Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LAND USE ELEMENT 1973
LAND USE ELEMENT 1973 PLANNING DIVISION *s ` -7 0 l RESOLUTION NO. 8 15 6 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, a phase of the City 's General Plan Program has involved the preparation of a Land Use Element which was adopted by the City Council on Mav 24, 1973 ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach, pursuant to Section 707 of the Newport Beach City Charter, has held a public hearing to consider the adoption of an amendment to the Land Use Element as a part of the City's General Plan and has adopted and has recommended that the City Council adopt said amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing to consider the adoption of an amendment to the Land Use Element as a part of the City's General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby adopt the amendment to the Land Use Element described above, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. ADOPTED this day of DEC 17 1973 1973. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk � N RECEIVED Community !l Developpment Q r De ��� ®■ DEC 2 11973w- _ CITY OF Jr p� NEWPORT BEACH, NOT REMOVE CALIF. h 6 CO DRB/bc 12/13/73 • Autho"rized•to Publish Advertisements �I kinds, including This spacok for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp public notices by Decroo of the Suponor Court of Orange Counfy, California, Number A-6214, dated 29 September,4961, /'� and A-24831, datod II June, 1963. V STATE OF CALIFORNIA Public Notice Advertising cevored by this affidavit Is set In 6 aolof County of Orange with 11 pica column width. I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below proof of Publication of entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange Coast DAILY PILOT,with which is combined the NEWS- PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of PUBLIC NOtICE Orange, State of California, and that a Notice of f NOTICE OF PUSLIC"110tNQ Public Hearing (Newport Beach) Notice is hereby given the the Planning commission of, the city of N0Wpart Qeach will hold a public hearing to consider amendments to the Land Vso EleMtnt_9Lthe Newport each General of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete plr an is hereby furt or given that sold public hearing will be held on the Vth day of NoVemiser, 1973' al copy, was printed and published in the regular Costa the hour of 7:he �.OWp I ort I the each h citi m. AO Chambers of the Hail, at which time and place any Mesa, Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, Laguna and all be personsthereon Bated may appear lo,,ph Rosener, Jr., secrsfary Beach, Newport Beach, Saddleback, San Clemente/ PIfyn of gVcwPo fi Beach ssion Published Orange coast Daily 352473 Capistrano and Irvine issue (s) of said newspaper for November 17, 1973 —xlarmsaw ivemeekscxo wit the issue W of 197 197_ 197, 197 i declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on mhPr 1 7 , 197 —3_ at Costa es a Iforr a. (signature) DO'NOT REMOVE PROOF OF PUBLICATION • -7,0 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing to. consider amendments to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan . Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 29th day of November , 1973 , at the hour of 7 :00 p . m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall , at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon . JOSEPH ROSENER , JR. , Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach PUBLICATION DATE : November 17 , 1973 Received for Pub. By 0 LL't� Q� -F li NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is - hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing to consider amendments to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan . Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 29th day of November , 1973, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall , at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. JOSEPH ROSENER, JR. , Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach PUBLICATION DATE : November 17 , 1973 Received for Pub. f I - � By ,K . ,�Q.r/�/it^ RESOLUTION NO, 864 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS , a phase of the City's General Plan program has involved the preparation of a Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, said Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan sets forth objectives and supporting policies to be followed in the planning of the future development of the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, Section 707 of the City Charter of the City of Newport Beach requires the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing prior to the adoption of any element of the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission intends to consider adoption of the Land Use Element of the Newport' Beach General Plan at a public hearing to be held on the 29th day of November, 1973, at the Dour of 3 :30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the Newport Beach Planning Commission is hereby directed to publish notice of said hearing in accordance with the requirements of law. Regularly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach, State of California, on the 15th day of November, 1973. AYES : Agee , Beckley , Hazewinkel , Heather , Parker, Rosener , Seely NOES : None ABSENT: None i Chairman William Agee cretary Jose h Rosener, /J , a 12B27 n /73 DO NOT LICMOVQ RESOLLTTO�T DTO_ 820 A RESOLUTIODi OF THE. PLA-MMUTG COULMISSION OF TFy CIT'L OF DjE`iPORT BEACH DECLARPMTG ITS IDIMMION TO CONSIDER A4ENDMEDTTS TO THE RESIDENTIAL. GROWTH ELE EDTT ADTD THE LAND USE ELMMEZIT OF THE DlUMPORT BEACH GENERAL P:-tAN- WHEREAS, a phase of the Cicy' s General Plan program has involved the: preparation of a Residential Growth Element and a Land Use•• Element,:: and T.,UK'"'iREAS,, these" Elements of the kiewport Beach General. . Plan set forth; oa7ectiuzm and.. supporting policies• to be folI owed- in-the-planning of the• future development of the. Citrcf=DFeitpor 3ead -a^and. W =S iozx 707-o:E. the: gity" Charter• orf; the-= City- of N�wpatt-Baag3 ;� •� - the••P> ar„r;ng Commi.ss±=-tu"Tiold a pssl�3% Ttearing piir ta: the' amna+++�*+t of any element. of the Genar.•al PSan_ - NOW-,. MEMM,0RZ;_ BE-1- RESOLVED that the;• Pla==T- Commission intends-�to--conside="-amendments. to the Pesidential Growth.'.Element" and. the` Land 'Use-Element of the Newport Beach. General:. Plan at:.a_public hearing' to be held on. the•2.7th day of Segtemiaeir 1g73:,: at the hour, cf_7r30, p_m- I rr the-Council. Chamaers-nf tnx_--Newpo=trBeach: Cftp' Full;. 3300' Newport' BOulevarxr,�.D>'ewport:$each', ["a•f i-ForIIi'3'�. _ BZ7Z='FEtR2'&E P_WOn't W that the.. Secratar r."-of: the Newport: . each:Planning:-Commsiss=n a.% hereby directed to publish notice 'of said-hearing- in accordance with -the require ments of law- Regularly- passed and adopted by the P7,anning Coi�:[isslon of the City of Newport Beach, State of California, on the 6th day of September, 1973 . ALES "TOTES ABS ED\Vj Do INOi U-MOVE Chairman • '. .'w( i - �..nr .-% • �'- •�--Tu.-_:LII-!-'..r. .�4<>`5-.-..'ti: •rY.�.' •y`r'^c-.". t r.;.•i'r rt,Secreta_r.[t l:' '"..-'.;�;>:%:"?'•y?< ' ` - ,t,�S e"y� is"?i -n•ia5:^t!i :.nt".`c��'•::i�t]•}ii•it., «:JL+ eXly 43:.4�:v':°'r,�'^. ,_ -,3. i»rze-.'4�•'SY"a'ititixl:r.-:nx'.4+1;�.y.Ij+���^.A�� . = '�Z.;�lF•�" ¢x.ri+' ,,•+4�1�'i4�.,-t «x.:F.sF, cf.ro+.c";t"��.a�a 3•§+'f.N., `":�"k ,t43.e;.,,.,�Iy: ..-_..,nu�Yn ti_K+:•�.._......s5:.,..n--""4sv1Lu��'F`•• . �`M`!r t:s, ,;?,4':*t� ::k''.w' 7l• .�°'n.'k",'..* 3�F.. . ,t "t.-a..7S=.,zd:t...- v• 'c PAY .'" ,a...: tD • • 7, 0 � RESOLUTION INTO . ' 9 S S A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NE60PORT BEACH ADOPTING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS , a phase of the City's General Plan Program has involved the preparation of a Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, said Land Use Element sets forth objectives and supporting policies which will serve as a guide for the future planning and. development of the City; and WHEREAS , the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach, pursuant to Section 707 of the Newport Beach City Charter, has held public hearings to consider the adoption of the Land Use Element as a part of the City's General Plan and has adopted and has recommended that the City Council adopt said element; and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing to consider the adoption of the Land Use Element as a part of the City's General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that -the Citv Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby adopt as a part of the General Plan the Land Use Element described above, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, ADOPTED this day of PdAY 2 9 1973 1973. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk DRB :sh 4/1-6/73 DO)NOT REMOVE r, RESOLUTION NO . 7986 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS , a phase . of the City ' s General Plan Program has involved the preparation of a Land Use Element; and WHEREAS , said Land Use Element sets forth objectives and supporting policies which will serve as a guide for the future planning and development of the City; and WHEREAS , the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach , pursuant to Section 707 of the Newport Beach City Charter, has held public hearings to consider the adoption of the Land Use Element as a part of the City ' s General Plan and has adopted and has recommended that the City Council adopt said element; and WHEREAS , the City Council has conducted a public hearing to consider the adoption of the Land Use Element as a part of the City 's General Plan . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby adopt as a part of the General Plan the Land Use Element described above, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk . ADOPTED this 29th day of May 1,973 . ayor ATTEST: City clerk FILE f�CuP11 DO VOT R.34OVE F. 706 RESOLUTION 1TO. 7 93 5 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NFi'fPORT BEACH ADOPTING THE .ESID NTIAL GROVTH ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL P-L- N WHEREAS , a phase of the City ' s General Plan Program has involved the preparation of a Residential Growth Element; and WHEREAS , the General Plan Policy Report, adopted by the City Council on March 13 , 1973 , states that the' City shall set limits on residential growth; and 'WHEREAS , the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach, pursuant -t-o Section 707 of the Newport Beach City Charter, has held a public hearing to consider the adoption of the Resi- dential- Growth Element as a part of the City 's General Plan and has adopted and has recommended that the City Council adopt said element; and WHEREAS , the City Council has conducted a public hearing to consider the adoption of the Residential Growth Element as a part of -the City.'s General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby adopt as a part of -the General Plan the Residential Growth Element described above, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk_ ADOPTED this day of t4AY y 1973 , 1973 . Mayor AT'.CE5T : n ]DO'NOT REMOVE c; �t1r CLer.}: DhB ,ah n/3/73 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION NIEWIPORT HAREM ENSIGN STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Orange J I. ............ARVO E.....AA .................. being first dilly sworn, and on oath depose and say that I am the printer and publisher of the Newport Harbor Ensign, a weekly newspaper printed and published in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, and that the.....NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ...................... I' ..........................................................................................of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete copy, was printed and published in the regular issue(s) of said newspaper, and not in a supplement, .......I......... consecu- tive times: to-wit the issue(s) of April 12, 1973 .............................................. .................................................................................... ...................................................................................... (Signed)......1. 21... ....!l� V ` Subscribed and sworn to before me this..12 h:day of :.........................April......, ls. .3.. LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC BEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City C Notary ublle in and for the tq ouncii of the City Count f Orange, State of California. of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing regarding Land ; Use Element of the.Newport Beach General Plan. O F F I C I A L S E A L NOTICE IS HEREBY FUR- MARY A. HAAPA THER GIVEN that thesaidpub. a nR: Nefery public-California lie hearing will be held on the POIRAN EL COUNTYiN 23rd dayof JMY GJ,NMISSION EXPIaES DECEM9ER�,iS�� April, the hour.of 7 the:30 p.m..fII theCouncll .Chambers of the City Hall of •the City' of Newport Beach, I l California, at which time and •,r - place any and all persons in- terested may appear and be heard thereon. Laura Lagios City Clerk City of Newport Beach 6 `'�� " 'Publish: April, 12, 1973,In the f•!;, ` `. J Newport Harbor Ensign. DO NOT IZ<:t.1071 :;; ,'•' 1 '\ 1� 0 RESOLUTION NO. 798 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, a phase of the City's General Plan Program has involved the preparation of a Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, said Land Use Element sets forth objectives and supporting policies which will serve as a guide for the future planning and development of the City; and WHEREAS , pursuant to Section 707 of the City Charter of the City of Newport Beach the Planning Commission has held public hearings to consider the adoption of the Land Use Element as a part of the City's General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby adopt and recommend to the City Council the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan described above, a copy of which is on file in the Newport Beach Community Development Department. Regularly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach on the 29th day of March , 1973. AYES : Beekley; �- Gl ass , Hazewinkel , Heather, Martin , Rosener NOES : None ABSENT:- Agee ( k6 A Chairman / ecr • ary DRB:sh 4/2/73 W DO NOT REMOVE • 70 / AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION NEWPORT HARBOR ENSIGN STATE OF CALIFORNIA t ss County of Orange s I. .............ARVO E. HAA .............. being first ......................... . . duty sworn, and on oath depose and say that I am the printer and publisher of the Newport Harbor Ensign, a weekly newspaper printed and published in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, and that the......NOTICF,I...9 ...F.Vj3LTQ...HIM.INR ..................................................................................................... ..........................................................................................of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete copy, was printed and published in the regular issue(s) of said newspaper, and not in a supplement, .....I............. consecu- tive times: to-wit the Issue(s) of March 11 1973 ...................................................................................... ...................................................................................... ..................................................................................... ...................................................................................... ..................................nJ/................................................... (Signed)... ... 4..�. .:.'... . Subscribed and sworn to before me this................day of .........................MELI oh 73 LEGAL NOTICE .. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notary blic in and for th I Notice is hereby given that Count f Orange, State of California. i the Planning Commission Of the City of Newport Beach wilt, hold e public hearing to Use Ele. °> F °Ia seAt erthefthe onofLandUseEle- .m MARY q. HAAPq mentoftheNewportBeachGep- Norory pubifc-California PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN oral Plan, i ORANGE COUNTY ' Notice lsherebyfurthergiVen MY COMMISSION EXPIRES DECEMBER 1a,IF�j I that said public hearing will F be held oothel5thdayo ar b, 19790 at the hour of p , iin the Council Cho Cot the Newport Beach HK at which time and., a any and all persons interested may i 6appear and be heard thereop, Jackie Heather,Secretary Newport Beachty i Planning Commission mmission ' Publish: March F0 L CO PY : Newport Harbor En ' in the Ensign. x DO'NOT REMOVE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing to consider the adoption of Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan . Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 15th day of March , 1973 , at the hour of 7 : 30 P . M. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall , at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon . Jackie Heather, Secretary Newport Beach City Planning Commission Publication Date Received for Pub . By RLGunn/ddb (2-22-73) • . RESOLUTION NO. 792 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS , a phase of the City's General Plan program has involved the preparation of a Land Use Element; and WHEREAS , the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan sets forth objectives and supporting policies to be followed in the planning of the future development of the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, Section 707 of the City Charter of the City of Newport Beach requires the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing prior to the adoption of any element of the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission intends to consider the adoption of the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan at a public hearing to be held on the 15th day of March, 1973 , at the hour of 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the Newport Beach Planning Commission is hereby directed to publish notice of said hearing in accordance with the requirements of law, Regularly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach,' State of California, on the 1st day of February, 1973. AYES : Agee, Beckley, Glass , Heather , Martin , Rosener NOES : None ABSENT: Hazewinkel & Chairman L-Zecr Lary (' CI ' UC. DO NOT I4 MOVE AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION NEWPORT HARBOR ENSIGN STATE OF CALIFORNIA l ss. County of Orange J I. ...................ARVO E. HAAPA being first ................................. .............. duly sworn, and on oath depose and say that I am the printer and publisher of the Newport Harbor Ensign, a weekly newspaper printed and published in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, and that the.....NOTICE OF JOINT STUDY ........................................................... SESSION ............................................................................................................ ..........................................................................................of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete copy, was printed and published in the regular issue(s) of said newspaper, and not in a supplement, .......i......... consecu- tive times: to-wit the issue(s) of ...........................Feb....i5l...197.3................. ...................................................................................... ..............................................._........................................ (Signed).... .`...-.......-..�.(.............._. . Subscribed and sworn to before me this.1. .....................February. . 73 ............ 19......... LL16AL NOTICE . .. . r . Notary ubl�n and for tl�/ NOTICE OF!JOINT STUDY Count f Orange, State of California. SESSION Notice is hereby given that the City Council and Planning Commission of the CityofNew- O F F I C I A L s e g L Port $eaohrwiB hold a Joint MARY A. HAAPq Study Session,to discuss Land "m�-,�r Nofary public-Califomio Use Element of the Newport PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN Beach General Plan. MY COMMISSION EXP�RESNDECEMBER2d,ig75 Notice is hereby further given that said Joint Study Session will be- held on the 28nd of February, 1978,. at the lour; of 7:80 p.m, in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Nall at which time and FULIZ El place any and all persons are welcome to attend. I Publish: Feb. 15, 1978, in! DO'NOT REMOVE the Newport Harbor Ensign.!. 0 . -7o/ N0'TFC`E OF 'JUNT• STUDY- •SES'STON Notice is hereby given that the City Council and Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a Joint Study Session to discuss Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan . Notice is hereby further given that said Joint Study Session will be held on the 22nd of February, 1973, at the hour of 7:30 P .M. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall at which time and place any and all persons are welcome to attend. Publication Date Received for Pub". By RLGunn/ddb (2-6-73) DO)NOT REPROVE �,av:oo.s �� �9rR1�it1A719t1 Brld27 . N R /� rA7Z ;•ILl G ADML'37S3'ATIV! 332EGL'LAT;ONS �V r ll77}? 7$93 3 CZ_:7 Z'I W STA72 (Porto.,:}to Government Coda Section 11380.1) State of California Appendix C j The Resources ALency SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES 1 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311 Sacramento, California 95814 NOTICE OF COMPLETION Responsible Agency Division CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Project e LAND USE ELEMENT, NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Address City . County 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach Orange 92660 Contact erson rea Code Phone x R. U. Hogan , Director; Rodney L. Gunn 714 I 673-2110 PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF NATURE, S , A14D EEii r 1( k ±it The Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan designates the a general location of different land uses within the City and will serve x N z as a long-range guide for the development and use of all public and 's 0 private land uses within the City. a ?roject .vocation City J?roject Location County lNewport Beach Orange me Period Provided for Review j _ . ' One Month .._ „1� r•^ z Qher.e /� J Yips avaLlatLe ��. ; 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach , California 92660 DO NOT REMOVE RESOLUTION NO. 778 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING THE OFFICIAL ZONING CODE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AS THE INTERIM LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, Section 65860 of the Government Code of the State of California provides that by January 1, 1973 , county and city zoning ordinances shall be consistent with the General Plan of that county or city; and WHEREAS, the official Zoning Code of the City of Newport Beach sets forth general guidelines to be followed pending the preparation and implementation of the final land use element of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that it is desirable and necessary to adopt the official Zoning Code of the City of Newport Beach as the interim land use element of the Newport Beach General Plan in order to comply with the mandate set forth by state law; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 707 of the Newport Beach City Charter the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider the adoption of the official Zoning Code of the City of Newport Beach as the interim land use element of the Newport Beach General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby adopt as a part of the General Plan the interim land use element described above, a copy of which is on file in the Newport Beach Community Development Department. Regularly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach, State of California, on the 30th day of November , 1972 . AYES : Agee, Beckley, Glass , HAzewinkel , Heather, Martin , Rosener NOES : None ABSENT: None (71,k Sec ai tary C an DRB:sh 11/30/72 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing to consider the adoption of an Interim Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 30th day of November, 1'972 , at the hour of 7 : 30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall , at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. Jackie Heather, Secretary Newport Beach City Planning Commission Publication Date November 19 or 20 , 1972 Received for , Pub. jL By o0p RESOLUTION NO. 777 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING CODE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AS THE INTERIM LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, Section 65860 of the Government Code of the State of California provides that by January 1, 1973, county and city zoning ordinances shall be consistent with the General Plan of that county and city; and WHEREAS, the official Zoning Code of the City of Newport Beach sets forth general guidelines to be followed pending the preparation and implementation of the final land use element of the General Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission intends to consider the adoption of the official Zoning Code of the City of Newport Beach as the interim land use element of the Newport Beach General Plan at a public hearing to be held on the 30th day of November, 1972 , at the hour of 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the Newport Beach Planning Commission is hereby directed to publish notice of said hearing in accordance with the requirements of Section 20.51.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Regularly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach, State of California, on the 16th day of November , 1972. AYES : Agee, Beckley, Glass, Kazewtnrcel , Martin , Rosener NOES : None ABSENT: Heather �, - ply � � Se etary Chair r in DRB:sh 11/30/72 FULE (COPY DO'NOY REMOVE COUNCILMEN CITO OF NEWPORT BEs* H MINUTES A �< p3o y M x0 A Z Gt��.pmN0 ROLL CALL � 9c in a�'m July 22, 1974 INDEX 6. Mayor McInnis opened the public hearing regarding Gen Plan proposed General Plan Amendrr�cnt�Two,$., being an Amendmt amendment to the Land Use Element to change the No. 8 designated use of the property at the southeast corner of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Drive from recreational and environmental open space to either governmental and environmental open space or administrative, professional, and financial com- mercial. David Neish, Planning Adminstrator for The Irvine Company, addressed the Council in support of the proposed amendment. • Michael Gehring, representing Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce, indicated he was present to answer any questions Council might have. Motion x The hearing was closed. Ayes xxxxxxx Resolution No. 8317, adogting an amendment to the R-8317 Motion x and Use_Element ofgthee_wpot Beach General Plan Ayes xxxxxxx (General Plan Amendment No. 8) was adopted. ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION: 1. Ordinance No. 1576, being, e-way Streets AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING SECTION 12. 52. 060 OF 'HE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE T CHANGE THE ONE-WAY DIRECTION F TRAVEL ON PORTIONS OF 46T' D 47TH STREETS, i changing the northeast bound traff ci on 46th Street between Seashore Drive and .Balboa Boulevard to southwest bound traffic o y, and changing the south- west bound traffic on/4.7' h Street between Seashore Drive and River A7nue to northeast bound traffic only, was prese4ked for second reading. Motion x • Ordinance o. 1576 was adopted. Ayes xxxxxxx 2. Ors nance No. 1577, being, Rhine Wharf AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT Park BLACII AMENDING SECTIONS 17. 20. 010 AND Volume 28 - Page 182 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 8) WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Land Use Element (� of the General Plan on May 29, 1974; and WHEREAS, Section 65361 of the California Government Code limits the amendment of a General Plan to a maximum of three times in any calendar year; and WHEREAS , Council Policy Q1, adopted April 22 , 1974, provides for three amendments to the General Plan per year; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on proposed General Plan Amendment No. 8 on June 20, 1974; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that such amendment is in the best interests of!the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that General Plan Amendment No. 8 be adopted, amending the Land Use Element as follows: 1. Revise the Land Use Plan (map) to change the designation of the property at the southeast corner of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Drive from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" to "Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial" . (No change to the text of the Land Use Element is required. ) ADOPTED this day of 1974. Mayor ATTEST: City, Clerk DRB/bc 7/16/74 r' r +R • COUNCILMEN CIP OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ADJOURNED COUNCIL MEETING Place: Council Chambers °�y°�°°wo Time: 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL T�vm�'a N 9t m Date: December 17, 1973 INDEX Present k x x x x Roll Call. Motion x The ing of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Ayes x x x x x x December 1 473 was waived, and said Minutes were Abstain x approved as written a dered filed. Motion x The reading in full of all ordinances and—zesolutions under Ayes x x x x x x x consideration was waived, and the City Clerk w rected to read by titles only. HEARINGS: With the unanimous consent of the Council, Agenda Item D-9 was taken out of order at this time. 1. Mayor McInnis o .ene_d_the_nubl hearing regarding General the proposed amendments to the Residential Growth Plan Element and the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. . . Reports were presented from the Community Develop- ment Department. A letter from John Curci and L. A. Turner protesting the proposed amendments relating to the Lido Penin- sula was presented with letters from the Friends of Newport Bay requesting deletion of the proposed commercial development for the open lands east of Irvine Avenue and south of University Avenue in the northwest section around Upper Newport Bay, and also letters from Mrs. Howard Babb, Mrs. Diane Luna and Dan Cohen protesting commercial develop- ment in that area; and a report from the Environ- mental Quality Control Citi_iens Advisory Committee supporting the recommendations of the Friends of Newport Bay. The following people addressed the Council and suggested changes in the Residential Growth Element and the Land Use Element:' Frank Robinson and Ray Williams representing Friends of Newport Bay, Valerie Murley representing Citizens' Ehvironmental Quality Control Committee, Mrs. Howard Babb, Hancock Banning representing Beeco, Ltd. , Larry Moore as Associate Planning Director for The Irvine Company and John L. Curci. Motion x Mr. Williams was granted an additional minute for Ayes xxxxxxx his presentation. Motion x Mr. Banning was granted an additional minute for Ayes xxxxxxx his presentation. Motion x Mr. Moore was granted five additional minutes for Ayes xxxxxxx his presentation, and an additional three minutes. Volume 27 - Page 314 COUNCILMEN Cif OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES <,pO 3 0 N NP Fo 3 om ?y o o ROLL CALL �� o pa a ' yc am December 17 1 73 INDEX Motion x The hearing was closed. Ayes xxxxxxx Councilman Ryckoff made a motion to approve an Jamboree/ average of 6 dwelling units per acre for the unde- PCH veloped and unclassified property at Jamboree and Coast Highway. Motion x Councilman Kymla made a substitute motion to Ayes xxxxx establish 8 dwelling units per acre for this property, Noes x x as originally adopted by Council, and to identify this portion of the property as more identifiable to a single family type use and the remaining portion to a condominium type use, which motion carried. Councilman Croul made a motion to approve 8 MacArthur dwelling units per acre for the undeveloped and 5th Avenue unclassified property at MacArthur and 5th Avenue in Corona del Mar. Councilman Store made a substitute motion to establish the density for this area at 6/15 dwelling units per acre. Motion x Mayor Pro Tem Rogers made a substitute motion to Ayes x x x x x establish a maximum of 6 dwelling units per acre for Noes x x this area, which motion carried. Councilman Kymla made a motion to approve 10 Harbor dwelling units per acre for the Harbor View Hills View Hills Planned Community area. Councilman Store made a substitute motion to establish 8 dwelling units per acre for this area. Motion X Councilman Croul made a substitute motion to Ayes x x x x establish 10 dwelling units 'per acre for this area, Noes x x x which motion carried. The density for the Castaways property was limited Castaways Motion x to 8 dwelling units per acre as originally adopted on Ayes xxxxxxx May 29, 1973. 1 . The density for the Newporter-North site was limited Newporter Motion x to 8 dwelling units per acre as originally adopted on North Ayes xxxxxxm May 29, 1973. The densities for the zoned sites of Newport Center, Zoned MacArthur Boulevard/Pacific View, San Joaquin Sites Hills Road south of the reservoir, Lido Peninsula Motion x and the area north of Newport Crest were approved- Ayes xxxxxxx as originally adopted on May 29, 1973. Volume 27 - Page 315 r . • a COUNCILMEN AY OF N E W P O R T BEACH MINUTES P0 cl Na oc a� o ROLL CALL Tin � a yf 90 December 17, 1973 INDEX o Motion x Commercial development as an alternate use in the Upper Bay Ayes x x x x x x x northwest section around Upper Newport Bay was West deleted. Motion x Councilman Dostal made a motion to establish this area as single family residential at 6 dwelling units per gross acre, excluding tideland areas, flood channels and drainage easements. Motion x Councilman Store made a substitute motion to limit Ayes x x x the density to 4 dwelling units per gross acre, Noes x x x x excluding tideland areas, flood channels and drainage easements, which motion failed to carry. Ayes x x x x A vote was taken on Councilman Dostal's motion; and Noes x x x the density in the northwest section around Upper Newport Bay was established at 6 dwelling units per gross acre, excluding tideland areas, flood channels and drainage easements in determining the acreage. The Old Newport Boulevard area, located on both sideE Old Newpor of Newport Boulevard between Catalina Drive and Blvd Motion x 15th Street, adjacent to Newport Heights, was desig- Ayea xxxxxxx nated as a Specific Plan Area. Motion x Resolution No. 8156, amending the Land Use Element R-8156 Ayes xxxxxxx of the General Plan, was adopted. Motion x Resolution No. 8157, amending the Residential Growth R-8157 Ayes xxxxxxx Element of the General Plan, was adopted. With the unanimous consent of the Council, Agenda Item D-12 was taken out of order at this time. 2. Mayor McInnis opened the public hearing regarding ;CaX-on g an amendment to the Planned Community Develop- ment Standards for "Big Canyon" by reducing the densities in Areas 1, 6, 10 and 14, located north o San Joaquin Hills Road, west of MacArthur Bou ard, south of Ford Road and east of Jamboree Ro , Planning Commission Amendment No. 38 . A report was presented from the mmunity Develop- ment Department. A Minority Report from anning Commissioner Jame Parker stating he do not agree with the majority of the Newport Beac Planning Commission and that he believes The . e Company does have vested rights in the Big anyon Planned Community was presented. Volume 27 - Page 316 f COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RESOLUTION NO. 8 15 G A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING THE�AND USF RT•Ea�EN� OF THE MTPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, a phase of the City 's -General Plan Program has involved the preparation of a Land Use Element which was adopted by the City Council on May 24, 1973 ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach, pursuant to Section 707 of the Newport Beach City Charter, has held a public hearing to consider the adoption of an amendment to the Land Use Element as a part of the City's General Plan and has adopted and has recommended that the City Council adopt said amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing to consider the adoption of an amendment to the Land Use Element as a part of the City's General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby adopt the amendment to the Land- Use Element described above, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. ADOPTED this day of DEC 17 1973 1973 . Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk pco F� 01 FCC u� ear 6 pqR o ` DRB/bc- 12/13/73 COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES •pn ��,p0 � ��N N� xo 3 om yy o A o ROLL CALL T� mN 'u �� �� may 31, 1973 INDEX NO. 1490 PROHIBITING THE ISSURANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION ON THE BALBOA PENINSULA EXCEPT FOR PERMITTED USES IN THE R-1 AND R-1. 5 DISTRICTS AND EXEMPTING THE C-1 DIS- TRICT, Motion x was amended and adopted. Ayes xxxx Noes x 5. Mayor McInnis opened the public hearing regarding Dover Dr e closing of the north roadway of Dover Drive at Closure Ir ine Avenue. A rep rt was presented from the Public Works Directo . A letter si ed by four residents stating that con- ditions have i proved tremendously since the tem- porary closure as presented. Bradley K. Schwar and Al Brigham addressed the Council in favor of t closure. Motion x The hearing was closed. Ayes xxxxxxx Motion x The Public Works Director w directed to perma- Ayes x x x x x x x nently close the northerly side Dover Drive at Irvine Avenue. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. A report was presented from the City Atto ey 38th St regarding City-owned property on 38th Stree between Property River and Lake Avenues. Motion x The leasing of the property on a month-to-month Ayes x x x x x x x basis was approved. 2. A report was presented from the Public Works ssessment Director regarding alley improvement on the Balboa Di t 54 Peninsula (Assessment District 54). Motion x The General Services Department was directed to Ayes x x x x x x x install asphalt fillets within the alley right-of-way to improve access to private garage approaches. 3. The Residential Growth Element and the Land Use General Element of the Newport Beach General Plan were Plan considered. Volume 27 - Page 119 FILE Co � V DO NOT REMO E COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES A� A�o � A NNA ��C �mA 22 G y P ROLL CALL T v N N < v F may 31, 1973 INDEX A report from the Community Development Depart- ment outlining the revisions referred by the City Council to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding the revisions was presented. i A letter from the Citizen's Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee enclosing a copy of a resolution adopted by the Committee regarding resi- dential growth was presented. 1 Letters were received after the agenda was printed from Edith Leinau and Larry Knutsen in favor of down zoning and a copy of a letter from the Newport Resi- dents United to the South Coast Regional Commission requesting denial of permits which will result in increased density. It was agreed that each of the proposed revisions of the elements would be discussed and voted on sepa- rately: Land Use Element: Motion x The Council's revision regarding advisory groups was Ayes xxxxxxx reaffirmed. Motion x The Council's revision regarding the 10 year budget Ayes xxxxxxx projections was reaffirmed. Motion x The Planning Commission's recommendation regarding Ayes xxxxxxx West Newport Harbor was approved. Motion x The Planning Commission's recommendation regarding Ayes xxxxxxx Marinapark was approved. Motion x The Council's revision regarding Beacon Bay was Ayes xxxxxxx reaffirmed. Motion x The Planning Commission's recommendation regarding Ayes xxxxxxx architectural design criteria was approved. Motion x The Planning Commission's recommendation regarding Ayes xxxxxxx the Balboa Bay Club site was approved. Motion x The Planning Commission's recommendation regarding Ayes xxxxxxx the vacant site northwest of Upper Bay was approved. Residential Growth Element: The Planning Commission's recommendation regarding 10 year budget projections in connection with the Motion x effect of residential growth on support systems was Ayes xxxxxxx approved. Volume 27 - Page 120 COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Fo3 n'`n y2 oko ROLL CALL T 7 sN o� v� v11 May 31, 1973 INDEX Motion ' x The Planning Commission's recommendation regarding Ayes Ixxxxxxx residential development was approved. The Planning Commission's recommendation regarding Motion x individual and unique characters of neighborhoods Ayes xl xxxxxx was approved. The Planning Commission's recommendation re- Motion x garding the figures on the estimated housing type Ayes x x x x x x x breakdown was approved. Motion x The Planning Commission's recommendation re- Ayes x x x x x x x garding Statistical Area A-1 was approved. Motion x The Planning Commission's recommendation re- Ayes x x x x x x x garding Statistical Area A-2 was approved. Motion x Councilman Kymla made a motion to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding Statistical Division B. Motion x Councilman Ryckoff made a substitute motion to add Ayes x the words "for the present, " which motion failed to Noes xxxxxx carry. Ayes x x x x x x x A vote was taken on Councilman Kymla's motion, which motion carried. The Planning Commission's recommendation re- Motion x garding the area east of the Newport Pier was ap- Ayes xxxxxxx proved. Motion x The Planning Commission's recommendation re- Ayes xxxxxxx garding Statistical Division C was approved. The Planning Commission's recommendation re- Motion x garding Statistical Division D in connection with Ayes xxxxxx commercial zones and the Newport Harbor Yacht Noes x Club was approved. The Planning Commission's recommendation re- Motion x garding Statistical Division D in connection with Ayes x x x x x x x Open Space Districts was approved. Motion x The Planning Commission's recommendation re- Ayes xxxxxxx garding Statistical Areas F-2, 3 and 4 was approved. Motion x The Council's revision regarding Statistical Areas Ayes xxxxxx F-5, 6, 7 and 8, as amended, was reaffirmed. Motion x The Council's revision regarding Statistical Division Ayes xxxxxxx G was reaffirmed. The Planning Commission's recommendations re- Motion x garding Statistical Division H, as amended by Council Ayes xxxxxxx man Ryckoff, were approved. Volume 27 - Page 121 F �._r' I,;,�;•J151:d 'aod 1�2 Ji Council Minute* May 31 QEFACH MINUTES Addition in Paragraph 5 to include "The Bluffs" and addition in Paragraph 10 to include "Statistical Division L. " INDEX Laura s recommendation re- b site, Statistical Division Councilman Kymla made a motion to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding Statistical Division J. Motion x Councilman Ryckoff made a substitute motion to Ayes x x x x x reaffirm the Council's revision as amended, which Noes x x motion carried. The Council's revision regarding Statistical Division Motion x K was reaffirmed with the same amendment applied Ayes x x x x x x x to Statistical Division J. Motion x The Planning Commission's recommendation re- Ayes x x x x x x garding The Bluffs, Statistical Division K, was Noes x approved. Ed Hirth, representing the Bluffs Association, ad- dressed the Council in support of limiting the density in the Bluffs to the same density as the surrounding area. Councilman Ryckoff made a motion to amend the City Council's revision for Statistical Division L the same as in Statistical Division J and K. Larry Moore, General Planning Administrator, as- dressed the Council regarding density in Newport Center. Motion x Mr. Moore was granted an additional two minutes .for Ayes x x x x x x x his presentation. Motion x Councilman Croul made a substitute motion to re- Ayes x x x x affirm the City Council's revision for Statistical Noes x x x Division L as presented, which motion carried. Motion x Appropriate development standards will be applied Ayes x x x x x x x to the existing zoning. Roy Wells, representing VTM, inquired about the down zoning of the William Dean parcel of land adjacent to the YMCA. Resolution No. 7985, adopting the Residential Growth R-7985 Motion x Element of the_ General._Plan, ,was_adopted_subjectLto_...- Ayes x x x x x x x final adoption of the General Plan. Volume 27 - Page 122 COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 'AMoto'S 0 N� p . '�'m ZZ O a O ROLL CALL T� vN a yr 11 May 31, 1973 INDEX The Planning Commission's recommendation re- Motion x garding the Balboa Bay Club site, Statistical Division Ayes x x x x x x x \Ha approved. lman Kymla made a motion to approve t e g Commission's recommendation reg ding cal Division J. Motion x lman Ryckoff ma/aend titute m ion to Ayes xx x xxm the Council's rs ame ded, which Noes x x carried. ncil's revision S tistica1 Division Motion x K was r affirmed with ta endment applied Ayes x x x x x x x to Statistical Division J Motion x The Planni g Commissimmendation re- Ayea xxxx x x garding Stat tical Diviss approved.Noes x Ed Hirth, repr senling Association, ad- dressed the Cou cil in upporo limiting the density in the Bluffs to th sa e density as the surrounding area. Councilman Ryck f ' ade a motion to amend the City Council's revisi n for Statistical Division L the same as in Statistica Divisi J and K. Larry Moor , General Pinning Administrator, as th Council regar ing density in Newport Center. Motion I I x Mr. M ore was granted an a itional two minutes for Ayes x x x x x x x his p esentation. Motion x Co cilman Croul made a subs to motion to re- Ayes x x x x a irm the City Council'•s revision as presented, which Noes x x x otion carried. Motion x Appropriate development standards ill be applied Ayes x x x x x x x to the existing zoning. Roy Wells, representing VTM, inquired about the down zoning of the William Dean parcel o land adjacent to the YMCA. Resolution No. 7985. adopting th�e„$esietial.Growth R-7985 Motion x Element of the General Plan,..was-adopted�sub'ect to Ayes x x x x x x final adoption of the General Plan. Volume 27 - Page 122 CI. OF NEWPORT BE• H COUNCILMEN MINUTES �Z Z\rl%vo4f ROLL CALL pTN May 29, 1973 INDEX Resolution No. 7986. adopting,the Land Use�Element R-7986 Motion x of the General Plan, was ad o ec� s�4i r+ to tag final Ayes x x x x x x x adoption of the General Plan. 4. Ordinance No. 1497, being, Npt Shores AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT 0-1497 BEACH ADDING CHAPTER 20. 65 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, ENTITLED "SPECIFIC PLAN (NEWPORT SHORES), " Planning Commission Amendment No. 371, estab- lishing Specific Plan #4 on properties north of West Coast Highway between West Coast Highway and Newport Shores Drive and between the Santa Ana River and the Semeniuk Slough. A eport was presented from the Community Develop- me Department. Bob Br kman addressed the Council in opposition to the Speci Plan. John Shea, re resenting the Newport Shores Com- munity Associa 'on, addressed the Council in support of the Specific Pla . Ordinance No. 1497 w s referred to the Planning Motion x Commission for revisio and to be brought back to Ayes x x x x x x x Council for reintroduction. 5. A report was presented from e Community Develop- Resub ment Department regarding i nqqu' y of Charles W. and Procedures Doris B. Masters on Resubdivisio procedures. Motion x The matter was referred to the Planm Commission Ayes x x x x x x x for public hearings. 6. A letter was presented from Richard A. Br Monterey attorney for Monterey Still (Giles Svehlek) as g for Still an amendment to their off-site parking agreeme Richard Brown, representing Giles Svehlek, addres the Council. Motion x Councilman Dostal made a motion to uphold the original off-site parking agreement. Motion x Councilman Ryckoff made a substitute motion to grant Ayes x x the modifications for a three-month period at which Noes x x x x x time the applicant would report back on his progress in obtaining the spaces requested, which motion failed to carry. Volume 27 - Page 123 LrJP, N RESOLUTION NO . 8 C' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, a phase of the City's General Plan Program has involved the preparation of a Land Use Element; and WHEREAS , said Land Use Element sets forth objectives and supporting policies which will serve as a guide for the future planning and development of the City; and WHEREAS,. the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach, pursuant to Section 707 of the Newport Beach City Charter, has held public hearings to consider the adoption of the Land Use Element as a part of the City's General Plan and has adopted and has recommended that the City Council adopt said element; and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing to consider the adoption of -the Land Use Element as a part of . the City's General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of -the City of Newport Beach does hereby adopt as a part of the General Plan the Land Use Element described above, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, ADOPTED this clay of MAY 2 9 1973 , 1973. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk DRD :sh 4/15/73 RESOLUTION D70. 9 8 5 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING THE RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLRIN WHEREAS, a phase of the City 's General Plan Program has involved the preparation of a Residential Growth Element; and WHEREAS , the General Plan Policy Report, adopted by tha City Council on March 13, 1973 , states that the City shall set limits on residential growth; and WHEREAS , the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach, pursuant to Section 707 of the Newport Beach City Charter, has held a public hearing to consider the adoption of the Resi- dential—Growth Element as a part of the City 's General Plan and has adopted and has recommended that the City Council adopt said element; and 'WHEREAS , the City Council has conducted a public hearing to consider the adoption of the Residential Growth. Element as apart of the City.'s General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED 'that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby adopt as a part of the General Plan the Residential Growth Element described above, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. ADOPTED this day of fi AY `; y 1973 , 1973 Mayor A`CTEST City C1er.