Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
IS042_GPA 79-1 ENVIRIN ASSESSMENT
Ig042 f` City Council Metting Octoher 21, .197a R Agenda Item No. D-9 4 Attachment No. IV INITIAL STUDY--G.P.A. 79-1 TO /�?�r—r,4e vfD /v C/T�, &-c N�+✓/�cr �is1GFf__._._PC.¢,ydis9.- Cy,�r.vr iss�'e.y J 1 1 1 j . 1 1 1 "DRAFT" INITIAL STUDY for G. P .A. 79-1 I A proposed amendment to the Land Use , Residential Growth , and Open Space Elements of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach , California Prepared by and for iCity of Newport Beach 3300 West. Newport Boulevard Newport Beach , California 92663 (714) 640-2197 SCREENCHECK Completed August , 1979 DRAFT STUDY Completed October, 1979 I TABLE OF CONTENTS Cover Page Table of Contents Introduction Relationship to CEQA I. "Screencheck" Project Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..I 1 thru 20 "Screencheck & Draft" Environmental Checklist Form 1 II. "Screencheck" Site Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .II 1 thru 24 1 . Koll Center 2. Jamboree/MacArthur 3. San Diego Creek 4. North Ford 5. Aeronutropic Ford 6. Newport Center 7. Bayview Landing 8. Castaways 9. Westbay 10. Eastbluff Remnant I11 . Newporter North 12. Big- Canyon 13. Baywood Expansion 14. Fifth Avenue 15. Beeco Property 16. Mouth of Big Canyon III. Planning Commission Recommended Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III. 1 thru 7 ' 1 . Description 2. Discussion ' 3. Checklist 4. Comments 5.' Suggested Mitigation Measures z TABLE OF CONTENTS - Cont. IV. Reduced Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV 1 thru 6 1 1 . Description 2. Discussion ' 3. Checklist 4. Comments 5. Suggested Mitigation Measures 1 V. Residential Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . V 1 thru 6 1 . Description 2. Discussion 3. Checklist 4. Comments 5. Suggested Mitigation Measures VI. Commercial/Residential Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'VI 1 thru 6 1 . Description 2. Discussion 3. Checklist 4. Comments ' 5. Suggested Mitigation Measures VII. No Development Project.. .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII 1 thru 6 1 . Description 2. Discussion 3. Checklist 4. Comments 5. Suggested Mitigation Measures ' VIII. "Notice pf Preparation". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .VIII 1 thru 18' I1 . Mailing List 2. Comments 1 3. Responses 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS - Cont. IX. "Nonstatutory Advisement". . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . .. .IX I thru 74 1 . Mailing List 2. Comments 3. Responses X. Environmental Determination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .X 1 and 2 XI. Appendix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .XI 1 thru 142 1 . Planning Commission Minutes 2. Staff Reports 3. Other Correspondence 4. Incorporation by Reference 5. Preliminary/Draft Report Department of Fish & Game 1 1 i 1 t 1 1 Introduction - This Initial Study summarizes and. evaluates the environmental impacts of proposed amendment to the Land Use , Residential Growth , and Open Space El-ements of the Newport Beach General Plan designated G. P .A . 79-1 . The purpose of this report is to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act , the State EIR Guidelines , and City Policy related to the• aforementioned.- ' Due to the extensive scope of investigation involved in G. P .A . 79-1 , this document h•as been developed in phases to allow for expansion of information . The document was expanded and revised based upon comments received during the official review periods and Planning Commission determinations on alternative land use proposals . This Initial Study consists of this document, subsequent revisions to said staff reports on G . P .A . 79-1 , and other information presented to the City of Newport Beach including public testimony at the, Planning Commission and City Council meetings . The specific areas of traffic impacts , openness of vista or view, cost/revenue, sewer capacity , energy requirements , and implications for the John Wayne Airport are contained in the staff report to' the City Council for the meeting of October 23, 1979 , The focus on this Initial Study is on the Environmental Impacts that can be anticipated from the Amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan (G. P .,A. 79-1 ) as recommended to the City Council by the Planning Commission . The City Council may, after their review of this project, determine that land use alternatives other than those recommended by the Planni,ng Commission are more appropriate for the various sites under consideration . Section 65356 of the Government Codes provides that the City Council may consider and adopt general plan changes other than those specifically recommended by the Planning Commission . In order to accommodate possible City Council changes to the recommended project, a Reduced Project (being either ,& 'red,uction from recommended or existing) , a Residential Project, a Commercial / Residential Project and a No Development Project are discussed in accordance with CE.QAC in addition to the recommended project.. . Lf RELATIONSHIP TO THE CALIFORNIA ' ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT This document has ' been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, "State EIR Guide- ' lines" and City Policies on the aforementioned, specifically ' Section 15080 of the "State EIR Guidel•ines . " Final action on the proposed project will not be taken by the City of Newport Beach until such time as determination of environ- mental ippact through either a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report occurs . The purposes of this Initial Study are to: 1 . ) Identify ' environmental impacts; 2. ) Enable the City to modify the project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is , written or required; 3. ) If an EIR is required to focus said document on only those potentially significant environ- mental effects ; 4. ) To facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of the project; and 5 . ) To provide , documentation of the factual basis for findings in a Negative Declaration if the proposed •project will not have - a significant effect on the environment. This Initial Study will be used in the following manner as defined in the "State EIR Guidelines . " " (d) Uses . (1 ) The Initi.al Study shall be used to provide a written determination of whet•he.r a Negative Declaration or an EIR shall be prepared for a project. (2) Where a project is revised in response to an Initial Study so that potential adverse effects are mitigated to a point , where no significant environmental effects would occur, a Negative Declaration shall be prepared instead of an EIR. If the project would stilt result in one or more significant effects on the environment after mitigation measures are added to the project, an EIR shall be prepared . (3) The EIR shall emphasize study of the impacts determined to be significant and can omit further examination of those impacts found to be clearly insignificant in the Initial Study . " City fNewport Beac to issue a It is the intent of the i y o • h _ Negative Declaration for this project which could have a significant effect on the environment, if the City can find on the basis of this Initial Study that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. This will be accomplished as required by Section 15083 of the "State EIR ' Guidelines . " I The City will prepare an EIR on this project if the findings , arguements , or issues contained in Section 15084 listed below are substantiated through the environmental documentation process . "15084. Decision to Prepare an EIR . (a) ," If the- Lead Agency finds after an Initial Study that the project may have signs scant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency must. prepare or cause to be prepared an Environmental Impact Report. (b ) An EIR should be prepared whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial ' evidence that the project may have a• significant effect on the environment. (c) An EIR should be prepared when there is serious public controversy concerning the environmental effect of a project. Controversy not related to an environmental issue does not require the preparation of an EIR. " � 1 1 • ' r I I "SCREENCHECK" 'PROJECT "PRELIMINARY" ' Project Description This project description has been used to address the several land use alternatives reviewed by the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission in their public hearings on "General Plan Amendment 79-1 ." Detailed project descriptions of the recommended project and other land use alternatives are located as indicated in the Table •of Contents. General Plan Amendment 79-1 An Amendment to the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Open Space Elements to include: 1 . Possible reduction in the allowable intensity of development' or ' change to residential use on the major commercial/industrial un- developed sites; and reduction in the number of dwelling units allowable on the major residential undeveloped sites including, but not limited to, the options listed in the attached "Land Use Alternatives" for the following sites: (a) Koll. Center. (b) Jamboree/MacArthur (c) San Diego Creek (d) North Ford (e) Aeronutronic-Ford (f) Newport Center (g) Bayview Landing 1 (h) Castaways (j) Westbay (k) Newporter North (1 ' Big Canyon m Ba wood (n) Fifth Avenue (o) Beeco (p) Mouth of Big Canyon 2. Possible development of a phasing plan to coordinate new development with planned improvements in the circulation system. r3. Possible revision of the existing density classification system. Scope of Investigation 9 The proposed Initial Study on this project will be prepared in accordance with the "State EIR - Guidelines," specifically Section 15080. Additionally, the scope of investigation will focus on traffic impacts, openness of vista or view, cost/revenue, sewer capacity, energy requirements and implications for the John Wayne Airport: • , 1- Z ti --_ 3. San Diego Creek d EST, ,9 a Newport6 .2. Jamboree/MacArthur Landing _1O. Eastbluff Remnant12. Big Canyon �_� �• ;: . . .14.Fifth Avenue •�t i ,zr�, i.. �o(lx�v � t �. ���,t\ I�lll•4C-'!t[*�t�`�i•f��� �-'i'4"�P:i•l�\���')It;J; F?-'1��i v ,r till "sue- 'r �SC 1� .. ♦ "NIIIf��� `!•�` i!r 'ipstGr ' LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Z Site No. 1 "KOLL CENTER" ' General Information •1. General Plan Designation: Government, Educational and Institutional Facilities; Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial ; Retail and Service Commercial ; and General Industry. 2. Existing Zoning: P-C with adopted Development Text. 3. Site Area: 159 acres, approximately 26 acres Vacant 4. Allowable Uses: Institutional , Commercial, Office, General Industry. 2,710,620 sq.ft. allowed by P-C Text. ' Site Considerations Currently there is 1 ,811 ,253 sq.ft. of development on the site. The P-C Development Text allows an additional 899,367 sq.ft. No traffic phasing plan has been adopted to date. ' Alternate Uses 1 . 50% Reduction (based on October 1 , 1978 total remaining 1 ,058,863 sq.ft.) - 2,181 ,189 sq,.ft. total (369,936 sq.ft. additional ) 2. 20% Reduction - 2,498,847 sq.ft. total ' 3. Commercial/Residential Mix - 2,181 ,189 sq.ft. - Assuming "net buildable acreage" would be approxi- mately, 25% less than the 13 acre total , 100 DU;s ' would be allowed at 10 DU's Per buildable acre. 4. Med./High Density Residential - 200 DU's (@ 10 per net buildable acre) H 5. Low Density Residential - 80 DU's (@ 4 DU's ' per net buildable acre) b� �sy��rd�Mri� ,' BRISTOL �t� UNlVGF9�S �. ' 1. KOLL CENTER LAND USE ALTERNATIVES ' Site No. 2 "JAMBOREE/MacARTHUR" , General Information 1. General Plan Designation: Retail and Service Commercial and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial. 2. Existing Zoning: Unclassified (U) - no standards adopted 3. Site Area: 2 acres 4. 'Allowable Uses: Office and Retail 'Commercial. ' 17,425 sq.ft. could be allowed at 2 density Alternate 'Uses 1 . 50% Reduction - 8,713 sq.ft. Office and Commercial 2. 20% Reduction. - 13,940 sq.ft: Office and Commercial 3. Commercial/Residential Mix - 8,713 sq.ft. Office and Commercial , 8 DU's (@ 10 per net buildable acre) 4. Med./•High Density Residential - 16 DU's (@ 10 per net buildable acre) , 5. 'Low Density Residential 6 DU's (@ 4 per net buildable acre) 6. Park and Ride Facility ' BRISTD� et•. ��� / o0nna❑n ❑ r q � „z 2. JAMBOREE/MACARTHUR REVISED 8/2/79 T -� ' ' LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No. 3 "SAN DIEGO CREEK" ' General Information 1 . General Plan Designation: Retail and Service Commercial (north- erly 12 acres) General Industry (southerly 47 acres) . 2. Existing Zoning: Unclassified (U) - no standards adopted. 3. Site Area: 59 acres 4. Allowable Uses: Commercial , Industrial , Office ' 514,008 sq.ft. could be allowed at .2 .density. ' Alternate Uses 1 . 50% Reduction - 514,008 sq.ft. 2. 20% Reduction - 822,413 sq.ft. ' 3. Commercial/Residential Mix - 514,008 s fit. 221 OU's �@ 10 per net buildable acre) 4. Med./High Density Residential - 442 DU's (@ 10 per net buildable acre) 5. Low Density Residential - 177 DU's (@ 4 er net buildable acre 6. Desilting Basin - Desilting Basin (southerly 47 acres) 209,088 sq.ft. com- mercial (northerly �uara� ' 12 acres) e a 3. SAN DIEGO CREEK REVISED 7/17/79 LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No. 4 "NORTH FORD" , General Information , S, 1 . General Plan Designation: General Industry, Office, 'and Retail and Service Commercial. ' 2. Existing Zoning: P-C with adopted Development Text. 3. Site Area: 126 acres, approximately 68 acres , Vacant. 4, Allowable Uses: Commercial, Industrial , Office ' 900,000 sq.ft. -allowed by P-C Text, Site Considerations Currently there is 129,260 sq.ft. of development on the site. The P-C Text allows an additional 770,740 $q.ft. Only 30% of this additional square footage is allowed prior to the adoption of a Traffic Phasing Plan. ' Alternate Uses 1 . 50% Reduction - 514,630 sgJt. total (385,370 sq.ft. additional) ®e 2. 20% Reduction - 745,852 sq.ft. total ' 3. Commercial/Residential Mix - 514,630 5q ft UN vER!I 255 DU's 10 per net buildable acre) vixN , 4. Med./High Density Residential _ 510 DU's (@ 10 per net buildable acre) Fore - ' w � 5. Low Density Residential_ - 204 OU's (@ 4 0 per net build- m able acre) con4r Kwy 4. NORTH FORD t 1 ' LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No. 5 ' "AERONUTRONIC FORD" General ,Information 1. General Plan Designation: General Industry, Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial, and Residential 2. Existing Zoning: P-C - no standards adopted (existing development as per use permit) 3.. Site Area: 193 acres, 102 acres vacant 4: Allowable Uses: Office, Industrial and Residential Site Considerations ' The existing industrial complex includes 962,400 sq.ft. of development. An additional 1 ,691 ,006 sq.ft. is allowable under the existing use permit. The General .Plan was amended in February 1976 to allow residential as an alternate use on the undeveloped ' portion of the site. Alternate Uses ' ' _ 1 . Commercial/Residential Mix - 368,600 sq.ft. additional, 450 DU's ' 2. Reduced Commercial/Residential Mix - 261 ,000 sq.ft. additional 250 DU's ' 3. 50% Reduction - 845,500 sq.ft. additional 4. 20% Reduction - 1 ,352,800 sq.ft. additional Qip 5. Med./High Density Residential - .,.r,.;;3ON 765 DU's T@ 10 per net buildable acre) ' +a +rG•6. Low Density Residential - / . 306 DU's (@ 4 per net �: / • buildable acre) ' pORV R9. 5. AERONUTRONIC-FORD wj s -q LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No. 6 "NEWPORT CENTER" ' General Information 1 . General Plan Designation: Retail and Service Commercial ; Adminis- trati-ve, Professional and Financial Commercial ; and Residential. , 2. Existing Zoning: Mixed - Total development limited by General Plan Amendment 78-2. 3. Site Area: 330 acres, approximately 122 acres vacant. ' 4. Allowable Uses (78-2): Existing uses include the following: ' Office & Medical - 2,251,644 sq.ft. Commercial = 1,191 ,250 sq.ft. Theatre - 1,750 seats Hotel - 377 rooms ' Residential - 67 DU's Civic - 96,000 sq.ft. Automotive - 5 acres ' Golf Course - 18 holes Tennis Club - 24 courts Future additional includes: ' Office & Medical - 1,498,356 sq.ft. Commercial - 58,750 sq.ft. Theatre - 2,650 seats , Residential 471 DU's Alternate Uses Civic '10 000 so.I 1 . 50% Reduction - decrease future allow- , able as follows: y Medical & Office - 749,178 sq.ft. p 'a Commercial - 29,375 sq.ft. �•' Theatre - 1 ,325 seats Residential - 236 DU's < Civic - 5,000 sq.ft. �< 2. 20% Reduction - decrease future allow- able as follows: Medical & Office - 299,67-1 sq.ft. Commercial - 11 ,750 sq.ft. Theatre - 580 seats a ~� Residential - 94 DU's x Civic - 2,000 sq.ft. a z ' C •��1l�►!lIIy1 !!!� i. 3. Med./High Densi-ty Residential - kwY •6! 915 DU's on selected sites rAUFia aoAfc _ 6. NEWPORT CENTER ' MII W I_�4YM11yM,NW,A-P-- A M 4. Low Density Residential - 366 DU's on selected sites 1 . LAND USE ALTERNATIVES 1 Site No. 7 1 "BAYVIEW LANDING" ' General Information 1 1 . General Plan: Recreation and Marine Commercial , Medium Density Residential 2. Existing Zoning: Unclassified (U) - no standards adopted 1 3. Site Area; 19 Acres 1 4. Allowable Uses: Commercial Recreation, Tourist Com- mercial.. No development plan has been adopted, however 90,000 sq.ft.(@ .1 density) Tourist Commercial has been 1 discussed by the property owner. Residential - 85 DU's maximum. 1 Alternate Uses 1. 50% Reduction - 45,000 sq.ft. Commercial Recreation or Tourist Commercial. 1 2. 20% Reduction - 72,000 sq.ft. Commercial Recreation or Tourist Commercial. 1 3. Commercial Residential Mix - 45,000 sq.ft. Commercial Recreation or Tourist Commercial. 71 DU's (@ 10 per net buildable acre) 4.• Med./High Density Residential - 142 DU's (@ 10 per net buildable acre) 1, 5. Low Density Residential - 57 DU's (@ 10 per net buildable acre) 1 6. Public Recreation - View park and bike path on upper portion R.V. camping on lower portion :a �a 1 p U G 1 •,. "•� PACIFIC ' COAST 7. 'BAYVIEW LANDING REVISED 8/2/79 � LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site 'No. 8 ' "CASTNdAYS" ' ' I General Information ' 1. General Plan Designation: Recreational and Marine Commercial/ Medium Density Residential . ' 2. Existing-Zoning: Unclassified (U) - no standards adopted 3. Site Area: 65 Acres ' 4. Allowable Uses; Northerly 40 Acres - Residential with . 225 DU's maximum ' Southerly 25 Acres - 217,800 sq.ft. (@ .2) of Commercial Recreation or Tourist Commercial, or a com- bination of 40,000 sq.ft. of Commercial and 100 DU's. Alternate Uses ' 1. 50% Reduction - 113 DU's ' 108,900 sq.ft. Commercial or a combination of 20,000 sq.ft. Commercial and 50 DU's 2. 20% Reduction - 180 DU's ' 174,240 sq.ft. Commercial or a combination of 32,000 sq.ft. Commercial and 80 DU's 3. Commercial/Residential Mix - 200 DU's and 10,000 sq.ft. of Commercial , 4. Low Density Residential - Assuming "buildable acreage" would be approxi- mately 25% less than the 65 acre total... , 195 DU's would be allowed at 4 DU's per buildable acre. Sr �PreR NsWaaRr 5. Medium Density Residential - 8 DU's 15"Y , per buildable acre maximum. Approxi- mately be9allowed.U's "o;'%�� AAL,aIc coA,r 8. CASTAWAYS REVISED 8/2/79 r^�� 1 1 LAND USE ALTERNATIVES 1 Site No. 9 "WESTBAY" 1 . General Information 1 1 . General Plan Designation: Recreational and Environmental Open Space/Medium Density Residential 1 2. Existing Zoning: P-C - no standards adopted 3. Site Area: 71 Acres 1 4. Allowable Uses: Open Space 348 DU's 1 • Alternate 'Uses 1 1 . Open Space - Consider possibility of public acquisition or dedication with some density transfer. 1 2. Low Density Residential - Assuming the "net buildable acreage" of the site would be approximately 53 acres.. . 212 DU's would be allowed. 1 3. Residential/Open Space - Preserve 50% of the site as open sp4ce. Concentrate 212 DU's on remaining 50%. 1 4. Law Density Residential/Open Space - LNIyERStT( ➢R• Preserve 50% of the site as open space. Allow approxi- mately 106 units on remaining 50%. 1 u►rcrc NEur7oar- 1 LKY i � 1 zz Iry sr. 1 �) W1.5TBAY II LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No. 10 ''EASTBLUFF REMNANT" General Information t- 1 . General p1an .Ddsignation: Recreation and Environmental Open Space/ Medium Density Residential. 2. Existing- Zoning: R-3-B 3. Site Area: 8 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: Open Space 42 DU's Alternate Uses 1. Open Space - Consider possibility of public ' acquisition or dedication as open space. 2. Low Density Residential - Assuming the "net buildable acreage" of the site would be approximately 6 acres... 24 DU's would be allowed. 3� JPvL�F 1 ' NEWPoKr „ O�b aAY `� vEt- < P '10. EAS'I'BWFF REMNANT LAND USE ALTERNATIVES ' Site No. 11 "NEWPORTER NORTH" General Information ' 1 . General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential 2. Existing Zoning: P-C - no standards adopted 3. Site Area: 88 Acres 4. Allowable Use: Residential - 440 DU's ' Alternate Uses 1 . Low Density Residential - 264 DU's (@ 4 per net buildable acre) 2. Residential/Open Space - Preserve 50% of the site as open space. Concentrate 264 DU's on the remaining 50%. 3. Low Density Residential/Open Space - Preserve 50% of the site as open space. Allow 132 DU's on the remaining 50%. ' FOiZD � au a i yiys M l Ywi i Wi, ' Ii. NI.WPORI'FR NORTH I� LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No. 12 "BIG CANYON" ' ,General Information 1 . General Plan Designation: Multi-Family Residential ' 2. Existing Zoning: P-C - with adopted Development Text 3. Site Area: 15 Acres ' 4. Allowable Uses: 160 'DU's t Alternate Uses ' 1 . Med./High Density Residential - 90 DU's (@ i0 per net buildable acre) 2. Low Density Residential- - 45 DU's (@ 4 per net buildable acre) • ii • i • i• • o z � W Sc � .- A^H • $� Jo,�pU h y�C N Niuy �uewroRr �•:,�.' GENTEh c: ^ ' i A � ,,I��1tI fYYYf1Y1jY� M „W YY:. L:L Ll'ar 12. 131G CANYON Y�dY1YaYiN1�Wl�q 1 LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No. 13 1 "BAYWOOD EXPANSION" General Information ` 1 . General Plan Designation: Multi-Family Reservation 2. Existing Zoning: P-C - with adopted Development Text 3. Site Area: 9 Acres 4. Allowable Use: Residential - 140 DU's Alternate Uses 1 1 . Med./High Density Residential - 68 DU's (@ 10 per net buildable acre) 2. Low Density Residential - 27 DU's (@ 4 per net buildable acre) 1 ' i PA4IF�c �i1zT. 1 13. BAYWOOD 1 17 l J LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No. 14 "FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS" , %General Information 1 . General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential , 2. Existing Zoning: P-C and R-1-8 3. - Site Area: 36 Acres 4. Allowable Use: Residential - 204 DU's Alternate Uses 1 . Low Density Residential - 108 DUls (@ 4 per net buildable acre) I 1 ACE �1 lk FIFTH AVENUE ^� ' LAND USE ALTERNATES f � Site No. 15 "BEECO PROPERTY" 'General Information 1 . General Pl.an Designation: Medium Density Residential - subject ' to a Specific Area Plan 2. Existing Zoning: P-C (50 acres in City); A-1 (100' acres in County) 3. Site Area: 150 Acres ' 4. Allowable Uses: Residential - 900 DU's I Alternate Uses 1 . Low Density Residential - 450 DU's (@ 4 per net buildable acre) • `yam � � �.. ' W C G Q ' 15. BEE CO LAND USE ALTERNATIVES , Site No. 16 ' "MOUTH OF BIG CANYON" General Information ' 1. General' 'P-lan Designation: Opem'Space with Residential as an alternate use. 2. Existing Zoning: Unclassified (U) - no standards adopted., 3. Site Area: 48.5 Acres 4. Allowable Uses,: Open Space/145 DO's (at approxi- mately 4 DU's per buildable acre). i Alternate Uses 1. Open Space - Consider possibility of public acquisition or dedication as Open Space. T Q 16, MOUTH OF BIG CANYON SAN o �W a o ro • Z. zo ' 1 1 1 i 1 1 "SCREENCHECK" ALTERNATIVES CHECKLIST 1 1 _ . i 1 1 1 INTRODUCTION ' The purpose of the following "Screencheck" Environmental Checklist was to allow the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach an opportunity to facilitate an environmental assessment of 'various land use alternatives early in the design 1 of their recommended project, and to enable them to modify the project to mitigate potential adverse environmental effects before an EIR would be required or written. 1 Due to the ,nUmber of land use alternatives and sites analyzed comments and responses were. not prepared for the "Screencheck" alternatives checklists. The "ScreenchecO and"Draft" checklists differ. This difference has occurred as alternatives were removed by the Planning Commission and more closely defined by staff as, a part of this early environmental assessment. 1 i 1 1 t 1 t 1 i "Screencheck & Draft" . FNVIRONMENTAL CHECFLIST FORM 1 I. Background 1. Name of Proponent City of Newport Beach 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 3300 West Newport Boulevard, -Newport Beach, _CA 92663 14 - 640-2197 1 3. Date of Checklist Submission N/A 4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Newport Beach ' 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable General Plan Amendment 79-1 ' II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) ' YES MAYBE NO ' 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in ' changes in geologic substructures? _ b. Disruptions, displacements, com— paction or overcovering of the soil? ' c. Change in topography or ground ' surface relief features? _ d. The destruction, covering or modi— fication of any unique geologic or physical features? _ e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? _ rf. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? _ YES MAYBE Nb , 1� 5 g. Exposure of people or property to ' geological hazards such as earth— quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards?. _ Z. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deteri— oration of ambient air quality? _ b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate,, either locally or regionally? 9. Water. Will the proposal 'result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? ' b. Changes in absorption rates,, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ' c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? d., Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? _ e. Discharge into surface waters or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ' f. .Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters•? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi— tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial 'reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? _ i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as , flooding or tidal waves? _ '1 I ' f YES MAYBE NO 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, ' or number of any 'species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? _ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? — d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?' — 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, or insects)? — b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? 1 c. Introduction of new species of ani— mals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement ' of animals? -- d. Deterioration to existing fish or I wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the• proposal result in: ' a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise 1 levels? 1. � ar ht and Gle. Will the proposal 'produce new light or glare? B. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or ' planned land use of an area? YF.S MAYBE NO 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? , b. Substantial depletion of any non— renewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Lipset. Does the proposal involve a sk ri bf an explosion or the release of hazardous 'substances ,(including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides,' chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? , 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand , for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal- result in: a. Ceneration of substantial additional , vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? ; d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement 'of people , and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase, in, traffic hazardous to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a' need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas : . � MC YES MAYBE NO a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? --- d. Parks or other recreational facilities) — e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? — f. Other governmental services? -- 15. Energy Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require ' the development of new sources of energy? 1 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a ;. need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: ' a. Power or natural gas? — b. Communications systems? --- C. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and -disposal? — 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: ' a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding 1 mental health)? -- —— b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? --- 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically site open to . _— offensive aL p Public view ? �� 7 YES MAYBE No 1 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity , of existin.- recreational opportunities? 20. Archeological/Historical. Will thr: , proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. III a. Does the• project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish i or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples, of the major periods of — California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to 'achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is S one which occurs in a relatively brief definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future.) 4 c. Does the project have impacts which _ are individually limited., but cumu— latively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small , but , where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, ' either directly or indirectly? I11. Discussion of Fnvironmental Evaluation IV. Determination �, 110 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 "SC REEN'CHECV SITE ANALYSIS 1 1 i 1 pp►. -nor NEON ME►2 Oar.MEN OWN■■■■o■ ■M.� Oi►4 NN►Q4 M■► MwQ■M■■■■Mii tit MUM OEM ME■■■ENQ■■■■■E■■■■/■ t■F ■ E0■ARE N©■■NQ■■■■■m■nE■■■ AIM■�>,■■m■��Mm©■■Mom ma■oE■■■■mmo iQ4■WmQ MPji RUIN iFNi wi�w=M EMM EME MEN ■©■■[a■En■■[7■ERE mmeg own now WOM■NO - mm►�Mw.-_ME►Z■■►�■■►_air_mE■■Um EMm EEE MM ■■_.■■ 'mop i■►z�■■►_■■�e Nis■■■■■■N■■ MEN i7M■rlo■C.)■O rl■M M■►4■n■■WN■■N MOO OEM■■►S EM►2 E■►_.■■►4 MOZ■■N■■■■■■MEN •1■M►_i■■�.MMF_NEON■M►_4■EM4 M■■OEM■M■ON■ - MAIN Rims ONE G1■w0■■ous ONE Sam MEN was �I■m mow■mM■r�■■om■M■►s■■■■■■■■■■■■ NM►Q nor won MEE rams M■►_A MEE ONE ONE EME AMC ME►1 ME PA OM►5 OMFQ■b,■■M MEN■■N ENO ■■►: ■■► ■M►�Ni►�M■.�Mw►�■amOno■ENEms�o♦ I� W■►A■■.1■■:4NE►MMEZ4 M■V+■M■■o■man■M■-■� ■■. mErr M is r ,4nopM 4MMJ Mno;�,.MU■■UM MMM MMM ■■►_i EM��■M►e Napo■■►Nor EMS mum MEE■m■ - ■■►ZEE■��■■►_NE��■■►�■■►::in■■■iE■■■E■ ■■Q4■■/3■■►r Ma_■■►ZEE■*Ems Now OEM■N■ •1 am,mMIUMa["=Mum I NIMIMOMOw■=EMMMMNNIm MEN mOE(IEO Lima WON ON*ONE NEE EON m■■ !CIMIM(RIME RIME IFim■Was Main M■IM own mom mum =i RIMM Mims IIIEM"am OEM 1401"MEM MNM MMM MMM i�-'.U■�E■t47E■vlOmliiElMOr�■w■NE■MENE■■ ■w►-_Ew►_Mw►2■■►�■■a�EE►'MMM■■�M MMM MMM II � ��i�� �Oor_A MM�-AEEw�■M.:a MM►e Mio.<NOW main am- AMA wIf]M M/ISM If9M1M 14MM/Ginn"am MMm MMIM MMM Mm=MIAII gym!MIE W 0 iM S RIME G1MM ILiMM FrAMM MIME MMM MMIM MUM®� F1! NI Nmm Era■o�■■F?■i®■eG1■■M■MM■NEE■E■� �E ME►5 EOal OE=i■MMIN UF;tM Ear,OE■Own NEE mum c� een■i%#]■■E�JE■mi■DM m■■i■m■■■OOE■■■ 7 NEPAM MFd'1M INME■ffpn MON►aa■OEM■M■Ono mom ■M►�/■ice 0■■r5l■■5t■i m■■■■■eM/MEE■E■ ■■/5 E■►��I■■Z'■■E900■VIN MEN■■■■ON■EN ■■•«9n■0■■ZIMi E■■.j■■■■■■Mi■■■■■■ E^IE NFAM■FILE now mom■no OEM EEO now MOm Is ■OM ate■MEMM mom■ram Mmv'NEE Now Was mom mE►_raw._OEr�NM►�■E� ■E�.EEm oom■ram mE■ NMQ4 EE:1 01E*1 NM►M mO a�OE►_EEO MUM ram■Man NM►'2 MMQ m■►_i mom E■►::Nn, 0 MEN mom MEN mom OE►4 a■j�F4 MNr■Mr■■&■E►s■E■■■N E■■M■■ AMA■Fsl■maim EEO■Elmo■n,0 WME Now■■N mom MOM M"'A AMR Orrin AMR Ort■Ems■OE man mom r� Ew��■w►e Ow5■■►NE►■n�kj■ON MOM MOM Moo MAIM EFHE OL" ME I ME■NOM ME■ ■E�■E� ME►�■Mi'�OU► mMz mMm MGM MMM������ MFR1M MKl7M MF�M MMM a=M Eno MUM MFFAM MOM O€5 in■►sim main MINI A#MM Man MMM MMM Eggs■mE mom■o■MMM Olin EN■MAIN ENE mom 7 ME►'.EM� mU►�■E►�EE►_MisiM NOW MEE EOn■■■ N�'1■■k'1■■e�m Ek'fl■M►:1■■FS7m NOE rani mOO mMM� ■WE■T■EME EME MEN■MIN MEN MOW ONE Mom� L ■■ pill ME►�4 VA M►:��►114�m■■r■� ► M► wi■■i■i■ ROM o■EnEMn■M/J■EEC�■■■■■■■■■ • Elmo�■�a■■©w■©e Elmo■■�■■■■■■EMe ©MM EINM fcfME eMM Fc3M■ cFl■■MnM■w■■■■■■■ Q=■VALmaimm MEN woo FAME ENE M■M ONE M■■ 1• m.v�'�+'> � Elmo M©lima■EfA■M[dewF�■■OEM MWQRMMQ4 OEM MEQ4 OEM I►_ENE iME■ice • OEM NNW NNW OEM MM►'wMr 0WP►'4MMMEMMMEN WIME FIMMt1EM Fs1■■ijMM OWN ENO■MM ME■MEN - I%1MMf7■■G7MELIM■L'1■Mf.7MEEFcI■E■iMiiiiE IN I MN►'�MMh2 MMG:M�►Zi MM►'MM.�MM►.,wa■MMM MGM EmE■III■�li�■/©EM mMA►/lM■ML'IM■NE MMM Mid rAE■VINE WM■WINE oiM rra■E■■►.■i■M■M E■M • WNW winonkM■iii■■G7Mr/LA■■MM►�■NEEE■■M■ R7/M ry/M IL7/M(G1MM/CIMM MUIr i7��•■M �M7 AMA MEN MIMMUME MMMUMEWIMM MM►2 E■■■EM■■E M■®M■®■wm■■VIE■®■�■E■v■■■iMMi■ME ■M►�MN�Z�Nam■■�M NFSIE�*ME MM►:■EM MME mom ■miORINMIME EFr E MOM MEN IUMM■oM EMS ■■■ ■VIM■F�'1■N�I■■�M EmM EmMmN■■NE■ME■EE 14 ENO ME ■E/9■MmE wFL�Ems■ME��s�M■MRJM■MM�MM■ME ■F1IM■FSI■M4fl■■®■■®M Elmo r■►Z�E■■'■EE Et■ • ESE■oE■k3JM■��■��En+t■- My�M► ■N���M EyM■.■�... ■F31■Em■Mom■■k#IM■kl;M■�:3E■G']M EMM■MM MM■ ■VIE ESE■kFi0■AIM MLIM MBFIM■Ir'IM NEW MEN Now EMM OMM MkPM Ems■Ems■MC�E Mw►e EMM EMM■MM MINININIMMINION ENE EME MmM■mM Emu■mm ■m■M■■■■■■■■ ■L"1■MLIM MCA■mmm MIME' ■cum,■EE gum■NM MMM, Mm■EO■E■■ESE M E■Rim ME�'le MEE EM■ME■ - • ■w:' �=%;ii iiiii�ii�iiiiNUNii��� MUM RIME 1110 ■E7■■ONE F3■■■EI■mna■■■i■■■■■ �nE!gg V Miiai�i�iuiis miiiiiiii [9■/p!■■61■■GI■■f%1/■fit■■■■�e■i■www■■wwwwH M IN Nouns - i1■■O■■rigmmNumr-1■mM■■■■►-_■■■■■■■■■ ■■■►4■■E■m►Q NEON m■■■■e■� n■■rr�■■17i■m■■ram■Il:]i/■■-.■■i■■■■■■ ■i►z�■ice m■■m■■m■■�i■■■■►z■■■ii■■■■ . ��►-eww:•��►-_w�.-eww�_�w►_.wi►ew�w�wwwww •\■■��■i►:m■►�■■►�i■►.ww:�■ice,■i■ii■i■■ =H •�mmw wry■►aiw►�■■rra■w■�■wciw www wsw www ■®w NOISOME own■IAA■i■►5 ii►_.■i■■■■■■■ a�ww rx�ww mww r,�ww rawwww�_ww.e mww www■■■ =aw►.�ww mw■rew■m!ww mew■mww�iw wwi www ww■ ■■►`:■■V iw►2■■►e■■c iwr ww►ti www www www n■ww►re■w11.4 iwF'O■■►J ww►:/wwr�4 ww►a wwlw own www nlww wAJw wmw[aww wwlw www www �w mww mlwwriww rs�ww arcaw sw►.ciww wwi,�,*w www ►slim►clam mi■■■►�■m�,ii►:,im►1■i■sww mw■ iNow EMOM®EE®0IIYrEmEry NmumME■MENm■m ■Fs■■©■MON■O■■®■■IE■■ID■■iw■w■■■■ ■■p-r1■INO MEOM wLri■PHUM ww►d ww►_now on ■■■ Ls III F€Jmum■a on W■ME■ mi■■■■■mime■ .7■FL7■■G1JI■adlm■En'■■Gfl■■F71■►am■■m■■■■■■■ ■F?1■■�^■■®■■EJ,w■E9■41'ww■I1!■■i■w■www■ ■®/■F31■■®i■®/im■■■ram i!►5■■e■e■■■■ • ■1?1■■?]■ate/■E1■■IEf?■■w►e■i►',d■mi■■■mww q.�H.�,wig�■■��■i►�■i►:�■i►'�wiw■■■■■■ • ■i►:■�:�ii��■■►_�wi►Swi►'.w/➢lwwwwwwwwww ww►_■w►no •■w►�ww-_ww-:ww._www www www Mw►.ww:e M&HM wk:�w MMM wwZ MMM www www www. r' wkI■wk_jw MILVO MMM N;410■Fbiw ww►.q www www now r� • ww►,ww►_w�►_•■■►-_■ice■s+n■■©■■mm■■■■■■ ■ IN■13'1■mull■■fc57■■viIm■REN mom■i■mww■i■ ■o■■Er■■."A■■eye iM■wm■WIN■■m■J ■■■ gmm arm ■■ ■i►e■■04BEN MOM w■f:,MEN own MEN mom III �■ ■w► ■■Q ■■■■►o■■►:■■■■w■■■■■■■ ■ ■�■■ommomw©■w■-.■w■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■eflii��ii�iii©iiiiiiiiii�i ■■V■w►�w■Q4■■r 4■■&4 w■►:■w■■w■■■■■■■ MMM MOM OEE GI■■PINE NIMM ONE ONE■■■ONE�■ ■■�r4■■►:■■►5■■►5■Eli INW4 MOM■w■MEN ENE loom o■■n■E ONE U■■■NE■■M■w■■■■■■■ iwi+Ewf,mwE m■w rDE■w■►_+■wE■■■■■■■■■ ■■►4■■PAr■■P.,■■►3■■►:one■■■■■■■■■■■■ iw►�ww►�ww►--EEG■■►�■■►/wwE■wi■■MIME •�i�d■w�ew■►■■►�i■G wi►,wwE■ww wii ii■ w• • ■■►1■w►i■■E■■►�■■raw■/�Ew■Ew■■■■■■■� •1■mi Em■/E3wi►E3Ei CFJi■wG'!■iwi■wi iii NNN ®w■nwMmfw■Com Mom wE►:ONE■■w MEN■E■ • ■/xJ■■�c3■�F7�■Ir7i■!r3■■■i►:i�■■w■iiiii■ r IUM IC/INN Vann MOM OWN wNQ NEN NINN NNE■N■ -i©wi G3wM R7E■Rii G/Ni F�aN NINN Nwi iii NNN • Q9INi/.��■■/5wilTEiU•9■Eww►:,Ew■iw■■■■■■■ ■w►:+■w�+wwE+ii►�■i►�Eil'�iiiNENNEW iii IrN��N NrsIN IGIEN N6'IN rCINN[JINN iii NINN iii iii FN•�P7INN n:lam■��i iG�i�i■Gli■ice■i�iiii MEIN �J• �■■mw■mwE mEE>mE■ww►-.wwE■ww■■■MINE�ww�M • ■EfE7■■®■w®■■:�■■©■Erg■■■■■w■■■■i■■ ■wE�Ew►s■©■■f�E w�EEi iw■iwE wEE MINE� G! iwi■�mi iwi iwi i®i i�i iii iii iii iii���� i�3■Eo■MIDI■®r/�!■■■►Z+■■■■��■■■■■■ • ■C>J■/m■w�iE■�i■EmE Mwv.EwE wwE INN■iii iw►-w■►-+iJE►:■■►1■■►4■■I 1.■w■■wo MINE i■■ iw►�■w►:Ewe■NK4+■w►t■IEEE iwi iwi iii NE■ ENV HP�■■ZA■■ER■■M■■►�+■■■■■■■■■■■■ '■im�■Wm iii iwi©iiir■n,- iii iii iii iii imi■®■■mE■€�E�ww■n■■■■■wi■i■iw■ r�■w►-.■w►�■�f:�■■��■�►_•i■_�mow■■■■■■■■■�w�■ww■ ■MU Ern■MMO MINE EMw■■►:+wwE Ew■NOW MEN i■1►J iwi+ice►+�■ice Nw►�■i►�iii iii iii i�� EMI.•Emu W RIUM iw:7i moo MMM iii NINE■■■NNW� �• =ME NIM■MWAM■ORI=UJIMM WIN;4 WNW NNW NEE NEW AM • iwi iw iw_�Mw►z�Ew_�■m■■wi iww■■E EE■ ■�■■�■■�nM MenE MBE■m■■wE iwi iww ii■ lamm nm[9130M WMEJ 0©QIL9©©l7©©0©©130MWoo • w���i�ii ■■■�■■tee■■■i.■■e.■■w■■■qqq■� ■■■■■■■i■■■i■■■■■■■■■■ • ■iii�saiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii�tq�� ■w.wi■w■.w■■i■w■.w■■i■wi■i■■■■w !�■ MWMIMMMMMMMMIM t■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■e■i■■■■■ • man■O/■t■ONE MEN.■■..■■..w.....- • iiiiiiiiiiiiiiwiie■iiii:i:::::::��e q ■ii■i■i■■■■■■■■i■■■■wwa■ww..w■ . ew.ew...■.e.e.ew.■.w....w..ee. �■i■w■■ii■■■s.w■..■we■■i■rr.w ww■��■ • ■■■■■■■■t■■i■■■a■■■i■■■■■■w■■■mow • Yam...■.w.r��.....w■..w■w......Y saew.rewYww■...w.ew...w..w.�..... . - ■e■■■■ei■■■■wiww■■..■■iw..ww■w ca ■i■■■■■■■MEN■■■■t■■■■■■■■■■■■■ rw� • .w■■.■w�w■..w.w■w■..w■.w■w■w■■ww�� r�r�r��r�wre��.w�..�...rw.■w..e■ .w■■w..we■..ww....sw..ae■e..ar��� FAMM Cl©©©©■©©MMEI©©©MOM V9©©o©©©©©MOCi .■►�■■►�■■►�MEG EM©NIMM EMM EMS ME■NON �ii��ii�iiio►�iiiiiiiiiiiii�i����� MIN • NNE■ mmla■■[I■.■15w.■now mamm■■■om ■.►3i.1a..VAii amnw.■.■...■..NMEIN FEE 13■■RINE WINE w.OR.NN Ems OWN WNW NNN�N� • ■.cN■N._■we4NN►-A.■►.MOM MEN I OMMON■■■ee■ no mimir:7■■MOM mmin w■■NNE■w■■■■ONE ■■f:/■■■■■■■■►e■■►AI■■..N■.w■■■N N.N�wN� •1■■lroWE■■N■■E:1■■►4■■■■N■■■■■■■■■■� MUM MINE..OEM.N►w.■Q■■■ENE WNW■■m MEN =N• • /C:�IIr IL'1■iIL�1■■2'1■■.r1i.■■■■■■■.■■■.■. • ■�i i/Fji/Fi.■Rii..s:l..i.Ni iEIi i.i ii■ ►.3NN IL'NI■Ild�N Il7EIN NN►v.■■NEIN N.N NNi NNN NNE =a■MEIN WIEN riNN mom OEM NN■NNN MEIN NN■NNN n�NNE_NEI►-e EIEI��NN_•..►_�i.■NEIN■EI..�..N�� ire�r:���n��rr���rs��re�N��■���■�■CNN NNN�N� ■©■■©law©■.�...►�■■■■■.NN....N.■ c>•■m■■61■rF17.Nam■m.N■■■■■■■■■■■■■.■� .7 MOM NFJ■NEnN■ff"Im MEN ENE■■N EMS MEN NNE S ■�■■m■w�■N�..rr�.■.MEIN.■.......■ ■eti■■�J■Nei■�N■■►_■N■NN■■■r■■■■■■ . ■�i■■era■■a�■■�,■■■►_■■■■■■MEIN■...■■.�■ee■ NNI►S OEM MONO■w►2 NEI►_'4■.■OWN MEIN OWN MOM NOUN r� N■►-_IrK7�►�' w■ /Q 1■ ■■ N■:�..i.�■■r.■MEIN.■ .u7■■ 7 ENV■EYI.■.►:a..■...NN.■■MEIN. MLww W�Tlw NFJW OV.0m Nom■N■EWE mom■NN WNW 0 Mom Em '.w��Emu MR-I'm N..ENE mom mum MEN mLar��er�a�cmt�c��m ©®ta 0013 Pl©©IM©CI t7©©MOM fl©©Moo t7©©t7trtl MOM N� ►' ���■■�■/►�■■�■■_�■■■■■NEON BRIM MEN ■■■E■■n■■n■■■■►;t■t■t■■■t silo a o olgoN©EN©NE©m■■ONEMENMEN �N■raw er■■c�E■.�■■e■■NnN■■■N■■■■E MIN - NI�iN■�NNo■Nc�■NtNlr�rtnwNrre�NN■ENNNNnr NE►.EE►_EN►�■■►�■N=�■■�■�N►.■ENEN■NNE -IMMIK OEM■■N NEW■■►.N■►.Nun NEON■ENE! loom rs■NMIMN1 im■LINEm■N■eNE■ENEE■EN n■■n■■m■N Imam man■m■■E-_MEN NEE MEN N■►�EEE m■N m■■mE■Era■■■►:■EN■N■N■N • >•■►.ter.,■■r�tN�,tN►.Ns►eN�■►.EN■ENNNNr • o■tmEt©■tmt■mNEmNN■ea�■E■■■■■w■ :>r NNE■■r ■E►�■Era■■►.EE.,■E►s■E■■NN■NN =#w mEN rnNN mNW rriww nNN n-►NN CNN NNN NNN NNN mN�r►t�N■naNN mNE mNN�►c1■NN_,Err■■NE ENN n■WNU WN.�NN►.NN►_NNVV NN.-_NN►_•NNW NNN NNN iw inn N►riN ret�N onto N6lN�►��r��N NON NNN NNN�� Moo Now 0 Man MOM MOO EMM War MWr_4 ON"WNW �nNN rr,NNe�NN NmW ESN NorN oNN NNr�r«q1■N■Ir �� ��G1■■e�ENmEE k�■N®tNm■E i■►:t EE■Nei ESN� �Emi■mieal■■�1■Nm■Nm■N�■■■N■■t■■t L'! 7■E33N N®N eEnO■F?t■EEnN F,1■O rmE■NE■ONE■N■ ■■ice■iE�F9■t 11Nt 61■■■■►:is3■N■■N■N!■■N �ii�imii®�����imimiiN�iitN��■ Em/■�rw■�N NON NmE NON wraN■NN NNN wNN wiT.JM�JN>rkkl■■®■■€f]■NON■■1 f EEN N■E NNN r� i�ni i�i i�i i�i i�i i►s�"►i ini iii iii iii L�NN►4=am NQio Nmm W MM■mt2■oN NNW NNw NNW 1.a ©©©©©©UMMI FA©©©©©©©©'AMM F7©©©©©L9= SEE t■►�W411M ■►�■■►3■■M■■■■■■■■■■■■ . 180 ■©■MEN MOMMEM40MEMIMM■E■■■M .,A ZENO■MEN MEN■©■S■■M■M■■■■■■ - • ■ri■EIM■■►Mio■NNE■■ Ems own r.■■E.N ■w►Iq.w■mom■.►A..13 ENO MISS EMS Mom MOM •F MIM►!E■e/■■L4 MM►Q EMU ONO14 MIME MIM!■■■MEN MISS mS■mom Mom mNE■m&OEM M■E mom ONE E■■E•� • ■E/'�ISIM►.■■/�EEG�■G/■/►�■■!■w.■■■MISS ■■►-_�■IM►_MIME E/P■■►AIM■►�■■■■■■■SS■■. •�r�S.MIS!r�lIS■►��.w�S.welw■w■■IS.EEE■.■�■�.. rlJw■I/.lwE IY.IwE GHEE►!:l■■MAN MISM Noonan moo `a■mom.��■off.�..MISS G7E■...Ew.��E EEE • Efl■EDIM■CIS■®■■tEE■■IMF_■■■■IM/.■EEEE ©■■F#1■■r'�'J■■®■■F#]■■F�■■■■■MIME/■■■■■ ■!G"JE EfS7■■®IE■�1■■®E/F�■MIME EIM■/■E■■■ - ■�■Efr]■■OE■®E■®■■II]■MIME■■■■ISIS■■■ EE'1.■©■ISF>'J■.©IS.m.E.c•.w.■iIS■..EIS.� L� ■61■IS6l■i17■■61/EGfl■mi■MIME MIME r■/ErM� AIM■�■mIM■�■■MIME■67■■■■MIME■■■■E/ ■►DIM E>�Ei�S Em■.m..rnl.■w■■i.■EIS■■■ . i�i�ii�;i i�i i�iiii�s■iliiii iii i�i 0100 kuu,!4=0/74 NEW E.Ol.►n■IS.NEE MISS wi■� E■P MIME■■1:1■IMP■■f:1■■►.■■■■E■NEE■E■ ■�■■ID■■m/ajIM/�■■■I/.]E MIME■■■■■■E■E ■�T!fM■�■■�■�■■©■S Er��E.■■MISS EISE..M EIS.■IS►:/Sr.EM-�SE...E■_..IS.EISN■S■..■ Ek51E E1D■■iS EnE SFn.ESF�■SS EIS■■SIS■■■ kmmG E■OISEETomMISSE.►_MEE.EE.EE.EIS L'�/:4i�.E:7..E�7�.¢SJE.Rc 1w..0..�..w.MISS..■�- :7EI■MMU MMIN mom L EE■.�4.......MISS EEE YAM EWE■E►_Ei►v=MVQ■■Q.FM■EWE■■■EIS■MIME MOM EMS mom EMN MME■E■■IS.■■m M■.MEE - /�e'.E�■ELF■E;�c3E E�3■Ems■■■/MIME■■//E■ c � own r-rim CM MEN M93 •• i�IMF mom■.e Nona ONE■wee..eww� ■�■ii�ii�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii • ■■►e■t+!■■fA■et�l■■■irr■■.r.iiwri.ew.err ■■��G1■■i7■■riJ■■■■■/■■..■■.■ww.www ww MEM Fm■■rl■■Umm■■■/.■■/.■/■■e■■■■ ■■■R■/E1/■W■■i t■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ . ww.�ewe�..►yew►-�wew.ewwwiwwe..weei ENO■■NMINK,■■Z Now Mum won MEN mum amid •�■■�■/t:•..G'1■.►�iii..e■.i iwi ww.iii ■■1O■■0\.01■■►_I WEE own won awe now Una •�iL7i Itl.i m..m.w.iiwww iw■www w.w www ww�www�w� ww��v,?ww rr�ww viww www www www wwe ew■wwe _e.�wi mww ne■rnww wwe wew wwe wwe www wee .�.■Gi..�1 iw►�w■.www www www www www mwfYwcawwrww ww►�wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww � irs rh��u�wr rsisw r��ww www eww www wwtw eww www��� e.�ww oww oww oww www eww www www,ww www wwrwwwi �/■b9■■ill■■®■■■■■■/■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■rrai■En■/En.■cni w.w ewi wwe iwe.w.■wi • ■■�■F."1■/Q'1■■E9.■.■i■ii..■.iii.w.i 11w►�■.I:f.wr�ww/�i..lrrw.we ww.■iw i.e� in.■.�1■tee iE[j■e.w iwi.we■.s■w.wwe r� ete��!aww w�fi wne wwi www www www www www L•a�L.7�€nw�wvaw wCJw www www wew www www www- ••-_ww.-e e�ww:mww mww www wew www www www www • iFs�li..r f im■■ern■/.■.i ■..■■.■..■■■ c ■ ra ii■itMIMIittMI�wtiwtitiit■tt - Oi©ii�MI■■■tittti■■tiO■MItN■■O■ MOWN man ■■GG7■■■■■■■■■■■■ttti■wMI■MIiiii■ • wwro■■boomm■m■MEN WON NEE w■i■■u■MEN Oi►�IQitiit■■■tttit■■■■■■■■■■■■■ . ■i►:�iNIG/ii■iMIiii■ii■iMI■Oiiiiiii■ ■i�ti�iit■■itttitwtitti■■tt■tt •r t■��■■►.■■t■■t tttit■tit tit iit■it • ■■e�wi��■■t t■■at!■■■i■■t■t■■■.tt r�■�■ • ii�ii�iiiiiiiiii�iiiiiiiiiiiii�� •�wC9t f�3it iiO OMIMI MIMIO iMIO OMI■■MIi iii■iw#� • Oi►��iO i.t■■■■■■it■■iw■it tit ttO .ice/LfNI.NINI.iii MIMI■MIMI■MIii■iMI iiO iMIw _#©MIO Iil iO MIMI■iti MIi■ii■MIiw■MIi iii ii■ ■NI�i rIMIOMIMI.iit ttO iMI■■■■■■t■MI■■■ram • ■■E ti��ii■iiMIMIMIO MIi■ii■.....■... �wi/�iiF:1 ii■wi...■MINI....■.......■ ice.r�..ai...............NI.■........ Fl..F�NI.NINI.ii....i...NI.■NIi..,ri.i■-iii■ �>■w■gym■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�■■f■■■■■ ■■E®■■■it■■tiiOiiOiiiwMIMIOMI■Oiw - ■m■■®■■■■■■■■■t■■■■■■tit■it■■■� OMI►�■®wiMIOtitiiiOMI■MIMIOiittitOMI■ La _ .�ffiit■Ek7■iit■■■■it■■■tit■■■■■t■■t tit tE311■iii Oti MIN Oi■iii OMIMI iiMI ii■ • ■■�./■ISI■■■■■■■t■■■■■t■■t tit ttt MItO .NI►.■i1_7 MINIM■OO ti■ONE mMI■mow mom■t■ tm■HEI iiMI ttt MIit■iO MIMIt OMIT OMIT MIii t/L'It E�■t iit■■t tii tit tit tii wit tit rw Oil■■�■■If ti!t■i.ft■■t■ii Ot■twi- • H�twit■it■tt t■t■■■■tt■■■■i■ttt�■■ i ..vim Lamm.NI.MINN OWN............... • O�■ii/�tiO■it■it■■■tit■i■■■■■t■ ■®■■G�■t■1■■■t■■■■it wt■■it■iMI ttO� t • - MIN mowilminq■Me ONE MEN/■■MEMO■■■■■ ■®NI■ir3■!©■■iF7 iiM■i■i■M■■i ii■M■i WIN ofl mil■G!■i■®■MMM MIi■■■■■■M■■■■EMI Gl!!r[f■■iliM NIEE1 MM■MI■■■/■ME■wMt Mt■ 1♦ • MOM ME13rrINkMMID NON NON MEN MEEMONSON • r.�/■nEMn■■i■s7M■■E■■/■■■EMI/■M■■■ I M■©E■L1■■©MEM ME■MINIM MMI■ME■M■■MM■ - r�E■■■EONIMNI�l■■M■E■■■■■■MIME■MElE mt/mE■m/■■/■■■■MI■■■EEEE■■■■OEM ■■©■■©■■©■!©■MMMIM■■■■■MI■MINI■MM■ . ttratw►atte�tt��t■■w■■twttw■tt■tt■ tr �M■©■Ee+E/mot/w//■/■■t/■twttt■ttttt■t/ -IMME MINEMINIM MUM Mono • ■li7EMI©MINIS+■/EI■■MEOMEO■MO■tM■■EE ■!©■■©■■Ei■i6'+E■M■EMI■O■■EMI/i■■/■ 6f■E MIEW FI'fOM MM13 EMMOO■EMIE MEN■EMI ONE rt�w.raw.rraw...e�w..ww.Ew..wt Ewt■w■ _aM mwt a�M■mEM satM EMe EE■ww..wE EMM MMM ia.r[��.ui�.rci�.cam..r•..��.[��..�..M....�� mw.mw.�w.�w.w..ww..w..wM•tlet.Et_ - ■�■■m■Erg■Era/EM■■■M/NIEM/■E/■■■■ c: ■�■wm■MI�fMnlMMNIEEE■!■E■MIEE■■■EMI .7■tTIM/ill■E�:1■►E[■E//E■/M//■■/M■EE■■■ ®■M Ell•■E1/MIM®!!MO!■!■NI■!■■!M■■■■■ Mom■�■MBE Mra■EEE MM■E/M■wE■Mt MMt Mrnt d�•7■Off/ENIE1 ENINI MNIM■■M■!M■■■EM■ .w��ANKA/wF3■am M■t■wM E/.mum now m■. ■/©�11fE Ems/■6E MMM Mwt MMM Mwt ttM tMM MIN EMI®EMI®EEEI■i®■!■■■■iENI■■lEEMMNIE �M■ ■■�■■cr■!�M■■■■■!■■■■■M■■!!M E9i■■t<ste iF�7/■nE■/■M/■■EMI■/■MEE■MM I►�ME►�IrE�■EG1■■F�■wM■■E■EMI Mrr/■■w■■■� ECM ml6m mom own NNE MMM MM■MEM NNE now ■en■■�a■■c'�■■�■Mom■■■■■�■■■■M�■■■■� - MMi:•■e;:,■Mr�f■Mom/■/■E/E M/E M/E■/■■■E ■vla■■��u/:�■■mM■/■MEM■/■■M/■EM EM■Ewe ■ 1■WIN M1"3■MMIE MEN■!M MEN NEE now ENO ©mmcMER013 U©©©©m©©mummmmm mom mom IEEE ■/■■■■■■■■■■/■■■■■■■■■■■ mam%mm■©■w■■SEE■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■� ■ ■■■o■■■■■■■■■■A■■■■/■■■■■� • ■■UMON■I■F7 OEM■■■N■■SON■■w■■w■w0 • ii��i©ii©iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Am - - - • TJ■■�i■■■■E�■■■■■Err■■■■■■■■■■■■■� Pi•Fi.]i.E371■ill■111 ll■ll.11l■l.11■Ell - ■Tick■■©■■m■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/■■ FENNm■■®w ROM■■ww■■NNE now w■■■■■ . way■s�■■■m■///■■■■■■■.s■w....■.�u� ■i/.7 rim■iF.7■■■■■l.l..■■■■■■■//■�I ■■©ud7■oil■■�■�■■■■■■�.■ll.l■ll■� �Emu w■D■■©■■■■■w■■w■■■■■■■■■■■■ E9■■k�■■■Ill■■■/■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■i■■ I'! ■■F7■■EI ■ICJ■■/■■■■■■■■■■■�■■■�■■ L�€S•li�K31i.iC�..i..ii.i.ii..11■il.l■�� '• :Di■C{9l■lice■ll.l..l..il.ii Yl..i. i Y,! o'er- I MEN ■■■■■■■ii■■.■■.■■■■■■■ MrMMWM■w MEN■■■N■■■w■■■■■■■■w■ ■iE7..CJ i.r■■■.■■.■■■■■■■■.■■/■w .r. �rl r-•ter oar��r���..r.rlr�rtr rrl......r�� ��Fl7./■iF3.w■/ww■/■w.r■ww/■./ Mumma c: 7■F71■Ila.■iw■■.■■.i■i.■.■■w■■.i■■■wrrr� ■�■■wE1w..■■■■■■■■■■■/■w.ww//w■ w.17 r■s�.w.■.....■.■■w.■■■■■■.w.- r� r�r ct�trr ror r�r r.....■.te...ram.■.w... YAW ©©©nMIM M©MM13/©©©©©UMM M©©LIMM MMMElam _ G7■■ ■■©■■■■■■■■■■■■■/■■!■■■■■ s - ■Err■!©!■©■■!■■■mee■!■■m■mme■■w Di■G1■■■■©■■■■■■!■■■m■■mwmeewew ■■M ENIM MO©■■E M■M■MM■■e MINE■■■E■■ -�■■e�■■©■■©■■■■■MIN■M■■■M!■■■■■■■s m■■m■■■■©MIN■■■/■■E■■M■!■■■■■■E =ms •�2f!■nm■cam■a■■■w■m■w■m■eme Mew we■ , • role It9m■m■E�■■.■■■.111■■!■w■■■■■■Mlr • ©!■aim■!!©■■■■■■■■■■!■■!■■■■■■■��� mmwramemmraeeeeewmewemwwme■w■w■er■ _ae gyre■a�mw mme wee mma mm■emw wmw eee Mew m!■rum■emrr��■■�■m■■■■e Irm■■■■■■��� • ■INE3■!©!!rr■■■mww mmw■m■wmw eme eee ■mt�remwmm©ewwwwe�■■■m■■�eeeeeee i�r•1==FVJMM eee MMM Mee eee eeM MMe eee eee Epee omw ame■■■�■e mmw emw w�e���w wee �>t • m■■®■■■�IC�■■M■■■MINE�■■■!■■■■M■■ ®!■®!■ale,■■■!■■lmwwm■■!■■m■■■■ ■©■■©■mmrr■m■a■■wmw■m■wm■■w■w■■ c� ■®■■€�■mm■■■■■o Mew wm■■mew■■■■w wmrr■mC/mm►3■mrr■m■em■■mom■m■■■■■err ■!©■■�!m■■■■■mw■m■■m■■m■wee w■■ ■■©a©■■©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■MINE �■■©■■IEi■INCH MINI■i■■i■■■■■■■■ii■■■■� ■IN�7 a■©mmm w■■■■w wm■■ww■■■w■■Mee Ott�mw■mG/emwwmeemeeeee�eeeeeee L'�ES1��GSt�������e eme eee eee eme eme emw :nm■:ae■em�a emw ems wew eee eme eee eew�� ■C'D■■®■■�■Mr■■■■MINE■■■■■■MINE■�■ - ■L�©E E4';tll■■E�7■MINE E■E MINE ■■■■■■■■■wi■ .■E7r=■■■■■■■ii■■■■wi■■■■■w■' _■ ■■■w■■■■■■■■/■!/■■■■■■ © M MEWMMEMEMEMEMNEENNEWMEMEmmo iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/ - nw■■we■w■w■■■■■■■■■■■■i■■■■■■■ •r■wfa■i�a■i■■■w w■■i■■■■w wiw.w■ww■ •f yaw■eii■..■■w..a.■.■...■.......e Fn..rI.....................iU■..��ll F� �■¢7■■fit■■i■■■■■■■i■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ c� /61■m■■�.■�■■■■■■■■■■■■i■■■■■■■ MUM Pi■■S■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ffl■■rta■■■■■■■.o■■■...wiw eww w.■ ■ n ww.wmom ww■.rw w..■■■w■■■■w w.■ wie■ie.r�w■..■■■■w■■w■■.ri w■■■.■ Flmo Mtn...I.........e....lM.e..... .�. MC.■e.ra...e.....■......IM....... 7S ■era■■m■■■■■w■■.w■.■■iw■.■wi...■■■�■■�� ® i ....■.■■...■..........w .............■.......■. ::' ::::::::::::::::::::::::: MW . ■.©ww■ii.iiittt.i■w.■...iiwitt •1C'!.■■....■■■..■■w■■..■t..iw■wit ..©......ww..tt.i.ii■tww tiw i.■ =awe.■■.■.www.iii■..tiitt.tt.ittt 7■.r7....i■w.■.■■.ie.itwwi.it... hY cam■.■■■.■.■.■■■■er.■.w.■■■i■...�ww..� ■MU■7■...■..■■.■.■...■..w..■.w �■■©W■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ r� ' PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED PROJECT Li - { RECOMMENDED PROJECT ' Description and Discussion ' See Staff Report to the City Council dated October 23, 1979. ' t - - L�,-' T wr.k7mr.�© ©r��©©cry T-T;W-, cl ■f I - ■ID■ ■N�■ii■■ • cart:_+Wart■' ,rr�a�w�rw�rw . w■=•ieeinrrtew�weetrew■■rse k . �iiYitli►±Ylfltitiiii�wlpdut.wail W i1o�i41Y ■IL'f■■■■■■■■iiii■ ■■-■■■u■■■■N■ .. .+���r�eww weer n�rerw�rrirew . nt�riw+Yq�sorirrr���s�rmp�rr��■rig ■Rti■ii■i■i■i■■■■ wr�r�euw■nee�e■■i■teorrrr �r�.n r.�tn�tm��e�metne i■wlea� ■ ems■■,14 � �a�■Nif . ��irrrau�r�ar,�umn�,uarr�say�� Zii■L�lt■iN■i■r■ ■2.71■17r■■ im ■�e�are■■I■B tt 'fzAiC�■■■i■■Ni■■ .�■�■ wwiee■■ree■!al■■ S1f}.p,.`y4R�IIl�P.1A1St5�1Wl1wv!?L1r,F1Rf R1�RP✓!.'�k Recommended Project Comments ' RP-1 , 2 3, 4, 5 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 , 12, 13, 14 & 15: The potential impacts on the natural physical environment i .e. earth, air, water, plant life, and ' animal life) that might come from the project are for the most part attributable to the preparation of individual sites for development and not to the long-term use and occupancy of any, all , or any portion of the sites. Appropriate measures ' to mitigate impact have been suggested and incorporated into the project.. RP-16 & 17: Ih -term use and occupancy of the sites will increase existing noise levels and might expose people to serve noise levels on some residentially ' desfghatd tes. The increase in noise levels from automobile traffic is within the planning parameters established by the City's Noise Element, based upon the project being a reduction from 1973 anticpated levels of development, therefore ' impacts are not significant. Additionally, project incorporates measures designed to mitigate potential impacts. RP-18: The long-term use and occupancy of individual sites might create new light and glare. Appropriate mitigation measures have been suggested. RP-19: The •proposed project is a alteration of present planned land use of ' several of the various sites. No significant effects are anticipated, as all alterations will be accomplished within established legal parameters for such changes. ' RP-20-21 : The "Reduced Project" will reduce the existing supply of housing within the community. ' The impact of this reduction of 1 ,513 units and 5,087 people when viewed in terms of projected total city population and housing stock is not , considered significant. RP-22: The proposed project will create a demand for new parking facilities , appropriate measures designed to mitiagte impact are suggested. RP-23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, & 29: The proposed project will create a demand , for additional appropriate measures designed to mitigate impact are suggested. RP-30: The proposed project may expose people to potential health hazards from high noise levels adjacent to arterial roadways appropriate measures designed , to mitigate impact are suggested and incorporated in project. t Recommended Project Suggested Mitigation Measures__ 1 . Environmental documentation will be required in accordance with the California ' Environmental Quality Act, State EIR Guidelines and City Policy, prior to the development of any project proposed on the sites designated in General Plan Amendment 79-1 . ' 2. Development will be prohibited on all sites to be included within the scope of investigation of the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, until such time as that program is approved dr it can be determined that the project •' is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Coastal Act and supportative policies adopted pursuant to said. 3. That any project on the undeveloped sites will conform to the requirements ' of the Uniform Building Code. 4. That any project on the undeveloped sites will be in conformance with the subdivision map act and city policy thereon. 5. That a 'proposed development project on the undeveloped sites will be in ' accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. Development proposals for the undeveloped sites will be consistent with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and City Policy S-1 . ' 7. Development proposals for sites exempt from the requirements of the •City Traffic Phasing Ordinance will be subject to the approval of Traffic ' Phasing Plans and be developed in accordance with said. 8. Development proposals for residential development will be consistent with ' the Park Dedication Ordinance. 9. Development ,proposals adjacent to bluffs will be consistent with the Bluff Top Ordinance. ' 10. Landform alteration on any site will be subject to the approval of a grading permit. The grading permit will be prepared by a Civic Engineer based upon ' recommendation of an engineering geologist. The grading permit will include: a) . An investigation of surface and subsurface drainage. ' b),. A complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities. c). A erosion and dust control plan. d) . An erosion and siltation control plan approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. ' e). A comprehensive soil and geologic investigation f). A surface dra Uage plan that will not create downstream erosion. g). Erosion control measures on all exposed slopes. ' 11 . All projects will provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for all water-using faciliites. 12. All projects will provide"for the sorting of recyclable materials from other solid wastes. Recommended Project Suggested Mitigation Measures - Continued - 13. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the Orange County Airport will be included in all leases or sub- ' leases for space in the project and shall be included in any Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions which may 'be recorded against any undeveloped site. ' Disclosure Statement The Lessee herein, his heirs, successors and assigns, acknowledge that: ' a.) The Orange County Airport may not 'be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on. such service; ' b. ) When an alternate ai-r facility is available, a complete phase out of jet service may occur at the Orange County Airport; c. ) The City of Newport Beach may continue to oppose additional commercial. ' air service expansions at the Orange County -Airport; d. ) Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns, .will not actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to phase out or limit jet air service at the Orange County Airport. 14. That should any resources be uncovered during construction on a site, that a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist evaluate the site prior to ' completion of construction activities, and that all work on site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies K-5 and K-6. 15. Prior to the development of any site, written verifi.cation will' be provided ' that public and quasi-public facilities and services will be available. Further, that prior to occupancy of any project, it will be demonstrated that the aforementioned are available. 1 ' 16. Prior to the development of any site, it will be demonstrated that a proposed project will not be likely to cause serious public health problems, ' 17. Prior to the development of any site, it will be demonstrated that the project(s) wil'1 not substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife of their habitat. ' 1.8. Prior to any development of any site noise impacts from highway association, fixed wing and non-fixed wing sources• will be analyzed and mitigated to City and State standards. 19. All multy-family residential developments will provide car wash facilities so that run-off can be directed to sewer facilities. ' 20. All proposed developments will provide for vacuum street sweeping services for noh-dedicated streets. 21 . All proposed developments will provide for vacuum sweeping of parking ' areas for Commercial & Industrial Areas and all common parking areas of residential projects. ' ' Recommended Project Suggested Mitigation Measures - 'Continued 22. All proposed developments of Commercial & Industrial use will provide on-site retention basins and for the maintenance in a manner sufficient ' to control first flush pollutants. 23. Any proposed development will be subject to the approval of a landscape ' plan. The landscape plan will include the following: a. ) An irrigation plan which minimizes water use and prevents over- watering. b. ) Heavy emphasis on the use of drought-resistant native vegetation. c. ) A maintenance program for the control of the use of fertilizers and pesticides. ' d. ) A plan for the integration of landscaping and construction schedule. 24. All development on any site will be in accordance with the Newport Beach ' General Plan. 25. Required environmental documentation of any future project in conformance with G.P.A. 79-1 will analyze air pollution effects from said project-related construction and traffic. The context of these impacts will 'be reviewed through a discussion of ambient air quality conditions, State and Federal ' standards, the Air Quality Maintenance Plan, and ,any adopted State Implementation Plan. 26. . That all projects, developed in accordance with G.P.A. 79-1 , will be designed to conform to Title 24, paragraph 6, Division T-20, Chapter 2, sub-chapter 4 of the California Administrative Code dealing with energy requirements. ' 27. That all projects developed in accordance with G.P.A. 79-1 will be designed and certified by an electrical engineer to eliminate any glare and ambient light to adjacent public roadways and/or residential communities. 