service will be provided by the City of Newport Beach. Fifth Avenue Parcels Park Dedication. Park dedication requirements in the City of Newport Beach are currently dictated by Chapter 19.50 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, i the Park Dedication Ordinance. This ordinance establishes a standard park dedication requirement to result in five acres of park dedication for every 1000 residents. The ordinance establishes the following procedure for park dedication: 1119.50.100 PROCEDURE. At the time of approval of the tentative subdivision map, the City Council shall determine pursuant to Section 19.50.080 hereof, the land to be dedicated, and/or fees to be paid by the subdivider. At the time of the filing of the final subdivision map, the subdivider shall dedicate the land or pay fees as previously determined by the City Council. (Ord. 1733, 1977)" The Park Dedication Ordinance establishes a formula for park dedication requirements, based on gross residential density and person per household factors. The range of park dedication requirements for the Fifth Avenue Parcels are as follows: Marguerite Avenue Parcel Units Permitted 27 du's (4 du's/ba) 28 - 62 du's (4-9.12 du's/ba) 63 - 68 du's (9.26 - 10 du's/ba) Example: 50 du's Fifth Avenue Parcel Units Permitted 40 du's (4 du's/ba) 41 - 85 du's (4-8.5 du's/ba) 86 - 100 du's (8.6 - 10 du's/ba) Example: 85 du's Acreage Requirement 0.51 A 0.53 - 1.16 A 1.01 - 1.09 A = 0.94 A Acreage Requirement 0.75 A 0.77 - 1.60 A 1.38•- 1.60 A 1.60 A Application of the Park Dedication Ordinance can be confusing, in that the ordinance Dedication Formula Table is based on dwelling units per gross acre, while the General Plan expresses residential density in dwelling units per buildable acre. The difference in buildable acre density ranges for the park dedication formula categories is due to the different ratio of gross to buildable acres for the Marguerite and Fifth Avenue Parcels. TO: City CourW - 6 0 As illustrated by the above chart, development of the two Fifth Avenue Parcels under the Low -Density Residential designation (4 du's/ba) will result in the generation of up to 1.26 acres of park dedication. Development of these sites under the Medium -Density Residential category (4-10 du's/ba) will result in the generation of up to 2.69 acres of park dedication requirement. The Irvine Company is currently estimating the development of 50 units on the Marguerite Avenue Parcel and 85 units on the Fifth Avenue Parcels. If approved, these 135 units will generate a park dedication requirement of 2.54 acres. The Irvine Company is proposing the dedication of # 0.41 acre of land on the Marguerite Avenue Parcel for a view park, and i 1.06 acres of land on the Fifth Avenue Parcel for OASIS Center expansion. Also proposed is the improvement of the view park and the rough grading (with installment of a retaining structure) of the dedication area on the Fifth Avenue Parcel at no cost to the City and with no park dedication credits being given for the cost of the improvements. If the General Plan Amendment is approved including this concept for satisfaction of the park dedication requirements, the remaining 1.07 acres required could be satisfied through additional on-site or off-site land dedication, or the payment of in -lieu fees. There are a number of park dedication scenarios which could occur under both the existing and proposed General Plan. Staff will review some of these possibilities, which are based on the various requests and comments received during the public hearings on this General Plan Amendment. It should be noted, however, that these are merely examples of what could happen under certain circumstances. Since the Park Dedication Ordinance formulas are based on the number of residences built, and also since the City's density allocations are based on buildable acreage, a definition which deletes park dedication areas from the land on which the permitted number of dwelling units is derived, precise park dedication requirements can not be given. Scenario One: Acquisition of the Entire Marguerite Parcel with Park Dedication Credits. Testimony has been received that the Marguerite Parcel be designated as open space and acquired through the use of park dedication credits or fees. In order for the City to generate sufficient park dedication requirements to acquire the 9.6 acre Marguerite Avenue Parcel, 510 Low -Density Residential units would have to be approved. If higher density residential projects were used to generate these credits more units would need to be approved, since the scale established in the Park Dedication Ordinance requires less dedication from higher density developments. Under the existing General Plan, approximately 4,700 dwelling units remain to be built in the City of Newport Beach. Of these, t 1,840 are shown for larger undeveloped sites. The remainder are infill in the older residential neighborhoods. Since the Park Dedication Ordinance applies to new residential subdivisions, only the # 1,840 future residential units in new subdivisions will require park dedication. Of these 1,840 du's, t 810 are designated to sites which carry a neighborhood park designation on the Open Space Plan (Westbay, Castaways, Newporter North, Banning -Newport Ranch). These developments must dedicate parkland onsite to satisfy, the requirements of the TO: City CoAl - 7 • Park Dedication Ordinance. This leaves approximately 1,030 future residential units requiring park dedication City-wide. In order for the City to acquire the Marguerite Parcel using park dedication credits, approximately 50% of the remaining dedication requirements would have to be used. This assumes that any land acquired through other than Irvine Company project requirements could be purchased by the City at the per acre park dedication fee of $298,486. Additionally, it should be noted that if any of the future permitted dwelling units are developed as rental projects, no park dedication will be required for those units. Scenario Two: Planning Commission Recommendation. The Planning Commission recommendation is illustrated below: •Y'jc. I. ,^!'�y�r, y\ .`=,;gip,^`_` It1 oli �;� ` t`•.;•._a MEDIUM DENSITY i i • 1._.._� yy n aJ, Q1� h I i o ,. purtffcl 61 jZ $ 3 a �` �•_� ����R' oR•r !�_�/�o � � ,RESIDENTIAL JLC:> it -Jo- ��o// ��h KG,�, (4.1 to 10 D.U. / R 0.41 AC 01,13ulldable Acres) -.VIEW PARK %/,— E---..h.,T, o� 1 �v�Fly Ot1a r �d6 •o P� 1.06 Acres OASIS ' Am4wae yzew EXPANSION' a�/s�E.vraer SC!lOOG i.:::: ceavr ow,,co ARW. FiF/u OASIS SENIOR, CITTIZEK (CENTER moo' Ek• I£ approved, this scenario would change the land use designation on the Marguerite and Fifth Avenue Parcels from Low to Medium Density Residential. Park dedication would occur via the dedication of ± 0.41 acre on the Marguerite Avenue Parcel for a view park, and ± 1.06 acres on the Fifth Avenue Parcel for OASIS Center expansion. Improvements to the view park and grading of the OASIS expansion area would be done at no cost to the City and would receive no credit for park dedication. The Planning Commission could reach no TO: City COU01 - 8 • conclusion as to how the remaining t 1.07 acres of park dedication requirement be satisfied. Staff has recommended that this be through on-site or off-site dedication, or through the payment of in -lieu fees as determined by the City at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. Scenario Three: Expanded OASIS Center Dedication/Approval of proposed GPA 81-2 for Fifth Avenue Parcels. I£ the requested General Plan Amendment is approved, the City could require that the park dedication in addition to that proposed by The Irvine Company be required on the Fifth Avenue site. The half block easterly of the existing OASIS Center is t 1.09 acres (10 lots). if this area were required for dedication in addition to the t 1.06 acres currently proposed on the Fifth Avenue site and t 0.41 acre on the Marguerite Avenue site, a total of 2.56 acres would be dedicated. The additional dedication would reduce the number of dwelling units on the Fifth Avenue site. The new total of 125 dwelling units would require park dedication of ± 2.35 acres. In this scenario the City would be required to develop a means to make up the ± 0.21 acre shortfall of park dedication required by the two developments. A graphic representation of this scenario follows: t�\ .moi J -.pi s• fir. t' CM'Od`ti iTctC\ i.••\ p F 4 \`� 9 '�..• 1 _j1=�; �1���}`� -'—) / .F .w��i� •r .,• .fie MEDIUM DENSITY 81 Do °t1 i� � WH,rtEfo7 � 61P1v o ; �i RESIDENTIAL rr (4.1 to 10 D.U. / ---i� 0.41 Acres �, „' Buildable Acres)` 'Q�``VIEyY PARKPIPNe r fET7'/Iy� �� SSI .i 2.+x• L ;1.06 Acres OASIS tP AURBOR Y/,EW EXPANSIOW - ,aG&nrF,v.�zr SC!lOOG CRANTwJ.vACOOAR •• ::�.Q �F �/BE OASIS SENIOFO I C 1.09 Acres ADDITIONAL CITIZEN CENT*EI4 V 'A L OASIS EXPANSION 50 ER•OR dv� A� A e TO: City Coil - 9 • Scenario Four: Expanded OASIS Center/Existing General Plan. Development of the two Fifth Avenue Parcels under the existing General Plan will result in the generation of a maximum of ± 1.26 acre of park dedication requirement. This could allow the dedication of the ± 1.06 acre area northerly of OASIS currently proposed by The Irvine Company, with ± 0.20 acre either used for in -lieu fees, or for dedication of a small view site on the Marguerite Parcel. If any additional land is required for any other park purposes, the City could reserve areas for park purposes in the General Plan and eventually acquire the site through the utilization of park requirements generated by development in other parts of the City, or through fee acquisition using General Fund monies or other City revenue. A graphic representation of this scenario follows: IL ., Ajo SUM A GRA•YT�J.vAtO DR ' "A 93 93 �'O fl SE OASIi SENIOR 'CITIZEN CENTER LJ CJC�C�C�C�� DENSITY ESIDENTIAL Buildable Acres) „I Scenario Five: Soccer Field on Marguerite Parcel/OASIS as recommended by the Planning Commission/Approval of GPA 81-2 for Fifth Avenue Parcels. If the requested General Plan Amendment is approved the City could require that park dedication in addition to that proposed by The Irvine Company be required on the Marguerite Avenue site. It is possible that with the dedication of an additional 1.07 acres that enough buildable acres will remain TO: City Coual - 10 on the site to construct 50 dwelling units under the Medium -Density Residential category. Therefore, assuming 135 dwelling units constructed, ± 1.06 acres could be required for OASIS expansion, ± 0.41 acres could be required for a view park, and the remaining ± 1.07 acres could be required to be dedicated on the lower portion of the Marguerite Parcel adjacent to the OASIS parking lot. The additional land, with substantial grading and fill in Jasmine Creek could provide the land necessary to develop a soccer field on the site. The land needed for such a field ranges from 1.18 - 1.86 acres. A graphic representation of this scenario follows: VL •wognlHc % Ito, i'a'a."l 1 j'-cV \ �'`'` � ��. 1. \` ,�. spa •t\ °�l l' ♦ •'t' .t:.... .. I A Kynyll � � r'1 \t blf ♦\K •••r.: •a' fix,�, Ri�d 0.41 Acres �Q IVA 'VIEW PARK 1 �' � )"t iP A R K cw ✓E _ `'OSP, ��. 5P EXPANSION1.08 Acres OASIS kov'K rcrr EXPANSION Ev.—Qer G 41 "r,-wacDOAR ' rq FF/4 • g ].;ASIS SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER >a z ; LJ LIC�CJLJLJ�' a 44 /MEDIUM DENSITY IESIDENTIAL 4.1 to 10 D.U. / luiidable Acres) f&P As can be seen from the above discussion, the possibilities for the provision of additional park land in the Fifth Avenue area are numerous. The approval of this General Plan Amendment and the ultimate development of residential units will generate a higher park dedication requirement. If the existing General Plan designations are to remain, less dedication will be required. in this situation the City could decide to either use park dedication requirements from other developments or to purchase land with General Fund monies to supplement the park dedication in the area. Tt should be noted, however, that the City has, in the past, not utilized General Fund monies to acquire park lands, and the Park Dedication Ordinance requires the park land dedicated or in -lieu fees generated be used to provide parks to serve the residents of the subdivision being approved. TO: City Coocil - 11 • Comprehensive Recreation and Open Space Element Review. When General Plan Amendment 81-2 was initiated by the Planning Commission in June, 1981, it consisted of eight components, including a comprehensive park and open space study which had been requested by City staff. This proposal was not funded as part of this General Plan Amendment. In a report from the Budget Committee to the City Council dated September 28, 1981, it was stated that the review of park sites in the Recreation and Open Space Element could be accomplished in fiscal year 1982-83. The fiscal year 1982-83 budget includes $25,000 for a comprehensive review of the Recreation and Open Space Element. Staff has received proposals for consultant services in connection with this study, and will be interviewing these consultants on April 7, 1983. It is expected that City Council approval of a consultant contract will be on the April 25, 1983 agenda. Work on the study will commence as soon as the contract is approved and will take approximately 16 weeks to complete. Planning Commission hearings on this study and eventual General Plan Amendment are expected to begin in October, 1983. The comprehensive Recreation and Open Space Element Review will include an analysis of the City's expressed open space goals and the means to accomplish those goals. Currently the Open Space Plan shows the following east of Upper Newport Bay: Future Neighborhood Parks Acres Newport North 2 Fifth Avenue 1 North Ford (GPA 82-1) 6 Future View Parks Newporter North 0.5 Marguerite Avenue (GPA 81-2) 0.5 Flora and Fauna Reserves Buck Gully 57 Mouth of Big Canyon 47 Eastbluff Remnant 8 Lower Buck Gully and Morning Canyon Easement TOTAL: 122 Acres TO: City Coil - 12 • Future residential development which will require park dedication on the east side of the Bay is 'summarized as follows: Future Development Newport Center Newporter North North Ford (82-1) Freeway Reservation East Freeway Reservation West (81-2) Fifth Avenue Parcels (81-2) (includes Fifth and MacArthur) San Miguel & Pacific View Baywood Expansion (rental) Belcourt (82-2) TOTAL Park dedication requirement = Existing General Plan 505 212 120 76 0 108 52 (68) 0 1073 du's 20.03 Acres Proposed General Plan 505 7.12 750 76 87 209 52 (68) 135 2026 du's 34.75 Acres As shown above, a maximum of 20 acres of park dedication would be required under the existing General Plan and 35 acres would be required if General Plan Amendments currently in process are approved. it should be noted that if any of the dwelling units are developed as rental projects, no park dedication would be required for those units. It is obvious that the mechanism of the park dedication ordinance is not sufficient to implement the City's currently stated open space goals. The Recreation and Open Space Element review will evaluate open space needs and goals, establish a plan to satisfy these needs and' devise the means to implement the plan.. View Park Dedication. It has been recommended by the Planning Commission that a ± 1 acre view park be dedicated on the Marguerite Avenue Parcel in conjunction with approval of this General Plan Amendment. Questions have been raised as to whether park dedication ordinance credit be given for this dedication. Since the adoption of the Park Dedication Ordinance in 1977, no subdivision approved has included a view park requirement. The Park Dedication Ordinance does not specify particular types of parks to be acquired through the ordinance. It does reference "park and recreation facilities... in accordance with the Recreation Element of the General Plan". It has been recommended by the Planning Commission that Park Dedication Ordinance credit be given for the land dedication for the view park if it is required by the City in conjunction with development of the Marguerite Avenue Parcel. The Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission has recommended that no park dedication credit be given for the view park. Granting park dedication ordinance credit for the view park on the Marguerite Avenue Parcel will establish a precedent for future City action in regards to view parks in other development approvals. Undeveloped sites with view park designations include CalTrans West, Westbay, Castaways, and Newporter North. TO: City Cou0il - 13 Slope Areas. The Irvine Company has proposed dedication of ± 1.06 acres of land for park dedication if the General Plan Amendment for the Fifth Avenue. Parcel is approved. This acreage does not include any slope areas for park dedication or credit. The proposal does include the grading of the acreage to the elevation of the existing OASIS Center site. This land would have no greater than a 5% slope, a nominal slope to allow good drainage of the land. The City will not in any case accept slope areas for park dedication. Density of Development in Corona del Mar. questions have been raised regarding 'the relative density of existing residential development in Corona del Mar. Statistical analyses of older subdivisions are generally done in units per gross acre, since the City established the buildable acreage definition recently. In order to provide a more meaningful comparison of residential density, staff has prepared density per buildable acre estimates for the residential area surrounding the Fifth Avenue Parcels, as follows: Harbor View Hills South Corona Highlands Jasmine Creek Corona del Mar 4.4 dus/buildable acre 4.7 dus/buildable acre 5.4 dus/buildable acre 24.8 dus/buildable acre Park Dedication In -Lieu Fees. The current park dedication in -lieu fee for the City of Newport Beach is $298,486. This fee is intended to be a mean value of residential land in the city. Staff concurs with the statement that land values in Corona del Mar exceed this mean value established for the Park Dedication Ordinance. Park Credit for Buck Gully. Testimony has been received regarding the possibility of the City granting park credit for Buck Gully. Staff recommended to the Planning Commission the deletion of the Low -Density Residential alternative land use designation for the Buck Gully Parcel, but that no park credit be given. If the City Council does not sustain the Planning Commission recommendation for this site, the staff recommendation regarding park dedication or credit is the same. Request for Buck Gully General Plan Amendment. The Irvine Company representatives have testified that no request for amendment to Buck Gully was submitted by The Irvine Company and that they object to this proposal. The letter from The Irvine Company dated April 17, 1981 (Attachment No. 1) requesting consideration of the General Plan Amendment for the Fifth Avenue Parcels states: "The Irvine Company proposes further that the ± 55 acre vacant parcel in Buck Gully located northeasterly of the terminus of Fifth Avenue be dedicated for park and open space purposes, contingent on approval of development plans for the two residential sites." In the initiation of the General Plan Amendment staff outlined this proposal as a change to an open space land use designation, and the amendment was initiated in this manner. General Plan History for the Fifth Avenue Parcels. Clarification has been requested regarding the park and open spacedesignations on the various elements and maps of the Newport Beach General Plan for the Fifth Avenue TO: City Couel - 14 • J Parcels. Staff has prepared enlargements of the 1973 Land Use Plan, Residential Growth Plan, and Open Space Plan (Maps) (Attachments 2, 3 t 4). The history of. the General Plan designations for each site is as follows: Area A: Marguerite Parcel: Land Use Plan: The Land Use Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 designated the Marguerite Parcel for Low -Density Residential uses along Marguerite Avenue and Recreational and Environmental Open Space uses along Jasmine Creek. General Plan Amendment No. 26 redefined the various residential land use designations, added a medium density residential category, and added the definition of buildable acreage. This amendment did not change prior permitted densities, so this parcel was changed to Medium -Density Residential for the residentially designated portion of the site. The parcel was again addressed in General Plan Amendment 79-1, and redesignated to the Low -Density Residential category. Residential Growth Plan: The Residential Growth Element and Plan (Map) was adopted in 1973 and designated a portion of the parcel for residential uses. The parcel was specifically addressed as follows: "The vacant R -3-B site east of Harbor View Elementary School shall be rezoned to R -1-B." On December 17, 1973 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1535, to conform zoning to General Plan by rezoning the property from R -3-B to R -1-B. Open Space Plan: The Recreation and Open Space Element and Plan (Map) was adopted in 1973 and designated the site for Recreational and Environmental Open Space uses for an extension of the Jasmine Creek greenbelt system. The Open Space Plan (Map) does show the entire site colored green, for open space uses. It is the opinion of staff that the designation of the entire site for open space is a graphics error, since the other two General Plan Maps show residential uses on a portion of the site. Additionally, the City has rezoned the property for the expressed purpose of zoning/General Plan consistency and has also changed the land use designation subsequent to the adoption of the Recreation and Open Space Element (GPA 79-1), which further indicates the City's commitment to allow residential development on the site. Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel: Land Use Plan: The Land Use Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 designated the Fifth Avenue Parcel for Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an alternate use of Low -Density Residential. The history of the residential portion of the land use designation is the same as for Area A, except that General Plan Amendment 79-1 established the Low -Density Residential designation as the sole and primary use on the Land Use Plan. Residential Growth Plan: The Residential Growth Element and Plan (Map) was adopted in 1973 and designated the Fifth Avenue Parcel as an area with an alternate land use as discussed in the Land Use TO: City COu01 - 15 • Element. The Residential Growth Element specifically discussed this site as follows: "The land between Fifth Street and Sand Castle Drive shall be rezoned from R -2-B to R -1-B, although it is anticipated that this land will be acquired for park and/or highway purposes." On December 17, 1973, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1535, to conform zoning to the General Plan by rezoning the Fifth Avenue Parcel from R -2-B to R -1-B. Open Space Plan: The Recreation and Open Space Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 designated the Fifth Avenue Parcel as an area with an alternate land use/primary designation as Recreational and Environmental Open Space - Flora and Fauna Reserve. A proposed neighborhood park is also shown .on the site. The element states that "Proposed parks are indicated on the Open Space Plan as green circles; in the undeveloped areas, the locations shown are meant to be general and the parks need not be developed in the exact location shown." The Element addresses the proposed park on this site as follows: "A neighborhood park is proposed on the property north of Fifth Avenue and east of Marguerite Avenue." Area C: Buck Gully: Land Use Plan: The Land Use Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 shows this site for Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an alternate use of Low -Density Residential. No changes to this designation have been made since 1973. Residential Growth Plan: The Residential Growth Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 showed this area with an alternate residential land use as discussed in the Land Use Element. Open Space Plan: The Recreation and Open Space Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 designated the Buck Gully site as an area with an alternate land use/primary designation as Recreational and Environmental Open Space - Flora and Fauna Reserve. Traffic and Circulation. Questions regarding traffic distribution on Marguerite Avenue, the impact of the General Plan Amendment on Coast Highway in Corona del Mar, and the incremental increases generated by the Fifth Avenue amendment proposals have been raised. Responses have been prepared by the City's traffic consultant for this GPA and are attached to this report (Attachment No. 5). Big Canyon - Area 16 No additional information was requested for Big Canyon Area 16. Newport Center Block 400 Parking. The medical office building at 400 Newport Center Drive East consists of 80,000 gross square feet and provides 446 parking spaces. The parking standard for medical office is one space for each 250 square feet of T0: City Coil - 16 gross structural area. The parking requirement for this building is 320 parking spaces. There is an excess of 126 parking spaces on site. The proposed office building will provide additional parking as required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Campus Drive Revisions to Land Use Designations and Zoning. The General Plan Amendment for the Campus Drive area will .change the land use designation for the area bounded by Bristol Street, Campus Drive, Dove Street and Birch Street from General Industry to a mixture of General Industry and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial. The General Plan will also be amended to establish development intensity limitations in the Campus Drive study area. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of this amendment with the direction that the zoning for the area be amended to implement the General Plan Amendment. It has not yet been determined how the zoning will be amended to implement the General Plan Amendment. It is expected that existing M -1-A and A -P zoning will be amended, establishing development intensity limits and possibly revising the permitted uses in the area. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director BY �(.[[ zra4& PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Senior Planner PLT:nma Attachments: 1. April 17, 1981 letter from The Irvine Company. 2. Land Use Plan 3. Residential Growth Plan 4. Open Space Plan 5. Report from Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 April 17, 1981 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 6 Attachment No. 1 R ilr�t��r r) •' 'un APR2 p 1981 !y�^LyrC� Y r • r Lip SUBJECT: Requested General Plan Amendment for Fifth Avenue Parcels Mr. Chairman and Commission Members: The City Council gave conceptual approval in October, 1980 to an exchange of land between the City and The Irvine Company whereby the City would receive additional land to expand the OASIS Senior Facility site, and the Company would recetve a 2.36 acre parcel northwest of Fifth and Marguerite Avenues. The purpose of this exchange would be to provide additional parking space and expansion area for the OASIS Center in a, more convenient and usable location. An appraisal of the subject prop- erties has been completed. Additional discussions between the City and The Irvine Company are expected to occur in the next few months. The completion of such a land exchange would be contingent on changing the General Plan designation of the 2.36 acre parcel west of Marguerite Avenue from open space t6 a residential designation to allow for future development. It is our desire to have this 2.36 acre parcel reviewed in combination with the ±10 acre vacant parcel to the immediate north, which is currently designated "Low Density Residential' A change to a "Medium Density Residential" designation for the combined 12 acre parcel is requested. Given the t6pography and configuration of the property, the Medium Density Residential designation would allow for a greater degree of design flexibility in planning for the site. Concurrently with the City's review of the property west of Marguerite, The Irvine Company requests consideration of the ±10 acre parcel easterly of the expanded OASIS site as "Medium Density Residential", where the General Plan now calls for Low Density Residential. Proposed here would be single family homes at a density comparable to the existing tract to the north. The Irvine Company proposes further that the ±55 acre vacant parcel in Buck Gully located northeasterly of the terminus of Fifth Avenue be dedicated for park and open space purposes, contingent on approval of development plans for the two residential sites. 17 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach April 17, 1981 page 2 It is requested that the proposed redesignation of these two properties. as "Medium Density Residential" be considered at the October 1981 General Plan Amendment session. A determination as to the appropriate environ- mental documentation is also requested. Please contact me if additional information is required. Sincerely, �I David Dmohowski Manager Government Relations cc: J. Hewicker, Planning Director R. Whitley, P.B. & R Director T. Nielsen, The Irvine Company M NEWPORT BEACH LAND USE PLAN LEGEND LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TWO—FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DO'ooboo,o, MULTIPLE—FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ..... .... ll RETAIL & SERVICE COMiERCIAL GOVERN., EDUCATIONAL & INSTITUTIONAL RECREATION & ENVIRONMENTAL OPEN SPACE WATER AREAS WITH ALTERNATE PER LAND USE ELEMENT ,-0 USES TEXT N NEWPORT BEACH RESIDENTIAL GROWTH PLAN LEGEND - LOW -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1WC=-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREAS WITH ALTERNATE USES PER LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT 0 NEWPORT BEACH OPEN SPACE PLAN III !/ c'pEJ 4.y r r f�•X(7t( • ..::.�.:. 71 osvk /��r5 rr .e rrG�.% rrr�rr o. 1'11. 1111, `) _.: a:'�•' L III II I,II111111111 pp1111IIIIIII I,It,1111111I11 'Y11111111111111111 111111111,1111111111111111111111111111111 s1 1, 1111111,1I11I,�,1,1,1,1 1 1 I III,,II,, 11,1,111,1, 1, l,t L• �� 111111111111111111'1111 i ('(ST✓ryp!`F 111111'11 /\.>Sa , I , , , I , , , ,�wii�li P�, �9 �l ii x•1.1. 1.1.1 H N VA i !Ea. LEGEND HIKING TRAIL t JP PROPOSED -NEIGHBORHOOD PARK 11 • NEIGHBORHOOD PARK 111,11,1y1111 i4 11�'►1 i EXISTING SCHOOLS FLORA & FAUNA RESERVES GREENBELT AREAS WITH ALTERNATE USES - HIKING TRAIL t JP PROPOSED -NEIGHBORHOOD PARK 11 4262 Campus Drive, Suite B•1 April 6, 1983 9 0 ATTACHMENT No. a BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. Ms. Patty Temple Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, California 92660 SUBJECT: Traffic Information Requests for GPA 81-2 Dear Patty: ENGINEERING AND PLXNNING Transportation, Traffic, Municipal, Transit The following are comments to your request for information on the subject project: 1. Request: Discuss the impact of the cumulative General Plan Amendment on Coast Highway from MacArthur Boulevard easterly to the City boundary in terms of overall capacity. (714) 549.9940 Discussion: The cumulative impacts of GPA 81-2 traffic on Coast Highway easterly of MacArthur Boulevard are presented on Exhibit 31 following page 115 and Table 20 on page 116. A review of this information shows that the approval of GPA 8i-2 will result in increased traffic on Coast Highway. Between MacArthur Boulevard and Marguerite, an additional 1,400 daily vehicles will result and easterly of Marguerite, approximately 850 daily vehicles will be added., To assess the impact of Coast Highway capacity, the following information has been summarized: Coast Highway MacArthur to Marguerite 1995 Daily Traffic Projection GPA 81-2 Daily Traffic 1995 Forecasts with GPA 81-2 Roadway Capacity LOS "D" LOS "E" (Capacity) Volume to Capacity Ratio Without GPA 81-2 LOS "D" LOS "E" Witho-ok GPA 81-2 LOS "D" LOS "E" 46,400 veh/day 1,400 veh/day 47,,800 veh/day 30,000 veh/day 36,000 veh/day 1.55 1.29 1.59 1.33 Easterly of Marguerite 40,400 veh/day 850' veh/day 41,250• veh/day 30,000 veh/day 36,000 veh/day 1.35 1.38 38 t AA Ms. Patty Temple April 6, 1983 Page 2 A review of the above data shows that on a daily basis, Coast Highway through Corona del Mar is expected to exceed its available capacity. This conclusion can be reached with or without the approval of General Plan Amendment 81-2. 2. Request: A brief discussion of the trip distribution on Marguerite Avenue of traffic generated by the proposed Fifth Avenue residential developments. Testimony was received asking if most of the new traffic would really go northerly on Marguerite Avenue from Fifth Avenue, rather than go south to Coast Highway as indicated in the traffic studies prepared for the EIR. Discussion: Figure 3, page B-12 in the technical appendices for GPA 81-2 contains the expected trip generation characteristics to/from the Fifth Avenue parcels. The distribution patterns shows 27% oriented north on Marguerite and 65% south to Coast Highway. The 65% oriented to Coast Highway is expected to use the Marguerite, Orchid, Poppy and the other streets to reach the Coast Highway area. The patterns depicted on Figure 3 are based on attraction of shopping and other trips that would occur in Corona del Mar. In addition, the attraction of Newport Center an6 the desire to reach destinations along Coast Highway and lower portions of Costa Mesa will result in a higher percentage of trips oriented to Coast Highway. 3. Request: Revise Figure 4 on page B-13 of Appendix F to show the incremental increase due to the GPA as well as the totals (the information Bill prepared to respond to Agee's questions at the March 28, 1983 meeting). Discussion: Figure 4 on page B-13 of Appendix F has been revised (labelled Figure 4A) to reflect the information verbally presented at the March 28, 1983 hearing. In addition to the data presented in Figure 4A, Councilman Agee requested information on the cumulative effects of traffic on Marguerite and 5th Avenues. The information presented at the meeting is as follows: \\A 3 10 0 Ms. Patty Temple April 6, 1983 Page 3 Marguerite Avenue s/o 5th Avenue n/o 5th Avenue n/o Harbor View Drive 5th Avenue e/o Marguerite Avenue Q , F Please call me if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. Bill E. Darnell, P.E. BED/llf Enclosure 0 �y 1995 Daily Daily Traffic Traffic From Without With Existing Fifth Fifth Fifth Daily Avenue Avenue Avenue Traffic Parcels Total Parcels Parcels 6,000 696 61696 81400 9,100 8,000 505 81505 81800 9,300 8,000 325 8,325 8,800 9,100 3.,000 1,296 4,296 N/A N/A Please call me if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. Bill E. Darnell, P.E. BED/llf Enclosure 0 �y 340 NOT TO SCALE 34 _ 282 146 96 48 96 48 282 146 93 f0 330 a0 26 • 120 6 i 810 330 _ so,Harbor View Drive e 134 0 70' 0 s SProject Site 11 30 4C 60 238 14� 6th Avenue 120 • < 73 1133 20 a 40 606 e 12 943 1039 $65 pec�I a 31 38 20 436 ie • o••I • LEGEND M SJ• A r - PROJECT -RELATED DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 710 1107 'XXX - TOTAL PROJECT -RELATED 570 YYY - INCREMENTAL INCREASE DUE TO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 376 186 -606 245 1279 330 • 896 6 i 810 330 3 ue 0 $01 810 NN \ FIGURE +4a PROJECT -RELATED BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. TRAFFIC VOLUMES 4262 Campus Drive, Suite 0•1 (6th AVENUE PARCELS) Newport Mach, California 92660 (714)S49-9940 J _r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT March 18, 1983 TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Staff Report for General Plan Amendment 81-2 A copy of the staff report with attachments for the March 28, 1983 public hearing on General Plan Amendment 81-2 is being distributed prior to the regular City Council packet. A copy of the draft Planning Commission minutes of March 10, 1963 will be distributed with the City Council packets on March 24, 1983. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By e �- PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Senior Planner PIT:nma 1 • City Council Mefng March 28, 1983 Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECTS: 1. General Plan Amendment 81-2 (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan and the acceptance of an environmental document. COMPONENTS: (a) CalTrans West LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned). GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. ZONE: 0-S (Open Space) District PROPONENT: State of California, Department of Transportation (b) Fifth Avenue Parcels LOCATION: A: Westerly of Marguerite Avenue between Fifth Avenue and Harbor View Drive. B: Northerly of Fifth Avenue between Marguerite Avenue and Buck Gully. C: Along the eastern City boundary between Fifth Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road. GENERAL PLAN: Low Density Residential and Recreational and Environmental Open Space. ZONE: R -1-B (Single Family with B combining) District PROPONENT: The Irvine Company (c) Big Canyon Area 16 LOCATION: Southwesterly of,MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open Space ZONE: P -C (Planned Community) District PROPONENT: The Irvine Company I T0: City�uncil - 2 • (d) Newport Center - Block 400 LOCATION: Northeasterly of Newport Center Drive East and San Miguel Drive. GENERAL PLAN: Administrative Professional, and Financial Commercial. ZONE: C -O -H (Commercial) District PROPONENT: Newport Center Medical Buildings, Inc. (e) Campus Drive LOCATION: Area bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street, Orchard Avenue, and Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue. GENERAL PLAN: General Industry, Administrative Professional and Financial Commercial, and Retail and Service Commercial. ZONE: M -1-A (Industrial) District, A -P (Administrative,[Professional) District, and C-1 (Commercial) District. PROPONENT: The City of Newport Beach INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach 2 K Request to amend the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program for the Caltrans West site. LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned). LCP: Recreational and Environmental Open space. ZONE: O -S PROPONENT: State of California, Department of Transportation INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Suggested Action Hold hearing; if desired; take straw votes on each component, sustaining, modifying, or overruling the recommendations of the Planning Commission in each case, and continue the public hearing, directing staff to prepare TO: City ouncil - 3 • resolutions, mitigation measures, and statements of facts and overriding considerations, incorporating the results of the straw votes, for consideration and adoption at the City Council meeting of April 11, 1983. Background On June 4, 1981, the Planning Commission initiated General Plan Amendment 81-2 consistent with City Council Policy Q-1 in effect at that time. Eight areas were originally set for possible amendment, but three dropped out prior to preparation of the environmental document. In addition to the General Plan Amendments initiated, Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan amendments were set for those proposals in the coastal zone. A draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the City by Phillips, Brandt, Reddick, Inc. The report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A.) and City Council Policy K-3. The draft EIR has been submitted to state, local, and regional jurisdictions and agencies, and interested parties. Copies of the draft EIR and the Technical Appendices are attached to this report (Attachments No. 1 and 2). Volume Three of the draft EIR has also been prepared containing Attachments 1 and 2 to the EIR, with all comments, responses, staff reports, minutes and additional information generated by staff and our consultants as of this writing (Attachment No. 3). The Planning Commission held public hearings on General Plan Amendment 81-2 on January 20, February 10, February 24, and March 10, 1983. On March 10, 1983 the Planning Commission adopted Resolutions No: 1088 and 1089 recommending approval of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Amendments as modified by straw votes, and certification of the environmental impact report (Attachments No. 4 and 5). Discussion Each of the various General Plan Amendment sites is discussed separately below. Each section includes a description of the project and the environmental significance as well as an analysis discussing the various issues relating to each site. The Planning Commission recommendations are then listed, followed by alternate or additional language provided by staff which differ from the Planning Commission recommendations. CalTrans West Applications. The State of California Department of Transportation has proposed the following amendments to permit construction of a multiple -family residential development on t 13 acres northwest of Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. 1. Acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report as having been completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A.) and City Policy K-3, and certification that the data was considered in the final decisions on this project. T0: \ City- - 4 �� pfd �ilf o VV1�tr¢ RECREATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL OPEN SPACE 1ULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL_ 10.1 to 16 D.UJBulldable Acre) _.. rMsr NWY M T! al m N"p�� SOS ::,at'''e •,%� � fRE38, :�'•—`:�, tri `• ,+�Y``r 1^l—Feia ii �a vii. IM% ALs0A .•ice ��''1/�� \� __ , •p�• "'7R/V6`s��N aER f NE�YcAVEJaNE PPc% ,cr7 :l�ppcocioo 0 oa oo14Is kk ^ ZZ . o� spy\ Avg pC`JC�lI'J SSS\ `' S A C EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped Open Space EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT: Recreational and Environmental Open Space EXISTING RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT: Scenic Area and View Park EXISTING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM: Recreational and Environav:ntal Open Space CPA 81-2: indicated on exhibit above EXISTING ZONING: 0-5 (Open Space) District .D' . 11. Wr •�� .1` « ' lei I Caltrans West Parcel TO: City Ouncil - 5 • 2. Amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan. The Land Use Element revision changes the existing Recreational and Environmental Open Space designation to Multiple -Family Residential and Recreational and Environmental Open Space uses. The Residential Growth Element will be revised to reflect residential statistical changes. The Recreation and Open Space Element will be revised to remove the designation for a future neighborhood park on the site and add a greenbelt between the proposed residential development and Newport Crest. 3. Amendment No. 2 to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan changing the land use designation and text from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Multiple -Family Residential and Recreational and Environmental Open Space uses. Future discretionary review of this project by the City include a zone change amendment, tentative tract map, use permit, and grading permit. Project Site. The project site is northwest of the intersection of West Coast Highway and the realignment of Superior Avenue The site comprises approximately 13.66 acres bounded by West Coast Highway, realigned Superior Avenue, Newport Crest, and Banning -Newport Ranch. Project Characteristics. The project proposes the ultimate development of 13.66 vacant acres as follows: Statistical Analysis Buildablel Dwelling Units Land Use Gross Acres Acres (Range) Multi -Family 11.26 10.16 102.6 - 152.4 Residential Recreational and 2.4 --- Environmental Open Space Total 13.66 10.66 Dwelling units 9.1 - 13.5 per Gross Acre Dwelling Units per 10.1 - 15.0 1 Buildable acre is a general plan term used to define density and intensity of development. It is equal to the total site area within the project boundary excluding streets, park dedication areas and areas with existing natural slopes greater than 2:1, and natural floodplain areas. TO: City�ouncil - 6 • Environmental Significance. There are environmental impacts anticipated in relation to the implementation of this project. The draft EIR indicates that there are significant adverse environmental impacts which cannot be avoided, as follows: Hydrology: 1) Ultimate development of this site will reduce permeable acreage and thereby increase surface runoff; 2) During grading, there will be a short-term increase in silt and sediment transport. After buildout, urban uses will incrementally increase the pollutant load to surface runoff. Demographics: 1) The proposed project will create approximately 152 multi -family dwelling units which will house approximately 342 residents. Recreation and Open Space: 1) Depending on the findings of the City's comprehensive Recreation and Open Space Element review, there may or may not be significant adverse impacts on the provision of recreation and open space areas in the City. The draft EIR further indicates Hydrology and Demographics may significant when considered as associated with regional growth. Analysis that while the impacts in the categories of be partially mitigated, they are still part of the cumulative adverse impact 1. Land Use - The General Plan Amendment for the CalTrans West Parcel will, if approved, change the land use designation from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Multiple -Family Residential and Recreational and Environmental Open Space uses. The general plan adopted in 1973 designated the most of this site for Multiple -Family Residential uses. The bluff areas were designated for Recreational and Environmental Open Space to be used as a scenic area. The site was acquired by the Department of Transportation as right-of-way for the Coast Freeway. The Coast Freeway has been removed from the State Highways and Freeways Master Plan, and the site is excess right-of-way. In 1976 (G.P.A. 76-3-J), the City designated this site, along with all CalTrans property in West Newport for a specific area plan. in 1978 (G.P.A. 78-2), the City amended the land use designation for the site to allow only Recreational and Environmental Open Space uses, with the intent that the parcel be acquired for public open space under State Proposition 3, adopted November 7, 1978. This proposition made provisions for acquisition of excess state properties by other public entities for recreation and open space purposes. The specific area plan designation was also removed by this General Plan Amendment. The city requested both State Parks and the State Coastal Conservancy to purchase this property under the provisions of Proposition 3, but both declined to do SO. The requested General Plan Amendment must be balanced with planned growth and development in the immediate area and throughout the community. The Newport Beach General Plan was adopted in 1973 and has been amended several times. A major portion of the land in the City is developed and the General Plan reflects that development. Most of the vacant land in the City is designated TO: City (Puncil - 7 • for low density residential uses or preservation for recreational and environmental open space uses. Most future commercial and office development will be in older areas of the community. Some vacant residential sites are under consideration for increase of residential densities, and the Banning -Newport Ranch immediately adjacent to the subject site has been designated for multiple family residential uses. The proposed project, if approved, is consistent with the overall development pattern. The approval of the project will, however, use increments of remaining roadway capacity, which will not then be available for developments already allowed by the General Plan in other areas of the community. As indicated in the General Plan, potential development must be balanced with the capacity of the transportation system. The project site is in West Newport and is adjacent to the Newport Crest, Versailles/villa Balboa and the residential portion of Banning -Newport Ranch. These areas are all developed with or proposed for Multiple -Family Residential uses. Across West Coast Highway to the south of the site are mixed residential areas and a small neighborhood shopping center. Easterly of the subject site is additional vacant state highway right-of-way, known as CalTrans East, designated for recreational and environmental open space uses. From an overall design standpoint, the proposed project appears compatible with surrounding existing and planned land uses. The CalTrans West site is shown for proposed neighborhood and view parks on the Open Space Plan of the General Plan Recreation and Open Space Element. Since 1978, the entire parcel has been designated for Recreational and Environmental Open Space uses with the intention that the parcel be acquired for public open space. During the public hearings on the Banning -Newport Ranch General Plan Amendment (81-1), the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission indicated that the CalTrans West site was the most suitable location for a major neighborhood park facility (minimum 5 acres) in the West Newport area, which is identified in the Recreation and Open Space Element as an area "with either very limited or no recreational facilities". This project, if approved, will generate either park dedication, in -lieu fees, or a combination of these which will aid the City in implementing a neighborhood park in this area. Other conditions may be applied to the approval requiring additional greenbelt or open space areas similar to those included in the Banning -Newport Ranch approval. Approval of the project will reduce the total acreage planned for recreation and open space uses in the West Newport area. Maintenance of the Recreational and Environmental Open Space designation and eventual acquisition by the City of Newport Beach would provide opportunities for a number of recreation and open space uses needed in the area. In addition to provision of a neighborhood park, the site is in an area with beach parking deficiencies, as evidenced by the discussion regarding the vacation of Ticonderoga Street, and could with proper design be used to accommodate a parking lot for beach visitors. Others uses which could be accommodated on the site under the existing General Plan designation include community recreation facilities such as tennis courts and community meeting facilities. 2. Housing - If a general plan amendment permitting residential development on the CalTrans West site is approved, housing opportunities in the City of Newport Beach will increase. This would be consistent with the Program and TO: Cit4ouncil - 8 • Performance Objectives of the City's Housing Element. Performance objective - No. 1 commits the city to increase residential densities on non -committed undeveloped sites by 25% resulting in the addition of 265 dwelling units citywide. The approval of 100 to 150 units on CalTrans West would achieve approximately 50% of the City's Housing Element commitment to expanding the housing stock. Performance Objective No. 2 commits the City to encouraging the housing industry to allocate at least 10% of the annual production goal to "affordable" housing. In some of the older areas of the City where increased units are infill on small existing subdivided lots, it will probably not be feasible to build "affordable" units. It is estimated that there will be an increase of approximately 500 dwelling units in the Balboa Peninsula, Lido Island and West Newport areas. Ten percent of this total, or 50 units, could be accommodated, on the CalTrans West site, or other large undeveloped sites in the general area. If it is determined that all or a portion of the site is not needed for recreation and open space uses, a redesignation to Multiple -Family Residential (15 du's per buildable acre) should include establishment of a set percentage or number of units for provision of housing affordable to families of low and moderate income. A portion of the "affordable" units (minimum 10% of total) will need to satisfy the requirements of Government Code Section 65590 (Mello) which apply to residential development in the coastal zone. These units would meet a slightly different affordability criteria. .Eltablishment of this requirement in conjunction with the General Plan I Amenent will assure that future appraisals and the eventual sale price for, the site will take this condition into consideration. The proposed general plan amendment presents a unique opportunity for the City to place specific affordable housing requirements on a property prior to its sale to a developer. This results in prior knowledge of the requirements which must be taken into consideration when the sales price is determined. If a residential designation is approved in this GPA, these requirements should be explicitly set forth to assure ultimate compliance of the future development with the Program and Performance objectives of the Newport Beach Housing Element and the provisions of Government Code Section 65590 (Mello). 3. Parks - The General Plan Amendment, as proposedf shows 11.26 gross acres for residential development and 2.40 acres for recreation and open space uses to satisfy the park dedication requirement for the residential uses. The 2.40 acres is shown on the proposed Land Use Plan (map) (see Exhibit 3 following Page 8 of the draft EIR) as a greenbelt running along the northerly edge of the project site between the Newport Crest townhomes and the proposed residential uses. The criteria for park dedication contained in Chapter 19.50 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code follows: 19.50.080 DETERMINATION OF LAND OR FEE. Whether the Planning Commission accepts land dedication or elects to require payment of a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, shall be determined by consideration of the following: A. USEABILITY AND FEASIBILITY. Generally, land shall be flat. L TO: City founcil - 9 0 B. ACCESS. Direct frontage on at least one side and not more than three (3) feet above or below street level. C. SHAPE OF LAND. Suitable for park development. D. SIZE. Not less than two (2) acres, unless a portion of a park designated in the General Plan. E. IMPROVEMENTS. Shall meet standards of the city and be of a permanent nature. F. In accordance with the recreation element of the General Plan. (Ord. 1733, 1977) The proposed park dedication area does not meet this criteria in the following areas: A. Generally, land shall be flat: The dedication area is generally flat. The land is, however, divided into two segments by an approximate 25 foot difference in elevation, as is the entire CalTrans West site (see Exhibit 11 following Page 26 of the draft EIR). This difference limits the useability of the area for active recreation uses. B. Direct (street) frontage on at least one side: Currently, there is not sufficient access to this park site to meet this criteria. Adequate access would have to be designed as part of the approval of the subdivision. C. Shape of land suitable for park development: The configuration of the proposed park dedication area is in the character of a greenbelt buffer. A neighborhood park is used for active recreation uses and generally should be fairly square and all on one elevation. The proposed area does not meet this criteria. The proposed park dedication area meets the criteria of minimum size and is in accordance with the Recreation and Open Space Element in terms of location. In the approval for the Banning -Newport Ranch project, the City Council required, as a condition of approval, the establishment of a 30 foot average greenbelt adjacent to Newport Crest, to be maintained by the applicant or his successor in interest. This requirement was imposed in addition to the ± 6.5 acre park dedication requirement generated by the residential uses approved as part of the project. The park to be developed in conjunction with the Banning -Newport Ranch is to be approximately five acres in size located within the area bounded by West Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, 15th Street, and Bluff Road. The CalTrans West site is within these boundaries. if residential uses are designated for this site, the park dedication requirement generated by both developments could be combined to insure implementation of the 5 acre park in the above described boundaries and provide sufficient funds to assure improvement of the land acquired in a timely manner. In this event, a reservation for park purposes should be included in the conditions of approval, with the exact location to be determined in the comprehensive Recreation and Open Space Element Review. TO: Citpouncil — 10 • The final determination of how the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance will be applied to the CalTrans West site should balance all requirements and goals of the City. As stated in the housing discussion above, this component of the General Plan Amendment presents a unique opportunity to the City in terms of the provision of affordable housing. It should also be noted that all requirements for parks and perimeter open space will be deducted from the buildable acreage of the site, and thereby reduce the number of dwelling units permitted as well as the number of affordable dwelling units. The Planning Commission is recommending a ±1 acre view park and a 30 foot minimum greenbelt. The Planning Commission is also recommending that a minimum 5 acre park be developed within the bounds of West Coast Highway, Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extended), 15th Street (extended) and Superior Avenue, to be completed concurrent with occupancy of the first residential unit on CalTrans West or Banning -Newport Ranch, whichever is developed first. This requirement could result in the entire five acre park being required on the CalTrans West site if it is developed prior to the Banning -Newport Ranch, even though the CalTrans West project will not generate that amount of park dedication requirement. It is estimated that ±4.65 buildable acres would remain if all of the Planning Commission requirements were implemented on-site. This translates to 69 dwelling units at 15 du's per buildable acre. Precise location of future park facilities in this area will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract Paps for the CalTrans West and Banning -Newport Ranch projects using I the I information provided by the comprehensive Recreation and Open Space Element review and revision. The determination of park location at the tentative map stage will enable the City to take all precise planning information such as site plans, grading plans, view analyses and geologic and seismic studies into consideration when requiring land dedication from the CalTrans West and Hanning -Newport Ranch developments. 4. Circulation. The circulation system in the vicinity of the CalTrans West parcel consists of West Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, Balboa Boulevard, Hospital Road and Newport Boulevard. Major circulation system improvements currently planned in the area include the development of Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extension) and the realignment of Superior Avenue. The realignment of Superior Avenue bears a direct relationship to the proposed project. The CalTrans West Parcel currently comprises ± 17 acres westerly of Superior Avenue, in the proposal for 'General Plan Amendment, the California Department of Transportation requested a change in land use designation for the reconfigured site (±13 acres) and indicated a willingness to dedicate all lands needed for the realignment if these development rights are granted. Otherwise, the City will be required to purchase the land needed for the realignment, estimated at approximately $500,000. A preliminary analysis of traffic impacts of the proposed project was completed for the Environmental Impact Report (Pages 105-107 of the draft EIR; Appendix F of draft EIR). This analysis indicates an increase in vehicle trip ends from zero under the existing land use designation to 1,292 by the proposed project (152 dwelling units). At the time of further discretionary approvals, the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance must be met, and necessary circulation system improvements will be imposed. TO: City encil - it If the proposed amendment is approved, the dedications necessary for the Superior Avenue realignment should be required in a manner timely to the City's plans for its completion. 5. Access to Site. Public Works Department staff has indicated that the preferred access to the CalTrans West site is from the proposed Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extension) across a portion of the Banning property. In the event that CalTrans West is developed prior to the Banning -Newport Ranch, temporary and limited access could be developed from realigned Superior Avenue. The precise location of all access will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 6. Views. Development of a residential project on the CalTrans West site will have no significant affect on views from any public park or roadways. There is, however, the possibility of an impact on views from private residences to the north of the project site. If a General Plan Amendment permitting residential development is approved, it should be required that views to the west and south of the Newport Crest development be preserved for a person standing on the lower balcony level of a Newport Crest residence, consistent with the City's action on the General Plan Amendment for Banning -Newport Ranch. 7. Geology. Surface traces of earthquake faults are indicated on portions of the CalTrans West site. If residential land uses are designated for this site,• it should be contingent on completion of a detailed geotechnical survey, to assure that the project is designed to adequately protect future residents from potential hazard. S. Relationship to CalTrans East. The CalTrans East site currently consists of t22 acres of land northerly of Coast Highway between Superior Avenue and the Arches Bridge at Newport Boulevard. Subsequent to the realignment of Superior Avenue, the parcel will be augmented by the former right-of-way and a residual portion of the CalTrans West parcel. A portion of the site is developed as a parking lot. The Land Use Element designates this site for Recreational and Environmental Open Space with parking as a permitted use. The Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program also designates the site for Recreational and Environmental Open Space with parking and expansion of Hoag Hospital facilities permitted. Expansion of Hospital facilities is expected to require little or no access to or from Coast Highway and could, therefore, be accommodated on the site. The Department of Transportation, the City of Newport Beach and Hoag Hospital are currently discussing the ultimate disposition of the CalTrans East site. It is desirable to require the transfer of CalTrans East to Hoag Hospital as a condition of the proposed changes in the land use designation for CalTrans West for the following reasons: a. Inasmuch as CalTrans East is State property, the City of Newport Beach has limited land,use control over this site. Transfer to private .ownership will' 'allow the City to more fully monitor and control development of CalTrans East and ensure that the future use is compatible with CalTrans West and the surrounding residential uses. In the absence of the transfer, the property could be developed by the State of California for government T0: Cit'Rouncil - 12 office buildings, etc., without regard to City zoning requirements. b. The additional control over CalTrans East, should the property be sold, will allow the City of Newport Beach to regulate access to the site such that there will be no conflict with traffic generated by development of CalTrans West and no access from or on Coast Highway. Access control will also facilitate the ultimate widening of Coast Highway. c. From a planning standpoint, ultimate development of the CalTrans East Parcel by Hoag Hospital, the largest adjoining landowner and the only owner in need of property for expansion, is the most logical scenario. 9. Local Coastal Program. The General Plan Amendment being proposed for the CalTrans West site also requires amendment to the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program. Major concerns of the Coastal Act of 1976, and the City's Local Coastal Program, are in the areas of Public Access, Resource Protection, and Visitor -Serving Facilities. Two of these areas, Public Access and Visitor -Serving Facilities, must be considered in the assessment of the Local Coastal Program amendment. The existing Local Coastal Program land use Idesignation for recreation and open apace uses permits a number of uses 6hichlcould enhance public access and visitor use in the West Newport area. Establishment of a neighborhood/view park on the site would provide additional passive and active recreation in the coastal zone. other potential uses, such as public parking, could directly provide facilities for visitors and enhance public access. If a residential project is approved, the amount of land available to provide these priority uses will be reduced. There are also potential benefits which could accrue from such an approval. Development can provide the City dedications and funds necessary to establish the neighborhood/view park, make circulation system improvements, and design and implement public transportation systems; all of which have a positive impact on public access and visitor use in the area. Planning Commission Recommendations CalTrans West Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Environmental Open Space Elements of the General Plan, and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan: 1. "Multiple -Family Residential" uses not to exceed 15 dwelling units per buildable acre shall be permitted. 2. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. TO: City0ouncil - 13 3. The preferred access to the CalTrans West site is from the proposed Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extension) across a portion of the Banning property. A reasonable effort must be made to establish this access from Bluff Road at the time of approval of the tentative tract map for the CalTrans West site if it is submitted prior to tentative maps for the Banning - Newport Ranch. Temporary and limited access may be developed from realigned Superior Avenue. The precise location of all access will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 4. That existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved for a line -of -sight four feet above the lower balcony level of a Newport Crest residence. 5. 20% of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as defined in the City's Housing Element. 6. 10% of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as set forth in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. CalTrans West will be required to comply with the park ••-�' �/ dedication ordinance. A park of at least 5 acres in'size is to be developed between Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, 15th Street (extended), and Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extended). The specific size, location, design, and the means to acquire and develop the park will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract maps for CalTrans West and/or the adjacent Banning -Newport Ranch residential developments. The park shallbe completed concurrent with occupancy of the first residential unit. S. A view park of ± 1 acre shall be located on-site and shall partially satisfy the requirements for park dedication contained in Chapter 19.50 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 9. A pedestrian and bicycle easement shall be developed to connect the view park with the neighborhood park. The easement shall as much as possible be located to take advantage of ocean and bay views. Precise location and design shall be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 10. The applicant or successor in interest shall participate in 50% of all costs related to the provision of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge over superior Avenue at a point to be determined in conjunction with the location of the view park at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 11. A landscaped greenbelt shall be established adjacent to Newport Crest. The greenbelt shall be a minimum of 30 feet wide and be maintained by the applicant or successor in interest. Park credit shall not be given for the greenbelt. T0: City'Clouncil - 14 • fu 41, "J 12. Upon approval of this amendment by thePlanning Commission CalTrans will enter into an agreement City W(J right of *ha ^-'y required for realignment of Superior Avenue. This agreement will outline the procedures by which realigned Superior Avenue may be conveyed to the City. 13. Because of difficulties in providing vehicular access to CalTrans East, and in recognition of both the State's need to dispose of this site and Hoag Hospital's need for additional land, CalTrans has entered into negotiations with Hoag Hospital for the acquisition of CalTrans East. Adoption of detailed zoning and approval of a tentative tract map on CalTrans West shall not occur until CalTrans offers satisfactory evidence that it will restrict access from CalTrans East to Coast Highway. 14. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. Alternate Language If the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission recommendations, the language of item 12 should be changed to read as follows: Upon approval of this amendment by the City Council, CalTrans will dedicate to the City of Newport Beach the property required for the realignment of Superior Avenue. Fifth Avenue Parcels Applications. The Irvine Company has proposed amendments to permit construction of two medium -density residential projects on one 9.6 acre and one 13.2 acre site located in the vicinity of 5th Avenue and Marguerite Avenues in Corona del Mar. The approvals requested include: 1. Acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report as having been completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A.) and City Policy K-3, and certification that the data was considered in the final decisions on this project. 2. Amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan. The Land Use Element revision changes the designation for Site A from Low -Density Residential to Medium -Density Residential, for Site B from Low -Density Residential to Medium -Density Residential, and Site C from Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an alternate use of Low -Density Residential to Recreational and Environmental Open Space. The Residential Growth Element will be revised to reflect residential TO: City ouncil - 15 statistical changes. The Recreation and Open Space Element will be revised to remove the future neighborhood designation from Site B and the permitted alternate land use from Site C. Future discretionary review of this project by the City include zone change amendments, tentative tract maps, use permits and grading permits. Project Site. The project site consists of three vacant parcels in the vicinity of Fifth Avenue and Marguerite Avenues in Corona del Mar. Marguerite Parcel - Area A: This site consists of 9.3 gross acres westerly of Marguerite Avenue between Fifth Avenue and Harbor View Drive. Fifth Avenue Parcel - Area B: This site consists of 13.2 gross acres northerly of Fifth Avenue between Marguerite Avenue and Buck Gully. Buck Gully - Area C: This site consists of 49.07 gross acres along the eastern City boundary between Fifth Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road. Project Characteristics. The project proposes the ultimate development of Areas A and B, as follows: Statistical Analysis Marguerite Parcel - Area A Gross Buildable Dwelling Units Land Use Acres Acres (Range) Medium -Density Residential 9.6 6.8* 27.9 68.0 Dwelling Units per Gross Acre 2.9 - 7.1 Dwelling Units per Buildable Acre 4.1 - 10.0 * Assumes payment of in -lieu park fees and no dedication of park land. T0: City coci.l - 16 to c,T // GeNYON<N C7i0 coo,rc, ycbG M-4 W&I -MEDIUM DENSITY .tir-"-'_.._.J :..�..� .... ........ O.P RESIDENTIAL sth AV �wN<OP'R ::L::::::G:::::a:::::::::: (4.1 to 10 DtU! Buildable Acre) ASISn J j1 r'j `SENIOR ,%�o:%:�;:W CITIZENg C21 .CENTER E%!STING LAND USE: Undeveloped Open Space EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT AND RESIDENTIAL GROWTHELEMENT Areas A and 8 - low -Density Residential (4 or less d.U./buildable acre); Area C - Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an Alternative Use of Low -Density Residential 14 or less d.u.lbuildable acre) EXISTING RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT: Area A - Neighborhood Parkt Areas 8 and C - Flora and Fauna Reserve with Neighborhood Park on Area B GPA 81-2: Indicated on Exhibit above EXISTING ZONING: R-1-8 (Single -Family Combining) District a 400 800 1200 0 Land Use Element W I 5 h Avenue Parcels NEWPORTCFTY OF PROPOSED GPA 81-2 T0: City L"ouncil - 17 Statistical Analysis Fifth Avenue Parcel - Area B Gross Buildable Dwelling Units Land Use Acres Acres (Range) Medium -Density Residential 13.2 10.0* 41.0 - 100.0 Dwelling Units per Gross Acre 3.1 - 7.6 Dwelling Units per Buildable Acre 4.1 - 10.0 * Assumes payment of in -lieu park fees and no dedication of park land. Environmental Significance. There.are environmental impacts anticipated in relation to the implementation of this project. The draft EIR indicates that there are significant adverse environmental impacts which cannot be avoided, as follows: AREAS A & B: Hydrology: 1) Ultimate development of the site will reduce permeable acreage and thereby increase surface runoff; 2) During grading, there will be a short-term increase in silt and sediment transport. After buildout, urban uses will incrementally increase the pollutant load to surface runoff. Demographics: Area A: The proposed project will permit development of approximately 68 dwelling units housing approximately 153 residents. Area B: The proposed project will permit development of approximately 100 dwelling units housing approximately 225 residents. AREA C: Hydrology: Development of limited recreational facilities may increase surface runoff and incrementally increase the pollutant load to surface runoff. The draft EIR further indicates that while the impacts may be partially mitigated, they are still significant when considered as part of the cumulative adverse impacts associated with regional growth. TO: City4ouncil - 18 Analysis 1. Land Use Area A: The General Plan Amendment for the Marguerite Avenue Parcel will, if approved, change the land use designation from Low -Density Residential to Medium -Density Residential. This change to the medium density category, which permits a maximum of 10 dwelling units per buildable acre, will reestablish the density permitted under the general plan as it was adopted in 1973, which allowed up to 10 DU's per gross acre in the low density category and directed the site to be zoned R-1 B, allowing approximately 50 dwelling units. General Plan Amendment 26, which established the Medium Density Residential category and redefined allowable residential density, changed the land use designation for this site to Medium -Density Residential, The Marguerite Parcel was subsequently redesignated to Low -Density Residential as part of General Plan Amendment 79-1. Area B: If approved, the proposed General Plan Amendment will also change the land use designation for the Fifth Avenue Parcel from Low to Medium Density Residential. The General Plan history for the Fifth Avenue Parcel is, essentially the same as for Area A, with the exception that the residential uses shown are alternate uses on the Land Use Plan, under the primary designation of Recreational and Environmental Open Space. General Plan Amendment 79-1 is the first time the Land Use Plan shows the site for only residential uses. 79-1 did not, however, amend the Recreation and Open Space Element, so the open space - flora and fauna reserve designation and the proposed neighborhood park designation remains on the Open Space Plan. This inconsistency between elements will be resolved by this amendment. Area C: This section of the amendment will, if approved, remove the alternate land use designation from the site, leaving it shown for Recreational and Environmental Open Space uses. The Land Use Designation for this site has not been amended since the adoption of the General Plan in 1973. The letter from The Irvine Company requesting consideration of General Plan Amendment proposals for the Marguerite and Fifth Avenue Parcels indicated the possible dedication of Buck Gully (Area C) for park and open space purposes in consideration for the increased development rights on the other two sites. The amendment was therefore initiated including the land use designation change for Buck Gully. Although The Irvine Company asserts they did not request this change, the consideration of it is appropriate, since the City is the applicant in a general plan amendment. In evaluating the General Plan Amendment, the proposal must be balanced with planned growth and development in the immediate area and throughout the City. The General Plan was adopted in 1973 and has been amended several times. Most of the land in the City is developed and the existing General Plan reflects that development. In terms of future allowable development, the General Plan, Local Coastal Program and existing zoning establish that a majority of the vacant land in the city will be developed for low density residential uses or preserved for recreation and environmental open space uses. Most future commercial and office development will occur in the older areas of the community. The proposed project, if approved, appears to be consistent with the overall development pattern. It will, however, use increments of remaining roadway capacity, which will not then be available for developments TO: Cityltuncil - 19 in other parts of the community. As indicated in the General Plan, potential development in the older commercial areas needs to be balanced with the transportation system. The two parcels proposed for development in this component of the General Plan Amendment are located in the vicinity of Fifth Avenue and Marguerite Avenue in Corona del Mar. Adjacent land uses include the Jasmine Creek townhomes to the north, single family homes in Harbor View Hills to the north and east, and two-family residential uses to the south. The Marguerite Avenue Parcel is adjacent to Harbor View Elementary School, Jasmine Creek and the City -owned OASIS Center parking lot. The Fifth Avenue Parcel is easterly of the OASIS Center facility and adjacent to Buck Gully. The surrounding residential land uses range in density from 2.71 du's per gross acre in Harbor View Hills East (south of San Joaquin Hills Road) to 4.08 du's per gross acre in Jasmine Creek to 11.11 du's per gross acre in old Corona del Mar. This can be compared to a maximum of 7.19 du's per gross acre proposed for the Marguerite Avenue Parcel and a maximum of 7.58 du's per gross acre for the Fifth Avenue Parcel. From an over all design standpoint, and when considered as an urban infill proposal, the project appears compatible with land uses in the area. If the amendment to the Buck Gully land use designation is also approved, the further strengthening of the permanent open space nature of this area balances the proposed higher density with the lower density development existing to the north. The densities proposed on the subject sites can be considered a suitable transition between the old Coro�a del Mar area and the lower density residential areas to the north. The Recreation and Open Space Element shows the Marguerite Avenue Parcel for a continuation of the Jasmine Creek greenbelt system. The General Plan location of structures policy will preclude development in this environmentally sensitive area, resulting in the Jasmine Creek area on the subject site being maintained as a greenbelt area. If the proposed amendment is approved, the land use designation should continue to show Jasmine Creek as a greenbelt on this site. The greenbelt should be similar in scale to the Planned Community areas northerly. The Fifth Avenue site is shown on the Open Space Plan as Recreational and Environmental Open Space - Flora and Fauna Reserve. The amendment, if approved, will remove this flora and fauna designation. The site in question is relatively flat and is mowed regularly. It has no unique or special plant or animal communities. The location of structures policy will preclude development in any sensitive parts of Buck Gully on the easterly edge of the subject site. The Buck Gully Parcel (Area C) is currently shown on the Open Space Plan as a flora and fauna reserve. If the proposed amendment is approved, this designation should be maintained to indicate the environmentally sensitive nature of the area and its unsuitability for active recreation uses. 2. Housing. If a General Plan Amendment permitting development of Medium -Density. Residential uses on the Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue sites is approved, housing opportunities in the City of Newport Beach will increase. This is consistent with the Program and Performance Objectives of the City's Housing Element. The increased level of residential development will have a positive impact on the available supply of housing in the City TO: Citylpouncil - 20 overall. The proponent of this amendment is cooperating with the City on another General Plan Amendment for the North Ford site (82-1), the expressed purpose of which is to increase available housing, and provide affordable housing in the City of Newport Beach. Approval of this proposal should include a requirement that a number equal to 108 of the total units be constructed on-site or off-site and be "affordable" by City standards. 3. Parks. Area A: No neighborhood or view parks are shown on the Marguerite Avenue Parcel. The existing and committed neighborhood park designation shown in the vicinity refers to the expansion of the existing Grant Howald Park easterly to Marguerite Avenue on the f 2 acre site owned by the City. Staff is aware that a particularly good view is available from the project site to the bay and ocean in the area of Marguerite Avenue and Harbor View Drive. If the proposed amendment is approved, consideration should be given to establishment of a public viewing area in this vicinity as part of the proposed subdivision. This could be used to satisfy a portion of the park dedication requirement of the project. Area B: A future neighborhood park is shown for the Fifth Avenue Parcel on the Open Space Plan. The Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department considers the OASIS Center a neighborhood park facility which is part of the Grant Howald Park area from Goldenrod Avenue to Narcissus Avenue. The Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission has indicated that additional land is necessary for future expansion of the OASIS facility. Land dedication should be required as part of any development approval for the Fifth Avenue Parcel. Depending on -the eventual design of the residential subdivision, and the determination of the amount of land necessary to supplement the OASIS center, in -lieu park fees could also be assessed to satisfy a part of the park dedication requirements. The eventual determination of whether land and/or fees Will be required is made at the discretion of the City at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. Area C: When this component of the General Plan Amendment was requested by The Irvine Company, it was indicated that dedication of the Buck Gully Parcel (Area C: f 50 acres) could occur for park and open space purposes in consideration for increased development rights on the Marguerite and Fifth Avenue Parcels. The criteria for park dedication has been quoted in the park section of the CalTrans West discussion above. It appears that the Buck Gully site is unsuitable for dedication as park land in the following areas: Criteria A: Generally, the land shall be flat: The site in question is a drainage course and is predominantly slope areas. Criteria B: Direct frontage- on at least one site: The site has no direct street frontage. Criteria C: Suitable for park development: While the site is very large, it does not appear suited to active recreation uses. Criteria F: In accordance with the recreation element of the General Plan: The area is not designated for any parks on the Open Space Plan. TO: City guncil - 21 0 If amendments to the Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue Parcels are approved, land dedication should be required to satisfy the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance. A portion of the park dedication requirement could be satisfied through the payment of fees if the City determines that sufficient land is being dedicated to satisfy park needs relative to the proposed project. 4. Circulation. The circulation system in the vicinity of the Fifth Avenue Parcels consists of East Coast Highway, MacArthur Boulevard, Marguerite Avenue, San Joaquin Hills Road, Fifth Avenue, and other local streets in Corona del Mar. A preliminary analysis of traffic impacts of the proposed project was completed for the Environmental Impact Report (Pages 107-109 of the draft EIR; Appendix F of the draft EIR). The analysis indicates the generation of 578 vehicle trip ends by the proposed 68 residential units on the Marguerite Parcel, and 1,300 vehicle trip ends by the proposed 100 residential units on the Fifth Avenue Parcel. These totals represent an increase from the permitted development under the existing General Plan of approximately 200 for the Marguerite Avenue Parcel and 390 for the Fifth Avenue Parcel. At the time of further discretionary approvals, the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance must be met, and necessary circulation system improvement shall be required. 5. OASIS Center. At the time General Plan Amendment 81-2 was initiated, The Irvine Company, the Park, Beaches and Recreation Department, and representatives of the OASIS Center were !negotiating a land trade to facilitate expansion of the OASIS Center. The proposed exchange would have traded the ±2 acre parcel on the northwest corner of Marguerite and Fifth Avenues (now partially developed with an overflow parking lot for the OASIS Center) for land adjacent to the existing facility. No agreement could be reached, however, and the trade never took place. The OASIS Long Range Planning Committee is studying future expansion of OASIS Center facilities and programs. While no firm plan has yet been developed, representatives of the committee have testified before both the Planning Commission and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission indicating the potential for future facility expansion, preferably adjacent to the existing site. 6. View Park Dedication. The Planning Commission is recommending the dedication and improvement of a ± 1 acre view park in conjunction with approval of the General Plan Amendment for the Marguerite Avenue Parcel. Determination should be made as to whether park dedication ordinance credit should be given for this dedication. Since the adoption of the Park Dedication Ordinance in 1977, no subdivision approved has included a view park requirement. The Park Dedication Ordinance does not specify particular types of parks to be acquired through the ordinance. It does reference "park and recreation facilities... ih accordance with the Recreation Element of the General Plan". The Planning Commission has the opinion of staff that a view park dedication and improvement is appropriate to satisfy the park dedication requirements of a residential development. The Planning Commission has, therefore, recommended that Park Dedication Ordinance credit be given for the land dedication for the view park if it is required by the City in conjunction with development of the Marguerite Avenue Parcel. Granting park dedication ordinance credit for the view park on the Marguerite Avenue Parcel will TO: cityPouncil - 22 • establish a precedent for future City action in regards to view parks in other development approvals. Undeveloped sites with view park designations include CalTrans West, Westbay, Castaways, and Newporter North. 7. Senior Citizen Housing. It has been suggested that all or a portion of the Fifth Avenue Parcel could be used for development of senior citizen housing similar in nature to the Seaview Lutheran Plaza project on Pacific View Drive in Corona del Mar. This project was developed by a private/non-profit organization (The Lutheran Church of the Master) utilizing the Federal 202 loan program and the Section 8 rental subsidy program. The characteristics of this residential development are as follows: Site size: 2.25 acre Units: 100 du's Density: 44.4 du's/acre Height: 32 feet Configuration: 3 story, stacked flats Parking ratio: 0.63/unit Senior citizen housing facilities are permitted in any residential, commercial, industrial or planned community zoning district upon approval of a use permit. Redesignation of the Fifth Avenue Parcel to Medium Density Residential and rezoning to the P -C District will not preclude the opportunity to propose and develop a senior citizen housing development on the site. 8. Views. Development of a residential project on the Marguerite Avenue Parcel could have impacts on views from public roadways (Marguerite Avenue and Harbor View Drive). Residential development on both the Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue Parcels could impact views from private residences in Harbor View Hills. The City has, in the past, required view preservation as part of approvals of tentative tract maps, and policy language is recommended by the Planning Commission to require view preservation as part of this General Plan Amendment. 9. Buck Gully. Buck Gully, Area C of the Fifth Avenue Parcels is designated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan with a primary designation of Recreation and Environmental Open Space and an alternate designation of Low Density Residential. The Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan designates this area as a flora and fauna reserve. The Recreation Element states that "areas designated flora and fauna reserve on the Open Space Plan will be maintained in their natural state with only such interference as is necessary for the enhancement and preservation of the natural flora and fauna resources." For the Buck Gully area the Element further states that "it is proposed that these canyons be maintained as natural open space by public acquisition of the land in fee or easement," and that these areas "are to be maintained in a predominantly natural state to preserve valuable flora and fauna resources for both ecological and educational purposes." The City's Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, approved by the City Council and certified by the California Coastal Commission in May of 1982, designates the upper portion of Buck Gully for Recreation and Environmental Open Space uses exclusively. There is no provision for any alternate residential use of the property. Buck Gully is then listed on Page 17 of the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan as an environmentally -sensitive habitat area. The LCP describes recreation and TO: City 9uncil - 23 0 environmental open space areas as including parks, wildlife refuges, golf courses, bluffs, canyons and beaches. The document then states that "uses permitted in areas shown for recreation and environmental open space on the sites listed on Page 17 of the LUP (which include Buck Gully) and defined as environmentally -sensitive areas (Page 20) are passive recreation uses compatible with the sensitive resource nature of these sites and include hiking, picnicking and nature study." The City's Open Space zoning district permits a variety of uses less restrictive than those allowed by the flora and fauna designation contained in the General Plan or the Recreation and Open space designation contained in the City's adopted LCP. The district allows, by use permit, certain active commercial and recreation facilities, golf courses, aquatic parks, tennis clubs, and yacht clubs. If, subsequent to the City's final action on the proposed general plan amendment, Buck Gully were to be rezoned to the open space district it would be with a clear understanding that the permitted uses on the site would be passive in nature, and not include the more active commercial recreation type of facilities allowed through the use permit process. As an alternative the City may, prior to the application of open space zoning to the property, amend the open space district to be specific with respect to flora and fauna reserves and other types of passive open space areas consistent with the City's Local Coastal Program and Recreation and Open Space Element. Although staff has proposed to remove the residential alternative on Area C, it is not recommended that any park credit be given for this area. Rather, staff is suggesting that this area be maintained as permanent open space in consideration for increased development intensities on Area A and on Area B, similar in concept to the density transfer program that was developed by the City during General Plan Amendment 79-1 in order to maintain large areas of the Westbay parcel and all of Eastbluff Remnant parcel as permanent open space. It has been suggested by The Irvine Company that this is not the appropriate time to evaluate this parcel for open space uses, and that the City's consideration of major revisions to the Recreation and Open Space Element, which is currently under study, should evaluate all such parcels Citywide and make some determination. It is staff's opinion, however, that from a legal standpoint the City is in a better bargaining position to include Area C along with the discussions on Area A and Area B at this time rather than to evaluate it individually at some future date. There has been discussion of Area C - Buck Gully and its relationship to the Irvine Coast LCP. There was some confusion regarding the relationship of the uses permitted by the Irvine Coast LCP in the Buck Gully area and those permitted by the City. It should be pointed out that there has never been any overlap in jurisdiction for this area. The portion of Buck Gully that is within the City of Newport Beach boundaries, which run roughly down the center line of the canyon, has always been shown as open space with an alternate use of residential in the Newport Beach General Plan. The area of Buck Gully that is discussed in the Irvine Coast LCP is the area that is totally outside of the City boundary and under the County's jurisdiction. Although the Irvine Coast LCP as originally drafted was fairly permissive in terms of the uses that would be allowed in these residential recreation areas (e.g. Buck Gully), the final draft as certified by the Coastal Commission is very restrictive as to the uses permitted in these areas. Uses are generally limited to passive TO: City4ouncil - 24 • parks, riding and hiking trails, bikeways, drainage control facilities and utilities. The uses allowed by the County under the certified Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan should be compatible with those permitted by the City under the Recreation and Open Space designation as a flora and fauna reserve. The Buck Gully parcel consists of approximately 65.0 gross acres. At the request of the City, the Irvine Company has prepared tentative calculations as to 2:1 slope areas in the Buck Gully parcel. It has been calculated that approximately 6.2 acres are slope areas greater than 2:1, leaving approximately 58.8 acres consisting of slopes no greater than 2:1. If some allowance is made for streets within the area (for example: 15%), there would be 50 buildable acres remaining. Under the alternate low density residential designation this would allow approximately 200 units. It should be pointed out, however, that the City also has a Location of Structures policy which requires that buildings not be located in environmental habitat and other sensitive -areas. This policy would probably cause a further reduction of possible residential units on the.site. Planning Commission Recommendations Fifth Avenue Parcels Area A: Marguerite Avenue Parcel: Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. Medium -Density Residential use shall be permitted. 2. Remove Recreational and Environmental Open Space designation from the Open Space Plan for the area adjacent to Marguerite Avenue to bring the various general plan elements into conformance. 3. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 4. The Jasmine Creek greenbelt system shall be continued on the site. The extent of the greenbelt shall be determined at the time of approval of the P -C development plan. 5. A public view park shall be designated in the Recreation and Open Space Element and provided (dedication + improvements) on the site in the vicinity of Marguerite Avenue and Harbor View Drive. The precise location of the view park shall be determined'at the time of approval of the P -C development plan. 6. That park dedication requirement credits be given to the applicant for the land dedication of the view park, consistent with the criteria contained in the City's Park Dedication Ordinance. Land given credit for park dedication shall be only those areas which are flat and outside the limits of the Orange County Flood Control District Easement. TO: City *ncil - 25 0 7. In the event that dedication of the view park is more than is necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, the excess credit shall be used to satisfy part of the requirement for Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel. 8. That existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved for a line -of -sight four feet above the ground floor level of a Harbor View Hills South residence. 9. That a number of units equal to at least 10% of the total units be constructed on-site or off-site and be affordable to low and moderate income families using City standards. 10. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. In the event the dedication of land for a view park does not satisfy the entire requirement of the Park Dedication Ordinance, the Planning Commission was unable to agree (by a vote of 3-3, one absent) whether the additional requirement could be satisfied through the payment of in -lieu park fees. The Planning Commission's recommendation isforty rded without indication of how additional park dedication requirements will b6 satisfied. Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel: The Planning Commission recommends that no changes be made to the General Plan for this site. Area C: Buck Gully Parcel: The Planning Commission recommends that no changes be made to the General Plan for this site. Additional Language Area A: Marguerite Avenue Parcel: If the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission recommendations, staff recommends the following language regarding park dedication be added (following #7 listed above): a. In the event that dedication of the view park does not satisfy the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, the additional park dedication requirements shall be satisfied through on-site or off-site land dedication, the assessment of in -lieu fees or a combination of the above as determined by the Planning Commission and City Council, after recommendation by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. Areas B and C: If the City Council does not concur with the Planning Commission recommendation on Areas B and C, the following language is provided: TO: City0ouncil - 26 • Area B6 Fifth Avenue Parcel: Amend the Land Uset, Residential Growth, Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. Medium -Density Residential use shall be permitted. 2. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 3. Remove the Recreational and Environmental Open Space/Flora and Fauna Reserve designation. 4. The requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance shall be satisfied through on-site land dedication for the expansion of existing neighborhood park facilities, including expansion of the OASIS Center. The assessment of in -lieu fees may occur for a portion of the park dedication requirement if it is determined at the time of approval of tentative tract maps by the Planning Commission and City Council, after recommendation by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, that sufficient land is being dedicated for neighborhood park needs. 5. Land dedicated will be improved to the extent that the land is rough graded to the existing grade of the adjacent City owned property, a retaining wall will be installed to support the slope above the property and the 40.40 acre at the northeast corner of the City property be graded to the same level as the dedicated land. 6. No slope areas will be accepted through dedication or given park dedication credit. 7. The developer shall receive park credit only for the acreage dedicated and not for the value of any improvement to the land. S. That existing views of ocean and 'bay shall be preserved for a line -of -sight four feet above the ground floor level of a Harbor View Hills South residence. 9. That a number of units equal to at least 10% of the total units be constructed on-site or off-site and be affordable to low and moderate income families using City standards. 10. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. Area C: Buck Gully Parcel: Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan in consideration for the General Plan Amendments for Areas A & B above: 1. Remove the alternate residential land use designation. This leaves the area designated as Recreational and Environmental Open Space/Flora and Fauna Reserve. TO: City kcil - 27 2. Require that the Buck Gully area be established as an open space parcel and a permanent open space easement be recorded for that parcel in conjunction with the tentative and final tract maps for Areas A & B. 3. That the parcel be rezoned to the Open Space Zone for open space use concurrent and in consideration of the rezoning of the Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue Parcels (Areas A and B). Big Canyon Area 16 Applications. The Irvine Company has proposed amendments to permit construction of a medium -density residential development on the 10.9 acre site located at MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road in Big Canyon. The approvals requested include: 1. Acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report as having been completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A.) and City Policy K-3, and certification that the data was considered in the final decisions on this project. 2. Amendments to the Land Use, Resident al Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the kewl t Beach General Plan. The Land Use Element revision changes the land use designation for the subject site from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Medium -Density Residential. The Residential Growth Element will be revised to reflect residential statistical changes. The Recreation and Open Space Element will be revised to remove the open space/golf course designation from this site. Future discretionary review of this project by the City includes a zone change amendment, tentative tract maps, use permits, and grading permits. Project Site. The project site consists of a vacant parcel southwesterly of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. The parcel is 10.9 gross acres in size and is within the Big Canyon Planned Community . T0: Citi'*l�ouncil — Qa L MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL \ ��-- (4.1 to 10 D.U./Buildable Acre) VORr � ?8B� p 0 POR/ ? R✓�{L '� P OPV RL K> �9Q pilaf OL'•/N CbVYaM-.'•f �SEAr� 9 G f t"• PRV ! ^�: —^•, i o,,! •qty �/ .ir ti? ✓E P/IVF w 1k %kJ /J• _/pay •���;v `�^� \ to • 1�`%;--r5 �� he's w�\L\ . �er-PS• ^21 t�Q�,.'.�; I (� 12 1 •�\• � SS yj "�- bl6/ � .—� � �//,dei AN 3 ;Yy `, 1 ti \\\ l 1 t O• � I A C, EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped Open Space EXISTING LAND USE ELE14ENT: Recreational and Environmental Open Space EXISTING RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT: Golf Course GPA 81-2: Indicated on Exhibit above EXISTING ZONING: P -C (Planned Community) District r/ Proposed Land Use • Element �g C&AMR A a 13 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 8i=2 i TO: City Council - 29 0 Project Characteristics. The project proposes the ultimate development of the site as follows: Statistical Analysis Gross Buildable Dwelling Units Land Use Acres Acres (Range) Medium -Density Residential 10.9 8.7* 35.7 - 87.0 Dwelling Units per Gross Acre 3.3 - 8.0 Dwelling Units per Buildable Acre 4.1 - 10.0 * Assumes payment of in -lieu park fees and no dedication of park land. Environmental Significance. There are envirgqamental impacts anticipated in relation to the implementation of this p�oject+. The draft EIR indicates that there are significant adverse environmental impacts which cannot be avoided, as follows: Hydrology: 1) Ultimate development of the site will reduce permeable acreage and thereby increase surface runoff; 2) During grading, there will be a short-term increase in silt and sediment transport. After buildout, urban uses will incrementally increase the pollutant load to surface runoff. Demographics: The proposed project will permit development of approximately 87 dwelling units housing approximately 196 residents. Recreation and Open Space: Depending on the findings of the City's comprehensive Recreation and Open Space Element review, there may or may not be significant adverse impacts on the provision of recreation and open space areas in the City. The draft EIR further indicates that while the impacts in the categories of Hydrology and Demographics may be partially mitigated, they are still significant when considered as part of the cumulative adverse impacts associated with regional growth. Analysis 1. Land Use.- The General Plan' Amendment for the Big Canyon Area 16 Parcel will, if approved, change the land use designation from Recreational and Environmental Open Space/Golf Course to Medium -Density Residential. This site has carried this designation since the General Plan was adopted in 1973. It was originally believed that all or a portion of this site would be needed as TO: City9ouncil - 30 • ` right-of-way for the Corona del Mar Freeway, but realignment of that facility has removed this possibility. The Land Use Element for Big Canyon currently makes provision for 100 dwelling units not assigned to any specific site in the area. As part of the agreements regarding of the Back Bay sewer line through the Mouth of Big Canyon, the City agreed to consider the assignment of these units to a particular site in the area, so, long as the residential density did not exceed 10 dwelling units per buildable acre. In evaluating the General Plan Amendment, the proposal must be balanced with planned growth and development in the immediate area and throughout the city. The General Plan was adopted in 1973 and has been amended several times. Most of the land in the City is developed and the existing General Plan reflects that development. In terms of future allowable development, the General Plan, Local Coastal Program and existing zoning establish that a majority of the vacant land in the City will be developed for low density residential uses or preserved for recreation and environmental open space uses. Most future commercial and office devglopment will occur in the older areas of the community. The proposed project, if approved, appears to be consistent with the overall development pattern. It will, however, use increments of remaining roadway capacity, which will not then be available for developments in other parts of the community. As indicated in the General plan, potential development in the older commercial areas needs to be balanced with the transportation system. The project site is located in the vicinity of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road in the Big Canyon Planned Community. Land uses in the vicinity include the other areas of Big Canyon Planned Community, attached and detached residential uses and industrial uses across Ford Road in the Aeronutronic Ford/Belcourt area, and single family residential uses across MacArthur Boulevard in Harbor View Hills. The Big Canyon Area 16 Parcel is adjacent to the Big Canyon Country Club Golf Course. The surrounding residential land uses range in density from 2.38 du's per gross acre in Big Canyon to 2.62 du's per gross acre in Belcourt to 3.73 du's per gross acre in Harbor View Hills northerly of San Joaquin Hills Road. This is compared to a maximum of 7.98 du's per gross acre for the Big Canyon Area 16 site. There are areas within the Big Canyon and Belcourt which fall within the Medium -Density Residential category. From an overall design standpoint, and when considered as an urban infill proposal, the project appears compatible with land use in the area. The Recreation and Open Space Element shows the Big Canyon Area 16 Parcel as Recreational and Environmental Open Space/Golf Course. Since it is adjacent to the golf course, the site could be used for golf course expansion or development of other commercial recreational facilities associated with the country club. The recreation needs of residents in the area are provided by private facilities developed with the residential uses. The site is, therefore not needed to provide public recreational facilities. 2. Housing. If a General Plan Amendment permitting development of Medium -Density Residential uses on the Big Canyon - Area 16 sites is approved, housing opportunities in the City of Newport Beach will increase. This is consistent with the Program and Performance Objbctives of the City's Housing Element. The increased level of residential development will have a positive impact on the available supply of housing in the City overall. The proponent of this amendment is cooperating with the City on another General Plan TO: City kcil - 31 Amendment for the North Ford site (82-1), the expressed purpose of which is to increase available housing and provide affordable housing in the City of Newport Beach. Approval of this proposal should include a requirement that a number equal to 10% of the total units be constructed on-site or off-site and be "affordable" by City standards. 3. Parks. No neighborhood park, or any other public recreation facility is designated for The Big Canyon Area 16 site. If this proposal is approved, in -lieu park fees should be required consistent with the city's Park Dedication Ordinance. 4. Circulation. The circulation system in the vicinity of Big Canyon Area 16 consists of East Coast Highway, Eastbluff Drive, Ford Road, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. A preliminary analysis of traffic impacts of the proposed project was completed for the Environmental Impact Report (Page 110 of the draft EIR; Appendix F of the draft EIR). The analysis indicates the generation of 740 vehicle trip ends by the proposed residential uses. At the time of further discretionary approvals, the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance must be met, and necessary circulation system improvements shall be required. S. Relationship to Mouth of Big Canyon. With the adoption of the Local Coastal Program by the City Council and its certification by the California Coastal Commission, the City adopted policie relating to the Mouth of Big Canyon. The following language was adopted al a result of the fact that the Irvine Company had cooperated in the construction of the Backbay gravity sewer line and specifically with providing mitigation measures for its construction in the form of a restored marsh area in the Mouth of Big Canyon. "During the implementation phase of the LCP the City and the landowner shall develop a mechanism for obtaining dedication of the Mouth of Big Canyon to the appropriate public agencies, including consideration of the following: a) the granting of park credits to the landowner for those portions of the Mouth of Big Canyon meeting the useability criteria of the Park Dedication Ordinance. Park credits would not apply to residential sites where neighborhood parks have already been designated in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan (e.g. Castaways and Newport North); b) the City of Newport Beach shall initiate a general plan amendment and planned community amendment to designate for residential development, a portion of the Big Canyon Planned Community located southwesterly of the intersection of Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The precise boundaries of this site, appropriate density, and design of the residential development will be determined through appropriate environmental documentation. The proposed 10 acres for residential development shall not exceed 10 du's per buildable acre." The concept proposed in the LCP was to give -the Irvine Company some additional units in the Big Canyon Area 16 site and also some park dedication credit for appropriate areas within the Mouth of Big Canyon, in exchange for the Mouth of Big Canyon being dedicated to an appropriate public agency (at that time the City was contemplating the State Department of Fish and Game, or the State Coastal Conservancy). To date, The Irvine Company and the City have been TO: Citlouncil - 32 , unable to resolve the issue of the ultimate disposition of the Mouth of Big Canyon although negotiations are ongoing. The Planning Commission has recommended a condition for this component that zoning to allow the residential units on Area 16 not be approved by the City until such time as the question of park credits, development rights and ownership of the Mouth of Big Canyon is resolved. Planning Commission Recommendation Big Canyon - Area 16 Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. Medium -Density Residential use shall be permitted. 2. Remove the Recreation and Open Space/Golf Course designation. 3. That the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance shall be satisfied through on-site or off-site land dedication, the assessment of in -lieu fees or a combination of the above as determined by the Planning Commission and City Council, after recommendation by the Parks,. Beaches and Recreation Commission, at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 4. That a number of units equal to at least 10% of the total units be constructed on-site or off-site and be affordable to low and moderate income families using City standards. S. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. 6. Prior to the approval by the City of any future discretionary actions (i.e., zoning and tentative tract), the question of park credits, development rights and ownership of the Mouth of Big Canyon shall be resolved. Newport Center - Block 400 Applications. Newport Center Medical Buildings, Inc. has proposed the following amendment to permit construction an additional 80,000 square feet of medical office in a new seven story office tower in Block 400 of Newport Center. 1. Acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report as having been completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A.) and City Policy K-3, and certification that the data was considered in the final decisions on this project. T0: City Ancil - 33 • 2. An amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan to increase the total allowable office development in Newport Center by 80,000 square feet and the designation of the additional office development to Block 400. Project Site. The project site is northeast of the intersection of Newport Center Drive East and San Miguel Drive in Newport Center. Block 400 comprises approximately 16 acres bounded by Newport Center Drive East, San Miguel Road, Avocado Avenue, and San Nicholas Drive. Project Characteristics. The project proposes development of a seven story medical office tower of 80,000 square feet and a related parking structure. Currently, there are 353,600 square feet of medical and general office existing in Block 400. If approved, a total of 433,600 square feet of office will be permitted. The existing floor area ratio (FAR) is 0.51 times the buildable acreage. The proposed floor area ratio of the site is 0.62 times the buildable acreage. Environmental Significance. There are environmental impacts anticipated in relation to the implementation of this project. The draft EIR indicates that there are significant adverse impacts which cannot be avoided, as follows: Demographics: The proposed project will result in additional employment opportunities in the City of Newport Beach �f approximately 256 additional employees. Aesthetics/Views: The level of significance of these impacts are to be determined by the Planning Commission and City Council: 1) Addition to the Newport Center skyline; 2) possible impairment or obstruction of views from surrounding office or residential uses. The draft EIR further indicates that while the impacts in terms of Demographics may be partially mitigated, they are still cumulatively significant when considered part of City and regional demand. Analysis 1. Land Use. In evaluating an applicant's request for an amendment to the General Plan, the request must be balanced with planned growth and development within the immediate area and throughout the community. The Newport Beach General Plan was adopted in 1973 and has been amended several times. A majority of the land in the City is developed today and the existing General Plan reflects that development. In terms of future allowable development, the Newport Beach General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, and zoning establish that a majority of the vacant land in the City will be developed for low density residential development or preserved for recreation and environmental open space uses. Future allowable development of commercial or office will be in the older areas of the community. The future additional allowable development will take place as incremental 'increases as presently developed properties recycle. The proposed project, if approved, would appear to be consistent with this overall development pattern. However, any approval of this project will use increments of remaining roadway capacities. This capacity will not To: Oy Council - 34 NElNPORT t j \ - A GENTE,P .A u ADMINISTRATIVE, PROFESSIONAL AND FINANCIAL COMMERCIAL (Amends Land Use Element Text to allow the addition of a0,000 square feet of medical office space) C�R'`�'rf1rE- _ It+O Qa \ ab pLA2A EXISTING LAND USE: General Office and Medical Office EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT: Administrative, Professional and Financial Coamercial (No 'further development) GPA 81-2: indicated on Exhibit above EXISTING ZONING: C -O -H (Multiple Residential, Hotel, Motel, Professional Offices, and Retail Sales District) Proposed Land Use Element =lock 400-0 400 800 IZO Newport Center CrTY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4~ PROPOSED TO: City #uncil - 35 1 • then be available for developments in the other areas of the community. As indicated in the General Plan, potential development in the older commercial areas need to be balanced with the transportation system. In Newport Center, the medical office development (tower) in terms of overall design is compatible with existing development patterns and future development. Blocks 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, and 900 of Newport Center contain all of the mid/high rise buildings in Newport Center. There are four existing office buildings on the site. A majority of the remaining vacant areas in Newport Center are to be developed for medium density residential uses at an average of 6 du's/ac (505 total units). A limited amount of other commercial/office growth is projected by the General Plan for the remainder of Newport Center. The Irvine Company has allocated a majority of the future allowable office developments remaining after GPA 79-1 to its Corporate and Civic Plaza projects. The City Council has recently approved a General Plan Amendment and related applications for expansion of the Marriott Hotel. A General Plan Amendment for an additional hotel in Block 600 of Newport Center (Four Seasons) has been initiated by the City Council. From the overall design standpoint of Newport Center, the proposed project appears compatible and would remain so even if the project previously mentioned is approved. If the proposed project is approved, it sh uld be subject to review and approval of a Use Permit by the Planning bommiAsion to provide for appropriate site plan review and mitigation measures. 2. Circulation. The circulation system in the vicinity of Block 400 - Newport Center consists of Avocado Avenue, East Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Center Drive, San Joaquin Hills Road, San Miguel Drive and San Nicholas Drive. A preliminary analysis of traffic impacts of the proposed project was completed for'the Environmental Impact Report (Pages 111-112 of the draft EIR; Appendix F of the draft EIR). This analysis indicates the proposed project will generate about 3,600 vehicle trip ends per day. At the time of further discretionary approvals, the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance must be met, and necessary circulation system improvements will be required. 3. General Plan and Zoning History. Block 400 in Newport Center consists of ±16 acres bounded by Newport Center Drive East, San Miguel Drive, Avocado Avenue and San Nicholas Drive. The property is zoned C -O -H, which it has carried since the property was subdivided for development. Under this zoning designation approximately 1.8 million square feet of development could be permitted on the site. The Newport Beach General Plan designates the site for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial uses. The zoning and land use designations are consistent. The General Plan adopted in 1973 did not specify any development limits in Newport Center. The only structural area limits were those specified by the zoning district. The first deyelopment limits beyond the zoning limitations placed on Newport Center were established by the City Council on February 28, 1977 with the adoption of City Council Resolution 9009. The four buildings currently within Block 400 were either built or under construction as of that date. Resolution 9009 was adopted by the City Council after T0: Ci TO: - 36 • t recommendation by the Planning Commission. Staff's research into the files indicate that this resolution was adopted by the City Council as a "Current Business" item at a regular City Council meeting. The item was not a public hearing item, was not advertised, and no property or building owners in Newport Center were notified. The resolution was not adopted in connection with any zoning or development applications. It is evident,, however, that The Irvine Company was aware of the resolution and the development limitations it imposed. The limitations enacted by the resolution were, in fact, ultimate development projections provided to the City by The Irvine Company during the development of the City's computerized traffic model. It is not known whether these development projections for Newport Center included any additional development in Block 400. It is, however, the opinion of staff that the development projections provided by The Irvine Company were for developments which were to be developed either by The Irvine Company itself or for areas which were subject to future leases and did not include any future development in Block 400. Subsequent to the adoption of Resolution 9009 in 1978, the City Council adopted General Plan Amendment 78-2, which reduced allowed development on many commercial and residential developments City-wide, including Newport Center. It is within the staff reports- prepared for GPA 78-2 that projected future development in Newport Center is delineated on a block basis, and these clearly show no future allowable development in Block 400. The records for GPA 78-2 also indicate that a standard legal notice advertisement was placed in the newspaper for the public hearing and property owners, homeowners associations and other interested parties were notified of the pending General Plan Amendment hearing. The major leasehold interests in Newport Center were not directly notified. The City again addressed permitted development in Newport Center in General Plan Amendment 79-1. Again a legal notice of public hearing was printed in the newspaper and property owners, homeowners associations and interested parties were notified of the public hearings, but the leasehold interests in Newport Center were not notified directly. During the preparation of environmental documentation for General Plan Amendment 80-30 staff was approached by Mr. Frank Rhodes regarding additional development he had planned for the Block 400 area of Newport Center. After being informed of the lack of future allowable development in Block 400, Mr. Rhodes requested to be included in the General Plan Amendment 80-3. Staff informed him that this would not be possible, since preparation of the environmental document was nearly completed. He was advised to request a general plan amendment for the following amendment session. The request was made and an amendment to permit an additional 80,000 square feet of development in Newport Center was initiated by the Planning Commission as part of General Plan Amendment 81-2. A question has also been raised regarding the leases for the Block 400 area. Mr. Rhodes has provided staff with a copy of the lease for the 3.971 acre parcel currently occupied by a seven story medical office at 400 Newport Center Drive East. The lease indicates allowed development of 160,000 square feet of office uses. The existing building on the site is approximately 80,000 square feet, leaving an additional 80,000 square of development permitted under the terms of the lease. T0: City Ouncil - 37 • In reviewing the entire record in regards to the development intensity reductions which have occurred over the years in Newport Center, it is apparent that the City dealt with The Irvine Company alone as the sole property owner. In doing so, the City assumed that The Irvine Company was representing and protecting all future planned development in the Center. It now appears that The Irvine Company was representing only their own future planned development and, whether intentional or not, did not protect additional development granted in the terms of prior leases. The situation is one in which the lessee, who by the tenure of the lease is considered the controlling interest, was not notified by mail of any action of the City to reduce development rights and of the property owner not informing the City of, or otherwise protecting, development rights granted to a lessee. When this situation was first discovered during the deliberations on GPA 80-3, staff contacted all long-term leaseholders in Newport Center to determine if any other "planned" development was being overlooked, and none were discovered. In recognition of the requested general plan amendment for Block 400 in Newport Center the City Council included the following statement in the action on GPA 80-3: "The adoption of General Plan Amendment 80-3 is without prejudice to the approval or disapproval of an 80,000 sq.ft. medical office building in Block 400, which is under process in General Plan Amendment 81-2." Planning Commission Recommendations Newport Center - Block 400 Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan: 1. Allow the addition of 80,000 square feet of medical office development in Newport Center, along with related parking facilities. 2. Specify this additional allowable development to Block 400, on the parcel located at 400 Newport Center Drive East. 3. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 4. Specify the development be subject to further review and approval of a use permit. 5. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. Campus Drive Applications. The City of Newport Beach has proposed amendments to the Land Use Element for the Campus Drive area generally bounded by Campus Drive/Irvine . To: LEGEND City Council - 38 ADMINISNAL TRATIVE, MIXED USE- RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE, PROFESSIONAL AND FINANCIAL COMMERCIAL MIXED USE- ADMINISTRATIVE, PROFESSIONAL AND FINANCIAL COMMERCIAL AND GENERAL INDUSTRY (Amends to limitedevelopment and Use iement to 5 times the buildable area) s 1 z a 0 I� LISTING LAND USE, Residential, Retail• an\ Ser- vice Commerci at, Light Industrial and Office. EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT: North of Dove St. r— South of Bristol St. Retail and Service Commercial and Financial Commercial and Administrative, Professional' and Financial ��� •i'�,�r. Commercial; between Dove St. and Bristol St, North - General Industry. GPA 01-2: Indicated on Exhibit above EXISTING ZONING: North of Bristol St. North - M -I -A (Administrative and Professional - Light Manufacturing) District; South Of Bristol St. - primarily A•P-N (Offices, Art Galleries, etc.) District; also C -1-N (Offices, Retail, etc.) District. Campus Drive Office/ Indus�at/rial Area TO: City Ouncil - 39 Avenue, Orchard Avenue, Birch Street, and MacArthur Boulevard. The approvals requested include: 1. Acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report as having been completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A.) and City Policy K-3, and certification that the data was considered in the final decisions on this project. 2. Amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. This amendment will revise the land use designation for the area bounded by Campus Drive, Bristol Street, Birch Street and Dove Street from General Industry to a mixture of General Industry and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial. Also proposed is a limitation on the intensity of allowable development in the entire subject area of 0.5 FAR (floor area ratio). Future discretionary review of this project by the City will be a zone change amendment to implement the General Plan Amendment and any other discretionary approvals, such as use permits and resubdivisions, which may be required by individual development requests in the project area. Project Site. The project site consists of 63.9 acres along Campus Drive north and south of Bristol Street and is bounded by Campus Drive, Orchard Avenue, Birch Street and MacArthur Avenue. Project Characteristics. The following statistical analysis outlines the existing, permitted under zoning, and proposed permitted development for the project area. Statistical Analysis Office, Industrial 1 Development and Commercial Buildable Net Floor Intensity Floor to Land Uses Acres Areas (S.F.) (S.F./Acre) Area Ratio Existing (1981) Development No. of Bristol 55.5 830,400 14,960 0.34 So. of Bristol 8.4 122,270 14,560 0.33 Permitted Development under Zoning Code No. of Bristol 55.5 6,304,360 113,590 2.61 So. of Bristol 8.4 707,480 84,220 1.93 Proposed Development under GPA 81-2 No. of Bristol 55.51 1,208,790 21,780 0.50 So. of Bristol 8.4 182,950 21,780 0.50 1 Within the Campus Drive study area, the number of buildable acres is equal to the number of gross acres. 2 The number'of square feet allowed in each buildable acre. to TO: City�ouncil - 40 Environmental Significance. There are environmental impacts anticipated in relation to the implementation of this project. The draft BIR indicates that there are significant adverse impacts which cannot be avoided as follows: Demographics: The proposed project will permit development increases which, if implemented, could generate approximately 2,070 more employees than exist today, or a total of approximately 5,429. This represents a net reduction of approximately 21,918 employment opportunities within the project area as theoretically allowed under the existing General Plan. The draft EIR further indicates that while the impacts may be partially mitigated at the time the General Plan Amendment is implemented by further discretionary 'approvals, they are still cumulatively significant when considered as part of City and regional demand. Analysis 1. Land Use. The General Plan Amendment for Campus Drive as proposed, will, if approved, establish a limit on the permitted intensity of development of 0.5 floor area ratio (ratio of building square footage to total land area). The land use designation for the area bounded by Campus Drive, Dove Street, Birch Street and Bristol Street will add a designation of Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial to he existing General industry designation. This land use designation Iamengent will reflebt the existing uses and development trends in the area, which is predominantly office mixed with industrial and other commercial land uses. This amendment is the first proposed for the area since the General Plan was adopted in 1973. The proposed General Plan Amendment is the first step in the process to: 1) establish intensity limitations which more closely reflect those permitted in contiguous industrial/office areas, and 2) insure that the circulation system will be able to accommodate future development. The approval of the project will significantly reduce the permitted development levels in the area. It will, however, still permit additional development in the area which, if implemented, will use increments of remaining roadway capacity which will not then be available for developments in other areas of the community. As already indicated in the General Plan, potential development must be balanced with the capacity of the transportation system. The project site is in the northern part of the City, and is adjacent to the Emkay-Newport Place Planned Community and in the vicinity of Koll Center Newport Planned Community. Other land uses in the area include the John Wayne - Orange County Airport, the mixed residential and commercial areas of Santa Ana Heights and the commercial/office/industrial areas of the Irvine Industrial Complex. The adjacent commercial/industrial/office in the City of Newport Beach have development intensity ratios as follows: Emkay-Newport Place = 0.36 FAR, Koll Center - Newport = 0.39 FAR. This is compared to the 0.5 FAR proposed for the Campus Drive area. From an overall design standpoint, the project appears compatible with the land uses and development intensities in the area. 2. Circulation. The circulation system in the vicinity of the Campus Drive area consists of Birch Street, Bristol Street, Campus Drive, Corona del Mar TO: City oncil - 41 • Freeway, Irvine Avenue, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, and Von Karman Avenue. A preliminary analysis of traffic impacts of the proposed project was completed for the Environmental Impact Report (Pages 112-114 of the draft EIR; Appendix F of the draft EIR). The analysis indicates that under the proposed amendment, the Campus Drive area will generate approximately 18,096 vehicle trip ends at buildout. This number represents an increase of approximately 5,707 trip ends over existing development trip ends and a reduction of approximately 73,060 trip ends from the existing General Plan. Any future development proposals in the study area of 10,000 square feet or more must meet the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and necessary circulation system improvements shall be required. The proposed General Plan Amendment is unique in one respect. Both the positive and negative impacts of the proposal are in the area of traffic and circulation. The proposal will reduce the development potential of the area. It will significantly reduce the "worst case" traffic generation potential. It is, however, not known at this time whether the development potential permitted by the floor area ratio of 0.5 can be accommodated by the circulation system. 3. Flexibility of Floor Area Limitations. Testimony was received by the Planning Commission regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment for the Campus Drive area expressing concern over a lack of flexibility in the proposed intensity limitation of 0.5 FAR. Thse concerns have been addressed in the Planning Commission recommendatilons Xr the area, which 1) further define proposed zoning code amendments, and 2) establish a basic permitted intensity of 0.5 FAR but allow an increase to 1.0 FAR upon review and approval of a use permit. Planning Commission Recommendations Campus Drive Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan: 1. Revise the land use designation for the area bounded by Dove Street, Birch Street, Bristol Street and Campus Drive to a mixture of General Industry and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial. 2. Establish a permitted intensity of development for the Campus Drive area (as shown on Exhibit 7 following Page 12 of the draft EIR) of 0.5 floor area ratio, with a floor area ratio of up to 1.0 permitted upon review and approval of a use permit. This increase in permitted floor area may be approved if a finding can be made that the traffic and circulation system impacts are no greater than those generated by an office development at 0.5 FAR. The floor area ratio ,limits are defined as the ratio of gross structural area to the buildable area of the site. 3. Direct that the zoning in the area be amended to implement this General Plan Amendment. T0: City Oncil - 42 46 .1 ' 4. At the time of future discretionary actions, individual projects shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By P&,Vc ;--, PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Senior Planner PIT:nma Attachments. 1. Draft Environmental Impact Report (for City Council only) 2. Technical Appendices (for City Council only) 3. Volume Three of EIR (for City Council only) 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1088 S. Planning Commission, Resolution No. 1089 6. March 15, 1983 letter from The Irvine Company 7. EIR Errata Summary sheet. 46 OACHMENT NO. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 1088 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT CERTAIN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 'TO THE LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL GROWTH AND RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENTS OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BE ADOPTED, AND IN RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SAID AMENDMENTS THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROJECT BE CERTIFIED AS ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81-2) WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the City's General Plan the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements have been prepared; and WHEREAS, said elements of the General Plan set forth objectives and supporting policies which serve as a guide for the future development of the City•of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 707 of the charter of the City of Newport Beach, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider certain amendments to the above referenced elements of the Newport Beach General Plan; and . WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach Ias, in Ithe General Plan Housing Element, established policies to increase the production of housing in the community and to provide affordable housing opportunities in the City; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted Council Policy P-1 to implement the provisions of Government Code Section 65590 (Mello); and WHEREAS, the City recognizes its responsibility to designate sufficient vacant land for residential use with appropriate standards to produce housing at the lowest possible cost consistent with Section 65913 of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach recognizes the unique opportunity to provide affordable housing on the CalTrans West site; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach recognizes the opportunity to require provision of affordable housing either on or off-site in conjunction residential development in the City; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission haL reviewed and considered the environmental document in making these recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach recommends to the City Council that the environmental impact ' report prepared in conjunction with the project be certified as adequate and complete, and that the following amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements be approved as follows: ' 0 i .. (a) CalTrans West Amend the Land Use, Residential Crowth, and Recreation and Environmental Open Space Elements of the General Plan, and the laical Coastal Program Land Use Plan: 1. "Multiple -Family Residential" uses .not to exceed 15 dwelling units per buildable acre shall be permitted. 2. The property shall be rezoned to the F -C (Planned Community) District. 3. The preferred access to the CalTrans West site is from the proposed Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extension) across a portion of the Banning property. A reasonable effort must be made to establish this access from Bluff Road at the time of approval of the tentative tract map for the CalTrans West site if it is submitted prior to tentative maps for the Banning -Newport Ranch, Temporary and limited access may be developed from realigned Superior Avenue. The precise location of all access will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 4. That existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved for a line -of -sight 4 feet above the lower balcony level of a Newport Crest residence. S. 20% of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as defined in the City's Housing Element. 6. 10% of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as set forth in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. 7. CalTrans West will be required to comply with the park dedication ordinance. A park of at least 5 acres in size is to be developed between Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, 15th Street (extended), and Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extended). The specific size, location, design, and' the means to acquire and develop the park will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract maps for CalTrana West and/or the adjacent Banning -Newport Ranch Residential Developments. The park shall be completed concurrent with occupancy of the first residential unit. B. A view park of S 1 acre shall be located on-site and shall partially satisfy the requirements for park dedication contained in Chapter 19.50 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 9. A pedestrian and bicycle easement shall be developed to connect the view park with the neighborhood park. The easement shall as much as possible be located to take advantage of ocean and bay views. Precise location and design shall be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 10. The applicant or successor in interest shall participate in 50% of all costs related to the provision of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge over Superior Avenue at a point to be determined in conjunction with the location of the view park at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 11. A landscaped greenbelt shall be established adjacent to Newport Crest. The greenbelt shall be a minimum of 30 feet wide and be maintained by the applicant or successor in interest. Park credit shall not be given for the greenbelt. 0 0 12. Upon approval of this amendment by the Planning Commission, CalTrans will enter into an agreement permitting the City a right of entry onto that property required for realignment of Superior Avenue. This agreement will outline the procedures by which realigned Superior Avenue may be conveyed to the City. 13. Because of difficulties in providing vehicular access to CalTrans East, and in recognition of both the State's need to dispose of this site and Hoag Hospital's need for additional land, CalTrans has entered into negotiations with Hoag Hospital for the acquisition of CalTrans East. Adoption of detailed zoning and approval of a tentative tract map on CalTrans West shall not occur until CalTrans offers satisfactory evidence that it will restrict access from CalTrans East to Coast Highway. 14. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. (b) Fifth Avenue Parcels Area A: Marguerite Avenue Parcel: Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. Medium -Density Residential use shall be permitted. 2. Remove Recreational and Environmental Open Space designation from the Open Space Plan for the area adjacent to Marguerite Avenue to bring the various general plan elements into conformance. 3. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 4. The Jasmine Creek greenbelt system shall be continued on the site. The extent of the greenbelt shall be determined at the time of approval of the P -C development plan. S. A public view park shall be designated in the Recreation and Open Space Element and provided (dedication + improvements) on the site in the vicinity of Marguerite Avenue and Harbor View Drive. The precise location of the view park shall be determined at the time of approval of the P -C development plan. 6. That park dedication requirement credits be given to the applicant for the land dedication of the view park, consistent with the criteria contained in the City's Park Dedication Ordinance. Land given credit for park dedication shall be only those areas which are flat and outside the limits of the Orange County Flood Control District Easement. 7. In the event that dedication of the view park is more than is necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, the excess credit shall be used to satisfy part of the requirement for Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel. 8. That existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved for a line -of -sight four feet above the ground floor level of a Harbor View Hills South residence. 9. That a number of units equal to at least 108 of the total units be constructed on-site or off-site and be affordable to low and moderate income families using City standards. 10. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. in the event the dedication of land for a view park does not satisfy the entire requirement of the Park Dedication Ordinance, the Planning Commission was unable to agree (by a vote of 3-3, one absent) whether the additional requirement could be satisfied through the payment of in -lieu park fees. The Planning Commission's recommendation is forwarded without indication of how additional park dedication requirements will be satisfied. Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel: The Planning Commission recommends that no changes be made to the General Plan for this site. Area Cs Buck Gully Parcel: The Planning Commission recommends that no changes be made to the General Plan for this site. (c) Big Canyon - Area 16 Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. Medium -Density Residential use shall be permitted. 2. Remove the Recreation and Open Space/Golf Course designation. 3. That the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance shall be satisfied through on-site o off-site land dedication, the assessment ofin-li u fees or a combination of the above as determined by the Planning Commission and City Council, after recommendation by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 4. That a number of units equal to at least 10% of the total units be constructed on-site or off-site and be affordable to low and moderate income families using City standards. S. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. 6. Prior to the approval by the City of any future discretionary actions (i.e., zoning and tentative tract), the question of park credits, development rights and ownership of the Mouth of Big Canyon shall be resolved. (d) Newport Center - Block 400 Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plans 1. Allow the addition of 50,000 square feet of medical office development in Newport Center, along with related parking facilities. 2. Specify this additional allowable development to Block 400, on the parcel located at 400 Newport Center Drive East. 3. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 4. Specify the development be subject to further review and approval of a use permit. 5. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. (e) Campus Drive Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan: 1. Revise the land use designation for the area bounded by Dove Street, Birch Street, Bristol Street and Campus Drive to a mixture of General Industry and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial. 2. Establish a permitted intensity of development for the Campus Drive area (as shown on Exhibit 7 following Page 12 of the draft EIR) of 0.5 floor area ratio, with a floor area ratio of up to 1.0 permitted upon review and approval of a use permit. This increase in permitted floor area may be approved if a finding can be made that the traffic and circulation system impacts are no greater than those generated by an office development at 0.5 FAR. The floor area ratio limits are defined as the ratio of gross structural area to the buildable area of the site. 3. Direct that the zoning in the area ,be amended to implement this General Plan Amendment. 4. At the time of future discretionary actions, individual projects shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any othe# mitigattion measures as required. Regularly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach on the 10th day of March , 1983, by the following vote, to wits AYES Allen, Goff, King,•Kurlander McLaughlin, Winburn NOES ABSENT Balalis Chairman: KING Secretary: GOFF BL: nma 3/15/83 i RESOLUTION NO. 1089 VATTACHMENT NO. 5 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN FOR THE CALTRANS WEST SITE. WHEREAS, the Coastal Act of 1976 requires the City of Newport Beach to prepare a local Coastal Program; and WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the coastal Act a Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan has been prepared; and WHEREAS, said Land Use Plan sats forth objectives and supporting policies which serve as a guide for the future development in the coastal zone in the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Plan portion of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program has been adopted by the City of Newport Beach and certified by the California Coastal Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach recommends to the City Council approval of the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan for the CalTrans West site, as follows: CalTrans West Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Environmental Open Space Elements of the General Plan, and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan: 1. "Multiple -Family Residential" uses not to exceed 15 dwelling units per buildable acre shall be permitted. 2. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 3. The preferred access to the CalTrans West site is from the proposed Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extension) across a portion of the Banning property. A reasonable effort must be made, to establish this access from Bluff Road at the time of approval of the tentative tract map for the CalTrans West site if it is submitted prior to tentative maps for the Banning -Newport Ranch. Temporary and limited access may be developed from realigned Superior Avenue. The precise location of all access will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 4. That existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved for a line -of -eight 4 feat above the lower balcony level of a Newport Crest residence. S. 20% of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as defined in the City's Housing Element. 6. 106 of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as act forth in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. 7. CalTrans West will be required to comply with the park dedication ordinance. A park of at least 5 acres in size is to be developed between Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, 15th Street (extended), and Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extended). The specific size, location, 'r 0 0 design, and the means to acquire and develop the park will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract maps for CalTrans West and/or the adjacent Banning -Newport Ranch Residential Developments. The park shall be completed concurrent with occupancy of the first residential unit. B. A view park of ± 1 acre shall be located on-site and shall partially satisfy the requirements for park dedication contained in Chapter 19.50 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 9. A pedestrian and bicycle easement shall be developed to connect the view park with the neighborhood park. The easement shall as much as possible be located to take advantage of ocean and bay views. Precise location and design shall be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 10. The applicant or successor in interest shall participate in 504 of all costs related to the provision of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge over Superior Avenue at a point to be determined in conjunction with the location of the view park at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 11. A landscaped greenbelt shall be established adjacent to Newport Crest. The greenbelt shall be a minimum of 30 feet wide and be maintained by the applicant or successor in interest. Park credit shall not be given for the greenbelt. 12. Upon approval of this amendment by the Planning Commission, CalTrans will ant �r int an agreement permitting the City a right of a try ono that property • required for realignment of Superior Avenue. This agreement will outline the procedures by which realigned Superior Avenue may be conveyed to the City. 13. Because of difficulties in providing vehicular access to CalTrans East, and in recognition of both the State's need to dispose of this site and Hoag Hospital's need for additional land, CalTrans has entered into negotiations with Hoag Hospital for the acquisition of CalTrans East. Adoption of detailed zoning and approval of a tentative tract map on CalTrans West shall not occur until CalTrans offers satisfactory evidence that it will restrict access from CalTrans East to Coast Highway. 14. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. Regularly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach on the 10th day of March , 1983, by the following vote, to wit: AYES Allen, Goff, King, Kurlander McLaughlin, Winburn ABSENT Balalis Chairman: KING Secretary: GOFF BL:nma 3/15/83 THE IRVINE 0 V OMPAW 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I Newport Beach, California 92660.0015 (714) 720.2000 March 15, 1983 Mr. James D. Hewicker Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 ATTACHMENT N0. 6 .' �e Subject: Response to Planning Commission Recommendations on GPA 81-2 Dear Jim: For your information, our company's response to the Planning Commission's actions of March 10, 1983 on General Plan Amendment 81-2 are summarized below. Marguerite Parcel We concur generally with the Planning'Commission recommendation that the Marguerite Parcel be redesignated from Low- to Medium -Density Residential, subject to conditions in the March 10 staff report as amended by the P1-an- ning Commission. We support the staff recommendation (No. 7), not acted on by the Planning Commission, that onsite or offsite land dedication and in lieu fees or a combination of both be accepted in meeting park require- ments on the Marguerite Parcel. The recommendation on affordable housing (No. 10) as amended by the Planning Commission i$ also acceptable to us. Regarding the condition (No. 11) dealing with fair share circulation fund contributions, we suggested alternate wording which was not adopted by the Planning Commission. It is still our request that the alternate wording suggested in our letter of March 10 (attached) be adopted. Fifth Avenue Parcel This requested change from Low- to Medium Density Residential was•not recom- mended for approval by the Planning Commission. We support approval of this amendment as recommended by the staff in its March 10 memo, subject to the requested revision to the condition (No. 7) regarding fair share fund, outlined in our letter of March 10. We support the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission's recommendations and conditions 1-5 in respect to the Fifth Avenue Parcel, and request that they be adopted as a part of the Fifth Avenue project. Mr. James D. Hewicker March 15, 1983 Page 2. Buck Gully We support the recommendation of the Planning Commission that there be no change to the current General Plan designation for the Buck Gully parcel which is Open Space with an alternate use of Low Density Residential. Big Canyon Area 16 We agree generally with the Planning Commission recommendation that Big Canyon Area 16 be designated as Medium Density Residential subject to the conditions in the March 10 staff report as amended by the Planning Commission. We support the revised language for condition (No. 4) dealing with afford- able housing. With respect to the condition (No. 5) dealing with fair share -fund, we suggested alternate wording in our letter of March 10. Regarding the condition (No. 6) dealing with Mouth of Big Canyon, we re- quest that this condition be deleted, in that we do not believe such a condition is relevant to the resolution of park credit issues in Mouth of Big Canyon. It is hoped that this clarifies our company's response to the Planning Commission's action on GPA 81-2. Sincerely, David Dmohowski Manager, Government Relations cc: Mr. Fred Talerico, Environmental Coordinator attachment: TIC letter March 10, 1983 71* IRVINE CCMPIY i 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I Newport Beach, California 92660.0015 (714) 720.2000 March 10, 1983 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California SUBJECT: GPA 81-2 Chairman King and Commission Members: We have reviewed your staff'report dated March 10, 1983 and concur with the recommendations presented by staff, except as noted below: k Fifth Avenue Parcels (pp 10-12) AREA A -- MARGUERITE AVENUE PARCEL Recommendation No. 10 (Affordable Housing): We disagree with this recommendation as written and propose the following language be substituted: "A condition to any subdivision approval for this site will be that the developer enter into a subdivision agreement with the City to make a number of units equal to 10% of the total units in the subdivision available to low and moderate in- come families using City standards, which affordable units may be provided on-site or on other sites in the City. The subdivision agreement shall allow the developer to meet the affordable housing requirement within 3 years of the date of — tentative tract map approval'". Recommendation No. 11 (Fair Share Fund): We disagree with this condition as written and propose the following revision: "At the time of future discretionary actions the project may _ be required to contribute a sum equal to its fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways, and any other similar mitigation measures, as required by the ordinances and resolu- tions of the City in force at the time of such actions". AREA B -- FIFTH AVENUE PARCEL Recommendation No. 6 (Affordable Housing): We disagree with this recommendation as written and propose the same revised language as suggested in Recommendation No. 10 above for Area A. ' 1: Planning Commission City of Newport Beach March 10, 1983 Page 2 Recommendation No. 7 (Fair Share Fund): as written and propose the same revised No. 11 above for Area A. AREA C -- Buck Gully • We disagree with this recommendation language as suggested in Recommendation We respectfully request that Area C be deleted from further consideration in this General Plan Amendment. If, however, the Planning Commission determines that action on Area C is appropriate at this time, we request the following revisions and additions to the staff recommendations: Recommendation No. 3 (Open Space Zone): We request that the following revision be adopted: "That the parcel be re -zoned to the Open Space Zone for pass4ae open space use concurrent asd-4n-eeas4derat4en-ef with the re -zoning of the Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue Parcels." We request that a new Recommendation No. 4 be aided: "That the property owner shall be eligible to receive a credit against Quimby Act requi.rements for the value of those portions of Buck Gully which are made available to the public for active recreational uses allowable under the Local Coastal -Program and the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan." Big Canyon Area 16 (p. 12) Recommendation No. 4 (Affordable Housing): We disagree with the recommen- dation as written and propose the same revised language as suggested in Recommendation No. 10 above for Area A (Marguerite Parcel). Recommendation No. 5 (Fair Share Fund): We disagree with this recommendation as written and propose the same revision as in Recommendation No. 11 above for Area A (Marguerite Parcel). Recommendation No. 6 (Mouth of Big Canyon): We respectfully request that this condition be deleted. We greatly appreciate the -Planning Commission's and staff's consideration of these requested revisions and we look forward to continuing cooperation in this matter. Perely, hard G. 'Sim cc: Jim Hewicker, PlanningDirector e President munity Development Bob Burnham, City Attorney 0 0 ATTACHMENT NO. 7-' 1p, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT March 17, 1983 TO: Patricia Temple, Senior Planner FROM: Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator SUBJECT: Errata, Draft Environmental Impact Report General Plan Amendment 81-2 It has been requested that various errors and omissions in the draft Environmental Impact Report pointed out in correspondence and various public hearings be brought forward and listed in the staff report to the City Council. The corrections and additional information have been included in the environmental document in the form of responses to comments or discussions in the staff reports, both of which become part of a Final EIR when it is certified. It should be noted that the purpose of the Environmental Impact Report process, with the public review period is to assure that all information necessary to make an informed decision is provided to the decision -maker. A draft Environmental Impact Report is just that, a "draft". It is not, by its nature, a "perfect" document. The procedures to circulate, review, comment, respond to comments, and hold public hearings is designed to gather all information available, thereby providing the decision -maker with the best available information basis. 1. Comment: The Draft EIR on Page 73 states: "The Marguerite Parcel (Area A) is designated on the Open Space Plan as an "Existing and Committed Neighborhood Park." This section should also include the discussion of "Existing and Committed Greenbelt and paseo Areas" as follows: "A unique concept of a greenbelt/paseo system has been developed with the cooperation of the Park, Beaches, and Recreation Commission and private developers. The existing and committed greenbelt and paseo areas, as indicated on the Open Space Plan, have been, and are being, provided as "common open space" in the newer "Residential Planned Communities" and as public open space between residential neighborhoods. Examples of the greenbelts and paseos are found in The Bluffs, Harbor View Hills, Spyglass Hills and Jasmine Creek developments..." 1. Response: The greenbelt and paseo system referenced are those designed as part of the Planned Community Districts approved in conjunction with The Bluffs, Harbor View Hills, Spyglass Hills, and Jasmine Creek developments. General Plan Amendment 76-3-B further clarified this relationship by amending the greenbelt/paseo system in the Harbor View Hills/Spyglass Hills area to be March 17, 1983 Errata, DEIR Page 2 consistent with the Planned Community District Regulations. An extension of the Jasmine Creek greenbelt system is shown on the portion of the site adjacent to Jasmine Creek. 2. Comment: The Draft EIR should give the background of why "existing and committed open space" is called out on the Marguerite parcel. 2. Response: The Marguerite Avenue parcel is referred to as "existing and committed" because a portion of the site (the ±2 acres owned by the City northwesterly of Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue) is shown as part of the existing Grant Howald Park, to be expanded easterly to Marguerite Avenue." 3. Comment: Exhibit 4 following Page 30 of the Draft EIR is not correct. The artificial fill is closer to Fifth Avenue and is deeper than indicated by the contour line. Additionally, marine terrace deposits to the north show scattered artificial fill, both covered and exposed. 3. Response: The comment is noted. The corrections provided by the commentor are hereby incorporated. Nevertheless, the surficial geology map is a generalized version of the full technical report which should be consulted for additional detail. 4. Comment: The Recreation and Open Space Element states that existing and committed neighborhood parks provide adequate neighborhood park facilities in this section of the City, but also indicate two park proposals to increase recreational opportunities for the entire area, including the older residential neighborhoods: 1) Northeast of Fifth Avenue and Marguerite Avenue (Fifth Avenue Parcel - Area B) and 2) Expansion of Grant Howald Park to Marguerite Avenue. The discussion on Page 226 of the draft EIR is misleading in that the two proposals listed above are made to achieve adequacy of neighborhood park facilities and that approval of the GPA permitting residential development will preclude the future park uses. 4. Response: The two park proposals on Fifth Avenue were made to increase recreational opportunities in the Corona del Mar area. Approval of the General Plan Amendment will preclude the development of a neighborhood park on the Fifth Avenue parcel east of Marguerite Avenue. The 2.1 acre site easterly of the existing Grant Howald Park is owned by the City and will be used for park expansion and parking for the Oasis Center. The proposed GPA will not affect the expansion of this recreation facility. 5. Comment: The discussion of Buck Gully (Area C) on Page 226 of the Draft EIR should include the following General Plan policies: March 17, 1953 < Errata, DEIR Page 3 A. Land Use Element, Page 21: "Buck Gully and Morning Canyon be preserved as open space. B. Recreation and Open Space Element, Page 31: "These canyon areas running through Corona del Mar from the beach to the San Joaquin Hills are currently in private ownership. For the most part, the canyons are covered with a variety of native plants and provide a habitat for many birds and small animals. It is proposed that these canyons be maintained as natural open space by public acquisition of the land in fee or an easement." 5. Response: A. This policy applies to Buck Gully and Morning Canyon southerly of Fifth Avenue (extended). B. Comment so noted. G. Comment: The descriptions for Buck Gully (Area C) on Page 10 and 234 of the Draft EIR should include the following General Plan policies: A. Land Use Element, Page 21 B. Recreation and Open Space Element, Page 31 C. Existing use of Buck Gully by private land holders. 6. Response: A. See response No. 5A. B. Comment so noted. C. The General Plan does not contain any policies regarding existing private use of Buck Gully (Area C). The site is currently designated for Recreational and Environmental open Space with an alternative use of Low -Density Residential if public acquisition is infeasible. Additionally, the policy in the Recreation and Open Space Element on Page 31, discussed above, addresses the maintenance of this area as natural open space. 7. Comment: Clarification was requested regarding the park and open space designations on the various elements and maps of the Newport Beach General Plan for the Fifth Avenue Parcels. 7. Response: The history of the General Plan designations for each site is . as follows: Area A: Marguerite Parcel: Land Use Plan: The Land Use Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 designated the Marguerite Parcel for Low -Density Residential uses along Marguerite Avenue and Recreational and a 2 March 17, 1983 Errata, DEIR Page 4 Environmental Open Space uses along Jasmine Creek. General Plan Amendment No. 26 redefined the various residential land use designations, added a medium density residential category, and added the definition of buildable acreage. This amendment did not change prior permitted densities, so this parcel was changed to Medium -Density Residential for the residentially designated portion of the site. The parcel was again addressed in General Plan Amendment 79-1, and redesignated to the Low -Density Residential category. Residential Growth Plan: The Residential Growth Element and Plan (Map) was adopted in 1973 and designated a portion of the parcel for residential uses. The parcel was specifically addressed as follows: "The vacant R -3-B site east of Harbor View Elementary School shall be rezoned to R -1-B." On December 17, 1973 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1535, to conform zoning to General Plan by rezoning the property from R -3-B to R -1-B. Open Space Plan: The Recreation and Open Space Element and Plan (Map) was adopted in 1973 and designated the site for Recreational and Environmental Open Space uses for an extension of the Jasmine Creek greenbelt system. The Open Space Plan (Map) does show the entire site colored green, for open space uses. It is the opinion of staff that the designation of the entire site for open space is a graphics error, since the other two General Plan Maps show residential uses on a portion of the site. Additionally, the City has rezoned the property for the expressed purpose of Zoning/General Plan consistency and has also changed the land use designation subsequent to the adoption of the Recreation and Open Space Element (GPA 79-1), which further indicates the City's commitment to allow residential development on the site. Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel: Land Use Plan: The Land Use Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 designated the Fifth Avenue Parcel for Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an alternate use of Low -Density Residential. The history of the residential portion of the land use designation is the same as for Area A, except that General Plan Amendment 79-1 established the Low -Density Residential designation as the sole and primary use on the Land Use Plan. Residential Growth Plan: The Residential Growth Element and Plan (Map) was adopted in 1973 and designated the Fifth Avenue Parcel as an area. With an alternate land use as discussed in the Land Use Element. The Residential Growth Element specifically discussed this site as follows: "The land between Fifth Street and Sand Castle Drive shall be rezoned from R -2-B to R -1-B, although it is anticipated that this land will be March 17, 1963 Errata, DEIR Page 5 r la acquired for park and/or highway purposes." On December 17, 1973, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1535, to conform zoning to the General Plan by rezoning the Fifth Avenue Parcel from R -2-B to R -1-B. Open Space Plan: The Recreation and Open Space Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 designated the Fifth Avenue Parcel as an area with an alternate land use/primary designation as Recreational and Environmental Open Space - Flora and Fauna Reserve. A proposed neighborhood park is also shown on the site. The element states that "Proposed parks are indicated on the Open Space Plan as green circles; in the undeveloped areas, the locations shown are meant to be general and the parks need not be developed in the exact location shown." The Element addresses the proposed park on this site as follows: "A neighborhood park is proposed on the property north of Fifth Avenue and east of Marguerite Avenue." Area C: Buck Gully: Land Use Plan: The Land Use Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 shows this site for Recretional and Environmental Open Space with an alternate uke of Low -Density Residential. No changes to this designation have been made since 1973. Residential Growth Plan: The Residential Growth Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 showed this area with an alternate residential land use as discussed in the Land Use Element. Open Space Plan: The Recreation and Open Space Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 designated the Buck Gully site as an area with an alternate land use/primary designation as Recreational and Environmental Open Space - Flora and Fauna Reserve. r / 1:9 ZW 010 Q.114 0.5114 • FT:nma DATE April 16, 1982 NOTICE OF COMPLETION • ��� f% I TO Qx State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street, Rm. 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 FROM: Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 DATE: April.16, 1982 PROJECT TITLE: Draft EIR: "City -of Newport Beach, -- General Plan 81-2° •. PROJECT LOCATION - The project applies to five different' study areas within the City • SPECIFIC: of Newport Beach PROJECT LOCATION- PROJECT LOCATION - CITY:- Newport Beach COUNTY: Orange - DESCRIPTION -OF NATURE, PURPOSE AND BENEFICIARIES OF PROJECT: `.See Attachment A. The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency for this project. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report: © is attached for your review [� is available for your review at the - :Planning Department P.O. Box 1768 3300 W. Newport Blvd., Newport Belch, CA 92663-3884 REVIEW PERIOD: 45 DAYS ENDING ON: June 8, 1982 CONTACT PERSON: Fred Talarico TITLE: Environmental CoordinatorPHONE: (714) 640-2197 Mail to: State Clearinonouse,1400 Tenth St. Rm 121, Sacramento, CA -5814 -- 916/445-0613 ZNOTICE O*PLE ION AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT TRANWAL FORM ?. Project Title: Draft EIR:"General Plan Amendment 81-2" sce ..:: oeiuw SCH F 81112707 Z. Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach '3. Contact Person: Fred Tal ari co 3a. Street Address: P.O. Box 1768, 3300 W. Newport Blvd. 3b. C;ty: Newport Beach 3c. County: Orange 3d. zip: 92663-3884 3e. Phone: (714) 640-2197 PROJECT LOCATION: 4. County Orange 4a. Community Newport Beach 4b.' Assessor's Parcel No. n/a 4c' Sec. Town. Range Sa. For Urban, Major Cross Streets Ste l:attached. So. For Rural, Nearest Comm. 6. Within 2 miles of: 6a. State Hwys 1 & 73 6b. AirportJohn Wayne 6c. RiverSanta Ana River (' 4b and 4c are optional.) San'Didgo Creek TYPE OF DOCUMENT TYPE OF ACTIO14 Select uo to S) TYPE OF PROJECT Sel—� ect uo to 5) Emp •�Ep� 1 ees FUNDING (approx) NOP _General Plan X Residential: Units 4:07 Acres4/. Fed. S -0- X Draft EIR Element Adoption Office: SQ.FT. `-mp• State -0- _Neg Dec XGeneral Plan Amend. _Shopping/ Neg Dec Specific Plan Comnercial:SQ.FT. Emn, Local S 70- _.Mitigated Supplement (If so, Rezoning X Industrial/offi,ce W.anufacturing:SQ.FT•.1 ,500,000Emp.2326 Privates -O- Prior SCH F _P.U.O. Nater/Sewer: MGO Other s -O- NEPA Subdivision Map Transportation -O_ ,Env. Assessment Use Permit Extraction:Minerals: TOTALS ,_Draft EIS Annexation _Mineral Power Generation/Transmission: _ inding No Sig. Impact Ordinance Wattage: Other: _ _Master EIR _Other: _other: LCP Amend. Total Project Acres FOCUS OF DISCUSSION IN DOCUMENT (Select as many as needed) X Jobs/Housing Balance XWildlife Habitat' _Ag Lands Growth Inducing Toxic Wastes X Traffic/Circulation X Flooding/ Drainage X Historical -4-New Land Use Trend ,Soil Erosion X Air Quality X Fire Hazard XArcheological XCumulative Cmaact _Other: Wetlands X Water Supply Schools Solid Waste x Noise XGeologic/Seismic X Coastal —Sewer/Septic PRESENT LAND USE AND 20NING Five Sites all .presently vacant PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sao A+tn h d •.- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. POSSIBLE MITIGATION AND ALTERNATIVES (optional) Signature of Lead Agency Rep.A - OKZ4 k Date: NOTE: Clearingnouse will assign identification number for new projects a Notice of Preparation) please fill in. SEE OVER TO SUGGEST STATE REVIEWERS If a number already exists for the project (e.g. from (revised 3/82 - replaces CA -.189) 3 REVIEWING AGENCIES • x Resources Agency x Air Resources Board y_ Conservation: _ Oil and Gas x_ Mines and Geology x Fish and Game x_ Coastal Commission x Caltrans District _ _ Boating & Waterways _ Forestry Water Board: _ Water Rights x Water Quality _K Regional Board x Dept. of Water Resources _ Reclamation Board x Water Conservation _ Dam Safety _ Solid Waste _ Colorado River Board CTRPA (CalTRPA) — TRPA (Tahoe RPA) Bay Conservation Dev. Comm. FOR SCH USE ONLY Date Rec'd at SCH Date Review Starts Date to Agencies _ Date to SCH SCH Clearance Date NOTES R Parks & Recreation x Office of Historic Pres. _ Native American Heritage _ Conservation Corps .x State Lands Commission _ Public Utilities Comm. _ Energy Commission _ Food & Agriculture Health: x Noise Control Toxics a_ Environmental Health x Industrial Relations _ Corrections _ Consumer Affairs x Housing & Comm. Dev. General Services x Real Estate _ Aeronautics OTHER: 0 ATTACHMENT "A" The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency for the following project. PROJECT The proposed project consists of an amendment to the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach for those portions of the City depicted on the attached maps. The Environmental Impact Report has been prepared to provide an analysis of the proposed project by the Lead Agency and Responsible Agencies, and focuses, future environmental documents as may be required prior to specific project(s) implementation. The proposed amendment includes the following five sites within the City: 1. Caltrans West Parcel; 2. Block 400 - Newport Center; 3. Fifth Avenue Parcels; 4. Freeway Reservation West/Big Canyon Area 16; and 5. Campus Drive Industrial/Office. The locations of the sites are shown in Exhibit 1. The proposed General Plan Land Use Element changes for each site are described below and illustrated in Exhibits 2 through 6. Changes to the Newport Beach General Plan for each specific site might be more extensive based upon information developed in the course of the planning and environmental analysis, but will be within the range of alternative explored in the Draft EIR. 1. Caltrans West Parcel (see Exhibit 2) This project proposes to change the designation of this site from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" to "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" and "Multi -Family Residential" uses. 2. Block 400 - Newport Center (see Exhibit 3) The proposed project is to add 80,000 square feet of medical office to Block 400 in Newport Center. 3. Fifth Avenue Parcels (see Exhibit 4) The Newport Beach General Plan refers to the various parcels in this proposal as the "Fifth Avenue Parcels". The General Plan Amendment involves the following: a. Site A: Proposed is a change from "Low-density Residential to "Medium -density Residential". b. Site B: Proposed is a change from "Low-density Residential" to "Medium -density Residential". c. Site C: Proposed is a change from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" with an alternate use of "low-density Residential" to "Recreational and Environmental Open Space. 6' • 0 Attachment A Page 2 4. Freeway Reservation West/Big Canyon Area 16 (see Exhibit 5) The proposed amendment would change the land use designation on the portion of Big Canyon Planned Community located southwesterly of Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" to "Medium -density Residential". 5. Campus Drive Industrial/Office (see Exhibit 6) The proposed amendment would change the land use designation of the area bounded by Bristol Street North, Birch Street, Campus Drive, and Dove Street from "General Industry" to a mixture of "General Industry" and "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial". Also proposed is the establishment of a reduction in the intensity of development in 'the area within the City bounded by MacArthur Boule- vard, Birch Street, Orchard Street and Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue. �i 5�1, Baty ppRANGE _ a, a ✓{ AIRPORT > _ \�''�E WWI ,�1'` .. •J ? r�� ; 'ORAN•G�yE y i i 'a\a\\�� v4� �' COUNTY,.- siVya' ISI _o _\;I j:!�i- sb1 % � 1 i=a• _l. 1.' .:_� �% COSTA MESA ��S=a`R:;:=\t•r �. .;�>(,C'/`i� :;a _.. ,_ l .•% �` y, ,ori �`.: 'a',�`\,5 1 ^ ?- ��..• ..rte / atJ r''. •"•-'�,: i5 /. �2 -(C�'P i.' �_:. +.(Lfr i''� �.,,' NEWPORT t '✓ i,(.atos s-� 3��J-`.•`• `•�.: EW-PORACHE ../rte �, '. •r ` 1 ` r ___ . r 1.,':U{'UI"^ IN ;i' ' JtyC\` /�_ 1^'- CELE �.., - •I. -"'='-. + - ORANGE t `'. ,/•.ate/ ,:- •.� [�$f-,''j -',•� _ ,.� • COUNTYON- clu " N"I'm ll A Vicinity -- a•,-i�� rti,: �;`:cam?;il;;i �\1�.', ,. [PR oO uEMMI2RAL ° MM U2UA2,M-2 -- City of Newport SANS' �� .3'��•Z\:$��:, t\\'(s:`'. • l � C � no ORANGE .`4 •1 COUNTY• I: �f{rte. 4 °' .,z ;; <,.•' 4, <•'�-^:•u-'!t lig•_- "}. clu " N"I'm ll A Vicinity [PR oO uEMMI2RAL ° MM U2UA2,M-2 -- City of Newport Beach • l � C � y/kir".i �. il:�.�ri{•� i�:. 'f .`4 •1 'i �f{rte. 4 °' .,z ;; .ffit � •..: _�}, II�'iR o4 .t jAl♦•. .. e t`y�` 0 1828®8880 5478 ZEN EXHIBIT 1 LEGEND 4 1 CALTRANS WEST 2 CAMPUS DRIVE 3 5TH AVENUE PARCELS 4 BIG CANYON AREA 10 5 NEWPORT CENTER BLOCK 400 • I 0 i •7 v A h Z ti AZ��S T'pONt O V� ,j1 4,4 EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped Open Space EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT: Recreational and Environmental Open Space EXISTING RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT: Scenic Area and View Park EXISTING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM: Recreational and Environmental Open Space GPA 81-2: Indicated on exhibit above EXISTING ZONING: 0-S (Open Space) District Proposed Land ��U(��4se Element cakma W8 pffrA CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 81-2 EXHIBIT 2 19 • a EXISTING LAND USE: General Office and Medical Office EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT: Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial (No further development) GPA 81-2: Indicated on Exhibit above EXISTING ZONING: C -O -N (Multiple Residential, Notel, Motel, Professional Offices, and Retail Sales District) Proposed Lard Use Element oWka00 Kajvpwt CSER(ST CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 81-2 EXHIBIT 3 a r� • CgNyDyP. 1 <.v �CrfTT�,/a uava) �4QQO,i? yJt°fy � �iL/E.Vj4Rv 6pp.QC�rj• f NOPQ/ AA iV(,;. l�JC�1� AND 6}q yew --Ja -MEDIUM DENSITY i �a�BNu`ooAR ":i::, :::_____✓ RESIDENTIAL u : Z s . (4.1 to 10 D,UJ ........................ .................... o �J Buildable Acre) .q.,nI::::?CITZrs�::: "EN /,CENTERn nL: \ 1- n. EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped Open Space EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT AND RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ELEMENT: Areas A and B - Low -Density Residential (4 or less d.u./buildable acre); Area C - Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an Alternative Use of low -Density Residential (4 or less d.u./buildable acre) EXISTING RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT: Area A - Neighborhood Park; Areas 8 and C - Flora and Fauna Reserve with Neighborhood Park on Area B GPA 81-2: Indicated on Exhibit above EXISTING ZONING: R-1-11 (Single -Family Combining) District 0 400 800 1200 Proposquad Land Use Element no 5th Avenue Parcels ElCITY OF NEWPORTEXHIBIT 4 r Os/ C LN. l�JC�1� AND 6}q yew --Ja -MEDIUM DENSITY i �a�BNu`ooAR ":i::, :::_____✓ RESIDENTIAL u : Z s . (4.1 to 10 D,UJ ........................ .................... o �J Buildable Acre) .q.,nI::::?CITZrs�::: "EN /,CENTERn nL: \ 1- n. EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped Open Space EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT AND RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ELEMENT: Areas A and B - Low -Density Residential (4 or less d.u./buildable acre); Area C - Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an Alternative Use of low -Density Residential (4 or less d.u./buildable acre) EXISTING RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT: Area A - Neighborhood Park; Areas 8 and C - Flora and Fauna Reserve with Neighborhood Park on Area B GPA 81-2: Indicated on Exhibit above EXISTING ZONING: R-1-11 (Single -Family Combining) District 0 400 800 1200 Proposquad Land Use Element no 5th Avenue Parcels ElCITY OF NEWPORTEXHIBIT 4 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (4.1 to 10 D.U./Buildable Acre) � Nr�" ` � \ •' �� �` / /� / �` / I � \ � 'yam \\ 'i ` Ike$ Od i /i r`•� �� \ 01 Lfi •/p .+�\_\�\ d ��, // Q✓/\.ski,- --- �\ L� r� s Ar,// EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped Open Space EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT: Recreational and Environmental Open Space EXISTING RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT: Golf Course GPA 81-2: Indicated on Exhibit above EXISTING ZONING: P -C (Planned Community) District Proposed Land Use. Element B 1:D 13 ' cmyun To ID JS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 81-2 3 I t.e N • • %, '��'..�',_..•r res EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped Open Space EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT: Recreational and Environmental Open Space EXISTING RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT: Golf Course GPA 81-2: Indicated on Exhibit above EXISTING ZONING: P -C (Planned Community) District Proposed Land Use. Element B 1:D 13 ' cmyun To ID JS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 81-2 0 0 LEGEND ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIA,LNAL MIXED USE- RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE, CO MME SIGNAL AND FINANCIAL MIXED USE- ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIIALAANDNGENERALIAL INDUSTRY oto limitsdev development and Use lto 5tt mes the buildable area) O.R441s� etz I K\ G Z ao`E 0� t EXISTING LAND USE: Residential, Retail and Ser- vice Commercial, Light Industrial and Office. �• EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT: North of Dove St. r-- South of Bristol St. Retail and Service e J Commercial and Financial Commercial and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial; between Dove St. and Bristol St. North - General Industry. GPA 81-2: Indicated on Exhibit above EXISTING ZONING: North, of Bristol St. North - M -1-A (Administrative and Professional - Light Manufacturing) District; South of Bristol St. - Primarily A -P -M (Offices, Art Galleries, etc.) District; also C -1-H (Offices, Retail, etc.) District. Campus Drive Office/ Industrial Area EXHIBIT 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 4, 1981 Agenda Item No. G CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T0:• Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 81-2 and Amendment No. Request to set for public hearing during October 1981,' Amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, including: &-a) Caltrans West ; b) Fifth Avenue Parcels + mac) Freeway Reservations !Jest (Big Canyon) L -d) Coast Highway Residential/Commercial e) Campus Drive Industrial/Office _f) Park sites+ g) Buck Gully Residentiali h) Newport Center - Block 400 INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Suggested Action If desired, a) Initiate all or a portion of the proposed General Plan Amendments and direct staff to set for hearing after completion of environmental documentation (approximately s �_. Oc-robed i 1981 )' o y-- 'Fo.rwa-rd --- b ) =all - o -r a poftion 'of th"e"-Ci-C Co unci 7 with -a recommendation that consideration of the amendments --- - `°" is unwarranted. Background Council Policy Q-1 provides for citizen or property owner requests for General Plan Amendments as follows: TO: Planning Commission - 2. "A citizen and/or property owner may request an amendment to the General Plan. Such request shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Commission a minimum of one hundred and sixty (160) days prior to the month for which public hearings are scheduled. The request should clearly set forth the reason for which the request is made, and should contain information substantiating the need. If the Planning Commission, after examination, is convinced that the proposed change is worthy of consideration, it may initiate amendment as set forth above_ If not, the Commission shall forward the request to the City Council with its recommendation that consideration of the amendment is unwarranted. City Council, after consideration of the request and of the report from the Planning Commission, may either direct the Commission to initiate public hearings on the proposed amendment, or may return the request to the originator without further action"_ In accordance with this policy, the attached requests were submitted for consideration by the Planning Commission. Item e) "Campus Drive Industrial/Office" and Item f) "Park Sites" are amendments suggested by staff. Discussion Following is a brief discussion of each proposal: GPA 81-2 (a) Caltrans West. In the attached letter dated February 27, 1981, the State of California is requesting to change the designation on this site from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" to a mixture of "Recreational and Environmental Open Space", "Retail and Service Commercial", and "Multiple -Family Residential" uses. The Commission con- sidered this parcel in West Newport at the time GPA 81-1 •_ Banning -Newport Ranch was proposed, but declined to set it for hearing. GPA 81-2 -(b) Fifth Avenue- P-arcels:--=In -the attached -letter - --dated April 17,-1981; The Irvine Company is requesting an amendment to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of The Newport Beach General Plan for the various parcels referred to as the "Fifth Avenue Parcels". A land exchange is currently' being negotiated between the City and The Irvine Company whereby The Company will receive the 2.36 acre parcel on the northwesterly corner of Fifth and Marguerite Avenues in return for land adjacent TO: Planni-ng Commission - 3. to the OASIS Senior Citizen Facility. The requested General Plan Amendment involves three proposals: 1) The completion of the land exchange is contingent on changing the General Plan designation from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" to a residential designation. The Irvine Company proposes that the 2.36 acre parcel be evaluated in conjunction with the ±10 acre parcel to the immediate north, which is currently designated Low Density Residential A change to Medium Density Residential is requested. 2) It is also requested that the ±10 acre site easterly of the expanded OASIS site, currently shown for Low Density Residential, be changedto Medium Density Residential. 3) The Irvine Company proposes further that the ±55 acre parcel in Buck Gully northeasterly of the terminus of Fifth Avenue be dedicated for park and open space purposes, contingent on the approval of development plans for the two residential sites. In addition to the above requested changes, it is recommended that the Planning Commission include in their consideration of this proposal, a change in the designation of the expanded OASIS site from Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an alternate land use of Low Density Residential to Recreational and Environmental Open Space. GPA 81-2 (c) Freeway Reservations West (Big Canyon). The City Council, as part of the Local Coastal Program area description for the Mouth of Big Canyon, agreed to initiate a General Plan Amendment and Planned Community Amendment to designate the area southwesterly of the intersection of Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard for residential development, with the density not ===-=to-=e-xc-eed 1-O-=dwell-ing-uni-ts' per-b-01-dableacre. In the attached letter dated April 10, 1981, The'Irvine Company is requesting _ a change to the Land Use Element of the General Plan- changing the portion of the Big Canyon Planned Community located south- westerly of Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Medium Density Residential. 46 TO: Planning Commission - 4. GPA 81-2 (d) Coast Highway Residential/Commercial. The attached .letter dated May 28, 1981 from Ficker-Ruffing Architects requests a change to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the General Plan changing lots located in Tract 1210 along Coast Highway (see attachment 1) from a mixture of Retail and Service Commercial and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commer- cial to Multi -Family Residential. It is recommended that, if the Commission desires to set this portion of the requested amendment for public hearing, that the entire Coast Highway strip from Irvine Avenue (projected) to Dover Drive be included to evaluate the General Plan for the entire area. GPA 81-2 (e) Campus Drive Industrial/Office. This area is pro- posed for review by staff, and includes all of the commercial, office, and industrial areas between Campus -Drive and Birch Street, from Orchard Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard near Newport Place and Koll Center. The existing General Plan has no growth limitations on this area, and w-hereas a substantial portion is designated for Industrial uses in the General Plan, the zoning permits office uses at intensities much higher than the adjacent Planned Com- munities. It is proposed that a Planning Study be prepared for the area with subsequent recommendations for specific General Plan changes if required. GPA 81-2 (f) Park Sites. Staff is suggesting that the Commission hold a general review of the Recreation and Open Space Element, specifically with respect to the location and size of park sites around the City. This review should be coordinated with the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. GPA 81-2 (q) Buck Gully Residential. In the attached letter - dated May 28, 1981, the McMahon Partnership (on behalf of A1'Mayo, property owner) requests to change the designation of this area from a mixture of "Retail and Service Commercial" and "Admini- strative, Professional and Financial Commercial", and "Low Density Residential" uses to "Multiple -Family Residential" uses. The ultimate proposal would b-e'"to construct a residential condo= minium project on'the"Lascala" (formerly "Sam's Seafood") restaurant site and adjacent residential parcels in Corona del Mar. GPA 81-2 (h) Newport Center - Block 400. The attached letter from Frank A. Rhodes, Jr. requests that 80,000 square feet of additional medical office square footage be allocated to Block T0: Planning Commission - 5. 400 in Newport Center. This would be in addition to the development eventually allowed by GPA 80-3. It should be pointed out that in the Commissi.on's action on GPA 80-3, policy language was recommended for the Land Use Element which would allow transfers of commercial and office square footage within the Center. This policy would provide a mechanism to allow the 80,000 square foot medical building in Block 400, assuming an 80,000 square foot reduction on one of The Irvine Company controlled parcels. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. NEWICKER, Director By. �C�Y Robert P. Lenard Advance Planning Administrator RPL/ pw . Attachments: Vicinity Maps Caltrans letter dated February 27, 1981 The Irvine Company letters dated April 10, 1981 and April 17, 1981 Ficker & Ruffing letter dated May 29, 1981 McMahon Partnership letter dated May 28, 1981 Newport Center Medical Buildings letter dated April 8, 1981 Jasmine Creek Community Association letter. r FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS Legend ^Medium density residential Open space --- _— ___—_ =-- ------------- These parcels �__ =� =} not to scale. ----------------- 5th Ave. FREEWAY RESERVATION WEST \(PIG CANYON) Legend: Medium—density Residential k H n ----------------- ---------------------- _____--__ __- _- =_- m BUCK GULLY RESIDENTIAL J pacific Coast Highway 0 ° Legend: _Multiple—Family 000000 Residential 0°0°0 MACK 400 f Sao NEWPORT CENTER ��aho y COs - �a a� ;f �o 3Q -p so i JQ' P, 3. 10i f �r , 1 i j Legend: p Admin„ Prof. & Finan. Comm. ao 0 r and Housing STATE OF CALIFORNIA— BUSINESS:KWTRANSP RTATION GENCY EDMUND G. BROWN 1R„ Govornor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LEGAL DIVISION c- CO 120 SOUTH SPRING STREET, SUITE 500 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 TELEPHONE: (213) 620.5000 R E f. r i Gg jra February 27, 1981 MARE 1981" CITY OF li City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Re: General Plan Amendment to ''Caltrans West" Parcel Dear Chairman and Commission Members The State of California, owner of the property designated as "Caltrans West," respectfully requests that this letter and attached exhibit be considered for the City's 1981-82 amendment of its General Plan -Land Use Element. It is proposed that a mixture of land uses consisting of recreational and environmental open space, retail and service commercial, and multiple -family residential be considered. Traffic circulation within the subject parcel and outlets to the adjacent streets will be examined in conjunction with the proposed realignment of Superior Avenue. Planning Area "Caltrans West" is entirely within the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach and the Local Coastal Plan. Studies of the area westerly and contiguous to the subject parcel have been undertaken by Banning -Newport Ranch, as - part of General Plan amendment -81-1. Common issues exist relative to the subject parcel and the adjacent Banning - Newport Ranch. It would be desirable to consider a comprehensive plan -of uses in -the 'Superior Avenue -Balboa Boulevard Extension -Pacific Coast,Highway-quadrangle-at> = -_this time.- A more precise --planning concept for' -the subject property in coordination with adjacent development of Pacific Coast Highway, Superior Avenue and Banning -Newport Ranch will be forthcoming upon hearing of the proposed General Plan amendment. City of Newport Beach -2- February 27, 1981 Planning Commission Thank you for the opportunity to present this request. Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, Joseph A. Montoya Deputy of Counsel By David R. Simmes Attorney DRS: nm enc. THE IRVINE COMPAW 10\ 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I R c < 01 Newport Beach, California 92663 `, t V r n (714) 644-3011 b t''rt7i� E AP�20 April 17, 1981 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California SUBJECT: Requested General Plan Amendment for Fifth Avenue Parcels Mr. Chairman and Commission Members: The City Council gave conceptual approval in October, 1980 to an exchange of land between the City and The Irvine Company whereby the City would receive additional land to expand the OASIS Senior Facility site, and the Company would receive a 2.36 acre parcel northwest of Fifth and Marguerite Avenues. The purpose of this exchange would be to provide additional parking space and expansion area for the OASIS Center in a more convenient and usable location. An appraisal of the subject prop- erties has been completed. Additional discussions between the City and The Irvine Company are expected to occur in the next few months. The completion of such a land exchange would be contingent on changing the General Plan designation of the 2.36 acre parcel west of Marguerite Avenue from open space to a residential designation to allow for future development. It is our desire to have this 2.36 acre parcel reviewed in combination with the t10 acre vacant parcel to the immediate north, ' which is currently designated "Low Density Residential' A change to a "Medium Density Residential" designation for the combined 12 acre parcel is requested. Given the topography and configuration of the property, the Medium Density Residential designation would allow for a greater degree of design flexibility in planning for the site. -_Concurrently with -the_ City's_ review of the property - Marguerite,__ The Irvine Company requests consideration of the ±10 acre parcel easterly — of the expanded OASIS site as "Medium Density Residential", where the ' General Plan now calls for Low Density Residential. _,Proposed here would - be single family homes at a density comparable to the existing tract to the north. The Irvine Company proposes further that the ±55 acre vacant parcel in Buck Gully located northeasterly of the terminus of Fifth Avenue be dedicated for park and open space purposes, contingent on approval of development plans for the two residential sites. WE IRVINE CMAlf &W 1' r 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 April 10, 1981 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California SUBJECT: Requested General Plan Amendment for Big Canyon Parcel Southwest of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road Mr. Chairman and Commission Members: 1 ,.,1981. "! On February 9, 1981, as part of its deliberations on the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, the City Council approved a proposal whereby the Mouth of Big Canyon would be dedicated for public open space. In exchange for this dedication of land, The Irvine Company is to receive park credits applicable to future residential projects. Further, the City Council agreed to initiate a General Plan Amendment and Planned Community Amendment to designate for residential development a portion of the Big Canyon P -C located southwesterly of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road, with the density not to exceed 10 dwelling units per buildable acre. It is our desire to have this proposed amendment for Big Canyon considered at the October, 1981 General Plan Amendment Session. Prior to that time, we anticipate approval of an agreement between the City and Irvine Company regarding dedication of the Mouth of Big Canyon and the granting of park credits. The Irvine Company further requests a determination as to the appropriate environmental documentation required for this amendment. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, J} David Dmohowski Manager Government Relations cc: J. Hewicker, Director of Planning T. Nielsen, TIC Planning Commission City of Newport Beach April 17, 1981 page 2 It is requested that the proposed redesignation of these two properties as "Medium Density Residential" be considered at the October 1981 General Plan Amendment session. A determination as to the appropriate environ- mental documentation is also requested. Please contact me if additional information is required. Sincerely, David Dmohowski Manager Government Relations cc: J. Hewicker, Planning Director R. Whitley, P.B. & R Director T. Nielsen, The Irvine Company 0 0 FICKER & RUFFING • ARCHITECTS 610 flewport Center Drive • Suite 630 • Newport Beach, Calif 92660 • 714-644-1581 May 29, 1981 City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Gentlemen: 0) n tz- t:, This letter is to request the City of Newport Beach to amend the General Plan to permit multi -family use on Lots 55 through 64 of Tract Number 1210. The owners of the property are Tract 1210 Ltd. and are represented by Mr. Richard S. Stevens, Disneyland Hotel, 1150 West Cerritos Ave., Anaheim, CA 92802. I am the planner and am acting on their behalf on this application. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, William P.-Ficker, A.I.A. WPF:skl McMahon Partnership Architecture / Planning May 28, 1981 Mr. Robert Lennard c/o City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Lennard, The purpose of this letter is to formalize our request for a General Plan Amendment on behalf of Al Mayo, the owner of certain property located in Corona del Mar on Pacific Coast Highway. It is our understanding that the owner would like to be permitted to construct a high density residential project on the property in the future. The property consists of a group of parcels upon which the Lascala Restaurant cur- rently sits, immediately adjacent to the Five Crowns Restau- rant located on Pacific Coast Highway. There is a possibility that additional parcels may be added to the parcel depending on the economic viability. Together with the property owner, our firm will plan to work with you in developing the necessary groundwork and informa tion for the October General Plan hearing. We are hereby re- questing that the Planning Commission hear this particular case at that time-. Thank you'for your help and-consieratioh in''t$is=atlatber. = '= - Very/truly yours,_-- Ronald D. McMahon A.I.A. RDM/jh 501 Parkcenter Drive Santa Ana, California 92705 (714)973.0993 Telex883408 0 • NEWPORT CENTER MEDICAL BUILDINGS GILL B. CAUSEY OFFICE OF THE BUILDINGS FRANK A. RHODES, JR. 1401 AVOCADO AVENUE . PENTHOUSE SUITE NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 02660 April 8, 1981 City of Newport Beach Planning Department City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 AREA CODE 714 TELL'PHONE 644.0603 Subject: "Draft Environmental Impact Report - General Plan Amendment 80-311 Sch #80072313 Attention: Mr. James D. Hewicker, Director Gentlemen: Reference is hereby made to our letter dated March 25, 1981 related to the above subject document and project, and to your reply dated April 2, 1981. It is our desire to go forward with the construction of an 80,000 square foot medical office building in Block 400 of Newport Center. We request an amendment to the General Plan Amendment 80-3 to include Block 400 of Newport Center, and to provide for the construction of this building. Thank you for your_assistance in this matter. Yours very -truly," - NEWPORT CENTER MEDICAL BUILDINGS / 7 Frank A. Rhodes, Jr. 901TWITM JASMINE CREEK COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 4708 �Ra'f:1" D IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92716 1It-1 r• :,'as.a mg !/ Y'ii?ulry y fir, Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: OASIS Property on Northwest corner of Marguerite Avenue and 5th Avenue, Corona Del Mar, California It has come to the attention of our association that there is a contemplated trade of property between the OASIS Senior Citizens Center and the Irvine Company, the exchange concerning that property located at the northwest corner of Marguerite and 5th, Corona Del Mar, and the property immediately to the east of the OASIS center on the northeast corner of the same intersection. Further, we have been told that the Irvine Company would be the resultant fee owner of the property on the northwest corner, which would be residentially developed. Our association requests that we be kept fully informed of the status of any proposed development of these properties, Any development would affect our association due to the proximity of the property and the possible blocking of views of our residents. Thank you for assuring us we will be kept- advised. Very -truly-your Robert N./eRienzo President Jasmine Creek Community RND:bs cc: Villageway Management, Inc. Each Director Association f . . 7 A • 0 GPA 81-2 Scope of Work Modifications - Format change to EIR, subsequent to receipt of PBR memo (dated 11/13/81) which outlined format to be used. This change required substantial effort of professional/word processing staff to, in effect, change the format to refliggt five separate mini-EIRs. - Addition of 2nd Screenchdck'EIR and associated additional client/City comments and reproduction costs. - Expansion of Effects Found Not to Be Significant (9.0) to include discussion of Further Environmental Documentation needed to expedite future focused EIRs. - Expansion'of cumulative impacts section to require analysis of total units, sq. ft. of proposed projects vs. committed projects. - Abandonment of land exchange component of 5th Avenue Parcels, requiring that each parcel be addressed as a separate project (i.e., section) in revised EIR format. - Change in 5th Avenue Project Description (e.g., parcels A,B,C) after City review and'approval of project description section transmitted by PBR memo dated 11/24/81. - Transfer of EIR text sections (from 1st screencheck) to Technical Appendix document. - Return to standard City EIR summary (each project individually) after 2nd Screencheck; previously TS/FT had agreed to do a one page summary describing all projects cumulatively. .. , • GPA 81-2 Draft March Invoice A. PBR Labor (eligible costs only) $18,176.00* B. Subconsultants / - BDI 16,212.00 - Mestre 4,635.00 C. Reimbursables - Xeroxing/reproduction 87.37 TOTAL DUE $29,110.37 * Derived as follows: $21,270.00 less 3,094.00 less 882.00 $17,294.00 Total PBR labor Labor credit for rewriting (March) Labor credit for rewriting (February) Overall Budget Status - GPA 81-2 A. Contract Amount (max.) B. Billed thru February 28, 1982 C. Remaining Balance D. March Invoice Balance E. Proaosed Contract Modification . Subconsultants . PBR labor . Printing Costs Total $83,050.00 56,835.00 $26,215.00 28,228.37 ($ 2,013.37) deficit $ 9,011.00 21,672.00 (recompense for screencheck) 2,500.00* $33,183.00 * Includes reproduction of DEIR, Appendix and FEIR documents. Q . , 0 Subconsultants - Status GPA 81-2 Invoices Consultant - BDI - Vince Mestre - Marie Cottrell Totals Billed to Date $ 8,212.00 4,635.00 700.00 $13,547.00 Contract $15,358.00 6,500.00 700.00 $22,558.00 Remaining $ 7,146.00 1,865.00 -0- $ 9,011.00 Y � F 0 • GPA 81-2 A. Budoet Status - Screencheck EIRs (2 documents B. Analysis - PBR Labor (eligible) $26,216.00 - Contract DEIR Budget - 4,544.00* - Net Labor Budget Extension $21,672.00 * Calculated as follows: $6,800 (total) - 2,256 (consultants' share) = 4,544 (PBR) PBR Labor Eligible Month/Date Expenditures Costs February 19-26 $ 4,422.00 $ 3,540.00 March 1-31 21,270.00 18,176.00 April 1-23 (estimated) 4,500.00 4,500.00 Subtotals $30,192.00 $26,216.00 B. Analysis - PBR Labor (eligible) $26,216.00 - Contract DEIR Budget - 4,544.00* - Net Labor Budget Extension $21,672.00 * Calculated as follows: $6,800 (total) - 2,256 (consultants' share) = 4,544 (PBR) E I PHIWPS BRANDT REDDICK June 4, 1982 Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator Planning Department City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92663-3884 '1 ,I:,-EIVED ;9:,nning r' ct vr +'F t Subject: Revised Request for Scope of Work Modifications -- Environmental Document GPA 81-2 Dear Mr. Talarico: We have reviewed our previous "Scope of Work Modifications" -- GPA 81-2 EIR (dated 4/21/82) in light of our meeting with you on that date and your letter, same subject, dated May 3, 1982. We have carefully examined our project records, correspondence and labor hours expended and have revised our previous analyses accordingly. The documentation provided herein is an accurate reconstruction of the tasks conducted and hours expended by PBR in the preparation of the GPA 81-2 environmental document. However, before we present the findings of our analysis, we would like to give an overview of the scope of work modifications which have occurred during the preparation of the GPA 81-2 environmental document. During the course of our work on this project, we were asked to perform tasks which_ were beyond the scope of our contract (dated 11/6/81). The specific scope of work changes are described elsewhere in this letter and will not be repeated here. However, it should be noted that PBR accom- plished the work necessary to comply with the City's requests in the interest of completing the environmental document in an expedient manner, as required by paragraph 4 of our contract. In fact, PBR staff worked without a signed contract for a three-week period October- 19 - November NST 6, 1981) in a good faith effort to meet the du . e ity's EIR schepro- ceeded to work on verbal authorization in pi- f• es.abiished business SC,4 practice which dictates that no work should be accomplished by a consul- tant without prior written authorization. Unfortunately, this three-week period is the subject of several scope of work changes described in this letter. Although we admit that we should not have proceeded until our contract was signed and the scope of work was clarified or amended, we do not believe that the City would allow us to suffer negative economic consequences from PLANNING • ARCHITECTURE • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 18012 SKY PARK CIRCLE • IRVINE, CA 92714 • (714) 641.8820 CALIFORNIA COLORADO HAWAII Mr. Talarico June 4, 1982 Page Two actions that were taken in good faith on Beach and at the direction of City staff. sustained us in our contract modification past six weeks. behalf of the City of Newport It is this belief that has discussions with you over the Please be assured that PBR intends to complete its responsibilities for the GPA 81-2 environmental document, as described in our approved con- tract. These responsibilities include responding to comments on the draft EIR, preparation of the final EIR and meeting/public hearing attendance. However, pursuant to your letter dated April 14, 1982, we have stopped work on this project. We hope to be able to resume our contractual obliga- tions upon the completion of our scope of work discussions. As you may recall, PBR recommended that separate EIRs be prepared for each GPA 81-2 project in our original proposed scope of work. We believed (and still do believe) that this approach would simplify processing and allow each project to be judged on its own merits. This suggestion was rejected and PBR was directed to prepare a single EIR covering all five projects. Subsequent to submittal of the initial screencheck EIR, City staff then directed PBR to use a format which, in effect, included 5 separate EIRs under a single cover. The confusion over an appropriate format for this EIR was, we believe, a primary factor in the expenditure of additional PBR labor, as described in this letter. 9 To facilitate production of the screencheck EIR, we prepared a proposed table of contents and EIR outline and submitted these on November 13, 1981 with a request for the City's approval by November 20th. Hearing no com- ments from the City by the latter date, we assumed that our approach and format were acceptable and continued in earnest to prepare a screencheck EIR by the December 14th deadline. Had City staff known at that time that the proposed format would not accomplish their objectives, critical com- ments would surely have been provided to PBR. It can therefore be reason- ably concluded that the City believed that PBR's proposed format would yield acceptable results. Continuing with this logic, it also seems 14 reasonable to conclude that the use of any other EIR format subsequent t f the City's acceptance of the proposed format represents a change in the scope of work and is therefore subject to additional compensation. Th amount of such compensation is one of the scope of work changes discussed in later pages of this letter. In the interest of focusing this analysis on items where additional information was requested by the City during our 4/21/82 meeting, we have not repeated our analysis of items #5, 7 and 8, since the City's letter of May 3rd (attached) stated that the costs for these items were warranted (in the opinion of the Planning Department). We have retained the same numbering sequence as the 4/21/82 analysis, however, to facilitate comparisons. Our justification statements for the remaining items (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10 and 11) are presented below. 0 Mr. Talarico June 4, 1982 Page Three Scope of Work Modifications Item #1. Delays in completing EIR preparation per the schedule described n�Tie—scope of work (dated 9/11/81) and City authorization memo (dated 9/24/81). Such delays occurred between November 9, 1981 and January 26, 1982. Work Element (a): Additional coordination with City staff regarding reviseeeject schedules, changes from concurrent processing to GPA level of assessment and other staff -to -staff coordination activities. Work Element � L Continuing involvement of PBR staff to maintain current knowledge of Gi-ty staff concerns and project -related issues. The initial contract specifically indicated that delays of more than 30 days would require a budget supplement. Total project delays involved an additional 2 months of PBR involvement. Labor expenditures during this period are as follows: T. Smith 17.0 hrs. @ $62/hr. _ $1,054.00 M. Brown 10.0 hrs. @ $42/hr. = 420.00 B. Bruesch 22.0 hrs. @ $32/hr. = 704.00 Subtotal $2,178.00 Discussion Project delays are costly and involve additional communications between client and consultant and maintenance of consultant project knowledge to ensure timely performance throughout the project life. Our records indi- cate that a discrepancy in the EIR schedule was noted at the October 19th meeting (e.g., 1/5/82 NOC date, yet clearinghouse review not initiated until 2/1/82). City planning staff agreed to prepare a revised schedule. - However, the revised schedule was never received by PBR. Several tele- phone requests of City staff for a revised EIR schedule were unsuccessful., "As soon as possible" was the typical response received by PBR staff. In the absence of any notice to the contrary, PBR proceeded "full -speed, - ahead" pursuant to the faithful Performance_.P_rAuisions.-of our contract. The most costly of these delays -o-ccurred subsequent to PBR's receipt of the City's November 9th memo indicating that the level of EIR alysis would be confined to general plan amendment level of detail:- ,r Our previous analysis (dated 4/21/82) indicated that these delays resulted in a PBR labor expenditure of $4,500.00. Upon further review of our records, we have determined that approximately $2,300 of these costs resulted from a lapse in PBR project management and inefficient coordi- nation among PBR staff. A proposed allocation of payment responsibility for the remainder of the labor expenditures ($2,178) is as follows: 0 Mr. Talarico June 4, 1982 Page Four PBR = $719; City = $1,459. 0 Items #2 & 3. Deletion of concurrent processing (time period of October 9 - November 10, 1981) and revisions to project description for 5th Avenue Parcels (time period of November 10, 1981 to January 26, 1982). Work Element a): Work conducted for concurrent processing level of detal I (which was beyond approved scope of work) between October 19 and November 10, 1981 and hours expended are as follows: • Field visits to sites t -r -L � • Data collection and research W �^-�"'f' A—er-� • Initiation of EIR baseline sections —`.e -w d.01-/ 06 • Coordination with s ff, and applicant re: c ncurrent processing details (w' T. Smith 9.0 hrs. @ $62/hr. _ $558.00 M. Brown 15.0 hrs. @ $42/hr. = 630.00 B. Kemble 8.0 hrs. @ $36/hr. = 288.00 B. Bruesch 26.0 hrs. @ $32/hr. = 832.00 21.5 hrs. @ $32/hr. = Subtotal $2,308.00 W2rk2Element (b): Work conducted between November 10th and Janaury 26, 19: • Revisions to draft project descrjption tp reflect, deletionf concurrent processing strategy � f` rw • Revisions to graphics to reflect Bele ion of lanxchange parte s and Buck Gulley site-��- • Revisions to EIR baseline sections to reflect the above • Additional coordination between PBR, City staff and the applicant regarding the land exchange and status of project description subsequent to abandonment of land exchange discussions. T. Smith 3.0 hrs. @ $62/hr. = $186.00 M. Brown 11.0 hrs. @ $42/hr. = 462.00 B. Kemble 6.0 hrs. @ $36/hr. = 216.00 B. Bruesch 21.5 hrs. @ $32/hr. = 686.00 Graphics Staff 4.5 hrs @ $28/hr. = 126.00 Subtotal $1,676.00 0 Mr. Talarico June 4, 1982 Page Five Discussion 0 To simplify this analysis, we have combined items 2 and 3 of our previous analysis (dated 4/21/82). Further, we have reduced our previous labor expenditure of $5,500.00 for these combined items to $3,984.00 to reflect inefficiencies in PBR's project management. Our analysis of the remaining labor expenditure of $3,984 follows. Our records indicate that PBR was verbally authorized to proceed on 10/19/81. At that time, we were informed that concurrent processing of GPA and tentative tract approvals would be pursued for the 5th Avenue parcels. advised City staff that the additional work required for tWe concurre processing level of analysis was beyond the scope of work in our contract. Staff .acknowledged this and indicated that the details would be worked out later._1 We proceeded ahead with the d'tional analysis to comply ._wit e_ _proposect__EI.Rschedple. The concurrent processing strategy was dropped on November 106 after we had spent time trying to comply with this requirement. — e do not agree with your recollection that PBR was verbally authorized to only rrere the NOP/NSA documents between October 19 and November 9, 1981.wait as you have suggested until November 9th to begin sub- tantireparation of the EIR would have left only 4+ weeks to prepare, -- the screencheck EIR. This is not an adequate time allocation to prepare a screencheck EIR of the magnitude originally conceived on October 19th (tentative tract plus GPA analysis for the 5th Avenue parcels and GPA analysis for the remaining four projects). In addition to the concurrent processing issue, the deletion of the pro- posed land exchange at about the same time also caused PBR to expend dditional work effort to determine an accurate description of the revised i x project CIQur interpretation• of the icant original request for GPA indicated hat - the proposed deletion '0 low density residential overlay from the Buck Gully parcel was to be contingent upon approval of the proposed development plans for the other 5th Avenue sites (or stated another way, was to be contingent upon the approval of the proposed land exchange and general plan changes). We brought this issue to the atten- tion of City staff during a telephone conversation on November 13th._ - Staff took our interpretation under advisement. However, a definitive answer was never received from staff. Our records indicate that City staff's uncertainty over the disposition of this project caused PBR to,—�/-S spend additional labor to attempt to resolve the confusion. Further evi- dence of this uncertainty is provided by the project description submitted by PBR to the City on November 24, 1981, in, which the 5th Avenue parcels were described differently than they were in the initial screencheck EIR submitted on January 26, 1982. Our records also indicate that the change in project description resulted from a telephone conversation (initiated by PBR) that occurred with City staff on December 11, 1981 during which PBR requested a final clarification of its 11/24/81 project description 11 Mr. Talarico June 4, 1982 Page Six for the 5th Avenue Parcels, since staff had not responded to our submit- tal. This conversation resulted in the project description which subse- quently appeared in the initial screencheck document. We are willing to assume some of the responsibility for this confusion in that we should have stopped work on the project until we received a positive statement of proposed project actions from the City. Our fault was in_-trya-ng--to --- proceed, in good faith, and as expediently as possible to et'ihe City's EIR scheduD� Likewise, we believe that the City should hare—rn-the—responsibility for the additional labor expenditures of PBR in attempting to resolve this problem. A proposed allocation of payment responsibilities is as follows: PBR = $797.00; City $3,187.00. Item #4. Format Changes After Review of 1st Screencheck EIR. Such c ai—{ nges occurred between February 19, 1982 and March 26, 1982. Work Element 2): Split of 5th Avenue parcels into separate projects and revision of project description to reference Buck Gully parcel: T. Smith 4.0 hrs. @ $62/hr. _ $248.00 M. Brown 7.0 hrs. @ $42/hr. = 294.00 B. Kemble 20.0 hrs. @ $32/hr. = 640.00 B. Bruesch 8.0 hrs. @ $36/hr. = 288.00 Graphics Staff 8.0 hrs. @ $28/hr. = 224.00 Subtotal $1,694.00 Discussion Subsequent to review of the intial screencheck EIR, City staff directed PBR to split the 5th Avenue Parcels into two separate projects for analysis in the EIR. This decision required the previous work to be dis- aggregated and discussed separately in each section of the EIR, including baseline, impacts and mitigations, alternatives, EIR summary and project description sections. A proposed allocation of payment responsibility is as follows: PBR = 0; City $1,694.00. Work Element (b, Reformat of EIR Sections for all projects and changes to graphic exhibits (excluding word processing expenditures): T. Smith 8.0 hrs. @ $62/hr. = $ 496.00 M. Brown 38.0 hrs. @ $42/hr. = 1,596.00 B. Kemble 12.0 hrs. @ $36/hr. = 432.00 B. Bruesch 79.5 hrs. @ $32/hr. 2,544.00 Graphics Staff 15.0 hrs. @ $28/hr. = 420.00 Subtotal $5,488.00 0 Mr. Talarico June 4, 1982 Page Seven Discussion 0 The decision to alter the EIR format after completion and submittal of the initial screencheck required additional staff work to accomplish the format conversion and to edit the revised format through several rounds of word processing. City staff has indicated that the format change was needed to improve upon the poor quality of the analysis provided by PBR in the initial screencheck document. PBR has carefully evaluated the first screencheck and has compared its contents against those of the draft EIR (which includes the revised format). Our review has concluded that the contents of the two documents are nearly identical; the major difference is the revised format. (A marked -up copy of the draft EIR is available at PBR to substantiate this conclusion.) If the quality of the first document was as bad as staff has said, why was much of the same material later accepted in the draft EIR? We believe that this change is the responsibility of City staff and should be paid for through an extension of PBR's budget. A proposed allocation of payment responsibilities is as follows: PBR = 0; City = $5,488.00. Work Element (c) Revisions to Alternatives section & Matrix (Section 5.0 unavoidable effects and local, short term uses sections (Sections 4.0 and 6.0). T. Smith 3.0 hrs. @ $62/hr. = $186.00 M. Brown 7.0 hrs. @ 42/hr. = 294.00 Graphics Staff 2.5 hrs. @ $28/hr. = 70.00 Subtotal $550.00 Discussion In addition to the format changes described in the preceding pages, additional modifications to other sections (i.e., Sections 4.0, 6.0, and project alternatives) were also required of PBR by City staff. These changes required labor expenditures which were beyond the labor hour ceilings established for the screencheck EIR in the approved contractual scope of work. A proposed allocation of payment responsibilities is as follows: PBR = 0; City = $550.00. Work Element (d): Word processing and edit of text to achieve revised EIR ormat. Word Processing 98.5 hrs. @ $24/hr. = $2,364.00 • Mr. Talarico June 4, 1982 Page Eight Discussion C� Conversion of the initial screencheck from one format to another required a major expenditure of word processing labor to ensure that the format changes were accomplished properly. As indicated in our response to item 4(b), this additional effort was required by City staff's decision to alter the EIR format after the initial format had been previously reviewed and approved. A proposed allocation of payment responsibilities is as follows: PBR = 0; City $2,364.00. Item #6. Expansion of Section 9.0: Further Environmental Documentation February 19, 1982 to March 26, 1982). Effects Found Not to be Significant/ and Actions Needed (time period of T. Smith 2.0 hrs. @ $62/hr. = $124.00 M. Brown 9.0 hrs. @ $42/hr. = 378.00 B. Bruesch 4.5 hrs. @ $32/hr. = 144.00 Subtotal $646.00 Discussion This section was expanded by City staff to include a description of further environmental documentation and processing actions needed for ultimate implementation of each project. These additions are beyond the contents of this EIR section as assumed in our scope of work. The savings t4�/ in future environmental processing costs that will result from this unique section will more than offset PBR's additional labor costs. A proposed G allocation of payment responsibilities is as follows: PBR = 0; City = $646.00. Item #9. Transfer of EIR Text to EIR Technical Appendix (time period of MarcW26, 1982 to May 3, 1982). B. Bruesch 18.0 hrs. @ $32/hr = $576.00 Word Processing 9.5 hrs. @ $24/hr. = 228.00 Subtotal $804.00 Discussion In its role as the City's environmental consultant, PBR recommended that additional descriptive material for existing conditions at each project site be included in the EIR. This material was needed, in PBR's pro- fessional opinion, to substantiate the City's long -stated desire to focus future environmental documentation for each proposed project. The descrip- tion of the GPA 81-2 document as a "program EIR" within the meaning of the State EIR Guidelines further substantiates the need for this approach. Mr. Talarico June 4, 1982 Page Nine However, City st f—e-lec a no o—accept PBR's recommendation. PBR subsequently'Ae ided to provide the addit 1 material anyway, to protect its own ofessional quality standards.BR has accepted the costs (approxi ate" $1) incurr_eiC�n_-pr-odung this additional material. However, s aff later directed us to transfer much of this analysis to the Technical Appendix, which required additional PBR work to prepare introductory statements so that the material would not be presented out of context. We believe that the City should accept responsibility for this additional labor expenditure by PBR staff. A proposed allocation of payment responsibilities is as follows: PBR = 0; City = $804.00. Item #10. Revisions to Second Screencheck EIR (exclusive of Impacts Summary). Such changes occurred between March 29, 1982 and April 23, 1982. Work Element (at): Field verify and modify 5th Avenue Riparian Area Ex i its Text; and field check Big Canyon Area 16 Riparian Area. T. Smith 2.0 hrs. @ $62/hr. = $124.00 L. Munsey 4.0 hrs. @ $62/hr. = 248.00 B. Bruesch 4.0 hrs. @ $32/hr. = 128.00 Graphics Staff 0.5 hrs. @ $28/hr. = 14.00 Subtotal $514.00 Discussion A riparian area identified for the western 5th Avenue parcel was accepted by the applicant and the City upon review of the intial screencheck EIR. Upon receipt of the second screencheck, the applicant questioned the riparian designation and requested a field check by PBR biological services personnel. Upon field examination, the riparian area was found to be a drainage Swale. Modifications to this effect were made to the EIR text and graphics. A similar issue arose with the Big Canyon Area 16 project, which necessitated a field check, report review but no revisions to the EIR text and graphic. Both of these additional efforts should be paid for by the City and/or the applicant. A proposed division of payment responsibilities is as follows: PBR = 0; City = $514.00. Work Element (b): Various editing, text revisions (park dedication acreage/times, Pe scan Hill Fault, Campus Drive non -conforming use description, short-term air quality impacts, noise wall fund mitigation reference, addition of Banning mitigations to Aesthetics and Recreation, and Open Space sections). 0 Mr. Talarico June 4, 1982 Page Ten 0 T. Smith 9.0 hrs. @ $62/hr. _ $558.00 M. Brown 10.0 hrs. @ $42/hr. = 420.00 B. Bruesch 57.0 hrs. @ $32/hr. = 1,824.00 Graphics Staff 6.5 hrs. @ $28/hr. = 182.00 Word Processing 29.0 hrs. @ $24/hr. = 504.00 Subtotal $3,488.00 Discussion PBR views the revisions required by the City to the second screencheck EIR to be equivalent to those assumed within the contractual Scope of Work. The budget for screencheck revisions specified in the contract is equiva- lent to the labor expended in converting the second screencheck into a draft EIR. PBR accepts full payment responsibility for these costs as follows: PBR = $3,488.00; City = 0. Item #11. Addition of Summary of Impacts (time period of March 29, 1982 andApril 23, 1982). T. Smith 2.0 hrs. @ $62/hr. _ $124.00 M. Brown 3.0 hrs. @ $42/hr. = 126.00 B. Bruesch 20.0 hrs. @ $32/hr. = 320.00 Graphics Staff 6.0 hrs. @ $28/hr. = 168.00 Word Processing 7.0 hrs. @ $24/hr. = 168.00 Subtotal $906.00 Discussion PBR and City staff agreed, prior to submittal of the second screencheck EIR, to use the summary of alternatives impacts as the EIR Impacts Summary. Subsequent to receipt of City comments on the second screen - check, PBR was directed to prepare a standard EIR impacts summary, in addition to the alternatives summary already prepared. This additional summary represents a scope of work modification for which PBR should be compensated. A proposed allocation of payment responsibilities is as follows: PBR = 0; City $906.00. SUMMARY The table below summarizes the total labor expenditures incurred by PBR in responding to the scope of work changes described herein and proposes an allocation of payment responsibilities for PBR and the City of Newport Beach. PBR has accepted the responsibility for work elements of several items where our analysis indicated that costs were excessive due to ineffective management. We have not accepted responsibility for tasks which, we believe, were specifically requested by City staff. We believe Mr. Talarico June 4, 1982 Page Eleven that this approach represents a fair and equitable solution which will allow us to complete our remaining responsibilities under the existing contract. Expenditures Assumed by PBR 3,816 3,816 - TOTALS $28,782 $8,820 $19,962 Please advise us of your findings with respect to this request at your earliest convenience. Please direct all questions concerning this Michael Brandman, Ph.D. Executive Vice President 412aNSIE. Smith, Jr. ATOP Associate TES/scw:10B cc: James D. Hewicker SUMMARY PBR City/Applicant Item Amount Responsibility Responsibility 1 $ 2,178 $ 719 $ 1,459 2 & 3 3,984 797 3,187 4 10,096 0 10,096 5 850 0 850 6 646 0 646 7 700 0 700 8 800 0 800 9 804 0 804 10 4,002 3,488 514 11 906 0 906 Subtotals $24,966 $5,004 $19,962 Expenditures Assumed by PBR 3,816 3,816 - TOTALS $28,782 $8,820 $19,962 Please advise us of your findings with respect to this request at your earliest convenience. Please direct all questions concerning this Michael Brandman, Ph.D. Executive Vice President 412aNSIE. Smith, Jr. ATOP Associate TES/scw:10B cc: James D. Hewicker May 3, 1982 F CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Tan Smith C/o PBR 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA 92714 P.U. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663.3884 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 640-2197 Subject: Statement of Professional Services through March 31, 1982 (Subconsultants Only) and Request for Scope of Work Modifications Dear Tom: We have carefully reviewed your requested "Scope of Work Modifications - GPA 81-2" dated April 21, 1982, and the following comments are offered: General Project Changes Item No. 1. It is the opinion of the Planning Department that the $4500.00 requested is unwarranted. Scope of Work Changes Prior to Submittal of Screencheck EIR Item No. 2. It is the opinion of the Planning Department that the $2300.00 requested is unwarranted, The time period between October 19, 1981 and Nov. 9, 1981, per verbal authorization was to be used to prepare and mail Notice of Preparation and Non -statutory Adviseamt. No authorization was given to accomplish a major portion of the study during this three week period. Item No. 3. It is the opinion of the Planning Department that the request for $3,200 is unwarranted. Scope of Work Changes After Submittal of Screencheck EIR. Item No. 4. It is the opinion of the Planning Department that the request for $10,100 is unwarranted. If these funds were spent that it was due to the quality of the original produced submitted and it's management. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach Item No. 5. It is the opinion of the Planning Department that the request for $850 is warranted and this item constitutes a contract modification. Item No. 6. It is the opinion of the Planning Department that the request for $650 is not warranted. The original report submitted was incorrect and not appropriate for a General Plan Pmendment. Item No. 7. It is the opinion of the Planning Department that the requested 700 "Scope of Work Modification" is warranted. Item No. 8. It is the opinion of the Planning Department that the requested $800 "Stype of Work Modification" is warranted. Item No. 9. it is the opinion of the Planning Department that the requested 800 is not warranted. Item No. 10. it is the opinion of the Planning Department that the requested $4,000 is not warranted. A second screencheck EIR was caused by PBR's first screencheck, contents submittal. Item No. 11. It is the opinion of the Planning Department that the requested $900 is not warranted. This opinion might be modified should the consultant document to the City's satisfaction that there was not at lease an equal savings ($900) to the consultant by allowing the alternatives section to be prepared as a summary. Item Amount Warranted Unwarranted 1 + 4,500 -0- $ 4,500 2 2,300 -0- 2,300 3 31200 -0- 31200 4 10,100 -0- 10,100 5 850 $ 850 -0- 6 650 -0- 650 7 700 700 -0- 8 800 800 -0- 9 800 -0- 800 10 4,000 -0- 4,000 11 900 -0- 900 TOTALS 11 $28,800 $2,350 $26,450 The Planning Departmient has prepared the Notice of Completion and mailed the Draft EIR and the notice. These actions were to be a portion of the consultant contract. This has been done at a considerable expense of time and materials by the City staff. This and the major original reduction in detail of analysis (Tentative Tract to GPA) more than offset the minor modifications to the scope of work requested by the City of Newport Beach. The City Staff specifically requested that you retain a substantial portion of the total budget (25% to 30%) to respond to comnents during the public review period of 0 the draft EIR. As you have presently billed 75% of the total contract (Invoice No. 5) and your new request would constitute 90% of the total budget (Invoice No. 6) its payment at this time prior to our settlement of your "Request for Scope of Work Modification" is not reasonable. We look forward to meeting with you in the near future to settle this matter. Very truly yours, of I N. , zik Im Ff UAL is I UP M 111 UR 9 - r/ 0 . . • ��OKO ET:nma Phillips Brandt Reddick Scope of Work Modifications City of Newport Beach GPA -81-2 EIR April 21, 1982 General Project Changes d0c•�cdkuwtltoN T\ntic 1. Delay in completing EIR preparation pi the schedules described in l�!ur the scope of work (dated 9/1/81) and City memo (dated September 24, ti (pub S 1981). The screencheck EIR was submitted on January 26, 1982, two months later than indicated in the scope of work and six weeks later than shown in the City's memo. During the delay period (due largely qua to other priorities of City staff) PBR continued to work in an attempt to comply with the Faithful Performance provisions of the contract and staff's desires to complete the document as quickly as possible. Additionally, the scope of work (pp. 18) clearly indicates that delays of more than 30 days may require budget supplements. 'This request is consistent with that provision. Total Fees Expended: $ 4,500.00 Scope of Work Changes Prior to Submittal of Screencheck EIR 2. Deletion of concurrent processing for 5th Avenue parcels. PBR was notified at a meeting on 11/10/81 with Pat Temple and Fred Talarico that only GPA level of detail was needed (see also CNB memo dated 11/9/81). PBR was given verbal authorization to proceed effective 10/19/81 (ref. CNB letter dated 9/24/81). For 3 weeks, PBR had been collecting and analyzing data to substantiate tract level environmental documentation, which was then not needed in the EIR. 3. Total Fees Expended: $ 2,300.00 Change in 5th Avenue project description (reference PBR memo to CNB dated 11/24/81 and Mitch B. memo to File dated 12/11/81). Prior to 12/11, PBR had been assessing impacts of Planning Commission project description for the subject parcels. This change required t 1� X01 jw work accomplished to date to be either thrown out or substantially modified. Scope of Work Changes After Submittal of Screencheck EIR 4. Change in EIR format from that previously concurred by the City (ref. PBR memo dated 11/13/81). This change required substantial effort of technical and word processing staff to modify previous format to new format which referenced each project separately within each environmental section (e.g., Air Quality). Additionally, 5th Avenue parcels had to be split into 2 separate projects and analyzed f��� I separately for impacts and alternatives. Total Fees Expended: $10,100.00 5. Addition of Citywide Setting as a separate, initial topic at the beginning of each environmental section. This change was necessary to support the revised EIR format. Total Fees Expended: $ 850.00 6. Expansion of Effects Found Not to be Significant section (9.0) to include discussion of Further Environmental Documentation and Actions Needed The intent of this addition was to facilitate focusing of subsequent environmental documents. 11Cv�y t" C' t, C� i-T0.CN�� U ` ►1 Total Fees Expended: $ 650.00 7. Expansion of Growth Inducing and Cumulative Impacts section (8.0) to include quantitative analysis of committed projects vs. projects proposed in GPA -81-2. The scope of work assumed qualitative analysis for cumulative impacts, per previous CNB directionpt tto�- Or 11�4L�11 -ro k^ -L Total Fees Expended: $ 700.00 1h • 8. Change in 5th Avenue parcels' project description to conform with original Planning Commission version. This required revised exhibits, revisions to the project description section, and expansion of the alternatives analysis to address three alternatives for the Buck Gully parcel (C). Total Fees Expended: $ 800.00 9. Transfer of some EIR text and analysis to Technical Appendix document. These paragraphs had to be edited to provide for paragraph transitions and headings and introductory sentences had to be added because the transferred material would otherwise have appeared of of context. R 10. - Requirement for a second screencheck EIR review. The primary reason for this review was to approve of the revised EIR format. However, additional comments were also generated during this review which q•Vi' had to be addressed prior to printing of the DEIR. For example,' one area on the biological exhibit 'for the 5th Avenue parcels was \� questioned by the applicant and later revised by PBR. The applicant �1 had previously missed this problem in the review of the initial screencheck EIR. Total Fees Expended: $ 4,000.00 11. Addition of Summary of Impacts (vs. Alternatives Summary, as shown on pp. xix-xxiii of DEIR) to DEIR. Previous discussions with City staff authorized PBR to substitute the Alternatives summary for the t `� usual EIR summary, since the impacts of each proposed project and alternatives were discussed on separate pages. 1 Total Fees Expended: $ 900.00 Total Scope of Work Modification Fees 28,800.00 ANALYSIS Additional Fees Expended $ 28,800 Credit for PBR Labor 3,976* Net Additional Fees $ 24,824 * Includes PBR'staff rewrite of landform/geology and hydrology sections, revisions to other sections to reorient level of analysis and word processing. • PBR Contract Status GPA -81-2 EIR thru 4/16/82 Additional PBR Fees Reference Fees Expended Expended on Scope To Scope Phase Contract Fees Thru 4/16/82 Modifications Modificati I. Project Initiation/ $ 4,544 $ 6,844 $ 2,300 2 Data Collection & Research 4115,3 II. Screencheck EIR $22,709 $30,400 $ 7,700 III. Draft EIR $ 4,544 $23,344 $18,800 4-11 IV. Response to Comments Awaiting Startup V. Final EIR Awaiting Startup VI. Client Coordination/ $ 1,991 2,000 -0- N/A Meetings Estimated Totals to $33,788 $62,588 $28,800 1-11 Be Spent thru 4/16/82 ANALYSIS Additional Fees Expended $ 28,800 Credit for PBR Labor 3,976* Net Additional Fees $ 24,824 * Includes PBR'staff rewrite of landform/geology and hydrology sections, revisions to other sections to reorient level of analysis and word processing. 0 0 JU PBR Word Proces ing Cost Analysi GDA 81-2 EIR/ ' 1 ° Total Time Expended ° Total Average Time Per Page* -each round (assume 2) • Typical Printer Time Per Page ° Total Average Edit/Revis Time Per Page -each round (assume 2) * Assume 270 pages 98 hours 0 hours 22 minute 9 minutes 11 minutes 4.5 minutes 1 minute 1 minute 21 minutes 8 minutes 10.0 minutes 3 5 minutes 138 hours 31 minutes 15.5 minutes 29 minutes 13.5 minutes MW7■ -_y� 1 April 23, 1982 Mr. Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 � c q0 04�� Subject: Recap of April 21, 1982 Meeting regarding GPA 81-2 Environmental Document Dear Fred: The purpose of this letter is to briefly recap the discussions which occurred at the subject meeting and to outline our understanding of the results achieved and additional analysis to be undertaken in the coming weeks. While there are obviously differences of opinion regarding,, the degree of contract modification and fees for same, we are confident that a mutually agreeable solution to this difficult problem can be achieved. Briefly, the following action items achieved consensus at the meeting: 1. PBR would forward copies of staff comments on the first and second screencheck EIRs. 2. Tom Smith agreed to further analyze the specific scope modification items and to develop hourly information to further support the scope changes. 