Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1-36 GENERAL PLAN REVIEW 1977-78
C H R O N O L O G Y GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REGARDING DEFINITION OF BUILDABLE ACREAGE A revision to the definition of "buildable area" to exclude areas devoted to streets or park purposes . February 17, 1977 Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this item as General Plan Amendment 77-1 -E. Continued to March 3, 1977. March 3, 1977 Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council that this amendment be approved. March 28, 1977 City Council held a public hearing and deferred action to the next General Plan Amendment Session . July 7 , 1977 Planning Commission reconsidered this item as General Plan Amendment 77-2-A and postponed action to the October 1977 General Plan Amend- ment session pending completion. of study of residential classifications . September 19 , 1977 City Council conducted public hearings and voted to disapprove General Plan Amendment 77-2-A. October 20 , 1977 Planning Commission reinitiated its considera- tion of this matter under General Plan Amendment 77-3-C. November 17, 1977 Planning Commission voted to defer action until General Plan Review hearings in February 1978. December 12 , 1977 City Council called item up and adopted pro- posed amendment. 10/30/78 DJD/kk rlanning commisslon for inclusion in, their February 17 public hearing �on General Plan amendments to &nge this zoning from R-2 to C-1-Z. Brion Jeannette addressed the Council and opposed' the rezoning toR,,2-.-� 4t - 7 Ayes x x x x x x A vote was taken on Councilman Kuehn'a motion, which motion carried. 3. A report was presented from the Public Works 'Resub 527 1 Director regarding Resubdivision No. 527, located at the northeast corner of Newport Boulevard and 30th Street, Myrna M. and Francis M. Delaney, �'Nsubdivider. Mayag Pro Tem. Barrett stepped down from'the Councitil table due to a possible conflict of interes\No. -Motion x The followolutions were adopted: / •yes xx xxxx `. ostain x Resolut86, approving a Parcel Map and R 8986 accepting the O£frightnVo edication of a corner cutoff at Newportard and 30th Street and vehicular access 'Newport Boulevard in connection with •Resubdivi on No. 527. Resolution No. 8987, authorizing the Mayor and R-8987 City Clerk 'to execute a subdivision agreement between the City of Newport Beach and Francis and Myrna Delaney in connection with Resubdivision No. 527 (northeast corner of Newport Boulevard and 30th Street). Mayor Pro Tem Barrett resumed his seat at the - Council table. - ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Motion. x 1. A proposed amendment to the Residential Growth General Ayes x x x x x x Element of the General Plan to revise the defini- Plan Noes x tion of "buildable area" was referred to the ��• Planning Commission for inclusion in their public hearing on General Plan amendments to be held on February 17, 1977. b11:1' CN �l'P ar.Rl: >iyi .R�••-•••�•�-(�Y:x�nv+.waY6•x.�v�.aon.v 2. A report was presented from the City Ma"n g0r in West New- connection with the noxious gas seeygage problem port Cin West Newport. ,,• 'y Gas Odor Motion x The staff was directe&6 begin preparation Aye's x x x x x x x immediately for thd scavenging system for the E,z three gas od6Lng wells into a 50/50 Volume 31 - Page 24 15-77. C H R O N O L O G Y SUPPORT SYSTEMS STUDY A study of support systems and allowable development on major vacant sites directed by the. City Council' on March 14, 1977 and referred to the Planning Commis- sion , Citizens Environmental Quality Advisory Committee .and Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee. June 2, 1977 At study session , Planning Commission reviewed initial findings of support systems study. Findings and recommendations of CEQAC and TPCAC were distributed at this time. June 13, 1977 City Council received status report on support systems study, including recommendations from CEQAC and TPCAC . June 16, 1977 Planning Commission continued discussion of support systems study, and initiated public hearings on General Plan Amendment 77-2-B to consider changes to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements based on con- straints on growth in terms of the capacity of support systems . July 7, 1977 Planning Commission acted on General Plan Amendment 77-2-B to recommend to the City Council that a phasing system be implemented to coordinate new development with road improvements , which would apply to residential projects over 20 DU ' s or commercial projects over 20,000 sq .ft. August 8, 1977 City Council initiates hearings on General Plan Amendment 77-2-B . September 19 , 1977 City Council takes action to disapprove General Plan Amendment 77-2-B. Directs Planning Commis- sion to conduct an overall review of the General Plan . 10/30/78 DJD/kk 77-1-D: To the Land Use E ment expanding I . the boundaries ole Corona del Mar Specific Area Plan area to include residential areas north and south of Coast Highway. 77-1-E: To the Residential Growth Element to revise the definition of "Build- able Acreage" by adding wording to the effect that any area devoted to streets, open- space, or recreation areas shall not be included in calculating Buildable Acreage. 77-1-F: To the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements to change the designation of four lots at the southeast corner of Dahlia and aK Fifth Avenues in Corona del Mar fro "Two-Family Residential" to "Retail Nil• and Service Commercial" and 1' "Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial." 3. A report was presented from the City Attorney Animal regarding a�request from the Finance Director that Control the due date 'for payment of the Dog License Tax be changed from,january 1 of each year to March 1 in order to facilitate the work load in his department. h Proposed Ordinance No:•,1720, being, AN ORDINANCE 0-1720 OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING SECTION 7.04.060 OF THE NEWPORT 'BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE Motion x RELATING TO DUE DATE OF DOG. LICENSE TAX, was Ayes x x x x x x x introduced and passed to second reading on March 28, 1977. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: 1. The Minutes of the Water Committee were presented Water which included a suggestion that the "Council Conservation adopt a resolution urging every citizen"••,to exer- cise the greatest care in the use of water so as to protect this vital resource. b� Motion x Resolution No. 9032, urging citizens of the City of R-9032 Ayes x x x x x x x Newport Beach to, conserve water. was adopted. MM�fYY.WI� _ l..t ..+.ah.'y.�+OT.�._.«.......-�.5�1._.:_.��Yi'n1�.....a�.JS�.�_..�T...��...�1..:.'T.�'>�.�� •�w��..�.,.+ 2. A' report from Councilman Ryckoff was presented General requesting consideration of the present General Plan Plan .projected population growth, the associated densities of undeveloped acreage, and the pro- jected build-out of Newport Center, to establish Volume 31 - Page 75 i CJW OF NEW1 OR ® w MINUTES COUNCILMEN T •yes s pis r INDEX ROLL CALL March 14 1977 limits that can be accommodate=while assuring ritraffic adequate support systems, in p and sewer service. Motion x Councilman Ryckoff made a motion to refer the request to the Planning Commission, the Environ— mental Quality Control Citizens Advisory Committee and the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee for study and report back to Council in time for the next General Plan review period. Motion x Councilman Kuehn asked that the motion be amended to include the entire City in its scope rather than confining the research area to Newport Center, which amendment was not accepted by the maker of the motion. Bob Vasquez of The Irvine Company addressed the Council and agreed to the seriousness'of the situation regarding the support systems for the entire City. Ayes x x A vote was taken on Councilman Kuehn's amendment Noes x x x x x which amendment failed to carry. Bob Vasquez of The Irvine Company addressed the Council and asked that the action indicated in the main motion be delayed until the Corona del Mar Traffic and Parking Task Force had made its report. x x x x A vote was taken on Councilman Ryckoff's maitj Ayes x x motion, which motion carried. Noes x _ w. w� •_ ..�...... Mayor nos al adjourned the meeting at 12:30 A.M., March 15, 1977. x x x x x x x that no one-else desired to be heard. 6,Z mn �� _. .. Motion x The d`ec3sibn=of+_the P1ann Commission was over-_ Ayes x x x x x x x ruled, and Resubdivision No. 556"was dented_._ , � ,ae arwca,crsw�:�awz+v+xzmmxc+.xrw+�+amcxu:rr=xo: .. p.�uoeaw 3. Mayor Dostal opened the continued public hearing Gene regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment No. Plan 77-2 to the Newport-Beach General Plan, consisting (673 of the following parts, and acceptance of a M° Negative Declaration: Ay 77-2-A: A proposed amendment to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements to: a) change the definition of "buildable Mo acreage," b) create a new density Ay category of "High-Density Residential-- Greater Than 10 Dwelling Units per Acre," and c) change the wording of the texts as appropriate. 77-2-B: A proposed amendment to the Land Use and 'Numm"O Residential Growth Elements resulting from the study of constraints on growth ' �M in terms of capacity of support systems directed by the City Council on March 14, 1977. Mo 77-2-D: A proposed amendment 'to the Land Use Aye Element, Residential Growth Element and No Recreation and Open Space Element to change the designation of the MWD Reservoir site and adjacent property in the Spyglass Hill area deleting the "Governmental, Educational and Institu- tional Facilities" designation, and rearranging the "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" and "Residen- tial" designations. 77-2-E: A proposed amendment to the Recreation and Open Space Element to: a) reflect the increase in park dedication require- ments from two to five acres per thousand population (resulting from the City Council's adoption of the "Atherton Initiative Ordinance ' on April 25, 1977), b)• update the number and acreages of existing public parks, and c) delete reference to excise tax dollar amounts. Mayor Pro Tem Barrett stepped down from the Council table due to a possible conflict of interest. David Neish of The Irvine Company addressed the Council regarding 77-2-D and urged approval of the proposed amendment. Motion x The hearing was closed after it was determined Ayes x x x x x x that no one else desired to be heard. Absent x .... w �rou .•,tiw ...t�� .. Volume 31 7 Page 244 :.; • I� 1 C*Y OF NEWPORT AACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES �yoO � �\ p p elp I oF� ROLL CALL September 19, 1977 I NDEXI It was agreed that a straw vote would be taken on each component individually before the final vote • on the Amendment to the General Plan. Motion x 77-2-A: Failed approval. Ayes x x x Not x x x Absent x Motion x 77-2-B: Failed`a� pproval. Ayes x Noes x x x x x Absent x Motion x 77-2-D: Approved. Ayes x x x x x x Absent x Motion x 77-2-E: Approved. Ayes x x x x Noes x x Absent x Resolution No. 9192, accepting the Negative R-9192 Motion x D'eclaration.and approving amendments to the Land Ayes x x x x x x Use, Residential Growth, Recreation and_Qpen_§ace Absent x Elements of the NeVort Beach General Plan (A%k - ment No.77-2-2),was adopted. Mayor Pro Tem Barrett resumed his seat at the Council table. Mae' •a. w'(.'fpVaux'.YdYr»iVf`'s�43sM.�iY.Y ^—:1, :y+:C.::/I.CS:a1aL7gYCl.'W.'f.JrilvJ3tYU1t2VCIJfl ' CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. The--proposal to direct, the Planning, Coumi _ on to General review the General Plan density des.iW ons_and Plan the supporting systems, includin4.,tiie circulation (673) capacities, was considered ,or�' Peter Kremer, Presideof nt• The Irvine Company, G addressed the CouncTl and read a prepared state- ment which recommended re-examination of the General pldirby next February with full partici- pat63on y representatives of all community interests; coordination of the development of �"PNewport's remaining unused lands with the improve- ment of support systems and development of a phasing plan; opposed a building moratorium and stated that The Irvine'Company will delay legal filings for development approvals on the Castaways, r, the Newport Center high-rise condominiums, Newporter North and Holiday Harbor for at least C H R O N O L O G Y GENERAL PLAN REVIEW A review of the General Plan by the Planning Commission was directed by the City Council initially on September 19, 1977; to include all pertinent General Plan Elements , to be considered at the February 1977 General Plan Amendment Session . October 17, 1977 The City Council and Planning Commission held a joint meeting to discuss the intent and scope of the General Plan Review. The City Council directed the Planning Commission to review the General Plan focusing on intensity of develop- ment, traffic , cost%revenue impact, and envi - ronmental quality . December 4, 1977 The Planning Commission requested that the Traffic Model be used to test land use and circulation alternatives as part of the General Plan Review. January 9 , 1978 City Council approved budget amendment for Traffic Model tests . February 16, 1978' Planning 'Commission began public hearings on General Plan Review (78-1 -C) . Hearing was continued to April 6 , 1978 to await completion of Traffic Model tests . February 27, 1978 City Council initiated Tuesday night General Plan Review Workshops . April 6 , 1978 Continued public hearing on General Plan Review. May 18, 1978 Continued public hearing on General Plan Review. June 15 , 1978 Due to continuing delays in Traffic Model tests , the Planning Commission voted to defer action on the General Plan Review to the October 1978 General Plan Amendment Session . 2 - September 7, 1978 -Planning Commission reinitiated public hearing on General Plan Review (78-2) . Traffic Model data still not available ' at this time . October 5 , 1978 Continued public hearing on General Plan Review. October 19 , 1978 Planning Commission took action to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amend- ment 78-2 be adopted. General Plan Review 10/30/78 DJD/kk x tl�• x &2-2-B: Failed approval. Avsa x pots x x x_ � x x Aboe•at x Motion x * _ 77-2-D: Approved. Ayes x x x x x x1 Aboent x Mot:on x 77-2-E. =^gPproved. Ages x x x x Q Yves x x Absent x Resolution No. 9192, accepting the Negative R-9192 Motion x Declaration and`a'pproving ameaiiieiits to the Land Ales x x x x x x Use, Residential Growth, Recre o and 0 en S ace _ __P... .._�._ Abseat x Elements of the Newport Beach Genera_• Jan (Amend- ment No. 77-2), was adopted. Mayor Pro Tem Barrett resumed his seat at`the Council table. 'NS15•Kb8"f:✓i =i'n-• c•s ^: :S':•)�:1�.'.'T_:.v^^}l.'��w'L'}..L'T.Jh.tKMGJ.�t9A•N.33 iYf3ai4fYN+TIIN6'Vt•MWxRPYIrw.crrrd..ww. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. The oroposal to direct the Planning Commission to General review the General Plan density dasign_gtions_and Plan the supportingstems, including,_theecirculation (673) capacities, was considered. ` Peter Kremer, President of The Irvine Company, , addressed the Council and read a prepared state- ment which recommended re-examination of the General Plan by next February with full partici- pation by representatives' of all community interests; coordination of the development of Newportes remaining unused lands with the improve- ment of support systems and development of a phasing plan; opposed a building moratorium and stated that The Irvine Company will delay legal filings for development approvals on the Castaways, the Newport Center high-rise condominiums, Newporter North and Holiday Harbor for at least six months, or until 'completion of the General Plan amendment hearings scheduled for next February. Councilman Ryckoff stated he was also concerned about the Prudential Building, the Sea Island development and the expansion of the Baywood and McLain apartments. YCCMS>5.0.:.ii:,•:]FT.1.'_ A.'f,:6i`CMwJY ^:••^",Y'yRyS•YtTn fill Volume 31 - Page 24-5 I CITY 0F1 9VEV�po BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTE PO q �0 �G C ROLL ROLL CALL September 19, 1977 Jean Watt, representing "generally the growing group working on the legal environmental analysis I[ of the City's plans and documents," addressed the Council in favor of a review of the General Plan. Shirley Knutsen addressed the Council in favor of i a building moratorium. t Steven Gavin, Vice President of the Pacific Mutual Mot Life Insurance Company, addressed the Council and Aye opposed a building moratorium. Motion x Councilman Rogers made a motion to direct the Planning Commission to review with utmost priority Mot the Land Use, Residenti Growths C al ircufation and Aye open Space Elements o_f the General Plan and the impacts which Eh airpo—r att`iv3tI.ea -'- ave or will have-in the uture on t ese e7 emen"ts;to review the density designations to be consistent and'' phased in with circulation capacities; to allow fu11 opportuniey.for public participation.and to bring these back for City Council action with the- first group of General.,Plan ameridmente 3n„ February, 1978. Councilman Williams asked that the motion be amended to include review o such er ele of ments Mot of the General Plan as may_be deemed •to be . Aye appropriate, which amendment wasaccepted by the Not maker_gf the motion. V Ayes x x x x x x x A_ vote_was taken on C_ ouncilinan Ro_gers' amended motion, which„motion carried, µ f� ^I..SI.6'Sr1tlU[F.YY�.`.=e4S j;: I•:.r ':L, •L"Y' _ .l .../C^'Lt:^.,-1.:".�.5.»n.;•:i.«_^.,M-++^,�;,-:.�:-.., ._ . ... -.,,+ 2. A report dated July 25 was presented frosq,_-ta City Manager regarding a proposed election,.-Rrr a building moratorium. �''� A letter from Marguerite orgit was presented opposing the mora orium. The followeng people addressed the Council opposing a bui-MIng moratorium: Paul Ruffing, architect `with the firm of Ficker & Ruffing, read a letter from William Picker; Marguerite E. Forgit; Dennis Harwood, President of the Chamber of Commerce; R. H y Spooner, a member of the Executive Board of the Chamber of Commerce and Chairman of its Govern- mental Affairs Committee; and Goldie Joseph. Dr. Gene Atherton addressed the Council in favor of a building moratorium. C H R O N O L O G Y BLUFF DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR SUBDIVIDED LOTS A proposed amendment to the Zoning Code to require review of development plans for new. structures or additions to existing structures in residential zones , except the P-C District, and establishment of design standards . February 9 , 1978 At study session, the Planning Commission received a report from staff regarding Coastal Commission regulations governing blufftop development. This report was re- quested by the Planning Commission in con- nection with Variance Application No . 1066 ( Denied) , a request to exceed the height limit on a bluff lot at 2333 Pacific Drive , Corona del Mar. February 16 , 1978 At study session , Planning Commission directed staff to report back with possible alternative approaches to regulating bluff development. March 2, . 1978 At study session , Planning Commission received report from staff describing bluff areas of City, enumerating existing develop- ment regulations , and suggesting that Plan- ning Commission may wish to develop separate approaches to dealing with major vacant bluff sites in P-C District versus already-subdivided lots . Staff directed to prepare ordinances dealing with subdivided bluff lots . March 16 , 1978 At Planning Commission study session , staff distributed draft blufftop ordinance for discussion , and this item was set for public hearing as Amendment No . 507 on April 20 , 1978. April 20, 1978 The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed ordinance , and con- tinued the item to the meeting of June 15 , 1978 to allow for gathering of additional information and revision of o.rdinance to include specific setback standards . Also, two vacancies on Planning Commission at that time were a consideration in continuance . June 15, 1978 The Planning Commission held a continued public hearing and continued matter to .August 3, 1978. August 3, 1978 The Planning Commission concluded the public hearing on the proposed ordinance and voted to table the matter. August 14 , 1978 The City Council directed the Planning Com- mission to remove the item from the table and reconsider. September 21 , 1978 The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed ordinance (Amendment No. 516) and again recommended that the amendment not be adopted. Bluff Development Regulations for Subdivided Lots 10/30/78 DJD/kk Allan Beek addx �saed the Coun and urged that .the funds for p�sh buttons foi�treet crossing purposes be retained. o Ayes x x A vote was taken on Mayor Rycko££'s motion, Noes x x x which motion failed, Absent x x yam• Motion x Resolution No. 9416, approving the application Ayes x x x x for bicycle and/or pe4esirian funds authorized Noes x under S.B. 821, and approving the adoption of Absent x x its Bicycle and/or''Pedestrian Plan, was adopted with the understanding that the matter would be reviewed'"by the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee. Motion x Xlli matter was referred to the Transportation Ayes x x x x get"Plan Citizens Advisory Committee. Absent x x + oe ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Motion x 1. Councilman Heather was appointed to represent Ayes 150 X' K x x Newport Beach as alternate to the League of Absent oox x Cities Airport Work Program. NYRyYMMiRiS'A.' �"Y.rt•.�.YY/4NW1'.1R�tiRiw fiCWYYYl0 Motion x 2. The Planning Commission was directed to remove Ayes x x x from the table and reconsider an Ordinance / Absent x x controlling. development or redevelopment of . subdivided bl.ufftop lots in the City of Newport Beach. Motion e4., K 3. The staff was directed to analyze the require- Ayes x x x ments for annexation regarding the-Coiuity" Absent x .r. >, , - hx Y� Triangle,area and report,back to the.City Council. Mayor Rq koff,,declared the meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. '+niort;v Q�I/ Qy��y tiw•.ws..wr All if L'C)j(/Y�-jr(f-f�j,�- rf_ A.. Y ♦ Volume 32 - Page 211 COMMISSIONERS 9 G'sty of Newport Beach MINUTES vc�� ��9'o April 20, 1978 "Max MOLL CALL of he parking program and felt it was a step in the 'ght direction and doing nothing would only perpet to existing problems. Planning mmission pointed out the following issues whic they felt should be considered: 1 . Greater rP fiance on private development in order to re ce the bond liability which could face th city;' 2. What direction th focal point of the area would take, i .e. co mercial over residential , should the proposed ogram be implemented; and 3. Use of the beach faciliti by people outside the city. Motion X Following discussion , motion was ma to continue All Ayes this matter to the meeting of June 1 , 978. Planning Commission recessed at •9:10 P.M. an reconvened at 9:20 P.M. Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Item #5 Newport Beach Municipal Code establishing regula- tions for developments located on or adjacent to AMENDMENT bluffs, to include building setbacks from the edge NO. 507- of bluffs , and other development standards. • CONT. TO Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach JUNE 15 Advance Planning Administrator Dmohowski reviewed the proposed ordinance with the Planning Commission as well as, suggested revisions to the wording as a result of general input from the public and dis- cussion with the staff and City Attorney pertain- ing to the safety aspects and reference to the P.R.D. Commissioner Balalis felt that the ordinance as written was too open and that specific directives or design criteria should be incorporated into the ordinance such as minimum setbacks. Page 6. COMMISSIONERS Newport Py Ci`}y of Beach MINUTES q�F f °°'f•q6' qi . F gf�Fgs °F9 O,'L . y April 20, 1978 INQKX "01.6 CAUL Planning Commission discussed the 'issues of safety and aesthetics in the development of the ordinance They also reviewed some of the properties- which brought the problem of bluff development to light. Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter.' Dr. Atherton , 195J 16th Street, felt that the ordinance should deal separately with the issue of property already subdivided and that which is still in large undeveloped parcels. Mike Ericson with the Irvine Company felt that some consideration should be given to the defini- tion of a bluff, that the maps should be more definitive as to the area covered, voiced concern with excessive setbacks which could be landscaped thus creating stability and other problems, and suggested that a performance standard rather than strict criteria be established. Mr. Gibbs , owner of a lot on the bluffs felt that the establishment of specific setbacks could be detrimental to single lots because of their size. Gordon Glass , Architect, commented on the need for a specific definition of a bluff should 'the ordinance be adopted and questioned whether it was the purpose and intent of the ordinance to use the bluff in a safe feasible was or to keep them empty. He commented on the proposed ordinance and its so-called flexibility and felt it was an unnecessary ordinance to impose on the people in the City of Newport Beach. Motion X Following discussion, motion was made to continue All Ayes this matter to the meeting of June 15, 1978, and directed that the staff prepare a definition of a bluff; make recommendations as to either an angle of repose or specific setbacks; that a list be prepared of all the affected properties and any adverse impacts caused by the ordinance; and that alternative proposals be prepared which would include separating the undeveloped subdivided lots from large undeveloped parcels . Page .7. . . F „~ COMMISSIONERS p�� Beach , 9oo�c °off 9�y� City/ of Newport Beach MINUTES z June 15, 1978 ROLL GALL , , INOL Motion X Xag n was made that Planning Commission continue All Ayes ublic hearing on the following three s ns of General Plan Amendment 78-1 to the in ,of July 6, 1978: '1 ) Part "B" relative e ezoning and annexation to the City of rt ach of the 2.3 acre parcel adjacent he New ort Terrace development; 2) that ion of rt "C" relatingy to the Cliff Haven ential 'strict; and 3) the "hou'sekeeping" ions to t Circulation Element. Further, the propos land use- designation change e Newport HeightsR-2 District be deleted this General tan Amendment, and that the ining portions o this Amendment be considere at the General Plan A endment session in October. Item #2 Request to consider the app oval of the draft PARKING report on "Parking Program F asibility" of the S U� DY 0 "Parking Needs and Economic F sibility Study CENTRAL of the Central Newport Beach Ar\matter " NEWPOR Hearing) . B CH Initiated by: The City of NewpCONT. T AUG. 3 19 8 _ Planning Commission considered Calendar item at the outset of following action was taken: Motion X Planning Commission continued t All Ayes the meeting of August 3, 1978. Ltem #3Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code establishing regulations for developments located on or adjacent to bluffs , to include building setbacks from the edge of bluffs and other development standards. Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach Planning Commission considered this Consent Calendar item at the outset of the meeting . The -6- COMMISSIONERS City Of Newport Beach MINUTES .P 9'p 7S OAP�iy June 15 , 1978 INO<X POLL CALL following action was taken: Motion x Planning Commission continued this matter to All Ayes the meeting of August 3, 1978 _ Item #4 R quest to permit the construction of seven USE PER- • at ched single family dwellings with. related IT NO. par 'ng and landscape areas , and the acceptance 730 of an environmental document. CONT. TO Locatio Lot 89, Tract 5878, located at DULY , 2122 Vista Entrada, westerly of . 9 8 of Vista del Oro and easterly of Vista Entrada in "The Bluffs . " Zone: R-4-B-2 P.R.D. Applicant: H lstein Industries , Costa Mesa Owner: The rvine Company, Newport Beach Planning Commission, co idered this Consent Calendar item at the ou et of the meeting. The following action was take Motion x Planning Commission continu d this matter to All Ayes the meeting of July 6 , 1978. Item #5 Request to subdivide 1 .65 acres i to seven TENTA; numbered lots for attached single-family T�V MMA residential development and one numbered lot to TRACT be developed as a landscape area , pr\at NO-866 ways and guest parking spaces. CONT. T Location : Lot 89 , Tract 5878, loJULY 6, 2122 Vista Entrada , we1978 Vista del Oro and eastVista Entrada in "The Zone: R-4-B-2 P.R.D. Applicant: Holstein Industries , C Owner: The Irvine Company*, Newport Beach Engineer: Valley Consultants , Inc. , Huntington Beach , - O7 COMMISSIONERS • 4 • MINUTES City of Newport Beach � 9�sy. vs o��2c 9c • °2 Z August 3, 1978 ROIL CALL INDEX Motion X Motion was -made P-1&np-r�ing Commission reopen Al Ayes the public hearing and continnoe— is item to the meeting of August 17, 1978. Item #4 Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of AMENDMENT the Newport Beach Municipal Code establishing N0. 507 regulations for developments located on or adjacent to bluffs, to include building setbacks from the edge of bluffs , and other development standards . initiated by: City of Newport Beach Advance Planning Administrator Dmohows.ki advised that staff is suggesting a policy to be added to those set forth in the staff report, dealing with the major .bluff sites , which could be incorporated into the General Plan, to wit: "The location and design of a proposed project shall maximize public access to the bluff areas as follows: " a) Public access to bluff areas shall be assured through the design of the . .local street system, and through the location of public trails and walk- ways adjacent to. the bluffs . " b) Areas adjacent to the bluffs having significant view potential should be designated for use as view parks or vista points consistent with parkland dedication requirements . Public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Keith Greer, representing The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission -and concurred with the proposed policies , including the additional policy suggested by Staff. Mr. Greer suggested that individual , already-developed lots not be governed' by the proposed General Plan Amendment. -7- COMMISSIONERS • ! • MINUTES 0 City of Newport Beach °ti Z August 3, 1978 INDFX ROLL CALL Tim Wilkes, Architect, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Don Haskell , owner of property located at 2315 and 2317 Cliff Drive. Mr. Wilkes commented that a bluff setback applied to these lots would not be effective as the Bluff is set very far back from Coast Highway and is not highly visible. Mr. Wilkes advised that an existing deed - restric- tion on the lots limits building height to 7' above the street level . It was Mr. Wilkes ' opinion that further restrictions on a bluff setback would make development of the property practically impossible, and therefore requested that these two lots be excluded from any new restrictions . Gordon Glass appeared before the Planning Commission and voiced concern with the definition of "Bluff Areas" as set forth in the proposed Ordinance, i . e. , landforms oriented toward the ocean or Upper Bay having a slope of 20 degrees or greater. It was Mr. Glass' opinion that this definition will render existing subdivided portions of the City illegal and nonconforming. With respect to the references made in the Ordinance relating to geologic safety , soil and foundation safety, erosion control , and ground- water control , Mr. Glass felt that these items should be made a part of the building , permit approval process and not addressed in an Ordinance In view of the foregoing , Mr. Glass urged denial .• of the proposed Ordinance. Chuck McKenna, Attorney with the law firm of Paul , Hastings , Janofsky & Walker, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Margaret E. Oser, property owner on Cliff Drive. Mr. McKenna stated for the record his concurrence with the testimony given by Gordon Glass. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard on this matter, the public hearing was closed. Motion X Following discussion, motion was made that the Ayes X X X X X X Planning Commission recommend to the City Council Noes that an amendment to the General Plan be initiated, establishing development policies for the major bluff sites adjacent to the Upper Bay. -8- COMMISSIONERS • � . MINUTES City of Newport Beach s P c c s°� y August 3, 1978 ROLL CALL INDEX Motion K Motion was made that Planning- Commission table All Ayes Amendment No. 507, being the draft Ordinance which would apply to developments in previously- subdivided- lots . Item #5 Req est. to permit an existing patio structure and MODIFI- gree house to encroach• over -existing property lines CATION N 2239 L°cati n : Lots 13, 14, and 47, Tract No. 7052, located .at 2427 Vista Nobleza, on CONTINUE the westerly side of Vista Nobleza , TO AUG. 1 westerly of Vista del Oro in North . 1978 Bluffs. Zone: -4-B-2 P-R-D Applicants : Mr. and Mrs.- Theodore L. Freeman, New rt Beach Owner: Same a Applicant Public hearing was ope d in connection with this item and Gordon Freeman , Applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission d advised that he sur- veyed all property owners ithin 100 feet of the property in question and t t they concurred that any change to the present d elopment would impair . the appearance of the neighbo hood. Mr. Freeman- urged full approval of thi-s mo ification and re- quested that the Planning Commi sion omit the condition recommended by staff r lating to the alteration of property lines as h felt this would be very difficult in view of the v rious vested interests involved. Dr. Ludwig , owner of property to the north of subject property, appeared before the Planning Commission and read a letter he submittU to the Community Development Department in whic Ie indicated his support of the existing pats structure as he feels that same is in harm y with the design of the neighborhood. There being no others desiring to appear and b heard on this item, the public hearing was clos d. -9- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 0 City of Newport Beach CAS � �P�yC'9C °y y September 21 , 1978 ROLL CALL INDEX Public hearing was reopened in connection with this item and Keith Greer reappeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of The Irvine Company and advised that The Irvine Company is plannithg public trail systems along the top of the bluffts in the Westbay , Newporter North , and Castaways �*s*i tes . There beingno -^athers desiring to appear and be heard , the public earing was closed. Motion K Motion was made that 'Njanning Commission recommend to the City Council that.-Amendment No. 515 be adopted. ` Commissioner Beek stated that ,-he was one of the signers of the argument that wil, appear in the Voter ' s Pamphlet urging people tovote "yes" on . the Atherton Initiative . BecauseN' the proposed ordinance is an attempt to forestall tie Atherton Bluff Initiative, . Commissioner s ek felt that it would be improper for him to v to on this ordinance. Therefore, Commissioner k announced that he would abstain from voting on this matter. Ayes K X X Commissioner Haidinger' s motion was voted on and Noes X X carried. Abstain Absent X Item #9 Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 AMENDMENT (Zoning) of the Municipal Code adopting regula- NO. 516 tions for blufftop developments in all residential zone districts , except the Planned Community RECOMMEND Districts , for new construction and additions FOR DENIA to existing structures . Initiated by: City of Newport Beach Public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Tim Wilkes appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Don Haskell , property owner on Cliff Drive , and questioned whether adoption of this ordinance would preclude development of the thirteen vacant lots involved. COMMISSIONERS 0 I MINUTES City of Newport Beach y September 21 , 1978 oLL CALL INDEX Les Miller, 128 Kings Place , appeared before the Planning Commission and voiced his opinion that this ordinance is not needed inasmuch as the City already has standards with respect to setbacks and height limitations. Gene Atherton appeared before the Planning Commission and made reference to a 10-foot setback contained in other development regulations . There being no others desiring to appear and be heard , the public hearing was closed. Motion X Motion was made that Planning Commission recommend yes X X X X X to the City Council that Amendment No . 516 not oes be adopted. bsent X Proposed amendment to Section 20.01 .070 of the MENDMENT Newport Beach Municipal Code (Zoning) to make a� NO. 518 new construction and all additions to existing' structures , except single-family dwellings & d NO ACTION duplexes , subject to Site Plan Review in xWeas designated for the preparation of a Specffic Area Plan where such plan has not beg,Vadopted . Initi'ated by: City of Newport Beach Public hearing was openq,"in connection with this item and there be dg no one desiring to appear and be heard,,,t•he public hearing was closed. Motion X Motion was made•'that Planning Commission recommend Ayes X X K to the City .;Council that Amendment No. 518 be Noes X X X adopted , which*motion 'failed. Absent X Item #11 Proposal to amend Chapter 15. 35 of the Newport AMENDMENT Beach Municipal Code as it pertains to Reports of NO. 519 r '' Residential Building Records . CONT. TO Initiated 'by: City of Newport Beach OCT. 5, 1978 F 6 • • LAND USE SUMMARY (1990-1995 Projection ) AREA A Commercial /Office Industrial DU ' s Floor Area Floor Area Existing 18,912 3,062 ,059 759 , 738 Projected Additional (Undeveloped Sites ) 2 , 112a 168,000 - Projected Additional ( Buildout of Developed Sites ) 871 1 ,022 ,670 -16 , 858 Total 21 ,895 4,252 , 729 742 ,880 a Approximately 2 , 100 additional. units are projected for the Beeco Property after 1995 . bDoes not include projection for possible commercial development associated with West Newport Harbor LAND USE SUMMARY (1990-1995 Projection ) AREA B Commercial /Office Industrial DU ' s Floor Area Floor Area Existing � 8,826 9 , 089 , 194 1 ,266 ,-564 Projected Additional (Undeveloped Sites ) 2, 135 6 ,956 ,687 1 , 344, 406 Projected Additional (Buildout of Developed Sites ) - - - Total 10,981 16 ,045 ,881 2 ,610,970 LAND USE SUMMARY ( 1990-1995 Projection ) AREA C Commercial /Office Industrial DU ' s Floor Area Floor Area Existing 3, 748 401 ,098 - Projected Additional (Undeveloped Sites) - - - Projected Additional (Buildout of Developed Sites ) 744 - - Total 4,492 401 ,098 - i LAND USE SUMMARY (1990-1995 Projection) CITY TOTAL Commercial /Office Industrial DU ' s Floor Area Floor Area Existing 31 ,486 12 ,552 , 351 2 ,026 ,302 Projected Additional (Undeveloped Sites ) 4 ,247 7,124,687 1 ,344 ,406 Projected Additional ( Buildout of Developed Sites ) 1 ,615 ; 1 ,022,670 -16 ,858 Total 37, 348 20,699 , 708 3,353,850 ,ice PROJECTED ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT - SPECIFIC SITES AREA A Beeco Property: 900 DU ' s Cal -Trans Property: 255 DU ' s (west of Superior Avenue ) Versailles (Phase II ) : 444 DU ' s Castaways Site : 320 DU' s 250 Hotel Rooms 8,000 Sq . Ft. Restaurant Westbay Site: 348 , DU ' s AREA B Newport Center: 471 DU ' s 2 , 781 ,083 Sq. Ft. Commercial/ Office Newporter North : 704 DU ' s Big Canyon : 338 DU ' s (Area 10) Aeronutronic Ford : 600 DU ' s 300 ,000 Sq . Ft. Office/ Industrial Newport Place P-C 403 ,016 Sq . Ft. Commercial / Office 239.,406 Sq . Ft. Industrial 150 Hotel Rooms Koll Center: 792,000 Sq . Ft. Commercial /Office 200 Hotel Rooms North Ford P-C : 675 ,000 Sq . Ft. Industrial 35,000 Sq . Ft . Commercial /Office l? Department of Community Development DATE: November 21 , 1978 TO: Ray Williams FROM: Dick Hogan SUBJECT : Ray - Attached are seven copies of the information that has been gathered regarding: 1 ) The 30%/70% floor area distribution in the Planning Commission recommendation on Amendment No . 514 which will come before the Council for public hear- ing November 27, 1978. 2) The information on the General Plan recommendations . Please note that as far as Newport Center is con- cerned, the present allocations under Resolution No. 9009 have been shown beside the recommendations of the Planning Commission . Also the present permitted intensity of development has been shown in italics beside each of the Planning Commission recommendations . 3) A summary of street construction funding as prepared by the Public Works Department. 4) Nothing ' s simple! R. V . HOGAN RVH/kk Attachments AMENDMENT NO . 514 Effect of Planning Commission ' s recommended approval to P-C District amendments 30% of 70% of Additional Total Additional Allowable Subject Additional Allowable to Phasing Plan Allowable 1 ) Corporate Plaza 869206 201 ,150 287,356 2) North Ford 231 ,222 539 ,518 770 ,740 3) Emkay Newport Place 169,927 386 ,496 556,423 4) Koll Center Newport 317,658 741 ,205 1 ,058,863 . 5) Aeronutronic-Ford 507,300 1 ,183, 700 1 ,691 ,000 TOTALS 1 ,312 ,313 3,052 ,069 4,364,382 11/21/78 DJD/kk PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 78-2 ( Existing General Plan Limits Shown in Italics ) COMMERCIAL SITES 1 . Newport Center (a) Amend General Plan for Newport Center to provide that total development shall not exceed the following limits for each category of development: Red . 9009 1 ) Office/Medical 3,750,000 sq .ft. 4, 2.99, 600 bq . st 2) Comm/Retail & Restaurant 1 ,250,000 sq .ft. 1, 3g1 , 000 " 3) Theater 4,400 seats • 4,400 4) Hotel 377 rooms 377 5) ,Residential 800 DU's 538 6) Civic/Cultural 100,000 sq . ft. 11,22, 000 " 7) Automotive 5 acres, 5 awned 8) Golf Club 18 holes 18 ho.Ce.a 9) Tennis Club 24 courts 24 etz . (b) Prior to any development in addition to Corporate Plaza , Civic Plaza, and buildings which were in plan check f by October 1 , 1978 or which are specifically approved by the Planning Commission or City Council , an analysis of traffic impact of the full development of Newport Center, Newporter North, Bayview Landing, Big Canyon , and the residential development at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road shall be made and mitigation measures shall be proposed to assure that adequate traffic capacity will be available upon. completion of development. In addition , a traffic phasing program shall be prepared to accommodate develop- ment as it proceeds . of those uses and possible mitigation measures to relieve adverse impacts. 6. Aeronutronic Ford (entire site) (Uae Penm.it; 1 , 691, 000 sq.-it. (a) No change to General Plan. Subject site included nema.in.ing) in Planned Community Dis.trict Amendment No . 514. 7. San Diego Creek Sites_ (Genena.2 Pkan: No .inten4.ity tim.it) (a ) No change to General Plan at this time. 8. MacArthur Boulevard/Jamboree Site (Genena.2 P.Can: No .intenzity tim.it) ' (a) No change to General Plan at this time. 9 . North Ford (P-C: 770, 740 bq. 6t. tema.in.ing) (a) No change to General Plan. Subject site included in Planned Community District Amendment No. 514. RESIDENTIAL SITES 1 . Westbay (Genenat Ptan: 428 V W fl. (a) Reduce allowable dwellings from 426 to 348. 2. Newporter North (Genena.0 Plan: 704 DUI-6 ) (a) Reduce allowable dwellings from 704 to 440. 3. Freeway Reservation East (Genenak P.2an: 4- 10 DU'e/acne) (a ) Limit maximum number dwellings to 100. 4. Fifth Avenue Parcels (Geneta.0 P.2an: 4- 10 DU'b/acne) (a) No change to General Plan at this time . 5. CALTRANS West (Genena.2 Plan: 255 DU'a ) (a ) Amend designation from Multiple-Family Residential to Medium Density Residential , with the maximum number of dwellings not to exceed 64. 6 . Beeco Property (Genena.2 P.Can: 900 DU'd ) (a ) No change to General Plan at this time . 7. Roger's Gardens and Residential Triangle (Genenak Han: 4- 10 DU'-6/ acne) (a) No change to General Plan. 8. Castaways Residential Site_ (40 a . ) (Genena.0 Plan: 320 DU'b ) (a) Reduce allowable dwellings from 320 to 225. (c) Changes to the types and 9'6cation of uses may be made provided that an analysis of both location and inten- sity demonstrates that the traffic system is not adversely affected and that traffic generation as it affects the major intersections during critical peak periods does not exceed the capacities provided in the approved street development plan. 2. Koll Center Newport (P-C: 11058, 863 6q. it. nemaintng) (a) No change to General Plan . Subject site included in Planned Community District Amendment No. 514. 3. Emkav Newport Place (P-C: 556, 423 dq . it. remaining) (a) No change to General Plan. Subject site included in Planned Community District Amendment No. 514. 4. Castaways Commercial Site (25 a. ) (Genehat Ptan: No intenatity timit) (a) Amend General Plan to provide for alternate use of Medium Density Residential with a maximum of 100 dwellings on approximately twenty acres of the site. (b) Recreational and Marine Commercial would remain on approximately five acres of the site adjacent to Dover and Coast Highway. (c) Design shall make provision for public access con- sistent with coastal act policies and ordinances of the City. (d) EIR for any proposed development shall examine alternative land uses and clearly set forth impacts of those uses and possible mitigation measures to relieve adverse impacts . 5. Bayview Landing Site (Genenat Pkan: No intenetity timit) (a) Amend General Plan to provide for alternate use of Medium Density Residential or a combination of Medium Density Residential and Recreational and Marine Com- mercial . Maximum number of residential units shall not exceed 85 . (b) Design shall make provisions for public access con- sistent with coastal act policies and ordinances of the City. (c) EIR for any proposed development shall examine all clearly set forth impacts and possible mitigation ,measures . ( d) EIR for any proposed development shall examine alternative land uses and clearly set -forth impacts T 9 . Newport Center Condos Site (Genena2 Pkan: 315 DU'.6 ) (a ) Reduce allowable dwellings from 315 to 245 . 10. Eastbluff Remnant (Gene)La2 Ptan: 84 DU'a ) (a) Reduce allowable dwellings, from 84 to 42. 11 . Big Canyon (Gene)La.E Plan: 338 DU'b ) (a) Reduce allowable dwellings from 338 to 260. 12. Baywood Expansion (Gene)La2 P.2an: 15 DU'd/acne) (a) Limit maximum number of dwellings to 140 . 11/21/78 DJD/dt �. _~_ t • 11/21/78 STREET CONSTRUCTION FUNDING IN NEWPORT BEACH I. . FEDERAL AID URBAN PROGRAM Streets on the Federal Aid Urban' (FAU) System (most of the major and primary streets) may receive 83% Federal funds to be matched by 17% local funds. To qualify for these projects the City must apply to the Orange County Trans- portation Commission for specific projects. OCTC reviews requests from all cities, the State, County, and Transit District; sets priorities and allocates the FAU funds available to the County in 3- to 6-year programs. The current 6 year program has $40 million to be distributed. The various agencies have turned in over $100 million in requests. It is anticipated that the City may get $1 .5 to $2 million in FAU funds over the next 6 years. Currently the City has received a $1 ,066,000 FAU allocation from the first 5-year program for the widening of Dover Drive in connection with the State's Upper Bay Bridge replacement. . The State received a $2,898,000 FAU allocation for the-bridge project. The total estimated cost of the bridge project and widening Coast Highway and Dover Drive is $10 .miilion. In addition to the FAU funding, the State will contribute approximately $5.2 million and the City is contributing about $300,000 from gas tax funds and $400,000 from the water fund. II. ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING PROGRAM (AHFP) The County distrubuted a portion of its gas tax funds to the cities through the AHFP. Once a year, the various cities apply to the County for these funds to construct specific projects on roadways that are shown on the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. To be eligible for funding, the cities must have a Master Plan of Streets and Highways that conforms to the County's system. The County funds 50% of the roadway costs. The city must match this from either general revenue funds or gas tax funds. Newport Beach is normally allocated $250,000 to $300,000 per year. III. STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM Route 1 - Coast Highway Route 73 - MacArthur Boulevard and Bristol Street Couplet. Route 55 - Newport Boulevard-Industrial Way to Finley Avenue The State maintains the State highways in the City. They have in the past pro-. vided a few local intersection improvements and participated in a portion of traffic signal installation costs. The exceptions to this are as follows: 1 . Bristol Frontage Road Project (Corona del Mar Freeway) ($4 million) . 2. The 'realignment of MacArthur Boulevard in the San Diego Creek area ($4 million) . 3. The Upper Newport Bay Bridge replacement and Coast Highway widening ($10 million--$5.2 million in State funds) . Street Construction Funding in Newport Beach Page 2 In the past we have received $50,000 to $100,000 per year in State funds or for State projects. If the City proposes to widen a State route, the City has paid for the improvements in the past. IV. CITY FUNDS A. Gas Tax Funds: The City receives from the State about $600,000 a year in gas tax funds. These funds must be used for the construction and maintenance of the City's road systems and are most generally used for new construction or widening existing arterials. These are the funds used to match AHFP and FAU funds. B. General Funds: $300,000 to $500,000 per year are normally budgeted to maintain, rehabilitate, and construct the local streets and alleys in the City. These projects are normally in the older section of town. V. DEVELOPER FUNDING: A. Local Streets (approximately $800,000) per year: The developer is responsible for paying for 100% of those streets that serve the new development. B. Master Plan Streets (approximately $400,000) per year: In the past, developers have paid for master plan streets as provided for in the City's Capital Improvement Policy (copy attached). Recently, improvements required by the City as a condition for development have exceeded those required in the policy. For example: Spyglass Hill Road, a secondary on the master plan, was totally constructed by the developer. Attached is a cost breakdown showing 27 projects needed to complete the City's circu- lation system. Under the provisions of the proposed Major Thoroughfare Improvement Program, the construction of these projects would be funded as follows: $4.2 million would be public funds; $5.2 million, developer funds through acreage fees; and $11 .6 million, developer constructed improvements as a condition of the development. • a MAJOR THOROUGHFARE IMPROVEMENT FUNDING PROGRAM FUNDING SOURCES FOR DISTRICT NO. 1 1. Public Funding within' District Per Year a. City Gas Tax plus County AHFP funds $300,000 b. FAU funds granted to City ($500,000 per • 4-year program) 125,000 c. City Gas Tax funds used to match FAU 25,000 d. FAU funds granted to State ($500,000 per 4-year program) 125,000 e. State funds used to match FAU 25,000 $600,000 Assume a 7-year program. . Public funding available to District - $4;200,000 2. Developer Acreage Charges Improvements to be funded with program $9,421 ,000 Less estimated public funding available to district = 4,200,000 Developer acreage fees = $5,221 ,000 Type of Undeveloped ' Acreage Funds Development Acres Fee Residential 188 3,700 $ 696,000 Industria•1 213.2 7,500 1 ,599,000. Commercial 261 .3 11 ,200 2,927,000 662.5 $5,222,000 MAJOR THOROUGHFARE IMPROVEMENT FUNDING PROGRAM DISTRICT NO. 1 COST DISTRIBUTION In $1 ,000's Project Funding Devel- Other Total N Project Description Program o er Agency 1. Dover Drive-Cliff Drive thru Westcliff Drive 499 589 1 ,088 2.A Coast Highway-Bayside Drive to 2,200 E'ly 2,282 2,282 2.B Coast Highway 2,200 E'ly of Bayside Drive 212 182 394 to Jamboree Road 3. Coast Highway-Jamboree Road to Newport 866 907 1,773 Center Drive 4. Coast Highway-Newport Center Drive thru 536 248 784 MacArthur Boulevard 5. Avocado Avenue--N'ly San Joaquin Hills' Road 448 406 854 to Farralon Drive 5.A Avocado Avenue-Coast Highway to Farralon 99 394, 493 'Drive 6. MacArthur Boulevard-Coast Highway to 265 341 606 San Joaquin Hills Road 7. San Miguel Road-Avocado Avenue to San Joaquin 440 329 769 Hills Road 8. MacArthur Boulevard-San Joaquin Hills Road to 1 ,232 1,354 2,586 Ford Road 9. MacArthur Boulevard--W'ly side Ford Road to 1,371 1 ,371 City Limit N'ly of Bison Avenue 10. Ford Road-Jamboree Road to MacArthur -Boulevard 800 800 'll. Bison Avenue-Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard 1,392 1 ,392 12. Jamboree Road--E'ly side Ford Road to .East Bluff 205 755 960 Drive 13. Jamboree Road--W'ly side Ford Road to East Bluff 590 590 Drive 14. East Bluff Drive North-Jamboree Road to E'ly 692 692 City Limit 15. University Drive North-Jamboree Road to Bristol 783 153 936 Street MAJOR THOROUGHFARE IMPROVEMENT FUNDING PROGRAM COST DISTRIBUTION (Continued) In $1 ,000's Project project Description Funding Devel- Other Total No. P Program o er Agency 16. Bristol Street-Jamboree Road to University Drive North 30 30 17. Jamboree Road--W'ly side--Tennis Club to San Joaquin Hills Road 107 761 868 18. Campus Drive-Quail Street Signal 44 '21 65 19. Campus Drive-Dove Street Signal 33 32 65 20. Campus Drive-MacArthur Boulevard 22 64 71 157 21 . Fairchild (Old San Joaquin)-Jamboree Road Signal 8 25 32 65 .22. Newport Center. Drive-Santa Barbara Signal 58 20 78 23. San Clemente Drive-Santa Cruz Drive Signal 58 20 78 24. Newport Center Drive-Santa Cruz Drive Signal' 58 _ 20 78 25. Newport Center Drive-San Miguel Drive Signal 58 20 78 26. Jamboree Road-Coast Highway to Backbay Drive• 113 176 289 27. Jamboree Road-E'ly Side Backbay to Santa Barbara 405 587 992 Total 9,421 11 ,636 156 21 ,213 VFW • F-4 7/28/75 FINANCING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ON UNDEVELOPED LAND CThe development of land within the City of Newport Beach requires a variety of municipal capital improvements to meet the needs of the people who ultimately will occupy this land. Based on the principle that those who derive benefits from improvements should pay for them, it is the City's policy that the users of land within the City shall bear the costs of improvements on such land in proportion to their direct and identifiable use of those improvements. The method of initially financing the construction cost -of improvements will be determined prior to the• develop- ment of each area, with the understanding, however, that such construction cost ultimately will be borne by the actual users of the land. By use of acreage fees and connection fees, the, City may assist the landowner and/or developer in recovering the initial construction cost from those who use the land. With this policy as a guide, the City approves the attached Capital Improvements Cost Sharing Plan as related to land acquisition, site development, project con- struction, and maintenance and operation. All future capital improvements on undeveloped land are to be accomplished in accordance with appropriate City master plans in effect at the time such improvements are undertaken. The City will determine priorities when insufficient funds are available to finance all qualified projects. This policy notwithstanding, the cost of any capital improvement needed solely to serve a specific subdivision or development shall be borne by the landowner or developer or user. GENERAL PROVISIONS: 1. The City will pay for its portion only when the project is eligible for Gas Tax Funds and when funds are available. 2. The City may install street safety lighting in connection with traffic signal installations and may install 'street lighting at other locations when it is required for safety reasons. 2. Where private streets or private entrances occur at the intersection of two arterial streets, the developer will be required to pay only for the addi- tional signal work required to signalize his entrance. 4. Traffic Signals: Category "A" (Private Benefit) Signals in Category "A" shall include, but are not limited to (1) private street intersections, (2) private entrances, (3) local and collector street intersections, and (4) local street intersections with arterial streets where traffic projections show that a signal will be needed within 4 years after occupancy of new development. The cost of installing traffic signals ( in Category "A" shall be the responsibility of the developer. F-9 FINANCING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ON UNDEVELOPED LAND -- Page 2 7/28/75 CCategory "B" (Public Benefit) Signals in Category "B" shall include the intersections of all major, primary, and secondary streets shown on the Master Plan of Streets and Highways' in effect at the time of the tentative map. The cost of in- stalling traffic signals in Category "B" shall be the responsibility of the City if and when Gas Tax Funds are avaialable. Category "C" (Public and Private Benefit) . Signals in Category "C" shall include (1) intersections existing at the time of new development and (2) locations where it can be shown that the overall direct benefit to the public justifies the use of public funds. The cost of installing traffic signals in Category "C" shall be shared by the City and developer on the basis of benefits received. In cases where development plans may be delayed, the City may advance the developer's share of the cost. 5. Where the property owners propose changes in land use planning that result in significant traffic increases, the developer's responsibility for traffic . signal, construction may be increased beyond that otherwise provided for herein. 6. In an effort to simplify the accomplishment of the work, the City or the developer may perform work beyond their responsibilities as defined in this policy. In such cases a credit may be given the party performing the work provided prior approval of the other party is obtained and a detailed request in writing is made within six months after completion of the work. DEFINITIONS: 1. Master Plan Street - A master plan street eligible for -City financial parti- cipation, is an arterial street that appears on the City of Newport Beach Master Street and Highway Plan at the time the development is proposed. .. 2. Citv's Share - City's share may also include costs paid for by other govern- mental agencies. 