28. That all projects developed in accordance with G.P.A. 79-1 , will investigate the use of alternative energy sources (i .e. solar) and to the maximum extent ' economically feasible incorporate the use of said in project designs. 29. That all residential projects will provide for solar heating, or provide written documentation that alternetive measures have been taken in project ' design that provide equal energy/natural resource conservation. 30. The City will require environmental documentation of a transfer of development rights viewing said requests as discretionary revenues and therefore subject to the requirements of C.E.Q.A. I � I REDUCED PROJECT i i i REDUCED PROJECT Description The City Council may, after appropriate public hearings, determine that neither the Planning Commission's recommended project or the existing General Plan are appropriate public policy toward development of the sites under consideration, due to either intensity and/or density of proposed use. Based upon that determination, the City Council may consider and desire to approve further reductions in density and/or intensity of either the recommended project or existing plan. The purpose of this section of the Initial Study- is to access such a further reduction, For the purposes of this Initial Study only, the potential project accessed might t' include therefore, a further reduction from the existing general plan or Planning Commission recommended project said reduction being in density and/or intensity. I ' REDUCED PROJECT Discussion 1 The potential impacts on the natural physical environment (i .e. land resources) would remain very similar to those described for the recommended project or those described in the environmental documentation on the existing general plan. I This is due to the fact that impacts on the natural physical environment are for the most part not attributable to the long-term occupancy and use of each individual site, but to site development. Potential impacts on the urban environment (i .e. demographic) and public and quasi-public services and facilities would change porpotional to the reduction. The change therefore, is easily defineable from potential impacts described in the Planning Commission's recommended project or that which has been previously documented in the adoption of the various element plans which establish existing public policy toward development of the sites under consideration. Comments and Suggested Mitigation •Measures would therefore be those that were addressed in the approval of the original use by the City or as addressed in the•recommended project except as noted above. 1 . ■ REDUCED PROJECT Comments See "Discussion" section of "Reduced Project" and "Comments" section of "Recommended Project." i t is .i i t . � -4 : -1 7 cl . �flliYillhi■ r�r���r�■��urru • ■i■i w IfA�A�■iii■■ • OiIWIYIIr��.ri•Y9YIIOI SFiC�r Wi�l� . .OlIOl�9P I�LFi■■IiA!!l11i.AII■■ 6l�����■����� .IDIAIIiI All R'isSi�!!i■Ittl mi■HP�ltiiti■i■t1 4A It. IL 24 It Jp MEN ■�t�i■■■Ittii■tl. 1a9�1�1131�1�IAA!!R111w�e1�lIE —. - _!fB • �YA�I�FIII�Ek771u�im�rsmsr�eW�ail�ii�Yiltrai �/mf�■If��.19�C?�it'�iY�iCiI�WYOI�itS �wsmr w+iln■r.Iww�aer!ael�eaAl�w�w� • ifYiriilli/■►L■I�If0lYili.r111o1G➢ REDUCED PROJECTS Suggested Mitigation Measures 1 See "Discussion" section of "Reduced Project" and "Suggested Mitigation 1 Measures" section of "Recommended Project. " . . 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 1 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ' Description `. At the direction of the Community Development Director, the City Staff has analyzed as a portion of this 'Initial Study, the potential environment effects of a residential land use on sites previously planned for commercial and/or industrial uses only. The following sites have been reviewed for such a use: Site No. 1 "Koll Center" Site No. 2 "Jamboree/MacArthur" Site No. 3 "San Diego Creek" Site No. 4 "North Ford" Site No. 5 "Aeronutronic Ford" Site No. 6 "Newport Center" Site No. 7 "Bayview Landing" Site No. 8 "Castaways" The purpose of this analysis is to -allow the Newport Beach City Council the maximum flexibility in their determinations on General Plan Amendment 79-1 within the parameter of the laws governing such decisions. A description of the total number of units and their density of development has been provided in the project description for the "Screencheck" Project. r i COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL PROJECT Discussion If the City Council after appropriate public hearings on the general plan amendment determines that a residential development was the most appropriate for any, all , or any combination of the right sites described, it can be ' assumed that the environmental effects on the natural physical environment would ' remain very similar to those described in the environmental documentation on the recommended project or on the existing general plan. Potential impacts on the urban environmental (i .e. demographic) and public and quasi-public services and facilities would vary dependent on: (1 ) the density of proposed development; and (2) the number of sites so designated. ■ The following areas of environmental concern as they relate to a residential project have been- analyzed in the staff report' to Council dated October 23,, 1979 of this report. 1 . Traffic Impacts/Generation 4. Sewer Capacity 2. Openness of Vista or View 5. Energy 3. Cost/Revenue 6. Impacts on John Wayne- Orange County Airport Due to this more detailed analysis, those portions of the "Checklist" dealing I with the aforementioned were not addressed. Prior to the development of any or all of the eight sites under consideration for residential , further discretionary actions by the City would be required. As apart of the review process, further environmental documentation of specific projects will therefore occur. As a portion of this review, the potential' impacts on the urban environment and public and quasi-public services and facilities would be analyzed in project level deta.il . I 1 1 m� , ■[ac,ta�©c�r.�r����u�r� i■I■�1Gld --, 1 ■dd11■wX■■f■d■ • ■■■■■1RIi■■dld■ �u�w�Yr■�Yrrr._.�.�rrw�rw�� . ■■w■e1■�■■■■wows . wwse�rAw��cetl111�Iww1 k . ,�dr�rmn���rrY._•suae.,mau� • ■■1■11■11►d1■■■■■ . ��ww�w.11.6ig11�AA•.IIIIIA�s .■w■■w■m■w■■■ww �:R�,��em.n■wea��m. )' F1 .•.1 l m Y �. • �rrrrrriW�urcxuarriwr+urirrc w■w■-a�©■1i111�w: IL �wws .al■I n s o e il----------------------2liM�li1�SIYlJ�4�fCJiOWAIOPiiZ dl^•lCk.7lo 19 el (itYrt�llfrM■■►�I1111r1ifI01IlIU1tt v RESIDENTIAL PROJECT i Comments See "Discussion" section of "Residential Project" and "Comments" section ' of "Recommended Project." 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 RESIDENTIAL-PROJECT Suggested Mitigation Measures 1 See "Discussion" section of "Residential Project" and "Suggested Mitigation 1 Measures" of "Recommended Project." i i l i 1 . COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 1 1 1 1 . i 1 1 COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL PROJECT Description At the direction 'of the Community Development Director, the City Staff has 1 analyzed as a portion of this Initial Study, the potential environmental effects of a commercial/residential mixed use on sites previously planned for commercial and/or industrial uses only. The following sites have been reviewed for such uses: Site No. 1 "Koll Center" Site No. 2 "Jamboree%MacArthur" _ Site No. 3 "San Diego Creek" Site No. 4 "North Ford" Site No. 5 "Aeronutronic Ford" Site No. 6 "Newport Center" Site No. 7 "Bayview Landing" Site No. 8 "Castaways" The purpose of this analysi.s is to allow the Newport Beach City Council the maximum flexibility in their determinations on General P1'an Amendment 79-1 , within the parameter of the law governing such decisions. A description of the total number of units and their density of development has been provided in the project description for the "Screencheck" Project.. • 1 • r i • 1 ' ' COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL PROJECT Discussion If the City Council after appropriate public hearings! on the general plan ' amendment determine that a commercial/residential mixed use development was the most appropriate for any, all•.i or any combination of the eight sites described, it can be assumed that the environmental effects on the natural physical environment would remain very similar to those described in the environmental documentation on the recommended project or on the exi•s-ting general plan. Potential impacts on the urban environmental (i .e., demographic) and public and quasi-public services and facilities would vary dependent on: (1 ) the intensity of proposed development; (2) the density of proposed development; and (3) the number of sites so designated. The following areas of environmental concern as they relate to a commercial/ residential project have been analyzed in the staff report to Council dated October 23, 1979 of this report: 1 . Traffic Impacts 4. Sewer Capacity 2. Openness of Vista or View 5. Energy ' 3. Cost/Revenue 6. Impacts on John Wayne- Orange County Airport Due to this more detailed analysis, those portions of the "Checklist" dealing with the aforementioned were not addressed. Prior to the development of any or all of the eight sites under'consideration for mixed use (Residential/(commercial further discretionary actions by the City would be required. As a part of the review process, further environmental documentation of specific projects will therefore occur. As a portion of this review', the potential impacts on the urban environment and public and quasi-public services and facilities would be analyzed in project level detail . 1 V�-kc I K.d AIm Rt,.ALTa©�4.Ocv. L7tk `WL717©PJIAIP VIIMIN 11Gi114 b. : 1 ■i..fN■i■■.►_�iii q J��e■i■Jllii lEll....■ ILI +wwrrrr�■■�n�r��rr�w■w . Ilnwww ■JA!A�■■■h.:■■■ r Y4YJYiMrIWIWWwMNIYr�III/.�YlCllir • ■■..i■ii■■mii■■ IA■*I i■■■■■■ifl■AID■!! ufrY�WIWA/■rfI1lfIYfR9■■JJJ■1� It It go It - ■�+m�!n�swwA�Aie■■m■la■■ B'i■6i'i■■e■■■■■►Zf AJlr1i7 rrq!T5fN1iRIw1A@TPF�©�.R71EIf1 • ��e...a�w�■F?7iiiiiM . a�rrr�tarfi�uilW.�YaWarlt�ti�it+�ilrW �f...i.i.i25. . tt x. mo • d�6LKSRL�l■gLlrn3t11"iY3i�'iiY11►.dY7■:is •i1 JJJii■I■.■■i.�■■■■ M41iM{IIIA�N.MIw'�llMil�f�A�!!1C ��� ■.J>illilJl� �IIY�i COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 'Comments See "Discussion'" section of "Commercial/Residential Project" and "Comments" section of "Recommended Project." 1 1 . r r COMMERCIAL/RESI'DENTIAL PROJECT Suggested Mitigation Measures See "Discussion" section of "Commercial/Residential Project"' and "Suggested Mitigation Measures" of "Recommended Project," 1 � 1 1 1i t r . r r r r 1 r � . r . NO DEVELOPMENT PROJECT r t r 1 t NO DEVELOPMENT PROJECT , Discussion The City Council may wish to consider, as the Planning Commission did, the designation of sites with this project for no further development. The following areas of environmental concern as they relate to a no development project have been analyzed in the staff report to Council dated October 23, 1979 of this report: 1 . Traffic Impacts/Generated 4. Sewer Capacity , 2. Openness of Vista or View 5. Energy 3. Cost/Revenue 6. Impacts on John Wayne- Orange County Airport Due to this more detailed analysis those portions of the "Checklist" dealing with the aforementioned were not addressed. The transfer of ownership to create parks (i .e. Recreational and Environmental Open Space) is not subject to CEQAC. CEQAC will apply when a management plan is proposed that will change the area from its natural condition. Therefore, at such time as a management plan is prepared environmental documentation on the effects of said plan on the natural physical environment, urban development, and public and quasi-public facilities and services would be accomplished in project level detail . �`4 Z NO DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ' Description ' At the direction of the Community Development Director, the City Staff has analyzed as a portion of this Initial Study the potential, environmental effects of a no development project for any, all , or any combination of the sixteen sites under consideration. The purpose, of this analysis is to &11ow the City ' Council the maximum flexibility in their determinations on Generatl Plan Amendment 79-1 within the parameters of the laws governing such decisions. The remaining undeveloped areas of the sixteen sites would 'be designated on the Land Use Plan, for "Recreation & Environmental Open Space" which is defined in that el'ement text as follows: "RECREATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL OPEN' SPACE: This sub-category includes major parks,, wildlife refuges., golf courses, bluffs, canyons, and beaches.. Wherever the zoni•ngtof private property designated as open space by the, Land Use Element is inconsistent with said element, it is the intent of the City ' to seek the agreement of property owners for rezoning to the open, space district, or to seek public acquisitiom of such open space areas. No changes in land use on property designated for open space purposes shall be permitted which are not consistent with the: policies and objectives of the General Plan." r�V.-d Am Rt,.ALT. alP AM IM OMV r�rr�u�r�w�ar�r��rww■►:. . ww■w■w■ww■w■Nw^ . ,��inmi�r��nrw��ur►. . �a�wiYWWri1�i6111OWiwi�iili■►� wwwww■■■■■w■■■� iw■■w■■N■w■w■►� - i��l!!l�l�A�l■■E�iw OD c .w■ww■ww■■■w■■►_. iwiww■ww■iwwcwfw rwwwwweawM�w wiw were■■■�esiaNc� It p ■s It . a�iriYllYlY1'uYWiOlElfl�nWr3l7ir1 ww■ww■wie�■N� . ! ■ii'�rii w■wi�i�i .© ml���np�lli�w l6 Fa31i9 Lei tl1�I rC it i►� Y `•'Alai•�tlR��lAM11�R�117A�9RAM�117�111h Ilylitiillllll /IfW■WW■111111►�� �i' ' NO DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Comments ND-1 , 2, 3, 4: The potential. impacts on the natural physical environment i .e. earth, air, water, plant life, and animal life) that might come from the project are for the most part attributable to the fact that no development will occur on the sites to mitigate said (i .e. existing natural erosion) . Additionally, some impact could be anticipated from the development of individual sizes for recreational uses. Mitigation measures that would eliminate said impacts have been suggested. •ND-5: See comment "Recommended Project" no. RP-19. ND-6 & 7: The no development project may create an adverse environmental effect in terms of adding to existing demand for housing stock for certain economic aspects of the community. This effect is not deemed significant as the existing general plan and all previous suggested al.ternati•ves di'd not specifically require conservation of new housing stock to meet demand for all economic aspects within the community. ' ND-8, 9, 10, 11 , 1� 13, 14, & 15: The "No Development" project may create adverse environmental effects on public and quasi-public services and facilities. Appropriate mitigation measures 'have been suggested. r NO DEVELOPMENT PROJECT , Suggested Mitigation Measures ' 1 . Prior to the public acquisition of any or all of the sites designated for "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" by General Plan Amendment 79-1 a management plan and environmental documentation will , be developed. 2. The provision of alternate uses wither as primary or secondary use should be considered by the City Council . 3. The concerns on the natural physical environment, urban environment, and public and quasi-public facilities and services as expressed by the checklist shall be addressed in the management plan and its environmental documentation. it i ail i 1 1 1' i t � , NOTICE OF PREPARATION 1 i 1 i i 1 1 "Notice of Preparation" ' A "Notice of Preparation" of this Initial Study has been distributed to all potential Responsible Agencies as defined and required by CEQA. The review period for said notice ended September 20. 1979. 1 The Initial Study contains all those responses received. The list on the following page indicates those notified. VI11 - 1 MAILING LIST FOR NOTICE OF PREPARATION FOR INTIAL STUDY ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-1 CIRT OF NEWPORT .BEACH Resources Agency County Sanitation Districts , Clerk of the Board of Supervisors California Coastal Commission S.A.R.W.Q.C.B. , S.C.A.Q.M.D. Orange County Environmental Management Agency ' Irvine Ranch Water District Department of Housing and Community Development Air Resources Board . CAL TRANS State Lands Commission Costa Mesa Sanitation District Department of Fish and Game ' __..114 Responses to "Notice of Preparation" STATE OF CAUFORNIA EDMUND O. BROWN AR., Oorlrnor AIR RESOURCES BOARD 1102 O STREET P.O. BOX 2815 SACRAMENTO, CA 93912 9 REc��„lri , C°•.. • ��°nt 9 QO�na L August 30, 1979 Spclrr°''- crlr 10 , NewpALIr• II Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 { We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation for the General Plan Amendment ' 79-1 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) . We recommend the DE'IR specifically address the potential cumulative air quality impacts from traffic congestion resulting from full development of the various projects. ; Enclosed is a recommended outline which will assist in the preparation of the air quality analysis for the proposed project.For additional information, please contact Nr. Richard DeCuir of my staff , at (916) 445-0960. Sincerely, , Rearygional Agid, Chief Regional Programs Branch Enclosure L1 1 i State of California, Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th floor San Francisco, California 94105 ' (415) 543-8555 August 29, 1979 � , • C � b i � tp 4, pOR 0 PCHI City of Newport Beach Department of Community ' Development 3300 Newport Boulevard i' Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Response to Notice of Preparation of An Initial Study: General ' Plan Amendment 79-1 (File No. I.S./GPA-79-1) The California Coastal Commission currently has permit authority over the i majority of parcels involved in the above=referenced proposed general plan ' amendment, i.e. , over those parcels which fall within the coastal zone. • Pursuant to the Coastal Act of 1976, the City of Newport Beach is currently preparing a Local Coastal Program (LCP) , for this coastal zone area, funded by a grant from the Coastal Commission. In preparing the LCP, the City is required to evaluate existing and proposed land uses and zoning and to ensure that uses are consistent with the policies of the Coastal Act of 1976. Bob i Lenard of the City's planning staff has been involved in the LCP effort since ; its inception, and is familiar with the Coastal Act and LCP requirements. it appears that the above-referenced Initial Study is being proposed as a separate action, unrelated to the preparation of the City's LCP. While it is certainly appropriate for the City to initiate such local plan amendments independent of the LCP, Commission staff believes that, since most of the ' study area is in the coastal zone, it would be most efficient for the proposed project to take into consideration the applicable Coastal Act policies. ' The "Scope of Investigation" states that the proposed Initial Study will focus on "traffic impacts", "openness of vista or view", "sewer capacity", etc. These concerns parallel concerns which are expressed in Coastal Act policies. Additionally, other Coastal Act policies which could affect ultimate land uses and zoning of the subject parcels should also be considered, including Coastal Act priorities for recreational and visitor-serving land uses and'sensitive habitat area protection policies. If you have any questions concerning these comments, please contact Helene Kornblatt of my staff. Sincerely, Robert B. Lagle jlh Chief Planner k! cc: Bob Lenard, LCP Staff, City of Newport Beach 1ilSouth Coast Regional Commission COSTA MESA `Y%I��'` ;�;,.1 D'ISTRICT YII ' I V l 75 'I' DIRECTORS F .e•Iggs,MUtchlSon Francis President '.'y \ " t;• EIVIn H.Glockgar,Sac'rat �I�ORl+S1r orma o.crank .lames a:wanner' August 8, 1979 ' REOF14c0sally G. > ,p•aunt Mr. ;Bruce Mattern, Manager Costa Mesa Sanitary District 77 ,Fair Drive \ cast • Costa Mesa, ,Ca. '92626 RE: General Plan Amendment 79-1 ' City of Newport Beach Dear Mr. Mattern: In response of the communication regarding ' environmental concerns thi.s District has no interest therein since none of the proposed , areas are within the ,Uistrict. Very truly yours, D.E.STtVENS ' District Engineer des:m 'Encls. , t; P.O.BOX 1200,COSTA MESA,CAUFORNIA 92625.77 FAIR DRIVE•(714)754-5343 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7, P.O. BOX 2304, LOS ANGELES . 90051 (213) 620-3090 August 23, 1979 File: City of Newport Beach GP Amendment 79 — 1 City of Newport Beach Department of Community Development 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Gentlemen: We request that the Environment Document for the Proposed Amend- ments include a discussion of the Anticipated Impacts any changes in Iand Use will have on The Transportation Network serving the area . ' KEITH E. McKEAN, Chief Environmental Planning Branch s IIPIE:CEIVED tp ••77 II11 irJ �`.AAenn.•>t CIlr bEW1•'DXI s:::AC:H, >, CAL1F, !! iJ i',,.!, Tr.• .tt n_h{ O: i :k,':••�. D,��„r �).'.. 1.� }1.:t.1,�: ,1!WC'e 1.::lt,:• �1:11 •latt, C:mn-..:.;•3io1, Fami D:zaur::a:,:a n: Fish and G�soaa - Bob Radovich \ �.��`� �•� �, 5ubj_at: Suggested developmental restraint:; for the four rajor undeveloped pnrcela ,•' (shown as paccels 1,2,3 and 5 on the Index Map in "General Plan Review - Undeveloped Parcela", May 108) i,'adiate'4} surrounding Upper Newport , - Bay. This Department has stated that there is a definite need to avoid compartcrntal- ization when dealing with coastal wetland resources. There exists a mutually beneficial ecological relationship between coastal wetlands and thair associated transition and upland habitats. Our Resource Protection Zone document for Upper Newport Bay Ecological Re.=ve (henceforth "Reserve") recommends 'that open space on remaining adjacent parcels be maximized in order to enhance the above mentioned ecological relationships, and to assure that future development does not adversely impact the Reserve. Our concerns relative to these particular parcels have been expressed indirectly in our RPZ. What follows then is a more detailed account of problems and potential remedies and/or solutions concerning development on the four major undeveloped parcels surrounding the Reserve. A.. "Westbav" - We believe that a properly managed upland habitat improvement project on this site could be of significant value to the Reserve in terms of maximizing species diversity and ecosystem stability. Our first choice with respect to land use for this parcel would be a wildlife preserve designation repleat with an upland habitat improvement program. Such choice would seem to necessitate public acquisition of the ,parcel. If such acquisition is absolutely impossible (underlined for clarity-not volume.) we would favor an approach which would maximize the area of dedication (or deed restriction) so that upland habitat considerations and resource protection are provided. W w d e . oul recommend the following conditions for development of this site: 1. That maximum effort be applied to secure this areatbrough public ' acquisition. Failing this, any development should be conditioned as follows: 2. Area of deed restriction (or dedication) be maximized, ' 3. Development should be accompanied by a developer-funded restoration (i.e. ' planting of trees, native shrubs, etc.) of the open space dedicated or - 34 - 1 b.` T.ennrrl tt�•cena Y:ornbi:ctt � 10 t-2:•'1 1r1:79 1 Sttb�e r_r to d�r� r3.3 tr1•_i'_... .. ' 4. Any dead rekxic:ion c_• the per..,neut op'-•n ::pal:= s?lol.ld st.iptl'rie all- able: Vsf--o of a p(_;.sive, nat.-re (i.e. hil:i: ,, niturit study, etc.) . 5. T: . development itselr should be conditioned to avoid_ nvi::onrx:ntal 1 i •;:taC not only to the Veserve, but to e7-,e J•:dicated or dsed raatricted open space as vell- 6. The City bas identified maintenance or enhancement of the water ,1 quality of the Reserve as an issue_ to be addressed in their land use plan. This implies that additional runoff from impermiable surfaces must be purified or routed to the sanitary sewer. Primary pollutants from impermiable surfaces includa grea;-%, oil, cadmium (from tires), and lead from gasoline. . Each of thar:a pollutants is either actively or potentially dangerous to the viability of the Reserve. i7. Grading, runoff control, setback requirements, and •maintenance of catch basins, energy dissipators, etc. , should 'be adequate to assure the maintenance or enhancement of Reserve water quality, and wildlife viability. _1 S. We are opposed' to the extension of University Drive. Thus, it is. extremely important (from our point of view) -to determine the traffic . generating potential of any project for this site. Such determination should assure that the extension of University Drive is not necessitated, nor the argument for its extension strengthened. B. "East Bluff Remnant" - We strongly suggest that this area be set aside in perpetuity. Due to its relatively small size, and the fact that it is immediately adjacent to the lagoon we feel that no active development of this site is acceptable. We believe that this site qualifies as environ- mentally sensitive habitat since it supports one of the few remaining coastal 1 scrub communities in the immediate vicinity of the Reserve,, since its resource values are quite significant, and since these values have a direct and mutually beneficial relationship with the Reserve. ' C. "'Newporter North! : The concerns expressed relative to the "Westbay" sight are applicable to this site as well. Additionally, there is a small fresh- water marsh on this site which should be protected. D. "Castaways - Residential" - From a biological standpoinb, this ,site is probably the least valuable of the four. Our concerns for this particular . 1 site would be largely confined to developmental constraints necessary to avoid impact upon the Reserve. In this context, we believe that building setbacks of at least 100 ft. from the bluff edge would be adequate if the runoff, grading, and water quality considerations mentioned. under "A"above are incorporated. 1 I wish to thank the City of Newport Beach and the Coastal Commission for the opportunity to provide this information. Please contact me if you have questions concerning my comments. 35 Bob Radovich Biologist/Coastal Planning 4 " • 1 ' SLVt u' r C•. ,�67,1 }7, G:, ... C1�.1'XiOXEIiT 1017 RSH IND OW i= 350 Co Lden Shore /\�yl � ;• , • �� Lnn}; L':•arh, CA 90802 ^l 'Y „« .`r a\ 0U�•ct:mber li7g r W 10` J Robert P. Lenard 1A ty,?JVGAI Senior Planner Community Development Dept. 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Bob: This letter is in response to your request for input on the Big Canyon Area. ' It is important to recognize the difference between essential/critical habitat desig- nations' (which are made for preservation and enhancement of endangered species,),and environmentally sensitive habitat areas (which are defined in the Coastal Act). Critic§L and essential habitat designations are (by definition) environmentally sensitive habitat areas, however, not all environmentally sensitive habitat is critical or essential for ' the preservation or enhancement of endan&�ered species. : Big Canyon has innate resource values (riparian habitat and associate plants and animal which are definitely environmentally sensitive. If the area were developed along residential parameters the riparian habitat would be destroyed. , Possible water-quality impacts upon .the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve would also tend to argue against � residential development of Big Canyon. Wntenance of Big Canyon with an open space/ preserve designation would seem to be both logical and biologically sound. Coastal Commission guidelines concerning the need to protect such areas are clear. "Environmentally sensitive area" is defined in section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act _= as" any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special role in an ecosystem and which could, ' easily be disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments". Using this definition, riparian habitat has been determined by the Commission to be environ- mentally sensitive. Section 30240 of the Coastal Act states that "environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only- uses dependent on such resources shall be allowed within such area " The Department of Fish and Game also realizes the biological importance of riparian habitat, and will oppose developments or land use designations which are incompatible with riparian habitat. I hope that this letter is informative. If you would like more precise information, ' I'd be happy to supply it. However, identifying Big Canyon as an environmentally sensitive area and stipulating land uses which are 'compatible with such areas (i.e. permanent open space) seem to be thoroughly adequatz for L.C.P. purposes. , Sincerely, Robert A. Radovich Biologist/Coastal Planning BR:lmb - 42 a[W-10 ' NOTICE OF-PREPARATION OF AN INITIAL STUDY File No. To: I From: Department of ' Tvuln� P41id�'l o4eev Community Development I.S. / GPA-79-7 Uls•F+'��'�' 3300 Newport Newport Beach,l BCA 92663 ' PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR COMMENTS BY xxxx 45 days from receipt ' PROJECT TITLE: General Plan Amendment 79-1 ' e City of Newport Beach w ¢ PROJECT LOCATION: Various locations throughout the City of Newport Beach. Z a b DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES �" Co • ' 0�o (See Attached) °Ev.4 f 6 S, °0u DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF YOA AGENCY RELATED THIS PAOJEC,' California Water District - provides water service to sites number" 1, 2, and 3. T b LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: (USE ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): ' w o Development plans and projections will impact water demand in IRWD service area. Please provide IRWO with copy of Initial Study. w - D4 U A W C N ao f-u n CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE ' Emmett Bogart Assistant Engineer 833-1223 DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA OF EXPERTISE/INTEREST: LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS (USE ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): w •a ' o . w � s w CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE ' M ' DATE MAILED BY DATE RECEIVED BY RESPON- DATE RECEIVED BY DATE RESPONSE LEAD AGENCY SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE INTERESTED.PARTY RECEIVED BY THE 8/9/78 LEAD AGENCY t ' Y COMMENTS ON ' "Noti'te of Preparation" Responses I 1 I O�aFWPO, J CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �t�FoaN�� ' October 11 , 1979 ' Gary Agid c/o Air Resources Board 1102 Q Street Sacramento, CA 95812 Subject: General Plan Amendment 79-1 Dear Mr: Agid: ' The City of Newport Beach has- received your comments, on General Plan Amendment 79-1 . Your .comments have been forwarded to the City',s Planning Commission and .City Council for their consideration in the review of this ' project. Your letter of August 30, 1979 indicated an enclosure accompanying this ' correspondence. The enclosure was not received by the City of Newport Beach. If we can be of any assistance to you in your review of this ! project, please contact Bob Lenard of our staff at (714) 640-2261 . Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR Fred Talarico ' Environmental Coordinator FT/dt i i ' City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 �aE�vPoRr ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 11, 1979 Robert B. Lagle c/o California Coastal Commission 631 Howard--Street San Francitco, CA 94105 Subject: General Plan Amendment 79-1 Dear Mr. Lagle: ' The City of Newport Beach has. received your comments on General Plan' . Amendment 79-1. Your comments have been forwarded to. the City"& Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration in the review of this project. ' Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT' , R. V. NOGAN, DIRECTOR BY. /� oz red-Ta ari co Environmental Coordinator FT/dt • i '9 City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 , 1 p��EWPpR� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH u z a.. °�t�FoaN.r ' October 11 , 1979 ' D. E. Stevens c/o Costa Mesa Sanitary District . ' 77. Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 ' Subject: General Plan Amendment 79-1 Dear Mr. Stevens: ' The City of Newport Beach has received your comments on General Plan Amendment 79-1 . Your comments have been forwarded to the City's Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration in the ' review of this project. Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, 'DIRECTOR By. ' Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator ' FT/dt 1 1 ' City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 1� �EW�Rr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I u « '�41FORN�' October 11, 1979 , Keith E. McKean c/o Department of Transportation District No. 7 , P. 0. Box 2304 Los Angeles, CA 90051 Subject: General Plan Amendment 79-1 ' Dear Mr. McKean: The City of Newport Beach has received your comments on General Plan , Amendment 79-1. Your comments have been forwarded- to the City's Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration in the ' review of this project. Very truly yours, ' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. NOGAN, DIRECTOR , By. Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator FT/dt , City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport' Beach, California 92663' ' • l fo SEW PO�,T CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH z tC741 Fp R�`r October 11 , 1979 i Emmett Bogart c/o Irvine Ranch• Water District P. 0. Box D-1 ' 4201 Campus Drive Irvine, CA 92716 ' Subject: General Plan Amendment 79-1 Dear Mr. Bogart: ' The City of Newport .Beach• has received your comments on General Plan Amendment, 79-1 . Your comments have been forwarded to the City's Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration in the review of this project. Very truly yours, ' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By OT ' Fred Ta arico Environmental Coordinator FT/dt 1 City Hall • 3300, Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 VIi1 � � ��WPpRr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I. u October 11 , 1979 ' Bob Radovich c/o Department of Fish & Game ' 350• Golden Shore Long Beach, CA 90802 , Subject; General Plan•Amendment 79-1 Dear Mr. Radovich: ' The City of Newport•Beach has received your comments.on General Plan , Amendment 79-19 dated April 10, 1979, December 189 1978, and your draft Habitat Maping Report. Your comments have been forwarded to the City's Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration in the review of this project. ' Staff of the City of Newport- Beach is suggesting for City Council consideration the following mitigation measure which it would appear responds ' to the concerns expressed within your correspondence: Sua9ested Mitigation Measure No.2 - "2. Development will be prohibited on all sites to be included within, the scope of investigation of the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal , Program, until such time as that program .is approved or it can be determined that the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Coastal Act and supportative policies adopted- pursuant to said." Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT , R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By d Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator FT/dt ' City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 V"I-J'$ 1 t t 1 t{ f 1 f 1 1 1 1 NONSTATUTORY ADVISEMENT 1 I 1 ' 9 - I "Nonstatutory Advisement" A "Nonstatutory Advisement" of this project has been ' distributed to interested parties on this project. The purpose of this advisement is to quickly and informally ' consult with interested parties in this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The review period for this advisement ended on September 209 1979. The Screencheck Ini-tial Study contains -all those responses received. The list on the following page indicates those notified. 11�- 2 MAILING LIST FOR NONSTATUTORY ADVISEMENT ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' Corps. of Engineers United States Coast Guard ' U.S. Fish and Wildlife State Department of Historic Preservation Southern California Association of Governments Airport Land. Use Commission Airport Commission N.I:W.A. City of Costa Mesa City of Irvine City of Huntington Beach C.E.Q.A.C. City Manager Director of Community Development Mayor City Attorney Director of Public Works Traffic Engineer j Plan Review Division Advance Planning Environmental Affairs Committee Glen Weldon Rob Whitley Irwin Miller S.-P.O.N. L.E.A.F. Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce Orange County Harbor District Friends of Upper Newport Bay U.N:B.E.R.T.A.C. U.N.B.P.A.C. The Irvine Company The Koll Company Irvine Unified School District Newport-Mesa School District Newport-Mesa School District Santa Ana Unified School District Coast Community College District Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company Pacific Telephone Teleprompter 1 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ROSTER ' August 1979 Balboa Coves Community Association Big Canyon Community Association Mr. Bill F. McLaughlin, President Mr. Pat Munn, President #67 Balboa Coves, NB 92663 c/o Professional Community Management'. . (Res. ) 695-3732 1.101 Dove St., Suite 230, NB 92660 Balboa Improvement Association (Bus.) 833-3313 Bluffs Homeowners' Association Mr. Mel Fuchs, President 200 Main St., Balboa 92561 Mr. Jack Edmundson, President (Bus.). 675-8T20 505 Avenida Ladera; NB 92660 Balboa Island Business ,Association (Res.). 644-1670 Broadmoor Hills Community Association_ Ms. Pat Conner, President • P.O. Box 442, Balboa Island 92662 Mr. Adolph Luttke, President (Bus.) 675-3113 2707 Lighthouse Lane, CDM 92625 (Res.) 6404618 Balboa Island Improvement Association ' Broadmoor Seaview Mrs. Gail Smith, President P.O. Box 64, Balboa Island 92662 Mr. Barry Williams, President (Res.) 675-1466 2015 Yacht Resolute, NB 92660 Balboa Peninsula Point Association (Res.) 6444144 Breakers Drive Association, Inc. 'Mr. W. A. Wren, President — 1118 E. Balboa Blvd., Balboa 92661 Dr. W. F. Robinson, President '(Res.) 673-7188 3002 Breakers Drive, CDM 92625 '. Bay Island Club, Inc. (Res.) 675-3164 Cameo Community Association Mr,. Howard Morgridge, President !1 Ba Island, NB 92661 Mrs. Audrey Moe, President (Res.1 673-2618 4518 Roxbury Rd., Corona del. .Mar 92625 Bayshores Community Association (Res.) 675-2990 Canyon Crest Community Association Mr. Richard Bendhei% President ' 2742 Bayshore Drive,. NB 92663 Mr. Bernard Samson, President (Res.) 646-1713 c/o Professional Community Management Co 1101 Dove 'St., - Suite 230, NB 92660 Beacon Bay Community Association (Bus. ) 833-331.3 Mr. William C. Bilsborough, Jr., President #60 Beacon Bay, NB 92660 (Bus.) 640-1460 Page -2 ' The following Community Associations East Bluff Homeowners' Association can be contacted through their Management Company - Mr. Gary Schaumburg, President 2900 Alta Vista Dr. , Newport Beach 92660 1 Devine Properties Inc. (Res. ) 640-6249 P.O. Box 687 Four Fours Association Corona del Mar 92625 (Bus. ) 675-7611 Mr. Webster Hopkins, President Canyon Hills Community Association 2506 University Dr. , Newport Beach 92660 Mr. Herbert Porter, President (Res.) 548-4692 Canyon Island CommunityAssociation Harbor Island Community Association r. Jack Allison, President Mr. James Rogers , President Can on Lake CjTT nit Association 10 Harbor Island, Newport Beach ,92660 r. Ben Hazewink a (Res.) 675-6938 Canyon Point Community Association Harbor View Community Association Mr. Marvin Kapelus, President Mr. Brooke Bentley, President c/o Villageway Management Inc. Central Newport Beach Community Association P.O. Box 4708, Irvine Calif. 92716 556-1876 Mrs. Dorothy Beek, President 620 W. Ocean Ft. ; Balboa 92661 Harbor View Hills Community Association (Res.) 673-8744 Mr. Gary Pomeroy, President Channel Reef Community Association 2907 Ebbtide, Corona del Mar 92625 Mr. Karl Zonn, President (Res.) 640-5883 2526 Ocean Blvd., Corona del Mar 92625 Harbor View Hills Homeowners' Association (Res.) 673-1788 Cliff Haven Community Association Mr. Robert A. Stine,Corona del 877 Sandcastle Dr., Corona del Mar 92625 Mr. Bob Cooper, President Harbor View Knoll Community Association 418 Signal"Road, Newport Beach 92663 ' (Res. ) 642-6401 Mrs. Dee Perkins, President Corona del Mar Civic Association c/o Devine Properties, Inc. P.O. Box 687, Corona del Mar 92625 675-7611 Mr. Richard Succa, President 715 Marguerite Ave. , CDM 92625 Irvine Terrace Community Association (Res. ) 640-7532 1 Corona Highlands Property Owners Assn. Mr. Richard A. Nelson, President P.O. Box 324, Corona del Mar 92625 Mr. Robert Peterson, President (Res.) 673-4581 535 Seaward Rd. , CDM 92625 Lido Isle Community Association (Res.) 675-4972 1 Dover Shores Community Association Mr. Derek o o, President 701 Via Lid Soud, Newport Beach 42663 Mr. Edward Benson, President (Lido Isle Community Assn. - 673-6170) c/o Devine Properties CdelcMar 92625 P.O. Box 687, Corona 675-7611 . iX - 5 Page -3- Jasmine Creek Community Association Newport Hills Community Association Mr. Cork Schriber, President Mr. Robert Bise, President c/o Villageway Management Co. 1983 Port Seabourne Way, Newport Beach 92660 P•.0. Box 4708, Irvine 92716 (Res,) 644-8941 ' 556-1876 Newport Center Association Linda Isle Community Association - Mr. Mike Bissell, Director Mr. E. W. Sparr, President 170 Newport Center Dr., Suite 120 17 Linda Isle, Newport Beach 92660 Newport Beach 92660 (Res.) 673-7676 1 (Bus.) 640-1861 Lido Sands Community Association Newport Island Incorporated Mr. David A. Goff, President Mr. Alan Miller, President , P.O. Box 1373, Newport Beach 92663 P,O. Box 1162, Newport Beach 92663 (Res.) 675-3971 Lido Shops Association Newport Shores Community Association Mrs. Patricia Harrison, President 3424 Via Lido, Newport Beach 92663 Ms. Ninfa Jarvis, President (Bus.) 673-1970 335 Canal , Newport Beach 92663 (Res.) 642-3361 Little Balboa Island Property Owners' Assn. Newport Terrace Homeowners' Association _ Mr. William A. Allen, President P.O. Box 74, Balboa Island 92662 Mr. Chanciford Mounce, President (Res.) 673-1961 17 Latitude Ct., Newport Beach 92660 �• (Res.) 645-3481 Mariners Community Association Newport Upper Bay Estates Mr. Clarence J. Turner, President _ 1507 Antiqua Way, Newport Beach 92660 Mr. Tim P. Shepard, President 631-1982 2215 Anniversary Lane, Newport Beach 92660 (Res.) 645-9149 Newport Beach Townhouse Owners' Assn._ North Bluff Bay View Community Association- Mr. Wm. E. Becker, President 4417 W. Coast Highway, Newport Beach 92660 Mr. Marshall Nesbitt, President c/o Professional Community Management Co Newport Crest Homeowners' Association 1101 Dove St,, Suite 230, NB 92660 (Bus.) 833=3313 Mr. Paul Watkins, President c/o Professional Community Management Co. North Bluff Villa Community Association 1101 Dove St. , - Suite 230, Newport Beach 92660 (Bus.) 833-3313 Mr. Howard Brady, President c/o Devine Properties,/ p , Inc. Newport Heights Improvement Association P.O. Box 687, Corona del" Mar 92625 (Bus.) 675-7611 Mr. Roland Landrigan, President 535 E1 Modena, Newport Beach 92663 (Res.) 646-2759 Page -4- Promontory Bay Homeowners' Association CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE Mr. John Lloyd, President Balboa Island Chamber of Commerce c/o Devine Properties, Inc. Mr. Lew Ackerman, President P.O. Box 687, Corona del Mar 92625 333 Marine Ave. - Suite 6 (Bus.) 675-7611 1� Balboa Island, Calif. 92662 Seawind Community Association (Bus.) 675-6871 Mr. David Krupp, President Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce 2407 Port Whitby, Newport Beach 92660 Mrs. Luvena Hayton, President (Res.) 640-6676 2855 E. Coast Highway, Corona del Mar 92625 Seawind-Newport Community Association 673-4050 Mr. Bruce Bauersfeld, President Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce c/o Planned Community Services Co. Mr. Gordon West, President P.O. Box 17994, Irvine 92713 (540-7030 Mr. Don Porter, Executive Director Shorecliffs Community Association 1470 Jamboree Road, Newport Beach 92660 644-8211 Mr. Jack Buzzard, President 209 Driftwood Rd., Corona del Mar 92625 1 (Res.) 675-5478 Spyglass Hill Community Association Mr. Ron Taylor, President c/o Villageway Management, Inc. P.O. Box 4708, Irvine 92716 j (Bus.) 556-1876 Spyglass Ridge Community Association _ Mr. Lester Schunk, President 1612 Reef View Circle, Corona del Mar 92625 (Res.) 644-5263 iVilla Granada Condominium Association Ms. Ginny McFarland, President c/o Devine Properties, Inc.. P.O. Box 687, Corona del Mar 92625 (Bus.) 675-7611 West Newport Beach Improvement Association i Mrs. Margot Skilling, President 6610 W. Ocean Front, Newport Beach 92663 (Res.) 642-3214 �l l � � i Responses to "Nonstatutory Advisement" 1 T ''� Y. 8 NUNSTATUTORY ADVISEMENT �{ - File No. To: I From: rll�cupar�Cewf�.►� Department of Community I.S. on GPA-79-1 Development �7 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 ;�---- PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR COMMENTS BY xxx (30 days) PROJECT TITLE: General Plan Amendment 79-1 City of Newport Beach N CU , a' PROJECT LOCATION: Various locations throughout the City of Newport Beach. mv -CC _ Co i CO ,= a c DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES z nm v- a &_ O Z i O TC> CL (See Attached) (JMz DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF YOJR AGENCY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT ai 1 C b+ 0 Cl d t •O U w N bto LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: (USE ATDTTIDNAL PAGES AS NECESSARY) : d •Q C •r N �'1 •C7 V �i O O. 0 r Ln E C .- O -01N N U 0 r C 2 ++ O .. C/ Ol •r •r- d r F- U � U In CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE Bernard E. Schneider Director (714) 644-9030 1 DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA OF EXPERTISEJINTEREST: We are interested in promoting a healthy living and business environment. LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS (USE ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): N W (Please see attached pages. ) 0 W CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE Bernard E. Schneider Director .;_?'- (714) 644-9030 RESPONSE TO LAND USE PROPOSALS The following comments are submitted in response to the land use alternatives for Site No. 6 "Newport Center" in the interest , of the Newport Center Association to promote a better environment for both business and residential development. It is our understandidg that the available space for business use has been reduced by approximately 600,000 square feet from the space originally allocated in the General Plan currently in effect. The current proposal would further reduce available business space. Any such reduction appears unfounded based on environmental considerations. A reduction of business space in the Newport Center area will cause the infiltration of businesses in outlying rural areas causing more environmental damage than if this business development was allowed in the Newport Center area. If the street improvements are made in accordance with the city traffic model, those improvements would be sufficient to carry increased traffic resulting from increased business develop- ment. Because of the established business development in Newport Center, allowing residential use instead of business growth in many areas would not be in the interest of good community planning because many of the sites are not conducive to residential develop- ment. By allowing higher density housing in those areas that are conducive to residential development, the coastal commission's - mandates and the city' s plans for affordable housing which require the building of houses in various price ranges would be easier to comply with. k . iA The proponents of reduced growth• have failed to supply any substantial information to justify any further reduction in development of the Newport Center area. Any proposed reduction, not to mention a proposed reduction of twenty to fifty percent, is totally unsupportable. The proponents of reduced growth have failed to provide the necessary information to take such affirmative - action. Reduced growth sounds good, but cannot be supported environmentally or economically. -2- Fx-II v NONSTATUTORY ADVISEMENT File No. To: From: ey) �/p�N�H/�;,+gfQy� Department of Community I.S. on GPA-79-1 ( �/ oevelo�� m t �( 3300 New porpt �Svd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE I4ITH YOUR COMMERTS BY xxx (30 days) PROJECT TITLE: General Plan Amendment 79-1 City of Newport Beach ,O PROJECT LOCATION: Various locations throughout the City of Newport Beach. [O9Q + a a DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES o oQ z 0 W 4- U11� J OZL • r o i (See Attached) m ai U M Z v DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF YOaR AGENCY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT c+; N'�00 V m e LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: (USE AUDIT DP%L PAGES AS NECESSARY): W W 00 m E a^W -i uqH c o w u•�.r CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA OF EXPERTISE/INTEREST: LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS (USE ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): w rUo G 6 Q W P �ONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE f— DATE MAILED BY DATE RECEIVED BY RESPON- rn, DATE RESPONSE LEAD AGENCY SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE RECEIVED BY TIIE LEAD AGENCY 12 t A IOOMIT/ RIIOCIRTI ER 600 touth Commonwealth Avenue-Juite 1000-for Rn9eler-California*90005.213/385-1000 1 DATE: September 24, 1979 TO: Department of Community Development 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA. 92663 � ROM: Metropolitan Clearinghouse SUBJECT: City of Newport Beach, General Amendment 79-1 SCAG File Number: OR-13072-NP As required by OMB Circular A-95, we have disseminated information on your proposed grant application to cities, counties and some special agencies in the region which may- be interested in the project. Also, the project has been reviewed by the SCAG staff to determine the relationship of the ,project to adopted regional policies, plans and programs. Comments generated through the A-95 review process are listed below and should be attached to the grant request when it is submitted to the funding agency. If the SCAG Executive Committee should wish to comment further on this project, we will forward their comments to you immediately. The SCAG staff review found that: 1 . The project is primarily local in impact. 2. The project is consistent with adopted regional ,policies. 3. No comments have been received in response to the areawide notifi- cation for this project. 9 R6CEIvED o� s+ 00 .itY �r Dev..:�P,eent Dept. Sep 2 S 1979� ro Clearin house DfflCial pl-Ty OF ORTBEACH. ' �/ 9 NEH DALlr- LK: ti 2 . � NONSTATUTORY AD:VISEMENT File No. To: From: Cliff nove,y1 eaynyyl Department of CommunitA I.S. on GPA-79-1 Development Assoc. 3300 Newport Blvd. •New ort Beach, CA 926 PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR COMMENTS BY xxx (30 days) PROJECT TITLE: General Plan Amendment 79-1 City of Newport Beach CM C CMb �' PROJECT LOCATION: Various locations throughout the City of Newport Beach. mo• ¢ z i mU PC J b .DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND. MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSU REC m�un�{y 4- Ul d•J 9ev DePA6nt cot?5 (See Attached) 4J o o�oP oN tU M z b NE`t�Pp • y N .• DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF YOLTR AGENCY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT I c 44 04 m oars N•OU N } o to LIST SPECIFIC ENV-IRONMENTAL CONCERNS: (USE A•DOITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): W •o c ? 010 M Please refer to attached pages. w >Q1 c'1 -J a c Ln m 0 0) a) Ln U cc � O O W W •rr ►- in •° cn CONTACT PERSON TITLE, PHONE Board of Directors 645- 092 Mr. Ties Miller Cliff Haven Comm. Assoc. DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA OF EXPERTISE/INTEREST: �• � Ch� CaS��,�. s `f U o LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS (USE ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): N Q Q UO m w U 4 L' � w I a I', W CONTACT PERSON TITLE 1X7- �� PHONE Recaly CommunitDevelopmentavers G`�omvv�unity {association Deft, ((-iEP5 1979 V� cITY of it P. O. Box 1332, Newport Beams or ,0, e �v The following are the opinions of those of a random check on property owners that are members of the Cliff Haven Community Assoc. "The Planning Commission passed a new Height Limitation of building on Kings Rd. , Kings Place in January 1979• This decision was made in 'order to preserve the character of the neighborhood. ' Since the Cast- aways Site adjoins this property, we feel the same limitations should apply. Commercial and business should be restricted because of add- itional traffic and noise problems that would be created. The traffic noise is past the comfort stage in the homes on the bluffs now. Noise is trapped in the canyon behind the Medical Center on Cliff & Dover already. With the addition of hundreds of vehicles brought in by the new building, the noise would be unbearable . 1st preference for uses Open space for a park site 2nd preferences low-low density residential Least consideration should be tourist and commercial. Mr. & Mrs. Les Miller, 128 Kings Place, Newport Beach, 92663 - 645-4092 *as*#*�a�a�*�*as*###*�#ar•asat .. Orange County has less' Open Space than other areas having similar population to area ratios. Newport Beach needs more open space, Not less. Moew trees to cool and purify the air and less concrete, asphalt and brick structures. The aesthetic and recreational advantages of greenbelt and open space benefit everyone in thecommunity. - B . Hogg, 231 Kings Place , Negrt Beach, 92663 645-8196 ##ata�#a��a�a�###ar•ar#a���a� .The Castaways - Whether we lived where we do or not, we have always felt that this prime area should be kept free od building development of any kind. This area is the last of the 'windows to the sea' and should be L G�li f f Haven Goommunity ,association Page Two P. O. Box 1332, Newport Beach, CaliFornia 92663 kept as a park where all may enjoy it, not just a few. We feel parks are certainly going to become more popular what with the gas crunch , and the ever increasing beach crwods. And this .park would be, to say the least, very special with its spectacular view over the bay and the ocean. III The Castaways should remain a place for all to enjoy and should not fall victim to bricks and mortar. Phil and Joan Barkdull, 618 St. James Place, Newport Beach, 92663 - 646-565, **asasat****�r**as*tasasatasar Considering the impact of noise and traffic on Dover Drive, and increased .� use of the airport if any Hotel or development of high density is allowed on the Castaways site, we respectfully urge the planning commission to ban - any development of this type and to allow only low density housing which would have minimal affect -on traffic, noise., 'etc.. in and around the area. As much open area as is feasible will be greatly appreciated by generation of Newporters to come . Please, lets try to preserve the aesthetic value of one of the last remaining large pieces of land as much as possible. Mr. 4 Mrs. George Lackey, 612 St. James Places Newport Beach, 92663•- 5486962 I have owned the property directly across the street from the parcel of land known as the Castaways since 1958. I was invited to submit my views of the impact of certain various possibilities for the future development of this site. The development of this site has been of great concern to me for over 21 years. However, after witnessing the functioning of the Planning Commission and City Council oh' other recent development problems, I feel they will do what pleases themselves irregardless of the general overall good of-the City of Newport Beach, or the individual -property owner. Any further research of personal agonizing on my part would be an exercise in frustration. Patricia J. Smith, 124 Kings P1a wport Beach, 92663 - 548-8350 , Electrical use dropped 14.2% froml New houses must be well insulated, 7,300 kilowatt hours annually per ENERGY i.AW the amount of glass is restricted and household to 6'261, all-but 1.59' of the house's window, (The 1978 rate of electrical con-,I • area.must be shaded from the sum sumption jumped 6%above 1977 Part D .r C a ' mersun. .. • • . of this increasewas blamed on.a,ra- ���J■, • Jh�ipe A Davis-energy conservation ordi- gist who terrorized keep area and- 1 I nance that was•passed m, 1975 and caused people to their houses went into.effect Jan 1,4976,applied closed up•at night.) only to new homed-to lipeonstructed. . Now;however; Davis is considering ` an ordinance that would require that The seeds of Davis'energy conser o Things when+homes:built.-befortt tbe;prdl- vation actually were sown long ago . " •.••.•,-,,,W.._.,,,.,,,, and were•reco*recognized as that'onl in nance ; as,.e&eted':are:sold;:.they Em Y xY must be ret}ofitted with•more insula- retrospect. People here were'riding " ' lion.and other°eaergy�saving fea- bicycles years before the bike boom #o .Comes of the early 1970s. It atarted'on the; h ■ .:;.1:-,•, lures.. 'campus" where students u •IfD`avfsfsthediydtiefuture,the P udents biked to. ily a- future;is not unattractive This town' classes.of"many:trees and more:bkycles lies , By themW1980sil, central cam , t jG, gp)xeij'First„I acttir�'" In. the, flat Sacramento'Valley-14 its plosed to bikes,butZar(l Darter " miles-:west-�of the state'capital—a. the•same time bikes appeari dting•tlils commu-s an'end eneigy!"cepaervatipn,:visik colnpact r�sfden-tfal•island$a sea of g Angered bpn hurt sP agricultural lattd it is heavilycano- a streets of"Davis acco ' ed'the led Insummer b debiduous•shade nna Lott; who moved to ' headlin atoiq MrsneW�.`, P Y• `)65,The_firststoplight Citj9(thelglitite";; h. ,5,.r' »'• ! •,: had ustlieen; bees`•- )'"• �r1_•, taped an j"`�:• „" ^<• ' ' x 'r "•.:` d'!'bfices Were•startin- to Davis is:tiie,firture tie ry :Aith�ugfi'downwwa,•remams•me g like tbiat;z,' ;, ,, > ,r ciEy s commercial center,a muniapai Set squeezed off the streets 'she said blcyydes:.jiaa registeied cais;',t., Paz?eh? lot'theie'wasfiearly iampty at So she and a handful of other Per- one bike for ash ot;tiie`:dty s,` ; rkd* a recent weekday,„buE side- sons formed the nucleus for a gmu� $T00'reslderit&,alxbrding.to a;sur=.{_,: walk bike racYs,were jammed that sought bike'lanes on the towns . ve1!i bike lanes on - rial streets.:. and•bikes each:have.,their own lane arterial streets,They presented a pe- r Smai!'