3. Fred Talarico agreed to review PBR's budget extension request in light of City staff comments on the screencheck documents. 4. Tom Smith agreed to review closely items 6 and 7 (PBR information sheet dated 4-21-82) in.light of City staff comments on the screen - check documents and determine appropriate budget extensions. 5. Fred aTalarico agreed that items 5, 7 and 8 constituted reasonable cont rpt modifications and the compensation amounts stated on the information sheet were agreed upon. 6. It was mutually agreed that another meeting would be held in the near future to continue the discussions, focusing on the results of the additional analyses described above. PLANNING • ARCHITECTURE - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE - ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 18012 SKY PARK CIRCLE - IRVINE, CA 92714 - (714) 641.8820 CALIFORNIA COLORADO HAWAII April 23, 1982 Mr. Fred Talarico Page Two We hope this brief recap agrees with your notes and recollection of the meeting. If you notice any omissions or misstatements, please contact us. We lok forward to continuing our discussions as we work toward development of a mutually agreeable solution. Sincerely, PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK Thomas E. Smith, Jr., ICP Associate TES:apt cc: Michael Brandman Mitch Brown 0 OY� 11:_.� PHIWPS BRANDT REDDICK April 14, 1982 CLIENT: Planning Department City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92663-3884 Attn: Fred Talarico PROJECT: General Plan Amendment 81-2 EIR4 > Job No. 62-007 Invoice No. 6 Statement for Professional Services through March 31, 1982 subconsultants only) (a) CAL TRANS WEST Labor: $ 2,169.40 (b) 5TH AVENUE PARCELS Labor: 3,254.10 (c) FREEWAY RESERVATIONS WEST (BIG CANYON AREA 16) Labor: 2,169.40 (d) CAMPUS DRIVE INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE Labor: 1,084.70 (h) NEWPORT CENTER --BLOCK 400 Labor: 2,169.40 TOTAL DUE THIS INVOICE $10,847.00 Note: This invoice is subject to a 1.5% per month finance charge (18% annual rate) on past due accounts. PLANNING • ARCHITECTURE - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 18012 SKY PARK CIRCLE - IRVINE, CA 92714 • (714) 641.8820 CALIFORNIA COLORADO HAWAII A oopp- re7V E- C A L T R A N S W E S T i EPi THE IRVINE QOMPAW 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 October 20, 1981 Mr. Fred Talarico CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Fred: 0 It has come to my attention that Bill AB710 ((Hannigan)' has been signed by the Governor which eliminates scoping requirements for EIR's, effective January 1, 1982. How does this impact the processing of GPA 81-2 EIR? Enclosed is a schedule on Castaways for your review and comment. Sincerely, B/ n# ard� iscalco Manager of Community Development BAM:gm Enclosure RECEIvo �anninB ', flGT �� Ntl'dP�SA1.1fjli�Y C05MJNITY ^EV7;-PPM7NT LUIS FEPORT PS -7 PR06ECI SCHEDULE -- CASinWAYS PASE 1 PROJECT MANAGER: BERNARD Mr`NISCALCD REVISED 10/01/81',. 10/01/81 PROJECT DIRECTOR: C. KEITH GREER REFERENCE NO: CD/116 ORIGINAL ORIGINAL REVISED 1981 1982 1983 FILE/ APPROVE/ APPROVE/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ START COMPLETE COMPLETE -------- --------------- JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ----------- ------------------------------------------------------------- JAN FES MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OND JFM AMJ 1. EIR PREPARATION :11/01/81:03/01/82: 'S --'--------`C AFD PROCESSING _ 2. TENTATIVE MAP PROCESSING :01/15/82;03/01/82: ; 5------C 3. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ;01/15/82;03/01/32: : 5------C PLAN PROCESSING 4. PC DOC PROCESSING ;01/15/82:03/01/32; ; 5-----C 5. PLANNING COMMISSION ;03/15/82; S0 APPROVAL ; ; ; ; 6. CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL ;04/15/82; ; ; SC' 7. COASTrL DEVEL,P"NENT 04/15/82;06/01/32; ; S ------C ��^MIT PRGCESoING ; ; ; o. COASTAL COMMISSION ;06/15/82; ; ; SC APPROVAL ; ; ; 9. FINAL MAP PROCESSING ;07/15/82;:1/15/82; ; --- 1-C 10. FINAL MAP RECORDATION ;12/15/82; SC 11. BUILDER TAKEDOWN i ;02/15/83; ; ; SC' 12. GRADING - :03/01/831(7/01i83; ; 5---- 13. SALES ;08/01/83;01/01/86; ; 14. CLOSINGS ;11/01/83 01/01/86; ; INDICATES A CHARGE. • Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds, including public notices by Decree of the Supetior Court of Orange County, California, Number A-6214, dated 29 September, 1961, and A-24931, dated 11 June, 1963. STATE OF CALI FOR NIA County of Orange Publh N.M. Adralldnp mn,W by fi, O idavll I, w1 In 7 palnl wllh 10 pl<u column width. I am a Citizen of the United States and A resident of the County aforesaid; t ant over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the NEWS -PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that a Notice of Pudic Hearings PlJdINING C0,01ISSION OF THE (ITmv OF NEt9PORT BEACH, of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete copy, was printed and 'published in the Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna Beach issues of said newspaper for GiRia 91fi&AK%%)%V9W to wit the issues) of January 10198 •3 198- 0 • r r \;Y � OTICE NOTIC LIC HEARING � t:rn NOTI EBY GIVEN that' Lie„_ nfng a PIS 0ommlealon of the City r� N •_ ,tnant Newp to will hold a publlcl A earl '��95pit ral Plant 9 frt memo m kx'"'�n& Local Coeete4 /983!26 OF- 1141 ��CL ygrogra n��s Wg£sr� Locetedj 2, for theN��(vC0 T &,,, f ort "y tdPly of West Coast' ` ALIF, H/ Igh gn Q Superior Avenues (asi l )all1Y17 b.fa*at to amend the, e„d f flfl@@rr lldYffKhflat Growth, and' arI'fOjvjfj,WvpirtmenI o ansportatlonL 2. FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS IcoSnvula clniybthAeneni arguerlts�Avenue In Corona de at; a request to -amend the Lan, se, Residential Grbwth ant ecreatlon' and Open Space erdAnt oT the Newport Beacl amoral' PI n: proposed by th Ane Comphrfy. 3. E10,4A't4YON — AREA tf coal 4d,.I,%thwesterly o ecArth ' Bdddlevartl and For a request to Ie Element '•• 8. CAMPUS DRIVE; Bounded by, MacArthur Avenue;'a request to! amend the Land Use Element of thel Newport Beech Gederal Plan;' 'proposed by The City of Newport beach. NOTICE IS HLREBY FURTHER GIVEN that an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in connection with the proposals noted above. It Is the present Anlentlon of the City to accept the ,Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents The City encourages members of the general ,., e,ro in ravinwtand comment on ,198 I for public review and Inspection at ;the Planning Delfartment, City of Newport Beach, $300 West 198— I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. January 10 3 Executed on 198— at Costa Mesa, California. Signature NOTICE lb nttett GIVEN that Said publl be held on the 20th d' 1983, at the hour of 7:' Council Chambers of wench Olty Hall. at w and Publlshea Orange Coast Daily +"pilot, Jan. 10, 1983 224.83; L1�.�...._ PROOF OF PUBLICATION 0 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY (714) 640-2201 September 24, 1982 Mr. Mitchell Brown Mr. Thomas E. Smith, Jr. Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Skypark Circle Irvine, California 92714 Re: Environmental Impact Report/GPA-81-2 Gentlemen: Please consider this letter a Notice of Termination of the Agreement pursuant to which you perform services relative to the environmental documentation for General Plan Amendment 81-2. This Notice of Termination is effective immediately as provided in paragraph 5 of the Agreement. It is the understanding of this office that there is a dispute between your firm and the Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach relative to the compensation you are to receive for services performed. The undersigned has reviewed some of the material in the Planning Department file on GPA 81-2 and will complete this review within the next two weeks. I anticipate corresponding with your firm shortly after completing the review to arrange a meeting to resolve, if possible, the fee dispute. Si relsy,, 1 ROBERT H. BU Assistant City Attorney RHB:rmg cc: Fred Talarico, Planning Jim Hewicker, Planning Bob Lenard, Planning City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 Ali 07 -ORA -1 19.7 Excess Parcel 040766-01-01 07630 - 911038 District Agreement No. 3621 THIS AGREEMENT, ENTERED INTO ON , 194, is between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as STATE, and CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH a body politic and a municipal corporation of the State of California, referred to herein as CITY 0 RECITALS WHEREAS, STATE is the owner of a certain 17.55 acre parcel of land located within the limits of the city of Newport Beach, at or near the northwest corner of Pacific Coast Highway (State Route 1) and Superior Avenue, and commonly known to CITY and STATE as "CALTRANS WEST"F and WHEREAS, CITY is the public entity having jurisdiction, by way of its General Plan -Land Use Element and zoning ordinances, over the development of real property within its city limits; and WHEREAS, the existing zoning and General Plan designation of CAL12RANS WEST is open space recreational; and WHEREAS, STATE believes there is no market value for CALTRANS WEST with the current land use designation; and WHEREAS, STATE has applied to CITY for an amendment to the General Plan, changing the existing Land Use Element from open space recreational to multi -family residential use; and WHEREAS, STATE believes CALTRANS WEST will have a market value if CITY should allow the applied for land use; and WHEREAS, amendment of the General Plan -Land Use Element requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, seven (T) other property owners have made applica- tion to CITY to amend the General Plan -Land Use Element, and are designated together with STATE as General Plan Amendment 91-2; and WHEREAS, CITY is the lead agency for preparation of environ- mental nviron mental documents concerning amendments to its General Plan; and -2- I 0 WLIEREAS, CITY will enter into a contract with a consultant for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report respecting General Plan Amendment 81-2; and WHEREAS, CITY will assess each applicant under General Pian Amendment 81-2 for a proportional share of the cost of preparation of said Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, there is a benefit to STATE from the environmental assessment of CALTRANS WEST; and WHEREAS, there is a benefit to CITY from the environmental assessment of CALTRMiS WEST; and WHEREAS, STATE and CITY desire to cooperate and participate in this agreement. 14011 THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties hereto agree as followo: SECTIO`I I STATE AGREES: 1. To deposit with CITY upon receipt of invoice thereof, a lump rum amount of $18,150.00 which figure represents STATE's proportional share of the cost of preparation of said Environmental Impact Report. In no event shall STATE's total obligation for said costs under this agreement exceed $18,150.00; provided that STATE may at its sole discretion, in writing, authorize a greater amount. -3- 4 � Y • . 1.. ♦ �' J SECTION II CITY AGREES: 1. CITY shall hire a consultant to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for General Plan Amendment 81-2. 2. CITY shall submit a draft of said Environmental Impact Report to SPATE by January 1, 1482. 3, CITY shall submit the final draft of maid Environmental Impact Report to STATE by July 1, 1982. SECTION III IT IS MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED: 1. STATE's share of the cost of said Environmental Impact Report shall not exceed the amount of $18,150.00. 2. CITY will conscientiously process said draft and final Environmental Impact Reports without undue delay. 3. STATE will furnish the preparor of said Environmental Impact Report data within the records of STATE regarding CALTRANS WEST and its immediate vicinity. 4. This agreement shall terminate on January 1, 1983. -4- 5. That this Agreement may be terminated and provisions contained herein may be altered, changed, or amended by mutual consent of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOP, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by their respective officers, duly authorized, the provisions of which agreement are effective as of the day, month and year after hereinabove written. STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Department of Transportation ADRIANA GIANTORCO Director of Transportation (1L By ATTEST: D st is irector 0 BY L111 - City Clerk -5- 0 APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, Newport Beach DCaFC E\CL IoPA 8i -Z /+PPl.lca N � A). GAL T12f1 A1_S wa✓ST M1 kE p« 6Z -2t9 - �� paws slr.1MJ 2l3 -Lu -SaII'0 tii•�T� Aoe. t�Ru'c<�S. �— LCiC.� r�L-z.1`�-9�_ QaNard ►.VaN�sc�d te�1�1-3311 �). �4wy ecs •��t ll t3cCt�O'ca NlaN�tU�u �T\C-� C`;2-219-011 )QAUG Qraeln.wJ�� (e�`I'318j Gaok- �J..,y c,..,,,o, Crc.) cmvt-Amro um) QoAs) -F). Fa(\C- StcN �C-Ae) Cwtli c&awu) r 9.1 & c lc.. (S,, l �— Oor-L Acm - a1- /tq-9d T IBM 2• ,µ%-c , m ` zN Q, «K+Ew� 11w+M"Ib (nvV -1581 p�rryT<M�`c (DAG-ztla fb- 'I. Ttn►p\t 64(1 -au 1 Pat*,, rgAgp f ado-ub� (�j•ccw �, s �yP "�� ✓ MOO 644 - e boa 1dATe - -- — - ---- - - -- -- - - --- i- ----- ---------- i i t - - S --- pp d t 1 QOGv.MeNT_ �O{ _�'�/JCC0.71-_ � SAN �{�'��O►V� gt-L OCpf SVC :- --- - - - - - - - --- -- - ----- � 0(t p� A- �acoPosax IPCOA oG ��,'�r3-,__8cat�►T pce pact - ctw eNvtcoN M�►r d►oeeaMR N T-- Fo f �a ewect�X -- - _ -- Q�aN AMewA rne- 8 --Z__ �.-GPi44,►l-L\-,--%s--vou._ace -sc --% k------ — poettc�►1 -o C -- fG..:. (p en►eco. !PtptJ -- Nd me,�rr • . 5e��..L�f _•a� aa.�tQw���c.t —�d-o __rbc �cz __ s�acc_ o� - �,.- _ avec azo w•w_ ,w.lt occ.u►c --o-" . t4, - t�t�,�, 1F _ �llu►. -_wish _Ta _ Crcocce� _ w.e. - Ir j !oR t�%• aa►�NdrreN�- _ pl_etaa,_ t�rpesLr- _ tE+c._ _ i�t�txu -- 0 ------------- -- ---- - ----------- ----- - - --- ---- ---------- - -- --- - --------------- -- - -- - - -- -- - ik%.-- meat -Seyccau(_ weeks wa_w��` �e C'OWT CA � � w 1t� d,�,sGt✓a+o '�..- _ _�sccPacct<'Wr� O� t'G• i f ew- u%co#j fix aLuc ce.., e�.eca.Q Y`c�• ��oe CA- Q O �I --------------- --- ----- ,�.rt• Q�cK...Ce ��— - - --- 1 ; �. Q,• I I it I i1 i �7 1N (J� rlCi...� I FE A•CAAsroco arrt rmoii. A4r. %=cj.ifwY 2 wcot `�.Q_cs%p�pu°°� ._�Rcof�pN►t��Ll��r ¢�daon"aroo �y Z ��cNgrc: �agC�L Csul� v� •�17 ^7a r aOck�F� .�. 1 � , i I ; 1 , 1 I 1 It 1 r W �f i .m 1. el A•tJwrrnw w.rr .Firi,Auc�tt o. .� --�.-' G. — — '- �---�-�-- ifwY 2 Weo� Rcc 'cauoer« �t e� dois+''stw-� partc arcs xea160 coo coo cold _,b�cjc. Gull (S(ack'%� tiro ae s:ra _ (" �ivts'._ w �tt�c�.rs — �a�Po3is3 �LG�C+`S t=Ct�� I CFCGS I ) t=S I Ct=:_e� t t^:•cS �LCS ,I ! , I I I f : ! a,� 0 0 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on this 13th day of November, 1981, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY," and PHILLIPS, BRANDT AND REDDICK, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT." W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, the CITY has determined that a Draft Environmental Impact Report is necessary in conjunction with General Plan Amendment (GPA) initiated by the City's Planning Commission designated as GPA 81-2, on several sites, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California; and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT has submitted to CITY a proposal to prepare said Report; and WHEREAS, CITY desires to accept said proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. GENERAL CONSULTANT agrees to prepare the subject Report in accordance with the requirements set forth in Paragraph 2 of this Agreement. CITY agrees to remit to CONSULTANT the amounts set forth in paragraph 3 of this Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this document. 2. SCOPE OF WORK The subject Report will be prepared in accordance with the CONSULTANT'S proposal dated September 1, 1981, which is attached to this Agreement marked as Exhibit "A" and by reference incorporated herein at this point as if fully set forth, with the exception of the following sites: G d) Coast Highway Residential/Commercial: This site and information requested and costs related to said shall be by reference here considered deleted from Exhibit "A"• and f) Park Sites: These sites and all information requested and costs related to said shall be by reference here considered deleted from Exhibit "A"; and g•) Buck Gully Residential: This site and all information and costs related to said shall be by reference here considered deleted from Exhibit "A". In the event of conflicting provisions between this Agreement and Exhibit "A", the provisions of Exhibit "A" shall prevail. 3. BILLING AND PAYMENT CONSULTANT shall be paid under this Agreement on a time and material basis and in no event shall the maximum amount of this Agreement exceed Eighty -Three Thousand Fifty and No Dollars ($83,050.00). This contract and Exhibit "A" assume "Phase IV Response to Comments" shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of total labor costs. This cost for Response to Comments is a preliminary estimate which may be exceeded upon express written authorization from City. In this event, a revised budget will be established through a separate contract addendum between City and Consultant prior to exceeding the estimated budget. All Responses to Comments shall be done on a time and materials cost and shall be specifically authorized by the CITY'S Planning Director or his designated representative. Partial payments shall be made by CITY to CONSULTANT upon CONSULTANT'S presentation of statements verifying the time and material costs incurred by it in connection with this Agreement, all statements shall provide said information based upon a specific subcomponent of the larger project. 4. FAITHFUL CONSULTANT shall use diligent efforts to complete this contract within Three Hundred and Sixty -Five (365) days after execution of this Agreement. The subject Report must meet the approval of the Environmental Affairs Committee of the City. In the event additional work is required above and beyond that requested herein, said additional work shall be subject to a separate contract. 5. This Agreement is subject to termination by the CITY at any time upon serving written notice to CONSULTANT. The CITY shall be thereafter liable to CONSULTANT only for fees and costs incurred as of the date CONSULTANT receives such notice of termination. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. APPROVED AS TO FORM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH &A& P Acting City Attorney -3- Department Director PHILLIPS REDDICK CONSULTANT 0 November 2, 1981 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: John Burkhart, Finance Department FROM: Fred Talarico, Planning Department SUBJECT: New Account - 02-219-93 Please transfer $13,500.00 from Account No. 022716000 to a new account designated: NO. 02-219-93 DEIR GPA 81-2 "e" The City Council has authorized this fund to be used for the prepa- ration of this Draft EIR. FR TALARICO Environmental Coordinator FT/kk 1 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 DATE: July 24, 1981 ATTN: Fred Talarico RE: Transmittal of Proposal for Environmental Documentation GPA 81.2 REMARKS: Attached are three copies of the subject proposal' Should you have any questions or require clarification, please give a call. SIGNED: Thomas E. Smith, Jr., AICP Associate PLANNING • ARCHITECTURE • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 18012 SKY PARK CIRCLE • IRVINE, CA 92714 • (714) 641-8820 CALIFORNIA COLORADO HAWAII 9 0 THE IRVINE CWPAW 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 August 24, 1981 Mr. Fred Talarico CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: PROPOSAL TO PREPARE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81-2 Dear Mr. Talarico: PBR's proposed costs for the preparation of GPA 81-2 environmental documents seem excessive. In your letter dated August 5, 1981, you indicated that the total cost for Fifth Avenue, as well as the Freeway Reservations West, is $45,100. In reviewing PBR's scope of work, time schedule, and the total dollars required for our two requests in this proposal, I feel that the scope of work required for TIC parcels is not as involved as the other GPA items. Not with- standing the timeliness of the preparation of the environmental documents, The Irvine Company requests that you solicit PBR's reassessment of the cost for Fifth Avenue and the Freeway Reservations West. If they can identify a fee that is consistent with the scope of work that relates to these two properties, The Irvine Company would like to proceed with their preparation. We appreciate your cooperation in resolving this matter and allowing us to continue the timely processing of these properties. Sincerely, yy�, Bernard A. Maniscalco Manager of Community Development BAM: j rt cc: Keith Greer/The Irvine Company Dave Dmohowski/The Irvine Company Attachment r'2:Mrtrternt AUG26 1981m, CITY OF /� NEWPORT BEACH*, !� CALIF . j August 5, 1981 0 0 Dave Dmohowski c/o The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Department 640-2197 RECRIVEI) AUG 7 1981 G"'rnment Relations SUBJECT: Proposal to Prepare Environmental Document':for General.Plan Amendment 81-2. Dear Sir: The City of Newport Beach Staff has accepted a proposal• from the firm of Phillips, Brandt and Reddick (PBR) of Irvine, California to prepare the environmental documents for General Plan Amendment 81-2 (GPA 81-2). As you are aware the Newport Beach Planning Commission set your request as a portion of this General Plan amendment. The City Council of Newport Beach, will be asked in September to authorize funds for its share of the environmental documentation. It is anticipated that this authorization will occur on September 14, 1981. If you wish to proceed with your portion of this amendment please remit the below indicated sum payable to the City of Newport Beach. The funds should be directed to the Planning Department attention Fred Talarico. 5th Ave. FM Res. West Total CONSULTANT FEES: $ 23,500.00 17,500.00 $ 41,000.00 CITY FEES: 2,350.00 1,750.00 4,100.00 TOTAL DUE:T 45,100.00 Over the next several weeks we will be contacting you to discuss the preparation of the environmental document and the general plan process. The City of Newport Beach Staff looks forward to working with you on this project. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKE , Director By Fred Tal arico, Environmental Coordinator Citi• IIall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Attachment: Proposal (GPA 81-2) Newport Beach, C'alikirnia 92663 111111111 ilii 11111111111111111111111111 ilii III lin *NEW FILE* E 1 R099 -*0 Certified Final Environmental Impact Report Volume II City of Newport Beach General Plan Amendment 81-2. VOLUME II 0 CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81-2 Prepared for: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92663-3884 (714) 640-2197 Prepared by: PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK, INC. 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, California 92714 (714) 641-8820 May 1983 u s lu Draft Environmental Impact Report Appendix City of Newport Beach General Plan Amendment 81-2 tr APPENDIX DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81-2 ' Prepared for: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92663-3884 ' (714) 640-2197 Prepared by: ' PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK, INC. 18012 Sky Park Circle ' Irvine, California 92714 (714) 641-8820 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Public Participation Program B. Correspondence C. Geotechnical Analyses D. Biological Resources E. Cultural/Scientific Resources F. Transportation/Circulation G. Air Quality H. Acoustic Environment II� A. Public Participation Program i 1 1 1 I I 1 M 1 I 1 1 L 1 i 1� 1 I II 11 11 10 11 If II I NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT EIR DATE: November 13, 1981 TO: "To Whom It May Concern" FROM: Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR AGENCY'S COMMENTS BY December 28, 1981 DATE MAILED B AGENCY: November 13, I PROJECT TITLE: General Plan Amendment 81-2 (GPA 81-2) LIST SPE PROJECT LOCATION: City of Newport Beach, California DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: r U Z w w J V ¢ O] O 4 V1 Z w O n. PhK�UN =Fred : Environme.L Coordinator PHONE: (714) 640-2197 DATE MAILED B AGENCY: November 13, I DESCRIBE LIST SPE > V z, w w J O] V1 Z O n. N W K coNTacr DATE MAILED B AGENCY: November 13, I Attachment A The City of Newport Beach will be the Lead Agency for the following project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project consists of an amendment to the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach for those portions of the City depicted on the attached maps. The Environmental Impact Report will be prepared to provide an analysis of the proposed project by the Lead Agency and Responsible Agencies, and will be accomplished to focus future environmental documents as may be required prior to specific project(s) implementation. The proposed amendment includes the following five sites within the City; 1. Caltrans West Parcel; 2. Block 400 - Newport Center; 3. Fifth Avenue Parcels; 4. Freeway Reservation West/Big Canyon Area 16; and 5. Campus Drive Industrial/Office. The locations of the sites are shown in Exhibit 1. The proposed General Plan Land Use Element changes for each site are described below and illustrated in Exhibits 2 through 6. Changes to the Newport Beach General Plan for each specific site might be more extensive based upon information developed in the course of the planning and environmental analysis, but will be within the range of alternatives to be explored in the Draft EIR. 1. Caltrans West Parcel (see Exhibit 2) This project proposes to change the designation of this site from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" to a mixture of "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" and "Multi -Family Residential" uses. 2. Block 400 - Newport Center (see Exhibit 3) The proposed project is to add 80,000 square feet of medical office to Block 400 in Newport Center. 3. Fifth Avenue Parcels (see Exhibit 4). The Newport Beach General Plan refers to the various parcels in this proposal as the "Fifth Avenue Parcels". The General Plan Amendment involves the following: a. Site A: Proposed is a change from "Low-density Residential: and "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" with an alternate use of "Low-density Residential" to "Medium -density Residential". b. Site B: Proposed is a change from "Low-density Residential" and "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" with an alternate use of "Low-density Residential" to "Recreational and Environmental Open Space". A-2 11 LJ c. Site C: Proposed is a change from "Low-density Residential" to "Medium Density Residential". d. Site D: Proposed is a change from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" with an alternate use of "Low-density Residential" to "Recreational and Environmental Open Space". 4. Freeway Reservation West/Big Canyon Area 16 (see Exhibit 5) The proposed amendment would change the land use designation on the portion of Big Canyon Planned Community located southwesterly of Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" to "Medium -density I Residential". 5. Campus Drive Industrial/Office (see Exhibit 6) The proposed amendment would change the land use designation of the area bounded by Bristol Street North, Birch Street, Campus Drive, and Dove Street from "General Industry" to a mixture of "General Industry" and "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial". Also proposed is the establishment of a reduction in the intensity of development in the area within the City bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street, Orchard Street and Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue. ' SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION The Environmental analysis of the proposed General Plan Amendment will use the concept of a focused Environmental Impact Report and address those issues identi- fied by the City at a level of detail commensurate with their potential signifi- cance and with the level of project data available as follows: ° Geology/Soils ° Hydrology ° Biological Resources ° Cultural/Scientific/Historical Resources ° Land Use ° Transportation/Circulation/Transit ' ° Demographics ° Air Quality ° Acoustic Environment ' ° Public Services & Utilities ° Recreation and Open Space ° Aesthetics ° Energy ' Cost/Revenue ° Governmental Support ° Alternatives M A-3 • I'/ '• 4%\ \�' ga�jy r SRI \\ .� aY\ .!. Ott ...(q. \� s ) r': 1 t. \. f ..• r � J`_ v of fi �i1� tir4l •'y'e.%'ii��,�w�x� :r ; '�p�pOE, - 7�Rctr •�!.. . IRVINE �y ' rr/1 '� S „. � rte'\: ;s;i�i. i �. - •fc � � .. ' B T ••� ir���� ,.. COAMEBA �Y �-•^I'�"�L-.' _... `` '" \�'t\;� i\!'�J -•-• . •••gin_: < � :J%•,,r� %•. r5. � ' /,-vc ss\\�/•e`,�. i.*\%e�;.y�zi 4x-: _ ra11 �)__= a�C-r:.:���}_ BEHNEEAWCpp ` f �(�� r, �,(:- �+,' � '„!: 'ii )i \ •N ��. �� � n•t ,.�_;r Lt\�`'_ HRT r eJi•✓a�i„ y Y `ir v --`S ^+ri_' Lw BAC— } _ ' .t Tr r ; .�_ --�5':i.a11 4r (�=r'� �7 .j4 •: ORANGE COUNTY COIR7TY •� r �.<\ . 7L �o- •:':1"..�;-r_- * ' l ' _ '_te=j. r ` _ I� r ♦• � G �� O� V . urs. 1 1 SLEGE�ND I 1 1 CALTRANS WEST •� Slh AVENUE PARCELS' 1 S I NO CANYON AREA 10 J1 . NOEWV CENTER El1 CAMPUS DRIVE Vicinity IoO0O0M MAMAL MAN e D M-2 ® .• City of Newport Beach ExHJBri 1 � � �, � � � •� � �' � � it � t• i � � n I 'V67WRORT J u Li U W/ LJ - o G�CrV"r--] =3 0C=0 y ti h h h h h �uL J���4���c� �. o �G 0 400 0 1200 MW LL CALTRANS West Parcel p[ OpO�C D (2[RM RQL PUM LaNEG`JDlvilf RHU 01=2 City of Newport Beach EXHIBIT 2 A-5 J %lql NEWPORT TOWN i t� CENTE,P 'NE COAST x�� m aro aJ /TRY 9 V ,-� __�Y--------------------- i0, .r r r b 0 rDEE •T'J 1 r Block 400 - Newport Center FIRCC IP 0120 (WHERAL PUM QAC aD 1C X14 SM City of Newport Beach EXHIBIT 3 04 0 800 1200 W W W A-6 I I C 1 i CI Q011 �'t G SY•.. ,!a ,%/nptE..fEY GL ol•" J 1 .. • .ti 7C�� SE � ' LEGEND 0 EXISTING OWNERSHIP BOUNDARIES 1 A AREA DESIGNATIONS (SEE TEXT) lk� SITE f6a. 0 400, 800 1200 us 16 Fifth Avenue Parcels City of Newport Beach EXHIBIT 4 1 A-7 yc oa.Jl 1 --------------- QI t �,p�.e Yi�cyy G SY•.. ,!a ,%/nptE..fEY GL ol•" J 1 .. • .ti 7C�� SE � ' LEGEND 0 EXISTING OWNERSHIP BOUNDARIES 1 A AREA DESIGNATIONS (SEE TEXT) lk� SITE f6a. 0 400, 800 1200 us 16 Fifth Avenue Parcels City of Newport Beach EXHIBIT 4 1 A-7 • � • .. •-, r ••tl tvp •�, titlhjA, 9 � • t(il tl' �. yr,= a �•;.�,� . I , s;tllil�;:�1: 1, \ • ,\��: 04 1;r,1, sr: .:,'� •° Sill ifvll.Itw:,vt It , a' t ♦ \ w Er " \ BOO Ir _mss i'IkoJ,•�\ ft Al %\R 0 400 800 1200 LU 'Freeway I 1 •7 L 'Freeway Reservations West/ Big Canyon Area 16 nn City of Newport Beach EXHIBIT -6 A-8 1 1 I 41' 1 [1 I h 1 1 F 1' I 1 1 Ci u l h • ZEN/,�_ j 0 4 0 8 0 1200 LU W W W Cam,� us Drive Industrial/Office PROCity of Newport Beach EXHIBIT 6 1 A-9 Plans & Project Evaluation Unit James Tryner Air Resources Board Dept. of Parks & Recreation 1800 15th Street 1220 K Street Mall, 3rd Floor Sacramento Sacramento, CA 95814 Nick del'Cioppo Dave Maul Office of Historic Preserva. California Energy Commission 1220 K Street Mall, Third Floor 1111 Howe Ave., Room 3318 Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95825 Patrick G. Nevis Bob Sleppy Dept. of Conservation Solid Waste Management Board 1416 Ninth Street, Rm 1354 1020 Ninth'Street, Room 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 William Travis ; California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105' Marty Mercado `I Dept. of Boating & Waterways 1629 S Street Sacramento, CA 95814 'Ken Fellows Dept. of Water Resources 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Ted Fukushima Fred Lercari Department of Fish & Game State Lands -Commission State Water Resources Control 1416 Ninth Street 1807 13th Street Board Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 2125 19th Street Attn: John Turner Sacramento, CA 95814 A. E. Lowe Dept. of Health Services 2151 Berkeley Way Berkeley, CA 92704 Airport Land Use Commission 18741 North Airport Way Santa Ana, CA 92702 Parks & Recreation Dept. 1416 Ninth Street 14th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 SARWQCB 6833 Indiana Avenue, S-2 Riverside, CA 92605 State Water Resources Control Board Box 100 Sacramento, CA 95801 Attn: Harry M. Schueller Dave Williamson Dept. of Housing/Community Dev 921 10th Street, 6th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 State of California State Lands Commission 1807 13th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Attn: Ted Fukushima Caltrans 1120 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814 State of California Air Resources Board Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95814 Attn: Gary Agid Water Resources Conservation Board 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 County Sanitation District Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 I I of 11 J Energy Resources Conservation & SCAG , ' Development Commission 600 South Commonwealth 1111 Howe Street Suite 1000 Sacramento, CA 95825 Los Angeles, CA 90005 South Coast Air Qlty Mgmt A. H. Hendrix 9150 Flair Drive Department of Transportation ' E1 Monte, CA 91731 District 7 120 Spring Street Attn: Brian Farris Uos Ange es, CA 90012 Resources Agency Clearinghouse Orange County Environmental 1400 Tenth Street Management Agency Sacramento, CA 95814 Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Attn: Kenneth E. Smith Fred A. Worthley, Jr., Reg. Mgr. OPR A-95 Clearinghouse Department of Fish and Game 1400 Tenth Street, Rm 121 350 Golden Shore Sacramento, CA 95814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Attn: Sonia Binnendyk A-10 NOF Diskri b�+ion LiCEPA S� -2- NONSTATUTORY ADVISEMENT File No. To: From: Fred Talarico GPA 81-2 "To Whom It May Concern" PlaCity HoNf NewportBent each P3S� B,ew 6881vd. ewoor eac DATE MAILED BY DATE RECEIVED BY'RESPON- DATE RECEIVED BY DATE RESPONSE LEAD AGENCY SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE INTERESTED PARTY." RECEIVED BY THF November 13, 1981 LEAD AGENCY F.151" DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA OF EXPERTISE/INTEREST: PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR COMMENTS BY December 28, 1981 N W C 6 PROJECT TITLE: ' W General Plan Amendment 81-2 (GPA 81-2) PROJECT LOCATION: City of Newport Beach, California z � DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES a 0 See Attachment A DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF YOUR AGENCY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT ICV c •r o. gv v LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: ,(USE AODITIONALPAGES AS NECESSARY): W � O C d �— w •r w CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE DATE MAILED BY DATE RECEIVED BY'RESPON- DATE RECEIVED BY DATE RESPONSE LEAD AGENCY SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE INTERESTED PARTY." RECEIVED BY THF November 13, 1981 LEAD AGENCY F.151" DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA OF EXPERTISE/INTEREST: LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS (USE ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): N W C 6 D W F ' W CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE i DATE MAILED BY DATE RECEIVED BY'RESPON- DATE RECEIVED BY DATE RESPONSE LEAD AGENCY SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE INTERESTED PARTY." RECEIVED BY THF November 13, 1981 LEAD AGENCY F.151" Attachment A The City of Newport Beach will be the Lead Agency for the following project PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project consists of an amendment to the General Plan of the City of Newport,Beach for those portions of the City depicted on the attached maps. The Environmental Impact Report will be prepared to provide an analysis of the proposed project by the Lead Agency and Responsible Agencies, and will be accomplished to focus future environmental documents as may be required prior to specific project(s) implementation. The proposed amendment includes the following five sites within the City: 1. Caltrans West Parcel; 2. Block 400 - Newport Center; 3. Fifth Avenue Parcels; 4. Freeway Reservation West/Big Canyon Area 16; and 5. Campus Drive Industrial/Office. The locations of the sites are shown in Exhibit 1. The proposed General Plan Land Use Element changes for.each site are described below and illustrated in Exhibi-ts 2 through 6. Changes to the Newport Beach General Plan for each specific site might be more extensive based upon information developed in the course of the planning and environmental analysis, but will be within the range of alternatives to be explored in the Draft EIR. 1. Caltrans West Parcel (see -Exhibit 2) This project proposes to change the designation of this site from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" to a mixture of "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" and "Multi -Family Residential" uses. 2. Block 400 - Newport Center (see Exhibit 3) The proposed project is to add 80,000 square feet of medical office to Block 400 in -Newport Center. 3. Fifth Avenue Parcels (see Exhibit 4) The Newport Beach General Plan refers to the various parcels in this proposal as the "Fifth Avenue Parcels". The General Plan Amendment involves the following: a. Site A: Proposed is a change from "Low-density Residential: and "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" with an alternate use of "Low-density Residential" to "Medium -density Residential". b. Site B: Proposed is a change from "Low-density Residential" and "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" with an alternate use of "Low-density Residential" to "Recreational and Environmental Open Space". A-12 E c. Site C: Proposed is a change from "Low-density Residential" to "Medium Density Residential". d. Site D: Proposed is a change from "Recreational and Environmental ' Open Space" with an alternate use of "Law -density Residential" to "Recreational and Environmental Open Space". ' 4. Freeway Reservation West/Bio Canyon Area 16 (see Exhibit 5) The proposed amendment would change the land use designation on the portion of Big Canyon Planned Community located southwesterly of Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" to "Medium -density Residential". 5. Campus Drive Industrial/Office (see Exhibit 6) The proposed amendment would change the land use designation of the area bounded by Bristol Street North, Birch Street, Campus Drive, and Dove Street ' from "General Industry" to a mixture of "General Industry" and "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial". Also proposed is the establishment of a reduction in the intensity of development in the area within the City bounded ' by MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street, Orchard Street and Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue. SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION NThe Environmental analysis of the proposed General Plan Amendment will use the concept of a focused Environmental Impact Report and address those issues identi- fied by the City at a level of detail commensurate with their potential signifi- cance and with the level of project data available as follows: ° Geology/Soils ' Hydrology ° Biological Resources ° Cultural/Scientific/Historical Resources ° Land Use ' ° Transportation/Circulation/Transit ° Demographics ° Air Quality ° Acoustic Environment ° Public Services & Utilities ° Recreation and Open Space ° Aesthetics Energy ° Cost/Revenue ° Governmental Support Alternatives A-13 r, �.;• j` i• tit`. � ,• ' 5 • '� ' '4 .�'`\,.``�.�t-�•h\�'y?• �.r CJS.,` I� /( `t ! �1\>• .%..' y qtr : " ... '� t la Z!v:♦� �� /�� t t � + i X11 `1�. • t r. • �1`i �✓'^ i t_ J. �.cn���.l t'(' `LI�� •J ..� V. OWN IRVINE ..i' IClot A MESA it��?=J.'j�gJ 1 •Ns� ♦T ' .y .. r.�„ /. �� .✓( x'S'h]`?':��.�s.' Z �• ' � Jf�P"!�1♦ _ �'+'r=' .i7. s;.��:lyy�•\%-ate. t .{i '`.s,'. �\ \ jr 11 p•+it"" <�.�=: •._ `:.� •`.c' Y `` !It`�a^�,.•-' -• •;\�<��\` SAG ��' ^>, ; trK. ,^, n .� C8:iit t)"_d>. _.� r6 .:•� 7}n�, Ly •/if•♦"' a � ; ' T: � �•. ve i�.�' 4' �iretg�^ i=•= �,�y,� . j '��;% i�Rt � �� : �\�Ew�orr�`e cN -- � s:�,_ - r - ♦ !?,���lJ r'?! `,^--Qi.'P�.r_� t^� ���Y'.-�-._ 'T=r :� �l '.'n'.: ice(-./'.. •ORANGE ♦ .. � .� \ �`^'..\.>.� "- v-� rye'';~�%� "z4!_��' 'Ji`>^ ��♦%y-'y-i ♦`�� COUNTY `. ^ RA OE Y ` . `-�3 • �yw,,,f,r, ' tVi/' �!' F '_+ �_ �. r'�i • ` �= l . �� `_. _ Y1 _ ♦tom'.^ .`�__ i4-�.J�Ftc+^' 1 ! !I i I I {LEGEND- ` �1 CALTNANS WEST .I Sth AVENUE PARCELS 11 3 I—t NO CANYON AREA 18 I f if Ij CAMPUS DRIVE - 11 0{0 0478 Vicinity ��y� I000° D '�e o e D SM ® .. City of Newport Beach EXHIBIT 1 i• � i• i• � � f• � f� � � � i• i• � � i• I I 1 Is 1 11 0 00o a o ZZZ ti � h 2 ^ 1 Z� A? Z�c� �•�� Nr O G n� t ao r r 0 400 0 1200 ®F w w LL CALTRANS West Parcel City of Newport Beach EXHIBIT 2 I A-15 CLQ �On"t ✓''' '1VE ITRV NEWPORT TOWN � CENTEp CORlft4rATE- A4"qz,4 Block 400 - Newpport. Center PROO POO MGD C IEMER&L G° UH QMLEMDNEWT OM City of Newport Beach EXHIBIT 3 A-16 i � �Y� �����y. •`fit. CORlft4rATE- A4"qz,4 Block 400 - Newpport. Center PROO POO MGD C IEMER&L G° UH QMLEMDNEWT OM City of Newport Beach EXHIBIT 3 A-16 Cq j �y0 En+Ey `.\ �-r •¢`'/ c'y�„ss�o ,Ij J6'PYOfQ G,� v --1 \CfE 1�/d SUN D,P) I 1�nw, Y/EiY C.; r] ' OAS o y, >�WO 14 Li L�� C ������ _ C,�I„�rr7 �r LEGEND EXISTING OWNERSHIP BOUNDARIES A AREA DESIGNATIONS (SEE TEXT) 1 SITE r6a• 0 400 800 1200 U. Fifth Avenue Parcels City of Newport Beach EXHIBIT 4 A-17 // 0 400 800 1200 W I' LL Freeway Reservations West/ Big Canyon Area 16 PIROMPONEDD C2RHERAL PUM QKCMIvI EMU Md City of Newport Beach EXHIBIT s A-18 I pk"j III oc/vE f... /3iVF W �v Mt ti�l4}!llt}l1ti+S1• yG G _ r u It 1f•l+i`. ?. 9 lifk,i}l E6• tl ti}!rt• ;+ ter � 4•dl,.lii,lt 5y ♦ �N � �f ni. � � I k /♦T r � t j h ♦ / + .WMfMn •#, .� .. //�� ..;.;:�; +I A�� c�4� a ^I ti �♦ /`1 es2 .`_ SS gj �� s4N Obh�'a \ I a� \. �O \ \UCH• I r�' a �..,.... // 0 400 800 1200 W I' LL Freeway Reservations West/ Big Canyon Area 16 PIROMPONEDD C2RHERAL PUM QKCMIvI EMU Md City of Newport Beach EXHIBIT s A-18 I I 1 .1 I 1 1 C 1 4reAc�� �trTj�, I r a �+•�� sr,PEFr 'ewer �• ,II 1�i 1 ,arm\ 0 4 0 800 1200 W L6 Campus Drive Industrial/Office PROO PMEDD CSC M ER&L PUM &UMMDWIEH4 City of Newport Beach 1 A-19 Fa EXHIBIT 6 KolI -Wells 4490 Von Karman Ave. Newport Beach, CA 92660 John W. Klug, et al. 4540 Campus Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Richard K. Kissinger 2203 E. Pepper Hill Drive Orange, CA 92667 Forty six Hundred W. W. Cruttenden, Jr. 4600 Campus Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Birch Street Venture Box I Newport Beach, CA 92660 CgM rvs Dri %le, ZS� : Area - pane 2 Donald R. Lawrenz, et al. 4201 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 William N. Shattuck Box 1668 Newport Beach, CA 92663 James W. Johnson 19742 Mac Arthur Blvd. Suite 240 Irvine, CA 92715 Raymond M. Brummett 14 Sandbar Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Irvine Co. Texaco, Inc. Tax Dept 4340 Building 3350 Wilshire Blvd. 4340 Campus Drive Los Angeles, CA 90010 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Irvine Co./Birtcher Pacific 27611 La Paz Road Laguna Niguel,CA 92677 Irvine Co./MacArthur Associates 23030 Lake Forest Drive Suite 203, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Gerald J. Chazan W101, 431 N. Brand Blvd. Glendale, CA 91203 RJR Partnership Reed Bauman The Alison Company Box 8040 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Golden West Airlines Box 1877 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Commercial & Indust. 4320 Campus Drive, Suite 110 Newport Beach, ,CA 92660 National Education Corporation 4361 Birch St. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Violet M. McNaughton 240 Nice Lane, Suite 205 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Airport Investors 2152 DuPont, Suite 112 Irvine, CA 92715 Donald Lewis 4301 Birch St. Newport Beach, CA 92660 A-20 George Khatcherian 4263 Birch St. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Barbara Lambert 11911 S. W. Lambert Rd Santa Ana, CA 92705 Donald R. Lawrenz 2001 Tahuna Terr. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Boyd Higgins W. L. Nutten Seeley Co. 900 Wilshire Los Angeles, CA 90017 Sea & Desert Properties Box 484 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Pacesetter Homes, Inc. 4540 Campus Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Elza Blacher, et al. 500-D Avenida Sevilla Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Signal Development 17890 Sky Park Blvd. Irvine, CA 92714 Donald K. Edler 2101 Dove Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Edward Jarvis 4043 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 George Souleles 33 Cool Brook Irvine, CA 92715 'Aldo Chiappero Baumgardner Box 176 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 rch Development Co. 100 West Ocean Front Balboa, CA 92661 Mildred Schorr 5517 1/2 Kester Avenue LVan Nuys, CA 91405 R & S Company 101 E. Balboa Blvd. Balboa, CA 92661 Elmer Whisler Box 462 E1 Toro, CA 92630 Forbes-Fruehling 3380 W. Harvard St. Santa Ana, CA 92704 1 Mahoney-Grau, Inc. 1300 Quail St. Suite 109 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' Campus & Quail Building Joint Venture 3400 Irvine Ave., Suite 101 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' University Industrial Center 3835 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 ogan Cabinet Co. 2551 Skyline Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 I R & S Company 101 E. Balboa Blvd. Balboa, CA 92661 Birch Bristol Venture Box I Newport Beach, CA 92660 3700 Building 2909 S. Halladay St. Santa Ana, CA 92707 3701 Birch Company Box 2052 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Connecticut General Life Insurance Company 16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 406 Encino, CA 91436 Charles J. Fishback, et al. P.O. Box 2271 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Braemar Development Company 3848 Campus Dr., #212 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Alfred C. Stoffel, 4201 Birch St. Newport Beach, CA 92660 David Magilavy 1405 Clay Newport Beach, CA 92660 Carl W. Hagan, Charles Fishback, et al. c/o Jack W. Mullan 3400 Irvine Ave. Suite 101 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Exxon Corporation P.O. Box 53 Houston, Texas 77001 A-21 Owvers ui/i n Campos !) de. S-lvdy -� - Pg • �- William J. Cagney 6777 Hollywood Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90028 Phillip A. Stevens 32138 Via Buena San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Llewellyn B. Copp 1022 Westwind Way Newport Beach, CA 92660 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92646 SPON c/o Jean Watt 4 Harbor Island Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 LEAF c/o Jean Watt 4 Harbor Island Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harbor District 1901 Bayside Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Friends of Upper Newport Bay Box 2001 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Friends of OASIS Box 829 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 J.M. Peters Attn: Bob Trapp 1601 Dove Street 'Suite 190 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Big Canyon Country Club #1 Big Canyon Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Emkay Development 1301 Dove Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Balboa Island Business Assoc. Pat Conner, President Box 442 Balboa Island, CA 92662 Big Canyon Comm. Assn,. Beacon Bay Comm. Assn. Ray Geiler, President Ralph J. Overend, President c/o 1101 Dove Street, Suite 230 7 Beacon Bay Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Bluffs Homeowners Assn. Gene Dasaro 505 Avenida Ladera Newport Beach, CA 92660 Broadmoor Hills Comm. Assn. Adolph Luttke, President 2707 Lighthouse Lane Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Broadmoor Seaview Barry Williams, President 2015 Yacht Resolute Newport Beach, CA 92660 Breakers Drive Assoc., Inc. Dr. W. F. Robinson, President 3002 Breakers Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Cameo Community Association Terry Mulligan, President 4518 Roxbury Road Corona del Mar, CA 92625 BEECO, Ltd. Canyon Crest Comm. Assn. John Haskell Bernard Samson, President 3990 Westerly Place, Suite 255 c/o Professional Comm. Mgmt. Box 1028 1101 Dove Street, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Steve Sandland The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Box 1 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Hoag Memorial Hospital Michael Stevens 301 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Chris Hansen 22 Encore Court Newport Beach, CA 92663 West Newport Legislative Allian. 201 Intrepid Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 A-22 1 11 I I L_I I I u Newport Heights Improvement Association Mt Strang, President 1 Catalina Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Hills Comm. Assn. Ken Petersen, President c/o Villageway Management 'Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Spyglass Hill Comm. Assn. 'Ron Taylor, President c/o Villageway Mgmt, Inc. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Newport Shores Comm. Assn. Ray Quinn, President '477 Prospect St. Newport Beach, CA 92663 ' West Newport Beach Improvement Association Cathy Anderson, President Poo,rlaine 03 Seashore Drive \wport Beach, CA 92663 st Bluff Homeowners Association Cunningham 429 Sierra Drive ' Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Seawind Newport Comm. Assn. Newport Harbor Chamber of Comm. Bruce Bauersfeld, President Don Porter, Exec. Director c/o Planned Community Services •1470 Jamboree Road Box 17994 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Irvine, CA 92713 Shorecliffs Comm. Assn. Darrel Ebert, President 283 Morning Canyon Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Center Assn. Mike Bissell, Director 170 Newport Center Drive Suite 120 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Island, Inc. Spyglass Ridge Comm. Assn. William Aldridge, President Jim Conway 3711 Channel Place 1639 Harbor Crest Circle Newport Beach, CA 92663 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Villa Granada Condominium Assoc. Newport Terrace Homeowners Ginny McFarland, President Chanciford Mounce, President c/o Devine Properties, Inc. #7 Summerwalk 3301 Mac Arthur Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Santa Ana, CA 92704 Bay Island Club Mrs. C. F. Lindsley #15 Bay Island Newport Beach, CA 92661 Bayshore Comm. Assn. Jack Teal, President 2792 Circle Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 A-23 Canyon Hills Comm. Assn. Herbert Porter, President c/o Devine Properties, Inc. 3301 Mac Arthur Blvd Santa Ana, CA 92704 Canyon Island Comm. Assn. William McCloy Devine Properties, Inc 3301 Mac Arthur Blvd 5aw-b Ana , CA 9270* Balbua Island Four Fours Association Canyon Crest Estates H/A 'Little Property Owners Iona Mouron, President Iry Sheldon, President William A. Allen, President 2518 University Drive c/o Villageway Mgmt, Inc. - Box 74 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Box 4708 Balboa Island, CA 92662 Irvine, CA 92716 riners Comm. Assn. North Bluff Bayview Comm. Assoc. Sea Pines Association 1-89 larence J. Turner, President Robert T. Jones, President Richard Grundy, President 1507 Antigua Way c/o Professional Comm. Mgmt. Co. 19 Canyon Island _ Newport Beach, CA 92660 1101 Dove Street, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach Townhouse North Bluff Villa Comm. Assoc. Sea Island Association Owners Association Bob Plant, President John Kanz William E. Becker, President c/o Devine Properties, Inc. c/o Professional Comm. Mng. i4417 W. Coast Highway 3301 Mac Arthur Blvd. 1101 Dove St, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Santa Ana, CA 92704 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Crest Homeowners Assoc. Promontory Bay Homeowners Assoc. Balboa Island Chamber or Comm. 'Newport Mrs. Loren Greeley John Lloyd, President Lew Ackerman, President 201 Intrepid Street c/o Devine Properties, Inc. 333 Marine Avenue, Suite 6 Newport Beach, CA 92663 3301 Mac Arthur Balboa Island, CA 92662 ' Santa Ana, CA 92704 Seawind Comm. Assn. Corona Del Mar Chamber of Comm. Russ Hafer, President Mrs. T. Duncan Stewart, Pres. 2301 Port Lerwick 2855 E. Coast Highway Newport Beach, CA 92660 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Heights Improvement Association Mt Strang, President 1 Catalina Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Hills Comm. Assn. Ken Petersen, President c/o Villageway Management 'Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Spyglass Hill Comm. Assn. 'Ron Taylor, President c/o Villageway Mgmt, Inc. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Newport Shores Comm. Assn. Ray Quinn, President '477 Prospect St. Newport Beach, CA 92663 ' West Newport Beach Improvement Association Cathy Anderson, President Poo,rlaine 03 Seashore Drive \wport Beach, CA 92663 st Bluff Homeowners Association Cunningham 429 Sierra Drive ' Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Seawind Newport Comm. Assn. Newport Harbor Chamber of Comm. Bruce Bauersfeld, President Don Porter, Exec. Director c/o Planned Community Services •1470 Jamboree Road Box 17994 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Irvine, CA 92713 Shorecliffs Comm. Assn. Darrel Ebert, President 283 Morning Canyon Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Center Assn. Mike Bissell, Director 170 Newport Center Drive Suite 120 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Island, Inc. Spyglass Ridge Comm. Assn. William Aldridge, President Jim Conway 3711 Channel Place 1639 Harbor Crest Circle Newport Beach, CA 92663 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Villa Granada Condominium Assoc. Newport Terrace Homeowners Ginny McFarland, President Chanciford Mounce, President c/o Devine Properties, Inc. #7 Summerwalk 3301 Mac Arthur Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Santa Ana, CA 92704 Bay Island Club Mrs. C. F. Lindsley #15 Bay Island Newport Beach, CA 92661 Bayshore Comm. Assn. Jack Teal, President 2792 Circle Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 A-23 Canyon Hills Comm. Assn. Herbert Porter, President c/o Devine Properties, Inc. 3301 Mac Arthur Blvd Santa Ana, CA 92704 Canyon Island Comm. Assn. William McCloy Devine Properties, Inc 3301 Mac Arthur Blvd 5aw-b Ana , CA 9270* Newport Upper Bay Estates Joseph Meshi 2268 Golden Circle Newport Beach, CA 92660 North Bluff Park Comm. Assoc. Arleigh Hupp, President 426 Vista Roma Newport Beach, CA 92660 Plaza Homeowners Comm. Assoc Charles Stine, President 2231 Vista Huerta Newport Beach, CA 92660 Promontory Bay Comm. Assoc David Trumbull, President 633 Bayside Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Seaview Comm. Assoc. Jim Beneventi, President 2033 Yacht Defender Newport Beach, CA 92660 Spyglass Hill Comm. Association Ron Taylor, President c/o Villageway Management, Inc. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Irvine Unified School District Environmental Coalition of 2941 Alton Avenue Orange County Irvine, CA 92714 206 West 4th Street Santa Ana, CA 92701 Newport -Mesa Unified Schools 1857 Placentia Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Coast Community College 1370 Adams Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Southern California Gas Box 3334 Anaheim, CA 92803 Attn: W. R. Perkins League of Women Voters of Orange County 1701 Westcliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Audubon Society Sea & Sage Chapter Box 1779 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Sierra Club Orange County Group Box 1033 Garden Grove, CA 92642 Co. Positive Action Team c/o Richard Hogan 1137 Bayside Drive Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Southern Calif. Edison Company 7333 Bolsa Avenue Westminster, CA 92683 Attn: W. E. Guffey Newport Harbor --Costa Mesa Teleprompter Board of Realtors 901 West 16th Street Mr. Paul Franklin, President Newport Beach, CA 92663 401 N. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Balboa Island Chamber of Comm. Jack Tatham 333 Marine Avenue #6 Pacific Telephone Company Balboa Island, CA 92662 1700 Garry Avenue, Room 214 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Corona del Mar Business Propty Balboa Coves Comm. Assoc. Owners Association Tom Orlando, President Ernie George, President 15 Balboa Coves 2865 E. Coast Highway Newport Beach, CA 92663 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Center Association Leonore Penfil, Exec. Dir. 120 Newport Center Drive Suite 260 Newport Beach, CA 92660 UNBERTAC Dept. of Fish & Game c/o Preston Jones 1158 Miramar Drive Balboa Improvement Association Mel Fuchs, President 200 Main St. Balboa, CA 92661 Corona del Mar Chamber of Comm. 2855 E.�Coast Highway Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 A-24 The Koll Company c/o Tim Strader 4490 Von Karman Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Friends of the Box 714 Corona del Mar, Irvine Coast CA 92625 1i I I F California Coastal Commission ' 631 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Box 687 I Santa Ana, CA 92702 City of Costa Mesa ' 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 City of Irvine Box 14575 4 Irvine, CA 92713 J taSZDiurT Apartments Homeowners Comm. Assoc. Dorothy Uhlig, President c/o Villageway Management, Inc. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Harbor Island Comm. Assn. Harbor Ridge Comm. Assoc. James Rogers, President David Stern, President 10 Harbor Island Villageway Management, Inc. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Box 4708 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Canyon Lake Comm. Assn Harbor View Comm. Assn. Canyon View Comm. Assn. Ben Hazewinkle Bruce Froelich Jack L.•Hanson, President Devine Properties, Inc. 1727 Port Barmouth 14 Rue Cannes 3310 MacArthur Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Santa Ana, CA 92704 Canyon Point Comm. Assn. Harbor View Hills Comm. Assn. Harbor Ridge Crest Maint. Assn. Mrs. B. J. Richter, Pres. Gary Pomeroy, President Dick Bechtel, President 10 Rue Barritz 2907 Ebbtide 3 Kensington Newport Beach, CA 92660 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Beach CA 92660 > Central Newport Beach Comm. Harbor View Hills Homeowners Harbor Ridge Estates Maint. Assr Richard Park, Pres. Robert A. Stine, Pres. Michael Gering, President 1128 W. Ocean Front 877 Sandcastle Dr. 1 Toulon Balboa, CA 92661 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Channel Reef Comm. Assn. Harbor View Knoll Comm. Assn. Harbor View Broadmoor Comm Assn. Karl Zonn, Pres. Dee Perkins, President Bill Bracey 2525 Ocean Front Balboa, CA 92661 c/o Devine Properties, Inc. 3301 MacArthur Blvd. 2601 Windover Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Santa Ana, CA 92704 Cliff Haven Comm. Assn. Irvine Terrace Comm. Assoc. Lido Sands Comm. Assoc. Edna Knickerbocker, Pres. Joe Winkelman1318 David Goff 2100 Coral Place Newport Beach, CA 92663 Santanella Terrace P.O. Box 1373 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Corona Del Mar Civic Assn. Lido Isle Comm. Assn. Clypa Brenner, Pres. Judith Franco 616 Marguerite Ave. 701 Via Lido Soud Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Corona Highlands Prop. Owners Jasmine Creek Comm. Assn. Balboa Peninsula Point Assoc. Robert Peterson, Pres. Bob De Rienzo, President Pat Eichenhofer, President 535 Seaward Road 41 Whitewater Dr. 2128 E. Ocean Blvd. Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Balboa, CA 92661 Dover Shores Comm. Assn. Big Canyon Comm. Assoc. Linda Isle Comm. Assn. Seth Oberg, President Ray Geiler, President H. Plug White, President c/o Devine Properties, Inc. c/o Professional Comm. Mgt, Inc 63 Linda Isle 3301 MacArthur Blvd 1101 Dove St., Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Santa Ana, CA 92704 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Balboa Island Improvement Canyon Mesa Comm. Assn. A ociation/Gene Baum Isidore Meyers, President 1� Diamond Ave. 10 Rue Grand Ducal Balboa Island, CA 92662 Newport Beach, CA 92660 A-25 Judy Cooper CEQAC 1220 Outrigger Corona del Mar, Paul Slayback CEQAC Drive 426 Riverside Avenue CA 92625 Newport Beach, CA 92663 John Dunzer CEQAC 1958 Port Locksleigh Avenue ,Newport Beach, CA 92660 Anita Ferguson CEQAC 115 N. Bayfront Balboa Island, CA 92662 Ronald Kennedy CEQAC 550 Hazel Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 William Spencer CEQAC 3716 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Robert Weber CEQAC 420 Heliotrope Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Helen McLaughlin Planning Commission, 544 Seaward Road Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Debra Allen Planning Commission 1021 White Sails Way Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Jerry King Joan Winburn CEQAC Planning Commission 979 Sandcastle Drive 1612 Cornwall Lane Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Beach, CA 92660 David Goff CEQAC 5212 River Avenue Newport Beach, CA Paul L. Balalis Planning Commission 1129 E. Balboa Blvd. Balboa, CA 92661 Allan Beek Planning Commission 2007 Highland 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Bob Millar CEQAC 1161, Crystal Avenue Balboa Island, CA 92662 Bernard Pegg CEQAC 2633 Bamboo Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Robert Schoiler CEQAC 265 Evening Canyon Road Corona del Mar, CA 92625 A-26 I I t, I I I I I Hal Thomas Planning Commission 309 Heliotrope 'Avenue ' Corona del Mar, CA 92625 I �I 1 M x PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, u County of Orange, I am a cit@cn of the United Stales sad a resident of the County aforesaid, I am over the age of eighteen years, end not a pasty to or interested in the ebovo- ntitled .alter I am the principal clack of the pointer or tha Newport Harbor Ensign newspaper of general cincula• if.., printed and published weekly In the city Of Newport Beech, County of Omnge, and which news- paper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Or- .a,., ranga, State of California, under the data of May 14, 1951, CASE NUMBER A-20178 that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than mm,ared) hes been published in each rogulm and collie largo of said newspaper and not In any supplement theremlon the following dates to -wit: November 18, 1981 I mortify (or declarol under penalty of poqury that the foregoing is true and correct Dated at Newport Beach, California, thiel 8 lay 4iovembeW 1981 SlgnaturreeC THE NEWPORT ENSIGN 2721 E Coast Hwy, Corona dal Mac, California 92625. PROOF OF P1 A-27 fm the County Clark's Filing Stamp pn`il' DEC' 1981 E01 cH. 2 Nktl'PO:ito 6:A CAV. A �• H A PUBLIC NOTICE-1101fiCt Ut PUbLIL HEARMG Proof of Publication of NE524 IBLICATION u w aro.• urn rr wr�w NrrN IN+rreJ raa 4tl nr irruyxwuer. arnnrrM+r ~w• W .Wuur rrN rTiV,rrxr, ,J�wrrnrel q M1 M w Yr,nn Wn e r..... re Jur r,sa n rMreu un s, 1wr J n. ams 0 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. GOVERNOR ' 5tab of (galifuxnin GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO 95814 TO: Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 QQ FROM: Terry'Roberts, State Clearinghous ,Lb&lct44,,� SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation for General Plan Amendment 81-2, Five Parcels. The State Clearinghouse Number assigned to the above named project is 81112707 Please refer to the Clearinghouse Number in all subsequent correspondence regarding this project, including the draft and final EIR. I.f you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 445-0613. In A-28 I I i I 1' 11 a pX, ?,rl r.~I. Iell') NOV30�� 1 CITY OF MEY'PORT BEACH �2 !) CALIF. I 1 x_11 i I 11 11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN 1R., Governor DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES 1151 BERKELEY WAY BERKELEY, CA 94704 415/540-2665 November 19, 1981 Mr. Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 Newport Boulevard Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92663-3384 SUBJECT: NOP for General Plan Amendment 81-2 Dear Mr. Talarico: With respect to your Notice of EIR Preparation, I am enclosing a document prepared by the Office of Noise Control, entitled "Suggested Contents of an Environmental Noise Study Report ...11, which provides some general guidelines as to what this office considers important in Environmental Impact Reports and Statements. It is important that your EIR demonstrate that the proposed land uses are compatible with the acoustic environments at each site which, presumably, have been described in the Noise Element of the General Plan. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Jerome S. Lukas, Office of Noise Control, 2151 Berkeley Way, Rm 516, Berkeley, CA 94704, 415/540-2665. i A. E. Lowe, Chief OFFICE OF NOISE CONTROL Enclosure cc: EHD L� OPR 'S• 6, K- �nJ r (r'T• A-29 SUGGESTED CONTENTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL'NOISE STUDY REPORT ITS SUMMARIZATION IN AN REPORT OR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Prepared By California Department of Health Services OFFICE OF NOISE CONTROL 2151 Berkeley Way Berkeley, California 94704 August 1980 Because complaints about environmental noise are so frequent, the Office of Noise Control believes that every project with a poten- tial for increasing environmental noise levels should have a Noise Stud Report that assesses how noise levels resulting from the proj- ect may affect people. The information contained in the Noise Study Report should be summarized in the Environmental Impact Resort or Environmental Impact Statement, and the keport kept on file by the lead agency for r--vicw by those with a specific interest in noise. The attached is designed to help those who prepare Environmental Noise Study Reports and Environmental Impact Reports and reviewers of 'Environmental Impact Reports. Because there are so many differ- ent combinations of noise sources and receivers (people impacted by those sources), it is virtually impossible to develop guidelines that cover all situations. Nevertheless, the guidelines provided should help to bring some consistency to the way noise information ispresentedin environmental documents. A-30 I I 11 0 - I I 11 I I I 11 i I 0 I h I i I SUGGESTED CONTENTS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE STUDY REPORT I. A brief description of the project, especially in terms of its effect on the noise environment. II. Two scale maps - one showing the existing setting and the proposed project with adjacent land uses, receptors, and noise sources iden- tified, and the second map showing the future condition (use a time span of no less than 10 years, unless the project's life span is less) with the proposed project and proposed land uses, receptors, and noise sources identified. III. A quantitative description of the existing noise environment. A. A noise survey should be undertaken and the details included in the report. 1. The noise survey should encompass the proposed project area and must include any noise sensitive receptors, both near and far. The survey should establish the existing ambient noise level and may then be used to evaluate compliance of the pro- posed project with any applicable noise standards. The stand- ards may be federal, state, or local. The rationale for the selection of noise survey sites should be included in the report. 2. The survey should cover the time periods when the noise en - environment would be affected by the proposed project. 3. The survey should encompass enough days to be representative of the existing "normal" noise environment. Discussion of the similarity or dissimilarity of the noise environment dur- ing the survey period with that during other times of year should be included. 4. For the time periods measured, the reported noise data should include the Leq, Llt LID, L50, L90t and identification of typical noise levels emitted by existing sources. If day and night measurements are made, report the Ldn also. Ldn is approximately equal to CNEL; either descriptor may be used. -2- A-31 -2- 5. 'Summarize the present environment by, providing a noise contour map showing lines of equal noise level in 5 dB - Ldn - steps, extending down to•Ldn = 55. 6. Identify the noise measurement equipment used in the survey by manufacturer, type, and date of last calibration. IV. A description of the future noise environment. A. This section should discuss the future noise environment for each project alternative. The scope of the analysis and the metrics used will depend on the type of project, but as a minimum the fol- lowing information must be given: 1. Discussion of the type of noise sources and their proximity to potentially impacted areas. 2. Operations/activity data: a. Average daily level of activity (traffic volume, flights per day, hours on per day, etc.). b. Distribution of activity over day and nighttime periods, days of the week, and seasonal variations. c. Composition of noise sources (% trucks, aircraft fleet mix, machinery type, etc.). d. Frequency spectrum of sources (1/3 octave data is pre- ferable). e. Any unusual characteristics of the sources (impulsive- ness, tonality, etc.). 3. Method used to predict future levels. a. Reference the prediction model used, if standard (e.g., FHWA-RD-77-108, etc.). b. If corrections to a standard model are made or empirical modeling is used, state the procedure in detail. c. Show typical levels (e.g., Ll, L102 etc.) at the re- ceptors. d. Give any other data yielded by the model you used. -3- A-32 I 4. Contours of future levels should be included (down to'Ldn 55)9 and superimposed over projected population (receptor) densities. V. Impact A. Quantify anticipated changes in the noise environment by comparing ambient information in III. with estimated source emissions in IV. Evaluate the changes in light of applicable federal, state, and local standards. B. Discuss how this project relates to the Noise Element of the ap- plicable general plan. C. Discuss the anticipated effects of increased noise levels (speech interference, sleep disturbance, disruption of wildlife habitat, etc.). VI. Mitigation A. Discuss how adverse noise impacts can be mitigated, suggesting al- ternative techniques for mitigation, their relative effectiveness, and feasibility of implementation. Provide a table listing the most and least effective techniques. For this table, effective- ness should be defined in terms of the number of people being ex- posed to noise at some given level. B. Discuss any noise impacts that cannot be mitigated, and why miti- gation is not feasible. I -4- A-33 ONC 8/13/80 SUMMARIZATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS I. Information included in the Environmental Impact Report or Envi- ronmental Impact Statement should be a summary of the Environmental Noise Study. The following information must be included: A. Maps showing the existing setting and the proposed project with land uses and noise sources identified. Pertinent distances should be noted. B. A description of the existing noise environment. C. The change in the noise environment for each project alternative. D. A discussion of the impact. E. A discussion of the compatibility of the project with the appli- cable Noise Element of the General Plan and any applicable noise laws or ordinances. F. A discussion of mitigation measures, clearly identifying the locations and number of people affected when mitigation is not feasible. G. Statements of: (1) where to obtain a copy of the Noise Study Report from which the information in the Environmental Impact Report was taken, and (2) the name of the consultant who con- ducted the Noise Study for the noise segment of the Environ- mental Impact Report. -5- A-34 ONC 08/80 I ' STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor I DEPARTMENT OF BOATING AND WATERWAYS November 19, 1981.m�-': it 1629 S STREET ' SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 (916) 445-6281 Mr. Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P. 0. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 Dear Mr. Talarico: ' General Plan Amendment 81-2 (GPA 81-2) - City of Newport Beach The Department of Boating and Waterways is not a regulatory agency and therefore does not issue permits of any kind. However, we do review and may comment upon U.S. Corps of Engineer public notices for proposed projects which are subject to that federal agency's jurisdiction. We review and may comment on environmental documents which are submitted to us by the State Clearinghouse. For review purposes on both �- environmental documents and Corps public notices, the Department's interests lie in the following areas: 1. Potential for navigation hazards - to what extent might the proposed project affect safe navigation in California's waterways? 2. Beach erosion - to what extent might the proposed project affect the stability of coastal as well as inland beaches? 3. Boating and boating facilities - to what extent might the proposed project affect existing or planned small craft harbors, launching facilities, and other boating facilities? To what extent might recreational boating activities be affected? If you have further questions concerning our role in project review processes, please contact Barbara Kierbow of our Environmental Unit at (916) 323-9488. Sincerely, MARTY MERCADO Director v cc: State Clearinghouse ,' f _. Cb ') • L \/ A-35 -- e4 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 December 16, 1981 Mr. Ron Whitley, Director Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California SUBJECT: OASIS Land Exchange Dear Ron: • �E�vE� l Eu21198�'" \ o. CPL1F" We have received your letter of November 17, 1981 regarding the proposed exchange of land at 5th Avenue and Marguerite. The city's conditions on the exchange enumerated in your letter included the following: " 1. Equal city owned and Irvine Company land is exchanged (2.36 acres). 2. The Irvine Company land exchanged is to be east of the exist- ing OASIS facility and not to include the slope to the north. 3. The General Plan Amendment request to have the zoning designa- tion changed from low density residential to medium density residential be removed from the exchange•concept." In response to your letter, we are unwilling to proceed with the land exchange under the conditions cited above. Our position remains that the land we offered northerly and easterly of the OASIS Center provides value equal to the city's parcel, and provides Utility and convenient access to the center greater than the city's parcel. With respect to the residential density issue, we believe the requested change from low density to.medium density residential is appropriate given the configuration and topography of the parcels, the limited access, and the type and density of surrounding land uses. It is our intent to pursue a General Plan Amendment to redesignate our two parcels for medium density residential use independent of the land trade proposal. A-36 I E' G I 11 I d I I I II II Ii 1 r it If II I 1: II Mr. Ron Whitley City of Newport Beach December 16, 1981 Page 2 Please contact me or David Dmohowski of our Government Relations staff if you need additional information. SiXcerely, Shomasenior Vie H. Presi l kn Senior Vice President Community Development Division cc: Mayor Heather and Council Members Robert Wynn, City Manager James Hewicker, Planning Director Art Hoffman, OASIS A-37 NOT,. OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT EIR C r� DATE: November 13, 1981 - TO: "To Whom It May Concern" The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Arive Newport Beach, CA. 92660 FROM: Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR AGENCY'S COMMENTS BY December ?8 1981 PROJECT TITLE: General Plan Amendment 81-2 (GPA 81-2) 0 IIt''�, PROJECT LOCATION: City of Newport Beach, California DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: }. CC WNI x PHONE: Fred Talarico Environments •Coordinator (714) 640-2,197 DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF YOUR AGENCY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT: Resondent is applicant and property owner. LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: (Use additional pages as necessary) U W t7 Q W See letter attached. J I m - N O M. W K CONTACT DATE MAILED BY LEAD AGENCY: November 13, 1981 Mana DATE RECEIVED BY RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: 7 ' 2 35 DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED BY LEAD AGENCY: 11 Ti i� THE IRVINE C� PAW j 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I (' Newport Beach, California 92663 t ' (714) 644-3011 With respect to the parcel located northwesterly of Fifth and Marguerite (shown as Site A on Exhibit 4 of the Notice of Preparation), it is our desire to redesignate the +10 acre portion in T.I.C. ownership from "low density residential" to "medium density residential", as originally requested. The City may not wish to change the "open space" designation of its 2.36 acre parcel south of our property, in view of the status of the land exchange. I A-39 December 18, 1981 Mr. Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA. 92663 Subject: Notice of Preparation - E.I.R. for General Plan Amendment 81-2 Dear Fred: This letter is in response to the Notice of Preparation issued by your office for the environmental document referenced above. Our comments on the Notice of Preparation will be limited to the Fifth Avenue Parcels (Item No. 3) and Big Canyon Area 16 (Item No. 4) for'which The Irvine Company is the applicant and the property owner. Fifth Avenue Parcels In our letter of April 17, 1981 (attached) requesting a General Plan Amendment for the Fifth Avenue parcels, it was pointed out that nego- tiations were under way between the City and The Irvine Company re- garding an exchange of land adjacent to the Oasis Center. Since that time, The Irvine Company declined to proceed with the land exchange under the conditions offered by the City, and it should be assumed that the land exchange will not occur. It is our intent, however, to proceed with the requested General Plan Amendment. ' description the Since the land exchange will not be consummated, the of project and maps which accompany the Notice of Preparation are no longer appropriate, and are not reflective of The Irvine Company's intent for our property. With respect to the parcel located northwesterly of Fifth and Marguerite (shown as Site A on Exhibit 4 of the Notice of Preparation), it is our desire to redesignate the +10 acre portion in T.I.C. ownership from "low density residential" to "medium density residential", as originally requested. The City may not wish to change the "open space" designation of its 2.36 acre parcel south of our property, in view of the status of the land exchange. I A-39 Page Two Our land northerly and easterly of the Oasis Center (shown as part of Site B on Exhibit 4 of the Notice of Preparation) will not be exchanged for the City's parcel, and therefore should not be redesignated as "open space", as described im the Notice of Preparation. It is our desire to have T.I.C.'s entire +10 acre parcel northerly and easterly of the Oasis Center (shown as part of Site B and all of Site C on Exhibit 4) amended from "low density residential" to "medium density residential" consistent with the existing R -1-B zoning on the property. With respect to the land in Buck Gully (shown as Site D on Exhibit 4 of the Notice of Preparation), it was never requested that the "open space/low density residential" designation be changed to "open space" only, as is indicated in the Notice of Preparation. Our letter of April 17, 1981, expresses T.I.C.'s willingness to consider dedicating land in Buck Gully for park and open space purposes, contingent on approval of development plans for the Fifth Avenue parcels. Therefore, we strongly object to any change of designation on the Buck Gully parcel as part of GPA 81-2. This should be deferred pending future approval of tentative tract maps for the Fifth Avenue parcels. Big Canyon Area 16 (Freeway Reservation West) A point of clarification is in order for the project description contained in the'Notice of Preparation. The existing "open space" designation on the subject property was intended to reserve land for a future freeway interchange planned at the intersection of Ford Road and MacArthur. Since the extension of the Corona del Mar Freeway southerly to this location is no longer contemplated, the "freeway reservation/open space" designation is no longer needed, and a "medium density residential" designation is requested. The proposed amendment will not result in any increase in the number of dwellings permitted by the General Plan in the Big Canyon Planned Community. It is intended that all or a portion of the 100 floating dwelling units in Big Canyon be allocated to this site, with the density not to exceed 10 dwellings per buildable acre. It is requested that our comments on these two projects be incorporated into the text of environmental document. Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely, David Dmohowski Manager Government Relations Attachments A-40 '� �fE �rgp�UN pQl �/ 'SIOQlip,2 G 1 'y�xrr�Ey G! 1 r"` sOEN ISR 1 U �L7FACZILITY4' >1 7r�? nLj 4�C,�1„�r��C LEGEND 0 EXISTING OWNERSHIP BOUNDARIES 0 AREA DESIGNATIONS (SEE TEXT) SITE rEa, 0 400 800 1200 �i WSJ. Fifth Avenue Parcels City of Newport Beach EXHIBIT 4 A-41 . 1I E IRVINE MMROW 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O, Box I 3` Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 April 17, 1981 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach•, California SUBJECT: Requested General Plan"Amendment for Fifth Avenue Parcels Mr. Chairman and Commission Members: The City Council gave conceptual approval'in October, 1980 to an exchange of land between the City and The Irvine Company whereby the City would receive additional land to expand the OASIS Senior Facility site, and the Company would recerve a 2.36 acre parcel northwest of Fifth and Marguerite Avenues. The purpose of this exchange would be to provide additional parking space and expansion area for the OASIS Center in a more convenient and usable location. An appraisal•of the subject prop- erties has been completed. Additional discussions between the City and The Irvine Company are expected to occur in the next few months. The completion of'such a land exchange would be contingent on changing the General Plan designation of the 2.36 acre parcel west of Marguerite Avenue from open space tb'a residential designation to allow for future development. It is our desire to have this 2.36 acre parcel reviewed in , combination with the ±10 acre vacant parcel to the immediate north, which is currently designated "Low Density Residential:' A change to a .• "Medium Density Residential" designation for the combined 12 acre parcel is requested. Given the topography and configuration of the property, the Medium Density Residential designation would allow for a greater degree of design flexibility in planning for the site. ' Concurrently with the City's review of the property west of Marguerite, The Irvine-Company requests consideration of the ±10 acre parcel easterly of the expanded OASIS site as "Medium Density Residential", where the General Plan now calls for Low Density Residential. Proposed here would be single family homes at a density comparable to the existing tract to the north. The Irvine Company proposes further that the ±55 acre vacant parcel in Buck Gully located northeasterly of the terminus of Fifth Avenue be dedicated for park and open space purposes, contingent on approval of development plans for the two residential sites. A-42 I� U f U II II Planning Commission City of Newport Beach April 17, 1981 page -2 It is requested that the proposed redesignation of these two properties as "Medium Density Residential" be considered at the October 1981 General Plan Amendment session. A determination as to the appropriate environ- mental documentation is also requested. Please contact me if additional information is required. Sincerely, David Dmohowski Manager Government Relations cc: J. Hewicker, Planning Director R. Whitley, P.B. & R Director T. Nielsen, The Irvine Company A-43 i TKE IRVINE =PAW 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 April 10, 1981 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California bcc: P. Denniston M. Florian K. Greer R. Shelton SUBJECT: Requested General Plan Amendment for Big Canyon Parcel Southwest of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road Mr. Chairman and Commission Members: On.February 9, 1981, as part of its deliberations on the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, the City Council approved a proposal whereby the Mouth of Big Canyon would be dedicated fol• public open space. In exchange for this dedication of land, The Irvine Company is to receive park credits applicable to future residential projects. Further, the City Council agreed to initiate a General Plan Amendment and Planned Community Amendment to designate for residential development a portion of the Big Canyon P -C located southwesterly of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road, with the density not to exceed 10 dwelling units per buildable acre: It is our desire to have this proposed amendment for Big Canyon considered at the October, 1981 General Plan Amendment Session. Prior to that time, we anticipate approval of an agreement between the City and Irvine Company regarding dedication of the Mouth of Big Canyon and the granting of park credits. The Irvine'Company further requests a determination as to the appropriate environmental documentation required for this amendment. Thank you for your consideration: Respectfully submitted, David Dmohowski Manager Government Relations ,cc: J. Hewicker, Director of Planning T. Nielsen, TIC A-44 11 I I I L i III I 11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME i 350 Golden Shore Long Beach, CA 90802 (213) 590-5113 December 16, 1981Y h6 Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator ` ry City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.C. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 I 1 I I I I� I Dear Mr. Talarico: We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a Draft ELR for General Flan Amend- ment 81-2 and recommend the document address -the Geology, Soils, Hydrology, Biological, and Recreation and Open Space issues for the following numbered sites outlined in Exhibit 1 of Attachment A: 1, Caltrans West Parcel 3. Fifth Avenue Parcels 4. Freeway Reservation West/Brig Canyon Area 16 To enable our staff to adequately review and comment upon the EIR we recommend the following information be included in the document: 1. A complete assessment of flora and fauna within the project area. Particular emphasis should be placed upon identifying rare, endan- geredT and locally unique species. ' 2. Documentation of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts which would adversely affect biotic resources within and adjacent to the project site. In addition, we believe CEQA requires a discussion within the ESR of the mitigation measures that the applicant proposes to implement. 3. An assessment of potential urban growth -inducement factors attributable to the project. Of particular concern to us is the impact of urban growth upon natural open space and biological resources within and adjacent to the project site. A-45 City of ,Newport Beach -2- December 16, 19$1 4. An assessment of the probable adverse impacts which the proposed land use changes could have on the ecology of Upper Newport Bay and other fish and wildlife habitats such as Big Canyon. In this regard, effective erosion control measures and facilities should be required of the project sponsor to protect Newport Bay from the deposition of sediments, particularly within the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Erosion control facili- ties should be maintained in an effective condition. 5. The project should include the setting aside of natural open space in sufficient acreage to provide habitat for native wildlife and a specific discussion of this feature should be included. 6. The landscape program should be discussed. Vie recommend the inclusion of native trees and shrubs to provide habitat for wildlife. We support the proposed deletion of the tQow-density Residential, alternative for the Fifth Avenue Parcel, Site D as depicted on Exhibit 4 of Attachment A because its deletion would avoid damaging the biotic resources within Buck Gully. Any diversion of flow or of the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake will require notification to the Department of Fish and Game pursuant to Sections 1601-1603 of the Fish and Game Code. This notification and any subse- quent agreement must be completed prior to commencement of the diversion or alteration. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this document. if you have any questions, please contact Jack L. Spruill or Kris Lal of our Fhviron- mental Services staff at (213) 590-5137. Sincerely, (r Fred A. rthley Jr. Regional Manager Region 5 A-46 I P u I I I II LJ I II U STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor AIR RESOURCES BOARD 1102 Q STREET P.O. BOX 2815 SACRAMENTO, CA 95812 (916) 322-3P06 December 2, 1981 SCF No. 81112707 Mr. Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator PlanninT Decartment City of Nem)ort Beach P.O. Box 1768 ,Tew-Dort Beach, CA 92663-3284 Dear IHr. Talarico: Your November 13, 1981, Notice of Preparation for the 81-2 Gener-1 Plan Amendm?nt nra£t Environmental Impact ?enort has been reviewed. Thp Re-ional Drorr2ms Division of the Air Resouroes Board and local novernment decision makers need to be a -are of the individual and cumula- tive imnants that nroiects mieht halre on the attainment and. maintanancp of lir (uality standards in Oranre County. Enclosed is a recommended. outline ,thirh will assist you in the nreoarati.on of the air quality analysis for the oronosed nroieot and will provide the information useful to our review. lllor additional information, nlease contact 73everly Daniels of my staff at (91Fi 322-38,06. Sincerely, Minha.el D. Redemer, Manager General Projects Section Rerional Prorr-ms Division Enclosure no: J. Stue.rt, SCAOIdn T. Roberts, OPR A-47 1 �I RECOMMENDED CONTENTS OF AIR QUALITY ANALYSES The preparation of general plans, general plan amendments, and all environmental impact reports (EIRs) are subject to the environmental evaluation requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. As a result, an air quality analysis is needed as part of this evaluation to help inform decision makers of potential air quality constraints and impacts of all proposed project (activities subject to CEQA) alter- natives. Therefore, to inform and to help assist decision makers in. assessing potential air quality impacts and measures to minimize these impacts, we recommend the following information be included in an air quality analysis. This information is to be used as a guide in the preparation of EIRs for proposed projects. Many of the items listed may be satisfied through incorporation by reference. Those pollutants listed under Section II may or may not be applicable and are not to be ' considered as all inclusive. I. Environmental Setting A. Conditions affecting air pollution potential (the following items need to be discussed as to their relationship and/or effect on air pollution): 1. Meteorology and Climate a. Wird rose (plotted wind direction and speed) b. Atmospheric stability C. Seasonal air flow patterns 1Z d. Inversion characteristics DEC 7 1981987t.. 2. Topography "f� TEACH, n A-48 B. Standards and Regulations affecting air quality: 1. Federal 2. State 3. Regional 4. County 5. City c. Three to five year summary of ambient air quality pollutants subject to primary and secondary (health and welfare) standards: 1. Monthly maximum concentrations 2. Trend analysis (number of days/number of hours standards were violated) 3. Emission Sources a. Stationary b. Mobile D. Effects of existing air pollutants on sensitive receptors such as: 1. Schools (children) 2. Hospitals (patients) 3. convalescence homes (elderly) 4. Agricultural areas (crops) A-49 II. Impact of Project Proposal and Alternatives A. Stationary Source Emissions (Tons/Day): 1. Carbon Monoxide 2. Oxides of Nitrogen 3. Total Hydrocarbons 4. Total Suspended Particulates 5. Sulfur Dioxide 6. Lead B. Mobile Source Emissions (Tons/Day): 1. Carbon Monoxide 2. Oxides of Nitrogen 3. Total Hydrocarbons 4. Lead III. Mitigation Measures for Project Proposal and Alternatives A. Measures considered for the following sources: 1. Stationary 2. Mobile B. Measures incorporated for the following sources: 1. Stationary 2. Mobile A-50 I IV. Cumulative Impacts The cumulative impact (the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects). V. Consistency Demonstration A. Nonattainment Plans (NAPS)/State Implementation Plans (SIPS): The EIR shall discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable NAP or SIP once promulgated. 1. Comparison of projected population growth for projects with NAP/SIP forecasts. 2. Comparison of project identified transportation control measures with NAP/SIP control strategies. ' 3. Identification of responsible agencies to enforce/implement . mitigation measures. B. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Regulations: The EIR shall demonstrate project compliance with pertinent PSD regulations by including discussion on the following: 1. Project proximity to existing federal proposed Class I areas. 2. Transport potential of pollutants to Class I areas. ' 3. Project effect on available increment of deterioration in Class I and II areas. 4. Project effect on visibility impairment in the Class I area. A-51 I .ti NOTE: Material is available to assist you in doing an air quality analysis. To obtain a copy of, "Procedure and Basis for Estimating On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions," contact Ed Yotter, TSD, at (916) 322-3984. Also, the Plans and Projects Evaluation Section of the Air Resources Board is available to answer any concerns and questions. The number is (916) 445-0960. A-52 NONSTATUTORY ADVISEMENT File No. To: From: Fred Talarico GPA 81-2 ..To Whom It May Concern"11 Planning Department 3C3ity of Newport Beach 030000 BNozp?T/68Blvd. ew-. ea§ 86 -3884 PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR COMMENTS BY December 28, 1981 PROJECT TITLE• General Plan Amendment 81-2 (GPA 81-2) PROJECT LOCATION: City of Newport Beach, California DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES �9 See Attachment A m DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF YOLtR AGENCY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT 1 c u c+- n 8� q N D V e LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: .(USE ADOrTIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): v a M � P J wCy�N .mi �OId^ 1 pN. yYy ArC 6 as CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE DATE MAILED BY DATE RECEIVED BY RESPON- DATE RECEIVED BY DATE RESPONSE LEAD AGENCY SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE ]NTERESTED PARTY' RECEIVED BY THE November 13, 1981 LEAD AGENCY November 23, 1981 A-53 DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA OF EXPERTISE/INTEREST: Architects for the owner of property located at 4040 Campus Drive in area *2. LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS (USE ADOITIDNAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): W We have been hired to remodel the existing building for the r owner's retail store and for leaseable space. Our specific concerns are that,this general plan amendment will not affect our i client's ability to proceed with his project. We are currently W in the process of preparing construction documents and plan to N submit to the building department after the first of the year. If this general plan amendment will affect in some manner our (con W CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE Richard L. Fisher Associate 445-8372 DATE MAILED BY DATE RECEIVED BY RESPON- DATE RECEIVED BY DATE RESPONSE LEAD AGENCY SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE ]NTERESTED PARTY' RECEIVED BY THE November 13, 1981 LEAD AGENCY November 23, 1981 A-53 RR t M.M. D E S I G N P L A N N I N G I N T E R 1 0 R S , 314 NORTH FIRST AVENUE ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006 (213) 445-8372 A-54 w 11 Pacific Telephone December 11, 1981 Attention: Fred Talarico Re: File GPA 81-2 General Plan Amendment 81-2 Dear Fred: This is in response to the nonstatutory advisement you sent to us relating to the five sites involved in GPA 81-2. The impact on the telephone network is similar at all five locations. As density is increased, the need to reinforce the telephone system increases. ' Our engineering and construction forces would become involved in supplying the necessary telephone service as these areas develop. Thank you for the notification of this proposed change in the General Plan. If any questions arise, please call me at 999-5715. Very truly yours, L. C. Arthington Manager, Liaison I-- a 26L�? Marshall B. Andrew ' Engineer, Liaison MBA:kc ' A-55 City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 W. Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Calif. 92663-3884 Attention: Fred Talarico Re: File GPA 81-2 General Plan Amendment 81-2 Dear Fred: This is in response to the nonstatutory advisement you sent to us relating to the five sites involved in GPA 81-2. The impact on the telephone network is similar at all five locations. As density is increased, the need to reinforce the telephone system increases. ' Our engineering and construction forces would become involved in supplying the necessary telephone service as these areas develop. Thank you for the notification of this proposed change in the General Plan. If any questions arise, please call me at 999-5715. Very truly yours, L. C. Arthington Manager, Liaison I-- a 26L�? Marshall B. Andrew ' Engineer, Liaison MBA:kc ' A-55 M AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY -18741 Airport Way North, Santa Ana, Cal. 9270 641 Phone: 714 83356 -2925 November 24, 1981 ;. IPE'MI Mr. Fred Talarico DEC 1 Environmental Coordinator i_' 196l>. 10 Planning Department City of Newport Beach N-1 ` `"C19 P.O.. Box Newport Beach, California 92663-3884 Gentlemen: SUBJECT: D.E.I.R. - General Plan Amendment 81-2, Site 5. In response to your recent communication regarding the subject project, the items checked below indicate specific areas of concern to the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County. X Acoustical insulation is indicated for all buildings at this location. X The height of all structures must conform with P.A.R. Part 77 criteria and/or Section 7-9-129.3 of the Orange County zoning Code. -7L The utilization and exterior rendering of the property must not pose a hazard to aeronautical operations. , Density of use restrictions indicated due to accident potential at this location. An avigational easement should be granted to the proper authority. ;X Notice to buyers/tenants that property is subject to sight, sound and ' overflight by aircraft. X More complete and current analysis of the following items should be undertaken as they relate to the interests of the particular airport: X Noise environment and mitigation , X Surface traffic environment and mitigation X Height and exterior rendering of structures ' X Proposed use of property as relates to aeronautical operations. X Impact upon demand for commercial and private aviation services, X Existing or indicated avigational easement Other: A-56 11 Page 2 ' The above comments are being submitted now at the staff level for your considera- tion. The Commission will review the subject project at its next scheduled meet- ing on December 17, 1951 or thereafter. If you should wish further information or assistance concerning any of the items checked above, or with the Commission's anticipated review of your project, please do not hesitate to call this office at 641-2925. ' Cordially, del Alfred W. Brady Secretary and Planner IAWB:es a I I A-57 BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRESIDENT.......... Cathy Anderson 5403 Seashore Drive 846-0476 13t VICE PRESIDENT.... Bruce Nordlund 5710 W. Ocean Front 642.3871 2nd VICE PRESIDENT ..... Roger Morin 5404 Saehare Drive ,6454905 SECRETARY ............ Dick Cruces 4403 $mhon Orive 6734762 TREASURER............ Jan DeSay 5107 Seashore Drive 6454919 Don Borthwick 205 Canal Stmt Oave Goff 5212'Rivar Avenue Dune Kraus 6602 W, Ocean Front 8111 McLaughlin 67 Balboa Covet, WEST NEWPORT BEACH ASSOCIATION' NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA December 4, 1981 Mr. Fred Talarico Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Subject: Caltrans West Dear Mr. Talarico: The West Newport Beach Association strongly urges that zoning on Caltrans West remains Recreational and Environ- mental Open Space - (OS). Some of the reasons for this position are: 648.9714 642.5949 6464061 6753732 " 1. "Open Space" is the most socially, environmentally and economically sound zoning for this property from the standpoint of The City of Newport Beach. Acquiescence to the State s request for re -zoning would be a gift, of the City's rights. 2. Traffic conditions in the area are crowded and extremely uncertain. 3. Multiple -family housing in this area would compound al- ready serious problems in this area. CA:e CC:ity Council !arming Commission P.B.R. Department Sincerely, Cathy Anderson, President U 1 a I I A-58 i' I'J December 14, 1981 City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 Attention: Fred Talaricl ' Re: Response to General Plan Amendment 81-2 (GPA 81-2) Dear Fred: on behalf of the Newport Hills Community Association, we are responding to documents sent to us in regard to the proposed Environmental Impact Report being written on this project. I have been requested by the Board of Directors to address a letter to the City of Newport Beach in regard to our concerns. The specific issue we would like addressed would be the transportation circulation transit issues. We have been corresponding as a Board previ- ously with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Department with regard to the proposal to add stop signs and/or signals on Ford Road for the two inter- sections that exit Newport Hills onto the road. We have been advised in laymens terms that there is not sufficient traffic yet for a signal and a stop sign would not be beneficial in increasing.the circulation of traffic. We would, therefore, like to ask the City to address the issue that if the potential additional traffic generation by a rezone to resi- dential on parcel 3 would be sufficient to warrant the City's installation of these traffic signals. E It was the concensus of the Board of Directors that we have no objection to the zone change as proposed on the parcel as long as the traffic issue that would be directly impacting us is adequately addressed by the City of Newport Beach. At this time we do not feel it appropriate to make comments on any of the other sites involved. The only specific site we are referring to is the number 3 intersection of Ford and MacArthur. We sincerely appreciate your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Taylor Grant TG/jp 3300 Irvine Avenue • Suite 101 • Newport Beach, California cc: Bob Wynn Telephone (714) 540-3836 A-59 p.CFIi;FO� I G Y �' n� • t DEC 15 l98]- iJ. R1100 600 fouth Commonwealth Avenue •Hite 1000 • Lor Hngelef• Callk DATE: December 18,, 1981 TO Mr. Fred Talarico Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 FROM: Metropolitan,Clearinghouse SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 81-2 (GPA 81-2) SLAG File Number: OR -19127 -NP Thank you for submitting the Notice to Prepare the environmental document for the referenced project for SCAG review. SCAG staff does not have comments at this time but looks forward to reviewing the environmental document when available. I I a Sincer ly, , Loretta Anaya Clearinghouse Official LA/bb �i I] L A-60 I I CORONA DEL MAR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 December 28, 1981 0) • , I;L�' Q Fred Talarico Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd, P.O. 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr, Talarico: Re: General Plan Amendment 81-2 EIR's We are directing our comments exclusively to the 5th Avenue Parcels. 1. Where in these tracts is the present land zoned "Low Density Residential" and "Recreational and Environmental Open Space". (Show a map). 2, Where inthe new proposals is the space "Medium Density Residen- tial", "Low Density Residential", and "Recreational and Environmental Open Space". (Show a map). ' 3: Please show a map with roads, lots etc of -the present development according to present zoning. 4, Please show a map with roads, lots, etc of the proposed development according to proposed zoning. 1 5. How will traffic flows interface with present neighborhoods what are present and expected flows at each intersection? 6. Considerable land in the proposed tracts is sloped or banked. If this is open space, who pays for upkeep and slide liability? 7. Public view and access is important for view and recreational use of open space. How is this to be protected? Are these to be developed as walled' locked gate communities? 8. Site A has had considerable fill dumped on both public and private land in recent years. Has a permit been issued and where is the grade line A-61 Fred Talarico December 28, 1981 Page Two for new development. The public view plane could be destroyed from Marguerite and tall buildings would be out of place adjacent Corona del Mar. 9. We want to know set backs, sidewalk requirements etc. We would like a comparison with adjacent development. 0 1 I Very truly yours, , f Mard A. Nichols 46 President Corona del Mar Community Association I r7 Lj A-62 ' d I II I0 II II II BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRESIDENT.......... Cathy Anderson 5403 Seashore Drive 645-0476 lit VICE PRESIDENT.... Bruce Norcllund 5710 W. Ocean Front 642.3871 WN BA 2nd VICE PRESIDENT ..... Roger Morin 5404 Seashore Drive 646-0906 SECRETARY ............D,ck Cluces 4403 Seashore Drive 6733762 TREASURER............ Jan OaSay 5107 Seashore Drive 645-0919 Don Borthwick 205 Canal Street 646.9714 Dave Goff 5212 River Avenue 642.5949 Ouse Kraus 6602 W. Ocean Front 6464081 Bill McLaughlin 67 Balboa Coves 6753732 WEST NEWPORT BEACH ASSOCIATION NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA December 4, 1981 Mr. Fred Talarico Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Subject: Caltrans West Dear Mr. Talarico: The West Newport Beach Association strongly urges that zoning on Caltrans West remains Recreational and Environ- mental Open Space - (OS). Some of the reasons for this position are: 1. "Open Space" is the most socially, environmentally and economically sound zoning for this property from the standpoint of The City of Newport Beach. Acquiescence to the State's request for re -zoning would be a gift of the City's rights. 2. Traffic conditions in the area are crowded and extremely uncertain. 3. Multiple -family housing in this area would compound al- ready serious problems in this area. CA:e cc: City Council Planning Commission P.B.R. Department I A-63 Sincerely, C°�=G�.�V-�dkaay✓ Cathy Anderson, P;� NONSTATUTORY ADVISEMENT File No. To: From: Fred Talarico GPA 81-2 "To 4lhom It May Concern" Planning Department City of Newport Beach ;,&A—Vs./ 4?4� Q,,,�,,,�i,.u.e9c 3 0 Newp Blvd. •, P8. Bex YOB Newport ea586 -3884 PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR COMMENTS BY Decemher 28, 1981 PROJECT TITLE: General Pian Amendment 81-2 (GPA 81-2) PROJECT'LOCATION: ' City of Newport Beach, California DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES dc See Attachment A , DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF YOA AGENCY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT , ew "a g.8 c2a w u LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: •(USEADOITII A SSARY): '/ r s U11 �GK�C4E�a• oto ��0• •:� CONTACT PERSON TITLE DATE MAILED BY I I DATE RECEIVED BY RESPON- LEAD AGENCY SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE November 13, 1981 A-64 BY DATE RESPONSE 7Y"' ,RECEIVED BY THE ' LEAD AGENCY DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA OFF EXPERTISEIINTEREST: LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS (USE ADDITIONAL,PAGES AS NECESSARY): '�� 9/fi fJ 9$tetJ �.�esidli✓Y 6/167-o'�17'K CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE DATE MAILED BY I I DATE RECEIVED BY RESPON- LEAD AGENCY SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE November 13, 1981 A-64 BY DATE RESPONSE 7Y"' ,RECEIVED BY THE ' LEAD AGENCY U w�i�geroy I� f NONSTATUTORY ADVISEMENT File No. To: GPA 81-2 'To Whom It May Concern" PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR COMMENTS PROJECT TITLE • General Plan Amendment 81-2 (GPA 81-2) PROJECT LOCATION: City of Newport Beach, California DEG3 1981 See Attachment A MM DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERM17 AUIBURIIT OF TUUR Atitnt.T neLAItU Iu Iniz rrcuacui u The members of the Board of Directors of the Spyglass Hill Cotmoun 1 C M - Plan Amendment #81-2 because of the increase in residential and m commercial density. This opposition was discussed at the Board ,y 8V. d t nou W h EN I LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: ,(USE ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE W V Y�rO 2 V qi 0 1I N O U CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE DATE MAILED BY DATE RECEIVED BY RESPON- DATE RECEIVED BY DATE RESPONSE LEAD AGENCY SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE . INTERESTED PARTY RECEIVED BY THE. November 13, 1981 November 18, LEAD AGENCY 1981 —' 02 A-65 t DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA OF EXPERTISE/INTEREST: Sites listed as items #1-4 on Attachment A (enclosed). LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS (USE ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): The members of the Board of Directors of the Spyglass Hill Cotmoun Association are not in favor of the of Items #1-4 of the General - Plan Amendment #81-2 because of the increase in residential and a commercial density. This opposition was discussed at the Board ,y of Directors meeting held on December 1, 1981. W h W Mr. Carl Will eroth President Spyglass Hi549-911,6 z W CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE DATE MAILED BY DATE RECEIVED BY RESPON- DATE RECEIVED BY DATE RESPONSE LEAD AGENCY SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE . INTERESTED PARTY RECEIVED BY THE. November 13, 1981 November 18, LEAD AGENCY 1981 —' 02 A-65 t NONSTATUTORY ADVISEMENT Fite No. To: GPA 81-2 To Whom It May Concern" PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR COMMENTS From: Fred Talarico Planning Department City 'o',f Newport Beach P30? Bozpi/88tvd. ' �rewpoi ea§ 66 -3884 December 28, 1981 DATE MAILED 8Y DATE RECEIVED BY RESPON- DATE RECEIVED BY DATE RESPONSE LEAD AGENCY SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE . INjERESTED PARTY ' RECEIVED BY THF November 13, 1981 LEAD AGENCY l ZIP A-66 ' PROJECT TITLE: ■ H General Plan Amendment 81-2 (GPA 81-2) rovisings each W individual situation calls for different thought' dOME BULDINGS PROJECT LOCATION: , a City of Newport Beach, California y parking as to cause less congestion. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES parking seems to be• ' g� OF PARKING t J See Attachment A MX4J7 7,5 - n DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF YOLtR AGENCY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT w k e r LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS:.(USE AIR MNALPAGES AS NECESSARY): '0 .io .JW1 ■6Vpp euy M OCIY^ S .a P; = h CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE DATE MAILED 8Y DATE RECEIVED BY RESPON- DATE RECEIVED BY DATE RESPONSE LEAD AGENCY SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE . INjERESTED PARTY ' RECEIVED BY THF November 13, 1981 LEAD AGENCY l ZIP A-66 ' DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA OF EXPERTISE/INTEREST: EX ;B;7— •Q;TLIST LISTSPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS (USE AD NAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): H IN REGARDS TO Reduction in intensity. In rovisings each W individual situation calls for different thought' dOME BULDINGS Mhve an over abundance of parking and some not enough. WMat6 a several may emerge and add a fbw more spaces but equlize the y parking as to cause less congestion. Over most of our city and Irvine the parking seems to be• ' mast of our cause for congestion - LACk OF PARKING CONTACTPERSON TITLE PHONE MX4J7 7,5 - DATE MAILED 8Y DATE RECEIVED BY RESPON- DATE RECEIVED BY DATE RESPONSE LEAD AGENCY SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE . INjERESTED PARTY ' RECEIVED BY THF November 13, 1981 LEAD AGENCY l ZIP A-66 ' 8 J NONSTATUTORY ADVISEMENT File No. To: From: Fred Talarico GPA 81-2 "To Whom It May Concern" Planning Department City HoNf Newport Beach 0381 Bozp1768Blvd. PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR COMMENTS PROJECT TITLE: General Pian Amendment 81-2 (GPA 81-2) City of Newport Beach, California See Attachment A DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF YOUR AGENCY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: .(USE ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE i a. DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA OF EXPERTISE/INTEREST: .-TCLM i� WCST LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS (USE ADMMNAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): DATE MAILED BY DATE RECEIVED BY RESPON- 1 L 1 F• SNTERESTED PARTY N W 6' November 13, 1981 CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE W i -e •. _ C�2\5 �PNSc� ..'�?=\CUtvz aA?-T (f 4;-SI7�j t\i ttv R -I C+e• a. DATE MAILED BY DATE RECEIVED BY RESPON- DATE RECEIVED BY DATE RESPONSE LEAD AGENCY SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE . SNTERESTED PARTY RECEIVED BY THE November 13, 1981 LEAD AGENCY RECEIv ED r'�✓ ARN • �sy DEPARTMENT- 'V DECD 5'1981 -_- IJ 1 CITY p, _ CAW. r. l a. DATE MAILED BY LEAD AGENCY November 13, 1981 DATE RECEIVED by RESPON- GATE RECeIVEU BY DATE RESPONSE ' SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE INTERESTED PARTY ' RECEIVED BY THE LEAD AGENCY w A-68 ' i� NONSTATUTORY'ADVISEMENT File No. To: From: Fred Talarico PROJECT LOCATION: ' GPA 81-2 "To Whom It May Concern" Planning Department DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES CONTAPERSON TITLE $ p Ott N� Newwrtptort Beach g� ' J 3C3ity NoI1f P38? BoxP47688ivd'. 'Eli Newport Bea5 b6-3884 PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR COMMENTS BY December 28. 1961 ' g� Y C u DATE MAILED BY LEAD AGENCY November 13, 1981 DATE RECEIVED by RESPON- GATE RECeIVEU BY DATE RESPONSE ' SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE INTERESTED PARTY ' RECEIVED BY THE LEAD AGENCY w A-68 ' PROJECT TITLE: • LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS (USE AD=NAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): General Plan Amendment 81-2 (GPA 81-2) PROJECT LOCATION: ' City of Newport Beach, California DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES CONTAPERSON TITLE $ p Ott N� g� ' J See Attachment A 'Eli DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF YOUR AGENCY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT ' g� Y C u cw o LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: •(USE AUDITIONALPAGES AS NECESSARY): = e i ' 0 ��Jip N CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE DATE MAILED BY LEAD AGENCY November 13, 1981 DATE RECEIVED by RESPON- GATE RECeIVEU BY DATE RESPONSE ' SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE INTERESTED PARTY ' RECEIVED BY THE LEAD AGENCY w A-68 ' DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA OF EXPER(T�ISEIINTEREST: �vr� • 3�v..tX . LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS (USE AD=NAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): 6 b W CONTAPERSON TITLE $ p Ott N� *4 DATE MAILED BY LEAD AGENCY November 13, 1981 DATE RECEIVED by RESPON- GATE RECeIVEU BY DATE RESPONSE ' SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE INTERESTED PARTY ' RECEIVED BY THE LEAD AGENCY w A-68 ' NONSTATUTORY ADVISEMENT Fite No. To: M4669-3884 artment GPA 81-2 "To Whom It May Concern"CityPlart Beach llvd. ox 84 PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR COMMENTS BY December 28, 1981 PROJECT TITLE: General Pian Amendment 81-2 (GPA 81-2) PROJECT LOCATION: > City of Newport Beach, California v DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES sg J See Attachment A u n DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF YOUR AGENCY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT c� n 8 V� A d C N9U ra v LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS:(USE ADDITIONAL. ` ESSARY): CONTACT PERSON TITLE W SCRIBE ECICAR�PERT,ISER T• LIS¢PEC�IFI'wC lFNrV.IIHRRONyNTA CONCERNS USE�y}YIDTkPAGES. AS NE ESSARMEa7d ' %L_r( Qd"�iX� �"�117 i �q 'yam, •-��tl5,9G�'1 tt�!/'�// G�(//[�/� �py//f,_C�+'^[� -',v/y'� �'/y(j//q�.�//�.y� wl M / _CONTACT PE ON TITLE PHONE �06� 760 — i DATE MAILED BY DATE RECEIVED BY RESPON- DATE RECEIVED BY GATE RESPONSE LEAD AGENCY SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE INTERESTED PARTY' RECEIVED BY THE November 13, 1981 t/i ��/�� LEAD AGENCY . Fite No. GPA 81-2 NONSTATUTORY ADVISEMENT To: "To Whom It May Concern" G.L._ �, From: Fred Tatari Planning Oe City of Nen vd. PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR COMMENTS General Plan Amendment 81-2 (GPA 81-2) ' City of Newport Beach, California i RESCRIPTION.OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES o r .int See Attachment A JANE «1962y - y DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF YOUR AGENCY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT Environmental Concerns: 1. Increased density as related to decreased density in CdM. .yW n�u E , 3. Cumulative impact of all committed projects plus GPA 81-2 4. Affordable housing. b W +� LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: ,(USE ADOITIONALPAGES AS NECESSARY): & i PE ON / TITLE PHONE 1 ��O�TACT � v7 +� e • a u E E 'H N +C-1/ CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE November 13, 1981 Envi 6. 7. DATE RECEIVED BY RESPON- DATE RECEIVED BY DATE RESPONSE SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE . INTERESTED PARTY RECEIVED BY THE ' LEAD AGENCY nmental Concerns continued: Mitigation Measures: Completion of designated circulation elements; -restoration of Canyon Crest to Circulation Elemen or provision for additional artery to connect to PCH; completion of 5th Avenue across Jasmine Avenue. Development of Specific Area Plan for CdM. A-70 , DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA OF EXPERTISE/INTEREST: LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS (USE ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): Environmental Concerns: 1. Increased density as related to decreased density in CdM. .yW 2. Increased traffic as result of increased density. i 3. Cumulative impact of all committed projects plus GPA 81-2 4. Affordable housing. b W 5. Existing infra -structure and any increased cost to tax payer for required services. i PE ON / TITLE PHONE ��O�TACT November 13, 1981 Envi 6. 7. DATE RECEIVED BY RESPON- DATE RECEIVED BY DATE RESPONSE SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE . INTERESTED PARTY RECEIVED BY THE ' LEAD AGENCY nmental Concerns continued: Mitigation Measures: Completion of designated circulation elements; -restoration of Canyon Crest to Circulation Elemen or provision for additional artery to connect to PCH; completion of 5th Avenue across Jasmine Avenue. Development of Specific Area Plan for CdM. A-70 , I 1' 1 I I 1 1 a 1 I 1 1 H 1 1 B. Correspondence I I I I 0 RECEIVED P r 1 0 1091 NEWPORT BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 7000, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CHARLES R. GROSS (714) 644.3654 Chief of Police "!GlFOA� December 16, 1981 Beverly Bruesch Assistant Project Manager Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Skypark Circle Irvine, California 92714 Dear Ms. Bruesch: The following information is supplied in response to your request dated December 3, 1981. The subject matter addressed was the proposed General Plan Amendment to the City of Newport Beach General Plan (GPA 81-2). All five study sites do lie within the service area (city limits) of the City of Newport Beach. The city has one police facility, and it is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive. The Police Department employs approximately 140 sworn officers. Approximately 65 vehicles are currently in use, and they vary in type from motorcycles to helicopters. CRIMES WITH AVERAGE RESPONSE TIMES AREA HIGHEST FREQUENCY Non-Emerg. Alarm Emergency CalTrans W. Parcel Res. Burglary, Grand 22.0 3.5 4.0 Theft, Auto Theft Citywide 5th Avenue Parcels Res. Burglary, Grand 18.7 3.5 3.26 Theft, Vandalism Big Canyon Area 16 Grand Theft, Res. 18.7 3.5 3.26 Burglary, Burglary from Vehicle Block 400 - Newport Grand Theft, Res. Burg- 18.7 3.5 3.26 Center lary, Burg. from Vehicle Campus Drive Comm. Burglary, Grand 22.0 3.5 4.0 Theft, Auto Theft B-1 870 Santa Barbara Drive, Newport Beach 1 General Plan Amendment Page '2' The Newport Beach Police Department sponsors crime prevention programs in the form of on-site security inspections, "Neighborhood Watch," and community meetings. The proposal will cause an increase in police calls for service. There is no accurate way to predict the amount of this increase. In order to keep pace with the resulting population increase and maintain current ratios, 2.1 sworn officers will have to be hired for each 1,000 increase in population. If the Police Department can be of further assistance, please feel free to , contact me. Sincerely, Charles R. Gross Chief of Police L'� Kent Stoddard, Officer Planning and Research 11 I .i j M1 B-2 I I NEWPORT BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT r •ley e• , n, 475 32nd Street • Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3603 Janes M. Reed Tire Chef w ,Ila00.J ' December 11, 1981 I B-3 Beverly Bruesch Assistant Project Manager Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA 92714 Beverly; The following are answers to your questions concerning both the suppression and emergency medical services of Newport Beach Fire Department. I'. ALL OF THE SITES lie within the Newport Beach Fire Department service area. That includes both fire protection and emergency medical services (Paramedics). The Campus Drive project falls within our Orange County Fire Department contract for initial response. Orange County Fire Department Engine 27 is the first responder in that area. They are located on the John ?Jayne Airport at Quail.and Cam -pus. II. ADDRESSES OF STATIONS serving the five areas and response time rom closest fire station. 1. Cal -trans West Parcel - Lidn Station J,!2, 475 32nd Street -3 minute response. 2. 5th Ave Parcels - Corona del Mar Station #5, 410 Marigold. to 4 minute response depending on location o pro em in relation to fire station. 868 Santa 3. BiP Canyon Area jj'=16 - Fashion Island Station #3, Barbara. 3-5 minute response depending on traffic con3"itions. 4. Block 400 Ne ort Center - Fashion Island Station 1,A3, 868 Santa Bar ara. 2 to 3 minute response. 5. Campus Drive - Orange County Fire Department Engine 71,127. t�_2 minute response is available. If not available Newport Mariners Station A6, 1348 Irvine Avenue. 5 to 7 minute response. I B-3 ,1 Beverly Bruesch Page 2 III. PARAMEDIC RESPONSE TIMES will be from closest Newport Para- medic ara-me is Unit. When a me 1cal emergency is reported to us, we dispatch the closest fire engine to maintain life support. In addition, the closest available Paramedic Unit is dis- patched. We have two (2) Paramedic Units. One is located at our Lido Fire Station and the other is located at our. Fashion Island' Station. Response time are: Lido Station #2 Medic 2 , 1. Caltrans West Parcel 2-3 minutes Santa Barbara Station #3 Medic 3 2. 5th Ave Parcels 5-6 minutes 3. Big Canyon Area 16 3-6 minutes 4. 400 block Newport Center 2-3 minutes 5. Campus Drive '5-7 minutes IV. IMPACT ON EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES , The areas mentioned above will have no adverse impact on our emergency medical services. V. EMERGENCY VEHICLES & SPECIAL E UIPMENT - The Newport Beach Fire Department as sax engine companies, located through- out the city. In addition, we have one 100' aerial ladder company and one 75' elevating platform company. The special equipment includes a mobil air compressor used to supply breath- ing air for firemen at fires. We also have two paramedic units in service. VI. The questions asked in #5 are all related to brush fires and I see no relation to the fire protection offered by the City of Newport Beach. If you need that type of information, I suggest you contact the Orange County Fire Department. VII. FIRE PROTECTION AND PARAMEDIC IMPACTS - All sites, except one, are within our time stance response guidelines and will not greatly impact us. the one site that will have an impact on us is Campus Drive. We presently have a contract, for first alarm response, with the Orange County Fire Department. We have been directed by the City Council to find a site and build a new fire station in the airport area, within the next three years. As of this date we have not found an available site. Maybe in the re- development of that area a site will become available. B-4 1 I I� 4_7 P II I Il 11 I I I Beverly Bruesch Page 3 If you should have any further questions, please contact me. o S�iDncwei.re l , Tom C. Dailey Fire Marshal TCD:sg C� RECEIVED DEC 2 2 1°81 JIT Z WPORTLAI. ESA Unified School District r'tsi! o0rice %ULC )?dR • Ilewporl beach, california 92663 • 714 70 '21)0 1 - JOHN W. NICOLL, Supenmendent —� December 21, 1981 Ms. Beverly Bruesch Assistant Project Manager Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Sky Park Circle irvine, CA 92714 Dear Ms. Bruesch: i The purpose of this letter is to respond to your letter of December 3, 1981, in which you requested information relative to the impact on the Newport -Mesa School District of a General Plan Amendment to the City of Newport Beach General Plan. The proposed General Plan Amendment would change the allowable use on five different parcels of land within the City of Newport Beach. The proposed amendment would involve the addition of residential dwelling units r to only three of the five parcels under consideration. Your letter specifically asks us to respond to seven questions. Our responses to the first four questions have been prepared in tabular form and can be found attached to this letter. Our responses to the remaining three questions are as follows=: Questions #5 and #7 - Educational and financial impact of proposed projects: The Newport -Mesa Unified School District currently has sufficient capacity in our existing schools to house all of the students that might be generated from the proposed projects. Recent experience has indicated that relatively few students are being generated by new development growth in the communit'ies served by the school district. We would expect less than 75 students Kinder- garten through 12th grade to be generated by all of the dwelling units that might be built as a result of these proposed projects. Our school district has experienced a 30% decline in student enro.liment in the past decade despite the new construction activity within our boundaries. We are projecting a continu- ing decline in enrollment through the next five years and, as a result, the students that might be generated from these proposed housing projects could be easily accommodated in the schools of our district. Question #6: As requested, a map has been attached to this letter that locates schools in the vicinity of each of the three sites that involve the development of dwelling units. :i B-6 I Ms. Beverly Bruesch - 2 - December 21, 1981 Please feel free to contact me at 760-3295 should you have any questions regarding the responses to your questions. Sinncceereely IVB Dale C. W Research es encls. cc: Non Rayi Question 1. Do sites lie entirely within N-MUSD? 2. Which schools serve each site? h 3. Current enroll- ment & capacity? 4. Student genera- tion factors for dwelling units. R&SS - 12/21/81 SITES (Sites 4 & 5 do not involve residential development) 1. Caltrans West 2. 5th Avenue 3. Big Canyon Area 16 Yes Yes Yes Whittier Elementary School Harbor View Elementary School Eastbluff Elementary School 1800 Whittier'Avenue 900 Goldenrod 2627 Vista Del Oro Costa Mesa :Corona del Mar Newport Beach Ensign Middle School Lincoln Middle School Lincoln Middle School 2000 Cliff Drive '3101.Pacific View Drive 3101 Pacific View Drilve Newport Beach Corona del Mar Corona del Mar Estancia High School Corona del Mar High School Corona del Mar High School 2323 Placentia 2101 Eastbluff Drive 2101 Eastbluff Drive Costa Mesa Newport Beach Newport Beach School Cap. Enroll School Cap. Enroll. School Cae. Enroll. Whittier 492 438 Harbor V. 744 695 Eastbluff 744 300 Ensign 933 696 Lincoln 1232 670 Lincoln 1232 670 Estancia 2417 1764 CdM HS 2746 1791 CdM HS 2746 1791 Maximum of 0.20 Maximum of 0.20 Maximum of 0.20 I I 1 I I I 10 I `r`-7+ 1J I I I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH December 18, 1981 Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA 92714 ATTENTION: Ms. Beverly Bruesch SUBJECT: Refuse Collection for Five Proposed Projects REFERENCE: Your letter dated December 3, 1981, same subject Dear Ms. Bruesch; In response to your request regarding refuse collection for five proposed projects, I have reviewed the information you provided with my Refuse Supervisor and we have arrived at the following conclusion: 1) No, we would not be able to provide refuse collection to all the projects - only the Cal -trans west, 5th Avenue, and Big Canyon area 16 projects, and then only if they are the type development similar to Newport Crest, where everyone puts out their own containers. If it is a development similar to Park Newport on Oakwood, then that type is much more suited to bin collection, which I cannot provide. 2) Yes, bin collection could be provided by Dewey's to the projects at Newport Center and on Campus Drive, or to any of the projects, if necessary. Also, if Dewey's is not acceptable for some reason there are at least 3 or 4 more Refuse Collection firms licensed to operate within the city. 3) The effect of this general plan amendment on the City's refuse collection service would be the requirement of one additional refuse leadman and one additional 29 yard, 1 -man operated collection vehicle. Should you need further information, please do not hesitate to call me at my office anytime, Monday -Friday, 7 am - 4 pm. Sincerely, Wade S. Beyeler, Director General Services Department WSB/vjf City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 B-9 4 i'Y OF C)FRAkNCAP— SERVICES AGENCY 11 RECEIVED ©EC 9 8 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION DONALD G.POER,MANAGER 1300 SOUTH GRAND AVE. SANTA ANA, CA 92704 December 17, 1981 714 934.3406 .Ms. Beverly Bruesch Assistant Project Manager Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA 92714 T.R. EGAN 1981 GIR icTOR RONALD BATE Ali1%TANT mRiOTGR 1Ulro RT iiRVICii The following information has been compiled by the Orange County General Services Agency/Solid Waste Management Division, to assist engineers and consultants in the preparation of the solid waste management aspects of Environmental Impact Statements/Reports: I I I 1-11 1. Orange County currently operates four sanitary landfills. Two future sites, Olinda Alpha and Bee Canyon, are scheduled to open in the near future. These landfills will replace the existing Olinda and Coyote Canyon stations. (see attach) 2. All four existing sites are Class II -2. The two new sites will also be designated Class II -2. 3. Orange County will have adequate landfill capacity to last beyond the year 2000. 4. Private collectors make collections in all areas of the County with the exception of the City of Newport Beach, and the Sanitation District service in the Midway City, Westminster area, 5. The solid waste disposal systems are placed to accommodate continuing development within the County. 6. The impacts of increased population include expanded collection service by the collectors and an increase in the amount of refuse to be disposed. The•estimated generation is approximately 7.5 lbs. per person per day. The above information is considered sufficient to answer most questions regarding solid waste management in Orange County. If more detail is required, do not hesitate to call us. Very trul yours, D. G. Poer, Manager DP:kh Att. B-10 I i I I I I 0 H I i� I O LI!4DA (f;201 4i3 11 (Imperial (Imperial Hpiy. to Valencia, then North) Page 3* • SANTIAGO CANYON (425) (Chapman east to Santiago Canyon Road, then southeast) Page 46* B Ac iiS?Sr�T1Qnl • of /N rcnsra.-rc ,5 allo '*9ot) PAS 5/ � COYOTE CANYON f#241 (MacArthur Blvd South,'South on Bonita Canyon, -,, then South on Coyote Canyon) Page 32* COUNTY OF ORANGE • DISPOSAL STATIONS . PRN�IA DEAiBCHA X26 (Ortega Wy, east LO *Refers to page number in La Pata *hen south) Thomas Bros Map 1978 Edition Page 68 B-11 r a PHIWPS BRANDT REDDICK December 3, 1981 Dick Hoffstadt, Civil Engineer Public Works Department City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92663-3884 Dear Mr. Hoffstadt: RECEIVED 6 1332 Phillips Brandt Reddick is currently preparing an Environmental Impact Report for the City of Newport Beach which addresses a General Plan Amendment to the City of Newport Beach General Plan (GPA 81-2). As you will see from the attached exhibit, the proposed General Plan Amendment would change the allowable uses on five different parcels of land Within the City. A summary of the proposed action for each is listed below: 1. Caltrans West Parcel 2. 5th Avenue Parcels 3. Big Canyon Area 16 Allowable Land Uses Existing General Plan Recreational and Environmental Open Space 70 Low -Density D.0 -s and Recreational and Environmental Open Space Recreational and Environmental Open Space Proposed Amendment 150 Multi -Family D.U.s 143 MediUm-Density D.U.s 72 Medium -Density D.U,s 4. Block 400rNewport Ctr. No further development 80,000 sq.ft. medical office 5. Campus Drive 7,012,000 sq.ft. mixed office 1,392,000 sq.ft. mixed office PLANNING • ARCHITECTURE • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 18012 SKY PARK CIRCLE • IRVINE, CA 92714 • (714) 641.8820 CALIFORNIA COLORADO HAWAII B-12 1 December 3, 1981 Dick Hoffstadt, Civil Engineer Page Two We are concerned with the distribution of water and collection of wastewater the environmental for the five study sites. To ensure the accuracy of assessment, we would appreciate your responding to the following questions: Water 1. Are all five sites completely within the City of Newport Beach service area for domestic water supply? yts 2. Do you have maps showing existing and proposed water lines in the vicinity of the five sites that you could send to us. Please indicate points where water lines from the study areas could hook up with the exist77•ng water mains. we wA✓A Mzvs O/�FY/fT/NG /✓QT.�a2, dnsvaS, d�a� /YlA� s/4 v> A d�N�t=O da✓6PR/Nra=2 NJd.:�" 4x'�� 1� .•rL /lE✓/v'.J >•sJc��L PnoPos.cao J/Li J�N6��C CtluNrt.2 • Po/Y? OF GONA/��TJOitI CA.✓Q.r pETI�2Mi NaO �f A✓ i� 41,1Cu%T ��lifl domestic be available from the City of Newport 3. water service Beach to proposed development on each of the sites? yes F 4. Will' there be sufficient water pressure available for fire fighting purposes? {✓0,a 5. Considering each site and all five cumulatively, will there be any significant impacts on the City's water service capabilities due to the proposed General Plan Amendment? t� (�=) 6. What effect will the reduction of water supplied from the Colorado !, River have on water supply for Orange County? Have alternate sources of water supply been established? If so, what are they? cc. tnCD7,e r, I o,^SZedM 7. How prepared is Orange County to service a drought (i.e.,, status of reservoirs)? �001.;L-p t?r Fel-vo cs1,J LE�G�-�f� 0E-��+�G?�'1 Icn /";' "r . �T�n — 144z, t7iL �ii'M �.c�'1 d f 1 'f? fl'1 tl)OU� O •ri T *rates 8. What are the wa consumption used to estimate water cons umption�r u. -p,1, for: ` 14 . single-family detached residential; ?.'5 C- 1",�2.. . multi -family residential; . commercial;avZ2 2'ST02,lC=S t o€ i•ee# -"4 -t'b 2 S ve vl'`S general and light industrial uses? Wastewater 1. Are all five study sites entirely within the City of Newport Beach YFs service area for wastewater collection service? 2. Do you have maps showing existing and proposed wastewater collection lines in the vicinity of the five project sites that we could have? Please indicate points at which site sewer collection lines can be connected to main collection mains. 10 W< ,tGlvo- MQPr or_ (ry/I7/N6. FQ c/</ri6r. (,pn/N<CT/o.✓S• r1utT /1<< �4-iL (i .+iN3J T//dw �4�f/4 �. MAPS Mdi/ QG Ud Td/N.3'a .Q� A �q.JQi.G7 B-13 December 3, 1981 Dick Hoffstadt, Page Three Civil Engineer 3. Will wastewater collection service be available from the City of Newport Beach to the proposed development on each study -site? 4. Will the proposed General Plan Amendment cause any significant impacts on the City's ability to supply wastewater collection service? s o zees 5. When would wastewater generated by the sites be treated?p What agency has jurisdiction over the treatment plant? at is Newport Beach's allotted portion of influent to the plant? OLAP -1 G Za6t-a-�*� 5t&+4-i�✓'�l o t 1 IS j'i�i Gj S 6. Is any recldimed water utilized within the City of Newport Beach? ]gyp I would also like to confirm information that you provided in response to a similar request in January 1981. We understand that the City of Newport Beach obtains domestic water supply from the Metropolitan Water District. Wastewater collected and disposed of by the Orange County Sanitation Districts-TuA ►TG-ryxs{S -T'M-Pj5—, We would greatly appreciate your response by December 18, 1981. Any additional comments would be welcome. Please call me if you have any questions. Thank you very much for your generous assistance. Very truly yours, PHILLLIPS BRANDT'REDDICK Beverly Bruesch Assistant Project Manager BB:apt B-14 11 1 I I I I� COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. D. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF -RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) January 8, 1982 Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA 92714 G) Attention: Beverly Bruesch, Assistant Project Manager TELE PH ON EW AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 Subject: Environmental Impact Report for General Plan Amendment to City of Newport Beach General Plan Transmitted herewith is a copy of a land use map for the Districts' entire service area. All existing facilities have been designed to accommodate the land uses shown on this map. However, the Districts are currently updating the Facilities Plan for each District and will be evaluating any deficiencies which may have been created by changes in land use and development plans by the Cities and/or the County. These studies will be completed in mid -1982. in review of the five changes set forth in your letter of December 3rd, it does not appear that the changes in land use will materially affect the Districts' sewer systems. If the proposed projects exceed the projected flows indicated on the land use map, flow reduction.measures should be incorporated into the project. If you have any questions, please do`npt hesitate to call. y Chief Engineer REL:hjb cc: City of Newport Beach I B-15 I Southern California Edison Company °�- P.O. BOX 2060 TBSS 'BOLSA AVE. WESTMINSTER. CALIFORNIA 02665 January 7, 1982 1714)TELEPHON1714)a 1eBsea3 LA Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA 92714 Attention: Beverly Bruesch Subject: E.I.R. - General Plan Amendment to the City of Newport Beach General Plan ('GPA 81-2) Gentlemen: This is to advise that the subject property is located within the service territory of the Southern California Edison Company and that the electric loads of the project are within parameters of projected load growth which Edison is planning to meet in this area. Unless the demand for electrical generating capacity exceeds our estimates, and provided that there are no unexpected out- ages to major sources of electrical supply, we expect to meet our electrical requirements for the next several years. Our total systemdemand is expected to continue to increase annually; and, if our plans to proceed with future construc- tion of new generating facilities are delayed, our ability to serve all customer loads during peak demand periods could become marginal by the mid -1980's. in addition, we now believe that our fuel inventories, together with our contractual commitments for delivery are adequate through 1986. Current conservation efforts on the part of Edison's customers have resulted in energy savings. optimization of conservation measures in this project will contribute to the overall energy savings goal. Very truly yours., eC. V. Wri h Service Planner CVW:da DISTRICT OFFICE SERVING, CORONA DEL MAR . COSTA MESA . FOUNTAIN VALLEY . HUNTINGTON BEACH MIDWAY CITY . NEWPORT BEACH . ROSSMOOR . SEAL BEACH . SUNSET BEACH . WESTMINSTER B-16 i ZL,.0 :. ,2+Y13 C.-aLli 1. ,`:. 1..�-•L.+.7 `w 17.. .-Si J ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION P. O. BOX 3334, ANAHEIM, CALIF. 92803 iDecember 7, 1981 IJ B-17 Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA. 92714 1, Attn: Beverly Bruesch, Assistant Project Manager Subject: Caltrans West This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above-named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be pro- vided from an existing main as shown on the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of affects federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Residential (System Area Average) Yearly Single Family 1095 Therms/year/dwelling unit 640 Therms/year/dwelling unit Multi -Family 4 or less units Multi -Family 5 or more units 580 Therms/year/dwelling unit These estimates are based on gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company during 1975 and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. This is particularly true due to the State's new insulation requirements and consumers' efforts toward energy conservation. B-17 We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance. ES/pig Enclosure Sincerely, D. M. Glover Technical Supervisor 15U Ji [I 11 I I I F1 11 I C1 a I ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION • P. 0. BOX 3334, ANAHEIM, CALIF. 92803 December 7, 1981 Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA. 92714 Attn: Beverly Bruesch, Assistant Project Manager Subject: 5th Avenue Parcels This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above-named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be pro- vided from an existing main as shown on the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this lettere is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Residential (System Area Average) Single Family Multi -Family 4 or less units Multi -Family 5 or more units Yearly 1095 Therms/year/dwelling unit 640 Therms/year/dwelling unit 580 Therms/year/dwelling unit These estimates are based on gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company during 1975 and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. This is particularly true due to the State's new insulation requirements and consumers' efforts toward energy conservation. WE ti ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION • P. 0. BOX 3334, ANAHEIM, CALIF. 92803 December 7, 1981 Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA. 92714 Attn: Beverly Bruesch, Assistant Project Manager Subject: 5th Avenue Parcels This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above-named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be pro- vided from an existing main as shown on the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this lettere is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Residential (System Area Average) Single Family Multi -Family 4 or less units Multi -Family 5 or more units Yearly 1095 Therms/year/dwelling unit 640 Therms/year/dwelling unit 580 Therms/year/dwelling unit These estimates are based on gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company during 1975 and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. This is particularly true due to the State's new insulation requirements and consumers' efforts toward energy conservation. WE We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire 'further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance. ES/pjg Enclosure 8-20 Sincerely, D. M. Glover Technical Supervisor i� ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION • P. O. BOX 3334, ANAHEIM, CALIF. 9280.7 1 December 7, 1981 I B-21 Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA. 92714 Attn: Beverly Bruesch, Assistant Project Manager Subject: Big Canyon Area 16 This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above-named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be pro- vided from an existing main as shown on the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of take any action which affects federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Residential (System Area Average) Yearly Single Family 1095 Therms/year/dwelling unit Multi -Family 4 or less units 640 Therms/year/dwelling unit Multi -Family 5 or more units 580 Therms/year/dwelling unit These estimates are based on gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company during 1975 and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. This is particularly true due to the State's new insulation requirements and consumers' efforts toward energy conservation. B-21 We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance. Es/pig Enclosure Sincerely, D. M. Glover Technical Supervisor B-22 RECEIVEDRIEN .8 Sal ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION • P. O. BOX 3339, ANAHEIM. CALIF. 92803 December 7, 1981 Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA. 92714 Attn: Beverly Bruesch, Assistant Project Manager Subject: Newport Center Beach 400 This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above-named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be pro- vided from an existing main as shown on the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Estimates of gas usage for non-residential projects are developed on an in- dividual basis and are obtained from the Commercial -Industrial Market Services Staff by calling 213-689-2041 or 213-689-2062. We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation 1 techniques for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance. Sincerely, D.M. Glover Technical Supervisor ES/pig attach. I B-23 .+tt q,� a It { ^ �A,I 1 /y •� •.. 1 :.�I��,i ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION - P. O. BOX 3334, ANAHEIM, CALIF. 92803 December 7, 1981 Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA. 92714 Attn: Beverly Bruescb, Assistant Project Manager Subject: Campus Drive This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above-named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be pro- vided from an existing main as shown on the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Estimates of gas usage for non-residential projects are developed on an in- dividual basis and are obtained from the Commercial -Industrial Market Services Staff by calling 213-689-2041 or 213-689-2062. We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance. ES/pig attach. Sincerely, B-24 D. M. Glover Technical Supervisor Pacific Telephone B-25 December 11, 1981 ' City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 W. Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Calif. 92663-3884 Attention: Fred Talarico ' Re: File GPA 81-2 General Plan Amendment 81-2 Dear Fred: This is in response to the nonstatutory advisement you sent to us relating to the five sites involved in GPA 81-2. The impact on the telephone network is similar at all five locations. As density is increased, the need to reinforce the telephone system increases. Our engineering and construction forces would become involved in supplying the necessary telephone service as these areas develop. Thank you for the notification of this proposed change in the General Plan. If any questions arise, please call me at 999-5715. Very truly yours, L. C. Arthington Manager, Liaison Marshall B. Andrew Engineer, Liaison MBA:kc B-25 I C. Geotechnical Analyses 1 F 11 I I 11 10 1 1 I I 1 !I 7 I Landform/Geology Overview 0 LJ fl I r1 II II II It LANDFORM/GEOLOGY OVERVIEW This appendix section includes a review of the topographic and geologic conditions of the City of Newport Beach and the two currently developed GPA 81-2 sites: Block 400 -Newport Center and the Campus Drive office/industrial area. Also included are more detailed reviews of the topographic and geologic conditions of the currently undeveloped GPA 81-2 sites: Caltrans West parcel, 5th Avenue parcels (Areas A and B) and Big Canyon Area 16; as summarized from the geotechnical consultant reports following this section. CITYWIDE SETTING The City of Newport Beach is situated along the coast of the Los Angeles Basin, at the southerly edge of the Orange County Coastal Plain. The San Joaquin Hills to the east, the Newport Mesa to the west and north, the intervening Upper Newport Bay area, and the southerly Newport Harbor/ Pacific Ocean coastline areas are the major landform features defining the city's topographic setting. I J II The city's local seismic environment is dominated by the regionally signif- icant Newport -Inglewood fault zone which extends as a southeast -trending band from the Baldwin Hills in Los Angeles through Signal Hill in the Long Beach area, to the Huntington Beach and Newport -Costa Mesa areas, then offshore. The more recently active branches of this fault zone are most important for planning purposes. C-1 The city's geologic setting is the result of natural deposition, land uplifting, erosion and historic changes in base sea level. The geologic profile is typically alluvium and marine terrace deposits overlying flatland areas with underlying sequences of sedimentary bedrock. Major outcrops of sedimentary rock form the San Joaquin Hills. I J II The city's local seismic environment is dominated by the regionally signif- icant Newport -Inglewood fault zone which extends as a southeast -trending band from the Baldwin Hills in Los Angeles through Signal Hill in the Long Beach area, to the Huntington Beach and Newport -Costa Mesa areas, then offshore. The more recently active branches of this fault zone are most important for planning purposes. C-1 Other local faults of lesser significance inc-lude the Pelican Hill and Shady Canyon faults, both of which are considered to be inactive. Other regionally significant active faults which could affect the City of Newport Beach include the Whittier -Elsinore, Sierra Madre -San Fernando, San Jacinto and' San Andreas faults (see Table 1 and Exhibit 1). Table 1 REGIONAL SEISMICITY The frequency and intensity of earthquakes within the city will depend upon which active regional fault is involved, the earthquake magnitude, distance from the epicenter, and the local soil conditions. The Public Safety Element of the Newport Beach General Plan divides the ci-ty into four zone categories characterizing the relative degrees of potential groundshaking hazard. Category 1 has the lowest potential risk; Category 4 has the highest potential risk. All of the project study areas are located within Category 2, except the northern portion of the Campus Drive site which lies within Category 1. Because of its proximity, future earthquakes on the Newport -Inglewood fault will probably produce the strongest seismic ground motion within the city. As such, this fault is considered to be the controlling fault for building design and slope stability analysis. 1 City of Newport Beach, Certified FEIR•, General Plan Amendment 81-1,, March 1982. C-2 Approximate Distance Maximum Probable from City Earthquake Magnitudel Fault_ (Closest Point) (Richter) Newport -Inglewood 0 miles west 6.5 Whittier -Elsinore 18 miles northeast 7.2 Sierra Madre -San Fernando 35,miles.north 6.5 San Jacinto 42 miles northeast 7.5 San Andreas 49 miles northeast 8.0 The frequency and intensity of earthquakes within the city will depend upon which active regional fault is involved, the earthquake magnitude, distance from the epicenter, and the local soil conditions. The Public Safety Element of the Newport Beach General Plan divides the ci-ty into four zone categories characterizing the relative degrees of potential groundshaking hazard. Category 1 has the lowest potential risk; Category 4 has the highest potential risk. All of the project study areas are located within Category 2, except the northern portion of the Campus Drive site which lies within Category 1. Because of its proximity, future earthquakes on the Newport -Inglewood fault will probably produce the strongest seismic ground motion within the city. As such, this fault is considered to be the controlling fault for building design and slope stability analysis. 1 City of Newport Beach, Certified FEIR•, General Plan Amendment 81-1,, March 1982. C-2 MAJOR EARTHQUAKES AND RECENTLY ACTIVE FAULTS IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION EXPLANATION' ACTIVE FAULTS EARTHOUME LOCATIONS �—�.. � hpaprableeeewnpl 196 talnpw5es141 Tebl len mal leolt tone toot awes Holeeene deposits . weon01769.1933 Mo mlodesralmwded a Hbl Ra lad uama o[IIrl17 fr msnomenb 911a 1906 wart Ifllmeled hari domwe upels mapnw an Nr<mdy Nl soundest Newehswleld 9wrf3lotlamogM7 fault upmeM nlA solace wM re Junnp m nistaue M ho.k . Pinter M o0 31 moli smtgwfq ed .1h mmc putt veep I515110 ee uDel7aredNan me 164 od Demd 969-1933. Lam: Whip,4 epanles smce 1933, ppeHpd horn e Heleewe wkeme oc11nI, Imp Inpw a .ereZr,.&it n m 4w0�� (Mon. papon, (ermpneb aM SWlm&dHsl paid 533-973 SOURCE Moran, D.E. at all Geology, Seismicity and Environmental Impact, 1974 Regional Seismicity CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 81-2 fl I V 1899 INDIC rM7t M = EXHIBIT 1 Soil liquefaction, flow landsliding, seismically induced settlement, and ground lurching are secondary earthquake effects which .depend' upon such factors as groundshak,ing intensity, depth to groundwater, and the thickness and degree of consolidation present within onsite soils or alluvial deposits. Other geologic hazards relate to the stability of the various geologic formations and include landsliding, expansivity, compressibility and erosion. They are primarily localized, and the degree of hazard varies somewhat throughout the city, depending on a number of conditions including soil makeup, slope characteristics, vegetative cover and the presence of urban development. Hazards of landsliding within the city are most commonly associated with the steeper hillside and bluff slope areas. CALTRANS NEST SETTING Landform/Topography The 17 -acre Caltrans West study area is situated at the southwestern edge of the Newport Mesa. The topography of the site is characterized by grade - separated upper and lower mesa areas with bluff slopes overlooking West- Coast Highway to the south (see Exhibit 2). The western or lower mesa area slopes gradually in a southwesterly direc- tion before dropping abruptly to the existing West Coast Highway shoulder. The landform within the southwestern corner has been. modified by previous roadway grading and borrow/fill activities. An improved open drainage channel traverses the western edge of this lower area before discharging offsite to the west. Several other minor erosional swales are also in evidence. The eastern or upper mesa area is nearly level and is bordered on the south by cut slopes dropping sharply to Superior Avenue and Coast Highway. Further modification of these cut slopes is anticipated from the planned realignment of Superior Avenue. There are no natural coastal bluffs on the site. C-3 41I 1I r'I u � �0 � I I K52• k5 5 Kj0 0 ILLJJ! \ w+e J +y1'2 Li or ' a1$ ' K � KSZ•2 ;CEN fit VA Topography CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 81-2 *11 A IT K 0 126 250 375 EXHIBIT 2 Topographic elevations within the study area range from approximately 10 feet above mean sea level (MSL) along Coast Highway to approximately 80 feet above MSL at the northeastern corner (see Exhibit 2). The upper mesa lies approximately 25 feet above the lower mesa. Geology/Soilsl The study area is underlain by both non -marine and marine terrace deposits capping an underlying sequence of sedimentary bedrock belonging to the San Pedro and Monterey Formations (see Exhibit 3). Surface and near -surface deposits consist of several feet of topsoils. The terrace deposits comprise the upper and most recent sedimentary forma- tion and consist of massive silty sand underlain by layers of Palos Verdes sand. Thickness of these deposits is about ten feet to the south with an increasing landward thickening trend. They are exposed in the upper bluff faces overlooking West Coast Highway. The San Pedro Formation., the next oldest unit beneath the Palos Verdes sand, is exposed in the lower portion of cuts adjoining Coast Highway and along the western edge of the study area. Here, the formation consists of silty sandstone with pebbly to cobbly zones. it is generally more firm and less prone to erosion than the overlying Palos Verdes sand. Immediately below the San Pedro Formation is the Monterey Formation, the oldest bedrock exposed at the surface in the Newport Mesa area. It con- sists mainly of generally massive bedded siltstone, with some silty sand- stone layers. Exposures of the formation are limited to the lower several feet of the bluff cuts along Pacific Coast Highway. The majority of study area is mantled by topsoil belonging to the Marina Sandy Loam series with a small patch of Myford Sandy Loam occurring within the northwestern corner (see Exhibit 4). In the southwestern corner where the surface soils have been removed by past grading, the exposed soil 1' See Caltrans West parcel geotechnical report (Leighton and Associates, March 1981) following this section for further detail'. C-4 T C** LEGEND at NONMARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS atm TERRACE DEPOSITSRENTIATEO L' I SURFACE FAULT TRACE *Mapped by Quptlll and Heath. July 1981 **Mapped by Lalghton and Associates. March 1981 Geology a a U Vwt D a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 81-2 0� 125 260 EXHIBIT 3 NOTE. Soil Numbers Reference Table 7 SOURCE. SCS, 1978 Caltrans West Parcel 126 260 376 EXHIBIT 4 ' J I� I Lam' I cover is comprised of the older underlying, sedimentary formations.. Beach sands occur along the southerly edge where the property adjoins West Coast Highway. Selected physical characteristics of these soils are summarized in Table 2. Table 2 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SOIL TYPES CALTRANS WEST PARCEL Shrink -Swell Erosion Soil Unit* Slopes Potential Permeability Runoff Hazard 162 Marina Sandy 2.9% Low Moderate -Medium Moderate Loam 173 Myford Sandy 2.9% Low -High Very Slow Loam 185 Pits - - * Unit numbers correspond to those shown on Exhibit 4. Medium Moderate Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Survev of Oranoe Countv and Western Part of Riverside Cc Geologic Hazardsl As mentioned previously, the city's seismic environment is dominated by the regionally significant Newport -Inglewood fault zone, the more recently active branches of which are of greatest concern from a hazard standpoint. One of these branches, the North Branch, traverses the Caltrans West study area. The most recent investigation of the Newport -Inglewood fault zone through the West Newport Mesa area is presented in a report published by P.D. Guptill and E.G. Heath of Woodward -Clyde Consultants, reproduced in Appendix C of this document.2 This study provides detailed information on the probable surface expression of the fault zone's North Branch through 1 Ibid. 2 Paul D. Guptill and Edward G. Heath, geologists, Woodward -Clyde Consul- tants, "Surface Faulting Along the Newport -Inglewood Zone of Deforma- tion," California Geology, July 1981. C-5 the study area and vicinity (see Fault A on Exhibit 3). The surface trace is located parallel to, and approximately 380 feet to the north of this fault's mapped, subsurface location (past the southwestern corner of the site). The surface trace Was mapped on the basis of offsets observed in, exposures at several localities near the previously mapped subsurface North Branch locations (Leighton & Associates, 1981). While direct evidence of the fault's surface trace was not observed during the Leighton and Associates investigation (March 1981), their findings are generally in concert with those of the more recent Guptill and Heath study (July 1981). The Guptill and Heath study mapped another surface fault (see Fault B on Exhibit 3) northeast of the North Branch based on offsets observed in the slope separating the upper and lower mesa areas of the study area. This trace generally parallels the North Branch which suggests that Fault B is possibly a splinter fault. A third fault (see Fault C on Exhibit 3), has been mapped, by Leighton and Associates through the southeastern corner of the site. This north -south trending fault cuts the terrace deposits but does not appear to offset the youngest several feet of soils at the surface. The fault is parallel to others within the Newport -Inglewood zone which have been generally consi- dered as secondary faults affecting mainly the older formations at depth. It does not appear to correlate with any other previously mapped faults through the area. No areas of significant slope instability were observed during geotechni- cal investigations of the site nor have any such areas been mapped previ- ously by others. Some expansive soils (probably slight to moderately ex- pansive) underlie portions of the property. Erosion has occurred within the site, evidenced by the short, shallow drainage gullies in the south- western portions and the weathered cut slopes overlooking West Coast Highway. C-6 0 IMPACTS Plulti-family residential development and 2.4 acres of park use are pro- posed for the approximately 13.6 -acre portion of the study area located north and west of the planned Superior Avenue realignment. Resultant grading requirements will change the existing landform within this area. Although developing the entire site for open space and recreational uses (view and/or neighborhood parks) as presently allowed would still require some grading, more extensive earthwork and landform modification would be associated with implementing the proposed residential use. The extent to which grading will modify the site is not known at this time, but will be addressed in subsequent environmental documentation. Faults mapped onsite represent a potential hazard to habitable struc- tures. Fault A represents an identified potential displacement hazard. Further investigations are necessary to precisely identify the impact on the project of all faults shown on Exhibit 3. Proposed residential development will be subject to groundshaking from future earthquake activity along the major active fault zones noted ear- lier in this section. Data on the soils underlying the site indicate neg- ligible potential for secondary seismic hazards of liquefaction, settle- ment, and ground lurching. Landsliding or other slope instability pro- blems are not expected to be a significant development constraint. The presence of expansive soils within portions of the site will not pose a significant constraint to development. 5TH AVENUE (MARGUERITE PARCEL) SETTING Landform/Topography The approximately 9.6 -acre Marguerite parcel (Area A) is comprised of land sloping in a westerly direction from Marguerite Avenue to Jasmine Creek (see Exhibit 5). The northern corner of the site forms a portion of the C-7 X \ e i 20 L HARBOR VIEW HILLS Harborih�llw m 'At �A tk - _ �ft�` ', — ~� _ ' � �a�5/1} I}�f f�lir.r ;.;',,f l ;A 5 7' X,413r 01�1 f== I, i-Irn -XVEN—U- -Ff- k Topography b CITY'OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 81-2 Sh MUM PSMO EXHIBrF 5 earthen Harbor View Flood Control Dam. The west facing slope is incised by short, eroded drainage swales. One deeply eroded, well-defined swale originates at the edge of Marguerite Avenue, near the southern boundary of the site. As shown on Exhibit 5, elevations range from approximately 110 feet above MSL along Jasmine Creek to approximately 205 feet above MSL at the northeastern corner. Geology/Soilsl The surficial geology of the Marguerite parcel (Area A) is made up of marine terrace deposits and underlying bedrock formation exposed in the slopes above Jasmine Creek. Surface deposits include alluvium (within and adjacent to Jasmine Creek), artificial fill and topsoils (see Exhibit 6). ' Several areas of artificial fill are present within the Marguerite parcel. These fills have been previously placed in connection with construction of Harbor View Dam and Marguerite Avenue. 1 For further detail see the 5th Avenue parcels geotechnical report (Leighton and Associates, October 1981) following this section. HE The marine terrace deposits present range in thickness from 0-37 feet and consist of moderate to poorly consolidated clayey to silty sand with varying amounts of rounded pebbles and siltstone fragments. The layer immediately above the bedrock contact locally contains medium to large siliceous boulders. The Monterey Formation bedrock is exposed as bands in the bluff slopes ' facing Jasmine Creek. This bedrock consists of thin -bedded folded and fractured siltstones and sandstones. ' Alluvial deposits occur within the canyons adjacent to Jasmine Creek and, to some extent, within the erosional swale across the southern end of the parcel. These materials consist of slightly clayey sand to clayey silt. They are generally poorly to moderately consolidated with a maximum depth of ten feet noted along Jasmine Creek. ' Several areas of artificial fill are present within the Marguerite parcel. These fills have been previously placed in connection with construction of Harbor View Dam and Marguerite Avenue. 1 For further detail see the 5th Avenue parcels geotechnical report (Leighton and Associates, October 1981) following this section. HE i Tm MONTEREY FORMATION Ohn MARINE TERRACE DEPOS(f8 OY ALLUVIUM lal and col Geology CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 81-2 i .. 1 XHIBIT 6 I� 1 The parcel is generally mantled by 1-2 feet of topsoil consisting of sandy, clayey silt containing roots and other organics as well as local bedrock fragments. As shown in Exhibit 7, soils of the Myford Sandy Loam series exist over the entire parcel. Physical characteristics of these soils are summarized in Table 3. ' Table 3 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SOIL TYPES MARGUERITE PARCEL (AREA A) I 1 I Shrink -Swell Erosion Soil Unit* Slopes Potential Permeability Runoff Hazard 173 Myford Sandy 2-9% Low -High Very Slow Loam 175 Myford Sandy 9-15% Low -High Very Slow Loam Medium Moderate Rapid High 177 hlyford Sandy 9-30% b Low -High Very Slow Rapid Loam * Unit numbers correspond to those shown on Exhibit 7. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, op. cit., September 1978. Geologic Hazardsl High ' According to the geotechnical investigation, the Pelican Hill fault zone, located approximately 1.2 miles to the northeast of the parcel, is not re- garded as active. However, evidence suggesting potentially active classi- fications for portions of the fault zone has been noted in previous invest- igations, specifically along a trace through the Spyglass Hill area of Corona del Mar and the Irvine Cove area of Laguna Beach.2 No evidence of faulting was observed during geotechnical investigation of the site. 1 Ibid. 2 State of California, Division of Mines and Geology, Environmental Geology of Orange County, California, Open File Report, 79- LA�i9TG: C-9 1 $OIIS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 81-2 EXHIM 7 m moi i i i i i i i i i i i i MAM i No landslide hazards were observed within the site. The artificial fill, alluvium, and colluvium found onsite pose potential settlement hazards. ' The majority of soils onsite are moderately expansive; the underlying bedrock is noted to have highly expansive properties. Onsite erosion is ' most evident along the bluffs above Jasmine Creek where numerous minor swales and one particularly deep drainage gully (to the south) are present. ' IMPACTS Grading for the proposed development of medium -density residential uses on ' the site will alter the existing terrain. This grading is expected to be similar to that which would be required to develop the site consistent with the current General Plan designation allowing low-density residential uses. Due to the relatively small size of the site, the difference in grading impacts between development as proposed and as presently allowed ' would be minimal. In either case, implementing development on the parcel could result in indirect impacts on Jasmine Creek which may be signifi- cant. These potential impacts will be addressed in subsequent environ- mental documentation. Existing settlement and expansive soil hazards do not pose a significant development constraint. ' 5TH AVENUE (5TH AVENUE PARCEL) ' SETTING ' Landform/Topography The 13.2 -acre 5th Avenue parcel (Area B) is comprised of nearly level land, exhibiting a gradual northeasterly rise to the base of the engi- neered slopes bordering the adjacent Harbor View development (see Exhibit 5). Topographic elevations range from approximately 140 feet above MSL along 5th Avenue to approximately 195 feet above MSL near the northeastern corner. The floor of Buck Gully to the east occurs at approximately 95 feet MSL. An eroded swale which receives offsite drainage from an exist- ing pipe is incised into the slope descending into Buck Gully. C-10 1-1 I'LJ Geology/Soilsl The 5th Avenue parcel (Area B) is underlain by marine terrace deposits and ' bedrock which is exposed in the slope above Buck Gully. Surface deposits consist of several feet of topsoils and localized articial fill along the ' northern boundary (see Exhibit 6). The marine terrace deposits present range in thickness from 0-37 feet and ' consist of moderate to poorly consolidated clayey to silty sand with i varying amounts of rounded pebbles and siltstone fragments. The layer , immediately above the bedrock contact locally medium to large siliceous boulders. I The Monterey Formation bedrock is, exposed as bands in the bluff slopes facing Buck Gully. This bedrock consists of thin -bedded folded and ' fractured siltstones and sandstones. ' Alluvial and colluvial deposits occur within the adjacent canyons of Buck Gully. The alluvial materials present consist of slightly clayey sand to clayey silt. They are generally poorly to moderately consolidated. Colluvial deposits consist of very moist, silty clay with occasional cobbles and siltstone fragments. Deposits are thickest (maximum ten feet anticipated) along the slopes overlooking Buck Gully. , Several areas of artificial fill are ,present. These fill's have been previously placed in connection with grading for the adjacent tract of ' Harbor View homes. IThe parcel is generally mantled by 1-2 feet of topsoil consisting of sandy, clayey silt containing roots and other organics as well as local bedrock fragments. As shown in Exhibit 7, soils of the Myford Sandy Loam ' series exist over almost all of the parcel. A patch of Balcom Clay Loam soil exists at the northeastern corner. Physical characteristics of these soils are summarized in Table 4. 1 For further detail see geotechnical report (Leighton and Associates, October 1981). C-11 Table 4 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SOIL TYPES 5TH AVENUE PARCEL (AREA B) ' Soil Unit* Shrink -Swell Slopes Potential Permeability Erosion Runoff Hazard 113 Balcom Clay 30-50% Moderate Moderately Rapid High Loam Slow ' 173 Myford Sandy 2-9% Low -High Very Slow Medium Moderate Loam 175 Myford Sandy 9-15% Low -High Very Slow Rapid High Loam * Unit numbers correspond to those shown on Exhibit 7. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, op. cit., September 1978. ' Geologic Hazardsl Trenching conducted during a geologic investigation of the site exposed a ' previously suspected fault trace through the southeastern portion (Tan and Edgington, 1976). This fault is interpreted to be a subparallel sympa- thetic fault to the Pelican Hill fault zone to the northeast. The lack of evidence suggesting recent movement led the geotechnical consultant to con- clude that this fault trace is inactive. ' According to the geotechnical investigation, the Pelican Hill fault zone, ' located approximately 1.2 miles to the northeast of the parcel, is not re- garded as active. However, evidence suggesting potentially active classi- fications for portions of the fault zone has been noted in previous invest- igations, specifically along a trace through the Spyglass Hill area of Corona del Mar and the Irvine Cove area of Laguna Beach.2 1 For further detail see geotechnical report (Leighton and Associates, October 1981). 2 State of California, op. cit., 1976. C-12 No evidence of landsliding was noted within the boundaries of the 5th Avenue parcel (Area B), however a single, shallow failure was observed above Buck Gully within Area C. The majority of soils onsite are moderately expansive and the underlying bedrock is highly expansive. IMPACTS Grading for the proposed development of medium -density residential uses on the parcel will alter the existing terrain. The difference in grading impacts between the development proposed and the low-density residential' development presently allowed would be minimal. In either case, site preparation and earthwork could result in direct •or indirect impacts on Buck Gully. These potential impacts will be addressed in subsequent environmental documentation. I l I I Expansive soil problems do not represent a significant development con- straint. ■ BIG CANYON AREA 16 SETTING Landform/Topography The 10.9 -acre site is situated atop an uplifted marine terrace deposit at the northwestern edge of the San Joaquin Hills. As shown in Exhibit 8, the topography of the site varies from rounded, rolling terrain to irre- gularly sloping cut and filled land areas. Most of the property has been modified by previous grading in connection with golf course and roadway construction activities. One of the larger tributaries of the Big Canyon drainage system enters the site from beneath MacArthur Boulevard. This streamcourse extends a short distance across the property and continues offsite to the west onto the adjacent golf course fairway. Onsite elevations range from approximately 160 to 200 feet above MSL. The majority of the site occurs at elevations below Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard. C-13 a 11 4 11 T er`i°oem pe . ROA -I \af y 5j O m BIG CANYON GOLF COURSE \ ix p, — ; I Big Canyon Tributary �l '• / . 200', I•i Topography [Fog C ny(D[n4 A � T(5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 81=2 Y.e ee ee n4rpb"r _ 1 !J Geology/Soilsl The surficial geology of the study area consists primarily of artificial fill, alluvium (within the major onsite .drainages), topsoils, and sandy terrace deposits capping an underlying sequence of bedrock materials (see Exhibit '9). Deposits of artificial fill occur at scattered locations throughout the site. They include earth materials used in connection with roadway construction and golf course development, as well as soil heaps placed randomly over the years. Fill materials were placed within areas onsite during construction of Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard. These deposits may vary up to 20-25 feet thick. Golf course filling involved the lower swale areas, and materials were also placed along the edge of the course for landscape purposes. These locations may contain 10 to 15 feet of fill, with mounds containing up to 25 feet. The randomly placed spoil fills occur locally throughout the site as dump deposits and/or interior ' swale infillings. Fill materials present include local derived sands, silty clays and clays with scattered gravels and rock fragments. Dump materials include landscape trash, gravel, rocks and miscellaneous debris. Those portions of the site which have not been previously altered or filled contain a topsoil layer which thickens to colluvium in swales and along the more gentle slopes. Recent deposits of alluvium have developed along the major onsite drainages and within the respective retention/desilti'ng basin areas. These deposits are expected to be ' relatively thin, consisting of sand, silt and clay. The study area topsoil cover consists of dark colored mixtures of sand and ' clay. The soil types present include those of the Myford Sandy Laom and Anaheim Clay Loam series (see Exhibit 10). Physical characteristics of these soils are presented in Table 5. In altered areas, these surface soils have been stripped off and portions may be buried by artificial fill. 1 See the Big Canyon Area 16 geotechnical report (GeoSoils, Inc., October 1981) following this section for further detail. C-14 ,1M -- - --------------- ------------ FORD RDA ij. Af at J Li LEGEND Ot TERRACE DEPOSITS Af .10 ARTIFICIAL FILL Af s3 SOURCE: Geaoils. Inc. 1981 'Af — °t 0 Geology ITM �- cmyan Raw �s ggn 1 Q2U 1�02 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 81-2 NOTE: Boll Numbers, Reference Table 7 SOURCE: SC8, 1678 Soils 4g myon d A a w CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 81=2 0 100 200 300 EXHIBIT 10 Table 5 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SOIL TYPES BIG CANYON AREA 16 Shrink -Swell Erosion Soil Unit* Slopes Potential Permeability Runoff Hazard 109 Anaheim Clay 30-50% Moderate Moderately Rapid High Loam 174 Myford Sandy 2-9% Low -High Very Slow Medium Moderate Loam 177 Myford Sandy 9-30% Low -High Very Slow Rapid High Loam * Unit numbers correspond to those shown on Exhibit 10. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, op. cit., September 1978. Geologic Hazardsl A branch of the Pelican Hill fault zone passes the site about 2,000 feet to the south and southwest. While no fault traces have been mapped within the property, bedrock fracture is expected to extend into the property site. According to the geotechnical investigation, the Pelican Hill fault zone is not regarded as active. However, evidence suggesting potentially active classifications for portions of the fault zone has been noted in previous investigations, specifically along a trace through the Spyglass Hill area of Corona del Mar and the Irvine Cove area of Laguna Beach.2 No evidence of landsliding was noted during geotechnical review and reconnaissance. Moderate to highly expansive soils are expected to occur within the site. 1 Ibi'd. 2 State of California, op. cit., 1976. C-15 I IPIPACTS Grading for the development of medium -density residential uses will change r the existing terrain over an area which, for the most part, hasalready been alteredin connection with previous golf course and roadway construc- tion activities, Grading would be required to implement recreational uses consistent with the existing General Plan. Thus, no sigificant change in impact is attributable to the proposed GPA. Tentative tract level grading considerations will be addressed in subsequent environmental discussion. Expansive soil hazards do not pose a significant development constraint. BLOCK 400 - NEWPORT CENTER SETTING Landform/Topography Newport Center is situated south of Big Canyon atop a marine terrace de- posit at the edge of the San Joaquin Hills. , The study area is flat and contains four high-rise office buildings along the perimeter with internal surface parking lots and access drives. Geology/Soils investigation provides a general indicator of the types of materials which are likely to underlie all of Block 400. 1 Donald R. Warren Co. inc. Newport Medical C-16 Office Build - r L I A foundation investigation conducted prior to the construction of an existing geologic medical office building in Block profile consisting of sandstone and 400 revealed a subsurface clayey siltstone bedrock with a thin mantle of topsoil and compacted fill.l The bedrock was noted to be weathered and fractured but dense and only slightly compressible. The surface soil layer exhibits expansive properties. This earlier investigation provides a general indicator of the types of materials which are likely to underlie all of Block 400. 1 Donald R. Warren Co. inc. Newport Medical C-16 Office Build - r L I 11 II IS l_.] I F1 I I I: Geologic Hazards The Pelican Hill fault bypasses Block 400 approximately 4,500 feet to the east. Significant secondary seismic hazards are not expected to be present within the study area. Due to nearly level terrain and existing development (extensive paving), landslide and erosion hazards are not significant considerations. IMPACTS Grading activity will be minimal and confined to excavation within the existing paved areas over which the new development will be constructed. No significant geotechnical constraints are anticipated. CAMPUS DRIVE SETTING Landform/Topography The Campus Drive study area encompasses level, developed land located at the junction of the Newport Mesa with the inland Tustin Plain. Geology/Soils The surficial geology of the Campus Drive study area consists of reworked alluvium, colluvium, marine terrace deposits and topsoils. Geologic Hazards The inferred trace of the Shady Canyon fault, concealed by surficial allu- vial materials and considered to be inactive, passes the Campus Drive study area approximately one mile to the northwest. The Pelican Hill and Bolsa -Fairview faults are located approximately 1.7 miles to the south and approximately one mile to the west, respectively. Secondary seismic ha - C -17 zards of significance are not present within the study area. Landslide and erosion hazard considerations within the study area also are insignifi- cant due to level terrain and existing development. IMPACTS No significant landform modifications or geotechnical constraints are anticipated. C-18 Consultant Reports 1. Caltrans West Parcel 2. 5th Avenue Parcels 3. Big Canyon Area 16 L, I I I I 1 1. Caltrans West Parcel 0 J I I P I 1 C-19 I I I lJ I I a I I I L, I Er N • •• ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT (FINAL DRAFT), BANNING -NEWPORT RANCH, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA March 30, 1981 Project No. 180562-02 Prepared for: BEECO, LTD. 3990 Westerly Place, Suite 255 Newport Beach, California 92663 Attention: Mr. John Haskell 17975 SKY PARK CIRCLE, SUITE E, I RVINE,CALIFORNIA92714 (714)556.1421 . (213)691.2125 IIRVINE • WESTLAKE/VENTURA • DIAMOND BAR/WALNUT • SAN BERNARDINO/RIVERSIDE • SAN 01900 �I TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING I 1.1 Regional Geology I 1.2 Bedrock Formations and Surf icial Soils 3 1.3 Geologic Structure and Faults 4 1.4 Seismicity 8 1.4.1 Design Considerations for Seismic Shaking 12 1.4.2 Secondary Effects of Seismic Shaking 12 IS Landslides and Erosion 14 2.0 GEOHYDROLOGIC SETTING 15 2.1 Groundwater Conditions IS 2.2 Surface Runoff Conditions IS 3.0 OIL RESOURCES AND PRODUCTION 17 3:1 Early History 17 3.2 Oil Production History 18 3.3 Current Well Status 18 3.4 Lease Facilities (Primarily West of the Subject Site)19 3.4.1 Oil Gathering System 19 3.4.2 In-Situ Combustion System 19 3.4.3 Steam Injection System 19 3.4.4 Produced Water 19 3.4.5 Electrical Service 19 , 3:4.6 Water Service 19 3.4.7 Buildings 19 3.5 Drilling Program 20 ' 3.6 Assisted Recovery 20 3.6.1 Waterflood 20 3.6.2 In-Situ Combustion 20 3.6.3 Cyclic Steam Flooding 21 3.7 Producing Areas 21 4.0 PRINCIPAL GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS, CONSTRAINTS, IMPACTS AND 23 , POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1 Geologic Factors or Potential Problems Evaluated 23 4.2 Fault'Displacement or Ground Rupture 23 4.2.1 Mitigation Measures 24 4.3 Regional Seismic Ground Shaking 25 i 4.3.1 Mitigation Measures 25 LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED I� I� II TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.) Section 4.4. Liquefaction and Other Related Secondary Seismic Hazards 4.4.1 Mitigation Measures 4.5 Settlement and Expansive Soil 4.5.1 Mitigation Measures 4.6 Slope Instability 4.6.1 Mitigation Measures 4.7 Subsidence 4.7.1 Mitigation Measures 4.8 Tsunami 4.8.1 Mitigation Measures 4.9 Oil Field Hazards and Constraints 4.9.1 Mitigation Measures 4.10 Impacts of Continued Oil Production on Land Development LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figures Figure I - Regional Geologic Map Figure 2 - Subsurface Structure and Fault Map, Banning -Newport Ranch Figure 3 - Cross -Section A -A' - West Newport Oil Field Figure 4 - Geology - Proposed General Plan Amendment 81-1 Figure 5 - Areal Geology Figure 6 - Geologic Section A -A' Figure 7 - Regional Major Faults and Earthquake Epicenters Figure 8 - Lines of Equal Piezometric Elevation Tables Table I - General Seismic'Parameters Table 2 - Summary of Geotechnical Parameters and Impact Assessment APPENDIX Appendix A - References, Aerial Photographs Reviewed, Persons Contacted r a Page 25 25 25 26 26 26 28 28 28 29 29 30 30 2 6 7 9 10 11 13 16 12 27 I• LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED 180562-02 1.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING 1.1 Regional Geology The subject property is located at the southwest edge of Newport Mesa, which is of intermediate elevation between the San Joaquin Hills (some 5 miles to the east) and the lower flood plain of the Santa Ana River (approximately 1',500 feet west of the site). The mesa is capped by nearly horizontal terrace deposits (both ancient near - shore marine and terrestrial deposits), which are underlain by the sedimentary San Pedro and Monterey Formations. Surficial deposits include minor alluvial deposits (in narrow canyon bottoms), fill, slope wash and topsoil materials. The Newport -Inglewood fault zone, which forms an important element of the regional geologic structure, results in the broad up -arching and disruption of the subsurface formations, extending as a southeast -trending band from the Baldwin Hills in the Los Angeles Basin, through Signal Hill in the Long Beach area, to the Huntington Beach and Newport -Costa Mesa area, then offshore. A principal branch of the foult.zone has been mapped by the state and others through the subject property. Refer to Figure I, which illustrates the major geologic and geographic features of the region. In terms of the relative importance cf the various main fault traces of the Newport - Inglewood Zone which have been mapped, those which are believed to be the more recently active main branches would be considered of greatest concern (see Figure 1). One of these, mapped passing through the site, is called the North Branch; the other, passing offshore about a half mile southwest of the property, is the South Branch. Other northwesterly trending branches (as much as 4 miles further north) would not be of as much concern because of their distance and apparent lesser activity. As at other locations along the Newport -Inglewood fault zone,, an economically important oil field (the West Newport Oil Field) underlies the site. p LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED 1 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP ;6z-02 i !cAROEI .v r•"— ¢aav1. a vw GROVG 51 ar u s x.wi i \ ! li�,1 I wUR'Nf STIP-^,V ra wCSTYWfICIa •.. � I SLK ; efACX; l Qal i i - l .y NOIM1e i it v .• , hut.. • Clm_ Vuv . . �1•�-�- 90L55 CNICP I ESA .,•Gal,/. n MUNTINGTGN i� EAGPI ,is \''. MESA -_• a;'^ s' ty "TINCT \� North Branch ]'•,] ' , .''� IM South Branch LEGEND Lac +a3 STi — •uyvm• u.c. V A.. I. 11 C... nal. Q31 a. ..•¢Arae .Na .vv.v c¢ravuouao aewal. ur¢. ANv vat. ®Aolxs........¢.wu. Aorro ""'."N ...No c.. a. � ar. aANe. AND AN ..... AN...ava.N....... N¢r.eavu.uvvaAND ..aaAaL+ LAA..L1 eo.n a.N .a....e••••n¢• C%G .Ynt aA.... ..1. $167, AND cu.. INCLUC91 ora .a�++i �.oa112OLC.au.e.+i.Na. a........ o 'A.....+o v..�u •'uv .s+ ••aaa.'a .....all.. ® Ce-,auv.ran um.a......x.a .. N. AND .ec.a.... '....v�c.ilu. �I��••�-• •Ao:o-m..a.a A...m1raav ax..ae. e¢nm ANa"a C.NC..Lav v. nrc••a¢ __-. �_ Cvrt.e• ��, ua•ay.+onr.n•an .+v vunnoN.u• (MODIFIED FROM CALIF. DEPT. WATER RESOURCES PROGRESS REPORT ON GROUNDWATER GEOLOGY OF THE COASTAL PLAIN OF ORANGE CO., 1967) .......... /..I ORANGE 7 Lti+ 11I'(I .. ..!_•• SAN ANAA IIT .u1+lx•• .V«.. ! .•a� .T «._ - ••__ __�..}._. •'Lr Gal J, e Z. 4 Gla• �•a G>a Oal m a A Gal i01v [ -� •�T. --'f/•••S`: _�._.1.�4.. :.... .. ._ .. ;.TCA •5;! T$�.✓ <' Qlm Al •c� Ott gee. T;;f - .. �..f. .717 Ilk ..J •� (jl'� Figure Leighton & Associates -2- 1.2 Bedrock Formations and Surf icial Soils The majority of the surface of the property, is mantled by several feet of topsoil, consisting primarily of reddish -brown silty fine sand (on the •mesa portions) and mostly lighter colored material of similar or coarser grained composition on the bluff slopes. Fill associated with the oil field development'is usually derived from nearby shallow cuts. Additional soil descriptions for much of the subject property are contained in earlier soil investigation reports (References 6, 11 and 15). In terms of their agricultural classification,, the near -surface soils primarily include the Myford sandy loam (mesa area) and the Marina sandy loam (southeast portion of the property) see Reference 28. In other portions of the bluff where the surface soils have been removed by erosion or past grading (e.g., borrow excavations along the previously proposed extension of Balboa Avenue, at the south edge of the bluff), the exposed soil is comprised of the older sedimentary formations. Existing artificial fills within the subject site appear to'be relatively minor, being associated primarily with access road construction and in connection with old grading for the, Pacific Coast Highway, at the southwest corner of the property. Some piles of loose fill and trash have been dumped at the surface of the westerly pad of the Caltrans parcel. Although no oil sumps or other significant disposal areas associated with the oil field activities are known to exist, such deposits could be encountered in 'exploratory excavations or during site grading. The most significant and uppermost sedimentary formation of the mesa areas is the terrace deposits. These deposits are comprised of up to 10 feet of massive, reddish brown silty nonmarine sand, underlain by nearly horizontal layers of yel lowish -white, light gray and tan "Palos Verdes" sand. Both of these deposits are of late Pleistocene age and are included under the map unit designated Qtm (on Figure 1) and apu (on Figure 5). The base of the nonmarine terrace appears to coincide with a white pebbly'loyer consisting of caliche nodules or siltstone fragments. The Palos Verdes sands are of marine origin, and contain interbeds of silty to slightly clayey sand, cemented sand, gravelly to pebbly sands, some of which are highly fossiliferous (primarily mollusk shell fragments). The various strata weather and erode differently, depending upon their composition and amount of cementation present. Rodent borrows are commonly present in the loose sandy layers. Thickness of the -3- �p ;*g LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATEO I deposits range from about 10 feet to more than 90 feet (beneath higher portions of the mesa). These deposits are exposed in the southern portion of the site in steep cuts made for oil well sites, road cuts, and borrow site excavations, and in the natural drainage channels and bluff faces. The San Pedro Formation, the next oldest unit beneath the Palos Verdes sand, is exposed in the lower portion of cuts adjoining Pacific Coast Highway along the south edge of the site. Here, the formation consists of buff, grayish to rusty tan silty sandstone with pebbly to cobbly zones. It is generally more firm and less prone to erosion than the overlying Palos Verdes sand, but is similar to it in composition and stratification (near horizontally layered). The boundary between the two forma- tions, consequently, is difficult to map and identify precisely in the field. In areas to the west, in the bluffs above the Santa Ana River flood plain, the contact between the base of the terrace deposits (Polso Verdes sand) and the San Pedro ' Formation is more well defined, since the stratification within the two units differs at that location. is I 1 F7 Li I I� Immediately below the San Pedro Formation is the Monterey Formation, of Miocene age, the oldest exposed at the surface in the Newport Mesa area. It consists mainly of highly fractured and sheared, generally massively bedded brown siltstone, with some silty sandstone. Exposures of the formation are limited to the lower several feet of the cuts along Pacific Coast Highway, and was apparently encountered in the southernmost boring made by Crandall and Associates (Reference 5), in 1963. The local groundwater, percolating through the upper, relatively permeable materials, appears to become perched on top of the Monterey Formation, as witnessed by the seepage which occurs at numerous locations at and just beyond the southeast edge of the study area. 1.3 Geologic Structure and Faults While the near -surface geologic structure is relatively simple, the subsurface complexities within the older formations have become evident through the extensive oil field development along the Newport -Inglewood fault zone. Subsurface mapping and correlation of strata from oil well logs have depicted a substructure of generally northwesterly inclined strata offset by a series of northwest- and north -trending - 4 - PU;ag LEIGHTON,and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED faults (Reference 8; see Figure 2 also). In combination, these have resulted in the trapping of oil in various permeable strata (refer to Figure 3). The subsurface fault locations are shown by the short dashed lines on the Site Geology Map (Figure 4), which are based on the locations from Figure 2. One of the major faults of the Newport -Inglewood fault zone (North Branch) has been shown on previously published state maps (References 2 and 16) to be exposed at the surface on site, cutting both the older formations and the terrace deposits (as indicated on Figure 5). Since our recent geologic mapping did not confirm the presence of the North Branch at the surface and there has been some doubt as to its location within the property (verbal communication with a state geologist familiar with the area), the accuracy of previously published fault locations has been a matter of continuing uncertainty. Other major branches of the fault zone are 1h mile offshore (South Branch), and as much as I'/z to:4 miles northeast of the site (see Figure I). In most cases, indirect evidence from subsurface data must be relied upon when the faults are obscured at the surface and no direct observation of the fault has been made or is feasibly possible. As a consequence, the dashed faults shown on'Figure 4 have varying degrees of reliability, as to their existence as well as location. These inferred faults are important in defining the subsurface structure in the oil field and some of the more prominent ones have been named. The westernmost one within the site is called the Banning fault. Our most recent geologic mapping revealed no definite evidence of the main branch fault exposed at the surface along its projected trace, although probable secondary faulting was observed in the terrace deposits at other locations. In the deep cut near the central part of the site, the continental terrace deposits are faulted against older strata of the Palos Verdes sand. The fault (designated Fault A on Figure 4, for reference purposes in this report) appears to be covered by 2 to 3 feet of undisturbed soil and terrace material at the surface. This fault, although it cannot be ruled out as the surface expression of the main North Branch (Fault D), is considered more likely to be the projection of Fault A', because of its trend and southwestward inclination. It would' not correlate with Fault E. �ULJ0��� LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED 180562-02 hlgure z SUBSURFACE STRUCTURE AND FAULT MAP ter•-- BANNING -NEWPORT RANCH LCCEND \• • •.0 .r[[r[. nuxo . u.NM.µ[r[o u cwµn o[i.00ub o[• DATUM -SEA LEVEL [ cwrt[r[o mu CONTOUR INTERVAL W4100FT Two-) • <oranm ••.xo.xm ■ b0U/W [W \`NOTE: CONTOURS ON "A" ZONE A Is o ti zo 2t I A0NI NPCR+ FIELD 7.1 .per•: r7 ,. � ..\ r^\• ... �I \ \ X06 NORTH BRANCH ' � �j• � •� •,^ � ,• FAULT E -~r it•.� FAULT FAULT D "e., eO y� SCALE - _.[irLl 1951 - ___ • modified from California Division of Oil and Gas. 1956 SUBJECT PROPERTY a I ° I• LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED SUBJECT co PROPERTY N N u s ;,;�..�.•: 'ire F � •:-:'r;iw�` �,f � .-. '•y.�� „' i :10n— 1 ,• I� • >% f'ii • F o k�fl oi�fa'�c >i . 1 O �. (( CFg55 SEt:f10N AM dWWI WEST NEWPORT OIL FIELD 77 OMNCL COUNIT. CALVMXIA j ' • c All • E u.nro\uu.0 j� FYIKY p O"\ W f ..�. «.. i FOR LOCATION SEE FIG. 2 ' r• c t. m Modified From California Division of 011 and Gas, 1956 +. =A* := so 11101 m! r Alm m i ,m m mmIf9 'mss Fault B, another relatively young fault which cuts the terrace deposits at the south edge of the Caltrans parcel, has a north-south trend, parallel to other faults within the Newport-Inglewood zone and which have been generally considered to be secondary faults affecting mainly the older formations at depth. Like Fault A, this ' fault does not appear to offset the youngest several feet of soils at the surface. It does not appear to correlate with any previously mapped fault. At the intersection of Superior Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway, the road cut above the north side exposes a fault-like discontinuity in the contact between the terrace or San Pedro Formation and the underlying Monterey Formation. Because of the lack of sufficient direct evidence of the feature to be a fault, its existence is questionable. The apparent offset could be an ancient erosion feature. The age and relative importance of the faults described above, and their development constraint ' implications, are discussed in Section 4.0, below. 1.4 Seismicity The frequency of earthquakes and the intensity of the seismic ground shaking to be experienced at the site will depend upon which of the numerous active regional ' faults produced the earthquake, the'earthquake magnitude, the distance from the earthquake epicenter, and the local soil conditions. Refer to Figure 7, which shows epicenter locations of earthquakes of Richter Magnitude greater than 4.0, during the period from 1932 to 1972. This map illustrates the relatively higher activity associated with the Newport-Inglewood fault zone, as compared with other faults in ' the Los Angeles-Orange County areas. Table I indicates the estimated earthquake magnitudes and intensities associated with major active faults of the region. I -8- l;�ft LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED i „... , - % , • .!. - _:�.[' ' LEGEND a i '4 l � �'I • j,. r•_::•�• FAULT (Mapped at surface)* � �� „ _, • _ BURIED FAULT(Inferred locations shown at depth)** '��' j ARTIFICIAL FILL � .. ', «.•;��� t'. w ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS SAN PEDRO FORMATION , TERRACE DEPOSITS ... Nonmarine R� }) , .. ; lyM.l; .' �•- Marine or Undifferentiated , \'�� . i •• 1� Mapped by Leighton during current ” \ Investigation. *Burled fauRe based on previous published data. r ,��a - + 1��i�., ; E" .FAULT. �"`"? '1;�?;,., �'•r�� // •ZD. R £ .,FAULT a RTIt1, ' ��,;:;g; lE::+� ' �'✓ , 9RAN H ^ 4` . .. �, ..... :......... ii; ilirto? Lw� o��iN�LEwoo�i-FAULT ....�:::.:.::....... r^- I .. �� �; ,;//, �a�i ice, ^ '..'.: �A\�":�:�t .. • � � I AULT 8 �l>4aC/�.r/�. �� Geology PROP GD C7FHERQL City of Newport Beach 0 3115 '170 1156 FIGURE 4 PLAN AMENBME U 814 -9- I 02 , X01 r•O II= awlLra•F' • •••• `' COUNTY 1�• i 19 rd•9, y �QG<J• I Iy�•:\ s ••�' IN — — — N• a Oy • v4.• ,N as ;�'• c 0 e I Sr A CI 9c �c I I!�j Otl 'N4u14 t/L Nr .p G• j� •� CG •••P•�;�'•'•V .u•4 •wM41V WC rV O•. Ij lu. I.Y 1 O•.� •. . M Gu G1 • I {I IYI IpN..Y. •r•M .. Nf.rl.l _ a..l �slrta «.r Y..•I.trn• Ytum u.+..•P.. sal • m••Is— la. f <IYl41t /W.I, tN�a •IMIM i1M•I 1—I_.- IR•Yt ITN• lent[ w.M iMfIN101 `�� tM> arM^>4 Y M Iltlut M t•M• P Nua YI I:t LOCATION OF ,CLLS MON SUDWITIAtE CEMM-C DATA \� OSCD IN TIOS 1EP08T \! 14 .ul•ay w••<w q.•N yt T•t•. tR — ou .Iw sm.r. at. fit F.1•nv a. n ml .•r. lal••s .W -off ---- - ®m ®g - ; r.. Om •: Innm.O t t•• OCG 3•''G:'G eAVC u' modified from: I .''''• ✓ •N tttWtttt �' IIC. •,'••� • M ...... HT OI WAIEN PLIOVNCt' GROUND WATCR BASIN PROTECTION PROJECTS SALINITY BARRILR STUDIES SANTA ANA GAP, ORANGE COUNTY AREAL GEOLOGY ' OYt t.nmauo•r nt..Y•a nua SGL, Or FEET Qlu N•t IINN•N•r IIII MI IND 0 IA{1 }i0J )DDD - OM M u+••.a -10- SUBJECT �,:...:,..::''':.:• :PROPERTY a0i •�� . - i1—_—_— ' I . I modified from: I .''''• ✓ •N tttWtttt �' IIC. •,'••� • M ...... HT OI WAIEN PLIOVNCt' GROUND WATCR BASIN PROTECTION PROJECTS SALINITY BARRILR STUDIES SANTA ANA GAP, ORANGE COUNTY AREAL GEOLOGY ' OYt t.nmauo•r nt..Y•a nua SGL, Or FEET Qlu N•t IINN•N•r IIII MI IND 0 IA{1 }i0J )DDD - OM M u+••.a -10- t A f ' A .Iw uclNo S « A c A 4 •u 0 ww w...Nu o - L o {,.� MYMl Nu.4"MYM M. SUBJECT PROPERTY PROJECTED WESTWARD INTO SECTION-�� » r� • •w 4fY..ti MY.M YfM[lNuti.... FACIFIC OCEAN ©„r;„ ..STK, f •1._._ �, :" •/+•r•-•, I - 1 - _�,_.•-M1 ..•. ...........•.—... ':�i:: L�i • :,uinN.u, .u.+..«r...0•.a.w p...w ..Tr�Iel^:e[,,:u; .—'. .:-—:1.�...y. ..� .�•_...:! �•.. -.:.. :.•t�:.•..-..a .—.. Si••+r: -» n.w.. ..a..."... _ iTA..• �M:• '.� ":: ?:�:: _TecBERt ....................._ .:-::'�•..:-:�1.•sii-. T:.: ;r. 1� wu •..,u,u•,.0 :[:I -✓: .---ate —mow':`-. i., i. •.......... �R' :40u,f [R :I:• '. ........... rn; �. �: ./ _, - �tiv Yl i•tr ,�.+•r. :J.L l .. ... ............• �:Y.:.�.. %::I 1 /r -M - :..•Y.J: .••..y._.... T_..�'�+`•... - v_Wi. t...T... _• .t.......... -�.Li, :.C....-.•f.-r...T. • l. •••.K•.-:.•r..:.. `i.. u..........te .•:� ... ............. ........ ` .IM .W�.W�•.1•...0 Y..,..\M .� M,..avM. N•. ...I.x.V r.•M..(t\Y - -i Y: •j+�.�r-...it! _ -�: : •:-I.K:.in ........... ::i^:t yy..` :-.. �� L isa•ww,l.xuarr,n.u.srwul -'/{i i-.�G-V.I;` _ :. :.T.T ... .�. :.'-!::_.. ir. � .: ! :-i' :: ...�_ • -,ice • • .t» I w r•.a,r J: .. Y.b:� .. _"•-•rl.. •`I.�.T.'.'.'V .,:i .. � .._ ...•~.• ..w�. I�' _:��TJ' .... .Tv :::::`.•:. •ilk. - ..t 1M.OUKt\.GIpt L ^ I•Y ' •�Il ` •V i OVMi.aNi O/ MAf[O 1.iOIMC{! I; .�; •;�s-�. �.\ �:: _iis GROUND -WATER OA4N-MGi ECTION-PAOJ[tt: I I I'Yy I •��-:���.•..:..� SALINITY BARRIER STUDIES • •'•::: • • . • SMiA Arm GAP, GRANGE COUNTY GEOLOGIC SECTION- A—A! FOR LOCATION SEE FIGURE 5 MAW m m m oft's m m M,= M, a* =AM= I TABLE rGENERAL SEISMIC PARAMETERS Modified ' Mercal li Maximum Probable Intensity Fault Distance (Mi.) Magnitude (Richter) (At Site) Newport -Inglewood 0-4 6.5 IX Whittier -Elsinore 24 7.2 VII ' San Jacinto 48 7.5 VII -VIII Sierra Madre- 37 6.5 VI -VII San Fernando San Andreas 53 8.0 • VII -VIII ' 1.4.1 Design Considerations for Seismic Shaking: Because of the proximity of the Newport -Inglewood fault zone, future earthquakes on 'this fault, in all likelihood, would produce the strongest seismic ground motion at the site and would be considered the controlling fault for the purposes of building design and slope stability analysis. The peak bedrock acceleration anticipated from a maximum probable earthquake within the general Newport Beach area is 0.24g (Reference 29). However, because of the remote possibility that on ' epicenter of a future earthquake could be located very close to the property, the peak acceleration could exceed 0.3g. Other factors to be taken into account in design include the duration of the strong motion, the type of • building, the depth to groundwater and the underlying soil characteristics. ' Such factors will influence the seismic wave characteristics and the relative potentially damaging effect of an earthquake. In general, the intensity of a given earthquake (i.e., the observed damage effects) will be greatest in those ' areas underlain by deeper, softer and saturated alluvial deposits; somewhat less where a site is underlain by relatively firm to semiconsolidated soil or formation; and least where very firm to hard bedrock is present at the surface. 1.4.2 Secondary Effects of Seismic Shaking: Soil liquefaction, flow landsliding, seismically induced settlement, and ground lurching are secondary earthquake phenomena generally associated with relatively strong seismic shaking, I• • -12- � LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED 10562-01 REGIONAL MAJOR FAULTS AND EARTHQUAKE EPICENTERS 39 X t + xf, x xc x k x x x XA X ' x xx XX ,XX\Xx x x x xX \�. x 37 x X- + x • \ x �. X X \� XX X xxX X" X� + t x x X t-� 35 X X x x #'!,I x x xx X a �c x xx x x + ¢ xx x + sq � X L_ xx 4N .. x X # Xx�� F93 ?C X XX x x \r w� yx+'x xxxaa` .x x x 5... <X h X 522_ X Cc x 4�x X xx )K x x. YFy"i v..,x • " s X Xo �zr� Xx X X 'F K t � . X `�FX�,Q.�'Sk X 33 x Kc x X x xxxx x x x x x xx o x x x x c\ xx X (X x x x Xx VX xXXx xxkX x xc * t xXx j(xx 32 x t + 1 9 xF x r� X x EPtCENtEER S!VSCLS X x X: r �xx x X �X `�. c Sc X xx S C M ,� 6 x X x x X�X •a •7�X X x xx>= 6 � n 117 116 x US xn'�OOC )yxxX lie x xX X xx xx>CKxiC e x 1932 THRCUC+I 1972, EVENTS EGURL OR GRERTER THAN HRCNITUCE-4 . -(MODIFIED FROM HILEMAN, 1973) Leighton & Associates -13- Fi"qure 7 L shallow groundwater conditions and the presence of loose sandy soils or alluvial deposits. The occurrence and severity of these hazards is difficult to ' predict without sufficient subsurface data, and also difficult to mitigate if there is a high probability of their occurrence. A condition where relatively r loose, uniform ("clean"), medium- to fine-grained sand is present, with the groundwater level within about 30 feet of the surface, would be especially ' conducive for soil liquefaction if subjected to strong seismic shaking of sufficient duration. Such a soil condition is not believed to be present within the subject site. i ' 1.5 Landslides and Erosion r No areas of significant slope instability were observed in our reconnaissance of the site, nor have any .areas been previously mapped on the property by others. The near -surface formations underlying the mesa are relatively stable from the stand- point of landslide resistance, although the lowest portions of the bluff along the south part of the site expose the relatively weaker Monterey Formation. Grading of the bluffs would not necessarily increase the exposure of this formation in the new slopes. ' The surficial stability and susceptibility of slopes to erosion relate primarily to the degree of soil or strata induration or cementation, and the exposure of the slope to rsurface runoff. The firmer the material and the more protected the slope is from concentrated runoff, the less the erosion and shallow slumping or earth flowage. ' Significant erosion areas on the site are present near the heads of gullies in the tributary drainage courses which dissect the central and southern portions of the mesa. Erosion has been occurring over many years, as evident on the old aerial photographs of the site before any significant human activity. Erosion has been intensified by recent adjacenf construction. r r . r I LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED 2.0 GEOHYDROLOGIC SETTING 2.1 Groundwater Conditions The Newport Mesa area lies at the southeast margin of the Orange County coastal plain groundwater basin, from which wells extract water contained in the primary aquifers of the fresh water zone within the Quaternary -age alluvium and Pliocene - age sediments. Because of the Newport -Inglewood, fault zone uplift, the Pliocene and older formations (primarily nonwater-bearing) had been brought to the surface in the Newport Mesa area, resulting in the nondeposition of the water -bearing alluvium which underlies the broad valley bottom areas on the west and north. As a consequence, essentially all groundwater extraction has been from wells primarily west of the Santa Ana River channel in the gap between Huntington Beach Mesa and Newport Mesa, with much of the production from the Talbert water -bearing zone (refer to Figures 5 and 6). Three water wells, all now abandoned, were excavated more than 1,000 feet north or west of the subject property (designated D1, CI and RI, respectively,, on Figure 5). No significant quantities of groundwater are developed from aquifers beneath the mesa areas in'the vicinity of the property. The water level elevations (shown on Figure 8) generally depict the piezometric groundwater conditions in the shallowest (Talbert) aquifer west of the site. 2.2 Surface Runoff Conditions The very gently sloping mesa portions of the site are relatively well drained by small, southwest -flowing canyons which empty into the main alluvial flood plain of the Santa Ana River and the artificially created drainage channel following the borrow excavations along an earlier proposed roadway alignment at the south end of the site. Runoff from the housing development near the southeast border of the site, along with runoff from the Caltrans property is channeled across the southernmost part of the site in a concrete -lined V -ditch. The ditch empties into a channel which runs along the northern side of Pacific Coast Highway. -15- 21;�% LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED 180562 -oz T'�r MEMO � �.�� Vnf4Y fd.l nfiC"f tYK tt[YLip � N{T_!µ[f[t tlYNY IG'rli YnI L[ fCvIYY �4 RLI •� NgLIY it{ 4u114 tl !M t4/{111 LCNI V tllt 1\IYLIV Yt F If [t, ILI{L{Y<[0 M YNY NL \IYfL IY4[3 iL 1Y u1 O[MfM1M[Mt OI W.\ICY N190V11C [) GROLN0 {TATER 3UASIN YPI;OTCCTIC•i PROJECTS SALINITY OARRIER STUDIES SANTA ANA GAT, NAWC COONTY LINES OF EQUAL PIEZOMETRIC ELEVATION TALBERr AQUIFER SPRING 1%3 rl0ure u i I I I -0 I MIG =1 1 1 I I I I I 3 I FTI I I co I I I 1 a I :u I U I NSUBJECT ROPERTY I I I I fG SCALE K FEET - - o IQ+n :Ano 196! - 16 - �� • LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED 3.1 3.0 OIL RESOURCES AND PRODUCTION Early History ' The following information is from the California Division of Oil and Gas (References 4 and 8; and Mr. Ed Brannon, personal communication). Earliest exploratory drilling on the Banning lease dates back to 1904, as a follow-up to seeps observed along the bluffs. The discovery well (Macco Corporation # I Banning), drilled in 1943, led to commercial field development. The well was 2,404 feet deep with an initial production rate on pump of 40 barrels, of oil per day of 14.5 -degree gravity oil. Production was from what is now designated as the °B" zone (refer to Figure 3). The follow-up well (Signal #2 Banning) was drilled , 1000 feet northeast of the discovery well and pumped from a depth of 2,497 feet, at an initial rate of 40 barrels per day of 14.5 -degree gravity oil, from what is now , designated as the "C" zone. Rapid development of the Banning lease commenced in 1945. Parts of the lease have changed operators several times, but the lease is now Ila operated by Mobil Oil Corporation. Offshore production from drill sites in the south portion of the field was initiated in , 1953 by Monterey Oil Company. As of 1956, 13 producing wells had been completed by slant -drilling under the ocean. Armstrong Petroleum Corporation was the operator of this lease, consisting of 16 wells being operated on contract for the City of Newport Beach, and 3 additional wells owned by Armstrong. We understand that , the offshore production from the 16 wells beneath the City tidelands has been suspended until a new lease agreement is worked out. The subject study area includes producing wells along the southeasterly fringe of the Banning lease. Two dry holes in the area immediately to the east of the producing zone were drilled in the study area by independent operators, H. L. Hall. (at the south edge of the school district parcel) and T. F. Gesell (on the Caltrans parcel). ' The area generally east of the Banning fault appears to be unproductive, inasmuch as other exploratory holes east of the property were also dry. y - 17 - LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES ' INCORPORATED ,_ 3.2 Oil Production History ' The following data are taken from the files of Mobil Oil Corporation, the California Division of Oil and Gas, and from personal communication with Mr. Jay Stair, Staff Engineer, Mobil Oil Corporation, and with Mr. Darroll Gallear, Geologist, Armstrong Petroleum Corporation. ' Oil production on the Banning lease commenced in 1945, reached a peak of 120,000 barrels per month in 1946, and steadily declined to about 35,000 barrels per month in 1952. Production rates leveled off and fluctuated from 30,000 to 40,000 barrels per month until 1964 when it began a steady increase to about 100,000 barrels per month in 1968. For the last 12 years, there has been no decline. Production has ranged between 90,000 and 120,000 barrels per month. The operators are unable, at this time, to predict just when the next decline trend will commence. The cumulative lease production is about 20,000,000 barrels of oil, to this date. Estimated ultimate recovery figures are unavailable and impossible to predict due to a lack of decline in production. The wells in the lease operated by Armstrong Petroleum Corporation reportedly ' produce approximately 41100 to 5,100 barrels per month. No cumulative production or ultimate recovery figures were available for this lease. 3.3 Current Well Status ' There have been approximately 300 wells drilled on the Mobil lease, of which 37 are in-situ combustion (fire flood) injection wells and about 150 production wells showing positive response to combustion by producing combustion gases. Other ' wells are either producing oil, being used for water -injection, or are standing idle awaiting well work. All producing wells are on artificial lift. Approximately 10 of the producing wells are located within the subject study area. 18- LEIGHTOON aN annjjdASSOCIATES INCORPORATED 3.4 Lease Facilities (Primarily West of the Subject Site) 3.4.1 Oil Gathering System: Gathering lines run from each well to centrally located separators and then to one tank battery on the southwestern edge of the lease. All oil is shipped by pipeline to Chevron Oil. Company in EI Segundo, via Huntington Beach. 3.4.2 In -Situ Combustion System: This system consists of an air compressor and high-pressure (500 psi) distribution lines which run to each of the 37 air - injection wells. Combustion gas, a product of the undergrouhd burning process, is collected in a separate gathering; system from all wells responding to the process. This gas is then injected into six large incinerators, along with gas fuel, and is burned. Waste gases are then vented to the atmosphere. 3.4.3 Steam Injection System: This system consists of several steam generators and steam lines which run from them to the producing wells which are regularly steamed. 3.4.4 Produced Water: A system of separators, lines, settling tanks, treaters, and water -injection wells dispose of the produced water. 3.4.5 Electrical Service: The entire lease is electrified. Lines run to all well sites.. 3.4.6 Water Service: Water service lines run to all well sites. 3.4.7 Buildings: There are two field office buildings, and several small storage or warehouse facilities scattered across the lease. -19- LO LJLJ�� LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED �j 3.5 Drilling Program A steady drilling program is now in progress. Twenty-five wells were drilled in ' 1980, and 50 more are planned for the next 2 years. It is anticipated that development -type drilling will continue for at least another 5 years. Deep exploration drilling is on unknown factor at this time in that the deep potential has not yet been determined. It is expected that deep wells (below the "C" zone, perhaps 6,000 to 9,000 feet deep) will be drilled soon. Their outcome could lead to further development and increased lease production. 3.6 Assisted Recovery ' Most of the production on the lease is dependent upon some form of assisted recovery (secondary or tertiary). Several methods and combinations of methods have been used. 3.6.1 Waterfload: Most of the lease production in the early days experienced repressuring from the natural water drive which came from up -dip on the north, toward the Newport -Inglewood fault. Much of the early success on the ' lease is due to the fact that an unobstructed sweep from edgewater encroach- ment was possible. 3.6.2 In -Situ Combustion: This new and innovative assisted -recovery method was initiated by a former operator, George Kadone, in 1958. It was successful, in that it stemmed the decline rate. Mobil Oil Corporation became the total lease operator in July 1979 and expanded the- in-situ combustion operation. This method has been immensely successful, and accounts for much of the increase in production from 30,000 to more than 100,000 barrels per month. Even more dramatic is the fact that there has been no decline in the last 12 years, and none is yet indicated. ' LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED In-situ ,combustion is a process whereby air is pumped into selected wells in a pattern. The gas is pumped in under 500 pounds of pressure. The air is ignited in the well bare at the face of the producing formation. Resultant heat lowers the viscosity of the oil so that it can flow more easily through the available connected pare spaces to the nearest producing well. Gases generated by the combustion expand and increase the reservoir pressure. This establishes a pressure gradient from the injector to the producing wells which gives the oil a source of energy for movement. Large quantities of noxious gases are produced along with the oil. It must be separated out and incinerated to accomplish the complete destruction. This constitutes a separate closed gathering system and a battery of six large incinerators. 3.6.3 Cyclic Steam Flooding: This is an assisted -recovery method employed to enhance the recovery of low -gravity and highly viscous oils. It involves placing a steam generator at the surface which can generate large quantities of steam. This steam is injected into a producing well for several days until it is judged to be hot, and pressured -up. The well is then closed in to "soak" for a few hours, after which it is opened for production. The well readily produces the heated oil along with steam for a period of time. Decline in production rate is usually rapid, and as soon as it has declined to a low point, the process is repeated. This cyclic process is often termed the "huff and .puff" process. Many of the wells on the Banning leash have been through over 20 cycles, and there is no appreciable decline from peak to peak in the production rate from cycle to cycle. It is not presently known how many cycles the wells will continue to yield economic quantities of oil. Much will depend upon advancing technology and rapidly changing economics, as well as on the well's inherent capability to sustain production. 3.7 Producing Areas The major producing black is the wedge-shaped block northeast of the Newport - Inglewood fault and west of the Banning fault. It is bounded by these faults on the southwest, south and east, and by down -dip edgewater on the northwest. ,This block 1 & M;�ft -21- LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCO"lOPATED I FL itl 'I #I U u n I lJ 1 0 1 I 1 i' has the highest overall production performance because it is relatively unbroken by secondary internal faults, and has responded well to primary, secondary, and'tertiary production methods. The block has strong dip to the north. A strong initial edgewater drive has greatly enhanced initial primary production. There has been minor production from the area southwest of the Newport -Inglewood fault. That is true, not because there is less oil there, but because of the extreme difficulty in making any assisted recovery method work in an area so intensely crisscrossed by faults. Pressure connection from block to block is apparently not possible. This is an area which is a candidate for improved recovery methods from advancing technology. - 22 - I u IIJIJ • LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED 4.0 PRINCIPAL GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS, CONSTRAINTS, IMPACTS AND POSSIBLE'MITIGATION' MEASURES 4.1 Geologic Factors or Potential Problems Evaluated This section presents in summary form the principal geotechnical factors that were considered and rated on a subjective scale, comparing the study area with the range of hazard severity which is generally representative in southern California; refer to Table 2, which presents a matrix indicating the rating of the hazard type affecting the subject site, and possible mitigation measures which could be utilized. 4.2 Fault Displacement or Ground Rupture Earthquake -related movement along potentially active faults (such as a main branch of the Newport -Inglewood fault) which results in surface rupture of the ground is one of the more significant hazards to be evaluated in the future development of the property. However, because of the lack of a general consensus, regarding, either the location of the main branch faults or the rupture hazard risk associated with this part of the fault zone, none of the faults in the area of the property is included within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone (a state regulation requiring the special investigation of potentially active faults). The possible development constraints associated with the main branch faults in the Newport -Inglewood zone, nevertheless, should be appropriately evaluated during the planning and design stages. Our research and analysis of the data thus'far indicate that a main branch (Fault D) and a closely related offshoot (Fault A) of the fault zone, believed to trend northwestward across the south portion of the site, would be of primary concern, and that other (probably secondary) older faults (e.g., the Banning fault, and northwest -trending faults) mapped within the oil field substructure are of lesser concern. The location of the main branch fault, however, could not be verified in the field, or from the available data. Based on Reference 2, none of the faults related to the Newport -Inglewood zone is believed to have offset strata younger -23 - I u iulJ�� LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATEO than the lowest part of the Talbert aquifer (just west of the site), probably mare ' than 11,000 years old. These alluvial deposits, underlying the channel of the Santa Ana River, are considered to be younger than the terrace deposits which cap the ' mesa within the study area. The two relatively young faults (Faults A and B) cutting the terrace deposits, near the surface (in existing cuts), also in the south portion of the site, are readily recognized and located; such faults could impact structures built astride them. ' Although they are likely to be more than 11,000 years old (technically "inactive" according to state criteria if it can be documented by direct evidence) a certain ' degree of conservatism regarding their fault rupture potential is considered warranted at future, more detailed planning levels. Data obtained so for from Mobil ' Oil has been reviewed, but it does not appear to be sufficient to verify the subsurface location of these faults or Fault D. 4.2.1 Mitigation Measures: The utilization of a construction setback from a potentially active fault to mitigate the possible ground rupture hazard appears applicable only to Fault A, at present. A tentative setback distance of 20 feet on each side of this fault is considered appropriate, based on the current data. Establishment of a setback zone along the suspected trace of Fault D appears to be premature, considering the uncertainty of its location ' and recency of the latest movement on this particular branch. At present, we do not consider subsurface exploration• work necessary to evaluate the fault rupture potential on the property for this preliminary planning phase of the investigation. Nevertheless, additional information gained from subsequent investigation phases will be needed to prove or disprove the existence of faults at specific locations, and to determine the minimum age of their latest movement. ' The establishment of a fault setback affects mainly habitable structures, but ' would not usually be a constraint to roads, utilities or storage -type buildings. It is generally not considered feasible to mitigate fault rupture hazards by designing structures to be more resistive to differential ground displacement. -24- � � ° �• LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED 4.3 Regional Seismic Ground Shaking The most severe seismic, shaking at the site is expected to originate from a nearby earthquake along the Newport -Inglewood fault zone, and could exceed a ground acceleration of 0.3g. The response and performance of the structures subjected to seismic ground shaking will depend upon the mitigation 'measures employed in grading and the type and design of the structures. 4.3.1 Mitigation Measures: All .types of construction on sites not subject to secondary seismic soil instability (such as liquefaction, settlement or ground lurching) are expected to perform satisfactorily if designed in accordance with the latest Uniform Building Code for Seismic Zone 4. Grading in accordance with current code requirements is expected to provide adequate densification of those relatively minor alluvial soil deposits which might tend to amplify certain types of seismic motion. 4.4 Liquefaction and Other Related Secondary Seismic Hazards The existing subsurface data on the soil conditions underlying portions of the site indicate that the potential for liquefactions seismically induced settlement and ground lurching hazard is very minimal or negligible with the subject property. 4.4.1 Mitigation Measures: No special mitigation measures are expected to be necessary during the planning or construction phases of ,development, considering the low potential for these hazards and the standard grading requirement for densifying soft or loose soils which could be subject to settlement from various causes, including seismic activity. 4.5 Settlement and Expansive Soil The foundation bearing capacity of the formations underlying the mesa is, relatively predictable and favorable. Settlement of structures built on natural ground (cut areas) or on properly placed and compacted' fills, therefore, is expected to be negligible. TM;n ft 25 LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED I 11 11 14 H Some expansive soils (probably slight to moderately expansive) appear to underlie the mesa portion of the property. Generally, they do not pose a significant 1 development constraint. ' 4.5.1 Mitigation Measures: Standard grading techniques and conformance with current grading requirements are anticipated to satisfactorily mitigate any ' potential hazards from settlement or expansive soil. Expansive soils can be readily mitigated by appropriate foundation design. ' 4.6 Slope Instability Landsliding or other similar slope stability problems have not been, and are not ' expected to be, a significant development constraint. The presence of localized clay layers within the San Pedro Sand and the Monterey Formation exposed in the ' bluff areas, however, will require sufficient evaluation of bedding inclination directions relative to existing bluffs and possible future graded slopes to determine their probable stability. ' 4.6.1 Mitigation Measures: Localized areas having potentially unstable slopes are usually most readily corrected by the construction of compacted fill ' buttresses or other retaining structures. Stabilization by reducing the slope gradient, or redesign of a cut to have a more favorable orientation, are also feasible mitigation measures. For preliminary land planning purposes, the recommended maximum slope ' gradients (for cuts, fills, or construction setbacks from the steeper portions of bluffs) is 2 horizontal to I vertical. Some steeper slopes (up to 192 hori- zontal to I vertical) may be feasible for relatively low cuts or fills. -26- uu • ' LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED 180562-01 Terrain Type Bluff and Mesa Alluvial Margin Alluvium and Fill (Along PCH), and Narrow Canyon Bottoms Footnotes: * - Applies to alluvial cress also. a - Applies to potentially active faults. 1. Settlement(consolidationof-low-density soil). 2. Secondary seismic effects (liquefaction, seismically induced settlement, ground lurching). 3. Flooding. 4. Tsunomi'(seismic sea wave). X X(2) 1. Removal and recompac- tion of unsuitable soil or special foundations. X X 2. Methods as above, for settlement. X 3. Construct protective dikes, levees; elevate ground surface. X 4. As above, for flooding. b - For a major earthquake on Newport -Inglewood fault with its epicenter near the site. c- Includes differential subsidence across faults. TABLE 2 BANNING - NEWPORT RANCH PROPERTY - - SUMMARY OF GEOTECI-NIICAL PARAMETERS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT Degree of Hazard or Problem Underlying Soil ' Type/Formations Potential Hazards or Development Constraints None Slight Moderate Severe Possible -Mitigation Measures Fill, topsoil, Colluvium/ 1. Bluff instability (including sliding of natural X X 1. Avoidance of problem Slope Wash, Terrace slopes or proposed cuts). areas by appropriate Deposits (Including plonning;-slopestobiliza- Palos Verdes Sand, Son tion during gradingibut- Pedro Send, Monterey tresses or other correc- Formation five measures). 2. Erosion andrunoffproblems. X X 2. Proper design of slopes and drainage structures; adequate slope planting. 3. Fault rupture (tectonic).* X X Xa 3. Establish building setbacks from potentially active faults. 4. Seismic shaking (general).* X X Xb 4. Seismically resistive building design. S. Subsidence (from fluid withdrawal).* X XC 5. Monitor settlement; reservoir repressuriza- tion. 6. Groundwater seepage. X 6. Provide adequate subsur- face drainage. 7. Expensive soil; other adverse soil conditions. X - X 7. Mitigate during grading or by appropriate founda- tion design. Alluvial Margin Alluvium and Fill (Along PCH), and Narrow Canyon Bottoms Footnotes: * - Applies to alluvial cress also. a - Applies to potentially active faults. 1. Settlement(consolidationof-low-density soil). 2. Secondary seismic effects (liquefaction, seismically induced settlement, ground lurching). 3. Flooding. 4. Tsunomi'(seismic sea wave). X X(2) 1. Removal and recompac- tion of unsuitable soil or special foundations. X X 2. Methods as above, for settlement. X 3. Construct protective dikes, levees; elevate ground surface. X 4. As above, for flooding. b - For a major earthquake on Newport -Inglewood fault with its epicenter near the site. c- Includes differential subsidence across faults. H 4.7 Subsidence ' Land subsidence, related to either groundwater or petroleum extraction, has not and is not anticipated to be a significant hazard to future development. The known subsidence area is further northwest in the Huntington Beach area (Reference 17). With continued petroleum extraction from the West Newport Oil Field, however, the possibility of measurable land subsidence occurring exists, particularly considering ' the relative shallowness of the field. Close monitoring of ground surface elevation changes would be necessary to detect such subsidence. IBecause of the presence of subsurface faults within the oil-producing zones of the ' underlying formations, differential subsidence across faults (resulting in apparent displacements along the faults) could occur under certain geologic circumstances, such as reportedly were present in the Baldwin Hills oil-producing area in the Los ' Angeles area. This could pose a somewhat greater hazard than the more typical gradual and uniform subsidence effects, if conditions conducive to the former type of subsidence are present at the site. Fortunately, the subject site is mainly east of the oil production area and does not directly overlie the apparently more faulted substrata. 4.7.1 Mitigation Measures: Early detection of subsidence and implementation of mitigation measures, such as. water injection to repressurize zones where ' fluid withdrawal had taken place, can preclude the necessity of special construction methods or design considerations, if the subsidence is success- fully arrested. If significant subsidence were to occur, the potential distress to long linear features, such as utility lines and sewers, could be mitigated by the use of flexible joints. Foundation elements could be made more resistive to small ground deflections by stronger reinforcement. ' 4.8 Tsunami The risk of inundation of the southerly edge of the site along Pacific Coast Highway by a tsunami (o seismically generated sea wave) is considered to be very low to nil, based on estimated maximum run-up elevations of approximately S to 7 feet above —28 — LEIGHTO��N and ASSOCIATES ' INCORPORATED mean sea level (assuming its occurrence to be coincident with high tide) along the shoreline (Reference 17). The risk to the "remainder of the subject site is considered to be nil, since it is essentially all more than 20 feet above sea level. It is generally ' believed that the most likely source of a tsunami would be from a distant major earthquake of a magnitude greater than 7.5, occurring near a deep ocean trough (such as the 1964 Alaskan earthquake, which resulted in a tsunami reaching Crescent City in. northern California). Because of the distance of most such likely sources, and the relative protection afforded by the offshore islands, the local shoreline is not believed to be particularly vulnerable to tsunami damage. Historically, their effects have been noticed as increased height of tides and locally strong currents which can cause damage in small boat harbors or channels near the coast. 4.8.1 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are considered necessary for the subject site. I ' 4.9 Oil Field Hazards and Constraints Mechanical failures, accidents or earth movements resulting in rupturing of wells, pipelines or tanks are always a possibility within an oil field. Such breaks could lead to spills of petroleum products and leakage of water, steam or gases. With appropriate handling techniques and added precautions, however, such occurrences would be unlikely. The most potentially serious type of leakage which, could occur , would be gases from the combustion gas gathering system and the steam cycling system. These gases dissolve noxious substances from the producing formations; most of these gases are highly toxic and must be adequately contained or isolated. We understand that such facilities are at least several hundred feet west of the site, within the main part of the oil field. Buried oil sumps and other types of waste disposal sites are likely to exist, but are likewise believed to be west of the study area. Such old sumps or dumps could be a significant soil constraint because of the unsuitable materials they are likely to contain. , -29- LE1GHTON and,ASSOCIATES ' INCORPORATED I[l 4.9.1 Mitigation Measures: It is our understanding that the existing wells (approxi- mately 10) within the study area will be relocated or abandoned prior to development, thereby mitigating potential hazards related to them. However, remaining facilities on the west could indirectly. affect the site. Protective measures for spills or leaks could include construction of dikes, berms, or other containment structures; minimizing the risk of failures or accidents through improved maintenance and repair of facilities; formulation of effective contingency plans in the event of emergency situations; and provision for an adequate buffer zone between such potential leakage sources and future residential or commercial development. 4.10 Impacts of Continued Oil Production on Land Development Because of the possibility of increased oil production from ,areas currently having relatively small yield, particularly the highly faulted area south of the Newport - Inglewood fault and the north part of the field, the impact of continued future oil iproduction on development is difficult to assess at this time and would be influenced by proposed test drilling and production in those areas. Based on current production, however, those portions of the area expected to be least constrained by the oil field operations would be south of the Newport -Inglewood fault and east of the Banning Ifault, which includes the majority of the subject site. L.i I 11 -30 - �-1�-1 • LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES ' INCORPORATED APPENDIX A I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 it7-1A, LEIGHTON anu ASSOCIATES iNConronArKO I 180562-01 APPENDIX A References I. Barrows, A. G., 1974; A review of the geology and earthquake history of the Newport -Inglewood structural zone, Southern California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 114, 115 p. 2. California Department of Water Resources, 1966; Santa Ana gap salinity barrier, Orange County: Department of Water Resources Bulletin No. 147-I, 8 P• 3. , 1967; Progress report on groundwater geology of the coastal plain of Orange County, 138 p. 4. Corwin, C. H., 1946; West Newport Oil Field: California Division of Oil and Gas, Summary of Operations, v. 32, no. 2, pp. 8-14. 5. Crandall, LeRoy, and Associates, 1963; Report of soil investigation, proposed initial roadways, property development, Newport Beach, California, for Beeco, Ltd., 4 p. 6. GeoSoils, Inc., 1977; Preliminary Soil and Geologic Investigation, 11.56 Acres (School Site), City of Newport Beach, California, 22 p. 7. Hilemon, J. A., Allen, C. R., and Nordquist, J. M., 1973; Seismicity of the southern California region, I January 1932 to -31 December 1972: Seismological Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, Contribution 2385. 8. Hunter, A. L., and Allen, D. R., 1956; Recent developments in the West Newport Oil Field: California Division of Oil and Gas, Summary of Operations, v. 42, no. 2, pp. 10-18. 9. Joint Committee on Seismic Safety, 1974; Meeting the earthquake challenge (Final report to the Legislature, State of California): California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 45. 10. Lamar, D. L., Merifield, P. M., and Proctor, R. J., 1973; Earthquake recurrence ' intervals on major faults in southern California, in Moran, Douglas E., Slosson, James E., Stone, Richard 0., and Yelverton, Charles A., editors, Geology, Seismicity, and Environmental Impact: Assoc. Engr. Geol., Spec. pub I. 11. Lawmaster, H. V., and Company, 1972; Foundation soils investigation for proposed condominium project, Superior Avenue—north of Coast Highway, 1Newport Beach, California, 12 p. 12. Leeds, D. J., 1973; The Design Earthquake: Association of Engineering Geologists, special publication, pp. 337-347. io °n Q - i � u �LJLJ • LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES ' INCORPORATED 13. Leighton -Yen and Associates, 1973; Geotechhical inputs, seismic safety element, City of Huntington Beach, California, 43 p. OF 14. Mourseth, Howe, Lockwood and Associates, 1968; Water improvement project, Canal Street, Newport Beach: Special investigation report, 3 p. 15. Moore and Taber, -1964; Geologic and preliminary soils investigation, Tract No. 5711, Newport Beach, California, 4 p. 16. Morton, P. K., Miller, R. V., and Fife, D. L., 1973; Preliminary geo-environmental maps of Orange County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Preliminary Report 15. 17. Morton, P. K., Miller, R. V., and Evans, J. R., 1976; Environmental geology of Orange County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Open' -File Report 79-8LA, 474 p. 18. Orange County Environmental Management Agency, Construction Division, 1979; Superior Avenue Realignment (soil investigation and street section recommendations), 3 p. 19. Orange County Planning Department, in press, Seismic safety elemeht for the county general plan, Chapters 1344 (preliminary copy). 20. Orange County Water District, 1979; Key well monitoring within the Orange County groundwater basin (1978), 48,p. 21. Ploessel, M. R., and Slosson, J. E., 1974; Repeatable high ground accelerations from earthquakes - important design criteria: California Geology, v. 27, pp.195-199. 22. Proctor, R. J., 1973; Major earthquakes and recently active faults in the southern California region (map), in Geology, Seismicity, and Environmental 'Impact, Assoc. of Engr. Geo -I., special publication, October, 1973. 23. Schoellhommer, J. E., and others, 1954; Geol. Map of the northern Santa Ana Mts., Orange and Riverside Counties (scale 1:24,000): U. S. Geol. Survey OM 154. 24. Seed, H. B., and Idriss, 1. M., 1969; Influence of soil conditions on ground motions during earthquakes: Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Amer. Soc. Civil Engineers, v. 95, no. SMI, pp. 99-137. 25. Singer, J. A., 1973; Geohydrology and artificial -recharge potential of the Irvine area, Orange County, California: U. S. Geol. Survey Water Resources Div. Open -File Report 5018-16. 26. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1980; Phase I General design memorandum, Santa Ana River main stem, including Santiago Creek and Oak Street drain, counties of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino, California (draft): main report, 174 p., and appendices B, C, D, E and F. u A II LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES ' INCORPORATED I I� II II II iw II II 9.1 F 27. U.S. Geological Survey, 1973; Map of flood -prone areas, Newport Beach- Quad- rangle: part of a map series prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, .Federal Insurance Administration. 28. Wachtell, J. K., 1978; Soil survey of Orange and western part of Riverside County, California: U. S. Dept. of Agriculture Soil Cons. Serv. and Forest Service, 149 p. 29. Woodward -McNeill & Associates, 1973; Seismic safety study for the City of Irvine, California. Aerial Photographs Reviewed Date Flight Photo Number Source 1927 113 717, 763, 764 Whittier College (Fairchild) 1928 278 B-82 9, 10 Whittier College (Fairchild) 1938 5029 35, 48, 61 Whittier College (Fairchild) 1980 80033 175, 176 American Aerial Surveys Persons Contacted I. Allan G. Barrows; Geologist, California Division of Mines and Geology, Los Angeles, California. 2. Edward Brannon; Geologist, California Division of Oil and Gas, Long Beach, California. 3. Russell V. Miller; Geologist, California Division of Mines and Geology, Santa Ana, California. 4. Paul Medina; Public Works Department, City of Newport Beach, California. 5. Oscar Stankov; Geologist, Caltrans (Los Angeles). 6. John Wolter; Department of Building and Safety, City of Newport Beach, California. A - iii IM;0ft LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED ♦2- ( -s a�Is rt --'S .�6� � S4•a•' res V' R f ♦ � r v / _ I xr x �.! �„�•! x . r. vs..)r )� "': Ir+ +'A. J e +wr i ♦fir. ,�-q+M� srft .. c i > < f . .. � +, 5 w , f at �"k 1 j fir y )< <eF� .z.z?'."C^-' '^ .. t 1 •n �" -'ny�,n, wj .ti r� '.ti� � .-x/♦ )1 tia.�« .y l :SL I , V} :y �. 1 a>r �-.♦ j7 ;_)`n `.J'yx ,f`. "j. aav I',i 4a l r .SS T � s � S.T :y c hryl `'7' � titi.. l:- v♦:r Y�. .Y..w-: '..t��a�r..s �+cS ir" 1: ✓ L if . a J At t £ (' (ir a a 1 ,4 ��r' {�� _'fir �T} Si A t S/ y.- �♦ it J. 1tc C' .<r✓iii y;,1�tiY s •.- i'- r r} - t) esa w r'I(pti v x f j s+ , !hi �av: r �a a 4 v `L a .r )I Y n' .aol))"Y ♦ . yG ?� � 1 a ?-,< 'r .�. 2) ; F ♦. {i aL. i"y .'til 5,,,^�- v.S int / K t 1. n :.al �; a h h a ✓ L e% s ..✓ F ,;))2 S! l .a li a Ali!... _.. +L_. .. m. o -a ,. _ .. ....-, u _ .. �t fwe... ..f a[d3lL•YA. F.:S::a:. t :5:.. N n SURFACE FAULTING ALONG THE NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD.. ZONE OF DEFORMATION By PAUL 0. GUPTILL and EDWARD G. HEATH. Geologists Woodward -Clyde Consultants INTRODUCTION Faults of the Newport -Inglewood zone of deformation are predaminnntly defined in the subsurfacefrom oil -well data and grouts -water dor; Very litue geologic rndenceo7 f surface faulting has been found within the zone and very few in. stances of documentation of surface fault- ing exist. Even following the 1933 Long Beach earthquake (Mt. 6.3), no evidence of surface faulting was found or reported. The author have recently discovered dance of surface fa ungung &91 n ti;hlnrth Btaneh-VTme ne*iort•imgiewood zone at west Newport Mesa. There, the age re- ladomhips of faulted geologic units and min -made fill indicate that the suds faulting occurred vc roably durmg"`TSei9 q e REGIONAL GEOLOGY TheNewport-Inglewood zone ofdefor. motion is one OtAVem JjUle pssdomi- neatly right• tent strike -slip fault•zones that the an a tmsouth- raia. Tice Newport -Inglewood zone of deformation has been iatcasely in. vestigated in the subsurfuesincethe early 19201 by the petroleum industry, which referred to it as the'"Newport•Iaglewood UpIUL" Barrows (1974) refers to it as the Newport -Inglewood "structural zone." We have chosen to refer to it as the New- port -Inglewood zone of deformation in agreement with Hill (1971). The zone is most popularly character- ized as a classic wrench fault as dc6 d by Wilcox and other (1973) and Hartung (1973). The wrench-raultmodel includes it deep -sated strike -slip fault in the base- mentro= 0u—t'd%orms overlying sedi• mmtuy'�as'� deposits. Shp on the a cause a sales area ech• elan rcida e a _yea the sedimea4ry cover.'Such a structural configuration is sem at the surface and- in the subsurface along the Newport -Inglewood zone of de- formation (figure 1). tax From north to south, the style of fault- ing in the sediments along the Newport - Inglewood zone or deformation varies from right -slip, with a moderate compo. nent of normal dip -slip associated with folding in the Baldwin Hills, to cross - trending short revere faults in the Rose. awns and Dominguez Hills, sad to sent. oral ea oeheloo strike -slip fault segments in the Long Beach to Neiinport Beach area Las Angeles ( figure 1). The left step from the Seal Beach fault to* the Cherry Hill fault at Signal Hill is an area of compression between two ed achdan right -lateral strikmfip feul.Csegments, demonstrated by Segall and Pollard (1980). The June IkC0 Iaglewood' earthquake (ML 4.9. Richter, 1970) .and the 1933 Long Bach earthquake (Mt, 6.3) are Newport -Inglewood Zone of =Deformation 1 I LJ I 'I Monica I n Kill I u`pq\.. cylaMll,w � \� $wine IWI 14, \ aaWig ms Moaico •.1 - � iwwvlats Iwo • re\ '� $.swan r«rna .