}: _' /3 '73 u COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Place: Council Chambers yoo N Na Time: 7:30 P. M. ROLL CALL T�mpa a 9f vm Date: May 7, 1973 INDEX Mayor McInnis presented a proclamation declaring the week of May 13-19, 1973 as National Girls Club Week to Janna Peterson and Joanne Basabe, members of the Harbor Area Girls Club. Mayor McInnis presented a proclamation declaring the week of May 6-12, 1973 as Newport Beach City Arts Festival Week to Ladislaw Reday, Chairman of the New- port Beach City Arts Committee. Present x x x x x x x Roll Call. Resolution No. 7973, a resolution of the City Council of Philip the City of Newport Beach commending Philip F. Betten- Betten- court, Assistant City Manager, for his outstanding court accomplishments and dedicated service, was adopted. Commen- dation Mayor McInnis presented Resolution No. 7973 io Assistant R-7973 City Manager Philip Bettencourt. Motion x The reading of the,Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Ayes x x x x x x x April 23, 1973 was waived, said Minutes were approved, as amended, and ordered filed. Motion x The reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions under Ayes x x x x x x x consideration was waived, and the City Clerk was directed to read by titles only. HEARINGS: 1. Mayor McInnis opened the continued public hearing Tract 7796 regarding Revised Use Permit 1591 (Edgewater Fun Zone Condominiums) to permit a 33-unit condominium development in a C-1 District, located at 600 East Edgewater Avenue between Palm Street and Washing- ton Street, and on the east side of Palm Street between East Balboa Boulevard and East Bay Avenue; and consideration of the Final Map of Tract 7796. A letter was presented from Emily and Ray Ogden stating the Fun Zone property should remain as is until a commercial use can be established. Letters were received after the agenda was printed from Mrs. Kenneth C. Fetty and Mr. and Mrs. Forrest Hart opposing the proposed Fun Zone pro- perty condominiums. Letters addressed to Mayor Pro Tem Rogers in favor of the condominium project from Margaret and Dick Plavas, Herbert D. Tobin, Jack Toon, Hal Glass, i Joan Schertzer and Goldie Joseph were presented. � n R tt Volume 27 - Page 99 DO NOT RENIONE { I COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES pn S•C p0 ^ n) 0o N� jo 7i Om y2 O NA O ROLL CALL T� 9a N 9f vm May 7, 1973 INDEX John Konwiser, developer, addressed the Council and presented a letter from Homer Smith in favor of the project. Motion x Mr. Konwiser was granted an additional ten minutes Ayes x x x x x x x for his presentation. The following people spoke in opposition to the pro- posed condominium project: Elaine Linhoff, Mrs. Howard Mansur, Tom Hyans representing Central Newport Beach Community Association, Kae Ewing, Bill Campbell representing Balboa Peninsula Point Association, Douglas Lynn, Orville Schlueter and Louise Ewing. Motion x Mr. Ewing was granted an additional two minutes for Ayes x x x x x x x his presentation. The following people spoke in favor of the project: George Perlin representing Balboa Improvement Association, Hazel Jones, Joan Schertzer, Goldie Joseph, Charles Cotton and Robert Watkins. Motion x The hearing was closed. Ayes xxxxxxx Motion x Revised Use Permit 1591 was approved, subject to Ayes x x x x the conditions listed below; and the Final Map of Noes x x x Tract 7796 was approved, subject to the conditions originally recommended by the Planning Commission: That the structures be sound attenuated to achieve an average maximum interior noise of 60 DBA. That the types and locations of street trees be provided to the specifications of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department, and that the standard inspection fee of $3. 00 per tree be paid. That landscape plans, including watering. facilities be approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of a building permit. That trash areas be enclosed with walls and integrated into the building design, or all trash areas shall be enclosed within the building. i The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit from the Department of Community Development prior to the commencement of demolition of any structure on the subject property. Plans, including proposals for the control of debris and protection of the bay, shall be submitted to and i Volume 27 - Page 1Q0 I ' t COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES •p a m� S0 3 Om 220 .� O ROLL CALL r v mN a vp pm May 7, 1973 INDEX approved by the Director of Community Develop- ment prior to the issuance of demolition permits. That the developer shall be responsible for all precautionary actions necessary to protect the quality of the waters of the harbor during excavation and construction operations and shall prepare for approval of the Director of Com- munity Development, plans and specifications designed to protect the waters of the adjoining channel prior to the issuance of any building permits. -There shall be submitted a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions setting forth an enforceable method of insuring the installation and continued maintenance of the landscaping, walls, walks and all physical features such as buildings, parking areas, and trash storage areas acceptable to the Director of Community Development and, in respect to legal enforceability, the City Attorney; limiting occupancy to adults only (sixteen and over); and stipulating that Lot 1 shall remain substantially a recreational open space area during the life of the development.. That the project comply with the height ordinance existing in that district, that if any relief is requested from the basic height ordinance, that the normal use permit procedure and public hearing take place but that the fee be waived. That the development plans be substantially as submitted with only minor alterations. 2. Mayor McInnis opened the continued public hearings General regarding the Residential Growth Element of the Plan Newport Beach General Plan and Environmental Impact Report EIR/NB 73-020 and regarding the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and Environmental Impact Report EIR/NB 73-031. I Mayor Pro Tem stated that although he had not been present at the previous hearings on these Elements, he had listened to the taped proceedings, and he requested an opinion from the City Attorney as to his eligibility to participate in these hearings. City Attorney Dennis O'Neil stated that he was eligible to participate. I it A report was presented from the City Manager and the Community Development Director summarizing suggested modifications to the Residential Growth Element and the Land Use Element. Volume 27 - Page 101 COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES .p N N.1 ��� y P ROLL CALL T v N N < < m Ma 7 1973 INDEX A letter from the Citizens Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee regarding parking areas, a letter from the Friends of Newport Bay commending the open space zoning, a copy of a letter from the Corona Highlands Property Owners Association expressing support for the reacquisition of the City- owned open spaces on Newport Bay, rezoning existing areas in Corona del Mar from R-2 and R-1. 5 and . expressing concern about new high-density projects, were presented. Letters were received after the agenda was printed from Harriet and James Gongwer approving the suggested downzoning, setbacks, open spaces and building areas; and from Mrs. A. L. Burdick against downzoning in Corona del Mar. The following letters were submitted at the Council meeting: Letter from Beeco, Ltd. suggesting the specific use alternatives in the Residential Growth Elements for the Banning property be eliminated until further studies are made, and the entire area should be a specific plan area; letter from The Bluffs Home Owners Association requesting that the density of the Bluffs be limited to the existing tract densities; and a fetter from Valerie Murley requesting that the property between 22nd Street and University Drive on the west side of the Upper Bay be designated as public open space. The following people participated in a discussion on both Elements of the General Plan: Judy Tracy, Jerry Hill representing the Corona del Mar Civic Association, James Parker representing the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce, Max Lorimore representing the Bluffs Home Owners Association, Mrs. Howard Babb, Bill Banning III representing Beeco, Ltd. , Larry Moore representing The Irvine Company, Valerie Murley, and Robert Martin representing Holstein Industries. Motion x Mr. Parker was granted an additional minute for his Ayes x x x x x x x presentation. Motion x Mr. Banning was granted an additional two minutes Ayes x x x x x x x for his presentation. Motion x Mr. Moore was granted an additional two minutes for Ayes x x x x x x x his presentation. Motion x The hearing%wae closed. Ayes xxxxxx It was unanimously agreed to consider individually the following suggested modifications, as summarized Volume 27 - Page 102 0 • COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES �og �myyGAo ROLL CALL T v pa N _ 9f '" May 7, 1973 INDEX in the staff report which is attached hereto for reference; and to refer the modified Elements to the Planning Commission for comment. Motion x The Environmental Impact Reports for the Residential Ayes x x x x x x x Growth Element and for the Land Use Element of the General Plan were conditionally accepted, with the understanding that a more in-depth review will occur when the General Plan in its entirety is reviewed. Motion x The suggested modification for the Banning property Ayes x x x x x x x was approved. Motion x The suggested modification for the Balboa Bay Club Ayes x x x x x x x site was approved as amended. Motion x The suggested modification for the Beacon Bay Area Ayes x x x x x x x was approved as amended. Motion x The suggested modification for the Marinapark was Ayes x x x x x x x approved. Motion x The suggested modification for the Castaways site Ayes xxxxxx was approved as amended. Noes x Councilman Croul made a motion to approve the modification to the Newport Center site as suggested. Motion x Councilman Ryckoff made a substitute motion to con- Ayes x x x x x x x sider the Newport Center property in two parts and to consider lowering the maximum density on the Coast Highway parcel to less than fifteen dwelling units per gross acre, and to refer back to the Planning Com- mission for comment, which motion carried. Motion x The suggested modification for The Bluffs was ap- Ayes x x x x x x x proved. Motion x The suggested modification for the Village concept Ayes xxxxxxx was approved as amended. Motion x The suggested modification for the Economic Analysis Ayes xxxxxxx was approved. Motion x The suggested modification for West Newport Harbor Ayes x x x x x was approved as amended. Noes x The recommended modification to the Residential Motion x Growth Element for Balboa Peninsula was referred Ayes xxx XX back to the Planning Commission, without prejudice Noes x or direction for comment. Volume 27 - Page 103 4 COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES oap �0 3 mm y °c m� °r ROLL CALL T 9 �a N r� m May 7 1973 INDEX t Motion x The Land Use Element for the Balboa Peninsula Area Ayes x x x x was modified to include, "and Edgewater condo- Noes x x x miniums will be permitted a density of up to 21 dwelling units per acre. " Motion x The suggested modification for Old Corona del Mar Ayes xxxxxx was approved. Noes x Councilman Ryckoff stated for the record that "in approving the trend growth projection approach, I think we are stepping away from the intent of the General Plan and acting in contradiction to the General Plan policy. " Motion x The suggested modification for East Corona del Mar Ayes xxxxxx was approved. Noes x Motion x The suggested modification for Upper Bay-Northwest Ayes xxxxxxx was approved as amended. Motion x The boundaries of Upper Bay were modified to include Ayes xxxxxxx the land exchange remnant. Motion x The West Newport Harbor Banning property was Ayes x x x x x x x modified to designate the entire area as a specific plan area. The Residential Zoning Policy for the Bluffs, East- bluff and Park Newport, limiting the maximum density of the vacant site north of the Newporter Inn to 15 Motion x dwelling units per gross acre, was referred back to Ayes x x x x x x the Planning Commission for comment regarding Abstain x decreasing the density to 8 units per acre. 3. Mayor McInnis opened the public hearing regarding North Ford an amendment to the Planned Community Standards for North Ford to permit expansion of land uses and updating of development standards for a portion of Blocks 56 and 57, Irvine's Subdivision, located between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevards and between Bison Avenue and the extension of Bonita Canyon Road, Planning Commission Amendment No. 326; and consideration of Environmental Impact Report EIR/NB 73-026. A report from the Community Development Depart- ment was presented with North Ford Planned Com- munity District Regulations and Environmental Impact Evaluation EIR/NB 73-026. Allan Beek addressed the Council opposing the re- zoning of the property to commercial. Volume 27 - Page 104, 1 COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 0 % NP O aA P ROLL CALL T v �a N C v� F May 7 1973 INDEX Larry Moore, General Planning Administrator for The Irvine Company, addressed the Council in behalf of the proposed amendment. Motion x Mr. Moore was granted an additional five minutes Ayes x x x x x x x for his presentation. Alan Tracy, representing Eastbluff Homeowners, addressed the Council opposing the rezoning. Motion x Mr. Tracy was granted an additional two minutes Ayes x x x x x x x for his presentation. Motion x The hearing was closed. Ayes x xxxxx Noes x Motion x Councilman Ryckoff made a motion to reopen the Ayes x x x hearing, which motion failed. Noes xxxx Motion x Councilman Ryckoff made a motion to reset the Ayes x x x matter for public hearing on May 29, which motion Noes x x x x failed. Motion x Resolution No. 7974, amending the Planned Com- R-7974 Ayes xxxxx munity Development Plan for the North Ford Planned Noes x x Community, was adopted. 4. Mayor McInnis opened the public hearing in connection Npt Shores with Ordinance No. 1497, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADDING CHAPTER 20. 65 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, ENTITLED "SPECIFIC PLAN (NEWPORT SHORES), " Planning Commission Amendment No. 371, estab- lishing Specific Plan #4 on properties north of West Coast Highway between West Coast Highway and Newport Shores Drive and between the Santa Ana River and the Semeniuk Slough. Bob Brockman addressed the Council and opposed changing the property at Walnut and Paoific Coast Highway from commercial to residential. John Shea, representing Newport Shores Community Association, addressed the Council in support of the ordinance. Motion x Mr. Shea was granted an additional minute for his Ayes x x x x x x x presentation. Volume 27 - Page 105 COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ca p0 np N N� Fo3 �'myyo o ROLL CALL ��P vN 1 v9V Pm May 7, 1973 INDEX Dana Smith addressed the Council in favor of the Specific Plan but opposed tandem parking. Motion x The hearing was closed. Ayes xxxxxxx Motion x Ordinance No. 1497 was referred back to the Planning Ayes x x x x x x Commission for revision to eliminate the concept of Noes x tandem and open carport parking, to review the Brockman property at Walnut and the Coast Highway and to review the remodeling clause, and to add a section on abatement of abandoned uses. Councilman Dostal stated that he would like the record to show that he voted "no" because of the elimination of tandem parking. 5. Mayor McInnis opened the public hearing in connection Dist with Ordinance No. 1498, being, Map 1 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REZONING PROPERTY AND AMENDING , DISTRICTING MAP NO. 1, Planning Commission Amendment No. 355, rezoning Lot 8, Block 6, Seashore Tract, from a C-1 -H District to an R-1. 5 District and establishing a ten- foot front yard setback, located at 211 Lugonia Street on the southwesterly corner of Lugonia Street and Newport Shores Drive in Newport Shores. Dana Smith, applicant, addressed the Council and asked that the matter be continued until the Specific Plan for Newport Shores is resolved. Councilman Ryckoff left the Council table. Motion x The hearing was continued until final action has been Ayes x x x x x x taken on Ordinance No. 1497. Absent x 6. Mayor McInnis opened the public hearing in connection Dist Maps with Ordinance No. 1499, being, 22 & 22-A AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REZONING PROPERTY AND AMENDING PORTIONS OF DISTRICTING MAPS NOS 22 AND 22-A, Planning Commission Amendment No. 365, rezoning Parcel 1, R/S 15/30 from an R-1 District to an A-P Volume 27 - Page 196 r • COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES P N Np 3p ?i 2 0 .k o ROLL CALL T CAT' a r v� vm May 7, 1973 INDEX District, located at 301 Newport Boulevard on the southwesterly corner of Hospital Road and Newport Boulevard (Hoag Memorial Hospital). A report dated April 23 was presented from the Community Development Department. No one desired to be heard. Motion x The hearing was closed. Ayes xxxxxx Absent x Motion x Ordinance No. 1499 was adopted. Ayes xxxxxx Absent x Councilman Ryckoff returned to the Council table. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. A letter was presented from the Balboa Island Bicycle Improvement Association regarding Bicycle Trails Trails Committee appointments. Cmte Motion x The matter was referred to the Appointments Com- Ayes xxxxxxx mittee. 2. A report was presented from the Public Works Assessment Director regarding alley improvement on Balboa Dist 54 Peninsula (Assessment District 54). Motion x The matter was continued to May 29, 1973. Ayes xxxxxxx 3. A report was presented from the City Manager UCI regarding the UCI Teaching Hospital. Teaching Hospital A letter from the Central Orange County Taxpayers Association opposing the on-campus location and a resolution of the City of Huntington Beach supporting the UCI On-Campus Teaching Hospital were presented. A statement was received after the agenda was printed from Hoag Hospital supporting the concept of a teach- ing and research hospital on the Irvine Campus. Motion x Resolution No. 7975, supporting the University of R-7975 Ayes xxxxxx California, Irvine, School of Medicine On-Campus Noes x Teaching Hospital, was adopted. Volume 27 - Page 107 COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES t tO Z m a 2 O t� O .� O ROLL CALL Tyr pa w� v� 'Pm M ay 7, 1973 INDEX 4. A report from the Newport Beach Citizens Environ- Pollution mental Quality Control Advisory Committee recom- mending that the City Council pass a resolution regarding letters of support on AB 594, concerning Motion x non-returnable or throw-away beverage containers, Ayes x x x x x x x was referred to the Pending Legislation Committee. CURRENT BUSINESS: 1. A report from the Public Works Director was pre- Bank of sented with a letter from the Bank of Newport Newport requesting an encroachment permit for a directional traffic sign in the south parkway, on 16th Street west of Dover Drive. Motion x The encroachment permit was approved, subject to Ayes x x x x x x x the condition that the sign be relocated at the bank's expense at the time 16th Street is widened. 2. A report was presented from the Community Develop- Jasmine ment Department regarding request of M. J. Brock Creek and Sons for a review of the Tentative Map and Con- ditions of Approval of Tract 7967 (Jasmine Creek), a subdivision of 84. 7 acres located at the southwest corner of San Joaquin Hills Road and Marguerite Avenue, zoned P-C. Jack Harter, Vice President of M. J. Brock and Sons, addressed the Council. Motion x The requested revision to the Tentative Map and Ayes x x x x x x x Conditions of Approval of Tract 7967 was approved. 3. A report was presented from the City Manager Marinapark regarding Marinapark. A letter from Rutan & Tucker, Attorneys at Law representing Marinapark residents, requesting a transition period for the termination of the Marina- park leases, was presented. Herbert Williams, resident of Marinapark, briefly addressed the Council. Resolution No. 7976, expressing reaffirmation of the R-7976 lease termination and expressing intention to permit a transition period for Newport Marinapark at the termination of the trailer space rental agreements, setting forth a time period of six months within which all Marinapark residents' signatures must be obtained Motion x on the matter or be brought back to Council, was Ayes x x x x x x x adopted. Volume 27 - Page 108 COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES P� ��o � ' NNE �o3 �myyo� ao ROLL CALL �' pa N c v� vm May 7, 1973 INDEX 4. A report from the Chairman of the Water Quality Water Subcommittee of the Newport Beach Environmental Quality Control Citizens Advisory Committee regarding the Committee's study'of the Newport Beach Motion x water supply and quality was referred to the Water Ayes x x x x x x x Committee for study and recommendation. CONSENT CALENDAR: Motion x The following items were approved by one motion Ayes x x x x x x x affirming the actions on the Consent Calendar: 1. The following ordinance was introduced and set for public hearing on May 29, 1973: Proposed Ordinance No. 1500, being, AN ORDINANCE Specific OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADDING CHAP- Plan TER 20. 41 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL District CODE, ENTITLED "SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT, It 0-1500 authorizing the preparation of "Specific Plans" and providing for their implementation. (A report from the Community Development Department was pre- sented. ) 2. The following resolutions were adopted: Resolution No. 7977 designating an intersection at Stop Signs which vehicles are required to stop and directing the R-7977 Traffic Engineer to erect necessary stop signs; requiring vehicles on Lancaster Street to stop at 62nd Street. (A report from the Public Works Department was presented. ) Resolution No. 7978 repealing 'Resolution No. 7697 Green Belt and abolishing the Santa Ana River-Santiago Creek Cmte Green Belt Plan Newport Beach Citizens Advisory R-7978 Committee. Resolution No. 7979 authorizing the execution of a 16th St Grant of Easement to the Southern California Edison Reservoir Company to underground electrical facilities for the R-7979 pumping station at the 16th Street reservoir site. (A report from the Public Works Director was pre- sented. ) Resolution No. 7980 awarding a contract for the 1972- 1972-73 73 Seal Coat Program to Ted R. Jenkins, Contract Seal Coat No. 1521. (A report from the Public Works Director Program was presented. ) R-7980 Volume 27 - Page 109 r COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES N apk 01 Cep ZZ G y P ROLL CALL r v N N C ( 0 May 7, 1973 INDEX Resolution No. 7981 awarding a contract for Miscel- Misc laneous Concrete Reconstruction - Harbor Highlands, Concrete Westcliff and Baycrest Areas to R. W. McClellan & Recon- Sons, Inc. , Contract No. 1522. (A report from the struction Public Works Director was presented. ) R-7981 Resolution No. 7982 authorizing the execution of an Resub 304 agreement with Rudy and Ivanelle Choy, subdividers, R-7982 for the construction of improvements in Resubdivision No. 304. (A report from the Public Works Director was presented. ) 3. The following communications were referred as in- dicated: Referred to Community Development Department, a Newport letter from J. Ray Wiggle opposing proposed "Water Dunes World" development. Referred to Newport Beach City Arts Committee, letter from Long Beach Regional Arts Council regarding their Art Festival. Referred to Council Appointments Committee, letter Bd Library from West Newport Beach Improvement Association Trustees asking that a representative from West Newport be appointed to the Library Board of Trustees for the vacancy which occurs in June. Referred to staff for study and report back, letter from Charles W. and Doris B. Masters asking that Appeals the appeal procedures for resubdivisions be revised to incorporate the same or similar requirements as are provided for variances. Referred to staff for reply, a letter from C. P. Avery Cliff Dr opposing the sign on the Cliff Drive church. Sign Referred to staff for reply, a letter from Mrs. Dorothy M. Talbott asking for a bike rack on the beach at the end of 36th Street. i Referred to Planning Commission for study and Orco recommendation, letter from Orange County Planning General Director regarding Orange County General Plan. Plan Referred to Transportation Plan, Citizens Advisory Upper Bay Committee, letter to Councilman Dostal from Dover Bridges Shores Community Association and three letters from citizens opposing bridges over Upper Newport Bay. Volume 27 - Page 110 COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES P���p0 (+ 00 N� �p ?i 'n� 12 OG NA O ROLL CALL T4' -a N V v� pm May 7, 1973 INDEX 4. The following communications were referred to the City Clerk for filing and inclusion in the records: Letter from John A. Spencer regarding a steel brace protruding over the sidewalk near the southeast corner of Jasmine and Second in Corona del Mar. Letter from Mrs. Marion K. Wood urging preser- vation of Upper Newport Bay as a wildlife sanctuary. Copy of a letter to the City Manager from Charles and DeeDee Masters commending Shirley Morgan of the Community Development Department for her ability. Letter from the West Newport Beach Improvement Association commending City staff, particularly Messrs. Hogan, Gunn and Cowan, for their role in the development of a general plan. Letter from Harold F. Collins thanking skip-loader operators identified only as Larry and Gary for their assistance in cleaning sand from his sidewalk. Letter from the West Newport Beach Improvement Association thanking Council and staff for the fine job done with the reconstruction of the West Newport beaches. Letter from City of Orange inviting Council to a reception on April 29 honoring Orange's returned prisoner of war, Major David Luna. Letters from the Local Agency Formation Commission regarding hearings on May 9, 1973 in connection with the following proposed annexations: Proposed annexation to Costa Mesa Sanitary District designated Engineer's No. 149, located easterly of Babb Street and southerly of Paularina Avenue. Proposed annexation to City of Costa Mesa designated Maschmeyer Annexation, located westerly of Del Mar Avenue between Santa Ana Avenue and Willo Lane. Proposed annexation to Costa Mesa Park and Recreation District designated Maschmeyer Annexation. Letter from Mr, and Mrs. Robert M. Ward requesting Curb Cut/ a curb cut at Ocean Front alley and "I" Street, with Ocean Fron copy of reply from Public Works Director. & "I" Volume 27 - Page 111 COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Pn OS np N N.1.fp ` �m9 yy OG 9 P ROLL CALL T 9 N N C ( l� May 7, 1973 INDEX A letter from City of Irvine stating that its Council Sales & had gone on record opposing any change in the present Use Tax method of apportionment of sales and use tax under Laws the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law. Resolutions of cities of Buena Park, Anaheim and Flood Westminster urging United States Congress to ap- Control propriate funds to complete the study of the Santa Ana River Basin flood hazard, and implement measures to alleviate the threat of flooding. Letter from the State Board of Equalization enclosing a new schedule of filing and processing fees. A letter from Dedication Ceremonies Committee, Completion California State Water Project inviting Council to the dedication ceremonies marking com- pletion of water project to be held in Riverside and at Perris Dam (southeast of Riverside) on May 17 and 18, 1973. Second Legislative Digest from League of California Cities. Letter from State Department of Water Resources enclosing copy of Bulletin No. 74-1 "Cathodic Pro- tection Well Standards: State of California". Agenda of Orange County Board of Supervisors meetings of April 24, 25, May 1 and 2, 1973. 5. The following claims were denied, and the City Claims Clerk's referral to the insurance carrier was con- firmed: Claim of Edward Crawford for personal injuries Crawford allegedly received in connection with an incident which occurred at Hoag Hospital on or about March 4, 1973. Claim of Bryan Anthony Le Mar, a minor,for per- Le Mar sonal injuries received on January 28, 1973 when he received an electric shock and fell from a utility pole in Buck Gully, allegedly due to negligence on the part of the City. Claim of Dr. M. D. Turbow for damage to his pro- Turbow perty at 5307 Seashore Drive in October or November, 1972, allegedly due to vibration from the heavy trucks working on the groin construction in West Newport. I Volume 27 - Page 112 COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES <0 ROLL CALL oTfe N<P May 7, 1973 INDEX 6. The following staff reports were received and ordered filed: A report dated April 27 from the City Attorney re- General garding General Plan and Rezoning State requirements. Plan A report dated April 30 from the City Attorney re- Rulea of garding comparison of City Council and Planning Procedure Commission Rules of Procedure. 7. A joint public hearing before the City Council and the Or Co Planning Commission was set for 7:30 P. M. on Ping Dept May 21, 1973 to review the County Planning Depart- Growth ment's Growth Policy Report, "People, Policy and Policy Growth--A New Direction? " Report 8. The work on Jamboree Road Median Paving, Islands Jamb Rd 5, 6 & 7, Contract No. 1495, was accepted, and the Median City Clerk was authorized to file a Notice of Com- Paving pletion and to release the bonds 35 days after the Notice of Completion has been filed. (A report from the Public Works Director was presented. ) 9• The work for the Hospital Road-Westminster Avenue Hospital Rd Water Main from Placentia Avenue to 15th Street and West- the Westminster Avenue Widening from North New- minster port Boulevard to 15th Street, Contract No. 1428, was accepted, and the City Clerk was authorized to file a Notice of Completion and to release the bonds 35 days after the Notice of Completion has been filed. (A report from the Public Works Director was pre- sented. ) 10. The work on the Balboa Coves Odor Reduction System, West Npt Contract No. 1494, was accepted, and the City Clerk Gas Odor was authorized to file a Notice of Completion and to release the bonds 35 days after the,Notice of Com- pletion has been filed. (A report from the Public Works Director was presented. ) 11. The plans and specifications for the Jamboree Road Jamb Rd Police Facility, C-1514, were approved; and the City Police Clerk was authorized to advertise for bids to be Facility opened at 2:00 P. M. on June 26, 1913; and the Building Excise Tax Fee of $7, 200 was waived. (A report from the Public Works Director was presented. ) 12. The plans and specifications for the Spyglass Hill Spyglass Pump Station, Zone V, C-1488, were approved, and Hill Pump the City Clerk was authorized to advertise for bids to Station be opened at 10:00 A. M. on May 30, 1973. (A report from the Public Works Director was presented. ) Volume 27 - Page 113 COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES L�.F�'po 2 l p, N vWPOIS o yp ROLL CALL V N < < o May 7, 1973 INDEX 13. The following Budget Amendments were approved: BA-68, $601. 67 transfer of Budget Appropriations for the purchase of 7 2-drawer legal files from Travel and Meetings-Marine Safety to Office Equipment- Marine Safety, General Fund. BA-69, $348. 83 increase in Budget Appropriations and in Revenue Estimates for development of Via Antibes traffic median and Goldenrod footbridge improvement, Donations and Contributions received from the Women's Division of the Harbor Chamber of Commerce and the Lido Isle Community Association for Park & Recreation (Parks, Parkways, etc. )- Maintenance and Repair Materials, Special Depart- mental Supplies, Park and Recreation Fund. (A report from PB&R Director was presented. ) ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. A memorandum from the Parks, Beaches and PB,&R Recreation Director to the City Manager regarding Motion x new recreation programs was referred back to the Ayes x x x x x x x City Manager for discussion during review of the 1973-74 Budget. Z. A resolution of the City of Half Moon Bay urging the Coastal State Legislature to enact legislation that will Zone Tax equalize the tax burden within the Coastal Zone which Motion x is now being borne solely by the local taxpayers was Ayes x x x x x x x referred to the Pending Legislation Committee. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: 1. Resolution No. 7983, expressing Council's opposition Personnel Motion x to Public Employer-Employee relations legislation, R-7983 Ayes x x x x x x x was adopted. 2. Resolution No. 7984, opposing introduction of bills by State the State Legislature containing exemptions from Mandated Motion x Senate Bill 90 reimbursement provisions, was Programs Ayes XXXXXN N adopted. R-7984 3. Modification Application No. 648 of Carl C. Hillgren Mod 648/ requesting a Modification of the Zoning Ordinance to Hillgren permit the construction of a single family dwelling that encroaches to the front property line (where the Districting Map indicates a 10 foot front yard setback) in the R-1 District, located at 3611 Ocean Boulevard, Motion x was set for public hearing at 7:30 P. M. on May 29, Ayes xxxxxxx 1973. Volume 27 - Page 114 COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ��P oc N a� A O ROLL CALL T� �N m �� v� May 7, 1973 INDEX Motion x 4. A public hearing was set for 7:30 P. M. , May 29, Balboa Ayes x x x x x x x 1973 to consider an eight-month's extension of Peninsula Ordinance No. 1490, an emergency ordinance pro- Bldg hibiting the issuance of all building permits for all Moratorium construction on the Balboa Peninsula except for permitted uses in the R-1 and R-1. 5 Districts and exempting the C-1 District. Motion x 5. A public hearing was set for 7:30 P. M. , May 29, Var 1030/ Ayes x x x x x x x 1973 regarding Variance Application No. 1030 of Wolfe Sterling H. Wolfe, Jr, to permit a structure to exceed the floor area ratio limitations in the R-2 District in order to provide driveway approaches to subterranean garages and to provide additional parking on property located at 6204 West Ocean Front, Newport Beach. 6. Richard Brown, attorney representing Monterey Still, Monterey requested an amendment to their off-site parking Still agreement to eliminate the daytime valet service. It was decided that the matter would be considered when the required parking places were in and marked. Mayor McInnis adjourned the meeting at 2:18 A.M. , May 8 to 7:30 P. M. , May 21, 1973 for the purpose of holding a joint public hearing before the City Council and the Planning Commission on the Orange County Planning Department's Growth Policy Report, "People, Policy and Growth--A New Direction? " Volume 27 - Page 115 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER May 8, 1973 TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF MODIFICATIONS MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO THE RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ELEMENT (RGE) AND LAND USE ELEMENT (LUE) At the continued public hearing held Monday, May 7, 1973, the Council amended the proposed .Residential Growth Element (RGE) and Land Use Element (LUE). The summation of the suggestions prompting the modifi- cations and the specific modifications to both the RGE and LUE are as follows: 1 . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. By minute action, the Council moved conditional acceptance to the EIR of the RGE and the LUE, with the understanding that a more in-depth review will occur when the General Plan in its entirety is reviewed. 2. BANNING PROPERTY. It was suggested that the RGE and LUE be more "generally" described pending further flood control' studies, transportation studies, greenbelt studies, etc. Action: RGE. Statistical Area A-1 (Page 7) : The second para- graph shall be replaced with the following: "This entire area has been designated as a 'specific plan' area and all proposals for residential or other uses shall be reviewed as a part of that specific plan." Action: RGE. Statistical Area A-2 (Page 8) Subparagraph 2 shall be replaced with the following: ' 2 Residential develop- ment west of Superior Avenue shall be permitted in all areas except the M-1 district. However, the area included in the 'Specific Plan' area on the land use plan may include uses other than residential . Maximum density shall be 15 dwelling units per gross acre in the area south of the westerly extension of 16th Street to the present City boundary and a maximum density of 6 dwelling units per gross acre north of the extension of 16th Street." Action: LUE. West Newport Harbor (Page 9) : The four paragraphs under the title West Newport Harbor shall be replaced by the following: "Beeco, Ltd. (Banning) Property: This area, north of 'Newport Shores' and extending easterly from the Santa Ana River is designated as a 'Specific Plan' area on the Land Use Plan. This will permit the development of an overall plan for the area after the completion of investigation of economic and physical feasibility of a small craft harbor in the lowlands area extending northward into Costa Mesa. Volume 27 - Page 115a "Such a harbor, if feasible, would provide full marina, marine service, and commercial recreational facilities. In addition, a public riding and hiking trail and parking area is proposed as part of the county-wide Santa Ana Greenbelt Project. The remainder of the land would be used for resi- dential development as discussed in the 'Residential Growth Development' , modified, if and as necessary, to relate to the overall harbor plan. "If the harbor is not feasible, alternate plans, including residential with associated commercial service facilities, should be considered. In any event, the property owners should have the responsibility for developing a plan for ap- proval by the City at the time any land use proposals are made. The development shall be consistent with the criteria set forth in the General Plan." 3. BALBOA BAY CLUB, BEACON BAY MARINAPARK. It was suggested that these three City-owned pieces of property be designated to permit a number of options pending more detailed study. Action: RGE. a) Statistical Division H (Page 20) Subpara- graph 4 should be changed to read: "No further residential development shall be Dermitted in the remaining commercial districts in Division H, and any further residential develop- ment on the Balboa Bay Club site shall be permitted only in accordance with a specific area plan to be prepared by the Balboa Bay Club and approved by the City. Said plan is to be prepared within five years after the adoption date of the General Plan." b) Statistical Division G image 19 Suboaragraph 1 should be changed to read: "All of the residential district in Beacon Bay shall remain until a specific area plan is develop- ed and approved. Said plan is to be prepared within five years after the adoption date of the General Plan." c) Statistical Division D (I'a a 13 Subparagraph 6 should be changed to read as follows: "The beach and the Newport Beach Elementary School may be rezoned to the OS - open space district; the City-owned property at Marinapark shall continue as a mobilehome park until such time as that use is phased out, at which time the property may be rezoned to the OS - open space district. " Action: LUE. a Balboa Bay Club Site (Page 14) should be changed to read: "It is proposed that in keeping with the uniqueness of this harbor front site, that the City study a multiplicity of uses . The exact nature of the uses will be determined by a specific area plan to be developed prior to the expiration of the current lease. Said plan is to be pre- pared„within five years after the adoption date of the General Plan. Volume 27 - Page 115b Action: LUE (b) Beacon Bay Area (Page 13) should be changed to read: "It is proposed that in keeping with the unique- ness of this site that a multiplicity of uses be considered. The exact nature of the uses should be determined by a speci- fic area plan to be developed prior to the expiration of the current lease. Said plan is to be prepared within five years after the adoption date of the General Plan." Action: LUE c Marinapark (Pape 13) should be changed to read: "Marinapark shall continue as a mobilehome park until such time as that use is phased out, at which time the property may be rezoned to the OS - open space district." 4. CASTAWAYS SITE. It was suggested that the Castaways site density be increased from 8 d.u. 's per acre to 15 d.u. 's per acre, unless residential use is permitted in Newport Center. Action: RGE. Statistical Division J (Pape 21 ) Subparagraph 1 was changed to read as follows : "Residential development in the southernmost vacant area (The Castaways Site) shall be limited to a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per gross acre unless adequate open space is provided under a specific area plan:' 5. NEWPORT CENTER. It was suggested that three condominium towers be permitted in the commercially zoned Newport Center. Action: RGE. Statistical Division L (Page 24) Subparagraph 2 shot be changed to read: "That additional 'residential de- velopment in Newport Center be permitted on the vacant area on Jamboree Road and the Coast Highway which backs up on the Country Club with a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per gross acre and that sites for residential development at a density not to exceed 35 dwelling units per acre, subject to the approval of the City, be permitted. " The City Council requested comments from the Planning Commission on the feasibility of considering the vacant area on Jamboree Road and the Coast Highway in two parcels with the parcel on Coast Highway having less density than the 15 d.u. 's per gross acre. 6. THE BLUFFS. It was suggested that the former high-rise sites ens ity be increased from 5 d.u. 's per acre to 8 d.u. 's per acre. Action: RGE. Statistical Division K (Page 23) Subparagraph 2 should be changed to read: "Residential development in the two southernmost 'high-rise' sites in the Bluffs should be limited to a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per gross acre." 7. VILLAGE CONCEPT. It was suggested that the village concept of Newport Beach be encouraged and that the formation of municipal advisory groups and special assessment districts be encouraged. Action•. LUE. Overall City Form (Page 2) . The following should be added to the first paragraph: "The City shall encourage the Volume 27 - Page 115c formation of independent municipal advisory groups within each of the villages that go to make up the City and the City will cooperate with such village representatives for the im- provement of the environment and physical facilities within its villages." 8. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS. It was suggested that no portion of the General Plan be adopted which would necessarily result in a budget deficit. Action: RGE. Introduction (Pa eel ) . The following should be added to the gnly paragraph: ' B' y the use of 10 year revenue and expenditure projections and by managing needed capital im- provements, the City shall assure a favorable budget posture." Action: LUE. Land Use Summary (Page 8) . To conclude the second paragraph add: "By the use of 10 year revenue and ex- penditure projections and by managing needed capital improve- ments, the City shall assure a favorable budget posture." 9. WEST NEWPORT. It was suggested that the reduction of multiple dwelling units by 27% and an increase of single family dwellings by 20% is inconsistent and that the trend growth projection be allowed. Action: RGE. Statistical Division B, Subparagraph 3 (Page 10) should be changed to read: "A11 R-2 and R-3 districts shall remain as currently zoned and the table for this statistical area reflect this density." 10. BALBOA PENINSULA. It was suggested that the recommended reduction by 45% in multiple dwellings and the 58% reduction in duplexes is excessive and that the trend growth projection be allowed. The City Council took no action on this suggestion, but requested comment from the PLanning Commission on the following: Statistical Division D (Page 13) Subparagraph 1 , 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 be deleted and following renumbering of the -remainiAg para- graphs replaced by the following: All residential zones currently in existence shall be maintained with the understand- ing that appropriate development standards will be developed. Where appropriate, commercial zones may be reclassified to a residential zone . " Earlier on the agenda the Council took action to approve of the Edgewater condominium project. This necessitated the following change in the RGE. Action: RGE. General City-wide Zoning Policies (Page 4) Sub- paragraph 1 . The following was added: "and Edgewater con- dominiums will be permitted a density of up to 21 dwelling units per acre." 11 . OLD CORONA DEL MAR. It was suggested that the reduction of multiple family zoning was too severe and that the trend growth projections should be allowed. Volume 27 - Page 115d Action: RGE. Statistical Areas F-2, F-3 and F-4 Page 17) . The second paragraph shall be replaced with the following: "All R-2 and R-3 districts shall remain with appropriate de- velopment standards to be prepared and the table for these statistical areas shall reflect this policy. The effect on traffic and parking is to be studied in greater depth and, if necessary, remedies are to be reflected in the development standards." 12. EAST CORONA DEL MAR. It was suggested that the reduction in duplex zoning by 85% is too severe and that the trend growth projection be allowed. Action: RGE. Statistical Areas F-5, F-6, F-7 and F-8 Pape 18 Subparagraphs 1 and 2 shall be replaced by the fol- lowing: "The R-2 districts in this area shall remain and no zone change shall be granted which would permit an in- tensification of development. The table shall reflect this policy." 13. UPPER BAY - NORTHWEST. It was proposed that the commercial con- venience center at the intersection of Tustin Avenue and University Park be eliminated. Action: LUE. Vacant site Northwest of Upper Bay (Page 15) . The second sentence shall be replaced by the following: "Such alternative development may be permitted only in ac- cordance with a specific area plan with the residentially developed portions of the plan to be maintained at a maximum density of 6 dwelling units per gross acre as discussed in the Residential Growth Element." 14. THE BLUFFS - LAND TRADE REMNANT. It was suggested that the wording in the RGE and LUE was satisfactory, but that the map should be modified to show the land trade remnant as part of the Upper Bay classification. The Council , by minute action, approved modifi- cation of the Upper Bay boundaries. 15. RGE. Residential _Zoning Policy for Statistical Division K (Page 231 Subparagraph 1 . The Council requestedcomment from the Planning Commission on the feasibility of permitting only 8 dwelling units per gross acre on the property north of the Newporter Inn. Pursuant to the requirements of State law, please have the Planning Commission comment on the above which would permit the City Council to take action adopting the RGE and the LUE. I . +Y'+ ROBERT L. WYNN y Volume 27 - Page 115e CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES N Na Zy oc A o ROLL CALL T� pa a i vir a� April 23, 1973 INDEX David Johnson, applicant, addressed the Council. �Thehea se desired to be heard. Motion x ring was closed. Ayes xx xxxx Absent x Motion x The findings of the Planning Comml-s•s_ion were over- Ayes x xx x ruled, and Use Permit No. 1661 was granted_. Noes x x Absent x 5. Mayor McInnis opened the continued public hearing General regarding the Residential Growth Element of the New- Plan port Beach General Plan and Environmental Impact Report EIR/NB 73-020 combined with the public hearing regarding the Land Use Element and Environ- mental Impact Report EIR/NB 73-031. A report was presented from the City Manager and the Community Development Department regarding modifications to the Residential Growth Element. Letters were received after the agenda was printed from the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce giving suggestions and recommendations for each Element and stating that the Chamber concurs generally with the proposed General Plan, and from Ira W. and Alice L. Smith against rezoning their property at 316 Heliotrope to an R-1. 5 District. The following people participated in a discussion on both Elements of the General Plan: Warren Gibbons, Mrs. Howard Babb, Larry Moore representing The Irvine Company, James Parker representing the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce, Valerie Murley, Margot Skilling, Sue Ficker, Goldie Joseph, Judy Tracy and Robert Martin representing Holstein Industries. Motion x Mr. Moore was granted an additional five minutes for Ayes xx xxxx his presentation. Absent x Motion x Mr. Parker was granted an additional five minutes Ayes xx xxxx for his presentation. Absent x Motion x Mr. Parker was granted another three minutes. Ayes xx xxxx Absent x Volume 27 - Page 88' U DO 'NOT Rmow r COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Pn NNd o my � Z ROLL CALL T3�n ''a 1 vr m April 23, 1973 INDEX Motion x The hearings on the Residential Growth Element and Ayes x x xxxx on the Land Use Element of the General Plan were Absent x continued_to_May_71973. 6. Mayor McInnis opened the public hearing in connection Dist with Ordinance No. 1496, being, Map 13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING A PORTION OF DISTRICTING MAP NO. 13, Planning Commission Amendment No. 367, estab- lishing sixteen foot side yard setbacks on the east side of Lots 9, 14, and 19 and on the west side of Lots 10 and 15 in Beacon Bay. A report dated April 9 was presented from the Com- munity Development Department. o one desired to be heard. Motion x The earing was closed. Ayes xx xxxx Absent x Motion x Ordinance o. 1496 was adopted. Ayes xx xxxx Absent x CONTINUED BUSINES 1. Harbor Permit Applica ion No. 175-306 of Nicholas Harbor Shammas to construct a ier, ramp and float bayward Permit of 306 Via Lido Nord in an rea where piers and floats are restricted by Council po 'cy, was presented. Shammas A letter was presented from Jo R. MacFaden, representing Mr. Shammas, requ sting that the matter be rescheduled to the secon meeting in June. Motion x Harbor Permit Application No. 175-30 was postponed Ayes x x xxxx to June 25, 1973. Absent x Z. Proposed Ordinance No. 1497,_being, Npt Shores AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPOR 0-1497 BEACH ENTITLED "SPECIFIC AREA PLAN #4 NEWPORT SHORES, " on properties north of West Coast Highway between West Coast Highway and Newport Shores Drive and between the Santa Ana River and the Semeniuk Slough, Planning Commission Amendment No. 371, was pre- sented with a report from the Community Development Department. i Volume 27 - Page 89 f � 1 • • 7 of COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 'p� yi pO �)N\10) '�T CmP yGyROLL CALL T v N N < April 9, 1973 INDEX One Refuse Crewman in the General Services Depart- ment to fill a position now vacant. Ond-Sign and Paint Shop Technician in the General Services De arp tment to fill a position now vacant. 