••treiglrborhood'- shopping; on;rna�ot,streets,'lraftionave3•at a btion to the City Council but the pro- tem witfrineasy tvaiking or biking.•; slower pace and so,It seems,does life poaal got'only4wo of five votes,. In e�yC1al • :• The question,of whether to have. ce of restdentialareas instead of;r.; gg bike lanes on Davis' streets Uciane, :centers. with b:` e' 771e clt�ate is'pleasantand the hu- an issue—the only issue—in the 190- •Lots;•an active doiyntown" midity retattve(}+.low,llmportant faces: area;,ns s,,_.-F�s'rk SST: 3' ''' tors im Aw...,e!iergy;cotmervatkn. City cwmeil�Wwon,-she said Two _ w; lio4?er,4 �ov1din8r.heaGngo temperk :profane candidates were elected and cablftlg for 8 growing camber of may rise tb 110&*eea4th'e average pavls got its bike lanes And it was in } _ ;., ,,. •: , .;., Maxftn watemperatur 4!RinK JutY is 1986 that bullder John Whitcombe in- "QkmWeh �wspapers,'bottles 95),atwAt sea breezes flow reel afilke path and green beltsegregated from through the is •of Carquinez, i �to.abkeantry(.teensdg Teen to t,bY reeldenta.:v: c, dropping the Mercury to an ave e • : Now Davis residents bike to work„deCVft,,,streets,- subdivl lowofa. , :••; '; , to shop and•,Avealto take their cbit= alb and houses dealgned to save en- Energy conservationists.say that �dren to purger school:The city ha,s " .,by taking advantage gf natural even though theh'e-is sortie heat build- an estimated 37,000 bikes. It has tio princc3tples of heating and up in un-air-conditioned,but cooling Proper- 166 registered cars,according to Mo- `` , ly insulated, and shaded homes dur- , for Registration News, For example,streets in newer sub , ing the day,opening them,up at night The city}raa had only one fatal bl- divisions soneragy run east-west.so quickly cools them. : cycle accident in the last 30-odd that their houses-have a north-south Winters are moderate•with`a•Jan- years, and that one in 1977 was a 1 oripgtation. This .means less east uary.average maximum,of 54 and a freak incident, according -to John west facing ass as a Conduit of:su= minimum of A : .• pasher,director of traffic for the Da. J mer heat and more south facing glass - Even more important than the na-" 418 police department, to absorb winter sun' tural climate to Davis'energy conser- Mrs.Helen Pool,an owner of the B These streets'ate narrower and vation is its political climate. It is a &L Bike Shop,said some Davis bike sv(th dec(duous trees so they salt, : university town, UC Davis with its owners, like car owners elsewhere, biioW,aeftftdvel ,Shadedduring'hot:•- • 17,500 students is far and away the ave an old "klunker that they use admmers • (maximum •temperatures t0wres largest employer(10,200jobs), or work or school during the weeir, l ouiLelOdegreee higher onwide,)ln-' This means•a relatively well,edu- paid an expensive 10 speed that they sliifd streets, a study found) and sated and young populatiort.more save for weekend._ trips, Cc'' ly warmed by the whiter sun open to innovation as well as a pool of of' the leaves have•fallen•Newer . expertise on environmental and ener- Some-elderly persons have added 1 paeifirfg lots also must be 5017,shaded gy matters.Back in 1973,it provided stabilizer wheels to their bikes,mak-.I in'.the,summer within 10 years of a small group who initiated a drive ing them tricycles.Housewives carry their construction for the energy conservation ordi- their groceries in baskets on the back Density has been increased(from nance and a two-year educational ef- wheel, One man•rigged up a tandem three ,to,seven'and one-half houses - fort to sell it bicycle contraption with a large sail Per Edre) to contain sprawl and keep Until 1973,residential energy con- to catch the wind. And mothers the;dry compact Green belts and transport their children in rickshaw-' sumption in Davis had been ggrrowingi u Pinions:meander through new at about 7%a year.But by 1978,na-• like vehicles,called buggers. iv tural gas use dropped 383%from 1,- 0" therms per year per residence in 1973 to 644 therms. _ . ' uDavis bad been growing at'a very*r`atild-p'a;.ab6'f ' Although most families still have; 11Jb a year over almost a 10-year period,"? eriod; Bla said So one car, some make do with, none.! after the new council took office,the cityinstitatedgrowth Ean Leger, a graduate student, and cohirol,using an allocaUon system II tUi�the number of• s wife,Jackie,are selling their only bobses.and condominiums that could be buUtreacb year. _ car, a Datsun that they bought two This year,for example,the number Is 160.Thls'allocatiob; years ago,to ease thel budget They aystemprovedtoliea powerful lover in subsequent energy' plan to get by with their bikes and a conservation efforts bugger for their two cht(dren, ages i "Energy itself was not an issue (in the 1872 cawpaign , 4 and 3, because no one was really thinking seriously along those; airs Leger admitted to baving i lines,"Black said."But in the spring of•19Z3 somepeople• pome qualms about giving up the.car, who had worked in the 1972 campaign begad to-turn their' attention to energy." but she says She will be relieved to be i 1i ''d•<'One of-those people was Jonathan Hammond,now bead" out from the pressure of car pay- dfUvingSystemsinWinters,whicbdeaignssoiarhouses,', menu,insurance and repairbilli "I had an idea of doingg an energy consetvaUgn•building: Jane Kendrick,25,fs a Davis.res- ., code"Hammon said %reasoning for 06titigto do this. (dent:who commutes to work on her ' was that the town very tightly controlled(through the al;' bike,wbicb in Davis m not unusual_ �; ;ioptionsystem)the numbbeer of homestthatcame dntc the except that she works in Sacramento' ;' ' market There was enough of a'sh, ofsuppfy'that`. and it is a 60•mUe•a-ilayay mundtNp:' atip Wng tbat was built would sell ao I•fe it,was impbr Foethe past two years,Miss Ken- ; tant to.make sure the houses that.were bhllt.were really' Brick,a.reSearch assistant in radtolo- 9u?Uty;houses at least In tlie'funcUonal a iectarof ena'try gy at the university s medical center t conservation. In Seemmento,.has been making the ;}• .'He aad Some,colleagues obtained iesearcb gttttt ;ftmb: •cummute daUv except for six weeks to' { 0 OpaY a Uve 'and theFSiergy CortsergaUon two•months in the winter when the `• `;, ,The tptm}ect Matt a Study.of energy.demand character= ce fogiaparUsuLvlydenSe, , , iSUcs of )wusinx ualta 1n fhe"iv'I iim Sat atfielito"gaUe11 Three miles of her trip,which now climate.It f Umt'31�of the elactrielty annually takes her about an hour each way, , ,. 1ve4L,to,aSr conditkming while Space heating accounted or, are on Interstate 80 because there is, 4;;82g66'ot annual houseehoId natural gas t gnsump hoaltetroateroute. �._•+:w, +' "A lot of people•don't reaUze•bikers are allowed there;i` c"Thetesearchers;however,found as mUc "as AsevenfbidF she Said.'I've had people honk at me or yell oyt the whr• 4idifference in the amount'Of en used fo}air.eondttion�' doves to get off the freeway" ing•between apartments, depp��dinga. 'It's built into the social struetum that you ride bikes 4" a The same bold tree for heaUng.bilis aAhe win 1 Habem-! saidJanHamrin,•arDavle restdentand now manager of tbe, I!o! ;'m -1 %. ... ; : ` :,;,. ,i '_,,:.L. state-Energy Commission's ablar energy office.: ;, e p emCe also embarked on' n e¢ucadug Dtvia She-found that same Davis•restdentb would ride their, resldents•about energy conservation4heyripoke to W0.t�r bikes all week to save gooline_for that would Bst�t-to them WA put out a ttawel do. :things they,wanted to, "on how to save ohergy. : .,• y. t.A",..,.. : t, . ` : .''�:'We explained]sow the h�t�g t o�de.im based otina "It-was to t they Saved up creditaSo they could still jidinus-' feral pfindples of cUgmtie d ptaUo a Hammond:bald tilSo by toing etime the great gasp "ehesald . :^, . 1Qe put a tremendous amount df effort.fnto ed So by the time the great gasoline tximch of I978•cagte), bicycles were an energy-savin in bicycles if .,• g tranapbrtation fixture in In I=, the ordinance,which,established energy con•: .. •Davis,whicii also has had far the past 13 years a bus M, servation performance etandards.for new t'eaidential•con-S tam,started passenger the unitrips a ity'e student body,thatnow has atMUon,was passed,It provided two ways of acblevfit�' 100,000 Another porama annu on energy conservation. , ;• Another program started long'ago and now bearing en, One was."a cookbook kind of tbibg"where a-bullder orgy-saving fruit was the city s street tree-planting prop could follow a standard recipe,Hawriow eakl:Theseooad' dam,Now there are 12000 to 16,000 attest trees,and at• was a calculation method when!a builder"traded bff ev-; least one tree on each.lot in the-city according to Shig eryUdng'against Yoshhiilne,dtyppaarrksandgroundssuperintendent' C9e19 g elag•to,acblOvQ.a,m�tdmum . Bike lases and street tt eey already were established fat perfoftaanee," -. : , s ... .; ;•- , a„ ,.rxd•... v,='. tures in Davis when the age of ecology dawned with the ,' The new ordinance required attic,riooraddwalliasula 1970S.And 1972 was thefirst election•year after thevotin ; tibn (Which the state Code had previously required),Bght S colored exterior walls and roofs,and landscaped shading of i age was lowered from de to (a. This enfranchised thou- all but 1.5%of the boase's windows during August, wads of UC Davis students (although the universigf is • outside the city hmlts, many students live in apartments Perhaps the most controversial ii within Davis) and,in the opinion of some,sharply-altered Dance according part,of the new ordi-4 the political power structure. �g to pig director Gloria McGregor,. was the limitation on glass to U6%of the floor area(al- In the 1972 City Council racb, the issues were growth south fa o ana�could be used if it were double paned,.' control,recycling and public transit,accorda t perlybeing.o. ' e so thappened sidewae, ing to Robert a lot of glass ended up being on the scout side of.the N.Black,now a Davis attorney and a Yolo Count visor,but then a student and one of three en house,"b(South facing glass oriented council candidates, The trio defeated three in, �atae soaks up wore heat from the cumbentswithamorebusiness•orientedoutlook• 1 wintersun,w travels at a lower angle,Saving on heat- "Thppat kind of laid the groundwork," Black said. "At Ingbill&) liticallyifeasp6lec for the governhment loiui UP dertake aeer- imenta lnthe field of environmental managemenk", "^'Although a few residents have complained about lack of 'windows on the east and west sides of their houses,others' "It has not been easy;'Whitcombe said."We are finally are pleased with their reduced utility bills. to the point where we have a reliable•low-cost system.But The most unhapppiness toward the ordinance was prob= :we've.been•through lots and-lots of grief over the past two- ably among bullders. Not only did it mean redesign!' and a half years,lots of mistakes,lots of:money,lots of late houses, but they were the ones who had to sell the its Waiting for(solar)collectors to btoiv up. changes to the home buyer. f.. S' "At this point we have a prototype,that's easily ample- "That was one of the more unhappy consequences of the- mented by other builders in any kind of conventional.• Whole damn thing,.'builder Bill Streng said, "I Sotto be house;"he.sald "People don'tknow they have a solar sys•• lem except for a computer panel on the wall that monitors.,. Yhe.bearer of sad tidings.I didn't pass the ordinance,but 1 p !get to tell you what glass you can't have hi your house." +everything. It is extremely easy to maintain. Very little Still with the allocation systemrbuilders are assured that can go wrong with it. ;; whatever they build they'cani sell!! �.•t j , ., 7. - : '. • •;t it-provides domestic hot watei and space-beating and 3t• �:" "We have 31 homes we're put g' on.the market neat �be8 The syatem.costs about$5,500 Which,after sub; ,, month and 150 people who want them,"said Whitcombe of! tracting the$1,500 cost of a conventional heating-coolin y T,andemPropertfew"Once.youSO the permit biNegot "system,makestheadditionaleost$4,000per;hqueInhesaic •.: Davis bas benefited from a half-dozen;factors In lit the house sold °its energy consumption while much of the.rest Q�,the'.ne,--- ;Marketing in Davls.is.no longer,done,at the'cq mer, , . • . i tion s has•risen:•Not.only is it compactiwlth�A<Wileasant� fevbl, continued Whitcuinbei-OD fa bullding bo ah120'" "1 climate and flat topo8raphy,which.makea-¢Ike•ri feac;: nNt solar subdivision, ,where the:.homes,ranggee hi prat , ng from,$90,000--to'$8QWD,,and a;95_unit solarapilrtuien, : : 'MP. it IsnoRcontiguous to•othbr towns.peveloper' ! cdmplex in Divls.'•It is done at'ttie ppoolitical level by th'. cannot go across the street into tli itesCtowa find batlld t$t- •rseven planning commissloners and,the five City,Coun ;get around its ppoonetes.The land areundDavis iazoned tnembem,Whitcomb says,." •., c •.=.tip:= t„tw•,...: •i ricuitural by;ute county; which,at;lbast;for;the:presenW 41','U you live In Davis as;I do and have.3 our•,e#r to the" �� ned•to keep it.that'way:Iies a.iiniversity ,r•toWhNfith a imall:gmup dedicatedto;educatfngiesldenta Fground,it is.not•too)iard to develop a p�arketing strategy 'oae»ergy co anon,and it is spiall:: YotnerkettotheWI2people,'sb,Ihav¢beenrelativ'Pxyeuc- � f " : . ., Anew fight is on the borizoii opera propapeti ordinance-' ceeafal,"he said"At the same Om�wYbfle I play the game : Lrel�g'that-homes built before the.energy ordinance ? '!idoWt dice it." I.was paned be retrofitted with•energy sa6hnit devices,. I Nor dose builder Whitcombe think the much ubhc �•the homes are sold. The rationale is ttFhi@.seller ]v111, ordinance has necene p :have the money to pay for the'retioflttltigbut o>.tHe pro> Brut done all that much to save ever-• itshe makes on theade.' , :.:;+•:,;': ' ,5. 7<Grrrs r: ,"•',; .de on what you use as your base,"Whitcombe The aim of the ce proposed ordinan !s a 25%ene rgy sav :saki "Yau take the worst buUt worst oriented house ou 1 ,but it takes into'aocount that some-bomes are less able" y to achieve energy-saving retrofitting,so a-point system is can fmagine,then go to Davis,the savings in heat ingg and used; you take a weWillbe dramatic,But if ll,built ouse;h " `: cooling w 'wltJi'a reasonably good orientation and compare it-to the For instance, a horse with piywood;eidinig;;a flat;rooT o, p and7slab floor would need less points thin'one wlth'an.at=•., We eneerrggyy ordinance housing, the savings Will be-far tic,stuccoAding anda raised floor,which are more e dram aeUy; less atic." • : Y insulated,tocomply with the ordinance. 120a strong said,"VV,liati Davie has done is,on e"o Varying numbers of points would he obtained by adding Ithe more remarkable public relations jobs,Uwe have Deco )motion, shading glass, oe installing a solar hot water affected,the only way I can explalnit is we have more en- : cer,tfigh3 �ow showerhead,weather stripping or tluorea�; ergyawarecitizeins. •• Da •realtors are opposed to requtring retrofitting,at', Hannmond,a prime mover for the code,doesn't argub:"I the time of sale.- think a lot of the downward trend (in energy use) is not George Blankenship,sales manager of Davtsville Realty; -due to the code.A lot has to do with education." '.•• • ;, Inc,;said it would be one more burden on the seller at a "The biggest key to the whole thing is education,"•• time when he is under manyotner pressures. agrees Marshall Hunt, another member of the ordinance And"sald Paul Garritson of Yolo Realtors, "We don't ,project. the ordinance does not req.. solar heating or. • think it(the proposed ordinance)goes far enough:We felt boo ugh the builders like Whitcombe and Michael Coon; we cannot improve on the point system.We will go along:. beg with that But I have been in my house 23 years.I could go bett have used them in their homes cam and miss the ordinance alto ether a foranother23y g qd .; Whitcombe became interested Lt building homes using ' waste a lot of energy." ' solar energy about three years ago. I T 1� NONSTATUTORY ADVISEMENT File No. To: // 1 From: N,0� 90 e( he Department of Community 1.'S. on GPA-79-1 DevelopmeDt o�' C°»+hterG�i .3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA ,926 PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR COMMENTS BY xxx (30 days) i PROJECT TITLE: General Plan Amendment 79-1 .i City of Newport Beach .0 N ,O1 PROJECT LOCATION: Various locations throughout the City of Newport Beach. > Lu a.�� DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES �'�� _tc, R�cgw Eu eat g W 4- W J i ..f De 1."1 o a (See Attached) r SEQ ., 1979� U M z !.- ary OF . pOR!il:ACN NEW CALIF• v M DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF YOJR AGENCY RELATED WMECT 1 C ++ Cw ro ar s In tj y b LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: (USE A13DY170KAL PAGES AS NECESSARY).: W .o w W c CM 4 +3 � Qrn W '(— U O m E dry N O Gn GI o w v LU 0'� ` CIJ CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA OF EXPERTISE INTEREST: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,LAND USE PLANNING,BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, LEGISLATION,TRANSPORTATION, COASTAL PLANNING. lux) LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS (USE A1)DM'OKAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): N The Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce resolved by Board of w a Directors action on August 20, 1979 to re-afirm the current Gener ___ 0 Land Use Plan of the City of Newport Beach as being adaquate depend a ing on implementation of the Traffic Circulation Plan. The Board 0 0 of Directors further resolved that if any admendments to the Gene4l 1. 1 w H a Land Use Plan are proposed that a full and complete Environmental I- V) o w Impact Report be prepared. (8-31-79) s w z TITLE PHONE U - z ;__ BALBOA COVES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. O. Box 1224 Newport Beach, California 92663 1979 August 13, 1979 PRESIDENT Bill McLaughlin #67 - 6R PRESIDENT 2 VICE PRESIDENT Tom Orlando u15 BOARD OF DIRECTORS George Curtis ♦44 Judy Domaszewicz •32 Stan Love #63 SECRETARY Department of Community Development Jack F. King #30 3300 Newport Boulevard TREASURER Karen Orlando # 15 Newport Beach, California 92663 i Re: General Plan Ammendment 79-1, City of Newport Beach Gentlemen: We are in receipt of your non-statutory advisement file #IS on GPA 79-1. This is to inform you that much of the information you sent us regarding the General Plan was undecipherable by laymen of our station in life. However, we would like you to be informed that we are very concerned about any development which would impact the Balboa Coves' area. The problems that we see arising from further development in the area are: 1) The tremendous increase in traffic and concomitant noise on Newport Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway - The traffic and noise have gotten to the point of being very nearly unbearable for some of our residents. 2) Run-off of silt and debris from uphill of the Balboa Coves' area into the bay in our area. The recent condominium development at Superior Avenue and Hospital Road caused great run-off of silt and mud into our area during last winter's rains. We are pleased that you have taken it upon yourselves to ask for our comments regarding the General Plan Ammendment and will be happy to provide you input 1 whenever we can. Sincerely yours, William F aughli N Preside a .9 SE 9 / OEiVED runitY WFM Sg �:• " •tteAt tr PU��61979�" � � r NONSTATUTORY ADYISEMEPIT Ytt•5• '1'1,k910, `ilk• '�•:. . � Fite No. To: From:' ":!+ Department of Community I.S. on GPA-79-1 Developtm "t;- a•3300 New por Newport Beach, CA ' 92663 e PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR COMMENTS BY xxx (30 days) PROJECT TITLE: General Plan Amendment 79-1 City of Newport Beach m v ° PROJECT LOCATION: Various looatiohs throughout the City of Newport Beach. a s� b DESCRIPTION•OF,.PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL IS O P.m .•.��i'.' }d,m�: iu-I¢r�:. i �:,i N�;c l}'.•.';'"':': ,,:�✓. i "X C.4-1 ..,�,'�CI,O 4M1"���: '�'• Y o 3 (See Attached) w�+ DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERI4IT AUTHORITY OF YOaR AGENCY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT' ' y >1 b LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: (USE AUUT 1ONALPAGES AS NECESSARY): D W oA Y' Jm E W•�n i � +J.e ,1 v0'i a�j_� r !"�.-t,r•�i - .a'::%,. .••i •Y,; .:;� .i}�.•.;a'�YN:4} }:;' i�: a j°-'� ,tn '.;CONTACT PE SON, r r r ,r..r, •. ..TITLE n: .a.PNDNE.�•, '.� '1...i' f.:'� r$d':i. rlYids !.'eli' yy!•7S: Jj: S:,M1 gt'S"'Y�ur."�.r'Y.'•i iM1t I Y•}1n 'l,Pit C�t� yr;sGi�.�i n•.F .a t '• :f: 5'��SIY'...y�F>,J•,r•.`�a rj S,ti�••.T r,�,1r-,'• ::::�'.� !•.�i'i4.1.�T�t..`6W:"¢ 4i17� DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA OF EXPERTISE/INTEREST: i LIST SPECIFIC&9 IRONMENT CO ERNS ,(USE AD AL PAGES AS NECESSARY): c �tw�ril��are t,//^o400' W �7 a W CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE I DATE MAILED BY DATE RECEIVED BY RESPON- DATE RECEIVED BY DATE RESPONSE LEAD AGENCY SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE INTERESTED,PARTY,' RECEIVED BY TH LEAD'AGENCY Ian:f E..M.A. , _. -.s••,, .a,�`��tY�'•,�<kr11;'A,,, .•� �tt•.d:,- :I�f'��i'$�«•'.a:,•.7•.:, . . I LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No. 3 "SAN DIEGO CREEK" ,. General Information ' 1 . General Plan Designation s Retail and Service Commercial, (north' '�r k erly 12 acres) General Industry r (southerly 47 acres). „r� ��� 2. Existin Zonin 9 � � 9 ,� y Unclassified (U) ''no standards 3k �,° a^r adopted. mi'; fe 3. site'Area 59 acres , 44 4. Allowable�Uses { Commercial, Industrial , Offace~. ; n r 4 T`, 514.008 sq.ft. could be allowed I at .2 density. " age L Al ternate Use$ . 1 . 56% Reduction 514,00008"'t ,3 g 2' 20%Reducti6n 822,413'sq 3. Commercial/Residential Mix 514,008 sqq ft. h, ;221 DU's 0.10 per net buildable acre) •; 4. Med./Nigh Density Residential - 442. DU's (@ l0 per net buildable acre) , wy s 5: Low Densaty Res{denta5 177 OU s (@ 4per net buildable acre 6. Desilting Basin Desalting Basin (southerly 47 acres) 209,088 'sq.ft. com- merciat 6 (northerly eusrcc / 12 acres) 12 k w t k n;, S 1 'ri 3. . SAN DIEGO CREEK REVISED 7/17/79 o J�C��TV C7 ir= . 46 ll l ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY TyLpxOV F: 836-2300 AREA COLE 724 DEVELOPMENT DIVISION YA AD ORE yS H. 0, E A00 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST P.O. 014046 OIafcroR SANTA ANA, CA. yARTA AxA, CA. 027 03 C.R. NELSON ASSISTANT OIRECTOA APR 2 6 DEVELOP-Exi . . 1979 PILE T0: NIWA Board of Directors . FROM: Staff Re: Summary of Staff Engineers' Meeting Regarding Development of "Site A" On Tuesday, April 24, a committee of staff engineers met at the request of the Interim Desilting Basin Subcommittee to discuss concerns raised regarding ".Site A." The following representatives were present at this meeting: Steve Bucknan Newport Beach D. R. Collacott NIWA Dean Powell The Irvine Company -d McDonald IRWD Steve Malloy IRWD Tony Slunka Irvine Jerry Sterling OCL%A Following'-Is a su.W ary of the responses to the concerns raised by the sub- committee: 1. Pow much material will need to be removed to bring Site A to USGS elevation —1.0? The Subtask 5 report proposes a 50 acre site with a 500 acre-foot capacity (or 10 feet deep) at Site A (page 78) . Iu addition is , estimates an existing average elevation of +10.0 USCS. A detailed map prepared in May of 1978 for The Irvine Company shows elevations ranging from +6.7 to +25 feet. A more accurate estimate based on this map would give an average elevation of +14.0. , The invert (bottom) of San Diego Creek is at elevation +4.0. The top of the inflatable dam is proposed to be 4 feet above the invert. To provide the 10 foot design depth reco*aerided in the report it would be necessary to excavate the site to an elevation of -2.0. This would require the removal of approximately 1,300,000 ' cubic yards of material from this site: i 16 ft (1 yd� (4840 sq yds} X 50 acres = 1,300,000 cu yds- 3 ft X ( acre ) 2. Is the material that would be removed suitable for use as fill2 IAccording to the test borings conducted by the City of Newport Beach for the Jamboree Road realignment project in 1967, most of the material removed would be of such poor quality that it could not be given away. The types of material which would need to be removed to construct the proposed facility include compact brown silty saud, compact black sand, very soft blue silty clay with shell fragments, and salt intermixed with silt and very fine sand. As these materials are not desirable for use as fill it would be necessary to find a disposal site and to pay a contractor to remove the spoils. 3. If the material is not suitable for use as fill, how expensive would it be to remove? Assuming that a disposal site for the material can be located within a 5-mile radius of "Site A", the cost of excavation and removal of the material is estimated to be $10/cu yd for the material between elevations +6.0 to :,.0 and $7/cu yd for the material above elevation +6.0. The total estimated cost for excavation and removal of the material at Site A would be $10,970,000. a. Cost of removal of material below elevation +6.0: 0 ft - (-2.0 fcQ (1 d X 50 acres �(4840 SS Yd ($10 3 ft K acre h cu ydJ $6.5 million b. Cost of removal of material above elevation +6.0: 1 (+14.0 ft -6.0 ft) 1 yd 50 acres 4840 sq d $7 ) _ $4.5 million �3 ft) acre cu. yd 1 Total excavation cost - $11.0 million 4. Are there any known or suspected geologic .features which would impact the removal of material from Site A? The high water table (elevation 0.0) indicated by thc. City of New Beach March 21, 1967 borings, would have a significant impact on the excavation of this site. Experience has proven that it is unwise to attempt to operate excavation equipment on ' 2 r a site 4 to 6 feet above a' groundwater table. This problem is 1 I compounded by the types of materials iden:ified in the borings. Due to this constraint, removal of the material below an elevation of approximately 6 feet will be very costly. 5. Miat features of, this area would make it particularly suitable or unsuitable as a site for a sedimentation basin? The proximity of Site A to the Bay makes it an attractive location for a sedimentation removal basin. It would have the opportunity to receive all flows entering the Bay via San Diego Creek and it would not be necessary to stabilize the channel downstream of the site. I I One 36 inch 190 water transmission line and one 42 inch CMCWD water transmission line traverses the site and would need to be relocated if the project were constructed. According to the representative from Newport Beach/3 or 4 years ago it was estimated that it would cost $3 .million to relocate just the MID line. In addition, an IR14D sewer line traverses the site and' it would also need to be relocated. In addition to the concerns raised by the subcommittee, the following issues regarding this site were discussed by the engineers: 1. The low efficiency of sediment removal estimated for the "Site A" facility in the report (page 78) , especially when conpared to the high efficiency estimated for "Site B." This raises doubts as to the advisability of developing this facility. The geometry of the proposed facility in relation to the San Diego Creek channel also raise doubts regarding the effectiveness of the site. Ideally, the facility should be parallel to the channel. The proposed facility is perpendicular. The hydraulic entrance would lessen the effectiveness of the basin due to the location of the water lines and the requirement for a high flow bypass. Sediment removal effectiveness for small storms would be decreased as the basin would be filled during the lower leg of the hydrograph, allowing the main sediment ,flows to past. 2. The report states that, on the average, 4 inches of sediment will accumulate in Site A every year. Assuming that this figure is correct and estimating a cost of $10/cu yd to dredge the material, it would cost approximately $270,000 per year to maintain the proposed facility. 4 inches (1 ft ) 1 d) (4840 sq yds) 50 acres ($1.0 ) (12 inches) (3 ft)( acre ) ( Cu yd) $270,000 per year • 3 j'ri- 146 This figure does not include the cost of disposal of the dredged material. Disposal of this material could present a problem as, the Coyote Canyon Dump will not accept the material unless it con- tains a sufficient percentage of sand. In addition, the dump will be closed in 3 years. 3. The Irvine Company representative expressed concern that since the proposed facility is located at one of the main entrances to Newport Beach, if it is constructed it should be maintained, in an aesthetically pleasing manner. It was noted that the agricultural and residential nuisance flows in San Diego .Creek have high nutrient concentrations which would present the proposed facility with a continual algae control problem. 4. The representative from Irvine asked who would maintain the facility if it were developed. . 5. Finally, the engineers asked what would be the eventual fate of the site once it was no longer needed. Prepared by: D. R. Collacott Jerry Sterling Program Manager Associate Civil Engineer r _ i 1 4 1 File To: _ From: kept F /-er d ()-,e- Department of Community T.S. on GPA-79-1 Development can9nQii�'l 3300 Newport Blvd. NewPort Beach, CA 92663 PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR COMMENTS BY xxx (30 days) PROJECT TITLE: General Plan Amendment 79-1 City of Newport Beach - _ w N U a ro PROJECT LOCATION: Various locations throughout the City of Newport Beach. d U m>U z s n o .t Q 3 i b DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES v o m �-- o z am J OZL O rg a - (See Attached) m � n z •�� DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF YOITR AGENCY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT a, 1 ❑ Y c•.- n nwt m�U LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: (USE Al)DTTIOMAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): U l] w a c•� 4 a+ m O rnal� O N e Y N p U CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA OF EXPERTISE/INTEREST: Protection of public from adverse affects of aircraft noise, safety of aircraft operations, and promotion of air commerce. - LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS (USE ADDITIMAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): w 1. Incompatible land use (including use of severely noise impacted areas for residential purposes). oc ¢ 2. Increased demands for air passenger services resulting from use of alternatives a that permit increases in population. 3. Increased demands for general aviation facitilities resulting from the use of alternatives. , cc � w CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE Shirli A. Reithard Planner 833-1505 DATE MAILED BY DATE RECEIVED BY P,ESPDN- 0:1TE RECEIVED BY DATE RESPONSE LEAD AGENCY SIDLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE I1*:TERESTED .PARTY RECEIVED BY Ti LEAD AGENCY RECEIVED AUG151979b crrr UP 7 1 3 1979 Neww..l _Ac TlU❑ CALIF. G31/C.ALpm.Dbblon `\/ ea.vp Of rouwno4 r. K •I ♦- 'R..G F .ua tip '.VS xf w ii�SYr.:, /e�"`,t`I'i 9r Y yp]� ,y `�. �p�p� r.v' �t •�1.. s."jtt}pin'{i ��p/i� W �� 5.M1' YJ �7 6Y . Ni t�. Y -`-1,HgF�I.�. 2941 Alton Avenue • Irvine, California • Telephone (714) 556.4900 Mailing Address: Post Office Box 19535 • Irvine, California 3 August 14, 1979 Mr. Fred Tallrico Environmental Impact Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 1- Re: General Plan Amendment 79-1 ' Dear Mr. Tallrico, This is to acknowledge receipt and review of the proposed General Plan Amendment, and to advise that a portion of Area 3 - San Diego Creek and all of Area 4 - North Ford parcels are within the boundaries of the Irvine Unified School District. Due to the locations these areas are physically isolated parcels unsuitable for residential uses. Our school planning philosophy is to provide neighborhood elementary schools. Depending upon the type of residential development the number of students that could be anticipated would not be sufficient to generate a neighbor- hood school . Therefore, all students would have to be bussed over heavily traveled and substandard arterial highways with continuing fiscal impact on the Districts operating funds, to schools that were not planned to house students from outside of their own neighborhood attendance areas. In light of these findings we are unalterably opposed to any residential developments that would impact on the District. Very truly yours, David E. King Director, Facilities Planning and Development DEK/mb cc: Monica Florian, The Irvine Company . E•• 2..8 B i r TlC ' September 6, 1979 i Craig Bluell i Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Calif 92663 Dear Craig, We appreciate this opportunity to review and comment on Newport Beach's proposed General Plan Amendment 79-1. Based on the information which you sent, • we: understand .that, in ;evhry case, i the proposed alternatives would reduce the amount of development which would occur under the existing General .Plan designations. On :Sites 1-8., the alternatives.�include .20% and 50%, ueductions in commerical''and/or industrial square footage. We would anticipate that such reductions would also decrease the employment-related i housing demand in the area. Since part of this demand...*ould be from households in the low and moderate income ranges, and since_ there is an existing shortage of lower cost housing in the area, a reduction in housing demand would ease this shortage. Reducing the number of jobs would also reduce the trafftc,�daused-Ahy commuting and the air pollution which results. i The alternatives also include a commercial/residential mix in which land left .vacant by the .reduction in commercial development would be used for housing. We would encourage a mixture of residential ' and commercial uses which would provide housing in closer proximity to jobs. We would suggest that the housing units be built at a density which would offer potential for more affordable units . ($60, 000-$80,000) . This may mean densities higher than proposed in the amendment. We recognize that this represents an increase in the development intensity. However, the net result may be less traffic, congestion, and air pollution if more people have the opportunity to live closer to their jobs . We would also suggest that the City of Newport Beach consider a requirement that a portion .of the residential units constructed on these sites be available at prices or rents affordable to low �and::moderate income households. Site #2 includes a "Park and Ride" facility as an alternative. This would provide a much needed service to employees who work in the ' Irvine Industrial Complex. GO 17200 . .ihur;:e 11cwd. (,r:r Box 195 5, trvu^e, C•i,1" , 9 713 1,14/754.3600 LX--2R Mmod Letter to Newport Beach General Plan Amendment 79-1 ' Page Two Site #3 includes a desilting basin as one of the alternatives. The City of Irvine recognizes that a reduction in sedimentation in Newport Bach Bay is an important need. NIWA has given high , priority to a study of alternative facilities to reduce sedimenta- ' tion. They have identified Site #3 as one possible location for a desilting basin if this type of -facility is selected. We would encourage the City of Newport Beach to restrict development of this site untial a determin ation is made as to whether or not a desilting basin is appropriate. We would appreciate an opportunity to make further comments once more detailed information is available on these items. it is our understanding that your staff has not yet made a determination if the amendment warrants an EIR. Once that determination is made, we would like copies of the determination and the draft EIR if one is required. It would be most helpful to have an analysis of the impacts associated with each of the alternatives, copies••of the staff repotts :sent to the Planning Commission and the City Council. We would also appreciate it if you would forward PP y these comments to the Planning Commission and the City Council. _ r With best regards, Pam Sheldon, Senior Planner General Plan Section PJS:ps cc: Filer -General Plan Consistency i ' f 1 ;.i.i � s. G��•. G1S''�ycP sc ep tember 12, 1979 '• `r`f` �f�) t;5ti Gi` Epp: Paul Balalis, Planning COmmiS5lUriE:r. . rn;Ff f c FIMM: mayor Ryckoff FILE c_®py no INOT RFfhOVC - I would like to give you sortie consents relative to Gener-1 Plan considerations in partial resporese to The Irvine Com any's letter of September 10, 1979. You are not limited to the fiva alternatives listed in your zaaterial, and if some other alternativa appears desirable, I believe you can submit it. Y do not believe it has been demonstrated that . projected traffic and the road system in the Circulation Element are compatible. As I understand it, some intersections have an I .C.U. over .90 under any contemplated combination of improvemen•ts. Some of the improvements even so are not within the, control of. developers or the City, and it doesn't seen that this Cityshsl � gamble very heavily by permitting development that would' e ou impact our street system under such conditions. The Irvine 'Company letter indicates that no basis .for the 50. percent land use reductions have been identified other than traffic, There are two other considerations that come to mind. First, the Airport. I believe it is mandatory that we not permit development causing significant. increased Airport demand at a time when we are trying to prevent Airport expansion. Further, as to commercial and industrial cl development, our General Plan Policy early calls for maintaining the residential character of Newport Beach. Since we already are very heavy in commercial and industrial development in relation to some other cities, there appears no necessity to further build the• G•ornmercia and industrial base. Alternately, to comply with the present General Plan, it is my thought that substantial reduction in the intensity of commercial and industrial would be appropriate. I am some:4ihat concerned that a change in use might result in the coed for i E: [:R. t Alopefully, an' E.I.R. can be avoided because of the cost and i.mt: involved. i The Irvine Company indicates that residential reductions would virtual. preclude affordable housing. The City Attorney adviser; that as of now, - there is no requirement that we provide affordable housing . Further, the City is on record in opposition to the L.C.P. including Vage, Two ch regU.lrFift': trrr I realize: th:--re are dl..rieY:•:i: ' point.+ of View- on affordable hoilaingj but In Tiy opinion, it is i?;ilr1l?%o(7X.1at;:S 3.11 a city with the lan, va'•.'ces th-lt prevail here, Fucthrr, I fii.rtzly b_ilieve that if it e:-re put to public vote, there wolllel ha very little support for affordable housizlg. Irk the past, a Vegative Declaration has sufficed :in cases oz" , dowiliz oning. The (attorney advises he feels tI'li, caoulct apply to General Plan dcvmzonirag. Be indicates the odds change sa. ^w;lilt if there is. a change in land' use, such as from industrial to residential I suspect we could quite well demonstrate that such a change is 1 basest on reduced traffic and Airport impacts' ~- depending on the figures; after all, the object is in any case to reduce these impacts PAUL RXCKOFF Mayor PR:jmb Langaonwison Architects Robert E.Langdon Jr.AIA Ernest C.Wilson Jr.AIA MansMumperAIA Robert S.Kraft AIA 3990 Westerly Place,Suite 200,P.O.Box 2440 Newport Beach,California 92663.7141833.9193 ' September 20, 1979 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California rSubje4i Koll Center Newport General Plan Amendment 79-1 Dear Commissioners: On behalf of Aetna Life Insurance Company, we request that Koll Center Newport be exenmpted from General Plan Amendment No. 79-1 and be dealt with through the Phasing Plan Process (Amendment 514) . Consistent.with Amrendment 514, Koll/Aetna has authorized the preparation of the following, which is scheduled to come before the Planning Commission in December. 1. Use Permit Application for a 500-room Hyatt Hotel. 2. Phasing Plan Application for the remaining Koll/Aetna development. 3. Supplerental EIR addressing the proposed uses, as well as the alternate uses currently-Under consideration by the Planning Commission. rThe Irvine 'Ccmpany, using the same consultants contracted for by the City, has authorized the preparation of a supplemental EIR and Phasing Plan that will cone before the Planning Commission concurrently with the Koll/Aetna applications. . If the Planning Commission does not choose to exempt Koll Center Newport from the General Plan Amendment, then the attached four (4) exhibits are intended to provide data and acceptable alternatives.'for the reduction of the remaining allowable develcgrent. Alternate Number 1 on Exhibit C reduces the current remaining allowable by 24%. { Langdon&Wilson Architects C City of Newport Beach Septenber 20, 1979 Page Two A more equitable approach, since some owners have,developed since October 1, 1978 and sare have not, is to allow each property owner the 30% and only apply a reduction to the 70%. Ibis is illustrated by , -k Alternate N=ber 2 on Exhibit C. Exhibit A, B and D are for your reference and are consistent with the building areas in AmerATent 514. Again, we request that Roll Center Newport be exempted from General Plan Amendment 79-1. Sincerely, ` I ANGDM a PTZZMf AM11TECPB On Behalf of Aetna Life Insurance Company cc: Mr. Richard Hogan, Director of Co mwnity Development Mr. Tim Strader, The Roll ampany La II*gdonyD1{9 V A4soil 0 I Architects Robert E.Langdon Jr.AIA Ernest C.WilsonJr.AIA Hans Mumper AIA Robert S.KraftAIA ' 3990 Westerly Place,Suite 200,P.O.Box 2440 Newport Beach,California 92663.714/833.9193 September 25, 1979 Mr. Robert Lenard ' Advanced Planning Administrator Deparhnent of Catmunity Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California Reference: Koll Center Newport/General Plan Amendment 79-1 ,Dear Bob: ' Sorry for the confusion last Thursday at the Planning Commission hearing. Hopefully the following information will clarify our understanding of Amendment 514 as it relates to the 9-20-79 staff development summary for Koll Center Newport. Amendment 514 contains the following building areas as they relate to October 1, 1978. a. Existing or under Construction = 1,651,757 s.f. ._ (1) b. Additional Allowable Development = 1,058,863 Total 2,710,620 s.f. 1 + Hotel by Use Permit The staff's and Langdon & Wilson's 9-20-79 summary consists of the following building, areas that relate to the same footages contained in Amendment 514, a. Existing (October 1, 1978) 1,651,757 s.f. (1) b. Developed since October 1, 1978 189,773 (1) (2) c. Remaining to be developed 869,090 Total 2r710,620 s.f. + Hotel by Use Permit (1) b + c = 1,058,863 s.f. (2)• Within the remaining to be developed is 141,021 s.f. of building area that is permitted by Amendment 514 but is allocated by the P.C. Text to building sites that have been fully developed. Therefore, the footage is still on the books but could only be utilized by one of the following: 114 3a Architects �N September 25, 1979 Page Two 1. substantial alteration or removal of existing structures. 2. Transfer of all or part of the footage to another site. This can only be achieved by a P.C:'Text Amendment which would require Planning Commission and City Council Approval. We hope that this analysis will clarify the misunderstanding that, occurxed last Thursday night. If the staff does not agree with the content of this letter, then please let us know so that we can resolve this issue prior to the next Planning Commission hearing on September 27th. ' Sincerely, Patrick Allen Associate Partner 1 PA/mre cc: Don Koll t Ev Davis Tim Strader Ernie Wilson IX3 LATHAM & WATKINS ATTORNEYS AT LAW I 660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE.SUITE 1400 , FAYL e.wATe1N5 peas-la»1 NEWPRT BEACH.CALIFORNIA 92660 LOS ANGELES OFFICC O GANA LATHAM I1e96-19741 555 SOUTH FLOWER STREET , TELEPHONE (714) 752-9100 LATHWAT LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90071 CABLE A00RC55 TWC 910321-3733 September 20 , 1979 TELEPHONE(213)485.1234 ' TCLCCOPIER(714) 040.0533 WASHINGTON OFFICE 1333 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVC..N.W..SUITE 1200 WASHINGTON,0.C.20035 Planning Commission TELEPHONE (202) 028.4400 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: Land Use Alternatives Proposed in Connection with ' General Plan Amendment 79-1 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission: By letter to the Planning Commission dated September 6 , 1979, The Irvine Company expressed its concern that the require- ments and concerns of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") were not being adequately considered in the current General Plan review process . This letter is intended to restate and amplify that concern. The Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") is probably the single most important informational document to be used by the public and decisionmakers in their deliberations on a project, particularly one as comprehensive and far-reaching as a broad General Plan amendment. It is imperative that the decisionmakers at each level of the governmental process acquire the best and j most complete information available on environmental, sociological and economic issues presented.- Lacking this basic information, any recommendation or action taken can only be an uninformed one, and one which may not be in the best interests of the residents •- and property owners in Newport Beach and in the surrounding communities. As expressed in the CEQA Guidelines , "environmental documents should be prepared as early as feasible in the planning process to enable environmental considerations to influence pro- ject Rrogram and design." Section 15013 . They also point out that 'these steps of analysis and evaluation (required by CEQA) must be completed prior to approval of the project." Section 15011.6 . The CEQA Guidelines expressly include a wide variety of policy considerations underscoring the importance of CEQA re- quirements . While all are important, several have particular ) I\i -3'? .. LQTHAM & WATKINS .� Planning Commission September 20, 1979 Page Two , relation to the project under consideration. For example, one of ,the identified purposes of an EIR "is to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has in fact analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action." Section 15011.5(d) . More importantly,, it is the policy of CEQA to "require governmental agencies at all levels to consider qualitative factors as well as economic and tech- nical factors and long-term benefits and costs, in addition to short-term benefits and costs . " Section 10511(g) . Finally, the CEQA Guidelines declare that "while CEQA requires that major consideration be given to preventing environmental damage, it is recognized that public agencies have obligations to balance other public objectives, including economic and social factors in determining whether and how a project should be approved." Section 15012. These policy considerations, implemented through CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines , are nowhere more important than when an extensive General .Plan revision constitutes the "project-." A General Plan has been termed "a constitution for all future developments within the ci•ty." "O'Loane v. O'Rourke, 231 Cal. App. 2d 774, 782(1965) . ,As the c ty s land use constitution" , it is of paramount importance that its policies reflect a well- considered ' evaluation of not merely environmental effects , , but economic and social effects as well. "Underlying the entire concept of zoning is the assumption that zoning can be a vital tool for maintaining a civilized form of existence only if we employ the insights and the learning of the philosopher, the city planner, the economist, the sociologist, the public health expert and all the other professions concerned with urban problems . 9c 9e 9c �Y . It is ,the insurance that the public welfare is being served and that zoning does not become nothing more than just a Gallup poll. The role of these experts must be more than that , '• LATHAM & WATKINS ' Planning Commission September 20, 1979 Page Three ' . of giving rationalizations for actions previously decided upon or already carried out. In recent years , many experts on land use •problems have expressed the pessimistic view that the task of bringing about a rational allocation of land use in an ever more urbanized America will prove ' impossible. But of one thing, we may all be certain. The difficulties involved in developing rational schemes of land use controls become in- separable when zoning or changes in zoning are ' followed rather than preceded by study and con- sideration." Udell v. Haas, 21 N.Y. 2d 463, 469-270, 288 N.Y.S. 2d 888, 893=895 , 235 N.E. 2d 897, 900-901(N.Y. 1968) . Turning to the specific requirements of CEQA, the Guidelines state that "if any aspects of the� project, either, individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect is adverse or beneficial, then an EIR must be prepared. " Section 1508'0. In fact, the CEQA Guidelines go on to say that "an EIR should be prepared when there is a serious public controversy concerning the environmental effects of a project." Section 15084(c) . The City has begun an Initial Study on the proposed ' General Plan alternatives . The individual "Site Analyses" for the sites involved, prepared by the City Staff, identifies a minimum of 24 and maximum of 45 potentially significant environmental effects per site flowing from the various altern- ._ ' atives under consideration. Moreover, that analysis is a con- servative one. For example, for the residential alternatives , the site analyses fail to recognize that with the population ' growth of residential development, demands on local commerce• will increase, and consequently so will the demand for parking facilities [Checklist item 13(b) ] . Similarly, with respect to yet another reduction in commercial density. over that accomplished in 1978, the short-term benefits , to the extent there are any, may be offset by the long-term effects of diverting such devel- opment to environmentally more sensitive areas of the South Orange County region [Checklist item 21(b) ] . Notwithstanding this conservatism, of the four potential effects identified in the CEQA Guidelines as mandating a finding of significance and prep- aration of an EIR, three have been consistently listed in the Initial Study as flowing from the contemplated General Plan amend- ments [Checklist items 21(a) , (b) and (c) ] . • I � LITHAN & WATKINS Planning Commission September 20, 1979 Page Four ' Of particular importance to this process is the cumulative , effect of the proposed land use change for the sixteen sites under consideration. On a site by site basis , the potentially adverse environmental effects of the proposed alternatives . identified in the Initial Study are significant. When those , effects are amplified over sixteen sites , the cumulative effect is only heightened. A further consideration mandated by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines is of the "secondary effects" of any contemplated change to the General Plan. The Guidelines give an example , of what is meant by "secondary effects ." "Primary consequences are immediately related to the project (the construction of a new treatment plant may facilitate population growth in a particular area) , while secondary consequences are related more, to primary consequences than to the project itself (an impact upon the resource base, including land, air, water and energy use of the area in question may result from the population growth.)" Section 15081(b).. The CEQA Guidelines specify that "an EIR on projects such as the . . amendment of . . . a local general plan should focus ' on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from the" project. Section 15147(b) . Secondary effects on housing availability for all economic segments of the community, , employment availability and location, population and demographic patterns, and the economic and social well-being of the populace should be considered. , In summary, it is critical that the decisionmakers recognize at the earliest available opportunity, and prior to any commitment by the Planning Commission -to any particular , alternative to the present land use designations of the General Plan for the sixteen sites involved, that potentially significant environmental, economic and social consequences must be studied ' in order to reach a proper decision or make an informed recommend- ation. The City' s own Initial Study identifies the alternatives under consideration as involving not just a substantial number of , potential adverse consequences , but at least three of the four potential consequences- that mandate an EIR. Moreover, given the overall importance of the General Plan, the need for professional and exhaustive analysis of environmental, economic and social , consequences, both primary and secondary, at the formative stages is imperative. 1�- V . LATHAM & WATKINS ' Planning Commission September 20, 1979 Page Five ' As a final point, it should be pointed out that municipal planning should seek to minimize injury to the legitimate interests of private property owners as well as to maximize the benefits to the community. As stated by the courts , "There is little good in protecting the environment for the sake of a society which fails to insist on fair treatment of its citizens ." Ralev v. California Tahoe Regional Planning A enc , 68 Ca1.App.3d 965 , 9 977 . An early and complete environmental, social and economic assessment is essential to achieving the required balance . Very truly yours , Robert K. Break ' of LATHAM & WATKINS 5 550.Newport Center Drive,P.O. Box-I -++ Newport Beach,California 92663 L (714) 644v011 0 \ RF September 10, 1979 • � fpll � N oR oF1911911� 9 Gc,F�cy,��:.� -Planning Commission City of Newport Beach �� 3300 Newport Boulevard ' Newport Beach, California 92663 SUBJECT: Land Use Alternatives Proposed in Connection with General Plan Amendment 79-1 r . Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission: The Irvine Company has reviewed the suggested land use alternatives for the major undeveloped parcels in the City. As a landowner having an interest in all but one of the development sites under consideration, we wish to express a number of concerns which we, believe should be addressed by the Planning Commission in its review of this matter. With respect to the proposals before you, the City Council 's motion of , November 27, 1978, which initiated the Circulation Element Review, called for an evaluation of five land use alternatives for each parcel , ranging from the existing General Plan designation to low density residential, for the primary purpose of determining effects on traffic. In addition to traffic considera- tions, the City Council directed that land use alternatives be evaluated in terms of nine other criteria including openness of vista or view, city image, cost-benefit ratio, private property rights, public rights, sewer capacity, energy requirements, implications for airport, and social acceptance. In response to the traffic issue we would point out that recent information from the City's traffic model demonstrates that the planned road system will handle the level of development contemplated by the current General Plan at buildout. Yet, in the name of traffic concerns, some of the alternatives presented call for substantial reductions in allowable development, or call r for changes in land use which may not be in the interest of good community planning. 'It is our position that completion of the Corona del Mar Freeway plus developer-funded road projects will substantially improve those inter- ' sections which are currently regarded as critical. We believe the current General Plan level of development can be supported in terms of traffic effects, and in terms of the criteria established by the , City Council for the Circulation Element Review. We respectfully request ( that the Planning Commission, in forwarding any recommendations to the City Council , include the existing General Plan as one alternative Which is 2_ Planning Commission Page 2 ' consistent with the intent of the Circulation Element Review. The substan- tial reductions in intensity of development incorporated into the General Plan through General Plan Amendment 78-2 should, in our view, be acknowledged. To our knowledge, no adequate assessment has been made of the effects on the City of the suggested land use alternatives. Land use reductions of up to 50% are not warranted soley on the basis of traffic considerations, and yet no other basis for this magnitude of reduction has been identified. In ' response to the proposed commercial/industrial reductions, it should be pointed out that there is a shortage of available space for locally estab- ' lished, businesses and firms. Allowing for continued commercial development will provide for the service needs of the community and prevent existing firms from having to seek expansion space outside the city. In addition, no examination has been made of phasing of development in lieu of reductions or ' changes of use. Since the circulation system will be adequate for develop- Tent ,proposed under the existing General Plan, it seems that the real problem is the phasing of new construction with road improvements, rather than the intensity or type of development allowed by the General Plan. Regarding reductions in residential density, some of the suggested alterna- tives would result in densities less than 4 DU's per buildable acre. The Planning Commission should be aware that such reductions would virtually preclude affordable housing on any of the undeveloped parcels, and substan- tially interfere with the City's ability to comply with the Coastal Act and the State Housing Element Regulations. With respect to the California Environmental Quality Act, it is our under- standing that no determination has 'been made by the City as to whether an Environmental I-mpact Report is required for General Plan Amendment 79-1. Given the substantial nature of the proposed changes in land use, and the uncertainty regarding regional impacts and effects on the human environment, we believe that a full E.I.R. is required by CEQA and should be prepared and circulated for comment prior to Planning Commission action on the amendment. Indeed, the screencheck Initial Study prepared for this amendment indicates the possibility of significant environmental impacts for virtually every ' alternative to the existing General Plan under consideration. The following environmental and other effects, as a minimum, should be studied: ' A. Density reduction in current allowable uses: 1. , The impact on the ability of the City to obtain needed public improvements by dedications. 