�1r IoW. as" sa M v11va ails. f. w,,Hal. Ntlla `�;`\menalu ' .1�1a Polo V�rtles \ Lag BiacD q,, PACIFIC NarDd :\• • ` ``� `�` `` Nlwporl �.( ``Was V\ej Newport �� Bead+ 'ry STUDY ,�� REA Pard/e n® 14th Oran ..... Sewers, yuu. 1975; Lane and amour, 1975. and Nu,w and Ylllsr. 1975. Flews I Fgure t. Newport•Inglawood zone of deformation. California Geology July 1081 tl I; rl F lk I t I I 11 clear examples of the destructive potential of the Newport -Inglewood zone of defor- mation. The Long Beach earthquake re- sulted in 115 deaths and about S40 million of damage in 1933 (Sherburne, 1981). Since 1933, the population density has i - creased dramas v a ono the fault zone ar t c eath toll could be st t tomer to the event of a repeat earthquake of a similar magnitude to the 1933 event. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (198 1) recently published results of their assessment of potential earth. quake hazards in California. The results of their study show that the Los Angeles area could suffer greater property dam- age, injury and loss o rom an earth- u`-ka eon the Ne ort -In ew od zon f d ormauon t an from the "big An e' on t e an dress fault systegt This condition sterna from the acts at the Newport -Inglewood zone passm through the heavily developed western edge of the Los Angeles Basin, whereas the San An- dress passes 35 miles northeast of Los An. SANTA ANA RIVER FLOODPLAIN $.0 I iin.l ao . 20"ar,cal 4u !. onus q, 0 swine. 12-.91Mcdl Mwv*, wu tewl,a 49MS1 inns acpeult. W,Oct a.roh elt'll, 3',91Mcal O Tavap d.oau11, 011191 ~ffrum91. © It"n, ancs."...'licN 041191 of a It. who, r.,ac. acmue. mut a1 Y atocal Oi M..... •...a Did .II,M, le .,,Ilt.l geles. Thus, the Newport -Inglewood zone of deformation should be a high priority. for city planners, and state and federal agencies in anticipating earthquake haz- ards. FAULTING POTENTIAL A recent study of the Newport -Ingle• wood zone of deformation (Woodward - Clyde Consultants. 1979) has helped in defining the earthquake hazard potential. The results of this work demonstrate that the geologic rate of strike -slip has been relatively constant at approximately 0.5 mm/yr since late Miocene and early Plio- cene in Long Beach, Seal Beach, and the Baldwin Hills. The ratio of horizontal slip to vertical slip is an the order of 20 to 1. where folding is not a major contributor to•the vertical component. Fust motion studies of the 1933 earthquake records, collected worldwide, indicate essentially pure right slip on a northwest trending slip surface. From the seismic moment calculations of the 1933 earthquake, the average slip on the fault is estimated to have been approximately 31 to 46 cm in the subsurface (Woodward -Clyde Con- sultants, 1979). These data are valuable for characteriz. ing future earthquakes, possible recur. rence intervals, and the earthquake poten- tial of the zone. However, more scar - sur -face faulting data are still needed to fully define the prehistoric earthquake activity. Limited data regarding surface faulting have been developed during studies of the Baldwin Hills Reservoir failure and dur- ing investigations within the Alquist-Pri. olo Special Studies Zones. Presattly, several sections of the Newport -Ingle. wood zone of deformationare included in the Special Studies Zones. However, from Huntington Beac4s Mesa southward, the Nev*rt-Inglewood zone has not batt designated as part of the Special Studin Zones mainly because of the lack of evi. dence for faulting in young sediments, (Hart, 1980). 'NEWPORT — INGLEWOOD ZONE OF DEFORMATION Figure 2 NEWPON i MESA Figure 2. The study area at Newpon Mesa showing the locations of observed faulting and sitas of detailed studies (sites 1 and 2). California Geology July 1981 143 Photo 1. View of south -facing road cut at tho intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Superior Avenue in Newport Beach. Terrace deposits (Ot) an left are faulted against Monterey shale (Ten) on right. Arrows indicate that fault trace.-IMation 9. The Baldwin Hills area has several well-developed fault scarps; surface fault. ing has been documented on subsidiary fault, which experienced slip leading to the 1963 Baldwin'Hills Reservoir failure (ICressq 1966). Unfortunately the sur- face faulting, in the Baldwin Hills is close- ly associated with surface subsidence effects making assessment of the tectonic effects very difficult It is our understanding that a study un- der the Alquitt-Priolo Act was recently completed and was successftd in locating evidence of faulting at I.ending Hill in Seal 71~h. The discovery of near surface faulting at Sud Beach demonstrates hat surface faulting along.the Newport- glewood zone does exist,and that other sites could yield valuable information. NEWPORT MESA FAULTING The authors have recently completed studies of the Newport -Inglewood zone of' deformation where the North Branch ernes= west Newport Mesa (figure 2% where offset"terrace deposits and surface soils an be observed in several outcrops. The most obvious and best-known expo- sure of offset terrace deposits is at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (photo l), where the terrace deposits, are faulted down on the west against shales of the Monterey For - motion. Unfortunately, at this location most of the terrace d4bsitt and all of the soils have been removed by grading and excavation. Onsets of the t rrace.deposits were observed in at lent seven localities along the previously mapped subsurface trace (figure 2). Two of those exposures (sites I and 2) were cleaned by hand and documented in Cetail. The strikes of indi. vidual breaks observed are about 10 to IS degrees west of north, slightly off trend from the 40 degrees west ofnorth for the trend of the North Branch fault. This re• lationship is suggestive of a series of an wbaloo surface breaks overlying the rela- tively coatinuousdateral fault in,the near surface determined from oil.weB data of Hunter and Allen (1956). NEWPORT MESA GEOLOGY Newport Mesa is a Pleistocene wave. cut bench in Miocene and Pliocene ma- rine shale overlain by Pleistocene marine terrace deposits and.Buvial deposit. An assemblage of Pleistocene megafossils is usually observed at the base of the marine terrace sed;mcat.% and assigned to the substage 5a (Sbakelton and Opdyke, 1975) high stand of sea level, approxi. mately 120.000 years B.P. (Wehmiller and others,1977). The terrace is traceable from south of San Onofre northward al. most continuously to Dana point. From Dana Point to Newport Bach the.terraee is traceable but is leu continuous. The terrace'beneh and associated fossil assemblage is present in the study area at west Newport Mesa. Near Superior Ave- nue a wave -cut bench on Monterey shale an be observed but farther to the west the bench plunges beneath the cliff exposures. , Several beds of Pleistocene megafossils are interbedded with marine terrace deposits and possible fluvial deposits but these fossils are several fat above the ' wave -cut bench. A series of cross -bedded fluvial deposits and a buried soil horizon conformably overly the marine deposits in most places. Our interpretation of the west Newport Mesa area is that at the time of deposition, the area was at the interface where fluvial deposits were al- ternately being interbedded with marine sediments following erosion of'the subs age Se platform. The -subsequent drop in sa level, and coastal uplift along the Newport -Inglewood zone of deformation , formed -Newport Mesa, where the authors have now documented surface evidence that these -young sediments have been off- set along the North Branch fault of the ' Newport -Inglewood zone of deformation. The terrace deposits at west Newport Mess are well exposed due to heavy grad. ing for a once -proposed extension of Bal-. boa Boulevard, a borrow area, and road construction far oil drilling. Two loca- tions (figure 2, sites I and 2), along the North Branch fault at Newport Mesa were exposed by hand with pick and shov- el to study the effeots of faulting on sur- face soils. Site 1 is at a small gully eroded , into a roadcut lading to Mobil's Banning well No. 320. Site 2 B on a cut slope cut of the oil well pad. A detailed log of the faulting exposed at site 1 is shown in figure 3. The undis- turbed solum (A and B horizons of mod. em soil) adjacent to the site it on the order of 1.8 to 2.4 meters thick and has formed on fluvial terrace deposits. However, where the-aposed fault inter- sects the ground surface, the top, 1.2 to 1.8 meters his been eroded away and only the , basal portion of the solum retains. The log illustrates a complex pattern of fault. ing with many splays reaching the present ground surface. The base of the solum is vertically offset down to the west a total of about 51 centimeters across the entire zone of the shorn. At the base of the gully a hone block in terrace deposits is uplifted about 60 centimeters between two shears, although the net apparent vertical all is only 15 centimeters on either side of the horst. The offset is measurable on two markers, one a buried argiilic soil horizon (unit 2) and the second a gravel bed with - 1.14 California Geology July 19a, ' -11.1 � 24' 'a in unit I overlying cross bedded sands �) (figureg and photo 2). The gavel bed, 1 a a 1 although a distinct horizon,is represented I I across one of the shear by slightly differ• s las as ant facia varying from coarse gravel I within the horst to coarse-grained sand in the block to the northeasL The presence of the horst, the fact that facia are differ - 3 e a 1 ant across one of the shears, and the fact o f e I I 1133 k+d thaf thicknesses of units vary across the 1 a ° s s*�t 5 .,a,1-1 a:4. In .r.• i'.'•tt4`.j t 1 II a 1< at .3 • b ;;n•� a a �. 1• r a W IW ~� d 0 , d Sedinent lu d Filled Fi,aun 1 p 3� ! r " •i ' fad 2 i; 3 2 Ir 1s •al .2 d WI ill � 9� I 2 2 •123 .d 0 0 0 J 1 L cre,N./ 0 %^ Qll,at der 1 Sg, 1 % t NOTES Jj� a .roe d _ -' �.r•.'. civ T,+t CurM 0 s CoSend O uno w �' �^1'l.:.r s e,:5 •.. re: filled ailed ,.'14 t`• �;•• RoO.It furrow is,+(.�, tt'bl..,•:. ,y;u.0 Cen,.ma,ue • „,,..���.rd.a'r..: n , n ea as l ” •zo1 zea 2 d a e / 10 12•• Fast Photo 2. Site 1, exposure of faulted fluvial terrace deposits that are presented on figure A. The 15 meter. Figure 9. Site 1. log of faulted terrace deposits and solum on the high triangular wedge at the base of exposure is an north wall of a small gully across the fault trace. apparent horst resulting from lateral slip. TABLE 1 SITE ONE - NEWPORT MESA SOIL AND LITHOLOCIC DESCRIPTIONS it Nomenclature W.trletlm a rclas at Light yatl.Lah Urban (2.SY.4/41 Mtn de1M, •layer elft, strong. t Toccoa* D.poalto Light gray (107a 7/2) MA rise,, and me prionatle atre"Wro, vary (florist) otter flae-gralaad And rtttY hard he. dry, •laky he. watt vLth Ildewlks akslhe. light Urso 'hallo, toren ft.. evict tabula. (T.STk t/qt 1Ylitleat bedding, Ad plentiful fine seems, PAs abrupt very b.nYary. are lined vlth .ant moderately , thick stay tilde, abrupt s..oth i Tarsal Mpoeltt bight r.11bahk lervos 92.11 t/ml bouYary. (vLnd bl.71 he. "let. tic. grained ..Y, de..lvet slightly eernted, abrupt T earn. 22 Dark olive gray (ST 2/2) vhan smooth boundary, .*lets start strong, fine prl.- .atie atsuaeurai very hard he. 2 avrl.d toll 011,e ray IST heLt. g dry. stick rhe. .e, ver y Y r . alert tide blwky aeuue., esky .%c p Latict ►luairil floe mama• etl.ky MA vet. hlghlr plastic, plde ora lined alth ad. I..... aasroa vert tie rout cabal.., •Yate%air thick ally filen. very feu. vaey ff.. talks, "do ' abrupt ..doth boundary. as. l3W tit% .,I.. slat- akslY QteR star slide, Ayr very e meta. C M Pat. be. tic" 6/3) an aoLet. Consumer. .lit o/th .o.. on hall ....lr. amructurc, lord Men dry, .lightly 1 Terrace Deposits Whit. ks 11g\t gfa b=7r Y etieky vh.n vee,, alightly Pl..cla, (fluvLsil (IDSA 7(1/02"14/201 beriot. Sao ft.. race, tubules, slur greased gears. sed Collapse .W adeeth blanche,. ritk p.able bad, this aeddlr. TromiaM dead. bedding boxer 1 Torre.. Deposita Light yellst.h bro+n 12.3Y l/dl bed. Iwaa Mrfea.ul beds (r1Y biden7()t once allot. tinerained sand, 9 pebble caee,led. .lathed lth ;ldeelks, dee.lra .lightly wrnaed, .leer. .bbl. bad »prr..d by aderse- .."th bouedery. anl.ld ..A an ..at at halt. California Geology July 1981 145 Photo 3. Site 2, the fault trace (indicated by arrows) is visible on a southeast -facing slope of marine terrace deposits, The top arrow shows where evidence for the 1933 rupture was found. zone all indicate that lateral slip has also o==cd along this shear zone. However, the sense and total amount of lateral slip is indeterminate from the data gathered in this exposure- Site xposure Site 2 is located on a 7.5 meter high east -facing cut slope (photo 3). Although the majority of the terrace surface in the am of this exposure has ban excavated, the sur ficial soils at this location have been spared from heavy grading because it is the site of an oil -well pump pad. However, at least two different ages of artificial rill from surftcial grading are present where the fault intersects the ground surface. The fault break can be traced from the base of the slope to the top where it vertically displaces the solum and older fill by 30 centimeters down to the west (photo 4). Bedding in the terrace deposits at •the base of the slope is offset approximately 45 centimeters in the same sense, down to the west. The offset solum at site 2, shown in photo 4 and 5 is documented in figure 4. Figure 4 illustrates numerous shears dis- rupting the solum and in particular a dis- 146 tinctive laminated, very fine-grained silty sand. The sand is offset 30 centimeters down to the west. The sand is distorted near the offset and a fragment of it clings to the upthrown hanging wall of the shear surface. The sand appears to have been deposited on a nearly Oat surface, proba- bly in an ephemeral puddle in a swale, during the rainy season or following a heavy rain storm. Thus the laminated sand represents the ground surface at one time prior to faulting. Results from a palynology analysis of th d d f h t This possible age of the fill combined with the field relationships indicate that the ground surface was involved in fault- ing probably after the man-made debris was dumped on, the ground surface. We believe that these data document histori• cal surface faulting on Newport Mesa. The only historical earthquake large enough to have caused that surface fault. ing it the 1933 Lang Beach earthquake with in •epieenteral location offshore from ewport Beach. CONCLUSIONS m e sin ten to con tot e envtronmen of deposition. The analysis indicates Realizing the possibility that the New. spores from fungi and algal debris such as port•Inglewood zone poses a threat to the would be found in a short-lived puddle in Los Angeles and Orange County areas, a prairie environment (Anderson, War- geolotasts should devote more effort to ren and Associates, 1981 personal com- evayat,� municadoh). The pollen type in the ���cs. This sample tested include thistlq oak and type of investigation would clarify the lo- gnu. Modern rill was found to rest di- cations of fault traccs.along the Newport- rectly on the laminated sand across the Inglewood zone and it would help define fault break. On the down -thrown side, de. the surface faulting potential. Although bris consisting of wood.fragments,.tarred, the zone is virtually in manygeologists, roofing material, newspaper fragments, backyards, few investigations of its sur - and it brick were cgr rained within the rill. face -faulting history have been attempted The location of the l rick and other debris in contrast to the many sophisticated with respect to the fault is shown in photo investigations made along the San An. 6. The brick is embossed with the brick . drm fault. In general, geologists have makers symbol '•Fcreback'•. With help been deterred from surface investigations from the Masonry Institute, we found 4 of the Newport-Inglewood'zoae bbrause that Frreback bricks were first man - of the striking lack of evidence forsutface tured in the area during the late 1920s. faulting and the heavy urbanization along Thus, the brick could pre -date the Lon its traces, making the zone particularly Beach earthquake _ difficult to analyze Photo 4. Site 2 as it appearud W frre oxploratory excavation. The base of the soil horizon (in; a ..,w+ by arrows) is offsevacross the fault down to the west (le" Cahlonua Gunlogy July 188• I I I I I I I I I I P L I Photo S. Site 2 exposure showing faulted terrace eposits and solum. Arrows indicate the main fault break. 30.5 r- +1 5 5 54 \ 4 4 _ 5 4 O-, R5 3 3 !.✓ d 0 5 3 3 m 0 R5 E ' 0 d u. 5 3 R R 2 d X x 2 2 U. 3 3 2 2 1 1 R �^ 2 1 -30.5 -1 1 ! (For lithologic descriptions, see Table 2) N12W Centimeters 30.5 ' 61 91.5 1,42 152.5 r- I .2 0 NOTES 1 2 Feet 3 4 5 ORodent Burrow, filled R5 Rodent Burrow filled with sediment similar to Unit 5 x Carbonate Nodple., 0 location of wood and newspaper fragurents, tarred wand and brick Figure 4. Site 2, log of exposure showing relationship of fill and modern debr,s 'G) to faulted solum. Arrows indicate mein fault break. Calilrimie Geology July 1981 147 • TABLE 2 SITE TWO - NEWPORT MESA SOIL AND LITHOLOCIC DESCRIPTIONS Unmet YernrlaYn N.Cf letlan ..lty to "A trtsl diffuse. WAVY a older 7111 T.11swl*h brown (ADTe S/tl •nen boundary. "In,. clayey •Litt A.olre to ad tum, sag blocky 7 Milano y71r ft Tdtorlth bravo 110TA !/ai rad) Walk, attue wt., fviab t.. Slightly Mlat. brawnith letter tl*yl a/U dry. slay At tell Ataxyt *tl9htly 1,160"c' Plentl- vh.n .andY Irtdin9 darn to tally *tit At bl rely floe to line rmmut QantU ins packet* of deasys4 boewe- 04841-0 to atruntee eryeln And one concentration al equl". Sodium blocky *uonp1 hard dry. Sticky And slightly vela ln9monut feel road end when plastic .Mn vett slight, tlCL naSspa Pr fragments, and one bstar, abrupt, wary boundary reaction"comes. ..ry tin. feet tuomt.A, t.v very flea to fife, ! 1u141. 6.41mant- :fore (7.5T S/41 when .slat, root• within and b-tmo-n Pe48e city file" few 1AmLAAta4silty very fine- gr.Ln.4 end. m110 found A deo vary thin o.laua*ua nodule at test lntiuing of for rlaenL DVtrous. its. filled talent burrow*# Palynolgy analysis indleatu gradual wavy ►notary, fung.l *Para.. P... Lola a19A1 debet*e ihlttls, Oak and true 't C martaan oil'. IST $/11 -hoe moist. Very 4111d-amt puaola In seal-arid tin"r.Ln.d .lady *tit with start ,sire n"Star-, hard when dry. Prairie n.luwnt. atlaky AM slllhtty ►tt.ale wood 4 "atM i 71t oily. tsT 5/7 to 4/21 rhe ,Let. +atl F1ant1tY1 racy !!ns root tuW1.*1 talm City fit. line pet ...dy airy, moderate, 4ngutaf, trdlum blocky !tpetural five Me tmbut.. and tranwr.n se"Pi -swY Mist. *lightly atlCky, Pl.Asle be.Mery. fav Wry tin. pare.. far very fine mostly d.ndritie bat ... I L T tram. D.pslu Light 9ra7 (lova 711) when Mbtl rest. P.d., 300.1 -eeuwLtlan. of very Very tin.-9r.ined Andy *Litt dark Jr., ally (1011 7111 -M tort moSolve ttrYaturet nen-.tlek)rr con.µ"tuve t v.ry /errur day uh..nou(7) nodulus commit. moderately thick clay file- and *tat.. •tent root Hr.4 Ad a.LdAtlr rings en pa wrlmoo. ttAtur o, Photo a. Site 2, close-up view of the brick found at the base of fill resting on laminated sand (indicated by arrows). This study at Newport Mesa demon- strates that surface faulting has occurred and is recognizable along the Newport - Inglewood fault zone However, the evi- dence of youthful faulting and surface faulting is subtle along the zone, discovery of such evidence requires particularly artful; detailed investigations. REFERENCES Bartowl. AG_ 1974. A review of the geology and earthquake 'history of the Nowpert4ngla• wood structural zone. sauthern California: Catlomia oivisian of Minas and Geology Special popon 114. P. 115. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1981. An sioewnent L' the consequences and preparations lot a catastrophic California "mgwkr.Findings and actions taken, Wsshingtof, O.C. 59 P. 148 Harding. T.P. 1973. Newport -Inglewood trend. Cahlornie-an example of -wrench style de- formation: American Association of Petro- leum GeologistsBullsdn.v.67. no: t. P.97.116, Han. EW. 1980. Fault hazard zones in California: California OWIsion of Mines, and Geology Special Pub"Cellon 42 flavisad Edition. 77 p. Hilt. M.L 1971. ""Port ngl$we zone and Mesomic subduction. Califomie: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 81. p. 2957• 195L Hunter. A.L.. and Allen. D.R.. 10%. Recent devab Opmems in wall Newport oil field: Summary of Opersdons. California Oil Fields: California Division of Oil and Gas V. 42, no. 1. p. 11-18. Kresse. F.C_ 1969. Baldwin Hills Reservoir failure Of 190.7, in Engineering Geology in Southern California. defied by 0. Lung and R. Proctor. Association of Enginearing Geologists Spe- cial Publication, p. 93.107. Long. H.R. and Greaten. R,W- 1975. Subsurface structure of the nonhwestern Los Angeles basin, in California Division of oil and Gas Technical Papers. Report No. TP01. 33 p. California Geology July 1981 Morton. P.K. Miller, R.V. and Evers. J.R. 197a. Environmental geology of Orange County. California: California Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 79a. Morton, P.K- Millar. FIX 1973, Geologic Map of Orange County. California, in G"miron• mental Maps of Orange County. California: California Division of Mines and Geology Pre. liminary Report 15. fliehtsr. C.F.. 1970. Magnitude of the Inglewood. California, earthquake of June 21. 1920: Sais• mological,Sociaty of America Bulletin. V. 00. P. 617449. Segall. P. and Pollard. 0.0. 1900. Mechanics of discontinuous faults: Journal of geophysical tasaarch, V. aS, no. 88. P. 4777-43% Shakelton. N.J. and Opdyke. N.D. 1976. 0lygeo- isotope and pdaomignetic stratigraphy of Pacific con ,26179. tate Pliocene to latest Pleistocene: Geological Society of America Memoir 145. P. 449-454. Shelburne. fl,W.. 1981, Seismology program: CALIFORNIA GEOLOGY: v. 34. no. 1. P. 34L U.S. Geological Survey, 1951, Scenarios Of pass- ble earthquake affecting major California population centers. with estimates of intao- %fly and ground shaking: Open File Report at -1. .30. Wehmi9e15r. pJ.F.. Lsjoia. KJI. Kvemmldem K,A_ Potation. E_ Belknap, D.F. Kennedy. G.L- Addicott. W.0_ Veddar. J.G_ and Wright. R,W_ 1977. Correlation and chronology of Ps. cifio coast mating terrace deposits of conti. nental United States by fossil amino acid stereochemistry-teehnigW valuation. role - live ages, kinetic model ages and geologic Implications: U.S. Geological Survey Open Fib Report 77480. 100 P. Wilcox, R.E.. Harding, T.P. and Seely. D.R_ 1977. Buie wrench tectonics: American AisOCia- tion of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, V. 57, no. 1. P. 97-114 Woodward -Clyde COn:ultx(NL 1979. Report Of the valuation of maximum sanhquake and site ground motion paramateza aseocbtod with the offshore tone of deformation. San Onoba Nuclear. Generating Station: Report prepared for Southern California Edison. Rosemead. California, on file at Mission Viejo Library. yeates. R.S. 1973. Newportdnglawood fault tone. Los Angeles Basin. California: Amer- un Association of Petroleum Geologists Bu- letin, v, $7. no, I. p. 117.136. n '1 I I I I 1 1 0 I I 1 1 I 1 1 2. 5th Avenue Parcels a 1 I 1 1 I 1 C-20 QQLEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INC 0CX RPORATED SOIL ENGINEERING TESTING GEOLOGY ENV• ' PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION, ' FIFTH AVENUE CORRIDOR, CORONA DEL MAR, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA ' October 29, 1981 Project No. 1810522-01 r I I I I F Prepared for: THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 Newport Center Drive, Fifth Floor ' Newport Beach, California 92663 Attention: Mr. Bernard Maniscalco 17975 SKY PARK CIRCLE, SUITE E, IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 (714) 556.1421 . (213) 691.2125 ' IRVINE . WESTLAKE/VENTURA . DIAMOND BAR/WALNUT • SAN BERNARD INO/RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO . PALM DESERT n % INCORPORATED LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES 1 1% 0 a rTli . SOIL ENGINEERING TESTING GEOLOGY October Li TO: The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive, Fifth Floor Newport Beach, California 92663 ATTENTION: Mr. Bernard Maniscalco ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Project No. 1810522=01 SUBJECT: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Fifth Avenue Corridor, Corona del IMar, City of Newport Beach, California Lj a F, I In accordance with the provisions of our proposal dated September 15, 1981, we have completed a preliminary geotechnical investigation of the Fifth Avenue Corridor parcels in the City of Newport Beach, California. The property consists of 24± acres of undeveloped land north of Fifth Avenue and is divided into two parcels by Marguerite Avenue. The land to the southeast of Marguerite Avenue is designated as the Fifth Avenue Parcel; the land to the northwest of Marguerite Avenue is called the Marguerite Parcel. The two parcels are separated by the Oasis Senior Citizens Center buildings. A parcel of land belonging to the City of Newport Beach on the northwest corner of Fifth and Marguerite Avenues is also included in this investigation as a part of the Marguerite Parcel. The purposes of the investigation were to evaluate the geotechnical conditions of the site and to develop preliminary geotechnical recommendations to be used in the planning of the site development. The accompanying report presents a detailed description of our findings, conclusions and recommendations. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We sincerely appreciate this opportunity to be of service. JPH/BC/FZ/bs Distribution: (6) Addressee Respectfully submitted, John P. Hou RCE 23370 A uce R. Clark Engineering Geologist EG 1073 L Z Frederick L. Zeiser Senior Geologist 17975 SKY PARK CIRCLE, SUITE E, IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 1714) 556.1421 (213) 691.2125 ' IRVINE • WESTLAKE/VENTURA • DIAMOND BARIWALNUT • SAN BERNARD INO/RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • PALM DESERT I TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page ' 1.0 INTRODUCTION I 1.1 Purpose and Scope of Investigation I , 1.2 Proposed Development 1 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 3 , 3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS, 4 4.0 GEOLOGY 5 ' 4.1 Geologic Setting 5 4.1.1 General Description and Regional Structure 5 , 4.1.2 Bedrock Materials 5 4.1.3 Surficial Materials 6 4.1.4 Groundwater Conditions 6 , 4.1.5 Faulting 7 4.2 Seismicity Evaluation 7 5.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 9 5.1 Soil Conditions 9 5.2 Slope Stability 9 5.3 Settlement Considerations 9 5.4 Earthwork Shrinkage 9 5.5 Expansion Characteristics 9 , 6.0 CONCLUSIONS 10 6.1 Favorable Geotechnical Conditions 10 ' 6.2 Unfavorable Geotechnical Conditions 10 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 11 , 7.1 General Grading and Earthwork Specifications I I 7.2 Removals 11 7.2.1 Alluvium 11 7.2.2 Topsoil/Terrace Deposits I I 7.2.3 Existing Fills 11 7.3 Transition Building Pads 11 , 7.4 Surface and Subsurface Drainage Considerations 12 7.5 Foundations 12 7.6 Floor Slabs 12 7.7 Cement Type 13 7.8 Grading Plan Review 13 7.9 Inspections 13 111;ft LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES , INCORPORATED r, �J TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.) LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure I - Index Map Showing Location of Project Site 2 Plate I (A -D) - Geotechnical Map of Fifth Avenue Corridor, City of In Pocket Newport Beach, California Plate 2 - Geologic Cross -Section A -A' In Pocket Plate 3 - Geologic Cross -Section B -B' In Pocket Plate 4 - Geologic Cross -Section C -C' In Pocket Plate 5 - Geologic Cross -Section D -D' In Pocket ' APPENDICES ' Appendix A - References Appendix B - Geotechnical Logs of Subsurface Investigation Appendix C - Summary of Laboratory Test Results Appendix D - Regional Seismicity Map and Tables Appendix E - General Grading and Earthwork Specifications 11 10 ii � u �uu • LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED 1810522-01 ' 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Scope of Investigation The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate the geotechnical conditions of the subject site and to provide recommendations for preliminary site planning and , preparation. The scope of work included the following: • Review of available reports pertinent to the site development. , • Review of available aerial photographs for the area, including photos taken in 1931, 1938 and 1980. ' • Field and laboratory investigations, including backhoe trenching and bucket - auger drilling, logging and sampling. • Engineering and geological evaluation of existing conditions and proposed , development. • Preparation of this report. ' 1.2 Proposed Development , Based on the Concept Plan prepared by J. L. Webb Planning, 45 single-family residential lots are proposed for the Fifth Avenue Parcel and 61 units of multiple - family buildings are proposed for the Marguerite 'Parcel. We understand that minimal grading is planned for the proposed development. I I 1�p• LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED 1810r,22-01 INDEX MAP OF 5th AVENUE CUKK|UUK CORONA DEL MAK, CALIFORNIA SOURCE: U.S^G,S^ Quadrangle Laguna Beach ~2- LeaVTomand ASSOCIATES /wuunronxrco 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property consists of approximately 24.4 acres in two separate, undeveloped parcels along Fifth and Marguerite Avenues in the Corona. del Mar section of the City of Newport Beach, California. The property to the southeast of Marguerite Avenue is designated as the Fifth Avenue Parcel, whereas the land to the northwest of Marguerite, including a 2.36 acre City -owned parcel at the north corner of Fifth and Marguerite ' Avenues, is called the Marguerite Parcel. The two parcels are separated by Marguerite Avenue and the Oasis Senior Citizens Center. The site locations are shown on the Index Map, Figure 1. ' The Marguerite Parcel, located at the northeast corner of Marguerite and Fifth Avenues, is a nearly rectangular -shaped parcel with approximately 12000 feet of street frontage on Marguerite Avenue and a depth of approximately 550 feet. The site consists of gently , rolling hills sloping northwest from Marguerite Avenue to the canyon running along the northwest boundary. A drainage course running east to west, in the southwestern portion of the parcel discharges water from the existing developed tract across Marguerite Avenue, beneath the road into the boundary canyon. Low, thin to dense brush exists , throughout the parcel. Existing fills were noted along Marguerite Avenue and in the northeastern portion below Harbor View Drive. The City -owned portion adjacent to Fifth Avenue is being used for storage of construction equipment. , The proposed Fifth Avenue Parcel is a relatively flat, nearly rectangular -shaped parcel with approximately 900 feet of street frontage on Fifth Avenue and a depth of approximately 600 feet. An approximately 20 -foot high, 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) fill slope exists along the northeastern boundary. A subsurface pipe, located at the northeastern portion of the site, drains storm water from the Adjacent existing Tract 6152 to the canyon located along the southeast boundary. Except for the dirt roads, the fences around the parcel and the above-mentioned fill slope, there are no man-made features within the parcel. I 1 1 -3- i E;�ft 4, LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED 3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS ' • Field Investigation. A total of nine borings and six backhoe trenches was excavated. The borings were drilled to the maximum depth of. 51 feet, using a truck -mounted bucket -auger rig. Each boring was logged by a staff geologist to obtain geologic ' information of the site. Driven -ring and bag samples were also obtained for laboratory testing. The purpose of excavating the backhoe trenches was two -fold: (1) to evaluate the thickness and conditions of the existing fill and surficial deposits, and (2) to investigate a previously mapped fault projected onto the site from exposures mapped in Buck Gully. The logs of borings and trenches are presented in Appendix C, and the ' approximate locations of the borings and trenches are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate I, In Pocket). ' • Laboratory Testing: Representative soil samples retrieved from the borings and trenches were tested in the laboratory to determine the physical and engineering properties of the soils. The details of the laboratory test results are presented in ' Appendix C. i 1 ' LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED 4.1 4.0 GEOLOGY Geologic Setting 4.1.1 General Description and Regional Structure The subject property consists of two gently rolling to nearly flat parcels of ' land on the upslope side of Fifth Avenue in Corona del Mar. The site surface slopes gently toward the Pacific Ocean, and two tributary streams, Buck Gully and an unnamed stream northwest of Marguerite Avenue, bound the subject , property at its southeast and northwest ends, respectively. Buck Gully drains a watershed of several square miles to the east of Corona del Mar. Most of the watershed is currently undeveloped land on the oceanward side of the ridge , line. The unnamed stream to the northwest drains a small watershed containing a flood control dam immediately upstream from the edge of the Marguerite Parcel. Both streams are deeply incised into canyons through the , terrace deposits. The subject property is located on a broad uplifted wave -cut terrace along the southwestern flank of the Son Joaquin Hills. At the time that the terrace was ' uplifted, a thin deposit of beach sand was left covering the bedrock. This Quaternary marine terrace sand (Qtm) underlies most of the property at the ground surface. The terrace is similar to numerous broad terraces which were ' cut and then uplifted along the coastline of southern California between 100,000 and 500,000 years ago. Geologically, the San Joaquin Hills form the backbone of a major structural province of folded Tertiary sandstones and siltstones bounded on the southwest by the Newport -Inglewood fault system offshore from Corona del Mar, and on the northeast by the Whittier -Elsinore fault approximately 20 miles inland. , The bedrock was extensively folded and faulted in late Tertiary times, and the bedding observed in borings and outcrops on the site is complexly contorted. Both the Whittier -Elsinore and Newport -Inglewood faults are still active. 4.1.2 Bedrock Materials The Fifth Avenue Corridor is underlain by bedrock of the Miocene Monterey , Formation. It generally consists of thin -bedded, brown and gray siltstone, clayey siltstone, very hard siliceous siltstone, and sandstone. The beds are ' typically highly folded and fractured by joints and occasional small faults. Bedding surfaces acted as surfaces of slip during folding and commonly act as slip surfaces for potential landslides when the bedrock is exposed with bedding dipping adversely out -of -slope. TTo LEIIGHTONand ASSOCIATES ' INCORPORATED 4.1.3 Surficiai Materials Artificial Fill: Several areas of artificial fill are present within the subject property Fills placed during previous grading bf adjacent tracts consist of a fill slope along the easterly property on the Fifth Avenue Parcel and fills along portions of the Marguerite Avenue roadway. The tracts were graded from 1966 to 1968. The results are summarized in the Moore and Taber reports, as ' listed in the References, 'Appendix A. A small area of stockpiled fill exists near the intersection of Fifth and Marguerite Avenues on the City -owned parcel. Soils: The sites are generally mantled by topsoil which is I to 2 feet thick. This soil mantle is characterized by dark brown, sandy, clayey silt which is porous, dry to damp and contains roots and local bedrock fragments. Alluvium and Colluvium (Gal) and (Col): Alluvium and colluvium were mapped in the canyons within and adjacent to the property. On-site alluvial materials within the site are generally brown to dark gray, slightly porous, slightly ' clayey sand to clayey silt. These deposits are generally poorly to moderately consolidated. Their maximum depth in the drainage course adjacent to Marguerite Avenue is approximately 10 feet. ' Colluvium consists of dark brown, very moist, silty clay with occasional cobbles and siltstone fragments. Colluvium is thickest along slopes in the vicinity of Buck Gully in the -southern portion of the Fifth Avenue Parcel. ' Colluvium is anticipated to be a maximum of approximately 10 feet thick in this area. Landslide (Qis): A single, shallow landslide is located within the southern portion of the Fifth Avenue Parcel opposite Buck Gully, off-site from the proposed development. The landslide involves bedrock materials of the Monterey Formation siltstone and sandstone. The slide surface is anticipated to be a. maximum of approximately 15 feet deep. Since the shallow landslide is outside of the proposed grading, it was not investigated in detail. ' Marine Terrace Deposits (Qtm): Marine terrace deposits blanket the site, except in the canyon areas. The terrace deposits range from 0 to 37 feet thick and consist of brown to dark brown, clayey to silty sand. The sands are ' uncemented and friable locally, and contain varying amounts of rounded pebbles and siltstone fragments. The basal layer immediately above the contact with underlying bedrock locally contains medium to large siliceous boulders. The degree of consolidation of these deposits is generally poor to moderate. 4.1.4 Groundwater Conditions ' Seepage was encountered in all boreholes except B-4. The seepage was observed in fractures within the Monterey Formation, transmitting water from ' perched zones. Seepage ranged from moderate to heavy, producing up to 10 feet of standing water in some borings within a week of drilling. - 6 - n11T;�ft LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED 4.2 The site has the potential for increased groundwater levels after development, because of the presence of permeable terrace deposits overlying relatively impermeable bedrock. However, there are two findings from this study which indicate that this potential hazard can be mitigated if adequate precautions are taken during grading, construction, and occupation. The first important finding is that the free water presently underlying the site is within fractures in the bedrock, not at the base of the terrace deposits. Thus, the volume of the potential aquifer is considerably larger than the terrace deposits alone, ' and the present water table is deeper than the terrace bedrock contact. Second, the gradient of the water table is steeper than the gradient of the ground surface (both surfaces slope toward the ocean). We conclude that flow of subsurface water from the site exceeds the present supply to the site from the adjacent upslope tract; i.e., the capacity of the subsurface soils and rocks is greater than the present supply. However, because of the potential for the water table to rise as a result of development, we recommend that several ' mitigating measures be taken during development to limit the amount of water available to the subsurface (see ''Recommendations"). 4.1.5 Faulting I A single fault has been mapped by others near the subject site (Tan and t Edgington, 1976). This fault Is a possible subparallelsplay of the nearby Pelican Hill fault. The suspected fault trace was exposed in Trench T-6 (see Geotechnical Log, Appendix B). The trench exposed 4 to 7 feet of marine , terrace deposits in contact with underlying bedrock at a nearly horizontal angle. The exposed fault trace indicates this fault to be a steeply dipping to vertical dip -slip fault with the northeasterly block upthrown. This fault is interpreted to be a subparallel sympathetic fault to the Pelican Hill fault zone to the northeast. However, the terrace deposits have not been offset by the most recent movements df the fault. Since these terrace materials are at least 100,000 years old, this fault splay is considered inactive. No other , indications of active faulting, were found on the property. Seismicity Evaluation ' Seismic considerations for most properties in a seismically active area such as southern California should entail the evaluation of the potential for strong ground , motion, ground surface rupture and seismically induced ground settlement. The potential for any or all of these hazards depends on the recency of fault activity on or near the subject property. "Active" faults are defined by the State of California as being any fault which has moved within Holocene time (the past 11,000 years). Although no active faults are known to exist within the site, the Newport -Inglewood, Whittier -Elsinore, Sierra Madre -Cucamonga, San Jacinto and San Andreas faults are all active and exist within 5, 22, 36, 45 and 51 •miles, respectively, of the site. The Regional Seismicity Map of Appendix D shows the location of the site with respect to the important active or potentially active nearby faults. r _ 7 _ I- u �tJLJ • LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED I The fault which has the potential for generating the highest on-site ground accelerations is the Newport -Inglewood fault zone, due to its proximity to the site. The Newport -Inglewood fault zone is demonstrated to be geologically young and active. The March 10, 1933, 6.3 magnitude, Long Beach earthquake was attributed to this fault. Based on a maximum credible earthquake event of 6.5 Richter magnitude, a peak acceleration of 0.50g and a repeatable ground acceleration of 0.20 g would be anticipated on-site, as a result of a rupture on the Newport - Inglewood fault. The potential for seismically induced settlement depends on such factors as ground - shaking intensity, shallow groundwater and poorly consolidated deposits. Although the ground shaking potential on-site is anticipated to be of moderate intensity, areas containing shallow groundwater and potentially liquefiable deposits, such as those shown on. the Geotechnical Map as alluvium and colluvium, will be removed ' due to their compressibility characteristics, prior to fill placement. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction and other related phenomena is negligible, provided our recommendations are incorporated during grading. I F 1 1 1 I 'I 1 ' LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED 5.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 5.1 Soil, Conditions The soil conditions in both parcels (Fifth Avenue and Marguerite Avenue Parcels) are quite consistent. The near -surface soils consist of loose to medium dense silty sands and sandy silty topsoil soil about I to 2 feet in thickness. Below the topsoils, a layer of terrace material up to 10 feet in thickness, consisting of medium dense to dense silty sand underlain with Monterey Formation bedrock was encountered. Man-made fill placed on site from previous grading in 1966 and 1968 is located in t various areas in the Marguerite parcel. The maximum thickness of the fill, as 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 indicated on Trench Log T-5, is about 10 feet. 1 Slope Stability As discussed in Section 2.0, the site topography consists of gentle -rolling hills in the Marguerite Parcel and nearly flat land in the Fifth Avenue Parcel. Thus, any problems associated with slope stability related to the site development are of no concern for the site development. Settlement Considerations The on-site fill and the alluvium are settlement -prone materials. The underlying Monterey Formation bedrock is rather stiff and not considered compressible under the normal footing load. To minimize areal settlement, the existing, poorly compacted fill and the loose alluvium should be removed before the placement of new fill. If the grading recommendations presented in this report are followed, the post -construction settlement of the fill at the site should not be greater than 9z inch. t Earthwork Shrinkage The volume change of excavated on-site materials on recompaction as fill is expected to vary considerably with materials and location. As a guideline for quantity estimate, the following shrinkage factors are recommended: �- 1. Topsoil/Terrace Deposit: 5 percent to 10 percent shrinkage. 2. Bedrock Materials: 0 to 5 percent bulking. Expansion Characteristics I, The existing near -surface soils at the site are essentially granular, sandy soils and ' are considered to have low expansion potential. As a result of the site grading, more expansive soils developed from the Monterey Formation (Expansion Index as tested is 67) may occur at finish grade and become problematic for surface structures. The expansion potential of the pad soils should be further evaluated and tested upon completion of rough grading. � u �LJu • -9- LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES ' INCORPORATED H 6.0 CONCLUSIONS Development of the subject Fifth Avenue Corridor property is feasible as planned from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided that the recommendations of this report are Imple- mented during the preparation of grading plans, rough grading and other related phases of construction. 6.1 Favorable Geotechnical Conditions • No active faults are known to cross the site. • Standard seismic parameters may be utilized in the design of structures for the subject area. • No major deep-seated landslides are known to exist within the site. r• No natural slopes steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) are present. k • All earth units are expected to be easily excavated by standard earthmoving equipment. • Liquefaction and seismically induced settlement of saturated surficial deposits are considered unlikely during a moderate to strong earthquake. • No significant subsurface water conditions which might cause grading difficulties are anticipated, provided proposed cuts are not deeper than 20 feet. 6.2 Unfavorable Geotechnical Conditions Existing artificial fill on site is not suitable to support structures and should be removed to competent earth materials. ' • Sandy terrace materials can be easily eroded in a slope face. • Potential future buildup of groundwater at or near the bedrock/terrace contact could occur if efforts to control excess water on the site are not taken during grading and construction. • The majority of on-site soils and bedrock are moderately to highly expansive, respectively. I H -10- I u �uu • LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES �' INCORPORATED 7.1 7.2 7.3 i 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS General Grading and Earthwork Specifications Prior to commencement of grading operations, all organic vegetable matter and other deleterious substances should be cleared and removed from the site. Existing loose fill and topsoil areas should be cleaned out, as discussed in the Section 7.2, "Removals" of this report. All areas to be filled should be moisture conditioned, scarified and/or overexcavated, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction to a minimum depth of 12 to 18 inches. Grading should be performed in accordance with the recommendations of this report, and the General Grading and Earthwork Specifications presented in Appendix E. Removals 7.2.1 Alluvium In areas to receive new fill, complete removal of alluvium in the area is required before placement of fill. Specifically, if the improvement is to include the canyon along the northwesterly boundary of the Marguerite Avenue Parcel, the alluvium in the canyon bottom should be completely removed. 7.2.2 Topsoil/Terrace Deposits Complete removal of the topsoil and the upper portion of terrace deposits will be needed. The depths of removal of the terrace deposits will be determined, based on in -grading inspection and testing. 7.2.3 Existing Fills Field density tests were made in the bottom of the backhoe trenches to evaluate the quality of the existing fill on site. The test results indicate that the dry density of the fill varies from 91.9 to 97.3 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). With a laboratory maximum dry density of 116.5 pcf for the existing fill, the relative compaction would be between 78.8 and 83.6 percent. Thus the fill is considered poorly compacted and susceptible to settlement. The fill should be completely removed and reworked during grading. Transition Building Pads The cut portions of the transition building pads should be overexcavated and recompacted to a minimum depth of 24 inches below the bottom of the proposed footing. The planned area of overexcovation should exterid at least 5 feet outside the proposed footing line to minimize the potential of differential 'settlement of the footings. - 11 TTO LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED 7.4 Surface and Subsurface Drainage Considerations It is our experience that several coastal areas near the site with geologic and soil conditions similar to the subject property have excessive groundwater. Much of the problem appears to be associated with the presence of soils of relatively high permeability at shallow depth (terrace sands and weathered, fractured bedrock) underlain by rock of lower permeability (fresh unfractured bedrock) at a few tens of feet in depth. The result is a perched aquifer which can either be filled enough to produce surface subsidence, or permit seepage in natural or cut slope faces in which the zone of high permeability is exposed. In the Fifth Avenue Corridor, the water table is presently deep enough not to be a significant factor, either on the site or downslope of the proposed development. However, the result of excessive infiltration of water from the ground surface might be to raise the predevelopment water table substantially. The most likely sources of surface water are runoff from heavy storms and excessive irrigation. In order to minimize the potential for groundwater problems, adequate surface drainage provisions should be designed and installed to collect surface runoff. This includes gutters, downspouts and storm drains, which should be discharged properly by nonerosive devices to minimize erosion potential on the natural and graded slopes. Irrigation systems should be carefully designed to prevent excess watering. In the existing canyon area, if improvements are made, proper subsurface drainage i, provisions should be installed to facilitate the subsurface drainage. a7.5 Foundations Conventional spread footings are suitable for the support of wood -frame residential structures. Preliminarily, the footing may be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2000 psf. For continuous footing, the footing should be at least 12 inches in width, and 12 and 18 inches in depths for one- and two-story buildings, Irespectively. 7.6 Floor Slabs Concrete slab -on -grade floors may be used for the proposed buildings. The results of our expansion index tests indicate that the swell potential of the site soil of the Monterey Formation is about 6.7 percent. The soil, therefore, is considered moderately expansive. However, due to the presence of siltstone material, the soil expansion potential could be moderately to highly expansive in some areas. We ' recommend that the slab be reinforced with a minimum of 6x6-6/6 welded wire mesh or equivalent against soil expansiveness. Additional reinforcement may be required by the structural engineer for structural loading. All footings or grade beams should be reinforced with two No.4 bars (one• top and one bottom). ' Additional expansion index tests should be performed on the pad soil to evaluate, specifically, the expansion potential of the soil at each pad, so that site specific considerations, in terms of soils expansion, can be rendered for each pad. -12- I u IuLJ • LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED 7.7 Cement Type The results of soluble sulfate tests indicate that the sulfate contents of the soils are less than 0.2 percent. The soils are not considered to contain soluble sulfate in sufficient quantity to warrant the use of Type -V cement. Therefore, the use of Type -II cement for concrete mix is adequate. If imported soil is used and placed near the finished pad elevation, the soil should be tested for soluble sulfate content to assure the appropriate cement type to be used in the concrete mix. 7.8 Grading Plan Review , As the grading plans become available, the geotechnical consultant should review the grading plans and evaluate the consistency between the grading plans designed and the recommendations provided by the geotechnical consultants. 7.9 Inspections ' Soils and geologic inspections should be conducted periodically and as necessary during rough grading. A final rough grading report will be submitted on completion of grading. Construction should be inspected at the following stages by the soil engineer: • On completion of clearing and during excavation and backfill of substructures. • During all rough grading operations, including removal of unsuitable materials, precompaction, benching and filling operations. • After trench backfilling, but prior to paving, or other construction over backfill. • Prior to pouring of slabs where expansive soils exist within 30 inches of slab subgrade. • When any unusual conditions are encountered. I I H - 13 - i u itJIJ • _ LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED Ii I I I I a I 1 I I I 1810522-01 APPENDIX A REFERENCES Bonilla, M. _G., 1970, Surface Faulting and Related Effects in Weigel, R. L., ed., Earthquake Engineering: Prentice -Hall, Englewood Cliff, New Jersey, p. 47-74. Moore and Taber, 1966, Geologic Review of Grading Plan for Tract 6152 (Harbor View Hills), Newport Beach, Orange County, California, Job. No. 16-5846, Report dated April 21, 1966. 1966, Grading Plan Approval, Tracts 6228 and 6229, Newport Beach, California, Job No. 16-584GP, Report dated August 4, 1966. 1967, Report of Compacted Fill and Geologic Report, Tract 6228 (Phase 1) and Marguerite Avenue, Newport Beach, California, Job No. 26-156T, Report dated January 10, 1967. 1968, Report of Compacted Fill and Geologic Fill, Tract 6425 (Phase II), Newport Beach, California, Job No. 27-134T, Report dated February 13, 1968. Morton, P. K., Miller, R. V., and Fife, D. L., 1973, Geo -Environmental Maps 'of Orange County: California Division of Mines and Geology Preliminary Report 15. Tan, Siang S. and Edgington, William J., 1976, Geology and Engineering Geologic Aspects of the Laguna Beach Quadrangle, Orange County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 127. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS UTILIZED Date Flight No. Frame Scale 2/26/80 8033 2129 213, 214 111-2,000' 1938 AXK 49-46, 48 111-1,000' 1931 1590 129,130 I"-1,500' A - i LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED I L, I CJ I I I 1 3. Big Canyon Area 16 16 I I I I H C-21 U �J IGeoSoils, Inc. RECONNAISSANCE SOILS ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGIC STUDY, BIG CANYON #16 PARCEL, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA. FOR IRVINE PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT W.O. 860 -OC OCTOBER 26, 1981 �J IGeoSoils, Inc. �u 6eosgfh'- -.Inc, I Sail Mechanics • Geology • Foundation Engineering 4 1446 East Chestnut Avenue • Santa Ana, California 92701 • (714) 547-6703 October 26, 1981 W.O. 860 -OC Irvine Pacific,Development 610 Newport Center Drive 7th Floor Newport Beach, California 92663 Attention: Mr. James Montgomery Subject: Reconnaissance Soils Engineering and Geologic Study, Big Canyon #16 Parcel, Newport Beach, - California. Gentlemen: The following report presents the results of our reconnaissance, investigation of Big Canyon Area No. 16 in the 'City of Newport Beach, California. This study has included review of regional geologic maps, analysis of aerial photographs and site reconnaissance. This report is intended as a summary of our findings. it includes a general description of site materials and estimated geotechnical properties related to site development. A general seismicity evaluation is also included. Enclosed is a Reconnaissance Geologic Map (Plate I) compiled from regional geologic maps; augmented by reconnaissance mapping and aerial photograph analysis. SITE DESCRIPTION Location The subject property is a narrow, irregular shaped parcel along MacArthur Boulevard, southerly of Ford Road in Newport Beach. LOSAn6oloc OJpca • S858 VomNuyo 9oulovord. VamNup. 6o91orNa 61107 0 (219)70-]158 1 I I I U 0 I L,l 9_I 11 Irvine Pacific Development Page 2 October 26, 1981 W.O. 860 -OC The regional site location is shown on Figure 1. Big Carryon Golf Course lies along the westerly side of the parcel. Topographic details of the site and property boundaries are shown on Plate I. This 40 -scale map was provided by Adams, Streeter and Woolsey. Topography and Existing Conditions The site varies from flat to gently sloping terrain to rounded slopes and flat drainage courses. Some of the terrain is natural, but most has been modified by grading for adjacent roadways and the golf course. Previous canyons, part of the Big Canyon tribu- tary network have been filled to varying degrees and are provided with basins for runoff control. Fill has also been used to create earth mounds and sculpturing for the golf course. Relief over the property is approximately 65 feet. Natural slopes vary up to 4:1 and graded slopes are 1'x:1 to 4:1. Pre -golf course grading included swale and canyon filling for development of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. Fill slopes exist along both roads and cut slopes occur along MacArthur. A flat pad area has been formed at the corner and a small paved area exists along Ford Road to the west. Other existing features include a fence and power poles along MacArthur Boulevard and storm drain facilities along both roads. A telephone company man hole is situated westerly of MacArthur along the edge of the larger canyon. A steel pipe was also observed. GeoSoils, Inc. 1 14'JUU2U; 1 m 10 Irvine Pacific Development Page 3 October 26, 1981 W.O. 86'0 -OC The southern end of the parcel and other portions contain deep fill, piles of organic refuse, scattered rocks and various debris. Drainage Most of the property drains directly or indirectly toward the west, which simulates the natural drainage into Big Canyon. A recently constructed storm drain enters the site along Ford Road, from a development to the north. Desilting and retention basins exist in the two large canyons and ponded water is present. Vegetation Most of the site has a light growth of grasses, with local areas lacking vegetation. Trees and shrubs exist along and/or within the two major drainage courses, along with weeds and other -phreatophytic growth. Cultivated grass and various trees and shrubs border the golf course. SURFICIAL SOILS ' Fill Deposits of fill are located across the entire site. They represent deposits related to roadway construction and golf course development, as well as surficial fill deposits placed randomly over the years. Initial filling involved Ford Road io and MacArthur Boulevard, where fill was placed within swale IGeoSoils, Inc. I Irvine Pacific Development Page 4 October 26, 1981 W.O. 860 -OC and canyon areas bordering the roads. These deposits may vary up to 20-25 feet thick. Golf course filling also involved canyon areas and placed fill along the edge of the course for landscape purposes. The canyons may contain'10 to 15 feet of fill, with mounds containing up to 25 feet. The golf course filling was inspected and reported by Moore and Taber; however, grading standards have since changed. Surficial fills occur locally throughout the site as dump deposits and/or local swale infillings. The majority of the dumped materials occur toward the southern end of the site. Fill soils include local materials consisting of sands, silty clays and clays with scattered gravels and rock fragments up to a couple of feet. Dump materials also include landscape trash, gravel, rocks and miscellaneous debris. Some of these materials appear to have been placed within holes. Topsoil, Colluvium and Alluvium Most natural portions of the site contain a topsoil layer thick- ening to colluvium in swales and gentle slopes. Locally, the topsoil has been stripped off and portions may be buried by fill. Both materials are dark colored and consist of mixtures of sand and clay. Recent deposits of alluvium have developed within the desilting/ retention basins. These deposits should be relatively thin, consisting of sand, silt and clay. GeoSoits, Inc. I I [1 I a 1 1 U1 Irvine Pacific Development GEOLOGY Page 5 October 26, 1981 W.O. 860 -OC The subject property lies within a portion of the Marine Terrace disected by tributaries to Big Canyon. The terrace is made up of sandy deposits and erosion has created steep sided canyons. The terrace deposits are underlain by bedrock materials variously mapped on publications as Monterey, Topanga or Capistrano Formations. The lack of exposure of bedrock in this vicinity probably leads to supposition and confusion. Faulting has been mapped near to the property. The dominant feature is a branch of the Pelican Hill Fault which passed some 2000 feet to the southwest. This feature locally separates Monterey from Topanga Formation through a wide shear zone. Bedrock fracturing would be expected to extend into the subject property. The Pelican Hill Fault is not considered active. The Monterey Formation typically consists of diatomeceous and silty shales; Topanga materials may include sandstones, siltstones, and conglomerates; and Capistrano rocks are massive siltstones. GROUNDWATER ' Due to local ponding of water, it is expected that groundwater may be present within the two major canyons. This is likely to be a perched condition influenced by seasonal rainfall, runoff from adjacent properties and golf course irrigation. I� I u The potential for springs or seeps exist along the terrace/ bedrock contact. This may be influenced by direct irrigation of the subject property and/or by groundwater migrating from offsite properties. GeoSoils, Inc. 1� Irvine Pacific Development Page 6 October 26, 1981 W.O. 860 -OC i The Pelican Hill Fault is not regarded as active. Other faults in Southern California, however, are active and would be expected to cause earthquake effects to the site. These include the Newport Inglewood Fault (less than five miles to the west), the Whittier - Elsinore -Chino Fault (22 miles northeast), San Jacinto Fault (45 miles northeast) and the San Andreas Fault (50 miles northwest). Earthquake effects at the site would include ground shaking and horizontal accelerations. Liquefaction is not anticipated. Landslides No evidence of landsliding was noted during our review and recon- naissance work. CONCLUSIONS 1 Based on our reconnaissance investigation, it is our opinion the site may be feasibly developed from a soils engineering and geologic standpoint. various factors should be further analyzed to determine i their impact upon planning and eventual development. Other factors we may estimate at this time for planning; but eventual exploration, testing and analysis should be performed. 'Estimates provided herein are based upon our experience and familiarity with the site materials. Site Preparation .for Grading Dense vegetation, fences, trash and concentrated organic debris should be removed and wasted from the site. Topsoil, colluvium, GeoSoils, Inc. r 7Ij Pacific Development Irvine Page 7 October 26, 1981 W.O. 860 -OC loose fill and alluvium should be removed prior to placement of fill. These soils may be reused as compacted fill. Removal of deeper fill deposits would depend upon future exploration and testing. Compacted Fill Site materials available for compacted fill include terrace deposits, existing fill and possibly bedrock. These materials ' should produce adequate structural fills. Compaction difficulties have been experienced with soils derived from the Monterey Formation elsewhere in the county. Difficulties are usually caused by the diatomaceous content and the moisture level in these soils. ' Slopes Moderate height cut and fill slopes should be stable at gradients of 2:1 or flatter. Cut slopes in terrace sands may be subject to erosion. Cut slopes in bedrock are not anticipated. I I� 11 iJ All slopes should be programmed for planting with deep rooting trees, shrubs and ground. Irrigation should be minimized to just support the vegetation without saturation or penetration beyond the root zone. GeoSoils, Inc. Irvine Pacific Development Excavation Characteristics Page 8 October 26, 1981 W.O. 860 -OC The Terrace deposits and bedrock should be easily excavated with conventional earthmoving equipment. Localized hardened sand beds have been encountered within the Terrace deposits nearby. These were'rippable, but required overexcavation in street and footing excavation areas. The Topanga and Monterey Formation contain occasional beds of resistant sandstone, volcanic rock and silicious siltstone. As a result of this, oversize rock and boulders are encountered which require special handling during filling. Rocks of this type and rip -rap rock are scattered about the site, probably derived from adjacent development. Earthwork Balance The following bulk and shrinkage factors are estimated for plan- ning purposes: Alluvium, Colluvium and Fill - 10-15% Shrinkage Terrace Deposits - 3-5% Shrinkage Topanga Formation - 0-3% Bulk Monterey Formation - 0-2% Bulk Expansive Soils Site materials are expected to vary from non -expansive to crit- ically expansive. Soils derived from the Terrace deposits are expected to be non -expansive to slightly expansive. Existing fills and bedrock soils are expected to vary from moderate to GeoSoils, Inc. 1I �I L7 L.j 71 L 7I 11 11 49I I 11 I I of 1: I P I I 1 I a I I II J It l , Irvine Pacific Development Page 9 October 26, 1981 W.O. 860 -OC critically expansive. Topsoil and colluvium are anticipated to be highly expansive. Expansive soil testing may be performed during future explora- tory stages of study and may be evaluated on finished pads at completion of grading. Depending on the expansive nature of the lots, foundation reinforcement, deepened footings and presaturation may be recommended for specific conditions. Sel- ective grading may also be employed to develop less expansive building pads, by placing expansive soils in deep fills. Sulfate Content Soil materials on site typically contain a low to moderate content of soluble sulfates. Therefore, Type II or Type V concrete would be expected for most slab and foundation con- struction. Preliminary testing and testing at completion of grading would be necessary to confirm the actual requirement for concrete. Subdrainage Subdrains should be considered for all canyons receiving fill and for all stabilization devices. These drains would be intended to collect any existing groundwater and perhaps poten- tial accumulations of water as a result of landscape irrigation. Rock Disposal Some oversize rock is present onsite and may be generated during grading. These materials may be placed in deeper fills or GeoSoiis, Inc. Irvine. Pacific Development Page 10 October 26, 1981 W.O. 860 -OC windrowed with granular soils flooded into remaining void spaces. Rocks should not be placed near fill slopes or close to finish grade where they might interfere with utility or foundation excavations. FUTURE EXPLORATION Future geotechnical exploration would include analysis of alluvium and colluvium for thicknesses and suitability relative to the proposed grading. Additional study may be considered to define thicknesses and extent of existing fills. Areas of excavation should include study for cut slope and natural slope stability; general soil parameters as needed for earthwork control; embankment design and foundation considerations. We sincerely appreciate this opportunity to be of service, and we will continue to provide you with consultation during the planning phases. Upon completion of a tentative plan, more detailed exploration of the site should begin. if you have any questions regarding the information in this report or other geotechnical aspects of the project, please call. Respectfully submitted, GeoSoils, Inc. By: i Edward A. Steiner Staff Geologist Reviewed By: , S ohr A. Sayerml OEG 907 Eng neering Geol gist EAS/ARK/JAS/se By: &XA4-e Albert R. Kleist, RCE 16351 Civil Engineer Encl: Plate I Dist: (6) Addressee GeoSoils, Inc. ri It 11 aI 11 1 Cl 11 11 �I L 1 'J I 1 17 1 1 1 a �1a 1 1 1 1 1 1 D. Biological Resources F iL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Biological resources surveys were conducted by the Phillips Brandt Reddick Biological Services Division in January 1982 for the Caltrans West parcel and for in November 1981 the 5th Avenue parcels (Areas A and B) and Big ' Canyon Area 16: The following section summarizes the findings of these surveys. ' CALTRANS WEST SETTING Grasslands and a ruderal species association are the two plant communities found within the study area (see Exhibit 1). Much of the vegetation pres- ent has been modified and disturbed by previous site grading. Periodic discing activity results in a generally low, sparse vegetative profile over most of the site. The upper mesa grasslands are composed, for the most part, of annual spe- cies. The more common grasses found in this association include soft chess, red brome, common wild oat, and foxtail fescue. Dove weed, tele- graph weed, bur clover, curly dock, tocalote, and red -stemmed filaree are some of the more common broadleaf plant species present. Larger plants include pampas grass, mulefat, bush sunflower, and, Mexican elderberry. ' Animals observed or expected to occur within the study area include sev- eral bird species, rodents and Audubon cottontails. Birds observed in the vicinity of the site included crows, white -crowned sparrows, turkey vul- tures, red-tailed hawks, white-tailed kites and American kestrels. Valley D-1 The ruderal association within the lower mesa is a non-native weedy community of the type that typically revegetates previously disturbed areas. Many of the plant species found in this association are those which occur commonly in other communities such as grasslands and coastal ' sage scrub. Among the ruderal plants present are tumbling pigweed, tocalote, short -podded mustard, horseweed, telegraph weed and curly dock. Larger plants include pampas grass, mulefat, bush sunflower, and, Mexican elderberry. ' Animals observed or expected to occur within the study area include sev- eral bird species, rodents and Audubon cottontails. Birds observed in the vicinity of the site included crows, white -crowned sparrows, turkey vul- tures, red-tailed hawks, white-tailed kites and American kestrels. Valley D-1 0 Li y X00 62 56 ♦10% nt1Y „K r♦� K H h Y♦ h x.l'♦ Y, 1 �\\ � =i♦ � .,res �air l'♦i.riihh�♦^ /V w•��w �� ! �'� `�\� t Ian riF hri M r.,.�, hr r,I�''.••W'+�y r' i 2� , '� g.6 f / +.� t ..wh` ''�' Mrwy.+�/w. .y/(J�•y"/y n'. p. Y/`` y~~'tih w. ��MY.� MSH Kyry�MK• � / � � / I � �^ �� x ri Jhri ..ri MJ4 w♦ / w .J f,T Z' .Ih h K I\!. � � 1Y♦ M \\ ° COASTH/Q - ----- �ce HWAY , --'--- 5 \.01. OIL ine LEGEND ' x GRASSLAND [ (RUDERAL , 0 126 2W a Vegetation A � • cdbws at CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 81-2 EXHIBIT 1 ' I 11 El I 11 pocket gopher holes were found in the grassland and numerous rodent trails were also observed. The site, together with the surrounding open areas, may possibly support a sizable rodent population of such species as the California ground squirrel, deer mouse, California vole, and house mouse. This population could provide forage for raptors. No plant or animal species designated as rare, threatened, endangered or sensitive by the California Native Plant Society, State of California Department of Fish and Game, or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service were observed or are expected to occur in the study area. Most of the study area supports plants that are non-native and characteristic of disturbed areas. IMPACTS Grading for the proposed development will remove all of the existing vege- tation and displace existing wildlife populations from the site. Similar removals could occur with development of the site for improved recrea- tional or open space uses, depending on the intensity of use. Due to the scarcity of native plants and animals and the prevailing dis- turbed conditions, the overall biological impact is not considered to be significant. 5TH AVENUE (MARGUERITE PARCEL) SETTING Vegetation within the Marguerite parcel is dominated by annual grassland and coastal sage scrub communities (see Exhibit 2). A riparian area occurs along the floor of Jasmine Creek. A small stand of cattails occurs near the Marguerite Avenue storm drain outlet that empties into the swale crossing the southern portion of the parcel. The grassland community is a disturbed habitat with low plant and animal species diversity due to periodic discing activities. Disturbed areas I�� rl LEGEND L===J GRASMAlD Vegetation /r�4`!/ Mh o PAM@b CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 81-2 MAW M r r a♦ r r = ; = m EXHIBIT 2 E nated as rare, threatened, endangered or sensitive were observed or are expected to occur within the Marguerite parcel. IMPACTS The grassland and coastal sage scrub areas will comprise most of the vege- tation removed for development. The removal of these two communities and ' displacement of existing wildlife populations will not represent a signifi- cant impact on native biota. Direct or indirect impacts on the Jasmine Creek riparian areas may occur. ' Similar biological impacts would occur with development of the parcel as presently allowed by the General Plan. The difference in impact associ- D-3 also are present from previous grading, dumping and filling activities. concentrated in the Common wild oat and a variety of brome grasses are the more common plants Jasmine Creek stream area found within this association. frequently observed. The coastal sage scrub area is an isolated remnant of a previous community ' which has been reduced by surrounding urban development. The community is mon to the grassland area dominated by California sagebrush and bush sunflower. Other species in- clude coastal goldenbrush and California everlasting. Pockets of remnant animal species desig- native grassland were found scattered among the coastal sage scrub vege- tation. The riparian area along Jasmine Creek has a plant species composition typical of a stream -fed freshwater aquatic habitat. Along and within Jasmine Creek are large stands of Pacific Coast bulrush and pond weed. Brass buttons, a yellow -flowered herbaceous perennial also are found along the stream margins. A large stand of giant reed has grown where the on- site swale joins Jasmine Creek. nated as rare, threatened, endangered or sensitive were observed or are expected to occur within the Marguerite parcel. IMPACTS The grassland and coastal sage scrub areas will comprise most of the vege- tation removed for development. The removal of these two communities and ' displacement of existing wildlife populations will not represent a signifi- cant impact on native biota. Direct or indirect impacts on the Jasmine Creek riparian areas may occur. ' Similar biological impacts would occur with development of the parcel as presently allowed by the General Plan. The difference in impact associ- D-3 Wildlife observed during survey of the parcel was concentrated in the Jasmine Creek stream area with birds being the most frequently observed. Bushtits were observed moving through the coastal sage scrub areas. Com- mon to the grassland area is the California valley quail, mockingbirds, California ground squirrels and gophers. No plant or animal species desig- nated as rare, threatened, endangered or sensitive were observed or are expected to occur within the Marguerite parcel. IMPACTS The grassland and coastal sage scrub areas will comprise most of the vege- tation removed for development. The removal of these two communities and ' displacement of existing wildlife populations will not represent a signifi- cant impact on native biota. Direct or indirect impacts on the Jasmine Creek riparian areas may occur. ' Similar biological impacts would occur with development of the parcel as presently allowed by the General Plan. The difference in impact associ- D-3 ated with the proposed development of higher intensity residential uses would be negligible. 5TH AVENUE (5111 AVENUE PARCEL) SETTING Annual grassland is the dominant vegetation within the 5th Avenue parcel (see Exhibit 2). A riparian area occurs along Buck Gully. Remnant coastal sage scrub vegetation is also present over a portion of the ad- joining bluff slopes. A small ruderal association occurs along the dirt roads extending down to Buck Gully. Due to periodic discing, the grassland area characteristically exhibits a sparse vegetative profile and plant and animal species diversity within this community is low. Disturbed areas also are present from previous grading, dumping and filling activities. Common wild oat and a variety of brome grasses are the more common plants found within this association. Field vineweeds and large individuals of the trailing coyote melon com- monly are scattered throughout the grasslands. A large stand of black mustard is present where the parcel slopes to Buck Gully and scattered individuals of artichoke thistle also occur at this location. The coastal sage scrub vegetation is a remnant of a formerly larger community. There is no contiguous association with the coastal sage scrub vegetation occurring extensively in the upstream Buck Gully and San Joaquin Hills areas. The community is dominated by California sagebrush and bush sunflower. Other species include coastal goldenbush and California everlasting. The riparian community present in Buck Gully has a plant species composi- tion typifying an alkaline scrub riparian environment. A cover of her- baceous species predominates this area with large shrubs of arroyo willow and mulefat forming an overstory, in small scattered areas. Kikuyu grass, a weedy introduced species, dominates the stream margins with the more alkaline tolerant plant species, salt heliotrope, spear saltbush, alkali heath and salt grass becoming more frequent along the margins further upstream. MI I1 J 11 1I w� I 1 11 Fi I M �I 1 I F The grasslands and some coastal sage scrub will comprise most of the vege- tation removed for development. Removal of these vegetation communities will not represent a significant impact on native biota. Direct or indirect impacts on the Buck Gully riparian area may occur de- pending on grading plans submitted prior to tentative tract map consi- deration. Similar biological impacts would occur with development as presently al- lowed by the General Plan. The difference in impacts associated with the proposed development of higher intensity residential uses would be negli- gible. BIG CANYON AREA 16 SETTING The vegetation present is dominated by an annual grassland community (see Exhibit 3). Riparian zones have developed along the major drainages D-5 I Wildlife observed during a survey of the parcel was concentrated in the Buck Gully area. Birds were observed most frequently, with relatively more species found in this area as compared to within the Jasmine Creek area along the Marguerite parcel. Brown towhees, black phoebes, Califor- nia thrashers, and mockingbirds were observed commonly in the areas along the east side of the gully (coastal chapparal habitat). Bushtits also were observed moving through the coastal sage scrub area. Common to the grassland areas are the California valley quail, mockingbirds, California ground squirrels and gophers. Evidence of coyote also was observed along ' the gully. No plant or animal species designated as rare, threatened, endangered or ' sensitive were observed or are expected to occur within or immediately adjacent to the 5th Avenue parcel (i.e., Buck Gully). ' IMPACTS I M �I 1 I F The grasslands and some coastal sage scrub will comprise most of the vege- tation removed for development. Removal of these vegetation communities will not represent a significant impact on native biota. Direct or indirect impacts on the Buck Gully riparian area may occur de- pending on grading plans submitted prior to tentative tract map consi- deration. Similar biological impacts would occur with development as presently al- lowed by the General Plan. The difference in impacts associated with the proposed development of higher intensity residential uses would be negli- gible. BIG CANYON AREA 16 SETTING The vegetation present is dominated by an annual grassland community (see Exhibit 3). Riparian zones have developed along the major drainages D-5 I LEGEND RIPARIAN RUDERAL Vegetation Bg myon &me CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 81=2 ,. 2W 3W EXHIBIT 3 �1 � through the site and a weedy, non-native ruderal species association exists on the graded flat adjacent to the intersection of Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Much of the site vegetation has been disturbed by previous roadway and golf course construction activities. The overall veg- etative profile generally is low and grassy with denser growth occurring within the drainageways. The grassland vegetation occurring within the site is primarily comprised of introduced annual species though some native species were observed to be present. Scatterings of coastal sage scrub vegetation also are found interspersed in this community. The smaller herbaceous perennials ' core-throgyne and deerweed occur frequently and dove weed and broad -leafed filaree are the common broadleaf plants present. ' The southerly grassland areas contain many of the same plants found in the northwestern portions of the site. Additional species commonly found ' through this area include the weedy short -podded mustard, Palmer's goldenbush and artichoke thistle. The previously graded flat at the intersection of Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard supports a predominantly weedy, non-native ruderal species ' association. The two riparian zones found on the site are relatively small, isolated and occur along the Big Canyon tributary through the southern corner and ' below the Ford Road storm drain outlet to the north. The riparian area along the Big Canyon tributary is a remnant of the larger association which existed previously along the lower reaches of this drainage prior to construction of the Big Canyon Golf Course. Black willows are the dominant riparian species in this area. Narrow -leafed cat -tails, tules ' and western goldenrod are common understory plants with large umbrella sedges found growing about the willow margins. Commonly found in the moist areas along the riparian margin are orchard grass, bristly oxtongue, horsetail and common sow thistle. Tall individuals of willow dock and curly dock also are present and western ragweed is common along the drier riparian margins. The riparian zone occurring within the northern portion of the site has developed as a result of the conveyance and retention of D-6 runoff below the Ford Road storm drain outlet. Arroyo willows form the overstory with an immediate understory comprised primarily of western goldenrod and mulefat. Western ragweed and curly dock occur along the margins of this riparian area. Faunal activity observed during field survey of the study area was rela- tively low. A large number of Audubon cottontails utilize the site, par- ticularly the grassland area within the northwestern corner. Rodents com- monly found within the site include valley pocket gophers and California ground squirrels. Few birds were observed; however, a variety of species common to the plant communities present on the site are expected to occur, including warblers (riparian areas), starlings, mockingbirds, meadowlarks and sparrows. No plant or animal species designated as rare, threatened, endangered or sensitive were observed or are expected to occur Within the study area. IMPACTS Grading for the proposed development will remove all of the vegetation and displace existing wildlife populations from the site. Most of the pro- perty is comprised of disturbed habitat with low species diversity. The riparian areas exhibit a greater diversity; however, they occur as iso- lated remnants with no contiguous offsite association. They are not consi- dered significant to the regional riparian habitat setting. Removal of the onsite vegetation will not effect a significant loss of native biota. Similar removals would be expected to occur with development of the site for recreational uses as allowed by the current general plan with the possible exception of retaining the existing riparian areas. D-7 I E, Cultural / Scientific Resources 1 J 1 I 1 1 1 a 1 I 1 1 n LJ 1 I E. Cultural / Scientific Resources 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 7 I 1 1 1 1 I 7-7 _A Archaeological Resource Assessment For Three Parcels in Newport Beach, CA. (General Plan Amendment 81-2)• INTRODUCTION An archaeological resources assessment was conducted for three parcels with a combined total acreage of 51 acres in the City of Newport Beach, California. The study, conducted by Kathleen Del Chario of Archaeological Resource Management Corporation (AELMC) under the direction of Marie G. Cottrell, consisted of two phases: 1) a records check, and 2) a walkover field survey. The purpose of the investigation was to locate and record areas of archaeolo- gical interest which might be impacted by proposed development, and to make appropriate recommendations as to their mitigation. The survey was performed at the request of Phillips Brandt Reddick (PBR) of Irvine, California, and the results will be included in an environmental impact report being prepared for the area. 1 SETTING For ease of discussion in this report, the three parcels surveyed will be referred to as Project Area A, Project Area B, and Project Area C (Figure 1). ' Project Area A (Figure 2), roughly triangular in shape, is ' bounded on the north by Ford Road, on the east by MacArthur Boulevard, and on the west by the golf course of the Big Canyon Country Club, The parcel is situated on the edge of a marine terrace overlooking a canyon, and has been cut in two places by C A N Figure 1: General Locations Project Areas 1In i w 1 ■ 1 4JE\CPORII�BEACH� 1 J Pso�ect ASmfl Al 'c RC1 Iyi".'C 5 "*R. , So nes t � Figure 2: Project Area A, II.S.}G, S. Tustin and Lag�ma Quadrangles t Lp 2M 3W 1 r•i}.,:;�lYff,\ ' '�IE�VP.OR�BEA_CH= .F,X.1�Y i.1• .1 \ 4 ' " •a ,°:;.�; i +�!� �`� Project Area A vY • r � i �� °S•�-- r ` ISI C L '--- ° -, - .-r SPILLWAY ELEY l� i \ `,�� / •Ye \tI B7f7 \ N (' (\t; �iO � �� � �, ; i=•:�.:. '` a ,.,�,, ;. "'='t�=�z'f�!"� C��: wig o •<i\ (p ••rI, ��i �-c =a RHlivovV �i•, I 1 \t. i t)I e/ t� ; BMX: . =s �_ �.L�'� J`' ^`'" ; \ `1 •t , • •� /• l� C -mal � ` � \ + t �. ' �'�. � _ �15PILLWAY ) . Q. - - _ ELEV 471 `ogre ._ �. r ` ' `�lyyy � \l: r �• • Spur 2 . _ Q <�\ .' �' ¢' i r 1 ?56�� f t ::` t•` d' r Yons� ssz—.1 SanJ�itt .. . it �• •. ��• '. , ,1 (':•'_Rcxenrur '`�. 16I ?- �-iy � `�a 11 ', �w ;�• 1TT V!1 au+� � ,,i '1 i r,s • ^L/^t, I �1�+ 1 •Y .111,, 1� �/`/ .�l% •':_Birt ('nmrin, CO�t°\:� OAF ��P"F`��•.` a, a� \.,. l( .) 1 (, figure 2: Project Area A, U.S,G.S. Tustin and Laguna Quadrangles ]1M Mp � � ma zoa � ua ra.t . 1 5 � AlMmtq / 5 1 kilom�tNs ' -3- ' -3- 1In i w 1 ■ 1 4JE\CPORII�BEACH� 1 J Pso�ect ASmfl Al 'c RC1 Iyi".'C 5 "*R. , So nes t � Figure 2: Project Area A, II.S.}G, S. Tustin and Lag�ma Quadrangles t Lp 2M 3W 1 drainages. Vegetation consists mainly of introduced grasses, ice plant, eucalyptus with some natives such as sages, lemonadeberry, and cattails. The original vegetal cover was most probably coastal sage -scrub with plants of the Fresh Water Marsh Plant Community predominating the wetter areas. Project Area B consists of two rectangular parcels bisected by Marguerite Avenue (Figure 3). The westernmost parcel is bounded on the south by 5th Avenue, on the east by the Buck Gully drain- age, on the north by residential housing and on the west by the Oasis Senior Citizens Center and Marguerite Avenue. This part of the project area consists of a flat marine terrace which is cut by Buck Gully drainage on the east. Vegetation on this part of the parcel consisted of introduced -grasses, but the surroun- ding hillsides indicated that the native vegetation probably was that of the Coastal Sage -scrub Plant Community. The easternmost portion of the project area is bounded on the south by 5th Avenue, on the east by Marguerite Avenue, on the west by Jasmine Creek, and on the north by Harborview Drive. The survey area consisted of the edge of the same marine terrace where it had been deeply etched by Jasmine Creek. Here, the vegetation consisted of sage and prickly pear as well as intro- duced grasses, ice plant and other landscape plants. Plants of the Riparian Community dominated the creek bed. Project Area C (Figure 4) is an irregularly shaped parcel bounded by Superior Avenue on the east and southeast, by Pacific Coast Highway on the south, by Mobil Oil Company lease property on the west and by a condominium project on the north. The pro- ject area consists of two parts, or elevations. The lower portion is highly disturbed and not at its original elevation; -4- U.-.1 L I 1 . I I fI a I LJ I, I ri I t ,l•' J ' .-t 7i ... ,'.l' :.. • Rescrvou'.. `� , •. '. :.p�. �;, 0`�, `, .�• � 6.175 I . 228 ;—. Sp": C•'E� '.. � do 1 \ '\� ,� • • � Broen,nS '�``• . ers6' : i�. i ``;. �y41) Res` S78 •- t ` . •• '•I l' •, x275 12' It QrPt C��\ e / •.' Big CQ7ttr/(i7l P � \ 4th P.'4P . , ^ �• •'t + . � I �• r Qp C%, \! e • 4%,1 �' ResegoIr I 41 SeEluac.ln, }. 7Mausakum { ` 'r tiP •�• •.1 . Suostanon F3....IV�',_�' •..'• _L .� .273 _ a.X --s; SPILLWAY `. NE PUikT BEACFI . '�." - f • `�.; Area• 5 sz�T�+•> 4Project ���,�• •' v T ,a I �, IC.;.,: "jr S `•�s�� 1 - '1 ..�' . raBM.703 Corona del n 1 -• Figure 3: Project Area B, U,S.G.S. Laguna Quadrangle. I too@ "00 sone 4400 ran ` 5 1 kiktmetws -5- W, Sch ,�� �• Ponorx•• �• c i. mn _ �J < 1 •r----- 1-ea� :—� r . r 1` � a. mak' �L�, .� air t ay_—• `_ I , ._ :_ `— .. _c— •-�z f -.-•-� 41 'C . • =:a r`.^� .•I loan / � �- • � 't -1A . 1 mesa ,% =� =. / y — eas r' +... .�"`'�-tom.. ��� \ ��__;',.- �. ..,•nae; � ,,:.� �,,6 or 3. 1 va• \ .�� 1'0101 a, ti q �-_�-�!J.VI-•.-,.i iit '- ,` '1 i w3+w7� ':..; ,�� • Wit' 1 r ,:;.ac--..� i S7''j4a-.'M1 � 1��'.' � \�.`!' "!�yV f� s���� Y;- p�fI ,: •Iv����ry�1� ^' •��. �, 1^" •� moi-. I e• � "'C Project Area C . 3 a r >�8�`� e �• w�.� ii . � �b^t .niY Figure 4: Project Area C, U,S.G.S. Newport Beach Quadraiigle 1 1001 2000 3001 1001 toot 1 5 1 klkHmtOM -6- the upper portion consists of a flat bluff edge. Vegetal cover, though the upper portion has been disced, appeared to be intro- duced grasses, Native vegetation was probably that of the Coastal Sage -scrub Plant Community. RECORDS SEARCH Prior to the field survey, a records search was completed using the files at AMMC which are duplicates of those housed at the regional clearing house at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), Project Areas A and B are found within a mile of one another in an area containing numerous prehistoric sites ranging from small shell scatters to large village sites. Several dozen recorded sites can be found within a one mile radius of these project areas. A review of the literature revealed that while no sites had been recorded for Project -Area A itself, it had been included in a larger survey of the Big Canyon Area in 1964 1 by members of the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society (PCAS) under the direction of Paul Chace (Chace 1966), PCAS located and recorded seven sites south of Big'Canyon (CA -Ora -136, 137,. 138, 139, 140, 141 and 167), in areas that have been developed subsequently. PCAS conducted excavations at Ora -136 (also lmown ' as "Golf Course West", and Strandt #29B), in 1964 (Chace 1966). The Bonita Mesa area, adjacent to Project Area A, to the west of MacArthur Boulevard has long been an area of considerable . archaeological interest as well. One of the first surveys in Orange County was conducted in 1935 by J.W. Winterbourne under the auspices of the newly created State Emergency Relief Fund (SERA). Winterbourne recorded and described several sites in this area (Winterbourne 1935). Two of these, the Bonita Sheep A Camp (Irvine 30, Ora -107) and the Bonita Mesa Sheep Camp Site (Ora -106) were later excavated by the federally funded Works Progress Adminstration (WPA)(Winterbourne 1937a,b,c, 1938a,b,c, d). These two large village sites along with a third, Ora -134 (probably Winterbourne's #31), were excavated is the late 1960's by PCAS who located and recorded 18 additional sites (mostly shell middens), during this period. Ora -209, the "Waterfall . Site" was excavated in 1968 by PCAS members (Smoke Signals, Volume 7, Number 9, 1968). The Bonita Mesa area was surveyed most recently by Archaeological Research, Incorporated (ARI). Four additional sites were located and recorded along the western edge of Bonita Mesa in 1975 (Ora -480, 481, 482 and 483)(Cooley 1975). Ora -483 and Ora -106 were tested by ARMC in 1979 (Cottrell 1979) and were determined to be too disturbed to yield further meaningful data. Two sites had been recorded directly to the north of -Project Area A. Ora -102 was recorded in 1945 by Waldeck who described it as a large.village site. Ora -103, recorded in 1953 by Smith was described as a small shell midden. This parcel was surveyed by Cottrell of ARMC in 1977 (Cottrell 1977) who determined that both these 'sites had been destroyed. This records search revealed that while there were no sites i recorded for Project Area B, a portion of the parcel had been informally surveyed in 1965 and 1966 by members of PCAS. The 1 "Irvine Special Survey", as it was called, resulted in the loca- tion and recording of several sites within close proximity to the project area (Ora -146, 160, 189, 190, 200, 201, 229, 230 and 255). Ora -160, a village site, was first tested in the late 1960's by Boy Scouts from Archaeological Explorer Post #806 (Hafaer 1971). The site along with another large site, Ora -146, were later tested and salvaged by Cooley of ARI in 1973 (Cooley 1974). _8_ , !J F1 I I I II 1_l Both sites proved too disturbed to be scientifically produc- tive. Ora -190 (Buck Gully Al), excavated by Ross in 1967, (Ross 1969, 1970) produced one of the first features in Orange County (a pit and/or sweat house) to be recorded in a scientific manner. Ora -198 was excavated by students from California State University, Fullerton (CSUF) under the direction of Tadlock and Clark during the years 1967 through 1970 (Himmerich 1980, Hafner 1971, Ellis n.d.). South of the project area, previous work included the 1937 WPA excavation of Ora -104, a large village site, under the direction of J.W. Winterbourne (Winterbourne 1937) and the exca- vation of a burial in 1939 by a local resident, Leo Koch, who donated it subsequently to the Southwest Museum (Chace 1965). This site was given an official designation (Ora -833) in 1979 by PCAS. Project Area C was surveyed in 1981 by Jertberg of ARMC who completed a records search for the parcel at that time. Within and adjacent to the project area, three previous surveys had been completed. The Archaeological Research Unit at the Univer- sity of California at Riverside (ARUUCR) surveyed the Santa Ana River Channel in 1975 for the Army Corps of Engineers (Hall 1975). Three new sites (Ora -844, 845, and 839) were located but not recorded, and one previously recorded site, Ora -148, was relocated. All were described as heavily impacted shell middens. In 1979, Archaeological Associates (AA) conducted a survey for a portion of the study area under the Mobil Oil Lease. AA failed to locate two of the sites, but did relocate Ora -839 before it was destroyed by grading. -9- ARMC conducted a survey of the Banning property immediately to the west of the property, and relocated and reassessed five recorded sites (Ora -148, 839, 843, and 844). In 1981, Jertberg of AMC conducted an assessment of the remainder of the parcel. While no new sites were located, it was recommended that the upper portion of section A be resur- veyed upon removal of vegetation (Jertberg 1981). FIELD SURVEY AND RESULTS On November 16 and 17, 1981, a walkover field survey was completed by K. Del Chario and A. Schroth of ARMC. The parcels were covered in parallel transects with the surveyors spaced approximately 15 meters apart except in areas where the topo- graphy or the vegetal cover prohibited this method. The ground surface was examined carefully for evidence of prehistoric activity such as artifacts,, chipping waste, shell concentrations or areas of soil discoloration. Area A Project Area A proved to be so highly disturbed that little of its original topography existed. The south portion of the property had been subject to extensive dumping and filling, while the rest of the parcel had been graded and paved in seve- ral areas for highway construction. An asphalt pad was situ- ated in the northwest corner of the property, ditches had also been constructed for flood control. Shell (Chione and Pecten)' were observed in the dump area, but its disturbed nature made it impossible to determine whether or not there was a cultural association. No artifacts, soil discoloration or other cultural material was observed. -10- L LJ it It 11 II II II II II I� Area B The eastern portion of Project Area B appears to have been extensively cultivated over the years. The property had recently been disced and there were dirt roads running through it. Near the 5th Avenue entrance, there were signs of more recent distur- bance, perhaps related to nearby construction. The walkover survey revealed no cultural materials on this portion of the property, although shell (Chione) appeared to be scattered along the east and west margins of the parcel,_ Whether this was due to agricultural practices or prehistoric activity cannot be determined. Shell was also observed along the foot of the terrace to the north, but this is very probably related to the large village site (Ora -160) that had been located atop the terrace. The western portion of Project Area B showed heavy distur- bance in several places. The portion adjacent to 5th Avenue had been graded and there was evidence of dumping. Grading had been done in several places for flood control purposes as well. The entire eastern margin of the parcel had been disturbed by the construction of Marguerite Avenue, Portions of the property had been disced, while the steeper terrain was heavily vegetated, hampering visability. While all parts of the project area were surveyed, maximum time was spent on the undisturbed portions. An area of archaeological interest, designated as ARMC #1, was noted with the western portion of Project Area B (Figure 5). It consisted of a somewhat circular concentration of shell and. chipping waste distributed over a small river terrace approxi- mately mid -way between the creek bed and the top of the marine terrace. Shells were of several different species (Pecten, Chione, Ostrea, Mytilus, and Astraea undosa); from different -11- .4+. Reservoir �• •. �� �r�•l�t „' p;�+~ .�. L•• . ._e ..^ 1.175 Ile amV 228 a ♦ ,+ , = I +.+.,Big Cant,/tfiL• �}+ Untolg, Sh ma Substation _a=te'• - �..- . ` + +\ .� : ;.: • t,v�•`> \`\ }t11 Y({ /]JJ'�� . E L `-•— tom.. "+. yA .: ••L�r:��` fji Lr• ,]OAC. 1 y .. �.\}•s, •, •�/y\•• QQ : \ SPILLWAY'f �.n,% \t. �� AuboriVia. '\ ELEV ZX Sch Up y:�• '%� 'II v EVPPi3I�T BEACH' / •r @r11. Igz�a4j n� pl.,r r `t, ,r •\ •• _- ''�`vFr' '`,;.. {:� � _,,.mow, •�a> � I•._-.:'_-- PH:io] en. .\ .l.... c. 7. .i\J "�'P .Y•1�.. •see.' T•\• -�-�" (/•�� •Corona :`V. delMarzr,hr Figure 5: Site Location, U.,S.G.S. Laguna Quadrangle. loco 2M 3M taco feet Tj 5 1 kilometers -12- r habitats which would indicate that the assortment did not occur naturally but was a result of human activity. Three pieces of chipping waste (two chert, one quartz) were observed as well, A grader cut, for flood control, bisects the site and it appears that there is a concentration of shell in the resulting berm ' indicating that the shell deposit may have some depth. I I I I Il II I/ II I1 II Area C Since Project Area C had been previously surveyed by ARMC in 1981, only the upper portion that had formerly been covered with vegetation was walked over. The area had since been disced which made all parts of the survey area highly visable. Signs of construction - related disturbance was visable in the center of the parcel, and it was encircled by a dirt road. Shell, apparently fossil, was observed scattered throughout the field. No signs of prehistoric cultural activity were noted within the project area, RECOM[ENDATIONS Area A The degree of disturbance in Project Area A, as well as the absence of any cultural material significantly reduce the research potential of this area. Since it is unlikely to yield.further scientific data, it is recommended that no further archaeological investigations need be done. -13- Area B If ARMC #1, located within Project Area B will be impacted by development, all efforts should be made to preserve the site intact. If this is deemed unfeasible, a test level investigation should be initiated to determine whether a subsurface deposit exists. This investigation will ascertain the scientific research potential of the site and recommendations for further mitigation , will be based upon its findings. Because of the density of sites in the vicinity, and the presence of surface shell, it is recommended that a qualified archaeologist be present during grading of the marginal areas of the easternmost parcel of Project Area B to evaluate sites should they be uncovered. ' Area C I Since Project Area C was completely disturbed in the lower areas and without cultural material in the upper area, the re- , search potential of the parcel is negligible, and it is recom- mended that no further archaeological work need be done. I LJ I II -14- w 11 I� I I U - f REFERENCES Chace, Paul G. 1965 History of Archaeology in Orange County, PCAS Quarterly 1(3):3-24. 1966 An Archaeological Survey in the Northwestern San Joaquin Hills, Orange County, California, PCAS_Quarterly 2(2): 3-48. 1969 Biological Archaeology of Some Coastal Middens, Orange County, California, PCAS Quarterly 5(2):64-77. 1974 Redating the Buck Gully Site, With Implications For Settlement Patterns, Paper presented by Dr. Dixon for Chace at Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, Riverside, April 6, 1974. Revised edition printed in PCAS Quarterly 10 (2 & 3):99-110. ....Aileen McKinney & George Mead 1967 The Bonita Mesa IV Site (CA -Ora -134) near Newport Bay, Orange County, California. PCAS Quarterly 3(4):1-70. Cooley, Theodore ' 1974 Report of Test Excavations CA -Ora -146, for the Irvine Company, Copy on file at ARMC. 1975 Preliminary Report - Bonita Mesa. Copy on file at ARMC, ' Cottrell, Marie G. 1977 Letter reported to Reynolds and Associates, September 9, 1977. 1979 Report of Archaeological Test Level Investigations Conducted at Site CA -Ora -483 and CA -Ora -106, for Larry Seeman and Associates. Copy on file at ARMC, A II IA II ....& Patricia Jertberg 1980 Archaeological Resources Assessment for Banning Property, County of Orange. By ARMC for Beeco Limited, ....David Van Horn & Alan Schilz 1979 Report of Archaeological Test Level Investigations at Sites CA -Ora -483 and CA -Ora -106 for Larry Seeman and Associates, Marie Cottrell Editor, on file at ARMC, Ellis, Robert R. n.d. Shell Analysis CA -Ora -198, Ms on file at ARMC, -15- Hall, Mathew 1975 Santa Ana River Project Description and Evaluation of Cultural Resources Appendices: Field Data, by TjCRARU for U.S. Army Cops of Engineers, L.A. District. Hafner, Duane, et. al. 1971 The Buck Gully #2 Site (CA -Ora -189). PCAS arterly 7(4):1-44, Himmerich, Robert T, , 1970 A Site Report: Pits S7.E1 and S1W23 of CA -Ora -198. Copy on file with District X14, Anthropology Museum, CA. Jertberg, Patricia & Marie Cottrell 1981 Archaeological Resources Assessment General Plan Amend- ment #81-1, City of Newport Beach, California, for Beeco, Limited, on file at ARMC. Mead, George, et, al, 1969 Redigging the L]PA, the Bonita Sheep Corral Site. PCAS ' Quarterly 5(4):1-16. Ross, Lester, A. 1969 The Irvine Complex: A Late Prehistoric Horizon Archaeo- logical Complex for the Newport Bay Area, California. M.A. Thesis, Washington State University, Pullman. 1970 CA -Ora -190: A Descriptive Site Report of a Late Prehis- toric Horizon Site in Orange County, California. PCAS Quarterly 6(2 & 3):1-136, ' Winterbourne, John 1935 Preliminary Survev of Indian Camp Sites on Irvine ro erty, 5, SERA Historical Research Project #31- , copy on file at ARMC. 1937a Orange County Anthropological Project List of Artifacts. Anthropology Project ;4465, copy on file PCAS reference library. 1937b Laguna Excavations (Moro Canyon #1), Daily Report, copy on file PCAS reference library. 1937c Santiago Cave April 21, 1937 to May 11, 1937. WPA Anthropological Project #4465. I I I I I 1980 Archaeological Posthole Testing: CA -Ora -148 and CA -Ora - 843, on Mobil Oil Land near Costa Mesa, Orange County, California by Archaeological Associates Limited for Mobil Gas Company, -17- 1938a Report of the Excavations of Three Coastal Rancherias, Bonita Mesa, San Joaquin Gun Club and Corona del Mar Sites. Project '117680, copy on file at District #14, Anthropology Meseum, California State University, Fullerton, 1938b Orange County Anthropology Project Artifacts (List of Artifacts) copy on file at PCAS research library, 1938c Report of the San Joaquin Ranch Site, Excavations March 28 - July 25, copy on file PCAS research library. ' Van Horn, David 1979a An Interim Report of Initial Site Testing at CA -Ora -839 ' by Archaeological Associates, Limited for Mobile Gas Company, 1979b Archaeological Survey Report: Mobil Oil Land, near Costa Mesa, in the County of Orange, California, by Archaeological Associates, Limited for Mobile Gas Co, ' 1980 Addendum Archaeological Survey Report: Mobil Oil Land, near Costa Mesa, in the County of Orange, California, Archaeological Associates Limited for Mobil Gas Company.. I I I I 1980 Archaeological Posthole Testing: CA -Ora -148 and CA -Ora - 843, on Mobil Oil Land near Costa Mesa, Orange County, California by Archaeological Associates Limited for Mobil Gas Company, -17- Paleontological Assessment Of Newport Beach GPA 81 - 2 1) Freeway Reservations (Big Canyon Area 16) 2) 5th Avenue Parcels 3) Cal Trans West Parcel. This report presents the results of paleontologic assessment ' of the above named parcels. This assessment is based on litera- ture and records search and a field walkover survey conducted November 16, 1981. I. Big Canyon Area 16. - Most of Big Canyon area 16 is imme- diately underlain by surficial marine terrace deposits with non- marine,cover (Qtn) of Late Pleistocene age (Vedder, et al., 1957; , Morton and Miller, 1973). The southern margin of the study area exposes sandstone bedrock, presumably a sandstone facies of the Middle Miocene Monterey Formation (according to the geologic mapping of Vedder,' et al., 1957). In other areas "float" chunks of more typical Monterey Formation, which include siliceous mud- , stone and diatomaceous mudstone as well as phosphatic concretions, occur as reworked clasts in the surficial Quaternary terrace ' material; thus the entire property most likely is underlain at shallow depth by the marine Monterey Formation. ' Literature and records search indicates no fossils previously reported from the subject area. Field walkover survey produced one small fragment of badly leached, unmi eralized whale.(?) bone in the northern part of the parcel as well as occasional chunks of reworked Monterey Formation with borings made by Pleistocene, pholad clams. In the southern part of the parcel, where there ' has been recent surface disturbance, spoil heaps containing slabs of Monterey diatomaceous shale contain some poorly preserved fish scales. r [1 it is I I F IL Although none of the surface indications of fossils are them- selves significant, they do serve as surface signboards of poten- tially, important paleontologic resources in the shallow (within grading depths) subsurface. Scientifically important marine invertebrates (Bruff, 1946; Kanakoff and Emerson, 1959) and mixed marine-nonmarine vertebrates (:,filler, 1971) have been collected from a number of localities in the south coastal Orange County area. The Middle to Late Miocene Monterey Formation locally has produced important marine vertebrate fossils inclu- ding cetacean, pinniped, shark, and fish specimens (Barnes, 1972). Because of the paleontologically sensitive nature of these depo- sits, it is imperative that future surface disturbance and cutting/ grading operations are monitored by a qualified paleontologist. II. 5th Avenue Parcels. - The 5th Avenue parcels are immedi- ately underlain by marine terrace deposits with nonmarine cover (terrace level 2 of Vedder, et al., 1957; Morton and Miller, 1973); the canyons contain poorly exposed Monterey Formation. Literature and records search indicate no report of fossils from the subject property, although a U.S. Geological Survey Verte- brate Fossil locality (V-402) in the Monterey Formation is loca- ted in the head of a small canyon approximately 2 mile north of the subject area (Vedder, et al., 1957). Also, a Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Vertebrate locality (LRCM 4254), which produced bird bones from the marine Pleistocene terrace material, is located along MacArthur Boulevard, approximately mile northeast of the study area. As with the Big Canyon area, the paleontologically sensitive nature of these deposits dictates that surface -cutting operations should be monitored by a qualified paleontologist. -2- F III. Cal Trans West Parcel. - The Cal Trans West parcel has been reviewed previously (Cooper, 1979, 1981). Marine terrace deposits of Late Pleistocene age contain several stratigraphic levels of invertebrate fossils (see Figure 1, Cooper, 1979; Figure 2, Cooper 1981; copies of these reports enclosed as Appendix 1). Because of the•paleontologically sensitive nature of these Late Pleistocene marine terrace deposits, and their potential for yielding both marine and nonmarine vertebrates as well as marine invertebrates (Cooper, 1978), future grading acti- vity in this area should be monitored on at least a spot check basis. Summary and Recommendations None of the three parcels described above contains surface paleontological resources that are scientifically important; therefore, the proposed projects will pose no threat of adverse impact. However, because of the potential for scientifically important specimens being discovered during surface cutting, a qualified (County of Orange, EMA-approved) paleontologist should attend pregrade meeting concerned with the above-mentioned parcels. This person should coordinate, with the grading con- tractor and developer, a program of on-site paleontologic moni- toring during the development phase. All specimens collected under EIR requirements should be donated to the most appropriate educational -research institution, as dictated by the level of scientific importance of the specimens. John D. Cooper, PhD Paleontological Consultant U' I U REFERENCES CITED Barnes, L.G. 1972 Marine Vertebrates, In, Proceedings of the Pacific Coast Biostratific Symposium: Pacific Section SEPM, 47th Annual Convention, Part II, pp. 137 - 145. Bruff, S.C. ' 1946 The Paleontology of the Pleistocene fauna of the Newport Bay area, California: University of California Pub. Geol. Sci. Bull., Vol. 27, pp. 213 - 240. ' Cooper, J.D. 1978' Assessment of the paleontological resources within the City of Costa Mesa, Orange County, California: section ' of consultant report submitted to the City of Costa Mesa Planning Department by Archaeological Associates, Inc. 1979 Paleontologic Assessment of the Superior Avenue realign- ment route, Newport Beach, California: consultant report submitted to APC,LSA. ' 1981 Paleontological assessment of two parcels within the Banning -Newport Ranch (Beeco Ltd), Newport Beach, Cali- fornia: consultant report submitted to ARMC. Kanakoff, G.P. & W.K. Emerson 1959 Late Pleistocene invertebrates of the Newport Bay area, ' California: Los Angeles County Museum, Contrib. Science No. 31, pp. 1 - 47. Miller, Wade 1971 Pleistocene vertebrates of the Los -Angeles Basin and vicinity (exclusive of Rancho La Brea): Bull. Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, Science No. 10. Morton, P.K. & R.V. Miller 1973 Geological Map of Orange County, California (1;48000), In, Geoenvironmental Maps of Orange County, California: Zalifornia Division clines and Geology, Prelim. Report 15. ' Vedder, J.G., R.F. Yerkes & J.E. Schoellhamer 1957 Geologic Map of the San Joaquin Hills -San Juan Capistrano ' area, Orange County, California: U.S. Geol. Survey Oil and Gas Inves . Map 0111 193. I A P P E N D I X 1 October 3, 1979 Theo N. Mabry Archaeological Planning Collaborative 500 New-oort Center Drive, Suite 525 ' :ewport Beach, California 92660 Subject: Paleontologic assessment of Superior Avenue Realignment Route ' Dear Ms. Mabry: ' This letter presents the results of a paleontologic survey conducted October 3, 1979, on the proposed realignment route for the western end of Superior Avenue, Newport Beach, California. Literature and records search indicate no previously recorded paleontologic localities/sites for the sub— ' ject area; however, field walkover survey, and examination of sedimentary exposures revealed the presence of fossils. The flat terrace level across which the realignment will pass is immediately underlain by a thin (several meters) soil and colluvial cover, which in turn is underlain by a succession of marine terrace deposits (Fig. 1) of Late Pleis— tocene age (Morton and :Ciller, 1973). The terrace succession consists of an ' approximately 10 to 15 m thick sequence of medium to coarse sand containing pebble and cobble beds and lenses in the lower portion grading upward into finer sands and mottled silts that cap the section. Moderately abundant shells of bivalve molluscs (clams) occur in a 1/2 meter thick sandy gravel layer approximately 3 m stratigraphically above the base of the terrace sequence and approximately 10 m below the top level of the terrace (Fig. 1). The shells are moderately well preserved, including broken fragments as well as complete ' valves, and comprise a moderately diverse shallow marine fauna. This fauna is part of a regional faunal assemblage that occurs in the Palos Verdes Sand, an important marine terrace unit of regional extent with ' exposures along much of the southern California coastline, particularly in the Costa Mesa—Newport Mesa—Newport Back Bay area. Several publications have documented this fauna and its scientific significance (Bruff, 1946; Howard, ' 1958; Kanakoff and Emerson, 1959; :Ciller, 1971; and Peska, 1975). Abundant localities from these publications as well as those on file at UCLA, the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, and the Natural History Foun— dation of Orange County, attest to the paleontologic richness of Pleistocene terrace deposits in the Costa lesa—Newport Beach area. Some of these localities have produced marine mammals and terrestrial vertebrate fossils ina addition to the marine invertebrates. ' The Palos Verdes Sand terrace package unconformably overlies (Fig. 1) tilted mudstone beds of the Upper Miocene Monterey Formation. The uncon— formity contact lies some dozen meters or so below the terrace level and will likely be cut at least in the lower reaches of the realignment route. The Monterey Formation is a marine deposit that has locally produced abundant and significant marine vertebrate fossils. The Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County has several vertebrate fossil localities on file for the New— port Beach area. In my judgement, a qualified paleontologist should be retained to monitor the grading operation for this project. Salvage of fossils should be reason— ably accomplished during the grading operation and specimens should be donated to the most appropriate educational/research institutions(s) as dictated by the - significance of the fossils. If more complex salvaging and /or other mitigation -2 - is judged to be required, the designated paleontologist should coordinate this activity within the framework of County of Orange guidelines. W surficial colluvi E. (Qac) Pleistocene - ' •r — Marin Terrace Deposit ' . '. + ■ ' . • • . . ,' ■ + • . (Qtm) o':�cTd; ;F>.o°�°lJ:: D:'.'O.ossiliferous ° • • •• • • ♦ • ♦ / • • • • • • • • unit Monterey Formation (Upper Miocene) Figure 1. Schematic cross-section showing stratigraphic relationships and occurrence of fossils within the area impacted by the realignment route. Submitted by, ?John D. Cooper, PhD Paleontological Consultant 16737 Francis Drive Chino, California 91710 .References Cited Bruff, S. C., 1946, The paleontology of the Pleistocene Molluscan Fauna of the Newport Bay area, California: Vaiv. Calif. Public. Geol. Sci. Bull., Vol 27, p. 213 - 240. Howard, H. 1958, Further Records from the Pleistocene of Newport Bay Mesa, California: Condor, Vol. 60, pp. 136. Kanakoff, G. P., and Emerson, W. K., 1959, Late Pleistocene invertebrates of the Newport Bay area, California: Los Angeles County Mus., Contrib. Sci., No. 31, p. 1-47. Miller, W'. E., 1971, Pleistocene vertebrates of the Los Angeles Basin and Vicinity (exclusive of Rancho La Brea): Los Angeles County Mus. Sat. Hist., Science No. 10., Morton, P. K., and Miller, R. V., 1973, Geologic :Sap of Orange County, Scale 1;48,000, in Geoeuvironmental Maps of Orange County: Calif. Div. Mines and Geology, spec. Pub. 15. Peska, F. 1975, A Late Pleistocene Molluscan Fauna from Costa Mesa, California - Prelim. Rept: Bull of So. Calif. Paleoatol. Soc., Vol. 7, No. 11, pp. 141-145 M ''— - - January 27, 1981 To: Marie Cottrell Archaeological resource Management Corp. 1215 Haster Street f Garden Grove. California ' From: John D. L000er paleontological Consultant Subject: Paleontological assessment of two parcels within the Bannir.:—�� ?:• ' Ranch (Beeco Ltd), Newport Beach, California This report presents the resnits of a paleontologic survey of two parcels within the Banning—Newport Ranch property (Beeco Ltd), :rewport Beach. Orange County. California. Literature and records search indicat=d no previously recorded paleontologic sites-localities on the subject property, but did reveal the presence of several within coeval stratigraphic units i:: nearby areas (Fig. 1). Field examination of outcrops of sedimentary stra=a produced several occurrences of invertebrate fossils, which are shown on Figure 2. Stratiaraohv. — The.surface of the subject property is immediately underlain by sediments of Quaternary age, including, most si;nificantly, deposits a,-- Late :Late Pleistocene age recognized as Palos Verdes S,.,d (Bruff, 1946; Morton and Miller, 1973). The Late Pleistocene stratigraphic succession of shallow marine sands and gravels described on the nearby Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana (Beeco Ltd) property (see Cooper, 1980) is exposed on the subject property; exposures of the uppermost part of the seouerce are rather limited in the less dissec=ed area of parcel A, but moderately well exposed in the bluff faces of parcel B ' (Fig. 1). Poor exposures of underlying siltstones and mudstones of the Cp_er Miocene Monterey Formation occur in the lower one—third of the slope betceen Superior Avenue and the western boundary of the property. Paleontolo5y. — Invertebrate fossils were observed at two separate stratigraphic ' levels and at several places within parcel B (Fig. 2). The lower stratigraphic occurrence (1) is along the angular unconformity contact between the Monterev Formation and the overlying Pleistocene marine terrace sands and Gravels, noorly ' exposed above the drainage ditch along PCN (Hwv 1). Here, Pleistocene clam borings and ovster shell fragments as well as other fragmented bivalve mollusk shells occur in thin, moderately indurated, iron—stained pebbly sandstone lenses. ' The higher stratigraphic occurrences(2), best exposed in the bluff face, some 20 feet below the flat—topped terrace bordering Superior Avenue, is a 1.5 to 2 foot thick unit of conglomeratic sand that contains locally abundant, but generally ' fragmented specimens of the marine bivalves Macoma sp., Tagelus so., Dorax sp., Saxidomus so., etc. This occurrence appears to be correlative with localities JDC — BL — ib, 2, 3, 4, and 6 on the adjacent Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana ' (Beeco Ltd) property (Cooper, 1980). Impacts. Mi ti Ra tion, and Recommendations. — No adverse impacts on known paleon— tologic resources on tie suoject property will result from future p eloom.ent and none of the occurrences of fossils (Fig. 2) is judged to be sufficiently scientifically significant to merit special (other than standard — in accordance with County of Orange guidelines) mitigation measures. However, total mitigation of adverse impact will be realized only if the procedures outlined in Cooper (1980) are followed. In essence, because similar Pleistocene deposits in Costa Mesa, Newport Mesa and other nearby areas have ,yielded scientifically important invertebrate (Cooper, 1978, 1979, 1980; Bruff, 1946; Kanakoff and Emerson, 1959) and vertebrate (Cooper, 1978, 1980; ,Miller, 1971) fossils, it is essential that all future surface -cutting activities on t:.e subject property be monitored by a qualified paleontologist who also has the authority to collect and salvage fossils and direct their placement in the most appropriate educational/research institution. I hope this report meets with your approval and I appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. Re" Z lly submitted, John D. Cooper Paleontdlogical Consultant References Cited Bruff, S. C., 1946, The Paleontology of the Pleistocene fauna of the Newport Bay area, California: Univ. Calif. Pub. Geol. Sci. Bull., Vol. 27, pp. 213 - 240. Cooper, J. D., 1978, Assessment of Paleontological Resources within the City of Costa Mesa, Orange County California: section of consultant report submitted to the City of Costa Mesa Planning Department, Archaeological Associates, Inc., Costa Mesa. 1979, Paleontologic assessment of Suoerior Avenue Realignment Route, Newport Beach, California: consultant report submitted to Archaeolo- gical Planning Collaborative I II -A , 1980, Paleontological assessment of Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana Beeco Lt ), Newport Beach, California: consultant report submitted to ARM Coro. Kanakoff, G. P., and Emerson, W. K., 1959, Late Pleistocene invertebrates of the Newport Bay area, California: Los Angeles County Museum, Contrib. Sci. No. 312 pp. 1 - 47. Miller, Wade, 19711 Pleistocene Vertebrates of the Los Angeles Basin and Vicinity (exclusive of Rancho La Brea): Bull. Los Angeles.Co. Mus. Nat. Hist., Science No. 10. Morton, P. K., and Milker, R. V., 1973, Geological Map of Orange County, California (Scale 1;48000);a Geoenvironmental Maps of Orange County„California: Calif. Div. Mines and Geology, Prelim. Report 15. s' H 1 CI 11 SII I I F. Transportation / Circulation 1 1 1 I 1 1 0 1 L I 1 1 i TRAFFIC STUDY €Oft GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 8.1-2 in the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MAY 1982 BASMACIYAN-DARNELL,INC �I \D1 BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. ENGINEEIUNG AND PLANNING Transportation, Traffic, Municipal, Transit 4262 Campus Drive, Suite 8-1 Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 549-9940 ' May 5, 1982 ' Ms. Beverly Bruesch PBR 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA 92714 SUBJECT: Traffic Study for the City of Newport Beach General Plan Amendment 81-2 Dear Ms. Bruesch: ' Transmitted herewith is the original and one copy of the traffic study prepared for the subject project. The study has been prepared to provide an overall report and separate attachments for each individual proposal. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. 1 Bill E. Darnell, P.E. BED/llf Enclosures I ;w 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION Caltrans West Parcel 5th Avenue Parcels Big. Canyon Area 16 Block 400 - Newport Center Campus Drive Parcel EXISTING CONDITIONS Description of Street System Existing Traffic Volumes Existing Roadway Capacity Existing Public Transportation Service THE GENERAL PLAN Land Use Considerations Circulation Element IMPACTS Project -Related Traffic 1995 Traffic Analysis OTHER PLANNING AND CIRCULATION CONSIDERATIONS General Plan Amendment 80-3 General Plan Amendment 81-1 Route 55 Corona del Mar Freeway Extension San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor University Drive Extension Pelican Hill Road Coast Highway Widening Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard Extension) 19th Street Bridge Coast Highway Bridge at Santa Ana River Route 55 and Coast Highway Grade Separation Public Transit Existing City Policies and Requirements MITIGATION MEASURES ATTACHMENT A: Traffic Study for the Caltrans West Parcel ATTACHMENT B: Traffic Study for the 5th Avenue Parcels ATTACHMENT C: Traffic STudy for the Big Canyon Area 16 ATTACHMENT D: Traffic Study for the Block 400 of Newport Center ATTACHMENT E: Traffic Study for the Campus Drive Parcels t Page 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 13 13 15 17 17 17 18 19 19 19 20 20 20 21 21 21 22 22 4 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 1995 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC FOR 2 PROPOSED GPA 81-2 2 NEWPORT BEACH CIRCULATION ELEMENT 4 3 EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 7 4 EXISTING BUS ROUTES 8 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Comparison of Existing and Future Traffic Volumes and Roadway Capacities 6 2 Transit Service Frequency 12 3 Comparison of Trip Generation of General Plan and Proposed GPA 81,2 14 4 Comparison of Roadway Segments Expected to Operate at Unsatisfactory Levels of Service 16 n TRAFFIC STUDY FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81-2 IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INTRODUCTION This traffic study has been performed in order to provide an evaluation ' of the overall circulation system implications as well as the traffic - related impacts of each component project in General Plan Amendment 81-2 (GPA 81-2). The main body of this report focuses on the cumulative ' and long-range (1995) impacts of GPA 81-2 on roadway carrying capacity. It also contains an evaluation of the individual elements of GPA 81-2, including short-term impacts and critical intersections. Attachments ' A thru E to this report provide a separate report for each of the individual reports. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' General Plan Amendment 81-2 (GPA 81-2) consists of five individual projects in various parts of the City of Newport Beach. The general location of each of the five projects is illustrated in Figure 1. ' A detailed description of each project follows: CALTRANS West Parcel , This 13.62 -acre parcel lies north of Coast Highway, along the western side of Superior Avenue_ The site is bounded by the Newport Crest condominiums on the north, a large vacant parcel proposed for mixed residential, office, and industrial uses on the west, Superior Avenue on the east and Coast Highway on the south. The proposed development consists of 152 townhouses/condominiums and a 2.4 -acre park. The site is presently vacant and is designated open space in the General Plan. 5th Avenue Parcels This site includes several parcels located on the north side of 5th Avenue, on the east and west sides of Marguerite Avenue. The site is bordered by residential development to the north and to the south across 5th Avenue, and by vacant land to the east and west. The parcels are vacant with the exception of a City -owned senior citizens center located on the northeast corner of 5th Avenue and Marguerite Avenue. The proposed project consists of 168 medium -density dwelling units, including 68 townhouses/condos and 100 single-family detached houses. The current General Plan would provide for 70 low-density dwelling units. Big Canyon Area 16 Big Canyon Area 16 is located on the southwest corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. This site is generally bounded by a golf course On the west and south. The area to the east (across MacArthur Boulevard) is residential. To the north across Ford Road is the Ford Aeronutronic site. the proposed project consists of 87 medium -density townhouses/condominiums. The site is vacant and is designated open space in the General Plan. 1 iI 1 I I m m m m= m m r m m m m m m LEGEND 1995 Average Daily Traffic CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 81-2 DAILY TRAFFIC xY (Indthousands) xx EXISTING GENERAL PLAN YY WITH PROPOSED PROJECT EXISTING STREETS �{ PLANNED STREETS EXISTING FREEWAYS PLANNED FREEWAYS m MAP NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 1 Block 400 - Newport Center The proposed General Plan amendment would permit the construction of 80,000 square feet of medical office space in Block 400 of Newport Center in addition to the buildings already constructed. This additional medical office space would be located on San Miguel Drive ' between Newport Center Drive East and Avocado Avenue, on the south side of Block 400. Campus Drive ' The proposed General Plan amendment would modify the current level of permitted development in the Campus Drive study area by reducing the amount of allowable office development. Under this amendment, 439,000 square feet of additional office space would be permitted. The Campus Drive study area is bounded by Campus Drive on the west, MacArthur Boulevard on the north, Birch Street on the east, and , Orchard Street on the south. EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 Figure 2 presents the Circulation Element of the General City of Newport Beach. The Circulation Element contains facilities which have not been constructed at all. Major primarily within the City, are: Plan of the ' several examples, . University Drive between Irvine Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard • 15th Street between Coast Highway and Monrovia Avenue Bluff Road . Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard Couplet (Avodado Avenue north of San Joaquin Hills Road), In many cases, roadways serving traffic now do not have a configuration commensurate with the standards of the classification of the facility (Secondary, Primary, or Major) as designated in the Circulation Element. Examples are numerous and will not be listed here individually. This subject is discussed in greater detail in the Attachments. Description of Street'System Following is a discussion of the street system in the vicinity of each of the five parcels to be considered in GPA 81-2. Further details are presented in the Attachments. The circulation system in the vicinity of the CALTRANS west parcel consists of Balboa Boulevard, Coast.Highway, Hospital Road, Newport Boulevard, Placentia Avenue and Superior Avenue. The circulation system in the vicinity of the 5th Avenue parcels consists of Coast Highway, MacArthur Boulevard, Marguerite Avenue, San Joaauin Hills Road, 5th Avenue and other streets in Corona del Mar. �i I L NEWPORT BEACH _� •�•• �,Y •� � IYIYYYY1111 CIRCULATION ELEMENT MASTER PLAN OF _ ,r�' r N STREETS & HIGHWAYS �.� ;:��:•:: �,:;;;:.:., �r F ----- Routes That Requ Further' eoorvrGnafwo. ;t •••••• Seaxtdary Road (Four Lorre Un&vided� tCtj ••• Nin aq Road (Four Lone Divided). °j ••IY. - �j . - r ••• Major Road (Six Lane Divided). 1 L�""'�` 6� uRoad f •s^rq 1 �' 1171x. �- =:t .•n P(j�-tf d t1tt0(liiled. � .-y�-•�- _� - r � \. its �/�1{jl ii.. '� �..��•4 •.•�• Adooed Freeway Routes. 4 f�]vpfFO I �0 nrw.W x44. W n •:, Y 1 Ari �• y' r -,1-7t t`�l �,�<iiJti•�w?.c:tt • •4•i ••• p v"�,•�^'1^�c• + Liti[' l'l'�1;�`rnh :�i _'_— ♦ s.: :� ' _ �•• dge. ' •f Y�'F� \'a '��s f \�i �l �a^•e'C%-'r•'�a s� i:'i • •• r cr� �T.' (.'I!" �/=y7� r{' - { -- • -Cts .�•�• i �• +�` .- D�, y ✓� \�• U !fV � • ' �7'9 � .�T•�`-''7'-1�` �' L���• •ir �t � � � r 4./ �rli �f._ � °{: -�t'5��.�f • s IIN/ �� �)� ��� fie. .},i/�.+" p-�'ii�i ,�ft==a�.. r.Y�, •t' ', L'i `. _ ': ^i`^ J' - '^i\,h g3, �p`eG'" a �� C,\�S. \, :•v' _. °=k-1' ' .(�; :Fplti•��1�. •:r ` ;C`, i�'�.+k--,=v'�.: j '�•z'�,�a '_ gin\ � J-' J- 5���� � :7' Ji- • y'^if. � �� > .!� , Kl..: `�.'._+1 .�i'• S M~ �• ��^�r� .ir , '� _� � 7f. 'tt�:. s!•!.. �. ���ti ,•� .rf J1, ,,• < � :..� � J �! . d ,/ �\� ,�""-ir� -o �� <r`-�'1,+ 'fit y : ! - .�' OE / ` «- c , r-: I- tji �II --� { J •_- `-C •":fir �;d�� _ r` C= �j ..r`. •:•UtY`.u3 ",i z :* f t '.N� uf,h..,_ t :a"i /'� s: °•••`• ••,•� '•�� I.;,y.: •`#'k.�z/ ;_ YY1ii�y � - ; i=•- t 'lE•*�",_�'a C1�'.'\� �� ,� �r ��d' ,V�?t ]�f�"; i�'-, r ti' �e�t`i '�-_n•�:,ry• •2° Iyy=- '••"•-�-�,+� •.\� •••• t i 1 s Ik1�4i�t1 ti: ;.\•zj�p\•� � itn+nR1 • �i�d4..� •p)J.7,3® ,7 G:f% 1 \ _ � I �� P•� • �, �r '117 �r`)1 �• ! 1�4�,�. ��\� ri„ �✓�u`•fj,� {�`.:?-�+ r Y\`< - • �9� �,j/p'C'[ }�`-Til $•01�'J�fj -. • ', P+-%1� r. t.. t'i ' �a �.v, Z.' X129 G eAOpCI _ S?�_ y} a ..w, li^}".•... CpS•'�•S�r` f1Gl'l�c. *PryPiro ems —�(' _?•�'••_o" ,,.�.., r ,..,. '•itii'_iii';, `.. , �...,. ?' `�l�l.i.' �. icoau�flJ1, 1 `�..:t.tt, ,%-- I ; • T• • •1•., -._ Y _. r '�'*.yW J li:if f�'^,•�„ _ i ! . 15:'•""'/.,.,13. a.'RFiO�3f�l7in•u, _"-..: E:.LT_-z'- . - I—=-_--� __ j;,; E• j '7T , E n L ADOPTED BY CITY C0L*IC ° MARCH 11,1974 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 81-2 scale`. in feet FIGURE 2 I The circulation system in the vicinity of Big Canyon Area 16 consists of Coast Highway, Eastbluff Drive, Ford Road, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. The circulation system surrounding Block 400 in Newport Center consists of Avocado Avenue, Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Center Drive, San Joaquin Hills Road, San Miguel Drive and li San Nicolas Drive. In the vicinity of the Campus Drive parcels, the street system consists of Birch Street, Bristol Street, Campus Drive, Corona del Mar Freeway, Irvine Avenue, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard (SR -73) and Von Karman Avenue. Existing Traffic Volumes The existing average daily traffic (.ADT) volumes for the streets in the vicinity of the project are presented in Figure 3 and in Table 1. These traffic volumes are a summary of the City of Newport Beach, City of Cost Mesa, City of Irvine and County of Orange traffic volume , records and represent average winter weekday conditions. The City of Newport Beach has data for summer weekday conditions which indicate that many roadways carry higher daily traffic volumes during the summer. Existing Roadway Capacity Estimates for the capacities of existing streets are presented in Table 1. The capacity values are those used by the County of Orange, except that for a few roadway segments with unique characteristics capacities ' were calculated using the Highway Capacity Manual (1965). The Orange County arterial highway capacities (.Level of Service E) by facility type are: ' . Major roadway: six lane divided - 54,000 vehicles per day . Primary roadway: four lane divided - 36,000 vehicles per day . Secondary 'roadway: four lane undivided - 24,000 vehicles per day . Commuter roadway: two lane undivided - 15,000. vehciles per day A comparison of existing traffic volumes and capacities is presented in Table 1. Not unexpectedly, traffic volume on some roadway segments is in excess of estimated capacity, specifically along Coast Highway, Superior Avenue north of Coast Highway, Newport Boulevard south of Coast Highway, Irvine Avenue south of Bristol Street and along MacArthur Boulevard between Ford Road and Bison Avenue. Existing Public Transportation Service Several lines in the Orange County Transit District's route system serve the general vicinity of the site, although only two of the lines (Route 1 and Route 43) provide direct access. Figure 4 depicts the location of the transit routes. The following is a brief description of each bus route. TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF EXISTING AND FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND ROADWAY CAPACITIES (All Traffic Volumes are Thousands of Vehiclea Per Day) 1995 Forecast Plus 1995 Exiatipg Existing Existing 1995 1995 1995 GPA81-2 GPA81-2 Plus Headway Segment (1981) Headway V/CE Traffic Headway V/C Traffic Traffic GPAB1-2 V/C F Traffic Volume Capacity volume Capacity Volume Volume Coast Highway ata 44.0 85.0 0.47 .96 40.9 0.48 West City limit 38.0' 0.86 39.9 East of Newport Blvd. 47.0' 45.0 1.04 69.0 54.0 1.28 1.65 70.7 1.31 61.0' 50.0C 1.22 66.4 05.0 C 0.78 2.04 68.4 0.80 Bey Bridge East of Jamboree Ed. 34.0 36.0 0.94 51.3 54.0 0.95 1.48 52.8 0.98 East of City limits 30.0 36.0 0.83 40.4 54.0 0.75 0.05 41.3 0.76 Superior Ave. north Coast Highway 26.0' 24.0 1.08 20.0 36.0 0.56 0.52 20.5 0.57 Newport Blvd. North of Coast Hwy. 50.0' 60.00 0.83 '64.5 70.0D 0.92 0.56 65.1 0.93 62.0' 60.0C 1.03 54.5 60.00 0.91 0.18 54.7 0.91 South of Coast Hwy. Dover Dr. North of Coast Hwy. 20.0' 36.0 0.56 31.1 54.0 0.58 0.28 31.4 0.58 Jamboree Head North of Coast Hwy. 29.0 45.0 0.64 32.6 54.0 0.60 0.66 33.3 0.62 North of San Joaquin Hills Road 46.0 54.0 0.85 55.0 54.0 1.02 0.90 55.9 1.04 North of Eastbluff Dr. North 50.0 54.0 0.93 56.0 54.0 1.04 0.36 56.4 1.04 North of MacArthur Blvd 27.0 54.0 0.50 39.0 54.0 0.72 1.15 40.2 0.74 North of Campus Drive 32.0 54.0 0.59 39.6 54.0 0.74 1.67 41.5 0.77 Avocado Avenue South -of San Miguel Dr N.A. N.A. N.A 13.6 36.0 0.3E 0.74 14.5 0.40 North of San Nicolas N.A. N.A. N.A. 9.2 36.0 0.26 0.80 10.0 0.28 MacArthur Blvd. North of Coast Hwy. 24.0 36.0 0.67 13.6 '36.0 0.38 0.74 14.3 0.40 south of Ford Broad 35.0 36.0 0.97 33.3 54.0 O.62 1.82 35.1 0.65 North of Bison Ave. 46.0 36.0 1.28 53.0 54.0 0.98 1.82 54.8 1.01 North of Jamboree Rd. 22.0 54.0 0.41 22.9 54.0 0.42 0.72 23.6 0.44 North of Campus Dr. 36.0 54.0 0.67 27.7 54.0 0.51 1.49 29.2 0.54 Bristol Street East of Birch St. 27' 36.00 0.75 10.0 36.00 0.28 0.10 10.1 0.28 Eastbound 36.00 0.13 10.0 36.00 0.2B 0.10 10.1 0.28 Westbound 30' University Drive East of Irvine Ave. N.A. N.A. N.A. 20.2 54.0 0.37 NOM 20.2 0.37 Irvine Ave. South of Bristol St. 27.0 24.0 1.13 25,0 36.0 0.69 1.10 26.1 0.73 North of 21st Street 25.0 36.0 0.69 20.0 36.0 0.56 0.29 20.3 0.56 San Joaquin Hills Head East of Jamboree Fuad 20.0 54.0 0.37 27.5 54.0 0.51 0.72 28.2 0.52 East of San Miguel Dr. 12.2 54.0 0.23 20.6 54.0 0.38 0.51 21.1 0.39 Margurite Avenue 8.0 24.0 0.33 8.0 24.0 0.37 O.6fi 9.5 0.40 North of 5th Avenue 6.0 12.0 0.50 8.4 12.0 0.70 0.90 9.3 0.78 South of 5th Avenue SOURCES: - Traffic Volume Maps of Costa Masa. Irvine. and Newport Beach , - Newport Beach/Costa Mesa Traffic Model A 1980 Traffic Volume. 1981 Not Available E V/C denotes volume -to -capacity ratio . B Level of Service D, Otsego County Standards F Assumes roadway configuration of the Circulation Element C Capacity Calculated From the Highway Capacity Manual D BDI Estimates 6 LEGEND V1980 DAILY TRAFFIC XX" VOLUMES (In thousands) 1981 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES e) EXISTING STREETS Existing Average Daily Traffic CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 81-2 m SAM WAN PLANNED STREETS EXISTING FREEWAYS PLANNED FREEWAYS MAP NOT TO SCALE E3 m = m� m1m my m m m m on m y. EXISTING EUS ROUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 81-2 -r MAP NOT TO SCALE m - Route 1 operates along Coast Highway between the Circle Drive-in in Long Beach and K -Mart Plaza in San Clemente. Destinations which can be reached by Route 1 include California State University at Long Beach, City of Huntington Beach and State Beach areas, central Newport Beach, and Newport Center, as well as the various coastal residential communities concentrated along Route 1 in both directions away from the project site. Route 35 operates primarily along Brookhurst Street between Fullerton (Fullerton Park -N -Ride) and Huntington Beach (Pacific Coast Highway at Magnolia Street) serving several important destina- tions. These include Hughes Aircraft in Fullerton and Huntington Beach State Park. Route 43/43A/43B operate as a combined route,between La Habra/ Brea and'Newport Beach. Between its southern terminus and Chapman Avenue, the route operates along Harbor Boulevard serving access to several major attractors such as Orange Coast College and Disneyland. North of Chapman Avenue, the branches diverge from Route 43B, which continues on Harbor Boulevard to a terminus at La'Habra Boulevard, Route 43 follows an eastern, and northerly alignment to Brea Mall, and Route 43A follows a northern alignment to a terminus at Randolph and Birch. The Route 43A branch provides direct service to Beckman Instruments and is only operated during the peak periods. - Route 45 provides access from "The City Shopping Center" in the. City of Orange to Fashion Island in'Newport Beach.- The route generally follows Fairview Road past Orange Coast College and the Orange County Fairgrounds. From Fairview. Road the route follows Victoria Street/22nd Street to Irvine. Avenue. Route 45 then follows Coast Highway to the Fashion Island entrance at Newport Center Drive. - Route 53/53A operates as a combined route between the Mall of Orange and Newport Beach. The route generally follows Main Street from the Mall of Orange to South Coast Plaza. At South Coast Plaza, Route 53 continues south along Bristol Street to Redhill Avenue. Route 53A continues easterly from South.Coast Plaza along Sunflower Avenue/Main Street to Redhill Avenue. At the intersection of Bristol Street and Redhill Avenue, both routes meet and continue along a common route in a southerly direction on Orange Avenue. From a southerly terminus of Orange Avenue at Newport Boulevard, Route 53/53A travels onto the Balboa Penninsula via Newport Boulevard. The route ends at the Main Street and Balboa Boulevard intersection. This route provides service to Childrens Hospital (.CHOC), St. Joseph's Hospital, Hoag Hospital, portions of Santa Ana, Irvine, Costa Mesa and Newport Boulevard. Route 57 operates between 6th and Flower Streets in Santa Ana and the Laguna Hills Mall primarily along Bristol Street, Baker Street, Fairview Street, Victoria Street, 19th Street, Dover Drive, Pacific Coast Highway and Laguna Canyon Road. It serves several major 9 1 markets, including the employment markets at South Coast Plaza, Fashion Island, and Laguna Hills, and the Student Market at Orange Coast College and the University of California, Irvine (via a transfer to Route 65 and 82). ' - Route 61 links the Civic Center in Santa Ana with Fashion Island in Newport Beach. This bus route generally follows Grand Avenue, Edinger Avenue, Redhill Avenue, MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road, Eastbluff Drive and San Joaquin Hills Road. Route 61 serves portions of the communities of Santa Ana, Irvine and Newport Beach. Other destinations along the bus route are the AMTRAK Train Terminal in Santa Ana, John Wayne Airport and Newport Center/ Fashion Island. - Route 65 provides access from Larwin Square in Tustin to the Balboa Penninsula via the City of Irvine. Destinations along this route include Tustin Civic Center, University High School, Campus Valley Center, Irvine Town Center, University of California Irvine, Aeronutronic Ford, Fashion Island/Newport Center and the ' Balboa Pavilion. - Route 71 connects the Mall of Orange with Fashion Island via Tustin Avenue, Redhill Avenue, Main Street, Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road. The bus route provides service to the Santa Ana - Tustin Community Hospital, South Coast Plaza and Fashion Island/Newport Center. - Route 76/76A operates as a combined route serving the communities of Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach and Irvine. The route generally follows Adams Avenue to Orange Coast College, then Fairview Road south to Fair Drive. From Fair Drive, Route 76 travels in a northerly direction along Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue ' to University Drive near UCI. Route 76A operates during the peak hours only and serves the Fluor Corporation on Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive. - Route 80 provides direct access between southeast Huntington Beach and downtown Santa Ana. The route travels in an east -west direction between the Huntington Beach Civic Center and South Coast Plaza. Between South Coast Plaza and downtown Santa Ana, Route 80 operates along Fairview Road, Baker Street, Bear Street, Sunflower Street, and Flower Street. In addition to the Huntington Beach Civic Center and South Coast Plaza, other attractors served by the route include Orange Coast College and the Santa Ana Civic Center. Route 100, the Anaheim Stadium Express, provides service to Anaheim Stadium for all Angels and Rams weekend home games. Route 204 is an express line operating between the Park -N -Ride facility in Fullerton, the Park -N -Ride facility at Aeronutronic Ford, Newport Beach and Newport Center/Fashion Island. The morning bus travels from Fullerton to Newport Beach, while the evening bus travels from Newport Beach.to Fullerton. 10 I - Route 206 is an express line operating between the San Clemente Park-N-Ride,•Mission Drive -In Park -N -Ride, Crown Valley Center Park -N -Ride, Laguna Hills Mall Park -N -Ride, Aeronutronic Ford Park -N -Ride and Newport Center/Fashion Island. This express route links the residential areas of south Orange County with the employ- ment areas Within Newport Beach. - Route 208 is an express line operating between Huntington Beach ' and the northeast Anaheim industrial area. The southern portion of the route serves several residential areas in Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, and Santa Ana, as well as a number of employment centers located in the northeast Anaheim industrial area. Current service frequencies on the bus routes discussed above are summarized in Table 2. The service frequency varies between commuting peak and off-peak times on weekdays; service is less frequent for certain lines on Saturday; and only seven of the lines currently operate on Sunday. THE GENERAL PLAN , Land Use Considerations The General Plan classifies the CALTRANS West Pardel and the Big Canyon Area 16 as open space. Proposed GPA 81-2 is for 152 and 87 multiple family dwelling units on these two parcels, respectively. The 5th Avenue parcels under the existing General Plan could- accommodate approximately 70 single family dwelling units. Proposed GPA 81-2 is for 100 single-family and 68 multi -family dwelling units. No more development could occur in Block 400 of Newport Center since the office buildings that are presently built fulfill the existing General Plan's allowances. Proposed GPA 81-2 would add 80,000 sq. ft. of medical office space. General Plan Land Use Assumptions used in previous traffic forecasting work by the City of Newport Beach account for approximately 100,000 square feet of additional office/industrial space in the Campus Drive parcels. Under current zoning regulations, approximately 6,0001000 square feet of office/industrial space could be built in addition to , what is existing today. Proposed GPA 81-2 would provide for the limiting of development to 439,000 square feet of additional office/ industrial space. , Circulation Element The Circulation Element of the City's General Plan is presented in Figure 2. As noted earlier not all facilities identified in the Circulation Element are open to traffic at this time. In addition, not all facilities, have been constructed to the standards of the ultimate classification as designated in the Circulation Element. Several proposed improvements to the existing circulation system in and near the City of Newport Beach will greatly -enhance the flow of traffic throughout the City and help complete the network of facilities representing the Circulation Element. These improvements are listed below: ' 11 TABLE 2 TRANSIT SERVICE FREQUENCY Route Weekday Weekday Saturday Sunday Number (Peak Period) (Off -Peak) 1 30 30 60 60 35 30 30 30 60 43/43A/43B 15 15 15 15 45 30 30 60 - 53/53A 20 20 30 30 57 10 10 20 20 61 30 60 60. - 65, 30 30 60. 60. 71 30 60 60 60 76/76A 20 30 60 - 80 60 60 60 - 100 - - (A) (�) 204 (1) - - - 206 (1) - - - 208 (1) - - (1) Service during weekday peak periods only; one trip per peak period. (A) Service during Rams and Angels home games only; service to Anaheim Stadium from Fashion Island only. 12 Bridge improvements currently planned are at the following locations: 19th Street across the Santa Ana River, (New Bridge), Coast Highway at the Santa Ana River (widen to six lanes), Coast Highway at Newport Boulevard (reconstruct grade separation) and Coast Highway at the Bay Bridge (recently completed). Some major roadways not yet constructed but being planned are Bluff ' Road between Coast Highway and 19th Street, the Avocado Avenue - MacArthur Boulevard couplet near Newport Center, 15th Street between Coast Highway and Monrovia Avenue, University Drive between Irvine Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard, Pelican Hill Road north of Coast Highway, the extension of the Costa Mesa Freeway into Newport Beach and the extension of the Corona del Mar Freeway/San Joaquin Hills , Transportation Corridor from Campus Drive to the San Diego Freeway in San Juan Capistrano. In addition to the construction of the new roadways and bridge modifications several existing roadways and intersections will be improved in the future. For example, the City has plans to realign and improve the Coast Highway/Superior Avenue intersection and Caltrans has plans to ' improve the Coast Highway/Jamboree Road intersection. Caltrans and the City of Newport Beach are analyzing the impacts of widening Coast Highway between Newport Boulevard and MacArthur Boulevard to six lanes and from Newport Boulevard to Goldenwest Street in the'City of Huntington Beach. Future traffic volume projections for the City of Newport Beach were taken from the Newport Beach/Costa Mesa Traffic Model. Figure 1 presents the 1995 traffic volume projections. The volume projections are based on the Newport Beach/Costa Mesa Traffic Model 1995 Development Forecasts in accordance with the General Plan 79-1 Trend Growth Projections. IMPACTS , To estimate what effect the traffic volumes generated by GPA 81-2 ' will have on the City of Newport Beach's circulation system, a three-step process was initiated. First, the traffic which will be generated 'by each element of the proposed amendment was determined. Secondly,, these , generated trips were geographically distributed to major trip attractors in the area surrounding each individual project. These trip attractors included employment centers, commercial centers, residential areas, , etc. Lastly, the trips were assigned to specific roadways and future traffic volumes were determined. These project -by -project volumes were summed in order to provide an estimate of the cumulative impact of the entire General Plan Amendment. The assumptions and methods ' used to estimate future project -related traffic volumes (trip genera- tion, distribution and assignment for each project) are documented in Attachments A thru E. Project -Related Traffic , The trip generation rates used in this analysis are based on similar projects that have been prepared in the past. The generation rates were discussed with the City Traffic Engineer and adjusted slightly to reflect local variations in tripmaking characteristics. Table 3 presents a comparison of traffic estimated to be generated by the existing General Plan and GPA 81-2. 13 M M= M v M M M= M M M TABLE 3 COMPARISON OF TRIP GENERATION GENERAL PLAN AND PROPOSED GPA 81-2 (Daily Vehicle Trips) TRIP GENERATION (b) LAND USE TRIP GENERATION GENERAL PLAN GPA 81-2 LOCATION GENERAL PLAN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81-2 RATE (a) TRIP ENDS TRIP ENDS CALTRANS West Parcel Open Space 0 0 0 • 152 Multi -Family Dwelling Units 8.5 0 1292 5th Avenue Parcels 70 Single -Family Dwelling Unite 100 Single -Family Dwelling Units 13.0 910 1300 68 Multi -Family Dwelling Units 8.5 0 578 Big Canyon Area 16 Open Space 0 0 0 87 Multi -Family Dwelling Units 8.5 0 740 Block 400 -Newport Center No Additional Square Footage 0 0 0 F' iP 80,000 Square Feet Medical Office 45.0 0 3600 Campus Drive 100,000 Square Feet (c) Profes- 439,000 Spare Feet Professional ' sional Office 'Office ! 13.0 1300 5707 ALL LOCATIONS 70 Single Family Dwelling Units 100 Single -Family Dwelling Units 910 1300 307 Multi -Family Dwelling Units 2610 80,000 Square Feet Medical Office 3600 100,000 Square Feet of Profes- 439,000 Square Feet Professional Office 1300 5707 sional Office (a)Tri feet TOTAL 2210 trip 13,217 trip ends per dwellin unit or Tri Ends er thousand s uare Trip p g P p 9 ends ends (b)Trip ends by direction (0)Based on Development Forecasts in accordance with General Plan 79-1. See Section of the DEIR for a further discussion on the allowable development for this parcel. (d)Proposed Additional Development The levels of development associated with General Plan Amendment 81-2 can be expected to generate 13,217 trip ends per day throughout the City. During the PM peak hour GPA 81-2 would be expected to generate 1789 trip ends ditywide. A trip end is considered a one- way vehicular movement either toward or away from a particular project. Trip distribution patterns were developed for each element of the , General Plan Amendment. A copy of each distribution pattern can be found in the respective section of the Attachments A thru E. In general residential developments were distributed in the direction.of employment centers, shopping centers and educational facilities; the professional office traffic was oriented toward residential neighborhoods; the medical office traffic was evenly distributed to ' all attractors. The General Plan related traffic was then allocated to the street system throughout the City. To evaluate the potential traffic -related impacts of this General Plan Amendment, the traffic volumes associated with GPA 81-2 were superimposed on the 1995 volumes based on develop- ment forecasts in accordance with General Plan 79-1. The resulting ' future traffic volumes are depictedon Figure 1 . A comparison of daily traffic volumes for existing conditions and future conditions with and without the General Plan Amendment can be found in Table 1 ' 1995 Traffic Analysis For 1995 future conditions, the circulation system commensurate with the City's'Master Plan of Streets and Highways was assumed to be completed. The 1995 base condition traffic volume forecasts are based on the Newport Beach -Costa Mesa traffic model projections from the City of Newport Beach. , Based on the 1995 volume projections, several roadways in the City will be carrying traffic volumes in excess of their capacities. ' Table 1 summarizes the roadway segments that are expected to exceed their carrying capacity. All of the other roadway segments described in Table 1 should operate , at a satisfactory level in 1995. A review of Table 4 reveals that in 1995 without GPA 81-2 the roadways mentioned will operate at an unsatisfactory level. The additional traffic generated by GPA 81-2 , is less than 3 percent of the total future volume forecasts. Traffic volumes of this magnitude are considered to be nominal. 15 Ll NOM = Nominal Increase (a) Assumes roadway configuration of the Circulation Element and Roadway Capacity at Level of Service E. (b) V/C denotes volume -to -capacity ratio 16 TABLE 4 COMPARISON OF ROADWAY SEGMENTS THAT ARE EXPECTED TO OPERATE AT UNSATISFACTORY LEVELS.OF SERVICE GPA81-2 Traffic 1995 Vo% Forecast 1995 As a Plus lus %age of 1995 Roadway 1995 GPA81-2 GPA81=2 GPA81-2 Tom Forecasta) b) Traffic Traffic 1995 Volume Capacit V/G( Volume Volume V/C Volume Coast Highway e/o Newport Blvd. 69,000 54,000 1.28 1;650 70,700 1.31 2% e/o Jamboree Rd. 51,300 54,000 0.95 1,480 52,800 0.98 3% Newport Boulevard n/o Coast Highway 64,500 70,000 0.92 560 65,100 0.93 1% s/o Coast Highway 54,500 60,000 0.91 180 54,700 0.91 NOM Jamboree Road n/o of San Joaquin 55,000 54,•000 1.02 900 55,900 1.04 2% Hills Road n/o East Bluff Dr. 56,000 54,000 1.04 360 56,400 1.04 NOM North MacArthur Boulevard n/o Bison Avenue 53,000 54,000 0.98 1,820 54,800 1.01 3% NOM = Nominal Increase (a) Assumes roadway configuration of the Circulation Element and Roadway Capacity at Level of Service E. (b) V/C denotes volume -to -capacity ratio 16 OTHER PLANNING AND CIRCULATION CONSIDERATIONS Circulation and traffic matters pertaining to proposed GPA 81-2 should be evaluated within the context of several matters which could affect the circulation system of Newport Beach. These are in two major categories: General Plan Amendments and Circulation System Improvements. , General Plan Amendments (GPA) which are being evaluated at the present time include GPA 80-3 and GPA 81-1. Circulation System Improvements ' in various stages of completion and/or study are as follows: - University Drive Extension - Corona del Mar Freeway , - San Joaquin Hills.Transportation Corridor - Pelican Hill Road - Route 55 Freeway ' - Coast Highway widening - Bridges (.widening or construction) - 19th Street at Santa Ana River - Coast Highway at Santa Ana River ' - Route 55 at Coast Highway The following paragraphs contain a brief description and discussion of ' the effects of each of these matters. General Plan Amendment '80.'-3 General Plan Amendment 80-3 involves various land use modifications within Newport Center. The Newport Beach City Council recently approved the development of approximately 714,000 square feet of ' office space, 267 residential dwelling units and a 465 room hotel. Several roadway modifications and construction of new roadways were conditions of approval for the GPA. Generally, the roadway improvements , would consist of the construction of Pelican Hill Road, the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard one-way couplet, widening of Bonita Canyon Road and the addition of a third northbound lane on MacArthur Boulevard from Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road. GPA 80-3 , is estimated to generate approximately 16,50A additional daily trips. The major roadways in the vicinity that would be affected by the GPA would consist of MacArthur Boulevard, Coast Highway and Jamboree ' Road. Soon after the City Council' -s approval of GPA 80-3, a petition was circulated by citizen"s groups to ask that the action be rescinded. , A referendum request was filed. The City Council now has two courses of action it can take. The Council could either rescind its prior approval or put the issue to a vote of the general public. As of , January 26, 1982, the City Council has not decided which, course it will take. General Plan Amendment 81-1 General Plan Amendment 81-1 involves a 75.5 -acre parcel north of Coast Highway and east of the Santa Ana River in Newport Beach. The proposed amendment would allow the development of 406 residential dwelling units, 235,6Q0 square feet of office space and 164,400 square feet of industrial space. This development would be expected 17 , 11 to generate approximately 7,712 daily trips. Coast Highway, 15th Street,.17th Street and 19th Street are in the immediate vicinity and could be impacted by the construction of GPA 81-1 along with other streets in Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. (The applicant will be required to make numerous roadway improvements. These improvements will significantly enhance the capacity of West Newport area arterials to ' accommodate GPA 81-1 related, as well as other regional and local traffic. Route 55 ' The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is conducting a study to evaluate various alternatives for the improvement of State Route 55 from the termination of the Costa Mesa Freeway (Route 55) in the vicinity of Bristol Street to Coast Highway in the City of Newport Beach. ' The alternatives that were considered encompassed a broad range from "No Project" to a full freeway on the existing adopted alignment. A discussion of each of the eight alternatives follows: 1. No Project: With this alternative the existing highway, Newport Boulevard, would be retained except that operational improvements such as signals and lane revisions would be made. 2. Widen Newport Bouelvard: With this alternative one lane in each direction would be added between Bristol Street and Coast Highway. 3. Grade Separation: With this alternative cross -traffic would be grade -separated by overcrossings or undercrossing at Fair Drive, Fairview Road, 19th Street, Harbor Boulevard, and 17th Street. 4. Grade Separations and Widen Newport Boulevard: This alternative ' would consist of the widening identified in "2" and the grade separations identified in "3" above. 5. Freeway on Adopted Alignment to Coast Highway: With.this alterna- tive a full freeway would be constructed between the present terminus of the Route 55 Freeway near Bristol Street and Coast Highway. 6. Freeway on Adopted Alignment to Industrial Way: With this alternative a full freeway would be constructed between the present terminus of the Route. 55 Freeway near Bristol Street and ' a southern terminus at Newport Boulevard and Industrial Way (City of Newport Beach boundary).. ' 7. Viaduct: With this alternative a full freeway would be constructed along the right-of-way which separates the current one-way couplet along Newport Boulevard. There would be an elevated ' portion of freeway within the Costa Mesa business district with a southern terminus at Newport Boulevard and Industrial Way. io 18 I 8. Depressed Roadway/Tunnel - Viaduct Tunnel: With this alternative a full freeway would be constructed that would have an underground roadway along the area separating the Newport Boulevard one- way couplet through the Costa Mesa business district. The southern terminus would be located at Newport Boulevard and Industrial Way. Included in the analysis of the alternatives are transit alternatives consisting of park-and-ride bus system, exclusive busways, and a light , rail transit system. Each of the alternatives also includes analysis of improvements needed for the Coast Highway interchange. In March 1981, the Policy Advisory Committee for the study deleted from further ' consideration Alternatives 2, 3 and 5; also Alternatives 7 and 8 were combined to a single alternative. The draft Environmental Impact Statement for the analysis of Route 55 alternatives is expected to be completed by the Spring of 1982 which will contain a recommendation , by Caltrans for a specific course of action. A final EIS would be ex- pected to be completed by the Spring of 1983. Since a specific course of action for Route 55 has not been formulated, , the full impact of Route 55 is not known at this time. It is anticipated that all the alternatives, except for the "No Project" alternative, would result in improved traffic circulation for the ' area and that shifts in traffic patterns would take place, especially with the full freeway alternatives. ' Corona del Mar Freeway Extension The Corona del Mar Freeway is scheduled to be extended from its present, terminus at Bristol Street/Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard. As discussed in the recent five-year funding program by Caltrans, the Corona del Mar Freeway has funding available starting in Fiscal Year 1982. Orange County EMA staff estimate that construction ' should be completed by 1990. When the freeway extension is completed, the traffic congestion in the area, especially along Bristol Street and Campus Drive and at the intersection of Jamboree/Bristol Street, should be relieved. ' San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor ' The San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) is envisioned as a multi -modal transportation facility, with a yet -to -be -determined ' rail/transit facility flanked by a six or eight -lane freeway. As traffic volume and congestion on the San Diego Freeway (I-405 and I-5) continues to 'increase, a parallel facility will need to be sought. Although Preliminary Alignment studies have been completed, no funding , has yet been allocated for the SJHTC. Orange County EMA staff anticipates that the Corridor would be built by the year 2000. University Drive Extension ' The proposed University Drive Extension (designated a major arterial in the City's Circulation Element), would be a six -lane facility between ' Irvine Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard. It would constitute a parallel facility to Bristol Street in the vicinity of the Orange County Airport Commercial/Office complex and would serve recreational trips in the Back Bay area. A tentative scope of work for an Environmental 19 I Impact Report (EIR) is being reviewed by appropriate County and City agencies. University Drive Extension would enhance the circulation system in the vicinity of Northern Newport Beach, Irvine and Costa Mesa. The 1995 traffic volume forecast for the Extension is approximately 20,000 vehicles per day. If the Extension were not constructed, the traffic volume to be carried by the facility would use other facilities, primarily the Bristol Street/Corona del Mar Freeway Corridor. University Drive Extension was deleted from the City's Local Coastal Plan by Council action prior to the submittal of the LCP to the Coastal Commission. University Drive Extension remains on the City's Circulation Element. Pelican Hill Road ' Pelican Hill Road would be constructed from Coast Highway (east of Corona del Mar) north to Bonita Canyon Road near the San Joaquin Hills ' Transportation Corridor. Along with improvements on Bonita Canyon Road between Pelican Hill Road and MacArthur Boulevard, a,bypass route would be available for traffic through Corona del Mar. Pelican Hill Road,is important in conjunction with the development of the Irvine Coast. A ' preliminary alignment study has recently been initiated so that a specific alignment for this road can be established. This facility is consistent with the Orange County MPRH. Coast Highway Widening The City of Newport Beach has prepared a Draft EIS for the widening ' of Coast Highway to a 6 -lane major highway between Bayside Drive and MacArthur Boulevard. Included in the EIS is an alternative to provide 6 -lanes between Newport Boulevard and easterly of Tustin Avenue. The ' Draft EIS is presently being reviewed by Caltrans and is expected to be completed by early 1983 and construction could begin by late 1983. In addition to the above widening improvements, Caltrans is preparing ' an EIS for the widening of Coast Highway to 6 -lanes between Newport Boulevard and Golden West Street in the City of Huntington Beach. Included in this project is the reconstruction and widening of the Santa Ana Bridge. Caltrans is expected to complete the Draft EIS mid 1982 and release the document for comments and final approval in late 1982. The current schedule estimates that construction would begin in early 1986. ' The widening of Coast Highway should relieve some of the existing congestion problems throughout the area. The widening improvements ' are consistent with the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard Extension) This facility is included in the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways as a Primary Road (four -lane divided) between Coast Highway and a point north of 19th Street in Costa Mesa. The construction of this facility between Coast Highway and 17th Street is one of the 20 conditions of approval of GPA 81-1 and would allow the development of the first phase of the proposed project. Additional development of 100,000 square feet of industrial use would be permitted contingent upon construction of Bluff Road between 17th and 19th Streets. 19th Street Bridge Southerly of the San Diego Freeway there are only three roadway crossings of the Santa Ana River - Adams Avenue, Victoria Street and Coast Highway. Presently each of these bridges carries heavy traffic volumes, at times resulting in congested conditions. To accommodate projected traffic volumes, additional capacity across the River would be needed. The proposed 19th Street Bridge crossing is consistent with the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. The construction of the 19th Street Bridge, scheduled for 1984-1985 will improve circulation between Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach and lessen capacity problems.. The 19th Street Bridge would improve traffic operating conditions along Coast Highway in the western portion of Newport Beach, since motorists would be able to use this relatively uncongested new travel route parallel to Coast Highway. Less traffic on Coast Highway would make it easier to accommodate.additional traffic. Coast Highway Bridge at the Santa Ana River The City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways classifies the Santa Ana River Bridge at Coast Highway as a major arterial, which would consist of a six -lane facility. The present Bridge has four vehicular travel lanes, no facilities for bicycles, and a sidewalk on one side for pedestrians. The 1980 average daily traffic volume on the Santa Ana Bridge was 38,000 vehicles per day. This volume is approaching the capacity of the existing bridge. Caltrans is currently preparing an environmental document for the widening of the Bridge. Final approval for the widening project is anticipated for July 1983 with construction slated for Fiscal Year 1985-86. The new Bridge is expected to consist of six travel lanes with ten foot sidewalks for pedestrians and bicyclists. The widening of the Coast Highway crossing of the Santa Ana River will increase the capacity of a facility. With the additional capacity of a wider bridge, traffic attributable to GPA 81-2, especially to/from the Caltrans -West parcel, can be served better than the present facility. Route 55 and Coast Highway Grade Separation The Coast Highway and Route 55 grade separation, also known as The Arches," is presently carrying traffic volumes which are approaching the capacity of this facility. As a result, "The Arches" is being analyzed in conjunction with the Route 55 study currently being prepared by Caltrans. The Caltrans EIS is expected to be completed by the Spring of 1982 and will contain recommendation for a specific course of action. Included in the EIS should be recommendations for improve- ments at the Coast Highway/Route 55 grade separation. 21 'J q,I 1 1I 1 61 U I Public Transit The current Short -Range Transit Plan prepared by the Orange County Transit District (OCTD) calls for system level improvements during the 1981-85 planning time frame (e.g., more frequent service parti- cularly during peak hours). Specific locations for various service improvements by OCTD are identified in OCTD's Service Improvement Program, updated semi-annually. ' Review of these documents reveals that further improvements to transit in the vicinity of the GPA 81-2 project areas are not currently envisioned in OCTD's Short -Range Transit Plan or Service Improvement ' Program. Existing City Policies and Requirements ' The City requires all development projects over 10,000 square feet, residential developments over 10 dwelling units to comply with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). Prior to approval of zone changes ' or tentative tract maps for individual projects within GPA 81-2, applicants will be required to obtain necessary TPO approval. MITIGATION MEASURES ' Impacts of the proposed projects on vehicular circular and public transit are not considered significant. The specific roadway segments project to be over -capacity in 1995 would be incrementally affected by increased traffic generated by the proposed projects. However, in addition to existing City policies and requirements, the following would serve to mitigate the incremental impacts of the ' projects: The preparation of a TSM program for all office and industrial develop- ment that includes consideration of the following: • Preferential parking for ride -sharing vehicles ' . Transit subsidy, at least to extent of value of parking otherwise provided by employers Flextime and staggered work hours and work schedules ' . Promotion of pedestrian and bicycle traffic . Carpool/vanpool/subscription and bus/charter bus programs ' (both internal and external to the company) . Transit system coordination . Other programs offering the prospect of reduced or shifted travel patterns Preparation of a bicycle and pedestrian circulation plan for any ' designated facilities adjacent to a project area. Tentative tracts maps and all future developments should anticipate future transit service routes and provide adequate roadway width to accommodate bus stops and bus benches. 22 [I II II I II u U iI ATTACHMENT A. TRAFFIC STUDY for the CALTRANS WEST PARCEL of GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81-2 IT, F.VAi101*-M BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. k1 ATTACHMENT A TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-1 Roadway Characteristics Existing Traffic Volumes Existing Public Transportation THE GENERAL PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-3 Land Use Considerations FUTURECONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-4 Roadway Characteristics Future Traffic Volumes PROJECT -RELATED TRAFFIC. . . . . . . . . Trip Generation Trip Distribution and Assignment . . . . . . . .A-5 IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Access Considerations MITIGATION MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . Traffic Phasing Ordinance = . . . . . .A-12 ATTACHMENT A TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THE CALTRANS WEST PARCEL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81-2 ' DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION The Caltrans west Parcel consists of a 13.62 acre lot situated on the northwest corner at the intersection of Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. Figure 1 is a vicinity map depictinq the location ' of the project site. The site is bounded by the Newport Crest condominiums on the north, a large vacant parcel proposed for mixed residential, office and industrial uses on the west, and the previously mentioned roads on the south and east. The proposed development would consist of 152 townhouses/condominiums and a 2.4 -acre park. Access to the project site is proposed to the west via Bluff Road and to the east via Superior Avenue. The site is primarily vacant and is designated open space in the General Plan. IEXISTING CONDITIONS Roadway Characteristics Roadways in the vicinity of the project are classified in the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways as secondary, primary or major roadways. The existing street system in the vicinity of the proposed project consists of Balboa Boulevard, Coast Highway, Hospital Road, Newport Boulevard, Placentia Avenue and Superior Avenue. These roadways will provide the primary means of circulation and access to ' and from the project. Figure 1 shows the existing circulation system in the vicinity. ' Coast Highway presently varies in width from a four -lane to a five - lane facility from the Santa Ana River to Dover Drive. Between the Santa Ana River and Superior Avenue, the roadway transitions from a five -lane roadway to a four -lane facility. From the Santa Ana ' River Bridge to Prospect Street there are three lanes eastbound, two lanes westbound and a painted median. This roadway section then transitions to two travel lanes in each direction with a painted ' median easterly of Prospect Street to Superior Avenue. It continues as a four -lane facility easterly of Superior Avenue, then widens again to a five -lane facility between Newport Boulevard and easterly of Tustin Avenue. Easterly to Dover Drive, the roadway is a four -lane ' facility with a painted median. Hospital Road is fully improved between Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard. Between Superior Avenue and Placentia Avenue, two travel lanes in each direction are provided. Between Placentia Avenue and Newport Boulevard, the roadway widens to two travel lanes in each direction and a painted median. Easterly of Newport Boulevard, two travel lanes westbound and one travel lane eastbound are provided. I A-1 16. 44.0 7 e • 26.0 25. 33.0 0.0 X47.0 2.0 .LEGEND. XX.X DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME 8.0 (In thousands of vehicles per day) # INDICATE 1981 VOLUME FROM THE CITY OF COSTA MESA �\ BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. 4262 Campus Drive, Suits 11-1 Newport Mach, CellfemA 92"0 (714) 549.9940 FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAP AND EXISTING (1980) DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES SOURCE: Newport Beach Traffic Flow Map (1980) I Newport Boulevard is constructed as a six -lane facility between Coast Highway and 19th Street. Northerly of 19th Street, the roadway is constructed as a one-way couplet with three travel lanes in each direction. Southerly of Coast Highway (Balboa Peninsula), the roadway is constructed as a four -lane divided facility. Placentia Avenue is a four -lane facility with a two-way left -turn painted median and bike lanes. No curb parking is permitted along the entire length from Superior Avenue to Adams Avenue. Superior Avenue is a two-lane facility north of 17th Street with no median. From 17th Street to just south of Ticonderoga Street, Superior Avenue is a four -lane facility with a painted median and left -turn lanes. Superior Avenue narrows to two lanes until it reaches Coast Highway. The City of Newport Beach is presently planning to realign and widen Superior Avenue south of Ticonderoga Street to a four -lane divided facility. Existing Traffic Volumes ' The existing (1981) average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for the streets in the vicinity of the project are presented in Figure 1. These traffic volumes are a summary of the:City of Newport Beach., City of Costa Mesa and Count of Orange traffic volume records and represent average winter weekday volumes. At some locations, 1981 traffic volumes were not available. At these locations, 1980 traffic volumes were substituted. The City of Newport Beach has data for summer weekday conditions. it should be noted that the major roadways experience a higher daily volume during the summer. ' Existing Public Transportation I Orange County Transit District (OCTD) currently operates four transit routes in the vicinity of the project. Routes 1, 43, 43A and 43B provide direct access to the project. A brief description of each route and the location is discussed in the main body of this study. THE GENERAL PLAN ' Land Use Considerations Presently, nothing has been constructed on the Caltrans West Parcel and the General Plan designates the parcel as open space. GPA 81-2 would allow 152 condominium townhomes and a 2.4 -acre park to be constructed. ' Each of the Master Planned roadways varies from fully improved conditions to interim partial improvements. Presently, the City of Newport Beach is planning the widening of Superior Avenue adjacent to the project site and is working with Caltrans on the widening of Coast Highway from Newport Bouelvard to Goldenwest Street in Huntington Beach. A-3 FUTURE CONDITIONS Roadway Characteristics The majority of the roadways in the vicinity of the project site are not presently constructed to the Master Plan configuration. The major roadways in the vicinity of the project are: Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, Newport Boulevard, Balboa Boulevard, Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard Extensions), 15th Street and Placentia Avenue. Coast Highway is shown on the City's MPAH as a six -lane major arterial. Presently, the roadway varies in improvements. However, the City has prepared a Draft EIS for the widening of Coast Highway to a six -lane major highway between Bayside Drive and MacArthur Boulevard. Included in the EIS is an alternative to provide six lanes between Newport Boulevard and easterly of Tustin Avenue. The Draft EIS is presently being reviewed by Caltrans and is expected to be completed by early 1983 and construction could begin by late 1983. in addition to the above widening improvements, Caltrans is preparing an EIS for the widening of Coast Highway to six lanes between Newport Boulevard and Golden West street in the City of Huntington Beach. Included in this project is the reconstruction and widening of the Santa Ana Bridge. Caltrans is expected to complete the Draft EIS mid 1982 and release the document for comments and final approval in late 1982. The current schedule estimates that construction would begin in early 1986. Superior Avenue adjacent to the project site is classified a primary arterial (four -lane divided). This roadway is presently being planned for realignment and widening between Coast Highway and Ticonderoga Street. The proposed widening will be funded by City and Arterial Highway Financing Program (AHFP) funding. The necessary rights -of- way for the realignment are expected to be dedicated by Caltrans at no cost. This latter item is the only remaining issue to be resolved before the City can begin construction. Our understanding is that Caltrans will look favorably on the required dedications provided their proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) is processed and approved. In the event the GPA is not approved and the property remains open space, Caltrans has stated the City will have to purchase the necessary roadway right-of-way estimated to be worth approximately $500,000. The Superior Avenue widening and realignment project is presently needed to improve safety and capacity on Superior Avenue and at the Coast Highway and Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard intersection. Northerly of Ticonderoga to 16th Street, Superior Avenue is fully improved except for a partial widening needed on the west side of Superior Avenue northerly of 15th Street. Balboa Boulevard southerly of Coast Highway to 44th Street is fully improved to its ultimate roadway configuration. Southerly of 44th Street, the roadway narrows to provide two travel lanes in each direction and a median area with parking. A-4 I Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard Extension) located westerly of Superior Avenue is masterplanned as a primary arterial (four -lane divided). The extension of this roadway from Coast Highway to 17th Street has recently been included in the development processing for the Banning Newport Ranch as a part of General Plan Amendment 81-1. The planning included in GPA 81-1 provided for primary access to/from Bluff Road for the Caltrans West Parcel. In addition to the above-mentioned roadways, 15th Street, Hospital Road and Newport Boulevard will complete the arterial roadway system in the area. Future Traffic Volumes ■ Future traffic volume projections for the roadways in the vicinity were obtained from the Newport Beach/Costa Mesa Traffic Model. Figure 2 presents the 1995 traffic volume projections used in'this analysis. The traffic volume projections are based on the Newport Beach/Costa Mesa traffic model 1995 development forecasts in accordance with General Plan 79-1. PROJECT -RELATED TRAFFIC To estimate what effect the traffic volumes generated by the Caltrans West Parcel will have on the surrounding circulation system, a three-step process was initiated. First, the traffic which will be generated by the project was determined. Secondly, the generated trips were geographically distributed to major trip attractors in the area surrounding the project. The trip attractors include employment centers, commercial centers, residential areas, etc. Lastly, the project -related traffic was assigned to specific roadways and future traffic volumes were determined. Trip Generation The trip generation rates used in this analysis are based on.analyses of similar projects conducted in the past. The generation rates were discussed with the City Traffic Engineer and adjusted slightly to reflect local variations in tripmaking characteristics. 'Table 1 presents the trip generation rates used in this analysis. The park site trip generation was assumed to be nominal. Park usage would primarly be associated with the project site and the adjacent residential areas, and would therefore have little impact on the surrounding street system. When previously mentioned generation rates are applied to the proposed level of development, an estimate of the amount of traffic that would be expected at the site is obtained. On a daily basis, 1292 trip ends (T.E.) can be expected to be generated by the project. 'During the PM peak hour, 76 T.E. should be attracted to the site, while 46 T.E. can be expected to leave the site. A trip end is considered as a one-way movement either toward or away from a project. A-5 • Nw BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. 4262 Campus Drive, Salta Mi Newport Neal, Califon la 92"0 (714) 54"940 AA.A/T T.T ItIWO uMILT InMrrly vvLumr- WITHOUT/WITH GPA 81-2# (in thousands of vehicles per day) FIGURE 2 1995 TRAFFIC VOLUME PROJECTIONS WITH AND WITHOUT GPA 81-2-# #(CALTRANS West Parcel Only)' SOURCE: Newport Beach/Costa Mesa Traffic Model I I I 11 I I Land Use Multiple Family Residential (Condominium/ Townhomes) Land Use Multiple Family Residential 152 Dwelling Units TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Trip Generation Rates Daily PM Peak Hour In PM Peak Hour Out 8.5 T.E./D.U. 0.5 T.E./D.U. 0.3 T.E./D.U. Trip Generation Daily 1292 T.E. PM Peak Hour In PM Peak Hour Out 76 T.E. NOTE: T.E. denotes trip ends D.U. denotes dwelling units T.E./D.U. denotes trip ends per dwelling unit A-7 46 T.E. Trip Distribution and Assignment A trip distribution pattern was developed to reflect possible travel characteristics of the condominium project. The spatial orientation of possible trip origins and destinations and the travel patterns of other similar projects were considered in the evolution of the trip distribution pattern. The resulting pattern is depicted on Figure 3 The estimated project -related traffic that was generated was then assigned to the surrounding street system in accordance with the distribution pattern of Figure 3. The additional traffic that the project is expected to contribute to the surrounding street system is depicted on Figure 4. IMPACTS To evalute the traffic -related impacts of the proposed project, the project -related traffic of Figure 4 was superimposed on the 1995 base year volumes of Figure 2. Table 2 is a comparison of existing future traffic volumes and roadway capacity. The 1995 roadway capacities presented in Table 2 are based on the roadway designations proposed in the City of Newport Beach circulation element. Daily traffic volumes on most of the roadways in the vicinity would not exceed capacity. The future traffic volume projections for Newport Boulevard near Coast Highway approach capacity. Of major concern is Coast Highway easterly of Newport Boulevard. The future traffic volume projection greatly exceeds the estimated capacity in this region. The capacity deficiency is expected to occur with or without GPA 81-2. Access Considerations Although not generally discussed at the General Plan level, access to/from the Caltrans West Parcel needs to be addressed. The subject property has access to Superior Avenue and to Coast Highway. As previously noted, the planning for the Banning -Newport Ranch included provisions to permit access to Bluff Road for the project site. Access to/from realigned Superior Avenue has been analyzed and a preliminary indication is that two access locations may be provided. One access location would be at the northerly boundary of the project site and the second access (right in/right out) would be located about the middle of the project site northerly of Coast Highway. The northerly access has been reviewed from a safety concern and initial analysis indicates left turn exiting to go north on Superior Avenue may have to be restricted due to sight distance. Left turns into this access may be permitted. The access impacts on the adjacent street system will be a function of access being provided to/from Bluff Road. Further detailed analysis of access considerations will be required at the tentative tract man and/or other approval processes M BA! N \D\ BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. 4262 C+mpus Drive, Suitt 61 Newport Wch, 611ronMa 92660 (714) 549-»440 XXX PROJECT—RELATED UAILT I MArrly FIGURE 4 CALTRAN"S WEST PARCEL PROJECT -RELATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES r � r� rr 'r r� r � � r r. i r r r r�■� r� TABLE 2 COMPARISON OF EXISTING, FUTURE 'PRAPFIC VOLUMES AND ROADWAY CAPACITIES IN THE VICINITY OP THE CAI.TRANS WEST PARCEL 1995 Plus 1995 Plus Project- Project Project Existing Existing Existing 1995 1995 1995E Related Related V/CIS (1981) Roadway V/CE Traffic Roadway F V/C Traffic Traffic Roadway Segment Traffic Volume B Capacity Volume Capacity __•_ Volume Volume Coast Highway Ana River Bridge 38,00 A 4,000C 0.86 39,900 , 0.47 325 4,200 0.47 At Sana. Superior Ave. 44,00 455 ,000 0.98 95,700 59,000000 54 0.85 390 466,100 0.85 West of Blvd. 33,000 36,000 0.92 35,800 54,000 0.66 390 36,200 0.67 West of Newport East of Newport Blvd. 47:000 45,000 1.04 69,000 54,000 1.28 325 69,300 1.28 Newport Boulevard AD 60, 000C 0.83 64,500 70,000 0.92 65 64,600 0.92 North of Coast Hwy. 50,000 60,000C 1.03 54,500 60,000 0.91 NOM 54,500 0.91 South of Coast H�vy. 62:000A Superior Avenue North of Coast Hwy. 26, 000A 0.56 24,000 1.08 20,000 36,000 390 20,900 0.57 0.56 South of Coast Hwy. 25,000 36,000 0.69 20,000 36,000 0.56 0.47 65 515 20,000 17,300 0.48 North of Placentia Ave. 16,500 24,000 0.69 16,800 36,000 i Bluff Road F✓ ~ N/A N/A N/A 6,700 36,000 0.19 390 7,100 0.20 North of Coast Hwy. SOURCES: Traffic Volume Maps of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach Newport Beach/Costa Mesa Traffic Model A - 1980 Traffic Volume, 1981 Not Available B - Level of Service E, Orange County Standards C - Capacity Calculated From the Highway Capacity Manual D - BDI Estimates E - V/C Denotes Volume -To- Capacity Ratio F - Assume Roadway Configuration of the Circulation Element C] MITIGATION MEASURES The traffic volumes attributable•to the project are not expected to create any new circulation problems. Newport Boulevard north and south of Coast Highway, and Coast;,Highway east of Newport Boulevard will approach capacity and exceed their capacity respectively. These problem areas should be analyzed further when improvements to:. Coast Highway, Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard are finalized. Mitigation measures specific to the project site will be the analysis and finalization of a specific access plan for the project site. Before the final approval of the proposed project, the project must be analyzed with respect to the City'•s•Traffic Phasing,Ordinance (TPO). A brief description of the City's TPO program follows. Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) The City of Newport Beach has developed a traffic phasing ordinance (TPO) to monitor development within the City. The TPO applies to any office, industrial or commercial development of. 10,000 square feet or more and any residential development of 10 dwelling units or more. If a project exceeds either of the two criteria, a 1 percent analysis must be performed. The 1 percent analysis consists of calculating the 2'h hour PM peak period traffic volumes for critical intersections in the vicinity. If the project -related PM peak period traffic volume exceeds 1 percent of the existing condition, an Intersection Capacity Utilization (TCU) value must be calculated. Should the ICU value yield an unsatisfactory level of service (LOS = E), specific mitigation measures will be required of the particular project. I I I I I 4� A-12 ATTACHMENT B TRAFFIC STUDY for the 5TH AVENUE PARCELS Of GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT MAY 1982 81-2 BASMACIYAN-DARNELL,INC. ATTACHMENT B TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION . . . . EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . Roadway Characteristics Existing Traffic Volumes Existing Public Transportation THE GENERAL PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . Land Use Considerations FUTURE CONDITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . Roadway Characteristics Future Traffic Volumes PROJECT -RELATED TRAFFIC. . . . . . . . Trip Generation Trip Distribution and Assignment Page . . . . . . . . . . B-1 . . . . . . . . . . B-1 . . . . . . . . B-6 . . . B-7 . . . . . . . . B -S B-11 IMPACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MITIGATION MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-15 Traffic Phasing Ordinance ATTACHMENT B TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THE 5Th AVENUE PARCELS Of GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81-2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION The project site consists of several parcels located on the east and west sides of Marguerite Avenue near 5th Avenue and parcels located northerly of 5th Avenue. The site is bordered by residential development to the north and to the south across 5th Avenue, and by vacant land to the east and west. The site itself is presently vacant with the exception of a City -owned senior citizens center located on the northeast corner of 5th Avenue and Marguerite Avenue. The proposed General Plan Amendment consists of 168 medium -density dwelling units, including 68 townhouses/condos and 100 single-family detached houses. The current General Plan would allow 70 low-density dwelling units. Figure 1 depicts the location of the 5th Avenue parcels. EXISTING CONDITIONS The site proposed for development is primarily vacant with the exception of the senior citizen center. Current zoning for the parcels would allow low density housing to be constructed(approximately 70 single-family dwelling units)_. B-1 35.0 ,a .12.2 I FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAP BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. A N D 4262 Campus Drlve,Stilts B-1 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Newport Wch, CeilfomA 91660 (714) 56!•!!0 SOURCE: Newport Beach Traffic Engineering Department R-9 Joaquin 1 Hills Rd monsomona µ0.0 1 i o 1 1 v O O• San • s a o r Harbor View Dr > C 0. 0000 1 i Project Site • 1.0.0 24.0 •eggs• •e• i, 1 8.0>, 0ggg•eeeeeg•0, th Ave 11.0� 1 N ""3.0 X40.0 c a' 6.031.0LEGEND °O.ef0XX.X Ino, DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME �=wa(in thousands of vehicles per day) --- FUTURE ROADWAY 34.0 30. FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAP BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. A N D 4262 Campus Drlve,Stilts B-1 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Newport Wch, CeilfomA 91660 (714) 56!•!!0 SOURCE: Newport Beach Traffic Engineering Department R-9 li Roadway Characteristics The City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways classifies several roadways in vicinity of the project as secondary, primary or major roadways. The existing circulation system consists of Coast Highway, MacArthur Boulevard, Avocado Avenue, San Joaquin Hills Road, San Miguel Drive and Marguerite Avenue. Other roadways in the area that could provide circulation to ' or from the project consist of 5th Avenue, Jasmine Avenue, Orchid Avenue, Poppy Avenue, and Larkspur Avenue. Figure 1 r shows the existing circulation system in the vicinity. Coast Highway (State Route 1) parallels the coastline throughout the City of Newport Beach. Generally, Coast Highway , is constructed as a four -lane facility. Easterly of MacArthur Boulevard parking is allowed on both sides of the roadway throughout the community of Corona del Mar. Westerly of MacArthur Boulevard, Coast Highway varies in width from four to five lanes. Peak hour congestion presently occurs along various sections of Coast Highway. In an effort to relieve the congestions, Caltrans is currently studying the ' possibilities of widening the Coast Highway to six lanes within ' the City limits. Also being studied is the widening of the Santa Ana River Bridge. MacArthur Boulevard (SR -73) is generally constructed as a partially improved four lane divided roadway between University Drive and Coast Highway. At some sections, MacArthur Boulevard is widened to three lanes in one direction thus creating a five lane facility. The southern terminus at MacArthur B-3 Boulevard forms a "T" intersection with Coast Highway. The MacArthur Boulevard approach consists of two left turn lanes and an exclusive right turn lane controlled by a "Yield" sign. Between University Drive and the San Diego Freeway, MacArthur Boulevard consists of three travel lanes in,each direction separated by a raised median. Avocado Avenue is only partially constructed northerly of Coast Highway between San Miguel Drive and San Nicolas Drive. Southerly of Coast Highway the roadway has a raised median and one travel lane in each direction. ' San Joaquin Hills Road forms the northern boundary to Newport Center between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Presently, San Joaquin Hills Road is constructed as a six lane divided facility. Easterly of MacArthur Boulevard, this roadway ' provides access to several residential developments, schools, churches, and a neighborhood commercial center. San Miguel Drive when fully improved will provide an alternate ' to San Joaquin Hills Road for several residential developments in the Harbor View Homes Area travelling to and from Newport Center. With this extension, congestion should be lessened 1 along San Joaquin Hills Road and at the intersection with MacArthur Boulevard. San Miguel Road is constructed from Newport Center Drive east to Avocado Avenue and then from San Joaquin Hills Road to Ford Road. The connecting segment between Avocado Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road should be opened by the Summer of 1982. San Miguel Road will provide B-4 r three travel lanes in each direction with a median from Newport Center Drive east to MacArthur Boulevard. From MacArthur Boulevard to Ford Road, San Miguel Road consists of two travel lanes in each direction with a median. r Marguerite Avenue between 5th Avenue and Coast Highway is constructed as a two lane residential street. Parking is , permitted along both sides of the street. Between 5th Avenue r and San Joaquin Hills Road, Marguerite Avenue has four travel lanes with a painted median. At the intersection with Coast Highway, access to/from Marguerite Avenue is controlled by a traffic signal. , Marguerite Avenue does provide an alternate route to MacArthur Boulevard via San Joaquin Hills Road. Some residents in the Harbor View Area choose to travel along Marguerite Avenue to avoid the congestion of Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard. Fifth Avenue which borders the project site to the south, is a two lane partially improved residential street. In the vicinity of the ,project, 5th Avenue exists between Jasmine ' Avenue and Poppy Avenue. Access to/from the project is proposed along 5th Avenue. The intersection of 5th Avenue and Marguerite Avenue is controlled by four stop signs. r Other residential streets in the vicinity of this project are Poppy Avenue, Orchid Avenue, Larkspur Avenue and Jasmine , Avenue. These streets are all narrow two lane residential facilities. B_5 .1 Existing Traffic Volumes The existing (1981) average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for the streets in the vicinity of the project are presented in Figure 1. The source of these traffic volumes are the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineering Department, the City's Traffic Flow Map (19801 and recent machine counts obtained by the City. At some locations 1981 traffic volumes were not available. At these locations 1980 traffic volumes were substituted. The City of Newport Beach has data for summer weekday conditions. It should be noted that the major roadways experience a higher daily volume during the summer. Existing Public Transportation Three of Orange County Transit Districts bus routes are in the vicinity of the project. The. three routes are Route 1, Route 57 and Route 65. None of the routes provide direct access to the project site. A description of each.route and its location is contained in the main ,body of this studv. THE GENERAL PLAN Land Use Considerations For the most part, the parcels involved in the 5th Avenue Project are vacant.' The existing General Plan designation for the project site is low density residential. Therefore, i:� approximately 70 single family dwelling units cpuld be conte structed on the project site. GPA 81-2 would add 30 single family dwelling units and 68 multi=family dwelling units to this site. FUTURE CONDITIONS Roadway ,Characteristics The only major modification.to the existing circulation system is the immediate vicinity of the project would be the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard couplet. This improvement should be in place by 1995. This couplet would improve circulation in this area. Avocado Avenue will provide travel lanes in a southern direction, while MacArthur Boulevard would provide travel lanes in a northern direction. The couplet would begin just north of San Joaquin Hills Road and continue through Newport Center terminating at Coast Highway. Other modifications to the existing circulation system include the widening of Coast Highway to provide six lanes of travel westerly of MacArthur Boulevard and the widening of MacArthur Boulevard to six lanes northerly of San Joaquin Hills Road. in an effort to relieve of Newport Beach/Corona extension between Coast transportation corridor completion of the SJHTC Drive to the San Diego expected to relieve con congestion in the southeastern porton del Mar area, the Pelican Hill Road Highway and the San Joaquin Hills (SJHTC) would be constructed. The from its present terminus near Campus ?reeway in San Juan Capistrano is also 3estion along Coast Highway. RWA 11 I I 4 1 I� I LJ 1 d II II t Future' Traf£i'c Volumes Future traffic volume projections for the roadways in the vicinity were taken from the Newport Beach/Costa Mesa Traffic Model. Figure 2 presents the 1995 traffic volume projections used in this analysis. The traffic volume projections are based on Newport Beach/Costa Mesa traffic model 1995 development forecasts in accordance with General Plan 79-1. PROJECT -RELATED TRAFFIC Two levels of development will be presented in our analysis. The first level presented will be the estimated traffic volumes associated with the current General Plan (70 single family dwelling unitsl and second level presented will be the estimated traffic volumes resulting from the General Plan Amendment (.an additional 30 single family dwelling units and 68 condominiums/townhomes). Trip Generation Trip generation rates are used to estimate the amount of traffic generated by a particular land use. The trip gener- ation rates used for this project are based on previous studies similar in nature. These rates were then discussed with.the City's Traffic Engineer and were adjusted to reflect character- istics consistent with Newport Beach. Table 1 summarizes the trip generation rates used for this project. iM-3 3.3/33.6 18.5/18.6 assnoft h Joaquin n +� N H a � o 110.5/10.6 View .Dr < c7 i m � 113.8/13.7 ,48.4/47.00 34.7/36.3 O i 7 LEGEND �eeeN O a XX.X/YY.Y 1995 TRAFFIC VOLUME WITHOUT/WITH PROJECT (In thousands of vehicles per day) D\ BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. 4262 Gmput Drim, Suite Mt Newport Such, California 92640 .(714)$4!-" 0 0.8/20.7 SUN Hills W o. N Y r W J .8/41. a 11.7/11.9 A8-819-1 • Project Site • r ••• �• • • ••••••••••••• e r H , n n o \ a r L C Hig Mesa! y a r r FIGURE 2 1995 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH AND WITHOUT THE 5th AVENUE PARCELS SOURCE: Newport 'Beach/Costa Mese Traffic Model B-9 1� I 116 TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Land Use Residential Single Family Multi Family Level of Development Existing General Plan Single Family Residence (70 D.U.) General Plan Amendment 81-2 Single Family Residence (100 D.U.) Multi Family Residence (68 D.U.) Increase Due to GPA 81-2 Trip Generation Rate Daily PM Peak In PM Peak Out 13.0 T.E./D.U. 0.7 T.E./D.U. 0.4 T.E./D.U. 8.5 T.E./D.U. 0.5 T.E./D.U. 0.3 T.E./D.U. Trip Generation Daily PM Peak In PM Peak Out 910 T.E. 49 T.E. 28 T.E. 1300 T.E. 70 T.E. 40 T.E. 578 T.E. 34 T.E. 20 T.E. DailV PM Peak In PM Peak Out 968 T.E. 55 T.E. 32 T.E. Notes: T.E. Denotes Trip Ends D.U. Denotes Dwelling Unit T.E./D.U. Denotes Trip Ends per Dwelling Unit F EM When the trip generation rates found in Table 1 are applied to the proposed level of development an estimate of the amount of traffic that can be expected at the site is obtained. on a daily basis 1878 trip ends (T.E.) can be expected to be generated at the site. During the PM peak hour, 1Q4 T.E. should be attracted to the site, while 60 T.E. can be expected to leave the site. A trip end is considered a one-way movement either toward or away from the project site. Trip Distribution 'and Assignment A trip distribution pattern was developed to reflect possible travel characteristics of the condominium project. The spatial orientation of possible origins and destinations and other similar projects travel patterns were considered in the evolution of the trip distribution pattern. The resulting trip distribution pattern is depicted on Figure 3. The project -related traffic that will be generated by the General Plan Amendment was then assigned to the surrounding street system in accordance with the, distribution pattern of Figure -3. The resulting project,, -related traffic volumes are presented on Figure 4. IMPACTS To estimate, the impacts of the proposed project, the additional traffic generated by the project was superimposed on the 1995 traffic volume projections. Figure 2 presents the future traffic volumes that could be expected with the GPA. Table 2 presents A comparison of existing and 1995 traffic volumes with and without the.nroposed project. B-11 aR LO C0 O O� 7% ,60� San 15% ? Joaquin Hills R•�se�sa O r O C` T O ' N • 9 31 as ,O • 50/0 San • 31< O 9 O C T O Harbor View Dr • CM • Project Site M 11.0 th Ave ••••••••••f•• ' m• 4% • IRE • 3E q 9 co 63� i M r n LEGEND Co•ar J C XX% TRIP DISTRIBUTION Highway PERCENTAGE 59% 32% 1.0% D\FIGURE 3 TRIP DISTRIBUTION IIASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. BY PERCENTAGE 4262 Campus Drive, Suite Mi Newport Beach, California 92"0 (714) 549-9W rMwi EE 70 145 Ban doa9utn 5 .95 • 1 / 1A195 25 50 6 o a , t ' Harbor View Dr 260 / < x'70 .../�•••������•!: • Project site ,,120 X50 ••.•.• ••* i 5th Ave 40� ••••••••••••• > *6'60 605 < 9a-420 m < X20 n < 31 Q� 435 555 *360 Qoaar 9 a J a i oIL LEGEND C a XXX DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 570 Highway *310 \BD\ BASMACIYAN-DARNELL,INC. 4262 Campus Drive, Suite W1 Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 549.9940 FIGURE 4 , PROJECT—RELATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES (5th AVENUE PARCELS) B-13 ' 501C =_==M_ M TABLE 2 COMPARISON OF EXISTING, FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND ROADWAY CAPACITIES IN TUE VICINITY OF THE STH AVENUC PARCEL SOURCES: - Traffic Volume Map of Newport Beach - Newport Beach/Costa Mesa Traffic Model A 1980 Traffic Volume, 1981 Not Available B Level of Service E, Orange County Standards C Capacity Calculated From the Highway Capacity Manual D V/C denotes Volume -to -Capacity Ratio E Assumes Roadway Configuration of the Circulation Element M 1995 Plus Project Project Existing Existing 1995 1995 Related Related 1995 Plus (1981) Roadway Exist'ng a Traffic Roadway 1995 Traffic Traffic Proj ct Roadway Segment Traffic Volume C�acityB V/C Volume CapacityE V/CE Volume Volume V/C Coast Highway West of Avocado Ave. • 31,000 36,000 0.86 40,100 54,000 0.74 440 40,540 0.75 East of Avocado Ave. 31,000 36,000 0.86 34,700 54,000 0.64 560 610 35,260 47,010 0.65 1.31 East of MacArthur Blvd. 40,000 36,000 1.11 1.11 46,400 40,600 36,000 36,000 1.29 1.13 570 41,170 1.14 West of Marguerite Ave. Ave. 40,000 30,000 36,000 36,000 0.83 47,400 36,000 1.32 100 47,500 1.32 East of Poppy Marguerite Avenue South of San Joaquin 8,000 AA 24,000 0.33 11,700 24,000 0.49 200 11,900 0.50 Hills Road South of Harbor View Dr. 8,000A 24,000 0.33 8,800 24,000 0.37 340 9,140 0.38 South of 5th Avenue 6,000 12,000 0.50 8,400 12,000 0.70 960 3,360 0.74 Avocado Avenue North of San Miguel Dr. N.A. N.A. N.A. 9,200 36,000 0.26 100 9,300 0.26 (b 1 South of San Miguel Dr. N.A. N.A. N.A. 13,600 361OOOC 0.38 120 13,720 0.38 r 'P MacArthur Boulevard North of Avocado Ave. 35 , 000 36,000 0.97 33,300 54,0000 0.62 340 33,640 0.62 0.29 North of San Miguel Dr. 26,000 36,000 0.72 10,500 36,0000 0.92 100 10,600 13,650 0.38 North of Coast Highway 24,000 36,000 0.67 13,600 36,000 0.38 50 San Joaquin Hills Road West of Avocado Ave. 20,OOOA 54,000 0.37 17,500 54,000 0.32 NOM 17,500 0.32 West of MacArthur Blvd. 20,000A 54,000 0.37 20,400 18,500 54,000 59,000 0.38 0.39 70 150 20,470 18,650 0.30 0.35 West of San Miguel Dr. 16,000 54,000 54,000 0.30 0.23 20,600 54,000 0.38 150 20,750 0.38 West of Marguerite Ave. East of Marguerite Ave. 12,200 N:A. 36,000 N.A. 19,800 54,000 0.37 NOM 19,800 0.37 SOURCES: - Traffic Volume Map of Newport Beach - Newport Beach/Costa Mesa Traffic Model A 1980 Traffic Volume, 1981 Not Available B Level of Service E, Orange County Standards C Capacity Calculated From the Highway Capacity Manual D V/C denotes Volume -to -Capacity Ratio E Assumes Roadway Configuration of the Circulation Element M I The 1995 circulation system used in Table 21 assumes that 5 the circulation system commensurate with the Newport Beach Circulation Element is completed. Most of the roadways presented in Table 2 would operate satisfactorily on a daily basis,. The , only segment where the projected traffic volumes exceed - carrying capacity is Coast Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and the East City Limits. This situation would occur with , or without the General Plan Amendment. The four lane facility built to master plan configuration, presently carries a higher ' traffic volume than its capacity between MacArthur Boulevard , and Marguerite Avenue. The higher future traffic volumes only exacerbate the capacity deficiency. ' The'residential streets in the immediate area would have an increase in traffic due to the proposed project. Jasmine Avenue and Larkspur Avenue can expect an increase of approximately 50 vehicles per day. Poppy Avenue can expect ' an increase of approximately 300 vehicles per day. This estimate for Poppy Avenue is probably high, since some of , the traffic'that was estimated to travel on Poppy Avenue will choose orchid Avenue as an alternative path. MITIGATION MEASURES ' The project,related traffic is not expected to adversely affect the street system in the vicinity of the project, although ' fewer vehicle trips would reduce the impacts on the adjacent B-15 I I I a I street system. Methods that can reduce the amount of traffic to or from a project include carpooling, increased awareness of available transit services and alternatives to the vehicle in modes of travel, i.e., bicycles, moped and walking. When individual projects within the 5th Avenue parcels are actually developed, the project would be subject to the City"s Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). The following is.a brief description of the City's TPO. Traffic Phasing Operating (.TPO). The City of Newport Beach has developed a Traffic Phasinq Ordinance (TPO) to monitor development within the city. The TPO applies to any office, industrial or commercial development of 10,000 square feet or more and any residential development of 10 dwelling units or more. If a project exceeds either of the two criteria, a 1 percent analysis has to be performed. The 1 percent analysis consists of calculating the 2'h hour pm peak period traffic volumes for critical intersections in the vicinity and if the project -related pm peak period traffic volumes exceeds 1 percent of the existing condition, an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) value must be calculated. Sh6uld the ICU value yield an unsatisfactory level of service (LOS E), specific mitigation measures will be required of the particular project. B-16 L ATTACHMENT C TRAFFIC STUDY for BIG CANYON AREA as a part of GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81-2 MAY 1982 BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. ATTACHMENT C TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1 EXISTINGCONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1 Existing Traffic Volumes Existing Public Transportation Roadway Characteristics THE GENERAL PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-5 Land Use Considerations FUTURECONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-6 Roadway Characteristics Future Traffic Volumes PROJECT -RELATED TRAFFIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-7 Trip Generation Trip Distribution and Assignment IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-10 MITIGATION MEASURES e r e r, t + 5 t q x . t • t • • • . • • C-14 Traffic Phasing Ordinance ATTACH14ENT C TRAFFIC STUDY FOR BIG CANYON AREA 16 AS A PART OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81-2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION The project is located on 17.6 acres at the southwest corner of the MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road intersection. The site is generally bounded by a golf course on the west and south. The area to the east (across MacArthur Boulevard) is residential.. To the north across Ford Road is the Ford Aeronutronic site. The proposed project consists of 87 medium density townhomes/ condominiums. Access to the surrounding street system is proposed on Ford Road only. Figure 1 is a map depicting the location of the project. EXISTING CONDITIONS The site proposed for development is primarily vacant. The current general plan designates the project site as open space. University Drive easterly of MacArthur Boulevard consists of two travel lanes in each direction with a painted median. Once in the City of Irvine, University Drive widens to six travel lanes with painted median. Ultimately, University Drive will provide six travel lanes with median throughout its reach. According to the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways, University Drive will be extended westerly from Jamboree Road to Irvine Avenue. C-1 II I I It II 1 II Existing Traffic Volumes The existing (1981) daily traffic volumes for the streets in the vicinity of the project are presented in Figure 1. The source of these traffic volumes is the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineering Department and the City's Traffic Flow Map (1980). At some locations 1981 traffic volumes were not available and 1980 traffic volumes were substituted. The City of Newport Beach has data for summer weekday conditions which indicate that the major roadways experience a higher daily volume during the summer. Existing Public Transportation Several Orange County Transit District (OCTD) bus routes are in the vicinity of the project, though only Route 65 would provide direct access to the project. The other bus routes which lie in the vicinity are route 61, 71 and express bus routes 100,204 and 206. A description of each route and its location is contained in the main body of this traffic study. Roadway Characteristics The street system in the vicinity of Big Canyon Area 16 presently consists of Bison Avenue, Coast Highway (SR -1), Eastbluff Drive, Ford Road, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard (SR -73), San Joaquin Hills Road and University Drive. Figure 1 depicts the surrounding circulation system. Bison Avenue easterly of Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard has been recently constructed as a four lane divided highway. This connection should improve local circulation. Westerly of Jamboree Road, Bison Avenue is a two lane residential street. C-3 11 :1 I I I 11 I C-1 I I I I Coast Highway (State Route 1) parallels the coastline throughout the City of Newport Beach. Generally, Coast Highway is constructed as a four -lane facility. Easterly of MacArthur Boulevard parking is allowed on both sides of the roadway throughout the community of Corona del Mar. Westerly of MacArthur Boulevard, Coast Highway varies in width from four to five lanes. Peak hour congestion presently occurs along various sections of Coast Highway. in an effort to relieve the congestion, Caltrans is currently studying the possibilities of widening the Coast Highway to six lanes within the City limits. Also being studies is the widening of the Santa Ana River Bridge. ' Eastbluff Drive is a residential collector street serving the residential and commercial developments between Jamboree Road and the Upper Newport Bay. Eastbluff Drive is presently constructed to its master planned configuration. Eastbluff Drive is a four lane undivided roadway with special treatments such as medians and turn lanes at ' intersections. Ford Road with its present configuration, conforms to the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. Between Jamboree Road and San Miguel Drive, Ford Road consists of two travel lanes in each direction separated by a raised median. At the intersection with Jamboree Road, Ford Road and Eastbluff Drive South form the westbound and eastbound approaches, respectively. One of the three major north/south links between Coast Highway and the San Diego Freeway, Jamboree Road provides regional access to/from C-4 the City of Newport Beach. (The other two thoroughfares are - Newport Boulevard and MacArthur Boulevard.) Jamboree Road northerly of Coast Highway varies from a four lane divided road to a six lane divided road at various locations within the City. Southerly of Coast Highway the roadway is improved to provide two travel lanes in each direction plus a painted median for left turning vehicles. MacArthur Boulevard (SR -73) as presently constructed is a partially improved four lane divided roadway between Bristol Street and Coast Highway. The southern terminus of MacArthur Boulevard forms a "T" intersection with Coast Highway. The MacArthur Boulevard approach consists- of dual left turn lanes and a free flowing right turn lane. San Joaquin Hills Road forms the northern boundary to Newport Center between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Presently, San Joaquin Hills Road is constructed as a six lane divided facility. _ Easterly of MacArthur Boulevard this roadway provides access to the t Harbor View Homes Area. THE GENERAL PLAN Land Use Considerations For the most part, Big Canyon Area 16 is vacant. The existing General Plan designation for the project site is open space. GPA 81-2 would allow 87 townhouse/condominium type dwelling units be constructed on the site. C-5 I FUTURE CONDITIONS Roadway Characteristics Most of the roadways in the vicinity are constructed to master plan configuration. One exception is MacArthur Boulevard. The existing four lane section of MacArthur Boulevard between Bristol Street and San Joaquin Hills Road will be widened to a major roadway three travel lanes separated by a raised median. Several existing roadways will be extended in accordance with the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. Ford Road will be extended from its present terminus near San Miguel Drive, eastward to Bonita Canyon Drive, Bison Avenue will be extended from MacArthur Boulevard to Bonita Canyon Drive, and San Miguel Drive will be extended northerly of Ford Road to Bison Avenue near the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. University Drive is also proposed to be constructed between Irvine Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard. in an effort to relieve congestion in the southeastern portion of Newport Beach/Corona del Mar area, the Pelican Hill Road extension between Coast Highway and the San Joaquin Hills transportation corridor (SJHTC) would be constructed. The completion of the SJHTC from its present terminus near Campus Drive to the San Diego Freeway in San Juan Capistrano is also expected to relieve congestion along Coast Highway and the San Diego Freeway. Future Traffic Volumes Future traffic volume projections for the roadways in the vicinity were obtained from the Newport Beach/Costa Mesa Traffic Model. I? Ik RE Figure 2 presents the 1995 traffic volume projections used in this analysis. The traffic volume projections are based on the Newport Beach/Costa Mesa traffic model 1995 development forecasts in accordance with General Plan 79-1. PROJECT -RELATED TRAFFIC To estimate what effect the traffic volumes generated by Big Canyon Area 16 will have on the surrounding circulation system, a three-step process was initiated. First, the traffic which will be generated by the project was determined. Secondly, the generated trips were geographically distributed to major trip attractors in the area surrounding the project. The trip attractors include employment centers, commercial centers, residential areas, etc. Lastly, the project -related traffic was assigned to specific roadways and future traffic volumes were determined. Trip Generation The trip generation rates used in this analysis are based on similar projects that have been prepared in the past. The generation rates were discussed with the City Traffic Engineer and adjusted slightly to reflect local variations in the trip making characteristics. Table 1 presents the trip generation rates used in this analysis. The trip generation rates are then applied to the proposed level of development and an estimate of the amount of traffic that will be generated by the project is obtained. In summary, the proposed project will be expected to add approximately 740 trip ends per day to C-7 �I 0 I I 11 I �I I XX.X/YY.Y 1995 TRAFFIC VOLUME WITHOUT/WITH GPA 81-2i (in thousands of vehicles per day) \B]JI FIGURE 2 1995 TRAFFIC VOLUME PROJECTIONS BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. WITH AND WITHOUT GPA ' 81- 2.# 4262 Campus Ddve,Suite 1.1 #(Big Canyon Area 16 only) Newport troch, California 92660 (714) 519-940 Source Newport Beach/Coate Mesa Traffic Model a Land Use Multiple Family Residential (Condominium/ Townhouse) Land Use Multiple Family Residential 87 Condominium Dwelling Units TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Trip Generation Rates Daily PM Peak Hour In PM Peak Hour'Out 8.5 T.E/D.U. 0'.5 T.E./D.U. 0.3 T.E./D.U. Trip Generation Daily PM Peak Hour In PM Peak Hour Out 740 T.E. 44 T.E. NOTE: T.E. denotes Trip Ends D.U. Denotes Dwelling Units T.E./D.U. denotes Trip Ends per Dwelling Unit C-9 26 T,E. A II II El 11 r 11 I the adjacent street system. A trip end is considered a_one.-way movement either toward or away from the project site. During the PM peak hour approximately 44 trips should be attracted to the site, while 26 trips should leave the site. Trip Distribution and Assignment A trip distribution pattern was developed to reflect possible travel characteristics of the condominium project. The spatial orientation of possible trip origins and destinations, and the trip distribution patterns of other similar projects were considered in the development of the proposed project's trip distribution pattern. The resulting pattern is depicted on Figure 3. The project -related traffic that is expected to be generated by Big Canyon Area 16 is then assigned to the surrounding street system in accordance with the distribution pattern of Figure 3. The amount of traffic that will be added to the surrounding street system by the project is depicted on Figure 4. IMPACTS To evaluate the traffic related impacts of the proposed project, the additional traffic generated by the project was superimposed on the 1995 traffic volume projections. Figure 2 presents the future traffic volumes that could be expected with the approval of this project. Table 2 presents a comparison of existing and 19'95 traffic volumes with and without the proposed project. C-10 \BD\ BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. 1962 Campus Drive, State 11.1 tlsw►ort Nish, CGII(ormla 99660 1711) 5199910 XX% TRIP DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGE FIGURE 3 TRIP DISTRIBUTION BY PERCENTAGE I I It I I IF] is I it I It Il I NW OASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. 4262 Campus Drfw, Sake 11.1 Newport Such, CWNorda 92"0 (714) 5494W XXX PROJECT RELATED DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME FIGURE 4 BIG CANYON AREA 16 PROJECT -RELATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES TABLE 2 COMPARISON OF TU VOLUMESAND ROADWAY CAPACITIES EXISTING, FUTURE 1995 Plus 1995 Plus I BIG N PARCEL Project-- Project Project Existing Existing Existing 1995 1995 1995D Related - Related v/C? (1981) Roadway V/CC Traffic RoadwayD V/C Traffic Traffic Roadway Segment Traffic Volume B Capacity Volume.' Capacity _ Volume Volume Jamboree Road North of Ford Rd. 37,006 54,000 0.69 48,000 54,000 0.89 70 48,070 0.89 1.02 South of Ford Rd. 46,000 54,000 0.85 55,000 54,000 1.02 190 55,190 MacArthur Blvd. Ford Rd. 44,000A 36,000 1.22 37,400 54,000 0.69 300 37,700 0.70 North of South of Ford Rd. 35,000 36,000 0.97 - 33,300 54,000 0.62 110 33,410 0.62 Bison Avenue Jamboree Rd. N/A 36,000 N/A 13,000 36,000 0.36 NOM 13,000 0.36 East of Ford Road West of Jamboree Rd. N/A 36,000 N/A 15,000 36,000 0.42 40 306 15,040 14,300 0.42 0.40 East of Jamboree Rd. 6, OOOA 36,000 0.17 0:17 14,000 15,000 36,000 36,000 0.39 0.42 450 15,450 0.43 West of MacArthur Blvd I1 6,000A 36-,000 36,000 N/A 13,400 36,000 0.37 40 13,440 0.37 East of MacArthur Blvd.. N/A r W San Joaquin Hills Road 54,000 0.37 27,500 54,000 0.51 NOM 27,500 0.51 East of Jamboree Rd. Avocado Ave. 20,000 20,000 54,000 0.37 17,500 54,000 0.32 NOM 17,500 0.32 West of SOURCES: Traffic Volume Map of Newport Beach Newport Beach/Costa Mesa Traffic Model A - 1980 Traffic Volume, 1981 Not AvailaLle B - Level of Service E, Orange County Standards C - WC Denotes Volume to Capacity Ratio - D - Assumes Roadway Configuration Of The Circulation Element II II l 91 II I The 1995 conditions presented -in Table 2 assume that the circulation system represented in the Newport Beach Circulation Element is completed. Most of the roadways presented in Table 2 would be expected to operate satisfactorily on a daily basis. The only segment where the projected traffic volumes exceed roadway carrying capacity is Jamboree Road in the vicinity of Ford Road. The capacity deficiency at this location would be expected to occur with or without the General Plan Amendment. MITIGATION MEASURES The additional daily traffic related to the project would not adversely affect the street system in the vicinity. The capacity deficiency anticipated to occur along Jamboree Road near Ford Road would result with or without the inclusion of the proposed project. However, this roadway segment should be monitored in -the future and an appropriate solution for capacity deficiencies should be found as they occur. When actual development of Area 16 occurs, the project would be subject to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). The following is a brief description of the City's TPO. Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) The City of Newport Beach has developed a traffic phasing ordinance (TPO) to monitor development within the City. The TPO applies to any office, industrial or commercial development of 10,000 square feet or more, and any residential development of 10 dwelling units or more. If a project exceeds either of the two criteria, a 1% analysis has to be performed. The 1% analysis consists of calculating the 2' hour PM C-14 1� peak period traffic volumes for critical intersections in the vicinity of the proposed project. If the project -related PM peak period traffic volume exceeds 1% of the existing condition an Intersection Capacity i Utilization (ICU) value must be calculated. Should the ICU value yield an unsatisfactory level of service (LOS=E), specific mitigation measures will be required of the particular project. 1� C-15 diI MI 11 11 ii II I ATTACHMENT D TRAFFIC STUDY for the BLOCK 400 OF NEWPORT CENTER as part of GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81-2 MAY 1982 BASMACIYAN-DARNELL,INC. ATTACHMENT D TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . EXISTING CONDITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . Roadway Characteristics Existing Traffic Volumes Existing Public Transportation FUTURE CONDITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . Roadway Characteristics Future Traffic Volumes THE GENERAL PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . Land Use Considerations Page . . . . . . . . .D-1 . . . . . . . . .D-1 . . . . . . . . .D-7 . . . . . . .D-9 PROJECT -RELATED TRAFFIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trip Generation Trip Distribution and Assignment IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-9 . . . . . . . . .D-14 n -1F MITIGATION MEASURES. . . . . . . . . . . . Traffic Phasing Ordinance ATTACHMENT D TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THE BLOCK 400 OF NEWPORT CENTER AS PART OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81-2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION An 80,000 square foot medical office building is proposed on j Block 400 in Newport Center as part of GPA 81-2. This additional medical office space would be located on the southerly side of Block 400 adjacent to San Miguel Drive between Newport Center Drive East and Avocado Avenue. Figure 1 is a site map depicting the location of the Block 400 project. EXISTING CONDITIONS The site proposed for development is currently used for parking for the existing office and medical office development within Block 400. Under the current General Plan, additional develop- ment within Block 400 would not be permitted. Roadway Characteristics The existing circulation system surrounding Block 400 in Newport Center consists of Avocado Avenue, Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Center Drive, San Joaquin Hills Road, San Miguel Drive and San Nicolas Drive. Avocado Avenue is partially constructed northerly of Coast , Highway between San Miguel Drive and San Joaquin Hills Road. Southerly of Coast Highway the roadway has a raised median and two travel lanes in each direction. D-1 I rl [A 6'.0 20. 29. 49.0; BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. 4464 Can" Drive, Suite 11.1 Piewpart Duch, California 92"0 (714) 541-"40 M 7 V 35. 20.Q&, 1 Hills Rd • 1 • O e i • 1 yD o„ 0.0,1 .• Project 1 site. ti an i 0 3•y or c 0 s 1 34.0 4 Coast Highway ' LEGEND XX.X DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME (in thousands of vehicles per day) --- FUTURE ROADWAY 1P Indicates 1980 Volume 0 i 0 • i 4.Q 4.0 1.0 40. FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAP AND EXISTING (1981) DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES SOURCE: Newport Beach Traffic Engineering Department U—L Banta Barbara 9 t 3 x,32.0 i 0 • 0 a E 2 29. 49.0; BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. 4464 Can" Drive, Suite 11.1 Piewpart Duch, California 92"0 (714) 541-"40 M 7 V 35. 20.Q&, 1 Hills Rd • 1 • O e i • 1 yD o„ 0.0,1 .• Project 1 site. ti an i 0 3•y or c 0 s 1 34.0 4 Coast Highway ' LEGEND XX.X DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME (in thousands of vehicles per day) --- FUTURE ROADWAY 1P Indicates 1980 Volume 0 i 0 • i 4.Q 4.0 1.0 40. FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAP AND EXISTING (1981) DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES SOURCE: Newport Beach Traffic Engineering Department U—L Coast Highway (State Route 1) parallels the coastline through- out the City of Newport Beach. Generally, Coast Highway is constructed as a four -lane facility. Easterly of MacArthur Boulevard parking is allowed on both sides of the roadway throughout the community of Corona del Mar. Westerly of MacArthur Boulevard, Coast Highway varies in width from four, to five lanes. Peak hour congestion presently occurs along various sections of Coast Highway. In an effort to relieve the congestion, the.City of Newport Beach and Caltrans are currently studying the possibilities of widening the Coast Highway to six lanes within the City limits. Included in these analyses is the widening of the Coast Highway Bridge at the Santa Ana River. As one of the three major north/south links between Coast Highway and the San Diego Freeways, Jamboree Road provides regional access to/from the City of Newport Beach. (The other two thoroughfares are Newport Boulevard and MacArthur Boulevard.) Jamboree Road northerly of Coast Highway varies from a four lane divided road to a six lane divided road at various locations within the City. Southerly of Coast Highway the roadway is improved to provide two travel lanes in each direction plus a painted median for left turning vehicles. D-3 McArthur Boulevard' (SR-73) as presently constructed is improved to provide a four lane divided roadway between Bristol Street and Coast Highway. The southern terminus of MacArthur Boulevard forms a "T" intersection with Coast Highway. The southbound MacArthur Boulevard approach consists of dual left turn lanes and a free flowing right turn lane. Newport Center Drive (east and west) serves as a loop road that provides access to the majority of the office and commercial buildings in Newport Center. Fashion Island, the retail-commer- cial center, is encompassed by Newport Center Drive (east and west). Newport Center Drive (east and west) is connected with the surrounding street system via six access roadways (Santa Barbara Drive, Santa Cruz Drive, Santa Rosa Drive, San Nicholas Drive, San Miguel Drive and Newport Center Drive). Jamboree Road is connected with Newport Center Drive West via Santa Barbara Drive. San Joaquin Hills Road connects with Newport Center Drive west via Santa Cruz Drive and with Newport Center Drive east via Santa Rosa Drive. San Miguel Drive connects Newport Center Drive east with MacArthur Boulevard. At Coast Highway, access to Newport Center ' is gained via Newport Center Drive. D-4 San Joaquin Hills Road forms the northern boundary to Newport Center between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Presently, San Joaquin Hills Road is constructed as a six lane divided facility. Easterly of MacArthur Boulevard this roadway provides access to the Harbor View Homes Area. San Miguel Drive when fully improved will provide an alternate to San Joaquin Hills Road for residents in the Harbor View Homes Area travelling to and from Newport Center. With this extension congestion should be lessened along San Joaquin Hills Road and at the intersection with MacArthur Boulevard. Presently, San Miguel Road is constructed from Newport Center Drive east to Avocado Avenue and then from San Joaquin Hills Road to Ford Road. The connecting segment between Avocado Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road should be opened by the summer of 1982. San Miguel Road will provide three travel lanes in each direction with a median from Newport Center Drive east to MacArthur Boulevard. From MacArthur Boulevard to Ford Road, San Miguel Road Will provide two travel lanes in each direction and a raised median, San Nicolas Drive is presently constructed as a four lane undivided roadway between Newport Center Drive East and Avocado Avenue. Existing Traffic Volumes The existing (1981) average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for the streets in the vicinity of the project are presented in Figure 1. The source of these traffic volumes are the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineering Department and the City's D-5 Ii �I 11 11 11 01 ri 1.1 II �I U Traffic Flow Map (1980) and represent average winter weekday volumes. At some locations 1981 traffic volumes were not available, at these locations 1980 traffic volumes were substituted. The City of Newport Beach has data for summer weekday condtions. It should be noted that the major roadways experience a higher daily volume during the summer. Existing Public Transporation Several Orange County Transit District (OCTD) transit route travel to Newport Center. Routes 1, 45 and 57 enter and leave Newport Center from the south, Routes 61, 71, 100, 204 and 206 enter Newport Center from the north, and Route 65 travels through Newport Center. All of these transit routes would provide access to the project. A brief description and location of each route is contained in .the main body of this traffic study. FUTURE CONDITIONS Roadway Characteristics Major changes to the existing circulation system in the immediate vicinity of the project would primarily consist of implementation of the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard couplet and widening existing roadways to their master plan classifications. All these improvements would be completed by 1995. The Avocado/ MacArthur couplet is expected to improve circulation in the area. Avocado Avenue will provide travel lanes in a southerly direction, Fal while MacArthur Boulevard would provide travel lanes in a northerly direction. The couplet would begin just north of San Joaquin Hills Road and continue through Newport Center terminating at Coast Highway. Other modifications to the existing circulation system include the widening of Coast Highway to provide six lanes of travel westerly of MacArthur Boulevard, the widening of MacArthur Boulevard to six lanes northerly of San Joaquin Hills Road and the widening of Jamboree Road to its master plan six lanes. In an effort to relieve congestion in the southeastern portion of Newport Beach/Corona del Mar area, the Pelican Hills Road extension between Coast Highway and the San Joaquin Hills transportation corridor (SJHTC) would be constructed. The completion of the SJHTC from its present terminus near Campus Drive to the San Diego Freeway in San Juan Capistrano is also expected to relieve congestion along Coast Highway. Future Traffic Volumes Future traffic volume projections for the roadways in the vicinity were taken from the Newport Beach/Costa Mesa Traffic Model. Figure 2 presents the 1995 traffic volume projections used in this analysis. The traffic volume projections are based on the Newport Beach/Costa Mesa traffic model and 1995 development forecasts contained in General Plan Amendment 79-1. RWA 1I 4I 11 t A 11 II I to 11 �I 33.3/34.41' 55.0/55.4 �O o�\• �g h 0 27.5/28.2• o��` CO .T y SOO 0`✓019/0 17.511 7.5, 4 Hills Rd 35.8/35.8 ° ¢ O to p �� 5, m y dJO Santa Barbara °4 1O 9.2/9.7 40 �r oe proiact 9 O� 3 sit° ' C San r nl G ' ° u r a E > 6� o •� Alb * 13.6/14.1, 52.8/53.7 *.40.1/40.6 Back � Coast Highway 4 ext 1✓ LEGEND 32.6/32.8 34.7/35.2 A XX.X/YY.Y 1995 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME WITHOUT/WITH 46.4/46.8 51.3/52.2 GPA 81-2* (In thousands of X59.3/60.2 vehicles per day) \1\ FIGURE 2 1995 TRAFFIC VOLUME PROJECTIONS BASMACIYAN-DARNELL,IWi WITH AND WITHOUT GPA 81-2# 4262Campus Ortve,Suits 0-1 *(Block 400 Traffic Only) Newport }leach, California 92660 (714)549-940 SOURCE: Newport Beach/Costa Mesa Traffic Model DII:1 li THE GENERAL PLAN Land Use Considerations The floor space of the existing structures on Block 400 constitute the maximum allowable under the current General Plan. The proposed project of 80,000 square feet would be additional medical office space in the area. PROJECT RELATED TRAFFIC To estimate what effect the traffic volumes generated by the Block 400 medical offce will have on the surrounding circulation system, a three-step process was initiated. First, the traffic which will be generated by the project was determined. Secondly, the generated trips were geographically distributed to major attractors in the area surrounding the project. The trip attractors include employ- ment centers, commercial centers, residential area's, etc. Lastly, the trips were then assigned to specific roadways and future traffic volumes were determined. Trip Generation The trip generation rates used in this analysis are based on similar projects that have been prepared in the past. The generation rates were discussed with the City Traffic Engineer and adjusted slightly to reflect local variations in tripmaking characteristics. Table 1 presents the trip generation rates used in this analysis. D-9 Trip Generation Land Use Medical Office TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Daily 45.0 T.E./ksf Vehicular Trip Generation Land Use Daily Medical Office 3600 T.E. (80,000 Square Feet) PM Peak Hour In 2.1 T.E./ksf PM Peak Sour In 168 T.E. PM Peak Hour Out 3.2 T.E./ksf PM Peak Hour Out 256 T.E. NOTE: T.E. Denotes: Trip End(s) KSF Denotes: Thousand Square Feet T.E./KSF Denotes: Trip Ends per Thousand Square Feet D-10 To estimate the amount of traffic that would be generated by the project, the level of development proposed is applied to the trip generation rate. on a daily basis, the proposed project is expected to generate 3,600 trip ends, During the PM peak hour 168 trip ends would attracted to the site, while 256 trip ends would leave the site. A trip end is considered as a oneway movement either toward or away from the project site. Trip Distribution and Assignment A trip distribution pattern was developed to reflect potential travel characteristics of the medical office building. The spatial orientation of possible origins and destinations and other similar projects" patterns were considered in the evolution of the trip distribution patter. In general, the medical office traffic was oriented to residential area's in the vicinity. The resulting trip distribution pattern is depicted on Figure 3. The project -related traffic that will be generated by the Block 400 medical office was then assigned to the surrounding street system in accordance with the distribution pattern of Figure 3. The resulting project -related traffic volumes are presented on Figure 4. D-11 130% 10% c�c O' 15 % 15 % Hills Rd as 2 0 %� 1 N4 ,y of m Santa Barbara �y 40 0 � o o� Prolact 3 Sita � 4 O San � in rG , V o t Grp „ Soy a � a E > � 12.5'% rho 12.5% Back A yCIO coast Highway 16% Ezttr2 �o LEGEND XX% TRIP DISTRIBUTION PERCENT 25�b FIGURE 3 TRIP DISTRIBUTION BASMACIYAN•DARNELL,INC. BY PERCENTAGE 4262 Campus Drive, Suite 141 Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 549.9940 D-12 36 60 72 Santa Barbara 3 y • NW BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. 4262 Campus Driw, Suite 41 hfewpon Bach, California 92660 (714)349.9940 20 Mille 720A M •:• •• 4D 540, m 540 �.