3. Developer's Share - Developer's share may also include costs paid for by landowner, lessee, or user. 4. , Paving Width - Paving widths shall include the entire roadway measured between curb faces. Amended - February 8, 1965 Reaffirmed - August 15, 1966 Amended - April 7, 1969 Reaffirmed - March 9, 1970 Reaffirmed - February 14, 1972 Amended - March 26, 1973 Reaffirmed - December 10, 1973 Reaffirmed - November 11, 1974 Amended - July 28, 1975 ATAL IMPROVEMENTS COST SHARINGOLICY LAND COST DEVELOPMENT COST MAINTENANCE CITY'S DEVELOPER'S CITY'S DEVELOPER'S & OPERATION TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT SHARE SHARE SHARE SHARE CITY OTHER STREETS Master Plan 1. Right-of-way X X 2. Grading X X 3. Curbs and Gutters X X 4. Sidewalks X X 5. Base Over 40' 40' width X width of requir- ed thick- ness 6. Paving Over 40' 40' width X width of requir- ed ness thick- • 7. Median curbs and X X Paving 8. Bridges To be deter- mined when planned 9 . Signals X (1) X 10. Street name signs X X 11. Traffic control X X signs 12. Striping X X 13. Lighting a) Fronting X X Property b) Non-fronting 60% 40Y X ( Property (2) (1) As required in general provisions (2) When required as a condition of development Page 3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS COST SHARING POLICY LAND COST DEVELOPMENT COST MAINTENANCE CITY'S DEVELOPER S CITY'S DEVELOPER'S & OPERATION TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT SHARE SHARE SHARE SHARE CITY. OTHER STREETS Non-Master Plan 1. Right-of-way X X X 2. Grading X X 3. Curbs and gutters X X 4. Sidewalks X X 5. Base X X 6. Paving X X Bridges X X 8. Straet name signs X X 9. Traffic control signs X X 10.. Striping X X 11. Lighting X X .WATER SYSTEM 1. Distribution system X X 2. Pumping Stations X X X 3. Reservoirs X X X 4. Transmission mains serving only undeveloped area X X 5. Transmission mains Land users pay cost serving both un- of main adequate to developed areas serve users' area -- & existing City City pays add'l cost i Page 4 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS COST SHARING POLICY LAND COST DEVELOPMENT COST HAINTENANCE CITY'S DEVELOPER'S CITY'S DEVELOPER'S & OPERATION- TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT SHARE SHARE SHARE SHARE CITY OTHER SEWER SYSTEM 1. Collection system X X 2. Pumping stations X X X 3. City truck sewers X X 4. Enlargement of exist- X X ing City trunks to serve new areas DRAINAGE 1. Collection system X X Drainage improvements X X in undeveloped areas 3. Downstream drainage . To be determined structure improve- ments necessitated by development of upstream areas PARKS, PARKWAYS, STREET TREES (See Policy I-4) • Page 5 t �, �vslgn� //- lo -77 !NO IRVIN _ SELL-OFF, SPEED-UFO' ' The Irvine Co. is on sound is first mortgage financing most prominent home- enough financial ground that of some of our restdentiall builders. there is no need to worry commercial and industrial "Within this structure, I about speeded-up develop- land leases. have the delegated respon- ment or the sell-off of Ir- "The Prudential loan, I sibility for the company's vine lands to raise quick think, makes a fairly day-to-day corporate-level money, company president eloquent and persuasive operations and decision Peter Kremer told a Newport statement: The Irvine Com- making, in my view, I have r Harbor Chamber of Com- t. pany is an outstanding long- a reasonably freehand.That merce breakfast meeting term investment. So there t do is a matter of pract- Friday morning. It was his need be no distressed mer- ical necessity. It is dictated " first public speech since be- chandise sale here. by the dynamics of coming Irvine president in "You can bank on it, land managment and de- ! July, under the company's "The Irvine Company is velopment in this booming new ownership, a tremendous generator of economic region. Mr. Kremer, who an- -„ s j cash flow. Last year, we "The board also has a pounced that he and his fam- ! netted a record$M.5 million long-range-corporate plan- fly have just moved to Prom- after taxes. This year,even ning committee. It has 4 ' ontory Bay,alsopromisedto with our increased debtser-. members. One Is agrleul- work closely with his new PETER KREMER vice taken into account, we tore industrialist Howard hometown In taking a fresh are also doing very well. Marguelas,who successfully look at the timing, inten- and highly successful exper- "We have an 11-member operates out of the Coachella ' sity of use and design of fence in the real estate board of directors. Its Valley. Another member is our remaining projects in field, used their own vast chairman is A. Alfred one of the most indomitable Newport." But, he warned personal resources and the Taubman,one of the nation's and accomplished women I that traffic problems must nine-bank loan to close the most respected develop- have ever met. She needs be solved, "That Is our sale. ers of regional shopping no introduction here, and big problem, yours and mine "Then came the rumors centers. We have a three- very little introductiowany-' C roads . . . traffic and the speculation. member executive com- where else. I am referring, capacity," "The speculation was that mittee made up of Al Taub- of course, to Joan Irvine His 20-minnte talk at the In order to repay the short- man, myself and Donald L. Smith, Don Breh aid I Sheraton Inn included the term bank loan, the compay Bren,' one of California's (Continued on Page 4) following remarks: would have to sell off huge _ "After an investment of chunks of its raw lands And; hundreds of millions of dol- there would go the concept, lvrs, the Irvine Company's of an intact general plan and' new owners are not about orderly development, to tamper with a land' "Other speculation wasi development philosophy that that the company would have has made the Irvine Ranch to either speed up develop-' one of the 'most valued ment or have a fire sale on single-ownership properties many of its income proper- in the world, ties such as our industrial "The new owners are 'and office buildings, apart committed --financially and ments and shopping centers., for reasons of sheer pride-- "We kept sayingthatthere to upholding and buildingup- would be no wholesaling ot on the company's reputation raw land, that there wouldl for excellent products,high be no unseemly rush! revenues, strong earnings to develop what's left, and' and industry leadership, that Newport Center and' "Oan we afford to hold Promontory Point and other the-,Irvine ranch together fine income properties would and 4stt 1 meet our financial not have to be put on the4 j obligati,ons? How do we block. plan to pay off the large loan the new owners obtained "Even before the final ac- from nine banks In order to quisition papers had been, purchase the company? signed, we were negotiating M "It was little more than with the Prudential Life In- A 100 days ago that the com- surance Company for along- was puchased from the term$100 million loan. Ob- JamQrs�vIrvine Foundatfonand viously, its principal pur- 4therbbhareholders for more pose•was to-help pay:off + ' 40""_Tha new the shprtterm bank financ- i wide-ranging eIn- 'This nSassive financing j , ri rdJngly, during thiseVaiul to, of the general I Plat, Newport Center is re- ael�ing a lot of attention,This%appropriate because 4 .-the residential division; Newport Center is and will [which includes our home- forever be the city'sanchor- buflding arm, Irvine Pacific; ing foundation, certainly in ,commercial and industrial terms of municipal and (divisions, andpropertyman- school revenues. agement division, operating "It now contributes, for ;office buildings, apartments example, more than $1.8 land shopping centers. million yearly to the city "This consolidation Is at In sales and property taxes; j east partially the result of and about $1.7 million to ;a renewed corporate phil- the local school district. osophy to give full concen- "When Newport Center Is tration to the Irvine Com- built out, there should, be pany's traditional role as a quite a bit more revenue. master land use planner and ,All of our non- developer. We plan the uses residential properties,, by of the land, we make certain the way, account for some that these uses are com- $3 million --almost 30 per patible with the rest of the cent -- of the $11 million general plan, we preparethe in property and sales taxes off-s.te improvements and the city collected during the then market the sites and past year. r project opportunities to "For the Irvine Com- selected builders who put up pany's part in the general the structures and provide plan review, we are taking site amenities to our exact- a fresh look at the timing, ing standards, intensity of use and design "We are phasing out of the of our remaining projects actual building business our- here. We want to make der- selves. There are others tafn they are compatible with who can handle that. In- the planned improvement of ; dependent builders have, in community support systems, fact, been doing most of the such as roads. construction on the ranch "That Is our big problem since the beginning of the yours and mine. Roads. ` general plan. Traffic capacity. I "It is in both of our in- "Traffic improvements, a terests that Newport Beach of which Newport could stand be as healthy and attractive a few, are a by product of a community tomorrow as development. Without the it is today. If there are development, you may still concerns about growth -- get much of the traffic, but and there are --we should, you won't get the improve- and must, slt down and work ments. them out together. "This Is becausedevelop- "Speaking as an Irvine ers pay for a large share Company executive who of public street projects -- , cares very much about the from new signal installations community in which he lives to entirely new roads. Total and works, I can tell you that reliance on public funds just the alternative to this kind won't get the done. • [of productive, positive re- "The trick Is to bring pationship is to me highly , about combined private and ,unacceptable, public financing of the im- "And that would be for us provements at the time they to give up on the town, and are needed, or, ideally, be- �tether developers acquire fore they are needed. pe remaining 800 acres or "Funds from various 09•: - of unimproved, un- surces, including the state, iptod etive and extremely must somehow be advanced, �I Mensive -- as the tax as- and responsibilities for the ser annually reminds us improvements, revised. ,Newport land holdings. "This is a problem-that L• ut that will never come the Irvine Company, other S. --- major property owners and AWe are assured of that the city are now coming to at is happening in New- grips with, as part of the today. There Is a general plan review process. ng partnershiti. 'O'f'hb When th`eS�Hii�t'ibnisA966d'," ' ral plan teview process' and "NZ nfidenC 14 wilt under way�is its best be, el of bs, and = mbre nee: important .-the community s authorized bytheCity at large, will"benefit. oil; this review is do- '"And that is what It Is ed to determine a real- all about: mutual benefit. optimum level of "In the past, the th, particularly com- Irvine Companyandthecom- clal development, for munity of Newport Beach port. have benefltted mutually I would like to stress from the company's land word, optimum. What management and develop-' eans is that growth in ment programs. The re- port cannot expand in- sults are evident everywhere 4t}}oti94S .R on this side of the bay.-This Rd' Nfae is aheautiful city--because y . < of what happened in thepast. 4QF&w "Well, we at the Irvine !Q$lttltl: nt1 Company, even those of us s girowTfi ? t#ofceep It who are new, are mighty io Newport and not see it proud of that past. Proud enough to assure drained away to other com- you that it mirrors 4tUnitles. the future." ~ GENERAL PLAN ZONING PROPOSED PARCEL ACRES • LIMITATIONS LIMIT AI�NS DEVELOPMENT Group I - Initial Occupancy 1978-1980 Koll Center 101 Small Office Bldg. 42.7 Admin. , Prof. , P.C. Total Floor Comm. , Off. Fin. , Comm. Area Office 125,000 Sq. Ft. .1 ,992,000 Sq. Ft. Comm./Retail 102 Corporate Offices Less Admin. , Prof. , 110,000 Sq. Ft. Comm. Off. (build to suit) Than 30.4 Fin. , Comm. ' Hotel 9.5 Acrest 175,000 Sq. Ft. 103 Corporate Office General Industry Comm. Office Building 22,500 Sq. Ft. 104 Corporate Office 5,.3± General Industry Comm. Office Building 22,500 Sq. Ft. 105 Fast Food General Industry Unk. Restaurant 106 Denny's Restaurant General Industry Unk. 107 Restaurant Site 5.0± Retail Sales and Unk. Service Comm. 108 Corporate Office 19.0t Retail Sales and Comm. Off. Building Service Comm. 175,000 Sq. Ft. l09 10 Story Office Admin. , Prof. , Comm. Off. Building Fin. Comm. 172,000 Sq. Ft. 110 Corporate 19.7± Admin. , Prof. , Comm. Off. Office Fin. Comm. 100,000 Sq. Ft. 111 Hotel Site Less Admin. , Prof. , Unk. Than Fin. Comm. 30.9 EMKAY DEVELOPMENT 112 Industrial 3 General Industry P.C. Total Floor Industrial Development Area Office 32,000 Sq. Ft. 675,000 Sq. Ft. 113 Hotel 3 Retail & Service P.C. Use Permit 142 ROOMS Commercial Required and 3,100 Sq. Ft. 113A Commercial 5.9± Retail & Service P.C. Commercial Commercial Retail 83,000 Sq. Ft 114 Office 65.4± Admin. , Prof. , P.C. Commercial Development Fin. Comm. Office 395,000 Sq. Ft. AERONUTRONIC FORD - 115 Residential —�' = . l_OO "Density _Limits`- P.C. Amendment _ 550 DU's -Development, , -- _ - P-C" General Ind.•- - t_o Text Needed and Residential 116 Research and General Ind. and P-C Amendment to• Ind. 360,000 Development - Residential Text Needed = Sq. Ft. • GENERAL PLAN ZONING. PROPOSED PARCEL ACRES LIMITATIONS LIMITATIONS DEVELOPMENT IRVINE COMPANY 117 Freeway Reser- 9± Recreation and P.C. Amendment 9.0 DU's vation west a) Open Space to Text Needed Condo Big Can. 118 Newport 14 Admin. , Prof. , P.C. No Text Comm. , Retail Village & firn: Comm, & 60,000 Sq, Ft. Res. Rec./Mar Comm. 60,000 Sq. Ft. 119 Freeway Reser- 8 Recreation and P.C. Amendment 100 DU's vation east a) Open Space/Multi to Text Needed Multi-Fam. Baywood Family 120 North Ford 78 Industrial P.C. Limit of Industrial a) Industrial 675,000 Sq. Ft. 675,000 Sq. Ft. 121 Bayside 1 .7 Admin., Prof., C-1-H Comm. Office Square Fin. Comm. & 36,300 Sq. Rec/Mar Ft. 122 Civic Plaza 26 Admin. , Prof. , P.C. Comm. Office Fin. Comm. & 320,000 Sq. Ft. 320,000 Sq. MF Res. Ft. 123 Harbor 9 Low-Density P.C. Amendment 54 DU's Hill Residential to Text . DU's 46 & R.O.S. Needed 124 Newport 10 Admin., Prof., P.C. No Comm. Office Center Block Fin. Comm. Text 350,000 Sq. 800 (Pac. Mut.) Ft. 125 Big Canyon 15 Multi-Family P.C. 160 DU's Area 10 338 DU's Custom Lots 126 Westbay 58 Recreation and P.C. No 348 DU's Open Space 474 DU'c Text Alt. Med. Den. 127 Newporter 88 Med. Density P.C. No 704 DU's North DU's 704 Text 128 Castaways - 40 Med. Density P.C. No Text 320 DU' s Residential DU's 320 129 5th Avenue 9 Med. Density R-1-B 54 DU's Corridor DU' s 54 b. SFR 130 5th Avenue 19 Med. Density Alt. R-2-B 114 DU's Corridor c. SFR Rec. & Open R-1-B Space DU's 114 131 Bayview 17 Recreation and -U- Landing Marine Comm. 132 Freeway Reser- 12 Low Density R-1-B Admin. , Prof., vation south 72 DU's Fin. , Comm. (Roger's Gardens) 77-3-B 133 5th Ave. Corridor 6 Med. Density R-3-B 36 DU's a. high den. MF DU's 36 134 Newport Center 11 Admin."; Prof.,, C-=O-H - Comm. , Office,. Block 600 Fin...Comm. 450,000 Sq. (Prudential ) Ft. i ti 135 Newport Center 9 M.F. Res./Adm. , Prof. , • P.C. . 245 DU's Condos Block Fin. Comm. Not to Ex- Text 800 ceed 35 DU's/acre 136 Castaways - 25 Recreation and Marine P.C. No Hotel 250 Rooms Commercial Commercial Text Restaurant 16,000 Sq. Ft. 137 Freeway Reservation 26 Rec. , & O.S. (156 P.C. Freeway 208 DU's East a) Harbor View DU's) Med.Den. , Res. (294 DU's) GROUP II - INITIAL OCCUPANCY 1981-1983 201 "Mouth" Big Canyon 49 Rec. , & Open Space -U= Commercial/Retail with Alt. Unk. Sq. Ft. MFR 202 San Diego Creek 13 Retail Service U- Restaurant 5,000 North Commercial Sq. Ft. , Hotel 125 Rooms 203 Corporate Plaza 10 Admin. , Prof. , Fin P-C No Comm. Office West & Rec. , & Marine Text 120,000 Sq. Commercial Ft. 204 MacArthur/ 9 Admin. , Prof. , P.C. No Commercial Office Avocado Fin. , Commercial Text 160,000 Sq. Ft. GROUP III - INITIAL OCCUPANCY 1984-1986 301 PCH/Jamboree 19 Admin. , Prof. , Fin - P.C. No Commercial Office 153,300 to Text 175,000 Sq. 191 ,600 Sq. Ft. Ft. 302 Jamboree/ 2 Ret/Serv. and Admin., -U- Commercial Office MacArthur Prof., and Fin. 60,000 Sq. Ft. Res- taurant 15,000 St. F 303 San Diego 47 General Industry -U- Industrial Creek South 470,000 Sq. Ft. 304 North Ford 4 Ret./Serv., and P.C. - Retail Sales b. Commercial Admin:, Prof., Commercial 40,000 Sq. Ft. and Fin. WEST OF DOVER/ COAST HIGHWAY BRIDGE 138 Banning Residential 150 Subject to S.A.P. County A-1 900 DU's 139 Caltrans (N. Coast 17.26 Recreation and Open -U- 255 DU's Highway/W. Superior) Space and MFR 140 Caltrans (N. Coast 22.86 Recreation and Open -U- 27.4 DU's Highway/E. Superior) Space and MFR 205 Res. S. F. (N. Ext. 2.31 Subject to S.A.P. P.C. No 126 DU's of 16th Street) Text 206 Res. M.F. (S. Ext. 31 .43 Subject to S.A.P. P.C. No 465 DU's of 16th St.) Text 207 Caltrans (S. Coast 5.15 'Rec. , and O.S. R-2 R-2 Dev. Hwy. , P.E. R-O-W) 305 Sm. Craft Harbor 292 Subject to S.A.P. County A-1 1926 DU's'and Harbor and - - _ - -, Related Comm./ Off. Uses PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE • January 6 , 1977 Frederickson absent January 20 , 1977 All present February 10, 1977 All present ' . February 17, 1977 All present March 3, 1977 Cokas absent March 17 , 1977 Heather absent April 7•, , 1977 A11 present April 21 , 1.977 All present May 5, 1977 . Balalis - Cokas - absent May 19 , 1977 All present June 2, 1977 All present June 16, 1977 Cokas - Hummel - absent July 7, 1977 Agee - Frederickson - absent July 21 , 1977 Agee - Cokas - Lynch - absent August 4, 1977 Agee absent August 18, 1977 All present September 1 , 1977 All present September 15 , 1977 All present October 6 , 1977 All present October 20 , 1977 All present November 3, 1977 All present November 17, 1977 Lynch absent December 1 , 1977 All present December 8, 1977 All present December 15 , 1977 All present 4 _.,,PLANNING COMMISSION AT"DANCE • M1 January 5, 1978 Agee absent January 19 , 1978 Haidinger absent February 9 , 1978 All present February 16 , 1978 All prelsent March 2, 1978 Cokas absent . March 16, 1978 All present April 6, 1978 Frederickson absent April 20, 1978 All present May 18, 1978 Balalis absent June 15 , 1978 All present July 6 , 1978 All present July 20, 1978 All present August 3, 1978 All present August 17, 1978 All present September 7, 1978 Balalis absent September 21 , 1978 Frederickson absent October 5 , 1978 All present October 19 , 1978 All present r i FML;� COPY DO NOT REL1®UE 0 @ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH u aK DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �411;0RN�* ( 714) 640-2261 GENERAL PLAN REVIEW WORKSHOP Tuesday, April 18 , 1978 AGENDA 1 . Introduction 2 . Presentations on following specific sites : (a ) Koll Center Newport (b ) Newport Center, All Sites . (c) Eastbluff Remnant ( d) Fifth Avenue Residential Parcels 3 . Continuing Discussion of Traffic Phasing Initiative 4 . Adjournment City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 * � w FILE COPY DO NOT REMOVE GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO . 15 " KOLL CENTER" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Administrative , Professional and Financial Commercial ; Retail and Service Commercial ; General Industry 2 . Existing Zoning : P . C . - Development Text 3. Site Area : 159 acres , approximately 35 acres vacant 4 . ATlowable Use (s) : Office , Commercial , General Industry ' 5 . Possible Alternatives : Site Considerations Currently , there are 1 ,605 ,845 sq . ft . of development existing and in process . The zoning allows an additional 1 ,298,930 sq . ft. of development; 1 ,207, 200 sq . ft . additional is proposed . Site considerations involved in the buildout of Koll Center Newport include traffic impact , development intensity, development phasing , the timing of improvements to roadways to serve the area and surrounding area . l � Issues ki 1 . Development Intensity 2 . Development Phasing IV 3 . Traffic Impacts 4 . Impact on Air Traffic ? iap�wr NlNIlI!!!!!! BRt57o�. �� !� tiles �•�"'�IININ/N/M jq '7 uH�vERh` s r GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO. 23 "MACARTHUR/AVOCADO" (Newport Center) General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Administrative, Professional , and Financial Commercial 2 . Existing Zoning : P . C. (No adopted development plan) 3 . Site Area : 5 acres (approximately) 4. Allowable Use(s ) : Offices 5 . Possible Alternatives : Site Considerations Site considerations indicated in the City/The Irvine Company "Task Force Report" were " . . the ultimate design and alignment of the one-way couplet. The couplet design will establish the shape of this site . " Issues 1 . Development Intensity 2. Traffic Impacts 3. Development Phasing 7 W �a w a a1 �c ■ 4�N ■ Hiy,e • r P i 1r\ g ■ W : �C . ■ � U►{1►U►4 i i KW ►►►►j►►• PAGFI� coAfT I GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE N0. 24 "NEWPORT VILLAGE" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Administrative , Professional , and Financial Commercial and Recreational and Marine Commercial 2 . Existing Zoning : P .C . - No Text 3. Site Area : 33 acres 4 . Allowable Use (s ) : Retail Sales , Office , Restaurant Theatre 5 . Possible Alternatives : Site Considerations Site considerations included in the City/The Irvine Company "Task Force Report" were" . ... access , nighttime activity, nighttime lighting, drainage , archaeology , the ultimate design of •the one-way couplet system, traffic , and the development limitations resolution . " Issues 1 . Development Intensity a 2 . Land Use Mix ec 3. Development Phasing o 4 . Community Character lu 5 . Traffic Impacts W FORD � d• d '� JD • �♦ 4j'V MfL{S♦♦ 6 � v OL � W P 4 W y !!!!! 7A41r-1 coAst 4. GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO. 25 "CORPORATE PLAZA WEST" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Administrative , Professional , Financial Commercial and Recrea- tional and Marine Commercial 2 . Existing Zoning: P . C . - No adopted development plan 3. Site Area: 10 acres 4. Allowable Use (s) : Offices , Tourist Commercial 5 . Possible Alternatives : Site Considerations Site considerations indicated in the City/The Irvine Company "Task Force Report" were " . . traffi-c, the development limitation resolution and the Upper Bay bridge improvements . " Issues 1 . Development Intensity 2 . Traffic Impacts 3. Development Phasing � I ptu 7?� fl DC 06 ♦ NON Hrtu • i ♦♦ 8�wll� g f1ll1U R IRR P ' H'WY RRRRIy� PAGIFW coAf� 5 GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO . 26 BLOCK 800 - PACIFIC MUTUAL General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Administrative , Professional and Financial Commercial 2 . Existing Zoning : P .C . - No adopted development plan 3. Size : 10 acres 4 . Allowable Use ( s ) : Offices 5 . Possible Alternatives : Site Considerations An addition of approximately 350 ,000 sq . ft . has been proposed to the existing facility. Site considerations indicated in the City/The Irvine Company "Task Force Report" were " . . . Newport Center resolution on development limitations for Newport Center and traffic . " Issues 1 . Development Intensity 2 . Traffic Impacts eAc 3. Development Phasing o7 4 . Impact on Air Traffic tu �a rc �H P MM > f{fff{Uhfff f i � KWY fffU1 � ppGIF�� coAfT GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO. 27 . "COAST HIGHWAY AND JAMBOREE" General Information, 1 . General Plan Designation : Administrative , Professional and Financial Commercial 2. Existing Zoning: P .C . - No adopted development plan 3. Size : 19 acres 4. Allowable Use(s ),: Offices 5. Possible -Alternatives : Site Considerations The site has been limited to a total floor area of from 153, 300 sq. ft. up to a maximum of 1919600 sq . ft. , with the objective of developing an adequate transportation system. The joint City/ The Irvine Company "Task Force Report" indicated the following site considerations: " . . . traffic, access , the development limits resolution , the proposed Jamboree by-pass road and timing of bridge improvements . " Issues 1 . Extension of Back Bay Drive 2. Development Intensity 3. Traffic Impacts W �, 4. Development Phasing 5. Visually-Prominent Site i MWY f fffl ff � r�urio oon�*' T, GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO. 28 "NEWPORT CENTER BLOCK 600" "Prudential " General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Administrative , Professional and Financial Commercial 2 . Existing Zoning : C-O-H 3 . Site Area : 10 acres 4. Allowable Use (s ) : Offices 5 . Possible Alternatives : Site Considerations A commercial office complex of 540, 000 sq . ft. , with a possibled hotel is propose . Site considerations indicated in the City/The Irvine Company "Task Force Report" were . . traffic and the recently-adopted "Newport Center Development Limitations " (Resolution 9009 ) . An additional consideration is off-street parking. " Issues 1 . Traffic Impacts 2 . Development Intensity 3. Development Phasing w 4. Impact on Air Traffic AN c r uiy FRµ� i � � ♦QtlIp11 . . ' p ♦♦, ffWY plpq � ppUFtc coAf'� GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO . 29 "CIVIC PLAZA: General Information 1 . General Plan Designation: Administrative , Professional and Financial Commercial 2 . Existing Zoning: P . C . - Development Text 3. Size : 26 acres 4. Allowable Use(s ) : Office , Theatre , Restaurant, Art Museum 5 . Possible Alternatives : Site Considerations Site considerations indicated in the City/The Irvine Company "Task Force Report" were " . . traffic , and the Newport Center Development Limitation Resolution (Resolution No . 9009 ) which will guide the site planning process for this block. " Issues 1 . Development Intensity 2. Land Use Mix 3. traffic Impacts 4. Development Phasing 0 tu w K �N ui Mr • r 8=N114 1111U11111,1► ` Z ' owy IRIIIIt1�L � MLtF14 4oAfr q• GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO. 2 "EAST BLUFF 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 . 8 acres 4 . Allowable Use ( s ) : Residential , 84 units 5 . Possible Alternatives : Public acquisition as open space Site Considerations Site considerations indicated in the City/TIC "task force report" were : " . . access , bluffs/slope , soils , geology, •paleontology and drainage . " The parcel is immediately adjacent to the Newport Bay Ecological Reserve . Issues 1 . Access to Site 2. Impact Development on Ecological Reserve 3 . Public Acquisition as Open 'Space 4 . Proposed Bluff-Top Initiative 5 . Loss of Open Space 6 . Density 7 . Drainage and Erosion Control �. 8. Traffic Impacts 9 . Development Phasing uvreR % ,p NE^POEcr 1%1, �`yqP to GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO . 6 "5th AVENUE CORRIDOR PARCELS" General Information 1 . General Plan Designations : Medium-Density Residential 2 . Existing Zoning : P . C . , R-1 -B 3. Site Area : A = 6 acres ; B = 9 acres ; C = 19 acres 4. Allowable Use(s ) : Residential , 204 Units 5. Possible Alternatives : Low-Density Residential Public Acquisition as Open Space Site Considerations Site considerations indicated in the City/The Irvine Company "Task force Report" were " . . .traffic and open space . " Issues 1 . Fifth Avenue Corridor 2 . Density 3. View from Adjacent Residences 4. Development Phasing 5 . Traffic Impacts B ��G Tlst AVE Cp1ST y 3W y�. 3 FILE Do NOT REMOVE RESOLUTION NO. 9009 6 P/lAn 7 )) • C,TI'GF J NEN/;s0;1; 13_ACH, 'r CAL A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS IN ,NM.'1PORT CENTER WHEREAS, the "General Plan Policies Element" provides that: (a) The City shall set specific limits on population and dwelling unit densities, and the intensity and extent of commercial and industrial development for the general planning area as a whole, and for each individual planning area throughout the community. (b) The 'timing and pace of future development or redevelopment shall be limited and controlled to encourage phases and orderly development and to prohibit any premature development which would adversely affect the quality or efficiency• of- existing or planned public support systems. (c) The City shall encourage the growth 'of income producing developments to sustain a• high revenue base for the provision of public support services only within those areas ' where the character, amount and location of such developments are compatible with surrounding land uses and the existing character . of the" community; , and WHEREAS, Newport Center is a major planning area of income producing developments wherein the intensity and extent of such development should be established, and ' WHEREAS, traffic generation in relationship to the capacity of the surrounding street system is the major constraint to development of Newport Center; and WHEREAS, a projection was made for the ultimate develop- ment at Newport 'Center during the preparation of the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan which was used as a basis for a traffic study done for the City by Alan M. Voorhees & Associates in 1974 and supplemented by a more detailed traffic study clone by Crommelin-Pringle & Associates, Inc. for The Irvine Company at the request of the City; and WHEREAS, both studies have indicated that the street system can be developed with a capacity sufficient' to accommodate the traffic generated by the projected development of Newport Center, provided improvements to the system are made consistent with the official Circulation Element and coordinated with new development; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach considered the contents of this Resolution at its meeting of February 10, 1977 and recommended to the City Council— that the City Council adopt a resolution establishing development limitations in Newport Center; NOW, THEREFORE, BE •IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport 'Beach that it shall be the policy of the City to approve development in Newport Center which does not exceed the total projected intensity for Newport Center as identified on 'the attached Exhibit "A". Changes to the types and location • of uses may be made provided that an analysis of both location and intensity demonstrates that the traffic system is not adversely affected •and that traffic generation as it affects the major- intersections during critical peak periods does not exceed the capacities provided in the approved street,development plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a program for development shall be established to assure that necessary improvements to the traffic system are coordinated with increases in traffic generation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that each project shall also be examined for its consistency with other relevant adopted policies of the City. ADOPTED this 28th day of February , 1977. Mayor ATTEST: HRC/yz City Clerk 2/22/77 3/l/77 EXHIBIT "A" w DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY FOR NEWPORT CENTER EXISTING * PROPOSED. TOTAL OFFICE & MEDICAL 2,000,000 s.f. 2,299,600 s.f. 4,299,600' s.f. COMMERCIAL/RETAIL/ • RESTAURANT 909,000 s.f. 392,000 s.f. 1 ,301 ,000 s.f. THEATER 1 ,750 seats 2,650 seats 4,400 seats HOTEL _ 377 rooms 0 377 room RESIDENTIAL 67 units 471 units . 538 units CIVIC/CULTURAL 62,100 s.f. 60,600 s.f. 122,100 s.f. • AUTOMOTIVE 5.0 acres 0 5.0 acres • GOLF COURSE' 18 holes 0 18 holes TENNIS CLUB 17 courts . 7 courts 24 courts *Includes all facilities completed and generating traffic on 2-1-77. Approximately 86%, or 1 ,720,000 s.f. of existing office space is occupied on 2-1-77, rnivu-res GOG�VGI�t.oEN �G ��c' 4 Fe�N\\�\ bruar 28 1977 ^l.l. CALL � 3. A report was presented from the Community Develop- Newport ment De artment regarding a .proposed resolution Center p g g P P•„�_, _.,_...... Develo net initiated by the klanning Comvlssion establishing Develop Mt limitations in Newport Center. Limitation: Dick Clucas, Chairman of the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisdry.Committee, addressed the Council in response to questions regarding the Committee's study of the Crommelin-Pringle Report. Motion x 'Mayor Pro Tem Barrett made _motion to adot R-9009 11esolu_tion 00 No. 99 establishin_g._development limits in Newport Center. Councilman McInnis asked that the motion be amended to change the wording in the last sentence In the third from the last paragraph from "pro- jected in the Voorhees and Crommelin-Pringle Reports," to "provided in the approved street development plan," which amendment was seespted by the maker of the motion. Ayes x x x x x A vote was taken on Mayor Pro Tem Barrett's Noes x x amended motion, which motion carried• Councilman Ryckof£ made the following statement for the record: 'Proposing or supporting a grow-- Tr—commZfinent of this magnitude, without public hearings, without backup material and without consideration of General Plan changes which may be desirable and relevant, is not in the public interest. "There seems to be no pressing reason to establish the maximum development for Newport Center at this time. There certainly is no justification for reliance on the Crommelin-Pringle Report, which was done for The Irvine Company, was not accepted by the City, which contains questionable premises and conclusions and still shows traffic deficiencies. "I believe the public should look to the motives of those who supported this measure, despite all the disclaimers, approved without public hearings, without backup material and serving private interest at the expense of public interest." 4. A report was presented from the Public Works Vacate Director regarding the vacation and abandonment Eas= of a public utility easement over Lots 1, 2 and 3. ' B1 A of Block A, Tract No. 613 in Corona del Mar,;•''` Tract 67: located south of East Coast Highway between Poppy Avenue and Hazel Drive. Motion x The following resolutiops'were adopted: • Ayes x x x x x x x Resolution Nor9010 adopting a map showing the R-9010 existing-k0=foot public utility easement to be vacatdd and abandoned (Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Block A", Tract No. 673 in Corona del Mar). Volume 31 - Page 49 t I • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH u e+c s DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �41FO ( 714) 64Q-2261 GENERAL PLAN REVIEW WORKSHOP Tuesday , April 11 , 1978 AGENDA 1 . Introduction 2 . Discussion of allowable and proposed development on the following specific sites : (a ) Bayview Landing (b ) Castaways Site ( Residential and Commercial ) (c ) Newport Dunes 3 . Adjournment City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 FILE COPY DO NOT REMOVE ��EWt'O Z CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 0RN�P (714)� 640-2261 _ GENERAL PLAN REVIEW WORKSHOP April 11 , 1978 MINUTES City Council Members Present: Lucille Kuehn , Don McInnis . Staff Present : Robert Wynn , City Manager ; R. V . Hogan; Community Development Director, David Dmohowski , Advance Planning Administrator. City Plan.ager Glynn called the workshop meeting to order at 7. 30 p . m. and described the evening ' s agenda . He inquired as to whether there Was further interest in discussing the proposed Traffic Phasing Initiative , and indicated that, if so , it could be added to the agenda. David Neish , representing The Irvine Company, began the discussion of the Bayview Landing property by discussing the history of proposed development on the site , which had included a Holiday Inn development. (This site was formerly referred to as "Holiday Harbor" ) . Mr. Neish described the site as one of the most visually prominent sites near the Upper Bay. As an alternate to hotel development, a proposal to build retail shops , offices , and restaurants was described . Mr. Neish indicated that this development concept would involve about 90 ,0.00 square feet of commercial floor area , with restaurant uses comprising between 20 ,000 and 25 ,000 square feet. The bluff area on the site would be preserved , with a public promenade and vista points provided. Questions regarding traffic impact and improvements required on Jamboree Road and Coast Highway were raised. It was pointed out that development on this site would contribute to improvements on adjacent streets . Mr. Neish described methods of providing- access to the site. Community Development Director Hogan stated that the Planning Commission had requested that residential development at 5 DU ' s per acre be tested in the Traffic Model as a possible alternative . Mr. Neish commented that residential use at this location would be incompatible with proposed recreational developments at the Dunes nearby . Also , major road improvements planned for this area would not be compatible with residential development. City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 General Plan Review Workshop April 11 , 1978 Minutes Keith Greer, representing The Irvine Company, was introduced to make a presentation on the Castaways sites. Mr. Greer described the existingGeneral Plan designations on the property and said 9 P P that two alternative development concepts have been prepared. Alternative I involves the development of a 200-room "inn" and a small number of retail shops on the southerly commercial portion of the site, with townhomes built on the northerly portion. A 2-acre view park adjacent to the bluffs in a visually-prominent area is proposed, together with a two to three-acre neighborhood park centrally located. Since this site is rimmed with promi-nent bluffs , a 25- to 40-foot setback from the edge of these bluffs is proposed. There would be a system of public trails and view points. Mr. Greer indicated that 225 residential units are proposed, where the General Plan allows 320 -- a 30% reduction. Alternative II proposes residential use for the entire site, except for the 5- or 6-acre portion at the southern tip which is isolated from the remainder, where specialty retail commercial use would be proposed. 350 DU s overall are contemplated by this proposal . Representatives of The Irvine Company stated that development of this site would contribute one additional traffic lane to Dover Drive, and The Irvine Company might participate in providing a second additional lane . The Irvine Company would not request occupancy of the development prior to the completion of the Upper Bay Bridge. Problems regarding noise impact of traffic and bluff preservation were discussed. The development concepts being considered for the Newport Dunes site were introduced by David Klages , architect and consultant for the project. He pointed out that the Dunes is owned by the County and leased to a private operator. Preliminary development plans and an E. I . R. are being prepared for the site. Proposed development would include a recreational vehicle park, boating center, 200-room family oriented hotel , and marine-oriented shops with a mariner' s village concept. Commercial developments could comprise nearly 100,000 square feet of floor area . Mr. Hogan poi-nted out that the City is interested in participating with the County in the review of such development proposals . He stated that the City is very concerned with traffic impacts, and access to the property. It was mentioned that the draft E . I . R. for this project would be available in May, 1978. The upcoming agenda was discussed, and discussion of the Traffic Phasing Initiative was added. The workshop meeting was adjourned at 9 : 35 p .m. Prepared by Advance Planning Division April 18, 1978 DD:jmb 0 0 GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO . 5 "CASTAWAYS - RESIDENTIAL" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Medium-Density Residential and Recreational and Marine Commercial 2 . Existing Zoning : P . C . -- No development text 3 . Site Area : 40 acres 4 . Allowable Use ( s ) : Residential ; 320 units 5 . Possible Alternatives : Public acquisition as open space Tourist-related commercial Site Considerations Site considerations indicated in the City/TIC "Task Force Report" were " . . . bluffs , public access , traffic , the bridge improvements , and the discussions regarding a second bay crossing . The project would be affected by the proposed "Bluff-Top" Initiative . The Open Space Plan indicates a neighborhood and view park on site . Possible conflicts between Coastal Act of 1976 (policies on coastal dependent uses ) and City character. Visually prominent site. Issues 1 . Loss of Open Space 2 . Traffic Impacts 3 . Possible Second Bay Crossing 4 . Impact on Ecological Reserve rFx �c• 5 . Views from Dover Drive 6 . View from Homes West of Dover D rive 7 . Coastal Act Policies on Coastal - Dependent Uses UPPEp� 8. "Bluff-Top" Initiative N8AyoRr 9 . Slope Stability 10 . Community Character with Resort/ Restaurant Development 11 . Bluff Protection , Erosion Control OFF GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO. 22 "CASTAWAYS-COMMERCIAL" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Recreational and Marine Commercial 2 . Existing Zoning : P.C. (no adopted development plan) 3. Site Area : 25 acres 4 . Allowable Uses : Commercial Recreation , Tourist Commercial 5 . Possible Alternatives : Medium-Density Residential Public Acquisition as Open Space Site Considerations Development consisting of a hotel , restaurants and small shops has been proposed. This is a visually-prominent site. Design considerations include relation of development to bluffs , access , height, bulk and siting of proposed buildings . Issues 1 . Intensity of Development 2. Bluff Protection, Slope Stability, Erosion , Control 3 . Consistency with Coastal Act of 1976 4 . Traffic Impacts 5 . Imapct on Air Traffic a urn% 6 . Access to Upper Bay der fkt, If GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO . 21 "BAYVIEW LANDING" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Recreational and Marine Commercial 2 . Existing Zoning : -U- 3 . Size : 19 acres 4 . Allowable Use( s ) : Commercial Recreation , Tourist Commercial S . Possible Alternatives : Public Acquisition as Open Space , Low Density Residential Site Considerations The site considerations indicated in the City/The Irvine Company "Task Force Report" were " . . . traffic , access , relationship to Dunes , the bluffs , and the acceptability of a hotel . " The site would be affected by the proposed Bluff-Top Initiative . The site is visually prominent and uses compatibld with community character desires should be considered in site planning . Issues 1 . Development Intensity 2 . Traffic Impacts 3 . Development Phasing 4 . Loss of Open Space 5 . Community Character 6 . Compatibility with Coastal Act of 1976 w ju 7 . Relationship to Dunes Development `� J 8 . Views from Coast Highway and Jamboree Road N,� • 9 . Bluff Controls � : NftyPORr ••dap W E E E as AN Y � qW Y. � coayc GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO. 31 "NEWPORT DUNES" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Recreational and Environmental Open Space 2 . Existing Zoning : Unclassified District 3. Site Area : 4 . Allowable Uses : Public, marine-oriented park, and related facilities . 5 . Possible Alternatives : Tourist-commercial development, hotel /motel , recreational vehicle park/camping. Site Considerations Current uses on the site include public parking and bay-beach facilities , restaurant, boat launching and storage facility, marina , and recreational vehicle park. The site is owned by the County of Orange with current uses operated by a private party under lease . The property is within the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach, and accordingly, development on this site would be subject to the City' s General Plan and zoning regulations . The County has , however, questioned the City ' s jurisdiction to regulate its activities here . The County is in the process of preparing a master plan for development of the Dunes which may involve more intensive commercial use of the property, including motel accommodations , small shops , and restaurants . Issues 1 . Development Intensity BAtK- W 2 . Traffic Impact, Access g 3. Impact on Air Traffic 2� 4. Tidelands Considerations 5 . Consistency with Coastal Act 6 . Impact on Ecological Reserve • ���we u m COAST NieigwAf AR'n• PpR rr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH u z DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT G41:0 �r,. (714) 640-2261 GENERAL PLAN REVIEW WORKSHOP Tuesday, April 4 , 1978 AGENDA 1 . Introduction ' 2 . Presentation regarding allowable and proposed development on the following specific sites . (a ) Aeronutronics-Ford Industrial and Residential sites . (b ) Roger ' s Gardens and adjacent residential parcel . (c ) Baywood Expansion and Freeway Reservation. East (east of MacArthur, south of Ford Road) . (d ) Emkay Newport Place P-C. 3 . Presentation regarding Traffic Phasing Initiative . 4 . Adjournment . FILE Or . 00 NOT REMOVE City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 k FILE COPY �FWPpRr DO NOT FtEf+OVE ` ' @m CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U e T DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �ttFOB.N�P. (714) 640-2261 GENERAL PLAN REVIEW WORKSHOP April 4 , 1978 MINUTES City Council Members Present: {Don McInnis . Planning Commission Members Present: George Cokas , Tim Haidinger. Staff Present : Robert L . Wynn , City Manager; Richard Hogan , Community Development Director; David Dmohowski , Advance Planning Administrator. City Manager Wynn called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p .m. and described the evening ' s agenda . He stated that Mrs . Jean Watt had requested the opportunity to make a presentation on the proposed Traffic Phasing Initiative which item would be last on the evening ' s agenda . Mr. Tom •Morrissey , representing the Aeronutronics-Ford Company, made a presentation on existing and proposed development on his company ' s 200-acre site . He gave a brief rundown on the history of development on the. site, noting that it was used primarily for industrial with no substantial construction occurring at the original facility during the last . 16 years . The existing industrial uses were described on a 97 . 5 acre portion of the site . It was pointed out that when the proposed additional 177 ,000 sq . ft . of industrial floor area is added, the total industrial facility would comprise 1 , 200 ,000 square feet. Improvements to the industrial plant would occur in increments over the next 5 to 10 years , consisting of expansion of existing buildings and the construction of one additional building. The additions are contemplated to be basically low-rise structures , two to three stories in height. Mr. Morrissey described development plans for the 102 . 8-acre residential portion of the site , stating that approximately 620 units are contemplated . He pointed out , however , that there may be technical problems which might preclude residential development. He indicated that residential development plans might include a mixture of townhomes and detached dwellings . Plans would be ready for submittal to the City for review in the next few months . Members of the audience questioned the access to the property from MacArthur, and suggested that Jamboree Road already was congested and posed a traffic safety hazard. It was pointed out that MacArthur is a State highway with access limitations . City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 General Plan Review Workshop Page Two April 4, 1978 Mr. Keith Greer, representing The Irvine Company, described his company' s plans for the Baywood Expansion Site and Freeway Reservation East located south of Ford Road easterly of MacArthur. The plans involve expanding the existing Baywood Apartments by approximately 140 DU ' s . He indicated that this development proposal was the most feasible because of the irregular shape of the 10+ acre site and because of access limitations from MacArthur. ' The housing product contemplated here would be adult-oriented apartments similar to the existing project. In response to a question from the audience , Community Development Director Hogan indicated that decisions on the design of the Avocado/ MacArthur/San Joaquin . intersection would be made prior to any final approval of the Baywood expansion . With respect to Freeway Reservation East, Mr. Greer indicated that i•t was a difficult site. with potential problems associated with - access , slope and drainage. It was indicated that approximately 150 units would be considered for this 26-acre site. Development here could affect views from the adjacent Harbor View Hills development. Access along MacArthur is restricted, therefore , access to the site would probably be through the existing neighborhood street system in Harbor View. Submittal of development plans to the City is still a number of years away. Mr. Greer reviewed three alternative concepts for the residentially- designated parcel south of Roger ' s Gardens . Concept I involved a "low-profile garden office" development of approximately 65 ,000 square feet, which would require an amendment to the existing General Plan. The project would be a low-intensity cluster of office modules with substantial open area within the development. No highrise is contemplated. Mr. Greer pointed out that the operational characteristics of office use would make it compati-ble with the adjacent residential use, in that less traffic would be generated during evenings and on weekends . The proposed concept plan is viewed by the landowner as an acceptable transition between the heavily urban uses at Newport Center and the existing residential uses east of the subject property. Alternative II described by Mr. Greer involved approximately 40 detached DU ' s having the same characteristics as the adjacent residential use. Maximum building height would be about 32 feet to preserve view potential from adjacent lots . Alternative III was described as involving 60 attached townhome units , with private recreational facilities . Sound attenuation measures such as earth berms could be provided to reduce noise impact from MacArthur and the extension of San Miguel . Access would be from San Pliguel . In responding to a question on traffic generation by the alternatives , Mr. Greer suggested that the two residential plans involved roughly 480 ADT ' s with the commercial -office alternative generating more traffic . It was pointed out that peak hour characteristics would be different. General Plan Review ZTorkshop Page Three April 4, 1978 A member of. the audience indicated that the entire parcel should remain residential , with no consideration for anything but residential zoning . Mr . Phil Arst, representing homeowners groups in the area , requested to make a presentation . He stated that the position of the homeowners is that the best use of the property is as residential , .compatible with existing adjacent residences . He pointed out that the existing General Plan and zoning indicate residential use , and he requested the City to preserve the zoning as is . He stated that the homeowners oppose expansion of commercial uses on the Roger' s Gardens property. Mr. Bob Alleborn , representing Emkay Development Company, reviewed the history of development on the 145-net acre site . Improvements to the Bristol frontage road system and improvement of MacArthur Boulevard were cited among the major road projects provided by the developer. Mr. Alleborn pointed out that only three vacant parcels comprising about 20 acres remain to be developed . Only 11 acres are still owned by Emkay, with development plans to be submitted on about 6 . 5 acres later this year, and the remainder in 1979 . Approximately 358,000 sq . ft . of commercial office development is contemplated by Emkay . Two parcels owned by other property owners , comprising approximately nine acres , remain to be developed. The adopted P-C plan allows roughly 99 ,000 sq . ft. on these nine acres . Proposed plus existing development would be 300 ,000 sq . ft . less than allowed by zoning. Mrs . Jean Watt made a presentation on the proposed Traffic Phasing Initiative . The initiative would establish a method of reviewing and approving proposed development in terms of impact on the traffic system. It would establish a basis for determining traffic deficiencies ; establishes what percentage of increase in traffic generation is significant ; and establishes a method for analyzing the proposed project ' s. impact on roads.. Cal McLaughlin commented on traffic problems and reviewed the report of the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee to the City Council prepared in June , 1977 . He described what is meant by "Service Level D" , and discussed the mechanics of the Traffic Phasing Initiative . Questions were raised as to . how the ordinance would be administered . The agendas for upcoming workshops were discussed . The meeting was adjourned at 9 :40 p . m. Prepared by the Advance Planning Division April 6 , 1978 DD : jmb �EwaoRr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH u e.< DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �G/FORN�P (714) 640-2261 GENERAL IEW WORKSHOP N RAL PLAN REVIEW Date : Tuesday ,, April 4, 1"978^ Time : 7 : 30 p .m. to 9 : 30 p .m. Place : City Hall Annex Conference Room Specific sites scheduled for discussion as part of the weekly workshop meetings on the General Plan Review include the following: (a ) Aeronutronics-Ford Industrial and Residential sites . (b) Roger ' s Gardens and adjacent residential parcel . (c ) 8aywood Expansion and Freeway Reservation East (east of MacArthur south of Ford Road) . (d) Emkay Newport Place P-C . Presentations will be made regarding allowable and proposed development on these sites . Participation by interested groups and individuals is invited. For additional information , contact David Dmohowski , Advance 'Planning Administrator, at 640-2261 . DD: jmb �a ro d� City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 i ` I • I -- -- --- ��� - '--G�d=�' ' — - - --,- - - - -1�s t..r� � - - -- Ns.-�Go-mil--��/^-:�---- -�,0,^�--�l-�—/V3.�r•-.. ---- - - - -- /�/ --�lG�j—�'-./w..-w--r—I�Sf-�. - �� Nf� ,� _ i --- r GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO. 13 "AERONUTRONIC-FORD RESIDENTIAL" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Medium-Density Residential 2 . Existing Zoning : P . C . , no development plan adopted 3. Site Area : 109 acres (approximately) 4 . Allowable Uses : Residential , 650 units (approximately) 5 . Possible Alternatives : Low-Density Residential Commercial /Office Site Cohsiderations This is a visually-prominent site adjacent to an existing industrial / office development . Design considerations include grading , slope stability , and interface with adjacent industrial uses . Substantial open space will be dedicated as a condition of approval for residential development. Issues 1 . Density 2 . Grading , Slope Stability 3 . Traffic Impacts 4 . Erosion Control ei3oN 5 . Design and Accessibility of Open Space Areas UJ PIP. FILE C®PY DO NOT REMOVE GENERAL PLAN REVIEW, SITE NO . 30 "AERONUTRONIC-FORD- INDUSTRIAL" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : General Industry, Administrative , Professional and Financial Commercial 2 . Existing Zoning: P . C . (No adopted development plan ) 3. Site Area : 90 acres (approximately) 4 . Allowable Uses : Light Industry, Offices 5 . Possible Alternatives : Site Considerations The existing facility contains 954,890 square feet of floor area. An additional 177 ,110 square feet is proposed. Design considerations include compatibility of proposed industrial/ office development with adjacent planned residential . Issues 1 . Intensity of Development 2 . Height and Bulk of Structures 3. Traffic Impact 4. Relation to Adjacent Residential 7 Uses m a130N AYE. � o°a WW , N 1 A GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO . 14 "RESIDENTIAL PARCEL SOUTH OF ROGER ' S GARDENS" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Medium-Density Residential 2 . Existing Zoning : R-1 -B 3 . Site : 12 Acres 4 . Allowable Use ( s ) : Residential , 60 units (approximately) 5 . Possible Alternatives : Commercial Office Site Considerations The site consideration indicated in the City/The Irvine Company "Task Froce Report" for this site were " . . . circulation , access , noise, and land use. " The considerations of appropriateness of land use designation and compatibility with adjacent residential and commercial development is a site consideration . The site is visually prominent and looksdown on adjacent residential developments and Newport Center . Issues 1 . Appropriate Land Use 2 . Development Intensity A 3. Development Phasing 4 . Traffic Impacts m a 5 . Noise lu for-9 R° y 6 . Impact on Adjacent m s Residential f pia 7 . Extension of San Miguel < LANYON Drive �J v� r sW BOA eC QV�N Hiik • hr� P Z �.1EYVPORT 0� Is i • I' Pl�i fiL �o,�sTf�Hf� y GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO. 8 "FREEWA-Y RESERVATION EAST/BAYWOOD EXPANSION" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : a . Medium-Density Residential b . Multi-Family Residential 2 . Existing Zoning : P . C . (Amendment required) 3 . Site Area : a . 25 acres b . 10 acres 4. Allowable Use(s ) : a. 100 DU ' s (approximately) b . 150 DU ' s 5 . Possible Alternatives : Public acquisition with open space Low-Density Residential Site Considerations Site considerations indicated in the City/The Irvine Company "Task Force Report" were " . . . traffic , shape size , noise , access , and land use . " Issues 1 . Density 2. Noise 3. Access to Property 4. Visual Prominence of Project 5 . Improvements to MacArthur Boulevard 6 . Development Phasing 7. Traffic Impacts fARD E� 8 � OT✓ i -b cz' rN h yi4 PAarFlc 5 , GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO . 16 "EMKAY - NEWPORT PLACE" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Administrative , Professional and Financial Commercial , General Industry , and Retail and Service Commercial 2 . Existing Zoning : P . C . - Development Text 3 . Site Area : 145 acres , approximately 22 acres vacant 4 . Allowable Use ( s ) : Research and Development Commercial /Office 5 . Possible Alternatives : Site Considerations At present, this development comprises 1 ,799 , 941 square feet of development existing and in process . The zoning allows an additional 764 , 329 sq . ft . ; 481 , 280 sq . ft. additional is proposed by the developer. Site considerations involved in the buildout of the Emkay Planned Community include traffic impacts , development intensity , development phasing and the timing of improvements to the circulation system. 