7. The following staff report was received and ordered filed: Report from the City Manager regardi:ngthe Board of Alcoholic Supervisor's resolution to permit consumption of Beverages alcoholic beverages in County park and beach fabili- on Beaches ties, and stating that there are no beaches in the City of Newport Beach that would be affected. 8. A public hearing was set for April 23, 1973 regarding General the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan Plan and for the acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report EIR/NB 73-031. (A report from the Community Development Department was presented. ) 9. The plans and specifications for the 1972-73 Seal Seal Coat Coat Program, Contract No. 1521, were approved, Program and the City Clerk was authorized to advertise for bids to be opened at 11:00 a. m. , May 1, 1973. (A report from the Public Works Director was presented.) 10. The plans and specifications were approved for the Misc 1972-73 Miscellaneous Concrete Reconstruction, Concrete Harbor Highlands, Westcliff and Baycrest Areas, Recon- ontract No. 1522, and the City Clerk was authorized struction to vertise for bids to be opened at 10:30 a. m., May 1973. (A report from the Public Works Directo was presented. ) 11. The plans an specifications were approved for the TOPICS installation of PICS traffic signals, Contract No. Traffic 1476, at (a) Irvine venue-Highland-20th Street, Signals (b) Dover Drive-16th treet, and (c) San Joaquin Hills Road-Santa Cruz Drive ig Canyon Drive; and the City Clerk was authorize o advertise for bids to be opened at 10:00 a. m. , May 1973. (A report from the Public Works Director was resented. ) 12. The Auditor's report regarding the orona del Mar CdM State-City Beach concession was refe ed to the City Beach Manager for implementation and report b ck to Concession Council. (A report from the City Manager as pre- sented. ) 13. The following Budget Amendments were approved: BA-64, $22, 000 increase in Budget Appropriations and Revenue Estimates to provide for County's con- Volume 27 - Page 84 DO NOT R MOVE COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Fo 3 cm 2y oo a� o ROLL CALL T� �a w v� Pm A ril 9, 1973 INDEX A letter was presented from Charles Masters in favor of Use Permit 1660. A letter was received after the agenda was printed from the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce opposing Use Permit 1660. Victor Shellenberger addressed the Council and re- ested a two-weeks' continuance; or if the Council wis ed to proceed, then he requested an additional Motion x ten m' utes for his presentation, which additional Ayes xxxxxxx time wa granted. Mr. Shellen erger showed slides of other "Bubble Machine" inst lations and briefly explained their method of opera t'on. The following people ddressed the Council in op- position to the propose Use Permit: John Boyd, Tully Seymour represent' Raymond Summers, Roy Hummell, Paul Hummell, R'chard Hilliard, Letha Bailey, Warren Fletcher, Est le Allerdale, Pat Morley and Chris Hopper. George Williamson addressed the Co cil in favor of the proposed Use Permit. Motion x Councilman Store made a motion to continu con- Ayes x x x sideration of Use Permit 1660 until April 23, hich Noes x x x x motion failed to carry. Motion x The hearing was closed. Ayes xxxxxxx Motion x Use Permit No. 1660 was denied. Ayes xxxxxxx 3. Mayor McInnis opened the public hearing regarding General "Residential Growth Element of the Newport Beach Plan General Plan and Environmental Impact Report EIR/NB 73-030. " A report was presented from the Community Develop- ment Department regarding Residential Growth Element and Environmental Impact Report. A letter was presented from Mr. and Mrs. Allen Stover urging R-1. 5 zoning in old Corona del Mar. A letter was presented from Dr. Edward O'Neill opposing R-1. 5 zoning on the Balboa Peninsula. Volume 27 - Page 76 COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES P� Fl P� ��O\'V" 'fO 4i !J� -AROLL CALL T' N N ! April 9, 1973 INDEX Letters were received after the agenda was printed from Mrs. Robb Roy opposing R-1. 5 zoning on the Balboa Peninsula; from Thomas O'Keefe, attorney for the Balboa Bay Club, stating that if the proposed Residential Growth Element and the Land Use Element are adopted, they would be in conflict with the lease agreement between the City and the Balboa Bay Club; and the City Attorney's opinion regarding Mr. O'Keefe's statement. The following persons addressed the Council con- cerning open spaces, floor area limitations, Peninsula traffic, tourist congestion, village atmo- sphere and other aspects pertaining to the zoning policies of the Residential Growth Element of the General Plan: Mrs. Howard Babb, Allan Beek, George Perlin, Goldie Joseph, Paul Hummell, James Parker representing the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce, Tom O'Keefe representing the Balboa Bay Club, Bob Reese, William Davis, Roy Woolsey, Bill Banning and Robert Martin representing Holstein Industries. Valerie Murley spoke in support of the Residential Element as presented. Motion x Mrs. Babb was granted an additional three minutes Ayes xxxxxxx for her presentation. Larry Moore, General Planning Administrator for The Irvine Company, addressed the Council regarding the total number of dwelling units in the various areas and requesting amendments. Motion x Mr. Moore was granted ten minutes for his presen- Ayes x x �x x x x tation. Noes x Motion x Mr. Moore was granted an additional three minutes. Ayes xxxxxxx Motion x The hearin was continued to April 23 F to consider to a _ Ayes x x x x x x with the_ up blic�hear�ing�ox� the.Lapd�ilselemen� o£�-- Noes x the General Plan. 4. Mayor McInnis opened the public hearing, in accor- Vacation dance with Resolution No. 7944,on proposed vacation, PU Easemt closing up and abandonment of a portion of a public utility easement reservation westerly of the Bayside Shopping Center over the portion of abandoned and va ed Bayside Drive. A report was sented from the Public Works Director. Motion x The hearing was closed. Ayes xxxxxxx Volume 27 - Page 77 • • 71 .6 COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES yo 3 om\u '-1 \VIO) ROLL CALL �� March 26, 1973 INDEX 4. Proposed Ordinance No. 1495, being, Police Dept AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT 0-1495 BEACH AMENDING SECTION Z. 12. 110 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE PER- TAINING TO THE FUNCTIONS OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, i conformance with the Police Department's current rol in the community, was presented with a report from • e Police Chief. Motion x Ordinance o. 1495, as amended, was introduced and Ayes x x x x x passed to sec d reading on April 9, 1973. Absent x x 5. A copy of a resolu 'on of the Board of Supervisors Alcoholic regarding hearing on pril 18 on the question regard- Beverages ing modification of Ora e County ordinances relating on Beaches to alcoholic beverages in unty-regulated recre- ational areas was presented. Motion x The staff was directed to report b ck on April 9 Ayes x x x x x regarding beaches in the City that w Id be affected. Absent x x 6. A letter was presented from Supervisor spers Alcoholic enclosing a proposal before the Board of Su rvisors Beverages relative to permitting the consumption of alco lic on Beaches beverages in County park and beach facilities an asking for an opinion by the City. Motion x The staff was directed to reply to Supervisor Caspers Ayes x x x x x that the City Council opposes the Board of Super- Absent x x visors' ordinance which would allow consumption of alcoholic beverages on County beaches. 7. At the request of Suzanne Rudd, a proposed ordinance, C„0m�l/ being, RpgAgntial Uses AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING SECTIONS 20. 22. 020, 20. 22. 050, 20. 24. 030, 20. 24. 060, 20. 26. 040 AND 20. 26. 070 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE ELIMINATING RESIDENTIAL USES AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE C-1, C-2 AND C-C DISTRICTS", Motion x Planning Commission Amendment No. 360 was Ayes x x x x x tabled. (A report from the Community Development Absent x x Department was presented. ) Mayor McInnis adjourned the meeting at 9:30 P.M. Volume 27 - Page 74 DO VOT REPROVE COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH /�MINU/TES 'PCF�<p0�\1�\,P$o N L Ov O ?i o LROLL CALL T� 9( Pt^ December 18, 1972 INDEX 8. A report was presented from the City Manager re- General garding State lands granted in trust to the City of Plan/ Newport Beach. State Lands Motion The Mayor was authorized to approve the text of Ayes x x x x x x x Land Use and Development Report and the General Plan for future use of the State lands granted in trust to the City. CONSENT CALENDAR: Moti x The following items were approved by one motion affirming Ayes x x x x x x the actions on the Consent Calendar: Abstain x 1. The following Advisory Communications were ordered filed: A letter from the Bush family in San Luis Obispo expressing their enjoyment of a trip on the Balboa/ Balboa Island ferry. Copy of a letter from the Newport Harbor Chamber of OrCo or merce to Orange County Board of Supervisors Airport co cerning the renewal of the Air West lease at the Ora\helii nty Airport. A lm Warren I. Henningsgrad regarding Police poli %ters. Helicopter Resolution Board of Supervisors soliciting the Air \ cooperation of al cities in the County, and of the Pollution California Highway atrol, in improving air quality within the County by eans of strict enforcement by city police and by the lifornia Highway Patrol of all provisions of the Califor a Vehicle Code relating to motor vehicle exhaust emi ions; approving the establishment of additional ai pollution monitoring stations on a priority basis as \suppo by the Air Pollution Control Officer at bund instruct- ing the Air Pollution Control Omediately complete the grant application ing pre- pared for submittal to the Stateces Board. A resolution of the City of Stan 9 actions to modify current tax assessment practices th t discourage improvement and maintenance of re dential properties. Volume 26 - Page 364 City Council Meeting December 17, 1973 Agenda Item No. D-9 j` fit CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH December 13, 1973 TO : City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Request to amend the Residential Growth Element and the Land Use Element of the General Plan o the City of Newport Beach adopted by the City Council on May 29 , 1973 INITIATED BY : The City of Newport Beach On November 29 , 1973 , the Planning Commission held a public hearing for further consideration of amendment to the Residential Growth and Land Use Elements of the General Plan as they pertain to the property on the northwest side of Upper Newport Bay. On May 29 , 1973 the City Council considered this property to be suitable for open space development in association 'with a wildlife reserve in the Upper Newport Bay; with further provision that in case public acquisition is not feasible , provision should be made for private development for residential purposes at a density of six dwelling units per acre and a possible neighborhood commercial center on the southeast corner of the intersection of Irvine Avenue and University Drive to serve the residents of the area. Following the public hearing , the Planning Commission reaffirmed the original decision made by the City Council on May 29 , 1973. Respectfully submitted , DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. AN, ector FILE Darmy DO NOT MelovE RVH/kk Attachment for Council only : Excerpt from Planning Commission Minutes of 11/29/73. Letter from Citizens ' Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee dated 12/13/73 70� City Council Meeting May 29 , 1973 Council Agenda Number F-3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 24, 1973 TO : City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT : Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and the Residential Growth Element of the Newport Beach General Plan ( EIR/NB 73-031 and EIR/NB 73-030 ) . Attached are charts for the Land Use Element and Residential Growth Element of the Newport Beach General Plan comparing the revisions referred by the City Council to the Planning Commission , with the recommendations of the Planning Commission . Respectfully submitted , DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN , Director (17 �. RVH/RLG/kk Attachments6 1 ) Residential Growth Element Chart 2) Land Use Element Chart 3) Robert F. Martin of Holstein Industries letter dated May 18 , 1973 to R. V. Hogan , Community Development Dept. 4) Robert F. Martin of Holstein Industries letter dated May 18, 1973 to James D. Hewicker , Community Development Department. (Attchmts . 3 and 4 only to Council ) DO NOT REMOVE RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ELEMENT Revisions Referred by the City Council Recommendations to the City Council to the Planning Commission by the Planning Commission May 7, 1973 May 17 , 1973 1 . Introduction (Page 1 ) . The following should be added to the 1 . Page 1 , add the same sentence at the end of the only paragraph : "By the use of 10 year revenue and expendi - first paragraph under The Effect of Residential ture projections and by managing needed capital improevements , Growth on Support Systems . the City shall assure a favorable budget posture. " 2. Page 4, subparagraph 1 . The following was added : "and 2 . Page 4 , subparagraph 1 , be reworded to read , "All Edgewater condominiums will be permitted a density of up future residential development shall be limited to 21 dwelling units per acre. " to a density not greater than 15 dwelling units per gross acre on any individual project, except where special provisions have been made within the plan for higher density. " 3. No recommendation . 3. Page 4, subparagraph 4 be reworded to read, "The size of all future residential buildings shall be limited to preserve community character, through use of floor area ratios , lot coverage limits , and building bulk regulations . Regulations including revised zoning shall be developed for each area to assure preservation of the individual and unique character of the residential neighborhoods , and to provide outdoor living area and landscaping. " 4. No recommendation. 4- Page 5 , that the figures be revised to reflect the changes made in each individual section . • 5. Statistical Area A-1 (Page 7) : The second paragraph shall be re- 5 . Page 7 , the second paragraph under Residential placed with the following: "This entire area has been designated Zoning Policy for Statistical Area A-1 be ye- as a ' specific plan ' area and all proposals for residential or worded to read, "This entire area has been desig- other uses shall be reviewed as a part of that specific plan . " nated as ' SPECIFIC AREA PLAN ' area and all pro- posals for residential or other uses shall be reviewed as a part of that 'SPECIFIC AREA PLAN ' exce t for the old Cit Dum Site which shall be limited to a density of ei ht 8 dwelling units per gross acre. " Page 1 of 5 6, Statistical Area A-2 (Page 8) subparagraph 2 shall be re- 6 . Page 8, subparagraph 2 be approved as amended placed with the following: "2) Residential development to read , "Residential development west of west of Superior Avenue shall be permitted in all areas Superior Avenue shall be permitted in all areas except the M-1 district. However, the area included in except the M-1 district. However, the area in- the ' Specific Area Plan ' area on the land use plan may cluded in the 'Specific Area Plan ' area on the include uses other than residential . Maximum density land use plan may include uses other than resi - shall be 15 dwelling units per gross acre in the area dential . Maximum density of an individual south of the westerly extension of 16th Street to the project shall be 15 dwelling units per gross acre present City boundary and a maximum density of 6 dwelling in the area south of the westerly extension of units per gross acre north of the extension of 16th Street. " 16th Street to the present city boundary and a maximum density of 6 dwelling units per gross acre north of the extension of 16th Street. " . 7 . Statistical Division B , subparagraph 3 (Page 10) should 7 . Page 10 , subparagraph 3 be reworded to read, "All be changed to read: "All R-2 and R-3 districts shall remain R-2 and R-3 districts westerly of the Newport Pier as currently zoned and the table for this statistical area shall remain as currently zoned, except for public reflect this density. " property , with the understanding that appropriate development standards will be developed. !' 8. No recommendation . 8. ,Page 11 , an additional subparagraph 6 be included to read , "The R-3 and R-4 lots east of the Newport Pier shall be considered with Statistical Divi - sion D for zoning policy studies . " 9 . No recommendation . 9 . Statistical Division C, Page 12 , that the words , "No changes are proposed from the current zoning. " be substituted for the previous text. '10 . The City Council took no action on this suggestion , but 10. Page 13 , subparagraph 1 be reworded to read, "All • requested comment from the Planning Commission on the residential zones currently in existence shall be following: maintained with the understanding that appropriate development standards will be developed. Where Statistical Division D (Page 13) Subparagraphs 1 , 2, 3, appropriate , commercial zones may be reclassified 4, 5, and 7 be deleted and following renumbering of the to a residential zone. " remaining paragraphs replaced by the following : "All resi - dential zones currently in existence shall be maintained Page 13 , subparagraph 4 be reworded to read , "The with the understanding that appropriate development stan- Newport Harbor Yacht Club shall be rezoned to the dards will be developed. Where appropriate , commercial OS-Open Space District with the property owner' s zones may be reclassified to a residential zone. " agreement. " Page 2 of 5 Page 13 , subparagraph 5 be reworded to read, , "Large lots or combined lots which are zoned R-2 may be developed with more than two units with the approval of the Planning Commission under controls to be established. " Page 13 and 13(a) , all other subparagraphs be deleted with the exception of subparagraph 8 which will be renumbered subparagraph 3. 11 . Statistical Division D (Page 13) , subparagraph 6 should be 11 . Page 13 , subparagraph 2 be reworded to read, changed to read as follows : "The beach and the Newport Beach "The beach and the Newport Beach Elementary School . Elementary School may be rezoned to the OS - Open Space shall be rezoned to the OS - Open Space District; District; the City-owned property at Marinapark shall continue the City-owned property at Marinapark shall con- as a mobilehome park until such time as that use is phased out, tinue as a mobilehome park until such time as that at which time the property may be rezoned to the OS - Open Space use is phased out, at which time the property District. " shall be rezoned to the OS - Open Space District. " 12. Statistical Areas F-2 , F-3, and F-41 (Page 17) . The second para- 12 . Page 17, the paragraph under Residential Zoning graph shall be replaced with the following: "All R-2 and R-3 Policy for Statistical Areas F-2 , F-3 , and F-4, districts shall remain with appropriate development standards be changed to read , "All residential districts to be prepared and the table for these statistical areas shall shall remain with appropriate development stan- reflect this policy . The effect on traffic and parking is to dards to be prepared. The effect on traffic and be studied in greater depth and , if necessary , remedies are to parking is to be studied in greater depth and, be reflected in the development standards . " if necessary , remedies are to be reflected in the development standards . " 13. Statistical Areas -F-5, F-6 , F-7 , and F-8 (Page 18) , subparagraphs 13. Page 18, that the Planning Commission ' s original • 1 and 2 shall be replaced by the following : "The R-2 districts recommendation remain and no changes be made. in this area shall remain and no zone change shall be granted which would permit an intensification of development. The table shall reflect this policy. " 14. Statistical Division G (Page 19) , subparagraph 1 should be 14. Page 19 , subparagraph 1 be reworded to read, "All changed to read : "All of the residential district in Beacon Bay of the R-2 zoning in Beacon Bay shall remain until shall remain until a Specific Area Plan is developed and a Specific Area Plan is developed and approved. approved. Said plan is to be prepared within five years after Said plan is to be prepared within five years after the adoption date of the General Plan . " the adoption date of the General Plan . " Page 3 of 5 15. No recommendation. 15: Page 20 , the introductory paragraph be revised to read, "All the residential portions of this area are almost fully developed. However, the R-2 and R-3 Districts adjacent to Catalina Drive between North Newport Boulevard and Beacon Street are developed with single family resi - dences . In addition there is some potential for additional residential development on the Balboa Bay Club property. " 16. No recommendation. 16. Page 20 , subparagraph 1 be reworded to read, "The R-2 and R-3 Districts adjacent to Catalina Drive between North Newport Boulevard and Beacon Street shall be rezoned to R-1 . " 17. No recommendation . 17 . Page 20 , subparagraph 2 be reworded to read , "The old Newport Boulevard area between Santa Ana Avenue and Catalina Drive should be con- sidered for rezoning to a two-family district with appropriate development standards . " 18. No recommendation. 18. Page 20 , subparagraph 3 be reworded to read, "The south side of 15th Street between Irvine Avenue and St. Andrews Road currently in the " I" District shall be rezoned to R-3. " 19 . Statistical Division H (Page 20) , subparagraph 4 should be 19 . Page 20 , subparagraph 4 be reworded to read, changed to read : "No further residential development shall "No further residential development shall be be permitted in the remaining commercial districts in permitted in the remaining commercial districts • Division H , and any further residential development on the in Division H , and any further residential de- Balboa Bay Club site shall be permitted only in accordance velopment on the Balboa Bay Club site shall be with a Specific Area Plan to be prepared by the Balboa permitted only in accordance with a plan to be Bay Club and approved by the City. Said plan is to be prepared by the Balboa Bay Club and approved by prepared within five years after the adoption date of the the City. Said plan is to be prepared within General Plan . " five years after the adoption date of the General Plan . " Page 4 of 5 20. Statistical Division J (Page 21 ) , subparagraph 1 was 20. Page 21 , subparagraph 1 be reworded to read, changed to read as follows : "Residential development "Residential development in the southernmost in the southernmost vacant area (the Castaways Site) vacant area (the Castaways Site) shall be limited shall be limited to a maximum density of 8 dwelling to a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per gross units per gross acre unless adequate open space is pro- acre unless adequate open space is provided under vided under a Specific Area Plan . " a plan to be developed by the property owner and approved by the City. " 21 . Residential Zoning Policy for Statistical Division K 21 . Page 23, subparagraph 1 be reworded to read, (Page 23) , subparagraph 1 . The Council requested comment "Residential development in the large vacant site from the Planning Commission on the feasibility of per- north of the Newporter Inn shall be limited to a mitting only 8 dwelling units per gross acre on the maximum density of 15 dwelling units per gross • property north of the Newporter Inn. acre with provision for adequate open space. " 22. Statistical Division K (Page 23) , subparagraph 2 should be 22. Page 23 , subparagraph 2 be reworded to read , changed to read: "Residential development in the two "Residential development in the two southernmost southernmost ' high-rise ' sites i-n the Bluffs should be ' high-rise ' sites in the Bluffs shall be limited limited to a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per gross to a maximum density not to exceed the immediate acre. " surrounding area. " 23. Statistical Division L (Page 24) , subparagraph 2 should be 23. Page 24, that subparagraph 2 remain as it was changed to read: "That additional residential development originally recommended and sent to City Council . in Newport Center be permitted on the vacant area on Jamboree Road and the Coast Highway which backs up on the Page 24, an additional subparagraph 3 be included Country Club with a maximum density of 15 dwelling units to read, "That additional residential development per gross acre and that sites for residential development at in Newport Center be permitted in Block 700 to a a density not to exceed 35 dwelling units per acre , subject maximum density of 30 dwelling units per gross to the approval of the City, be permitted. " acre , subject to appropriate development standards that will insure that any such development will • The City Council requested comments from the Planning Com- replace and not be in addition to proposed commer- mission on the feasibility of considering the vacant area on cial development and subject to a plan to be pre- Jamboree Road and the Coast Highway in two parcels with the pared by the property owner and approved by the parcel on Coast Highway having less density than the 15 City. " dwelling units per gross acre. " RLGunn/ddb 5-23-73 Page 5 of 5 • r LAND USE ELEMENT Revisions Referred by the City Council Recommendations to the City Council to the Planning Commission by the Planning Commission May 7, -1973 May 17 , 1973 1 . Overall City Form (Page 2) . The following was added as 1 . ' Planning Commission concurred. Paragraph 3 : The City shall encourage the formation of independent municipal advisory groups within each of the villages that go to make up the City and the City will cooperate with such village representatives for the improvement of the environment and physical facilities within its villages . " I 2. Land Use Summary (Page 8) , Paragraph 2. The following 2. Planning Commission concurred. was added : "By the use of 10 year revenue and expenditure projections and by managing needed capital improvements , the City shall assure a favorable budget posture. " I 3. West Newport Harbor (Pages 9 and 10) , subparagraphs 1 , 2 , 3 . Pages 9 and 10 , West Newport Harbor be changed to 3, and 4 shall be replaced with the following : read , "Beeco , Ltd. (Banning) Property" , with the "Beeco , Ltd. (Banning) Property following text : "This area , north of ' Newport Shores ' and extending easterly from the Santa Ana River is designated as a ' Sp-ecific Plan ' "This area , north of ' Newport Shores ' and extending • area on the Land Use Plan . This will permit the development easterly from the Santa Ana River is designated as of an overall plan for the area after the completion of inves- a 'Specific Area Plan ' area on the Land Use Plan . tigation of economic and physical feasibility of a small craft This will permit the development of an overall harbor in the lowlands area extending northward into Costa plan for the area after the completion of investi- Mesa. gation of economic and physical feasibility of a small craft harbor in the lowlands area extending "Such a harbor, if feasible, would provide full marina , marine northward into Costa Mesa. service, and commercial recreational facilities . In addition , a public riding and hiking trail and parking area is proposed "Such a harbor, if feasible , would provide full as part of the county-wide Santa Ana Greenbelt Project. The marina , marine service, and commercial recreational remainder of the land would be used for residential development facilities . In addition , a public riding and as discussed in the ' Residential Growth Development' , modified , hiking trail and parking area is proposed as part if and as necessary , to relate to the overall harbor plan . of the county-wide Santa Ana Greenbelt Project. The ' Page 1 of 3 "If the harbor is not feasible, alternate plans , including resi- remainder of the land would be used for residen- dential with associated commercial service facilities , should tial development as discussed in the ' Residential be considered. In any event, the property owners should have Growth Development ' , modified, if and as neces- the responsibility for developing a plan for approval by the sary, to relate to the overall harbor plan . City at the time any land use proposals are made. The develop- ment shall be consistent with the criteria set forth in the " If the harbor is not feasible, alternate plans , General Plan. " including residential with associated commercial service facilities , should be considered. In any event, the property owners and the City should cooperate in the preparation of a plan for approval by the City at the time any land use proposals are made. The development shall be consistent with c _ the criteria set forth in the General Plan . " 4. Marinapark : (Page 13) , subparagraph 1 shall be replaced with 4. Page 13, the paragraph under Marinapark be changed • the following : "Marinapark shall continue as a mobilehome to read, "Marinapark shall continue as a mobile- park until such time as that use is phased out , at which time home park untill such time as that use is phased the property may be rezoned to the OS - Open Space District. " out , at which time the property shall be rezoned to the OS-Open Space District. " 5. "Beacon Bay" Area (Page 13) , subparagraph 1 shall be replaced 5. Planning Commission concurred. with the following: " It is proposed that in keeping with the uniqueness of this site that a multiplicity of uses be con- I - sidered. The exact nature of the uses should be determined by a Specific Area Plan to be developed prior to the expira- tion of the current lease. Said plan is to be prepared within five years after the adoption date of the General Plan . " i 6 . No recommendation . 6. Page 14, paragraph 1 , line 7„ following the words, "architectural design criteria" , the period be eliminated and the words , "and off-street parking standards:" be added. 7. Balboa Bay Club Site (Page 14) , subparagraph 1 shall be replaced 7 . Page 14, under the Balboa Bay Club Site , the para- with the following: " It is proposed that in keeping with the graph be reworded to read as follows , " It is pro- uniqueness of this harbor front site, that the City study a posed that in keeping with the uniqueness of this multiplicity of uses . The exact nature of the uses will be de- harbor front site, that the City study a multipli - termined by a Specific Area Plan to be developed prior to the city of uses . The exact nature of the development expiration of the current lease. Said plan is to be prepared will be determined by a Specific Area Plan to be within five years after the adopt ion date of the General Pla-n . " prepared prior to the expiration of the current Page 2 of 3 lease. Said plan is to be prepared within five years after the adoption date of the General Plan . " 8. Vacant Site Northwest of Upper Bay (Page 15) , subparagraph 1 8. Page 15 : should be changed with the following addition to portion "Alternative development shall include predomi- deleted: "Such alternative development may be permitted only nantly residential uses in accordance with a plan in accordance with a plan to be approved by the City with the to be approved by the City at a maximum density residentially developed portions of the plan to be maintained of 6 dwelling units per gross acre as discussed at a maximum density of 6 dwelling units per gross acre as in the Residential Growth Element. Alternative discussed in the Residential Growth Element. " uses may include a commercial center to serve the residents of the area. " RLGunn/ddb May 23 , 1973 -Page 3 of 3 May 18, 1973 Mr. Richard V. Hogan Department of Community Development Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Beach Blvd. Newport Beach, California Dear Mr. Hogan: Thursday evening, the Planning Commission arbitrarily chose to change the following wording of Statistical Division K of the Residential Growth Element to ". . . the two southernmost "high-rise" sites in The Bluffs should not exceed the existing density of the immediate surround- ing area." Because the hearing was closed, I was unable to point out the most Important factor that was completely overlooked by the Planning Commission. The existing density of Phase I of The Bluffs is five units per acre, only because 180 units were eliminated by the Height Limitation Ordinance. Some years ago, Holstein Industries committed itself to 180 units by ex- pending capital for off-site improvements and calculating open spaces per number of units in anticipation of the day when building would commence. That day will never be seen; yet, all the amenities are there. The down-zone request by the Planning Commission of what has already been down-zoned seems quite unfair. The situation can be paralleled to a person who has donated a kidney being told to give up his last one. The overall average of The Bluffs is eight units per acre. Your in- dulgence is sought to fairly evaluate the problem and to approve a density of at least eight units per acre. Very truly yours,, Robert F. Martin Assistant to the President RPM:ssj 170 EAST SEVENTEENTH STREET, COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92627 • (AREA 714) 642.9660 OR 548.5548 1 City Council Nfeeting April 23 , 1973 Council Agenda No . D-5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH .70V April 19 , 1973 TO : City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT : Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and Environmental Impact Report EIR/NB 73-031 Attached is the staff report to the City Council on the Land Use Element of the City' s General Plan , including the element, Reso- lution No . 798 as adopted, and the Environmental Impact Report on the Land Use Element as accepted by the Planning Commission on March 29 , 1973. These reports were previously distributed to the City Council for their meeting of April 9 , 1973. Also attached for the City Council ' s information is an Economic Analysis of the proposed Land Use Element by Development Research Associates , the City ' s Economic Consultant. Staff has not as yet prepared an analysis of this report . Respectfully submitted , DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. O'GAN ' -Di-fector RVH/RLG/kk TOLE U pY DO'NOT RUJOVE 0 City Council eeting April 23 , 1973 yr' Council Agenda No . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 17 , 1973 TO : City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT : Residential Growth Element and Land Use Element of the General Plan The purpose of this report is to summarize to - some extent the remarks which were made at the public hearing on the Residential Growth Element of the General Plan and to suggest ways that the Council may amend the plan , if it is desired , to accommodate some of the pro- posals. In some cases , the -concerns would affect not only the Resi - dential Growth Element but also the Land Use Element. Consequently , although the Council has not yet had the hearing on the Land Use Element , the effect of the remarks that we have had so far will be considered in this memorandum. There was concern that the proposed down-zoning or reduction of residential development would . have an adverse economic effect. All of our information to date has indicated that residential develop- ment has an adverse effect on tax revenues in that providing services generally costs more than the tax revenues generated. In the case of expensive single-family properties such as those on Lido and Linda Isles , revenues match expenses . This is also true in the case of extremely dense residential developments such as high-rise resi - dential towers . There was also a question on the legality of down-zoning . This aspect can be discussed by the City Attorney. It should be pointed out that the reduction in densities in the older areas of town would affect multi -family zoned areas rather than those zoned for ., single-family dwellings or duplexes . It has been pointed out that the plan is discriminatory against multi -family developments . In the summary on Page 5 of the Resi - dential Growth Element , the table indicates that this plan provides for approximately 12 ,000 multi -family dwelling units whereas the trend growth projection provides for 23 ,900. There has been a deliberate reduction in multi -family units . Mr. Banning suggested that coordination with other studies regarding transportation , flood control , greenbelt development, etc. should be considered in planning for the West Newport area now being considered for the West Newport Harbor. Since this area has been designated in the Land Use Element for a specific area plan , all of these consid- erations can be taken into account without any amendment . He also suggested that the industrial area zone as an extension of the 16th Street-Production Place industrial development be eliminated until street alignments have been determined. Since that area has also been included in the specific area plan and is shown on the Land Use Plan only for the purpose of indicating that such an extension of the industrial area could be made , if it was appropriate , it is believed that no amendment to the plan at this time is necessary ; unless the Council wishes to make sure that this only indicates a possibility rather than a fixed determination . .- •.may City Council - 2. = -e was a request that the Environmental Impact Report be given niitional approval rather than being accepted as complete . Since is the intent of the staff and the direction of the Planning timmission that an EIR be prepared for the complete plan , the )uncil may wish to indicate that such a summary EIR will be pre- -Ared in the future. ('ie question of control or improvement of traffic in relationship the ferry is an important one . It may be more appropriate to scuss the long-range solution to that problem as a part of the •ansportation Element rather than as a part of the Residential ' rowth or Land Use Elements . It does not appear that any change � j land use will substantially affect ferry traffic . mere are three City-owned pieces of property (Marinapark , Balboa ray Club and Beacon Bay) which have been considered in the Plan . 'he changes in development on the Marinapark property will occur in the relatively near future and the solution to that problem can roperly be considered now; however, the leases on the Beacon Bay nd Balboa Bay Club have many years to run. It has been suggested i :iat it would be better to consider the alternate use of those pro- *rties in close proximity to the termination of their leases ,,ether than now. If the Council agrees with this proposal , the and Use Element of the General Plan could be amended to indicate i.at specific plans for these two properties and their ultimate use :'•,ould be prepared five years prior to the expiration of the leases . has also been suggested by the Balboa Bay Club that they would ke the opportunity to prepare a plan for consideration by the City , )r the interim development of that property rather than being listricted at this time to no further residential development. have , in some other cases where property has been controlled d a single company or by a small number of individuals , provided •,•7at a plan for development of the property be prepared by the -iners for submission and approval by the City. If the Council -,+,ree•s with this approach , the Residential Element and Land Use ament of the General Plan could be amended to require that such olanned development proposal be prepared by the Balboa Bay Club r . •ror to any further development of the property. ! : gas also been suggested that perhaps the City should not be in real estate business and that the Balboa Bay Club and Beacon Hsu : properties should be disposed of . The Council may want to ider this as an alternative , with the possibility of using r ,.-. funds from the sale of these properties for acquisition of t, . r areas for City parks or open space . Th.! Irvine Company has requested that the density approved for the A aways Site be increased from eight dwelling units per acre to , -:,teen dwelling units per acre , and that the density for the pro- ^ty north of the Newporter Inn on the west side of Jamboree Road increased from fifteen dwelling units per acre to twenty dwelling 1 • its per acre . If the Council agrees , amendments to the Residential ovith Element of the plan would be required . The Company also re- .sted that residential development be permitted in the Newport er area. If the Council agrees , amendments to both the Resi - -ial Growth Element and the Land Use Element would be required. i', = proposal for the use permit for the condominium on the Fun Zone p P if it is to be approved by the Council , will require amend- � is to both elements of the General Plan . I1_spectfully submitted, F,RTP , i, OF COM�MUUNNITY DEVELOPMENT ` . H.03' N , D,j�nector ';; kk __� . 06 City Council Meeting March 26 , 1973 Council Agenda No . H-8 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 23 , 1973 TO : City Council FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Attached is a copy of the Residential Growth Element and a copy of Resolution Number 795 (adopted by the Planning Commission on March 15, 1973) recommending adoption of the Residential Growth Element of the Newport Beach, General Plan . Pursuant to Section 707 of the Newport Beach City Charter, the Planning Commission has held public hearings on February 15 , February 20 , March 1 , and March 15 , 1973. In their consideration of the Residential Growth Element , the Planning Commission considered a number of alternatives . These alternatives are listed below for the City Council ' s information . 1 . General The Planning Commission adopted as an alternative to the R-1 . 5 District recommendations that these areas "shall be zoned for two-family development and be considered individually for the inclusion of the appropriate development standards " . 2 . Statistical Division B (West Newport) A. West Newport Commercial Strip The Commission has considered a full range of alter- natives including all commercial zoning ; a portion of the area rezoned to a residential district not to exceed 15 dwelling units/acre ; a portion of the area zoned to R-1 . 5 or R-2 ; and all residential zoning. (This area is subject of a specific plan study. ) 3. Statistical Division C (Lido Island) The primary discussion in this area centered on the R-3 zoned lots . Two alternatives were discussed : no zone change or rezoning to a two-family district. 4. Statistical Division D (Balboa Peninsula) This particular area is the subject of rezoning hearings . The full range of alternatives from R-1 to R-4 has been discussed . It is the Commission ' s position that this should be a two-family area with provisions for more units on large lots . COPY DO NOT REMOVE TO : City Council 2. 5 . Statistical Division G (Bayside Drive Area) The Planning Commission discussed both R-1 and R-1 . 5 zoning fQra gg eacotoBRyj . The final recommendation was for reclassi- 6. Statistical Division J (Westcliff Area) The Planning Commission considered the following alterna- tives other than those adopted : A. Castaways : 15 dwelling units/gross residential acre , with no portion of the development to exceed 25 dwelling units/acre. B. Upper Westbay : 12 dwelling units/gross residential acre , with no portion of the development to exceed 25 dwelling units/acre . C. Vacant R-3-B-2 Site Adjacent to Y. M. C. A. : Rezoning to R-1 -B . 7. Statistical Division K (Bluffs ) The Planning Commission considered the following alterna- tives other than those adopted : Vacant Site Between 20 D. U. /gross residential acre , Newporter and Park with no portion of the development Newport: to exceed 35 D. U. /acre , and 8 D. U./gross residential acre with no portion of the development to exceed 15 D. U. /acre . 3 High Rise Sites 7 D. U. /gross residential acre, to in the Bluffs : be similar with the surrounding development and 8 D. U . /gross resi - dential acre. Land Trade 20 D. U./gross residential acre , with Remanent: no portion of the development to exceed 30 D. U. /acre and 10 D. U. /gross residential acre with no portion of the development to exceed 15 D. U/acre. 8. Statistical Division L (Newport Center - Big Canyon ) Big Canyon : Planned Community Sites #1 and #6 - 20 D. U/ gross residential acre . Planned Commuinty Site #10 - 15 D. U. /gross residential acre. Newport Center: Jamboree-Coast Highway Area - 25 D. U./gross residential acre. Block 700 - 35 D. U./gross residential acre (250 dwelling units maximum) . 9 . Statistical Division M (Harbor View Hills ) The multi -family site in the northern tip of the Harbor View Hills site was considered for 20 D. U./gross residential acre. n • • 1 TO : City Council 3. The Planning Commission and the staff have found the public hearings held to date an invaluable aid in evaluating the proposals contained within the Residential Growth Element. Respectfully submitted , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT By R. V. H GAN , DIREC R RVH/RLG/ddb Attachments : Residential Growth Element Resolution Number 795 { 3 RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ELEMENT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADOPTED AND RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15 , 1973 INTRODUCTION The Residential Growth Element addresses the question of "How many people are to live in Newport Beach , and in what kind of housing?" , and includes "Residential Zoning Policies" and the " Residential Growth Limits" resulting from these policies . The residential zoning policies are based primarily on policies contained in the adopted General Plan Policy Report and the substantial citizen input received during the General Plan program. It is apparent from citizen reaction that an " Unlimited Growth" policy is opposed and that some limitation on residential growth , below the levels contained in the "Trend-Growth" projection made by the City ' s economic consultants , Development Research Associates , is desired . Therefore , the proposals reflect a "Limited- Growth" policy , which , it is felt , meets the previously adopted policies and the general "desires of the community" . The Effect of Residential Growth on Support Systems In attempting to determine the effects of various residential growth levels on such support systems as water and sewer and the school dis- trict, etc. , discussions were held with the appropriate City depart- ments and the Newport Mesa School District. As a result of these discussions , it was determined, that , within the range of residential growth from the lowest reasonable limit to the "Trend-Growth" pro- jection , there are no physical constraints ( in terms of limited capacity of the physical systems ) and no major "economic threshold points " ( in terms of a drastic "jump" in the cost of providing services ) . The City ' s transportation planning consultant, Alan M. Voorhees and Associates , Inc . , has indicated that the most severe possible cut- back in residential growth (limiting all residential development to low-density single family) would result in some reduction in potential traffic volumes on certain links of the street system. However, a measure as drastic as limiting all residential development to single- family does not seem reasonable and may not be desirable , when viewed against other objectives , such as : 1 ) encouraging redevelopment in some areas ; 2) preserving some Open space within developments ; and 3) encouraging innovative residential developments . Thus , the effect of residential growth limits, within the range of reasonable alterna- tives , on the total transportation system does not have major signi- ficance, although it is obvious that the "lower the better" still holds in terms of future traffic generation . The Effect of Residential Growth on the Environment The major environmental problems which result from population growth are regional in nature and will not be materially affected by a dif- ference of ten or twenty thousand persons . However , it is apparent that a reduction in potential residential growth is favorable to the local environment, in "smaller-scale" environmental terms . The City of Newport Beach also may be able to set an example , and otherwise influence other local agencies in the region to reduce potential population growth . In view of these considerations , it can be said that the major issues are "Community Character" and "Quality of the Living Environment" . There are apparently no physical and economic constraints to residen- tial growth , within the limited range from the lowest feasible limit and the "Trend-Growth" projection . The question is not , "What can we support?" or , "What can we afford? The question is , "What do we want?" Consideration of residential growth limits involves more than just a limit on the potential population ; the future "Community Character" and "Quality of the Living Environment" in Newport Beach will be as much affected by the type of residential development as total popu- lation . Therefore , the recommendations in this report reflect con- sideration for the "housing mix" (percentage of single-family , duplex, and multi -family units ) and the size of residential structures . Based on the policies in the adopted General Plan Policy Report , the Residential Growth Element proposes to : 1 ) Assure a continuing predominance of single-family and 2. duplex units and limit the potential number of multi - family units. 