Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.12 GROWTH MANAGEMENT 1977 *NEW FILE* 6.12 GROWTH MANAGEMENT 1977 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES 00 �n ROLL CA September 19, 1977 INDEX LL Jean Watt, representing "generally the growing group working on the legal environmental analysis 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 a building moratorium. Steven Gavin, Vice President of the Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company, addressed the Council and g osed a building moratorium. Motion x Counc an Rogers made a motion to direct the Planning mmission to review with utmost priority the Land Us Residential Growth, Circulation and Open Space El nts of the General Plan and the impacts which the irport activities have or will have in the future o these elements; to review the density designatio to be consistent and phased in with circulatio capacities; to allow full opportunity for public rticipation and to bring these back for City Counc action with the first group of General Plan amend is in February, 1978. Councilman Williams asked that the motion e amended to include review of such other elem is of the General Plan as may be deemed to be appropriate, which amendment was accepted by the maker of the motion. Ayes x x x x x x x A vote was taken on Councilman Rogers' amended motion, which motion carried. 2. A report dated July 25 was presented from the City Moratorium Manager regarding a proposed election for a (673) building moratorium. A letter from Marguerite Forgit was presented opposing the moratorium. The following people addressed the Council opposing a building moratorium: Paul Ruffing, architect with the firm of Ficker & Ruffing, read a letter from William Ficker; Marguerite E. Forgit; Dennis Harwood, President of the Chamber of Commerce; R. H 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. Councilman Ryckoff made the following statement for the record: "I am willing to hold off on the moratorium matter for the time being. If the developers are willing to work with the City on the projects of concern, I feel they are going a way down the road to ease some concerns. In the next very few months, it will be possible to determine if they mean what they say. Volume 31 - Page 246 ! r r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES -Pp s iq Aq� 3� ROLL CALL September 19, 1977 INDEXIt 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 Noes x x 'x Absent x Motion x 77-2-B: Failed approval. Ayes x Noes 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 Res ution No. 9192, accepting the Negative R-9192 Motion x Decl ation and approving amendments to the Land Ayes x x x x x x Use, sidential Growth, Recreation and Open Space Absent x Elemen of the Newport Beach General Plan (Amend- ment No. 77-2), was adopted. Mayor Pro Tem Barrett resumed his seat at the Council to e. CONTINUED BUSINES 1. The proposal t direct the Planning Commission to General review the Gene al Plan density designations and Plan the supporting s stems, including the circulation (673) capacities, was c nsidered. Peter Kremer, Presi ent of The Irvine Company, addressed the Counci and read a prepared state- ment which recommende re-examination of the General Plan by next bruary with full partici- pation by representativ s of all community interests; coordination f the development of Newport's remaining unuse lands with the improve- ment of support systems an development of a phasing plan; opposed a bui ding moratorium and stated that The Irvine Compa y will delay legal filings for development appro a1s on the Castaways, the Newport Center high-rise c ndominiums, Newporter North and' Holiday He or for at least six months, or until completion f the General Plan amendment hearings schedule for next February. Councilman Ryckoff stated he was al concerned about the Prudential Building, the S Island development and the expansion of the ywood and McLain apartments. Volume 31 - Page 245 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES s T ROLL CALL September 19, 1977 INDEX "If those projects I mentioned earlier, which would cause impact on traffic, are applied for, there would be time then to bring up again the moratorium matter." Motion x It was directed that the building moratorium issue Ayes x x x x x x x not be included as a ballot measure for the General Municipal Election to be held April.11, 197S. The regular order of the Agenda was resumed. 3. The application of G & W Towing Company for /ce consideration as a third Police Official Tow Truck Service for Newport Beach was presented with a letter from the company requesting the matter be postponed to October 11, 1977. A report was presented fro/Lynch Police Department. Motion x The subject was postponed ober 11, 1977. Ayes x x x x x x x 4. Councilman McInnis gave a report fo the Ping Council Appointments Commientionin the Comsn shortage of applications f of the oards and (530F) Commissions and stating thsire at every effort be made to see thatle w are interested in joining the ial ity family be given opportunity to renew pplications for the Boards and Commissions Motion x The issue of the appointmeLarry Lynch to theAyes x x x x x x x Planning Commission was pod to November 14, 1977. 5. (District 4) Mayor Do Zal's appointment of a Trans Plan member to the Trans ortation Plan Citizens Advisory CAC Committee to repla a Herman Basmaciyan for a term (960) Motion x ending December 1, 1977 was postponed to Ayes x x x x x x x October 11 to low for the posting requirements. CURRENT BUSINES . 1. A repor was presented from the City Manager Banner regar ng a request by "SKIFF," a boating Requests pub cation, for permission to install temporary (2190F) ba ers from October 1 or 3 to October 31, 1977 in o different locations, one across Marine Avenue on Balboa Island from the lamp post at 333 Marine to the chimney of the building at 332 Marine; and the second across Newport Boulevard from Davidson Realty to the street lamp across the street. Bill Hardesty, a member of the Balboa Island Improvement Association, and Bob Millar, a member of the Board of Little Island Property Owners Association, addressed the Council and opposed the request of "SKIFF" for a banner on Marine Avenue and also opposed the request in the following item of the Student Support Services of the University of California for a banner over Marine Avenue. Motion x The request was denied. Ayes x x x x x x x Volume 31 - Page 247 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES �� ROLL CALL pp �� September 19 1977 INDEX 2. A request from Student Support Services of the Banner University of California was presented requesting Request permission to install temporary banners from (2190F) September 26 through October 1, 1977 in two different locations, one across Marine Avenue on Balboa Island and the other across Newport Boule— vard where the Health Fair sign is currently hanging. George Ainslie, student coordinator, addressed the Council and requested approval for the banner. Motion x The request was denied. Ayes x x x X x x 3. A report was presented from the Marine Director to Fishing the City Manager regarding the artificial fishing Reef reef proposed by the Department of Fish and Game. (67) Motion x The Mayor was directed to sign the letter to the Ayes x x x x x x x Chatf the iCityp oft Newport Beacha earment of Fishawillarequire an vironmental Impact Statement rather than a Ne ative Declaration. 4. A pr posed letter opposing construction of a Electric 1290 egawatt generating facility by Southern Generating Califo is Edison Company at Huntington Beach Plant was pre ented. (1370) Motion x Councilma Ryckoff made a motion to direct the Mayor to s gn the letter to California Resources Agency oppo ing the Huntington Beach location for the 1290 megawatt generating facility and to make distribu ion of the letter as recommended. Motion x Councilman Will ams made a substitute motion to Ayes x delete the third aragraph in the proposed letter Noes x x x x x x indicating the Ci 's support for the development of electrical gene ating plants powered by atomic energy and to subst tute a paragraph recommending the conservation of ergy, which motion failed to carry. Ayes x x x x x x A vote was taken on Co cilmau Ryckoff's motion, Noes x which motion carried. 5. A letter was presented fro Sanford J. Cole CEQCAC resigning from the Environm tal Quality Control (1058) Citizens Advisory Committee. The resignation of Sanford Col was accepted with regret; the City Clerk was dire ted to prepare a Certificate of Appreciation; and (District 3) Mayor Pro Tem Barrett's appointme t of a member to Motion x fill the unexpired term ending Dec ber 31, 1977 Ayes x x x x x x x was postponed to October 11. 6. A letter from the Corona del Mar Chamb r of Trash Commerce was presented concerning tras receptacles Receptacles along East Coast Highway. (2046) Volume 31 — Page 248 t • M ..I �• ynl CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' 1977, OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER By the CITY COUNCIL July 25, 1977 CITY Q F ►1(n 1Q%1 RFsACt a TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: ELECTION FOR BUILDING MORATORIUM Councilman Ryckoff has requested that this subject be placed on the Study Session agenda for July 25, along with a memo listing the costs and the options for an election concerning a building moratorium. The Registrar of Voters was contacted and it has been determined that the two dates available to the City for a special election would be November 8, 1977, and March 7, 1978. The Registrar of Voters estimates approximately 68¢ per registered voter to conduct a special election. With 38,959 registered voters in the City, the estimated cost for a special election would be $26,492. The City has been advised that on November 8, 1977, there will be approximately twenty precincts out of the fifty precincts in the City of Newport Beach that will have an election affecting either the Orange County Water District or the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. If these twenty precincts can be consolidated with a City's special election, the cost as quoted above could be reduced approximately 20%. The Registrar indicated that consolidating a special election with two separate district elections becomes complicated, but is technically possible. If a special election is approved by the City Council , a resolution calling for the election would have to be adopted no later than August 22, 1977. If a moratorium issue is added to the ballot for the Municipal Election to be held April 11 , 1978, the additional cost would be approxi- mately $1 ,000 over and above what the election would otherwise cost. Time didn't permit a study from the City Attorney's office as to whether a moratorium is a legitimate subject for the ballot. An opinion should be obtained from the City Attorney's office if the Council seriously considers an election on a building moratorium. RLW:mm ROBERT L. WYNN "cjeaturing Nationally cAdverrised `Brands of rAmerican ehierchandise at cJair `Prices" 5ON�///{�it J4arckape 2205 W. Balboa Blvd. 714-673-2350 Newport Beach, Calif, 92660 HOUSEHOLD WARE & APPLIANCES-PLUMBING. ELECTRIC & BUILDERS SUPPLY-MARINE HARDWARE September .12, 1977 Mayor Dostal & Members of the City Council I am here this evening to voice my opinion on the moratorium situation. Moratorium means "to delay something that is dangerous or hostile. I have the deepest respect for any land owner, great or small. He has certain rights under the constitution and deserves the right to develop his land to make it pay, not only taxes, but a profit. Vacant property is as sterile as a barren doe! It produces nothing for the owner nor a governing body. I do not believe that the Irvine Company and the other developers of this City are dangerous in any sense of the word. In fact they are just the opposite. They have consistently followed all rules of the game, the Master Plan, the building codes, and have made this city a place everyone wants to come to stay. In fact, if you will consider the facts, they have actually bent over backwards to follow the rules and to appease those who want no development, no increase in population, noone else to enjoy this environment. In fact, they have delayed development! When you declare a moratorium, your action is hostile. I would like to say one thing. Look around you, look at Newport Beach, and what do you see? A beautiful city, parks, and open spaces, a place to be proud of, and I an here to defend and commend the Irvine Co. et al for what they have done to this town. My only wish is that James Irvine had never parceled out the land for--sale and development, that he had kept it for the present Irvine Cc to develop. Whatever we do, we must not vote for a moratorium. I urge each of you to place yourselves in their shoes, ask yourselves what you would want to do with your 2roperty. I don't think you would want to pay taxes on property that could not produce taxes, let alone that almighty dollar profit. Let us not stop development in an orderly fashion. Let us continue with a feasible master plan, and in the meantime plan for the proper roads to handle the the outside traffic.,There is where the problem lies, not in the excess development of vacant property. Thank you for considering others as you would yourselves. Sincerely„ G �� Margudri-�5 E. Forgit �l City Council Meeting November 11 , 1974 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 5 , 1974 STUDY SESSION ITEM NO . 5 (c) 2 TO : City Council FROM : Department of Community Development SUBJECT : Residential Growth Phasing Systems At the October 29 , 1974 Study Session , staff was requested to investigate residential growth phasing systems and consider the appropriateness of applying such a system in Newport Beach . Attached is a staff memo discussing the phasing systems being used in Petaluma and Irvine. This memo concludes that, due to the limited extent and "interior" locations of vacant residential land in Newport Beach , the application of a residential growth phasing system is unwarranted . Respectfully submitted , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. Flo Direld. r RVH :TC : jmb f. C� � DO,NOT REMOVE • SEW PORT • � i O� �� _ Deportment of Community Development DATE: October 31 , 1974 TO: Tim Cowell , Advance Planning Administrator FROM: Fred Talarico , Senior Planner SUBJECT : Residential Growth Phasing Systems Pursuant to your request for a report concerning "residential growth phasing systems " and the potential application of a phasing system to Newport Beach , I have reviewed two approaches to the phasing of residential growth . The Cities of Petaluma and Irvine have established phasing systems which reflect concern over the ability of the public infrastructure to accommodate projected residential develop- ment. This memo reviews the conditions in each jurisdiction which initiated this approach , the specific measures used, and the feasibility of applying such a system to the City of Newport Beach . PETALUMA Background: Petaluma is located in Northern California approximately 40 miles from San Francisco . An estimated60 to 70 per cent of new residents of the City work in the San Francisco Bay area. The following chart indicates the phenominal growth rate experienced by Petaluma: Year Population q Increase 1965 19 , 050 1970 24 , 500 29% 1971 29 , 500 20% As indicated by the above , in a two-year period from the end of 1969 to the end of 1971 , the City experienced a 20% increase in actual population . Predominantly , this increase is housed in conventional detached single-family residences with 14% of all housing stock built in the two years span . Major Concerns : The City of Petaluma due to this rapid growth was faced with many problems , both in planning for the City and providing services to the residents. The most notable of the concerns are listed , Page 2 below: 1 . An adverse Cost/Revenue ratio . 2. Double session in elementary schools . 3. Lack of adequate hospitals and other health facilities . 4. Shortage of multi -family units . 5 . Inability to provide sewer and water to new residential units . 6. An antiquated implementation ordinance. 7. Limited site design , landscaping and sign controls . 8. A poorly-designed arterial highway system . Residential Growth Phasing System: Based on the aforementioned problems and the growth rate , Petaluma enacted a moratorium on development. This building freeze allowed for the preparation of State-mandated general plan elements and a Residential Control System to regulate future growth . Under the general plan and environmental design plan , quotas were established on the total number of units to be constructed , with 8 to 12 per cent of the total units slated for the mandatory development of low - moderate income housing. Applications for residential development are reviewed first as to conformity with the general plan and environmental design plan , and second on the availability 'of public facilities and services by assigning a rating from zero to five points on each of •the following items : 1 . The capacity of the water system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer; 2 . the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer; 3. the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer; 4. the ability of the Fire Department of the City to provide fire protection according to the established Page 3 response standards of the City without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station ; 5 . the capacity of the appropriate school to absorb the children expected to inhabit a proposed development without necessitating adding double sessions or other unusual scheduling or classroom overcrowding ; 6 . the capacity of major street linkage to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system, and the availability of other public facilities (such as parks and playgrounds ) to meet the additional demands for vital public services without extension of services beyond those provided by the developer. A third review of each development proposal is then made on the quality of design and contributation of public welfare and amenity . Each proposal is assigned a rating from 0 to 10 points on each of the following items : 1 . Site and architectural design quality which may be indicated by the harmony of the proposed buildings in terms of size , height , color, and location with respect to existing neighboring development; 2 . site and architectural design quality which may be indicated by the amount and character of landscaping and screening; 3 . site and architectural design quality which may be indicated by the arrangement of the site for efficiency of circulation , on- and off-site traffic safety , privacy , etc . ; 4. the provision of public and/or private usable open space and/or pathways along the Petaluma River or any creek; 5 . contributions to and extensions of existing systems of foot or bicycle paths , equestrian trails , and the greenbelt provided for in the Environmental Design Plan ; 6 . the provision of needed public facilities such as critical linkages in the major street system, school rooms , or other vital public facilities ; 7. the extent to which the proposed development accomplishes an orderly and contiguous extension of existing Page 4 development as against " leap frog" development ; 8. the provision of units to meet the City ' s policy goal of 8 per cent to 12 per cent low- and moderate- income dwelling units annually. After the review of each proposal using the aforementioned method, those projects receiving a specified minimum number of points are placed on a waiting list. Projects are allowed to develop based on a geographical allocation model . This model specifies the number of units which may develop within any area of the City . These geographical allocations are made within the framework of a total number of units that are allowed to be constructed in Petaluma during any one year. IRVINE Background: The City of Irvine has experienced rapid growth since its incorporation . From an estimated population of 7 ,572 people in March of 1970 , the City increased to 23 ,400 people by January of 1973. These figures indicate a 209% increase in population in less than a three-year period. Predominantly , this rise in population is housed in single-family homes with some attached patio homes and townhouses . The City lies entirely on Irvine Ranch lands bounded on the west by urbanized Orange County and the southeast by the rapidly developing unincorporated communities of El Toro , Mission Viejo, and Laguna Niguel . The majority of the City is flat lands in agricultural production . Major Concerns : The City of Irvine was faced with many problems due to its rapidly expanding population ; these were compounded by a need to establish its governmental services after incorporation . The most notable of the concerns are listed below. 1 . Rapidly expanding population . 2 . Initially no adopted general plan . 3. Reliance on County government to provide planning services of a technical nature . 4. Complete absence of low - moderate income priced housing units . ` Page 5 • • Residential Growth Phasing System: The Irvine General Plan allows for three possible ultimate popu- lations for the City . These three projected populations are based on three sets of assumptions . The assumptions deal with the absorption of industrial and commercial land within the City and county-wide growth trends . As commercial and industrial expansion occurs residential areas are allowed to develop . If all industrial and commercial areas are not developed or revenues are not as projected then residential development will be restricted in certain locations . Under the phasing plan , Irvine is divided into several geographical zones where development may occur in five-year increments . This policy is implemented through a Residential Development Plan Ordinance , whereby zoning and tract maps are approved based on a point system. The Irvine point system is similar to the Petaluma system, and requires that a minimum number of points be achieved by a project before development is allowed . The following items are investigated and assigned a rating from 0 to 5 points : 1 . Sewer Capacity 2 . Sewage Treatment Capacity 3. Water Supply 4. Drainage Facilities 5 . Police Protection 6 . Fire Protection 7 . Vehicular Circulation RESIDENTIAL GROWTH CONTROL - NEWPORT BEACH Newport Beach has established a "limited" growth policy through the adopted Newport Beach General Plan . This control is primarily located within the Residential Growth Element, with other General Plan Elements supportive of the policies of that Element. The Residential Growth Element controls the ultimate projected popu- lation of Newport Beach through residential density standards . The City does not have a residential growth phasing program within the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance . The City ' s planning area is predominantly developed with new residential development being limited to a few vacant sites within the City. The potential maximum densities are established for each site and, through the existing zoning ordinance, can be adequately implemented . Newport Beach is not faced with vast tracts of undeveloped land as are Irvine and Petaluma . A large portion of the population increase projected for Newport Beach will occur in the older sections of town by the redevelopment of older units Page 6 to higher densities . This type of growth does not lend itself to phasing controls as they would apply to undeveloped areas . The City will also not be required to provide completely new facilities and services to future residents . The population level projected by the General Plan can be accommodated by minor additions to existing infrastructure systems . In contrast Irvine and Petaluma must provide completely new systems in their large , undeveloped areas . In view of the limited size and interior locations of the vacant residential land in Newport Beach , it appears that the development of a " residential growth phasing system" Is unwarranted . However, should the City decide to annex a large undeveloped area (e . g . , the " Downcoast Area" ) , a phasing system for that area should be developed. FT: jmb Joint City Council /Planning 6 Commission Meeting March 29 , 197 Agenda Item No . C CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 24, 1976 TO: City Council and Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Growth Management This memo , dealing with the general subject of growth management , consists of five parts as follows : Part 1 : Recent Histor and Projections of Growth and Development in Newport Beach . This section of the report presents a statistical summary of recent trends in , and projections of, residential development and population , and commercial and industrial development. Part 2: Traffic . Presented here is a report from the Public Works Department dealing with traffic capacities on Coast Highway , Jamboree Road, and MacArthur Boulevard . Exhibits dealing with capacities , deficiencies , levels of service, and timing of street system improvements , will be presented and discussed at the joint meeting . Part 3: Growth Control --Le al Aspects . This section contains a memo from the City Attorney ' s Office discussing controlled growth , timing and sequential regulation of community development. Also presented is a synopsis , prepared by the Community Development Department, of a report describing the City of Fresno ' s growth management process . Part 4: Cost/Revenue Analysis . This consists of a discussion of the City ' s preliminary cost/revenue system and reports on the status of the proposed updated cost/ revenue system. Part 5: List of Community Development Department Projects . Presented here is a listing of projects for a�scussion by the City Council and Planning Commission. Maps and exhibits related to the above topics will be on display at the joint City Council /Planning Commission meeting. Respectfully submitted , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V . Hogan, Di ecto r By Ti owe 1 Advance Planning Administrator TC: jmb Att: Five parts described above . RILE "OFIF DO$NOT REMOVE t 2 Part 1 : Recent History and Projections of Growth and Development in Newport Beach T RECENT TRENDS IN GROW AND DEVELOPMENT IN NEWP019BEACH This section of the staff report describes recent trends in growth and development in the City , and examines projected levels of population and development as envisioned by the General Plan . With respect to growth management, the City ' s basic policy is stated in the General Plan as follows : "It is the objective of the City of Newport Beach to assure , through the assertion of positive controls over urban growth , the preservation and enhancement of all those present assets which provide for the high quality of life enjoyed by its citizens , and to assure that all support systems such as transportation , parking , recreation facilities , schools , fire and police protection , and utilities can be maintained at optimum levels of economic and functional efficiency. "* Supporting policies include the following : (1 ) 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 . (2) 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 . * Newport Beach Land Use Data Table A (on the following page) updates the land use inventory and projections contained in the Land Use Element (Page 9) . This table indicates on-going changes in the proportion of the City' s land area allocated among various categories of land use. Table A NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING AREA LAND USE DATA Land Use Plan 1 -1 -73 1 -1 -76 Projections Percent of Percent of Percent of Acresi Total Acresl Total Acresl Total Residential T,7-f— 51 % 4,602 57 . 