11 Issues L . Development Intensity n o 2 . Development Phasing j m 3 . Traffic Impacts q 4. Impact on Air Traffic uu� � nowuaony umnoanm�n�}o� O �€ UN�VER ,F, March 28, 1978 Press Conference re Initiative - The Traffic Phasing Initiative.is the end product of work started last June out of frustration at the Council's resistance to any kind of action after reports from the Planning Coimiission, the Transportation Citizen's Advisory Caradttee, and the Citizen's Environmental Quality Co uiittee which all reinforced the other's concern that our development plans were too intense for the planned circulation system and needed to be phased as well as lowered. The L.E.A.F. (Legal Environmental Analysis Fund) activities came as an offshoot of S.P.O.N. SPON had been formed four years prior because many of us felt we were gradually losing Newport's bests assets and felt we needed to report our concerns in greater numbers and with more consistency to the Council. When this approach consistently met with seeming agreemnt but no action, we decided to see why our General Plan and ordinances were not seemingly adequate to protect us from Council decisions which were becoming cumulatively contrary to what the basic General Plan proposed for our City. Since last June (1977) , over 100 people - not including those represented by group donations - have contributed physically or financially to the effort. An estimate of tine spent would be impossible, but valuable discussions have taken place and we feel we have more to do - our inmediate next effort will be an ana- lysis of budgetary matters to see haw those constraints relate to our concerns. Basically we are trying to protect and preserve what we consider to be Newpork's real assets and value - a quality residential area with a marine recreational. enphasis. We feel that our efforts so far have been a very definite instigating factor in getting the General Plan review started - and that effort seems to be meting with general acceptance. To date there have been no definitive actions although valuable facts have been disclosed and worthwhile discussion is taking place. We feel that this initiative won't cone to a vote before the General Plan review is finished so the voters will know what the outcome of that review is and can act accordingly. We feel we are taking an approach that stimulates solutions. Jean Watt - 673-8164 L.E.A.F. - P.O. Box 102, Balboa Island, CA 92662 FILE CC)NRY DO NOT REMOVE FILE CUPY SYNOPSIS OF TRAFFIC PHASING INITIATIVE DO NOT REMOVE INTENT To provide the City with an innovative and effective tool for assuring that new develols- rae4t is phased to the capacity of the street system. This is accomplished by limiting the issuance of building and grading permits for maior projects that would eause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of service on major or Primary streets. An unsatisfactory level of service exists on a street when its traffic volume ducting Peak periods exceeds Level of Service I'D" (90 Of Sull capacity)* Typicallyw when service level "D" is exceeded$ it takes more than one signal change for vehicles to get through an intersection. EXEMPTED AND EXCEPTED PROJECTS 0 Commercial/industrialfprojects of 10,000 0 Projects which impact streets with an , or fewer square feet$ and residential unsatisfactory level of service by one projects of 10 or fewer dwelling units percent or lose of peak period traffic are exempted# can be excepted. 0 • Projects already in.construction at 0 Projects whose benefits and/or traffic the time the ordinance is adopted mitigation measurea ,warrant their approval$ are excepted. as indicated by a 6/7 vote of the Planning Commission and the City Council can be excepted. PROCEDURE The City Traffic Engineer selects major and primary streets that might be impacted by the project$ and determines whether traffic generated from the project would create or make worse an unsatisfactory level of service on the selected streets. These findings are submitted to the Planning Commission for its determination. SUMMARY The Traffic- Phasing Initiative defines what is meant by unacceptable traffic congestion. Selectively$ it turns on a red light for major projects -that would significantly worsen such congestion. The green light to development is turned back on selectively when the congestion problem on streets affected by the project has been mitigated, Rigid solutions are not imposed. Instead$ the ordinance would serve as the essential catalyst for stimulating the problem-solving process$ involving all elements of the community. Everyone says they're for traffic phasing. The initiative simply defines what that phrase meanat DEVELOPMENT MUST BE PHASED WITH TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS TO EXISTING CONGESTION PROBLEMS: •Fiw� ,Ort�Fr �.2�.)d� 1 TRAFFIC PHASING INITIATIVE ORDINANCE TO COORDINATE DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN PROJECTS WITH TRANSPORTATION 2 FACILITIES IN NEWPORT BEACH. 3 4 THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DO ORDAIN AS 5 FOLLOWS: 6 7 Section 1. FINDING. 8 The people of the City of Newport Beach find that conges- 9 tion of streets and 'intersections, excessive traffic noise, 10 automobile-generated air pollution, traffic ,accidents, and 11 general overcrowding of existing neighborhoods have resulted, 12 or will soon result, from poorly planned commercial, industrial 13 and residential growth and are harmful to the public health, 14 safety and general welfare. 15 16 Section 2. PURPOSE. 17 The people declare that these conditions can be avoided, 18 eliminated or alleviated by enacting the following program 19 designed to permit major development only in those areas of the 20 City of Newport Beach where adequate transportation facilities 21 exist to accommodate the traffic generated by such development. 22 23 Section 3. TRAFFIC IMPACT LIMITATION. 24 a. Limitation. No building or grading permit shall be 25 issued, and no construction shall be commenced, for any 26 project not exempted from this ordinance until the Planning 27 28 FILE COPY _1_ DO NOT REMOVE 1 Commission of the City of Newport Beach shall make a written 2 finding that the proposed project: 3 i) will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory 4 level of traffic service an any "major" , "primary- 5 modified" or "primary" street; or 6 ii) may be excepted pursuant to sub-section d hereunder 7 provided, however, that such finding shall state the 8 exception granted and the facts which justify the 9 exception. 10 11 b. Hearing. The Planning Commission shall make its 12 written finding supported by the weight of evidence presented 13 at a public hearing noticed in the manner provided in Section 14 20. 80. 050 (B) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 15 16 C. Exemption. Any commercial or industrial project 17 which has a gross floor area equal to or less than 1.0,000 square 18 feet, or any residential project which is equal to or less than 19 ten (10) dwelling units shall be exempt from the requirements of 20 this ordinance. 21 22 d. Exceptions. The Planning Commission may except any 23 project from the requirements of this ordinance : 24 i) if it shall find that the City has issued a buildin' 25 permit for the project prior to the effective date of 26 this ordinance and that the person to whom such permit 27 was issued has in good faith and in reliance upon the 28 -2- J 1 building permit diligently commenced construction and 2 performed and incurred substantial. liabilities for work 3 and materials necessary therefor. .No substantial change 4 may be made in any such project, except in accordance 5 with the provisions of this ordinance. 6 ii) if traffic generated from the -project during a 7 2.5 hour period of peak traffic volume will increase total 8 traffic by less than 1% on each street which will have an 9 unsatisfactory level of service prior to, or as a result 10 of, the project. 11 iii) if, by a•vote of six of the seven members, it 12 shall make a decision, supported by a written finding 13 setting forth its reasons therefor, that the benefits of 14 the project to the City of Newport Beach outweigh the 15 project's anticipated negative impact on transportation 16 facilities; provided, however, that such finding shall be 17 ratified by at least six of the seven members of the City 18 Council. Notwithstanding Section 8 , there shall be no 19 right of appeal from a denial by the Planning Commission 20 of an exception under this sub-section iii) . 21 22 e. Denial. The application for any building or grading 23 permit on a project which is not exempt shall be deemed denied 24 if the determination of the Planning Commission, or any appeal 25 therefrom, shall not be final within ninety days after such 26 application has been filed. The Planning Commission or the 27 City Council, which ever shall have jurisdiction, may, for 28 good cause, extend such period from time to time provided, -3- • • 1 however, that in no event shall the total period be extended 2 beyond one year from. the date such application was received and 3 accepted as complete. 4 5 Section 4 . DEFINITIONS. 6 a. Unsatisfactory Level of Traffic Service. "Unsatis- 7 factory level of traffic service" means peak period traffic 8 service which is worse than Level of Service "D" for more than 9 one hour determined according to standard traffic engineering 10 practices, 11 12 b. Project. "Project" shall be determined by reference 13 to the California Environmental Quality Act [California Public 14 Resources Code 99 21000 et. seq. ] and the administrative guide- 15 lines established thereunder. 16 17 c. Level of Service "D" . "Level of Service 'D I " shall 18 mean that level of traffic service set forth as "Level of Service 19 ID" in the Highway Capacity Manual (1965) , or any subsequent 20 edition thereof, provided however that such level or - service 21 shall not exceed the following criteria, as applicable; 22 i) intersection capacity utilization. of 0 .90; 23 ii) 1,450 vehicles per hour using the Critical 24 Movement Summation Method; 25 iii) volume-capacity ratio of 0. 90; or 26 iv) other criteria selected by the City Traffic 27 Engineer which are consistent with sub-sections i) through 28 iii) above. -4- 1 Section 5. PROCEDURE. 2 Subject to review by the Planning Commission, the City 3 Traffic Engineer, exercising professional discretion, shall: 4 a. determine traffic periods, streets and intersections 5 which will be significantly affected by' the proposed project, 6 taking into account the type, character and location of the 7 proposed project as well as the character of the streets which 8 will serve the project. 9 10 b. determine if the project, when. complete, will cause 11 or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any 12 such street or intersection. 13 14 c. transmit these determinations to the Planning Com- 15 mission with recommendations. 16 17 Section 6. GENERAL PLAN. 18 The City Council shall amend the General Plan to conform 19 to this ordinance. 20 21 Section 7. FEES . 22 The City Council shall have authority to impose such fees 23 as may be necessary to defray the expense of administering this 24 ordinance. 25 26 Section 8 . APPEAL. 27 a. The determination of the Planning Commission shall be 28 final unless there shall be an appeal by the applicant or any -5- V •\ Y 1 other person pursuant to the procedure set forth in Section 2 20. 80 . 070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Such appeal 3 shall be limited to evidence presented before, and the findings 4 of, the Planning Commission. 5 6 b. The City Council shall have a Right of Review as 7 set forth- in Section 20. 80. 075 of the Newport Beach Municipal 8 Code and as limited above. 9 10 c. The City Council shall make its written finding of 11 the matter on appeal as set forth in Section 3 of this ordinance. 12 13 Section 9 . AMENDMENT. 14 This ordinance may be amended to further its purpose by 15 an affirmative vote of six of the seven members of the City 16 Council otherwise in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 17 20. 84 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. This section shall 18 be void if any portion of the section shall be declared invalid. 19 20 Section 10. SEVERABILITY. 21 If any section or portion of this ordinance is declared 22 invalid, the remaining sections or portions are to be considered 23 valid. 24 25 Section 11. ELECTION. 26 If qualified, this initiative shall be submitted to a vote 27 of the people at a special election. If •this initiative ordinance 28 is adopted, this Section 11 shall be deleted from this ordinance. -6- ��EWPp� h'tR?t.l-F 28—'' M�Ef1JJ6Z, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH u z FCRN��. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (714) 640-2261 FILE CO'Q)'� Do raoT RE140VE GENERAL PLAN REVIEW WORKSHOP Tuesday, March 28, 1978 AGENDA 1 . Introduction 2 . Presentation regarding allowable and proposed development on the following specific sites . (a ) Beeco Property West Newport (b ) North Ford Commercial /Industrial Planned Community (c ) San Diego Creek South Industrial Site ( d) San Diego Creek North Commercial Site (e ) Jamboree/MacArthur Commercial Site 3. Adjo urn me.nt City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 0 10 FILE COPY pORr DO NOT REMOVE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U aK DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT G<�FORN�P ( 714) 6 40-2 2 61 GENERAL PLAN REVIEW WORKSHOP March 28, 1978 MINUTES Planning Commission Members Present : George Cokas . Staff Present : Robert Wynn , City Manager; R. V. Hogan , Community Development Director; David Dmohowski , Advance Planning Administrator. City Manager Wynn called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p . m. and introduced the evening ' s agenda . David Dmohowski , Advance Planning Administrator, introduced the discussion of the Beeco Parcel in West Newport by indicating that the General Plan designated this area for "Medium-Density Residential " allowing approximately 800 DU ' s on the 150-acre section under discussion . It was pointed out that the Beeco Parcel was only a portion of nearly 500 acres near the mouth of the Santa Ana River which the General Plan shows as the potential site of a small -craft harbor. Mr. Dmohowski made reference to the City ' s preparation of a Local Coastal Program for this area , and pointed out that numerous governmental jurisdictions had an interest in development of this property, including the County of Orange and the U . S . Army Corps of Engineers . It was mentioned that a portion of the site may serve as habitat for several endangered species of wildlife . Mr. Bill Banning, representing the property owner, pointed out that only 30 acres of the site were in the City of Newport Beach . The remaining acreage is subject to oil leases which will not expire until 1994. He remarked that it is difficult to present development plans on property subject to many conditions . Mr. Banning reported that $400 , 000 has been approved for a study of the Santa Ana River Flood Control Project. He indicated that the flood control plan may include a doubling of the current channel width, plus restoration of approximately 40 acres of marshland . Mrs . Louise Greeley inquired about planned street improvements in this area . The staff responded that the Master Plan showed an extension of Balboa Boulevard northerly through the property , and the extension of 15th Street westerly. John Shea inquired of Mr. Banning as to whether he could commit to density reductions on the p-roperty as had The Irvine Company for their parcels . City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 General Plan Review Workshop Minutes - March 28, 1978 Page Two Mr. Banning responded that due to uncertainty regarding the oil operation on the property , specific development plans could not be prepared and, therefore , no reductions could be committed to at this time. It was pointed out that the flood control project and the questions of lease agreements could have a substantial impact on the overall area. David .Neish , representing The Irvine Company, introduced discussion of vacant parcels north of Bison between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. He indicated that the parcels in this area will be among the last commercial /industrial parcels development by The Irvine Company in the City. Mr. Ron Hendrickson of The Irvine Company described development allowed in the North Ford Planned Community district. He indicated that approximately 700,000 square feet of light industry remains to be developed under existing zoning on this 65-acre site . Approximately 6 months would be required to process tract maps necessary for development of this area . In describing plans for the 47-acre San Diego Creek South site , Mr. Hendrickson noted that the General Plan currently allows General Industry. Not a great deal of planning has been done for this site , but light industrial development has been contemplated. Recreational commercial uses -- possibly including a recreational vehicle park , golf course or tennis club -- are possible alternatives . This site may be subject to severe soils problems . No development is expected until after 1982 . Mr. Hendrickson described the 12-acre San Diego Creek North site, indicating that the General Plan allowed retail and service commercial uses . Development contemplated on this site includes a hotel of 106 - 200 rooms , small shops and two restaurants of 8,000 square feet. This site is partially located in a flood hazard area . No detailed market studies have been completed for this site. The Jamboree/MacArthur Commercial site was described as an office/ retail development scheduled after 1982 . The Bristol frontage road system adjacent to this site is scheduled for completion prior to February, 1979 . Dan Emory questioned whether these developments Were dependent on the University Drive extension . Representatives of The Irvine Company responded that none of the developments discussed depended directly on the completion of University Drive , but that University Drive was needed regardless of development of these sites . Members of the audience asked whether the commercial /industrial developments described would have a favorable impact on taxes and City revenues . Mr. Wynn responded that the Undeveloped Lands Task Force Report imd1cates that these projects would generate surplus revenues to the City. � 1 i General Plan Review Workshop Minutes - March 28, 1978 Page Three Responding to a question from the audience , staff indicated that EIR ' s prepared for the subject developments will include an assessment of the impact on air traffic generated at Orange County Airport . The schedule for upcoming meetings was discussed . The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 00 p .m. DD: jmb April 3, 1978 GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO . 12 "BEECO - RESIDENTIAL" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Medium-Density Residential / Specific Area Plan 2'. Existing Zoning : County "A-l " 3. Site Area : 150' acres (approximately) 4 . Allowable Use (s ) : Residential, 900 units 5 . Possible Alternatives : Public Acquisition as Open Space Low-Density Residential Site Considerations Site considerations involved in this site include bluff stability, soils , noise , traffic , view potential , road extensions , flora and fauna , and noise . The property could be affected by the Bluff- Top Initiative . The compatibility of the project with adjacent oil extraction . The Open Space Plan shows a continuous greenbelt along the bluff and series of views and neighborhood parks . The development of the project should take into account the possibility of a small -craft harbor in the area . Issues 1 . Density 2 . Development Phasing 3 . Traffic Impacts 4. City ' s Annexation Policies 5 . Loss of Open Space +� 6 . Cost/Revenue Impacts 7. Flora/Fauna Impacts 8. Compatibility with Coastal 6 �' Act of 1976 a 9 . Compatibility with Future Small -Craft Harbor h 10 . Compatibility with Adjacent i Wildlife Habitat �N aAsr HWY s4� • . T M GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO . 17 "JAMBOREE AND MACARTHUR" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Retail and Service Commercial and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial 2. Existing Zoning : -U- 3. Site: 2 acres 4. Allowable Use(s ) : Offices , Retail Commercial , Restaurants 5 . Possible Alternatives: Site Considerations The site considerations indicated in the City/The Irvine Company "Task Force Report" were " . . .a proposed freeway loop ramp could seriously impact the shape , size and use of this site. . . .Access points for the site are not established. However, there probably will be limited access off MacArthur. The realignment of MacArthur may require adjustments to the City boundary. " Issues 1 . Development Intensity 2. Traffic Impacts 3. Development Phasing 4. Access to Site �i #91*T01. or. O Q� GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO. 18 "SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Retail and Service Commercial 2 . Existing Zoning : -U- 3. Size : 12 acres 4 . Allowable Use (s ) : Hotel , Restaurant, Retail Commercial 5 . Possible Alternatives : Light Industry, Office Site Considerations The site considerations indicated in the City/The Irvine Company "Task Force Report" were . noise , seismic hazards , soils , potential floor hazard, drainage , and access . In addition , the realignment of MacArthur may require minor adjustments to the City boundary. " Issues 1 . Extension of University Drive 2 . Development Intensity 3. Development Timing 4 . Traffic Impacts 5 . Impact on San Diego Creek 6 . Impact on Ecological Preserve 7. Potential Hazard Area 8. Access aT 9 . Consistency with Coastal a Act of 1976 "/� • � � Y GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO. 19 "SAN DIEGO CREEK - SOUTH" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : General Industry 2. Existing Zoning: -U- 3. Site Area : 47 acres 4 . Allowable Use(s ) : Light Industrial , Office 5 . Possible Alternatives : Low- Intensity Commercial Recreation Site Considerations The site considerations indicated in the City/The Irvine Company "Task Force Report" were " . . . noise, seismic hazard, soils , potential flood hazard, drainage, and access . In addition , the realignment of MacArthur Boulevard may require minor adjustments to the City boundary. Site considerations also include the extension of University Drive and improvements to MacArthur Boulevard. Issues 1 . Development Intensity 2 . Development Phasing h 3. Traffic Impacts c° 4 . Access v 5. Potential Hazard Area 6 . Extension of University Drive 7 . Impact San Diego Creek 8. Impact Ecological Preserve 9 . Consistency with Coastal Act of 1976 I�X UN10 �K s I s L W J` OC G4 7 r Y GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO . 20 "NORTH FORD" General Information 1 . General' Plan Designation : General Industry and Retail and Service Commercial 2 . Existing Zoning: P . C . - Development Text 3 . Size : 65+ acres 4 . Allowable Use (s ) : Retail , Office , Commercial 5 . Possible Alternatives : Site Considerations Development consists of 157,278 square feet of floor area existing or under construction . Zoning allows an additional 715 ,000 square feet. The site considerations indicated in the City/The Irvine Company "Task Force Report" were the conditions of approval of the tentative map on the industrial site and the extension of Bison Avenue . Other considerations include the improvements to Ford Road, Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard . Issues UN K*1 1 . Development Intensity 2 . Development Phasing 3. Traffic Impacts 4 . Impa•ct on Ai.r Traffic $,S,N i unN►mok FaRo 6 ut C 6ogsr yK,j, � I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH u a DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT G4x0RN� ( 714)• 640-2261 GENERAL PLAN REVIEW WORKSHOP Tuesday, March 21 , 1978 AGENDA 1 . Continued Discussion - Vacant Parcels West Newport : ( a ) Caltrans West (b ) Caltrans East (c ) Beeco Parcel 2 . Presentation concerning development in bluff areas and slope stability. 3 . Presentation concerning traffic generated by residential development (major undeveloped sites ) . 4 . Presentation by The Irvine Company regarding the following specific sites : (a ) Newporter North (b ) Westbay Site (c ) Big Canyon Area 10 ( d ) Freeway Reservation West 5 . Adjournment FI LE COPY DO NOT REMOVE City Hall • 3900 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 �. FILE CUPY I DO NOT REMOVE T CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �,u • DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FORN� ( 714 ) 640,2261 GENERAL PLAN REVIEW WORKSHOP March 21 , 1978 MINUTES City Council Members Present: Lucille Kuehn , Don McInnis , Ray Williams . Planning Commission Members Present: George Cokas , William Frederickson . Staff Present: Robert Wynn , City Manager ; R. V . Hogan , Community Development Director; David Dmohowski , Advance Planning Administrator; Jim Evans , Engineering Geologist . The meeting was called to order at 7 : 30 p .m. by City Manager Robert Wynn , who described the evening ' s agenda . Mr. Wynn introduced the discussion of the Caltrans parcels in West Newport by summarizing the existing General Plan and zoning designations . Mrs . Louise Greeley , representing the Newport Crest Homeowners Association , spoke in favor of public acquisition of the 17-acre "Caltrans West" parcel for open space and park purposes . She cited potential problems associated with development of the parcel for residential use , including parking problems , intensity of development , visual impact on surrounding properties , and population impact . Mrs . Greeley stated that the property was most suitable for open space use and urged City acquisition , making reference to existing General Plan policies in support of the homeowners association ' s position. Mrs . Greeley indicated that the Coastal Commission had an interest in acquiring the property. Mr . David Reed, representing the California Department of Transportation , commented that the Coastal Commission ha d indicated to Caltrans no interest in acquisition. In concluding the discussion of the Caltrans properties , it was noted that the position of the Newport Crest Homeowners ' Association favored public acquisition of the Caltrans West site , and this position was , concurred in by a number of people in attendance . A representative of the firm of Cole of Newport expressed an interest in acquiring the Caltrans East parcel for condominium development. Councilman Ray Williams made a presentation regarding slope stability and problems associated with development near bluffs . His presentation included slides and diagrams of bluff areas surrounding the Upper Bay. City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 Minutes - March 21 , 1978 Page Two Mr. Williams made reference to a "Slope Stability Study for Upper Newport Bay" prepared by Walter Reiss in 1974 . He cited the importance of this subject in view of damage caused by recent storms and in relation to the several major development sites adjacent to the Upper Bay being discussed later on the agenda . Mr. Williams described the desirability of establishing setbacks from the bluffs for new development which take into account the geology and composition of soils , and the potential for slope stability problems . He indicated that the bluffs around the Upper Bay have a natural angle of repose of between 35 degrees to 55 degrees , depending on composition . It was suggested that building setback standards should be designed so that structures are situated behind the plane formed by a 33-degree angle from bedrock at the toe of the bluff. Mr. Williams concluded by stating that it is necessary to consider physical features and public safety in land use decisions on the undeveloped sites , Jim Evans , the City ' s grading engineer, responded to questions regarding . existing codes pertaining to bluff development. He indicated that at present new buildings need to be setback from the bluff behind the plane that would be formed by a 1 -1 /2 : 1 slope measured from the toe of the bluff, depending on conditions . He commended that in his view, no equilibrium in terms of maintaining the angle of repose of the bluff face had been achieved adjacent to the Upper Bay. Councilman Williams commented that bluff setbacks will enhance the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve . Community Development Director Hogan summarized the traffic generation expected from existing and planned residential development. He indicated that the existing General Plan at buildout would generate approximately 304,000 ADT from residential uses . It future residential development allowed by the General Plan were reduced by 20%, approxi - mately 296,000 ADT would be expected--an overall 2% reduction . David Dmohowski , of the City staff, described what development was allowed by the General Plan on the Westbay site (426 DU ' s ) , Newporter North Site (704 DU ' s ) , Big Canyon Area 10 ( 338 DU ` s ) , and Freeway Reservation West (open space) . David Neis,h , representing The Irvine Company , introduced the presenta- tion on the development sites by stating that an overall 2'0% reduction in DU ' s allowed by the General Plan was possible on the residential sites owned by The Irvine Company. He indicated that even greater percentage reductions might be possible on the sites adjacent to the Upper Bay, Mr. Ne-ish commented that the plans to be discussed represented a General Plan level of conceptualization , with more precise architectural and site plan details to be developed later in the review process . He encouraged discussion to focus on General Plan issues . Keith Greer, representing The Irvine Company , began the presentation with a description of The Irvine Company ' s proposed development plan for the 88-acre Newporter North site . He indicated that 704 DU ' s are allowed by the General Plan and they are proposing to construct 440 townhomes--a 37% reduction in allowable DU ' s . He noted that The Minutes - March 21 , 1978 Page Three Irvine Company has already spent over $70, 000 in environmental and archaeological evaluation of the site . Mr. Greer pointed out that the housing product being considered here would allow clustering of units to enhance open space . A public neighborhood park is to be dedicated on the central portion of the site , with a public road and view park dedicated along a portion of the bluff adjacent to the Upper Bay. The significant view potential of this park site was noted. Mr. Greer continued his presentation in stating that on the 71 -acre Westbay Site the General Plan would allow 426 DU ' s . The Irvine Company is proposing 348 townhomes on this site . Public parks and access to the bluffs and Upper Bay would be provided . He noted that dwellings would be clustered in this development to preserve view potential . In explaining development plans for the Big Canyon Area 10 site and Freeway Reservation West site (McLain Condominiums ) , Mr. Greer indicated that plans have not as fully developed as for the previous sites . He noted that the General Plan allows 338 DU ' s on Big Canyon Area 10 and that The Irvine Company is considering approximately 160 DU ' s for that site . He said The Irvine Company envisions an expansion of the existing McLain Condominiums for the Freeway Reservation West of approximately 90 DU ' s . But this would require a change to the General Plan which shows this area as freeway and open space . The meeting was opened for questions from the audience , and a number of persons spoke in favor of providing more public open space on the sites next to the Upper Bay . It was suggested that the 'areas dedicated for park use be preserved in their natural condition rather than be improved with park facilities . A property owner on ,the west side of Irvine Avenue near the Westbay Site, said that an additional access road was needed on Irvine Avenue to allow residents better ingress and egress . William Morris suggested that due to proposed development near MacArthur Boulevard , that arterial road should be widened to 8 lanes whereas the Circulation Element now indicates 6 lanes . Lyman Faulkner said that Orange County generates substantial revenues to the State and needs to organize to get a greater share for local roads . Gordon Jones of The Irvine Company commented on State funding practices for local roads . Dan Emory inquired as to whether the Westbay Site was dependent on University Drive in terms of development phasing . Mr. Greer responded that the proposed project was not dependent on University Drive . Minutes - March 21 , 1978 Page Four Jean Wagonner inquired about noise measurements regarding Orange County Airport ' s impact on the Westbay Site. The schedule for upcoming workshop was discussed . There being no further discussion , the meeting was adjourned at 9: 30 p .m. Prepared by Advance Planning Division DD :jmb FILE COPY DO NOT REMOVE GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO . 1 "WESTBAY " General Information 1 . General Plan Designation: Recreational and Environmental Open Space/Medium Density Residential. 2 . Existing Zoning : P . C . (No development plan adopted) 3. Site Area : Approximately 58 acres 4 . Allowable Use ( s ) : Residential , 348 units 5 . Possible Alternatives : Public acquisition as open space Site Considerations Site considerations indicated in the City/TIC "Task Force Report on Undeveloped Parcels " were : . . . noise , the bluffs , archaeology and paleontology , soils , drainage dredge deposits , the marsh area, the public ' s desire for open space , the relocatable pedestrian and bicycle paths , and access points that are required as part of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve . area . The open space element indicates that a neighborhood park and view park would be developed on the site . The site planning could be significantly impacted by the "bluff top initiative" . Issues UNIVERSITY DR• 1 . Loss of Open Space 2 . Density 3 . Views from Irvine Boulevard 4 . Noise Impacts j 5 . Impact on Ecological Reserve j 6 . University Dri've Extension 7 . Development Phasing. uePerc NEsvPotzr 8 . Traffic Impacts VAY 9 . Compatibility with Coastal Act i of 1976 • S Q W a� A rise �- a. GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO. 3 "NEWPORTER NORTH" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Medium-Density Residential 2 . Existing Zoning: P. C . (no development plan adopted) 3. Site Area: 88 acres 4 . Allowable Use ( s) : Residential ; 704 units 5 . Possible Alternatives : Public acquisition as open space Site Considerations The City/TIC "Task Force Report" indicated the following site considera- tions : " . . . 1 ) a major archaeology site , 2) portions of site along Jamboree Road are within the 60-65-70 CNEL contours , 3) bluffs , 4) marsh , 5 ) flora and fauna , and 6 ) soils . " The project would be affected by the Atherton "Bluff-Top" Initiative . The Open Space Plan indicates a neighborhood and a view park on the site. Issues 1 . Loss of Open Space 2 . Density Bix� 3. Impact on Ecological Preserve 4 . Compatibi'lity with Coastal Act III of 1976 5 . Improvements to Jamboree Road 6 . Views from Jamboree Road F0� 7 . Noise Impacts along Jamboree wW 8. Drainage and Erosion Control 9 . Slope Stability .^ }J0 . Development Phasing p 9 �u 11 . Traffic Impacts .• ^'H/tit /C s GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO . 4 "BIG CANYON AREA 10" General, Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Multi -Family Residential 2 . Existing Zoning : P . C . 3 . Site Area : 15 acres (approximately) 4 . Allowable Use ( s ) : Residential ; 338 units 5 . Possible Alternatives : Medium-Density Residential Site Considerations Site considerations indicated in the City/TIC "Task Force Report" • were : " . . . consideration related to soils , geology , access and drainage . " Issues 1 . Lo-ss of Open Space 2 . Density 3. Access to Developments 4 . Traffic Impacts 5 . Development Phasing 6 . Slope Stability a W m tANY014 < �� HPous , ■� NEW PORT' D.�s� HVJY / C0 r GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO. 7 "FREEWAY RESERVATION WEST" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Recreational and Environmental Open Space 2 . Existing Zoning : P .C . -- No development text 3. Site Area : 10 acres (approximately) 4 . Allowable Use (s ) : Open Space General Plan 5 . Possible Alternatives : Amendment required for residential development Site Considerations Site considerations indicated in the City/The Irvine Company "Task Force Report" were " . .noise , open space , land use, and the design of the one-way couplet. " The use of the project site will be seriously impacted by the ultimate design of the one-way couplet. Issues �c 1 . Loss of Open Space 5 2. Intensity of Development t 3. Design of Avocado/MacArthur One-Way Couplet 4. Appropriate Uses Adjacent to the One-Way Couplet Q 5 . Noise Impacts 6 . Development Phasing 7. Traffic Impacts sti /� GIN GoAs"� NN/Y GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO . 10 "CALTRANS - WEST" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Multi -Family Residential 2 . Existing Zoning : -U- 3. Site Area : 17 .2 acres 4. Allowable Use ( s ) : Residential - 258 units 5 . Possible Alternatives : Low-Density Residential Public Acquisition as Open Space Site Consideratio.ns Site considerations involved in this parcel include noise , slope stability, traffic and access . The property -could be affected by the "Bluff-Top " Initiative . The appropriateness and design of residential development is a site consideration, .as is the extension- of Balboa Boulevard , northerly from Coast Highway. Issues 1 . Density 2 . ' Development Phasing 3. Loss of Open Space 4. View from Adjacent Residential Properties 5 . Extension of Balboa Boulevard 6 . ' Traffic Impacts 7 . Noise Impacts 8 , Compatibility with the Coastal Act of 1976 ( "Coastal Independent Uses " policies ) . p m a � o " a 0 p `• p' ouum•ofiles v o • co�ST HY �c� g�+'c 4. i GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO. 11 "CALTRANS - EAST" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Recreation and Environmental Open Space 2 . Existing Zoning : -U- • 3 . Site Area: 22 acres 4. Allowable Use (s ) : Low-Intensity Recreational Uses, Open Space 5 . Possible Alternatives : Low-Density Residential Retail /Service Commercial Site Considerations Site considerations involved in the parcel include slope stability , noise, traffic and access . The top-most portion of the parcel is indicated on the Open Space Plan for a view park and neighborhood park. Additional site considerations include views from Superior Avenue, and the impact of the proposed Bluff-Top Initiative. Issues 1 . Traffic Impacts ,2 . Development Intensity 3. Cost of Open Space Acquisition and Lmprovements 4. Views from Adjacent Residential Properties 5. Loss of Open Space d 6 . Development Phasing 7 . Bluff-Top Initiative 8. Noise Impacts 9. Slope Stability, Erosion Control u z uunuumu�i�list► * 4� eo,15rr HWY � g�Vp GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE. NO . 12 "BEECO - RESIDENTIAL" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Medium-Density Residential / Specific Area Plan 2 . Existing Zoning : County "A-l " 3 . Site Area : 150 acres (approximately) 4. Allowable Use(s ) : Residential, 900 units 5 . Possible Alternatives : Public Acquisition as Open Space Low-Density Residential Site Considerations Site considerations involved in this site include bluff stability, soils , noise , traffic , view potential , road extensions , flora and fauna , and noise . The property could be affected by the Bluff- Top Initiative . The compatibility of the project with adjacent oil extraction . The Open Space Plan shows a continuous greenbelt along the bluff and series of views and neighborhood parks . The development of the project should take into account the possibility of a small -craft harbor in the area . Issues 1 . Density 2 . Development Phasing 3. Traffic Impacts 4 . City ' s Annexation Policies 5 . Loss of Open Space 6 . Cost/Revenue Impacts 7. Flora/Fauna Impacts h�• o 8. Compatibility with Coastal 6 a Act of 1976 9 . Compatibility with Future Small -Craft Harbor 10. Compatibi'lity with Adjacent / Wildlife Habitat �� ti••+�+ N�••N••�•••�t 60Abr HWY 8741. 84. FILE COPY DO NOT REMOVE ��EWPp� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH u a.c DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT G4po ( 714) 640-2261 GENERAL PLAN REVIEW WORKSHOP Tuesday, March 14, 1978 AGENDA 1 . Presentation by staff on existing Master Plan of Streets and Highways , current and projected traffic deficiencies , schedule of road improvements , and development phasing. 2 . Presentation by staff on impacts of the General Plan in terms of projected number of dwellings and intensity of commercial and industrial development allowed by current regulations . 3. Discussion of possible development on the following specific sites : (a ) Caltrans West (West of Superior Avenue below Newport Crest) ( b) Caltrans East ( East of Superior Avenue below Versailles Apartments ) 4 . Discussion of items to be considered at upcoming workshops . 5 . Adjournment City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 I_ { FILE COPY DO NOT REMOVE @� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH z a.� DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 41:0% �P ( 714) 640-2261 GENERAL PLAN REVIEW WORKSHOP March 14, 1978 MINUTES City Council Members Present: Peter Barrett Planning Commission Members Present: , Paul Balalis , George Cokas , Bill Frederickson , Tim Haidinger . Staff Present : Robert Wynn , City Manager; Ben Nolan , Assistant Public Works Director; Dick Hogan , Community Development Director; David Dmohowski , Advance Planning Administrator. The meeting was called to order at 7 : 30 p . m. by Community Development Director Hogan , who described the evening ' s agenda . Ben' Nolan , Assistant Public Works Director , began his presentation on the Circulation Element of the General Plan by reviewing the recent history of traffic developments in the City . He noted that the dele- tion of the Coastal Freeway has had an impact on the arterial highway system. Mr. Nolan discussed the Citywide Voorhees Traffic Study ( 1973) which evaluated the impact of future .development on the street system. Many of the future roadway improvements recommended by that study were incorporated into the Circulation Element, adopted in 1974 . Mr. Nolan pointed out that the circulation plan , as adopted, accepts traffic deficiencies in certain links such as Coast Highway in the Mariners Mile and Corona del Mar areas . He noted that some of the improvements recommended by the Voorhees Study , such as a second Upper Bay crossing and other technical solutions , were not adopted because they were not acceptable to the community. Mr. Nolan made reference to the Crommelin- Pringle Report (1976 ) prepared for the Newport Center area . -He listed the key intersection improvements and links needed to address current problem areas . Under short- and medium-range solutions , he mentioned the widening of Coast Highway , Jamboree Road, Superior Avenue , the Upper Bay Bridge , and the Bristol frontage road system. Long-range solutions include the Corona del Mar Freeway, San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, and Costa Mesa Freeway. City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 General Plan Review Workshop Minutes - March 14, 1978 Page Two Mr. Nolan continued with a description of methods of funding for circulation improvements , .and discussed the continuing shortage of funds . Funds available for local projects include the gas tax fund, Federal Aid Urban Program, and State Highway Programs . Inflation , in relation to right-of-way acquisition and construction costs , places an additional constraint on the timely completion of planned road improvements . Frank Robinson pointed out that the major improvements needed are being delayed by the shortage of funds . Dan Emory suggested that the phasing of new development should be done according to a realistic schedule for funding of road improve- ments . Dick Hogan , Community Development Director, introduced a possible approach to the phasing of new development. He indicated that many of the needed street improvements are located adjacent to major development sites and therefore the developer would bear a substan- tial responsibility for road improvements . Mr. Hogan cited examples of street improvements dependent on development in the Newport Center area and the Koll Center and Emkay developments . He identified traffic impacts not immediately adjacent to proposed development, such as University Drive and the Upper Bay Bridge, which should be considered in a phasing plan. Also, the impact of projects not subject to direct local control , such as the Corona del Mar Freeway, were cited. David Dmohowski , Advance Planning Administrator, indicated on the General Plan Map those road improvements which could be tied to a phasing plan, and commented that a limited phasing system is already in effect for developments such as Corporate Plaza. In response to questions by Jean Watt and Cal McLaughlin , Mr. Hogan described how dedications and road improvements could be obtained as part of the approval process for new development. He cited the example of road improvements install'ed as a result of development in Koll Center. Regarding needed road improvements not immediately adjacent to the development site, Mr . Hogan pointed out that the developer could provide funds to expedite road improvements to be repaid when public funds became available . This area needs to be investigated further. David Dmohowski summarized the projected additional development allowed by the General Plan in terms of projected dwelling units and square footage of commercial and industrial development. In initiating the discussion of individual development sites , David Dmohowski described the existing General Plan designation and ow.Y • General Plan Review Workshop Minutes - March 14, 1978 Page - Three zoning for the two CALTRANS properties in West Newport. " CALTRANS West," westerly of Superior Avenue , comprises 17 .2 acres . The General Plan shows this parcel for "Multi - Family" residential development, with a maximum 258 units allowable . The Planning Com- mission, at its public hearing on General Plan Amendment 78-1 -A, considered redesignating this parcel as "Medium Density Residential " at 5 DU ' s per buildable acre , allowing 64 DU ' s . Also , the Planning Commission recommended public acquisition of this site for park purposes . "CALTRANS East," easterly of Superior, involves 22 acres and is designated as Open Space on the General Plan . CALTRANS intends to dispose of this parcel through a sealed-bid auction in June , 1978. This parcel was recommended for acquisition by the City ' s parking consultant for Central Newport as a site for beach and commercial parking, and a shuttle bus service . David Reed and David Sims , representing the California Department of Transportation , pointed out that funds from sales of excess right-of- way were allocated to local road improvements Statewide , and that CALTRANS is required to get fair market value• for excess properties . Mr. Reed indicated that down-zoning of the CALTRANS parcels , as may occur through the General Plan Review, will reduce the value and therefore the revenues for highway improvements . Mr. Sims noted that the City has been given the right of first refusal on the properties . Due to the length of the meeting, it was agreed that the CALTRANS parcels would be taken up again at the Workshop meeting of March 21 , 1978. The tentative agenda -for the meeting of March 28 , 1978 was discussed and the following items were included : (a ) Aeronutronic-Ford residential and industrial sites . (b) Rogers Gardens. site and vacant residential parcel to the south . The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 30 p .m. Prepared by : Advance Planning Division DD/kk FILE CUDY ��EWPO� DO NOT REMOVE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH c� DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ...�41FORN��., ( 714) 640-2261 PRESS RELEASE 02 GENERAL PLAN REVIEW WORKSHOP U "� Date : Tuesday', March 14 , 1978 0 �� Time: 7 : 30 p.m. location : City Hall Annex Conference Room (Upstairs ) At the initial General Plan Review Workshop held March 7 , 1978, the participants discussed the purpose and goals of these informal sessions and identified agenda items to be addressed at future workshop meetings . Items to be considered at the March 14 , 1978 workshop session include the following: 1 . Presentation by staff on existing Master Plan of Streets and Highways , current and projected traffic deficiencies , schedule of road improvements , and development phasing, 2 . Presentation by staff on impacts of the General Plan in terms of projected number of dwellings and intensity of commercial and industrial development allowed by current regulations . 3. Discussion of possible development on the following specific sites : (a ) Caltrans west (West of Superior Avenue below Newport ' Crest) (b ) Caltrans East (East of Superior Avenue below Versailles Apartments ) 4. Discussion of items to be considered at upcoming workshops . For additional information , contact David Dmohowski , Advance Planning Administrator, at 640-2261 . DD: jmb Advance Planning Division March 10 ,' 1978 City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 0 � FILE COPY DO NOT REMOVE GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO . 10 "CALTRANS - WEST" General Information I . General Plan Designation : Multi -Family Residential 2 . Existing Zoning : -U- 3. Site Area : 17 . 2 acres 4 . Allowable Use (s ) : Residential - 258 units 5 . Possible Alternatives : Low-Density Residential Public Acquisition as Open Space Site Considerations Site considerations involved in this parcel include noise , slope stability, traffic and access . The property could be affected by the "'Bluff-Top" Initiative . The appropriateness and design of residential development is a site consideration , as is the extension of Balboa Boulevard , northerly from Coast Highway. Issues 1 . Density 2 . Development Phasing 3 . Loss of Open Space 4 . View from Adjacent Residential Properties 5 . Extension of Balboa Boulevard 6 . Traffic Impacts 7 . Noise Impacts 8. Compatibility with the Coastal Act of 1976 ( "Coastal Independent Uses " policies ) . d 3 m try g K �y o a • i auumup���n�u ' cogST MWY FILE COPY GENERAL PLAN REVIEW DO NOT REMOVE SITE NO . 11 "CALTRANS - EAST" General 'Information 1 . General P1an ' Designation : Recreation and Environmental Open Space 2 . Existing Zoning : -U- 3 . Site Area : 22 acres 4 . Allowable Use( s ) : Low- Intensity Recreational Uses , Open Space 5 . Possible Alternatives : Low-Density Residential Retail /Service Commercial Site Considerations Site considerations involved in the parcel include 'slope stability , noise , traffic and access . The top-most portion of the parcel is indicated on the Open Space Plan for a view park and neighborhood park. Additional site considerations include views from Superior Avenue, and the impact of the proposed Bluff-Top Initiative. Issues 1 . Traffic Impacts 2 . Development Intensity 3. Cost of Open Space Acquisition and Improvements 4 . Views from Adjacent Residential Properties 5 . Loss of Open Space o 6 . Development Phasing m 7 . Bluff-Top Initiative 8. Noise Impacts r y� 4� 9 . Slope Stability ,Erosion Control 9 a z . ui�p:•n� uumumuuu� cogsr HYvY gwo FILE COPY DO NOT REMOVE LAND USE SUMMARY ( 1995 Projection ) AREA A Commercial /Office Industrial DU ' s Floor Area Floor Area Existing/ In Process 18,912 3,062 ,059 759 , 738 Projected Additional (Undeveloped Sites ) 1 ,890a 168,000 - Proj-ected Additional (Buildout of Developed Areas ) 1 ,093 1 , 022 , 670 -16 ,858 Total 21 , 895 4 ,252 , 729 742 ,880 a Approximately 2 , 100 additional units are projected for the Beeco Property after 1995 . bDoes not include projection for possible commercial development associated with West Newport Harbor. AREA B Commercial /Office Industrial DU ' s Floor Area Floor Area Existing/In Process 12 , 768 11 ,119 ,068 1 , 389 ,454 Projected Additional ( Undeveloped Sites ) 2 , 397 5 ,455 , 778 1 ,221 ,516 . Projected Additional ( Buildout of Developed 0 744 85 ,00 Areas ) - Total 15 ,909 16 ,659 ,846 2 ,610 ,970 CITY TOTAL Commercial /Office Industrial DU ' s Floor Area Floor Area Existing/ In Process 31 ,680 14 ,181 ,127 2 ,149 , 192 Projected Additional (Undeveloped Sites ) 4 ,287 5 ,623, 778 1 , 221 , 516 Projected Additional (Buildout of Developed Sites ) 1 ,837 1 ,107 ,670 -16 ,858 Total 37 ,804 20 ,912 , 575• 3 , 353,850 FILL CO . DO NOT REMOVE June 2 , 1977 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM : Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee SUBJECT: UNDEVELOPED LANDS AND NEWPORT CENTER REPORT The Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee was assigned the task of investigating the capacity of the road system to absorb current and future land use development. It was requested that the study be returned to the Council prior to the consideration of the General Plan in June. The Committee pursued the following course: 1 . Define the task as it was understood. 2 . Set up a work schedule . 3 , Approve an outline of the report . 4 . Study available data . 5 . Draw conclusions and recommendations from the information developed . This proceedure required nine weeks , excellent cooperation from Committee members and outstanding support from the City Staff. Bill Darnell and Brenda Dyer made the entire project possible. The Committee presents the following material as its best effort to comply with the Council ' s request , Respeft-fjully A ichar'd H: Clucas Committee Chairman Attachment RHC: bcd Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Undeveloped Lands and Newport Center Report OUTLINE I . INTRODUCTION A. Objective B. Assumptions C . Source Documents II . EVALUATION SECTION A. General Plan Policy Statement B. Newport Beach Traffic Study C . Circulation Element D. Land Use Element E. Current Studies III . CONCLUSIONS IV. RECOMMENDATIONS V . EXHIBITS A-1 Map of Undeveloped Sites A-2 Table of Undeveloped and Developing Si-tes B-1 Descri.ptions of Levels of Service B-2 Picture of Descriptions of Levels of Service C-1 1976 Traffic Volumes C-2 1990-95 Projected Traffic Volumes D-1 Newport Beach Circulation Element of Master Plan of Highways Map D-2 Newport Beach Traffic Study Recommended Composite Plan E Newport Beach Traffic Study Priorities F-1 , 2, & 3 Comparison of Undeveloped Sites Traffic Projections G-1 , 2, 3 Aeronutronic-Ford Traffic Study (Traffic 4, & 5 Zone 14, Alternate Land Use Traffic Projections , Intersection Capacity Utilization Comparisons ) ss I . INTRODUCTION A. Objective To review the Land Use Element of the General Plan in the undeveloped areas of the City in relationship to the Circulation Element of the General Plan in order to determine the capability of the existing and the planned road systems to support the projected land use densities. B. Assumptions The Committee used the adopted Circulation Element as a base to determine the capacity of the road system (referring to the Voorhees Study, updated) . It reviewed the Land Use Element of the General Plan (updated) and compared it to the land use data used by Voorhees in order to determine the effect of any differences. 1 . Definition of Undeveloped Areas Outlined in map prepared by Community Development Dept. (Exhibits A-1 and A-2) "Undeveloped Sites Dated April 19, 1977" plus the uncompleted portions of the Planned Community developments - Emkay, Koll Center Newport, Newport Center and Aeronutronic-Ford. 2. Definition of Acceptable Traffic Levels of Service a) System planned for Level of Service D. See Exhibits B-1 and B-2. b) Intersection Capacity Utilization of approximately 0.9 (Comparable to Level of Service D). 3. Time Period of Evaluation Past and current data plus 1990-95 projections. It should be noted that this gives us no information on PHASING. C. Source Documents 1 . Circulation Element of the General Plan 2. Land Use Element of the General Plan 3. General Plan Policies 4. Newport Center Traffic. Study, Phase II 5. Voorhees Study, Phase III 6. Basico 7. Current studies by the City Staff II. EVALUATION SECTION A. General Plan Policy Statement The General Plan Policies are the basis for all other elements of the General -Plan. The Committee reviewed these policies in relation to the Circulation Element and the Land Use Element of the General Plan. -T- Evaluation Section Continued Inconsistencies among the General Plan Policies, Land Use Element and the Circulation Element of the General Plan identified by the Committee are: 1. Actual implementation has not followed stated goals such as: a) General Plan Policies, Page 1 , Future Growth Supporting Policy Hall "The City shall set specific limits on population and dwelling unit densities and the intensity and extent of commercial and industrial development for the general planning area as a whole, and for each individual planning area throughout the community." Example; Aeronutronics-Ford and portions of North Ford Planned Community b) General Plan Policies, Page 1 , Future Growth Supporting Policy 1i b1i "The timing and pace of 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." Example: Development continues on Coast Highway in spite of bridge bottleneck - Corporate Plaza c) General Plan Policies, Page 5, Land Use Supporting Policy 11,ell "The type and amount of commercial areas shall be limited to those which can feasibly be supported by their appropriate trade area and to those which are consistent and compatible with the prime concept and image of the community as a quali-ty, low-density residential area." Examples: 1 . 19 acres adjacent to Irvine Golf Course-Land Use changed from low-density residential to Administrative, Professional , and Financial- Commercial (General Plan Amendment No, 20). 2. Size and type of commercial developments in Newport Center, such as, Fashion Island, Corporate Plaza, Insurance Plaza and airport- related developments, such as Emkay and Koll Center Newport are not consistent with low-density residential area. It should be noted that Future Growth Supporting Policy c of the General Plan Policies, Page 2 is inconsistent with the Land Use Supporting Policy "e" of the General Plan Policies, Page 5. -2- AW • Evaluation Section Continued d) General Plan Policies, Page 8, Circulation and Transportation Supporting Policy "d" "Recognizing the vital relationship which exists between the street and highway network and the use of land, the City shall limit and control the distribution, character and intensity of all land uses which would generate increased levels of traffic beyond the capacity of the existing or planned street system." Examples: Promontory Point, Sea Island Apartments; proposed "Holiday Hotel" Site, rezoning of the 19 acres adjacent to the Irvine Golf Course to commercial ; all in the area of the intersection of Coast Highway and Jamboree Road. The actual measured traffic deficiencies are increasing as evidenced by Exhibit C-1 1976 traffic volumes. 2. The Circulation Element of the General Plan was adopted with planned deficiencies and did not provide any method to prorate the deficiencies to future land use developments. 3. There is a definite conflict in the following paragraphs contained in the General Plan Policies for Circulation and Transporta- tion: a) General Objective, Page 7 states: "to assist in the development of a total circulation system to serve the present and future needs of the Orange County region.". b) Supporting Policy "d", Page 8 states: "the City shall limit and control the distribution, character and intensity of all land uses which would generate increased levels of traffic beyond the capacity of the existing or planned street system.". B. Newport Beach Traffic Study (Voorhees Study, Phase III) 1. This Study was a concentrated three-year study and cost approximately $84,000. 2. The Study recommended a road system which would handle traffic volumes and was generally acceptable to the citizens. See Exhibit D-1 current adopted Circulation Element and Exhibit D-2 Recommended Composite Plan. 3. Attached Exhibit E from the Newport Beach Traffic Study, Phase III, shows a series of recommended priorities as a guideline for implementation. Note that there has been substantial slippage in the anticipated schedule. -3- C. Circulation Anent • 1 . Differences between the Voorhees Study and the Adopted Circulation Clement (See Exhibits D-1 and D-2). The following major changes were made in the Circulation Element as shown in the above exhibits. a) Grade separation eliminated at Coast Highway and Dover Drive b) Parts of 15th Street changed from a Primary Road to a Secondard Road c) Mariners Mile changed from a Four-Lane Primary Road Modified to a Six-Lane Major d) MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue changed to a one-way couplet e) Second Bay Crossing eliminated 2. The Bonita Canyon Corridor is not shown on the Table of Projects (Exhibit E) but it remains of the ,highest priority in traffic goals. This Corridor involves multi-jurisdictional hearings and acceptance. 