2) Limit the size of residential structurbs to prevent massive , boxy and out-of-character buildings and over- building of small lots . r 3. GENERAL CITY-WIDE RESIDENTIAL ZONING POLICIES Following are the general City-wide residential zoning policies for the City of Newport Beach : 1 . All future multi-family residential development shall be limited to a density not greater than 15 dwelling units per gross acre* on any individual project , except that the multi -family develop- ment in Big Canyon directly across from Newport Center will be permitted a density up to 30 dwelling units per gross acre. 2. Further residential development shall be prohibited in all com- mercial and industrial zones , except where special zoning dis- tricts are established which permit a mixture . 3. The density of all future residential development shall be limited to the lowest feasible and reasonable level . 4. The size of all future residential buildings shall be limited to preserve community character, through use of floor area ratios , lot coverage limits , and building bulk regulation . Regulations shall be developed for each area to assure preservation of the individual and unique character of the residential neighborhoods . 5. Variances for additional units on undersized lots shall not be granted. 6. Standards for provision of adequate off-street parking for all residential uses shall be adopted . * Gross residential acreage includes the individual lots , any interior streets within the area , and one-half of, or thirty feet of (which- ever is lesser) , the width of any perimeter street or adjacent open space (either land or water) . When any individual project is developed for a residential area , densities may vary within the project ; however , the total gross density for the whole project may not exceed the limit indicated in the Residential Growth Element. 4. CITY-WIDE RESIDENTIAL GROWTH LIMITS The residential growth limits resulting from the policies for each section of the City, when aggregated to overall City totals , result in a total of approximately 41 ,578 dwelling units , with an estimated population of 97 ,682 persons . (This results in a 12% reduction from the "Trend-Growth" population projection . ) The following chart illustrates the existing , "Trend-Growth" pro- jected , and " Limited-Growth" levels of dwelling units , and the esti - mated housing types and population which would result. As indicated on the chart, the "Limited-Growth" level based on the policies for each section of the City , will result in a greater proportion of single-family and duplex units than the "Trend-Growth " projection (which would result in nearly half of the total number of units in multi -family developments ) . This is consistent with the adopted "Land Use Policy" of preserving the "predominant one and two family residential character" , contained in the Gener, al ,Plan Policy Report. Estimated Housing Type Breakdown Total No . of Dwelling Single Multi - Mobile Estimated Units 1 Family2 Duplex3 Family4' Home 5 Population6 Existing (As of 1-1 -73) 27 , 598 13 ,652 5 >829 6 ,961 1 ,156 57 ,355 "Trend-Growth" ( 50%) (21 %) (25%) (0) Projection 7 48, 384 14, 162 10 ,356 232866 --- 111 ,891 (29%) (22%) (49%) "Limited Growth" Level based on the Residential 41 ,578 16 ,724 10 , 168 11 ,986 --- 97 ,682 Zoning Policies (39%) ( 24%) (36%) 1 Includes all permanent-units and mobile homes ; does not include hotel or motel or rooms in convalescent hospitals . 2 Includes both separate and attached single-family units . 3 Includes all units where two units occupy one lot , either attached or detached. 4 Includes all units where three or more units occupy one lot. 5 Includes mobile homes in mobilehome parks intended for permanent residents . 6 Estimated population in permanent dwelling units . (The "Trend-Growth " and the Limited-Growth : population estimates are based on a "No Vacancy" assumption , thus representing maximum population . The actual resulting population may be slightly lower. ) 7 Revised , based on the most current information and more detailed analysis . 5. RESIDENTIAL GRQVTH LIMITS. FOR EACH SECTION OF THE CITE' Following are the Residential Zoning Policies and Residential Growth Limits for each section of the City. (The boundaries of each section , the areas designated for residential use, and the anticipated housing types are indicated on the "Residential Growth Plan" at the end of this Element. ) 6 . STATISTICAL AREA Al (Banning Property) : In this area , it is proposed that the Residential Growth Limit be equal to the number of dwelling units that would result if the entire area were zoned for single-family units at a density of 6 dwelling units. per gross acre. If the proposed West Newport Harbor proves feasible , the same number of units would be 'permitted , but the housing type and density would change. However, no individual development would be permitted to exceed 15 dwelling units per gross acre. Residential Zoning Policy for Statistical Area Al Since all of this area , except the City-owned parcels , is unincor- porated , no City action is possible at this time to assure maintenance of the Residential Growth Limit. However, this Residential Growth Element indicates the City ' s intent and the zoning at the time of annexation will reflect this adopted limit. The following Residential Growth Limit is based on the above , with the estimated housing type breakdown based on the assumption of 30% single-family and 50% multi -family . Residential Growth Limit for Statistical Area Al Estimated Housing Type Breakdown Total No . of Dwelling Single Multi- Mobile Estimated Units Family Duplex Family Homes Population Existing (As of 1-1 -73) --- --- --- --- --- --- "Trend-Growth" Projection 4, 550 --- --- 4 ,550 --- 8,640 Residential Growth Limit based on the 2 ,994 1 ,497 --- 1 ,497 --- 6 ,886 Residential Zoning Policy 7. STATISTICAL AREAS A2 AND A3 (.Hoag Hospital Area & County Island) : The "Trend-Growth " projection for these areas indicates a conversion of much of the current industrially-zoned and developed land to resi - dential development , based on the market demand as estimated by the consultant. The Residential Growth Element proposes that this conver- sion of industrial land to residential development be prohibit4d in order to : 1 ) limit the population in the area , and 2) prevent the poor mixture of land uses , and probable deterioration , which would result from a gradual conversion . It is apparent that this area is suitable for continued industrial use in terms of the location , being adjacent to a larger industrial area in Costa Mesa , and the potential improvements in access to the area. Residential Zoning Policy for Statistical Area A2 1 ) Residential development east of Superior Avenue shall be limited to those areas currently developed for resi - dential use , or in the Residential Planned Community District (Versailles ) . 2) Residential development west of Superior Avenue shall be permitted in all areas, except for the M-1 District and the proposed westerly extension of the M-1 District between 15th Street and 16th Street, with a maximum den- sity of 15 dwelling units per gross acre in the area south of the extension of the M-1 District , and a maximum density, of 6 dwelling units per gross acre north of the extension of 16th Street , Residential Growth Limit for Statistical Area A2 ` Estimated Housing Type Breakdown Total No. of Dwelling Single Multi - Mobile Estimated Units Family Duplex Family Homes Population Existing (as --- of 1 -1 -73) 573 --- --- 493 80 11092 "Trend-Growth" Projection 2 , 518 --- --- 2 , 518 --- 4,765 Residential Growth Limit based on the 1 ,668 --- --- 1 , 668 --- 3,336 Residential Zoning Policy 8. Residential Zoning Policy for Statistical Area A3 Since all of Statistical Area A3 is unincorporated , no City action is possible at this time in terms of zoning. However, the intent of the City to limit the extent and density of residential development will be conveyed to the County. The Residential Growth Element pro- poses that residential development at a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per gross acre be permitted in all of A3 , except for a strip along the northern edge , with a width of 300 to 500 feet , and except for the area east of Placentia Avenue . These areas should be reserved 'for industrial and commercial use. Residential Growth Limit for Statistical Area A3 Estimated Housing Type Breakdown Total No. of Dwelling Single Multi - Mobile Estimated Units Family Duplex Family Homes Population Existing (as of 1 -1 -73) 356 21 --- 110 225 640 "Trend-Growth" Projection 1 ,136 --- --- 1 ,136 --- 2 ,272 Residential Growth Limit based on the 555 --- --- 555 --- 1 ,055 Residential Zoning Policy 9 . STATISTICAL DIVISION B (West Newport and Central Newport) The proposals for this area are intended to result in : 1 ) Maximum reasonable reduction in potential population , 2) A limitation on the size of buildings to preserve community character , and 3) A more rational land use pattern . It is proposed that residential development be limited to the area currently developed for residen- tial use , except for a portion of the commercial strip along the north side of West Coast Highway for which two-family residential land use is proposed. Conversely, it is proposed that no further residential development be permitted in the remaining commercial and industrial zones , such as Central Newport, Cannery Village , and Lido Peninsula (unless approved as part of a Planned Community District application , or unless a special zoning district permitting a mixture of residential and commercial uses is developed for these areas ) . Residential Zoning Policy for Statistical Division B 1 ) The State highway right-of-way and the Slough area shall be rezoned to the Open Space District. 2) A portion of the commercial strip on West Coast Highway shall be rezoned to a two-family district that would include appropriate development standards for buffers from the highway and limited access . 3) All R-2 , R-3 , and R-4 Districts shall be rezoned to a two-family district with appropriate development standards . 4) Variances shall not be granted for an additional unit on undersized lots . 5) No zone changes from commercial or industrial zoning to residential zoning in Central Newport shall be permitted , except for a few blocks in the area of 10 . 20th Street which are zoned C-1 and are almost entirely developed for residential use , and except that limited residential uses may be permitted with a Planned Community District application or with a special zoning district which permits a mixture of residential and commercial use. (The additional dwelling units permitted In the commercial areas will add to the Residential Growth Limits shown below. ) Residential Growth Limit for Statistical Division B Estimated Housing Type Breakdown Total No. of Dwelling Single Multi- Mobile Estimated Units Family Duplex Family Homes Population Existing (as of 1 -1 -73) 39818 1 , 137 1 ,994 346 341 7,796 "Trend-Growth" Projection 4,744 556 3 ,636 550 --- 10 ,786 Residenital Growth Limit based on the 4, 260 706 3 , 153 401 --- 9 ,433 Residential Zoning Policy 11 . STATISTICAL DIVISION C (Lido Island) : Consistent with proposals in other sections of the City and the existing character of the area , it is proposed that all the R-3 zones on Lido Island be rezoned to a two-family district. Residential Zoning Policy for Statistical Division C All residential lots within the R-3 District shall be rezoned to a two-family district. Residential Growth Limit for Statistical Division C r Estimated Housing Type Breakdown Total No. of Dwelling Single Multi - Mobile Estimated Units Family Duplex Family Homes Population Existing (as of 1 -1 -73) 869 774 35 60 --- 2 ,260 "Trend-Growth" Projection 889 782 38 69 --- 2 ,320 Residential Growth Limit based on 880 782 38 60 --- 2 ,300 Recommended Zoning Policy 12. STATISTICAL DIVISION D (Balboa Peninsula) : The proposals for Balboa Peninsula include provisions for reducing the potential population , rationalizing residential land use patterns , and limiting the size of residential structures to preserve community character. Residential Zoning Policy for Statistical Division D 1 ) All residential zones between 19th Street and the C-1 District in Central Balboa ; except for the R-1 Zones , Bay Island , the City-owned property adjacent to Marina Park , and the Newport Beach Elementary School shall be rezoned to a two-family district with appropriate development standards . 2) Bay Island shall be rezoned to R-1 . 3) Certain blocks and portions of blocks on the fringe of the Central Balboa commercial area shall be rezoned from C-1 to a two-family district with appropriate , de- velopment standards . 4) The R-3 Zones between the C-1 District in Central Balboa and "D" Street shall be rezoned to a two-family district With appropriate development standards . 5) The R-2 and R-3 Zones east of "D" Street shall be rezoned to R-1 . 6) The beach , the City-owned property at Marina Park , and the Newport Beach Elementary School shall be rezoned to the OS-Open Space District. 7 ) No residential development shall be permitted in the re- 9 mainin C-1 zoned Core Area of Central Balboa . 8) No variances shall be granted which would permit an addi- tional unit on undersized lots . 9) The Newport Harbor Yacht Club shall be rezoned to a two- family district , or the OS-Open Space District with the property owner' s agreement . 13. • 10 ) Large lots or combined lots may be developed with more than two units with the approval of the Planning Commission under controls to be established . Residential Growth Limit for Statistical Division D Estimated Housing Type Breakdown Total No. of Dwelling Single Multi - Mobile Estimated Units Family Duplex Family Homes Population Existing (As of 1 -1 -73) 2 ,966 1 , 117 781 1 ,010 58 5,182 "Trend-Growth" Projection 3 ,469 834 800 1 ,835 --- 7 ,652 Residential Growth Limit based on the 3 ,241 860 1 ,371 1 ,010 --- 6 ,963 Residential Zoning Policy i 14. I STATISTICAL DIVISION E (Balboa Island) : No change from the current R-1 . 5 Zoning is proposed. Residential Zoning Policy for Statistical Division E 1 ) The current R-1 . 5 District regulations shall be continued . 2) No variances shall be granted for an additional unit on undersized lots . 3) Further residential development p in the commercial zones on Balboa Island shall be controlled through adoption of a special zoning district which will provide for a mixture of commercial and residential uses . (Any dwelling units built in the commercial zones will add to the Residential Growth Limit shown below. ) Residential Growth Limit for Statistical Division E Estimated Housing Type Breakdown Total No. -- - - - - -of Dwelling Single Multi- Mobile Estimated Units Family Duplex Family Homes Population Existing (As of 1 -1 -73) 2,089 752 1 ,400 117 --- 3 ,635 "Trend-Growth" Projection 2, 614 72 2 ,425 117 --- 5,498 Residential Growth Limit based on the 2 , 614 72 2 ,425 117 --- 5 ,226 Residential Zoning Policy 15. STATISTICAL AREA F1 (Irvine Terrace) : This area is essentially fully developed and stable. Therefore , no proposal is made to limit residential growth below the "Trend-Growth" projection . Residential Zoning Policy for Statistical Area F1 No zone changes shall be granted which would permit an intensification of development. Residential Growth Limit for Statistical Area Fl Estimated Housing Type Breakdown Total No. of Dwelling Single Multi - Mobile Estimated Units Family Duplex Family Homes Population Existing (As of 1 -1 -73) 452 406 34 12 --- 1 ,091 "Trend-Growth" Projection 458 412 34 12 --- 1 ,087 Residential Growth Limit based on the 458 412 34 12 --- 1 ,087 Residential Zoning Policy 1 6. STATISTICAL AREAS F2 , F3 , and F4 (Old Corona del Mar) : The proposals for Old Corona del Mar are aimed primarily at preserving community character. Residential Zoning Policy for Statistical Areas F2 , F3 , and F4 All R-2 and R-3 Districts shall be rezoned to a two-family district with appropriate development standards that will serve to reduce the size of all new residential developments . Residential Growth Limit for Statistical Areas F2 , F3 , and F4 Estimated Housing Type Breakdown Total No . of Dwelling Single Multi - Mobile Estimated Units Family Duplex Family Homes Population Existing (AS -- - ---- ------ - - -- -of 1 -1 -73) 3 ,006 1 , 1'90 1 ,499 317 --- 5 ,636 "Trend-Growth " Projection 3,664 526 2 ,821 317 --- 7 ,474 Residential Growth Limit based on the 3 ,664 526 2 ,821 317 --- 7,143 Residential Zoning Policy 17 . STATISTICAL AREAS F5 , F6 , F7, AND F8 ("East" Corona del Mar) : These areas are almost fully developed ; however , there is some potential for residential growth resulting from a small area of R-2 zoning which is predominantly developed with single-family residences . Residential Zoning Policy for Statistical Areas F5 , F6 , F7 , and F8 1 ) The R-2 Districts in this area shall be rezoned to R-1 . 2) No zone changes shall be granted which would permit an intensification of development. Residential Growth Limit for Statistical Areas F5 , F6 , F7, and F8 Estimated Housing Type Breakdown Total No. - -- of Dwelling Single Multi - Mobile Estimated Units Family Duplex Family Homes Population Existing (As of 1 -1 -73 ) 721 636 2 83 --- 2 ,097 "Trend-Growth" Projection 783 574 126 83 --- 2 ,280 Residential Growth Limit based on the 729 644 2 83 --- 2 ,114 Residential Zoning Policy 18. STATISTICAL DIVISION G (Promontory Point and Bayside Drive Area) : All of the vacant land in Division G is either currently under develop- ment or approved for development in the near future. The only portion of Division G where the potential population can be reduced is the ; Beacon Bay residential area which is currently zoned R-2 but predomi - nantly developed as single-family residences . Residential Zoning Policy for Statistical Division G 1 ) All of the R-2 District in Beacon Bay shall be rezoned to R-1 . 2) No further residential development shall be permitted in any commercial district in Division G. Residential Growth Limit for Statistical Division G Estimated Housing Type Breakdown Total No. _�— of Dwelling Single Multi - Mobile Estimated Units Family Duplex Family Homes Population Existing (As of 1 -1 -73) 283 226 4 53 --- 599 "Trend-Growth" Projection 1 ,019 228 140 651 --- 2,490 Residential Growth Limit based on the 951 296 4 651 --- 2 ,378 Residential Zoning Policy i 19. STATISTICAL DIVISION H (Mariner ' s Mile , Newport Heights , Cliff Haven) : Although the residential portions of this area appear to be fully developed , there is some potential for residential growth in the R-2 and R-3 Districts which presently are developed with single-family residences . The proposals are aimed at limiting potential population , limiting the size of residential buildings , and encouraging redevelop- ment in the "Old Newport Boulevard" area. Residential Zoning Y Polic for Statistical Division H As shown on the " Residential Growth Plan" : 1 ) Certain R-2 and R-3 Districts shall be rezoned to R-1 . 2) Certain R-2 , R-3, and "U" Districts and one block of the C-1 District in the old Newport Boulevard area shall be rezoned to a two-family district with appropriate develop- ment standards . 3 ) The block in the " I" District shall be rezoned to R-3 . 4) No further residential development shall be permitted in the remaining commercial districts in Division H , nor shall further residential development be permitted on the Balboa Bay Club site. Residential Growth Limit for Statistical Division H Estimated Housing Type Breakdown Total No. of Dwelling Single Multi - Mobile Estimated Units Family Duplex Family Homes Population Existing (As -_ _._ -- of 1-1 -73) 2 ,088 1 ,514 38 500 46 5,297 "Trend-Growth" Projection 2,417 1 , 371 284 762 --- 6 ,417 Residential Growth Limit based on the 2 , 182 1 ,414 268 500 --- 6,041 Residential Zoning Policy 20. STATISTICAL DIVISION J (Westcliff, Dover Shores , Baycrest , and Santa Ana Heights ) : The potential for -residential growth in Division J is primarily due to the two large vacant areas adjacent to Upper Bay.: The remainder of Division J is essentially fully developed . It is assumed that most of the land in the vacant sites will be devoted to residential use . The proposals are aimed at reducing the potential population in these vacant areas . Residential Zoning Policy for Statistical Division J 1 ) Residential development in the southernmost vacant area (the Castaways site) shall be limited to a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per gross acre . 2) Residential development in the vacant R-3-B-2 site adjacent G C rr-'-n � 0, Yl l V\l ^���'deg' d{� 7 to the Y . M. C .A. shall be limited to a maxi um nsity of six dwelling units per gross acre. 3) The vacant area adjacent to Irvine Avenue at the north- west corner of Upper Newport Bay shall be designated as Open Space related to the "Upper Bay Wildlife Reserve" ; however , provision should be made for private development in case public acquisition is not feasible . For that reason the major portion of the property should be zoned to permit residential development at a maximum density of six dwelling units per gross acre. 4) Further intensification of the residential development in the "Santa Ana Heights " area shall be discouraged . (Since this area is unincorporated , no zoning action can be taken by the City ; however , the City will request that the County prohibit intensification of residential use in this area . ) 21 . Residential Growth Limit for Statistical Division J Estimated Housing Type Breakdown Total No. of Dwelling Single Multi - Mobile Estimated Units Family Duplex Family Homes Population - -- -- ------ E x i s t i n g (A s - - - --- -- - ---- --- ---_- - of 1 -1 -73) 4,856 2 , 702 52 2 ,003 99 9 , 776 I "Trend-Growth" Projection 6, 300 2 ,795 52 3 ,453 --- 13 ,878 Residential Growth Limit based on the 5 ,534 3 ,479 52 2 ,003 --- 12 , 728 Residential Zoning Policy 22. STATISTICAL DIVISION K (Bluffs , Eastbluff, Park Newport) : The potential for residential gal growth in Division K is the result of the large vacant site between the Newporter Inn and Park Newport, and the three (prior to the current height limit ordinance ) "high-rise" sites in the Bluffs . It is assumed that most of the large vacant sites will be devoted to residential use. Residential Zoning Policy for Statistical Division K 1 ) Residential development in the large vacant site north of the Newporter Inn shall be limited to a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per gross acre. 2) Residential development in the two southernmost "high-rise" sites in the Bluffs shall be limited to a maximum density of 5 dwelling units per gross acre. 3) Residential development in the northernmost "high-rise" site shall be limited to 9 dwelling units per gross acre . 4) The "Land Trade Remanent" adjacent to the "Bluffs " shall be rezoned from R-3-B to a , yet to be developed , zoning district which will permit a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per gross acre., although it is proposed that, if possible , this land be acquired as open space as part of the "Upper Newport Bay Wildlife Reserve" . ( If this land is developed residen- tially, approximately 70 dwelling units would be added to the growth level . ) Residential Growth Limit for Statistical Division K Estimated Housing Type Breakdown Total No. of Dwelling Single Multi - Mobile Estimated Units Family Duplex Family Homes Population Existing (As of 1 -1 -73) 3 ,255 1 ,45-8 --- 1 ,490 307 6,326 "Trend-Growth" Projection 5 ,072 1 ,704 --- 3 , 368 --- 11 ,578 Residential Growth Limit based on this 4,462 1 ,682 --- 2 ,780 --- 9 ,816 Residential Zoning Policy 23 . STATISTICAL DIVISION L (Newport Center, Big Canyon) : The potential for residential growth in Division L is the result of the build-out of Big Canyon and the possibility of additional resi - dential development in Newport Center. Residential Zoning Policy for Statistical Division L 1 ) The Big Canyon PC District shall be amended to limit all multi-family development , other than Area 14 which is cur- rently under development, to a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per gross acre , except for Area 10 which will be limited to a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per gross acre. 2) That additional residential development in Newport Center be limited to the vacant area on Jamboree Road and on the Coast Highway which backs up on the Country Club with a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per gross acre. Residential Growth Limit for Statistical Division L Estimated Housing Type Breakdown Total No . of Dwelling Single Multi- Mobile Estimated Units Family Duplex Family Homes Population Existing (As V of 1 -1 -73) 185 104 --- 81 --- 528 "Trend-Growth" Projection 3 , 705 966 --- 2 ,739 --- 9 ,111 Recommended Residential Growth Limit based on the Residential Zoning Policy 2 ,810 966 --- 1 ,844 --- 6 ,990 24. STATISTICAL DIVISION M (Harbor View Hills , Spyglass , Jasmine Creek) : The potential for residential growth in Division M is primarily the result of the "building-out" of the approved Residential Planned Community Districts . Since the single-family densities of these approved Planned Community Districts do not appear to be excessive, the proposals do not include amending the single-family portions ; however, a reduction in one multi-family area is proposed. Also , there are some vacant R-3 Districts for which rezoning to a lower density is proposed. Residential Zoning Policy for Statistical Division M 1 ) The vacant R-3 Districts near the reservoir and the "U" District at the corner of MacArthur and Fifth shall be rezoned to a, yet to be developed, residential zone which will limit the maximum density to fifteen dwelling units per gross acre . 2) That the vacant R-3-B site east of the Harbor View Elemen- tary School be rezoned to R-1 -B. 3 ) That the multi-family site in the northern tip of the Harbor View Hills PC be reduced from 25 to a maximum of 15 dwelling units per gross acre . 4) That the land between Fifth Street and Sand Castle Drive be rezoned from R-2-B to R-1 -B , although it is anticipated that this land will be acquired for park and/or highway purposes . ( If this area is developed residentially , approximately 100 dwelling units could be added to the growth limit shown below. ) Residential Growth Limit for Statistical Division M Estimated Housing Type Breakdown Total No. - — — ---" of Dwelling Single Multi - Mobile Estimated Units Family Duplex Family Homes Population Existing (As of 1 -1 -73 ) 2 ,081 1 ,795 --- 286 --- 6,491 "Trend-Growth" Projection 5,046 3 ,340 --- 1 ,706 --- 15 ,643 Residential Growth Limit based on the 4 ,576 3 , 388 --- 1 , 188 --- 14,186 Residential Zoning Policy 25 . RESOLUTION NO. 795 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING THE RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS , a phase of the City's General Plan Program , has involved the preparation of a Residential Growth Element; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Policy Report, adopted by the City Council on March 13, 1973, states that the City shall set limits on residential growth; and WHEREAS , pursuant to Section 707 of the City Charter of the City of Newport Beach, the Planning Commission has held public hearings to consider the adoption of the Residential Growth Element as a part of the City's General Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby adopt and recommend to the City Council the Residential Growth Element of the Newport Beach General Plan described above, a copy of which is on file in the Newport Beach Community Development Department. Regularly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach on the 15th day of March , 1973. AYES : Beckley, Glass , Hazewinkel , Heather, Martin , Rosener NOES : None ABSENT: Agee Chairm I n ecr ary DRB :sh 3/20/73 7. 0q CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STUDY SESSION AGENDA NO. 2( 04 March 22 , 1973 TO : City Council FROM : Community Development Department SUBJECT : WEST NEWPORT COMMERCIAL STRIP The staff met with representatives of West Newport on March 21 , 1973 to discuss the future of the West Newport commercial strip. Attending the meeting were Mrs . Margo Skilling , Mr. John Shea (representing the Newport Shores Community Association) , Mr. Robert Thomas , the Community Development Director and the Advance Planning Administrator. Mr. Thomas is a local architect who designed the Harbor View Shopping Center. The initial meeting was spent dis- cussing the opportunities , problems , and objectives of the area. The staff within the next week will be preparing a specific plan (both plan and text) with possible short and long range solutions . The staff will present this plan to representatives of the area at a meeting scheduled for March 29 , 1973. If the plan is acceptable to the local representatives , it will be presented to the Planning Commission as part of the Land Use Element of the General Plan . Respectfully submitted , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT By -1_ OGAN ,. RECTOR RVH/RL /ddb DO NOT REMovE 70 Joint Meeting of City Council and Planning Commission 'Feb .' 22 , 1973 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 20, 1973 TO : City Council and Planning Commission FROM : Community Development Department SUBJECT : LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN The Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan is a long range guide to the development and use of all lands within the Newport Beach plannidg area , including both private and public projects. The attache'd report and an accompanying map entitled , "Land Use Plan" (to be presented at the joint study session) represent the Land Use Element as recommended by the Department of Community Development. The General Policy Report adopted March 13 , 1972 by the City Council formed the basis for the proposals contained in the recommended Land Use Element. There are several other elements of the Newport Beach General Plan which either affect, or are affected by, the Land Use Element , including : the Circulation Element, the Natural Environment Element, the Housing Element , and the Community Facilities Element. Although none of these other elements have been completed , studies which were done for these elements have been taken into consideration in the development of the Land Use Element. As these other elements are completed , some minor revisions to the Land Use Element will undoubtedly be necessary in order to accommodate some of the pro- posals which require allocation of land or adjustments of the land use designations . The adoption of the Land Use Element by the City Council will require several subsequent Zone Code Amendments and rezoning of some spe- cific areas . Th'e General Plan Public Hearing Schedule previously distributed to the City Council and Planning Commission made pro- visions for such considerations during the months of May and June. Recommended Action : Staff recommends that after discussion at the joint meeting : 1 . the recommendations be referred to the Planning Commission for discussion and public hearings , and 2. the resulting Land Use Element be recommended to the City Council for public hearings and adoption as the Land Use Element of the General Plan . Respectfully submitted , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V. HOGAN , DIRECTOR By R .,t C, .:._... FIL111: COPY RODNEY L . UNN ADVANCE PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR DO NOT REMOVE RLG/ddb Attachments : Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN FEBRUARY 20 , 1973 INTRODUCTION The Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan is a long range guide to the development and use of all lands within the Newport Beach planning area , including both private and public pro- jects . Although streets and highways are technically a use of land , they are not included since the street system is the subject of the Circulation Element. The Land Use Element includes this report and an accompanying map entitled , "Land Use Plan" . The Land Use Element should be regarded as an expression of public policy for land development. As such , it represents the "desirable" pattern for the ultimate, full development of the City of Newport Beach as determined at this point in time. As new information be- comes available , or circumstances change , the Land Use Element may need to be amended. Thus , the Land Use Element is not a final "picture" of the future City of Newport Beach ; it is an expression of what is desired for the future based on today ' s knowledge and circumstances , and , as such , is part of a continuous planning process requiring continuing research , policy review , and revisions of the Land Use Element. Such revisions of the Land Use Element must be made only after thorough study indicates the desira- bility of a revision . ADOPTED LAND USE POLICIES The General Plan Policy Report , adopted by the City Council on March 13, 1972 , contains the following General Objectives and Supporting Policies relating to future growth and land use. These policies have formed the basis for the proposals contained in the Land Use Element. IN PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE OF THE COMMUNITY , it shall be the basic underlying goal of the City of Newport Beach to protect and enhance the City' s special charm and character; its unique natural and man- made physical environment; its attractive visual environment , and the wide range of social , economic , cultural , educational and recreational opportunities which have contributed to the high quality of life .enjoyed by its citizens . FUTURE GROWTH GENERAL OBJECTIVE 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 a) The City shall set specific limits on population and dwelling unit densities and the intensity and extent of commercial and industrial development for the general planning area as a whole, and for each individual plan- ning area throughout the community. b) The timing and pace of future development or redevelop- ment 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 . c) The City shall encourage the growth of income-producing developments to sustain a high revenue base for the provision of public support services only within those areas where the character, amount and location of such developments are compatible with surrounding land uses and the existing character of the community. i i 2. LAND USE GENERAL OBJECTIVE It is the objective of the City of Newport Beach to provide for an orderly balance of both public and private land uses within con- venient and compatible locations throughout the community, and to ensure that all such uses -- their type , amount , design and arrange- ment -- each serve to protect and enhance the character and image of the community as a low-density residential -recreational area. SUPPORTING POLICIES a) The City shall preserve and maintain the predominant one and two family residential character and density of the community within existing and future neighbor- hoods throughout the City. b) Higher density residential development shall be limited to those areas where compatible with adjacent land uses and where adequate and convenient commercial services and public support systems such as streets , parking , parks , schools and utilities are , or will be , adequate to serve them. c) The village-like neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas shall be preserved and encouraged. d) The City shall provide for a sufficient diversity of land uses so that schools , recreation areas , churches and neighborhood shopping centers are available in close proximity to each resident of the community. e) The type and amount of commercial areas shall be limited to those which can feasibly be supported by their appro- priate trade area and to those which are consistent and i 3. • compatible with the prime concept and image of the community as a quality, low-density residential area . f) Commercial recreation or destination tourist facilities , in particular, shall be carefully controlled so as to protect the quality residential character of the commu- nity and the opportunity of local residents to enjoy (in a safe, attractive and convenient manner) the continued use of the harbor, shoreline and local transportation and parking facilities . g ) In view of the City ' s attraction as a regional and state- wide recreation area ; the growing regional and statewide demand for water-oriented recreational facilities , and the limited capacity of the City ' s harbor and oceanfront resources to fully satisfy such demands , the City shall encourage the opening and development of adjoining ocean and waterfront areas outside Newport Bay in a manner which may best serve to distribute the increasing public need for water-oriented recreational facilities . h ) Consistent with all other policies to protect and enhance the quality residential character of the community , the City shall encourage both public and private water-oriented recreational and entertainment facilities as a means of providing public access to the waterfront. i ) Provisions shall be made for the preservation of suitable and adequate sites for commercial and industrial marine- related facilities so as to protect the City ' s historical and maritime atmosphere , and the charm and character such industries have traditionally provided the City. j ) General industrial development within the community shall be limited to those areas and uses which are appropriate to and compatible with a quality residential community. 4. k) The City shall develop and maintain suitable and adequate standards for landscaping , sign control , site and building design , parking and the undergrounding of utilities to ensure that all existing and future commercial and indus- trial developments are compatible with surrounding land uses . GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND USE PLAN OVERALL CITY FORM The City of Newport Beach has developed as a grouping of small com- munities or "villages" , primarily due to the natural geographic form of the bay , which provides both physical division and unity , in the sense of a common , shared natural resource. Many of the newer de- velopments , located inland from the bay , have been based on a "Planned Community" concept, resulting in a furtherance of the "village" form even where no major geographical division exists . The general character of most of these "village" areas is low-density residential and low-intensity commercial development , although there are a few areas of more intensive development providing both visual interest and activity centers . The Land Use Element proposes that the City build on this existing "grouping of villages " form and character, and , where possible , strengthen both the physical identity and functional efficiency of this form through suc� means as : (1 ) use of open space corridors and buffers ; (2) assuring harmonious groupings of land uses in each "village" area ; (3) encouraging the development of an "individual character" for each "village" area , rather than attempting a city- wide, monotonous conformity ; (4) provision of neighborhood commercial centers within or adjacent to the "village" areas ; ( 5) provision for public and semi -public facilities (schools , parks , churches , etc. ) within each "village" area ; (6) controlling the density of residen- tial uses (as discussed in the "Residential Growth Element" ) ; and (7) controlling the intensity of commercial uses (as discussed 5 . below) . MAJOR LAND 'US'E 'FLAN 'DES'IGNATI'0'NS The Land Use Plan illustrates the proposed use and development of all lands in four major categories : 1 . Residential 2. Commercial 3. Industrial 4. Public , Semi-Public , and Institutional These major categories are then broken down into sub-categories , as described below. The uses included should be considered as predomi - nant , proposed uses . it is recognized that , in many cases , there are existing uses that do not fit the designation . The Land Use Element does not propose that these "non-conforming" uses be phased out , except where specifically discussed. In some cases a mixture of two or more types of land use may be desirable. This is indicated by alternating stripes of the appro- priate coding colors . For example , the "Cannery Village" area is designated for a mixture of industrial and commercial ; other areas are designated for a mixture of two sub-categories , such as retail and service commercial mixed with administrative , professional , and financial commercial . Certain areas have been designated for further, more detailed study , leading to the development of specific plans and programs for physical improvement. These specific plans and programs may include local street pattern revisions , parking areas , public improvements in the street rights-of-way (such as landscaping , lighting , street furniture , signs ) and architectural design standards and criteria for private development. An example of what can be accomplished with architectural design standards and criteria is the Marine Avenue commercial district on Balboa Island ; although this was 6. 1 I • • accomplished by cooperation of the property owners in the area , City participation will be required to effect similar improvements in other areas . RESIDENTIAL Areas designated residential are to be predominantly used for resi - dences in permanently constructed residential buildings ; however, there are certain "community service" uses , such as churches , civic organization buildings , club houses , and recreational facilities which , with proper location and design , are appropriate uses within areas with a residential designation . Densities are designated for large vacant areas . These designations indicate the maximum number of dwelling units per gross residential acre. Gross residential acreage includes the individual lots , any interior streets within the area , and one-half of, or 30 feet of (whichever is lesser) , the width of any perimeter street. The residential designations and densities are based on the "Residential Growth Element" of the General Plan . Although the General Plan does address itself to residential den- sities , population growth and the harmonious grouping of land uses , it does not specifically discuss development standards at the scale of the individual lot. Clearly definable problems remain unsolved in the "older residential sections " of the City. These detailed problems will be resolved when new development standards for parking and outdoor living areas , setbacks , etc are developed in conjunction with the review and revision of the Zoning ordinance. These new development standards should be based on the adopted General Plan objectives and policies . Single-Family : Included in this sub-category are separate residences , as well as attached residences constructed on individual lots with varying densities up to a maximum density of ten dwelling units per gross acre. (Most of the areas in this 7 . f sub-category designated for densities much lower than 9 Y are 9 ten dwelling units per gross acre. ) Two-Family: This sub-category includes residences where two dwelling units are constructed on one lot , either attached or separate. Multi -Family : This sub-category includes residences where three or more dwelling units are constructed on one lot . Also included are "row houses" where the density exceeds ten dwelling units per gross acre. COMMERCIAL Areas designated commercial are to be predominantly used for the conduct of private business ventures ; however, there are certain non-business uses , such as post offices and public parking , which are appropriate in commercially designated areas . It is proposed that the intensity of commercial development in all areas be controlled through use of a "floor area ratio" ordinance , which will be developed after more detailed study of each commercial area. Retail and Service Commercial : It is intended that business uses in this category be limited to retail sales , services , hotels and motels , with offices permitted only if they are ancillary to , and on the same lot as , another primary use which provides goods or services directly to the public. In those areas designated as " Retail and Service Commercial " only , separate "office buildings" would be prohibited in order to ( 1 ) assure "continuity of shopping" and contiguity of mutually-supportive businesses , and (2) limit the potential traffic volumes in those areas (large office buildings are heavy traffic generators ; this "office traffic" may interfere with "s,hopping traffic" , adversely affecting the economic viability of commercial areas ) . 8. i In other areas , where appropriate, a mixture of Retail and Service Commercial and "office" (administrative , professional and financial ) is indicated on the Land Use Plan . Administrative , Professi'onal', and Financial : Included in this category are offices (either ancillary or separate) , services , hotels and motels , and convalescent homes , with some limited retail uses (such as restaurants ) which are supportive of the predominant uses . Recreational Commercial : Included in this category are marinas , boat and marine supply sales , boat repair and servicing , sport fishing establishments , restaurants , night clubs , specialty shops , hotels , and motels , with offices permitted only if they are ancillary to , and on the same lot as , another primary use. Separate "office buildings" would be prohibited for the reasons listed under "Retail d.nd Service Commercial " and to preserve those unique sites , generally adjacent to the Bay , most suited for recreational commercial use. (Also , recreational commercial uses usually provide public physical and/or visual access to the Bay , whereas office buildings generally do not) . INDUSTRIAL Areas designated Industrial are to be predominantly used for research , development, or manufacture of products ; however, certain non- industrial uses , such as professional services , warehouses , fire stations , and utility substations , are appropriate. General Industry : This sub-category includes research , development and manu- facturing firms , professional -services (such as architecture or engineering) , warehouses and wholesale sales , with retail sales or offices only if they are ancillary to , and on the . same lot as , another primary industrial or professional service use. 9 . PUBLIC , SEMI-PUBLIC, AND I'NSTITUTI'ONAL , Areas designated public , semi-public , and institutional are to be predominantly used for publicly-owned facilities and open space , r or privately-owned facilities of an open space nature which are open to use by the general public ; however , certain non-public and non-open space facilities , such as country clubs , may be appropriate. (Many existing and proposed public facilities and parks are too small to be designated on the Land Use Plan ; these will be dealt with in the Community Facilities Element and the Natural Environ- ment Element . ) While the Land Use Plan designates both publicly and privately- owned properties as "open space" , as required by the State Govern- ment Code, it is recognized that privately-owned property cannot legally be zoned as open space unless the City intends to purchase the property immediately, or unless the property owner agree's to the Open Space Zoning . Therefore , the privately-owned properties designated as open space on the Land Use Plan must be zoned for some legitimate development until such time as ( 1 ) an agreement is reached with the property owner for rezoning to open space, or ( 2) the City , or other governmental agency , is ready to purchase the land or an open space easement over the land. Governmental , Educational , and Institutional Facilities : This sub-category includes the City Hall , the City Yard, fire stations , libraries , reservoirs , utility sub-stations , schools , etc . Recreational and Environmental Open Space : This sub-category includes major parks , wildlife refuges , golf courses , bluffs , canyons and beaches . LAND USE SUMMARY The following chart illustrates the comparison between the existing , "Trend-Growth" projected , and proposed ultimate land use composition 10. of the Newport Beach planning area. The "Trend-Growth" projected land use is based on a study conducted by the City' s economic consultant, Development Research Associates , and represents the probable ultimate land use composition that would result under cur- rent zoning and market conditions . This summary indicates that the amount of land allocated to com- mercial and industrial use by the Land Use Plan is , in general terms , economically feasible under the long-range market potential , as re- lated to the "Trend-Growth" projection . However, within this long- range time span , there will undoubtedly be fluctuations of economic pressures and short-range market demands for development not in accord with the Land Use Plan , such as the demand for residential develop- ment in areas designated for commercial use. These short-range pressures shall not be allowed to usurp the long-range opportunities and objectives of the Plan , such as assuring harmonious groupings of uses and assuring a continuing high commercial tax base. As indicated by the "Preliminary Cost Revenue System" developed by the Community Development Department , commercial uses are providing a major share of the City ' s revenues and are enabling the maintenance of a rela- tively low property tax rate. EXISTING "TREND-GROWTH" PROPOSED (as of 1 -1 -73) PROJECTED (BASED ON LAND USE PLAN) Acresl % of Total Acres % of Total Acres % of Total Residential 4 , 174 51 % 5 ,090 64 % 5 ,127 64 % Commercial 617 7 % 1 ,336 17 % 1 ,376 17 % Industrial 315 4 % 648 8 % 661 8 % Public , Institutional 585 7 % 849 11 % 881 11 % Vacant 2 ,538 31 % --- -- % --- -- % TOTAL2 8,229 100 % 7 ,9233 100 % 8 ,0454 100 % 1Gross 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 . 3Reduction due to projected conversion of land to water areas with harbor construction in West Newport. 4Increase over "Trend-Growth" projected total area due to revised estimate of the amount of land to be converted to water area with West Newport Harbor. 11 . i MAJOR LAND USE PROPOSALS FOR EACH AREA Following is an area by area discussion: of the land use proposals for each section of the Newport Beach planning area . Residential uses have been covered in the "Residential Growth Element" of the General Plan and , therefore, are not discussed in detail here. WEST NEWPORT AREA For planning purposes , the West Newport area is defined as including all of the land within the current City boundaries west of 19th Street, the Bay, and Newport Boulevard , including the two unincor- porated " island" areas north of the Coast Highway. Following are the major proposals for tiie West Newport area : West Newport Harbor : It is proposed that a small craft harbor be developed in the " low-land" area north of "Newport Shores " and adjacent to the Santa Ana River. The West Newport Harbor would extend north to the City of Costa Mesa , joining with the pro- posed "Keys Marina" project. (The harbor indication on the Land Use Plan is intended only to show that a harbor is pro- posed ; it is not a plan for the harbor or the adjacent land uses . After design studies are complete , the actual harbor and land use layout may be completely different. ) This harbor is to provide full marine service and commercial recreational facilities , with accommodations for approximately 3 ,000 boats in slips . In addition , a public riding and hiking trail and park area is proposed as part of the County-wide Santa Ana River Greenbelt Project. The remainder of the vacant land area around the harbor would be used for residential development as discussed in the "Residential Growth Element" . 