2% 5 ,249 65% Commercial 617 7% 1 , 187 14 . 7% 1 ,531 19% Industrial 315 4% 318 4. 0% 390 5% Public and Institutional 585 7% 615 7 . 6% 881 11 % Vacant 2 , 538 31 % 1 , 507 16. 5% - - Total 8, 2 229 100% 8,229 100% 8 ,0514 100% 1Gross acres , including net area plus interior streets and one-half public waterways or f the perimeter streets , does not includep Y o beaches . 2Does not include public waterways , tidal lands or beaches . 3Includes developable acreage not committed for development and land proposed for public acquisition . 4Reduction due to projected conversion of land to water areas with harbor construction in West Newport. *General Plan Policies Report (March 13 , 1972 ) , Page 1 . Page 2 Residential Growth The tables which follow provide a recent history of dwelling unit and population growth in the City. Table B contains yearly dwelling unit and population counts based on building records and census data since 1970. Tables C and D estimate remaining development potential of residential areas based on General Plan projections . Table B Dwelling Unit/Population Count 1970-1976 Year D. U. ' s Change/Year Population Change/Year 1970 22 ,478 49 ,422 972 (+4. 3%) 1 ,578 (+3 . 1 %) 1971 23 ,450 51 ,000 1 ,585 (+6. 7%) 20595 (+5. 0%) 1972 25 ,035 53 , 595 825 '(+3. 2%) 2 ,$85 (+5 . 3%) 1973 25, 860 56,480 2 ,085 (+8. 0%) 3 ,871 (+6 . 8%) 1974 27,945 60 ,351 965 (+3. 4%) 2 ,337 (+3. 8%) 1975 28 ,910 62 ,688 1976 29 ,751 63 , 300 1970-1976 +13 ,878 Population Total +7,273 D. U. ' s Page 3 Table C 1973 Present Projected D U Counts by Statistical Area D. U . ' s : D. U . ' s : * Remaining Statistical 1 -1 -73 - 6 Projected Capacity Area (Bldg . Rec' s . ) 1dg Rec' s . ) Al 0 133 2 ,994 2 ,861 A2 318 11089 1 , 668 579 A3 356 452 276 0 8 3 ,818 3, 984 4 ,409 425 C 868 884 889 5 D 2 ,967 3 ,042 3 ,469 427 E 2 ,089 2 , 137 2 ,614 477 F 4, 180 4 , 312 4, 905 593 G 283 841 881 40 H 2 ,088 2 ,092 2 ,417 325 J 4 ,370 4,427 5 ,084 657 K 3,291 3 ,419 3 ,938 519 L 185 544 1 ,550 11006 M 2 ,081 2 ,850 4 , 305 1 ,455 Total 26 ,894 30,206 39, 399 9 ,369 *Figures are based on Residential Growth Element with modifications where necessary to conform with General Plan amendments and other changes . Page 4 i r Table D Estimated D U Growth for Specific Undeveloped Properties Undeveloped D. U . ' s Parcels Gross Acres Projected Pacific View 50 160 Harbor View Area 11 146 405 Area 13 10. 7 86 Newporter N . 88 704 Castaway 50 400 R-3-B Site 4. 5 67 W. Upper Bay 83 488 Land Trade Remnant 8. 4 84 Versailles #2 10. 3 371 Newporter Apartments 28 225 Banning Property 430 2 ,713 In terms of the geographic distribution of residential growth , approximately one-third of this projected growth in dwelling units is expected to occur in the older sections of the City (south of Coast Highway and Old Corona del Mar) and the remaining two-thirds of this growth is expected to occur north of Coast Highway. Generally , growth in the older sections will be the result of redevelopment and eventual buildout, according to existing zoning capacities , of the two-family and multi -family districts . With respect to population , the Residential Growth Element indicates a projected 1990 population of 95 ,659 . Recent population studies , including the 1976 Special Census , suggest that average household size tends to fluctuate over time , complicating the process of projecting future population levels . At this time there is no indication that recent trends in family size an'd occupancy have changed sufficiently to invalidate the General Plan population projection , given current development policies . Commercial /Industrial Growth Table E (on the following page) represents an updated inventory of commercial ( including retail , service , and office uses ) and industrial floor areas . Hotel rooms and restaurant seating capacity are accounted for separately in Table F. Projected floor area figures have been revised where necessary to conform with amendments adopted subsequent to the original adoption of the General Plan . Page 5 Table E " COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL FLOOR AREA BY STATISTICAL AREA 1972 1976 Projection - 1990-951 Statistical Area Commercia12 Industrial Commercial2 Industrial Commercial Industrial (Sq . Ft. ) (Sq . Ft. ) (Sq . Ft. ) (Sq. Ft. ) (Sq . Ft. ) (Sq . Ft. ) Al 0 Oil Field 0 Oil Fields 285 ,000 0 A2 334,000 337,000 410,000 337 ,000 703 ,500 155 ,000 A3 66 ,000 40,000 66,000 45 ,000 70 ,000 350 ,000 B 561 , 100 50,000 560,000 50,000 745 ,600 50 ,000 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 96,000 0 -96,000 0 83 ,000 0 • E 89,000 0 89 ,000 0 89 ,000 0 F 316 ,400 0 317,000 0 320 ,000 0 G 91 ,800 0 91 ,800 0 91 ,800 0 H1 77,800 3 ,700 80,000 3 ,700 37 ,000 0 o H3 35,800 0 36 ,300 0 40 ,000 0 `D H4 233 ,200 32 ,690 250,000 32 ,600 400 ,000 32 ,600 m J 341 , 700 0 345 ,000 0 400 ,000 0 K 61 ,700 0 71 ,450 0 150 ,000 0 L1 1 ,811 ,500 0 3 ,825 ,300 0 5 ,207 ,316 0 L2 1 ,000 0 11000 0 11000 0 • L3 11000 800 ,000 100,000 900 ,000 750 ,000 1 ,500 ,000 L4 561 ,000 464,000 2 ,000,000 1 ,500 ,000 3,550 ,000 1 ,670 ,000 M 58,400 0 134,300 0 135 ,000 0 Totals 4, 737 ,400 1 , 727,300 8,473,150 2 ,868,300 13,058,216 3 ,757,600 7Projected floor area figures are based on the Economic Base Analysis and Projections Report (July 24 , 1972) by Development Research Associates , with modifications where necessary to conform with subsequent General Plan amendments and other changes . 2Commercial figures do not include floor area data for hotels and restaurants which are accounted for separately in Table F. Table F HOTEL ROOMS AND RESTAURANT SEATS BY STATISTICAL AREA Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Statistical Area Hotel Rooms Restaurant Seats Hotel Rooms Restaurant Seats Hotel Rooms Restaurant Seats Al 0 0 0 Q 250 800 A2 0 0 0 0 0 200 A 3 0 0 0 0' 0 0 B 135 2 ,355 135 3,275 150 2 ,455 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 • D 88 1 ,000 88 1 ,000 66 900 E 10 320 10 320 0 280 F 148 1 , 740 148 1 ,800 223 1 , 540 G 0 1 ,920 0 2 ,200 0 2 ,200 m o H1 79 122 79 122 0 122 H4 34 2 ,100 34 2 ,300 85 3 ,000 J 0 680 0 750 300 1 ,250 K 390 581 390 — 581 690 1 , 500 Ll 0 753 377 1 ,000 377 1 , 500 • L2 0 0 0 0 0 0 L3 0 0 0 0 0 750 L4 0 553 216 1 ,250 900 1 , 653 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 *Figures are based on Economic Base An-alysis and Projections Report (July 24, 1972) by Development Research Associates , with modifications where necessary to conform with subsequent General Plan amendments and other changes . k i r. ih Lcity of '' ' `--�=-�r:/.^ !`tom n f� i\ / a Y �• !''F�'• _ -'�rl Newport Beach d �z�?�;•-' - - ';e �^�\%\�-�/ `�✓.\ '\ t, •\ \ sue° '" © ice" .;�� •, ,a `'� — .eg AA -. � r C J;��\\�:\'t.Sl��� 1�'!�':a^_ -?rt_• � 3stirti' ! � \1 'w... •,ice ,- g \ r - �:.,i � .J Y^• LT nP �_� trttr777 -ii f, \.� �. a s}''!>.i=\✓": ;,!zv '\p 'v_1= rr`' � ' j�l �i11�Y r•- ` �. yam. • x': _ • � ��'\` `fit=�1.' '�?�a �"'�i J�: -._,'-, zu i�n� � f .(�- ^-�,:�P �.• Al '+ > �J. , J/��(/ ` �l 6' yf �:-yt;:yi�.'SJ3. .. 'i�•a6_- _ All J` �� Y�.�. `...•\ ( .ice. I a.I.� ` �_ _=`�."-.. .rr`r_i'.'• •c�.�-,j'S e -..,•�.i " '_., - �'6 V.{ L� ,1• ��\\^-` •a-r.u4:ta y*-'' 4 hill:....,... _�<:�:' ��>`• r=s1 -> 1,.�.�-y�y,�,•�'.-�- _ a , "�'='� PnEP�-REP h'( �7vPN�B PLANt�llh!!q —_ ',. Part 2: Traffic -- Report from Public Works Department Study Session Item No . 2 February 12, 1976 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: TRAFFIC CAPACITIES ON COAST HIGHWAY, JAMBOREE ROAD AND MACARTHUR BOULEVARD The Planning Commission at its January 8th meeting requested staff to provide information showing traffic volumes , number of travel lanes, and capacities of Coast Highway, Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The Commission also requested a map showing proposed circula- tion systems for the general area. Attached are the following exhibits and reports discussing this subject: 1 . Report to City Council dated February 9, 1976 discussing capacities, volumes and roadway widths. 2. Copy of adopted Circulation Element Map. 3. Exhibit "A" showing intersection capacity utilization and Level of Service of certain intersections for Summer 1975. 4. Exhibit "B" - Highway Planning Map. Bill E. Darnell Traffic Engineer BED:hh Attachments Page 8 i City Council Meeting February 9 , 1976 Study Session Agenda Item No . 12 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 5 , 1976 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT : Traffic Generation and Highway Capacities in the Pacific Coast Highway/Jamboree Road/MacArthur Boulevard area . At the January 26 , 1976 City Council meeting , Councilman Ryckoff requested a report on traffic generation and highway capacities in the Pacific Coast Highway/Jamboree Road/MacArthur Boulevard area. Attached is a series of maps illustrating estimated traffic volumes , highway widths , and capacities , based on information provided by the Public Works Department. Exhibit 1 indicates the traffic volumes , highway widths , and capacities as of 1974. Exhibit 2 indicates the estimated traffic volumes by 1990-95 and the planned highway widths and capacities contained in the adopted Circulation Element. Exhibit 3 indicates the projected 1990-95 volumes which are estimated to result if the downcoast extension of the Corona del Mar Freeway is not implemented by 1990-1995 . It should be understood that the 1990-1995 projections are based on certain sets of assumptions about residential density , commercial / industrial intensity , street system improvements , and transit usage (both within our City and in the surrounding region ) . Currently , staff has no efficient or accurate method of evaluating the effect on the highway system of a change in any of the assumptions . (The Alan M. Voorhees and Associates ' Traffic Study , which was done for the Circulation Element, is a static , "one-point-in-time" study that does not lend itself to continual up-datinj based on new information , nor does this study address the "peak hour" concerns which are raised with each new project. ) Of major concern in this regard are changes to land use and circulation system improvements which are beyond the City ' s control , such as the "down-coast" development and circulation system. Additionally , deletions , or delays in completion , of local highway system links , as well as potential changes in local development intensities , need to be analyzed for their effect on the entire local street system. The Public Works Department and the Community Development Department are investigating the possibility of having a computer model developed which would be continuously-maintained and which would allow the City to "plug in " any changes to land use or circulation system assumptions and which would then illustrate the effect on the entire street system, including average daily traffic and peak hour. This computer model would also be a valuable tool in analyzing individual projects for their anticipated traffic impacts and would provide a basis for the traffic section of E . I . R. ' s . In addition , various stages of land use and circulation system development at different points in time could be analyzed to determine whether development is outstripping street system improvements . (Attached is a brief information sheet from the Public Works Department describing a computer model and a possible work program for consultant preparation of the model . This project is being considered for inclusion in the proposed 1976-77 City budget . ) Thus far, no area of the City has been developed to an intensity , nor have projects been approved at an intensity which would generate ?age 9 TO : City Council - 2 traffic in excess of that projected in the AMV Traffic Study . However , it is conceivable that this could occur unless the City restricts the intensity of development in all areas . In addition , it is possible that land development may proceed at a faster pace than circulation system improvements , although in many cases the circulation system improvements are implemented in conjunction with adjacent land development . A computer model would be helpful in providing the information upon which regulations on the timing and intensity of development could be based . Respectfully submitted , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V . Hogan , Director By ll - T1 tXowb11 Advance Planning Administrator T C : j m b Att. Information Sheet from Public Works Department Maps Page 10 EXHIBIT 1 I11N VOLUMES, WIDTHS, AND vl CAPACITIES ���:✓ �- �� o �7�1) y I 00 - 'S AVERAGE \, ti �� 2, tF� ' ii•�.` �� TRIPS �• QF { / AVE --C, 1i. ✓. \r;< \ t<�•`\\!` j`]� - t�. r >>t. 'FiT �r;= @ - + CQQ 0DO b�TH\NA CAW(N �r rnQ4?`� 1 >' - f T LEY L F .s�.��y/� R• � ,� a% �, - _N SERVICE a'D .S �/'�, ' .�.✓ �p-r-� 3 ,, �� -. ,_ - _ ,.fib /8,G500 )00 0"0 _ r � �& �� . 4•'�� a ii ivi -qi Pti' ti -aR1,y 9' ., c�0�ll� A �'� S� ---- __ � - as w •v+lF.y�` •��5'k ''�� '�..\.. �$l F dit „'. .o �"o` ' B QBfIQ � �® 1 '?"=; 2iiet.c ��w�-'-�' .\,'f:;"��•: _, a E. s �nai -_.pus-.-kr � . "-- \ 1 r� i .. rf ;.'.,.eAR '\ ! ' f _ ,- =,-V=I-- - `1 �'• _�_ �r_� city of A ♦lift�."r`' � .3 -�� � �` IL,dY "� :,•, , ry ,, �� e n OF x Newport Beach EWPOxi encx C '.ry _ /� N OOO awva� uurama_ QOO �- - = SfOOO 31�000 EXNI�iIT � yV�O/L�UMES, 0�7 F l i 1� OF $Nfiv�ll pQ n� M A� nE 1 MMXP pTM�twa���/�. o • ✓ f•� - - - r `\gm 0 DAtLE TP-AVFL LAL`lE5 006SO OK CD Gtt�LlSil.7lC ..� 10 IN ` , \J .�\.��✓.. 0���z�'�� . 000 I- A- �� >.., o an`�p '�51000 - -- ems f "_" f.s s.�.- •ii1�i� : )Pf''ii oi`;. _9 .�,<�.h.! a08 Q -- � � I - �__ }1)c lYIa _• '$� �� `ems' „ h- `/r • r• } oa® � 1 city Of . . _- i II::1• aNf(%: -t��`'i�` Off. •` '� �•. 'a\�, ' Yk.��' SD Opp ��ue Newport Beach 0 E C O` _ EX�tIt�lT 3 1990.95 VOLummP, `n\` ' ASSUMINGc TµA'C �JOWNGDA6't \� o re a \ �� t f\ 'f `_, EX7EN51ON OF lARONA mL GOWLE MAR FRF�v+1 ND - \ 70, , LO UOo) nALiG' DPtLY AVE 6000 ?•,�' -TPJPS i\� t ��-,�, - y\ ,e91 muMgER OF •� Y� N(\ '\��9\��^��y't�T S� �_' r'J� ��1�J,�• �\, a R�7�V O� �R4�iV�lIO (D `'�> lt,i� :✓. ""�C�� �'' \/ l �1 oaf _,L - u ��,_ '���i- ^may 1 Coo,00b N16y AY WxA •'�, . ,.i \• , ti \:•- �-;� ``��o _ - ��,,�o -� �,-7r s.s ��, 6_�� i IT LVvF.l. OF JR: �_:r city of — 00o Newport Beach �a CRY OF HEWPORr BEACH A I . CITY-WIDE COMPUTER SIMULATION MODEL FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Introduction Development of a computer simulation model for both existing and ultimate (general plan) conditions is proposed. The model will enable city staff to analyze impacts of proposed changes in land use and/or transportation systems . The model provides an easy and relatively inexpensive way of analyzing systemic impacts of incremental development in both short term and long term cases . By developing a method of period- ically updating land use and transportation system inputs to the model , integrally tied to other land use and trans- portation planning efforts in the city, an up-to-date simulation model can be maintained that is capable of examining city wide impacts of all planned development and highway improvements . Such a model could be of considerable use in developing capital improvement and land development phasing plans. This approach of integrating the use of the model into city planning functions would provide for maximum flexibility and the most effective use of this tool . Scope of Work The purpose of this project is to develop a computer simu- lation model consisting of a series of computer programs that will enable the city to analyze city wide (system level ) impacts of modifications in land use and transportation of both short and long term conditions . To fulfill this program , it will be necessary to accomplish the following : 1 . Develop a calibrated model of existing transportation and land use, to simulate the following conditions : -Average daily traffic -Average summer daily traffic -Average summer weekend daily traffic -Peak hour traffic for each of the above three conditions Traffic volume counts and unprocessed output of an origin-destination survey, to be used to calibrate these models , will be provided by city staff. Consultant will process the origin-destination survey data . The land use, transportation and behavior inputs to the model should be capable of modification so as new or more accurate data becomes available , it can be incor- porated into the program. 2. Develop a model of ultimate transportation and land use to simulate the following conditions': -Average daily traffic -Average summer daily traffic -Peak hour traffic for each of the above two conditions These models will be capable of providing turning volumes at all intersections , for use in capacity analyses . The land use , transportation and behavior inputs to the model should be capable of modification so as new or more accurate data becomes available , it can be incorporated into the program. 3. Maintain all of these programs in such a manner that city Staff would be able to analyze a proposed modification, within 24 hours 'time. Page 14 Ma cA s CZ Zk saw, ��,[( A kj YY .I+ems s �, s� �'�\\`i�.'` 1+. + ' r+r•+++■ t h I --��. tT_f l�r�l-:s `\C�s a�• r 1}I�� t .�-+�-. - ��1i� ���`j'_,,✓�y�� _ _ � If I!F`�% � �./il��+ " "11 i rl�jlrl w l`s2. + •r INTERSECTION CAPACITIES (EXISTING CONDITIONS - SUMMER 1975) COAST HIGHWAY INTERSECTIONS Level of I.C.U. Service Riverside Avenue 0.89 D Dover Drive 1 .14 F Bayside Drive 0.84 D Jamboree Road 0.89 D Newport Center Drive 0.64 B MacArthur Blvd. 0.72 C JAMBOREE ROAD INTERSECTIONS San Joaquin Hills Road 0.84 D Ford Road - Eastbluff Drive 0.66 B Eastbluff Drive 0.74 C Bristol Street 1 .13 F MACARTHUR BOULEVARD INTERSECTIONS San Joaquin Hills Road 0.88 D Ford Road 0.80 D EXHIBIT "A" Page 16 LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of Service is used to describe quality of traffic flow. Levels of Service A to C operate quite well . Level of Service D is typically the Level of Service for which an urban street is designed. Level of Service E is the maximum volume a facility can accommodate and will result in possible stoppages of momentary duration. Level of Service F occurs when a facility is overloaded and is characterized by stop-and-go traffic with stoppages of long duration. A more complete description of Level of Service follows: Level of Service A - Low volumes , high speeds, speeds not restricted by other vehicles , all signal cycles clear with no vehicles waiting through more than one signal cycle. Level of Service B - Operating speeds beginning to be affected by other traffic; between one and ten percent of the signal cycle's have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods. Level of Service C - Operating speeds and maneuverability closely controlled by other traffic; between 11 and 30 percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods; recom- mended ideal design standard. Level of Service D - Tolerable operating speeds, 31 to 70 percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods; often used as design standard in urban areas. Level of Service E - Capacity; the maximum traffic volume an inter- section can accommodate; restricted speeds; 71 to 100 percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal during peak traffic periods. Level of Service F - Long queues of traffic; unstable flow, stoppages of long duration; traffic volume and traffic speed can drop to zero; traffic volume will be less than the volumes which occurs at Level of Service E. Page 17 Part 3: Growth Control -- Legal Aspects . Report from City Attorney ' s Office and Synopsis of Fresno Growth Management Report ' I t . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY TO: The Honorable Mayor and March 29 , 1976 Members of City Council The Chairman and Members of Planning Commission FROM: Hugh R. Coffin, Assistant City Attorney RE: CONTROLLED GROWTH, TIMING AND SEQUENTIAL REGULATION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INTRODUCTION The City Council and the Planning Commission have requested that this office prepare a report on the legal basis of controlled growth. This Memorandum is a general discussion dealing with the creation of a definition of "controlled growth" , a discussion of various legal tools or methods available to control or regulate residential growth, the legal challenges that have been put forth to attack various forms of growth control adopted by other entities and a short synopsis of some recent and leading cases in the area of growth control. DEFINITION None of the reported cases which establish legal precedent in attempting to handle controlled growth provide any overall comprehensive definition of the term or concept of controlled growth. Each case turns on its own peculiar circum- stances . However, in an earlier report to the City Council, we defined controlled growth as : "Controlled growth: Use of traditional and evolving techniques, tools, plans and activities -la- i a to thoughtfully, purposely and intelligently guide local patterns of land use, including the manner, location, rate, nature and type of development. " This definition appears to be a good definitional tool to be used when considering the overall subject of growth control. The concept of controlled growth can be deemed to consist of a well integrated, efficient and affirmative system of choices or decisions which are explicitly made with the full knowledge of the variables and the trade-offs involved and where the program is coordinated in the furtherance of clear community growth and land use objectives. A fragmented, disjointed or a non-unified system would tend to be inefficient, seek to achieve no goal and would probably be ineffective for the purposes sought. It can be generally concluded that a legislative attempt to control or manage growth will be upheld against judicial challenge if the legislation, rules and regulations are reasonable, well thought out, comprehensive and fair in their application, but will be striken by a court if the attempt is unreasonable, represents a short range or disjointed view or results in an arbitrary or unequal application of controls or standards. TOOLS AVAILABLE Traditional Zoning Control It is clear that traditional zoning powers which set forth minimum lot size, height of buildings, setbacks , density, bulk of buildings and the like will function as a tool to control growth. Zoning can be used as an effective tool to define density of growth, however, zoning is not a particularly effective tool to control the timing and sequence of growth. Recent cases reiterate the importance and validity of traditional zoning to maintain or regulate community values. For instance, -19- l l the California Supreme Court in HFH Ltd. v. Superior Court (Cerritos) (1975) 125 Cal Rptr 365 upheld traditional zoning against an attack alleging inverse condemnation for down-zoning. Ramapo Approach one of the most often mentioned methods of establish- ing sequential growth control is the so called Ramapo Plan. The Ramapo Plan was developed by the Town of Ramapo and has been upheld by the New York Court of Appeals, Golden v. Town of Ramapo, 334 NYS2d 138, 152 (1972) . The United States Supreme Court has refused to hear the case. The basic essence of the Ramapo Plan was the establish- ment of a twelve year capital improvement plan, capital budget and capital program which provided for a scheduled sequence of capital improvements and further provided that development would have to follow the installation of capital improvements. The Plan also provided that the Town was to complete all public facilities, improvements and services within eighteen years. Development could occur only after facilities were available, and a special permit was required, complying with the Plan, prior to development. Ramapo considered five essential facilities and services as the basis for the Plan, which are: (1) public sanitary services or approved substitutes; (2) drainage facilities; (3) improved public parks or recreation facilities, including public schools; (4) state, county, or town roads, including major, secondary and collector streets and (5) fire fighting services. Development was based upon a point system geared to the availability of the various services or facilities and provided that a building permit could not be issued until a certain point total had been achieved by a proposed project or that the developer provide for the improvements. Thus, the effect of the Ramapo Plan was that developers were not deprived of the highest or best use of their -20- 4 � land but controls were placed upon the time in which the land could be developed, based upon a specific twelve year plan and an ultimate eighteen year plan to have all public facilities installed. The Ramapo Plan, in effect, maximized development of the town, only attempting to control the timing and rate of development. However, it should be pointed out that under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California, the City' s current Subdivision Ordinance and other city policies and procedures, developers now are required to intall or pay for the installation of the types of services and facilities, to a large extent, that were covered by the Ramapo Plan, including sanitary facilities, drainage facilities, streets, fire fight- ing facilities and equipment and certain dedication of funds or areas for public parks and recreation facilities. Further, Newport Beach has placed sequential controls on projects such as Corporate Plaza, timed to certain public improvements. Petaluma Approach Besides the capital improvement control as established in the Ramapo Plan, the Petaluma attempt at timing and controlling growth should be noted. The Petaluma Plan was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Construction Industry Association of Sonoma County v. The City of Petaluma decided August 13, 1975 and was made final when the U.S. Supreme Court recently refused to accept the plaintiff ' s petition for certiorari. The Petaluma Plan was based on a lengthy study conducted by the City of Petaluma and consisted of several resolutions, maps, and other material. The ultimate effect was to provide a maximum building permit limitation, for a five year period, of 500 housing units per year, except the prohibition -21- did not apply to housing units which were not a part of the project involving five units or more. There was no restriction or control in the Petaluma Plan regarding the construction