3. The Back Bay Bridge improvement over Coast Highway has taken much longer to get approval than was anticipated and it is totally within the boundaries of Newport Beach. Roads are being constructed much more slowly than were anticipated. Why? a) Funds are limited b Current emphasis on public transit c) Construction costs are rising d) Environmental considerations delay or eliminate- projects D. Land Use Element - (See Exhibit A-1 and A-2 "Map and Table of Undeveloped and Developing Sites") 1 . Development in Orange County and Newport Beach in particular is proceeding at a high rate. 2. Land Use Element may undergo changes in open space with the loss of the Park Bond Issue. 3. The attached Exhibit A-2 and F-2 show the discrepancies in the Land Use used by Alan M. Voorhees and current Land Use projections that could result in higher density and increased traffic. 4. Although the General Policy Guidelines state that low density residential development is the desired goal , commercial developments are continuing on a basis that will attract sub- stantial outside traffic. E. Current Studies 1 . Exhibit C-1 shows existing traffic volumes, number of travel lanes and capacity for 1976. Exhibit C-2 shows the projected traffic volumes, number of travel lanes, and capacities for 1990-95. -4- I Current Studies Continued 2. Exhibits F-1 , F-2, and F-3 compare the land use assumptionS used by Voorhees in the Newport Beach Traffic Study with the current land use projections prepared by the Community Development Depart- ment. The description of each exhibit is as follows: a) Exhibit F-1 - Shows the undeveloped sites where •current land • use projections will not exceed the traffic volume projections used by Voorhees. b) Exhibit F-2 - Shows the undeveloped sites where current land use projections is estimated to generate traffic volumes greater than projected by Voorhees. c) Exhibit F-3 - Shows the undeveloped sites that were projected to be open space. The recent open space bond issue lost and could result in development occurring on these sites. Any development that would occur would generate traffic greater than anticipated. The Exhibit also shows three sites where significant changes in projected land uses and or building intensities could result in increased traffic. A portion of Undeveloped Site No. 1 could be developed as a Marina. Undeveloped Site No. 5 is a portion of Castaways. Undeveloped Site No. 27 is Newport Center. 3. Exhibits G-1 through G-5 show discrepancies between land use assumptions used by Voorhees, General Plan Amendment No. 31 and Alternate Land Use traffic projections for the area bounded by Jamboree Road, San Joaquin Hills Road, and MacArthur Boulevard. The exhibits are a summary of data developed by Voorhees, Aeronutronic-Ford Traffic Study by Crommelin-Pringle and Associates and City Staff. a) Exhibit G-1 - Shows the boundary of Traffic Zone 14 of the Newport Beach Traffic Study prepared by Voorhees. b) Exhibit G-2 - Shows the 1990-95 traffic volume projections for adjacent streets if the Aeronutronic-ford Site developed with 1 ,637,500 square feet of office development. c) Exhibit G-3 - Shows the Critical Intersection Capacity Utilization for specific intersections assuming 1 ,637,500 sq. ft. of office being built on the undeveloped acreage at Aeronutronic-Ford. The exhibit also compares the ICU generated by the office use to light industry and residential uses. d) Exhibit G-4 - Compares Voorhees -' Traffic Zone 14 traffic projections td Alternate Land Use traffic projections for the area. -5- Current Studies Continued e) Exhibit G-5 - Shows 1990-95 traffic volume projections and capacities for the 1 ,637,500 sq. ft. office alternative in Traffic Zone No. 14. 4. Newport Center Traffic Study, Phase II prepared by Crommelin- Pringle and Associates. III . CONCLUSIONS A. The demand on the road system in 1976 exceeded its capacity to provide acceptable service. B. Projections to 1995 indicate that the demand on the road system in 1995 will exceed its capacity to provide acceptable service. C. The rate of implementation of commercial , industrial , and residential developments, which create the transportation demand, is exceeding the rate of implementation of the adopted road system. This problem in phasing road construction and development is already severe and appears to be getting worse. D. The extensive development of regional commercial and tourist centers is in conflict with the City's land use policy to protect the image• of the community as a low-density residential and recreation area orientated toward the bay and beaches. Such commercial and tourist development compounds current and projected traffic problems related to the natural marine attractions of the bay and beaches. E. The natural attraction of the bay and beach marine environment of Newport Beach adds unusual dimensions to its traffic problems. The peak demand traffic load on many critical portions of the traffic system occurs on weekends as contrasted to the more normal weekday peaks, and is heavier' in the summer than the winter. The peak loads on a given day occur typically in the afternoon and are more spread out in time than is normally encountered. These characteristics of the peak loads are important because the impact of new traffic on the transportation system depends heavily on how much it contributes to the peak loads. Roadway systems are limited by the peak traffic loads they can carry. F. Inadvertent errors in land use projections in Traffic Zone 14 will result in significantly increased traffic volumes as compared to the Alan M. Voorhees Study in the area bounded by Jamboree Road - MacArthur Blvd. - Coast Highway - Bristol Street. These errors require a reevaluation of the Newport Beach Traffic Study and the Newport Center Traffic Study, Phase II. G. Major segments of the 1995 proposed road system may never be developed; or they may be developed much more slowly than anticipated. In general , the City is following a strategy of opportunistic piecemeal implementation of the proposed road system. This strategy results in low costs to the City because right-of-way dedication is required as a condition of development. However, the capacity of a piecemeal road system is the capacity of the most restricted segment. -7- Conclusions Continued H. The completion time and in some cases, the ultimate fate of the follow- ing projects, is presently unknown. I . The Coast liighway Bridge - This can serve as an example of time .slippage. 2. The San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. 3. Coast Highway expansion to six lanes from MacArthur to the Santa Ana River. 4. University Drive extension 5. Jamboree Road expansion Significant traffic problems related to undeveloped areas center around Newport Center and North towards the airport. J. There are and will continue to be traffic problems in the City of Newport Beach, some of which are attributablb to circumstances beyond the City's control such as regional trends and changes. K. Since there are obvious current and future deficiencies, there are three basic alternatives: 1 . Accept increasing congestion, travel time and air pollution. 2. Substantially expand the road system. 3. Decrease the intensity of development. L. Some of the undeveloped areas depicted in Exhibit A may not be developed by 1995 to the levels implied by the City's General Plan. Therefore, in certain portions of the Circulation System, traffic loads in 1995 may not reach the levels projected by Voorhees. On the other hand, if all undeveloped lands were fully developed by 1995, traffic volumes on most roadway segments would exceed those projected by Voorhees. -B- IV. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Individual road sizes should not exceed levels that are consistent with the image of Newport Beach as a low-density residential and recreation area oriented toward the local marine environment. This means that the Major roads should not exceed six lanes with a reasonable number of right turn and left turn lanes.. Intersections of 10-12 lanes total are unacceptable. B. The design criteria of the roadway systems should be approximately 0.9 ICU or Level of Service D. C. Land development must be limited to, and phased with the capacity of the road system. The development of the road system and requisite definite financing program should precede in time, or be simultaneous with, the property development that generates the traffic load. D. The emphasis on development of the undeveloped areas in the City, except that area north of Bristol, should be on low-density residential and open space. Residential development or open space generates much lower traffic load than either commercial or industrial development. E. Commercial development of a regional rather than a local character should be discouraged. Commercial development impacts more heavily on our peak load problems than does industrial , service, or residential development. F. Road development must catch up with the land development that has already taken place., This may require a selective moratorium on certain developments as well as intensified efforts to develop planned road facilities. G. Because of the uncertainties of the development and timing of some major segments of the City's Circulation System, the City should take a conservative approach in its development plans. H. Specific intensity limits should be specified for all industrial and commercial zones. I. Defer construction of all tourist oriented commercial construction until there is clear evidence that this type of development can be accommodated by the road system. -9- .y ME COPY � DO NOT REMOVE J CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Gt►Foa�'`r : DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (714) 640-2261 GENERAL PLAN REVIEW WORKSHOP Tuesday, March 7 , 1978 AGENDA 1 . Background (a ) Purpose and Goals of General Plan Review. (b ) Description of Undeveloped Parcels and 'Development allowed by the General Plan . (c ) Development Phasing. 2 . Discussion of possible goals , procedures and subjects to be covered in workshop sessions . 3 . Establi.shment of workshop schedule for reviewing 'major development proposals . 4 . Public Discussion. 5 . Adjournment. City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 • CITY COUNCIL -MOTII-ON GENERAL PLAN REVIEW WAHOP (FEBRUARY 27, 1978) EACH TUESDAY, STARTING MARCH 7, AT A TIME CERTAIN IN THESE CHAMBERS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND WITH A PUBLISHED AGENDA, A SERIES OF WEEKLY COMMUNICATION MEETINGS WITH THE STAFF, THE LAWMAKERS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE COUNCIL, CONCERNED CITIZENS, AND ANYONE ELSE. PURPOSE IS FOR SPECIFIC COMMUNICATION ON SPECIFIC PROJECTS AND/OR PROPOSED PROJECTS OF ALL UNDEVELOPED LAND IN TOWN. STAFF TO BE THE CONDUCTING AGENCY UNLESS WE HAVE AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATE PERSON DESIGNATED, THERE SHOULD BE NO VOTING, BUT HOPEFULLY MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE THAT CAN BE FITTED INTO PLANNING COMMISSION AND SUBSEQUENT COUNCIL DELIBERATIONS. (Amended to state the time as 7:30 p. m. ) i 0 CITY COUNCIL MOTION ON GENERAL PLAN REVIEW (OCTOBER 17, 1977 ) Motion to re-examine the General Plan elements as needed to reassess the four issues identified in the -report dated October 11 , 1977 from the Community' Development Department as follows : 1 . Intensity of Development (a ) Adjust intensity of development to assure a balance between development and support systems including circulation system, sewer, water, and energy systems . (b) Focus General Plan review on density designations and intensity of development for major undeveloped sites . 2 . Traffic (a) Accept deficiencies at a specified limit in certain segments of the circulation system. (.b) Prepare a development schedule which will assure that deficiencies will not exceed a specified limit between the present time and ultimate development. (c) Accelerate development of traffic facilities that would improve levels of service accommodating growth both inside and outside the City. (d) Expand the City !s involvement in promoting solutions to regional transportation problems especially, in the- areas of air traffic , mass transit and highway improvements . 3. Cost/Revenue Impact .(a) Emph•asize.- re-sidential development rather_ than: commercial development- wherever "possible . . (b) De-emphasize development of new tourist=related facilities. - (c) Dete-rmine the fi4ca.1 impact of major commercial /office developments sudh .as- Newport Center. 4, Environmental Quality _ - (a )- Identify areas where new- development can be accommodated with the least- potential for environmental damage . Issues I ,' ?- and 4 to receive higher priority than Issue 3 at this - time, and ' that •Item 4 regarding the possible need for additional consultant services be deleted from the Suggested Work Program in the same document. Further, the following goals were set for the Planning Commission : Continued on Back . . . i 1 . The development of a phasing schedule. 2. Consideration of the impact of potential development on the physical support systems and reset limits on intensities as needed. FILL- COPY DO NOT REMOVE A ;' en CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH il ac DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �4Fow�'P. (714 ) 640-2261 GENERAL PLAN REVIEW WORKSHOP March 7 , 1978 MINUTES City Council Members Present : Peter Barrett , Milan Dostal , Don McInnis Planning Commission Members Present: William Frederickson Staff Present: Robert Wynn , City Manager ; Richard Hogan , Community Development Director; David Dmohowski , Advance Planning Administrator. The workshop meeting was called to order by City Manager Robert Wynn at 7: 30 p . m. Mr. Wynn discussed the goals and purpose of the General Plan Review workshops , citing the City Council ' s motion of February 27 , 1978 as follows : "Each Tuesday, starting March 7 , at a time certain in these chambers open to the public and with a published agenda , a series of weekly communication meetings with the staff, the lawmakers , the Planning Commission , the Council , concerned citizens , and anyone else. Purpose is for specific communication on specific projects and/ or proposed projects of all undeveloped land in town . Staff to be the conducting agency unless we have an acceptable alternate person designated. There should be no voting , but hopefully meaningful dialogue that can be fitted into Planning Commission and subsequent Council deliberations . " Mr. Flynn indicated that it would be desirable to establish a specific schedule for consideration of individual development proposals for the major vacant parcels . In concluding , he indicated that one of the primary goals of these workshop meetings was to arrive at an acceptable level of development in the City. In initiating the public discussion , Frank Robinson stated that road improvements should be the primary consideration in the General Plan Review, indicating that priorities for road improvements and methods of funding need to be established prior to addressing the issue of land use intensity. City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 General Plan Review Workshop Minutes - March 7, 1978 Page Two Glen Martin , representing the Chamber of Commerce , stressed that road improvements deserve priority, but that economic growth should not be stiffled as a result of circulation deficiencies . He indicated that regionally generated through-traffic , not local development, was the cause of the City ' s circulation problem. Mr. Wynn suggested that it might be helpful to all of those participating in the workshop sessions for the staff to make a presentation , at a future meeting, regarding current and projected circulation problems , describing existing deficiencies and levels of service, and describing a schedule for planned roadway improvements . He indicated this could be accomplished at the March 14, 1978 meeting . Bill Ficker expresed the opinion that a general description of the City ' s circulation plan and a review of road problems was desirable to bring everyone up to the same level of information. A possible schedule for reviewing circulation problems and specific development sites was discussed. Allan Beek suggested, as a possible approach to the phasing of new development , that the additional average daily traffic trips that the circulation system is capable of handling be allocated among the vacant development sites , with new development being limited by roadway capacity. Community Development Director Hogan responded by indicating that the Traffic Model now under development will indicate .where traffic deficiencies might occur given future development. Mr. Hogan described the Traffic Model tests now being con.ducted stating that the City will be able to evaluate the results of no additional development versus the effects on the traffic system of ultimate development allowed by the existing General Plan . Mr. Wynn suggested that it might be useful to present, at the next meeting, an overview of the impacts of future development allowed by the General Plan . As a result of discussion , a review of development contemplated by the General Plan was added to the workshop agenda for March 14 , 1978. Cal McLaughlin, a member of the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee , made reference to an analysis of traffic problems prepared by that committee in June of 1977. He advised those in attendance that traffic problems are well established, and that emphasis should be placed on developing solutions to traffic problems . He indicated a need for a more-reasonable schedule of road improvements ba.sed on the availability of public funds for road construction . General Plan Review Workshop Minutes - March 7 , 1978 Page Three Tim Strader, representing Koll Center Newport , stated that he supports the approach suggested by the City Council motion on the workshops and as suggested by the staff in the proposed schedule distributed with the agenda . Lyman Faulkner stated that the expertise , organization , and influence of those individuals and groups represented should be directed toward a solution of the City ' s traffic problems . Again , Mr . Wynn stated that traffic problems and a summary of projected development would be presented at the next meeting. David Neish , representing The Irvine Company , expressed the view that discussion at these workshops should be limited to the level of General Plan land use and circulation issues rather than to very specific aspects of site planning for the major parcels . He discussed the willingness of The Irvine Company to present development proposals at future meetings . Based on discussion , an agenda was established for the March 14 , 1978 meeting which included the following items : 1 . Description of the adopted Master Plan of Streets and Highways , results of previous traffic studies , schedule of road improvements , and methods of funding . 2 . A summary of future development allowed by the General Plan and potential impacts . 3. Discussion of possible development on the Caltrans parcels in West Newport ( Sites 10 and 11 ) . It was indicated that The Irvine Company would be prepared to discuss the following sites at the workshop meeting of March 21 , - 1978: (a ) Westbay (b ) Newporter North ( c ) Big Canyon Area 10 ( d) Freeway Reservation West Cal McLaughlin inquired of staff how the results of the workshop sessions will be used in the Planning Commission ' s and City Council ' s deliberations on the General Plan Review. Mr. Hogan responded that minutes of the workshop meetings will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council to assist in their review of the General Plan . General Plan Review Workshop Minutes - March 7, 1978 Page Four Mrs . Skinner, in commenting on future workshop sessions , indicated that the Annex Conference Room was .more conducive to informal discussion than the Council Chambers . After discussion , it was agreed that future meetings would be held in the Annex Conference Room, with an attempt made to limit the meetings to two hours in duration . There being no further discussion , the workshop meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p .m. Prepared by : Advance Planning Division DD:jmb Copy Site No . Residential Parcels p0 NOT REMOVE 1 Westbay 2 Eastbluff Remnant (Land Trade Remnant) 3 Newporter North 4 Big Canyon Area 10 6 Fifth Avenue Parcels 7 Freeway Reservation West 8 Baywood Expansion .10 Caltrans - West 12 Beeco Parcels Site No . Commercial Parcels 15 Koll Center 16 Emkay P . C . 17 Jamboree and MacArthur 18 San. Diego Creek North 20 North Ford 23 MacArthur/Avocado 24 Newport Village 25 Corporate Plaza West 26 Block 800 - Pacific Mutual 27 Coast Highway/Jamboree 28 Prudential - Block 600 29 Civic Plaza Site No . Mixed Use (Residential and/or 'Commercial ) 5, 22 Castaways g,, Newport Center Condominium Site 11 Caltrans - East 13, 30 Aeronutronic-Ford 14 Residential Parcel South of Roger' & Garden's 19 San Diego Creek South 21 Bayview Landing • _ u Vim.. • .._—.��.. ---. - _ � � �— y - _ ...�'1• ..• -'n • PROJECTS OVER 10,000 SQ. FT, CURRENTLY IN PLAN CHECK Expected Project Sq . Ft. Plan Check Permit Date • Issuance Aeronutronic-Ford Ind,.JOffice Building, 1229900 11 -16-77 3-1 -78 Koll Center Newport • Office Towers 397,000' 12-19-72 3-15-78 Koll Center Newport 11 Building Office Complex 117,850 9-.19-77 3-3-78 Koll Center Newport• , Office Building 26 ,400 2-23-78 3-30-78 — Corporate Plaza Office Building 225200 8-29-77 2-28-7V Corporate Plaza Office Building 17,500' 12-20-77 3-30-78 City Library • Newport Center 14,400 .2-17-78 3720-78 OFFICE CONDOS 117, 000 sq . ft . ?RoJEGTS 4KEATSR '\" �® OFFICE 26 ,000 sq . ft . ,+ KOLL TWIN TOWERS 397 ,000 sq . ft. TRAM IV,0004; ` / � AERONUT.RONIC-FORD 122 ,000 sq . ft. CORPORATE PLAZA 17,000 sq . ft. ,-� 22 ,000 sq . ft . ewport Bead ® statistical divisions statistical areas IL dOM iju \\+5 1\ dZ � l.• i 'hry��r h�^may �~)AB � ij� V `tom SL�.4•� ��`,`'a\$�''�•'^ t:• ,• n � � C- � � p of 1 S �© �'9 /"d. `'�r "� _ \,l '�� %, S'��•st:`• 7V1� --,L X �r �'`'+�,�'" ,! �,3.._ - �-.F i .rat I• f�, y, '�^• \ C �z� 7 C" o=` f m , \, - ,..,;i{, ro +.'1.°vr \.:':y �' \x •::'--'(i\ �\ :� j4H\2:,� ��'s�����s:'�j�"' ��'�� a. ,,a �, �? .:•.7f. �' � �"+ l� •`!• ll`'� f-•,•... 7� i . �. �` Wiz, •,,c 3� ��� 17 i� t - .� •,. •�' �J�; t....:::: `x • \.• , ,,<Al• U \�/`y���I./)nI\Vtda-J�j/ u� �jj",I 4\',r V r 11 I � � � ~�� •��Cj�+r�<�x �s.a� �� �`'� , _ ems`^-:a�4 S h '•mil' �-�J i[��_i it �5t•�`{�.�-. /�]x� \ • \• 7 •/� - ': 1^I� ,� r. r � _` tP/�'' ' i1� '^Lq— \,l ft7v® tl�•.` �,a��:y,7'I..•;31 , ..r r•. ` � \ f.,•>` � M/ �� I� +.i - Vr f; � '.Y� r_^��i.),Jl_ �� tLu• L� �y� :,j••. nx i fah � \� 7B�.�nJ�Q�� �� •�/,'• . � '� �! ..+{-���,�,"`.. \'v �`� y- .'7 ! ;i - ` ...,,, .,`'t ` � - "� �S'� '�"��i;4•' ' r_a. �r. F f1 \t', � �t• / �'�C�' .�jQ12 1 �'yN4['_ J . . r -�- - } .. �� •••1l,.rs ea,• �—.-:_-_____ _ �„ :i - lu ` ,1"� / '•�/ � �•..xid�h3� Gf7 Gil k„P,yj�+.�,.+r:Y""'^f ? \ � �"*v� -.L •„ J ' arr%li" L . ., '•�!i �.K.._�. � rrl`q��, Qa. y�,€�q - _ r.�.,j(�(I ,(i� ,N• � ��'��o ,"�• -., - - :y,t . � , r38� 4L€1.��!.'�'1`• ,i �� _ Y. ��..�(�Si lC �y�7'• �Pa•1 ; Y,ep+j)�O�iOe��'� � `�J•,� "_�"��- i'r�.'--+-°i' _�" c=ap�� �3 �� s� �. �� :I a ..,ec`� •' � V'�p� •"]l�,fi�Y +�F yT(`�1 ?�� ��('ll� i�\ ,��.,� }ljU,. �.' h, - � �� ., 1 olY ,l�up��G '.,n:.�.:.i'a�--"^•_ r � �. 'I tt IS1f1 .CJf� _J'� r \tt<, q . -4dr CrrS�^�/�: =r^rFj.'fi T,$.r._ •- "_"\ , �� t \ � ar:%"=L.,•'+ ;7y^ • � is ,1 pE�.G`='�� l } - prepared by Advance Planning ,... -.,.. ., ��.,.. . ....ate._...._. - .. �... yJ , FILE- COPY GENERAL PLAN REVIEW 00 NOT REMOVE Undeveloped Parcels MARCH 1978 ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION m d I - - f MANN Oil M � y 5jr will MENUS��-per-� tlt �i �`,\�� �4a...sr Tltl `,,•+ �,�^ci - _ • .Y, r • GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO . 1 "WESTBAY " General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Recreational and Environmental Open Space/Medium Density Residential 2 . Existing Zoning : P . C . (No development plan adopted) i 3 . Site Area : Approximately 58 acres 4 . Allowable Use ( s ) : Residential , 348 units 5 . Possible Alternatives : Public acquisition as open space i Site Considerations Site considerations indicated in the City/TIC "Task Force Report on Undeveloped Parcels " were : . . . noise , the bluffs , archaeology and paleontology , soils, drainage dredge deposits , the marsh area , the public ' s desire for open space , the relocatable pedestrian and bicycle paths , and access points that are required as part of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve area . The open space element indicates that a neighborhood park and view park would be developed on the site . The site planning could be significantly impacted by the "bluff top initiative" . 4 1 E { DR• Issues R 1 . Loss of Open Space 2 . Density 3 . Views from Irvine Boulevard l 4 . Noise Impacts 5 . Impact on Ecological Reserve ` 6 . University Drive Extension 7 . Development Phasing UMEK NEwPOier 8. Traffic Impacts DAY 9 . Compatibility with Coastal Act i of 1976 < � i GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO. 2 "EAST BLUFF REMNANT" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Recreation and Environmental Open Space/Medium Density Residential ; 2 . Existing Zoning: R-3-B 3. Site Area : 8.8 acres 4. Allowable Use(s ) : Residential , 84 units 5 . Possible Alternatives : Public acquisition as open space Site Considerations Site considerations indicated in the City/TIC "task force report" were : " . . .access , bluffs/slope , soils , geology, paleontology and drainage. " The parcel is immediately adjacent to the Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, Issues 1 . Access to Site 2. Impact Development on Ecological Reserve 3. Public Acquisition as Open Space 4. Proposed Bluff-Top Initiative 5 . Loss of Open Space 6 . Density 7 . Drainage and Erosion Control 8. Traffic Impacts 9 . Development Phasing urrER N OAY RT GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO. 3 ".NEWPORTER NORTH" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Medium-Density Residential 2 . Existing Zoning : P . C . (no development plan adopted) 3. Site Area : 88 acres 4 . Allowable Use (s ) : Residential ; 704 units 5 . Possible Alternatives : Public acquisition as open space Site Considerations The City/TIC "Task Force Report" indicated the following site considera- tions : " . . . 1 ) a major archaeology site , 2) portions of site along Jamboree Road are within the 60-65-70 CNEL contours , 3) bluffs , 4) marsh , 5 ) flora and fauna , and 6 ) soils . " The project would be affected by the Atherton "Bluff-Top" Initiative . The Open Space Plan indicates a neighborhood and a view park on the site . Issues 1 . Loss of Open Space 2 . Density gix� 3. Impact on Ecological Preserve 4 . Compatibility with Coastal Act of 1976 5 . Improvements to Jamboree Road Fob 6 . Views from Jamboree Road ?� 7 . Noise Impacts along Jamboree 8. Drainage and Erosion Control 9 . Slope Stability r gg 10 . Development Phasing 11 . Traffic Impacts r� y - '�co GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO. 4 "BIG CANYON AREA 10'" General. Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Multi-Family Residential 2 . Existing Zoning: P.C . 3. Site Area : 15 acres (approximately) 4 . Allowable Use(s ) : Residential ; 338 units 5 . Possible Alternatives : Medium-Density Residential Site Considerations Site considerations indicated in the City/TI-C "Task Force Report" were: " . . .consideration related to soils , geology, access and drainage . " Issues 1 . Loss of Open Space 2 . Density 3. Access to Developments 4 . Traffic Impacts 5 . Development Phasing 6 . Slope Stability d� giro � W � .rdyQ4W"ILLS � h 1 N�w�oRr LENTFM q� jCDIhr GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO . 5 "CASTAWAYS - RESIDENTIAL" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Medium-Density Residential and Recreational and Marine Commercial 2 . Existing Zoning: P . C . -- No development text 3 . Site Area : 40 acres 4 . Allowable Use( s ) : Residential ; 320 units 5 . Possible Alternatives : Public acquisition as open space Tourist-related commercial Site Considerations Site considerations indicated in the City/TIC "Task Force Report" were . . bluffs , public access , traffic , the bridge improvements , and the discussions regarding a second bay crossing. The project would be affected by the proposed "Bluff-Top" Initiative . The Open Space Plan indicates a neighborhood and view park on site . Possible conflicts between Coastal Act of 1976 (policies on coastal dependent uses ) and City character. Visually prominent site . Issues 1 . Loss of Open Space 2 . Traffic Impacts 3 . Possible Second Bay Crossing w 4 . Impact on Ecological Reserve 5 . Views from Dover Drive 6 . View from Homes West of Dover ' Drive 7 . Coastal Act Policies on Coastal - Dependent Uses urrER 8. "Bluff-Top" Initiative Na^PORr 9 . Slope Stability 10 . Community Character with Resort/ Restaurant Development 11 . Bluff Protection , Erosion Control ��F GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO. 6 "5th AVENUE CORRIDOR PARCELS" General Information 1 . General Plan Designations : Medium-Density Residential 2 . Existing Zoning: P .C . , R-1 -B 3. Site Area : A = 6 acres ; B = 9 acres ; C = 19 acres 4 . Allowable Use(s ) : Residential , 204 units 5 . Possible Alternatives : Low-Density Residential Public Acquisition as Open Space Site Considerations Site considerations indicated in the City/The Irvine Company "Task Force Report" Were " . . . traffic and open space. " Issues 1 . Fifth Avenue Corridor 2. Density 3. View from Ad3acent Residences 4. Development Phasing 5. Traffic Impacts r e nleigc STtt / /� AVE 00 y� h 0 0 GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO . 7 " FREEWAY RESERVATION WEST" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Recreational and Environmental Open Space 2 . Existing Zoning : P .C . -- No development text 3. Site Area : 10 acres (approximately) 4 . Allowable Use (s ) : Open Space General Plan 5 . Possible Alternatives : Amendment required for residential development Site Considerations Site considerations indicated in the City/The Irvine Company "Task Force Report" were " . . .noise , open space , land use , and the design of the one-way couplet. " The use of the project site will be seriously impacted by the ultimate design of the one-way couplet. Issues 1 . Loss of Open Space s 2 . Intensity of Development 3 . Design of Avocado/MacArthur One-Way Couplet 4. Appropriate Uses Adjacent to the One-Way Couplet 5 . Noise Impacts 6 . Development Phasing 7 . Traffic Impacts a � o ' �4 s Lg0.67 HWY GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO . 8 "BAYWOOD EXPANSION" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Multi -Family Residential 2. Existing Zoning : P.C. (Amendment required) 3. Site Area : 10 acres 4. Allowable Use(s ) : Residential , 150 units 5 . Possible Alternatives : Public acquisition with open space Low-Density Residential Site Considerations Site considerations . indicated in the City/The Irvine Company "Task Force Report" were " . . . traffic , shape size, noise , access , and land use . " Issues 1 . Density 2 . Noise 3. Access to Property 4. Visual Prominence of Project 5 . Improvements to MacArthur Boulevard 6 . Development Phasing 7. Traffic Impacts 0 W �N J �D P/4alP7c �LY1sT- �YF GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO . 9 "NEWPORT CENTER CONDOMINIUMS" -Block 800- General Information 1 . General Plan Desigatnion : Multi -Family Residential 2 . Existing Zoning : P .C . (No development plan adopted) 3 . Site Area : 9 acres 4 . Allowable Use (s ) : Residential , 315 units 5 . Possible Alternatives : Commercial /Office Site Considerations Site considerations indicated in the City/The Irvine Company "Task Force Report" included " . . . traffic and Newport Center Development Limitations resolutions . " The appropriateness of an intense high-residential project in relationship to traffic impacts and community character. Issues 1 . Development Intensity 2 . Traffic Impacts 3. Community Character 4. Development Phasing 5 . Traffic Patterns : Residential a vs . Commercial Use N !r �N NI4s 1 � tr •l(ip rr is P � NEWPo ■■G jq .EEEEtE�fflfl : P GOAsT //H.yn��E1/j ?Am fIL GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO . 10 "CALTRANS - WEST" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Multi -Family Residential 2 . Existing Zoning: -U- 3. Site Area : 17.2 acres 4. Allowable Use(s ) : Residential - 258 units 5 . Possible Alternatives : Low-Density Residential Public Acquisition as Open Space Site Considerations Site considerations involved in this parcel include noise, slope stability, traffic and access . The property could be affected by the "Bluff-Top" Initiative. The appropriateness and design of residential development is a site consideration , as is the extension of Balboa Boulevard , northerly from Coast Highway. Issues 1 . Density 2. Development Phasing 3. Loss of Open Space 4. View from Adjacent Residential Properties 5. Extension of Balboa Boulevard 6 . Traffic Impacts 7. Noise Impacts 8. Compatibility with the Coastal Act of 1976 ( "Coastal Independent Uses" policies ) . u m h� 1- � o � z �3 cow W`f �4 s� I` • • GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO . 11 "CALTRANS - EAST" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Recreation and Environmental Open Space 2 . Existing Zoning : -U- 3. Site Area: 22 acres 4. Allowable Use (s ) : Low-Intensity Recreational Uses , Open Space 5 . Possible Alternatives : Low-Density Residential Retail /Service Commercial Site Considerations Site considerations involved in the parcel include slope stability, noise, traffic and access . The top-most portion of the parcel is indicated on the Open Space Plan for a view park and neighborhood park . Additional site considerations include views from Superior Avenue, and the impact of the proposed Bluff-Top Initiative . Issues 1 . Traffic Impacts 2 . Development Intensity 3. Cost of Open Space Acquisition and Improvements 4 . Views from Adjacent Residential Properties 5 . Loss of Open Space A 6 . Development Phasing 7. Bluff-Top Initiative m 8. Noise Impacts 9. Slope Stability, \ Erosion Control ° Inc'VA_-5r NWY� 84'0 GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO. 12 "BEECO - RESIDENTIAL" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Medium-Density Residential / Specific Area Plan 2 . Existing Zoning : County "A-1 " 3. Site Area : 150 acres (approximately) 4 . Allowable Use(s ) : Residential, 900 units 5. Possi'ble Alternatives : Public Acquisition as Open Space Low-Density Residential Site Considerations Site considerations involved in this site include bluff stability, soils , noise, traffic, view potential , road extensions , fl-ora and fauna , and noise. The property could be affected by the Bluff- Top Initiative . The compatibility of the project with adjacent oil extraction. The Open Space Plan shows a continuous greenbelt along the bluff and series of views and neighborhood parks . The development of the project should take into account the possibility of a small -craft harbor in the area . Issues 1 . Density 2 . Development Phasing 3. Traffic Impacts 4. City ' s Annexation Policies 44 5 . Loss of Open 'Space 6. Cost/Revenue Impacts 7. Flora/Fauna Impacts hc. 8. Compatibility with Coastal 6 `` Act of 1976 ° 9 . Compatibility with Future Small -Craft Harbor •h a 10. Compatibility with Adjacent �1 Wildlife Habitat �w.ww eons- ,HWY c� GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO. 13 "AERONUTRONIC-FORD RESIDENTIAL" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Medium-Density Residential 2 . Existing Zoning : P . C . , no development plan adopted 3. Site Area : 109 acres (approximately) 4 . Allowable Uses : Residential , 650 units (approximately) 5 . Possible Alternatives : Low-Density Residential Commercial /Office Site Considerations This is a visually-prominent site adjacent to an existing industrial / office development . Design considerations include grading , slope stability , and interface with adjacent industrial uses . Substantial open space will be dedicated as a condition of, approval for residential development. Issues 1 . Density 2 . Grading , Slope Stability 3. Traffic Impacts 4 . Erosion Control aiooN 5 . Design and Accessibility of Open Space Areas a w � 4 ��F ORD RD. GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO. 14 "RESI•DENTIAL PARCEL SOUTH OF ROGER' S GARDENS" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Medium-Density Residential 2 . Existing Zoning: R-1 -B 3. Site: 12 Acres 4. Allowable Use(s ) : Residential , 60 units (approximately) 5 . Possible Alternatives : Commercial Office Site Considerations The site consideration indicated in the City/The Irvine Company "Task Froce Report" for this site were " . . .circulation , access , noise, and land use. " The considerations of appropriateness of 1-and use designation and compatibility with adjacent residential and commercial development is a site consideration . The site is visually prominent and looks down on adjacent residential developments and Newport Center. Issues 1 . Appropriate Land Use 2. Development Intensity 3. Development Phasing S S� 4. Traffic Impacts W 5 . Noise K evRD Rp 6 . Impact on Adjacent Residential 4 7. Extension of San Miguel i *"IAdYoN Drive ' M41s h P Ower_ �F,L �p '� fk �St yh'Y • • GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO . 15 "KOLL CENTER" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation: Administrative , Professional and Financial Commercial ; Retail and Service Commercial ; General Industry 2 . Existing Zoning : P .C . - Development Text 3. Site Area : 159 acres , approximately 35 acres vacant 4 . Allowable Use ( s ) : Office , Commercial , General Industry 5 . Possible Alternatives : Site Considerations Currently , there are 1 ,605 ,845 sq . ft . of 'development existing and in process . The zoning allows an additional 1 ,298,930 sq . ft. of development; 1 , 207, 200 sq . ft. additional is proposed . Site considerations involved in the buildout of Koll Center Newport include traffic impact , development intensity, development phasing, the timing of improvements to roadways to serve the area and surrounding area . 11 Issues 1 . Development Intensity etu 2 . Development Phasing g 3 . Traffic Impacts 4 . Impact on Air Traffic nsur ~•"uno BRISTOL L1 N 1 YER"T 9 GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO . 16 "EMKAY - NEWPORT PLACE" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Administrative , Professional and Financial Commercial , General Industry, and Retail and Service Commercial 2. Existing Zoning : P.C . - Development Text 3. Site Area : 145 acres , approximately 11 acres vacant 4. Allowable Use(s ) : Research and Development Commercial/Office 5 . Possible Alternatives : Site Considerations At present, this development comprises 20108, 080 square feet of development existing and in process . The zoning allows an additional 473,928 sq . ft. ; 418,000 sq . ft. additional is proposed by the developer. Site considerations involved in the buildout of the Emkay Planned Community include traffic impacts , development intensity, development phasing and the timing of improvements to the circulation system. I Issues L . Development Intensity 2 . Development Phasing / 3. Traffic Impacts f j 4. Impact on Air Traffic mp � CR15TDi.. 7 • GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO. 17 "JAMBOREE AND MACARTHUR" General Information • 1 . General Plan Designation : Retail and Service Commercial and Administrative , Professional and Financial Commercial 2 . Existing Zoning : -U- 3. Site : 2 acres 4. Allowable Use (s ) : Offices , Retail Commercial , Restaurants 5 . Possible Alternatives : Site Considerations The site considerations indicated in the City/The Irvine Company "Task Force Report" were " . . . a proposed freeway loop ramp could seriously impact the shape , size and use of this site . . . .Access points for the site are not established. However , there probably will be limited access off MacArthur. The realignment of MacArthur may require adjustments to the City boundary . " Issues 1 . Development Intensity 2 . Traffic Impacts 3. Development Phasing 4 . Access to Site fR15TD� 9i'. / 000daQoML o/� aR6�a� 4T q � c ki- h GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO . 18 "SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Retail and Service Commercial 2 . Existing Zoning: -U- 3. Size: 12 acres 4. Allowable Use (s ) : Hotel , Restaurant, Retail Commercial 5 . Possible Alternatives : Light Industry, Office Site Considerations The site considerations indicated in the City/The Irvine Company "Task Force Report" were " . . . noise, seismic hazards, soils , potential floor hazard, drainage , and access . In addition , the realignment of MacArthur may require minor adjustments to the City boundary. " Issues 1 . Extension of University Drive 2 . Development Intensity 1. Development Timing 4. Traffic Impacts 5 . Impact do San Diego Creek 6. Impact on Ecological Preserve �� 7. Potential Hazard Area 8. Access a? 9. Consistency with Coastal s Act of 1976 o �, GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO . 19 "SAN DIEGO CREEK - SOUTH" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : General Industry 2 . Existing Zoning: -U- 3 . Site Area : 47 acres 4 . Allowable Use ( s ) : Light Industrial , Office 5 . Possible Alternatives : Low- Intensity Commercial Recreation Site Considerations The site considerations indicated in the City/The Irvine Company "Task Force Report" were . . noise , seismic hazard, soils , potential flood hazard, drainage , and access . In addition , the realignment of MacArthur Boulevard may require minor adjustments to the City boundary . Site considerations also include the extension of University Drive and improvements to MacArthur Boulevard. Issues 1 . Development Intensity 2 . Development Phasing V, 3 . Traffic Impacts 4 . Access 5 . Potential Hazard Area 6 . Extension of University Drive 7 . Impact San Diego Creek 8. Impact Ecological Preserve 9 . Consistency with Coastal Act of 1976 �-y Y� Z 43 G 7 GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO. 20 "NORTH FORD" General Informatiom 1 . General Plan Designation: General Industry and Retail and , Service Commercial 2 . Existing Zoning: P .C. - Development Text 3. Size: 65+ acres 4 . Allowable Use(s) : Retail , Office , Commercial 5. Possible Alternatives : Site Considerations Development consists of 157,278 square feet of floor area existing or under construction. Zoning allows an additional 715,000 square feet. The site considerations indicated in the City/The Irvine Company "Task Force Report" were the conditions of approval of the tentative map on the industrial site and the extension of Bison Avenue . Other considerations include the improvements to Ford Road, Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Issues 1 . Development Intensity 2 . Development Phasing 3. Traffic Impacts 4. Impact on Air Traffic VONA FaRv ci- s w air r �oJKt HWj. GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO . 21 "BAYVIEW LANDING" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Recreational and Marine Commercial 2 . Existing Zoning: -U- 3 . Size : 19 acres 4 . Allowable Use (s ) : Commercial Recreation , Tourist Commercial 5 . Possible Alternatives : Public Acquisition as Open Space , Low Density Residential Site Considerations The site considerations indicated in the City/The Irvine Company "Task Force Report" were " . . . traffic , access , relationship to Dunes , the bluffs , and the acceptability of a hotel . " The site would be affected by the proposed Bluff-Top Initiative . The site is visually prominent and uses compatible with community character desires should be considered in site planning . Issues 1 . Development Intensity 2 . Traffic Impacts o 3 . Development Phasing 7 4 . Loss of Open Space 5 . Community Character a° �Rv pv 6 . Compatibility with Coastal s Act of 1976 m 7 . Relationship to Dunes Development 8. Views from Coast Highway and Jamboree Road �`"�t • �� 9 . Bluff Controls • y�' H HW �1 GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO. 22 "CASTAWAYS-COMMERCIAL" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Recreational and Marine Commercial 2 . Existing Zoning : P .C. (no adopted development plan) 3. Site Area: 25 acres 4 . Allowable Uses : Commercial Recreation, Tourist Commercial 5 . Possible Alternatives : Medium-Density Residential Public Acquisition as Open Space Site Considerations Development consisting of a hotel , restaurants and small shops has been proposed. This is a visually-prominent site. Design considerations include relation of development to bluffs , access , height, bulk and siting of proposed buildings . Issues 1 . Intensity of Development 2. Bluff Protection , Slope Stability, Erosion Control 3 . Consistency with Coastal Act of 1976 4. Traffic Impacts 5 . Imapct on Air Traffic urPeR " 6 . Access to Upper Bay NOr GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO . 23 "MACARTHUR/AVOCADO" (Newport Center) General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Administrative, Professional , and Financial Commercial 2 . Existing Zoning : P . C . (No adopted development plan) 3 . Site Area : 5 acres (approximately) 4 . Allowable Use ( s ) : Offices 5 . Possible Alternatives : Site Considerations Site considerations indicated in the City/The Irvine Company "Task Force Report" were- " . . . the ultimate design and alignment of the one-way couplet. The couplet design will establish the shape of this site . " Issues 1 . Development Intensity 2 . Traffic Impacts 3 . Development Phasing w 7'a w K H Jo w f 4iN Hitia i 11 oL <� W ?p i 601101111►1 111 P ftwY 114 � pAGlPia coAs� GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO . 24 "NEWPORT VILLAGE" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Administrative , Professional , and Financial Commercial and Recreational and Marine Commercial 2. Existing Zoning: P .C. - No Text 3. Site Area : 33 acres 4 . Allowable Use(s ) : Retail Sales , Office , Restaurant Theatre 5 . Possible Alternatives : Site Considerations Site considerations included in the City/The Irvine Company "Task Force Report" were " . . .access , nighttime activity, nighttime lighting, drainage, archaeology, the ultimate design of the one-way couplet system, traffic, and the development limitations resolution . " Issues 1 . Development Intensity 2. Land, Use Mix 3. Development Phasing o 4 . Community Character W �� 5 . Traffic Impacts W a le > ` ��.•u+•r•�q ftwy rAtWtf caAfT GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO. 25 "CORPORATE PLAZA WEST" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Administrative , Professional , Financial Commercial and Recrea- tional and Marine Commercial 2 . Existing Zoning : P .C . - No adopted development plan 3. Site Area : 10 acres 4 . Allowable -Use (s ) : Offices , Tourist Commercial 5 . Possible Alternatives : Site Considerations Site considerations indicated in the City/The Irvine Company Report" were " . . . traffic , the development limitation Task Force p resolution and the Upper Bay bridge improvements . „ Issues 1 . Development Intensity 2 . Traffic Impacts 3 . Development Phasing � o to w s 4Amft J� i i G1 � CL ♦♦ Q� � P "C W P KWV !!!lgfffyyy��� � 7pGIF14 40Ay� GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO. 26 BLOCK 800 - PACIFIC MUTUAL General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Administrative , Professional and Financial Commercial 2 . Existing Zoning: P .C. - No adopted development plan 3. Size: 10 acres 4 . Allowable Use(s) : Offices 5 . Possible Alternatives : Site Considerations An addition of approximately 350 ,000 sq . ft . has been proposed to the existing facility . Site considerations indicated in the City/The Irvine Company "Task Force Report" were " . . . Newport Center resolution on development limitations for Newport Center and traffic. " Issues 1 . Development Intensity 2 . Traffic Impacts �C 3. Development Phasing 4. Impact on Air Traffic lu � d• 2 WY N 0% ft i{Iff8* � PAUFIt coAfr � II J GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO . 27 "COAST HIGHWAY AND JAMBOREE" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Administrative , Professional and Financial Commercial 2 . Existing Zoning: P .C. - No adopted development plan 3 . Size : 19 acres 4 . Allowable Use(s ) : Offices 5 . Possible Alternatives : Site Considerations The site has been limited to a total floor area of from 153, 300 sq . ft . up to a maximum of 191 ,600 sq . ft. , with the objective of developing an adequate transportation system. The joint City/ The Irvine Company "Task Force Report" indicated the following site considerations: " . . . traffic , access , the development limits resolution , the proposed Jamboree by-pass road and timing of bridge improvements . " Issues 1 . Extension of Back Bay Drive K 2 . Development Intensity o 3 . Traffic Impacts w y� 4 . Development Phasing w a 5 . Visually-Prominent Site Nd • 4jN +♦ ♦ fi r/ • 0 P owy f ffff�ff� PA&A 14 caAf'� ------------- GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO. 28 "NEWPORT CENTER BLOCK 600" "Prudential " General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Administrative , Professional and Financial Commercial 2. Existing Zoning: C-O-H 3. Site Area : 10 acres 4 . Allowable Use(s ) : Offices 5. Possible Alternatives : Site Considerations A commercial office complex of 540,000 sq . fit-. , with a possible hotel is proposed. Site considerations indicated in the City/The Irvine Company "Task Force Report" were " . . traffic and the recently-adopted "Newport Center Development Limitations" (Resolution 9009) . An additional consideration is off-street parking. " Issues 1 . Traffic Impacts 2 . Development Intensity 3. Development Phasing m 4. Impact on Air Traffic oc • uiN w • <A A M <M MM ■ Ma �j rAUF�c eoAft � I GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO . 29 "CIVIC PLAZA: General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : Administrative , Professional and Financial Commercial 2 . Existing Zoning : P . C . - Development Text 3 . Size : 26 acres 4 . Allowable Use (s ) : Office , Theatre , Restaurant, Art Museum 5 . Possible Alternatives : Site Considerations L Site considerations indicated in the City/The Irvine Company "Task Force Report" were " . . . traffic , and the Newport Center Development Limitation Resolution (Resolution No . 9009 ) which will guide the site planning process for this block . " Issues 1 . Development Intensity 2 . Land Use Mix 3. Traffic Impacts 4 . Development Phasing & c W cc +L r S � o. w <'4WY ` G ��n�aorrp �. rnc�F�a a°Aft GENERAL PLAN REVIEW SITE NO. 30 "AERONUTRONI'C-FORD-INDUSTRIAL" General Information 1 . General Plan Designation : General Industry, Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial 2 . Existing Zoning: P .C . (No adopted development plan) . 3. Site Area: 90 acres (approximately) 4. Allowable Uses : Light Industry , Offices 5 . Possible Alternatives : Site Considerations 40, The existing facility contains 954,890 square feet of floor area. An additional 177,110 square feet is proposed. Design considerations include compatibility of proposed industrial / office development with adjacent planned residential . Issues 1 . Intensity of Development 2 . Height and Bulk of Structures 3. Traffic Impact o 4. Relation to Adjacent Residential Uses f q d130N AVE. FpRp RD. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH e�c DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �t�FoaN�r. ( 714) 640-2261 GENERAL PLAN REVIEW WORKSHOPS Beginning Tuesday, March 7, 1978, a series of informal workshop sessions will be held to discuss alternative land use and site plan proposals for the major undeveloped parcels in the City of Newport Beach . Issues to be examined in these public discussions include traffic generated by new development, environmental quality, density and intens-i-ty of development , and development phasing. Representatives of the• majo'r property owners and developers will be present to answer questions and describe current proposals . All interested individuals and community groups are encouraged to participate in this forum. These workshop sessions will be conducted in the Newport Beach Council Chambers , beginning at 7 : 36 p. m. The General Plan Review process was initiated by the City Council on October 17 , 1977 . The general purpose of this comprehensive study is to evaluate the traffic impacts and environmental effects of development allowed by• the existing General Plan for the appropri.mately 800 acres of vacant land in the City. The Planning Conducted an initial public hearing on a possible revision to the General Plan at its meeting of February 16 , .1978. The Planning Commission will conduct a continued public hearing at its meeting of April 6 , 1978. Workshop sessions will be conducted each Tuesday prior to the April 6 public hearing . Discussion at this initial workshop session will focus on the major residential sites including the following : (a ) Aeronutronic-Ford Residential Site (b ) , Westbay Site D l / ( c ) Newporter North (d ) Caltrans Parcels West Newport n (e ) Beeco Property (f) Castaways Site ( g) Former Freeway Reservations West of MacArthur /7 (h ) Vacant Residential Parcel South of Roger ' s Gardens 3'G ( i ) Fifth Avenue Parcels . . . . Continued on Back City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 Future workshop sessions will deal with the commercial and industrial sites including: (a) Newport Center ( b) Koll Center Newport c ) Emkay Newport Place (d) Castaways Commercial Site (e) Bayview Landing Site (f) Aeronutronic-Ford Industrial Site (g Commercial / Industrial Sites Near San Diego Creek and Bristol . For additional information , contact David Dmohowski , Advance Planning Administrator, at 640-2261 . Advance Planning Division March 2, 1978 DD: jmb II J Planning Commission Meeting January '19 , 1978 Study Session Agenda Item No . 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 13, 1978 ���� ���y T0: Planning Commission DO NOT REMOVE FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: General Plan Review - Status Report The purpose of this memo is to inform the Planning Commission of the status of the General Plan Review and to discuss a possible schedule for processing General Plan Amendments resulting from this review. In accordance with the City Council ' s direction to the Planning Commission and staff, amendments relating to the General Plan Review were to be initiated at the February, 1978 General Plan Amendment session . A possible amendment as described below is on the evening agenda to set for public hearing at the February 16 , 1978 Planning Commission meeting. City Council Direction to Planning Commission and Staff At the joint City Council /Planning Commission meeting. of October 17, 1977, the City Council and Planning Commission discussed issues and possible goals to be addressed in this review of the General Plan . On the basis of this discussion the City Co.uncil voted to direct the Planning Commission to re-examine the General Plan in terms of four general policy areas as follows : 1 . Intensity of Development (a) Adjust intensity of development to assure a balance between development and support systems including circulation system, sewer, water and energy systems . (b) Focus General Plan review on density designations and intensity of development for major undeveloped sites . 2 . Traffic (a ) Accept deficiencies at a specified limit in certain segments of the circulation system. (b) Prepare a development schedule which will assure that deficiencies will not exceed a specified limit between the present time and ultimate development. (c) Accelerate development of traffic facilities that would improve levels of service accommodating growth both inside and outside the City. (d) Expand the City ' s involvement in promoting solutions to regional transportation problems especially in the areas of air traffic , mass transit and highway improvements . 3. Cost/Revenue Impact (a ) Emphasize residential development rather than commercial development wherever possible. (b) De-emphasize development of new tourist-related facilities . (c) Determine the fiscal impact of major commercial/office developments such as Newport Center. 4. Environmental Quality (a ) Identify areas where new development can be accommodated with TO.: Planning Commission - 2 the least potential for environmental damage. The City Council , in this action , indicated that Issues #1 , 2 and 4 ( Intensity of Development, Traffic, and Environmental Quality) were to receive higher priority than Issue #3 (Cost/Revenue Impact) . Further, the following overall goals were set for 'the Planning Commission in conducting this review of the General Plan: 1 . The development of a phasing schedule. 