12. • Coast HighwaY 'Commercial Strip: The Coast Highway commercial "strip" in Rest Newport is obviously in a state of economic and aesthetic decline. While much of this decline may be attributed to the spectre of the now defunct Pacific Coast Freeway, "strip" commercial develop- ment will not encourage the types of businesses needed to pro- vide convenience goods and services to nearby residences and would result in a continuation of the problems of traffic con- flicts and poor interfaces with adjacent residential uses . Therefore , it is proposed that the existing "strip" commercial area on the north side of Coast Highway be reduced to two locations : ( 1 ) the northeast corner of Orange Street and Coast Highway (where the existing liquor store and service station are located) and (2) all of the Cl zoned area east of Prospect Street. The remainder of the 61 zoned area will be all-owed to convert to residential development (as discussed in the "Residential Growth Element" ) . State Highway Rigbt-of-Way : The vacant State Highway right-of-way on the south side of the Coast Highway opposite "Newport Shores" , and on the north side along the Bluffs near Newport Boulevard will be preserved as open space , to be used for parking , public recreational and visual-environmental purposes . Industrial Area near Hoag Hospital : The existing industrial area near Hoag Hospital will be pre- served , with the provision for limited expansion of the indus- trial uses . Cannery Village and McFadden Square : The "Cannery Village" industrial , marine service , and specialty shop area and the "McFadden Square" area shall be preserved and enhanced by: (1 ) prohibiting the encroachment of separate 13. residential uses , (some limited residential uses attached to commercial or industrial uses may be permitted with special regulations ) ; (2) developing a "Specific Plan" for these areas to resolve existing on°,entation , access , and parking problems and improve the visual environment ; and (3 ) development of a plan and program to preserve the marine repair and service uses in the "Cannery Village" area. Lido Peninsula : The mobilehome park area on the Lido Peninsula will be en- couraged to develop as a master-planned marine and recreational commercial area (using the Planned Community District concept) , which shall include marine repair and service uses , and may include such uses as : boat sales , restaurants , nightclubs , hotels , motels , and specialty shops . Some residential develop- ment could be appropriate , with proper design ; however , any residential use should be limited in area ( relative to other uses ) with densities not to exceed 15 ,dwelling units per gross acre for any individual project. LIDO ISLAND AREA No changes in the Lido Island land use pattern are proposed. BALBOA PENINSULA AREA For planning purposes , the Balboa Peninsula area includes all of the Peninsula east of 19th Street. Following are the major non-residential land use proposals for the Balboa Peninsula : 5 Central Balboa Commercial Area : It is proposed that a "core" area of commercial uses be pre- served by: (1 ) rezoning certain blocks and portions of blocks on the fringe of the commercial district to residential , as discussed in the "Residential Growth Element" , (2) prohibiting the encroachment of residential uses (and separate office building uses ) into the remaining commercial "core" area (to 14. maintain continuity of shopping , contiguity of mutually- supportive uses , and the long-range viability of commercial uses ) , and (3) the development of a "Specific Plan" for the area , to resolve problems of access , orientation , and parking , and to enhance the visual environment. Commercial Uses at 15th Street : It is proposed that the existing commercial uses at l5th Street be maintained. These include a service station , market, and coffee shop which provide needeq convenience goods and services for both the visitor and nearby residents . Marinapark • Marinapark is shown as public open space in anticipation of the previously approved public park development. BALBOA ISLAND AND PROMONTORY BAY AREA For planning purposes , the Balboa Island and Promontory Bay Area includes Balboa Island, Harbor Island , Linda Isle , and all of the land south of Coast Highway between the Bay and Jamboree Road. The only major land use change proposed , other than the "building-out" of the approved residential developments , is as follows : "Beacon Bay" Area : It is proposed that , in keeping with the uniqueness of this harbor front site as a public resource, all of the City pro- perty in the Beacon Bay area be converted to public marine- oriented recreational uses (after the current lease expires in 1987) . The exact layout and nature of the uses will be deter- mined by a "master plan" , which should be developed prior to the expiration of the current lease. Certain recreational commercial concessions (such as a snack shop , boat rental , etc. ) could be included . 15. CORONA DEL MAR AREA The only major proposal for the Corona del Mar area (which includes all of the land south of the Coast Righway and the "Fifth Avenue extension" , between Jamboree had and the Eastern City boundary) is that "Buck Gully" and "Morning Canyon" be preserved as open space . No major change in the Corona del Mar land use pattern is proposed. It is proposed that a "Specific Plan " for the preservation and en- hancement of the commercial strip be developed , including appropriate architectural design criteria . NEWPORT HEIGHTS , CLIFF HAVEN & MARINERS MILE AREA For planning purposes , this area includes all land south of the City boundary and 16th Street , from Newport Boulevard east to Dover Drive and the Bay. The commercial area along Coast Highway known as "Mariners Mile" has been designated as a "Specific Plan" area , in order to resolve problems of traffic conflicts , parking , and access to enhance the visual en- vironment ; and to preserve existing marine uses . Other than the residential proposals contained in the "Residential Growth Element" , there are only two major land use proposals in this area : "Old Newport Boulevard" Area : The existing commercial district in this area is obviously in a state of economic decline , due mainly to the problems of poor orientation and access (created with the realignment of Newport Boulevard ) . It is proposed that the City encourage redevelopment of most of the existing uses to administrative and professional uses , possibly related to Hoag Hospital , such as : medical and pro- fessional offices , and medical technician , nursing schools , with some limited residential uses such as convalescent homes and nurses ' quarters . 16 . Balboa Bay 'Cl'ub Site : It is proposed that , in keeping with 'the uniqueness of this harbor-front site as a public resource, this property be converted to public marine-oriented recreational uses (after the current lease expires in 1998) . The exact layout and nature of the uses will be determined by a "master plan" which should be developed prior to the expiration of the current lease. Certain recreational commercial concessions could be included. DOVER SHORES , WESTCLIFF, HARBOR HIGHLANDS & SANTA ANA HEIGHTS For planning purposes , this area includes all land in the City on the west side of the Upper Bay , north of Coast Highway, and the unincorporated "Santa Ana Heights" area. The major land use proposals in this area involve the two large vacant sites adjacent to the Bay , and the "Santa Ana Heights " area : "Castaways" Site : It is proposed that the portion of this site south of the extension of 16th Street be used for recreational commercial purposes ( restaurant, nightclub , etc. ) and that the remainder of this site , other than the existing church , be developed residentially, as discussed in the "Residential Growth Element" . Vacant Site Northwest of Upper Bay : It is proposed that a five to ten acre portion of this site at the intersection of Tustin Avenue and University Drive be developed as a "convenience commercial center" (market, liquor store , barber shop , laundry , etc. ) to serve both Newport Beach and Costa Mesa residents in the adjacent neighborhoods (cur- rently the nearest "convenience center" is Westcliff Plaza ) . A public park is proposed east of this commercial center and adjacent to the Upper Bair. The remainder of this site would 17. be developed residentially, as discussed in the "Residential Growth Element" . "Santa Ana Heights" : The "Santa Ana Heights" residential neighborhood is within the airport noise impacted area designated by the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission . This Commission has indicated that land within the noise impacted area is unsuitable for residential use. It is proposed that, with the cooperation and participation of Orange County , that the "Santa Ana Heights" neighborhood be con- verted to an industrial park development, with open space areas around the periphery , tying into the Upper Bay. This conversion of residential use to industrial was one of the forecasts made by the "Trend-Growth" projection , based on market demand for indus- trial land. While such a conversion may occur on a piece-meal basis without governmental intervention , it would result in a poor mixture of land uses , deterioration of the area , and an undesirable industrial area with many scattered and marginal industries. Therefore , a public redevelopment project is pro- posed , which would result in the acquisition and assembly of the individual lots and the "master planned" development of the area. This proposal will be studied in more detail in the context of the Preservation and Redevelopment Element of the General Plan . This area should not be permitted to redevelop on a "piece-meal " basis. UPPER NEWPORT BAY AREA It is proposed that the Upper Newport Bay area ( from the "Dunes " area north ) , including both the water and adjacent land areas that are designated as open space , be acquired as a public "wildlife refuge" and "nature study" area , with the cooperation and participation of appropriate County, State and Federal agencies . 18. If public acquisition does not occur, any development in this area will be limited to a low intensity residential development (6 dwelling units per gross acre or less) or a recreational commercial develop- ment of an open space nature. Because of the unique environmental characteristics of this area and the inherent problems with develop- ment under conventional zoning , this area will be rezoned to a , yet to be developed, zone which will permit development only with a Planned Community District application . The environmental impact of any proposed use of this area will be carefully evaluated. BLUFFS , EASTBLUFF AND DUNES AREA For planning purposes , this area includes all land between the Upper Bay and Jamboree Road north of Coast Highway. The major land use proposals are as follows (no change to the Bluffs and Eastbluff land use pattern is proposed) : "Mouth" of Big Canyon : This area is' shown as open space as part of the "Upper Bay Wildlife Refuge" . Vacant Site North of Newporter Inn : It is proposed that mgst of this site be developed residentially , as discussed in the "Residential Growth Element" , with a small southerly portion used for recreational commercial purposes , such as the expansion of the Newporter Inn . The exact boundary between these two uses is not precise and can be determined when a development proposal is received. Newport Dunes Park : It is proposed that the County-owned Newport Dunes area remain as a public , marine-oriented park , in keeping with the uniqueness of this valuable public resource. Bay Side Village Mobi'Tehome Park and 'Boat Launching Area : This area has been designated as "recreational commercial " with the intent of encouraging such uses as : boat launching and 19 . storage, marinas , restaurants , hotels and motels , tennis courts , etc. The intensity of these uses should be limited , in view of traffic generation and environmental impact. ( It is probable that the mobilehome park will be phased out as land values and market demand increase. ) NEWPORT PLACE AND COLLINS RADIO' AREA This area includes all land within the City north of Bristol Street. No change from the existing land use pattern and the approved develop- ment under the Planned Community Districts is proposed. PHILCO-FORD AND NORTH FORD AREA For planning purposes , this area includes all land between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard, from Ford Road north to Bristol Street. The designations on the land use plan represent the existing Philco- Ford plant and the proposed "North Ford" planned community development, and indicate industrial use extending north to an open space linkage along the flood control channel . Nroth of the flood control channel , commercial development is proposed . (This site is probably too small and isolated for industrial use. ) BIG CANYON AREA No change is proposed to the land use pattern approved with the "Big Canyon" planned community district , other than the residential density proposals in the "Residential Growth Element" . NEWPORT CENTER AREA The Newport Center area includes all land bounded by Coast Highway , Jamboree Road , San Joaquin Hills Road , and MacArthur Boulevard. The major land use proposals for this area , other than residential uses which are covered in the "Residential Growth Element" , are as follows : Administrative; Professional and Financial 'Area : The area designated "Administrative, Professional , and Financial " is intended to provide for a continuation of the predominantly 20. office uses into the vacant portions ; however, it is proposed that a detailed examination be made ' to determine the additional floor area of future office buildings that can be accommodated while assuring adequate traffic capacity of adjacent streets. (This will require detailed study and the development of a "floor area ratio" ordinance, as previously discussed. ) No permanent residential uses will be permitted in this area. "Mixed Administrative , Professional , Financial and Recreational Commercial " Area : This area would provide for a . continuation of office uses and would also be suitable for such recreational commercial uses as : restaurants , nightclubs , hotels and motels , tennis and health clubs, etc. No permanent residential uses will be permitted in this area. "Governmental , Educational , and Institutional Facilities " Areas : The area designated "Governmental , Educational , and Institutional Facilities" includes the existing fire station and proposed police facility and "Cultural Center" . HARBOR VIEW AREA For planning purposes , this area includes all land within the City north of Fifth Avenue and east of MacArthur Boulevard , and the un- incorporated " island" portion of the Pacific View Memorial Park. No major change is proposed to the existing land use pattern or to the development which will occur based on the approved planned community districts , other than the residential density proposals contained in the "Residential Growth Element" . It is proposed that "Buck Gully" and the vacant area between Fifth Avenue and Sandcastle Drive , east of Marguerite AVenue , be preserved as open space for public recreational use. Community Development Dept. RLGunn/TECowell /ddb February 20 , 1973 21 . Page 5 of 8 COMMISSIONERS CITY" O �VNPORTAIACH 70,5� m Dp O m m m = m y < November FILE CDY MINUTES 29 , 1973 ROLL CALL INDEX Request to consider an amendment to the Land Item B-1 Use Element of the Newport Beach General-?I—an . Initiated b The City of Newport Beach LAND USE Y� Y P ELEMENT OFF THE Mr. Gunn read portions of the staff report to NEWPORT the Commission . Mr. Gunn explained the BEACH staff report and informed the Commission that GENERAL a commercial center would be appropriate fin PLAN terms of the number of families in the area and the distance to the nearest existing convenience shopping areas but it appears it would not be compatible to the flora and fauna reserve. He further stated that a neighborhood shopping center is not essential in this area and for that reason the staff is requesting -the Planning Commission consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan . The residents of the area are asking the Commission to reconsider the sentence in the Element that reads : "Alternative uses may include a commercial center at the southeast corner of Irvine Avenue and University Drive to serve the residents of the area. " Chairman Agee opened the public hearing. Frank Robinson , Newport Beach stated that if the alternative to Open Space is low density residential , there would be some dedication of the area as part of the normal .requirements for park areas which could , in turn , be con- into this area . He stated that this area is needed for recreation and that this is the only area where you can get a complete panoramic view of the entire bay. Ray Williams , President of Friends of Newport Bay stated that they are in agreement with the first choice of land use which is to leave it as open space. He informed the Commission that the bluffs and uplands are good fossil sites which he hopes will be available for study. He further stated that this bay is unique and , therefore , it is a valuable facility for educational purposes . He stated that a commercial area would be incompatible with the refuge below, would add congestion , air pollution , run-off problems and noise. He mentioned that the bay is unique and that a Page 6 of 8 -° COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT RACH m m£ MINUTES P m ROLL CALL m p p November 290 1973 INDEX shopping center is not; therefore , the shopping center sho,Gld be put somewhere else. Dr . Simpson , Newport Beach stated that he concurred with the staff recommendation . He felt that the opinion among the residents of the area is almost unanimous against having a commercial development. Valerie Murley , Chairman Citizens Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee , stated that the Committee supports the deletion of this commercial development and that these uplands are .essential for preservation . She felt that it should be stated in the General Plan that only the least intensive uses would be supported. Mrs . Howard Baab, Newport Beach informed the Commission that she has presented the City with a petition which was signed by 1500 people who entirely support the position of the Friends of Newport Bay. The Commission questioned why Mrs . Baab ' s petition included people out of the bay area. At this time Mrs . ,Baab read the history of the petition . Larry Moore of the Irvine Company agreed that if at all possible , the upper area should be open space , but also stated that if it can ' t be done then there has to be some reasonable alternatives . Mr. Moore stated that the Irvine Company is asking that this area be residential with a neighborhood shopping center on the corner. He brought up the fact that the staff reported that a neighborhood shopping center is not essential . Mr. Moore mentioned that a neighborhood shopping center is never essential in a given area but they do have to go somewhere. He stated that this is an appropriate area for a shopping center. Frank Robinson , Newport Beach stated that he was not addressing his position as to whether or not a shopping center was appropriate or not. Mr. Robinson mentioned that he merely stated that he sees no reason to take a special area and use it as a shopping center site . Mr. Robinson felt that of all the types of development to go around the bay , this is the most incompatible. j I C Page 7, of 8 COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT VACH m MINUTES A '° November 29, 1973 ROLL CALL ¢ INDEX Gus Patrick of Costa Mesa ,said that this is a beautiful -bay and should be left alone . There being no others desiring to be heard , Chairman Agee closed the public hearing. Item B-1 At this time the Commission discussed the advantages and disadvantages of a neighborhood LAND USE shopping center. ELEMENT OF THE Motion Motion that the Land Use Element of the General NEWPORT Ayes X X Plan be amended to delete as an alternative use BEACH Noes X X X X the retail and service commercial aspect of GENERAL this particular site and accept recommended PLAN wording. Motion failed. * * * * * * * * * * FAILED Request to consider an amendment to the Master Item B-2 Plan of Bikewa portion of The Recreation and pent Space Element of The Newport Beach General MASTER Plan . PLAN OF vitiated by.: The City of Newport Beach . BIKEWAYS Mr. nn discussed the report and explained that at the vemb.er 8, 1973 Special Meeting of the Planni Commission , a draft was inadver- tently given the Planning Commission that did not include 11 the suggestions of the Citizens Bikeways visory Committee. Alan Beek , appeared before he Commission and requested that the Commi ion remove the two bicycle trails on the far ' e of Corona del Mar from the controversial trails ap and to remove the Balboa Island bicycle rails from the controversial trails map. He a o mentioned the paragraph , suggested by e staff for the controversial trails map , which says that these additional segments w considered for designation but were rejected due to public objection . He stated that in most cases they were not rejected due to public objection , but were rejected due to a single individual . He said the bicycle trails on' Balboa Island in particular were removed by the Committee and put back on in a meeting where the majority of the committee was absent and the minority had control . COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Vh m D O m \ ►o1y Svoorj '" � '" m Z RUE C�py MINUTES v m �i 2 11 Z F A ROLL CALL November 15 , 1973 "'NOTR INDEX 2 . That development shall not exceed 1 . 5 times the ' ldable area of the lot. 3 . That all new additions conform to the required yard setba n the subject property. 4. Any proposed garage space locate ast Bayfront" shall have side walls , roof, an operating garage door for access of automobiles . ADDITIONAL BUSINESS : Motion X Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 864, All Ayes setting a public hearing for November 29 , 1973, to consider amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan . Moti X Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 865 , All Ay setting a public hearing for December 20 , 1973, to consider an amendment to Districting Map No. 22 from the R-1 District to the M-1-A District on a one foot strip of land parallel with and between 16th Street and Production Place (and its westerly prolongation) , between Placentia Avenue on the east and the City boundary on the west. Motion X Plann Commission adopted Resolution No. 866 , All Ayes setting public hearing for December 20 , 1973, to consider a amendment to Districting Map No. 23 from the Unc ssified District to the R-1 District on the west si of Harbor Island Road, south of Harbor Island Dri e > adjacent to Harbor Island Bridge. Planning Commission requeste that Phase III of the Traffic Study be placed on he Study Session for December 6, 1973. Planning Commission discussed a Minority port made in connection with Amendment No. 386 a the Minutes of the Special Meeting of Novembe 1 , 1973. Page 19 . COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT MACH y� m [' m FIL cwr_-)Ny T� MINUTES ROLL CALL c� vmyO May 17, 1973 DO NOT REMOVE INDEX Item A2 Request to consider the Adoption of the Land Use LAND USE Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. ELEMENT Referred back to Planning Commission by City Council ) REVIEWED AND Community Development Director Hogan reviewed the FETISED staff report with the Commission and following discussion on each item, formal action was taken to revise the Land Use Element of the Newport Beac General Plan , as follows : Motion Y Page 2 . , a third paragraph be added under Overall All Ayes City Form, to read : "The City shall encourage the formation of inde- pendent municipal advisory groups within each of the villages that go to make up the City and the City will cooperate with such village representa- tives for the improvement of the environment and physical facilities within its villages . " Motion X Page 8. , an additional sentence be added to the All Ayes second paragraph to read "By the use of 10 year revenue and expenditure projections and by managin needed capital improvements , the City shall assure a favorable budget posture. " Motion X Pages 9 and 10, West Newport Harbor be changed to All Ayes read "Beeco , Ltd . (Banning) Property" with the following text: "This area, north of "Newport Shores" and extend- ing easterly from the Santa Ana River is designate as a "Specific Area Plan" area on the Land Use Plan . This will permit the development of an overall plan for the area after the completion of investigation of economic and physical feasibility of a small craft harbor in the lowlands area extending northward into Costa Mesa . "Such a harbor, if feasible , would provide full marina , marine service , and commercial recreational facilities . In -addition , a public riding and hik- ing trail and parking area is proposed as part of the county-wide Santa Ana Greenbelt Project. The remainder of the land would be used for residential development as discussed in the " Residential Growt Development" , modified, if and as necessary, to relate to the overall harbor plan . " If the harbor is not feasible, alternate plans , Page 6 . 611, COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT MACH 9G1 �` � 9 m T DN T D� N m N `L m Z Z MINUTES ,� Z � A ROLL CALL y O May 17, 1973 INDEX including residential with associated commercial service facilities , should be considered . In any event, the property owners and the City should cooperate in the preparation of a plan for approval by the City at the time any land use proposals are made . The development shall be consistent with th criteria set forth in the General Plan . " Motion X Page 13„ the paragraph under Marinapark be change All Ayes to read "Marinapark shall continue as a mobilehome park until such time as that use is phased out, at which time the property shall be rezoned to the OS-open space district . " Motion X Page 14. , the paragraph under "Beacon Bay" Area be All Ayes changed to read "It is proposed that in keeping with the uniqueness of this site that a multipli- city of uses be considered . The exact nature of the development should be determined by a specific area plan to be developed prior to the expiration of the current lease . Said plan is to be prepared within five years after the adoption date of the General Plan . " Motion X Page 15 . , paragraph 1 , line 7 . , following the All Ayes words "architectural design criteria" , the period be eliminated and the words "and off-street park- ing standards . " be added . Motion X Pages 15 . and 16 . , under Balboa Bay Club Site, the All Ayes paragraph be reworded to read as follows "It is proposed that in keeping with the uniqueness of this harbor front site, that the City study a multiplicity of uses . The exact nature of the development will be determined by a specific area plan to be prepared• prior, to the expiration of the current lease . Said plan is to be prepared within five years after the adoption date of the General Plan . " Motion X Pages 16 and 16 (a) , add the word "residential " aft r the word "alternative" in the next to last line on page 16 and the first line on page 16 (a) . Motion X Page 16 (a) , that an additional sentence be added Ayes X X XX X X to read "Alternative uses may include a commercial Noes X center to serve the residents of the area . " Motion X Page 16 (a) , that the words "predominately residen ial " Ayes X X XX X X be added , the total paragraph to read : Noes X "Alternative development shall include predominate y Page 7 . ` COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BCACH >� mG� vmvO T YN T �1 N m MINUTES a a Z ROLL CALL ," May 17 , 1973 INDEX residential uses in accordance with a plan to be approved by the City at a maximum density of 6 dwelling units per gross acre as discussed in the Residential Growth Element. Alternative uses may include a commercial center to serve the residents of the area. " The following persons appeared before the Planning Commission to comment on the actions taken in connection with the Residential Growth Element and the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan : Harry Kamph , 1320 E . Oceanfront, Balboa , relative to Stat Areas B and D; Larry Moore , General Planning Administrator, The Irvine Company, relative to Stat Areas J , K and L ; John Homme , 904 W. Oceanfront, relative to Stat Areas B and D; Kae A. Ewing , 1576 E . Oceanfront, relattve to Stat Areas B and D ; Dave Tosh , 4821 Dorchester, Corona del Mar, Vice Chairman of the Citizens Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee ; Dottie Hutchison , 1559 Ocean Blvd . , urging down-zoning on the Peninsula . Planning Commission requested that a new set of figures be prepared for Stat Areas B and D covering the R-2 , R-3 and R-4 Districts . They also requested that the staff forward their comments as reflected in the actions taken to the City Council , same being the recommended changes to the Residential Growth Element and the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan . Item A3 Proposal to establish a Specific Area Plan for AMENDMENT Newport on properties north of West Coast NO . 371 Highwa tween West Coast Highway and Newport Shores rive d between the Santa Ana River and REVIEWED the Semeniuk Slou ( Referred back to Planning AND Commission by City Coun REVISED Initiated by : The City of Newpor ch Page 8. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT 11ACH 9 a+ G155 ; ,0 Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting Place : City Council Chambers MINUTES Time : 7 : 30 P. M. ROLL Call, Date: April 26 , 1973 ppr�y INDEX Present X X X X V" ME capil EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS DO'NOTREMOVE R. V. Hogan , Community Development Director David R. Baade , Assistant City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS Rodney L . Gunn , Advance Planning Administrator William R. Foley , Senior Planner Dottie Banks * * * * * * * * * * Motion X Minutes of the Adjourned Planning Commission Ayes X X XX X Meeting of April 12 , 1973 were approved with the Abstai X X correction that the word "block" be changed to " lot" in Modification No . 4 on Page 7 , Item #3. Commissioners Agee and Martin abstained due to the fact that they were absent. * * * * * * * * * * The following two items were heard concurrently because of their relationship . Item #1 Request to amend Chapters 20. 14, 20. 16 , and 20. 18, 4MENDMENT the R-2 , R-3 , and R-4 Districts , or amend or add TO . 370 to the provisions of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as they pertain to residential ONT. TO development on the Balboa Peninsula. UNE 7TH Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach Item #2 A proposal , to amend Districting Maps No . 9 , 10 , 11 , MENDMENT and 12 , and reclassify properties on the Balboa TO. 363 Peninsula , generally lying easterly of McFadden Place and 21st Street , from the C-1 , C-1 -Z , R-2 , 3ONT. TO R-3 , and R-4 Districts to the R-1 District or the UNE 7TH R-2 , R-3 , and R-4 Districts , which may be amended , or to such other districts as may be established to permit two-family development and to reclassify certain publicly-owned lands such as , but not limited to , Marina Park and the oceanfront beaches from the Unclassified , R-4 , and R-1 Districts to the OS Open Space District. Initiated by: The City of Newport ,Beach Page 1 . '- _1COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT 11ACH q�m4� yI mnrNmv�9? O m P MINUTES ROLL CALL K" April 26, 1973 INDEX Chairman Glass reviewed the applications and stated that the Commission has received 7 letters -- 2 in favor and 5 in opposition and one of the letters in opposition contained 13 signatures . Chairman Glass further stated that the Central Newport Beach Community Association delivered a letter which stated that an lA member committee has been formed to meet weekly to analyze proposed zoning ordinances and to formulate positive recommendation for approval of their general membership at the annual meeting on May 21 , 1973. Therefore , the Association requested that the Commission consider withholding any recommendation to Council in this matter pending the availability of Association ' s suggestions immediately following the May 21st meeting. Commissioner Heather stated she would accept the Association ' s position and would recommend taking this off the calendar or continuing it since action has been delayed on the Residential Growth and Land Use Elements . In response to the Planning Commission , Assistant City Attorney Baade stated that the City is a charter city and free from time restrictions set forth in the State Code . Mr. Baade further stated that if legal action resulted because General Plan was not completed by deadline or zoning not con- sistent with the General Plan , the City Attorney ' s office felt the action of the court would be to order the City to complete its General Plan and make zoning consistent with General Plan within limits of manpower available to Community Develop- ment Director . Community Development Director Hogan stated that an action of continuance would be consistent with action by the Commission in the past. Mr. Hogan further cited the Commission ' s granting a request to people forming an association in Corona del Mar and when their recommendations are ready , they will present them to the Commission . Chairman Glass stated that the Commission and the City have been criticized for not heeding the con- cerns of people within the area , the majority of whom desire no change ; however, the City is looking for positive means to resolve existing problems . Mr. Glass further stated that the City Page 2 . COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT RACH 9 dfi1S5 ; p Om � �, is ,' i R Z i MINUTES ZA P ROLL CALL April 26 , 1973 INDEX is open to positive suggestions and positive solu- tions and it would seem that it would be worthwhile to wait for Association' s recommendations . Motion X The Planning Commission moved to accept the Central Newport Beach Community Association ' s offer and to continue Amendment Nos . 370 and 363 to June 7 , 1973. Following discussion , Commissioner Martin stated that requirement for membership in the Central Newport Beach Community Association was to be a property owner in the area between Balboa Pier and Newport Pier or a registered voter. Advance Planning Administrator Gunn stated in re- sponse to the Commission that the Peninsula Point Association is aware of the meetings and the two associations are going to coordinate. In response to the Commission , Community Develop- ment Director Hogan stated that the Council will have its public hearings on the entire Residential Growth and Land Use Elements on May 7th and it is hoped a policy will be adopted by June 7th . Ayes XX X X X X Following discussion , the Planning Commission voted on motion which carried. Item #3 Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. AMENDMENT 11 from a C-1 District to an R-2 District. RO. 356 Location : Lots 9 , 10, 11 , 12 , 13 , and 14, CONT. TO Block 6 , Balboa Tract , located at JUNE 7TH 500-502-504-506-508-510 East Ocean Front on the northerly side of East Ocean Front easterly of Adams Street on the Balboa Peninsula. Zone : C-1 ' Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach Chairman Glass reviewed the application and stated that this item is in the affected area of the two previous items and in view of this should be con- tinued. Motion The Planning Commission continued this matter to Ayes X YX X X X June 7 , 1973. Page 3. COMMISSIONERS ` CITY OF NEWPORT RACH rc+ c� xx ; p G� ^` � vmyO m �yw ,r„ MINUTES a ROLL CALL April 26 , 1973 INDEX Item #4 Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the AMENDMENT Newport Beach Municipal Code by the addition of N0. 373 Chapter 20. 41 entitled , "Specific Plan District" . Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach APPROVED Chairman Glass reviewed the application with the Planning Commission . Community Development Director Hogan stated that this was a housekeeping item in line with the action the Commission took on the Specific Area Plan (Newport Shores area) and for the purpose of fitting the Specific Area Plan into the zoning ordinance and making them consistent. Chairman Glass opened the public hearing. Goldie Joseph , 515 Via Lido Soud , appeared before the Planning Commission and questioned the Commis- sion relative to this matter. There being no others desiring to be heard , the public hearing was closed . Motion X The Planning Commission approved Amendment No. 373 Ayes X X X fto Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code by Noes X the addition of Chapter 20 .41 entitled , "Specific Plan District" . ADDITIONAL BUSINESS : Motion X Chairman Glass and Commissioner Martin requested to Ayes X X X Ybe excused from the meeting of May 3 , 1973 and were Abstaii X granted permission by the Planning Commission . * * * * * * * * * * Motion There being no further business , Planning Commissio Ayes X X X X Xadjourned the meeting to May 3 , 1973 , at 7 : 30 P . M. in the City Council Chambers . Time : 7 : 55 P.M. JACQUELINE E . HEATHER Secretary , Planning Commission City of Newport Beach , California Page 4. d COMMISSIONERS 4kITY OF N EWPORT BACH /• 06� Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting m �ynm ?a a ^ Place : City Council Chambers MINUTES y Z p Time : 7 : 30 P . M. ROLL CALL Date: March 29 , 1973 INDEX Present X X X X X X L%� Absent Y !, EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS DO NOT REMOVE R. V. Hogan , Community Development Director STAFF MEMBERS Rodney L . Gunn , Advance Planning Administrator Thomas E. Cowell , Senior Planner William R. Foley , Senior Planner Dottie Banks Item Al Request to consider the Ado tion of the Land Use GENERAL Element of the Newport Beach General P an and the PLAN/ Acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report. LAND USE ELEMENT Initiated by : The City of Newport Beach AP PRO VED Chairman Glass reviewed the application with the AS RE- Planning Commission . VISED Community Development Director Hogan reviewed the EIR/NB staff report entitled "Land Use Element Revisions " 73-031 with the Planning Commission while Senior Planner Cowell indicated the areas on the map. Mr. Hogan ACCEPTED stated that on page 2 of said report , the para- S RE- graph starting with the words "Page 13" , that the VISED word "Add" should be "Substitute" . Mr. Hogan fur- ther stated that the Lido Isle area would be the only addition to the report. Discussion followed relative to cost/revenue analysis , high-rise development , variables of eco- nomic changes , phasing , required sewer and water systems , traffic generation , office usage , zoning categories , mixed usage, schools and hospitals , residential and commercial uses , parking ordi- nances , marginal uses , land banking , potential flood plain areas , and ' buffering. During discus- sion , Advance Planning Administrator Gunn reviewed the areas while Senior Planner Cowell indicated areas on the map . Planning. Commission recessed at 10 :45 p .m. and re- convened at 10 : 55 p.m. Page 1 . ` COMMISSIONERS kITY OF NEWPORT ACH rw � y2 ; ,o p m r y m y p mnyN ^` M MINUTES s ROLL CALL March 29 , 1973 INDEX Chairman Glass opened the public hearing . The following persons addressed the Planning Commission and commented on this matter: Bill Banning of Beeco, Ltd. , owner of property in West Newport area , reviewed Beeco oil company ' s leases and stressed need to remain flexible until current marina feasibility study is completed ; Steve Auld , owner of a lot in Newport Shores , ex- pressed concern that potential water pollution problem ,from single opening was not mentioned in E. I . R. and that study area be extended due to potential engineering changes ; Tom Hyans , 217-19th Street , Newport Beach , stated that he felt the word "existing" on page 15 of report in paragraph entitled "Commercial Uses at 15th Street" should be eliminated ; John Curci , 717 Lido Park Drive , representing the Curci -Turner Company, which owns 75% of the Lido Peninsula area , spoke in favor of Land Use Element directing comments to Lido Peninsula text ; Larry Miller, Asst. Manager of the Chamber of Commerce, Newport Beach , stated that Chamber will want to review Land Use Element and perhaps in future come forth with some recommendation and/or amendments ; and Larry Moore , General Planning Administrator of the Irvine Company , stated they concurred with 90% of recommendations and the parts they disagreed with are contained in the recommendations of the Residential Growth Element. The public hearing was closed since no others de- sired to appear and be heard . Motion X The Planning Commission moved that the following Ayes X X X X X X be added to West Newport Harbor of Land Use Elemen Absent X report on page 12 : "This proposal depends on physical and financial feasibility. If the harbor is not feasible, al - ternate plans including residential with associ- ated commercial service facilities should be con- sidered. The property owner should have the Page 2. COMMISSIONERS kITY . OF NEWPORT BERCH TQr G1Z5 ; 7 - ni f" rT my0 m 7c yN ,r'i+ 9-1 a N MINUTES ROLL CALL March 29 , 1973 INDEX responsibility for developing a plan for approval by the City at the time any proposals for changes in the proposed Land Use are made. The develop- ment shall be consistent with the criteria set forth in the General Plan . " Motion X The Planning Commission moved that the word "schools " Ayes X X X X X X be added to the third line before the word "churches " Absent X of the first paragraph entitled RESIDENTIAL on Page 7 of Land Use Element report. Motion X The Planning Commission moved to eliminate para- grap b under SUPPORTING POLICES on page 2 of Land Use Element report and renumber paragraph c to b . Following discussion , motion was withdrawn since the adopted policies are not a part of the Land Use Element but only for reference . Motion X The Planning Commission moved to add to first Ayes X X X X X paragraph under WEST NEWPORT AREA on page 12 and ;'-Noes X to paragraph .at top of page 19 under UPPER NEWPORT Absent X BAY AREA of Land Use Element report the o owing : "Any development within this area should be de- veloped in accordance with any future flood plain standards . " Motion X The Planning Commission moved to insert after the word "preserved" in the first sentence of the firs paragraph under Central Balboa Commercial Area •on--page 14. of Land Use Element report the following : "primarily as service commercial for the Peninsula neighborhood" . Motion X Following discussion , the Planning Commission Ayes X X X moved that the above motion be amended to the Noes X X X following : Absent X "primarily as a neighborhood commercial area for the Peninsula" . Motion failed to carry for lack of majority. 'Motion X The Planning Commission moved to insert after the word "strip" of the next to the last line of the paragraph under CORONA DEL MAR AREA on page 16 of Land Use Element report the following : as a neighborhood service commercial area" . Page 3. COMMISSIONERS kITY OF NEWPORT BENCH y� m� y m ; goo mnvNmv�y� N m � _ � m MINUTES I :i iAZ ROLL CALL March 29 , 1973 INDEX Motion X Following discussion , the Planning Commission Ayes X X X moved that the preceding motion be amended to the Noes X X X following : Absent X "as a neighborhood commercial area" . Motion failed to carry for lack of majority. Motion X The Planning Commission moved that the definition of "commercial " in the two categories that are shown on the Land Use map be that office usage be allowed in any commercial area in the City and revision of wherever this applies in the text other than waterfront commercial property. Motion X Following discussion , the Planning Commission Ayes X X X amended the preceding motion to "office usage Noes X X X allowed in retail commercial area in the City and Absent X revision of wherever this applies in the text ex- cluding waterfront property and Cannery Village. " Motion failed to carry for lack of majority. Motion X The Planning Commission moved that the following Ayes X X X X portion on sentence at the top of page 14 under Noes X X Cannery Village and McFadden Square be deleted : Absent X " (some limited residential uses attached to com- mercial or industrial uses may be permitted with special regulations) " . Motion X The Planning Commission moved that the following AyesX X X be added under Cannery Village and McFadden Noes X X X Square : Absent X "limited residential uses subject to the controls of the proposed Commercial -Residential (C-R) Zone be allowed with whatever special regulations the Cannery Village area requires " . Motion failed to carry for lack of majority. Motion X The Planning Commission moved that the following Ayes X XX X X be added under BALBOA ISLAND AND PROMONTORY BAY Absent X AREA after the first paragraph on page 15 : "On Balboa Island a combination of commercial and residential uses may be permitted on Marine Avenue and Agate Avenue in accordance with the Commercial -Residential Zone to be developed . " Page 4. 4' COMMISSIONERS kITY OF NEWPORT BACH . v�m m n �^ �,� MINUTES ROLL CALL A March 29 , 1973 INDEX Motion X The Planning Commission moved that the word Ayes X X X X X X "existing" before "commercial " in the first sen- Absent X tence under Commercial Uses at 15th Street of the Land Use Element report on page lb b be Deleted. Motion X The Planning Commission moved that the first sen- Ayes X XX X X X tence of the next to the last paragraph under Absent X West Newport Harbor of the Land Use Element report on page 12 be changed to read as follows : "This harbor is to provide full marina , marine service, and commercial recreational facilities . " Motion X The Planning Commission moved that the following Ayes X X X X X X be added to the last paragraph under HARBOR VIEW Absent X AREA of the Land Use Element report on page 21 : " It is recognized , however, that much of this vacant area may be used as a ' transportation corridor' . Also, since public acquisition of this area may prove infeasible , alternative private residential development , as discussed in the Residential Growth .Element , is indicated. " Motion X The Planning Commission moved that the following Ayes X X X X X X be added to the last paragraph on page 15 under Absent X "Beacon Bay" Area of the Land Use Element report : "Any public recreational uses should take into full account its location , entirely surrounded by single-family residential uses with limited vehicular access . " Motion X The Planning Commission moved that the following be added to the first paragraph on page 20 under Bay Side Village Mobilehome Park and Boat Launching Area of the Land Use Element report : "that the mobilehome' park and boat launching area be retained" . Motion X The Planning Commission made a substitute motion Ayes X XX X X that the following be added to the first paragraph Noes X on page 20 under BaX Side Villa e a Mobilehome Park Absent and Boat Launching Area of the Lan s E ement report: "Meanwhile , all existing uses should be allowed to continue and be up-graded , but any substantial changes should be subject to an approved area ` plan . " Page 5. ` COMMISSIONERS OCITY OF NEWPORT ACH m m� m MINUTES ROLL CALL m� " March 29 , 1973 INDEX Motion X The Planni-ng Commission moved to approve all Ayes X X X X X written staff' s revisions submitted subject to Absent X preceding specif-ic- revisions . Motion X The Planning Commission moved to substitute the Ayes X X XX XX words "south to lower Bay" for "and the Bay" of Absent X the third line of the first paragraph under NEWPORT HEIGHTS , CLIFF HAVEN & MARINERS MILE AREA of the Land Use Element report on page 16; and moved to delete both paragraphs under "Santa Ana Heights " of the Land Use Element report on page 81 to bereplaced by the following : " It is proposed that the large-lot , low-density, single-family uses in the majority of the area and the commercial uses on Bristol Street be con- tinued. It is further proposed that no higher- density residential development be permitted. " Motion X The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 798 , RESO- Ayes X X X X X X entitled "A Resolution of the Planning Commission LUTION Absen X of the City of Newport Beach Adopting the Land NO. 798 Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan "' ADOPTED subject to the positive findings of the Environ- mental Impact Report. Motion X The Planning Commission moved to change the word Ayes X XX X X X "irreversible" to "adverse" in paragraph XI of AbsentX the Environmental Impact Report . Motion X The Planning Commission moved to accept Environ- EIR/NB Ayes X X X X mental Impact Report for the Land Use Element 73-031 Noes X of the Newport Beach General Plan . ACCEPTED Abstain X Absent Motion X There being no further business , Planning Commission Ayes X Y X X X X adjourned at 12 : 50 A. M. Absent X JACQUELINE E . HEATHER Secretary, Planning Commissio City of Newport Beach California Page 6. . �7os- COMMISSIONERS tTY OF NEWpPORT ACH MINUTES ROLL CALL March 15, 1973 DO'NOT REMOVE INDEX Item A5 Request to convert two legal , nonconforming USE residential structures on a lot in the C-2 District ERMIT into commercial structures , and to waive the off- 656 street parking requirements for the commercial ses . CONT. TO PRIL 5 Locat Lot 20 , Block 331 , Lancaster ' s Addition to Newport Beach , located at 422 31st Street, on the south He of 31st Street between Newport Bou vard and Villa Way in "Cannery Villag " Zone: C-2 Applicants : Raymond J. and Marg et Dern , Corona del Mar Owner : Same as Applicant. Motion X At the request of the applicant, Planning Commissi All Ayes continued this matter to the meeting of April 5 , 1973. /. Item B1 Request to consider the Adoption of the Land Use ADOPTION Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. OF THE LATVD TSE Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach ELEMENT Off irE Motion X Planning Commission continued this matter to the NEGT�ORT Ayes X X YX X meeting of March 22, 1973. BE—ETCH Abstain X GE(-GE Absent PLAN CONT. TO MARCH Item B2 Request to create one parcel of land for develop- RESUB- me DIVISION NO.38T— Location : tion of Lot 4 of Resubdivision No. located at the northwest APPROVED corner of luff Drive and Vista CONDI- del Sol in the B TI- OILY Page 10. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORTCH yOm � vmvO m �9+ Rv- wN MINUTES ROLL CALL November 30, 1972 INDEX The f.,ollowing persons appeared before the Planning Commission and commented on tFLe report: Allen Beek, 28 Beacon Bay; Tom Hyans , President, Central Newport BeacFL Community Association; James Scott Pelegrin , Balboa. Motion X Fol wing discussion, motion was made that the Ayes X XX XX X Planni Commission acknowledge receipt of the Abstain X Environm tal Impact Report as written and amended by Raub , Be ' , Frost & Associates as well as the report by Coa al Environmental Planners and all of the addenda a staff reports and comments and analysis of those orts ; that the Commission felt that nothing fur er could be gained by additional requests for arification or amend- ments and that the reports o appear to have certain internal conflicts an certain conflicts between the two reports both in rms of facts, figures , statistics , assumptions , c. , but that with full knowledge of this, the Plan 'ng Commission will take all of the discussion that ha one before into consideration when making reco enda- tions to the City Council . Motion X A further motion was made to continue this matter Ayes X X X X X to the meeting of December 7 , 1972, for the purpos Abstain X of preparing findings and recommendations to be forwarded to the City Council . Ttem #13 Request to consider the 6doption of the Interim INTERIM Lans Use Element of the City of Newport Beach LAND USE General Plan, ELEMENT OF THE Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter and Community Development Director Hogan ADOPTED advised the Planning Commission that the State law RE�B required that the zoning ordinance of a city, must be consistent with its land use plan as of the first of January, 1973. Although the City of 7 �3 Newport Beach is a Charter City and there is a difference of opinion as to whether that particula requirement of the State law would apply to Newpor Beach , but in order to make sure there is no question relative to compliance with the law, it i recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Zoning Ordinance of the City a{s� t( ( hee Interim Page 18. FOLE ` (DIPV DO NOT REMOVE COMMISSIONERS *CITY OF NEWPORT BACH ^,,;is YN mya emu+ mug £ m y2 MINUTES < Z p A ROLL CALL - November 30, 1972 INDEX General Plan of the City ih order that there will be no conflict between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance until such time as the new General Plan is adopted by the City. Assistant City Attorney Baade read a resoluti-on to be considered for adoption by the Planning Commission. There being no one desiring to appear and be heard , the public hearing was closed. Motion X Following discussion , Planning Commission adopted All Ayes I Resolution No. 778, establishing the Zoning Ordinance as the Interim Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. Community Development Director Hogan advised the Planning Commission that the City Council had scheduled a joint meeting with the Planning Commis- sion for December 4, 1972 , at 4: 00 P.M. for the purpose of hearing a report from the consultant preparing the seismic element of the General Plan. * * * * * * * * * * The a being no further business , Planning Commis- sion djourned the meeting at 3 : 20 A.M. JACQUELINE E. HEATHER ecretary, Planning Commission C of Newport Beach Page 19. COMMISSIONERS *ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 70$ rcm � vmyO mnv� mv, aN MINUTES ROLL CALL November 16 , 1972 INDEX Motion X No . 776 was adopted to hold a public Ayes X X X X X hearing on Decem er , der 0 en Space Absent X District Ordinance. Item #28 Motion K Following discussion , Planning Commission adopted INTERIM Ayes K X X X the following resolution : LAND Absent X USE Resolution No . 777 was adopted to hold a public ELEMENT hearing on adjourned meeting of November 30 , 1972 to consider Interim Land Use Element of the General RESOLU- Plan . TTON 777 ADOPTED The following persons appeared before the Planning Commission and commented on this matter: Richard A. Newell , Attorney , 419 E. 17th Street , Costa Mesa , California ; Thomas E . Hyans , President of the Central Newport Beach Community Association , 217-19th Street , Newport Beach , California ; and Allan Beek , 28 Beacon Bay , Newport Beach , California. * * * * * * * * * * Motion X rhere being no further business , Planning Commission Ayes X X X X djourned at 10 :05 p.m. Absent �RICHARD `V . HOGAN Ex-Officio Secretafy annintf Commission Cit of Newport BeacAr 0 Ltm4 ��� Page 22 . DO NOT REMOVE • Y O Planning Commission Meeting November 29 , 1973 Agenda Item No . B-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 26 , 1973 � TO : Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT : Request to consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan . INITIATED BY : The City of Newport Beach At the November 15 , 1973 Planning Commission meeting , the Commission set a Public Hearing for the November 29th meeting on a possible amendment to the Land Use Element of The Newport Beach General Plan . This amendment would delete the "Retail and Service Commercial " alternate use designation at the corner of Irvine Avenue and University Drive. This designation was included in the Land Use Element at the suggestion of the property owner and as a result of the staff' s determination that this would be an appropriate location for a "neighborhood shopping center" , in terms, of the number of families in the area and the distance to the nearest existing convenience shopping areas . The current Land Use Element includes this commercial designation as an alternative use , in addition to residential use of the remainder of this vacant site , in the event that the preservation of this area as open space , as part of the Upper Bay Flora and Fauna Reserve , proves infeasible. Page 20 of the adopted Land Use Element states : "Vacant Site Northwest of Upper Bay : ' It is proposed that this entire site be pre- served as open space related to the "Upper Bay Wildlife Reserve" ; however, provision is made for alternative development in case the preservation of this site as open space proves infeasible. Alternative development shall include pre- dominantly residential uses in accordance with a plan to be approved by the City at a maximum density of 6 dwelling units per gross acre as discussed in the Residential Growth Element. Alternative uses may include a commercial center at the southeast corner of Irvine Avenue and University Drive to serve the residents of the area. " At their November 14th meeting , the Citizen ' s Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee voted to reaffirm their opposition to a commercial use designation at this location . A neighborhood shopping center in this location is not essential . It is appropriate in general Land Use planning terms . The question is Are environmental values significant enough to warrant deletion of furthur consideration of a commercial center in this location? The answer appears to be yes . FILE COPY, Item No . B-1 DO NOT REMOVE . 1„ TO : Planning Commission - 2 . The Recreation and Open Space Element of The Newport Beach General Plan as adopted by the Planning Commission states : "Much of the adjacent area above the bluffs , shown as part of the Upper Bay flora and fauna reserve is also privately-owned. These bluff and upland open areas show a number of values for which protection is essential . In addition to providing a buffer area separating the wildlife of the Bay from the private development surrounding the Bay , these open areas contain important remnants of the native coastal sage scrub flora and fauna of southern California and the most significant fossil locations of their type in California. Because of the unique combination of bluffs , uplands and Bay, these areas hold great potential as an educational attraction on a regional basis . The more gently sloping uplands also could provide space for low intensity utilization in providing educational and recreational facilities for the visiting public. " The staff would suggest that , if the Commission desires , the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the second paragraph in the section titled : "Vacant Site Northwest of Upper Bay" be amended to read : "Alternative development shall consist of residential uses in accordance with a plan to be approved by the City at a maximum density of G dwelling units per gross acre as discussed in the Residential Growth Element. " The Land Use Plan (map) will be appropriately revised if this amendment is adopted by the City Council . Respectfully submitted , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V. Hogan , Director By_ G Rodney L . Gunn Advance Planning Administrator Attachments : 1 . Letter from Citizen ' s Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee. 2. Letter from Friends of Newport Bay. 3 . Petition regarding use of North-west upper bay site. Item No . B-1 03 A Q PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCT. 25 , 1973 AGENDA ITEM NO. A-3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO : Planning Commission FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Request to amend the Residential Growth Element and the Land Use Element of the General Plan of Me—City of Newport Beach adopts rby the City Council on May 29 , 1973 Continued Public Hearing ) The Planning Commission has taken the following actions to amend the Residential Growth and Land Use Elements : 1) That the MacArthur/Coast Hwy. parcel be zoned to a maximum density of 6 d. u . /A. but that the property may be developed to a maximum of 15 d. U. ' s/A. provided the owner/applicant can offer a plan of develop- ment to the City demonstrating that there are facilities and services to the property supporting that increased density. 2) That the Jamboree/Coast Hwy. parcel be zoned to a maximum of 6 d . u . ' s/A. Motion carried. 3) That the Residential Growth Element and the Land Use Element of the General Plan be amended to provide for a density not greater than an average of eight dwelling units per acre , except where there is a showing that there are public facilities and support systems , such as transportation , parking , recreation facilities , schools , fire and police protection , utilities and open space , which are sufficient to support a density not to exceed 15 dwelling units per acre without adverse impact on the property immediately surrounding said property , or on the community in general , on all property indicated on the map except the two discussed previously and including the Castaway site and the Newporter North site unless rights are vested. V L! p DO NOT RE-MOVE f ' These actions will require the following amendments to the adopted Residential Growth Element : o All dwelling unit and population projections must be revised. (Staff will present these new projections at the meeting. ) o Page 8, Banning property : first line to read: " . . . Shall be 8 dwelling units per gross acre, but up to 15 dwelling units per gross acre .upon a showing of adequate public facilities and support systems',• 'i'n the area . . . . " o Page 11 , Division B : add policy no. 7-"The development of the Lido Peninsula may include residential uses at a density of 8 dwelling units per gross acre , but up to 15 dwelling units per gross acre upon a showing of adequate public facilities and support systems . " o Page 27 , Division L : Policy No. 1 to read : "The Big Canyon Planned Community district shall be amended to limit all future residential development to -8 dwelling units per gross acre but up to 15 dwellin units per gross acre upon a showing of adequate public facilities and support systems . " Policy No. 2 to read : " Residential development shall be permitted on the vacant area on Jamboree Road and Coast Highway with a maximum densit of 6 dwellin units per 'gross acre. Additiona sites for resi ential development in Newport Center shall be permitted at a density of 8 dwelling units per gross acre , but u to 15 dwelling units per gross acre upon a showing of adequate public facilities and su ort! systems , subject to the approval of the City. ' Staff wishes to discuss the ramifications of this policy with the Commission at the meeting. o Page 29 , Division M: Policy No. i to read : "The vacant R-3 districts near the reservoir shall be rezoned to a district which will ermit a densityof 8 dwelling re units per gross acre , Hui u to 15 dwellin units er gross acre upon a showing of a equate pu i•c facilities and support systems . The U District at the corner of MacARthur and Fifth shall be rezoned to a district which will permit a density of 6 dwellTnq units per gross acre , but up to 15 dwellin units er acre upon a showingof ade uate ublic facilities and su ort systems . " Po icy No. 3 to rea ' The multi-family site in the Northern tip of the Harbor View Hills Planned Community shall be reduced from 25 to a maximum of 8 dwelling units per gross acre , but u to 15 dwellin units er ross acre u on a showing of adequate public facilities and support systems . t In addition page 14 of The Land Usd Element (dealing with the Lido Peninsula) should be revised ; The third sentence in the second paragraph should be amended to read : "That part of the area devoted to Residential Development should not exceed 8 dwelling units per gross acre, but up to 15 dwelling units per gross acre may be permitted upon a showing of adequate public facilities and support systems . The Land Use Plan and the Residential GRowth Plan maps will be revised to reflect these changes . Respectfully submitted , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V. HOGAN , DIRECTOR BY R J -^ RODNEY L . GUNN ADVANCE PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR RLG/kw EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS TO THE RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ELEMENT AS PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION POTENTIAL D. U. ' S & POTENTIAL D. U. ' S NET EFFECT ON NO. GROSS DENSITY PER ADOPTED PER AMENDED RES. D. U. ' S VIS-A-VIS ADOPTED AREA ACREAGE1i RES . GROWTH ELEMENT GROWTH ELEMENT: RES . GROWTH ELEMENT: UNDEVELOPED & UNCLASSIFIED AREAS : LOW HIGH LOW HIGH Castaway Site 40 320 -- 8 D. U. ' s/A. 320 600 --- +280 (Assumed - (At 8 (At 15 Res. Portion D. U. ' s/A. ) D. U. ' s/A. ) • of Site) North Newporter Site 80 640 -- 8 D. U. ' s/A. 640 1200 (Assumed (At 8 (At 15 Res. Portion D. U. ' s/A. ) D. U. ' s/A. ) --- +560 of Site) Jamboree & Coast Hwy. 66 990 -- 15 D. U. ' s/A. 396 396 -594 -594 (At 6 (At 6 D. U. ' s/A. ) D. U. ' s/A. ) MacArthur & Coast Hwy. 8 120 -- 15 D. U. ' s/A. 48 120 -72 --- (At 6 (At 15 D. U. ' s/A. ) D. U. ' s/A. ) NET EFFECT FOR UNDEVELOPED & UNCLASSIFIED AREAS : -666 +246 MULTI-FAMILY SITES IN PC DISTRICTS : Big Canyon Area 1 10 150 -- 15 D. U. ' s/A. 80 150 -70 --- (At 8 (At 15 D. U. ' s/A. ) D.U. ' s/A. ) Big Canyon Area 6 7 105 -- 15 D. U. ' s/A. 56 105 -49 --- (At 8 (At 15 D. U. ' s/A. ) D. U. ' s/A. ) EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS TO THE RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ELEMENT AS PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION POTENTIAL D. U. 'S & POTENTIAL D. U. ' S NET EFFECT ON NO. GROSS DENSITY PER ADOPTED PER AMENDED RES . D. U. ' S VIS-A-VIS ADOPTEE AREA ACREAGEI- RES . GROWTH ELEMENT GROWTH ELEMENT: RES . GROWTH ELEMENT: LOW HIGH LOW HIGH Big Canyon Area 10 22. 5 675 -- 30 D. U. ' s/A. 180 337 -495 -338 (At 8 (At 15 • D. U. ' s/A. ) D: U. ' s/A. ) Harbor View Area 13 11 165 -- 15 D. U. ' s/A. 88 165 (At 8 (At 15 D. U. ' s/A. ) D. U. ' s/A. ) -77 _- NET EFFECT FOR MULTI-FAMILY SITES IN PC DISTRICTS -691 -338 LARGE R-3 ZONED SITES : North of Newport Crest 28 420 -- 15 D. U. ' s/A. 224 420 -196 --- (At 8 (At 15 D. U. ' s/A. ) D.U. ' s/A. ) MacArthur at • Pacific View 10 150 -- 15 D. U. ' s/A. 80 150 -70 --- (At 8 (At 15 D. U. ' s/A. ) D. U. ' s/A. ) San Joaquin Hills Rd. , S . of Reservoir 7 105 -- 15 D. U. ' s/A. 56 105 -49 --- (At 8 (At 15 D. U. ' s/A. ) D.U. ' s/A. ) NET EFFECT FOR LARGE R-3 ZONED SITES : -315 --- EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS TO THE RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ELEMENT AS PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION POTENTIAL D. U. ' S & POTENTIAL D. U. ' S NET EFFECT ON NO . GROSS DENSITY PER ADOPTED PER AMENDED RES . D. U. 'S VIS-A-VIS ADOPTED AREA ACREAGE1i RES . GROWTH ELEMENT GROWTH ELEMENT: RES . GROWTH ELEMENT: LOW HIGH LOW HIGH MULTI-FAMILY SITES IN COMMERCIAL ZONES: Block 700 Newport Center 7.2 250 -- 35 D. U. ' s/A. 56A 105 -194 -145 (At 8 (At 15 D. U. ' s/A. ) D. U. ' s/A. ) Lido Peninsula 18P 270 -- 15 D. U. ' s/A. 144 270 -126 --- (At 8 (At 15 D.U. ' s/A. ) D. U . ' s/A. ) NET EFFECT FOR MULTI-FAMILY SITES IN COMMERCIAL ZONES : -320 - 145 5 6 NET EFFECT FOR ALL ABOVE : -1 ,992 -237 1 Gross acreage includes the site and one-half of, or thirty feet of (whichever is the lesser) , the width of any perimeter street or adjacent open space . 2 • No limit on acreage for residential use is indicated in the Residential Growth Element for the . commercial district in Newport Center; seven acres is the area of the only proposed residential development thus far. 3 Eighteen acres is the approximate size of the current residential (mobilehome) area on Lido Peninsula. 4 In actuality , there is little likelihood of any residential development in the commercial districts of Newport Center if it is limited to 8 D. U. ' s/A. 5 This reduction of 1 ,992 D. U. ' s would result in a total population reduction (vis-a-vis the Residential Growth Element) of approximately 3,984 persons , using a factor of 2 persons per D. U. 6 This reduction of 237 D. U. ' s would result in a total population reduction (vis-a-vis the Residential Growth Element) of approximately 474 persons , using a factor of 2 persons per D. U . EFFECT OF ` AMENDMENTS TO THE RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ELEMENT AS PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION , POTENTIAL D. U. 'S & POTENTIAL D.U. ' S NET EFFECT ON NO. GROSS DENSITY PER ADOPTED PER AMENDED RES. D. U. ' S VIS-A-VIS ADOPTED AREA ACREAGE15 RES. GROWTH ELEMENT GROWTH ELEMENT: RES . GROWTH ELEMENT: UNDEVELOPED & UNCLASSIFIED AREAS : LOW HIGH LOW HIGH Castaway Site 40 320 -- 8 D. U. ' s/A. 320 600 --- +280 (Assumed - (At 8 (At 15 • Res. Portion D.U. ' s/A. ) D. U. ' s/A. ) of Site) North Newporter Site 80 640 -- 8 D. U. ' s/A. 640 1200 (Assumed (At 8 (At 15 Res. Portion D. U. ' s/A. ) D. U. ' s/A. ) --- +560 of Site) Jamboree & Coast Hwy. 66 990 -- 15 D. U. ' s/A. 396 396 -594 -594 (At 6 (At 6 D. U. ' s/A. ) D. U. ' s/A. ) MacArthur & Coast Hwy. 8 120 -- 15 D. U. ' s/A. 48 120 -72 --- t 15 DAU. 6s/A. ) (As/A. ) NET EFFECT FOR UNDEVELOPED & UNCLASSIFIED AREAS : -666 +246 MULTI-FAMILY SITES IN PC DISTRICTS : Big Canyon Area 1 10 150 -- 15 D. U. 's/A. 80 150 -70 --- DAU. Ss/A. ) DAU. ' s/A. ) Big Canyon Area 6 7 105 -- 15 D. U. ' s/A. 56 105 -49 --- (At 8 (At 15 D. U. ' s/A. ) D. U. ' s/A. ) EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS TO THE RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ELEMENT AS PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION POTENTIAL D. U. 'S & POTENTIAL D. U. ' S NET EFFECT ON NO. GROSS DENSITY PER ADOPTED PER AMENDED RES. D. U. ' S VIS-A-VIS ADOPTEE AREA ACREAGEI" RES. GROWTH ELEMENT GROWTH ELEMENT: RES . GROWTH ELEMENT: LOW HIGH LOW HIGH Big Canyon Area 10 22. 5 675 -- 30 D. U. ' s/A. 180 337 -495 -338 • (At 8 (At 15 D. U. ' s/A. ) D.U . ' s/A. ) Harbor View Area 13 11 165 -- 15 D. U. ' s/A. 88 165 (At 8 (At 15 D. U. ' s/A. ) D. U. ' s/A. ) -77 --- NET EFFECT FOR MULTI-FAMILY SITES IN PC DISTRICTS -691 -338 LARGE R-3 ZONED SITES : North of Newport Crest 28 420 -- 15 D. U. ' s/A. 224 420 -196 -- (At 8 (At 15 D. U. ' s/A. ) D.U. ' sjA. ) MacArthur at Pacific View 10 150 -- 15 D.U . ' s/A. 80 150 -70 --- (At 8 (At 15 D. U. ' s/A. ) D. U. ' s/A. ) San Joaquin Hills Rd. , S. of Reservoir 7 105 -- 15 D. U. 's/A. 56 105 -49 (At 8 (At 15 D. U. ' s/A. ) D.U. ' s/A. ) NET EFFECT FOR LARGE R-3 ZONED SITES : -315 --- EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS TO THE RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ELEMENT AS PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION POTENTIAL D. U. 'S & POTENTIAL D. U. ' S NET EFFECT ON NO. GROSS DENSITY PER ADOPTED PER AMENDED RES . D. U. ' S VIS-A-VIS ADOPTED AREA ACREAGE1i RES . GROWTH ELEMENT GROWTH ELEMENT : RES . GROWTH ELEMENT: LOW HIGH LOW HIGH MULTI-FAMILY SITES IN COMMERCIAL ZONES : Block 700 Newport Center 72 250 -- 35 D. U. ' s/A. (At 105 -194 -145 8 15 D. U. ' s/A. ) D. U. ' s/A. ) Lido Peninsula 18; 270 -- 15 D. U. ' s/A. 144 270 --- (At 8 (At 15 D.U. ' s/A. ) D. U. ' s/A. ) NET EFFECT FOR MULTI-FAMILY SITES IN COMMERCIAL ZONES : -320 -145 5 6 NET EFFECT FOR ALL ABOVE : -1 ,992 -237 1 Gross acreage includes the site and one-half of, or thirty feet of (whichever is the lesser) , the width of any perimeter street or adjacent open space. 2 ,• No limit on acreage for residential use is indicated in the Residential Growth Element for the . commercial district in Newport Center; seven acres is the area of the only proposed residential development thus far. 3 Eighteen acres is the approximate size of the current residential (mobilehome) area on Lido Peninsula. 4 In actuality, there is little likelihood of any residential development in the commercial districts of Newport Center if it is limited to 8 D. U. ' s/A. 5 This reduction of 1 ,992 D. U. ' s would result in a total population reduction (vis-a-vis the Residential Growth Element) of approximately 3 ,984 persons , using a factor of 2 persons per D. U. 6 This reduction of 237 D. U. ' s would result in a total population reduction (vis-a-vis the Residential Growth Element) of approximately 474 persons , using a factor of 2 persons per D. U. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Special Meeting - September 27 , 1973 - 7 :30 P . M. C A L L T O O R D E R P L E D G E O F A L L E G I A N C E R 0 L L C A L L : Agee , Beckley , Hazewinkel , Heather, Parker , Rosener , Seely Item No. 1 Request to amend the Residential Growth Element and the Land Us.e Element of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach adopted by the City Council on May 29 , 1973 Public Hearing ) . Initiated by : The City of Newport Beach Action : Item No. 2 Amendment No. 386 (Public Hearing) . Request to amend the Planned Community Development Standards for "Big Canyon" by reducing the densities in Areas 1 , 6 , 10 and 14. Location : Portion of Blocks 55 , 56 , 92 and 93 .of Irvine ' s Subdivision , located north of San Joaquin Hills Road , west of MacArthur Boulevard, south of Ford Road and east of Jamboree Road. Zone: P-C Owner : The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Initiated by : The City of Newport Beach Action A D J 0 U R N M E N T: �' 7 �L �vs�t1 DO NOT REMOVE Planning Commission Meeting Sept. 27 , 1973 Agenda Item No. 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 25 , 1973 TO : Pl.anning Commission FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Request to amend the Residential Growth Element and the Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach adopted by the City Council on May 29, 1973. INITIATED BY : The City of Newport Beach The City Council at their meeting of September 24, 1973 clarified the request to the Planning Commission to consider a proposal to limit all future residential developments to a maximum density of eight dwelling units per gross acre. The City Council requested the Planning Commission to "review those properties underdeveloped and unclassified plus those planned community districts having underdeveloped properties not vested" . Attached is a staff report prepared prior to this clarification . Staff has not had time to revise the report according to the new direction. This material , however, will be forwarded to the Commission at a later date. Respectfull.y submitted , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V. HOGAN , DIRECTOR By ROD EY L. GUNN ADVANCE PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR RLG/ddb Attachment: Staff Report dated 9/24/73 on Density Study Planning Commission Meeting Septe. 27 , 1973 Agenda Item No. 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 24, 1973 TO : Planning Commission FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: DENSITY STUDY The City Council , at their meeting of August 27 , 1973 , requested the Planning Commission to consider a proposal to limit all future resi- dential developments to a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per gross acre. The City Council also made the 'following request of the staff: "The staff was instructed to prepare the necessary background documents for an inventory of residential housing developments in Newport Beach that exceed eight or more units per acre , exclusive of R-1 and R-2 , and its relationship to other types of residen- tial uses , and to forward such report and other sup- porting information that the staff felt was necessary to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to Council . " A public hearing on possible amendments to the Residential Growth Element and Land Use Element to reflect such a limitation has been set and legally advertised for this meeting. Attached are two charts and one map -- Figure 1 indicates the esti - mated numerical effect of an 8 dwelling unit per acre limit on each Statistical Division and the planning area as a whole ; Figure 2 contains illustrative examples of existing residential project den- sities ; and Figure 3 is a map of the City showing the Statistical Divisions . As indicated in Figure 1 , it is estimated that a limitation of 8 dwelling units per gross acre (assuming also a prohibition of multi -family development , but permitting duplexes , in the R-3 and R-4 zones in the older sections ) would result in a reduction of approximately 2,600 dwelling units and approximately 5 ,200 persons from the totals anticipated under the adopted Residential Growth Element. Figure 1 also indicates that Statistical Division L (Newport Center and Big Canyon ) would be most affected by this proposal . The esti - mated potential number of dwelling units would be reduced from 3 ,060 to 1 ,792 , a difference of 1 ,268 dwelling units or approximately 2,536 persons . The other "newer" areas which would be affected include : Statistical Area A-2 - with an estimated reduction of 196 dwelling units and 392 persons ; Agenda Item No. 1 TO : Planning Commission -2- Statistical Area A-3 - with an estimated reduction of 259 dwelling units and 518 persons ; and Statistical Division M - with' an estimated reduction of 255 dwelling units and 510 persons . If the proposed 8 dwelling unit per gross acre limit were applied only to these "newer" areas (Statistical Areas A2 and A3 , Statistical Divisions L and M) , the estimated reduction from the totals antici - pated under the Residential Growth Element would be approximately 2 ,000 dwelling units and 4 ,000 persons , resulting in an estimated potential population of approximately 95 ,000 persons . If the Commission desires to recommend an amendment to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements which would limit all future resi - dential development to a maximum of 8 dwelling units per gross acre and to prohibit multi-family development in the R'-3 and R-4 zones in the older sections of the City , the following amendments will be required : A. LAND USE ELEMENT 1. Revise Land Use Plan map to change all multi -family desig- nations on "Less-Than-Fully-Developed" sites to the "Two-Family" designation . 2. Page 14 - Lido Peninsula , 2nd Paragraph ; change reference to density' from 15 d. u . ' s/A. to 8 d. u . ' s/A. B. RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ELEMENT 1 . Revise Residential Growth Plan map to change all multi - family designations on "Less-Than-Fully-Developed" sites to the "Two-Family" designation . 2 . Page 1 - General City-Wide Residential Zoning Policies ; change reference to density in Policy No. 1 from 15 d. u. ' s/A. to 8 d . u . ' s/A. 3. Page 2 - City-Wide Residential Growth Limits ; change City- wide totals in first paragraph to 39 ,359 dwelling units and 94, 107 persons ; change percentage reduction to 16 percent. 4. Page 3 - Chart ; change numbers as required . 5. Page 8 - Area A2 ; change density reference in first line to 8 d . u. ' s/A. ; change chart numbers as required. 6. Page 9 - Area A3; change density reference in third sentence to 8 d. u . ' s/A. ; change chart numbers as required . 7 . Page 12 - Division B ; change chart numbers as required. 8. Page 13 - Division C ; change chart numbers as required. 9. Page 14 - Division D, Residential Zoning Policy No. 1 ; amend to read : "All R-3 and R-4 Districts shall be rezoned to a two-family district. Appropriate development standards will be developed for all residential zones . " ( Keep same last sentence. ) TO : Planning Commission -3- 10 . Page 15 - Division D; change chart numbers as required. 11. Page 18 - Areas F2 , 3 , and 4, Residential Zoning Policy ; change first sentence to read : "All R-3 Districts shall be rezoned to a two-family district. " ( Keep same last sentence. ) 12. Pages 21 and 22 - Division H , Residential Zoning Policy ; change policy number 1 to read : "All R-3 Districts shall be rezoned to a two-family district. " Add the following sentence to Policy Number 4: "No multi -family residential development shall be permitted on the Bay Club site. " and change chart numbers as required. 13 . Pages 23 and 24 - Division J , Residential Zoning Policy ; change Policy Number 1 to read : "The vacant R-3-B-2 site adjacent to the Y. M. C .A. shall be rezoned to a residential district permitting no more than 8 dwelling units per gross acre. " and change chart numbers as required . 14. Page 25 - Division K, Residential Zoning Policy ; change Policy Number 3 (Land Trade Remnant) to reduce permitted density from 10 to 8 dwelling units per gross acre. 15. Pages 27 and 28 - Division L , Residential Zoning Policy ; change Policy Number 1 to read : "The Big Canyon PC District shall be amended to limit all residential development to a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per gross acre ; change Policy Number 2 to read: "Residential development shall be permitted on the vacant area on Jamboree Road and the Coast Highway which backs up on the Country Club with a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per gross acre. Additional sites for residential development in Newport Center shall be permitted at a density not to exceed 8 dwelling units per gross acre , subject to the approval of the City. " ; change chart numbers as required. 16. Page 29 - Division M, Residential Zoning Policy ; change Policy Number 1 and Number 3 to result in an 8 dwelling unit per acre limitation ; change chart numbers as required. In addition , the Residential Growth Element and Land Use Element maps should be changed as necessary to reflect any amendments in those areas that are revised from 15 d. u. ' s/A. to 8 d. u. ' s/A. as discussed above. Respectfully submitted , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V. HOGAN , DIRECTOR By Pai G•._._. RODNEY L. GUNN ADVANCE PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR RLG/TEC/ddb Attachments : Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 (Map) FIGURE 1 DWELLING UNIT, DENSITY, AND POPULATION COMPARISONS Stat. Gross EXISTING2 POTENTIAL PER POTENTIAL Area or Res . 1 RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ELEMENT PER 8 D. U. 's/A. LIMITS Div. Acreage D. U. ' s D. U. ' s/A4 Population D. U. ' s D. U. ' s/A. Population D..U. ' s D. U. ' s/A. 4 Population Al 472 --- --- --- 2 ,994 6. 3 6 ,886 2 ,994 6. 3 6 ,886 A2 130 573 4. 4 1 ,092 1 ,668 12. 8 3,336 1 ,472 11. 3 2,944 A3 37 356 9 . 6 640 555 15. 0 1 ,055 296 8. 0 537 B 280 3 ,818 13. 6 7,796 4,409 15. 07 . 10, 141 4 ,269 • 15. 2 9 ,861 C 93 869 9. 0 2 ,260 889 9 . 2' 2 ,320 880 9. 1 2,302 • D 207 2 ,966 14. 3 5 , 182 3 ,469 16.8 7,652 3 , 194 15. 4 7 ,102 E 114 2 ,089 18. 3 3,635 2 ,614 22. 9 5 ,226 2 ,614 22. 9 5 ,226 F1 137 452 3. 3 11091 458 3. 3 1 ,087 458 3. 3 1 ,087 F2 ,3,4 281 3,006 10. 7 5,636 3 ,664 13. 0 7 , 143 3,664 13. 0 7, 143 c m F5 ,6 ,7,8 244 721 3.0 2 ,097 783 3. 2 2 ,280 783 3. 2 2 ,280 G 112 283 2. 5 599 951 8. 5 2 ,378 951 8. 5 2 ,378 H 370 2 ,088 5. 6 5 ,297 2,417 6. 5 6 ,417 2 ,255 6. 1 6 ,093 J 844 4,856 5. 8 9 ,776 5 ,570 6. 6 12,814 5 , 514 6. 5 12 ,702 • K 498 3 ,255 6. 5 6 ,326 3,902 7.8 8,696 3 ,902 7. 8 8,696 L 336 185 . 6 528 3 ,060 9 . 1 7 ,490 1 ,792 5. 3 4,954 M 1 ,054 2 ,081 2.0 6,491 4,576 4. 3 14, 186 4 ,321 4. 1 13,676 TOTALS 5,213 27 ,598 5. 3 57,355 41 ,979 8. 1 99 ,347 39 ,359 7. 6 94 ,107 lIncludes all land designated for residential development on the adopted Residential Growth Plan . 2As of January 1 , 1973 3Assumes no further multi-family development in R-3 and R-4 zoned older sections . 4 Dwelling units per gross residential acre. N FIGURE 2 DENSITY COMPARISONS FOR EXISTING PROJECTS NUMBER OF DWELLING GROSS DWELLING UNITS PER PROJECT ACREAGE UNITS GROSS ACRE Newport Crest 38.0 460 12. 1 Versailles Phase I 6. 8 255 37. 5 Lido Condominiums 1. 1 54 49 . 1 • Condominiums at 621 Lido Park Drive 1. 7 36 21 . 2 Caribe 1. 3 48 36 .9 Rendevouz . 75 24 32.0 c Oakwood 32. 3 1 ,450 44. 9 rn m N Mariners Square 6. 2 114 18. 4 Park Newport 53. 2 1 ,304 24. 5 Promontory Point 32.8 536 16. 3 Apts . at San Joaquin Hills • Road & Marguerite Avenue 5. 4 64 11. 8 Apts . on San Joaquin Hills Road next to Shopping Center 5. 3 96 18. 1 Baywood Apartments 27. 4 310 11. 3 i STATISTICAL DIVISIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL GROWTH STUDIES 04 \�\�.j�ca /G ✓i�Cf...0 � �.a+'.\�^"mot�� ,�\`a' �,\ _ -:.a �� 'lee t Ir '�- si�:�:%\t . .- art n�J���� -...�'1'"L� \. I i /s�'"t y�. Arai!_ . • �--"_\--��/'/-- �.1 = - M �✓� Y���!+����'�'�. '��' ?�p V � � rl `lu�j�j�'.��! Lam. '^- �'�` a___ ,! �L'.hr`-' ,: -. /�.M j1 r r�,� "�7 Fit�'�{... 1, a... 1 .:� • �' " , ,. /�� t ":� b =�Y,` �`i���� }''n•'f , i yam. : ._. .-��'Ji\-- I . �`s*l"_ - �•.'. :. r 3 ;'..�';� 8 (\Q F�`.f{Ifj u'-� '°a �l ._u�'s„�: ate;�_ f-;•.�.;j', as TTT ` � �oaWcn, ,(� _ „ ;,,1.. A. N'`._!'-4i� �_�'' J J'-4r"V7 ayVu.�n'� 41�`Y�l�s�\' i ^ ..j,1 -.. yrn'.'• p,. �.- r -:-„»,. :- �` �.,:;J2, ,, ,: •7- 9 "��y7��j�.A�'J/3�� , , __ -_"__ _ _�- -z—_�---_-, k �S� -�' . `SMi ' -''c I .L�{- m� \..• a„i6. 't?��+Ji1L:3'Z;1❑'.i��P.: I �, IDS, =_._ ' _ ' � -�j{ 7_`•-�:1 c..`� �. 'ice_ _ �. i U - .-' - �.'�'.d�Y3� `�^� -"'�- _ .... _. {{li{ii(:(�{'� ^o.„n. .'Y:�```v, \ � _mil �•-;v��-,�r - -=�"���s��-�-' ��- . s � ' ei;kr Jrril',a'��-%;,o•" :``� � . - i�-�"u,�;-:•r-� ' __'�•,_ <<:�. , a 1 r,, -•� - CRY OF NMPOn 9EACN .. Y / /�' % �• / C T 1= 0 C E /\ wwo cwm.uumv� �. � _ _ 7.0 3 Planning Commission Meeting May 17 , 1973 Agenda Item No. #A-1 & #A-2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 15 , 1973 DO NOT RCP`40VS TO : Planning Commission FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ELEMENT AND LAND USE ELEMENT The City Council at their meeting on May 7 , 1973 made several modifi- cations to the Residential Growth Element and the Land Use Element of the General Plan and referred them back to the Planning Commission for review and comment. Attached are the following items : 1 . Memo from City Manager to Community Development Director dated May 8, 1973 , listing the modifications made by the City Council to the Residential Growth Element and the Land Use Element. 2. Letter dated April 19 , 1973 from the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce to the City Council suggesting several re- visions to the Residential Growth Element and the Land Use Element. 3. Letter dated April 20 , 1973 from the Irvine Company to the City Council regarding densities on the Castaways Site and Newport Center. 4. Letters dated May 8, 1973 and May 9 , 1973 from Daniel S. Connelly. In addition , the staff has attached revised copies of the Residential Growth Element and the Land Use Element. All the amendments made by the City Council have been incorporated as well as other revisions by staff that were inferred by and consistent with the recommendations of the City Council . Zoning maps have been included for information only. Staff recommendations as to comments to be forwarded to the City Council are as follows : Residential Growth Element 1 . Introduction ( Page 1 ) The following should be added to the only aragraph By the use of 10 year revenue and expenditure pr07 the City ections and by managing needed capital improvements , shall assure a favorable budget posture. " No comment except that it would be more appropriate to add the sentence to the end- of the second paragraph which discusses costs of capital improvements . Genera7 City wide Zoning Policies (Page 4) Subparagraph 1_. The 2. following was added : "and Edgewater condominiums will be permitted u to 21 dwellin units per acre . " a density of p g p It is recommended that subparagraph 1 be reworded to read as follows : "All future multi -family residential development shall be limited to a density not greater than 15 dwelling units per gross acre on any individual project , except where i special provisions have been made within the plan for higher density . i Item No. #A-1 & #A-2 TO : Planning Commission 2. This will eliminate the need to list every exception separately. 3. City-wide Residential Growth Limits Stat. Table (Page 5) It is suggested this page be revised as shown to reflect the changes made in each individual section . 4. Statistical Area A-1 (Page 7) : The second paragraph shall be replaced with the following : "This entire area has been desig- nated as a ' specific plan ' area and all proposals for residential or other uses shall be reviewed as a part of that specific plan . " This revision is consistent with the intent of the Commission ' s recommendation . 5. Statistical Area A-2 (Page 8 Sub ara ra h 2 shall be replaced with the following : 12 Residential development west of Superior Avenue shall be permitted in all areas except the M-1 district. However , the area included in the 'Specific Plan area on the land use lag ma include uses other than residential . Maximum density shall be 15 dwelling units per gross acre in the area south of the westerly extension of 16th Street to the present City boundary and a maximum density of 6 dwelling units per gross acre north of the extension of 16th Street. ' This amendment is consistent with the intent of the Planning Commission ' s recommendation . 6. Statistical Division B , Subparagraph 3 (Page 10) should be changed to read "All R-2 and R-3 districts shall remain as currently zoned and the table for this statistical area. reflect this density. The reduction from the Trend-Growth Projection in Statistical Division "B" resulted from the open space use of public property (State Highway right-of-way and the Slough area) , no variances on undersized lots , and the rezoning of certain R-3 and R-4 lots east of the Newport Pier. It is recommended that : A. The wording , "except for public property" be added to subparagraph 3 . B . The R-3 and R-4 lots east of the Newport Pier be considered with Statistical Division D. C. The first four lines of page 10 be revised as shown in the text. 7. Lido Island (Statistical Division C) Page 12. Although the City Council did not make any suggestions for this area , it is recommended that consistent with revisions in other sections of the City , no changes from the current zoning be proposed. 8. The City Council took no action on this suggestion , but requested comment from the Planning Commission on the following : Statistical Division D (Page 13) Subparagraph 1 , 2 , 3 , 4, 5 , 7 'be deleted and following renumbering of the rema� n� ng paragraphs replaced by the following : "All residential zones currently in existence shall be maintained with the understanding that appro- priate development standards will be developed. Where appropriate, commercial zones may be reclassified to a resi.dent� a one "� TO : Planning Commission 3. Whereas in other sections of the City , R-3 and R-4 Districts are applied to larger lots which can accommodate this type of develop- ment, the Balboa Peninsula is unique in that there is a multipli - city of small lots with R-3 and R-4 zoning . The Planning Commission is about to conclude its studies on the ramifications of this type of development and should have recommendations within a short period of time for City Council consideration . The Council ' s recommenda- tion is consistent with the Planning Commission studies to date. 9. Statistical Areas F 2, F 3 and F-4 ( Page 17) The second para- qraph shall be replaced with the following . ' All R R 2 and 3 districts shall remain with appropriate development standards to be re ared and the table for these statistical areas shall reflect this policy The effect on traffic and parking_ is to be studied in greater depth and , Jf necessary , remedies are to be reflected in the development standards . " The residents of this area are presently formulating their recom- mendations for any zoning changes including development standards . The policy for this area should be flexible enough to accommodate these proposals . lo. Statistical Areas F 5 , F 6 , F-7 and F-8 ( Pa'iae 18) Subparagraphs 1 and 2 shall be replaced by the following . The R 2 istricts in this area shall remain and no zone change shall be granted which would permit an intensification of development. _The table shall reflect this policy. " The only R-2 zoning is in Statistical Divi-sion F-5 and is presently developed with single family homes . The City Council should con- sider the effects of the intrusion of duplex units in a stabilized single family residential area . 11 . Statistical Division G (Page 19 ) Subparagraph 1 should be changed to read TALi of the residential district in Beacon Bay shall remain until a specific area plan is developed and approved. Said lan is to be prepared within five vpars after the ado tion date of the Genera Plan . This change is consistent with the intent of the Planning Commis- sion. 12. Statistical Division H (Page 20) Subparagraph 4 should be changed to read No further residential development shal be _permitted in the remaining commercial districts in Division H , an a_ny fur- ther residential development on the Balboa Bay Club site shall be permitted only in accordance with a specific area plan to be pre pared by the Balboa BaV Club and approved bV the Gity. Said plan is to be prepared within five years after the adoption date of He General Plan . " This revision is within the intent of the Planning Commission to carefully review any future residential development of this pro- perty. However, the words , "specific area" should be deleted. "Specific Area Plans" by state law are prepared by the City . In addition , it is recommended that consistent with revisions in other sections of the City that no ,changes from the current zoning be proposed except for the R-2 and R-3 Districts adjacent to Catalina Drive between North Newport Boulevard and Beacon Street. This area is presently developed with single family homes . 13. Statistical Division J (Page 21 ) Subparagraph 1 was changed to yeas as follows : "Residential develo ment in the southernmost vacant area the Castawa s Site shall be limited to a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per gross acre unless adequate open space is provided under a specific area plan . " T0 : Planning Commission 4. This is consistent with the Commission ' s recommendation. However , the words , "plan approved by the City" , should be substituted for the words , "specific area plan" . 14. Residential Zoning Polic for Statistical Division K ( Page 23 Sub arc is h 1 . The Council re uested comment from the Plannin Commission on the feasibi ity of permitting on y 8 dwelling units per gross acre on the property north of the Newporter Inn It was the opinion of the Planning Commission that similar to the City Council ' s recommendation on the Castaways site that a develop- ment of 15 dwelling units per acre was needed to ensure the in- clusion of public amenities . If the City Council feels it is appro- priate to make this change, it is recommended that subparagraph 1 be amended to read similar to that of the recommendation for the Castaways site -- "Residential development in the large vacant site north of the Newporter Inn shall be limited to a maximum den- sity of 8 dwelling units per gross acre unless adequate open space is provided under a planned development with a density no greater than 15 d. u./acre. 15. Statistical Division K ( Page 23) Subparagraph 2 should be chanced to read "Residentiai development in the two southerm_ost ' high rise ' sites in the Bluffs should be limited to a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per cross acre. " No comment. 16. Statistical Division L Pa a 24 Sub arc rah 2 should be chan ed to read : 'That additional residential development in Newport Center be ermitted on the vacant area on Jamboree Road and the Coast Hi hwa which backs up on the Country Club with a maximum density of 15 dwellin units er ross acre and that sites for residential develo ment at a densit not to exceed 35 dwe1lin units er acre , subiect to t e approval of the City , be permitted. The Citv Council requested comments from the Planning Commission feasib� lit of cons�derin the vacant area on Jamboree Road on the a creel on Coast and the Coast Hiahwav in two parcels with th_ p Highway having less density than the 75 dwelling units per gross acre. Urban type residential development in Newport Center could be beneficial in developing living-working relationships and re- ducing traffic generation if the proposed residential development is instead of office development not in addition to presently planned uses . In addition , it is' recommended that subparagraph 2 be reworded as follows : "That additional residential development in Newport Center be permitted on the vacant area on Jamboree Road and the Coast Highway—which backs up on the Country Club with a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per gross acre and that other sites within the center be permitted for resi - dential development at a density not to exceed 35 d. u. /acre subject to approval of the City. Any such development should • TO : Planning Commission 5 . (Revised May 17 , 1973) replace , and not be in addition to , proposed commercial development . " Land Use Element 1 . Overall Cit Form Pa e 2 . The followin was added as Para-. oraph 3 "The City shall encourage the formation of independent municipal advisory groups within each of the villages that go t make up the City and the Citv will cooperate with such village re resentatives for the improvement of the environment and pnvsical facilities within its villages . _ No comment necessary. 2. Land Use Summary (Page 8) Paragraph 2 The following was added : "B the use of 10 ear revenue and ex enditure ro ections and Kit mana in needed ca ital im rovements , the Cit shall assure a favorable budget posture . " No comment necessary . 3. West New art Harbor Pa es 9 and 10 Subparagraphs 1 , Z , 3 , and 4 sh-all tre- replaced with the fol owing : "Beeco , Ltd Banning) Property "This area , north of ' Newport Shores ' and extending easterly rom a an a na iver is esigna a as a 1 e c i T is an area on the Land Use Plan This will permit the development of an"overall lan for the area after the com letion of inves- ti on of economic and h sical feasibilit of a sma 1 craft harbor in the lowlands area extendin northward into Costa Mesa. "Such a harbor, if feasible , would rovide full marina , marine service, and commercial recreational facilities . In. ad ition , a public in and hiking trail- and- parking area is propose as art of the count -wide Santa Ana Greenbe t Pro ect The remainder of the land would be used for residential develo ment as is- cussed in the Residential Growt 'Develo ment modifie if and as necessary , to relate to t e overal harbor p an . " If the harbor is not feasible , alternate Tans , includin resi - entia7 with associated commercial service facilities , s ou be considered. In an event, the iro ert owners should have the responsibility for developing a plan for approval by the C� tv at o the time anY land use proposals are made The develp- ment shall be consistent with the criteria set forth � n tine General Plan . " This revision is consistent with the Commission recommenda-tion . 4: Marina ark - (Page 13) Subparagraph i shall be replaced with the following "Marinapark shall continue as a mobile ome park until such time as that use is phased out, at which time the property_ may be rezoned to the OS - open space district. "_ See comments on Residential Growth Element. 5. "Beacon Bay" Area (Page 13) Subparagraph 7 shall 1. re olaced with the following : " It � s proposed that in keeping wit tine un,quq ness of this site that a multiplicity of uses be considered. The exact nature of the uses should be determined by a specific area plan to be developed prior to the expiration of the current lease. Said lan is to be re ared within five years after the ado Lion date of the General Plan . " Now on Page 14 See comments on Residential Growth Element. 4 TO : Planning Commission 6 . (Added May 17, 1973) Land Use Element (Continued) 6. Balboa Bay Club Site (Pape 14) Subparagraph 1 shall be replaced with the following " It is proposed that in keeping with the uniqueness of this harbor front site , that the City study a multiplicity of uses The exact nature of the uses will be 'de- termined by a specific area plan to be developed prior to the expiration of the current lease Said plan is to be prepared within five ears after the ado tion date of the General Plan . " Now on Pages 15 an 6 7. See comments on Residential Growth Element. 