2. The regional impacts of creating pressures to increase development densities in neighboring communities. 3. Impact on future growth patterns in the region. 4. Fiscal impact on the City. Planning Commission Page 3 B. Conversion to residential : 1. Impacts on sewage facilities. 2. Impacts on fuel, water, or energy consumption. 3. The impact on traffic flow patterns. ' 4. Erosion and siltation impacts. 5. Changes in the pattern, scale or character of the region. 6. The impacts on demands for municipal services such as police, fire, schools, parks and beaches. 7 Busing impacts. 8. Potential impacts from disrupting the balance between residences and , employment, shopping and recreation centers. 9. Noise impacts from existing and planned roadways. 10. Air quality impacts. C. Conversion to Open Space. 1. Impacts on City revenues. , 2. Relationship to local coastal program. We strongly urge a comprehensive environmental impact study, addressing at least the above listed effects in order to assure that the General Pram amendment process fully meets the requirements of law. A General Plan that ignores CEQA provisions simply cannot be depended upon as a community growth management mechanism. , In conclusion, The Irvine Company holds the position that the need for large reductions in allowable development and/or changes of land use has not been , demonstrated, and that such changes would be damaging to us as the major affected property owner. Further, we believe that such proposals may not be in the best interest of the City from the standpoint of community design. Our preliminary comments on the proposed alternatives, on a site by site basis, using the criteria established by the City Council for the Circulation Element Review, are attached for the Planning Commission's reference. We appreciate the opportunity to comment and strongly urge the Planning , Commision's consideration of our views on this matter. Sinceregly, l Robert Shelton, Vice President r Government Relations Attachment ' ` RS:DO:lk ! qq 1. KOLL CENTER OFFICE SITE C ' IRVINE COMPANY POSITION The Irvine Company requests no change to either the "Administrative Professional and ' Financial Commercial" designation or the 379,800 sq. ft. allowed for Office Site C under the existing zoning. ' DISCUSSION The Irvine Company owns a 19-acre parcel in Koll Center Newport, located at the corner ' of Campus and MacArthur. The P-C text allows a total of 179,800 sq. ft* of office development, with 20,000 sq. ft. existing at present. This parcel is subject to the. 30R/70Y.• rule, and a traffic phasing plan will be submitted in the near future. This area has been master-planned for office/commercial/industrial uses, and the subject site can accomodate the amount of development allowed by current regulations. Regarding possible alternatives, we feel this site is unsuitable for residential development due to noise impacts, lack of residential support facilities, and the nature of surrounding development. Neither' a reduction in intensity, nor a change of use is warranted by available information relating to traffic or other impacts. CONFORMANCE WITH CITY CRITERIA: 1. Traffic Considerations: Major arterial improvements have already been installed as part of Koll Center. The required phasing plan for this site will assure that develop- ment does not occur before the circulation system will be adequate to handle projected �. traffic. 2. Openness of Vista or View: No views from scenic highways or residential uses will be affected by the allowed development. 3. City Image: The basic character of this area was established in the early 1970's with the development of the Newport Place and Koll Center P-C's. Design and land- scaping would reinforce quality image of adjacent development. 4. Cost/Benefit Ratio: The allowed development will not require additional public .facilities, and is expected to generate a surplus of revenues vs. costs on the basis of recent studies. ' 5. Private Property Rights: The development of this P-C has proceeded in reliance on adopted City plans and zoning. The Irvine Company feels the City made a commitment to except 30% of this development, with 70% subject to further City approval. ' ' 6. Public Rights: The allowed development does not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare. Potential traffic impacts will be handled through City approval of a traffic phasing plan. No fiscal burden to the public is involved. 7. Sewer Capcity: Sanitation District No. 7 can provide service for the General Plan level of development, consistent with its Master Plan. ' 8. Energy Requirements: Energy systems infrastructure is adequate for allowed develop- ment. ' 9. Implications for Airport: No information is available to assess the precise impact on airport usage. Any increase due to this development would not be measurable. Air transportation demand is growing in the County as a whole, and needs to be addressed on a regional basis. T Lf� KOLL CENTER OFFICE SITE C - CONTINUED r 10. Social Acceptance: This development would provide for needs of businesses, including , locally based firms, for expansion space. This development would furnish employment opportunity close to residential areas of the City, reducing commuting distance, energy consumption, and vehicle related pollutants. ' r. 1 r �: r . r r r . r . r r r r 17 �1 , J2. .TAMBOREE MACARTHUR SITE IRVINE COMPANY POSITION ' We request that no change be made to the "Administrative Proffessional and Financial Commerical", and, "Retail and Service Commerical" designations: DISCUSSION This 6-acre parcel is currently designated for a combination of retail and office uses. Since the property is in the "U" District, no limit on allowable development has been established. The Irvine Company envisions a .small-scale commercial support development occuring on this site, consisting perhaps of a restaurant and small shops or professional offices. This parcel would be among the last commercial parcels scheduled for develop- ment by The Irvine Company in Newport Beach. We feel the site would not be well suited for any of the residential alternatives suggested due to the substantial noise and visual impacts from adjacent roads and the freeway. Regarding a possible park and ride facility the site is of insufficient size to accomodate that use in an economi- cally feasible manner. No change in designation is warranted. CONFORMANCE WITH CITY CRITERIA 1. Traffic Considerations: Adjacent roadways can be expected to accomodate the small amount of traffic which might result from development here.. ' 2. Openness of Vista or View: No public views or scenic highways would be affected by development of this site. 3. City Image: No impact on City image would occur. Development would be in-filling of an already developed commercial and industrial area. 4.• Cost/Benefit Ratio: No measurable impact on City finances expected. Restaurant use would project a surplus to City. 5. Private Property Rights: Types of uses proposed are consistent with the City's adopted General Plan. 6. Public Rights: No public rights would be affected by development of this site. 1 The City retains right of approval over any development plans proposed. 7. Sewer Capacity: Sanitation District No. 7 can provide service , consistent with 1 its Master Plan. 8. Energy 'Requirements: No measurable impact on energy supplies would result from development of this site. Infrastructure is readily available. 1 9. Implication for Airport: Project would provide services to existing development, with no effect on airport usage. 10. Social Acceptance: Development would provide services and possibly goods for City residents and people working in area. l• i 3. SAN DIEGO CREEK SITES ' ( IRVINE COMPANY POSITION No change to the "Retail and Service Commercial" and "General Industry" designations is warranted. ' DISCUSSION Approximately 12-acres north of San Diego Creek is designated for retail use. The i Irvine Comapny has done no detailed planning for this site, but motel and restaurant uses have been discussed with the City in the past. The southerly 47-acre portion is shown as industrial on the current General Plan. This area has been discussed as the site for a deailting basin. No planning or market studies have been ,performed. Development would not be contemplated for several years. In any case residential ; uses are not practical here due to freeway noise impacts and lack of school facilities. No change to the designations is requested at this time pending a full evaluation of the suitability of this site as a deailting basin. CONFORMANCE WITH CITY CRITERIA i 1. Traffic Considerations: The preliminary results of the City's traffic model show ' that the planned road system could accommodate industrial or commercial develop- ment here. A traffic phasing plan would be prepared in any case prior to City approval of development plans. 2. Openness of Vista or View: No substantial impact on public view would be expected. Motel development on the northerly site could afford views of the Ecological Reserve. , 1 3. City Image: Architectural design and landscape treatment would be up to quality standards required by City in review of proposed development. 4. Cost/Benefit Ratio: Motel and restaurant development would generate a substantial surplus to the City. Recent studies for projects in this area indicate industrial use would generate a modest surplus. _ 5. Private Property Rights: The Irvine Company is requesting a reasonable economic use of its property. Due to adverse planning factors associated with residential ' use, the current use designation can be supported as a reasonable allowance. 6. Public Rights: Development would be designed to mitigate any potential effects on the citizens or environment of Newport Beach in terms of traffic or other , impacts. 7. Sewer Capacity: Irvine Ranch Water District and Sanitation District No. 7 can provide service in accordance with their Master .Plans. g. Energy Requirements: Lower intensity development contemplated would not affect energy supplies or provision of infrastructure. 9. Implications for Airport: No information is available to allow a precise assess- ment. Regional solutions to the airport problem are required whether or not this property develops. F 10. Social Acceptance: Uses consistent with the existing General Plan would provide commercial services for residents and visitors to the Ecological Reserve, and provide employment opportunities accessible to residential areas. i 4. NORTH FORD P-C IRVINE COMPANY POSITION The Irvine Company urges that no change be made to the industrial, office or commercial designations, and that no reductions be made in the 770,740 sq. ft. of additional development allowed under the Planned Community Text. i DISCUSSION The North Ford Planned Community is comprised of office, light industrial, and business support uses. Approximately 130,000 sq. ft. are existing. On the remaining vacant land, the Planning Commission recommended approval on August 9, 1979 of roughley 202,000 sq. ft. under the 30% rule, with the remaining 70% subject to City approval of a traffic phasing plan. This general area has been zoned and developed industrially since 1958. The remaining development is intended as a natural ex- tension of the existing pattern of land use. Regarding low-density residential alternatives, we do not believe the site provides a desirable residential environ- ment due to noise impacts from existing roads and the future- Corona del Mar free- way, and due to geographic isolation and lack of support facilities such as schools and shopping. The planned industrial and business support uses will be among the lowest intensity developments in the City. The North Ford E.I.R. in our view ' adequately addresses every concern expressed regarding this development. We would strongly urge that no change in either the land use designation or intensity of development be enacted. ' CONFORMANCE WITH CITY CRITERIA 1. Traffic Considerations: The proposed project does not cause an unsatisfactory level of service at any of the intersections studied. All future development will be phased in accordance with a plan to be approved by the City. Sub- stantial road improvements will be' installed by the developer on or adjacent to the site. 2. Openness of Vista or View: The streets within the project are designed to permit views out over the' proposed buildings. No scenic highway or public view would ' be affected. -Appearance of the development will be -enhanced by extensive land- scaping and park-like design. ' 3. City Image: The project will reflect the highest quality of architectural design and landscape treatment. This will be a low-profile development consistent with the image of other commercial facilities in the community. ' 4. Cost/Benefit Ratio: The proposed development will generate a surplus of revenue vs, cost to the City. 5. Private Property Rights: The Irvine Company has committed substantial resources to the existing and planned development in reliance -on the City's existing General Plan and zoning. We feel that a change in allowed use or substantial reduction . in intensity would be unfair to us as a property owner, and further is not warranted by available data. 6. Public Rights: The project presents no threats to the public health, safety, ' or welfare. The EIR identifies mitigation measures which address all potential impacts. 7. Sewer Capacity: Irvine Ranch Water District can provide service for General Plan level of development, consistent with its Master Plan. North Ford F-C - CONTINUED 8. Energy Requirements; The EIR indicates that the project would use more electricity ' than residential uses, but consumption of natural gas is lower. Adequate infra- structure for energy systems is available. 9. Implications for Airport: The ,proposed uses are expected to have a minimal impact , on airport usage. Even residential use would generate some demand for air travel. . 10. Social Acceptance: The project as proposed will provide for needs of local business people. Alternative residential uses would be subject to adverse noise conditions and lack of commercial facilities. II 1 6. NEWPORT CENTER 1 IRVINE COMPANY POSITION ' The Irvine Company requests that the current mix of commercial, office and residential uses allowed by the existing General Plan designations be maintained. We strongly support an allowance for future development which includes, in addition to existing development, the following: Office and Medical' 1,447,019 sq. ft. ' Commercial 79,000 sq. ft. Theatre 2,650 seats Residential 339 DU's Civic 10,000 sq. ft. ' DISCUSSION Newport Center includes all the land area bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, MacArthur Boulevard, Coast Highway, and Jamboree Road. In reviewing suggested ' alternatives for this area, The Irvine Company believes it is imperative that the substantial reduction resulting from General Plan Amendment 78-2 -- totaling 616,500 sq. ft. or 28% of future allowable — be acknowledged. • It should be pointed out also that Newport Center was the only commercial area subject to a reduction in development at that time. Our ,basic position is that further reduc- 'tions of 507, 20%,• or whatever figure, cannot- be justified on the basis of any , ' traffic data, environmental assessment or any other information available to the City. In response to suggested residential alternatives, we feel from a planning ' standpoint that none of the vacant sites would be appropriate for the development of low-density residential. This is due to the established pattern of development in Newport Center as an urbanized retail, service, and financial center of ' regional significance. The basic character of this master-planned development was established with the groundbreaking for Fashion Island over 12 years ago. We are of the opinion, however, that high density residential can be supported on certain- sites in Newport Center. High density residential projects would provide ' some advantages such as internalizing vehicle trips within Newport .Center, reversing peak hour directional flow, and providing housing opportunity close to a major employee center in the City. This type of development would necessarily be of ' a clustered, attached or high rise design consistent with the urbanized character of Newport Center and the exceptionally high capital improvement costs for this area. ' In summary, The Irvine Company believes that the use designations and policies incorporated into the adopted General Plan are intended to provide a balance among land uses, and are intended to serve the business community as well as the residential sector. Traffic concerns can be effectively addressed through the ' phasing of new development with the substantial amount of developer-funded road improvements for Newport Center. We respectfully request that no arbitrary reductions ,' or changes of use be enacted. NEWPORT CENTER-CONTINUED ' CONFORMANCE WITH CITY CRITERIA i 1. Traffic Considerations: The City's traffic model study indicates that the ' master-plan road system will handle the current level of development pro- posed for Newport Center. Our traffic engineers concur in this finding, and have pointed out that the completion of the now4unded Corona del Mar , Freeway will have a noticeable beneficial impact on intersections currently regarded as critical. Also, substantial road improvements, as a condition of approval, would be funded by The Irvine Company in connection with the buildout of Newport Center. ' 2. Openness of Vista or View: Any new development will occur in conformance ' with the City''s adopted site plan and height regulations. Public views within the development will be maintained. 3. City Image: The project has been planned -and developed as the .urbanized core , of the City. Thus, the Image and character of this area has already been established. Development according to the 'existing General Plan will not affect the basic character of Newport Center or any other part of the City. , Arbitrary modifications would detract from Newport Center as a commercial and office center of the first order. 4. Cost/Benefit Ratio: The development is projected to generate a surplus of revenues vs. City coats of providing services. No new City facilities or , programs would be required by this development. 5. Private Property Rights: The Irvine Company has invested substantial resources ' in terms of planning and physical infrastructure. We would assert that our property rights include the right to complete this planned development in an order fashion, subject to reasonable conditions of approval imposed by the City. 6. Public Rights: Proposed development will proceed subject to mitigation - measures designed to protect the public welfare, and the physical environment. 7. Sewer Capacity: The amount of development allowed by the existing General , Plan is consistent with the Master Plan of Sanitation District No. 5. Potential short-term capacity constraints will be eliminated by the Bayside Drive , trunk sewer project currently under design. Phasing of development will address any short-term constraints. 7 8. Energy Requirements: Energy systems infrastructure is adequate to serve ' planned development. Existing office developments are now participating in an area-wide energy conservation program. , 9. Implications for Airportr Proposed plans could be expected to generate demand for air-travel in the County, but no information is available at this time to enable an accurate assessment. Facilities at John Wayne Airport will continue to ' C experience increased demand whether or not development occurs here. Regional solutions are called for. 10. Social Acceptance: The planned development will provide additional opportunities for shopping, employment, services and housing for residents and businesses. Nearly one-fourth of all people employed in Newport Center are currently ' City residents. 7. BAYVIEW LANDING SITE 4 IRVINE COMPANY POSITION No change in the "Recreation and Marine Commercial" and "Medium Density Residential" ' (85 DU's) designations are warranted. DISCUSSION The General Plan 'currently allows tourist commercial uses, with residential as a possible alternate on this parcel of roughly 19 acres. The Irvine Company has indicated an interest in a low intensity. development consisting of restaur- ants, specialty commercial and possibly some attached residences. Regarding suggested alternatives, we believe it is improper to consider an. arbitrary 50% ' or 20% reduction based merely on our previous discussions of a 90,000 sq. ft. development. No development limits have been established through zoning. And' it should be pointed out that even at 90,000 sq. ft. the development would have only one-fifth the intensity allowed in the City's most restrictive commercial ' zone. This site is physically unsuited for low density residential use due to highway noise, topography and configuration of the site. We request that no change in designation be adopted. Appropriate density limits would be imposed ' at the time detailed site plans are submitted for approval by the City. CONFORMANCE WITH CITY CRITERIA ' 1. Traffic Considerations: Major improvements to the intersection of Jamboree Road and Coast Highway would be contributed by the developer. Development would be phased with necessary road improvements, and traffic would be off- peak. ' 2: Openness of Vista or View: Development would occur according to city codes and ' height limits. 3. City Image: Commercial and/or resdiential uses allowed would be compatible with developments of a similar nature in this area. This site by itself would have no impact on overall City image. '4. Cost/Benefit Ratio: Commercial development, particularly restaurant uses, would generally give a surplus to the City. This site is too small to have any measurable impact on City finances. ' 5. Private Property Rights: The Irvine Company would expect to have a reason- able economic use of its property. 6. Public Rights: The public health, safety or welfare would not be impacted by development of this site. Environmental and view resources associated with the bluff would be protected by City regulations and design of project. ' 7. Sewer Capacity: Adequate capacity is expected to be available at the time of construction. This site was accounted for in Sanitation District No. 5 Master Plan. ' 8. Energy Requirements: This site would have no impact on energy supplies. Energy infrastructure is available to serve the site. ' 9. Implications for Airport: No,measurable effects on airport would result. 10. Social Acceptance: Development would provide commercial facilities available to serve residents and visitors to the coastal area. 53 8. CASTAWAYS SITE , IRVINE COMPANY POSITION , We request no change to the "Medium Density Residential" and "Recreation and Marine ' Commercial" designations. The maximum number of dwellings -- 225 on the northerly portion, 100 on the southerly portion -- should remain unchanged. DISCUSSION , The Castaways property is recognized as one of the more prominent of the vacant parcels remaining in the City. The Irvine Company supports the continued designation of this property as a residential site with provision for recreation and marine commercial use on the southerly portion. In reviewing the proposed alternatives, the City should recognize that the residential density on this site was reduced 30% by General Plan Amend-, meat 78-2. Further reductions in density are not warranted by traffic considerations or other environmental concerns which have as yet to be identified. The City's 'adopted bluff ordinance will adequately protect the public's interest in this property. Regard- ing the southerly 5-acre portion, we feel that this is properly a commercial site due to its proximity to major roads and public access to the bay afforded here. We request , that any decision on intensity of commercial development here be deferred until further planning studies of potential uses can be completed. CONFORMANCE WITH CITY CRITERIA 1. Traffic Considerations: Assuming completion of the bridge, the proposed development will not affect critical intersections. Significant developer-funded improvements ' will be installed on Dover Drive. 2. -Openness of Vista or View: The City's bluff ordinance will assure protection of public access and view potential along the bluffs. 3. City Image: Residential and commercial development will occur in conformance with ' high standards of design established for this type of use. •1 4. Cost/Benefit Ratio: Nigh land and improvement values should generate a modest surplus' to the City, with no substantial additional public facilities required. 5. Private Property Rights: The Irvine Company requests a reasonable level of developmenj consistent with City policies and regulations. 6. Public Rights: Public interests in the development •of this property will be addressed through the preparation of an E.I.R. prior to approval by the City. 7. Sewer Capacity: Development allowed on this site is in conformance with the master , plan for Sanitiation District No. 6. 8. Energy Requirements: Energy infrastructure will be available to serve development. ' 9. Implications for Airport: No measurable impact from this development would be expected.. 10. Social Acceptance: This project would provide commercial and residential uses consistent with design standards established by the City. Public parks, trails, and viewpoints would be provided along the bluffs. , iK- 9. WESTBAY SITE IRVINE COMPANY POSITION 1 No change in the "Medium Density Residential" designation or allowance of 348 DU's is warranted. DISCUSSION ' The density on this site was reduced 18% by General Plan Amendement 78-2. The Irvine Company holds that the current designation and dwelling unit allowance are reasonable and should remain unchanged. Environmental concerns associated with this site, primarily due to the proximity of the Ecological Reserve, will be addressed, and approriate ' mitigation proposed through the preparation of an E.I.R. The extreme low density alternative of 106 DU's suggested, would not grant us reasonable economic use of the land. This property, like other vacant parcels owned by The Irvine Company, is available for public acquisition at fair market value. CONFORMANCE WITH CITY CRITERIA ' 1. Traffic Considerations: Adequate roadway capacity is expected to be available for this project. 2.• Openness of Vista or View: The design of development and the City's bluff ordinance will maintain public views. 3. City Image: Residential development will be in conformance with design standards established by City. 4. Cost/Benefit Ratio: The proposal is expected to have a modest positive impact on City finances. 5. Private Property Rights: The density of the project has been reduced previously. ' The current allowance provides a reasonable use of the land. 6. Public Rights: Public interests in the property will be dealt with through the E.I.R. process. 7. Sewer Capacity: The amount of development is consistent with the master plan for San— itation District No. 6. ' 8. Energy Requirements: Energy infrastructure will be available to serve this site. 9. Implications for Airport: Proposed development will have no measurable impact on airport usage. 10. Social Acceptance: This project will be in conformance with community standards- for ' residential uses. Significant public open space and public access will be dedicated as a result of this project. rJ� 10. EASTBLUFF REMNANT ' C IRVINE COMPANY POSITION No change to the "Medium Density Residential" designation or to the existing dwelling unit limit of 42 is warranted. DISCUSSION This parcel was reduced in density by 50% as ,a result of General Plan Amendment 78-2. The Irvine Company feels that the,need for further reduction has not been substantiated, particularly in view of the small size of the parcel. Consistent with previous Irvine Company policy, this parcel would be available for public acquisition at fair market value. CONFORMANCE WITH CITY CRITERIA , 1. Traffic Considerations: No critical intersection or roadway would be adversely ' affected. 2. Openness of Vista or View: Design treatment approved by City would assure adequate setback from bluff. 3. City Image: Existing allowable development would be substantially lower in , density than adjacent development in the Bluffs. This is compatible with existing residential character. 4. Cost/Benefit Ratio: Land and improvement value would be expected to generate a surplus to the City. Due to the size of parcel, effects would not be measurable. 5. Private Property Rights: The property rights of The Irvine Company have already been substantially changed through General Plan Amendment 78-2. 6. Public Rights: Development of this site would have no impact on the general public. ' 7. Sewer Capacity: This project, by virtue of its small size, would pose no capacity problem. 8. Energy Requirements: No problems in terms of energy would be expected. 9. Implications for Airport: No effect. 10. Social Acceptance: This type of development would be compatible with other residential areas. 1 11. NEWPORTER NORTH SITE IRVINE COMPANY POSITION The Irvine Company requests that the existing "Medium Density Residential" designation and dwelling-unit limit of 440 be maintained. ' DISCUSSION This site has been planned for development as a residential project for many years. The Irvine Company feels the residential designation and dwelling unit allowance which currently exists should be upheld in the absence of any traffic data or other concerns warranting'reduction. This site has already. absorbed a • 38% density reduction through General Plan Amendment 78-2', and no new informa- tion has been developed. Alternatives which suggest reductions combined with 50% open space requirements, are not based on any demonstrated need or accepted site planning criteria. The EIR required for development of this site would specify mitigation for potential impact, and would provide a basis for an informed judgement as to intensity of development. We urge no change to the General Plan for this site. CONFORMANCE WITH CITY CRITERIA 1. Traffic Considerations: The proposed project would provide substantial developer-funded road improvements. Construction would be phased with needed road improvements. The traffic model, which includes the current allowance, indicates that an acceptable level of service can be achieved at buildout. ' 2. Openness of Vista or View: Whatever public views might be affected along Jamboree would be compensated for by significant public open space, view parks, and trail system along bluffs within the development. 3. City Image: This project would be compatible with other residential areas of the city. 4. Cost/Benefit Ratio: Hi%h land and improvement value would be expected to generate a modest surplus to the city. 5. Private Property Rights: The Irvine Company believes that the current level of developement can be supported, and substantial reduction has Already occurred. 6. Public Rights: The interests of the general public would be addressed through the EIR and normal review process. 7. Sewer Capacity: Sanitation District No. 5 can provide service, subject to short term constraints which will be eliminated through the Jamboree Trunk ' Sewer project. NEWPORTER NORTH-CONTINUED r 8. Energy Requirements: Adequate energy infra-structure will be available to serve this development. 9. Implications for Airport: Residential projects of this type would be ex- pected to have a lesser impact .than commercial developments. No informs- tion is available to allow a precise assessment. 10. Social Acceptance: A residential use is proposed which would be consistent with community standards. 12. BIG CANYON AREA 10 IRV-INE COMPANY POSITION The Irvine Company believes that changes to either the "Multi-Family Residen- tial" designation or to the 160 DU's allowed is not called for by any available information. DISCUSSION The allowable development on this site was reduced by 53% as a result of General Plan Amendment 78-2. The Irvine Company feels that any further re- duction would be a serious infringement on our,rights as property owners. Preliminary site plan and marketing studies have been initiated on this site, but we have insufficient data at this time to comment on the probable nature or design of the proposed residential project. Regarding suggested alternatives, the low density proposal of 45 DU's cannot be justified by any data provided. This .property is zoned for multi-family use. Any development here would represent the final phase of a planned residential community consistent with the quality of adjacent development. We request no change. CONFORMANCE WITH CITY CRITERIA! 1. Traffic Considerations: Due to the relatively small -number of dwellings allowed on the site, no critical intersections in the area are expected to be impacted. 2. Openness of Vista or View: Due to topography, this project would be largely hidden from public view. 3. City Image: This project would be compatible with the quality residential ' environment of the area. 4. Cost/Benefit Ratio: Due to high value of similar residential developments in Big Canyon, a surplus to the City could be expected. 5. Private Property Rights: The Irvine •Company has developed Big Canyon in reliance on the adopted P-C text. Any further reductions would be in violation of what we regard as our rights to develop under adopted City regulations. 6. • Public Rights: The proposed project would be one of the last within a- private community. No impacts on the general public would be expected, given the intensity of development contemplated. 7. Sewer Capacity: This development was included in the Master Plan for Sanitation District No. 5. Potential short-term capacity constraints will be eliminated through the planned Jamboree trunk sewer project. Develop- ment will be phased accordingly. i k"7 1 ` BIG CANYON AREA 10-CONTINUED j � S'. Energy Requirements: Infra-structure will be available to serve this development. The proximity of Newport Center could reduce work-related vehicle trips. 9. Implications for Airport: No impact on airport expected. 10. Social Acceptance: This project would be consistent with the high quality of residential development in •the area. Development and subsequent land- scaping •will improve appearance of existing man-made slope. , Tv-�,�_ 13. BAYWOOD EXPANSION IRVINE COMPANY POSITION We are opposed to any change in the current "Multi-Family Residential" desig- nation or reduction in the 140 DU's now allowed. DISCUSSION The General Plan currently allows an expansion of 140 DU's for the existing Baywood Apartments. This expansion would occur on land formerly reserved for the Corona del Mar Freeway. Extension of the freeway in this location is no longer planned. The Irvine Company has submitted a development aplication to the City, with the first public hearing scheduled for September 20, 1979. This application consists of a parcel map, P-C revision, and a detailed environmental Initial Study. The Irvine Company holds the position that the design of the proposed project is supported by the findings and conclusions of the environ- mental document in terms of traffic and all other environmental concerns. Therefore we believe that none of the suggested density reductions can be justified. Any change to the General Plan for this site prior to the conclu- sion of hearings on our application would be based on inadequate information, and would constitute an arbitrary denial of our rights of due process as a property owner. We strongly urge no change to the General Plan for this site, pending review of our complete development proposal. CONFORMANCE WITH CITY CRITERIA 1. Traffic Consideration: The proposed project passes all tests required by the City traffic phasing regulations. No critical intersections are impacted. 2. Openness of Vista or View: No public views or views from scenic highways will be affected by this project. The proposed expansion will have the same design and quality -landscape treatment as the existing apartment complex. 3. City Image: The project will be an expansion of the existing residential. complex consistent with design standards established by the City. 4. Cost/Benefit Ratio: This project will not have a measurable impact on City finances due to its relative small scale. No new public facilities or programs are required by this project. 5. Private Property Rights: The Irvine Company's planning for this project has proceeded in full reliance on the City action on General Plan Amendment 78-2 which established the dwelling unit limit of 140 on this site. The best available planning information supports the project as proposed. r:. . HAYWOOD EXPANSION—CONTINUED 6. Public Rights: The public's interests in this project have been addressed through mitigation measures specified in the environmental document. 7. Sewer Capacity: The development contemplated is consistent with the ,faster Plan for Sanitation District No. 5. ' Potential short—term capacity restraints will be eliminated by -the planned Jamboree•Trunk Sewer project, or other alternative. 8. Energy Requirements: Infra—structure is available to serve the proposed development. The proximity of this project to employment in Newport Center will reduce vehicle trips. 9'. Implications for Airport: No measurable impact on airport. 10. Social Acceptance: This development will add needed rental housing consis— tent with General Plan policies and the Housing Element. 14. FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS i IRVINE COMPANY POSITION The Irvine Company feels that due to lack of planning information which would support a change, no action should be taken on these sites at this time. r CONFORMANCE WITH CITY CRITERIA 1. Traffic Considerations: Due to the type and intensity of development currently allowed, no significant traffic impact is anticipated which cannot be mitigated by planned road improvements. 2. Openness of Vista or View: No scenic highway or public views would be affected'. 3. City Image: The type of residential use allowed would be compatible with adjacent uses. T4. Cost/Benefit Ratio: Development of these sites would have no measurable fiscal impact. 5. Private Property Rights: The current designation allows a reasonable , economic use of this land. No data has been provided in support of a reduction. 6. Public Rights: Public rights and interests would be addressed in the EIR prepared prior to development. 7. Sewer Capacity: No capacity constraints expected. 8. Energy Requirements: Infra-structure will be available to serve development. 9. Implications for Airport: No measurable impact on airport. 10. Social Acceptance: Development would be in-filling of an already developed residential area. Design would be consistent with community standards. r i 16. MOUTH OF BIG CANYON IRVINE COMPANY POSITION The current designation of "Open Space" with an alternave use of "Medium Density ` Residential" should be maintained. . DISCUSSION , This 'site is currently designated as Open Space with low density residential use allowed as an alternative. It is The Irvine Company's position that this designation is intended to allow an economic use of the •property if public acquisition for Open Space purposes is not possible. This parcel is available for public purchase at fair market value. Any redesignation which removes the residential alternate class- ificatibn would deprive us of substantial property rights and would constitute, in our view, a taking of the property. CONFORMANCE WITH CITY CRITERIA 1. Traffic Considerations: No planning information is available on which to base an assessment. 2. Openness of Vista or View: Any project would be visible from adjacent residential developments. Impact on public views could be minimized through design of develop- ment. �. 3. City Image: Development would be in conformance with City standards. 4. Cost/Benefit Ratio: No planning information is available on which to base an assessment. 5. Private Property Rights: The Irvine Company as property owner is entitled to a reasonable economic use of this land. 6. Public Rights; Any development would be preceded' by an E.I.R. which would address public interests and effects on the environment. ' 7. Sewer Capacity: No planning information available on this specific site. 8. Energy Requirements: No planning information available. 9. Implications for Airport: No impact anticipated. 10. Social Acceptance: Any development would be designed in conformance with community standards. 1 ' l 1 Z . . s COMMENTS ON "Nonstatutory Advisement" Responses ��W PpRr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3 z October 11 , 1979 Loretta A. Anaya c/o SCAG 000 S. Commonwealth Avenue Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90005 Subject: General Plan Amendment 79-1 Dear Ms. Anaya: The City of Newport Beach has received your comments on General Plan Amendment 79-1 . Your comments have been forwarded to the City's Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration in the review of this project. Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By /iR.C/ Fred Talarico - Environmental Coordinator FT/dt City hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 1[r--U., u CITY OF NEW PORT BEACH C711 FORN,' October 11, 1979 Board of Directors Cliff Haven Community Association c/o Mr. Les Miller P. 0. Box 1332 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: General Plan Amendment 79-1 jDear Mr. Miller: The City of Newport Beach has received your comments on General' Plan Amendment 79-1. Your comments have been forwarded to the City's Planning Commission and City Councif for their consideration in the review of this project. Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By, Fred T Iarico Environmental Coordinator FT/dt ' ' City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 `1L (61 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH u i • eK C�41FORN�r October bl , 1979 , Mr. William F. McLaughlin c/o 'Balboa Coves Community Association P. 0. Box 1224 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: General Plan Amendment 79-1 Dear Mr. McLaughlin: The •City of Newport Beach has received your comments on General Plan Amendment 79-1. Your comments have been forwarded to the Gity's Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration in the review of this project. Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR BY /LP.I` dT Fred Talar .co Environmental Coordinator FT/dt t 1. City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 �' EW O t� Rr i m CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 11, 1979 NIWA c/o D.R. Collacutt 400 W. Civic Center Drive Santa Ana, CA 92702 Subject: General PIan. Amendment 79-1 Dear Mr. Collacutt: The City of Newport Beach has received your comments on General Plan Amendment 79-1 . Your comments have been forwarded to the City's Planning 'Commission and City Council for their consideration in the review of this project. Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. NOGAN, DIRECTOR By L Tzt,&W:W .O T Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator FT/dt 1 City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 1Yti—1,� u CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH s�'LIFoar�r October 11 , 1979 , Bill Holman c/o City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Subject: General Plan Amendment 79-1 Dear Mr. Holman: The City of Newport Beach has received your comments on General Plan Amendment 79-1 . Your comments have been forwarded to the City's Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration in the review of this project. Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By, " .Q.L�GLf.GCD OT I Fred' Talarico Environmental Coordinator " FT/dt ., City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 CITY OF NEVVPCIRT BEACH C,��FORN�P October 11 , 1979 Bernard E. Schneider c/o Newport Center Association 170 Newport Center Drive, Suite 120 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: General Plan Amendment 79-1 Dear Mr. Schneider: The City of Newport Beach has received your comments on General Plan ,Amendment 79-1 . Your comments have been forwarded to- the City's Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration in the review of this project. Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPIENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR 4021 Fred Talallco Environmental. Coordinator _ FT/dt 1 City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 ,t P CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 11, 1979 , Don Porter c/o Newport Harbor Chafiber of Corweroe 1470 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: General Plan Amendment 79-1 Dear W. Porter: The City of Newport Beach has received your comments on General Plan Amendment 794. Your comments have been forwarded to the City's Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration in the review of this project. Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT 'OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR B49 Y. 7-O—J .ota� T Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator FT/dt _ r City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 �' CITY OF NEWPOR'T BEACH 4CI A,,f F r7tl���Fa October 11, 1979 Pam Shelton c/o City of Irvine P. 0. Box 19575 Irvine, CA 92713 Subject: General Plan Amendment 79-1 Dear Ms. Shelton: The City of Newport Beach has received your comments on General Plan Amendment 79-1. Your comments have been forwarded to the City's Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration in the review-of this project. Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By . /�� T Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator ' FT/dt City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 U -13 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 11, 1979 , David King c/o Irvine Unified School District P. 0. Box 19535 Irvine, CA 92713 Subject: General Plan Amendment 79-1 Dear Mr. King: ' The City of Newport Beach has received your comments on General Plan Amendment 79-1. Your comments have been forwarded to the City's Planning Commission and .City Council for their consideration in the review of this project. Staff of the City of Newport Beach has suggested the following mitigation measures for City Council consideration: Suggested Mitigation Measure "15. Prior to the development of any site written verification, that public and quasi-public facilities and services will be available, will be , provided. Further, that prior to occupancy of any project it will be demonstrated that the aforementioned are available." Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR BY Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator FT/dt City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 926.63 19 -74 - ---- - I I (I i ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 1 i 1 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ■ 1 On the basis of this initial evaluatidn: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a I significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ' I find although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. q red. Date Signature For the Environmental Affairs Committee of the City of Newport Beach r r r V meµ/ r r r r r APPENDIXES r r - 1 rI APPENDIX NO. 1 - Planning Commission Minutes - 1 �I i 1 1 2 MINUTE September 6 , 1979 j Page 10 „ ; : t� TO is b .,�' shb 1��'{y�:, �_ ,. .b•Arlll, t •'^Ak"K m ' �0..'iPRkJ'raa. .:.ery�#fditrsda -i erlNLur..i: . . ;: .. ... '.':}::a•.:.i :1.f.' .;r , . .." ^' Y,' •. LL CALL i j (INDEX w,iwr.,a. „,,:.>> .!W.r a.,r ..ax�yruanr. .o°'aN14344h�1itt.wvc;.4Jv:9`:.16�:`•u+u,..�.;..i�,•ts,>s•ar_m�'Lr;><„•o-,.°.evu.;:6tta•e,;.n.;�.,,:.'�as .,i...LaXra:n:, . most people have, as well as provide enough live- able space so that the area will not be downgrad- ed. Commissioner Cokas inquired whether the committee i would consist of owners or, renters , to which Com-missioner BalaTis stated his preference for owner and included this as part of his motion. Commissioner Beek expressed his feeling that this committee is necessary. Motion x' Amendment to the Motion was made to recommend to lies x x the City Council that they adopt Alternative "A" es x x x of Amendment No. 524 in the meantime.. Atlas x x x x Original Motion was then voted on, which MOTION es x CARRIED. The Planning Commission recessed at 11 :05 p.m. and reconvened at 11: 15 p.m. 1 Request to consider proposed amendments to the `Item #2 Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan , and the GENERAL preliminary review of a screen check Initial PLAN AMEN' Study ; and MENT 79-1 ND GEN f—R- AND AL PLAN AMENDMENT Request to consider proposed amendments to the 79-2 Circulation Element of the General Pl-an , and the ' acceptance of an Environmental Document. CONTINUED ECI INITIATED BY : The City of Newport Beach DJ UR D MEETING 0 SEP MBER In response to the procedural question posed by SE 1Jz 79 the Attorney of The Irvine Company , Hugh Coffin , fD RTGG - Acting City Attorney , responded that In this par- LA MMEET- ticular case , the notice for the hearing on Gen- JIG eral Plan Amendment 79-1 and General Plan Amend- 3YP'M13'ER • ment 79-2 was not published until September 1 , 20 , 1979 • CAA ilA?5�''��'F'��,x M{\U'f is , September 6, 1979 _ •' z Page 11. w u •. a V1 IALLh J �'4.i�ia • wctn• .a.. • •..'.{ri^bt•:,F(!i'rY..iw•'.r.:'JUNpt'.. r :k. ., . r:°C••J..••.;L• . ,.-h; • •:a. . ... ! �.. .L �� {4; . . •.e. ;drMyl :.:M .•• iW' 11 •'8:•A:G . .Nn•k•4YS..11NL•{R.ir.•.tM:.9b".LiN.MA;L^:flMl�'i�i.�.uY�'i••.i Tom•/G'\J11• urv•1x.4'VHNI/'AtYR�•(l/./Y(1'f��{• 'y A•I.I�.:.n il[�G• t 1979, and Section 65351 of the Government Code ;�• requires a minimum 10 days ' notice of a public hearing at a Planning Conmission level for a Gen- eral Plan Amendment; therefore, our published ' hearing' is deficient. He further suggested that _ , the Planning Commission not take evidence on• this item tonight, acknowledge a defective notice and possibly have a special meeting on September 13, 1979; secondarily, he suggested that Staff as soon as possible cause that a 10 day notice of public hearing be published for a further meeting on September 20, 1979 for the final action on said item. In conclusion, 'Mr. Coffin spoke to the Brown Act issue, stating his understanding that the section in question speaks to a District as distinguished from a City. Motion X . Motion was made to continue' Agenda Item No. 2, ' All Ayes , General Plan Amendments 79-1 and 79-2, to a spe- cial Adjourned Planning Commission meeting on September 13, 1979 for the purpose of hearing testimony, and to the regular Planning Commission meeting on September 20, 1979, for the purpose of final action, and that said items be noticed at least 10 days prior to the regular Planning Commission meeting of September 20 , 1979. Request to create .two parcels of land for devel- Item # opment in Koll Center Newport. RESUBD LOCATION: Parcel No. 2 , Parcel Map 114-19 VISION . (Resubdi•vision No. 567) , located NO. 63 at 4600 MacArthur Boulevard, on property bounded by MacArthur APPROVED Boulevard , Birch Street and Von �OND�� Karman Avenue 'in Koll Center New- TIDNALt port. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: Aetna Life Insurance Co. , c/o The Koll Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant ENGINEER: Robert Bein, William Frost & As- sociates , Newport Beach ' �•�''"!,'�!`;`-?�(r `;5? Special Adjourned Planning Commission 1vii�il)�cS Meetin3 = z Place: City Council Chambers } per } Time: 7:30 P.M. Date: September September 13 , 1979 .•eNMnIR.1 ww •." .1,!!4, iF ;r•!!YY•.fm;DTlkY.^1�"�rov.:S:�:,yk't'. WYw•WC6l2(�W+_n..,•.�•.ysp,av'i'^'Cl�"n "v?'C'L&klK•^• .T:�G,Kw.�.�n4.wW e•.cy!}(+y•:t +__" :'."••: DI L CALL I !'0 .•OA 9i.::;,•.�x W J •,p iF!`N'.Ifl•.k M1nPoWWxG•gt59✓.+tJc iA`AY:.Rflg1LOX'MP•t ..&R d7ft4td2aA•t',4�TF^M'43.n7i`YY:3r'74skAr,64o44.'!X•v.+!' '+til%.t4gr°vl•:AY'.V'•r td:•3i`.',k;.4.°3A'.'M.. . TSnt v rent � j f x x x EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS 3 R. V. Hogan, Community Development Director 4 a Hugh Coffin, Acting City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS James Hewicker, Assistant Director-Planning Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer Minutes Written By: Glenna Gipe Commissioner Balalis explained that this meeting was a meeting designed for fact-gathering. regard- ing GPA 79-1 and GPA 79-2 to allow for all testi•- mony from the audience and that it would not be a meeting for final action. Request to consider proposed amendments to the GENERAL Land Use , Residential Growth and Recreation and PLAN AMEN Open Space Elements of the General Plan , and the h1ENT 79-1 preliminary review of a screen check Initial AND WEN- Study; and RAL PLAN AMENDMENT Request to consider proposed amendments to the 9-2 Circulation 'Element of the General Plan, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. CONTINUED - TO THE RE- INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach GULAR PLAN NING COM- r� MISSION Richard Hogan , Community Development Director , MEETI-NG 0F sited necessary corrections within the Koll Cen- SEPTEMBER ter Paper entitled Land Use Alternatives for Koll 20, 19.79 Center , dated 9/6/79 ; Agenda Item No. 2 , includ- ing the total area left to be developed , the 50% reduction figure, the 20% reduction figure and th office development figure . He then offered an explanation regarding the commercial/residential . mix, stating that they had allowed the same �`J f NIN September 13, 1979 h? � L � Page 2 •MO,, �.{ 1 iz�i sWVJ:41 , �..a.4 14 z. ..•ii. d• yt', . •. 'n -.n �. -t.•r.C:/X'. 'M�a:L: •;i"• •tl•, v Y . .rY� ' _ �N. s •..,Ysdc-4'-..•...Nf�•.gi v'. �1�'*Mfrw"P':....41-n•.,:�k:•:•;,ha1P7iG,�?.-r..••,.A'R'•n•t!t•/-.S AtiuB.iMn•. ...r'�:�, a amount of c�r+z�ercial that would be allowed in the ' 50% reduction; that is , 382,749• total commercial developed on half the site, added to that, resid- ential at 10 dwelling units per 'buildable acre, arriving at the buildable acre by using half the acreage remaining and subtracting 25%, to take ' care of the account taken out for streets , to give a buildable figure of 25% less than a net figure. Commissioner Balalis posed a question regarding the amount remaining to be built, to which Mr. Hogan replied that the amount is the 30% allowed on the property under each ownership, so that the total would add up to 269,810 sq. ft. , or 255 dwelling units on 2531 net buildable acres under the high-density and 102 dwelling units on the same amount of acreage for low-density. ' The Public Hearing was opened regarding this item . and Tim Strader, Senior Vice President of the Koll Company, agents for 'Aetna Life Insurance and ' owner of the remaining Koll Center Newport un- developed land, appeared before the Planning Com- mission and relayed the history of Koll Center Newport, including a brief explanation of an outline of the Koll Center Newport project and some of the different ownerships . He expressed his feeling that the amount remaining to be de- veloped in Koll Center Newport is not significant from the standpoint of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach and that their hotel projec can properly be handled with a Traffic Phasing Study. He requested that the General Plan review as to the remaining Koll parcels be supplemented And in its place the Traffic Phasing Program, ra- ther than the General Plan Amendment, as outlined in the City rules and regulations ; be required to be completed and stated that they will ask for similar treatment to the Emkay property. He stated that the major ,traffic improvements re- quired to move traffic in that area have been built and installed by the developers in the. area and he expressed his feeling that presently there are traffic problems within the City of Irvine, because no traffic improvements have been made. He then explained that the remai'ning .area to be developed within Ko11 Center Newport is not con- . ' l.C)mmis�slo\m..r Segt 11'fIl iUTES -- .... ....".. �^s+ber 13, I979 � 4 n Page .. GL 13 off. �,k•...�'c �.r'o t B 1:w-1�...Y� I .r•.4iN^� �i.�•.ai�Fv.�[:'1U4LLYB.S.:NJ�:. q�py.,.•-••S:of6TC571ra!a;:Nlh/Y3Yb'•. uv'•.1LVn T,c fA':.. n e: v.....iMt.,' i"41.. .n v. .. "s.e:'. . . I !I�! µ3ttW a :. XIDndirhl'.-�Yri1YAT - :r^RYd(., wRrARdtlA.r+�f#VL ��n?Jb/, ..4.R4_Ir t: ,$LX,. W"A .i • to commercial office use, and that the 500 roam hotel is exclusive of that, derived as being per- mitted in that particular lot and is not part of the densities under discussion , as hotels have different planning considerations . Mr. Hogan then relayed the figures staff is using related to this project: 819 ,967 sq. ft. of of- fice space, including 155 ,422 sq . ft. taken out of the office space and allowed for a Hotel , plus 12,000 sq. ft. restaurant space, 10,000 sq. ft. of retail space, 25,625 sq. ft. of courthouse and 31,775 sq. ft. of industrial . Commissioner Cokas stated his understandiing that Koll Center has 104,000 sq. ft. less than they arc under the assumption they have, to which Commis- sioner Allen agreed. Ernie Wilson, Langden and Wilson Architects , then explained that the density allowable in both the ` Emkay and Koll Center P-C texts were on the basis of commercial office space and that in each of those texts there was a place for a hotel , which was not described, and in the case of Emkay, they had said it was going to go where it is now built and that in the Koll Center P-C text, they are not restricted by acreage or size but that they must obtain a Use Permit and that what they are proposing to do on the remaining 8. 2 acres is to present that picture to the Planning Commission and that in their view, having written both of the P-C texts , their densities for office had nothing to do with a hotel . In conclusion , he ex- plained that because of the interest in cutting down densities , the office density has been trans posed and their contention is that this has no- thing to do with the density as the ordinance is now written and that the 225,000 sq . ft. is purel office-commercial space allowable on this site , plus the right to build a hotel under a Use Per- mit and that they are saying that on the same ba- sis , this ordinance. should take the same 24% re- duction as the other ordinance , which is 247 ,000 sq. ft. left for Koll Center , an identical ratio to Emkay, which underbuilt in some of their areas CO.1,tif15� :?r` itS; September 13, 1979 MP UTFS r •. -••^�� Page 3 Y -t r• .r . ,'•. 