2. Consideration of the impact of potential development on the physical support systems and reset limits on intensities as needed. A copy of the minutes of the joint meeting is attached. Discussion With respect to the policy areas of intensity of development and traffic, the results of traffic model tests recommended by the Planning Commission, will allow an assessment of the impact on the circulation system of reductions in commercial intensity and residential density on the major undeveloped sites . These traffic model tests were authorized by the City Council on January 9, 1978, and will be completed and available for review by the Planning Commission on or about March 20, 1978. The results of such tests are expected to suggest appropriate amendments to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements and possibly to the Circulation Element. Areas requiring additional attention , in view of the 'City Council ' s instructions , involve accelerating the development of planned traffic facilities , and expanding the City ' s role in addressing regional transportation problems . These would involve City action beyond the General Plan Amendment process. In connection with any General Plan Amendment, it would be appropriate also to consider parking- and traffic-management approaches to reducing the impact of new development on the circulation system, such as carpooling and park-and-ride programs . In relation to the issue of cost/revenue impact, the City's existing Fiscal Impact Analysis System is being updated by staff for possible use in the General Plan Review. A reduction of allowable development and conversion of some sites from commercial to residential use has been suggested in the traffic model tests . It may be possible also to assess the fiscal impact of such land use changes . With respect to the development of new tourist-related facilities, the Planning Commission was requested to investigate the impact of de-emphasizing visitor-serving developments . It should be pointed out, that the Coastal Act policies which wi1.l need to be addressed i-n the Local Coastal Program would tend to encourage tourist-related facilities in the coastal zone portion of the City. The issue areas identified here were to receive the lowest priority during the General P1,an Review. The issue of environmental quality will be addressed most directly in connection with the environmental review of whatever amendments are proposed as a result of the General Plan Review. The City Council ' s direction to the Planning Commission specifically calls for the development of a phasing schedule and consideration of the impact of potential development on the physical support systems. In designing a phasing plan for new development, the schedule of proposed development submitted by the major landowners earlier in this review process will be compared to the schedule for completion of major circulation system improvements . The phasing plan itself will involve a mechanism for rescheduling planned development or rescheduling street improvements , where feasible, to reduce potential traffic deficiencies . Other physical support system constraints -- particularly relating to the sewage system -- may need to be addressed also in this phasing plan. Recent U .S. Environmental Protection Agency actions may cause some delay or change in the local sanitation district' s implementation plans. TO: Planning Commission - 3 Possible General Plan Amendment Based on the above discussion , staff has prepared a possible General Plan Amendment for the Planning Commission ' s consideration as follows : 1 . Possible reduction in allowable intensity of development on the major commercial/industrial undeveloped sites including but not limited to the following: (a ) Newport Center (b) Koll Center Newport (c Emkay Newport Place (d) Castaways Commercial Site (e) Bayview Landing Site (f) Aeronutronic-Ford. Industrial Site 2. -Possible reduction in the number of dwelling units allowable on the major residential sites , including but not limited to the following: (a) Aeronutronic-Ford Residential Site (b) Westbay Site (c Newporter North (d) Freeway Reservation West of MacArthur Boulevard (e) Fifth Avenue Parcels (f) Caltrans Parcels West Newport (g) Banning Property 3 . Development of a phasing plan to coordinate new development with planned improvements in the circulation system. 4. Revision of the existing density classification system to use numeri- cal density categories . 5 . Assessment of possible reductions in allowable development in terms of fiscal impacts and environmental considerations . This suggested amendment appears on the evening agenda to set for public hearing (together with two other requested amendments ) at the Planning Commission meeting of February 16 , 1978. Traffic Model Tests At its study session meeting of December 8, 1977 , the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that alternative level"s of development on the major undeveloped sites be tested in terms of traffic impact using the Traffic Model . These tests are as follows : 1 . Test the traffic impact of no further development on the major sites to provide a baseline projection for comparison purposes . 2 . Test the traffic impact of reductions in proposed additional development on selected sites . 3. Test the traffic impact of deleting the extension of University Drive and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor . The City Council , at its meeting of January 9, 1978, authorized $12,000 to complete these tests as part of the General Plan Review. The City Council indicated also that a General Plan Amendment should be initiated for the February, 1978 amendment session , even though the results of the Traffic Model tests may not be available until mid-March, 1978. If the Planning Commission initiates an amendment for the February 16 , 1978 meeting , it will be necessary to continue the amendment hearings pending completion of the tests . The proposed schedule for completion of the Traffic Model tests is as follows : TO: Planning Commission - 4 January 16 , 1978 - Community Development Department complete land use data tabulations in Traffic Analysis Zone Format for alternatives to be considered. February 13, 1978- Consultant deliver Transportation Model data output to staff for review, analysis and preparation of the staff report. March 20, 1978 - Staff report complete for distribution to Planning Commission . The City Council staff report on the Traffic Model tests is attached. New Density Classification System As a result of the City Council ' s adoption of General Plan Amendment 77-3-C revising the definition of "buildable acreage" used in computing residential densities , staff is preparing a revised method of classifying residential uses and densities . This system will be based on numerical density categories , replacing the existing "Low-" and "Medium-Density" categories . This revision is included in the suggested General Plan Review amendment. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. Hogan, Director David Dmohowski Advance Planning Administrator DD:Jmb Attachment: 1 ) Minutes of Join,t Meeting 2) City Council Memo Regarding Traffic Model Tests I These Minutes were redone to show the items deleted ATTACHMEN 1 ( in Counci Ryckoff's motion. • J COUNCILMEN MINUTES p ADJOURNED COUNCIL MEETING c�<<iP9�yp�S yy Place: Council Chambers �� 9�6Tf Ty �S Time: 7 : 30 P.M. s Date: October 17 , 1977 ROLL CALL INDEX Present x x x x x Roll Call. Absent . x x A report from the Community Development Department General n regarding the General Plan review was presented with (673) a Land Use Summary (1990-1995 projection) . Francis Horvath and Robert Shelton addressed the Council and commented on various elements of the General Plan. Motion x Councilman Rogers made a motion to direct the Planning Commission to 1) develop a phasing schedule, and 2) consider the impagt of potential future development on physical support systems as they are now and planned to be, and set limits with the phasing schedule being studied in relation to the information which has been currently received from staff. Motion x Councilman Williams made a substitute motion to re- examine the General Plan elements as needed to reassess the four issues identified in the report from the Community Development Department dated October 11, 1977, with such reassessment to cover Items 1) Intensity of Development, 2) Traffic and 4) Environmental Quality with higher priority at this time than Item 3) Cost/Revenue Impact. Also, in the Suggested Work Program in the same document, to omit Item 4 regarding the assessment of possible need for additional consultant services. Motion x Councilman Ryckoff made a second substitute motion to re-examine the General Plan elements as needed to reassess the four issues identified in the report dated October 11, 1977 from the Community Development Department as follows: I. Intensity of Development (a) Adjust intensity of development to assure a balance between development and support systems including circula- tion system, sewer, water and energy systems. (b) Focus General Plan review on density designations and intensity of develop- ment for major undeveloped sites. (c) Disallowed. 2. Traffic (a) Disallowed. (b) Accept deficiencies at a specified limit in certain segments of the circulation system. (c) Prepare a development schedule which will assure that deficiences will not exceed a specified limit between the present time and ultimate development. ca Volume 31 - Page 271 9 RRC �VEb Co,• `• n ant 1� S pev,10T ?� , pCj 2 5�g� - cvv 6EACH, 17 . ••�'• NEN CPL1f• COY, OF EWPORT BAL 6 z, COUNCILMEN MINUTES October 17, 1977 IDEX ROLL CALL (d) Accelerate development of traffic facilities that would improve levels of service accomodating growth both inside and outside the City. (e) Expand the City's involvement in promoting solutions to regional transportation problems especially in the areas of air traffic, mass transit and highway improvements 3. Cost/Revenue Impact (a) Disallowed. (b) Emphasize residential development rather than commercial development wherever possible. (c) De-emphasize development of new tourist-related facilities. (d) Determine the fiscal impact of major commercial/office developments such as Newport Center. 4. Environmental Quality (a) Disallowed. (b) Disallowed. (c) Identify areas where new development can be accommodated with the least potential for environmental damage. Issues 1, 2 and 4 to receive higher priority than Issue 3 at this time, and that Item 4 regarding the possible need for additional consultant services be deleted from the Suggested Work Program in'the same document. Further, the following goals were set for the Planning Commission: 1• To develop a phasing schedule. 2. To consider the impact of potential development on the physical support systems and reset limits on intensities as needed. Ayes x x x x A vote was taken on Councilman Ryckoff's substitute Noes x motion, which motion carried. Absent x x Mayor Pro Tem Barrett declared the meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Volume 31 - Page 272 •- - ATTACHMENT 2 �1 City Council Meeting January 9 , 1978 Study Session Agenda No . 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 5 , 1977 TO : City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Testing of land use and circulation alternatives using the Traffic Model , as' recommended by the Planning Commission in connection with the General Plan Review. Background At the meeting of December 19 , 1977 , the City Council considered a proposed budget amendment to allow testing of specific land use and circulation system alternatives using the Traffic Model , as recommended by the Planning Commission in connection with the General Plan Review. This budget amendment would add $12 ,000 to Account No . 02-3697-107 (Develop Transportation Model ) , enabling staff to enter into an agreement with the consultants for additional traffic model services . At that meeting , the City Council. requested additional information regarding these tests , and this matter was continued . Planning Commission Recommendation At its special study session meeting of December 8, 1977 , the Planning Commission discussed proposed development on the major undeveloped sites based on information submitted by the property owners . As a result of this discussion , possible alternative levels of development on these major sites were proposed for testing, in terms of traffic impact, using the Traffic Model . The estimated cost of conducting these tests is $12 , 000 . Specifically, the Planning Commission requested that Traffic Model tests be run as follows : (a ) Test the traffic impact of no further development on the major sites , for comparison purposes . (b ) Test the traffic impact of reductions in proposod additional development on selected sites . (c ) Test the traffic impact of deleting selected links in the circulation system. These tests are discussed in detail below. The previous staff memo , plus minutes of the Planning Commission study session of December 8, 1977. are attached for the City Council ' s information . No Growth Baseline Projection This test would identify the traffic impact of no additional development on the major vacant sites , assuming completion of all major improvements contemplated by the existing Master Plan of Streets and Highways . This traffic projection would be based on existing occupied buildings and dwellings , plus those currently under construction or in plan check. The previously budgeted "Existing Conditions Model " does not account for the substantial amount of development now under construction . There are nearly 1 . 5 million square feet of commercial , office , and industrial development either under construction or in plan check at the present time . This test is needed, according to the Planning Commission , to provide a baseline against which the traffic impact of possible reductions in allowable and/or proposed future development could he measured. y TO : City Council - 2 Suggested Reduction Alternative This test would assess the impact on the circulation system of reduc- tions in proposed additional development on selected commercial , industrial and, residential sites . Detailed information regarding the type and intensity of proposed additional development has been furnished by the major landowners , and is summarized in the tables attached. The traffic impact of this reduction would be compared to the " Future Conditions Model " which is based on maximum expected buildout under the current General Plan . The Planning Commission viewed this type of test as necessary to measure the traffic impact, if any, on an across-the-board reduction in allowable and proposed intensity of development. For the purposes of this test, an arbitrary reduction of 500 ,000 square feet in proposed additional floor area (not including development under construction or in plan check) was assigned to Newport Center. This represents a 21 . 4% reduction in proposed additional development based on information furnished by The Irvine Company, The same percentage reduction in proposed additional floor area was applied to Koll Center Newport, the Emkay Planned Community , and the Aeronutronic- Ford industrial site. Other selected changes for testing are listed below. Overall , this involves a reduction of 1 . 2 million square feet of proposed additional floor area , With respect to residential sites , the Planning Commission proposed to test a reduction of approximately 33% in the dwelling units proposed for the major sites . In a majority of cases , this test reduction was based on a maximum density equivalent to 5 dwellings per gross acre. This involves a net reduction of approximately 1 ,000 dwellings , with a Potential population reduction of approximately 2070.0 . Reductions for individual sites are as follows : Proposed Test Additional Reduction Commercial /Office (Sq , Ft. ) (Sq . Ft. Koll Center Newport 1 ,429 ,960 - 306 ,000 Emkay P-C 418,000 - 89 ,452 Newport Center 2 , 332 ,458 - 500,000 Castaways (Comm. ) (Change to Res . ) 161 ,000 - 151 ,000 Bayview Landing (Change to Res . ) 127,000 - 127,000 Proposed Test Additional Reduction Industrial (Sq . Ft. ) Sq . Ft. Aeronutronic-Ford 177ollO 37,900 Proposed Test Residential Dwellings Reduction Aeronutronic-ford 654 - 109 Westbay 348 - 58 Newporter North 704 - 264 Castaways (Commercial portion 320 - 120 changed to Res . @ 5 DU/a) + 125 Big Canyon Area 10 160 No Change Freeway Reservation West 90 - 45 i TO : City Council - 3 Proposed Test Residential ( Cont . ) Dwellings Reduction Baywood Expansion 100 No Change Newport Center Condos 245 No Change Fifth Avenue Sites 204 - 34 Caltrans Parcels 600 - 400 Banning Property 900 - 150 Bayview Landing (Changed to Residential @ 5 DU/a) + 85 This test involves changing the Castaways commercial site and the Bayview Landing commercial site to residential use , This was based on the more favorable peak hour traffic generation of residential versus commercial use. Circulation System Alternatives The Traffic Model can be used to test the effects of changing or deleting any given link in the circulation system. ' The model would show the impact on the rest of the system of changing any given segment . Consequently it was recommended that the model be used to measure the impact of deleting certain major links Which may or may not be implemented in the future . Two separate tests of this type could be the deletion of the extension of University Drive and the deletion of a portion of the San Joagµin Hills Transportation Corridor. Such a test could indicate the potential redistribution of traffic if these links , or any others , were not improved. Use of the Traffic Model for Testing A memo from the City ' s Traffic Engineer detailing the technical ' require- ments of conducting Traffic Model tests and the time constraints involved is attached for the City Council ' s consideration . Due to unforeseen delays in the provision by the State of regional traffic data necessary to complete the "Future Conditions Model " , it appears unlikely at this time that the model could be used to test the land use and circulation alternatives recommended by the Planning Commission prior to the initiation of the February , 1978 General Plan Amendment session . If the City Council determines that the Traffic Model tests recommended by the Planning Commission are appropriate to the Gpnpral Plan Review process , the February, 1978 amendment session could pp continued, or the amendment delayed to the June , 1978 amendment session , to allow for completion of the recommended tests , or other tests as desired . Respectfully submitted , DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . Hogan , Director By /1 / Da id Dmohowski Advance Planning Administrator DD: jmb Attachments : 1 ) Memo from Traffic Engineer 2 ) Previous Staff Memo 3) Minutes of Planning Commission Study Session of December 8, 1977 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT January 5, 1978 TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN REVIEW The City Council at its December 19, 1977 meeting requested additional information regarding the Planning Commission's request for additional traffic model services, at an estimated. cost of $12,000. This report will provide information requested by the City Council , and the estimated time table to perform the work. Currently Authorized Transportation Model Products The objective of the Transportation Model is the development of traffic circulation models as tools to assist in the evaluation of the traffic implications of land use and transportation system decisions. Specific products are: 1 . A Model to depict existing conditions -- consisting of computer procedures to reflect average daily conditions plus supplement- ary manual procedures for analyzing peak vs. off-peak and winter vs. summer relationships on the existing roadways. Uses of the existing conditions model are as follows: a. Building block for future conditions model b. Permits evaluation of proposed developments to provide data to analyze immediate impacts on existing roadway. system c. Can be updated continuously so City will always have an "existing conditions" model 2. A Model to depict future 1995 conditions -- consisting of computer procedures to reflect average daily conditions plus supplementary manual procedures for analyzing peak vs. off-peak and winter vs. summer relationship on the adopted Circulation Element of the General Plan. (See attached Circulation Element Map) Community Development Department -2- January 5, 1978 The future conditions model will provide estimates of traffic for one set of future conditions consisting of land use and circulation system inputs. (Assumes completion of additional elements of the adopted circulation system.) 3. Additional (Optional ) Capabilities of the Future Conditions Model The future conditions model constitutes a reference point against which alternative land use or circulation system configurations •may be compared and evaluated. . The impact of modifying the City's circulation system by adding, deleting, or reclassifying specific streets or highways . . The impact on the City's circulation system which might result from changes in major regional facilities on the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways . The traffic impact of specific long-term development proposals . The traffic-related aspects of alternative policies pertaining to the intensity of long-term commercial/ industrial development Description of Products from $12,000 Additional Transportation Services Requested by the Planning Commission 1 . No Growth Baseline Projection - The Transportation Model would be used to estimate future (1995) average daily traffic volumes that would occur on the adopted circulation system if the undeveloped sites were not allowed to develop beyond what is currently under construction and/or building permits are being processed. The remainder of the City and the surrounding areas would continue to develop as projected by the Community Development Department and adjacent agencies. This test would provide a baseline for evaluating the impact of reductions in allowable and/or proposed future development. 2. Su ested Reduction Alternative - The Transportation Model would be use to estimate future (1995) average daily traffic conditions that would occur on the adopted circulation system. The traffic volume estimates from this analysis would then be compared against the currently authorized Transportation Model estimates. 3. Circulation S.ystem Alternatives - The Transportation Model would be used to examine the impact of deleting University Drive and a portion of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. 1 Community Development Department -3- January 5, 1978 The deletion of a portion of the San Joaquin Hills Corridor assumes that the link between Sand Canyon Road and Laguna Canyon Road would not be constructed by 1995. The analysis would be made on current 1995 land use assumptions and the Planning Commission suggested alternative reduction. The circulation system for the two land use assumptions would be tested for the deletion of University Drive, The land use assumptions would also be tested for the deletion of.the portion of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Estimated Time Table to Process and Prepare the Necessary Report on the Additional Work Based on the assumption that the City Council authorizes the additional work on January 9, 1978 we have estimated the time that would be required to process, evaluate and prepare the necessary reports for submittal to the Planning Commission. January 9, 1978 - Council authorize additional work January 16, 1978 Community Development Department complete land use data tabulations in Traffic Analysis Zone Format for alternatives to be considered. February 13, 1978 - Consultant deliver Transportation Model data output to staff for review, analysis and preparation of the staff report. March 20, 1978 - Staff report complete for.distribution to Planning Commission The above time table is very critical and does not allow any flexibility for major delays or problems. At the present time we have encountered delays in completing the authorized Transportation Model and estimated that it will not be completed for presentation to the City Council •until mid February. A letter from Herman Basmaciyan and Associates regarding the delays due to regional data inputs is attached for reference. The above time table assumes that we will not encounter further delays delays in the current work program. Bill E. Darnell Traffic Engineer Attachments BED:bcd r NEWPORT BEACH .♦ CiRCULATiOi!! ELEMENT ♦ MASTER PLAN F STREETS & HIGHWAYS ® MAJOR ROAD a:] INTERCHANGE f' L(9t'p _ ✓ SIX LANE DIVIDED ® ADOPTED PRIMARY ROAD FREEWAY I ; FOUR LANE DIVIDED ROUTES % PRIMARY ROAD a� BRIDGE I je ;rs MODIFIED ti. : �I � ,�="•. t �:- `'_ `, .,,� •• ...., SECONDARY ROAD :ft, FOUR LANE UNDIVIDED � � e ? r�C=�%` r 1p• ;p 0 ROUTES THAT REQUIRE FURTHER � __�:�.,\`: •�� COORDINATION .>_ �_ - � s ,. c.i. i `` - Vi10 = ' -'y�i .. ''• S.• r I , ..4�� It t � � ���. ✓�>`u�> t � ✓�` +' � �_ � �`✓C � � �% -r - �� � �r - - ��-L3 1. + / 'A � 1hA, •'� ` �/^Ts' �-�"_?e�ff�rC�,� IA 3a .��� ••``,� -i' ! t7UQ�'(�t7d1� �. .� _ _� .... �'� 003 eon`r�,,�" � c •. s •. '. r, / I c' �. /C�a(7CIf��✓ �, .f. - y,e ,_ .a, 4pppep qq �pppp_ ` �k �`: -. -� .....'U4' ..�v iT.- 'o`-�/ ,.rs✓U. `'s"v f F ;. '• �• -� J (�,� ,� •q.l7��pp p �jQO�'}� . --_"�_.0� i• t`�r i0�i" a%. _.n�.,:.- : .. £ it��•`✓ice g ©pYi - - '-`'°� - '3ri =. • tr- :,,;=' ff f•f iii iltl''ti'"ii" -;��,�?'. y..v�,F.=^-�`. o°p�QO>°J _ `mil ... -__ -. -:__- --_�� '-` -.,Do' -yE;�zz . .rj:cgJ•a -..: ,,;.��uUt.'�Z�tu�3,�,��;:\;.'% ;.riff n _�as� ��>� �87i �� � I ��'" }',, :�;. �! 'l.l�,,4�v '.=•: . FA�4"15; ix t••*:qy- Q ` `:1s --- -' _'�� ia(tt ntu•f v _ rT71 N1 R R • F / L, f-• O r C E V - scale in feet t rir*eran Consulting Services B0 t Engineering/Planning gsmacyan Transportation Transit and Associates. Traffic 1821 Port Renwick, Newport-Beach, California 92660 (714) 640.5737 January Li, 1978 Bill E. Darnell City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject : Development of Traffic Circulation Yodels Schedule for Completion of "Future" k:odel Dear Bill On December 30, 1977 LARTS informed us that a further delay was encountered in providin- regional travel pattern information 'for. the "Future Conditions" model. Briefly, LARTS had misplaced a data tape transmitted to them by Herman Kimmel & Associates, Inc. during the first week. of December. Consequently, after all other arrangements had been made to _process the tape, work could not be initiated because the data was "lost. " This most recent problem with LARTS follows the lonS delay which we encountered when LARTS could not allocate manpower to perform this relatively simple task. As you know, we solved that problem by engaginS a former LARTS employee to do the processinS on our behalf but Cinder LARTS supervision. It is estimated that the total time lost due to problems with LARTS is a. minimum of two months. Since LARTS has now found the "lost" tape and is logging it at the computer center as it should have o•riSinally, rrocessin3 is scheduled to commence this week. le estimate now that the data from LARTS will be available to us on or about January 9, 1978. Accordingly, the first set of traffic loadings usin, the "Future Conditionsj5 model should be obtained by January 16. Of course-, some time beyond that is reouired to review and analyze the results and to make any . Modifications a.s necessary. Sincerely, HF,RKAN EASKACI .AN AND ASSOCIATES v � Herman Basma.ciyan, B. . cc. Herman Kimmel & Associates, INC. 11 City Council Meeting December 19 , 1977 Agenda Item No. H-12 Y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH December 14 , 1977 TO : City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Testing of land use and circulation alternatives using the Traffic Model , as recommended by the Planning Commission in connection with the General Plan Review. Suggested Action If desired, adopt .a Budget Amendment adding $12 ,000 to Account No . 02-3697-107 ,( Develop Transportation Model ) , and authorize the staff to enter into an agreement with the consultants for additional traffic model services with the maximum fee not to exceed $12 ,000 . Planning Commission Recommendation At its special study session meeting of December 8, 1977, the Planning Commission discussed proposed development on the major undeveloped sites based on information submitted by the property owners . As a result of this discussion , possible alternative levels of development on these major sites were proposed for testing , in terms of traffic impact, using the Traffic Model . More specifically, the Planning Com- mission requested that the following tests be run : (a) - No Growth Baseline Projection : This test would identify the traffic impact of no further development on the major sites , given the implementation of the adopted circulation system. This projection would be based on existing occu- pied buildings and dwellings , plus those now under construc- tion or in plan check . This test would provide a baseline for measuring the impact" of possible reductions in allow- able and/or proposed future development. (b ) Suggested Reduction Alternative : This test would assess the impact of reductions in proposed development on selected commercial , industrial and residential sites . The traffic impact of this reduction will be compared to the future conditions model . These reductions in pro- posed development are described in detail below. (c) Circulation System Alternatives : In addition to the testing of land use alternatives , described in (a) and (b) above , it was suggested that the Traffic Model be used to examine the impact of deleting selected links in the adopted circulation system, such as the extension of University Drive and the San Joaquin Hills Transpor- tation Corridor. The City' s Traffic Engineer has estimated that the cost of conducting these tests using the Traffic Model would be $12,000 . Funding approval by the City Council is requested at this time to allow for completion of these tests prior to the General Plan Amendment Session in February, 1978. TO : City Council - 2. Discussion The Planning Commission ' s discussion was based on information submitted by staff regarding existing and proposed development on the major un- developed sites . Attached for the City Council ' s information are charts describing commercial , industrial and residential sites. with an evaluation of existing and proposed intensity of development. The Traffic Model test described under (b) above involves a reduction in proposed development, for testing purposes only , for selected sites . Included in this test is a reduction of 500,000 square feet of pro- posed office/commercial floor area for Newport Center , and a propor- tional reduction for Koll Center Newport, the Emkay P-C, and the Aeronutronic Ford industrial /office site. With respect to residential sites , the test involves a reduction of approximately 33% in the dwell - ing units proposed for the major sites . Reductions for individual sites are as follows : Proposed Test Additional Reduction Commercial /Office (Sq . Ft. ) S . Ft. Koll Center Newport 1 ,429 ,960 - 306 ,000 Emkay P-C 418,000 - 89 ,452 Newport Center 2, 332 ,458 - 500 ,000 Castaways (Comm. ) ( Change to Res . ) 161 ,000 - 151 ,000 Bayview Landing ( Change to Res . ) 127 ,000 - 127 ,000 Proposed Test Additional Reduction Industrial (SS . Ft. ) S . Ft . Aeronutronic-Ford 177 , 110 - 37,900 Proposed Test Residential Dwellings Reduction Aeronutronic- Ford 654 - 109 Westbay 348 - 58 Newporter North 704 - 264 Castaways 320 - 120 (Commercial portion changed to Res . @ 5 DU/a) + 125 Big Canyon Area 10 16Q No Change Freeway Reservation West 90 - 45 Baywood Expansion 100 No Change Newport Center Condos 245 No Change (Continued) i I� TO : City Council - 3. r Proposed Test Residential Dwellings Reduction Fifth Avenue Sites 204 - 34 i Caltrans Parcels 600 - 400 Banning Property 900 - 150 Bayview Landing + 85 ( Changed to Residential @ 5 DU/a) Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . HOGAN , Director By DAVID DMOHOWSKI Advance Planning Administrator DD/kk Attachment for City Council Only 1 • D. In E. Com- F. Proposed G. Proposed f H. Site I. Committed J. Proposed K. Max. A. B. Type of C. Existing Process mitted Floor Additional Buildout I Area (Net Floor Area Buildout Floor Allowable Area Development Floor Area (12-1-77) Area Floor Area Floor Area Acres) Ratio Area Ratio Floor Area Koll General Office 406,855 366,504 773,359 1 ,340,860 2,114,219 102.34 .173 .474 2,217,200 Center Governmental 90,000 - 90,000 - 90,000 7.80 .265 .265 90,000 Newport Industrial 372,000 - 372,000 25,000 397,000 25.04 .341 .363 403,775 Retail/ Service - - - - - - - - 110,000 Restaurant 20,486 - 20,486 64,100 84,586 14.48 .042 .175 _ 44,000 Hotel - - - - - 9.54 - - - 889,341 1.,255,845 1 ,429,960 2,685,805 159.20 .281 .383_ 2,864,975 (.413) dk Emkay- General Office 1 ,189,823 380,130 1,569,953 418,000 1 ,987,953 105.08 .342 .434 2,199,008 Newport Retail/Service 229,148 44,250 273,398 - 273,398 24.14 .259 .259 180,000 Place Restaurant 39,500 5,000 44,500 - 44,500 7.40 .138 .138 23,000 Hotel 137,229 83,000 220,229 - 220,229 8.76 .426 .577 180,000 1 ,595,700 512,380 i2,108,080 418,000 2,526,080 145.38 .332 .399 2,582,008 ( .408) Aeronu- General Office 832,000 122,890 954,890 177,110 1,132,000 91 .0 .240 .285 Plans to tronic be Ford Approved (Indus. Office) Newport General Office 1 ,789,000 76,892 1 ,865,892 2,147,708 4,013,600 198.4 .215 .464 4,299,600 -Center Medical Office 220,000 80,000 300,000 - 300,000 16.40 .419 .419 - Retaii/Service 1 ,071 ,250 120,000 1 ,191 ,250 152,750 1 ,344,000 98.40 .279 .313 1 ,367,000 Restaurant - 8,000 8,000 - - - - Hotei (377) 210,000 - 210,000 - 210,000 9.70 .497 .497 210,000 Residential (67 DU's ) (226 DU's) (293 DU's) , (245 DU's) (538 OU's) 58.00 - - sr (538 DU's) Government 100,000 - 100,000 24,000 124,000 8.30 .276 .342 122,000 Golf/Tennis 8,700 - 8,700 - 8,700 142.20 .001 .001 . - 3,398,950 276,892 3,675,142 2,332,458 'S-,QD8,jUU 531 .40 .178 .297 5,998,600 ('67 DU's) (226 DU's) (293 DU's) (245 DU's) (538 DU's) (.291 ) Newport Center Res. ' - 2 D. In E. Com- F. Proposed G. Proposed H. Site I. Committed J. Proposed K. Max. A. B. Type of C. Existing Process mitted Floor Additional Buildout Area (Net Floor Area Buildout Floor Allowable Area Development Floor Area (12-1-77) Area Floor Area Floor Area Ratio Area Ratio Floor Area North General Office 74,278 45,000 119,278 675,000 794,278 85.0 .042 .235 .235 Ford Retail - - - 40,000 40,000 P-C Instituational 10,000 28,000 38,000 - 38,000 84,278 73,000 157,278 715,000 872,278 Casta- Retail/Service - - - 16,000 16,000 25.0 - .152 Plans to ways Restaurant - - - 7,500 7,500 be (Comm.) Hotel (250) - - - 137,500 1.37,500 Approved . 161 ,000 161 ,000 Mari-ners Retail/Service 348,738 - 348,738 396,399 745,137 34.2 .260 .500 745,137 Mile Bayview Retail/Service - - - 10,000 10,000 17.0 - 185 Plans to Landing Restaurant - - - 7,500 7,500 be Hotel (200) - - - 110,000 110,000 Approved .127,500 127,500 San Restaurant - - - 5,000 5,000 13.0 - .130 Plans to Diego Hotel - - - 68,750 68,750 be Creek (125) 73,750 73,750 Approved North ' San Industrial - - - 470,000 470,000 47.0 - .229 Plans to Diego be Creek Approved South S ' PROPOSED MAXIMUM TYPE O.F SITE DENSITY PROPOSED DU ' s POSSIBLE AREA DEVELOPMENT ACRE (ACRES) (DU ' s/AC) DU ' s ALLOWED I ALTERNATIVE ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES Aeronutronic Medium-Density I Plan to be 545 DU's @ Ford (Res.) Residential 109 6.0 654 Approved 5.0 DU's/a Westbay Medium-Density 58 6.0 348 348 290 DU's @ Residential 5.0 DU's/a Newporter Medium-Density 88 8.0 704 704 440 DU's @ North Residential 5.0 DU's/a Castaways Medium-Density 40 8.0 320 320 200 DU's @ (Residential) Residential 5.0 DU's/a Big Canyon Multi-Family 15 10.6 160 338 No Change Area 10 Residential (160) Freeway Medium-Density 9 10.0 90 Plan to 45 DU's @ Reservation Residential Be 5.0 DU's/a West (west of Approved MacArthur) Freeway Multi-Family 8 12.5 100 Plan to No Change Reservation Residential Be (100) East (Baywood ' Approved Expansion) Newport Multi-Family 9 27.2 245 315 No Change Center Condos Residential (245) Fifth Ave. Medium-Density 34 6.0 204 204 170 DU's @ Sites (a., Residential 5.0 DU's/a b. , and c. ) Caltrans Multi-Family 40 15.0 600 600 320 DU's @ Parcels Residential 8.0 DU's/a (west Newport) Banning Medium-Density 150 6.0 900 900 750 DU's @ Property Residential 5 DU's/a TOTAL 560 4,325 2,760 3„C: PTY OF NEWPORT BACH --- , COUNCILMEN MINUTES �pNA �G\i INDEX F,pN y�FTb( oAy �s ROLL CALL January 9, 1978 9. The plans and specifications for the Remodeling Remodeling of the Former Council Chambers, Contract No. Former 1998, were approved; and the City Clerk was Council authorized to advertise for bids to be opened at Chambers 2:30 p.m. on February 16, 1978. (A report from (356) INN the Public Works Department) 10. The public improvements constructed in conjunction Resub 469 with Resubdivision No. 469, located on the (2133) southeasterly corner of Jamboree Road and Santa bars. Drive were accepted; and the City Clerk was uthorized to release the Subdivision Faith Performance Bond, and to release the Subdivisi Labor and Materials Bond in six months provi d no claims have been filed. (A report from the ublic Works Department) 11. The expense account o Mayor Pro Tem Barrett, in the amount of $371.36 Works attendance at the 1977 National Congress of Cities n San Francisco, December 5-8, 1977, was approv 12. The following budget amendments were proved: BA-44, Removed from the Consent Calendar. BA-48, $6,000.00 increase in Budget Appropriatio for additional funds for improvements at the Senior Citizens Facility, from Reserve for Senior Citizen Site, Park and Recreation Fund. (A report from the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director) ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. A report was presented from the Community General Development Department regarding testing of land Plan use and circulation alternatives using the (673) Traffic Model as recommended by the Planning Commission in connection with the General Plan Review. Motion x The following Budget Amendment was approved: Ayes x x x x x x Noes x BA-44, $12,000.00 increase in Budget Appropria- tions for consultant services required for testing of two land use alternatives and two modifications to the circulation system using the traffic model, from Unappropriated Surplus to Develop Transportation Model-General Fund. 2. A letter from Roger N. MacGregor regarding the Noise noise generated by commercial party boats Pollution Motion x operating on the bay at night was referred to (933) Ayes x x x x x staff for reply and report back. 3. A report was presented from the City Attorney Brown Act regarding AB 1265 (Brown Act). (477) Motion x e staff was directed to write a letter in Ayes x x x x x x x sup t of AS 1265. Volume 32 Page 10 AY OF NEWPORT BACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES �0 �'f ��s ROLL CALL January 9, 1978INDEX (e) Claim of Jesse W. Curtis for damage to his Curtis property at 305 Evening Star Lane allegedly (2840) caused by a leaking City water main under- mining his property and washing out the support for the concrete slab deck. 5. The City Clerk's referral of the following Summons and Complaint to the insurance carrier was confirmed: (a) Summons and Complaint of Jerry Figueroa for Figueroa personal injuries, Case No. 30035 in the (2682) Orange County Municipal Court. The original claim for personal injuries was sustained when he stepped on a broken sidewalk in front of 3050 East Coast Highway on April 14, 1977 and broke his foot. 6. The following request to fill personnel vacancies was approved: (A report from the City Manager) (1203F) (a) One Laborer position in the Field Maintenance Division of the General Services Department to fill a position now vacant. (b) One Building Inspector I position in the Community Development Department to fill a position now vacant. 7. The following staff and committee reports were received and ordered filed: (a) Removed from the Consent Calendar. (b) Memorandum from the Administrative Assistant CATV to the City Manager regarding the Eastbluff (6) Homeowners Association request for an acceleration of the adopted cable television installation schedule with request letter from the Eastbluff Homeowners Association. (Attached) (c) Memorandum from Suzanne Rudd, Chairman of Anti Litter the Litter Control Citizens Advisory (2046) Committee, regarding Litter Kids Survey. (Attached) 8. The following item was set for public hearing on January 23, 1978: (a) Tentative Map of Tract No. 10156, a request Tract 10156 of Ed Hume to subdivide 0.86 acres into five lots for single-family residential development, and the acceptance of an environmental document on property located at 2420, 2426 and 242631 - 15th Street, on the northeasterly side of 15th Street between Gary Place and Powell Place in Newport Heights; zoned R-1. (A report from the Community Development Department) Volume 32 - Page 9 City Council Meeting January 9 , 1978 Study Session Agenda No . 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 5 , 1977 TO : City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT : Testing of land use and 'circulation alternatives using the Traffic Model , as recommended by the Planning Commission in connection with the General Plan Review. Background At the meeting of December 19 , 1977 , the City Council considered a proposed budget amendment to allow testing of specific land use and circulation system alternatives using the Traffic Model , as recommended by the Planning Commission in connection with the General Plan Review. This budget amendment would add $12 ,000 to Account No . 02-3697-107 (Develop Transportation Model ) , enabling staff to enter into an agreement with the consultants for additional traffic model services . At that meeting , the City Council requested additional information regarding these tests , and this matter was continued , Planning Commission Recommendation At its special study session meeting of December 8, 1977, the Planning Commission discussed proposed development on the major undeveloped sites based on information submitted by the property owners . As a result of this discussion , possible alternative levels of development on these major sites were proposed for testing, in terms of traffic impact, using the Traffic Model . The estimated cost of conducting these tests is $12 ,000 . Specifically, the Planning Commission requested that Traffic Model tests be run as follows : (a ) Test the traffic impact of no further development on the major sites , for comparison purposes . (b) Test the traffic impact of reductions in propospd additional development on selected sites . (c ) Test the traffic impact of deleting selected links in the circulation system. These tests are discussed in detail below. The previous staff memo , plus minutes of the Planning Commission study session of December 8, 1977. are attached for the City Council ' s information . No Growth Baseline Projection This test would identify the traffic impact of no additional development on the major vacant sites , assuming completion of all major improvements contemplated by the existing Master Plan of Streets and Highways . This traffic projection would be based on existing occupied buildings and dwellings , plus those currently under construction or in plan check . The previously budgeted " Existing Conditions Model " does not account for the substantial amount of development now under construction . There are nearly 1 . 5 million square feet of commercial , office , and industrial development either under construction or in plan check at the present time . This test is needed , according to the Planning Commission , to provide a baseline against which the traffic impact of possible reductions in allowable and/or proposed future developmen,t could he measured. • a c TO: City Council - 2 Suggested Reduction Alternative This test would assess the impact on the circulation system of reduc- tions in proposed additional development on selected commercial , industrial and residential sites . Detailed information regarding the type and intensity of proposed additional development has been furnished by the major landowners , and is summarized in the tables attached. The traffic impact of this reduction Would be compared to the " Future Conditions Model " which is based on maximum expected buildout under the current General Plan . The Planning Commission viewed this type of test as necessary to measure the traffic impact, if any, on an across-the-board reduction in .allowable and proposed intensity of development. For the purposes of this test , an arbitrary reduction of 500,000 square feet in proposed additional floor area (not including development under construction or in plan check) was assigned to Newport Center. This represents a 21 . 4% reduction in proposed additional development based on information furnished by The Irvine Company, The same percentage reduction in proposed additional floor area was applied to Koll Center NeWport, the Emkay Planned Community , and the Aeronutronic- Ford industrial site. Other selected changes for testing are listed below. Overall , this involves a reduction of 1 . 2 million square feet of proposed additional floor area . With respect to residential sites , the Planning Commission proposed to test a reduction of approximately 33% in the dwelling units proposed for the major sites . In a majority of cases , this test reduction was based on a maximum density equivalent to 5 dwellings per gross acre . This involves a net reduction of approximately 1 ,000 dwellings , with a Potential population reduction of approximately 2 ,700 . Reductions for individual sites are as follows : Proposed Test Additional Reduction Commercial /Office (Sq . Ft. ) (Sq . Ft. Koll Center Newport 1 ,429 ,960 - 306 ,000 Emkay P-C 418,000 - 89,452 Newport Center 2, 332 ,458 - 500,000 Castaways (Comm. ) (Change to Res . ) 161 ,000 - 151 ,000 Bayview Landing (Change to Res . ) 1270000 - 127,000 Proposed Test Additional Reduction Industrial (Sq . Ft. ) - Sq . Ft. Aeronutronic-Ford 177 ,110 37,900 Proposed Test Residential Dwellings Reduction Aeronutronic-Ford 654 - 109 Westbay 348 - 58 Newporter North 704 - 264 Castaways (Commercial portion 320 - 120 changed to Res . @ 5 DU/a) + 125 Big Canyon Area 10 160 No Change Freeway Reservation West 90 - 45 TO : City Council - 3 Proposed Test Residential ( Cont . ) Dwellings Reduction Baywood Expansion 100 No Change Newport Center Condos 245 No Change Fifth Avenue Sites 204 - 34 Caltrans Parcels 600 - 400 Banning Property 90p - 150 Bayview Landing (Changed to Residential @ 5 DU/a) + 85 This test involves changing the Castaways commercial site and the Bayview Landing commercial site to residential use , This was based on the more favorable peak hour traffic generation of residential versus commercial use . Circulation System Alternatives The Traffic Model can be used to test the effects of changing or deleting any given link in the circulation system. The model would show the impact on the rest of the system of changing any given segment . Consequently it was recommended that the model be used to measure the impact of deleting certain major links which may or may not be implemented in the future . Two separate tests of this type could be the deletion of the extension of University Drive and the deletion of a portion of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Such a test could indicate the potential redistribution of traffic if these links , or any others , were not improved. Use of the Traffic Model for Testing A memo from the City' s Traffic Engineer detailing the technical ' require- ments of conducting Traffic Model tests and the time constraints involved is attached for the City Council ' s consideration . Due to unforeseen delays in the provision by the State of regional traffic data necessary to complete the "Future Conditions Model " , it appears unlikely at this time that the model could be used to test the land use and circulation alternatives recommended by the Planning Commission prior to the initiation of the February , 1978 General Plan Amendment session . If the City Council determines that the Traffic Model tests recommended by the Planning Commission are Appropriate to the GO eral Plan Review process , the February , 1978 amendment session could �e continued , or the amendment delayed to the June , 1978 amendment session , to allow for completion of the recommended tests , or other tests as desired. Respectfully submitted , DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . Hogan , Director By Da3id Dmohowski Advance Planning Administrator DD: jmb Attachments : 1 ) Memo from Traffic Engineer 2 ) Previous Staff Memo 3) Minutes of Planning Commission Study Session of December 8, 1977 t - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT January 5, 1978 TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN REVIEW The City Council at its December 19, 1977 meeting requested additional information regarding the Planning Commission's request for additional traffic model services, at an estimated. cost of $12,000. This report will provide information requested by the City Council , and the estimated time table to perform the work. Currently Authorized Transportation Model Products The objective of the Transportation Model is the development of traffic circulation models as tools to assist i,n the evaluation of the traffic implications of land use and transportation system decisions. Specific products are: 1 . A Model to depict existing conditions -- consisting of computer, procedures to reflect average daily conditions plus supplement- ary manual procedures for analyzing peak vs. off-peak and winter vs. summer relationships on the existing roadways. Uses of the existing conditions model are as follows: a. Building block for future conditions model b. Permits evaluation of proposed developments to provide data to analyze immediate impacts on existing roadway system c. Can be updated continuously so City will always have an "existing conditions" model 2. A Model to depict future 1995 conditions -- consisting of computer procedures to reflect average daily conditions plus supplementary manual procedures for analyzing peak vs. off-peak and winter vs. summer relationship on the adopted Circulation ' Element of the General Plan. (See attached Circulation Element Map) Community Development Department -2- January 5, 1978 The future conditions model will provide estimates of traffic for one set of future conditions consisting of land use and circulation system inputs. (Assumes completion of additional elements of the adopted circulation system.) 3. Additional (Optional ) Capabilities of the Future Conditions Model The future conditions model constitutes a reference point against which alternative land use or circulation system configurations may be compared and evaluated. . The impact of modifying the City's circulation system by adding, deleting, or reclassifying specific streets or highways . The impact on the City's circulation system which might result from changes in major regional facilities on the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways . The traffic impact of specific long-term development proposals . The traffic-related aspects of alternative policies pertaining to the intensity of long-term commercial/ industrial development Description of Products from $12,000 Additional Transportation Services Requested by the Planning Commission 1 . No Growth Baseline Projection - The Transportation Model would be used to estimate future (1995) average daily traffic volumes that would occur on the adopted circulation system if the undeveloped sites were not allowed to develop beyond what is currently under construction and/or building permits are being processed. The remainder of the City and the surrounding areas would continue to develop as projected by the Community Development Department and adjacent agencies. This test would provide a baseline for evaluating the impact of reductions in allowable and/or proposed future development. 2. Suggested Reduction Alternative - The Transportation Model would be use to estimate future (1995) average daily traffic conditions that would occur on the adopted circulation system. The traffic volume estimates from this analysis would then be compared against the currently authorized Transportation Model estimates. 3. Circulation System Alternatives - The Transportation Model would be used to examine the impact of deleting University Drive and a portion of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Community Development Department January 5, 1978 The deletion of a portion of the San Joaquin Hills Corridor assumes that the link between Sand Canyon Road and' Laguna Canyon Road would not be constructed by 1995. The analysis would be made on current 1995 land use assumptions and the Planning Commission suggested alternative reduction. The circulation system for the two land use assumptions would be tested for the deletion of University Drive. The land use assumptions would also be tested for the deletion of;the .portion of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Estimated Time Table to Process and Prepare• the Necessary Report on the Additional Work Based on the assumption that the City Council authorizes the additional work on January 9, 1978 we have estimated the time that would be required to process, evaluate and prepare the necessary reports for submittal to the Planning Commission. January 9, 1978 - Council authorize additional work January 16, 1978 Community Development Department complete land use data tabulations in Traffic Analysis Zone 'Format for alternatives to be considered. February 13, 1978 - Consultant deliver Transportation Model data output to staff for review, analysis and preparation of the staff report. March• 20, 1978 - Staff report complete for distribution to Planning Commission The above time table is very critical and does not allow any flexibility for major delays or problems. At the present time we have encountered delays in completing the authorized Transportation Model and estimated that it will not be completed for presentation to the City Council until mid February. A letter from Herman Basmaciyan and Associates regarding the delays due to regional data inputs is attached for reference. The above time table assumes that we will not en�couunter further delays delays in the current work program. p Bill E. Darnell Traffic Engineer Attachments. BED:bcd NE PORT BEACH _ CIRCULATIONELEMENT t+ p ••y6 MASTER PLAN OF V �h ! • :;:� '°� `�,\ STREETS & HIGHWAYS r �{ ® MAJOR ROAD 0 INTERCHANGE SIX LANE DIVIDEDu ® ADOPTED '-] PRIMARY ROAD FREEWAY a FOUR LANE DIVIDED ROBS PRIMARY ROAD BRIDGE } . � � 1 E\ter �� w•w,� MODIFIED SECONDARY ROAD . FOUR LANE UNDIVIDED ROUTES THAT REQUIRE FURTHER COORDINATION .> .:p _ /" �'�\CIS � � �f '` ,_� { _ j f t. \•\ .``�,', 'ti .-:,:�1�t��-.`/�-'•. � �^�"���_. a-a' �� )t P��` OU / � ,"' ,JC°�`���_�u((? LCt'Ff•�_ .._�r.. 4 ,p Y;.r N•�t.•�_ ��,'`'� '''�.� � �� (Mry ���-. •� "vim• =`o k! +'(`)�r,� '� `�, ')A `- �s„ -r� •ryr�. � . )� 1r�>t ' �/�1. / rr.. �: s'� m„a! � �,.•' =" _ y �-' `_ �'+'.,•t`•;``• o �` F `'l 'ti4��,\�\ `\ �/ f " , ` e.iai� a p�� ' �^^.� ) i�.� ` ' � -�'•�+� dt in_� ME� � 17Q.1 as'' w��' " ' '\�4'\• �� T �� i s1��Ctlpp 17�OpOC.P a "` •�- r A..t•!s�l o.. � U� _. \v,GT'�•ppe � '..s � _ �_i �•l_ ,� y\.3 _.3g„• ,�—.,ty _.r,pt.'....._". .. _ ..._ �� >�°1Z>�^ _r` ©po (f'n� '— =-_off t3'i! _ '� c•' A "s + N i llii f9ii'ti•:�: _ -�,..9'. 1..v � p�ppQt3fJl� __ - ' ` 711�i�i `;;:.�,T�^� _ ,-r°� �-�fG.de,��=-'o: y{•ly; � _.. =moo ,. , + moo• r• SCa)B��=it feet Herman Consulting Services asmad■ Engineering/Planning y' a' n Transportation Transit and Associates, Traffic 1821 Port Renwick, Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 640.5737 January 4, 1978 Bill E. Darnell City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, , CA 92663 Subject-: Development of Traffic Circulation Models Schedule for Completion of "Future" Model Dear Bill On December 30, 1977 LARTS informed us that a further delay was encountered in providing regional travel pattern information 'for the "Future Conditions" model. Briefly, LARTS had misplaced a data tape transmitted to them by Herman Kimmel & Associates, Inc. during the first week of December. Consequently, after all other arrangements had been made to process the tape, work could not be initiated because the data was "lost. " This most recent problem with LARTS follows the long delay which we encountered when LARTS could not allocate manpower to perform this relatively simple task. As you know, we solved that problem by engaging a former LARTS employee to do the processing on our behalf but under LARTS supervision. It is estimated that the , total time lost due to problems with LARTS is a minimum of two months. Since LARTS has now found the "lost" tape and is logging it at the computer center as it should have originally, processing is scheduled to commence this week. We estimate now that the data from LARTS will be available to us on or about January 9, 1978. Accordingly, the first set of traffic loadings using the "Future Conditions ' model should be obtained by January 16. Of course, some time beyond that is required to review and analyze the 'results and to make any modifications as necessary. Sincerely, HERIQN BASIULCI .AN AND ASSOCIATES Herman Basme. iC an, P. . s cc. Herman Kimmel & Associates, INC. , • City Council Meeting December 19 , 1977 Agenda Item No. H-12 I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH December 14, 1977 TO : City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Testing of land use and circulation alternatives using the Traffic Model , as recommended by the Planning Commission in connection with the General Plan Review. Suggested Action If ' desired, adopt a Budget Amendment adding $12,000 to Account No . 