7. Vacant Site Northwest of Upper Bay (Page l5) Subparagraph 1 should be changed with the following addition to portion deleted: "Such alternative development may be permuted only � n accordance with a plan to be approved by the Citv with the residentially de- veloped portions of the plan to be maintained at a maximum de_n- sit of 6 dwellingunits per ross acre as discussed in the Residential Growth Element. " Now on Page 16 a This revision is consistent with the Commission recommendation. Respectfully submitted, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V. HOGAN , DIRECTOR By RZ3j G RODNEY L . GUNN ADVANCE PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR RLG/ddb Enclosures : Residential Growth Element of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Revised and Referred to the Planning Commission for Review and Comment by the City Council , May 7 , 1973 Land Use Element Revised of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Revised and Referred to the Planning Commission for Review and Comment by the City Council , May 7, 1973 TO : Planning Commission 5. replace , and not be in addition to , proposed commercial development. " Respectfully submitted, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V . HOGAN , DIRECTOR By � G — Rodney L. Gunn Advance Planning Administrator RLG/ddb Planning Commission Meeting May 16 , 1974 Agenda Item No. 12 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 10 , 1974 TO : Planning Commission FROM : Department of Community Development SUBJ : Land Use Element Interpretation -- Open Space Designation at Northerly End of Irvine Coast Country Club . It has been brought to staff ' s attention that the open space designation on the adopted Land Use Plan for the Irvine Coast Country Club has been inadvertently extended beyond the property line of the country club at the northerly end . This results in a separate parcel of. land at the corner of Jamboree and Santa Barbara owned by the Irvine Company and intended for use as the new Chamber of Commerce offices , being within the open space designation. It was the obvious intent , in drafting the Land Use Plan , that this open space designation be applied only to land currently within the property lines of the country club . Staff suggests that the Planning Commission find that it is the intent , and therefore the effect , of the Land Use Element that the separate parcel at the southeast corner of the intersection of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Avenue be designated for "Administrative , Professional and Financial Commercial " use , which is the same designation as most of the other property adjacent to the country club in this area. Since the property is currently in the PC (Planned Community) zoning district , the permitted use is based on the Land Use Element designation . The Chamber of Commerce office building would certainly be appropriate within the "Administrative , Professional , and Financial Commercial " designation ; a "Development Plan" would be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for approval , pursuant to the PC District regulations . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V . HOGAN , DIR TO r 44 By— �q ,tea 'Y!` Ff�C� �i T i m�,S.oV e 11 Senior Planner DO NOT REMOVE TC :jmb M 7 0.� Planning Commission Meeting March 29 , 1973 Agenda Item No. A-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH F02=gi �9 March 29 , 1973 UU u DO NOT REMOVE TO : Planning Commission FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: LAND USE ELEMENT REVISIONS This memo includes two additional revisions to the Land Use Element proposed by staff and proposed rewording of the text required by previously proposed revisions to the Land Use Plan . The two additional revisions proposed to the Land Use Element are as follows : 1 . Page 17 - Reword section headed "Vacant Site Northwest of Upper Bay" to read as follows (to correspond to the Residential Growth Element as adopted by the Planning Commission ) : ",It is proposed that this entire site be preserved a•s open space related to the ' Upper Bay Wildlife Reserve ' ; however, provision is made for alternative development in case the preservation of this site as open space proves infeasible. Such alternative development would include a five to ten acre ' convenience commercial Center' (market , liquor store , barber shop, laundry , etc. ) at the intersection of Tustin Avenue and University Drive and a public park (size and location per the Natural Environment Element), with the remainder of the site developed residentially at a maximum density of six dwelling units per gross acre (as discussed in the Residential Growth Element) . " 2. Revise the Land Use Plan in the Newport Center area to indi - cate a mixture of "Administrative , Professional , and Financial " use with "Recreational Commercial " use instead of multi-family residential use at the northwest corner of Newport Center Drive and Coast Highway. (No revision to the text is neces- sary for this change to the Land Use Plan . ) The following rewordings to �the Land Use Element text are proposed to reflect the revisions to the Land Use Plan proposed in the staff memo of March 15 , 1973: Page 7 - Add the following paragraph under Major Land Use Designations : i "Certain areas have been designated for open space with alternative uses in case the preservation of the area as open space proves infeasible. These areas are bounded by a ' dot and dash ' line, with the alternate use shown by colored dots . " Page 12 - Add the following paragraph under West Newport Harbor: "This future harbor area has been designated as a ' Specific Plan ' area on the Land Use Plan to provide for an overall Item No. A-1 TO : Planning Commission 2. plan for the harbor development, including adjacent lands and the circulation system within this area . " Page 13 - Add the following paragraph under Coast Highway Commercial Stri "This area has been designated as a ' Specif•ic Plan ' area in order to resolve problems of access , parking , and buffering of residential uses . " All of the above revisions have been made to the Land Use Plan . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V . HOGAN , DIRECTOR g y in n RODNE . GUNN ADVANCE PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR RLG/TEC/ddb `7. a.3 VW Planning Commission Meeting March 29 , 1973 Agenda Item No . A-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 28 , 1973 MILE COMM TO : Planning Commission DO'NOT RUNIOVE FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: EIR/NB 73-031 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN INITIATED BY : The City of Newport Beach Attached is a copy of the Environmental Impact Report for the Land Use Element. This report considers the significant City-wide environmeptal impacts of this element on the future environment of the City of Newport Beach . Subsequent elements of the General Plan will address such subject matter as circulation , natural environment, community services , etc. All these elements either effect or are affected by each other. As these other elements are completed , their impact on each other as well as the environment will be care- fully evaluated. Also , as previously discussed, an Environmental Impact Report on the entire General Plan will be developed after all of the individual elements are adopted. This Environmental Impact Report will consider the interelationships among all General Plan Elements and the overall effect of the General Plan on the City ' s environment. Staff recommends to the Planning Commission that they find : 1 . That the E. I . R. is complete and contains all of the information required by the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. That the adoption of the Land Use Element will have no signi - ficant City-wide adverse environmental effects . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V. HOGAN , DIRECTOR By RODNEY L . GUNN ADVANCE PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR RLG/ddb Attachment : Environmental Impact Report EIR/NB 73-031 w CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Newport Beach , California DATE : March 28, 1973 PREPARED BY : Community Development Department SUBJECT: EIR/NB 73-031 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN I . INTRODUCTION This Environmental Impact Report has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. It is i the intent of this report to explore and evaluate the significant City-wide environmental impacts of the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan . The Land Use Element should be regarded as an expression of public policy for land development. As such , it represents the "desirable" pattern for the ultimate , full development of the City as determined at this time. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the general location of different land uses within the City and will serve as a long-range guide for the development and use of all public and private land within the City. II . BACKGROUND This element is one of a number of elements which will be included in the complete General Plan . The overall General Plan Program was initiated in August , 1971 . Since that time a number of, specific background studies have been completed , and a number of preliminary hearings and meetings have been held with interested citizens through- out the City. The first element of the General Flan , The General Plan Policies Element, was adopted by the City Council on March 13 , 1972 . The general policy statements contained in that report have served as guidelines for the development of the more detailed General Plan elements . The second element of the General Plan , The Residential Growth Element , was approved by the Planning Commission on March 15 , 1973 and will be presented to the City Council on April 9 , 1973. III . SCOPE OF REPORT This report considers the significant City-wide environmental impacts of this element of the General Plan . It does not consider environ- mental impacts of any specific project which may subsequently be built in compliance with this element, nor does it exempt any such project from complying with the requirements of the California Enviromental Quality Act. Future Environmental Impact Reports wi11 explore and evaluate subsequent elements of the General Plan and Page 1 of 5 EIR/NB 73-031 their impacts on the circulation system , natural environment , and community services . IV. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Historically , the City of Newport Beach developed as a series of small communities or " villages " , separated by the natural geographic form of the bay. Each of these communities had its own name , character, and identity. As the City continued to grow and new communities and neighborhoods were developed , they , in turn , established their own identity. There are a number of unifying factors within the City which help to link the various communities together. These include the unique combination of the bay and the ocean . In recent years the City has experienced extremely rapid growth both in terms of population and in terms of new industrial and commercial development. In addition , the rapid growth of the entire Orange County area has created tremendous new demands for waterfront recre- ational facilities . Both of these factors have had a definite impact on the City. Moreover, these trends are projected to continue by the City' s Economic Consultant , Development Research Associates . The Land Use Element of the General Plan will , to a degree , deter- mine the type and amount of growth that should be accommodated within the City of Newport Beach . Thus , the environmental setting which will be affected by the Land Use Element will be the potential future environment which would occur if this element were not adopted. V. OBJECTIVES OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT The overall objective of the General Plan Program is to implement the basic policy of the General Policy Plan which reads as follows : " IN PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE OF THE COMMUNITY , it shall be the basic underlying goal of the City of Newport Beach to protect and enhance the City ' s special charm and character; its unique natural and man-made physical en- vironment; its attractive visual environment, and the wide range of social , economic , cultural , educational and recreational opportunities which have contributed to the high quality of life enjoyed by its citizens . "SUPPORTING POLICIES "a) The City shall preserve and maintain the predominant one and two family residential character and density of the community within existing and future neighbor- hoods throughout the City. "b ) Higher density residential development shall be limited to those areas where compatible with adjacent land uses and where adequate and convenient commercial services and public support systems such as streets , parking , parks , schools and utilities are, or will be , adequate to serve them. "c) The village-like neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas shall be preserved and encouraged. Page 2 of 5 "d) The City shall provide for a sufficient diversity of land uses so that schools , recreation areas , churches and neighborhood shopping centers are available in close proximity to each resident of the community. "e ) The type and amount of commercial areas shall be limited to those which can feasibly be supported by their appropriate trade area and to those which are consistent and compatible with the prime concept and image of the community as a quality, low-density residential area. "f) Commercial recreation or destination tourist facilities , in particular, shall be carefully controlled so as to protect the quality residential character of the commu- nity and the opportunity of local residents to enjoy (in a safe , attractive and convenient manner) the con- tinued use of the harbor, shoreline and local trans- portation and parking facilities . "g) In view of the City ' s attraction as a regional and state-wide recreation area ; the growing regional and state-wide demand for water-oriented recreational facilities , and the limited capacity of the City ' s harbor and oceanfront resources to fully satisfy such demands , the City shall encourage the opening and development of adjoining ocean and waterfront areas outside Newport Bay in a manner which may best serve to distribute the increasing public need for water- oriented recreational facilities . "h) Consistent with all other policies to protect and en- hance the quality residential character of the commu- nity, the City shall encourage both public and private water-oriented recreational and entertainment facilities as a means of providing public access to the waterfront. "i ) Provisions shall be made for the preservation of suitable and adequate sites for commercial and industrial marine- related facilities so as to protect the City ' s historical and maritime atmosphere , and the charm and character such industries have traditionally provided the City. "j ) General industrial development within the community shall be limited to those areas and uses which are appropriate to and compatible with a quality residential community. "k) The City shall develop and maintain suitable and adequate standards for landscaping , sign control , site and building design , parking and the undergrounding of utili - ties to ensure that all existing and future commercial and industrial developments are compatible with surrounding land uses . " The Land Use Element proposes to reinforce the physical identity and functional efficiency of the many individual communities within the City through such means as : (1 ) use of open space corridors and buffers ; (2) assuring harmonious groupings of land uses in each community area ; (3) encouraging the development of an "individual character" for each community area , rather than attempting a City- wide , monotonous conformity; (4) provision of neighborhood commercial centers within or adjacent to the community areas ; (5) provision for public and semi -public facilities (schools , parks , churches , etc. ) within each community area ; (6) controlling the density of residen- tial uses (as discussed in the "Residential Growth Element" ) ; and (7) controlling the intensity of commercial uses . Page 3 of 5 VI . THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION A) Direct Environmental Impact The Land Use Element of the General Plan does not propose any specific physical development. Rather it serves as a long- range guideline to future development. Therefore , the Land Use Element will not have any significant direct environmental impacts . B ) Indirect Environmental Impact There will be three significant long-range indirect environ- mental impacts of the Land Use Element. The first will be to ensure that an adequate amount of land is preserved for residential , commercial , industrial , institutional , and public uses and that the balance between these various uses is both economically viable and consistent with the predominantly residential character of the City. The second will be to ensure that the distribution of these various land uses occurs in such a way as to provide a har- monious grouping of land uses within each community. The third will be to limit the intensity of all land uses . These three impacts , when considered together, will help to maintain a high quality residential City with adequate sup- porting land uses and a balanced viable economic base. These impacts will be beneficial and will result in a higher quality environment throughout the City than would occur if development were not controlled. VII . ANY ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSAL IS IMPLEMENTED The Land Use Element will provide a long-range guide to future growth to ensure the orderly and balanced development of all land uses ; and hence , will serve to protect and enhance the environment of the City. No significant adverse environmental effects are anticipated. 1 VIII . MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT There will be no significant adverse environmental impacts and , therefore , no mitigation measures are required or proposed. It should be noted that the proposed element is itself a mitigation measure to protect against the adverse environmental impacts of uncontrolled development which would occur if this element were not adopted. IX. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION There are a number of alternatives to adopting the "Limited-Growth" Land Use Element: A) One alternative is simply not to adopt this element. This would result in the uncoordinated and disorderly development Page 4 of 5 of the City and would have a number of hdverse impacts . B ) Another alternative is to adopt an "Unlimited-Growth" Land Use Element which would merely accommodate development as extensive and intensive as the market will support. It is felt that this would lead to over-development and a major adverse impact on the environment. C) A third alternative is to adopt a Land Use Element which would more severely limit development. While this may be more favorable to the natural environment, this alternative would have a major adverse effect on the economic and social environment and also tend to inhibit redevelopment where it may be desirable for improvement of the man-made physical environment . Thus , the proposed Land Use Element is considered to be a rational compromise between two extremes , resulting in a balance between several environmental values and an optimum environment in physical , economic and social terms . X. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN 'S ENVIRON- MENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY The Land Use Element is a long-range guide for future development and will have a positive long-term environmental impact. XI . ANY IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION , SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED The Land Use Element will not cause any irreversible environmental changes but rather will help to avoid or limit irreversible changes . XII . THE GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The Land Use Element will not have any growth-inducing impact but rather will serve to limit and guide future growth . XIII . SUMMARY The Land Use Element, like other elements of the General Plan , is intended to preserve and protect the present and future environment of the City. Therefore , the adoption of this element will have beneficial long-term environmental impacts . It should be stressed 9 P that any future developments which may be proposed in compliance with this element will be subject to detailed environmental review. Page 5 of 5 1 f Planning Commission Meeting March l , 1973 Agenda Item No . B-1/ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH -7 0 3 March 9 , 1973 TO : Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Request to consider the Adopt lot of the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan . INITIATED BY : The City of Newport Beach The Land Use Element as recommended by the Department of Community Development was presented to the City Council and the Planning 'Commission at the joint meeting held on February 22 , 1973. At that meeting , staff received direction to revise the proposal for the Santa Ana Heights Area to indicate preserving the existing residential use . The "Land Use Plan " has been appropriately revised and the text of the Land Use Element will be revised to indicate the proposed con- tinuation of the large-lot , low- density, single-family residential uses in the majority of the area , and the continuation of the com- mercial uses on Bristol Street. In addition , staff is proposing the following minor revisions : 1 . In the West Newport Area , the "Banning Property" has been designated as a specific plan area on the Land Use Plan ; the text of the Land Use Element will be revised to indicate the desirability of an overall plan for the development of the harbor , the adjoining lands , and the circulation system within this area. 2 . The West Newport "Strip" Commercial Area , on the north side of Coast Highway , has been designated as a Specific Plan Area , to resolve problems of access , parking and buffering of residential uses . (A separate report on this area will be submitted. ) 3. A "dot and dash" line boundary has been added to in- dicate those open space areas which are proposed for permanent open space but for which an alternate use is proposed if the preservation of the area as open space proves infeasible . All of these revisions as well as any additional recommendations of the Planning Commission will be incorporated into the text of the Land Use Element . The adoption of the Land Use Element by the City Council will require several subsequent Zoning Ordinance Amendments and rezoning of some specific areas . The General Plan Public Hearing Schedule previously distributed to the City Council and the Planning Commission made provisions for such considerations during the months of May and June . Also attached is a calculation of the anticipated net fiscal effect of future development under the "Trend-Growth " projections and the recommended Land Use Element based on the Cost/Revenue System. QI °E CV Item No . B-1 DO NOT REMOVE . ^ I l • • TO : Planning Commission - 2 . It should be understood that the Cost/Revenue System is intended as a general guide which will indicate the probable fiscal effects of various general categories of land development. It is readily apparent that there is an almost infinite number of variables in- fluencing the costs and revenues associated with land use ; such as , assessed valuation , sales efficiency , numbers of persons per unit , etc. Out of necessity , these variables have been reduced to averages based on sample surveys and estimates . The results of this general Cost/Revenue System should be viewed in terms of showing an "order of magnitude" rather than precise dollar figures . These "order of magnitude" figures should be sufficient for the purposes of the General Plan where we are dealing with acres of land and general land use categories , but it should not be attempted to reduce these figures to the level of determining costs and revenues resulting from, as an example , the addition of one dwelling unit on one lot. Recommended Action Staff recommends that , after discussion and revision at the public hearings , the resulting Land Use Element be recommended to the City Council for public hearings and adoption as the Land Use Element of the General Plan . DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN , Director By RODNEY L. GUNN Advance Planning Administrator RLG/kk Attachments ,.Item No . B-1 � L . f COST/REVENUE ANALYSIS ESTIMATED COSTS AND REVENUES FOR EXISTING "TREND-GROWTH" AND PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN DEVELOPMENT Land Use 1972 19801 Trend-Growth 1995 Development Land Use Plan 1995 Development Category (Net Acres ) (± $/A2 )=EFFECT (Net Acres ) (± $/A2 )=EFFECT (Net Acres ) (± $/Ag)=EFFECT ) (±(Net Acres $/A)=EFFECT Resi - (2500) (-$900)3=-$2 ,250 ,000 (3500) (-$900)=-$3 ,150,000 (4,000) (-$900)=-$3,600,000 (4 ,150) (-$900)=-$3 ,735 ,000 dential Hotel / Motel (29) (+$10,000)=+$ 290,000 (60) (+$10,000)=+$ 600 ,000 (87) (+$10 ,000)=+$ 870 ,000 (87) (+$10,000 )=+$ 870 ,000 Rest. / Bar (36 ) (+$l0,000)=+$ 3.60 ,000 (44) (+$10 ,000)=+$ 440 ,000 (62) (+$10 ,000)=+$ 620 ,000 (62) (+$10 ,000)=+$ 620 ,000 • General Comm' l . (361 ) (+$5 ,300)=+$1 ,913 ,300 (411 ) (+$5 ,300)=+$2 ,178, 300 (521 ) (+$5 ,300)=+$2 ,761 , 300 (516 ) (+$5 ,300)=+$2 ,734, 800 Hi -Rise Offices 5 (25 ) (+$8,000)=+$ 200 ,000 (74) (+$8,000)=+$ 592 ,000 (ll3) (+$8 ,000)=+$ 904 ,000 (113) (+$8,000 )=+$ 904 ,000 Low-Rise Offices (103) (+$600)=+ $ 61 ,800 (150) (+$600)=+$ 90,000 (200) (+$600) =+ $ 120,000 (315 ) (+$600) = +$ 189 ,000 Industry (298) (-$1 ,000)=-$ 298,000 (448) (-$1 ,000)=-$ 448,000 (619) (-$1.,000)=-$ 619 ,000 (434) (-$1 ,000)=-$ 434 ,000 Vacant Land (2470) (+$150 ) 4=+$ 370,500 (670) (+ $150) =+$ 100 ,500 --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL + + $3,195 ,600 + $4,000,800 + $5 ,275 ,300 + $5 ,317 ,800 TOTAL - - 2 ,548,000 - 3 ,598,000 - 4 ,219,000 - 4,169,000 ANNUAL EFFECT + $ 647 ,600 + $ 402,800 + $1 ,056 ,300 + $1 ,148,800 ESTIMATED COST OF MAJOR NEW CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 5 - 562,000 - 562 ,000 - 562 ,000 - 562 ,000 NET ANNUAL EFFECT + $ 85 ,600 - $ 159 ,200 + $ 494 ,300 + $ 586 ,800 1 1980 Development is expected to be approximate) the same under the "Trend-Growth" (Results in a projected y projection and increase in projected the Land Use Plan . annual surplus ) 2 All costs and revenues shown in constant dollars ; no accounting for inflation has been made . 3 -$900 per acre used as average net effect for all residential types and densities . 4 Based on estimated average assessed value of $0-. 30 per sq. ft . for vacant land. 5 Includes estimated costs for new fire stations , libraries , parks and expansion of City Hall and City Yard facilities -- see attached sheet. a e •M i ESTIMATED .MAJOR ADDITIONAL CAPITAL COSTS FOR PLANNING AREA (NOT INCLUDING DOWNCOAST) BY 1990 FIRE STATIONS (BASED ON DISCUSSION WITH FIRE DEPT. ) ' 1 - IN L4 - NEEDED 1975 - 1980 $ 500 ,000 1 - IN Al - NEEDED 1980 - 1990 500 ,000 $ 1 ,000 ,000 LIBRARIES (BASED ON DISCUSSION WITH LIBRARY DEPT. )' 1 - CENTRAL LIBRARY IN Ll - BY 1990 $ 2 ,750 ,000 1 - BRANCH IN WEST NEWPORT - BY 1990 500 ,000 $ 3 ,250 ,000 PARKS (BASED ON INTERIM PARK PLAN )2 PARK SITES & FACILITIES $ 4,335 ,000 VIEW SITES 850 ,000 BICYCLE TRAILS 600o000 PASEOS 200 ,000 $ 51985 ,000 EXPANSION OF CITY HALL & CITY YARD FACILITIES $ 1 ,000 ,000 2 TOTAL MAJOR ADDITIONAL CAPITAL COSTS3 $11 ,235 ,000 (ANNUAL COSTS FOR 20 YEAR PERIOD -- APPROXIMATELY $ 562 ,000 PER YEAR) 1 It should be noted that Council policy and decisions during the development of the Community Facilities Element may substantially change these capital facility estimates . 2 Rough estimate -- need policy decision before more precise estimate can be made. 3 Police Substation not included due to method of financing (to be paid off by 1974) . i i Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1973 Agenda Item No. B-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 15, 1973 TO : Planning• Commission FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT : Land Use Element INITIATED BY : The City of • Newport Beach Staff is proposing the following minor revisions to the Land Use Element for the Planning Commission ' s consideration : 1 . Page 14 - Lido Peninsula (See attached Exhibit A) 2. Page 19 - Upper Newport Bay Deletion of the reference , "6 dwelling units per gross acre or less " . Respectfully submitted, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By 2W G- RODNEY L. GUNN ADVANCE PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR RLG/ddb Attachment : Exhibit A FULE C pO,NOT REh1OVE Item No. B-1 Lido Peninsula The Lido Peninsula is an unique area of the City with a wide variety of existing and potential uses. It is particularly suited to planned development concepts if and when substantial changes in existing uses are undertaken. Meanwhile, all existing uses should be allowed to continue and be upgraded, but any substantial changes should be subject to an approved Area Plan. It is desirable that the commercial area in future planned development include marine and recreation oriented commercial uses, with emphasis on marine repair and service uses in association with boat sales, restaurants, nightclubs, hotels, motels, and specialty shops. The planned development may include residential uses as well as the uses stated above. That part of the area devoted to residential develop- ment should not exceed 15 dwelling units per gross acre. The pro- portion of land area devoted to existing g residential use including the mobile home parks, as compared to land area devoted to other uses, should not be increased. It is proposed that: 1) Existing uses be continued, and that repairs, replacements, and remodeling that upgrade and consistent with those uses be encouraged; are con provided, however, that when such repairs, re- placements, and remodeling enlarge the scope or change the character of such uses, a use permit shall be required; and 2) T area The be designated as a Planned Development a g district in which substantial changes in exist- ing uses shall comply with an Area Plan to be prepared by the owner (s) and approved by the City. EXHIBIT A Item No . B-1 Planning, Commission Meeting March 15 , 1973 Agenda Item No. B-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 9 , 1973 TO : Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Request to consider the Adoption of the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan_. INITIATED BY : The City of Newport Beach The Land Use Element as recommended by the Department of Community Development was presented to the City Council and the Planning Commission at the joint meeting held on February 22 , 1973. At that meeting , staff received direction to revise the proposal for the Santa Ana Heights Area to indicate preserving the existing residential use . The " Land Use Plan " has been appropriately revised and the text of the Land Use Element will be revised to indicate the proposed con- tinuation of the large-lot , low-density, single-family residential uses in the majority of the area , and the continuation of the com- mercial uses on Bristol Street. In addition , staff is proposing the following minor revisions : 1 ' 1 . In the West Newport Area , the "Bannin Property" has been designated as a specific plan arga on the Land Use Plan ; the text of the Land Use Element will be revised to indicate the desirability of an overall plan for the development of the harbor , the adjoining lands , and the circulation system within this area. 2. The West Newport "Strip" Commercial Area , on the north side of Coast Highway , has been designated as a Specific Plan Area , to resolve problems of access , parking and buffering of residential uses . (A separate report on this area will be submitted . ) 3. A "dot and dash" line boundary has been added to in- dicate those open space areas which are proposed for permanent open space but for which an alternate use is proposed if the preservation of the area as open space proves infeasible . All of these revisions as well as any additional recommendations of the Planning Commission will be incorporated into the text of the Land Use Element. The adoption of the Land Use Element by the City Council will require several subsequent Zoning Ordinance Amendments and rezoning of some specific areas . The General Plan Public Hearing Schedule previously distributed to the City Council and the Planning Commission made provisions for such considerations during the months of May and June . Also attached is a calculation of the anticipated net fiscal effect of future development under the "Trend-Growth " projections and the recommended Land Use Element based on the Cost/Revenue System. Item No . B-1 TO: Planning Commission - 2. It should be understood that the Cost/Revenue System is intended as a general guide which will indicate the probable fiscal effects of various general categories of land development. It is readily apparent that there is an almost infinite number of variables in- fluencing the costs and revenues associated with land use ; such as , assessed valuation , sales efficiency , numbers of persons per unit , etc. Out of necessity , these variables have been reduced to averages based on sample surveys and estimates . The results of this general Cost/Revenue System should be viewed in terms of showing an "order of magnitude" rather than precise dollar figures . These "order of magnitude" figures should be sufficient for the purposes of the General Plan where we are dealing with acres of land and general land use categories , but it should not be attempted to reduce these figures to the level of determining costs and revenues resulting from, as an example , the addition of one dwelling unit on one lot. Recommended Action Staff recommends that, after discussion and revision at the public hearings , the resulting Land Use Element be recommended to the City Council for public hearings and adoption as the Land Use Element of the General Plan . DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN , Director By J_,.J G RODNEY L . GUNN Advance Planning Administrator RLG/kk Attachments Item No . B-1 COST/REVENUE ANALYSIS _ ESTIMATED COSTS AND REVENUES FOR EXISTING "TREND-GROWTH" AND PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN DEVELOPMENT Land Use 1972 19801 Trend-Growth 1995 pevelopment Land Use Plan 1995 Development Category (Net Acres ) (± $/A2 )=EFFECT (Net Acres ) (± $/A2 )=EFFECT (Net Acres ) (± $/A2 )=EFFECT (Net Acres ) (± $/A)=EFFECT Resi- (2500) (-$900 )3=-$2 ,250 ,000 (3500) (-$900)=-$3 ,150 ,000 (4 ,000) (-$900)=-$3 ,600 ,000 (4 ,150) (-$900�-$3 ,735 ,000 dential Hotel/ Motel 29 +$10 ,000 =+$ 290 ,000 60 + 10 000 =+$ 600 ,000 87 + 10 000 =+ 870 ,000 87 + 10 000 =+ 870 ,000 Rest. / Bar (36 ) (+$10 ,000)=+$ 360 ,000 (44) (+$10 ,000 )=+$ 440 ,000 (62 ) (+$10 ,000 )=+$ 620 ,000 (62) (+$10 ,000)=+$ 620 ,000 . General Comm' l . ( 361 ) (+$5 , 300)=+$1 ,913 ,300 (411 ) (+$5 ,300 )=+$2 ,178, 300 (521 ) (+$5 ,300 )=+$2 ,761 ,300 (516 ) (+$5 ,300 )=+$2 ,734, 800 Hi -Rise Offices (25 ) (+$8,000 )=+$ 200 ,000 (74 ) (+$8,000)=+$ 592 ,000 (ll3) (+$8 ,000 )=+$ 904 ,000 (ll3) (+$8 ,000)=+$ 904 ,000 Low-Rise Offices (103) (+$600)=+ $ 61 ,800 (150) (+$600 )=+$ 90,000 (200) (+$600) =+ $ 120 ,000 (315 ) (+$600 ) = +$ 189 ,000 Industry (298) (-$1 ,000)=-$ 298,000 (448) (-$1 ,000)=-$ 448,000 (619) (-$1 ,000)=-$ 619 ,000 (434 ) (-$1 ,000 )=-$ 434 ,000 Vacant Land (2470) (+$150 ) 4=+$ 370 ,500 (670) (+ $150) =+$ 100 ,500 --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL + + $3 , 195 ,600 + $4 ,000 ,800 + $5 ,275 ,300 + $5 ,317 ,800 TOTAL - - 2 ,548,000 - 3 ,598 ,000 - 4 ,219 ,000 - 4 ,169 ,000 ANNUAL EFFECT + $ 647 ,600 + $ 402 ,800 + $1 ,056 ,300 + $1 ,148,800 ESTIMATED COST OF MAJOR NEW CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 5 - 562 ,000 - 562 ,000 - 562 ,000 - 56-2 ,000 NET ANNUAL EFFECT + $ 85 ,600 - $ 159,200 + $ 494 ,300 + $ 586 ,800 1 1980 Development is expected to be approximate) the same under the "Trend-Growth " (Results in a projec$92 ,50ted y projection and increase in projected the Land Use Plan . annual surplus ) 2 All costs and revenues shown in constant dollars ; no accounting for inflation has been made . 3 -$900 per acre used as average net effect for all residential types and densities . 4 Based on estimated average assessed value of $0. 30 per sq . ft . for vacant land . 5 Includes estimated costs for new fire stations , libraries , parks and expansion of City Hall and City Yard facilities -- see attached sheet . ESTIMATED MAJOR ADDITIONAL CAPITAL COSTS FOR PLANNING AREA (NOT INCLUDING DOWNCOAST) BY 1990 FIRE STATIONS (BASED ON DISCUSSION WITH FIRE DEPT . ) ' 1 - IN L4 - NEEDED 1975 - 1980 $ 500 ,000 1 - IN Al - NEEDED 1980 - 1990 50.0 ,000 $ 11000 ,000 LIBRARIES (BASED ON DISCUSSION WITH LIBRARY DEPT. )' 1 - CENTRAL LIBRARY IN Ll - BY 199I0 $ 2 ,750 ,000 1 - BRANCH IN WEST NEWPORT - BY 1990 500 ,000 $ 3 ,250 , 000 PARKS (BASED ON INTERIM PARK PLAN )2 PARK SITES & FACILITIES $ 4 ,335 ,000 VIEW SITES 850 ,000 BICYCLE TRAILS 600 ,000 PASEOS 200 ,000 $ 5 ,985 ,000 EXPANSION OF CITY HALL & CITY YARD FACILITIES $ 1 ,000 ,000 2 TOTAL MAJOR ADDITIONAL CAPITAL COSTS3 $11 ,235 ,000 (ANNUAL COSTS FOR 20 YEAR PERIOD -- APPROXIMATELY $ 562 ,000 PER YEAR) 1 It should be noted that Council policy and decisions during the development of the Community Facilities Element may substantially change these capital facility estimates . 2 Rough estimate -- need policy decision before more precise estimate can be made . 3 Police Substation not included due to method of financing (to be paid off by 1974) . i Joint Meeting of City Council and Planning Commission 'Feb'. 22, 1973 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 20, 1973 TO : City Council and Planning Commission FROM : Community Development Department SUBJECT : LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN The Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan is a long range guide to the development and use of all lands within the Newport Beach planning area , including both private and public projects. The attached report and an accompanying map entitled , "Land Use Plan" (to be presented at the joint study session) represent the Land Use Element as recommended by the Department of Community Development. The General Policy Report adopted March 13 , 1972 by the City Council formed the basis for the proposals contained in the recommended Land Use Element. There are several other elements of the Newport Beach General Plan which either affect, or are affected by, the Land Use Element, including : the Circulation Element, the Natural Environment Element, the Housing Element , and the Community Facilities Element. Although none of these other elements have been completed , studies which were done for these elements have been taken into consideration in the development of the Land Use Element. As these other elements are completed , some minor revisions to the Land Use Element will undoubtedly be necessary in order to accommodate some of the pro- posals which require allocation of land or adjustments of the land use designations . The adoption of the Land Use Element by the City Council will require several subsequent Zone Code Amendments and rezoning of some spe- cific areas . The General Plan Public Hearing Schedule previously distributed to the City Council and Planning Commission made pro- visions for such considerations during the months of May and June. Recommended Action : Staff recommends that after discussion at the joint meeting : 1 . the recommendations be referred to the Planning Commission for discussion and public hearings , and 2. the resulting Land Use Element be recommended to the City Council for public hearings and adoption as the Land Use Element of the General Plan . Respectfully submitted , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR BY R M4 G ...... ODNEY L . QUNN ADVANCE PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR RLG/ddb Attachments : Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN FEBRUARY 20 , 1973 INTRODUCTION The Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan is a long range guide to the development and use of all lands within the Newport Beach planning area , including both private and public pro- jects . Although streets and highways are technically a use of land , they are not included since the street system is the subject of the Circulation Element. The Land Use Element includes this report and an accompanying map entitled , "Land Use Plan" . The Land Use Element should be regarded as an expression of public policy for land development. As such , it represents the "desirable" pattern for the ultimate , full development of the City of Newport Beach as determined at this point in time . As new information be- comes available , or circumstances change , the Land Use Element may need to be amended. Thus , the Land Use Element is not a final "picture" of the future City of Newport Beach ; it i•s an expression of what is desired for the future based on today ' s knowledge and circumstances , and , as such , is part of a continuous planning process requiring continuing research , policy review , and revisions of the Land Use Element. Such revisions of the Land Use Element must be made only after thorough study indicates the desira- bility of a revision . ADOPTED LAND USE POLICIES The General Plan Policy Report , adopted by the City Council on March 13 , 1972 , contains the following General Objectives and Supporting Policies relating to future growth and land use. These policies have formed the basis for the proposals contained in the Land Use Element. IN PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE OF THE COMMUNITY , it shall be the basic underlying goal of the City of Newport Beach to protect and enhance the City' s special charm and character; its unique natural and man- made physical environment, its attractive visual environment , and 0 0 the wide range of social , economic , cultural , educational and recreational opportunities which have contributed to the high quality of life enjoyed by its citizens . FUTURE GROWTH GENERAL OBJECTIVE 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 a ) The City shall set specific limits on population and dwelling unit densities and the intensity and extent of commercial and industrial development for the general planning area as a whole , and for each individual plan- ning area throughout the community. b) The timing and pace of future development or redevelop- ment 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 . c) The City shall encourage the growth of income-producing developments to sustain a high revenue base for the provision of public support services only within those areas where the character, amount and location of such developments are compatible with surrounding land uses and the existing character of the community. 2. LAND USE GENERAL OBJECTIVE It is the objective of the City of Newport Beach to provide for an orderly balance of both public and private land uses within con- venient and compatible locations throughout the community, and to ensure that all such uses -- their type , amount, design and arrange- ment -- each serve to protect and enhance the character and image of the community as a low-density residential -recreational area. SUPPORTING POLICIES a) The City shall preserve and maintain the predominant one and two family residential character and density of the community within existing and future neighbor- hoods throughout the City. b) Higher density residential development shall be limited to those areas where compatible with adjacent land uses and where adequate and convenient commercial services and public support systems such as streets , parking , parks , schools and utilities are , or will be , adequate to serve them. c) The village-like neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas shall be preserved and encouraged. d) The City shall provide for a sufficient diversity of land uses so that schools , recreation areas , churches and neighborhood shopping centers are available in close proximity to each resident of the community. e) The type and amount of commercial areas shall be limited to those which can feasibly be supported by their appro- priate trade area and to those which are consistent and 3. compatible with the prime concept and image of the community as a quality, low-density residential area . f) Commercial recreation or destination tourist facilities , in particular, shall be carefully controlled so as to protect the quality residential character of the commu- nity and the opportunity of local residents to enjoy (in a safe, attractive and convenient manner) the continued use of the harbor, shoreline and local transportation and parking facilities . In view of the City ' s attraction s a regional and state- wide recreation area ; the growing regional and statewide demand for water-oriented recreational facilities , and the limited capacity of the City ' s harbor and oceanfront resources to fully satisfy such demands , the City shall encourage the opening and development of adjoining ocean and waterfront areas outside Newport Bay in a manner which may best serve to distribute the increasing public need for water-oriented recreational facilities . h) Consistent with all other policies to protect and enhance the quality residential character of the community , the City shall encourage both public and private water-oriented recreational and entertainment facilities as a means of providing public access to the waterfront. i ) Provisions shall be made for the preservation of suitable and adequate sites for commercial and industrial marine- related facilities so as to protect the City ' s historical and maritime atmosphere, and the charm and character such industries have traditionally provided the City. j ) General industrial development within the community shall be limited to those areas and uses which are appropriate to and compatible with a quality residential community. 4. k) The City shall develop and maintain suitable and adequate standards for landscaping , sign control , site and building design , parking and the undergrounding of utilities to ensure that all existing and future commercial and indus- trial developments are compatible with surrounding land uses . GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND USE PLAN OVERALL CITY FORM The City of Newport Beach has developed as a grouping of small com- munities or " villages " , primarily due to the natural geographic form of the bay , which provides both physical division and unity , in the sense of a common , shared natural resource. Many of the newer de- velopments , located inland from the bay , have been based on a "Planned Community" concept , resulting in a furtherance of the "village" form even where no major geographical division exists . The general character of most of these "village" areas is low-density residential and low-intensity commercial development , although there are a flew areas of more intensive development providing both visual interest and activity centers . The Land Use Element proposes that the City build on this existing "grouping of villages" form and character, and, where possible , strengthen both the physical identity and functional efficiency of this form through such means as : (1 ) use of open space corridors and buffers ; (2) assuring harmonious groupings of land uses in each "village" area ; ( 3) encouraging the development of an "individual character" for each "village" area , rather than attempting a city- wide, monotonous conformity ; (4) provision of neighborhood commercial centers within or adjacent to the "village" areas ; ( 5) provision for public and semi -public facilities (schools , parks , churches , etc. ) within each "village" area ; (6) controlling the density of residen- tial uses (as discussed in the "Residential Growth Element" ) ; and (7) controlling the intensity of commercial uses (as discussed 5 . below) . MAJOR LAND 'US'E 'PLAN DESIGNATIONS The Land Use Plan illustrates the proposed use and development of all lands in four major categories : 1 . Residential 2. Commercial 3. Industrial 4. Public, Semi -Public, and Institutional These major categories are then broken down into sub-categories , as described below. The uses included should be considered as predomi - nant, proposed uses . It is recognized that , in many cases , there are existing uses that do not fit the designation . The Land Use Element does not propose that these "non-conforming" uses be phased out , except where specifically discussed. In some cases a mixture of two or more types of land use may be desirable. This is indicated by alternating stripes of the appro- priate coding colors . For example , the "Cannery Village" area is designated for a mixture of industrial and commercial ; other areas are designated for a mixture of two sub-categories , such as retail and service commercial mixed with administrative , professional , and financial commercial . Certain areas have been designated for further, more detailed study, leading to the development of specific plans and programs for physical improvement. These specific plans and programs may include local street pattern revisions , parking areas , public improvements in the street rights-of-way (such as landscaping, lighting , street furniture, signs ) and architectural design standards and criteria for private development. An example of what can be accomplished with architectural design standards and criteria is the Marine Avenue commercial district on Balboa Island ; although this was 6. accomplished by cooperation of the property owners in the area , City participation will be required to effect similar improvements in other areas . RESIDENTIAL Areas designated residential are to be predominantly used for resi - dences in permanently constructed residential buildings ; however, there are certain "community service" uses , such as churches , civic organization buildings , club houses , and recreational facilities which , with proper location and design , are appropriate uses within areas with a residential designation . Densities are designated for large vacant areas . These designations indicate the maximum number of dwelling units per gross residential acre. Gross residential acreage includes the individual lots , any interior streets within the area , and one-half of, or 30 feet of (whichever is lesser) , the width of any perimeter street. The residential designations and densities are based on the "Residential Growth Element" of the General Plan . Although the General Plan does address itself to residential den- sities , population growth and the harmonious grouping of land uses , it does not specifically discuss development standards at the scale of the individual lot. Clearly definable problems remain unsolved in the "older residential sections" of the City. These detailed problems will be resolved when new development standards for parking and outdoor living areas , setbacks , etc are developed in conjunction with the review and revision of the Zoning Ordinance . These new development standards should be based on the adopted General Plan objectives and policies . Single-Family : Included in this sub-category are separate residences , as well as attached residences constructed on individual lots with varying densities up to a maximum density of ten dwelling units per gross acre. (Most of the areas in this 7. sub-category are designated for densities much lower than ten dwelling units per gross acre. ) Two-Family• This sub-category includes residences where two dwelling units are constructed on one lot, either attached or separate. Multi -Family : This sub-category includes residences where three or more dwelling units are constructed on one lot . Also included are "row houses" where the density exceeds ten dwelling units per gross acre. COMMERCIAL Areas designated commercial are to be predominantly used for the conduct of private business ventures ; however, there are certain non-business uses , such as post offices and public parking , which are appropriate in commercially designated areas . It is proposed that the intensity of commercial development in all areas be controlled through use of a "floor area ratio" ordinance , which will be developed after more detailed study of each commercial area. Retail and Service Commercial : It is intended that business uses in this category be limited to retail sales , services , hotels and motels , with offices permitted only if they are ancillary to , and on the same lot as , another primary use which provides goods or services directly to the public. In those areas designated as "Retail and Service Commercial " only , separate "office buildings" would be prohibited in order to ( 1 ) assure "continuity of shopping" and contiguity of mutually-supportive businesses , and (2) limit the potential traffic volumes in those areas ( large office buildings are heavy traffic generators ; this "office traffic" may interfere with "shopping traffic" , adversely affecting the economic viability of commercial areas ) . 