of single family homes or up to four unit apartment buildings which were not part of a larger project involving five or more units. ' There further was a complex point system whereby a building permit applicant could obtain a building permit, within the "500 limitation" by building in conformance with the City' s General Plan, environmental design plans, good architecture, providing for low and moderate income dwelling units and various recreational facilities. There further was a definite and conscious attempt on the part of the City to cause "infilling" of vacant areas within the center or core of the City as opposed to the very large tracts of undeveloped land surrounding Petaluma. The Petalurita Plan was adopted by the City of Petaluma to insure that development in the five years following the adoption of the plan would be reasonable, orderly, in an attractive manner, rather than completely haphazard, unattractive and leapfrogging current development. Further, the limitation on residential development was adopted to "protect its [Petaluma' s] small town character and surrounding open space. " The Petaluma Plan withstood all of the attacks brought by the plaintiffs and was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It should be emphasized, however, that the Petaluma Plan was developed by the City of Petaluma after extensive study and investigation of the costs and effects of development within the city which resulted in a clear, well defined standard of that city' s development goals. The regulations adopted by Petaluma certainly could not be considered short sighted or ill conceived. This fact apparently impressed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and assisted them in their decision making process. Special counsel for Petaluma has stated that the -22- Petaluma Plan was designed uniquely for Petaluma's situation and may not fit any other community' s goals , situation or development pattern. Moritoriums Another form of "controlling" growth would be imposition of a building moratorium under the provisions of the Government Code. This , of course, is only a limited provision, and relatively strictly construed by the courts. In fact, the City of Cbrona has recently adopted a moratorium to gain time to study controlling or regulating growth within that city. A moratorium, however, cannot ultimately result in a controlled growth program, it can only forestall development for a limited period of time, to allow the city time for the preparation of studies which ultimately will culminate in the adoption of a rational zoning plan that deals with controlling, regulating, and prescribing the types of growth which are permitted. Such cases as Miller v. Board of Public Works of the City of Los Angeles, 195 Cal 477 have upheld such interim freezes or moratoriums, as long as they are interim and temporary and for the purpose of undertaking studies . General Plan - Zoning Ordinance Compliance Another method of controlling growth, which could take the form of or appear to be similar to a "Petaluma" type of control would be through the use of the City's General Plan process and coordinating its zoning ordinance with the General plan. This could take several different forms which could be unique systems to the city and its individual needs. However, there appears to be no case law that deals in this area which lends substantial legal authority for this proposition. Utility Hook-Ups - Extensions Litigation is currently pending resulting for regulations adopted by Boulder, Colorado dealing with limitations on utility extensions , such as water, sewer and electricity, and -23- t limitations on various forms of hook-ups to the utilities. This method of control may be available in California but may not be too useful in Newport Beach due to the fact that there is but little undeveloped land which is not presently served or readily capable of being served. Population Cap There is litigation pending in Florida wherein certain absolute limits on population, the so called "population caps" , have been imposed by initiative ordinance and are under challenge in the State Courts . These cases are not final, to our knowledge, so no careful analysis can be given to these types of regulations. It should be noted that Newport Beach, itself, has a form of "cap" , found in its General Plan, which limits its ultimate residential population to approximately 90, 000. Prohibition There apparently is a form of absolute prohibition on any development imposed in the Lake Tahoe area, among other areas, which also is under litigation and no final decision is available. This form of control is one which will probably not be judicially supported, it being confiscatory and arbitrary. Large Lot Control Another form of growth control, which is under litiga- tion now, but which appears to be a settled question, is the Palo Alto "Large Lot" type of density control. The case of Eldridge v. City of Palo Alto (1975) 124 Cal Rptr 547 deals with the validity of a ten acre minimum lot size per dwelling unit. The Appellate Court held that even though the regulation was valid, it constituted an inverse condemnation, taking or damaging of the property, the subject of the litigation, and that the City of Palo Alto would therefore be liable in damages to the owner. This case probably will be reversed as a result of _24- c � of HFH Limited v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County � (City of Cerritos) , supra. The HFH, Limited case dealt not so much with controlled growth as with "down-zoning" . The Supreme Court held that if the City acted in a reasonable fashion that the imposition of "down-zoning" did not constitute a taking or damaging of the property in a constitutional sense and did not require the City to pay damages to the land owner. The court rejected the notion that merely because property was reduced in value as a result of City imposed down-zoning that the City was liable to the property owner in damages. The court stated: "The long settled state of zoning law renders the possibility of change in zoning clearly foreseeable to` land speculators and other purchasers of property, who discount their estimate of its value by the probability of subh change. " It appears that down-zoning as a method to "control growth" in the form of density control is a viable method provided that legitimate police power reasons exist for the down-zoning. Houston, Texas - No Zoning Inquiries have been made regarding the system established by Houston, Texas dealing with land use and controlling or managing growth. As we understand the situation, the City of Houston does not have any zoning in the traditional sense. Land use restrictions are imposed by covenants, conditions and restrictions which run with and effect most, if not all, properties within the city. This particular approach would seem to be non-applicable to a city such as Newport Beach since the City of Newport Beach is operating under its charter which apparently requires a General Plan under Section 707 (a) and under the State Planning Act which requires cities, including charter cities, to have zoning in the form outlined in the Act, and Legislation which requires cities to adopt a General Plan with certain required -25- 4 � elements. Additionally, other enabling legislation of the state, such as the Subdivision Map Act requires certain Zoning and General Plan restrictions which would probably preclude the application of a Houston, Texas like "CC&R system. " Irvine Approach The City of Irvine has a residential growth phasing system which is keyed into the absorption of industrial and commercial lands within the City. The City is divided into several geographical areas where development may occur in five year increments, and is implemented through a residential development plan ordinance under which zoning and subdivision maps are approved, based upon a point system. The point system is similar to the Petaluma system, and requires that a minimum number of points be achieved by a project before its develop- ment is permitted. Points are assigned from zero to five on the following items: 1. Sewer Capacity 2. Sewage Treatment Capacity 3. Water Supply 4. Drainage Facilities 5. Police Protection 6. Fire Protection 7. Vehicular Circulation The City of Irvine General Plan permits three possible ultimate populations for the City, based upon the absorption of industrial and commercial land within the City. As commercial and industrial areas develop, or don't develop, various factors come into play to determine what areas may be developed residentially and what areas may not be developed residentially. This system is viable in the City of Irvine due to the fact that there is considerable undeveloped agricultural land within the geographical limits of the City of Irvine. -26- Conclusion Any one, or a modification of any one, or a combination of any of the above tools may be applicable to the City of Newport Beach. However, it must be emphasized that any system by which the City may intend to control growth must be a rational system which will seek to control the rate or expansion of growth based upon a well integrated, efficient and affirmative system of choices or decisions which are made in furtherance of clearly defined community growth and land use objectives. A system which does not consider all of the variables and trade- offs, is fragmented and disjointed, will likely be striken by the courts . ATTACKS FREQUENTLY USED TO CHALLENGE GROWTH CONTROL REGULATIONS Equal Protection The primary attack frequently seen in growth control litigation deals with the argument that the system denies equal protection of law, as required by the United States Constitution. However, most cases which have dealt in the area of growth control have found that the local regulation does apply equally and uniformly to all similarly situated property within the jurisdiction and, therefor, the attack based on equal protection has failed. Of course, each case must be decided on its own facts and how the regulation applies in the local community. Any controlled growth regulation which would be adopted in Newport Beach must carefully consider the equal protection argument. Newport Beach is in an anomalous situation where there are two basic types of growth control considerations. There are a few rather large vacant land holdings which have not been subdivided and developed. These areas could be generally defined as "Undeveloped" . There are, on the other hand, many areas of town which have been subdivided many years ago into quite -27- • J small lots, are generally zoned R-2. These areas have yet to be developed to their highest use, the present development being single family. These areas could be defined as "Under Developed" . Any growth control regulation would have to deal with both the undeveloped and under developed territory within the city limits of the City of Newport Beach or the regulation could face a court determination that it was invalid because of its lack of equal protection and equal application. A strong argument can be made that it would be inappropriate, and perhaps unlawful, to treat the undeveloped property different than the under developed property since the net effect or impact of development of the under developed property could be as substantial or more substantial than development of undeveloped property because of the lack of ability of the City to obtain necessary dedications and improvements to off-set increased densities of population, which items can be obtained in conjunction with development of the undeveloped area. Miscellaneous Constitutional Challenges Other attacks which are frequently raised are due process, abridgment of the right to travel, unreasonable burden on interstate commerce, a burden on freedom of association, a burden on the right of privacy, denial or abridgment of the right to establish a home. These constitutional attacks have generally been unsuccessful. Cases, such as, Construction Industry Association of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma, supra and Village of Belle Terre v. Borass (1974) 416 U.S. , 1, 94 Supr. Ct. Rptr. 1536 have generally held that these attacks are non-applicable in the standard growth control type of case. Other attacks which are made, which go to the basic police power, are that the regulation is unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious and not within the police power of the jurisdiction. -28- Again, most cases which have dealt in the area have found that the regulation, if it is well thought out and well reasoned is within the police power and does not constitute an arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious damaging or taking of property. All of the above arguments which have been traditionally used in attacking growth control regulations represent legitimate constitutional and legal arguments which must be considered weighed and handled prior to the adoption and implementation of any controlled growth regulations for the City of Newport Beach. The attacks represent a legitimate defense of property rights and the rights and interests of individual property owners and of the residents of the community at large. It is therefore incumbent upon the City to act in a reasonable and rational fashion when considering and ultimately adopting any form of controlled growth. RECENT CASES OF INTEREST DEALING WITH GROWTH CONTROL It ,would be helpful to incorporate with this Memorandum a short summary of several key court cases which are frequently cited as authority for various legal theories in the growing legal body of growth control litigation. A. Construction Industry Association of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. August 13, 1975 (we don't have an accurate Federal Reporting System Citation on this case) . This case, as indicated above, upheld the "Petaluma Plan" which basically provided for the issuance of 500 residential building permits a year in projects containing five or more development units and encouraged "infilling" of existing undeveloped city residential lots with projects of four or fewer dwellings. Permits were issued based upon a complex point system, and the overall system was sustained against attack based upon equal protection of the law, due process, -29- ti Y I right to travel, and being exclusionary zoning. B. Village of Belle Terre v. Borass (1974) 416 U.S. 1, 94 Supr. Ct. Rptr. 1536. This case dealt with the restriction imposed by the Village of Belle Terre, limiting the occupancy of one family dwelling to traditional family groups or groups of not more than two unrelated persons. The ultimate effect of the ordinance was to limit the absolute number of persons that could live in the town. The zoning ordinance was held valid as it bore a rational relationship to a permissible state objective, was held not to violate the petitioner's civil rights, the right to travel, the right to express social preferences, the right of privacy and the right of association. The court held: "A quiet place where yards are wide, people few, and motor vehicles restricted are legitimate guidelines in a land-use project addressed to family needs. This goal is a permissible one within Berman v. Parker, supra. The police power is not confined to elimination of filth, stench and unhealthy places; it is ample to lay out zones where family values, youth values, and the blessings of quiet seclusion and clear air make the area a sanctuary for people. " C. Golden v. Planning Board of Town of Ramapo (1972) 30 NY2d 259. This New York case upheld the "capital improve- ment control imposed by the Town of Ramapo which tied develop- ment to capital improvements, based upon five criteria, being sanitary facilities, drainage facilities, improved public parks and schools, roads , and fire fighting services. The Ordinance was upheld against the traditional challenges and the basic challenge that it violated or exceeded the police power abilities of the Town of Ramapo. D. Eldridge v. City of Palo Alto (1975) 124 Cal Rptr 547 which held that a down-zoning, even though it was a reasonable exercise of the police power, could constitute taking and make the City liable in damages for the reduced value -30- of the property. The California Supreme Court has accepted this case for hearing and it will probably be modified or reversed. E. HFH, Limited, v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (City of Cerritos) (1975) 125 Cal Rptr 365, held that reasonable down-zoning did not give rise to a cause of action for inverse condemnation against the City and the City was not liable, damaging or taking property by use of the police power. An owner of land 'owns land subject to the police power right of the City to alter the zoning of the property to a more compatible use, as deemed appropriate by the City. CONCLUSION Rational growth control, management or timing of growth is a permissible and constitutional police power exercise by the City. However, the system developed must be reasonable and rational and based on the needs, which may be unique, to the City involved. The regulations must be applied equally and must afford property owners substantial due process. The regulation cannot be arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious. The foregoing, however, only scratches the surface of the arguments which deal with growth control. There are very significant policy determinations which must be considered and decided and techniques must be developed which will work for the City of Newport Beach should the City determine to proceed along these lines, which may work nowhere else in the Country. H G WCOF� , �I As nt City A tkney HRC:yz -31- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY TO: The Honorable Mayor March , 1976 and Members of City Council. Chairman and Members of Planning Commission. FROM: Hugh R. Coffin, Assistant City Attorney Re: Controlled Growth, Timing and Sequential Regulation of Community Development INTRODUCTION The City Council and the Planning Commission have requested that this office prepare a report on the legal basis of controlled growth. This memorandum is a general discussion dealing with the creation of a definition of "controlled growth" , a discussion of various legal tools or methods available to control or regulate residential growth, the legal challenges that have been put forth as challenges to other forms of growth control and a short synopsis of some recent and leading cases in the area of growth control. DEFINITION None of the reported cases which establish some legal precedent in attempting to handle controlled growth provide any overall definition of the term or concept of controlled growth. However, in an earlier report to the City Council, . we defined controlled growth as: MILE if 00 NOT REMOVE 2- "Controlled growth: Use of traditional and evolving techniques, tools, plans and activities to thoughtfully, purposely and intelligently guide local patterns of land use, including the manner, location, rate, nature and type of development. This definition appears to be a good definitional tool to be used when considering the overall subject of growth control. The concept of controlled growth can be deemed to consist of a well integrated, efficient and affirmative system of choices or decisions which are explicitly made with the full knowledge of the variables and the trade-offs involved and where . the program is coordinated in the furtherance of a clear community growth and land use objective. A fragmented, disjointed or a non-unified system would tend to be inefficient, seek to achieve no goal and would probably be ineffective for the purposes sought. it can be generally concluded that a legislative attempt to control or manage growth will be upheld against judicial• challenge if the legislation, . rules and regulations are reason- able, well thought out, comprehensive and fair in their application, but will be striken by a court if the attempt is unreasonable, represents a short range or disjointed view or results in an arbitrary or unequal application of controls or standards. 3- TOOLS AVAILABLE Traditional Zoning Control It is clear that traditional zoning powers which set forth minimum lot size, height of buildings., setbacks, density, bulk of buildings and the like will function as a tool to controlled growth. Zoning can be used as an effective tool to define density of 'growth, however, zoning is not a particularly effective tool to control the timing and sequence of growth. Recent cases reiterate the importance and validity of traditional zoning to maintain or regulate community values. HFH Ltd v. Superior Court (Cerritos) (1975) 125 Cal Rptr 365 upholds traditional zoning against attack for inverse condemnation for downzoning. Ramapo Approach One of the most well known methods of sequential growth is the so called Ramapo Plan. The Ramapo Plan was developed by the Town of Ramapo and has been upheld by the New York Court of Appeals, Golden v. Town of Ramapo, 334 NYS2d 138 , 152 (1972) . The basic essence of the Ramapo Plan was the establishment of a twelve year capital improvement plan, capital budget and capital program which provided for a scheduled sequence of capital improvements and further provided that development would have to follow the capital improvements made. The plan also provided that the town was to complete all. public facilities, improvements and services within eighteen years. Development could occur only after facilities were available, and a special permit was required complying with the Plan, prior to develop- ment. The Town considered five essential facilities and services as the basis for the Plan, which are: (1) public sanitary services or approved substitutes (2) drainage facilities (3) improved public parks or recreation facilities, including public schools . (4) state, county, or town roads, including major, secondary and collector streets and (5) fire fighting services. Development was based upon a point system based upon the availability of the various services or facilities and provided that a building permit could not be issued until a certain point total had been achieved or that the developer provide for the improvements. Thus, the effect of the "Ramapo Plan" was that developers were not deprived of the highest or besit use of his land and, only controls were placed over the time in which the land could be developed, based upon a specific twelve year plan and an. ultimate eighteen year plan to have all public facilities installed. The Ramapo Plan in effect, maxamized development of the town, only attempting to control the timing and rate of development. However, it should be pointed out that under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California, the City's current Subdivision Ordinance and other policies of procedures that developers now are required to install the types of services, to a large extent, that were covered by the Ramapo Plan, including, sanitary facilities, drainage facilities,' streets, and certain dedication of funds or areas for public parks and recreation facilities. Schools and fire fighting services, which were included in the Ramapo Plan, are not presently provided for pursuant to the Subdivision Regulations of the City. Petaluma Approach Besides the capital improvement control as Ramapo, the "Petaluma" attempt at timing and controlling growth should be noted. The Petaluma Plan was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Construction Industry Association of Sonoma County v. the City of Petaluma decided August 13, 1975 and was made final when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to accept the plaintiff's petition for certiorari. The "Petaluma" plan was based on a lengthy study conducted by the City of Petaluma and consisted of several resolutions maps, and other material. The ultimate effect was to provide a maximum building permit limitation for a five year period of 500 housing units per year, except the prohibition did not apply to housing units which were not a part of the project . involving five units or more. - There was no restriction or control in the Petaluma Plan regarding the construction of single family. homes or up to four unit apartment buildings which were not part of a larger project involving five or more units. There further was a complex point system whereby a building permit applicant could obtain a building permit, within the "500 limitation" by building in conformance with the City's general •plan, environmental design plans, good architecture, providing for- low and moderate income dwelling units and various recreational facilities. There further was a definite and conscious attempt on the part of the 0 0 City to cause "infilling" a vacant area within the center of the town as, opposed to the very large amount of undeveloped areas which surrounded Petaluma. The Petaluma Plan was adopted by the City of Petaluma to insure that the development in the five years following the adoption of the plan would be reasonable, orderly, in an attractive manner, rather than in a completely haphazard and unattractive manner. Further., the limitation on residential _ development was adopted to "protect its (Petaluma's) small town . character and surrounding open space. " The Petaluma Plan withstood all of .the attacks brought- by the plaintiffs and- was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It should be emphasised, however, that the Petaluma Plan was developed by the City .of .Petaluma after extensive study and investigation of the costs and effects of development within the area and which resulted in a clear, well defined standard of city desires in the area. The regulations adopted by Petaluma certainly could not be considered short sighted on ill conceived. -This fact apparently impressed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and assisted them in their decision- making process. Moritoriums Another form of "controlling" growth would be in position of a moratorium under the provisions of the Government Code. This, of course, is only a limited provision, and relatively strictly construed by the courts., In fact, the City of Corona has recently adopted a moratorium to gain time to study controll- ing or regulating growth within the City. A moratorium, however, 7- cannot ultimately result in a controlled growth program it can only forestall development for a limited period of time, to allow the City time for the preparation of studies which ultimately will culminate in the adoption of a rationale zoning plan that deals with controlling, regulating, and prescribing the types of growth which are permitted. Cases such as Miller v. ' Board of Public Works of the City of Los Angeles, 195 Cal 477 have upheld such interim freezes or moratoriums, as long as they are interim and temporary and for the purpose of undertaking studies. General Plan - Zoning- ordinance Compliance Another method of controlling growth, which could take the - form of or appear to be similar to a "Petaluma" type of control would be through the use of the City' s General Plan process and coordinating its zoning ordinance with the general plan. This could take several different forms or adopt a unique system to the City and its individual needs. However, there appears to be no case law that deals in this area which lends much legal authority for this proposition. Utility Hook-Ups - Extensions Litigation is currently pending resulting for regulations of Boulder, Colorado dealing with limitations on utility extensions such as water, sewer and electricity, and limitations on various forms of hook-ups to the utilities. This method of control may be available in California but may not be too useful in Newport Beach due to the fact there is but little undeveloped land which is not presently served or capable of being served. Population Cap 8- • • There is litigation pending in Florida wherein certain absolute limits on population, the so called "population caps" have been imposed by initiative ordinance and are under challenge in the State Courts. These cases are not final, to our knowledge so no careful analysis can be given to these types of regulations. Newport Beach, itself, has a form of "cap" found in its General Plan, which limits residential population to 90,(100. Prohibition There apparently is a, form of absolute prohibition. on any development, imposed in the Lake Tahoe area, which also is under litigation and no final decision is available. This form of control -is "one which will probably not be judicially-supported- Large Lot Control Another form- of growth control, which is under litigation now, which appears to be a settled question, is the Palo Alto "Large Lot" type of density control. The case 'of Eldridge y. City of Palo Alto (1975) 124 Cal Rptr 547 deals with the validity of a ten acre minimum lot size per dwelling unit. The trial court held that even though the regulation was valid, it constituted an inverse condemnation, taking or damaging of the property, the subject of the litigation, and that the City of Palo Alto would therefore be liable in damages to the owner. This case probably will be reversed as a result of IiFH,- Limited v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County_ (City of Cerritos) , supra. The HFH Limited case dealt not so much with controlled growth as with "down zoning" . The Supreme Court held that if the City acted in a reasonable fashion that the imposition of "downzoning" did not constitute taking of the property in a constitutional sense and did not require the City to pay damages to the land owner. The court rejected the notion that merely because property was reduced in value because the City imposed down zoning that the City was liable to the property owner in damages. The court stated: "The long settled state of zoning law renders the possibility of change in zoning clearly foreseeable to land speculators and other purchasers of property, who discount their estimate of its value by the probability of such change. " It appears that• down zoning as a method to "control .growth in the form of density control is a viable method provided that legitimate police power reasons exist for the down zoning. 