62-3697-107 •( Develop Transportation Model ) , and authorize the staff to enter into an agreement with the consultants for additional traffic model services with the maximum fee not to exceed $12,000 . Planning Commission Recommendation At its special study session meeting of December 8, 1977 , the Planning Commission discussed proposed development on the major undeveloped sites based on information submitted by the property owners . As a result of this discussion , possible alternative levels of development on these major sites were proposed for testing , in terms of traffic impact, using the Traffic Model . More specifically, the Planning Com- mission requested that the following tests be run : (a) No Growth Baseline Projection : This test would identify the traffic impact of no further development on the major sites , given the implementation of the adopted circulation system. This projection would be based on existing occu- pied buildings and dwellings , plus those now under construc- tion or in plan check . This test would provide a baseline for measuring the impact of possible reductions in allow- able and/or proposed future development. (b ) Suggested Reduction Alternative_: This test would assess the impact of reductions in proposed development on selected commercial , industrial and residential sites . The traffic impact of this reduction will be compared to the future conditions model . These reductions in pro- posed development are described in detail below. (c ) Circulation System Alternatives : - In addition to the testing of land use alternatives , described in (a) and (b ) above , it was suggested that the Traffic Model be used to examine the impact of deleting selected links in the adopted circulation system, such as the extension of University Drive and the San Joaquin Hills Transpor- tation Corridor. The CitY' s Traffic Engineer has estimated that the cost of conducting these tests using the Traffic Model would be $12,000 . Funding approval by the City Council is requested at this time to allow for completion of these tests prior to the General Plan Amendment Session in February, 1978.' TO : City Council - 2 . Discussion The Planning Commission ' s discussion was based on information submitted by staff regarding existing and proposed development on the major un- developed sites . Attached for the City Council ' s information are charts describing commercial , industrial and residential sites. with an evaluation of existing and proposed intensity of development. The Traffic Model test- described under (b) above involves a reduction in proposed development, for testing purposes only , for selected sites . Included in this test is a reduction of 500 ,000 square feet of pro- posed office/commercial floor area for Newport Center , and a propor- . tional reduction for Koll Center Newport, the Emkay P-C, and the Aeronutronic Ford industrial /office site. With respect to residential sites , the test involves a reduction of approximately 33% in the dwell- ing units proposed for the major sites . Reducti-ons for individual sites are as follows : Proposed Test Additional Reduction Commercial /Office (Sq . Ft. ) (Sq . Ft. ) Koll Center Newport 1 ,429 ,960 - 306 ,000 Emkay P-C 418,000 - 89 ,452 Newport Center 2, 332,458 - 500 ,000 Castaways ( Comm. ) ( Change to Res . ) 161 ,000 - 151 ,000 Bayview Landing ( Change to Res . ) 1279000 - 127,000 Proposed Test •Additional Reduction Industrial (Sq . Ft. ) (Sq . Ft . ) Aeronutronic-Ford 177, 110 - 37,900 Proposed Test Residential Dwellings Reduction Aeronutronic- Ford 654 - 109 Westbay 348 - 58 Newporter North 704 - 264 Castaways 320 - 120 ( Commercial portion changed to Res . @ 5 DU/a) + 125 Big Canyon Area 10 169 No Change Freeway Reservation West 90 - 45 Baywood Expansion 100 No Change Newport Center Condos 245 No Change ( Continued) TO : City Council - 3. Proposed Test Residential Dwellings Reduction Fifth Avenue Sites 204 - 34 Caltrans Parcels 600 - 400' Banning Property 900 - 150 Bayview Landing + 85 (Changed to Residential - @ 5 DU/a) Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . HOGAN , Director By DAVI�HOW Advance Planning Administrator DD/kk Attachment for City Council Only Y D. In E. Com- F. Proposed G. Proposed H. Site I. Committed J. Proposed K. Max. A. B. Type of C. Existing Process mitted Floor Additional Buildout Area (Net Floor Area Buildout Floor Allowable Area Development Floor Area (12-1-77) Area Floor Area Floor Area Acres) Ratio Area Ratio Floor Area Koll General Office 406,855 366,504 773,359 1 ,340,860 2,114,219 102.34 .173 .474 2,217,200 Center Governmental 90,000 - 90,000 - 90,000 7.80 .265 .265 90,000 Newport Industrial 372,000 - 372,000 25,000 397,000 25.04 .341 .363 403,775 Retail/ Service - - - - - - - - 110,000 Restaurant 20,486 - 20,486 64,100 84,586 14.48 .042 .175 44,000 Hotel - - - - - 9.54 - - - 889,341 1 ,255,845 1 ,429,960 2,685,805 159.20 .281 .383_ 2,864,975 (.413) Emkay- General Office 1 ,189,823 380,130 1 ,569,953 418,000 1 ,987,953 105.08• .342 .434 2,199,008 Newport Retail/Service 229,148 44,250 273,398 - 273,398 24.14 .259 .259 180,000 Place Restaurant 39,500 51000 44,500 - 44,500 7.40 .138 .138 23,000 Hotel 137,229 83,000 220,229 - 220,229 8.76 .426 .577 180,000 1 ,595,700 512,380 12,108,080 418,000 2,526,080 145.38 .332 .399 2,582,008 ( .408) Aeronu- General Office 832,000 122,890 954,890 177,110 1 ,132,000 91 .0 .240 .285 Plans to tronic be Ford Approved (Indus. Office) Newport General Office 1 ,789,000 76,892 1 ,865,892 2,147,708 4,013,600 198.4 .215 .464 4,299,600 -Center Medical Office 220,000 80,000 300,000 - 300,000 16.40 .419 .419 - Retail/Service 1 ,071 ,250 120,000 1 ,191 ,250 152,750 1 ,344,000 98.40 .279 .313 1 ,367,000 Restaurant - - 8,000 8,000 - - - - Hotel (377) 210,000 - 210,000 - 210,000 9.70 .497 .497 210,000 Residential (67 DU's) (226 DU's) (293 DU's) , (245 DU's) (538 DU's) 58.00 - - (538 DU's) Government 100,000 - 100,000 24,000 124,000 8.30 .276 .342 122,000 Golf/Tennis 8,700 - 8,700 - 8,700 142.20 .001 .001 • - 3,398,950 276,892 3,675,142 2,332,458 �� 531 .40 .178 .297 5,998,600 (67 DU's) (226 DU's) (293 DU's) (245 DU's) (538 DU's) ( .291) Newport Center Res. ry D. In E. Com- F. Proposed G. Proposed H. Site I. Committed J. Proposed K. Max. A. B. Type of C. Existing Process mitted Floor Additional Buildout Area (Net Floor Area Buildout Floor Allowable • Area Development Floor Area (12-1-77) Area Floor Area Floor Area Ratio Area Ratio Floor Area North General Office 74,278 45,000 119,278 675,000 794,278 85.0 -.042 .235 .235 Ford Retail - - - 40,000 40,000 P-C Instituational 10,000 28,000 38,000 - 38,000 84,278 73,000 157,278 715,000 872,278 Casta- Retail/Service - - - 16,000 16,000 25.0 - .152 Plans to ways Restaurant - - - 7,500 7,500 be (Comm.) Hotel (250) - - - 137,50b 137,500 Approved 161 ,000 161 ,000 Mariners Retail/Service 348,738 - 348,738 396,399 745,137 34.2 .260 .500 745,137 Mile Bayview Retail/Service - - - 10,000 10,000 17.0 - .185 Plans to Landing Restaurant - - - 7,500 7,500 be Hotel (200) - - - 110,000 110,000 Approved .127,500 127,500 San Restaurant - - - 5,000 5,000 13.0 - .130 Plans to Diego Hotel - - - 68,750 68,750 be Creek (125) 73,750 73,750 Approved r North San Industrial - - - 470,000 470,000 47.0 - .229 Plans to Diego be Creek Approved South • Y PROPOSED MAXIMUM TYPE OF SITE DENSITY PROPOSED DU 's POSSIBLE AREA DEVELOPMENT ACRE (ACRES) (DU ' s/AC) DU ' s ALLOWED ALTERNATIVE ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES Aeronutronic Medium-Density I Plan to be 545 DU's @ Ford (Res.) Residential ! 109 6.0 654 Approved 5.0 DU's/a Westbay Medium-Density - 58 6.0 348 348 290 DU's @ Residential 5.0 DU's/a Newporter Medium-Density 88 8.0 704 704 440 DU's @ • North Residential 5.0 DU's/a Castaways Medium-Density 40 8.0 320 320 200 DU's @ (Residential) Residential 5.0 DU's/a Big Canyon Multi-Family 15 10.6 160 338 No Change Area 10 'Residential (160) Freeway 'Medium-Density 9 10.0 90 Plan to 45 DU's @ Reservation Residential Be 5.0 DU's/a West (west of Approved MacArthur) Freeway Multi-Family 8 12.5 100 Plan to No Change Reservation Residential Be (100) East (Baywood ' Approved Expansion) Newport Multi-Family 9 27.2 245 315 No Change • Center Condos Residential (245) Fifth Ave. Medium-Density 34 6.0 204 204 170 DU's @ Sites (a., Residential 5.0 DU's/a b. , and c.) Caltrans Multi-Family 40 15.0 600 600 320 DU's @ Parcels Residential 8.0 DU's/a (west Newport) Banning Medium-Density 150 6.0. 900 900 750 DU's @ Property Residential 5 DU's/a TOTAL 560 4,325 2,760 . i . . COMMISSIONERS • ( per, vc v °o �9 1m tic Cott' ®f Newp ort Bead 0 MINUTES 9sm°m9's�7 Special Planning Commission Study Session m 'A 'r Place : City Council Chambers Time : 2 :00 p .m. 02 Date : December 8, 1977 ROLL CALL IN O<.X Present X X X X X X DRAFT EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS R. V . Hogan , Community Development Director Benjamin B. Nolan , City Engineer STAFF MEMBERS David Dmohowski , Advance Planning Administrator Bill Darnell , Traffic Engineer Joanne Bader, Secretary General Plan Review -- Discussion of Possible Development Alternatives R. V . Hogan , Community Development Director, advised that the purpose of this Special Study Session is to obtain direction from the Planning Commission as to proposed alternative land uses for testing against the City ' s Traffic Model . He stated that the Traffic Model is being prepared to show two things : 1 ) the existing traffic in accordance with the Traffic Model , and 2) traffic projections for 1995 . He advised that -there has been a direction from the City Council to propose, alternative land uses which would reduce the traffic impact between now and 1995 both from a phasing point of view and 'from an overall• planning development point of view. Mr. Hogan then reviewed in detail the charts prepared ' by staff delineating proposed commercial development and proposed residential development .(Exhibits I and II attached) . Mr. Hogan then advised that staff has made proposals for the possible alternatives . He stressed that these proposals are only for the Planning' Commission ' s consideration and for testing purposes against the Traffic Model . The proposals that staff has made have been in their entirety a reduction from the General Plan permitted development as it exists at this time , except for those which require General Plan approval , but it includes the proposals that •� 4 COMMISSIONERS • • g, City ®$ Newport IC�eia�.r'p 1 MINUTES vsss 9c soy�,oy9��� . s °y December 8, 1977 ROLL CALL INORX have been made for that possible future development even where General Plan approval has not yet been given . Mr. Hogan then reviewed the staff' s proposed alternatives . Beginning with Newport Center, because it is the largest of the development sites , Mr. Hogan suggested that an overall reduction of 500,000 sq . ft. in the maximum allowable floor area be tested using the Traffic Model . This represents an 11 . 6% reduction in the maximum allowable floor area . He then suggested that the maximum allowa- ble floor area for the Koll Center, .Emkay, and Aeronutronics-Ford sites be reduced for testing purposes by that same proportion . Relative to the Castaways property, Mr. Hogan advised that staff is proposing that a portion of the property presently proposed for hotel and commercial development be changed to residential development except for approximately 10 ,000 sq . ft . of commercial development which would provide commercial support for beach visitors and access to the beach by the public . Staff Advised that this would involve approxi - mately 125 DU ' s on 25 acres. At 5 DU ' s/acre, as suggested by staff as a possible reduction (See Exhibit II ) , this change would increase the residential portion of the site from 40 to 65 acres and. result in a total of 325 DU ' s proposed . In answer to a question by the Planning Commission as to why staff is proposing to change the Caltrans parcels in West Newport to 8 DU ' s/acre instead of 5 DU ' s/acre like the other properties , Mr. Hogan answered that this property is presently up for disposal by Caltrans as surplus property. Immediately across Superior Avenue from that property is the property that is designated- for park purposes . Both of these properties are owned by Caltrans , so staff is trying to work out a reasonable relationship for development of that property which would allow a dedication of the property on the south side of Coast Highway equivalent to the area that the City needs for park purposes in that area . He advised that if the allowable DU ' s is reduced to 5 DU ' s/acre , it would reduce the dedication requirement and consequently increase the cost . This would mean that the City would have to pay for acquisition of a portion of that property. -2- COMMISSIONERS �a� • 9cm V o�Pmy9yc �lty ®f Newport Beach MINUTES N °y December 8, 1977 P40LL CALL INDtX Mr. Hogan stated that perhaps the Planning Commission would like to consider conversion of the Bayview Landing property to residential development at 5 DU ' s/acre , rather than any commercial development, and conversion of the San Diego Creek North property to industrial• development rather than restaurant/hotel . He emphasized that these uses would be for testing purposes against the Traffic Model only. Commissioner Balalis voiced concern with staff' s proposal of allowing 8 DU ' s/acre for the Caltrans property in West Newport. He advised that although he can understand staff' s logic of allowing 8 DU ' s/acre so that the City can acquire, a free park , he feels that 320 DU ' s in that area is too dense . In answer to a question by the Planning Commis- sion , Mr. •Hogan explained that staff' s proposed 11 . 6% reductions on commercial development were taken from the Maximum Allowable Floor Area . This was done so that part of that would be absorbed in the proposed reduction that the owner has already made . Motion X Following discussion , a motion was made that the Planning Commission accept staff' s proposed reductions with the following revisions : 1 . That the Caltrans residential property in West Newport be changed to 5 DU ' s/acre. 2 . That the Bayview Landing property be changed to residential development at 5 DU ' s/acre . 3. That the Castaways commercial property be changed to residential development at 5 DU ' s/ acre , except for 10 ,000 sq . ft . of commercial . 4 . That the San Diego Creek North property be changed to industrial development rather than restaurant/hotel . 5 . That a 500 ,000 sq . ft . reduction from the total Proposed Additional Floor Area be made for Newport Center, rather than from the Maximum Allowable Floor Area as proposed by staff. 6 . That the total Proposed Additional Floor Area -3- r COMMISSIONERS • p� �Q 9cF 9� °OF A�y9�G� �ity of Newport Beach C MINUTES °y December 8, 1977 ROLL CALL INORX for Koll Center Newport, Emkay-Newport Place, and Aeronutronics-Ford .be reduced by the same percentage as Newport Center, i .e . , 21 . 4%. Commissioner Frederickson voiced concern that the support systems are not being considered; that is , utilities , sewers , etc. Ben Nolan , City Engineer, advised that most of the backbone utility systems have been based on earlier planning and are largely completed. He further advised that he does not think the City ' s sewer and water systems would be a significant constraint. He stated that although he is not too familiar with the gas and electricity situ- ation , he feels that traffic is probably the biggest problem. Community Development Director Hogan advised that both the gas and electric companies have . indicated that they are well able to provide the system itself within Newport Beach . The constraint would be in the overall supply in this particular region as far as the volume of both electricity and gas are concerned. Commissioner Hummel felt that the City should make sure that the utility companies are talking _ about the same kind of volume that the City is talking about before it is assumed that the supply is adequate . He feels that the support systems situation should' be included in the Planning Commission ' s findings and recommendations Community Development Director Hogan advised that staff feels a baseline run should be made to determine what would happen if by 1995 none of these major vacant land areas are developed. A baseline run such as this would provide a source of comparison between 1995 development in accordance with the General Plan , a reduction as approved by the Planning Commission this afternoon , and no further development on any of these properties . Ben Nolan , City Engineer , suggested that the Traffic Model also be used to examine the impact of deleting selected links in the adopted -4- COMMISSIONERS Beach �6ty of Newport Beach MINUTES FSC � F° v� 3 s °y December 8, 1977 ROLL CALL IN OQX circulation system, such as the extension of University Drive and the San Joaquin Hills Corridor. The Traffic Engineer estimated that this additional work would cost around $.1 ,000 . He also estimated that the total cost of conducting the no-growth baseline projection test , the reduction alternative test, and the circulation system alternatives test would be approximately $12 ,000 . Discussion was opened to the public and Dick Reese , representing The Irvine Company , appeared before the Planning Commission . He advised that he feels that studying these alternatives for residential densities and commercial intensities is a very logical thing to do . lie then advised that The Irvine Company agrees there is a problem and that they, as a major land owner , are going to have to participate in , a solution to this traffic problem. He stated that The Irvine Company is hopeful that the Traffic Model will indicate that the problem is perhaps not so big and that the required solutions are not so severe as to require heavy reductions in land uses . He advised that he feels Newport Center is one of the areas most capable of handling the planned intensity of use . He further advised that Newport Center is a regional transit terminal and has one of the highest ridership experiences of any transit stop in Orange County and he believes that with the addition of a specific transportation bus terminal , the ridership will continue to increase . He then spoke in favor of a baseline run presuming no additional development on .these major parcels as well as future open work sessions such as this one . Margot Skilling, resident of West Newport; appeared before the Planning Commission and brought notice to two large developments in West Newport , i . e . , Versailles and Newport Crest . She stated that Versailles is around 30 units per acre having one-bedroom units and , therefore, not too crowded . However, Newport Crest, on the other side of Superior, is 12 units per acre having four bedrooms and a den per unit. She advised that the Traffic Model will not be able to determine the input of units per acre unless it can distinguish whether one-bedroom units are being referred to or four-bedroom units . COMMISSIONERS ,� 12.. MY ®$ Newport Beach MINUTES ° °2 December 8, 1977 ROLL CALL INOLX Bill Banning , of Beeco , Ltd . , appeared before the Planning Commission and questioned whether there is a dramatic benefit by reducing density to a particular level . He also questioned whether the contribution to the overall traffic from development in a particular region could be measured . In relation to the arbitrary reductions , Mr. Banning felt that sometimes these reductions can stay in people ' s minds in saying that what ' s good for one area is good for another--even though there may be no correlation between them. Tom Morrissey, representing Aeronutronics-Ford , appeared before the Planning Commission and spoke in favor of studying various alternatives such as this . He then advised that perhaps the Planning Commission should give some thought to equalizing proposed build-out floor area ratios among the similar types of land uses as opposed to across-the-board cuts and advised of his hope that the opportunity to examine this possibility might arise . There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the discussion was closed to the public. Commissioner Cokas requested that Commissioner Balalis ' motion be revised to include a seventh item to read as follows : 7 . That the baseline runs as discussed by staff be made . Commissioner Balalis accepted this addition to his motion . Ayes X X X X X X Commissioner Balalis ' amended motion was voted on and passed unanimously . There being no further business , Planning Commission adjourned the meeting . Time : 4 : 55 p .m. PAUL L . BALALIS , Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach -6- 1n1 PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT D. In E. Com- F: Proposed G. Proposed H. Site I. Conhitted J. Proposed K. Max. A. B. Type of C. Existing Process mitted Floor Additional Buildout Area (Net Floor Area Buildout Floor Allowable Area Development Floor Area 12-1-77 Area Floor Area Floor Area Acres) Ratio Area Ratio Floor Area Koll General Office 406,855 366,504 773,359 1,340,860 2,114,219 102.34 .173 .474 2,217,200 Center Governmental 90,000 - 90,000 - 90,000 7.80 .265 .265 90,000 Newport Industrial 372,000 - 372,000 25,000 397,000 25.04 .341 .363 403,775 Retail/ Service - - - - - - - - 110,000 Restaurant 20,486 - 20,486 64,100 84,586 14.48 .042 .175 440 Hotel - - - - - 9.54 - - 889,341 1,255,845 1,429,960 2,685,805 159.20 .281 .383 2,8 , (.44 1 3) Emkay- General Office 1,189,823 380,130 1,569,953 418,000 1,987,953 105.08 .342 .434 2,199,008 Newport Retail/Service 229,148 44,250 273,398 - 273,398 24.14 .259 .259 180,000 Place Restaurant 39,500 5,000 44,500 - 44,500 7.40 .138 .138 23,000 Hotel 137,229 - 137,229 83,000 220,229 8.76 .426 .577 180,000 17595,700 429,380 2,025,080 501,000 T,525,U80 145.38 .319 .399 2,582,008 (.408) Aeronu- General Office 832,000 - 832,000 300,000 1,132,000 91.0 .209 .285 Plans to troni c be Ford Approved (Indus. Office) Newport General Office 1,789,000 76,892 1,865,892 2,147,708 4,013,600 198.4 .215 .464 4,299,600 Center Medical Office 220,000 80,000 300,000 - 300,000 16.40 .419 .419 - Retail/Service 1,071,250 120,000 1.191.250 152,750 1,344,000 98.40 .279 .313 1,367,• Restaurant - - 8,000 - - - Hotel (377) 210,000 - 210,000 - 210,000 9.70 .497 .497 210,000 Residential (67 DU's) (226 DU's) (293 DU's) (245 DU's) (538 DU's) 58.00 - - (538 DU's) Government 100,000 - 100,000 24,000 124,000 8.30 .276 .342 122,000 Golf/Tennis 8,700 - 8,700 - 8,700 142.20 .001 .001 - X Mr3,398,950 276,892 3,675,142 2,332,458 6,000,300 531.40 . 778 .297 5,9981600 Q (67 DU's) (226 0U'S) (293 DU's) (245 DU's) (536 DU's) Newport N :. Newport Center Res. H PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT D. In E. Com- F. Proposed G. Proposed H. Site I. Committed J. Proposed K. Max. A. B. Type of C. Existing Process mitted Floor Additional Buildout Area (Net Floor Area Buildout Floor Allowable Area Development Floor Area 12-1-77 Area Floor Area Floor Area Acres) Ratio Area Ratio Floor Area North General Office 74,278 45,000 119,278 675,000 794,278 85.0 .042 .235 .235 Ford Retail - - - 40,000 40,000 P-C Instituational 10,000 28,000 38,000 - 38,000 84,278 7370 00 157,278 715,000 872,278 Casta- Retail/Service - - - 16,000 16-,000 25.0 - .152 Plans to ways Restaurant - - - 7,500 7,500 be (Comm.) Hotel (250) - - - 137,500 137,500 Approved 161 0000 6_1, 000 Mariners Retail/Service 348.738 - 348,738 396,399 745,137 34.2 .260 .500 745,137 Mile Bayview Retail/Service - - - 10,000 10,000 17.0 - .185 Plans to Landing Restaurant - - - 7,500 7,500 be Hotel (200) - - - 110,000 110,000 Approved 127,500 127,500 San Restaurant - - - 5,000 5,000 13.0 - .130 Plans to Diego Hotel - - - 68,750 68,750 be Creek (125) 73,780 73,750 Approved • North X _ �. San Industrial - - 470,000 470,000 47.0 - .229 Plans to :r Diego be Creek I Approved "~ South H � I 5 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT t ` PROPOSED MAXIMUM ALTERNATIVES TYPE OF SITE DENSITY PROPOSED DU's AS PROPOSED AREA DEVELOPMENT AREA (ACRES) (DU's/AC) OU's ALLOWED BY STAFF ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES _ Aeronutronic Medium-Density Plan to be 545 DU's @ Ford (Res.) Residential 109 6.0 654 Approved 5.0 OU's/a Westbay Medium-Density 58 6.0 348 348 290 DU's @ Residential 5.0 DU's/a Newporter Medium-Density 88 8.0 704 704 440 DU's -@ .- North Residential 5.0 DU's/a Castaways Medium-Density 40 8.0 320 320 200 DU's @ (Residential) Residential 5.0 DU's/a Big Canyon Multi-Family 15 10.6 160 338 No Change Area 10 Residential (160) Freeway Medium-Density 9 10.0 90 Plan to 45 DU's @ Reservation Residential Be 5.0 DU's/a West (west of Approved MacArthur) Freeway Multi-Family 8 12.5 100 Plan to No Change Reservation • Residential Be (100) East (Baywood Approved Expansion) Newport Multi-Family 9 27.2 245 315 No Change Center Condos Residential (245) Fifth Ave. Medium-Density 34 6.0 204 204 170 OU's @ two Sites (a. and Residential 5.0 DU's/a b.) Caltrans Multi-Family 40 15.0 600 600 320 DU's @ Parcels Residential 8.0 OU's/a (west Newport) l9 % Banning Medium-Density 150 6.0 900 900 750 DU's @ ? Property Residential 5 DU's/a Cr rt p TOTAL 560 4,325 2,760 City Council Meeting December 19 , 1977 Agenda Item No. H-12 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH December 14, 1977 FILE COPY DO MOT P!"MIT TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Testing of land use and circulation alternatives using the Traffic Model , as recommended by the Planning Commission in connection with the General Plan Review. Suggested Action If desired, adopt a Budget Amendment adding $12 ,000 to Account No . 02-3697-107 ( Develop Transportation Model ) , and authorize the staff to enter into an agreement with the consultants for additional traffic model services with the maximum fee not to exceed $1.2 ,000 . Planning Commission Recommendation At its special study session meeting of December 8, 1977 , the Planning Commission discussed proposed development on the major undeveloped sites based on information submitted by the property owners. As a result of this discussion , possible alternative levels of development on these major sites were proposed for testing, in terms of traffic impact, using the Traffic Model . More specifically, the Planning Com- mission requested that the following tests be run : (a ) No Growth Baseline Projection : This test would identify the traffic impact of no further development on the major sites , given the implementation of the adopted circulation system. This projection would be based on existing occu- pied buildings and dwellings , plus those now under construc- tion or in plan check . This test would provide a baseline for measuring the impact of possible reductions in allow- able and/or proposed future development. (b) Suggested Reduction Alternative : This test would assess the impact of reductions in proposed development on selected commercial , industrial and residential sites . The traffic impact of this reduction will be compared to the future conditions model . These reductions in pro- posed development are described in detail below. (c) Circulation System Alternatives : In addition to the testing of land use alternatives , described in (a) and (b) above , it was suggested that the Traffic Model be used to examine the impact of deleting selected links in the adopted circulation system, such as the extension of University Drive and the San Joaquin Hills Transpor- tation Corridor. The City ' s Traffic Engineer has estimated that the cost of conducting these tests using the Traffic Model would be $12,000 . Funding approval by the City Council is requested at this time to allow for completion of these tests prior to the General Plan Amendment Session in February, 1978. 0 TO : City Council - 2 . Discussion The Planning Commission ' s discussion was based on information submitted by staff regarding existing and proposed development on the major un- developed sites . Attached for the City Council ' s information are charts describing commercial , industrial and residential sites with an evaluation of existing and proposed intensity of development. The Traffic Model 'test described under (b) above involves a reduction in proposed development, for testing purposes only, for selected sites . Included in this test is a reduction of 500,000 square feet of pro- posed office/commercial floor area for Newport Center , and a propor- tional reduction for Koll Center Newport, the Emkay P-C, and the Aeronutronic Ford industrial /office site. With respect to residential sites , the test involves a reduction of approximately 33% in the dwell - ing units proposed for the major sites . Reductions for individual sites are as follows : 'Proposed Test Additional Reduction Commercial /Office (Sg . Ft. ) S . Ft. Koll Center Newport 1 ,429 ,960 - 3069000 Emkay P-C 418,000 - 89 ,452 Newport Center 2,332 ,458 - 500 ,000 Castaways (Comm. ( Change to Res . 16lo000 - 15.1 ,000 Bayview Landing ( Change to Res . ) 1279000 - 127 ,000 Proposed Test Additional Reduction Industrial (Sg . Ft. ) S . Ft. Aeronutronic-Ford 177, 110 - 37, 900 Proposed Test Residential Dwellings Reduction Aeronutronic- Ford 654 - 109 Westbay 348 - 58 Newporter North 704 - 264 Castaways 320 - 120 (Commercial portion changed to Res . @ 5 DU/a) + 125 Big Canyon Area 10 160 Nq Change Freeway Reservation West 90 - 45 Baywood Expansion 100 No Change Newport Center Condos 245 No Change (Continued) TO : City Council - 3. Proposed Test Residential Dwellings Reduction Fifth Avenue Sites 204 - 34 Caltrans Parcels 600 - 400 Banning Property 900 - 150 Bayview Landing + 85 (Changed to Residential @ 5 DU/a) Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . HOGAN , Director sn By DAVID DMOHOWSKI Advance Planning Administrator DD/kk Attachment for City Council Only D. In E. Com- F. Proposed G. Proposed H. Site I. Committed J. Proposed K. Max. A. B. Type of C. Existing Process mitted Floor Additional Buildout Area (Net Floor Area Buildout Floor Allowable Area IDevelopment Floor Area 12-1-77) Area Floor Area Floor Area Acres) Ratio Area Ratio Floor Area Koll General Office 406,855 366,504 773,359 1 ,340,860 2,114,219 102.34 .173 .474 2,217,200 Center Governmental 90,000 - 90,000 - 90,000 7.80 .265 .265 90,000 Newport Industrial 372,000 - 372,000 25,000 397,000 25.04 .341 .363 403,775 Retail/ Service - - - - - - - - 110,000 Restaurant 20,486 - 20,486 64,100 84,586 14.48 .042 .175 44,000 Hotel - - - - - 9.54 - - - 889,341 1 ,255,845 1,429,960 2,685,805 159.20 .281 .383 2,864,975 (.413) Emkay- General Office 1 ,189,823 380,130 1,569,953 418,000 1,987,953 105.08 .342 .434 2,199,008 Newport Retail/Service 229,148 44,250 273,398 - 273,398 24.14 .259 .259 180,000 Place Restaurant 39,500 5,000 44,500 - 44,500 7.40 .138 .138 23,000 Hotel 137,229 83,000 220,229 - 220,229 8.76 .426 .577 180,000 1 ,595,700 512,380 12,108,080 418,000 2,526,080 145.38 .332 .399 2,582,008 (.408) Aeronu- General Office 832,000 122,890 954,890 177,110 1,132,000 91 .0 .240 .285 Plans to tronic be Ford Approved (Indus. Office) Newport General Office 1 ,789,000 76,892 1 ,865,892 2,147,708 4,013,600 198.4 .215 .464 4,299,600 Center Medical Office 220,000 80,000 300,000 - 300,000 16.40 .419 .419 - Retail/Service 1,071,250 120,000 1 ,191 ,250 152,750 1 ,344,000 98.40 .279 .313 1,367,000 Restaurant - - 8,000 8,000 - - - - Hotel (377) 210,000 - 210,000 - 210,000 9.70 .497 .497 210,000 Residential (67 DU's) (226 DU's) (293 DU's) (245 DU's) (538 DU's) 58.00 - - (538 DU's) Government 100,000 - 100,000 24,000 124,000 8.30 .276 .342 122,000 Golf/Tennis 8,700 - 8,700 - 8,700 142.20 .001 .001 - 3,398,950 276,892 3,675,142 2,332,458 b,-Q9S-,3QU 531 .40 .178 .297 5,998,600 (67 DU's) (226 DU's) (293 DU's) (245 DU's) (538 DU"-s) (.291) Newport Center Res. S. D. In E. Com- F. Proposed G. Proposed H. Site I. Committed J. Proposed K. Max. A. B. Type of C. Existing Process mitted Floor Additional Buildout Area (Net Floor Area Buildout Floor Allowable Area Development Floor Area (12-1-77) Area Floor Area Floor Area Ratio Area Ratio Floor Area North General Office 74,278 45,000 119,278 675,000 794,278 85.0 .042 .235 .235 Ford Retail - - - 40,000 40,000 P-C Instituational 10,000 28,000 38,000 - 38,000 84,278 73,000 157,278 715,000 872,278 Casta- Retail/Service - - - 16,000 16,000 25.0 - .152 Plans to ways Restaurant - - - 7,500 7,500 be (Comm.) Hotel (250) - - - 137,500 137,500 Approved , 161 ,000 161 ,000 Mariners Retail/Service 348,738 - 348,738 396,399 745,137 34.2 .260 .500 745,137 Mile Bayview Retail/Service - - - 10,000 10,000 17.0 - .185 Plans to Landing Restaurant - - - 7,500 7,500 be Hotel (200) - - - 110,000 110,000 Approved .127,500 127,500 San Restaurant - - - 5,000 5,000 13.0 - .130 Plans to Diego Hotel - - - 68,750 68,750 be Creek (125) 73,750 73,750 Approved North ' San Industrial - - - 470,000 470,000 47.0 - .229 Plans to Diego be Creek Approved South PROPOSED MAXIMUM TYPE OF SITE DENSITY PROPOSED DU ' s POSSIBLE AREA DEVELOPMENT ACRE (ACRES) (DU ' s/AC) DU ' s ALLOWED ALTERNATIVE ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES Aeronutronic Medium-Density Plan to be 545 DU's @ Ford (Res.) Residential 109 6.0 654 Approved 5.0 DU's/a Westbay Medium-Density 58 6.0 348 348 290 DU's @ Residential 5.0 DU's/a Newporter Medium-Density 88 8.0 704 704 440 DU's @ North Residential 5.0 DU's/a Castaways Medium-Density 40 8.0 320 320 200 DU's @ (Residential) Residential 5.0 DU's/a Big Canyon Multi-Family 15 10.6 160 338 No Change Area 10 Residential (160) Freeway Medium-Density 9 10.0 90 Plan to 45 DU's @ Reservation Residential Be 5.0 DU's/a West (west of Approved MacArthur) Freeway Multi-Family 8 12.5 100 Plan to No Change Reservation Residential Be (100) East (Baywood Approved Expansion) Newport Multi-Family 9 27.2 245 315 No Change Center Condos Residential (245) Fifth Ave. Medium-Density 34 6.0 204 204 170 DU's @ Sites (a., Residential 5.0 DU's/a b., and c.) Caltrans Multi-Family 40 15.0 600 600 320 DU's @ Parcels Residential 8.0 DU's/a (west Newport) Banning Medium-Density 150 6.0 900 900 750 DU's @ Property Residential 5 DU's/a TOTAL 560 4,325 2,760 f 0 Planning Commission Meeting November 17 , 1977 Study Session Agenda No . 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 9 , 1977 TO : Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: General Plan Review - Status Report At the Planning Commission Study Session on November 3, 1977, the Planning Commission reviewed the City Council ' s direction on the overall General Plan review. Additionally , each Planning Commissioner indicated specific areas of concern that he/she wanted addressed during the General Plan review process . The purpose of this staff report is to bring the Planning Commission up to date on the information staff has received from property owners of the major undeveloped sites within the Newport Beach planning area and information on the timing of circulation system improvements . Section I of this report will identify the major undeveloped parcels . This section will further indicate : 1 ) the use(s ) contemplated for each site ; 2 ) the intensity of each development proposal ; and 3) the estimated occupancy of each site . Section II of this report will indicate the projected timing of improve- ments leading to the completion of the adopted Newport Beach circulation system. Finally, attached to this report is a copy of a memorandum from the Public Works Department indicating the major intersections and roadway links that appear to be the most immediate and/or serious traffic capacity problems . This staff report , the memorandum from Public Works Department , and Planning Commission discussion at the study session will be organized with additional data to attempt to identify problem areas in terms of possible imbalance between proposed development and support systems . Section I During the past several weeks , staff has been meeting with property owners of the major undeveloped sites in an attempt to develop an overall development schedule for vacant sites within the Newport Beach planning area . The sites investigated are indicated on Exhibit 1 . The proposed type , quantity, and detailed occupancy of each site east of the Dover/ Coast Highway Bridge is shown on Exhibit 2A. The projected type, quantity and estimates of occupancy for projects west of the Dover/ Coast Highway Bridge is shown on Exhibit 2B . A breakdown of total development by time periods and for each area will be distributed to the Planning Commission at the November 17 , 1977 Study Session. On the following exhibits , projects whose initial occupancy is to be from 1978-1980 are numbered in the 100 ' s , from 1981 to 1984 in the 200 ' s , and from 1985 to 1995 in the 300 ' s . ;0 EXHIBIT 1 _ 105 113 Development , ; , �♦ y Schedule 120 126 �e p 115 116 123 city of Os �. _ 139 -t _ , 7 NEWPORT BEACH \ �- 207 fR=ryf " n ivc - n -'` feet PACIFIC O C E A N1 -- ADVAMCE PLANMU�M 01VraSCM 1.f ! EXHIBIT 2A ' -3 CONPAMTIVL DOV6LOPMEAT SMIDULL'TOR UND6VLI.01w PROPERTIES Mt "EAST OF DOVER/COAST HWY. BRIDGE" •^h:; P11Lt 17 1e 19 eu el 5i I Y d e7 L MICE - mug 0. P. uslimN " CONl6M1CLV. A MIJlCLA4 RfstwwrT x07MaINa6TAlAL e)E4 Sf ell I•', DINStT11➢ D.D's CAICL IIT71 6Q. R. lowiQ. rt. 4 •ii W. PT. EQ• 7T. TS r °�' _�RCI'1'ANC�Y IY�If-lbRO r �` ROLL MUR 11'•II 1D1' SMII_ufflt_bld9,. 1 000 t Cotrorol•vlf 1... ' r •02�ulld to u)112 175.000 / ff 500 104 corpgrpw nTI1r.htdl• xf s00 A n 5" Dlnn f.t Y[Pnt R I' • 1 vt 1os_�:r9�.. T , 1O7!Yis:ne an f i/3 R I. �{; 11f,00D 1OD 0 Ie°ry of if e.bray_ 11O..S^o1'nr. . le. 100,000 ? j' 111 mat.l Alt. wlmevn r 7 , 1NW.Y DEV. 72,OW x 110 e•1 5 e5,lwo 114 out.e.v 17 313,000 ' ,�•.: p ALRoxulnoxu tow - I ' I Ruldme Al dw. 100 5.5 do ¢ 550_ " 116�— . f 4 110 •• •type,•a._ 5e0 oa SPVIXL C@VANT �l IH..y r.avvnlln. 9d 90 • , I•!� 117_sl rypd�nl c. _ — 60.OV0 60.a0 " � I y' 41• Pr_yyl-.gylynl�----• 14 ---- — T,..u[v te••[VlL1°n I{ m.[d)xultl-lu1lY 9 100 " I k N°..h ford 675,000 t , 120-/ I 1.7 76r7a " ' 121 e�ad�9glrre t 122_c1.g• riYt. fb AO,OOD I 9 d du'.he 54 • °L ' 1QJ—Nnrbnr,Nlll•,_— � HI to NVYSurt Crm rr 050,0a t. ' UN auo'un Ana 10 la " 125 runen_Ip�. IS • t 126 Vu.ee_g•,• se 6 au4he 74e ' ee a eY'.Pot 70 128 f_n.Ypy,�-,�riarnei•9 do a aY'.ht 5:0 _- _ fell Avu. Cortldrr 9 e duo/ne 54 " 129 b. 91R-�„-- fth AV". Corridor 19 6 du'.A. I14 " 130_• 131 Mrytuu Londln 17 10r000 7,sa fa • • 1 h...nr I....VW.d 13 2 inueL,(R Mram. 11 $'I,Avo. Cor,id.r 4Ae 76 A b d 6 6 dn 133 .. 1. ' . xr °b �• t NVWOr[crntur 450,Oa • t ,I. 1 134Z,4 boo-{rrrymrnH• u Nrp°rtl fY•nlrr • I �� 13I5 CrnAor_Iltur4 ODU— —9 —_- 345 ra,tnu.. wn, !nl21 16.0PQ25 Sort.) N,rro,�otm If. I 137 Sort n) Ilnrbr If. 26 S du'./.c 208 " I • I OPwI' I3-_N1T1AL -e0j7!•[,ri�S.��Joel 3 . 2O1MMLL it,C.oxgn 49 z • ' m Di n Or.k North " 202—I __Sl.—i__ 1x_ 1,080 ifs 2O34zm-EM.Plum°N.t 10 110.000 4 2O4L+9-glthu ever. Y 9 1e0,000 -' O.OVY 1 NITIAL r Z,rFilFAscy 4Tddd • 901 N Jn_hur°. 19 1752000 0O2 AUJaLNncArehur _ f 60,000 15,Oa ° f ' r bO3L•'Lo . ° ..N E.0 a 470,000 � f Y i 6 North ford 4 40,Oa • �'1 OO41iur_ ac p� • , . rr F 0 TO: Planning Commission - 2 "COMPARATIVE DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE FOR UNDEVELOPED PROPERTIES" -West of Dover/Coast Highway Bridge- EXHIBIT 2B Comm. Office Res . Sq . Sq . Comments Description Acres DU' s Ft . Ft. Development Timing/Occupancy 138 Banning Residential 150 900 Construction Initiated Prior to 1980 139 Caltrans (N. Coast 17. 26 255 Construction Initiated Highway, West Prior to 1980 Superior) 140 Caltrans (N . Coast 22 .86 274 Construction Initiated Highway, East Prior to 1980 Superior) 205 Res . S . F. (North 21 . 31 126 Construction Subsequent ext. of 16th to 1980 Street) 206 Res . M. F . (South 31 .43 465 Construction Subsequent Ext. of 16th St. ) to 1980 207 Caltrans (S. Coast 5 . 15 R-2 Construction Subsequent to Highway, P . E . 1980 R-O-W) 305 Small'-Craft 292 1926 Unk. Unk. Oil Least Expires in 1994. Harbor Possible development prior with agreement lease. J �a. TO: Planning Commission - 3 "TOTAL PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT - ALL SITES"1 Residential 6 ,928 Dwelling Units2 Commercial Office 2 ,858 , 300 Sq . Ft. Commercial Retail 193,000 Sq . Ft. 3 Restaurant 103, 500 Sq . Ft.4 Hotel 575 Rooms Industrial 1 ,537,000 Sq . Ft. 1Does not include Commercial /Office/Restaurant in conjunction with West Newport Harbor. 2Does not include Caltrans R-O-W South Coast Highway, West Newport area . 3Does not include "Mouth of Big Canyon" site . 4Does not include restaurants in Koll Center. 5Does not include hotel in Emkay. Section II This section of the staff report attempts to indicate the projected timing of improvements to the adop-ted Newport Beach circulation system. The timing of improvements to the circulation system has been organized into the same (short range - present to 1980 , mid-range 1981 -85 , and long-range 1985-95 ) time frames as was the information in Section .I of this report. Exhibit 3 gives the location and the projected timing of improvements for both public projects and development related projects . Exhibit 4 describes each projected improvement and indicates in greater detail their projected timing. EXHIBIT 3 Arterial Highway \ '•_a %� \�' .�•'.-'_.-`.•`�, �>>�.:.�i _ � \ - -+.,....- - A4 :, =�; - Improvement .:. 4 Schedule • ..-...,...-. 1977-1980 - � r = t� , - ------- 1980-1985 � C y ` rv � - ,M _� - 1985 5 11 = sa � �','�'� r".� = •� _`< ^1;='' �: �---� f ,�= Under construction by 12/77 ge '•'"� 'r=l-"iFj �!- t'- 9�1 _y_ �' ,�"Oi� • r�` `F ��p• '� '' ter" � �3 '\�1#.�. �`�� ;�-�v n•' !jam '�Z_. ?yi. t '•'� °', i'^� ,1 3 _z . city of r So \ - -37r _t;,�; r '•�= .,::: 7,=J� �®�„},e "'✓� 13 _ NEWPORT BEACH _---. 5. �-+t,— : •j1 i Illf � 1 tl.:.,,al�..; ;'. ,=.s�1-e �.\ �K�U+�.1ie�t�J.�. �.^=� - _ r`=+iUi�.w:.�.�_`'-�:tom• � i�tr ,�t ._ - ,,,•`�-�a��.�_.�`*. . _ "�"-'� - .• _ > It � 'rzg -��sr.`m�.._t,�," . �'..rf"' _ - •i.- -•-_ 0 2400 4800 smile In PACIFIC OCEAN 3=- AOVAMGE PLANNINO DIVISION " 8 •77 1 t •1, l:ID.T ACIIC:UZ w Yswy 1YP.MF w:TI yore ,. EXHIBIT 4 ` ,fix !ma/con-hentlryoul to lMol!!o dWelep..vG (1pG1 OhelG Japanese 1 g' 7. Ions/non-non-mntiryu m w devaolaant w , Toplantsaw gonadal. ttL j itt•ft [. rovva.nt Pw.ot - Cate o [ boars«cla BD 9 1977 1. 0MA da)tax)n•vty R.glona G1trM. (und v Con tnc ov) fmtaq. road prol.et q' 1. Jaobotso w vld.ning u9i...1 City/Alrp (und a Or.Una on) ' Aaswluft to NeaAxthar vith bri6pa vldenim at OR Diego Craft , O. 1. SUPWwe vldaning 1o0.1/wn city (Ord[hen tam an) p ' W.Wia G Da.R6 1977- 80 ' ,} e. sea Isla Rd voored. 1oeWeon oil (Ias Mad) 1 seta 4.Lind laontsge 6. AM Widening.00th aids sagionel Cnitrn./City ittars• vl. Seth Pc. to lent.Me Rival 6. h.CAlchW Blvd-CanPae 3w9/we heltrau/City/Cow1tT (cralitten ` •'' Intersection i.pvovaran« City of[ninl/Up 1 r• T. WaA[!hm Mud-Toed M I4plena CatrMe/City/CIP/ a itGd .,,9A intersection LaVray.x.nt. *•• t 1 I. dentures u vLd.olo, leoa/con "Pita Iepwvo..n! f Iset aw rend Ad to SGm Polley (Turd-A.xonuq ++rr A. ig er Rd 1 a..Jsequln loeal/nan City r txR.right Burn to. also.widening- .Ruth Side level/.m UP (road-uronute) • �a41 J•awn. to C-abelk Y'u It. AM widening-layette w Mgiona eltnm/1'Au (rever Ltted) Dover A bt/dq. ♦hews- a' YCN to Cliff Drive 1jI�IS 11. PCiI 1 Jax,or.0- lnteri. Ngiomt Glcr.w/City/CIP . ry w.ra.ttion ivxmmnt l le. Jarboe..w vId.oloq-... I...IA.. CIP (North Fords (Conce tied) lilt••• �', side Icon to raswlutf 16. In s19w1 ft. -Mouth= localicon C[P/wp (fury an- ( •n to In J."OLR .oathsOrd U. aid.W McArthur -poach SaCel/hen (City INof 1x Ridge) (e tied) 1,{ • LLn.xacuthus w 4n Miry t IC1tY of Inina If. Avocado oxtension•vast local/con CIP (Corpocata Puts) ( Cut) t4 .in. a.r•Ilon to PM t 61p 11. herel he. vldninq as Sma/hen CIP d { CastswyA LronGga i , gD, tars Avocado D[.- MCAethm ions/non CIP/MYP ICcm v iI I to AreeeOo «mlmll 31, %1...Y.Rnaon to I...l/con CIP/MrP/Cat... l-•� II.eActhur 1 IS Jarlen.M rldwso, I...l/con CIP INavPerc.r North) '4 N.vposw IM to am Ja.gal )Y 1980-85 ` 5 14. PM vlbnlnp-SIN It. bgional Cat.../hen u Y to Gluts-.mth aide 7 , tl. Sapo[Lot at:IM to lecal/mn City/CIP/Mn '1 Plec.Ma e 21, J.Bber.A vldrol.y north local/non my II.yvLv GMin91 t y of PC" • N. PCs wd.nthg-M.Arthm K'i.na Cal«M./PM 1 to S.yad. including JWmn.intersection set fl. MWArthu[/hmcedo wuplat RWlnal Casson./UP/AIVA/PAV x a.n J.'a.little M to PC 1 L, C.Wblutt extension loesi/an Cie/uFP/<atirw { J•ohorw to 14cuthur l 29. P.n Joaquin little wad Togi...I C[p/amrp z I,gj.a.to Culver ° 31. NOW" Blvd-PM to Axglenal CaltrM./City/CIp x ,r find St. line. Areh•.1 11. wtd M mansion Regional ANN/?AV (City of An Migoll to units Cyn C i ]e. warrhur Mud vLdenwl Anginal Catrn./Atrp/rAV x ` Ford M to unit.Cnyon !� k 1t. Coen 01vhv.Y fay Arch.. to Ultra A,.. R.91eoa1 Caltrsng/YAll t a)) 11, franc Mighvay �, 7 At N.vpore IArchxa R.91on1 Catrans/rAV Iotnelv.nq. 1985-95 11. Corona all mar Trnvy regional rw. (City/Coney x construct asnM11 to priority list)Ja.Mm 1/. VnlvWaty Doart.naon Regional CltY/akrP INS'..to JONw... is. J.tdroee. Ad vld.ning ugsona Cwy/ANFP "at Aide yard td Grtblut , 36. ucutTur Siva vldlanq w9lona Caltrn./M?P/PAV x tM Jo.9uin to rord M t M C...t slnhvW W91om1 Calssase/PAV k Dcv.r to the Arch.. alas Ib Corona sea Mar NY..net. Regional Caltrna (City/Comry Janaor.a to UOAit.Cyn w priority list) 1 a 30. Stec doegUin TranaP.w[rldo Ragsenal County xI I 11gna t un or aC dy) Scott.to Nlv.r Drive and byend to Fame S P J 'It ,r. 0 8. TO: Planning Commission - 4 Discussion It is the intent of staff in subsequent reports to the Planning Commission to provide information on project ultimate growth and development timing for the older established commercial and residential portions of the planning area. Further, staff will be further quantifying existing data to allow for comparisons of intensity/density and total occupied space at various timeframes ( i .e. , total structure space commercial office in 1980, 1985 and 1995 ) . This information will allow the Planning Commission to make comparisons in terms of possible imbalance between proposed development and support systems . In subsequent reports , staff intends to provide answers to those additional questions and issues raised at the November 3, 1977 Planning Commission Study Session (i .e. , traffic generation of various land uses , definitions of service levels , definitions of intersection deficiencies, etc. ) The next task identified (Tentative Work Schedule - Planning Commission Staff Report of November 3, 1977) will be the development of alternative plans for the undeveloped sites within the planning area . Staff will continue to develop data on the undeveloped sites within the planning area and to identify problems in terms of the support systems during the course of the General Plan review process . Public Participation It is the intent of staff to provide for public participation in the General Plan review process as appropriate. This could be accommodated through additional public hearings prior to the February, 1978 amendment session or through informal briefings with interested groups and individuals. The Planning Commission may wish to suggest additional direction for staff in this regard . Suggested Action Staff suggests that the Planning Commission review the information generated on the major undeveloped sites within the planning area , the timing of proposed improvements to the circulation system, and th-e memorandum from the Public Works Department on the City' s most immediate and/or serious traffic capacity problems . Staff would further suggest that the Planning Commission indicate any additional information they desire (beyond that which we have indicated the Planning Commission will be receiving at subsequent hearings ) and indicate a general direction for staff to take in the preparation of alternative plans for the undeveloped sites. Yours very truly, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . Hogan, Dire or dy Fre a arico Senior Planner FT:jmb Attachments : 1 ) Memorandum from Public Works Department. 2 ) Map indicating key elements of circulation system. 3 Staff report from Public Works Department to City Council 11/14/77 "Progress Report and Information on the Accuracy of the Transportation Model " . L November 10, 1977 TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: KEY TRANSPORTATION ROUTES AND LINKS RELATED TO GENERAL PLAN REVIEW Listed below are key elements of the circulation system having a significant relationship to the current general plan re- view. Major elements are listed, together with particular links or intersections requiring special attention. Other key elements may be identified later as the traffic model and the general plan review progress further. 72( 1 . Pacific Coast Highway, all . a. Balboa Boulevard-Superior intersection b. Riverside intersection c. Jamboree intersection No f S�j6 w Yi 2' Balboa Boulevard, extension northerly of Coast Highway z 3 3. Superior Avenue, Coast Highway to Hoag Road 3 2 4. University Drive, Irvine Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard /yG 5�10 kph 5. Second Bay Crossing, as recommended in Alan M Voorhees study 3 ' 6. Corona del Mar Freeway-Bristol Street frontage roads 3 Q 7. San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor 8. Jamboree Road, Coast Highway to Eastbluff Drive North (part- a. Jamboree-San Joaquin Hills Road intersection 0 9. MacArthur Boulevard-San Joaquin Hills Road-San Miguel 11 Z 7, Drive-Avocado Avenue intersection complex 7 / ItECE1V�U b Ccnnmumty Benjamin B. Nolan °mDept. en+ City Engineer £ NOV 1 ()1J71u. :9 BBN:jd NEWFCR7 BEAUH, 2 CALIF. N KEY ROUTES LINKS Wit <t .y'6. \\ Wit,'\°' �..cr.�L-aso- $, ...�^ -''�`�-`1;. �✓, '/ .� 't 3w�{" �'. e�i��§%,,`-fiteZ-dl� '--�.Y �".�j`\`fV.j } �. ��—.� '- •"°. -„sue, � ' f � a iOw,.r�k��. �- �K__'�y� ='S'ti j'"i '�" _:-3T .:��.�,.r '�• � � d'(®�- yr% .✓`� �q��y��:��� C�t �i, 5 y:� '.. �_ ���.�.� ��� lt�:,^¢=,a city of NIP la .'! ,�t`Si(iT$ e.•3�.,�7...,.r, .l',�.ia...ww}—,�"ii� � tttllsi:csuirstis„i.-arr�r+'.,,Yti''",�^'�"�-�•.•�:�' _ P., �ia1G 2400 4800 PACIFIC OCEAN -- feet wovwNeE •LwriauNo orvuian 11-10-77 p RFOFIVL���O �j Contmnnli D • November 14, 1977 Deve:eprncn �t t 'j NOV D� c lI STUDY SESSION AGENDA 1 I ���'2k' ITEM NO. 10 NEWFOIRi OF: J CALIF. 2 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: PROGRESS REPORT AND INFORMATION ON THE ACCURACY OF THE TRANSPORTATION MODEL CONCLUSIONS: 1 . An origin and destination survey is not necessary to assure accuracy'of the Model . 2. The Transportation Model can be updated at anytime additional transportation data is available. 3. A letter should be sent to the Orange County Environmental Management Agency in support of the County's proposed vehicle license plate survey for the coastal area. 4. The 1978-79 budget should include funds for maintaining, operating and updating the Transportation Model. DISCUSSION: The City Council on October 11 , 1977 requested the staff to provide information on the accuracy of the "Transportation 'Model" and the need and desirability to conduct origin and destination surveys as input for the Model . The staff requested Herman Basmaciyan and Associates, the City's consultant, to summarize the procedures used in developing the Transportation Model with specific emphasis on the accuracy of the Model and the need to conduct origin and destination surveys. Attached is a copy of the consultant's report. The staff has reviewed the report and concur with the consultant's conclusions and recommendations contained on Pages B and 9. The consultant will be present at the Council meeting to review his report and answer any questions the Council may have. The staff concurs with the consultant that the "Existing Conditions Model" validation procedures adequately duplicates existing travel patterns, An origin and eliminating the need to conduct origin and destination surveys. destination survey sampling five percent of the households in Newport Beach would cost approximately $50,000 and take approximately ten months to complete. This type of survey would only provide transportation data for Newport Beach residents and would not provide adequate data on regional and through trips. • r I� I Study Session Agenda Item No. 10 -2- November 14, 1977 Tfie procedures used to develop the Transportation Model will allow the City to modify and update the "Existing Conditions" and "Future Conditions" Models when new data becomes available. Currently, the Orange County Environ- mental Management Agency proposes to conduct a vehicle license plate survey for the Coastal area between the Santa Ana River and Dana Point, The EMA staff estimates they will ask the Board of Supervisors in the next month or so to approve the project and authorize the submittal of consultant proposals. Summer and winter data from this project should be available in October, 1978 and could be used in further validating and or updating the City's Transportation Models. .Do Bill E. Darnell Traffic Engineer Attachment BED:bcd 13 Herman Consulting Services ■ Engineering/Planning Basmacyan Transportation Transit and Associates Traffic 1821 Port Renwick, Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 640.5737 November 8, 1977 Mr. Bill E. Darnell, Traffic Engineer City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject : The "Existing Conditions" Model Procedures and Validation Dear Bill : In accordance with our discussions on this subject, enclosed is a report which summarizes the procedures used in the development of the "Existing Conditions" traffic circulation model, describes the validation (or calibration) procedures, and assesses the need or desirability to conduct Origin and Destination Surveys. It is concluded that: - The "Existing Conditions" model duplicates current traffic patterns adequately; therefore, origin and destination (0-D) surveys are not required to assure model accuracy. - Comprehensive "at-home" type 0-D surveys are costly and time consuming. In the future special purpose O-D, surveys at major travel generators or vehicle license plate surveys to describe major travel patterns may be used to refine and up- date the model and would be more cost effective than compre- hensive areawide "at-home" O-D surveys. - The Orange County Environmental Management Agency (EMA) is considering conducting vehicle license plate surveys along portions of the Orange County coast between Newport Beach and Mr. Bill E. Darnell -2- November 8, 1977 Dana Point. The City of Newport Beach should cooperate with the EMA to ensure that such a vehicle license plate survey is conducted as soon as possible and that the results are made available to the city to be used in model refinement and up- dating. Please call me if I can provide further details or answer any questions. Sincerely, HERMAN BASMACIYAN AND ASSOCIATES �4,m,r- PC ./lit h?�tG!� Herman Basmaciyan, HB.b Enc. THE "EXISTING CONDITIONS" MODEL for NEWPORT BEACH AND SURROUNDING AREA PROCEDURES AND VALIDATION November, 1977 Submitted by: HERMAN BASMACIYAN, P.E. y �G CONTENTS Pane GENERAL 1 MODELLING PROCEDURES AND DATA SOURCES 2 Land Use and Socio-Economic Information 2 Network Data 2 Trip Generation Data 3 Trip Distribution (Origin- Destination Patterns) 3 SUMMARY OF VALIDATION PROCEDURE 4 ORIGIN AND DESTINATION SURVEYS 5 Types of 0-D Surveys 5 Types of Information Collected 6 Time Required for 0-D Surveys 8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8 �7. THE "EXISTING CONDITIONS" MODEL PROCEDURES AND VALIDATION GENERAL The question has been raised as to the need and desirability to conduct origin and destination surveys in conjunction with the City's traffic circulation model development effort. The following discussion examines many inter-related facets of this issue in order to present all necessary facts and considerations for decision-making. A. The City of Newport Beach is part of a vast Region and travel to and from and through the City constitutes a large portion of the total traffic volume on the City's major road and street facilities. Therefore, an origin and destination survey must be structured such that all components of traffic can be assess- ed. B. The fact that the City of Newport Beach is part of a vast Region enables it to take advantage of the planning resources and data information developed at the County and Regional levels. C. Origin-and-Destination (0-D) surveys are generally conducted for either of the following two purposes: 1. To develop data for a specific component of the total trip- making in an area. Such 0-D surveys are useful in applica- tions such as corridor planning, specific facility planning, and comparable circumstances. 2. To develop travel pattern data on a comprehensive areawide basis . Such 0-D surveys are generally used as the basis for travel modelling and calibration. In general 0-D surveys conducted for purpose "1" are smaller scale efforts than those for purpose "2". Generally, regional or areawide planning agencies conduct comprehensive areawide O-D surveys while transportation improvement implementation agencies are primarily interested in specific travel components and conduct special purpose 0-D surveys, as appropriate, to assist in specific facility planning. D. In any modelling effort it is important to develop a good data base and to ensure that the model is "calibrated" or "validated" 0 -2- 18. to duplicate existing conditions with reasonable accuracy. It is equally important to understand that, in any modelling effort, when relationships developed on the basis of observed conditions are applied to assess or to predict potential future behavior, a major assumption must be made that the observed relationship between independent and dependent variables remain constant over time. (For example, if a household with certain characteristics --such as size, income, dwelling unit type, number of autos owned, etc. -- generates 12 vehicular trips per day now, a house- hold with the same characteristics will generate the same number of trips per day ten or twenty years from now.) This assumption of stability in relationships over time is inherent in every step of the travel model including trip generation, trip distribution, model split, and trip assignment. MODELLING PROCEDURES AND DATA SOURCES The "Existing Conditions" model for the City of Newport Beach (in- cluding a large surrounding area) is based on the following data sources : A. Land Use and Socio-Economic Information 1. Existing land use estimated for each Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) by: a. CDD for Newport Beach b. CDD for Costa Mesa c. Consultants for portions of Irvine based on data supplied by Irvine. d. Consultants for portions of Santa Ana based on data supplied by Santa Ana. e. LARTS estimates for areas outside "Primary" Study Area 2. Household characteristics based on 1976 special census data at various levels of aggregation. B. Network Data 1. Link Distances - Actual measurements on appropriate scale maps. 2. Speeds - Field measurements by Newport Beach and Costa Mesa using a "floating car" technique and from speed limit data. tq. -3- 3. Number of Lanes - Actual conditions (exclusive left-turn through and exclusive right-turn lanes) determined from records or field observations if necessary. 4. Facility classification - from records. C. Trip Generation Data 1. Actual field measurements for the following: a. In Newport Beach - Park Newport Apartments - Baywood Apartments - Promontory Point - Coves - Eastbluff - Harbor View Homes - Big Canyon - Jasmine Creek - Hoag Hospital - Newport Center Medical Complex (Avocado) - Placentia Medical Complex - Newporter Inn - Several Restaurants - Lido Island - Fashion Island b. In Costa Mesa - Orange Coast College - FEDCO - South Coast Plaza Shopping Center c. Other - Orange County Airport 2. Where field data was not available, trip generation rates from observations elsewhere were used. D. Trip Distribution (Origin-Destination Patterns) The trip distribution procedure combines LARTS regional travel pattern information and local tripmaking in the Study Area. Thus it permits the focusing of intense attention upon the Study Area while the external influences are also reflected. w y -4- 1. Summary of LARTS Trip Distribution Procedure: a. On basis of 1967 0-D Survey data, develop models for 1967 conditions. b. Validate that models indeed duplicate 1967 actual ground count conditions. c. Use models to "predict" mid-1970's conditions d. Validate that the model "predictions" match actual ground count conditions. 2. Summary of Newport Beach Model Procedures: a. Establish cordon around Newport Beach/Costa Mesa Study Area and identify cordon crossings. b, Identify LARTS Zones within Area c. Obtain following information from LARTS: - Internal Trips (between each pair of internal LARTS Zones) - Internal/External Trips (to/from each internal zone to/from each cordon crossing) - Through Trips (between each pair of cordon crossings) - Total cordon crossings d, Verify that total cordon crossings match actual ground counts. e. Discard internal trips f. Use Gravity Model Formula to estimate internal/external trips on basis of TAZs, g. Expand Internal/External trips using estimated total trip ends. h. Add in "through" trips. SUMMARY OF VALIDATION PROCEDURE Major validation points are: A. 1967 LARTS model output vs. 1967 ground counts - regional checks by LARTS. B. Mid-1970's LARTS model output vs. ground counts - regional checks by LARTS. C. "Existing Model" Cordon crossings vs, present ground counts - along entire cordon. D. After completion of "Existing Model," comparisons of model out- put vs. ground counts along selected screenlines and on major facilities in the internal area (Data to be presented.) -5- Based on a review of the various validation steps, especially step D which pertains specifically to the Study Area, it is concluded that the "Existing Conditions" model is capable of duplicating exist- ing travel patterns satisfactorily. ORIGIN AND DESTINATION SURVEYS While it does not appear that 0-D surveys are necessary for model development, for purposes of information a general overview of 0-D survey techniques is presented below. A. Types of 0-D Surveys 1. At the home ,- Documents all tripmaking by an entire house- hold in one day. a. Personal interview - app. $40-$50 per interview b. Telephone interview - app. $20-$30 per interview c. *Questionnaire - app. $10 per returned questionnaire * Not a recommended procedure - bias in returns During 1976 LARTS conducted a very small sample "at-home" survey to update the 1967 0-D survey. When the results of this small sample survey are available, the City can investigate the possibilities of using the information in updating or refining the "Existing Conditions" model. It should be recognized that a small sample survey must be evaluated thoroughly and utmost care must be used in its application. 