0 c F City Of Newpoi R`!' l 11LL ! � � 7 �� ��'!{ N.fy.+�f u..VW%fY•f;•Al�hf�P�.,71nWfAY."A°!!l;NYC s�.Wvd�.trv•,i'7. .Y•••t(i9H1M:K:...:5.'tUW' ',K b.. . 1 ;,77 t•1 )Zr� •� �. . . .Slll�f �. •(.� 'i} Nl]fl1YA:.k:• : ..:.:i1: :.d✓,13R:.VJ�ky.'fMSCI n:N. OpI'("'1-:i'.Yrt+!':BK ur'.r..>A •.'Y.ii..4!' Gtv.'.,•.:1Y2'I'w, .. r.^v 7nkvci idusive to residential development and would re- ' quire an extension of residential City services to the eastern-most tip of the City. He expresse his feeling that using the October 1978 figures is not an appropriate application , because during, the year developers were permitted to develop 30% of the undeveloped acreage as a legal use, which has been done, and that the figures should be based upon existing densities today': In con- clusion, he informed- the Planning Commission that they -have never attempted to maximize the . Koll Center development, and want only a low-density development. He then gave the Planning Commis- ' sion opportunity to view slides illustrating the ' Koll Center development. In response to a question posed by Commissioner , Beek, Mr. Strader replied that When the project originally was presented to the City, there was a partnership called Koll Center Newport and Aeth• Life Insurance Company was a limited partner in that partnership, and upon restructuring 2 years ago, Aetna Life Insurance -Company now is the vested owner of the 'property and the Koll Company acts as investment manager of the project for Aetna. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Cokas Pat Allen Architect, replied that - t repl to ar- rive at .the 335,934 figure, is the number of sq. , ft. within the Koll property and the proposed hotel project versus what is in the total ,pro- perty of 899,367 sq. ft. , arrived at by an acreag split and density calculation. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Hogan stated that they computed the hotel as being the equivalent of 155,000 sq. ft. of office space and that in the P-C text., Amend- ment No. 514 did not specify hotel or office, but the P-C text also allows for part of that space for a hotel . Mr. Strader relayed that the density numbers that were in the Staff Report and the density numbers that they have in their presentation relate only I'! i r( ■ MINUTES p September 13, 1979 ' t: a 3 ..�Gti�n` Y.�w.••.Tut:...E`M1y:{ .:' A.:MS'. �N.'2:9s.Jf :4Y.if.%N'.1uSe+.`•..�F-'J:.• .n:.,H.�Xh.:,e. :i::'3,':', t... � .' � ILL. CIALL .art' >fn ., '.i(3' T�? 1b1luA..tntSh"w.F�_•-ua'.'f3L.x:::i�G`41K1:'n'^:fY116AiYaCA%C.kr:J•sif` ..1':;;ti"3"; +f-i'.;d.b.i-`.•n. t4"n. ...�i.:..•'f 11 4 accept the P-C plan that was approved as the ' general action that would be taken under any tan p g change. Commissioner Baiaiis posed a question, to which Hugh Coffin, Ac#ing City Attorney , replied that there are provisions in the State Planning 'Act for extraterritorial general plan designations of property and that it is his understanding that they most likely do have the jurisdiction over Beco. Mr. Shelton again appeared before the Planning Commission and stated his understanding that the Planning Commission is dealing with less than 10% of the land area of the City -and that of that 10% The Irvine Company is the owner of 8% of this land area and that if the current general plan were to be radified and buildout were to occur on the va- cant residential parcels , this would increase the City' s dwelling units by only about 6% and the co - mercial/industrial square footage by only about 15%, and he expressed his feeling that the action taken by the City last November in General Plan Amendment 78-2 represent already a very signifi - cant and sufficient reduction in both categories , at which time about a 30% reduction in then-allow- able residential dwelling units occured and about 26% reduction in allowable square footage in Ir- vine and Newport Center, Newport Center being the- only one to receive that type of reduction. He further stated regarding the subject of traffic that they feel that the traffic problems can be solved and are not what they thought a year ago they would be and that they believe strongly in the concept of phasing and are committed to the notion that development and road capacity should be syncronized , no matter what period of time it takes . In conclusion , he expressed his feeling that this process should involve a full -fledged EIR and is in good practice. and in everyone' s best interest. Keith Greer, Director of Community Development for The Irvine Company , appeared before the Planning Commission and reviewed the projects surrounding Ct::�A !JVSI IISSIi MINUTES " —-- ---`r Septexber 13, 1979 jj Page a ..r :str tltl!).TMly.nr, ,gWJi 'tY1 l{�. f,:Wr4.Yv•Y>n•.ai24e§aw:Ja'.aAi•;;As(1&2f••ICYJ.."a..•:.rttr J' �:•'.'1r1xR'' r.a.fq,,L'-+(.`.:�H:Fvil':.e:>r'::.s '^S' e, L CAL �1NUEX � . . :.Y •iri 4�`�{.: .^vt�q :.0 ti:t.. ...`.s.t(pr�p.•'+:o.. y,.",JgS6'•T18R7EflLi!QiYQFN1RCr.01:��X:,•I:F`.a..�,R}pl`yo:r-i,"-.'Y•L-:fDS^.1.R.`?."`^ry.T' �' rn peat together tihc�i'c total footage. In conclu- sion, he questiiomeift whether the 93,000 sq. ft. of ' Uh i+ch they underbuilt dock "-0" is in this Pic- ture The Planning C.Dmaission recessed at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened at 8:35 p.m. * rr x Mr. Hogan then expl alivad to the Planning Commis-; sion that in the P-t 4t, there was 2,700s000 sq. ft. allowed -for -o , ' ice development and a hote ll and that in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance of Amendment No. 514, it indicated that development ' existed a 1,5,51,757 square footage and that the additional allowable was 1,058,863 sq. ft. , or a total of approximately 2,700,000 sq. ft. of Offic development, and that the hotel was not mentioned in Amendment No. 514. Commissioner Balalis stated his understanding that the 'Koll Center has 325 ,000 sq. ft. and that the Irvine Company ,has 363,000 sq. ft. , and in ad dition to this is the 155,000 sq . ft. figure for the hotel,. Mr. Wilson stated his understanding that to at- tempt to join their Koll Center project and their , hotel project would necessitate amending the ordinance as well as the Traffic Phasing Ordi- nance. Bob Shelton., Irvine Company, appeared before the" Planning Commission and stated their position as being in agreement with staff relati-ng to the portion entitled, "Office Site ' ' C"' , express- ing that they are in favor of the 24% figure. , In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen , Mr. Shelton relayed that theirs would be a case of taking 24% of 364,000 sq. ft. Tom Morrissey , Ford Aerospace Communications Corporation., appeared before the Planning Commis- sion and requested that the Planning Commission i c, i CC.)YN41SSIONELS MINUTES September 13, 1979 3 N Page 8 City of Nmaort Reach 4WAMO M W ;W W W ,r L CALL INDEX .�•:: ., y.�aacr� rssss�xrraxar�s�a:: ,ra�an-aM.,sansa� -hs;�.cy�a;s�wn�exr ' the ®ehli Channel , rather than developed right up to it and look at it as an extension of the bay, rather than a -clearly defined channel . 3) In conclusion, he relayed that they would ! not be in favor of a bicycle path through the riparian and/or marshes involved. 4) Regarding a portion of the Newporter North area, Mr. Radovich stated a concern regard- ing this as an important .area for sitings of Lightfooted Clapperail ,. and the needjo improve• this riparian canyon and put some structures within to slow down water and a]- low greater ponding, rather than development in this area. In response to a question posed by 'Commissi.oner Cokas as to whether affordable housing was re- quired, Mr. Coffin replied that there is a dif- ference of opinion among the Governor, Attor- ney General and others within the State re- garding this issue and that the City of New- ' port Beach has taken the position that it is not a legal requirement through the General Plan mandatory versus advisory guidelines pro- mulgated by the State. Commissioner Balalis referred them to the letter from the office of the Mayor, stating that the ' City is on record in opposing to the Local Coast-" al Program, including such requirements related to affordable housing. Mr. Coffin then responded regarding -establishing General Plan elements and designations for land outside our boundaries , stating that the code ' states that the City can establish and designate same . A##IISion x Motion was made to excuse Commissioner Cokas from Ayes the regular Planning Commission meeting of Sep- tember 20 , 1979 . MINUTES r Septewber 13, 1979 Page 7 r IF City a i,�Ieerpai each Itt.. .4 a.7:0'W4"wf's'..k:Af.�.�.�y r:... .n'C'yp•�4v. .K5:4:•.v�7:iifiYlk?4:...:.r•rim• .fc�`,4LLy.:. .,Yi : ...:..4X;.4r.,Ki t. .. f.... . E;OLL CALL 4..wIY..r.fC14'yy,Y t_ 'i•77nP'A-•:.a;..9..'7P.4T'.t awl.:YR1tiMi7MV.Tnn:a:N4:+4YC..f!'+, . �+xRi�l+^':is?t`.WW.1St51,P1.�`�'�'+Gk:t :i L+.+.O:/k.'K)WM 'Yn;a•. .-br:+h.• Upper Newport Bay, provided 'a presentation regard- ing the Baywood Apartments and gave an overview of the history of the 1978 General Plan Amend- went. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Alien, Mr. Greer replied that if it can be demon- strated by an objective traffic analysis that the development in question is, in fact, going to cre- te an impact that. cannot. be otherwise mitigated , except by completion- of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, then they would agree to not develop until that time. Mr. Greer then continued with hi's presentation: 1) Castaways Project; a) a plateau. b) concept is a mix of residential communities integrated , with a park system, with private recreation cen- ter and public bicycle trail system. c) interior circulation s stem. d) single family homes and townhomes . el 325 dwelling units . 2) Westbay _ Project; a) bluffs that provide for the protec- tion of the canyon areas. b) public park. cjj adult community. d) 34'8 dwelling units. e) cluster townhomes with greenbelts and private retreat-ion areas and public bicycle trail system. 3) New porter North; a) preservation of open space t rough public "parks trail systems and pri vate recreation center. bi cluster development of adult community c) urban character d) 440 dwelling units. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Haidinger, Mr. Greer stated that Castaways would be their first and immediate community with which to proceed. . Mr. Radovich then appeared before the Planning Commission and. 1) reviewed the project from a habitat mapping standpoint and the possibilities of related tradeoffs , explaining that the special importance of riparian areas is that they have al terrestrial systems , including source of water, shade, etc. , and are quite Valuable ecologically. r 2) He stated their general disagreement with The Irvine Company related to one area that is not specifically a bluff, but, nevertheless , steep , and that they would like to see it set back from xx - IoA � CC:'.,1`�i�4•t,�:'EIS MINUTES -- September 13, 1979 _ - Page 9 t f� • 1 G of Newport Becaich W.• -:@:. 'A 1•niN:n3dL*i^tAF�'rUh:�.i'"P.HS.ai:x+}x6..x»7CM.iRWFVa9U•• ,dfd+ra•M1'Sr.:YlO`.�f...�'n�-0C'Sa^r.'b'h.�S 4.. �N+r:yvrak�F] ••l�:•vt.• •.•+a .' ! CALL i �INQEX . s^n+17�y4a+Y:}e+ ,�� ',Yite�ix.�C�wish}'C�4tif x+.1ogM1RB$?7.GbAe7P1c�ffi��ti�tl;Hll6ikV•�i'�.'s:t£�!a'N�K'taXny7G9/R'�d�+•,aexcrrt+l+F.kxlA9241e7ni'n.v:.",IIb7:��... f The Planning Commission continued the public hear ing regarding General Plan Amendment 79-1 and General Plan- Amendment 79-2 to the regular Plan- n.i.ng Commission meeting of September 20, 1979 and adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Debra Allen , Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach DA/gg � 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 • C0\005 !ONERS Regular Planasirlg Commission Meeting MINUTES ' Place: City Council Chambers r s Time: 7:30 P.M. r x� D Date: 5eptenber 20, 1979 ' 'F City of Newport Beach wei ^'< P.9016f1'lI'.4}�\�NT`A�vYi1 �•v�l' Ql./NWti N.1�" li�'M{MF+ .,)Mlj•)+I. 0 Hli !f'pf'YiI•�I . f rui.L C./ALL j INDEX E4:kv. r +'•:�R":.3; W.:Y'n`R4c':KxNa6�P&iFrXb4fQ1lW4AM�t^SK 'Yta'+.�.d•Wtrdrai`aN.; f:"r.tiWFW7'as.•w�r.•n�.A97k7q x.:+i:J. r x J , resent t x x Absent * * EX-OFFICIO MENSERS f R. V. Hogan; Community Development Director Hugh Coffin, 'Acting-Ci-ty Attorney STAFF MEMBERS James Hewicker, Assistant Director-Planning , Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer ' Glenna Gipe, Secretary Minutes Written By: Glenna Gipe ' Motion Motion was made to hear only Agenda Item No. 1 and Ayes x x Yx to continue the remaining items to the regular Rbsent * * Planning Commission meeting of October 4, 1979. * * * Richard Hogan, Community Development Director, brought to the attention of the Planning Commis- sion that they had had a request for a temporary , building for a bank on the corner of MacArthur Boulevard and 'Coast Highway and that the Ordinance provides that the Department of Community Develop- ment may grant a temporary use for a period of 90 days , with direction to said bank that if they intend to go for a longer period 'of time., they must ask for a Use Permit from the Planning Commis' sion.At this point, Chairman Balalis turned the meeting over to Vice-Chairman McLaughlin , due to a conflic of interest regarding this matter. Commissioner Allen inquired Whether this would ' grant any permit approval for this site , to which Mr. Hogan replied that they rust apply for a Use Permit from the Planning Commission if they intend to go for a period longer than the 90 days . CC)Y1L��iSSlC�� ,�`r MINUTES September 20; 1979 Tom" . City of Nlevvp ort 5each ,. •-.t a. H.a,Smxxvxa I C•.A•,tMIQR. v v q'wfi-Pi• :!a-v'74pihaiG�5#"A .b5ilt!*.R[U4r�'Xi^3-rTl"7aliuH-•{i,FT'Y3r•1:: 'dT.ftG' B:Mu:..HIdA�:++f.W•r`i'F7:9AS .YLL'r,•I.+N•.U.INDEX t . . i. m Commissioner Haidinger inquired whether there was comment regarding the Plan Check paper submitted' to the Planning Commission, to which Commissioner ' Balalis expressed his feeling that the City of Mewport Beach spends a lot of involvement with more items regarding plan checking than any other City or County. ' fir. Hogan informed the Planning Commission that he had authorized the plan checkers to go on over- time to catch up with the backlog and that at the last budget session, he had suggested increasing fees to cover all the processing of applications, with the intent that these fees -woul'd then go to- ward assuring that processing. Commissioner Haidinger stated his observation that there was no mention made in the paper regarding what the plan checkers could avoid doing to• speed up the process. Commissioner Allen inquired whether involvement' regarding pay scale and overtime was within the purview of the duty and function of the Planning Commission, to which Hugh Coffin , Acting City At- torney, replied that those decisions are made fi- nally by the City Council , but that the Planning Commission could make recommendations to the City Council . ' Commissioner Haidinger expressed his feeling that the job of the Planning Commission -is to represent the community in all aspects of how the community is developed , and that the operation's of the Com= munity Development Department are extremely im- portant. Items # ' Request to consider proposed amendments to the 1' and •2 Land Use , Residential , Growth and Recreation and Open - Space Elements of the General Plan , and the GENERAL preliminary review of a screen. check Initial Study p[NFI-TM-1 EN MELT 79-1 INITIATED BY : The City of Newport Beach AMD 79-2 CONTINUED TO SEPTEM BER 27 , • 1979 -2- C010-MISSIO ERR MINUTES ' t September 27 . 1979 -3 x ti 4, x City of Nev4jort Beach x...81W :J52ib,'ffofyi'L'YYtILL'Nlt+FtM.`Mk3CtMY"'/A"/i61M9t'{Y,S#'i4'I3S?qN�!•.}:fMC.iti Y�QY.PAR'Nld L:tN%a•.e••••••Kc.e4:� :71 L CJ _l INDtx x7u-, :- vVJ WM AN W N, Y1 •br`%7%fAiMYiONAWIbt :M1�✓XM17@MXP{ICnCt'dTW:XIR�'7M�JVdWL'F'9XA�R�MYff�.tll9.M}AlIMILtd�lF4bq'RMIYLL".QCSIfG'1. 11'd rtkdl+i!4 1i Request to consider proposed amendments to the Circulation Element of the General Plant and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach The Public Hearing continued regarding this item and Keith Greer, Director of Community Development for The Irvine 'Company, appeared before the Plan- ning Commission and stated his intention to cover 3 additional residential parcels : 1) BaYwood AAR r�tmeeot�Site; a) San Joaquin Hills Road/Mac- rt uA h r Boulevard b) 1o. 5 acres c) there as a result of the failure of the Freeway to be de- veloped d) will not now be utilized for roadway purposes e) access to, the site is restrictive ' f) will be affordable housing units g) pool and Jacuzzi h) access off San Miguel Drive i ) re- presents a diversity of housing opportunities . ' In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Greer replied that they are providing for landscaped berms to mitigate the noise im- pact. In response to a question posed by Commissioner , McLaughlin, Mr. Greer replied that, he had referred to affordable housing in the sense of the moderate income level , as established by the County of , Orange, without federal funding. Commissioner Balalis then posed a question, to' which Mr. Greer replied that they would be main- ' taining a certain level of rent that can qualify for the median income level . 2) Big Canyon Site 10; a) On San Joaquin Hills Road , adjacent to Big Canyon Drive b) 15 acres c) adult townhome community d) view oriented to ' Big Canyon e) provide for vehicular access from San Joaquin Hills Road f) private recreation center g). variety of housing opportunities h) 160 units. , In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Greer replied that Big Canyon is a com- plete community in the sense that it is complete Y_,1ONERS MINUTES September 27, 1979 V) y = City of Newport Belch \�{��./.i.w ,Y�(ry'.1ky' d`L{1'� Ll'{l�R. '.YQ�+-'ylr.'.'a.U✓rbi4MQl71.t�.@.•/I �•,•Oi�.aP{Q'f�1.�i','�e�Y1�YJ,{111+�YA�oVi/.fl11�.n nllf`v 7.AI4t�•'SLia"�(M.r.,LIY/L�tW1Q2{�Y..nr +i:W•�:k'1.f•.Y...,�Y.. . k• C-,Ll i #INDEX �' ' •.. , ^. � 'JASCLaMh's€CW�.'ttT14AP`!N'defA':(X'bN!EYf.XgWA',3�'.`:.�°F'.. ..'.:yG• :!`t'1T7ikEC4.'4LT7=k1,•+a`t..,IkS�Y.'.?.^.,•..ESC0.1Y.,n+r-.:.•.. :. . ., + t within the Master Plan developed for this parcel . 3) Block 800 in Newport Center; a) adjacent to ' Pacific Mutual Building br7 acres c) most urban of the remaining residential sites d) ideal for urban highrise use e) appropriate for either a midrise or highrise condominium f) adult commun- ity g) close to police and fire protection h) traffic impacts to this community would be mi - nimal i ) 245 dwelling' units proposed. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Alien, Mr. Greer replied that the density would be 35 per acre and would be in keeping with the commercial architecture of Newport Center. Mr. Greer then quickly recapped the major points which he had made last week. ' Commissioner Balalis commented regarding the pre- sentation by the Local' Coastal Program and Fish and Game which identified concerns regarding cer- tain parcels and regarding the memo from Mayor ' Ryckoff concerning affordable housing , to which Mr. Greer responded with their feeling that the concerns raised by the Fish and Game were minor ' and ,that the concern would be whether the drainage provided will be erosive in nature or endangering , or .in some way harming - them; he further responded regarding the Local Coastal Program,, stating their, disagreement with them that the best. way to pro- tect the habitat is to discourage development, stating their feeling that development can , in fact, be compatible and not harmful ; •he continued ' to respond regarding the airport, expressing their feeling that the impacts on the John .Wayne Airport are relatively minor; and in conclusion, regarding affordable housing., he stated their willingness to work closely with the City to set guidelines and arrive at solutions regarding affordable housing . Don Webb , Assistant City Engineer , appeared before the Planning Commission and pointed out areas in which the riparian habitat has been largely created by storm drains , stating that the major site the Fish and Game indicated needed to be pro- tected is located opposite Santa Barbara Drive , cc. �1\1651,10UERS 1 MINUTES ' s Septe&ber 20, 1979 a 3 �� WW City of evrpbrt Beach � •:. ww X/d'4LfrtKZY.�tM�Cs.�:dNr?V4t.4f^A':*�';lMitk:'J.TIIbAB.i4K.MKpSlib6rwSl'i•/I'?Nr:t^n.e'tWNVti ",•+;f 7'++'dx IIlgt':^:ii'"'4:,,:,1�;•,RL�c ^'P`.; ..: n. •,'+e'; r m..u7ffiP"MIO.1tWY.•S=�CSASLNiYN w..%T�'•�AN'X.'X'Pd:OL94ZY7hTR.w tfdtYGiCis'.•N'-'•f':tYYdnA}S:9W�uP.e��%b.+a!'+:8!Cl7Jl:.r•u:.e." -!i^t`,.:-:�'. the most logical place to take entry and where , storm drains are located and is a manmade location which could possibly be relocated. He further commented regarding. the Castaways Site, stating , that this habitat area was probably created at the time the roadway fill was put in. Commissioner Beek expressed his disagreement re- , garding Mr. Webb's last statement, stating his understanding that it ,was created as a result of ' natural rainfall. Regarding the West Bay Site, Mr. Webb stated 'that ' the canyon has remnants of roadways in several areas .to .serve the dike which created the dam, Bill Banning, Beco, Ltd. , appeared before the Plan - ning Commission and stated that they owned approx- imately 500 acres , most of which is in the unin- corporated areas closely aligned with Newport , Beach, though not in its official sphere. He fur- ther requested that no action be taken either by the Planning Commission or City Council with re- ference to the General Plan, because they feel it is premature and that they don' t presume at this time to suggest the exact uses on the property for several reasons , including the fact that the pro- , perty is under an oil lease. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:35 p..m. and reconvbned at '8:45 p.m. Ron Hendrickson , The Irvine Company , appeared be- fore the Planning Commission and relayed the char- acteristics of their projects : 1) Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard; a) appropriate for ad- ministrative, professional and financial/commer- cial b) unsuitable for residential development c) 6 acres . Mr. Webb commented that in re-evaluation of the transportation system, they need to have a mechan- - k MINUTES ( •r September 20, 197/3 ,f r.•'•J S '�:ti'aAY:b1NA i h:lAetiC.F%:^.'l4R�y/�P84`.i0EKM7A3Z9R4Yitl'+4:+te;•Yn^.AuV.'!._4l.itn`•('si'k;=XH::rof.lA.f.wi-:LL:•".'tliltWi'^ItO:.•:.r1.r R1M'A4FY.u.+• -AAf& WON Uft M.'YPA'a5':{.:�i1;S�4:0lALA..N+.SMi.Ct•+:4fi(<�7f t�KiQL&W:+1W9.9T.LL!414`N4R'W' .d'CvvF"NIM+•'�6' iF4P4.r.d,`1Ht �a� fiN"vh•Y:h?%6tFh•"'a..1t ism to get the extremely heavy left-turn move from the northbound Jamboree Road onto Bristol ' Street and that one mechanism of doing this would be to allow a loop-ramp, requiring an amendment to their freeway agreement. Mr. Neaadrickson relayed that this area would like- ly not be developed for at least 3 years and pos- sibly beyond_ He then continued regarding their ' other projects:, 2) San Diego Creek North and South; a) San 'Diego Creek North is a 12 acre site FT—San Diego Creek North has General Plan zoning- ' for retail and service/commercial, c.) appropriate, for a hotellmotel location d) inappropriate for any type of permanent residential use e) San Diego Creek South is a 47 acre site f) San Diego Creek South has General Plan zoning for general industry g) NIWA is considering this site for a desilting 'basin. 3) North-Ford; a) 80 acres b) adjacent use; in conformity with the existing General Plan zoning c) first 30% appropriate for light industrial zoning d) recommend no change " in the General Plan zoning for this site. 4) Newport Center; 'a) GPA 78-2 made a cut of 615 ,509 sq. ft. of the proposed remaining develop- ment which should now receive very careful con- sideration developed to support the fact that there is appropriate substantiation for such a cut b) they are willin to phase this area with traffic improvements c3 shuttle system is pre- dicated on density of development. 5) Corporate Plaza ; a) 13 buildings are completed b , the re- maining portion is predicated on a Phasing Plan -to satisfy the test of reasonableness c) the ap- propriate use for the site is as currently plan- ned. 6) Block 500; a) in the easterly edge are ' two small sites es to contain a building each of 10,000 sq. ft. 7) Block 600; a) should be com- pleted out at a density comparable to the existing ' density in the block b) would possibly be approp- riate for a hotel site. 8) Civic Plaza; a) the remaining 70% is subject to a Phasing Plan ' b) the other 30% is in the process of being built with office buildings c) appropriate as a high- rise site d) incorporates the extension of the Art Museum Sculpture Garden . 9) Block 800 ; 0Cw1i�d_5:ICNc2S' MIND fry '. .�_ c.., _.. September 20, 1979 L 3 pity d Newport Beach ..-tip :"•, "xxwwausrimsmmge�aFrxww�awra�rne,:;nuns,r+mxrc;�rsra.yea.+'autonrwc�•+r�anrrcror�carr.�ewr , ., CIA .dtri:1•+AilC t01.dG 7AN:NM�CW<?3P1:YfH7MhYJOl�V7Y.'Yi/M1il`JFM;' 1h!'dNM1M'fern'X�1C'WV,'sµ%ARc�ptfKtlVMhlRgM.S'3Y�1�'•�� a) a large amount of Open Space. 10) Corporate , Plaza Phase 3; a) General P1'an current zoning Tor ash ma trs ative and professional financial/coMercial b) request that the current General , Plan zoning remain as is. 11) New ort Villa e and Avocado/MacArthur; a) 33 acres ower part is general retail zoning c) upper part is admin- isteative/professional zoning d) completion of the development of this area would bring along with it significant traffic improvements in the form of the MacArthur/Avocado couplet e) would contemplate mixing retail with some residential on the site and perhaps a small amount of office 12)'' Bayvi�ew LandingSite; a) located at the north- west corner of Jamboree and Pacific Coast Highway - b) 19 acres e) current General Plan zoning is ' for commercial , with overlay of residential d) recommend that the General Plan for this area not be changed. 13) Lower Area of Castaways; a) suggested that the current General Plan re- garding this area as it stands should be main- tained. Mr. Hendrickson then briefly summarized all the ' above. Ernie Wilson, Langdon and Wilson Architects , then r appeared before the Planning Commission and sub- mitted a letter requesting that Koll Center New- port be exempted from the General Plan Amendment ' 79-1 and be dealt with through the Phasing Plan process of Amendment No. 514. He reviewed that Exhibit "A" is a recap of the numbers in the ' Staff Report, Exhibit 4" indicates the Koll- Aetna property owne-rships within Koll Center New-, port, Exhibit "C" illustrates that Koll has taken ' advantage of the 30% since October ' 1978 and others have not and that Alternate 2 should be recongize so that all property owners within Koll Center be , treated on an equitable basis ; he clarified their contention that the Ordinance as it now stands al- lows in the City that the density allowed was a number plus a hotel , just as it has been and is ' in the Ordinance for Emkay' s development, that particular development of which has taken advan- tage of the chance to build the hotel and that ownership is exactly the same as Koll ' s ownership. In conclusion , he expressed their feeling that �—IS - -7-- - - ' F', MINUTES i September 20, 1979 ar5 4 W > ;,' r G, � �r ���o Pea. ` +R.^ : .3 �,A:.Xp^",SYL•'tPGX+ •Y-v+p11.p:?'2S:W +.9AitCRSY+'F'R''tMu1F7'Y+.••ri:r:'tC47h•Y�flIt U:Lb.':.it1SA(.flYRL?Y.°6YiJ'.t+95FA5CPlC iA ' + '.•:.iYLI4:•/N^i Ji_L C ALL p Fy 1tiC)rX I ell v':ta ,:�)`�, �1N'SdiiPAVIDtY ' M- ""�`'�°4 FS�A� hil'StlH1°l�'Y9'�KR�NGiIYR++Y'A6�a":Yli�Vi�IEQaD�K' ."irGs'.+e.r'kK•'1G04`itl{il`d.J r ' the density reduction should be applied to the commercial and office space as indicated under Amendment No. 514, ,and that any interpretation of ' how much footage should be allowed for a hotel is not in the Ordinance and therefore is not law as they see it now, but would require an amen ' ment to not only Amendisent ,No. 514 , but also to the P-C text. ' In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Wilson replied that Exhibit "A" is all properties within the P-C 'text, regardless of ' ownership, and Exhibit "B" is the ownership of Koll -Aetna only. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hogan , ' Mr. Wilson responded that he is not saying that density, can be transferred, and in fact they are saying that the only possible way to transfer is by an Amendment and that they are only recognizing the amount of square footage total owner by owner. ' Pat Allen , Langdon and Wilson Architects , appear- ed before the Planning Commission and stated that in Amendment No. 514, there is 1,058,863 sq. ft. of building area permitted as of October 1 , 1979 and that in order to total that number , the 141_,621 figure has to be added to the 728,069 fi- gure, which is added to the developed since Oc- tober 1 , 1979 and in order for it to balance and equal the 1 ,058,000 , the 141 ,021 figure must be included. ' Mr. Wilson further elaborated that the 141 ,000 feet is on a separate block than the one being discussed , where the major developable land is lo- ' cated and the ownership of these separate pieces is still under Koll ' s name and Koll owns density rights on several pieces of property and they can- not transfer anything without a P-C text amend- ment. Commissioner Allen pointed out that• the figures relating to proposals dealing with the use per acre need to be corrected.. CChM1 65 0111ERS; MINUTES Septenber 20, 1979 Q 'r ' y N. 3 city d NkanWort Beach .nr �wrrawnrrneaera�mauahowsn�rrcwn�cac+ene�cro+ae �^nn vr,-.�•n^:,:a... *=^� BULL CALL INDEX • �Y�Y.�I {y�j�t'j$ lYlnlYT..'�Y�}iQ1�I,�MI�{Y{�}IM1..-r.tiWGl'l'V i�4 N Bob Brake, Latham and, Watkins , Attorneys for The ' Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Com- mission to present to the Planning Commission a letter on the California Environmental Quality , Act, the subject of which included the site analy- sis section of the Initial Study relating to the 24 minimum potentially significant environmental , impacts, with a maximum of 45 and included in thos numbers are 3 of the 4 potential effects identifie in the CEQA guidelines as mandating an EIR and ' that the only effect that is not checked as having potentially involved in any of the alternatives under cons-ideration is 21-"B" and he expressed his feeling that there is a potential of a 21—"B" , :effect involved in any of the residential alter- natives under consideration. Also, he pointed out that CEQA requires that Environmental Docu- ments should be prepared as early as possible in the planning process to enable environmental con- siderations to influence project-, program and ' design and that these steps of analysis and eval- uation must be completed prior to approval of the project. In conclusion, he expressed his feeling that it would be proper at this time to engage in the environmental study that will provide the basic information necessary to reach an intelli- gent decision and that in any project of the na- ture of a General Plan Amendment, CEQA goes on to point out that the primary focus should be on secondary effects , which would include items such . , as : effects on the housing availability , employ- ment availability and location population and degmagraphic patterns , economic wellbeing of the populus and effects on the airport. Fred Talarico , Environmental Coordinator, "stated - that they have possibly mistakenly assumed that this is the complete Initial Study for the project which cannot be completed until they have a project and it is premature at this point to make a de- , termination at this time. Robert Shelton, The Irvine Company, appeared be-* fore the Planning Commission and referred to the ' Koll Center project, stating their agreement with staff. He then briefly reviewed their presenta- tion, stating their feeling that the most effec- , MINUTES ._ September 20, 1979 v_ N lv/ of Newport Beach war We Vaal - 1MIWO 044JCA1HRYfF�'?�35A"ei3N'v '6F8' a 'nA:•3H•'Mts:s`2RRXl>d ' . CALL IINDEX ..•a rrcwaw•nxvaersuraean+ssrmttesz'�namMa•�aen�ra •t+a�avrnaum�cca.�n� d 3:r:;a:�aw..w•,+a,'savauM;,� v ' tive way to bring about improvements to the circulation system is to permit the kind of de- velopment that the General Plan currently contem- plates and to do it- in the context of very care- ful phasing. ' Commissioner Beek requested that the term "build- able acreage" be used throughout, and that the term "buildable acreage" not include, bluffs , flood plains and habitat reserves . Mr. Hogan, responded that "buildable acreage" as referred to in the ' General Plan refers only to re- sidential density designations . Commissioner Beek suggested that at some future ' time they can discuss the boundaries of the areas which, they determine to be unusable when they ob- tain the technical material to determine such. ' Commissioner Allen stated her understanding that Commissioner Beek' s intention was to generally ' determine the number of dwelling units per build- able acre at this time and feed the habitat areas ' in at a later date. Commissioner Beek proposed the term, "usable acres" . Commissioner Balalis suggested using the present ' definition and discuss an alternate definition at a later date . Mr. Hogan informed the Planning Commission that th only things that are presently excluded in the ter "buildable acre" are streets , public recreation ' areas and slopes greater than 2: 1.' Motion Motion was made to use the term, "usabl-e acreage" ' and that usable acres , being gross acres , will ex- clude those areas which are protected habitat areas , flood plains , coastal bluffs , blufftop set- backs as determined by City Council , sights un- buildable for geologic or seismic reasons and -10- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ' Septen&er 20, 1979 j u H VW (J of Newport Beach � ••:•,.•. .a..r¢art writ,lM,ecm'af..1�../+%aidlatdsl�F7xplTd�ilMlfdlpC�,a+,•.�•.NetAMrl�WMuxe,Wtlw.4MntA1Mc'i.^L1:vfl•xrlir. :C � i:tM CALL INDEX ;•IN.:'r 'F: RIl�•W.'fAMR1y.`uYFAl .Wtrw.#M.isIMYEMYWOO1tiF[itMSZfiNiIIN�A/Y,M K�Yr .Y1A"j)` 4+ park or open space dedications , but not excluding ' streets. Commissioner Balalis stated his opposition to the motion, suggesting that Commission Beek come back to the next meeting with a more finite definition and suggest same to the City 'Council . ?lotion x Substitute Notion was made that in all the areas that are concurrently being dealt with in our General Plan Amendment and the Local Coastal Pro- gram Land Use Element that we will determine at some point at a later date what will be excluded ' from buildable acreage prior to total density com- putation: protected habitat areas , flood plains , coastal bluffs, bldfftop setbacks as determined' by City Council , sights unbuil-dable for geologic ' or seismic reasons, and park or open space dedi- cations, but not excluding streets , but that in terms of the present discussion , the Planning Com- mission will• dear with buildable acreage ' in the' traditional manner. In response to a question posed by Commissioner ' Balalis, 'Mr. Hogan replied that they had included in the public hearing notice a possible revision to the existing density classification system and that' the definition of acreage could be a part of that. Mr. Hogan pointed out that this would mean that the Planning Commission would not at this time be determining the number of units or the amount ' of development. Mr. Shelton again appeared before the Planning Commission and expressed their feeling that if they do not talk in terms of numbers of allowable dwelling units on the site, they make it difficult to project traffic and other environmental impacts ' on any given site and that buildable acres are ad- dressed ultimately when specific site planning oc- curs . Ayes x K x x Straw Vote was then taken on the Substitute Mo- Noes x ton w�iich MOTION CARRIED. Absent Motion K Motion was made to reconsider the Substitute Mo- tion. —22. ' (.:o1%.1m1SS1CA%1ERS MINUTES September 20, 1979 � f• 7s 5 y l= City of Neer. Beach ( r f\{.L Ih1.1EX�awxa+s�Vi 4 �...»,,.+max .�t,.rrcaow+nnws+.�nw�m. Noromaiss�zmesn.sw. ra�ra�ct� an�.r+,r�rax�',xwm�s�� Hugh Coffin, Acting City Attorney , stated that Koli Center, part of hlewport Center and North ' Ford are outside the Coastal Zone and would not be subject to the Local Coastal Program in any, regard. 1, s x x Straw Vote was then taken on the Motion, which ::1s x x MOTION CARRIED. .-,bsent M ion x Su . titute Mo#ion was then made that in, all zones AAps x Y x the Planning Commission deal with the following Ploes x x concerns specifically at a later time, at which Agent * time all or some portion of the following may be excluded from the buildable acreage prior to total density computation: 1) protected habitat areas , 2) flood plains, 3) coastal bluffs , 4) blufftop setbacks as determined by the City Council , 5) sites urbuildable for geologic or seismic rea- sons , 6) park or open space dedications , 7) resi- dential areas which are greater than 65 CNEL noise zones from highway traffic not including air traf- fic , '(but not excluding streets ) , 8) "and to be applied in not only the coastal zones , but in all. zones , upon which a Straw Vote was taken. M ion Motion was made that Site Number 5 , The Aeronu- A s x x x x tronic Ford Site, be planned for the adopted P1-an- Agent * ned Community Text, upon which a Straw Vote was taken . MIion Y Motion was made that Koll Center be planned for 25,625 sq. ft. of courthouse, 10 ,000 sq. ft. of ' offices on the "restaurant" site at the intersec- tion of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard and that the remainder of the parcel be planned for residential at 8 dwelling units per buildable acre . Mlion x Substitute Mot ion was made that K611 Center be planned for 25 ,625 sq . ft. of courthouse , 10 ,000 ' sq. ft. of offices on the "restaurant" site at the intersection of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boule- vard and that the remainder of the parcel be plan- ned for residential at 17 dwelling units per buildable acre. � - -12- COS/� :�;;IONERS MINUTES ' > x September 20, 1979 N X Gb/ of Newpoft Peach _ n .. �M *1/ASkMYH1Ef4?.7YA'}aft 1.r:147►hµ rn r� CALLS" I N D I J . .... •fYNaW, '1N.Y,YWNM '1{ 1M/:E/tNY�DG/llrKRlll'IMl p lu �'(: Commissioner Allen then expressed her feeling ' that there are certain constraints involved with commercial that have been addressed before, the most obvious being the problem related to traffic, further expressing her feeling that adding addi- tional commercial to the City makes it apparent that the day will come that the roadways will not , keep pace with the private development and that it would be to their great advantage to suggest residential . She shared her computation at ap- proximately 18 buildable acres after excluding the hotel site and the 1.8 acre corner site at Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard, suggesting 320 units at 2,500 sq. ft. a unit to arrive at ' approximately 800,000 sq,. ft. Mr. Hogan suggested that there should be an oppor- tunity for the property owner to consider loca- tions within the project for those amenities which are needed to go along with residential develop ment, and that noise be considered as well . ' Commissioner Allen shared her finding that the ' airport noise projection shows that Koll Center will be outside the 60 CNEL. The Planning Commission recessed at 10:45 p.m. and reconvened at 10: 55 p.m. Mr. Hogan then stated, that Office Site "C", has ' 17. 5 acres and immediately adjacent to that is Retail Site "1" which has 1 acre and is now a restaurant site and in Office Site "B" is 8.1 acres and Office Site "G" is 1 acre. Commissioner Allen stated her intention that Of- ' fice Site "G" , Retail Site "1" and the industrial site be as presently planned. She stated that it was not her intention to deal with Office Site at all'. Mr. Coffin reported that the quarterly noise re-- ' port as issued by the County of Orange Airport shows a noise contour map averaging the 1978 NK _ZA 1 ' CO,V'„N465GNERS MINUTES ^ +� z September 20, 1979 ' _ 4 5-r City of Ni:,qmport Beach v. .-•vnf ;...F D•,C ew'.Fk"'ae`.NA'T51FTdG'FPrs'.A'1ilDer.G%:M1M1AEitik0A5Y+XtiCIiIFAdRdWStkMT.kC'..iP.,1�".Y'!AZ'Ck6'SBNR�A4f'E.:.6�byfU.`di.ic`4lfi:M1�.Wr+.tM'nN6 . .,•t.dx"N.'b L CALL fNDE.X �a� amcwra : s:""awa errnncNw W10Mxrr•ro�:;,. a.a asn;acya• noise figures and that at the intersection of Campus Drive and MacArthur Boulevard the 65 CNEL contour runs in that area basically along Mac- Arthur Bouleiard and below Campus -Drive and shows no 65 CNEL contours within that area based on air- craft noise alone. Commissioner Haidinger stated his understanding that CNEL is the community noise equivalent level , which is an averaging of energy impacts on an annual basis and that sporadic airport noise would be more disruptive than continual highway traffic noise. ' Commissioner' licLaughlin expressed her . feeli'ngs that the periodic landing and take-off of the jets are severely unacceptable . Commissioner Beek stated his understanding that th ' substitute motion establishes the residential planning on Office Site "C" and on all. of Office Site "B" , with the exception of the small portion on the corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree ' Road , to which Commissioner Allen agreed. , Notion Amendment to the Substitute Motion was made that A s x Office Site "A" be included in the residential Ns x x x planning at the same intensity, upon which a A sent * * Straw Vote was taken. ' Commissioner Haidinger expressed his understanding , that the proper procedure would be to vote on the motion , regardless of the outcome of the substi - tute motion. Mr. Coffin stated that the interpretation has al -' ways been that when the substitute . motion suggests a different action than the main motion, if it is approved, it becomes the motion that was approved and that if it fails , the original motion is then voted on. M tion x Substitute Motion was made to accept the proposal of 25% of the remaining square footage as shown in Alternate 1 , Exhibit "C" and the Phasing Plan and that the property owner will have the right ' to substitute any square footage for 'residential -2 5 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ' � - - 5eptenber 20, 1979 3 City of Newport Beach _.. ., r.eu, •�• ... vwr�;rK+aws�xca, .wvx�-s,,•„. I. :ALL INDEX .. •s•* un:,�wnr�mxwvaousssc�nw+zaece��r+�c�� a,•�u+,sr.�srnr�se�cdww .�u,�rars,�arr,uk„ purposes .at 2,000 sq. ft. per unit, using all the space including the square footage by which it was reduced, if the residential development is of , 400,000 sq. ft. or more. Commissioner Allen stated 'her understanding that Comwla ssioner Balalis' motion is to leave the op- ' tion of residential development up to the devel- oper, stated that she would of support the mo- tion because the purpose of her residential buil-d- out suggestion was an attempt to find a develop-' ment that would help solve some of the planning problems within the City and she expressed her feeling that it is the function of the Planning Commission to determine use. Motion x Amendment to Commissioner Balalis ' Motion was ' made that the 25% figure suggested by Commissioner Balalis in his Substitute Motion, be amended to 30%. , Mr. Shelton appeared before the Planning Commis- sion to i-nquire whether their figures refer to ' Office Site "C" and in what way this incentive would apply to The Irvine Company site, to which Commissioner Balalis replied that The Irvine Company has under the current area allowable , 358,200 sq. ft. and that they introduce a Phasing Plan on the P-C done as in the Emk'ay situation , and that The Koll Company and The Irvine Company , must necessarily decide collectively. Commissioner Beek stated that he would abstain , from voting on the amendment, as he would be voting "no" on the substitute motion. Ayes x Straw Vote was then taken on the amendment to Como ' Noes x x x missioner Balalis ' Substitute Motion, which Abstain X MOTION FAILED. Absent Ayes x x Straw Vote was then taken on Commissioner Balalis ' , Noes x x x Substitute Motion, which MOTION FAILED. Absent Ayes x Straw Vote was then taken on Commissioner Allen' s ' Noes xIx x x Substitute Motion , which MOTION FAILED . Absent -15- C�aN1NIIISSI0NER'S 'MINUTES t = Septenber 20p 1979 s N m try S 61 W D of NmWrt Beach ./.:• `�d4 b IW91R7+S1�" .AP.4P�Y4Y2H41'fiA�1tM.3M1EWi�ft�!7�^xTNC71*��LM rtP.'19ri:UMf:h ILL C/1L INDEX Y'L�..T 277C@CRi'RH.'7,4F[e�'M�(RIIbM 76'198'CYSICMlb!!!IL'7l@>ALC`C�.:ut9.PR�+xN+E4fi"!b Commissioner seek stated that his motion on the ' floor applies to office Sites "C" , "A" and "B with the exception of the small parcel on the corner of ffacArthur. Boulevard and Jamboree Road. Commissioner Allen stated her support of the mo- tion because she would support any residential proposal that invade an effort i•n the direction in which she was looking to solve these problems; that is, any proposal of less density. Js N x Straw Vote was then taken on the Motion, which Noes x x x MOTION FAILED. A ent ' Commissioner Haidinger inquired whether anything was being done regarding the parking problem at Hoolihan's Restaurant, to which James Hewicker, Assistant Director-Planning, replied that the ' food park under construction at the opposite efid of the block is designed to provide parking for Hoolihan's Restaurant. Mr. Brake, Attorney for The Irvine Company, again ' appeared before the -Planning Commission and re- ferred to his letter addressed to the Planning Commission , expressing his feeling that if what •' he had just heard occur was representative of the manner in which the Planning Commission intends to proceed, that he felt constrained to say that the Planning Commission is intending to violate ' every accepted principle of proper planning and the constitutional rights of his client. Requ to amend a previously approved use permit btem #3 that allo t�he construction of a restaurant with 1 on-sale alcoho'I'i1 verages so as to permit an USE PER- additional freestandi ' dentification sign on MIT NO. ' the site . 1671 MENDED LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 0 (Resubdivision No . 425) loca CONTINUE OCTOB 4 , gC —27 ' COMMISSIONERS Special Adjourned Planning Commission MINUTES Meeting T•-, 7 r s- ' = Place : City Council Chambers LAZ `` C a Time : 7 : 30 P.M. Date: September 27, 1979 y N City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Present X x x XK x EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS R. V . Hogan , Community Development Director ' Hugh Coffin , Acting City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS ' James Hewicker, Assistant Director.-Planning Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Fred Talarico , Environmental Coordinator ' Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer Glenna Gipe, Secretary Minutes Written By: Glenna Gipe f Request to consider proposed amendments to the Items # ' Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and aid 2 Open Space Elements of the General Plan, and the preliminary review of a screen check Initial GENERAL Study. P AT N AMENDMENT ' INITIATED BY : The City of Newport Beach .79-1- AND GENERAL ' AND PLAN AMENDMENT Request to consider proposed amendments to the Cir 79-2 culation Element of the General Plan , and the ac- ceptance of an Environmental Document. CONTINUED INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach SPECIAL DJ URNED ` Motion Motion was made that discussion regarding site PLANNING number 1 be deferred to follow discussion regard- CAMM3 SIO ' in site number 16 . MEETLNG., 9 OON�,d6'B� Commissioner Haidinger stated his understanding 4, 1979 that an impasse regarding any one item would im- ply that the General Plan would stand as is . -i- ' � .. as :� COMMISSIONERS MINUTES t September 27 , 1979 -1 w I I City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Commi-ssioner Balalis stated his preference to be- ' ,gin with discussion regarding site number 1. Ayes x x x x Motion was then voted on , which MOTION CARRIED. ' Noes x x Discussion then began regarding Site No. 2, Jam- boree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. ' Motion x Motion was made that Site No. 20 Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard , be listed as a Public ' Works Reserve or Park and Ride facility, as is the Local Coastal Program' s recommendation . Hugh Coffin , Acting City Attorney, stated that it would be required to leave some viable use of the property and that historically the City has desig- nated the primary use as one for the City, but that they have indicated also that if the primary use is not feasible , that a secondary private eco- nomic use is designated on the property, because disallowing all the private viable uses of the pro - perty could be deemed as taking an inverse condem nation. The Public Hearing continued regarding this item , and Robert Shelton , The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission and inquired whether this was permitted, in view of the limitations on ' the public hearing noti.ce, to which Commissioner Beek replied that they are taking only straw votes at this time and that the City Attorney can advise ' at a later date. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin., Don Webb , Assistant City Engineer, re- plied that the proposed loop would require pro- bably 1/3 to 1/2 of the westerly portion of the site. In response to a question posed by Commissi-oner Balalis , Richard Hogan , Community Development 1 Director, responded that it would be possible to park 125 cars per acre per level . -2- ' ' COMMISSIONERS MINUTES September 27, 1979 li City of Newport Beach OLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Cokas requested the rationale behind Commissioner Thomas ' motion , to which Commissione Thomas replied that it would be a valid location ' for a major arterial highway. Commissioner Haidinger posed a question , to which Mr. Hogan replied that there is a provision to provide an alternate use as well . Motion Amendment to the Motion was made to add the exist ing General Plan designation as a secondary use . ' Mr. Shelton again appeared before the Planning ' Commission and requested that the Planning Commis sion attempt to make appropriate justification fo the suggested changes , including comments , find- ings and analyses , stating his feeling that nothi g has been determined that would warrant in a fac- tual way the change of use to a vague designation which does not appear in the General Plan. yes M x x -S-traw Vote was then taken on the Amendment to the oes x x Motion , which MOTION CARRIED . dyes Y x x Straw Vote was then taken on the Motion , which es x x x MOTION CARRIED . 1 Discussion then ensued regarding Site No. 3 , San Diego Creek. Commissioner Balalis stated his understanding tha the southerly 47 acres is the site that is pre- sently considered by NEWA as a desilting basin . Mr. Hogan requested that Commissioner Thomas writ a definition of what he intends "Public Works Re- serve" to mean , to be incorporated as part of the General Plan . lotion x Motion was made to change the 12 acres on the nor therly site and the 47 acres on the southerly sit into a• Public Works Reserve. Motion x Substitute Motion was made that the southerly 47 ' acre portion . of this parcel be removed from the Motion on the floor , with the understanding that it be considered later. C MISSIONERS1 MINUTES ' September 27, 1979 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Motion Substitute Motion was made that the southerly 47 , All Ayes acres be considered as a Public Works Reserve , which includes., but is not limited to , a desilting , basin , upon which a Straw Vote was taken. Motion x Motion was made that the 12 acres on the northerly . site be planned as a Public Works Reserve. Motion x Amended Motion was made to include as a secondary use the addition of retail and service/commercial to the 12 acres on the northerly side of Univer- sity Drive. In response to a question posed by Commissioner ' Beek , Mr. Hogan replied that the practical aspects of designating primary and secondary uses is that if the public didn ' t acquire the property and put it to the use designated in the General Plan , it would be the right of the property owner to come in with a proposal for the ,secondary use and the public would then have to make the decision as to whether they intended to purchase that for public purposes or not, and if not, then the property owner would be given the right to proceed with the secondary use. Robert Lenard , Advance Planning Administrator, ' informed the Planning Commission that the existing General Plan designations on both this and the previous site allow commercial , industrial and office uses with no square footage limitations and that in the past when a site did not have an adopt ed' P-C development plan , staff has made estimates of a reasonable density factor, based on some existing developments and that on these two sites , the density is low. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Hogan replied that the public in many instances can proceed to acquire funds through bond issues and don ' t have to have the funds on .hand immediately , and must come before the Plan- ning Commission with either a P-C or a Use Permit, at which time a square footage is established. ' -4- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES September 27 , 1979 y City of Newport Beach OLL CALL INDEX yes x x x x Straw Vote was then taken on the Amended Motion , oes x x which MOTION CARRIED . 'yes x x x x x Straw Vote was then taken on the Motion , which oes x Y MOTION CARRIED . Discussion regarding Site No. 4, North-Ford, then began . �otion Motion was made that Site No . 4 be planned for re- sidential use at a density of 6 dwelling unit's per buildable acre specifically with the understanding that buildable acres does not include anything in ' the over 65 CNEL zone and with the further under- standing that the density will be increased to higher densities if the landowner suggests appro- priate proposals for development. In response to a . question posed by Commissioner Haidinger, Keith Greer, The Irvine Company, ap- peared before the Planning Commission an,d replied that the density of Westcliff Grove is •approxi - mately 7 ,000 sq. ft. lot size average and there is a total of 29 units . Steve Sandlund , The Irvine Company, appeared be- fore the Planning Commission a.-nd stated that ac- cording to the EIR supplement for North-Ford, the area is approximately 37% of the site that would be affected by the 65 CNEL or larger. 1 Commissioner Cokas expressed his feeling that it would be a mistake to go with anything but a com- mercial development, as proposed . lotion x Amendment to the Motion was made that- the 6 dwell - ing units per .acre figure be changed to 4 dwelling units per acre. Motion x Amendment to the Motion was made to eliminate the ' provision that allows developers to come in with a plan for development that could alter the den- sity. ' Commissioner Beek accepted these amendments as mo- difications to be incorporated into his original motion . -5- CQMMISSIONERSI MINUTES s September 27, 1979 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Ayes K x x x Straw Vote was then taken on the Motion , which Noes x x MOTION—CTRRIED. In response to a question posed by Mr. Lenard, ' Commissioner Beek stated 'his intention regarding this motion that the 6.5 CNEL contour can be moved ' if appropriate structures such as berms , walls , landscaping or depressing or relocating the free- way occurs . Motion x Motion was made to reconsider the previous motion. ' In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen , Mr. Sandlund replied that the chart in- cludes the CNEL noise contours from the noise gen- erated by Jamboree Road and the current alignment being considered 'by Orange County for the Corona del Mar freeway extension and does not include the traffic from MacArthur Boulevard and that the lower 65 'CNEL line represents noise generated by , the new alignment of the combination of the ex- tension of the Corona del Mar freeway as it con- nects with MacArthur Boulevard. Ayes x x x x x Motion was then voted on , which MOTION' CARRIED. Noes Motion x Motion was made that the North-Ford parcel be , planned for a residential use at the density of 4 dwelling units per buildable acre with the understanding that the area over the 65• CNEL zone ' not be counted as buildable, and that the 65 CNEL line be drawn to include noise ,generated by the proposed Corona del Mar freeway after mitigation. Commissioner Haidinger explained that 'his reason for stating the motion such was to avoid homeown- ers who will become irrate if the freeway is ever built. Commissioner Cokas again expressed his feeling that this is a classical industrial area that should be developed in that way. Ayes x x Straw Vote was then taken on the Motion , which , Noes x x x x MOTION CARRIED . li -6- ' COMMISSIONERS1 MINUTES September 27 , 1979 ' ZY � L> � 9 � y N City of Newport Beach OLL CALL INDEX The Planning Commission recessed at 9 : 00 p .m. and reconvened at 9 : 10 p .m. i 'Discussi-on then began regarding' Site No . 