10- . Houston, Texas - No Zoning Inquiries have been made regarding the system established by Houston, Texas dealing with land use and controlling or' managing growth. As we understand the situation, the City of Houston does not have any zoning in the traditional sense. Land use restrictions are imposed by covenants, conditions and restrictions which run with an effect most, if not all, properties within the city. This particular approach would seem to be non-applicable to a city such as Newport Beach since the City of Newport Beach is operating under its charter which apparently requires a General Plan under Section 707 (a) and under the state planning act which requires cities, including charter cities, to have zoning in the •form outlined in the act and the general plan. ' Additionally, other enabling legislation of the state, such as the Subdivision Map Act requires certain zoning and general plan restrictions which would probably preclude the application _ of a Houston, Texas like CC&R system. Irvine Approach The City of Irvine has a residential growth phasing system which is keyed into the absorption of industrial and commercial lands within the Oity. The City is divided into' several geographical areas where development may occur in five year increments, and is implemented through a residential develop- ment plan ordinance under which zoning and subdivision maps are approved, based upon a point system. The point system is similar to the Petaluma system and requires that a minimum number of • 11- • • a points be achieved by/project before its development is permitted. Points are assigned from zero to five on the following items: 1) Sewer Capacity 2) Sewage Treatment Capacity 3) Water Supply 4) Drainage Facilities 5) Police Protection 6) Fire Protection 7) Vehicular Circulation The City of Irvine General Plan permits three possible ultimate populations for the City, based upon the absorption of industrial and commercial land within the City.. As commercial and industrial areas develop, or don't develop, various factors come into play to determine what areas may be developed residentially and what areas may not be developed residentially within certain locations. This system is, available to the City of Irvine due to the fact that there is considerable undeveloped area within the geographical limits of the City of Irvine. CONCLUSION Any one, or a" modification of any one, or a combination of any one of the above tools may be applicable to the City of Newport Beach. However, it must be emphasized that any system by which the City may intend to control growth must be a rational • system which will seek to control the rate or expansion of growth based upon a well integrated, effecient and affirmative system of choices or decisions which are made in furtherance of a clear community growth and land use objective. A system which does not consider all of the variables and trade-offs, is IN fragmented and disjointed, will likely be striken by the courts. ATTACKS FREQUENTLY USED TO CHALLENGE GROWTH CONTROL REGULATIONS. Equal Protection. The primary attack frequently seen in growth control litigation deals with the argument that the- system denies equal protection of law, •as required by the United States Constitution. However, most cases which have dealt in the area ' of growth control have found that the local regulation does apply equally and uniformly to all similarly situated property within the jurisdiction and, therefore, the attack based on equal protection has failed. Of course, each case must be decided on its own facts and how 'the regulation applies in the local community. Any controlled growth regulation which would be adopted in Newport Beach must carefully consider the equal protection argument. Newport Beach is in an anomalous situation where * there are two types Of growth control considerations. There are a few rather large vacant land holdings which have not been subdivided and developed. These areas could be generally .defined as "Undeveloped" . There are, on the other hand, many areas of town which have been subdivided many years ago into- quite small lots, are generally zoned R-21 but have yet to be developed to, their highest use. These areas could be defined as "Under Developed". Any growth control regulation would have to deal with both the undeveloped and under developed territory within the 13- city limits of the City of Newport Beach or the regulation could face a court determination that it was invalid because of its lack of equal protection and equal application. A strong argument can be made that it would be inappropriate, and perhaps unlawful, to treat the undeveloped property different than the under developed property since the net effect of development of the under developed property could be as substantial or more substantial upon the environment because of the lack of ability of the city to obtain necessary dedications and improvements which can be obtained in conjunction with develop- ment of the undeveloped area. Miscellaneous Constitutional Challenges other attacks which are frequently seen are due process, abridgment of the right to travel, and unreasonable burden on interstate commerce, the burden on freedom of association, a burden on the right of privacy, denial or abridgment of the right to establish a home. These constitutional attacks have generally been unsuccessful in cases such as Construction Industry Assoc. supra of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma,and the Village of Belle Terre v.. Borass (1974) 416 US. 1, 9.4 Supr. .Ct. Rptr 1536 have generally held that these attacks are 'nonapplicable in' the standard growth control type of case. Other attacks which are made, which go to the basic police power are that the regulation is unreasonable,- arbitrary or capricious and not within the police power of the jurisdiction. Again, most cases which have dealt in the area have found that the regulation, if it is well thought out and well reasoned is 14- • within the police power and does not constitute an arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious damaging or taking of property. All of the above arguments which have been traditionally used in attacking •growth control regulations represent legitimate constitutional arguments which must be considered weighed and handled prior to the adoption and implementation of any controlled growth regulations for the City of Newport Beach. The attacks represent a legitimate defense of property rights and the rights in interest of individual property owners. It is therefore incumbent upon the City to act in a reasonable and rational fashion when considering and ultimately •adopting any form of controlled growth. Recent Cases of Interest Dealing With Growth Control. it would be helpful to -incorporate with this memorandum a short summary of several key cases which are frequently cited as authority for various proposition in the area of growth control. A. Construction Industry Association of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. August 13, 1975 (we don't have an accurate Federal. Reporting System Citation, on this case) . This case, as indicated above, upheld the "Petaluma Plan" which basically provided for the issuance of 500 residential building permits a year in projects containing • five" or more development units and encouraged 'infillinq' of existing undeveloped city residential lots with projects of four or fewer dwellings. Permits were issued based upon a complex point system, and the overall system was sustained against attack based upon equal protection of the law, due process, right to travel, and being •exclusionary zoning. B. Village of Belle Terre v. Borass (1974) 416 U.S. 1, 94 Supr. Ct. Rptr 1536. This case dealt with the restriction imposed by the Village of Belle Terre, limiting the occupancy of one family dwelling to traditional family groups- or groups of not more than two unrelated persons. The ultimate effect of the ordinance was to limit the absolute number of persons that could live in the town. The zoning ordinance was held valid as it bore a rational relationship to a permissible state objective, was, held not' to violate the petitioner's civil rights, the right to travel, the right to express social preferences, the right of privacy and the right of association. The court held: "A quiet place where yards are wide, people few, and motor vehicles restricted are legitimate guidelines in a land-use project addressed to family needs. This goal is a permissible one within Berman v. - Parker supra. - The police power is not confined to elimination of filth, stench and unhealthy places; it is ample to lay out zones where family values, youth values, and the blessings of' quiet seclusion and clear air make the area a sanctuary for people. " C. Golden v Planning Board of Town of Ramapo (1972) 30 NY2d 259. This New York case upheld the "capital improve- ment control imposed by the Town of Ramapo which tied develop- ment to capital improvements, based upon five criteria, being sanitary facilities, drainage facilities, improved public parks and schools, roads, and fire fighting services. The Ordinance was upheld against the traditional challenges and the basic challenge that it violated or exceeded the police power abilities of the Town of Ramapo. D. Eldridge v. City of Palo Alto (1975) 124 Cal Rptr 547 which held that a down zoning, even though it was a reasonable exercise of• the police power, could constitute taking and make the City liable in damages for the reduced value of the property. The California Supreme Court has accepted this case for hearing and it will probably be modified or reversed. E. HFH Limited, v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Co. (City of Cerritos) (1975) 125 Cal Rptr 365, held that reasonable down zoning did not give rise to a cause of action for inverse condemnation against the City and the City was not liable damaging or taking property by use of the police power. An owner of land owns land subject to the police power right of the City to alter the zoning of the property to a more compatible use, as deemed appropriate by the City. CONCLUSION Rational growth control, management or timing of growth is a permissible and constitutional police power exercise • 17- • • " by the City. However, the system developed must be reasonable and rational and based on the needs, which may be unique, to the City involved. The regulations must be equally applied and must ' afford property owners due process. They cannot be arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious. The foregoing, however, only scratches the surface of the ultimate arguments which deal with growth control. There are very significant policy determinations which must be considered and decided and techniques must be developed which : will work for the City of Newport Beach should the City determine to proceed along these lines, which may work nowhere else ! in the country. HUGH R. COFFIN Assistant City Attorney HRC:yz Typed 3/23/76 - not reviewed by HRC. BILL NO. B-4 INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMAN BELL ORDINANCE NO. 76-6 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FRESNO, CALIFORNIA, ADDING ARTICLE 4 . 5 TO CHAPTER 12 OF, AMENDING SECTIONS .12-102 , 12-103 , AND 12-404-A OF, ADDING SUBSECTIONS 19 . 5 AND 22 . 1 TO SECTION 12-105-C AND SUBSECTION 7. 1 TO SECTION 12-105-S OF, AND REPEALING SECTION 12-203-E OF, THE FRESNO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRESNO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : SECTION 1. Article 4 . 5 is added to Chapter 12 of the Fresno Municipal Code to read: ARTICLE 4 . 5 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT Section 12-4. 500. Title. 12-4 . 501. Purpose. 12-4. 502 . Urban Growth Management Area. 12-4. 503. UGM Suffix. 12-4.. 504 . UGM Process. 12-4 . 505. UGM Permit. 12-4. 506. UGM Permit Exemptions. 12-4 . 507. Waiver of UGM Permit. SECTION 12-4. 500. TITLE. This article shall be known as the "Urban Growth Management Ordinance of the City of Fresno. " SECTION 12-4. 501. PURPOSE. Pursuant to the policies, procedures, and requirements made applicable to the manage- ment of growth within the Urban Growth Management Area, established herein by reference to that document entitled "Urban Growth Management Process, " dated December 5 , 1975, adopted and modified from time to time by Council resolution, the purpose of this article is to achieve the orderly use and development of land within such Area by providing a process under this Zoning Ordinance for the construction or modification of buildings and structures in such Area or the change of occupancy of such buildings or structures. ' ? 2 1976 FILE CGP Y FASSED........H6--fiato-076 EFFECTIVE.... ........... .. DO NOT REMOVE A process for the division of land within such Area is set forth in Article 10 of this chapter, entitled "Subdivision of Real ,Property. " An integral part of Urban Growth Management is a process referred to herein as the Urban Growth Management Process. The Urban Growth Management Process is intended neither to prevent any development or growth nor to permit free or disorganized development or growth in the Urban Growth Management Area. Such process is instead intended to identify the demands on municipal facilities, improvements, or services created by any proposed residential, commercial, industrial, or other type of development and to provide the means for satisfying such demands; to identify any deleterious effects of any such development and protect the city and its residents against such effects by minimizing the costs of municipal facilities, improvements, and services; and to maintain a high quality of such facilities, improvements , and services. SECTION 12-4 .502. URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREA. A. THE ZONE MAP. The Urban Growth Management Area is that area designated as such on the Zone Map, which area is generally located in and around the city's fringe and is either relatively undeveloped or is predominately agricultural in use and lacks most, if not all, municipal facilities, improvements, or services necessary to serve -2- l 0 - residential, commercial , industrial , or other type of development. B. A•REA BOUNDARIES. 1. The boundaries of the Urban Growth Management Area shown upon the Zone Map , are hereby adopted and made a part of this article; and all the notations , references and other information shown thereon shall be as much a part of this article as if the matters and information set. forth thereon were all duly described herein. 2. Where boundaries indicated for the Urban Growth Management Area are approximately street, alley, or lot lines, such lines are in fact determined to be the boundaries of such area. Otherwise, the boundaries shall be determined by the dimensions shown on the Zone Map. In the absence of a dimension, the boundary shall be determined by use of the scale shown on such map. 3 . Where a street, alley, railway or railroad right-of-way, water course, drainage channel or body of water included on the Zone Map serves as a boundary, the center line of such right-of-way,. water course, channel or• body of water shall be considered the boundary of the Urban Growth Management Area. -3- 4 . Where uncertainties exist, the. Council shall, by resolution, determine the location of the Urban Growth Management Area boundaries. C. CNANGING TUE AREA. The Urban Growth Management Area may be changed by adding areas to or removing areas frojn such Area pursuant to the provisions of ,this section. 1. Initiation. proceedings to change the Urban ,Growth .Management Area may be initiated only pursuant to the provisions of Subsections 1 (Council resolution) , 3 (Director action) , or 4 (Application) of Section 12-401-A. 2. Findings and Recommendation. Within thirty days after initiation of proceedings, the Director shall make written findings and a recommendation for or against any proposed change based upon the criteria contained in Section 12-4. 5.02-A. 3. Action on Recommendation. The Director' s recommendation .against any ;proposed change initiated pursuant to subsection 4 of Section 12-401-A shall be final unless the applicant appeals such recommendation to the Council pursuant to the provisions of Section 12-401-H. All other recommendations by the Director shall be set, noticed, and heard by the Council pursuant to the provisions of Sections 12-401-B, 12-401-C, 12-401-D, and 12-401-B. -4- At the conclusion of the hearing, Council shall approve, modify or disapprove the Director ' s recommendation by resolution. The Council ' s action shall be final. 3. Finalized Changes. When a change is final, the Director shall immediately reflect such change in the boundary of the Urban Growth Management Area as shown on the Zone Map. SECTION 12-4. 503 . UGM SUFFIX,. The zoning district symbol of any land located in the Urban Growth Management Area shall bear the suffix "UGM" , until such time as such land is removed from such Area, for the purpose of placing the general public on notice that any construction or modification of buildings or structures in such area, or the change of, occupancy of such buildings or structures, or the division of land in such Area, may be subject to the Urban Growth Management Process or some similar process. SECTION 12-4. 504. UGM PROCESS . A. IN GENERAL. The Urban Growth Management Process includes consideration of the contents of a Service Delivery Plan and the results of a Cost/ Revenue Analysis, each of which shall be prepared or performed in accordance with the "Urban Growth Management Process" document referred to in Section 12-4 . 501 and as more particularly set forth in this article. B. ANNUAL REPORT. The Chief Administrative Officer shall submit to Council, as early as is practicable during each fiscal year or more -5- 1 frequently as he chooses, a report concerning the effects of the provisions contained in "The prban Growth Management Process" document referred to in Section 12-4 . 501. Such report may recommend to Council modifications of such provisions, The provisions of such document shall be modified solely by Council resolution. SECTION 12-4r506r UGM PERMIT, Before any permit is issued to build, ,construct, erect, or modify any building or Atruebprt on land within the urban Growth Management Area, or tR change the occupancy of any such building or struet4 e, a AGM Permit shall have been approved and issued except as otherwise provided in this article. A, TVITIATION, Proceedings to approve and issue a PQM Permit shall be initiated by filing an application for such Permit with the Director, .accompanied with any applicable fees as may be established by Council resolution and such inf.Qrmati.on, designs, drawings, materials, and matters as the Director finds necessary to prepare a Service Delivery Plan and to make a Cost/Revenue Analysis. B. COMMISSMON 4CTION. Upon .compliance with the provisions of section 121-4 .505-A, the Director shall set and notice a public hearing pursuant to Sections 12-4.01-8 and 12-401-C to be held by the Commission pursuant to Section 12-401-D. At the close of the hearing the Commission shall make its recommendation to the Council to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the application for a UGM Permit, after having conisidered the contents of the Service Delivery Plan •and Cost Revenue Analysis applicable to such permit. Notwithstanding Section 12-401-D, in the event -6- the Commission fails to take such action within thirty days of the date set for such hearing, the matter shall be presented to the Council for final action. C. COUNCIL ACTION. Within thirty days after the Commission has made its recommendation, or the time specified in Section 12-4. 505-B has expired, the Director shall present the matter to the Council for its final action. The Council, after giving consideration to the Service Delivery Plan, Cost/ Revenue Analysis and Commission recommendation based thereon, may approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the application for a UGM Permit; provided that in 'the event the Council fails to act within six months after the application is presented to it by the Director, or within any extension of time granted by the Director (not exceeding an additional six months) , or by the Council, the matter shall be deemed disapproved. D. BUILDING PERMIT. Before any permit referred to in the first paragraph of this section is issued, the conditions, if any, of an approved UGM Permit shall have been satisfied. Any unsatisfied condition may be considered satisfied by a written agreement between the applicant and Council, provided that such agreement includes guarantees acceptable to the Director that such unsatisfied condition will be satisfied in the time and manner approved by Council. E. EXPIRATION. A UGM Permit shall expire after one year or any additional period approved by the Director from the date such Permit was issued unless an application for a building permit or certificate for a change of occupancy authorized -7- by such WA Permit is sooner filed, in which event such i36i%it shall remain valid for the life of sdblt biUW1h4 permit dk certificate for a change tip bdcdptiricp: §96ribN ticM ftAMIT b'XtMPTtOI S. k 'UGM permit thall be required as a bdliditidh bf the issuance of a permit authorizing tht bbh'stkUctibn df any df the f6111dwing buildings dt htrdbtdre5 or a change of occupancy to ahy df the toilowihtj uses: is Ali bges permitted in the "0" dpeh Conservation bidtkict and A-A itesidehtial-Agridultural bi�tkibtl It Ail tt'ses germitt6d in the AE-5 and AE-20 Agf1bUiUi-ai Aietkidtsi except for the kb1ioW1htd $tes-: . ae Thd aurihVj prdce§siflgi pdckd4ingi padkiiigi thipping and selling of 64kidalturai Okbauct's. b: hd ilanufacturingi maintenance, repair, servicing, Storage, sale or rehtal of agricultural mdthines, iditplefnents dh d dgdipment of all kinds when n6t. csfried dh as a clearly Secondary occupation in conjunction with d bdna fide agricultural operation. C. The manufacture, storage, or sale of farm supplies of all kinds, including but not limited to fertilizers, agricultural minerals and insecticides when not carried on as -8- a clearly secondary occupation in conjunction with a bona fide agricultural operation. d. The transportation of agricultural Products, supplies or equipment together with the maintenance, storage, repair and servicing of the necessary trucks and equipment therefor when not carried on as a clearly secondary occupation in conjunction with a bona fide agricultural operation, 3. The maintenance and storage of agricultural% equipment designed to be used solely for the harvesting of crops, which equipment must be located by the owner thereof upon his own premises when not operated as a secondary occupation in conjunction with or as a part of a bona fide agricultural operation. 4 . Permanent roadside stands for sale of agricultural products. 5. Sale of agricultural products produced upon the property. 6. Community auction and sale yards for sale of farm animals , products, implements, supplies, or equipment. 7. Mushroom growing. 8 . All uses permitted in the R-1-AH, R-1-A, R-1-E, R-1-EH, R-1-B, R-1-C, and R-1 districts. 9. One- or two-family dwelling on any lot. -9- V ti/ 1.0. Tract offices, model homes, and construction materials storage yards, of a temporary nature, within any tract being developed. 11. Any accessory building or structure, including garages which are accessory to any residential use. 12, Private greenhouses and horticulture collections, flower and vegetable gardens. 13. House trailer parking. 14, Home occupations. 15. Temporary or permanent telephone booths. 1�. Newspaper stand, la. Ice and food products dispensing machines. 1s. Signs. 19, Petroleum pipelines. 20. Caretaker's residence. 21. Recreational slide. 22, Punch presses. 23. Grocery dispensary facility in T-P zone. 24, Off-street parking .or off-street parking lot or accessory structures. 