° 540a Project 0 Site 1 San m C CO r q° o ° y v s o � X450 ,X360 450,E coast Highway 540 LEGEND XXX PROJECT RELATED DAILY 450 3&0 TRAFFIC VOLUME FIGURE 4 PROJECT—RELATED DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES D-13 I I I I I II I! is I I I I it II IMPACTS To estimate the traffic related impacts the proposed project will have on the surrounding street system, the traffic generated by the project was superimposed on the 1995 traffic volume projections shown on Figure 2. The second number at each location on Figure 2 presents the future traffic volumes that can be expected with the proposed project. Table 2 presents a comparison of existing and future traffic volumes with and without the proposed project. The 1995 circulation system used in Table 2 assumes that the circulation system to with the Newport Beach circulation element is completed. Most of the roadways in the vicinity will carry traffic volumes within the projected 1995 daily capacity. Three problem areas are expected to exist with the future volumes and capacity assumed in Table 2. Jamboree Road north of San Joaquin Hills Road is expected to carry a future traffic volume of approximately 55F400 vehicles per day (VPD). The capacity of this segment is approximately 54,000 VPD, which relates to a volume -to -capacity ratio of 1.03 (1.00 is capacity). The segment of Coast Highway, west of Jamboree Road to Newport Center Drive, is expected to operate at or above capacity; volume -to -capacity ratio's of 1.11 to 0.99 respectively. These segments will operate at or above capacity with or without the additional project -related traffic volumes. D-14 TABLE 2 COMPARISON OF EXISTING, FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND ROADWAY CAPACITIES IN TUE VICINITY OF BLOCK 400 SOURCES: - Traffic Volume Maps of Costa Mesa, Irvine, and Newoort Beach - Newport Beach/Costa Mesa Traffic Model A 1980 Traffic Volume, 1981 Not Available D V/C Denotes Volume -to -Capacity Ratio B Level of Service E, Orange County Standards E Assumes Roadway Configuration of the Circulation Element C Capacity Calculated from the Highway Capacity Manual M go 004140- go *8 low no 1995 Plus Project Project Existing Existing 1995 1995 Related Related 1995 Plus (-1981) Roadway Exist&ng Traffic Roadway 1995E Traffic Traffic ProjEct Roadway Segment Traffic Volume B Capacity V/C -Volume Capacity E V/C Volume Volume V/C Jamboree Road North of San Joaquin Hills Road 46,000 54,000 0.85 55,000 54,000 1.02 360 55,360 1.03 South of San Joaquin Hills Road 32,000 54,000 0.59 35,800 54,000 0.66 NOM 35,800 0.66 North of Coast Hwy. 29,000 45,000 0.64 32,600 54,000 0.60 NOM 32,600 0.60 MacArthur Boulevard ' North of Avocado Ave. 35,000 36,000 0.97 33,300 54,000 0.62 1,080 34,380 0.64 South of San Joaquin 11,040 0.31 Hills Road 24,000 36,000 0.67 10,500 36,0000 0.29 540 450 14,050 0.39 North of Coast Hwy. 24,000 36,000 0.67 13,600 36,000C 0.38 Avocado Avenue C7 South of San Joaquin I Hills Road N.A. N.A. N.A. 9,200 36,0000 0.26 540 9,740 0.27 North of Coast Hwy. N.A. N.A. N.A. 13,600 36,0000 0.38 450 14,050 0.39 Ln San Joaquin Hills Road East of Jamboree Road 20,000 54,000 0.37 27,500 54,000 0.51 720 28,220 0.52 West of Avocado Ave. 20,000 54,000 0.37 17,500 54,000 0.32 NOM 17,500 0.32 East of MacArthur Blvd. 16,000 54,000 0.30 18,500 54,000 0.34 NOM 18,500 0.34 Coast Highway T7est of Jamboree Rd. 49,OOOA 36,000 1.36 59,300 54,000 1.10 900 60,200 1.11 East of Jamboree Rd. 34,000 36,000 0.94 51,300 54,000 0.95 900 52,200 0.97 West of Newport Center Drive 34,000 36,000 0.94 52,800 54,000 0.98 900 53,700 0.99 East of Newport Center Drive 40,000A 36,000 1.11 40,100 54,000 0.74 540 40,640 0.75 West of MacArthur Blvd. 31,000 36,000 0.86 34,700 54,000 0.64 450 35,150 0.65 East of MacArthur Blvd. 40,000 36,000 1.11 46,400 36,000 1.29 360 46,760 1.30 SOURCES: - Traffic Volume Maps of Costa Mesa, Irvine, and Newoort Beach - Newport Beach/Costa Mesa Traffic Model A 1980 Traffic Volume, 1981 Not Available D V/C Denotes Volume -to -Capacity Ratio B Level of Service E, Orange County Standards E Assumes Roadway Configuration of the Circulation Element C Capacity Calculated from the Highway Capacity Manual M go 004140- go *8 low no 11, I IJ I II it LJ LJ it II II 1 The segment of Coast Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and Marguerite Avenue will carry traffic volumes in excess of the estimated capacity. This situation would occur with or without the proposed project. The four lane facility, built to Master Plan configuration, presently carries a higher traffic volume than its capactiy. The higher future traffic volumes will only exacerbate the existing capacity deficiency; MITIGATION MEASURES Several roadway segments in the vicinity of the project are expected to carry traffic volumes in excess of the estimate capacity in 1995. The segments, Jamboree Road north of San Joaquin Hills Road, Coast Highway from west of Jamboree Road to Newport Center Drive and Coast Highway from MacArhtur Boulevard to Marguerite Avenue, will exceed the future capacity with. or without the proposed project. Along these problem segments, the project -related traffic is less than 2W of total future traffic volume projection. When the actual medical office is developed, the project will be subject to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinanace (TPO). The follow is a brief description of the City's TPO. Traffic Phasing Ordinance (.TPO) The City of Newport Beach has developed a traffic phasing ordinance (TPO) to monitor development within the city. D-16 The TPO applies to any office, industrial or commercial developmnet of 10,000 square feet or more and any residential development of 10 dwelling units or more. if a project exceeds either of the two criteria, a 1% analysis has to be performed. The 1% analysis consists of calculating the 2h hour pm peak period traffic volumes for critical intersections in the vicinity and if the project -related pm peak period traffic volume exceeds 1% of the existing condition an Inter- section Capacity Utilization (.TCUJ value must be cal- culated. Should the TCU value yield an unsatisfactory level of service (,LOS E1 specific mitigation measures will be required of the particular project. D-17 I 1 I a I I u I I I ATTACHMENT E TRAFFIC STUDY for the CAMPUS DRIVE PARCELS 701 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81-2 MAY 1982 BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. ATTACHMENT E TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1 EXISTINGCONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1 Roadway Characteristics Existing Traffic Volumes Existing Public Transportation THE GENERAL PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-5 Land Use Considerations FUTURE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-6 Roadway Characteristics Future Traffic Volumes PROJECT -RELATED TRAFFIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • E-6 Trip Generation Trip Distribution and Assignment IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-8 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C MITIGATION MEASURES. . . . . . . . . . . . • • . • • . . E-10 Transportation System Management Traffic Phasing Ordinance ATTACHMENT E TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THE CAMPUS DRIVE PARCELS OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81-2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION The site under consideration consists of 63.9 acres of land bounded by Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue to the west, Birch Street to the east, MacArthur Boulevard to the north and Orchard Drive to the south. Figure 1 is a site map depicting the location of the Campus Drive Parcel.s The proposed General Plan Amendment for the Campus Drive Parcels would limit the allowable additional development to approximately 439,000 square feet. Also, the GPA would alter the current zoning from industrial/office. EXISTING CONDITIONS The Campus Drive parcels are currently developed as industrial/ office complexes. An estimated 953,000 square feet of industrial and office space currently exists within the project area. Roadway Characteristics The existing street system near the Campus Drive Parcels that are designated as secondary roadways, primary roadways, major roadways or freeway on the City's MasterPlan of Streets and Highways are the Corona del Mar Freeway, Campus Drive, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, Bristol Street, Birch Street, Irvine Avenue and Von Karman Avenue. E-1 36.0 r 32.0 E 14.7 Y a �e Campus Or 1 > ��s e e2 7.0'x' �o •• Birch St �•• 21.01- Q • ,*23.0 • m a � • E eco � ��,�� 25.0 • Z; • ' 2'0.6 -412.1 • 22.0 • : e /y Q, E i o. `� 23.0 23.0 ; • • 23.0 - 35. • 30.0#1 No Bristol St �Q- �ses Nom Corona del Mar Frw mammmm11111m111011mam • •••• 1W:n _ ~ an affil 8a Bristol St -10- t -►32.0 32.027.0 ; 27.0# 50.0 Orchard Or • • e e LEGEND � XX.X DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME _ (in thousands of vehicles per day) INDICATES 198.0 TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE 1 PROJECT SITE BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. EXISTING A N D (1981) DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 426sCampus Drive, Suite s-1 Newport Match, ClNfa to 92660 (714)54!•!940 ' SOURCE: Newport Beach and Costa Mesa Traffic Flow Maps The Corona del Mar Freeway (SR -73) is constructed between the San Diego Freeway (I-405) and Campus Drive. This portion of the freeway is only partially constructed with two lanes in each direction. In the future, the Corona del Alar Freeway Will consist of at least three travel lanes in each direction. The next phase of the freeway will be the construction of the segment between Campus Drive and MacArthur Boulevard. Funding for this segment is included in the five year State Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and construction 11 �I it I is expected to be completed by 1990. In the long term future, the I Corona del Mar Freeway will be extended east to MacArthur Boulevard where it will transition into the San Joaquin Hills transportation corridor. Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue which forms the western boundary of the project site, has two travel lanes in each direction and a two-way left -turn lane between Bristol Street and MacArthur Boulevard. From , MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road, Campus Drive consists of two travel 'lanes in each direction separated by a raised/painted median. Southerly of Bristol Street, Irvine Avenue provides two travel lanes in each direction. As one of the three major north/south links between Coast Highway and the San Diego Freeway (I-405), Jamboree Road provides regional access to/from the City of Newport Beach. Newport Boulevard and MacArthur Boulevard are the two other major thoroughfares. Northerly of Coast Highway, the cross section on Jamboree Road varies from a four -lane divided road to a six -lane divided road at various locations within the City. Southerly of Coast Highway, the roadway has two travel lanes in each direction plus left turn lanes. MacArthur Boulevard (SR -73) is generally constructed as a four -lane divided E-3 , I II a 1 I II II 'r roadway. Between University Drive and Coast Highway, some sections of MacArthur Boulevard are widened to three lanes in one direction thus creating a five lane facility. The southern terminus of MacArthur Boulevard forms a "T" intersection with Coast Highway. The MacArthur Boulevard approach consists of two left turn lanes and an exclusive right turn lane controlled by a "yield" sign. Between University Drive and the San Diego Freeway, MacArthur Boulevard consists of three travel lanes in each direction separated by a raised median. Bristol Street operates as a one-way couplet between Redhill Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard. There are four westbound travel lanes on Bristol Street between Jamboree Road and Campus Drive. In the eastbound direction, there are four travel lanes from Campus Drive to Cypress Street and three travel lanes from Cypress Street to Jamboree Road. The right-of-way .for the Corona del Mar Freeway separates the east and westbound travel lanes of Bristol Street. Bristol Street northerly of Redhill Avenue consists of a four -lane divided roadway. Birch Street lies easterly and parallel to Campus Drive between Bristol Street and Jamboree Road. Along this segment, Birch Street has four travel lanes with a painted median. Southerly of Bristol Street, Birch Street is a two-lane residential street. Irvine Avenue, between 17th Street and Orchard Drive, is constructed E-4 as a primary road (four lane divided). Between 15th Street and 17th Street and Orchard Drive and Bristol Street, Irvine Avenue consists of four travel lanes with no median. Irvine Avenue is used by many commuters to bypass the congestion along Newport Boulevard. This will probably still occur until the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR -55) is completed. Von Karman Avenue presently functions as a primary roadway with four travel lanes and raised median between Campus Drive and MacArthur Boulevard. Existing Traffic Volumes The existing traffic volumes in the vicinity of the project are depicted on Figure 1. The source of the 1981 traffic volumes was the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineering Department and the 1980 Traffic Flow Map, published by the City, was the source for the 1980 volume. The traffic volumes reflect average weekday traffic conditions. Existing Public Transportation Service Several lines (routes 53/53A, 61, 71, 76 and Express Routes 204 and 206) in the Orange County Transit District's (.00TD) Route System serve the general vicinity of the project area, but only one of the lines (Route 76) provides direct access to the site. A description of each route and its location is contained in the main body of the traffic study. THE GENERAL PLAN Land Use Considerations Approximately 953,000 square feet of office/industrial space has been constructed in the Campus Drive parcels as of December 1981. General Plan Land use assumptions previously used in traffic forecasting work E-5 by the City of Newport Beach estimated that approximately 1,050,000 square feet of office/industrial development would be constructed tin the project area. This represents approximately lOb,000 square ' feet of addition development within the area. Under current zoning regulations, approximately 6,000,000 square feet of additional offic/industrial space could be built in addition to what is existing today. GPA 81-2 would limit the additional develop- ment for the area to approximately 439,000 square feet. FUTURE CONDITIONS Roadway Characteristics New roadways planned for the area are the Corona del Mar (CDM) Freewav and University Drive. University Drive between Irvine Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard is planned to provide an additional crossing ' of the upper Newport Bay. The CDM Freeway will be extended from its present terminus near Redhill Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard by 1990. ' The CDM Freeway construction will ultimately connect with the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC). The SJHTC is envisioned as a multi -model transportation facility. The corridor is anticipated to be built by the year 2000. 1 Future Traffic Volumes Future traffic volume projections for the roadways in the vicinity were taken from the Newport Beach/Costa Mesa Traffic Model, Figure 2 presents the 1995 traffic volume projections. The traffic volume projections ' are based on the Newport Beach/Costa Mesa traffic model and 1995 Development forecasts contained in General Plan Amendment 79-1. E-6 12.1/13. 27.7/28.8 9.3/10'. .9/20.7 13.1/14. imous Or Birch 9.8/40.9 .7/9.0' 30.7/30.7 �ms.�t•�• � MENUMMMWME WOMMsNMIu_ •� asst A. g5 • N Orchard Or Is 10.0/10.1 fTj LEGEND ' XX.X/YY.Y 1996 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME WITHOUT/WITH GPA 81-2 (in thousands of vehicles per day) FIGURE 2 DI, 1995 TRAFFIC VOLUME PROJECTIONS BASMACIYAN•DARNELL,IN— WITH AND WITHOUT GPA 81-2 4262CampwWn,Sulte11.1 (Campus Drive Parcels Only) Nawpott each, California 92660 (714)549.1940 SOURCE: Newport, Beach /Costa Mesa Traffic Model Er7 � � v L O • • • • M V O1 G • • E • 41r �♦Q' S • r o • X1.39.0/38.0 • i 0 i 22.9/23.3' ei ap iaE • Y� 24.8/24.N 8 m c • f v °'d, i i = m r, j 34.2/34.43, A p r • X10.0 / 10.1 �ms.�t•�• � MENUMMMWME WOMMsNMIu_ •� asst A. g5 • N Orchard Or Is 10.0/10.1 fTj LEGEND ' XX.X/YY.Y 1996 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME WITHOUT/WITH GPA 81-2 (in thousands of vehicles per day) FIGURE 2 DI, 1995 TRAFFIC VOLUME PROJECTIONS BASMACIYAN•DARNELL,IN— WITH AND WITHOUT GPA 81-2 4262CampwWn,Sulte11.1 (Campus Drive Parcels Only) Nawpott each, California 92660 (714)549.1940 SOURCE: Newport, Beach /Costa Mesa Traffic Model Er7 PROJECT -RELATED TRAFFIC To estimate what effect the traffic volumes generated by the Campus Drive Parcels will have on the surrounding circulation system, a three-step process was initiated. First,'the traffic which will be generated by the project was determined. Secondly, the generated ' trips were geographically distributed to major trip attractors in the area surrounding the project. These trip attractors include employment centers, commercial centers, residential areas, etc. ' Lastly, the trips were assigned to specific roadways and future traffic volumes were determined. These levels of development will be discussed in this analysis. The levels of development are 100,000 square feet of additional office/industrial space; 439,000 square feet of additional office/industrial space; and 6,059,000 square feet of additional office/ industrial space. Trip Generation The trip generation rates used in this analysis are based on similar projects that have been prepared in the past. The generation rates were discussed with the City Traffic Engineer and adjusted slightly ' to reflect local variations in tripmaking characteristics. Table 1 presents a summary of the trip generation rates used in this analysis. ' To estimate the amount of traffic that would be generated by the project, the level of development proposed is applied to the trip generation II [J rate. Three levels of development were analyzed: 100,000 square feet, 439,000 square feet and 6,059,000 square feet. A comparison of the traffic volumes generated by each level of development is contained in Table 1. E-8 TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY a)Additional development based 1995 forecasts from GPA 79-1 b)Additional development per GPA 81-2 C) Additional development per current zoning regulations NOTE: A trip end is considered a one-way movement either toward (inbound) or away (outbound) from the project site. S.F. = Square Feet E-9 PM'PEAK HOUR Daily In Out TRIP GENERATION RATES Trip Ends per Thousand S.F.) Professional Office 13.0 0.6 1.7 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Development Options Alternative A - 100,900 S.F.(a) 11300 60 170 Alternative B - 439,000 S.F. (b) 5,707 263 746 Alternative C - 6,059,000 S.F.(o) 78,767 3-,635 10,300 a)Additional development based 1995 forecasts from GPA 79-1 b)Additional development per GPA 81-2 C) Additional development per current zoning regulations NOTE: A trip end is considered a one-way movement either toward (inbound) or away (outbound) from the project site. S.F. = Square Feet E-9 U Trip Distribution and Assignment The next step in this analysis process is the distribution and assignment of the project -related traffic. Trip distribution to/from the project area was developed considering the spatial orientation ' of major attractors and other projects similar in nature. In general, the professional office traffic was oriented toward residential neighborhoods in Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Irvine and the surrounding ' area. Figure 3 presents the anticipated trip distribution pattern for the project area. The project -related traffic was then allocated to the surrounding street system in accordance with the distribution pattern discussed above. Figure 4 depicts the traffic volumes relative to the 439,000 square feet of professional office development. IMPACTS The impacts of the three levels of additional development - 100,000 square feet (Alternative A), 439,000 square feet (Alternative B) and 6,059,000 square feet (Alternative C) - will be discussed in this report. These levels of development are described as alternatives for discussion purposes only. ' Alternative A - 100,000 Square Feet This alternative consists of 100,000 square feet of professional office development in the Campus Drive Parcels. This level of additional development is consistent with the development forecasts contained ' in GPA 79-1. The 1995 traffic volume projections depicted on Figure 2 without GPA 81-2 reflect the traffic volume conditions with this level of development. E-10 _mmjftg*r' 111�i SASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. 4262 Caw*w [kin, SWte bt Newport Mach, Wfornla 92660 (714)'5499940 rcnvcnrn�� - . FIGURE 3 TRIP DISTRIBUTION BY PERCENTAGE _ A1140 \ ae ,9 ao a' 0- 1760 • • • c` • • • � • O 1370, 0 • o a E E e V � � � 1140 ; 1140 860, • et ate • � • iY 570 860 1060 Orchard Or • e 60 1001 1�K,3 70 Campus Dr 1000 ,1430 Birch at 760 370 o�N_ ,,jo1 140 ,10 0 Corona del Mar 100 �° Bristol sI 70 19 0 E • 1140 M M. 0 LEGEND 1 90 XXX PROJECT -RELATED DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME FIGURE 4 �I CAMPUS DRIVE PARCEL BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. PROJECT—RELATED 4262C.aopwDriryWte11-1 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES riewportwa+,California 92"0 (439,000 Square Feet of Additional Development) (714) 549-"40 A review of the 1995 traffic volumes, roadway capacity and volume -to - capacity ratios summarized on Table 2 (columns 4, 5 and 6) shows that on a daily basis most of the roadways in the vicinity would operate satisfactorily. The only roadway that would exceed its capacity is Jamboree Road north of Eastbluf£ Drive North. The 1995 traffic volume projection for this segment is 56,000 vehicles per day (vpd). The corresponding volume -to -capacity ratio is 1.04. it should be noted that the traffic volumes in the vicinity of the Route 73 Corona del Mar Freeway at Jamboree Road, University Drive ,and MacArthur Boulevard would be impacted by the on/off ramp of the freeway. Alternative B - 439,000'Square Feet The level of development assumed with this alternate (439,000 square feet),represents the level of additional development proposed by GPA 81-2 in the Campus Drive Parcels. GPA 81-2, if approved, would limit the extent of development in this area and change the zoning from industrial to office/industrial. The GPA would be more representa- tive of existing development in the project area. The 1995 traffic volume projections depicted on Figure 2 with GPA 81-2, reflect the traffic volumes that can be expected with this alternative. Table 2 presents a comparison of existing and 1995 traffic volumes with and without Alternative B. The additional traffic associated with the Campus Drive Parcels would not adversely affect circulation in the vicinity of the project. Jamboree Road north of Eastbluff Drive North would be the only project based on the 1995 volume projections with addition of the traffic volumes related to 439,000 square feet of development. E-13 odic i M M r M SOURCES: - Traffic Volume Maps of Costa Mesa, Irvine, and Newport Beach - Newport Beach/Costa Mesa Traffic Model TABLE 2 A 1980 Traffic Volume_, 1981 Mot Available E F V/C Denotes Volume -to -Capacity Ratio Assumes Roadway Configuration of the Circulation Element R Level of Service E, Orange County Standards G These Traffic Volumes Correspond to the 100,000 Sq. Ft. COMPARISON OF EXISTING, FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND ROADWAY CAPACITIES Level of Additional Development. D SDI Estimates N IN THE VICINITY OF THE CAMPUS DRIVE PARCELS Level of Additional Development. 1995 Plus Project Project Existing Existing 1995 1995 Related Related 1995 Plus (1981) Roadway Existing Traffic Roadway 1995 Traffic Traffic Project Roadway Segment Traffic Volume Capacity B V/CE Volume CapacitVF V CF Volume Volume V/CF _ Jamboree Road North of Eastbluff Dr. North 50,000 54,000 0.93 56,000 54,000 1.04 290 56,290 1.04 North of MacArthur Boulevard 27,000 54,000 0.50 39,000 54,000 0.72 NOM 39,000 0.72 North of Campus Dr. 32,000 54,000 0.59 39,800 54,000 0.74 1,140 40,940 0.76 MacArthur Boulevard North of Jamboree Rd. 22,000 54,000 0.41 22,900 54,000 0.42 370 23,270 0.43 South of Campus Dr. 23,000 54,000 0.43 19,900 54,000 0.37 760 20,660 0.38 North of Campus Dr. 36,000 54,000 0.67 27,700 54,000 0.51 1,140 28,840 0.53 Bristol Street East of Birch St. 27,000 36 00gC 0.75 10,000 36,000 0.28 100 10,100 0.28 East Bound West Bound 30,000 , 36,000 0.83 10,000 36,000 0.28 100 10,100 0.28 1 East of Redhill 32,000 54,000 0.59 27,100 59,000 0.50 570 27,670 0.51 F, ,P Irvine Avenue South of Bristol St. 27,000 24,000 1.13 25,000 36,000 0.69 1,060 26,060 0.72 Campus Drive North of Bristol 23,000A 36,000 0.69 20,000 36,000 0.56 1,140 21,140 0.59 South of MacArthur Blvd. 21,000A 36,000 0.58 12,100 36,000 0.39 1,760 13,060 0.39 East of MacArthur Blvd. 14,700A 36,000 0.41 9,300 36,000 36,000 0.26 0.36 1,000 1,930 10,300 19,530 0.29• 0.40 • West of Jamboree Road 11,000 36,000 0.31 13,100 SOURCES: - Traffic Volume Maps of Costa Mesa, Irvine, and Newport Beach - Newport Beach/Costa Mesa Traffic Model A 1980 Traffic Volume_, 1981 Mot Available E F V/C Denotes Volume -to -Capacity Ratio Assumes Roadway Configuration of the Circulation Element R Level of Service E, Orange County Standards G These Traffic Volumes Correspond to the 100,000 Sq. Ft. C Capacity Calculated From the Hiahway Capacity Manual Level of Additional Development. D SDI Estimates N These Traffic Volumes Correspond to the 439,000 Sq. Ft. Level of Additional Development. T The 1995 traffic volume projection with the project for this segment is 56,290 vehicles per day (vpd). The corresponding volume -to -capacity ratio is 1.04. Similar to Alternative A, the traffic volumes in the vicinity of the Corona del Mar Freeway at Jamboree Road, University Drive and MacArthur Boulevard would be affected by the Corona del Mar Freeway on/off ramps. Alternative C - 6,059,00'0 Square Feet The level of development considered in this alternative (6,059,000 square feet) would be the maximum allowable under current zoning regulations. The amount of traffic that would be expected to be generated by this alternative is approximately 78,770 vehicles per day. This level of development would be over seven times the existing conditions. Figure 5 depicts the project -related traffic distributed to the surrounding street system. Campus Drive would be expected to carry traffic volumes ranging from 33,000 vpd to 37,000 vpd with a capacity of 36,000 vpd. Irvine Avenue between Orchard Drive and Bristol Street would be expected to carry a traffic volume of almost 40,000 vpd with a volume -to -capacity ratios of 1.11. Jamboree Road north of Campus Drive would have a volume -to -capacity ratio of 1.03. In addition to the daily capacity deficiencies, the circulation system in the vicinity presently experiences peak hour congestion with the existing level of development. The ability of the surrounding street system to accommodate this level of development is limited and, therefore, further consideration of this alternative was considered impractical and not feasible., E,15 'A15,750 `15,750 B 7880 - 41 • to 19,740 IlkC 13,800 CAMDUa Dr o° .�' 13,800 3940 X10,490 • o 1s•• 13,800, Birch at 24,290 ••• 0 •0 5110 o w o LEGEND\3s4o 940 XXXX PROJECT -RELATED DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. 4262 Campus Drive, Suits &I Newport beach, California 92660 (714) S49.9%0 FIGURE 5 CAMPUS DRIVE PARCEL PROJECT—RELATED DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (6,059,000 Square Fe'et of Additional Development) • 24,290 18,910 o'►"r i s I • 6110 2 x,18,9 10 eh CL • • 0 s ° `2480 15,750 0 M 2620• f 15,750 15,750 11 870 ' • 1380• No Bristol St f ,690 • mm • Corona del Mar Frw 1011 t.t�snste•Me•mon • i••i . �aaAa� 7880 0 9 (go Bristol Bti 1380 11,870 690 14,630, Orchard Or ! _ LEGEND\3s4o 940 XXXX PROJECT -RELATED DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. 4262 Campus Drive, Suits &I Newport beach, California 92660 (714) S49.9%0 FIGURE 5 CAMPUS DRIVE PARCEL PROJECT—RELATED DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (6,059,000 Square Fe'et of Additional Development) MITIGATION MEASURES Most of the roadways in the vicinity of the project would not be adversely affected by the development of the Campus Drive Parcels as proposed with GPA 81-2. The future traffic volume projections for the Corona del Mar Freeway and Jamboree Road north of Eastbluff Drive North are expected to exceed the estimated roadway capacity with or without the General Plan Amendment. At the General Plan level, the only mitigation measures recommended are the implementation of an appropriate Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program and detailed review of individual projects in accordance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) require- ments., The following is a brief description of the TSM program and the City's TPO. •Transportation Systems Management (TSM) TSM actions in addition to circulation system improvements can assist in reducing the traffic impacts of development. The goal of these strategies is to reduce the number of vehicular trips, increase vehicle occupancy and reduce the peak -hour trips. Some of the possible TSM strategies are: 1. Preferential parking for ride sharing vehicles 2. Transit Subsidy - at 'least to extent of value of parking otherwide provided by employers 3. Flextime and staggered hours and work schedules E-17 ,I 1 II F II II 4. Carpool/vanpool/subscription bus/charter bus proarama (both internal and external to the company) 5. Transit system coordination 6. Other programs offering any prospect of reduced or shifted travel patterns Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) The City of Newport Beach has developed a traffic phasing ordinance (TPO) to monitor development within the City. The TPO applies to any office, industrial or commercial development of 10,000 square feet or more and any residential development of 10 dwelling units or more. If a project exceeds either of the two criteria, a 1% analysis has to be performed. The 1% analysis consists of calculating the 2'h PM peak period traffic volumes for specific intersections on the master plan streets. If the project -related PM peak period traffic volume exceeds 1% of the existing condition at the critical intersection, an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis is performed. Should the ICU value yield an unsatisfactory level of service (ICU greater than 0.90), further analysis is required to develop specific mitigation measures. E-18 Fl G. Air Quality Fl 1 1 1 1 a 1 1 1 I ,1 1 1 I H I a 1 F I I IH AIR QUALITY APPENDIX LOCAL AND REGIONAL AIR POLLUTION AND HEALTH EFFECTS Provided herein is information regarding the production and source of various air pollutants, along with their concentrations at local and regional levels. Following the discussion of existing ambient air quality is a summary of possible health effects of each pollutant. Ambient Air Quality Carbon Monoxide - Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas produced by the incomplete combustion of carbon -containing substances. Carbon monoxide concentrations are generally higher in winter when more fuel is burned and meteorological conditions (frequent occurrence of morn- ing surface inversions) favor the buildup of directly -emitted contami- nants. Sources of this pollutant include internal combustion engines, principally the automobile, which contributes about 96% of the total CO air pollution. Carbon monoxide is not monitored at the Los Alamitos station, but is moni- tored at the Costa Mesa station. The highest maximum one-hour CO concen- tration recorded during the past five years at the Costa Mesa station was 27 ppm in 1976. This is well below the federal one-hour CO concentration standard of 35 ppm and the state one-hour CO concentration standard of 40 ppm. But the Costa Mesa station has measured violations of the federal eight hour greater than 9 ppm and the state 12 -hour greater than 10 ppm standards. During the days monitored in 1976 through 1980, the Costa Mesa station recorded 6.1% mean federal eight-hour and 12 -hour CO concentration violations per year. Regionally, eight-hour and 12 -hour CO concentration 'standards have been exceeded at the La Habra, Anaheim, and Laguna Beach stations as well.' The La Habra station recorded the highest one-hour maximum CO concentration in Orange County of 45 ppm in 1976 (5 ppm above the state one-hour CO standard and 10 ppm above the federal one-hour CO standard). 1 The Laguna Beach station was deactivated on April 14, 1977. G-1 Oxidants - "Photochemical oxidants" can include several different pollu- tants, but primarily consist of ozone (03) and a group of chemicals called organic peroxynitrates. Ozone, which makes up over 90 percent of all oxi- dants, is a pungent, colorless,, toxic gas which is produced by the photo- chemical process. Ozone is formed when nitrogen dioxide (NO) which is formed in this reaction, reenters the process. The active oxygen can re- combine with the NO to form NO2, or it may combine with hydrocarbons, or it may combine with ordinary oxygen to produce 03. Oxidant concentrations reach their highest levels during the summer and early fall. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen dioxide are the essential reactants for producing oxidants. The major source of both of these reactants is the motor vehicle. Oxidant is one of the most serious air pollutant problems in the area. Some of the oxidant can be traced to intrusion from elsewhere in the air basin; however, the degree to which intrusion affects local conditions is not known. All Orange County stations which monitored oxidant levels in 1976 through 1980 recorded violations of state standards and federal standards. Both the Los Alamitos and Costa Mesa stations monitored oxidant levels in 1976 through 1980. During the past five years, the Los Alamitos station recorded a mean of 38 days per year (or 10.3%) in violation of the federal ■ oxidant standard and 52 days per year (or 14.4%) in violation of the state oxidant standard.' Also during this time, the Costa Mesa station recorded a mean of 20 days per year (or 5.6%) in violation of the federal oxidant standard and 28 days per year (or 7.5%)' in violation of the state oxidant standard. The highest one-hour maximum oxidant concentration recorded at each of these stations (for 1976 through 1980) follows: Los Alamitos - 27 pphm in 1978 (Los Alamitos) and 22 pphm in 1978 (Costa Mesa). ' The federal standard for oxidant concentration levels changed February 1979 from one-hour greater than 8 ppm to one-hour greater than 12 ppm. Yearly means use the new standard for the 1978 through 1980 data. G-2 1 The worst areas in Orange County in terms of oxidant concentrations are the Santa Ana Canyon and La Habra areas. Both average about 76 days per year (or 21% of days monitored) in violation of federal standard and 95 days per year (or 26% of days monitored) in violation of state standard., In 1979 the Santa Ana Canyon station recorded the highest one-hour oxidant concentration (.39 ppm) in Orange County while the La Habra station record- ed the second highest oxidant concentration (.38 ppm) also in 1979. (Both of these one-hour maximums are almost four times the state standard.) Nitrogen Dioxide - Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a reddish -brown irritating gas formed by the combination of nitric oxide (NO) with oxygen. Combus- tion in the engine of the motor vehicle is the primary source of NO2 in the air basin. Other sources include combustion in power plants, petro- leum refining operations, ships, railroads and aircraft operations. For the years 1976 through 1980, only the La Habra, Anaheim and Costa Mesa stations monitored NO2 in Orange County. The mean yearly maximum one-hour concentration Of NO2 for each of these stations (1976 through 1980) was as follows: La Habra - .34 ppm; Anaheim - .36 ppm; and Costa Mesa - .29 ppm. The Costa Mesa station recorded no state standard violations for NO2 in 1977 and a maximum one-hour NO2 concentration of .34 ppm in 1976. The highest one-hour concentration recorded in Orange County during the last five years was .46 ppm measured at the Anaheim station in 1976. Hydrocarbons - The vast family of compounds consisting of hydrogen and car- bon in various combinations are known as hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons are an essential group of reactants for producing photochemical smog. Their major source is the motor vehicle, both from the exhaust pipe and by evap- oration from the gasoline tank and the carburetor. Minor sources of hydro- carbons include evaporation of organic solvents, petroleum refining and 1 The distribution of the total number of days monitored per year violating the federal oxidant concentration standard at the Santa Ana Canyon station should be noted as follows: 1976-134 days; 1977-115 days; 1978-37 days; 1979-47 days; and 1980-47 days. Although the yearly means for federal standard violations is 76 days, in the last three years the Santa Ana Canyon station has not recorded more than 47 days of federal standard violations per year. G-3 1I LJ marketing operations. Atmospheric hydrocarbon concentrations are general- ly higher in winter because the reactive 'hydrocarbons react more slowly in cold weather and can accumulate to higher concentrations. Hydrocarbons are not monitored in the vicinity of the study, area. Only the La Habra and Anaheim stations monitor hydrocarbons in Orange County. The total number of days per year that each of the stations recorded feder- al hydrocarbon standard violations is not available but yearly maximum one- hour concentrations of hydrocarbons are available. The mean yearly maxi- mum one-hour concentration for 1977 through 1980 at the La Habra station was 14.7 ppm, with a 15.6 ppm one-hour maximum in 1978. The mean yearly maximum one-hour concentration for 1976 through 1980 at the Anaheim sta- tion was 11 ppm, with a 13 ppm orae -hour maximum in 1976. Sulfur Dioxide - Sulfur dioxide (S02) is a colorless, pungent irritating gas formed mostly by the combustion of sulfur -containing fossil fuels. In the presence of sunlight, S02 in the air undergoes a number of rather com- plex reactions to form sulfur trioxide (S03) which will combine with mois- ture in the air to form a sulfuric acid mist. This acid may react with other airborne contaminants to form sulfate particulates. Federal and state S02 standards have not been violated at the Costa Mesa or Los Alamitos stations, or at any other station in Orange county which monitored S02 in 1976 through 1980. Total Suspended Particulates - Atmospheric particulates are made up of finely divided solids or liquids such as soot dust, aerosols, fumes and mists. Sources of particulates include dust and fume -producing industrial and agricultural operations, combustion products including automobile ex- haust, and atmospheric photochemical reactions. Also, natural activity, such as wind -raised dust and ocean spray, put particulates into the atmos- phere. G-4 I� II .1 f I li II U I I1 U I� I The Costa Mesa station has exceeded the state total suspended particulates (TSP) standard 27.6% of the days monitored in the last five years. The federal TSP standard were not exceeded at Costa Mesa. The Los Alamitos station exceeded the state TSP standard 50.6% of the days monitored be- tween 1976 and 1980 (approximately one-half of the year, on the average. The federal TSP standard was exceeded twice in 1976 and once in 1978 and 1979 at the Los Alamitos station. TSP concentrations at the Costa Mesa and Los Alamitos stations reached 252 ug/m3 in 1979 and 327 ug/m3 in 1979, respectively. Of all the Orange County air monitoring stations, the La Habra station recorded the highest mean yearly percent of days violating the state TSP standard. For 1976 through 1980, the La Habra station averaged 58.2% of days monitored per year in violation of the state TSP standard, with the maximum yearly percent of days in violation being 66% in 1976. The highest maximum TSP concentration in Orange county was 340 ug/m3 recorded at the La Habra station in 1980. Lead Particulates - Airborne lead in the SCAB is -derived almost entirely from automobile exhaust as a direct result of the use of anti -knock agents in gasoline --tetraethyl and tetramethyl lead. Lead concentrations in air are measured using the samples taken for particulate matter. For indivi- dual months, a specific location may exhibit higher or lower values depend- ing upon the season. In winter, the measured concentrations of lead tend to be higher than in summer due to lower inversions in winter. The Costa Mesa station exceeded the state lead standard 17 months during the months monitored in 1976 through 1979 and did not exceed the state lead standard in 1980. The Los Alamitos station exceeded the state lead standard 20 months during the months monitored in the last five years.l The highest monthly average lead concentration recorded at these two sta- tions follows: Costa Mesa - 4.16 ug/m3 in 1976; Los Alamitos - 6.38 ug/m3 in 1976. 1 The distribution of state lead standard violations for each of these stations should be noted. Both stations have recorded fewer monthly lead concentrations each year since 1977. Costa Mesa - five months in 1976, five months in 1977, four months in 1978, three months in 1979 and zero months in 1980; Los Alamitos - six months in 1976, six months in 1977, four months in 1978, three months in 1979 and one month in 1980. G-5 For the Orange County area, the Anaheim station recorded the greatest number of months (1976 through 1980) in which the state lead standards were exceeded - 10 months in 1976 and a total of 40% of the months moni- tored from 1976 through 1980. The highest lead concentration recorded in Orange County during the last five years was 4.94 ug/mg at the Los Alamitos station in 1979. Health Effects of Pollutants Carbon Monoxide - Carbon monoxide (CO) passes through the lungs directly into the bloodstream and, by interfering with the transfer of fresh oxygen to the blood, deprives sensitive tissues, primarily the heart and brain of oxygen. It is not known to irritate the respiratory tract or to have ad- verse effects on vegetation, visibility or material objects. At high con- centrations, it can impair visual function, psychomotor performance and time discrimination. Photochemical Oxidants - Oxidants tend to damage vegetation and crack un- treated rubber. In high concentrations they can also directly affect the lungs, causing respiratory irritation and possible changes in lung func- tions. Nitrogen Dioxide - Oxides of nitrogen are direct participants in photo- chemical smog reactions. The emitted compound nitric oxide combines with oxygen in the atmosphere in the presence of hydrocarbons and sunlight to produce NO2. Nitrogen dioxide at high enough exposures can cause fibrotic lung changes, bronchostriction, and acute bronchitis among infants and school children. In sensitive plants, over several months, it can caused collapsed lesions near the leaf margin and moderate injury. Hydrocarbons - Certain hydrocarbons damage plants by inhibiting growth and causing flowers and leaves to fall. Existing levels of hydrocarbons mea- sured in urban areas are not known to cause adverse effects in humans. However, certain hydrocarbons are extremely important components in the reactions which produce photochemical oxidants. G-6 !i I !_1 1 II I is I I II I F1 U I Sulfur Dioxide - At sufficiently high concentrations, sulfur dioxide (SO2) irritates the upper respiratory tract; at lower concentrations and in com- bination with particulates SO2 is able to do harm by injuring lung tis- sues. SO2 can cause chronic plant disease and sulfuric acid mist can yellow leaves of plants, dissolve marble and corrode iron and steel. Particulates - In the respiratory tract, very small particles of certain substances may cause injury alone, or may act in combination with gases to alter their deposition sites and scope of action. Particulates may in- crease the death rate of the elderly and those with chronic respiratory diseases. Suspended particulates of aerosol size can both scatter and absorb sunlight, reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the earth, pro- ducing haze and reducing visibility. Particulates may also cause damage to materials. Lead particulates - Lead is considered a cumulative poison, as the body retains some of the lead breathed or swallowed. Long-term exposure to elevated lead levels can result in kidney disease, damage to the nervous system, and an increased likelihood of death from brain disorders. Liver function and the formation of hemoglobin can also be affected. It should be noted that the medical research on lead particles focuses on industri- al, not vehicular, concentrations. Additionally, atmospheric levels of lead sufficient to cause toxic effects in humans do not normally occur. G-7 II AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS Z. Stationary Source Emissions A. Emissions from Natural Gas Consumption: (emission factor) x (usage rate) = emissions Emission factorl Pollutant lb 106ft3Z CO 20.0 HC 8.0 NOx 100.0 sox Particulates 0:6 10.0 Natural gas usage rates (cu.ft./day): Study Area Existing Dev./Without GPA/With GPA Caltrans West Parcel NA / NA / 27,874 Marguerite Parcel 5th Avenue Parcel NA / 8,737 NA / 11,650 / 11,575 / 17,022 Big Canyon Area 16 NA / NA / 14,809 Block 400 -Newport Center 17,675 / 17,675 / 17,675 Campus Drive 122,078 / 806,860 / 160,175 Total 139,753 / 844,922 / 247,130 NA = Not applicable since development will not occur with this scenario. Results of the natural gas -related emissions calculations are presented in 1 Section 3.8. k 1 Emission factors from South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Handbook for EIRs, Revised October 1980. G-8 I I I I 11 I 11 - II lip I# II B. Emissions from Electricity Consumption: (emission factor) x (usage rate) = emissions Emission factorl Pollutant (lb/kwh) CO .00020 HC .00018 NOx .00230 Sox .00270 Particulates .00040 Electricity usage rates (kwh/day): Study Area Existing Dev. / Without GPA / With GPA Caltrans West Parcel NA / NA / 3,185 Marguerite Parcel NA / 1,250 / 2,138 5th Avenue Parcel NA / 1,677 / 2,096 Big Canyon Area NA / NA / 2,735 Block 400 -Newport Ctr. 33,132 / 33,132 / 40,628 Campus Drive 97,970 / 657,015 / 130,428 Total 131,102 / 693,074 / 181,210 NA = Not applicable since development will not occur with this scenario. Results of the electricity -related emissions calculations are presented in Section 3.8. G-9 II. Mobile Source Emissions Vehicle miles travelled (VMT) Daily x Vehicle Emission Factor = Emissions Study Area Existing Dev./ Without GPA / With GPA Caltrans West Parcel NA / NA / 12,920 Marguerite Parcel NA / 3,900 / 5,780 5th Avenue Parcel NA / 5,200 / 13,000 Big Canyon Area 16 NA / NA / 7,400 Block 400 -Newport Center 135,570 / 135,570 / 171,570 Campus Drive 129,555 / 917,225 / 186,625 Total 265,125 / 1,061,895 / 397,295 NA = Not applicable since no development will occur with this scenario. Vehicle emission factors (in grams/mile) from EMFAC 6C for 1982 and 1995 at 35 mph:l Results of the vehicle emissions calculations are presented in Section 3.8. 1 Orange County EMA, computer run dated July 29, 1981. G-10 1982 1987 1995 CO 14.90 7.74 5.32 HC 1.42 0.77 0.58 NOx 2.49 1.70 1.40 Sox 0.20 0.20 0.20 Particulates 0.30 0.30 0.30 Results of the vehicle emissions calculations are presented in Section 3.8. 1 Orange County EMA, computer run dated July 29, 1981. G-10 11 I I II I II I Ii I.1 U I I �r III. Caline 3 Assumptions and Results A. Traffic Data was taken from the BDI study for the project. See Section 3.8.. B. Average Speeds and Highway Widths used are listed below. A11 widths include 3 meters per side per the Caline 3 model direc- tions. Roadway Coast Highway Superior Avenue Balboa Boulevard Dover Drive Ford Road MacArthur Boulevard Jamboree Road San Joaquin Hills Road Campus Drive R -O -W Width Average Speed (mph) (meters) 35 42 35 38 25 38 45 42 45 38 55 42 50 40 35 42 45 32 C. Meteorological Conditions included worst-case assumptions of 2 m.p.h. winds, stability classes of C, D and E and winds at degrees listed below as is typical for October conditions during early morning hours when CO concentrations peak. Intersection or Roadway Coast Highway at Superior/Balboa Coast Highway at Dover Dr. MacArthur Blvd. at Ford Rd. Jamboree Road San Joaquin Hills Road Campus Drive G-11 Wind Direction (Degrees 40° 40° 40° 40° 90° 20° D. Background Concentrations for carbon monoxide were derived from ambient air quality data for 1980 taken at the Costa Mesa Monitor- ing Station. The second highest hourly concentrations were used (i.e., 11.80 ppm for the 8 -hour average, 16.0 ppm for the 1 -hour average, and 10.3 ppm for the 12 -hour average). These levels were proportionately reduced to reflect two trends anticipated by the year 1995. First the reduction in emission rates between 1980 and 1995 resulting from emission control technology was used to reduce the 1980 ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide. Next the in- crease in the number of in -use vehicles was accounted for by pro- portionately increasing the ambient carbon monoxide concentrations to reflect an increase to growth amounts to a 3.5 percent increase annually per the CARD document entitled "Procedures and Basis for Estimating On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions" date January 1980. The resulting 1995 background or ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide were found to be 8.45 ppm, 6.22 ppm and 5.43 ppm respec- tively for the 1 -hour, 8 -hour and 12 -hour averaging periods. D. Emission Factors from EMFAC 6C for 1995 were used and provide for the various speeds used (O.C. EMA Computer run dated July 29, 1981). E. Results of the .Caline 3 analysis are presented in Section 3.9. G-12 i w Table I COMPARISONS Of AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND EMERGENCY CRITERIA Air Air Quality Standards Emergency Criteria Pollutant -Natlanal Ft SCADNOc and California Episade National Episode and Action Stage I Emergency Significant Required California Primary Secondary Health Stage 2 Alert tuning Action gats To Advisor gaining Level Level Level Health level 0.12 ppm 0.12 ppm ozone 0.10 ppm, (240 ug/m3) (240 ug/m3) 0.20 ppa, 0.35 ppm, r12-ht.avg. 0.10 ppm 0.40 ppa 0.50 ppa, 0.60 PDa. 03 I-br. avg. 1 -ht. avg. I -hr. avg. I -hi. avg. ]-hr. avg. I -hr. avg. I -hr. avg I -hr. avg. 1 -hr. avg. R plus. 0 plum. 50 plus. 10 pPa. (to mi/w3) (10 ARM) 10 ppa. 35 ppm. 1 -hr. avg. Carbon 12 -hr. avg. 8 -hr. avg. 1 -hr. avg. 12 -hr. avg. 12 -hr. avg. Monoxide 15 ppm, 30 ppm, 40 ppa, 75 lips, CO 40 lips. 35 pps 35 plum, 40 ppa. 75 pis, 100 ppa. 1 -hr. avg. 1 -hr. avg. 1 -hr. avg. 4 -ht. avg. )-hr. avg. (40 mg/al) (40 mg/0) I -hr. avg. 1 -ht. avg, 1 -hr. avg. 125 ppa. 1-111. avg. 1-11r. avg. I -hr. !vg. 0.15 ppm, 0.30 ppm, 0.40 plus, 0.50 ppm, Nitrogen 0A5 pPm O. oS ppa. 24 -hr. avg. 24 -hr. avg. 24 -hr. avg. 24 -hr. avg. .Dioxide 0.25 ppa, (100 Ug/m�) (100 ug/a3) •• 902 I -ht. avg. RAN All 0.60 ppm, 1.2 ppa, 1.6 pill, 2.0 ppm, 1 -hr. avg. i -hr. av . Vill. avg. 0.14 ppm 0.05 ppm.. (365 ug/mi) 0.10 ppm, 0.70 ppe, 0.90 ppm, Sulam 24 -ht. avg. 14 -hr. avA. 0.50 ppm, 24 -hr. avg. 24 -hr. avg. 24 -hr. avg. 8.30 ppm, 0.50 ppm, 0.80 ppa, 1.0 Pilo, Dioxide (1300 ug/23) 24 -hr. avg. 24 -hr. avg. 24 -hr. avg. 24 -hr. avg. S02 0.50 lips, 0.03 pppl. 3 -hr. avg. 0.50 ppm, 1.0 ppm, 2.0 Ppm. 1 -hr. avg. (80 ug/a ) 1 -ht. avg. 1 -hr. avg. I -hr. avg. RAN _ Ozone In Combination 0.20 ppc, 0.35 ppm, 0.50 ppm, With Sulfur 1 -hr. avg. I -hr. avg. I -ht. arg. oroxided) Sulfate In 25 uR/m3, 25 ug/m3. 24 -hi. avg. combined with Particulate 24 -hr. avg. Ozone, 0.20 plus, 1 -hr. avg. Matter 100 ug/43. 260 ug/m3 150 ugvm3 24 -hr. avg. 24 -hr, avg. 24 -hr. avg. Particulate 375 ug/m3 625 u&/m3 815 ug/A3 IooD ug/03 Matter 60 ug/m3 75 ug/m3 60 ug/m3 24 -hr. avg. 24 -hr. avg. 24 -hr. avg. 24 -hr. avg. (TSP) ACM AGM AGM Particulate - Matter (ug/03) x65,000 261,000 393,000 49o,00D SO (ppa) x 2620 24 -hr. av . 24-h i, ar . 24 -hr. avg. 24 -hr. avg. U4'UI111g rn GUaUUUI UUu 01111 G r1Ula1MI UI W. .1mm uz Uno or rax aunoares. •' No standard or cr it to when blocks are blank. •'• This is Inconsistent with the federal standard of 0.12 ppa, hourly average, and is expected to be revised in the near future. (Continued) Table I (Continued) COMPARISONS OF AIR QUALITY STAMOAROS ANO EMERGENCY CRITERIA Air Air Quality Standardsa - Emergency Cilteria Pollutant National SCAG1100 and California Episode National Episode and Stage I Emergency Significant Action Calilarnia Primary Secondary Health Stage 2 Slane 3 Alert wa ming Action Hata to Required Advisory warning Emergency Level Level Level Health Level Lead 1.5 ug/m3i.5 ug/ Pb 30 -day avg. calendar quarter avenge - Hydrocarbons 0.21 ppm 0.21 ppm (corrected lot (180 ugi�3) (I80 ug/■3) methane) 3 -hr. avg• 3 -hr. avg. 9-9 a.a. Hydrogen 0.03 ppa, _ Sulfide 1 -hr. avg. N2S - Vinyl Chloride 0.01 ppm (ehloraethens) T1 -hr. avg. 8.10 ppa _ 8 -hr. avg. Ethylene 8.50 ppm 1 -hr. avg. In suffleient Concentration 10 reduce Visibility visibility to Reducing less than ten , Particles miles at rela- tive humidity nl less than 70A. - - Voluntary Open built- Incinerator reduction in mandatory ing Probib- use prahib- physical ac- abatement tied. Re- tied. An- vehicle use tivity and measures. quested quired re- prohibited, Some as Actions vehicle Action ranges Slate can seduction duction in Industry shut '-Emergency" to be operation. Iron voluntary take action in vehicle vehicle dawn at Cur- axcipt most Taken open burning to mandatory. if local operation. operation. lailment. ndustil banned (not efforts Industrial Indusery Public asli. ;h131 down. An action at fail. Curtail- curtailed vines cease. this level sent. fuilher. alter 1978). _ a? Standards shown in parenthesis are restatements qi ine preceding stanaaro Cur axptesseu on an aractua a ve udsn. b) Concentrations other than annual Avenges not to be exceeded more than onCe A Year. e) SCA0M0 - South Coast Air Quality Management District. d) Diene and sulfur dioxide concentrations both Bust be greater than 0.10 ppa. M61, .awl =0 4M me*0 1 am 1 ow as so MAW no • Table IV -1 Ozone - Number of Days•Exceeding State Standard (Z 0,10 ppm, hourly average) G-15 5155 arstow 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 5165 Redlands South Coast 144 161 165_ 173 166 5166 Marto AREA ANGELES Air Basin 234 241 215 221 206 LOS COUNTY 7 osAngeles CENT 125 118 113 114 109 0 060 Azusa ESGV 172 517 Yontana ruDif 7g OA7 164 069 ur anESFV 071/086' eat . NWCU 167 75 1-17 4u gn 137 072 n Beach8 5181 Lake regory K 11 1 141 2 074 RPqP W5YV 17114 72 163 - 166 140 075 omona - - - - - 17 9 076 Lennox SWCE 74 90 96 87 96 80 70 080 Whittier SOEA 116 5192eTrona TRON 38 081 Newhall SCRV 1547 and number changed to 086 effective 8-1-78. 6 082 Lancaster 31,78 191 T-66 083 ass ens WSGV 180 187 d. Station opened Jim. 78 44 084 Lynwood SCIA-12 3 085 co vera ORANGE COUNTY - J17 na eim ANAH 3177 a ra M 6 73 113 112 106 3185 Costa Mesa 10 3186 oro 3 43 68 57 65 3188b San Juan C. 57- 3190 Los Alamitos 5 3191 Santa Ana C. 118 95 89, RIVERSIDE COUNTY 4131 Palm rin s PLSP 103 94 103112 102 4139 Indio 7 88 83 45 160 3 5 j 4140 Prado Park163 4141b Hemet 4144 vers e4R1!VKF==17 qj 179 186 4149 Perris 154 178_ 153 151 144_ 4150 Banning BAN N 11323. 117 4151b Temecula TLM 4152b Elsinore EL - - - G-15 5155 arstow BARS 42 127 5165 Redlands 144 161 165_ 173 166 5166 Marto RIAL 5173bChino CHIN 174 16 - - 5175 Upland UPLA 183 193 170 163 15g 517 Yontana ruDif 173 192 183 197 181 5184b Big Bear BGBE - 5181 Lake regory K 11 1 150 66 153 5182 Yu—ca YIIz`i- 52 72 163 - 166 5185c nio A ort b IT - - - - - 5190 actora 79 74 90 96 5191d a ms 9- 5192eTrona TRON - - a. Station was relocated and number changed to 086 effective 8-1-78. b. Station closed August 31,78 C. Station closed May 1, 78 e. Station closed June 78 d. Station opened Jim. 78 f. Relocated as #087 9/14/79 G-15 Table IV -2 Ozone - Number of Days Exceeding Federal Standard (> 0.12 ppm, hourly average) South Coast 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 # AREA Air Basin 192 210 187 189 166 LOS ANGELES ZrdIIA`lY Mes ae SS CENT 71 57 55_ 162 59 071/086a 072 074 075 076 080 081 082 083 084 085 )RANGE CI 3177 3185 3186 3188b 3190 3191 4144 4149 4150 4151b 4152b 27 San J1,zn C. SJCA- 21 22 - - 9 Alamitos LS= Zu 13 155 138 tas 18 13 Santa Ana C. SAC 5184b B7 Bear B - - 7 COUNTY m rin s PLSP 48 51 57 49 49 Ha 0 S185c taro >r ortTR 35 37 1 38' Prado Park PRPK 91 15 113 114 99 Hemet effective 8-1-78. June 78 as #087 9114/79 17 31 - - Riverside 3 9 151 L32 Perris 108 9 -118 103 -76 Banning :r:—NN- 68 62 7 Temecula T 1 - _ s -ore COUNTY a--�t_-__sr__ EL5N 53 Gta. 13 ion -RDINO 7130 - iAn - 130 * < 300 days. G-16 5166a� RLAL - - 5173b Chino CHIN IZU 112- - 5175Upland UPLA 13 155 138 tas 5176 Fontana 0 155 164 5184b B7 Bear B * £5 - - 5181 a e regoryR 41W 145 123 X34 5182 Yucai a 4[T" lu/ 130 129 - S185c taro >r ortTR 5190 ictorvi a 38' 27 31 5191d Z7 - -arms —TAPS 5192e rona TRON - - - - - a. b. c. d. Station was relocated and number Station closed August 31,78 Station closed May 1, 78 Station opened Jun. 78 changed to 086 e. Station closed f. Relocated effective 8-1-78. June 78 as #087 9114/79 * < 300 days. G-16 Table IV -6 CARBON MONOXIDE -NUMBER OF DAYS EXCEEDING FEDERAL STANDARD (n PPM, 8 -HOUR AVERAGE) # AREA CODE 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 MGELESMM= In]nn vp at; CENT 63 47 38 14 14 060 069 071a 072 074 075 076 080 081 082 083 084 085 ORANGE C 3177 3185 3186 3188b 3190 3191 4140rP ado -Park PRPK 0 1 - u" 1" 4141' Hemet HENE 0* 0* 0 4144 Riverside 4149 Perris KRI 0 0 0 0* 4150a1nn� * * 4151' Temecula T 4152' Elsinore BE 5151 San Bernardino SNBD 0 1 0 0 0 5155 arstow 5165 Redlands * * 5166 Rialto RIAL 5173' Chino U11N r n* * 5175 an . 5176 Vontaria FONT n 5184' Bie ear _KW* 5181 a re o 5182 uca a 5185° Ontario Airport ONTR 5190 5191d ctory e Pa ms TNPS 0* 0 0 5192e rona _ 0 0 a. Station was relocated and number b. Station closed August 31, 1978. c. Station closed May 1, 1978. d. Station opened June 1978. e.. Station closed June 1978 * less than 75% of hourly valid data. G-17 changed to 086 effective 8/1/78. Table IV -7 Nitrogen Dioxide -Number of Days Excseding State Standard (Q:0'.25. ppm, hourly average) 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980* * AREA -- CODE 3190 3191 • tos- t ane a ERSIDE 0 PalmSprings- PLSP 4139 Talo 4140 a o ar 4141b Hemet 4144 vers 4149 e s 4150 4151bTemecula Ranh ' 4152b s pore G-18 5155 mow 5165 a an _ 5166 Ria - to " 5173b Chino 5175 o an �5 1 5176 Fontana CONT 73 3 0 518ear B 5181 Lake Gregory 5182 YucaIYUUI 5185c Ontario Airport 0 5190etorvi e ' - 0 5191d a ms 5192°' rona T'RON - - - a. Station was relocated and number changed to 086 effective 8-1-78. b. Station closed August 31,78 c. Station closed Nay 1. 78 e. Station closed June 78 d. Station opened Jun. 78 f. Relocated as #087 9/14/79 S. Numbers inarentheses are numbel's of months off data. * All 1980 NOa data were taken using a different calibration method and are not directly comparable to data for 1976-79. NO2 concentrations for 1980 must be multiplied by 1 14 to be made comparable to those of 1976-79. G-18 I I I I II I I LJ F I I I1 Table IV -8 Total Suspended Particulate - Percent of Days Exceeding Air Quality Standards: State �z 100 ug/m', 24 hour average)/Federal (> 260 ug/m4. 24 hour average) 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 a. Station was relocated and number changed to 086 effective 8-1-78. b. Station closed August 31,78 c. Station closed May 1, 78 a. Station closed June 78 d. Station opened Jun. 78 f. Relocated as ¢087 9/14/79 g, Numbers in parentheaes are number of months of data. G-19 Table IV -9 Sulfate - Percent of Days Zscaading State Standard (a 25 pi/w3. 24 hour awrap) 1976 1977 1975 1979 .1970 AREA • CODE ..... �vwcf se 7RRTati•7 - _ - 072 074 na etch SOCO - sa 075 omonT-- 07614 o �S 080 sWF�ttitil 081 SCILV- 082 canter 2 083 g -- Fasadena WA 084 ynwoa e S Z 085 Fico vara $OP 3185 Costa xasa wac 3186 aro 3188b an uan 3190 s toe 0 2 a 0 3191 Santa Ana Sj. G-20 5155 Barstow Haim 0 - 0 5 5165 a an 3 2 _ 8 8 10 G-20 5155 Barstow Haim �--• - 0 5 5165 a an 5166 iffalto 5 5173b Chino CRI 5175 n ane 5176 Fontana 5184bSim Bear 5181 a e rre LKLIA - 5182 a a2'o 5185c 5190 ccc e 5191da ms 5192e IRON .rona - a. Station was relocated and number changed to 086 effective 8-1-78. b. Station closed August 31,78 May 1. 78 e. Station closed Jona 78 c. d. Station closed Station opened Jun. 78 f. Relocated as #08 4 7g numbers 8 Numbers in paren9(1 he ea/a a of months of data. G-20 Table IV -10 Lead - Number of Months Exceeding State Standard (1.5 ug/ms, monlh17 ave e)s) /and Quarters Exceeding Federal Standard (1.5 Vs/123i quarterly 8 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 # AREA — CODE 060 lausa ESGY y - 069 Blrhank 071s est 072 on as SII 074 sa L l0 075 amour YWVA 076 Lennox l0 1 080 AFiittiar —Sa 081 aw" 082 castar 0253 ase na 943 - 44Z 085 Pico 084 =od v— arii� a bsGv 11/4 4L i/Palm—rarinsts FLSP 0 - 0/0 0/u wt 4139. India— 4140 Prado Paric" 4141b surer Op 4144 erside RIVR- 4.49 P'errisP 4150 ann R - 4151b Temecula T _ 4152 s�.nara " 5166 Rialto K LAI, Ulu 5173bChina-- 0 5175 IIpland" 5176 Fontana YoNT —� 5184b t' ear B BE -- 5181 i, a re o 5182uca a " 5185° ear o ort " 5190 ^-^^ 5191d palms- 5192a Trona a. Station was relocated and number changed to 086 effective 8/1/ b. Station closed August 31, 1978. c. Station closed May 1, 1978. f Relocated as i087 9/14/79 d. Station opened Jame 1978. Numbers in s 0087h9/14eses are e. Station closed June 1978 g' nunher of months of data, G-21 TABLE VI OZONE NUMBER OF DAYS OF TrRST/SECOND STAGE -EPISODES (hourly average x 0,20 ppm / i 0.35 ppm) 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 # AREA LOS ANGELES COUNTY 001 Los Angeles 060 Azusa 069 Burbank 072 Long Beach 074 Reseda 075 Pomona 076 Lennox 080 Whittier 081 Newhall ,082 Lancaster** 083 Pasadena 084 Lynwood 085 Pico Rivera 086 West L.A. ORANGE COUNTY 3176 Anaheim 3177 La Habra 3185 Costa Mesa 3186 E1 Toro 3190 Los Alamitos 3191 Santa Ana C. RIVERSIDE COUNTY 4137 Palm Springs** 4139 Indio 4140 Prado Park 4144 Riverside 4149 Perris 4150 Banning** SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 5151 San Bernardino 5155 Barstow** 5165 Redlands 5175 Upland 5176 Fontana 5181 Lake Gregory 5182 Yucaipa 5190 Victorville** 5191 29 Palms** 5192 Trona** CODE CENT 11/0 3/0 16/0 14/0 10/0 ESGV 47/1 64/0 76/5 71/10 74/7 ESFV 43/1 11/0 30/0 26/2 30/1. SOCO 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/0 1/0 WSFV 33/0 37/0 16/0 24/0 36/1 PWVA 37/1 58/0 72/9 57/3 49/1 SWCO 1/0 Q/0 2/0 0/0 0/0 SOEA 19/1 12/0 18/1 1610 5/0 SCRV 38/O 59/0 45/0 59/0 46/2 ANVA Q/0 V0 5/0 1/0 7/0 WSGV 51/0 SS/0 85/8 78/11 5613 SCI.A 2/0 0/0 0/0 610 0/0 SSGV 32/1 52/0 4$/5 3$/3 3$/1 NWCO WO 0/0 iQ'0 7/0 :/0 ANAH 6/0 0/0 13/0 5/0 6/0 LAHB 15/0 8/0 24/1 21/1 14/0 COST 0/0 0/0 3/0 1/0 0/0 TORO 3/0 2/0 10/0 6/0 3/0 LSAL SACH 17/0 10/0 9%0 14/2 13/0 PLSP 310 5/0 3/0 3/0 4/0 INDO 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/0 0/0 PRPK 26/0 31/1 34/2 24/0 32 0 RIVR 46/2 66/1 622 55/0 6/4 PERI 13/0 39/0 200 BANN 20/0 13%0 22/0 22/0 13/0 SNBD 51/0 70/1 72/1 620 722 BARS 0/0 1/0 (y0 0/0 0/0 REM 2511 48/0 64/2 57/0 61/Q UPLA 61/1 .85/2 68/2 59/2 73/4 FONT 69%1 98/6 98/11 95/9 84/6 LKGR 13/0 63/A 73/0 80/3+0 YUCI 28/0 39/0 56/0 6 /0 590 VCVL 0/0 1/0 1/0 3- Q/0 A0/0 TNPS TRON - - Q/0 ** Southeast Desert Air Basin Stations. All others in South Coast Air Basin. G-22 I H. Acoustic Environment 1 1 I 1 1 F so I I 1 L 1 1 11 VINCENT MESTRE ASSOCIATES NOISE ASSESSMENT FOR NEWPORT BEACH GPA 81-2 JANUARY 1982 1.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 1.1 Primary Noise Sources The existing noise environment at each of the five project sites that comprise the General Plan Amendment is primarily due to motor vehicle activity. The exception is the Campus Drive Industrial Parcel that is adjacent to John Wayne Airport. Aircraft noise impacts are minimal at the remaining project sites, with the aircraft noise exposure less than 60 CNEL. The five sites are spread throughout the city, effecting the traffic related noise on a number of different roadways. 1.2 Noise Assessment Criteria Several rating scales have been developed for measurement of community noise. These account for: The parameters of noise that have been shown to annoy or deter the health of man. The variety of noises found in the environment. The variations in noise levels that occur as a person moves through the environment. The variations associated with the time of day. The predominant rating scales now in use in California are the Equivalent Noise Level (Leq) and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Both scales are based on the A -weighted decibel. A -weighting is a frequency correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels with the frequency response of the human ear. Leq is the sound level corresponding to a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time -varying signal over a given sample period. Leq is the "energy" average noise level. H-1 CNEL is similar to Leq but applies weighting factors which place greater significance on noise events occuring during the night and evening hours. CNEL is a 24-hour, time -weighted annual average noise level. Time -weighted refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occuring at these times. The evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) penalizes noise by 5 dBA, while nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) noises are penalized by 10 dBA. These time periods and penalties were selected to reflect people's sensitivity to noise as a function of activity. H-1 I The criterion used to assess the acceptability of community noise levels can vary with the municipality. Most communities use 65 CNEL as the critical criterion for assessing the compatibility of residential land uses with noise sources. The Noise Element of the General Plan for the City of Newport Beach , requires that the noise levels in exterior living areas (rear yards and patios) for residential land uses do not exceed 65 CNEL. In addition, the State of California requires that all new multi -family residential projects meet the California Noise Insulation Standard (California Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 4) which requires that interior noise levels im residential living spaces do not exceed a CNEL of 45. The City of Newport Beach also applies this standard to all new single-family residential projects. Commercial land uses, such as is part of the GPA, are not as sensitive to noise as residential land uses. In fact, commercial land uses are less sensitive to exterior noise levels and more influenced by interior noise levels. The City of Newport Beach does not have a noise standard for commercial land uses. A common commercial standard, similar to the County of Orange standard, is that the interior noise level do not exceed 50 CNEL. This criterion was used in assessing the compatibility of the commercial projects with the noise environments. 1.3 Noise Model The noise levels projected in the next sections of this report were computed using the Highway Noise Model published by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model," FHWA-RD-77-108, December 1978). The FHWA Model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noise level." A computer code has been written which computes equivalent noise levels for each of the time periods used in CNEL. Weighting these noise levels and summing them results in the CNEL for the traffic projections used. CNEL contours are found by iterating over many distances until the distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours are found. I , JI I I 4 H-2 I 1.4 Existing Noise Levels The existing noise environment was determined through a comprehensive ' noise measurement survey and computer modeling effort. A noise survey of 23 locations in the vicinity of the project sites was utilized in describing the existing noise setting. The existing noise levels were also established by ' computer modeling the roadways for the current traffic and speed characteristics. The existing environment was modeled in order to establish a baseline noise level to which each project and the cumulative effect of the ' GPA can be compared. The existing noise environment as it pertains to each of the projects is summarized later in the existing conditions section. 1.4.1 Noise Measurement Survey A noise measurement survey was conducted on January 18th and 19th at thirteen locations throughout the City. In addition, measurements from Newport GPA 80-3 and Pacific Coast Highway Expansion EIR were included for describing the existing noise environment. The measurement locations are depicted in Figure A. All of the measurement locations were selected to depict the noise environment on the project sites and at existing residential land use that are adjacent to roadways that will be affected by the GPA. The measurements were also used for validation and calibration of the noise model that is used in predicting the noise environment. The noise measurements in' January were made using a Digital Acoustics Model 607P automated digital noise data acquisition system. The previous measurements were conducted with a BBN 614 digital noise monitor. The noise monitors was equipped with a General Radio 1/2 inch electret microphone. The system was calibrated with a General Radio Type 1562-A calibrator with calibration traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. Measurements were conducted for 15 minutes each during the daytime period on a weekday. The measurements recorded the Leq noise level, which was discussed in the pervious section. The measurement location was selected to determine the traffic noise levels at a similar distance from the roadway as the• nearest residence. At a number of locations, were noise barriers are ' present, the measurements recorded the traffic noise impacts that included the mitigating effects of the barrier. The results of the noise measurements are presented in Table A. L I H-3 V f 1" rf a r�.\.Ute="" �' ;��y`�'%'k '�`,\ Si�js••i.,x�='r•'�':� !r t 'fi �1:�_�= r(� ts� �1ii� i�i .Cfii • 1 :'#:' = �j ;' app CiTE- 1`• \, S/\F.'��• R � iii .1- 4 •ORANGE •`! ;� � •ir l� t. T t -` COUNTY �- �.— HqH� -tel ■� �` 7 `~tip ]i• E� �iL--E--G•-END tf r � r mmN9 WEST ElSN AVENUE PARCELS 1 : 1 BIG CANYON AREA to J-� NBLEOW W CCEIM CAMPUS DRIVE 0 Soso 6470 Noise Analysis Locations CrrY OF IEW ICIff BEACH PROPOSED GAA 81-2 RE A m I= r r m c Y � 4 •ORANGE •`! ;� � •ir l� t. T t -` COUNTY �- �.— HqH� -tel ■� �` 7 `~tip ]i• E� �iL--E--G•-END tf r � r mmN9 WEST ElSN AVENUE PARCELS 1 : 1 BIG CANYON AREA to J-� NBLEOW W CCEIM CAMPUS DRIVE 0 Soso 6470 Noise Analysis Locations CrrY OF IEW ICIff BEACH PROPOSED GAA 81-2 RE A m I= r r m ' TABLE A RESULTS OF NOISE MEASUREMENTS WITHIN THE CITY NEWPORT BEACH -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SITE DATE TIME DISTANCE FROM MEASURED DESCRIPTION ----------------------CENTERLINE LEQ ------------------------------------------------ 1 1/18/82 10:11am 60ft 62 Marguerite (N of 5th) 2 1/18/82 10:44am 30ft 61 Marguerite (S of 5th) 3 1/18/82 12:03pm 110ft 57 San Joaquin E of San Miguel) 4 1/19/82 11:33am 60ft 63 San Joaquin �W of MacArthur) 5 1/18/82 12:51pm 140ft 59 MacArthur N of San Joaquin) 6 1/18/82 1:19pm 60ft 68 MacArthur �S of Ford) 7 1/18/82 2:15pm 60ft 67 Superior 8 1/18/82 2:42pm 100ft 66 PCH (N of Superior) 9 1/18/82 3:37pm 60ft 68 Irvine 10 1/18/82 4:19pm 75ft 65 Campus 11 1/19/82 10:19am 75ft 70 Jamboree (N of PCH) 12 1/19/82 10:45am 50ft 69 PCH (Corona Del Mar) 13 1/19/82 11:33am 50ft 56 Fifth (E of Marguerite) 14 10/9/80 2:00pm 120ft 60 MacArthur (N of PCH) 15 10/9/80 3:05pm 90ft 63 Jamboree(East Bluff) 16 10/9/80 3:28pm 80ft 67 Jamboree •S of Ford) 17 10/9/80 3:49pm 75ft 61 San Joaquin (E of Jamboree) ' 18 1/14/81 9:33am 85ft 60 PCH (Irvine Terrace) 19 1/14/81 9:58am 130ft 64 PCH (Irvine Terrace) 20 1/14/81 10:20am 120ft 61 PCH (Irvihe Terrace) 21 1/15/81 10:08am 110ft 71 PCH Jamboree intersection) 22 1/15/81 10:35am 120ft 62 PCH (Promontory Point) 23 1/14/81 10:50am 75ft 66 PCH (Bayshores) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES: Measurements at locations 14, 15., 18, and 22 recorded the effect of the noise barrier in mitigating the traffic noise levels onto the residential land use. ' H-4 Go - 1.4.2 Modeled Noise'Envi-ronment Existing noise levels in the vicinity of the project were established in ' terms of the CNEL index by modeling the roadways for current traffic and speed characteristics. The roadways that were modeled for existing conditions include roadways adjacent to the project sites and those that will be effected by the General Plan Amendment. Traffic data used to project the existing noise level are shown in Table B. These data are derived from the traffic study in the EIR. The traffic mixes and time distributions are presented in Table C. The traffic mix data are based on measurements for roadways in Orange County (Orange County Traffic Census 1975, Compiled by EMA Development Traffic Engineering) and are considered typical for arterials in Orange County. Distances to the CNEL contours for these roadways are shown in Table D. These values represent the .distance from the centerline of the road to the contour value shown. Note that the values given in Table D do not take into account the effect of any noise barriers or topography that may affect ambient noise levels. , H-5 1 TABLE B TRAFFIC DATA USED TO PROJECT EXISTING NOISE LEVELS ------------------------------------------------ ROADWAY SEGMENT EXISTING VEHICLE SPEED ---------------------------------- ADT (MPH) ------- MACARTHUR BOULEVARD North of Coast Highway 24000 50 North of San Joaquin 35000 50 North of Ford 46000 50 North of Campus 36000 50 JAMBOREE ROAD North of Coast Highway 29000 50 North of San Joaquin 46000 50 North of Ford 43000 50 North of Campus 32000 50 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY West of Superior 44000 45 East of Superior 47000 45 East of Jamboree 34000 45 East of MacArthur 40000 40 East of Marguerite 30000 40 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD West of MacArthur 20000 45 East of MacArthur 12200 45 FORD ROAD East of Jamboree 6000 45 SUPERIOR AVENUE North of Coast Highway 26000 35 MARGUERITE AVENUE North of 5th 8000 35 South of 5th 6000 35 FIFTH AVENUE West of Marguerite 1000 35 East of Marguerite 3000 35 CAMPUS DRIVE North of Bristol 23000 40 IRVINE BOULEVARD South of Bristol 27000 40 BRISTOL STREET West of Campus 32000 40 CORONA DEL MAR FREEWAY West of Campus ------------------------------------------------------------ 35000 55 TABLE C TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PER TIME OF DAY IN PERCENT OF ADT ----------------------------------------- PERCENT OF ADT VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT ----------------------------------------- Automobile 75.51 12.57 9.34 Medium Truck 1.56 0.09 0.19 Heavy Truck 0.64 0.02 0.08 ----------------------------------------- H-7 II II I! II Ia II I1 TABLE D CNEL NOISE LEVELS FOR EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ------------------------------------------------------------------ DISTANCE TO CNEL CONTOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE (FEET) ---------------------- ------------------ 60-CNEL -------------------------- 65-CNEL 70-CNEL MACARTHUR BOULEVARD North of Coast Highway 299 139 64 North of San Joaquin 384 178 83 North of Ford 461 214 99 North of Campus 391 182 84 JAMBOREE ROAD North of Coast Highway 339 157 73 North of San Joaquin 461 214 99 North of Ford 440 204 95 North of Campus 362 168 78 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY West of Superior 375 174 80 East of Superior 392 182 84 East of Jamboree 316 147 68 East of MacArthur 290 135 62 East of Marguerite 240 111 52 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD West of MacArthur 222 103 48 East of MacArthur 160 74 34 FORD ROAD East of Jamboree 100 46 21 SUPERIOR AVENUE North of Coast Highway 175 81 38 MARGUERITE AVENUE North of 5th 80 37 1* South of 5th 66 31 FIFTH AVENUE West of Marguerite 20 East of marguerite 42 19 CAMPUS DRIVE North of Bristol 201 93 43 IRVINE BOULEVARD South of Bristol 223 104 48 BRISTOL STREET West of Campus 250 116 54 CORONA DEL MAR FREEWAY West of Campus 451 209 97 ---------------------------- * - Denotes Contour Does Not ------------------------------------ Extend Past Roadway Edge. 1.4.3 Summary of Existing Noise Levels The existing noise environment on the project sites and project access streets, that has been determined through the noise measurement survey and computer modeling, is discussed below as it pertains to each of the projects. CalTrans West Parcel. This proposed residential/commercial' site is exposed to noise eves from Pacific Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. The noise from Pacific Coast Highway is shielded by the bluff. Adjacent to Superior Avenue, the unmitigated noise exposure was measured at an Leq of 67. Existing residential land use along Superior Avenue is located adjacent to the project and across the street. Some of the multi -family land use along Superior presently exceeds the 65 CNEL noise criterion. Block 400 - Newport Center. This commercial site is located in Newport Center and is not exposed to any major noise sources. Residential land use is located along access streets for the project, including Pacific Coast Highway, MacArthur, Jamboree, and San Joaquin. The results of the noise measurements show that some residential land use along Jamboree and Pacific Coast Highway exceed the 65 CNEL noise criterion. Existing noise levels along MacArthur and San Joaquin Hill Road are below the criterion. Fifth Avenue Parcels. The project is situated with existing residential an use on all boundries. The site is exposed to measured noise levels of 62 Leq on Marguerite and 56 L'eq on 'Fifth Avenue. Primary access streets with residential land use include Marguerite, Fifth Avenue and San Joaquin. Access to the project from Pacific Coast Highway wil'1 pass through residential land use along�Marguerite Avenue. While the 65 CNEL noise contour reaches the front yards of these homes, they do not exceed the exterior noise criterion. Big Canyon Area 16. The proposed residential site is exposed to noise eves from MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. MacArthur Boulevard is the major noise source in the area with the measured noise level on the site of 70 Leq. Both these streets have residential land use adjacent to them and will be the ,primary access streets for the project. Cam us Drive Industrial/Office. The noise environment at this indust ria o fice site is dominated by aircraft noise from John Wayne Airport. The noise level from the airport is as great as 74 CNEL on the site. The principle roadways that will serve as access streets for the project have commercial and industrial land use adjacent to them. This includes Bristol, MacArthur, and Jamboree. The exception is Irvine Boulevard that has some Residential. H-9 I 1 0 stI 1 aiJ I I 1 2.0 IMPACTS Three types of potential noise impacts may arise from the project: (1) construction noise may impact adjacent land uses, (2) GPA related traffic may increase noise levels on properties located along primary access routes, and (3) roadway noise may adversely impact the exterior and interior noise levels of the proposed projects within the GPA. 2.1 Construction Noise Construction noise will occur as a result of the development of the proposed projects within the GPA. Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Existing residential land use is located adjacent to the CalTrans West, Fifth Avenue and Big Canyon Area 16 parcels. Construction equipment noise comes under the control of the Environmental Protection Agency's Noise Control Program (Part 204 of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations). Some equipment noise will impact residential areas which are local to the proposed projects. However, projects that are close to residential land use are residential projects themselves, and typically generate lower noise levels than commercial developments. Limits the hours of construction to normal weekday hours (7am to Spm) should minimize any potential short-term noise impacts. 2.2 Impacts on Surrounding Land Uses An important part of a noise analysis is the identification of noise -sensitive land uses that may be impacted by the General Plan Amendment. This would include any residential properties, schools, hospitals, or other noise -sensitive land uses situated along roadways that will carry project -generated traffic. The location of the noise sensitive land use for each project within the General Plan Amendment is discussed in the existing conditions section. A noise impact on noise sensitive land use is considered significant if, '(1) the project traffic increases the noise levels by a detectable amount, or (2) the increased traffic causes the resultant noise levels to exceed the noise criteria. Generally, a 2 to 3 dB increase in the noise levels is necessary to be considered significant. The impact of the GPA on these land uses is assessed by determining the increase in existing noise levels along the roadways due to project generated traffic. Table E contains the estimated traffic volumes on these roadways due to each project within the GPA and the combined projects. This traffic data is derived from the traffic study contained in the EIR. Table F depicts the increase in the existing noise levels due to the traffic from each of the five projects. In addition, the last column of Table F shows the cumulative impact from all the projects combined. The results show that the noise for each of the projects and from the These projected increases in noise important to note that these increases existing levels due to the GPA. If with the current General Plan, these The traffic volumes were compared with estimate of the noise impacts. levels will increase by 0.3 dB or less cumulative effect of all the projects. levels are not significant. It is in noise levels are increases over the the GPA traffic volumes were compared increases in,noise would be even less. the existing volumes for a worst case H-10 TABLE E TRAFFIC ADT USED TO PROJECT IMPACT OF GPA ON ADJACENT LAND USES ROADWAY CALTRANS BLOCk FIFTH BIG CAMPUS CUMULATIVE SEGMENT -------------------------------- WEST ------- 400 -------------------------------------- AVENUE CANYON DRIVE INCREASE MACARTHUR BOULEVARD North of Coast Highway - - 190 110 290 440 North of San Joaquin - 1080 340 110 290 1820 North of Ford - 900 340 240 290 1830 North of Campus - 180 100 70 1140 1490 JAMBOREE 'ROAD North of Coast Highway 130 - 50 190 290 660 North of San Joaquin- 60 360 - 190 290, 900 North of Ford - 360 - 70 290 360 North of Campus - 360 - 70 1140 1670 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY West of Superior 320 180 100 70 - 960 East of Superior 390 720 340 130 290 1650 East of Jamboree 190 900 390 190 290 1480 East of MacArthur 60 360 680 40 290 1430 East of Marguerite 60 360 100 40 290 850 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD West of MacArthur - 720 - - - 720 East of MacArthur - 360 150 - - 510 FORD ROAD East of Jamboree - - - 300 - 300 SUPERIOR AVENUE North of Coast Highway 450 - - - - 450 MARGUERITE AVENUE North of 5th - - 190 - - 190 South of 5th - - 460 - - 460 FIFTH AVENUE West of Marguerite - - 50 - - 50 East of Marguerite - - 250 - - 250 IRVINE BOULEVARD South of Bristol - - - - 290 290 BRISTOL STREET West of Campus - - - - 570 570 CORONA DEL MAR FREEWAY West of Campus - 180 50 150 1140 1520 H-11 I TABLE F INCREASE IN EXISTING NOISE LEVELS DUE TO PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ROADWAY CALTRANS BLOCK FIFTH BIG CAMPUS CUMULATIVE SEGMENT WEST ------------------------------------------------------------- 400 AVENUE CANYON DRIVE --------------- INCREASE MACARTHUR BOULEVARD North of Coast Highway - - - - - •1 North of San Joaquin - .1 - - - •2 North of Ford - .1 - - - •2 North of Campus - - - - -1 •2 JAMBOREE ROAD North of Coast Highway - - - - - .1 North of San Joaquin - - - - - .1 North of Ford - - - - - •1 North of Campus - - - - •1 •2 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY West of Superior - - - - - .1 East of Superior - .1 - - - .1 East of Jamboree - .1 - - - .2 East of MacArthur - .1 .1 - - •2 East of Marguerite - .1 - - - •1 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD West of MacArthur - .2 - - - •2 East of MacArthur - .1 .1 - - •2 FORD ROAD East of Jamboree - - - .3 - .3 SUPERIOR AVENUE North of Coast Highway .1 - - - - .1 MARGUERITE AVENUE North of 5th - - .1 - - •1 South of 5th - - .3 - - .3 FIFTH AVENUE West of Marguerite - - .2 - - •2 East of marguerite - - .3 - - •3 IRVINE BOULEVARD South of Bristol - - - - .1 .1 BRISTOL STREET West of Campus - - CORONA DEL MAR FREEWAY West of Campus - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- - H-12 The traffic estimates from the current General Plan are used for in similar specifying and designing mitigation measures for projects located near these traffic noise sources. To assess the effect of the GPA on these future noise. This General Plan Amendment will not result in any land use being exposed to ultimate noise levels that exceed the traffic and noise estimates, the 1995 traffic noise levels based upon the residential current General Plan and the GPA were computed and compared. Future traffic of concern volumes for the current General Plan and the proposed GPA are shown in Table , G. Vehicular speeds and traffic split assumptions are the same as those in ' the existing conditions. The distances to the CNEL contours for 1995 current General Plan and proposed GPA traffic volumes are given in Table H and I respectively. They represent the distances from the centerline of the road ' to the contour values shown. Note that the values given in these tables do not take into account the effect of any noise barriers or topography that may affect ambient noise levels. In addition, existing legislation is expected to reduce noise levels from future vehicles by 3 dBA or more. This reduction ' is not included in these estimates. The current general plan and the GPA result in similar noise impacts due to traffic residential noise. This General Plan Amendment will not result in any land use being exposed to ultimate noise levels that exceed the current GP or ,the GPA. The 65 CNEL for Marguerite, (South of Fifth) residential noise criteria. Residential areas of concern that are adjacent , result in the 65 CNEL extending 2 feet further into th-is property than the current GP. this increase of .2 dB is not significant. San Joaquin Hills Road. Residential land use within Big Canyon to roadways that will carry addition traffic due to the GPA are discussed below. Pacific Coast Highway. Irvine Terrace and Promontory Point are locate on a sou si a oast Highway east and west of Jamboree Road. The noise barrier in Irvine Terrace protects these homes from exposure to noise levels greater than 65 CNEL for future traffic conditions. Patios within Promontory Point are exposed to noise levels greater than 65 CNEL for existing and future traffic conditions. The current GP and the GPA result in essentially the same noise levels, with the ' difference being insignificant (.1 dBA). Jamboree Road. Some existing residential land use along Jamboree is exposed existing and future noise levels greater than 65 CNEL. The GPA has an insignificant impact on the noise environment on ' residential land use along Jamboree Road. The future noise environment with the GPA will increase by less than .1 dBA over the current General , Plan. Marguerite Road and Fifth Avenue. Single-family residential homes are located along both of these roadways. The 65 CNEL for Fifth Avenue and Marguerite (North of Fifth) will not reach any homes for the current GP or ,the GPA. The 65 CNEL for Marguerite, (South of Fifth) will extend into the front yards of homes facing the street, but does not exceed the noise criteria for exterior living space. The GPA wil'l , result in the 65 CNEL extending 2 feet further into th-is property than the current GP. this increase of .2 dB is not significant. San Joaquin Hills Road. Residential land use within Big Canyon is protected from traffic noise along San Joaquin by a noise barrier. The noise exposure due to the current GP and the GPA is less than the 65 CNEL criterion. The GPA will result in an increase of .1 dBA over the current General Plan. Superior Avenue. Existing multi -family 'homes have patios that are exposed to existing and projected noise levels, greater than 65 CNEL. The GPA will result in an insignificant increase over the current General Plan of .1 dBA along this roadway. H-13 I TABLE G TRAFFIC DATA USED TO PROJECT FUTURE NOISE LEVELS ----------------------------------------------------- ROADWAY SEGMENTS 1995 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ------------------------------ Current GP --------------------- GPA 81-2 ' MACARTHUR BOULEVARD North of Coast Highway 13600 14010 North of San Joaquin 33300 35120 North of Ford 53000 54830 ' North of Campus 27700 29190 JAMBOREE ROAD ' North of Coast Highway North of San Joaquin 32600 55000 33260 55900 North of Ford 45000 45360 North of Campus 39800 41470 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY West of Superior 45700 46660 East of Superior 69000 71040 East of Jamboree 51300 52780 East of MacArthur 46400 47830 East of Marguerite 40400 41250 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD West of MacArthur 27500 28220 East of MacArthur 20600 21110 FORD ROAD East of Jamboree 15000 15300 SUPERIOR AVENUE North of Coast Highway 20000 20520 ' MARGUERITE AVENUE North of 5th 8800 8990 South of 5th 8400 8860 FIFTH AVENUE West of Marguerite 1075 1125 ' East of Marguerite 3500 3950 CAMPUS DRIVE North of Bristol 20000 20000 IRVINE BOULEVARD South of Bristol 25000 25290 BRISTOL STREET West of Campus 27100 27670 CORONA DEL MAR FREEWAY West of Campus 252900 254420 1 ----------------------------------------------------- H-14 TABLE H CNEL NOISE LEVELS FOR 1995 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS CURRENT GENERAL PLAN DISTANCE TO CNEL CONTOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE (FEET) 60-CNEL 65-CNEL 70-CNEL ------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- MACARTHUR BOULEVARD North of Coast Highway 204 95 North of San Joaquin 371 172 North of Ford 506 235 North of Campus 328 152 JAMBOREE ROAD North of Coast Highway 366 170 North of San Joaquin 519 241 North of Ford 454 211 North of Campus 418 194 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY West of Superior 385 179 East of Superior 507 235 East of Jamboree 416 193 East of MacArthur 320 149 East of Marguerite 292 136 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD West of MacArthur 274 127 East of MacArthur 226 105 FORD ROAD East of Jamboree 183 .85 SUPERIOR AVENUE North of Coast Highway 147 68 MARGUERITE AVENUE North of 5th 85 40 South of 5th 83 38 FIFTH AVENUE West of Marguerite 21 East of marguerite 46 21 CAMPUS DRIVE North of Bristol 183 85 IRVINE BOULEVARD South of Bristol 212 98 BRISTOL STREET West of Campus 224 104 CORONA DEL MAR FREEWAY West of Campus -------------------------------- * - Denotes Contour Does --_--1684---------_782- Not Extend Past .Roadway ------ Edge. H-15 40 80 109 71 79 112 98 90 83 109 90, 69 63 59 49 40 32 18 18 *Y 39 46 48 363' I 11 11 1I 11 11 I I II II II it II II U TABLE I CNEL NOISE LEVELS FOR 1995 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS FOR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMMENDMENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DISTANCE TO CNEL CONTOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE (FEET) -------------------------- -----------60_CNEL ------------------------------- 65-CNEL 70-CNEL MACARTHUR BOULEVARD North of Coast Highway 208 97 45 North of San Joaquin 385 179 83 North of Ford 518 240 112 North of Campus 340 158 73 JAMBOREE ROAD North of Coast Highway 371 172 80 North of San Joaquin 524 243 113 North of Ford 456 212 98 North of Campus 430 200 93 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY West of Superior 390 181 84 East of Superior 517 240 111 East of Jamboree 424 197 91 East of MacArthur 327 152 70 East of Marguerite 296 138 64 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD West of MacArthur 279 130 60 East of MacArthur 230 107 50 FORD ROAD East of Jamboree 186 86 40 SUPERIOR AVENUE North of Coast Highway 150 70 32 MARGUERITE AVENUE North of 5th 86 40 18 South of 5th 85 40 18 FIFTH AVENUE West of Marguerite 22 East of Marguerite 50 23 CAMPUS DRIVE North of Bristol 183 85 39 IRVINE BOULEVARD South of Bristol 214 99 46 BRISTOL STREET West of Campus 227 105 49 CORONA DEL MAR FREEWAY West of Campus 1691 785 --- --------------- 364 ---------------------------------------------------- * - Denotes Contour Does Not Extend Past Roadway Edge. H-16 2.3 Noise Levels on the Project Sites The proposed residential projects (Caltrans West, Fifth Avenue, and Big Canyon 16) within the GPA, are subject to meeting the 65 CNEL exterior noi.se criteria and the 45 CNEL interior noise criteria as specified by the City of Newport Beach. For the proposed commercial/industrial sites (400 Block, Campus Drive, and part of CalTrans West) an interior noise level of less than 50 CNEL is the desired criterion. Table J gives the distances to the CNEL contour values for 1995 GPA traffic conditions on the roadways that will be adjacent to each of the project sites. Using the results from Table J and a preliminary estimate of building location, compliance with these criteria can be assessed. The following paragraphs address compliance of these projects with the noise standards. CalTrans West Parcel. With proper site design, this residential project can ease y comply with the noise standards. While the unmitigated noise exposure directly adjacent to Superior Avenue is greater than the 65 CNEL criteria, the noise levels can easily be mitigated down to acceptable levels. Assuming the buildings are adjacent to Superior Avenue, the outdoor to indoor building attenuation required to meet the interior noise standard is 22 dB. The noise exposure due to Pacific Coast Highway will depend upon the final grading plan. However, with proper site design, the site can easily accommodate residential land use. Block 400 - Newport Center. Since there are no major noise sources adjacent to the project site, the project will easily comply with the desired interior noise level for office space use. Fifth Avenue Parcels. The site is adjacent to Marguerite and Fifth Avenues. The ultimate noise from Marguerite may require mitigation depending upon the final site design. The 65 CNEL is projected to extend 40 feet from the centerline on to the property. The required outdoor to indoor noise attenuation to meet the interior noise standard is 20 dB. Big Canyon Area 16. The proposed residential site is exposed to unmitigated noise levels of greater than the 65 CNEL criterion. However, with proper site design, the site can easily accommodate residential land use. The maximum outdoor to indoor noise attenuation is 24 dB. Cam us •Drive Commercial/Industrial. This commercial site is exposed to tra fic noise Trom Campus Drive and aircraft noise at John Wayne Airport. The maximum exterior noise level of 74 CNEL would require a 24 dB outdoor to indoor building attenuation to meet the 50 CNEL interior noise level. This building attenuation is easily achieved with normal commercial building practices in Southern California. H-17 H-18 I1 TABLE J CNEL NOISE LEVELS ON PROJECT SITES FOR 1995 GPA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DISTANCE TO CNEL CONTOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE (FEET) ' 60-CNEL 65-CNEL ---------------------------- 70-CNEL CalTrans West Parcel ' PACIFIC COTST-ff MHWAY 390 181 84 SUPERIOR AVENUE 150 70 32 Fifth Avenue Parcels MARGUERIFE AVENUE 86 40 FIFTH AVENUE 50 23 Big Canyon Parcel MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 385 179 83 ' FORD ROAD 186 86 40 Campus Drive Parcel CAMPUS DRIVE 183 85 39 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- * Does Not Extend Past Roadway Edge. - Denotes Contour H-18 I1 3.0 MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation of construction noise impacts should be determined on a project by project basis. Limiting construction near residential areas from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. is often adequate to mitigate construction noise impacts. At the time of Tentative Tract stage, a noise assessment for the CalTrans West, Fifth Avenue, and Big Canyon 16 parcels should be completed to insure compliance with the exterior and interior noise criteria. Mitigation of the exterior noise levels can be achieved with an acoustical barrier, building setback or building orientation to reduce noise levels down to below the 65 CNEL criteria. While compliance with the interior noise standard should not be a problem (most new homes in Southern California achieve greater than 24 dB building attenuation), it is appropriate to demonstrate building attenuation of -greater than 20 dB through quantitative engineering calculations. At the time of submital of building plans, these architectural plans should be analyzed to insure compliance with the interior noise standard. H-19 'i C 1 1 H i 1 7 1 I 11 Certified Final Environmental Impact Report Volume III City of Newport Beach General Plan Amendment 81-2 • VOLUME III CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81-2 Prepared for: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. Box 1768 ie Newport Beach, California 92663-3884 (714) 640-2197 Prepared by: PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK, INC. 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, California 92714 (714) 641-8820 May 1983 0 0 0 VOLUME THREE to the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA 81-2 prepared by PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca 92663 (714) 640-2197 and PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK, Inc. 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, Ca 92714 (714) 641-8820 March 14, 1983 VOLUME THREE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA 81-2 CONTENTS ATTACHMENT No. 1 IATTACHMENT No. 2 11 J I 19 I I I C II C I� II Attachment No. 1 to the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA 81-2 prepared by PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 (714) 640-2197 and PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK, Inc. 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA 92714 (714) 641-8820 February 1, 1983 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-21 ISSUES, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-53 1-2 I 16 1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .1 I I I ip I .1 I i I I 1 1-3 I PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND REVIEW The City of Newport Beach notified all responsible agencies, interested groups and individuals that a Draft EIR has been completed for the proposed project. Additionally, the City used several strategies to solicit input during the period of preparation of the Draft EIR. The following actions have been taken since publication of the Draft EIR: 1. Notice of Completion was filed with the Secretary for The ' Resources Agency, State of California. 2. Distribution by the State Clearinghouse of the Draft EIR to State agencies and SCAG for regional agency review. 3. Distribution by the City of Notice of Completion and copies of the Draft EIR to individuals and organizations (distribution lists attached). 4. Distribution by the City of Notice of Completion and location of a copy of the Draft EIR available for inspection by various organizations and individuals (mailing list attached). 5. Notice of availability of the Draft EIR and public hearing before the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the project. 6. Meetings with the City of Newport Beach Citizens' Environmental Quality Advisory Committee. I U 1-4 , it DATE April 16, 1982 TO: IDATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETION Qx State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street, Rm. 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 April 16, 1982 FROM: Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 TITLE: Draft EIR: "City of Newport Beach, -- General Plan 81-2" 'ROJECT LOCATION - The project applies to five different study areas within the City SPECIFIC: of Newport Beach PROJECT LOCATION - PRMECI LOC ION - CITY: Newport Beach COUNTY: Orange. DESCRIPTION OF NATURE, PURPOSE AND BENEFICIARIES OF PROJECT: See Attachment A. The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency for this project. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report: REVIEW PERIOD: 45 DAYS CONTACT PERSON: Fred Talarico ❑ is attached for your review ❑X is available for your review at the -Planning Department P.O. Box 1768 I 3300 W. Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 ENDING ON: June B. 1982 TITLE: Environmental CoordinatorPHONE: (714) 640-2197 1 1-5 ATTACHMENT "A" The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency for the following project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project consists of an amendment to the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach for those portions of the City depicted on the attached maps. The Environmental Impact Report has been prepared to provide an analysis of the proposed project by the Lead Agency and Responsible Agencies, and focuses, future environmental documents as may be required prior to specific project(s) implementation. The proposed amendment includes the following five sites within the City: 1. Caltrans West Parcel; 2. Block 400 —Newport Center; 3. Fifth Avenue Parcels; 4. Freeway Reservation West/Big Canyon Area 16; and 5. Campus Drive Industrial/Office. The locations of the sites are shown in Exhibit 1. The proposed General Plan Land Use Element changes for each site are described below and illustrated in Exhibits 2 through 6. Changes to the Newport Beach General Plan for each specific site might be more extensive based upon information developed in t}f course of the planning and environmental analysis, but will be within the range of alternative explored in the Draft EIR. 1. Caltrans West Parcel (see Exhibit 2) This project proposes to change the designation of this site from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" to "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" and "Multi -Family Residential" uses. 2. Block 400 - Newport Center (see Exhibit 3') The proposed project is to add 80,000 square feet of medical office to Block 400 in Newport Center. 3. Fifth Avenue Parcels (see Exhibit 4) The Newport Beach General Plan refers to the various parcels in this proposal as the "Fifth Avenue Parcels". The General, Plan Amendment involves the following,: a. Site A: Proposed is a change from "Low-density Residential to "Medium -density Residential". b. Site B: Proposed is a change from "Low-density Residential" to "Medium -density Residential". c. Site C: Proposed is a change from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" with an alternate use of "low-density Residential" to "Recreational and Environmental Open Space. 1-6 V Attachment A 16 Page 2 4. Freeway Reservation West/Big Canyon Area 16 (see Exhibit 5) The proposed amendment would change the land use designation on the portion of Big Canyon Planned Community located southwesterly of Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" to "Medium -density Residential". I 7' io L� U I I 11 I area bounded by Bristol Street North, Birch Street, Campus Drive, and Dove Street from "General Industry" to a mixture of "General Industry" and "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial". Also proposed is the establishment of a reduction in the intensity of development in the area within the City bounded by MacArthur Boule- vard, Birch Street, Orchard Street and Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue. 5. Campus Drive Industrial/Office (see Exhibit 6) The proposed amendment would change the land use designation of the I 7' io L� U I I 11 I area bounded by Bristol Street North, Birch Street, Campus Drive, and Dove Street from "General Industry" to a mixture of "General Industry" and "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial". Also proposed is the establishment of a reduction in the intensity of development in the area within the City bounded by MacArthur Boule- vard, Birch Street, Orchard Street and Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue. m � 6RIV ar i'J': t'�• %� .. V:"ill"allf_ •. � Op N '• "�i ?`/�: !!.`�\\•��� I .�1• �• .COUNT ,?i'!Fer .;,�;/ .. •! 1 a: ••(t'•'' ^..lT jj• j.«f IRVINE � 1 i�tiq% ,COSjA MESAY��:-... •,i "'�"ii'� .• �'" ,� y- .. '`, • i '\'' '\\ ;\ �• IJ `'':..'L` ;/••i,. _��. f)��:;;�'=-` :••`... ,fA ��` a %T/'�J.��-�r..'c pEWPOflT i _ , i:_...,s•• r \ ;�: ;21 }: _,• EWPOH•B BEACH �= `l •/'-! .\\ _ I ^-..'t• �� n��:. j �' •i ~..• \.../ _ _�'__ -v S(73-•-1-} 1a5 -c-.: :"hJ�l�• '�••'a .rte+'_�' ';RANGE a •.,, �,,: COUNTY / iii . �•' it �_...:a .c _ f:,t �h��,;• _ rQ OANTIIYi \ �\ �.�r?•-.'� ;i?%. J?,im(tif �_.•l�el�_,;.'••\ t=n tC•=!:j_—=_ .,lit .Ng•Ns ' _1 :`•. _ /!JIB-/ ) �" II• '• GIl1 Cr F[YhY1T Fl1[.1 •. a Vicinity ((��llj��2j1�T���1�//��((11 jj��J1 /\j�(yE((�/�( �j 0 o O o Q W � LMSIfJISUUL:IIS MAN UG QUA .�A' 'A1E V 11 0 l$ •- .. - 0 t]36 ]]60 M7L City of Newport Beach- •F EXHIBIT' / LCGLIIJ —L 1 CAL•IRANS WCST Z CAMPUS 0111VE S 6TH AVENUE PARCELS BN CANYON AREA 16 6 NEWPORT CENTER BLOCK 400 go a "a >m No 40 maw go go i0 $a 064L m I 190 pfE't �� ! `�* �0SF .! ;.����•¢ � ��. X Nip` Ips :a• m to ,.••' .AiiW pG � daoot}, ���<.w ,i N�• i � Jcc•Tr. ^_f;�^ , y�,s, el RECREATIONAL AND ;i ' ; ;',s; ' „ ii Fc 'x i�• `-- �� ENVIRONMENTAL ;a; ;• ,_S "„V i�� �� rez f»i., _�:�t OPEN SPACE JEP.1Q07/01V A ULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL e•;:;:<:; :x.<.;:; :<<:"� r� 1 110.1 to 15 D.UJBuildable Acce) \\ NfEsr CGdST` y -- ............. ..• NICE i... C�ESCENi R AV� LO,NNEWr fvBz.""cre✓E'•"?, RIVE�' �NA/•f''�E� at! tio ��' r�C I ��-+p NA A 6�� :C7 C7 L7C7oI�c�o _ �C_717 6 - APO _W G�O A Q hU y �' �^ d .tD EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped Open Space EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT: Recreational and Environmental Open Space EXISTING RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT: Scenic Area and view Park EXISTING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM: Recreational and Environmental Open Space GPA 01-2: Indicated on exMbit above EXISTING ZONING: 0-S (Open Space) District Proposed Land Use Element 0 400 800 1200 Caltrans West Parcel CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 81-2 - ��• �� �,, y.. 1•, r. 1-9 EXHIBIT 2 M NEWPORT l ADMINISTRATIVE.\ PROFESSIONAL AND FINANCIAL COMMERCIAL (Amends Land Use Element Text to allow the addition of 80,000,square feet of medical office space) CENTEV u I EXISTING LAND USE: General Office and Medical Office EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT: Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial (No further development) GPA 81-2: indicated an Exhibit above EXISTING ZONING: C -O -N (Multiple Residential, Note% Motel, Professional Offices, and Retail Sales District) Proposed Land Use Element BbCk4W= iHa o o �t csutw CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 81-2 1-10 c`I EXHIBIT I I I' 7 I I I I I I i I i g ta.an f -•----�� . v r� C Yi i , r r iii a <ro fes. ..... �, `tyr �p� •_ '�' - --_'.� ���,1 •wcJ • SG '•.a xvccr irk RECREATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL OPEN SPACE ~AvOPRR�?�:3 :i::ii:.:T MEDIUM DENSITY `_ RESIDENTIAL gr (4.1 to 10 D.UJ v;u) ! a n9'� ! Buildable Acre) n JOASISSENIORCITIZEN, CENTER �i,��uall . EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped Open Space EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT AND RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ELEMENT: Areas A and B - Low -Density Residential (4 or less d.u./buildable acre); Area G - Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an Alternative Use of Low -Density Residential (4 or less d.u./buildable acre) EXISTING RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT: Area A - Neighborhood Park; Areas B and c - Flora and Fauna Reserve with Neighborhood Park on Area B GPA 81-2: Indicated on Exhibit above EXISTING ZONING: R-1-11 (Single -Family Combining) District Proposed Land Use Element W ��°�° Rh AMMB ° a 03b CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 81-2 i EXHIBIT 4 i -u MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (4.1 to 10 D.U./Buildable Acre) y. .__ i I� oiivE :k v tq! �C �pp�, /fir \ � x♦ r! .- r a N J.6 %l 4P i P\J,-- `��� b '•i, ��.. WIN tq! �C ` \ _ �1. n7. EXISTING LANG USE: Undeveloped Open Space EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT: Recreational and Enviromantal Open Space EXISTING RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT: Golf Course GPA 81-2: Indicated on' Exhibit above EXISTING ZONING: P -C (Planned Community) District Proposed Lancs Use Element cl ng myon A a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 89-2 0 1E EXHIBIT t I I � x♦ r! ` \ _ �1. n7. EXISTING LANG USE: Undeveloped Open Space EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT: Recreational and Enviromantal Open Space EXISTING RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT: Golf Course GPA 81-2: Indicated on' Exhibit above EXISTING ZONING: P -C (Planned Community) District Proposed Lancs Use Element cl ng myon A a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 89-2 0 1E EXHIBIT t I I r lb I i I I i 1 0 I I I I i LEGEND ADMINISTRATIVE. PROFESSIONAL AND FINANCIAL COMMERCIAL MIXED USE- RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL AND FINANCIAL INISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL MiXED USE- ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL AND NAL GENERALIAL INDUSTRY (tomllimitsdevelopment Element times the buildable area) oreA��T �i� vice comaxtvial, Light Inaustna, ano X Office. G v EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT: North of Dove St. 0 r South of Bristol St. Retail and Service � Commercial and Financial Commercial and , , 0 Administrative, Professional and Financial �7 Commercial; between Dove St. and Bristol St. North - General Industry. IGPA 81-2: Indicated on Exhibit above EXISTING ZONING: North of Bristol St. North - M -1-A (Administrative and Professional - Lignt Manufacturing) District; South of IBristol St. - Primarily A -P -H (Offices. Art Galleries, etc.) District; also C -1-H (Offices, Retail, etc.) District. Campus Drive •ffice/ dustrial Area =491 Kol1 -Wel ls 4490 Von Karman Ave. Newport Beach, CA 92660 John W. Klug, et al. 4540 Campus Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Richard K. Kissinger 2203 E. Pepper Hill Drive Orange, CA 92667 Forty six Hundred W. W. Cruttenden, Jr. 4600 Campus Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Birch Street Venture sale j. -q(030 &LmILxs Df - Newport Beach, CA 92660 Irvine Co. Texaco, Inc. 3350 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90010 I Tax Dept Irvine Co./Birtcher Pacific 27611 La Paz Road Laguna Ni'guel,CA 92677 Irvine Co./MacArthur Associates' 23030 Lake Forest Drive Suite 203 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Gerald J. Chazan 4101, 431 N. Brand Blvd Glendale, CA 91203 RJR Partnership Reed Bauman The Alison Company Box 8040 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Golden West Airlines Box 1877 Newport Beach, CA 92663' CW pus ,Dri YE; 5I Area — pale 1 - Donald R.'Lawrenz, et al 4201 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 William N. Shattuck Box 1668 Newport Beach, CA 92663 James W. Johnson 19742 Mac Arthur Blvd. Suite 240 Irvine, CA 92715 Raymond M. Brummett 14 Sandbar Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 4340 Building 4340 Campus Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 .w�,9�i•' cQRA.we1'c 0.��A-- a�.o Commercial & Indust. 4320 Campus Drive, Suite 110 Newport Beach, CA 92660 . National Education Corporation 4361 Birch St. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Violet M. McNaughton 240 Nice Lane, Suite 205 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Airport Investors 2152 DuPont, Suite 112 Irvine, CA 92715 Donald Lewis 4301 Rirch St. Newport Beach, CA 92660 1-14 George Khatcherian L 4263 Birch St. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Barbara Lambert 41 11911 S. W. Lambert Rd. Santa Ana, CA 92705 Donald R. Lawrenz 2001 Tahuna Terr. j Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Boyd Higgins W. L. Nutten Seeley Co. 900 Wilshire Los Angeles, CA 90017 Sea & Desert Properties Box 484 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Pacesetter Homes, Inc. 4540 Campus Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Elza Blacher, et al. 500-D Avenida Sevilla Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Signal_Development 17890 Sky Park Blvd. Irvine, CA 92714 Donald K. Edler 2101 Dove Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Edward Jarvis 4043 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 George Souleles 33 Cool Brook Irvine, CA 92715 i I I I- I ' Aldo Chiappero Baumgardner Box 176 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Birch Development Co. 1100 West Ocean Front Balboa, CA 92661 Mildred Schorr 5517 1/2 Kester Avenue Van Nuys, CA 91405 R & S Company 101 E. Balboa Blvd. Balboa, CA 92661 'Elmer Whisler Box 462 E1 Toro, CA 92630 E I II LJ IJ Forbes-Fruehling 3380 W. Harvard St. Santa Ana, CA 92704 Mahoney-Grau, Inc. 1300 Quail St. Suite 109 Newport Beach, CA 92660 R & S Company 101 E. Balboa Blvd. Balboa, CA 92661 Birch Bristol Venture .Bemi+, 3'13 1r5IYGin 'Sr - Newport Beach, CA 92660 i 3700 Building 2909 S. Halladay St. Santa Ana, CA 92707 3701 Birch Company Box 2052 Newport Beach, CA 92660 C)VJA rs u)J► n Campos D'i vs' -Area - P9.2 ? William J. Cagney 6777 Hollywood Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90028 Connecticut General Life Insurance Company 16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 406 Encino, CA 91436 Charles J. Fishback, et al P.O. Box 2271 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Braemar Development Company ? Newport Beach,CA 92660 3-4ao l r - v; h e, Av-e . Alfred C. Stoffel, 4201 Birch St. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Campus & Quail David Magilavy Building Joint Venture 1405 Clay 3400 Irvine Ave., Suite 101 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 University Industrial Center 3835 Birch. Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Hogan Cabinet Co. 2551 Skyline Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Carl W. Hagan, Charles Fishback, et al. c/o Jack W. Mullan 3400 Irvine Ave. Suite 101 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Exxon Corporation P.O. Box 53 Houston, Texas 77001 i I I Phillip A. Stevens 32138 Via Buena San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Llewellyn B. Copp 1022 Westwind Way Newport Beach, CA 92660 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92646 SPON c/o Jean Watt 4 Harbor Island Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 LEAF c/o Jean Watt 4 Harbor Island Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660' Harbor District 1901 Bayside Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Friends of Upper Newport Bay Box 2001 Newport Beach, CA 92663 _ y Friends of OASIS Box 829 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 J.M. Peters Attn: Bob Trapp 1601. Dove Street Suite 190 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Big Canyon Country Club #1 Big Canyon Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 BEECO, Ltd. John Haskell 3990 Westerly Place, Suite 255 Box 1028 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Steve Sandland The Irvine_Company 550 Newport Center Drive Box 1 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Hoag Memorial Hospital Michael Stevens 301 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Emkay Development 1301 Dove Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Bluffs Homeowners Assn. Gene Dasaro 505 Avenida Ladera Newport Beach, CA 92660 Broadmoor Hills Comm. Assn. Adolph Luttke, President 2707 Lighthouse Lane Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Broadmoor Seaview Barry Williams, President 2015 Yacht Resolute Newport Beach, CA 92660 Breakers Drive Assoc., Inc. Dr. W. F. Robinson, President 3002 Breakers Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Cameo Community Association Terry Mulligan, President 4518 Roxbury Road Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Canyon Crest Comm. Assn. Bernard Samson, President c/o Professional Comm. Mgmt. 1101 Dove Street, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Chris Hansen 22 Encore Court Newport Beach, CA 92663 i West Newport Legislative 'Allian. 201 Intrepid Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 1-16 I Balboa Island Business All Pat Conner, President Box 442 Balboa Island, CA 92662 Beacon Bay Comm. Assn. Ralph J. Overend, President 7 Beacon Bay Newport Beach, CA '92660 I I] I I 4k I I I 4 I I* Little Balbua Island Property Owners William A. Allen, President Box 74 Balboa Island, CA 92662 Mariners Comm. Assn. Clarence J. Turner, President 1507 Antigua Way Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach Townhouse Owners Association William E. Becker, President 4417 W. Coast Highway Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Crest Homeowners Assoc.' Mrs. Loren Greeley 201 Intrepid Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Heights Improveme:it Association Pat Strang, President 351 Catalina Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 ' Newport Hills Comm. Assn. Ken Petersen, President c/o Villageway Management Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Spyglass Hill Comm. Assn. ' Ron Taylor, President c/o Villageway Mgmt, Inc. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 ' Newport Shores Comm. Assn. Ray Quinn, President 477 Prospect St. ' Newport Beach, CA 92663 ' West Newport Beach Improvement Association Cathy Anderson, President 5403 Seashore Drive ' Newport Beach, CA 92663 ruur• ruur•s nsaucrdrion Iona Mouron, President 2518 University Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 North Bluff Bayview Comm. Assoc. Robert T. Jones, President c/o Professional Comm. Mgmt. Co 1101 Dove Street, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 North Bluff Villa Comm. Assoc. Bob Plant, President c/o Devine Properties, Inc. 3301 Mac Arthur Blvd. Santa Ana, CA 92704 Promontory Bay Homeowners Assoc.' John Lloyd, President c/o Devine Properties, Inc. 3301 Mac Arthur Santa Ana, CA 92704 Seawind Comm. Assn. Russ Hafer, President 2301 Port Lerwick Newport Beach, CA 92660 Seawind Newport Comm. Assn. Bruce Bauersfeld, President c/o Planned Community Services Box 17994 Irvine, CA 92713 Shorecliffs Comm. Assn. Darrel Ebert, President 283 Morning Canyon Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Island, Inc. William Aldridge, President 3711 Channel Place Newport Beach, CA 92663 Canyon Crest Estates H/A Iry Sheldon, President c/o Villageway Mgmt, Inc. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Sea Pines Association 1-89 Richard Grundy, President 19 Canyon Island Newport Beach, CA 92660' Sea Island Association John Kanz c/o Professional Comm. Mng. 1101 Dove St, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Balboa Island Chamber or Comm. Lew Ackerman, President 333 Marine Avenue, Suite 6 Balboa Island, CA 92662 Corona Del Mar Chamber of Comm Mrs. T. Duncan Stewart, Pres. 12855 E. Coast Highway I Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Villa Granada Condominium Assoc. Ginny McFarland, President c/o Devine Properties, Inc. 33ol Mac Arthur Blvd. Santa Ana, CA 92704 Bay Island Club Mrs. C. F. Lindsley #15 Bay Island Newport Beach, CA 92661 East Bluff Homeowners Association Bayshore Comm. Assn. Jorlaine Cunningham Jack Teal, President 429 Sierra Drive 2792 Circle Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Beach, CA 92663 1-17 Newport Harbor Chamber of Comm Don Porter, Exec. Director 1470 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Center Assn. Mike Bissell, Director 170 Newport Center Drive Suite 120 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Spyglass Ridge Comm. Assn. Jim Conway 1639 Harbor Crest Circle Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Terrace Homeowners Chanciford Mounce, President #7 Summerwalk Newport Beach, CA 92660 Canyon Hills Comm. Assn. Herbert Porter, President c/o Devine Properties, Inc. 3301 Mac Arthur Blvd Santa Ana, CA 92704 Canyon Island Comm. Assn. William McCloy Devine Properties, Inc 3301 Mac Arthur Blvd Santa Ana, CA 92704 .Newport Upper Bay Estates 'Joseph Meshi 2268 Golden Circle Newport Beach, CA 92660 North Bluff Park Comm. Assoc. Arleigh Hupp, President 426 Vista Roma Newport Beach, CA 92660 Plaza Homeowners Comm. Assoc. Charles Stine, President 2231 Vista Huerta Newport Beach, CA 92660 Promontory Bay Comm. Assoc. David Trumbull, President 633 Bayside Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Seaview Comm. Assoc, Jim Beneventi, President 2033 Yacht Defender Newport Beach, CA 92660 Irvine Unified School District Environmental Coalition of 2941 Alton Avenue Orange County Irvine, CA 92714 206 West 4th Street Santa Ana, CA 92701 Newport=Mesa Unified Schools 1 1857 Placentia Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Coast Community College 1970 Adams Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Southern California Gas Co. Box 3334 Anaheim, CA 92803 Attn: W. R. Perkins 1 1 Spyglass Hill, Comm. Association Southern Calif. Edison Company Ron Taylor, President 1 7333 Bolsa Avenue c/o Villageway Management, Westminster, CA 92683 Box 4708 Inc., Attn: W. E. Guffey Irvine, CA 92716 Newport Harbor --Costa Mesa Board of Realtors Mr. Paul Franklin, President 401 N. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Balboa Island Chamber of Comm.' 333 Marine Avenue 116 1 Balboa Island, CA 92662 Teleprompter 901 West 16th Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Jack Tatham Pacific Telephone Company 1700 Garry Avenue, Room 214 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Corona del Mar Business Propty Balboa Coves Comm. Assoc. Owners Association Tom Orlando, President Ernie George, President 15 Balboa 'Coves 2865 E: Coast Highway Newport Beach, CA 92663 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Center Association Leonore Renfil, Exec. Dir. 120 Newport Center Drive Suite 260 Newport Beach, CA 92660 UNBERTAC Dept. of Fish & Game c/o•Preston Jones 1158 Miramar Drive Laauna Beach. CA 92651 Balboa Improvement Association Mel Fuchs, President, 200 Maim St. Balboa, CA 92661 League of Women Voters of Orange County 1,701 Westcliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Audubon Society Sea & Sage Chapter Box 1779 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Sierra Club Orange County Group Box 1033 Garden Grove, CA 92642 Positive ActiogTeam c/o Richard. -Hogan 1137 _Bayside Drive I Corbna Del Mar,,CA 92625 The Koll Company c/o Tim Stradee 4490 Von Karmen Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 I 1 11 1 I 1 Friends of the Irvine Coast ' Box 714 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 California Coastal Commission, 631 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Clerk of the Board of ' Supervisors Box 687 ' Santa Ana, CA 92702 City of Costa Mesa ' 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Corona del Mar Chamber of Comm. City of Irvine 2855 E. Coast Highway Box 14575 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Irvine, CA 92713 1-18 1 ID Canyon Lake Comm. Assn Ben Hazewinkle Devine Properties, Inc 3310 MacArthur Blvd. Santa Ana, CA 92704 Canyon Point Comm. Assn. Mrs. B. J. Richter, Pres. 10 Rue Barritz Newport Beach, CA 92660 Central Newport Beach Comm. Richard Park, Pres. 1128 W. Ocean Front Balboa, CA 92661 Channel Reef Comm. Assn., Karl Zonn, Pres. 2525 Ocean Front Balboa, CA 92661 1 Harbor Island Comm. Assn. James Rogers, President 10 Harbor Island Newport Beach, CA 92660 tastbluff Apartments Homeowners Comm. Assoc. Dorothy Uhlig, President c/o Villageway Management, In Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Harbor Ridge Comm. Assoc. David Stern, President Villageway Management, Inc. Box 4708 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harbor View Comm. Assn. Canyon View Comm. Assn, Bruce Froelich Jack L. Hanson, President 1727 Port Barmouth 14 Rue Cannes Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 I Harbor View Hills Comm. Assn. Gary Pomeroy, President 2907 Ebbtide Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Harbor Ridge Crest Maint Dick Bechtel, President 3 Kensington Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harbor View Hills Homeowners Harbor Ridge Estates Maint Robert A. Stine, Pres. Michael Gering, President 877 Sandcastle Dr. 1 Toulon Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harbor View Knoll Comm. Assn. Dee Perkins, President c/o Devine Properties, Inc. 3301 MacArthur Blvd. Santa Ana, CA 92704 I Irvine Terrace Comm. Assoc. Doe Winkelman 1318 Santanella Terrace I; Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Lido Isle Comm. Assn. Judith Franco 701 Via Lido Soud Newport Beach, CA 92663 Corona Highlands Prop. Owners Jasmine Creek Comm. Assn. Robert Peterson, Pres. Bob De Rienzo, President 535 Seaward Road 41 Whitewater Dr. Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Assn I Um Harbor View Broadmoor Comm Ass Bill Bracey 2601 Windover Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Lido Sands Comm. Assoc. David Goff P.O. Box 1373 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Balboa Peninsula Point Assoc. Pat Eichenhofer, President 2128 E. Ocean Blvd. Balboa, CA 92661 Dover Shores Comm. Assn. Big Canyon Comm. Assoc. Linda Isle Comm. Assn. Seth Oberg, President Ray Geiler, President H. Plug White, President c/o Devine Properties, Inc. c/o Professional Comm. Mgt, Inc 63 Linda Isle 3301 MacArthur Blvd 1101 Dove St., Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Santa Ana, CA 92704 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Balboa Island Improvement A ociation/Gene Baum I its Diamond Ave. Balboa Island, CA 92662 Canyon Mesa Comm. Assn. Isidore Meyers, President 10 Rue Grand Ducal Newport Beach, CA 92660 Cliff Haven Comm. Assn. Edna Knickerbocker, Pres. 2100 Coral Place Newport Beach, CA 92663 Corona Del Mar Civic Assn Clypa Brenner, Pres. 616 Marguerite Ave. Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 1 Harbor Island Comm. Assn. James Rogers, President 10 Harbor Island Newport Beach, CA 92660 tastbluff Apartments Homeowners Comm. Assoc. Dorothy Uhlig, President c/o Villageway Management, In Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Harbor Ridge Comm. Assoc. David Stern, President Villageway Management, Inc. Box 4708 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harbor View Comm. Assn. Canyon View Comm. Assn, Bruce Froelich Jack L. Hanson, President 1727 Port Barmouth 14 Rue Cannes Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 I Harbor View Hills Comm. Assn. Gary Pomeroy, President 2907 Ebbtide Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Harbor Ridge Crest Maint Dick Bechtel, President 3 Kensington Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harbor View Hills Homeowners Harbor Ridge Estates Maint Robert A. Stine, Pres. Michael Gering, President 877 Sandcastle Dr. 1 Toulon Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harbor View Knoll Comm. Assn. Dee Perkins, President c/o Devine Properties, Inc. 3301 MacArthur Blvd. Santa Ana, CA 92704 I Irvine Terrace Comm. Assoc. Doe Winkelman 1318 Santanella Terrace I; Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Lido Isle Comm. Assn. Judith Franco 701 Via Lido Soud Newport Beach, CA 92663 Corona Highlands Prop. Owners Jasmine Creek Comm. Assn. Robert Peterson, Pres. Bob De Rienzo, President 535 Seaward Road 41 Whitewater Dr. Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Assn I Um Harbor View Broadmoor Comm Ass Bill Bracey 2601 Windover Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Lido Sands Comm. Assoc. David Goff P.O. Box 1373 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Balboa Peninsula Point Assoc. Pat Eichenhofer, President 2128 E. Ocean Blvd. Balboa, CA 92661 Dover Shores Comm. Assn. Big Canyon Comm. Assoc. Linda Isle Comm. Assn. Seth Oberg, President Ray Geiler, President H. Plug White, President c/o Devine Properties, Inc. c/o Professional Comm. Mgt, Inc 63 Linda Isle 3301 MacArthur Blvd 1101 Dove St., Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Santa Ana, CA 92704 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Balboa Island Improvement A ociation/Gene Baum I its Diamond Ave. Balboa Island, CA 92662 Canyon Mesa Comm. Assn. Isidore Meyers, President 10 Rue Grand Ducal Newport Beach, CA 92660 Additional Distribution of Draft EIR: 4/15/82 to 1/31/83 Bob Lenard, Adv. Plan. Admin City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach Planning Comm. City of Newport Beach Michael Frey (3) Dept. of Transportation 120 So. Spring St. Los Angeles, CA 90012 Louise Greeley 16 Swift Court Newport Beach, CA 92663 Chris Hansen 22 Encore Court Newport Beach, CA 92663 Rhoda Magil - Magilavy 1405 Clay St. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Pat Temple, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Bernard Maniscalco (3) 500 Newport Center Dr. P.O. Box 1 Newport Beach, CA 92663 CEQAC City of Newport Beach Mike Johnson 220 Nice Lane Newport Beach, CA Dr. Todd Bailey Encore Court Newport Beach, CA 92663 Sandy Nichols 519 Iris Corona del Mar, Richard A. Fuller 610 Newport Center Dr. Suite 655 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Frank A. Rhodes, Jr. (1) 1401 Avocado Ave. Penthouse Suite Newport Beach, CA 92660 Bill Foley L.S.A. 500 Newport Center Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Roger Hageman 7 Goodwill Court Newport Beach, CA Mactac Salamh Gretthe Court Newport Beach, CA Taylor Grant Newport Hills Homeowners CA 3300 Zrvine•Ave. 101 Newport Beach, CA Harold Hunt O.C.E."M.A. c/o Dept. of Transportation Box 4048 120 So. Spring St. Santa Ana„ CA 92702 Los Angeles, CA 90012 ATTN: Patricia Flores Pat Hollander 213 Via Dijon Newport Beach, CA 92663 Rutan & Tucker Joel Kuperberg 611 Anton Blvd. St. 1400 P.O. Box 1950 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 CEQAC Diane Dixon Ron Covington Cora Gapastione Ken Delino 3300 W. Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 Paul Hummel City of Newport Beach 3300 W. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Craig Bluel:l City of Newport Beach Pacesetter Homes 546-8801 1-20 Jean Watt 4 Harbor Island Newport Beach, CA 92663 Don Lewis 4301 Birch St. Suite 1-B Newport Beach, CA 92660 Brenda Ross 10 Summer Wind Ct. Newport Beach, CA L Jorge Yavar MacArthur Associates 26701 Quail Creek 225 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 i , EOMUNO G. BROWN JR. wvf m tlt P of Liilifillilia GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO SS814 Fred Talarico City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 SUBJECT: SCH# 81112707 General Plan Amendment 81-2 Dear Mr. Talarico: June 4, State agencies have commented on your draft environmental impact report (see attached). If you would like to discuss their concerns and recommendations, please contact the staff from the appropriate agencies. When preparing the final EIR, you must include all comments and responses (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15146). The certified EIR must be considered in the decision-making process for the project. In addition, we urge you to respond directly to the agencies' comments by writing to them, including the State Clearinghouse numba on all correspondence. ,' A recent Appellate Court decision in Cleary v. Courcy of'Stanislaus clarified , re�.�iraments for responding to review comments. Specifically, the court irdicMW that ecaunents must be addressed in detail, giving reasons why the specific comments and suggestions were not accepted and factors of overriding importance warranting an override of the suggestion. Responses to comments must not be conclusory statements but must be supported by empirical or experimental data, scientific authority or explanatory information of any kind. The court further said that the responses must be a good faith, reasoned analysis. Section 15002(f) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that a covernmental acancy take certain actions if an EIR shows substantial adverse environmental impacts could result from a project. These actions include ch argirlg the project, i-tposi.^.g conditions on the project, adopting plans or ordinances to avoid the problem, selecting an alternative to the project, or disaporoving the project. In the event that the project is approved without adequate mitication of s_cri=.ica.^.t ' effacts, the lead agency must make written findings for each significant a=feet (Section 15088) and it must support its actions with a written statement of overriding considerations for each .unmitigated significant effect (Section 15089) If to project raquires diacretionary approval from any state agency, the Notice e: Determination oust be fi1_ad with the Secretar.1 for resources, as well as with the, Czunty Clerk. Plerse contact Terry Roberts Sincerely, Ii�^"G r atephen rl'-iamson State CAl--inghouse CC: :ten Fellows, DW'R at (916) 445-0613 i,: you have any questions. r 1-22 -16 x:a 1 EOMVNO G. BROWN JR. GOVERNOR I I G E F-1 I I I I �l`2I�L' lt{ �,cT�T{1tYlTTtt GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO 95814 June 8, 1982 Fred Talarico City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 SUBJECT: SCH# 81112707 General Plan Amendment 81-2 Dear Mr. Talarico: The enclosed comments on your draft environmental documents were received by the State Clearinghouse after the end of the state review period. We are forwardinolthese comments to you because they provide information or raise issues which you should address in the final environmental doc unents. We have explained to the departments preparing late comments that according to a recent :appellate Court decision, Cleary v. County of Stanislaus, you need not respond to these comments in t e tina ComLnt. However, to ensure the adequacy of the final document and compliance with the intent of CEQA, ycu should attempt to incorporate these additional comments into the prep- aration of your final environmental docwnent. Sincerely, /✓Charles Brandes Deputy erector for Projects Coordination CB/dm enclosures cc: Ken Fellows, DIWR JUN Z 11952'' E.C. Fullerton, Dept. of Fish and Game _ f. 1-23 Statw,of California The Resources Ago,y Me'mdrand um 70 : 1. James W. Sums Date : MAY t 1 fiC2 Assistant Secretary for Resources ' File No.: 2. City of Newport Beach Post Office 'Box 1768 Subject: General Plan AmendmentS Newport Beach, CA 92663 81-2, Five Parcels SCH 81112707 Attention: Mr. Fred Talarico From : Department of Water Resources , The Department of Water Resources' recommendations related to water conservation and flood damage prevention on the subject document are attached. Consideration should also be given to a comprehensive program to use reclaimed , water for irrigation purposes in order to free fresh water supplies for beneficial uses requiring high quality water. Robert Y. D. Chun;Chief Planning Branch Southern District JUN - (213) 620-4135 gyat.o.CSoBriD$hCWAQ Attachments I L 1-24 1 Department of Water Resources Recommendations for Flood Damage Prevention In flood -prone areas, flood damage prevention measures required to protect a proposed development should be based on the following guidelines: 1. All building structures should be protected against a 100 -year flood. ' It is the State's policy to conserve water. Any potential loss to ground water should be mitigated. ' 2. In those areas not covered by a Flood Insurance Rate Map or a Flood Boundary and Floodway Map, issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the .100 -year flood elevation and boundary should be shown on the Environmental Impact Report. 3. At least one route of ingress and egress to the development should be available during a 100 -year flood. 4. The slope and foundation designs for all structures should be based on detailed soils and engineering studies, especially for hillside developments. I L I I 5. Revegetation of the slopes should be done as soon as possible.' 6. The potential damage to the proposed development by mudflow should be assessed and ;litigated as required. I 7. Grading should be limited to dry months to minimize problems associated with sediment transport during construction. 1-25 To reduce water demand, the following water conservation measures should be implemented: Required by law: 1. Low -flush toilets (see Section 17921.3 of the Health and Safety Code). , 2. Low -flow showers and faucetsi(California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 6, Article 1, T20 -1406F). 3. Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems (California ' Energy Commission regulations). Recommend be implemented where applicable: , Interior: 1. Supply line vressure: recommend water pressure greater than 50 pounds per square inch (psi) be reduced to 50 psi or less by means of a pressure reducing valve. ' '2. Flush valve operated water closets: recommend 3, gallons per flush. 3. Drinking fountains: recommend equipped with self-closing valves. , 4. Pipe insulation: recommend all hot water lines in dwelling be insulated to provide hot water faster with less water waste, and to keep hot pipes from bc�ting cold water pipes. 5. Hotel rooms: recommend posting conservation reminders in rooms and rest rooms*. Recommend thermostatically -controlled mixing valve for bath/shower. 6. Laundry facilities: recommend use of water -conserving models of washers. 7. Restaurants: recommend use of water -conserving models of dishwashers or retrofitting spray emitters. Recommend serving drinking water upon request only*. Exterior: 1. Landscape with low water -consuming plants wherever feasible. 2. Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn dependent uses, such as playing , fields. 3. Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas. Mulch applied on top of soil will improve the water -holding capaci•:y of the soil by reducing evaporation and soil compaction. *The Department of Water Resources or local water district may aid in developing these materials. 1-26 I , .. ' 1-27 4. Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs. Established plants are often adapted to low water conditions and their use saves water needed to establish replacement vegetation. 5. Install efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation and maximize the water which will reach the plant roots. Drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors and automatic irrigation systems are a few methods ' of increasing irrigation efficiency. 6. Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water runoff and aid in ground water recharge. 7. Grading of slopes should minimize surface water tunoff. 8.• Investigate the feasibility of utilizing reclaimed waste water, stored rainwater, or'household gray water for irrigation. 9. Encourage cluster development which can reduce the amount of land being converted to urban use. This will reduce the amount of impervious 'paving created and thereby aid in ground water recharge. 10. Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage the incorporation of natural drainage systems in new developments. This would aid in ground water recharge. 11. Flood plains and aquifer recharge areas which are the best sites for ground water recharge should be preserved as open space. .T I , .. ' 1-27 Stoll of Colifomia ,Memorandum To : Steve Williamson STATE CLEARINGHOUSE 1400 Tenth Street, Rm 121 From : ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION Date : subled: JUN 31982 sato Cloy^!ngMo�--� Department of'HoolthLl JUN 0 3 1982 40 GPA 81-2 SCH #81112707 City of Newport Beach II I1 The Office of Noise Control has reviewed the subject Draft EIR and offers ' the following comments: Although the acoustic analysis is adequate, the discussion contains a statement which reflects a common misconception. This is that a 2 to 3 da increase of the noise level is required to be significant. Two recent , independent studies indicate that about 10•percent of a population exposed to traffic noise of 60 dBA Ldn!will report being highly annoyed with the noise. Furthermore, each increase of 1 dBA will result in an increase of about 2 percent in the number of people highly annoyed. About twice that number will report being simply annoyed. The "significance" of an increase in noise level, thus, can be transformed into numbers of people in order to determine if an inordinate number are likely to be negatively impacted. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Oerome Lukas, Office of Noise Control, 2151 Berkeley Way, Rm 613, Berkeley, CA 94704, 415/540-2665. p�-Harvey F. Collins, Ph.D. , ODeputy Director I 1-28 1 State of California The Resources Agency Memorandum To 1. Jim Burns, Projects Coordinator Dote: June 2, 1982 ' Resources Agency 2. City of Newport Beach n n❑ P. 0. Box 1768 3300 W. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 - 3884 JUN -4 1982 ' From Department of Fish and Game 9S4sa}o$riIIgfiouae Subject: SCH-81112707 - General Plan Amendment 81-2, Orange County The Draft EIR for the proposed project describes the potential land use changes ' within five parcels of land and amendments to the Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan for the City of Newport Beach. We have reviewed the description of potential impacts that could result from the proposed actions. Our specific comments are described below. 1. 5th Avenue P�rcels (A and B) The proposed project would change the designation on both parcels to Medium Density Residential from Low Density Residential. This would allow an increase in residential development and result in less open space being available as wildlife habitat. We believe urban development should be allowed only to a density whereby the natural resources of Jasmine Creek and Buck Gully would not be adversely affected. To accomplish this goal we recommend that residential development allowed by the existing General Plan ' land use designation be selected only if Jasmine Creek is retained and upgraded as a natural water course. All precautions should be taken to prevent products of erosion from reaching downstream riparian resources. Additionally, it is our understanding that the proposed project would remove the low density residential designation for Parcel C (Buck Gully) and this parcel would be retained in its natural state with the possibility ' of providing passive recreational uses. We strongly support the preservation of Buck Gully as natural open space because this land use designation could help maintain its present substantial benefits to ' wildlife. Big Canyon Area 16 ' The proposed project would change the land use designation for this parcel to Medium Density residential resulting in the construction of 87 dwelling units. We recommend that the land use designated by the existing General Plan as Recreational Environmental open Space be selected in order to provide habitat for wildlife. All precautions should be taken to prevent products of erosion from reaching Newport Bay. 1 1-29 -2 - Additionally, we look forward to the opportunity to comment upon any environmental documents that will be processed for the individual projects. We request a copy of the Final EIR so that we can have the opportunity to review and comment prior to its certification. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project proposal. if you have any questions, please contact Fred A. Worthley Jr., Regional Manager, Region 5, 350 Golden Shore, Long Beach, California 90802; (213) 590-5113. a D,L Direct rr 1-30 MURRAYSTORM DIRECTOR, EMA TOFISHER w �-rY O DIRECTORR OF OF PLANNING LOCATION: 811 NORTH BROADWAY 1P7 VSANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 3 / RAN G E MAILING ADDRESS: ' P.O. BOX 4048 V ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY SANTA ANA, CA 92702.4048 TELEPHONE: PLANNING (714) 83x4643 June 4, 1982 FILE ; GSR2NO25 Mr. Fred Talarico Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 SUBJECT: DEIR for City of Newport Beach - - General Plan 81-2 Dear Mr. Talarico, The Environmental Management Agency has reviewed the subject document and has the following comments to relate: ' Air Qualit o The natural gas emission'flactor for articulates given in the Appendix on page G-8 should be 0.15 lb/106 ft not 10. o The vehicle emission factors for particulates shown in the Appendix on page G-10 should be 0.37 in 1982 and 0.32 in 1987. ' o The mobile source emissions for SOX and particulates shown in Table 23, page 130, are not obtained using the applicant's calculations as shown on page G-10. The applicant should recalculate the SOX and particulates ' mobile source emissions and total emissions. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this environmental document. When it becomes available, please forward a copy of the Final EIR. Very truly yours, Iz— Kenneth E. Smith, Manager Environmental Analysis Division PF:kc ritl (/� i 1 1I i-7jC1 3 VILLAG£WAY MANAGEMENT 6 P.O. sox 4708 ■ IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92716 6 (714) 366.1376 INC. May 14, 1982 Mr. Paul L. Hummel, Councilman CITY'OF NEWPORT BEACH ' Sixth District 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663-3884 RE: HARBOR VIEW COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION Dear Mr. Hummel: , As the President of the Hapbor View Community Association, commonlyr known as "Harbor View Phase I", I would like to take this opportur to thank you for your letter informing us of the proposed changes contained in the City of Newport Beach General Plan Amendment #81-2. After discussing this plan with the Board of Directors and homeownel present at our last regular meeting, we wish to inform you that we are not in favor of the proposed zoning changes outlined in General ' Plan Amendment #81-2. We feel that the increased traffic flow and building density in the area would impact our community severely and wet therefore, feel that on behalf of the 523 homes in our Association, we must oppose General Plan Amendment #81-2. Respectfully, , Dick Allen, Presiddnt rl g Harbor View Community Association /;q, "/V , /y! DA: km !c 1 -32 Q::; FYI,.= \; •: i cc: James Hewicker, Planning Director �t--, MAY 171982 -3- 71942y C- 1-32 eat WF t f _J I I BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRESIDENT .................... Dick Clucas 4403 Seashore Drive ................ 673.3762 1ST VICE PRESIDENT .......... Jan DeBay TREASURER 5107 Seashore 0rive................ 645.0919 2ND VICE PRESIDENT.......... John Shea 2214 West Ocean From ............. 675-6917 SECRETARY ............... Margot Skilling 6610 West Ocean Front ............. 642.3214 Don Borthwick .................. 646.9714 205 Canal Street PLANNING COMMISSION David Goff ...................... 642-5949 5215 River Avenue 3300 Newport Blvd., Bill Mc Laughlin ................. 676.3732 967 Balboa Caves Gentlemen and Ladies: Ron Stevens .................... 645.7250 5104 River Avenue Sterling Wolfe Jr ................ 642.1441 6204 West Ocean Front WEST NEWPORT BEACH ASSOCIATION NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA September 11, 1982 The residents :.;A our.area are vitally concerned with :your review ' of the CalTrans-West property. Our Board of Directors hasldiscussed this matter thoroughly and unanimously voted to recommend that the City leave'the existing zoning of Open Space unchanged. Although CalTrans has requested a change in zoning, we can see ' absolutely no justification for complying with their request. The best interests of the City of Newport Beach are served by the current zoning. ' The traffic load on Pacific Coast Highway, Newport Blvd., and Su- perior Avenue is already excessive. New developments have already been approved that will cause further overload. Approval of a change from Open Space to Multi -Family Residential appears irres- ponsible under these circumstances. ' If, for any unseen compelling reason this property must be rezoned, it should be changed to R-1 at 4DU/acre with 25% overage for afford- able housing. These ocean view bluffs lend themselves beautifully ' to such development. The neighborhood would be enhanced. The low profile would retain the Newport Crest view plane and the major pro- blem - traffic,- would be substantially reduced. ' Sincerely, .� V�au 4:040 R. H. Clucas, President RHC:e West Newport Beach Association ' 1-33 PLANNING COMMISSION Newport Beach ' 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Gentlemen and Ladies: September 11, 1982 The residents :.;A our.area are vitally concerned with :your review ' of the CalTrans-West property. Our Board of Directors hasldiscussed this matter thoroughly and unanimously voted to recommend that the City leave'the existing zoning of Open Space unchanged. Although CalTrans has requested a change in zoning, we can see ' absolutely no justification for complying with their request. The best interests of the City of Newport Beach are served by the current zoning. ' The traffic load on Pacific Coast Highway, Newport Blvd., and Su- perior Avenue is already excessive. New developments have already been approved that will cause further overload. Approval of a change from Open Space to Multi -Family Residential appears irres- ponsible under these circumstances. ' If, for any unseen compelling reason this property must be rezoned, it should be changed to R-1 at 4DU/acre with 25% overage for afford- able housing. These ocean view bluffs lend themselves beautifully ' to such development. The neighborhood would be enhanced. The low profile would retain the Newport Crest view plane and the major pro- blem - traffic,- would be substantially reduced. ' Sincerely, .� V�au 4:040 R. H. Clucas, President RHC:e West Newport Beach Association ' 1-33 9AIIPORT LAND USE COMMISS���� FOR ORANGE COUNTY -18741 Airport Nay North, Santa Ana, Cal. 7 July 16, 1982 Phone: 714 83 3. That future projects shall not emit excessive light or , glare, nor produce or cause steam, smoke, dust, or electronic interference so as to interfere with, or en- danger aeronautical operations. 4. That future projects shall conform to the height criteria contained in FAR Part 77. FAA approved obstruction lighting shall be installed as indicated by the Commission Secretary, , 5. That Avigation Easements shall be dedicated to the County of Orange, for future projects not already protected by such instruments. FOR THE COMMISSION, 9' A� F F� Al ed W. Brady :"• • . ;,ac Secretary/Planner _; ASK ;b, •�U1.2 (wtLi7 1-34 Mr. Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, California 92663 ' Subject: General Plan Amendment 81-2, Area 5, Newport Beach. Dear Mr. Talarico, , During its regular meeting of Thursday, July 15, 1982, the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County considered the subject project. Following discussion of the matter, it was duly moved, seconded, and carried by the Commission to interpose no objection to General Plan Amendment 81-2, Area 5, Newport Beach, subject to the following conditions: , 7 1. That future projects within Area 5;shall be sound, attenuated according to the Commission standards for the range of potential uses. 2. That appropriate notice be provided to future buyers/ tenants of the sight, sound, and overflight by aircraft ' utilizing John Wayne Airport. • 3. That future projects shall not emit excessive light or , glare, nor produce or cause steam, smoke, dust, or electronic interference so as to interfere with, or en- danger aeronautical operations. 4. That future projects shall conform to the height criteria contained in FAR Part 77. FAA approved obstruction lighting shall be installed as indicated by the Commission Secretary, , 5. That Avigation Easements shall be dedicated to the County of Orange, for future projects not already protected by such instruments. FOR THE COMMISSION, 9' A� F F� Al ed W. Brady :"• • . ;,ac Secretary/Planner _; ASK ;b, •�U1.2 (wtLi7 1-34 I--- �VlvllrnJlv.i--- A�p�PORT LANA uj� ort Way North ,Santa Ana, Cal. 9260? FOR ORANGE COUNTY -15741 Airp Phone: 714 34 =mom 1 ' NOTICE OF MEETING Thursday, July 15, 1982 1 - . ' Public Administrator/Registrar of Voters Building PLACE: County Operations Center, Room 208 Ana, CA. 1300 South Grand Avenue, Santa r 1 TIME - SUBJECT: i 7:30 p•m- Regular Meeting JOHN WAYE APORT ORANNGEIR COUNT' 1 f0 ALFRED W BRA" PMn, •wo Pnocnaw, Merow• � Pmne •u Puw [w 9acwt,a.• AGENDA OrnN 19459 W.,. e,. A - CA 92707 Miuu 18741 N A , (710w x34.6712 Pwow[C71 ) ROLL CALL:of Thursday, APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 17, 1982. Commission Meeting ' NENNEN BUZ .. PROPOSED HUGHES AIRCRAFT CO.HELIPORT, FULLERTON:C ION) Ni iGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 82-2, COUNTY. OF ORANGE: (ACTION) �, t1clJonRT BEACH: 3. GENERAL PLAN Mt11U1•" ' - 4. ELECTION OF COMMISSION VICE-CHAIRMAN: (ACTION) ' COMMISSION CORRESPONDENCE/DISCUSSION ITEMS: 5. PENDING LEGISLATION. 6, CLAIM FORMS. ANNOUNCEtAENTS: REAPPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONER KILLIAN; MILEAGE Ig -19-82 Next Regular Meeting 1-35 I f AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSIO FOR ORANGE COUNTY -18741 Airport Way North, Santa Ana, Cal: Phone: 714 834 July 15, 1982 AGENDA ITEM: 03 STAFF REPORT: General Plan Amendment 81-2 (Area 5), Newport Beach. AGENCY/SPONSOR: City of Newport Beach Planning Department Contact: Fred Talarico Phone: 640-2197 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The subject project deals with five widely separated , areas in the City of Newport Beach, of which Area U 5, the Campus Drive Office/Industrial Area, is of concern to the Commission. The proposed GPA would change the land ' use designation on the portion of Area -5 between Bristol and ,!Dave Streets from "General Industry" to a mixture of "General Industry"And "Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial".' The portions South of Bristol Street and north of Dove Street will remain as shown do the -attached map. Also proposed is a reduction in permitted development intensity, by adding wording to the Land Use Element text which would ' limit the floor to area ratio to'.5 times the buildable area. PROJECT LOCATION: Upon 63.9 acres bounded by Mac Arthur Blvd, Campus Drive/Irvine ' Avenue, Birch Street, and Orchard Street, in.the City of Newport -Beach. Area is immediately east of John Wayne Airport-. (see attached map). ' FINDINGS: 1. All of Area 5 is located within the 60 CNEL contour, with major portions of the area within the.65 and 70 CNEL contours for the 1981 John Wayne Airport noise data (see attached map). ' 2. All of Area 5 is beneath various FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces for John Wayne Airport, specifically the 50:1 Approach Surface to runway OIL, the 7:1 Transitional Surface, and the Horizontal Surface (see attached map). 3. Area 5 is beneath, or in close proximity to, various general ' aviation flight,paths, in particular the approach/departure paths for runway 01R/19L, and helicopter ingress/egress routes, at John Wayne Airport. 4. The proposed GPA would reduce ultimate allowable.development in Area 5 from 7,012,000 sq.ft. to 1,392,000 sq.ft. This would allow 439,000 sq.ft. in addition to existing developmen .• , 1-36 1 AL'OC STAFF REPORT July 15, 1982 Page Two FINDINGS CONT: 5. The proposed GPA should reduce the ultimate vehicle ,trip ends per day in Area 5 by about 73,000 below the level possible under the current General Plan. ' 6. The City of Newport Beach is currently reviewing the draft E.I.R. for adequacy, prior to proceeding with the project. CONCLUSION: Subject to conditions, the proposed project is a compatible ' land use. RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission interpose no objection to General Plan ' Amendment 81-2, Area 5, Newport Beach, subject to the following conditions: ' 1. That future projects within Area 5 shall be sound attenuated according to the Commission standards for the range of potential uses. 2. That appropriate notice be provided to future'buyers/tenants of the sight, sound, and overflight by aircraft utilizing John Wayne Airport. That future projects shall not emit excessive light or glare, nor produch or cause steam, smoke, dust, or electronic interference so as to interfere with, or endanger aeronautical operations. 4. That future projects shall conform to the height criteria contained in FAR'Part 77. FAA approved obstruction lighting shall be installed as indicated by the Commission Secretary. 5. That Avigation Easements shall be dedicated to the County of Orange, for future projects not already protected by such instruments. AS7B:vc E 1 1-37 LEGEND ADMAND COMM COMMERCIAL D MIXED USE- RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL SSIONAL AND FINANCIALVE, PRO E COMMERCIAL MIXED USE- ADMINISTRATIVE, PROFESSIONAL ANAND INDUSTRY (Amends to limitgdevelopmentito 5 times the buildable area) . ORQ�G '4 1 Q I EXISTING LAMD USE, Residential, Retail and $or vice Coa ercial, Light Industrial A Office. EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT: North of Dove St. ' •South of Bristol St. Retail and ,SerMice f Caamrcial and Financial Commercial and A I Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial; between Dove St. and Bristol St. North - General Industry. GPA 81-2: Indicated an Exhibit moors N,dQ� EXISTING ZONING: North of Bristol St. North - N.I.A (Administrative and Professional - O a Light Manufacturing) District; South of Bristol St. - primarily A -P -H (Offices, Art U Galleries, etc.) District; also C -I -H f (Offices. Recall, etc.) District. Propos ad Land Use Meme t CpusMUIR" Am D �0 M300 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 81.2 EXHIBIT 1-38 1 1 1, j 1 \t ..mak.,: Wil,'.•, 9 '•rt�r+�(eiVi 1 `•,"MJ•' 'fir. • 'r -_ u , 't—, % •� is FIS-"-/ .. ��`' �•S :.'c',5 :�-L. 1 fr � � . t aa+ •! .� l.h t � l 1 -,7• i ;,� � SIL r.y, , L � f rb /. • GPA 81-2 j, I a}• AREA 5 NEWPORT BEACH f'M1 • ii L 77 +e—, •i~• •\ \1,]�; is w�i�y�:/ `U•I_ •:+•-�`I'�-.?"�+. ,jt%i�a• �'•, ice'\"'•1 r,♦ a }: •.�.i::: F -.d p !•' = i %iivA!:-�.. ol : t. pt51 V:�:Y �M \JL••�'•:2_-! . �— .. .• ��YJ'. J -,zc eJ_.�a'�'��;`�yt.{t .•.t r.7,::.<..r FIGURE I 1981 EXISTI !"'" -1� ;ei;; t•. .,� ✓ _. ash -i..• •;,� .\ ...;..:;' `... —. 75/70/65/6 • CNEL CONTOU: 1" = 4000 1-39 ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT APPROACK9-CLEAR ZONE PLAN s, 1 t41- • 1M1' 4✓ 1N11' lv"U M F N~ skim" MI fwg.Wl .l 0I12I900l lltlM { MMM II Air. Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1766 Newport Beach, CA. 92663 Sept. 3'rd 1982 Dear Air. Talarico: The following questions and comments regarding the EIR on GPA 81-2 are submitted on behalf of Stop Polluting Our Newport. For the most part they are questions, since despite the thoroughness of the EIR, there are many important pieces of information that seem to be missing. They are listed below in order of our concerns. UTILITIES It seems from the descriptions in the EIR regarding the projects, increased demands upon sewer and water service in most cases will require the placement of additional water mains, on-site distribu- tion systems and trunk sewer lines. The implication is that these systems will be paid for by the City in part or whole. A specific delineation of hese costs is necessary for a decision to be made as to whether or not this is the appropriate time for this development to occur. In addition, there is no discussion as to the growth inducing effects of these expanded systems. el POLICE SERVICES The projects result in an increased demand for police services. How much will this cost the City both in the short term and in the long term (beyond the additional police staffing required by the General Plan). RESIDENTIAL COMPONENTS OF GPA 81-2 The coupling of these projects, all of which involve substantial upzoning, with the commercial project on Campus Drive tends to distract the readers attention from the ramifications of higher density residential zoning. These densities were not planned for under the existing circulation plan for the City. It would be useful to know what circulation system improvements, in addition to those already planned for, are necessary to accom- modate these increases in density. There must be some additional improvements needed to handle the increases generated by the projects. The Eir specifies that specific traffic mitigation measures will be developed at later stages of project approval. This seems contrary to the usual procedure of establishing those measures concomitant with the EIR approval process. An explanation is requested. 1-41 .- SEP7 The following questions and comments regarding the EIR on GPA 81-2 are submitted on behalf of Stop Polluting Our Newport. For the most part they are questions, since despite the thoroughness of the EIR, there are many important pieces of information that seem to be missing. They are listed below in order of our concerns. UTILITIES It seems from the descriptions in the EIR regarding the projects, increased demands upon sewer and water service in most cases will require the placement of additional water mains, on-site distribu- tion systems and trunk sewer lines. The implication is that these systems will be paid for by the City in part or whole. A specific delineation of hese costs is necessary for a decision to be made as to whether or not this is the appropriate time for this development to occur. In addition, there is no discussion as to the growth inducing effects of these expanded systems. el POLICE SERVICES The projects result in an increased demand for police services. How much will this cost the City both in the short term and in the long term (beyond the additional police staffing required by the General Plan). RESIDENTIAL COMPONENTS OF GPA 81-2 The coupling of these projects, all of which involve substantial upzoning, with the commercial project on Campus Drive tends to distract the readers attention from the ramifications of higher density residential zoning. These densities were not planned for under the existing circulation plan for the City. It would be useful to know what circulation system improvements, in addition to those already planned for, are necessary to accom- modate these increases in density. There must be some additional improvements needed to handle the increases generated by the projects. The Eir specifies that specific traffic mitigation measures will be developed at later stages of project approval. This seems contrary to the usual procedure of establishing those measures concomitant with the EIR approval process. An explanation is requested. 1-41 I GPA 81-2 Pa¢e 2 MITIGATION MEASURES 1 It seems that in addition to traffic mitigation measures, a great number of these are to be developed at later stages in the develop- 1 ment approval process. Among them are; effects on biological 'resources, effects on water quality (Seminiuk Slough), effects of geologic conditions (seismicity) on the projects, effects of projects upon recreation and open space requirements•. It seems 1 as if more of these mitigation measures could be developed at the EIR stage of the project approval process. Once the EIR is approved, the projects are a foregone conclusion despite the lack of available mitigation that is truly remedial. 1 BASIS FOR PROJECT EVALUATION The basis for project evaluation should be conditions as they , now exist in Newport Beach. Thus, despite the reduction of allowable development on Campus Drive, the project is still an increase over the existing situation. At some point the 1 policy of the City to set population and density limits that will uphold long-term Community goals of optimum service levels, circulation capacity and overall character, will have to be heeded. 1 :I i 1 Ll 01A 270%, va S,�U TCgNG\SGO J 1-42 Ca cra 17 10`. i 1 411 1 Finally CDMCA believes the 5th Avenue parcel should be developed as an open (non -walled) community with a grid street system matching Corona del Mar along 5th Avenue and with a secondary street standard, access road running parallel 5th Avenue below the bluff and intersecting Marguerite. Very truly yours, / �%� Y..GPi.W't0 Richard A. Nichols, President CDMCA 1 1-43 CORONA DEL MAR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ' P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 September 1, 1982 Planning Commissioners Planning Dept. 3300 Newport BRTnof7110NE4y (�4 Newpor Beach,lCA 92663-3884 ct?r �L% a ' Dear Commissioners: \ ` c.,:'•�.;, �% AlRe: EIR 81-2 5th Street Parcels The Corona del Mar Community Association Board of Directors with confirmation of the general membership would like to express their dis- ' approval of any General Plan designation change from low density to medium density of the 5th Avenue Parcels. The CDMCA is willing to reconsider this position only on the basis of a specific proposal for the area. 4l The EIR 81-2 referred %o deleting of designated park sites. Recreation areas for old Corona del Mar north of PCH are with small exception on school property. Even the small exception Grant Howald Park is not all PB&R property. The tennis court parking, rest rooms, part of the ball diamond and all facilities and land under and surrounding the youth center are on school property. San Joaquin Hills Park is not in or easily access - able to Corona del Mar and it has no athletic fields. We will have no ball fields even with Jasmine Creek area filled for a passive park. With talk of school closings and the school board's intention of selling of such proper- ties in Corona del Mar, we would have none of the recreational areas (includ- ingathletic fields) that we as tax payers have both paid for and use. We understand there were park designations made in the General Plan on the Marguerite parcel north of the new Oasis parking lot and on the 5th Street parcel adjacent Oasis. We believe these designations should be kept as both are adjacent present PB&R property. We would note that even EIR- 81-2 was careful not to include school properties as recreational. Finally CDMCA believes the 5th Avenue parcel should be developed as an open (non -walled) community with a grid street system matching Corona del Mar along 5th Avenue and with a secondary street standard, access road running parallel 5th Avenue below the bluff and intersecting Marguerite. Very truly yours, / �%� Y..GPi.W't0 Richard A. Nichols, President CDMCA 1 1-43 CCiVIP VY L 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I this amendment, as set for hearing by the Planning Commission, as 'a Newport Beach, California 92660.9959 • use of Low Density Residential" to "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" only. Wording should be added to this section of the report clarify- ing that this change was not requested or initiated by the applicant, and in fact is opposed by the applicant. 'April June 8,. 1982 ^� =• 6 JUN8 198z�. _31 dedication of land in Buck Gully to satisfy the park requirements of Mr. Fred Talarico r� crry OF Environmental CoordinatorCRT&Eack by designating it for open space only. If, at some point in the future, City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard / requirements, it would be appropriate for the General Plan to be changed to reflect public open space as the only permitted use. Until that time, Newport Beach, California we intend to assert our legal right to some economic use of this property, SUBJECT: D.E.I.R. - General Plan Amendment 81-2 nate designation. We believe our position is supported by the City's Land Dear Fred: Use Element (Page 10) which states: "The privately owned properties The following are The Irvine Company's comments on those sections of the , Draft Environmental Impact Report pertaining to our properties. FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS , Page 8, Fifth Avenue/Marguerite Parcel (Area A): Under the Project Oojecti'Ves section, the reference to maximum dwelling units at 4 du.'s per buildable acr&'under the existing and proposed General Plan is not appro- priate since the buildable aitreage listed is only an estimate at this point. The number of dwellings allowed under "Low Density Residential" and requested "Medium Density" could fluctuate depending on the design of the actual project. Page 10, Buck Gully (Area C): The Project Objectives section describes this amendment, as set for hearing by the Planning Commission, as 'a change from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an alternate use of Low Density Residential" to "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" only. Wording should be added to this section of the report clarify- ing that this change was not requested or initiated by the applicant, and in fact is opposed by the applicant. 'April Our letter of 17, 1981, which requested initiation of GPA 81-2, made reference to our property in Buck Gully only in connection with possible dedication of land in Buck Gully to satisfy the park requirements of development on Areas A and B. It would not be timely or appropriate as part of this amendment to remove all reasonable economic use of this land by designating it for open space only. If, at some point in the future, the City accepts land in Buck Gully in satisfaction of our park dedication requirements, it would be appropriate for the General Plan to be changed to reflect public open space as the only permitted use. Until that time, we intend to assert our legal right to some economic use of this property, such as that reflected in the existing "Low Density Residential" alter- nate designation. We believe our position is supported by the City's Land Use Element (Page 10) which states: "The privately owned properties designated as open space on the Land Use Plan must be zoned for some legitimate development until such time as (1) an agreement is reached with the. property owner for rezoning to open space, or (2) the City, or other government agency is ready to purchase the land or an open space easement over the land." In order to avoid potential conflicts with Section 65860 1-44 1 ' of the Government Code, dealing with General Plan consistency, the "Low Density Residential" alternate use should be maintained until development plans for Area A and B are approved and the ultimate disposition of land in Buck Gully is known. Page 15, Fifth Avenue Parcels (Area A and B), second paragraph from the t bottom: Under Description of Land Use, the report states incorrectly that all of "Area A" (Marguerite Parcel) is designated as a neighborhood park. The neighborhood park designation applies only to the City owned parcel south of Area A (see Exhibit 4). Residential use of the Marguerite Parcel is clearly designated on the City's Land Use Plan and Residential Growth Plan maps. The neighborhood park designation of Area A on the Open Space ' Plan map is, in our opinion, a graphic error. With respect to Area B (Fifth Avenue Parcel), the report gives the mis- leading,impression that all of this site is designated as a "flora and fauna reserve". This is inconsistent with both the existing "Low Density Residential" alternate designation and the R -1-B zoning designation on the property. Further, Area B is routinely cleared of vegetation under the City's 1 annual weed abatement program. We believe the flora and fauna reserve desig- nation is intended to apply only to Buck Gully. This is supported by later sections of the report which identify no significant biological resources on Area B. Same comments apply to discussion of land use plans on page 75. The City may wish to resolve internal inconsistencies between the Land Use/ Residential Growth Plan and the Open Space:Plan as part of this amendment. BIG CANYON AREA 16 Page 11, Big Canyon Site 16: Under Project Objectives, the text should include reference to City Council action which initiated this General Plan Amendment which specified that the density could not exceed 10 DU's per buildable acre. Also, the total number of DU's being allocated to this site is being drawn down from the pool of 100 floating DU's allowed by the General Plan in Big Canyon. As we commented previously, the buildable acreage cited is an estiamte, subject to revision based on the ultimate design of the project. Page 16, Big Canyon Area 16: Under Description of Land Use, it should be clarified that the "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" designation does not, in our view, reflect any City intent to acquire for park of open space purposes. The open space designation was applied to the subject property for lack of any other land use classificaiton in the City's General Plan which denoted "freeway reservation". Same comments apply to discus- sion of land use plans on Page 77. Thank you for the,opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR Please contact me if additional information or clarification of our posI.tion is needed. Sincerely, David Dmohowski Manager Government Relations 1 1-45 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.U. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663.3884 CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 3,, 1982 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Members of the Planning Commission 3300 W. Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 SUBJECT: "Draft EIR - GPA 81-2" Honorable Mayor, Chairman and Members: At the Tuesday, November 2, 1982, Citizen's Environmental Quality Advisory Committee meeting the Committee approved this letter related to General Plan Amendment 81-2 (GPA 81-2) and the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). It is the opinion of the Committee that the below listed areas need to, be addressed in order to have an adequate environmental document. CAMPUS DRIVE This portion of the General Plan Amendment will change the designation on properties and limit development intensity to a floor area ratio of 0.5 near the airport. General Plan Amendment 1. The Citizen's Environmental Quality Advisory Committee has no objection to this portion of the proposed project. Draft EIR 1. The Draft EIR appears adequate. M This portion of ' the General Plan Amendment would change the designation of the site from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" to "Medium Density Residential". 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach 1-46 I 1, J 46, i I 1 4 I GPA 81-2 November 3, 1982 Page 2 General Plan Amendment 1. The Citizen's Environmental Quality Advisory Committee has no objection to this portion of the proposed project. General Plan Amendment 1. It is the opinion of the Committee that there is a need to upgrade the quality of life in the West Newport area. The Committee suggests that the Council consider retaining the existing designation of the site (Recreational and Environmental Open Space). Should this not be possible we suggest that a project reduced in density would be more appropriate for this site. 2. The Committee is also concern with the cumulative impact of the several projects in the West Newport area. Action on the requested amendment in light of the overall study of the area might be premature. 1-47 Draft EIR 1. The Draft EIR appears adequate. BLOCK 400 NEWPORT CENTER This portion of the General Plan Amendment will allow the expansion of existing development in Block 400 of Newport Center by 80,000 sq.ft. of medical office use including a parking structure. General Plan Amendment. 1. The Citizen's Environmental Quality Advisory Committee has no objection to this portion of the proposed project. Draft EIR I 1. The Draft EIR appears adequate. CALTRANS WEST This portion of the General Plan Amendment would change the site designation from "Recreation and Environmental Open Space" to "Multi -Family Residential and Recreational and Environmental Open Space". General Plan Amendment 1. It is the opinion of the Committee that there is a need to upgrade the quality of life in the West Newport area. The Committee suggests that the Council consider retaining the existing designation of the site (Recreational and Environmental Open Space). Should this not be possible we suggest that a project reduced in density would be more appropriate for this site. 2. The Committee is also concern with the cumulative impact of the several projects in the West Newport area. Action on the requested amendment in light of the overall study of the area might be premature. 1-47 I GPA 81-2 November 3, 1982 Page 3 Draft EIR 1. It is the opinion of the Committee that the Draft EIR does not adequate address drainage and runoff from the proposed project. 2. The Draft EIR should in a more detailed manner address potential ingress and egress to the site. FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS , This portion of the General Plan Amendment would change the Margurite Parcel and the Fifth Avenue Parcel from "Low DAnsity Residential" to "Medium Density Residential". General Plan Amendment 1. The Committee questions whether these areas were not partially designated for neighborhood parks and if they should not remain in this designation. 2. The Committee suggests that the City, may wish to require a portion or all of the increased density to be developed as senior citizen housing. Draft EIA 1. The Draft EIR states that existing recreational needs are being met by current public and private facilities in the area (Pg. 226). The Committee would like to know the source of this conclusion. 2. The Draft EIR does not indicate the ownership of Grant Howard Park. Additional comments on the Fifth Avenue Parcels (A,B, 6 C) prepared by Ron Kennedy are attached. The Committee has appreciated this opportunity to comment on the General Plan Amendment and the Draft ETR. Very truly yours, CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE By J ce De Bay, Chairman, JDr An 6 Attachment 1-48 lJ 1 i I I 11 I I h I Pi !_ J I II TO CITIZEN'S ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81-2 5TH AVENUE AREA: A, B, C REVIEW 81-2 Page 73 Recreation and Open Space Element: "The Marguerite Parcel (Area A) is designated on the Open Space Plan as an "existing and committed neighborhood park". Recreation and Open Space Element Page 42 "Existing and Committed Greenbelt and Paseo Areas" "A unique concept of a greenbelt/paseo system has been developed with the cooperation of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission and private developers". "The existing and committed greenbelt and paseo areas, as indicated on the Open Space Plan, have been, and are being, provided as "common open space" in the newer "residential planned communities and as public open space between residential neighborhoods. Examples of these greenbelts and paseos are found in the bluffs, Harbor View, Spyglass, and Jasmin Creek developments". 81-2 Section 2 Page 15 is inadequate, in that it does not give background of why "existing and committed open space" is called out on the Marguerite parcel in particular and singularly. 81-2 Page 72 Land Use "The city -owned parcel is currently designated for "recreational and environmental open space with an alternate use of low density resi- dential". Does not most land designated (zoned) for open space or recreational use also carry alternate use as buildable? This would allow a City council to drop recreational and open space zoning, and develop past general plan amendment park and open space areas, -if they desired to do so. 81-2 Page 29 Section 3 Existing Conditions,.Impacts and Mitigation Measures: Geology/Soils Exhibit 4 Page 30A is not correct. In particular (AF) artificial fill are close to 5th Avenue. Covers more area than is shown and deeper in depth than indicated by contour lines indicate. 1 1-49 , I I 11 I I h I Pi !_ J I II TO CITIZEN'S ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81-2 5TH AVENUE AREA: A, B, C REVIEW 81-2 Page 73 Recreation and Open Space Element: "The Marguerite Parcel (Area A) is designated on the Open Space Plan as an "existing and committed neighborhood park". Recreation and Open Space Element Page 42 "Existing and Committed Greenbelt and Paseo Areas" "A unique concept of a greenbelt/paseo system has been developed with the cooperation of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission and private developers". "The existing and committed greenbelt and paseo areas, as indicated on the Open Space Plan, have been, and are being, provided as "common open space" in the newer "residential planned communities and as public open space between residential neighborhoods. Examples of these greenbelts and paseos are found in the bluffs, Harbor View, Spyglass, and Jasmin Creek developments". 81-2 Section 2 Page 15 is inadequate, in that it does not give background of why "existing and committed open space" is called out on the Marguerite parcel in particular and singularly. 81-2 Page 72 Land Use "The city -owned parcel is currently designated for "recreational and environmental open space with an alternate use of low density resi- dential". Does not most land designated (zoned) for open space or recreational use also carry alternate use as buildable? This would allow a City council to drop recreational and open space zoning, and develop past general plan amendment park and open space areas, -if they desired to do so. 81-2 Page 29 Section 3 Existing Conditions,.Impacts and Mitigation Measures: Geology/Soils Exhibit 4 Page 30A is not correct. In particular (AF) artificial fill are close to 5th Avenue. Covers more area than is shown and deeper in depth than indicated by contour lines indicate. 1 1-49 Also, (QTM) Marin Terrace deposits directly northerly shows scattered artificial fill buried and exposed. Depth of (AF) at this location not visable. I do not think there are permits on file for the fill that has gone into this site since the 1973 General Plan was approved. Also, I have not observed compaction equipment being used as fill went in over the years. Or, geotechnical supervision which would be under- standable if this are of land was going to be used as zoned. "Exist- ing and committed neighborhood park". STH AVENUE PARCEL B AS RELATED TO PROPOSED 5TH AVENUE PARK 81 -2 -Page 226 "According to the recreation and open space element, recreational neel in the study area are presently being met by existing public .parks and private facilities. The element shows a neighborhood park on this site". It ,Recreation and Open Space Element Page 19 "North C.D.M. and Harbor View Hills Area": "The several existing and committed parks in these neighborhoods will continue to provide adequate neighborhood park facilities in the newer residential neighborhoods in this section of the city. San Joaquin Hills Park (4 acres) will be completed soon and will provide tennis courts, lawn bowling greens, and a picnic area. 74-o The proposals are made to take advantage of unique open space oppor- tunities; these proposals will greatly increase the recreational opportunities for this entire area, including the older sections of Corona del Mar: 1. A neighborhood park is proposed on the property north of Fifth Avenue and east of Marguerite Avenue. 2. The existing Grant Howald Park will be expanded easterly to Marguerite Avenue, adding 2.1 acres to this neighborhood park." GP 81-2 Page 226 Discussion is deceiving and totally misleading as shown above. For the park which "recreation and open space element" rely on to achieve "adequate neighborhood park facilities" in this area are the very ones G.P. 81-2 talks of abandoning. And part of thet Grant Howald Park expansion was paved for O.A.S.I.S. car parking. With the change in residential zoning in this area (Corona del Mar): From R1.5 to R2 consolidation. What is the proper park area to exist - ing zone build -out. Do we need more park space than planned in 1973 or less as 81-2 1 requested? 1-50 Buck Gully Area B 81-2 Page 226 "Buck Gully is a significant open space area. Implementation of the project may directly or indirectly affect this area. Direct effects may result from grading activities along the eastern edge of the 5th Avenue parcel. Indirect effects relate primarily to the addition of a developed edge along the west side of the gully, thus changing its character". 81-2 Page 26 is inadequate in that it does not spell out how Buck Gully is treated by those two elements of the General Plan, or private land holders along Buck Gully to the ocean. 1. Land Use Element Page 21 Land Use Plan "Buck Gully and Morning Canyon be preserved as open space". f 2. Recreation and Open Space Element Page 31 Sec. 3 Flora & Fauna Reserves Buck Gully and.Morning Canyon "These canyon areas running through Corona del Mar from the beach to the San Joaquin Hills, are currently in private ownership. For the most part, the canyons are covered in.a variety of native plants and provide a habitat for many birds and small animals. It is proposed that these canyons be maintained as natural,open space, by public•acquisition of the land in fee or an easement". Buck Gully Area -C 81-2 Page 10 "Area C as set for hearing by the Planning Commission, would change from "recreational and environmental open Space" with an alternate use of "low density residential" to recreational and environmental open space. Because this change would result in positive environ- mental impacts, Area C will not be evaluated in Section 3.0 of this EIR. Alternatives to the proposed project are, however, evaluated in Section 5.0 Page 2311". 5th Avenue (Buck Gully Parcel) Page 234 of 81-2 'The no -project (existing General Plan) alternative would allow low density (4 DU/buildable acre) development as an alternate use if the site could not be acquired as open space". 81-2 is inadecuate in that it does not fully look at Buck Gully policies for Area C. 1. Land Use Element Page 21 2. Recreation and Open Space Element Page 31 I. Existing Usage of Buck Gully by Private Land Holders Also, What are the buildable acres in Area C as requested in pre EIR notio. How can the city be asked to acquire land if its true value as to usage is not given, or transfer buildable units if not stated. Ronald Xennedy 1-1 1_52 I lb I IISSUES/QUESTIONS/COMMENTS I I I I 0 I 1 Is I I 1 1-53 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS - GPA 81-2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Office of Planning and Research (OPR) 1. Comment: Letters of June 4 and June 8, 1982, provide standard OPR �. recommendations regarding response to comments and related CEQA processing considerations. 1. Responses: The comments are noted. Department of Water Resources (DWR) 2. Comment: DWR letter dated May 13, 1982, transmits recommendations related to water conservation and flood damage mitigation. 2. Response: The mitigation recommendations have already been incorporated by existing City policies and requirements. Department of Health Services Control ` 3. Comment: Letter of June 3, 1982 from the Office of Noise provides clarification regarding the significance of an increase in noise, particularly small increases above 60 dBA Ldn (i.e., 1-2 dBA Ldn). 3. Response: The comment is noted. Department of Fish and Game 'I the 4. Comment: Letter of June 2, 1982, recommends that density of .development on the 5th Avenue Parcels should be limited to a leve -1 which will not adversely affect the natural resources of Jasmine Creek and Buck Gully and that sedimentation in adjacent stream courses should be minimized. Further, the Department strongly supports the retention of Buck Gully (Parcel C) in a natural state. 1-54 i i, In reference to Big Canyon Area 16, the Department recommends that the designation of Recreational and Environmental Open Space be retained to provide wildlife habitat and that sediment should be prevented from reaching Newport Bay. 4. Response: The change in allowable residential density from a maximum of 4 to 10 per/acre and eventual buildout on Fifth Avenue Parcels A & B will not significantly affect the limited wildlife habitat presently onsite or the quality of habitat in the adjacent drainage courses. Coverage by impervious surfaces and ornamental vegetation would be similar at either low or medium density. Offsite impacts J I1 I The Department's recommendation regarding Big Canyon Area 16 is noted, however, the basis for this suggestion is unclear. The DEIR did not find significant or partic- ularly sensitive habitat resources on this site. With respect to the effects of sedimentation, the City requires all projects to submit grading plans specifying temporary and permanent drainage facilities to minimize potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants (see DEIR p. 25). 1_55 on surrounding habitat areas would likewise be similar under either residential density. Only the "no -devel- opment" alternative described on page 233 of the DEIR would substantially mitigate direct or indirect impacts on the onsite and surrounding wildlife habitat. The comment regarding retention of Buck Gully as natural open space is noted. J I1 I The Department's recommendation regarding Big Canyon Area 16 is noted, however, the basis for this suggestion is unclear. The DEIR did not find significant or partic- ularly sensitive habitat resources on this site. With respect to the effects of sedimentation, the City requires all projects to submit grading plans specifying temporary and permanent drainage facilities to minimize potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants (see DEIR p. 25). 1_55 COUNTY OF ORAKGE _ Environmental Management Agency, Environmental Analysis Division 5. Comment: 1. The natural gas emission factor for particulates given in the Appendix on page G-8 should be 0.15 lb./106 ft3 not 10. 2. The vehicle emission factors for particulates shown in Appendix on page G-10 should be 0.37 in 1982 and 0.32 in 1987. 3. The mobile source emissions for SOx and particulates shown in Table 23, p. 130 are not obtained using the applicant's calculations as shown on page G-10. The applicant should recalculate the SOx and particulates mobile source emissions and total emissions. 5. Response: 1. Comment so noted. The emissions factor of 0.15 16/106 ft3 referred to appear in the South Coast Air Quality Management Districts Air Quality Handbook for EIRs (October 1980 revision). However, the U.S. EPA "Com- pilation Com- pi1ation of the Air Pollutant Emission Factors" (Third Edition, 1977) also provides natural gas emission factors for domestic heating. This document gives the range of 5-15 lb/1206 ft3 for particulates. The emission factor of 10 lb/106 ft3 given on page G-8 of the appendix is the midpoint of this range. This rate was used instead of the rate from the SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook. 2. Comment so noted. These vehicle emission factors are hereby revised. Mobile -source particulate emissions associated with each of the five projects for 1982 and 1987 have been recalculated and the results are listed below: 1-56 I I� LI d I I L7 [I II I I I II It I� I1 Mobile Source Particulate Emissions 1982 '(Existing Development) (Tons/Day) - Block 400 Newport Center .05529 - Campus Drive Area .05284 - Total GPA 81-2 .10813 1987 (Used for Regional Comparison) (Tons/Day) - Caltrans West .00456 - 5th Avenue - Marguerite Parcel .00204 - 5th Avenue - 5th Avenue Parcel .00459 - Big Canyon Area 16 .00261 - Block 400 - Newport Center .06052 - Campus Drive .06583 - Total GPA 81-2 .14014 3. The 1995 SOX and particulate emissions from mobile -sources listed in Table 23 were based on .28 grams/mile and .34 grams per mile respectively. The Appendix listed .20 grams per mile for SOX and .30 grams per mile for particu- lates. The latter emission factors are the approximate ones to use, therefore, the mobile source SOX and particu- lates emissions for 1995 have been recalculated and the results are listed below. 1995 Mobile Source SlYand Particulates Emissions Existing Development SOX (Tons/Day) Particulates (Tons/Day) • Block 400 Newport Ctr. .02982 .04474 • Campus Drive Area .28554 .04275 TOTAL .31536 .08749 SOX Particulates W/O GPA 81-2 (Tons/Day) (Tons/Day) • 5th Avenue - Marguerite .00086 .00129 • 5th Avenue - 5th Avenue .00114 .00172 • Block 400 - Newport Ctr. .02982 .04474 • Campus Drive .20179 .30268 TOTAL 1-57 81-2 • Caltrans West • 5th Avenue - Marguerite • 5th Avenue - 5th Avenue • Big Canyon Area 16 • Block 400 - Newport Ctr. • Campus Drive TOTAL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 11 SOxx Particulates ons/Da_y) (Tons/Day) .00284 .00426 t' .00127 .00191 .00286 .00429 .00163, .00244 .03774 .05662 . .04106 .06158 .08740 .13110 Citizens Environmental Quality Advisory Committee (CEQAC) In a letter dated November 3, 1981, CEQAC transmitted their comments on the proposed GPA and the draft -c IR. Specific comments were made with regard to the Caltrans West and Fifth Avenue Parcel projects. These are excepted and responded to individually below: 6. Comment: 6. Response: Caltrans West - General Plan Amendment 1. It ,is the opinion of the Committee that there is a need to upgrade the quality of life in the West Newport area. The Committee suggests that the Council consider retaining the existing designation of the site (Regreational Environmental Open Space.) Should this not be possible, we suggest that a project reduced in density would be more appropriate for this site. 2. The Committee is also concerned with the cumulative impact of the several projects in the West Newport area. Action on the requested amendment in light of the overall study of the area might be premature. 1. Comment so noted. 2. Comment so noted. Cumulative impacts are discussed throughout the DEIR. I 1, I I I I I III t I I I_t u 0 I I It I II I 9 I 7. Comment: Caltrans West -Draft EIR 1. It is the opinion of the committee that the Draft EIR does not adequately address drainage and runoff from the proposed project. 2. The Draft EIR should address in a more detailed manner potential ingress and egress to the site. 7. Response: 1. Exhibit 17 and pages 40 - 41 clearly describe the existing drainage conditions and problems on and adjacent to the Caltrans West site. The Existing City Policies and Requirements identified on page 39 establish the minimum requirements for drainage improvements to be met by any future development. Additional mitigation measures may be imposed as specific land use plans are submitted for approval in lieu of more detailed comments, no futher response is' possible. 2. Ingress and egress is a design consideration that cannot be addressed without a specific land use plan. Given the topography of the site, it is probable that ingress/egress will be along the higher elevation segment of realigned Superior Avenue or from Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard Extension) through the Banning property. However, without the benefit of a tentative tract map, specific analysis is not possible. Prior to any future land use approvals, safe ingress/egress will need to be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City. 8. Comment: 5th Avenue Parcels - General Plan Amendment 1. The Committee questions whether these areas were not partially designated for neighborhood parks and if they should not remain in this designation. 1-59 8. Response 9. Comment: 2. The Committee sdggests that the City may wish to require a portion or all of the increased density to be developed as senior citizen housing. 1. The existing and committed neighborhood park desig- nated' at Marguerite and 5th Avenues refers to the extension of Grant Howald Park easterly to Marguerite Avenue on the ±2 acre parcel owned by the City.. An extension of the Jasmine Creek greenbelt system is shown on the portion of the site adjacent to Jasmine Creek. A future neighborhood park Fifth Avenue Parcel (Area B). Comment so noted. 2. Comment so noted. 5th Avenue Parcels - Draft EIR is also designated on the 1. The Draft EIR states that existing recreational needs are met by current public and private facilities in the area (page 226). The Committee would like to know the source of this conclusion. 2. The Draft EIR does not indicate the ownership of Grant Howard Park. 9. Response: 1. The source of this conclusion is the City of Newport Beach Recreation and Open Space Element. 2. Grant Howald Park is partially owned by the City's ,Parks, Beaches, Recreation Department and partly owned 'by the Newport -Mesa Unified School District (See letter from Corona del Mar Community Association.)' 1-60 I INTERESTED GROUPS/INDIVIDUALS Harbor View Community Association 10. Comment: The letter of May 14, 1982, from the homeowners located immediately north of the Fifth Avenue sites states their opposition to the proposed GPA and expresses concern regarding traffic and density impacts. 10. Response: The comment is noted. Traffic and density impacts are discussed for each project in the relevant sections of the Draft EIR. West Newport Beach Association 11. Comment: The letter of September 11, 1982, recommends retaining the existing Environmental and Recreational Open Space designation for the Caltrans West parcel based primarily on concern about traffic congestion in the area. As an alternative to their preferred action, the commentor suggested that low density residential be designated to minimize traffic and view impacts. 11. Response: The comment is noted. The Draft EIR discusses the traffic impacts associated with a lower density alternative. Item II on page 215 of the DEIR requires preservation of all views from the lower balcony level of Newport Crest units. Airport Land Use Commission 12. Comment: The letter dated July 16, 1982, relays the action of the Commission regarding the proposed GPA for the Campus Drive site. The Commission voted to pose no objection to the project subject to five conditions on future projects with the study area including sound attenuation., notice to future buyers/tenants, limitation of emissions harmful to 'i aircraft, height limitations, and protection of navigation easements. 1-61 F 12. Response: The conditions recommended by the Commission do not directly affect the proposed GPA. Future projects within the study area should incorporate these conditions at the tentative tract or building permit stage. Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) I The letter dated September 3, 1982, raises several questions/comments regarding material in the EIR. The individual comments and responses are provided below: no discussion as to the growth 13. Comment: UTILITIES expanded systems." "it seems from the descriptions in the EIR regarding the projects' increased demands upon sewer and water service in most case's will require the, placement of additional water mains, onsite distribution systems and trunk sewer is not a required element of CEQA but may be lines. The implication is that these systems will be paid for by the City in part or whole. A specific delineation of these costs is necessary for a decision to be made as to whether or not this is the appropriate time for this a development to occur. In addition, there is no discussion as to the growth inducing effects of these expanded systems." 13. Response: The cost of construction or upgrade of utility systems to serve new, development is typically borne by the developer. Nevertheless, evaluation of the fiscal impact of a project is not a required element of CEQA but may be required at the discretion of the City. Growth inducing impacts are discussed on pages 238 - 240 of the DEIR. As noted therein, all of these projects relate to infilling within an already urbanized area. At each of the project sites, urban level services such as water, sewerage, electricity, telephone, etc. are in place 1-62 I 16 I I LJ I I I I I I Ii and require extensions into the subject properties to provide immediate service. No major facility expansions will be required to implement these projects. Thus, their growth inducing impact is considered to be minimal. 14. Comment: . POLICE SERVICES "The projects result in an increased demand for police services. How much will this cost the City both in the short-term and in the long-term (beyond the additional police staffing required by the General Plan)." 14. Response: As noted above, analysis of the fiscal impact of a project is not required by CEQA but may be conducted at the discretion of the City. Typically, the tax revenue generated by new development contributes toward all general municipal services such as police protection. The residential elements of the proposed project are all located contiguous to well travelled arterials in existing urban neighborhoods. This setting should minimize the need for major extensions of vehicular beats. 15. Comment: RESIDENTIAL COMPONENTS OF GPA 81-2 "The coupling of these projects, all of which involve sub- stantial upzoning, with the commercial project on Campus Drive tends to distract the readers attention from the ramifications of higher density residential zoning. These densities were not planned for under the existing circulation plan for the City. It would be useful to know what circulation system improvements, in addition to those already planned for, are necessary to accommodate these increases in density. There must be some additional improvements needed to handle the increases generated by the projects. 1-63 The EIR specifies that specific traffic mitigation measures will be developed at later stages of project approval. This seemi contrary to the usual procedures of establishing 'those measures concommitant with the EIR approval process: An explanation is requested." 15. Response: The City of Newport Beach establishes specific traffic mitigation measures through the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). In order to gain TPO appoval (which is generally applied for at the zone change or tentative tract level of approval) an applicant must provide detailed land use plans, conduct intersection capacity utilization studies (ICUs), and commit to a pro -rata share of roadway improve- ments based, on results of these detailed plans and studies. The GPA level of approval does not grant project approval I but rather sets a direction for future, more detailed levels of planning. The DEIR for the proposed GPA evaluates the individual and cumulative impacts of the proposed projects as well as other committed projects (those that have received TPO approval). Because of the "general" level of detail provided by a GPA request and the need for futher environmental documentation on each i individual project within the overall GPA, it is premature at this time to perform an ICU level analysis and identify specific mitigation measures and concommitant improvement costs. I 16. Comment: MITIGATION MEASURES "It seems that in addition to traffic mitigation measures, a great number of these are to be developed at later stages in the development approval process. Among them are: effects on biological resources, effects on water quality (5eminiuk Slough'), effects of geologic conditions (seismicity) on the projects, effects of projects upon 1-64 I� I recreation and open space requirements. It seems as if more of these mitigation measures could be developed at the EIR stage of the project approval process. Once the EIR is approved, the projects are a foregone conclusion despite the lack of available mitigation that is truly remedial. 1 17. Comment: I retention of particular vegetation is premature at this time. Established City policies and requirements such as requirements for detailed third party analysis of identi- fied fault hazards (item G on page 26 of the DEIR) or policies H - K on page 39 of the DEIR related to water quality controls are imposed on all projects at this level of approval. Site specific environmental analysis of each project will be required prior to any individual approvals to build. At that time, additional mitigation measures can be applied to detailed site and building plans. None of the subject projects are foregone conclusions after certification of the EIR. In fact, any or all of them could be denied even if the EIR is certified. Further, none of these projects could be built without further environmental documentation at subsequent, more detailed stages of planning. BASIS FOR PROJECT EVALUATION "The basis for project evaluation should be conditions as they now exist in Newport Beach. Thus, despite the reduction of allowable development on Campus Drive, the project is still an increase over the exisitng situation. At some point, the policy of the City to set population and density limits that will uphold long-term Community 1-65 16. Response: As noted above, in lieu of detailed land use plans which are provided at the zone change or tentative tract levels of planning, site specific conditions of approval or mitigation measures such as fault hazard setbacks or 1 17. Comment: I retention of particular vegetation is premature at this time. Established City policies and requirements such as requirements for detailed third party analysis of identi- fied fault hazards (item G on page 26 of the DEIR) or policies H - K on page 39 of the DEIR related to water quality controls are imposed on all projects at this level of approval. Site specific environmental analysis of each project will be required prior to any individual approvals to build. At that time, additional mitigation measures can be applied to detailed site and building plans. None of the subject projects are foregone conclusions after certification of the EIR. In fact, any or all of them could be denied even if the EIR is certified. Further, none of these projects could be built without further environmental documentation at subsequent, more detailed stages of planning. BASIS FOR PROJECT EVALUATION "The basis for project evaluation should be conditions as they now exist in Newport Beach. Thus, despite the reduction of allowable development on Campus Drive, the project is still an increase over the exisitng situation. At some point, the policy of the City to set population and density limits that will uphold long-term Community 1-65 r' goals of optimum service levels, circulation capacity and overall' character, will have to be heeded. 17. Response: Throughout the Draft EIR, and specifically in the sections related to circulation capacity and public services, each project is analyzed against both existing conditions and the current General Plan. This enables the reviewer to compare the proposed project to conditions as they currently exist and as they would have existing under the density/development allowed in the present General Plan. This distinction is clearly illustrated in the discussion of the circulation system impacts related .to the Campus Drive study area page 113 of the DEIR: "Under the proposed GPA, the Campus Drive r study area will generate approximately 18,096 vehicle trip ends per day (based on 13 trips per 1,000 square feet and 1,392,000 square feet). The GPA represents a reduction of about '73,060 in the number .of vehicle trip ends generated by the existing General Plan. As shown in Table 18, it represents an in- crease of 5,707 trip ends over existing development trip ends." Corona del Mar Community Association 18. Comment: The letter dated September 1, 1982, expresses oppositon to the proposed GPA for the 5th Avenue parcels. In particu- lar, the Association is concerned about the supply of active and passive recreation facilities in the area and the potential for current recreational facilities owned by the school district to be converted to alternate uses. r 18. Response: Comment so noted. The Irvine Company The following comments excepted directly from a letter dated June 9, 1982 are responded to individually below: 1-66 I P 19. Comment r I I I I �I 0 E I E E II FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS "Page 8, Fifth Avenue/Marguerite Parcel (Area A): Under the Project Objectives section, the reference to maximum dwelling units at 4 du's per buildable acre under the existing and proposed General Plan is not appropriate since the buildable acreage listed is only an estimate at this point. The number of dwellings allowed under "Low Density Residential and requested "Medium Density" could fluctuate depending on the design of the actual project." 19. Response: The comment is correct. The maximum number of dwelling units specified in the DEIR was an estimate to be used as a "worst case" figure for analysis purposes only. As noted in earlier responses, more detailed planning and environmental documentation will be required prior to project approvals. 20. Comment: "Page 10, Buck Gully (Area C): The Project Objectives section describes this amendment, as set for hearing by the Planning Commission, as a change from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an alternate use of Low Density Residential" to "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" only. Wording should be added to this section of the report clarifying that this change was not requested or initiated by the applicant, and in fact is opposed by the applicant. Our letter of April 17, 1981, which requested initiation of GPA 81-2, made reference to our property in Buck Gully only in connection with possible dedication of land in Buck Gully to satisfy the park requirements of development on Areas A and B. It would not be timely or appropriate as part of this amendment to remove all reasonable economic use of this land by designating it for open space only. If, at some point in the future, the City accepts land in Buck Gully in satisfaction of our park dedication 1-67 requirements, it would be appropriate for the General Plan to be changed to reflect public open space as the only permitted use. Until that time, we intend to assert our legal right to some economic use of this property, such as that reflected in the existing "Low Denisty Residential" alternate designation. We believe our positon is supported by the City's Land Use Element (Page 10) which states: "The privately owned properties designated as Open Space on the Land Use Plan must be zoned for some legitimate development until such time as (1) an agreement is reached with the property owner for rezoning to open space, or (2) the City, or other government agency is ready to purchase the land or an open space easement over the land." In order to avoid potential conflicts with Section 65860 of the Government Code, dealing with General Plan consistency, the "Low Density Residential" alternate use should be maintained until development plans for Area A and B are approved and the ultimate disposition of land i'n Buck Gully is known." 20. Response: The "applicant" for a General Plan Amendment is the City. The "project proponents" include the various agencies/ companies who have requested specific changes for their individual properties within the overall GPA. The City received in April, 1981, two letters from the Irvine Company which discussed the possible General Plan Amendment for the Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue parcels and the posssible dedication of the t55, acre vacant parcel in Buck Gully. The April 10, 1981 letter addressed to Ron Whitley states: "The Irvine Company's proposed development plans for the subject sites will require an amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan to redesignate the two sites as "Medium Density Residential". As part of this development, it is proposed that the t55 acre vacant parcel in Buck Gully northeasterly of the terminus of Fifth Avenue, be dedicated for park and open space purposes." I I 1 11 I 11 I Any land accepted by the City to satisfy park dedication requirements must be meet the criteria specified in Section 19.50.080 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, as 10 follows: I I I I �J "19.50.080 DETERMINATION OF LAND OR FEE. Whether the Planning Commission accepts land dedication or elects to require payment of a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both shall be determine by consideration of the following: A. USEABILITY AND FEASBILITY. Generally, land shall be flat. B. ACCESS. Direct frontage on at least one side and not more than three (3) feet above or below street level. C. SHAPE OF LAND. Suitable for park development. D. IMPROVEMENTS. Shall meet standards of the City and be of a permanent nature. E. In accordance with the recreation element of the General Plan. (Ord. 1733, 1977)" "MIM The April 17, 1981 letter addressed to the Planning Commission states: "The Irvine Compnay proposes further that the t55 acre vacant parcel in Buck Gully located northeasterly of the terminus of Fifth Avenue be dedicated for park and open space purposes, contingent on approval of development plans for the two residential sites." Both of these letters indicate the dedication of Buck Gully in consideration for a density increase and approval of development plans for the Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue parcels. The use indicated in the correspondence t is "park and open space use", but does not indicate that Buck Gully be used to satisfy park dedication requirements for the proposed development. Any land accepted by the City to satisfy park dedication requirements must be meet the criteria specified in Section 19.50.080 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, as 10 follows: I I I I �J "19.50.080 DETERMINATION OF LAND OR FEE. Whether the Planning Commission accepts land dedication or elects to require payment of a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both shall be determine by consideration of the following: A. USEABILITY AND FEASBILITY. Generally, land shall be flat. B. ACCESS. Direct frontage on at least one side and not more than three (3) feet above or below street level. C. SHAPE OF LAND. Suitable for park development. D. IMPROVEMENTS. Shall meet standards of the City and be of a permanent nature. E. In accordance with the recreation element of the General Plan. (Ord. 1733, 1977)" "MIM Of these five criteria, three may limit the acceptance of all or portion of the parcel for satisfaction of the park dedication requirement: 1. Criteria A: Generally, the land shall be flat: A substantial portion of the parcel is not flat, and generally not useable as an active park facility. 2'. Criteria B: Direct frontage on at least on side: The site has no direct street frontage. 3. Criteria f: In accordance with the recreation element of the General Plan: The site is not designated for an active neighborhood park. It is designated as flora and fauna reserve in the Recreation and Open Space Element to be "maintained in their natural state, with only such interference as is necessary for , the enhancement and preservation of the natural flora and fauna resources."' In the event the• City of Newport Beach were to delete the alternate use now permitted with respect to Buck Gully, the City of Newport Beach would not be taking action that would have the effect of eliminating all reasonable economical use of the property. The property designated as recreation/open space can be utilized for commercial, recreational purposes, including but not limited to, tennis courts, golf courses, etc. The fact that the site may not be physically suitable for such uses, would not constitute a taking of property without just compensation. Further, the California Supreme Court has determined that no "taking" results from either the adoption, or amend- ment, of a General Plan or a Specific Area Plan. Selby Realty Co. Y. City of San Buenaventura (1973) 10 Cal 3d 110. 1-70 1 I 16 I LJ IJ FJ L� I I I When GPA 81-2 was initiated, the Irvine Company suggested the dedication of land for park and open space purposes. Since the property is obviously not suitable to satisfy the requirements of our park dedication ordinance, it must be assumed that the company wished the project to be analyzed on the basis of the dedication of the property in consideration of the increased densities requested on the Fifth Avenue and Marguerite parcel. The City of Newport Beach is the applicant with regard to GPA 81-2, and staff has previously indicated that the project cannot be modified without action of the City Council. Certainly, the Irvine Company has the right at public hearings on the matter, to again assert its position with regard to the appropriate designation for Buck Gully. If densities are increased, with regard to the Fifth Avenue and Marguerite parcels, the City Council may wish to consider the adoption of an agreement between the City of Newport Beach and the Irvine Company to ensure the preservation of Buck Gully as open space. This would mitigate the impacts of the increased density and would satisfy the provisions of Section 15088 and 15089 of the CEQA Guidelines. The preservation of Buck Gully as open space would be compatible with the permanent open space to the north and east and would establish linkages with other open space corridors in the area. The preservation of Buck Gully as open space is also consistent with the concerns expressed by the various homeowners' groups whose property would be affected by the increased density proposed for the fifth Avenue and Marguerite Avenue parcels. 21. Comment: "Page 15, Fifth Avenue Parcels (Area A and 8), second paragraph from the bottom: Under Description of Land Use, the report states incorrectly that all of "Area A" (Mar- guerite Parcel) is designated as a neighborhood park. The neighborhood park designation applies only to the City 1-71 I owned parcel south of Area A (see Exhibit 4). Residential , use of the Marguerite Parcel is clearly designated on the City's 'Land Use Plan and Residential Growth Plan maps. , The neighborhood parK designation of Area A on the Open , Space Plan map is, in our opinion, a graphic error. the text should include reference to City Council action With respect to Area B (Fifth Avenue Parcel), the report gives the misleading impression that all of thi's site is designated as a °flora and fauna reserve". This is incon- sistent with both the existing "Low Density Residential' alternate designation and the R -1-B zoning designation on r the property. Further, Area B is routinely cleared of vegetation under the City's, annual weed abatement program. ' We believe the flora and fauna reserve designation is intened to apply only to Buck Gully. This is supported by , later sections of the report which identify no significant biological resources on Area B. Same comments apply to discussion of land use plans on page 75. The City may wish to resolve internal inconsistencies between the Land Use/Residential Growth Plan and the Open Space Plan as part of this amendment." 21. Response: The Draft EIR is correct in its description of the , existing General Plan Elements. The internal inconsis- tency is noted and may be resolved by this action. , 22. Comment: BIG CANYON AREA 16 ' "Page 11, Big Canyon Site 16: Under Project Objectives, the text should include reference to City Council action which initiated this General Plan Amendment which specified that the density could not exceed 10 du's per buildable acre. Also, the total number of du's being allocated to this site .is being drawn down from the pool of 100 floating du's allowed by the General Plan in Big r Canyon. As we commentedpreviously, the buildable acreage 1-72 ' The Recreation and Open Space designation of the Big Canyon Area 16 site does not reflect an intent on the part of the City to acquire the site for park and open space uses. The area is designated as "golf course" and is 1 adjacent to Big Canyon Country Club property. Mr. Ron Kennedy 23. Comment: The Draft EIR on page 73 states: "The Marguerite Parcel (Area A) is designated on the Open Space Plan as an 1 1-73 cited is an estimate, subject to revision based on the ultimate design of the project. Page 16, Big Canyon Area 16: Under Description of Land Use, it should be clarified that the "Recreational and ' Environmental Open Space" designation does not, in our view, reflect any City intent to acquire for park or open space purposes. The Open Space designation was applied to the subject property for lack of any other land use classification in the City's General Plan which denoted "freeway to discussion reservation". Same comments apply of land use plans on page 77." ' 22. Response: The City Council did not initiate this General Plan Amendment. The Planning Commisison initiated the General Plan Amendment consistent with Council Policy G-1 in effect at the time. The City Council action which ' specified that the density could not exceed 10 du's per buildable acre was not in relation to the GPA, but was part of the Local Coastal Program Land Use Program for the mouth of Big Canyon resulting from the permit for the gravity sewer main line. Any units permitted on the Big Canyon Area 16 site will be drawn from 100 floating dwelling units allocated to Big Canyon. As on all residential sites, the number of dwelling units indicated are estimates, subject to a final determination of the buildable acreage of the site. The Recreation and Open Space designation of the Big Canyon Area 16 site does not reflect an intent on the part of the City to acquire the site for park and open space uses. The area is designated as "golf course" and is 1 adjacent to Big Canyon Country Club property. Mr. Ron Kennedy 23. Comment: The Draft EIR on page 73 states: "The Marguerite Parcel (Area A) is designated on the Open Space Plan as an 1 1-73 "Existing and Committed Neighborhood Park." This section should also include the discussion of "Existing and Committed Greenbelt and Paseo Areas" as follows: "A unique concept of a greenbelt/paseo system has been developed with the cooperation of the Park, Beaches, and Recreation Commission and private developers. The existing and committed greenbelt and paseo areas, as indicated on the Open Space Plan, have been, and are being, provided as "common open space" in the newer "Residential Planned Communities" and as public open space between residential neighborhoods. Examples of the green- belts and paseos are found in The Bluffs, Harbor View Hills, Spyglass Hills and Jasmine Creek developments..." 23. Response: The greenbelt and paseo system referenced are those designed as part of the Planned Community Districts approved in conjunction with The Bluffs, Harbor View Hills, Spyglass Hills, and Jasmine Creek developments. General Plan Amendment 76-3-B further clarified this relationship by amending the greenbelt/paseo system in the Harbor View Hills/Spyglass Hills area to be consistent with the Planned Community District Regulations. An extension of the Jasmine Creek greenbelt system is shown on the portion of the site adjacent to Jasmine Creek. 24. Comment: The Draft EIR should give the background of why "existing and committed open space" is called out on the Marguerite parcel. 24. Response: The Marguerite Avenue parcel is referred to as "existing and committed" because a portion of the site (the t2 acres owned by the City northwesterly of Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue) is shown as part of the existing Grant Howald Park, to be expanded easterly to Marguerite 25. Comment: Isn't most land designated for Open Space or Recreational Use also designated for alternate land use? 25. Response: Only areas designated for open space uses but still in private ownership are designated with an alternate land use. ' 27. Response: The comment is noted. The corrections provided by the commentor are hereby incorporated. Nevertheless, the ' 26. Comment: Would the alternate land use designation allow the City to ' remove the Recreation and Open Space designation and ' permit the development of the site? report which should be consulted for additional 26. Response: The alternative land use designation would allow the City ' to permit the development of these sites if "preservation of the area. as open space proves infeasible." 28. Comment: Has any filling on the site been done since 1973? If 27. Comment: Exhibit 4 following page 30 of the Draft EIR is not ' correct. The artificial fill is closer to Fifth Avenue been and is deeper than indicated by the contour line. done with Additionally, marine terrace deposits to the north show scattered artificial fill, both covered and exposed. ' 27. Response: The comment is noted. The corrections provided by the commentor are hereby incorporated. Nevertheless, the ' surficial geology map is a generalized version of the full technical report which should be consulted for additional detail. 28. Comment: Has any filling on the site been done since 1973? If so, ' have permits been issued for the work? Has the work been done with adequate geotechnical supervison? 28. Response: According to the property owner, no filling has been conducted on the site since 1973. 29. Comment: The Recreation and Open Space Element states that existing and committed neighborhood parks provide adequate neighbor- hood park facilities in this section of the City, but also 1-75 29. Response: indicate two park proposals to increase recreational oppor- tunities for the entire area, including the older residen- tial neighborhoods: 1) Northeast of Fifth Avenue and Mar- guerite Avenue (Fifth Avenue Parcel - Area B) and 2) Ex- pansion of Grant Howald Park to Marguerite Avenue. A. The discussion on page 226 of the draft EIR is mis- leading in that the two proposals listed above are made to achieve adequacy of neighborhood park facili- ties and that approval of the GPA permitting residen- tial development will preclude the future park uses. B. With the change in zoning from R-1.5 to R-2 in old Corona del Mar how much park land is needed to accommodate the buildout of this area? C. Do we need more park space than planned in 1973 or less as the proposed GPA would result in if approved? A. The two park proposals on Fifth Avenue were made to increase recreational opportunities in the Corona del Mar area. Approval of the General Plan Amendment will preclude the development of a neighborhood park on the Fifth Avenue parcel east of Marguerite Avenue. The 2.1 acre site easterly of the existing Grant Howald Park is owned by the City and will be used for park expansion and parking for the Oasis Center. The proposed GPA will not affect the expansion of this recreation facility. B. The entire old Corona del 'Mar area is zoned for residential development with .a maximum square footage of 1.5 times buildable area. There is no proposal to change this zoning. The number of dwelling un -its permitted in the old Corona del Mar area has not change since 1973. 1-76 I 41, L] L� I 1 1 1 1 1 1 w C. The City is currently working on a comprehensive review of the Recreation and Open Space Element which will address park needs on a City-wide basis. 30. Comment: The discussion of Buck Gully (Area C) on page 226 of the Draft EIR should include the following General PTah policies: A. Land Use Element, page 21: "Buck Gully and Morning Canyon be preserved as open space. B. Recreation and Open Space Element, page 31: "These canyon areas running through Corona del Mar from the beach to the San Joaquin Hills are currently in private ownership. For the most part, the canyons are covered with a variety of native plants and provide a habitat for many birds and small animals. It is proposed that these canyons be maintained as natural open space by public acquisition of the land in fee or an easement." 30. Response: A. This policy applies to Buck Gully and Morning Canyon southerly of Fifth Avenue (extended). B. Comment so noted. 31. Comment: The descriptions for Buck Gully (Area C) on page 10 and 234 of the Draft EIR should include the following General Plan policies: 31. Response: A. Land Use Element, page 21 B. Recreation and Open Space Element, page 31 C. Existing use of Buck Gully by private land holders. A. See response No. 30A. B. Comment so noted. 1-77 C. The General Plan does not contain any policies re- garding existing private use of Buck Gully (Area C). The site is currently designated for Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an alternative use of Low Density Residential if public acquisition is infea- sible. Addiitonally, the policy in the Recreation and Open Space Element on page 319 discussed above, ' addresses the maintenance of this area as natural open space. 32. Comment: What are the buildable acres for Buck Gully, (Area C)? , 32. Response: The buildable acres for Area C have not been estimated since no development is proposed for the site. 33. Comment: How can the City be asked to acquire land if its value for development potential is not stated. 33. Response: The City is not currently ,pursuing acquisition of the Buck Gully (Area C) site. It is being considered' for a change in land use designation in consideration for increase ' development rights in Areas A & B. If any or all of Area C is accepted by the City as dedication for park purposes, ' it will have to meet the useability criteria contained in Chapter 19.50 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 1I 14 1-78 ' I Ir l Attachment No. 2 to the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ' GPA 81-2 IMarch 14, 1983 I I prepared by PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard NEWPORT BEACH, Ca 92663 (714) 640-2197 and PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK, Inc. 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA 92714 ' (714) 641-8820 IMarch 14, 1983 I I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Public Participation 2 - 3 City Council Minutes 2 - 14 July 14, 1981 City Council Staff Report 2 - 16 July 14, 1981 Planning Commission Minutes 2 - 37 June 4, 1981 January 20, 1983 February 10, 1983 February 24, 1983 Planning Commission Staff Reports 2 - 90 June 4, 1981 from Planning Department January 20, 1981 from Planning Department February 7, 1981 from City Attorney February 10, 1981 from Planning Department February 24, 1981 from Planning Department March 8, 1983 from City Attorney March 8, 1983 from City Attorney March 8, 1983 from City Attorney March 9, 1983 from City Attorney March 10, 1983 from Planning Department Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission Minutes 2 - 246 February 1, 1983 March.l, 1983 Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission Staff Reports 2 - 251 February 1, 1983 March 1, 1983 Comments and Correspondence 2 - 267 e Public Participation I I I I I 11 44 I I I r! 2-3 1 II II II II c Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds, Including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California, Number A•6214, dated 29 September, 1961, and A•24831, dated 11 June, 1963. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Orange hhik Naika Advnlidny aruad In, this affidavit h ,al in ) palnl with 10 ,na damn width. 1 am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the NEWS•PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that a Notice of PnhTrrt Hraaringa PT.ANNTNrc r•0MMTRS9TnAT AV rpRm r TMV OF NEWPORT BEACH of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna Beach issues of said newspaper for d8J**X�Aftjb xleXk:t to wit the issue(so of January 10 198 3 , 198— I I 98—. 198-- , 198- 198- 1 declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January l0 3 196 at Costa Mesa, California. 9 PUBLIC NOTICE eating on General Plan merriment 81.2 and Local Coastal, rogram Amendment No. 2, for the' realigned); a request to amens me Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan and the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program; proposed by the State of California, Department of Transportation. 2. FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS: Three parcels of land located in the vicinity of 8th Avenue and Marguerite Avenue In Corona del Mar; a request to emend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Element of the Newport Beach General Plan;.proposed by the Irvine Company. ' 3. BIG CANYON — AREA IS: Located southwesterly of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road: an a request to amend the a request to amens ;a Element of the' ten General Plan; I Newport Center "a. Inc:, DRIVE; Bounded by venue; a request to A Use Element of the ich General Plan; rho City. of Newport HEREBY FURTHER an Environmental has been prepared In vith the proposals . It Is the present public to revlew and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents are available for public review and Inspection at the Planning Department. City of Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. CA V 40-2197. NOTICE 9063 14) B ISHEREBYFURTHER t GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on the 20th day of January, 1903, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., In the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hell, at which time and ;place any and all persons Interested may appear and be heard thereon. Dave Goll, Saorelery, Planning Commission City of Newport Beach ' Published Orange Coast Deily Pilot. Jan. 10, 1903 224.83 ' PROOF OF PUBLICATION JANII9 _ 2-4 .,.•:> ;7Y',4^_'µ:,; ^;' I_ S• .9 ar.'• t• ._. Sa / arr •. t' aN F: •.a:cv e• per c? • --ml etrculs- !rn pi.: :• d . ni .. - •ooHt- m Ilan city c! !:..;-:` .^ a,h C.i e". n: 0. .119e. 0.'! •ehieh no -'s. t.. Foot' -.j ;ed Vic•..+F. Fc:.•! pacarnl • Ly 1' - 7aF ::c: C. rt o? ;toa'oudy d C: •n C• nI C •t imn a• ur'• r li;e eMe Pf '.I.y IA t'3' C+FF I W-41,Fii k -7.Q:"9 th•d ibe mYice, a1 e F•9 I;• ..:.nes. d W 1 I,rinlr I copy (,nf n. typo net 1' •• ✓ .n ur ; I' hne t en �.'r'" I .n each V 4nti. (2 ( (i $.3 I er•'.! r `• . deeL,rel I.: I" P. . dly ci :., :,my lltot the and :cr:•'t. Gal,? ,d Newpal f.. cr t', ; L rnin.l^.f (2da. I�iWr� • 1 " �3 Cao-P•.'Y.•rr�.,.::.�{rl.�.q�,..c�'grr u?�ti..�.^:Y ;�L" � ..I': �•:�are�a.•r':t-'!:.•w.i.•s.. . a�+:... �'4. ii.•....W, +.a:: .�:.•':r'p.-x;5`1=rte ,"�"'tie".ti`'r'ceii���f!"rltkt%4:i?i'�i%yt.`",��1_J7.� rtil;-�.Fv`.•'�'::.:'!'?n`i':':G•?"•✓Y,'rr_-"'.ST,`�y.`i.Rh :•4:+^,:l•Nr•=tty,..vi•^�%tilit���ii%i6:f.:r.2.'aiiw..a"xWkx�Y;n/lN!ry!:a:'=: ,Lz!`etelr.,e.:, :.;�. ..n. • tt lenmt �r.u9 d .e ra wn m .d .4 IuYy' t..rs1 tfLt711 2-5 ,, 1 171 at = :� Cao-P•.'Y.•rr�.,.::.�{rl.�.q�,..c�'grr u?�ti..�.^:Y ;�L" � ..I': �•:�are�a.•r':t-'!:.•w.i.•s.. . a�+:... �'4. ii.•....W, +.a:: .�:.•':r'p.-x;5`1=rte ,"�"'tie".ti`'r'ceii���f!"rltkt%4:i?i'�i%yt.`",��1_J7.� rtil;-�.Fv`.•'�'::.:'!'?n`i':':G•?"•✓Y,'rr_-"'.ST,`�y.`i.Rh :•4:+^,:l•Nr•=tty,..vi•^�%tilit���ii%i6:f.:r.2.'aiiw..a"xWkx�Y;n/lN!ry!:a:'=: ,Lz!`etelr.,e.:, :.;�. ..n. • tt lenmt �r.u9 d .e ra wn m .d .4 IuYy' t..rs1 tfLt711 2-5 ,, PUBLIC NOTICE oil ,� :. r;t•::a ;, 1. CALTRANS WEST: Located northwesterly of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenues (as realigned); a request to amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan and the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program; proposed by the State of California, Department of Transportation. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING :> - Mar; a request to amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Element of the Newport Beach ' NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City ' of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on 81-2 and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. General Plan Amendment 2, for the following Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Element of sites: the Newport Beach General Plan; proposed by the Irvine 1. CALTRANS WEST: Located northwesterly of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenues (as realigned); a request to amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan and the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program; proposed by the State of California, Department of Transportation. Dave Goff, Secretary, Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 1 2-6 2. FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS: Three parcels of land located in the vicinity of 5th Avenue and Marguerite Avenue in Corona del Mar; a request to amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Element of the Newport Beach ' General Plan; proposed by the Irvine Company. 3. BIG CANYON - AREA 16: Located southwesterly of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road; a request to amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Element of the Newport Beach General Plan; proposed by the Irvine Company. 4. NEWPORT CENTER BLOCK 400: Located northeasterly of Newport Center Drive East and San Miguel Drive; a request to amend the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan; proposed by Newport Center Medical Buildings, Inc. I 5. CAMPUS DRIVE: ounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street, Orchard Street and Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue; a request to amend the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan; proposed by The City of Newport Beach. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in connection with the proposals noted above. It is the ' present intention of the City to accept the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of ' the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (714) 640-2197. ' NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on the 20th day of January, 1983, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. Dave Goff, Secretary, Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 1 2-6 Ba" 'boa Coves Comm. Assoc. Balboa Improvement Association Balboa Island Business Mr. Russell Behrens, President Mr. James Person, Jr. President Mr. Tex Griffity, Pres. #22 Balboa Coves P.O. Box 825 315 Marine Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 Balboa, CA 92661 Balboa Island, CA 92662 Balboa Island Improvement Mr. Gene Baum, President 106 Diamond Balboa Island, CA 92662 Bayshores Community Assoc. c/o Villageway Mgmt., Inc. P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Bay Island Club, Inc. Pat Eichenhofer, President 106 Collins Avenue Balboa Island, CA 92662 Bayside Cove Comm. Assoc c/o Mercury Prty. Mgmt. 18001 Skypark S., Ste. C Irvine, CA 92714 Beacon Bay Community Assoc. Big Canyon Community Mr. Arthur Engrstrom, President Mr. Ray Geiler, President #56 Beacon Bay c/o Profess. Comm. Mgmt. Newport Beach, CA 92660 1101 Dove St., St. 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 The Bluffs Homeowner's Comm. Broadmoor Hills II Comm. Assoc. Broadmoor Seaview Home. Mr. Robert Gresham, Manager Mrs. Russell Greengard, Pres. Joann Brock, President Mr. Claude Whitney, President 2814 Lighthouse Lane P.O. Box 4708 2414 Vista del Oro Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Irvine, CA 92716 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Breakers Drive Assoc, Inc. Dr. W.F. Robinson, President 3002 Breakers Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Canyon Crest Estates Mr. Iry Sheldon, President P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, ,CA 92716 Canyon Lakes Comm. Assoc. Mrs. Lynne Lang, President P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Canyon View Comm. Assoc. Jack L. Hanson, President c/o Rob Mason #19 Rue Cannes Newport Beach, CA 92660 Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce Mr. T. Duncan Stewart, Pres. 2855 E. Coast Highway Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Dover Shores Community Assoc. Mr. Seth Oberg, President C/o Devine Properties, Inc. 3301 W. MacArthur Blvd. Santa Ana, CA 92704 Cameo Community Assoc. Mrs. Beverly White, President 4501 Hampden Road Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Canyon Hills Comm. Assoc. Mrs. Melinda Moiso, President P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Canyon Point Comm. Assoc Sam Yngve, President P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Central Newport Beach Community Association Mr. Richard B. Park, Pres 1128 W. Ocean Front Balboa, CA 92661 Canyon Crest Comm. Assoc Robert Mooney, President P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Canyon Island Community Mr. William McCloy, Pres C/o Devine Properties 3301 W. MacArthur Blvd. Santa Ana, CA 92704 Canyon Mesa Comm. Assoc. Beryl Sokalowski, Treas. P.O. Box 7931, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Cliff Haven Comm. Assoc. Mr. Peter Gendron, Pres-. 519 Signal Rd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Corona del Mar Civic Assoc. Corona Highlands Property Mr. Richard Nichols, President Mr. Les Munson, President P.O. Box 510 456 Cabrillo Terrace Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Eastbluff Apartments Owners' Eastbluf£ Homeowners Comm Community Association Mr. E. H. Stone, Pres. Mrs. Ginny McFarland, President c/o Condo Mgmi. Company 835 Amigos Way 2651 Saturn St Newport Beach, CA 92660 Brea, CA 92621 Fashion Island Mgmt. Assoc. Four Fours Association Harbor Island Comm. Assoc Ms. Barbara Roppolo, Gen. Mgr. Ms. Margaret Bartz, President Mr. James Rodgers, Pres. 62 Fashion Island 2502 University Drive c/o Pelletier Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 833 Dover Dr, Ste. 21 Newport Beach, CA 92660 2-7 L 11 L1 I n L Harbor Ridge Master Assoc. Virginia Campbell, President 19 Sherbourg F ort Beach, CA 92660 or View Community Assoc. ageway Mgmt. Inc. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Harbor Hill Comm. Assoc. Mr. Mike Somogyi, Pres. c/o Irvine Pacific Develop. P.O. Box I Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' Irvine Terrace Comm. Assoc. Barbara Tappan, President 1007 Dolphin Terrace Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Lido Sands Comm. Association Ms. Lillian Geiszler 5205 Bruce Crescent Newport Beach, CA 92663 i Kai Comm. Assoc. Mgmt. Services Company 34 E. Normandy P1. Santa Ana, CA 92705 Newport Center Assoc. Karen Kennedy, Manager 180 Newport Center Dr. Suite 180 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Hills Comm. Assoc. Villageway Mgmt., Inc. P.O. Box 4708 ' Irvine, CA 92716 Newport Terrace Homeowners' Mr. Chanciford Mouce, Pres. #7 Summerwalk Newport Beach, CA 92663 Harbor Ridge Crest Association Steve Diamond, President 24 Coventry Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harbor Ridge Estates Maintenance Association Marvin Kapelus 86 Harbor Ridge Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harbor View Broadmoor Comm. Assoc Harbor View Hills Comm. Mr. Ray Omischeid, President Mr. Gary Pomeroy, Pres. 2706 Way Crest Dr. c/o Mgmt. Services Co. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 1234 E. Normandy P1. Santa Ana, CA 92705 Harbor View Knoll Comm. Assoc. Irvine Cove Comm. Assoc. Villageway Mgmt. Inc. Attn: Cove Coordinator P.O. Box 4708 2444 Riviera Dr. Irvine, CA 92716 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Jasmine Creek Comm. Association Lido Isle Comm. Assoc. Robert Johnson, President Howard Abel, President P.O. Box 4708 c/o Lido Isle Comm. Assoc Irvine, CA 92716 701 Via Lido Soud Newport Beach, CA 92663 Linda Isle Comm. Association c/o Mgmt. Services Co. 1234 E. Normandy P1. Santa Ana, CA 92705 Mariners Community Assoc. Mr. Tom Edwards, President 1533 Anita Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 Little Balboa Island Prop Owners' Association Mr. Bing Girling, Pres. P.O. Box 74 Balboa Island, CA 92662 Newport Beach Townhouse Owners Association Ron Rogers, President #9 Surfside Court Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Crest Homeowners Newport Heights Comm. Carl Cheadle, President Mr. Steve Dobbie, Pres. #29 Encore Court 330 Santa Ana Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Island Incorporated Mr. Steve Prince, Pres. P.O. Box 1162 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Shores Comm. Mr. Richard Peck, Pres. 238 Walnut Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Upper Bay Estates North Bluff Bay View Com. Mr. Joseph Meshi, Pres. c/o Mercury Property Mgm 2268 Golden Circle 18001 Skypark South Newport Beach, CA 92660 Suite C Irvine, CA 92714 North Bluff Park Comm. Assoc. North Bluff Villa Comm. c/o Mercury Property Mgmt. Villageway Mgmt., Inc. 001 Skypark South P.O. Box 4708 to C Irvine, CA 92716 ine, CA 92714 Plaza Homeowners Comm. Assoc. Promontory Bay Homeowners Assoc Mr. Earle Wm. Burke, President Villageway Mgmt., Inc.. 2317 Vista Huerta P.O. Box 4708 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Irvine, CA 92716 Park Lido Association Joan Reynolds, President 462 Orion Way Newport Beach, CA 92663 Rendezvous Condo Assoc. c/o Mgmt. Services Co. 1234 E. Normandy P1. Santa Ana, CA 92705 2-8 Sandcastle Community Assoc. Villageway Mgmt., Inc. P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Sea Island Community Assoc. Mr. George Ciampa, President 23726 Bircher Dr. El Toro, 'CA 92630 Sea ,Wind Community Association Seaview Community Assoc. Mr. Russ Hofer, President c/o Villageway Mgmt., Inc. c/o C.A.M.S. P.O. Box 4708 14600 Goldenwest, Ste. 102-A Irvine, CA 92716 Westminster, CA 92683. Spyglass Hill Community Assoc. Spyglass Ridge Community Villageway Mgmt., Inc. Mr. Everett (Terry) Stahl, Pres. P.O. Box 4708 1618 Reef View Circle Irvine, CA 92716 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Villa Granada Condo Assoc., W. Newport Beach Improvement c/o Mercury Property Mgmt. Richard Clucas, President 18001 Sky Park South 4403 Seashore Dr. Suite C Newport Beach, CA 92663 Irvine, CA 92714 Sea -Pine Comm. Assoc. Villageway Mgmt., Inc. P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Shorecliffs Comm. Assoc. Mr. Craig Ryan, Pres. 268 Morning Canyon Road Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Villa Balboa Comm. Assoc C/o Mercury Prop. Mgmt. 18001 Sky Park South Suite C Irvine, CA 92714 Campbell Property Srvc. 1714 Clark Avenue Long Beach, CA 90815 Broadmoor Hills I Comm Assoc. Bayside Village Homeowners Plans & Proj. Eval, Unit c/o Villageway Mgmt., Inc. Association, Inc. Air Resources Board P.O. Box 4708 300 East Coast Highway, Unit 12 1800 15th Street Irvine, CA 92716 Newport Beach, CA, 92660 Sacramento, CA 95814 James Tryner William Travis OPR A.-95 Clearinghouse Dept. of Park & Recreation California Coastal Commission 1400 Tenth St., Rm. 121 1220 K St Mall, 3rd Floor 631 Howard Street, 4th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 San Francisco, CA 94105 Attn: Sonia Binnendyk Nick del Cioppo Dave Maul Marty Mercado, Office of Historic Preserva. California Energy Commission Dpt. of Boating & Waterwy 1220 K St. Mall, 3rd Floor 1111 Howe Ave., Rm. 331B 1629 S Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95825 Sacramento, CA 95814 Patrick G. Nevis Bob Sleppy Ken Fellows Dept. of Conservation Solid Waste Mgmt. Board Dept. of Water Resources 1416 9th St., Rm. 1354 1020 9th St., Rm. 300 1416 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 Ted Fukushima Fred Lercari Dept. of Fish & Game State Lands Commission State Water Resources 1416 9th Street 1807 13th Street Control Board Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 2125 19th Street Attn: John Turner Sacramento, CA 95814 A. E. Lowe Dept. of Health Services 2151 Berkeley Way Berkeley, CA 92704 Airport Land Use Commission 18741 North Airport Way Santa Ana, CA 92702 Dave Williamson Dept. of Housing/Comm. Develop. 921 10th St., 6th Floor Sacrameto, CA 95814 State of California State Lands Commission 1807 13th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Attn: Ted Fukus ima State of California Air Resources Board Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95814 Attn: Gary Agid Water Resources Conserva. Board 1416 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 2-9 , 'Parks & Recreation Dept. 1416 9th Street 14th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, '6833 Indiana Ave., S-2 Riverside, CA 92605 State Wate Resources Control Board 'Box 100 Sacramento, CA 95801 Attn: Harry M. Schueller CalTrans County Sanitation Dist. 1120 N Street Box 8127 Sacramento, CA 95814 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Energy Resources Conservation & SCAG Development Commission 600 South Commonwealth 1111 Howe Street Suite 1000 Sacramento, CA 95825 Los Angeles, CA 90005 South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. 