6 . Mr. Hogan informed the Planning Commission of a few changes and additions in the Staff Report regard- ing said site , stating that the total remaining to be developed is 1 ;447 ,000 sq . ft. less 105 ,000 sq . ft. Lon Motion was made that the remaining vacant areas o Newport Center be planned for residential use at a density of 8 dwelling units per buildable acre , with the understanding that increased density will be provided if appropriate proposals are made. �tion x Amendment to the Motion was made that higher den- sities would be allowed if there was. a demon- strated significant public benefit- consistent with health , safety and welfare. Commissioner Beek stated his acceptance of this 1 amendment to be included in his motion. Commissioner Cokas inquired of the Planning Com- mission the purpose of changing the General Plan as it presently exists , to which Commissioner Beek responded. with his .feeling that Newport Beach has an over-abundance -of commercial development, ' a severe employment imbalance and that by adding further commercial , the imbalance is exaggerated in an area which is more desirable for residen- tial . Mr. Shelton appeared before the Planning Commis- sion and inquired whether Commissioner Thomas in-: tended to imply moderate income housing , to which Commissioner Thomas replied in the negative , and he also inquired whether Commissioner Beek could cite studies or analyses that could support the conclusions inherent in his remarks , to which Commissioner Beek replied that according to a study made by David Dmohowsk.i , previous Advance Planning Administrator, Newport Beach has more COMMISSIONERS MINUTES , September 27 , 1979 TX tin Cit of Newport Beach , ROLL CALL INDEX than its share per capita of commercial develop- , ments . Mike McLaughlin , Pacific Mutual , appeared before the Planning Commission and expressed his concern related to Blocks 700 and 800, stating that the 9404 sq . ft. was planned as an expansion of their learning center, feeling that it would not cause an additional burden on the traffic. Mr. Hogan responded that Block 800 is the Pacific ' Mutual P-C , which was approved by the City Council for the development of the 27-story towers , not a part of this General Plan Amendment, although the land is still vacant. Ron Hendrickson, The Irvine Company, appeared be- fore the Planning Commission and reminded them of previous actions which they have taken with regard Ili to Civic Plaza, and that in reliance upon the ac- tions of the Planning Commission and the City , Council , there are currently plans for two build- ings that have been in the City Building Depart- ment for over a month, representing an expenditure . in excess of $200 ,000. Motion x Substitute Motion was made that the designated ' commercial areas remain as they are , with the ex- ception that the 29 acres at Newport Village be planned for r.esidenti.al uses at 10 dwelling units per acre and that a Phasing Plan be prepared and approved by the Planning Commission and City Coun- cil for the development of the remainder of New- port Center. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Thomas , Mr. Hogan relayed a map that indicated that the 65 CNEL involves about n or k of the north end of the site. Commissioner Cokas stated his concern relevant to 1 the Planning Commission attempting to discern the location of the 65 CNEL zone , inquiring whether there was some way of increasing the num- ber of dwelling units from the 339 figure to a COMMISSIONERS MINUTES � September 27 , 1979 City of Newport Beach OLL CALL INDEX number proposed by the developers , to which Com- missioner Balalis replied that this would be ac- ceptable to him. ' Keith Greer, The Irvine Company , posed a question , to which Mr. Hogan replied that the 94 figure was 1 in the General Plan originally, was amended by Sea, Island, was not' removed from the General Plan , and should be subtracted from the 339 figure , leaving only 245. Lion x Amendment to the Motion was made to increase the existing dwelling units by 290 and reduce the ' existing office and commercial by 170,000 sq . ft. , including a Phasing Plan for the development of the remainder of Newport Center. Commissioner Balalis accepted Commissioner -Cokas ' amendment to be included in his motion . tion x Substitute Motion was then made that the remaining es x area of Newport Center be planned for residential Noes x x x x use at a density of 7 dwelling units per buildable acre , excluding the 9464 sq . ft. involved with Pacific Mutual ' s learning center , upon which a Straw Vote was taken. es x x x x Straw Vote was then taken on the previous Sub- es x Y x stitute Motion , which MOTION CARRIED. The Planning Commission recessed at 11: 00 p.m. ' and reconvened at 11: 10 p.m. Discussion then began regarding Site No . 7 , Bay- view Landing. Commissioner Beek suggested approaching The Ir- vine Company projects as an entirety in. lieu of the Local Coastal Planning Advisory Committee' s sug- gestions concerning density transfers ,among and between these parcels and consider not only the vacant parcels , but Promontory Point and Park New- port areas which have already been developed. C MISSIONERS1 MINUTES ' = September 27 , 1979 N City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Motion Y Motion was made regarding Site No. 7 that Public , Recreational be included in Alternate Use No. 6 , or a lesser intense use. , Motion x Amendment to the Motion was made that Site No. 7 Ayes x x xx x be l,ow-density residential at 4 dwelling units per Noes K x acre as an alternate use , and to build residential ' ' on the lower portion to allow a view corridor, which is to be figured by the total units per acre on the entire site and put on the lower site , upon which a Straw Vote was taken. Ayes x x xx x Straw Vote was. then taken on. the Motion , which Noes K x MiION CARRIED. Discussion then began regarding Site No. 8. Mr. Greer again appeared before the Planning- Com- mission and addressed himself to the three proper- ties on the backbay: Castaways , Newporter North , and West Bay, stating that the comments from the representative from fish and Game involve areas that can be worked out in the refinement of the plan•: He requested that the Planning Commission maintain the present General Plan on these three sites , as they see no reason to reduce the General Plan designation of these sites from the stand- , point of either traffic or residential character. Commissfoner -Balalis expressed his feeling that the transfer from one site to another is an ex- cellent idea , and that it would be necessary to transfer to a location that would not impact the ' bay. Commissioner Cokas expressed hiss feeling that from the standpoint of traffic , to increase the density at Castaways would be counter to good traffic. Commissioner Haidinger agreed that conserving the bay was one objective, but that clustering homes in one area to save the bay may bring other un- favorable results . -10- COMMISSIONERS1 MINUTES September 27 , 1979 5 H y N City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Thomas expressed his feeling that they are ignoring the tenants of the Coastal Act . Commissioner •Balalis stated his understanding that it would be necessary to reduce the existing den- sity of Castaways and then increase it with the density transfers . Mr. Hogan inquired regarding the purpose and in- tent of the density transfers , stating that nor- mally when densities are assigned and there is a possibility of density transfers , the person who has the property is allowed to develop the pro- perty at that density; however , if he determines that he doesn' t want to develop the ,property, he has the right to transfer those property rights ' to another property owner at another location and that is normally not for public purposes , but pri - vate purposes , and that if it is the intent to reduce the intensilty" of development on the West- , , bay Site and not to allow it- to be developed at a certain intensity of development, then -the correct intensity of development should be assigne at this time. Commissioner Beek stated his understanding that the Planning Commission would like to see Castaways vacant or low-density , but that the Westbay Site has specific view prospects which they wish to preserve ; the Newporter North area has specific habitat buffer areas , Eastbay and Bayview Land- ings are specific points to be preserved , leaving Castaways as the "catch-all " . lotion x Motion was made that Castaways be designated as low-density residential at 4 dwelling units per acre , excluding the 5 acres at the bottom to re- main commercial . Motion Amendment to the Motion was made to include .plus l or minus those units transferred from other Irvine Company sites around the Upper Bay. l l -11- r COMMISSIONERS' MINUTES , � September 27 , 1979 5. IS City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Ayes K x 9 Straw Vote was then taken on the Amendment, which , Noes x x MOTION CARRIED. Motion Amendment to the Motion was made that the 5 acres Ayes x x ' x fn the southerly portion be zoned mobile home park , Noes x x rather than commercial , to maintain the existing moderate and low-income housing , upon which a ' Straw Vote was taken. Ayes K K x x x Straw Vote was then taken on the Motion , which , Noes x K MDf16N—cTR-RIED. Discussion then ensued regarding Site No. 9. ' Motion K Motion was made that the General Plan designation be 4 dwelling units per buildable acre , that it be designated a density transfer area and that the , density be transferred to Castaways . Motion x Amendment to the Motion was made that only 3/4 of those building units be transferred to Casta- ways. Commissioner Thomas accepted Commissioner Beek' s amendment to be included in his motion. Motion x Amendment to the Motion was made to delete the , Ayes x x x transfer of the dwelling units to Castaways , upon ' Noes K xx x which a Straw Vote was' taken . Motion x Substitute Motion was made that the 3/•4 be trans- ' ferred to the ,North-Ford Site, rather than the 'Castaways Site. Commissioner Beek expressed his concern that the units would be considerably less valuable on North-Ford than they Would on one of the parcels on Upper Bay. Ayes x YX Straw Vote was then taken on the Substitute Mo- Noes x x x x tion , -which MOTION FAILED . Ayes x x Yx x Straw Vote was then taken on the Motion , which Noes x x MOTION CARRIED. ' Discussion then began regarding Site No. 10 , the Eastbluff Remnant. , -12- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES _ September 27 , 1979 R 8 1 City of -Newport Beach OLL CALL INDEX lotion K Motion was made that Site No . 10 be low-density Ayes x x K x residential at 4 dwelling units per buildable �oes x x ' x acre , all of which would be transferred to the Castaways site , upon which a Straw Vote was taken. l Discussion then began regarding Site No. 11 , Newporter North . Motion Motion was made that Site No . 11 , Newporter North , l be planned at 4 dwelling units per buildable acre , with , of the units transferred to Castaways . Commissioner Haidinger suggested deleting the transfer. Commissioner Beek explained that he- included the transfer due to the archaeological site which would need to be protected in some way. notion A Amendment to the Motion was made that the transfer, es x x xx x be optional , upon which a Straw Vote was taken. Noes X x ' es x x x xx x Straw Vote was then taken on the Motion , which oes x MOTION CARRIED . lThe Planning Commission recessed at 11: 00 p .m. and reconvened at 11 : 10 p .m. ' Discussion then began regarding Site No. 16 , Mouth of Big Canyon . Motion X Motion was made that Site No . 16 be low-density at 4 dwelling units per buildable acre and that these units be transferred to Castaways . ' Commissioner McLaughlin stated her opposition to the motion , expressing her concern regarding trans ferring dwelling units when buildable area is not ' definitely defined and the total number of dwellin units is not known . -13- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ' September 27 , 1979 IV ID X N City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Beek expressed his feeling that there , is no buildable space in this area, and the current General Plan designation is Open Space with Resi- dential as an alternate use , and suggested that the motion be withdrawn. Motion Motion was made to leave Site No . 16 at its cur- All Ayes rent designation , upon which a Straw Vote was taken . Mr. Lenard stated that they had allocated some- , where between 370 and 425 units to the Castaways site , assuming only a 251 figure loss to buildable acreage, when in reality it will probably be much greater. Motion x Motion was made that density transfers to Casta- ways not be made , but that the dwelling units , be left on each of the sites . Motion Motion was made to table the previous motion to Ayes x x x follow discussion of Site No. 1. Noes x x Abstain x Discussion then began regarding Site No- 1, Koll Center. Motion x Motion was made that Koll Center be rezoned as concerns the three major undeveloped parcels , Of- fice Sites A, B and C, with the exception of a small corner of Site B, to 8 dwelling units, per acre residential , with the understanding that higher dwelling units will be allowed if approp- riate uses are proposed. Mr. Lenard stated that it had come to the staff' s attention that there is a General Plan Amendment before the City of Irvine on a project called ' Douglas Plaza at the intersection and adjacent to " MacArthur Boul-evard and Campus Drive from Koll Center Newport. He added that there is an exist- , ing General Plan allowance in Irvine for 350 ,000 sq . ft. of commercial office development and an existing hotel and office uses on the site and that there is a proposal for a General Plan Amend- ' ment that is being made by the developer, McDonnell - Douglas , to add 350 residential condominium units to this site consisting of a mixture of bachelor , -14- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES September 27 , 1979 � = w H I City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX and one and two bedroom units ranging in price from $65 ,000 to $100 ,000 and. the developer has taken the position that these units will mitigate any traffic problems that have been generated by the 350,000 sq. ft. of commercial -office to a point where the net traffic impact .with his amend- ment would be less , and he is requesting that the . r amount by which the traffic is reduced be given back .to him in square footage for the commercial - office uses . Commissioner Allen expressed her observation that residential is considered by someone with more economic expertise as a - good alternative on this - site and that a residential mix with the existing commercial greatly reduces traffic. Mr. Hogan expressed his concern that this proposal does not provide the facilities needed by resi - dential development fn anywhere near the immediate vicinity of that residential development, but the one justification provides for living in the vici - nity of the working area . David Dmohowski , The Irvine Company , appeared be- fore the Planning Commission and informed them that a proposal of this sort was brought before the Irvine City Council in the. recent past which involved the introduction of residential units into the Irvine Industrial Complex area and the City Council rejected an application to amend the P-C in that area because of the lack of residen- tial support facilities and other residential amenities . lotion x Amendment to the Motion was made to eliminate Site C at the corner of Jamboree Road and Campus Drive from consideration . Mr. Shelton again appeared before the Planning Commission and relayed some information regarding McDonnell -Douglas , stating that in addition to the developers wanting to add to the intensity of ' development already authorized , his proposal for 350 units works out to 45 'units to the acre , and r COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ' September 27 , 1979 - A2 � 9 ; , 7 � y N City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX asked the Planning Commission to consider that if the objective is to put affordable housing in commercial places to have close proximity to work, those a•re the kinds of density levels that make sense. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis , Mr. Shelton expressed their feeling that Site C is not suitable for residential use , but if residential use is under discussion , one must also discuss realistic figures . Mr. Hendrickson appeared before the Planning Com- mission and stated regarding Site C that based on the ADT on MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive, Mr. Percell sent comments regarding the CNEL lines in said area , indicated that 100 ft. east of Mac- Arthur Boulevard is 72 •CNEL'•and another 100 ft. easterly is 68 CNEL and going 200 ft. further in is 64 CNEL, which shows a highly impacted noise , area. Ayes x x x Straw Vote was then taken on the Amendment, which Noes x x x MffMN-TATLED . Motion x Substitute Motion was made to reduce by 30% the retail and office space , that the courthouse re-• main the same, that the industrial space be re- duced by 30%, that the restaurant remain as it is , and that the hotel remain as it is , using as the base point for the 30% reduction that each of the owners would be allowed the initial 30%, and the 70% remaining would total 673 ,767 and the reduc- tion would be 30% of that 673,767 figure , for a remainder of 471,637 added back to the initial 30% figure of 238,756, to give a total of 760,393 sq . ft. , plus the hotel . Amendment to the Substitute Motion was made that prior to computing any density reductions of any percentages , that the 141 ,021 sq . ft. that has no been built on the existing fully-developed sites first be deleted , leaving a total square footage of 552 , 108 sq . ft. -16- COMMISSIONERS, MINUTES September 27 , 1979 zr D N � City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Ernie Wilson , The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission to express his feeling that this would not be at all equitable. rAyes x x Straw Vote was then taken on the Amendment to the Noes x x x x Substitute Motion, which MOTION FAILED . ' Motion x Revised Substitute Motion was made that regarding Comumn "B" , the 107 ,000 figure be taken out of the reduction figure, that Comumn "C" then adds up ' to 712 ,000 sq . ft. , that 76% of 712 ,000 sq . ft. o a 24% reduction of the current remaining allowable , be calculated at 526 ,000 sq. ft. , that the 107,00 sq . ft. be added back, for a remainder to be de- veloped of 633,000 sq. ft. Mr. .Lenard explained that the two figures between Alternate 1, an allowable from today forth and Alternate 2, the area already constructed are not comparable and one figure must be subtracted from the other to make them comparable. Motion x Revised Substitute Motion was made to give a 30% reduction and use Alternate 2 in all other re- gard•s , for a total figure of Column "C" at approx- imately 40 ,000 sq. ft. less than the number shown, for a total to be built of approximately 620,000 sq . ft. Motion K Amendment to the Substitute Motion was made that Ayes x K x the 30% be left untouched and instead of taking Noes x x x x 70% of the remaining 70%, a 50% reduction in the remaining 70% be made , upon which a Straw Vote was taken . ' Ayes x x x K Straw Vote was then taken on the Revised Substi - Noes x x Lute Motion , which MOTION CARRIED. Motion x Motion was made that the Planning Commission ad- Ayes x x x x x x journ at 12: 30 a.m. to a special Adjourned Plan- Noes ning Commission meeting on October 4, 1979 at 2: 00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers . Debra Allen , Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach ' -17- , COMMISSIONERS Special Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting MINUTES P1-ace: City Council Chambers Time: 2:00 P.M. DZNFT Date: October 4, 1979 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Present x x x x x x EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS i R. V. Hogan, Community Development Director Hugh Coffin, Acting City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS James Hewicker, Assistant Director-Planning , Robert Lenard', Advance Planning Admi'nistrator Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer , Glenna Gipe, Secretary , Minutes Written By: Glenna. Gipe Request to consider proposed amendments to the Items # Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and 1 an Open Space Elements of the General Plan , and the preliminary review of a screen check Initial GENERA Study. P A— N TEND 0 T INITIATED BY: The City of ,Newport Beach 79-1 A GENERAL AND PLAN AMENDMIT Request to consider proposed ,amendments to the Cix.72 culation Element of the General Plan, and the ac- ceptance of an Environmental Document. CONTI ED INITIATED 'BY: The City of Newport, Beach UR PLAN- SSI Richard Hogan , Community Development Director, re- RrffnG layed a 'few 'clarifications with regard to the pre- ceding meeting. Commissioner Hai,dinger requested a clarification 1979 regarding the terms "secondary'' and "alternate" with regard to uses. Discussion then began regarding B19 Canyon Area 10, Site No. 12. ' COMMISSIONERS October 4, 1979 MINUTES s a City of Newport Beach Ir ROLL CALL -INDEX Motion x Motion was made that Big Canyon Area No. 10 , Site No. 12 , be left at its present General Plan desig- nation of 160 dwelling units . Keith Greer, The Irvine Company , appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that the slide ' area of Big Canyon Drive is not within the boun- daries of Site No. 10, but is immediately adjacent to it to the east and that only 2 of this site is 'buildable. Mr. Hogan explained that the calculation as far a the medium-high density residential and the net ' buildable acres is nothing more than a mathematical deduction of 25% of the total and means nothing regarding the topography of the site. He further explained that buildable is purely a definition for density purposes and doesn ' t have anything to do with whether one can actually construct on the site so that they would construct on that portion ' of the site which 'i-s physically usable following grading, approval of plans , etc. Motion K Amendment to the Motion was made that the desig- nation be 10 dwe"lling units per buildable acre. Commissioner Haidinger accepted Commissioner Beek' s amendment as part of his motion. Commissioner Allen expressed her feeling that there is no place in the ,City where low-density residential woul-d be more appropriate and more consistent with the surrounding area than in the Big Canyon area. Motion x Substitute Motion was made that Big Canyon Area Ayes x K x No. 10 , Site No. 12 , be designated at 4 dwelling Noes x x x x units per acre , upon which a Straw Vote was taken. I- Ayes x x x XK x Straw Vote was then taken on the Motion , which Noes x MRTTION77ARRRIED. ' Discussion then began regarding Site No. 13 , Bay- view Expansion. ' In response to a question posed by Commissioner Cokas , Mr. Greer replied that the existing densit is 12 dwelling units per gross acre and that the I9 -2- - ; " COMMISSIONERS October 4, 1979 MINUTES r City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Baywood Apartment community is one of the lowest density multi'-family communities in the City and , li expressed his feeling that there is no other al- ternative to that site that would be logical . Motion Motion was -made that the Bayv9ew •Expansion area 'I be zoned for residential at 4 dwelling units per buildable acre. ' Motion x Substitute Motion was made that the designation Ayes x x x x x for the Bayview Expansion be 10 dwelling units Noes x per buildable acre, upon which a Straw Vote was ' taken. Discussion then. ensued regarding the 5th Avenue ' Parcel , Site No. 14. Mr. Hogan explained that this area is presently zoned as a combination of P-C, R-1-13 and acreage belonging to the City and that the only concern which regards the Planning Commission is the P-C zoning, of which there is no adopted P-C text at this point. Motion x Motion was made that the designation for Site No. 14, the 5th Avenue Parcel , be left as is. Motion x Amendment to the Motion was •made that the over 65 CNEL corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway be excluded from the buildable computation after mitigation. Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer, brought to the ' attention of the Planning Commission that the noise element was put together at a time when MacArthur Boulevard was shown as a two-way road- , way and that now the area is a couplet and there is at this time approximately h the traffic that there was . ' Commissioner Cokas accepted Commi-ssioner Allen' s amendment as part of his motion. All Ayes Straw Vote was then taken o•n the Motion, which , Ffb'f3-6N=R I E D. r r ' COMMISSIONERS October 4 , 1979 MINUTES HMO City of New ort Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Discussion then began regarding Site No. 1.5 , Beco Property. ' Hugh Coffin , 'Assistant City Attorney, informed the Planning Commission that under the State Planning Act, the Planning Commission is entitled to adopt General Plan regulations for areas out- side of our City limits which will reasonably im- pact the City and be impacted by the City as far as land use development is concerned.. ' Commissioner Beek expressed his feeling that all .this will result in a new set of notices and a I, new definition of projects and that the County Triangle "should be included in their next dis- cussion. Mr. Hogan informed the Planning Commission that the County Triangle is presently in the General Plan , that the land use designations in the Count ' Triangle are presently for industrial and resi - dential and that the Coastal Commission has special regulations dealing with areas that re- quire the area ' of existing jurisdiction to de- velop the Local Coastal Plan and the fact that this may be affected .by the City ' s General Plan is not of concern to the Coastal' Commission as fa as developing the Local Coastal Plan. Motion x Motion was made that Site No. 15 , Beco Property, be designated as an Energy Reserve. k' 'Motion K Substitute Motion was made that Site No. 15 , Beco Property , be planned for residential at 4 dwellin ; -units per buildable acre. i Mr. Hogan stated that the only reason this area is before the Planning Commission is that the pro- perty owner has talked about sometime before 1995 working out an agreement with the lessee that a portion of the land be released from the lease for ' development, but with no specific timetable for that. Ayes x x Straw Vote was then taken on the Substitute Motion , Noes x x x wwii h MOTION FAILED. Abstain x 2 -4- ..k1 COMMISSIONERS ' MINUTES ' October 4, 1979 ftlx ' y City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX All - Ayes Straw Vote was then taken on the Motion, which MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made that the Bayview School Site be zoned low-density residential at 4 dwelling units to the buildable acre. Mr. Hogan advised that this site was not included in the public hearing notice and that it would no be advisable to take action at this time. Mr. Coffin then advised that the final action of ' the Planning Commission should be an adoption of a resolution setting forth the various proposed amendments to the General Plan. Commissioner Beek expressed his feeling that the staff sent out advise to other agencies calling ' for comments to the General Plan review and some of the agencies ' response to some of the possible alternatives indicated that an EIR might be re- ' quired and he stated his preference that now that they have a clear idea of what direction they are taking, that it would be wise 'to drop that project and initiate a new project which represents exactl what they are doing, which require a new noticing and action taken at a later date, that notice in- cluding such other sites as the B-ayview School Site and the County Triangle. Mr. Hogan replied that the staff will necessarily need adequate environmental documentation so that ' if the City Council makes changes , they will have the necessary environmental support. , Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator, sug- gested- that with the adoption of the resolution that the Planning Commission make a finding that the environmental documentation on the proposed , project is under preparation in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and City Policy. Mr. Hogan further advised that the approval of the , environmental documentation is the responsibility of the City Council . In response to a question posed by Commissioner Thomas , Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, i I - - ' COMMISSIONERS MINUTES October 4, 1979 I W W (A City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX replied that there is no change within the peri - meters ; that they have noticed on the environ- mental documentation that all the decisions are 1 within those perimeters ; therefore , any informa- tion supplied on possible uses within those peri - meters will continue in the environmental documen- tation to be applicable for the City Council ' s decision. Mr. Hogan suggested leaving the City Council in the position of making the determination, rather than pre-empting them. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek , Mr. Coffin responded by stating that assum- ing that the City Council determination that the project will not have a significant effect on the ' environment, then regardless of the response of the agencies , staff would not be compelled to prepare an EIR. The Planning Commission recessed at 3: 20 p.m. and reconvened at 3:30 p.m. A discussion of the term "buildable acre" then began. Commissioner Beek stated his understanding that I ' they have no legal basis for deducting view cor- ridors from the buildable acreage. Mr. Hogan relayed the current definition of build- able acre , stating that the 4 items currently de- ducted are slopes , perimeter open space, streets and parks . Commissioner Beek stated his understanding of a flood plain area as that in which a stream or ri- ver by rainfall action can inundate and flood the area and undermine foundations , and he expressed his feeling that he specifically does not wish to consider flooding by high tides and sea water. i ' z3 _6_ _�c,l_ • ��3W� COMMISSIONERS MINUTES October 4, 1979 y City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner 'Haidinger stated his opposition to using the federally-designated flood plain areas in their definition as being too liberal an inter preiation for their use. Commissioner Balalis stated ,his opposition to taking away from the buildable area those man- made riparian areas , and 'that the question is whether these areas Are excluded from the calcu- lations or not and in neither case would they be destroyed. Commissioner Beek expressed his feeling that from ' a practical viewpoint, they are referring to only acre, and from a theoretical point of view, that this would encourage a landowner to buy environ- mentally sensitive areas to add to their buildable . Commissioner Beek stated that he has no objection to building on slopes greater than 2: 1. Mr. Hogan again stated that none of these items , has anything to do with construction but is used in terms of subtracting from the buildable area ' and that net buildable now excludes streets , peri- meter open space, slopes and park dedications , sub- stantially reducing the amount of acreage you would have in multiplying 4 dwelling units times the acreage, arriving at fewer dwelling units with net buildable than with gross . He then stated that when there is a project for which is required an ' environmental review of any kind, then ' the envir- onmental analysis identifies those areas such as critical habitats that should be preserved and at that time the actual site plan for the site is determined and the Planning Commission can elimi- nate from the actual development of the land all those areas that cannot be built on ; and that fur- , thermore, when there is a P-C, the Planning Com- mission can examine the proposal and the General Plan sets the maximum number that can be built on a site , not the minimum number. ' COMMISSIONERS MINUTES October 4, 1979 11. a8 I> 11. F y g City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Greer appeared before the Planning Commission and made a presentation regarding the three pro- perties on the Back Bay relative to the current ' General Plan designations versus the reductions suggested by the Planning Commission , expressing his feeling that the aspect of what is useable comes in the process of the development. 1 Motion x Motion was made to retain the existing definition of buildable acres and consider the other issues as part of the review of the EIR. Motion x Amendment to the Motion was made to add verbage to the General Plan that states that at the time of consideration of a P-C development text, the Plan- ning Commission and City Council shall consider the aforementioned criteria , which areas shall not be built on. ' Motion x Amendment to the Amendment was made to delete "flood plain areas " from consideration. Commissioner Beek stated his opposition. to the Motion and the Amendments , expres-sing his feeling ' that areas such as Big Canyon could be redesignate under the General Plan and later amendments and should be something applicable to all parcels , that to consider the 6 criteria at the time of adoption of the P-C text leaves a loophole i.n which people can make developments without adopting a P-C text and that the motion gives the landowner credit for the property he owns which is unbuildable. Ayes x x x x Straw Vote was then taken on the Amendment to the Noes x x mAF en3ment. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Haidinger, Commissioner Allen replied that her ' intent was that at the first discretionary action on any of the undeveloped sites, that the Planning , Commission and City Council shall not permit de- velopment on areas that fall in these 6 categories , as determined by the Planning Commission and City Council . COMMISSIONERS MINUTES , October 4, 1979 x ' City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Haidinger then accepted Commissioner A1'1en' s amendment as part of his motion. Commissioner Allen expressed her feeling that the , environmentally sensitive areas should be protect- ed and that the development of those 67 dwelling units is the landowner' s prerogative. ' , Ayes > x x x x Straw Vote was then taken on the Motion , which Noes x M-OTION CARRIED . Commissioner Cokas stated his concern regarding the transfer of units concentrating on the Casta- ways , expressing his feeling that density is being placed coastwise, burying it deeper to the City and the trips generated by those units have to get out and the Dover Drive/Paci'fic Coast Highway in- tersection is one of the most heavily used inter- sections . Motion x Motion was made that the transferring of units deleted from other parcels to be transferred to ' the Castaways site be deleted. Commiss Toner Allen stated 'her understanding that ' 121 units had been transferred from Westbay, 24 un-its had been transferred from Eastbluff Remnant and Newporter North was only transferred at the developer' s option. Mr. Lenard relayed that the buildable acreage on the Castaways site is 8. 39 dwelling units per buildable acre with the transfers . Amendment to the Motion was made to transfer the ' 144 dwelling units to Newport Center on the cor- ner parcel of Jamboree Road and Pacific Coast Highway, North-Ford and Baywood Expansion alter- nately. Commissioner Beek stated his understanding that Castaways is only 132 dwelling units and Westbay ' is 161 dwelling units , and stated his preference to delay final action on this item, all.o_Wing ad- ditional time to study the alternatives . -9- i - 1 ' COMMISSIONERS MINUTES = October 4, 1979 ' � w • N City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Balalis stated his preference for a transfer somewhere other than the Castaways , sug- gesting obtaining an opinion from The Irvine Com- pany as to their preference . Mr. Greer appeared before the Planning Commission and expressed his feeling that the entire aspect ' of density transfer has no understandable basis and with transferring comes a certain level of street improvements . Commissioner Cokas stated that he would accept Commissioner Thomas ' amendment as part of his mo- tion . All Ayes Straw Vote was then taken on the Motion, which MOTION CARRIED . ' Mr. Hendrickson then relayed some new information regarding the North-Ford Site , stating their views as to how the proposed freeway alignment on the ' southerly edge of the site will affect the pro- posed residential development both with and with- out mitigation , stating further that without miti - gation there would be very substantial impacts ' because of noise an the site. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Steve Sandlund, The Irvine Company, appear- ed before the Planning Commission and stated that the freeway must cross over the San Diego Creek and that in the opinion of staff, the freeway was ' rising at this point and would probably have to b an overpass situation over MacArthur Boulevard and Eastbluff Drive . ' Motion x Motion was made to place the 144 units on the North-Ford Site. ' Motion x Substitute 'Motion was made to change the straw vote designation on the North-Ford property to general industry , office , retail and service com- mercial , as is the present General Plan designa- tion . Motion x Amendment to the Substitute Motion was made that ' the current General Plan designation be reduced b 30% in square footage , or 539 ,518 sq. ft. instead of the previous 770 ,740 sq . ft. figure. COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ' October 4, 1979 a City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Balalis stated his preference for i mixed uses and stated his opposition to the motio , the amendment and the substitute motion. , Commissioner Beek stated that he would abstain. Ayes x x x x x Straw Vote was then taken on the Amendment to ' Noes x K the SuFs—titute Motion, which MOTION CARRIED. Ayes x x x x Straw Vote was then taken on the Substitute Mo- , Noes x K x tion, which MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Hendrickson stated his feeling that the re- designation of the lower Castaways area adjacent to Dover brive and Pacific Coast Hi-ghway as Mobil Home Park use only is a very impractical area for that use. ' The Planning Commisson adjourned at 5:45 p.m. , r Debra Allen , Secretary , Planning Commission City of Newport Beach ' r 2� -11- x ; i , COMMISSIONERS Regular Planning Commission Meeting MINUTES Place : City Council Chambers ' x Time: 7 : 30 P.M. a a Date : October 4, 1979 N Tr W � City of New ort Beach 1 ROLL CALL INDEX Present K x x x YX. X EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS R. V. Hogan , Community Development Director 1 Hugh Coffin , 'Acting City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS James Hewicker, Assistant Director-Planning Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator Glenna Gipe, Secretary ' Minutes Written By: Glenna Gipe ' Motion Motion was made that the Planning Commission ap- All Ayes prove the minutes of the regular Planning Commis- sion meeting of •Septamber 6 , 1979 , as written . Motion x Motion was made that the Planning Commission ap- Ayes x x x x x x prove the minutes of the regular Planning Commis- Abstain sion meeting of September 13, 19.79 , as written. ' Motion x Motion was made that the Planning Commission ap- Ayes x x x x x prove the minutes of the regular Planning Commis- Abstain XK sion meeting of September 20 , 1979 , as corrected to include a comment made by Commissioner Allen on Page 1 and to modify a comment made by her on Page 13 of the minutes . Request to consider proposed amendments to the Item # ' Land Use , Residential Growth and Recreation and 1 and-2 Open Space Elements of the General Plan , and the preliminary review of a screen check Initial GENERAL Study. FCAN— ' AMENDMENT INITIATED BY : The City of Newport Beach 79--717-AT9- GLNL tAL AND PLAN— il AMENDMENT 79-2 °— i COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ' October 4, 1979 I City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL III lilt INDEX Request to consider proposed amendments to the Ci -APPROVED ' culation Element of the General Plan, and the ac- ceptance of an Environmental Document. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach , The Public Hearing regarding this item continued ' and Ron Hendrickson, The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission and pointed out that the mobile home park currently located ,at ' the Castaways site is a very substandard park and one that has been long anticipated to go , and that if the real intent is to preserve this as a , mobile home park site for moderate cost housing , that it would not be economically feasible. He re- commended that this area be a public use and re- quested that the Planning Commission reconsider leaving it at its present General Plan designatio of Marine/Commercial ox provide a couple of al - ternatives . ' Motion x Motion was made to reconsider the designation on Ayes x x x x x the lower portion of the Castaways site, upon Noes x x which a Straw Vote was taken . Motion x Motion was made that the lower 5, acres of the Ayes x x x x Castaways site be changed to Recreation and Ma- , Noes x K x sine Commercial ,, with the understanding, that Ma- rine Commercial is not to include a hotel/motel , upon which a Straw Vote was taken. Motion x Motion was made to reconsider the previous straw , Ayes x x x x x vote regarding density transfers. Noes x x ' Motion x Motion was made to make the density transfer to the North-Ford Site over and above the already- approved industrial and commercial designations , and that residential is an additional use per- ' mitted on the North-Ford Site. Motion x Amendment to the Motion was made that Newport , Ayes x x x Center be an optional site in addition to North- Noes k x Ford , upon which a Straw Vote was taken. Ayes x x A x Straw Vote was then taken on the Motion, which ' Ftf ffN_ffRR-IED . COMMISSIONERS MINUTES October 4, 1979 x City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX ' Motion x Motion was made that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution Number 1046 , approving all the straw votes as have been taken by the Planning ' Commission over the last four meetings , including the finding that Environmental Documentation on the proposed project is under preparation in ac- cordance with the California Environmental Qualit Act, and forward same to the City Council . Commissioner Allen presented a paper Which she re ' quested be a part of the record, which paper is included as an addenduin. to these minutes . Commissioner Beek then made the following com- ' ments : "The major planning problem in Newport Beach is that there is too much commercial zoning ' and too little residential zoning. We have too much employment and too little housing. Our employees have to live as far away as Riverside . This amendment reduces the remaining commercial development about 30%, and reduces the remaining residential development about 50%. This makes the imbalance worse instead of better. We need to eliminate all remaining commercial develop- ment. While a reduction of 30% is a step in the right direction , it is so abusrdly inadequate that I cannot condone it with an affirmative ' vote. " Ayes K x x Motion was then voted on , which MOTION CARRIED . Noes x x Motion Motion was then made that General Plan Amendment 79-2 be removed from the calendar. ' Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer, made a comment regarding General Plan Amendment 79-2, stating that the change that is being proposed is that the Avocado couplet begin northerly of San Joa- ' quip Hills Road as opposed to southerly of San Joaquin Hills Road and that when the City Council was discussing its positive traffic solutions ' program, they directed that this change could be made as soon as it could be incorporated into the General Plan , and that General Plan Amendment 79-2 will include the Bristol couplet which pre- sently shows in the General Plan as a single roadway and is now physically a couplet. 3 / -3- . r 7 COMMISSIONERS : MINUTES ' October 4, 1975 j °' , 8 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Beek expressed his feeling that the , documentation from the consultants for the us,e of the traffic model is not complete, stating , that he had. not gotten, any clear indication that either the Planning Commission or City Council wishes to use the traffic model any further. Commissioner Haidi,nger expressed his feeling that , the model is tailored to give the kind of results needed to accommodate the test data and stated that he didn ' t have much confidence in its re- , liability as a predicter. Richard Hogan , Community Development Director, ' stated that the consultant selected to prepare the EIR is VTN and VTN is using the Traffic Consultant as a sub-contractor and they feel that they would be the best sub-contractor on thi's particular EIR; however. ,, if the Planning Commission feels that this particular consultant , should not be used as a sub-contractor, then staff will inform VTN that either they find a- ' nother sub-contractor or that they will have to select another• consultant. All Ayes Motion was then voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. ' The Planning Commission recessed at 8:30 p.m. ' and reconvened at 8:35 p.m.. ' Motion was made that Item No. 15 be continued ' to the regular Planning Commission meeting of September 8, 1979 , that Item No. 16 be contin- ued to the regular Planning Commission meeting ' of October 18, 1979 and that Item Nos . 11 and 14 ' be withdrawn. Request to amend a previously approved use• per- Item #3 mit that allowed the construction of a restaurant with on-sale alcoholic beverages so as to permit USE PER ,. an additional freestanding identification sign on MIT NO. the site. 1671 DENIED -4- r, 'i GPA 79-1 & 79-2 LEGAL CONSIDERATION/ 'GENERAL PLAN CONSISTANCY . 1)There is specific language in the existing General Plan that supports controlling and limiting development so as not to overload existing support facilities. Keeping in mind that the information in the existing general plan, was not passed ' by the current City Council, but was passed in 1972 thru 1974• The only Councilman who was seated then and is currently still on the City Council is Don McInnis. GP Policies,(p98) the City shall limit and control the distribution, character and intensity of all land uses which would generate increased ' levels of traffic beyond the capcity of the existing or planned street system. " Land Use Element, (pg. 23') re:Newport Center ". . .it is proposed that a detailed examination be made to determine the additional floor area of future office buildings that can be accomodated while assuring adequate traffic capacity of adjacent streets. " Official Policy of the City defines ADEQUATE TRAFFIC CAPACITY as an intersection operating at below .90 or level of service "D" . 2) We, as a City have too much Commercial to attain the stated goal in the General Plan for a "high quality, low density residential ' community. " ---See Domohowski Report -- —_ 3) Currently the GP is inconsistant with the above, in that only about 0 of o1a�LAND.,USE .i it r is_.LOW-DENSITY _ CO NITY CONCERN OVERDEVELOPMENT SPECIFICALLY COMMERCIAL INDUSTR. ' In the P-C 's alone the City has currently existing about 8MILLION SQUARE FEET OF MAJOR COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL ' (figures from Res. 9472 and Comm. Dev. figures from Feb. 89 1979) roughly updated by me The ADDITIONAL ALLOWABLE in the G.P. permits about 42 MILLION MORE SQ. FT. MAJOR COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL r-919TlN4 A/91VCt014C: GP Policies,(p95) ' "The type and amount of Commercial areas shall be limited. . . to those which are consistant and compatable with the prime concept and image of the Community as a quality, low density residential area. " ' (pg 6) "General Industrial Development within the Community shall be limited to those areas and uses which are appropriate to and ' compatable with a quality residential community. " GP Policies (pg 1) ' "The timing and pace of all future development or redevelopment shall be limited and controlled to encourage phased and orderly development and to prohibit any premature development which would adversely affect the quality or efficiency of existing �� or planned public support systems. " In my considered opinion, the people of this City never intended for Newport Beach to be the Commercial Financial Capital of r. County! I 1 1 1 i i i 1 1 APPENDIX NO. 2 i - Staff Reports - 1 i 1 � . 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting _August 9 1979 Agenda Item No . 6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACN ! August 3, 1979 TO: Planning Commission ' FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 79-1 and 79-2 {Discussion) Set for public hearing on September 6 , 1979, proposed ! amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth, Recreation and Open Space, and Circulation Elements of the General Plan INITIATED BY; The City of Newport Beach Background On November 27, 1978, the City Council initiated a review of the Circu- lation Element of the General Plan which included a study of land use alternatives for the major vacant parcels , including the P-C' s excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance.The first phase of the study dealing with, acceptability of the circu- lation lation system and tentative intersection design , was completed on March 26, 1979-, when the City Council adopted guidelines for the Cir- culation Element based on recommendations submitted by the Transporta- ti,on, Plan Citizens' AdVisory Committee. These include in part, the ! following general guidelines : 1 . The City should not implement any grade separations ' with the possible exception of Bristol and the existing Arches �. overpass . 2'. The -maximum roadway in the City. shall be limited to six lanes , and the maximum intersection shall be limited to nine lanes; exclusive of bicycle and pedestrian paths . The land use portion of the study required the Planning Commission to ! provide the City Council with a series of five density alternatives for, the remaining undeveloped parcels, ,including the development allowed by the existing General Plan, Low Density Residential , and three other ! alternatives to be determined by the Planning Commission . The City Council requested that the Planning Commission provide alternate sup= porting data, both ,positive and negative, with each alternative. ! Specific criteria would include, but not be limited to, the following: 1 TO : Planning Commission - 2 . 1 . Traffic considerations I 2 . Openness of vista or view 3. City image 4 . Cost/benefit ratio I5 . Private property rights 6 . Public rights 7. Sewer capacity 8. Energy requirements 9. Implications for airport ' 10. Social acceptance At the Planning Commission meeting of April 19 , 1979, possible land use alternatives were discussed. During subsequent meetings the Com- mission was presented tentative information on projected traffic volumes comparing the "no growth" and "exi.sti,ng General Plan" options in the computer traffic model . In addition, intersection capacity utilization information was prepared by the Public Works Department for use by the Planning Commission in consideration of land use alter- natives . At the meeting of July 19 , 1979 revised land use alternatives Iwere suggested for consideration by the Planning Commission. Initiation of General Plan Amendment In order to expedite the process and avoid duplicating the discussion of alternatives , Mayor Ryckoff has suggested, in the attached letter, that the Commission commence hearings on a General Plan, Amendment as soon as possible. Section 65361 of the Government Code limits the number of times a mandatory element may be amended during a calendar year to three times . It appears that the environmental review requirements for the Ci.rcu- lation Element revisions will require more time than the revisions to the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements . There have been no General Plan Amendments so far this year, and with only five months remaining, it is not likely that more than one addi - tional amendment will be required. Therefore staff suggests that the T amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space be considered as 79-1 and the amendments to the Circulation Element be considered .as 79-2. Specific Sites During the discussion of Land Use alternatives in conjunction with the Circulation Element review, the following sites were under considera- tion : ' 1 . Koll Center 2 . Jamboree/MacArthur 3. San Diego Creek 4 . North Ford TO: Planning Commission - 3. ' 5. Aeronutronic-Ford 6. Newport Center 7. Bayview Landing 8. -Castaways 9. Westbay 10. Eastbluff Remnant 11 . Newporter North 12. Big Canyon 13. Baywood • 14. Fifth Avenue 15. •Beeco Staff has discussed the proposed. sites and land use alternatives With the Local Coastal Planning Advisory Committee. The Committee was con- cerned that the mouth of Big Canyon was not being considered, since it has been identified as an environmentally-sensitive habitat area by. the Committee. The Land Use and Residential Growth Elements show this site as Recreational, and Environmental Open Space With Residential as an alternate use. Therefore, staff suggests that "Mouth of Big Canyon" be considered in addition to the fifteen sites which were being dis- cussed in the Circulation Element Review and Land Use Alternatives . Environmental Significance Staff is in the process of preparing environmental documentation in ' accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Suggested Action t If desired, set for publ,i,c hearing on September 6, 1979 : a) General Plan Amendment 79-1 - proposed amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan . b) General Plan Amendment 79-2 - proposed amendments ,to the Circulation Element of the General Plan. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director by ROBERT P . LE ARDt Acting ' Advance Planning Administrator RPL/kk• Attachment: Lette-r dated 7/25/79 from Mayor Ryckoff , CITY' OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE MAYOR July 25, 1979 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Mayor Ryckoff I would like to ask that the Planning Commission commence hearings 'as soon as possible on the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan. You have received some direction from the Council, and I believe I can speak for the Council in saying that we would like this matter to get off the ground. • You have a heavy schedule coming up, but hopefully you will be able to get into this very shortly. PAUL RYCKOFF Mayor PR:jmb • xc: City Council City Manager Community Development Director 1 -33 Planning Commission Meeting September. 6 , 1979 , Agenda Item No . 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 29 , 1979 TO : Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 79-1 (Public Hearing ) , Request to consider proposed amendments to the Land Use , Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of. the General Plan , and the preliminary review of a screen check Initial Study; and General Plan Amendment 79-2 (Public Hearing) Request to consider proposed amendments to the Circulation Element of the General Plan , and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Background ` On November 27 , 1978, the City Council initiated a review of the Circulation Element of the General Plan which included a study of land use alternatives for the major vacant parcels , including the P-C ' s excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordi.nance. The first phase of the study , dealing with acceptability of the circulation system and tentative intersection design , was com= pleted on March 26 , 1979 , when the City Council adopted guidelines for the Circulation Element based on recommendations submitted by the Transportation Plan Citizens ' Advisory Committee. The land use portion of the study required the Planning Commission to . provide the City Council with a series of five density alter- natives for the remaining undeveloped parcels , including the de- vel-opment allowed by the existing General Plan , Low Density Resi- dential , and three other alternatives to be determined by the Plan- ning Commission . The City Council requested that the Planning Com, mission provide alternate supporting data , both positive and nega- tive, with each alternative . Specific ci,rteria would include , but �. not be limited to , the fol'l,owi,ng : i dU: Planning Commission - 2 . 1 . Traffic considerations 2 . Openness of vista or view 3. City image 4 . Cost/benefit ratio 5. Private property- rights 6 . Public rights 7. Sewer capacity ' 8. Energy requirements 9 . Implications for airport 10. Social acceptance At the Planning Commission meeting of April 19 , 1979 , possible land use alternatives were discussed. During subsequent meetings , the Commission was presented tentative information on projected traffic volumes comparing the "no growth" and "existing General Plan" op- tions in the computer traffic model . In addition , intersection ca- pacity utilization information was prepared by the Public Works Department for use by the Planning Commission in consideration of land use alternatives . At the meeting of July 19 , 1979 , revised land use alternatives were suggested for consideration by the 01'an- ning Commission , in conjunction with the Circulation Element Review. At the 'August 9 , 1979 Planning Commission meeting , General Plan Amendments 79-1 and 79-2 were set for hearing on September 6 , 1979 . Site Number 16 , the mouth of Big Canyon , was added for review at the request of the* Local Coastal Planning Advisory Committee. ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental documentation on G . P .A . 79-1 is under preparation . Notices of Preparation of an Initial Study and Nonstatutory Advise- ments were mailed to all Responsible Agencies and Interested' Parties on August 3, 1979 , with a deadline for comments established as of September 20 , 1979 . Attached for the Planning Commission ' s review is a copy of. the Screencheck Initial Study. This document will be revised and ex- panded based upon comments received during the official review period and the Planning Commission ' s determinations on alter- native land uses . Due to the extensive scope of investigation in in G . P .A. 79-1 , Staff intends to prepare comments and mitigation •measures o.n this project only subsequent to the Planning Commission ' s sele- ction of a recommended alternative. This procedure will allow the Planning Commission to act on the project within the time -� frames established by the City Council and is permissible under CEQA. Prior to the City Council ' s final action on G . P . A. 79-1 , deter- minations of Environmental Impact through either a Negative De- claration or Environmental Impact Report must be made by the City Council . TO: Planning Commission - 3. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , environmental documentation on G. P.A. 79-2 is under preparation . An RFP ,has been circulated and Staff is in the process of select- ing a consultant for the EIR. Traffic Considerations The Public Works Department is in the process of ,preparing trip generation and distribution data for each of the land use alter- natives listed on sites one th rough sixteen . This information will be distributed to the Planning Commission prior to the public hearing on September 6 , 1979 . Cost/Revenue In order to understand the land use alternatives in terms of "fiscal impact, " the following general, information has been pre- pared . This information is based on the Fiscal Impact Analysis System developed by Ashley Economic Services , Inc. for the City of Newport Beach in July of 1976, and should be used only to il - lustrate exact fiscal impact of a s-pecific development proposal would require further analysis . The most conservative methodology , utilizing an "average cost ap- proach has been used for purposes of this comparison. The following table summarizes the cost/revenue figures for two density ranges in each land use category :. Per du or Land Use Density Per sq . ft. Per Acre Residential 4 du' s per acre $218 $872 10 du' s per acre $145 1 ,450 Cormercial . 2 X gross . 11 958 .4 X gross . 11 1916 Industrial . 2 X gross . 06 523 .4 X gross . 06 1,045 As can be seen above , the yearly surp-lus in projected revenues over costs range from $523 per acre for . 2 intensity Industrial ' to $191-6 per acre for .4 intensity Commercial . Energy Utilization In order to evaluate the land use alternatives in terms of "energy consumption" , the following table has been prepared to illustrate approximate energy utilization : TO : Planning Commission - 4 . * The following are approximate densities in some of the approved non-residential Planned Communities : Koll Center - . 39 Newport Place - . 37 Civic Plaza _ . 36 Corporate Plaza . 22 North Ford - . 16 Food' re- Electrical Natural Gas Gasoline wood' Land Use Thousand KNH) mill . cu/ft) Thous . Gal ) Cord Residential 4 du ' s/acrel 54 . 5 1 . 1 2 10 du ' s/acre2 66 . 8 2 . 1 5 Commercial . 2 X gross 416 1 . 0 4. 9 - . 4 X gross 833 2 . 1 9. 9 - Industrial . 2 X gross 281 . 3 .4 - 4 X gross 563 . 7 . 8 - Land Use Alternatives Based on the criteria established by the City Council , each of the proposed land use alternatives should be evaluated by the Commission and a recommendation forwarded to the City Council . Suggested Action If desired , adopt Resolution No , recommending to the C.i,ty Council that General Plan Amendment 79-1 be approved including the preferred land use alternatives for each of the sixteen sites under consideratio.n . DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R . V . HOGAN , DIRECTOR { 1 : r Z14.1-1 Robert P. Lenard Advance Planning Administrator RPL/gg Attachments : 1) Alternative 2) Letter from LCPAC 3) Screen Check Initial Study -2,1 Lana Use AIterrlatives = ly 9 1 Koll Center =`rj��!y: ,a ";'`'���'' /�/' "`� --•'� 2. Jamboree/MacArthur Z 3. San Diego Creek '4 . Korth Ford 5 . Aeronutronic-Ford �' �• # t a ; �� 6 . Newport Center' 9 '' \• Y' 7. Bayvie:•r Landing �.�-•�,�,� /r� . � j- � 8.. Castaways ,. 9 . Westbay �-- �� 10 . Eastbl uff Remnant 11 . Newporter North 12. 6ig Canyon 13. Baywood \� - s a 3•, ``' �' vp Fifth Avenue = f� 1 _ 16 Mouth of Bi Can ; g �> ��• 3Y. . �� ~� 12�' ;=��,'� j —L;v ;t_,.zd- i j •, �r r' -... ` ` y`�r--'' 1...•;,� ) :• ,,•` is �.,"—•.^—:r ����.� , 1. �: ��f 01 '' �,��. _.;Yt% 15 z ��•M ._ .� :�� . -._• t',i '�r£^r\Lyt� �b' i I viI .�.i: l'' +i+ ei�. `-N4`1\r'�� 9 �_ �Oki�fT[]i�y,v(,`�,'-•^�. S f; iQ1/::....:uiiiiiirit: �`�a.��5�^`` �' '3��..:' �.:�, . �ai:J' _r� �`K2�• _ • _ • •� y:c•- LAND USE ALTERNATI VJ'S Site No. 1 "KOLL CENTER" penora i__lnformati_on 1 . Ceneral. Plan Designation: Government, Educational and Institutional Facilities; Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial; Retail and Service Commercial; and General Industry. 2. Existing Zoning: P-C Nith adopted Development Text. 3. Site Area: 159 acres, approximately 18.2 acres vacant (excluding Court House site) . 4. Allowable Uses: Institutional, Commercial; Office, General Industry. 2,710,620 sq. 'ft. allowed by P-C Text. Site Considerations Currently there is 1,811.,253 sq. ft. of development on the site. The P-C Development Text allows an additional 899067 ,1. ft. No traffic phasing plan has been adopted to date. Alternate Uses Following is the Land Use breakdown of additional development for each of the alternatives being considered in General Plan Amendment 79-1. l.. ' Existing General. Plan Office 819,967 Retail 10,000 Restaurant 12,000 Industrial. 31,775 Court House 25,625 899,367 2. 50% Reduction (based on October 1, 1978 total remaining 1,058,863 sq. ft.) Office '— 330,236 Retail 5,000 Re:;taurnnt 6,000 7ndustrkil' 15,888 Court House 25,367 382,691 LAND USH ALTNKNATTVES Silr No. 1 "RULI. C1417i"R" (continued 3. . . Rcduct_ion Office 600,074 Retail 8,000 Restaurant 9,600 Industrial 25,420 { Court House 25,625, �4 4- Commercial/Residential Mix Office 330,236 sq. ft. Retail 5,000 sq. ft. Restaurant 6,000 sq. ft. Industrial 15,888 sq. ft. Court House 25,625 sq. ft. 384,491,sq. ft. Residential (2) 68_ DU's (10 DU's/buildable acre on 6.83 acres) 5. Medium/High Density Residential ReWential (2) 136 DU's (10•DU's/buildable acre on 13.6•acres) 6. Low Density Residential Residential (1) 54 DU's (4 DU's/buildable acre on 13.6 acres) YuetOct4QHS7.lC{IIWaMhLYLN1Mq/1N�')M, � III V *Affei k BRI�Toi ra��+�'L Revised August 31, 1979 U14 V0, rat• "l. KOLL CENTER w..<R+ m<...aaa•.w.wni LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No. 2 "JAMBOREE/MacARTHUR" , General Information `. 1 . General Plan Designation: Retail and Service Commercial and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial . 2. Existing Zoning: Unclassified (U) - no standards adopted 3. Site Area: 2 acres.D '4. Allowable Uses: Office and Retail Commercial. 17,425 sq.ft. could be allowed at .2 density Alternate Uses S1 . 50%' Reduction - 8,713 sq.ft. Office and Commercial 2. 20% Reduction - 13,940 sq.ft. Office and Commercial 3. Commercial/Residential Mix - 8,713 sq. ft. Office and Commercial 8 DU's (@ 10 per net buildable acre) 4. Med./High Density Residential - 16 DU's (@ 10 per net buildable acre) 5. Low Density Residential - 6 DU's (@ 4 per net buildable acre) ` 6 . Park and Ride Facility $RIiTDL oY. nnannar� ,oQ_,,.�„c H � 1 fir° ••�.�$ �.�� 2 �F 2. JAMI30RI:E/MAC ARTHUR REVISL•0 8/2/79 Sr _y 1 a � 1 / LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No. 4 "NORTH FORD" General Information j ra Industry, Office and Retail , 1 . General Plan Designation'. General , g and Service Commercial . 2. Existing Zoning: P-C with adopted Development Text.. 3. Site Area: 126 acres, approximately 58 acres vacant. 4. Allowable Uses: -Commercial , Industrial , Office I. 900,000 sq.ft. -allowed by P-C Text. Site Considerations ' Currently there is 129,260 sq.ft, of development on the site, The P-C Text allows a is allowed footage an additional 770,740 sq.ft. Only 30% of this additional square g prior to the adoption of a Traffic Phasing Plan. Alternate Uses 1 . 50% Reduction - 514,630 sq:ft. total (385,370 sq.ft. additional 2. 20% Reduction - 745,852 sq.ft. total 3. Commercial/Residential Mix - 514,630 s ft UNIVE90 255 DU's �@ 10 ,per net buildable acre) si5sei 4. Med./High Density Residential - 510 DU's (@ lO per net buildable acre) FORP 5. Low Density Residential, - 204 DU's (@ 4 m o per net build- � able acre) f hT 2s /-OA4r Hwy 4. NORrH FORD afaMNn"goKKViPi:>•t^Jbl.7"9 AA10,l9ql:.Yilc:fr. .S, ' f LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No. 3 "SAN DIEGO CREEK" General Information 1. General Plan Designation: Retail and Service Commercial (north- erly 12 acres) General Industry (southerly 47 acres). 2. Existing Zoning: Unclassified (U) - no standards adopted. 3. Site Area: 59 acres 4. Allowable Uses: Commercial , Industrial , Office 514,008 sq.ft. could be allowed at .2 density. Al ternate Uses 1 . 50% Reduction - 257,004 sq.ft. 2. 20% Reduction - 411 ,206 sq.ft. 3. Commercial/Residential Mix - 257,004 sq.ft. 221 DU's (@ 10 per net buildable acre) 4. Med./High Density Residential - 442 DU's (@ 10 per net buildable acre) 5. Low Density Residential - 177 DU's (@ 4 per net buildable acre) 7 6. Desilting Basin - DAsilti-n-9 Basin (southerly 47 acres) 104,544 sq.ft. com- mercial (northerly 12 acres) y / t• 3. SAN DIEGO CREEK Revised 8/31/79 f �` LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No. 5 "AERONUTRONIC FORD" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation: General Industry, Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial , and Residential 2. Existing Zoning: P-C - no standards adopted •(existing development as per use permit) 3. Site Area: 193 acres, 102 acres vacant 4. Allowable Uses: Office, Industrial and Residential Site Considerations The existing industrial complex includes 962,400 sq.ft. of development. An additional 1 ;691 ,000 sq.ft. is allowable under the existing use permit. The General Plan was amended in February 1976 to allow residential as an alternate use on the undeveloped portion of the site. Al ternate Uses 1 . Commercial/Residential Mix - 368,600 •sq.ft, additional 450 DU's 2. Reduced Commercial/Residential Mix - 261 ,000 sq.ft. additional 250 DU's 3, 50Z Reduction - 845,500 sq.ft: additional •TIA':.^• :1/d'r1iR5fr11WY'w T.VMISLgI•Il4�M,7T6b+'1{l:lfA 4. 20% Reduction - 1 ,352,800 sq.ft. additional '} .a 5. Med./High Density Residential !65 DU's @ 10 per net ^ , buildable acre) c� '., "s,_ "�� E / u 6. Low Density Residential 306 DU's (@ 4 per net u'ai� / / `a�f " .• buildable acre) R�\ TO IC-FORM 5. Al Ry ,IIT�•.td6�•rbw.Wv/1%t�.�h]clN�io^NRdo.•ln^/.4R•r.:D14. V••..1}y%`}yyaYAtir+ml !1.- LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No. 6 "NEWPORT CENTER" General Information 1. General Plan Designation: Retail and Service Commercial; Administra- tive, Professional and Financial Commercial; and Residential. 2. Existing zoning: Mixed - Total development limited by General Plan Amendment 78-2. 3. Site Area: 330 acres, approximately 122 acres vacant. 4. Allowable Uses (78-2) : Existing uses include the following: ' Office & Medical 2,298,825 sq. £t. Commercial 1,181,000 sq. ft. Theatre 1,750 seats Hotel 377 rooms Residential 67 DUIs Civic 960000 sq. ft. Automotive 5 acres Golf Course 18 holes Tennis Club 24 courts Future additional includes: Office & Medical 1,447,019 sq. ft. Commercial 79,000 sq. ft. Theatre 2,650 seats Residential 339 DU's Civic 10,000 sq. ft. Alternate Uses (see attachments) C m�N,wN.a.,n..ay.•.,.,,,.,w.,.,„.,, .,,,v�,,,.h.,,,,,ip„�.��,y�,,,,,�t9 i vf, w � /z W `•j j./ 1y�4� 1 tu J 'N owy ��Rhiixj. )i ,�m� pALIFCa auA� � 17 Revised 8-31-79 6, NEW PORT CENTER 1{ 1A4.M/.�sNiMS?MMVe.Y.r�s.:'h.,A.l+�..vu...U..�.111f.:..A..ww..4:...v.0.....:H�• Sn — 4 Pzge � 1. Existing General Plan -- G� Office 12) Commercial/Retail (15) Theater (16) Civic/Cultural (32) Residential T.A.Z. 63 -0- -0- -0- -0- 94 DU (2) T.A.Z. 64 (a) 594,110 s.f. 10,000 s.f. (c)(10) -0- 10,000 s.f. 245 DU (3) T.A.Z. 65 293,383 s.f. -0- -0- -0- T.A.Z. 66 124,684 s.f. -0- -0- -0- -0- T.A.Z. 67 (b) 163,582 s.f. -0- 650 seats -0- -0- T.A.Z. 68 102,681 s.f. 58,750 s.f. ' 2000 seats -0- -O- T.A.Z. 69 -0- 10,250 s.f. (d) -0- -0- -0- T.A.Z. 94 -0- -O- -0- -0- -0- T.A.Z. 95 168,579 s.f. (c) -0- -0- -0- -0- TOTALS 1 ,447,019 s.f.(c) 79,000 s.f. 2650 seats 10,000 s.f. 339 N (a) Office sq.ft. allowable for T.A.Z. 64 is broken down as follows: Block.700• 9,404 s.f. Block 800 Civic Plaza 234,706 s.f. High Rise Residential 245 DU Pacific Mutual Expansion 350,000 s.f. (°) Corporate Plaza Existing includes 47,181 sq. ft. constructed since G.P.A. 78-2 was adopted. �c) 1. ,156 s. f. transferred from PC" & Jamboree and an additional 1 ,511 s.f. yet to be transferred .fro^ Block 500 or 700. 7,250 s. f. Savings & Loan currently in plan check. .� ..� r r�rE w � � w � � w w � � �. � � w �■ � Page 2 -"Redu�Sonow am *a go 0._ ow 4m' me ice me to on ON 4m *M` Office 12 CommerciallRetail_ (15) Theater (16) Civic/Cultural (32) Residential T.A.Z. 63 -0- -0- -0- -0- 47 DU (2) T.A.Z. 64 297,055 s.f. 5,000 's.f. (10) -0- 10,000 s.f. 123 DU (3) T.A.Z. 65 146,692 s.f. -0- -0- -0- T.A.Z. 66 62,342 s.f: _ -0- -0- -0- -0- T.A.Z. 67 81 ,791 s.f. -0- 325 seats -O- -0- T.A.Z. 68 51 ,341 s.f. 29,375 s.f. 1000 seats -0- -0- T.A.Z. 69 -0- 5,125 s.f. -0- -0- -0- T.A.Z. 94 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- T.A.Z. 95 84,289 s.f. -0- -0- -0- -0- TOTALS 723,510 s.f. 39,500 s.f. 1325 seats 10,000 s.f. 170 DU 3. 20% Reduction T.A.Z. 63 -0- -0- -0- -0- 75 DU (2) T.A.Z. 64 475,288 s.f. 8,000 s.f. (10) -0- 10,000 s.f. 196 DU (3) II, T.A.Z. 65 234,706 s.f. -0- -0- -0- -0- (-tll T.A.Z. 66 -09,747 s.f. -0- -0- -0- -0- 0 T.A.Z. 67 130,866 s.f. -0- 520 seats -0-' -0- -.A.Z. E8 82,145 s.f. 47,000 s.f. 1600 seats -0- -0-� T.A.Z. 69 -0- 8,200 s.f. -0- -0- -0- T.A.Z. 94 -0- -0- -0- -O= -0- T.A.Z. 95 134,863 s.f. -0- -0- -0- -0- iCTALS 1 ,157,615 s.f. 63,200 s.f. 2120 seats 10,000 s.f. 271 DU 4. Coy,.,ercial/Psidential Mix - -0- -0- 42 DU (2) i:A.c. Eo -0- -0 ;.A.Z. -L 297,055 s.f. 5,000 s.f. (10) -0- 102000 S.f. 256 DU (3) T.A.Q. 65 i46,G92s.f. -0- -0- -v- -0- T.A.L. 56 62,342 s.f. -0- -0- -0- -0- -. ;. 6, &l .i9i s.f -O- 325 seats -C- -G T.A.Z. 60 51,34: s.f. 29-,375 s.f. 1000 seatt -C- 132 DU (2) •,.A.i. 59 -0- 5,125 s.f. -0- -0- -C- ^' -O- -0- -0- -0- -0- T.A.Z. 95 84,289 s.f. -0- -0- -0- 90 DU (2) S 723,5i0 s:f. 39,500 s.f. 1325 seats 10,000 s.f. 520 DU I =ac- 3 5�edi�iq�nsi�es�tia� � � r � � r � � V A � • � <., Office 12) Corrner'cial/Retail (15) Tneater (16) Civic/Cultural (32) Resident`,al T.A.Z. 63 -0- -0- -0- -0- 75 �U (2 T.A.Z. 64 -0- -0- -0- 10,000 S.f. 292 DU ( 2 ; T.A.Z. 65 -0- -0- -0- -0- 63 DU (2 ) T.A.Z. 66 -0- -0- -0- -0- 20 DU ( 2) T.A.Z. 67 -0- -0- -0- -0- 150 +;v T.A.Z. 68 -0- -Q- -0- -0- 225 OU ( 2 ) T.A.Z. 69 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- (2 ) T.A.Z. 94 -0- -0- -0- -0- . -0- (2 ) T.A.Z. 95 -0- -0= -0- -0- 90 DU ( 2 ; TOTALS -0- -0- -0- 10,000 s.f. 915 ID 6. Low Density Residential T.A.Z. 63 -0- -0- -0- -0- 30 DU ( 1 ) T.A.Z. 64 -0- -0- -0- 10,000 s.f. i17 DU T.A.Z. 65 -0- -0- -0- -0- 25 DU ( ` T.A.Z. 66 -0- -0- -0- -0- 8 DU ( ; j T.A.Z. 67 -0- -0- -0- -0- 60 68 -0- -0- -0- -0- 90 DU "• ` A.Z. bQ -0- -0- -0- -0- -C- T.H.L. 94 -0- T.A.Z. 95 -0- -0- -0- -0- 36 3U ( ' ) TOTALS -0- -0- -0= 10,000 s.f. 6 �U 8/33/79 S� 16 �� LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No. 7 - "DAYVIEW LANDING" ` General Information 1 . General Plan: Recreation and Marine Commercial , Medium Density Residential 2. Existing Zoning: Unclassified (U) - no standards adopted 3. Site Area: 19 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: Commercial Recreation, Tourist Com- mercial. No development plan has been adopted, however 90,000 sq. ft. (@ .1 • density) Tourist Commercial has been discussed by the property owner. Residential - 85 'DU's maximum, Alternate Uses a� .1. 50% Reduction - 45,000 sq.ft. Commercial Recreation or Tourist Commercial. 2: 20% Reduction - 72,000 sq.ft. Commercial Recreatioq or Tourist Commercial. 3. Commercial Residential Mix - 45,000 sq.ft. Commercial Recreation or Tourist Commercial. 71 DU's (@ 10 per net, buildable acre) : 4. Med./High Density Residential - 142 DU's (@ 10 per net buildable acre) 5. Low Density Residential - 57 DU's (@ 10 per net buildable acre) 6. Public Recreation - View park and bike path on upper portion R.V. camping on lower portion • c�ra:AaxFmroa'tarwurne+a+rraiamer.•mpurww;fane h ` ♦ *n` E ; a E � W /tl p n G / °ill y•,yv.. FACIr 7. BAYVIEW LANDING Y.r• J:^ Ne+•S 1rYq:rhJV♦WArYrq..W/Yy.J`P+.,y • I REVISED 8/2/79 LAND USE ALTERNAIIVES Site No. 8 "CASTNdAYS" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation: Recreational and Marine Commercial/ Medium Density Residential . 2. Existing Zoning: Unclassified (U) - no standards adopted 3. Site Area: 65 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: Northerly 40 Acres - Residential with . 225 DU's maximum y" Southerly 25 Acres - 217,800 sq.ft. ' (@ .2) of Commercial Recreation or Tourist Commercial,, or a com- bination of 40,000 sq.ft. 'Of Commercial and 100 DU's. Alternate Uses. 1 . 50% Reduction - 113 DU's 108,900 sq.ft. -Commercial or a combination of 20,000 sq.ft. Commercial and 50 DU's 2. 20% Reduction - 180 DU's 174,240 sq.ft. Commercial or a combination of 32,000 sq.ft. Commercial and 80 DU's 3. Commercial/Residential Mix - 200 DU's and 10,000 sq.ft. of Commercial 4: Low Density Residential - Assuming "buildable acreage" would be approxi- mately •25% less than ; Srcx+iv.'pa-r the 65 acre total. . . D would b all I alloweded at 4 DU's per buildable acre. • � i � •' °3 NKAY RY 5. Medi.wn Density Residential - 8 DU's , ' per buildable acre maximum. Approxi- i r ma:ely 390 DU' s ' would be allowed. � o��� P.* -•. , w>: 8. CASTr1 VAYS ls:..;,.:s,.c..>.*.wrx:;i.turar.:...:su::atL..,.���•_;,x,:e�:x"�aut:i.�arof:.o::.l REVISED 8/2/79 LAND USE ALTERNATIVES' Site No. 9 "WESTBAY" , .General_Information 1 . General Plah Designation: Recreational and Environmental Open Space/Medium Density Residential 2. Existing Zoning: P-C• - no standards adopted 3. Site Area: 71 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: Open Space -348 DU's Alternate Uses 1 . Open Space - Consider possibility of public acquisition or dedication with some density transfer. 2. Low Density Residential - Assuming the "net buildable acreage" of the site would be approximately 53 acres.. . 212 DU's would be allowed. 3. Residential/Open Space - Preserve 50% of the site as open space. Concentrate 212 DU's om remaining 50%. 4. Low Density Residential/Open Space - "Nivcr.,Wy Preserve 50% of the site as J open space. Allow approxi- mately 106 units on remaining / 4 3 uMR. NewFOKr i enY JA Z zz-y, Sr. 1) WLSTIMY 1, tl.NWJ.J.W.+�Vs1YiNt'1�. iyrylpfJW.IWA11pyHyL•n:.t�SVJ �T — �• I' LAND USE ALTERNAT14ES Site No. 10 "EASTBLUFF REMNANT" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation: Recreation and Environmental Open Space/ Medium Density Residential . 2. Existing Zoning: R-3-B 3. Site Area: 8 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: Open Space 42 DU's Alternate Uses 1. Open Space - Consider possibility of public acquisition or dedication as open space, 2. Low Density Residential - Assuming the "net buildable acreage"' of the site would be approximately 6 acres. . . 24 DU's would be allowed. Y Y « *�` . 1, • n 1 �r NEWPnNT � 0�� ISAY i �, F yg4 '10. EASTBLUFF REMNANT k.rs tu..Y.twssGYNmNra«:;asNu 'M.xav"pyu.dVnet6'wt T:r'F.rtM 51 l0 LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No. 11 _ "NEWPORTER NORTH" General _Information 1 . General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential, 2. Existing Zoning: P-C - no standards adopted 3. Site Area: 88 Acres 4. Al,lowable Use: Residential - 440 DU's Alternate Uses 1 . Low Density Residential - 264 DU's (@ 4 'per net buildable acre) 2. Residential/Open 'Space - Preserve 50% of the site as open space. Concentrate 264 DU's on the remaining 50%. 3. Low Density Residential/Open Space - Preserve 50% of the site as open space. Allow 132 DU's on the remaining 50%. by Al V i 'w •'ilA���^c4jN 5 �, w H/[ts i • w n IM e�uiitiT»iaaiit ti 11• NI.WIIOR'11:h I`OR'H >w.ntia+:nras+n.vrssr xvw�errmenrnuraxKu.+xe.n..�:•rt.ro LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No. 12 "61G CANYON" General Information__ 1 . General 'Plan Desi,na'tion: Multi-Family Residential 2. Existing Zoning: P-C - with adopted Development Text 3. Site Area: ' _ 15 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: 160 DU's Alternate Uses 1 . Med./Nigh Density Residential - 90' DU's (@ 10 per net buildable acre) 2. Low Density Residential - 45 DU's (@ 4 per net buildable acre) ` , '' '•tea r w.. ' � 4. P i �1 W 'LANYDrJ < ' ' ti uEW�'CRr r4�in ,1y w �Z n •`' t%Wy Cl lv"r 12. 131G CANYON 1 ��:���f}w �Nvs�vuyana mvix rr uuwLirnnnr� s gs -G3 LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No, 13 — "BAYWOOD EXPANSION" General Information - 1 . General Plan Designation: Multimo-EanilD!■Resservation� 2. Existing Zoning: P-C - with adopted Development Text 3. Site Area: 99 Acc 4. Allowable Use: Residential - 140 DU's Alternate Uses 1 . Med./High Density Residential - 68 DU's (@ 10 per net buildable acre) 2. Low Density Residential - 27 DU's (@ 4 per net buildable acre) �,�• �� fix."d%i �'`',�,,,,i..,..•n"-� G RD R4 t-0 9 RID �O ti 9,y 13. BAYWOOU F � 1«wrx+�:�hro��mxwvv4iMHK1✓s+�i:Tx✓ LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No. 14 "FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS" :General Information_ 1 . General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential 2. Existing Zoning: P-C and R-1-B 3. Site Area: 36 Acres 4. Allowable Use: Residential - 204 DU's Alternate Uses - 1. Low Density Residential 108 DU's (@ 4 per net buildable acre) • �-,•.•.•••.rca�asswiva.rurr..c�r..�.ac^�.aam=wzs.� ANrL , P�IPk SItl AVE I 4y�1 y�h s 14. FI( TH AVENUE yY t;t 11i.p.�.ilW tlb w:?9 M?NtlVYYlWAdAWJIJTI ¢ldM1C6p W t LAND USE ALTERNATES Site No. 15 "BEECO PROPERTY" `General Information 1 . General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential - subject to a Specific Area Plan 2. Existing Zoning: P-C (50 acres in City); A-1 (100 acres in County) 3. .Site Area: 150 Acres 1 4. Allowable Uses: Residential - 900 DU's Alternate Uses Ili 1 . Low Density Residential - 450 DU's (@ 4 per net buildable acre) xi ( 1 p \V O a a 2 15. BEE CO '1CJ.0�•iliYLLLi T1 W.ngaNrri4`l�w:st\1nf:uSt�^}:ii4rtf4i.yi� LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No. 16_ "MOUTH OF BIG CANYON" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation: Open Space with Residential as an alternate use. 2. Existing Zoning: Unclassified (U) - no standards adopted. 3. Site Area: 48. 5 Acres 4. Allowable Uses: Open Space/145 DU' s (at approxi- mately 4 DU' s per buildable acre). Al ternate Uses 1. Open Space - Consider possibility of public acquisition or dedication as Open Space. G � Hats R 16, tIOUTH OF BIG CANYON a o August 21 , 1979 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Local Coastal Planning Advisory Committee SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 79-1 Land Use Alternatives On July 13, 1979, the Planning Commission requested that the LCPAC review all possible land use alternatives for the nine remaining undeveloped land parcels in Newport Beach that fall within the Coastal Zone and to recommend any additional alternatives which it felt appropriate. It should be pointed out that the following suggestions are based on preliminary conclusions evolving from the LCP process, and should be considered tentative: Site No. 2 - "Jamboree/MacArthur" Add alternate Use #6. . . . .Park and Ride Facility #7. . . . .Freeway right of way Site No. 3 - "San Diego Creek" The LCPAC recommends that the designation be changed to Public Work Reserve with the following options to be considered as appropriate uses. a. Desilting Basis b. Reclaimed water storage c. Habitat mitigation area (This designation should remain in effect until the NIWA 208 Plan is approved by the State and Federal Governments) . The reparian portion of the site should be designated habitat area and preserved or enhanced accordingly. Site No. 6 -"Newport Center" Possibility of Affordable Housing (California Housing Finance Agency) on one of the few vacant portions within the coastal zone. Area is close to jobs and transportation. Priority should be given to persons employed in the immediate vicinity. Site No. 7- "Bayview Landing" 1 . Add #6. . . .View Corridor #7. . . .Passive recreational park on the top of the bluff and the lower area coordinated with the Dunes to offer an expanded Recreational Vehicle Park. Site No. 8- "Castaways" Add #5. . . .Density transfer area for: a. Westbay b. Eastbluff c. z of buildable Newporter North up to a maximum of 8 DU' s per buildable acre. ' - ' Page 2.• �^ 7 It is recommended that the existing Mobile Home Park which remains after the bridge is built be zoned to retain existing usage in conformance with existing City Codes. 2. Any PC Development Plan for the site shoul'd include a linear public access easement along the bluff with pedestrian and bike paths in the required setbacks. 3. Further, it is recommended that existing land forms along Dover Blvd. remain and that visitor serving facilities and commercial development are not appropriate for this site. Site No. 9 - "Westbay" Add #5. .. .Open Space and Density Transfer (D.T. based on 4 DU's per buildable acre). Simultaneous transfer of title to Fish & Games when building permits on Castaways are issued. Site No. 10 - "Eastbluff Remnant" . Add #3, same as for #9. Site No. 11 - "Newporter North" Add .#4--50% of the site to be dedicated to Fish & Games. Buildable acreage to be computed using buildable acres minus the marsh, at 4 DU's per acre, 2 of site (to F & G to be Open Space/habitat preservation. All archaeological sites must be preserved. -The remaining acreage units may be transferred to the Castaways site (assuming that this does not exceed 8 DU's on Castaway site) or be clustered on the 2 remaining acreage. Site No. 15 -"Beeco Property" No comments on land use at this time. This area should be included U the City's "sphere of influence. " Site No. 16- "Mouth of Big Canyon" The riparian habitat running the length of the Canyon should be categorized ,Habitat Area and managed accordingly. The remainder of the site should be retained as a Buffer Area to the Ecological Reserve. The Committee appreciates the opportunity to comment on these alternatives and will continue to monitor General Plan Amendments 79-1 and 79-2 and. offer input where appropriate. 1 Very truly yours, Local Coastal Planning Advisory Committee Bobby Lq�fAl , Chairman BL/dt Kr _cq ,�.• Attachment to Agenda Itl No. Z - ,G.P.A. 79-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Department of Community Development DATE: September 41 1979 ' TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 79-1 'Land Use Alternatives or Aeronutroni c For 'Site No. 5 At .the Planning Commission meeting of August 16, 19.79, the Aero- nutronic Ford P-C -Development Plan was approved (6-2) allowing ' a total of 1 ,361 ,000 sq. ft. of industrial development and 350 dwelling units , including the provision of fifty off-site "affordable" units . -The Commission also voted 4-3 to express the intent that the land use alternative for Aeronutronic Ford in General Plan Amendment 79=1 will be consistent with •any Development Plan approved by the City Council .(see attached minutes) . • (' At the City Council meeting of August 27, 1979, the City Council approved the P-C Development Plan for Aeronutronic Ford, includ- ing a total . of 1 ,361 .0.00 sq. ft. of industrial development and 300 dwelling units , Consistent with the Planning Commission's intent expressed' at the August 16, 197.9 meeting, the. General Plan Alternative for , Aeronutronic Ford would be: • 1,331��DO - Industrial 1 ,6&1 ,909 sq. ft: total Residential 300 dwelling units 11: P. 'LEN RD Advance Planning Administrator RPL/kk Attachment: 8/16/79 Planning Commission Minutes COMMISSIONERS Special Adjourned Meeting MINUTES - August 16 , 1979 '1 kt i A 0a t y 5 w city of Newport Death Mxr. ...i.•i.'l'J^.:7.�,... rK �i.:...J71:= ...rluC3:�1:. .i:..v.....,.t `. V�l.l 7 OLL tC AH ( r ( -tl„��, w _ INDCX eyes x x x x x Straw Vote was then taken on the Motion , which Noes x P10TION CARRIED . ,otion x Motion was made to include that the changes made AAyes x x x x in connection with the General Plan Amendment es x x x 79-1 will be •consistent with any development plan approved by the City Council for the Ford-Aeronu- tronic site, upon which a Straw Vote was taken. In response to a question posed by .Commissioner Beek, Mr. Coffin, replied that the Motion was ba- sically an- expression of intent and that it does not bind the Planning Commission in any bray. Motion x Motion was made that the Planning Commission es x x YX x approve the Environmental Impact Report and re- es x x commend that the' City Council approve the Environ- mental Impact Report and certify the Environmental Impact Report is complete with the fi•nd,ings list-ed below: 1 1. That the Draft Environmental Impact Report is complete and prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act , ' that its contents have been considered in the decisions on this project. ' 2. That based on the information contained in the Draft EIR, the project incorporates suf- ficient mitigation measures to ,reduce po'te " tially-significant environmental effects ,, an that the project will not result in signifi- cant environmental impacts. 1 and that the Planning Conudission, approve Amend- . mebt No. 532/Ordinance No. 1807 and recommend tha the City Council approve Ordinance No. 1807/Amend- ment No. 532, revising the Planned Community De- velopment Plan and Development Standards for the Ford-Aeronutronic P-C District. ht ion Motion was made that the Planning Commission make t" es x x x xx x the following findings : Noes x ,� Planning Commission Meeting Se tember• 6 1J9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - Septembe.r 5, " 1979 , TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 79-1 Attached are some additional responses to the notice of preparation of an Initial Study for the proposed General Plan Amendment. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECCTOR By Robert P". Lenard Advance Planning Administrator RPL/dt Attachments STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND O. BROWN JR., Governor AIR RESOURCES BOARD 1102 Q STREET P.O. BOX 2815 SACRAMENTO, CA 95812 s RECEIVED Co.. 9 1'�n•,L bV SE4 R 1979�" August 30, 1979 C to ITY D�cACH N�1'C1 - �t\r- I � Department of Community •Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation for the General Plan Amendment 79-1 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) . We recommend the DEIR specifically address the potential cumulative air quality impacts from traffic congestion resulting from full development of the various projects. Enclosed is a recommended outline which will assist in the preparation of the air quality analysis for the proposed project. For additional information, please contact Mr. Richard DeCuir of my staff at (916) 445-0960. Sincerely, Gary Agid, Chief Regional Programs Branch Enclosure NONSTATUTORY ADVISEMENT ' y _ File No. To: From: ( Cliff r(ave411 CDnYYt Department of Commun j I.S. on GPA-79-1 Devel'opmegt 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 9' 63 PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR COMMENTS BY xxx (30 days)- PROJECT TITLE: General Plan Amendment 79-1 on City of Newport Beachko to mPROJECT LOCATION: Various locations throughout the City of Newport Beach. >- >v cA z sue'. m C' a � t. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISS REcEunHy rtm' m o z c m �velo?m^t o z o19�9o► 44 o (See Attached) o> NtiWpCk1.IF• .� . 10 M DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF YOIrR AGENCY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT i c4. N'O V �pro W LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: (USE ADMI'OKAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): w v c CD +a, o o Please refer to attached pages. W r0- UdO J 4cr— ln M E C/ r ►+ O O) Cl Z V b •FCo do W C. .G r-• f" -P N A G w o•.- c ai � r-• � •� w CONTACT PERSON 7ITLEt PHONE ' Board of Direc ors Mr. Ices Miller Cliff Haven Comm. Assoc. 645-40.92 c, DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA OF EXPERTI'SE/INTEREST: r, - 15 N LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS (USE ADD•ITI'ONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): a W � x • a � m 1 4) W Cf QLd i CONTACT PERSON r TITLE PHONE f /State of California, Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor /, California Corst.+l Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th floor San Francisco, California 94105 (415) 543-8555 p • J. August 29, 1979 • p. 09, CItY OiFGAON� City of Newport Beach Department of Community � Development 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Response to Notice of Preparation of An Initial Study: General Plan Amendment 79-1 (File No. I.S./GPA-79-1) The California Coastal Commission currently has permit authority over the majority of parcels involved in the above-referenced proposed general plan amendment, i.e. , over those parcels which fall within the coastal zone. Pursuant to the Coastal Act of 1976, the City of Newport Beach is currently preparing a Local Coastal Program (LCP) , for this coastal zone area, funded by a grant from the Coastal Commission. . In preparing the LCP, the City is' ' required to evaluate existing and proposed land uses and zoning and to ensure that uses are consistent with the policies of the Coastal Act of 1976. Bob Lenard of the City's planning staff has been involved in the LCP effort since its inception, and is familiar with the Coastal Act and LCP requirements. It appears that the above-referenced Initial Study is being proposed as a separate action, unrelated to the preparation of the City's LCP. While it is certainly appropriate for the City to initiate such local plan amendments independent of the LCP, Commission staff believes that, since most of the study area is in the coastal zone, it would be most efficient for the proposed project to take into consideration the applicable Coastal Act policies. The "Scope of Investigation" states that the proposed Initial Study will focus• on "traffic impacts", "openness of vista or view", "sewer capacity", etc. These concerns parallel concerns which are expressed in Coastal Act policies. Additionally, other Coastal Act policies which could affect ultimate land uses and zoning of the subject parcels should also be considered, including Coastal Act priorities for recreational and visitor-serving land uses and sensitive habitat area protection policies. If you have any questions concerning these comments, please contact Helene Kornblatt of my staff. Sincerely, Robert B. Lagle jlh Chief Planner CC: Bob Lenard, LCP Staff, City of Newport Beach South Coast Regional Commission ICI � NONSTATUTORY ADVISEMENT File No. To: // / ' From: � ' (U (✓/Dori /7l�✓pnt��ctm/�� Department of Community I.S. on GPA-79-1 0�' �roynl��YGC�i Development 3300 Newport Blvd. New ort Beach, CA. 92663 'PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR COMMENTS BY xxx' (30 days) PROJECT TITLE: General Plan Amendment 79-1 M City of Newport Beach ko to C CV PROJECT LOCATION: Various locations throughout the City of Newport Beach. mV-cc 2> >Uj U o m CD a C i U DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES " W o a) �� RFcc!•/ED o z Vo 'Ay cj W 4- a) a-. -• De+ ant J o z 5.. ,C• • Uont. >,CD a (See Attached) 1979> � C, � SEP � Uccooz 4 -� CAV \ •' N�PCAIir• i M DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF YOLIR AGENCY RELATED 7 JECT i ++c c J a•o c� a Lb LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: (USE AOOI'CIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): W .0 C r en N U, ^CD, E r_ r LO N U r6, r- al a7 •- •r i ao ~ u z f21-0 <n CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA OF EXPERTISE/INTEREST: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,LAND USE PLANNING,BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, LEGISLATION,TRANSPORTATION, COASTAL PLANNING. w LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS .(USE ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY) : N w The Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce resolved by Board of W 'E Directors action on August 20, 1979 to re-afi'rm the current General OR U Land Use Plan of the City of Newport Beach as being adaquate depend n ing on• implementation of the Traffic Circulation Plan. The Board o of Directors further resolved that if any admendments to the General' E-1 % Land Use Plan are proposed that a full and complete Environmental o W Impact Report be prepared. (8-31-79) W TITLE PHONE z V Lxp.nnfive Director 714-644-8211 J': -t. 9 � ' RECgINEp Coo" "Ity (_ SEP5 DeveO,13tent f Haven Goommunity .{-association 1979,%. CITY OF P. O. Box 1332, Newport Be* OeaF ore l� The following are the opinions of those of a random check on property owners that are members of the Cliff Haven Community Assoc. "The Planning Commission passed a new Height Limitation of building on Kings Rd. , Kings Place in January 1979. This decision was made in 'order to preserve the character of the neighborhood. ' Since the Cast- aways Site adjoins this property, we feel the same limitations should apply. Commercial and business should be restricted, because of add- , itional traffic and noise problems that would be created. The traffic noise is past the comfort stage in the homes on the bluffs now. Noise is trapped in the Canyon behind the Medical Center on Cliff & Dover already. With the addition of hundreds of vehicles brought in by the new building, the noise would be unbearable . r 1st preference for .uses Open space for a park site 2nd preferences low-low density residential Least consideration should be tourist and commercial. Mr. & Mrs. Les Miller, 128 Kings Place, Newport Beach, 92663 - 645-4092 *****at**�*etas**at•***�t*�� Orange County bas less Open Space than other areas having similar, population to area ratios . Newport Beach needs more open space, Not less. Moew trees to cool and purify the air and less concrete, asphalt and brick structures. The aesthetic and recreational advantages of greenbelt and open space benefit everyone in the community. B . Hogg, 231 Kings Place, Neg rt Beach, 92663 - 645-8196 atatat**afatatatatat#�atatatatat# The Castaways - Whether we lived where we do or not, We have always felt that this prime area should be kept free od building development of any kind. This area is the last of the 'windows to the sea' and should be 1 eli f f Haven (9ommunity .association Page Two P. O. Box 1332, Newport Beach, Caffornia 92663 kept as a park where all may enjoy it, not just a few. We feel parks ' are certainly going to become more popular what with the gas crunch and the ever increasing beach crwods. And this park would be,, to say the least, •very special with its spectacular view over the bay and the ocean. The Castaways should remain a place for all to enjoy and should not fall victim to bricks and mortar. Phil and Joan Barkdull, 618 St. James Place, Newport Beach, 92663 - 646-5657 ' Considering the impact of noise and traffic on Dover Drive, and increased use of the airport if any Hotel or development of high density is allowed , • on the Castaways site, we respectfully urge the planning commission to ban any development of this type and to allow only low density housing which would have minimal affect on traffic, noise, etc. in and around the area. As much open area as is feasible will be greatly appreciated by generations of Newporters to come . Please , lets try to preserve the aesthetic value ' of one of the last remaining large pieces of land as much as possible. Mr. & Mrs. George Lackey, 612 St. James Place , Newport Beach, 92663 '- 5486962- I have owned the property directly across the street from the parcel of, iland known as the Castaways since 1958. I was invited to submit my views of the impact of certain various possibilities for the future development of this site . The development of this site has been of great concern to • 4 ' me for over 21 years. However, after witnessing the functioning of the 1 Planning Commission and City Council on other recent development problems, i, I feel they will do what pleases themselves irregardless of the general overall good of--the City of Newport Beach, or the individual property owner. Any further research of personal agonizing on my part would be an exercise in frustration. �U-6 7 Patricia J. Smith, 124 Kings Place , Newport Beach, 92663 - 548-8350 Blectrical use dropped 14,2% fromt CCp� h�j/+�/ LAW New houses must be well insulated, 7,300 kilowatt hours annually per; La\ RV I LH� the amount of glass is 'restricted and household to6,261. 1 ' all but 1.5% of the house's window (The 1978 rate of electrical con- area must be shaded from the sum- sumption jumped 5%above 1977.Part mer sun. of this increase was blamed on a ra- A Davis energy conservation ordl- pist who terrorized the area and Davis: Shape- nano that was passed in 1975 and caused people to keep their houses went into.effect Jan. 1,1976, applied closed up at night.) only to nqw homes to be constructed. Now, however; Davis is considering + nC- an ordinance•tbat would require that The seeds of Davis'energy conser- 01hin when.homes:built before the ,ordl- . vation actually were sown long ago ' nance was .enacted are sold, they and were recognized.as that onlyin i must be retrofitted with more instils- retrospect. People here were'riding tion-and other•energy-saving fea- bicycles years before the bike boom to CO a w of the early 1970s. It started/on the i Davis lathe city of thefuture,the campus where students biked to -BYJOANRVIE AUrJY future.Is not unattractive.This town classes. . f%t°` n.,wjaatwa�r of many trees and more bicycles lies By the mid IMAM central-cant. u in the, flat Sacramento'Valley-14 pus was plosed•to bikes,but at about DAVIS, CaIU.=Wben First Lady she,same time bikes appeared to be Aaeagmn'Carter;21Ung this eommu- miles..west of the state capital—tt. "< compact residential Island in a sea ofecomin8 an endangered species on t, nitY'a eruergy 'caneerratdomm,• visited awn v1e n� bete-last spring,.a local agricultural.land It is heavily cano• a streets of Do , scoorddff to headlined the story,•,"lifrs� p ad"fn =mmner by deciduous•shade nna Lott, who moved to Davis in trees. 11965.The first stoplight had just been r aCltyofthe'FUt»te" ";;.: ;' Altbo doowntown remafns'thG I gto P ed and bikes were aWrttn' r, kabala is•.:the.futurq tpelu�trce: � . et ueezedoffthestreete,"ahesatd.: laakallkethts, `.� .�: ., Iffy'acommercialeenter.amunidpal >g sq 2.r blc clee.than`trglYtered titre; . P," . lot there as nearly.empty at So'ehe and a handful of other pa- y noon on a recent weekday,but side- eons formed the nucleus for a gro ne bike for'each of-the dt . / that sought blke'lanea on the to 37,000 residents, aecordUmg't 1 a;bun- walk bike racks were jamnraed Car arterial streets.They presented a pe• vey; 11 bike lanes on atterW streets,. . _ and,bikes each•have,their own n tltton to the City Council but the pro- '�-:Small'•neighlkiEliood shopp ing oti:mi{lot atroate Traftic moves at a , centers within easy walking or piting slower patx and so,it seems,does,)tie pod gotonly two of five votes, dl ettCe of residtntlal areas instead of , in ggeneral. The question of whether to have. sa a•rem centers wlth, bulge , , •.Tho6taitels'tileasantandthe' bike lanes on Davie' streets became, p�7dng jots; ari active downtown midity relatively low,'fmportant fac an issue—the only Issue-in the 19M. commercial area ' tors in DavW energy com idvition• City Council election, she said, Two Y-Solar 1>oxet ptovldtng heating • Although'sumnmertlme temperatures rolane•candidates were elected and sad cobldngior a growing.number of may mice to 210 degrees(the average Davis got its bike lanes.And 1t was . 1986 that buulderJohn Whitcombein• � mamdmum temperattµe dma4ng July is •. . , k of getv�pipers,boWes 95),j sf•�t Coo �brew�ca now to rated a'bike path and green belt att{X t d&which are Step from tho 'S to -of Carquinez, ot4d,i(arbagebrmtdeSte. the mnctctuy to an average ' new Gentry Greens subdtvislor rLnndeceping,•,strcete,• subdivi. low of 84, • Now Davis residents bike to work,: sia>a'and hatroea designed to save en- ''to shop and even to take their chll-, e>EY bq advantage of natural y °D Ation ` Eat en to nursery school:The city has tic lea of eating and, eventhoUghthdre'fsDomebeatbuild• nestimated37,000bikes Ithasl2,- up in un•air-conditioned,but proper d86 registered cars,according to Mo- :' : ' ay insulated,and shaded homes dur-.. orRegleuationNews. The,city has had on!br example,etTeets lim newer sub IInns�the de,,opening them.ump at night cycle accldrsnt m the laatf obdid divisions genet�l�y rum east-west so qu7ckiy twols them. years, and that one m s was a • = that their houaese hAve a trorth-south Winters are moderate with a Jan- ' freak incident, according to John , oilentation. -This .means less east- uary average maximum,of 54 and a posher,director of traffic for the Da-west facing glass as a conduit of.au• mminimuun o k, Ivis lice i tment nier'heat and more south facing glass Even more important tban the na- po • Wqti�sotb winter sun. tural climate to Davis'energy conger- Mrs.Helen Pool,an owner of the B These streets 'are narrower and vation Is Its political climate. It is a &L Blke Shop,said some Davis bike lined with deciduous trees so they can university town, UC Davis with its bwners, like'car owners elsewhere, beftareeffectivelyshadedduringhot 17,600 students is far and away the cave an old "klunker that they use summers - (Maximums •temperatures town'e largest employer(10,200 job's); or work car school during the week, , can be10 degrees higher onwide,•�n- This means a relatively well-edu- @nd an expensive 10 speed that they shad streets,,a studyfound) and sated and our @aye for weekend trl s young population mote p con warmed by the winter sun open to innovation as well as a gool of at ' the leaves have taller•Newer i expertise on environmental-and ener- Some elderly persons have added, perking dote also must be 50go shaded gy matters.Back in 1973,it provided stabilizer,wheels to their bikes,mak- n the summer within 10 years of a small group who initiated a drive Ing them tricycles.Housewives carry theirconelruction. for the energy conservation ordi. their groceries in baskets on the back Density has been increased (from nance and a two-year educational ef- wheel. One man rigged up a tandem three to seven and one-half houses fort to sell it. bicycle contraption with a large Bail per acre) to contain sprawl and keep Until 1973,-residential energy con- to catch the wind, And Mothera.� the dfy rampart Ot een belts and transport their children in rickshaw- suinpptfon in Davis had beets ggrowing bike paths meander through new at'but%a year,But by 1978,na-• Iike vehicles,called buggers, *■ tubdlvleions, tuual gas use dropped 38.3%from 1,. c 044 therauf per year per residence in 1973 to 644 therms, ' "Davis had been growing at a very rapid,pace, about. Although most families still have' il% a year over almost a 10-year period;' Black said So one car, some make do with none.1 after the new council took office,the city instituted•growth Dan Leger, a graduate student, andl control,using an allocation system limiting the number of. his wife,Jackie,are selling their only houses and condominiums that could be built each year. car, a Datsun thht they bought two This year,for example,the number is 160.Thfs'alloeation years ago,to ease their budget. They system proved to be a powerful lever in subsequent energy plan to get by with their bikes and a conservation efforts. bugger for their.two children; ages "Energy itself was not an issue (in the lh2 campaigni. 41h�and 3. because no one was realiy'thinking seriously along thosd r •. Leger admitted to having lines,"Black said."But in the spring of 1973 some people 1 some qualms about giving up the car, who had worked in the 1972 campaign began to turn their•I but she attention to energy: says she will be relieved to be 1•. 'One of those people was Jonathan Hammond,now head out from the pressure of car pay. of Living Systems in Winters,which designs solar houses.' . ents,insurance and.repair bill& Y bad an idea of doing an energycenservatlon•building• Jane Kendrick 25,is a Davis res. code,"Hammon said."'My reasoning for wanting'to do this: dent who commutes to work on her was that the town very tightly controlled(through the al-; bike;which in Davis is not murgual— '' location system)the number of homes that'eame onto the �ept that she works in Sacramento market. There was enough of a short age•oi'supply that' BB h a 40-mile•a-day roundtrlp ariyUilng that was built would sell so I ffelt it was import rant to make sure the houses that ivere.buat were really.• For the peat two years,tdiss Ken- � assistant in radiolo- quality houses at least in the functional aspects of energy conservation." ,3'4'i'¢'• < medical Center .�He and some colleagues obtained:reseatch granta.from. j,;�=Yersity's mOte- ally has been making the '( the'cfty and the university,and the Energy Conservation. eummittedaUyezceptforWxweeksto i Ordinance was born. Mtwo'months in the whiter when the The proJec�t an a study of energydemand Character- laptitmile ofrly dense. !sties of housing units in the'loam; Sacramebto'Valley Three miles of her tour which now climate.It found that 31%ofthe electricity used annually takes her about an hour each wayon late ; .went to air conditioning while space heating accounted for alternate because there is 62%of the annual household natural gas consumption. ' "i lofi'of peopleiloli't realize bikes 'are allowed the?e;"' 'j,P,''1'he researchers,however,found as muA as'a sevemil; e said "I'vehad people honk at me or yell out the-win- difference in the amount of energy used,for air condition" re to get off the freeway. 1; R7ie same helen d true for heatingnbBla;fn the wldter,IiamJ1 "It's bust into Uie social structure that you ride bikes; mond said. _said J2*,IbmrK ai'Davielrealdent and now manager of the The project mom gY Colon's solar energy office,- , • berg also embarked on educating Daviiss, She•found that some Davis residents would fide their residents about energy conservation,.They spoke to a 1 a rill weep to save,gpsoline for thb>ga they.wanted to, group that would fistow to them and put out a newsletter• on how tosave energy, 'Tt•typt Bite they saved up credite'so they could still Mv. Jug- t tural a own flee of emitated'how the bcuadap atimt"Wai based on na gdngtothemoimtains "ahesaid "We'put tremendous amount of.effort eduo.sald.; b)'the time lso the great Besotine cnmch of 1979 came) people in Davie,as well as getting thfs code through." YCISs wen anenergy-saving trapspertation fixture in In 1975, the ordbiat M whick�•established energgyy cori Datds;which ating also has had for the past 13 years a bus ays-i servation performance standards for new residential con•, started by the tudvemity'e student body,that now has ssttru'ctio conservation.rise It provided two ways of achieving! AOO pssset>get hips annually. MAN pritgiam started-long'ago im now bearing en• Onnee was."a cookbook kind of ' 'erd..S vhtadrult�vai the dt,7's street,tree•'lanUn i thing where,a buBder Nbjr there are I=to 15, p g Pre could follow a standard recipe,Hammond said.The second 1100 street trees,and at was a calculation method where a builder"traded off ev.. t'ope;tree on acandgrn the-cnrba ;according to Shlg erything sgattist•evetything else to achieve a minimum dry pairs and tes already y wet ttendenG perfopriance." y�$iare lat►es and sired trees already caste established fix- The new ordinance required attic,floor and wall Insole-, to Davie cabal the age of ecology dawned with the lion (which the state cods had previously required),light And 1872 was the'first election year after the voting colored exterior walls and roofs,and landscaped shading of. was lowered from 21 to (al This enfranchised thou- all but 1.5%of the house's windows during August. sands of UC Davis students (although the university is,' f;Davis)thdry Bruistudents live in apartments Perhaps the most controversial part-of the new ordi- and,In the opinion of some,sharply alterednance, according to planning director Gloria McGreggor, tical power structure. was the limitation on glass to 12.590 of the floor area(al- ,jp the 1972 City Council race, the issues were though more glass could be used if it were double paned, Slack, recycling and public transit,according to Robert a lot of s ended uprly beingshade oeso"What li side of the f�l County a lot " glass ended up being on the south side of the lack,now a Davis attorney and a Yolo Count super-, { visor,but then a student and one of three environmentally house,"she said. oriented council candidates, The trio defeated three in, Guth facing glass also soaks up more heat from the c ents with a more business,orlented outlook, winter sun,which travels at a lower angle,saving on beat.kind W laid the groundwork," Black said. "At ing bills.) lc s phBOeophfcally it opened the town up and made it po- litically feaslble for the government to undertake exper- f11ts in the field of environmental managepient.". Planning Commission Meeting September 6 , 1979 . Agenda Item No . 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 6 , 1979 T0: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 79-1 Traffic Generation Following is a summary of the trips generated by each of the land use alternatives for the 16 sites . The figures shown are 24 hour volumes . P.M. peak generation would be about 15% of the numbers shown . Site #1 , Koll Center 1 . Existing General Plan - 129703 2. 50% Reduction - 5,478 3. 20% Reduction - 90500 4. Commercial/Residential Mix - 6,059 5. Medium/High Density Residential - 1 ,156 6 , Low 'Density Residential - 594 Site #2, Jamboree/MacArthur Existing General Plan - 418 , 1 . 50% Reduction - 209 2 . 20% Reduction - 334 3. Commercial/Residential Mix - 277 4 . Medium%Nigh Density Residential - 136 5 . Low Density Residential - 66 6. Park and Ride facility - - Site #3 San Diego Creek ' Existing General Plan - 12 ,.336 , 1 . 50% Reduction - 6 ,168 2. 20% Reduction 9569, 3. Commercial/Residential Mix - 8;046 ' 4. Medium/High Density Residential - 3,757 5 . Low Density Residential - 1 ,947 6 . Desilting Basin - 2, 510 r 1 1 Although a few residents have complained about lack of windows on the east and west sides of their houses,others "it has not been easy,"Whitcombe said."We are finally are pleased with their reduced utility bills. to the point where we have a reliable low-cost system,But The most unhappiness toward the ordinance was prob- we've been through lots and lots of grief over the past two ably among builders, Not only did it mean redesigning� and a half years,lots of mistakes,lots of money,lots of late 1houses, but they were the ones who had to sell the nights waiting for(solar)collectors to blow up. ' changes to the home buyer. 'At this point we have a prototype,that's easily ample- "That was one of the more unhappy consequences 6f the mented by other builders in any kind of conventional whole damn thing;' builder Bill Strong said, "I got to be house,"he said."People don't know they have a solar sys- ' ,tlu bearer of sad tidings.I didn't pass the ordinance,but I tem except for a computer panel on the wall that monitors. ;get to tell you what glass you can't have in your house." everything. It is extremely jeasy to maintain. Very little Still with the allocation system,;builders are assured that can go wrong with it." ;whatever they build they can sell} 1 It provides domestic hot water and space heating and "We have 31 homes we're putting on the market next cooling. The system costs about$5,500 which, after sub- month and 150 people who want them,"said Whitooi ibe of. tracting the$1500 cost of a conventional heating-cooling Tandem Properties."Once you get the permit,you'•V'e got system,makes thas tional cost$4,000 per house,he said. the house sold." Davis,has benefited from a half-dozen,factors in cutting "Marketing in Davis'Is no longer done at the'con$umer� its energy consumption while much of the rest of the'na= ,r level,"continued Whitcombe,•who Is building both`a 120= tion's has risen Not only is it oompact'with a ppleashnt;' unit solar subdivision, where the.homes ran a in p11 ' climate and flat topography,which makes bike riding fea, from.$46,000"to $30A00, and a.95-unit solar%p9rtnlecn' Bible,but it is not contiguous to other towns:pevelopera complex in Davis. It is done at the ppoolitical Ievet by th cannot go aarosv the street•into the next town and build to i seven planning commissioners and the five City:Counei ' get around its policies The land around D&vls Is zoned ag arembers,Whitcomb says. •• r�. ricultural by the county; whie h•at least'for.the ppresent,, you live in Davis,as'I do and,have"your•ear to•the I seems determfned.to keep it that way. It is a,uNverafty.;; town with a small group dedicated to educa residents' , ground,it is not too hard to develop'alniarketinggesrategy• �• •• to market to these 12 people,so I havd been relatively suc- on energy conservation,and it is small. .; Anew fight le on the horizon over.a proposed ordinance cessful,"he said."At the same fame;while I play thg game,' requiring that homes built before the energy ordinance.,, don't like it 'saving devices be-,, Nor doea builder Whitcombe think-the much ublic fore the homes are sold. The rationale lift seller will ordinance has n p have the money to pay for the retrofitting out of the prof- ecessarily done all that much to save ener-V. , its he makes on the sale.' , "I ' The aim of the proposed ordinance is a 25%energy aav ''. "It depends on what you use as your base,"Whitcombe said "You take the worst built,worst oriented house you fog,but ittakes y-sa coount that some homes are lose able'; can imagine,then go to Davis,the savings in heating anduse to eve energy-saving,retrotltting,8o a point system is cooling will be dramatic.But H you take a well built house For instanbe, a house with plywood gilding, n•flat roof.` 1 with a reasonably good orientation and compare it to the and slab floor would need less points than one with an.at "Davis energy ordinance housing, the savings will be far tic,stucco siding and a raised floor,less dramatic." which are more easily And'Au{Ider$trerig raid,"What hauls has done is one of insulated,to comply with the ordinance. ^ the more remarkable public relations bs,If we have been aati n,numbers of points would be obtained by adding � � insulation, shading glass, or,installing a solar hot water • 1 ., heater,low flow showerhead,weather atripping or fluores. affected,the only way I can explain it is we have more en-" • cent lhl�hung. ergy aware citizens, DavTs•realtors are opposed to requiring retrofitting at Hammond,a prime mover for the code,doesn't argue."I the time of We.• ;; think a,lot of the downward trend (In energy use) is not , George Blankenship,sales manager of Davisvllle Realty, •due to the code.A lot has to do with education," Inc„sold it would be one more burden on the seller at a , "The biggest key to the whole thing is education,"*. time when he is under many other ppressures. 'agreed Marshall Hunt, another member of the ordinance And said Paul Garritson of Yolo Realtors, "We don't iproject. - think it(the proposed ordinance)goes far enouggh� ,We felt , lhough the ordinance does not require solar heatingg or we cannot improve on the point system.We.wW go along cooling devices,builders like Whitcombe and Michael ar- with that But I have been in my house 23 years,I ould go bett have used them in their homes. for another 23 years and miss the ordinance altogether and i Whitcombe became interested in building homes using waste a lot of energy." solar energy about three years ago. I "•f 1 1 � —toy • TO : Planning Commission - 2 . tSite #4 , North Ford Existing General Plan - 5 ,780 1 . 