25. The following public facilities and public utilities: a. All facilities which are owned or under the control of a public agency (city, county, state, federal, special district) and utilized to perform a governmental function. b. All public utilities which perform a public service function. C. Electrical distribution substation. d. Flood control settling pond. -10- e. Public schools, parks, playgrounds, and libraries. f. Water pump stations. g. Microwave relay stations. h. Post Office substations. i. Public parking facilities . 26. Residential buildings in a subdivision which was subjected to the Urban Growth Management Process in accordance with Section 12-1024 of this code. B. ADDITIONAL EXEMPTIONS. Additional exemptions from the requirements of this article may be authorized pursuant to the provisions of this section and may be conducted or carried on in accordance with the provisions of this zoning ordinance applicable to land located outside the Urban Growth Management Area. 1. Initiation. Exemption proceedings may be initiated only pursuant to the provisions of • subsections 1 (Council resolution) or 3 (.Director action) of Section 12-401-A. 2 . Director' s Decision. Within thirty days after initiation of proceedings, the Director shall make his written decision approving or disapproving any proposed exemption. The Director shall disapprove any proposed exemption unless he makes the following findings: a. The installation, addition, extension, expansion, or upgrading of municipal facilities, improvements , or services concurrently with or as a result of -11- the proposed exemption are insubstantial, and b. the proposed exemption will be consistent with the objectives of the Urban Growth Management Process to minimize the cost of municipal facilities, improvements+ and services, and to maintain a high quality of such facilities# improvements, and services. 3. Effect of Decision. The decision of the Director disapproving a proposed exemption initiated by him shall be final. The decision of the Director on all other matters shall be presented to the Council for final decision. 4. Council Action. All Director's decisions forwarded to the Council shall be set for public heabing before the Council pursuant to Section 12-401-'B, noticed pursuant to Section 12-401�-C-1, and held pursuant to Section 12-401-D. Following the hearing the Council may approve, modify or disapprove 'the Director's decision, subject to Section 12-401-E, based on the criteria specified in subsections 2a and 2b above. The action of the Council shall be final. SECTION 12-4. 507. WAIVER OF UGM PERMIT. Pursuant to the provisions of this section, the Director may waive the requirement for a UGM Permit applicable -12- J to land which is contiguous to or which crosses the inner boundary of the Urban Growth Management Area. A. INITIATION. Proceedings to waive the requirements for a UGM Permit may be initiated only pursuant to the provisions of subsection 4 (application) of Section 12-401-A. B. DIRECTOR'S DECISION. Within thirty days after initiation of proceedings , the Director shall make his written decision approving or disapproving any proposed waiver. The r Director shall disapprove any proposed waiver unless he makes the following findings : 1. The installation, addition, extension, expansion, or upgrading of municipal facilities, improvements, or services as a result of a waiver of the UGM Permit requirement are insubstantial, and 2. waiver of the UGM Permit requirement will be consistent with the objectives of the Urban Growth Management Process to minimize the cost of and to maintain a high quality of municipal facilities , improvements, and services. The Director shall give notice of his decision pursuant to the provisions of Section 12-401-F. C. APPEAL. The Director's decision shall be final unless any interested person, including the applicant, appeals such decision to the Council pursuant to the provisions of Section 12-401-H. Following the hearing the Council may approve, modify or disapprove the Director' s decision, subject to Section 12-401-E, based on the criteria specified in subsections 2a and 2b above, The action of the Council shall be final. $ECTigM 2. Ppotigp 12-1Q2 of the Fresno Municipal Code is amended to read: SEOTIQN 12-102; TITLE. Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 , and 4 , 5 of this chapter coMprise the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City and ah411 lie known as the "Zoning Ordinance of the City of Fresno. " 4ECTION 1. Section 127103 of the Fresno Municipal Code is amended tq read; SECTION 12-10,3; CONSTRUCTION AND DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of carrying out the intent of Articles 1, 2, 1i q, and 4.5 of this chapters words, phrases, and terms shall be deemed to have the !Weaning ascribed to them in the following sections covering definitions. In canstrgin4 the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance, specif}p Lgavisions shall supersede general provisions re}atincl to the sane subject. SECTION 4. Subsection. 19. 5 is added to section 12-105-C of the Fresno Municipal Cade tQ read; 19. 5, COMMUNITY PLAN shall mean a plan which is based on and refipes a General plan for all or a portion of the geographical area covered by such General Plan and is an intermediate leyel of planning to bridge the gap betyyeen the broad generalities of a General Plan and the preciseness of a Specific Plan. SECTION S. Subsection 22.1 is added to Section 12-105-C of the Fresno Municipal Code to read: 22.1. COST/REVENUE ANALYSIS shall mean the use of formulas identified as cost/revenue analysis formulas in the document entitled "Urban Growth Management Process" dated December 5, 1975, as adopted and modified by Council resolution from time to time, to calculate in the manner provided in such document -14- (1) the estimated cost impact on the General Fund of the City of Fresno for providing municipal services , facilities, or improvements required by proposed developments in a manner determined by a Service Delivery Plan and (2) the estimated revenues to be generated to the General Fund of the City of Fresno by proposed developments. SECTION 6. Subsection 7. 1 is added to Section 12-105-5 of the Fresno Municipal Code to read: 7. 1. SERVICE DELIVERY PLAN shall mean a plan formulated in a manner described in the document entitled "Urban Growth Management Process" dated December 5, 1975, and incorporated herein by this reference, which document may be modified by Council resolution from time to time, and which identifies methods for providing municipal services, facilities, or improvements to serve proposed development. SECTION 7. Section 12-203-E of the Fresno Municipal Code is repealed. SECTION 8. Section 12-404-A of the Fresno Municipal Code is amended to read: A. INITIATION. Proceedings for the redistricting of property may be initiated only pursuant to Section 12-401-A-1 (Council resolution) , Section 12-401-A-2 (Commission resolution) , or Section 12-401-A-4 (application) ; provided that before the Director processes a matter initiated pursuant to Section 12-401-A-1, unless the -Council directs otherwise, before he processes a matter initiated pursuant to Section 12-401-A-2, unless the Commission directs otherwise, or before he accepts an application pursuant to Section 12-401-A-4 , he may require an adopted Community Plan for such area as he may specify, -15- to include the land which is the subject of the proposed district amendment. Any such decision of the Director with regard to a matter initiated by application shall be communicated tq the applicant pursuant to Section 12-401-F-2. Any interested party may appeal the Director's determination requiring a Community Plan, or specifying the territory to be included therein, to the Council pursuant to Section 12-401-H. Following the hearing, the Council may modify or disapprove the Director' s determination, subject to Section 12-401-E. SECTION 9. This ordinance shall become effective and in full foroc and effaot at l? :01 a.m. on the thirty-first day after ita passage, CLERK'S CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF FRESKO ) as. CITY OF FRESNO ) I , JACQUELINE L. RYLE, City Clerk of the City of Fresno, certify that the foregoing ordinance was adopted by the Council of the City of Fresno California, at a regular meeting held on the 4nd clay of January , 1976 . JACQUELTNE L. RYLE City Clerk NON/zd 11-21-7 5 -16- BILL No. B-5 INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMAN BELL ORDINANCE NO. 76-7 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FRESNO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SUBSECTIONS (c) , (r) , AND (s) OF SECTION 12-1002 . 1 OF, AND ADDING SECTIONS 12-1024 AND 12-1025 TO, THE FRESNO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SUBDIVISION OF REAL PROPERTY. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRESNO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : SECTION 1. Subsection (c) of Section 12-1002 . 1 of the Fresno Municipal Code is amended to read: (c) "Collector street. " See "Major street. " "Commission" means the Planning Commission of the city. "Community apartment" means an undivided interest in common- in the land coupled with the right of exclusive occupancy of an apartment unit which is part of a community apartment project. "Condominium" means an estate in real property consisting of an undivided interest in common in a portion of a parcel of real property together with a separate interest in space in a residential , industrial, or commercial building on such real property, such as an apartment, office, or store. "Cost/Revenue Analysis" means the use of formulas identified as cost revenue analysis formulas in the document entitled "Urban Growth Management Process" dated December 5, 1975 , as adopted and modified by Council resolution from time to time, to calculate in the manner provided in such document (1) the estimated cost impact on the General Fund of the City of Fresno for providing municipal services , facilities, or improvements required by proposed subdivisions in a manner determined by a Service Delivery Plan and - (2) the estimated revenues to be generated to the General Fund of JAN 2. 2 1976the City of Fresno by proposed subdivisions. oED... ..). .g.. G 1J76 r� ECTIVE............. -1- "Cul-de-sac" means a street which terminates in a perthanehb turn=arduhd and which by design is not ifitendbd to tdht1hUe beyond its terminal point. SRCTibN 2: SubbOdtioh (r) of Section 12-1002 .1 of the Vresno municipai cbda is amoftdbd td read! (f) "Adeidential district" means the following districts: R=P,y R-1=it, 9449k 3t-1-Sy R-1-EH, R-1 -B, 9-1-C, R-1, R-2-A) 9=2t Aa3=A, R-31 and 9-4 . "9b9 ttid'ted adddss Strip" means a strip of land hot lttg thah one fodt in width for the purpose bf tbVdiatin§ adeess to part=Width and dead-end AkNbs Uhtii such tihid as such roads may be ebthpl'bted bf extended. SWrMli Is bubse'etioh Is) of sectibn 19-1002. 1 of the Fresno 1AUhicipai tilde is aft titled tb read: ts) `tStib+ct 'system of •sbteets" means the street syst'bih apprbV1!d •by the California Highway Commission glider tdctii3h AS. 3 of the Streets and Highways Code. "tol-vice bdlibery Plat"' means a plan formulated in a banner desdribe�d in the document entitled '"'Urban 4tbwth MdhagL tftt PrOcdSSy " 'dated neeember 5, 1975, adopted and lttodified by Council resolution from time to ti7tY and which identifies methods to ptoVicfe mitAbilpa1 servicds,, facilities , or improvements i-equited by .ptoj�osdd subdivisions. 11sb6cific Plan" Yheahs �a precise plan which is batty 'bn and refines +the General Plan or Community Plan and, for all or a portion of the geographical area covered by such General Plan or Community Plah, sets forth dttailed proposals for each parcel included in the Specific Plan to implement such General Plan or Community -Pltib concerning, but not limited to, the following matters: -2- (i) The location of housing business , industry, open space and institutional- or public land uses, together with regulations establishing height, bulk and set-back limits for such buildings and facilities , including the location of open space or public uses where no buildings will be permitted. (ii) The location and extent of .existing or proposed streets, roads, paths, and rights of way for transportation purposes , the tentative proposed widths with reference to prospective standards for their construction and maintenance, and the location and standards of construction, maintenance and use of other transportation facilities whether public or private. (iii) The provision of public utilities to serve proposed land uses including, but not limited to provisions for water supply; sewage, disposal, storm water, drainage, and public utility easements. (iv) Other regulations, conditions, programs, and proposed legislation as may be deemed necessary or appropriate by the Director to enhance physical, social, and economic conditions as may be required for the systematic implementation of the General Plan or Community Plan. "Standard specifications" means the Standard Specifications of the Department of Public Works of the city as the same from time to time may be amended. -3- "Subdivider" means a person, firm, corporation, partnership or association who proposes to divide, divides or causes to be divided real property into a subdivision for himself or for others. "Subdivision" means the division of any improved or unimproved land, shown on the latest egUalited doMhty assessment roll as a unit or as Ubntiguous units, for the purpose of sale, lease, or finahoiAgj whether immediate or future. Property shall be considered as contiguous units, even if it is separated by roads, streets , utility easement or railroad rights�of-way, "Subdivision" includes A d0n4Q1Wihiu#1 project, as defined in Section 1350 Of the Civil Code, or a community apartment project, At defined in Section 1.1004 of the Business and pttfeeeiiohs Cbde. Any conveyance of Sand to a 4bVetbinentat agency, public entity or public Utility shall not be ,considered a division of land for purposes of computing the number of parcels. SECTION 4. Section 12j-1024 is added to the Fresno Municipal Code to reads SECTION 12-1024, URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREA. `tentati've maps teq*ited pursuant to the provisions of -Setti,on 12-1003 which include land located in the Urban Growth Management Area, as designated on the Zone Map pursuant to Section 12-4L5'02 , and in a residential district shall be processed pursuant to the provisions of this article except as otherwise provided in this section. (a) Urban Growth Management Process. Tentative maps required pursuant to the provisions of Section 12-1003 which include land located in the Urban -4- Growth Management Area and in a residential district shall be subjected to the Urban Growth- Management Process as herein provided. Such Process includes consideration of the contents of a Service Delivery Plan and the results of a Cost/Revenue Analysis, as more particularly set forth in this section. The Urban Growth Management Process is intended neither to prevent any development or growth .nor to permit free or disorganized development or growth in the Urban Growth Management Area. Such process is instead intended to identify the demands on municipal facilities, improvements, or services created by any proposed subdivision; to provide the means for satisfying such demands; to identify any deleterious effects of any such subdivision and protect the city and its residents against such effects; and consequently minimize the costs of municipal facilities, improvements, and services; maintain a 'high quality of such facilities, improvements, and services; and promote a desirable degree of balance among different uses of land. (b) Waiver of Process. Pursuant to the provisions of this subsection, the Director may waive the requirements of this section for a proposed tentative map which includes land contiguous to or crossing the inner boundary of the Urban Growth Management Area. (1) Initiation. Proceedings to waive the requirements of this section may be initiated only pursuant to the provisions of subsection 4 (Application) of Section 12-401-A. -5- (2) Director's Decision. Within thirty days after initiation of proceedings, the Director shall make his written decision approving or disapproving any proposed waiver. The Director shall disapprove any proposed waiver unless he makes the following findings; (i) Installations, additions, extensions, expansions, or upgrading of municipal facilities, improvements, or services concurrently with or as a result of the subdivision which is the subject of a proposed tentative map are insubstantial, -and U i) waiver of the requirements of this section will be consistent With the objectives of the Urban Growth Management Process to minimize costs of and to maintain a high quality of municipal facilities, improvements, and services. The Director shall give notice of his decision pursuant to the provisions of Section 12-401-F. (3) Appeal . The Director 's decision ;shall be final unless any interested person, including the applicant, .appeals such decision to the +Council pursuant to the provisions of Section 12-4,01-M. Following the hearing, the Council may approve, modify or disapprove the Director's decision, subject to Section 12-401-E, based on the criteria specified in subdivisions (2) (i) and (2) (ii) of this subsection. The action of the Council shall be final. (c) Service Delivery Plan and Cost/Revenue Analysis. Before the Director accepts for processing any tentative map which includes land in the Urban Growth Management Area and a residential district, a Service Delivery Plan shall be prepared and a Cost/ Revenue Analysis shall be made. Such Plan shall be prepared and such Analysis shall be made within forty- five days or before a final EIR is prepared, whichever is, later, after an environmental assessment of the proposed division of land is submitted pursuant to Article 5 of this chapter, accompanied with any applicable fee as may be established by Council resolution to prepare such' Plan or to make such Analysis and such information, designs, drawings, materials , and matters as the Director finds necessary to prepare such Plan and to make suc� Analysis. (d) Commission Action. Within fifty days after the filing of the tentative map, the Commission shall make a written report and recommendation to Council to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the tentative map, after having considered the contents of the Service Delivery Plan and Cost/ Revenue Analysis applicable to such map. (e) Council Action. (1) At the next regular meeting of Council following the filing of the Commission' s report and recommendation with it, Council shall fix the meeting date at which the. tentative map will be considered by it, which date shall be within thirty days thereafter and Council shall approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the tentative map within such' thirty- day period. -7- (2) Council shall not act on the tentative map unleso it has considered the following factors: (i) the recommendation of the Director , (ii) the recommendation and report of the Commission+ (iii) the dontthts of a Service Delivery Plans and (iv) the results of any required Cost/gevenue Analysis: SECTION] S. Section 12-1025 is added to the Fresno Municipal Code to read: ShC2TON 12=1'025. SPECIFIC PLAN. Before the Director accelpts 'for `!pl-adtasin4 Ahy tentative map, he may require an adopted Specific Plan for such area as he may specify, to iftlude th'e 'iand which is the subject of such tentative map. lt1ie subdivider hnay appeal the Director's determination requiring a tpe'cifid Plan, or specifying the 'territory to be incl'dded ther'eih, to the 'Cou•ncil pursuant to Section 12401--H. Fo116w1bg the hearib , the Council may approve, modify, or dsa.p'phrove the Director' s determination, subject to Section 12-01%-E. A Specific Plan which is consistent With a Community Plan 'may be adopted by the Council without a j5dblic 'hebriv§ MA 4�ammissioft" s recommendation. .S-ECTTON 6. 'Phis ordinance shall become effective and in full force and effect A 12.01 A.14. on the thirty-first day after its passage. CLERK'S CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY 'OF FRESNO ) ss. CITY OF FRESNO ) I, JACQUELINE L. RYLE, City Clerk of the City of Fresno, certify that the foregoing ordinance was adopted by the Council of the City of Fresno, at a regular meeting held on the 22na day of January , 1976. JACQUELINE L. RYLE, City Clerk r NON:ey 11/21/75 BILL 110. B-,_ INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMAN BELL ORDINANCE NO. 76-9 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FRESNO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SUBSECTIONS (a) OF SECTION 14-107, (g) OF SECTION 14-111, AND (b) OF SECTION 14-112, AND ADDING SUBSECTION (d) TO SECTION 14 . 107 . 1, OF THE FRESNO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO WATER REGULATIONS IN THE URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREA. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRESNO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Subsection (a) of Section 14-107 of the Fresno Municipal Code is amended to read: (a) No person shall connect any lot to the city water system without a permit from the Director of Planning and 'Inspection. No such permit shall be issued by the Director of Planning and Inspection unless the following charges, when applicable, have been paid: (1) Transmission Grid Main Charge. A transmission Grid Main Charge shall be required for all lots sought to be connected to the city water system. The charge shall be at the rate of three hundred seventy-five dollars (-$375) per gross acre for lots, assessment districts, or subdivisions having an aggregate gross area totalling five acres or more. The charge shall be at the rate of four hundred ninety dollars ($490) per net acre for lots, assessment districts, or subdivisions having an aggregate gross area totalling less than five acres . The minimum charge shall be fifty dollars ($50) per lot. Area calculations shall be based upon the following: (i) Gross acreage shall be calculated to include street right-of-way and shall include one-half of the right-of-way on boundary streets. Areas dedicated or condemned for public street and alley purposes JAN ?. 2 1976 shall be excluded in calculating net acreage. �D........F,EB. 2 1976 :TIVE........._» to the city water system in the amount of three dollars seventy-five cents ($3 . 75) per front foot. The front footage shall be calculated as follows: (i) On a corner lot, by adding both street frontages, excluding up to the first one hundred fifty feet on one of the street frontages to be selected by the Director. (ii) on a lot abutting streets on three sides, by dividing the lot into two equal corner lots and then calculating each as provided by subsection (i) next above and adding the two calculations. (iii) On a lot with the side property lines nonparallel, the calculation for frontage shall be the distance measured between the side property lines mid-point between the frontage and the real property lines of the lot. (iv) Portions of the lot utilized as a public street or alley shall be excluded from the above calculations. (v) On an irregularly shaped lot the Director shall determine the front footage consistent with the foregoing principles of calculation. (vi) Property which has not previously had city water service (except for water service solely for fire protection) shall pay a front footage charge only to the extent that such front footage charge or the cost of the main serving 'the premises has not ' -3- heretofore keen paid by the applicant or his predecessor in interest; provided that, no Such charge shall be collected for that portion of the frontage where the applicant is required to extend a main across his property frontage as a condition precedent to receiving service. (vW When only a portion of a lot is developed and the remaining portion is to continue undeveloped or is to be used solely for the growing of agricultural crops, the Director may require the payment of the front footage charge applicable only to that portion of the lot developed or to be developed, provided that the parcel for which such fees are charged shall have an area of not less than twelve thousand five hundred square feet o•r one-foµrth of the lot, whichever is greater. When the balance of the lot is developed, the front footage on that portion shall be paid regardless of whether or not additional water service is required. The Director shall fix the portion of the lot which is to he considered as developed. (viii) Where a property fronts on a street in which there is an existing main from which service could be rendered, but the applicant elects to install water mains to serve all or portions of said property in streets or other rights-of-way -4- • � which he dedicates within his property, he shall pai frontage charges for the portions of his property served from the additional mains in an amount equal to one-half of the frontage charges calculated on the basis of the frontage of said portions prior to said dedications; provided, that this sub- section shall not apply to the frontage of his property where it is necessary to extend the existing main as required under subsection 14-111 (c) u (ix) Properties on behalf of which no contribution has been made to the cost of the water mains, and which receive service from extensions made in other than dedicated and surfaced streets, shall pay to the city the same front footage charge as would be payable if the line were located in a dedicated street adjacent to the property to be served. (3) Service Connection Charges. For each lot which requires a new service connection, or revised service connection, to a main determined by the Director to be in active service, the applicant shall pay to the city a charge for the cost of the service installation or revision equal to the cost of labor (including overhead) , equipment, and materials, including the meter where applicable. For services two inches in diameter or smaller, such charges may be fixed uniformly by the Council from time to time by resolution. -5- (4) Fire Hydrant Charge. For each lot which does not have a city water service connection, the applicant shall pay to the City a charge for fire hydrants based upon the net area of such lot up to a depth of two hundred fifty feet from each street property line, as follows : (i) For property zoned R-A, R-lAH, R•-1B, R--1C, R-11 R-2, R-2A, R-3 , R-3A, A-4 , T-Pe and R-P, as said zones are defined in Chapter 12 of this Code (per one hundred square feet) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0. 75 (ii) For property zoned in all other classifications defined in Chapter 12 of this Code, except AE-20 (per one b hundred square feet) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . $1. 