9150 Flair Drive E1 Monte, CA 91731 Attn: Brian Farris Resres Agency Clearinghouse Orange County Environmental 1400 10th Street Management Agency ' Sacramento, CA 95814 Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Attn: Kenneth E. Smith A. H. Hendrix Dept. of Transportation District 7 120 Spring St. Los Angeles, CA 90012 Fred A. Worthley, Jr. Dept. of Fish & Game 350 Golden Shore Long Beach, CA 90802 City of Huntington Beach Emkay Development SPON c/o Jean Watt 2000 Main Street 1301 Dove Street 4 Harbor Island Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Balboa Island Business Assoc. LEAF Big Canyon Comm. Assoc. Conner, President c/o Jean Watt Ray Geiler, President 442 4 Harbor Island Drive c/o 1101 Dove St, St. 230 Balboa Island, CA 92662 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Beacon Bay Comm. Assoc. Harbor District Bluffs Homeowners Assoc. Ralph J. Overend, President 1901 Bayside Drive Gene Dasaro Beacon Bay Newport Beach, CA 92660 505 Avenida Ladera '7 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' Friends of Upper Newport Bay Broadmoor Hills Comm. Assoc. Friends of OASIS Box 2001 Adolph Luttke, President Box 829 Newport Beach, CA 92663 2707 Lighthouse Lane Corona del Mar, CA 92625 ' Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Broadmoor Seaview Barry Williams, President 2015 Yacht Resolute Newport Beach, CA 92660 Big Canyon Country Club #1 Big Canyon Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Canyon Crest Comm. Assoc. Bernard Samson, President 'c/o Professional Comm. Mgmt. 1101 Dove St., Ste. 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 J. M. Peters Attn: Bob Trapp 1601 Dove Street Suite 190 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Cameo Community Assoc. Terry Mulligan, President 4518 Roxbury Road Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Steve Sandland The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Dr. Box 1 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Breakers Dr. Assoc., Inc. Dr. W. F. Robinson, Pres. 3002 Breakers Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 BEECO, Ltd. John Haskell 3990 Westerly Place Suite 255, Box 1028 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Chriss Hanson 22 Encore Court .Newport Beach, CA 92663 2-10 Hoag Memorial Hospital West Newport Legislative Allian. Bernard Pegg (7) Michael Stevens 201 Intrepid St. 2633 Bamboo Street ' 301 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Camille Courtnery(5) Tom Thomson (4) Janice De Bay (2) 220 Garnet P.O. BOX 5100 5107 Seashore Drive Balboa Island, CA 92661 Balboa Island, CA 92662 Newport Beach, CA 92663 ' Ron Covington Jim Turner (3) Chriss Street (5) 707 Orchid 435 Irvine Ave. 619 Heliotrope Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 ' Marilyn Hendrickson (1) Mary Lou Zoglin Ronald Kennedy (6) I 416 Piazza Lido 10 Surfside Court 550 Hazel Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 ' Brion Jeannette (3) Diane Dixon Bobby Lovell (1) 470 Old Newport Blvd. 2888 Bayshore Drive Apt.0 1242 W. Ocean Front Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92661 I Robert Moody Jerry King Joan S. Winburn 5507 Seashore Drive 979 Sandcastle Drive 1612 Cornwall Lane Newport Beach, CA 92663 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Beach, CA 92660 I • Debra Allen Dave Goff Paul L. Balalis 1021 White Sails Way 5212 River Avenue 1129 E. Balboa Blvd. Corond del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Balboa, CA 92661 , John A. Kurlander Helen McLaughlin Bruce Kingsmill I 3300 E. Coast Highway 544 Seaward Road 6 Fathom Drive Unit 1 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' Tom Rogers Charles J. Fishback Braemar Development Co. 4533 W. Coast Highway 3400 Irvine Ave., Ste 101 3848 Campus Dr. #212 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Irvine Ind. Comp. Stoffel David Magilavy Jack W. Mullan 4201 Birch St. 1405 Clay 2031 Mesa Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Exxon Corp. William J. Cagney Llewellyn Copp nil P.O. Box 53 c/o Robert Jones 1022 Westwind Way Houston, Texas 77001 6777 Hollywood Blvd., Ste. 2 Newport Beach, CA 92660 2-11 , Philip Stevens 32138 Via Buena San Juan Capistrano, CA 9267 *ine Industrial Complex MKoll-Wells 4490 Von Karmen Ave. Newport Beach, CA I Irvine Industrial Comp. 4600 Campus Dr. 'Newport Beach, CA Irvine Co. Birtcher Pacific 27611 La Paz Road Laguna Niguel, cA Irvine Ind. Comp. c/o Alison Co. Bauman, Reed P.O. Box 8040 Newport Beach, CA ine Co. Shattuck, William .0. Box 1668 Newport Beach, CA 92663 ,Irvine Ind. Comp. c/o Terry Welsh 11000 Quail St. Ste 290 Newport Beach, CA County of Orange Irvine Industrial Complex Pacesetter Homes, Inc. 4540 Campus Newport Beach, CA Irvine Industrial Comp. P.O. Box I Newport Beach, CA 92660 Irvine Co. c/o MacArthur Associates 23030 Lake Forest Dr. E1 Toro, CA Irvine Ind. Comp. Golden, W P.O. Box 1877 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Irvine Ind. Comp. Campus L c/o Johnson, James W. 19742 MacArthur Blvd. Irvine, CA Irvine Co. 4320 Campus Dr. Ste 110 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Irvine Ind. Comp. Irvine Co. C/o McNaughton, M. Violet David Lewis 4361 Birch St., Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92715 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Irvine Ind. Complex Irvine Industrial Complex c/o Barbara Lambert Lawrenz 11911 S.W. Lambert Rd. 2001 Tahuna Terrace ,Santa Ana, CA Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Irvine Ind. Comp. Blacher 500-D Avenida Sevilla guna Hills, cA 92653 F Irvine Ind. Comp. c/o Jarvis, Ed. P. 4043 Birch St. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Irvine Ind. Comp Signal D 17890 Sky Park Blvd. Irvine, CA 92714 Irvine Ind. Comp. 33 Cool Brook Irvine, CA 92715 Conn. -Gen. Life Ins. c/o Ross Campbell Co. 16530 Ventura Blvd. Ste.4 Ventura, CA 93003 Irv. Ind. Comp. Kissinge 2203 E. Peppermill Dr. Orange, CA 92667 Irvine Co. Texaco Inc. Tax Dept. 3350 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA Irvine Ind. Comp. c/o Ruper, R. 436 S. Glassell St. Orange, CA 92666 Irvine Ind. Comp. Airport 2152 Dupont, Suite 112 Irvine, CA 92715 Irv. Ind. Comp. Brummett c/o Eichenhofer Prop, Inc 10801 National Blvd. Newport Beach, CA Irvine Ind. Comp. Nat'l 4361 Birch St. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Irvine Ind. Comp. Khatcher 4263 Birch St. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Irvine Ind. Comp. Higgins c/o Seeley Co. 900 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA Irv. Ind. Comp. Edler,D 2101 Dove St. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Souleles Irvine Ind. Comp. c/o Chiappero, Aldo 18109 Coastline Dr. Malibu, CA 2-12 i' Irvine Ind. Comp. Birch Development Co. 1100 W. Ocean Front Newport Beach, CA Irvine Co. c/o R & S Co. 101 E. Balboa Blvd. Balboa, CA 92661 Irvine Ind. Comp. c/o Mahoney - Grav Inc. 1300 Quail St., Ste 109 Newport Beach, CA 92660 State of California Division of Highways Irvine Ind. Comp. Whisler, Elmer W. P.O. Box 462 E1 Toro, CA 92630 Irvine Ind. Comp. Campus & Quail Bldg. 3400 Quail St. Newport Beach, CA Irvine Ind. Comp. Irvine Ind. Comp. c/o M. J. Hogan Cabinet Co. 1209 E. Warner Ave. 2551 Skyline Dr. Salt. Santa Ana, CA 92705 Los Angeles, CA Irvine Ind. Comp. Irvine Ind. Comp. 2909 S. Hallady St. P.O. Box 2052 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Irvine Ind. Comp. Schoor 5517h Kester Ave. Van Nuys, CA 91405 Irv. Ind. Comp. Fruehlin 625 Vista Bonita Newport Beach, CA 92660 Irvine Co. Univ. Ind. Ct. 3835 Birch St. ' Newport Beach, CA 92660 Irvine Ind. Comp. 19752 MacArthur, Unit 150 Irvine, CA l� 0 I 1 I u I 2-13 , I ID I 1 I 1 I I 0 I 1 1 'I I City Council Minutes 1 2-14 I� I J, yl C UNCIL ME 8' RS 9SPP��FA GA'Y OF NEWPORT BLACH MINUTES 1mnxy MYu�� r Yc({••� 2-15 7. REQUEST TO FILL PERSONNEL VACANCIES - For approval: (66) (A report from the City Manager) (a) One Laborer, Field Maintenance Division, to fill a vacant position. (b) One Carpenter, Field Maintenance Division, to fill a vacant position. (c) One Equipment Operator I, Field Maintenance Division, to fill a vacant position. (d) Two Equipment Mechanics I, Equipment Mainte- nance Division, to £ill vacant positions. \� (e) One Equipment Setvicewarker, Equipment Mainte- Hance Division, to fill a vacant position. l (Y), Two Building Inspectors, Building Department, \`to fill vacant positions. (g) Oue Audit Clerk, Finance Department, to fill a vacant position. (h) Ona Administrative Assistant, Utility Depart- ment, to fill a vacant position. (i) One Tree Trimmer I, Park Division, to fill a vacant position. (j) One Engineering Aide II, Public Works Depart- ment, to fill a vacant position. (k) Two Police Officers, Police Department, to fill vacant positions. (1) One Police Clerk, Police Department, to fill a vacant position. ' (m) One License Inspector, Finance Department, to fill a vacant position. 1, • (n) One Data Control Clerk, Finance Department, to fill a vacant position. ' (o) One Data Entry Operator, Finance Department, to fill a vacant -position. 8. STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS: - For Council infor- mation and approval: (a) A report from the Utilities Director regard- Tideland 011 ing TIDELAND OIL WELLS OPERATING AGREEMENT. Wells (73)� GPA (b) A Seport,from the Planning Department regard- ing PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION TO SET CERTAIN (45) AMENDMENTS TO THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PIAN FOR OCTOBER 1981 HEARINGS. Volume 35 - Page 192 MYu�� r Yc({••� 2-15 1' City Council Staff Report I I I A V P I I I I 1 2-16 TO: FROM SUBJECT: , r7 City Council'Meeting July 14, 1981 Agenda Item No. F -8(b) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Planning Department Planning Commission action to initiate General Plan Amendment 81-2 Background Council Policy Q-1 provides for citizen or property owner requests for General Plan Amendments as follows: "A citizen and/or property owner may request an amendment to the General Plan. Such request shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Commission a minimum of one hundred and sixty (160) days prior to the month for which public hearings are scheduled. The request should clearly set forth the reason for which the request is made, and should contain information substantiating the need. If the Planning Commission, after examination, is convinced that the proposed change is worthy of consideration, it may initiate amendment as set forth above. If not, the Commission shall forward the request to the City Council with its recommendation that consideration of the amendment is unwarranted. City Council, after consideration of the request and of the report from the Planning Commission, may either direct the Commission to initiate public hearings on the proposed amendment, or may return the request to the originator without further action." In accordance. with this policy, the Planning Commission on June 4, 1981, considered and initiated the following eight proposals for amendments to the General Pian in October 1981. a) CalTrans West b) Fifth Avenue Parcels c) Freeway Reservations -West (Big Canyon) d) Coast Highway Residential/Commercial e) Campus Drive Industrial/Office f ' Park Sites g Buck Gully Residential h) Newport Center - Block 400 Discussion Following is a brief discussion of each proposal: 2-17 TO: City C, cit - 2. GPA 81-2 (a) CalTrans West. In the attached letter dated Febru- ary 27, 1981, the State of California is requesting to change the designation on this site from "Recreational and .Environmental Open , Space" to a mixture of "Recreational and Environmental Open Space," Retail and Service Commercial," and "Multiple -Family Residential" uses. • GPA 81-22 b) Fifth Avenue Parcels. In the attached letter dated TP—r-1-M9811 s The Irvine Company is requesting an amendment to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the Newport Beach Gen- eral Plan for the various parcels referred to as the "Fifth Avenue Parcels." A land exchange is currently being negotiated between the City and The Irvine Company whereby th.e company will receive the 2.36 acre parcel on the northwesterly corner of Fifth and Marguerite Aven- in ues return for land adjacent to the Oasis Senior Citizen Facility. The requested General Plan Amendment involves three proposals: 1) The completion of the land exchange is contingent on changing the General Plan designation from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" to a residential designation. The Irvine Company pro- poses that the 2.36• acre parcel be evaluated in conjunction with the t10 acre parcel to the immedi- ate north, which is currently designated Low -Density Residential. A change to Medium -Density Residential, is requested.lot 2) It is also requestd th t the t10 acre site -easterly of the expanded Oalis s te, currently shown for Low - Density Residential, be changed to Medium -Density Residential. 3) The Irvine Company proposes further that the t55 acre parcel in.Buck Gully, northeasterly of the terminus of Fifth Avenue, be dedicated for park and open space purposes, contingent on the approval of development plans for the two residential sites. 'On the advice of Staff, i•n addition the Planning Commission included in a change in the designat-ion of the tional and Environmental Open Space Density Residential to Recreational to the above requested changes, its consideration of this proposal, expanded Oasis site from Recrea- with an alternate land Use of Low - and Environmental Open Space. Of -r-" rreewa Keservations west Bi Canyon P -C). The City council, as part of the Local Coastal Program area ascription for the Mouth of Big Canyon, agreed to initiate a General Plan Amendment and Planned Community Amendment to designate the area southwesterly of the intersection of Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard for resi- dential development, with the density not to exceed ten dwe-lltng units per buildable acre. In the attached letter dated April 10, 1981, The Irvine Company is requesti-ng a change to the Land Use Element of the 2-18 T0: City Council - 3. General Plan changing the portion of the Big Canyon Planned Community located southwesterly of Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Medium -Density Resi- dential. r, GPA 81-2 (d) Coast Highway Residential/Commercial. The attached r a ieztienate May 2 , T981 from Fucker-Ruffing Architects, requests a change to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the General Plan, changing lots located in Tract 1210 along Coast High- way (see attachment 1) from a mixture of Retail and Service Commer- cial and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial to Multi -Family Residential. On the advice of Staff, the Plann.in Com- mission set the entire Coast Highway strip from Irvine Avenue ?pro- jected) to Dover Drive for public hearing. GPA 81-2 e) Campus Drive Industrial/Office. This area was pro- posed for review y Staff an inc ud( es aT of the commercial, office, and industrial areas between Campus Drive and Birch Street, from Orchard Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard near Newport Place and Koll C t en er. The existing General Plan has no growth limitations on this area, and whereas a substantial portion is designated for industrial uses in the'General Plan, the zoning permits office uses at inten- sities much higher than the adjacent Planned Communities. It is proposed that a Planning Study be prepared for the area with subse- quent recommendations for specific General Plan- changes if required. GPA 81-2 (f) Park Sites. Staff is suggesting that the Planning Commission hold general review of the Recreation and Open Space Element, specifically with respect to the location and size of park sites around the City. This review will be coordinated with the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. GPA 81-2 (g) Buck Gully Residential. In the attached letter dated May t19 the McMa on Partners ip (on behalf of Al Mayo, property owner) requests to change the designation of this area from a mixture of "Retail and Service Commercial." and "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial," and "Low -Density Residential" uses to "Multiple -Family Residential" uses. The ultimate proposal would be to construct a residential condominium project on the "Lascala" (formerly "Sam's Seafood") restaurant site and -adjacent residential parcels in Corona del Mar. GPA 81-2(h) Newport Center - Block 400.• The attached letter from Frankel. Rhodes, Jr. requests that 80,000 square feet of additional medical office square footage be allocated to Block 400 in Newport Center. This would be in addition to the development eventually allowed by GPA 80-3. It should be pointed out that in the Commission's action on GPA -80-3, policy language.was recommended for the Land Use 2-19 TO: City U.:unci1 - 4. . Element which would allow transfers of commercial and office square footage within the Center. This policy would provide a mechanism to allow the 80,000 square foot medical building in Block 400, as- suming an 80,000 square foot reduction on one of The Irvine Company controlled parcels. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director by IX�% HUBERT P. LEN RD Advance Planning Administrator RPL/kk Attachments for City Council Only: Vicinity Maps CalTrans letter dated February 27, 1981 The Irvine Company letters dated April 10, 1981 and April 17, 1981 Ficker-Ruffing letter dated May 29, 1981 McMahon Partnership letter dated May 28, 1981 Newport -Center Medical Building's letter dated April 8, 1981 Jasmine Creek Community Association letter 1 2-20 ftme � FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS L and ' \« Medium -density residential Open space > we _ -® \ -------- . may.. . — \ y. -y. -.---y \- «.—y.—y.. . « parcels not to ¥ \ - e. ~ 5th Ave. : u N N N Legend: Medium—density FREEWAY RESERVATION WEST In`^ rw ^AI'm YON) •4J I ow �1 4■ �} i� is +4r >♦i it mi" MAP" lia - COAST HIGHWAY' RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL I wport Bay Legend: Admin., Prof.& Finan.Commerc. Retail d. Service Commercial 000 00000 Multiple -Family Residential CAMPUS -DRIVE INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL Campus Dr. Legend Admin., Prof. $ Finan.Commerc.: Retail & Service Commercial General Industry ................... c-- o ............. Birch St. " 111W w OM N Ow BUCK GULLY RESIDENTIAL Pacific Coast Highway �N Legend: Multiple—Family 00°00°° Residential a°°°°°o BLOCK 400 Son SRT CENTER & Finan. -Comm. = W* an so ow Im s a# owl W - STATE OF CAUFORNIA—BUSINESS:XWTRANSPORTATION JGENousing ✓ m ucrAKTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EGAL DIVISION 20 SOUTH SPRING STREET, SUITE 300 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 TELEPHONE, (218) 6203000 I I I EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor February 27, 1981 MAR6 1981 azv OF City of Newport Beach Nt;,pp:••::cc;:M, Planning Commission cru -IF' 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Re: General Plan Amendment to "Caltrans West" Parcel Dear Chairman and Commission Members The State of California, owner of the property designated as "Caltrans West," respectfully requests that this letter and attached exhibit be considered for the City's 1981-82 amendment of its General Plan -Land Use Element. It is proposed that a mixture of land uses consisting of recreational and environmental open space, retail and service commercial, and multiple -family residential be considered. Traffic circulation within the subject parcel and outlets to the adjacent streets will be examined in conjunction with the proposed realignment Of Superior Avenue. Planning Area "Caltrans West" is entirely within the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach and the Local Coastal Plan. Studies of the area westerly and contiguous to the subject parcel have been undertaken by Banning -Newport Ranch, as part of General Plan amendment 81-1. Common issues exist relative to the subject parcel and the adjacent Banning - Newport Ranch. It would be desirable to consider a comprehensive plan of uses in the Superior Avenue -Balboa Boulevard Extension -Pacific Coast Highway quadrangle at this time. A more precise planning concept for the subject property in coordination with adjacent development of Pacific Coast Highway, Superior Avenue and Banning -Newport Ranch will be forthcoming upon hearing of the proposed General Plan amendment. 2-27 7 City of Newport Beach -2- February 27, 1981 Planning Commission Thank you for the opportunity to present this request. Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact the undersigned. DRS: nm enc. Respectfully submitted, Joseph A. Montoya Deputy of Counsel By ' `? David R. Simmes Attorney 2-28 IN N 1 C4 PACIFIC LEGEND Boundary Streets Open Space Possible Retail and Service Commercial Multi -Family Residential o00 000 .General Plan Amendment CALTRANS'•WEST O COAST I o00 °o°o10 °o°o0000°o°on°o°o 000000_o_o_oopo000a000 o_oo_n 1-IIGHWAY THE IRVINE COMPANY l .... 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box l Newport Beach, California 92663 644-3011c��a� saa-ioAp�I31g81a .• April 10, 1981 q Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California SUBJECT: Requested General Plan Amendment for Big Canyon Parcel Southwest of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road Mr. Chairman and Commission Members: On February 9, 1981, as part of its deliberations on the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, the City Council approved a proposal whereby the Mouth of Big Canyon would be dedicated for public open space. In exchange for this dedication of land', The Irvine Company is to receive park credits applicable to future residential projects. Further, the City Council agreed 'to initiate a General Plan Amendment and 'Planned Community Amendment to designate for residential development a portion of the Big Canyon P -C located southwesterly of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road, with the density not to exceed 10 dwelling units per buildable acre. It is our desire to have thps prdposed amendment for Big Canyon considered at the October, 1981 General Plan Amendment Session. Prior to that time, we anticipate approval of an agreement between the City and Irvine Company regarding dedication of the Mouth of Big Canyon and the granting of park credits. The Irvine Company further requests a determination as to the appropriate environmental documentation required for this amendment. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Q David Dmohowski Manager Government Relations cc: J. Hewicker, Director of Planning T. Nielsen, TIC 2-30 t t T'. I I 0 1- I THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 April 17, 1981 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California SUBJECT: Requested General Plan Amendment for Fifth Avenue Parcels Mr. Chairman and Commission Members: The City Council gave conceptual approval in October, 1980 to an exchange of land between the City and The Irvine Company whereby the City would receive additional land to expand the OASIS Senior Facility site, and the Company would recdtve a 2.36 acre parcel northwest of Fifth and Marguerite Avenues. The purpose of this exchange would be to provide additional parking space and expansion area for the OASIS Center in a more convenient and usable location. An appraisal of the subject prop- erties has been completed. Additional discussions between the City and The Irvine Company are expect�d toloccur in the'next few months. The completion of such a land exchange would be contingent on changing the General Plan designation of the 2.36 acre parcel west of Marguerite Avenue from open space to a residential designation to allow for future development. It is our desire to have this 2.36 acre parcel reviewed in combination with the ±10 acre vacant parcel to the immediate north, which is currently designated "Low Density Residential., A change to a "Medium Density Residential" designation for the combined 12 acre parcel is requested. Given the topography and configuration of the property, the Medium Density Residential designation would allow for a greater degree of design flexibility in planning for the site. Concurrently with the City's review of the property west of Marguerite, The Irvine Company requests consideration of the ±10 acre parcel easterly of the expanded OASIS site as "Medium Density Residential", where the General Plan now calls for Low Density Residential. Proposed here would be single family homes at a density comparable to the existing tract to the north. The Irvine Company proposes further that the ±55 acre vacant parcel in Buck Gully located northeasterly of the terminus of Fifth Avenue be dedicated for park and open space purposes, contingent on approval of development plans for the two residential sites. 2-31 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach April 17, 1981 page 2 It is requested that the proposed redesignation of these two properties a&I'Medium Density Residential"' be considered at the October 1981 General Plan Amendment session. A determination as to the appropriate environ- mental documentation is also requested. Please contact me if additional information is required. Sincerely, David Omohowski Manager Government Relations cc: J. Hewicker, Planning Director R. Whitley, P.B. & R Director T. Nielsen, The Irvine Company 2-32 FICKER & RUFFING • ARCHITECTS 9+0 Newport Center Drive • Suite 630 • Newport Beach, Calif. 92660 • 714-644.1581 Ckj May 29, 1981 REPan�re"t a�3r Q MPS aY ;,F, Pia, 5 O R 0 City of Newport Beach W4 ��F• % Nti P PlanningDepartment C 6., 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Gentlemen: This letter is to request the City of Newport Beach to amend the General Plan to permit multi -family use on Lots 55 through 64 of Tract Number 121.0. The owners of the property are Tract 1210 Ltd. and are represented by Mr. Richard S. Stevens, Disneyland Hotel, 1150 West Cerritos Ave., Anaheim, CA 92802. I am the planner and am acting on their behalf on this application. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, �!v� William P. Picker, A.I.A. t. WPF:skl 2-33 /2 McMahon Partnership Architecture / Planning May 28, 1981 1 Mr. Robert Lennard C/o City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Lennard, The purpose of this letter is to formalize our request for a General Plan Amendment on behalf of Al Mayo, the owner of certain property located in Corona del Mar on Pacific Coast Highway. It is our understanding that the owner would like to be permitted to construct a high density residential project on the propelty illi the future. The property consists of a group of parceld upon which the Lascala Restaurant cur- rently sits, immediately adjacent to the Five Crowns Restau-' rant located on Pacific Coast Highway. There is a possibility that additional parcels may be added to the parcel depending on the economic viability. Together with the property owner, our firm will with you in developing the necessary groundwork tion for the October General Plan hearing. We questing that the Planning Commission hear this case at that time. plan to work and informa- are hereby re - particular Thank you f'or your help and consideration in this matter. Ver�trtly yo s, -Ronald D. McMahon A.I.A. RDM/jh 501 Parkcenter Drive Santa Ana, California 92705 (714)973.0993 Telex 683408 I 2-34 /G1 ` NEWPORT CENTER DIEDICAL BUILDINGS GILL S. CAUQQY OFFICE OF THE BUILDINGS FRANK A. RHODES. JR, 1401 AVOCADO AVENUE . PENTHOUSE QUITE NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA Gaaeo I IApril 8, 1981 11 !_ 1 I1 0 I I II I I I City of Newport Beach Planning Department City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 AREA COME 714 T"XPHCNK 644.0603 Subject: "Draft Environmental Impact Report - General Plan Amendment 80-3" Sch #80072313 Attention: Mr. James D. Hewicker, Director Gentlemen: Reference is hereby made to our letter dated March 25, 1981 related tolIthelabove subject document and project, and to youk reply dated April.2, 1981. It is our desire to go forward with the construction of an 80,000 square foot medical office building in Block 400 of Newport Center. We request an amendment to the General Plan Amendment 80-3 to include Block 400 of Newport Center, and to provide for the construction of this building. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Yours very truly, NEWPORT CENTER MEDICAL BUILDINGS Frank A. Rhodes, Jr. FAR: ss I 2-3i _ /S. � ,) ti 0 JASMINE CREEK COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 4708 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92716 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: OASIS Property on Northwest corner of Marguerite Avenue and 5th Avenue, Corona Del Mar, California It has come to the attention of our association that there is a contemplated trade of property between the OASIS Senior Citizens Center and the Irvine Company, the exchange concerning that property located at the northwest corner of Marguerite and 5th, Corona Del Mar, and the property immediately to the east of the OASIS center on the northeast corner of the same intersection. Further, we have been told that the Irvine Company would be the resultant fee owner of the property on the northwest corner, which would be residentially developed. Our association requests that we be kept fully informed of the status of any proposed development of these properties. Any development would affect our association due to the proximity of the property and the possible blocking of views of our residents. Thank you for assuring us we will be kept advised. - Very t ly your , Robert N. eRienzo President Jasmine Creek Community RND:bs cc: Villageway Management, Inc. Each Director Association 2-36 I I I 1 I 11 M I I I I 1 Planning Commission Minutes 1 2-37 1 tion 1 1stitute ion Is S )tion Ihdrawn June 4, 1981 of Beach ITEM 6: General Plan Amendment 81-2 and Amendment No. 2 to the Local Coasta Program Discussion Request to set for public hearing during October 1981, Amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, including: a) Caltrans West b) Fifth Avenue parcels c) Freeway Reservations West (Big Canyon) d) Coast Highway Residential/Commercial e) Campus Drive Industrial/Office f) Park sites INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Motion was.made to continue Item No. 6 to the regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 9, 1981. MINUTES The discussion opened.in connection with this Item and Mr. Jim Huff-, resident of Newport Crest, stated that the residents in attendance of tonight's meeting would like to discuss the CALTRANS•West proposal. Substitute motion was made to reconsider the prior action and reschedule the hearings for GPA 81-1 and GPA 81-2 to the meeting of July 9, 1981, which SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED. Commissioner Allen withdrew her motion for a continuance. -11- INDEX 2-38 eL _ xmRL ma R6 z N x N 5 M J June 4, 198.1' Of Beach Planning Director Hewicker stated that the decision before the Planning Commission this evening is to determine whether or not the amendments considered, are warranted to set for a full public hearing. Mr. Robert'Seaman, resident of Newport Crest, stated.that the CALTRANS West parcel should be considered along with the Beeco proposal. He stated that park designations and environmental open space must be considered for both of these parcels. MINUTES Mr. Carl Cheadle; resident of 29 Encore Court. and Vice -President of the Newport Crest'Home- owners Association, read a letter to the Com-. mission from the Board of Directors, which strongly urged denial of the CALTRANS West proposal. The concerns related to multiple - family residential uses, need for open space and parks, access, traffic impacts, noise and air pollution and view preservations. Mr. Bill Fiker,! of Ficker and Ruffing Architects requested tat Item d.) Coast Highway Residential/ Commercial be set for public hearing after the completion of the environmental documentation. Mr. David Simmes, representing the Department of Transportation, stated that the proposal for the CALTRANS West parcel will not cause a sub- stantial impact on the community;, but will provide parks an6 retention of views. Mr. Todd Dailey, resident of 'Newport Crest, stated that the funding for any future park or open space area, must be studied carefully. Mr. Ron McMahon, representing the owner of Item g) Buck Gully ,Residential, requested that this item be set for public hearing, to consider the viability of a multi -family residential development on the site. -12- 2-39 1 I tion yes Ies EI IX June 4, 1981• of Newport Beach Mr. Russ Benedict, resident of Newport Crest, expressed his desire for park space. He stated that the CALTRANS West property in conjunction with the Beeco property, provides a unique opportunity -to solve the open space problem. Motion was made that Item a) CALTRANS West,.not be included in the October 1981 General Plan Amendment, which MOTION CARRIED. MIiJUTES Motion was made that Item b) Fifth Avenue Parcels be initiated for public hearing, which MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made that Item c) Freeway Reservations West (Big Canyon) be initiated for public hear- ing, which MOTION CARRIED. X Motion was made to reconsider the prior action X X taken on the CALTRANS West parcel, which MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made to initiate a public hearing X X for all items listed in General Plan Amendment X 81-2, which would include the completion of the environmental documentation, which MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made to continue the remainder of the items on the Agenda to the regular Planning Commission meeting of June 18, 1981, which MOTION CARRIED. There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 11:45 p.m. George Cokas, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach -13- INDEX 2-40 January 20, 1983 MINUTES o x ' of .Newport Beach General Plan Amendment 81-2 (Public Hearin Request to amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan and the acceptance of an environmental document. CALTRANS WEST LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and superior Avenue (as realigned). GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open Space ZONE: O -S (Open Space) District PROPONENT: State of California, Department of Transportation FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS LOCATION: A. Westerly ofMarguerite Avenue between Sth Avenue and Harbor View Drive. B: Northerly of Sth Avenue between Marguerite Avenue and Buck Gully. C: Along the eastern City boundary between Sth Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road. GENERAL PLAN: Low Density Residential and Recreational and Environmental Open Space. ZONE: R -1-B (Single Family with B combining) District PROPONENT: The Irvine Company -23- R17 , FSI 2-41 �x c u x c n a January 20, 1983 MINUTES of Newport Beach 0 ROLL CALL I I 1 1'. ( 1 1 1 1 INDEX BIG CANYON AREA 16 LOCATION: Southwesterly of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. ZONE: P -C (Planned Community) District PROPONENT: The Irvine Company LOCATION: Northeasterly of Newport Center Drive East and San Miguel Drive. GENERAL PLAN: Administrative Professional,, and Financial Commercial ZONE: C -O -H (Commercial) District PROPONENT: Newport Center Medical Buildings CAMPUS DRIVE LOCATION: Area bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street, Orchard Avenue, and Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue. GENERAL PLAN: General Industry, Administrative Professional and Financial Commercial, and Retail and Service Commercial. ZONE: M -1-A (Industrial) District, A -P (Administrative, Professional) District, and'C-1 (Commercial) District. PROPONENT: The City of Newport Beach INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach -24- 2-42 2 Motion All Ayes Ix x January 20, 1983 Of Amendment No. 2 to the Beach Beach Local Coastal Request to amend the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program for the Caltrans West site. LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned) LCP: Recreational and Environmental Open Space ZONE: O -S PROPONENT: State of California, Department of Transportation INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Chairman King opened the public hearing and testimony was taken on the following items: CALTRANS WEST Planning Director Hewicker advised the Commission that the State of California, Department of Transportation has requested that the Caltrans West portion of Item No. 5 - General Plan Amendment 81-2 and Item No. 6 - Amendment No. 2 to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of February 10, 1983. Motion was made to continue the Caltrans West portion of General Plan Amendment 81-2 and Amendment No. 2 to the Newport Beach ,Local Coastal Program, to the Planning Commission Meeting of February 10, 1983, which MOTION CARRIED. -25- MINUTES CALTRANS WEST 11 F Ll I it i I di i I. I 2-43 1 n � C S 6 p m D I FJ I L, I I E W I I I January 20, 1983 of Newport Beach FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS Mr. Ronald Kennedy appeared before the Commission and stated that the staff report indicates that there are no neighborhood or view parks shown on the Marguerite Avenue Parcel. However, he referred to an exhibit in the General Plan Amendment document and stated that a neighborhood park is indicated in Area A. He further stated that the Open Space Element designates all of Area A as a neighborhood park. Actually, he stated that the area is not a neighborhood park, but is shown as a greenbelt. He stated that perhaps this is a portion of the Jasmine Creek greenbelt. Mr. Kennedy referred to Area A and stated that in visiting the site, he noticed that there was a great amount of fill on the site. He stated that the use of this fill has changed the topography of the land and questioned as to whether geotechnical work-ups or permits were issued prior to the fill being placed on the site. He further questioned if this would be considered a buildable site, or if any view planes would be affected because of the use of the fill. In response to a question posed by Mr. Kennedy, Planning Director Hewicker stated that there is an inconsistency between the various elements of the General Plan and how the property is designated on each of the elements. He stated that the last action taken by the City was to designate the property as low density residential at four dwelling units per acre. He stated that this was accomplished in General Plan Amendment No. 79-1. In response ,to a question posed by Mr. Kennedy, Chairman King stated that the fill which occurs on the top portion of the site would be redistributed on the site to allow for construction without view plane blockage. Mr. Kennedy questioned where the real terrain in this area begins and where the fill area begins. In response to a question posed by Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator, stated that the neighborhood park designation was not deleted under General Plan Amendment No. 79-1 for the Fifth Avenue parcel. Chairman King suggested that the staff provide this information in the form of a map for the next hearing. -26- MINUTES INDEX 2-44 c a = m L S 6 i O 1 23 January 20, 1983 of Newport Beach Mr. Kennedy questioned if there is a proper amount of park dedication being provided. He also expressed his concerns with the lot size of the parcels and the boundaries of the Harbor View area. Dr. Brenda Ross, Chairman for the Long Range Planning Commission for Oasis, appeared before the Commission. Dr. Ross stated that they are desirous of expanding the scope of Oasis to include a geriatric health education and daycare center. She stated that they are currently in the process of raising money for a study to determine the actual need. However, she. stated that if all of the land around the Oasis area is developed with housing, there will be no space for Oasis to expand in the,future. Dr. Ross stated that there are currently 2,700 active members in Oasis, with a potential of 15,000 members in the area of Newport Beach. She stated that programs for Oasis are expanding rapidly, including a lecture series. She requested that this item be scheduled first on the agenda at the next meeting so that the members of Oasis could address the Commission on this issue and express their concerns. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Dr. Ross stated that ideally, they would like to expand the facility on the same side of the street as the current facility. However, she stated that they would be willing to consider expansion across the street or in the Corona del Mar area. Mr. Edward Ashley, representing the Jasmine Creek Community Association and resident of 110 Jasmine Creek Drive, appeared before the Commission. He expressed their concerns with the protection of the views, particularly those residences which are located directly across Harbor View Drive. He requested that the views be protected and preserved in this area. Planning Director Hewicker stated that concerns with view protection can be addressed in the General Plan Amendment. He stated that The Irvine Company has prepared exhibits and is prepared to discuss their conceptual plans for the development of the property, which may alleviate the concerns relating to view protection. However, he stated that potential view impacts are impossible to define at this level of planning. -27- MINUTES INDEX I I I I 1I I I I I 2-45 1 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 20, 1983 i e m = m C o 7 A y D I I I I J r I I I I I I of Newport Beach Mr. Lloyd Crausy, President of the Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association South, appeared before the Commission. He expressed their concern with the protection and preservation of views over Parcels A and B. He further stated that the maintenance of sensitive habitats should not take precedence over the preservation of views, but rather that both should be given equal protection. Mr. Larry Wesoff, member of the Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association South, appeared before the Commission. He stated that he has received many telephone calls from persons who are concerned with the view protection from Sandcastle Drive. He stated that if the dedicated parks remain, the view would be protected. He stated that the persons residing in the Harbor View Hills area are willing to -work with The Irvine Company in attempting to resolve these concerns and protect their views. Mr. Richard Nichols, President of the Corona del Mar Community Association, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Nichols stated that the ownership of Parcel A is not clear and that the dedication of a greenbelt is also not clear. He stated that this particular piece of property has not been taken care of by either the City or The Irvine Company. He requested that the legal status of the property be determined before the area is rezoned. Mr. Nichols referred to Parcel B and stated that the EIR indicates the parks for Corona del Mar as Grant Howald Park and Lawn Bowling Park. He stated that the Lawn Bowling Park is not accessible and that it is not big enough. He stated that because of ownership problems, the youth center in Grant 'Howald Park can not be repaired. He expressed his concern that if the school were to sell its interest in the Grant Howald Park, it is possible that Corona del Mar would have no parks to serve its residents. He further stated that the Oasis facility should be given every opportunity to expand its use. -28_ INDEX 2-46 January 20, 1983 of Newport Beach Mr. Nichols referred to Parcel C and stated that this is undeveloped, heavily sloped land. He stated that considerable funds will be needed to maintain this parcel. He stated that they do not mind this parcel being undeveloped, but suggested that The Irvine Company maintain the parcel. Mr. Nichols stated that The Irvine Company has indicated the need for a road, namely Canyon Crest Road. He stated that such a road would definitely bypass the traffic of Coast Highway and be a benefit to the local traffic. Mr. Nichols stated ,that the association is not prepared to make a decision as yet on the propose& plans,of The Irvine Company, however, he stated that the plans have been well thought out. He emphasized that park land is needed in the area, rather than more in -lieu park fees. He stated that there are also no soccer or ball fields which are located on Parks, Beaches and Recreation property adjacent to Corona del Mar. He suggested that perhaps filling in the Jasmine Creek area may be a possibility. Commissioner Allen stated that the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission is launching a study of the City's Open Space Element. She stated that as, a part of this study, they will probably be discussing park land dedication versus in -lieu park fees. She suggested that the interested residents from Corona del Mar should participate in this study. Commissioner McLaughlin asked if The Irvine Company is proposing the development of Canyon Crest Road. Mr. Bernard Maniscalco, representing The Irvine Company, stated that The Irvine Company is not proposing the development of Canyon Crest Road. He stated that Canyon Crest Road was taken off of the transportation plan by both the City and the County, because it was felt that Pelican Hills Road would be a better bypass. -29- MINUTES I INDEX 2-47 1 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 20, 1983 w> C 0 =City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I I I I I INDEX I I I Is I I I I I Mr. Ron Fowler, resident of 408 Mendoza Terrace, appeared before the Commission and expressed his concern with the sensitive wild life area in and around Buck Gully. He requested that only the upper portion of Buck Gully be considered for development and that the lower portion be protected. BIG CANYON AREA 16 No comments were received regarding this item. NEWPORT CENTER - BLOCK 400 Mr. Frank Rhodes, resident" of 1417 East Bay and representing Newport Center Medical Buildings, Inc., appeared before the Commission. Mr. Rhodes presented a rendering of the project which depicted the proposed seven -story, 80,000 square foot medical office building and the existing surrounding uses. He also discussed the parking proposal and stated that the traffic which the use will be generating, will be spread out throughout the day. Chairman King stated that the patron traffic may be spread out during the day, but that the staff and doctors will be generating traffic during the peak hours. Mr. Rhodes stated that in comparison with the floor area, the staff of a medical office use is significantly smaller than that of a general office use and therefore, will be creating less peak hour traffic. He stated that the traffic which is created by a medical office use is that of the patients who are coming and going during the day. Mr. Richard Nichols, resident of 519 Iris Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated that he is not taking a position on the proposed project. Mr. Nichols expressed his concern that specific proposals are now being considered which will increase the density in Newport Center. He stated that either all of Newport Center should be specifically zoned, or it should be handled as a Planned Community, including traffic concerns for the entire Newport Center. 5ilm BIG CANYON AREA 16 NEWPORT CENTER - BLOCK 400 2-48 January 20, 1983 of Newport Beach Planning Director Hewicker stated that the property is not zoned as a Planned Community, it is zoned C -0-H, which is a Commercial District. He stated that this particular proposal was presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council under General Plan Amendment No. 80-3, which also included The Irvine Company and the Marriott Hotel proposals. He stated that at that time, Mr. Rhodes indicated that in his lease and financial arrangements with The Irvine Company, he was paying for development rights in Block 400 which were apparently not recognized by the City when General Plan Amendments 78-2 and 79-1 were being processed. Therefore, he stated that Mr. Rhodes was instructed by the City to bring the proposal back at a subsequent date and make his presentation on an individual basis. Commissioner Balalis stated that until General Plan Amendment 80-3, he was not aware that any development rights existed in Block 400 which were not counted in the overall square footage for Newport Center. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the purpose of the amendment is to restore the rights of Mr. Rhodes to build 80,000 square feet of office development in Block 400, not to give The Irvine Company an additional 80,000 square feet. He stated that unless the 80,000 square feet of office development is taken out from some other place in Newport Center, the office development square footage in Newport Center will increase. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Planning Director Hewicker stated that he is not aware of any documentation which indicates the development rights of Mr. Rhodes and his agreement with The Irvine Company. Commissioner Balalis asked if The Irvine Company was aware that Mr. Rhodes had these development rights. Mr. Rhodes stated that at the time The Irvine Company was processing General Plan ,Amendment 80-3, he was advised that he was considered as a separate property owner and that only the property which The Irvine Company had control of in Newport Center was being processed. He stated that because he had a long term lease with The Irvine Company, he was advised to process his proposal separately. -31- MINUTES M I I I I i L i I 2-49 , X c °a X o m _m I E LJ i 10 I I I I 1 .. January 20, 1983 of Newt)ort Beach Mr. Rhodes stated that the City was advised of these facts in the beginning of General Plan Amendment 80'-3. He stated that this proposal was not processed at that time, because the environmental documentation would have delayed General Plan Amendment 80-3. However, he stated that this proposal was recognized by the City Council in the processing of General Plan Amendment 80-3 and that there were development rights to this property. He stated that they have the earliest development rights in Newport Center which date back to 1966. In _response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Rhodes stated that he has recorded leases with The Irvine Company which document these property rights. Commissioner Balalis stated that when the original square footage limitations were placed on Block 400, this 80,000 square feet should -have been included as allowable square footage. He asked what is the permitted development in Block 400, under the existing General Plan. Mr. Rhodes stated that at the time they entered into the contractural agreements with The Irvine Company for this property, the square footage was included. He stated that subsequent to that time, through General Plan Amendments 78-2 and 79-1, this square footage was taken away, without his knowledge. He stated that he had relied upon The Irvine Company to protect his development rights. Planning Director Hewicker stated that when the City Council initiated the reduction of square footage in Newport Center under General Plan Amendments 78-2 and 79-1, figures were developed'as to the existing square footage and what was permitted. He stated that since there were already four buildings fully developed and a parking lot, it was determined that a zero amount of development would be permitted in the future. He stated that currently, there are 353,600 square feet of medical and general office uses existing in Block 400. Mr. Rhodes reiterated that he was never notified or made aware that the square footage for his development had been taken away by the previous General Plan Amendment actions. -32- MINUTES INDEX 2-50 January 20, 1983 of Newport Beach CAMPUS DRIVE Mr. David Neish, representing MacArthur Associates, appeared before the Commission and requested that their particular parcel be removed from the Campus Drive area of the General'Plan Amendment. He stated that they are currently embarking upon a planning program which will call for the redevelopment of the subject property, in which several mixed land use alternatives will be explored. Therefore, he requested that a decision on this particular parcel be delayed, until they can submit a specific site plan review within the next six to eight months. He stated that a site plan review will provide the type of analysis in which the request can be judged upon the merits of the proposal. Mr. Neish stated that the existing zoning in the area allows for a 3.0 floor area ratio, as opposed to the 0.5 floor area ratio which is being proposed by staff. He stated that they would not propose a project at the existing 3.0 floor area ratio, however, he stated that the proposal would be greater than the proposed 0.5 floor area ratio. He stated that they are willing to commit the project to a site plan review by the Planning Commission. He stated that under the present zoning standards, they would not necessarily have to do this. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Planning Director Hewicker stated that the current floor area ratio in this particular area is at .34 times the buildable area. Planning Director Hewicker stated that staff has proposed a 0.5 floor area ratio, but that the Planning Commission can adopt a higher or lower figure. Mr. Neish stated that the proposed 0.5 floor area ratio is not acceptable. He also stated that development of the area at the existing 3.0 floor area ratio would definitely create problems for the area. He stated that the Koll and Emkay parcels were developed at floor area ratios in the range of .35, but are parcels which are owned by one entity and were developed when the parcels were vacant. He stated that the property in question is mainly leasehold land and has already been developed, therefore making the proposed 0.5 floor area ratio unacceptable. -33- MINUTES I 41 CAMPUS , DRIVE I 1 2-51 ' I n x c C 6 p m ' I I 11 11 0 I L, I I January 20, 1983 of Newport Beach Mr. Neish stated that from a marketing standpoint, the proposed 0.5 floor area ratio will discourage a lessee or landowner -from acquiring additional parcels which may be located adjacent to their uses. In response to a question posed by Chairman King, Mr. Neish stated that the parcel in question contains approximately 3.1 acres of land and is located at the southwesterly intersection of MacArthur Avenue and Birch Street. Mr. Dave Montano, representing Air Cal, located at 3636 Birch Street, appeared before the Commission. He stated that the proposed floor area ratio will restrict future development in the area. Chairman King stated that the new facility for Air Cal which would be located on the east side of Birch street is outside of the zone which is being considered under the General Plan Amendment and that the original Air Cal facility is located within the area which is being considered. Mr. Steven Strauss, Vice -President of Pacesetter Homes, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Strauss described the parcels which they own or lease that will be affected by the proposed General Plan Amendment. He stated that the conditions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance would make it impossible to construct a building in this area at the current maximum of 3.0 floor area ratio. Further, he stated that Campus Drive has height restrictions for a navigation easement which are imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration. He stated that the land in this area is held by small property owners, many of which have leases with The Irvine Company. Therefore, Mr. Strauss stated that there is no rush to act upon the General Plan Amendment. Mr. Strauss stated that a low buildable area restriction will discourage people from the long-term, financial commitment of combining lots and upgrading the properties. He suggested that the Commission impose a maximum area restriction with moderate zoning which gives control over setbacks, building sizes, traffic generation, and so on. He stated that the applicant can then attempt to mitigate the problems which may be encountered. He stated that the proposed 0.5 floor area ratio will discourage people from upgrading their properties. -34- MINUTES 21IR]O 2-52 January 20, 1983 x c m. City of Newport Beach In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Strauss stated that a 0.5 floor area ratio will become 0.3 or 0.2, after the setbacks and other restrictions have been applied. Planning Director Hewicker stated that if the floor area ratio reduction is approved in the General Plan Amendment, the zoning district on the property will be amended to impose the same type of floor area ratio. Mr. Strauss stated that with proper zoning procedures and site plan approval, a project at 1.5 times the buildable area may be appropriate for this area. otherwise, he stated that redevelopment, which is needed to upgrade the area, will not occur. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Strauss stated that they currently have the approval for a 53;000 square foot building on a 116,000 square foot parcel, which is below the floor area ratio of 0.5. Mr. Strauss stated that their concern is not with this project, but with future projects in the area. He expressed his concern that the declining industrial areas of the City need to be redeveloped with higher and better uses. Mr. Robert Burnham, Acting City Attorney, stated that an environmental document must address the worse case situation and maximum build out which would be permitted. He stated that to the extent that the proposal is increased above the 0.5 floor area ratio, the additional impacts must be addressed in the environmental document. Planning Director Hewicker stated that in reality, the likelihood of the worse case situation ever occurring, is almost non-existent. MINUTES Mr. Don Lewis of 4301 Birch Street, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Lewis stated that imposing the• proposed restriction is unfair and is not practical. 'He stated that there are' already many zoning restrictions which are imposed on projects, and one more restriction is not needed. He stated that it is most unlikely that any of the properties could be built with the maximum 3.0 floor area ratio. -35= INDEX I r I I I 2-53 1 I I I I I [J 19 I I January 20, 1983 of Newport Beach Chairman King requested that staff take an inventory of the number of developments in the area of Campus Drive which have been upgraded or remodeled. For example, the Koll Development Building and the buildinq on the corner of Birch Street and Bristol Street. Commissioner Winburn referred to the Fifth Avenue Parcels and requested that information be provided as to the status of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission review of the Recreational/Open Space Element. Commissioner Balalis referred to the Fifth Avenue Parcels and requested that the ownership of Parcel A be clarified. Chairman King referred to the Fifth Avenue Parcels and requested the most recent, approved map of the location of the greenbelts and open space in this area. Commissioner Balalis referred to Newport Center - Block 400 and requested clarification of the 80,000 square foot issue. Mr. Burnham referred to the Campus Drive item and stated that the City Attorney's Office will prepare a legal opinion as to the request by Mr. Neish to exempt one particular parcel of this item. Mr. Neish suggested that perhaps the Commission could defer comment on this parcel for six to eight months, rather than exempting the parcel from the item. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Burnham stated that it is not possible to defer one item from consideration, because the environmental document must be processed as one document. Mr. Ronald Kennedy stated that for a variance, it is required that persons residing within 300 feet of the application must be notified. He questioned why persons are not notified of general plan amendment hearings. Planning Director Hewicker stated that notices for all general plan amendment hearings are advertised in the newspaper. He further stated that the community and homeowners associations are notified, as well as all persons who have expressed an interest in the item. -36- MINUTES INDEX 2-54 n 16m c w m 'co � x C1m I I I I [J 19 I I January 20, 1983 of Newport Beach Chairman King requested that staff take an inventory of the number of developments in the area of Campus Drive which have been upgraded or remodeled. For example, the Koll Development Building and the buildinq on the corner of Birch Street and Bristol Street. Commissioner Winburn referred to the Fifth Avenue Parcels and requested that information be provided as to the status of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission review of the Recreational/Open Space Element. Commissioner Balalis referred to the Fifth Avenue Parcels and requested that the ownership of Parcel A be clarified. Chairman King referred to the Fifth Avenue Parcels and requested the most recent, approved map of the location of the greenbelts and open space in this area. Commissioner Balalis referred to Newport Center - Block 400 and requested clarification of the 80,000 square foot issue. Mr. Burnham referred to the Campus Drive item and stated that the City Attorney's Office will prepare a legal opinion as to the request by Mr. Neish to exempt one particular parcel of this item. Mr. Neish suggested that perhaps the Commission could defer comment on this parcel for six to eight months, rather than exempting the parcel from the item. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Burnham stated that it is not possible to defer one item from consideration, because the environmental document must be processed as one document. Mr. Ronald Kennedy stated that for a variance, it is required that persons residing within 300 feet of the application must be notified. He questioned why persons are not notified of general plan amendment hearings. Planning Director Hewicker stated that notices for all general plan amendment hearings are advertised in the newspaper. He further stated that the community and homeowners associations are notified, as well as all persons who have expressed an interest in the item. -36- MINUTES INDEX 2-54 COMA NSSIONERS MINUTES January 20, 1983 dna m City of Newport Beach INDEX 7AyesX X Motion was made to continue General Plan Amendment 81-2 X X 2 2 1 and Amendment-No. 2 to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, to the Planning Commission Meeting of February 10, 1983, so that the staff can compile the requested information. ' ADDITIONAL BUSINESS ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Newport Center Sight Plane ' I Planning Director Hewicker referred to the staff report which was prepared on this item and presented ' ackground information. Mr. Clark Hayes, resident of 1106 Goldenrod Avenue and memb of the Harbor View Hills Community Association, appear 'before the Commission. Mr.-Hayes stated that since th passage of the Sight Plane Ordinance in 1973, the Assoc i tion has had various discussions with The ' Irvine Comp on this issue. He stated that on one occasion, the oard members of the Association,reviewed with The Iryin Company, the planting of trees on Newport Center Dr e. He stated that this was done to ' ensure that there ould be no infringement upon the sight plane. Mr. Hayes stated that ring the processing of the General Plan Amendment fo Civic Plaza and Corporate Plaza, the overall sight pl a was lost and only the sight plane for Corporate Plaz was covered. He stated , that the full sight plane 'was ncluded by the City Council in the passage of General Ian Amendment 80-3. However, he stated that General Plan ndment 80-3 was removed by the referendum. There re, Mr. Hayes ' requested that the Zoning Ordinance a amended to include the full sight plane as originall intended. , Mr. Dave Dmohowski, representing The Irvine Company, stated that it would be inappropriate at this ime to institute any change in the zoning on this prope -37- , 2-55 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 10, 1983 itv of Newport Beach General Plan Amendment 81-2 (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan and the acceptance of an environmental document. CALTRANS WEST LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned). GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open Space ZONE: O -S (Open Space) District PROPONENT: State of California, Department of Transportation FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS LOCATION: A: Westerly of Marguerite Avenue between 5th Avenue and Harbor View Drive. B: Northerly of 5th Avenue between Marguerite Avenue and Buck Gully. C: Along the eastern City boundary between 5th Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road.. GENERAL PLAN: Low Density Residential and Recreational and Environmental Open Space. ZONE: R -1-B (Single Family with B combining) District PROPONENT: The Irvine Company -2- INDEX AND ALL CONTINUED TO FEBRU- ARY 24, 1983 2-56 ,ANSSIONER-51 MINUTES February 10,-1983 � r c o m Q o 7c m m > C S 6 p — � of Newport Beach BIG CANYON AREA 16 LOCATION: Southwesterly of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. ZONE: P -C (Planned Community) District PROPONENT: The Irvine Company NEWPORT CENTER - BLOCK 400 LOCATION: Northeasterly of Newport Center Drive East and San Miguel Drive. GENERAL PLAN: Administrative Professional, and Financial Commercial ZONE: C -O -R (Commercial) District PROPONENT: Newport Center Medical Buildings CAMPUS DRIVE LOCATION: Area bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street, Orchard Avenue, and Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue. GENERAL PLAN: General Industry, Administrative Professional and, Financial Commercial, and Retail and Service Commercial. ZONE: M -1-A (Industrial) District, A -P (Administrative, Professional) District, and C-1 (Commercial) District. .PROPONENT: The City of Newport Beach INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach 5M INDEX 2-57 3 a � w m n o = > I: II MINUTES February 10, 1983 of Newport Beach AND 2 to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Request to amend the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program for the Caltrans West site. LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned) LCP: Recreational and Environmental Open Space ZONE: O -S PROPONENT: State of California, Department of Transportation INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Chairman King opened the public hearing and testimony was taken on the following items, beginning with the Fifth Avenue Parcels: FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS: Area A Mr. Ronald Kennedy, resident of 550 Hazel Drive, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Kennedy referred to the various maps which are shown in the General Plan and stated that there are inconsistencies with the Land Use Element and Land Use Plan. He stated that the actual location of the greenbelts must be determined before a decision is made, including the Jasmine Creek greenbelt system. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the maps which Mr. Kennedy has referred to, are not engineering maps, but are maps which are drawn to indicate general concepts of development. -4- INDEX I FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS 2-58 r^r1 A A 3 a � w m n o = > I: II MINUTES February 10, 1983 of Newport Beach AND 2 to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Request to amend the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program for the Caltrans West site. LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned) LCP: Recreational and Environmental Open Space ZONE: O -S PROPONENT: State of California, Department of Transportation INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Chairman King opened the public hearing and testimony was taken on the following items, beginning with the Fifth Avenue Parcels: FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS: Area A Mr. Ronald Kennedy, resident of 550 Hazel Drive, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Kennedy referred to the various maps which are shown in the General Plan and stated that there are inconsistencies with the Land Use Element and Land Use Plan. He stated that the actual location of the greenbelts must be determined before a decision is made, including the Jasmine Creek greenbelt system. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the maps which Mr. Kennedy has referred to, are not engineering maps, but are maps which are drawn to indicate general concepts of development. -4- INDEX I FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS 2-58 MMISSIONERS MINUTES February 10, 1983 3 � - m m N City of Newport Beach 101FIX4 Planning Director Hewicker further stated that the precise amount of area would be determined at the time the zoning was placed on the property, or when there is an actual plan for development. ' Mr. Lloyd Crausy, President of the Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association South, appeared before the Commission. He expressed their concern with the elevations around the access areas at Sandcastle Drive and Marguerite Avenue. He requested that any site plan to be developed in the future, show elevation contours ' adjacent to Marguerite Avenue and Tiller Way. Commissioner Allen referred to Page 12 of the staff report, Item No. 6, and suggested the following wording: "That ocean and bay views from existing residences shall be preserved to the maximum extent , feasible." She stated that the additional wording of "ocean and bay" views will clarify the intent. Mr. Crausy stated that the water view is the .primary concern, however, their concern is not limited to the ocean and bay views. ' Chairman King stated that the grading of the site will be so that the height of any roof along that area will be no more than three feet above curb, or that it would ' not interrupt the view plane of a person seated in an automobile travelling down Marguerite Avenue. Mr. Crausy stated that this was not obvious from the existing contour lines and requested that the elevation contour lines be continued onto Marguerite Avenue and Tiller Way. Mr. John Dawson appeared before the Commission and referred to the comments made earlier by Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Dawson stated that he realizes that the differences between the maps are a graphics error, but the interpretation of the graphics error should be made in favor of the greenbelt system, rather than in favor of , the development. He suggested that the City .purchase Parcel A or acquire sufficient dedication to make this as a greenbelt. He stated that by designating Parcel A as a greenbelt use, does not accomplish this. -5- 2-59 A February 10, 1983 of Newport Beach MINUTES 'w ROLL CALL iNUtx ' Mr. Richard Nichols, resident of 519 Iris Avenue, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Nichols stated ' that adopting a zoning on the land does not necessarily change its land usage. He referred to the view park issue and stated that the park should be a usable, flat area for recreational activities and baseball diamonds. He stated that a view park area with a bench is not considered to be important. He stated that it would be possible to buy slope rights from the school, along with fill from The' Irvine Company, to make a very useful park on what is presently unusable land. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Mr. Nichols stated he is President of the Corona del Mar Community Association, but there has not been an official vote taken on these issues. Therefore, he stated that he is speaking as an individual, unless ' otherwise indicated. Mr. Nichols referred to Page 12 of the staff report, Item No. 5 and stated that the reference to "the assessment of in -lieu fees" should be deleted for Area A. He stated that the property which would be affected is worth much more than what the in -lieu fees would be worth. Mr. Nichols stated that the Corona del Mar Community ' Association wants Fifth Avenue to remain a two lane street with a maximum width of 32 feet, which would provide for parking on one side of the street only. Commissioner Balalis stated that the majority of the residential streets in Corona del Mar provide for parking on both sides of the street, in addition to two lanes of traffic. Mr. Nichols stated that their concern is that the 'street never be expanded to a four lane street without parking. Commissioner Balalis concurred with the concern expressed'. Mr. Nichols stated that a 40 -foot wide street would require a tremendous amount of fill. Essentially, a 32 -foot wide street would eliminate the possibility of the Fifth Avenue corridor coming through this area. ' Mr. Nichols stated that by prohibiting parking on the north side of the street, this would allow the Oasis facility to build a berm and install horseshoe pits. He stated that with minor donations from The Irvine Company, a recreational field would be possible at Grant Howald Park. • -6- 2-60 MMISSIONERS MINUTES February 10, 1983 City of Newport Beach Commissioner Balalis expressed his concern with the safety of a 32 -foot wide street which includes parking on one side of the street. He stated that it would not be safe -or practical to parallel park or to open a cat door on such a small width street. However, he stated that he concurs with the concern that the street never be expanded in the future to a four lane street. Mr. Nichols stated that the wider ,the street, the faster the cars will move on the street. Commissioner Goff asked if the City has a requirement for the minimum size of a view park. Planning Director Hewicker referred to Chapter 19 of the Municipal Code which states, that the minimum standard for a park is two acres. However, he stated that this does not necessarily apply to a view park. He stated that a view park can be considerably smaller in size. Area B Mr. Grant Howald, resident of 243 Heliotrope Avenue,, and President of The Friends of Oasis, appeared before the ,Commission. Mr. Howald stated that many members of their Board of Directors are present at tonight's meeting. He requested that the Oasis facility not be "fenced in" by this proposal, so 'that they can expand their facility in the future. Mr. H. Ross Miller, resident of 1627 Baycliff Circle, and Advocacy Chairman for The Friends of Oasis, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Ross Miller described the services which the Oasis facility provides to the senior citizens of Newport Beach. He stated that they are desirous of expanding the scope of Oasis to include a geriatric health care facility in conjunction with Hoag Hospital and the UCI Medical School. However, he stated that if the General Plan Amendment is approved as submitted, Oasis Center can not expand their facility. Mr. Ross Miller suggested that if The Irvine Company is allowed to build their development, they should consider donating several acres of land to the Oasis Center which would allow for future expansion. Or, he suggested that the Planning Commission consider a buffer zone between the Oasis Center and The Irvine Company development. -7- R19r10 I FI 11 w LJ i J I .1 2-61 1 I � r c Q m x G) N Y 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 February 10, 1983 MINUTES of Newport Beach Chairman King asked the amount of land which would be needed for the future expansion of the Oasis Center. Mr. Ross Miller stated that approximately two to three acres would be needed. He stated that they are currently contemplating low, one-story buildings for the proposed expansion. Mr. Ross Miller stated that their existing parking lot is currently filled to capacity. Mr. Lloyd Crausy, President of the Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association South, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Crausy expressed their concern with the density which is being proposed on Parcel B. He expressed their concerns relating to views and stated that the grading contours should be extended. He stated that future expansion of the Oasis Center should also be recognized. Mr. Crausy expressed their concern with the use of alleys for traffic circulation. He stated that the existing alleys in Old Corona del Mar contain trash cans and broken fences and do not contain any significant landscaping. He asked how the City will ensure that the alleys will be suitably maintained and landscaped. He stated that the proposed development could be designed in such a manner that would not require the use of alleys. Mr. Crausy stated that if a Planned Community is being proposed for the site, his Community Association would like to have the opportunity to review the deed restrictions relating to height, variances, landscaping and enforcement. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Mr. Crausy stated that the Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association South encompasses the area bounded by Marguerite Avenue, Sandcastle Drive, Jasmine Creek and Spyglass, all the way to San Joaquin Hills Road. Commissioner Allen stated that she concurs with the concerns expressed by Mr. Crausy relating to the alley issue. She stated that the Commission must also consider the need to provide the alternative of smaller housing on smaller lots. -8- INDEX . 2-62 Qb 7C Li ID > February 10, 1983 of Newport Beach Mr. Crausy stated that they are .not objecting to the size of the homes. He stated that the elimination of alleys would provide for larger lots, if the garage were to be located on the front portion of the house. Ms. Alice Ramer, representing Oasis Center, and a member of the Housing Committee for the Orange County Senior Citizens Advisory Council, appeared before the Commission. Ms. Ramer expressed their concern that senior citizen housing should be considered at this location. She stated that the City could apply for community development block grant funds, by which the City could purchase the land for such housing. She stated that this would provide low/moderate cost housing for the senior citizens of Newport Beach. She stated that more attention must be devoted to the needs of the senior citizens in Newport Beach. She stated that this is an ideal area because it could provide interaction with the Oasis Center. She stated that higher density and open space can be achieved with positive results. Chairman King asked Ms. Remer to further explain the type of housing she is proposing. Ms. Remer referred to other senior citizen housing areas in the County and stated that attractive, two-story rental housing can be developed, mixed with housing which would be available for purchase. Mr. Bud Desinburg, resident of 2231 Bayside Drive, stated that many people benefit from the services offered by the Oasis Center, Which include educational, recreational and human resources activities. He stated that the Oasis Center must have enough space for future expansion, so that they may continue to offer such services to the people of the community. Dr. Brenda Ross, Chairman for the Long Range Planning Commission for Oasis, appeared before the Commission. Dr. Ross stated that they are currently in the process of planning and' developing an expansion for the Oasis Center, including a geriatric health education and daycare center. She stated that there are currently approximately 15,000 senior citizens in the City of Newport Beach. She stated that in the next five years, there will be approximately 25,000 senior citizens in the City. She stated that they would also like to be able to maintain as much park area as possible. -9- MINUTES 1 INDEX 2-63 J A e Z a 5 a m A 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 i 1 1 February 10, 1983 MINUTES of Newport Beach Chairman King suggested that when Oasis begins studying their plans for redevelopment, they consider the relocation and expansion of existing facilities on the site, and the possible use of satelite facilities in other areas of the City. Dr. Ross stated that they would be considering these alternatives as they begin their study. She stated that their present facilities were taken over from an elementary school, and were not intended for senior citizen use. Mr. Richard Nichols, resident of 519 Iris Avenue, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Nichols stated that he supports the concerns expressed by the members of Oasis. He stated that the area surrounding the Oasis Center should be preserved as a recreational/open space area. Mr. Nichols referred to Page 13 of the staff report, Item No. 4 and stated that the reference to "the assessment of in -lieu fees" should be deleted for Area B. He further stated that Fifth Street should remain a two lane street with a maximum width of 32 feet. Mr. William Nelson, resident of 882 Sandcastle Drive, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Nelson referred to Page 13 of the staff report, Item No. 5'and expressed his concern with the views which may be affected. He stated that the problem with the views from Sandcastle Drive would not be horizontal views, but would be with vertical views and the density of development. Area C Mr. Rick Kartch, resident of 1014 Sandcastle Drive, appeared before the Commission. He expressed his concern with the preservation of Buck Gully, including the wildlife, flora and fauna. Mr. Richard Nichols, resident of 519 Iris Avenue, and representing the consensus of the Corona del Mar Community Association, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Nichols stated that Area C should be withdrawn from the general plan amendment consideration. He stated that the budget of the City should not be required to maintain this area as open space. -10- INDEX 2-64 MN�i��ivc"CK' February 10, 1983 MINUTES � r c C S 6 p m D City of Newport 'Beach Mr. Nichols stated that Buck Gully can not be used as park land because of the heavily sloped terrain. He suggested that The Irvine Company should be responsible for the liability and upkeep of Buck Gully,, and that they could possibly build one or two houses on the property. Chairman King stated that the suggested action for the Buck Gully Parcel would be to remove the alternate residential land use designation. Planning Director Hewicker concurred and stated that if the primary use of Recreational and Environmental Open Space is to remain, The Irvine Company, as the owner of the property, would like to be compensated. He stated that the value of the property would be difficult to determine, unless development plans were to be proposed for the area. He suggested that the alternative residential land use designation should be removed and that an easement be accepted for Recreational and Environmental Open Space with the ownership remaining with The Irvine Company or a public agency which would be .willing to accept the liability and maintenance of Buck Gully. Mr. Ronald Kennedy, resident of 550 Hazel Drive, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Kennedy questioned the City's Local Coastal Program and the Buck Gully designation of Recreational and Environmental Open Space. Planning Director Hewicker explained the differences between the LCP Land Use Plan and' the General Plan. He stated that the suggested actions would reconcile the two documents. Mr. Kennedy stated that he was concerned that in changing four units per acre to 10 units per acre in Area A and B, the buildable area of Area C would be transferred. Ms. Carolyn Higher, resident of Harbor View Hills, appeared before the Commission. Ms. Higher expressed her concern that if Buck Gully is opened for public use, there will be security problems, such as the use of motor bikes. She stated that they have already had problems with hunters shooting at the wildlife in Buck Gully. She requested that Buck Gully remain a wildlife reserve, for the preservation of the flora, fauna and natural wildlife. -11- INDEX 11 2-65 ' February 10, 1983 of Newport Beach MINUTES OkOLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX Commissioner McLaughlin suggested that this item be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of February 24, 1983, for further public input and the presentation by The Irvine Company. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m. : + r CALTRANS WEST CALTRANS WEST Mr. David Simmes, representing the State of California, Department of Transportation, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Simmes stated that the site was purchased in 1964 for the Coast Freeway. He stated that the site is no longer required for the Coast Freeway and is considered excess land. He stated that it is their intent to sell the property, after a residential land use designation has been established. Mr. Simmes referred to two renderings of the site which depicted a development of approximately 140 units, including a buffer zone between Newport Crest and a neighborhood park. He stated that these renderings are only meant to illustrate what could be accomplished on the site in question. Mr. Simmes stated that the West Newport area is deficient of developed park lands. He stated that this site would satisfy the City's Housing Element with the development of affordable housing. He referred to an aerial photograph of the property as it currently exists, and stated that development of the site would upgrade the property. Mr. Simmes stated that they are in concurrence with the staff recommendations and conditions on the parcel. He added that any development on the property should preserve the view lines for the adjacent homeowners. Planning Director Hewicker referred to Page 12 of the staff report and suggested the following revisions to Conditions No. 6 and 7 as follows: -12- 2-66 �x � m m c m A 0 > February 10, 1983 of Newport Beach MINUTES ' ROLL CALL INDEX 6. Upon approval of this amendment by the Planning , Commission, CalTrans will enter into an agreement permitting the City a right of entry onto that property required for realignment of Superior ' Avenue. This agreement will outline the procedures by which realigned Superior Avenue may be conveyed to the City. , 7. Because of difficulties in providing vehicular access to CalTrans East, and in recognition of both the State's need to dispose of this site and , Hoag Hospital's need for additional land, CalTrans has entered' into negotiations with, Hoag Hospital for the acquisition of CalTrans East. Zoning on CalTrans West shall not occur until such time as ' CalTrans and City of Newport Beach have mutually agreed to one access point not to exceed 50 feet in width from CalTrans East to Coast Highway. , Commissioner, Goff expressed his concerns relating to access to the property, park dedication and view preservation. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Simmes stated that the optimum access to the site , would be from Bluff Road. He stated that there may be a requirement that emergency vehicles enter from Superior Avenue. Commissioner Goff expressed his ' concern with the safety of taking access off of Superior Avenue. Commissioner Goff referred to the park dedication issue ' and stated that what was originally proposed on the site, according to the environmental document, did not meet the three criteria of flatness, access and shape. ' Mr. Simmes stated that as it exists, the site does not meet these requirements. However, he stated that engineering in the future'may be able to meet these needs. Mr. Simmes stated that they are agreeable to the greenbelt located adjacent to the Newport Crest development. Mr. Simmes further stated that all of the constraints and concerns should, be identified now, ' before a developer purchases the property. He stated that in this way, the future developer of the property will be aware of such constraints and concerns. Commissioner Goff stated that an activity park of approximately five acres is a requirement of the Banning/Newport Ranch development. He stated that a view park is designated on the site in question and asked Mr. Simmes the location of the view park. -13 , 2-67 J I I I to I I F I MINUTES February 10, 1983 of Newport Beach Mr. Simmes stated that the view park should have a view and the best location for such a park would be to the east of Superior Avenue, after it is realigned. He stated that at this location there is a substantial view of both Newport Harbor and the ocean. He stated that this location is not the highest elevation of the property, but affords the best view site. Commissioner Goff asked if CalTrans would be agreeable to dedicating a pedestrian easement along the remaining bluffs on CalTrans West, as is currently the case on the CalTrans East bluffs. Mr. Simmes stated that this could be a possibility if it were to be utilized in conjunction with a circulation plan for the parcels to be developed. Commissioner Goff stated that the exact location of the activity park as a requirement of the Banning/Newport Ranch development should be decided upon by a comprehensive review of the Recreational and Environmental Open Space Element by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. He asked if it would be possible to delineate a portion of the CalTrans site for this purpose prior to the parcel being developed. Mr. Simmes stated that this would be possible. He further stated that a combination of park land on CalTrans West and Banning/Newport Ranch property may be possible. Commissioner Goff expressed his concern with view preservation and stated that there are many balconies in the Newport Crest development. He asked how these views will be preserved which are adjacent to the higher elevation portions of the CalTrans West property. Mr. Simmes stated that view preservation is an important issue and is physically possible to achieve through proper engineering. Commissioner Goff asked if it would be possible to terrace the property to establish building pad elevations early in the process which would assure the residents of Newport Crest that their views will be preserved. Mr. Simmes stated that this is a more technical element of the development and would not occur in the preliminary stages of the development. -14- INDEX 2-68 February 10, 1983 of Newport Beach However, Mr. Simmes stated that they would be willing to commit themselves, as a condition of the project, to the definition of the preservation of views. such as, the views would be preserved for someone standing on the lower balcony who is five feet tall, who can see the water. He stated that from such language, an engineer can compute the sight line. Mr. Ross Benedict, resident of 19 Encore Court, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Benedict suggested that the park land study to be performed by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission and the study addressing the geotechnical aspects of the earthquake fault should be made a condition of the project, prior to approval of the General Plan Amendment. Chairman King stated that the Planning Commission will receive input from the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission prior to a decision being made upon the project. He stated that there have been several geological and geotechnical studies made of' the area over the past few years, which have already been made available to the City. Ms. Barbara Cope, resident of 16 Kialoa Court, appeared before the Commission. Ms. Cope stated that ideally, the CalTrans West parcel should remain as Recreational and Environmental Open Space for a park area and a cultural center. However, she stated that she realizes the amount of money which it would take to purchase the property from the State. Ms. Cope expressed her concern that a greenbelt be required to serve as a buffer to the Newport Crest development. She stated that terracing of any development on the Caltrans property should also be required to protect the views for the Newport Crest development. She stated' that park dedication is also an important issue and that the exact location of the park should be determined at the tract map level. Ms. Cope suggested that the developer of the CalTrans West site help Newport Crest to acquire Ticonderoga Street, by providing the lost parking spaces which would be necessary for this, acquisition, which is approximately 105 parking spaces. -15- MINUTES ' INDEX H 2-69 ' > J J 0 d+ N J I I I II 0 I 11 I 1 �r February 10, 1983 MINUTES of Newport Beach Ms. Cope suggested that the developer of the CalTrans West site should pay for the traffic signal at the entrance of Ticonderoga Street. She further suggested that the area adjacent to Superior Avenue be made more attractive. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Ms. Cope stated that Newport Crest is trying to acquire Ticonderoga Street as a private road. She stated that in order to do this, the number of parking spaces which would be lost in its acquisition would have to .be replaced elsewhere. Mr. Chris Hansen, resident of 22 Encore Court, and representing the Newport Crest Homeowners Association, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Hansen distributed to the Commission a letter dated January 10, 1983, which outlined the concerns and questions of the Association. These concerns and questions related to maintaining CalTrans West as Recreational and Environmental Open Space, if funding was available for its acquisition using Banning/Newport Ranch in -lieu fees, careful protection of those areas designated for parks and open space, not changing the land use of CalTrans West until the West Newport Study Area is completed, increased density, traffic impacts, grading, view parks, the time frame for GPA 81-2, and if a park be obtained by a development agreement. ,In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Hansen stated that Newport Crest was in concurrence with the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission recommendation that the park be located on CalTrans West site when the Banning/Newport Ranch issue was being considered. Commissioner Balalis stated that the park dedication site was to be located on the Banning/Newport Ranch site. Commissioner Balalis also stated that in order for it to be a usable park, the park could not be located on the CalTrans West site, without extensive grading of the site. Mr. Hansen stated that the lower elevation portion of the CalTrans West site is very flat. Commissioner Balalis stated that the lower elevation portion of the CalTrans West site would not appear to be easily accessible for the children of the area who would be utilizing the park. -16- INDEX 2-70 MINUTES , February 10, 1983 of Newport Beach Mr. Hansen stated that the lower elevation portion of the CalTrans West site would be as accessible as any other site which would be located within the confines of the Banning/Newport Ranch area. BIG CANYON AREA 16 No comments were received regarding this item. NEWPORT CENTER - BLOCK 400, Chairman King noted that the City Attorney had prepared a memorandum dated February 7, 1983, relating to the concerns expressed at the previous Planning Commission meeting. Mr. •Robert Burnham, City Attorney, stated that he has discussed his memorandum with Mr. Layman. Mr. Burnham stated that additional information, including the allowable square footage which remains under the terms of the lease, will be provided at the next Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Will Layman, representing Newport Center Medical Buildings, Inc., appeared before the Commission, stating that he would be happy to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. There being no questions at this time, the Campus Drive item was heard next. CAMPUS DRIVE Planning Director Hewicker stated that staff is in the process of compiling the information which was requested at the previous Planning Commission meeting. He stated that staff will be submitting a range of alternatives for this particular area which the Commission may wish to consider at their next meeting. No comments were received regarding this item. -17- INDEX BIG CANYON AREA 16 00 .1 2-71 , ' COAt\MSSONERSI MINUTES February 10, 1983 3� c City of Newport Beach ani i Cai I INDEX I Motion Motion was made to,continue General Plan Amendment 81-2 All Ayes X X X X X and Amendment No. 2 to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, to the Planning Commission Meeting of February 24, 1983, so that the staff can compile the requested information. I '1 I 0 I I ,' 11 Request for an extension of time in conjunction with Item #3 the approved Resubdivision No. 637, that permitted the combining of one parcel and portions of Block 92 and 93 of Irvine's Subdivision into one building site so as to permit the expansion of the Baywood Apartment complex on the property. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1, Parcel Map 45-10 (Resubdivision No. 311), and portion of Blocks 92 and 93, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 1601 San Miguel Drive, on the northeasterly side of San Joaquin Hills Road, between MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive in Harbor View Hills. ZONE: \ P -C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: S e as applicant ENGINEER: Rober'Vein, William Frost and Associates, Newport Beach The public hearing opened i connection with this item and Mr. David Dmohowski; epresenting The Irvine Company, appeared before the mmission and requested approval of the extension of ti a in conjunction with the approved Resubdivision No. 63 In response to a question posed by mmissioner Goff, Planning Director Hewicker stated that ere will be no further discretionary approvals required n this item. He stated that all of the standards for th development of the property are contained Within Planned Community text and would not require further lanning Commission approval.. -18- 2-72 n x � r c a m o'o� xmy> Motion All Ayes February 24, 1983 MINUTES I of Newport Beach Staff suggested that Item No. 4 - Variance No. 1095, be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 10, 1983, so as to give staff additional time to review the revised plans submitted by the applicant. Staff then referred to Item No. 7 - Amendment No. 586, and stated that the Harbor View Hills Community Association and The Irvine Company have reached an agreement regarding the sight plane. He stated that the Harbor View Hills Community Association has requested'that this item be removed from the agenda. He stated that inasmuch as this item originated at the City Council level, he suggested that a report be made back to the City Council as to the outcome of this item. Motion was made to continue Item No. 4 - VarianceNo. 1095, to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 10, 1983, and to remove Item No. 7 - Amendment No. 586, from the Agenda with a report to be made to the City Council, which MOTION CARRIED. General Plan Amendment 81-2 (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan and the acceptance of an environmental document. CALTRANS WEST LOCATION:' Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue realigned). GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open Space ZONE., 0-S (Open Space) District PROPONENT: State of California, Department of Transportation -2- (as INDEX I< MRAL N 5hnN i 81-2 AND 2-73 , � r c e m y > v x � > > IG + N 7 MINUTES February 24, 1983 of Newport Beach M' ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 .1 1 I INDEX IL U II II V FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS LOCATION: A: Westerly of Marguerite Avenue between 5th Avenue and Harbor view Drive. B: Northerly of 5th Avenue between Marguerite Avenue and Buck Gully. C: Along the eastern City boundary between 5th Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road. GENERAL PLAN: Low Density Residential and Recreational and Environmental Open Space. ZONE: R -1-B (Single Family with B combining) District PROPONENT: The Irvine Company BIG CANYON AREA 16 LOCATION: Southwesterly of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. ZONE: P -C (Planned Community) District PROPONENT: The Irvine Company NEWPORT CENTER - BLOCK 400 LOCATION: Northeasterly of Newport Center Drive East and San Miguel Drive. GENERAL PLAN: Administrative Professional, and Financial Commercial ZONE: C -O -H (Commercial) District PROPONENT: Newport Center Medical Buildings -3- 2-74 j CON ROLL CALL February 24, 1963 X m y. City of Newport Beach CAMPUS DRIVE LOCATION: Area bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street, Orchard Avenue, and Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue. GENERAL PLAN: General Industry, Administrative Professional and Financial Commercial, and Retail and Service Commercial. ZONE: M -1-A (Industrial) District, A -P (Administrative, Professional) District, and C-1 (Commercial) District. PROPONENT: The City of Newport Beach INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach AND Amendment No. 2 to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program for the Caltrans West site. LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned) LCP: Recreational and Environmental Open Space PONE: 0-S PROPONENT: State of California, Department of Transportation INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Chairman King opened the public hearing and testimony, was taken on the following items, beginning with Caltrans West: -4- MINUTES 2-75 II II 11 [11 C1 11 I n x 5 m m a x o d a February 24, 1983 of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL 1 INDEX d I I n 1' I 1 CALTRANS WEST Mr. David Simmes, representing the State of California, Department of Transportation, appeared before the Commission. He referred to Page 13 of the February 24, 1983, staff report and requested that Item No. 3 be deleted which states: 3) Delete designation of future neighborhood park on-site and contribute in -lieu fees for improvement of neighborhood park to the west. He stated that Item No. 3 as it currently reads, may be misinterpreted by a potential buyer of the property. Mr. Simmes suggested that Item No. 3 be revised as follows: "3) CalTrans West will be required to comply with the Park Dedication Ordinances. A park of approximately five acres in size is to be developed between Pacific Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, 15th Street and Bluff Road. The specific size, location and design of the park, and the means to acquire and develop it will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract maps for CalTrans West and/or the adjacent Banning -Newport Ranch- residential developments. The park shall be completed concurrent with occupancy of the first residential tract." He stated that the revised language of Item No. 3 will clarify the obligations for the potential, future buyer of the property. Chairman King asked if the wording, "a park of a minimum of five acres," is more appropriate than the wording, "a park of approximately five acres." Planning Director Hewicker stated that the wording, "a park of approximately five acres" is consistent with the adopted wording for the Banning -Newport Ranch development. Mr. Simmes stated that Mr. Banning, representing Beeco, Ltd., is present and can address the access issue of the CalTrans West site. Mr. Bill Banning, representing Beeco, Ltd., the owner of adjoining property addressed in General Plan Amendment No. 81-1, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Banning stated that the proposed revision to Item No. 3 as suggested by Mr. Simmes is consistent with the -5- CALTRANS WEST 2-76 February 24, 1983 z City of Newport Beach. MINUTES I 2-77 language imposed in General Plan Amendment No. 81-1. He stated that the adjoining properties would then be equally obligated to work together towards the solution of this important aspect for the development of West Newport. Mr. Banning addressed the issue of access for both the early development of the Beeco and CalTrans properties adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway. He stated that Bluff Road is proposed to be extended from the Pacific Coast Highway intersection, northerly to 15th Street, 17th Street, and ultimately to 19th Street, as part of an obligation of General Plan Amendment No. 81-1. He stated that public testimony in the past has indicated that the logical access to the CalTrans parcel which is to be developed for residential purposes would be off of Bluff Road at an intersection which is 300 to 400 feet inland from Pacific Coast Highway, as opposed to other access which may be obtained. Mr. Banning stated that he will cooperate and work with CalTrans or a subsequent owner of the CalTrans property to ensure a mutually acceptable access off of Bluff Road, as well as the formation of the park requirement. He addressed problems such as the grading of the site and the removal of an oil well, however, he stated that they will work with CalTrans in eliminating these f difficulties, to produce a viable overall plan for the area. Commissioner Balalis asked Mr. Banning if he would be willing to allow CalTrans, or the subsequent owner of the CalTrans property, to have accegs up to the entrance of their property as deemed necessary, on the proposed Bluff Road, if the Banning/Newport Ranch development is not ready to proceed. Mr. Banning stated that they will work towards this solution, making it very clear that the oil well is the property of the operator, Mobile Oil Corporation. He stated that CalTrans and Beeco, Ltd. will have to arrive at an economically viable solution for the elimination of the oil well. He stated that with the abandonment of the well, the site can be graded and proper access can be directed from Bluff Road into the dalTrans property. He stated that they will be working with CalTrans and Mobile Oil Corporation to resolve the problem. -6- I 2-77 I A c � m m c n 0 m D _mom -� I 1- I I 1, 0 I I I I MINUTES February 24, 1983 of Newport Beach Mr. Banning stated that if the Banning/Newport Ranch site is developed first, this problem will have already been solved and will not be an obstacle for the CalTrans site. He stated that if both of the parcels are developed concurrently, both the access problems and the park requirement can be coordinated and resolved simultaneously. Planning Director Hewicker discussed the buildable acreage of the site and stated that allowing for the bluff area, the extension of the pedestrian bicycle trail and a provision for a 30 foot greenbelt adjacent to Newport Crest, approximately 146 dwelling units could be built if there were no park on the site. He stated that approximately 136 dwelling units could be built with a one acre view park on the site. Commissioner Balalis asked Mr. Simmes if CalTrans would be willing to expedite a traffic signal for.Bluff Road at that point and time when access is needed. Mr. Simmes stated that he would be able to answer this question at the next Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Goff asked what the ramifications would be of conditioning this project that access be taken only off of Bluff Road, since Bluff Road is currently not existing. Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, stated that the property owner may have a strong argument that the City has deprived them of any substantial, economic use of the property. He stated that the owner of property has a right of reasonable access to his property off of the existing public streets. He added that he would assume that CalTrans would be aware of these concerns, since they are in the transportation business. Commissioner Goff stated that considering Mr. Banning's testimony in which he indicated a willingness to cooperate with CalTrans, and considering that access off of Superior Avenue or Pacific Coast Highway may not be a reasonable access from a safety standpoint, he requested Mr. Burnham to comment further on the ramifications on such a condition. -7- INDEX 2-78 MINUTES I February 24, 1983 "w City of Newport Beach Mr. Don Webb, City Engineer, stated that access off of Pacific Coast Highway would not be considered feasible. He stated that access off of Superior Avenue would depend upon how the site is graded. He stated that Pacific Coast Highway and Superior Avenue should only be considered as secondary or emergency accesses to the site. Commissioner Goff asked if it would be reasonable to identify conditions at this time, which would pertain to the CalTrans East parcel for a potential, future owner, namely Hoag Hospital. Mr. Burnham stated that it would be reasonable to impose a condition, such as a limitation on use, on this general plan amendment that relates to the CalTrans East parcel. Ing response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Burnham stated that imposing certain conditions on the CalTrans East parcel does not create a legal impediment because an identity of ownership has been determined. Planning Director Hewicker stated that this is not a case of imposition, but a case where there is an agreement and consent on* behalf of the property owner. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator, referred to Page 13 of the February 24, 1983, staff report and discussed the City's definition of "affordable" housing. He stated that the total requirement for the CalTrans West parcel would be 30 percent= 20 percent affordable as defined in the City's Housing Element, and 10 percent using the State standard of affordability. He stated that the 10 percent of the State standard is related to the Mello Bill which requires that the City consider providing affordable housing in new projects. He stated that the State standard for the moderate income ownership would be a $90,000 to $95,000 structure, as compared to a $126,000 structure for the City's top end of affordability. -8- INDEX 2-79 1 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 24, 1983 �a= m ES a o w> J I I L i__I 0 I I I I i I I of Newport Beach •FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS: Planning Director Hewicker referred to an aerial map exhibit which was prepared to outline Areas A, B and C. Area A In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator, referred to the aerial map exhibit and stated that the area bounded by the yellow line is the area which is currently leased by the City from the school district. He stated that over the years, the City has discussed purchasing this from the school district. Mr. Lloyd Crausy, President of the Harbor.View Hills Homeowners Association South, appeared before the Commission. He stated that the view obstruction caused by a medium -density or low-density residential designation can not be compared, because neither designation currently exists. In response to a question posed by Mr. Crausy, Chairman King stated that the grading of the site will be so that the height of any roof along that area will be no more than three feet above curb, or that it would not interrupt the view plane of a person seated in an automobile travelling down Marguerite Avenue. Commissioner Balalis stated that standards for height, park dedications and pad locations can be conditioned at the tentative tract map level. He suggested that The Irvine Company file a tract map for these parcels in the immediate future. He stated that the conditions imposed at the tract map level are subject to the approval of the Planning Commission and the City Council. Area B Mr. Grant Howald, resident of 243 Heliotrope Avenue, and President of the Friends of Oasis, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Howald stated that they are currently in the process of obtaining more information from The Irvine Company, relating to Area B. -9- INDEX FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS 2-80 r c m m c �o.go—m February 24, 1983 of Newport Beach MINUTES Mr. Lloyd Crausy, President of the Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association South, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Crausy referred to Page 11 of the February 24, 1983, staff report and stated that the streets for the proposed development do not have to be like those in Harbor View Hills. However, he stated that structurally, and with the use of curvilinear streets, the development could look more like Harbor View Hills, rather than Old Corona del Mar. Mr. Crausy also stated that view obstruction caused by a medium -density or low-density residential designation can not be compared, because neither designation currently exists. In response to a question posed by Mr. Crausy, Commissioner Balalis stated that the street layout for the development would be handled at the tentative tract level. Area C Mr. Rick Kartch, resident of 1014 Sandcastle Drive, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Kartch stated that he has thoroughly researched the Orange County Planning Commission records relating to the status of Buck Gully. He referred to a letter dated November 24, 1980, by Mayor Heather which related to the water shed provisions of Buck Gully. He also referred to a letter dated January 21, 1981, by Mr. Thomas Neilson, Senior Vice -President of Community Development for The Irvine Company, which stated that development on the slope face of Buck Gully is not anticipated and that recreational facilities will be located on slopes generally less than 30 percent. He stated that the letter further indicated that permitted uses within Buck Gully will be limited to passive parks, riding and hiking trails, bike trails, drainage control facilities and utilities. Mr. Kartch stated that the corrected plan for the Buck _Gully area was adopted by the Orange County Planning Commission on January 26, 1981, and the Orange County Board of Supervisors on March 4, 1981. He added that said plan now stands in Orange County. -10- 1 11 I 4 2-81 1 I � z �c m � m 'co zLly > C ? 6 p i 1 I I i 0 I PI I I MINUTES February 24, 1983 of Newport Beach Planning Director Hewicker responded to the comments made by Mr. Kartch and stated that the staff's recommendation has been to remove the alternative use of residential in Buck Gully, which would then conform more closely with the Local Coastal Plan as it is anticipated to be developed in the Down Coast area, adjacent to Laguna Beach. He stated that the General Plan shows the primary use of Buck Gully as a Flora and Fauna Reserve. He stated that the City would be more restrictive as to the type of recreational uses which would be permitted in Buck Gully, than the County. Mr. Barry Traten, resident of 1212 Sand Key, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Traten stated that all three of the Fifth Avenue parcels should be considered as one. He expressed his concerns relating to the traffic flow at the intersection of Fifth Avenue and Marguerite Avenue. He stated that the proposed development will severely impeded the current traffic flow. He stated that it is incumbent upon The Irvine Company to demonstrate how the proposed uses will be consistent with the current uses and atmosphere of the area. He stated that the proposed densities will seriously change the character of Corona del Mar. Chairman King asked how the carrying capabilities of Fifth Avenue will be changed by the proposed development. Mr. Don Webb, City Engineer, stated that the Public Works Department is recommending that the Subdivision Code be followed. He stated that the right-of-way width of Fifth Avenue would be established at 60 feet between Poppy Avenue and Marguerite Avenue. He stated that the curb to curb roadway width would be 40 feet. Chairman King stated that Fifth Avenue would be improved and widened which would enhance its capability to carry the traffic of the area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Mr. Webb stated that under the development proposal, they anticipate that Fifth Avenue would be a widened, two lane street with parking available on both sides of the street. -11- INDEX 2-82 MINUTES February 24, 1983 � m m N City of Newport Beach e m 5 G m Mr. Traten stated that the problem is with the entire circulation system of the area, not just the Fifth Avenue area. He stated that with the increased density, more people will be utilizing Pacific Coast Highway and the alternative streets in Corona del Mar for ingress and egress. Mr. Richard Nichols, President of the Corona del Mar Community Association, appeared before the Commission. He stated that they do not want the City to buy or maintain Area C, they want the park funds to be utilized for parks in the area around the Oasis facility, which people can use. He stated that if The Irvine Company could build one or two houses in Buck Gully, it will make Buck Gully more useful to its owner. Mr. Nichols stated that they are opposed to Fifth Avenue becoming a 40 foot street. He stated that they want it to be a 32 foot street, with parking on one side of the street. He stated that they are not trying to impede the traffic flow, they are wanting to stop the development of a large street which could become a bypass to Corona del Mar. Commissioner Allen asked if Area C becomes zoned for Recreational and Environmental Open Space, is the ,City obligated to buy the land. Planning Director Hewicker stated that if the area becomes designated for Open Space under the General Plan Amendment, it has not been demonstrated that there are not uses permitted in the Open Space zones that would be compatible with The Irvine Company's interest. However, he stated that there is not a great deal of economic return from a Flora and Fauna Reserve. He stated that this issue will be addressed further 'by the City Attorney's Office at the next meeting. Commissioner Balalis pointed out several areas within the City which are zoned Open Space, these areas include the Newport Harbor Yacht Club and The Irvine Coast Golf Club. He stated that there are several uses which are permitted under the Open Space designation. -12- INDEX 2-83 1 I I I I .I to I I I I I MINUTES February 24, 1983 of Newport Beach Commissioner Allen expressed her concern that what might be suggested or encouraged as an alternative use, may have a higher activity level than a couple of single-family dwelling units. Mr. Burnham stated that it is his understanding that the proposal to delete the residential designation from Buck Gully is a trade-off for higher densities on Areas A and B. He stated that when all of the parcels are being considered as a comprehensive plan, there is legal precedence for designating a particular parcel as Open Space, at the same time as densities are being increased on other parcels. Mr. Burnham stated that he will be preparing a memorandum on this issue for the next meeting. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Webb stated that if Fifth Avenue were to become a 32 foot wide street, the travel lane would be immediately adjacent to the curb. He stated that a 32 foot wide street does not allow for as much travel lane as a 40 foot wide street. Commissioner Allen suggested the possibility of utilizing a 34 foot wide street, with parking on one side of the street, which would allow for safer travel lanes. She stated that this would resolve the concerns of the neighborhood and move the traffic safely. Mr. Webb stated that the Subdivision Code indicates that public streets should have a width of 40 feet. He stated that a 34 foot wide street would not allow the City the flexibility of installing a bike lane. Commissioner Allen stated that the 60 foot easement will always be there, which allows the City flexibility, if needed in the future. Mr. Webb stated that the standards as suggested by the Public Works Department are compatible with the surrounding uses. He stated that he can understand the concerns of the neighborhood, however, he stated that recommending a street narrower than 40 feet at this location, is not a good reason to construct a 1925 standard street. Chairman King stated that having lived in the area, he is familiar with the parking conditions and constraints. He stated that the area in question is -13- INDEX RM a MINUTES February 24, 1983 of Newaort Beach approximately five blocks long, and realistically could not become a freeway with a 40 foot wide street. He stated that restricting the circulation system with a 32 foot street will only make the traffic problems worse. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Planning Director Hewicker stated that the Open Space designation can be applied to canyons, yachts clubs, golf clubs, high hazard areas, geological hazardous areas, and so on. He stated that such a designation generally requires the consent of the property owner. He stated that in order to keep a piece of property as an Open Space designation, an economic benefit must be provided to the property owner, or the City would have to purchase or condemn the property. He stated that if it is the intent of the City for Buck Gully to remain as a Flora and Fauna Reserve, the question of economic return must be addressed. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Mr. Robert Burnham,City Attorney, stated that if the Planning Commission should recommend not to increase densities in Areas A and B, then action on Area C should not be taken. Commissioner McLaughlin asked if an increase in density in either Area A or B, would affect the open space designation in Area C. Mr. Burnham stated that he would be prepared at the next meeting to answer this question. Mr. Lloyd Crausy, President of the Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association South, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Crausy stated that they are desirous of hearing the presentation by The Irvine Company for the proposed development on these parcels. He questioned whether The Irvine Company has any valid residential rights in Area C, or if these residential property rights have already been exchanged for higher density in Areas A and B. He also questioned how denying a medium density development would be depriving the applicant of an economic advantage or gain, when the property is already zoned for low density development. -14- INDEX I� i 4 2-85 1 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 24, 1983 � x f ` m � m e 6 F p m Y I I I I I i 0 LE I F, I I of Newport Beach Mr. Crausy stated that the residents on Sandcastle Drive are concerned with the issues of trespassing and transient traffic. He urged that the Buck Gully area be established as an open space parcel and a permanent open space easement be recorded. Chairman King explained that the density trade-off would involve all of the parcels and that the residential designation on one parcel would be exchanged for increased densities on the other parcels, rather than making the trade-off restrictive to one parcel. Commissioner Allen stated that a tentative tract map may be too detailed, but that she would like to know what the development proposes in terms of height. Planning Director Hewicker stated that concurrent processing of general plan amendments and tentative tract maps have been discussed with the Planning Commission in the past, but the direction of the Commission has been to process the general plan amendment first. He stated that in this particular case, the applicant could supply the Commission with more detailed information. However, he stated that if the applicant should prepare more detailed plans for the development, the plans should only be considered conceptual in nature. Commissioner Allen expressed her concern with the wording of Item No. 8 for Area A and Item No. 5 for Area B, relating to the views. She stated that these items do not express the intent of the City to preserve the views and does not express the intent of The Irvine Company. She suggested that revised wording be proposed for these items. Planning Director Hewicker stated that The Irvine Company will be making its presentation on March 10, 1983. He stated that in the interim, The Irvine Company will be making presentations to individuals and the various community associations. Commissioner Balalis stated that the Park, Beaches and Recreation Commission will be submitting information relating to the plans for park sites in this area. -15- INDEX V= MINUTES I February 24, 1983 m m N. City of Newport Beach Commissioner Balalis stated that if The Irvine Company or the developer submitted a tract map for the proposed development, the Planning Commission would be able to make an intelligent decision upon the project. He stated that in this way, the height of the proposed development and the street patterns can be indicated. Mr. Burnham explained the recent amendments to the Subdivision Map Act makes concurrent processing next to impossible. Mr. Burnham suggested that more indepth language be submitted upon which the Planning Commission can base their conclusion as to whether ,or not the proposed project could significantly block views. Commissioner Allen concurred and stated that she would not necessarily want to determine exact roof lines at this point, but wants a more indepth expression of intent. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the environmental impact report was prepared under the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Act. Chairman King requested that when The Irvine Company makes their presentation, issues such as sight planes, traffic circulation, park funding, vegetation control, and so on, should be addressed in detail, so that an intelligent decision can be made. Mr. Ronald Kennedy, resident of 550 Hazel Drive, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Kennedy asked what the buildable area is for Area C. He also expressed his concern that the Flora and Fauna Reserve could become a tennis court use. Mr. Brad Olsen, representing The Irvine Company, stated that they will be making' their presentation to the Planning Commission on March 10, 1983. He stated that they are awaiting the decisions of the Park, Beaches and Recreation Commission which is meeting on March 1, 1983. He stated that they have attended meetings with the Corona del Mar Community Association, Harbor View Hills Community Association, Jasmine Creek Community Association, and have spoken to members of the Oasis facility. .• -16- INDEX r r I i 2-87 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 24, 1983 n � c c n o o D I IJ I i 0 I I I I I I of Newport Beach Mr. Olsen stated that The Irvine Company will attempt to explain their intentions and address the issues which have been raised at the next meeting. He stated that tentative tract maps have not been prepared for these parcels. Commissioner Allen stated that if The Irvine Company were to submit tentative plans, she suggested that wording could be written which would demonstrate that the new proposal has no greater impact on the views as the proposal presented on March 10, 1983. Mr. Olsen stated that they will consider such an approach. Commissioner McLaughlin referred to the Newport Center sight plan in which The Irvine Company has reached an agreement with the Harbor View Hills Community Association, and asked if the wording of such an agreement to protect the views would apply to this item. Planning Director Hewicker stated that this was a private agreement entered into between the Association and The Irvine Company. Mr. Olsen stated that they will continue to work with the neighbors of the area. BIG CANYON AREA 16 No comments were received regarding this item. NEWPORT CENTER - BLOCK 400 In response to a question posed by Chairman King, Mr. Burnham, City Attorney, stated he will prepare information relating to the square footage for Block 400 at the next meeting. CAMPUS DRIVE No comments were received regarding this item. AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM No comments were received regarding this item. -17- INDDC BIG CANYON AREA 16 NEWPORT CENTER - BLOCK 400 CAMPUS DRIVE AMENDMENT NO. 2 n x r c c n e m > 3 3 a= m o Motion All Ayes February 24, 1983 Of MINUTES INDEX Motion was made to continue General Plan Amendment 81-2 and Amendment No. 2 to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 10, 1983, so that the staff can compile the requested information and The Irvine Company can make their presentation on the Fifth Avenue Parcels, which MOTION CARRIED. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:20 p.m. and reconvened at 9:30 p.m. Request for an extension of time in conjunction with IItem #3 the approved Tentative Map of Tract 10019, that permitted the subdivision of 80.5± acres into one lot for commercial development, seven lots for industrial/ office development and two lots for further subdivision into residential lots. TENTATIVE MAP OF LOCATION: A portion of Lots 2�4, 442 and 444, TRACT NO. Block 57, of Irvine's Subdivision, 10019 located on property bounded by Bison , Avenue, Camelback Street, Jamboree Road, the extension of Eastbluff Drive, and MacArthur Boulevard, in the Planned Community in North Ford. TWO YEAR EXTENSION ZONE: P -C GRANTED APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: William G. Church, Consulting Civil Engineers, Inc., Newport Beach ' Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, referred to his memorandum dated February 24, 1983, and recommended that the Planning Commission grant an extension of the tentative tract map for a two-year period, and allow -18- 11 2-89 I LJ iI J I I 0 I I I I Planning Commission Staff Reports I 0 �I L I I I Request to set for public hearing during October 1981, Amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, including: a) Caltrans West ; b) Fifth Avenue Parcels c) Freeway Reservations West (Big Canyon) d) Coast Highway Residential/Commercial e) Campus Drive Industrial/Office f) Park sites g) Buck Gully Residential h) Newport Center - Block 400 - INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Suggested Action If desired, a) Initiate all or a portion of the proposed General Plan Amendments and direct staff to set for hearing after completion of environmental documentation (approximately October, 1981); or -•-- b) Forward all or a portion of the requests to the City Council with a recommendation that consideration of the amendments is unwarranted. Background Council Policy Q-1 provides for citizen or property owner requests for General Plan Amendments as follows: 2-91 . nr , PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 4, 1981 Agenda Item No. 6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department ' SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 81-2 and Amendment No. 2 to +ha I nral f nac+al D.... n., �— /1 ;4--.. ,. ...,._ I 0 �I L I I I Request to set for public hearing during October 1981, Amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, including: a) Caltrans West ; b) Fifth Avenue Parcels c) Freeway Reservations West (Big Canyon) d) Coast Highway Residential/Commercial e) Campus Drive Industrial/Office f) Park sites g) Buck Gully Residential h) Newport Center - Block 400 - INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Suggested Action If desired, a) Initiate all or a portion of the proposed General Plan Amendments and direct staff to set for hearing after completion of environmental documentation (approximately October, 1981); or -•-- b) Forward all or a portion of the requests to the City Council with a recommendation that consideration of the amendments is unwarranted. Background Council Policy Q-1 provides for citizen or property owner requests for General Plan Amendments as follows: 2-91 .. ..y A. TO: Planning Commission - G. "A citizen and/or property owner may request an amendment to the General Plan. Such request shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Commission a minimum of one hundred and sixty (160) days prior to the month for which public hearings are scheduled. The request should clearly set forth the reason for which the request is made, and should contain information substantiating the need. If the Planning Commission, after examination, is convinced that the proposed change is worthy , of consideration, it may initiate amendment as set forth above. If not, the Commission shall forward the request to the City Council with its recommendation that consideration of the amendment is unwarranted. City Council, of te'r consideration of the request and of the report from the Planning Commission, may either direct the Commission to initiate public hearings ' on the proposed amendment, or may return the request to the originator without further action". In accordance with this policy, the attached requests were submitted for consideration by the Planning Commission. Item e) "Campus Drive Industrial/Office" and Item f) "Park Sites" , are amendments suggested by staff. Discussion Following is a brief djscusIsion of each proposal: GPA 81-2 (a) Caltrans I(West. In the attached letter dated February 27, 1981, the State of California is requesting to , change the designation on this site from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" to a mixture of "Recreational and Environmental Open Space", "Retail a-nd Service Commercial", and "Multi,ple-Family Residential" uses. The Commission con- sidered this ,parcel in West Newport at the time GPA 81-1 Banning -Newport Ranch was proposed, but declined to set it for hearing•. GPA 81-2'(b) Fifth Avenue Parcs. In the attached letter dated April 17, 1981, The IrvineelCompany is requesting an amendment to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of The Newport Beach General Plan for the various parcels referred to as the "Fifth Avenue Parcels". A land exchange is cur-rently' being negotiated between the City and the Irvine Company whereby The Company will receive the 2.36 acre parcel on the northwesterly corner of Fifth and Marguerite Avenues in return for land adjacent 2-92 TO: Planning Commission - 3. to the OASIS Senior Citizen Facility. The requested General Plan Amendment involves three proposals: 1) The completion of the land exchange is contingent on changing the General Plan designation from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" to a residential designation. The Irvine Company proposes that the 2.36 acre parcel be evaluated in conjunction with the ±10 acre parcel to the immediate north, which'is currently designated Low Density Residential. A change to Medium Density Residential is requested. ' 2) It is also requested that the ±l0 acre site easterly of the expanded OASIS site, currently shown for Low Density Residential, be changedto Medium Density Residential. 3) The Irvine -Company proposes further that the ±55 acre parcel in Buck Gully northeasterly of the terminus of Fifth Avenue be dedicated for park and open space purposes, contingent on the approval of development plans for the two residential sites. In addition to the above requested changes, it is recommended that the Planning Commission include in their consideration of this proposal, a ch nge jn the designation of the expanded OASIS site from Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an alternate land use of Low Density Residential to Recreational ' and Environmental Open Space. GPA 81-2 (c) Freeway Reservations West (Biq Canyon). The City Council, as part of the Local Coastal Program area description for the Mouth of Big Canyon, agreed to initiate a General Plan Amendment and Planned Community Amendment to designate the area southwesterly of the intersection of Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard for residential development, with the density not to ekceed 10 dwelling units per buildable acre. In the attached letter dated April 10, 1981, The Irvine Company is requesting _ a change to the Land Use Element'of the General Plan changing the portion of the Big Canyon Planned Community located south- westerly of Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard from Recreational ' and Environmental Open Space to Medium Density Residential. ' 2-93 TO: Planning Commission - 4. GPA 81-2 (d) Coast Hi ''11H Residential/Commercial. The attached letter dated May 28, 1981 from Ficker-Ruffing Architects requests a change to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the General Plan changing lots located in Tract 1210 along Coast Highway (see attachment 1) from a mixture of Retail and Service Commercial and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commer- cial to Multi -Family Residential. It is recommended that, if the Commission desires to set this 'portion of the requested amendment for public hearing, that the entire Coast Highway ' strip from Irvine Avenue (projected) to Dover Drive'be included to evaluate the General Plan for the entire area. GPA 81-2 (e) Campus Drive Industrial/Office. This area is pro- , posed for review by staff, and includes all of the commercial, office,..and industrial areas between Campus Drive and Birch Street, ' from Orchard Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard near Newport Place and Koll Center. The existing General P1 -an has no growth limitations on this area, and whereas a substantial portion is designated for Industrial uses in the General Plan, the zoning permits office ' uses at intensities much higher than the adjacent Planned Com- munities. It is proposed that a Planning Study be prepared for the area with subsequent recommendations for specific General Plan changes if required. • GPA 81-2 (f) ParkSites.1 Sthff is suggesting that the Commission hold a general review of the Recreation and Open Space Element, specifically with respect to the location and size of park sites around the City. This review should be coordinated with the Parks, ' Beaches and Recreation Commission. GPA 81-2 (9) Buck Gully Residential. in the attached letter - I dated 'May 28, 1981, the McMahon Partnership (on behalf of A1'Mayo, property owner) requests to change the designation of this area from a mixture of "Retail and Service Commercial" and "Admini- strative, Professional and Financial Commercial", and "Low Density Residential" uses. to "Multiple -Family Residential" uses. The - ultimate proposal would be to construct a residential condo- ' minium project on the"Lascala" (formerly "Sam's Seafood") restaurant site and adjacent residential parcels in Corona del Mar. GRA 81-2 (h) Newport Center - Block 400. The attached letter , from Frank A. Rhodes, Jr. requests that 80,000 square feet of a-dditional medical office square footage be allocated to Block 2-94 T0: Planning Commission - 5. 400 in Newport Center. This would be in addition to the ' development eventually allowed by GPA 80-3. It should be pointed out that in the Commission's action on GPA 80-3-, policy language was recommended for the Land Use Element which would allow transfers of commercial and office square footage within the Center. This policy would provide a mechanism to allow the 80,000 square foot medical building in Block 400, assuming an 80,000 square foot reduction on ' one of The Irvine Company controlled parcels. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By 6&kt 6&k 694 , Robert P. Lenard Advance Planning Administrator RPL/pw Attachments: Vicinity Maps Caltrans letter dated February 27, 1981 ' The IrvinelcompAny letters dated April 10', 1981 and April 17, 1981 Ficker & Ruffing letter dated May 29, 1981 ' McMahon Partnership letter dated May 28, 1981 Newport Center Medical Buildings letter dated April 8, 1981 Jasmine Creek Community Association letter. 2-b5 L— ii FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS ,14 iJ Legend •-- Medium density residential Open space '"jorbor_ Vie Dr, --------- ..^ -Brei 1:;'.M i'.::�•.: ;rr:.ws.;;,;; • --------- --- - _ N __�__� It, wb=— FREEWAY. - RESERVATION WEST (131G CANYON) V .1 14 it - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - — — --- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ............ b J :iii.,. lo It. tt 4.1 11, 1 ;41 'It Aw ..... I I I I I ... . . . . . . . . . . . . J;Aj , It , 10 Legend: Medium— density,le�- 13 -t 4 It, wb=— FREEWAY. - RESERVATION WEST (131G CANYON) V .1 14 it - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - — — --- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ............ b J :iii.,. lo It. tt 4.1 11, 1 ;41 'It Aw ..... I I I I I ... . . . . . . . . . . . . COAST HIGHWAY'. -RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL �7 I :wport Bay Legend: Admin., Prot.& Finan.Comme Retail & Service Commercial 0000000 Multiple -Family Residential 00000000 CAMPUS DRIVE. -INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL .1. Legend Admin., Prof•& Finan.Commerc. Retail & Service Commercial 1_ General Industry U Campus Dr. Birch St. i>• = r s ti� 1 • 3{ 1 y 1 BUCK GULLY RESIDENTIAL pacific i i 01 00 10 00 00 :! 00 00 O f 00 Coast Highway �N Legend: .-Multiple—Family °°000000 Residential '0,0000000 00 = Ml Ml m w m I. Son L� O , Boa �o P M M M BLOCK 400 NEWPORT CENTER / JO 7�, �& P Legend: Admin., Prof. & Finan. Comm. N ry i 4• `` 0 3Q Son L� O , Boa �o P M M M BLOCK 400 NEWPORT CENTER / JO 7�, �& P Legend: Admin., Prof. & Finan. Comm. and Housing STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS ii ONTRANSPORTATION AGENCY -" DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LEGAL DIVISION 120 SOUTH SPRING STREET, SUITE 500 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 TELEPHONE: (213) 6201000 February 27, 1981 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governdr Re: General Plan Amendment to "Caltrans West" Parcel Dear Chairman and Commission Members The State of California, owner of the property'designated as "Caltrans West," respectfully requests that this letter and attached exhibit be considered for the City's 1981-82 amendment of its General Plan -Land Use Element. It is proposed that a mixture of land uses consisting of recreational and environmental open space; retail and service commercial, and multiple -family residential be coAsidered. Traffic circulation within the subject parcel and outlets to the adjacent streets will be examined in conjunction with the proposed realignment of Superior Avenue. I I Planning Area "Caltrans West" is entirely within the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach and the Local Coastal Plan. Studies of the area westerly and contiguous to the subject parcel have been undertaken by Banning -Newport Ranch, as part of General Plan amendment 81-1. Common issues exist relative to the subject parcel and the adjacent Banning - Newport Ranch. It would be desirable to consider a comprehensive plan of uses in -the- Superior_ Avenue -Balboa.,,.. -=•Boulevard-Extension-Pacifc_Coast_ Highway quadrangle -at .. _ - - '—_-: this ' - A more precise planning concept for the subject property. in coordination with adjacent development of Pacific Coast Highway, Superior Avenue and Banning -Newport Ranch will be forthcoming upon hearing of the proposed General Plan amendment. 2-102 I I I i 41 ' I E A I I I J I 0 City of Newport Beach -2- February 27, 1981 Planning Commission Thank you for the opportunity to present this request. Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact the undersigned. DRS:nm enc. 1 I. Respectfully submitted, Joseph A. Montoya Deputy Gh'ef Counsel n By David R. Simmes Attorney 1 2-103 N 1 O 1 PACIFIC .:,;Qenoraj t .;COAST Amefidment CALTRANS'-WEST M HIGHWAY LEGEND Boundary Streets , Open Space O� .'' Possible Retail and I •' Service Commercial :%iO Multi -family Residentialo° o° � - i '1 a• 1 llllllllllw Illllllllw ',Illllllll� 1 (l� lll- .� i llll- � � Illlllllll� _ - 11—>` IRVINE CCIMFW[ •3 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I ' • , Newport Beach, California 92663 F' ( ) 714 644-3011 b 19 £ APR20 tan 9 April 17, 1981 2 c =�•°. ;`�/ Planning Commission 1 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California ' SUBJECT: Requested General Plan Amendment for Fifth Avenue Parcels Mr. Chairman and Commission Members: The City Council gave conceptual approval in October, 1980 to an exchange of land between the City and The Irvine Company whereby the City would 1 receive additional land to expand the -OASIS Senior Facility site, and the Company would recdtve a 2.36 acre parcel northwest of Fifth and Marguerite Avenues. The purpose of this exchange would be to provide additional parking space and expansion area for the OASIS Center in a more convenient and usable location. An appraisal of the subject prop- erties has been completed. Additional discussions between the City and The Irvine Company are expected to occur in the next few months. The completion of such a land exchange would be contingent on changing the General Plan designation of the 2.36 acre parcel west of Marguerite ' Avenue from open space to a residential designation to allow for future development. It is our desire to have this 2.36 acre parcel reviewed in combination with the ±10 acre vacant parcel to the immediate north, which is currently designated "Low Density Residential" A change to a "Medium Density Residential" designation for the combined 12 acre parcel ' is requested. Given the topography and configuration of the property, the Medium Density Residential designation would allow for a greater degree of design flexibility - in planning for the site. -' --- - '' "Concurrently with the City's review- of 'the property -west of Margtieri te; ;. The Irvine Company requests consideration of the' ±10 acre parcel eastdrly--'.' :..•- -•... of the expanded OASIS site as "Medium Density Residential", where the General Plan now calls for Low Density Residential. Proposed here would be single family homes at a density comparable to the existing tract to ' the north. The Irvine Company proposes further that the ±55 acre vacant parcel in Buck Gully located northeasterly of the terminus of Fifth Avenue be dedicated for park and open space purposes, contingent on approval of development plans for the two residential sites. d 2-105 " THE !RVlNM»ff'' n 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I i Newport Beach, California 92663 ; (714) 644-3011 AOOA) .. April 10, 1981 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach ' 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California SUBJECT: Requested General Plan Amendment for Big Canyon Parcel Southwest of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road Mr. Chairman and Commission Members: 1 On February 9, 1981, as part of its deliberations on the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, the City Council approved a proposal whereby the 1 Mouth of Big Canyon would be dedicated for public open space. In exchange for this dedication of land, The Irvine Company is to receive park credits applicable to future residential projects. Further, the City Council agreed ' to initiate a General Plan Amendment and Planned Community Amendment to designate for residential development a portion of the Big Canyon P -C located southwesterly of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road, with the density not to exceed 10 dwelling units per buildable acre. It is our desire to have this proposed amendment for Big Canyon considered at the October, 1981 General P1aniAmendment Session. Prior to that time, we anticipate approval of an agreement between the City and Irvine Company regarding dedication of the Mouth of Big Canyon and the granting of park credits. The Irvine Company further requests a determination as to the appropriate , environmental documentation required for this amendment. Thank you for your consideration. 1 — -Respectfully submi•tteit;.— _ _ (��yy/j��,� may. �///JJ��.�,� � J)�/(%/�j, �.�.•: r. u Y_ _ �__ _ _ �,: • -: _ .. - _ _„ -- _-�_:i_ David Dmohowski - Manager - -i Government Relations cc: J. Hewicker, Director of Planning , T. Nielsen, TIC 4-' 1 2-106 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach April 17, 1981 page 2 1 It is requested that the proposed redesignation of these two properties ' as "Medium Density Residential" be considered at the October 1981 General Plan Amendment session. A determination as to the appropriate environ- mental documentation is also requested. ' Please contact me if additional information is required. Sincerely, David Dmohowski Manager Government Relations 1 M 1 1 1 cc: J. Hewicker, Planning Director R. Whitley, P.B. & R Director T. Nielsen, The Irvine Company U C 2-101 FICKER & RUFFING • ARCHITECTS 610 Newcort Centxr Drive • Suile 6$0 • Newport Beach, Co I It. 92660 714-644.JSBI � � N May 29, 1981 ttEQz�"�Nh^� A City of Newport Beach �w4 r,01 Planning Department 6i 3300 Newport Blvd.-' Newport Beach, CA 92660 `t'•• Gentlemen: This letter is to request the City of Newport Beach to amend the General Plan to permit multi -family use on Lots 55 through 64 of Tract Number 1210. The owners of the property are Tract 1210 Ltd. and are represented by Mr. Richard S. Stevens., Disneyland Hotel, 1150 West Cerritos 'Ave., Anaheim, CA 92802. 1 am the planner Ind am acting on their behalf on this application. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, -- _ - William P. Ficker,.A.I.A: WPF:skl 41 1 _ 2-108 ' i McMahon Partnership Architecture / Planning ' May -28, 1981 Mr. Robert Lennard C/O City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Lennard, ' The purpose of this letter is to formalize our request for a General Plan Amendment on behalf of Al Mayo, the owner of certain property located in Corona del Mar on Pacific Coast Highway. It is our understanding that the owner would like to be permitted to construct a high density residential project on the property in the future. The property consists ' of a group of parcelsJuponlwhich the Lascala Restaurant cur- rently sits, immediat ly adjacent to the Five Crowns Restau-- rant located on Pacific Coast Highway. There is a possibility that additional parcels may be added to the parcel depending on the economic viability. Together with the property owner, our firm will plan to work with you in developing the necessary groundwork and informa-'• tion for the October General Plan hearing. we are hereby re- questing that the Planning Commission hear this particular case at- that time.-- ----- :.;-;Thank:youu'foryour help•and' consideration in this matter-."- Very.,--trul - (Ronald D. McMahon A.I.A. RDM/jh ' 501 Parkcenter Drive Santa Ana, California 92705 (714)973.0993 Telex683408 2-169 NEWPORT GEN= MEDIGAL BUILDINGS GILL D. CAUAM? OFFICE OR THC BUILDINGS FRANK A. RHOOCS, JR. 1401 AVOCADO AVENUE . PENTMOUSE SUITC NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA.02660 April 8, 1981 City of Newport Beach Planning Department City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 l__J AREA CODE 714 TCL[FHONK 044.0003.` Subject: "Draft Environmental Impact Report - General Plan Amendment 80-310 Sch #80072313 Attention: Mr. James D. Hewicker, Director Gentlemen: Reference is hereby made to our letter dated March 25, 1981 related to the above subject document and project, and to youl reply dated April 2, 1981. It is our desire to go forward with the construction of an 80,000 square foot medical office building in Block 400 of Newport Center. We request an amendment to the General Plan Amendment 80-3 to include Block 400 of Newport Center, and to provide for the construction of this building. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. -- =• ="L Yours very -truly'. - NEWPORT CENTER MEDICAL BUILDINGS Frank A. Rhodes, Jr. FAR: ss 1 '1 11 41I 2-110 n JASMINE CREEK COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION �o P.O. Box 4708 ;z���,�°`•� IP,VINE, CALIFORNIA 92716 ' Planning Commission� 1.IT; City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard ' Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: OASIS Property on Northwest corner of Marguerite Avenue and 5th Avenue, Corona Del Mar, California It has come to the attention of our association that there is a contemplated trade of property between the OASIS Senior Citizens Center and the Irvine Company, the exchange concerning that property located at the northwest corner of Marguerite and 5th, Corona Del Mar, and•the - property immediately to the east of the OASIS center on the northeast corner of the same intersection. Further, ' we have been told that thel Irvine Company would be the resultant fee owner of the property on the northwest corner, which would be residentially developed. I Our association requests that we be kept fully informed of the status of any proposed development of these properties. Any development would affect our association due to the Proximity of the property and the possible blocking of views of our residents. Thank you for RNO:bs assuring.: us we will be kept advised.=— - - -- _-^ Ver y.truly .your Robert N.1 eRienzo - President Jasmine Creek Community Association CC: Villageway Management, Inc, Each LiroctUr Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1983 Agenda Item Nos. 5 & 6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 81-2 (Public Hearing) Addendum to Staff Report. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach The staff report on General Plan Amendment 81-2 previously distributed inadvertently omitted the staff recommendation on Newport Center - Block 400. The staff recommendations on this project follow. Staff Recommendation Newport Center - Block 400 Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan: 1. Allow the addition of 80,000 square feet of medical office development in Newport Center, along with related parking facilities. 2. Specify this additional allowable development to Block 400. 3. Specify the development be subject to further review and approval of a use permit. 4. At the time of future -discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Senior Planner PLT:nma 4 2-112 Planning Commission Agenda January 20, 1983 Agenda Item Nos. 5 & 6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECTS: General Plan Amendment 81-2 (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan and the acceptance of an environmental document. COMPONENTS: CalTrans West LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and ' Superior Avenue (as realigned). GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. ZONE: 0-S (Open Space) District PROPONENT: State of California, Department of Transportation Fifth Avenue Parcels ' LOCATION: A: Westerly of Marguerite Avenue between '5th Avenue and Harbor View Drive. 1 B: Northerly of 5th Avenue between Marguerite Avenue and Buck Gully. C: Along the eastern City boundary between 5th ' Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road. GENERAL PLAN: Low Density Residential and Recreational and ' Environmental Open Space. ZONE: R -1-B (Single Family with B combining) District PROPONENT; The Irvine Company Big Canyon Area 16 LOCATION: Southwesterly of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. ZONE: P -C (Planned Community) District PROPONENT: The Irvine Company 1 2-113 a TO: Planning Commission - 2 Newport Center - Block 400 LOCATION: Northeasterly of Newport Center Drive East and San Miguel Drive. GENERAL PLAN: Administrative Professional, and Financial Commercial. ZONE: C -O -H (Commercial) District PROPONENT: Newport Center Medical Buildings Campus Drive LOCATION: Area bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street, Orchard Avenue, and Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue. GENERAL PLAN: General Industry, Administrative Professional and Financial Commercial, and Retail and Service Commercial. ZONE: M -1-A (Industrial) District, A -P (Administrative, Professional) District, and C-1 (Commercial) District. PROPONENT: The City of Newport Beach INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach 2 to the Request to amend the band Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program -for the Caltrans West site. LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned) LCP: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. ZONE: 0-S PROPONENT: State of California, Department of Transportation INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Sua4ested Action Open public hearing. It desired, take public testimony, discuss the proposed project and possible revisions, and take straw votes on each component of the General Plan Amendment; then, direct staff to prepare findings and conditions incorporating the results of the straw votes. 2-114 TO: Planning Commission - 3 Background On June 4, 1981, the Planning Commission initiated General Plan Amendment 81-2 consistent with City Council Policy Q-1 in effect at that time. Eight areas ' were originally set for possible amendment, but three dropped out prior to preparation of the environmental document. In addition to the General Plan Amendments initiated, Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan amendments were set for those proposals in the coastal zone. A draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the City by Phillips, Brandt, Reddick, Inc. The report was prepared is in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A) and City Council Policy K-3. The draft EIR has been submitted to state, local, and regional jurisdictions and agencies, and interested parties. Copies of the draft EIR were previously distributed to the Planning Commission and it is requested that they bring them to the public hearing. Attachment No. 1 to the draft EIR (Attachment No. 6) has been prepared containing all comments, responses, and additional information generated by staff and our consultants as of this Iwriting. Discussion Each of the various General Plan Amendment sites is discussed separately below. The discussion is concluded with a section on General Plan Amendment 81-2 staff recommendations. CalTrans West Applications. The State of California Department of Transportation has proposed the following amendments to permit construction of a multiple -family residential development on ± 13 acres northwest of Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. 1. Acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report as having been completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A.) and City Policy K-3, and certification that the data was considered in the final decisions on this project. 2. Amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan. The Land Use Element revision changes the existing Recreational and Environmental Open Space designation to Multiple -Family Residential and Recreational and Environmental Open Space uses. The Residential Growth Element will be revised to reflect residential statistical changes. The Recreation and Open Space Element will be revised to remove the designation for a future neighborhood park on the site and add a greenbelt between the proposed residential development and Newport Crest. 3. Amendment No. 2 to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan changing the land use designation and text from 2-115 TO: Planning Commission - 4 Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Multiple -Family Residential and Recreational and Environmental Open Space uses. Future discretionary review of this project by the City include a zone change amendment, tentative tract map, use permit, and grading permit. Project Site. The project site is northwest of the intersection of West Coast , Highway and the realignment of Superior Avenue (Attachment No. 1). The site comprises approximately 13.66 acres bounded by West Coast Highway, realigned Superior Avenue, Newport Crest, and Banning -Newport Ranch. Project Characteristics. The project proposes the ultimate development of 13.66 vacant acres as follows: Environmental Significance. There are environmental impacts anticipated in relation to the implementation of this project. The draft EIR indicates that there are significant adverse environmental impacts which cannot be avoided, as follows: Hydrology: 1) Ultimate development of this site will reduce permeable acreage and thereby increase surface runoff= 2) During grading, there will be a short-term increase in silt and sediment transport. After buildout, urban uses will incrementally increase the pollutant load to surface runoff. Demographics: 1) The proposed project will create approximately 152 multi -family dwelling units which will house approximately 342 residents. Recreation and Open Space: 1) Depending on the findings of the City's comprehensive Recreation and Open Space Element review, there may or may not 2-116 1 Statistical Analysis Buildablel Dwelling Units Land Use Gross Acres Acres (Range) Multi -Family 11.26 10.16 102.6 - 152.4 Residential Recreational and 2.4 --- --- Environmental Open Space Total 13.66 10.66 Dwelling units 9.1 -.13.5 per Gross Acre Dwelling Units per 10.1 - 15.0 1 Buildable acre is a general plan term used to define density and intensity of development. It is equal to the total site area within the project boundary excluding streets, park dedication areas and areas with existing natural slopes greater than 2:1, and natural floodplain areas. Environmental Significance. There are environmental impacts anticipated in relation to the implementation of this project. The draft EIR indicates that there are significant adverse environmental impacts which cannot be avoided, as follows: Hydrology: 1) Ultimate development of this site will reduce permeable acreage and thereby increase surface runoff= 2) During grading, there will be a short-term increase in silt and sediment transport. After buildout, urban uses will incrementally increase the pollutant load to surface runoff. Demographics: 1) The proposed project will create approximately 152 multi -family dwelling units which will house approximately 342 residents. Recreation and Open Space: 1) Depending on the findings of the City's comprehensive Recreation and Open Space Element review, there may or may not 2-116 1 TO: Planning Commission - 5 be significant adverse impacts on .the provision of recreation and open, space areas in the City. The draft EIR further indicates that while the impacts in the categories of Hydrology and Demographics may be partially mitigated, they are still significant when considered as part of the cumulative adverse impact associated with regional growth. Analysis 1. Land Use - The General Plan Amendment for the CalTrans West Parcel will, if approved, change the land use designation from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Multiple -Family Residential and Recreational and Environmental Open Space uses. The general plan adopted in 1973 designated the majority of this site for Multiple -Family Residential uses. The bluff areas were designated for Recreational and Environmental Open Space to be used as a scenic area. The site was acquired by the Department of Transportation as right-of-way for the Coast Freeway. The Coast Freeway has been removed from the State Highways and Freeways Master Plan, and the site is excess right-of-way. in 1976 (G.P.A. 76-3-J), the City designated this site, along with all CalTrans property in West Newport for a specific area plan. In 1978 (G.P.A. 78-2), the City amended the land use designation for the site to allow only Recreational and Environmental Open Space uses, with the intent that the parcel be acquired for public open space under State Proposition 3, adopted November 7, 1978. This proposition made provisions for acquisition of excess state properties by other public entities for recreation and open space purposes. The specific area plan designation was also removed by this General Plan Amendment. The city requested both State Parks and the State Coastal Conservency to purchase 1 this property under the provisions of Proposition 3, but both declined to do SO. The requested General Plan Amendment must be balanced with planned growth and development in the immediate area and throughout the community. The Newport Beach General Plan was adopted in 1973 and has been amended several times. A major portion of the land in the City is developed and the General Plan reflects that development. Most of the vacant land in the City is designated for low density residential uses or preservation for recreational and environmental open space uses. Most future commercial and office development will be in older areas of the community. Some vacant residential sites are under consideration for increase of residential densities, and the Banning -Newport Ranch immediately adjacent to the subject site has been designated for multiple family residential uses. The proposed project, if approved, is consistent with the overall development pattern. The approval of the project will, however, use increments of remaining roadway capacity, which will not then be available for developments already allowed by the General Plan in other areas of the community. As indicated in the General Plan, potential development must be balanced with the capacity of the transportation system. The project site is in West Newport and is adjacent to the Newport Crest, Versailles/Villa Balboa and the residential portion of Banning -Newport Ranch. 1 2-117 T0: Planning Commission - 6 These areas are all developed with or proposed for Multiple -Family Residential uses. Across West Coast Highway to the south of the site are mixed residential areas and a small neighborhood shopping center. Easterly of the subject site is additional vacant state highway right-of-way, known as CalTrans East, designated for recreational and environmental open space uses. From an overall design standpoint, the proposed project appears compatible with surrounding existing and planned land uses. The CalTrans West site is shown for proposed neighborhood and view parks on the Open Space Plan of the General Plan Recreation and Open Space Element. Since 1978, the entire parcel has been designated for Recreational and Environmental Open Space uses with the intention that the parcel be acquired for public open space. During the public hearings on the Banning -Newport Ranch General Plan Amendment (81-1), the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission indicated that the CalTrans West site was the most suitable location for a major neighborhood park facility (minimum 5 acres) in the West Newport area, which is identified in the Recreation and Open Space Element as an area "with either very limited or no recreational facilities". This project, if approved, will generate either park dedication, in -lieu fees, or a combination of these which will aid the City in implementing a neighborhood park in this area. Other conditions may be applied to the approval requiring additional greenbelt or open space areas similar to those included in the Banning -Newport Ranch approval. Approval of the project will, of course, reduce the total acreage planned for recreation and open space uses in the West Newport area. Maintenance of the Recreational and Environmental Open Space designation and eventual acquisition by the City of Newport Beach would provide opportunities for a number of recreation and open space uses needed in the area. In addition to provision of a neighborhood park, the site is in an area with beach parking deficiencies, as evidenced by the discussion regarding the vacation of Ticonderoga Street, and could with proper design be used to accommodate a parking lot for beach visitors. others uses which could be accommodated on the site under the existing General Plan designation include community recreation facilities such as tennis courts and community meeting facilities. 2. Housing - If a general plan amendment permitting residential development on the CalTrans West site is approved, housing opportunities in the City of Newport Beach will increase. This would be consistent with the Program and Performance Objectives of the City's Housing Element. Performance Objective No. 1 commits the city to increase residential densities on non -committed undeveloped sites by 25% resulting in the addition of 265 dwelling units citywide. The approval of 100 to 150 units on CalTrans West would achieve approximately 50% of the City's Housing Element commitment to expanding the, housing stock. Performance Objective No. 2 commits the City to encouraging the housing industry to allocate at least 10% of the annual production goal to "affordable" housing. In some of the older areas of the City where increased units are infill on small existing subdivided lots, it will probably not be feasible to build "affordable" units. It is estimated that there will be an increase of approximately 500 dwelling units in the Balboa Penninsula, Lido Island and West Newport areas. Ten percent of this total, or 50 units, could 2-118 1 1' 1 - TO: Planning Commission - 7 be accommodated on the CalTrans West site, or other large undeveloped sites in the general area. If it is determined that all or a portion of the site is not needed for recreation and open space uses, a redesignation to Multiple -Family Residential (15 du's per buildable acre) should include establishment of a set percentage or number of units for provision of housing affordable to families of low and moderate income. A portion of the "affordable" units (minimum 10% of total) will need to satisfy the requirements of Government Code Section 65590 (Mello) which apply to residential development in the coastal zone. These units would meet a slightly different affordability criteria. Establishment of this requirement in conjunction with the General Plan Amendment will assure that future appraisals and the eventual sale price for the site will take this condition into consideration. 3. Parks - The General Plan, Amendment, as proposed, shows 11.26 gross acres for residential development and 2.40 acres for recreation and open space uses to satisfy the park dedication requirement for the residential uses. The 2.40 acres is shown on the proposed Land Use Plan (map) (see Exhibit 3 following Page 8 of the draft EIR) as a greenbelt running along the northerly edge of the project site between the Newport Crest townhomes and the proposed residential uses. The criteria for park dedication contained in Chapter 19.50 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code follows: 19.50.080 DETERMINATION OF LAND OR FEE. Whether the Planning Commission accepts land dedication or elects to require payment of a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, shall be determined by consideration of the following: A. USEABILITY AND FEASIBILITY. Generally, land shall be flat. B. ACCESS. Direct frontage on at least one side and not more than three (3) feet above or below street level. C. SHAPE OF LAND. Suitable for park development. D. SIZE. Not less than two (2) acres, unless a portion of a park designated in the General Plan. I E. IMPROVEMENTS. Shall meet standards of the city and be of a permanent nature. I I I F. In accordance with the recreation element of the General Plan. (Ord. 1733, 1977) The proposed park dedication area does not meet this criteria in the following areas: A. Generally, land shall be flat: The dedication area is generally flat. The land is, however, divided into two segments by an approximate 25 foot difference in elevation, as is the entire CalTrans West site (see Exhibit 11 following Page 26 of the draft EIR). This difference limits the usaebility of the area for active recreation uses. KnFG] TO: Planning Commission - 8 B. Direct (street) frontage on at least one side: Currently, there is not sufficient access to this park site to meet this criteria. Adequate access would have to be designed as part of the approval of the subdivision. C. Shape of land suitable for park development: The configuration of the proposed park dedication area is in the character of a greenbelt buffer. A neighborhood park is used for active recreation uses and generally should be fairly square and all on one elevation. The proposed area does not meet this criteria. The proposed park dedication area meets the criteria of minimum size and is in accordance with the Recreation and Open Space Element in terms of location. In the approval for the Banning -Newport Ranch project, the City Council required, as a condition of approval, the establishment of a 30 foot average greenbelt adjacent to Newport Crest, to be maintained by the applicant or his successor in interest. This requirement was imposed in addition to the ± 6.5 acre park dedication requirement generated by the residential uses approved as part of the project. The park to be developed in conjunction with the Banning -Newport Ranch is to be approximately five acres in size located within the area bounded by West Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, 15th Street, and Bluff Road. The CalTrans West site is within these boundaries. if residential uses are designated for this site, the park dedication requirement generated by both developments could be combined to insure implementation of the 5 acre park in the above described boundaries and provide sufficient funds to assure improvement of the land acquired in a timely manner. In this event,, a reservation for park purposes should be included in the conditions of approval, With the exact location to be determined in the comprehensive Recreation and open Space Element Review. 4. Circulation. The circulation system in the vicinity of the CalTrans West parcel consists of West Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, Balboa Boulevard, Hospital Road and Newport Boulevard. Major circulation system improvements currently planned in the area include the development of Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extension) and the realignment of Superior Avenue. The realignment of Superior Avenue bears a direct relationship to the proposed project. The CalTrans West Parcel currently comprises ± 17 acres westerly of Superior Avenue. In the proposal for General Plan Amendment, the California Department of Transportation requested a change in land use designation for the reconfigured site (±13 acres) and indicated a willingness to dedicate all lands needed for the realignment if these development rights are granted. Otherwise, the City will be required to purchase the land needed for the realignment, estimated at approximately $500,000. A preliminary analysis of traffic impacts of the proposed project was completed for the Environmental Impact Report (Pages 105-107 of the draft EIR; Appendix F of draft EIR). This analysis indicates an increase in vehicle trip ends from zero under the existing land use designation to 1,292 by the proposed project (152 dwelling units). At the time of further discretionary approvals, the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance must be met, and necessary circulation system improvements will be imposed. ri 11 I I 11 1 11 41 PJ N 11 I 2-120 1 1' T0: Planning Commission - 9 If the proposed amendment is approved, the dedications necessary for the Superior Avenue realignment should be required in a manner timely to the City's plans for its completion. 5. Views. Development of a residential project on the CalTrans West site will have no significant affect on views from any public park or roadways. There is, however, the possibility of an impact on views from private residences to the north of the project site. If a General Plan Amendment permitting residential development is approved, it should be required that views to the west and south of the Newport Crest development be preserved for a person standing on the lower balcony level of a Newport Crest residence, consistent with the City's action on the General Plan Amendment for Banning -Newport Ranch. 7. Local Coastal Program. The General Plan Amendment being proposed for the CalTrans West site also requires amendment to the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program. Major concerns of the Coastal Act of 1976, and the City's Local Coastal Program, are in the areas of Public Access, Resource 10 Protection, and Visitor -Serving Facilities. Two of these areas Public Access and Visitor -Serving Facilities must be considered in the assessment of the Local Coastal Program amendment. The existing Local Coastal Program land use designation for .recreation and open space uses permits a number of uses which could enhance public access and visitor use in the West Newport area. Establishment of a neighborhood/view park on the site would provide additional passive and active recreation in the coastal zone. Other potential uses, such as public parking, could directly provide facilities for visitors and enhance public access. If a residential project is approved, the amount of land available to provide these priority uses will be reduced. There are also potential benefits which could accrue from such an approval. Development can provide the City dedications and funds necessary to establish the neighborhood/view park, make circulation system improvements, and design and implement public transportation systems; all of which positively impact public, access and visitor use in the area. Fifth Avenue Parcels Applications. The Irvine Company has proposed amendments to permit construction of two medium -density residential projects on one 9.6 acre and one 13.2 acre site located in the vicinity of 5th Avenue and Marguerite Avenues in Corona del Mar. The approvals requested include: 1. Acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report as having been - completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A.) and City Policy K-3, and certification that the data was considered in the final decisions on this project. 2-121 6. Geology. Surface traces of earthquake faults are indicated on portions of the CalTrans West site. if residential land uses are designated for this site, it should be contingent on completion of a detailed geotechnical survey, to assure that the project is designed to adequately protect future residents from potential hazard. 7. Local Coastal Program. The General Plan Amendment being proposed for the CalTrans West site also requires amendment to the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program. Major concerns of the Coastal Act of 1976, and the City's Local Coastal Program, are in the areas of Public Access, Resource 10 Protection, and Visitor -Serving Facilities. Two of these areas Public Access and Visitor -Serving Facilities must be considered in the assessment of the Local Coastal Program amendment. The existing Local Coastal Program land use designation for .recreation and open space uses permits a number of uses which could enhance public access and visitor use in the West Newport area. Establishment of a neighborhood/view park on the site would provide additional passive and active recreation in the coastal zone. Other potential uses, such as public parking, could directly provide facilities for visitors and enhance public access. If a residential project is approved, the amount of land available to provide these priority uses will be reduced. There are also potential benefits which could accrue from such an approval. Development can provide the City dedications and funds necessary to establish the neighborhood/view park, make circulation system improvements, and design and implement public transportation systems; all of which positively impact public, access and visitor use in the area. Fifth Avenue Parcels Applications. The Irvine Company has proposed amendments to permit construction of two medium -density residential projects on one 9.6 acre and one 13.2 acre site located in the vicinity of 5th Avenue and Marguerite Avenues in Corona del Mar. The approvals requested include: 1. Acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report as having been - completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A.) and City Policy K-3, and certification that the data was considered in the final decisions on this project. 2-121 TO: Planning Commission - 10 2. Amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan. The Land Use Element revision changes the designation for Site A from Low -Density Residential to Medium -Density Residential, for Site B from Low -Density Residential to Medium -Density Residential, and Site C from Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an alternate use of Low -Density Residential to Recreational and Environmental Open Space. The Residential Growth Element will be revised to reflect residential statistical changes. The Recreation and Open Space Element will be revised to remove the future neighborhood designation from Site B and the permitted alternate land use from Site C. Future discretionary review of this project by the City include zone change amendments, tentative tract maps, use permits and grading permits. Project Site. The project site consists of three vacant parcels in the vicinity of Fifth Avenue and Marguerite Avenues in Corona del Mar (Attachment No. 2). Marguerite Parcel - Area A: This site consists of 9.3 gross acres westerly of Marguerite Avenue between Fifth Avenue and Harbor view Drive. Fifth Avenue Parcel - Area B: This site consists of 13.2 gross acres northerly of Fifth Avenue between Marguerite Avenue and Buck Gully. Buck Gully - Area C: This site consists of 49.07 gross acres along the eastern City boundary between Fifth Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road. Project Characteristics. The project proposes the ultimate development of Areas A and B, as follows: Statistical Analysis Marguerite Parcel - Area A Gross Buildable Dwelling Units Land Use Acres Acres (Range) Medium -Density w Residential 9.6 6.8* 27.9 66.0 Dwelling Units per Gross Acre 2.9,- 7.1 Dwelling Units per Buildable Acre 4.1 - 10.0 * Assumes payment of in -lieu park fees and no dedication of park land. 2-122 1 I TO: . Planning Commission— 11 ILand Use E1 Statistical Analysis Fifth Avenue Parcel - Area B Gross Buildable Acres Acres Dwelling Units (Range) Medium -Density Residential 13.2 10.0* 41.0 - 100.0 Dwelling Units per Gross Acre 3.1 - 7.6 Dwelling Units per Buildable Acre 4.1 - 10.0 * Assumes payment of in -lieu park fees and no dedication of park land. Environmental Significance., There are environmental impacts anticipated in relation to the implementation of this project. The draft EIR indicates that there are significant adverse environmental impacts which cannot be avoided, as follows: AREAS A & B: Hydrology: 1) Ultimate development of the site will reduce -permeable acreage and thereby increase surface runoff; 2) During grading, there will be a short-term increase in silt and sediment transport- After buildout, urban uses will incrementally increase the pollutant load to surface runoff. Demographics: Area A: The proposed project will permit development of approximately 68 dwelling units housing approximately 153 residents. Area B: The proposed project will permit development of approximately 100 dwelling units housing approximately 225 residents. AREA C: Hydrology: Development of limited recreational facilities may increase surface runoff and incrementally increase the pollutant load to surface runoff. The draft EIR further indicates that while the impacts may be partially mitigated, they are still significant when considered as part of the cumulative adverse impacts associated with regional growth. Analysis 1. Land Use Area A: The General Plan Amendment for the Marguerite Avenue Parcel will, if approved, change the land use designation from Low -Density Residential to 2-123 TO: Planning Commission - 12 Medium -Density Residential. This change to the medium density category, which permits a maximum of 10 dwelling units per buildable acre, will reestablish the density permitted under the general plan as it was adopted in 1973, which allowed up to 10 DU's per gross acre in the low density category and directed the site to be zoned R -1-B, allowing approximately 50 dwelling units. General Plan Amendment 26, which established the Medium Density Residential category and redefined allowable residential density, changed the land use designation for this site to Medium -Density Residential. The Marguerite Parcel was subsequently redesignated to Low -Density Residential as part of General Plan Amendment 79-1. Area B: If approved, the proposed General Plan Amendment will also change the land use designation for the Fifth Avenue Parcel from Low to Medium Density Residential. The General Plan history for the Fifth Avenue Parcel is essentially the same as for Area A, with the exception that the residential uses shown are alternate uses on the Land Use Plan, under the primary designation of Recreational and Environmental Open Space. General Plan Amendment 79-1 is the first time the Land Use Plan shows the site for only residential uses. 79+1 did not, however, amend the Recreation and Open Space Element, so the open space - flora and fauna reserve designation and the t proposed neighborhood park designation remains on the Open Space Plan. This inconsistency between elements will be resolved by this amendment. remaining roadway capacity, which will not then be available for developments Area C: This section of the amendment will, if approved, remove the alternate land use designation from the site, leaving it shown for Recreational and Environmental open Space uses. The Land Use Designation for this site has not been amended since the adoption of the General Plan in 1973. The letter from The Irvine Company requesting consideration of General Plan Amendment proposals for the Marguerite and Fifth Avenue Parcels indica'te'd the possible dedication of Buck Gully (Area C) for park and open space purposes in consideration for the increased development rights on the other two sites. The amendment was therefore initiated including the land use designation change for Buck Gully. Although The Irvine Company asserts they did not request this change, the consideration of it is appropriate, since the City is the applicant in a General Plan Amendment. in evaluating the General Plan Amendment, the proposal must be balanced with planned growth and development in the immediate area and throughout the City. The General Plan was adopted in 1973 and has been amended several times. Most of the land in the City is developed and the existing General Plan reflects that development. In terms of future allowable development, the General Plan, Local Coastal Program and existing zoning establish that a majority of the vacant land in the city will be developed for low density residential uses or preserved for recreation and environmental open space uses. Most future commercial and office development will occur in the older areas of the community. The proposed project, if approved, appears to be consistent with the overall development pattern. It will, however, use increments of remaining roadway capacity, which will not then be available for developments in other parts of the community. As indicated in the General Plan, potential development in the older commercial areas needs to be balanced with the transportation system. The two parcels proposed for development in this component of the General Plan Amendment are located in the vicinity of Fifth Avenue and Marguerite Avenue in 2-124 1 T0: Planning Commission - 13 Corona del Mar. Adjacent land uses include the Jasmine Creek townhomes to the north, single family homes in Harbor View Hills to the north and east, and two-family residential uses to the south. The Marguerite Avenue Parcel is adjacent to Harbor View Elementary School, Jasmine Creek and the City -owned an over all design standpoint, and when considered as an urban infill proposal, the project appears compatible with land uses in the area. •If the amendment to the Buck Gully land use designation is also approved, the further strengthening of the permanent open space nature of this area balances the proposed higher density with the somewhat lower density development existing to the north. The densities proposed on the subject sites can also be considered a suitable transition between the old Corona del Mar area and the lower density residential areas to the north. The Recreation and open Space Element shows the Marguerite Avenue Parcel for a continuation of the Jasmine Creek greenbelt system. The General Plan location of structures policy will preclude development in this environmentally sensitive area, resulting in the Jasmine Creek area on the subject site being maintained as a greenbelt area. If the proposed amendment is approved, the land use designation should continue to show Jasmine Creek as a greenbelt on this site. The greenbelt should be similar in scale to the Planned Community areas northerly. The Fifth Avenue site is shown on the Open Space Plan as Recreational and Environmental Open Space - Flora and Fauna Reserve. • The amendment, if approved, will remove this flora and fauna designation. The site in question is relatively flat and is mowed regularly. It has no unique or special plant or animal communities. The location of structures policy will preclude development in any sensitive parts of Buck Gully on the easterly edge of the subject site. The Buck Gully Parcel (Area C) is currently shown on the Open Space Plan as a flora and fauna reserve. If the proposed amendment is approved, this designation should be maintained to indicate the environmentally sensitive nature of the area and its unsuitability for active recreation uses. 2. Housing. If a General Plan Amendment permitting development of Medium -Density Residential uses on the Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue sites is approved, housing opportunities in the City of Newport Beach will increase. This is consistent with the Program and Performance Objectives of the City's Housing Element. The increased level of residential development will have a positive impact on the available supply of housing in the City overall. The proponent of this amendment is cooperating with the City on another General Plan Amendment for the North Ford site (82-1), the expressed purpose of which is to increase available housing and provide affordable housing in the City of Newport Beach. Approval of this proposal should include a requirement that a number equal to 10% of the total units be constructed off-site and be "affordable" by City standards. 1 2-125 OASIS Center parking lot. The Fifth Avenue Parcel is easterly of the OASIS Center facility and adjacent to Buck Gully. The surrounding residential land uses range in density from 2.71 du's per gross acre in Harbor View Hills East (south of San Joaquin Hills Road) to 4.08 du's per gross acre in Jasmine Creek to 11.11 du's per gross acre in old Corona del Mar. This can be compared to a maximum of 7.19 du's per gross acre proposed for the Marguerite Avenue Parcel and a maximum of 7.58 du's per gross acre for the Fifth Avenue Parcel. From an over all design standpoint, and when considered as an urban infill proposal, the project appears compatible with land uses in the area. •If the amendment to the Buck Gully land use designation is also approved, the further strengthening of the permanent open space nature of this area balances the proposed higher density with the somewhat lower density development existing to the north. The densities proposed on the subject sites can also be considered a suitable transition between the old Corona del Mar area and the lower density residential areas to the north. The Recreation and open Space Element shows the Marguerite Avenue Parcel for a continuation of the Jasmine Creek greenbelt system. The General Plan location of structures policy will preclude development in this environmentally sensitive area, resulting in the Jasmine Creek area on the subject site being maintained as a greenbelt area. If the proposed amendment is approved, the land use designation should continue to show Jasmine Creek as a greenbelt on this site. The greenbelt should be similar in scale to the Planned Community areas northerly. The Fifth Avenue site is shown on the Open Space Plan as Recreational and Environmental Open Space - Flora and Fauna Reserve. • The amendment, if approved, will remove this flora and fauna designation. The site in question is relatively flat and is mowed regularly. It has no unique or special plant or animal communities. The location of structures policy will preclude development in any sensitive parts of Buck Gully on the easterly edge of the subject site. The Buck Gully Parcel (Area C) is currently shown on the Open Space Plan as a flora and fauna reserve. If the proposed amendment is approved, this designation should be maintained to indicate the environmentally sensitive nature of the area and its unsuitability for active recreation uses. 2. Housing. If a General Plan Amendment permitting development of Medium -Density Residential uses on the Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue sites is approved, housing opportunities in the City of Newport Beach will increase. This is consistent with the Program and Performance Objectives of the City's Housing Element. The increased level of residential development will have a positive impact on the available supply of housing in the City overall. The proponent of this amendment is cooperating with the City on another General Plan Amendment for the North Ford site (82-1), the expressed purpose of which is to increase available housing and provide affordable housing in the City of Newport Beach. Approval of this proposal should include a requirement that a number equal to 10% of the total units be constructed off-site and be "affordable" by City standards. 1 2-125 TO: Planning Commission - 14 3. Parks. Area A: No neighborhood or view parks are shown on the Marguerite Avenue Parcel. The existing and committed neighborhood park designation shown in the vicinity refers to the expansion of the existing Grant Howald Park easterly to Marguerite Avenue on the ± 2 acre site owned by the City. Staff is aware that a particularly good view is available from the project site to the bay and ocean in the area of Marguerite Avenue and Harbor View Drive. If the proposed amendment is approved, consideration should be given to establishment of a public viewing area in this vicinity as part of the proposed subdivision. This could be used to satisfy a portion of the park dedication requirement of the project. Area B: A future neighborhood park is shown for the Fifth Avenue -Parcel on the Open Space Plan. It is the opinion of staff that the OASIS Center is not,, by its nature, a neighborhood park and it does not satisfy this designation. The amendment, if approved, would remove this neighborhood park designation and allow The Irvine Company to pay in -lieu fees, rather than dedicate land on site to satisfy the requirements of the park dedication ordinance. Area C: When this component of the General Plan Amendment was requested by The Irvine Company, it was indicated that dedication of the Buck Gully Parcel (Area C: t 50 acres) could occur for park and open space purposes in consideration for increased development rights on the Marguerite and Fifth Avenue Parcels. The criteria for park dedication has been quoted in the Park section of the CalTrans West discussion above. It appears that the Buck Gully site is unsuitable for dedication as park land in the following areas: Criteria A: Generally, the land shall be flat: The site in question is a drainage course and is predominantly slope areas. Criteria B: Direct frontage on at least one site: The site has no direct street frontage. Criteria C: Suitable for park development: While the site is very large, it does not appear suited to active recreation uses. Criteria F: In accordance with the recreation element of the General Plan: The area is not designated for any parks on the Open Space Plan. If the proposed amendment is approved, in -lieu park fees as required by the Park Dedication Ordinance should be required. if a view park on the Marguerite Avenue Parcel is required, it should be used to partially satisfy the park dedication requirement. The City should not accept dedication of Buck Gully (Area C) for park purposes, but the alternate residential land use designation should be removed in consideration for the increased residential density on the other two parcels. 4. Circulation. The circulation system in the vicinity of the Fifth Avenue Parcels consists of East Coast Highway, MacArthur Boulevard, Marguerite Avenue, San Joaquin Hills Road, Fifth Avenue, and other local streets in Corona del Mar. A preliminary analysis of traffic impacts of the proposed project was completed for the Environmental Impact Report (Pages 107-109 of the draft ESR; Appendix F of the draft EIR). The analysis indicates the 2-126 TO: Planning Commission - 15 generation of 578 vehicle trip ends by the proposed 68 residential units on the Marguerite Parcel, and 1,300 vehicle trip ends by the proposed 100 residential units on the Fifth Avenue Parcel. These totals represent an increase from the permitted development under the existing General Plan of approximately 200 for the Marguerite Avenue Parcel and 390 for the Fifth Avenue Parcel. At the time of further discretionary approvals, the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance must be met, and necessary circulation system improvement shall be required. 5. Views. Development of a residential project on the Marguerite Avenue Parcel could have impacts on views from public roadways (Marguerite Avenue). Potential impacts are impossible to define at this level of planning. There is also a potential impact to views from private residences across Marguerite Avenue in Harbor View Hills. In past approval of projects the City has attempted to minimize the impact of new development on views, both public and private. There is not, however, any specific General Plan policies which address view preservation.• There are very specific policies in the General Plan regarding preservation of environmentally sensitive habitat areas. In regards to the Marguerite Avenue Parcel, protection of sensitive areas should take precedence over view preservation. View impacts could be mitigated by the implementation of the view area proposal discussed in the Parks section above. Some impacts to private views could occur with development of the Fifth Avenue Parcel. This impact can be assessed and mitigated at the time of approval of the subdivision. 6. Local Coastal Program. The Buck Gully site (Area C) is in the coastal zone. -Approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment for this site will bring the General Plan into conformance with the certified Land Use Plan of the City's Local Coastal Program which shows the site exclusively for Recreational and Environmental Open Space. This action serves to partially implement the City's Local Coastal Program. Big Canyon Area 16 Applications. The Irvine Company has proposed amendments to permit construction of a medium -density residential development on the 10.9 acre site located at MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road in Big Canyon. The approvals requested include: 1. Acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report as having been completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A.) and City Policy K-3, and certification that the data was considered in the final decisions on this project. 2. Amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan. The Land Use Element revision changes the land use designation for the subject site from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Medium -Density Residential. The Residential Growth Element will be revised to reflect residential statistical changes. The Recreation and Open Space Element will be revised to remove the open space/golf course designation from this site. 2-127 TO: Planning Commission - 16 Future discretionary review of this project by the City includes a zone change amendment, tentative tract maps, use permits, and grading permits. Project Site. The project site consists of a vacant parcel southwesterly of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road (Attachment No. 3). The parcel is 10.9 gross acres in size and is within the Big Canyon Planned Community . Project Characteristics. The project proposes the ultimate development of the site as follows: Statistical Analysis Gross Buildable Dwelling Units Land Use Acres Acres (Range) Medium -Density Residential 10.9 8.7* 35.7 - 87.0 Dwelling Units �r per Gross Acre 3.3 - 8.0 Dwelling Units per Buildable Acre 4.1 - 10.0 * Assumes payment of in -lieu park fees and no dedication of park land. Environmental Significance. There are environmental impacts anticipated in ' relation to the implementation of this project. The draft EIR indicates that there are significant adverse environmental impacts which cannot be avoided, as follows: Hydrology: 1) Ultimate development of the site will reduce permeable acreage and thereby increase surface runoff, 2) During grading, there will be a short-term increase in silt and sediment transport. After buildout, urban uses will incrementally increase the pollutant load to surface runoff. Demographics: The proposed project will permit development of approximately 87 dwelling units housing approximately 196 residents. Recreation and Open Space: Depending on the findings of the City's comprehensive Recreation and Open Space Element review, there may or may not be significant adverse impacts on the provision of recreation and open space areas in the City. The draft EIR further indicates that while the impacts in the 'categories of Hydrology and Demographics may be partially mitigated, they are still significant when considered as part of the cumulative adverse impacts associated with regional growth. Iq 2-128 1 T0: Planning Commission - 17 Analysis 1. Land Use. The General Plan Amendment for the Big Canyon Area 16 Parcel will, if approved, change the land use designation from Recreational and Environmental Open Space/Golf Course to Medium -Density Residential. This site has carried this designation since the General Plan was adopted in 1973. It was originally believed that all or a portion of this site would be needed as right-of-way for the Corona del Mar Freeway, but realignment of that facility has removed this possibility. The Land Use Element for Big Canyon currently makes provision for 100 dwelling units not assigned to any specific site in the area. As part of the agreements regarding of the Back Bay sewer line through the Mouth of Big Canyon, the 'City agreed to consider the assignment of these units to a particular site in the area, so long as the residential density did not exceed 10 dwelling units per buildable acre. In evaluating the General Plan Amendment, the proposal must be balanced with planned growth and development in the immediate area and throughout the city. The General Plan was adopted in 1973 and has been amended several times. Most of the land in the City is developed and the existing General Plan reflects that development. In terms of future allowable development, the General Plan, Local Coastal Program and existing zoning establish that a majority of the vacant land in the City will be developed for low density residential uses or preserved for recreation and environmental open space uses. Most future commercial and office development will occur in the older areas of the community. The proposed project, if approved, appears to be consistent with the overall development pattern. It will, however, use increments of remaining roadway capacity, which will not then be available for developments in other parts of the community. As indicated in the General plan, potential development in the older commercial areas needs to be balanced with the transportation system. The project site is located in the vicinity of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road in the Big Canyon Planned Community. Land uses in the vicinity include the other areas of Big Canyon Planned Community, attached and detached residential uses and industrial uses across Ford Road in the Aeronutronic Ford/Belcourt area, and single family residential uses across MacArthur Boulevard in Harbor View Hills. The Big Canyon Area 16 Parcel is adjacent to the Big Canyon Country Club Golf Course. The surrounding residential land uses range in density from 2.38 du's per gross acre in Big Canyon to 2.62 du's per gross acre in Belcourt to 3.73 du's per gross acre in Harbor View Hills northerly of San Joaquin Hills Road. This is compared to a maximum of 7.98 du's per gross acre for the Big Canyon Area 16 site. There are areas within the Big Canyon and Belcourt which fall within the Medium -Density Residential category. From an overall design standpoint, and when considered as an urban infill proposal, the project appears compatible with land use in the area. The Recreation and Open Space Element shows the Big Canyon Area 16 Parcel as Recreational and Environmental Open Space/Golf Course. Since it is adjacent to the golf course, the site could be used forgolf course expansion or development of other commercial recreational facilities associated with the country club. The recreation needs of residents in the area are provided by private facilities developed with the residential uses. The site is, therefore not needed to provide public recreational facilities. 1 2-129 TO: Planning Commission - i8 2. Housing. If a General Plan Amendment permitting development of Medium -Density Residential uses on the Big Canyon - Area 16 sites is approved, housing opportunities in the City of Newport Beach will increase. This is consistent with the Program and Performance Objectives of the City's Housing Element. The increased level of residential development will have a positive impact on the available supply of housing in the City overall. The proponent of this amendment is cooperating with the City on another General Plan Amendment for the North Ford site (82-1), the expressed purpose of which is to increase available housing and provide affordable housing in the City of Newport Beach. Approval of this proposal should include a requirement that a number equal to 10% of the total units be constructed off-site and be "affordable" by City standards. 3. Parks. No neighborhood park, or any other public recreation facility is designated for The Big Canyon Area 16 site. If this proposal is approved, in -lieu park fees should be required consistent with the city's Park Dedication Ordinance. 4. Circulation. The circulation system in the vicinity of Big Canyon Area 16 consists of East Coast Highway, Eastbluff Drive, Ford Road, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. A preliminary analysis of traffic impacts of the proposed project was completed for the Environmental Impact Report (Page 110 of the draft EIR; Appendix F of the draft EIR). The analysis indicates the generation of 740 vehicle trip ends by the proposed residential uses. At the time of further discretionary approvals, the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance must be met, and necessary circulation system improvements shall be required. Newport Center - Block 400 Applications. Newport Center Medical Buildings, Inc. has proposed the following amendment to permit construction an additional 80,000 square feet of medical office in a new seven story office tower in Block 400 of Newport Center. 1. Acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report as having been completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A.) and City Policy K-3, and certification that the data was considered in the final decisions on this project. 2. An amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan to increase the total allowable office development in Newport Center by 80,000 square feet and the designation of the additional office development to Block 400. Project Site. The project site is northeast of the intersection of Newport Center Drive East and San Miguel Drive in Newport Center (Attachment No. 4). Block 400 comprises approximately 16 acres bounded by Newport Center Drive East, San Miguel Road, Avocado Avenue, and San Nicholas Drive. 2-130 T0: Planning Commission - 19 Project Characteristics. The project proposes development of a seven story medical office tower of 80,000 square feet and a related parking structure. Currently, there are 353,600 square feet of medical and general office existing in Block 400. If approved, a total of 433,600 square feet of office will be permitted. The existing floor area (FAR) ratio is 0.51 times the buildable acreage. The proposed floor area ratio of the site is 0.62 times the buildable acreage. Environmental Significance. There are environmental impacts anticipated in relation to the implementation of this project. The draft EIR indicates that there are significant adverse impacts which cannot be avoided, as follows: Demographics: The proposed project will result in additional employment opportunities in the City of Newport Beach of approximately 256 additional employees. Aesthetics/Views: The level of significance of these impacts are to be determined by the Planning Commission and City Council: 1) Addition to the Newport Center skyline; 2) possible impairment or obstruction of views from surrounding office or residential uses. The draft EIR further indicates that while the impacts in terms of Demographics may be partially mitigated, they are still cumulatively significant when considered part of City and regional demand. Analysis 1. Land Use. In evaluating an applicant's request for an amendment to the General Plan, the request must be balanced with planned growth and development within the immediate area and throughout the community. The Newport Beach General Plan was adopted in 1973 and has been amended several times. A majority of the land in the City is developed today and the existing General Plan reflects that development. In terms of future allowable development, the Newport Beach General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, and zoning establish that a majority of the vacant land in the City will be developed for low density residential development or preserved for recreation and environmental open space uses. Future allowable development of commercial or office will be in the older areas of the community. The future additional allowable development will take place as incremental increases as presently developed properties recycle. The proposed project, if approved, would appear to be consistent with this overall development pattern. However, any approval of this project will use increments of remaining roadway capacities. This capacity will not then be available for developments in the other areas of the community. As indicated in the General Plan potential development, in the older commercial areas, need to be balanced with the transportation system. In Newport Center, the medical office development (tower) in terms of overall design is compatible with existing development patterns and future development. Blocks 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, and 900 of Newport Center contain all of -the mid/high rise buildings in Newport Center. There are four existing office buildings on the site. A majority of the remaining vacant areas in Newport Center are to be developed for medium density residential uses at an average of 6 du's/ac (505 total units). A limited amount of other 1 2-131 TO: ' Planning Commission - 20 , commercial/office growth is projected by the General Plan for the remainder of Newport Center. The Irvine Company has allocated a majority of the future allowable office developments remaining after GPA 79-1 to its Corporate and Civic Plaza projects. 4 The City Council is scheduled to hear a proposed General Plan Amendment and related applications for expansion of the Marriott Hotel in February of 1983. A General Plan Amendment for an additional hotel in Block 600 of Newport Center (Four Seasons) has been initiated by the City Council. From the overall design standpoint of Newport Center, the proposed project appears compatible and would remain so even if the projects previously mentioned were approved. it be to review and if the proposed project is approved, should subject approval of a Use Permit by the Planning Commission to provide for appropriate site plan review and mitigation measures. 2. Circulation. The circulation system in the vicinity of Block 400 - Newport Center consists of Avocado Avenue, East Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Center Drive, San Joaquin Hills Road, San Miguel Drive and San Nicholas Drive. A preliminary analysis of traffic impacts of the proposed project was completed for the Environmental Impact Report (Pages 111-112 of the draft EIR, Appendix F of the draft EIR). This analysis indicates the proposed project will generate about 3,600 vehicle trip ends per day. At the time of further discretionary approvals, the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance must be met, and necessary circulation system improvements will be required. Campus Drive Applications. The City of Newport Beach has proposed amendments to the Land Use Element for the Campus Drive area generally bounded by Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue, Orchard Avenue, Birch Street, and MacArthur Boulevard. The approvals requested include: 1. Acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report as having been completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A.) and City Policy K-3, and certification that the data was considered in the final decisions on this project. 2. Amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. This amendment will revise the land use designation for the area bounded by Campus Drive, Bristol Street, Birch Street and Dove Street from General Industry to a mixture of General Industry and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial. Also proposed is a limitation on the intensity of allowable development in the entire subject area of 0.5 FAR (floor area ratio). Future discretionary review of this project by the City will be a zone change amendment to implement the General Plan Amendment and any other discretionary approvals, such as use permits and resubdivisions, which may be required by individual development requests in the project area. I I I LI 1, 4' 2-132 1 ITO: Planning Commission - 21 Project Site. The project site consists of 63.9 acres along Campus Drive north and south of Bristol Street and is bounded by Campus Drive, Orchard Avenue, Birch Street and MacArthur Avenue (Attachment No. 5). Project Characteristics. The following statistical analysis outlines the existing, permitted under zoning, and proposed permitted development for the project area. . Statistical Analysis office, Industrial 1 Development and Commercial Buildable Net Floor Intensity Floor to Land Uses Acres Areas (S.F.) (S.F./Acre) Area Ratio Existing (1981) Development ' No. of Bristol 55.5 830,400 14,960 0.34 So. of Bristol 8.4 122,270 14,560 0.33 Permitted Development under Zoning Code No. of Bristol 55.5 6,304,360 113,590 2.61 So. of Bristol 8.4 707,480 84,220 1.93 Proposed Development under GPA 81-2 No. of Bristol 55.5 1,208,790 21,780 0.50 So. of Bristol 8.4 182,950 21,780 0.50 1 Within the Campus Drive study area, the number of buildable acres is equal to the number of gross acres. 2 The number of square feet allowed in each buildable acre. Environmental Significance. There are environmental impacts anticipated in relation to the implementation of this project. The draft EIR indicates that 1 there are significant adverse impacts which cannot be avoided as follows: Demographics: The proposed project will permit development increases which, if implemented, could generate approximately 2,070 more employees than exist today, or a total of approximately 5,429. This represents a net reduction of approximately 21,918 employment opportunities within the project area as theoretically allowed under the existing General Plan. The draft EIR further indicates that while the impacts may be partially mitigated at the time the General Plan Amendment is implemented by further discretionary approvals, they are still cumulatively significant when considered as part of City and regional demand. Analysis 1. Land Use. The General Plan Amendment for Campus Drive will, if approved, establish a limit on the permitted intensity of development of 0.5 floor area I 2-133 T0: Planning Commission - 22 ratio (ratio of building square footage to total land area) . The land use designation for the area bounded by Campus Drive, Dove Street, Birch Street and Bristol Street will add a designation of Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial to the existing General Industry designation. This land use designation amendment will reflect the existing uses and development trends in the area, which is predominantly office mixed with industrial and other commercial land uses. This amendment is the first proposed for the area since the General Plan was adopted in 1973. The proposed General Plan Amendment is the first step in the process to: 1) establish intensity limitations which more closely reflect those permitted in contiguous industrial/office areas, and 2) insure that the circulation system will be able to accommodate future development. The approval of the project will significantly reduce the permitted development levels in the area. It will, however, still permit additional development in the area which, if implemented, will use increments of remaining roadway capacity which will not then be available for developments in other areas of the community. As already indicated in the General Plan, potential development must be balanced with the capacity of the transportation system. The project site is in the northern part of the City, and is adjacent to the Emkay-Newport Place Planned Community and in the vicinity of Koll Center Newport Planned Community. Other land uses in the area include the John Wayne - Orange County Airport, the mixed residential and commercial areas of Santa Ana Heights and the commercial/office/industrial areas of the Irvine Industrial Complex. The adjacent commercial/industrial/office in the City of Newport Beach have development intensity ratios as follows: Emkay-Newport Place = 0.36 FAR, Koll Center - Newport = 0.39 FAR. This is compared to the 0.5 FAR proposed for the Campus Drive area. From an overall design standpoint, the project appears compatible with the land uses and development intensities in the area. 2. Circulation. The circulation system in the vicinity of the .Campus Drive area consists of Birch Street, Bristol Street, Campus Drive, Corona del Mar Freeway, Irvine Avenue, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, and Von Karman Avenue. A preliminary analysis of traffic impacts of the proposed project was completed for the Environmental Impact Report (Pages 112-114 of the draft EIR; Appendix F of the draft EIR). The analysis indicates that under the proposed amendment, the Campus Drive area will generate approximately 16,096 vehicle trip ends at buildout. This number represents an increase of approximately 5,707 trip ends over existing development trip ends and a reduction of approximately 73,060 trip ends from the existing General Plan. Any future development proposals in the study area of 10,000 square feet or more must meet the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and necessary circulation system improvements shall be required. The proposed General Plan Amendment is unique in one respect. Both the most positive and most negative impacts of the proposal are in the area of traffic and circulation. The proposal will reduce the development potential of the area. It will significantly reduce the "worst case" traffic generation potential. It is, however, not known at this time whether the development potential permitted by the recommended floor area ratio of 0.5 can be accommodated by the circulation systema Consideration should, therefore, be given to placing office uses into a conditional use category (that is: 2-134 I I I 1 F 1d AI i TO: Planning Commission - 23 requiring a use permit) in the future zoning amendment to implement this General Plan Amendment. General Plan Amendment 81-2 Staff Recommendation ' The General Plan Amendment proposed encompasses five separate areas city-wide in Newport Beach and address changes in land use, density and intensity increases and reductions. The projects are all urban infill projects and they present opportunities to the City to achieve residential, recreational, and transportation and circulation goals. Based on the analysis of the proposed project contained in this staff report, the following recommendations are made for each of the five components of General Plan Amendment 81-2. CalTrans West Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Environmental Open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. "Multiple -Family Residential" uses not to exceed 15 dwelling units per buildable acre shall be permitted. 2. Delete designation of future neighborhood park on-site and contribute in lieu fees for improvement of neighborhood park to the west. 3. 20% of the total dwelling units shall meet the City's definition of "affordable". 4. 10% of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as set forth in Section 50093 of the Government Code. 5. A view park of ± 1 acre shall be located on-site. 6. The property required for the realignment of Superior shall be dedicated to the City upon approval of this amendment by the Planning Commission. 7. Because of difficulties in providing vehicular access to CalTrans East, and in recognition of both the State's need to dispose of this site and Hoag Hospital's need for additional land, CalTrans shall enter into negotiations with Hoag Hospital for the acquisition of CalTrans East. Future zoning of CalTrans West shall not occur until negotiations between Hoag Hospital and CalTrans on CalTrans East are completed. 8. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. 2-135 TO: Planning Commission - 24 Fifth Avenue Parcels Area A: Marguerite Avenue Parcel: Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. Medium -Density Residential use shall be permitted. 2. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 3. The Residential Growth Element shall specify a maximum density of 7.26 du's per buildable acre. (This is the maximum permitted under the current R -1-B zoning.) 4. The Jasmine Creek greenbelt system shall be continued on the site. The extent of the greenbelt shall be determined at the time of approval of the P -C development plan. 5. A public view park shall be provided (dedication + improvements) on the site in the vicinity of Marguerite Avenue and Harbor View Drive. The precise location of the view park shall be determined at the time of approval of the P -C development plan. 6. That park dedication requirements credits be given to the applicant for the land dedication and improvement costs of the view park. 7. In the event that dedication and improvement of the view park does not satisfy the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, in -lieu fees shall also be required. 8. In the event that dedication and improvement of the view park is more than is necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, the excess credit shall be used to satisfy part of the requirement for Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel. 9. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel: Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. Medium -Density Residential use shall be permitted. 2. Remove the Recreational and Environmental open Space/Flora and Fauna Reserve designation. 3. Remove the future neighborhood park designation. 4. Designate the 'OASIS Center property for Recreational and Environmental Open Space. 2-136 P t� I I I I I I I I 1 H T0: Planning Commission - 25 5. The requirement of the Park Dedication Ordinance shall be satisfied through the payment of in -lieu fees. G. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. Area C: Buck Gully Parcel: Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. Remove the alternate residential land use designation. This leaves the area designated as Recreational and Environmental Open Space/Flora and Fauna Reserve. 2. Require that a permanent open space easement be recorded for the parcel simultaneous with the recordation of final maps for acres A&B. IBig Canyon - Area 16 Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and 'Open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. Medium -Density Residential use shall be permitted. 2. Remove the Recreation and Open Space/Golf Course designation. 3. Satisfaction of the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance shall be through the payment of in -lieu fees. 4. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. Campus Drive Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan: 1. Revise the land use designation for the area bounded by Dove Street, Birch Street, Bristol Street and Campus Drive to a mixture of General Industry and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial. i2. Establish an intensity limitation for the Campus Drive area (as shown on Exhibit 7 following Page 12 of the draft EIR) of 0.5 floor area ratio, this being the ratio of building net floor area to land area. 3. Direct that the zoning in the area be amended to implement the intensity limitation. 2-137 TO: Planning Commission - 26 4. Direct that the zoning in the area also be amended to place all non -industrial uses in the conditional use category (uses which require a use permit). 'S. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future , circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. very truly yours, I PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By �"G L/ I PATRICIA L. TEMP Senior Planner PIT:nma Attachments: 1) Proposed Land Use Map for CalTrans West. 2) Proposed Land Use Map for Fifth Avenue Parcels. 3) Proposed Land Use Map for Big Canyon Area 16. 4) Proposed Land Use Map for Newport Center - Block 400. 5) Proposed Land Use Map for Campus Drive. 6) Attachment 1 to the draft Environmental Impact Report. (For Planning Commission Only) I I I I 2-138 FJ F I LJ I I a 1 I D O O• C1 C7 0 N PTUNE � cl "1^ Sad EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped Open Space EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT: Recreational and EXISTING RECREATION ANO OPEN SPACE ELEMENT: EXISTING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM: Recreational ' GPA 81.2: Indicated on exhibit above EXISTING ZONING: 0-S (Open Space) District I AF Environmental Open Space Scenic Area and view Park and Environmental Open Space Proposed Land Use Element Cdb MW �Wt ° a te CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 81.2 0 400 800 1200 AND .Or 2-139 't0 Rr"IA c SVA 1 •yoQ40,Q Y/ G ONYO �CaA�E�Ge�S �\ coo / Porn I•� �17 10 NV A A MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL �.4y �w�cOagR(' :::E:i:iiE (4.1 to 10 D.U/ 93 'ZJ Buildable Acre) ..;...: U C#E i OASIS SENIOR � SENIORj U� r "CITIZEN JLLII C�CQ v W:: \ .CENTER 17 /� n ��i�� ✓, 'll 1_ 'E%t STING LAND USE: Undeveloped open Space EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT AND RESIDENTIAL GRDMTH ELEMENT: Areas A and 3- Low -Density Residential (4 or less d,u./buildable acre); Area C - Recreational and Environmental open Space with an Alternative Use of Low -Density Residential (4 or less d.u./buildable acre) EXISTING RECREATION AND, DPEN SPACE ELEMENT: Area A - Neighborhood Park; Areas 8 and C - Flora and Fauna Reserve with Neighborhood Part on Area 8 GPA 81-2: Indicated an Exhibit above EXISTING ZONING: R-1-8 (Single -Family Combining) District 0 400 800 1200 Proposed Land UseElementRh AN �� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 81-2 PMtS] �I `J I J.._.-----------""-- ATTACHMENT N0.3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (4.1 to 10 D.UJBuDdabie Acre) sNe pp P°Rf m ABBE p0 P°a v Art a � .,.:: per• \ � �rOVy ' eevrov` -J. ,; SEA_ .., 9,p� �� `, prE• o/61 ISLAND ! i Oa `":. `tea.,.. �.��trN •, <•.,. ,-�� \.,n, r� •i \\ L Vf tet. ry 1 1 ..::G? `•.\ , / i / / /Ya1 '. \ I,A �•'` � � \ \ �p ," .:: �� \ � Sg \i '�''� ' _cop �I t� Q°v.1� v • <s.� -� PA V J< �? VA�� ati� c< rr4 I 0 LI — �l 'wd m r _ _ _ a3 I I r^ �/ �>:.\@ I I Cdr �'ir'' I _ 1 `iia x0 P�4r v r ' EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped Open Space EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT: Recreational and Envlrory nt EXISTING RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT: Golf Course ' GPA 111-2: Indicated on EXhiElt above EXISTING ZONING: P -C (Planned Community) District 0 100 2W 300 Proposed Land Use. Element0 go 1B Cq1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 81-2 1 2-141 1r d•Y4� 1 '�� k � awl,/���r•i •:a. \ � � NEWPOWT ADMINISTRATIVE, PROFESSIONAL AND FINANCIAL COMMERCIAL (Amends Land Use Element Text to allow the addition of 80,000 square feet of medical office apace) ATTACggENF�rNo. 4 I 1 / i// lrr / / =; ante;•%_ �:�-�a-"� i• �; Y C0`r/t'1r/ar,r EXISTING LAND USE: General Office and Medical Office EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT: Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial (Ho rfurther development) GPA 81-2: Indicated on Exhibit above EXISTING ZONING: C -O -H (Multiple Residential, Hotel, Motel, Professional Offices, and Retail Sales Oistrict) Proposed Land Use Element 0 o[j (A a O O a CiTY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 81-2 I w I I I 1 II I 800 12M •.E 2-142 ' I I M I I F► LEGEND ADMINISTRATIVE COMMERCIAL PROFESSIONAL MIXED USE- RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE, PROFESSIONAL AND FINANCIAL MIXED USE- ADMINISTRATIVE, PROFESSIONALCOMMERCIAL AND GENERALIAL INDUSTRY oText to imitsdeve development to 5 and Use Element ttimes the buildable area) I ,NU � � W �) No.5 �<� EXISTING LAND USE: Residential, Retail and Ser- vice Commercial, Light Industrial and x Office. EXISTING LARD USE ELEMENT: North of Dove St. e r-- South of Bristol St. Retail and Service Commercial and Financial Commercial and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial; between Dove St. and Bristol I — St. North - General Industry. / GPA 81-2: Indicated on Exhibit above EXISTING ZONING: North of Bristol St. North - m -1-A (Administrative and Professional - Light manufacturing) District; South of Bristol St. - Primarily A -P -N (Offices, Art Galleries, etc.) District; also C -I -N (Offices. Retail, etc.) District. Campus Drive Office/ Industrial Area .. ,.CN - N ' ' 2l R F.r • �.� �'� ii FEg8 1983' 5 Clly `cr ACN..6 ,a. t:cWP'CnUcw OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM CM February 7, 1983 To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: Robert H. Burnham - City Attorney , Re: Block 400/Newport Center On January 20, 1983, during the public hearing on General Plan , Amendment 81-21 Members of the Commission expressed an interest in verifying the extent and nature of the rights granted to Frank Rhodes by the Irvine Company relative to Block 400 in Newport l Center. Counsel for Mr. Rhodes (a co -lessee with Gill B. Causey) J has supplied this office with certain ground leases that proport to grant to Rhodes andlICausey certain development rights over three of the four parcdls that comprise Block 400. The two parcels which front on Avocado appear to be fully developed with the construction of the two medical office build- , ings at 1401 and -1441 Avocado. The lease covering the third parcel grants to the lessee the ' right to construct, within two years from the commencement of the term of the lease, a building of not less than 60,000, nor more than 160,000, square feet of gross floor area. Pursuant to this ' lease the lessee is also entitled to construct a second building if the first structure contains less than 120,000 square feet. As you are aware this parcel is presently improved with a medical office building and we have been advised that this structure contains less then 120,000 square feet of gross floor area: While it could be argued that construction of the second building should have also been commenced within the two year period speci- fied in the lease it is our opinion that the lessee has the right, under the lease, to construct a second building of a size equal to the difference between the floor area of the existing structure and the 160,000 square foot limit. i 2-144 ' Planning Commission 1 Block 400/Newport Center Page 2 There is a certain amount of confusion with respect to the lease document, and exhibits thereto, and should we learn of additional ' information with regard to development rights in Block 400 we will provide that information at the public hearing on this matter. ' We wish to emphasize that the extent of property rights obtained as a result of a private agreement is generally not a factor to be considered by an advisory or legislative body in making a land ' use decision. While such rights can be considered, primary emphasis should be upon those factors which impact upon the public, health, safety and welfare. f bert H. Bu am lil I I I I I IMEB-NPCenter 1 2-145 Planning Commission Agenda February 10, 1983 Agenda Item Nos. 1 & 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECTS: 1. General Plan Amendment 81-2 (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and ' Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan and the acceptance of an environmental document. COMPONENTS: CalTrans West LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned). GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. ' ZONE: O -S (Open Space) District PROPONENT: State of California, Department of Transportation Fifth Avenue Parcels LOCATION: A: Westerly of Marguerite Avenue between Fifth ' Avenue and Harbor View Drive. B: Northerly of Fifth Avenue between Marguerite Avenue and Buck Gully. C: Along the eastern City boundary between Fifth Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road. GENERAL PLAN: Low Density Residential and Recreational and Environmental Open Space. ' ZONE: R -1-B (Single Family with B combining) District PROPONENT: The Irvine Company Big Canyon Area 16 LOCATION: Southwesterly of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. ZONE.• P -C (Planned Community) District PROPONENT: The Irvine Company 2-146 T0: Planning Commission - 2 Newport Center - Block 400 LOCATION: Northeasterly of Newport Center Drive East and San Miguel Drive. GENERAL PLAN: Administrative Professional, and Financial ' Commercial. ZONE: C -O -H (Commercial) District PROPONENT: Newport Center Medical Buildings, Inc. ' Campus Drive LOCATION: Area bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street, Orchard Avenue, and Campus Drive/Irvine ' Avenue. GENERAL PLAN: General Industry, Administrative Professional and Financial Commercial, and Retail and service Commercial. ZONE: M -1-A (Industrial) District, A -P (Administrative, , Professional) District, and C-1 (Commercial) District. PROPONENT: The City of Newport Beach INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach 2. Amendment No. 2 to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program ' Request to amend the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local ' Coastal Program for the Caltrans West site. LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned). 2-147 LCP: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. ZONE: 0-S PROPONENT: State of California, Department of Transportation INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Suggested Action Continue public hearing. If desired, take public testimony, discuss the proposed project and possible revisions, and take straw votes on each component of the General Plan Amendment; direct staff to prepare the necessary resolutions, findings and conditions incorporating, the results of the straw votes; and continue public hearing to the meeting of March 10, 1983. 2-147 IT0: Planning Commission - 3 Background On June 4, 1981, the Planning Commission initiated General Plan Amendment 81-2 consistent with City Council Policy Q-1 in effect at that time. Eight areas were originally set for possible amendment, but three dropped out prior to ' preparation of the environmental document. In addition to the General Plan Amendments initiated, Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan amendments were set for those proposals in the coastal zone. On January 20, 1983, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing on the General Plan Amendment. Public ' testimony was taken and staff was directed to respond to various questions posed by the Commission and the public. These responses are contained in this report. It is requested that the Planning Commission bring the January 20, 1983 staff report to the public hearing. A draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the City by ' Phillips Brandt Reddick, Inc. The report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A) and City Council Policy K-3. The draft EIR has been submitted to state, local, and regional jurisdictions and agencies, and interested parties. Copies of the draft EIR were previously distributed to the Planning Commission and it is requested that they bring them to the public hearing. Attachment No. 1 to the draft EIR (Attachment No. 5) has been prepared containing all comments, responses, and additional ' information generated by staff and our consultants as of this writing. Discussion CalTrans West Additional information has been requested for the CalTrans West site in the following areas: ' Versailles/Villa Balboa View Park and/or Bicycle Trails. A pedestrian easement has been recorded along the southerly edge of the Villa Balboa/Versailles development. No view park is designated or has been designated on the site. ' CalTrans West Appraisal. The City of Newport Beach had the CalTrans West site appraised on May 28, 1982. This appraisal indicated a range of value from a low of $1,350,000 to a high of $1,650,000 for the CalTrans West site. Public Safety Element. The Public Safety Element does not indicate the propriety of land uses for any area of the City. The element does indicate the various geologic and seismic hazards for the areas within the City. As indicated in the EIR (Exhibit 12, following page 27), the property is crossed by earthquake faults. This does not preclude residential development but a detailed geotechnical analysis will be required prior to approval of tentative tract maps. The ultimate site design of any development on the site must locate the structures to mitigate the potential hazards. Coastal Bluffs. As described on Page 26 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the southerly boundary of the CalTrans West site consists of out slopes which drop sharply to Superior Avenue and Coast Highway. These slopes were probably cut at the time of development of these two roadways. There are no natural coastal bluffs on the CalTrans West site. t-148 TO: Planning Commission - 4 11 Relationship to CalTrans East. The CalTrans East site currently consists o t22 acres of land northerly of Coast Highway between Superior Avenue and the Arches Bridge at Newport Boulevard. Subsequent to the realignment of Superior Avenue, the parcel will be augmented by the former right-of-way and a residual portion of the CalTrans West parcel. A portion of the site is developed as a parking lot. The Land Use Element designates this site for Recreational and ' Environmental Open Space with parking as a permitted use. The Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program also designates the site for Recreational and Environmental Open Space with, parking and expansion of Hoag Hospital ' facilities permitted. Expansion of Hospital facilities is expected to require little or no access to or from Coast Highway and could, therefore, be accommodated on the site. The Department of Transportation, the City of Newport Beach and Hoag Hospital are currently discussing the ultimate ' disposition of the CalTrans East site. It is desirable to require the transfer of CalTrans East to Hoag Hospital as a , condition of the proposed changes in the land use designation for CalTrans West for the following reasons: 1. Inasmuch as CalTrans East is State property, the City of Newport Beach has limited land use control over this site. Transfer to private ownership will allow the City to more fully monitor .and control development of CalTrans East and ensure that the future ' use is, compatible with CalTrans West and the surrounding residential uses. In the absence of the transfer, the property could be developed by the State of *California for government office buildings, etc., without regard to City zoning, requirements. 2. The additional control over CalTrans East, should the property be sold, will allow the City of Newport Beach to regulate access to the site such that there will be no conflict with traffic generated by development of CalTrans West and no access from or on , Coast Highway. Access control will also facilitate the ultimate widening of Coast Highway. 3. From a planning standpoint, ultimate development of the CalTrans , East Parcel by Hoag Hospital, the largest adjoining landowner and the only owner in need of property for expansion, is the most logical scenario. ' Fifth Avenue Parcels A number of questions were raised regarding the Fifth Avenue Parcels, and are responded to by topic below: OASIS Center. At the time General Plan Amendment 81-2 was initiated, The , Irvine Company, the Park, Beaches and Recreation Department, and representatives of the OASIS Center were negotiating, a land trade to facilitate expansion of the OASIS Center. The proposed exchange would have traded the t2 acre parcel on the northwest corner of Marguerite and Fifth Avenues (now partially developed with an overflow parking lot for the OASIS Center) for land adjacent to the existing facility. No agreement could be reached, however, and the trade never took place. 2-149 ITO: Planning Commission - 5 The OASIS Long Range Planning Committee is still studying future expansion of OASIS Center facilities and programs. While no firm plan has yet been developed, representatives of the committee have testified before both the Planning Commission and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission indicating the potential for future facility expansion, preferably adjacent to the ' existing site. Fill in Jasmine Creek. Mr. Ron Kennedy made a number of comments regarding artificial fill and illegal placement of fill in the Jasmine Creek area. ' These comments were previously responded to in the Responses to Comments section of Attachment No. 1 to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Page 1-75, Attachment No. 5) as follows: '1127. Comment: Exhibit 4 following Page 30 of the Draft EIR is not correct. The artificial fill is closer to Fifth Avenue and is deeper than indicated by the contour line. Additionally, marine terrace deposits to the north show scattered artificial fill, both covered and exposed. 27. Response: The comment is noted. The corrections provided by the commentor are hereby incorporated. Nevertheless, ' the surficial geology map is generalized version of the full technical report which should be consulted for additional detail. ' Park Designations. Clarification has been requested regarding the park and open space designations on the various elements and maps of the Newport Beach General Plan for the Fifth Avenue Parcels. Staff has prepared enlargements of A the 1973 Land Use Plan, Residential Growth Plan, and Open Space Plan (Maps) (Attachments 1, 2 & 3). The history of the General Plan designations for each site is as follows: Area A: Marguerite Parcel: Land Use Plan: The Land Use Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 designated the Marguerite Parcel for Low -Density Residential uses along Marguerite Avenue and Recreational and Environmental Open Space uses along Jasmine Creek. General Plan Amendment No. 26 redefined the 1 2-150 28. Comment: Has any filling on the site been done since 1973? If so, have permits been issued for the work? Has the work been done with adequate geotechnical - supervision? 28. Response: According to the property owner, no filling has been conducted on the site since 1973." ' At the time of approval of tentative tract maps for any site, a detail soils study is required. If filling has occurred on a site, the original grade would be established in order to calculate buildable acreage. The tentative ' tract map approval will also establish the building pad elevations in consideration of environmental and view preservation concerns. ' Park Designations. Clarification has been requested regarding the park and open space designations on the various elements and maps of the Newport Beach General Plan for the Fifth Avenue Parcels. Staff has prepared enlargements of A the 1973 Land Use Plan, Residential Growth Plan, and Open Space Plan (Maps) (Attachments 1, 2 & 3). The history of the General Plan designations for each site is as follows: Area A: Marguerite Parcel: Land Use Plan: The Land Use Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 designated the Marguerite Parcel for Low -Density Residential uses along Marguerite Avenue and Recreational and Environmental Open Space uses along Jasmine Creek. General Plan Amendment No. 26 redefined the 1 2-150 VIILDp Planning Commission- 6 various residential land use designations, added a medium density residential category, and added the definition of buildable acreage. This amendment did not change prior permitted densities, so this parcel was changed to Medium -Density Residential for the residentially designated portion of the site. The parcel was again addressed in General Plan Amendment 79-1, and redesignated to the Low -Density , Residential category. Residential Growth Plan: The Residential Growth Element and Plan (Map) was adopted in 1973 and designated a portion of the parcel for ' residential uses. The parcel was specifically addressed as follows: "The vacant R -3-B site east of Harbor View Elementary School shall be rezoned to R -1-B." On December 17, 1973 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1535, to conform zoning to General Plan by rezoning the property from R -3-B to R -1-B. Open Space Plan: The Recreation and Open Space Element and Plan (Map) , was adopted in 1973 and designated the site for Recreational and Environmental Open Space uses for an extension of the Jasmine Creek greenbelt system. The Open Space Plan (Map) does show the entire site colored green, for open space uses. It is the opinion of staff that the designation of the entire site for open space is a graphics error, since the other two General Plan Maps show residential uses on a , portion of the site. Additionally, the City has rezoned,the property for the expressed purpose of Zoning/General Plan• consistency and has also changed the land use designation subsequent to the adoption of -� the Recreation and Open Space Element (GPA 79-1), which further indicates the City's committment to allow residential development on the site. Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel: Land Use Plan: The Land Use Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 designated the Fifth Avenue Parcel for Recreational and Environmental ' Open Space with an alternate use of Low -Density Residential. The history of the residential portion of the land use designation is the same as for Area A, except that General Plan Amendment 79-1 established the Low -Density Residential designation as the sole and primary use on the Land Use Plan. Residential Growth Plan: The Residential Growth Element and Plan (Map) was adopted in 1973 and designated the Fifth Avenue Parcel as an area with an alternate land use as discussed in the Land Use Element. The Residential Growth Element "specifically discussed this site as follows: "The land between Fifth Street and Sand Castle Drive shall be rezoned from R -2-B to R -1-B, although it is anticipated that this land will be acquired for park and/or highway, purposes." On December 17, 1973, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1535, to conform zoning to the General Plan by rezoning the Fifth Avenue Parcel from R -2-B to R -1-B. Open Space Plan: The Recreation and Open Space Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 designated the Fifth Avenue Parcel as an area with an alternate land use/primary designation as Recreational and 2-151 ITO: Planning Commission - 7 Environmental Open Space - Flora and Fauna Reserve. A proposed neighborhood park is also shown on the site. The element states that "Proposed parks are indicated on the Open Space Plan as green circles; in the undeveloped areas, the locations shown are meant to be general and the parks need not be developed in the exact location shown." The ' Element addresses the proposed park on this site as follows: "A neighborhood park is proposed on the property north of Fifth Avenue and east of Marguerite Avenue." ' Area C: Buck Gully: Land Use Plan: The Land Use Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 shows this site for Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an alternate use of Low -Density Residential. No changes to this designation have been made since 1973. Residential Growth Plan: The Residential Growth Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 showed this area with an alternate residential land use as discussed in the Land Use Element. Open Space Plan: The Recreation and Open Space Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 designated the Buck Gully site -as an area with an ' alternate land use/primary designation as Recreational and Environmental Open Space - Flora and Fauna Reserve. The Planning Commission also requested a recommendation from the Parks, Beaches and, Recreation Commission on the park designation proposals for the Fifth Avenue Parcels. The item was discussed by the PB&R Commission at their February 1, 1983 meeting and determined that the matter be continued to their ' meeting of March 1, 1983, to enable staff to provide answers to questions that resulted from Commission and public discussion on the issue (Attachment 4). ' Views from Harbor View Hills. A significant amount of testimony was received at the January 20, 1983 meeting regarding the impact of the proposed General Plan Amendment on views from Harbor View Hills. These concerns were expressed in relation to both the Marguerite Parcel and the Fifth Avenue Parcel. Without specific site plans, building elevations and grading plans, it is impossible to predict the precise impact of the development which may occur on views from existing residences. Staff can make the following observations: ' 1. The existing General Plan permits Low -Density Residential uses of both of the sites. Development under this designation may result in impacts on views from existing residences. The EIR states "Line -of -sight view impacts may increase as a result of the GPA; however, in the absence of detailed planning information (i.e., building heights and grading plans) the difference cannot be determined at this time." 2. The City has, in the past, endeavored to preserve views from existing residences in the approval of new development. This is usually achieved at the time of approval of zoning and tentative tract maps, by establishing building pad elevations and building heights. 2-152 TO: Planning Commission - 8 3. Given the elevation of the existing residences and the sites proposed for General Plan Amendment, it appears that development can be accommodated on these sites without eliminating the views from existing residences. Ownership of the Marguerite Parcel. Questions have been raised regarding the Bonds. Two ownership of the Marguerite Avenue Parcel and whether it was not committed'to , an open space use by prior City action. Designation of an area as open space on the General Plan, or any element ' thereof, does not, by itself, constitute commitment of an area as open space. proposal in 1971 was a The General Plan is a policy document indicating a City's intentions in terms of permitted land use. In the case of the Marguerite Parcel, the designation and did not as,a greenbelt does indicate the intention of the City to require an extension sites for acquisition. of the Jasmine Crek greenbelt system on the site. "Commitment" of an area as open space is ultimately achieved by acquisition by the City through either bond issue fee or dedication, recordation of a permanent open space easement, or specific sites for acquisition, including subdivision as a "lettered" lot with specified passive or active open space uses in connection with Tentative and Final Parcel or Tract Maps. Staff has researched the Tentative and Final Tract Map files for the surrounding developments and has found no conditions of approval requiring dedication of this site as open space, or establishing any open space easements on the site. In fact, the only City actions taken in regards to this site substantiate the designation for future residential development: Ordinance 1535 changing the , zoning from R -3-B to R -1-B, and General Plan Amendment 79-1 redesignating the site to the Low -Density Residential category. Additionally, the assessor's parcel rolls clearly list The Irvine Company as the property owner of the Marguerite Parcel. Park Bonds. Two park bonds issues have been proposed to the voters of the City of Newport Beach. The first proposal in 1971 was a general park bond issue and did not mention specific sites for acquisition. In 1976, a second park bond issue was proposed with specific sites for acquisition, including , the Fifth Avenue parcels and Buck Gully '(Areas A, B & C). Both of these park bond issues were defeated by the voters. Canyon Crest Drive. A primary road (four lane divided) was designated on the Ne'woort Beach Master Plan of Streets and Highways adopted in 1974 between Spyglass Hill Road and Coast Highway. Only the northerly 950 feet of this roadway link (known as Canyon Crest Drive) was in the City of Newport Beach, but the road was included on the City's Master Plan for consistency with the ,Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. In 1976, the County plan amended the proposed roadway alignment; eliminating the link to Spyglass Hill Road. In 1977, the County plan was amended eliminating the roadway altogether. Public Works Department staff has indicated that Canyon Crest Drive was eliminated from the Master Plan of Arterial Highways because Pelican Hill Road was a more efficient alternative to serve the traffic which would ' utilize Canyon Crest Drive. The City of Newport Beach eliminated this proposed roadway from the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways by General Plan Amendment 79-2, adopted in December, 1980. Recreation and Open Space Element Review. The comprehensive review of the Recreation and Open Space Element has been funded for the 1982-83 fiscal year. Planning Department and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department staff are 2-153 I T0: Planning Commission - 9 currently reviewing a draft request for proposal (REP). It is expected that this request for proposal will be circulated to prospective. consultant firms by February 18, 1983. Big Canyon - Area 16 No additional information was requested on this component. ' Newport Center - Block 400 ' General Plan and Zoning History. Block 400 in Newport Center consists of ±16 acres bounded by Newport Center Drive East, San Miguel Drive, Avocado Avenue and San Nicholas Drive. The property is zoned C -0-H, which it has carried since the property was subdivided for development. Under this zoning designation approximately 1.8 million square feet of development could be permitted on the site. The Newport Beach General Plan designates the site for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial uses. The zoning and land use designations are consistent. The General Plan adopted in 1973 did not specify any development limits in Newport Center. The only structural area limits were those specified by the zoning district. The first development limits beyond the zoning limitations placed on Newport Center were established by the City Council on February 28, 1977 with the adoption of City Council Resolution 9009. The four buildings currently within Block 400 were either built or under construction as of that date. Resolution 9009 was adopted by the City Council after recommendation by the Planning Commission. Staff's research into the files indicate that this resolution was adopted by the City Council as a "Current Business" item at a regular City Council meeting. The item was not a public hearing item, was not advertised, and no property or building owners in ' Newport Center were notified. The resolution was not adopted in connection with any zoning or development applications. It is evident, however, that The Irvine Company was aware of the resolution and the development limitations it imposed. The limitations enacted by the resolution were, in fact, ultimate ' development projections provided to the City by The Irvine Company during the development of the City's computerized traffic model. It is not known whether these development projections for Newport Center included any additional development in Block 400. It is, however, the opinion of staff that the development projections provided by The Irvine Company were for developments which were to be developed either by The Irvine Company itself or for areas which were subject to future leases and did not include any future development in Block 400. Subsequent to the adoption of Resolution 9009 in 1978, the City Council adopted General Plan Amendment 78-1, which reduced allowed development on many commercial and residential developments City-wide, including Newport Center. It is within the staff reports prepared for GPA 78-2 that projected future development in Newport Center is delineated on a block basis, and these clearly show no future allowable development in Block 400. The records for GPA 78-2 also indicate that a standard legal notice advertisement was placed - in the newspaper for the public hearing and property owners, homeowners associations and other interested parties were notified of the pending.General 2-154 T0; 'Planning Commission - 10 Plan Amendment hearing. The major leasehold interests in Newport Center were not directly notified. The City again addressed permitted development in Newport Center in General Plan Amendment 79-1. Again a legal notice of public hearing was printed in the newspaper and property owners, homeowners associations and interested parties were notified of the public hearings, but the leasehold interests in Newport Center were not notified directly. During the preparation of environmental documentation for General Plan , Amendment 80-3, staff was approached by Mr. Frank Rhodes regarding additional development he had planned for the .Block 400 area of Newport Center. After being informed of the lack of future allowable development in Block 400, Mr. Rhodes requested to be included in the General Plan Amendment 80-3. Staff informed him that this would not be possible, since preparation of the environmental document was nearly completed. He was advised to request a general plan amendment for the following amendment session. The request was , made and an amendment to permit an additional 80,000 square feet of development in Newport Center was initiated by the Planning Commission as part of General Plan Amendment 81-2. A question has also been raised regarding the leases for the Block 400 area. Mr. Rhodes has provided staff with a copy of the lease for the 3.971 acre parcel currently occupied by a seven story medical office at 400 Newport Center Drive East. The lease indicates allowed development of 160,000 square feet of office uses. The existing building on the site is approximately 80,000 square feet, leaving an additional 80,000 square of development permitted under the terms of the lease. In reviewing the entire record in regards to the development intensity reductions which have occurred over the years in Newport Center, it is apparent that the City dealt with The Irvine Company alone as the sole property owner. In doing so, the City assumed that The Irvine Company was , representing and protecting all future planned development in the Center. It now appears that The Irvine Company was representing only their own future planned development and, whether intentional or not, did not protect additional development granted in the terms of prior leases. The situation is , one in which the lessee, who by the tenure of the lease is considered the controlling interest, was not notified by mail of any action of the City to reduce development rights and of the property owner not informing the City of, or otherwise protecting, development rights granted to a lessee. When this situation was first discovered during the deliberations on GPA 80-3, staff contacted all long-term leaseholders in Newport Center to determine if any other "planned" development was being overlooked, and none were discovered. In recognition of the requested general plan amendment for Block 400 in Newport Center the City Council included the following statement 'n the action on GPA 80-3: "The adoption of General Plan Amendment 80-3 is without prejudice to the approval or disapproval of an 80,000 sq.ft. medical office building in Block 400, which is under process in General Plan Amendment 81-2." 2-155 ' TO: Planning Commission - 11 Campus Drive Traffic Phasing Ordinance Approvals. The Planning Commission requested information on recent development approvals in the Campus Drive Study area. There have been four TPO approvals in the study area with development, ' approved as follows: Pacesetter Homes - office 50,000 sq.ft. approved on 116,000 sq.ft. of land Development intensity ratio = .43 FAR National Education - office ' 72,000 sq.ft. approved on 87,000 sq.ft. of land Development intensity ratio = .83 FAR Orchard Office - office ' 70,000 sq.ft. approved on 129,703.22 sq.ft. of land Development intensity ratio = .54 FAR ' 3701 Birch Street - office 19,264 sq.ft. approved on 62,640 sq.ft. of land Development intensity ratio = .31 FAR 1. These development intensity ratios are based on total lot size. Staff Recommendations ' The staff recommendations below are a complete list for each site as revised since the January 20, 1983 report. ' CalTrans West Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Environmental Open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. "Multiple -Family Residential" uses not to exceed 15 dwelling units ' per buildable acre shall be permitted. 2. Delete designation of future neighborhood park on-site and contribute in -lieu fees for improvement of neighborhood park to the west. 3. 20% of the total dwelling units shall meet the City's definition of "affordable". 4. 10% of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as set forth in Section 50093 of the Government Code. 5. A view park of i 1 acre shall be located on-site. ' 2-156 TO: Planning Commission - 12 6. The property required for the realignment of Superior shall be dedicated to the City upon approval of this amendment by the Planning Commission. 7. Because of difficulties in providing vehicular access to•CalTrans East, and in recognition of both the State's need to dispose of this site and Hoag Hospital's need for additional land, CalTrans shall enter into negotiations with Hoag Hospital for the acquisition of CalTrans, East. Future zoning of CalTrans West shall not occur until successful negotiations between Hoag Hospital and CalTrans on CalTrans East are completed. 8. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be ; required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as , required. Fifth Avenue Parcels , Area A: Marguerite Avenue Parcel: Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan: ' 1. Medium -Density Residential use shall be permitted. 2. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 3. The Jasmine Creek greenbelt system shall be continued on the site. The extent of the greenbelt shall be determined at the time of , approval of the P -C development plan. 4. A public view park shall be provided (dedication + improvements) ' on the site in the vicinity of Marguerite Avenue and Harbor View Drive. The precise location of the view park shall be determined at the time of approval of the P -C development plan. ' 5. That the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance shall be satisfied through on-site or off-site land dedication, the , assessment of in -lieu fees or a combination of the above as determined by the Planning Commission and City Council, after recommendation by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 6. That views from existing residences shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. At the time of approval of the tentative map and grading plans, the applicant shall demonstrate that the ' density approved within the Medium -Density range will have no greater impact on views than that which would have resulted from development under the Low -Density. Residential designation. 7. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future 2-157 ' TO: Planning Commission - 13 circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel: Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. Medium -Density Residential use shall be permitted. ' 2. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. ' 3. Remove the Recreational and Environmental Open Space/Flora and Fauna Reserve designation. ' 4. That the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance shall be satisfied through on-site or off-site land dedication, the assessment of in -lieu fees or a combination of the above as determined by the Planning Commission and City Council, after ' recommendation by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. ' 5. That views from existing residences shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. At the time of approval of the tentative map and grading plans, the applicant shall demonstrate that the density approved within the Medium -Density range will have no . greater impact on views than that which would have resulted from development under the Low -Density Residential designation. ' 6. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan ' of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. Area C: Buck Gully Parcel: Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and ' Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. Remove the alternate residential land use designation. This ' leaves the area designated as Recreational and Environmental Open Space/Flora and Fauna Reserve. 2. Require that a permanent open space easement be recorded for the ' parcel simultaneous with the recordation of final maps for acres A&B. Big Canyon - Area 16 Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. Medium -Density Residential use shall be permitted. ' 2-158 TO: Planning Commission - 14 ' 2. Remove the Recreation and Open Space/Golf Course designation. 3. That the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance shall be satisfied through on-site or off-site land dedication, the assessment of in -lieu fees or a combination of the above as ' determined by the Planning Commission and City Council, after recommendation by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 4. At the time ,of future discretionary actions the project shall be ' required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan , of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. Newport Center - Block 400 ' Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan: ' 1. Allow the addition of 80,000 square feet of medical office development in Newport Center, along with related parking facilities. , 2. Specify this additional allowable development to Block 400. 3. Specify the development be subject to further review and approval of a -use permit. 4. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be , required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as ' required. Campus Drive ' Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan: 1. Revise the land use designation for the area bounded by Dove , street, Birch Street, Bristol Street and Campus Drive to a mixture of General Industry and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial. 2,. Establish an intensity limitation for the Campus Drive area (as shown on Exhibit 7 following Page 12 of the draft BIR) of 0.5 floor area ratio, this being the ratio of building net floor area to land area. 3. Direct that the zoning in the area be amended to implement the intensity limitation. 2-159 . ' ITO: Planning Commission - 15 1 Bye" ' PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Senior Planner ' PLT:nma Attachments: 1. Land Use Plan 2. Residential Growth Plan 3. Open Space Plan 4. Memo from Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director 5. Attachment No. 1 to the Draft Environmental Impact Report ' (for Planning Commission only) 1 1 1 u LJ 1 2-160 4. Direct that the zoning in the area also be amended to place all non -industrial uses in the conditional use category (uses which require a use permit). 5. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future ' circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. Very truly yours, 1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director 1 Bye" ' PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Senior Planner ' PLT:nma Attachments: 1. Land Use Plan 2. Residential Growth Plan 3. Open Space Plan 4. Memo from Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director 5. Attachment No. 1 to the Draft Environmental Impact Report ' (for Planning Commission only) 1 1 1 u LJ 1 2-160 NEWPORT BEACH LAND USE PLA -N n rr rtrt z 0 LEGEND LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL o-000 000 14-LTIPLE-FAMILY o °O°° RESIDENTIAL 0000 RETAIL & SERVICE OOMIERCIAL GOVERN„ EDUCATIONAL & INSTIMIONAL. RECREATION & ENVIRONMENTAL. OPEN SPACE WATER AREAS WITH ALTERNATE USES PER LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT M -11111w LEGEND M LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREAS WITH ALTERNATE USES PER LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT rt rt m fD n f 0 n rt z 0 L NEWPORT REACH RESIDENTIAL GROWTH PLAN M -11111w LEGEND M LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREAS WITH ALTERNATE USES PER LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT rt rt m fD n f 0 n rt z 0 L w no a�.NEWPORT BEACH OPEN SPACE :PLAN= . rn� PT I N, rrr rrr.r ' ���r � �.�� . rrr rrr r r r ..• •: ;l: .+pt r' • ��IIi�1�1��I1�1�1�1�IJJ�1�1 �1 �I�I�LL :•�L: F.H� _J � F rt rt n rt O w LEGEND. EXISTING SCHOOLS FLORA & FAUNA RESERVES GREENBELT AREAS WITH ALTERNATE USES oQrr.o HIKING TRAIL �p PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD PARI 17 I Attachment No. 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Parks, Beaches & Recreation Department F I I I I I Iq M,..yimrr,t FEgL�'.g�y X63► 1 2-164 DATE: February 3, 1983 TO: Planning Commission ' FROM: Parks, Beaches & Recreation Director SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81-2 FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS (Areas A, B, and C) ' The Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, at their meeting of February 1, 1983, initiated your request to provide a recommendation on neighborhood and view park designations on the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan as ` applied to the subject parcels. By a 5-0 vote, with one absence and one abstension, the Commission determined that the matter should be continued to their meeting of March 1, 1983 to enable staff to provide answers to questions that resulted from Commission and public discussion on the issue. wThe Commission looks forward to providing the requested informa- tion on this important planning matter. F I I I I I Iq M,..yimrr,t FEgL�'.g�y X63► 1 2-164 Planning Commission Meeting February 24, 1983 Agenda Items No. , 1 &.2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECTS: 1. General Plan Amendment 81-2 (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan and the acceptance of an environmental document. COMPONENTS: (a) CalTrans West LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned). GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. ZONE: 0-S (Open Space) District PROPONENT: State of California, Department of Transportation (b) Fifth Avenue Parcels LOCATION: A: Westerly of Marguerite Avenue between Fifth Avenue and Harbor View Drive. B: Northerly of Fifth Avenue between Marguerite Avenue and Buck Gully. C: Along the eastern City boundary between Fifth Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road. GENERAL PLAN: Low Density Residential and Recreational and Environmental Open Space. ZONE: R -1-B (Single Family with B combining) District PROPONENT: The Irvine Company (c) Big Canyon Area 16 LOCATION: Southwesterly of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. ZONE: P -C (Planned Community) District PROPONENT: The Irvine Company 2-165 TO: Planning Commission - 2 1 (d) Newport Center - Block 400 LOCATION: Northeasterly of Newport Center Drive East and San Miguel Drive. GENERAL PLAN: Administrative Professional, and Financial ' Commercial. ZONE: C -0-H (Commercial) District PROPONENT: Newport Center Medical Buildings, Inc. (e) Campus Drive LOCATION: Area bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street, Orchard Avenue, and Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue. GENERAL PLAN: General Industry, Administrative Professional and' Financial Commercial, and Retail and Service Commercial. ZONE: M -1-A (Industrial) District, A -P (Administrative, Professional) District, and C-1 (Commercial) District. PROPONENT: The City of Newport Beach INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach 2 Amendment No. 2 to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program i Request to amend the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program for the Caltrans West site. LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned). LCP: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. ZONE: O -S PROPONENT: State of California, Department of Transportation INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Suggested Action Continue public hearing. If desired, take public testimony, discuss the proposed project and possible revisions, and take straw votes on each component of the General Plan Amendment; direct staff to prepare the necessary resolutions, finding's and conditions incorporating the results of the straw votes; and continue public hearing to the meeting of March 10, 1983. 2-166 , IT0: Planning Commission - 3 Background On June 4, 1981, the Planning Commission initiated General Plan Amendment 81-2 consistent with City Council Policy Q-1 in effect at that time. Eight areas were originally set for possible amendment, but three dropped out prior to preparation of the environmental document. In addition to the General Plan Amendments initiated, Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan amendments were set for those proposals in the coastal zone. The Planning Commission has held a public hearing and taken public testimony regarding the General Plan Amendment r on January 20 and February 10, 1983. Questions raised at the February 10 meeting are responded to in this report. It is requested that the Planning Commission bring the January 20 and February 10 staff reports to the public hearing. Discussion (a) CalTrans West Letter from Ne ort Crest Homeowners Association. The Newport Crest Homeowners' Association distributed a letter to the Planning Commission listing the questions responded to below. Question 1: Why would the City be considering a change of land use now since the Parks, Beaches and Recreation and the City Council indicated an interest in maintaining CalTrans West as Recreation/Open Space and eventual acquisition as evidenced by ... the listed correspondence? (The correspondence indicated are various staff reports and memos from the City Manager, City Attorney, Mayor, and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department dated from January 25, 1982 to June 28, 1982.) Response 1: The correspondence referenced (see attached letter for complete list) generally addresses the City's study of the appropriateness, ways and means of acquisition of the CalTrans West site. The issue of recreation and open space ,use of the CalTrans West site was brought before the City Council and the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission during deliberations on the Banning -Newport Ranch General Plan Amendment (81-1). At that time, the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission recommended, and the City Council required that a minimum 5 acre park be required to be dedicated and developed in conjunction with the residential development in the Banning -Newport Ranch. This park is to be located within the area bounded by Coast Highway, superior Avenue, 15th Street (extended) and Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extended), and is to be accomplished via land dedication, in -lieu fees, or a combination of the two, and may be combined with any park dedication requirements for the CalTrans West site if development is approved there. The precise location of the park, and the means to acquire and develop it, will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract maps for the Banning -Newport Ranch and/or CalTrans West residential developments. Subsequent to the discussion of this issue by the City Council and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission and concurrent with the City Council discussions on GPA 81-1, the Newport Crest Homeowners Association requested the City to explore the possible ways and means of acquiring the CalTrans West site. The various memos and staff reports listed in the letter from Newport Crest document this study. 1 2-167 The approval for Hughes Aircraft included a requirement that a proportional TO: Planning Commission - 4 Highway at Orange and Prospect be contributed by Hughes Aircraft. These costs After the June 28, 1982 report from the City Manager to the City 'Council on �• the results of the CalTrans West appraisal, no direction was given by the City Council to staff to pursue acquisition of this site. The General Plan Amendment currently being discussed was initiated prior to the acquisition and appraisal studies. The purpose of the GPA is to determine the appropriate use or uses for the CalTrans West site and the environmental document investigated a full range of alternative land uses ranging from no development to retail/office development. If -the City Council decides to pursue acquisition of the entire site, the action on the general plan amendment should reflect that decision. If the City determines not to acquire the entire site,, it is the opinion of staff that an economic land use should be assigned to the site in the action on this General Plan Amendment. Question 2: Would not funding be available for acquisition using Banning -Newport Ranch "in -lieu" fees when they are generated. The $500,000 from Hughes could purchase the portion needed for the right-of-way for the Superior Avenue realignment. The City received an appraisal on the land for from $1,350,000 to $1,650.000. Total "in -lieu" fees from the 6.5 acres required of Banning comes to $1,940,159. for the Response 2: As expressed by the conditions of approval Banning -Newport Ranch General Plan Amendment (81-1), the City could use the in -lieu park fees generated by the residential portion of the project to acquire all or a portion of the, CalTrans West site. The determination of , location for park dedication purposes is usually done at the time of approval of the tentative tract maps. The condition on park dedication requirements for the Banning -Newport Ranch approval did not specify location of a park other than place it within the area bounded by Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, 15th Street (extended), and Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extended),. This action was taken to allow flexibility in locating the park, and allow for coordination with any development which may be permitted on the CalTrans West site. The approval for Hughes Aircraft included a requirement that a proportional share of improvement costs for the Superior Avenue realignment and for Coast Highway at Orange and Prospect be contributed by Hughes Aircraft. These costs have been estimated by Public Works Department at ± $650,000. Approximately �• $500,000 of this is to be used for the improvements for Superior Avenue. It is important to note that these funds are .for roadway improvements, and include no expenditures for right-of-way acquisition. Currently, the cost estimates for the Superior Avenue realignment do not include right-of-way acquisition costs, and the City has no other source of funds to acquire this right-of-way. West are The figures given for the result of the City appraisal of CalTrans correct. The State Department of Transportation acquired the property in 1965 and 1966 at a cost of $2,036,416. The in -lieu park fee indicated for the Banning -Newport Ranch is correct assuming 406 residential dwelling, units are developed. The 406 du's is a projected maximum based on estimates of buildable acreage; the developer may choose to construct fewer units. Park dedication requirements are calculated on the actual number of units 2-168 1 ITO: Planning Commission - 5 constructed, not on the maximum allowed. Additionally, the per acre in -lieu park fee is periodically reappraised and could increase before the tract maps for Banning -Newport Ranch are approved. Question 3: As less and less open land remains, should there be an immediate updated review of the Recreation/Open Space element of the General Plan and careful protection of those areas designated for Parks, Recreation and open Space? Response 3: A comprehensive review of the Recreation and Open Space Element was proposed by staff and initiated by the Planning Commission as part of GPA 81-2 in June of 1981. The City Council, however, did not authorize funds to complete the necessary studies and environmental documentation. This review of the Recreation and Open Space Element has been funded for the 1982-83 fiscal year. Planning Department and Parks, 'Beaches and Recreation Department staff are currently reviewing a draft request for proposal (RFP). It is expected that this request for proposal will be circulated to prospective consultant firms by February 18, 1983. Question 4: Why consider changing land use on CalTrans West until the West Newport Study Area under consideration is completed. Perhaps changes are being made in density and buildable allowed on both vacant and possible tear -downs that would have a very direct relationship on what could be properly built on CalTrans West and over-all traffic circulation. Response 4: As part of the discussions regarding prioritization of the Specific Area Plan studies, the West Newport Legislative Alliance and various West Newport Beach Homeowners Associations requested that the area in the vicinity of Hoag Hospital and the West Newport Triangle be considered for a specific area plan. The Planning Commission placed the "West Newport Study Area" as the highest priority topic and directed staff to prepare a detailed land use survey of existing and permitted development. Staff prepared this information and presented it to the Planning Commission on August 19, 1982. Public hearings have also been held by the Planning Commission on the West Newport Study Area. In terms of the appropriateness of considering a land use change on the CalTrans West site at this time, it should be noted that the proposed amendment was initiated by the City in June, 1981, which is prior to the commencement of discussions on the West Newport Study Area. In that CalTrans West is a publicly owned parcel and that tax dollars have been spent to bring this item to its present point, it is the opinion of staff that a decision on the proposal, whether positive or negative, should be rendered in as expeditious a manner as possible. Question 5: What is the rationale for increasing density on four out of the five parcels under consideration, especially CalTrans West, and reduction of density on the Campus Drive site due to traffic impact. Response 5: General Plan Amendment 81-2 involves different types of proposals on five sites City-wide. Two of the proposals, CalTrans West and Big Canyon Area 16, involve the establishment of residential land use designations on sites currently designated for open space. The Newport Center - Block 400 proposal involves an increase in permitted development in an area which is currently built to the General Plan maximum. The Fifth Avenue Parcels proposal involve a change in land use designation from Low -Density Residential 2-169 TO: Planning Commission - 6 to Medium -Density Residential for two of the parcels, and the removal of the alternate Low -Density Residential Designation from the remaining site. The Campus Drive proposal will establish an intensity of development limitation and change part of the land use designation in the area; this proposal, while technically a reduction in total permitted development, will actually allow for an increase of approximately 440,000 square feet of development or a 46% increase beyond the current development in the area. The Campus Drive proposal was initiated at the request of Planning Department staff; all other proposals were initiated at the request of individual property owners. it is the purpose of the General Plan Amendment process to study all plan amendment proposals and the associated impacts from all perspectives, including circulation system impacts, and the final action by the City will take all potential impacts into consideration. Question 6: What is the rationale for density higher than approved for the Banning -Newport Ranch on Site 1, which will adjoin the CalTrans property. Response 6: As indicated in the original discussion on the CalTrans West site in the January 20, 1983 staff report, the proposed general plan amendment presents a unique opportunity for the City to place specific affordable housing requirements on a property prior to its sale to a developer. This results in prior knowledge of the requirements which must be taken into consideration when the sales price is determined. If a residential designation is approved in this GPA, these requirements should be explicitly set forth to assure ultimate compliance of the future development with the Program and Performance Objectives of the Newport Beach Housing Element and the provisions of Government Code Section 65590 (Mello). Staff is recommending approval of a residential land use designation at a maximum of 15 du's per buildable acre. This is consistent with original staff recommendation on GPA 81-1. As occurred in the course of public hearings on the Banning -Newport Ranch, the'Planning Commission and City Council may choose to approve a density lower than that recommended by staff. This decision will be based on all the issues involved, including compatibility of land use, traffic and circulation, views, park dedication, and affordable housing requirements. Question 7: What will the grading'be on the remaining CalTrans West after the realignment of Superior. Response 7: The proposal before the City is a General Plan Amendment and does not include Tract Map level details. A precise grading plan is not being considered as part of the GPA. A precise grading plan has not yet been prepared for the Superior Avenue realignment. The Public Works. Department has indicated that only the grading necessary for safe construction of the road will be done in connection with the realignment. Question 8: With Clients of the Convalescent homes on Superior being bussed to Costa Mesa for spending time in a park, wouldn't a view Park on the remaining upper portion of CalTrans West be logical. Response 8: Staff contacted the Park Superior Convalescent Hospital and the Newport Convalescent Center for information regarding recreation opportunities 2-170 1 11 TO: Planning Commission - 7 provided for clients of the convalescent facilities. The Newport Convalescent Center indicated that excursions to local parks were organized about a year ago, utilizing OCTD Dial -a -Ride transportation. It was indicated that these activities were no longer provided, although the recreation director was not available to provide additional information. The Park Superior Convalescent Hospital organizes regular outings for clients of 'that facility. Groups of 8-10 persons are transported by private van to various locations, including Mason Regional Park in the City of Irvine, Newport City Beaches, and local shopping centers. Ms. Peg Bennett, the recreation director for Park Superior, indicated that a view park in the area of the CalTrans West site would be utilized by the clients of Park Superior, provided handicapped access were provided. In terms of specifying an exact location for the view park, it is the opinion of staff that this should be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract map, at which time precise site plan information will be available. Factors which will influence location of park facilities include elevations and view potential, access, useability by the community, including Newport Crest, Banning -Newport Ranch, and residential areas in the West Newport Triangle and near Hoag Hospital, and ease of maintenance. Question 9: I£ GPA 81-2 is passed, what can we expect the sequence of events to be and in what time frame? If the proposed General Plan Amendment for the CalTrans West Parcel is approved, a number of approvals must still be secured prior to the establishment of development rights. These include: 1) amendment to the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan; 2) rezoning of the property to an appropriate residential zoning designation; 3) tentative and final tract maps; 4) a use permit if the development is a condominium; 5) grading plans; 6) Traffic Phasing Ordinance; and 7) a Coastal Development Permit (either through the State Coastal Commission or the City). At some point the property will be sold to a private developer. A time frame for the above actions is impossible to predict in that the City has no control over when a potential developer may submit applications for these various approvals. If the amendment is approved, it is expected that the LCP amendment required will be submitted concurrently with the LCP amendment for the Banning -Newport Ranch project in 1983. It is expected that the rezoning, tract map, use permit, grading permit and traffic phasing ordinance approvals will be processed concurrently by the eventual developer of the project. These approvals will take approximately one year. If the City's completed Local Coastal Program has been certified by this time, the City will also issue the Coastal Development Permit. If the City has not regained permit issuing authority, the Coastal Development Permit must be issued by the California Coastal Commission, which will take approximately 60 days. Question 10: Can a Park be obtained quickly by some sort of development agreement? Response 10: The Park Dedication Ordinance keys the park dedication requirements to the approval of the subdivision of land. If the City desires to require dedication prior to the time the subdivision occurs, approval of 1 2-171 TO: Planning Commission - S the General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment could be conditioned upon said dedication. If this were to occur, a development agreement might have to be entered into between the City and the developer. View Preservation. In the approval of the Banning -Newport Ranch proposal the City required preservation of views from Newport 'Crest. This language is listed in the draft Environmental Impact Report as an existing City Policy (Item II, Page 215 of DEIR) as follows: "Views to the west and south of Newport Crest shall be preserved for a person 'standing on the lower balcony level of a Newport Crest residence." If' the GPA is approved, this policy will be incorporated into the mitigation , measures for the general plan amendment. Access to Site. Public Works Department staff has indicated that the preferred access to the CalTrans West site is from the proposed Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extension) across a portion of the Banning property. In the event that CalTrans West is developed prior to the Banning Newport Ranch, temporary and limited access could be developed from realigned Superior Avenue. The precise location of all access will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. Pedestrian Easement/Bicycle Trail Along Greenbelt. As required in the Banning -Newport Ranch and as listed in the existing City Policies section of the draft Environmental Impact Report (Item H H., Page 215 of DEIR), a greenbelt shall be established adjacent to Newport Crest. It shall be an average of thirty feet wide and be maintained by the applicant or successors in interest. if desired, a bicycle trail or pedestrian easement may be required within this greenbelt area. Terrace Grading of CalTrans West. In order to fulfill the requirements of existing City policies and requirements for view preservation, it is expected that terrace grading will be required on the CalTrans West site. Grading plans with specific pad elevations will be reviewed for conformance with these requirements at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. GPA Conditioned on Specific Site Plan. Concern has been expressed regarding the lack of specific site plan information to be considered in relation to the General Plan Amendment for CalTrans West. Since tract'maps and zoning are not being processed at this time, and it is not known who will eventually develop this land, precise site plan details are , not available. This concern could be answered in part by a requirement that the property be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. This will require the eventual developer to submit a P -C Development Plan, which will establish specific zoning and grading standards in response to all conditions unposed as part of the approval of the General Plan Amendment. This requirement has been added to the staff recommendations included in this staff report. 2-372 1 ITO: Planning Commission - 9 (b) Fifth Avenue Parcels View Preservation Policies. Several comments were made regarding the further definition of view preservation for the Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue Parcels. Staff has worked with The Irvine Company to develop language responding to these concerns. The following language has been included in the list of revised staff recommendations: "That views from existing residences shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. At the time of approval of the tentative map and grading plans, if views of ocean and bay from existing residences are being blocked, the applicant shall demonstrate that the density approved within the Medium -Density range has no greater impact on view obstruction than that which would have resulted from development under the Low -Density Residential designation." Acquisition of Marguerite Parcel with Park Dedication Credits. Testimony has been received that the Marguerite Parcel be designated as open space and acquired through the use of park dedication credits or fees. In order for the City to generate sufficient park dedication requirements to acquire the 9.6 acre Marguerite Avenue Parcel, 510 Low -Density Residential units would have to be approved. If higher density residential projects were used to generate these credits more units would need to be approved, since the scale established in the Park Dedication Ordinance requires less dedication from higher density developments. Under the existing General Plan, approximately 4,700 dwelling units remain to be built in the City of Newport Beach. Of these, ± 1,840 are shown for larger undeveloped sites. The remainder are infill in the older residential neighborhoods. Since the Park Dedication Ordinance applies to new residential subdivisions, only the t 1,840 future residential units in new subdivisions will require park dedication. Of these 1,840 du's, ±810 are designated to sites which carry a neighborhood park designation on the Open Space Plan (Westbay, Castaways, Newporter North, Banning -Newport Ranch). These developments must dedicate parkland onsite to satisfy the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance. This leaves approximately 1,030 future residential units requiring park dedication City-wide. In order for the City to acquire the Marguerite Parcel using park dedication credits, approximately 50% of the remaining dedication requirements would have to be used. This assumes that any land acquired through other than Irvine Company project requirements could be purchased by the City at the per acre park dedication fee of $298,486. Additionally, it should be noted that if any of the future permitted dwelling units are developed as rental projects, no park dedication will be required for those units. OASIS Expansion. Testimony has been received requesting that the possibility for expansion of the OASIS Center be preserved on the Fifth Avenue Parcel. The Center is a City -owned facility and is considered by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department as a part of the neighborhood park occupying the land along Fifth Avenue from Goldenrod to Narcissus. This future expansion possibility can be preserved by leaving the neighborhood park designation on the Fifth Avenue Parcel. This will allow the City to, at the time of approval of the tentative tract map, require dedication of as much land as needed to complete the local park or recreational site as specified in Section 19.50.060(b) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code: 2-173 TO: Planning Commission - 10 ' "(b) When a major part of the local park or recreational site has already been acquired by the City and only a small portion of land is needed to complete the site, such remaining portion shall be dedicated and a fee computed pursuant to the provisions of Section 19.50.070 hereof shall be paid in an amount equal to the value of the land which otherwise would have been required to be dedicated pursuant to Section 19.50.070 hereof, such fee used for the improvement of the existing park and recreation facility..." View Park Dedication. Staff is recommending the dedication and improvement of a t 1 acre view park in conjunction with approval of the General Plan Amendment for the Marguerite Avenue Parcel. Staff has been discussing whether park dedication ordinance credit should be given for this dedication. Since the adoption of the Park Dedication ordinance in 1977, no subdivision approved has, included a view park requirement. The Park Dedication ordinance does not specify particular types of parks to be acquired through the ordinance. it does reference "park and recreation facilities... in accordance with the Recreation Element of the General Plan". It is the opinion of staff that a view park dedication and improvement is appropriate to satisfy the park dedication requirements of a residential development. It is, therefore, recommended that Park Dedication Ordinance credit be given for the land dedication for the view park if it is required by the City in conjunction with development of the Marguerite Avenue Parcel. Granting park dedication ordinance credit for the view park on the Marguerite Avenue Parcel will establish a precedent for future City action in regards to view parks in other development approvals. Undeveloped sites with view park designations include CalTrans West, Westbay, Castaways, and'Newporter North. Park Dedication Requirements. The Park Dedication Ordinance establishes a formula for park dedication requirements, based on gross residential density and person per household factors. The range of park dedication requirements for the Fifth Avenue Parcels are as follows: Marguerite Avenue Parcel Units Permitted Acreage Requirement 27 du's (4 du's/ba) 0.51 A 28 - 62 du's (4-9.12 du's/ba) 0.53 - 1.16 A 63 - 68 du's (9.26 - 10 du's/ba) 1.01 - 1.09 A Example: 50 du's 0.94 A Fifth Avenue Parcel Units Permitted Acreage Requirement 40 du's (4 du's/ba) = 0.75 A 41 - 85 du's (4-8.5 du's/ba) = 0.77 - 1.60 A 86.- 100 du's (8.6 - 10 du's/ba) = 1.38 - 1.60 A Example: 85 du's = 1.60,A 2-174 1 ' TO: Planning Commission - 11 Application of the park dedication Ordinance can be confusing,in that the ordinance Dedication Formula Table is based on dwelling units per gross acre, while the General Plan expresses residential density in dwelling units per buildable acre. The difference in buildable acre density ranges for the park dedication formula categories is due to the different ratio of gross to Ibuildable acres for the Marguerite and Fifth Avenue Parcels. Relationship of the Fifth Avenue Parcel to old Corona del Mar and Harbor View and the existing local street patterns. The Fifth Avenue Parcel has direct street frontage on existing Fifth Avenue. The site is also at a similar elevation to old Corona del Mar. Extension of the existing local street pattern of old Corona del Mar is reasonably easy to accomplish on this site. It is not possible to extend the local street system of Harbor View Hills down to the Fifth Avenue Parcel given the existing subdivision of land, which establish a continuous row of residential lots along the southerly side of Sandcastle Drive. As stated in the Land Use section of the January 20, 1983 staff report on the Fifth Avenue Parcels, the proposed medium -density single-family development will form a suitable transition between the higher density (11.1 du's/gross acre) two-family residential area to the south and the lower density (2.71 du's/gross acre) single-family residential area to the north. Senior Citizen Housing. It has been suggested that all or a portion of the Fifth Avenue Parcel could be used for development of Senior Citizen Housing similar in nature to the Seaview Lutheran Plaza project on Pacific View Drive in Corona del Mar. This project was developed by a private/non-profit organization (The Lutheran Church of the Master) utilizing the Federal 202 loan program and the section 8 rental subsidy program. The characteristics of 1 this residential development are as follows: Site size: 2.25 acre Units: 100 du's Density: 44.4 du's/acre Height: 32 feet Configuration: 3 story, stacked flats Parking ratio: 0.63/unit Senior citizen housing facilities are permitted in any residential, commercial, industrial or planned community zoning district upon approval of ' a use permit. Redesignation of the Fifth Avenue Parcel to Medium Density Residential and rezoning to the P -C District will not preclude the opportunity to propose and develop a senior citizen housing development on the site. ' Establishment of Development Standards. Staff has recommended that, if the General Plan Amendment is approved, the Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue Parcels be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. This will require the submission of a P -C Development Plan consistent with all requirements of the General Plan Amendment. It is at the time of review and approval of this plan that all development standards will be established, including lot size, building height, setback requirements, parking requirements and any other standard affecting the final design of the structures to be constructed. 1 2-175 Hills. Questions have been raised as to whether the Fifth Avenue Parcel can be related functionally to Harbor View Hills, rather than to old Corona del Mar. A number of factors influence the relationship of this site to the surrounding residential areas, the most important of which are site elevation and the existing local street patterns. The Fifth Avenue Parcel has direct street frontage on existing Fifth Avenue. The site is also at a similar elevation to old Corona del Mar. Extension of the existing local street pattern of old Corona del Mar is reasonably easy to accomplish on this site. It is not possible to extend the local street system of Harbor View Hills down to the Fifth Avenue Parcel given the existing subdivision of land, which establish a continuous row of residential lots along the southerly side of Sandcastle Drive. As stated in the Land Use section of the January 20, 1983 staff report on the Fifth Avenue Parcels, the proposed medium -density single-family development will form a suitable transition between the higher density (11.1 du's/gross acre) two-family residential area to the south and the lower density (2.71 du's/gross acre) single-family residential area to the north. Senior Citizen Housing. It has been suggested that all or a portion of the Fifth Avenue Parcel could be used for development of Senior Citizen Housing similar in nature to the Seaview Lutheran Plaza project on Pacific View Drive in Corona del Mar. This project was developed by a private/non-profit organization (The Lutheran Church of the Master) utilizing the Federal 202 loan program and the section 8 rental subsidy program. The characteristics of 1 this residential development are as follows: Site size: 2.25 acre Units: 100 du's Density: 44.4 du's/acre Height: 32 feet Configuration: 3 story, stacked flats Parking ratio: 0.63/unit Senior citizen housing facilities are permitted in any residential, commercial, industrial or planned community zoning district upon approval of ' a use permit. Redesignation of the Fifth Avenue Parcel to Medium Density Residential and rezoning to the P -C District will not preclude the opportunity to propose and develop a senior citizen housing development on the site. ' Establishment of Development Standards. Staff has recommended that, if the General Plan Amendment is approved, the Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue Parcels be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. This will require the submission of a P -C Development Plan consistent with all requirements of the General Plan Amendment. It is at the time of review and approval of this plan that all development standards will be established, including lot size, building height, setback requirements, parking requirements and any other standard affecting the final design of the structures to be constructed. 1 2-175 T0: Planning Commission - 12 of Buck Gully Proposal to The City/County boundary line runs approximate.Ly along the noLLom or uucx Gully, resulting in half of the canyon in County jurisdiction and half in City jurisdiction. The Irvine Coast LCP designates the County portion of Buck Gully for open space uses. The Newport Beach LCP designates the City portion of Buck Gully for open space as well. This General Plan Amendment will, if approved, remove the Low -Density Residential alternate land use designation, bringing the General Plan into consistency with the City's Local Coastal Program and compatibility with the County plans for the portion of Buck Gully outside the City's jurisdiction. of Buck Gully Proposal to the Fifth Avenue Parcels component of the General Plan Amendment indicated the possible dedication of Buck Gully for park and open space purposes in consideration for increased development rights on the Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue Parcels. This amendment was proposed by staff and initiated by the Planning Commission including the land use designation change for Buck Gully. The Irvine Company has indicated their opposition to this portion of the General Plan, Amendment. Although precise calculations for the buildable acreage of Buck Gully are not available, it is estimated that the increase in allowed dwelling units on the Marguerite and Fifth Avenue sites is more than that which would be allowed in Buck Gully. This change in the land use designation for the Buck Gully Parcel in consideration for increased density on the Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue Parcels is similar to the transfer concept established by the City in the General Plan designations for Westbay and Eastblu£f Remnant. Staff has recommended the land use designation be amended from Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an alternate use of Low -Density Residential to Recreational and Environmental Open Space, in consideration for amendments to a higher density residential designation on the Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue Parcels. Staff is also recommending that a permanent open space easement be recorded on .the property. This requirement will implement the hiking trail shown on the Open Space Plan of the Recreation and Open Space Element and is consistent with the public access requirements of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. It isnot suggested that any land dedication be accepted in the Buck Gully area; nor should any park credits be given for this site. It is staff's opinion that this requirement will not require the City to purchase any land. (c) Big Canyon Area 16 No additional information was requested regarding this proposal. (d) Newport Center - Block 400 No additional information was requested regarding this proposal. (e) Campus Drive Testimony has been received regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment for the Campus Drive area expressing concern over a lack of flexibility in the proposed intensity limitation of 0.5 FAR. These concerns have been addressed 2-176 ITO: Planning Commission - 13 in the revised staff recommendations for the area, which 1) further define proposed zoning code amendments, 2) establish a basic permitted intensity of 0.5 FAR but allow an increase to 1.0 FAR upon review and approval of a use permit, and 3) establish the area bounded by Bristol Street North, Birch Street, Dove Street and Campus Drive as the area where industrial uses will be encouraged. Staff Recommendations The staff recommendations below are a complete list for each site as revised since the January 20, 1983 report. (a) CalTrans West Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Environmental Open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. "Multiple -Family Residential" uses not to exceed 15 dwelling units per buildable acre shall be permitted. 2. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 3. Delete designation of future neighborhood park on-site and contribute in -lieu fees for improvement of neighborhood park to the west. 4. 208 of the total dwelling units shall meet the City's definition of "affordable". 5. 108 of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as set forth in Section 50093 of the Government Code. 6. A view park of ± 1 acre shall be located on-site and shall partially satisfy the requirements for park dedication contained in Chapter 19.50 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. ' 7. Upon approval of this amendment by the Planning Commission, CalTrans will enter into an agreement permitting the City a right of entry onto that property required for realignment of Superior Avenue. This agreement will outline the procedures by which realigned Superior Avenue may be conveyed to the City. 8. Because of difficulties in providing vehicular access to CalTrans East, and in recognition of both the State's need to dispose of this site and Hoag Hospital's need for additional land, CalTrans has entered into negotiations with Hoag Hospital for the acquisition of CalTrans East. Zoning on CalTrans West shall not occur until such time as CalTrans and City of Newport Beach have mutually agreed to one access point not to exceed 50 feet in width from CalTrans East to Coast Highway. 2-177 TO: Planning Commission - 14 1 9. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. (b) Fifth Avenue Parcels Area A: Marguerite Avenue Parcel: Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. Medium -Density Residential use shall be permitted. 2. the property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 3.The Jasmine Creek greenbelt system shall be continued on the site. The extent of the greenbelt shall be determined at the time of approval of the P -C development plan. 4. A public view park shall be provided (dedication + improvements) on the site in the vicinity of Marguerite Avenue and Harbor View Drive. The precise location of the view park shall be determined at the time of approval of the P -C development plan. 5. That park dedication requirement credits be given to the applicant for the land dedication of the view park. 6. In the event that dedication of the view park does not satisfy the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, the additional park dedication requirements shall be satisfied through on-site or off-site land dedication, the assessment of in -lieu fees or a combination of the above as determined by the Planning Commission and City Council, after recommendation by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 7. in the event that dedication and improvement of the view park is more than is necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, the excess credit shall be used to satisfy part of the requirement for Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel. e. That views from existing residences shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. At the time of approval of the tentative ' map and grading' plansi if views of ocean and bay from existing residences are being blocked, the applicant shall demonstrate that the density approved within the Medium -Density range has no greater impact on view obstruction than that which would have resulted from development under the Low -Density Residential designation. 9. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan 2-178 1 TO: Planning Commission - 15 of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel: Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan: I1. Medium -Density Residential use shall be permitted. 2. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 3. Remove the Recreational and Environmental Open Space/Flora and Fauna Reserve designation. 4. That the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance shall be satisfied through on-site or off-site land dedication, the assessment of in -lieu fees or a combination of the above as determined by the Planning Commission and City Council, after recommendation by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 5. That views from existing residences shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. At the time of approval of the tentative map and grading plans, if views of ocean and bay from existing residences are being blocked, the applicant shall demonstrate that the density approved within the Medium -Density range has no greater impact on view obstruction than that which would have resulted from development under the Low -Density Residential designation. 6. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. Area C: Buck Gully Parcel: Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan in consideration for the General Plan Amendments for Areas A & B above: 1. Remove the alternate residential land use designation. This leaves the area designated as Recreational and Environmental Open ' Space/Flora and Fauna Reserve. 2. Require that the Buck Gully area be established as an open space parcel and a permanent open space easement be recorded for that parcel in conjunction with the tentative and final tract maps for areas A & B. (c) Big Canyon - Area 16 Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1 2-179 TO: Planning Commission - 16 ' 1. Medium -Density Residential use shall be permitted. 2. Remove the Recreation and Open Space/Golf Course designation. 3. That the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance shall be satisfied through on-site or off-site land dedication, the , assessment of in -lieu fees or a combination of the above as determined by the Planning Commission and City Council, after recommendation by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 4. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future , circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. (d) Newport Center - Block 400 Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan: I 1. Allow the addition of 80,000 square feet of medical office development in Newport Center, along with related parking facilities. 2. Specify this additional allowable development to Block 400, on the parcel located at 400 Newport ,Center Drive East. 3. The ,property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 4. Specify the development be subject to further review and approval of a use permit. 5. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. ' (e) Campus Drive Amend the Land Use'Element of the General Plan: 1. Revise the land use designation for the area bounded by Dove Street, Birch Street, Bristol Street and Campus Drive to a mixture of General Industry and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial. 2. Establish a permitted intensity of development for the Campus Drive area (as shown on Exhibit 7 following Page 12 of the draft EIR) of 0.5 floor area ratio, with a floor area ratio of up to 1.0 2-180 ' ITO: Planning Commission - 17 permitted upon review and approval of a use permit. This increase in permitted floor area may be approved if a finding can be made that the traffic and circulation system impacts are no greater than those generated by an office development at 0.5 FAR. The floor area ratio limits are defined as the ratio of gross structural area to the buildable area of the site. 3. That the zoning in the area bounded by Bristol Street North, Birch Street, Dove Street and Campus Drive be amended to require office uses other than those which are ancillary to an industrial use to be placed in the conditional use category (uses which require a use permit). ' 4. Direct that the zoning in the area be amended to implement this General Plan Amendment. 5. At the time of future discretionary actions, individual projects shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. ,I very truly yours, Attachments: 1. January 10, 1983 letter from Newport Crest Homeowners Assoc. 2. February 15, 1983 letter from Newport Crest Homeowners Assoc. 1 I I 1 2-181 PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director BY7"/T A /P Q • GLD�T' PATRICIA L. TEMPLE 1 senior Planner PLT:nma Attachments: 1. January 10, 1983 letter from Newport Crest Homeowners Assoc. 2. February 15, 1983 letter from Newport Crest Homeowners Assoc. 1 I I 1 2-181 xowport erwt HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 201 intrepid Street Newport Beach, California 92663 10 January, 1983 Planning Commission Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Ladies and Gentlemen: The Homeowners of Newport.Crest have been closely following the development of the West Newport area. In studying the available documents relating to GPA 81-2 and specifically the CalTrans West property, the following series of questions have been generated. 1. Why would the City be considering a change of land use now since the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission and City Council indicated an interest in maintaining CalTrans West as Recreation/Open Space and eventual acquistion for the City as evidenced by the following correspondence: A. 25 January, 1982. A report to the City Council from the Sub -Committee on CalTrans West. B. 10 February, 1982. A letter from Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney to Mayor Heather. C. 11 February, 1982. A letter from Mayor Heather to the City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Planning Director and the Parks, Beaches And Recreation Director. D. 19 February, 1982. A letter from City Attorney to the City Manager. E. 8 March, 1982. A report from the City Manager to the Mayor and City Council. 1 I I i I I 1 F. 1 April, 1982. A letter from the Parks, Beaches And Recreation Director ' to the Parks, Beaches And Recreation Commission. G. 26 April, 1982. A letter from the Parks, Beaches And Recreation Director to the Mayor and City Council. •H. 28 May, 1982. An appraisal by Mr. Richard Fuller of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers on the CalTranc West property. I. 28 June, 1982. A letter from the City Manager to the Mayor and City Council. 2. Would not funding be available for acquistion using Banning Newport Ranch "in -Lieu" fees when they are generated. The $500,000 from Hughes could purchase the portion needed for the right-of- way for the'Superior re-allignment. The City recieved an appraisal on the land for from $1,350,000 to $1,650,00 Total "in -.lieu" fees from the 6.5 acres required of Banning comes to ( $1,940,159. I'D 2-182 ,, T Planning Commission 10 February, 1983 page two 3. As less and :less open land remains, should there be an immediate updated review of the Recreation/Open Space element of the General Plan and careful protection of those areas designated for Parks, Recreation and Open Space. 4. Why consider changing the land use on CalTrans West until the West Newport Study Area under consideration is completed. Perhaps changes are being made in density and buildable allowed on both vacant and possible tear -downs that would have a very direct relationship on what could be properly built on CalTrans West and over-all traffic circulation. �'. What is the rationale for increasing density on four out of the five ' parcels under consideration, especially CalTrans West, and reduction of density on the site on Campus due to traffic impact.. 6. What is the rationale for density higher than approved for the Banning Newport Ranch on Site 1, which will adjoin the CalTrans property. 7. What will the grading be on the remaining CalTrans West after the re-allignment of Superior. 8. With Clients of the Convalescent homes on Superior being bussed to Costa Mesa for spending time in a park, wouldn't a View Park on the remaining upper portion of CalTrans West be logical. 9. If GPA 81-2 is passed, what can we expect the sequence of events to be and in what time frame. 10. Can a Park be obtained quickly by some sort of development agreement. Thank you for your attention and response. ' Sincerely, Board Of Directors Newport Crest Homeowners Association 1 ,9 2_183 Xowport erwt HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 201 Intrepid Street, Newport Beach, California 92663 15 February, 1983 Mr. Jerry King Chairman Planning Commission Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. King, It was a pleasure meeting you briefly during the last Planning Commission meeting. I am writing you to explain a problem we (Newport Crest Homeowners Association) have encountered and ask your assistance. We have scheduled our Annual Meeting on 24 February, 1983. Tn fact, we had leased and paid for the Council Chambers. We were very surprised when we learned that the CalTrans West issue was continued until 24 February, 1983 at a regular session of the Planning Calimission. P.B.& R has arranged for facilities nearby for our meeting. That eliminates the first item. The second and equally important is the inability to be in two places at once. We therefore respectfully request the Planning Commission continue the issue of CalTrans West until March 10, 1983. Please do,not hesitate to contact me if I can be of assistance. Sincerel Lars C. Hansen ``..p. Director Newport Crest Homeowners AssociationR'-`:':...: �B lg 1983t� BCH/Jho cs� 11 P L r 2-184 , lb OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 1 . March 8, 1983 To: Chairman & Members of the Planning Commission Planning Director, Public Works Director .From: Robert H. Burnham - City Attorney Re: Recent Amendments to the Subdivision'Map Act Concurrent Processing The State Legislature has recently enacted amendments to the Subdivision Map Act, which impact on the ability of the City'to•process, concurrently, General Plan Amendments, 'Zone' Changes and Tentative TrIct Maps. The new law requires a City, in determining whether to approve or disapprove, an Application for a Tentative Map, to ' apply only those ordinances, policies and standards in effect'at the date the City determines the Application as complete, as that term is defined in 65943 of the Government.Code. Section 659.43 of the Government Code requires a City; not .later,than 30 ' calendar days after receipt of an Application for a project, to determine, in writing, whether the Application is complete and to thereafter immediately advise the Applicant of the determination. If the written determination is not made within 30 days after receipt of the Application, the Application is deemed complete. However, an Application for a Tentative' Subdivision Map is not considered filed "until such time as the environmental documentation required by CEQA has been completed." Section 15054.1 State EIR Guidelines. There are exceptions to the general rule. For example, if the City has formally initiated proceedings by way of ordinance or resolution and has published notice in accordance - with the procedures utilized by the City during the process of ' 2-185 amending the General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance, the City may apply the policies or ordinances enacted or instituted as a result of those amendments so long as they are in effect on'the date the local agency approves or disapproves the Tentative Map. If the Applicant requests changes in applicable ordinances or policies, any such ordinances or policies adopted pursuant to , the request shall apply to the decision on the Tentative Tract Map. ' ' While this section does not totally prohibit concurrent processing, it does make the procedure somewhat cumbersome. Ordinarily, there is no published notice of any proposed , amendment to the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance until such time as the environmental documentation is substantially complete. However, once the environmental document is complete, the Application for Tentative Tract Map is deemed filed and complete and, unless, the City had "formally initiated proceedings".and "published notice" of the proposed amendment at the time that the environmental document was complete, the City would not be able to impose conditions on the Tract Map approval which resulted from the Zoning or General Plan Amendment. While the City can apply changes requested by the Subdivision Applicant, the City is considered the Applicant with respect to both General Plan and Zoning Amendments. Assuming, for sake of argument, that a property owner does request changes in the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance, and the proposed amendments are initiated by the City, the extent to which the City has the discretion to alter or amend the proposal as set ' forth in the request of the Applicant is unclear. Thus, this legislation makes it more difficult to concurrently process projects, and will require the City to immediately review Applications for Tentative Tract Maps and make prompt determinations as to whether the zrea covered by that map ' should be the subject of General Plan or Zoning Amendments initiated prior to the date on which the Tract Map Application becomes complete. Robert H. Burnham , City Attorney RHp/pr MMP/MapAct 2 •2-186 rr MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY March 8, 1983 i ' To: Chairman & Members of the Planning Commission From: Robert H. Burnham - City Attorney Re: GPA 81-2 / Buck Gulley - Propriety of Open Space Zoning The Planning Commission has'requested an opinion from this office regarding the legal consequences, if any, of eliminating the alternate use designation (low density residential) -from the land uses permitted on the "Buck Gulley parcel" currently under.'consideration as a part of General Plan Amendment 81-2. iStaff has recommended that, if the alternate land use designation of low density residential is removed from Buck ' Gulley, this should occur in conjunction with the grant of compensating densitiescon the Fifth Avenue and Maguerite parcels. It is the opinion of this office that the grant of compensating densities on two of three parcels considered in a comprehensive zoning or general plan amendment will.support the application of an open space zone on the remaining parcel, especially where the parcel zoned open space, has value either as a recreational area or as an ecological resource. The support for this opinion is found, largely in the ' case of Aptos Seascape Corp v. County of Santa Cruz (Dec. 1982) 138 Cal App 3d 484. (See copy of case attached). Aptos Seascape Corp., supra, owned a parcel of oceanfront property which consisted of 40 acres of uplands and 70 acres of beaches, arroyos and palisades. The County of Santa Cruz adopted a General Plan which effectively prohibited development on the 70 -acre parcel, but designated the bench lands for medium -density residential (maximum six units per acre), medium high-density residential 1 2-187 (maximum eight units per acre), with a hotel as an alternate use. The County attempted to justify the prohibition on development of the beach area on the potential for the grant of compensating densities on the bench lands portion of the property owned by Aptos Seascape, supra. , The property owner disputed the County's contention and sued to obtain a court order declaring the zoning ordinance invalid or, in the alternative, for an award in inverse condemnation on the basis that it's property (.the beach) had been taken by the County without compensation. There are two facets of the ruling of the Appellate , Court which are'of interest to the Commission: First, the Court held that it was proper to analyze the impact of land use decisions on the entire 110 acre parcel, as urged by the County, as opposed to analyzing only the impact of the land use decision prohibiting development on the 70-acre beach parcel. The Court held that the County could, lawfully, prohibit development on one portion of'the parcel - so long as "the County's ordinances do permit the granting of compensating densities to Seascape, on both its benchlands and uplands in excess.of the basic densities which the zoning !2 thoseTparcels would permit absent any consideration of bhe subject property. To ensure compliance with that decision, the Court directed dismissal of the case only on t condition that the County granted Sea Scape, supra, compensating densities, with the burden on the County to show that it has "made provision either for the award of reasonable compensating densities or for some other transfer of development rights to ' Seascape, in exchange for the prohibition against building on the subject property (beaches).." The Court also held that a land owner who alleges that , a zoning ordinance has resulted in a deprivation of substantially all use of land, may not sue in inverse condemnation for damages, ' but must attempt to invalidate the ordinance as an excessive regulation by means of an action for declaratory relief or mandamus. This ruling is not surprising in light of recent , California and United States Supreme Court cases. (ASins v. Tiburon 447 IIS 255); ( San Die o Gas & Electric v. San Die o 450 US but, it is interesting to note that the Court did not , even discuss the concept of interim damages, i.e., the loss of the use of property from the date on which the ordinance was first enacted to the date on which a confiscatory ordinance is 2 2-188 declared invalid. The concept of interim damages was discussed, at length, in San Diego Gas & Electric, supra, and some legal scholars had anticipated the California Courts of Appeal would adopt such a concept. It is encouraging to note that in the first case decided subsequent to San Diego Gas & Electric, there was no discussion of interim damages. MMP/BuckGulley Fober City Attorney 3 2-189 APTos SEASCAPE CORP. Y. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ 138 Cal.App.3d 484; — Cal.Rptr. — [Dec. 19821 statesas follows: "Appellants contend that the court must disclose the identity of an informer who was a material witness on the issue of guilt, regardless of whether the informer's testimony would incriminate or exculpate a defendant in a criminal action. We disagree. When a defendant seeks information which might lead to the disclosure of the Identity of a confidential informant, the public entity is enti- tled to -invoke the privilege of nondisclosure of the identity of an informer under Evidence Code section 1041. Once that privilege has been in- voked, a -hearing is held with defendant and his counsel present to determine whether the in-. former might.be a material witness on the issue of guilt. (See People v. Coleman (1977) 7 Cal.App.3d 287, 295 [139 Ca1.Rptr. 980]. n 1969, the Legislature added subdivision ) to Evidence Code section 1042"providi hat'the prosecution may request an !n' ca m hearing on the issue of disclosure of id ty: •; "However; when an i amera hearing has' been held and the Wal rt has reasonably con-' eluded, as in the ins t case, that the informant does not have k ledge of facts that would tend to excul a the defendant, disclosure of the identit f the informer is.prohibited by, Evident ode section 1042, subdivision (d), since a public entity has invoked the privilege P t to section 1041."µ - In the case at bench at the requestX the prosecution an in camera hearing wrneld on December 16, 1980, before a jud f the trial court. Thejudge;theinfarmant: r. Meeks the parole officer;and the assists district attorney, Mr. Giss, we present. in camera hearing was conducted pursua to section 1042, sub- division (d) of the idence Code. After the hearing, defense ounsel in open court was given generou nd extensive opportunity to in- terrogate t udge who conducted the in camera proceed' s. The record reveals that the hearing judg slie W. Light) distinctly stated his cdn- cl on that the informant had no knowledge of cts which would tend to exculpate the defendant. • ' ' • ' ' We have carefully reviewed the transcript of the in camera hearing and concur in the conclu- sion of the hearing judge.' 1138Ca1:App.3d4831 •, y' V Disposition .The judgment is affirmed. Lillie, Acting P. J., and Hanson (Thaxton), J., concurred. " . • • ' [Civ. No. 46963. First Dist., DIv. Than. Dec. 23, 1982:1 .',' '* - APTOS SEASCAPE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ et al.; Defendants, Cross -complainants and Appellants. SUMMARY A corporation brought an action against a county for damages, inverse condemnation, and declaratory relief, alleging that in rezoning plaintiffs -property, the county deprived plaintiff of all reasonable use of the property without paying just compensation. The propert; in question consisted of 110 acres, 70 acres of which included beachlands, arroyos and palisades and 40 acres of which was benchlands. Imaddition, plaintiff owned 200 acres of uplands located away from the beach and benchlands. The county cross -complained, alleging an implied dedication to the public of certain of cross -defendant's beach property. The trial court entered judgment for plaintiff and cross- defendant, concluding plaintiffs property was taken without just compensation and awarding damages. The trail court also dismissed plaintiff's•cause of action to declare the zoning ordinance invalid. Additionally, the Wal court concluded there had been no dedication of any of cross - rJ I I 1 1 2-190 11 I • APTOs SEASCAPE CORP. V. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ 138 Cal.App.3d 484; — Cal.Rptr. — [Dec. 19821 ' ;-- 2-191 defendant's property to the public and that the seaward boundary'of the property was the mean high tide line. (Superior Court of Santa Cruz County, No. 50142, Roland K. Hall, Judge.) The Court of Appeal reversed that portion of the judgment with respect to the taking of plaintiff's property without just compensation and awarding damages. The court held that a landowner who alleges that a zoning ordinance has unconstitutionally deprived him of substantially all use of his land may not sue in inverse condemnation for damages but may attempt to invalidate the ordinance as excessive regulation through declaratory relief or mandamus. The court further held that the trial court erred in determining that mere enactment of the ordinance constituted a taking of plaintiff's property in that it did not allow plaintiff any reasonable use of the property. Although the ordinance ' essentially prohibited any development on the 70 acres of beachlands, the trial court erred in inter- preting the county's zoning ordinances as absolutely precluding any grant of compensating densities on the 40 acres of benchlands. In reality, the county could grant compensating densities on both the ' 40 acres of benchlands and the 200 acres of uplands. Therefore, the court directed the trial court to modify that >.<. J.:<<� +'.n:i• ::,r i.'[138Cal.App.3d489 }:.' '.: ..(:.:.;., :: •.':'' .:: t,1 '` ' '" ir..:�51., i• 71d T¢:IS •t3:"wft3 (.i., -: y.t . r :Si4ar , t^{t(Tii .i't ;conditioning portion of the judgment dismissing the cause of action for declaratory relief by dismissal on the actual grant of compensating densities to plaintiff. The court affirmed the trial court's judgement with respect to the implied dedication to the public, holding the trial court's find- ings with respect to the implied dedication and the seaward boundary of cross -defendant's property • - were supported by the evidence. ,(Opinion by Scott, J., with White, P. J and p'a'ir Deal J. J., .•; ",. :J•:,..:'[Ut•tL sa• ,..,+s;'rip';.I.:t•'it: !r'vre. +, concurring.) : •' .: ••0' Y concurring.) ., , - . s • .. - ,::r, . :-i.�ii.{::J}� r,.`,:tt'ta,i•^ _'•ru,: Y't�A:..: • { I1F wNOTFS v t -"« • : • tt , ; . r' +1:., 1:: , ; t, •<;;1... ; , .:i .',�. ) }>' ,:r: � c; n�V �.•;'. •iii""•i . I J� :',.:' , J _ !P 4�LaJ .' i kc Classified to California Digest of Official Reports, 3d Secies`­ (1) Eminent Domain 1'131—Remedies of sortable or Discrit 'minatory Regulationsv- Owner—Inverse Condemnation—Avail- Regulations Constituting a Taking of ability of Remedy.—A landowner who %'•r'-Property.—In'ari action for damages, in- - alleges that a zoning ordinance has deprived verse condemnation and declaratory relief, him of substantially all use of his land, in . ' the trial court erred in determining that mere violation of U. S. Const., 5th and 14th enactment of a county's zoning ordinance amends., Cal. Const., art. I, § 19, may at- constituted a taking of plaintiffs property tempt to invalidate the ordinance as ex- without just compensation in that it did not ' cessive regulation through declaratory relief allow plaintiff any reasonable use of the or mandamus, but may not sue in inverse property and in awarding damages for in - condemnation for damages. Therefore, a verse condemnation, while at the same time corporation that alleged the actions of a declaring the zoning ordinance to be a valid county 'in rezoning certain real property exercise of police power. Plaintifts proper - belonging to the corporation deprived it of ty consisted of 110 acres, 70 acres of which all reasonable use'was not entitled to the trial included beachlands and 40 acres consisting court's judgment awarding it damages in in- 'of benchlands as well as 200 acres of verse -condemnation, and the judgment was uplands away from the beach. Although the reversible on appeal. zoning ordinance• essentially prohibited any - development on the 70 acres of beachlands, the trial court erroneously interpreted the ' (2a -2d) Zoning and Planning ✓f 12—Content 'county's -zoning 'ordinance as absolutely and Validity of Zoning Ordinances, Plan- precluding any grant of compensating den -P^( • ' ning Enactments and Orders—Unrea- sities on the 40 acres of benchlands. In reali- ' ;-- 2-191 APTOS SEASCAPE CORP. V. COUNTY.OF SANTA CRUZ 138 Cal.App.3d 484; — Cal.Rptr. — (Dec. 19821 ty, the county could grant compensating densities on'both the 40 acres of benchlands as well as on the 200 [138 Cal.App.3d 4%] • acres of uplands in excess of the basic den - sides which the zoning of those parcels would permit absent any consideration on the 70 acres of beachlands. Accordingly, mere enactment of the zoning ordinance was not a taking. Nonetheless, the appellate, court directed the trial court to modify its order dismissing plaintiffs cause of action to declare the zoning ordinance invalid on the condition that the county in fact grant such compensating densities.,, [See CaQur.3d, Zoning and Other Land Controls, ¢ 189; Am.Jur.2d; Zoning and Planning. ¢ 13.1,;r. i::=rr, r r,••..• (3) Zoning and Planning ¢ 9-Con(ent and Validity of Zoning Ordinances, Planning Enactments and Orders—Constitutionalt- ty.—If the effect of a' zoning ordinance deprives the landowner of substantially all reasonable use of his property, the ordinance may be unconstitutional and subject to invalidation., (4) Zoning and Planning 0 13 -Content and Validity of Zoning Ordinances, Planning' Enactments and Orders—Legislative Discretion and Judicial Review—Methods of Review.—Declaratory relief is the ap- propriate remedy by which to seek a declam- tion that a zoning ordinance is facially un- constitutional. A landowner who seeks to challenge the constitutionality of an act's ap- plication to his or her lands must proceed by administrative mandamus. (5) Statutes ¢ 19—Constructior.—Ordi- nances.—The rules of statutory construction are applicable to local ordinances, and the construction of a statute or. ordinance is. a question of law for the'court, (6)Statutes § 37—Construction—Giving Ef- fect to Statute—Sustaining Validity. —Generally legislation should be construed, if reasonably possible, to preserve its con- ,. i.r!'.< • stitutionality. When two alternative inter- pretations of a statute or ordinance are presented, one of which may be unconstitu- tional and the other constitutional, the court will choose that construction which will uphold the validity of the statute. (7) Statutes § 48—Construction—Reference to Other Laws—System of Law.—A statute or ordinance must be interpreted with reference to the whole system of law of which it is a part; if possible, significance and effect should be given to each section and part thereof. • . (8a; 8b) Dedication ¢ 12—Proceedings- Evidence—bedication of Beach Property. —In an inverse condemnation action in which the county cross •ot. , ct r.,, r ... • . , : , .z•::,,:, ::, 1138Cal.App•3d487] complained, alleging an implied dedication to the public of certain of plaintiffs beach property, there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings that; prior to the time the public was granted permis- sion to use the beach pursuant to Civ. Code, § 813,.public use of the beach was not suffi- ciently substantial for any five-year period to negate the idea of mere license and tharthere had been no, dedication. The evidence showed that prior to plaintiffs purchase the ,area was part of a fenced horse and cattle ranch, and that the path to the beach was locked, that at the time the property was pur- chased the beach was generally desolate, that as the area became developed, plaintiff hired people to patrol the property and eject trespassers and had vehicles towed away, that plaintiff occasionally gave specific per- mission to use the beach and that there was no evidence of any governmental mainte- nance of the area., (9a -9c) Waters § 131—Navigable Waters and Tldelands-�-Lands Under Navigable and Tidewaters—Actions, Proceedings and Remedies—Evidence—Seaward Boundary of Beadhland.—In an inverse condemnation action centering on a, dispute between a county and plaintiff as to certain beachlands, the trial court properly determined that, pur- 1 41 I I 3 2-192 1 I 11 I t �J I I IJ 1 APTOs SEASCAPE CORP. Y. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ . 138Cat.App.3d484;—Cal•Rptr.— (Dec. 1982) suant to Civ. Code, § 830, the seaward boundary of the property was the mean high tide line and that federal patents issued on the property pursuant to Mexican land grants did not indicate a different intent, where 19th century field notes of the final surveys of the property for the federal patents in- dicated a particular bay as a boundary and where according to either common law,or Mexican civil law, when a bay was given as a boundary and when nothing in the decree suggested otherwise, that boundary was the line of the ordinary high water mark. Therefore, the county had no claim to the property lying above the mean high tide line. (10) Dedication § 7—Mode and Sufficiency of Dedication—Dedication by Acquiescence in User—Shoreline Property.—Adverse use of shoreline property by the public for more than five years can result in an implied common law dedication of a public easement for recreational purposes in such property. (11) Dedication' §12—.Proceedings =Evi- deuce—Adverse Use .of Property.—Liti- gants seeking to establish adverse use of property by the public resulting in an im- plied common law dedication of a public easement must show that persons have used the property as they would have used public "land or as if they believed the public had a right to such use. That belief, as manifested -by the public's, actions with respect to the property, must be reasonable in light of all the circumstances. Litigants must also show that various groups of persons rather than a limited indefinable number used [138 Cal.App.3d 488) the land and that public use has been substantial. Evidence that users looked to a governmental agency for maintenance of the land is significant in establishing an implied• dedicati6n to the public. (12) Dedication § 12—Proceedings—Evi- dence—Negating Intent.—For a fee owner Of property to negate a finding of intent to dedicate based on uninterrupted public use for more than five years, he or she must either affirmatively prove the grant of a license to use the property, or demonstrate a bona fide effort to attempt to prevent public use. While an owner's efforts may have. been so minimal as to be inadequate as a matter of law, ordinarily the question is one of fact. (13) Waters § 117—Navigable Waters and Tidelands—Lands Under Navigable and Tidewaters—high Water Mark.—The high water mark refers to an average height -' of the high waters ata particular place over a long period of time, ascertainable by reference to monuments and tidal data of the -,:-United States Cdast and Geodetic Survey. (14a, 14b) Waters§ 12S—Navigable Waters and Tidelands—Use of Navigable. Waters=Seashores—Public Servitude. ".!:.In an action in inverse cotidemnation centering on adispute between a county and plaintiff as to certain•beachlagds, the trial . court properly determined that plaintiff's •:;"property, the boundary of which was the mean high'tide line, was not subject to any ?`'public servimde.'Aithough the public first doctrine applies to tidelands; which were i^ originally acquired by private peisons from ":the Mexican government and which were "later patented to the owners by the federal government, as was the land in question; ',:':tidelands are lands between the lines"bf mean high tide and meanlow tide, and the public's rights do not extend to the highest high water line as ssserfed uy, the county.. ?.:.: ; (15) Waters §120—Navigable Waters and Tidelands—Lands Under Navigable and Tidewaters—What Are Tidelands. —Tidelands are lands between the lines of mean high tide and mean low tide, covered and uncovered successively by the tidal ebb and flow. (16) Waters § 119• -Navigable Waters and Tidelands —lands Under Navigable and Tidewaters—Origin and Nature of T1- tie.—When tidelands have been granted by the state to a private party, that party ",receives the title to the soil, subject to the public's right to use the property for pur- poses such as commerce, navigation, ' fishing, as well as for environmental and 2-193 APCOs SEASCAPE CORP. V. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ 138 Cal.App.3d 484; — Cal.Rptr. — 1Dcc.'19821 recreational- purposes. II38 CaLApp.3d 4891 COUNSEL . Dennis J. Kehoe, G. Dana Scruggs III, Adams, Levin, Kehoe, Bosso, Sachs '& Bates, Peter L. Townsend and Garrison, Townsend, Hall, Orser & Park for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant.. , Clair A. Carlson, County Counsel, acid James' M. Ritchey, Assistant County Counsel' for Defendants, Cross -complainants and Appel - Wits. T. Roy Gorman as Amicus Curiae on behalf of - Defendants, Cross -complainants- and Appel- lants:. :,,'• .,,, „ .•j, ;:., .. SCOTT, 1The County of Santa Cruz (Coun- ty) and others appeal from a judgment in an in- verse condemnation action awarding' Aptos Seascape Corporation (Seascape),'a California corporation,,over $3 million. The County also appeals -from an adverse judgment on its cross- complaint, which alleged an implied dedication to the public of certain of Seascape's beach property. • . The Facrs' Seascape owns approximately 110 acres of real property in Santa Cruz County, bounded by the Southern Pacific Railroad -tracks, Monterey Bay, Camp St. Francis, and an existing residen- tial tract.I The 110 acres includ: approximately 40 acres which are above the 100 -foot contour line (the benchlands), and approximately 70 acres below that contour -line. The 70 acres in- clude a beach about a mile long,, arroyos, and a 'The 110 acres are part of 500 acres which Seascape purchased in 1%3. In addition to the 110 acres, Seascape still owns approximately 200 acres of "uplands," up the hill and away from the beach; it has developed and sold about 190 acres. line of cliffs, or palisades. It is the 70 acres which are at issue here, and they will be referred to as the "Subject Property." The benchlands include three parcels, designated parcbls A, B, and C. Before the property was purchased, it was zoned unclassified. As a condition of its purchase, it was rezoned; the 110 acres were zoned residential, with a commercial hotel use allowed on one section of the benchlands. In 1967 the County adopted the Aptos General Plan (Plan), which indicated that the subject property should remain as open space, or beach and palisades, [138CaI.App.3d490] ravinesand forests.. According to the: Plan, benchlands parcels A and C would be zoned' medium density residential (maximum 6 units per. acre), and parcel B, medium high density residential (maximum 8 units per acre), with a hotel as an alternate use. The Plan also stated that.although development on beaches should be prohibited, compensating higher• densities should be, permitted on other portions ofproper- ty in the same ownership. The Plan proposed formation of a new, planned community district is the area in part to implement the award of compensating densities. No•such district has ever been formed. In Maich'1971 Stiascape submitted a tentative subdivision map for the 110 -acre parcel. In response, the board of supervisors enacted an interim emergency zoning ordinance to preclude Seascape from further processing any land use proposals until the County completed its study of the area. The application for the map was denied as inconsistent with the Plan: The interim zoning ordinance was extended three times. Seascape submitted no other formal map or subdivision applications. It did, however, infor- mally submit a development proposal to the planning commission. Although the commission took no action on that plan, it recommended to the board of supervisors a rezoning which would in effect have prohibited development on the subject property, but which would have in- creased the density recommended by the Plan for benchlands parcels A and C, and allowed a hotel on parcel C. • ' • The County'rejected thai'recammendation. In December 1972 it adopted ordinance 1800, zon- 2-194 I I I I I 0 7 1� 1 r I .APPOs SEASCAPE CORP. V. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ 138 Cal.App.3d 484; — Cal.Rptr. — (Dec. 19821 ing the subject property as U -BS, (unclassi- fied—special building site area regulations) and the benchlands R -1 -6 -PD (one family residence—planned development district: 6,000 sq. ft. minimum site area). On March 27, 1973, the County board adopted a Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (PROS), which designated the subject property as "acquisition only—immediate ac- tion—low priority." In 1974 the County adopted a new Aptos General Plan, in which the proper- ty is designated as "Open reserve; park - playground." .:. • In June 1973 Seascape filed a first amended complaint for damages, inverse condemnation and declaratory relief against the County, and others. Seascape alleged that by rezoning, the County deprived it of all reasonable use of cer- tain of its real property, in effect taking that property without paying just compensation. Seascape sought damages of $23 million for the property, allegedly taken, $12 million for severance damage to adjacent property, and a declaration invalidating the zoning ordinance. The Countycross-complained for declaratory (138 Cal.App3d 4911 „"n. i. r and injunctive relief, •alleging that a part of Seascape's property had been impliedly dedicated to the public. Court trial was held in November 1977. Among its findings, .the, .court found;. (1) .the Subject Property has always been treated by the County as a parcel separate from the bench - lands, and is a "de facto separate.parcel";,(2) the only reasonable use that can be made of the Subject Property is for residential purposes; (3) the effect of ordinance 1800 is to allow no development at all on the Subject Property, and to allow a maximum density of one site per 6,000 square feet on the benchlands, with no compensating higher densities permitted; (4) the County does not intend to grant Seascape any compensating higher densities on the benchlands in the future; (5) the County has precluded all reasonable use of the Subject Property and has therefore taken the property to preserve it as Open space; (6) Seascape has fully exhausted all available administrative remedies, and any addi- tional attempt to petition the County for relief Would be futile; (7) just compensation in the amount of $3.15 million (the fair market value of the Subject Property as of Dec:'5, 1972) is due and owing to Seascape.2 The court ordered entry of an alternative judg- ment. As an alternate means of compensation, and in lieu of payment of damages, the judgment granted Seascape compensating higher densities of 40 residential units on its benchlands and 160 residential units on its uplands, "in addition to any other uses and densities that the benchlands and uplands ..'. may otherwise yield, which - underlying uses and densities are herein referred to as 'Base Densities.' Said Base Densities shall be reasonable and shall not be reduced for the purpose of avoiding the effect of this Judg- ment." Upon issuance of building permits by the County and substantial construction by Seascape, Seascape was to convey an open - space. easement in perpetuity for the subject property to the County. If Seascape had not received all of the compensating higher densities called for within five years from the date of en- try of the judgment, it was to be paid the full damage award. If it had received some but not all of those compensating densities, it was to be paid $15,750 for each unit not received within the five-year period. This alternative was at the option of the County, which was to (1) file a written notice of acceptance within 60 days of the date of the filing of the entry of judgment, accompanied by a resolution of the board authorizing acceptance, and (2) enact enabling ordinances within that time period. The alter- nate was void if not exercised. The County did not elect the alternative, and insteadappealed from the judgment :. (138Cal.App3d4921 +..... Seascape's Complaints .r: (1) In March 1979, two months after judg- ment was entered in this case, the California Supreme Court held that a landowner who alleges that a'zoning ordinance has deprived him 'The facts and the court's findings with respect to the cross-complaint will be set forth in conjunction with the discussion of that complaint. .7rhe California Coastal Commission has fled an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the County in its ap. peal from the judgment on the complaint. < ' 6 2-195 APTOS SEASCAPE CORP. Y. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ 138,Cal.App.3d 484; — Cal.Rptr. — [Dec. 19821 of substantially all use of his land, in violation of the Fitch and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and article I, section 19 of the California Constitution, may attempt to invalidate the ordinance as -excessive regula- tion through declaratory relief or mandamus, but may not sue in inverse condemnation for damages. (Agin v. City of Tiburon (1979) 24 Cal.3d 266, 273 [157 Cal.Rptr. 372, 598 P.2d 251, affd. on another ground, Agin v. Tburon (1980) 447 U.S. 255 165 L.Ed.2d 106, 100 S.Ct. 2138].) • . .. .. : The County first argues that in light of Agin, the judgment awarding damages must be re- versed. Seascape contends that Agin is inap- plicable because its discussion of the availability of inverse condemnation was dictum, which has "evaporated with the'United States Supreme' Court's decision in San Diego Gas & Electric Co, Y. San Diego (1981) 450 U.S.. 621 [67- L.Ed.2d 551, 901 S.Ct. 12871. "4 >:+:: •; .. s. . In Agin plaintiffs owned five accts of unim= proved land in Tiburon, which they acquired for residential development. The city adopted widespread zoning modifications, -designating Plaintiffs' land for one -family dwellings and open -space uses. As applied to plaintiffs' five acres, the zoning would permit a maximum of five dwelling units or a minimum of one. The city filed a complaint in eminent domain to ac- quire the property as open space, but then aban- doned those proceedings. Plaintiffs did not make any application to use the property. Instead, they filed a complaint in inverse condemnation and for declaratory relief, alleging the adoption of the ordinance completely destroyed the value of their property. A demurer was sustained without leave to amend. •• • • ' The California Supreme Couri affirmed: "[T]he need for preserving a degree of freedom in the land -use planning function, and the in- hibiting financial force which inheres in the in. verse condemnation remedy" persuaded the court that on balance, mandamus or declaratory relief rather than inverse condemnation was the appropriate remedy. (Agin, supra, 24 Cal.3d at PP. 276-277.) The court then concluded that plaintiffs had not established their entitlement to declaratory relief. "[A] zoning ordinance may be unconstitutional and subject to invalidation only when its effect is to -deprive the landowner of substatitialiy all •.. `.; ; 7 [138 Ca1.App.3d 4931 reasonable use of his property." (id., at p. 277.) Because the ordinance on its -face ,permitted plaintiffs to build between one anti five residences on their acreage, as a matter of law it did not unconstitutionally interfere with their en- tirebse of the land or impermissibly decrease its value. (Ibid.) • As the Agin court in effect concluded that there had been no "tatting" of plaintiffs' land, it can be argued that its rejection of inverse c6n. demnation as an available remedy for a taking was not necessary to 'its decision and was therefore dictum. Nevertheless, as the inverse condemnation issue appears to have been elaborately considered, it is obviously entitled to great weight. (6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Appeal, § 678, p. 4591, and cases cited therein.) In addition, it is apparent that the Supreme Court itself did not intend its discus- sion to be considered dictum (see Furey v. City of Sacramento (1979) 24 Cal.3d 862, 8711157 Cal.Rptr. 684, 598 P.2d 844]), and it has not leen treated as such in subsequent Court of Ap. peal cases. (See, e.g., Liberty v. California Coastal Com. (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 491, 498 [170 Cal.Rptr. 2471; Gilliland v. County of Los Angeles (1981) 126 Ca1.App.3d 610, 617 (179 Cal.Rptr. 731.) Seascape's suggestion that this court treat Agins' inverse condemnation discus- sion as dictum is unpersuasive.-'. Seascape's contention that Agin•.lias• been disapproved by the United States Supreme Court is also without merit. While that court has ex- pressed reservations about whether a govern. ment entity may constitutionally 'limit the remedy available for a "taking" to nonmonetary relief, it has not yet squarely confronted the question. • ' ' Agin itself was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court on the ground that no taking had occurred, and the court did not consider whether a state may limit the remedies available to a per- son whose land has been taken without just com- pensation. (Agin v. Tiburon, supra, 447 U.S. 255, 263 [65 L.Ed.2¢ 106, 113].) In San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. San Diego, supra, 450 U.S. 621, upon which Seascape primarily relies, a power company owned over 200 acres in San Diego where it intende&to build a power plant. The city rezoned the property in part as 2-196 I APTOs SEASCAPE CORP. V. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ 138 Cal.App.3d 484;—Cal.Rptr. — [Dec. 19821 "open space," The company brought an action 11 for inverse condemnation, and was awarded over $3 million. While the case was pending (2a) • Although the trial court found that the before the California Supreme Court, Agins was subject property had been taken without just decided and the case was retiansferred to the compensation, it concluded that the County's ' Court of Appeal for reconsideration. That court, "zoning enactments" were a valid exercise of in an unpublished opinion, relied on Agins to its police power, beyond attack except in an in - hold (1) the company could not recover compen- verse condemnation action, and dismissed cation through inverse condemnation; and (2) Seascape's cause of action to declare ordinance factual questions remained before it could be 1800 invalid. Seascape has cross -appealed from determined whether the company had been that dismissal. t, denied all use of its land. (Id., at pp: 629-632 (3) The trial court reached its conclusion ' [67 L.Ed.2d at pp. 559-5601.) ' %' . : without the benefit of Agins, in which the court The United States Supreme Court dismissed held that if the effect of a zoning ordinance the appeal for lack of a final judgment, as it had deprives the landowner of "substantially all not yet been decided whether any taking in fact reasonable use of his property," the ordinance occurred. y , may be unconstitutional and subject to invalida- ` don. (Agin. supra, 24 Ca1.3d at p. 277.) .(2b) In light of Agins, it is a •(138Cal.App.3d4941 g apparent that the trial `' court's conclusion'is'inconsistent with its find- ing that Seascape has not been allowed any Nevertheless, the ' court cautioned that :the reasonable use of the subject property. federal constitutional aspects of the state'court's (4) ( fn. 4.) If that finding is correct, this decision that the company was not entitled to a court may reverse with directions to enter judg- ' lonetary remedy "are not to be cast aside light- ment formid an scSeascape� W ��ina ordinance utrn-- ' y .... (Id.,' at p. 633 '[67 L.Ed.2d at valid ea its f A p. 561].) Dissenting, Justice Brennan and three ) PPS+ § 547, P•'4488.) others reached the constitutional question, and : • :='.:,:..:.,.: would have held that once a court establishes a (MCal.App.3d495] regulatory "taking," the Constitution demands .4 ..: that the government entity pay just compensa. (2c) The .County and amicus California tion for the period commencing- on the date the Coastal Commission argue, however, that the regulation first effected the "taking," and end-' court's finding is erroneous. ..They attack that in on the date the government chooses to re- finding on alternative grounds. First, they argue scrod or otherwise amend the regulation; (Id., at that the court erred as a,matter of law when it P. 658 (67 L.Ed.2d at p. 576].) Justice Rehn- . considered the 70 -acre subject property in isola- quist concurred with the majority that there had tion to determine whether there had been a tak- been no final judgment, but also noted that if the ing. Instead, it should have considered whether ' appeal were from a final judgment, he would ordinance 1800 deprived Seascape of all "have little difficulty in agreeing with much of reasonable use of its entire .110 -acre parcel. what is said" in the dissent. (Id., at pp. 633-634 Second, they urged that even if the subject 167 L.Ed.2d at pp. 561-5621.) property can properly be considered as a While the United States Supreme Court may separate parcel, there was no taking because' eventually conclude that California cannot limit •Declaratory relief is the appropriate remedy by the remedy available for a taking to non-, which to seek a declaration that a zoning ordinance is ' monetary relief, it has not yet done so, and this facially uhconstitutional. (Agin, supra, 24 Ca1.3d at court is obligated to follow Agins. (Auto Equity pp. 272-273; see Stare of Califomia v. Superior Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d Court (Veto) (1974) 12 Cal.3d 237, 251 1113 •.;�;y 450, 455 (20 Ca1.Rp[r. 32I, 369 P.2d 9371.) Cal•Rptr. 497, 524 P.Zd 12817.) A landowner who That Kion of the 'ud ment awarding respon- seeks to challenge the constitutionality of an act's ap- Po J g tient Seascape damages in inverse condemnation plication to his or her lands [i.e., when a development plan has been disapproved] must proceed by ad-. :,5 • must be reversed. adaistrative mandamus. (Agin. at p. 2731 ctM 1 8 2-197 I APTOS SEASCAPE CORP. V. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ . 138 Cal.App.3d 484; — Cal.Rptr, — [Dec. '1982] Seascape can be awarded density credits on its issue, where a property owner alleges that 40 acres of benchlands (or on its 200 acres of governmental action restricting the use of a por- ' uplands) to compensate for the prohibition tion of his property constitutes a taking. Some against building on the subject property. While courts consider the only question to be the effect they concede that no such credits have yet been of the regulations on the whole of the owner's awarded, they argue that the trial court erred contiguous property. (See, e.g., ' when it found .that the zoning ordinances ab- solutely preclude the award of density credits on the benchlands. In a related argument, the [138 Ca1.App.3d496] County and amicus also argue that because Seascape has not submitted a development plan Am. Dredging v. State, Depi. of Environ. Pro. for the 110 acres, it failed to exhaust its ad- (1979) 169 M.I.Super. 18 [404 A.2d 42]; ministrative remedies: Multnomah County'e. Howell (1972) 9 There is no litmus paper test under either Ore.App. 374 [496 P.2d 235, 238].) Other , .federal or state law to determine when a taking courts focus on the restricted acreage, but also has occurred. "[W]hether a iegulation.is ex. ' consider whether development rights have been cessive in any particular situation involves quei : denied outright, or transferred elsewhere. (See, ' tions of degree, turning on the individual facts e.g., American Say. & Loan Assn v. County of of each case ...." (Ag{ns v. Giiy of Tmburon, Marin (9th Cir. 1981) 653 Mil 364; Fifth supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 277.) The United States Avenue Corp.: v. Washington County, etc. Supreme Court has declared itself unablo'to (1978] 282 Ore. 591 [581 P.2d 50].) . , develop any set formula for determining what . We are persuaded that the approach suggested constitutes a "taking" for purposes of the Fifth' in American Say. & Loan Ass'q v. County, of Amendment. (Penn Central Transp. Co. •v. New . Marin, supra, 653 F.2d 364 is the appropriate York City (1978) 438 U.S. 104, 123-124 [57 one, as it appears to provide for the most L.Ed.2d 631, 647.648, 98 S.Ct. 2646].] "The equitable accommodation of the conflicting application of a general zoning law to particular public and private interests at stake in a "tak- propertyeffects a taking if the ordinance does ings" challenge such as this one. As in this case, not substantially advance legitimafe state in- the dispute in -American Say. & Loan Assn in- terests, see Nectow Y. Cambridge, 277 U. S. volved contiguous acreage under ,a single 183, 188 (1928), or denies an, owner ownership, but subject to different zoning economically viable use, of his land, see Penn restrictions. Plaintiff owned Strawberry Point , Central Transp, CV. v. New York City, 438 U.,(20 acres) and Strawberry Spit (48 acres); two S. 104, 138, n. 36 (1978). The determination contiguous parcels. Marin County' adopted a that governmental action constitutes a taking is;, , zoning ordinance allowing one multiple residen- in essence, a deWhiination that the public at• ' tial unit per five acres on the spit, and four per large, rather than a single owner, must bear the acre on the point, Plaintiff filed suit, claiming burden of an, exercise of state power in the the ordinance was facially unconstitutional as public interest. Although no precise tyle deter= applied to both parcels. Summary judgment for ' mines when property has been taken, see Kaiser the County was granted, on the ground that the Aetna v. United States, 444 U. S. 164 (1979), zoning permitted a reasonable profitable use of the question necessarily requires a weighing of plaintiffs property as a whole. private and public interests." (Agins v. Tiburon, The appellate court rejected the trial court's supra, 447 U. S. at pp. 260-261 [65 L.Ed.2d at approach. It framed the question as pp. 111-112].) "... whether the challenged ordinance Decisional law under the takings clause of the created] two separate parcels for taking pur- federal Constitution has been described as poses by adopting different zoning designations , "hopelessly confused," with lower courts dif- for each parcel." (Id., at p. 370.) That question, fering widely in their analytical frameworks for the court explained, was one of fact which could resolving takings challenges. (Note, not be resolved on summary judgment. Plain- Developmenu—Toning (1978) 91 Harv.L,Rev. tiffs allegations that it had been deprived by a 1427, 1464.) That.confus[on is particularly ape" nonuniform ordinance of a substantial, parent in cases with facts, cimilar to those at economically viable portion of its property tend - 1 2-198 1 E I �I a 7 iJ I APTOs SEASCAPE CORP. V. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ 138Cal.App.3d484;—Cal.Rptc— [Dec. 1982] ed to require that the spit be evaluated separately for taking purposes. Nevertheless, without a development plan, it was impossible to tell whether plaintiff had actually been deprived of rights, or whether the county would make some provision for the transfer of those rights, i.e., through density transfers. Only when it was clear how the property would be treated at the development stage could a court determine "whether justice and fairness require[d] that [the property owner's] loss be compensated by the government." (Id.,'at p. 372.) In other words, when governmental action has divided contiguous property under single ownership into separate zones, and has restricted development in oneof those zones, a provision allowing some transfer of development rights from the restricted property or awarding compensating densities elsewhere may preclude a finding that an unconstitutional taking has occurred.• In support of their argument that the court should not have looked at the subject property in isolation, the County and amicus rely on Penn Central Transp. Loan Assn, supra, 653 F.2d at pp. 369-370.) First, we note that the trial court made a , special finding that the County has had the power'at all times material herein to determine the base or basic densities for Seascape's uplands, and the compensating higher densities, if any, that would be added to that base density. With respect to the benchlands, however, the court concluded that the county's zoning or- dinances absolutely precluded any grant of com- pensating densities. As we will explain, we have concluded that the court's construction of those ordinances was erroneous, and that the County can grant Seascape compensating densities on both its uplands and benchlands. (5) The rules of statutory construction are applicable to local ordinances (Kortum v. Alkire (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 325, 334 [138 Cal.Rptr. 26]; see Kasunich v. -Kraft (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 177, 183 [19 Cal.Rptr. 872]), and the.constroctibn of a statute or ordinance is a question of law for the court. (Wilson v. County of Santa Clara (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 78, 84 1137 Cal.Rptr. 78].) (6) Generally legislation chnntd M rnneln".d if n.acnnnkly --:W ..,. [138 Ca1.App.3d 497) preserve its constitutionality. (Kash Enterprises, Inc: v.'City of Los Angeles (1977) 19 Cal.3d Co. v. New York City, supia, 438 U.S. at page • 294, 305 [138 Cal.Rptr. 53, 562 P.2d 1302].) 130 [57 L.Ed.2d at page 6521, wherein the When two alternative interpretations of a statute Supreme Courtstated: "'Taking' jurisprudence or ordinance are presented, one of which may be does. not divide a single parcel 'into discrete unconstitutional and the other constitutional, the segments and •attempt to, determine whether' court will choose that construction which will rightsin a particular segment have been entirely' 'uphold the validity of the statute. (Kortum v. abrogated. In deciding whether a particular Alkire; supra, itt p. 934.) ...... [T]he constitu- governmental action has been effected a taking, : tionality of statutes ought not be decided except this Court focuses rather both on the character in an actual factual setting that makes such a of the action and on the nature and extent of the decision necessary. [Citations.] Adherence to interference with rights .in the parcel as a this rule is particularly important in cases raising whole ...." Penn Central is factually distinguishable, however. The language upon which the County and amicus rely was the Supreme Court's response to an argument that a taking could be . established merely by showing that an owner's ability to use air rights above Grand Central Terminal had been restricted by'the applicability of New York City's Landmarks Preservation Law. (Penn Central, supra, 438 U.S. at p. 130 [57 L.Ed.2d at p. 652].) The case did not in- volve contiguous property for which different zoning designations were adopted, and the court's broad language -does not resolve 'the question presented here. (See American Say. & allegations of an unconstitutional taking of private property." (Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Recl. Assn. (1981) 452 U.S. 264, 294-295 [69 L.Ed.2d 1, 1138 Cal.App.3d 498] 27-28, 101 S.Ct. 2352].) (7) In addition, a statute or ordinance must be interpreted with reference to the whole system of law of which it is a part (People v. Comingore (1977) 20 Cai.3d 142, 147 [141 Cal.Rptr. 542, 570 P.2d 723]); if possible, significance and effect should be given to each section and part thereof. (Zorro Inv, Co. v. Creat Pacific Securities Corp. (1977) 69 110 2-199 APfos SEASCAPE CORP,. Y. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ 138 Ca1.App.3d 484; — Cal.Rptr. — [Dec. 1982] Ca1.App.3d 907, 913 1138 Ca1.Rptr. 410J.) (2d) As has been stated, the benchlands were zoned R -1.6 -PD, which would permit con- struction of one -family dwellings, at a density of one site per 6,000 square feet. The County con- tends that Seascape could have been granted greater density on the benchlands had it applied for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) permit. A PUD allows the construction of buildings on a tract free of conventional zoning so as to permit a cluster of structures and some increased densi- ty on some portions of a tract, leaving the re- mainder as open space. (Avco Community Developers, Inc. V. South Coast Reglan! Cont. (1976) 17 Ca1.3d 785, 796 [132 Cal'.Rptr. 386, 553 P.2d 546].) The County's zoning or- dinances provided for PUDs, which could be located in any zoning district upon the granting of a use permit. (Santa Cruz.County. Code, § 13.04:305(b).) A PUD'on a site of 10 acres or more, ,located in an R-1 district, could in - elude any use permitted in any residential or, C-1 (neighborhood commercial) district either' as a permitted or conditional use: (Id., § 13.04.305(0)•),'::;„:':...:,; ;,.,e,,.;;tr, •, County Code sectidn 13.04.3065 sets forth density standards for a PUD site area., •• The trial court apparently read subdivision b of that section to mean that the maximum densi- ty which would be allowed in a PUD in an R-1-6 • district would be one single-family residential unit per 6,000 square feet, despite the fact that, according to section 13.04.305(c), a hotel or multiple family dwelling was a permitted use in a PUD of oves,.10„acres located.in, such a ; 'that section provides in'relevant part. "b. Densi- ty. The. average number .,of dwelling units per developable acre shall not exceed the maximum number of dwelling units prescribed by the site regulations or the site area per dwelling unit regula. tion for the district in which the planned unit develop- ment is located subject, however, to the exception that the avenge number of dwelling units per developable acre may exceed the maximum number of dwelling units prescribed for a district by not more than 10% in a planned unit development on a site of ten acres or more. "c. Exception. The development standards and density requirements of subsections (a) and (b) above shall not apply in the 'U -BS' Districts wherein the standards and density must be consistent with the up. pliable General Plan as determined by the Planning Commission or Board, as the case may be. (Ord.. • 1714, See. 2, May 9, 1972)•11.. • • , ', , district. In effect, the court's reading nullifies section 13.04.305(c) as it applies to an R-1-6 district. • In brief, the County's position is that a PUD on the benchlands could include multiple dwell- ing units at a density of one dwelling unit per 1,000 square [138 Cal.App.3d 4991 feet. (Santa Cruz County Code, §§ 13.04.305(c); 13.04.2'12-A, subd. 10; 13.04.195, subd. a; I3.04.051, subd. a, subset. 8; 13.04.110-D.) In addition, the County argues that a hotel is a permitted use in a Gl district. (§ 13.04.212-A, subd. 5.) A hotel is not a dwelling unit, and the density limitations in sec- tion 13.04.306 would not be applicable to preclude the award of compensating densities through approval of a hotel in a PUD on the bench lands.,: • � ,.„•- The County's zoning ordinances are complex and ambiguous, and the relationship among the various sections is confusing, as is apparent from the conflicting testimony from various of- ficials charged at various times with administra- tion of these ordinances.6 Nevertheless, the County's construction of the ordinances is preferable, us it would both give some effect and meaning to all the ordinances at issue, and avoid' the possibility of a'cwnclusion that ordinance 1800 is unconstitutional on its face. While the term "compensating density” does not appear as such in these ordinances, we conclude that in. addition to granting compensating densities on the upland's, the County does have discretion to approve a PUD on the benchlands with varying uses and with a density greater than one single- family dwelling per 6,000 square feet. Accord- ingly, we cannot conclude that the mere enact- ment of ordinance 1800 constituted a taking. 47he trial court found that during the discussion prior to adopting ordinance 1800, the planning direc. tor informed the board of supervisors that no credit could be given for the arroyos and the beach if Seascape submitted a PUD for the benchlands. As the County points out, that conversation was ambiguous; the questioner asked about a PUD; the answer refers to a "PD,” which is not the same as a PUD in Santa Cruz County. Moreover; while deference is generally accorded to the interpretation of ordinances by those whose Usk it Is to administer them, in this case there Was no unanimity among administrators as to the meaning of these ordinances.: _ 2-200 11 1 1 1 I E 1 a 1 1 1 1 I 1 APCOs SEASCAPE CORP. Y. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ • 138 Cal.App.3d 484;—Cat.Rptr. — [Dec. 19821 "At this juncture, [Seascape is] free to pursue public use for any five-year period prior to July [its] reasonable investment expectations by sub- 31,'1972. . •• ' •• r .. . � • miffing a development plan to local officials. In that month, the public was granted permis- Thus, it cannot be said that the impact of general §ion to use the beach for recreational purposes land -use regulations has denied [it] the 'justice pursuant to Civil Code section 813.7 • . and fairness' guaranteed by the Fifth and Four- •' The court concluded that there had been no teenth Amendments, [Citation.]" (Fn. omitted.) dedication of any of Seascape's property to the (Agin v. Tiburon, supra, 447 U.S. 255, public, except for certain recorded dedications 262-263 [65 L.F-d.2d 106, 113-114].) 1 and grants of easements. The court also con - We must emphasize, however, that our con- cluded that Seascape is the owner in fee simple clusion rests on the premise• that although absolute of the real property described in the development of the subject property is pro-, cross-complaint, and that the seaward boundary hibited, the County's ordinances do permit the of that property is the "mean high tide line." - grant of compensating densities to•Seascape on (Civ. Code, § 830.) ' •+"• . • • • • �' u,t, both its berichlands and uplands in excess of the ' (8a) -The County coritends the trial court's basic densities which the zoning of those parcels ' findings with respect to public use of the beach would permit absent any consideration of the ' are unsupported by the evidence. (9a) The subject property. To ensure the County's com- County also contends that even if there has been pliance with our decision, we will direct the trial no implied dedication, the seaward bounday of court to modify its order dismissing Seascape's Seascape's fee is that point reached by the second cause of action by adding that the cause highest annual swells of the sea, and not by the is dismissed on condition that the County does mean high tide line. "• "!'::' -r- t•• grant. Seascape, such compensating densities..... (10) * •"Adverse" use of shoreline property by Should any dispute arise after Seascape submits the public for more -than five years can result in its ! + ' ' " - :r " :',; an implied common law dedication of a public i�+•.:.• >'>;,i:9:^.,"'+•..:,;,;;i;;w,t, easement for recreational purposes insuch prop- =ri•'[138Cal.App.3d5001 • 41:c°1 r•".-• erty. (cion v. City of Santa Cruz [consolidated "' %'• ' ""' t = ••::' •' with Dietz v. King] (1970) 2 Cal. 3d 29, 38-39 development plan or plans for these parcels, the ' [84 Cal.Rptr. 162, 465 'M',- 5,m ^•' • • . r:` ' burden will be on the County to show that it has ' :.:.; •:z :•': %'• + '" ' •: * ' ' . made provision either for the award of : t•t>>^'• i'3" [l38CaI,App.3d5011 :' V'I:=%. reasonable compensating densities or for some :'"' ''' :"• rs'- " , : • ....' •: t+•t :i ' other transfer of development rights to Seascape P.2d 50] (hereafter Gion-Dietz); County of Los in exchange for the prohibition against building Angeles v: Berk (1980) 26 Ca1.3d 201, 209 [161 tin the subject property. (See American Say. & • Cal.Rptr. 742, 605 P.2d 381].) "The question Loan Assn, supra, 653 F.2d at p. 372.) then is whether the public has used the land 'for . ; •. ' • a period of more than five years with full The County's Cross-complaint knowledge of the owner, without asking or receiving permission to do so and without objec- tion being made by' anyone.' [Citations.] ... ' [T]he question is whether the public has engaged In its cross-complaint, the County alleged that Seascape Beach and its access ways had been impliedly dedicated .to the public. The court found that prior to the development of Seascape's property, the beach was remote and secluded, with limited access,'and public use was casual rather than substantial. As Seascape developed its property, it extended streets, which facilitated beach access. Public beach use gra ually increased, and at some point between 1970 and 1973 public use became' substantial rather than casual, but there was no substantial in 'long -continued adverse use' of the land suffr- °As amended in 197I, section 813 provides that a holder of record title may record a description of land and a notice that the right of the public to use the land is by permission and subject to control of the owner. The recorded notice is conclusive evidence in a judicial proceeding on the issue of dedication that public use is permissive and with consent. (Stats. 1971, ch. 941, § 1, p. 1845; we also Civ. Code, § 1009; 3 Wilkin, Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed. 1973) Real Propirty, §§ 81 and 369, pp. 1836 and 2064.) 2-201 Afros SEASCAPE CORP. V. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ' 138 Cal.App.3d 484; — Cal.ltptr. — [Dec. 1982] tient to raise the 'conclusive and undisputable presumption of knowledge and acquiescence, while at the same time it negatives the idea of a mere license.' [Citations.]" (Gion-Dietz, supra;' at p. 38.)., .... . • . (11) Litigants seeking to establish such adverse use must show that persons have used. the property as they would have used public land, or as if they believed the public had a right to such use. (Gion-Dietz, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 39; Cowuy ofLos Angeles v, Berk, supra, 26' Cal.3d at pp. 213-214.) That belief, as manifested by thepublic's action's with respect to the property, must be reasonable in light of all the circumstances. (Berk, supra, at p. 216.). Litigants must, also show that various groups of Persons rather than a limited and definable number used the land (Glon-Dietz, supra, at p. 39), and That public use has been "substan+• tial." (Berk, supra, at p. 218; County of orange Y. Chandler -Sherman -Corp. (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 561, 565 [126 Cal.Rptr: ••765].) Evidence that users looked to a governmental agency for maintenance of the land is significant - in establishing an implied dedication, to the public. (Glon-Dietz; supra, at p. 39.) ••••:',:•: (12) For a •fee owner to negate a finding of intent to dedicate based on uninterrupted public use for more than five years, he- or* she':must either affirmatively prove the giant of a license to use the property, or demonstrate a bona fide - effort to attempt to prevent public use. While an; owner's efforts may have been so minimal -as td be inadequate as a matter of law, ordinarily the question is one of fact. (00n -Dietz, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p: 41; Cdunty of Cos Ageles V. Berk, supra, 26 Cal.3d at p. 216.).. -1. .. (8b) The evidence with respect to the ekteut of the,public'.s use of the beach prior to 1972 is, in conflict, and it is elementary that this court is. without power to reweigh the evidence, and reach a factual determination contrary to that of the trial court. All factual matter's • must ix viewed most favorably to, tha- prevailing party and in support of the judgmrnt. " "'In brief, the appellate court ordinarily looks only at the evidence supporting the successful parry; and disregards the contrary showing.` [Citation.]"- (Compbell v. Southern Pacific Co.' (1978) 22 Cal.3d 51, 60 [148 Ca[.Rptr. 596, 583 P.2d 1211, original italics.): -- %., Viewed in that light, the evidence.supports the. trial court's findings. Prior to its purchase by 13 Seascape, the area was part of a fenced horse and cattle ranch. In the middle of the ranch was a path to the beach, blocked' by two wooden [138 Cal.App.3d 5021 gates, which were kept closed. Ranch owner Krag only occasionally saw people walking along the beach at water's edge, fishing and clamming; not many people got onto the beach. Seascape acquired the property in .1063. At the time the property above the beach was being used for farming, and the beach was generally desolate. Seascape developed the property north of Seascape Beach into a residential subdivision, and advertised it as including a private beach. As Seascape commenced street improvements, its employees noticed an increase in people on the beach. Seascape hired people, including off- duty sheriffs deputies, to patrol the property and eject trespassers. On some occasions Seascape had vehicles towed away which were parked on the roads which led toward the beach. Eventually the corporation, hired a fulltime security manwho patrolled the beach in uniform, in a jeep, and was instructed to eliminate trespassers. At the time, Seascape per. mitted individuals from Rio del Mar tract to use the beach. On occasion Seascape gave specific permission to a group, such as a Boy Scout group, to use- the beach. Seascape also gave Wes promotional activities, and gave out passes, for weekend use'or day Vise: There was no evidence of any governmental maintenance of the area. ,. -. • . t That evidence is sufficient.to support the trial court's findings that prior to 1972, public use of the beach was not sufficiently substantial for any, five-year period to negate the idea of mete license. • . , The County contends the public's use of the property is comparable to'tharof the public on the Dietz property in Glon-Dietz, apparently contending that the public's use is sufficient as a matter of law. The County's recitation of the facts in support of that contention, however, ig- nores the role that this court must view those facts in the light most favorable to Seascape. In Dietz, the public in substantial numbers had used tl[,e beach and a road to the beach for over 100 years, to camp, picnic, collect driftwood, fish, and decorate ,graves at a small cemetery plot on the beach. Groups of'Indians camped an 2-202 '1 APTOs SEASCAPE CORP. Y. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ 138 Cal.App.3d 484;—Cal.Rptr. — [Dec. 1982] 114WI 1 the beach for weeks during the summer. The and settle land claims in California. T1re act re - ' beach had also been used for commercial, quired persons claiming right or title in lands fishing, and there was no evidence that the from the Spanish or Mexican governments to respective fee owners had ever attempted to pre- present their claims to a commission for settle - ' vent, this use. The evidence in this case, viewed ment. Following a decree of confirmation by the in the light most favorable to the judgment, commission,. the land was surveyed by the establishes no similar substantial use. -.• Surveyor General and a map of the survey prepared. Thereafter, on proof of confirmation II ; ,. - •.;• and approved survey to the General Land Of-. fice, the federal government issued a patent to (9b) Civil Code section 830 provides in rele- the claimant. The patent issued on confirmation vant part: "Except where the grant under which of the land grant "was conclusive of both (a) the • the land is held indicates a different intent, the validity of the grant ... and (b) the land's bpun- owner of'the upland, when it borders on . daries. U.S. v. Coronado Beach. Co. (1921)255 tidewater, takes to ordinary high-water mark; US 472. Thus, if a patent conveyed title to the ' (13) The high water mark refers to an ordinary high tide line; there was no basis for an average height of the high waters at 2 particular; assertion that, under Mexican law, grants car-., place over a long period of time, ascertainable tied only to the highest high tide line and that by :: ' ; ,. .,.:.. • - ' , consequently a,strip of land between that.line .. ' , i ' and the patent line remained public domain sub-. .1138Ca1.App.3dS031 . +.,t;;r;y „ _, ,• ject to entry." (Bowman,•2 Ogden's Revised ;:.;.,.;•' Cal. Real Property,Law (Cont.Ed.Bar 1975) reference to monuments and tidal data of the §§26.2-26.3, pp. 1238-,1239; see. also 3 . United States Coast and -Geodetic Survey. (Peo- Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed. 1973) ple v. Wm. Kent Estate Co. (1966) 242 Real Property, § 3, p. 1774.) : •. •. •••; :, ;, -Jr Cal.App.2d 156, 159 [51 Cal.Rptr. 215].) :-, . The record includes the 1860 and 1$77 federal (90 Among its findings on the cross- • patents confirming the two land grants, and the complaint, the court found that the, subject pro- . 1858 and 1860 field notes of the final surveys of perty is "included within the boundaries of the, each rancho. With respect to the Aptos Rancho, ' Aptos and San Andreas Mexican Grants, as • surveyed, confirmed, patented,.and conveyed the notes state that the boundaries of the rancho are "well defined by the Bay of Monterey, the by the. United ' States ,. . to Seascape's Shoque'l Rancho, the,Shoquel Augmentation predecessors in the title pursuant to the Private Rancho, and the San Andres Rancho .. Land Claims Act of 1851...." The court con- - - ; _,•.,, The notes •..:., ;,,,;; �; ;•, :: • ,- ;;,t...,z.•• ,»;; ' cluded that pursuant to Civil Code section 830,_ s :_,•,.,;. the seaward boundary of the property is the : ••... . 1138Ca1.App.3d504] , "mean high tide line," and that the federal pa- , •;.., tent did not indicate a different intent. also state: "Commenced at the junction of the ' .... , The County disagrees, and argues as follows: Sanjon de Boregas with the sea at the corner No. (1) the boundary is that provided by the Mexican 2, of the Shoquel Rancho ... I marked this post ' law which prevailed when the original land grants were made; (2) that law provided that A. No. 1, and thence meander the sea coast." - Similarly,'the field notes of the final survey of grants of land bordering on the sea bestowed ti- to Rancho San,.Andres state in part: "To true tle only to the point reached by the sea in its corner at foot of bluff on beach of Monterey Bay, ' "highest annual swells" (in other words, to the highest high water mark); (3) Seascape's fee, Thence,following the meanders of the shore of Monterey Bay at high watet mark...." therefore, extends only to the foot of the bluffs, Surveyor Thomas Williams testified for and not as far toward the bay as the mean high Seascape that the boundary along Monterey Bay tide line. _ • _ indicated in the patents and the field notes was To fulfill its obligations under the Treaty of . the mean high water line. i Guadalupe Hidalgo, under which California The County argues at length that Williams' became a part of the United States, Congress.,. testimony was not credible, and offers its own enacted the Act of March 3, 1851, to ascertain complicated interpretation of the old field notes, ' Iq 114WI 1 ' AFros SEASCAPE CORP. V. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ 138 Cal.App.3d 484; — Cal.Rptr. — [Dec. 19821 - in its effort to establish that the boundary as con- firmed by thepatents was not the mean high tide line. Despite the County's arguments, United States v. Pacheco (1865) 69 U.S. (2 Wall.) 587 137 Ltd. 8651 and Coburn v, San Mateo Court-• ty (C.C.N.D.Cal. 1896) 75 F. 520 are dispositive. Pacheco is an appeal from a decree confirming title to and the location of a Mexican grant to land on the east side of San Francisco Bay. The decree described the land as bounded "on the west by the bay:" (United States v. Pacheco, supra, at p. 588 [17 L.Ed. at p. 865].)' The Supreme Court held that according to either common law or Mexican civil law; when the bay was given as a boundary and when nothing in the decree suggested otherwise, that boundary' was ,the line of the ordinary high water mark. (/d, at p. 590 [17 L.Ed. at p, 866j.)-.'._. In Coburn, owner's land, bounded on the west by the Pacific; was originally part of a Mexican grant, on which a federal patent was issued. The description of its boundaries in the grant and the patent stated that the land bordered' `,'to the west on the sea." (Coburn v. San Mateo County, supra, 75. F. at p. 526.) However, meander lines on the plat of the rancho, surveyed by the United States surveyor, seemed,to indicate that the westem boundary of the land was on the bluff bordering on the sea, and not on the beach itself. Owner claimed, the grant from the Mex- ican government included the tidelands. In an argument similar to that of the County in this case, respondent in Coburn relied on the meander lines and claimed that owner's grant . did not even extend to the tidelands, but ended on the bluff. The court disagreed with both parties. Rely- ing on United States v, Pacheco, supra, 69 U.S. 587, -it held that under common law or Mexican civil law, because the bay was given as the boundary in the,grant, that boundary was the high water mark. As for the meander lines, "it is well settled that they do not limit the boundary of the grant. Their purpose is to ascertain the quantity of land to be charged for." (Coburn, supra, 75 F. at p. 530.) The high water mark, and not the meander line, was the- boundary. (/d, at p. 531; see also-., ` [138 Cad.App.3d 505] Stillwell v. Jackson (1936) 5'Ca1.2d 165; 169 [53 P,2d 7521 [In the absence of any -other declared purpose, a meander line of description, used as a means of measuring and correctly locating the shore line, represents the line of or- dinary high tide].) The trial court did not err when it concluded that the seaward boundary of Seascape's fee was the mean high tide line, and that the federal pa- tent did not indicate a different intent.• (14a) The County also contends thaveven if the bayward boundary of Seascape's lands ex- tends to the mean high water line, the beach up to the highest high water mark is burdened with a "public servitude" similar to the "public tmst easement" which exists in California tidelands conveyed by patent to private individuals. (See Marks v. Whitney (1971) 6 Cal.3d 251, 257-261 198 Cal.Rptr. 790, 491 P.2d 374].) ' a (15) "Tidelands" are lands between the lines of mean high tide and mean low tide, covered and uncovered successively by the tidal ebb and flow. (Marks v. Whitney, supra, 6 Cal.3d at pp. 257-258; City of Berkeley v. Superior Court (1980) 26 Cal.3d 515; 518-519, in. 1.) (16), 'When tidelands have been granted by the state to a private party, that party receives the title to the soil, subject to .the public's right to use the property for purposes such as commerce, navigation, fishing, as well as for environmental and recreational purposes. (City of Los Angeles v. Venice Peninsula Prop. erties, supra, 31 Cal.34,at p. 291;_ City of Berkeley; supra; 26 Ca1.3d at p. 521; Maiks v. Whitney, supra, 6 Ca1.3d at p. 259.) In other words, such lands are subject to a public trust easement. (Ibid.) (14b) TheCounty's theory in this case is: (1) under Mexican law, there was an analogous public servitude in lands between the highest, high wafer line and the mean low $0ty ofLosAngeles v. Venice Peninsula Properties (1982) 31 Cal.3d 288 [182 Cal.Rptr. 599, 644 P.2d 792], decided after briefing was completed in this case, Is distinguishable. In that case, notwithstanding the rule that a federal patent conclusively determines the boundaries of a grant, the Supreme Court held that the trial court property took evidence as to whether a lagoon was an arm of the sea (and therefore tidelands) in 1850, as there was an ambiguity and in- consistency between the terms of the patent and the opinion of the ).and Office Commissioner who had approved the Underlying survey. (Id., at pp. 295- 296.) In this case, however, there were no corn• parable'inconsistencies; rather; the question was Lk meaning of the terms of the patents. PTO 2-204 4 PEOPLE V. ST. GERMAIN 138 Cal.App.3d 507; — Cal.Rptr. =• [Dec. 19821 tide; (2) the servitude was not extinguished by Mexican law. The court flatly stated, .!`The law issuance of the federal patents; (3) even if of Mexico ..: declared that the public had a Seascape took title to the mean high tide line, the right to the use of the tidelands .:,'::'•': (Id., at strip of land between the highest tide line and the p. 297, italics added.) As already'' explained, mean high tide line remains subject to an ease- "tidelands" are lands between the lines of mean ment for public use.. - high tide and mean low tide. (Marks v. Whitney, In light of City of Los Angeles v. Venice supra, 6 Cal.3d at pp. 257-258.) Nothing in Ci - Peninsula Properties, supra, 31 Cal.3d 288, we iy of Los Angeles supports the notion that the. ' conclude that the trial court correctly concluded public's rights under Mexican law extended that Seascape's property was not subject to any beyond the tidelands to the highest high water servitude. In that case, the court held that the line, as the County would have this court hold. public trust doctrine applies to tidelands which That portion of the judgment concluding were originally acquired by Seascape's property has been taken without just compensation and awarding damages for the [138 Cal.App.3d 506] . ' . .- taking is reversed. The trial court is directed to °' • • modify that portion of the judgment dismissing private persons -from the Mexican government Sea'scape's second cause of action for prior to the time California was ceded to the • declaratory relief by conditioning that dismissal United States, and which were later patented to on the grant of compensating densities to the owners by the federal government in actor- Seascape; as modified, that portion of the judg- ; ' dance with the requirements of the Treaty of ment is affirmed. Judgment in favor of Seascape Guadalupe Hidalgo. (1d., at p.•291.) While the on the .County's cross-complaint is affirmed.. case confirms the County's analysis of the effect Each party to bear its own costs. of a federal .patent, it does not- support the ;_•- °?: ; , County's interpretation of the extent of the public's rights in land adjacent to the sea under White, P. J., and Barry -Deal, J., concurred. :; [Crim. 2363. First Dist., Div. Four. Dec. 23, 1982.1 .:•;)..: s !'- : ;; , „ , •. • . ' THE PEOPLE, aintiff and Respondent, y. ;:; ;.; t;;;•; .;; t_`; t. .,[ , GREGORY ST. G AIN, Defendant and Appellant. rt .• ;,, ' SUMMARY ., ... .. . ' A jury found defendant guilty of grand t (Pen. Code, §487, subd. 1), receiving stolen proper- ty (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. 1), and robbery n. Code, § 211). The trial court had granted the People's motion to consolidate the two information riginally filed against defendant, one informa- tion charging defendant with two counts of grand the eceiving stolen property, robbery, and at- tempted robbery, and the second information charging ht ith a separate and unrelated robbery. The trial court had admitted the transcript of the preliminary h 'ng testimony of a witness who was living in Holland at the time of the trial but who was a legal perm t resident of the United States. Further, the trial court had denied defendant's request to instruct the ' that if the evidence was ' sufficient to support a finding of guilt of both the offense charged and a le included offense, and if it entertained a reasonable doubt as to which offense was committed, it mus " d defendant guilty only of the lesser offense. (Superior Court of the City and County of San Francs Nos. 101947 and 104,578, S. Lee Vavuris, Judge.) The Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held that under Pen. Code, § 954, the the co roper- ly granted the motion to consolidate the two informations, since the intent to feloniously ain property was a common element of substantive importance in the commission of the Offen ' I 2-205 4 MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY March S. 1983 To: Chairman & Members of the Planning Commission From: Robert H. Burnham - City Attorney Re: GPA 81-2 / Block 400 The Planning Commission had asked this office to provide it with information relative to the size of the medical office building at the corner of Newport Center Dr., and San Miguel. As can be seen in the correspondence which is attached to this memo, the archit ct who designed the building indicates that it consists of approximately 79,800 sq. ft. These dimensions are consistent with the information provided by the Planning Department. I have also discussed with Wil Layman, the attorney for the property owner, the significance of the term "exclusionary" which appears on the map attached to the lease that covers the parcel on which the proposed development is to occur. Mr. Layman has advised me that the term has no 1 significance, and since there is no reference in the lease to the term, I believe that Mr. Layman is correct. Obert H. Burnham City Attorney RHB/pr MMP/Block400 2-206 ' MILLARD ARCHULETA ASSOCIATES IMarch 3, 1983 tCAUSEY & RHODES 1401 Avocado Suite 901 Newport Beach, California 92660 Attn: Mr. Frank Rhodes RE: MEDICAL BUILDING 400 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE ' NEWPORT, CALIFORNIA Dear Frank: This letter will serve to confirm that the Gross Building Area of 400 Newport Center Drive, is 79,800 square feet, which is derived by multiplying the plan dimensions of 60 feet and 190 feet times seven stories. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. Very truly yours, ' MILLARD ARCHULETA ASSOCIATES ' Millard J. Archuleta, Jr., AIA � 8L President IMJA: mm 7440 NORTH FIGUEROA STREET, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90041 / (213) 254.9239 (213) 254.9121 ' ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN 2-207 IL ITIMRT CENTER MEDICAL BUILDINGS 01" B. GUSEY OFFICE OF THE BUILDINGS AREA CODE 7$4 FRANK A. RHOOE6. JR. 1401 AVOCADO AVENUE . PENTHOUSE SUITE TCL[PHONX 644.0403 NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 22660 March 4, 1983 Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney '. City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 , Subject: General Plan Amendment 81-2 Newport Center - Block 400 Dear Bob: In accordance with your request to Will Layman, I wish to confirm that the gross floor area in the 400 Newport CenterlDriMe Medical Building is less than 80,000 square feet. I am enclosing a copy of a letter from Millard Archuleta, the building architect, showing that ' the building contains 79,800 square feet, according to his computation. If you require any further information, please advise. t Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Yours truly, NEWPORT CENTER MEDICAL BUILDINGS -= j/t�,......� /�-Ute•-L-~-�_ Frank A. Rhodes, Jr. , FAR:ss C.C. Wilbur Layman Robert Lenard encl. 2-208 1 I MEMORANDUM 1 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY IMarch 9, 1983 To: Chairman & Members of the Planning Commission From: Robert H. Burnham - City Attorney Re: Access Restrictions to Cal Trans West The Planning Commission has inquired as to the legal consequences, if any, of conditioning the General Plan Amendment relative to Cal Trans West such that access to that parcel could not be taken off of Superior Ave., nor Pacific Coast Highway. ' This office has briefly researched this question and it is our opinion that such a restriction on access would be an ' invalid condition. The reasons for this opinion are discussed below: An owner of property abutting a public street, other than a freeway, has a property right in the nature of an easement of ingress and egress. This right -of -access to which an abutting owner is entitled, is more than a mere opportunity to go into the street immediately in front of his property rather, it extends in both directions to the next intersecting street. There are, of course, limitations on the right -of - access enjoyed by an abutting property owner. The abutting owner is not entitled to access to his or her land at all points in the boundary between it and the highway. Also, the local agency that controls the roadway may, in the public interest, construct traffic islands or place dividing strips, or designate the street as one-way without exposing itself to liability. 1 2-209 However, the power of the local agency to control its streets and highways does not give it the right to refuse access to an abutting owner and, it, apparently, may not refuse access to one public street simply because there is access to the property by way of another roadway. Most of the case law on this subject arises from efforts of local agencies to abandon or vacate public streets which, at the time of vacation, serve as access to and from certain adjoining property. However, we think the principles involved are equally applicable to a condition of approval on a General Plan Amendment. Our opinion is also based; in part, on the well- established rule that, with certain rare exceptions, a municipality is not empowered to impose a condition of approval for some discretionary permit that is beyond the power of the property owner to perform. In this respect, the State of California has no actual ability to require Beeco to construct "Bluff Road extended" and, absent that access, the parcel would have no reasonable economic use. Finally, if thle Commission were to impose an access restriction as a condition of approval of the General Plan Amendment, and were that condition also to be imposed by the City Council, the City would probably not be liable for damaged predicated upon an argument that the City took the property without compensation. However, the property owner would be entitled to obtain a declaration that the challenged condition was invalid and could argue for compensation based upon the inability to use the property from the date on which the condition was imposed to the date on which it was invalidated. Robert H. Burnham City Attorney RHB/pr MMP/CalTrans 2-210 Planning Commission Meeting March 10, 1983 Agenda Items No. 1 & 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECTS: 1. General Plan Amendment 81-2 (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan and the acceptance of an environmental document. COMPONENTS: (a) CalTrans West LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned). GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. ZONE: O -S (Open Space) District PROPONENT: State of California, Department of Transportation (b) Fifth Avenue Parcels LOCATION: A: Westerly of Marguerite Avenue between Fifth Avenue and Harbor View Drive. B: Northerly of Fifth Avenue between Marguerite Avenue and Buck Gully. C: Along the eastern City boundary between Fifth Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road. GENERAL PLAN: Low Density Residential and Recreational and Environmental Open Space. ZONE: R -1-B (Single Family with B combining) District PROPONENT: The Irvine Company (c) Big Canyon Area 16 LOCATION: Southwesterly of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. ZONE: P -C (Planned Community) District PROPONENT: The Irvine Company 2-211 TO: Planning•Commission - 2 (d) Newport Center - Block .400 LOCATION: Northeasterly of Newport Center Drive East and San Miguel Drive. GENERAL PLAN: Administrative Professional, and Financial Commercial. ZONE: C -O -H (Commercial) District PROPONENT: Newport Center Medical Buildings, Inc. 1 (e) Campus Drive LOCATION: Area bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street, Orchard Avenue, and Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue. GENERAL PLAN: General Industry, Administrative Professional and Financial Commercial, and Retail and Service Commercial. ZONE: M -1-A (Industrial) District, A -P (Administrative, Professional) District, and C-1 (Commercial) District. PROPONENT: The City of Newport Beach INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach 2. 2 to the Local Request to amend the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program for the Caltrans West site. LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned). LCP: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. ZONE: 0-S PROPONENT: State of California, Department of Transportation ' INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Suggested Action Continue public hearing. If desired, take public testimony, discuss the proposed project and possible revisions, and take straw votes on each component of the General Plan Amendment; adopt Resolutions No. and - I'll recommending approval of General Plan AMendment 81-2 and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2. 2-212 1 ITO: Planning Commission - 3 Background On June 4, 1981, the Planning Commission initiated General Plan Amendment 81-2 consistent with City Council Policy Q-1 in effect at that time. Eight areas were originally set for possible amendment, but three dropped out prior to preparation of the environmental document. In addition to the General Plan �. Amendments initiated, Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan amendments were set for those proposals in the coastal zone. The Planning Commission has held public hearings and taken public testimony regarding the General Plan Amendment on January 20, February 10, and February 24, 1983. Questions raised r at the February 24 meeting are responded to in this report. It is requested that the Planning Commission bring the January 20, February 10, and February 24 staff reports to the public hearing. Discussion (a) CalTrans West Park Dedication. Testimony was received regarding the proposed staff recommendation on park dedication for the CalTrans West site. Mr. David Simmes, representing the California Department of Transportation, suggested alternative policy language which is consistent with the condition of approval regarding parks applied to General Plan Amendment 81-1 by the City: "Residential development on the CalTrans West site shall be required to comply with the provisions of the Park Dedication Ordinance (Chapter 19.50 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code). A park of approximately five acres in size is to be developed between Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, 15th Street (extended) and Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extended). The specific size, location and design of the park, and the means to acquire and develop it will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract maps for CalTrans West or the adjacent Banning -Newport Ranch residential development, whichever occurs first. The park shall be completed concurrent with occupancy of the first residential tract on CalTrans West or Banning -Newport Ranch." Affordable Housing Recommendations. Two recommendations on affordable housing have been included in the staff recommendations on CalTrans West. These are 1) 20% of the total dwelling units shall meet the City's standard of affordability for low and moderate income households; and 2) an additional 10% of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as set forth in Section 50093 of the Government Code. These recommendations will require that 30% of the dwelling units constructed on CalTrans West be affordable by standards adopted by the City and State. The 208 requirement relates to the definitions set forth in the City's Housing Element. The Housing Element definition of affordable housing uses City median family income as the basis. Affordable for -sale housing units for low income households are units which sell for less than three times 50% of the City's estimate of City median family income and less than three times 80% of the city estimate of City median family income for moderate income household at the time of project approval. Affordable rental units are units which rent for no more than 30% of low and moderate incomes. This translates into a 1 2-213 T0: Planning Commission - 4 maximum sales price of $102,000 or a contract rent of $850/month. The second requirement of 10% of dwelling units affordable relates to low and moderate income households as set forth in Section 50093 of the Government Code. This definition uses the current area -wide estimate of median family income of $29,900 for a family of four. This translates to a maximum monthly expense of $898 for either ownership or rental units for a.family of four. Staff wishes to reiterate the statements made in previous staff reports regarding affordable housing requirements on CalTrans West. The proposed general plan amendment presents a unique opportunity for the City to place specific affordable housing requirements on a property prior to its sale to a developer. This results in a prior knowledge of the requirements Which must be taken into consideration when the sales price is determined. If a residential designation is approved in this GPA, these requirements should be explicitly set forth to assure ultimate compliance of the future development with the Program and Performance Objectives of the Newport Beach Housing Element and the provisions of Government Code Section 65590 (Mello). (b) Fifth Avenue Parcels View, Protection. The staff analysis and recommendations regarding view protection for the Fifth Avenue Parcels have addressed the proposed General Plan Amendment in terms of a change in land use designation from Low -Density to Medium -Density Residential. Testimony received from the public and discussion by the Planning Commission has indicated an interest in developing language for view preservation from existing residences of a specific nature; that is, policies to protect views regardless of the nature of development which occurs on the site. The imposition of conditions of this nature is appropriate in the action on the General Plan Amendment which requests an increase in the permitted density. Language to preserve existing views has been added to the staff recommendations on the General Plan Amendment for the Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue Parcels, as follows: "That existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved for a person standing on the ground floor level of a Harbor View Hills East residence." Traffic impacts. Traffic impacts of the proposed General Plan Amendment were discussed in the January 20, 1983 staff report as follows: "In evaluating the General Plan Amendment, the proposal must be balanced with planned growth and development in the immediate area and throughout the City. The General Plan was adopted in 1973 and has been amended several times. Most of the land in the City is developed, and the existing General Plan reflects that development. In terms of future allowable development, the General Plan, Local Coastal Program and existing zoning establish that a majority of the vacant land in the City will be developed for low density residential uses or preserved for recreation and environmental open space uses. Most future commercial and office development will occur in the older areas of the community. The proposed project, if approved, appears to be consistent with the overall development pattern. It will, however, use increments of remaining roadway capacity, which will not then be available for development in other parts of the community. As 2-214 TO: Planning Commission - 5 Any indicated in the General Plan, potential development in the older for this General for of commercial areas needs to be balanced with the transportation system." detailed residential development of 10 units or more must comply with the tentative tract maps. The attached requirements established in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Additionally, staff has recommended that the project be required to contribute a sum of money equal to a "fair share" for future circulation system improvements beyond the Traffic Phasing Ordinance requirements. These conditions will partially mitigate the traffic impacts of the proposed general plan amendment. Tentative Tract Maps for the Fifth Avenue Parcels. A question has been raised as to whether the tract maps for the Fifth Avenue Parcels could be required to be submitted prior to action on the General Plan Amendment, using the existing environmental documentation. This proposal raises a number of problems, as follows: Any Reddick, Inc., the City's Environmental Consultant for this GPA, (Attachment No. 1) discusses the level of detail provided in this environmental document and the additional information which must be provided at the time of tentative map approval. 2. If the General Plan Amendment, zoning and tentative tract map approvals are required to be processed concurrently, it would have to be separated from the balance of GPA 81-2. Fred Talarico, the City's Environmental Coordinator, has addressed the effects this would have on the existing GPA 81-2 and the timing and processing constraints of a new, concurrently processed GPA and tract submittal (Attachment No. 2). Buck Gully, Buck Gully, Parcel C of the Fifth Avenue Parcels is designated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan with a primary designation of Recreation and Environmental Open Space and an alternate designation of low density residential. The Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan designates this area as a flora and fauna reserve. The Recreation Element states that "areas designated flora and fauna reserve on the Open Space Plan will be maintained in their natural state with only such nterference as is necessary for the enhancement and preservation of the natural flora and fauna resources." For the Buck Gully area the Element urther states that "it is proposed that these canyons be maintained as natural open space by public acquisition of the land in fee or easement," and that these areas "are to be maintained in a predominantly natural state to preserve valuable flora and fauna resources for both ecological and educational purposes." The City's Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, approved by the City Council and certified by the California Coastal Commission in May of 1982, designates the upper portion of Buck Gully for Recreation and Environmental Open Space uses exclusively. There is no provision for any alternate residential use of the property. Buck Gully is then listed on Page 17 of the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan as an environmentally -sensitive habitat area. The LCP describes recreation and environmental open space areas as including parks, wildlife refuges, golf courses, bluffs, canyons and beaches. The document then states that "uses 2-215 1. The draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for this General for of Plan Amendment is not sufficiently detailed approval tentative tract maps. The attached memo from Phillips Brandt Reddick, Inc., the City's Environmental Consultant for this GPA, (Attachment No. 1) discusses the level of detail provided in this environmental document and the additional information which must be provided at the time of tentative map approval. 2. If the General Plan Amendment, zoning and tentative tract map approvals are required to be processed concurrently, it would have to be separated from the balance of GPA 81-2. Fred Talarico, the City's Environmental Coordinator, has addressed the effects this would have on the existing GPA 81-2 and the timing and processing constraints of a new, concurrently processed GPA and tract submittal (Attachment No. 2). Buck Gully, Buck Gully, Parcel C of the Fifth Avenue Parcels is designated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan with a primary designation of Recreation and Environmental Open Space and an alternate designation of low density residential. The Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan designates this area as a flora and fauna reserve. The Recreation Element states that "areas designated flora and fauna reserve on the Open Space Plan will be maintained in their natural state with only such nterference as is necessary for the enhancement and preservation of the natural flora and fauna resources." For the Buck Gully area the Element urther states that "it is proposed that these canyons be maintained as natural open space by public acquisition of the land in fee or easement," and that these areas "are to be maintained in a predominantly natural state to preserve valuable flora and fauna resources for both ecological and educational purposes." The City's Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, approved by the City Council and certified by the California Coastal Commission in May of 1982, designates the upper portion of Buck Gully for Recreation and Environmental Open Space uses exclusively. There is no provision for any alternate residential use of the property. Buck Gully is then listed on Page 17 of the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan as an environmentally -sensitive habitat area. The LCP describes recreation and environmental open space areas as including parks, wildlife refuges, golf courses, bluffs, canyons and beaches. The document then states that "uses 2-215 TO: Planning Commission - 6 permitted in areas shown for recreation and environmental open space on the sites listed on Page 17 of the LUP (which include Buck Gully) and defined as 4 environmentally -sensitive areas (Page 20) are passive recreation uses compatible with the sensitive resource nature of these sites and include hiking, picnicking and nature study." The City's Open Space zoning district permits a variety of uses less restrictive than those allowed by the flora and fauna designation contained in the General Plan or the Recreation and Open Space designation contained in the City's adopted LCP. The district allows, by use permit, certain active commercial and recreation facilities, golf courses, aquatic parks, tennis clubs, and yacht clubs. If, subsequent to the City"s final action on the proposed general plan amendment, Buck Gully were to be rezoned to the open space district it would be with a clear understanding that the permitted uses on the site would be passive in nature, and not include the more active commercial recreation type of facilities allowed through the use permit process. As an alternative the City may, prior to the application of open space zoning to the property, amend the open space district to be specific with respect to flora and fauna reserves and other types of passive open space areas consistent with the City's Local Coastal Program and Recreation and open Space Element. i• Although staff has proposed to remove the residential alternative on Parcel C, it is not recommended that .any park credit be given for this area. Rather, staff is suggesting that this area be maintained as permanent open space in consideration for increased development intensities on Parcel A and on Parcel B, similar in concept to the density transfer program that was developed by the City during General Plan Amendment 79-1 in order to maintain large areas of the Westbay parcel and all of Eastbluff Remnant parcel as permanent open space. it has been suggested by the Irvine Company that this is not the appropriate time to evaluate this parcel for open space uses, and that the City's consideration of major revisions to the Recreation and Open Space Element, which is currently under study, should evaluate all such parcels Citywide and make some determination. It is staff's opinion, however, that from a legal standpoint the City is in a better bargaining position to include Parcel C along with the discussions on Parcel A and Parcel B at this time rather than to evaluate it individually at some future date. Planning Department staff and the City Attorney will be better prepared to discuss the legal aspects of the proposed changes to Buck Gully at the time of Planning Commission hearing. At the Planning Commission meeting of February 24, 1983, there was some �- discussion of Parcel C, Buck Gully and its relationship to the Irvine Coast LCP. There was some confusion regarding the relationship of the uses permitted by the Irvine Coast LCP in the Buck Gully area and those permitted by the City. It should be pointed out that there has never been any overlap in jurisdiction for this area. The portion of Buck Gully that is within the City of Newport Beach boundaries, which run roughly down the center line of the canyon, has always been shown as open space with an alternate use of residential in the Newport Beach General Plan. The area of Buck Gully that is discussed in the Irvine Coast LCP is the area that is totally outside of the City boundary and under the County's jurisdiction. Although the Irvine Coast LCP as originally drafted was fairly permissive in terms of the uses that would be allowed in these residential recreation areas (e.g. Buck Gully), 2-216 1 ITO: Planning Commission - 7 the final draft as certified by the Coastal Commission (Attachment No. 7) is very restrictive as to the uses permitted in these areas. Uses are generally limited to passive parks, riding and hiking trails, bikeways, drainage control facilities and utilities. The uses allowed by the County under the certified Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan should be compatible with those permitted by the City under the Recreation and Open Space designation as a flora and fauna reserve. The Buck Gully parcel consists of approximately 65.0 gross acres. At the request of the City, the Irvine Company has prepared tentative calculations as to 2:1 slope areas in the Buck Gully parcel. It has been calculated that approximately 6.2 acres are slope areas greater than 2:1, leaving approximately 58.8 acres consisting of slopes no greater than 2:1. If some allowance is made for streets within the area (for example: 15%), there would be 50 buildable acres remaining. Under the alternate low density residential designation this would allow approximately 200 units. It should be pointed out, however, that the City also has a Location of Structures policy which requires that buildings not be located in environmental habitat and other sensitive areas. This policy would probably cause a further reduction of possible residential units on the site. Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission Recommendation. At the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission meeting held on Tuesday, March 1, 1983, the PB&R Commission voted to endorse the sub -committee recommendation on General Plan Amendment 81-2 (included as Attachment No. 6 to this report). The PB&R Commission's recommendation is substantially consistent with the Planning staff recommendation to the Planning Commission on this proposal. They endorse the concept of increasing intensities on Parcel A and Parcel B and removing the residential alternative on Parcel C, leaving it exclusively for passive open space uses. In addition, they support a view park at the intersection of Harbor View Drive and Marguerite Avenue and an expansion of the Oasis Facility in the area northerly of the existing facility adjacent to the bluff. On Parcel A the Commission has recommended that in addition to providing a continuation of the Jasmine Creek Greenbelt that an easement permitting public access to the greenbelt be granted as part of the project approval. In addition, the PB&R Commission has recommended that neither the extension of the Jasmine Creek Greenbelt nor the passive view area should be given credit pursuant to the City's Park Dedication Ordinance. The Commission also requests that the approval of the tentative tract map be referred to them Prior to a final determination by the Planning Commission on the parks for the area. If the Planning Commission concurs with the recommendations of the PB&R Commission, conditions No. 6, 7 & 8 contained in the staff recommendation section of this report for Parcel A will need to be deleted. on Parcel B the PB&R Commission has recommended that the area northerly of'the existing Oasis Facility be graded and the flat portion dedicated for park credit to the City to be used for future expansion of the Oasis Facility. In addition, they have requested that the tentative tract map for the site be referred to them prior to final action by the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission concurs with this recommendation on Parcel B the provisions contained in Paragraphs No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 contained on Pages 3 and 4 of the sub -committee recommendation should be added to the staff proposed conditions contained at the end of this report. 1 2-217 T0: Planning Commission - 8 1 The PB&R Commission's recommendation on 'Parcel C is that the low density residential designation be removed from the site, however, the Commission added the condition that the City not accept dedication of the property and that no park credits should be given pursuant to the City's park dedication ordinance. This recommendation is consistent with the language recommended by staff at the conclusion of this report. (c) Big Canyon Area 16 Discussion. With the adoption of the Local Coastal Program by the City li Council and its certification by the California Coastal Commission, the City adopted policies relating to the Mouth of Big Canyon. The following language was adopted as a result of the fact that the Irvine Company had cooperated in _ the construction of the Backbay gravity sewer line and specifically with providing mitigation measures for its construction in the form of a restored marsh area in the Mouth of Big Canyon. During the implementation phase of the LCP ,the City and the landowner shall develop a mechanism for obtaining dedication of the Mouth of Big Canyon to the appropriate public agencies, including consideration of the following. a) the granting of park credits to the landowner for those portions of the Mouth of Big Canyon meeting the useability criteria of the Park Dedication ordinance. Park credits would not apply to residential sites where neighborhood parks have already been designated in the Recreation and open Space Element of the General ' Plan (e.g. Castaways and Newport North)j b) the City of Newport Beach shall initiate a general plan amendment and planned community amendment to designate for residential development, a portion of the Big Canyon Planned Community located southwesterly of the intersection of Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The precise boundaries of this site, appropriate density, and design of the residential development will be determined through appropriate environmental documentation. The proposed 10 acres for residential development shall not exceed 10 du's per buildable acre. The concept proposed in the LCP was to give the Irvine Company some additional units in the Big Canyon Area 16 site and also some park dedication credit for appropriate areas within the Mouth of Big Canyon, in exchange for the Mouth of Big Canyon being dedicated to an appropriate public agency (at that time the City was contemplating the State Department of Fish and Game, or the State Coastal Conservancy). To date, the Irvine Company and the City have been unable to resolve the issue of the ultimate disposition of the Mouth of Big Canyon although negotiations are ongoing. Staff has recommended an additional condition relating to site 16 that zoning to allow the residential units on Area 16 not be approved by the City until such time as the question of park credits, development rights and ownership of the Mouth of Big Canyon is resolved. 400 (d) Newport Center - Block No additional information was requested regarding this proposal. (e) Campus Drive No additional information was requested regarding this proposal. 2-218 1 ' TO: Planning Commission - 9 Staff Recommendations The staff recommendations below are a complete list for each site as revised since the January 20, 1983 report. (a) CalTrans West Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Environmental Open Space Elements of the General Plan, and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan: 1. "Multiple -Family Residential" uses not to exceed 15 dwelling units per buildable acre shall be permitted. 2. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 3. That existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved for a person standing on the ground floor level of a Newport Crest unit. ' 4. 208 of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as defined in the City's Housing Element. 5. 10% of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as set forth in Section 50093 of the Government Code. 6. A view park of ± 1 acre shall be located on-site and shall partially satisfy the requirements for park dedication contained in Chapter 19.50 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 7. Upon approval of this amendment by the Planning Commission, CalTrans will enter into an agreement permitting the City a right of entry onto that property required for realignment of Superior Avenue. This agreement will outline the procedures by which realigned Superior Avenue may be conveyed to the City. S. Because of difficulties in providing vehicular access to CalTrans East, and in recognition of both the State's need to dispose of this site and Hoag Hospital's need for additional land, CalTrans has entered into negotiations with Hoag Hospital for the acquisition of CalTrans East. Adoption of detailed zoning and approval of a tentative tract map on CalTrans West shall not occur until CalTrans offers satisfactory evidence that it has restricted access from CalTrans East to Coast Highway. 9. A greenbelt shall be established adjacent to Newport Crest. The greenbelt shall be an average of 30 feet wide and be maintained by the applicant or successor in interest. 10. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan 2-219 TO: Planning Commission - 10 1 of streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. (b) Fifth Avenue Parcels Area A: Marguerite Avenue Parcel: Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. Medium -Density Residential use shall be permitted. 2. Remove Recreational and Environmental Open Space designation from the Open Space Plan for the area adjacent to Marguerite Avenue. 3. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 4. The Jasmine Creek greenbelt system shall be continued on the site. 8. The extent of the greenbelt shall be determined at the time of approval of the P -C development plan. 5. A public view park shall be designated in the Recreation and Open , Space Element and provided (dedication + improvements) on the site 9. in the vicinity of Marguerite Avenue and Harbor View Drive. The precise location of the view park shall be determined at the time of approval of the P -C development plan. 6. That park dedication requirement credits be -given to the applicant for the land dedication of the view park, consistent with the criteria contained in the City's Park Dedication Ordinance. 7. In the event that dedication of the view park does not satisfy the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, the additional park dedication requirements shall be satisfied through on-site or off-site land dedication, the assessment of in -lieu fees or a combination of the above as determined by the Planning Commission and City Council, after recommendation by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 8. In the event that dedication and, improvement of the view park is more than is necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, the excess credit shall be used to satisfy part of the requirement for Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel. 9. That existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved for a person standing on the ground floor level of a Harbor View Hills East residence. be 10. That a number of units equal to 108 of the total units constructed on-site or off-site and be 'affordable to low and moderate income families using City standards. Future discretionary actions (i.e., zoning and tentative tracts) will not be approved until such time as an adequate site or sites have been identified, general planned, and zoned for the construction of affordable units in the City of Newport Beach. 2-220 1 TO. Planning Commission - it 11. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel: Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, Recreation and open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. Medium -Density Residential use shall be permitted. 2. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 3. 3. Remove the Recreational and Environmental Open Space/Flora and Fauna Reserve designation. 4. That the requirements of the Park Dedication ordinance shall be satisfied through on-site or off-site land dedication, the assessment of in -lieu fees or a combination of the above as determined by the Planning Commission and City Council, after recommendation by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, at the time of approval of the'tentative tract map. 5. That existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved for a person standing on the ground floor level of a Harbor View Hills East residence. 6. That a number of units equal to 10% of the total units be constructed on-site or off-site and be affordable to low ,and moderate income families using City standards. Future discretionary actions (i.e., zoning and tentative tracts) will not be approved until such time as an adequate site or sites have been identified, general planned, and zoned for the construction of affordable units in the City of Newport Beach. I 7. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. Area C: Buck Gully Parcel: Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan in consideration for the General Plan Amendments for Areas A & B above: 1. Remove the alternate residential land use designation. This leaves the area designated as Recreational and Environmental Open Space/Flora and Fauna Reserve. 2. Require that the Buck Gully area be established as an open space parcel and a permanent open space easement be recorded for that parcel in conjunction with the tentative and final tract maps for areas A & B. 2-221 TO: Planning Commission - 12 , 3. That the parcel be rezoned to the Open Space Zone for passive open space use concurrent and, in consideration of the rezoning of the Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue Parcels. (c) Big Canyon - Area 16 Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. Medium -Density Residential use shall be permitted. 2. Remove the Recreation and Open Space/Golf Course designation. 3. That the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance shall be satisfied through on-site or off-site land dedication, the assessment of in -lieu fees or a combination of the above as determined by the Planning Commission and City Council, after recommendation by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 4. That 'a number of units equal to 10% of the total units be constructed on-site or off-site and be affordable to low and moderate income families using City standards. Future discretionary actions (i.e., zoning and tentative tracts) will not be approved until such time as an adequate site or sites have been identified, general planned, and zoned for the construction of affordable units in the City of Newport Beach. 5. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as , required. 6. Prior to the approval by the City of any future discretionary actions (i.e., zoning and tentative tract), the question of park credits, development rights and ownership of the Mouth of Big Canyon shall be resolved. (d) Newport Center - Block 400 Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan: 1. Allow the addition of 80,000 square feet of medical office development in Newport Center, along with related parking facilities. 2. Specify this additional allowable development to Block 400, on the parcel located at 400 Newport Center Drive East. 3. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 4. Specify the development be subject to further review and approval of a use permit. I'. 2-222 1 ITO: Planning Commission - 13 5. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. (e) Campus Drive Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan: 1. Revise the land use designation for the area bounded by Dove Street, Birch Street, Bristol Street and Campus Drive to a mixture of General Industry and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial. 2. Establish a permitted intensity of development for the Campus Drive area (as shown on Exhibit 7 following Page 12 of the draft EIR) of 0.5 floor area ratio, with a floor area ratio of up to 1.0 permitted upon review and approval of a use permit. This increase in permitted floor area may be approved if a finding can be made that the traffic and circulation system impacts are no greater than those generated by an office development at 0.5 FAR. The floor area ratio limits are defined as the ratio of gross structural area to the buildable area of the site. 3. That the zoning in the area bounded by Bristol Street North, Birch Street, Dove Street and Campus Drive be amended to require office uses other than those which are ancillary to an industrial use to be placed in the conditional use category (uses which require a use permit). 4. Direct that the zoning in the area be amended to implement this General Plan Amendment. 5. At the time of future discretionary actions, individual projects shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Senior Planner PLT:nma Attachments: 1. March 1, 1983 letter from Phillips Brandts Reddick, Inc. 2. Memo to Fred Talarico dated February 28, 1983. 3. Letter dated February 28, 1983 from Ron Yeo. 4. Draft Resolution for General Plan Amendment 81-2. 5. Draft Resolution for Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2. 6. Memo to PB&R dated March 1, 1983. 7. Excerpt from the Irvine Coast LCP and Map. 2-223 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 , March 1, 1983 Patricia L. Temple, Senior Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Subject: Application of Draft EIR for General Plan Amendment 81-2 to Tentative Tract Maps for Individual Projects Dear Pat: This letter addresses the potential for using the draft EIR prepared for GPA 81-2 to meet the requirements of CEQA and City.Policy K-3 for tenta- tive tract maps on individual projects such as the 5th Avenue Parcels. The response will be presented in two ways. First, the generic difference between general plan and tentative tract level EIR's will be addressed. Second, the specific analyses which would be needed as part of a tentative tract level environmental document for the 5th Avenue project will be described. Environmental documents for general plan amendments typically focus on broad scale planning issues such as compatibility between proposed and existing land Uses, long-term, cumulative impacts on natural systems, availability of public services and utilities and city-wide circulation system capacity. The stated purpose of the GPA 81-2 EIR is to: "....serve as a program EIR, providing a data base which can be used in evaluating future, more detailed planning efforts and determining the heed for and focus of supplemental envi- ronmental documentation (State EIR Guidelines, Section 15069.8). Using a single program EIR to analyze the five different study areas also facilitates the evaluation of the entire project from a city-wide perspective., Such an approach ensures con- sideration of cumulative effects that may be less apparent in a case-by-case analysis. In addition, a program EIR on the General Plan Amendment allows the city to evaluate the project at an early time when greater flexibility is available to deal with issues of city-wide concern." PLANNING • ARCHITECTURE • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH )L, 18012 SKY PARK CIRCLE • IRVINE, CA 92714 • (714) 641.8820 CALIFORNIA COLORADO HAWAII 2-224 I L I [Ii I I I I I Application of Draft EIR for General Plan Amendment 81-2 to Tentative Tract Maps for Individual Projects March 1, 1983 Page 2 Consistent with this general level of analysis, mitigation measures in GPA EIR's tend to deal primarily with land use types and densities, deferring specific design considerations to future environmental docu- mentation. Tentative tract level environmental documents are often the last stop in the development approval process prior to issuance of building permits. As such, the level of impact analysis and related mitigations is very detailed including such measures as specific design standards for buildings and other onsite improvements, identified financial com- mitments to particular offsite roadway or infrastructure improvements, final determination of geotechnical setbacks, etc. The distinctions ' between these two types of EIR's vary from project to project depending upon the size of the site or type of general plan amendment. ' In certain cases, concurrent processing of a GPA and tentative tract will utilize one EIR to meet CEQA requirements. When this type of EIR is used, 1 it must be decided at the outset of the process that the'document will address the full range of impacts from general plan to tract map level of detail. Thus, to apply an EIR prepared for a GPA to a tentative tract map after the draft EIR is complete would require that additional studies be prepared and that the document be rewritten and recirculated pursuant to the CEQA guidelines. Such is the case with the GPA 81-2 EIR which was intended to evaluate general plan level impacts exclusively. This point can be seen more clearly by addressing the 5th Avenue Parcels specifically. An EIR or a tentative tract map proposal for the 5th Avenue parcels would contain several impact assessments and mitigation measures not included in the 81-2 EIR as noted below: . Grading plans would be evaluated with respect to slope stability and I drainage impacts along Jasmine Creek and Buck Gully. . Extent of grading and proximity of structures would be analyzed to determine actual impacts on riparian resources along both Jasmine Creek and Buck Gully. . Further analysis of the extent and significance of cultural resources on the Marguerite Parcel would be conducted and appropriate mitigation established. . Detailed traffic studies would be required prior to approval of the 1 project under the city's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Specific financial commitments may be required to mitigate offsite impacts. Based on site specific traffic studies, incremental impacts on noise sensitive areas of the city will be indicated and potential noise wall fund participation determined. J 2-225 Application of Draft EIR for General Plan Amendment 81-2 to Tentative Tract Maps for Individual Projects March i, 1983 Page 3 . "Will Serve" letters indicating commitments to provide services and utilities to the project from municipal or private sources will be obtained. . Building sections would be analyzed to determine potential impacts on existing views from surrounding residential units and public rights-of-way. Height restrictions would be established to protect existing views. , . Compliance with the city's park dedication ordinance would be estab- lished through fees or land or both. This additional environmental analysis could be provided through one of several methods at the discretion of the Planning Commission and staff, depending upon the severity of the potential impacts and the similarity of the tentative tract map to the proposed project evaluated in the GFA EIR. Three methods provided for by the CEQA Guidelines include: 1. Issuance of a mitigated negative declaration based on an expanded initial study (Section 15080 d. (2)); 2. Preparation of a supplement to the GPA EIR (Sections 15068 and 15069.5 (b)); 3. Preparation of a subsequent EIR which is'based, in part, on the GPA EIR (Section 15068.5). I hope this answers questions that staff or the Planning Commission may have regarding the use of the existing GPA 81-2 EIR. If I can provide further assistance or clarification, please feel, free to call. Very truly yours, PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK JVO/ Irl 1 Mitchell K. Brown Project Manager MKB:mag 1' 2-226 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: February 28, 1983 TO: Pat Temple, Senior Planner, Advance Planning Division FROM: Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 81-2 Pursuant to your request we have reviewed the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy related to the following questions. Question No. 1 If the City Council and Planning Commission do not wish to take action on General Plan Amendment 81-2 (GPA 81-2) "Fifth Avenue Parcels A,B, & C" can the remainder of GPA 81-2 go forward? Response No. 1 The balance can proceed, the City Council and Planning Commission would need to certify the Environmental Impact Report and take such ' actions related to Section 15088 and 15089 as may deem necessary. Question No. 2 rIf the City Council and Planning Commission wish to take separate action on the Fifth Avenue parcels how could this be accomplished? Response No. 2 Once the EIR is certified by the City Council the City could take action on the Fifth Avenue Parcels either before the other portions of the amendment concurrently with or subsequent to the other portions of the amendment. If, action is taken subsequent to the remainder of the amendment no further environmental documentation will be required unless one of the factors described in Section 15067 of the "State CEQA Guidelines" occurs. Question No. 3 What is the anticipated timing of the environmental documentation for tract map level of detail for the Fifth Avenue Parcel "B"? 117 2-227 P. Temple 81-2 2-28-83 Response No. 3 The City has, selected a consultant and approved a scope of work for the preparation of the required further environmental documents. Upon receipt of funds from the applicant (The Bren Co.) staff will notify the consultant to proceed. From notification to proceed, it will be approximately 90 days to the first public hearing. This will be dependent on the applicants being able to prepare and staff accepting the required applications for the Tentative Tract Map and Planned Community Zoning District. 'The applicant is required 60 days prior to. submitting an application for a Planned Community Development Plan to submit all information for review and recommendation. This time period coupled with the 28 day application process time (notification, etc.) requires a 88 day time period. Question No. 4 What happens if the City determines to supplement the EIR instead of preparing a new Draft EIR? Response No. 4 Supplemental EIR's are required to provide only that information necessary to make the EIR adequate for public review. However, a supplemental EIR is required to be given the same notice and review as is give a Draft EIR so from a project timing standpoint there is no difference. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By Fred Tal rico, Environmental Coordinator FT:tn ME • 2-228 I I LJ LJ it F1 I! ATTACHMENT NO. 3 i RON YEO, FAIA ARCHITECT, INC. 500 JASMINE AVENUE CORONA DEL MAR. CALIFORNIA 92625 TELEPHONE'(714)644-8111 FEBRUARY 28, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DEAR HONORABLE CHAIRMAN JERRY KING, AND COMMSSION MEMBERS: RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FIFTH AVENUE/MARGUERITE — PARCEL A ENCLOSED ARE FIVE COPIES OF A SKETCH SHOWING MY THOUGHTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE KEY REMAINING PARCELS IN CORONA DEL MAR. FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. YOURS TRULY, RON YEO, FAIA CC: BILL AGEE RY:JF MA I 't'n:• X983'' POHF kt_ACfi,C` NEW 2-229 RON YEO FAIA ARCHITECT, INC. 500 JASMINE AVENUE vp-vA/A° fs .f 'xr w/.titr Trr 7wwor/�71i j/ �wito�w�ss .to��xrLn� aU7 .. CAU OFNIA 92625 Yoe S-: •PRoT�T y/STA- �j2cN/ ,eofFD MAW72F/N /N OPFrV T/?11NSP�K /1 7-a PifQGEL `P-------------- ' .P�,e D�9ilsf7/� s, • �/iYTiP/NG/iYoPt1! SPih!,< 'IoNEFLt' Q700r • Nh�s� .45s,�-e���e !Q_ off GT/ 'Hot nen - �� ,r � � •vSe F��Q�s'/o�zG/T� � ilGT/V171�S • G6R/it7lGGNTL�4 y/ n1 R�/,/DKK G M$7-119#" deMA/ "Szop] 2-230 I u I •..ant =:. MAR 119830' L NWNPCtti LEACH. �. CAUF, / 2-230 I u I lb I I I� I I L J L -J o2' ATTACHMENT NO. 4 FUMN�9 RESOLUTION NO._ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT CERTAIN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL GROWTH AND RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENTS OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BE ADOPTED, AND IN RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SAID AMENDMENTS THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROJECT BE CERTIFIED AS ADEQUATE AND COMPLETED (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81-2) WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation Of the City's General Plan the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements have been prepared; and WHEREAS, said elements of the General Plan set forth objectives and supporting policies which serve as a guide for the future development of the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider certain amendments to the above referenced elements of the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has, in the General Plan Housing Element, established policies to increase the production of housing in the community and to provide affordable housing opportunities in the City; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted Council Policy P-1 to implement the provisions of Government Code Section 65590 (Mello); and WHEREAS, the City recognizes its responsibility to designate sufficient vacant land for residential use with appropriate standards to produce housing at the lowest possible cost consistent with Section 65913 of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach recognizes the unique opportunity to provide affordable housing on the CalTrans West site; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach recognizes the opportunity to require provision of affordable housing either on or off-site in conjunction residential development in the City; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the environmental document in making these recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach recommends to the City Council that the environmental impact report prepared in conjunction with the project be certified as adequate and complete, and that the following amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and open Space Elements be approved as follows: 1 2-231 (a) CalTrans west the Amend Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Environmental Open Space. Elements of the General Plan: 1. "Multiple -Family Residential" uses not to exceed 15 , dwelling units per buildable acre shall be permitted. 2. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 3. That existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved for a person standing on the ground floor level of a Newport Crest unit. 4. 206 of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as defined in the City's Housing Element. 5. 30% of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as set forth in _ Section 50093 of the Government Code. 6. A view park of t 1 acre shall be located on-site and , shall partially satisfy the requirements for park dedication contained in Chapter 19.50 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 7, upon approval of this amendment by the Planning ' Commission, CalTrans will enter into an agreement _ permitting the City a right of entry onto that property required for realignment of Superior Avenue. This agreement will outline the procedures by which realigned , Superior Avenue may be conveyed to the City. 8. Because of difficulties in providing vehicular access to CalTrans East, and in recognition of both the State's need to dispose of this site and Hoag Hospital's need for additional land, CalTrans has entered into negotiations with Hoag Hospital for the acquisition of CalTrans East. _ Adoption of detailed zoning and approval of a tentative tract map on CalTrans west shall not occur until CalTrans offers satisfactory evidence that it has restricted ' access from CalTrans East to Coast Highway. 9. A greenbelt shall be established adjacent to Newport Crest. The greenbelt shall be an average of 30 feet wide and be maintained by the applicant or successor in interest. 10. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. (b) Fifth Avenue Parcels , Area A: Marguerite Avenue Parcel: Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan: ' 1. Medium -Density Residential use shall, be permitted. 2. Remove Recreational and Environmental Open Space .� designation from the Open Space Plan for the area adjacent to Marguerite Avenue. 3. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 4. The Jasmine Creek greenbelt system shall be continued on the site. The extent of the greenbelt shall be determined at the time of approval of the P -C development plan. 4 0?.2, 2_232 J I 1 I I a3 Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel: Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, Recreation and open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. Medium -Density Residential use shall be permitted. 2. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 3. Remove the Recreational and Environmental Open Space/Flora and Fauna Reserve designation. 4. That the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance shall be satisfied through on-site or off-site land dedication, the assessment of in -lieu fees or a combination of the above as determined by the Planning Commission and City Council, after recommendation by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. S. That existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved for a person standing on the ground floor level of a Harbor View Hills East residence. 6. That a number of units equal to 10% of the total units be constructed on-site or off-site and be affordable to low and moderate income families using City standards. Future discretionary actions (i.e., zoning and tentative 1 2-233 S. A public view park shall be designated in the Recreation and Open Space Element and provided (dedication improvements) on the site in the vicinity of Marguerite Avenue and Harbor View Drive. The precise location of the view park shall be determined at the time of approval of the P -C development plan. 6. That park dedication requirement credits be given to the applicant for the land dedication of the view park, consistent with the criteria contained in the City's Park ' Dedication Ordinance. 7. In the event that dedication of the view park does not satisfy the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, the additional park dedication requirements shall be satisfied through on-site or off-site land dedication, the assessment of in -lieu fees or a combination of the above as determined by the Planning Commission and City Council, after recommendation by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 8. In the event that dedication and improvement of the view park is more than is necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, the excess credit shall be used to satisfy part of the requirement for Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel. 9. That existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved for a person standing on the ground floor level of a Harbor View Hills East residence. 10. That a number of units equal to 10% of the total units be constructed on-site or off-site and be affordable to low ' and moderate income families using City standards. Future discretionary actions (i.e., zoning and tentative tracts) will not be approved until such time as an adequate site or sites have been identified, general planned and zoned for the construction of affordable units in the City of Newport Beach. 11. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair future circulation system improvements as shown share of on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. I 1 I I a3 Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel: Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, Recreation and open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. Medium -Density Residential use shall be permitted. 2. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 3. Remove the Recreational and Environmental Open Space/Flora and Fauna Reserve designation. 4. That the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance shall be satisfied through on-site or off-site land dedication, the assessment of in -lieu fees or a combination of the above as determined by the Planning Commission and City Council, after recommendation by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. S. That existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved for a person standing on the ground floor level of a Harbor View Hills East residence. 6. That a number of units equal to 10% of the total units be constructed on-site or off-site and be affordable to low and moderate income families using City standards. Future discretionary actions (i.e., zoning and tentative 1 2-233 tracts) will not be approved until such time as an adequate site or sites have been identified, general planned and zoned for the construction of affordable units in the City of Newport Beach. 7. At the time of future discretionary actions the project , shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any , other mitigation measures as required. Area C: Buck Gully Parcel: Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan in consideration for the General Plan Amendments for Areas A s B above: 1. Remove the alternate residential land use designation. This leaves the area designated as Recreational and Environmental Open space/Flora and Fauna Reserve. 2. Require that the Buck Gully area be established as an open space parcel and a permanent open space easement be recorded for that parcel in conjunction with the tentative and final tract maps for areas A 6 B. 3. That the parcel be rezoned to the open Space Zone for passive open space use concurrent and in consideration of the rezoning of the Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue Parcels. (c) Big Canyon - Area 16 Amend Lhe Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space , Elements of the General Plan: 1. Medium -Density Residential use shall be permitted. 2. Remove the Recreation and Open Space/Golf Course_ designation. 41 3. That the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance shall be satisfied through on-site or off-site land dedication, the assessment of in -lieu fees or a combination of the above as determined by the Planning Commission and City Council, after recommendation by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 4. That a number of units equal to 101 of the total units be constructed on-site or off-site and be affordable to low ' and moderate income families using City standards. Future discretionary actions (i.e., zoning and tentative tracts) will not be approved until such time as an adequate site or sites have been identified, general planned and zoned for the construction of affordable units in the City of Newport Beach. 5. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown an the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. 6. Prior to the approval by the City of any future discretionary actions (i.e., zoning and tentative tract), the question of park credits, development rights and ownership of the Mouth of Big Canyon shall be resolved. (d) Newport Center - Block 400 Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan: ay -- 2-234 1 2-235 1. Allow the addition of 80,000 square feet of medical office development in Newport Center, along with related parking facilities. 2. Specify this additional allowable development to Block 400, on the parcel located at 400 Newport Center Drive East. 3. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 4. Specify the development be subject to further review and approval of a use permit. S. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair system improvements as shown share of future circulation on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. (e) Campus Drive Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan: 1. Revise the land use designation for the area bounded by Campd Dove Street, Birch Street, Bristol Street and Drive to a mixture of General Industry Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial. ' 2. Establish a permitted intensity of development for the Campus Drive area (as shown on Exhibit 7 following Page 12 of the draft EIR) of 0.5 floor area ratio, with a floor area ratio of up to 1.0 permitted upon review and approval of a use permit. This increase in permitted floor area may be approved if a finding can be made that the traffic and circulation system impacts are no greater than those generated by an office development at 0.5 FAR. of The floor area ratio limits are defined as the ratio gross structural area to the buildable area of the site. 3. That the zoning in the area bounded by Bristol Street North, Birch Street, Dove Street and Campus Drive be ' amended to require office uses other than those which are ancillary to an industrial use to be placed in the conditional use category (uses which require a use permit). ' 4. Direct that the zoning in the area be amended to implement this General Plan Amendment. 5. At the time of future discretionary actions, individual projects shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan Of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as ' required. 2-235 Regularly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach on the _ day of , by the following vote, to wit: Chairman: KING, Secretary: GGFF BL: =a C;26 3/4/83 2-236 ' ATTACHMENT NO. 5 DRAFT I 0 I I a7 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN FOR THE CALTRANS WEST SITE. WHEREAS, the Coastal Act of 1976 requires the City of Newport Beach to prepare a local Coastal Program; and WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Coastal Act a Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan has been prepared; and WHEREAS, said Land Use Plan sets forth objectives and supporting policies which serve as a guide for the future development in the coastal zone in the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Plan portion of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program has been adopted by the City of Newport Beach and certified by the California Coastal Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach recommends to the City Council approval of the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan for the CalTrans West site, as follows: CalTrans West Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Environmental Open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. "Multiple -Family Residential" uses not to exceed 15 dwelling units per buildable acre shall be permitted. 2. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 3. That existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved for a person standing on the ground floor level of a Harbor View Hills East residence. 4. 20% of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as defined in the City's Housing Element. 5. 10% of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as set forth in Section 50093 of the Government Code. 6. A view park of ± 1 acre shall be located on-site and shall partially satisfy the requirements for park dedication contained in Chapter 19.50 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 7. Upon approval of this amendment by the Planning Commission, CalTrans will enter into an agreement permitting the City a right of entry onto that property required for realignment of Superior Avenue. This agreement will outline the procedures by which realigned Superior Avenue may be conveyed to the City. S. Because of difficulties in providing vehicular access to CalTrans East, and in recognition of both the State's need to dispose of this site and Hoag Hospital's need for additional land, CalTrans has entered into negotiations with Hoag Hospital for the acquisition of CalTrans East. 1 2-237 11 Adoption of detailed zoning and approval of a tentative tract map on CalTrans Nest shall not occur until CalTrans offers satisfactory evidence that it has restricted access from CalTrans East to Coast Wighway. 9. A greenbelt shall be established adjacent to Newport ' Crest. The greenbelt shall be an average of 30 feet wide and be maintained by the applicant or successor in interest. 10. At the time of future discretionary actiohs the project ' shall be required to contribute a a= equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. ' Regularly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach on the _ day of , by the following vote, to wit: , AYES NOES ABSENT_ Chairman: KING Secretary: GOFF BL: nma 3/4/83 2-238 I ATTACHMENT NO. 6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PARKS, BEACHES AND RECREATION COMMISSION To: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission From: General Plan (Recreation and Open Space Element) Review Committee ' Date: March 1, 1983 Re: General Plan Amendment B1 -2 ----------- ------------------ ---------- a 1 oZQ In response to a request from the Planning Commission for a recommendation from the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission on specific park issues related to GPA 81" the chair referred the request to the General Plan Review Committee for action. The Committee was instructed to review the current designations (on the Recreation and Open Space Element) of three (3) specific sites, referred to collectively as the "Fifth Avenue Parcels," and to recommend whether any proposed changes in these designations contained in GPA 81-2 are consistent with the park and open space needs of the impacted community and the broader needs of the city in general. The sites are: Site A. Westerly of Marguerite Avenue between Fifth Avenue and Harbor View Drive (approx. 9.3 acres). Site B. Northerly of Fifth Avenue between Marguerite Avenue and Buck Gully (approx. 13.2 acres). Site C. Along the eastern City boundary between Fifth Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Roand (Buck Gully) (approx. 49.07 acres). Site_A_-----Marguerite ---Avenue --Parcel. --------- Discussion. The site is currently designated on the general plan as 2-239 Recreational and Environmental Open Space (GB)/Low Density Residential. The Irvine Company, without seeking to change the Recreation and Open Space Element designation for the site. has requested that it be designated Medium—Density Residential on the ' Land Use Element of the General Plan. Staff has recommeded to the Planning Commission that the site be designated for Medium—Density Residential use and that it ' be rezoned to the Planned Community (P.C.) District. Staff has concluded that to rezone the property and change the permitted residential use as it has recommeded is consistent not only with ' the city's Residential Growth Plan, but with the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan as well. "The Recreation and Open Space Element shows ' the Marguerite Avenue Parcel for a continuation of the Jasmine Creek greenbelt system. The General Plan location of structures policy will preclude develop— , ment in this environmentally sensitive area, resulting in the Jasmine Creek area on the subject site being maintained as a greenbelt area. If the_promosed ' amendment is aeprav_ed= the_land use designation should continue to_show_Jasmine_Creek_as_a—green- belt_on_this_site." The greenbelt should:be similar in scale to the Planned Community areas northerly. ' (January 20, 19839 Staff Report, Page 13.) Recommendation. The committee does not oppose the amendment to the ' Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan proposed for this site by General Plan Amendment 81-2, provided the following conditions are satisfied: 1. That the Jasmine Creek greenbelt be continued on the site between Harbor View Drive and Grant Howald Park and that an easement permitting public access to the greenbelt be granted. 2. That as part of this easement a passive view area of approximately one (1) acre be improved in the vicinity of Harbor View Drive and Marguerite Avenue for the benefit the public. The committee has not addressed the issue of whether the Jasmine Creek easement or view area easement should be dedicated. However, the committee has concluded that neither 'the extension of the Jasmine Creek greenbelt nor the passivz view area should be given credit pursuant to the city's Park Dedication Ordinance. 3. That at the time of approval of the tentative tract for the site or enactment of the F.C. enabling ordinace that the issue again be referred to the Parks, beaches and Recreation Commission for final determination. map 4 30 2-240 1 I Site_P__-Fiftn_Av_enue_Parcel. Discussion. ' This site has a primary designation on the general plan as Recreational and Environmental Open Space CFF and NP) with an alternative designation of Low -Density Residential. The Irvine Company has proposed that the land use designation be changed to Medium -Density Residential and that the open space designation be eliminated. Staff noted in its January 20. 1983, report to the Planning Commission that, ' "The amendment, if approved, will remove this flora and fauna designation. The site in question is relatively flat and is mowed regularly. It has ' no unique or special plant or animal communities. The location of structures policy will preclude development in any sensitive parts of Buck. Gully on the easterly'edge of the subject site." Site B borders the OASIS Center, a city owned and P.B.&R. administered facility. The facility is used primarily by seniors ' who take advantage of the many specialized activities and programs sponsered by P.P.&R. However, the center is but a part of the larger neighborhood park that runs along Fifth Avenue from Goldenrod to Narcissus and includes Grant Howald Park and the Community Youth Center. The Long Range Planning Committee of Friends of Oasis has begun a study of future expansion of this facility. The study has ' only just been undertaken with the committee having reached no conclusions as to the center's future expansion needs. Recommendation. -------------- ' The committe recommends that the general plan amendment for this site be approved including the elimination of the flora and fauna designation from the Recreation and Open Space Element, provided the following conditions are met: 1. That the developer dedicate to the city that land ' between Marguerite Avenue and the approximate extension of the centerline of Narcissus and north of the existing Oasis Center consisting of +/-1.06 acres. ' 2. That when dedicated this land will be improved to the extend that shall have been rough graded to the existing grade of ' the city owned property to which it is adjacent; that a retaining wall be installed to support the slope above the property; and that the +/-0.40 acres at the existing northeast corner of the parking be graded to the same specification as the dedicated land. 2-241 I 3. That the developer only receive park credit for the actual acreage dedicated and not for the value of any improvements to the land. 4. That any additional park dedication requirement for this ' site be'satisfied by the payment of in -lieu fees. 5. That at the time of the approval of the tentative tract ' map for the site that the matter again be referred to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for final determination. Site_C_ buck Gully Parcel. Discussion. ' Buck Gully is currently shown on the general plan as having a primary designation of Environmental Open Space (FF) and ' having an alternative designation of Low -Density Residential. The proposed general plan amendment would eliminate the alternative designation, and the designation as a flora and fauna ' reserve would be retained. The January 20, 1983, staff report states, ' "If the proposed amendment is approved, this designation should be maintained to indicate the environmentally sensitive nature of the area and its unsuitability for active recreation uses." Furthermore, such reclassification of the site would bring the general plan into conformity with the city's local coastal plan. Recommendation. , The committee recommends that the Low -Density Residential, designation be removed from the site as proposed by GPA 81-2. However, the committee has concluded that the city not accept dedication of the property and that no park credits should be given pursuant to the city's Park Dedication Ordinance. , Respectfully submitted, -------------.----------------- Chairman , Robert LHopkins, Committe q, 3� 2-242 I 10 I I I I 7 L� I' I �l ' 6 Bruce Stuart, Commission Chairman ATTACHMENT N0. 7 1 (3) Permitted uses may include local parks, riding and hiking trails, bikeways, drainage control facilities, utilities, tennis courts, swimming ' pools, community centers, and equestrian centers. (4) A maximum of 5% of the total lands designated in this category may be developed with impervious surfaces (i.e., structures, roads, etc.). '• (5) Identified environmentally sensitive habitat areas (Exhibit IV-lA) will be ,protected. ' (6) Recreational facilities will be located on slopes generally less than 30%. (7) Vehicular access will be limited; parking and staging areas may be provided in appropriate locations subject to the provisions of a(4) above. , (8) Archaeological and paleontological sites will be preserved except where impacted by existing roads. b. Buck Gully (1) Residential recreation lands in Buck Gully will be owned and , maintained by homeowner associations, adjoining property owners, and/or special assessment districts. (2) Residential lot lines from adjoining properties may extend into the Residential Recreation area. (3) Permitted uses will be limited to passive parks, riding and hiking ' trails, bikeways, drainage control facilities and utilities. (4) Natural landforms will be retained by locating recreational , facilities in the flatter portions of the canyon bottom. (5) A maximum of 5% of the total lands designated in this category may ' be developed with impervious surfaces (i.e., trails, roads, etc.). (6) Stream courses and riparian vegetation identified environmentally sensitive habitat areas (Exhibit IV -1A) will be maintained or enhanced ' protected. (7) Recreational facilities will be located on slopes generally less than 30%. (8) Except for, emergency and maintenance vehicles, vehicular access will be prohibited. , (9) Archaeological and paleontological sites will be preserved. 5. Watershed Management In order to protect marine resources, the following policies will be imple- mented for the Buck Gully, Los Trancos Canyon, and Muddy Canyon watersheds. z 34 PG11b5 IV -34 ' 2-244 /�♦' Vii., - _ !, MD •.,o j. . • } ! 4 OV v �^: - �r .• '•. l �-.-'.�,��,!, � � .:�?�-�'l. f , ,rt .,��•fG r' •fit. _ .:: ,p:: a... 1 : � ✓�. SLC.• :\4'x,.7! ,,y� : ,�::� -'j Y "' . ly r r �aj�fi� '`t� ��l�l�`�� _ •:..,--i.�./�7 - " � �1 . _ i' 1. /' �`^ •�`.• ��,_ Y•+-`- % ' � �1 1"�y'-1�f jC — r ]/ 11, ilk •� Y:, +, . �; ' , rte' + �11IIlfe �'. •:•'1 y� /� � ASI' ��y� •` "•'``�` �n ��\ :%/> .I+ � 1 -'fir •'• ' %:"Y•�y %�!" /I - r --� •1'-, - 6Z � .,b 1`. 41 PACIFIC COAST HIGiHWAY PRMD - + Pelican Point 2-245 I J IParks, Beaches and Recreation Commission Minutes I 0 I F 7 I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Item 3 Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission February 1, 1983 City Council Chambers 7 p.m. INDEX Call to Ord, Roll Call Approval of Minutes Adoption of Agenda Proposed Neighborhoo, and View Parks 2-247 Ex Officio member present: Rona1•d A. Whitley, Director Staff present: Jeffrey C. Kolin, Rec. Supt. Jack Brooks, Park Supt. Pat Temple, Planning Dept. Dottie Flohr, Secretary I. PROCEDURAL MATTERS Item #1 The meeting of the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission was called to order at 7:06 p.m. Item #2 Roll call was taken. Capretz, Cohen, Cole, Hopkins, Morin and Stuart were present. Ammerman was absent. Item #3 kion x Motion was made by Morin and seconded by Capretz to approve onded x the minutes of the January 4, 1983 meeting. s x x x x Item #4 Ion x The agenda was adopted as presented. onded x s x x x x II. ACTION ITEMS Item #5 - Review and Recommendation on Pro osed Nei hborhood and View Parks for a Portion -of Genera Pan - Amendment 81-2 ,ion ,ion x Ron Whitley briefly reviewed the background of the General onded x Plan Amendment 81-2 as it relates to the Fifth Avenue !s x x x Parcels (Parcels A, B, and C) in Corona del Mar. Pat tain x Temple from the Planning Department clarified the issues to be decided upon and answered questions of the Commission. She emphasized that the Planning Commission is asking the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission to make recommenda- tions on neighborhood and view park designations on the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan and, when approved by the Planning Commission and City Council; ' the recommendations will constitute an amendment to the General Plan. a Call to Ord, Roll Call Approval of Minutes Adoption of Agenda Proposed Neighborhoo, and View Parks 2-247 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH arks, Beaches- & 'Recreation Commission Page 2 City Council Chambers 7 p.m. INDEX Chairman Stuart then opened the meeting to public testimony. Ronald Kennedy, 550 Hazel Drive, addressed the Commission. He asked that the Commission determine exactly what green belt areas and parks are needed before any trading is done and, with this in mind, that we not lose any of these green belt areas. Mr. Dick Nichols, President of the Corona del Mar Community Association, addressed the Commission. He questioned the legal status/ownership of Parcel A and asked that this be clarified. Pat Temple responded by saying there has been no reference in her research of any dedication or easementrecorded across the property and explained the zone change amendment. Mr. Nichols also mentioned the need for more parks and expan- sion of the park at OASIS, particularly for soccer and football field use. He emphasized that we should not accept in lieu fees for the park land. Mr. Nichols also said that' Parcel C is mainly comprised of slopes and that we should make sure funds are available for "useful" parks. Ron Covington, 707 Orchid, addressed the Commission regard- II 1 ing the disposition and ownership of Parcel A. He, too, emphasized the great need for usable park space and that we do not accept in lieu fees. Dick Succa, 715 Marguerite, addressed the Commission and questioned the requirements by the City concerning dedication of land to open space, particularly in the Harbor View area. Pat Temple re- sponded by saying there are no Conditions of Approval and that the green belts are owned by the Community Association, not the City. Mr. Succa also expressed his concern about the usable park areas and the fact that there is no soccer field in Corona del Mar. Dr. Brenda Ross of 10 Summer Wind Court addressed the Commission. She, too, asked the Commission to look at the whole City and theneed for more parks, particularly in the Corona del Mar, and West Newport areas. She also stated that the present facilities at OASIS will not be sufficient for very long and, for this reason, asked that the open space in Parcel B be considered for expansion. Sue Ficker, 110 gth Street, addressed the Commission and said there is a shortage of open space and that we should not accept in lieu fees in place of land. 'She, too, asked that a total study of the City be made so we will have all the factors: Chairman Stuart then closed the public testimony. Discus- sion followed and Morin motioned the matter be continued to their next meeting of March 1 to enable staff to provide answers to questions that resulted from Commission and public discussion on the issue. Cole seconded. Motion 3 carried. 2-248 r �I DRAFT: Minutes• -of March 1, 1983 PB&R Commission Meeting Item #6 ' Hopkins distributed and summarized his report on the General Plan Amendment 81-2 for the Fifth Avenue Parcels. He said the committee met with staff, The Irvine ' Company, interested residents and representatives from OASIS. Pat Temple explained that if the recommendations are approved by the Commissioners, they would be sent to the Planning Commission for their consideration at their March 10 meeting. ' Stuart then opened the meeting for public discussion. Mr. Dick Nichols, President ' of the Corona del Mar Civic Association, addressed the Commission and read a memo dated November 2, 1982 from the Planning.Comnission to the Parks, Beaches ' and Recreation Commission regarding the park and open space study. His primary concerns were centered on a usable active park on Site A and that there are no active park sites in Corona del Mar. He also suggested locating an elderly housing site adjacent to OASIS. Mr. Grant Howald, 243 Heliotrope, addressed the Commission. He stated that the ' Friends of OASIS, Inc. are still working with The Irvine Company to negotiate a larger site for the future expansion of OASIS. ' Mr. Bernard Maniscalco of The Irvine Company addressed the Commission and expressed The Irvine Company's concerns and recommendations concerning each of the parcels. ' Mr. Brad Olson of The Irvine Company also addressed the Commission. He stated ' that south of Cameo Shores to Laguna Beach, there will be a state park with land available for public recreation. ' Discussion by the Commission followed the close of public discussion. Ron Whitley reported that we are working with the Planning Department to do an overall review of the Open Space and Recreation element and that a Request for Proposal will be circulated shortly. 2-249 Stuart indicated his concerns regarding limited resources and the fact that there is not enough current data upon which to base a decision. Howdver, due to time constraints, the Commission must make a decision. It should be noted that.this is not a final decision, as this will come back to the Commission at the time the Tentative Map is filed. Ammerman motioned the recommendation of the subcommittee be adopted in its entirety. Cohen seconded. Motion carried. (Naes: Morin, Capretz & Cole) 2-250 I fr I I I I 0 a I I I 1 1 1 I Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission Staff Reports Parks, Beacheb, and Recreation Commission Meet1..,� February 1, 1983 Agenda Item No. 5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Fifth Avenue Parcels (Discussion) Review and recommendation on neighborhood and view park designations for the Fifth Avenue Parcels (General Plan Amendment 81-2) INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Suggested Action if desired, make recommendations to the Planning Commission on neighborhood and view park designations on the Recreation and Open Space Plan as it relates to the three parcels of land known as the Fifth Avenue Parcels (Areas A, B, and C). Background On June 4, 1981, the Planning Commission initiated General Plan Amendment 81-2, which addresses five separate sites City-wide. On January 20, 1983, the Planning Commission held its first public hearing on the General Plan Amendment. At this meeting the Planning Commission requested a recommendation by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission on the park issues related to the Fifth Avenue Parcels, one of the components of the General Plan Amendment. Discussion The Fifth Avenue Parcels consists of three separate sites located in the vicinity of Fifth Avenue and Marguerite Avenue in Corona del Mar. The following exhibit shows the parcels with the requested General Plan changes, as well as listing the existing plan designations for each. The discussion on each site below includes a description of the proposed and existing General Plan designations and the current Planning Department staff recommendations which pertain to parks and recreation issues. Area A: Marguerite Avenue Parcel The Land Use Element shows the Marguerite Avenue Parcel for Low -Density Residential uses along Marguerite Avenue and Recreational and Environmental Open Space uses along Jasmine Creek. The Open Space Plan (Map) of the Recreation and Open Space Element shows the site for Recreational and Open Space. No use designation is given, but it appears that the Jasmine Creek area of the site is intended to be a continuation of the Jasmine Creek 2-252 T0: Parks, b aches,.and Recreation Commissioil'� SL.,y� �4RY �, ".'r.