50% Reduction 2,1890 2 . 2001 Reduction 4;624 3 . Commerci-al /Residential Mix - 5 ,058 4 . Medium/High Density Residential _ 4 ,335 5 . Low Density Residential 2 ,244 Site #5 , Aeronutronic Ford - Approved by City Council 8/21/79 4,610 ' Site #6, Newport Center 1 . ' Existing .General Plan - 29,012 2 . 50% Reduction _ 14,718 3 . 20% Reduction 23,293 4 . Commercial./Residential Mix - 17,4'30 ' 5 . Medium/High Density 'Residential _ 7 ,778, 6 . Low Density Residential 4,026 Site #7, Bavview Landing - Existing General Plan 900 2 , 1 . 50% Reduction - 900 ' 2. 20% Reduction _ 1 ,440 3. Commercial/Residential Mix 19503 4. Medium/High Density Residential - 1 ,207 5 . Low Density Residential _ 627 6. Public Recreation 140 Site #8, Castaways Existing General Plan a)- 12 ,782 b)- 4,162 1 . 50% Reduction a - 3ol38 )))_ 2,085 2. 20% Reduction a )- 5 ,015 b)- 3,330 3 . Commercial/Residential 2,.050 4. Low Density Residential 3,315 ' 5 . Medium Density Resi.den.tial - 2 ,145 Site #9 , Westbay Existing General Plan a) 3 _ 2, 58 1 . Open Space - 355 2 . Low Density Residential - 2, 332 3. Residential/Open Space 2, 157 4. Low Density/.Residential 1 , 521 TRi-i-IC ANALYSIS ZONES NEWPORT CENTER san 1 64 65 r°ad 1 � 6 � 69 6 94 t 63 68 67 95 coos Y. � �1'L TO: Planning Commission — 3 . Site #10 , Eastbluff Remnant Existing General Plan a )- 40 b ) - 357 1 . Open Space - 40 2. Low Density Residential - 264 i Site #11 , Newporter North Existing General _ 3, 740 1 . Low Density Residential 2 ,904 2. Residential/Open Space - 2,684 ' 3 . Low Density Residential /Open Space - 1 ,892 ' Site #12, Big Canyon Existing General Plan 1 ,360 1 . Medium/High Density Residential 765 2. Low Density Residential - 440 Site #13, Baywood Expansion Existing General Plan _ 910 1 . Medium/High Density Residential 578 2. Low Density Residential - 297 Site #14, Fifth Avenue Parcels Existing General Plan - 1 ,734 1 . Low Density Residential - 1 ,188 ' Site #15, Beeco Property Existing General Plan - 7 ,650 1 . Low Density Residential - 4,950 Site #16, Mouth of Big Canyon Existing General Plan a )- 240 b)_ 1 ,595 1 . Open Space 240 Intersection Capacity The following maps illustrate existing and future intersection capacities and a traffic analysis zone breakdown for Newport Center. Following the maps are I . C. U . work sheets for each of the four inter- sections exceeding .85 I . C . U. and site by site projected contribu- tions of development allowed by the existing General Plan to each of �r these four intersections . �' jj M. IL r" MSAMEI S � I Lit _ I Ira � �� r . ;IU it Jl.l: �- rr� �lll�`,ia� j-✓:=���. II�IrY�1���-� •♦i�:C� :.ram��:5}1. 2• �� 40 • ' GENERAL PLAN 78-2 1995 Intersection Capacity Utilization Computations Intersection CoAS-r NocdwAY /AvocAoo Auemue- June 28. 1979 995 Peak Peak Hour 2-Way Hourly Turn Turn 1995 Movement Lanes Capacity Leg Volume Percentage Volume V/C NL / f600 q6.0 / 20 .0750A` Hf NR 1 lboo 5yO 1140 , o97S SL 3 H800 75.0 r 9So' , 281'3 ST l 1600 ZO�000 5.0 120 0750 1 sR 1 /boo Zo.o yso . 3000 EL ET 64100 S7 000 60 ' ER 1600 y. S 110 0688"` wI S6 00o s Z 3So ;. 367Z NR Yellow Time 0.1000. Intersection Capacity Utilization ICU 89 9 7. ICU is sum of critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) R-Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, L=Left. T=Through,• R=Right' 1 . GENERAL PLAN 78-2 , 199S Intersection Capacity Utilization Computations Intersection <O,AST 'F11614WAy /,^,tjC;ORv-=E R0A0 ' June 28, 1919' , 95 eak Peak Hour 2-May Hourly Turn Turn 1995 Movement Lanes Capacity Leg Volume Percentage Volume Y/C NL 1 1600 g.°I 66 0375 H Nr 2 ,000 -70. 0 5", NR 2-1.6 70 - SL l 1600 q.6 1160 (000 ST 3200 35 000 A4S".8 770 2g660 SR 2 ,3200 qq.6 -75'0 . 23H1/ EL 2 3200 33.6 ISO zN3 ' ET 58, 000 63.3 r1470 ER 3 . 1 70 WL 2 3zeo 1"1 .5 q 8 0 Wi 6 2, 00 0 73. q i 9 20 ' WR 7, 1 ISO Yellow Time 0.1000 Intersection Capacity Utilization ICU ICU is sum of critical movements, denoted by asterisk N ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, L=Left, T=Through, R=Right 1 DIFFERENCE IN TRAFFIC VOLUME 1 ("GENERAL PLAN" LESS "NO GROWTH") INTERSECTION: Coast Highway/Jamboree APPROACH DIRECTION 1 TAZ NB SB EB WB 1 3 Beeco 60 101 388 214 45 Bayview Landing 33 248 415 137 53 Westbay 9 0 10 1 54 Westbay 27 35 4 5 1 58 Newporter North 436 1 ,932 879 575 64 Civic Plaza 256 1 ,244 956 29' 1 65 Black 600 83 557 0 493 68 Newport Village 134 32 362 527 1 70 Big Canyon #10 54 171 121 0 74 Aero - Ford 45 161 99 13 75 North Ford • 29 125 91 8 1 76 San• Diego Creek 27 57 6 24 77 Jamboree/MacArthur 8 9 4 1 81 Koll Center 12 41 21 6 82 Koll Center 6' 29 15 6 1 83 Harbor View Hills 78 48 223 326 85 5th Avenue 24 0 71 94 1 87 'Baywood 15 0 25 52 95 Corporate Plaza/ 33 236 108 390 1 Coast Highway TOTAL 1369 5026 3798 2901 1 1 $.o GOA5t ` +-- NwY. 8.0 ye tu 3. GENERAL PLAN 78-2 , 1995 Intersection Capacity Utilization Computations Intersection JAMBoRM:RoAD/FoRD RoAo — EAS•r&OFF ORtuE June 28, 1979 ' 5 Peak Pea Hour Movement Lanes Capacity Leg.Volume Percentagen Volume Y/C Turn 5 ' NL 2 3200 23. `I Gyo , 2000"` Nt f 6.7. 3 1630 ' MR 9. 3 250 SL 1 16 00 5.3 100 ,0625 Sr &J OAA 2 Soo 'i►•3 1770 +w sR 3.3 60 ' EL / 1 600 y 2 20 ,oils ET 9 000 3 0.2 12.0 F ' ER 65.6 260 WL 2 3200 56.1 200 ,0625"` Wi ! 1600 7� Sp0 32.(� 120 ,0750 WR 1600 10.S 40 02-50 Yellow Time 0.1000 , Intersection Ca acit Utilization fir" ICU is sum of critical movements, denoted by asterisk N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, L=Left, T=Through, Wight 1 DIFFERENCE IN TRAFFIC VOLUME ("GENERAL PLAN" LESS "NO GROWTH") 1 INTERSECTION: Jamboree/Ford APPROACH DIRECTION TAZ NB SB EB WB 1 3 Beeco 29 9 15 3 45 Bayview Landing 171 170 '15 16 1 53 Westbay 37 34 0 0 54 Westbay 121 121 0 2 1 58 Newporter North 690 498 127 99 64 ' Civic Plaza 1 ,754 1 ,759 65 92 65 Block 600 796 769 22 3 68 Newport Village 49 16 27 0 70 Big Canyon #10 592 525 79 4 74 •Aero = Ford, 264 358 92 0 ' 75 North Ford 327 395 14 2 76 San Diego Creek 356 341 0 1 1 77 Jamboree/MacArthur 33 28 0 0 81 Koll Center 106 109 0 0 1 82 Koll Center 64 69 0 0 83 Harbor View Hills 39 16 22 0 ' 85 5th Avenue 16 2 6 0 87 Baywood 15 8 11 0 95 Corporate Plaza/ 208 192 6 0 Coast Highway TOTAL 5667 5419 501 222 bt 1 � 1 FO1?0 -•— w mtD tot • 1 GENERAL PLAN 78-2 ' 1995 Intersection Capacity Utilization Computations Intersection JAMBPREE RokD /MAc•AR•rduR 51vo , June 28, 1979 ' 95 Peak Peak Hour 2-Way Hourly Turn Turn 1995 Movement Lanes Capacity Leg Volume Percentage Volume V/C I 1600 3.7 SO 0312 NT 2 200 36,000 73.6 990 30QN NR / /600 22.7 310 , 19315 SL 1 J600 10.6 1 $0 , M 38"` ST 2 7-00 39,000 58.2 850 ,Z656 ' SR 1j. 6. 31. 2 L460 EL 2 3200 33 . 5 310 1Z1? * , ET 30, 000 66. 4- 780 • ER O IA. Z 3200 33.N 650 .2031 ' WT 3 Z/800 qq qoo 65.9 1210 .2,688�` , WR / N.s, 0.7 10 Yellow Time 0.1000 ' Intersection Capacity Utilization ICU ,8q3 9 ICU is sum of .critical movements, denoted by asterisk H■Northbound, S'Southbound, EtEastbound, W=Westbound, L■Left, T=Through, R•Right 1 1 • �~ fV DIFFERENCE IN TRAFFIC VOLUME ("GENERAL PLAN" LESS "NO GROWTH") tINTERSECTION: Jamboree/MacArthur APPROACH DIRECTION ' TAZ NB SB EB WB ' 3 Beeco 0 0 40 38 45 Bayview Landing 0 8 52 45 53 Westbay 0 0 11 14 54 Westbay 0 0 70 72 ' 58 Newporter North 0 0 0 0 64 Civic Plaza 0 112 147 41 65 Block 600 71 0 90 32 68 Newport Village 44 34 0 28 ' 70 Big Canyon #16 0 31 37 22 74 Aero - ford 0 63 67 6 ' 75 North Ford 178 126 0 84 76 San Diego Creek 0 121 170 88 77 Jamboree/MacArthur 145 174 602 310 81 Koll Center 0 1 ,229 205 17 82 Koll Center 423 0 19122 1,599 83 Harbor View Hills 112 95 0 53 85 5th Avenue 50 42 0 17 87, Baywood 22 20 0 13 ' 95 Corporate Plaza/ 0 13 17 11 Coast Highway TOTAL 1045 2068 2630 2490 O�D O (b �, V i Sewage Generation Rates ' Following are approximate yearly sewage outputs (in thousands of gallons) for two density ranges in each land use category: Residential 4 DU/Acre 566 10 'DU/Acre 1,416 Commercial ' .4 X •Gross 1,179� ..2 X Gross 589 Industrial .4 X Gross 1,416 ' .2 X Gross 708 As can be seen above, per acre yearly generation ranges from a low of 566 ,000 gallons for low density residential , to a high of 1,416 ,000 for 10 DU/Acre residential and .4 X gross industrial : DEPARTMENT- OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RICHARD V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By_ Robert F. Lenard Advance Planning Administratbr RPL/-gg ,• Attachments : Minutes of 1,1/27/78, City Council Mee.ting Letter from Mayor Ryckoff lip • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF• THE MAYOR 1 July 25, 1979 } TO: Planning Commission FROM: Mayor Ryckoff I would like to ask that the Planning Commission commence hearings as soon as possible on the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan. You have received• some• direction from the Council, and I believe I can speak •for the Council 1 in saying that we would like this matter to get off the ground. . You have a heavy schedule coming up, but hopefully you will Tbe able to get into this very shortly. PAUL RYCKOFF . 1 Mayor PR:jmb xc: City Council City Manager Community Development Director 1 1 1 Attachment 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH t �� I.t111NG11 MF.N MINUTES 1I , G4i`A\�9 p\�9�GZ�i '•3\T�"y m P� •.CAI t_ALL• r 'p ' Nuvembrr 27. 1970 _INDEX 7 , ..,�� CONTINUED BUSINESS: j w ' 1. (O•lstrie^L"S)••tbyor Ryekoff'n appointment of a Com Dev member to the Co®Onity pevelopoent Citizens CAC Advisory Committee to fllt`fhe.un;�IxyS ircd to= of (2127) Notion I x William D. !orris ending December 31'�-iWA-Xaa ' All Ayes postponed to December 20, 1978. 2. A report was-presented from the Co=unley central Plan i Development Department regarding Planning Commie- (673) slam review of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Motion x Mayor pro Ten Willismi made a motion to direct the Planning Commission to take the following actions with respect to traffic considerations: t a) Determine acceptability of present Circulation Plan and propose necessary so m units, b) Examlma a series of dselan alternatives that can be used to Implement the 'f accepted Circulation Elament, c) $sleet thou alternatives which appear ; lost feasible for davelopment, .d) Determine the ca4tylog capacity of the ' attapted system and alternatives, a) Alternative land uses should be I examined to daterml9e if traffic . 1 li generation will be within the carrying capacity of the acceptable system; and to further direct the Planning Commission to , previM the Council with a aeries of five I 4 Ity alternatives for the Malaita undeveloped Petrels, including P-C's excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, an follows: 1. Do reductions 2. To be datermined by Planning Commission ' 2. To be determined by Planning Commission 4. To be determined by Planning Cemmlasion 3. law density residential I and to provide alternative supporting data,,both 1 I positive and negative, with each alternative; to 1 solicit written data from Commissioners, staff, developers, environmental group&. Chamber of 1 ! Commerce, and-other Individuals or groups as may , 1 I be appropriate; to provide specific data along ' I , with the sources of that data; and to include iamber values where possible; with specific criteria to include, but not be limited to, III I II Volume 32 - Page 298 ' ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH •.,ih\II.M tN MINUTES 1z t+nit : •�L( ;`per Ytu• Novenber 27 1978 INDEX traffic considerations, openness of vista or ' I view, City image, cost/ benefit ratio to City, private property rights, public rights, sever 11 capacity, energy requirements, implications for airport, and social acceptance; and to make its recommendations of an alternative to Council ' -by March 1, A9f9. Mayor Pro Tem Williams stated for the record that the•fatent of the motion was to cover those ' undeveloped parcels which the Council still had ' opportunity to work with in regard to allowable densities. All Ayes A vote was taken on Mayor Pro Tem Williams' nation, which motion carried. •�3. A report.was presented from the Public Works Inerpy Department regarding proposed re-lnatitutlon of arvation • street 11ghting energy tonservation program in 817) conjunction with conversion of existing systems. Motion x The staff van directed to re-institute the All Ayes street lighting energy conservation program. ' i 4. A report dated November 23, 1978 was prearpted Traffic from the Public Works Department regardi7g speed Rsgulatlens f bumps. (132i). r I p� Rudy Baron addressed the Council and asked that re-aflirmatlon o! the City's present position on � speed bumps be withheld. James Oratad addressed the Council and asked ' that the alley between Bolwood and Catalina be excepted from the City'a position regarding speed bumps. " Motion x Mr. Crated was granted two additional minutes All Ayes for his presentation. Notion x The problem was referred to the Traffic Affairs All Ayes Committee for report back with more details. 5. A proposed ordinance, being, Bluff Development .'AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OP NENPORT BEACH Regulations ADDING SECTION 20.51.080 TO THE kWPORT (3061) BEACH MVNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED "DEVELOPMEST • '•a r OP BLNBP SITES" (RELATING TO PLANNED i. ' COKWITIRS), - 111 'I Planning Commission Amendment No. 515. initiated by the City of Newport Desch, was presented with a report from the Community Development Depart- ment. Motion I I x ' Mayor Pro Tem Williams made a motion to postpone i t the ordinance to January 22, 1979. i Volume 32 - Page 299 i ` • t September 19, 1979 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 75-1 , On September 6, 1979, the Commission was given a summary of trips generated by the land use alternatives described for General Plan Amendment 79-1 . Accompanying this summary were 1995 I.C.U. computation sheets for the four inter- sections with projected 1995 I.C.U. 's exceeding 0.85. . Those intersections were: 1995 I.C.U. 1 . Coast Highway/Jamboree .9468* ` 2. Jamboree/MacArthur .8939 3. Coast-Highway/Avocado .8997 4. Jamboree/Ford Road Eastbluff .8625 *The September 6 memo indicated an I.C.U. of .9219, but an addition and multiplication error Was found which increased the I.C.U. to .9468. These intersections have been analyzed to determine how the I .C.U. 's can be reduced to 0.85. For Jamboree/MacArthur and Coast Highway/Jamboree, new 1 ,peak hour intersection distribution sheets have been prepared. The numbers re- flect a distribution of the traffic generated from the 16 sites if they were developed to the limits allowed by the existing General Plan,. This traffic was distributed for each site using the percentages shown on the attached site dis- tribution sketches. Several approaches can be taken to lower the I .G.U. at Coast Highway , and Jamboree Road. If the bypass road shown on Exhibit 1 is constructed, the I.C.U. can be lowered to 0.8721 by, assuming that the following moves would use the bypass: i 110 Eastbound Left 20 Southbound Left ' 180 Westbound Right To further reduce the I .C.U'. to 0.85, any of the following reductions in traffic could be made: Remove 1 . 104 ET plus 140 WT or 2. 70 EL plus 104 ET or 3. 36 SL plus 70 ST or 4. •70 WL plus 140 WT L September 19, 1979 Subject: General Plan Amendment 79-1 Pdge 2 These reductions are only a few of dozens of combinations which can be worked out to accomplish a reduction of 0.0221 in the I.C.U. 1 If Coast Highway is constructed as showm on Exhibit 1 with four through lanes in each direction and an additional 70 eastbound left-turners are shifted to the bypass road, then the I .C.U. is reduced to 0.85 without any reduction in traffic. The Coast Highway-Jamboree Road intersection is the first major inter- section easterly of the bay, serving traffic northerly of Coast Highway. A substantial portion of the traffic wanting to get from one side of the-bay to the other uses this intersection. The importance of this intersection should be care- fully considered in applying the Council 's 9-lane maximum width cross section. This may be the one location in the City where 10 lanes are warranted. At Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard, the I.C.U. •can be reduced to 0.8553 by combining the two northbound through lanes with the single northbound right lane to make three through lanes. The right-turners would then share the i third through lane. To further reduce the I .C.U. by 0.0053, any of the following traffic reductions could be made: Remove 1 . 17 NT or '2. 17 EL or .3. 23 WT Again there are numerous additional combinations which could be used to make this reduction. If a northbound right-turn lane is added in addition to the three northbound through lanes, then the I.C.0 drops to 0.7908. With this additional lane there would be 9 lanes on MacArthur Boulevard. Also no traffic reductions are required to reach an T .C.U. of less than 0.85. Reductions to the traffic needed to reduce the I.C.U. for Avocado/ 1 Coast Highway and Jamboree Road/Ford Road-Eastbluff Drive are shown on the attached I.C.U. computation sheets. Don Webb Assistant City Engineer Att. 1 �'r 1 _ _ SMION ♦ O ( s - �/,'�/t����Ts`-. � _min.—``_r_•' ,— - 1 r 1411 11 1 • 1 Irt (( SS 1' . .. • SKuoN D -- - jf i • - ,Y�-1` 1 SRiIOM . 3� I• �� i �� � �0 I r— /�ye�//.•, SS(SION , - ALTNATE EXHIBIT i COAST NIG�I�ItA�JANt60��E t20. r �r rr r rf tr .r. � � r tr ar � r r v �■■ r r rr t • aGENERAL PLAN 78-2 1995 Intersection Capacity Utilization Computations 1 Intersection COAST 11f6HWAy 1,JA^3pRFE ROA0 ' June 28, 1979 1995 Peak Peak Hour 2-Way Hourly Turn Turn 1995 Ftovemei't Lanes Capacity Leg Volume Percentage Volume V/C iNL 1 1600 8•1-1 60 . 0375-* , 0375 In 17 2y,000 -70, 0 SLJO 1901r 'T NR 2-1.6 70 - SL 1600 9.6 160 1000 .t000 4 ST Z 3200 35, 000 4S. S 770 . ?-q66'" ■ SR 2 3 2.00 y H.6 -7 SD 23yy .ZS45 ■ EL 2 32-00 33.6 -I So .zN3 A437.0 ' ET S8, 000 63.3 04 70 _ ER . 3 . 1 70 Irl 2 3200 11 .5 L48o . 's-00 .1900 wr 73. q 11820 WR 7. 1 i80 ' • Yellow Time 0.1000two� Intersection Capacity Utilization ICU .9 2'19 .944 ICU is sum of critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, L=Left, T=Through, R=Right Sw&A 110 FIL ZO SL. a.aJ I60 WR 0T11.IZE Trte 3h4KBAX gv9wCs ¢o*,* . T44M RsOucFS I.C.-U. to o.87t ' T%+* N IF # Z4 o f THc Fou.ow "J 6 o 4rf+ dT Rsosoc.-vtoUS okwe M-r%a w*1L (,c.t) pa.op%om abgw e -r2*aSFr01L 1. 9-S µOUC n�04 1=T PLUS 14o wT 1� #go tan Go*6 F.L -ry 134PASs o0. 2 RsKovE 370 EL p&.05 104 ET (PET lcu c e.8 o R 3. �2st~o�lle 6 SI. Po.uS ?o ST" na 4. 990-oo a 70 W L P�uS 14 0 wr �S-`B"7 ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC , JAMBOREE/COAST.HWY. SITE NL I NT I NR SL I ST I SR EL I ET I ER WL I WT I WR 1. Koll Center 83 32 2. Jamboree/MacArthur , 3. San Diego Creek 111 74 4. North Ford 87 29 6. Newport Center 275 160 160 275 71 Bayview 12 50 151 50 B. Castaways — 77 154 19 38 9. Westbay * t 10. Eastbluff Remnant 11 . Newporter North 15 22 r44 30 12. Big Canyon 8 13. Baywood 14. Fifth Avenue 14 7 15. Beeco 92 46 15 30 16. -Mouth Big Canyon * 2 7 16 8 TOTAL 0 0 0 29 0 812 722 208 0 0 350 88 *Residential option of Existing G.P. iGENERAL PLAN 78-2 1995 Intersection Capacity Utilization Computations Intersection )AM96REE Roho /PAA,—Af2TNuR 6Lvo. June 28, 1979 1995 Peak Peak Hour 2-Way Hourly Turn Turn 1995 Movement Lanes Capacity Leg Volume Percentage Volume V/C NL i60o 3.7 So . 031 2 90 0Ry 6 000 7 .6 9 t3oo .3 �k ; Nr 2 3200 3 , 3 NR j60o 22.7 3 ► a 1938 •2 � , sL / /600 . 10.6 15'0 • 0938" sr 2 3200 39,000 Sg.2 SSO 2656 {; SR EL 2 3200 33 . 5 390 r2I ? 30, 000 66. 4 760 ET ER. O 2 3200 33.y 650 ,203 i ' vrr 3 41800 yy,y00 65. 9 f2g0 2685'� / N.S. 0.7 f b Yellow Time 0.1000 Intersection Capacity Utilization ICU ,8?39 •pjS j 1. ICU is sum of critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) ' N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, L=Left, T=Through, R=Right ! ae m4w-fi* (D ?mMOV9 17 NT CoNST�+.��T o y'MQ tC•0 IA*Wv►4t3, p0. LANE Tb 661' .85. Ve91"S aC 2sNooeQ NT cao 1 NR ,�prttlDirta•Ei'oNi � 1 O� •y'q 6ET �AA) vie also o,vat �►Ir1Q 23w1T k,c.V of ,.790E ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC I JAMBOREE/MacARTNUR SITE NL r NT I NR SL ST I SR EL ET ER WL WT I WR 1. Koll Center 83 32 83 32 2. Jamboree/MacArthur 6 9 9 6 , 3. San Diego Creek 222 148 222 148 4. North Ford 86 86 29 130T 29 43 6. Newport Center 138 275 80 80 138 275 160 160 .I 7. Bayview 15 5 10 30 8. Castaways 0 77 38 38 77 ; 9. Westbay * 24 12 18 36 10. Eastbluff Remnant r ' 11 . Newporter North 30 . 15 30 60 ` 12. Big Canyon' 3 8 [14 10 5 5 16 10 r ' 13.. Baywood 14. Fifth Avenue 7 17 34 ' 15 . Beeco 46 92 16 . Mouth Big Canyon * 11 5 12 1 28 TOTAL 0 539 3II6 0 308 253 227 878 0 239 722 0 *Residential option of Existing G.P. ' r � GENERAL PLAN 78-2 1995 Intersection Capacity Utilization Computations Intersection JAMBoR6F- RoAA/FoRD ROAD - EASTguuFv ORturz June 28. 1979 1995 Peak Peak Hour 2-Way Hourly Turn Turn 1995 Movement Lanes Capacity Leg Volume Percentage Volume V/C NL 2 3200 23. y 1440 , Z000*: NT 11 527000 6-l. 3 0330 NR 9. 3 250 ' iSL ! 1600 5.3 100 1 g662- ST �/2 Soo 9i. 3 1770 SR 3.3 60 EL ! boo y. 2 20 , 6r2.5 ' ET 9, o00 3 0.2 120 ER 1916 26b 41L 2 3200 56.11 200. ,0625* wr ► 1600 7, 500 32.6 r 20 .0750 NR ! 160,0 (O.S L{O , 02-50 Yellow Time 0.1000 Intersection Capacity Utilization ICU ICU is sum of ,critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, L=Left, T=Through, R=Right IP►Aq ooe re4e ov Remoue 40 NV CoNSrauet ovB 1w►i it5eu' ,NFiI brlhy o�. t+lsQ.E. S•�.�N®o�uy 0. 8s, � Rlewt. lE ue (00 ST(SP. 1%i& jco+1 LAla r •oQ oe ceT AST/IL 'Dozew- 04 COW"Al o� >rts ) R,gwtou't 40 F�T FT also atuaZlo.l t OIL Tn Oew^ojt Zo E L- loex. ac ,7811 DIFFERENCE IN TRAFFIC VOLUME ("GENERAL PLAN" LESS "NO GROWTH") 1N11.16LL110N: Jamboree/Ford ' APPROACH DIRECTION _7AZ _ NB SB EB WB 1 3 Beeco 29 9 15 3 45 Bayview Landing 171 170 15 16 53 Westbay 37 34 0 0 , 54 Westbay 121 121 0 2 58 Newporter North 690 498 127 99 64 Civic Plaza 19754 1 ,759 65 '92 i 65 Block 600 796 769 22 3 68 Newport Village 49 16 27 0 70 Big Canyon #10 592 525 79 4 74 Aero - Ford 264 358 92, 0 75 North Ford 327 395 14 2 76 San Diego Creek 356 341 0 11 ' 77 Jamboree/MacArthur 33 28 0 0 81 Koll Center 106 109 0 0 82 Koll Center 64 69 0 0 83 Harbor View Hills 39 16 22 0 85 5th Avenue 16 2 6 0 87 Baywbod 15 8 11 0 95 Corporate Plaza/ 208 192 6 0 Coast Highway TOTAL 5667 5419 501 222 , a! I fl r;J 8•`'� w o !D N GENERAL PLAN 78-2 1995 Intersection Capacity Utilization Computations , • Intersection Co^5r 14,"wAY /AvocAoo AvFoue June 28, 1979 1 1995 Peak Peak Hour 2-Way Hourly Turn Turn 1995 Movemoi,t Lanes Capacity Leg Volume Percentage Volume V/C ! NL / 1600 46.0 / 20 ;OZ60 " III — -- 8, 000 NR ► 1600 5 Li.0 1140 087'S SL 3 ti800 • 75-0 135-0 . 281'3 ' ST , •l 600 7-0,000 S.O 12 O 07SO SR I tboo 70.0 y80 3000 EL _ ET 57 000 • ER W l / 600 41. 5 / /0 0688�` 1n 5-6 000 S Z 350 WR Yellow Time 0.1'000 Intersection Capacity Utilization ICU $9 9 7 ICU is sum of critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N=Northbound, S=Southbound, E=Eastbound, W=Westbound, L=left, T=Through, Might i Rewoon. Zbo L-r eo5 AL It. 3 3 0 ® Rewov�E t9(o Sl. � � �`� � Rw�►oo E bs v0 4. . ; I SITE l A'OLL CENTc� N�?UP02T o N , T.ION-RESiDENriAL A a4 DcSTj+curt N N � DR I V ' fit Vv- o QQ($TOL ST Jy�J ■ TOW Peak Pour = 1� % At7T dc�'coun !o t � 1 OC C � CK � L CNT ' 1425 33a (ors ,� .�.` 13a,� �•. � \�33a el 13 0\ a y 30 2 rlN 7 495 %�- $e�SroL 190 i 95 1 1 PM PeG� hour Uolomes 1 EX04irl Ge�y%vwf Mekr\ xAx 1 _nJ 1 l N o� Q u rP � 3O% ORISTO L J�`JL'� 1 � � 5°l0 5°Io 5% Te}rll Peals kouY = I`% ADti 0��Ix,urd " '` 9% AST , ' SITE 3 SMl DIGCO C26EK 10 • b2 to � v 9 q1 c � G 4090 y U's2lsT4L // J����s`N S,Ia -royal Po_G� kour 15% ADr loin 'O90 ` 1. . 15'Jp � W �1,9C'R of 1 N � q5'. BRISTo1., QS t50 3D • is//i '//.jr� I� j To�oA Peo6L 1L 20 ADT OADOVIO� " '' = i 5 )o ADr 1 10 �5 5 r a ��0 h p . t Icy), � yy ,s 2O -.To4af-1 PQLL44 A'o jY = 14 9D mar t�v�ba�n� .PPA�c �UY = 9-5 �/o ADr 1 T _`V 1 t �1 S aiE 7 1 �A�1VI��,�r Lr�PJ�rNG I • I o9, y0 A I sob OUltovi-4 ,, AD-1 . 1 S 176 9) CASTAV:!+a�f5 � II Io% •15�, ! T�; }Alv I POOL 1-!flor g'�a 00cUVr,A PeaGL �4our 3�0 P r 150105sume Qestm°ew�a,� ri g5'lo �1,s r � I . . r � . r 10+oJ Peak. {for - lz% ArDT i OAI a� r OUNA �!o AD i ' I r lD;1 ' S1 I I 51� 1 g57o . II I r r,. r 159sJ I buy . . OAa.j '((P2a�c �yOU'( - 1Z%> {&,D f OA0u V, A -470 ��I . 1 S1TE 12 lonj, 15°Io 6.srfa 1 r 1401,7�\'R 3sa v1Jll/ l 1 `(Yoko,-( POW-L WouY = t21% ADD i r � 1 _ r ' s\Tl_- l4 ' !FT'N AVEDUe 9-Ae( tLS ccyy I (DID Rto ! So9� Q ( o% (Out6-V\ Zf Art 1 -\05 1 h �' r s�Tc �s r3C--ECU r � Tow P2o L 4,,,, 1290 Ac)i OU{- O nd PPA.+c 119v r Al)i r r r S\iC 1 (a MooTN cF 3( 6 (MOY00 �1SSc)rn¢ •. (2esi�e��ic�Q oP�'ta�. 1 lD'fn 15%j 1 f I ' �fPool o o � t-6v r - (O%lo ADT ouktotly%A Ceat 6u-t z, 3;RAVT Planning Commission Meeting October 4, 1979 Agenda Item Nos . . 1 and 2 �I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH' October 3., 19,79 TO: Planning Commissi.on FROM: Department of Community Development , SUBJECT: General- Plan Amendment 79-1 (Continued Public Hearing) , Request to consider proposed amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General . Pian, and the preliminary review of a screen check Initial Study; and General Plan Amendment 79-2 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to consider proposed amendments to the C$rculation Element of the General Plan, and the acceptance of' an Environmental Document. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach - Background At the September 27, 1979 meeting, the Planning Commission made some � tentative decisions , by straw votes, on recommended Land use alternatives for General Plan Amendment 79-1 . Following is a summary of those decisions as they apply generally, and on a site by site basis . Density Criteria - In all areas currently being dealt with in General Plan Amendment ' 79-1 , a future determination will be made as to areas to be approved for development and included in density calculations. The following , criteria shall be used to examine property proposed for development, and portions of the property falling within the listed categories shall be deleted from the "buildable acreage" of the site and therefor not included in the calculation of the maximum allowable number of dwelling units permitted: 1 . Environmentally-Sensitive Habitat Areas ' 2. View Corridors 3. Flood plain areas 4. Coastal bluffs ' 5 . Bluff top setback areas 6 . Riparian areas 7. Geologic hazard areas ' 8. Residential Developments - areas impacted by noise levels of 64 C.N.E..L. or greater. I, TO : Planning Commission - ' 2 . 9 . Other areas already excluded from the calculation of "buildable acreage" (e .g. slopes greater than 2 : 1 , parks , etc. ) . Koll Center-Site No. 1 Limit additional development in Koll Center Newport consistent with alternate no . 2, Exhibit C of Langdon and Wilson ' s proposal to the Planning Commission dated September 20, 1979 , except that ' the 70% will be reduced by 30% rather than 24%,, and that no reductions will be applied to the ' courthouse property . The 30% can be developed prior to the adoption of a Traffic Phasing Plan , but the remaining 70% (reduced by 30%) will require a Traffic Phasing' Plan prior to development. Following is a summary of the reductions as they apply to each property owner : Additional 10/1pp/78 10%1/78 70%Cless Proposed Owner allowable 10U78 30% 70% 30% allowable Koll/Aetna 476,803 143,041 333,762 233,633 376,674 1 . + Hotel' + Hotel Irvine Company 3589200 107,460 250,740 175,518 282,978 Akulian 709120 21 ,036 49,084 34-9359 559395 ' Rockwell 31,775 9,532 22_243 15_570 25,IO2 Courthouse 25,625 25,625 Ten Eyck/Wells (59725)2t - - - 0 2• tCal Can. Bank (43 856)2• - - - 0 2• 962 523 165�. + Hotel + Hotel ' 1. Includes 143,014 sq.ft. of existing development by Koll/Aetna constructed since 10/1/.78. ' 2. These sites are underbuilt by the amounts. shown in parenthesis. ' Jamboree/M•a.cArthur - . Site %No . 2 ` Change the -exi'stin-% land .usb designation to "public works reserve" , ' with allowable uses of a freeway loop ramp or a "park and ride" facility . The site would have a secondary alternate land use of Retail and Service Commercial and Administrative , Professional , and Financial Commercial Uses , 'with density limitations to be established in the P-C - Development Plan. San Diego Creek Change the existing land use designation to "public works reserve" with an allowable use as a desilting basin . The northerly 12 acres would have a secondary alternate land use of Retail and Service Commercial with density limitations to be established in the P-C Development Plan . t - T0: Planning Commission - 3. , North Ford - Site No. 4 Limit additional development to 4 DU 's per buildable acre . Areas With noise impacts of 65 C .N .E. L . or greater (including the proposed Corona del Mar Freeway) shall be deleted from the buildable acreage. Aeronutron•ic Ford - Site No. 5 , Industrial and Residential uses consistent with the P-C Development Plan approved by the City Council `on August 27 , 1979. This would ' allow a, total of: Industrial 1 ,261 ,000 sq.ft. Residential 300 DU 's , Newport Center - Site No. 6 Reduce remaining allowable development as follows : Block 800 - Delete 105,000 sq.ft. consistent with P-C Development Plan adopted April 23, 1979. Sea Island - Delete excess 94 DU' s allowed by General Plan. , Newport Village - Delete 102,681 sq .ft. of office, 58,750 sq,.ft. of Commercial/Retail , and 650 theatre seats . Newport Center (no specific site)' - Add 290 DU' s Bayview •Landing - Site No. 7 , Designate the site for "public recreation" uses with a view park and ' bike path on upper portion and R.V . camping on lower portion , or, simila-r recreational uses of no greater intensity. As a secondary alternate use, 4 DU' s per buildable acre with all buildings to be ' located on the lower portion of the site to preserve existing publi-c views . Castaways. - Site No. 8 60 acres residential at 4 DU' s .per buildable acre, plus or minus any density transfer from other sites around Upper Newport Bay; and 5 acres designated for mobile home park use. Westbay - Site No.. 9 Residential at 4 DU ' s per buildable acre, with 75% of the allowable units to be transferred to the Castaways site. Eastbluff Remnant - Site No . 10 Residential at 4 DU ' s per buildable acre , to be transferred to the Castaways site. 1 TO: Planning Commission - 4.. Newporter North - Site No . 11 Residential at 4 DU ' s per buildable acre , with 25% of the allowable units transferrable to Castaways at the option of the property owner . Big Canyon (Area 10) - Site No . 12 1 No Action . Baywood Expansion - Site No . 13 No Action . Fifth Avenue Parcels - Site No. 14 No Action . Beeco Property - Site No . 15 No Action . Mouth of Big Canyon - Site No . 16 No change in existing General Plan designation . Suggested Action -, 1 . . General Plan Amendment 79-1 - Adopt Resolution No . ! ' recommending allowable land uses for the 16 sites under consideration, and make the finding that the environmental documentation on the proposed project is under preparation in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act 1 and City Policy. 2. General Plan Amendment 79-2 - Remove from calendar pending prepa- ration of an E . I .R . ' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By �f�M�G�L-✓1Gw�1 Robert P. Lenard ' Advance Planning Administrator RPL/dlt i 1 City Council Meeting October 9, 1979 Agenda Item No. H-9(a) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH , October 3, 1979 , TO: City Council , FROM: Department of Community Development ' SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 79-1 A request initiated by .the City of Newport Beach , to consider proposed amendments to the Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and Open Space , Elements of the General Plan , and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. } It is anticipa-ted that the Planning Commission will take final action -on General Plan Amendment 79-1 at its October 4, 1979 meeting, It Is recommended that this proposed General Plan Amendment be set for public hearing on October 2.3, 1'979 . . A verbal report of the Planning Commission action•w.ill be made at r the time of the Council meeting October 9 , 1979 . Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director byLENAKU Advance Planning Director RPL/kk f I � 1 ' APPENDIX NO. 3 - Other Correspondences - ' and Responses r J• � ,� $ Y......�.w......+�.-.�.w...._...f+..n..ww....�r.....w....w....w...........�.�...war.r.wl..ww...w...r.w.—..�+.�.�.�.,._CITY OF N M4 /VPORT BEACH r October 11, 1979 Honorable Paul Ryckoff r Mayor of City of Newport Beach r c/o City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: General Plan Amendment 79-1 , Mr. Mayor: Mr. Paul Balalis has received your comments on General Plan Amendment r i 79-1 dated September 12, 1979. Your comments have .been forwarded to r the remainder of the City"s Planning Commissidn and the City Council for their consideration in the review of this project. Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT lt. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR { 1 � ! gY O r ---Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator _ FT/dt , r . r X . r City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 r I , y%• rC , CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 11, 1979 Ernest Wilson, Jr. c/o Langdon & Wilson Architects P. 0. Box 2449 �I ' Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: General PUan Amendment 79-1 i Dear Mr. Wilson: The City of Newport 'Beach has received your comments dated Septe►iber ' 20, 1979 and September 25, 1979, on General Plan Amendment 79-1. Your comments have been forwarded to the City's Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration in the review of this project. Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT i R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR I ' BY Fred�Talarl�co ��� ' Environmental Coordinator FT/dt - City ,Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 -Z\7 — I157 I ,•.,•, z:%fit;-�, CIT Y OF NEWPOMV BEACH Robert Break c/o Latham & Watkins 66-0 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: General Plan Awend� ent 79-1 Dear Mr. Break: The City of Newport Beach has received your comments on General Plan Amendment 79-1 . Your comments have been forwarded to the City' s Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration in the review of this project. Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . HOGAN, DIRECTOR ta By 7- oT F.re¢ Talarico Environmental Coordinator FT/dt I I I City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACI ';Ap;F Ftix`,r October 12, 1979 ' ' Robert Shelton c/o The Irvine Company ' 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 0663 ' Subject: General Plan Amendment 79-1 Dear Mr. ,Shelton: The City of Newport Beach has received your comments on General Plan Amendment 79-1 . Your comments have been forwarded to the ' City ' s Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration in the review of this project. Very truly yours , DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R . V . -HOGAN , DIRECTOR ' By %ct:Levue� T ' Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator ' FT/dt 1 ' City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 -�M--lq 1 APPENDIX NO. 4 ' "Incorporation by Reference" , i i 1 — 118 APPENDIX NO. 4 Incorporation by Reference Section 15149 "Incorporation by Reference" of the State EIR Guidelines provides that an EIR may incorporate by reference all or portions of another ' document which is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public. The State Office of Planning and Research/State-Clearinghouse has indicated that such "Incorporation by Reference" is an appropriate method- ology for the preparation of information in an Initial Study so long as the criteria for incorporation by Reference is met.l • Therefore, the following documents, which are available for the public to inspect at the Community Development Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, ' Newport Beach, by reference here are made part• of this Initial Study. This shall include all information on the listed documents , public files on said and projects and project files related therein. ' l 'Telcom - Ron Bass, October 4, 1979 1 List ' 1 . Negative Declaration - Land Use Element ' 2. Negative Declaration - Residential Growth Element 3. Negative Declaration - Recreation, & Open Spaces Elements 4. Negative Declarations - All amendments 1 thru 3 above. , 5. General Plan Elements (a) , Conservation MHousing ' Noise (d) Public Safety (e Circulation 6. Environmental Assessment of the Newport Beach General Plan . , 7. Site Analysis (6 sites) : This reference includes the various Certified EIR's, Draft EIR's, , Initial Studies, Negative Declarations, Opportunities and Constraints Studies, Traffic Phasing Plans, Traffic Phasing Ordinance Studies, Grading Permits on the sixteen sites under consideration as are readibly available in the described location. , I i t t �$ ^ \'2.0 APPENDIX NO. 5 ' Preliminary Draft Report - Department of Fish and Game 00 • r o DRAFT a w` Habitat AIIISJAJjW, Resource Assessment, and 'Suggested Developmental Restraint for 5 vacant Parcels Immediately Adjacent to Upper Newport Bay. ' Prepared by Robert A. Radovich Biologist/Coastal Planning ' DRAFT ' t - DRAFT Forward This study was prepared at the request of the State Coastal Commission and South Coast Regional Commission. It is intended to provide guidance to the City Community Development Department and the Citizen's LCP Advisory Committee concerning developmental restraint on 5 vacant parcels immediately adjacent to t • Upper Newport Bay. (Newporter North, Big Canyon, East bluff Remnant, Westbay and Castaways) The author is aware of viewshed and archaeological issued with which the Citizens LCP Advisory Committee is concerned. Therefore, it must be pointed out that this study addressed purely biological issues and is not ' meant to supersede efforts of the LCP advisory committee on other issues,. ' Because I had the opportunity to see the Irvine Company's draft development I plans for the Castaways, Newporter North and Westbay sites, I have included a discussion of these plans as they relate to conclusions reached in this study. Habitat Discussion IThree major vegetative assemblages exist on each of the five mapped parcels. These Assemblages are: disturbed grassland, south coastal sage scrub, (designated by ' solid re$land riparian including freshwater marsh vegetation (designated by solid green). I have divided disturbed grassland areas into three subdesignation based on topographical ' hydrological, and biological considerations. 1. Disturbed grassland on reasonably flat ground (these areas are designated with green striping). ' 2. Disturbed grassland on fairly steep slopes, or in areas which have significant biological constraints to development (these areas are designated with red striping). ' 3. Disturbed grassland in areas which: a). Presently have enough water available to promote, ri#parian vegetation i� DRAFT nor ' if they are managed for these values or r_ b), will have water available if one assumes that development will occur in adjacent areas. ' Individual Sites ' 1. Newporter North - Topographically, this site consists of a large flat mesa top, steep (near vertical) bluffs, and a small canyon (John Wayne Gulch). The draft Irvine Company development plan for this site labels John Wayne canyon as a sensitive area. We concur with this observation. However, the ' Irvine Company's plan also shows development on the rather steep canyon slopes. This results in only the canyon bottom being delineated for preservation by the Irvine Company. The endangered light-footed clapper rail uses John Wayne Gultch for feeding and nesting. Direct adverse impacts to this endangered species (and other wildlife pgwy!h using this would unquestionably result from construction activities on tha canyon slopes, and direct, long-term adverse impacts would result from planned I residential development on these slopes. Additionally, post-grading slope ' stabilization would be very difficult if not impossible. Seemingly unsolvable sediment and erosion problems could result in destruction of riparian vegetation in John Wayne :Gultch as well at direct adverse impacts to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. We believe•that planned development of these slopes conflicts with Coastal Act Sections •30230, 30231, 30240, and 30250. Such development would also conflict with I" federal aad state Endangered Species Acts, and the State Native Species ' Conservation and Enhancement Act. For these reasons, we believe that it is necessary ' to preserve the canyon slopes (delineated by red striping) in order to maintain the value of the canyon bottom as wildlife habitat. In exchange for preservation of these canyon slopes, we would not oppose increased residential density on the flat ' mesa area of this parcel if such increased density was judged economically desirable by the Irvine Company, and was otherwise acceptable to the City and Coastal Commission, 3 DRAFT tfe' it The draft Irvine Company development plan for M" site shows an open space "park" designation on the flat mesa portion of the site. Our "riparian" (green) andr' 4conditional riparian (blue) designation on the mesa are, considered in union, approximately equal in area to the Irvine Company's "park" designation. We based our designations on existing riparian vegetation and water availability. t If the Irvine Company's "park" designation were moved to our "riparian" and "conditional riparian" areas, then maintenance and enhancement of valuable wildlife habitat could be accomplished with no net decrease in developable area on the mesa. We favor such a relocation of open space on the mesa area. Such a relocation of open space would seem to be harmonious with applicable Coastal Act sections (30240 and 30250 among others). With the above exceptions, the Irvine Company draft development plan for the Newporter North site limits development to flat disturbed grassland. Big Canyon - This site consists of steep (near vertical) bluffs, and a canyon bottom dominated by the most luxuriant riparian vegetation on any of the five mapped 'parcels. Any residential, commerical or industrial development in this Canyon would result in negative impacts to the wildlife involved. The Canyon is completely surrounded by residential development. With the exception of small areas (shown with red striping) the entire canyon bottom is either "riparian" or "conditional riparian" in nature. There is a large spoil deposition site at the mouth of the canyon which we have designated as "conditional riparian" (blue). Vegetatively, this area is dominated by Salicornia and exhibits a some seasonal ponding. This area can be defined as a wetland by Coastal Act as well as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service definition. The possibility exists for upgrading the habitat values of this spoil deposition area. Therefore, we have chosen to label it conditional riparian even though it may be defined as a wetland in its present condition. ' 4 DRAFT Because areas which are dominated by a disturbed grassland vegetative assemblage are small and immediately adjacent to either "riparian" or "conditional riparian" areas, and because significant adverse impact to wildlife utilizing the canyon would result if they were developed,we find that development in this canyon is unacceptable. Note: The light-footed clapper rail inhabits this canyon at least seasonally). We believe that development of this canyon would conflict with Coastal Act Sections 30230, 30231, 30240, and 30250. Additionally, such development would conflict with state and federal Endangered Species Acts, and the State Native Species ' Conservation and Enhancement Act. No one, including the Irvine Company, has ever questioned the biological significance ' of Big Canyon. The Irvine Company does not, to my knowledge, have a development plan for Big Canyon. East Bluff Remnant - This site consists of steep (near vertical) bluffsjaed an upland plateau with high gaality riparian vegetation, and open disturbed grassland areas (designated by red-stripping) which are in a rather advanced stage of succession to a south coastal sage scrub community. The bluffs are dominated by high quality south coastal sage scrub vegetation. Because of the small size, and considerable • biological value of this site we cannot agree with any development here. We would support a development credit on another site (Castaways for example) in exchange for no development of this parcel. We believe that such a development credit ' would satisfy applicable Coastal Act sections while at the same time allowing profit- able development to the Irvine Company elsewhere. Westbav - With one exception the draft Irvine Company development plan for this site . 0rassigha limits development to the flat disturbed mead vegetative assemblage. This exception is in the area designated by red striping adjacent to an imaginary extension of University Drive. Immediately adjacent to this imaginary extension, the'Irvine Company draft plan show3 If this park is used for M. -- tz5 5 ' DRAFT passive recreational purposes, and is planted with native vegetation we believe that ' it .would be compatible with the resources involved. However, to the coastward of this park designation and obliterating the "conditional riparian' swail shown on the habitat map, the plan shows condominimum construction up to the edge of the Delhi Channel. r • The slopes involved in this area are fairly steep. We feel that if they are developed problems associated with erosion and sedimentation will result. III Delhi Channel is a known feeding area for the California least tern, supports a large population of California killifish on which 'the tern feed; and' is biologically an extension of 'the upper bay. If a, 200 ft. setback from the channel is incorporated ' (as a consensus of scientific opinion voiced at a recent wetland workshop considers minimal), then development in this area would be limited to the green striped (flat disturbed grassland) area in this .portion of the Westbay site. i The "conditional riparian' sVaii in this area will have enough ,water available to support riparian growth if we assume that the adjacent development of flat , disturbed grasslands takes place. Again we would support increased residential density elsewhere in exchange for preclusion of development within areas of concern on 6lestbay site. Thy +fie draft Irvine Company development plan for the remainder of the Westbay site is limited to flat disturbed grassland. Castaways Site - This site consists of steep (near vertical) bluffs, a large 4 /� ep flat plateau, and two small canyons on the coastward aide of the property. +'The ` Irvine Company draft development plan for this site limits development to the ' flat disturbed grassland area which is essentially the large plateau. 6 DRAFT ' We have two areas of concern with respect to the draft development plan. These ' areas of concern are the two Canyons on the Coastward side of the property. These canyons consist of coastal scrub dominated slopes and freshwater marsh/ ' riparian bottoms. Development of these canyons would seemingly conflict with Coastal Act sections 30230, 30231, 30240 and 30250. Such development would also conflict with Resources Agency Basic Wetlands protection policy. With the above exceptions, we believe that the Irvine Company draft Developmental plan is generally compatible with the biological resources involved A t a 6 a"yj Bite. 12_1 Mammals ' Species Location Status Rationale ' Opossum (Didelphis marsupialia) all C R,0 (1) , Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis) all C R,0 (1,4) Badger Taxidea taxis) 2 U R,0 (tracks �)) Bobcat Lynx rufus) 2 U R Coyote , Canis latrans) 1,2,4 C R Racoon Proc on lotor) 2,4 C R,0 •(tracks (2)) Black-tailed jack rabbit all A R,0 (all) r Le us californicus) Desert Cottontail (Sylvilaaus audubonii) all A R,0 (all) Deer mouse (Peromiscus sp.) all A R Rouse mouse Mus muscuius) all A R Dusky-footed woodrat Neotoma fuscipes) all C R California vole Microtus californicus) all C R Valley Pocket Gopher Thomom s bottae) all A R,0 (all) Ground squirrel Citellus beechyi) all A, R,0 (all) , Pacific Kangaroo rat Di odours auilis) all C R r 1 APPENDIX # 1 ' This appendix is a species list of various animals which were either observed by the author or which have been reliably reported by Department personnel. I have arranged these lists in four columns (Species, Location, Status and Rationale). The following legend applies Location: This column lists the site on which a particular species is likely to be found based on its habitat preference. i.- Newporter North 2.= Big Canyon 3.= East Bluff Remnant 4.= Westbay 5.= Castaways Status: C = Commonly observed A = Abundant U - Unusual Rationale: This column indicates the rationale I have used for inclusion ' on the species list. 0 = Observed by author. R - Reliably reported by Department personnel. The numbers in parenthesis following "0" indicate the site(s) on which the observation was made. For Example: 1. Species: "Opossum (Didelphis marsupialis)' indicates the ' species. 2. Location: "All" indicates that the opossum can be expected to occur on all parcels. 3. Status: "C" indicates that they are "Common" on the parcels. 4. Rationale: Indicates that they have been "R" (reliably reported as occuring on sites immediately adjacent to Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve) and (0(1) ' observed by the author on the Newporter North site. Reptiles and Amphibians Species Location Status Rationale California newt Taricha torosa) 2,4 C R, 0 (2,4) California slender salamander (Batrachoceps attenuatus) 2,4 C R Western -spadefoot toad r . ' (Scaphiopus hammondi) 1,2,3,4 U R California toad Bufo borcas halophilus) all A R,O., (1,2,4) Pacific treefrog H la resilla) all C R,O, (2,4) Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana) 1,2,4, C R,0 (2,4) Red-legged frog Rana aurora) 1,2,4 U R Western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata) 1,2,4, U R,0 (2) Coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma corouatum) all C R Western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) all A R,0 (all) 'San Diego alligator lizard (Gerrhonotus mucticarinatus webbi) all C R,0 (1,3,4) Western skink (Eumeces skiltoniamus) all C R,0 (1,4) California legless lizard (Anniella puldhra) 1,2,4 C R Western yellow-bellied racer ' Coluber constrictor mormom) all U R California kingshake (Lampropeltis getulus californiae) all C R San Diego gopher snake Pituo his melanoleucus annectens) all C R',0 (4) Long-nosed snake (Rhinocheilus lecontei) all C R Reptiles and Amphibians ,Species Location Status Rationale t .California red-sided garter snake ' (Thaamophis sirtalis infernalis) 1,2,4 C R,0, (2,4) Southern Pacific Rattlesnake Crotalus veridis helleri all C HMO (3) Birds r • Ring-necked pheasant r Phasianus colchicus) all U R California quail Lo hort californicus) - all A R,0 (all) Mourning dove Zenaidura macroura) all A R,0 (all) Spotted dove (Streplopelia chinensis) all U 'R Roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus) 1,2,4 C R Barn owl T to albs) all C R Burrowing owl steot to cunicularia) all C R,0 (1,4) Short-eared owl Asio flammeus) all U R Annals hummingbird Cal to anna) all A R,0 (20304) Belted kingfisher ' (Meaacervle alcyon) 1,2,4 C R,0 (214) Red-shafted flicker• , (Colaptes cafer) 2',4 C R,0 (2,4) Western Kingbird , (tYranus verticalus) all U R,0 (4) Black phoebe ' Sa ornis nigricans) 1;2,4 U R,0 (4) Horned lark (8ramophilia a'ipestris) all C R,0 (3 A) Cliff swallow ' (Patrochelidon pyrrhonota) all C R,0 (21314) 3 56 ' Birds ' Species Location Status Rationale Common crow Corvus brachyrhynchos) all C R,O, (1,2,4,5) Common bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus) all C R,0 (1,2,4) Cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillum) 1,2',3,4, U R,O, (4) 1 Long-billed marsh wren (Telmotadytes palustris) 1,2,4• U R ' Mockingbird Mimus polyglottus) all A R,0 (all) Ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula) all U R Loggerhead shrike Lunius ludouicianus) '1,2,4,5 C R,0 (1) 1 Starling Sturnus wlgaris) all A R,0 (all) Audubon's warbler Dendroica auduboni) all C R,0 (2) Yellowthroat (Geothlypis tricha) all U R House Sparrow Passer domesticus) all A R,0 (all) Western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) all A R,0 (all) .Red-winged blackbird ' (A elaius phoeniceus) all C R,O (all) Tricolor blackbird (ARelaius tricolor) all U• R Brewer's blackbird Hu ha us cyanocephalus) all C R,0 (all) Housefinch (Carpodacus mexicanus) all C R,0 (all) ' American goldfinch (Spines tristis) all U R,0 (2) Lesser goldfinch S inus psaltria) all C R,0 (2,3,4) Birds Species Location Status Rationale ' Brown Towhee Pi ilo fuscus) all C R20 (1,3,4) Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingii) . 2,4 U R90 (2) ' White-crowned sparrow (Zorotrichia leucophrya) all C R,0 (3,4) Lincoln's sparrow Melos iza lincolnii) all U R , Song sparrow Melos iza melodia) all C R,0 (1,4) ' Lazula Bunting' (Passerina am_oena) 1,2,3,4 U It Blue grossbeak 1 Guiraca caerulea) 2,4 U R White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus) all C R,0 (1,4) Cooper's hawk acci ter cooperii') all U R Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipter striatus) all'r U R Red-tailed hawk Buteo iamaicensis) all C R,0 (all) Swain_son's hawk Buteo swainsoni) all U R , Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus) all U R , Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetus) all U R ' Marsh Hawk Circus c aneus) all U R,0 (2) ' Osprey PAndion haliaetus) 2,4 U R Peregrine falcon ' Falco peregrinus) all U R Sparrow hark ' Falco sparuarios) all C R,0 (all) Birds Species Location Status Rationale Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) all C R,0 (1,2,4,5) Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) 12 4 C R O 1 2 4 Green heron ' (Butorides virescens) 1,2,4 C R,0 (2) Common egret ` (Casmerodius albus) 1,2,4 C R,0 (1,2) Light-footed ,clapper rail Rallus lonairostris leuiceps) 1,2,4 U R,0 (1) tVirginia rail Rallus limico"la) 1,2,4 U R' '. Sora rail Porzana carolina) 1,2,4 U R,0 (2) ' Black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis) 1,2,4, U R ' American Coot Fulica americana) 1,2,4 A R,0 (1,2,4) Pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) 1,2,4 C R,O (2) ' Least tern Sterna albifrons) 1,2,4 C R,0 '(2) 1 American avocet ' (Recuruirostra americana) 1,2,4 C R,0 (1,4) Black-necked sfilt ' i (Himantropus mexicanus) 1,2,4 C R,0 (1,2,4) Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) 1,2,3,4 C R,0 (1,2,3,4) Mallard Anas platyrhynchos) 1,2,4 C R,0 (1,2,4) ' Pintail Anas acuta) 1,2,4 C R,O, (1,2) Green-winged teal (Anas carolinensis) 1,2,4 C R 1 Cinnamon teal Anas cyanoptera) 1,2,4 C R,O, (2) I� Birds Species Location Status Rationale , American widgeon ' (Mareca americana) 1,2,4 C R O (2) Ruddy duck (Oxyura iamaicensis) 1,2,4 C' R,0 (4) Fish Mosquito fish Gambusia affinis) 1,2,4 C R,0 (12214) Hluegiil Le orris machrochirus) 4 C R`rn (4) Green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) 4 C $,) (4) Black bullhead Ictalurus melas) 4 C R,0 (4) Largemouth bass (Microprerus salmoides) 4 C R 0 (4) Western roach (Hesperoleucus symetriaus) 2, U ) (2) provision . 1 i . 1 APPENDIX # 2 1 This appendix indicates dominant plant species which -occur in the three major vegetative assemblages involved (south coastal sage scrub, disturbed grassland, and 1 riparian) . 1 ' 1 1 1 1 . i 1 South Coastal Sage Scrub Vegetative Assemblage , 1. Baccharis Bacharis sp. . Bladder-pod Isomeris arbor.ia California Buckwheat Erigoriium fascicula:us ' Tree tobacco Nicotiana glarica Encelia Encilia californica Goldenbush Haplopappus venatus , Telegraph weed Hemizona fasciculata California saltbush . Atriplex californica Saltbush Atriplex canescens Prickly pear cactus Opuntiu sp Cholla cactus Cylindtopuntia group Opuntia sp Lemonade sumac Rhus integrifolia Horkelia Horkelia sue, California sagebrush Artemisia californica Live forever Dudleya stolonifera Disturbed Grassland Vegetative Assemblage Ripgut brome Bromus diandrus , Soft chess Bromus inbllis Foxtai'1 chess Bromus rubens Oats Avena a Wild oat Avena fatua Wild barley Hordeum leporinum Small barley Hordeum depiessum Mustard Brassica sp. (at least 3 species) Wild radish Raphonus sativus Russian thistle Salsolia pestifera Iceplant Hesembryantheum sp 1 Riparian Vegetative Assemblage Stinging nettle Urica holoserica Arroyo willow Salix 1'asioledis Cottonwood Populus- sp ' Sycamore Platanus racemposa Spiny rush Juncus acutus California bulbrush Scirpus californicus Pacific poision oak Rhus diversiloba Cat-tail Topha latifolia These lists are by no means exhaustive but are intended to serve to describe ' the habitats delineated on the accompanying maps. MAP LEGEND i Red -,South coastal sage- scrub. 1 Red stripes - Disturbed grassland (with developmental constraints previously described) . 1 Green - Riparian vegetative assemblage. Green stripes - Disturbed grassland on flat terrain. Blue - Disturbed grassland in "conditional riparian" areas as previously described. 1 i 1 • i 1 i X.L 4��� Aol - .� � r! •` it j .f ....�. i 1 -,� 12Z, i I lit 4 �' ^ ��,, IIIIIIVVVVVV � � �1}�, • �� _ s.•,Jr- 4 '•� �+ k.Sl' f i •�_"'�-r-% Y . � •fit �•' /l �!, / G —$"- \: { �,!! •' ` � q .'� L_ lap :.! tea"_-- i _•:. --6 �i. •ttitit� �l tt♦! �; �� r� � 1 Y _ � � •�, \ -\ `Sid\' ` \ - 'R. .. „� •. � ./�� II H./'./-���'ff)) _�•r •p• • ..rr- ' • • .,r '\ -� \� \7 ` 1 // ��y ��+-1�C i'1,�' ��`` .__�'.,•1.,'11�,t - _ ly;��/.0:•`'.\.^ - :✓_?__�'�•F �I : `��l d / ! `•`\Tr r o - _-.. .i��_�,��--- i j • ' �� � ���t � it 1 .4 It Iti • * ` `� � \\ ,/ � ` - i_ • is � �� - �I �r` ice-- _ ,� �r ra' wE: r� �; �■ =' . .. y / �; ,.I. �.(-;�y:•�� =_,;,•mod,. � . • �, ., . � t.- [� f{f--- ILI �;y�, �• �. i ..-,% .. � .,� •'tom'' �.., � � ` ;fit., ;��F' ��z� ... � �/ • . ' �\ �f ..ay.vbo.•m•7 S •I. a,; r �� I # < '-, . A ,�. ... �\ ": � r � • �^ _ �1 -.r♦ •ram'� a �• ( �i\�'. '� it VI I 1 i•I r CA5TA MAYS ' • o 14 �aa y ?°4mDoo�a�a.e^ L��ti �rru C9 $ �� .� \•BOO, .c, •! ••. \.\ ` 70