25 (iii) For property zoned AE-20 as defined in Chapter 12 of this Code, the Director shall determine which of the above charges shall apply, based upon the actual type of development involved. The Director may also exempt from the area calculations portions of the property which, in his judgment, are not utilized in connection with structures requiring fire protection. (iv) The applicant shall provide and pay for all fire hydrants installed beyond said two hundred fifty foot limit, -6- • ,,, • N.✓ (5) Water Supply Well Charge. A water supply well- charge shall be required for each lot sought to be connected to the city water system within the Urban Growth Management Area, as designated on the Official Urban Growth Management Area Map, in the amount of one hundred eighty-five dollars ($185) per gross acre. Area calculations shall be made in the same manner as provided in subdivision (1) of this subsection for the transmission grid main charge, including consideration of developed and undeveloped areas. SECTION 2 . Subsection (d) is added to Section 14-107. 1 of the Fresno Municipal Code to read: (d) Reimbursements Within Urban Growth Management Area. The following provisions shall apply within the Urban Growth Management Area, as designated on the Official Urban Growth Management Area Map: (1) The maximum reimbursement for trans- mission grid main cost which may be paid from the water connection charge fund upon completion of the main is four thousand five hundred dollars ($4 , 500) except to the extent that transmission grid main charges are paid on behalf of non- contributing properties fronting on the trans- mission grid main up to ten years after completion of the main and that the' transmission grid main charges paid on behalf of such non- contributing properties are not credited against reimbursement for other transmission grid mains constructed for the noncontributing properties by the person paying such charges; -7- provided, that .:here the reimbursement paid upon completion of the main exceeds the trans- mission grid charges paid oil behalf of properties contributing to the cost of the main, reimbursements in excess of four thousand five hundred dollars ($4 ,500) may be paid only after said transmission grid main charges paid by contributing and noncontributing properties exceed four thousand five hundred dollars ($4, 500) . (2) Where, as a condition precedent to approval of development, a person has been required to construct a water supply well (including pump) which has been accepted by the city, he shall file with the Director within ninety days following acceptance of the well a financial statement stating the cost of construction of .the well. The Director shall designate an area not to exceed four hundred gross acres which will be supplied by said well. The Director shall determine annually as of each July first following acceptance of the well those portions of the designated area which have been connected to the city water system during the preceding year provided that such determination shall cease after the tenth determination. For each gross acre so determined to have been connected there shall be paid from the water connection charge fund to the person who constructed the well the sum of one hundred eighty-five dollars ($185) -8- 1 per gross acre. Provided, that payments may not be made to such person in excess of the cost of the well as shown on the financial statement, and provided further that neither determinations nor payments may be made if the financial statement is not filed as required above, and further provided that where the person constructing the well is permitted or required to install a pump and motor of less than the capacity required to serve the four hundred acre area at full development, the first seven thousand dollars ($7, 000) of water supply well charges paid within said area shall be retained in the fund for use by the city. SECTION 3 . Subsection (g) of Section 14-111 of the Fresno Municipal Code is amended to read: (g) For purpose of this article, except in the Urban Growth Management Area, as designated on the Official Urban Growth Management Area map, wells and pumps for supply to the city water system shall not be deemed to be additions to said system. SECTION 4 . Subsection (b) of Section 14-112 of the Fresno Municipal Code is amended to read: (b) All revenue obtained from transmission grid main charges, frontage charges,. service connection charges, fire hydrant charges, and water supply well charges as required under Section 14-107 shall be deposited into said fund, shall be accounted for separately, and -9- shall. be uxpendud foi acquisition, cunstruction and reconstruction of the city Y water system including payment or interest and principal on bonds issued for that purpose. Said fund may also provide a capital reserve for depreciation and enlargement of the city water system. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective and in full force and effect at 12 :01 a.m. on the thirty-first day after its passage. CLERK'S CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF FRESNO ) ss. CITY OF FRESNO ) I , JACQUELINE L. RYLE, City Clerk, of the City of Fresno, certify that the foregoing ordinance was adopted by the Council of the City of Fresno, at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of January • 1976. JACQUELINE L. RYLE, City Clerk By NON,IGy BILL Nei. B-6 INTRODUCED BY CO, �CILMAN BELL ORDINANCE NU. 76-8 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FRESNO, CALIFORNIA, ADDING SUBSECTION (c) TO SECTION 9-503. 2 OF THE FRESNO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SEWAGE AND WATER DISPOSAL IN THE URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREA. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRESNO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : SECTION 1. Subsection (c) is added to Section 9-503.2 of the Fresno Municipal Code to read: (c) Within the Urban Growth Management Area, as designated on the Official Urban Growth Management Area Map, the maximum reimbursement for oversize sewer cost which may be paid from the sewer service fund upon completion of the main is ten thousand dollars ($10, 000) , except -to the extent that oversize sewer charges are paid on behalf on noncontributing properties fronting on the oversize sewer main up to ten years after completion of the main and that the oversize sewer charges paid on behalf of such noncontributing properties are not credited against reimbursement for other oversize sewer mains constructed for the noncontributing properties by the person paying .such charges; provided, that where the reimbursement paid upon completion of the main exceeds the oversize sewer charges paid on behalf of properties contributing to the cost of the main, reimbursements in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10, 000) may be paid only after said oversize sewer charges paid by contributing and noncontributing properties exceed ten thousand dollars ($10, 000) . SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective -and in full force and effect at 12: 01 a.m. on the thirty-first day after its passage. NON:ey 9/12/75 JAN 2 2 1g76• -F/,SSED. . Erf ECTIVE... . 8 76 • 76 - 8 I hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was, at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fresno, held on the ....Ak.. day of...................!T nuil*- .....................................I............. 19.1. ......... introduced by Corneilman.........................N+ .................................................................and action thereon under the rules was postponed to the regular meeting of said Council held on the .............224SI......day Of ...............'T=Ilar ........................... 19 76........ at which meeting it was, on motion of Councilman ..................... ALL................._................... seconded by Councilman.................1!IAA.................................... duly adopted by said Council, by the following vote: Ayes:.........Be1�,..]big,..kfsnit,..YiJ1et,..bThi tehuraf;,...H131a................._............................................. ....................................................................r.................w...........................................I.......................i.................. Roes.........None......................................................................................................................................_........... Absent:... Ztexano............_..._......................................._................................_............._......_........................ Dated this_...22ad.........day of...........,ianw=Y..................................................... 1W6...... n Acres G� !mac c F.Gc a�c6.. �- . ........... City Clerk, (SEAL) By................................ ........... ........_..._....................... Deputy Joint City Council /Planning Commission Meeting March 29 , 1976 Agenda Item No . C CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 29 , 1976 TO : City Council and Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT : Additional Growth Information This memo contains additional information which may be helpful in the discussion of the City ' s growth at the joint City Council /Planning Commission meeting . Following is a tabulation of the dwelling units as shown in census data and State Finance Department estimates as compared to building permits issued and buildings completed. As can be seen from the building permits issued, a large number of permits were issued in the first three years with a substantial drop in the last three years , particularly in 1975 . 1972 was an unusually large year because many permits were applied for just prior to the effective date of Proposition 20. 1975 was a particularly slow year, . largely because of the economic situation . We anticipate that there will be an increase in 1976 , but we do not expect it to climb to a rate any greater than that in 1974. RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS Census Data & State Dept. Building Permits Issued Buildings •Completed of Finance Estimates Calendar Year Calendar Year April 1 , 1970 22,478(1) 972 1970 - 1 ,259 Records Not Kept April 1 , 1971 23,450(2) 1 ,585 1971 - 1 ,698 February 1 , 1972 25,035(2) 825 1972 - 2,498 It it Nov. 1 , 1972 25,860(2) 2,085 1973 - 665 1 ,676 Jan. 1 , 1974 27,945(2) 965 1974 - 496 1 ,023 Jan. 1 , 1975 28,910(2) 841 1975 - 253 570 Jan. 1 , 1976 29,751 (3) Feb. 13, 1976 (1 ) 1970 U .S . Census (2 )State Department of Finance Estimate FOL ? �wk Y ( 3 ) 1976 Special Census DONOT REMOVE y a. � .• • `ice � TO: City Council and Planning Commission - 2 The change in average household size and vacancy rates , from the 1970 Census to the 1976 Special Census , is as follows : Average Household Size Vacancy Rate 1970 -- 2 . 60 persons 1970 -- 14 . 20% 1976 -- 2. 36 persons 1976 -- 10. 93% Regarding the 1990-95 population projection of 95, 659 persons , this figure may be reduced somewhat due to residential developments which are constructed at lower densities than permitted by the General Plan . For example , in the Harbor View Hills area , it is estimated that the actual construction in The Irvine Company developments will result in 315 fewer dwelling units than permitted (and projected) . However, somewhat offsetting this reduction is the addition of 167 dwelling units resulting from the General Plan amendment and subsequent development approval for the Broadmoor Pacific View development (these dwelling units were not included in the original projection ) . Also , additional residential development could occur in several areas which are designated for open space , with an alternative use of residential (in case the land cannot be purchased or otherwise preserved ) . Included in this category is the land in the Fifth Avenue corridor (east of the City-owned senior citizens ' center site ) , the "land trade remnant" site , and the area north of the Upper Bay at Jamboree and Bristol . ( Residential development of these areas could add about 250 to 300 dwelling units to the original residential growth projections . ) In addition , any residential development permitted in the commercial areas (with the Commercial/Residential Zoning District) would add to the total projected population . k Perhaps of greater significance , in terms of City-wide residential growth projections , is Statistical Area A-1 (Banning property) for which an additional 2 ,861 dwelling units is projected (equivalent to approximately 6 , 750 persons ) . This projected growth could be significantly reduced if the Coastal Commission ' s proposal for acquisition of a major portion of this area is implemented . Also , it is likely that residential development of this area may be delayed well beyond 1990-95 due to the potential for continued oil production (it now appears possible that, due to recent increases in oil value , oil production may continue well beyond the year 2000) . On balance , it appears that the General Plan population projection of 95, 659 is still realistic , however, it probably will not occur by 1990-95 . Also , attached is a corrected version of Page 3 of the March 24 , 1976 memo ; the population figures for 1973 through 1976 have been revised (the previous figures were incorrect) . Respectfully submitted , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT R. V . Hogan , Director RVH :TC :jmb Att. CORRECTED PAGE 3 OF MARCH 24 , 1976 MEMO Residential Growth The tables which follow provide a recent history of dwelling unit and population growth in the City . Table B contains yearly dwelling unit and population counts based on building records and census data since 1970 . Tables C and D estimate remaining development potential of residential areas based on General Plan projections . Table B Dwelling Unit/Population Count 1970-1976 Year D. U . ' s Change/Year Population Change/Year 1970 22 ,478 49 ,422 1 ,578 (+3 . 1 %) 1971 23 ,450 1 , 585 (+6 . 7%) 51 ,000 2 ,595' (+5 . 0%) 1972 25 ,035 53 , 595 2 ,355 (+4. 4%) 1973 25 ,860 55 ,950 2 ,350 (+4.2%) 1974 . 27 ,945 965 (+3 . 4%) 58, 300 2 ,000 (+3. 4%) 1975 28,910 60 ,300 2 ,801 (+4.6%) 1976 29 ,751 63 , 101 1970-1976 Total +7, 273 D. U . ' s +13 ,679 Population Page 3 -�-- k _4v Joint City Council /Planning Commission Meeting March 29 , 1976 Agenda Item No . C CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 24, 1976 TO: City Council and Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Growth Management ' This memo , dealing with the general subject of growth management, consists of five parts as follows : Part 1: Recent History and Proiections of Growth and Development in Newport Beach . This section of the report presents a statistical summary of recent trends in , and projections of, residential development and population , and commercial and industrial development. Part 2 : Traffic. Presented here is a report from the Public Works Department dealing with traffic capacities on Coast Highway , Jamboree Road , and MacArthur Boulevard . Exhibits dealing with capacities , deficiencies , levels of service, and timing of street system improvements , will be presented and discussed at the joint meeting . Part 3: Growth Control --Le a1 As ects . This section contains a memo from t e City Attorney ' s Office discussing controlled growth , timing and sequential regulation of community development. Also presented is a synopsis , prepared by the Community Development Department, of a report describing the City of Fresno ' s growth management process . Part 4: Cost/Revenue Analysis . This consists of a discussion of the City ' s preliminary cost/revenue system and reports on the status of the proposed updated cost/ revenue system, Part 5: List of Community Development Department Projects . Presented here is a listing of projects for discussion by the City Council and Planning Commission . Maps and exhibits related to the above topics will be on display at the joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting . Respectfully submitted, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V . Hogan, Di ecto By _ e4l/Izzz// Ti dwell Advance Planning Administrator TC: jmb Att: Five parts described above . 't 'ice Part 1 : Recent History and Projections of Growth and Development in Newport Beach RECENT TRENDS IN GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT IN NEWPORT BEACH This section of the staff report describes recent trends in growth and development in the City , and examines projected levels of population and development as envisioned by the General Plan . With respect to growth management, the City ' s basic policy is stated in the General Plan as follows : " It is the objective of the City of Newport Beach to assure , through the assertion of positive controls over urban growth , the preservation and enhancement of all those present assets which provide for the high quality of life enjoyed by its citizens , and to assure that all support systems such as transportation , parking , recreation facilities , schools , fire and police protection , and utilities can be maintained at optimum levels of economic and functional efficiency. "* Supporting policies include the following : (1 ) 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. (2) 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 . * Newport Beach Land Use Data Table A (on the following page) updates the land use inventory and projections contained in the Land Use Element (Page 9) . This table indicates on-going changes in the proportion of the City' s land area allocated among various categories of land use. Table A NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING AREA LAND USE DATA Land Use Plan 1 -1 -73 1 -1 -76 Projections Percent of Percent of Percent of Acresl Total Acresl Total Acresl Total Residential T,7-71�— 51 % 4,602 57 22% 5 ,249 65% Commercial 617 7% 1 ,187 14. 7% 1 ,531 19% Industrial 315 4% 318 4. 0% 390 5% Public and Institutional 585 7% 615 7. 6% 881 11 % Vacant = 2 ,538 31 % 1 ,507 16. 5% - - Total2 8,229 100% '8,229 100% 8 ,0514 100% lGross acres , including net area plus interior streets and one-half of the perimeter streets , does not include public waterways or beaches . 2Does not include public waterways , tidal lands or beaches . 3Includes developable acreage not committed for development and land proposed for public acquisition . 4Reduction due to projected conversion of land to water areas with harbor construction in West Newport. *General Plan Policies Report (March 13 , 1972) , Page 1 . Page 2 Residential Growth The tables which follow provide a recent history of dwelling unit and population growth in the City. Table B contains yearly dwelling unit and population counts based on building records and census data since 1970. Tables C and D estimate remaining development potential of residential areas based on General Plan projections . Table B Dwelling Unit/Population Count 1970-1976 Year D. U. ' s Change/Year Population Change/Year 1970 22 ,478 49,422 972 (+4. 3%) 1 ,578 (+3 . 1 %) 1971 23 ,450 51 ,000 1 ,585 (+6. 7%) 2 ,595 (+5. 0%) 1972 25 ,035 53,595 825 '(+3. 2%) 2 ,885 (+5 . 3%) 1973 25, 860 56,480 2 ,085 (+8. 0%) 3 ,871 (+6 . 8%) 1974 27 ,945 60 ,351 965 (+3. 4%) 2 ,337 (+3. 8%) 1975 28,910 62 ,688 1976 29 ,751 63,300 1970-1976 Total +7,273 D. U. ' s +13,878 Population 1573 ���8� ` a S6 4Y6 l -,� ' S 7 1 CO 7T l 7q -X, i S^�' Sol 3S ' 1 -416 0 (9 73 7 (VeJ ?I -7s J-3) /d � Page 3 t ii r Table C 1973 - Present -Projected D. U. Counts by Statistical Area D. U . ' s : D. U. ' s : Remaining Statistical 1 -1 -73 1 -1 -76 Projected* Capacity Area (Bldg. Rec' s . ) (Bldg . Rec' s . ) Al 0 133 2 ,994 2,861 A2 318 11089 •1 ,668 579 A3 356 452 276 0 B 3 ,818 3,984 4 ,409 425 C 868 884 889 5 D 2 ,967 3 ,042 3,469 427 E 2 ,089 2 ,137 2 ,614 477 F 4,180 4,312 4,905 593 G 283 841 881 40 H 2 ,088 2 ,092 2 ,417 325 J 4 ,370 4,427 5 ,084 657 K 3,291 3 ,419 3 ,938 519 L 185 544 11550 1 ,006 M 2 ,081 2 ,850 4,305 1 ,455 Total 26 ,894 30,206 39, 399 9 ,369 *Figures are based on Residential Growth Element with modifications where necessary to conform with General Plan amendments and other ' changes . ex S07 (,sa) Page 4 Table D Estimated D. U. Growth for Specific Undeveloped Properties Undeveloped D. U . ' s Parcels Gross Acres Projected � Y •Pacific View 50 160 Harbor View L Area 11 146 405 Area 13 10. 7 86 -� ewporter N . 88 704 Castaway 50 400 R-3-B Site 4. 5 67• 1-'W. Upper Bay 83 488• ' Land Trade Remnant 8.. 4 84 Versailles #2 10. 3 371 xNewporter Apartments 28 225 Banning Property 430 2 , 713 L)_3 In terms of the geographic distribution of residential growth, approximately one-third of this projected growth in dwelling units is expected to occur in the older sections of the City (south of Coast Highway and Old ♦Corona del Mar) and the remaining two-thirds of this growth is expected to occur north of Coast Highway. Generally , growth in the older sections will be the result of redevelopment and eventual buildout, according to existing zoning capacities , of the two-family and multi -family districts . With respect to population , the Residential Growth Element indicates a projected 1990 population of 95 ,659 . Recent population studies , including the 1976 Special Census , suggest that average household size tends to fluctuate over time , complicating the process of projecting future population levels . At this time there is no indication that recent trends in family size and occupancy have changed sufficiently to invalidate the General Plan population projection , given current development policies . Commercial /Industrial Growth Table E (on the following page) represents an updated inventory of commercial (including retail , service , and office uses ) and industrial floor areas . Hotel rooms and restaurant seating capacity are accounted for separately in Table F. Projected floor area figures have been revised where necessary to conform with amendments adopted subsequent to the original adoption of the General Plan . Page 5 Table E COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL FLOOR AREA BY STATISTICAL AREA 1972 1976 Projection - 1990-951 Statistical Area Commercial2 Industrial Commercial2 Industrial Commercial' Industrial (Sq . Ft. ) (Sq . Ft. ) (Sq . Ft. ) (Sq. Ft. ) (Sq . Ft. ) (Sq . Ft. ) Al 0 Oil Field 0 Oil Fields 285,000 0 A2 334,000 337 ,000 410,000 337 ,000 703,500 155 ,000 A3 66 ,000 40,000 66,000 45 ,000 70 ,000 350 ,000 B 561 ,100 50,000 560,000 50,000 745 ,600 50 ,000 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 96 ,000 0 96,000 0 83 ,000 0 E 89,000 0 89 ,000 0 89 ,000 0 F 316 ,400 0 317,000 0 320 ,000 0 G 91 ,800 0 91 ,800 0 91 ,800 0 9 H1 77 ,800 3 ,700 80,000 3 ,700 37 ,000 0 H3 35,800 0 36 ,300 0 40 ,000 0 fD H4 233,200 32 ,600 250,000 32 ,600 400,000 32 ,600 rn J 341 ,700 0 345,000 0 400 ,000 0 K 61 ,700 0 71 ,450 0 150,000 0 L1 1 ,811 ,500 0 3 ,825 ,300 0 5 ,207,316 0 L2 11000 0 1 ,000 0 11000 0 L3 11000 800 ,000 100,000 900 ,000 750 ,000 1 ,500 ,000 L4 561 ,000 464,000 2 ,000,000 1 ,500 ,000 3 ,550 ,000 1 ,67.0 ,000 M 58,400 0 134,300 0 135 ,000 0 Totals 4,737.,400 1 ,727,300 8,473,150 2 ,868,300 13,058,216 3,757 ,600 1Projected floor area figures are based on the Economic Base Analysis and Projections Report (July 24 , 1972) by Development Research Associates , with modifications where necessary to conform with subsequent General Plan amendments and other changes . 2Commercial figures do not include floor area data for hotels and restaurants which are accounted for separately " in Table F. J Table F _ N HOTEL ROOMS AND RESTAURANT SEATS BY STATISTICAL AREA 1990 — 199-5 Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of » Statistical Area Hotel Rooms Restaurant Seats Hotel Rooms Restaurant Seats Hotel Rooms Restaurant Seats Al 0 0 0 0 250 80o A2 0 0 0 0 0 200 A3 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 B 135 2 ,355 135 3 ,275 150 2,455 C 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 88 11000 88 1 ,000 66 900 E 10 320 10 320 0 280 F 148 1 ,740 148 1 ,800 ✓ 223 1 ,540 G 0 1 ,920 0 2 ,200 0 2 ,200 w H4 34 2 ,100 �� + g�'g� n� 2 ,300 85 3 ,000 E,. 2 J 0 '680 0 �10a`J��, 750 / 300 1 ,250 K 390 581 3�9.0„ 581 690 1 ,500 1r2 L2 0 753 377 /O � ® 1 ,0000 / 3777 1 ,500 rr /i ✓11 L4 0 553 r. '7 0 ✓ 'g0- 0 750 a Y �'� �. �7„ba, 1 ,250 3�'J� 900 1 ,653 `�"l M 1� 0 0 0 $ 1 r D-- 1d y�.6at a. 5 3, a q1 98. '1 1 50 *Figures are based on Economic Base Analysis and Projections Report (July 24, 1972) by Development Research Associates , with modifications where necessary to conform with subsequent General Plan amendments and other changes . .�,, r � 1i►j�i�r ff� j a y of port Beach MWO � i tl4l7rlf,W, r.x r ol:�- • � ► it � S r .y • VYA �! � �\ � • � Ilrrl ��� Ys 7' (��\ �.+f�"`"/ �.4�+uuaa.+.Ylx¢in.ww• !� \i-♦ � a`II�rTTtlr ',�41• � // tom. �g � .r • t r• . f Part 2: Traffic -- Report from Public Works Department r Study Session Item No . 2 February 12, 1976 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: TRAFFIC CAPACITIES ON COAST HIGHWAY, JAMBOREE ROAD AND MACARTHUR BOULEVARD The Planning Commission at its January 8th meeting requested staff to provide information showing traffic volumes, number of travel lanes, and capacities of Coast Highway, Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The Commission also requested a map showing proposed circula- tion systems for the general area. Attached are the following exhibits and reports discussing this subject: 1 . Report to City Council dated February 9, 1976 discussing capacities, volumes and roadway widths. 2. Copy of adopted Circulation Element Map. 3. Exhibit "A" showing intersection capacity utilization and Level of Service of certain intersections for Summer 1975. 4. Exhibit "B" - Highway Planning Map. 1E:,. C6..A Bill E. Darnell Traffic Engineer BED:hh Attachments Page 8 r t City Council Meeting February 9 , 1976 Study Session Agenda Item No . 