•"'`ti � .veer vs/i �iW`(iC%Lc:..........:..L O:::::1ASI3n SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER • EXISTtNG LANG USE: Undeveloped Open Space EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT AND RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ELEMENT: Areas A and 8 - Lor -Density Residential (4 or Area C - Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an Alternative Use or Lor.Oensity Residential (4 EXISTING RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT: Area A . Neighborhood Park. Areas 8 and C . F10ra and Fauna Park on Area 8 GPA 81-2; Indicated on Exhibit above EXISTING ZONING: R-1-8 (Single -Family Combining) District Proposed Land Use Element UhLr-illTl SMB D a Cab Cft' OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 81-2 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (4,1 to 10 D,UJ Buildable Acre) . less d.u./buildable acre); or, less d.u./buildable acre) Reserve with Neighborhood 0 400 600 1200 n: h" 2-253 1 I !. I 1 i! a I j i I 1 TO: Parks, B..ihes, and Recreation Commission •3 greenbelt system through to Grant Howald Park. It is the opinion of staff that the designation of the entire site for open space is a graphics error, in that the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements and maps clearly indicates Low -Density Residential uses for a portion of the Marguerite Avenue Parcel. Southerly of the Marguerite Avenue Parcel is an "Existing and Committed" neighborhood park designation which represents the existing Grant Howald Park. The Recreation and Open Space Element further addresses this park as follows: "The existing Grant Howald Park will be expanded easterly to Marguerite Avenue, adding 2.1 acres to this neighborhood park." The proposed General Plan Amendment for the Marguerite Avenue Parcel will change the land use designation from Low -Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. Planning Department staff recommendations for this site related to parks and ' open space are: 1. The Jasmine Creek greenbelt system shall be continued on the site. The extent of the greenbelt shall be determined at the time of approval of the P -C development plan. 2. A public view park shall be provided (dedication + improvements) ' on the site in the vicinity of Marguerite Avenue and Harbor View Drive. The precise location of the view park shall be determined at the time of approval of the P -C development plan. 3.- The requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance shall be satisfied. Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel The Land Use Element -of the Newport Beach General Plan shows the Fifth Avenue Parcel for Low -Density Residential uses. The Recreation and Open Space Element and the open Space Plan (Maps) show the area as Recreational and Environmental Open Space with a specified use as a flora and fauna reserve. The Open Space Plan .also shows the area with an alternate land use (Low -Density Residential) and as a location for a "proposed" neighborhood park. The proposed General Plan Amendment would change the land use designation to Medium -Density Residential and delete the open space/flora and fauna reserve designation as well as delete the proposed neighborhood park designation. ' The Planning Department staff recommendations for this site related to parks and open space are: 1. Remove the Recreational- and Environmental Open Space/Flora and 'Fauna Reserve designation. 2. Remove the proposed neighborhood park designation. 3. The requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance shall be satisfied. 2-254 TO: Parks,( :aches, and Recreation Commissi(, .- 4 Area C: Buck Gully Parcel The Land Use Element of the Newport .Beach General Plan designates the Buck Gully Parcel for Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an alternate use of Low -Density Residential. This alternate land use was assigned in the event that preservation of the area as open space proves infeasible. The , Recreation and Open Space Element and Open Space Plan (Map) shows the area for Recreational and Environmental Open Space for a Flora and Fauna Reserve. The proposed General Plan Amendment will, if approved, remove the Low -Density Residential alternate land use; leaving the Recreational and Environmental Open Space/Flora and Fauna Reserve. The Planning Department staff recommendation for this site related to parks r and open space are: 1. Remove the alternate residential land use designation. This leaves the area designated as Recreational and Environmental Open Space/Elora and Fauna Reserve. 2. Require that a permanent open space easement be recorded for the parcel simultaneous with the recordation for final maps for Areas A&B. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director yPATRICIA L. TEMPLE Senior Planner PLT:nma I I I 2-255 , Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission Meeting March 1, 1983 Agenda Item No. 6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Fifth Avenue Parcels (Discussion) Review and recommendation on neighborhood and view park designations for the Fifth Avenue Parcels (General Plan Amendment 81-2). INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach 1 Suggested Action If desired, make recommendations to the Planning Commission on neighborhood and view park designations on the Recreation and Open Space Plan as it relates to the three parcels of land known as the Fifth Avenue Parcels (Areas A, B, and C) . a• Background On June 4, 1981, the Planning Commission initiated General Plan Amendment 81-2, which addresses five separate sites City-wide. On January 20, 1983, the Planning Commission held its first public hearing on the General Plan Amendment. At this meeting the Planning Commission requested a recommendation by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission on the park issues related to the Fifth Avenue Parcels, one of the components of the General Plan Amendment. On February 1, 1983, the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission took public testimony and discussed the Fifth Avenue Parcels. Additional information was requested and the item was continued to March 1, 1983. Discussion General Plan Park Designations for the Fifth Avenue Parcels. Clarification has been requested regarding the park and open space designations on the various elements and maps of -the Newport Beach General Plan for the Fifth Avenue Parcels. Staff has prepared enlargements of the 1973 Land Use Plan, Residential Growth Plan, and Open Space Plan (Maps) (Attachments 1, 2 & 3). The history of the General Plan designations for each site is as follows: Area A: Marguerite Parcel: Land Use Plan: The Land Use Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 designated the Marguerite Parcel for Low -Density Residential uses along Marguerite Avenue and Recreational and Environmental Open Space 2-256 T0:' Parks,•Beaches and Recreation Commission - 2 1 uses along Jasmine Creek. General Plan Amendment No. 26 redefined the various residential land use designations, added a medium density residential category, and added the definition of buildable acreage. This amendment did not change prior permitted densities, so this parcel was changed to Medium -Density Residential for the residentially designated portion of the site. The parcel was again addressed in General Plan Amendment 79-1, and redesignated to the Low -Density Residential category. Residential Growth Plan: The Residential Growth Element and Plan (Map) was adopted in 1973 and designated a portion of the parcel for residential uses. The ,parcel was specifically addressed as follows: "The vacant R -3-B site east of Harbor View Elementary School shall be rezoned to R -1-B." On December 17, 1973 the City Council adopted �. Ordinance No. 1535, to conform zoning to General Plan by rezoning the property from R -3-B to R -1-B. Open Space Plan: The Recreation and Open Space Element and Plan (Map) was adopted in 1973 and designated the site for Recreational and Environmental Open Space uses for an extension of the Jasmine Creek greenbelt system. The Open Space Plan (Map) does show the entire site colored green, for open space uses. It is the opinion of staff that r the designation of the entire site for open space is a graphics error, since the other two General Plan Maps show residential uses on a portion of the site. Additionally, the City has rezoned the property for the expressed purpose of Zoning/General Plan consistency and has also changed the land use designation subsequent to the adoption of the Recreation and Open Space Element (GPA 79-1), which further indicates the City's commitment to allow residential development on the site. Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel: Land Use Plan: The Land Use Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 designated, the Fifth Avenue Parcel for Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an alternate use of Low -Density Residential. The history of the residential portion of the land use designation is the same as for Area A, except that General Plan Amendment 79-1 established the Low -Density Residential designation as the sole and primary use on the Land Use Plan. Residential Growth Plan: The Residential' Growth Element and Plan (Map) was adopted in 1973 and designated the Fifth Avenue Parcel as an area with an alternate land use as discussed in the Land Use Element. The Residential Growth Element specifically discussed this site as follows: "The land between Fifth Street and Sand Castle Drive shall be rezoned from R -2-B to R -1-B, although it is anticipated that this land will be acquired for park and/or highway purposes." On December 17, 1973, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1535, to conform zoning to the General Plan by rezoning the Fifth Avenue Parcel from R -2-B to R -1-B. Open Space Plan: The Recreation and Open Space Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 designated the Fifth Avenue Parcel as an area with an 2-257 1 T0: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission - 3 alternate land use/primary designation as Recreational and Environmental Open Space - Flora and Fauna Reserve. A proposed neighborhood park is also shown on the site. The element states that "Proposed parks are indicated on the Open Space Plan as green circles; in the undeveloped areas, the locations shown are meant to be general and the parks need not be developed in the exact location shown." The Element addresses the proposed park on this site as follows: "A neighborhood park is proposed on the property north of Fifth Avenue and east of Marguerite Avenue." Area C: Buck Gully: (Map) adopted in 1973 showed this area with an alternate residential land use as discussed in the Land Use Element. Open Space Plan: The Recreation and Open Space Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 designated the Buck Gully site as an area with an alternate land use/primary designation as Recreational and Environmental Open Space - Flora and Fauna Reserve. OASIS Center. At the time General Plan Amendment 81-2 was initiated, The Irvine Company, the Park, Beaches and Recreation Department, and representatives of the OASIS Center were negotiating a land trade to 1 facilitate expansion of the OASIS Center. The proposed exchange would have traded the t2 acre parcel on the northwest corner of Marguerite and Fifth Avenues (now partially developed with an overflow parking lot for the OASIS Center) for land adjacent to the existing facility. No agreement could be reached, however, and the trade never took place. The OASIS Long Range Planning Committee is still studying future expansion of OASIS Center facilities and programs. While no firm plan has yet been developed, representatives of the committee have testified before both the Planning Commission and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission indicating the potential for future facility expansion, preferably adjacent to the ' existing site. 1 The OASIS Center is a City -owned facility and is considered by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department as a part of the neighborhood park occupying the land along Fifth Avenue from Goldenrod to Narcissus. This future expansion possibility can be preserved by leaving the neighborhood park designation on the Fifth Avenue Parcel. This will allow the City to, at the time of approval of the tentative tract map, require dedication of as much land as needed to complete the local park or recreational site as specified in Section 19.50.060(b) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code: "(b) when a major part of the local park or recreational site has already been acquired by the City and only a small portion of land is needed to complete the site, such remaining portion shall 2-258, Land Use Plan: The Land Use Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 shows this site for Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an alternate use of Low -Density Residential. No changes to this designation have been made since 1973. Residential Growth Plan: The Residential Growth Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 showed this area with an alternate residential land use as discussed in the Land Use Element. Open Space Plan: The Recreation and Open Space Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 designated the Buck Gully site as an area with an alternate land use/primary designation as Recreational and Environmental Open Space - Flora and Fauna Reserve. OASIS Center. At the time General Plan Amendment 81-2 was initiated, The Irvine Company, the Park, Beaches and Recreation Department, and representatives of the OASIS Center were negotiating a land trade to 1 facilitate expansion of the OASIS Center. The proposed exchange would have traded the t2 acre parcel on the northwest corner of Marguerite and Fifth Avenues (now partially developed with an overflow parking lot for the OASIS Center) for land adjacent to the existing facility. No agreement could be reached, however, and the trade never took place. The OASIS Long Range Planning Committee is still studying future expansion of OASIS Center facilities and programs. While no firm plan has yet been developed, representatives of the committee have testified before both the Planning Commission and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission indicating the potential for future facility expansion, preferably adjacent to the ' existing site. 1 The OASIS Center is a City -owned facility and is considered by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department as a part of the neighborhood park occupying the land along Fifth Avenue from Goldenrod to Narcissus. This future expansion possibility can be preserved by leaving the neighborhood park designation on the Fifth Avenue Parcel. This will allow the City to, at the time of approval of the tentative tract map, require dedication of as much land as needed to complete the local park or recreational site as specified in Section 19.50.060(b) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code: "(b) when a major part of the local park or recreational site has already been acquired by the City and only a small portion of land is needed to complete the site, such remaining portion shall 2-258, TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission - 4 be dedicated and a fee computed pursuant to the provisions of Section 19.50.070 hereof shall be paid in an amount equal to the value of the land which otherwise would have been required to be dedicated pursuant to Section 19.50.070 hereof, such fee used for the improvement of the existing park and recreation facility..." Park Dedication Requirements. The Park Dedication Ordinance establishes a formula for park dedication requirements, based on gross residential density and person per household factors. The range of park dedication requirements for the Fifth Avenue Parcels are as follows: Marguerite Avenue Parcel Units Permitted Acreage Requirement 27 du's (4 du's/ba) = 0.51 A 28 - 62 du's (4-9.12 du's/ba) = 0.53 - 1.16 A 63 - 68 du's (9.26 - 10 du's/ba) = 1.01 - 1.09 A Example: 50 du's = 0.94 A Fifth Avenue Parcel Units Permitted Acreage Requirement 40 du's (4 du's/ba) 0.75 A 41 85 du's (4-8.5 du's/ba) 0.77 - 1.60 A 86 - 100 du's (8.6 - 10 du's/ba) 1.38 - 1.60 A Example: 85 du's = 1.60 A Application of the park dedication Ordinance can be confusing, in that the ordinance Dedication Formula Table is based on dwelling units per gross acre, while the General Plan expresses residential density in dwelling units per buildable acre. The difference in buildable acre density ranges for the park dedication formula categories is due to the different ratio of gross to buildable acres for the Marguerite and Fifth Avenue Parcels. lip Buildable acreage is defined in the Newport Beach General Plan as follows: "Buildable Acreage' is defined as follows: Buildable acreage includes ' the entire site, less areas with a slope greater than two to one (2:1), and less any acre required to be dedicated to the City for park purposes and any perimeter open space; further, buildable acreage shall not include any area to be used for street purposes. Additionally, at the time the Planning Commission and/or City Council review a Planned Community development plan, tentative map, and/or environmental document for a particular project, consideration shall be given to deleting certain sensitive areas from the calculation of the total number of residential units or square footage or commercial , development to be allowed on a site as follows: Floodplain areas." 2-259 1 TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission -'5 View Park Dedication. Planning Department staff is recommending the dedication and improvement of a ± 1 acre view park in conjunction with approval of the General Plan Amendment for the Marguerite Avenue Parcel. Planning Department staff has been discussing whether park dedication ordinance credit should be given for this dedication. Since the adoption of the Park Dedication Ordinance in 1977, no subdivision approved has included a view park requirement. The Park Dedication Ordinance does not specify particular types of parks to be acquired through the ordinance. It does reference "park and recreation facilities... in accordance with the Recreation Element of the General Plan". It is the opinion of Planning Department staff that a view park dedication is appropriate to satisfy the park dedication requirements of a residential development and has made this recommendation to the Planning Commission. Granting park dedication ordinance credit for the view park on the Marguerite Avenue Parcel will establish a precedent for future City action in regards to view parks in other development approvals. Undeveloped sites with view park designations include CalTrans West, Westbay, Castaways, and Newporter North. Acquisition of Marguerite Parcel with Park Dedication Credits. Testimony has been received that the Marguerite Parcel be designated as open space and acquired through the use of park dedication credits or fees. In order for the City to generate sufficient park dedication requirements to acquire the 9.6 acre Marguerite Avenue Parcel, 510 Low -Density Residential units would have to be approved. If higher density residential projects were used to generate these credits more units would need to be approved, since the scale established in the Park Dedication Ordinance requires less dedication from higher density developments. Under the existing General Plan, approximately 4;700 dwelling units remain to be built in the City of Newport Beach. Of these, ± 1,840 are shown for larger undeveloped sites. The remainder are infill in the older residential neighborhoods. Since the Park Dedication Ordinance applies to new residential subdivisions, only the ± 1,840 future residential units in new subdivisions will require park dedication. Of these 1,840 du's, ±810 are designated to sites which carry a neighborhood park designation on the Open Space Plan (Westbay, Castaways, Newporter North, Banning -Newport Ranch). ' These developments must dedicate parkland onsite to satisfy the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance. This leaves approximately 1,030 future residential units requiring park dedication City-wide. In order for the City to acquire the Marguerite Parcel using park dedication credits, approximately 50% of the remaining dedication requirements would have to be used.' This assumes that any land acquired through other than Irvine Company project requirements could be purchased by the City at the per acre park dedication fee of $298,486. Additionally, it should be noted that if any of the future permitted dwelling units are developed as rental projects, no park dedication will be required for those units. Relationship of Buck Gully Proposal to the Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue Proposals. The letter from The Irvine Company requesting consideration of the Fifth Avenue Parcels component of the General Plan Amendment indicated the possible dedication of Buck Gully for park and open space purposes in consideration for increased development rights on the Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue Parcels. This amendment was proposed by staff and initiated by ' 2-260 TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission - 6 1 the Planning Commission including the land use designation change for Buck Gully. The Irvine Company has indicated their opposition to this portion of the General Plan Amendment. Although precise calculations for the buildable acreage of Buck Gully are not available, it is estimated that the increase in allowed dwelling units on the Marguerite and Fifth Avenue sites is more than that which would be allowed in Buck Gully. This change in the land use designation for the Buck Gully Parcel in consideration for increased density on the Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue Parcels is similar to the transfer concept established by the City in the General Plan designations for Westbay and Eastbluff Remnant. Staff has recommended the land use designation be amended from Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an alternate use of Low -Density Residential to Recreational and Environmental, Open Space, in consideration for amendments to a higher density residential designation on the Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue Parcels. Staff is also recommending that a permanent open space easement be recorded on the property. This requirement will implement the hiking trail shown on the Open Space Plan of the Recreation and Open Space Element and is consistent with the public access requirements of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. It is not suggested that any land' dedication be accepted in the Buck Gully area; nor should any park credits be given for this site. It is staff's opinion that this requirement will not require the City to purchase any land. Planning Department Staff Recommendations. Following are Commission the current Planning on the Fifth Avenue Department recommendations to the Planning Parcels: Fifth Avenue Parcels Area A: Marguerite Avenue Parcel: Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. Medium -Density Residential use shall be permitted. 2. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 3. The Jasmine Creek greenbelt system shall be continued on the site. The extent of the greenbelt shall be determined at the time of approval of the P -C development plan. 4. A public view park shall be provided (dedication + improvements) on the site in the vicinity of Marguerite Avenue and Harbor View Drive. The precise location of the view park shall be determined at the time of approval of the P -C development plan. 5. That park dedication requirement credits be given to the applicant for the land dedication of the view park. 6. In the event that dedication of the view park does not satisfy the requirements of the Park Dedication ordinance, the additional park dedication requirements shall be satisfied through on-site or 2-261 1 TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission - 7 off-site land dedication, the assessment of in -lieu fees or a combination of the above as determined by the Planning Commission and City Council, after recommendation by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 7. In the event that dedication and improvement of the view park is more than is necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, the excess credit shall be used to satisfy part of the requirement for Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel. 8. That views from existing residences shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. At the time of approval of the tentative map and grading plans, if views of ocean and bay from existing residences are being blocked, the applicant shall demonstrate that the density approved Within the Medium -Density range has no greater impact on view obstruction than that which would have resulted from development under the Low -Density Residential designation. 9. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's MasterPlan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel: Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1 2-262 1. Medium -Density Residential use shall be permitted. 2. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 3. Remove the Recreational and Environmental Open Space/Flora and Fauna Reserve designation. 4. That the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance shall be satisfied through on-site or off-site land dedication, the assessment of in -lieu fees or a combination of the above as determined by the Planning Commission and City Council, after recommendation by the Parks, Beaches and' Recreation Commission, at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 5. That views from existing residences shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. At the time of approval of the tentative map and grading plans, if views of ocean and bay from existing residences are being blocked, the applicant shall demonstrate that the density approved within the Medium -Density range has no greater impact on view obstruction than that which would have resulted from development under the Low -Density Residential designation. 1 2-262 TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission - 8 6. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. Area C: Buck Gully Parcel: Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan in consideration for the General Plan Amendments for Areas A &,B above: 1. Remove the alternate residential land use designation. This leaves the area designated as Recreational and Environmental Open Space/Flora and Fauna Reserve. 2. Require that the Buck Gully area be 'established as an open space parcel and a permanent open space easement be recorded for that parcel in conjunction with the tentative and final tract maps for areas A & B. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By 7 �L. e PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Senior Planner PLT:nma Attachments: 1. Land Use Plan 2. Residential Growth Plan 3. Open Space Plan I I i 2-263 1 r NEWPORT BEACH LAND U-11 PLAN LEGEND r LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL O°°° MULTIPLE -FAMILY °° 2o o RESIDENTIAL RETAIL & SERVICE COP41ERCIAL GOVERN., EDUCATIONAL & INSTITUTIONAL RECREATION & ' ENVIRONMENTAL. OPEN SPACE WATER AREAS WITH ALTERNATE USES PER LAND USE ELEMENT -TEXT rt rt a n s (D p rt O r NEWPORT BEACH RESIDENTIAL GROWTH PLAN. LEGEND - LOW -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREAS WITH ALTERNATE USES PER LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT fi w n m 0 rt z 0 NEWPORT BEACH OPEN ACE :PLAN Ii11 C'jI �'Pfas4-N wvpV _ .•SY; :.. `��� � .e !i'�fI <N rrrrr`'r7•'rrrrlrr --,:a �••..�,...-.p[ T , t 111','1'1.1 111 I 1 11111111111 1 .•� �0'`� V. •♦1 �, I I I I I I I I I I I i l l l I I 1 11 •',,°" �y .•. . III IIIII1111111111111 •?:, ♦♦ d •�I I I I I I I I I I 111 11 1 1 1 11111 "•1`-.:-� ,1,1, 1,1, 1,IIIiI_,I,I,1,1,1,111111111111'11111'111'1'1 I I 11111111 .:� .,-..• 111, 1, 1,11111,I,IJJ 11,1,1 111,1,1,111, 1111 f11, 11111,11111,1, 11111 �5 . ' ..••.•` w��:-:y1 � 111, 1,1,111,111 111,11 1.1 1 1,1111111,1111111,1,1 1 P/J -•: r.:'♦ r iK��11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 `1�. �I I I 1 1 I I gy�pp•• +-'S� � �.� N -'+y III1111111 ¢p,,���I�..77I 111111111 •.:Y`, •' .':C::`' . 1 111111111111111111 I I"I'IT11111111111111111111 +� � O L E G E D ^(\\ y '40 \ 1 111,1,111111111,11111,11111,11111,1,1111111,1 - F! " t Y \���`r` ) _ 1 111111111 �!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!il�l'I!'I!11 _ _.., fe%1��� �u` 1. •. � �' w -, �1147T/NO SUN OP) �11111M1111111111 1, 1, I,LU.LIJ� I NEIGHBORHOOD PARK 1111111 1111 EXISTING SCHOOLS FLORAE FAUNA RESERVES GREENBELT .�.� AREAS WITH ALTERNATE USES �� ..�.. HIKING TRAIL IO PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD PARK rt N h n ♦ d tt rt 1>• tER' z ' W I `_l I A I I F -I I I I I I I Comments and Correspondence 2-267 i October 7, 1981 Y RECMYCLLED `( Y.,K OCT 1.3 1981z - Mayor Heather and members of the City Council CITVOF 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 ' Dear mayor Heather: The Board of Directors of the Corona del mar Community Association would like to express our strong concern about' a potential land trade between the City and the Irvine Company involving property surrounding OASIS in -Corona del. mar. ' We hear rumors that the Board of OASIS is now considering a proposal that would trade land west of marguerite owned by the City for Irvine land north and east of OASIS. We further understand that the purpose is to -provide more I parking for OASIS while allowing the Irvine.Company to get increased density on the land they would obtain. ' It is our understanding that the land now owned by the City on the northwest corner of Marguerite and 5th Avenue, when originally acquired was designated as a park and open space . area, with a secondary use as an overflow parking facility for OASIS. We feel that there must be other more acceptable solutions to ' any parking problems at OASIS which would not be detrimental to the citizens of our community. ' Sincerely, �J 9 Clyde Brenner President 1 cc= Planning Commission Members_) Orange Coast Daily Pilot The Newport Ensign �. CORONA DEL MAR P. Carona del COMMUNITY ASSOCIATI 0. aox 516 Mar, CA 92625 0515 2-268 BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRESIDENT.... , ..... Cathy Anderson 5403 Seashore Drive 646-0476 let VICE PRESIDENT.... Bruce Nordlund WIV314 5710W.Ocean Front 642-3671 2nd VICE PRESIDENT ..... Roger Morin 5404 Seashore Drive 6464905 SECRETARY ............Dick Clues • 4403 Seashore Drive 673-3762 TREASURER............ 5107 Seashore Drive Jen DeBey 645.0919' Don Borthwick 205 Canal Street 646.9714 Dave Goff 5212 River Avenue 642.5949 Gyne Kraus 6502 W. Ocean Front 6464081 8111 McLaughlin '67 BYlboe Cows 8753732 WEST NEWPORT BEACH ASSOCIATION NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA December 4, 1981 Mr. Fred Talarico Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Subject: Caltrans West Dear Mr. Talarico•: The West Newport Beach Association strongly urges that zoning on Caltrans West remains Recreational and Environ- mental Open Space - (OS). Some of the reasons for this position are: I. "Open Space'is the most socially, environmentally and economically sound zoning for this property from the standpoint of The City of Newport Beach. Acquiescence to the State's request for re -zoning would be a gift of the City's rights. 2. Traffic conditions in the area are crowded and extremely uncertain. 3. Multiple -family housing in this area would compound al- ready serious problems in this area. Sincerely, CA:e Cathy Anderson, President cc: Council Council lanning Commission P.B.R. Department a 0Nor NC 2-269 CORONA DEL MAR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 September 1, 1982 ' Planning Commissioners Planning Dept. 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 Dear Commissioners: ' Re: EIR 81-2 5th Street Parcels IThe Corona del Mar Community Association Board of Directors with confirmation of the general membership would like to express their dis- approval of any General Plan designation change from low density to medium ' density of the 5th Avenue Parcels. The CDMCA is willing to reconsider this position only on the basis of a specific proposal for the area. The EIR 81-2 referred to deleting of designated park sites. Recreation areas for old Corona del Mar north of PCH are with small exception on school property. Even the small exception Grant Howald Park is not all ' PB&R property. The tennis court parking, rest rooms, part of the ball diamond and all facilities and land under and surrounding the youth center are on school property. San Joaquin Hills Park is not in or easily access - able to Corona del Mar and it has no athletic fields. We will have no ball fields even with Jasmine Creek area filled for a passive park. With talk of school closings and the school board's intention of selling of such proper- ties in Corona del Mar, we would have none of the recreational areas (includ- ing athletic fields) that we as tax payers have both paid for and use. We understand there were park designations made in the General Plan on the ' Marguerite parcel north of the new Oasis parking lot and on the 5th Street parcel adjacent Oasis. We believe these designations should be kept as both are adjacent present PB&R property. We would note that even EIR- 81-2 was careful not to include school properties as recreational. Finally CDMCA believes the 5th Avenue parcel should be developed as ' an open (non -walled) community with a grid street system matching Corona del Mar along 5th Avenue and with a secondary street standard, access road running parallel 5th Avenue below the bluff and intersecting Marguerite. Very truly yours, z Richard A. Nichols, President CDMCA ' 2-270 I. , the Sommer offke ROSELLE L. SOMMER REALTOR MEMBER Certified Commercial Investment Division, National Association of Real Estate Boards GRADUATE Realtors Institute MEMBER Inlematwnal College of Real Estate Consulting Professionals REAL ESTATE.000NSELLING INVESTMENTS AND EXCHANGES RENTALS AND SALES .Z7�&m91-Z DEC i 1982 December 22, 1982 Mr. Jerry King, Chairmant Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Calif. 92663-3884 Dear Mr, King, 11232 Los Alamitos Boulevard Los Alamitos, California 90720 (213) 430-3588 We understand that on January 6, 1983, a general plan ammendment (GPA 81-2) to down - zone the area in which our property is a part, (N/W corner of MacArthur and Birch will be submitted for the agenda. We are currently in process to re -develop our 3.19 (approximate) acres and this proposal to down-zone•would have catastrophic effects on our plans. We would like to go on record as opposed to this ammendment, which seems discriminating and unfair to the private property owners of our area. Our particular piece of property is being designed for what we feel will be a reward- ing proposition not only for us, but to the City of Newport Beach with minimum impact on traffic. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALESTATE BROKERS o NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF REAL ESTATE BROKERS LONG BEACH DISTRICT BOARD OF REALTORS WEST ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF REALTORS 2-271 I I A I 11 a 1. l_J L I l 1 j I I , the Sommer alarm IROSELLE L. SOMMER REALTOR I F-1 I GRADUATE Realtors Institute MEMBER International College of Real Estate Consulting Professionals REAL ESTATE COUNSELLING INVESTMENTS AND EXCHANGES RENTALS AND SALES 11232 Los Alamitos Boulevard Los Alamitos, California,90720 (213) 430-3588 December 22, 1982 Mr. Jerry King continued As you well know, the City of Irvine is actually increasing density on the property in the airport area. We do not see the long term logic for Newport Beach (especially with the completion of the Corona Del Mar Freeway only a few years away to relieve traffic on Bristol) to down -zone some of it's best and last commercial sources for income in the city. Respectfully yours, Roselle L. Sommer RLS:kb cc: Jorge Yavar NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REAL ESTATE BROKERS o NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF REAL ESTATE BROKERS LONG BEACH DISTRICT BOARD OF REALTORS WEST ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF REALTORS MEMBER Ceddied Commercial 'Investment Division, National Association Of Real Estate Boards GRADUATE Realtors Institute MEMBER International College of Real Estate Consulting Professionals REAL ESTATE COUNSELLING INVESTMENTS AND EXCHANGES RENTALS AND SALES 11232 Los Alamitos Boulevard Los Alamitos, California,90720 (213) 430-3588 December 22, 1982 Mr. Jerry King continued As you well know, the City of Irvine is actually increasing density on the property in the airport area. We do not see the long term logic for Newport Beach (especially with the completion of the Corona Del Mar Freeway only a few years away to relieve traffic on Bristol) to down -zone some of it's best and last commercial sources for income in the city. Respectfully yours, Roselle L. Sommer RLS:kb cc: Jorge Yavar NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REAL ESTATE BROKERS o NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF REAL ESTATE BROKERS LONG BEACH DISTRICT BOARD OF REALTORS WEST ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF REALTORS BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRESIDENT.................... Dick Clucas Dan Borthwick.................. 646.9714 4403 Seashore Orive................ 673.3762 205 Canal Street 1ST VICE PRESIDENT .......... Jan DeBa David Goff ...................... 642.5949 WNIA TREASURER v 5215 River Avenue 5107 Seashore Orlve................ 046.0919 Bill Mc Laughlin ................ 675.3732' a67 Balboa Coves 2ND VICE PRESIDENT.......... John Shea Ron Stevens ...... .............. 645.7250 2214 West Ocean Front ............. 875.8917 6104 River Avenue SECRETARY ............... Margot Skilling Sterling Wolfe Jr................ 642.1441 6010 Wast Ocean Front ............. 642.3214 6204 West Ocean Front WEST NEWPORT BEACH ASSOCIATION -a1 �'°' NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA ` September ,1I, 1982 PLANNING .COMMISSION S �� r GS Newport Beach i n� ��• ��� 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Gentlemen and Ladies: The residents in our.area are vitally concerned with your review of the CalTrans-West -property. ' -Our Board of Directors has discussed this matter thoroughly and unanimously voted to recommend that the 'City leave the existing zoning of Open Space unchanged. Although CalTrans has requested a change in zoning, we can see absolutely no justification for complying with'their request. The ' best interests of the City of Newport Beach are served by the current zoning. The traffic load on Pacific Coast Highway, Newport Blvd., and Su- , perior Avenue is already excessive. New developments have already been approved that will cause further overload. Approval of a change from Open Space to Multi -Family Residential appears irres- ponsible under these circumstances. If, for any unseen compelling reason this property must be rezoned, it should be changed to R-1 at 4DU/acre with 25% overage for afford- ' able housing. These ocean view bluffs lend themselves beautifully to such development. The neighborhood would be enhanced. The low profile would retain the Newport Crest view plane and the major pro- blem - traffic - would be substantially reduced. Sincerely, &-6fr14C�I�/j HC1ucas, President RHC:e West Newport Beach Association 2-273 1. I I 0 I L' r 1` xowporf erwt Planning Commission Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Ladies and Gentlemen: HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 201 Intrepid Street Newport Beach, California 92663 10 January, 1983 The Homeowners of Newport Crest have been closely following the development of the West Newport area. In studying - the available documents relating to GPA 81-2 and specifically the CalTrans West property, the following series of questions have been generated. 1. Why would the City be considering a change of land use now since the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission and City Council indicated an interest in maintaining CalTrans West as Recreation/Open Space and eventual acquistion for the City as evidenced by the following correspondence: A. 25 January, 1982. A report to the City Council from the Sub -Committee on CalTrans West. B. 10 February, 1982. A letter from Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney to Mayor Heather. C. 11 February, 1982. A letter from Mayor Heather to the City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Planning Director and the Parks, Beaches And Recreation Director. D. 19 February, 1982. A letter from City Attorney to the City Manager. E. 8 March, 1982. A report from the City Manager to the Mayor and City Council. F. 1 April, 1982. A letter from the Parks, Beaches And Recreation Director to the Parks, Beaches And Recreation Commission. G. 26 April, 1982. A letter fnom the Parks, Beaches And Recreation Director. to the Mayor and City Council. H. 28 May, 1982. An appraisal by Mr. Richard Fuller of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers on the CalTrans West property. I. 28 June, 1982. A letter from the City Manager to the Mayor and City Council. 2. Would not funding be available for acquistion using Banning Newport Ranch "in -Lieu" fees when they are 'generated. The $500,000 from Hughes could purchase the portion needed for the right-of- way for the Superior re-allignment. The City recieved an appraisal on the land for from $1,350,000 to $1,650,000. Total "in -lieu" fees from the 6.5 acres required of Banning comes to $1,940,159. 2-274 Is Iq Planning Commission 10 February, 1983 page two 3. As less and ;less open land remains, should there be an immediate ' updated review of the Recreation/Open Space element of the General Plan and careful protection of those areas designated for Parks, , Recreation and Open Space. 4. Why consider changing the land use on CalTrans West until the West , Newport Study Area under consideration is completed. Perhaps changes are being made in density and buildable allowed on both vacant and possible tear -downs that would have a very direct relationship on what could be properly built on CalTrans West and over-all traffic ' circulation. 5. What is the rationale for increasing density on four out of the five , parcels under consideration, especially CalTrans West, and reduction of density on the site on Campus due to traffic impact. 6. What is the rationale for density higher than approved for the Banning Newport Ranch on Site 1, which will adjoin the CalTrans property. 7. What will the grading be on the remaining'CalTrans West after the , re-allignment of Superior. 8. With Clients of the Convalescent homes on Superior being bussed to Costa Mesa for spending time in a park, wouldn't a View Park on the , remaining upper portion of CalTrans West be logical. 9. If GPA 81-2 is passed, what can we expect the sequence of events to be ' and in what time frame. 10. Can a Park be obtained quickly by some sort of development agreement. Thank you for your attention and response. , Sincerely, Board Of Directors Newport Crest Homeowners Association 2-275 I STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY George Deukmejian, c,.m , PARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EGAL DIVISION '120 SOUTH SPRING STREET, SUITE 500 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 TELEPHONEr (213) 620.5000 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' PLANNING COMMISSION 3300 Newport Beach Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 I j January'14, 1983 Dear Chairman and Commission Members: Re: General Plan Amendment 81-2 (GPA 81-2) "Caltrans West" The State of California is informed that the above -referenced General Plan Amendment has been set for hearing on January 20, 1983. Moreover, it is understood that the Commission's staff report will be completed and circulated on Monday, January 17, 1983. It is felt that the issues surrounding this General Plan Amendment are of sufficient complexity and importance that a thorough review of the staff report and other conditions should be taken by the State prior to the scheduled hearing. By this letter, it is requested that the Commission's hearing on this matter be continued until February 3, 1983. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Very truly yours, Joseph A. Montoya Deputy hief Counsel By&avid ��?/y�✓ "Simmes Attorney ALTON TICE 912 SANOCASTLE DR CORONA OEL MAR CA 92625 4-0574036019 01/19/83 ICS IPMMT'LZ CSP $NAB 7146441673 MGM ?OMT CORONA DEL MAR CA 67 01-19 1156P EST CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL CITY HALL 3300 NEWPORT BLVO NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 I AM AGAINST REZONING OF THE THREE PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF FIFTH AVENUE AND MARGURIETE AVENUE IN CORONA UEL MAR FROM FOUR UNITS PER ACRE TO TEN UNITS PER ACRE WOULD LIKE THE PRESENT ZONING RETAINED ALTON TICE 912 SANDCASTLE OR CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 23155 EST MGMCOMP TO REPLY BY MAILGRAM MESSAGE, SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WESTERN UNION'S TOLL • FREE PHONE NUMBERS 2_277 I I I 0 I 9 RON YEO, FAIA ARCHITECT, INC. 500 JASMINE AVENUE CORONA DELMAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 TELEPHONE (714)644-8111 JANUARY 20, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DEAR HONORABLE CHAIRMAN JERRY KING, AND COMMISSION MEMBERS: RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FIFTH AVENUE/MARGUERITE - PARCEL A IF AN INCREASED DENSITY IS GRANTED FOR THE IRVINE PROPERTY, I FEEL THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PUBLIC VIEW THAT EXISTS FROM MARGUERITE OF NEWPORT BAY. THIS IS A SPECTACULAR VIEW THAT IS CURRENTLY ENJOYED BY MANY AS THEY DESCEND DOWN THE HILL TOWARD CORONA DEL MAR. THIS VIEW, AS WELL AS THE ONE ALONG MACARTHUR, PROVIDES AN IRREPLACEABLE "WELCOMING"' EXPERIENCE TO MOTORISTS AS THEY ENTER OUR COMMUNITY. I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION OF PRESERVATION OF THIS VIEW. YOURS TRULY, RON YEO, FAIA RY:PM r RECEIVED PLANNING - DEPARTMENT JAN 2 01983 CIT r J^ l:E4YPC•F? „ ,C,�, CACI . A 2-278 ` u V LAYNAX, JONES & DY$ LAWYERS I CORPORATE PLAZA NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92DOO ' WILBUR O. LAYMAN STANLEY R. JONES TELEPHONE ROBERT C. DYC STEVEN H. SUNSHINE January 28, 1983 I7I4I e40'SB50 FREDERICK S. SAINICK RCFCR TO FILE NO. ' ANNE C. ALOKOW 69068.000 Robert B. Burnham, Esq. , City Attorney City of Newport Beach , 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: General Plan Amendment 81-2 ("GPA 81-2") Dear Mr. Burnham: 1 I represent Newport Center Medical Buildings ("NCMB"), a limited partnership. NCMB is the proponent of GPA 81-2 which �• would add 80,000 square feet of medical building to the square footage presently -existing in Block 400 of Newport Center. Mr. Frank Rhodes, general -partner of NCMB, reported *to me that, at the January 20, 1983 meeting of the Planning Commission, Commissioner Balalis'requested assurance that NCMB has property rights to build the proposed medical office on Block 400 if the General.P-1an is amended as proposed. Attached to this letter is a machine copy of the Ground Lease- dated May 6, 1966 between The Irvine Company and NCMB regarding a portion of Block 400 and a Short Form - Memorandum thereof which.has.been recorded. , In my opinion, paragraph 6(b)••on page 6 of the Ground Lease clearly provides that NCMB has the right to construct the proposed medical building. Furthermore, by its conduct (including letters acquiescing in NCMB's right to build an' additional medical building), The Irvine Company has clearly consented to or estopped itself from objecting to NCMB's right to , construct the proposed medical building. I plan to be present at the meeting of the Planning Commission on Thursday, February 10, 1983, if you or any of the 2-279 1,AWXAN, JONES & DYE LAWYERS Robert H. Burnham, Esq. January 28, 1983 Page -2- Commissioners should have a question. Very y yo , WI L A WDL:co Encls. cc: Frank Rhodes Bob Lenard 2-280 C ATTAp� ?Ix IRVINE MM PAW 550 Newport Center Dnve. P.O. Bax-I ` Newport Beach. California 92663 644.3011 July 22, 1981 cA . •, gFC:E Honorable Mayor Jacqueline Heather '9 w,nanma+ .•.� and City Council 1 UUU221°8.' ' City of Newport Beach-. rUPIAi%,, 3300 Newport Boulevard w,urRii Baa r ' Newport Beach, CA 92663 ' SUBJECT: Block 4001 Newport, Center Medical Buildings ~ 0 Mr. Frank A. Rhodesi Oear Mayor Heather and Louncil Members: We were requested to provide information regarding Block 400 in Newport" ' Center at the City Council Meeting of July 14, 1981. Our counsel,­_*V Robert K. Break of the law firm of Latham and Watkins, has -transmitted a letter (copy attached) on this subject together with a copy of the' applicable grbund lease t0 the City Attorney for his review. A summarizes Mr. Break's The ncorrespondencehrelative to Blocks400sand0GeneralnPlaneAmend n as ment 80-3. , "1 • Although 15 years have elapsed since execution ofthe tease ogre the ground lease reflects that an additional building of 80,000s Meet could be developed at this location, assuming all necessary•, approvals are secured. It is clearly the responsibility.of Mr. Rhodes to seek necessary••: approvals for potential development from the City as part of either.-. , GPA 81-2 or a future GPA. In as much as all environmental • documentation for GPA 80-3 is site;; ' specific, and does not include Block 400 there can be no inclusioa.z of Mr. Rhodes' request in the current amendment. ; In any event,'we wi-11 not.transfer any of our existing or future rights on sites which we own to Block 400. Also, we feel that a' reduction of rights associated with GPA 80-3 to accommodate Mr.. R potential future request would not either. be fair or acceptable frac- , our perspective. Aside from Mr. Rhodes' request, and other than The Irvine Company, .are unaware of any other owner or lessee of land within Newport Cen:r that is currently contemplating requesting additional' development ',. ' rights from the City. Although any. future request may be impractici as it would involve, in effect, the redevelopment of existing devel�� ' ment, we do not have the right to preclude others from exercising t•'•�' constitutional rights. We trust that this letter and the one authored by Latham and Watkins sufficiently respond to your request for information on this subject. : l Richard M. Cannon Atrarhmunte y' 23Z 2-281 t ..•uv3 296 •-ir3• f-e••e• ST6CC- .:).�.. pool. ..0 n2 .41111-•43. ....CS- -AT-WAr ,•3 - -3-23 .,. :•l a.o•aC?6 L ATH X & 1ti?iTXIN S A --Q N ZY5 AT LAW 660 NCWPOP- • cl%rC9 calve. SU -.TC ..CO NCNPO.'3T 9EACM.CAIIFCPNIA 92660 -C"--CNC •Tu• 732-9100 -CLCCCI•.C. 71. 159 aa91 Hugh R. Coffin, Esq. 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: GPA 80-1 Dear Hugh: July 16', 1981 1333 NCW .Aw05«..0 .v C.wN SWTC 20 N,a C. 20036 TCLC..CNC lot. 626•..33 reucc-.IC. -lox 263-...S !•N olcaa ofaec a!!O .VTw •vCNY [rfW rC Ta 6•N olcao, a•ufow.• 63.33 rc�c.«oNc rn.. ap-1111 TC.CCo..C. Hu; 239-363. At the City Council hearing of the above matter. July 14, 1981, the Council received testimony from Mr. Frank Rhodes, general partner for Newport Center Medical Buildings ("NCMBI'). Mr. Rhodes testified that NCMB desires to build an additional 80,000 square foot medical office building in Block 400 of Newport Center. The Council understandably requested information about.this matter, and I have been asked to forward the NCMB lease to you for your review and to advise you of The Irvine Company's position. NCMB leased a portion of Block 400 from The Irvine Company in 1966 for a term of fifty-five (55) years. Briefly stated, under an interpretation most favorable to NCMB and giving it benefit of'all doubt, the Lease would permit NCMB to build a second medical office'building in Block 400 of between forty thousand and eighty'thousand square feet, although the intent of the lease apparently. was that that building would be constructed, .if at all, by 1968. (See paragraphs 6(a) and (b)'of the Lease, and paragraph 2 of General Conditions.) the The lease, however, does not guarantee that NCMB ' may build another building in Block 400 as against City plan- ning policies. NCNB expressly assumed the risks to develop. ment associated with City regulation o£ land use, and to the extent the City requires exactions for construction of a second building in Block 400, those.exactions expressly must be met by NCMB. Moreover, there is nothing in the lease to suggest that The Irvine Company -has any obligation to transfer any development rights for other parcels in Newport Center to Block 400 and NCMB. 2-262 LATf1AN A WATKISB - Toll A>I� Hugh �2. Coffin, Esq. July 16, 1981 Page 2 Sinctin. do 1977, the CityesaplanningodecisionsReslon forivNewp-ort Cente'rebruar ' not identified any additional participated in the Cit s office development in Block 400. NCMB has- not activel y, Proc.. n� �••:, ' esses leading to.those decisions, yet they would directly N,•.,; bar its desire to build a second medical office building. C:fB's current interest in GPA 80-3, in view of this histov suggests to The Irvine Company that NCMB is simply trying b' = ". tag -along tactics to be relieved of its responsibility co comply with the normal procedures by which any other owner` of an interest in land secures municipal approvals for deve,..:t:• ment, particularly given NCXB's a pparent unwillingness ..' contribute to the,costs of the solutions to problems the to s City is currently confronting. To put it bluntly, NCMB a - , .�' " to be asking for a frei"ride. t oe sin 1 ppet Cpm an 's Q P Y,•it is The Irvi.t P y position that it is not obligated and will not accept any obligation to secure any development rights for NCMB, whether by transfer of densities from undeveloped sites in Newport Center, a reduction in GPA 80-3, or otherwise. 'f NOMB was ed of requested that the CitysreviewCNCMB's Policy ,l f and has -,low development to Block 400 as a part of GPAP81a2.oNCMBdson poral should be considered if at all with that GPA. With yo-` respect to GPA 80-3, the applications filed by The Irvine Company and the Marriott Hotel, the environmental and othor " notices, and the draft EIR all specifically identify the five discrete, undeveloped, vacant parcels under.consider:,- tion,'excluding Block 400. The -Irvine Company is not aware of any other ow. er `'{r C� or lessee of land in Newport Center having any plans to s,ek ; further development rights. However, there are several c'.he- owners or lessees of land in Newport Center who bought or leased that land many years ago -and who would have a righ-, free from any private restrictions imposed by The Irvine Company, to petition the City for approval of add-on devc.op-�;� men•t to their developed sites in Newport Center, They in -ludo Marriott Hotel, Avco-, and Pacific Mutual. The distinguis ing WA factor, of course, is diat The Irvine Company is petitior. n3 for the right to develop the remaining undeveloped and va ant f�°': land in Newport Center, while these entities all own land I,S-.. that has been or is being developed. Nonetheless, while further development may be impractical, they have a const-tu- tional right to petition the City for additional developm.nt F. ZO4 2-283 1; j Hugh R. Coffin, Esq. .July 16, 1981 Page 3 privileges without breaching any agreement with The Irvine Company, and The Irvine Company does not have the power to control this. To summarize, NCHB's lease would, under an interpre- tation favorable to NC.%B, 'permit a second medical office p building in Block 400,'a lease right NCMB has nonetheless left unexercised for fifteen years. But, to build that build- < -O ing,NCNB must pay .its fair share of the public costs of development, including the costs of planning, environmental * processing, and needed additional street and other public improvements. The Irvine Company is not goingto pay those costs for NCMB. The Irvine Company will not transfer devel- opment rights to Block 400, will not accept a reduction in ' CPA 80-3 to accommodate'NC.MB, and will not give NCmB a free G?: ride. GPA 80-3 concerns permissible development of the unde- veloped parcels in Newport Center, and not add-on development { in currently improved parcels. ti ..+... A copy of the NCMB lease documents are being for - ,'t warded with this letter. Yours very truly, MR. «,..,. Robert K. Break of Latham & Watkins Encl. cc: Richard Cannon ' <a•t*4.• . t[• . 2135 1 IOVLCY P. JON C! 4,VOCLL S. MAN 30N ,OUR O. LAYMAN i-WAM ✓lRUCC Voss :lCRY C. OYC apC71CX S.SAINiCK :LVCN M. SUNSNINC, LAYXA.v, H..., sox. JoaEs & Voss LAW OrrICCS 1 CORPORATC PLAZA NCWPORT SCACN, CA61rONN1A 92EO0 July 21, 1981 :Iayor Jackie 'Heather and 4embers of the City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Reference: Proposed General Plan Amendment 80-3 Dear Mayor Heather and Members of the Council: TCLCPMONC 171+1 45�0.64550 IN RCPLY RCFCR -10 rILC No. J=A9 01 I represent Newport Center Medical Buildings ("NCMB"). NCMB has asked me to set forth as clearly as possible the position of NC14B regarding the proposed General Plan Amend- ments 80-3 and 81-2. Chronology The chronology of events is as follows: May 6:, 1966- The•Irvine Company and NCMB entered into ' a 55~` year lease for 2 medical.buildings with a gross area not'to exceed 160,000 square feet of building. The 400 Newport Center Drive -building contains 80,000 square ' feet leaving a balance of 80,000 -square feet for the second building for which over an acre of land has been held vacant for 15 years. January 1981- NCNB became aware of the Irvine Company's plan for the purported completion of Newport Center without including the 80,,000 square foot medical building. t In March 1981, NC -14B inquired about joining in the effort to cause the adoption of General Plan Amendment 80-3 but was advised by the Irvine Company that the Irvine Company wanted NCMB to commence its own proceeding. March 25,_1981- NCMB advised the Planning Commission yetter or NCMB-'s desire to build the additional medical building and of its beneficial features. 2-285 , ' L it sev, HA�rsov, Joss & Voss LAW CFFICC3` Mayor Jackie Heather and Members of the City Council '"T`• ti July 21, 1981 Page Two Amril 2, 1981 Staff -advised that it would take about the same amount of time to redocument GPA 80-3 to include the medical building as it would to commence a new general plan amendment containing the medical building. Mav 1, 1981- NCMB sent to the Planning Commission a ' Statement of -Position requesting either that an 80,000 square foot medical building be added to GPA 80-3 or that 80,000 square feet of buildings be eliminated from ' GPA 80-3 pending a new general plan amendment which would provide for the medical building. 1r a I I I Mav 7, 1981- Frank Rhodes of NCMB presented to the Planning Commission the concept of the 80,000 square foot medical building and answered questions members of the Planning Commission. Mav 21, 1981 The Planning Commission adopted its report to.the City Council including the following policy number 10 regarding Block 400 Medical Office - from "(10) Commercial development intensities may be transfered.from one site to another, subject to Planning Commission and City Council approval, and Environmental Documentation." June 4, 1981- Planning Commission recommended for - public hearing the inclusion of an 80,000 square foot medical -building in block 400 of Newport Center within new general plan amendment 81-2. July 2, 1981- NCMB sent letter to City Council explaining its project to the City Council. July 14, 1981- (a) Frank Rhodes of NCMB•presented the proposed 80,000 square foot medical building to the Citv Council and answers questions. (b) City Council directed the Planning Commission to commence'public hearings on general plan amendment 81-2 (which contains the 80,000 square foot medical building). 510 2-286 HA\so-. JO -,ES & MOSS LAW CFPtCCS mayor Jackie Feather and members of the City Council July 21, 1981 Page Three statement of Position The Irvine Company presents GPA 80-3 to the City Council nd to the public as being the "completion" of Newport ranter. At best, this is inaccurate. When pressed at the ,.ouncil meeting of July 14, 1981, Mr. Cannon admitted that ?A 80-3 only related to 5 specific Irvine Company sites. !herefore what the Irvine Company really means is that the `evelcpment representd by GPA 80-3 (other than the Marriott .:ortion) is only the completion of the portion controlled by ,:he Irvine Company. If it is true that only a specific amount of development ahould occur in Newport Center, the Irvine Company attempts to utilize the entire amount of 'such development rights for its own use to the exclusion of NCMB by representing to the City Council and members of the public that, once the city grants entitlements in 80-31 the city will not be approached for more density. NCMB wants to establish very clearly that such is not the case. Although it cannot be objectively determined until after environmental dccumentation.is complete? NCMB believes its proposed 80,000 square foot medical building is more worthy of entitlement when compared to the projects of the Irvine Company for the following reasons. (1) There will be no impact on water quality. The entire area where the new medical building will be located is presently.devoted to driveways and parking. The addition of a building and a single level parking deck on a small portion of the site ,will not increase the amount of runoff. (2) There will be less impact on traffic. Both physicians and their patients tend not to utilize surface streets during peak traffic hours thereby avoiding 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M: traffic crunches. (3) All of the use of the will be by local physicians patients. Therefore there airport traffic. 5,11 new medical building serving their local will be no effect on I a I I _I J 2-287 1 '^ LAY IAN, C{.\YSO`i. .JO\F.S 8C Voss 6�i Z 2-288 v. w.. LAW OFFICES '••• �•• Mavor Jackie Heather and Members of the City Council July 21, 1981 Pace Four ' (4) The community will be served. At the present time, there is significant need for expansion of facilities to meet the needs of long established existing medical/dental tenants who would otherdise ' be ieauired to relocate. -Furthermore, NCMB has committed to Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian ground floor space for a 24 hour ambulatory care facility which Hoag wishes to operate, subject to ' obtaining building permits. Failure to obtain the medical building would represent a serious loss to the community. 3 ' Therefore, NCMB wants to establish and protect rights E to construct its 80,000 square foot medical building. The understanding of NC,4B is that if approval of the medical building in 81-2 is not obtained, then policy number 10 means that NCMB may seek a transfer of density from Irvine Y Company lands to block 400 subject to planning commission ' apnroval,.city council approval and adequate environmental documentation. If that is not the case, NCMB would like to be advised. :. I plan to attend the July 27, 1981 meeting .of the City Council. Unless requested,'I will not present the contents of this letter again at the hearing. At that time however, I will answer any questions which members of the City Council may have. Thank you for giving me your time. ;^ 'Very Iy rs ' ' „S, ' Wilbur D. Layman WDL:djr CC: Frank A. Rhodes, Jr. 6�i Z 2-288 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Parks, Beaches & Recreation Department DATE: February 3, 1983 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Parks, Beaches ,& Recreation Director SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81-2 FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS (Areas A, B, and C) The Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, at their meeting of February 1, 1983, initiated your request to provide a recommendation on neighborhood and view park designations on the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan as applied to the subject parcels. By a 5-0 vote, with one absence and one abstension, the Commission determined that the matter should be continued to their meeting of March 1, 1983 to enable staff to provide answers to questions that resulted from Commission and public discussion on the issue. The Commission looks forward to providing the requested Informa- tion on this important planning matter. REcE7;+� {}...`•int FEg3 7983A- eaply.-W n r i SA N DCASTL E- TDR. M0MCvwn►FRs C.C- Ahi Yo M s,pt ,.' PROTECT yauR ._. IPA0PFRTY...__-VALUES__ ' -5 E Lir R.IT_Y_ 1 F.LK't._ HA ZA.�lO..S I ' P_LANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC'HEARING, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1983 ' 7:30 PM SHARP N.B. CITY HALL - 3300 NEWPORT BLVD., NEWPORT BEACH Plan to attend Newport Beach Planning Commission Public Hearing ' meeting on Thursday, February 10, 1983 at 7:30 PM s a^-! The first item on the agenda has to do with the Irvine Company's proposed development of the "5th Avenue Parcels" (3 -separate parcels A, B & C) ' The Irvine Company/Bren is the proponent of an amendment to the Newport Beach City General Plan (zoning). SEE ATTACHED MAP Parcel "A" (West of Marguerite, North of Fifth Avenue) ' Land use plan calls for Low Density Residential (R -1-B) Parcel "B" (North of 5th Avenue, East of Marguerite, So. of Sandcastle) ' Land use plan calls for Low Density Residential (R -1-B) ' Parcel "C" (Canyon Area named Buck Gully, behind Sandcastle Drive contigous to Lusk Homes) ' Land use plan calls for Recreational/Open Space, flora & fauna; POSSIBLE PROBLEMS.. Parcel "A" Impact on views from existing residences along Sandcastle & Jasmine Creek Condos from unknown height of planned new ' residential construction. Parcel "B" Same as above IJ Parcel "C" Buck Gully Canyon ... if this area were to become open to the publi.c(recreation area with public access)it may pose a security and fire exposure risk to existing homes on canyon and would be a loss of a beautiful natural asset of flora & fauna and wildlife. Lusk Homes C C & R's precludes fencing along canyon to protect views, ie. security risK to rear of homes on canyon if there is public access. OVER LEAF 2-290 PAGE 2 1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION; Parcel "A" & "B" Support low density residential single family development but views with limed height restriction to protect all existing m from existing homes and from south bound Marguerite automobile obil traffic that enjoy seeing the "Pavillion Landmark" Fire 1 retardent and esthedcally acceptable roofing material. New C C & R's for proposed development regarding landscape tree heights. Consider small viewpark on Harbor View Drive near ' Marguerite Avenue on Parcel "A". Parcel "C" City to require (by zoning and subdivision agreement for Parcel 1 "A" & "B" above) developer to keep Parcel "C" as a permanent "Open Space Reserve" for protection of natural asset flora and 1 fauna and wild -life with no public access with no recreational use with no public or private roads. This will protect view loss from additional Sandcastle homes up the canyon and help to protect against fire hazards and security exposure from the general public. Fire breaks and fire truck access to be require. Land to remain i.n fee to developer as -a condition of development■ of parcels "A" & "B". Buck Gully Canyon These recommendations should be conditions placed the city to protect existing long time residential some cases were sold by inference lasting views by sales agents. Please plan at 7:30 PM members of It might be on the development by 1 development who in original developer',• to attend this PUBLIC -HEARING on Thursday, February 10th 1 Sharp to let your individual firoughts be known to the 1 the matter suggestednthatmthis �matter beon who lheld overntol be votig oMarchs1Os 1983. jonu=y 26, 1983 The Nowport Fwag4—Fe M AP-> SA N A CAS �G1 �Fi CEMEH I�U�i ���j OASIS Center. (lower left ha FAACEL G ;*#&K Gv« LAN ON . MEDIUM E!NlITY � pEEIElNTIAI, pd to f! O W pp EUJC.oM Aad, G L ine Co., both want land near the, senior citizens corner) for development. c0.M 1 14ARROR llr�w 1 I-FttcS' 49 Al 1 LI I I H 1-1 xowport &Wt HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 201 Intrepid Street Newport Beach, California 92663 15 February, 1983 Mr. Jerry King Chairman Planning Commission Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. King, It was a pleasure meeting you briefly during the last Planning Commission meeting. I am writing you to explain a problem•we (Newport Crest Homeowners Association) have encountered and ask your assistance. We have scheduled our Annual Meeting on 24 February, 1983. In fact, we had leased and paid for the Council Chambers. We were very surprised when we learned that the CalTrans West issue was continued until 24 February, 1983 at a regular session of the Planning Commission. P.B.& R has arranged for facilities nearby for our meeting. That eliminates the first item. The second and equally important is the inability to be in two places at once. We therefore respectfully request the Planning Commission continue the issue of CalTrans West until March 10, 1983. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of assistance. ' Sincerel e t Lars C. Hansen G ' Director Newport Crest Homeowners AssociationFF'':'; � B LCH/jh :Jt- N� ' I 2-292 c (,: IM THE IRVINE COMPANY a. Newport Center orBox i N Californialf=s! Newport Beach, ia 92626 63 February 23, 1983 Mr. Gary Pomeroy, President Harbor View Hills Community Association P.O. Box 54 Corona del Marg California 92625 Dear'Mr. Pomeroy: Thank you for accepting our letter of February 9, 1983 in which we reaffirmed our intent to respect the view interests of homeowners in your association. Your letter of February 11, 1983 raises the issue of "notice" of our agreement to potential future buyers of our property in the area covered by the sight plane. In the event that our company should transfer an interest to another party in any of the properties affected by the sight plane, please be assured that we will notify the other party of commitments made by us to your association regarding view protection. I trust this addresses your concern. Zincely, Robert Shelton Senior Vice President Planning and Community Relations cc: Evelyn Hart, Mayer, City of Newport Beach ✓Jerry King, Chairman, Planning Commission Jim Hewicker, Planning Director, City of Newport Beach A"Le Phae,11 A E C E I V E D Olannir- X [.e�:F+'TfP11t FEB 24 1983tor C lilt F,';F ov&ortT 9FA�cN, ,l CALIF 2-293 i� II I� I if to II II II II II U Revise 93 to read: 3. CALTRANS WEST will be required to comply with the Park Dedication Ordinance. A park of approximately five acres in size is to be developed between Pacific Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, 15th Street and n&"A46. The specific size, location and design of the park, and the means to acquire and develop it will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract maps for CALTRANS WEST and/or the adjacent BANNING -NEWPORT RANCH residential developments. The park shall be completed concurrent with occupancy of th.: first residential tract. 2 -2N -F3 Dav-e S i vin mx_� i Ca i 1 rwvi s 2-294 i RON YEO, FAIA ARCHITECT, INC. 500 JASMINE AVENUE CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 TELEPHONE:(714)644-8111 FEBRUARY 28, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DEAR HONORABLE CHAIRMAN JERRY KING, (SND COMMSSION MEMBERS: RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FIFTH 'AVENUE/MARGUERITE PARCEL A ENCLOSED ARE FIVE COPIES ,OF A SKETCH SHOWING MY THOUGHTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE KEY REMAINING PARCELS IN CORONA DEL MAR. FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. YOURS TRULY, RON YEO, FAIA CC! BILL AGEE RY:JF M�R� 1983'' t C�IF13 ' N �RCk1F1 2-295 F I �, I s • 001 RON YEO FAIA ARCHITECT, INC._ 500 JASMINE AVENUE ppy, La° CJS .4 6oKl�, 4/ Y/Lr+f 7'Y"w =Alor fTT� P-�P-E�•11�i� 0�7'8��+�IT ,i50 AoY� � e G,pM • F4,!V4 1 • USS I-ZK uTz .fes!/V/715 If II II II CALIF OMNIA 52625 W H.fR�zr� rr� et • PRoT f7Kr iMf/7fllyoCy�}oso T�( -lI9ofM4 ftT12gqo,X.04 r ! �?'R�G/�/�<. iF�6oH 6 �•tslY/�Y• oc�.t,J m s �s�flxianr ��joZG6L C � • � /L1.1/�YTd/iY/.YoPF�/ t •-SPitC� 'T�iYE Rh a. • �N�fs� �srry,�w�s�� �lO.e G71ZExi' h'o4�/Nlo 0:41` ftoOB6 FUNGI f PVAill� •.lent j=.. MAR 1 19830' L PJ£WPClti UCACH, CAL:; . w N 2-296 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PARKS, BEACHES AND RECREATION COMMISSION To: Parks. Beaches and Recreation Commission ' From: General Plan (Recreation and Open Space Element) Review Committee Date: March 1, 1983 ' Re: General Plan Amendment 81-2 ' In response to a request from the Planning Commission for a recommendation from the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission on specific park issues related to GPA B1-2, the ' chair referred the request to the General Plan Review Committee for action. The Committee was instructed t review the current designations (on the Recreation a8d Op�n Space Element) of three (3) specific sites, referred to collectively as the "Fifth Avenue Parcels," and to recommend whether any proposed changes in these designations contained in GPA B1-2 are consistent with the park and open space needs of the impacted community and the broader needs of the city in general. T.he sites are: , Site A. Westerly of Marguerite Avenue between Fifth Avenue and Harbor View Drive ' (approx. 9.3 acres). Site B. Northerly of Fifth Avenue between Marguerite Avenue and Buck Gully (approx. 13.2 acres). Site C. Along the eastern City boundary between Fifth Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Roand (Buck Gully) (approx. 49.07 acres). ' Site A_ ----- Marguerite Avenue -------------- Parcel. Discussion. The site is currently designated on the general plan as 2-297 • , Recreational and Environmental Open Space (GH)/Low Density Residential. The Irvine Company, without seeking to change the Recreation and Open Space Element designation for the site, has requested that it be designated Medium -Density Residential on the Land Use Element of the General Pian. Staff has recommeded to the Planning Commission that the ' site be designated for Medium -Density Residential use and that it be rezoned to the Planned Community (P.C.) District. Staff has concluded that to rezone the property and change the permitted residential use as it has recommeded is consistent not only with the city's Residential Growth Plan, but with the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan as well. ' "The Recreation and Open Space Element shows the Marguerite Avenue Parcel for a continuation of the Jasmine Creek greenbelt system. The General Plan location of structures policy will preclude develop- ment in this environmentally sensitive area, resulting in the Jasmine Creek area on the subject site being maintained as a greenbelt area. If the proposed amendment_is_aBeroygd= the_land use designation should continue to show Jasmine_ Creek_ as a_ green- belt_on-this _site." The greenbelt should be similar in scale to the Planned -Community areas northerly. (January 26, 1983, Staff Report, Page 13.) Recommendation. The committee d es riot oppose the amendment to the Recreation and Open Spate Element of the General Plan proposed for this site by General Plan Amendment 81-2, provided the following conditions are satisfied: ' 1. That the Jasmine Creek greenbelt be continued on the site between Harbor View Drive and Grant Howald Park and that an easement permitting public access to the greenbelt be granted. 2. That as part of this easement a passive view area of approximately one (1) acre be improved in the vicinity of Harbor ' View Drive and Marguerite Avenue for the benefit the public. The committee has not addressed the issue of whether the ' Jasmine Creek easement or view area easement should be dedicated. However, the committee has concluded that neither the extension of the Jasmine Creek greenbelt nor the passive view area should be given credit pursuant to the city's Park Dedication Ordinance. 3. That at the time of approval of the tentative tract map for the site or enactment of the F.C. enabling ordinace that the issue again be referred to the Parks, beaches and Recreation Commission for final determination. 2-298 Site B: Fifth Avenue Parcel. Discussion. This site has a primary designation on the general plan as Recreational and Environmental Open Space (FF and NP) with an ' alternative designation of Low -Density Residential. The Irvine Company has proposed that the land use designation be changed to Medium -Density Residential and that the open space designation be eliminated. ' Staff noted in its January 20, 1983, report to the Planning Commission that, ' "The amendment, if approved, will remove this flora and fauna designation. The site in question , is relatively flat and is mowed regularly. It has no unique or special plant or animal communities. The I-ocation of structures policy will preclude development in any sensitive parts of Buck Gully ' on the easterly"edge of the subject site." Site B borders the OASIS Center, a city owned and P.B.&R. administered facility. The facility i•s used primarily by seniors who take advantage of the many specialized activities and programs sponsered by P.P.&R. However, the center is but a part of the larger neighborhood park that runs along Fifth Avenue from Goldenro� to Narcissus and includes Grant Howald Park and the Community Youth Center. The Long Range Planning Committee of Friends of Oasis has begun a study of future expansion of this facility. The study has , only just been undertaken with the committee having reached no conclusions as to the center's future expansion needs. Recommendation. The committe recommends that the general plan amendment for this site•be approved including the elimination of the flora and , fauna designation from the Recreation and Open Space Element, provided the following conditions are met: 1. That the developer dedicate to the city that land ' between Marguerite Avenue and the approximate extension of the centerline of Narcissus and north of the existing Oasis Center ' consisting of +/-1.06 acres. -2. That when dedicated this land will be improved to the extend that shall have been rough graded to the existing grade of the city owned property to which it is adjacent; that a retaining wall be installed to support the slope above the property; and that the +/-0.40 acres at the -existing northeast corner of the parking be graded to the same specification as the dedicated land. 2-299 I 3. That the developer only receive park credit for the actual acreage dedicated and not for the value of any improvements to the land. 4. That any additional park dedication requirement for this site be satisfied by the payment of in -lieu fees. 5. That at the time of the approval of the tentative tract map for the site that the matter again be referred to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for final determination. Site C__Buck_Gully Parcel. ' Discussion. Buck Sully is currently shown on the general plan as having a primary designation of Environmental Open Space (FF) and having an alternative designation of Low -Density Residential. The proposed general plan amendment would eliminate the alternative designation, and the designation as a flora and fauna reserve would be retained. The January 20, 1983, staff report states, "If the proposedamendmentis approved, this designation should be maintained to indicate the environmentally sensitive nature of the area and its unsuitability for active recreation uses." ' Furthermore, such reclassification of the site would bring the general plan into conformity with the city's local coastal plan. ' Recommendation. The committee recommends that the Low -Density Residential ' designation be removed from the site as proposed by GPA 81-2. However, the committee has concluded that the city not accept dedication of the property and that no park credits should be given ' pursuant to the city's Park Dedication Ordinance. Respectfully submitted, ' Robert L. Hopkins, Committeg Chairman i� 1 2-300 -------=---------------------- Bruce Stuart, Commission Chairman Rae Cohen, Committe Member 2-301 2 3 ..• .4 • '� a 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ,18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 e� -�.• ei •:i;;'. xo.Ms64cooD02-112' , ;°"p` . 11516 ORIGINAL PERMANENT EASEMENT (Construction and Maintenance of Dam) AT ORANGE COUNTY, CALIF. IPM JUN 15 1964. FREE RUBYMcFARUND.County Recorder FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby ac- knowledged, THE IRVINE COMPANY, -a West Virginia corporation, GRANTOR, ` does hereby grant to the ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, a body C(XI) corporate and politic, GRANTEE, a permanent easement for the construc- tion, maintenance and operation of aIdam, conduit, inlet and outlet 'p3 structures, and upstream basin, in the following described real prop- erty in the County of Orange, State of California: Parcel No. GOOD02-101 That portion of Blocks 93 and 96 in Irvine's Sub- Newport division, partly in the City of recorded in of Orange, state of California, per Map recor in the 1�ofatheBCountyiRecorder of saidrOrange�County, officebook described as follows:. Beginning at the intersection of the easterly is boundary line of Tract No. 3660 per map recorded 4 to 11 inclusive of Miscellaneous ' book 144, pages Maps, in the office of said County Recbrder, with the northeasterlyline f 3660; thence fsaidTractoNo. shown on the map i 60° 24' 00" E., 96.25 feet along the southeasterly S. prolongation of said northeasterly line to the begin- southwesterly and ning of a tangent curve, concave having a radius of 1030.00 feet; thence Southeasterly 358.81 feet along said curve through a central angle a radial bears of 19' 57' 34" to a oint to which 49' 33' 34" E, thence N. 49° 330'034" E., 170.00 N. thence feet; thence N. 4a 33' 34" E., l20. N. 44' 33' 34" E.., thencefeetI N. 21° 33' 33" W., 178.62 feet; thence 74° 40' 00" W., 200.00 feet to the northeast N. corner of Lot 29 of said Tract No. 3660; thence 159 20' 00" W., 105.17 feet along the easterly S. boundary line of said feet thencethence 158 OOTract 330 10' 00" W., r S. S. 820 59' 26" W., 210.77 feet to the point of beginning. r Parcel No. GOOD02-102 That portion of Blocks 93 and 96 iti Irvine's in the City of Newport Beach, county of Subdivision, Orange state of California, per map recorded in book 1, in the office of page 89 of Miscellaneous Record Maps, the County Recorder of said Orange county, described as follows: N 4 2 •• 3 • 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 27 28 29 30 I 31 32 Beginning at the intersection of the easterly boundary line of Tract No660 per map recorded in book 144, pages -9 to 11 of Miscella ous Maps, in the office of said county Recorder, with the ortheasterly line of Harbor View Drive as shown on the map of said Tract No. 3660; thence S. 60' 24" 00" E., 96'25 feet along the southeasterly prolongation of said northeasterly line to the true point of beginning, said true point of beginning being also the U beginning of a tangent curve, concave southwesterly and W having a radius of 1030.00 feet; thence Southeasterly (D 358.81 feet along said curve through a central angle of 19' 57' 34" to a point to which a radial bears N. 49' 33' 34" E, thence S. 49' 33' 34" W., 60.00 N, feet* thence N. 8j' 11' 52" W'., 258.62 feet* thence 00 N. 74 33' 59" W., 172.97 feet; thence N. 294 36' 00" E., Cfl 105.00 feet to the true point of beginning. SUBJECT TO any and all existing easements and rights of way of record or'of which Grantee has actual notice in, under, over, along and across the land hereinabove described. RESERVING UNTO THE GRANTOR, its successors and assigns, the right to use said land for any use or purpose that does not interfere or conflict with the rights granted'to the Grantee hereunder including but not limited to: (a) The right to construct, maintain, repair and use roads and pipelines and pole lines across Parcel 102; and (b) The right to construct fills on Parcel 102 on the down- stream slopes of any dam constructed on the property above described; and (c) To develop and improve Parcel.101 for park and recreational purposes. The Grantor, its successors and assigns, shall, prior to exercising any of the rights reserved herein, submit plans therefore to the Grantee for its approval. The Grantee wili not unreasonably withhold its approval of such plans. Grantee agrees to indemnify Grantor against and to hold Grantor harmless from any loss of or damage to any property, or injury or death of any person whomsoever, proximately caused in whole or in part by any negligence of Grantee or its employees or agents, or by any act or omission for -which Grantee or its employees or agents, are .2- ........... 2- • .. -..•.•-�+ • �..�• t a... r- i �m • � t 2-303• t .• 1 2 • 3 4 5 e 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 27 28 29 30 31 32 liable without fault, in the exercise of the rights herein granted; save and except in those instances where such loss or damage or injury or death is proximately caused in whole or in part by any negligence •„ of Grantor or its employees or agents, or by any act or omission for which Grantor or -its employees or agents are liable without fault- GO Dated thisday of, 1964. CSD THE IRVINE COMPANY By _ '•.v ' VICEPREEm EHT�y;; �a.y +••[t rug: h • \. II. 'STATE OF CALIFORNIA) " )' ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE •' ) On:. APR 2 3 1964 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State; personally appeared w K MASON known to me to be the VICE PRESIDENT ` and R s HETZEL ,known to me to be the AccICTANT SECRETARY of the Corporation that executed the within Instrument,'known to me to be the persons who executed the within In- strument on behalf of the:Corporation therein named, and ackpowledged tome that such Corporation executed the within Instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its board of directors. WITNESS my hand and pfficial seal. Not blic in and r said County and State '� •PHYLLIS A. BRUNS o Sl+,p OI G• p..;,.,I ane, cw4 • 7. 1965 My 6unlsslon Expire, D-c-mb-r on .3- 2=304 �rT n�rMi Yr '��i 9YIY 14.�'T1 i .• 1 2 • 3 4 5 e 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 27 28 29 30 31 32 liable without fault, in the exercise of the rights herein granted; save and except in those instances where such loss or damage or injury or death is proximately caused in whole or in part by any negligence •„ of Grantor or its employees or agents, or by any act or omission for which Grantor or -its employees or agents are liable without fault- GO Dated thisday of, 1964. CSD THE IRVINE COMPANY By _ '•.v ' VICEPREEm EHT�y;; �a.y +••[t rug: h • \. II. 'STATE OF CALIFORNIA) " )' ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE •' ) On:. APR 2 3 1964 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State; personally appeared w K MASON known to me to be the VICE PRESIDENT ` and R s HETZEL ,known to me to be the AccICTANT SECRETARY of the Corporation that executed the within Instrument,'known to me to be the persons who executed the within In- strument on behalf of the:Corporation therein named, and ackpowledged tome that such Corporation executed the within Instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its board of directors. WITNESS my hand and pfficial seal. Not blic in and r said County and State '� •PHYLLIS A. BRUNS o Sl+,p OI G• p..;,.,I ane, cw4 • 7. 1965 My 6unlsslon Expire, D-c-mb-r on .3- 2=304 �rT I -7089'-;-290 RXXQIJMM or TU MARD or sopamsm or 1' OtAIM CUUM rOyW�yCOM�•�MLLyDIIS�TRICT Of 1 .ORANCZ CMMK.. CALIPOUCIA 2.1 KAY 12, 1954 3�seconded snd carried. the j On notion of letsrnieet Allen# duly '.'I I I following Resolution was adoptoi. 5• U IT IMLVED that Baarsu[ needs for Harbor View am DdaCed a'April 23# 19 s West Virginia corporation. K# ieta Irvine C eean 'fiwlpanY. 7�1Oreetor. to the Oxaege Cosoty Tlood Control District be and tba same 3 1' are bereby aoeepted and ordered recorded. 9.1 E. ALLtM# 1 ATSs SOP:RDAVID L. gAREi, fit. glts?iII1 RDOfi ALTOS) 1011 AND C. K. PTATRUL2 1211 MMM, SU ME WILIJAv S. PILI =r$ 13 STAT[ (IF "LLTMU) 1a:1 3 ss. COOaR1T cW ORAma 1. IIT JOSRI# County Clark and eu-officio Clerk Of the ),nerd d8;' 18• of Sepoe+isaws Of Oeasge County yleod Ceatwel li•striat Of Orm" Ceamt,s. 3' 171 1sll Callfettlar boxer, certify that the above sed fseNlwg Resolution Was 4017 sod regularly adopted by the sold DOad at A wsplar wtiag tbav@" 191 of 201 held on the MIA day of May. 19N# "d passed by a +ommiarara tete 21 22 231 24 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 WLjft said Dowd takers Tsaasot. IM mms WKKLU!# 'i bate berwfte of A had std noel tbla 12th dal Of Kay# 1964. II �� .� Koo�Y geaelstiee M. V66-27 M. i:'pT jm gi"O.Clock Of Cetnty Clerk sell Osref the leard Of forommla-me-of Orap County P1eed Ccate*1 DLN�Ls9 of Orange Camas. Cailf!MMs+1. . 1 , HMFULY RECEIVED *a% •! M4 CRIM •: 1.aunn 0;'Mcl P.M 2-305 PR 12(-r-> 1 N0 - (r DoZ) `J.;�- - I DI zor n nro�N ie in � HARBOR Y�Ejy� rr. rnfmu oa/yE NQIES J!l JM / /LT NJ/f 01 *[!!AM w" f!a JNlIf a !// Maprlrl JallJ' M'a /NaI! MEI. ✓nA ' �� 2-306 414 26 ORIGINAL gHK9T 7 OF 7 SWUS LE' M' 4 PORTION OF TENTATNE TRACT NO. 7967 _ 11920 INAL RACT N0. 7967 IN TML CITY Or NbrOni SUCH. COUNTY q aRARIE. STATE Of CALIFORNIA{1f u wr AN IQ)f 1 q dd a.ix ACRES D LOTS NEokil rn[o r. R.O. E. 'I'll Nu uuu. u uRILnu utt M [RYIN ENOINFLRNO )j70a. MWEr �• r^ 0 6EE OIL 66 L \rp�TESf. Ik��b/v m • 8 \ala.Yaa u pair 53 .o�a' lalFNfir V ![O0a i nirioi.mr 'I / 5 o` IO 3�C / 79 LOr w ,Ea ao o g M6 + 't (1 41 Ine,#Msz, JCCO KI. Nt Krin PR 12(-r-> 1 N0 - (r DoZ) `J.;�- - I DI zor n nro�N ie in � HARBOR Y�Ejy� rr. rnfmu oa/yE NQIES J!l JM / /LT NJ/f 01 *[!!AM w" f!a JNlIf a !// Maprlrl JallJ' M'a /NaI! MEI. ✓nA ' �� 2-306 229/32 •� f.°�<T N• O Or O fMrfTf TRACT° 6228 9.6 ,o rar IN THE CITY OF NEWF02T BEACH. COUNTY OP CFeANGB, �W '�;,. ESTATE OF CALIFORNIA toll ..a. 106 00510ENTIAL I -OT$ •45-3E ACW-F-3, �yy,pp • I O _rmN A121EX sM J, l•oil r 6.6. sloe JULY, IO4G I [IN •a � ESI_.-'CY- '✓�" °•i%•°�✓ p\1 rol•la�fq a���t�N69..-'ONt•MWTNaT�1 y µD INVfxNY° ftf f..�OT Nl 1• 2-307 a� twidW4 d 9?. 66 en REAL ESTATE CONSULTANT 4242 CAMPUS DRIVE . NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 . (714) 540.3931 ' ' March 10, 1983 Mr. James Hewicker Director, Planning Department City of Newport Beach ' 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach,. California 92663 Subject: General Plan Amendment 81-2 Dear Mr. Hewicker: I was President of the corporation that developed Newport Crest on Superior Avenue in the - City of Newport Beach. At -that time, there was no question in anyone's mind that the freeway system that had been planned adjoining this property would not occur. We were very explicit with everyone about this. This development was being sold just prior to and during the first ' oil embargo. Over half of the development was sold prior to the completion of the first increment. Due to the oil embargo and the rapid escalation of fuel, nearly every purchaser cancelled out. I ' remember having saved only 10% of the customers that we had put into escrow out of the 600 units. We then proceeded to resell them. We used every sales technique there was including reducing the prices on the lots that faced the ocean to the equivalent prices that were in the courts to the north. I believe an examination of the deeds and the transfer stamps on ' them will verify this. You>�s-trrrl , Richard L. Owen RIA/gls M* IRVINE CWPlAW 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I Newport Beach, California 92660.0015 (714)720.2000 March 10, 1983 ' Planning Commission ' City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California SUBJECT: GPA 81-2 Chairman King and Commission Members: , We have reviewed your staff report dated March 10, 1983 and concur with the recommendations presented by staff, except as noted below: Fifth Avenue Parcels (pp 10-12) AREA A -- MARGUERITE AVENUE PARCEL Recommendation No. 10 (Affordable Housing): We disagree with this recommendation as written and propose the following language be substituted: "A condition to any subdivision approval for this site will be that the developer enter into a subdivision agreement with ' the City to make a number of units equal to 10% of the .total units in the subdivision available to low and moderate in- come families using City standards, which affordable units , may be provided on-site or on other sites in the City. The subdivision agreement shall allow the developer to meet the affordable housing requirement within 3 years of the date of tentative tract map approval". Recommendation No. 11 (Fair Share Fund): We disagree with this condition as written and propose the following revision: ' "At the time of future discretionary actions the project may be required to contribute a sum equal to its fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways, and any other similar mitigation measures, as required -by the ordinances and resolu- tions of the City in force at the time of such actions". AREA B -- FIFTH AVENUE PARCEL Recommendation No. 6 (Affordable Housing): We disagree with this recommendation as written and propose the same revised language as suggested in Recommendation No. 10 above for Area A. 4 2-309 1 ' Planning Commission City of Newport Beach March 10, 1983 Page 2 Recommendation No. 7 (Fair Share Fund): We disagree with this recommendation as written and propose the same revised language as suggested in Recommendation No. 11 above for Area A. AREA C -- Buck Gully ' We respectfully request that Area C be deleted from further consideration in this General Plan Amendment. ' If, however, the Planning Commission determines that action on Area C is appropriate at this time, we request the following revisions and additions to the staff recommendations: ' Recommendation No. 3 (Open Space Zone): We request that the following revision be adopted: "That the parcel be re-zoned to the Open Space Zone for paee4ve open space use concurrent aad-4n-eepe4derai:4en-e€ with the re-zoning of the Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue Parcels." . ' We request that a new Recommendation No. 4 be added: "That the property owner shall be eligible to receive a credit against Quimby Act requirements for the value of those portions of Buck Gully which are made available to the public for active recreational uses allowable under the Local Coastal Program and the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan." Big Canyon Area 16 (p. 12) ' Recommendation No. 4 (Affordable Housing): We disagree with the recommen- dation as written and propose the same revised language as suggested in Recommendation No. 10 above for Area A (Marguerite Parcel). ' Recommendation No. 5 (Fair Share Fund): We disagree with this recommendation as written and propose the same revision as in Recommendation No. 11 above ' for Area A (Marguerite Parcel). Recommendation No. 6 (Mouth of Big Canyon): We respectfully request that this condition be deleted. We greatly appreciate the Planning Commission's and staff's consideration of ' these requested revisions and we look forward to continuing cooperation in this matter. in4RI erely, ard G. Sim cc: Jim Hew.icker, Planning Director President Bob Burnham, City Attorney unity Development 2-310 11111111 lill 111111111111111111111111111111111 lill *NEW FILE* EIR099 ^ State of California, George Deukmejian, Governor California Coastal Commission SOUTH COAST DISTRICT 245 West Broadway, Suite 380 p.O. Box 1450 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 (213) 590.5071 (714) 846-0648 July 5, 1984 To: Commissioners and Interested Persons From: Tom Crandall, District Director Robert Joseph, Assistant District Director Praveen Gupta, Lead Project Planner Subject: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, MAJOR AMENDMENT (1-84) to Certified Land Use Plan (for Public Hearing and Commission action at the meeting of July 10-13, 1984). SYNOPSIS Background The Land Use Plan ofllthe City of Newport Beach was certified with modifications in November, 1981 by the Commission. The City adopted'the Commission's suggested modifications and re- submitted the LUP for the Commission certification. The LUP was effectively certified on May 18, 1982. The City has sub- mitted a major amendment to its certified LUP which includes three land use designation changes. Standard of Review For the proposed LUP amendment, the standard of review, pursuant to Section 30512(c) of the Coastal Act, is that the Plan or any amendments thereto meets the requirements of, and is in con- formity with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. SUMMARY OF ISSUES North Ford/San Diego Creek South Sites The amendment proposes an extension of Eastbluff Drive North to the existing University Drive South, located on the south side of the San Diego Creek Channel, between Jamboree Rd., and the City limits along MacArthur Boulevard. It also proposes to modify the land use designation from "General Industry" to t'Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercidl" and 5 "Multi -family Residential, Recreational and Environmental Open Space" uses divided by the proposed University Drive South. (See Exhibits A, B. and C). Corona del Mar School Site The amendment proposes to modify the land use designation from "Governmental, Educational, and Institutional Facilities" to "Multi -family„ Residential." (See Exhibits A, F,,G and H). Cal Trans West Site The amendment proposes to modify the land use designation from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" to "Multi -family Residential, Recreational and Environmental open Space" uses. The site is located at the northwest corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. (See Exhibits A and I). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending certification in part_, certification with suggested modifications in part, and denial in part of the LUP amendment as submitted. The staff is recommen ing denial of the redesignation of Cal Trans West Site, certificatio of the redesignation of North Ford/San Diego Creek South Sites, and certification with suggested modification of Corona del Mar Elementary School site. Additional Information Further information on the City's LUP amendments or copies of the staff report may be obtained from Praveen Gupta at the South Coast District office ('213) 590-5071. . ..r r�. ivy 'i 4�Y �`Li?t' • f p .. ;". Alf' 'f �. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the Commission adopt the following reso- lution and findings for certification in part as submitted. . Motion I . P. I move that the Commission certify the Land Use Plan amendment in part as submitted by the City of Newport Beach for redesignation of administrative, professional, financial, commercial and multi -family residential desig- nation of North Ford/San Diego Creek South Site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends a YES vote, and the adoption of the following resolution and findings. An affirmative vote by a majority of the appointed Commissioners is needed to pass the motion. RESOLUTION TO CERTIFY The Commission hereby certifies in part the amendment to the Land Use Plan of the City of Newport Beach and finds for the reasons discussed below thatfthe amended Land Use Plan meets the require- ments of and -is in conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200) of the California Coastal Act to the extent necessary to achieve the basic state goals specified in Section 30001.5 of the Coastal Act; that the amended Land Use Plan contains a specific access component as required by Section 30500(a) of the Coastal Act; that the amended Land Use Plan is consistent with the applicable decisions of the Commission that shall guide local government actions pursuant to Section 30625(c) of the Coastal Act; and that the certification of the amended Land Use Plan meets the requirements of section 21080.5(d)(2)(i) of the California Environmental Quality Act, as there are no further feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives which could substantially lessen significant adverse impacts on the environment. II. FINDINGS AND DECLARATION FOR CERTIFICATION IN PART The Commission finds and declares as follows: A. North/Ford/San Diego Creek South Sites The City proposes to change land use designations and realign -East Bluff Drive. The total ,project is bounded by the San Diego Creek on the north, Jamboree Road on the west, Bison Avenue on the south and the City boundary on the east. (See Exhibit No. C). Approximately one-third of the project area is within the Coastal Zone. Presently the portion in the Coastal Zone is designated for "General Industrial" land use. - 1 - The LUP also proposes to extend East Bluff Drive connecting Bonita Canyon Drive as a primary road (four -lane divided) (see Exhibits C and E). The most northerly portion of this area is used as a dump for which the Commission has granted permits in the past. The most recent dredging permit granted. to the Port of Long Beach includes this area as a disposal - site. The City proposes the following changes in the certified LUP: 1. Delete the extension of East Bluff Drive as approved in the LUP, and realign the extension to connect it with the existing University Drive South (see Exhibits No. C and E). The street stays as a primary four -lane divided road; 2. The area northerly of the proposed alignment of University Drive South is approximately 22 acres which will be desig- nated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial use. "Park and Ride" facilities and tempo- rary use as a dredge spoil disposal site are also per- mitted in this area. (See Exhibits No. B and C); :3. And the area southerly of the alignment of University Drive South be designated for Recreational and Environ- mental Open Space and Multi -family Residential uses. (See Exhibits No. B and C). The recreational and environmental open space (approximately 12 acres) and a portion of the 79 -acre multiple -family resi- dential is within the Coastal Zone. (Note: other proposed commercial and retail and service -commercial is out of the Coastal Zone, See Exhibit No. C). The proposed amendment is consistent with the existing de- velopment in this general area. As shown and described in Exhibit D, the most northerly portion of Newport Beach is developed with similar intensity of commercial developments as in the adjacent area around the John Wayne Airport. North Ford/San Diego Creek South project proposes high intensity land use, which will generate more traffic in the area. The traffic increase will come from 800 units of residential, 50,000 sq. ft. of retail and service area; --with the total amount of sq. ft. of Administrative/Professional and Financial Commercial to be determined by the City, at a ]E'j._ter_ date. This intensification may not be construed as a justification or an endorsement by the�Commission for the road extensioh of the University Drive North. According to'the MGeneral Guide on Trip End Generation Rates by Land Uses", used by the California.Department of Transportation, the range of week- day trip end generation rates of "General Industry" and the proposed uses combined are compatible. However, the trip - 2 - end figures greatly change according to the specific uses and intensity (amount of development) proposed under these land use designations. Looking at the entire project, in- cluding that portion of which is out of the Coastal Zone. the project will generate substantial traffic. This is further aggravated in that the traffic impact of the pro- = posed land use designation vs, the existing "General Industry" designation is difficult to assess. The total amount of • development in the Administrative/Professional and Financial Commercial zones is presently not certain and the multiple - family, residential i:s divided by the Coastal Zone boundary. Section 30254 of the Coastal Act provides for the reservation and protection of the remaining street capacity for visitor - serving facilities and sets priority for such uses over private residential, general industrial and commercial uses. In this respect, the existing land use designation and the proposed -designations are similar non-priority uses. Also, only a portion of the total development is within the Coastal Zone and the proposed realignment of the East Bluff Road which primarily effects the local traffic will have no sig- nificant impact on recreation or beach traffic. The Com- mission therefore finds that the proposed LUP amendment would ,not result in ashy substantial changes in traffic generation. Thus, the LUP amendment is consistent with Section 30254 of the Coastal Act. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL IN PART The staff recommends that the Commission adopt the following reso- lution and findings'for denial in part of the LUP amendment as submitted. Motion II I move that the Commission certify the portion of the City of Newport Beach*Land Use Plan amendment which applies to the redesignation of the Corona del Mar School site from "Government Educational and Institutional Facilities" to "Multiple -family Residential", and Cal Trans West Site from."Recreational-and Environmental Open Space" to "Multi- family-Residential, Multi- famil-y Residential, Recreational and Environmental open Space!` uses. Staff •,Recommendation A;,.,_,-, 4•+ Staf-f•;•s_ecommends a NO vote„z: and _the -adoption of the following res- olution -and findings. An affirma-tive vote by a majority of the appointed Commissioner's is needed to pass the.motion. - 3 - J Resolution for Denial in Part The Commission hereby denies certification of that portion of the City, of Newport Beach Land Use Plan amendment applicable to the areas shown in Exhibits No. F and I, and commonly known as the Corona del Mar Elementary School Site and the Cal Trans West Site' for the reasons discussed below and because the Land Use amendment as so applied, - Fails to meet the requirements of and does not conform to the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act to the extent necessary to achieve the basic state goals specified in Section 30001.5 of the Coastal Act. Does not contain a specific public access component as required by Section 30500(a) of the Coastal Act. - Is not consistent with applicable decisions of the Com- mission which shall guide the local government in their future actions under Section 30625(c) of the Coastal Act. Does not meet the requirements of Section 21080.5(d)(2)(i) of the California Environmental Quality Act because there ,.are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact which the land use plan may have on the envirdpment. IV. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS FOR DENIAL IN PART A. Land Use Designation Chan es: Corona del Mar School Site En M xhibit Nos. A, F, G a . The City of Newport Beach proposes to redesignate a 5.2 acre parcel located on Carnation between 2nd and 4th Avenues, from "Governmental, Educational, and Institutional Facilities" to "Multi -family Residential." The development will be regulated by Planned Community District Regulations which allows maxi- mum 40 residential units with limits on buildings and open space. Presently the site is occupied by Corona del Mar Elementary School. Due to the declining enrollment, the school was closed in June, 1981. In 1982, the University of Southern California attempted to start a MBA program which did not materialize due to community concerns. The G. Feller Develop- ment Company is now proposing to develop the -site with 32 -single-family residence's and 4 duplexes. The permit appli- cation No. 5-84-228 is presently before the Commission. The City has four residential designations in the certified LUP. These designations and the permitted uses are as follows: - 4 - Areas designated residential are to be used mainly for residences in permanently constructed residential buildings; however, there are certain •camunity service" uses such as schools, churches, civic organization buildings, clubhouses, and recreational facilities such as tennis ccu tp, pools, and cabanas which, with proper location and design, are appropriate, uses within areas mith a residential designation. low -Density Residential. Included in this subcategory are separate residences, as well as attached residences constructed W individual lots, with varying 4ensities up to a maximum density of four dwelling units per buildable acre. Medium -Density Residential. This subcategory includes residential developments (attached or detached) of more than four devilling units per buildable acre, with a maximum density of ten dwelling units per buildable acre. Two -Family Residential. This subcategory includes residences where two d+elling units are constructed on one lot, either attached or separate. . Multi FamilxResidential. This subcategory includes residences where three or More dwelling units arse constructed on one lot. Also included are "row houses" where the density exceeds 10 dwelling units .per buildable acre. This 5.2 gross acre parcel was created at the time the entire Corona del Mar area was subdivided in 1904. The site, as proposed, contains 32 lots of 30' x 115' for single-family residences, 4 lots of 55' x 115' each for duplexes, and 2 lots of 120' x 115' each for a public park and a parking lot. (See Exhibit No. G). The total buildable acreage is 3.1 ac. which calculates the density to 12.9 du/buildable acre. According to the City, the proposed single-family residence lots do not meet the City's minimum lot size. The applicant, in order to retain the validity of 1904 subdivision, does not want to resubdivide the proposed lots to a larger size. Due to the lot size and the density, the development does not meet the standards of any of the above designations. According to the City staff, although the project does not meet standards of any of the above designations, it comes closest to the "Multi -family Residential"; as it allows more than 10 du/build- able-acres, thus this designation describes the project the best. Jr.., The ;definition of "Multi -family Residential" allows the density o -f-10 du/buildable acres; however, it limits development to "three or more, dwelling units" on each lot, and does not in- cliude any maximum limit of the density. The Commission there- fc,re finds that this land.use designation is not specific to thizuse as it does not define the project and -has no maximum limit; -therefore, it could allow a higher density project. - 5 - Section 30254 of the Coastal Act gives priority to visitor= serving uses and other coastal related uses where the existing infrastructure capacity is limited. In this general area, the Pacific Coast Highway is already at or over its capacity :and; higher density development cannot be accommodated in Corona del Mar area. Provided the density limits are assured', the Commission could find that the amendment, as modified, is consistent with Section 30254 of the Coastal Act. B. Cal Trans West Site (Exhibit Nos. A and I) i. hand Use The City of Newport Beach proposes to redesignate a 13.66 acre parcel, located at the northwest corner of Superior Avenue,and Pacific Coast,Highway intersection, from "Recreation and Open Space" to "Multi -family Residential, Recreational and Environmental Open space" uses. This parcel is owned by California Department of Transporta- tion (Caltrans). The project as proposed would generate 152 dwelling units and 1,292 trips per day; alter land formation; provide +1 acre view park on-site and a 5 -acre park in the immediate vicinity. The site being on a higher elevation, provides views of the Newport Bay and the ocean. Presently the site is vacant. The land on both sides of Superior and north of the Pacific Coast Highway is the Caltrans property (see Exhibit No. I). Land use desig- nations as stated in the LUP for Caltrans West and Cal- trans East are as follows: CALTRANS WEST -(Map 46). The area westerly of Superior Avenue and northerly of Coast Highway below Newport Crest is designated "Recreational and Environmental Open Space", with the intent that this parcel be acquired for public open space. CALTRANS EAST -(.Map 22a). The area between Newport Boulevard and Superior Avenue northerly of Coast Highway is shown for "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" for parking, public recreational, and visual/environmental purposes. Expansion of Hoag Hospital facilities may also be accommodated on the site. Additionally, the LUP includes policies showing the com- mitment from the City to create a transit system to eleviate parking/transportation problems along Balboa Peninsula. These policies are as follows: - 6 - 6. The City of W09ort Beam: shall Nark 'With the Orange CountY Transit District to provide the best and stoat efficient public transit in the City. The City shall -request that O= institute .: timer bus serving the entire Balboa Peninsula and cooperate in ; publicizing the service and encouraging its success. .:. .5. e city shall develop a Municipal transit plan for transportation 'fi within City boundaries. Specific areas to be considered include ut ilisation of existing remokee parking (of offices and businesses) on the yeekwAs with tram service Into the bench and bay arMs, as well as a plaoe-lo-place shuttle system The specific areas to be serviced are as follows: a) from the existing tial at the Bank of Newport or any other feasible arm; b) •transpnrtaticn service between Neti+port Caster and the shopping center on the Village/McFadden Square; and - e) a rhasttle along Balboa Peninsula. The City will evaluate and identify weans far financing' such a system,:isncluding an assessment district, ins -lieu fees, and other scans, selecting and articulating weans for financing the system in the ICP inplww tation oorpon nt. Developsra t of m-mic t� City's firan an l abilitylme to do e0. said plan is dependentupas 6. In Conjunction with the establishment of a =vrehe nsive transit system in the City of Newport Beeache the Balboa Peninsula area shall be studied as a means of easing traffic corsgesticn and iMrovinq circulation. Iwpitsrentation of this possibility shall give due consideration to the Balboa Peninsula business areas. 12. 3f• a system of remote parking and Public transit is established within the City of Newport Beach, an extensive publicity program will be developed to praTotre the system. 13. As part of the overall irpleventaticn shall becitywide eloped to insure a pool parking mwvvjw�n program effective utilization CE all parking resources. The City -has only completed Phase I of the referenced transit study, "Shuttle Bus/Trolley Train Study, Balboa Peninsula" which only identifies various feasible - 7 - alternatives, and have not reached to any conclusion. The location of Caltrans properties is at or near the intersection of Balboa Boulevard and Newport Boulevard, which are the only two accesses to the Peninsula. The City has no other vacant public owned parcel in this vicinity which could be used for transit purposes. Ac cording to the "Shuttle Bus/Trolley Train Study": 1. REMOTE PARKING FOR TRANSIT SHUTTLE SYSTEM Any of the transit shuttle systems are dependent on the availability of parking on the periphery of the study area. The most logical site in the study area that can accommodate a peripheral parking facility is the Caltrans -owned parcel on the north side of Pacific Coast"Highway between Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard. Hoag •Hospital, 'however, is in the process of acquiring this parcel from Caltrans for expansion purposes. Therefore, in order to provide remote parking and hence consider a transit shuttle program, the City of Newport Beach will be required to negotiate. joint. use .of this proporty.. Although the study makes reference to Caltrans North site only, because the alternatives are very few, commitment to any of the Caltrans parcels will limit the City's options to study all possible alternatives. Also, it is essential to the Hoag Hospital extension. Presently, these parcels are designated as "Recreation and Environ- mental Open Space" which leave all the options open for the City to consider. Article 2, Public Access, of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, requires public access to and along the beaches, and no development shall interfere with the public's right of access to the beaches. According to the City's LUP" . A comparison of peak hours traffic shows that it is most heavily affected on routes serving Balboa Peninsula during the summer. According to the referenced policies of the LUP, the City plans to develop a transit plan to aleviate this traffic problem. Any commitment to the Caltrans property will reduce the option of the City, thus will have adverse impact on public access to and along the beaches of Balboa Peninsula. The Commission therefore finds that the amendment as proposed, is not consistent with the Public Access policies of Chapter -3 of the Coastal Act and will prejudice the ability of the City of Newport Beach to prepare a Local Coastal Program that is in con- formity with the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. - 8 - ii. Traffic Impact The EIR prepared for General Plan Amendment 81-2 includes 5 projects citywide. The Caltrans West is one of those; projects with the remaining 4 projects out of the coastal zone. The EIR has assessed the acdumulative impacts of all 5 projects on the transportation and circulation within the City. However, this assessment is based on several assumptions which include extension of Corona del Mar Freeway up to MacArthur Boulevard, San Joaquin Hill, Transportation Corridor, University Drive Extension, Pelican Hill Road (east of Corona del Mar), Coast Highway widening, Balboa Boulevard extension, 19th Street bridge and road extension over Santa Ana River and the wetlands, Coast Highway bridge widening at the Santa Ana River and Route 55 and Coast Highway grade separation. The Com- mission questions the accuracy of these assumptions be- cause some of these extensions and/or widening projects are proposed through and could adversely affect wetlands areas. Therefore, these projects are not consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act, which states in part that "Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values " For this reason the University Drive exten- sion was deleted from the certified LUP, yet the City still shows it in its circulation element and base their decisions on this assumption. similarly, the 19th Street bridge and the road over the Santa Ana River and wetland have been opposed by the Commission staff in previous communication with the County of Orange. Widening of Pa cific Coast Highway bridge over Santa Ana River is under study and its potential impact on environmentally sensitive areas is significant. The Balboa Boulevard extension proposal has not come to the Commission staff review; however, it seems the alignment is through the Orange County's unincorporated area within the Coastal Zone of Santa Ana River Wetlands. The EIR for the widen- ing of Pacific Coast Highway through the City of Newport Beach is being finalized. An application from Caltrans is pending before the Commission for Federal consistency determination. The widening project has potential adverse impact on public access as it proposes to eliminate ap- proximately 180 roadside parking spaces. The business community of Mariner's Mile area is opposed to this project. Another application pending before the Com- mission is extension of 55 Freeway and improvement of ramps at the intersection of PCH and Freeway 55. This project will eliminate 300 to 500 parking spaces, thus effecting public access. The above mentioned project, as it is evident from this brief discussion, will have significant potential problems. - 9 - The results could be anywhere from project as proposed to substantially reduced project to a no project. There- fore, the City's assumption and relying on these projects to resolve all transportation related problems is not sound. Any action by the Commission on this LUP amend- ment cannot be construed as an endorsement of any of these projects. According to the draft EIR prepared PCH between Brookhurst and Superior level of service of this portion of is "C" and "D", and for peak time it 2000, these levels are projected to respectively. for the widening of Avenue, the existing PCH on off-peak times is "E". By the year go to "E" and "F" Section 30213 and 30254 of the Coastal Act gives priority to other uses over residential. If the capacity of the Highway is limited, the remaining capacity should be given priority for preferred uses. Strict interpretation of these policies would prohibit residential projects along major portion of Pacific Coast Highway in Orange County, as it is running at or over its capacity. The proposed amendment, as discussed earlier in this report, is a prematqre commitment to this land use, no mitigation measures are given any consideration at this time. At an appropriate time, those measures will be considered by the Commission. Geologic Hazard The site topography formulates two distinct mesas which vary between 30' and -771 elevation from the mean sea level. The Environmental Impact Report Volume I pre- pared for the project states geologic hazards on pages. 27, 28 and 29. According to the report, "the City's seismic environment is dominated by the regionally sig- nificant Newport -Inglewood Fault. It further states that one of the more recently active branches of the faint traverses the Caltrans West property. The recent geo- logic investigations made by different geologists indi- cate 3 faults exist on the property (see Exhibit No. J). The impacts of these faults are stated as follows: Faults mapped onsite represent a potential hazard to inhabitable structures. Fault A represents an identified potential displacement hazard. Further investigations are necessary to precisely identify the impact on the project of all fault's shown on Exhibit 12 (Same as Exhibit J). There are no mitigation measures proposed.at this time. Section 30753(1) and (2) of the Coastal Act states: - 10 - New development shall: (1) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. (2) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither -create - nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or de— struction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the con- struction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. The amendment as proposed, provides no detail plans for the project nor any mitigation measures are proposed. The Commission -finds that a high geologic risk of life and property exist; therefore, the amendment as proposed, is not consistent with Section 30253(1) and (2) of the Coastal Act. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS WHICH, IF ADOPTED WOULD RESULT IN CERTIFICATION V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1 Staff recommends a YES vote to the following motion and adoption of the following resolution and findings. An affirmative vote by a majority of the appointed Commissioners is necessary to pass the motion and resolution. "I move that the Commission certify the City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan Amendment 1-84 if it is modified in conformity with the suggested modifications and findings set out in the Staff Report on this item." Resolution for Adoption of Suggested Modifications The Commission hereby certifies the City of Newport Beach Amendment (1-84) following modifications and adopts the findings stated below on the grounds that. if modified as suggested below. the Land"USe PLan will meet the requirements of and conform with ;the policies of Chapter 3 commencing with Section 30200 of the California Coastal Act to the extent necessary to achieve the basic state goals specified in Section 30001.5 of the Coastal Act; the Land USe PLan will contain a specific access component as required by Section 30500(a) of the Coastal Act; the Land USe PLan will be consistent with the applicable decisions of the Commission that shall guide local government actions pursuant to Section 30t25(c); and the Land Use Plan will meet the requirements of Section 21080.5(dy(2)(1) of the California Environmental Quality Act, as there would be no further feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives which could substantially lessen significant adverse impact on the environment.- The suggested modifications to the submittal are necessary to achieve the basic state goals set forth in Section 30001.5 of the Coastal Act. The Commission further finds that if the City of -Newport Beach adopts and transmits its revisions to the Land USe PLan amendment in conformity with the suggested modifications, then the Executive Director shall so notify the Commission. VI. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS The LUP Amendment shall be modified to require a new land use des- ignation and it shall be used for the Corona del Mar Elementary School site. High Density Residential This subcategory includes residential developments (attached or detached) of more than ten dwelling units per buildable acre, with a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per buildable acre. VII. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS FOR CERTIFICATION IF MODIFIED sws The Commission finds and declares: A. Corona del Mar School Site The Commission found in Section III of this report, "Multi- family Residential" designation permits higher density and does not define the proposed project; thus would not be consistent with Section 30254 of the Coastal Act. ,.The modification would set a density limit which will allow the proposed project and would not allow higher density if this project does not materialize. The modified density is consistent with the existing development pattern in the area. The general area is built out; therefore, the potential for further intensification is remote. The Commission therefore finds that the amendment as modified, is consistent with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. B. Caltrans West Site In the absence of the City's transit plan for the Balboa Peninsula area, no suggested modifications can be proposed at this time. - 12 - 4t r .n m X x •; ,•,•; lON OERSITT RtftOtMTIAL l0M OENSITV Rt$./OPEN SPACE 190-EANILT RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM-REMSITT RESIDENTIAL o u oo MULII-FAMILT RESIDENTIAL 00000000 I ANI) USF PLAN ::......... RECREATIONAL O NARIN[ COMMENCIAL m1181311111116 NALRMATIRINEMAT/ACCISSMA► RETAIL O SERVICE COMMENCIAL "0• ACCESS POINT ADMIN., PROF. All FINAN. COMNIRCIAL 0 RtSTR00M FACILITY RECRIATIDNAL O INVIR. OPEN SPACE COASTAL ZONE OOUNDkRY GOVERN., tOUCAT. AND INSTIT. FACILITIES Exhibit.. �'p'a ' B GENERAL INDUSTRY 44 Residential Commercial t, t• .d : ® oNice `• } '• Local Park . P,,. off'" fi��'.�_���i-'.I•.45�,! Existing ' Eastbluff CommunityIL <= City Boundary ; Existing \'' •' Camelback/Bison / ' — Development ?:::::::::::.: Future San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor N COASTAL ZONE BOUNDO 1000' ARY San Diego Creek South/North Ford Land Use Plan • • • .., • .-•.. 'Exhibit C r hU4 we ►-C `ORT P E ' n NE ru NC �c AP n• .pr Y •r t w..r ^ Ry _ to !' e3. 41 C•N•fl ll.EXHIBIT D T 'K p KOLL CENTER NEWPORT: L� Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial; Retail and L Service Commercial; General Industry; 0 and Governmental, Educational,:and y Institutional uses at.an overall floo = area ratio of .39 X the buildable are ? NEWPORT PLACE: 3 Administrative, Professional and o Financial Commercial; and General .Industrial uses at an overall floor area ratio of .39 X the buildable Ot area. 0 EASTBLUFF: Low Density Residential; Recreationa?I and Environmental Open Space; and Retail and Service Commercial uses a: an overall density of less than four units per buildable acre.. uP % �'/ i~ U ►f. k ORTH yi Jft n, ►-C a ,�/N ♦V L• Sf � i � EXHIP�tT D - 16 + 711.• ■ • • v • ■ • � �• •oeOCAL GOASI �� ••••••.. PROGRAM PLAN OF tit STREETS & _HIGHWAY . • • %Uke That Re*" hrlhw Goolc3noliaLr •�i ' -" i ' 'r •••••• So= amy Awd (Fall. taw UrAviitd ,-; r i . ; , (' � � , , ,t-�� io• J APP (4 J:J AE num AT PRIMARY ,. ® rrir"y mm (r xw taw Dividsd� irfrflalgl. yh�/jj." y� - . � _ 1 ✓. •/I `\ ♦ � •�•�• .sem (*idg�. � , I : � ♦ c �t ":f`�.. ��• _ _ %. •:�^!I • •• couplet '..4 ,.��'�� ~ / r� w� 't. Ci' �' •. see 1, 00 4f ! •\w. �I• .�': V �".1 t J �J� 't,1�1•;7 f •. '�1�� '`� ii i�',�fi'jC�.1 �r WW At -._M�. ♦^�v y..d, Jr ��• .t •Ills M( `I n•:`�S(•1: (��l-_♦phi l�if'.`-Ta :IIJ�1 ;....._ `�. ;�*.. L'i IL., _ _ \\ __-Ill,.. '`•.3_ 'Jf� (111:1+II:NI:. , •���• . • v 1 ;Yr .• . N ' y�♦c" ' •/'.� .• i ! •�.. �. I. ,t�•t t:: ��Q. .i'�1�,is1.-rJ".f ✓, -�.~•r1-1i=�- .._-� ^��� �� ' �. S �• t '`e: 3•-. •rpt• N■npal B••d. w ' ) • _ o „ vocal Cpastal . — - • _pio�tam _ _, m Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 4 Adopted March 12, 1994 Resolution No. 84-18 CORONA D,91. MAR SCHOOL SITE 1 1\\ LXHMT 1 (/ OWSILZA P�C�LC5KIDDEZ CC DI��C�C�C�C�Er El QC C � W,C-z q< .._.. _ e ren .x, The language of,.the Land 6se Element and the accompanying map shall be mended to designate the former Corona del Mar Homes site for Multiple-. .family Residential use with a maxiz= of 40 dwelling units. -18- r r ,ssorF EYW517 # F 74 4IMP SITE PLAN F7A M41= "mRD DEVELOPMENT PLAN � I 4 r MXHI5IT # `•a�, of � b q `y�� R �i h in h h C7 Uf !3 C"t/ b N h y 0 Q � It r� `��R• Q C �S��� A CCS��n V J $ �3 - At �? . EXISTING LAID USE: YbaeveloW Dyer Syta _ E1ISTIRC LAID USE ELEMENT: Recreatlaul tM ENvirOMMISA tt OW Spu EXISTING RECREATION AND MEN SPACE ELEMENT: Stem[ Area W vlw Park EXISTING LOCAL COASTAL ►ROGAAN: RtcntttOna) 1x0 Environmental Oytt Sect CPA 11.2: Ituutta an exhibit Shl EXISTING IDNING: D -S (Open Syact) District Proposed Land Use Element cakam W VV l� D CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 89-2 �7 -21- �.r'i i7•-. Aiy 10 1 40 0 Certified Final Environmental Impact Report Volume IV City of Newport Beach General Plan Amendment 81-2 r r • VOLUME IV CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81-2 Prepared for: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT . P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92663-3884 (714) 640-2197 Prepared by: PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK, INC. 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, California 92714 (714) 641-8820 May 1983 U Table of Contents Planning Commission Resolutions 1088 and 1089 Planning Commission Minutes of March 10, 1983 City Council Minutes of March 28, April 11, and May 9, 1983 City Council staff Reports Additional Correspondence • L Planning Commission Resolutions 1088 and 1089 • 0 RESOLUTION NO. 1088 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT CERTAIN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL • GROWTH AND RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENTS OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BE ADOPTED, AND IN RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SAID AMENDMENTS THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED IN CONIUUNCTION WITH THE PROJECT BE CERTIFIED AS ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81-2) WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the City's General Plan the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements have been prepared; and WHEREAS, said elements of the General Plan set forth objectives and supporting policies which serve as a guide for the future development of the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider certain amendments to the above referenced elements of the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has, in the General Plan Housing Element, established policies to increase the production of housing in the • community and to provide affordable housing opportunities in the City; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted Council Policy P-1 to implement the provisions of Government Code Section 65590 (Mello); and WHEREAS, the City recognizes its responsibility to designate sufficient vacant land for residential use with appropriate standards to produce housing at the lowest possible cost consistent with Section 65913 of the Government. Code; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach recognizes the unique opportunity to provide affordable housing on the CalTrans West site; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach recognizes the opportunity to require provision of affordable housing either on or off-site in conjunction residential development in the City; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the environmental document in making these recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City • of Newport Beach recommends to the City Council that the environmental impact report prepared in conjunction with the project be certified as adequate and complete, and that the following amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements be approved as follows: (a) CalTrans West Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Environmental open Space Elements of the General Plan, and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan: • 1. "Multiple -Family Residential" uses not to exceed 15 dwelling units per buildable acre shall be permitted. 2. The property shall be: rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 3. The preferred access to the CalTrans West site is from the proposed Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extension) across a portion of the Banning property. A reasonable effort must be made to establish this access from Bluff Road at the time of approval of the tentative tract map for the CalTrans West site if it is submitted prior . to tentative maps for the Banning -Newport Ranch. Temporary and limited access may be developed from realigned Superior Avenue. The precise location of all access will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 4. That existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved for a line -of -sight 4 feet above the lower balcony level of a Newport Crest residence. 5. 206 of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as defined in the City's Housing Element. 6. 109 of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as set forth in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. • 7. CalTrans West will be required to comply with the park dedication ordinance. A park of at least 5 acres in size is to be developed between Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, 15th Street (extended), and Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extended). The specific size, location, design, and the means to acquire and develop the park will be determined at the gime ¢f approval of the tentative tract maps for CalTrans West and/or the adjacent Banning -Newport Ranch Residential Developments. The park shall be completed concurrent with occupancy of the first residential unit. S. A view park of ± 1 acre shall be located on-site and shall partially satisfy the requirements for park dedication contained in Chapter 19.50 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 9. A pedestrian and bicycle easement shall be developed to connect the view park with the neighborhood park. The easement shall as much as possible be located to take advantage of ocean and bay views. Precise location and design shall be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 10. The applicant or successor in interest shall participate in 50% of all costs related to the provision of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge over Superior Avenue at a point to be determined in conjunction with the location of the view park at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. • 11. A landscaped greenbelt shall be established adjacent to Newport Crest. The greenbelt shall be a minimum of 30 feet wide and be maintained by the applicant or successor in interest. Park credit shall not be given for the greenbelt. 12. Upon approval of this amendment by the Planning Commission, CalTrans will enter into an agreement permitting the City a right of entry onto that property required for realignment of Superior Avenue. This . agreement will outline the procedures by which realigned Superior Avenue may be conveyed to the City. 13. Because of difficulties in providing vehicular access to CalTrans East, and in A,'cognition of both the; State's need to dispose of this site and Hoag Hospital's need for additional land, CalTrans has entered into negotiations with Hoag Hospital for the ~acquisition of CalTrans East. Adoption of detail6d zoning and approval of a tentative tract map on CalTrans West shall not occur until CalTrans offers satisfactory evidence that it will restrict access from CalTrans East to Coast Highway. 14. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. (b) Fifth Avenue Parcels Area A: Marguerite Avenue Parcel: Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. Medium -Density Residential use shall be permitted. 2. Remove Recreational and Environmental Open Space designation from the Open Space Plan for the area adjacent to Marguerite Avenue to bring the various . general plan elements into conformance. 3. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 4. The Jasmine Creek greenbelt system shall be continued on the site. The extent of the greenbelt shall be determined at the time of approval of the P -C development plan. 5. A public view park shall be designated in the Recreation and Open Space Element and provided (dedication + improvements) on the site in the vicinity of Marguerite Avenue and Harbor View Drive. The precise location of the view park shall be determined at the time of approval of the P -C development plan. 6. That park dedication requirement credits be given to the applicant for the land dedication of the view park, consistent with the criteria contained in the City's Park Dedication Ordinance. Land given credit for park dedication shall be only those areas which are flat and outside the limits of the Orange County Flood Control District Easement. 7. In the event that dedication of the view park is more than is necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, the excess credit shall be used to satisfy part of the requirement for Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel. . S. That existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved for a line -of -sight four feet above the ground floor level of a Harbor View Hills South residence. 9. That a number of units equal to at least 108 of the total units be constructed on-site or off-site and be affordable to low and moderate income families using City standards. 10. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any • other mitigation measures as required. in the event the dedication of land for a view park does not satisfy the entire requirement of the Park Dedication Ordinance, the Planning Commission was unable to agree (by a vote of 3-3, one absent) whether the additional requirement could be satisfied through the payment of in -lieu park fees. The Planning Commission's recommendation is forwarded without indication of how additional park dedication requirements will be satisfied. Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel: The Planning Commission recommends that no changes be made to the General Plan for this site. Area C: Buck Gully Parcel: The Planning Commission recommends.that no changes be made to the General Plan for this site. (c) Big Canyon - Area 16 Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan: (d) Newport Center - Block 400 Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan: 1. Allow the addition of 80,000 square feet of medical office development in Newport Center, along with related parking facilities. 2. Specify this additional allowable development to Block 400, on the parcel located at 400 Newport Center Drive East. 3. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 4. Specify the development be subject to further review and approval of a use permit. 1. Medium -Density Residential use shall be permitted. 2. Remove the Recreation and Open Space/Golf Course designation. 3. That the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance shall be satisfied through on-site or off-site land dedication, the assessment of in -lieu fees or a combination of the above as determined by the Planning Commission and City Council, after recommendation by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 4. That a number of units equal to at least 10% of the total units be constructed on-site or off-site and be affordable to low and moderate income families using City standards. 5. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. 6. Prior to the approval by the City of any future discretionary actions (i.e., zoning and tentative tract), the question of park credits, development rights and ownership of the Mouth of Big Canyon shall be resolved. (d) Newport Center - Block 400 Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan: 1. Allow the addition of 80,000 square feet of medical office development in Newport Center, along with related parking facilities. 2. Specify this additional allowable development to Block 400, on the parcel located at 400 Newport Center Drive East. 3. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 4. Specify the development be subject to further review and approval of a use permit. • • 5. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Flan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. (e) Campus Drive Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan: 1. Revise the land use desigt)Ation for the area bounded by Dove Street, Birch street, Bristol Street and Campus Drive to a mixture of General Industry and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial. 2. Establish a permitted intensity of development for the Campus Drive area (as shown on Exhibit 7 following Page 12 of the draft EIR) of 0.5 floor area ratio, with a floor area ratio of up to 1.0 permitted upon review and approval of a use permit. This increase in permitted floor area may be approved if a finding can be made that the traffic and circulation system impacts are no greater than those generated by an office development at 0.5 FAR. The floor area ratio limits are defined as the ratio of gross structural area to the buildable area of the site. 3. Direct that the zoning in the area be amended to implement this General Plan Amendment. 4. At the time of future discretionary actions, individual projects shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. Regularly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach on the 10th day of March , 1983, by the following vote, to wit: AYES Allen, Goff, King, Kurlander McLaughlin, Winburn ABSENT Balalis BL:nma v 3/15/83 RESOLUTION NO. 1089 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE.PLAN FOR THE CALTRANS WEST SITE. WHEREAS, the Coastal Act of 1976 requires the City of Newport Beach to prepare a local Coastal Program; and" WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Coastal Act a Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan has been prepared; and WHEREAS, said Land Use Plan sets forth objectives and supporting policies which serve as a guide for the future development in the -coastal zone in the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Plan portion of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program has been adopted by the City of Newport Beach and certified by the California Coastal Commission. NCW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach recommends to the City Council approval of the Local Coastal 7 CalTrans West will be required to comply with the park dedication ordinance. A park of at least 5 acres in size is to be developed between Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, 15th Street (extended), and Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extended). The specific size, location, Program Land Use Plan for the CalTrans West site, as follows: . CalTrans West Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Environmental Open Space Elements of the General Plan, and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan: - 1. "Multiple -Family Residential" uses not to exceed 15 dwelling units per buildable acre shall be permitted. 2. The property shall be rezoned t� the P -C (Planned Community) District. 3. The preferred access to the CalTrans West site is from the proposed Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extension) across a portion of the Banning property. A reasonable effort must be made to establish this access from Bluff Road at the time of approval of the tentative tract map for the CalTrans West site if it is submitted prior to tentative maps for the Banning -Newport Ranch. Temporary and limited access may be developed from realigned Superior Avenue. The precise location of all access will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 4. That existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved for a line -o£ -sight 4 feet above the lower balcony level of a Newport Crest residence. 5. 205 of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as defined in the City's Housing Element. . G. 108 of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as set forth in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. 7 CalTrans West will be required to comply with the park dedication ordinance. A park of at least 5 acres in size is to be developed between Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, 15th Street (extended), and Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extended). The specific size, location, design, and the means to acquire and develop the park will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract maps for CalTrans West and/or the adjacent Banning -Newport Ranch Residential Developments. The park shall be completed concurrent with occupancy of the first residential unit. S. A view park of t 1 acre shall be located on-site and shall partially satisfy the requirements for park dedication contained in Chapter 19.50 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 9. A pedestrian and bicycle easement shall be developed to connect the view park with the neighborhood park. The easement shall as much as possible be located to take advantage of ocean and bay views. Precise location and design shall be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. - 13. Because of difficulties in providing vehicular access to CalTrans East, and in recognition of both the State's need to dispose of this site and Hoag Hospital's need for additional land, CalTrans has entered into negotiations with Hoag Hospital for the acquisition of CalTrans East. Adoption of detailed zoning and approval of a tentative tract map on CalTrans West shall not occur until CalTrans offers satisfactory evidence that it will restrict access from CalTrans East to Coast Highway. 14. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. Regularly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach on the loth day of March , 1983, by the following vote, to wit: AYES Allen, Goff, King, Kurlander MCLauchlin, Winburn �� ` ABSENT Balalis 10. The applicant or successor in interest shall participate in 508 of all costs related to the provision of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge over Superior Avenue at a point to be determined in conjunction with the location of the view park at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. ~ 11. A landscaped greenbelt shall be established adjacent to Newport Crest. The greenbelt shall be a minimum of 30 feet wide and be maintained by the applicant or successor in interest. Park credit shall not be given for the greenbelt. 12. Upon approval of this amendment by the Planning Commission, CalTrans will enter into an agreement permitting the City a right of entry onto that property required for realignment of Superior Avenue. This agreement will outline the procedures by which realigned Superior Avenue may be conveyed to the City. 13. Because of difficulties in providing vehicular access to CalTrans East, and in recognition of both the State's need to dispose of this site and Hoag Hospital's need for additional land, CalTrans has entered into negotiations with Hoag Hospital for the acquisition of CalTrans East. Adoption of detailed zoning and approval of a tentative tract map on CalTrans West shall not occur until CalTrans offers satisfactory evidence that it will restrict access from CalTrans East to Coast Highway. 14. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. Regularly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach on the loth day of March , 1983, by the following vote, to wit: AYES Allen, Goff, King, Kurlander MCLauchlin, Winburn �� ` ABSENT Balalis 0 9 E Planning Commission Minutes of March 10, 1983 Motion All Ayes 0 X Ix REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 p.m. DATE: March 10,• 1983 of Newport Beach Commissioner Balalis was absent. x x x EX -OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Robert Burnham, City Attorney x x x STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator Patricia Temple, Senior Planner Donald Webb, City Engineer Pamela Woods, Secretary x x x APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Minutes of February 24, 1983 Motion was made for approval of the Planning Commission Minutes of February 24, 1983, as written, incorporating the Findings for Denial .on Use Permit No. 3018 and Resubdivision No. 739, as indicated on the Additional Business staff report, which MOTION CARRIED. x x x Staff recommended that Item No. 12 - Variance No. 1096 be removed from the calendar, inasmuch as it has been determined that the approval of a variance is no longer required in this matter. x x x -1- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES March 10, 1983 � cm m c ao W D . N_ 7 0 Of Beach INDEX General Plan Amendment 81-2 (Public Hearing) Items No. 1 and 2 Request to amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan and the acceptance of an environmental document. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CALTRANS WEST N0. 81-2 LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and . Superior Avenue (as realigned). GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open AND Space ZONE: 0-S (Open Space) District PROPONENT: State of California, Department of AMENDMENT Transportation NO. 2 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS LOCAL COASTAL LOCATION: A: Westerly of Marguerite Avenue between PROGRAM 5th Avenue and Harbor View Drive. B: Northerly of. 5th Avenue between Marguerite Avenue and Buck Gully. C: Along the eastern City boundarybetween 5th Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road. BOTH APPROVED GENERAL PLAN: Low Density Residential and Recreational and Environmental Open Space. ZONE: R -1-B (Single Family with B combining) District PROPONENT: The Irvine Company -2- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES n � ? m m March 10, 1983 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX BIG CANYON AREA 16 LOCATION: Southwesterly of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. ZONE:. P -C (Planned Community) District PROPONENT: The Irvine Company NEWPORT CENTER - BLOCK 400 LOCATION: Northeasterly of Newport Center Drive • East and San Miguel Drive. GENERAL PLAN: Administrative Professional, and Financial Commercial ZONE: C -O -H (Commercial) District .PROPONENT: Newport Center Medical Buildings CAMPUS DRIVE LOCATION: Area bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street, Orchard Avenue, and Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue. GENERAL PLAN: General Industry, Administrative ' • Professional and Financial Commercial, and Retail and Service Commercial. ZONE: M -1-A (Industrial) District, A -P (Administrative, Professional) District, and C-1 (Commercial) District. PROPONENT: The City of Newport Beach INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach -3 COMMISSIONERS i MINUTES marcn iu, iyae 3 z FE 0 y. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX AND Amendment No. 2 to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program for the CalTrans West site. LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned) LCP: Recreational and Environmental Open Space ZONE: O -S PROPONENT: State of California, Department of Transportation INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Chairman King opened the public hearing and testimony was taken on the following items, beginning with CalTrans West: CALTRANS WEST CALTRANS WEST Commissioner Goff stated that he envisions the upgrading of the western portion of the City which will add to the pride of the West Newport residents, as well as provide scenic and recreational aspects for the entire City. He stated that the many of the proposed General Plan Amendment components for the CalTrans West parcel can make this a reality. Commissioner Goff then distributed to the Planning Commission his recommendations for the CalTrans West parcel as follows: -4- MINUTES March 10, 1983 � m m m N. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 0 * Same as staff recommendation ° Revised + New Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Environmental Open Space Elements of the General Plan, and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan: * 1. "Multiple -Family Residential" uses not to exceed 15 dwelling units per buildable acre shall be permitted. * 2. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. + 3. Subject to further review and approval by the City of Newport Beach, the developer or developers involved may transfer dwelling units permitted on CalTrans West to Area 3 of the Banning -Newport Ranch. Area 3 of the Banning -Newport Ranch may not exceed 15 dwelling units per buildable acre. + 4. The preferred access to the CalTrans West site is from the proposed Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extension) across a portion of the Banning property. A reasonable effort must be made to establish this access from Bluff Road at the time of approval of the tentative tract map for the CalTrans West site if it is submitted prior to tentative maps for the Banning -Newport Ranch. Temporary and limited access may be developed from realigned Superior Avenue. The precise location of all access will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. ° 5. That existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved for a line -of -sight 4 feet above the lower balcony level of a Newport Crest residence. * 6. 208 of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as defined in the City's Housing Element. * 7. 108 of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as set forth in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. -5- MINUTES March 10, 1983 � x � r � • u m N � City of Newport_ Beach r� * Same as staff recommendation ° Revised + New ° 8. CalTrans West will be required to comply with the park dedication ordinance. A park of at least 5 acres in size is to be developed between Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, 15th Street (extended), and Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extended). The specific size, location, design, and the means to acquire and develop the park will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract maps for CalTrans West and/or the adjacent Banning - Newport Ranch Residential Developments. The park shall be completed concurrent with occupancy of the first residential unit. * 9. A view park of ± 1 acre shall be located on-site and shall partially satisfy the requirements for park dedication contained in Chapter 19.50, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. +10. A pedestrian and bicycle easement shall be developed to connect the view park with the neighborhood park. The easement shall as much as possible be located to take advantage of ocean and bay views. Precise location and design shall be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. +11. The applicant or successor in interest shall participate in 50% of all costs related to the provision of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge over Superior Avenue at a point to be determined in conjunction with the location of the view park at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 012. A landscaped greenbelt shall be established adjacent to Newport Crest. The greenbelt shall be a minimum of 30 feet wide and be maintained by the applicant or successor in interest. *13. Upon approval of this amendment by the Planning Commission, CalTrans will enter into an agreement permitting the City a right of entry onto that property required for realignment of Superior Avenue. This agreement will outline the procedures by which realigned Superior Avenue may be conveyed to the City. IM. INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES m m o N March 10, 1983 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX * Same as staff recommendation ° Revised + New *14. Because of difficulties in providing vehicular access to CalTrans East, and in recognition of both the State's need to dispose of this site and Hoag Hospital's need for additional land, CalTrans has entered into negotiations with Hoag Hospital for the acquisition of CalTrans East. Adoption of detailed zoning and approval of a tentative tract map on CalTrans West shall not occur until CalTrans offers satisfactory evidence that it has restricted access from CalTrans East to Coast Highway. • *15. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. Commissioner Goff referred to proposed Condition No. 11 and stated that both CalTrans and Hoag Hospital have indicated that they would be interested in participating in the financing of the pedestrian and bicycle bridge, at the tentative tract map stage. Commissioner Allen referred to proposed Condition No. 12 and stated wording should be added which would clarify that the 30 foot wide greenbelt is not a part of the park dedication requirement. She then referred to proposed Condition No. 9 and stated that the Commission will have to decide if the view park should be considered as a part of the park dedication requirement. Commissioner Goff stated that the park dedication requirements imposed by the Planning Commission should be consistent on the CalTrans West parcel and the Fifth Avenue parcels. Commissioner McLaughlin referred to proposed Condition No. 3 and asked if there are legal ramifications in the transferring of dwelling units. MINUTES March 10, 1983 m m mH City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 0 Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, stated that the transferring of dwelling units does not create an impact, as long as there is no reduction in the number of units the developer of the Banning -Newport Ranch parcel is required to provide. Mr. David Simmes, representing the State of California, Department of Transportation, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Simmes referred to proposed Condition No. 5 and stated that in order to be consistent with the approved Banning -Newport Ranch development, the line -of -sight should be 5 feet, rather than 4 feet. Mr. Simmes also referred to proposed Condition No. 10,, relating to the pedestrian and bicycle easement and stated that CalTrans would be willing to agree to such an easement, if it is the desire of the City. Mr. Simmes referred to proposed Condition No. 9, relating to park dedication requirements, and stated that the CalTrans West parcel consists of 13.6 acres. He stated that when the streets, bluffs, and greenbelts are deducted, there is a dwindling amount of land to develop. He requested that a credit for the park dedication requirement be considered. Mr. Michael Johnson, resident of 220 Nice Mane, stated that today was the fiftieth anniversary of the California earthquake which occurred in 1933 and referred to an article which appeared in The Register dated March 10, 1983. He expressed his concern with the density of people the proposed development will generate into the unstable seismic area of the Newport -Inglewood fault. He stated that if such an earthquake should occur again, the City would be sued for the damages and for not properly recognizing the danger. He then requested that the site designation remain as open space. Chairman King stated that Mr. Johnson resides in a heavily populated area across the street from the proposed development, and asked Mr. Johnson to clarify his concern. Mr. Johnson stated that he lives on stable land, whereas the proposed development, across the street, will be located on the seismic fault. -a- n x • c m � x� m D MINUTES March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach Mr. Burnham stated that in the event of such an earthquake, the City would be immune from any liability that may result from injury to persons or property, if the buildings are constructed to the standards as specified in the Health and Safety Code. Mr. Chris Hansen, resident of 22 Encore Court, and President of the Newport Crest Homeowners Association, thanked the staff, the Planning Commission and Mr. Simmes of CalTrans for their cooperation relating to the proposed recommendations of the General Plan Amendment. Mr. Hansen stated that their concerns relating, to security and the proximity of the greenbelt to Newport Crest, traffic, access to the property, view preservation and the park issue, have all been communicated to CalTrans and the Planning Commission. He stated that the residents of West Newport hope and trust that the proposal will be a development which they can live with and be proud of. Mrs. Louise Greeley, resident of 16 Swift Court, and a member of the Board of Directors for Newport Crest, appeared before the Commission. Mrs. Greeley stated that she has been actively involved with obtaining a park site on the CalTrans parcel since 1976. She suggested that a development agreement be executed between CalTrans West, Banning -Newport Ranch, and the City, to make the five acre park which is planned for the immediate area, available for use before the development takes place on CalTrans West or the Banning -Newport Ranch property. Chairman King expressed his concern as to when the park can occur. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the approval on the Banning -Newport Ranch development states that the park of approximately 5 acres in size, shall be developed and completed concurrent with the occupancy of the first residential tract on the Banning -Newport Ranch tract. He stated that if the Banning -Newport Ranch site were to be developed in its entirety and to the maximum extent, it would generate the need for a 6� acre park site. He stated that their requirement was for a park site of approximately 5 acres, thereby leaving a lei acre park requirement which could be collected through in -lieu fees. IM MISS MINUTES March 10, 1983 � r c c� n F G1 m b of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I III Jill I INDEX Planning Director Hewicker referred to proposed Condition No. 8 and stated that this recommendation attempts to tie the two developments together. He stated that the park would be developed concurrently with the first occupancy of units, regardless of whether the occupancy occurs on the CalTrans West or Banning -Newport Ranch property. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the CalTrans West site alone, does not generate the need for a five acre park site. He stated that in considering the recommendations on the CalTrans West site, relating to the size of the greenbelts, the pedestrian and bicycle bridge across Superior Avenue, the establishment of views parks and bicycle trails, the staff has concerns as to how all of the requirements will be balanced on the proposed project. He stated that the suggestion of a development agreement between all parties involved, may be a possibility. Mr. Burnham stated that the 5 acre park site can not be located entirely on the CalTrans West parcel. He further stated that the requirements for view parks and the other amenities as indicated, reduces the amount of low and moderate income units which can be built, as the cost of developing the parcel becomes greater. He then explained the recent amendments to the Quimby Act which may require the City to restrict the park dedication ordinance so that the dedications are 3 acres per 1,000 people, as opposed to the present '5 acres per 1,000 people. Mr. Burnham stated that the language which is proposed in Condition No. 8, gives the City the best assurance that the 5 acre active park will be completed as soon as possible. He stated that CalTrans should commit that any subsequent purchaser of the CalTrans West site shall be advised of the condition and any agreement for purchase shall contain the requirement that the purchaser comply with that condition. Commissioner Allen stated that the parcels in question are currently vacant and that the children who live in West Newport have no park in which to play. She suggested that a temporary park site be established. Otherwise, she stated that it is possible that the children who currently live in West Newport, will no longer be children by the time the occupancy of the first residential unit occurs on either project. -10- COMMISSIONERSJ MINUTES � K F � m ° m m N. March 10, 1983 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Burnham stated that in order to accomplish a temporary park site on private property, the consent of the property owner .will be needed or the City will have to purchase the property. He stated that the City can not require a private y owner ora developer to establish a temporary park site because the Planning Commission is not approving any actual development on the site at this time, the Commission is only considering a General Plan Amendment for general land uses on the property. Mr. Burnham stated that assuming that the City were to acquire in -lieu fees from the CalTrans West development, the City could then negotiate with Banning -Newport Ranch for the purchase and development of the park site, with the City to be reimbursed by Banning -Newport Ranch at the time the Banning -Newport Ranch site is developed. He stated that in this way, prompt development of an active park site can be accomplished. Planning Director Hewicker referred to two letters • dated March 10, 1983, which had been received, relating to the CalTrans West portion of General Plan Amendment 81-2. He stated that one letter was received from Mr. Michael Stephens, Administrator at Hoag Memorial Hospital, which stated that Hoag Memorial Hospital is interested in purchasing the CalTrans East property from the State and acknowledges the City's interest for a bicycle trail along the top of the CalTrans East and ' West bluff line, view park sites an d a pedestrian overpass across Superior Avenue. The other letter was received from Mr. Richard L. Owen, a real estate consultant, which stated that he was the President of the corporation that developed Newport Crest and that the prices on the lots that faced the ocean were reduced to the equivalent prices that were in the courts to the north. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Planning Director Hewicker stated that Mr. Owen's letter indicates that little or no view premiums were paid for the lots on the southerly edge of the Newport Crest development, between the original developer of the ,property and the original purchasers. -11- MINUTES March 10, 1963 n x ?m � m m m 0 � City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX L-1 0 Mr. Hansen stated that they can provide the City with documentation that the lots located along the bluff side carried an original premium price. Planning Director Hewicker referred to proposed Condition No. 1 and stated that this is a density of development which will adequately provide for a residential development which will help to satisfy the City's need for affordable dwelling units. He stated that a prospective purchaser of the site will be made aware of the restrictions which have been placed upon the parcel. However, he stated that as the buildable acreage of the site begins to dwindle, because of the restrictions imposed, he suggested that perhaps instead of specifying a specific density of dwelling units per acre, that a certain number of affordable units to be built upon the property be specified and in addition, that additional market rate units can be built up to a point that the density would not exceed 15 dwelling units per acre. Commissioner McLaughlin asked how this would affect the Mello Bill requirements. Planning Director Hewicker stated that 10 percent of the total dwelling units would still have to meet the State standards for affordability. Chairman King stated that there are no density bonuses included in this proposal. Commissioner Goff stated that if the 5 acre park were entirely on the CalTrans West site, along with the requirements for greenbelts, bike trails, and view parks, the number of dwelling units per buildable acre would be greatly reduced. However, he stated that if the number of dwelling units were to be calculated, assuming that the park site would not be located on the parcel, and the park site was to be located on the site, the density amounts would be unacceptable, such as 30 dwelling units to the buildable acre for the remainder of the site. Commissioner McLaughlin referred to proposed Condition No. 5 and asked Commissioner Goff if he would consider the line -of -sight at 5 feet to be consistent with the Banning -Newport Ranch development, rather than at 4 feet. Commissioner Goff stated that he had recommended the line -of -sight at 4 feet because of the difference in the nature of the views from the Newport Crest units -12- MINUTES March 10, 1983 o y City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 9 adjacent to CalTrans West, as opposed to those adjacent to the Banning -Newport Ranch development. Commissioner Goff stated that the ocean views adjacent to the CalTrans West parcel are much closer and a large portion of the residents outdoor living space is utilized while sitting, rather than standing on their balconies. He stated that the difference in the nature of the views, warrants a 4 foot line -of -sight, rather than a 5 foot line -of -sight. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Planning Director Hewicker referred to an exhibit which depicted the existing and potential line -of -sight views of the ocean from the area in question. He stated that the white water view exists only looking towards Huntington Beach. Commissioner Goff stated that the intent of his proposed recommendation is not to enhance any views, but to preserve the existing views. Commissioner Kurlander referred to proposed Condition No. 3 and asked how additional dwelling units could be transferred to the already approved Banning -Newport Ranch development. Planning Director Hewicker stated that in Area 3 of the Banning -Newport Ranch, they have the ability to go up to 15 dwelling units per acre, provided that they build fewer units in the lower portion of their development. He stated that in order to accomplish this, a transfer would have to be entered into between the Banning -Newport Ranch, the future owner of the CalTrans West parcel, and the -City. Commissioner Goff stated that it is a possibility that the same developer would develop both the residential portions of the CalTrans West parcel and the Banning -Newport Ranch parcel. He stated that the proposed recommendation would allow the flexibility for the transfer of dwelling units, not to exceed 15 dwelling units per buildable acre. Commissioner Winburn referred to proposed Condition No. 3 and asked for clarification from the City Attorney. Mr. Burnham stated that the proposed language is consistent with the current General Plan covering the Banning -Newport Ranch parcel, if densities could'go up to 15 dwelling units per buildable acre in Area 3. -13- MINUTES March 10, 1983 c � m m m m w City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX is 0 Planning Director Hewicker stated that the overall, average density on the Banning -Newport Ranch project is limited to 11.5 dwelling units per buildable acre. He stated that Area 3 is allowed to go up to 15 dwelling units per buildable acre, if there is a substantial reduction 'in dwelling units in other areas of the property. Mr. Burnham stated that in order for this condition to become valid, the Banning -Newport Ranch must build fewer units than entitled, to allow the 15 dwelling units per buildable acre in Area 3. He stated that it could be considered more of a relocation of dwelling units, rather than an actual transfer. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Burnham stated that the proposed language is consistent with the current General Plan covering the Banning -Newport Ranch parcel, but may not accomplish the Commission's objective. Planning Director Hewicker referred to the last sentence of proposed Condition No. 14 and suggested that the word "has" be changed to the word "will". He stated that this will be consistent with the future rezoning of CalTrans West from the Open Space designation to a Planned Community. Commissioner Allen suggested that additional clarification should be added to Condition No. 12, which would state that park credit shall not be given for the greenbelt. Commissioner Allen stated that she can understand the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission concern that view parks not be included as a portion of the park dediction requirement. However, she stated that from a planning perspective, rather than a parks maintenance perspective, some areas of the City need view parks and it would be unfair to require the view parks and not give park credit. Therefore, she stated that she would support Condition No. 9 as currently worded. Commissioner Kurlander stated that he could support a motion for the approval of the CalTrans West item, if Condition No. 3 were to be deleted. He stated that Condition No. 3 creates confusion and does not accomplish the objectives of the Commission. -14- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ed for a line -of -sight 9 feet above the lower balcony level of a Newport Crest residence. 6. 20$ of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as defined in the City's Housing Element. 7. 108 of the total dwelling units shall be ' affordable to low and moderate income households as set forth in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. -15- � x � r c m � m March 10, 1983 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX The following Straw Vote was taken on CALTRANS WEST: Motion X Motion was made to approve the CalTrans West portion of Ayes X X X X X the General Plan Amendment 81-2, subject to the Absent * alternatives proposed by Commissioner Goff which were distributed earlier, with the following revisions: Condition No. 3 be deleted; that the word "has" be changed to the word "will" in Condition No. 14; and, additional wording to Condition No. 12 which would state that park credit shall not be given for the greenbelt, which MOTION CARRIED: Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Environmental Open Space Elements of the General Plan, and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan: 1. "Multiple-Pamily Residential" uses not to exceed 15 dwelling units per buildable acre shall be permitted. 2. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned i Community) District. 3. Deleted by the Planning Commission. 4. The preferred access to the CalTrans West site is from the proposed Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extension) across a portion of the Banning property. A reasonable effort must be made to establish this access from Bluff Road at the time of approval of the tentative tract map for the CalTrans West site if it is submitted prior to tentative maps for the Banning -Newport Ranch. Temporary and limited access may be developed from realigned Superior Avenue. The precise location of all access will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 5. That existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserv ed for a line -of -sight 9 feet above the lower balcony level of a Newport Crest residence. 6. 20$ of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as defined in the City's Housing Element. 7. 108 of the total dwelling units shall be ' affordable to low and moderate income households as set forth in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. -15- COMMISSIONERS 1 MINUTES x rr r4 March IU, 1983 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 8. CalTrans West will be required to comply with the park dedication ordinance. A park of at least 5 acres in size is to be developed between Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, 15th Street (extended), and Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extended). The specific size, location, design, and the means to acquire and develop the park will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract maps for CalTrans West and/or the adjacent Banning - Newport Ranch Residential Developments. The park shall be completed concurrent with occupancy of the first residential unit. 9. A view park of # 1 acre shall be located on-site and shall partially satisfy the requirements for park dedication contained in Chapter 19.50 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 10. A pedestrian and bicycle easement shall be developed to connect the view park with the neighborhood park. The easement shall as much as possible be located to take advantage of ocean and bay views. Precise location and design shall be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 11. The applicant or successor in interest shall participate in 50% of all costs related to the provision of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge over Superior Avenue at a point to be determined in conjunction with the location of the view park at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 12. A landscaped greenbelt shall be established adjacent to Newport Crest. The greenbelt shall be a minimum of 30 feet wide and be maintained by the applicant or successor in interest. Park credit shall not be given for the greenbelt. 13. Upon approval of this amendment by the Planning Commission, CalTrans will enter into an agreement permitting the City a right of entry onto that property required for realignment of Superior Avenue. This agreement will outline the procedures by which realigned Superior Avenue may be conveyed to the City. • -16- n x m m 'c n � 7C Gln > E March 10, 1983 MINUTES of Newport Beach 14. Because of difficulties in providing vehicular access to CalTrans East, and in recognition of both the State's need to dispose of this site and Hoag Hospital's need for additional land, CalTrans has entered into negotiations with Hoag.Hospital for the acquisition of CalTrans East. Adoption of detailed zoning and approval of a tentative tract map on CalTrans West shall not occur until CalTrans offers satisfactory evidence that it will restrict access from CalTrans East to Coast Highway. 15. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS: Area A Mr. Bernard Maniscalco, representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Maniscalco referred to a letter dated March 10, 1983, from Mr. Richard Sim, of The Irvine Company, in which the following language was proposed for Conditions No. 10 and 11: 10. A condition to any subdivision approval for this site will be that the developer enter into a subdivision agreement with the City to make a number of units equal to 10% of the total units in the subdivision available to low and moderate income families using City standards, which affordable units may be provided on-site or on other sites in the City. The subdivision agreement shall allow the developer to meet the affordable housing requirement within 3 years of the date of tentative tract map approval. -17- INDEX FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS MINUTES March 10, 1983 n x � c m m m a w City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 11. At the time of future discretionary actions the project may be required to contribute a sum equal to its fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways, and any other similar mitigation measures, as required by the ordinances and resolutions of the City in force at the time of such actions. Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, stated that Condition No. 10, as proposed by The Irvine Company, is not consistent with the City's Housing Element. Therefore, he suggested that Condition No. 10, on Page 10 of the.staff report, be revised as follows: "That a number of units equal to at least 10% of the total units be constructed on-site or off-site and be affordable to low and moderate income families using City standards." He stated that the last sentence of the condition in the staff report should be deleted. In response to a question posed by Chairman King, Mr. Maniscalco stated that the revised language proposed by Mr. Burnham for Condition No. 10 would be acceptable. Mr. Burnham further stated that staff does not concur with the proposed language by The Irvine Company for Condition No. 11. He stated that the proposed language eliminates any reference to mitigation measures which may be required as a result of the California Environmental Quality Act. Mr. Maniscalco referred to Condition No. 11 and stated that the City must take the necessary steps to identify what the fair share contribution will be. He stated that public hearings should be provided by the City so that all property owners can be heard on the issue and the fair share contribution can be determined through a City ordinance or resolution, rather than the fair share contribution becoming a condition on the tract map. In response to a question posed by Chairman King, Mr. Burnham stated that approval of a tentative tract map would have to comply with all of the City's adopted ordinances, resolutions and the Traffic Phasing Ordinance pursuant to Council 'Policy. -•18- c c n z O m > _mom -m 9 MINUTES March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach Mr. Burnham stated that Condition No. it as currently worded in the staff report, allows the City the flexibility to address future problems and would be consistent with the Subdivision Map Act. He further stated that the City's previous actions on requiring contributions, such as the park issue, have been upheld, as long as they are supplementary to the tract map requirements and the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. Mr. Maniscalco stated that implementing a fair share fund under a general plan amendment, does not constitute due process. Mr. Burnham stated that there will be at least two public hearings at the time the zoning is applied to the property and when the tract map is processed. Mr. Maniscalco referred to an aerial photograph depicting the Marguerite Avenue Parcel and stated that they are proposing that the parcel be changed from low density residential of 4 dwelling units per buildable acre, to medium density residential of 10 dwelling units per buildable acre. He stated that the proposal takes advantage of the sloping ground, which allows protection of views from Harbor View Hills and Marguerite Avenue. He stated that the proposal also includes the generation of a view park with trail systems and that the park will be dedicated to the City. He stated that park credit will be granted to this parcel, however, the park credit will only be equal to the flat areas, which would be approximately three-quarters of an acre. He stated that receiving, park credit for this parcel is a very important part of the proposed project. In response to a concern expressed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Maniscalco stated that the trees to be utilized in the view park will be maintained so that they will not obstruct any views. He further stated that the Planned Community requirements for this project would specify the height limitations on vegetation, as well as height limitations on the structures. -19- w INDEX MINUTES March 10, 1983 m m H City of Newport Beach LL CALL INDEX ROLL -20- Mr. Lloyd Crausy, resident of 4015 Topside Lane, and President of -Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association South, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Crausy expressed their concern as to how many lots can be transferred from Area C to permit higher density in Areas A or B. He referred to Condition No. 9 of the staff report and stated that reference should be made to Harbor View Hills South, rather than Harbor View Hills East. He expressed their concern with the definition for the height of a person. He stated that their CC&R's require that they preserve views down to 2 feet above the first floor level. He stated that this permits a sitting person at a 3 foot height to have the view unobstructed. He suggested that a number be specified in this condition, and recommended that a maximum of 3 feet be utilized. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Planning Director Hewicker stated that the site plane in Harbor View Hills is based upon a . eye level height of 5 feet of•a person standing in the view yard. Mr. Ronald Kennedy, resident of 550 Hazel Drive, appeared before the Commission, referring to Condition No. 2 and stated that the recreational designation can not be removed, if it does not currently exist on the parcel or on the recreational open space maps. He also referred to Condition No. 6 and asked for clarification as to how the Orange County Flood Control District Easement will affect the park dedication requirement. Mr. Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator, referred to an exhibit which depicted the recorded easements on the property and the flat areas of the property. He suggested an additional sentence could be added to Condition No. 6 as follows: Land given credit' for park dedication shall be only those areas which are flat and outside the limits of the Orange County Flood Control District Easement. Mr. Kennedy stated that the environmental document should be corrected to indicate that Area A is not entirely designated as a greenbelt. He also referred to Page 225 of the document and stated that the comments made relating to the park needs for Corona del • Mar were made back in 1973, and should be so noted as being made ten years ago. -20- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES w m m N Marcn iu, 19b3 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Chairman King stated that any corrections to the Draft Environmental Impact Report which have been addressed and established to be fact, will be included in the Final Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Richard Nichols, President of the Corona del Mar Community Association, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Nichols referred to a letter describing the Association's concerns, which is entitled "Dear Resident", and stated that this letter has been distributed to many of the residents of Corona del Mar. Mr. Nichols referred to Condition No. 6 and recommended that park dedication requirement credit not be given to the applicant for the land dedication of the view park. He stated that this would correspond with the recommendations of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission on this site. Mr. Nichols also referred to Condition No. 7 and recommended the following language, "That the . requirements of the Park Dedication ordinance shall be satisfied through on-site or off-site land dedication, after recommendation by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, at the time of approval of the tentative tract map." He stated that Grant Howald Park is an active park which desperately needs more land added to it. Chairman King stated that even if the City had sufficient in -lieu funds to purchase the land, there would not be enough money to develop the park site. Mr. Nichols stated that the land should be obtained at this point. He explained the problems which currently exist because of part ownership by the school board and the City. Chairman King stated that schools have been closing because of lack of enrollment and asked why land should be acquired and money allocated to develop additional active, recreational park sites. Mr. Nichols stated that Corona del Mar currently has very few active park sites. He stated that recreational park sites which have fields for soccer, football, baseball and softball, are currently filled with approximately 1,000 children on any given Saturday. He stated that with the possible school closures, there will be no park sites for the children to utilize. -21- MINUTES March 10, 1983 � x � r c City of Newport Beach ROLLCALLI III III I 1INDEX Mr. Nichols referred to Condition No. 8 and recommended the following language: "In the event that park dedication is more than is necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, the excess credit shall be used to satisfy part of the requirement for Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel." Mr. Lenard referred to Condition No. 8 and concurred with Mr. Nichols recommendation and suggested that the wording "and improvement" be deleted from the staff's recommendation. He stated that the applicant should be given park dedication credit for the view park, but not for the improvement of the park. Mr. Nichols stated that all of these concerns have been expressed at previous Planning Commission Meetings. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the concerns which have been expressed at previous Planning Commission Meetings have all been addressed and responded to in the various staff reports or in the attachments entitled, "Responses to Comments" which • have been prepared on these items. Mr. Richard Succa, resident of 715 Marguerite Avenue, appeared before the Commission, and stated that there is a need for park areas in Corona del Mai. He stated that it should be the City.'s responsibility to provide park sites, not the school districts. He stated that the City is in the process of funding a study which will explore the park needs of the City and suggested that action on these items be delayed until the City can receive input from the study. Planning Director Hewicker explained that many of the school sites are designated as Governmental and Institutional Facilities on the General Plan, and would require an amendment to the General Plan in the event a future purchaser of a school site would want to •change the uses permitted under that designation. He stated that the City and the school districts have cooperated for many years with respect to providing recreational programs for the residents of the City. Mr. Succa stated that Harbor View School is locked during the summer months which makes it difficult to utilize as a recreational area. He stated that the • issue of park sites must be considered separately. -22- • MINUTES March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Burnham explained the procedures by which a school site use could be changed, as described earlier by Planning Director Hewicker. Ms. Lavena Hayden, resident of 235 Poppy Avenue, appeared before the Commission, and stated that she is appalled at the number of units which are being proposed. She expressed her concerns relating to traffic and parking problems. She stated that the City should not accept in -lieu park fees, because actual park sites are greatly needed in the Corona del Mar area; not in other areas of the City. She stated that this area has grown tremendously and is already heavily congested. Mr. John Dawson, resident of 2152 Vista Dorado, appeared before the Commission; and stated that he finds no evidence that a study is being performed to determine the park needs for the City. He stated that there is a great need for park sites in the Corona del Mar area. He stated that Parcel A should remain as it is currently designated, that of recreational open space. He recommended that the entire Parcel A be removed from consideration, until such time as the park needs for Corona del Mar are determined and resolved. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Planning Director Hewicker stated that Area A is currently designated for Low -Density Residential on the Land Use Element of the General Plan and Recreational and Environmental Open Space on the Open Space Element of the General Platt. Therefore, he stated that the two Elements are inconsistent and that the proposed amendment will remove this inconsistency. Commissioner Allen asked if the property were to be zoned as Open Space, would the City have to buy the property. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the City would have to buy the property, if the City deprived the property owner of an economic return on his property. He stated that the property is not currently zoned as Open Space. -23- INDEX MINUTES March 10, 1983 3 F �C m Q m y. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX • Commissioner Allen referred to Condition No. 6 and stated that park credit should only be given for those areas which are flat and outside the limits of the Orange County Flood Control District Easement. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Maniscalco stated that the amount of flat land outside the easement boundary is approximately three-fourths of an acre. Commissioner Allen stated that she objects to in -lieu park fees, particularly in areas, such as Corona del Mar, where the land values are very high. She stated that as time goes by, the City can find money, but can not make more land. She referred to Condition No. 7 and suggested that the provision for in -lieu fees be taken out as an option. Commissioner Winburn stated that the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission have been studying the in -lieu park fee issue. She stated that she would like to hear the concerns of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission on this issue. Ms. Hayden stated that the park land is greatly needed in Corona del Mar at this time. She' stated that The Irvine Company is responsible for increasing the density of the area, and it should be their responsibility to supply the impacted residents with park sites. Chairman King referred to Condition No. 7 and stated that leaving in the option for in -lieu fees gives the City the flexibility to generate the money needed to improve the park sites once they are established. Mr. Nichols stated that how the lots are located in the proposed development will determine the amount of greenbelts. He stated that the greenbelts should not be sacrificed to accommodate more residential units. -24- MINUTES March 10, 1983 3 A m m y. City of Newport Beach ROLLCALLI 111 1111 1 INDEX Motion Amendment Commissioner Allen referred to Condition No. 7 and suggested that the wording "the assessment of in -lieu fees" be deleted. She stated that the Planning Commission should be concerned with land planning, and that the recommendation for the financing of park sites will come from the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. She stated that the recommendations of the two Commissions will go directly to the City Council. The following Straw Votes were taken on AREA A, the MARGUERITE AVENUE PARCEL: Motion was made to approve Area A, the Marguerite Avenue Parcel, subject to the recommendations of the staff report, with the following revisions: Condition No. 6 shall contain an additional sentence, "Land given credit for park dedication shall be only those areas which are flat and outside the limits of the Orange County Flood Control District Easement"; deletion of the wording "and improvement" on Condition No. 8; deletion of the wording "the assessment of in -lieu fees" on Condition No. 7; Condition No. 10 to be worded, "That a number of units equal to at least 10% of the total units be constructed on-site or off-site and be affordable to low and moderate income families using City standards"; and, Condition No. 11 to remain as worded in the staff report. Commissioner Goff recommended that Condition No. 9 be worded to reflect, "That existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved for a line -of -sight four feet above the ground floor level of a Harbor View Hills South residence." Commissioner Allen accepted this as an amendment to her motion. Chairman King stated that the option for the assessment of in -lieu fees should not be deleted. Commissioner Winburn concurred and stated that if the option for in -lieu fees is removed,, the City will not have the funds available to develop active park sites. -25- MINUTES March 10, 1983 �m � m m n H City of Newport Beach ROLLCALL_jl 1 111 INDEX Substitute Motion Ayes Noes Absent Ayes Noes 0sent Motion Ayes Noes Absent 0 X X IX IX Commissioner Kurlander asked if it is the option of the City or the developer to select either the in -lieu park fees or the land dedication. Planning Director Hewicker stated that it is the City's option to select either the in -lieu park fees or the land dedication when the subdivision map is being considered. Commissioner Kurlander stated that the City should have this option available to them, and therefore, stated that he could not support the motion. Substitute Motion was made by Commissioner Kurlander to accept the motion made by Commissioner Allen, with the revision that Condition No. 7 contain the option for the assessment of in -lieu fees, which SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED. Original Motion made by Commissioner Allen was now voted on, which MOTION FAILED. Motion was made to deny the request for Area A, the Marguerite Avenue Parcel. Commissioner Goff expressed his concern with the legal ramifications which will arise if Area A is denied, when the deliberations begin for Area C, the Buck Gully parcel. Motion to deny the request for Area A, the Marguerite Avenue Parcel, was now voted on, which MOTION FAILED. Chairman King stated that if the proposal were to be approved, there would be at least two additional public hearings when the zoning is applied to the property and when the tract map is processed. He stated that prematurely removing the in -lieu option at this point, is not acceptable. The Planning Commission recessed at 10:05 p.m. and reconvened at 10:20 p.m. -26- 0 Motion Ayes Noes Absent 01 � F � r < m = m IX a MINUTES March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, stated that in view of the fact that the Planning Commission's recommendation is advisory to the City Council, he suggested the following solution. He stated that a motion could be made on Area A, with the maker of the motion indicating that there was a failure of the Commission to reach a decision on Condition No. 7, as proposed in the staff report relating as to whether the assessment of in -lieu fees would be retained as an option. He stated that the action could also indicate that the Planning Commission was unable to agree on this issue by a vote of 3-3, with one Commissioner absent. Commissioner Goff referred to Condition No. 2 and stated that if the recreational designation does not currently exist on the parcel, how can it be removed. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the two Elements are inconsistent and that the proposed recommendation is to remove this inconsistency. He suggested the following revised wording for Condition No. 2, "Remove Recreational and Environmental Open Space designation from the Open Space Plan for the area adjacent to Marguerite Avenue to bring the various' general plan elements into conformance." Motion was made to approve AREA A, the MARGUERITE AVENUE PARCEL, subject to the recommendations of the staff report, with the following revisions: Condition No. 2 be worded to reflect, "Remove Recreational and Environmental Open Space designation from the Open Space Plan for the area adjacent to Marguerite Avenue to bring the various general plan amendments into conformance."; Condition No. 6 shall contain an additional sentence, "Land given credit for park dedication shall be only those areas which are flat and outside the limits of the Orange County Flood Control District Easement."; deletion of the wording "and improvement" on Condition No. 8; Condition No. 9 be worded to reflect, "That existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved for a line -of -sight four feet above the ground floor level of a Harbor View Hills South residence."; Condition No. 10 to be worded, "That a number of units equal to at least 10% of the total units be constructed on-site or off-site and be affordable to low and moderate income families using -27- INDEX MINUTES March 10, 1983 n T• � r � m m m m o H City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX LJ 0 City standards."; Condition No. 11 to remain as worded in the staff report; and, Condition No. 7 to be deleted as worded in the staff recommendation, with the language as suggested by the City Attorney to be added to the Commission's action. Motion was now voted on, which MOTION CARRIED: Area A: MargueritelAvenue Parcel: Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. Medium -Density Residential use shall be permitted. 2. Remove Recreational and Environmental Open Space designation from the Open Space Plan for the area adjacent to Marguerite Avenue to bring the various general plan elements into conformance. 3. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 4. The Jasmine Creek greenbelt system shall be continued on the site. The extent of the greenbelt shall be determined at the time of approval of the P -C development plan. 5. A public view park shall be designated in the Recreation and Open Space Element and provided (dedication + improvements) on the site in the vicinity of Marguerite Avenue and Harbor View Drive. The' precise location of the view park shall be determined at the time of approval of the P -C development plan. 6. That park dedication requirement credits be given to the applicant for the land dedication of the view park, consistent with the criteria contained in the City's Park Dedication Ordinance. Land given credit for park dedication shall be only those areas which are flat and outside the limits of the Orange County Flood Control District Easement. 7. Deleted by the Planning Commission. (See additional wording as suggested by the City Attorney on the following page). -28- 3 X � r c • m m o m a 7C an d D • 0 MINUTES March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach 8. In the event that dedication of the view park is more than is necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, the excess credit shall be used to satisfy part of the requirement for Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel. 9. That existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved for a line -of -sight four feet above the ground floor level of a Harbor View Hills South residence. 10. That a number of units equal to at least 10% of the total units be constructed on-site or off-site and be affordable to low and moderate income families using City standards. 11. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. In the event the dedication of land for a view park does not satisfy the entire requirement of the Park Dedication Ordinance, the Planning Commission was unable to agree (by a vote of 3-3, one absent) whether the additional requirement could be satisfied through the payment of in -lieu park fees. The Planning Commission's recommendation is forwarded without indication of how additional park dedication requirements will be satisfied. -29- INDEX MINUTES March 10, 1983 � z ? m m a mN. City of Newport Beach m� ROLL CALL 1 1, 1 1 1 . I I I INDEX Area B AREA B Mr. Bernard Maniscalco, representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Maniscalco referred to a letter dated March 10, 1983, from Mr. Richard Sim, of The Irvine Company, in which the following language was proposed for Conditions No. 6 and 7: 6. A condition to any subdivision approval for this site will be that the developer enter into a subdivision agreement with the City to make a number of units equal to 10% of the total units in the subdivision available to low .and moderate income families using City standards, which affordable units may be provided on-site or on other sites in the City. The subdivision agreement shall allow the developer to meet the affordable housing requirement within 3 years of the date of tentative tract map approval. 7. At the time of future discretionary actions the project may be required to contribute a sum equal to its fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways, and any other similar mitigation measures, as required by the ordinances and resolutions of the City in force at the time of such actions. Mr. Maniscalco stated that these are the same recommendations on affordable housing and the fair share fund which The Irvine Company had requested on Area A. Planning Director Hewicker recommended that the language for Condition No. 6 on Area B, be consistent with the language for Area A. He stated that the language would be as follows: "That a number of units equal to at least 10% of the total units be constructed on-site or off-site and be affordable to low and moderate income families using City standards." Mr. Maniscalco stated that this language would be acceptable for Condition No. 6. -30- MINUTES 3 x � r c m y iaarcn iv, iyo� City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL J I I I I I INDEX Mr. Maniscalco referred to Condition No. 7 and stated that their concerns expressed in Area A, relating to the fair share fund issue, would also apply to Area B. Mr. Maniscalco referred to an aerial photograph depicting the Fifth Avenue Parcel and stated that they are proposing that the parcel be changed from low density residential to medium density residential. He also referred to a specific site design exhibit which he stated was prepared to illustrate a future development on the site. He stated that they are proposing approximately 85 units and the dedication to the City of approximately 1.06 acres adjacent to the Oasis facility. He stated that only the flat land will be dedicated and that the sloping land will be maintained by private ownership. He stated that the remaining park requirement for the site will be met with in -lieu fees. He further stated that views across the site will be unobstructed. • In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Chairman King stated that park dedication credit will be given for the dedication of the 1.06 acre parcel adjacent to the Oasis facility. He added that the Oasis facility is an existing park site. Commissioner Goff suggested that the 1.06 acre park dedication be specified in the conditions for Parcel B. Mr. Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator, suggested that the recommendations of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission be incorporated into the conditions for Parcel H, as follows: 1) That the developer dedicate to the City that land between Marguerite Avenue and the approximate extension of the centerline of Narcissus and north of the existing Oasis Center consisting of ± 1.06 acres. 2) That when dedicated this land will be improved to the extent that shall have been rough graded to the existing grade of the City owned property to which it is adjacent; that a retaining wall be installed to support the slope above the property; and that the ± .40 acres at the existing northeast corner of the parking be graded to the same specification as the dedicated land. -31- MINUTES March 10, 1983 � F � c m m m m w City of Newport Beach INDEX 3) That the developer only receive park credit for the actual acreage dedicated and not for the value of any improvements to the land. 4) That any additional park dedication requirement for this site be satisfied by the payment of in -lieu fees. 5) That at the time of the approval of the tentative tract map for the site that the matter again be referred to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for final determination. Mr. Lenard also suggested an additional condition as follows: 6) That no slope areas will be accepted through dedication or be given additional park credit. Mr. Lenard stated that these conditions are consistent with what the applicant has stated. Mr. Lloyd Crausy, resident of 4015 Topside Lane, and President of Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association South, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Crausy again expressed their concerns with the view protection. He referred to Condition No. 5 and stated that reference should be made to Harbor View Hills South, rather than Harbor Views Hills East. He also stated that a number be specified in this condition, and recommended that a maximum of 3 feet be utilized. He also expressed their concern with the proposed layout of the development and the density. He stated that the alleys constitute ten percent of the development and suggested that this land could be better utilized to reduce density or to utilize curvilinear streets. Mr. Richard Nichols, President of the Corona del Mar Community Association, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Nichols referred to Condition No. 4 and suggested that the reference to "the assessment of in -lieu fees" be deleted. He stated that the Oasis facility is desirous of expanding the park site to Orchid Avenue, • which is slightly more than the actual park requirement for Parcels A and B. -32- � x � c m � m c n F o m D • MINUTES March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach Mr. Nichols stated that the Oasis facility is rapidly growing and greatly needs expansion. He stated that dedication to Orchid Avenue provides adequate growth area. Chairman King stated that increased park dedication translates into increased density for the applicant. Mr. Nichols suggested that the applicant dedicate the 2.06 acres up to the alley which is within the limits of the Park Dedication Ordinance, rather than the 2.5 acres which would be needed to dedicate to Orchid Avenue. He stated that in this way, the applicant would not be entitled to increased density for the project. Mr. Nichols again expressed their concern with the width of Fifth Avenue. He urged that Fifth Avenue be restricted to 32 feet in width, with parking permitted along the south side of Fifth Avenue. He stated that this will allow for two cars to adequately pass each other and allows the berm from the Oasis facility to be built out. He stated that this will prohibit Fifth Avenue from becoming a lucrative bypass route. Chairman King stated that the width for Fifth Avenue as recommended by the Public Works Department is to include a parking lane with improved curb, gutter and sidewalk. Mr. Donald Webb, City Engineer, concurred and recommended that the City's Subdivision Code requirements be followed. Chairman King stated that this is an opportunity to provide sidewalks along Fifth Avenue for public safety. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Lenard stated that if the site were not to be developed with residential units, the park dedication would be deficient by approximately one acre, utilizing the park dedication for both Parcels A and B. He stated that there is nothing to preclude the Commission from designating the site as future park expansion at the General Plan level, and look to other residential development as a means to acquire the dedication. -33- INDEX MINUTES March 10, 1983 � x ! y. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX • • Mr. Lenard emphasized that the site plans which have been submitted by the applicant, are only to be utilized as a conceptual illustration of the development which could occur on the site. He stated that conditions relating to street width would not be contained at the General Plan Amendment level, but would be contained at the tentative tract map level. Chairman King stated that the public would have the opportunity to respond to such issues at the tentative tract map level. Mr. Nichols reiterated that the Corona del Mar Community Association is strongly opposed to development, unless the 32 foot width for Fifth Avenue is made a condition of the General Plan Amendment. He stated that since sight plane conditions are included at this level, street width conditions can also be included. In response to a question posed by Planning Director Hewicker, Mr. Nichols stated that many of the Board members of the Oasis facility have indicated their desire to expand the facility beyond the 1.06 acre dedication. Dr. Brenda Ross, Chairman for the Long Range Planning Committee for Oasis, appeared before the Commission. Dr. Ross stated that they are currently in the process of setting up a study to determine their needs for future expansion of the Oasis facility. She stated that the 1.06 acres will allow for future expansion, however, she stated that at this point, it is not known if the 1.06 acres will be sufficient for their needs. Mr. Ronald Kennedy, resident of 550 Hazel Drive, stated that there is currently a neighborhood park designated for Area B, next to the Oasis facility, and suggested that the in -lieu fees be utilized to purchase the site. Mr. Abe Madigan, address unknown, expressed his concern with the proposed project and its affect upon Buck Gully. -34- 'cm P z�d> March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I III Jill I INDEX • Ms. Alice Remer, resident of 210 Goldenrod Avenue, and a founder of the Oasis facility, appeared before the Commission. Ms. Remer stated that the property to Orchid Avenue is needed for the future expansion of the Oasis facility. She stated that the residents of the City are growing older and that by the year 2000, approximately 25 percent of the American population will be over the age of 65. She stated that the City has the responsibility to respond and take action towards the needs of the older citizens. Mr. Matt Hall, Treasurer of the Friends of Oasis, explained the various activities and classes offered at the Oasis facility and stated that more than 1.06 acies will be needed for their future expansion. He stated that they are currently in the process of defining their future expansion needs. Commissioner Winburn suggested that while Oasis is studying their future needs, they should also be considering the surplus school sites which may be utilized for the Oasis expansion. Mr. Hall stated that they will be considering the surplus school sites. Mr. Richard Succa, resident of 715 Marguerite Avenue, stated that he objects to the proposed density increase because the area is already congested with traffic. He stated that he also objects to the use of in -lieu fees, because open space is needed. He stated that in the event the Oasis facility should expand, additional open space will be needed. Chairman King stated that the proposed project will contain single family residential units, whereas Old Corona del Mar allows double the units. Mr. Succa expressed his concerns that the increased density will generate traffic which the circulation system can not handle. Mr. Succa further stated that the proposed density is not consistent with that of Harbor View Hills. Chairman King stated that higher density is being proposed, so that the single family residential units can be made more affordable. -35- • • MINUTES March 10, 1983 of Newoort Beach Mr. Kennedy stated that according to the Land Use Element, all of the development north of Fifth Avenue is designated as R-1, a part of Harbor View Hills. Therefore, he stated that this area should be developed as Harbor view Hills. He stated that the applicant is requesting the higher density in order to make higher profits. Mr. Walter Ziegler, resident of 327 Poppy Avenue, expressed his concern with the traffic impact on East Coast Highway the increased density will generate. He further stated that there is a need for additional open space in the area, rather than the assessment of in -lieu fees. In response to a question posed by Chairman King, Mr. Webb stated that the current City standard is for 20 foot alleys, as opposed to 14 foot alleys which have been utilized in most of Corona del Mar. Mr. Tye Comeras, resident of 932 Sandcastle Drive, stated that Old Corona del Mar, Harbor View Hills and the proposed development can not be compared together. He stated that the proposed development of 86 units will be located on one of the last flat pieces of land in Corona del Mar. He expressed his concern that there is no space being provided for a functional park and he also expressed his concern with the increased traffic which will be generated by the proposed development. Mr. Owen Ellison, a member of the Friends of Oasis, described the existing property and facilities of the Oasis center. He stated that he was not aware of the proposed development until two months ago. He stated that he would like to see a compromise by The Irvine Company and the City for the Oasis facility acquiring additional land reserved for the future expansion of Oasis. Chairman King stated that Oasis is a park site owned by the City of Newport Beach. Mr. Matt Hall stated that the Friends of Oasis are working with the City on a cooperative basis for its future expansion. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission is the overall supervisor of the Oasis facility. -36- INDEX March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL ( INDEX 0 0 Mr. Richard Russell, resident of 888 Sandcastle Drive, expressed his concern with the quality of the proposed development and the views of the ocean and bay which may be affected. He referred to Condition No. 5 and suggested the following wording, "That the existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved 5 feet below the ground floor level of a Harbor View Hills South residence." He stated that his view will be impacted because his residence will now overlook the proposed density of rooftops, alleys, and garages or carports. Mr. Russell further expressed his concern with the movement of earth or slippage during the construction of the proposed development which may affect his property. Chairman King stated that in past projects, the City has required bonding during the construction phase of projects to provide protection and address such items. Mr. William Cullen, resident of 950 Sandcastle Drive, expressed his concern that actual park land is needed for the expansion of the Oasis facility, rather than the assessment of in -lieu fees. He also stated that the proposed development would be inconsistent with the existing neighborhood. Mr. Allen Tice, resident of 912 Sandcastle Drive, expressed his concern with views which will be affected and stated that the views must be protected. Commissioner McLaughlin expressed her concern with the proposed increase to medium density residential and the traffic which will be generated. Mr. Webb, City Engineer, stated that approximately 91 units are.being added by the General Plan Amendment, which amounts to approximately 800 to 900 more trips to the area. He stated that this would probably not require the widening of any streets. However, he stated that the conditions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance will have to be met at tentative tract map level. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Mr. Webb stated that it is possible that the additional traffic will be absorbed by the existing circulation system. -37- 3 � c _ m = m 'v m A a) y > Motion M0.ubstitute Motion 0 MINUTES March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Mr. Webb stated that assuming a peak hour would be 10 percent of the total, there would be approximately 80 additional cars per hour, or over 1� additional cars per minute. The following Straw Votes were taken on AREA B, the FIFTH AVENUE PARCEL: Commissioner McLaughlin stated that in view of the increased traffic which will be generated by the proposed development and the need for Oasis to study its future expansion plans, she made the following motion: Motion was made to deny the request for Area B, the Fifth Avenue Parcel. Substitute Motion was made by Commissioner Goff for approval of Area B, the Fifth Avenue Parcel, subject to the recommendations of the staff report, with the following revisions: An additional condition to allow for the area between the Oasis facility and the extension of Orchid Avenue to be designated as Open Space to allow acquisition for park dedication for the future expansion of the Oasis facility; an additional condition that the area north of the Oasis facility to be included in the Open Space designation for park space with park dedication credit; and, the revisions to Condition No. 6 as suggested by staff. Commissioner Goff stated that he would hope that drastic improvements would be made to the development at the tentative tract map level, as compared to the conceptual plan which has been presented by the applicant. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Kurlander, Mr. Lenard stated that 1.60 acres would be the park dedication requirement for this site, if no in -lieu fees were taken. -38- INDEX � r c w � m c n n v D • MINUTES March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach In response to a question posed by Planning Director Hewicker, Commissioner Goff stated that his motion states that the area between the existing Oasis facility and extension of Orchid Avenue, north of the project boundary and east of Marguerite Avenue, would be designated as Open Space to include the 1.06 acre park site, as opposed to the current designation of low density.residential. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Chairman King stated that the area referred to by Commissioner Goff consists of approximately A to 2 acres. Planning Director Hewicker stated that if this area is designated as Open Space, it can be acquired as dedication from existing and nearby developments, or in -lieu fees can be utilized to purchase the additional land. Chairman King expressed his c6ncern with the possible future development of a daycare center on the Oasis property and the traffic generation which it may produce, as opposed to the proposed development of single family residential units. Commissioner Goff stated that at this point he does not necessarily advocate the expansion of the Oasis facility. However, he stated that the City should have the flexibility of long range planning for this area. Chairman King suggested that the study for the Oasis facility expansion consider the advantages of utilizing satellite sites around the City. Commissioner McLaughlin expressed her concern that the existing circulation system can not handle the additional traffic which will be generated by the proposed density increase. In- response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Burnham stated that the two developments can be linked together by adding a condition that one of the parcels will not be developed without the completion of the traffic study on the other parcel. He stated that the tentative tract maps for the two parcels could be required to be submitted concurrently for consideration. -39- MINUTES March 10, 1983 ' ; x m . o 2. i City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Ayes X Noes X K Absent Ayes X X Noes X Absent 0 Commissioner Allen referred to Condition No. 5 and suggested that the line -of -sight be specified at three feet. Chairman King stated that in order to be consistent with past actions, a line -of -sight at four feet should be considered. Commissioner Goff stated that he would accept an amendment to his Substitute Motion for a line -of -sight at four feet. Substitute Motion by Commissioner Goff, as amended, was now voted on, which SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED. Original Motion made by Commissioner McLaughlin to deny the request for AREA B, the FIFTH AVENUE PARCEL, was now voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. At 11:45 p.m., the Planning Commission decided to hear the remainder of the Agenda, after acting upon the General Plan Amendment request. Area C Mr. Bernard Maniscalco, representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Maniscalco referred to a letter dated March 10, 1983, from Mr. Richard Sim, of The Irvine Company, which requested that Area C be deleted from further consideration in the General Plan Amendment. However, Mr. Maniscalco stated that if the Planning Commission determines that action on Area C is appropriate at this time, he requested the following revisions and additions to the staff recommendations. Mr. Maniscalco requested that the following revision be adopted to Condition No. 3: 3. That the parcel be re -zoned to the Open Space Zone for pas'sive open space use concurrent and--tn eeasideretiea--vf with the re -zoning of the Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue Parcels. -40- AREA C. COMMISSIONERS 1 MINUTES 10 n x � r c m m 3 m m N. March 10, 1963 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Maniscalco requested that Condition No. 4 be added as follows: 4. That the property owner shall be eligible to receive a credit against Quimby Act requirements for the value of those portions of Buck Gully which are made available to the public for active recreational uses allowable under the Local Coastal Program and the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan. Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, referred to Condition No. 3 and recommended the following language: 3. That the parcel be re -zoned to the Open Space Zone for passive open space use concurrent and in consideration of the increased densities permitted by General Plan Amendment 81-2 on the Marguerite Avenue parcel. Mr. Maniscalco requested that the word, "passive" be deleted. Chairman King stated that there is not a formalized definition for a passive use. However, he stated that a passive use does not require a team action or a sport that involves many people, but rather a paseo use such as a nature walk or jogging trail. He stated that the reference to passive, essentially indicates a public use of some form. He stated that the word "passive" determines the degree of activity which will take place. Planning Director Hewicker stated that if the word, "passive" is to be deleted from Condition No. 3, that the word, "active" should be deleted from the proposed additional Condition No. 4. Mr. Burnham stated that the use of the word, "passive" makes the applicant ineligible for Quimby Act credits. He suggested a compromise that the word, "passive" be deleted and the question of park credits can be determined at the tentative tract map level. He further stated that the terms "passive" and "active" are distinctions which apply directly to the Quimby Act. -41- m Q1 'cm z c>m > • L.J MINUTES March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach Mr. Maniscalco referred to an aerial photograph which depicted the boundaries of Buck Gully. Planning Director Hewicker stated that an increase of 31 dwelling units has been recommended for Parcel A, and Parcel B has been denied. He stated that had Parcel B also been approved, there would have been a total increase of 91 dwelling units for the two parcels. Mr. Lenard stated the Buck Gully parcel consists of approximately 65 gross acres. However, he stated that in considering the slope areas greater than 2:1 and making an allowance for streets within the area, there are approximately 50 buildable acres remaining. He stated that under the alternate low density residential designation, this would allow approximately 200 units. He further pointed out that the City's Location of Structures policy and the fact that Buck Gully is a meandering canyon, would make it very difficult to design a subdivision with 200 units. Mr. Richard Nichols, President of the Corona del Mar Community Association, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Nichols stated that since the City can not afford to develop the requested small park sites which have been discussed previously, he questioned how the City could afford to maintain the 65 acres in Buck Gully. He urged that the recommendation of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission be adopted which states that the low density residential designation be removed from the site as proposed by General Plan Amendment 81-2. Further, the City should not accept dedication of the property and that no park credits should be given pursuant to the City's Park Dedication Ordinance. Mr. Ronald Kennedy, resident of 550 Hazel Drive, expressed his concern that many of the homes already built in- Buck Gully were constructed on manufactured slopes. He stated that the 31 additional units allowed on Parcel A represents a good quid pro quo. He also stated that reference should be made towards a passive park area, otherwise a tennis court or a commercial use of the area may be intended. He also stated that the requirements of the Coastal Plan should be considered for Buck Gully. -42- INDEX MINUTES March 10, 1983 n x � r c � m m m N. City of Newport Beach m ROLL CALL INDEX Is s In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Kennedy stated that the quid pro quo of 31 additional units on Parcel A should be traded for Buck Gully as a passive park use. Planning Director Hewicker explained the existing zoning designation for Buck Gully. He stated that the staff is recommending that the alternate residential land use designation be removed. He stated that in consideration of the City removing the alternate residential designation, credit is being given for 31 additional units on Parcel A. He stated that this would leave the primary designation of Recreational and Environmental Open Space/Flora and Fauna Reserve on Parcel C. Mr. Richard Succa, resident of 715 Marguerite Avenue, stated that since no residential units are being proposed at this time, he recommended that no action taken be taken on the Buck Gully parcel. He stated that until development plans are proposed for this parcel, no action should be taken. He stated that credit for 31 additional units should not be given for Parcel A, if no action is taken on Parcel C. In response to a question posed by Mr. Succa, Commissioner Goff stated that having allowed an increase of density on Parcel A, compensates the applicant for the loss of residential revenue on Parcel C. Commissioner Goff added that Area A was not conditioned upon the redesignation of Area C. Mr. Maniscalco clarified that there would be 45 units on Parcel A, or an increase of only ,23 units. He stated that had Parcel B been approved, there would have been an additional 45 units, for a total of 85 units. Ms. Lavena Hayden, resident of 235 Poppy Avenue, stated that the City's park fund should not utilized to acquire and maintain Buck Gully. -43- � r c v m 7C m Y .m Motion Substi Motion 0 MINUTES March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach The following Straw Votes were taken on AREA C, the BUCK GULLY PARCEL: Commissioner Allen recommended that after weighing all of the factors and receiving the testimony on Area C, no changes should be made to the General Plan for this site. Motion was made that no changes be made to the General Plan for Area C, the Buck Gully Parcel. Substitute Motion was made by Commissioner McLaughlin for approval of Area C, the Buck Gully Parcel, subject to the recommendations of the staff report, with the following revisions: Condition No. 3 to be worded, "That the parcel be re -zoned to the Open Space Zone for open space use concurrent and in consideration of the increased densities permitted by General Plan Amendment 81-2 on the Marguerite Avenue parcel; and, approval does not include the additional Condition No. 4 as requested by the applicant. Commissioner Allen stated that The Irvine Company has requested that Area C be deleted from consideration in this General Plan Amendment and the public testimony has indicated that there is no desire to amend this parcel. She stated that her motion that no changes be made to the General Plan for this site, does not preclude The Irvine Company from dedicating a portion of Buck Gully as park dedication, at a future date. Commissioner Goff stated that in view of the approval of Area A and denial of Area B, he asked Mr. Burnham's opinion as to the City's legal position in terms of being required to acquire Buck Gully. Mr. Burnham stated that the City would not be required to acquire Buck Gully. He stated that if the Open Space designation were to be challenged by The Irvine Company, based upon the additional densities which are to be permitted, there is not a quid pro quo. Mr. Burnham referred to his previous memo on this item which explained the issue of granting compensating densities. -44- Ayes Noes Absent Ayes Absent t. X XIX MINUTES March 10, 1983 of Newport Beach In response to questions posed by Chairman King and Commissioner McLaughlin, Mr. Burnham stated that if no changes were to be made to the parcel, and if another General Plan Amendment were to be filed for Parcel B, the differential for this site could then be negotiated. Substitute Motion by Commissioner McLaughlin was now voted on, which SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED. Original Motion made by Commissioner Allen that no changes be made to the General Plan for AREA C, the BUCK GULLY PARCEL, was now voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. BIG CANYON AREA 16 Mr. Bernard Maniscalco, representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Maniscalco referred to a letter dated March 10, 1983, from Mr. Richard Sim, of The Irvine Company, in which language was proposed for Conditions No. 4 and 5. Mr. Maniscalco stated that they concur with the revision to the language of the affordable housing condition for Area A, the Marguerite Avenue Parcel. Therefore, he stated that Condition No. 4 for Big Canyon Area 16 would now read: 4. That a number of units equal to at least 10% of the total units be constructed on-site or off-site and be affordable to low and moderate income families using City standards. Mr. Maniscalco referred to Condition No. 5, relating to the fair share fund, and stated that their concerns expressed in Area A, the Marguerite Avenue Parcel, would also apply to Big Canyon Area 16. He then proposed the following language: -45- INDEX BIG CANYON AREA 16 Motion • March 10, 1983 City of Newport Beach MINUTES 5. At the time of future discretionary actions the project may be required to contribute a sum equal to its fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways, and any other similar mitigation measures, as required by the ordinances and resolutions of the City in force at the time of such action. Mr. Maniscalco further recommended that Condition No. 6, relating to the Mouth of Big Canyon, be deleted. He stated that the requirement for resolving park - credits and development rights should not be conditioned upon the development of Big Canyon Area 16. Mr. Maniscalco referred to an exhibit which depicted the area in question and stated that they are requesting that a medium density residential use shall be permitted on the site. He stated that there are approximately 8.7 buildable acres, which will allow for 10 dwelling units per acre, or approximately 87 units. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, asked if the 87 units are floating units which are already existing in the Big Canyon Planned Community. Mr. Maniscalco stated that there are up to 100 floating units available to be allocated to the site, therefore, he stated that the 87 proposed units are already existing in the Big Canyon Planned Community. Mr. Ronald Kennedy, resident of 550 Hazel Drive, expressed his concern that the park study funds were deleted from the General Plan Amendment. The following Straw Vote was taken on BIG CANYON AREA 16: Motion was made for approval of BIG CANYON AREA 16, subject to the recommendation of the staff report, with the revision that Condition No. 6 be worded, "That a number of units equal to at least 10% of the total units be constructed on-site or off-site and be affordable to low and moderate income families using City standards." -46- INDEX March 10, 1983 � z r m m c icp � z cf 01 c ? 6 p m m � m Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I III 1 1 1 1 I INDEX Ayes Absent i Motion for approval of BIG CANYON AREA 16 as stated, was now voted on, which MOTION CARRIED: Big Canyon - Area 16 Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. Medium -Density Residential use shall be permitted. 2. Remove the Recreation and Open Space/Golf Course designation. 3. That the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance shall be satisfied through on-site or off-site land dedication, the assessment of in -lieu fees or a combination of the above as determined by the Planning Commission and City Council, after recommendation by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 4. That a number of units equal to at least 10% of the total units be constructed on-site or off-site and be affordable to low and moderate income families using City standards. 5. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. 6. Prior to the approval by the City of any future discretionary actions (i.e., zoning and tentative tract), the question of park credits, development rights and ownership of the Mouth of Big Canyon shall be resolved. -47- COMMISSICNJERS MINUTES marcn 1u, 17CS � x m = m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX NEWPORT CENTER - BLOCK 400 NEWPORT CENTER - Mr. Frank Rhodes, resident of 1417 E. Bay Front, and BLOCK 400 representing Newport Center Medical Buildings, Inc., appeared before the Commission. Mr. Rhodes states that they concur with the staff recommendations for Newport Center - Block 400. Commissioner Allen stated that it was her understanding that prior to General Plan Amendment 78-2, the allowable development on the site was for 60,000 square feet, as opposed to 80,000 square feet. Mr. Rhodes stated that the City Attorney has reviewed the original lease on the site which provided for 160,000 square feet of floor area in two buildings. He stated that the first building had a minimum square footage ' requirement of 60,000 square feet, which may be where Commissioner Allen recalls the 60,000 square feet figure. • The following Straw Vote 'was taken on NEWPORT CENTER - BLOCK.400: Motion X Motion was made for approval of NEWPORT CENTER - BLOCK Ayes X X X X K x 400, subject to the recommendations of the staff Absent * report, which MOTION CARRIED, as follows: Newport Center - Block 400 Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan: 1. Allow the addition of 80,000 square feet of medical office development in Newport Center, along with related parking facilities. 2. Specify this additional allowable development to Block 400, on the parcel located at 400 Newport Center Drive East. 3. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 4. Specify the development be subject to further review and approval of a use permit -48- otion Ayes Noes Absent 0 V a March 10, 1993 MINUTES of Newport Beach 5. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. CAMPUS DRIVE Mr. Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator, recommended that Condition No. 3 be deleted. He stated that the traffic lid of 0.5 would be sufficient to control the uses in the area. The following Straw Vote was taken on CAMPUS DRIVE: Motion was made for approval of CAMPUS DRIVE, subject to the recommendations of the staff report, with the deletion of Condition No. 3, which MOTION CARRIED, as follows: Campus Drive Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan: 1. Revise the land use designation for the area bounded by Dove Street, Birch Street, Bristol Street and Campus Drive to a mixture of General Industry and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial. 2. Establish a permitted intensity of development for the Campus Drive area (as shown on Exhibit 7 following Page 12 of the draft EIR) of 0.5 floor area ratio, with a floor area ratio of up to 1.0 permitted upon review and approval of a use permit. This increase in permitted floor area may be approved if a finding can be made that the traffic and circulation system impacts are no greater than those generated by an office development at 0.5 FAR. The floor area ratio limits are defined as the ratio of gross structural area to the buildable area of the site. -49- INDEX CAMPUS DRIVE COAAMISSIONERS1 MINUTES March 10, 1983 E ? m m >. N. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 3. Deleted by the Planning Commission. 4. Direct that the zoning in the area be amended to implement this General Plan Amendment. 5. At the time of future discretionary actions, individual projects shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. The Planning Commission then took the following actions on GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81-2 and AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM: Sotion g Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1088, RESOLUTION NO. 1088 Ayes X X X X recommending to the City Council that the proposed Absent * amendments, as evidenced in the approved Straw Votes, to the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan be adopted, and in recommending approval of said' amendment that the Environmental Impact Report prepared in conjunction with the project be certified as adequate and complete (General Plan Amendment 81-2), which MOTION CARRIED. Motion X Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1089, RESOLUTION Ayes 2 x X X X recommending to the City Council approval of an NO. 1089 Absent * amendment to the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan for the CalTrans West Site, which MOTION CARRIED. * * * -50- • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS x 9C�tn0 REGy ETING uncil NCIL Chambers 9 F �'1�>. PLACE CoAR to S TIME: 7:� P.M. DATE: May 9, 1983 oni i rA, 1 9 'P S MINUTES INDEX Present x x x x x x A. ROLL CALL. Absent x Motion x B. The reading of the Minutes of the Meeting of Ayes x x x x April 25, 1983, was waived, approved as Abstained x x written, and ordered filed with correction to Page 139, paragraph 1, line 2, word "new" to show delineation as: Motion x C. The reading in full of all ordinances and All Ayes resolutions under consideration was waived, and the City Clerk was directed to read by titles only. D. HEARINGS: 1. Mayor Hart opened the continued public GPA 81-2 hearing regarding GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (45) 81-2, a request initiated by the City of 6 LCP/LUP Newport Beach to amend the Land Use Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Amnd No. 2 ' Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. Components: a) CALTRANS WEST Location: Northwesterly comer of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned). General Plan: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. Zone: 0-S (Open Space) District. Proponent: State of California, Dept. of Transportation. b) FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS Location: A: Westerly of Marguerite Avenue between Fifth Avenue and Harbor View Drive. B: Northerly of Fifth Avenue between Marguerite Avenue and Buck Gully. C: Along the eastern City Boundary between Fifth Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road. Volume 37 - Page 145 CERfW DAZ A RU� CQRRECT CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 0 1 u • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS t� ¢- q(, ROLL CALLO ����� Mx" May 9, 1983 MINUTES INDEX General Plan: Low Density Residential GPA 81-2 and Recreational and S Environmental Open Space. LCP/LUP Amnd No. 2 Zone: R -1-B (Single -Family with B Combining) District. Proponent: The Irvine Company. c) BIG CANYON AREA 16 Location: Southwesterly of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. General Plan: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. Zone: P -C (Planned Community) District. ' Proponent: The Irvine Company. d) NEWPORT CENTER - BLOCK 400 Location: Northeasterly of Newport Center Drive East and San Miguel Drive. General Plan: Administrative Professional, and III I Financial Commercial. Zone: C -O -H (Commercial) District. Proponent: Newport Center Medical I Buildings, Inc. e) CAMPUS DRIVE Location: Area bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street, Orchard Avenue, and Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue. • 0 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS \rA( y�, o\�9� 9GtMaF y 9, 1983 gni i 9 it S MINUTES INDEX Proponent: The City of Newport GPA 81-2 Beach. 