2. At the roadside - Documents the specific single trip of an individual vehicle. a. Personal interview b. *Questionnaire c. Color-coded card d. License plate recording at specified crossings. The Orange County Environmental Management Agency (EMA) is considering such a survey for the Coastal Area of Orange County between the Santa Ana River and Dana Point. e. *Photo followed by license plate check. * Not recommended procedures. -6- Cost is variable depending on traffic volume, control problems, hours of operation, specific methodology, etc. 3. Users of Specific Travel Generators - Documents the specific single trip of a person or vehicle going to/from the generator. a. Personal interview b. Questionnaire c. License plate checks (matched against DMV records) Examples: Airports, major parks, major employment centers, beaches, shopping centers , ferry crossings. Cost is variable depending on traffic volume, control problems, hours of operation, specific methodology, etc. 4. Truck/Taxi Survey Conducted usually by analyzing the trip records of each vehicle, or by requesting that the driver make a complete report of all trips on a given day. B. Types of Information Collected: 1. At - home surveys a. Household Characteristics - Number of persons Ages - Licensed Drivers - Type of Residence - Number of Autos - Employment Status of Residents - Other b. Tripmaking Characteristics For each trip by each members of tte household: - Origin of trip (at home or other specific address) - Destination of trip (home or other specific address) - Time of trip - Mode of travel (auto, bus, etc.) - Purpose of trip - Other 23. -7- c. Other information as desired - Attitudinal questions - Opinions 2. At the Roadside a. Vehicle Characteristics - Classification: auto, truck, etc. (by observation) - State of registration - Where vehicle is garaged - Number of occupants (by observation) b. Trip Characteristics - Origin of trip .( by specific address or - Destination of trip l recognizable location - Time of trip (by observation) - Purpose of trip c. Other - Attitudinal questions At the Roadside (License Plate or Color-Coded Cards) a. State of Registration (License Plate only) b. Crossing Point - both crossings c. Time .of trip 3. Users of Specific Travel Generators Varies based on the type of survey and the type of travel generator. 4. Truck/Taxi Surveys a. Vehicle Characteristics - Place where vehicle is garaged - Size, number of axles, weight capacity (trucks only) - Other b. Trip .Characteristics - For each trip: - Origin of trip - Destination of trip - Time of trip - Purpose of trip - Number of persons transported (taxi only) - Type and amount of goods carried (trucks only) - Other • ^ . 24 -8- C. Time Required for 0-D Surveys Many steps are inherent in conducting 0-D surveys: 1. Design of Procedures a. Sample selection b. Documentation of specific methodology c. Design of forms or questionnaires d. quality control procedures 2. Training of personnel 3. Field testing procedures 4. Modification/refinement of procedures 5. Field Work 6. Coding of returns 7. Factoring or the expansion of the sample 8. Analysis of results The time required to complete a comprehensive "At Home" type 0-D survey is a minimum of six months. Depending on the area of coverage and the complexity of the survey, the time required may be as long as ten months to a year. Other types of less complex surveys such as those at special travel generators can be completed in a shorter time period. Simple 0-D surveys can be accomplished in four to six weeks assuming that all necessary manpower and resources are concen- trated to accomplish the task. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION The validation procedure for the "Existing Conditions" model is quite rigorous, and the model is considered satisfactory in describing existing travel patterns. The ability exists to update the model as additional data is developed at the regional or county level or at the Specific Travel Generator level. L i i n • 25, -9- To be of any value at 'At Home" type Origin and Destination (0-D) survey must encompass not only Newport Beach but considerable surrounding area since the tripmaking of persons who reside out- side the City but travel into the City must also be ascertained. The magnitude of such an effort is immense. To sample 5.0 percent of the households in Newport Beach alone would cost approximately $50,0000 At the roadside, the interview technique presents considerable operational and safety problems - queing, pulling in and out of traffic on congested roads, etc. The color-codedcard technique has similar problems , but to a lesser extent. A vehicle license plate survey appears to be best suited for determining major travel patterns and constitutes a cost- effective way of obtaining considerable information due to the geographic characteristics of Newport Beach and the patterns of roads and streets. Since the Orange County Environmental Management Agency (EMA) is considering a vehicle license plate survey in the Coastal Area between the Santa Ana River and Dana Point, the City of Newport Beach should cooperate with the E4A to ensure that the survey is conducted as early as possible. Surveys of Users of Specific Travel Generators are considered valuable additional information items to further refine and supplement the model. Information from such future surveys can be used in the model updating process. 0-D Surveys are time-consuming efforts. A comprehensive "At- Home" 0-D survey would require a minimum of six months, perhaps up to a year, to complete. Less complex surveys can be completed within four to. six weeks . Planning Commission Meeting November 11 , 1977 Study Session Agenda Item No. 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 15 , 1977 TO : Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: General Plan Review - Status Report "Additional Information" The purpose of this report is to provide the Planning Commission with additional information to assist the Commissioners with the review of the General Plan . The following exhibits have been attached to this report: Exhibit "A" : - A chart indicating proposed development totals for each timeframe ( i .e. , short-range 1977 to 1980; mid-range 1980 to 1985 , and long-range 1985 to 1995 ) . Exhibit "B" • - A chart indicating existing residential development densities . Exhibit "C" : - A chart indicating existing commercial areas intensity. Exhibit "D" : - A chart indicating each major vacant parcel , an identification number, total acres , General Plan designation site , zoning limitations , proposed development, and the intensity or density of development proposed. Exhibit "E" • - A map defining existing and proposed uses in the Newport Center area . Yours very truly, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . Hogan , Director By _ k I,// Z� Fred ala ico --- Senior -Planner FT : jmb Attachments.: Exhibits "A" through "E" 2, EXHIBIT "A" Development Timing 1977 - 1980 Residential 1422 DU ' s Commercial Office 541 ,900 Sq . Ft. Commercial Retail 95 ,000 Sq . Ft. Restaurant 12 ,000 Sq . Ft. 1 Hotel Unk .2 Industrial 157,000 Sq. Ft. 1Figure does not include three restaurant sites in Koll Center (Nos . 104, 105 and 106) . 2Does not show hotel site in Emkay Center (No . 113) to be developed in this timeframe with unknown number of rooms . 1980 - 1985 Residential 3,532 DU ' s Commercial Office 1 ,781 ,400 Sq . Ft. Commercial Retail 58,000 5q. Ft.1 Restaurant 75 ,500 Sq . Ft. Hotel 550 Rooms Industrial 660,000 Sq. Ft. 1Figure does not include Commercial Retail development at "Mouth" of Big Canyon . 1985 - 1995 Residential 1 ,975 DU ' s Commercial Office 460 ,000 Sq . Ft. Commercial Retail 40,000 Sq . Ft. 1 Restaurant 16 ,000 Sq . Ft.1 Hotel 25 Rooms Industrial 720,000 Sq. Ft, 1Figure does not include Commercial /Office/Restaurant in conjunction with West Newport Harbor . 3. TOTAL PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT "ALL SITES"1 . Residential 6 ,928 DU ' s . Commercial Office 2 ,743, 300 Sq . Ft. 1 Commercial Retail 193,000 Sq . Ft. 2 Restaurant 103,000 Sq . Ft. 3 Hotel 575 Rooms4 Industrial 1 ,537 ,000 Sq . Ft. 1Does not include Commercial /Office/Restaurant in conjunction with West Newport Harbor. Further, represents a change in office development from staff report of November 17, 1977 , due to revised data . ?Does not include "Mouth" of Big Canyon site . 3Does not include restaurants in Koll Center. 4Does not include hotel in Emk�y. EXHIBIT "B" y, Traffic General Existing Zone Area T e Develo ment Plan Acres OU's Dsnsit 62 Eastbluff E L.D. 164 456 2.76 60 The Bluffs M.D. M86 .3 61 The Bluffs H.D. .290 Harbor View M.D. .4893 Seawind LD 6 MF 6 892 Spyglass SFD 6 A LO .25 Hill 83 Harbor SFD 6 LD 6 107 7.5 265 120 2.5 6 View Apt. MF 16.1 Hills I 85 Harbor SFO LD 147 448 3.0 View Hills It 04 Jasmine SFA NO 38,0 130 4.0 Creek 34 Corona SFD - Apt. NO 2F 81,0 274 3.30 Highlands MF 35 Cameo SFD LD 44.3 141 3.18 Shores No. 36 Cameo SFD LD 77,6 176 2.27 shares So. 37 Shorecliffs SFD LD 50 141 2.8 32/33 Corona del SFO 6 DP 2 Family 86 11200 14.0 Mar N. [26 30/31 Corona del SFD a DP 6 Apt MD/2F/MF 130 11816 14.0 Mar S. Irvine SFD LO 143.6 488 3.4 Terrace Bal. Isle SFD DP Tri 2 Family 113 2,195 19.42 _ Penn Pt. SFO/Apt./Tri/DP HD/MF 100 931 9.3 05 Can. Dal. SFO/Apt./Tri/DP MD/MF/2F 70 1,215 18.0 Promontory Apt. MF 33.9 620 15.3 Point Promontory SFA/SFD/Apt./ MD a HF 85 467 5.5 Bay OP/Condo -39 Harbor Isle 39 Linda Isle 44 Bayshares SFD NO 46.8 257 6.3 PZ Linda Isle SFO Apt. MD 6 HF B6 910 10.6 42 Cliff Haven SFD/Apt./DP LD/2F/MF 72 519 7,2 50/51 Mariners' SFD LO 2.53 1,087 4.3 54 Upper Ppt. SFD 6 Condo LD 6 MF 31.3 128 4.1 Bay Est. 5 Newport Condo MF 38,0 460 12.1 Crest 1 Newport Condo MD 40.0 281 7.0 Terrace D Newport SFD/DP/Tri NO 2F 60 627 10.4 Shores 59 Park Apt. MF 40.48 9,305 26.86 Newport Oakwood Apt. MF 32,3 1,450 44.9 71/72 Big SFO LD 180.9 488 2.7 Canyon 73 Big Condo HF 17,0 144 8.5 Canyon Type General Plan SPA - "Single-Family Attached" LO • "Low-Density° SFD " "Single-Family Detached" MD " "Medium-Density" APT • "Apartment" NO • "High-Density" Condo • "Condominium" 2F = "Two-Family" DP = Duplex MF • "Multi-Family" TBI "Triplex" .Jf �--w • 5• EXHIBIT "C" Ex Sq. Existing Area Type of Development General Plan Sq. Ft. Ft. Int. Mariners Sq. Sales Retail S & S 81 ,000 36,200 .47 Commercial M.M. Comm. Off. Ret. S & S 18,900 4,468 .24 U.C.B. Commercial Design Comm. Off. Am/Prof/Fin. 487,872 150,000 .31 Plaza Commercial Gateway Comm. Offc. Am/Prof/Fin. 520,411 .3 165,000 .32 Plaza Commercial Eastbluff Retail Comm. Ret. S & S 310,147.2 31 ,250 .10 Commercial Harbor Retail Comm. Ret. S & S 277,477.2 61 ,396 .22 View Commercial Westcliff Retail Comm. Ret. S & S 439,956 124,150 .28 Plaza Commercial Newport Retail Comm. Ret. S & S 405,108 71 ,000 .18 Hills Commercial N.C. Fire Pub. Fac. Gov. ,/Ed. ,/ 64,904.4 13,481 .21 Station Inst. N.C. Pub. Fac. Gov. ,/Ed. ,/ 108,900 48,000 .44 Police Station Inst. Shark Is. , Pvt. Clubs Rec. ,/Mar. , 27,007.2 9,000 .33 Y.C. Commercial 1 . Union Bank Comm. Office Am./Prof.,/ 296,900 - Fin. Comm. 2. Avco Comm. Office Am. ,/Prof. , 271 ,000 - Fin. Comm. 3. Wells Fargo Comm. Office Am. ,/Prof. , 303,535 - Fin. Comm. Total 1/2/3 - - 584,139.6 871 ,435 1 .40 Pacific Comm. Office Am. ,/Prof.,/ 435,164.4 311 ,325 .72 Mutual Fin. Comm. A. 'Broadway Retail Comm. Retail S & 173,814 S Comm. B. Buffums 56,000 C. J.C.Penneys 227,020 D. Robinson's 228,534 E. Mall Shops 204,159 F. Gr. West S & L 2,088 G. Coco's 5,274 H. Velvet Turtle 10,351 I. E1 Roberto 5,200 J. Bullock's Wil. 80,000 K. Neiman-Marcus 120,000 L. Mall Shops 45,000 Total A-L 3,267,000 1 ,157,440 .35 EXHIBIT I'D" wUNITE off ffll Cdln{ IaaICO "Im WRttl a`��<iiiHiia , fall hour 101 Lull off1al 0160. 11.0 Wt..ML. P.C.total floorrSq. /k..Ca. /nf Officelot uMrin Ofll{{O 1.{R Erin..Info IIO,a030ft. .11 Ilv"au Iv111 It...Cos, told 1.f kno!IOI brlf N Offin knnl wostry took. IN Ce ft offtn f•It knnt lamtry tCi m.O 1p c, 101 ti NftMt knrfl I.Mtft M1. to NEU'n bouvnnt Gtonl IMntq Wk. 10/ Wllanl Llta L/! bull bin fat IN1. 14 op book!Casa IG Grfppnu Ofrlu Mull ula ul Cato.OIL .f� k111in1 knln ffw. I11.a0 G./l. IOC Wltluj Orfln if.ac Ado...t. 0n/.. ICR.000'A.ft. tin Cat Pau 1.0 W...Prof.. IaM.Off. .a Ofliu ft..Cm. IG.011 III "out flu /.a Mau..fnf.. W W. Wk. rm.few, I11'AI DIMP 1D1 lit tafonvl" 1 kMnl th.st, I,C.total❑far inkurlll as GnllpMnl 1)!0 0 h ft. 12,000 G,ft. III total I Mull 1 knln 1.0.kl hrou lli bfto ft. Cownlol bgvinr nr 1.ia Iq It. IIH Cown1.1 6.11 bull lunlft Y.C. Cettonl" In CWrtlol ltn10I00 fq•ft III offln 11.0 /kln.,M6. Id, urwnlll .51 Gnuwnt ft..Cam. Offlu . mm In ft. tAm"KAKIC IOU - - -1 - _ 16 Wlbtlll I00 'Godly 11.10 P.C.MMant fa a4 5.6 Gnlalf.nl P.C.""I ba, to tut affair a'U lM wlkn"" t�a. ton 111 GI. Gnln t MMOMtlil ul fit MihlntG „•I%0•a0 CONTINUED ON 'NEXT PAGE 7. I PWI ACRESN. LGEREAVALl"IITAT IONS PLAN 2lf"}" PROPOSED INWI%E2N CoWM1"S �I ld FrmN.y wi.m 9s Mertufon and P.C.Amendment N one 10 ,tin Teti I! ON.Son to Teat M.dtd DO Condo Ito RAN .1.ro 110 MMNgpport 11 Aila.Prof., P.C.M Plat Cone.,FII •20 YIIIIRA 6 FIN.ton.t 6O.WO FIR.Mt. be/Hay Con. IO.WO b.Ft. III IrSma Mur• B k'"Itloa tad P.C.Anndrint 10 DO'S 12.5 Q , .aat 0) Oon spee./wltl to Tat Mead k1./ wttl•Fr.blazed Family ) •:. IN wrtli Ford 78 Indaul.) P.C.Limit of InMltr111 .20 �•S AI Induetr9M 6i5.CW Sp.FA MICROS Sq. It. j III by11do 1.7 MAN..Prof.. C•1•8 Con.Office •49 yl bnr. Fla.Comm.1 N:WO Sp. WIN, it 122 title/1a. a AdMin.,Frog, P.C. Comm.Off1Ca .28 Fla.Coma. t 320.00(l S9.Ft. F320,000 S9. Ann. t. 193 Hared, 9 Ln-I)IM11y P.C.bndnnt 9 W, hen e/ 1 Kill Warfel 0Tat We/6 L R.O.S. McMd 171 wYPdrt 10 Adam..Prof.. P.C.No Con.Office •M 0801(ILaock Fla.Comm, tat (t,OOO Sq. , ltl Ilp Gnyon IB Mitt-Family P.C. No Wh 10d WittoOlote JJB WY Mrt/ , 126 Maury 50 Mcrntlon Ind P.C.No Ne W'. 6 W'e/ ' ppppm sole.474 W' text M. '« AI t.M.No. It? IMpYprW M zed.(knoty P.C.M lb W'S a DO'I I 5f M to Ed N/ Tat tYe G.tma.• 10 zed.Earlier P.C. No rat JSo We B I'm ! MelMntal W4 NO Mrt f 121 SIN Annex 9 land.Mnlity A•1.0 51 MIS 6 VF4/ Corridor DO'S N Am e.SFA IN 6G Anon 19 zed.Writer Alt. R4.9 11/Wh 'kDOW Corridor c.SIR he.L Dean R-1•6 Mn 511M W'e 114 Isl 4YYIm N McroltIon.nd U. ft. 1 1An61 n9 N to.ton. 1N Pn.Ny Imur. 12 La kallly R-1.0 Main.,Prof. wk. I'll.$1.0 it M., Flex..Comm. (Mor't Mkam) 71-3-B 133 am AM Ca"Id r 6 INS.NMIV R•3.0 N W., 6 W'1/ A. Acrm 1N ='t CNnb, 11 MAIN..Prof.. C-U-N Con..Offln. .94 BIot1 IN Fla.Cam. ISO.WO Sq. , IPrudmntMI) R. , 135 =rt Unit, 9 M,F.kb/ANA.,Prof..P.C.No 245 W'S .94 GndoI Block Fla.Cone,Not to In. Text BW Came 35 W4/a.rt " 1N =,,t- 25 kcrmstfon and wrlm P.C.No Mb1 US MMO tommrtlA CamKlol tut AutAunnt I 16.000 S9.Ft. , 1J7 frontal RIM"l h 26 Mt. 64.5. 1156 P.C.Frogmen 208 kl'. felt A Harbor Ylm ft.. 1291 We) CAM 11•INITIAL OCWPAYCY 19S1.1981 Sol 'Muth'019 Ca'. Ip Me. AI I.,B pen Space •U• famnitlfR.M11 Vnk ItA O .Vnk.S9•il. SEA 201 don Olt,Crook IJ 1.1.11 krrlop u. M.U.nnt 61000 One, i MKh ConorcTel b.Ft..Nob] h ♦ 125 Mom 203 Corpont.Plaza 10 Admin.,Prof,,Fin P.0 No Con.office .28 Name A k.,.A wren Tea Ilo.m St. (emr.ta It. , 201 Ikdktha/ 9 Admin..Prof., P.C.No Coo fetal offlc. .41 A.a.& Fin..Com.Kl.1 Pat IW,OW M.FA 1 GWUI 111-INITIAL OCW/ANCT ION-198, DI PCN/J.rodrol 19 Alen..Prof..Flex P.C.Me Camroltl OEM. .21 ISs.3W to Text lFl.00J b• 191.6W S9•!t FL 502 JArOdm/ 2 Ml/% .tad ASfn.. N• Commercial Offlm .6p , McArthur Prof.,.Ted Fin. 50,OW 59.F``.Me- uunat 1S. St.Pt. Jos San Die, U knnl Industry 4• I.Sn'trf.l .23 Cmk South 110.00D SO.Ft. JN Mnh ford 1 Mt•/krv..And P.C.- moll S.1M .23 0. Com.KMt InitNo ial.Prof.. Comrcl.l 10.000 59•FL , NISI of WYIR/ =1 NIWV 1RIWf Ile burlap Abloo.tl.l ISO SueJect to S.A.P. County A•1 9W W., 6 Wh/ IN '19hanylM'sn�r er) I1.26 Min andnSIR Coen -0. 305 W4 011 1/0 Coltrane IN.Cant F2.b kcmllon tad 011, -u. 211 We 12.0 NIpM.y/f.Salorl.,) spau and wR MWA t 205 R.I.S.I. IN fat. 2.31 S011ct to S.A.P. P.C.No 126 W'. 6.9 of lath Strait) Tut W'e/A 206 M..S.F. IS.Mt. 31.43 SueSect to S.A.P. P.C.Me 465 WY 1/.8 of loth St.) Text Walk r S01 Cletrane Is.Gut 3.1i ka.and V S. R•2 R•2 M. Wk. Say..P.L.R•O-A) WS St.Craft Habor 292 SCAJ.ct to S.A.P. Conner A IOU W- and Unk. - Harker and 'Ml.ted tam./ Off.Uen 1 EXHIBIT E Prudential 134 ^"I LED block number 9 n 700 $ ^ U \ CIVIC Plaza 122 70 1 M Arthur Newport Center .••'•• 800 ` f� , L 400 � ocado 204 Condominium 135 !J r 0 if O i Pacific ,� aoo Mutual D Expansion 200 Newport 12a .- Village 11s Sea Island17 100-0 �• Qy{REGMSiGpM�1CWB Q�L\ f1 3/ � city of W �d o NEWPORT BEACH e � • .aromar + Corporate Plaza West 0 200 rye 203 Coast Hwy. feet Jamboree 3o1 wovweeeE pn.wMti3Na omaloN ��•+a-��. m� Planning Commission Meeting November 3 , 1977 Study Session ,Agenda Item No . 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 28, 1977 TO : Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: General Plan Review -- Status Report The purpose of this memo is to discuss the City Council ' s direction to the Planning Commission and staff regarding the General Plan review , and to examine a possible work schedule leading up to the February , 1978 General Plan Amendment Session . Summary of City Council Action At the joint City Council /Planning Commission meeting of October 17 , 1977 , the City Council and Planning Commission discussed• issues and possible goals to be addressed in this review of the General Plan . On the basis of this discussion the City Council voted to direct the Planning Commission to re-examine the General Plan in terms of four gen.eral - policy areas as follows : 1 . Intensity of Development (a ) Adjust intensity of development to assure a balance between development and support systems including circulation system, sewer, water and energy systems . (b ) Focus General Plan review on density designations and intensity of development for major undeveloped sites . 2 . Traffic (a) Accept deficiencies at a specified limit in certain segments of the circulation system. (b ) Prepare a development schedule which will assure that deficiencies will not exceed a specified limit between the present time and ultimate development. (c ) Accelerate development of traffic facilities that would improve levels of service accommodating growth both inside and outside the City. • (d ) Expand the City' s involvement in promoting solutions to regional transportation problems especially in the areas of air traffic , mass transit and highway improvements . 3. Cost/Revenue Impact (a ) Emphasize residential development rather than commercial development wherever possible . (b ) De-emphasize development of new tourist-related facilities . (c) Determine the fiscal impact of major commercial /office developments such as Newport• Center . 4 . Environmental Quality (a ) Identify areas where new development can be accommodated with the least potential for environmental damage . TO: Planning Commission - 2 Issues 1 , 2 and 5 are to receive higher priority than Issue 3 at this time, and Item 4 regarding the possible need for additional consultant services is to be deleted from the Suggested Work Program presented in Page 3 of the staff memo dated October 11 , 1977. Further, the following goals were set for the Planning Commission : 1 . To develop a phasing schedule. 2 . To consider the impact of potential development on the physical = support systems and reset limits on intensities as needed. A copy of the minutes of the joint meeting is attached. Possible Work Program The staff memo for the joint meeting outlined a possible work schedule and list of tasks to be completed as part of the General Plan review. To facilitate discussion , a similar list of possible tasks is presented here as follows : 1 . Assess existing conditions and development trends in terms of level of development contemplated by existing General Plan and zoning regulations . 2. Compile overall development schedule for major undeveloped sites . 3. Identify potential problem a,reas in terms of possible imbalance between development and support systems . 4 . Review of individual General Plan elements and policies as they pertain to identified problem areas . 5. Evaluate alternative development plans in terms of impact on support systems . 6 . Devise a development phasing plan . 7. Revise policies as desired, and evaluate means of implementation through amendments to the General Plan Elements . 8. Review recommended changes to the General Plan in terms of Coastal Act policies and possible effect on LCP . 9 . Review recommended changes to the General Plan in terms of the requirements of CEQA. A tentative schedule for completion of such tasks is attached for the Planning Commission ' s consideration . Development Schedule of Major Property Owners As part of this General Plan review, staff has conducted initial meetings with owners of the major undeveloped sites . Information regarding the type , and intensity of development contemplated on the major sites , together with a schedule of development has been requested. This information will be organized in the following time frames : Short Range - Present to 1980 Mid Range - 1980 - 1985 Long Range - 1985 - 1995 As this information becomes available , it will be incorporated into an overall development schedule for use in the General Plan review . L i 0 • TO : Planning Commission - 3 Public Participation It is the intent of staff to provide for public participation in this process as appropriate . This could be accommodated through additional public hearings prior to the February , 1978 amendment session or through informal briefings with interested groups and individuals . The Planning Commission may wish to suggest additional direction for staff in this regard . Traffic Model The Traffic Model currently under development will be available for use during the General Plan review beginning in the month of December, 1977. As currently programmed , the model deals with land use and circulation as projected under the existing General Plan and adopted circulation system. It will be possible to test the effects of alternative levels of development on the major undeveloped sites or to test the effect of removing or adding a link to the circulation system. A limited number of such tests could be conducted within the time constraints of this review, subject to approval of additional funds for the computer and staff time involved. Also , the Model provides the capability to generate a mid-range projection -- for the year 1985 , for example -- subject , however, to substantial cost and time constraints . Staff will provide detailed cost information on such tests at the appropriate stage of the General Plan review. Yours very truly, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. Hogan , Director By David Dmohowski Advance Planning Administrator DD : jmb Attachments : 1 ) Minutes of October 17 , 1977 Joint Meeting 2 ) Tentative Work Schedule PTY OF NEWPORT BPACH q. COUNCILMEN MINUTES ADJOURNED COUNCIL MEETING \ y ���y �p y� �G\ Place: Council Chambers �ys�b3�F�9! Tay Time: 7 :30 Y.M. ROLL CALL Date: October 17, 1977 INDEX- Present V I V Roll Call. Absent A report from the Community Development Department General regarding the General Plan review was presented with Plan a Land Use Summary (1990-1995 projection). (67,3) Francis Horvath and Robert Shelton addressed the Council and commented on various elements of the General Plan. Motion x Councilman Rogers made a motion to direct the Planning Commission to 1) develop a phasing schedule, and 2) consider the impact of potential future development on physical support systems as they are now and planned to be, and set limits with the phasing schedule being studied in relation to the information which has been currently received from staff. Motion x Councilman Williams made a substitute motion to re- examine the General Plan elements as needed to reassess the four issues identified in the report from the Community Development Department dated October 11, 1977, with such reassessment to cover Items 1) Intensity of Development, 2) Traffic and 4) Environmental Quality with higher priority at this time than Item 3) Cost/Revenue Impact. Also, in the Suggested Work Program in the same document, to omit Item 4 regarding the assessment of possible need for additional consultant services. Motion x Councilman Ryckoff made a second substitute motion to re-examine the General Plan elements as needed to reassess the four issues identified in the report dated October 11, 1977 from the Community Development Department as follows: 1. Intensity of,Development (a) Adjust intensity of development to assure a balance between development and support systems including circula- tion system, sewer, water and energy systems. (b) Focus General Plan review on density designations and intensity of develop- ment for major undeveloped sites. 2. Traffic (a) Accept deficiencies at a specified limit in certain segments of the circulation system. (b) Prepare a development schedule which will assure that deficiences will not exceed a specified limit between the present time and ultimate development. Volume 31 - Page 271 �1� 5. ATY OF NEWPORT ACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES \\� 7 ROLL CALL October 17, 1977 INDEX (c) Accelerate development of traffic facilities that would improve levels of service accomodating growth both inside and outside the City. (d) Expand the City's involvement in promoting solutions to regional transportation problems expecially in the areas of air traffic, mass transit and highway improvements 3. Cost/Revenue Impact (a) Emphasize residential development rather than commercial development wherever possible. (b) De-emphasize development of new touristrelated facilities. (c) Determine the fiscal impact of major commercial/office developments such as Newport Center. 4. Environmental Quality (a) Identify areas where new development can be accommodated with the least potential for environmental damage. Issues 1, 2 and 4 to receive higher priority than Issue 3 at this time, and that Item 4 regarding the possible need for additional consultant services be deleted from the Suggested Work Program in the same document. Further, the following goals were set for the Planning Commission: 1. The development of a phasing schedule. 2. Consideration of the impact of potential development on the physical support systems and reset limits on intensities as needed. Ayes x x x x A vote was taken on Councilman Ryckoff's substitute Noes x motion, which motion carried. Absent x x Mayor Pro Tem Barrett declared the meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Volume 31 - Page 272 October November December January February City Council Meeting 17 25 14 28 12 27 9 30 13 27 Planning Commission 17 20 3 17 1 15 5 19 2 16 Meeting TASK: Identification of Goals and Priorities Data Gathering Identification of Problem Areas rn Develop Alternative n Plans -i C Traffic Model Tests M E Phasing Plan tn Review of Implementa- tion Methods M 0 c Progress Reports February 1978 S' Amendment Hearings � 'PIN Joint City Council / October 17 , 1977 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item No . 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 11 , 1977 TO : City Council and Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: General Plan Review At its meeting of September 19 , 1977, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to review the General Plan , giving particular attention to the Land Use , Residential Growth , Circulation , and Recreation and Open Space Elements , and to the other Elements as appropriate . Also to be considered as part of this review are density designations , phasing of new development in connection with circulation capacities , and the impact of present and future airport activities on the General Plan . Specific recommendations are to be forwarded to the City Council in the group of General Plan amendments to be considered by the Planning Commission in February , 1978. The City Council further directed that necessary studies begin immediately with opportunities for full participation by all interested parties . The purpose of this memo is to outline the possible goals and scope of this review , and to suggest a possible work schedule leading up to the February , 1978 General Plan Amendment session . Issues and Possible Goals to be Addressed in General Plan Review Based on previous discussion of this matter, a list of possible issues and alternative goals to be addressed in this review has been compiled . This list is intended to facilitate discussion and is not necessarily inclusive . As part of this process , the City Council and Planning Commission may also wish to review the General Plan Policies Report to assure that important policies are included in the General Plan review. Four basic planning issues and possible alternative goals for this review have been identified as follows : 1 . Issue : Intensity of Development Possible Alternative Goals : (a ) Adjust intensity of development to assure a balance between development and support systems including the circulation system, sewer, water and energy systems . (b ) Focus General Plan review on density designations and intensity of development for major undeveloped sites . (c ) Consider adjusting density designations and intensity of development throug'hout the City including the older sections where significant intensification may occur as a result of the build-out of existing residential and commercial areas . 2 . Issue : Traffic Possible Alternative Goals : (a ) Adjust intensity of development and/or capacity of street system to assure that there is no deficiency in any segment of the circulation system at ultimate development. 0 TO: City Council and Planning Commission - 2 (b) Accept deficiencies at a specified limit in certain segme.nts of the circulation system. (c) Prepare a development schedule which will assure that deficiencies will not exceed a specified limit between the present time and ultimate development. (d) Accelerate development of traffic facilities that would improve levels of service accommodating growth both inside and outside the City . (e ) Expand the City ' s involvement in promoting solutions to regional transportation problems especially in the areas of air traffic , mass transit, and highway improvements . 3. Issue : Cost/Revenue Impact Possible Alternative Goals : (a ) Emphasize new development which generates surplus revenues such as offices , hotels , and restaurants , and certain other commercial uses . (b ) Emphasize residential development rather than commercial development wherever possible . (c ) De-emphasize development of new tourist-related facilities . (d) Determine the fiscal impact of major commercial/office developments such as Newport Center. 4 . Issue : Environmental 'Quality Possible Alternative Goals : (a ) Emphasize improvement of air and water quality through revisions to plans and development standards . (b) Emphasize reduced energy consumption through land use regulations , the design of major public works and conservation programs . ( c) Identify areas where new development can be accommodated with the least potential for environmental damage . Scope of General Plan Review It is anticipated that this review will focus primarily on the Land Use, Residential Growth and Circulation Elements , with attention to the Recreation and Open Space Elements and other Elements as they relate to residential density and commercial /industrial intensity of development . (These Elements are currently being revised and reprinted to incorporate all previous amendments and will be distributed to the City Council and Planning Commission as they become available . ) With respect to existing and projected development , staff has attached an overall land use summary and development projection for specific sites , prepared for the City Council during the last General Plan Amendment session . Additional Yand use data will be provided as required during the course of this study . Information relating to traffic service levels and key elements of the circulation system have been requested from the Public Works Department. Traffic Model The Traffic Model currently under development will be available for use during this General Plan review. Testing of the current conditions model is underway. The future conditions model -- based TO': City Council and Planning Commission - 3 on projected land use and circulation system under the existing General Plan -- is expected to be completed during the month of December, 1977 . With respect to future land use and circulation , the Traffic Model can be utilized to test the effects of various alternative levels of development and various improvements to the circulation system, subject to re-programming as necessary. The possible costs and time requirements of conducting such special tests are being evaluated . Development Schedule for Major Undeveloped Sites In connection with the City Council ' s consideration of a development phasing system during the last General Plan Amendment session , a development schedule for the major undeveloped sites in the City was compiled with the assistance of The Irvine Company . This information will be made available for use in the General Plan review . Relationship to Local Coastal Program The California Coastal Act of 1976 requires each local agency in the coastal zone to prepare a Local Coastal Program -- consisting of a land use plan and implementing regulations -- to bring local planning into conformance with the policies of the Coastal Act. The City is currently in the initial phase of preparing a Local Coastal Program. The Planning Commission conducted public hearings on September 1 and 15 , 1977 regarding coastal planning issues which must be addressed in the LCP . At its October 25 , 1977 meeting , the City Council will be considering a draft Issue Identification report, recommended for approval by the Planning Commission . This note is inserted here to inform the City Council and Planning Commission that many of the issues raised in this General Plan review may need to be considered also in the LCP process . Suggested Work Program The review of. the General Plan and the formulation of amendments as a result of that review can be expected to involve as a minimum the following tasks : 1 ) An assessment of existing conditions and development trends in terms of the existing General Plan and zoning regulations . Data gathering . 2 ) Identification of problem areas in terms of possible imbalance between development and support systems . Input from Traffic Model . 3) Review of policy areas , identification of goals , and assignment of priorities in formulating possible amendments . 4 ) Assessment of possible need for additional consultant services in the areas of cost/revenue impact and traffic analysis . 5 ) Identify possible approaches to controlling growth such as (a ) reducing intensity of development in the newer, undeveloped areas of the City , or (b ) reducing potential growth throughout the City. 6 ) Test the effects of alternative development plans in terms of cost/revenue impact , impact on support systems , air and water quality, noise , housing costs , and energy. 7) Revise policies as desired , and evaluate means of implementation through amendments to the General Plan Elements . 0 • ram ,, TO: City Council and Planning Commission - 4 8) Review recommended changes to the General Plan in terms of Coastal Act policies . 9 ) Review recommended changes to the General Plan in terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. A tentative schedule for completion of tasks and hearings is attached. Public Participation In connection with this General Plan review, the City Council has directed that all interested individuals and organizations be given an opportunity to participate in the review process . It is the intention of staff to make progress reports monthly to the City Council and Planning Commission , either at regular meetings or joint meetings as desired. At that time the public Will have an opportunity to question or comment on the review process . In addition , staff intends to conduct informal briefing sessions with interested groups and individuals as required. Suggested Action Direct staff to provide information and conduct studies as appropriate in connection with the review of the General Plan . Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . Hogan, Director 8y Dav d Dmohows i Advance Planning Administrator DD:jmb Attachments : 1 ) L•and Use Summary 2) Proposed Schedule i ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE SUMMARY Commercial / Office Industrial Area A DU ' s Floor Area Floor Area Existing 18, 912 3,062 ,059 759 , 738 Projected Additional 5 ,083 1 , 615 ,670 -16 ,858 Total 23, 995 4 ,677, 729 742 , 880 Area B Existing 8,826 9 , 089 , 194 1 ,266 ,564 Projected Additional 2 ,135 6 ,956 ,687 1 , 344 ,406 Total 10 ,981 16 ,045 ,881 2 ,610,970 Area C Existing 3 , 748 401 ,098 - Projected Additional 744 - - Total 4 ,492 401 ,098 - City Total Existing 31 ,486 12 ,552 , 351 2 ,026 , 302 Projected Additional 7 ,962 8, 572 , 357 1 , 327 ,548 Total 39 ,448 21 ,124 , 708 3, 353, 850 SPECIFIC SITES Commercial / Office Industrial Newport Center DU ' s Floor Area Floor Area Existing 67 3, 019 , 270 - Projected Additional 471 2 , 781 ,083 - Total 538 5 , 800 , 353 - Airport Area Commercial / (North of Office Industrial Bristol ) DU ' s Floor Area Floor Area Existing - 1 ,930 ,600 386, 564 Projected Additional - 11315,006 239 ,406 Total - 3,245 ,606 625,970 Commercial Mariner' s Mile DU ' s Existing 72 348,738 27 ,700 Projected Additional -46 396 ,399 -700 Total 26 745 , 137 27,000 Cannery Village/ McFadden Square Existing 451 374,026 75 ,446 Projected Additional -38 216 , 399 -45 ,000 Total 413 590,425 30,446 Central Balboa Existing 187 117,600 - Projected Additional - -13 ,000 Total 187 104,600 - Aeronutronic-Ford Site (Office/Industrial ) Existing - 801 , 100 Projected Additional 600 300,000 Total 600 1 ,101 , 100 -`ter _ • .�. :I .;56��".• e /� �ia:::%��� �/�-'`•�=_�',.�• •^ACC.. . �__-- `\ - ��� •' / _ 1, _ � r , i � � �'�nr�'°G���*' �.� ,\/'fir +_, tom � I I• �� j� b\ � � ©O� gyp`t`� _ �_:��f �f�(1.� • \�`�. Jwl ' i -t \� id `�, ,..�fii q ram' -• � IV C, V Kll %0 0% u \"lam w•,.. 1`� �-� -- - ^ X t -..,. IR,�n�(( J•_hy77` '___ b _ �e- ems__' 1'-• ' =ia •�� �,t i✓i s.,;; •.i�.. ili'i(1Tf"sj...o aT., 3.a �'.;.� S..H• '" • .:JJd��J.Jyfw`j``b- _s_ _- V4 f _. Ilflli.liil•.:ii.:tf"" 4'".,:::r�.' :-e -� t = .sr ,krgcv c-- �� _ _ �...- _ _—__ •%)rp> '����-7 - ==.�--per�--� - �` _ - -- - _- .._ I�t A it _� lgiGt ._;� �~�� N C � �•:i��w�,�����' �/-'I r CIT/OF NEWPoRf BEACH OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY City Council Meeting 17 25 14 28 12 27 9 30 13 27 Planning Commission 17 20 3 17 1 15 5 19 2 16 Mepting TASK: I i Data Gathering Identification of Problem Areas Traffic Model ' Identification of Goals a Identify Approaches -a to Growth Control n c� x Develop Alternative m Plans z -i Review of Implementa- ro tion Methods Progress Reports February 1978 • Amendment Hearings �f. 17 October 1977 TO: City Council and Planning Commission FROM: Ray E. Williams SUBJECT: General Plan revision and an environmental philosophy The quotation below is one of the best I 've seen to characterize the thinking of many who seek a new direction in land use: Now we are on the verge of making the greatest decision of all , a change in the goals and philosophies that brought- about the present ecological crises, a complete realignment of our relationship to the earth, a man-land ethic that it is hoped will recognize our responsibilities and stewardship. Until now progress has been measured by things, better organization, and new inventions that increased our affluence, but now we are beginning to think of quality and richness of life rather than quantity. We are asking great questions about our system of values, wondering if the good life can be measured by old stan- dards, if more and more is always better, or if there can be satisfaction with what we have. We are at last beginning to understand what is at stake. It is more than wilderness, beauty, or peace of mind; it is the survival of man and his culture. Other ages have passed into oblivion; one has only to consider what happened to the fertile lands of Mesopotamia and the hundred dead cities built one on top of the other, the eleven civilizations that simply disappeared, to realize it was not war or pestilence that brought their end, but changing climates, unwise II use of the land, and lack of vision. It was then the barbarians moved down from the mountains to destroy the cities, for the people were weakened and had no strength or will to repel disaster. Where does this leave us , this knowledge of the distant past of our race and our frontiers? We know our basic human needs, that man is part of all that has gone before, his hunger and discontent an inescapable longing for the old simplicities he once knew, that we are in truth children of the earth and cannot change. It is wholeness we are seeking, and being in tune with ancient rhythms and the intangible values of a life we have abandoned. We also know we cannot forsake our technology, but must find a balance between it and environment. If we can use this tremendous backlog of knowledge to work toward the preservation of the land instead of its desecration, if we can improve the quality of-life, change our priorities, achieve balance and understanding of our role as human beings in a complex world, this coming era may well set the stage for a richer civilization than man has ever known. This is the challenge of the new American frontier. Olson, Sigurd F. 1976. Reflections From the North Country, Alfred A. Knopf, New York Epp 6-7) . edAez6 454 ew rr �+ D. In E. Com- F. Proposed G. Proposed H. Site I. Committed J. Proposed K. Max. A. B. Type of C. Existing Process mitted Floor Additional Buildout Area (Net Floor Area Buildout Floor Allowable Area Development Floor Area (12-1-77) Area Floor Area Floor Area Area) Ratio Area Ratio Floor Area Koll General Office 406,855 366,504 773,359 1 ,340,860 2,114,219 102.34 .173 .474 2,217,200 Center Governmental 90,000 - 90,000 - 90,000 7.80 .265 .265 90,000 Newport Industrial 372,000 - 372,000 25,000 397,000 25.04 .341 .363 403,775 Retail/ Service - - - - - - - - 110,000 Restaurant 20,486 - 20,486 64,100 84,586 14.48 .042 .175 44,000 Hotel - - - - - 9.54 - - - 889,341 1 ,255,845 1 ,429,960 2,685,805 159.20 .281 .383 2,864,975 (.413) Alk Emkay- General Office 1 ,189,823 380,130 1,569,953 418,000 1 ,987,953 105.08 .342 .434 2,199,008 -Newport Retail/Service 229,148 44,250 273,398 - 273,398 24.14 .259 .259 180,000 Place Restaurant 39,500 5,000 44,500 - 44,500 7.40 .138 .138 23,000 Hotel 137,229 - 137,229 83,000 220,229 8.76 .426 .577 180,000 1 ,595,700 429,380 2,025,080 501 ,000 2,526,080 145.38 .319 .399 2,582,008 (.408) Aeronu- General Office 832,000 - 832,000 300,000 1,132,000 91 .0 .209 .285 Plans to tronic be Ford Approved (Indus. Office) Newport General Office 1 ,789,000 76,892 1 ,865,892 2,147,708 4,013,600 198.4 .215 .464 4,299,600 ` Center Medical Office 220,000 80,000 300,000 - 300,000 16.40 .419 .419 - Retail/Service 1 ,071,250 120,000 1 ,191 ,250 152,750 1 ,344,000 98.40 .279 .313 1 ,367,000 Restaurant - - 8,000 - - + - - Hotel (377) 210,000 - 210,000 - 210,000 9.70 .497 .497 210,000 Residential (67 DU's) (226 DU's) (293 DU's) (245 DU's) (538 DU's) 58.00 - - (538 DU's) Government 100,000 - 100,000 24,000 124,000 8.30 .276 .342 122,000 Golf/Tennis 8,700 - 8,700 - 8,700 142.20 .001 .001 - 3,398,950 276,892 3,675,142 2,332,458 6,000,300 531 .40 .178 .297 5,998,600 W (67 DU's) (226 DU's) (293 DU's) (471 DU's) (538 DU's) (•291) Newport Center Res. D. In E. Com- F. Proposed G. Proposed H. Site I. Committed J. Proposed K. Max. A. B. Type of C. Existing Process mitted Floor Additional Buildout Area (Net Floor Area Buildout Floor Allowable Area Development Floor Area 12-1-77 Area Floor Area Floor Area Area) Ratio Area Ratio Floor Area North General Office 74,278 45,000 119,278 675,000 794,278 85.0 .042 .235 .235 Ford Retail - - - 40,000 40,000 P-C Instituational 10,000 28,000 38,000 - 38,000 84,278 73,000 157,278 715,000 872,278 Casta- Retail/Service - - - 16,000 16,000 25.0 - .152 Plans to ways Restaurant - - - 7,500 7,500 be (Comm.) Hotel (250) - - - 137,500 137,500 Approved . 161 ,000 161 ,000 Mariners Retail/Service 348,738 - 348,738 396,399 745,137 34.2 .260 .500 745,137 Mile Bayview Retail/Service - - - 10,000 10,000 17.0 - .185 Plans to Landing Restaurant - - - 7,500 7,500 be Hotel (200) - - - 110,000 110,000 Approved 127,500 127,500 San Restaurant - - - 5,000 5,006 13.0 - .130 Plans to Diego Hotel - - - 68,750 68,750 be • Creek (125) 73,780 73,750 Approved North San Industrial - - - 470,000 470,000 47.0 - .229 Plans to Diego be Creek Approved South PROPOSED MAXIMUM TYPE OF SITE DENSITY PROPOSED DU ' s POSSIBLE AREA DEVELOPMENT ACRE (ACRES) (DU ' s/AC) DU ' s ALLOWED ALTERNATIVE ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES Aeronutronic Medium-Density Plan to be 545 DU's @ Ford (Res. ) Residential 109 6.0 654 Approved 5.0 DU's/a Westbay Medium-Density 58 6.0 348 348 290 DU's @ Residential 5.0 DU's/a Newporter Medium-Density 88 8.0 704 704 440 DU's @ North Residential 5.0 DU's/a Castaways Medium-Density 40 8.0 320 320 200 DU's @ (Residential ) Residential 5.0 DU's/a Big Canyon Multi-Family 15 10.6 160 338 No Change Area 10 Residential (160) Freeway Medium-Density 9 10.0 90 Plan to 45 DU's @ Reservation Residential Be 5.0 DU's/a West (west of Approved MacArthur) Freeway Multi-Family 8 12.5 100 Plan to No Change Reservation Residential Be (100) East (Baywood Approved Expansion) Newport Multi-Family 9 27.2 245 315 No Change Center Condos Residential (245) Fifth Ave. Medium-Density 34 6.0 204 204 170 DU's @ Sites (b. and Residential 5.0 DU's/a c.) Caltrans Multi-Family 40 15.0 600 600 320 DU's @ Parcels Residential 8.0 DU's/a (west Newport) Banning Medium-Density 150 6.0 900 900 750 DU's @ Property Residential 5 DU's/a TOTAL 560 4,325 2,760 RESOLUTION N0. 998 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT CERTAIN PROPOSED AMEND- MENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BE REMOVED FROM THE CALENDAR AND CONSIDERED IN THE GENERAL PLAN SESSION IN FEBRUARY, 1978 (AMENDMENT NOS. 77-3-B, 77-3-C AND 77-3-D) AND FURTHER RECOMMENDING THAT PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 77-3-A BE DENIED WHEREAS, the Land Use Element and Residential Growth Element are respectively portions of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, said elements and plans set forth objectives and supporting policies which will serve as a guide for the future planning and development of the City; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider certain amendments to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend to the City Council the following proposed amendments to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan be removed from consideration at this time and be considered in the General Plan review contemplated to be heard in February, 1978, which proposed amendments are as follows: 77-3-B. A proposed amendment to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements to change the designation of the Roger' s Garden site and the vacant property to the south, bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, San Joaquin Hills Road and San Miguel Drive, from "Low Density Residential" to "Retail and Service Commercial" . 77-3-C. A proposed amendment to the Residential Growth Element to revise the definition of "Buildable Acreage" to k- F exclude areas dedicated for park purposes and areas to be used for street purposes. 77-3-D. A proposed amendment to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements creating a new density category of "High-Density Residential--Greater than 10 DU' s per Buildable Acre" and amending the Land Use Plan and Residential Growth Plan Maps as appropriate. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that proposed Amendment 77-3-A be denied, which amendment is as follows: 77-3-A. A proposed amendment to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements to change the designation of property currently in the R-2 District, located on the east side of north Newport Boulevard, North of Santa Ana Avenue , from "Two-Family Residential" to "Retail and Service Commercial" . Regularly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach, State of California, on this 17th day of November 1977. AYES, Agee , Balalis , Cokas , Frederickson , Heather, Hummel NOES, None ABSENT, Lynch airy r Jacqueline E . Heather ecre ary Paul L . BalaFiis C. t_ PP,r t4 No, P1ezv\ OwL ND , �te CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NOTICE OF I TENT TO ISSUE BUILDING PERMIT PURSUANT TO CATEGORICAL CLUSION ORDER E-77-5 FOR SINGLE-FAMILY AND TWO-FAMILY RE DENCES. Building Address Lot No . Block Tract _ Owner Address— city l _V//a �yy�2 P/ Fe ldlQ�C -!u G✓`t< �Y�.� t_' s � J (�Uv� n [A.. ���w� ar, �s�0✓� Dt,2.r I n`�. 3GItgeJ eluJ 0*3tw. Q. Building Type : Single-Family Duplex Type of Work : New Addition Alter Demolish Description Zone District: Lot Coverage ( calculated in accordance with South Coast Regional Commission "l . 5" criteria ) : Times Buildable Area Parking Spaces per Dwelling Unit: Lot Area : Square Feet This project has been reviewed and found to be in conformance with the terms and conditions of Categorical Exclusion Order E-77-5 and all other applicable provisions of Title 20 (Zoning ) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code . No construction pursuant to this exclusion will commence until , consistent with the notification requirements of this exclusion . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V . Hogan , Director By Title vo COMMISSIONERS • • 1. City of Newport Beach MINUTES Special Planning Commission Study Session Place : City Council Chambers �s Time: 2 : 00 p .m. °2 Date : December 8, 1977 POLL CALL INOIX Present X X X X X X EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS R. V . Hogan , Community Development Director Benjamin B. Nolan, City Engineer STAFF MEMBERS David Dmohowski , Advance Planning Administrator Bill Darnell , Traffic Engineer Joanne Bader, Secretary General Plan Review -- Discussion of Possible Development Alternatives R. V . Hogan , Community Development Director, advised that the purpose of this Special Study Session is to obtain direction from the Planning Commission as to proposed alternative land uses for testing against the City ' s Traffic Model . He stated that the Traffic Model is being prepared to show two things : 1 ) the existing traffic in accordance with the Traffic Model , and 2 ) traffic proje ctions for 1995. He advi sed that there has been a direction from the City Council to propose alternative land uses which would reduce the traffic impact between now and 1995 both from a phasing point of view and from an overall planning development point of view. Mr. Hogan then reviewed in detail the charts prepared by staff delineating proposed commercial development and proposed residential development (Exhibits I and II attached) . Mr. Hogan then advised that staff has made proposals for the possible alternatives . He stressed that these proposals are only for the Planning Commission ' s consideration and for testing purposes against the Traffic Model . The proposals that staff has made have been in their entirety a reduction from the General Plan permitted development as it exists at this time , except for those which require General Plan approval , but it includes the proposals that -1 - COMMISSIONERS • City of Newport Beach MINUTES soz December 8, 1977 DOLL CALL INOKX . have been made for that possible future development even where General Plan approval has not yet been given. Mr. Hogan then reviewed the staff' s proposed alternatives . Beginning with Newport Center, because it is the largest of the development sites , Mr. Hogan suggested that an overall reduction of 500,000 sq . ft. in the maximum allowable floor area be tested using the Traffic Model . This represents an 11 .6% reduction in the maximum allowable floor area. He then suggested that the maximum allowa- ble floor area for the Koll Center, Emkay, and Aeronutronics-ford sites be reduced for testing purposes by that same proportion . Relative to the Castaways property, Mr. Hogan advised that staff is proposing that a portion of the property presently proposed for hotel and commercial development be changed to residential development except for approximately 10,000 sq . ft. of commercial development which would provide commercial support for beach visitors and access to the beach by the public . Staff advised that this would involve approxi- mately 125 DU' s on 25 acres . At 5 DU ' s/acre, as suggested by staff as a possible reduction (See Exhibit II ) , this change would increase the residential portion of the site from 40 to 65 acres and result in a total of 325 DU ' s proposed. In answer to a question by the Planning Commission as to why staff is proposing to change the Caltrans parcels in West Newport to 8 DU ' s/acre instead of 5 DU ' s/acre like the other properties , Mr. Hogan answered that this property is presently up for disposal by Caltrans as surplus property. Immediately across Superior Avenue from that property is the property that is designated for park purposes . Both of these properties are owned by Caltrans , so staff is trying to work out a reasonable relationship for development of that property which would allow a dedication of the property on the south side of Coast Highway equivalent to the area that the City needs for park purposes in that area. He advised that if the allowable DU' s is reduced to 5 DU ' s/acre , it would reduce the dedication requirement and consequently increase the cost. This would mean that the City would have to pay for acquisition of a portion of that property. -2- COMMISSIONERS 0 • 9cF y< �0,� �,y9�G3 City of Newport Beach MINUTES so y December 8, 1977 ROLL CALL INOUX Mr. Hogan stated that perhaps the Planning Commission would like to consider conversion of the Bayview Landing property to residential development at 5 DU ' s/acre , rather than any commercial development , and conversion of the San Diego Creek North property to industrial development rather than restaurant/hotel . He emphasized that these uses would be for testing purposes against the Traffic Model only. Commissioner Balalis voiced concern with staff' s proposal of allowing 8 DU ' s/acre for the Caltrans property in West Newport. He advised that although he can understand staff' s logic of allowing 8 DU ' s/acre so that the City can acquire a free park , he feels that 320 DU' s in that area is too dense. In answer to a question by the Planning Commis- sion , Mr. Hogan explained that staff' s proposed 11 . 6% reductions on commercial development were taken from the Maximum Allowable Floor Area . This was done so that part of that would be absorbed in the proposed reduction that the owner has already made . Motion X Following discussion , a motion was made that the Planning Commission accept staff' s proposed reductions with the following revisions : 1 . That the Caltrans residential property in West Newport be changed to 5 DU ' s/acre. 2 . That the Bayview Landing property be changed to residential development at 5 DU ' s/acre . 3. That the Castaways commercial property be changed to residential development at 5 DU ' s/ acre , except for 10 ,000 sq . ft. of commercial . 4. That the San Diego Creek North property be changed to industrial development rather than restaurant/hotel . 5 . That a 500,000 sq . ft . reduction from the total Proposed Additional Floor Area be made for Newport Center, rather than from the Maximum Allowable Floor Area as proposed by staff. 6 . That the total Proposed Additional Floor Area -3- COMMISSIONERS • City of Newport Beach MINUTES F� f9 FF° 9� 7i. �S °y December 8, 1977 MOLL CALL INONX for Koll Center Newport, Emkay-Newport Place, and Aeronutronics-Ford be reduced by the same percentage as Newport Center, i .e . , 21 .4%. Commissioner Frederickson voiced concern that the support systems are not being considered; that is , utilities , sewers , etc. Ben Nolan , City Engineer, advised that most of the backbone utility systems have been based on earlier planning and are largely completed. He further advised that he does not think the City' s sewer and water systems would be a significant constraint. He stated that although he is not too familiar with the gas and electricity situ- ation, he feels that traffic is probably the biggest problem. Community Development Director Hogan advised that both the gas and electric companies have indicated that they are well able to provide the system itself within Newport Beach . The constraint would be in the overall supply in this particular region as far as the volume of both electricity and gas are concerned. Commissioner Hummel felt that the City should make sure that the utility companies are talking about the same kind of volume that the City is talking about before it is assumed that the supply is adequate. He feels that the support systems situation should be included in the Planning Commission ' s findings and recommendations Community Development Director Hogan advised that staff feels a baseline run should be made to determine what would happen if by 1995 none of these major vacant land areas are developed. A baseline run such as this would provide a source of comparison between 1995 development in accordance with the General Plan , a reduction as approved by the Planning Commission this afternoon, and no further development on any of these properties . Ben Nolan , City Engineer, suggested that the Traffic Model also be used to examine the impact of deleting selected links in the adopted -4- COMMISSIONERS . • vc y °o �9 Sm sL City of Newport Beach MINUTES s °2 December 8, 1977 ROLL GALL INOKX circulation system, such as the extension of University Drive and the San Joaquin Hills Corridor. The Traffic Engineer estimated that this additional work would cost around $1 ,000 . He also estimated that the total cost of conducting the no-growth baseline projection test , the reduction alternative test, and the circulation system alternatives test would be approximately $12 ,000 . Discussion was opened to the public and Dick Reese , representing The Irvine Company , appeared before the Planning Commission . He advised that he feels that studying these alternatives for residential densities and commercial intensities is a very logical thing to do . lie then advised that The Irvine Company agrees there is a problem and that they, as a major land owner, are going to have to participate in a solution to this traffic problem. He stated that The Irvine Company is hopeful that the Traffic Model ,will indicate that the problem is perhaps not so big and that the required solutions are not so severe as to require heavy reductions in land uses . He advised that he feels Newport Center is one of the areas most capable of handling the planned intensity of use . He further advised that Newport Center is a regional transit terminal and has one of the highest ridership experiences of any transit stop in Orange County and he believes that with the addition of a specific transportation bus terminal , the ridership will continue to increase . He then spoke in favor of a baseline run presuming no additional development on these major parcels as well as future open work sessions such as this one . Margot Skilling, resident of West Newport ; appeared before the Planning Commission and brought notice to two large developments in West Newport , i . e . , Versailles and Newport Crest . She stated that Versailles is around 30 units per acre having one-bedroom units and , therefore , " not too crowded . However, Newport Crest, on the other side of Superior, is 12 units per acre having four bedrooms and a den per unit . She advised that the Traffic Model will not be able to determine the input of units per acre unless it can distinguish whether one-bedroom units are being referred to or four-bedroom units . -5- COMMISSIONERS of Newport Beach MINUTES December 8, 1977 no CALL IND<X Bill Banning, of Beeco , Ltd . , appeared before the Planning Commission and questioned whether there is a dramatic benefit by reducing density to a particular level . He also questioned whether the contribution to the overall traffic from development in a particular region could be measured. In relation to the arbitrary reductions , Mr. Banning felt that sometimes these reductions can stay in people ' s minds in saying that what ' s good for one area is good for another--even though there may be no correlation between them. Tom Morrissey, representing Aeronutronics-Ford, appeared before the Planning Commission and spoke in favor of studying various alternatives such as this . He then advised that perhaps the Planning Commission should give some thought to equalizing proposed build-out floor area ratios among the similar types of land uses as opposed to across-the-board cuts and advised of his hope that the opportunity to examine this possibility might arise. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the discussion was closed to the public. Commissioner Cokas requested that Commissioner Balalis ' motion be revised to include a seventh item to read as follows : 7. That the baseline runs as discussed by staff be made . Commissioner Balalis accepted this addition to his motion. Ayes X X X X X X Commissioner Balalis ' amended motion, was voted on and passed unanimously. There being no further business, Planning Commission adjourned the meeting. Time : 4 : 55 p . m. PAUL L . BALALIS , Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach -6- f PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT D. In E. Com- F. Proposed G. Proposed H. Site I. Committed J. Proposed K. Max. A. B. Type of C. Existing Process mitted Floor Additional Buildout Area (Net Floor Area Buildout Floor Allowable Area Development Floor Area 12-1-77 Area Floor Area Floor Area Acres) Ratio Area Ratio Floor Area Koll General Office 406,855 366,504 773,359 1,340,860 2,114,219 102.34 .173 .474 2,217,200 Center Governmental 90,000 - 90,000 - 90,000 7.80 .265 .265 90,000 Newport Industrial 372,000 - 372,000 25,000 397,000 25.04 .341 .363 403,775 Retail/ Service - - - - - - - - 110,000 Restaurant 20,486 - 20,486 64,100 84,586 14.48 .042 .175 44, Hotel - - - - - 9.54 - - 889,341 1,255,845 1,429,960 2,685,805 159.20 .281 .383 2,864,975 (.413) Emkay- General Office 1,189,823 380,130 1,569,953 418,000 1,987,953 105.08 .342 .434 2,199,008 Newport Retail/Service 229,148 44,250 273,398 - 273,398 24.14 .259 .259 180,000 Place Restaurant 39,500 5,000 44,500 - 44,500 7.40 .138 .138 23,000 Hotel 137,229 - 137,229 83,000 220,229 8.76 .426 .577 180,000 1,595,700 429,380 2,026,080 601 0000 2,5� 145.38 .319 .399 2,582,008 (.408) Aeronu- General Office 832,000 - 832,000 300,000 1,132,000 91.0 .209 .285 Plans to tronic be Ford Approved (Indus. Office) Newport General Office 1,789,000 76,892 1,865,892 2,147,708 4,013,600 198.4 .215 .464 4,299,600 Center Medical Office 220,000 80,000 300,000 - 300,000 16.40 .419 .419 - Retail/Service 1,071,250 120,000 1,191,250 152,750 1,344,000 98.40 .279 .313 1,367 Restaurant - - 8,000 - - Hotel (377) 210,000 - 210,000 - 210,000 9.70 .497 .497 210, Residential (67 DU's) (226 DU's) (293 DU's) (245 DU's) (538 DU's) 58.00 - - (538 DU's) Government 100,000 - 100,000 24,000 124,000 8.30 .276 .342 122,000 m Golf/Tennis 8,700 - 8,700 - 8,700 142.20 .001 .001 - K 27 3,398,950 6,892 3,675,142 2,332,458 6,000,300 531.40 . 778 .297 5,998,600 S C (67 DU's) (226 DU's) (293 DU's) (245 DU's) (538 DU's) (•291) .► Newport Center Res. H PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT D. In E. Com- F. Proposed G. Proposed H. Site I. Committed J. Proposed K. Max. A. B. Type of C. Existing Process mitted Floor Additional Buildout Area (Net Floor Area Buildout Floor Allowable Area Development Floor Area 12-1-77 Area Floor Area Floor Area Acres) Ratio Area Ratio Floor Area North General Office 74,278 45,000 119,278 675,000 794,278 85.0 .042 .235 .235 Ford Retail - - - 40,000 40,000 P-C Instituational 10,000 28,000 38,000 - 38,000 84,278 73,000 TWM8 715,000 872,8 Costa- Retail/Service - - - 16,000 16,000 25.0 - .752 Plans to • ways Restaurant - - - 7,500 7,500 be (Comm.) Hotel (250) - - - 137,500 137,500 Approved 761,000 667;000 Mariners Retail/Service 348,738 - 348,738 396,399 745,137 34.2 .260 .500 745,137 Mile Bayview Retail/Service - - - 10,000 10,000 17.0 - .185 Plans to Landing Restaurant - - - 7,500 7,500 be Hotel (200) - - - 110,000 110,000 Approved 127,500 127,500 San Restaurant - - - 5,000 5,000 13.0 - .130 Plans to Diego Hotel - - - 68,750 68,750 be Creek (125) 73,7b0 73,750 Approved North X - _ _ _ _, San Industrial 470,000 470,000 47.0 .229 Plans to QDiego be Creek I Approved South H - n O ! w v �i A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED MAXIMUM ALTERNATIVES TYPE OF SITE DENSITY PROPOSED DU's AS PROPOSED AREA DEVELOPMENT AREA (ACRES) (DU's/AC) DU's ALLOWED BY STAFF ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES Aeronutronic Medium-Density Plan to be 545 DU's @ Ford (Res.) Residential 109 6.0 654 Approved 5.0 DU's/a Westbay Medium-Density 58 6.0 348 348 290 DU's @ Residential 5.0 OU's/a Newporter Medium-Density 88 8.0 704 704 440 DU's @ North Residential 5.0 DU's/a Castaways Medium-Density 40 8.0 320 320 200 OU's @ (Residential) Residential 5.0 DU's/a Big Canyon Multi-Family 15 10.6 160 338 No Change Area 10 Residential (160) Freeway Medium-Density 9 10.0 90 Plan to 45 DU's @ Reservation Residential Be 5.0 OU's/a West (west of Approved MacArthur) Freeway Multi-Family 8 12.5 100 Plan to No Change Reservation Residential Be (100) East (Baywood Approved Expansion) Newport Multi-Family 9 27.2 245 315 No Change Center Condos Residential (245) Fifth Ave. Medium-Density 34 6.0 204 204 170 DU's @ • Sites (a. and Residential 5.0 DU's/a b.) Caltrans Multi-Family 40 15.0 600 600 320 DU's @ Parcels Residential 8.0 DU's/a (west Newport) ' m K Banning Medium-Density 150 6.0 900 900 750 DU's @ ? Property Residential 5 DU's/a C q TOTAL 560 4,325 2,760 Ford Aerospace& Communications Corporation Aeronutronic Division Ford Road Newport Beach,California 92663 October 28, 1977 Mr. Richard Hogan City of Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Hogan: In accordance with the discussions at our meeting on October 26, I am providing the following estimate of planned development on the Aeronutronic- Ford 200 acre site. Industrial Current permanent buildings 772, 000 sq. ft. Temporary modular buildings constructed in September and October 1977 60, 000 sq. ft. New permanent building - estimated completion 3/79 120, 000 sq. ft. Additional temporary structures - construction in 1/78 24, 000 sq. ft. Removal of temporary structures - 9/79 (84, 000 sq. ft. ) Additional building construction - 1980 to 1985 120, 000 sq. ft. Additional building construction - 1985 to 1990 120, 000 sq. ft. Residential 1978 and 1979 50.0 units 1980--- 150 units The above outlined construction will complete development of our site. If there is any other information required, please advise me. Very truly, yours, SO K T. F. Morri y 9 ��� Director Eom�V Industrial Rela ons 1 r$.POSIAct�a z oCT31'77 x 6l=.i Ford,Aorosp3Cz '% '1 3 Ford Aerospace& Communications COrporation �A tF' % 2a _ Communications Corporation Ford Road Newport Beach,California 92663 Mr, Richard Hogan City of Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 h y KOLL CENTER NEWPORT 13L Everett Davis 0 President �ep+ryety 9 No November 1, 1977 N �ry 19?? WpORT Op Gr e4 ` N Mr. Richard V. Hogan Director of Community Development 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Dick: The purpose of this letter is to outline the status of development at Koll Center Newport and, to the extent possible at this time, our plans for future development. Office Site A - 350,200 Square Foot Allowable Office In addition to Lakeside Restaurant, this site presently con- tains two completed office buildings which are 92, 925 square feet. The six story building under construction at Birch and MacArthur has 109, 648 square feet and this is scheduled for completion by July 1, 1978. We are projecting a lease up pro- gram of one year which would mean a 50% occupancy in 1978 and another 50% in 1979. Additional office space in this site is presently being reserved for a corporate build-to-slit of approximately 60, 000 square feet. There are no plans at this time for this latter building; it will probably be 1981 before this is constructed and occupied. Non office uses within this block include one additional restau- rant, 1.5 acres of retail and a hotel site of 9.29 acres. At this time, due to changing market demand and the acceptance of Koll Center Newport as a corporate office park-, future use of these parcels may well demand all office space. Office Site B - 860, 600 Square Foot Allowable Office This site contains Koto Restaurant along with 277, 650 square feet of office space, all occupied. We expect to complete construction of two small office buildings in. 1978; 25, 000 square feet for The Koll Company on the 1. 7 acres at Birch and Von Karman 1901 Dove Street • Newport Beach • California 92660 . (714) 833-3030 0 • r 4 Richard V. Hogan -2- November 1, 1977 and 5, 600 square feet for Langdon & Wilson in the area between Koto and McGaw Laboratories. Plans are now being finalized for 344, 600 square feet of office space in the south portion of this block near the intersection of Jamboree and MacArthur. Tentative completion of this facility is scheduled for July 1, 1979 and we are projecting occupancy over the subsequent 24 months. Development of the 8 acre site on Birch Street is somewhat of a question at this time. However, following the success of the small buildings for sale which we are experiencing in Block D, it is highly probable this type of development may be the best use for this parcel. In this event, approximately 105, 000 square feet would be constructed for completion- in late 1979 , for a 1980 occupancy. . There are no plans at this time for the other allowable restaurant use in this site. Office Site D - 346,200 Square Foot Allowable Office The first phase of 13 buildings, 126,781 square feet, is virtually completed except for interior improvements and most of them are in escrow. Occupancy should be 1978 for this phase. The remainder of the block will contain 11 more buildings, 105, 075 square feet, which should be completed by late 1978, for a 1979 occupancy. Office Site G - 45, 000 Square Foot Allowable Office This parcel at Birch and Jamboree is presently being sub-divided into four lots; two for office buildings, a drive-up food facility and a coffee shop. Construction of all of these facilities should occur in 1978 and be completed by the end of the year. Retail & Service Site I Houlihan's Restaurant is the only existing building on this parcel. . We understand that Harry Akullian has plans for his restaurant adjacent to Houlihan's and we are selling the remainder of this parcel to Tom White who intends to build a low/medium price food facility. Service Station Site I There are no plans to proceed with this service station at Jamboree and MacArthur. In all probability, this land will be utilized for the office building discussed above for Site B. In summary, the development plans that are contained here are based r .�.. Richard V. Hogan -3- November 1, 1977 upon current corporate office space requirements and our ability to obtain the best economic leverage possible. The actual impact of the space will be delayed due to the time necessary to lease the space and convert the shell buildings to completed improvements. While the original buildable area for office space within KCN is approximately 11600,000 square feet, by the modi- fication of our building program on Sites D & G, we have pre- sently under built the allowable area by approximately 345, 000 square feet. Taking this into consideration and building the balance of the unimproved property. out to the allowable within the PC Text, we have still under built our original allowable footage by 21% . Hopefully, the information contained herein will satisfy your requirements for your study; should you need additional informa- tion, please give me a call. Very truly yours, KOLL CENTER NEWPORT Everett Davis President ED:rc I KOLL CENTER NEWPORT - 1901 Dove Street• Newport Beach.California 92660 Mr. Richard V. Hogan Director of Community Development 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 • { DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS • / NEWIPORT PLACE August 15, 1977 Land Area Building Area Full Occupancy RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT - Acres Gross Net Date Ewx-i-sf=.ing- 27.370 445,106 400,188 1977 In Progress Davis Building 2.376 38,250 37,308 8/1/78 Pope Building 2.200 36,000 32,292 8/1/78 Myers Complex 4.400 66,000 61,000 11/1/78 Auto Club 1.500 20,000 18,000 9/l/78 Planned Air Cal 2.936 32,000 28,800 1/l/81 OFFICE & CO.MERCIAL mpg 41.204 744,717 670,246 1977 In Progress MacArthur Centre 6.506 210,000 150,000 9/l/79 Planned 10/1178 Ketchum Building 5.387 75,000 7/1/80 Theme Site 11.200 320,000 SEP.vICE — Restaurants, Retail, Recreation 16.447 206,248 1977 In Progress 9/1/78 Plaza Newport 3.900 41,000 8/1/78 Benihana 1.399 8,250 AUTOMOTIVE gxisti=g 9.800 62,400 1977 HOTEL 6.000 137,229 1977 Existing 9 Planned 2.766 83,000 /l/7a TOTAL 145.391 2,525,200 i � A Planning Commission Meeting November 17, 1977 Study Session Agenda No . 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 9 , 1977 TO : Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: General Plan Review - Status Report At the Planning Commission Study Session on November 3, 1977, the Planning Commission reviewed the City Council ' s direction on the overall General Plan review. Additionally , each Planning Commissioner indicated specific areas of concern that he/she wanted addressed during the General Plan review process . The purpose of this staff report is to bring the Planning Commission up to date on the information staff has received from property owners of the major undeveloped sites within the Newport Beach planning area and information on the timing of circulation system improvements . Section I of this report will identify the major undeveloped parcels . This section will further indicate : 1 ) the use(s ) contemplated for each site ; 2) the intensity of each development proposal ; and 3) the estimated occupancy of each site . Section II of this report will indicate the projected timing of improve- ments leading to the completion of the adopted Newport Beach circulation system. Finally , attached to this report is a copy of a memorandum from the Public Works Department indicating the major intersections and roadway links that appear to be the most immediate and/or serious traffic capacity problems . This staff report , the memorandum from Public Works Department, and Planning Commission discussion at the study session will be organized with additional data to attempt to identify problem areas in terms of possible imbalance between proposed development and support systems . Section I During the past several weeks , staff has been meeting with property owners of the major undeveloped sites in an attempt to develop an overall development schedule for vacant sites within the Newport Beach planning area . The sites investigated are indicated on Exhibit 1 . The proposed type , quantity, and detailed occupancy of each site east of the Dover/ Coast Highway Bridge is shown on Exhibit 2A. The projected type, quantity and estimates of occupancy for projects west of the Dover/ Coast Highway Bridge is shown on Exhibit 2B . A breakdown of total development by time periods and for each area will be distributed to the Planning Commission at the November 17 , 1977 Study Session. On the following exhibits , projects whose initial occupancy is to be from 1978-1980 are numbered in the 100 ' s , from 1981 to 1984 in the 200 ' s , and from 1985 to 1995 in the 300 ' s . r ma 1� RR mw lz call e � ,� 'Its I(f �-1 �,� —�..� • �:� .ki+. ,�11� �� �,_�a/qua,.. i i to ' 'I! d♦♦ _` �,_!�'" � `.l i rx� j� _ !` _. • It' -tr ° ,♦ "\ "� up¢ • r r ,pl • • S,.:T EXHIBIT 2A gy' 2 Cd1PAMTIVE OCVEIAIMENL 9ENEDULI.FOR UNnBVELOPLO PROY6R1'I86 •� "EAST OR OOVER/COAST HWY. BRIDGE" yLL9Pffi I )! IA•CI.L ACREB 0, r. 0.E610txrIA4 CpNLRCtAL COMNERCIIJ. usT,IbPAST muSNOVBSPtA1 771161701181182 B)B/B!16 87 M 39 , qqP OLN6ITICt a.u'E OIIICE MALL Btl•n. aaaxs Ba• rr. Ik t0• P'1. PO• YT. acu na-x LOLL UNTER 11' EMII ulfloe bla 125.mo t ,1 cbrpnmt•0 lrcn 175,00 • ii 1OII_Leuua t_�;iyL_ 103 rLy�fLirytreb 104 eerpRrnee nrrn•.hlay._ 23,700 1Oa tit t_v_°a,Srpe_r.nt x C°2° ' 107 Ilnulne .It. 3 1/3 1OE L°S°° llu bld . 115,000 A ]i, Immy PLY. 1Of o arry ottic.mai rix,000 :�111w,�� loo,000 •+ i'; ' 11O_rprlml. . Iu � S 1 111...!Y?L•I .te" L unnwM 6'I t.1 7 QQO 't I L iti(i ]9S 000 • •� �•i 114 offrg dw. 17 AERONUTRONIC TOPO , 11a�..m.Ann a.v. 10o ss aw.•t sso }}k 150.00D •• r;.A 11a Ruorbn.�e.v_� 1 IPVINP COMPANY it rr..vny Yea•rvnt inn 9x 90 • . I'" a n rnna�,. nl Cott, 117.�1' - -- - 60,000 60,000 • I r...,Ay.....VRdol, uet n) .u1[I-W1ly B 100 A North Lord 9E 67s.000 A I 1IIO.J inlu.erl_I—__ -0 1,7 ]6,]00 A 121�gyJd�9gnarai22- A e Clvk Plu� 36 J30.000 r 1II0 Mrbor.l lty_� R NCWurt Cnm rr 150.000 A R ' 124_PImA xlp1ps._wK';L, 10 ___ _— ,- —. '--- EIN c,",y Arc.30 160 A emnon Int. 1S _ 1IIa 4°1ebJ.. dB 6au'.Ae 348 BB 8 du'./ec 104 1II7..r9rinrLny�g9(n _. — — • , fnnovn ♦ ,IdMclnl 4o B au'+/.e 330 — )th A,.. Corrlder 7th Ave, rnrrldur 19 6 du'./.o 114 131.^^xr-ltv n dti 17 10.000 7,100 200 • huuxny naervntlen 13 1BQ_!oath (Aoyrn Mrdmt lit Ill,An. 0111der A 1t73 6 6 du4(¢ 76 °t � T Mr mrt Crow A t I 1 134_ILrR of(®rrndnntl°l _ 11 4lo,lxa Nrup,gt Crnb•r t43 • ±• 1aa rnniln•_Aluea 8110 — _9 rl 1Oa..rn'An.nyl_.r,wn,q;•tnl- sit tS _ _ — 16,000 150 Yrcuw,y Nrnry vnt Lm' - A 137 Ru.t A) Ihv6or Vl.r x6 a du'./.. SUB tlpWP II- INITIAL A . jKU7ltm-c"L L96J 1 1" al c n on 49 x • 1 IIO1:LviL_.-1�.y IIOej Ln lil9tr Cr_.R N°reh 1] 7,060 17! • rarer pu Nu 10 120,000 1 09 ME IIO35P..t___._3-.° 204PSArehur Awud° 9 160,000 A IS , 1P01UUp 1 NITIAL ' CY� t IIO1N Jnahurn• 19 7fL_._ (30II AU e.Ne Arehue t —_ _ 60.000 15.000 't•'" • I FY 1303I17 n° e nh Soah41 Up.9oo I North Nerth cord 4 40,000 A , aO4 °rr�1 0 y, TO: Planning Commission - 2 "COMPARATIVE DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE FOR UNDEVELOPED PROPERTIES" -West of Dover/Coast Highway Bridge- 'EXHIBIT 2B Comm. Office Res . Sq . Sq . Comments Description Acres DU' s Ft. Ft. Development Timing/Occupancy 138 Banning Residential 150 900 Construction Initiated Prior to 1980 139 Caltrans (N. Coast 17.26 255 Construction Initiated Highway, West Prior to 1980 Superior) 140 Caltrans (N. Coast 22 .86 274 Construction Initiated Highway, East Prior to 1980 Superior) 205 Res . S. F. (North 21 . 31 126 Construction Subsequent ext. of 16th to 1980 Street) 206 Res . M. F. (South 31 .43 465 Construction Subsequent Ext, of 16th St. ) to 1980 207 Caltrans (S. Coast 5 . 15 R-2 Construction Subsequent to Highway, P . E. 1980 R-O-W) 305 Small -Craft 292 1926 Unk . Unk. Oil Least Expires in 1994. Harbor Possible devel-opment prior with agreement lease. TO: Planning Commission - 3 "TOTAL PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT - ALL SITES"1 Residential 6 ,928 Dwelling Units2 Commercial Office 2 ,858, 300 Sq . Ft. Commercial Retail 193,000 Sq . Ft. 3 Restaurant 103, 500 Sq . Ft.4 Hotel 575 Rooms Industrial 1 ,537,000 Sq . Ft. 1Does not include Commercial/Office/Restaurant in conjunction with West Newport Harbor. 2Does not include Caltrans R-O-W South Coast Highway, West Newport area . 3Does not include "Mouth of Big Canyon" site . 4Does not include restaurants in Koll Center. 5Does not include hotel in Emkay. Section II This section of the staff report attempts to indicate the projected timing of improvements to the adopted Newport Beach circulation system. The timing of improvements to the circulation system has been organized into the same (short range - present to 1980 , mid-range 1981 -85 , and long-range 1985-95) time frames as was the information in Section I of this report. Exhibit 3 gives the location and the projected timing of improvements for both public projects and development related projects . Exhibit 4 describes each projected improvement and indicates in greater detail their projected timing. EXHIBIT 3 . ,�; ; .. Arterial - Highway Improvement i A��i u _:A'.A Imo.. �l.✓• i /° 1.� � � 'i ����[es��� � `r ,O��- / � �`�_�r F• r f•' ilk? ��i•' � Schedule _ .� J r e• f 1977-1980 :. 1980 1985 KZ 1� 1985-1995 =. Ov, Under construction by 12/77 •.� r a yQ�C .' � �. �, -_fit -.,� � . _•�I_.. - / -%:. _ �; 19 city Of .� ram. ,�r.�. • *__ �, '•`—�s�z i ' \. ?7 .—'15,�_.�-�'�.''r`,t. _-- �' _ •' "e- r� a NEWPORT BEACH -_-- _ QQ 39 31�~ ;' -��,..:. 1?tit ,t.� ' •.i^y�,� � ���e�`i�y) �i` _. f• Iltlli:iiicii�iietiu:::l ".i � .; 1'�.y� �;.-. .. ...:•=%yam _ - ;, _ - --'�"=_.- p 2400 48DO le rn'r feet h: PACIFIC OCEAN ADVANCE PLANNING OlVIi1QN 77 8 •77 s j 1 t , E'-CHIBIT 4 J• DL41 P::t:.T SOI1 et et:0.T}5MJ•eh Nt 9NASOH ' [rr local/Con-cantlywu.G Bpeeltio dayl%WMU (iwai Italia Spmvn•ftW " v 71 Ideal/.-non-cantigo.to Nvnelant f? ) lapletantation sChadul. Macau l.rOIM•nt Pta•at formerly la Loot r n B B -.�Y ltyli 1. (comma 6.1 Net IrWN.y MgLonn Caltren. War con taw or) funsg. road Project f r r. Jexla...M widening regional City/Avg lure r con Camas en) t..ebluff to McA.thue .111,bridge widening at Sam at".Ct.,% 1. Seismic..11AIMng iWn/tan City (und r Can teral,and , IMu.tIW to Done Rd 1977- 80 {1 fyy'' e. Juwr..ad widening locsi/can CIP (a..Island) 1 lttest sea Wand fronted. B. pill widening south side regional Coltrans/City k trade ' Mv,PAf 51th St, to sent.an.River 6. MCA[thur Siva-Ca put local/ro, Crlt[ene/City/Loaner Ic sled l.tw Intern ctlen tepmovunas City of in3M/rep ,i pp m,' 5. "narthex Blvd-Toed M Mgt.." Caltrans/City/Mr/ 1tN4 Y'Si tt intercession Wrw-ens • t} A. JarhCn.M vld.ning 10C41/can "Pita feprov.-nt I IN1 Gat alb rood M to staen Policy (Tood•Reernun 0. Jmrhor.o M e Be.Joaquin loeal/Oen city n a from right turn 10. Mean midening-ath side lout/.. MP (Pmr6-M...deal F v JaRle[.•to Ccee1G wme it. PM widening-Mysld. to RooleMl sitr.M/PAU Leek r Cover a bridge a Cover- 'CM to Cliff Drier Kaf 11, rill a JathOu.-Lncottx Wplanal I Gitune/City/MP uwsoctien lnprovx.nt €Ire•� it. Janecrn M widening- can local/con CIP (North Ford) (come,!coal side Olson to Mstbluff •li is. tan Miguel Dr. -mom". loon/Coo MWABPP (fwy to San JONuIn .wire lT. Lord M widening-north local/non CID IMtWr RIBS.) (t true) mid.McArthur to con Mw l (City of rxvin.) Is. AVICMa u<ension•win lw.1/can CIP (Cw,ocrata Plain ( Mud) ,t�•. alas hn]len to Sam rh 19. Dover Den. widening at local/can CIP Castaways Lronlogs 20. Men Mgon Dr.-M."thur lore/can CIP/AMPS IOLID to Mcrae. terminal) - 21. Olson eat.Mto. to local/ton CIP/AMrP/Caltrenl 1 I, IlnoArthu[ I 33 Jellies..M rldminp ldoal/con MP (Aawportat North) N.upeR.t Pm to San Joagul 1980-85 16. Pal vla.nlM-54t1h St. A.9i.nal felton./Alt r ? to Glee-roue aid. r a/. Superior It.-➢Cod to local/Min City/cip/AMrp 1 ?I.cenet. 1st. a:.,$widening aomth local/ten MP (Myvl•w Isnalepl 4 of MCI( PCN vld.nih9•Mouth. Raoion.l caltren./ra i r to laysids including Jesuen. intas..ctsn 27, Kol uthur/Avude..Plot Regional Caimans/rep/AxrP/PAI x Mn Jopuin little M to PC ' Ire. Dutbluff eat...Wo laoWoan CIP/AMFP/Celtrrna NN 2 ` .lesio ns.to Meuthur 1 JO. tw Joaquin little Mad re hT gional CIp/AP x SDYSUce to Culver 31, Newport Blvd- PM to Mglonal LaltiNB/City/COP x ;r 33od St. Iine. Mabel 02. Tore M•most.. Mrienal A /TAU icier of x am Mlgo.l to Sonia CyA i x 36. McArthur Slva Widening Mglon.l CntraM/ANTp/TAU x INS Post M to Units Cenyw C' 4 I , IS. COW. Nlghvay mom I, Acres, ten Daiwa Avenue Mgl...I Caltrano"AD i Ire. coast Highway At N.yost (Brehmst MgloWl Calton./PAU let oehong. 1{' I 1985-95 ( 11. Corona dot Has G..wry "Od"A1 CAltrars (City/wwty % ismom WIN WINI g COMcrvms redhill to priority lisp I JaBMrs.. 33. University n[.msun.inn Regional City/At" x e twin. to Jatln... �. 36. Ja,Oorot M widening Regional MCY/ANUT west stem cord to Grtbluf 36. 9 earlhur Blvd widening reolon.l• Caltr.n./ANPP/PAU M ) '} Mn Joaquin to cord Ad t t 37. <o..t Mlghwmy neglmna3 C.1tt.WFAU ) )• 0uvr to the Archer ie. oa,mn...I Mr ivy came. R•ol"al Coltrane (City/CouneY Jra'wr.e do"AtI Cyn M p.Lmclty Usti 1 . 10. BM Jwguln T[.ndp.Lorclde Wglonel County x I 11p t w et at Y) { Bonice to-two'Drive and )t, beyond to$..to 5 , l ) . Y 1 TO: Planning Commission - 4 Discussion x It is the intent of staff in subsequent reports to the Planning Commission to provide information on project ultimate growth and development timing for the older established commercial and residential portions of the planning area . Further, staff will be further quantifying existing data to allow for comparisons of intensity/density and total occupied space at various timeframes ( i .e. , total structure space commercial office in 1980, 1985 and 1995) . This information will allow the Planning Commission to make comparisons in terms of possible imbalance between proposed development and support systems . In subsequent reports , staff intends to provide answers to those additional questions and issues raised at the November 3, 1977 Planning Commission Study Session ( i .e . , traffic generation of various land uses , definitions of service levels , definitions of intersection deficiencies , etc. ) The next task identified (Tentative Work Schedule - Planning Commission Staff Report of November 3, 1977) will be the development of alternative plans for the undeveloped sites within the planning area . Staff will continue to develop data on the undeveloped sites within the planning area and to identify problems in terms of the support systems during the course of the General Plan review process . Public Participation It is the intent of staff to provide for public participation in the General Plan review process as appropriate. This could be accommodated through additional public hearings prior to the February, 1978 amendment session or through informal briefings with interested groups and individuals . The Planning Commission may wish to suggest additional direction for staff in this regard . Suggested Action Staff suggests that the Planning Commission review the information generated on the major undeveloped sites within the planning area , the timing of proposed improvements to the circulation system, and the memorandum from the Public Works Department on the City' s most immediate and/or serious traffic capacity problems. Staff would further suggest that the Plannin Commission indicate any additional information they desire ?beyond that which we have indicated the Planning Commission will be receiving at subsequent hearings ) and indicate a general direction for staff to take in the preparation of alternative plans for the undeveloped sites . Yours very truly, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . Hogan , Dire or 8y Fre alarico Senior Planner FT :jmb Attachments : 1 ) Memorandum from Public Works Department. 2) Map indi-cating key elements of circulation system. 3) Staff report from Public Works Department to City Council 11 /14/77 "Progress Report and Information on the Accuracy of the Transportation Model " . a, November 10, 1977 TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: KEY TRANSPORTATION ROUTES AND LINKS RELATED TO GENERAL PLAN REVIEW Listed below are key elements of the circulation system having a significant relationship to the current general plan re- view. Major elements are listed, together with particular links or intersections requiring special attention. Other key elements may be identified later as the traffic model and the general plan review progress further. 1 . Pacific Coast Highway, all . a. Balboa Boulevard-Superior intersection b. Riverside intersection c. Jamboree intersection 2. Balboa Boulevard, extension northerly of Coast Highway 3. Superior Avenue, Coast Highway to Hoag Road 4. University Drive, Irvine Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard 5. Second Bay Crossing, as recommended in Alan M Voorhees study 6. Corona del Mar Freeway-Bristol Street frontage roads 7. San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor 8. Jamboree Road, Coast Highway to Eastbluff Drive North a. Jamboree-San Joaquin Hills Road intersection 9. MacArthur Boulevard-San Joaquin Hills Road-San Miguel Drive-Avocado Avenue intersection complex i E C E 0 t' C(m,munityuNty _" DcrveluPnnrtt � Benjamin B. Nolan City Engineer £ NOV I (? 1tJ7 BBN:jd NpWpo 011 OP AlN 2" CALIP. N KEY ROUTES �1-, LINKS !�' 4 K s C♦(`� i{2l �"`ors�. �� "•• \ flf Vim' 14 / , _ ,�\Z i\ .ems• }�� h / ! � _ , 8ILI " �.t•!F�� `)� � ��r' � - _ � ,F •Y"_l `.. 'fir`"c � .�^' a� �-w��' �� � r�� ��.3��`',e �i.�•:i a,ems. �.' s _ . :�". _r1 � �h �-�.+.� `i d`_ Ya.r `L)a + f'• ¢.�. .✓ -i 1. a\�-��i::r-! t\.� cr. , '`+ter �_a• .i' . ,. } �•:3' � ems-: G =''.�' '11 1.^ y9 •� — Yy ie,'Lt 'a.Q" city o EWPORT BEACH ' "W, 1 'u"li "'''a..i..,-k..,. :-- r -. �`•' nr)TilG2{� 7 �i - �_��, �°..� ;Ti'�"".t? �,-,.. ;l 111f �9i %♦ _v'`'�'K�•�--'� ~\ .�h_� t y I • Itl Ijlliliiilicsit7i`7C��«�'�ii {Y=,s :� . � ��e�*.•`�;�..— -__�-•.-. "Z" Y..,.� _ •'II�r'rri=''s� ,z„r 1'�-! i�_ '�v,=� yy,✓`:i1i-•r-�'•t. _ I -_ 0 2400 4800 ie feet PACIFIC OCEAN =�~ LI AOVANCS •LANNINS DIVISION 'f'1•9D•77 • Q I V : RECEIVES\� Cove( nifyU �� November 14, 1977 NOV j1977 » STUDY SESSION AGENDA ,a.. .— ITEM N0. 10 NEWpOlZT . •7 \di CALIFEAC(j TO: CITY COUNCIL \4 r r FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: PROGRESS REPORT AND INFORMATION ON THE ACCURACY OF THE TRANSPORTATION MODEL CONCLUSIONS: 1 . An origin and destination survey is not necessary to assure accuracy'of the Model . 2. The Transportation Model can be updated at anytime additional transportation data is available. 3. A letter should be sent to the Orange County Environmental Management Agency in support of the County's proposed vehicle license plate survey for the coastal area. 4. The 1978-79 budget should include funds for maintaining, operating and updating the Transportation Model . DISCUSSION: The City Council on October 11 , 1977 requested the staff to provide information on the accuracy of the "Transportation Model" and the need and desirability to conduct origin and destination surveys as input for the Model . The staff requested Herman Basmaciyan and Associates, the City's consultant, to summarize the procedures used in developing the Transportation Model with specific emphasis on the accuracy of the Model and the need to conduct origin and destination surveys. Attached is a copy of the consultant's report. The staff has reviewed the report and concur with the consultant's conclusions and recommendations contained on Pages 8 and 9. The consultant will be present at the Council meeting to review his report and answer any questions the Council may have. The staff concurs with the consultant that the "Existing Conditions Model" validation procedures adequately duplicates existing travel patterns, eliminating the need to conduct origin and destination surveys. An origin and destination survey sampling five percent of the households in Newport Beach would cost approximately $50,000 and take approximately ten months to complete. This type of survey would only provide transportation data for Newport Beach residents and would not provide adequate data on regional and through trips. IL Study Session Agenda Item No. 10 -2- November 14, 1977 The procedures used to develop the Transportation Model will allow the City to modify and update the "Existing Conditions" and "Future Conditions" Models when new data becomes available. Currently, the Orange County Environ- mental Management Agency proposes to conduct a vehicle license plate survey for the Coastal area between the Santa Ana River and Dana Point. The EMA staff estimates they will ask the Board of Supervisors in the next month or so to approve the project and authorize the submittal of consultant proposals. Summer and winter data from this project should be available in October, 1978 and could be used in further validating and or updating the City's Transportation Models. Bill E. Darnell Traffic Engineer Attachment BED:bcd Imo_ l� Herman Consulting Services Engineering/Planning Basmadyan Transportation Transit and Associates Traffic 1821 Port Renwick, Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 640.5737 November 8, 1977 Mr. Bill E. Darnell, Traffic Engineer City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: The "Existing Conditions" Model Procedures and Validation Dear Bill : In accordance with our discussions on this subject, enclosed is a report which summarizes the procedures used in the development of the "Existing Conditions" traffic circulation model, describes the validation (or calibration) procedures, and assesses the need or desirability to conduct Origin and Destination Surveys. It is concluded that: - The "Existing Conditions" model duplicates current traffic patterns adequately; therefore, origin and destination (0-D) surveys are not required to assure model accuracy. - Comprehensive "at-home" type 0-D surveys are costly and time consuming. In the future special purpose 0-D surveys at major travel generators or vehicle license plate surveys to describe major travel patterns may be used to refine and up- date the model and would be more cost effective than compre- hensive areawide "at-home" 0-D surveys. - The Orange County Environmental Management Agency (EMA) is considering conducting vehicle license plate surveys along portions of the Orange County coast between Newport Beach and i Mr. Bill E. Darnell -2- November 8, 1977 Dana Point. The City of Newport Beach should cooperate with the EMA to ensure that such a vehicle license plate survey is conducted as soon as possible and that the results are made available to the city to be used in model refinement and up- dating. Please call me if I can provide further details or answer any questions. Sincerely, HERMAN BASMACIYAN AND ASSOCIATES �,---_- Herman Basmaciyan, HB.b Enc. THE "EXISTING CONDITIONS" MODEL for NEWPORT BEACH AND SURROUNDING AREA PROCEDURES AND VALIDATION November, 1977 Submitted by: HERMAN BASMACIYAN, P.E. 14, CONTENTS Page GENERAL 1 MODELLING PROCEDURES AND DATA SOURCES 2 Land Use and Socio-Economic Information 2 Network Data 2 Trip Generation Data 3 Trip Distribution (Origin- Destination Patterns) 3 SUMMARY OF VALIDATION PROCEDURE 4 ORIGIN AND DESTINATION SURVEYS 5 Types of O-D Surveys 5 Types of Information Collected 6 Time Required for 0-D Surveys 8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8 I'I 17. THE "EXISTING CONDITIONS" MODEL PROCEDURES AND VALIDATION GENERAL The question has been raised as to the need and desirability to conduct origin and destination surveys in conjunction with the City's traffic circulation model development effort. The following discussion examines many inter-related facets of this issue in order to present all necessary facts and considerations for decision-making. A. The City of Newport Beach is part of a vast Region and travel to and from and through the City constitutes a large portion of the total traffic volume on the City's major road and street facilities. Therefore, an origin and destination survey must be structured such that all components of traffic can be assess- ed. B. The fact that the City of Newport Beach is part of a vast Region enables it to take advantage of the planning resources and data information developed at the County and Regional levels. C. Origin-and-Destination (0-D) surveys are generally conducted for either of the following two purposes: 1. To develop data for a specific component of the total trip- making in an area. Such 0-D surveys are useful in applica- tions such as corridor planning, specific facility planning, and comparable circumstances. 2. To develop travel pattern data on a comprehensive areawide basis. Such 0-D surveys are generally used as the basis for travel modelling and calibration. In general 0-D surveys conducted for purpose "1" are smaller scale efforts than those for purpose "2". Generally, regional or areawide planning agencies conduct comprehensive areawide 0-D surveys while transportation improvement implementation agencies are primarily interested in specific travel components and conduct special purpose 0-D surveys, as appropriate, to assist in specific facility planning. D. In any modelling effort it is important to develop a good data base and to ensure that the model is "calibrated" or "validated" -2- 14i, to duplicate existing conditions with reasonable accuracy. It is equally important to understand that, in any modelling effort, when relationships developed on the basis of observed conditions are applied to assess or to predict potential future behavior, a major assumption must be made that the observed relationship between independent and dependent variables remain constant over time. (For example, if a household with certain characteristics --such as size, income, dwelling unit type, number of autos owned, etc. -- generates 12 vehicular tripe per day now, a house- hold with the same characteristics will generate the same number of trips per day ten or twenty years from now.) This assumption of stability in relationships over time is inherent in every step of the travel model including trip generation, trip distribution, model split, and trip assignment. MODELLING PROCEDURES AND DATA SOURCES The "Existing Conditions" model for the City of Newport Beach (in- cluding a large surrounding area) is based on the following data sources: A. Land Use and Socio-Economic Information 1. Existing land use estimated for each Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) by: a. CDD for Newport Beach b. CDD for Costa Mesa c. Consultants for portions of Irvine based on data supplied by Irvine. d. Consultants for portions of Santa Ana based on data supplied by Santa Ana. e. LARTS estimates for areas outside "Primary" Study Area 2. Household characteristics based on 1976 special census data at various levels of aggregation. B. Network Data 1, Link Distances - Actual measurements on appropriate scale maps. 2. Speeds - Field measurements by Newport Beach and Costa Mesa using a "floating car" technique and from speed limit data. �9. I -3- 3. Number of Lanes - Actual conditions (exclusive left-turn through and exclusive right-turn lanes) determined from records or field observations if necessary. 4. Facility classification - from records. C. Trip Generation Data 1. Actual field measurements for the following: a. In Newport Beach - Park Newport Apartments - Baywood Apartments - Promontory Point - Coves - Eastbluff - Harbor View Homes - Big Canyon - Jasmine Creek Hoag Hospital - Newport Center Medical Complex (Avocado) Placentia Medical Complex - Newporter Inn - Several Restaurants - Lido Island - Fashion Island b. in Costa Mesa - Orange Coast College - FEDCO - South Coast Plaza Shopping Center c. Other - Orange County Airport 2. Where field data was not available, trip generation rates from observations elsewhere were used. D. Trip Distribution (Origin-Destination Patterns) The trip distribution procedure combines LARTS regional travel pattern information and local tripmaking in the Study Area. Thus it permits the focusing of intense attention upon the Study Area while the external influences are also reflected. 24, -4- 1. Summary of LARTS Trip Distribution Procedure: a. On basis of 1967 0-D Survey data, develop models for 1967 conditions. b. Validate that models indeed duplicate 1967 actual ground count conditions. c. Use models to "predict" mid-1970's conditions d. Validate that the model "predictions" match actual ground count conditions. 2. Summary of Newport Beach Model Procedures: a. Establish cordon around Newport Beach/Costa Mesa Study Area and identify cordon crossings. b. Identify LARTS Zones within Area c. Obtain following information from LARTS: - Internal Trips (between each pair of internal LARTS Zones) Internal/External Trips (to/from each internal zone to/from each cordon crossing) - Through Trips (between each pair of cordon crossings) - Total cordon crossings d. Verify that total cordon crossings match actual ground counts. e. Discard internal trips f. Use Gravity Model Formula to estimate internal/eXternal trips on basis of TAZs. g. Expand Internal/External trips using estimated total trip ends. h. Add in "through" trips. SUMMARY OF VALIDATION PROCEDURE Major validation points are: A. 1967 LARTS model output vs. 1967 ground counts - regional checks by LARTS. B. Mid-1970's LARTS model output vs. ground counts - regional checks by LARTS. C. "Existing Model" Cordon crossings vs. present ground counts - along entire cordon. D. After completion of "Existing Model," comparisons of model out- put vs. ground counts along selected screenlines and on major facilities in the internal area (Data to be presented.) I zi -5- Based an a review of the various validation steps, especially step D which pertains specifically to the Study Area, it is concluded that the "Existing Conditions" model is capable of duplicating exist- ing travel patterns satisfactorily. ORIGIN AND DESTINATION SURVEYS While it does not appear that 0-D surveys are necessary for model development, for purposes of information a general overview of 0-D survey techniques is presented below. A. Types of 0-D Surveys 1. At the home - Documents all tripmaking by an entire house- hold in one day. a. Personal interview - app. $40-$50 per interview b. Telephone interview - app. $20-$30 per interview c. *Questionnaire - app. $10 per returned questionnaire * Not a recommended procedure - bias in returns During 1976 LARTS conducted a very small sample "at-home" survey to update the 1967 O-D survey. When the results of this small sample survey are available, the City can investigate the possibilities of using the information in updating or refining the "Existing Conditions" model. It should be recognized that a small sample survey must be evaluated thoroughly and utmost care must be used in its application. 2. At the roadside - Documents the specific single trip of an individual vehicle. a. Personal interview b. *Questionnaire c. Color-coded card d. License plate recording at specified crossings. The Orange County Environmental Management Agency (EMA) is considering such a survey for the Coastal Area of Orange County between the Santa And River and Dana Point. e. *Photo followed by license plate check. * Not recommended procedures. zz, -6- Cost is variable depending on traffic volume, control problems, hours of operation, specific methodology, etc. 3. Users of Specific Travel Generators - Documents the specific single trip of a person or vehicle going to/from the generator. a. Personal interview b. Questionnaire c. License plate checks (matched against DMV records) Examples: Airports, major parks, major employment centers, beaches, shopping centers, ferry crossings. Cost is variable depending on traffic volume, control problems, hours of operation, specific methodology, etc. 4. Truck/Taxi Surveys Conducted usually by analyzing the trip records of each vehicle, or by requesting that the driver make a complete report of all trips on a given day. S. Types of Information Collected: 1. At - home surveys a. Household Characteristics - Number of persons - Ages Licensed Drivers Type of Residence - Number of Autos - Employment Status of Residents - Other b. Tripmaking Characteristics For each trip by each members of tta household: - Origin of trip (at home or other specific address) - Destination of trip (home or other specific address) - Time of trip - Mode of travel (auto, bus, etc.) - Purpose of trip - Other 23. -7- c. Other information as desired - Attitudinal questions - Opinions 2. At the Roadside a. Vehicle Characteristics - Classification: auto, truck, etc. (by observation) - State of registration - Where vehicle is garaged - Number of occupants (by observation) b. Trip Characteristics - Origin of trip by specific address or - Destination of trip recognizable location - Time of trip (by observation) - Purpose of trip c. Other - Attitudinal questions At the Roadside (License Plate or Color-Coded Cards) a. State of Registration (License Plate only) b. Crossing Point - both crossings c. Time of trip 3. Users of Specific Travel Generators Varies based an the type of survey and the type of travel generator. 4. Truck/Taxi Surveys a. Vehicle Characteristics - Place where vehicle is garaged - Size, number of axles, weight capacity (trucks only) - Other b. Trip Characteristics - For each trip: - Origin of trip - Destination of trip - Time of trip - Purpose of trip - Number of persons transported (taxi only) - Type and amount of goods carried (trucks only) - Other i 211 -g- C. Time Required for 0-D Surreys Many steps are inherent in conducting O-D surveys : 1. Design of Procedures a. Sample selection b. Documentation of specific methodology c. Design of forms or questionnaires d. Quality control procedures 2. Training of personnel 3. Field testing procedures k. Modification/refinement of procedures 5. Field Work 6. Coding of returns 7. Factoring or the expansion of the sample 8. Analysis of results The time required to complete a comprehensive "At Home" type 0-D survey is a minimum of six months. Depending on the area of coverage and the complexity of the survey, the time required may be as long as ten months to a year. Other types of less complex surveys such as -those at special travel generators can be completed in a shorter time period. Simple O-D surveys can be accomplished in four to six weeks assuming that all necessary manpower and resources are concen- trated to accomplish the task. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION The validation procedure for the "Existing Conditions" model is quite rigorous, and the model is considered satisfactory in describing existing travel patterns. The ability exists to update the model as additional data is developed at the regional or county level or at the Specific Travel Generator level. -9- To be of any value at 'At Home" type Origin and Destination (0-D) survey must encompass not only Newport Beach but considerable surrounding area since the tripmaking of persons who reside out- side the City but travel into the City must also be ascertained. The magnitude of such an effort is immense. To sample 5.0 percent of the households in Newport Beach alone would cost approximately $50,000. At the roadside, the interview technique presents considerable operational and safety problems - queing, pulling in and out of traffic on congested roads, etc. The color-coded card technique has similar problems, but to a lesser extent. A vehicle license plate survey appears to be best suited for determining major travel patterns and constitutes a cost- effective way of obtaining considerable information due to the geographic characteristics of Newport Beach and the patterns of roads and streets . Since the Orange County Environmental Management Agency (EMA) is considering a vehicle license plate survey in the Coastal Area between the Santa Ana River and Dana Point, the City of Newport Beach should cooperate with the EMA to ensure that the survey is conducted as early as possible. Surveys of Users of Specific Travel Generators are considered valuable additional information items to further refine and supplement the model. Information from such future surveys can be used in the model updating process. 0-D Surveys are time-consuming efforts . A comprehensive "At- Home" 0-D survey would require a minimum of six months, perhaps up to a year, to complete. Less complex surveys can be completed within four to. six weeks. Planning Commission Meeting November 11 , 1977 Study Session Agenda Item No . 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 15 , 1977 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: General Plan Review - Status Report "Additional Information" The purpose of this report is to provide the Planning Commission with additional information to assist the Commissioners with the review of the General Plan . The following exhibits have been attached to this report : Exhibit "A" : - A chart indicating proposed development totals for each timeframe ( i . e. , short-range 1977 to 1980; mid-range 1980 to 1985 , and long-range 1985 to 1995) . Exhibit "B" : - A chart indicating existing residential development densities . Exhibit "C" : - A chart indicating existing commercial areas intensity. Exhibit "D" : - A chart indicating each major vacant parcel , an identification number, total acres , General Plan designation site , zoning limitations , proposed development, and the intensity or density of development proposed. Exhibit "E" • - A map defining existing and proposed uses in the Newport Center area . Yours very truly, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . Hogan , Director By Fred ala ico Senior •Planner FT : jmb Attachments: Exhibits "A" through "E" z, EXHIBIT "A" Development Timing 1977 - 1980 Residential 1422 DU ' s Commercial Office 541 ,900 Sq . Ft. Commercial Retail 95 ,000 Sq . Ft. Restaurant 12,000 Sq . Ft.1 Hotel Unk.2 Industrial 157,000 Sq . Ft. 1Figure does not include three restaurant sites in Koll Center (Nos . 104, 105 and 106) . 2Does not show hotel site in Emkay Center (No. 113) to be developed in this timeframe with unknown number of rooms . 1980 - 1985 Residential 3,532 DU ' s Commercial Office 1 ,781 ,400 Sq . Ft. Commercial Retail 58,000 Sq . Ft.1 Restaurant 75,500 Sq . Ft. Hotel 550 Rooms Industrial 660,000 Sq. Ft. 1Figure does not include Commercial Retail development at "Mouth" of Big Canyon . 1985 - 1995 Residential 1 ,975 DU ' s Commercial Office 460,000 Sq. Ft. Commercial Retail 40,000 Sq . Ft . 1 Restaurant 16 ,000 Sq. Ft.1 Hotel 25 Rooms Industrial 720,000 Sq . Ft. 1Figure does not include Commercial/Office/Restaurant in conjunction with West Newport Harbor. TOTAL PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT "ALL SITES"1 • Residential 6 ,928 DU ' s . Commercial Office 2 ,743, 300 Sq . Ft. 1 . Commercial Retail 193,000 Sq . Ft. 2 . Restaurant 103,000 Sq . Ft. 3 . Hotel 575 Rooms4 . Industrial 1 ,537,000 Sq . Ft. 1Does not include Commercial /Office/Restaurant in conjunction with West Newport Harbor. Further, represents a change in office development from staff report of November 17, 1977 , due to revi.sed data . ?Does not include "Mouth" of Big Canyon site. 3Does not include restaurants in Koll Center. 4Does not include hotel in Emk�y. EXHIBIT 48" y. r General Existing Area T e Develo mant Plan Acres DU's Dansit . Eastbiuff SFD L.D. W119 - 76The 81ofis SFA M.D. 3The Bl offs SFA M.O. 2 90 Harbor View SrO M.D. .48 93 Seawind SFD a Condo LD A MF b 8 92 Spyglass SFO a A LD 156 350 2.25 Hill 83 View or ppt.6 LO 6 107 7.5 265 120 1.516 li Hills I 85 Harbor SFD LD 147 448 3.0 View Hills It 04 Jasmine SPA MD 38.0 130 4.0 Creek 34 Corona SFD - Apt. MD 2F 81.0 274 3.39 Highlands MF 35 Cameo SFD LD 44.3 141 3.18 Shores No. 36 Cameo SFD LD 77.6 176 2.27 Shores So. 37 Shorecliffs SFD LO 50 141 2.8 32133 Corona del SFD a DP 2 Family 86 1,200 14.0 Mar N. 29/30/31 Corona del SFD A OF a Apt MD/2F/MF 130 1,816 14.0 Mar S. 28 Irvine SPD LO 143.6 468 3.4 Terrace 27 Bel. Isle SFD OP Tri 2 Family 113 2.195 19.42 26 Penn Pt. SFO/Apt./Tri/OP MO/MF 100 931 9.3 24/05 Con. Bat. SFD/Apt./Tri/DP MD/MF/2F 70 11216 18.0 30 Promontory Apt, MF 33.9 520 15.3 Point 39 Promontory SFA/SFD/Apt./ NO 6 MF 85 467 5.5 gay DP/Condo 39 Harbor Isle 39 Linda Isle 44 Bayshores SFD NO 46.8 257 6.3 22 Linda Isle SFU Apt. rIMF 85 910 10.6 42 Cliff haven SFD/Apt./DP 72 519 7.2 50/51 Partners' SFD 2.53 1,087 4.3 54 Upper Npt. SFO a Condo 31.3 128 4.1 Bay Est. 5 Newport Condo 38.0 460 12.1 Crest 1 Newport Condo MD 40.0 281 7.0 Terrace M Newport SFO/DP/Tri MD 2F 60 627 10.4 Shores [71/72 Park Apt. MF 48.48 1,305 26.85 Newport _ Oakwood Apt. MF 3�.3 1,450 44.9 Big SFD LD 160.9 488 2.7 Canyon gig Condo MF 17.0 144 8.5 Canyon Type General Plan SFA • "Single-Family Attached" LO - "Low-Density" SFD - "Single-Family Detached" NO • "Mediun-Density" APT • "Apartment" HD • "High-Density" Condo • "Condominium" 2F • "Two-Family" DP Duplex MF - "Multi-Family" TRI a "Triplex" EXHIBIT "C" Ex Sq. Existing Area T e of Development General Plan Sq. Ft. Ft. Int. Mariners Sq. Sales Retail S & S 81 ,000 36,200 .47 Commercial M.M. Comm. Off. Ret. S & S 18,900 4,468 .24 U.C.B. Commercial Design Comm. Off. Am/Prof/Fin. 487,872 150,000 .31 Plaza Commercial Gateway Comm. Offc. Am/Prof/Fin. 520,411 .3 165,000 .32 Plaza Commercial Eastbluff Retail Comm. Ret. S & S 310,147.2 31 ,250 .10 Commercial Harbor Retail Comm. Ret. S & S 277,477.2 61 ,396 .22 View Commercial Westcliff Retail Comm. Ret. S & S 439,956 124,150 .28 Plaza Commercial Newport Retail Comm. Ret. S & S 405,108 71 ,000 .18 Hills Commercial N.•C. Fire Pub. Fac. Gov.,/Ed. ,/ 64,904.4 13,481 .21 Station Inst. N.C. Pub. Fac. Gov.,/Ed. ,/ 108,900 48,000 .44 Police Station Inst. Shark Is. , Pvt. Clubs Rec. ,/Mar. , 27,007.2 9,000 .33 Y.C. Commercial 1 . Union Bank Comm. Office Am./Prof.,/ 296,900 - Fin. Comm. 2. Avco Comm. Office Am. ,/Prof. , 271 ,000 - Fin. Comm. 3. Wells Fargo Comm. Office Am. ,/Prof. , 303,535 - Fin. Comm. Total 1/2/3 - - 584,139.6 871 ,435 1 .40 Pacific Comm. Office Am. ,/Prof.,/ 436,164.4 311 ,325 .72 Mutual Fin. Comm. A. Broadway Retail Comm. Retail S & 173,814 S Comm. B. Buffums 56,000 C. J.C.Penneys 227,020 D. Robinson's 228,534 E. Mall Shops 204,159 F. Gr. West S & L 2,088 G. Coco's 5,274 H. Velvet Turtle 10,351 I. E1 Roberto 5,200 J. Bullock's Wil. 80,000 K. Neiman-Marcus 120,000 L. Mall Shops 45,000 Total A-L 3,267,000 1 ,157,440 .35 EXHIBIT I'D" GOP I111111q 104110 111GIOSCO IPOW, IMIM N 1 N 1 1010.1 L"KII! loop I•bltlll p1 lAMltp "It pour 101 port OfflM Ito,. 11,0 s1WA.,??NMr.. P.C.1rt 0 u,Sloe lA.. rt.fA .14 1 MS.WO p. IN Com"t,Offlpl OJQ /Win, IMr., 11e,OO 14M/t11 fuN.01/. .li WIN u Inlq nn..fay, lottl fa ken! w,000$O,ft. 103 CorM1�oMUOff1u pool lndntrY Coo.0flla Wk. Poor l ti.IW 7p or i41dU1 OIfIM Shc pool omin, ii�000Of1.ll. I01 Fort tied pool Inbury Cos. hru..t in po1'1 mtuwldt Collins llWrty M. IN Mouunnt$to 2.6! hull utos od W. Sohn Coo. 101 4eeppn111W p u Olfla Mull took tnl Ioo.Off. ./� W pulp 000 o: 11C, 1l. IM to so"Will 12.M1 1YInpr/Nnf., Cio.off f.NIUM, ft. 110 pflmmu #A .flaf111e1n�Mr.. ico.art. .70 Ill Ibu131u 1.20 11ltn�n6, W. W. "Ftr t/m0I1INr lit I41u0r111 1 Idow InWlu1 LC.Inul llor oddmflil .25 pMlepnt 1111.041)affa to. 12.00)p'ft. Ri mot I hull 1 Wn1M I.C.Yst host 111 htNo W Coorcul hpind `N l.I00>a Ilm Camm111 5A1 Null I unlM I C. Cerorchl .8 Cewmin mull p ft 114 Offtto 11.0 AWto.,P.L. S.C. C000misl .53 puuonnt Sin.Colo. Off1n A'.OW p.rt. klgWIpIL Ip0 Its htlmotor 100 `Comity Lost, /,C.INndnrnl JW W'1 5.5 pMltoonl I C.it 1M.- 10 lilt muld W4/ IM MtlMtlol f� kn 114 it,,ow to Groins IM.od Sut C. nl u t ft. µy pNlllont hrlWnlltl14. CONTINUED ON 'NEXT PAGE 7a , PAD- 6W[AN PLAN 1OR IADPOSED PINES CERIAN • yNqNqN. INI TI NITA P N INTI M ( n5 1"Jow werahl I 117 1;~Nun at Recreation and I.C.ANMant W MIS IO utla wit IS Unn San u Tat Nailed W4/ Cando Big On. Au, 110 He ft G Mile..Prof., P.C.No Tat CONN..Null .20 •, 9111aM I Fin.tan,i 10,00)Sq.ft.MI. RESWN,Can. SD,OW Sq.ft, 119 IrNwy Me,,- B AnOutlen and P.C.Nonnt 100 W'a 12.5 rosin o 6n at One Specs/Nitl u tart Marled W-11 Nltldn.NSwod Realty Nn ( •/ IN NEM Fow 16 Industrial P.C.LINES of Industrial .20 6)Industrial 615.000 SQ.Ft., fe5,W0 Sq. R In NYsid, I.2 AMIN-Prof., C-1•H core,Office d9 f Boon Fin.ENDS.A 56.)W Sq. ,r, NC/Rey Ft. In CIVIC Flu. 26 Adel...Prof., I.C. Care.WE$. •�8 j: Fin.Wass. I 120,000 Se.Ft. no sq. M Mo. Ft. 121 Harbor 9 to%Dual sl1 LC.ANnhRnt SI W., 6 DES/ NIII M,IMntiu to Trat At. W'1/6 i R.O.S. NUNd 12/ Mlecrt 10 Am...Prof.. P.C.No Won.WHO .W r Bloc Fin.Con. lest 3 0.000 Sq. III BID a" 16 160 MI. 10.) An 10 SB W'S M f Wet"tot r ' 126 IbsGSy 58 Re're.tlm and P.C.No NB WY 6 W'e/ ' 0nn SRO 411 W' lust Nn Am.Had.We. 122 Moorter II Md.Wally P.C.M IN WIN p W'./ F North WIN S01 cut At. f Its CaSurgl• /0 M W''/ft d.Density P.C. No Test 320 W., 6 ''/ t' N.INntest W.,320 Nn f 120 SIR Ara. 9 Md.Density R•1.8 51 Wi 6 W',/ rl.; Mrrldor' W.,Be Nrc b.SEA IN 6th Annu 19 W.Diellty Alt. A-1-9 111 W'. 6 W',/ tonlMr C.SEA M 10". c.I Open A•1•9 Nn SPa W.IIA 111 MYtla V Recr.ulon ud U. Una. I •Land 0, Hartn tore, IN Mo,,hour. 12 La Density R-I-B PINK.Prof.. Oak. , 'Ilion...th 12 MIS Fin..tore. (kP,',rdrdaa) 71-3.0 ISS 5%An.corridor 6 Md.DO'Ity R-3-B 36 We 1 W'u .,high Nn.NF Wh% Acr. 1A airport Cancer 11 Amin.,pro'.. C•0.H Can..Offlu. .94 Block 6W Ft..Can. 150.000 sq. , IPnesetlsi) Ft. 115 Cen�dalllc Cute, 9 H.F.n [eon/fit Prof..Teat ai 115 W'. .9/ MO uad SS W'allcn IM te t"NES, 25 Recreation and Mrin I.C.Xo Mut 250 Roods Caavrtlal Canrcul Tut A1aGYraIt i 16.000 M.Ft. , 1J1 Inns ReGraltion 26 ABC. SOS 1156 I.C.Fnoly 208 MIS test.�Harbor yio W',J Md.Den., Re,. _ (19/WIN) 9AOUP 11•INITIAL WWPAACY 1961.1983 Sol 'Muth'012 Canyon 19 NC.,I ON.Space -U• Canrolal/Alull Vnk. Iin At. Oak.sq.Ft. WR 201 Mn Diego Croak 11 Recall Servlu U. Auuunnt 6.000 Vet. N ' North Mgrcl.1 fq.Ft.,Hotel A i5 Ram IN cartes.P1... t0 Amin.,Prof..Fin P.0 Ro (on.Office .26 wit I Ed.,I Marla Teat @0,M)Sq. ,CaaerlGl Ft. , 2041 11,41 01 1/ 9 MISM..Prof.. P.C.No Coearcul Offlu .At A.1.0 Nn..C®Nrcl.l Tat 160.000 54.ft. 1 MP-111•INITIN ' OCCOPARCI IIG•19M mt PCwJRbMO 19 Adeln.,Prof.,Fin I.C.No Canrclal OI/lo .21 191•300 to Tali 196,OW Sq• 191.6W sq.ft. Ft. ' W J.lem/ 2 Mt/Mrv.and Aoln.. •V- CCrebeclal Offlu .69 Wilbur PedL,and fin. 60.00)SQ.F((,he. tissue 15.000 St.Ft. SEE ten DuP O Nonni Industry •U. Industrial .23 Credit South 110.000 Sq.Ft. in North Few 1 Ml./Nrv..uo P.C.• Null S41.1 .23 ' 9. Lerrc151 iSo I, PnL. CaanrCGl 10.000 Sq.Ft. ' COASOAY/T HIG�WABRINE ' in lanln,a.alunlLl ISO Subject to S.A.P. County A-t 90)MIS 6 W'I/ 1N NlnnISpe I9Sfi Recreation and •U• E65 MIS yy%Mgr e,) nW M A 1/0 Mltrus IN.Nast 32.65 N[n.ti.,led Pon A- 211 DO'S 12.0 MISMIY/L.interior) San and Pat DOh/A 1 to DR.S.F. IX.NL 2.31 Subject to S.A.P. P.C.no 126 DO', 5.9 of IIN StNtl Tut W',/A IN An.N I, I5.Let. 31.15 Subject u S.A.P. P.C.No /65 W.,' 14.4 ' of 16th St!'). Test DKOVA WY Wells,IS.Neat 5.16 Me..and O.S. R•2 A-2 De'. Mt. , N1y,.I.E.R•O-M) WS $N.Croft H.roa 292 Subject td S.A.P. County A-1 IDi6 W'l Ind UnA. Harbor end a art.mn EXHIBIT E Prudential 134 ^" 00o block number 700 ' L I .8W a •'a y 1 d f"'+ana..acs.wo : -'-• 600 7 Civic ••••-••'' ;, - F .� I ; ��. Plaza 122 E m 500 J 700 m r •: v ® �� M Arthur Newport Center 800 ` n� La a Cal FA ocado 204 , Condominium 135 F + ���--- U 1400 o ' Pacific. ® r a 300 Mutual Expansion 200 Newport �2a ; . Village ile Sea Island .• goo vmnEcowsrcanrrRrcwe O ••` �''� fl 31 o o 0 omonisE o � city ofe' . NEWPORT BEACH d m o0 Corporate Plaza West 200 � [ j� 203 rnCoast Hwy. et Jamboree 301 AOYANGE ALANNINO ONIf10N m