12 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 5 , 1976 TO : City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT : Traffic Generation and Highway Capacities in the Pacific Coast Highway/Jamboree Road/MacArthur Boulevard area . ! At the January 26 , 1976 'City Council meeting , Councilman Ryckoff requested a report on traffic generation and highway capacities in the Pacific Coast Highway/Jamboree Road/MacArthur Boulevard area. Attached is a series of maps illustrating estimated traffic volumes , highway widths , and capacities , based on information provided by the Public Works Department. Exhibit 1 indicates the traffic volumes , highway widths , and capacities as of 1974. Exhibit 2 indicates the estimated traffic volumes by 1990-95 and the planned highway widths and capacities contained in the adopted Circulation Element. Exhibit 3 indicates the projected 1990-95 volumes which are estimated to result if the downcoast extension of the Corona del Mar Freeway is not implemented by 1990-1995 . It should be understood that the 1990-1995 projections are based on certain sets of assumptions about residential density , commercial / industrial intensity , street system improvements , and transit usage (both within our City and in the surrounding region ) . Currently , staff has no efficient or accurate method of evaluating the effect on the highway system of a change in any of the assumptions . (The Alan M. Voorhees and Associates ' Traffic Study , which was done for the Circulation Element, is a static , "one-point-in-time" study that does not lend itself to continual up-dating based on new information , nor does this study address the "peak hour" concerns which are raised with each new project. ) Of major concern in this regard are changes to land use and circulation system improvements which are beyond the City ' s control , such as the " downcoast" development and circulation system. Additionally , deletions , or delays in completion , of local highway system links , as well as potential changes in local development intensities , need to be analyzed for their effect on the entire local street system. The Public Works Department and the Community Development Department are investigating the possibility of having a computer model developed which would be continuously-maintained and which would allow the City to "plug in" any changes to land use or circulation system assumptions and which would then illustrate the effect on the entire street system, including average daily traffic and peak hour. This computer model would also be a valuable tool in analyzing individual projects for their anticipated traffic impacts and would provide a basis for the traffic section of E . I . R. ' s . In addition , various stages of land use and circulation system development at different points in time could be analyzed to determine whether development is outstripping street system improvements . (Attached is a brief information sheet from the Public Works Department describing a computer model and a possible work program for consultant preparation of the model . This project is being considered for inclusion in the proposed 1976-77 City budget. ) Thus far, no area of the City has been developed to an intensity , nor have projects been approved at an intensity which would generate Page 9 TO: City Council - 2 traffic in excess of that projected in the AMV Traffic Study. However, it is conceivable that this could occur unless the City restricts the intensity of development in all areas . In addition , it is possible that land development may proceed at a faster pace than circulation system improvements , although in many cases the circulation system improvements are implemented in conjunction with adjacent land development. A computer model would be helpful in providing the information upon which regulations on the timing and intensity of development could be based . Respectfully submitted , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V . Hogan , Director By ,IY Ti owe11 Advance Planning Administrator TC : jmb Att. Information Sheet from Public Works Department Maps Page 10 EXHIBIT 1 © r� Ig77 VaUMES,_ WIDTHS, AND CAIIA CITIES i ��� � � -�y •`: LEG END o (00,000) AVERAczE Q`—��] a `�, ,`F `€ VAI LY TRIPS :v 3 OF TRAVEL- o� . �o Z ." I 1-ME-5 � o }ttUHWAY CAP,4c' AT LEVEL. of , --- xz ,,,, a" .. mtix�a"�ii'iii K�Pii'�-�i-._oj �• i>FS3 !M1i__x a poot7�_ R r 1 I - -- __ � "" �°�tiVJC�Ca'. '�: �o •-e.•�1 i -.+rT-- � ® 60 dp(�(]l "�` mo _ _. �'_sa0 a -moo ^!•• °..a. � -.:Wx. of� O-��� 4. �� :� 1 Y city of a \ / F1 Yg�' vex�xx r G V• A N DOO TMa.x.r NMMU.+u UCH y � 4 Newport Beach 3z,000 ExNiEiT 2 lg90-q5 VOLUMES yy; WIDTm � Wp4m- r�� ���o oo �� • �— a kl�6UM1WA COMPLEIW4 OF �,�� � �0� , � f ,,, ,• DOW NGOAS"{ E7CTENSIOPI Or 1 , (C _ Gv(tONp. DEL /APR r-KfzWA--( �Q o I�101 ,. •1 >► ' S'� ` / TRAVEL LANES to $MZO OR 44UW(.XT14 ��, � � � ���,_� PzriA�i.�E.L Of Y GAf?AGiTY IN -` DOO - -- - f�- ^ ,,,, •a�� ��, - �1�� �v,a��� . .��� ,. �'^ �� � .fv Q � 7 p8©® l � 1 rY city of y SO,000 (i2 btl9 b CITY - 4 Newport Beach /f i ! b T3 _ a E A aunt mum. uvono _ t� p 00 E�ct�{t3CT 3 •� _ =-�`�' � a - WtpTNs, � GppAGtTtES- ©� AS5UNUN4 114A"f pOWNLOA61 nnpe.e-rW G ' L C 4 N a o Kurnff.�L OF Ot SEYLYIGL` *D • ,� ©© ' �-`- © or 4 tan nn _ '^.. _ - =Ei.s1 e.- �sp�S- _0P© qaG Q4no: • '� - - -� /�� _'..�. / ' p :.7rrr7j = \ e s+" t7 Go.v, 4 • --4= - sE.:e U1000 city of Dd . '_# ao�� O W OF EwPORC BEACHNewport Beach 1 t t CITY-WIDE COMPUTER SIMULATION MODEL FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Introduction Development of a computer simulation model for both existing and ultimate (general plan) conditions is proposed. The model will enable city staff to analyze impacts of proposed changes in land use and/or transportation systems . The model provides an easy and relatively inexpensive way of analyzing systemic impacts of incremental development in both short term and long term cases . By developing a method of period- ically updating land use and transportation system inputs to the model , integrally tied to other land use and trans- portation planning efforts in the city, an up-to-date simulation model can be maintained that is capable of examining city wide impacts of all planned development and highway improvements . Such a model could be of considerable use in developing capital improvement and land development phasing plans . This approach of integrating the use of the model into city planning functions would provide for maximum flexibility and the most effective use of this tool . Scope of Work The purpose of this project is to develop a computer simu- lation model consisting of a series of computer programs that will enable the city to analyze city wide (system level ) impacts of modifications in land use and transportation of both short and long term conditions . To fulfill this program, it will be necessary to accomplish the following : 1 . Develop a calibrated model of existing transportation and land use to simulate the following conditions : -Average daily traffic -Average summer daily traffic -Average summer weekend daily traffic -Peak hour traffic for each of the above three conditions Traffic volume counts and unprocessed output of an origin-destination survey, to be used to calibrate these models , will be provided by city staff. Consultant will process the origin-destination survey data . The land use, transportation and behavior inputs to the model should be capable of modification so as new or more accurate data becomes available , it can be incor- porated into the program . 2. Develop a model of ultimate transportation and land use to simulate the following conditions': -Average daily traffic -Average summer daily traffic -Peak hour traffic for each of the above two conditions These models will be capable of providing turning volumes at all intersections , for use in capacity analyses . The land use , transportation and behavior inputs to the model should be capable of modification so as new or more accurate data becomes available , it can be incorporated into the program. 3. Maintain all of these programs in such a manner that city gtaff would be able to analyze a proposed modification, within 24 hours 'time. Page 14 ►S MAJOR ROAD o INTMCHAN /tiff ►�� SIX LANE E. ADOPTED PRIMARY ROAD 4 FOUR LANE DIVIDED ROUTES PRIMARY ROAD BRl0GE MODIFIED R'SECONDARY ROAD �1 FOUR LANE UNDIVIDED COORDINATIONME fw IS 1t - '► �,a Jf!•,:.t - J 1 t YI t . �•�'+.qu„�'y �. Ic• I .. - it MITI ��!'i� 11 y?♦,,.ham.. Off-" '�'I� „•'\"�'io � �� .- f�o I .. < e INTERSECTION CAPACITIES (EXISTING CONDITIONS - SUMMER 1975) COAST HIGHWAY INTERSECTIONS Level of I .C.U. Service Riverside Avenue 0.89 D Dover Drive 1 .14 F Bayside Drive 0.84 D Jamboree Road 0.89 D Newport Center Drive 0.64 B MacArthur Blvd. 0.72 C JAMBOREE ROAD INTERSECTIONS San Joaquin Hills Road 0.84 D Ford Road - Eastbluff Drive 0.66 B Eastbluff Drive 0.74 C Bristol Street 1 .13 F MACARTHUR BOULEVARD INTERSECTIONS San Joaquin Hills Road 0.88 D Ford Road 0.80 D EXHIBIT "A" Page 16 LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of Service is used to describe quality of traffic flow. Levels of Service A to C operate quite well . Level of Service D is typically the Level of Service for which an urban street is designed. Level of Service E is the maximum volume a facility can accommodate and will result in possible stoppages of momentary duration. Level of Service F occurs when a facility is overloaded and is characterized by stop-and-go traffic with stoppages of long duration. A more complete description of Level of Service follows: Level of Service A - Low volumes , high speeds, speeds not restricted by other vehicles , all signal cycles clear with no vehicles waiting through more than one signal cycle. Level of Service B - Operating speeds beginning to be affected by other traffic; between one and ten percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one si,gnal cycle during peak traffic periods. Level of Service C - Operating speeds and maneuverability closely controlled by other traffic; between 11 and 30 percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods; recom- mended ideal design standard. Level of Service D - Tolerable operating speeds, 31 to 70 percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods; often used as design standard in urban areas. Level of Service E - Capacity; the maximum traffic volume an inter- section can accommodate; restricted speeds; 71 to 100 percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal during peak traffic periods. Level of Service F - Long queues of traffic; unstable flow, stoppages of long duration; traffic volume and traffic speed can drop to zero; traffic volume will be less than the volumes which occurs at Level of Service E. Page 17 Part 3: Growth Control -- Legal Aspects . Report from City Attorney ' s Office and Synopsis of Fresno Growth Management Report CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY TO: The Honorable Mayor and March 29, 1976 Members of City Council The Chairman and Members of Planning Commission FROM: Hugh R. Coffin, Assistant City Attorney RE: CONTROLLED GROWTH, TIMING AND SEQUENTIAL REGULATION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INTRODUCTION The City Council and the Planning Commission have requested that this office prepare a report on the legal basis of controlled growth. This Memorandum is a general discussion dealing with the creation of a definition of "controlled growth" , a discussion of various legal tools or methods available to control or regulate residential growth, the legal challenges that have been put forth to attack various forms of growth control adopted by other entities and a short synopsis of some recent and leading cases in the area of growth control. DEFINITION None of the reported cases which establish legal precedent in attempting to handle controlled growth provide any overall comprehensive definition of the term or concept of controlled growth. Each case turns on its own peculiar circum- stances. However, in an earlier report to the City Council, we defined controlled growth as : "Controlled growth: Use of traditional and evolving techniques, tools, plans and activities -18- a 1 J to thoughtfully, purposely and intelligently guide local patterns of land use, including the manner, location, rate, nature and type of development. " This definition appears to be a good definitional tool to be used when considering the overall subject of growth control. The concept of controlled growth can be deemed to consist of a well integrated, efficient and affirmative system of choices or decisions which are explicitly made with the full knowledge of the variables and the trade-offs involved and where the program is coordinated in the furtherance of clear community growth and land use objectives. A fragmented, disjointed or a non-unified system would tend to be inefficient, seek to achieve no goal and would probably be ineffective for the purposes sought. It can be generally concluded that a legislative attempt to control or manage growth will be upheld against judicial challenge if the legislation, rules and regulations are reasonable, well thought out, comprehensive and fair in their application, but will be striken by a court if the attempt is unreasonable, represents a short range or disjointed view or results in an arbitrary or unequal application of controls or standards. TOOLS AVAILABLE Traditional Zoning Control It is clear that traditional zoning powers which set forth minimum lot size, height of buildings, setbacks, density, bulk of buildings and the like will function as a tool to control growth. Zoning can be used as an effective tool to define density of growth, however, zoning is not a particularly effective tool to control the timing and sequence of growth. Recent cases reiterate the importance and validity of traditional zoning to maintain or regulate community values. For instance, -19- 1 the California Supreme Court in HFH Ltd. v. Superior Court (Cerritos) (1975) 125 Cal Rptr 365 upheld traditional zoning against an attack alleging inverse condemnation for down-zoning. Ramapo Approach One of the most often mentioned methods of establish- ing sequential growth control is the so called Ramapo Plan. The Ramapo Plan was developed by the Town of Ramapo and has been upheld by the New York Court of Appeals, Golden v. Town of Ramapo, 334 NYS2d 138, 152 (1972) . The United States Supreme Court has refused to hear the case. The basic essence of the Ramapo Plan was the establish- ment of a twelve year capital improvement plan, capital budget and capital program which provided for a scheduled sequence of capital improvements and further provided that development would have to follow the installation of capital improvements. The Plan also provided that the Town was to complete all public facilities, improvements and services within eighteen years. Development could occur only after facilities were available, and a special permit was 'required, complying with the Plan, prior to development. Ramapo considered five essential facilities and services as the basis for the Plan, which are: (1) public sanitary services or approved substitutes; (2) drainage facilities; (3) improved public parks or recreation facilities, including public schools; (4) state, county, or town roads, including major, secondary and collector streets and (5) fire fighting services. Development was based upon a point system geared to the availability of the various services or facilities and provided that a building permit could not be issued until a certain point total had been achieved by a proposed project or that the developer provide for the improvements. Thus, the effect of the Ramapo Plan was that developers were not deprived of the highest or best use of their -20- a land but controls were placed upon the time in which the land could be developed, based upon a specific twelve year plan and an ultimate eighteen year plan to have all public facilities installed. The Ramapo Plan, in effect, maximized development of the town, only attempting to control the timing and rate of development. However, it should be pointed out that under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California, the City' s current Subdivision Ordinance and other city policies and procedures, developers now are required to intall or pay for the installation of the types of services and facilities, to a large extent, that were covered by the Ramapo Plan, including sanitary facilities, drainage facilities, streets, fire fight- ing facilities and equipment and certain dedication of funds or areas for public parks and recreation facilities. Further, Newport Beach has placed sequential controls on projects such as Corporate Plaza, timed to certain public improvements. Petaluma Approach Besides the capital improvement control as established in the Ramapo Plan, the Petaluma attempt at timing and controlling growth should be noted. The Petaluma Plan was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Construction Industry Association of Sonoma County v. The City of Petaluma decided August 13, 1975 and was made final when the U.S. Supreme Court recently refused to accept the plaintiff' s petition for certiorari. The Petaluma Plan was based' on a lengthy study conducted by the City of Petaluma and consisted of several resolutions, maps, and other material. The ultimate effect was to provide a maximum building permit limitation, for a five year period, of 500 housing units per year, except the prohibition -21- did not apply to housing units which were not a part of the project involving five units or more. There was no restriction or control in the Petaluma Plan regarding the construction of single family homes or up to four unit apartment buildings which were not part of a larger project involving five or more units. There further was a complex point system whereby a building permit applicant could obtain a building permit, within the "500 limitation" by building in conformance with the City' s General Plan, environmental design plans, good architecture, providing for low and moderate income dwelling units and various recreational facilities. There further was a definite and conscious attempt on the part of the City to cause "infilling" of vacant areas within the center or core of the City as opposed to the very large tracts of undeveloped land surrounding Petaluma. The Petaluma Plan was adopted by the City of Petaluma to insure that development in the five years following the adoption of the plan would be reasonable, orderly, in an attractive manner, rather than completely haphazard, unattractive and leapfrogging current development. Further, the limitation on residential development was adopted to "protect its [Petaluma' s] small town character and surrounding open space. " The Petaluma Plan withstood all of the attacks brought by the plaintiffs and was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It should be emphasized, however, that the Petaluma Plan was developed by the City of Petaluma after extensive study and investigation of the costs and effects of development within the city which resulted in a clear, well defined standard of that city' s development goals. The regulations adopted by Petaluma certainly could not be considered short sighted or ill conceived. This fact apparently impressed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and assisted them in their decision making process. Special counsel for Petaluma has stated that the -22- 1 Petaluma Plan was designed uniquely for Petaluma's situation and may not fit any other community' s goals, situation or i development pattern Moritoriums Another form of "controlling" growth would be imposition of a building moratorium under the provisions of the Government Code. This, of course, is only a limited provision, and relatively strictly construed by the courts. In fact, the City of Corona has recently adopted a moratorium to gain time to study controlling or regulating growth within that city. A moratorium, however, cannot ultimately result in a controlled growth program, it can only forestall development for a limited period of time, to allow the city time for the preparation of studies which ultimately will culminate in the adoption of a rational zoning plan that deals with controlling, regulating, and prescribing the types of growth which are permitted. Such cases as Miller v. Board of Public Works of the City of Los Angeles, 195 Cal 477 have upheld such interim freezes or moratoriums, as long as they are interim and temporary and for the purpose of undertaking studies. General Plan - Zoning Ordinance Compliance Another method of controlling growth, which could take the form of or appear to be similar to a "Petaluma" type of control would be through the use of the City' s General Plan process and coordinating its zoning ordinance with the General Plan. This could take several different forms which could be unique systems to the city and its individual needs. However, there appears to be no case law that deals in this area which lends substantial legal authority for this proposition. Utility Hook-Ups - Extensions Litigation is currently pending resulting for regulations adopted by Boulder, Colorado dealing with limitations on utility extensions, such as water, sewer and electricity, and -23- 1 limitations on various forms of hook-ups to the utilities. This method of control may be available in California but may not be too useful in Newport Beach due to the fact that there is but little undeveloped land which is not presently served or readily capable of being served. Population Cap There is litigation pending in Florida wherein certain absolute limits on population, the so called "population caps" , have been imposed by initiative ordinance and are under challenge in the State Courts. These cases are not final, to our knowledge, so no careful analysis can be given to these types of regulations. It should be noted that Newport Beach, itself, has a form of "cap" , found in its General Plan, which limits its ultimate residential population to approximately 90 ,000. Prohibition There apparently is a form of absolute prohibition on any development imposed in the Lake Tahoe area, among other areas, which also is under litigation and no final decision is available. This form of control is one which will probably not be judicially supported, it being confiscatory and arbitrary. Large Lot Control Another form of growth control, which is under litiga- tion now, but which appears to be a settled question, is the Palo Alto "Large Lot" type of density control. The case of Eldridge v. City of Palo Alto (1975) 124 Cal Rptr 547 deals with the validity of a ten acre minimum lot size per dwelling unit. The Appellate Court held -that even though the regulation was valid, it constituted an inverse condemnation, taking or damaging of the property, the subject of the litigation, and that the City of Palo Alto would therefore be liable in damages to the owner. This case probably will be reversed as a result -24- of HFH, Limited v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County (City of Cerritos) , supra. The HFH, Limited case dealt not so much with controlled growth as with "down-zoning" . The Supreme Court held that if the City acted in a reasonable fashion that the imposition of "down-zoning" did not constitute a taking or damaging of the property in a constitutional sense and did not require the City to pay damages to the land owner. The court rejected the notion that merely because property was reduced in value as a result of City imposed down-zoning that the City was liable to the property owner in damages. The court stated: "The long settled state of zoning law renders the possibility of change in zoning clearly foreseeable to land speculators and other purchasers of property, who discount their estimate of its value by the probability of such change." It appears that down-zoning as a method to "control growth" in the form of density control is a viable method provided that legitimate police power reasons exist for the down-zoning. Houston, Texas - No Zoning Inquiries have been made regarding the system established by Houston, Texas dealing with land use and controlling or managing growth. As we understand the situation, the City of Houston does not have any zoning in the traditional sense. Land use restrictions are imposed by covenants, conditions and restrictions which run with and effect most, if not all, properties within the city. This particular approach would seem to be non-applicable to a citysuch as Newport Beach since the City of Newport Beach P Y P is operating under its charter which apparently requires a General Plan under Section 707 (a) and under the State Planning Act which requires cities, including charter cities, to have zoning in the form outlined in the Act, and Legislation which requires cities to adopt a General Plan with certain required -25- elements. Additionally, other enabling legislation of the state, such as the Subdivision Map Act requires certain Zoning and General Plan restrictions which would probably preclude the application of a Houston, Texas like "CC&R system. " Irvine Approach The City of Irvine has a residential growth phasing system which is keyed into the absorption of industrial and commercial lands within the City. The City is divided into several geographical areas where development may occur in five year increments, and is implemented through a residential development plan ordinance under which zoning and subdivision maps are approved, based upon a point system. The point system is similar to the Petaluma system, and requires that a minimum number of points be achieved by a project before its develop- ment is permitted. Points are assigned from zero to five on the following items: 1. Sewer Capacity 2. Sewage Treatment Capacity 3. Water Supply 4. Drainage Facilities 5. Police Protection 6. Fire Protection 7. Vehicular Circulation The City of Irvine General Plan permits three possible ultimate populations for the City, based upon the absorption of industrial and commercial land within the City. As commercial and industrial areas develop, or don't develop, various factors come into play to determine what areas may be developed residentially and what areas may not be developed residentially. This system is viable in the City of Irvine due to the fact that there is considerable undeveloped agricultural land within the geographical limits of the City of Irvine. -26- Conclusion Any one, or a modification of any one, or a combination of any of the above tools may be applicable to the City of Newport Beach. However, it must be emphasized that any system by which the City may intend to control growth must be a rational system which will seek to control the rate or expansion of growth based upon a well integrated, efficient and affirmative system of choices or decisions which are made in furtherance of clearly defined community growth and land use objectives. A system which does not consider all of the variables and trade- offs, is fragmented and disjointed, will likely be striken by the courts. ATTACKS FREQUENTLY USED TO CHALLENGE GROWTH CONTROL REGULATIONS Equal Protection The primary attack frequently seen in growth control litigation deals with the argument that the system denies equal protection of law, as required by the United States Constitution. However, most cases which have dealt in the area of growth control have found that the local regulation does apply equally and uniformly to all similarly situated property within the jurisdiction and, therefor, the attack based on equal protection has failed. Of course, each case must be decided on its own facts and how the regulation applies in the local community. Any controlled growth regulation which would be adopted in Newport Beach must carefully consider the equal protection argument. Newport Beach is in an anomalous situation where there are two basic types of growth control considerations. There are a few rather large vacant land holdings which have not been subdivided and developed. These areas could be generally defined as "Undeveloped" . There are, on the other hand, many areas of town which have been subdivided many years ago into quite -27- �\ s small lots, are generally zoned R-2. These areas have yet to be developed to their highest use, the present development being single family. These areas could be defined as "Under Developed" . Any growth control regulation would have to deal with both the undeveloped