6 LCP/LUP AND Amnd No. 2 2. Continued public hearing regarding AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE ADOPTED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, LAND USE PLAN, a request initiated by the City of Newport Beach to amend the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program for the CALTRANS WEST site. Location: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned). LCP: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. Zone: 0-S. Proponent: State of California, Dept. of Transportation. Report from the Planning Department, was presented. At this time, Council Member Plummer took her seat at the Council table. ' George Schlafke, 1811 Beneta Way, Tustin, and Newport Beach property owner, addressed the Council regarding the CalTraus West property stating that, there is no guaranty the .compromise will be abided by all parties; he was against rezoning; and Newport Beach does not need more high density, or private interest property, but more park and greenbelt areas. Upon Council inquiry, the City Manager related there are still a number of discretionary reviews that must occur, both at the Planning Commission level and City Council level, i.e., zoning, tentative and final subdivision maps, subject to public • hearing and scrutiny by the Planning Commission and City Council. There are laws permitted by the State to assure compliance with conditions imposed by the City. This particular item also has to go before the Coastal Commission with the public hearing process, and it would probably be six months to a year before coming back to the Newport Beach City Council. Susie Picker, 110 -9th Street, Balboa, addressed the Council, stating the City already has a tremendous amount of projected growth in the form of the Banning project, and requested the Council do everything they can to contain the CalTrans West property as open space. Volume 37 - Page 147 0 E • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS v���o��9 SOL 9G�� May 9, 1983 MINUTES INDEX After determining no one else wished to GPA 81-2 address the Council, the public hearing was 6 closed. LCP/LUP Amnd No. 2 Motion x Motion was made to approve General Plan All Ayes Amendment 81-2 and Amendment No. 2 to the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and adopt Resolution No. 83-42 accepting, Res 83-42 approving and certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report; AND Make the Findings contained in the Statement of Facts with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report; AND Find that the Facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations are true and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the Final Environmental Impact Report; AND With respect to the project, find that although the Final Environmental Impact Report identifies certain uaavoidable� significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, the mitigation measures identified shall be incorporated into the proposed project, and all significant environmental effects that can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level, and that the remaining unavoidable significant effects, when balanced against the facts set forth in said Statement of Overriding Considerations, giving greater weight to the unavoidable environmental effects, are acceptable; AND Adopt Resolution No. 83-43 approving Res 83-43 amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan for the CalTrans West, Big Canyon Area 16, Newport Center - Block 400, and Campus Drive Sites; AND Adopt Resolution No. 83-44 approving Amendment No. 2 to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan for the CalTrans West site. Volume 37 - Page 148 Res 83-44 • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING \rAL\L �PLACE:Council Chambers .9TIME: 7:30 P.M. s9GipDATE: April 11, 1983 ROLL �9 �, dt ID1nFY Present x x x x x x x A. ROLL CALL. ' Motion x B. The reading of the Minutes of the Meeting of All Ayes March 28, 1983 was waived, approved as written and ordered filed. Motion x C. The reading of all ordinances and resolutions All Ayes under consideration was waived, and the City Clerk was directed to read by titles only. D. HEARINGS: 1. Mayor Hart opened the continued_public GPA 81-2 hearing regarding_ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (45) 81-2, a request initiated by the City'of b Newport Beach to amend the Land Use LCP/LUP Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Amnd No. 2 Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. Components: a) CALTRANS WEST Location: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned). General Plan: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. Zone: 0-S (Open Space) District. Proponent: State of California, Dept. of Transportation. b) FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS Location: A: Westerly of Marguerite Avenue between Fifth Avenue and Harbor View Drive. B: Northerly of Fifth Avenue between Marguerite Avenue and Buck Gully. C: Along the eastern City Boundary between Fifth Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road. General Plan: Low Density Residential and Recreational and Environmental Open Space. Volume 37 - Paee 114 • Ll \ 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS \CA[ROLL ���� yG�s April 11, 1983 MINUTES INDEX Zone: R -1-B (Single -Family with 'GPA 81-2 B Combining) District. 6 LCP,/LLP Proponent: The Irvine Company. Amnd No. c) BIG CANYON AREA 16 Location: Southwesterly of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. General Plan: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. Zone: P -C (Planned Community) District. Proponent: The Irvine Company. d) NEWPORT CENTER - BLOCK 400 Location: Northeasterly of Newport Center Drive East and San Miguel Drive. • General Plan: Administrative Professional, and Financial Commercial. ' Zone: C -O -H (Commercial) District. Proponent: Newport Center Medical Buildings, Inc. e) CAMPUS DRIVE Location: Area bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street, Orchard Avenue, and Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue. General Plan: General Industry, Administrative _ Professional and Financial Commercial, and Retail and Service Commercial. Zone: M -1-A (Industrial) District, A -P (Administrative, Professional) District, and C-1 (Commercial) District. Volume 37 - Page 115 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS \CAL-\L q FR� F� �Q tP April 11, 1983 MINUTES INDEX Proponent: The City of Newport GPA 81-2 Beach. 6 LCP/LUP AND Amnd No. 2 2. Continued public hearing regarding AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE ADOPTED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, LAND USE PLAN, a request initiated by the City of Newport Beach to amend the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program for the CALTRANS WEST site. Location: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned). LOP: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. Zone: O -S. Proponent: State of California, Dept. of Transportation. Report from the Planning Department, was presented. Letter from D. Masters regarding GPA 81-2, was presented. Letter from Luvena Hayton regarding development on Parcels A and B along Fifth Avenue and Marguerite, Corona del Mar, was presented. The City Clerk reported that after the printing of the agenda, a letter had been received from Mrs. R. B. Lemmon, opposing the proposal by The Irvine Company for Parcel (B) of the Fifth Avenue parcels. Mayor Pro Tem Maurer and Council Member Cox requested the minutes reflect that they had listened to the tape recording of the public hearing on General Plan Amendment No. 81-2 held March 28, 1983, and therefore, would be able to participate at this time. It was suggested that the Council consider each component separately, and following public testimony, take straw votes sustaining, modifying or overruling the recommendations of the Planning Commission. CALTRANS WEST The City Manager summarized the proposal for the subject property, as set forth in the staff reports of March 28 and April 11, 1983. Volume 37 - Page 116 • E 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS !�\V\ROLL SF��F9Gis+J+ April 11, 1983 MINUTES . iunFY It was recommended that the last sentence of GPA 81-2 Condition No. 7 be deleted, and alternate d language be substituted for Condition No. 12, LCP/LUP as set forth in the staff report of March 28, Amnd No. 2 1983. David Sims, State Department of Transportation, explained their reasons for seeking the General Plan Amendment. He stated that they had no objection to deleting, the last sentence of Condition No. 7. With respect to Condition No. 12, CALTRANS has entered into an agreement providing access to the City for the realignment of Superior Avenue, and the only two items holding up the necessary dedication of right-of-way, are approvals by the California Transportation Commission, as well as the City Council of the General Plan Amendmemnt. Chris Hansen, 22 Encore Court, President, Newport Crest Homeowners Association, addressed the Council in support of CALTRANS' . proposal. Five site plan alternatives for the CALTRANS WEST site illustrating park dedication options were exhibited and explained by staff, as enumerated in a supplemental report. Motion x A straw vote was taken to.approve the._ proposal for the CALTRANS WEST site as recommended by the Planning Commission, with the deletion of the last sentence. of Condition No. 7, and substituting the alternate language for Condition No. 12 to read as follows: "Upon approval of this amendment by the City Council, CALTRANS will dedicate to the City of Newport Beach the property required for the realignment of Superior Avenue." Included in the motion was approval of Amendment No. 2 to the Adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, for the CALTRANS WEST site. Council Member Plummer referred to Condition No. 14, and suggested if the traffic signal has not been installed at Ticonderoga and Superior Avenue when this proposal reaches the tract map stage, that it be considered as one of the traffic improvements to be paid ' for by the developer. Volume 37 - Page 117 is 0 .1 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS RO �9 April 11, 1983 T1IR4tr4-9 INDEX All Ayes The motion was voted on and carried. GPA 81-2 FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS LCP/LUP Amnd No. 2 The City Manager summarized the proposal, as set forth in the staff report. Council Member Agee advised that following public testimony, he will make a motion to withdraw the Fifth Avenue parcels (A, B and Q from General Plan Amendment No. 81-2 for consideration at this time. He stated it is his intention that they be reintroduced in May with public hearings to be held in July and August. He felt more time was needed for community input, as well as additional information regarding in -lieu park fees, future park plans, public and park views, traffic and requirements of traffic phasing ordinance, and future plans of Oasis Center, etc. Bernard Maniscalco of The Irvine Company addressed the Council and indicated that they had no objection to a "reasonable extension of time." Derek Torley, 1032 Goldenrod Avenue, addressed the Council and suggested action be deferred if there were any doubts among the Council. Abe Addington) 990 Sandcastle Drive, addressed the Council in opposition to the proposal stating that he had seen the conceptual design plans presented at the Planning Commission meeting and felt the proposed development was too "congested." It was pointed out to Mr. Addington, that the plan he had seen was only a tentative plan, and that final approval must be given by the City Council. Mat Hall, 1654 W. Cliff Drive, Treasurer, Friends of the Oasis, addressed the Council and spoke in support of the Oasis and the many activities it offers senior citizens. Motion x Motion was made during Mr. Hall's All Ayes presentation to allow him one additional minute to conclude his remarks. Kent Moore, 205 Carnation Avenue, addressed the Council and spoke in support of retaining park land and open space for recreational use. Volume 37 - Page 118 • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS 1?1 1001NMSN015k� ROLL pG�� April 11> 1983 MINUTES INDEX John Marcella, 873 Sandcastle Avenue, GPA 81-2 addressed the Council and spoke in favor of 6 deferring action on the Fifth Avenue parcels LCP/LDP at this time, as suggested by Council Member Amnd No. 2 Agee. Helmick R. Miller, 1627 Bay Cliff Circle, Chairman of the Friends of Oasis, addressed the Council in support of Council Member Agee's suggestion. He also stated that there was a definite need for senior citizen housing in the community, suggesting utilization of the parcel adjacent to Friends of Oasis. Motion x Motion was made during Mr. Miller's All Ayes presentation to allow him one additional minute to conclude his remarks. Cha rmagne Addington, 990 Sandcastle Drive, addressed the Council and questioned whose responsibility it will be to maintain the drainage system in Buck Gully. The Director of Public Works responded that Buck Gully, north of Coast Highway, is privately -owned -unimproved, and there is no drainage easement. Richard Nichols, President, Corona del Mar Community Association, addressed the Council and submitted 117 signatures, in addition to the previously submitted petitions, requesting the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Corona del Mar, prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property. Mr. Nichols spoke in support of Council Member Agee's proposal to defer action on the Fifth Avenue parcels. He stated that their association had two primary concerns, i.e., the need for a park study before any open space is rezoned, and traffic to be generated as a result of the subject proposal. William Nelson, 882 Sandcastle Drive, addressed the Council and spoke in favor of deferring action at this time. Ron Kennedy, 550 Hazel Drive, addressed the Council and also spoke in support of deferring this item, indicating he felt the park study needed to be completed prior to any consideration. Volume 37 - Paee 119 • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS ve C0 �e, % ti9 ti� ROLL�P �� �� April 11, 1983 MINUTES INDEX Ron Covington, 707 Orchid Avenue, also spoke GPA 81-2 in favor of the suggestion to defer, and the 6 need for a park study. He also suggested LCP/LUP that the Council not accept in -lieu park Amnd No. 2 fees, and stated that he objected to the concept of a view park at Harbor View Hills as the only alternative to park dedication proposed by the developer. He suggested that an examination and assessment be made of the traffic generated on the flower -named streets in Corona del Mar to Poppy Avenue, as he felt there were potential hazards connected with the proposal. In conclusion, he urged that the Council be "aggressive" brokers in order that the community be provided a park site. Motion x Motion was made to withdraw the Fifth Avenue All Ayes parcels designated as Parcels A, B and C from General Plan Amendment No. 81-2, to be reintroduced in May with public hearings to. be scheduled in July and August. BIG CANYON AREA 16 The City Manager summarized the proposal, as set forth in the staff report. Bernard Maniscalco of The Irvine Company addressed the Council and stated that the density that is being allocated to Big Canyon Area 16 is density that was already allocated in the Big Canyon Planned Community. The area was designated as Open Space and reserved for a freeway interchange and when the freeway interchange was eliminated, it then became available for inclusion in the Big Canyon Planned Community. Motion A straw vote was taken to approve Big Canyon All Ayes x Area 16, as recommended by. the Planning Commission. NEWPORT CENTER BLOCK 400 The City Manager summarized the proposal, as set forth in the staff report. Frank Rhodes, 1417 E. Bay, General Partner of Newport Center Medical Buildings, addressed the Council and stated they concurred in the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and that he was available for questions. In response to Council inquiry, Mr. Rhodes ' indicated it would be difficult to estimate the number of additional employees which could be generated as a result of the new medical facility, inasmuch as the new building will be mostly occupied by tenants of the existing buildings. Volume 37 - Paee 120 0 0 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 11, 1983 Motion x A straw vote was taken to approve Newport GPA 81-2 Center Block 400, as recommended by the 6 Planning Commission. LCP/LAP Amnd No. 2 Council Member Heather stated that she would be supporting the motion; however, when this item comes back for use permit approval, she will be looking at it closely, as she has a real concern with medical parking, in that she feels it generates more parking needs than any other office use. Council Member Strauss concurred with the foregoing remarks. All Ayes The motion was voted on and carried. CAMPUS DRIVE The City Manager summarized the proposal, as set forth in the staff report. Motion x A straw vote was taken to approve Campus All Ayes •Drive, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Motion x Motion was made to continue the public All Ayes hearing and direct the staff to prepare resolutions, mitigation measures, and statements of facts and overriding considerations, incorporating the results of the straw votes, for consideration and adoption at the City Council meeting of May 9, 1983. regarding ORDINANCE NO. 83-19, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING PORTIONS OF DISTRICTING MAPS NO. 22 AND 25 FROM THE UNCLASSIFIED/MHP DISTRICT TO THE' UNCLASSIFIED (2178)/MHP DISTRICT (SEACLIFFE AND NEWPORT TERRACE MOBILE HOME PARK SITES), AND THE,REMAINING RESIDENTIALLY-DESIGNATED.AREA FROM THE UNCLASSIFIED DISTRICT TO THE R-3 (2178) DISTRICT, j PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 588, initiated by the City of Newport Beach to amend said areas with the acceptance of an Environmental Document. Report from the Planning Department, was Ord 83-19 Mobile Home Pk Dist/2ng (94) is CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS � �gG9�tgC ROLL (:6CInO G,'J� REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING PLACE: Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: March 28, 1983 MINUTES INDEX Present x x x x x A. ROLL CALL. Absent x x Motion x B. The reading of the Minutes of the Meeting of All Ayes March 14, 1983, was waived, approved as written and ordered filed. Motion x C. The reading in full of all ordinances and All Ayes resolutions under consideration was waived, and the City Clerk was directed to read by titles only. D. HEARINGS: 1. Mayor Hart opened the public hearing GPA 81-2 regarding GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81-2, a (45) request initiated by the City of'Newport Beach to amend the Land Use Residential S LCP/LUP Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Amnd No. 2 Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. Components: a) CALTRANS WEST Location: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned). General Plan: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. Zone: 0-S (Open Space) District. Proponent: State of California, Dept. of Transportation. b) FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS Location: A: Westerly of Marguerite Avenue between Fifth Avenue and Harbor View Drive. ' B: Northerly of Fifth Avenue between Marguerite Avenue and Buck Gully. C: Along the eastern City Boundary between Fifth Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road. Volume 37 - Page 97 ' • 0 1 � CI fY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS \C? N RO yF. f"15G�tP March 28, 1983 MINUTES INDEX General Plan: Low Density Residential GPA 81-2 and Recreational and Environmental Open Space. & CP/LUP Zone: R -1-B (Single -Family with Amad No. 2 B Combining) District. Proponent: The Irvine Company. c) BIG CANYON AREA 16 Location: Southwesterly of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. General Plan: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. Zone: P -C (Planned Community) District. Proponent: The Irvine Company. d) NEWPORT CENTER - BLOCK 400 Location: Northeasterly of Newport Center Drive East and San Miguel Drive. General Plan: Administrative Professional, and Financial Commercial. Zone: C -O -R (Commercial) District. Proponent: Newport Center Medical Buildings, Inc. e) CAMPUS DRIVE Location: Area bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street, Orchard Avenue, and Campus Drive/Irvine AV PIIItP_ 0- • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS c(a%9Gv� 9�G�9 March 28, 1983 MINUTES INDEX Zone: M -1-A (Industrial) GPA 81-2 • District, A -P S • (Administrative, LCP/LUP Professional) District, Amnd No. 2 and C-1 (Commercial) District. Proponent: The City of Newport Beach. AND 2. Public hearing regarding AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE ADOPTED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, LAND USE PLAN, a request initiated by the City of Newport Beach to amend the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program for the CALTRANS WEST site. Location: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned). LCP: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. Zone: O -S. Proponent: State of California, Dept. of Transportation. Report from the Planning Department, was presented. The City Clerk advised that after the printing of the agenda, a letter from SPON was received regarding GPA 81-2; relationship to park needs and park dedication ordinance. CALTRANS WEST: The Planning Director summarized the proposal and the action of the Planning Commission for the CALTRANS WEST site. He answered questions of the Council regarding access to the site, the park site within the area, the Banning Ranch,Project, servicing of the utilities, landscaping of the greenbelt area, and low and moderate income housing, etc. David.D. Reed of CALTRANS, addressed the Council and stated that the proposal prepared by the City had been reviewed and that they had no objections. However, he did have some concerns about park dedication. It was his understanding that the 5 -acre park site described in recommendation No. 7 of the Volume 37 - Page 99 0 is 1• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS 9! c�?SSS y Fp\��� March 28. 1983 MINUTES INDEX staff report, encompasses a portion of the GPA 81-2 Beeco property, and that CALTRANS WEST was 6 going to have 2.4 acres involved in park LCP/LUP dedication. He stated that if there were Amnd No. 2 modifications to the City's proposal, they they would need to review the items relating to their participation. FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS: The Planning Director summarized the proposal of The Irvine Company, and the action of the Planning Commission, for the Fifth Avenue Parcels. Bernard Maniscalco of The Irvine Company made a presentation, and described the three parcels under consideration as shown on their exhibit. He referred to their letter of March 15, 1983, noting their response to the recommendations of the Planning Commission for GPA 81-2, which was included with the Planning Department's staff report. . It was noted by The Irvine Company that their proposal had been presented to various community associations, civic organizations, interested groups, and the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for public input.' Mr. Maniscalco outlined the conditions and recommendations supported by The Irvine Company for Areas A, B and C, as enumerated in their letter of March 15, 1983. He also discussed the primary issues identified at the Planning Commission hearing. The Planning Director summarized the park . dedication requirements for Areas A and B, as requested by Council Member Agee. It was noted that Area B was not recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. Reference was made to the incremental increase in traffic, which would be generated as a result of developing Areas A and B, as set forth in the Environmental Impact Report Appendix, Pages B-10 through 14, and explained by Traffic Consultant Mr. Darnell. Lloyd Crausy, 4015 Topside Lane, President of Harbor View Hills Association South, addressed the Council and reiterated some of the Association's concerns expressed at the Planning Commission hearings regarding views, density, traffic, alleys and preservation of open space. He suggested that the land Volume 37 - Page 100 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS 9c�� �?�9G��'y��� y��9Gs Rnl f Ai S March 28, 1983 MINUTES INDEX proposed for alleys be utilized for park GPA 81-2 purposes or reduced density. He stated it 6 would be their recommendation that the City LCP/LUP continue with low-density zoning for Area H; Amnd No. 2 that no in -lieu fees be accepted in place of park land; and that some of the park land be contiguous to the present Oasis Center. A letter summarizing their concerns was submitted. Lawrence Weeshoff, Treasurer, Harbor View Hills Association South, addressed the Council regarding preservation of views, traffic, and density. He urged that the density remain as currently exists. Alice Remer, 210 Goldenrod Avenue, addressed the Council and submitted a letter pertaining to the development of the Fifth Avenue parcel. She indicated consideration should be given to the following: 1) Housing for the general population; 2) Rental housing for seniors; 3) Open space for active recreation; 4) Space for the OASIS Senior Center to expand; and 5) Preservation of views for Harbor View . residents. Dick Succa, 715 Marguerite Avenue, addressed the Council, stating his primary concern was increased traffic and density. He also recommended that the Council not accept in -lieu park fees. Dick Nichols, President, Corona del Mar Community Association, addressed the Council and submitted a copy of a letter regarding the subject proposal and how he felt certain parcels of land could be utilized, which also had been presented to the Planning Commission. He also submitted a petition signed by approximately 450 residents requesting the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in and adjacent to Corona del Mar, prior to rezoning schools or properties zoned open space. In particular, they refer to the rezoning of Corona del Mar Elementary School and the redesignation of the 5th Street properties from greenbelt, parks and open space, to medium or high density residential. Volume 37 - Page 101 0 0 E CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS �po��FN�F9 ROLL \QAI�t ' March 28, 1983 MINUTES INDEX Mr. Nichols expressed his opposition to Amnd No. 2 accepting in -lieu park fees, and indicated he LCP/LUP felt it would set a dangerous precedent. He also discussed traffic with respect to Parcels A and B, dedication of a greenbelt and a park view site. Hon Kennedy, 550 Hazel Drive, addressed the Council regarding an apparent inconsistency of the various elements of the General Plan. He also questioned why the park study had not been completed prior to consideration of this proposal. In addition, he stated his reasons for wanting to retain low density residential for the Marguerite parcel. The Planning Director stated that the park study referred to by Mr. Kennedy is an update of the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan, which originally was presented two years ago, and has now been included in the 1982-83 Budget. H. R. Miller, 1627 Bay Cliff Circle, Active Chairman of the Board of Directors, Friends of the Oasis, addressed the Council regarding Area B. He requested that Council consider the needs of the community prior to the needs of the developer, due to the number of senior citizens within the City. He stated that the senior citizen population has grown 109. since 1976, and that approximately 25% of the City's total population represents senior citizens. He recommended that the Council not accept in -lieu fees. Motion x park Mr. Miller was granted an additional All Ayes 3 -minutes for his presentation. Clyde Brenner, 616 Marguerite Avenue, addressed the Council regarding traffic and its relation to children. She also recommended that the Council not accept in -lieu park fees. Tye Comeras, 932 Sandcastle Drive, addressed the Council and stated he felt the.basic proposal was for the benefit of The Irvine Company and not the community, and that the proposed development could not be compared with that of Old Corona del Mar and Harbor View Hills. Volume 37 - Page 102 • go CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS 9c�� � y9G9��F'�F GAS ROI_I CCI I ?1 March 28, 1983 MINUTES INDEX BIG CANYON AREA 16: The Planning Director Amnd No. 2 summarized the subject proposal, as set forth LCP/LUP in the staff report. Bernard Maniscalco of The Irvine Company addressed the Council and cited their response to the Planning Commission's recommendations and conditions, as set forth in their letter of March 15, 1983. NEWPORT CENTER - BLOCK 400: The Planning Director outlined the subject proposal as enumerated in the staff report and answered questions of the Council regarding traffic modeling, parking, and fair share allocation toward traffic circulation system improvements. Frank Rhodes, 1417 E. Bay Avenue, General Partner, Newport Center Medical Building, described the rendering on display, and advised that they concur with all recommendations of the Planning Commission. CAMPUS DRIVE: The Planning Director explained the proposed subject, as set forth in the staff report, and answered questions of the Council regarding zoning, parking and fair share allocation toward traffic improvements and the circulation system. Motion x Motion was made to continue the public All Ayes hearing tc April, 11, 1983. There being no objections, the staff was directed to clarify the following items at the next meeting: 1) The zoning to be applied to Campus Drive; 2) Parking for Block 400; 3) Density of Old Corona del Mar; 4) In -lieu park fees; and 5) Provide a map showing potential Open Space for CALTRANS WEST site. 3. Mayor Hart opened the public hearing Ord 83-17 regarding ORDINANCE NO. 83-17, being,Zoning (94) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWDORT BEACH AMENDING A PORTION OF PnTRICTING MAP NO. 3 SO AS TO RECLASSS PROPERTY FROM THE C-1, C -1-M, D'UNCLASSIFIED DISTR(0.25] DISTRICT, Z. Volume 37 - Page 103 0 City Council Staff Reports 9 • TO: FROM: City Council Meeting May 9, 1983 Agenda Items No. D-]. and D-2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Planning Department SUBJECTS: D-1. General Plan Amendment 81-2 (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan and the acceptance of an environmental document. COMPONENTS: (a) CalTrans West LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned). GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open Space ZONE: 0-S (Open Space) District PROPONENT: State of California, Department of Transportation (b) Fifth Avenue Parcels LOCATION: A: Westerly of Marguerite Avenue between Fifth Avenue and Harbor View Drive. B: Northerly of Fifth Avenue between Marguerite Avenue and Buck Gully. C: Along the eastern City boundary between Fifth Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road. GENERAL PLAN: Low Density Residential and Recreational and Environmental Open Space ZONE: R -1-B (Single Family with B combining) District PROPONENT: The Irvine Company (c) Big Canyon Area 16 LOCATION: Southwesterly of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open Space ZONE: P -C (Planned Community) District t 0 - • TO: City Council - 2 PROPONENT: The Irvine Company (d) Newport Center - Block 400 LOCATION: Northeasterly of Newport Center Drive East and San Miguel Drive. GENERAL PLAN: Administrative Professional, and Financial Commercial ZONE: C -O -H (Commercial) District PROPONENT: Newport Center Medical Buildings, Inc. (e) Campus Drive LOCATION: Area bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street, Orchard Avenue, and Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue. GENERAL PLAN: General Industry, Administrative Professional and Financial Commercial, and Retail and Service Commercial ZONE: M -1-A (Industrial) District, A -P (Administrative Professional) District, and C-1 (Commercial) District PROPONENT: The City of Newport Beach INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach the Request to amend the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program for the Caltrans West site. LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned). LCP: Recreational and Environmental Open Space ZONE: 0-S PROPONENT: State of California, Transportation INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Department of TO: City Council - 3 Suggested Action Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, a. Adopt Resolution No. accepting, approving and certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report; wry b. Make the Findings contained in the Statement of Facts with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report; AND c. Find that the Facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations are true and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the Final Environmental Impact Report; AND d. With respect to the project, find that although the Final Environmental Impact Report identifies certain unavoidable significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, the mitigation measures identified shall be incorporated into the proposed project, and all significant environmental effects that can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level, and that the remaining unavoidable significant effects, when balanced against the facts set forth in said Statement of Overriding Considerations, giving greater weight to the unavoidable environmental effects, are acceptable; MIS e. Adopt Resolution No. approving amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan; 0 f. Adopt Resolution No. approving Amendment No. 2 to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan for the CalTrans West site. •I TO: City Council - 4 • Discussion On April 11, 1983, the City Council completed public testimony and took straw votes on General Plan Amendment 81-2. Attached to this report are the resolutions necessary for the final action of the City Council. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director PATRICIA L. TEMPL Senior Planner PLT:nma Attachments: 1. Resolution No. certifying the Environmental Impact Report. 2. Resolution No. adopting amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan. 3. Resolution No. adopting Amendment No. 2 to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. • 0 City Council Meeting April 11, 1983 Agenda Items No. D-1 & D-2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECTS: D-1. General Plan Amendment 81-2 (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan and the acceptance of an environmental document. COMPONENTS: (a) CalTrans West LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned). GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open Space ZONE: 0-S (Open Space) District PROPONENT: State of California, Department of Transportation (b) Fifth Avenue Parcels LOCATION: A: Westerly of Marguerite Avenue between Fifth Avenue and Harbor View Drive. B: Northerly of Fifth Avenue between Marguerite Avenue and Buck Gully. C: Along the eastern City boundary between Fifth Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road. GENERAL PLAN: Low Density Residential and Recreational and Environmental Open Space ZONE: R -1-B (Single Family with B combining) District PROPONENT: The Irvine Company (c) Big Canyon Area 16 LOCATION: Southwesterly of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open Space ,' ZONE. P -C (Planned Community) District TO: City Council - 2 '• PROPONENT: The Irvine Company (d) Newport Center - Block 400 LOCATION: Northeasterly of Newport Center Drive East and San Miguel Drive. GENERAL PLAN: Administrative Professional, and Financial Commercial ZONE: C -O -H (Commercial) District PROPONENT: Newport Center Medical Buildings, Inc. (e) Campus Drive LOCATION: Area bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street, Orchard Avenue, and Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue. GENERAL PLAN: General Industry, Administrative Professional and Financial Commercial, and Retail and Service Commercial ZONE: M -1-A (Industrial) District, A -P (Administrative, Professional) District, and C-1 (Commercial) . District PROPONENT: The City of Newport Beach INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach No. 2 to Request to amend the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program for the Caltrans West site. LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned). LCP: Recreational and Environmental Open Space ZONE: 0-S PROPONENT: State of California, Department of Transportation INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Suggested Action Hold hearing; if desired; take straw votes on each component, sustaining, modifying, or overruling the recommendations of the Planning Commission in TO: City Council - 3 each case, and continue the public hearing, directing staff to prepare resolutions, mitigation measures, and statements of facts and overriding considerations, incorporating the results of the straw votes, for consideration and adoption at the City Council meeting of Background On June 4, 1981, the Planning Commission initiated General Plan Amendment 81-2 consistent with City Council Policy Q-1 in effect at that time. Eight areas were originally set for possible amendment, but three dropped out prior to preparation of the environmental document. In addition to the General Plan Amendments initiated, Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan amendments were set for those proposals in the coastal zone. A draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the City by Phillips Brandt Reddick, Inc. The report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A.) and City Council Policy K-3. The draft EIR has been submitted to state, local, and regional jurisdictions and agencies, and interested parties. Copies of the draft EIR, the Technical Appendices, and Volume Three of the draft EIR were attached to the City Council Staff Report of March 28, 1983. It is requested that the City Council bring the March 28, 1983 staff report with attachments to the public hearing. Discussion At the March 28, 1983 public hearing several questions were raised and requests for additional information made on the various components of General Plan Amendment 81-2. These are responded to in the discussion of each component below. CalTrans West Conceptual Site Plans. The City Council requested development of illustrative site plans for the CalTrans West site. These site plan alternatives are being prepared and will be presented to the City Council at the public hearing. Planning Commission. Recommendation on Park Dedication. The Planning Commission has recommended the following language pertaining to park dedication on the CalTrans West site: CalTrans West will be required to comply with the park dedication ordinance. A park of at least five acres in size is to be developed between Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, 15th Street (extended), and Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extended). The specific size, location, design and the means to acquire and develop the park will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract maps for CalTrans West and/or the adjacent Banning -Newport Ranch residential developments. The park shall be completed concurrent with occupancy of the first residential unit. • There are a number of ways these conditions can be used to implement the desired size, location and timing of the neighborhood park in this area. TO: City Council - 4 • The park condition recommended is similar to the park condition on the Banning -Newport Ranch approval. If the two proiects (CalTrans and Banning) are eventually -developed by the same developer, or if the two projects request tentative tract map approval at the same time, the condition as worded poses no problem, in that the park dedication requirements could be coordinated between the two areas. There is also the possibility that, in the event CalTrans is developed prior to the Banning -Newport Ranch, an agreement could be reached between the City, the developer of CalTrans and the Banning interests to implement the five acre park prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit on CalTrans. This would require the cooperation and agreement of the Banning interests and would require the execution of a development agreement or the implementation of a similar mechanism to delineate the manner in which the park dedication occurs and how any park dedication credits are given. There is, however, the possibility that the park dedication requirement as recommended by the Planning Commission could pose a considerable hardship on the eventual developer of CalTrans West. As stated in the March 28, 1983 staff report, the requirement that the minimum five acre park be completed concurrent with occupancy of the first residential unit could result in the entire five acre park being required on the CalTrans West site if it is developed prior to the Banning -Newport Ranch. This could occur if the owner of the Banning area does not cooperate with the City and the developer of CalTrans in the implementation of the five acre park. The wording of the park dedication requirement for both the Banning -Newport Ranch and the CalTrans West approvals has been developed in response to the expressed concern of the surrounding community that no additional residential development be permitted until a five acre park is dedicated and developed. The recommended park dedication language accomplishes this goal. The recommended park language also encourages the acquisition of the CalTrans West site by the owner of the Banning property or a close planning association between the eventual developers of the two properties. At the same time it must be recognized that the proposed language may require the implementation of all five acres of park on the CalTrans site in some circumstances. The City Council may wish to consider the following alternate park dedication language for the CalTrans West General Plan Amendment: CalTrans West will be required to comply with the park dedication ordinance. A park of at least five acres in size is to be developed between Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, 15th Street (extended) and Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extended). The specific size, location, design and the means to acquire and develop the park will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract maps for CalTrans West and/or the adjacent Banning -Newport Ranch residential developments. If development of CalTrans West occurs prior to the Banning -Newport Ranch residential area, the development on CalTrans shall be required to dedicate the land required by the Park Dedication Ordinance. This land shall be located in such a manner as to allow for the eventual completion of the five acre park partially on CalTrans West and partially on the Banning -Newport Ranch. . Wastewater Collection Facilities. The draft Environmental Impact Report (Page 163) lists the various agencies with wastewater collection facilities in the TO: City Council - 5 vicinity of the CalTrans West site. These are the City of Newport Beach, the Costa Mesa Sanitary District and the County Sanitation District of Orange County. If development occurs on the CalTrans West site, wastewater collection service will be provided by the City of Newport Beach. Fifth Avenue Parcels Park Dedication. Park dedication requirements in the City of Newport Beach are currently dictated by Chapter 19.50 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the Park Dedication Ordinance. This ordinance establishes a standard park dedication requirement to result in five acres of park dedication for every 1000 residents. The ordinance establishes the following procedure for park dedication: 1119.50.100 PROCEDURE. At the time of approval of the tentative subdivision map, the City Council shall determine pursuant to Section 19.50.080 hereof, the land to be dedicated, and/or fees to be paid by the subdivider. At the time of the filing of the final subdivision map., the subdivider shall dedicate the land or pay fees as previously determined by the City Council. (Ord. 1733, 1977)" The Park Dedication Ordinance establishes a formula for park dedication requirements, based on gross residential density and person per household factors. The range of park dedication requirements for the Fifth Avenue Parcels are as follows: Marguerite Avenue Parcel Units Permitted 27 du's (4 du's/ba) 28 - 62 du's (4-9.12 du's/ba) 63 - 68 du's (9.26 - 10 du's/ba) Example: 50 du's Fifth Avenue Parcel Units Permitted 40 du's (4 du's/ba) 41 - 85 du's (4-8.5 du's/ba) 86 - 100 du's (8.6 - 10 du's/ba) Example: 85 du's Acreage Requirement 0.51 A 0.53 - 1.16 A 1.01 - 1.09 A = 0.94 A Acreage Requirement 0.75 A 0.77 - 1.60 A 1.38 - 1.60 A = 1.60 A Application of the Park Dedication Ordinance can be confusing, in that the ordinance Dedication Formula Table is based on dwelling units per gross acre, while the General Plan expresses residential density in dwelling units per • buildable acre. The difference in buildable acre density ranges for the park dedication formula categories is due to the different ratio of gross to buildable acres for the Marguerite and Fifth Avenue Parcels. TO: City Council - 6 As illustrated by the above chart, development of the two Fifth Avenue Parcels under the Low -Density Residential designation (4 du's/ba) will result in the generation of up to 1.26 acres of park dedication. Development of these sites under the Medium -Density Residential category (4-10 du's/ba) will result in the generation of up to 2.69 acres of park dedication requirement. The Irvine Company is currently estimating the development of 50 units on the Marguerite Avenue Parcel and 85 units on the Fifth Avenue Parcels. If approved, these 135 units will generate a park dedication requirement of 2.54 acres. The Irvine Company is proposing the dedication of i 0.41 acre of land on the Marguerite Avenue Parcel for a view park, and ± 1.06 acres of land on the Fifth Avenue Parcel for OASIS Center expansion. Also proposed is the improvement of the view park and the rough grading (with installment of a retaining structure) of the dedication area on the Fifth Avenue Parcel at no cost to the City and with no park dedication credits being given for the cost of the improvements. If the General Plan Amendment is approved including this concept for satisfaction of the park dedication requirements, the remaining 1.07 acres required could be satisfied through additional on-site or off-site land dedication, or the payment of in -lieu fees. There are a number of park dedication scenarios which could occur under both the existing and proposed General Plan. Staff will review some of these possibilities, which are based on the various requests and comments received during the public hearings on this General Plan Amendment. isIt should be noted, however, that these are merely examples of what could happen under certain circumstances. Since the Park Dedication Ordinance formulas are based on the number of residences built, and also since the City's density allocations are based on buildable acreage, a definition which deletes park dedication areas from the land on which the permitted number of dwelling units is derived, precise park dedication requirements can not be given. Scenario One: Acquisition of the Entire Marguerite Parcel with Park Dedication Credits. Testimony has been received that the Marguerite Parcel be designated as open space and acquired through the use of park dedication credits or fees. In order for the City to generate sufficient park dedication requirements to acquire the 9.6 acre Marguerite Avenue Parcel, 510 Low -Density Residential units would have to be approved. If higher density residential projects were used to generate these credits more units would.need to be approved, since the scale established in the Park Dedication Ordinance requires less dedication from higher density developments. Under the existing General Plan, approximately 4,700 dwelling units remain to be built in the City of Newport Beach. Of these, ± 1,840 are shown for larger undeveloped sites. The remainder are infill in the older residential neighborhoods. Since the Park Dedication Ordinance applies to new residential subdivisions, only the ± 1,840 future residential units in new subdivisions will require park dedication. Of these 1,840 du's, ± 810 are designated to sites which carry a neighborhood park designation on the Open Space Plan (westbay, Castaways, Newporter North, Banning -Newport Ranch)., These developments must dedicate parkland onsite to satisfy the requirements of the TO: City Council - 7 • Park Dedication Ordinance. This leaves approximately 1,030 future residential units requiring park dedication City-wide. In order for the City to acquire the Marguerite Parcel using park dedication credits, approximately 50% of the remaining dedication requirements would have to be used. This assumes that any land acquired through other than Irvine Company project requirements could be purchased by the City at the per acre park dedication fee of $298,486. Additionally, it should be noted that if any of the future permitted dwelling units are developed as rental projects, no park dedication will be required for those units. Scenario Two: Planning Commission Recommendation. The Planning Commission recommendation is illustrated below: � •, . !_ - •- SIN .. '��. i V IJr=L_ r illi ! ((i�_;,;�;�J; �yy� I� ;^'�;_::_�� 1° „';'•>> MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (4.1 to 10 D.U. / Ro 0.41 Acres 'Buildable Acres) r!• � ,�, �„ - VIEW rPARK SEI—�� �rrr � i�// G �v�F... ��� J� ..'i••��� I 1.06 Acres OASIS`P: ,roeaoe Yreiv EXPANSION' p/9,Sl-4RY �•- sorwooc CRANrnJ.VALOOn s . OASIS SENIOR rW W W W F CITIZENCENTER C C� �� D��42. . ;,, .:.'•' o� �R��. UWL ” LJC�C�CL Uo If approved, this scenario would change the land use designation on the Marguerite and Fifth Avenue Parcels from Low to Medium Density Residential. Park dedication would occur via the dedication of t 0.41 acre on the Marguerite Avenue Parcel for a view park, and t 1.06 acres on the Fifth Avenue Parcel for OASIS Center expansion. Improvements to the view park and grading . of the OASIS expansion area would be done at no cost to the City and would receive no credit for park dedication. The Planning Commission could reach'no 0 T0: City Council - 8 conclusion as to how the remaining ± 1.07 acres of park dedication requirement be satisfied. Staff has recommended that this be through on-site or off-site dedication, or through the payment of in -lieu fees as determined by the City at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. Scenario Three: Expanded OASIS Center Dedication/Approval of proposed GPA 81-2 for Fifth Avenue Parcels. If the requested General Plan Amendment is approved, the City could require that the park dedication in addition to that proposed by The Irvine Company be required on the Fifth Avenue site. The half block easterly of the existing OASIS Center is ± 1.09 acres (10 lots). If this area were required for dedication in addition to the ± 1.06 acres currently proposed on the Fifth Avenue site and ± 0.41 acre on the Marguerite Avenue site, a total of 2.56 acres would be dedicated. The additional dedication would reduce the number of dwelling units on the Fifth Avenue site. The new total of 125 dwelling units would require park dedication of ± 2.35 acres. In this scenario the City would be required to develop a means to make up the ± 0.21 acre shortfall of park dedication required by the two developments. A graphic representation of this scenario follows: C 1 11-x♦ +•+ .i MEDIUM DENSITY (RESIDENTIAL 411• ti IW , ir.y 1Z 0.41 Acres ,C r ;VIEW PARK 10 D.U. / uIldable Acres) S3 OASIS SENIOR, �'� C 1.09 Acres ADDITIONAL,9 CITIZEN CENTER LT OASIS EXPANSION �eF ���' d AO I TO: City Council - 9 Scenario Four: Expanded OASIS Center/Existing General Plan. Development of the two Fifth Avenue Parcels under the existing General Plan will result in the generation of a maximum of ± 1.26 acre of park dedication requirement. This could allow the dedication of the ± 1.06 acre area northerly of OASIS currently proposed by The Irvine Company, with ± 0.20 acre either used for in -lieu fees, or for dedication of a small view site on the Marguerite Parcel. If any additional land is required for any other park purposes, the City could reserve areas for park purposes in the General Plan and eventually acquire the site through the utilization of park requirements generated by development in other parts of the City, or through fee acquisition using General Fund monies or other City revenue. A graphic representation of this scenario follows: � H� b� i OR.��1 j •�. C \ �-� \ a,� �; ��`` »• oQc�'ol � lit 0.20 Acres oa `V;EW PARK V� v 4q LOW DENSITY �(RESIDENTIAL Buildable Acres) Scenario Five: Soccer Field on Marguerite Parcel/OASIS as recommended by the Planning Commission/Approval of GPA 81-2 for•Fifth Avenue Parcels. If the requested General Plan Amendment is approved the City could require that park dedication in addition to that proposed by The Irvine Company be . required on the Marguerite Avenue site. It is possible that with the dedication of an additional 1.07 acres that enouqh buildable acres wi31 remain J •93r ,OASIS SENIOR I r� r r r 1%, ` CITIZEN CENTER o 6' �J LJ L] v 4q LOW DENSITY �(RESIDENTIAL Buildable Acres) Scenario Five: Soccer Field on Marguerite Parcel/OASIS as recommended by the Planning Commission/Approval of GPA 81-2 for•Fifth Avenue Parcels. If the requested General Plan Amendment is approved the City could require that park dedication in addition to that proposed by The Irvine Company be . required on the Marguerite Avenue site. It is possible that with the dedication of an additional 1.07 acres that enouqh buildable acres wi31 remain • 0 TO: City Council - 10 on the site to construct 50 dwelling units under the Medium -Density Residential category. Therefore, assuming 135 dwelling units constructed, ± 1.06 acres could be required for OASIS expansion, ± 0.41 acres could be required for a view park, and the remaining ± 1.07 acres could be required to be dedicated on the lower portion of the Marguerite Parcel adjacent to the OASIS parking lot. The additional land, with substantial grading and fill in Jasmine Creek could provide the land necessary to develop a soccer field on the site. The land needed for such a field ranges from 1.18 - 1.86 acres. A graphic representation of this scenario follows: .w/rnMG %� 41 bi i oR. MEDIUM DENSITY �»�RESIDENTIAL "11.07 OAR EXPANSION :: .�" ""•�" �"" rar rich EXPANSION _• e� AW& AAA? •9 (OASIS SENIOR I EA Ca C C CITIZEN CENTER As can be seen from the above discussion, the possibilities for the provision of additional park land in the Fifth Avenue area are numerous. The approva3 of this General Plan Amendment and the ultimate development of residential units will generate a higher park dedication requirement. If the existing General Plan designations are to remain, less dedication will be required. In this situation the City could decide to - either use park dedication recuirements from other developments or to purchase land with General Fund monias to supplement the park dedication in the area. 7t should be noted, howevor, that the City has, in the past, not utilized Gonvrnl Fund monio s to acquire park lands, and the Park Dedication Ordinance requires the park land dedicated or in -lieu fees generated be used to provide parks to serve the residents of the subdivision being approved. to 0 TO: City Council - 11 Comprehensive Recreation and Open Space Element Review. When General Plan Amendment 81-2 was initiated by the Planning Commission in June, 1981, it consisted of eight components, including a comprehensive park and open space study which had been requested by City staff. This proposal was not funded as part of this General Plan Amendment. In a report from the Budget Committee to the City Council dated September 28, 1981, it was stated that the review of park sites in the Recreation and Open Space Element could be accomplished in fiscal year 1982-63. The fiscal year 1962-83 budget includes $25,000 for a comprehensive review of the Recreation and Open Space Element. Staff has received proposals for consultant services in connection with this study, and will be interviewing these consultants on April 7, 1983. It is expected that City Council approval of a consultant contract will be on the April 25, 1983 agenda. Work on the study will commence as soon as the contract is approved and will take approximately 16 weeks to complete. Planning Commission hearings on this study and eventual General Plan Amendment are expected to begin in October, 1983. The comprehensive Recreation and Open Space Element Review will include an analysis of the City's expressed open space goals and the means to accomplish those goals. Currently the Open Space Plan shows the following east of Upper Newport Bay: Future Neighborhood Parks Acres Newport North 2 Fifth Avenue 1 North Ford (GPA 82-1) 6 Future View Parks Newporter North 0.5 Marguerite Avenue (GPA 61-2) 0.5 Flora and Fauna Reserves Buck Gully 57 Mouth of Big Canyon 47 Eastbluff Remnant 8 Lower Buck Gully and Morninq Canyon Easement TOTAL: 122 Acres TO: City Council - 12 • Future residential development which will require park dedication on the east side of the Bay is summarized as follows: Future Development Newport Center Newporter North North Ford (82-1) Freeway Reservation East Freeway Reservation West (81-2) Fifth Avenue Parcels (81-2) (includes Fifth and MacArthur) San Miguel & Pacific View Baywood Expansion (rental) Belcourt (82-2) TOTAL Park dedication requirement = Existing General Plan 505 212 120 76 0 108 52 (68) 0 1073 du's 20.03 Acres Proposed General Plan 505 212 750 76 87 209 52 (68) 135 2026 du's 34.75 Acres As shown above, a maximum of 20 acres of park dedication would be required under the existing General Plan and 35 acres would be required if General Plan Amendments currently in process are approved. It should be noted that if any of the dwelling units are developed as rental projects, no park dedication would be required for those units. It is obvious that the mechanism of the park dedication ordinance is not sufficient to implement the City's currently stated open space goals. The Recreation and Open Space Element review will evaluate open space needs and goals, establish a plan to satisfy these needs and devise the means to implement the plan. View Park Dedication. It has been recommended by the Planning Commission that a i 1 acre view park be dedicated on the Marguerite Avenue Parcel in conjunction with approval of this General Plan Amendment. Questions have been raised as to whether park dedication ordinance credit be given for this dedication. Since the adoption of the Park Dedication Ordinance in 1977, no subdivision approved has included a view park requirement. The Park Dedication Ordinance does not specify particular types of parks to be acquired through the ordinance. It does reference "park and recreation facilities... in accordance with the Recreation Element of the General Plan". It has been recommended by the Planning Commission that Park Dedication Ordinance credit be given for the land dedication for the view park if it is required by the City in conjunction with development of the Marguerite Avenue Parcel. The Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission has recommended that no park dedication credit be given for the view park. Granting park dedication ordinance credit for the view park on the Marguerite Avenue Parcel will establish a precedent for future City action in regards to view parks in other . development approvals. Undeveloped sites with view park designations include CalTrans West, Westbay, Castaways, and Newporter North. TO: City Council - 13 Slope Areas. The Irvine Company has proposed dedication of ± 1.06 acres of land for park dedication if the General Plan Amendment for the Fifth Avenue Parcel is approved. This acreage does not include any slope areas for park dedication or credit. The proposal does include the grading of the acreage to the elevation of the existing OASIS Center site. This land would have no greater than a 59 slope, a nominal slope to allow good drainage of the land. The City will not in any case accept slope areas for park dedication. Density of Development in Corona del Mar. Questions have been raised regarding 'the relative density of existing residential development in Corona del Mar. Statistical analyses of older subdivisions are generally done in units per gross acre, since 'the City established the buildable acreage definition recently. In order to provide a more meaningful comparison of residential density, staff has prepared density per buildable acre estimates for the residential area surrounding the Fifth Avenue Parcels, as follows: Harbor View Hills South 4.4 dus/buildable acre Corona Highlands 4.7 dus/buildable acre Jasmine Creek 5.4 dus/buildable acre Corona del Mar 24.8 dus/buildable acre Park Dedication In -Lieu Fees. The current park dedication in -lieu fee for the City of Newport Beach is $298,486. This fee is intended to be a mean value of residential land in the city. Staff concurs with the statement that land values in Corona del Mar exceed this mean value established for the Park . Dedication Ordinance. Park Credit for Buck Gully. Testimony has been received regarding the possibility of the City granting park credit for Buck Gully. Staff recommended to the Planning Commission the deletion of the Low -Density Residential alternative land use designation for the Buck Gully Parcel, but that no park credit be given. If the City Council does not sustain the Planning Commission recommendation for this site, the staff recommendation regarding park dedication or credit is the same. Request for Buck Gully General Plan Amendment. The Irvine Company representatives have testified that no request for amendment to Buck Gully was submitted by The Irvine Company and that they object to this proposal. The letter from The Irvine Company dated April 17, 1981 (Attachment No. 1) requesting consideration of the General Plan Amendment for the Fifth Avenue Parcels states: "The Irvine Company proposes further that the ± 55 acre vacant parcel in Buck Gully located northeasterly of the terminus of Fifth Avenue be dedicated for park and open space purposes, contingent on approval of development plans for the two residential sites." In the initiation of the General Plan Amendment staff outlined this proposal as a change to an open space land use designation, and the amendment was initiated in this manner. General Plan History for the Fifth Avenue Parcels. Clarification has been • requested regarding the park and open space designations on the various elements and maps of the Newport Beach General Plan for the Fifth Avenue TO: City Council - 14 Parcels. Staff has prepared enlargements of the 1973 Land Use Plan, Residential Growth Plan, and Open Space Plan (Maps) (Attachments 2, 3 & 4). The history of, the General Plan designations for each site is as follows: Area A: Marguerite Parcel: Land Use Plan: The Land Use Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 designated the Marguerite Parcel for Low -Density Residential uses along Marguerite Avenue and Recreational and Environmental Open Space uses along Jasmine Creek. General Plan Amendment No. 26 redefined the various residential land use designations, added a medium density residential category, and added the definition of buildable acreage. This amendment did not change prior permitted densities, so this parcel was changed to Medium -Density Residential for the residentially designated portion of the site. The parcel was again addressed in General Plan Amendment 79-1, and redesignated to the Low -Density Residential category. Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel: Land Use Plan: The Land Use Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 designated the Fifth Avenue Parcel for Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an alternate use of Low -Density Residential. The history of the residential portion of the land use designation is the same as for Area A, except that General Plan Amendment 79-1 established the Low -Density Residential designation as the sole and primary use on the Land Use Plan. Residential Growth Plan: The Residential Growth Element and Plan (Map) was adopted in 1973 and designated the Fifth Avenue Parcel as an area with an alternate land use as discussed in the Land Use Residential Growth Plan: The Residential Growth Element and Plan (Map) was adopted in 1973 and designated a portion of the parcel for residential uses. The parcel was specifically addressed as follows: "The vacant R -3-B site east of Harbor View Elementary School shall be rezoned to R -1-B." On December 17, 1973 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1535, to conform zoning to General Plan by rezoning • the property from R -3-B to R -1-B. Open Space Plan: The Recreation and Open Space Element and Plan (Map) was adopted in 1973 and designated the site for Recreational and Environmental Open Space uses for an extension of the Jasmine Creek greenbelt system. The Open Space Plan (Map) does show the entire site colored green, for open space uses. It is the opinion of staff that the designation of the entire site for open space is a graphics error, since the other two General Plan Maps show residential uses on a portion of the site. Additionally, the City has rezoned the property for the expressed purpose of Zoning/General Plan consistency and has also changed the land use designation subsequent to the adoption of the Recreation and Open Space Element (GPA 79-1), which further indicates the City's commitment to allow residential development on the site. Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel: Land Use Plan: The Land Use Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 designated the Fifth Avenue Parcel for Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an alternate use of Low -Density Residential. The history of the residential portion of the land use designation is the same as for Area A, except that General Plan Amendment 79-1 established the Low -Density Residential designation as the sole and primary use on the Land Use Plan. Residential Growth Plan: The Residential Growth Element and Plan (Map) was adopted in 1973 and designated the Fifth Avenue Parcel as an area with an alternate land use as discussed in the Land Use TO: City Council - 15 Element. The Residential Growth Element specifically discussed this site as follows: "The land between Fifth Street and Sand Castle Drive shall be rezoned from R -2-B to R -1-B, although it is anticipated that this land will be acquired for park and/or highway purposes." On December 17, 1973, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1535, to conform zoning to the General Plan by rezoning the Fifth Avenue Parcel from R -2-B to R -1-B. Open Space Plan: The Recreation and Open Space Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 designated the Fifth Avenue Parcel as an area with an alternate land use/primary designation as Recreational and Environmental Open Space - Flora and Fauna Reserve. A proposed neighborhood park is also shown on the site. The element states that "Proposed parks are indicated on the Open Space Plan as green circles; in the undeveloped areas, the locations shown are meant to be general and the parks need not be developed in the exact location shown." The Element addresses the proposed park on this site as follows: "A neighborhood park is proposed on the property north of Fifth Avenue and east of Marguerite Avenue." Area C: Buck Gully: Land Use Plan: The Land Use Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 shows this site for Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an alternate use of Low -Density Residential. No changes to this designation have been made since 1973. Residential Growth Plan: The Residential Growth Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 showed this area with an alternate residential land use as discussed in the Land Use Element. Open Space Plan: The Recreation and Open Space Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 designated the Buck Gully site as an area with an alternate land use/primary designation as Recreational and Environmental Open Space - Flora and Fauna Reserve. Traffic and Circulation. Questions regarding traffic distribution on Marguerite Avenue, the impact of the General Plan Amendment on Coast Highway in Corona del Mar, and the incremental increases generated by the Fifth Avenue amendment proposals have been raised. Responses have been prepared by the City's traffic consultant for this GPA and are attached to this report (Attachment No. 5). Big Canyon - Area 16 No additional information was requested for Big Canyon Area 16. Newnort Center Block 400 Parking. The medical office building at 400 Newport Center Drive East consists of 80,000 gross square feet and provides 446 parking spaces. The parking standard for medical office is one space for each' 250 square feet of TO: City Council - 16 gross structural area. The parking requirement for this building is 370 parking spaces. There is an excess of 126 parking spaces on site. The proposed office building will provide additional parking as required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Campus Drive Revisions to Land Use Designations and Zoning. The General Plan Amendment for the Campus Drive area will change the land use designation for the area bounded by Bristol Street, Campus Drive, Dove Street and Birch Street from General Industry to t mixture of General Industry and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial. The General Plan will also be amended to establish development intensity limitations in the Campus Drive study area. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of this amendment with the direction that the zoning for the area be amended to implement the General Plan Amendment. It has not yet been determined how the zoning will be amended to implement the General Plan Amendment. It is expected that existing M -1-A and A -P zoning will be amended, establishing development intensity limits and possibly revising the permitted uses in the area. Respectfully submitted, • PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director BY PATRICIA L. TEMPLE�� Senior Planner PIT:nma Attachments: 1. April 17, 1981 letter from The Irvine Company. 2. Land Use Plan 3. Residential Growth Plan 4. Open Space Plan 5. Report from Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. 0 Attachment No. 1 E lNE IRVINE COMPANY 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644.3011 APR2 p'lo8j� April 17, 1981 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California SUBJECT: Requested General Plan Amendment for Fifth Avenue Parcels Mr. Chairman and Commission Members: The City Council gave conceptual approval in October, 1980 to an exchange of land between the City and The Irvine Company whereby the City would receive additional land to expand the OASIS Senior Facility site, and the Company would recetve a 2.36 acre parcel northwest of Fifth and Marguerite Avenues. The purpose of this exchange would be to provide additional parking space and expansion area for the OASIS Center in a more convenient and usable location. An appraisal of the subject prop- erties has been completed. Additional discussions between the City and The Irvine Company are expected to occur in the next few months. The completion of such a land exchange would be contingent on changing the General Plan designation of the 2.36 acre parcel west of Marguerite Avenue from open space to a residential designation to allow for future development. It is our desire to have this 2.36 acre parcel reviewed in combination with the ±10 acre vacant parcel to the immediate north, which is currently designated "Low Density Residential" A change to a "Medium Density Residential" designation for the combined 12 acre parcel is requested. Given the topography and configuration of the property, the Medium Density Residential desiqnation would allow for a greater degree of design flexibility in planning for the site. Concurrently with the City's review of the property west of Marguerite, The Irvine Company requests consideration of the x-10 acre parcel easterly of the expanded OASIS site as "Medium Density Residential", where the General Plan now calls for Low Density Residential. Proposed here would be single family homes at a density comparable to the existing tract to the north. The Irvine Company proposes further that the ±55 acre vacant parcel in Buck Gully located northeasterly of the terminus of Fifth Avenue be dedicated for park and open space purposes, contingent on approval of development plans for the two residential sites. 17 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach April 17, 1981 page 2 It is requested that the proposed redesignation of these two properties as "Medium Density Residential" be considered at the October 1981 General Plan Amendment session. A determination as to the appropriate environ- mental documentation is also requested. Please contact me if additional information is required. Sincerely, 101 David Dmohowski Manager Government Relations cc: J. Hewicker, Planning Director R. Whitley, P.B. & R Director T. Nielsen, The Irvine Company •' 0 0 NEWPORT BEACH LAND USE PLAN LEGEND LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL °°°° 14 LTIPLE-FAMILY >000 °°°° RESIDENTIAL >000 RETAIL & SERVICE COITIERCIAL GOVERN., EDUCATIONAL & INSTITUTIONAL RECREATION & ENVIROW4ENTAL OPEN SPACE WATER AREAS WITH ALTERNATE USES PER LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT N OWPORT BEACH RESIDENTIAL GROWTH PLAN LEGEND LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREAS WITH ALTERNATE USES PER LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT w ?Y� NEWPORT BEACH OPEN SPACE PLAN ol r rrrr ,I�il11�1 1, - ' _..1.1.11_ 'Ll .!:fi �.,3��� ��• ri C II I [G� Illlllt � 111111 �.fE/T/NO SUN OQ) 85 I 0 LEGEND mmmmm HIKING TRAIL Le, PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD PAW }? E NEIGHBORHOOD PARK EXISTING SCHOOLS 1 FLORA & FAUNA RESERVES 1,• GREENBELT AREAS WITH ALTERNATE USES mmmmm HIKING TRAIL Le, PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD PAW D\ • 4262 Campus Drive, Suite B-1 • E April 6, 1983 BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. Ms. Patty Temple Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, California 92660 SUBJECT: Traffic Information Requests for GPA 81-2 Dear Patty: ATTACHMENT No. 5 ENGINEERING AND PLANNING Transportation, Traffic, Municipal, Transit The following are comments to your request for information on the subject project: 1. Request: Discuss the impact of the cumulative General Plan Amendment on Coast Highway from MacArthur Boulevard easterly to the City boundary in terms of overall capacity. (714) 549.9940 Discussion: The cumulative impacts of GPA 81-2 traffic on Coast Highway easterly of MacArthur Boulevard are presented on Exhibit 31 following page 115 and Table 20 on page 116. A review of this information shows that the approval of GPA 81-2 will result in increased traffic on Coast Highway. Between MacArthur Boulevard and Marguerite, an.additional 1,400 daily vehicles will result and easterly -of Marguerite, approximately 850 daily vehicles will be added. To assess the impact of Coast Highway capacity, the following information has been summarized: Coast Highway MacArthur to Marguerite 1995 Daily Traffic Projection GPA 81-2 Daily Traffic 1995 Forecasts with GPA 81-2 Roadway Capacity LOS "D" LOS "E" (Capacity) Volume to Capacity Ratio Without GPA 81-2 LOS "D" LOS "E" Without GPA 81-2 LOS "D" LOS "E" 46,400 veh/day 1,400 veh/day 47,800 veh/day 30,000 veh/day 36,000 veh/day 1.55 1.29 1.59 1.33 Easterly of Marguerite 40,400 veh/day 850 veh/day 41,250 veh/day 30,000 veh/day 36,000 veh/day 1.35 1.38 1.38 1.15 a0� •Ms. Patty Temple April 6, 1983 Page 2 E A review of the above data shows that on a daily basis, Coast Highway through Corona del Mar is expected to exceed its available capacity. This conclusion can be reached with or without the approval of General Plan Amendment 81-2. 2. Request: A brief discussion of the trip distribution on Marguerite Avenue of traffic generated by the proposed Fifth Avenue residential developments. Testimony was received asking if most of the new traffic would really go northerly on Marguerite Avenue from Fifth Avenue, rather than go south to Coast Highway as indicated in the traffic studies prepared for the.EIR. Discussion: Figure 3, page B-12 in the technical appendices for GPA 81-2 contains the expected trip generation characteristics to/from the Fifth Avenue parcels. The distribution patterns shows 278 oriented north on Marguerite and 65% south to Coast Highway. The 65% oriented to Coast Highway is expected to use the Marguerite, Orchid, Poppy and the other streets to reach the Coast Highway area. The patterns depicted on Figure 3 are based on attraction of shopping and other trips that would occur in Corona del Mar. In addition, the attraction of Newport Center and the desire to reach destinations along Coast Highway and lower portions of Costa Mesa will result in a higher percentage of trips oriented to Coast Highway. 3. Request: Revise Figure 4 on page B-13 of Appendix F to show the incremental increase due to the GPA as well as the totals (the information Bill prepared to respond to Agee's questions at the March 28, 1983 meeting). Discussion: Figure 4 on page B-13 of Appendix F has been revised (labelled Figure 4A) to reflect the information verbally presented at the March 28, 1983 hearing. in addition to the.data presented in Figure 4A, Councilman Agee requested information on the cumulative effects of traffic on Marguerite and 5th Avenues. The information presented at the meeting is as follows: \NA 5 •Ms. Patty Temple April 6, 1983 Marguerite Avenue Page 3 1995 6,000 696 Daily Daily 9,100 n/o 5th Avenue Traffic Traffic 8,505 8,800 From Without With Existing Fifth Fifth Fifth Daily Avenue Avenue Avenue Traffic Parcels Total Parcels Parcels Marguerite Avenue s/o 5th Avenue 6,000 696 6,696 8,400 9,100 n/o 5th Avenue 8,000 505 8,505 8,800 9,300 n/o Harbor View Drive 8,000 325 8,325 8,800 9,100 5th Avenue e/o Marguerite Avenue 3,000 1,296 4,296 N/A N/A Please call me if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. Bill E. Darnell, P.E. BED/llf Enclosure • 0 City Council Meeting March 28, 11963 Agenda Item No. G" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECTS: 1. General Plan Amendment 81-2 (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan and the acceptance of an environmental document. COMPONENTS: (a) CalTrans West LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned). GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. ZONE: 0-S (Open Space) District PROPONENT: State of California, Department of Transportation (b) Fifth Avenue Parcels LOCATION: A: Westerly of Marguerite Avenue between Fifth Avenue and Harbor View Drive. B. Northerly of Fifth Avenue between Marguerite Avenue and Buck Gully. C: Along the eastern City boundary between Fifth Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road. GENERAL PLAN: Low Density Residential and Recreational and Environmental Open Space. ZONE: R -1-B (Single Family with B combining) District PROPONENT: The Irvine Company (c) Big Canyon Area 16 LOCATION: Southwesterly of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. GENERAL PLAN: Recreational and Environmental Open Space • ZONE: P -C (Planned Community) District PROPONENT: The Irvine Company TO: City Council - 2 (d) Newport Center - Block 400 LOCATION: Northeasterly of Newport Center Drive East and San Miguel Drive. GENERAL PLAN: Administrative Professional, and Financial Commercial. ZONE: C -O -H (Commercial) District PROPONENT: Newport Center Medical Buildings, Inc. (e) Campus Drive LOCATION: Area bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street, Orchard Avenue, and Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue. GENERAL PLAN: General Industry, Administrative Professional and Financial Commercial, and Retail and Service Commercial. ZONE: M -1-A (Industrial) District, A -P (Administrative, Professional) District, and C-1 (Commercial) District. 0 PROPONENT: The City of Newport Beach INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach 2. Amendment No. 2 to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program for the Caltrans West site. LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as realigned). LCP: Recreational and Environmental Open Space. ZONE: 0-S PROPONENT: State of California, Department of Transportation INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Suggested Action . Hold hearing; if desired; take straw votes on each component, sustaining, modifying, or overruling the recommendations of the Planning Commission is each case, and continue the public hearing, directing staff to prepare TO: City Council - 3 resolutions, mitigation measures, and statements of facts and overriding considerations, incorporating the results of the straw votes, for consideration and adoption at the City Council meeting of April 11, 1983. Background On June 4, 1981, the Planning Commission initiated General Plan Amendment 81-2 consistent with City Council Policy Q-1 in effect at that time. Eight areas were originally set for possible amendment, but three dropped out prior to preparation of the environmental document. In addition to the General Plan Amendments initiated, Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan amendments were set for those proposals in the coastal zone. A draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the City by Phillips, Brandt, Reddick, Inc. The report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A.) and City Council Policy K-3. The draft EIR has been submitted to state, local, and regional jurisdictions and agencies, and interested parties. Copies of the draft EIR and the Technical Appendices are attached to this report (Attachments No. 1 and 2). Volume Three of the draft EIR has also been prepared containing Attachments 1 and 2 to the EIR, with all comments, responses, staff reports, minutes and additional information generated by staff and our consultants as of this writing (Attachment No. 3). • The Planning Commission held public hearings on General Plan Amendment 81-2 on January 20, February 10, February 24, and March 10, 1983. On March 10, 1983 the Planning Commission adopted Resolutions No. 1088 and 1089 recommending approval of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Amendments as modified by straw votes, and certification of the environmental impact report (Attachments No. 4 and 5). Discussion Each of the various General Plan Amendment sites is discussed separately below. Each section includes a description of the project and the environmental significance as well as an analysis discussing the various issues relating to each site. The Planning Commission recommendations are then listed, followed by alternate or additional language provided by staff which differ from the Planning Commission recommendations. CalTrans West Applications. The State of California Department of Transportation has proposed the following amendments to permit construction of a multiple -family residential development on t 13 acres northwest of Coast Highway and Superior Avenue.. 1. Acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report as having been completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A.) and City Policy K-3, and certification that the 10 data was considered in the final decisions on this project. 0 T0: City Council - 4 RECREATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL OPEN SPACE i� IULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL_ 10.1 to 15 D.UJBuUdable Acre) :za 1/WY <_1• oflr �) `"Y I 410 iz �I I(OQRj p� O .< �„r•r t�E�CPI�L r ly rl�'IH iJ9 aA�B�A c.cr�-r,ENi � \ AVE 0 QL `Io�PWr C C CR/Yf4'�T,d,,E�� AfVER t oC�C �N�6 C3 27 E I f. C�� -p A „ AV r• 0 0 r--- aC7 6, 7P eyhq 0 P�,�O CclCJ \S^t`s�lic O,J EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped Open Space EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT: Recreational and Environmental Open Space EXISTING RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT: Scenic Area and View Park EXISTING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM: Recreational and Environmental Open Space GPA 81.2: Indicated on exhibit above EXISTING ZONING: O -S (Open Space) District • • • • • Caft�rans West Parcei • • i T0: City Council - 5 2. Amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan. The Land Use Element revision changes the existing Recreational and Environmental Open Space designation to Multiple -Family Residential and Recreational and Environmental Open Space uses. The Residential Growth Element will be revised to reflect residential statistical changes. The Recreation and Open Space Element will be revised to remove the designation for a future neighborhood park on the site and add a greenbelt between the proposed residential development and Newport Crest. 3. Amendment No. 2 to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan changing the land use designation and text from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Multiple -Family Residential and Recreational and Environmental Open Space uses. Future discretionary review of this project by the City include a zone change amendment, tentative tract map, use permit, and grading permit. Project Site. The project site is northwest of the intersection of West Coast Highway and the realignment of Superior Avenue The site comprises approximately 13.66 acres bounded by West Coast Highway, realigned Superior Avenue, Newport Crest, and Hanning -Newport Ranch. Project Characteristics. The project proposes the ultimate development of 13.66 vacant acres as follows: Statistical Analysis Buildablel Dwelling Units Land Use Gross Acres Acres (Range) Multi -Family 11.26 10.16 102.6 - 152.4 Residential Recreational and 2.4 --- --- Environmental Open Space Total 13.66 10.66 Dwelling units 9.1 - 13.5 per Gross Acre Dwelling Units per 10.1 - 15.0 1 Buildable acre is a general plan term used to define density and intensity of. development. It is equal to the total site area within the project boundary excluding streets, park dedication areas and areas with existing natural slopes greater than 2:1, and natural floodplain areas. TO: City Council - 6 Environmental Significance. There are environmental impacts anticipated in relation to the implementation of this project. The draft EIR indicates that there are significant adverse environmental impacts which cannot be avoided, as follows: Hydrology: 1) Ultimate development of this site will reduce permeable acreage and thereby increase surface runoff; 2) During grading, there will be a short-term increase in silt and sediment transport. After buildout, urban uses will incrementally increase the pollutant load to surface runoff. Demographics: 1) The proposed project will create approximately 152 multi -family dwelling units which will house approximately 342 residents. Recreation and Open Space: 1) Depending on the findings of the City's comprehensive Recreation and Open Space Element review, there may or may not be significant adverse impacts on the provision of recreation and open space areas in the City. The draft EIR further indicates that while the impacts in the categories of Hydrology and Demographics may be partially mitigated, they are still significant when consideredas part of the cumulative adverse impact associated with regional growth. Analysis • 1. Land Use : The General Plan Amendment for the CalTrans West Parcel will, if approved, change the land use designation from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Multiple -Family Residential and Recreational and Environmental Open Space uses. The general plan adopted in 1973 designated the most of this site for Multiple -Family Residential uses. The bluff areas were designated for Recreational and Environmental Open Space to be used as a scenic area. The site was acquired by the Department of Transportation as right-of-way for the Coast Freeway. The Coast Freeway has been removed from the State Highways and Freeways Master Plan, and the site is excess right-of-way. In 1976 (G.P.A. 76-3-J) , the City designated this site, along with all CalTrans property in West Newport for a specific area plan. In 1978 (G.P.A. 78-2), the City amended the land use designation for the site to allow only Recreational and Environmental Open Space uses, with the intent that the parcel be acquired for public open space under State Proposition 3, adopted November 7, 1978. This proposition made provisions for acquisition of excess state properties by other public entities for recreation and open space purposes. The specific area plan designation was also removed by this General Plan Amendment. The city requested both State Parks and the State Coastal Conservancy to purchase this property under the provisions of Proposition 3, but both declined to do SO. The requested General Plan Amendment must be balanced with planned growth and development in the immediate area and throughout the community. The Newport • Beach General Plan was adopted in 1973 and has been amended several times. A major portion of the land in the City is developed and the General Plan reflects that development. Most of the vacant land in the City is designated TO: City Council - 7 for low density residential uses or preservation for recreational and environmental open space uses. Most future commercial and office development will be in older areas of the community. Some vacant residential sites are under consideration for increase of residential densities, and the Banning -Newport Ranch immediately adjacent to the subject site has been designated for multiple family residential uses. The proposed project, if approved, is consistent with the overall development pattern. The approval of the project will, however, use increments of remaining roadway capacity, which will not then be available for developments already allowed by the General Plan in other areas of the community. As indicated in the General Plan, potential development must be balanced with the capacity of the transportation system. The project site is in West Newport and is adjacent to the Newport Crest, Versailles/Villa Balboa and the residential portion of Banning -Newport Ranch. These areas are all developed with or proposed for Multiple -Family Residential uses. Across West Coast Highway to the south of the site are mixed residential areas and a small neighborhood shopping center. Easterly of the subject site is additional vacant state highway right-of-way, known as CalTrans East, designated for recreational and environmental open space uses. From an overall design standpoint, the proposed project appears compatible with surrounding existing and planned land uses: The CalTrans West site is shown for proposed neighborhood and view parks on the Open Space Plan of the General Plan Recreation and Open Space Element. • Since 1978, the entire parcel has been designated for Recreational and Environmental Open Space uses with the intention that the parcel be acquired for public open space. During the public hearings on the Banning -Newport Ranch General Plan Amendment (81-1), the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission indicated that the CalTrans West site was the most suitable location for a major neighborhood park facility (minimum 5 acres) in the West Newport area, which is identified in the Recreation and Open Space Element as an area "with either very limited or no recreational facilities". This project, if approved, will generate either park dedication, in -lieu fees, or a combination of these which will aid the City in implementing a neighborhood park in this area. Other conditions may be applied to the approval requiring additional greenbelt or open space areas similar to those included in the Banning -Newport Ranch approval. Approval of the project will reduce the total acreage planned for recreation and open space uses in the West Newport area. Maintenance of the Recreational and Environmental Open Space designation and eventual acquisition by the City of Newport Beach would provide opportunities for a number of recreation and open space uses needed in the area. In addition to provision of a neighborhood park, the site is in an area with beach parking deficiencies, as evidenced by the discussion regarding the vacation of Ticonderoga Street, and could with proper design be used to accommodate a parking lot for beach visitors. Others uses which could be accommodated on the site under the existing General Plan designation include community recreation facilities such as tennis courts and community meeting facilities. 2. Housing - If a general plan amendment permitting residential development on the CalTrans West site is approved, housing opportunities in the City of Newport Beach will increase. This would be consistent with the Program and TO: City Council - 8 Performance Objectives of the City's Housing Element. Performance Objective No. 1 commits the city to increase residential densities on non -committed undeveloped sites by 259 resulting in the addition of 265 dwelling units citywide. The approval of 100 to 150 units on CalTrans West would achieve approximately 509 of the City's Housing Element commitment to expanding the housing stock. Performance Objective No. 2 commits the City to encouraging the housing industry to allocate at least 109 of the annual production goal to "affordable" housing. In some of the older areas of the City where increased units are infill on small existing subdivided lots, it will probably not be feasible to build "affordable" units. It is estimated that there will be an increase of approximately 500 dwelling units in the Balboa Peninsula, Lido Island and West Newport areas. Ten percent of this total, or 50 units, could be accommodated on the CalTrans West site, or other large undeveloped sites in the general area. If it is determined that all or a portion of .the site is not needed for recreation and open space uses, a redesignation to Multiple -Family Residential (15 du's per buildable acre) should include establishment of a set percentage or number of units for provision of housing affordable to families of low and moderate income. A portion of the "affordable" units (minimum 109 of total) will need to satisfy the requirements of Government Code Section 65590 (Mello) which apply to residential development in the coastal zone. These units would meet a slightly different affordability criteria. Establishment of this requirement in conjunction with the General Plan Amendment will assure that future appraisals and the eventual sale price for the site will take this condition into consideration. The proposed general plan amendment presents a unique opportunity for the City to place specific affordable housing requirements on a property prior to its sale to a developer. This results in prior knowledge of the requirements which must be taken into consideration when the sales price is determined. If' a residential designation is approved in this GPA, these requirements should be explicitly set forth to assure ultimate compliance of the future development with the Program and Performance Objectives of the Newport Beach Housing Element and the provisions of Government Code Section 65590 (Mello). 3. Parks - The General Plan Amendment, as proposed, shows 11.26 gross acres for residential development and 2.40 acres for recreation and open space uses to satisfy the park dedication requirement for the residential uses. The 2.40 acres is shown on the proposed Land Use Plan (map) (see Exhibit 3 following Page 8 of the draft EIR) as a greenbelt running along the northerly edge of the project site between the Newport Crest townhomes and the proposed residential uses. The criteria for park dedication contained in Chapter 19.50 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code follows: 19.50.080 DETERMINATION OF LAND OR FEE. Whether the Planning Commission accepts land dedication or elects to require payment of a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, shall be determined by consideration of the following: A. USEABILITY AND FEASIBILITY. Generally, land shall be flat. • TO: City Council - 9 B. ACCESS. Direct frontage on at least one side and not more than three (3) feet above or below street level. C. SHAPE OF LAND. Suitable for park development. D. SIZE. Not less than two (2) acres, unless a portion of a park designated in the General Plan. E. IMPROVEMENTS. Shall meet standards of the city and be of a permanent nature. F. In accordance with the recreation element of the General Plan. (Ord. 1733, 1977) The proposed park dedication area does not meet this criteria in the following areas: A. Generally, land shall be flat: The dedication area is generally flat. The land is, however, divided into two segments by an approximate 25 foot difference in elevation, as is the entire CalTrans West site (see Exhibit 11 following Page 26 of the draft EIR). This difference limits the useability of the area for active recreation uses. B. Direct (street) frontage on at least one side: Currently, there is • not sufficient access to this park site to meet this criteria. Adequate access would have to be designed as part of the approval of the subdivision. C. Shape of land suitable for park development: The configuration of the proposed park dedication area is in the character of a greenbelt buffer. A neighborhood park is used for active recreation uses and generally should be fairly square and all on one elevation. The proposed area does not meet this criteria. The proposed park dedication area meets the criteria of minimum size and is in accordance with the Recreation and Open Space Element in terms of location. In the approval for' the Banning -Newport Ranch project, the City Council required, as a condition of approval, the establishment of a 30 foot average greenbelt adjacent to Newport Crest, to be maintained by the applicant or his successor in interest. This requirement was imposed in addition to the t 6.5 acre park dedication requirement generated by the residential uses approved as part of the project. The park to be developed in conjunction with the Banning -Newport Ranch is to be approximately five acres in size located within the area bounded by West Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, 15th Street, and Bluff Road. The CalTrans West site is within these boundaries. If residential uses are designated for this site, the park dedication requirement generated by both developments could be combined to insure implementation of the 5 acre park in the above described boundaries and provide sufficient funds to assure improvement of the land acquired in a timely manner. In this event, • a reservation for park purposes should be included in the conditions of approval, with the exact location to be determined in the comprehensive Recreation and Open Space Element Review. TO: City Council - 10 isThe final determination of how the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance will be applied to the CalTrans West site should balance all requirements and goals of the City. As stated in the housing discussion above, this component of the General Plan Amendment presents a unique opportunity to the City in terms of the provision of affordable housing. It should also be noted that all requirements for parks and perimeter open space will be deducted from the buildable acreage of the site, and thereby reduce the number of dwelling units permitted as well as the number of affordable dwelling units. The Planning Commission is recommending a ±1 acre view park and a 30 foot minimum greenbelt. The Planning Commission is also recommending that a minimum 5 acre park be developed within the bounds of West Coast Highway, Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extended), 15th Street (extended) and Superior Avenue, to be completed concurrent with occupancy of the first residential unit on CalTrans West or Banning -Newport Ranch, whichever is developed first. This requirement could result in the entire five acre park being required on the CalTrans West site if it is developed prior to the Banning -Newport Ranch, even though the CalTrans West project will not generate that amount of park dedication requirement. It is estimated that ±4.65 buildable acres would remain if all of the Planning Commission requirements were implemented on-site. This translates to 69 dwelling units at 15 du's per buildable acre. Precise location of future park facilities in this area will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract maps for the CalTrans West and Banning -Newport Ranch projects using the information provided by the • comprehensive Recreation and Open Space Element review and revision. The determination of park location at the tentative map stage will enable the City to take all precise planning information such as site plans, grading plans, view analyses and geologic and seismic studies into consideration when requiring land dedication from the CalTrans West and Banning -Newport Ranch developments. 4. Circulation. The circulation system in the vicinity of the CalTrans West parcel consists of West Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, Balboa Boulevard, Hospital Road and Newport Boulevard. Major circulation system improvements currently planned in the area include the development of Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extension) and the realignment of Superior Avenue. The realignment of Superior Avenue bears a direct relationship to the proposed project. The CalTrans West Parcel currently comprises ± 17 acres westerly of Superior Avenue. In the proposal for General Plan Amendment, the California Department of Transportation requested a change in land use designation for the reconfigured site (±13 acres) and indicated a willingness to dedicate all lands needed for the realignment if these development rights are granted. Otherwise, the City will be required to purchase the land needed for the realignment, estimated at approximately $500,000. A preliminary analysis of traffic impacts of the proposed project was completed for the Environmental Impact Report (Pages 105-107 of the draft EIR; Appendix F of draft EIR). This analysis indicates an increase in vehicle trip ends from zero under the existing land use designation to 1,292 by the proposed project (152 dwelling units). At the time of further discretionary approvals, the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance must be met, and necessary circulation system improvements will be imposed. TO: City Council - 11 If the proposed amendment is approved, the dedications necessary for the Superior Avenue realignment should be required in a manner timely to the City's plans for its completion. 5. Access to Site. Public Works Department staff has indicated that the preferred access to the CalTrans West site is from the proposed Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extension) across a portion of the Banning property. In the event that CalTrans West is developed prior to the Banning -Newport Ranch, temporary and limited access could be developed from realigned Superior Avenue. The precise location of all access will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 6. Views. Development of a residential project on the CalTrans West site will have no significant affect on views from any public park or roadways. There is, however, the possibility of an impact on views from private residences to the north of the project site. If a General Plan Amendment permitting residential development is approved, it should be required that views to the west and south of the Newport Crest development be preserved for a person standing on the lower balcony level of a Newport Crest residence, consistent with the City's action on the General Plan Amendment for Banning -Newport Ranch. 7. Geology. Surface traces of earthquake faults are indicated on portions of the CalTrans West site. If residential land uses are designated for this site, it should be contingent on completion of a detailed geotechnical survey, to assure that the project is designed to adequately protect future residents from potential hazard. S. Relationship to CalTrans East. The CalTrans East site currently consists of t22 acres of land northerly of Coast Highway between Superior Avenue and the Arches Bridge at Newport Boulevard. Subsequent to the realignment of Superior Avenue, the parcel will be augmented by the former right-of-way and a residual portion of the CalTrans West parcel. A portion of the site is developed as a parking lot. The Land Use Element designates this site for Recreational and Environmental Open Space with parking as a permitted use. The Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program also designates the site for Recreational and Environmental open Space with parking and expansion of Hoag Hospital facilities permitted. Expansion of Hospital facilities is expected to require little or no access to or from Coast Highway and could, therefore, be accommodated on the site. The Department of Transportation, the City of Newport Beach and Hoag Hospital are currently discussing the ultimate disposition of the CalTrans East site. It is desirable to require the transfer of CalTrans East to Hoag Hospital as a condition of the proposed changes in the land use designation for CalTrans West for the following reasons: a. Inasmuch as CalTrans East is State property, the City of Newport Beach has limited land use control over this site. Transfer to private ownership will allow the City to more fully monitor and control development of CalTrans East and ensure that the future use is compatible with CalTrans West and the surrounding residential uses. In the absence of the transfer, the property could be developed by the State of California for government E TO: City Council - 12 office buildings, etc., without regard to City zoning requirements. b. The additional control over CalTrans East, should the property be sold, will allow the City of Newport Beach to regulate access to the site such that there will be no conflict with traffic generated by development of CalTrans West and no access from or on Coast Highway. Access control will also facilitate the ultimate widening of Coast Highway. c. From a planning standpoint, ultimate development of the CalTrans East Parcel by Hoag Hospital, the largest adjoining landowner and the only owner in need of property for expansion, is the most logical scenario. 9. Local Coastal Program. The General Plan Amendment being proposed for the CalTrans West site also requires amendment to the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program. Major concerns of the Coastal Act of 1976, and the City's Local Coastal Program, are in the areas of Public Access, Resource Protection, and Visitor -Serving Facilities. Two of these areas, Public Access and Visitor -serving Facilities, must be considered in the assessment of the Local Coastal Program amendment. The existing Local Coastal Program land use designation for recreation and open space uses permits a number of uses which could enhance public access and . visitor use in the West Newport area. Establishment of a neighborhood/view park on the site would provide additional passive and active recreation in the coastal zone. Other potential uses, such as public parking, could directly provide facilities for visitors and enhance public access. If a residential project is approved, the amount of land available to provide these priority uses will be reduced. There are also potential benefits which could accrue from such an approval. Development can provide the City dedications and funds necessary to establish the neighborhood/view park, make circulation system improvements, and design and implement public transportation systems; all of which have a positive impact on public access and visitor use in the area. Planning Commission Recommendations CalTrans West Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Environmental Open Space Elements of the General Plan, and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan: 1. "Multiple -Family Residential" uses not to exceed 15 dwelling units per buildable acre shall be permitted. 2. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. T0: City Council - 13 3. The preferred access to the CalTrans West site is from the proposed Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extension) across a portion of the Banning property. A reasonable effort must be made to establish this access from Bluff Road at the time of approval of the tentative tract map for the CalTrans West site if it is submitted prior to tentative map's for the Banning - Newport Ranch. Temporary and limited access may be developed from realigned Superior Avenue. The precise location of all access will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 4. That existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved for a line -of -sight four feet above the lower balcony level of a Newport Crest residence. S. 20% of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as defined in the City's Housing Element. 6. 10% of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as set forth in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. 7. CalTrans West will be required to comply with the park dedication ordinance. A park of at least 5 acres in size is to be developed between Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, 15th Street (extended), and Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extended). The specific size, location, design, and the means to acquire and develop the park will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract maps for CalTrans West and/or the adjacent Banning -Newport Ranch residential developments. The park shall be completed concurrent with occupancy of the first residential unit. 8. A view park of t d acre shall be located on-site and shall partially satisfy the requirements for park dedication contained in Chapter 19.50 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 9. A pedestrian and bicycle easement shall be developed to connect the view park with the neighborhood park. The easement shall as much as possible be located to take advantage of ocean and bay views. Precise location and design shall be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 10. The applicant or successor in interest shall participate in 50% of all costs related to the provision of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge over Superior Avenue at a point to be determined in conjunction with the location of the view park at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 11. A landscaped greenbelt shall be established adjacent to Newport Crest. The greenbelt shall be a minimum of 30 feet wide and be maintained by the applicant or successor in interest. Park credit shall not be given for the greenbelt. • TO: City Council - 14 12. Upon approval of this amendment by the Planning Commission, CalTrans will enter into an agreement permitting the City a right of entry onto that property required for realignment of Superior Avenue. This agreement will outline the procedures by which realigned Superior Avenue may be conveyed to the City. 13. Because of difficulties in providing vehicular access to CalTrans East, and in recognition of both the State's need to dispose of this site and Hoag Hospital's need for additional land, CalTrans has entered into negotiations with Hoag Hospital for the acquisition of CalTrans East. Adoption of detailed zoning and approval of a tentative tract map on CalTrans West shall not occur until CalTrans offers satisfactory evidence that it will restrict access from CalTrans East to Coast Highway. 14. At the time of future discretionary, actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. Alternate Language If the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission recommendations, the language of item 12 should be changed to read as follows: 12. Upon approval of this amendment by the City Council, CalTrans will dedicate to the City of Newport Beach the property required for the realignment of Superior Avenue. Fifth Avenue Parcels Applications. The Irvine Company has proposed amendments to permit construction of two medium -density residential projects on one 9.6 acre and one 13.2 acre site located in the vicinity of 5th Avenue and Marguerite Avenues in Corona del Mar. The approvals requested include: 1. Acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report as having been completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A.) and City Policy K-3, and certification that the data was considered in the final decisions on this project. 2. Amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan. The Land Use Element revision changes the designation for Site A from Low -Density Residential to Medium -Density Residential, for Site B from Low -Density Residential to Medium -Density Residential, and Site C from Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an alternate use of Low -Density Residential to Recreational and Environmental Open Space. The Residential Growth Element will be revised to reflect residential TO: City Council - 15 statistical changes. The Recreation and Open Space Element will be revised to remove the future neighborhood designation from Site B and the permitted alternate land use from Site C. Future discretionary review of this project by the City include zone change amendments, tentative tract maps, use permits and grading permits. Project Site. The project site consists of three vacant parcels in the vicinity of Fifth Avenue and Marguerite Avenues in Corona del Mar. Marguerite Parcel - Area A: This site consists of 9.3 gross acres westerly of Marguerite Avenue between Fifth Avenue and Harbor View Drive. Fifth Avenue Parcel - Area B: This site consists of 13.2 gross acres northerly of Fifth Avenue between Marguerite Avenue and Buck Gully. Buck Gully - Area C: This site consists of 49.07 gross acres along the eastern City boundary between Fifth Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road. Project Characteristics. The project proposes the ultimate development of Areas A and B, as follows: • Statistical Analysis Marguerite Parcel - Area A Gross Buildable Dwelling Units Land Use Acres Acres (Range) Medium -Density Residential 9.6 6.8* 27.9 68.0 Dwelling Units per Gross Acre 2.9 - 7.1 Dwelling Units per Buildable Acre 4.1 - 10.0 * Assumes payment of in -lieu park fees and no dedication of park land. r TO: City Council - 16 MVV / MEDIUM DENSITY H 1 ....• ............... ......... ' Sth AV • w�<c 93�y r ....................... ...... RESIDE NTIAL ...................................... (4.1 to 10 DRUJ g r �' /� ''�-�i Buildable Acre) trIii ri1�.................... ::.....'. SENIOR V ,n is J G �14 f . CENTER I �n ^ l t 'oL CL�.�1�- EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped Open Space EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT AND RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ELEMENT: Areas A and B - Low -Density Residential (a or less d.u./buildable acre); Area C . Recreational and E"iro~tal OPen Space with an Alternative Use of Lw -Density Residential (a or less d.u./buildable acre) EXISTING RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT: Arca A - Neighborhood Partt Areas 8 and C - Flora and Fauu Reserve with Neighborhood Part on Am 8 GPA 81-2: Indicated on Exhibit above EXISTING ZONING: 2-1-8 (Single -Family Combining) District Proposed Land Use Element W7 �=2I �h §WC�M ° a cmc .. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 81-2 • TO: City Council - 17 Land Use Statistical Analysis Fifth Avenue Parcel - Area B Gross Buildable Dwelling Units Acres Acres (Range) Medium -Density Residential 13.2 10.0* 41.0 - 100.0 Dwelling Units per Gross Acre 3.1 - 7.6 Dwelling Units per Buildable Acre 4.1 - 10.0 * Assumes payment of in -lieu park fees and no dedication of park land. Environmental Significance. There are environmental impacts anticipated in relation to the implementation of this project. The draft EIR indicates that there are significant adverse environmental impacts which cannot be avoided, as follows: AREAS A & B: Hydrology: 1) Ultimate development of the site will reduce permeable acreage and thereby increase surface runoff; 2) During grading, there will be a short-term increase in silt and sediment transport. After buildout, urban uses will incrementally increase the pollutant load to surface runoff. Demographics: Area A: The proposed project will permit development of approximately 68 dwelling units housing approximately 153 residents. Area B: The proposed project will permit development of approximately 100 dwelling units housing approximately 225 residents. AREA C: Hydrology: Development of limited recreational facilities may increase surface runoff and incrementally increase the pollutant load to surface runoff. The draft EIR further indicates that while the impacts may be partially mitigated, they are still significant when considered as part of the . cumulative adverse impacts associated with regional growth. TO: City Council - 1S 0 Analysis 1. Land Use Area A: The General Plan Amendment for the Marguerite Avenue Parcel will, if approved, change the land use designation from Low -Density Residential to Medium -Density Residential. This change to the medium density category, which permits a maximum of 10 dwelling units per buildable acre, will reestablish the density permitted under the general plan as it was adopted in 1973, which allowed up to 10 DU's per gross acre in the low density category and directed the site to be zoned R -1-B, allowing approximately 50 dwelling units. General Plan Amendment 26, which established the Medium Density Residential category and redefined allowable residential density, changed the land use designation for this site to Medium -Density Residential. The Marguerite Parcel was subsequently redesignated to Low -Density Residential as part of General Plan Amendment 79-1. Area B: If approved, the proposed General Plan Amendment will also change the land use designation for the Fifth Avenue Parcel from Low to Medium Density Residential. The General Plan history for the Fifth Avenue Parcel is essentially the same as for Area A, with the exception that the residential uses shown are alternate uses on the Land Use Plan, under the primary designation of Recreational and Environmental Open Space. General Plan Amendment 79-1 is the first time the Land Use Plan shows the site for only residential uses. 79-1 did not, however, amend the Recreation and Open Space Element, so the open space - flora and fauna reserve designation and the proposed neighborhood park designation remains on the Open Space Plan. This inconsistency between elements will be resolved by this amendment. Area C: This section of the amendment will, if approved, remove the alternate land use designation from the site, leaving it shown for Recreational and Environmental Open Space uses. The Land Use Designation for this site has not been amended since the adoption of the General Plan in 1973. The letter from The Irvine Company requesting consideration of General Plan Amendment proposals for the Marguerite and Fifth Avenue Parcels indicated the possible dedication of Buck Gully (Area C) for park and open space purposes in consideration for the increased development rights on the other two sites. The amendment was therefore initiated including the land use designation change for Buck Gully. Although The Irvine Company asserts they did not request this change, the consideration of it is appropriate, since the City is the applicant in a general plan amendment. In evaluating the General Plan Amendment, the proposal must be balanced with planned growth and development in the immediate area and throughout the City. The General Plan was adopted in 1973 and has been amended several times. Most of the land in the City is developed and the existing General Plan reflects that development. In terms of future allowable development, the General Plan, Local Coastal Program and existing zoning establish that a majority of the vacant land in the city will be developed for low density residential uses or preserved for recreation and environmental open space uses. Most future commercial and office development will occur in the older areas of the community. The proposed project, if approved, appears to be consistent with • the overall development pattern. It will, however, use increments of remaining roadway capacity, which will not then be available for developments TO: City Council - 19 • in other parts of the community. As indicated in the General Plan, potential development in the older commercial areas needs to be balanced with the transportation system. The two parcels proposed for development in this component of the General Plan Amendment are located in the vicinity of Fifth Avenue and Marguerite Avenue in Corona del Mar. Adjacent land uses include the Jasmine Creek townhomes to the north, single family homes in Harbor View Hills to the north and east, and two-family residential uses to the south. The Marguerite Avenue Parcel is adjacent to Harbor View Elementary School, Jasmine Creek and the City -owned OASIS Center parking lot. The Fifth Avenue Parcel is easterly of the OASIS Center facility and adjacent to Buck Gully. The surrounding residential land uses range in density from 2.71 du's per gross acre in Harbor View Hills East (south of San Joaquin Hills Road) to 4.08 du's per gross acre in Jasmine Creek to 11.11 du's per gross acre in old Corona del Mar. This can be compared to a maximum of 7.19 du's per gross acre proposed for the Marguerite Avenue Parcel and a maximum of 7.58 du's per gross acre for the Fifth Avenue Parcel. From an over all design standpoint, and when considered as an urban infill proposal, the project appears compatible with land uses in the area. If the amendment to the Buck Gully land use designation is also approved, the further strengthening of the permanent open space nature of this area balances the proposed higher density with the lower density development existing to the north. The densities proposed on the subject sites can be considered a suitable transition between the old Corona del Mar area and the lower density residential areas to the north. The Recreation and Open Space Element shows the Marguerite Avenue Parcel for a continuation of the Jasmine Creek greenbelt system. The General Plan location of structures policy will preclude development in this environmentally sensitive area, resulting in the Jasmine Creek area on the subject site being, maintained as a greenbelt area. If the proposed amendment is approved, the land use designation should continue to show Jasmine Creek as a greenbelt on this site. The greenbelt should be similar in scale to the Planned Community areas northerly. The Fifth Avenue site is shown on the Open Space Plan as Recreational and Environmental Open space - Flora and Fauna Reserve. The amendment, if approved, will remove this flora and fauna designation. The site in question is relatively flat and is mowed regularly. It has no unique or special plant or animal communities. The location of structures policy will preclude development in any sensitive parts of Buck Gully on the easterly edge of the subject site. The Buck Gully Parcel (Area C) is currently shown on the Open Space Plan as a flora and fauna reserve. If the proposed amendment is approved, this designation should be maintained to indicate the environmentally sensitive nature of the area and its unsuitability for active recreation uses. 2. Housing. If a General Plan Amendment permitting development of Medium -Density Residential uses on the Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue sites is approved, housing opportunities in the City of Newport Beach will increase. This is consistent with the Program and Performance Objectives of the City's Housing Element. The increased level of residential development will have a positive impact on the available supply of housing in the City TO: City Council - 20 • overall. The proponent of this amendment is cooperating with the City on another General Plan Amendment for the North Ford site (82-1), the expressed purpose of which is to increase available housing and provide affordable housing in the City of Newport Beach. Approval of this proposal should include a requirement that a number equal to 108 of the total units be constructed on-site or off-site and be "affordable" by City standards. 3. Parks. Area A: No neighborhood or view parks are shown on the Marguerite Avenue Parcel. The existing and committed neighborhood park designation shown in the vicinity refers to the expansion of the existing Grant Howald Park easterly to Marguerite Avenue on the t 2 acre site owned by the City. Staff is aware that a particularly good view is available from the project site to the bay and ocean in the area of Marguerite Avenue and Harbor View Drive. If the proposed amendment is approved, consideration should be given to establishment of a public viewing area in this vicinity as part of the proposed subdivision. This could be used to satisfy a portion of the park dedication requirement of the project. Area B: A future neighborhood park is shown for the Fifth Avenue Parcel on the Open Space Plan. The Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department considers the OASIS Center a neighborhood park facility which is part of the Grant Howald Park area from Goldenrod Avenue to Narcissus Avenue. The Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission has indicated that additional land is necessary for future expansion of the OASIS facility. Land dedication should be required as part of any development approval for the Fifth Avenue Parcel. Depending on the eventual design of the residential subdivision, and the determination of the amount of land necessary to supplement the OASIS center, in -lieu park fees could also be assessed to satisfy a part of the park dedication requirements. The eventual determination of whether land and/or fees will be required is made at the discretion of the City at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. Area C: When this component of the General Plan Amendment was requested by The Irvine Company, it was indicated that dedication of the Buck Gully Parcel (Area C: t 50 acres) could occur for park and open space purposes in consideration for increased development rights on the Marguerite and Fifth Avenue Parcels. The criteria for park dedication has been quoted in the park section of the CalTrans West discussion above. It appears that the Buck Gully site is unsuitable for dedication as park land in the following areas: Criteria A: Generally, the land shall be flat: The site in question is a drainage course and is predominantly slope areas. Criteria B: Direct frontage on at least one site: The site has no direct street frontage. Criteria C: Suitable for park development: While the site is very large, it does not appear suited to active recreation uses. 10 Criteria F: In accordance with the recreation element of the General Plan: The area is not designated for any parks on the Open Space Plan. TO: City Council - 21 • If amendments to the Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue Parcels are approved, land dedication should be required to satisfy the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance. A portion of the park dedication requirement could be satisfied through the payment of fees if the City determines that sufficient land is being dedicated to satisfy park needs relative to the proposed project. 4. Circulation. The circulation system in the vicinity of the Fifth Avenue Parcels consists of East Coast Highway, MacArthur Boulevard, Marguerite Avenue, San Joaquin Hills Road, Fifth Avenue, and other local streets in Corona del Mar. A preliminary analysis of traffic impacts of the proposed project was completed for the Environmental Impact Report (Pages 107-109 of the draft EIR; Appendix F of the draft EIR). The analysis indicates the generation of 578 vehicle trip ends by the proposed 68 residential units on the Marguerite Parcel, and 1,300 vehicle trip ends by the proposed 100 residential units on the Fifth Avenue Parcel. These totals represent an increase from the permitted development under the existing General Plan of approximately 200 for the Marguerite Avenue Parcel and 390 for the Fifth Avenue Parcel. At the time of further discretionary approvals, the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance must be met, and necessary circulation system improvement shall be required. 5. OASIS Center. At the time General Plan Amendment 81-2 was initiated, The Irvine Company, the Park, Beaches and Recreation Department, and representatives of the OASIS Center were negotiating a land trade to facilitate expansion of the OASIS Center. The proposed exchange would have traded the t2 acre parcel on the northwest corner of Marguerite and Fifth Avenues (now partially developed with an overflow parking lot for the OASIS Center) for land adjacent to the existing facility. No agreement could be reached, however, and the trade never took place. The OASIS Long Range Planning Committee is studying future expansion of OASIS Center facilities and programs. While no firm plan has yet been developed, representatives of the committee have testified before both the Planning Commission and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission indicating the potential for future facility expansion, preferably adjacent to the existing site. 6. View Park Dedication. The Planning Commission is recommending the dedication and improvement of a t 1 acre view park in conjunction with approval of the General Plan Amendment for the Marguerite Avenue Parcel. Determination should be made as to whether park dedication ordinance credit should be given for this dedication. Since the adoption of the Park Dedication Ordinance in 1977, no subdivision approved has included a view park requirement. The Park Dedication Ordinance does not specify particular types of parks to be acquired through the ordinance. It does reference "park and recreation facilities... in accordance with the Recreation Element of the General Plan". The Planning Commission has the opinion of staff that a view park dedication and improvement is appropriate to satisfy the park dedication requirements of a residential development. The Planning Commission has, therefore, recommended that Park Dedication Ordinance credit be given for the • land dedication for the view park if it is required by the City in conjunction with development of the Marguerite Avenue Parcel. Granting park dedication ordinance credit for the view park on the Marguerite Avenue Parcel will TO: City Council - 22 • establish a precedent for future City action in regards to view parks in other development approvals. Undeveloped sites with view park designations include CalTrans West, Westbay, Castaways, and Newporter North. 7. Senior Citizen Housing. It has been suggested that all or a portion of the Fifth Avenue Parcel could be used for development of senior citizen housing similar in nature to the Seaview Lutheran Plaza project on Pacific View Drive in Corona del Mar. This project was developed by a private/non-profit organization (The Lutheran Church of the Master) utilizing the Federal 202 loan program and the Section 8 rental subsidy program. The characteristics of this residential development are as follows: Site size: 2.25 acre Units: 100 du's Density: 44.4 du's/acre Height: 32 feet Configuration: 3 story, stacked flats Parking ratio: 0.63/unit senior citizen housing facilities are permitted in any residential, commercial, industrial or planned community zoning district upon approval of a use permit. Redesignation of the Fifth Avenue Parcel to Medium Density Residential and rezoning to the P -C District will not preclude the opportunity to propose and develop a senior citizen housing development on the site. 8. Views. Development of a residential project on the Marguerite Avenue Parcel could have impacts on views from public roadways (Marguerite Avenue and Harbor View Drive). Residential development on both the Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue Parcels could impact views from private residences in Harbor View Hills. The City has, in the past, required view preservation as part of approvals of tentative tract maps, and policy language is recommended by the Planning Commission to require view preservation as part of this General Plan Amendment. 9. Buck Gully. Buck Gully, Area C of the Fifth Avenue Parcels is designated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan with a primary designation of Recreation and Environmental Open Space and an alternate designation of Low Density Residential. The Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan designates this area as a flora and fauna reserve. The Recreation Element states that "areas designated flora and fauna reserve on the Open Space Plan will be maintained in their natural state with only such interference as is necessary for the enhancement and preservation of the natural flora and fauna resources." For the Buck Gully area the Element further states that "it is proposed that these canyons be maintained as natural open space by public acquisition of the land in fee or easement," and that these areas "are to be maintained in a predominantly natural state to preserve valuable flora and fauna resources for both ecological and educational purposes." The City's Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, approved by the City Council and certified by the California Coastal Commission in May of 1982, designates the upper portion of Buck Gully for Recreation and Environmental Open Space uses exclusively. There is no provision for any alternate residential use of the property. Buck Gully is then listed on Page 17 of the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan as an environmentally -sensitive habitat area. The LCP describes recreation and TO: City Council - 23 environmental open space areas as including parks, wildlife refuges, golf courses, bluffs, canyons and beaches. The document then states that "uses permitted in areas shown for recreation and environmental open space on the sites listed on Page 17 of the LUP (which include Buck Gully) and defined as environmentally -sensitive areas (Page 20) are passive recreation uses compatible with the sensitive resource nature of these sites and include hiking, picnicking and nature study." The City's Open Space zoning district permits a variety of uses less restrictive than those allowed by the flora and fauna designation contained in the General Plan or the Recreation and Open Space designation contained in the City's adopted LCP. The district allows, by use permit, certain active commercial and recreation facilities, golf courses, aquatic parks, tennis clubs, and yacht clubs. If, subsequent to the City's final action on the proposed general plan amendment, Buck Gully were to be rezoned to the open space district it would be with a clear understanding that the permitted uses on the site would be passive in nature, and not include the more active commercial recreation type of facilities allowed through the use permit process. As an alternative the City may, prior to the application of open space zoning to the property, amend the open space district to be specific with respect to flora and fauna reserves and other types of passive open space areas consistent with the City's Local Coastal Program and Recreation and Open Space Element. Although staff has proposed to remove the residential alternative on Area C, • it is not recommended that any park credit be given for this area. Rather, staff is suggesting that this area be maintained as permanent open space in consideration for increased development intensities on Area A and on Area B, similar in concept to the density transfer program that was developed by the City during General Plan Amendment 79-1 in order to maintain large areas of the Westbay parcel and all of Eastbluff Remnant parcel as permanent open space. It has been suggested by The Irvine Company that this is not the appropriate time to evaluate this parcel for open space uses, and that the City's consideration of major revisions to the Recreation and Open Space Element, which is currently under study, should evaluate all such parcels Citywide and make some determination. It is staff's opinion, however, that from a legal standpoint the City is in a better bargaining position to include Area C along with the discussions on Area A and Area B at this time rather than to evaluate it individually at some future date. There has been discussion of Area C - Buck Gully and its relationship to the Irvine Coast LCP. There was some confusion regarding the relationship of the uses permitted by the Irvine Coast LCP in the Buck Gully area and those permitted by the City. It should be pointed out that there has never been any overlap in jurisdiction for this area. The portion of Buck Gully that is within the City of Newport Beach boundaries, which run roughly down the center line of the canyon, has always been shown as open space with an alternate use of residential in the Newport Beach General Plan. The area of Buck Gully that is discussed in the Irvine Coast LCP is the area that is totally outside of the City boundary and under the County's jurisdiction. Although the Irvine Coast LCP as originally drafted was fairly permissive in terms of the uses • that would be allowed in these residential recreation areas (e.g. Buck Gully), the final draft as certified by the Coastal Commission is very restrictive as to the uses permitted in these areas. Uses are generally limited to passive TO: City Council - 24 parks, riding and hiking trails, bikeways, drainage control facilities and utilities. The uses allowed by the County under the certified Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan should be compatible with those permitted by the City under the Recreation and Open Space designation as a flora and fauna reserve. The Buck Gully parcel consists of approximately 65.0 gross acres. At the request of the City, the Irvine Company has.prepared tentative calculations as to 2:1 slope areas in the Buck Gully parcel. It has been calculated that approximately 6.2 acres are slope areas greater than 2:1, leaving approximately 58.8 acres consisting of slopes no greater than 2:1. If some allowance is made for streets within the area (for example: 158), there would be 50 buildable acres remaining. Under the alternate low density residential designation this would allow approximately 200 units. It should be pointed out, however, that the City also has a Location of Structures policy which requires that buildings not be located in environmental habitat and other sensitive areas. This policy would probably cause a further reduction of possible residential units on the site. Planning Commission Recommendations Fifth Avenue Parcels Area A: Marguerite Avenue Parcel: Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. Medium -Density Residential use shall be permitted. 2. Remove Recreational and Environmental Open Space designation from the Open Space Plan for the area adjacent to Marguerite Avenue to bring the various general plan elements into conformance. 3. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 4. The Jasmine Creek greenbelt system shall be continued on the site. The extent of the greenbelt shall be determined at the time of approval of the P -C development plan. 5. A public view park shall be designated in the Recreation and Open Space Element and provided (dedication + improvements) on the site in the vicinity of Marguerite Avenue and Harbor View Drive. The precise location of the view park shall be determined -at the time of approval of the P -C development plan. 6. That park dedication requirement credits be given to the applicant for the land dedication of the view park, consistent with the criteria contained in the City's Park Dedication Ordinance. Land given credit for park dedication shall be only those areas which are flat and outside the limits of the Orange County Flood Control District Easement. • TO: City Council - 25 7. In the event that dedication of the view park is more than is necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, the excess credit shall be used to satisfy part of the requirement for Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel. 8. That existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved for a line -of -sight four feet above the ground floor level of a Harbor View Hills South residence. 9. That a number of units equal to at least 10% of the total units be constructed on-site or off-site and be affordable to low and moderate income families using City standards. 10. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. In the event the dedication of land for a view park does not satisfy the entire requirement of the Park Dedication Ordinance, the Planning Commission was unable to agree '(by a vote of 3-3, one absent) whether the additional requirement could be satisfied through the payment of in -lieu park fees. The Planning Commission's recommendation is forwarded without indication of how additional park dedication requirements will be satisfied. Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel: The Planning Commission recommends that no changes be made to the General Plan for this site. Area C: Buck Gully Parcel: The Planning Commission recommends that no changes be made to the General Plan for this site. Additional Language Area A: Marguerite Avenue Parcel: If the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission recommendations, staff recommends the following language regarding park dedication be added (following #7 listed above): a. In the event that dedication of the view park does not satisfy the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, the additional park dedication requirements shall be satisfied through on-site or off-site land dedication, the assessment of in -lieu fees or a combination of the above as determined by the Planning Commission and City Council, after recommendation by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. Areas B and C: • If the City Council does not concur with the Planning Commission recommendation on Areas B and C, the following language is provided: TO: City Council - 26 40 Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel: Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. Medium -Density Residential use shall be permitted. 2. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 3. Remove the Recreational and Environmental Open Space/Flora and Fauna Reserve designation. 4. The requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance shall be satisfied through on-site land dedication for the expansion of existing neighborhood park facilities, including expansion of the OASIS Center. The assessment of in -lieu fees may occur for a portion of the park dedication requirement if it is determined at the time of approval of tentative tract maps by the Planning Commission and City Council, after recommendation by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, that sufficient land is being dedicated for neighborhood park needs. 5. Land dedicated will be improved to the extent that the land is rough graded to the existing grade of the adjacent City owned property, a retaining wall will be installed to support the slope above the property and the 10.40 acre at the northeast corner of the City property be graded to the same level as the dedicated land. 6. No slope areas will be accepted through dedication or given park dedication credit. 7. The developer shall receive park credit only for the acreage dedicated and not for the value of any ,improvement to the land. 8. That existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved for a line -of -sight four feet above the ground floor level of a Harbor View Hills South residence. 9. That a number of units equal to at least 10% of the total units be constructed on-site or off-site and be affordable to low and moderate income families using City standards. 10. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. Area C: Buck Gully Parcel: Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan in consideration for the General Plan Amendments for Areas A & B above: 1. Remove the alternate residential land use designation. This leaves the area designated as Recreational and Environmental Open Space/Flora and Fauna Reserve. TO: City Council - 27 2. Require that the Buck Gully area be established as an open space parcel and a permanent open space easement be recorded for that parcel in conjunction with the tentative and final tract maps for Areas A & B. 3. That the parcel be rezoned to the Open Space Zone for open space use concurrent and in consideration of the rezoning of the Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue Parcels (Areas A and B). Big Canyon Area 16 Applications. The Irvine Company has proposed amendments to permit construction of a medium -density residential development on the 10.9 acre site located at MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road in Big Canyon. The approvals requested include: 1. Acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report as having been completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A.) and City Policy K-3, and certification that the data was considered in the final decisions on this project. 2. Amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan. The Land Use Element revision changes the land use designation for the subject site from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Medium -Density Residential. The Residential Growth Element will be revised to reflect residential statistical changes. The Recreation and Open Space Element will be revised to remove the open space/golf course designation from this site. Future discretionary review of this project by the City includes a zone change amendment, tentative tract maps, use permits, and grading permits. Project Site. The project site consists of a vacant parcel southwesterly of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. The parcel is 10.9 gross acres in size and is within the Big Canyon Planned Community . • 0 TO: City MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (4.1 to 10 D.UdSuHdeble Acre) Q8 /BLAND � -•- , . � �/ `��, LtPi ✓E�.•' • r • q.VE LAC 4N �. ,.Asp A. 1 —15 P Y � /V / ♦ 1 �--, - z�Ity ��. 1' \`4TH 'I`gwir + abQ�A� i 1 "•f 1 =2 _ � Inl ti� �\ ✓ � 1. toe N EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped Open Space EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT: Recreational ao EXISTING RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT: GPA 81-2: Indicated on Exhibit above Golf Course EXISTING ZONING; PIC (Planned Commity) District Proposed Land Use. Element IIg C myon d A c 13 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GFA 81=2 r -i .� Sr. k-•' i ,Q �l / IN ro .` le 0 100 200 300 Mrd � TO: City Council - 29 isPro]ect Characteristics. The project proposes the ultimate development of the site as follows: Statistical Analysis Gross Buildable Dwelling Units Land Use Acres Acres (Range) Medium -Density Residential 10.9 8.7* 35.7 - 87.0 Dwelling Units per Gross Acre 3.3 - 8.0 Dwelling Units per Buildable Acre 4.1 - 10.0 * Assumes payment of in -lieu park fees and no dedication of park land. Environmental Significance. There are environmental impacts anticipated in relation to the implementation of this project. The draft EIR indicates that there are significant adverse environmental impacts which cannot be avoided, as follows: Hydrology: 1) Ultimate development of the site will reduce permeable acreage and thereby increase surface runoff; 2) During grading, there will be a short-term increase in silt and sediment transport. After buildout, urban uses will incrementally increase the pollutant load to surface runoff. Demographics: The proposed project will permit development of approximately 67 dwelling units housing approximately 196 residents. Recreation and open Space: Depending on the findings of the City's comprehensive Recreation and Open Space Element review, there may or may not be significant adverse impacts on the provision of recreation and open space areas in the City. The draft EIR further indicates that while the impacts in the categories of Hydrology and Demographics may be partially mitigated, they are still significant when considered as part of the cumulative adverse impacts associated with regional growth. Analysis 1. Land Use. The General Plan Amendment for the Big Canyon Area 16 Parcel will, if approved, change the land use designation from Recreational and Environmental Open Space/Golf Course to Medium -Density Residential. This site - has carried this designation since the General Plan was adopted in 1973. It was originally'believed that all or a portion of this site would be needed as TO: City Council - 30 right-of-way for the Corona del Mar Freeway, but realignment of that facility has removed this possibility. The Land Use Element for Big Canyon currently makes provision for 100 dwelling units not assigned to any specific site in the area. As part of the agreements regarding of the Back Bay sewer line through the Mouth of Big Canyon, the City agreed to consider the assignment of these units to a particular site in the area, so long as the residential density did not exceed 10 dwelling units per buildable acre. In evaluating the General Plan Amendment, the proposal must be balanced with planned growth and development in the immediate area and throughout the city. The General Plan was adopted in 1973 and has been amended several times. Most of the land in the City is developed and the existing General Plan reflects that development. In terms of future allowable development, the General Plan, Local Coastal Program and existing zoning establish that a majority of the vacant land in the City will be developed for low density' residential uses or preserved for recreation and environmental open space uses. Most future commercial and office development will occur in the older areas of the community. The proposed project, if approved, appears to be consistent with the overall development pattern. It will, however, use increments of remaining roadway capacity, which will not then be available for developments in other parts of the community. As indicated in the General plan, potential development in the older commercial areas needs to be balanced with the transportation system. The project site is located in the vicinity of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford • Road in the Big Canyon Planned Community. Land uses in the vicinity include the other areas of Big Canyon Planned Community, attached and detached residential uses and industrial uses across Ford Road in the Aeronutronic Ford/Belcourt area, and single family residential uses across MacArthur Boulevard in Harbor View Hills. The Big Canyon Area 16 Parcel is adjacent to the Big Canyon Country Club Golf Course. The surrounding residential land uses range in density from 2.38 du's per gross acre in Big Canyon to 2.62 du's per gross acre in Belcourt to 3.73 du's per gross acre in Harbor View Hills northerly of San Joaquin Hills Road. This is compared to a maximum of 7.98 du's per gross acre for the Big Canyon Area 16 site. There are areas within the Big Canyon and Belcourt which fall within the Medium -Density Residential category. From an overall design standpoint, and when considered as an urban infill proposal, the project appears compatible with land use in the area. The Recreation and Open Space Element shows the Big Canyon Area 16 Parcel as Recreational and Environmental Open Space/Golf Course. Since it is adjacent to the golf course, the site could be used for golf course expansion or development of other commercial recreational facilities associated with the country club. The recreation needs of residents in the area are provided by private facilities developed with the residential uses. The site is, therefore not needed to provide public recreational facilities. 2. Housing. If a General Plan Amendment permitting development of Medium -Density Residential uses on the Big Canyon - Area 16 sites is approved, housing opportunities in the City of Newport Beach will increase. This is consistent with the Program and Performance Objectives of the City's Housing Element. The increased level of residential development will have a positive impact on the available supply of housing in the City overall. The proponent of this amendment is cooperating with the City on another General Plan 3. Parks. No neighborhood park, or any other public recreation facility is designated for The Big Canyon Area 16 site. if this proposal is approved, in -lieu park fees should be required consistent with the city's Park Dedication Ordinance. 4. Circulation. The circulation system in the vicinity of 'Big Canyon Area 16 consists of East Coast Highway, Eastbluff Drive, Ford Road, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. A preliminary analysis of traffic impacts of the proposed project was completed for the Environmental Impact Report (Page 110 of the draft EIR; Appendix F of the draft EIR). The analysis indicates the generation of 740 vehicle trip ends by the proposed residential uses. At the time of further discretionary approvals, the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance must be met, and necessary circulation system improvements shall be required. 5. Relationship to Mouth of Big Canyon. With the adoption of the Local Coastal Program by the City Council and its certification by the California Coastal Commission, the City adopted policies relating to the Mouth of Big Canyon. The following language was adopted as a result of the fact that the Irvine Company had cooperated in the construction of the Backbay gravity sewer line and specifically with providing mitigation measures for its construction in the form of a restored marsh area in the Mouth of Big Canyon. "During the implementation phase of the LCP the City and the landowner shall develop a mechanism for obtaining dedication of the Mouth of Big Canyon to the appropriate public agencies, including consideration of the following: a) the granting of park credits to the landowner for those portions of the Mouth of Big Canyon meeting the useability criteria of the Park Dedication Ordinance. Park credits would not apply to residential sites where neighborhood parks have already been designated in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan (e.g. Castaways and Newport North); b) the City of Newport Beach shall initiate a general plan amendment and planned community amendment to designate for residential development, a portion of the Big Canyon Planned Community located southwesterly of the intersection of Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The precise boundaries of this site, appropriate density, and design of the residential development will be determined through appropriate environmental documentation. The proposed 10 acres for residential development shall not exceed 10 du's per buildable acre." TO: City Council - 31 the LCP was to give the Irvine Company some additional Amendment for the North Ford site (82-1), the expressed purpose of which is to increase available housing and provide affordable housing in the City of time the Newport Beach. Approval of this proposal should include a requirement that a the State number equal to 10% of the total units be constructed on-site or off-site and have been be "affordable" by City standards. 3. Parks. No neighborhood park, or any other public recreation facility is designated for The Big Canyon Area 16 site. if this proposal is approved, in -lieu park fees should be required consistent with the city's Park Dedication Ordinance. 4. Circulation. The circulation system in the vicinity of 'Big Canyon Area 16 consists of East Coast Highway, Eastbluff Drive, Ford Road, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. A preliminary analysis of traffic impacts of the proposed project was completed for the Environmental Impact Report (Page 110 of the draft EIR; Appendix F of the draft EIR). The analysis indicates the generation of 740 vehicle trip ends by the proposed residential uses. At the time of further discretionary approvals, the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance must be met, and necessary circulation system improvements shall be required. 5. Relationship to Mouth of Big Canyon. With the adoption of the Local Coastal Program by the City Council and its certification by the California Coastal Commission, the City adopted policies relating to the Mouth of Big Canyon. The following language was adopted as a result of the fact that the Irvine Company had cooperated in the construction of the Backbay gravity sewer line and specifically with providing mitigation measures for its construction in the form of a restored marsh area in the Mouth of Big Canyon. "During the implementation phase of the LCP the City and the landowner shall develop a mechanism for obtaining dedication of the Mouth of Big Canyon to the appropriate public agencies, including consideration of the following: a) the granting of park credits to the landowner for those portions of the Mouth of Big Canyon meeting the useability criteria of the Park Dedication Ordinance. Park credits would not apply to residential sites where neighborhood parks have already been designated in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan (e.g. Castaways and Newport North); b) the City of Newport Beach shall initiate a general plan amendment and planned community amendment to designate for residential development, a portion of the Big Canyon Planned Community located southwesterly of the intersection of Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The precise boundaries of this site, appropriate density, and design of the residential development will be determined through appropriate environmental documentation. The proposed 10 acres for residential development shall not exceed 10 du's per buildable acre." The concept proposed in the LCP was to give the Irvine Company some additional units in the Big Canyon Area 16 site and also some park dedication credit for appropriate areas within the Mouth of Big Canyon, in exchange for the Mouth of Big Canyon being dedicated to an appropriate public agency (at that time the • City was contemplating the State Department of Fish and Game, or the State Coastal Conservancy). To date, The Irvine Company and the City have been TO: City Council - 32 40 unable to resolve the issue of the ultimate disposition of the Mouth of Big Canyon although negotiations are ongoing. The Planning Commission has recommended a condition for this component that zoning to allow the residential units on Area 16 not be approved by the City until such time as the question of park credits, development rights and ownership of the Mouth of Big Canyon is resolved. Planning Commission Recommendation Big Canyon - Area 16 Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. Medium -Density Residential use shall be permitted. 2. Remove the Recreation and Open Space/Golf Course designation. 3. That the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance shall be satisfied through on-site or off-site land dedication, the assessment of in -lieu fees or a combination of the above as determined by the Planning Commission and City Council, after recommendation by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. i4. That a number of units equal to at least 10% of the total units be constructed on-site or off-site and be affordable to low and moderate income families using City standards. 5. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. 6. Prior to the approval by the City of any future discretionary actions (i.e., zoning and tentative tract), the question of park credits, development rights and ownership of the Mouth of Big Canyon shall be resolved. Newport Center - Block 400 Applications. Newport Center Medical Buildings, Inc. has proposed the following amendment to permit construction an additional 80,000 square feet of medical office in a new seven story office tower in Block 400 of Newport Center. 1. Acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report as having been completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A.) and City Policy K-3, and certification that the data was considered in the final decisions on this project. T0: City Council - 33 2. An amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan to increase the total allowable office development in Newport Center by 80,000 square feet and the designation of the additional office development to Block 400. Project Site. The project site is northeast of the intersection of Newport Center Drive East and San Miguel Drive in Newport Center. Block 400 comprises approximately 16 acres bounded by Newport Center Drive East, San Miguel Road, Avocado Avenue, and San Nicholas Drive. Project Characteristics. The project proposes development of a seven story medical office tower of 80,000 square feet and a related parking structure. Currently, there are 353,600 square feet of medical and general office existing in Block 400. If approved, a total of 433,600 square feet of office will be permitted. The existing floor area ratio (FAR) is 0.51 times the buildable acreage. The proposed floor area ratio of the site is 0.62 times the buildable acreage. Environmental Significance. There are environmental impacts anticipated in relation to the implementation of this project. The draft EIR indicates that there are significant adverse impacts which cannot be avoided, as follows: Demographics: The proposed project will result in additional employment opportunities in the City of Newport Beach of approximately 256 additional employees. Aesthetics/Views: The level of significance of these impacts are to be determined by the Planning Commission and City Council: 1) Addition to the Newport Center skyline; 2) possible impairment or obstruction of views from surrounding office or residential uses. The draft EIR further indicates that while the impacts in terms of Demographics may be partially mitigated, they are still cumulatively significant when considered part of City and regional demand. Analysis 1. Land Use. In evaluating an applicant's request for an amendment to the General Plan, the request must be balanced with planned growth and development within the immediate area and throughout the community. The Newport Beach General Plan was adopted in 1973 and has been amended several times. A majority of the land in the City is developed today and the existing General Plan reflects that development. In terms of future allowable development, the Newport Beach General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, and zoning establish that a majority of the vacant land in the City will be developed for low density residential development or preserved for recreation and environmental open space uses. Future allowable development of commercial or office will be in the older areas of the community. The future additional allowable development will take place as incremental increases as presently developed properties recycle. The proposed project, if approved, would appear to be consistent • with this overall development pattern. However, any approval of this project will use increments of remaining roadway capacities. This capacity will not • TO: city council - 34 ADMINISTRATIVE, / PROFESSIONAL AND FINANCIAL COMMERCIAL (Amends Land Use El Text to allow the add of 80,000 square feet medical office space) NEGYPORT -J y EXISTING LAND USE: General Office and Medical Office EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT: Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial (No further development) GPA 81-2: Indicated on Exhibit above EXISTING ZONING: L -O -M (Multiple Residential, Hotel, Motel, Professional Offices, and Retail Sales District) Proposed Land Use Element o obok a o o a H87%pat camtsT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 81-2 TO: City Council - 35 then be available for developments in the other areas of the community. As indicated in the General Plan, potential development in the older commercial areas need to be balanced with the transportation system. In Newport Center, the medical office development (tower) in terms of overall design is compatible with existing development patterns and future development. Blocks 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, and 900 of Newport Center contain all of the mid/high rise buildings in Newport Center. There are four existing office buildings on the site. A majority of the remaining vacant areas in Newport Center are to be developed for medium density residential uses at an average of 6 du's/ac (505 total units). A limited amount of other commercial/office growth is projected by the General Plan for the remainder of Newport Center. The Irvine Company has allocated a majority of the future allowable office developments remaining after GPA 79-1 to its Corporate and Civic Plaza projects. The City Council has recently approved a General Plan Amendment and related applications for expansion of the Marriott Hotel. A General Plan Amendment for an additional hotel in Block 600 of Newport Center (Four Seasons) has been initiated by the City Council. From the overall design standpoint of Newport Center, the proposed project appears compatible and would remain so even if the project previously mentioned is approved. If the proposed project is approved, it should be subject to review and approval of a Use Permit by the Planning Commission to provide for appropriate site plan review and mitigation measures. 2. Circulation. The circulation system in the vicinity of Block 400 - Newport Center consists of Avocado Avenue, East Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Center Drive, San Joaquin Hills Road, San Miguel Drive and San Nicholas Drive. A preliminary analysis of traffic impacts of the proposed project was completed for the Environmental Impact Report (Pages 111-112 of the draft EIR; Appendix F of the draft EIR). This analysis indicates the proposed project will generate about 3,600 vehicle trip ends per day. At the time of further discretionary approvals, the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance must be met, and necessary circulation system improvements will be required. 3. General Plan and Zoning History. Block 400 in Newport Center consists of 316 acres bounded by Newport Center Drive East, San Miguel Drive, Avocado Avenue and San Nicholas Drive. The property is zoned C -O -H, which it has carried since the property was subdivided for development. Under this zoning designation approximately 1.8 million square feet of development could be permitted on the site. The Newport Beach General Plan designates the site for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial uses. The zoning and land use designations are consistent. The General Plan adopted in 1973 did not specify any development limits in Newport Center. The only structural area limits were those specified by the zoning district. The first development limits beyond the zoning limitations placed on Newport Center were established by the City Council on February 28, 1977 with the adoption of City Council Resolution 9009. The four • buildings currently within Block 400 were either built or under construction as of that date. Resolution 9009 was adopted by the City Council after T0: City Council - 36 recommendation by the Planning Commission. Staff's research into the files indicate that this resolution was adopted by the City Council as a "Current Business" item at a regular City Council meeting. The item was not a public hearing item, was not advertised, and no property or building owners in Newport Center were notified. The resolution was not adopted in connection with any zoning or development applications. It is evident, however, that The Irvine Company was aware of the resolution and the development limitations it imposed. The limitations enacted by the resolution were, in fact, ultimate development projections provided to the City by The Irvine Company during the development of the City's computerized traffic model. It is not known whether these development projections for Newport Center included any additional development in Block 400. It is, however, the opinion of staff that the development projections provided by The Irvine Company were for developments which were to be developed either by The Irvine Company itself or for areas which were subject to future leases and did not include any future development in Block 400. Subsequent to the adoption of Resolution 9009 in 1978, the City Council adopted General Plan Amendment 78-2, which reduced allowed development on many commercial and residential developments City-wide, including Newport Center. It is within the staff reports prepared for GPA 78-2 that projected future development in Newport Center is delineated on a block basis, and these clearly show no future allowable development in Block 400. The records for GPA 78-2 also indicate that a standard legal notice advertisement was placed in the newspaper for the public hearing and property owners, homeowners • associations and other interested parties were notified of the pending General Plan Amendment hearing. The major leasehold interests in Newport Center were not directly notified. The City again addressed permitted development in Newport Center in General Plan Amendment 79-1. Again a legal notice of public hearing was printed in the newspaper and property owners, homeowners associations and interested parties were notified of the public hearings, but the leasehold interests in Newport Center were not notified directly. During the preparation of environmental documentation for General Plan Amendment 80-3, staff was approached by Mr. Frank Rhodes regarding additional development he had planned for the Block 400 area of Newport Center. After being informed of the lack of future allowable development in Block 400, Mr. Rhodes requested to be included in the General Plan Amendment 80-3. Staff informed him that this would not be possible, since preparation of the environmental document was nearly completed. He was advised to request a general plan amendment for the following amendment session. The request was made and an amendment to permit an additional 80,000 square feet of development in Newport Center was initiated by the Planning Commission as part of General Plan Amendment 81-2. A question has also been raised regarding the leases for the Block 400 area. Mr. Rhodes has provided staff with a copy of the lease for the 3.971 acre parcel currently occupied by a seven story medical office at 400 Newport Center Drive East. The lease indicates allowed development of 160,000 square • feet of office uses. The existing building on the site is approximately 80,000 square feet, leaving an additional 80,000 square of development permitted under the terms of the lease. T0: City Council - 37 isIn reviewing the entire record in regards to the development intensity reductions which have occurred over the years in Newport Center, it is apparent that the City dealt with The Irvine Company alone as the sole property owner. In doing so, the City assumed that The Irvine Company was representing and protecting all future planned development in the Center. It now appears that The Irvine Company was representing only their own future planned development and, whether intentional or not, did not protect additional development granted in the terms of prior leases. The situation is one in which the lessee, who by the tenure of the lease is considered the controlling interest, was not notified by mail of any action of the City to reduce development rights and of the property owner not informing the City of, or otherwise protecting, development rights granted to a lessee. When this situation was first discovered during the deliberations on GPA 80-3, staff contacted all long-term leaseholders in Newport Center to determine if any other "planned" development was being overlooked, and none were discovered. In recognition of the requested general plan amendment for Block 400 in Newport Center the City Council included the following statement in the action on GPA 80-3: "The adoption of General Plan Amendment 80-3 is without prejudice to the approval or disapproval of an 80,000 sq.ft. medical office building in Block 400, which is under process in General Plan Amendment 81-2." . Planning Commission Recommendations Newport Center - Block 400 Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan: 1. Allow the addition of 80,000 square feet of medical office development in Newport Center, along with related parking facilities. 2. Specify this additional allowable development to Block 400, on the parcel located at 400 Newport Center Drive East. 3. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 4. Specify the development be subject to further review and approval of a use permit. 5. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. Campus Drive Applications. The City of Newport Beach has proposed amendments to the Land Use Element for the Campus Drive area generally bounded by Campus Drive/Irvine TO. City Council - 38 • LEGEND J CrMPv3�� . ADMINISTRATIVE, PROFESSIONAL r i AND FINANCIAL COMMERCIAL s MIXED USE— RETAIL AND SERVICE ezc 2 COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE, PROFESSIONAL AND FINANCIAL COMMERCIAL MIXED USE— ADMINISTRATIVE. PROFESSIONAL AND FINANCIAL COMMERCIAL AND GENERAL INDUSTRY (Amends Land Use Element Text to limit development to .5 times I a the buildable area) J i � ti iJ I r . ! iia'• I� `.� /\ � 1 a 'Q �. J \`'A�' j EXISTING LANG USE: Residential, 0.mta11 and Ser- vice Commercial. Light Industrial and Office. S'p�STpL EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT: North of Dove St. r•- South of Bristol St. Retail and Service _ _ �i Commercial and Financial Commercial and Administrative. Professional and Financial , North between Dove St. and Bristol St 52, Northh - General Industry. Yl GPA 81-2: Indicated on Exhibit above EXISTING ZONING: North of Bristol St. North - C M-1-A (Administrative and Professional - Light Manufacturing) District; South of 0 i a Bristol St. - Primarily A-P-H (Offices, Art Galleries, etc.) District; also C-1-H (Offices, Retail, etc.) District. Proposed Land Use Element CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPOSED GPA 81-2 TO: City Council - 39 • Avenue, Orchard Avenue, Birch Street, and MacArthur Boulevard. The approvals requested include: 1. Acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report as having been completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A.) and City Policy K-3, and certification that the data was considered in the final decisions on this project. 2. Amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. This amendment will revise the land use designation for the area bounded by Campus Drive, Bristol Street, Birch Street and Dove Street from General Industry to a mixture of General Industry and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial. Also proposed is a limitation on the intensity of allowable development in the entire subject area of 0.5 FAR (floor area ratio). Future discretionary review of this project by the City will be a zone change amendment to implement the General Plan Amendment and any other discretionary approvals, such as use permits and resubdivisions, which may be required by individual development requests in the project area. Project Site. The project site consists of 63.9 acres along Campus Drive north and south of Bristol Street and is bounded by Campus Drive, Orchard Avenue, Birch Street and MacArthur Avenue. • Project Characteristics. The following statistical analysis outlines the existing, permitted under zoning, and proposed permitted development for the project area. Statistical Analysis Office, Industrial1 Development2 and Commercial Buildable Net Floor Intensity Floor to Land Uses Acres Areas (S.F.) (S.F./Acre) Area Ratio Existing (1981) Development . No. of Bristol 55.5 830,400 14,960 0.34 . So. of Bristol 8.4 122,270 14,560 0.33 Permitted Development under Zoning Code . No. of Bristol 55.5 6,304,360 113,590 2.61 . So. of Bristol 8.4 707,480 84,220 1.93 Proposed Development under GPA 81-2 . No. of Bristol 55.5 1,208,790 21,780 0.50 . So. of Bristol 8.4 182,950 21,780 0.50 1 Within Drive study area, the number of buildable acres is equal the Campus to the • 2 number of gross acres. The number of square feet allowed in each buildable acre. TO: City Council - 40 . Environmental Significance. There are environmental impacts anticipated in relation to the implementation of this project. The draft EIR indicates that there are significant adverse impacts which cannot be avoided as follows: Demographics: The proposed project will permit development increases which, if implemented, could generate approximately 2,070 more employees than exist today, or a total of approximately 5,429. This represents a net reduction of approximately 21,918 employment opportunities within the project area as theoretically allowed under the existing General Plan. The draft EIR further indicates that while the impacts may be partially mitigated at the time the General Plan Amendment is implemented by further discretionary approvals, they are still cumulatively significant when considered as part of City and regional demand. Analysis 1. Land Use. The General Plan Amendment for Campus Drive as proposed, will, if approved, establish a limit on the permitted intensity of development of 0.5 floor area ratio (ratio of building square footage to total land area) . The land use designation for the area bounded by Campus Drive, Dove Street, Birch Street and Bristol Street will add a designation of Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial to the existing General Industry designation. This land use designation amendment will reflect the existing uses and development trends in the area, which is predominantly office mixed 45 with industrial and other commercial land uses. This amendment is the first proposed for the area since the General Plan was adopted in 1973. The proposed General Plan Amendment is the first step in the process to: 1) establish intensity limitations which more closely reflect those permitted in contiguous industrial/office areas, and 2) insure that the circulation .system will be able to accommodate future development. The approval of the project will significantly reduce the permitted development levels in the area. It will, however, still permit additional development in the area which, if implemented, will use increments of remaining roadway capacity which will not then be available for developments in other areas of the community. As already indicated in the General Plan, potential development must be balanced with the capacity of the transportation system. The project site is in the northern part of the City, and is adjacent to the Emkay-Newport Place Planned Community and in the vicinity of Koll Center Newport Planned Community. Other land uses in the area include the John Wayne - Orange County Airport, the mixed residential and commercial areas of Santa Ana Heights and the commercial/office/industrial areas of the Irvine Industrial Complex. The adjacent commercial/industrial/office in the City of Newport Beach have development intensity ratios as follows: Emkay-Newport Place = 0.36 FAR, Koll Center - Newport = 0.39 FAR. This is compared to the 0.5 FAR proposed for the Campus Drive area. From an overall design standpoint, the project appears compatible with the land uses and development intensities in the area. • 2. Circulation. The circulation system in the vicinity of the Campus Drive area consists of Birch Street, Bristol Street, Campus Drive, Corona del Mar TO: City Council - 41 • Freeway, Irvine Avenue, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, and Von Karman Avenue. A preliminary analysis of traffic impacts of the proposed project was completed for the Environmental Impact Report (Pages 112-114 of the draft EIR; Appendix F of the draft EIR). The analysis indicates that under the proposed amendment, the Campus Drive area will generate approximately 18,096 vehicle trip ends at buildout. This number represents an increase of approximately 5,707 trip ends over existing development trip ends and a reduction of approximately 73,060 trip ends from the existing General Plan. Any future development proposals in the study area of 10,000 square feet or more must meet the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and necessary circulation system improvements shall be required. The proposed General Plan Amendment is unique in one respect. Both the positive and negative impacts of the proposal are in the area of traffic and circulation. The proposal will reduce the development potential of the area. It will significantly reduce the "worst case" traffic generation potential. It is, however, not known at this time whether the development potential permitted by the floor area ratio of 0.5 can be accommodated by the circulation system. 3. Flexibility of Floor Area Limitations. Testimony was received by the Planning Commission regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment for the Campus Drive area expressing concern over a lack of flexibility in the proposed intensity Limitation of 0.5 FAR. These concerns have been addressed in the Planning Commission recommendations for the area, which 1) further . define proposed zoning code amendments, and 2) establish a basic permitted intensity of 0.5 FAR but allow an increase to 1.0 FAR upon review and approval of a use permit. Planning Commission Recommendations Campus Drive Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan: 1. Revise the land use designation for the area bounded by Dove Street, Birch Street, Bristol Street and Campus Drive to a mixture of General Industry and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial. 2. Establish a permitted intensity of development for the Campus Drive area (as shown on Exhibit 7 following Page 12 of the draft EIR) of 0.5 floor area ratio, with a floor area ratio of up to 1.0 permitted upon review and approval of a use permit. This increase in permitted floor area may be approved if a finding can be made that the traffic and circulation system impacts are no greater than those generated by an office development at 0.5 FAR. The floor area ratio limits are defined as the ratio of gross structural area to the buildable area of the site. 3. Direct that the zoning in the area be amended to implement this General Plan Amendment. • • 0 TO: City Council - 42 4. At the time of future discretionary actions, individual projects shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By • ZafKa& _ PATRICIA L. TEMPLE ' Senior Planner PLT:nma Attachments: 1. Draft Environmental Impact Report (for City Council only) 2. Technical Appendices (for City Council only) 3. Volume Three of EIR (for City Council only) 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1088 S. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1089 6. March 15, 1983 letter from The Irvine Company 7. EIR Errata Summary sheet. • 0 0 �3 ATTACHMrNT NO. 4 RESOLUTION N(,. 1010. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT CERTAIN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL GROWTH AND RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENTS OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BE ADOPTED, AND IN RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SAID AMENDMENTS THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROJECT BE CERTIFIED AS ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81-2) WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the City's General Plan the Land Use, Residential GrowtlY,nand Recreation and Open Space Elements have been prepared; and WHEREAS, said elements of the General Plan set forth objectives and supporting policies which serve as a guide for the future development of the City'of Newport Beach? and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider certain amendments to the above referenced elements of the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has, in the General Plan Housing Element, established policies to increase the production of housing in the community and to provide affordable housing opportunities in the City; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted Council Policy P-1 to implement the provisions of Government Code Section 65590 (Mello); and WHEREAS, the City recognizes its responsibility to designate sufficient vacant land for residential use with appropriate standards to produce housing at the lowest possible cost consistent with Section 65913 of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach recognizes the unique opportunity to provide affordable housing on the CalTrans West site; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach recognizes the opportunity to require provision of affordable housing either on or off-site in conjunction residential development in the City; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the environmental document in making these recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach recommends to the City Council that the environmental impact report prepared in conjunction with the pro3ect be certified as adequate and complete, and that the following amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements be approved as follows: (a) CalTrans West Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Environmental Open Space Elements of the General Plan, and the la)rnl Coastal Program Land Use Plan: 1. "Multiple -Family Residential" uses not to exceed 15 dwelling units per buildable acre shall be permitted. 2. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. The preferred access to the CalTrans West site is from the proposed Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extension) across a portion of the Banning property. A reasonable effort must be made to establish this access from Bluff Road at the time of approval of the tentative tract map for the CalTrans West site if it is submitted prior to tentative maps for the Banning -Newport Ranch. Temporary and limited access may be developed from realigned Superior Avenue. The precise location of all access will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. M 4. That existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved for a line -of -sight 4 feet above the lower balcony level Of A Newport Crest residence. 5. 20% of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as defined in the City's Housing Element. 6. lie of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as set forth in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. 7. CalTraw West will be required to comply with the park dedication ordinance. A park of at least 5 acres in size is to be developed between Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, 15th Street (extended), and Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extended). The specific size, location, design, and, the means to acquire and develop the park will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract maps for CalTraw West and/or the adjacent Banning -Newport Ranch Residential Developments. The park shall be completed concurrent with occupancy of the first residential unit. 8. A view park of ± 1 acre shall be located on-site and shall partially satisfy the requirements for park dedication contained in Chapter 19.50 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 9. A pedestrian and bicycle easement shall be developed to connect the view park with the neighborhood park. The easement shall as much as possible be located to take advantage of ocean and bay views. Precise location and design shall be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 10. The applicant or successor in interest shall participate in 50% of all costs related to the provision of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge over Superior Avenue at a point to be determined in conjunction with the location of the view park at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 11. A landscaped greenbelt shall be established adjacent to Newport Crest. The greenbelt shall be a minimum of 30 ' feet wide and be maintained by the applicant or successor ' in interest. Park credit shall not be given for the greenbelt. M 13, Because of difficulties in providing vehicular access to CalTrans East, and in recognition of both the State's need to dispose of this site and Hoag Hospital's need for additional land, CalTrans has entered into negotiations with Hoag Hospital for the acquisition of CalTrans East. Adoption of detailed zoning and approval of a tentative tract map on CalTrans West shall not occur until CalTrans offers satisfactory evidence that it will restrict access from CalTrans East to Coast Highway. 14. At the time of future discretionary actions the pro3ect shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Hiqhways and any other mitigation measures as required. (b) Fifth Avenue Parcels Area A: Marguerite Avenue Parcel: Amend the Land Use, Resides^tial Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. Medium -Density Residential use shall be permitted. 2. Remove Recreational and Environmental Open. Space designation from the Open Space Plan for the area adjacent to Marguerite Avenue to bring the various general plan elements into conformance. 3. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 4. The Jasmine Creek greenbelt system shall be continued on the site. The extent of the greenbelt shall be determined at the time of approval of the P -C development, plan. 5. A public view park shall be designated in the Recreation and Open Space Element and provided (dedication + improvements) on the site in the vicinity of Marguerite Avenue and Harbor View Drive. The precise location of the view park shall be determined at the time of approval of the P -C development plan. 6. That park dedication requirement credits be given to the applicant for the land dedication of the view park, consistent with the criteria contained in the City's Park Dedication Ordinance. Iand given credit for park dedication shall be only those areas which are flat and outside the limits of the orange County Flood Contiol District Easement. 7. 1n the event that dedication of the view park is more than is necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, the excess credit shall be aced to satisfy part of the requirement for Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel. E. That existing views of ocean and bay shall he Presen•ed for a line -of -sight four feet above the ground floor level of a Harbor View Hills South residence. 9. That a number of units equal to at least 10% of the total • units be constructed on-site or off-site and be affordable to low and moderate, income families using City standards. 45 I ::. Upon approval „f this amendmr.nr ay the Platrin: Colmmi.sinn, CalTrans will enrer ,to an dgroement permitting the City a right of entry onto that preperty required for realignment of Superior Avenu.. 'this -agreement will outline the procedures by which realigned Superior Avenue may be conveyed to the City. 13, Because of difficulties in providing vehicular access to CalTrans East, and in recognition of both the State's need to dispose of this site and Hoag Hospital's need for additional land, CalTrans has entered into negotiations with Hoag Hospital for the acquisition of CalTrans East. Adoption of detailed zoning and approval of a tentative tract map on CalTrans West shall not occur until CalTrans offers satisfactory evidence that it will restrict access from CalTrans East to Coast Highway. 14. At the time of future discretionary actions the pro3ect shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Hiqhways and any other mitigation measures as required. (b) Fifth Avenue Parcels Area A: Marguerite Avenue Parcel: Amend the Land Use, Resides^tial Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan: 1. Medium -Density Residential use shall be permitted. 2. Remove Recreational and Environmental Open. Space designation from the Open Space Plan for the area adjacent to Marguerite Avenue to bring the various general plan elements into conformance. 3. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 4. The Jasmine Creek greenbelt system shall be continued on the site. The extent of the greenbelt shall be determined at the time of approval of the P -C development, plan. 5. A public view park shall be designated in the Recreation and Open Space Element and provided (dedication + improvements) on the site in the vicinity of Marguerite Avenue and Harbor View Drive. The precise location of the view park shall be determined at the time of approval of the P -C development plan. 6. That park dedication requirement credits be given to the applicant for the land dedication of the view park, consistent with the criteria contained in the City's Park Dedication Ordinance. Iand given credit for park dedication shall be only those areas which are flat and outside the limits of the orange County Flood Contiol District Easement. 7. 1n the event that dedication of the view park is more than is necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, the excess credit shall be aced to satisfy part of the requirement for Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel. E. That existing views of ocean and bay shall he Presen•ed for a line -of -sight four feet above the ground floor level of a Harbor View Hills South residence. 9. That a number of units equal to at least 10% of the total • units be constructed on-site or off-site and be affordable to low and moderate, income families using City standards. 45 10. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. In the event the dedication of land for a view park does not satisfy the entire requirement of the Park Dedication Ordinance, the Planning Comission was unable to agree (by a vote of 3-3, one absent) whether the additional requirement could be satisfied through the payment of in -lieu park fees. The Planning Commission's recommendation is forwarded without indication of how additional park dedication requirements will be satisfied. Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel: The Planning Commission recommends that no changes be made to the General Plan for this site. Area C. Buck Gully Parcel: The Planning Commission recommends that no changes be made to the General Plan for this site. (c) Big Canyon - Area 16 /mend the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan: (d) Newport Center - Block 400 Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan: 1. Allow the addition of 80,000 square feet of medical office development in Newport Center, along with related parking facilities. 2. Specify this additional allowable development to Block 400, on the parcel located at 400 Newport Center Drive East. 3. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 4. Specify the development be subject to further review Bud approval of a use permit. 1. Medium -Density Residential use shall be permitted. 2. Remove the Recreation and Open Space/Golf Course designation. 3. That the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance shall be satisfied through on -Bite or off-site land dedication, the assessment of in -lieu fees or a ® combination of the above as determined by the Planning Commission and City Council, after recommendation by the Parka, Beaches and Recreation Commission, at the time of - approval of the tentative tract map. 4. That a number of units equal to at least 10% of the total units be constructed on-site or off-site and be affordable to low and moderate income families using City standards. 5. At the time of future discretionary actions the project shall be required to contribute a a= equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. ' 6. Prior to the approval by the City of any future discretionary actions (i.e., zoning and tentative tract), the question of park credits, development rights and ownership of the Mouth of Big Canyon shall be resolved. (d) Newport Center - Block 400 Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan: 1. Allow the addition of 80,000 square feet of medical office development in Newport Center, along with related parking facilities. 2. Specify this additional allowable development to Block 400, on the parcel located at 400 Newport Center Drive East. 3. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 4. Specify the development be subject to further review Bud approval of a use permit. • �• A:. the time of future discretionary actions the protect shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. (e) Campus Drive Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan: 1. Revise the land use designation for the area bounded by Dove Street, Birch Street, Bristol Street and Campus Drive to a mixture of General Industry and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial. 2. Establish a permitted intensity of development for the Campus Drive area (as shown on Exhibit 7 following Page 12 of -the draft EIR) of 0.5 floor area ratio, with a floor area ratio of up to 1.0 permitted upon review and approval of a use permit. This increase in permitted floor area may be approved if a finding can be made that the traffic and circulation system impacts are no greater than those generated by an office development at 0.5 FAR. The floor area ratio limits are defined as the ratio „f gross structural area to the buildable area of the site. 3. Direct that the zoning in the area be amended t,, implement this General Plan Amendment. 4. At the time of future discretionary actions, individual projects shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as is required. Regularly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach on the 10th day of March , 1983, by the following vote, to wit: AYES Allen, Goff, King, Xurlander McLaughlin, Winburn ABSENT Balalis Chairman: KING Secretary: GOFF BL: nma ATTACHMENT NO. 5 RESOLUTION NO. 1089 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN FOR THE CALTRANS WEST SITE. WHEREAS, the Coastal Act of 1976 requires the City of Newport Beach to prepare a local Coastal Program; and WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Coastal Act a Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan has been prepared; and WHEREAS, said Land Use Plan sets forth objectives and supporting policies which serve as a guide for the future development in the coastal zone in the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Plan portion of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program has been adopted by the City of Newport Beach and certified by the California Coastal Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach recommends to the City Council approval of the Local Coastal Prograa Land Use Plan for the CalTrans West site, as follows: CalTrana West is Amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Environmental Open Space Elements of the General Plan, and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan: • 1. 'Multiple -Family Residential" uses not to exceed 15 dwelling units per buildable acre shall be permitted. 2. The property shall be rezoned to the P -C (Planned Community) District. 3. The preferred access to the CalTrans West site is from the proposed Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extension) across a portion of the Banning property. A reasonable effort must be made to establish this access from Bluff Road at the time of approval of the tentative tract map for the CalTrans West site if it is submitted prior to tentative maps for the Hanning -Newport Ranch. Temporary and limited access may be developed from realigned Superior Avenue. The precise location of all access will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 4. That existing views of ocean and bay shall be preserved for a line -of -sight 4 feet above the lower balcony level of a Newport Creat residence. S. 20% of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as defined in the City's Housing Element. 6. 10% of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households as set forth in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. 7. CalTrans West will be required to comply with the park dedication ordinance. A park of at least 5 acres in size is to be developed between Coast Highway, Superior Avenue, 15th Street (extended), and Bluff Road (Balboa Boulevard extended). The specific size, location, required for realignment of Superior Avenue. This agreement will outline the procedures by which realigned Superior Avenue may be conveyed to the City. 13. Because of difficulties in providinq vehicular access to CalTrans Fast, and to recognition of both the State's need to dispose of this site and Hoag llospit,,l's need for additional land, CalTrans has entered into negotiations with Hoag Hospital for the acquisition of CalTrans East. Adoption of detailed zoning and approval of a tentative tract map on CalTrans West shall not occur until CalTrans offers satisfactory evidence that it will restrict, access from CalTrans East to Coast Highway. 14. At the time of future discretionary actions the pro)ect shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. Regularly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach on the 10th day of March , 1983, by the following vote, to wit: • Chairman: KING Secretary: GOFF BL: time 4�1 AYES Allen, Goff, King, Kurlander McLaughlin, Winburn NOES ABSENT Balalis 3/15/83 design, and the means to a,•quirn and develop the park will be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract maps for CalTrane west and/or the ad)acent Banning -Newport Ranch Residential Developments. The park shall be completed concurrent with occupancy of the first residential unit. S. A view park of • _ 1 acre shall be located on-site and shall partially satisfy the requirements for park dedication contained in Chapter 19.50 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 9. A pedestrian and bicycle easement shall be developed to connect the view park with the neighborhood park. The easement shall as much as possible be located to take advantage of ocean and bay views. Precise location and design shall be determined at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 30. The applicant or successor in interest shall participate in 50% of all costs related to the provision of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge over Superior Avenue at a point to be determined in con)unction with the location of the view park at the time of approval of the tentative tract map. 11. A landscaped greenbelt shall be established Adjacent to Newport Crest. The greenbelt shall be a minimum of 30 feet wide and be maintained by the applicant or successor in interest. Park credit shall not be given for the greenbelt. 12. Upon approval of this amendment by the Planning Comission, CalTrans will enter into an agreement permitting the City a right of entry onto that property required for realignment of Superior Avenue. This agreement will outline the procedures by which realigned Superior Avenue may be conveyed to the City. 13. Because of difficulties in providinq vehicular access to CalTrans Fast, and to recognition of both the State's need to dispose of this site and Hoag llospit,,l's need for additional land, CalTrans has entered into negotiations with Hoag Hospital for the acquisition of CalTrans East. Adoption of detailed zoning and approval of a tentative tract map on CalTrans West shall not occur until CalTrans offers satisfactory evidence that it will restrict, access from CalTrans East to Coast Highway. 14. At the time of future discretionary actions the pro)ect shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. Regularly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach on the 10th day of March , 1983, by the following vote, to wit: • Chairman: KING Secretary: GOFF BL: time 4�1 AYES Allen, Goff, King, Kurlander McLaughlin, Winburn NOES ABSENT Balalis 3/15/83 9 E 0 THE IRVINE COMPAW 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I Newport Beach, California 92660.0015 (714)720.2000 March 15, 1983 Mr. James D. Hewicker Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 ATTACHMENT N0. 6 ``P��eUOP\F Subject: Response to Planning Commission Recommendations on GPA 81-2 Dear Jim: For your information, our company's response to the Planning Commission's actions of March 10, 1983 on General Plan Amendment 81-2 are summarized below. Marguerite Parcel We concur generally with the Planning Commission recommendation that the Marguerite Parcel be redesignated from Low- to Medium -Density Residential, subject to conditions in the March 10 staff report as amended by the Plan- ning Commission. We support the staff recommendation (No. 7), not acted on by the Planning Commission, that onsite or offsite land dedication and in lieu fees or a combination of both be accepted in meeting park require- ments on the Marguerite Parcel. The recommendation on affordable housing (No. 10) as amended by the Planning Commission is also acceptable to us. Regarding the condition (No. 11) dealing with fair share circulation fund contributions, we suggested alternate wording which was not adopted by the Planning Commission. It is still our request that the alternate wording suggested in our letter of March 10 (attached) be adopted. Fifth Avenue Parcel This requested change from Low- to Medium Density Residential was not recom- mended for approval by the Planning Commission. We support approval of this amendment as recommended by the staff in its March 10 memo, subject to the requested revision to the condition (No. 7) regarding fair share fund, outlined in our letter of March 10. We support the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission's recommendations and conditions 1-5 in respect to the Fifth Avenue Parcel, and request that they be adopted as a part of the Fifth Avenue project. 0 0 • -5-/ Mr. James D. Hewicker March 15, 1983 Page 2. Buck Gully We support the recommendation of the Planning Commission that there be no change to the current General Plan designation for the Buck Gully parcel which is Open Space with an alternate use of Low Density Residential. Big Canyon Area 16 We agree generally with the Planning Commission recommendation that Big Canyon Area 16 be designated as Medium Density Residential subject to the conditions in the March 10 staff report as amended by the Planning Commission. We support the revised language for condition (No. 4) dealing with afford- able housing. With respect to the condition (No. 5) dealing with fair share fund, we suggested alternate wording in our letter of March 10. Regarding the condition (No. 6) dealing with Mouth of Big Canyon, we re- quest that this condition be deleted, in that we do not believe such a condition is relevant to the resolution of park credit issues in Mouth of Big Canyon. It is hoped that this clarifies our company's response to the Planning Commission's action on GPA 81-2. Sincerely, r David Dmohowski Manager, Government Relations cc: Mr. Fred Talerico, Environmental Coordinator attachment: TIC letter March 10, 1983 0 11 -IE IRVINE CCMFANY 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I Newport Beach, California 9266043015 (714) 720.2000 —',I' MArch 10, 1983 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California SUBJECT: GPA 81-2 Chairman King and Commission Members: We have reviewed your staff report dated March 10, 1983 and"concur with the recommendations presented by staff, ekcept as noted below: Fifth Avenue Parcels (pp 10-12) AREA A -- MARGUERITE AVENUE PARCEL Recommendation No. 10 (Affordable Housing): We disagree with this • recommendation as written and propose the following language be substituted: "A condition to any subdivision approval for this site will be that the developer enter into a subdivision agreement with the City to make a number of units equal to 10% of the total units in the subdivision available to low and moderate in- come families using City standards, which affordable units may be provided on-site or on other sites in the City. The subdivision agreement shall allow the developer to meet the affordable housing requirement within 3 years of the date of _ tentative tract map approval". Recommendation No. 11 (Fair Share Fund): We disagree with this condition as written and propose the following revision: _ "At the time of future discretionary actions the project may _ be required to contribute a sum equal to its fair share of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways, and any other similar mitigation measures, as required by the ordinances and resolu- tions of the City in force at the time of such actions". AREA B =- FIFTH AVENUE PARCEL Recommendation No. 6 (Affordable Housing): We disagree with this recommendation as written and propose the same revised language as suggested in Recommendation No. 10 above for Area A. Planning Commission • City of Newport Beach March 10, 1983 Page 2 Recommendation No. 7 (fair Share Fund): We disagree with this recommendation as written and propose the same revised language as suggested in Recommendation No: 11 above for Area A. AREA C -- Buck Gully We respectfully request that Area C be deleted from further consideration in this General Plan Amendment. If, however, the Planning Commission determines that action on Area C is appropriate at this time, we request the following revisions and additions to the staff recommendations: Recommendation No. 3 (Open Space Zone): We request that the following revision be adopted: "That the parcel be re -zoned to the Open Space Zone for pass4ve open space use concurrent with the re -zoning of the Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue Parcels." We request that a new Recommendation No. 4 be added: • "That the property owner shall be eligible to receive a credit against Quimby Act requirements for the value of those portions of Buck Gully which are made available to the public for active recreational uses allowable under the Local Coastal Program and the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan." Big Canyon Area 16 (p. 12) Recommendation No. 4 (Affordable Housing): We disagree with the recommen- dation as written and propose the same revised language as suggested in Recommendation No. 10 above for Area A (Marguerite Parcel). Recommendation No. 5 (Fair Share Fund): We disagree with this recommendation as written and propose the same revision as in Recommendation No. 11 above for Area A (Marguerite Parcel). Recommendation No. 6 (Mouth of Big Canyon): We respectfully request that this condition be deleted. We greatly appreciate the -Planning Commi-ssion's and staff's consideration of these requested revisions and we look forward to continuing cooperation in this matter. in erelyenrd • im nt cc: Jim Hewicker, Planning Director velopment Bob Burnham, City Attorney 53 ATTACHMENT NO. 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT March 17, 1983 TO: Patricia Temple, Senior Planner FROM: Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator SUBJECT: Errata, Draft Environmental Impact Report General Plan Amendment 81-2 It has been requested that various errors and omissions in the draft Environmental Impact Report pointed out in correspondence and various public hearings be brought forward and listed in the staff report to the City Council. The corrections and additional information have been included in the environmental document in the form of responses to comments or discussions in the staff reports, both of which become part of a Final EIR when it is certified. It should be noted that the purpose of the Environmental Impact Report process, with the public review period is to assure that all information . necessary to make an informed decision is provided to the decision -maker. A draft Environmental Impact Report is just that, a "draft". It is not, by its nature, a "perfect" document. The procedures to circulate, review, comment, respond to comments, and hold public hearings is designed to gather all information available, thereby providing the decision -maker with the best available information basis. 1. Comment: The Draft EIR on Page 73 states: "The Marguerite Parcel (Area A) is designated on the Open Space Plan as an "Existing and Committed Neighborhood Park." This section should also include the discussion of "Existing and Committed Greenbelt and paseo Areas" as follows: "A unique concept of a greenbelt/paseo system has been developed with the cooperation of the Park, Beaches, and Recreation Commission and private developers. The existing and committed greenbelt and paseo areas, as indicated on the Open Space Plan, have been, and are being, provided as "common open space" in the newer "Residential Planned Communities" and as public open space between residential neighborhoods. Examples of the greenbelts and paseos are found in The Bluffs, Harbor View Hills, Spyglass Hills and Jasmine Creek developments..." 1. Response: The greenbelt and paseo system referenced are those designed as part of the Planned Community Districts approved in conjunction with The Bluffs, Harbor View Hills, Spyglass Hills, and Jasmine • Creek developments. General Plan Amendment 76-3-B further clarified this relationship by amending the greenbelt/paseo system in the Harbor View Hills/Spyglass Hills area to be 5-7 March 17, 1983 5. Comment: The Errata, DEIR Buck Page 2 Page 226 of the Draft . EIR consistent with the Planned Community District Regulations. An the extension of the Jasmine Creek greenbelt system is shown on the Plan portion of the site adjacent to Jasmine Creek. 2. Comment: The Draft EIR should give the background of why "existing and committed open space" is called out on the Marguerite parcel. 2. Response: The Marguerite Avenue parcel is referred to as "existing and committed" because a portion of the site (the ±2 acres owned by the City northwesterly of Marguerite Avenue and Fifth Avenue) is shown as part of the existing Grant Howald Park, to be expanded easterly to Marguerite Avenue." 3. Comment: Exhibit 4 following Page 30 of the Draft EIR is not correct. The artificial fill is closer to Fifth Avenue and is deeper than indicated by the contour line. Additionally, marine terrace deposits to the north show scattered artificial fill, both covered and exposed. 3. Response: The comment is noted. The corrections provided by the commentor are hereby incorporated. Nevertheless, the surficial geology map is a generalized version of the full technical report which should be consulted for additional detail. • 4. Comment: The Recreation and Open Space Element states that existing and committed neighborhood parks provide adequate neighborhood park facilities in this section of the City, but also indicate two park proposals to increase recreational opportunities for the entire area, including the older residential neighborhoods: 1) Northeast of Fifth Avenue and Marguerite Avenue (Fifth Avenue Parcel - Area B) and 2) Expansion of Grant Howald Park to Marguerite Avenue. The discussion on Page 226 of the draft EIR is misleading in that the two proposals listed above are made to achieve adequacy of neighborhood park facilities and that approval of the GPA permitting residential development will preclude the future park uses. 4. Response: The two park proposals on Fifth Avenue were made to increase recreational opportunities in the Corona del Mar area. Approval of the General Plan Amendment will preclude the development of a neighborhood park on the Fifth Avenue parcel east of Marguerite Avenue. The 2.1 acre site easterly of the existing Grant Howald Park is owned by the City and will be used for park expansion and parking for the Oasis Center. The proposed GPA will not affect the expansion of this recreation facility. 5S 5. Comment: The discussion of Buck Gully (Area C) on Page 226 of the Draft . EIR should include the following General Plan policies: 5S March 17, 1983 Errata, DEIR Page 3 0 A. Land Use Element, Page 21: "Buck Gully and Morning Canyon be preserved as open space. B. Recreation and Open Space Element, Page 31: "These canyon areas running through Corona del Mar from the beach to the San Joaquin Hills are currently in private ownership. For the most part, the canyons are covered with a variety of native plants and provide a habitat for many birds and small animals. It is proposed that these canyons be maintained as natural open space by public acquisition of the land in fee or an easement." 5. Response: A. This policy applies to Buck Gully and Morning Canyon southerly of Fifth Avenue (extended). B. Comment so noted. 6. Comment: The descriptions for Buck Gully (Area C) on Page 10 and 234 of the Draft EIR should include the following General Plan policies: A. Land Use Element, Page 21 B. Recreation and Open Space Element, Page 31 C. Existing use of Buck Gully by private land holders. 6. Response: A. See response No. 5A. B. Comment so noted. C. The General Plan does not contain any policies regarding existing private use of Buck Gully (Area C). The site is currently designated for Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an alternative use of Low -Density Residential if public acquisition is infeasible. Additionally, the policy in the Recreation and Open Space Element on Page 31, discussed above, addresses the maintenance of this area as natural open space. 7. Comment: Clarification was requested regarding the park and open space designations on the various elements and maps of the Newport Beach General Plan for the Fifth Avenue Parcels. 7. Response: The history of the General Plan designations for each site is as follows: Area A: Marguerite Parcel: Land Use Plan: The Land Use Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 designated the Marguerite Parcel for Low -Density Residential uses along Marguerite Avenue and Recreational and 56 March 17, 1983 Errata, DEIR Palo 4 i Environmental Open Space uses along Jasmine Creek. General Plan Amendment No. 26 redefined the various residential land use desianations, added a medium density residential category, and added the definition of buildable acreage. This amendment did not change prior permitted densities, so this parcel was changed to Medium -Density Residential for the residentially designated portion of the site. The parcel was again addressed in General Plan Amendment 79-1, and redesignated to the Low -Density Residential category. Residential Growth Plan: The Residential Growth Element and Plan (Map) was adopted in 1973 and designated a portion of the parcel for residential uses. The parcel was specifically addressed as follows: "The vacant R -3-B site east of Harbor view Elementary School shall be rezoned to R -1-B." On December 17, 1973 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1535, to conform zoning to General Plan by rezoning the property from R -3-B to R -1-B. Open Space Plan: The Recreation and Open Space Element and Plan (Map) was adopted in 1973 and designated the site for Recreational and Environmental Open Space uses for an extension of the Jasmine Creek greenbelt system. The Open Space Plan (Map) does show the entire site colored green, for open space uses. It is the opinion of staff that the designation of the entire site for open space is a graphics error, since the other two General Plan Maps show residential uses on a portion of the site. Additionally, the City has rezoned the property for the expressed purpose of Zoning/General Plan consistency and has also changed the land use designation subsequent to .the adoption of the Recreation and Open Space Element (GPA 79-1), which further indicates the City's commitment to allow residential development on the site. Area B: Fifth Avenue Parcel: Land Use Plan: The Land Use Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 designated the Fifth Avenue Parcel for Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an alternate use of Low -Density Residential. The history of the residential portion of the land use designation is the same as for Area A, except that General Plan Amendment 79-1 established the Low -Density Residential designation as the sole and primary use on the Land Use Plan. Residential Growth Plan: The Residential Growth Element and Plan (Map) was adopted in 1973 and designated the Fifth Avenue Parcel as an area with an alternate land use as discussed in the Land Use Element. The Residential Growth Element specifically discussed this site as follows: "The land between Fifth Street and Sand Castle Drive shall be rezoned from R -2-B to R -1-B, although it is anticipated that this land will be 0 ^ �V March 17, 1983 Errata, DEIR Page 5 acquired for park and/or highway purposes." On December 17, 1973, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1535, to conform zoning to the General Plan by rezoning the Fifth Avenue Parcel from R -2-B to R -1-B. Open Space Plan: The Recreation and Open Space Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 designated the Fifth Avenue Parcel as an area with an alternate land use/primary designation as Recreational and Environmental Open Space - Flora and Fauna Reserve. A proposed neighborhood park is also shown on the site. The element states that "Proposed parks are indicated on the Open Space Plan as green circles; in the undeveloped areas, the locations shown are meant to be general and the parks need not be developed in the exact location shown." The Element addresses the proposed park on this site as follows: "A neighborhood park is proposed on the property north of Fifth Avenue and east of Marguerite Avenue." Area C: Buck Gully: Land Use Plan: The Land Use Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 shows this site for Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an alternate use of Low -Density Residential. No changes to this designation have been made since 1973. Residential Growth Plan: The Residential Growth Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 showed this area with an alternate residential land use as discussed in the Land Use Element. Open Space Plan: The Recreation and Open Space Element and Plan (Map) adopted in 1973 designated the Buck Gully site as an area with an alternate land use/primary designation as Recreational and Environmental Open Space - Flora and Fauna Reserve. mr�r.4xF�) a / /� FT:nma Additional Correspondence 0 yiuG .?,-:.•�•�•�C..� RemeXry r FIFTH AVENUE PARCEL IN CORONA DEL MAR . The City of Newport Beach and the Irvine Company have a unique opportunity to work together to bring about the develop went of the Fifth Avenue parcel in Corona del Mar. This can be accomplished in a manner that satisfies what at first glance seem to be disparate and perhaps irreconcilable needs. What are the needs? 1. Housing for the general population 2. Rental housing for seniors 3. Open space for active recreation 4. Space for the OASIS senior center to expand 5. Preservation of views for Harbor View residents I'm not an urban planner, but I know this. The Irvine Company has one of the most sophisticated planning staffs in the country. They have planned and built some of the most attractive communities in the United States. Surely they can take a beautiful parcel of land and plan for those five needs that I mentioned. This requires imagination and creativity and a willingness on the part of the City to offer real incentives. These could include land write-downs with CDBG funds, the use of mortgage revenue bonds such as are being used to develop rental housing in Irvine by private developers in which 25% of the units will be for people with low to moderate incomes. The City could allow a combination of densities on the land. This could be a mini -planned neighborhood with clustered senior housing at the east. end, lower density single family homes in the middle, and room for OASIS to expand and'for.retieation at the west end, or any configuration that is attractive and workable. Senior housing even with triple density will not generate large amounts of traffic. Lower income seniors will have one or no cars. The amenities and services of downtown Corona del Mar will be available by walking, as will the senior center. Members of the City�Council, I urge you not to miss this op- portunity to do something worthwhile on this property, but to use all the resources available to you to allow the developer to make a profit on developing this fine parcel of land into a neighborhood which meets they needs of citizens in Corona del Mar. Alice Remer 210 Goldenrod Corona del Mar 675-6897 40 ., i HARBOR V *HOMEOWNERS March 28, 1983 0. - i IEW HILLS ASSOCIATION Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. 1234 E NORMANDY PLACE SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92705 (714) 973-1136 Re: General Plan Amendment 81-2; areas A,B,C; particularly area B, known as "Fifth Avenue Parcel", proposed change from Low -Density to Medium Density Residential Please consider the following concerns during your deliberations whether to uphold your Planning Commission's decisions of March 10, 1983. Our Association gave testimony at 3 of the Planning Commission hearings; we regard the present proposal seriously. Tonight we are here to assist you in making your decision regarding this proposal. Should you duly regard our concerns, we think you will support our position without hesitation. We are concerned that the future use of the land does not, for the sake of simple expediency, abuse the life style of current residents. Our concerns include views, density, traffic, alleys; and preservation of open space. Views of some of our Sandcastle residents could be impeded or jeopardized in the future. The Irvine Co. has indicated that grading would be done to a level resulting in at least 4 ft ridge clearance below Sandcastle lot&. This consideration is appreciated. However, preliminary plans show 36' X 110' lots - too small to allow any space remodeling except by increased height. Examples of such remodeling abound in the parts of Corona del Mar south of Sandcastle. Such increases would impact and impede current views. Larger lots are needed. Resulting lower density would also mitigate traffic congestion problems. Preliminary site plans indicate approximately .8 acre of alley; about 1/3 mile in total length. These become your (the City's) responsibility for maintenance; and to whose advantage? Certainly not the City's or the possible new residents. Further, whether an alley is of utility or not, maintaining an attractive one appears historically and currently impossible. The .8 acre of land now in alleys could be put to better use, potentially for a more attractive street plan and lower density. Architectural similarity with present Harbor View Halls (south) would be a preferred approach, with larger lots and more openness. Trying to tie the development to a more dense Corona del Mar, as south of Fifth Avenue, seems anachronistic. 0 • Our recommendation now is for the City to continue the low-density • zoning; that no in -lieu fees be accepted in place of park land; and that some of the park land be located contiguous to the present Oasis center. Maximizing the amount of open space and/or park land is a hoped for goal. A site development of which both the City and the Irvine Company would be proud is sought. Dr. Lloyd Krasue, P.E. President Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association, (South) a , 0 April 7, 1983 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Bicycle Trails Citizens Advisory Committee SUBJECT: PROPOSED RECREATIONAL BICYCLE TRAIL OW CAL TRANS EAST AND CAL TRANS WEST At the April meeting of the Bicycle Trails Committee, Mr. Don Webb, City Engineer, made a presentation for our information and discussion of a potential recreation bike trail through Cal Trans East and West. He wanted to know what our position would be with respect to its advisability,.•' location, and crossing of Superior Avenue, either by bridge or by signal. After lengthy discussion, the Committee voted unanimously to support this trail. We strongly feel it would be an asset, both to the City and to recreational bicycles, and generate much use. We also feel it would be best to build a bridge over Superior Avenue as it would be the safest and most direct crossing of Superior. The Committee anxiously awaits any directive action to our Committee on this proposed rail by the City Council.., Aterling Wo Jr. Chairman Bicycle Trails Citizens Advisory Committee SJW:lmc 3 Y ...,�.�.,i�1fF � JS' Y _ _ � F .Y Y: _ :,,,,,,?�y�'*'�'iC`�41�'S�F^a:���CLtlt yrf"^�={�'�^.'f'^w`.'S^�4ti^3�r..��.54'.x+:_a wsvti v..__y ..��. - .. _ _ - .�-�•;rv: �I-:xn !ies rrti... �. y-., r, �..r;ti..'ic.."` '. ^"r -.:.+sem./ ti � • 1 J CORONA DEL MAR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. Name/ Organization Address Y .&J41_t- 11 ^ Date - �: �� 13CL.1inciimen ❑ Attorney Y -s r! APR 2 v 1983- o 131dg. Dir. _. 0 QdReru Dip_ `5� ;•;a;v�_ &RDir. ;; ssf�cN / Flannin.^ Dir. F.4i. Uir ❑ ether c.9 fD2e 410e- F ...) CORONA DEL MAR .ru•.wpb COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O, BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Carona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. I Name/ Organization Address r •RECEIVZD `\ RRR2419 u_ L fY�+c NEN✓PCS•• - EACH �Jf \ U_.v C irb SENT TO: CkCi -: !!r" %J L ❑ geunciimen rn la m. anager D Bldg. Dir. D�gSop Dir.' • cVPlanning Dir. D Police Chief D P.1t'. Dir ❑ Dther �� CORONA DEL MAR _'.3 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 ` r' ; -•- , V�� i CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 APP !3 1933tr- Newpgrt Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES ro jj •�r, , . We toe following residents and organizations request the City .Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth'areas in Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar, Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, pfrks and open space to medium or high density residential. I• v,. .�Q ''`ti` .4o-7-6 F ; i y7 CORONA DEL MAR K• i ,�, ,•i • COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ' P. O, BOX 516 ; CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES n U • We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to probidepermanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona -del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from. green belt, p rks and open space to medium or high density, residential. Name/Organization Address N � I .S CJ Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in and adjacent Corona del Mar prior to rezoning schools or properties zoned open space. In particular, we refer to the rezoning of Corona del Mar Ele- mentary and the redesignation of 5th Street properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. Name/Or ahizatio Address nn t �j V e17 -- % /� C Al., 0 N CORONA DEL MAR COMMUNITI ASSOCIATION P. O, BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 I Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL M..R PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Carona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. Address H J- E 0 .S> . a �vlarCl, 2S, 192r� ,ICtISe �C'iurki fl6ove Foe Grokr Ct•:„Y.nt1(t�! CORONA DEL MAR �?•„ ,�, , y COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION' " P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to probide'permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth'areas in Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, p,}rks and open space to medium or high density residential. I a 0 7 0 4� / CORONA DEL MAR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION MINA wY , P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 . Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Corona del Mara We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. ' Name/Qrganizatiq4 n Address 7 /,1 CO/7 i 44 rii / OA) A116- 7242s - 2Z K- 77.6,25 -qz.6,25 y,z,c ­��' L6Z f E E I 1 01 Ty CORONA DEL MAR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 I Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. • G CORONA DEL MAR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 926Z5 Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Carona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. ' Name/Organization Address CORONA DEL MAR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Carona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt,, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. ' . Name/ Organization Address iJ Y! C Yl 7 Cc7 A"a�� w, s !crcw� �t Mao ctoQ J"'t CORONA DEL MAR • ►ru. .amu• COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION \ J P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 I Newport Beach City Council E 0 U Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential, Name/Organn�iz/!ationQQ Address �o ,�`j , N ylS-x _ /n / 6n r -j. . dee is Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in and adjacent Corona del Mar prior to rezoning schools or properties zoned open space. In particular, we refer to the rezoning of Corona del Mar Ele- mentary and the redesignation of 5th Street properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. �Name/ �Orgahiizat'iion'/ Address p %� .H (t ©., wll t„a, Dnn `'. Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in and adjacent Corona del Mar prior to rezoning schools or properties zoned open space. In particular, we refer to the rezoning of Corona del Mar Ele- mentary and the redesignation of 5th Street properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. Name/ Organization / • .. :� . � dot. �• _ t moi - Address E G l -Ely ti �c /�r 4vl - no y-� G L11 C7i� C°d 9aGas' ZL 1'I LG 32-3 CORONA DEL MAR • COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Carona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. Narpz.e/2 fynization Address / r REM N. Wf C/. D-66,0 7/s- 6-&1n4-'N1z60 �4+-r e 5�6z P, e. I A? . .! I r CORONA DEL MAR uu� •wuo. COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Corona del Mar. Ne ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. Name/Oreanization Address Y CORONA DEL MAR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to. medium or high density residential. Name/Organization Address / o Cl,c a.c,'La Cue.. Cl-"D)m 004 Arc. ODM r I U CORONA DEL MAR .rr. .rr. COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 F Newport Beach City Council I Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Carona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt',, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. Name/Or¢anization Address fit d Jj -A 7431 M rC 2 9g-- 7.'30'PM Ca, u`x)a.1' 81-2 led -se '-ee4tirn 960va For Groin Sx.,106%. k*oJ CORONA DEL MAR • COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 Newport Beach City Council •. I Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas is Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. Name/ Organization Address - .c3 "i Ma.rC�t 2�/ J`� 7:'30 1,M Cou.n4il S�-2 'PIS �..� rk'e-i�rn 9 6 0 V e For Grbu%r W641 -1'0..) eI • CORONA DEL MAIL •rr. .rr• COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 I I CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 I Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. Co�+.nai/l+ �e�V'Y1 jq6ovC For' br'ov.ra CORONA DEL MAR •war. .�.r • COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 I � Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES 0 We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. Name/ Organization - Address ria -1 a 1— I C la. � �C"t'� ✓ YI H kJ C V C QD C CORONA DEL. MAR • �� COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625- Newport 2625Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. ' Name/ Organization Address V . 9 — _� • `'7.� • `-"f �`�, �•� S' /moi � �.f�—/Zt.ry S L` CID J 'PhovC For K] I CORONA DEL MAR .ru• .nr• COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O, BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 Newport Beach City Council R'e: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Carona del Mar. Wa ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. ' Name / Organization Address i e, � C-41- VJ 41 l "z' / "'j i1' ax v I�t0.rC h o� CJ a 7:3o PM Cou.rlai $� —' "Plew�..e`keikrn 960ve For arokr 0 0 tl 1-2�' CORONA DEL MAR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 9262S- Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior ,to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. " ,�� � h��tch� �_,ld", 'hoc+; R! lc. `/��.(� �, t�' a, �1•'• L, L4' /2 March L�c6! �y8� 7?O PM Courna�� a�-2 �Pfecv-se Te -k4 -v- r) 960ve Fo;- I. CORONA DEL MAR W11 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 I Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Carona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. C /D /,-" • CORONA DEL MAR y ; COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION' P. O, BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, 92625 Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and. senior citizen growth -areas in Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green -belt,'parks and open space to medium or high density, residential,. Name? Organization Address /�i,•ae_„�. R-.�. X --Q c�l� a,�-��.�Lsr�.e_ �.,,.... ,�,a��s�.� ^�//ke- �. A I • 10 0 CORONA DEL MAR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth area -s in Corona del; Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt,. parks and open space to medium or high density residential. Name! Organization Address 4'0'�' Lg21 WNWRIFAM 14 ` C)/7' • 0 0 CORONA DEL MAF: COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O, BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We t�e following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide -permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth -areas in Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from greenbelt; p�rks and open space to medium or high density. resid,ential,. Name/ Organization Address NE lu CORONA DEL MAR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION' " P. O, BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to providepermanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from -green belt,p rks and open space to medium or high density. residential. -` - — — — — Name/ Organization Address I r / CS7� +sz � � • g*lgl--! $'l 8Z t jAfG/G6 a% 12 r(72 Q 6' a C h M r • Y CORONA DEL MAR •war. •ww COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625- Newport 2625Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt„ parks and open space to medium or high density residential. Name/ Organization Address ZZ tvl0.rC 0/ I a �: �c P►�t Co�..nai 8� -� �P�e�se �k�iurn 'Above For CrotAr 0 CORONA DEL MAR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. ' Name/ Organization Address COr, 13 �z PgfJ z�' &,-R W&,,_AX K4% -t 1 (5y Wlwv WU., k. �M • ivl w0' r- "PI&C, Ciat4-tern f16e For- Grou%r CORONA DEL MAR • •�,r. .�.r• , :iL i8 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ' P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 U Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and,senior citizen growth areas in Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning. Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt; prks and open space to medium or high density residential,. Name/ Organization Address 13 1 4'£,56 L L v,Z- - r CORONA DEL MAR .wlr• .wu• • �/ COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES • We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning. Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt,, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. ' Name/Organization Address t Y •� ' `: i:'%i •,-'y�H✓"' ( - � /I I i/i (.C.. L. I.'L= �I L p �'CxS ti�are� 2�1 �c.Jg� •.7:30r'M �ou,nc.i' ai-z 'P I Cr 1-�.'S� �C'tt�r� n �ovC 1-"G►'ov.� �+.•ow�i 0..i t222 �¢hi it rop Y 7 by t Y •� ' `: i:'%i •,-'y�H✓"' ( - � /I I i/i (.C.. L. I.'L= �I L p �'CxS ti�are� 2�1 �c.Jg� •.7:30r'M �ou,nc.i' ai-z 'P I Cr 1-�.'S� �C'tt�r� n �ovC 1-"G►'ov.� �+.•ow�i 0..i • 0 • Z.. CORONA DEL MAR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to protide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth'areds in Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from greenbelt, perks and open space to medium or high density residential. Name/ Organization Address '3& S�t61� ,92nz5 =3. z.LGL • CORONA DEL MAR .war. COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Carona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. Name/ Organization � /Address 7 CORONA DEL MAR • > COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION .� P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 • Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from greenbelt, ptrks and open space to medium or high density residential, Name/Oreanization/) Address aces � a o �•✓ �G �v� v�- I 5' ,P "t N i r,- SDK CQ9, vo � e;(J CORONA DEL MAR uu• .rr• COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. 0 I Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in and adjacent Corona del Mar prior to rezoning schools or properties zoned open space. In particular, we refer to the rezoning of Corona del Mar Ele-. mentary and the redesignation of 5th Street properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. Name/ Organization Address Iq ZO R 'MAE / � L G "�9�- J2R �W- AEt C��� - (22n pig 2-)(221a3 4.13�e:-c Gb�Lf • 0 'CORONA DEL MAR ►\ U .%u• COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Carona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. Name/Oreanization Address ram ; M :z5 4 - \ CORONA DEL MAR • COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O, BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 926Z5 • Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. ' i lvlw e 2 6� I `I B 7; �O t� rte► 1-z 8 F46QVC For Grov.� S41onn�TI0.I o• lvlw e 2 6� I `I B 7; �O t� rte► 1-z 8 F46QVC For Grov.� S41onn�TI0.I CORONA DEL MAR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O, BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. Organization i ou , i � !, G CORONA DEL MAR .w r• .gym COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES f We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. ' 0 1 . s 6 • 0 M u. r c. 2� ` j 1921 1-�cG=e�C rr, n6ovC For brov.r S�,b•,n�Tcu.� 60 3� r CORONA DEL MAR • COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 • . Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. ,/7a�'F7C�: n' o' Avo qq C. Ccs; i J lvckr��-, 2S� 1524 2 `7:30 P" co...naII 8J -Z _P1r ase 17 2e4t.�.rn Ploovc For Grown Sub �TrG_� • • 0 CORONA DEL MAR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. Name/ Organization Address 31 j" 72 t 2r CORONA DEL MAR •wir• .war. COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. ' tion Address l 3v /SL. • 0 • CORONA DEL MAR • \il� . �•i/I i ., aibi•i�)J a COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 I i CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Corona del. Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from. green belt,, p4rks and open space to medium or high density residential,. 9 i CORONA DEL MAR • .r�r. .rr. COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 9:. Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PAPK SIT95 We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. Name/Organization' Address 7> CORONA DEL MAR .sir• .gym COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt,) parks and open space to medium or high density residential. i Name/ Organization Address 1 0 • ivla rC 2 cd, 7 t)0 PM Cov nai 8i _2 "P l e,s` ee4L r n 'A h ov e For G rb 6% r CORONA DEL MAR .rr. .ru. • COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 I Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to. medium or high density residential. I Name/ Organization Address _b•1< • Mase -h 2cd1 �-p G S 1-�t'tiK.,�'�L���'v1 ��o�/C �O.', rote 1+.;o.:�t�T%i 0 • Mase -h 2cd1 �-p G S 1-�t'tiK.,�'�L���'v1 ��o�/C �O.', rote 1+.;o.:�t�T%i r • Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES. We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in and adjacent Corona del Mar prior to rezoning schools or properties zoned open space. In particular, we refer to the rezoning of Corona del Mar Ele- mentary and the redesignation of 5th Street properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. M /J. y • CORONA DEL MAR A11• `t COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 0 \1 9' Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Carona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. ' Name/OrLyanization Address � L � 'Z D U G�i7��•z-,�.�co- Gt�C GLe�C�'/!� /j 4A �7� �'/�O sc lilt Newport Beach City Council . Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES 0 We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in and adjacent Corona del Mar prior to rezoning schools or properties zoned open space. In particular, we refer to the rezoning of Corona del Mar Ele- mentary and the redesignation of 5th Street properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. Name/Orgainization Address r Newport Beach City Council . Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request.the City Cou.,c.il to provide permanent active recreatiun and senior citizen growth areas in and adjacent Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoni::;: Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesi.gnating 5th Stre6. properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high den- sity residential. Name/ Organization Address ..- ,t / A- z • 3 (*-2e P'rd VU I • ON CORONA DEL MAR (air• au• (� COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Corona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to. medium or high density residential. �i/D�?//+4ii/_moi [ �So U %a 410 a • CORCNA DEL MAR COMMtVITY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 • Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CORONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Carona del Mar. We ask that this be done prior to rezoning Corona .del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to. medium or high density residential. Name/Organization Address P YdPlim \J r N CORCNA DEL MAR -0/ Jnr• •t6 • COMMU`iITY ASSOCIATION �' .0 P. C. BOX 516 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 �o Newport Beach City Council Re: OUR CONCERN ABOUT CCRONA DEL MAR PARK SITES We the following residents and organizations request the City Council to provide permanent active recreation and senior citizen growth areas in Corona del Mar. We ask that th_s be done prior to rezoning Corona del Mar Elementary School property and redesignating 5th Avenue properties from green belt, parks and open space to medium or high density residential. Name/ Organization Address • _dLe e PPIES SENTT0: c(lj nr ❑ Gatincllmen r3lAanager 0 Ptwgney ❑ Bldg. Dir. • ❑ GegSery Dir. tanning Dir. ❑ Police Chief ❑ P.W. Dir ❑ Other- 1 , • U F