and under developed territory within the city limits of the City of Newport Beach or the regulation could face a court determination that it was invalid because of its lack of equal protection and equal application. A strong argument can be made that it would be inappropriate, and perhaps unlawful, to treat the undeveloped property different than the under developed property since the net effect or impact of development of the under developed property could be as substantial or more substantial than development of undeveloped property because of the lack of ability of the City to obtain necessary dedications and improvements to off-set increased densities of population, which items can be obtained in conjunction with development of the undeveloped area. Miscellaneous Constitutional Challenges Other attacks which are frequently raised are due process, abridgment of the right to travel, unreasonable burden on interstate commerce, a burden on freedom of association, a burden on the right of privacy, denial or abridgment of the right to establish a home. These constitutional attacks have generally been unsuccessful. Cases, such as, Construction Industry Association of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma, supra and Village of Belle Terre v. Borass (1974) 416 U.S. , 1, 94 Supr. Ct. Rptr. 1536 have generally held that these attacks are non-applicable in the standard growth control type of case. Other attacks which are made, which go to the basic police power, are that the regulation is unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious and not within the police power of the jurisdiction. -28- Again, most cases which have dealt in the area have found that the regulation, if it is well thought out and well reasoned is within the police power and does not constitute an arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious damaging or taking of property. All of the above arguments which have been traditionally used in 'attacking growth control regulations represent legitimate constitutional and legal arguments which must be considered weighed and handled prior to the adoption and implementation of any controlled growth regulations for the City of Newport Beach. The attacks represent a legitimate defense of property rights and the rights and interests of individual property owners and of the residents of the community at large. It is therefore incumbent upon the City to act in a reasonable and rational fashion when considering and ultimately adopting any form of controlled growth. RECENT CASES OF INTEREST DEALING WITH GROWTH CONTROL It would be, helpful to incorporate with this Memorandum a short summary of several key court cases which are frequently cited as authority for various legal theories in the growing legal body of growth control litigation. A. Construction Industry Association of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. August 13 , 1975 (we don't have an accurate Federal Reporting System Citation on this case) . This case, as indicated above, upheld the "Petaluma Plan" which basically provided for the issuance of 500 residential building permits a year in projects containing five or more development units and encouraged "infilling" of existing undeveloped city residential lots with projects of four or fewer dwellings. Permits were issued based upon a complex point system, and the overall system was sustained against attack based upon equal protection of the law, due process, -29- right to travel, and being exclusionary zoning. B. Village of Belle Terre v. Borass (1974) 416 U.S. 1, 94 Supr. Ct. Rptr. 1536. This case dealt with the restriction imposed by the Village of Belle Terre, limiting the occupancy of one family dwelling to traditional family groups or groups of not more than two unrelated persons. The ultimate effect of the ordinance was to limit the absolute number of persons that could live in the town. The zoning ordinance was held valid as it bore a rational relationship to a permissible state objective, was held not to violate the petitioner' s civil rights, the right to travel, the right to express social preferences, the right of privacy and the right of association. The court held: "A quiet place where yards are wide, people few, and motor vehicles restricted are legitimate guidelines in a land-use project addressed to family needs. This goal is a permissible one within Berman v. Parker, supra. The police power is not confined to elimination of filth, stench and unhealthy places; it is ample to lay out zones where family values, youth values, and the blessings of quiet seclusion and clear air make the area a sanctuary for people. " C. Golden v. Planning Board of Town of Ramapo (1972) 30 NY2d 259. This New York case upheld the "capital improve- ment control imposed by the Town of Ramapo which tied develop- ment to capital improvements, based upon five criteria, being sanitary facilities, drainage facilities, improved public parks and schools, roads, and fire fighting services. The ordinance was upheld against the traditional challenges and the basic challenge that it violated or exceeded the police power abilities of the Town of Ramapo. D. Eldridge v. City of Palo Alto (1975) 124 Cal Rptr 547 which held that a down-zoning, even though it was a reasonable exercise of the police power, could constitute taking and make the City liable in damages for the reduced value -30- of the property. The California Supreme Court has accepted this case for hearing and it will probably be modified or reversed. E. HFH, Limited, v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (City of Cerritos) (1975) 125 Cal Rptr 365, held that reasonable down-zoning did not give rise to a cause of action for inverse condemnation against the City and the City was not liable, damaging or taking property by use of the police power. An owner of land owns land subject to the police power right of the City to alter the zoning of the property to a more compatible use, as deemed appropriate by the City. CONCLUSION Rational growth control, management or timing of growth is a permissible and constitutional police power exercise by the City. However, the system developed must be reasonable and rational and based on the needs, which may be unique, to the City involved. The regulations must be applied equally and must afford property owners substantial due process. The regulation cannot be arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious. The foregoing, however, only scratches the surface of the arguments which deal with growth control. There are very significant policy determinations which must be considered and decided and techniques must be developed which will work for the City of Newport Beach should the City determine to proceed along these lines, which may work nowhere else in the Country. H G CO IN, As nt City A t rney HRC:yz -31- CITY OF FRESNO--URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROCESS (Synopsis of report prepared by Community Development Department staff) This memo summarizes a report prepared by the City of Fresno describing its growth management process . The City of Fresno has developed an Urban Growth Management Process (U. G.M. ) which purports to balance the rights of citizens and the responsibility of government by providing guidelines to help order the timing and location of urban growth based on potential impact on the City ' s General Fund. This process is intended to form the basis for urban growth management decisions . Due to various economic factors , there has been much random development in the urban fringe areas of Fresno rather than intensification of land use within previously-developed areas . To manage the location and timing •of growth in these areas , the City has developed an Urban Growth Management Process (adopted January 22 , 1976) . The object of this process is : Encouraging urban development to occur in such a way that the expansion of urban service delivery systems can be accomplished in a fiscally sound manner, while still providing required City services on an equitable basis to all the community. The urban growth management process builds on existing City and County policies relating to the development of vacant land in the urban fringe . The process augments existing development review procedures with a formal Service Delivery Review and a Cost/Revenue Analysis , and provides for final action by the City Council . Policies for coordination of City/County jurisdiction over land development in fringe areas are included . The area to which this process is applied is known as the Growth Management Area , and is defined by a boundary line shown on the City ' s Official Zone Map . All lands within this area will maintain current zoning but with a "U. G. M. " suffix for identification . Removal of this suffix will occur with the application of the Urban Growth Management process and completion of development. The key elements of the Urban Growth Management Process are: (1 ) A service delivery review which will determine the approach to the delivery of services and the conditions required for development. This review is conducted by a Service Delivery Review Committee and includes such services as fire , water, sewers , streets and other City-provided services . (2 ) A cost/revenue analysis to measure the fiscal impact the proposed development would have on the City ' s General Fund. This analysis includes both direct and indirect impacts on the City ' s General Fund . The completed analyses are summarized into a staff report for the City Council and Planning Commission . The Urban Growth Management Process is applied to development requests in one of two ways , depending on the nature of the proposed development. For residential subdivisions , the Service Delivery Review and Cost/Revenue Analysis are performed prior to the filing of a tentative tract map . For most other types of development, the U. G. M. Permit may be requested at any time in the development process . However, the permit must be approved prior to the issuance of a building or occupancy permit. Page 32 Part 4: Cost/Revenue Analysis COST/REVENUE ANALYSIS During the development of the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements in 1972 , a "preliminary" cost/revenue system was developed in order to provide a general indication of the relative costs (related to City services ) and revenues generated by various types of land uses . This system was also used to "test" the future fiscal implications of the Land Use Element, and indicated that the long-term fiscal impacts of implementing the Land Use Element were favorable (in that the anticipated future revenues would exceed future costs with a constant "level of service" ) . The preliminary cost/revenue system does , however, contain several weaknesses , including : 1 ) a failure to differentially allocate a major portion of City costs and revenues , 2) difficulty in making adjustments or updatings to account for inflation , new costs and and 3 an inability to account for variations in revenues , ) Y development intensities and improvement values . After discussing the development of a new cost/revenue system with an economic consultant, a consultant services agr eement was prepared and approved by the City Manager. We expect to have the new system operational by July, 1976 . This new system will be computerized and should overcome many of the weaknesses of the preliminary cost/revenue system. It would appear that recent growth in the City is resulting in a favorable overall cost/revenue impact due to the more-rapid growth of commercial uses vis-a-vis residential . As indicated previously in this memo , between 1973 and 1976 we added 570 acres of commercial use and 428 acres of residential . The preliminary cost/ revenue system indicates that commercial uses result in an average annual surplus (revenues exceeding costs ) of about $6 ,000 per acre , and that residential uses result in an average annual deficit (costs exceeding revenues ) of about $900 per acre. The Land Use Element provides for an additional 344 acres of commercial development and an additional 647 acres of residential development. This two to one ratio of residential to commercial suggests a continuing favorable cost/revenue impact (since each acre of commercial use can offset approximately six acres of residential ) . The projection assumes no. unusual City capital costs above those previously anticipated and the same ratio of service costs to revenues . Page 33 Part 5: List of Community Development Department Projects . LIST OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PROJECTS A listing of projects and studies to be completed by the Community Development Department staff is provided here for the information of the City Council and Planning Commission . This list is included to facilitate discussion of possible reassignment of priorities among projects . A. Cost/Revenue System B. Santa Ana River Greenbelt Plan C. Community Facilities Element D. General Plan E . I . R. E . • General Plan Amendment Program--reprinting of reports and maps F. Comprehensive Review of the Zoning Ordinance (Reorganization project completed ) G. Historical Zone (Recommended for adoption by the Planning Commission 3-18-76 ) H . Beach Capacity Study I . Development of New Land Use Intensity Regulations as called for in the Land Use Element. J . Mariner' s Mile Specific Area Plan and E . I . R. K. Central Newport/Cannery Village Specific Area Plan L . Central Balboa Specific Area Plan M. Old Newport Boulevard Specific Area Plan N . Corona del Mar Commercial Strip Specific Area Plan 0. West Newport Harbor Specific Area Plan P . Newport Harbor Plan Q. Development of a Computerized Land Use and Population Data System R. Preparation of Landscape Standards S . Beacon Bay Specific Area Plan T. Balboa Bay Club Specific Area Plan U. Subdivision Ordinance Revision V. Review of Environmental Procedures W. On-going Zoning Standards Studies Page 34 <) URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROCESS: BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY DECEMBER 5, 1975 Chief Administrative Office and Department of Planning and Inspection City of Fresno. Fresno, California FILE COPY DO'NOT REMOVE Y • • INTRODUCTION The subject of this report is the management of urban growth. The subject is one of prime significance and fre- quent controversy. Case law clearly upholds the right of individuals to own and develop land, yet also recognizes the responsibility of local government to control develop- ment which can be detrimental to the community. ' The City of Fresno has developed an Urban.Growth Management Process (UGM) which balances the rights of citizens and the responsibilities of local government. It is neither a no-growth policy nor a free growth or dis- organized growth policy. Rather, the Urban Growth Manage- ment Process provides guidelines to help order the timing and location of urban growth based on a proposed develop- ment' s potential impact on the City' s General Fund. The process described in this report is intended to form the basis for urban growth management decisions. Elements of the process can be modified, but the basic structure of the Urban Growth Management Process will provide the needed continuity and order. THE MANAGEMENT OF URBAN FRINGE GROWTH The strong economy of' the Fresno region creates a constant demand for the expansion of the urban area and the extension of urban service networks. Since open land . around the city is available and economically attractive, the market mechanism encourages development of such land rather than increased use of land within the currently urbanized area. Over the last two decades these factors have resulted in randomness in the development form of urban areas, and disagreement over jurisdictional responsibility for urban development. Expansion of an urban area is a sign of a healthy economy, but the extension of urban services to the resulting new development is often inefficient (particularly at the jurisdictional boundaries) and not always economically sound. Although Fresno's position does not yet reflect the crisis situation which many communities face on some phase of the growth issue, inefficiency in the expansion process indicates a need for an urban growth management process. To manage the location and timing of growth in the City's fringe areas, the City of Fresno has developed an Urban Growth Management Process. The process is described in the document entitled Urban Growth Management Process, which was adopted by City Council Resolution on January 22, 1976. Amendments to the City Municipal Code, which implement the process, were enacted by the Council on the same date. The objective of the Urban Growth Management Process is: To encourage urban development to occur in such a way that the expansion of urban service delivery systems can be- accomplished in a fiscally sound manner, while still providing required City ser- vices on a equitable basis to all community resi- dents. The Urban Growth Management Process builds upon existing City and County policies relating to the development of vacant land in the urban fringe. Key elements of the process are: (1) a procedure for determining how City services will be de- livered to new development, and (2) an analytical method of assessing the costs and revenues associated with new develop- ment. In the following pages• the proposed fringe area land use policies of Fresno County and the City of Fresno' s current policies, as well as the elements of the Urban Growth Manage- ment Process are described in greater detail. FRESNO COUNTY FRINGE AREA LAND USE POLICY Fresno County Fringe Area Land Use Policies are intended to minimize the extent of urban level development in un- incorporated areas adjacent to cities, and to protect those County areas planned for future City growth from premature urban level development. These policies have been adopted by the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, and appear in the, proposed Fresno County General Plan. Policies relating to major categories of land use in the urban fringe are described below:, 1. Maintain existing non-urban areas, planned for future growth by cities as open space or "holding zones. " These areas would be zoned for limited agricultural uses which would prohibit futther lot divisions smaller than 20 acres. Residences could be developed on existing lots of record, but no proposals for urban development would be entertained by the County. Williamson Act contracts would be encouraged within these areas. 2. Within existing urban areas which are within one-half mile of a city, the County would refaz applicants seeking -2- • subdivisions, rezonings, or conditional use permits to the appropriate city for annexation and processing of the entitle- ment application. Undeveloped or underdeveloped properties where annexable referrals might be anticipated would be zoned to preclude further urban development in the County. Undevel- oped or underdeveloped properties which could not be feasibly annexed to a city, even though within one-half mile of its limits, would, where appropriate, be zoned by the County for urban uses and permitted to develop. The County would also Process requests for urban development, when appropriate, for Properties previously referred to the City for annexation, when such properties were released and referred back to the County by the City Council. 3-.. Existing urban areas more than one-half mile from the city would generally rally be defined as appropriate £or further urban development by the County. However, only consistent with an adopted County Community and/oroperties Specific Plan would be zoned for urban uses. Undeveloped or under- developed urban devel1eS would zoned to preclude immediate opment The County would divisions, rezonings, and conditional puse epermitsewhen£or con- sub sistent with adopted plans and policies. • However, approval Of such requests could be conditioned upon the applicant's compliance with special conditions relative to sewer and/or water availability, major street, •improvements, or other urban service delivery requirements. 4. Areas not proposed ut for urban develo ment by a city'; general plan, b within that city'; sphere of influence would be zoned in a. manner consistent with the County-wide General Plan for Land Use. If designated for agricultural purposes Williamson Act contracts would be encouraged within. these areas. CITY OF FRESNO FPTNGE AREA LAND USE POLICIES The City of Fresno land use policies are intended to assure that urban development in the fringe area occurs in a timely and orderly manner. Decisions to approve fringe area development proposals will be based upon the following prin- ciples: 1. Proposed ::rojects must comply with the provisions and guidelines for implementation of the California Environ- mental Quality Act of 100, and the Environmental Quality Ordinance of the City of Fresno. 2. Proposed projects must conform to the adopted General Plan, a Community Plan-, . and an applicable Specific Plan for the area. 3. Extensions of municipal service, delivery systems 'to -3- serve new development must not adversely impact City enter- prise funds or the City general fund. The first two principles reflect existing City policy and practice City-wide. The latter statement refers to a new process, the Urban Growth Management Process, which is applied only in the City' s fringe areas. In the following section, the major elements of the Urban Growth Manageinent Process and the provisions for its implementation are described. THE URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROCESS s The Urban Growth Management Process is intended to guide the location and timing of growth in the City's• fringe areas. The process augments existing development review procedures with a formal Service Delivery Review and Cost/Revenue Analy- sis, and provides for final action by the City Council. The Urban Growth Management Process is applied to land in and around the City' s fringe which is either undeveloped, underdeveloped, or predominantly agricultural in use and lacks most, if not all, municipal facilities, improvements, and ser- vices. This area, known as the Urban• Growth Management Area, is defined by a boundary line shown on the City' s Official Zone Map. Both City fringe areas and County lands lying within the City' s sphere of influence are included in the Urban Growth Management Area, consistent with the expressed policy of both the .City and the County that new urban development should logically occur within the City. . All lands within the City and within the Urban Growth Management Area will maintain current zoning, but will carry a "UGM" suffix for easy identification. As County land is annexed, it will also maintain current zoning but with• a "UGM" suffix for identification. Removal of the "UGM" suffix will occur following the application of the Urban Growth Manage- ment Process and the completion of development. The key elements of the Urban Growth Management Process are (1) a Service Delivery Review, and (2) a Cost/Revenue Analysis. Each proposed development -is reviewed by a Service Delivery Review Committee, which is composed primarily of the heads of the City service delivery• departments: The Ser- vice Delivery Review Committee will determine the approach to the delivery of services and the conditions required for development. This determination is guided by a set of specific urban service delivery policies that establish rules by which the City will deliver municipal services to new developments. Following Service Delivery Review, a Cost/Revenue Analy- sis is performed. This measures the fiscal impact (ratio of -4-. x costs to revenues) the proposed development 'would have on the City' s General Fund. The completed analyses "are summarized into a staff re- port. The report will contain: 1. A Service Delivery Plan, which indicates the method of service delivery, 'the .approach to financing capital costs, and any applicable conditions to development: 2. A Cost/Revenue Analysis, which indicates the data employed in the analysis;- and -summarizes the •estimated reve- nues and costs (both capital and operating) attributable to the development over a 5-year period. 3. A summary staff recommendation, based upon the above analysis. The Urban Growth Management Process is applied to devel- opment requests in one. of two ways, depending upon the nature of the proposed development. For residential subdivisions, the Service Delivery Review and Cost/Revenue Analysis are performed prior to the filing of a tentative tract map. A maximum of 45 days is provided for the staff analysis. The results of the Service Delivery Review and Cost/Revenue Analy- sis are forwarded with the subdivision application to . the Planning Commission for their recommendation, and then to the City Council for final action.. For most other types of development, an Urban Growth Management (UGM) Permit is required prior to development. .A set of specific exclusions is contained in the process, representing those developments of minor consequence to the method of service delivery extension. When a UGM Permit is required, an application must first be filed with the Director of Planning and Inspection. A 40-day period is provided for the Service Delivery Review and Cost/Revenue Analysis. The resulting staff report is then forwarded to the Planning Commission for their recommendation, and to the City Council for final action. The UGM Permit may be requested at any time in the devel- opment process, either before, concurrent with, or following application for other necessary entitlements (e.g. , conditional use permit) . However, the UGM Permit must be approved prior to the issuance of a building or occupancy permit. SUMMARY Urban Growth Management is an organized framework by which fringe development proposals can be evaluated. The framework is composed of the following elements, which are described in this report: -5- 1. Policies for coordination of City/County jurisdic- tion over the development of land on the urban fringe. 2. A process for making decisions required in granting development requests on the urban fringe. Existing develop- ment review procedures are augmented with: a. A set of urban service delivery policies that establish rules by which the City will deliver munici- pal services to new development, and b. An analytical method of assessing the costs .and revenues associated with new development. �LI .A nNICJ CIT. � n �q � 1 FRESNO CA LI F O R N 1 R CITY HALL • 2326 FRESNO STREET • FRESNO. CALI FORNIA 93721 • 266-SO31 March 5, 1976 Mr. Robert Wynn City Manager City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. Wynn: The enclosed documents are provided in accordance with your request for additional information on the City of Fresno's Urban Growth Management process. Since the time available to us for discussion at the League meeting in Palm Springs was so limited I would be pleased to discuss the process further with you at any time. Sincerely, Michael R. Licciardello Science and Technology Adviser MBL:1s