8. 1 i In other areas , where appropriate, a mixture of Retail and Service Commercial and "office" (:administrative , professional and financial ) is indicated on the Land Use Plan . Administrative , Professional , and Financial : Included in this category are offices (either ancillary or separate) , services , hotels and motels , and convalescent homes , with some limited retail uses (such as restaurants ) which are supportive of the predominant uses . Recreational Commercial : Included in this category are marinas , boat and marine supply sales , boat repair and servicing , sport fishing establishments , restaurants , night clubs , specialty shops , hotels , and motels , with offices permitted only if they are ancillary to , and on the same lot as , another primary use. Separate "office buildings" would be prohibited for the reasons listed under "Retail and Service Commercial " and to preserve those unique sites , generally adjacent to the Bay, most suited for recreational commercial use. (Also , recreational commercial uses usually provide public physical and/or visual access to the Bay , whereas office buildings generally do not) . INDUSTRIAL Areas designated Industrial are to be predominantly used for research , development, or manufacture of products ; however, certain non- industrial uses , such as professional services , warehouses , fire stations , and utility substations , are appropriate. General Industry : This sub-category includes research , development and manu- facturing firms , professional services (such as architecture or engineering) , warehouses and wholesale sales , with retail sales or offices only if they are ancillary to , and on the same lot as , another primary industrial or professional service use. 9 . PUBLIC , SEMI-PUBLIC , AND I'NSTI'TUTI'ONAL Areas designated public , semi-public, and institutional are to be predominantly used for publicly-owned facilities and open space, or privately-owned facilities of an open space nature which are open to use by the general public ; however , certain non-public and non-open space facilities , such as country clubs , may be appropriate. (Many existing and proposed public facilities and parks are too small to be designated on the Land Use Plan ; these will be dealt with in the Community Facilities Element and the Natural Environ- ment Element. ) While the Land Use Plan designates both publicly and privately- owned properties as "open space" , as required by the State Govern- ment Code, it is recognized that privately-owned property cannot legally be zoned as open space unless the City intends to purchase the property immediately , or unless the property owner agrees to the Open Space Zoning. Therefore, the privately-owned properties designated as open space on the Land Use Plan must be zoned for some legitimate development until such time as ( 1 ) an agreement is reached with the property owner for rezoning to open space , or ( 2) the City , or other governmental agency , is ready to purchase the land or an open space easement over the land. Governmental , Educational , and Institutional Facilities : This sub-category includes the City Hall , the City Yard , fire stations , libraries , reservoirs , utility sub-stations , schools , etc . Recreational and Environmental Open Space : This sub-category includes major parks , wildlife refuges , golf courses bluffs canyons ons and beaches .Y LAND USE SUMMARY The following chart illustrates the comparison between the existing , "Trend-Growth" projected , and proposed ultimate land use composition 10. of the Newport Beach planning area. The "Trend-Growth" projected land use is based on a study conducted by the City ' s economic consultant , Development Research Associates , and represents the probable ultimate land use composition that would result under cur- rent zoning and market conditions . This summary indicates that the amount of land allocated to com- mercial and industrial use by the Land Use Plan is , in general terms , economically feasible under the long-range market potential , as re- lated to the "Trend-Growth" projection . However, within this long- range time span , there will undoubtedly be fluctuations of economic pressures and short-range market demands for development not in accord with the Land Use Plan , such as the demand for residential develop- ment in areas designated for commercial use. These short-range pressures shall not be allowed to usurp the long-range opportunities and objectives of the Plan , such as assuring harmonious groupings of uses and assuring a continuing high commercial tax base. As indicated by the "Preliminary Cost Revenue System" developed by the Community Development Department , commercial uses are providing a major share of the City ' s revenues and are enabling the maintenance of a rela- tively low property tax rate. EXISTING "TREND-GROWTH" PROPOSED (as of 1 -1-73) PROJECTED (BASED ON LAND USE PLAN) Acresl % of Total Acres % of Total Acres % of Total Residential 4,174 51 % 51090 64 % 5 ,127 64 % Commercial 617 7 % 1 , 336 17 % 1 ,376 17 % Industrial 315 4 % 648 8 % 661 8 % Public, Institutional 585 7 % 849 11 % 881 11 % Vacant 2 , 538 31 % --- -- % --- -- % TOTAL2 8 ,229 100 % 7 ,9233 100 % 8,0454 100 % 1Gross 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 . 3Reduction due to projected conversion of land to water areas with harbor construction in West Newport. 4Increase over "Trend-Growth" projected total area due to revised estimate of the amount of land to be Converted to water area with West Newport Harbor. 11 . MAJOR LAND USE PROPOSALS FOR EACH AREA Following is an area by area discussion of the land use proposals for each section of the Newport Beach planning area. Residential uses have been covered in the "Residential Growth Element" of the General Plan and, therefore , are not discussed in detail here. WEST NEWPORT AREA For planning purposes , the West Newport area is defined as including all of the land within the current City boundaries west of 19th Street, the Bay , and Newport Boulevard , including the two unincor- porated "island" areas north of the Coast Highway. Following are the major proposals for the West Newport area : West Newport Harbor : It is proposed that a small craft harbor be developed in the " low-land" area north of "Newport Shores " and adjacent to the Santa Ana River. The West Newport Harbor would extend north to the City of Costa Mesa , joining with the pro- posed " Keys Marina" project. (The harbor indication on the Land Use Plan is intended only to show that a harbor is pro- posed ; it is not a plan for the harbor or the adjacent land uses . After design studies are complete, the actual harbor and land use layout may be completely different. ) This harbor is to provide full marine service and commercial recreational facilities , with accommodations for approximately 3 ,000 boats in slips . In addition , a public riding and hiking trail and park area is proposed as part of the County-wide Santa Ana River Greenbelt Project. The remainder of the vacant land area around the harbor would be used for residential development as discussed in the "Residential Growth Element" . 12, Coast Highway Commercial Strip: The Coast Highway commercial "strip" in West Newport is obviously in a state of economic and aesthetic decline. While much of this decline may be attributed to the spectre of the now defunct Pacific Coast Freeway, "strip" commercial develop- ment will not encourage the types of businesses needed to pro- vide convenience goods and services to nearby residences and would result in a continuation of the problems of traffic con- flicts and poor interfaces with adjacent residential uses . Therefore , it is proposed that the existing "strip" commercial area on the north side of Coast Highway be reduced to two locations : ( 1 ) the northeast corner of Orange Street and Coast Highway (where the existing liquor store and service station are located) and (2) all of the Cl zoned area east of Prospect Street. The remainder of the Cl zoned area will be allowed to convert to residential development (as discussed in the "Residential Growth Element" ) . State Highway Right-of-Way : The vacant State Highway right-of-way on the south side of the Coast Highway opposite "Newport Shores " , and on the north side along the Bluffs near Newport Boulevard will be preserved as open space , to be used for parking , public recreational and visual -environmental purposes . Industrial Area near Hoag Hospital : The existing industrial area near Hoag Hospital will be pre- served , with the provision for limited expansion of the indus- trial uses . Cannery Village and McFadden Square : The " Cannery Village" industrial , marine service, and specialty shop area and the "McFadden Square" area shall be preserved and enhanced by: (1 ) prohibiting the encroachment of separate 13 . residential uses , (s.ome limited residential uses attached to commercial or industrial uses may be permitted with special regulations ) ; (2) developing a "Specific Plan" for these areas to resolve existing orientation , access , and parking problems and improve the visual environment ; and (3 ) development of a plan and program to preserve the marine repair and service uses in the "Cannery Village" area. Lido Peninsula : The mobilehome park area on the Lido Peninsula will be en- couraged to develop as a master-planned marine and recreational commercial area (using the Planned Community District concept) , which shall include marine repair and service uses , and may include such uses as : boat sales , restaurants , nightclubs , hotels , motels , and specialty shops . Some residential develop- ment could be appropriate, with proper design ; however , any residential use should be limited in area ( relative to other uses ) with densities not to exceed 15 dwelling units per gross, acre for any individual project. LIDO ISLAND AREA No changes in the Lido Island land use pattern are proposed. BALBOA PENINSULA AREA For planning purposes , the Balboa Peninsula area includes all of the Peninsul-a east of 19th Street. Following are the major non-residential land use proposals for the Balboa Peninsula : Central Balboa Commercial Area : It is proposed that a "core" area of commercial uses bepre- served by: ( 1 ) rezoning certain blocks and portions of blocks on the fringe of the commercial district to residential , • as discussed in the "Residential Growth Element" , (2) prohibiting the encroachment of residential uses (and separate office building - uses ) into the remaining commercial "core" area (to , .14. ' maintain continuity shopping , contiguity o mutual'1 - „ y of oppi g , ig Y f y supportive uses , and the long-range viability of commercial uses ) , and (3) the development of a "Specific Plan" for the area , to resolve problems of access , orientation , and parking , and to enhance the visual environment. Commercial Uses at 15th Street : It is proposed that the existing commercial uses at 15th Street be maintained. These include a service station , market, and coffee shop which provide needed convenience goods and services for both the visitor and nearby residents . Marinapark• Marinapark is shown as public open space in anticipation of the previously approved public park development. BALBOA ISLAND AND PROMONTORY BAY AREA For planning purposes , the Balboa Island and Promontory Bay Area includes Balboa Island , Harbor Island , Linda Isle , and all of the land south of Coast Highway between the Bay and Jamboree Road. The only major land use change proposed , other than the "building-out" of the approved residential developments , is as follows : "Beacon Bay" Area • It is proposed that, in keeping with the uniqueness of this harbor front site as a public resource , all of the City pro- perty in the Beacon Bay area be converted to public marine- oriented recreational uses (after the current lease expires in 1987) . The exact layout and nature of the uses will be deter- mined by a "master plan" , which should be developed prior to the expiration of the current lease. Certain recreational commercial concessions (such as a snack shop , boat rental , etc . ) could be included. 15. CORONA DEL MAR AREA The only major proposal for the Corona del Mar area (which includes all of the land south of the Coast Highway and the "Fifth Avenue extension" , between Jamboree Road and the Eastern City boundary) is that "Buck Gully" and "Morning Canyon" be preserved as open space. No major change in the Corona del Mar land use pattern is proposed . It is proposed that a "Specific Plan" for the preservation and en- hancement of the commercial strip be developed , including appropriate architectural design criteria . NEWPORT HEIGHTS , CLIFF HAVEN & MARINERS MILE AREA For planning purposes , this area includes all land south of the City boundary and 16th Street , from Newport Boulevard east to Dover Drive and the Bay. The commercial area along Coast Highway known as "Mariners Mile" has been designated as a "Specific Plan" area , in order to resolve problems of traffic conflicts , parking , and access ; to enhance the visual en- vironment ; and to preserve existing marine uses .: Other than the residential proposals contained in the "Residential Growth Element" , there are only two major land use proposals in this area : "Old Newport Boulevard" Area : The existing commercial district in this area is obviously in a state of economic decline , due mainly to the problems of poor orientation and access (created with the realignment of Newport Boulevard) . It is proposed that the City encourage redevelopment of most of the existing uses to administrative and professional uses , possibly related to Hoag Hospital , such as : medical and pro- fessional offices , and medical technician , nursing schools , with some limited residential uses such as convalescent homes and nurses ' quarters . 16 . Balboa BayClub' Site : It is proposed that, in keeping with the uniqueness of this harbor-front site as a public resource , this property be converted to public marine-oriented recreational uses (after the current lease expires in 1998) . The exact layout and nature of the uses will be determined by a "master plan" which should be developed prior to the expiration of the current lease. Certain recreational commercial concessions could be included . DOVER SHORES , WESTCLIFF, HARBOR HIGHLANDS & SANTA ANA HEIGHTS For planning purposes , this area includes all land in the City on the west side of the Upper Bay , north of Coast Highway, and the unincorporated "Santa Ana Heights " area. The major land use proposals in this area involve the two large vacant sites adjacent to the Bay , and the "Santa Ana Heights" area : " Castaways " Site : It is proposed that the portion of this site south of the extension of 16th Street be used for recreational commercial purposes ( restaurant , nightclub , etc. ) and that the remainder of this site , other than the existing church , be developed residentially , as discussed in the "Residential Growth Element" . Vacant Site Northwest of Upper Bay : It is proposed that a five to ten acre portion of this site at the intersection of Tustin Avenue and University Drive be developed as a "convenience commercial center" (market, liquor store , barber shop , laundry, etc. ) to serve both Newport Beach and Costa Mesa residents in the adjacent neighborhoods (cur- rently the nearest "convenience center" is Westcliff Plaza) . A public park is proposed east of this commercial center and adjacent to the Upper Bay. The remainder of this site would 17. 0 be developed residentially, as discussed in the "Residential Growth Element" . "Santa Ana Heights" : The "Santa Ana Heights" residential neighborhood is within the airport noise impacted area designated by the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission . This Commission has indicated that land within the noise impacted area is unsuitable for residential use. It is proposed that , with the cooperation and participation of Orange County , that the "Santa Ana Heights" neighborhood be con- verted to an industrial park development, with open space areas around the periphery , tying into the Upper Bay. This conversion of residential use to industrial was one of the forecasts made by the "Trend-Growth" projection , based on market demand for indus- trial land. While such a conversion may occur on a piece-meal basis without governmental intervention , it would result in a poor mixture of land uses , deterioration of the area , and an undesirable industrial area with many scattered and marginal industries . Therefore , a public redevelopment project is pro- posed , which would result in the acquisition and assembly of the individual lots and the "master planned" development of the area. This proposal will be studied in more detail in the context of the Preservation and Redevelopment Element of the General Plan . This area should not be permitted to redevelop on a "piece-meal " basis . UPPER NEWPORT BAY AREA It is proposed that the Upper Newport Bay area ( from the "Dunes" area north ) , including both the water and adjacent land areas that are designated as open space , be acquired as a public "wildlife refuge" and "nature study" area , with the cooperation and participation of appropriate County, State and Federal agencies . 18. 0 0 If public acquisition does not occur, any development in this area will be limited to a low 'intensity residential development (6 dwelling units per gross acre or less) or a recreational commercial develop- ment of an open space nature. Because of the unique environmental characteristics of this area and the inherent problems with develop- ment under conventional zoning , this area will be rezoned to a , yet to be developed, zone which will permit development only with a Planned Community District application . The environmental impact of any proposed use of this area will be carefully evaluated. BLUFFS , EASTBLUFF AND DUNES AREA For planning purposes , this area includes all land between the Upper Bay and Jamboree Road north of Coast Highway. The major land use proposals are as follows (no change to the Bluffs and Eastbluff land use pattern is proposed) : "Mouth" of Big Canyon : This area is shown as open space as part of the "Upper Bay Wildlife Refuge" . Vacant Site North of Newporter Inn : It is proposed that most of this site be developed residentially , as discussed in the " Residential Growth Element" , with a small southerly portion used for recreational commercial purposes , such as the expansion of the Newporter Inn . The exact boundary between these two uses is not precise and can be determined when a development proposal is received. Newport Dunes Park : It is proposed that the County-owned Newport Dunes area remain as a public, marine-oriented park , in keeping with the uniqueness of this valuable public resource . Bay Side Village Mobi'lehome Park and Boat Launching Area : This area has been designated as " recreational commercial " with the intent of encouraging such uses as : boat launching and 19 . storage, marinas , restaurants , hotels and motels , tennis courts , etc. The intensity of these uses should be limited , in view of traffic generation and environmental impact. ( It is probable that the mobilehome park will be phased out as land values and market demand increase. ) NEWPORT PLACE AND COLLINS RADIO AREA This area includes all land within the City north of Bristol Street. No change from the existing land use pattern and the approved develop- ment under the Planned Community Districts is proposed. PHILCO-FORD AND NORTH FORD AREA For planning purposes , this area includes all land between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard, from Ford Road north to Bristol Street. The designations on the land use plan represent the existing Philco- Ford plant and the proposed "North Ford" planned community development, and indicate industrial use extending north to an open space linkage along the flood control channel . Nroth of the flood control channel , commercial development is proposed . (This site is probably too small and isolated for industrial use. ) BIG CANYON AREA No change is proposed to the land use pattern approved with the "Big Canyon" planned community district , other than the residential density proposals in the "Residential Growth Element" . NEWPORT CENTER AREA The Newport Center area includes all land bounded by Coast Highway, Jamboree Road , San Joaquin Hills Road , and MacArthur Boulevard. The major land use proposals for this area , other than residential uses which are covered in the "Residential Growth Element" , are as follows : Administrative, Professional and Financial Area : The area designated "Administrative, Professional , and Financial " is intended to provide for a continuation of the predominantly 20. 1 office uses into the vacant portions ; however, it is proposed that a detailed examination be made to determine the additional floor area of future office buildings that can be accommodated while assuring adequate traffic capacity of adjacent streets . (This will require detailed study and the development of a "floor area ratio" ordinance, as previously discussed. ) No permanent residential uses will be permitted in this area. "Mixed 'Administrative , Professional , Financial and Recreational Commercial " Area : This area would provide for a continuation of office uses and would also be suitable for such recreational commercial uses as : restaurants , nightclubs , hotels and motels , tennis and health clubs , etc. No permanent residential uses will be permitted in this area. "Governmental , Educational , and Institutional Facilities " Areas : The area designated "Governmental , Educational , and Institutional Facilities " includes the existing fire station and proposed police facility and "Cultural Center" . HARBOR VIEW AREA For planning purposes , this area includes all land within the City north of Fifth Avenue and east of MacArthur Boulevard , and the un- incorporated " island" portion of the Pacific View Memorial Park. No major change is proposed to the existing land use pattern or to the development which will occur based on the approved planned community districts , other than the residential density proposals contained in the "Residential Growth Element" . • It is proposed that "Buck Gully" and the vacant area between Fifth Avenue and Sandcastle Drive , east of Marguerite AVenue , be preserved as open space for public recreational use. Community Development Dept. RLGunn/TECowell /ddb February 20, 1973 21 . t t ^ .I ALAN M. VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES, INC. rnnrld nti: 19 July 1974 � •.'I Lim AMV REF. 256. 000 Mr. Richard Hogan, Director Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 / Dear Mr. Hogan: f In November, 1973, following discussion with you and your staff, we outlined a work program for analyzing possible land use revisions in Newport Beach which might lessen traffic impacts at critical capacity locations. As a result of this work outline, you authorized us to pro- ceed with this investigation the latter part of December, 1973. You later furnished us with revised land uses for zones within Newport Beach, for which detailed investigation was to be made. The following report follows the outline and work tasks described in our November letter. All exhibits mentioned in this text are attached to this report. The purpose of this analysis is first, to determine the traffic impact, created from 18 selected traffic zones, on those road segments which are considered over capacity, and then consider revisions in the land use to alleviate capacity problems, should that appear to be a practical solution. The 18 traffic zones are shown on Exhibit 1. The following steps and procedures were used in conducting this study: 1. Revise Network The last revisions made to the Newport Beach Traffic Study road network were during Phase II of the study. In Phase III of that study a Composite Network was developed which incorporated some signi- ficant changes to the selected network, Alternate B-C. These revisions and others which were recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council were as follows: Changed University Avenue from primary to major road status between Newport Freeway and Corona del Mar Freeway. Deleted second bay crossing. Bison Avenue changed from major to primary DO SNOT RCMOVE 'f . • Mr. Richard Hogan City of Newport Beach 19 July 1974 Page 2 / 256. 000 Changed Ford Road from secondary to primary between Jamboree Road and Corona del Mar Freeway. Changed 22nd Street from secondary to primary. Delete Cliff Drive from General Plan network.. Change Coast Highway from major td primary (modified) from Newport Boulevard to Dover D�lve� and from MacArthur Boulevard to east of Canyon rest Drive. Realign Corona del Mar Freeway down coast, and designate Coyote Canyon Drive as a primary road. Show Newport Boulevard as a:major road between Coast Highway and 32nd Street. Add link on southerly end of Newport Freeway to connect into Newport Boulevard. Realign section of Culver Drive between Bonita Canyon Drive and San Joaquin Hills Road. 2. Analyze Revised Network After incorporating the above changes, the revised network was analyzed to determine if logical trip patterns were being produced. Paths from selected zones were traced and the network was found to be producing those paths which a motorist would logically choose between the trip origin and destination. 3. Assign Traffic The trip table which was used in Phase II of the Newport Beach Traffic Study was modified to include changes in zones as furnished by the Community Development Department. These changes are shown on Exhibit 2, and the total trip generations for the previous and revised zones are compared. Of the 18 zones examined, eight de- creased in trip generation, four increased, and six were unchanged. The revised trip generation totaled 646, 447, while the previous trip generation total was 627, 677, or a net gain of 18, 770. The trip generation and zone map for Zone 16 (Newport Center) are shown on Exhibits 2A and 2B. This new trip generation was incorporated into the previous trip table and the assigned to the revised network. A plot of these volumes was made for the entire network. Road segments in Newport Beach Mr. Richard Hogan City of Newport Beach 19 July 1974 Page 3 / 256. 000 having traffic volumes in excess of Level of Service E were tabulated for further analysis. For explanation on capacity and Level of Service, see Exhibit 5 at the end of this report. 4. Plot Travel Patterns for Zones in Newport Beach Individual machine traffic plots were made for the 18 traffic zones being analyzed. These plots show the paths taken by the traffic going to and coming from the individual zones to all other zones within the network. For any particular road segment within the network, the amount of traffic contributed by each zone can be determined. From these plots it is possible to make an estimate of the change in traffic impact which may occur from changed land use or density. This information was reviewed at a meeting with members of the City Community Development Department. 5. Analyze Traffic Volumes and Patterns A summary table was prepared (Exhibit 3), which shows those road segments having a traffic capacity deficiency in Newport Beach. Included in Exhibit 3 are volumes and percentages of traffic which each of the 18 zones contributes to those capacity deficient road segments. For this analysis, any zone contributing 10% or more of the total ADT to a capacity deficient road segment was considered to have significant impact on that road segment. Combinations of zones can also be con- sidered. The following two examples are used as further explanation. Example 1. - Single zone contributing 10% or more of the total ADT to a road segment. Referring to Exhibit 3, road segment 432-520, relocated Coast Highway from Brookhurst Street to the Newport Shores area has an assigned ADT of 46, 000. Of this ADT, Zone 2 contributes 15. 2'% (from Exhibit 3), Zone 4, 10.41yo, and 'Gone 32, 10. 6%... The other zones each contribute less than 10%. to road segment 432-520. These three zones were then further investigated to determine if the land uses could be changed or modified, and what effects may occur from such revisions. Example 2. - Several zones individually contributing less than 10% of the ADT to a road segment. Almost all the road segments listed in Exhibit 3 would fall in this category. For instance, road segment 155-158, which is Coast highway from Newport Boulevard to Riverside Avenue, has three Mr. Richard Hogan City of Newport Beach 19 July 1974 Page 4 / 256. 000 zones over 10'%• (2, 16 and 21), while there are six zones ranging between 4. 7'%• and 7.4%r, and totaling 38%; of the ADT. Changes or modifications in the land uses in these six zones might collectively or in combination have a significant impact on road segment• 155-158. Two separate meetings were held with City staff members to discuss the information in Exhibit 3. Representatives of the Irvine Company were invited and attended these meetings. At the first meeting (April 30) Exhibit 3 was reviewed in considerable detail. Information v.as distributed on land use and trip generation which went into the development of this analysis. It was determined that many of the zones could be eliminated from further consideration since the land uses could neither be reduced in density or modified due to existing developments. A meeting was scheduled for May 14 to further review those zones having a significant impact on road segments showing traffic capacity deficiencies, and to arrive at some conclusions how they may be treated. At the May 14 meeting we were informed by representatives of the Irvine Company that the retail (Fashion Island) square footage in Zone 16 (sub zone 9) was not 1. 76 million as used in the analysis, but instead 1. 2 million. How this occurred is not clear, but the change makes a considerable difference in the results of the analysis. In addition, Irvine Company representatives also stated that their studies in February 1974 in Newport Center showed that generation from office space is 13 trips per 1, 000 square feet rather than the 15 which was used in the analysis. There are of course, varying trip factors for office use, with the factor of 15 being commonly accepted. However, with the specific information being furnished by the Irvine Company (although belatedly), its use was recommended. These changes resulted in a reduction in daily trip generation in Zone 16 from 161, 910 to 129, 340, for a net reduction of 32, 570 or about 20'J•. The reduction in retail space accounts for about three- fourt•hs of this reduction. The revised trip generation table for Zone 16 is tabulated on Exhibit 4. These changes affect the traffic assignment in several ways. Trips attributed to retail land use are based on the relative attract- ion between residential areas and the retail se�vices offered. In general, we can say that much of the reduction in trips generated by this retail would be from residential zones outside Newport Beach, although there may be some reduction from residential areas within Newport Beach. An estimate of the reduction in traffic volumes on the individual links in the road network can be obtained by reducing t 0 Mr. Richard Hogan City of Newport Beach 19 July 1974 Page 5 / 256. 000 all the volumes on the plot (tree) for the Zone 16 traffic assignment. The result of this would be revisions in the data previously described in Exhibit 3. This revised data is shown on Exhibit 4A. It should be noted that the traffic volume deficiencies for road segments 234-239 and 231 -229 have been eliminated, while for the segments 222-286 and 231 -236, the deficiency has been reduced to 1, 000. If road seg- rncnt 229-233 is eliminated from further consideration because of the small deficiency (4, 000), then there are only three segments left to consider in Newport Beach. These segments are 220-221, 221-222 and 286-226, which are all on Coast Highway. A further review of all zones still under consideration for reducing traffic impacts showed that Zone 32 in West Newport was the only other zone over which some exercise of control by the City may be practical. Much of Zone 32 is virtually free of development, while some redevelop- ment can also be expected to occur. Referring again to Exhibit 4A, the first three road segments listed have 10. 6% 34. 50/c, and 16. 8%, respect- ively, of the total traffic contributed by Zone 32. The total traffic gen- eration for Zone 32 (from Exhibit 2) is 32,400 which is a reduction of 6, 200 from that used in the Newport Beach Traffic Study. Much of this impact comes from what would be a limited major road system in the area, causing this traffic to load on to the network at two loca- tions. 6. Possible Measures and Effects One of the purposes of this analysis is to consider revisions in land use which would reduce traffic generation and help to reduce traffic capacity problems in Newport Beach. There is a wide vari- ation in trip generation from different land uses, which may be in- creased or reduced for any particular development depending on density. Consider the work and shopping trip generation possibilities on one parcel of property if developed in the following alternate land uses. Residential - Almost all residents would travel out of area for employment. Daily needs may be met by "neighborhood commercial, " but trips would be made out of area for other goods and ser- vices. The development would essentially generate trip origins (productions), with destinations (attractions) outside the develop- ment. Mr. Richard Hogan City of Newport Beach 19 July 1974 Page 6 / 256. 000 Retail Commercial - This activity would be supported by surrounding residential, but the greater the size of the commercial development, the larger the surrounding area needed to support it. The development would essen- tially generate trip destinations,attracting traffic from outside to within. Office - Similar to retail commercial, but provides jobs rather than satisfying shopping needs. Industrial - Similar to retail commercial, but provides jobs rather than satisfying shopping needs. Multi-Use Center - Multi land use components to some extent complement each other, with interaction of persons within the center reducing the need for people to make trips to points outside. The internal trip activity is greater, but on the other hand the center is likely to attract more external trips than developments of equal size in which components are less physically integrated. The one factor not mentioned in the above land uses is density; how much is put- on the land in terms of type and number of dwelling units, square feet of commercial and office space, or types and size of social/recreational uses. For instance, if we have 100 acres of single family residential at four units per acre and 10 trips per dwell- ing unit, there is a total trip generation of 4, 000 per day. This same parcel may contain multi-family residential at, say 20 units per acre with eight trips per unit, for a total trip generation of 16, 000 per day. If this same 100 acres was developed as industrial with trip gen- eration of 100 per acre, the total daily generation would be 10, 000. Consider this 100 acres containing an office center of 2, 000, 000 square feet with trip generation of 15 per 1, 000 square feet. The total daily trip generation would be 30, 000. , Or consider this same 100 acres containing a regional shopping center. of 1 , 000, 000 square feet, which is a fairly common size development. With trip generation of 45 per 1, 000,, square feet, the total is 45, 000 per day. Mr. Richard Hogan City of Newport Beach 19 July 1974 Page 7 / 256. 000 While it can be seen that the type of development and the land uses surrounding it have a substantial affect on trip generation, a factor of equal and sometimes greater importance is density. It is quite apparent that densities can be increased to the point where it is not physically possible to adequately provide for the private automobile in serving the land uses, either in terms of access or parking. i The above examples could be applied to any number of different land uses or variations thereof, such as substituting a mobile home park for single family residential. IIowevei, the above categories of residential, industrial and commercial generally cover those uses involving large land parcels. From review of Exhibit 4A, the effects of changing the retail use in Zone 16 from 1. 76 million square feet to 1. 2 million square feet can be seen. Although some major deficiencies still exist, the over- all impact has been substantially lessened. These of course, are estimates and the exact effect cannot be determined without going through a complete traffic reassignment. Additional reduction in retail or other uses in Zone 16 may further reduce the traffic impact. however, it should be understood that a certain minimum level of goods and services are necessary for the community. If these are not provided, then there must be travel outside the community to obtain these goods and services. The road system around Zone 16 has been designed to accommodate anticipated traffic with one exception, that being Coast Highway. Coast Highway is currently deficient in capa- city and, on the segments in question, the improvements planned will not remove these deficiencies. It is not possible to remove these deficiencies on the road system through revising or reducing land use density in Zone 16; they can only be alleviated. Again referring to Exhibit 4A, consider segment 220-22] for example, which is Coast Highway from Bayside Drive to Jamboree Road. The revised volume on that segment from Zone 16 is 16, 000, while the capacity defici- ency is 17, 000. What this means is that to remove this deficiency simply by considering reducing Zone 16 means that Zone 16 would have to c•case to exist. Zone 32 in West Newport is a different situation from Zone 16 in that the road system is limited due to the type of land use proposed (recreational-marina development). The traffic assignment shows 26, 000 loading directly on to Coast Highway with over 21, 000 of this on the segment immediately to the south of the zone. It is possible to reduce the impact in this area through either providing more choices of traffic distribution (through more roads) or to change the land use to reduce trip generation. i Mr. RichaidHogan City of Newport Beach 19 July 1974 Page 8 / 256. 000 The adopted circulation element for the City of Newport Beach contains "planned deficiencies;" in other words, there are roadway sections that will be substantially over capacity when the system is completed, using trip generation based on the current City land use plan. Although a decision has been made not to upgrade the classifi- cation of certain roads or construct certain improvements, there are specific things which could help to improve conditions without violating the intent of the adopted circulation element. For instance, intersection approach treatment could be accomplished on Coast Highway at some locations where there are capacity and safety deficiencies. These treatments could include such things as minor street widenings, traffic signal upgrading, selective parking and turn prohibitions, and special provisions for pedestrians. In view of the alternatives available for resolving some of the transportation problems, detailed study of improvements for these deficient locations is strongly recommended. A conclusion reached is that the concept of reduction in travel through reduction in density or changed land use cannot be applied with much success unless spread over a wide area. The concept must be carefully applied to ensure that a balance in land use is also attained which will furnish the goods and services required by the community. Strict but realistic growth policies may produce results, but may also take a long time to do so. Land use change or density revision in Zones 16 and 32 in Newport Beach can alleviate, but not by themselves eliminate, traffic capacity deficiencies in Newport Beach. The circulation element of the City contains some locations with "planned deficiencies, " but these conditions may be improved through study and application of specific improvements. Very truly yours, ALAN M. VOORIIEES & ASSOC. i A A. 11 . Krier Regional Manager AIIK:js Attachments In addition to the attached Exhibits 1 through 5, Exhibit 6 lists those items which were developed for this study and turned over to the City. \ _ -lSl �"Ei=•�•��r�?' i' ..=; •j r.. .• .`L!n.�1!1 i. ill I' ':::;�} i;��l•+.�L!i�"� �rq to 1 r. ,' -: t ... _j••.-,., � 1 1;• •1 1r11C1 ::�i^fit? j? � Ir! '+1llf• t ,i�;l:1 ' ,�. �._� ` •��'''1 .r:. •` ' ;I'i�.r �- i � ' l` :1 :.I t...11.iy.::f.11 ta•I I1 1 ,I''ilir t111 rF_ _ 11'Ir �. }.,•` ! n•, }•,I" + �Y 1, +l,'1. 3r• ,n.pt {1l !, ,1,�: .,al _—II ...: q l'J04 , C1 ..inr-II _ ••J" ,' .c _ 111 t Cl t .:�85) I y, :l 1 iilu r:°I •y "r, r // u _ t1^ 5 'll 73 ' ,1 ni1.7 { I ��i.� T4•' i�zll lam) Ilnl t: r,,_ LIa.• '.:',I• 1: 1) 1� � • ' , � : ;,rk�r „u'vil• I• I ( , -J •_r • •'ir ' i r r __ . l i'l _'*jll,. tlai• 'il• II e_ II •fR r,+...�� 7�- `� ._ �. ..1 Ir � f111r.}J lC r �. p-•-• c�J ^ ir�f.f l—•rl c rl ll p till i,(fll Il� _ Iss .-- t t— fL4-f,tour :: i'76x 60 \�P s� 1 Lir�Gl^ I•' tj 62 44 63 64 .61 llt`:J. �.\`'it� _ I�_r.5~ 4'1 . I,1�-G• .,.IFS r 1 I'.Ir , 1 Ll , L. 65. 7 66 39 IjJI 37]a ]s iS4,`." ie 30q O5 74 nr� \\ fir: ' :.!•. " , )vY 01 xs` C 27 T I OF.• 18" i,.: .... ......69 �.... fit. 26 fit. ''^ '1 •uryn�r,ri_i �b �. R1.�i/JQ1r.n�,�•`4���i';:1 "I] 10 !r 5 • 1 EXHIBIT 1 p9 NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE TRAFFIC ZONES ANALYZED 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 31, 32, 74, 75 y r EXHIBIT 2 NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE STUDY POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT & TRIP GENERATION s Revised I Previous as Emplgment Trip Co.. Factors 1990 Trip Ceneraton Empl0ymevt Trip Co.. Factcrs 1990 Tr,p Generation Z:cns Pop. iota( R<t•it Pop. Employ. Pop. Employ. Total Pop. Total A, LL Pop. Employ, Pop. Employ. Tout I 217E - - 3.0 - 6,520 - 6520 Z450 - - 3.0 7350 - 7350 2 6321 2479 508 3.0 15 19.000 37.200 56,200 64SI 2479 Sao 3.0 1S 19.300 37.200 56,S00 4 765E SIB 63 3.0 i5 22.900 7,900 30,600 765E SIB 63 1.0 15 22.900 7,c00 30,900 5 5226 322 139 3.0 i5 I5,700 4,900 20,609 $408 322 139 3.0 15 16,500 4.900 21.400 7 7327 985 199 3.0 1'. 23.500 14,700 35,200 8133 985 199 3.0 IS 24.400 I4.700 39.100 (IZI- 8500 153 94 2.5 vc 21,200 nc 39.700 8709 153 94 2.5 i5 i1.800 2,200 39,700 14 42a0 673E 265 ..5 3.1 10.500 20,897 31,391 6091 6732 265 2.5 3.1 15.200 20.897 36,097 15 7540 613 )05 2.5 15 18,800 9.200 28,000 5628 613 105 2.5 15 14.100 9.=00 23.303 16 1500 18,300 2400 3.0 Variable 4,500 157,430 161,910 3020 14,656 1.525 2.S B 7.SS0 116.950 124.500 17 1200 507 95 3.0 IS 3,600 8.800 12,400 4534 587 95 2.5 IS I1.300 B,B00 20,100 io Z330 570 215 3.0 15 7,000 8,470 15.470 2330 570 Z15 2.5 IS 51830 8,470 14.300 19 3000 742 l7 2.5 IS 7.500 11,120 IB,620 2071 742 17 2.5 .15 $.180 1I.I20 16.300 20 Z414 852 In 2.5 IS 6.030 12.870 18.900 2414 852 152 2.5 IS 6.030 12.870 13.-D0 21 4003 1478 23Z 2.5 IS 10.000 16,100 26.100 4003 1067 171 2.5 IS 10.000 16.100 26.100 31 4391 4740 578 2.5 3.1 10.900 9.830 20.730 6561 3130 278 215 3.1 16,300 9.830 26.130 • 32 8531 1384 Z47 Z.5 8 ZI.300 11,100 32,400 LN."Cb.g. 01 1384 Z47 Z.5 8 27.500 11,100- 38.600 74 33,500 33,500 33,500 33.500 7S - 22,25E 299 55,000 55,000 from prarioos assl8omevt SS.000 551000 646,447 627,671 • F'rhally fn City of Irving e• P:av,ays is fro.n Ng Port Beach Traffic Blodr • EXHIBIT 2A NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE Newport Center Trip Generation Zone 16 Sub Land Sq. Ft. or Trip Zone Use Other Units Factor ADT 11 Office 40, 000 15/1000 600 2 Office 200, 000 15 3, 000 3 Office 150, 000 15 2, 250 4 Office 1, 148, 000 15 17, 220 5 Office 420, 000 15 6, 300 6 Condos 245 D.U. 8/D.U. 1, 960 7 Office 300, 000 15 4, 500 8 Hotel 377 Rooms 30/Room 3, 770 9 Retail 1, 760, 000 45/1000 79, 200 10 Office 560, 000 15 8,400 11 Office 150, 000 15 2, 250 12 Medical 150, 000 40/1000 6, 000 13 Office 80, 000 15 1, 200 13 A Theatre 500 seats . 5/seat 250 14 Office 150, 000 15 2, 250 15 Office 165, 000 15 2,480 16 Cultural Ctr - - 4, 500 17 Specialty Sh. 120, 000 30/1000 3, 600 18 Office 320, 000 15 4, 800 19 Country Club - - 1, 700 20 Residential 528 D.U. 10 5, 280 21 Auto Dealer - - 400 161, 910 LAND USE Sub Zone �IJ I 40,000 S.F Office San •Toa 2 200, 000 S.F. Office -�� qul° Hills Rd. 3 150, (;!)0 S.F. Office 1 y 3 4 !4 1, 14:: 000 S.F. Office 5 420, L-10 S.F. Office \ 10 6 245 J. CI. Condominiums S 7 300_ ; '•) S.F. Office / 8 Hotel 377.Rooms 6 \ 1�_ 1 • 9 •` 1, 760, 000 S. F. Retail 9 12 10 560, OnO S.F. Office i 11 150, 0v0 S.F. Office (i13A 12 150, (,00 S. F. Medical I 1 13.E Thes:re 8 13 sn 13 80, 0:.'0 S,F. Office 14 150, OvJ S.F. Office \ ✓�\ 14 15 165, 000 S.F. Office \ \� 16 Cwltur�l Centre 15 17 120, 000 S,F. Specialty t9 Shops a \ 16 . 18 320, 000 S.F. Office a Numbers Indicate Sub-Zone 19 Country Club a 17 20 66 Acres, 528 Units 18 21 Auto Dealer ti Changed to 1,200, 000 CoastHighwa.: in Revised Trip Generation 20 Table, Exhibit 4 EXHIBIT 2B. SUB ZONE - LAND USE MAP FOR NEWPORT CENTER ZONE 16 EXHIBIT 3 NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE STUDY COMPARISON OF NETWORK VOLUMES AND TRAFFIC DEFICIENCIES IN NEWPORT BEACH . WITH VOLUME OF TRAFFIC GENERATED FROM ZONES IN NER-i'ORT BEACH Road Location liDT, Thousands TSaffic Volumes in 1, 000's on Deficient Links in Road Network From Various Zones; °k is Zone Volume on Link Divided b - ADT Assigned Segment Road Name Defic- I 2 4 5 7 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 ZO 21 31 32 74 75 No. From To Assigned Capacity ienc _Vol °le Vol 1c Vol 0e ' Vol Pic Vol e Vol P*c Vol "c Vol % Vol % Vo1 °!c Voi Pe VoI P'c Vol Pc Vol Plc Vol % Vol a/c Vol °)e Vol °Jc 432-520 Coast Hwy. (Reloc) BrookhursY Newport Shores Area 46 43 3 . 8 1.7 7.0 15.2 4. 8 10.4 . 8 1. 7 1.2 2. 6 . 4 . 9 - - - - 1.3 2. 8 ,2 ,4 1. 5 3. 3 1. 7 3. 7 1. 8 3. 9 2. 9 6. 3 3. 2 7. 0 4. 9 10. 6 520-228 Coast Hwy. (Reloc) Newport Shores Area Interchange 62 - 43 19 1. 1 1.8 9. 2 14. 8 5. 6 9. 0 1. 1 1, 8 L 4 Z.3 . 6 1.0 1 2 1 2 2.2 3. 6 . 3 5 1. 7 2. 7 2. 0 3.2 2. 1 3.4 3. 4 5. 5 4. 3 6.9 21.4 34. 5 . 1 .2 .2 - 3 3 228-553 Coast Hwy. (Reloc) Interchange 15th Street 50 ' 43 7 3. 6 7.2 11. 8 23.6 7. 0 14. 0 1. 2 2.4 1 . 6 3.2 - - - _ 2. 5 5. 0 .4 . 8 2.2 4.4 4.4 8. 8 5.4 10. 16. 8 8 8.4 155-158 Coast Hwy. Newport Blvd. Riverside Ave., 51 36 15 1.3 2.5 12.4 24. 3 3. 8 7.4 2.4 4. 7 3. 2 6. 3 , 5 1.0 . 7 1.4 . 5 1.0 8.2 16. 1 8 1. 6 3.5 b 7. 3 158-159 Coast Hwy. Riverside Ave. Dover Dr. 43 36 7 1. OI , . 9 1, 3 2. 5 1. 3 2.5 14.4 2 . 8 5. 8 5. 8 3.4 2. 3 10.2 23.7 3.0 7. 0 2. 8 6. 5 3. 6 8.4 . 8 1. 9 . 9 2. 1 , 7 1.6 9.7 22. 6 • 9 2. 7 3. 9 9. 1 1. 3 3. 0 1. 3 3. 0 5. 8 13. 5 2. 4 5,6 3. 2 7. 4 • 220-ZZI Coast Hwy. Bayside Dr, Jamboree Rd. 64 43 21 . 8 1.3 7.2 11. 2 2.4 3. 8 5. 9 9.2 7. 2 11.2 1. 6 2. 5 2. 0 3. 1 1.7 2.7 20.7 3Z. 4 1. 6 2. 5 6. 5 10.2 6. 6 10. 3 6.7 10. 5 5. 0 7. 8 1. 9 3. 0 2. 9 4. 5 221-222 Coast Hwy. Jamboree Rd. Newport Ctr. Dr. 59 43. 16 . 6 1.0 5. 8 9. 8 2.0 3.4 6. 4 10. 8 9. 5 14.4 1. 9 3.2 - - , 1 . 2 23.6 40. 1 .7 1. 2 4. 1 7. 0 4. 9 8. 3 5.0 8.5 4. 0 6. 8 1. 7 2. 9 2. 6 4.4 222-286 Coast Hwy. Newport Ctr. Dr. MacArthur Blvd. - 46 43 - 3 .4 .9 3. 6 7. 8 1. 3 2. 8 3. 2 7. 0 12. 2 26. 5 2. 3 5. 0 .4 • 9 - - 7.5 16. 3 .6 1. 3 2. 1 4. 6 2. 5 5.4 2. 5 5.4 2. 3 5. 0 1. 1 2.4 1. 7 3. 7 . 1 .2 . I 286-226 Coast Hwy. MacArthur Blvd. E of Marguerite Ave. 52 32' 20 3 .6 2. 8 5.4 1. 1 • 2 2. 1 2. 6 5. 0 24.7 47.5 2. 1 4.0 .5 1, 0 .4 . 8 7.5 14.4 ,6 1. 2 1. 6 3. 1 1. 9 3. 7 2.0 3. 8 2. 0 3. 8 1. 0 1. 9 1.5 - 2. 9 . 3 .6 . 5 1�0 155-156 Newport Blvd. Coast Hwy. Via Lido 59 50 9 .4 7 33.2 56. 3 20.2 34. 3 . 7 1.2 . 9 1.5 .4 . 7 .5 . 8 , 5 . 8 3.1 5.3 •2 , 3 . 9 1. 5 1. 0 1. 7 1.0 1.7 3. 1 5. 3 2. 0 3.4 . 9 1. 5 . 3 .5 . 6 1.0 156-214 Newport Blvd. Via Lido McFadden Pl. 62 32 30 . 3 .5 2.4 3.9 22. 8 36. 8 . 1 .2 . 2 . 3 . 1 . 2 . 1 .2 . 1 . 2 . 7 1. 1 _ _ 1 2 . 2 .3 1 2 . 7 1. 1 .4 6 7 1. 1 1 2 . 2 . 3 231-236 Jamboree Rd. San Joaquin Hills Rd. Bonita Canyon Rd. 52 43 9 . 1 .2 • 8 1.5 .2 .4 6.4 12. 3 .4 . 8 - - 2. 9 5. 6 8. 9 17. 1 37. 7 72. 5 7. 1 13. 7 1. 6 3. 1 . 8 1. 5 . 9 1,7 . 5 1. 0 .5 1. 0 . 6 1.2 229-233 MacArthur Blvd. San Joaquin Hills Rd. Ford Road 55 43 12 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 9,0 16.4 - - 7. 0 12. 7 - - 37.7 68, 6 _ _ _ _ _ _ 6 1. 1 8 1.5 234-239 MacArthur Blvd. Ford Road Bonita Canyon Dr. 49 43 6 - - - - - - - _ 8.5 17.3 - - 31.6 64. 6 - - _ _ - - - .8 1. 6 1.2 2.4 442-464 MacArthur Blvd. Michelson Dr. San Diego Fwy. 55 43 12 - - .2 .4 .2 .4 . 1 ,2 . 2 .4 .2 ,4 .3 . 5 . 3 .5 1.9 3. 5 , 1 .2 . 1 .2 - - . 1 .2 , 1 .2 . 1 . 2 .2 .4 6. 9 12.5 10. 8 19.6 231-229 San Joaquin Hills Rd Jamboree Rd. MacArthur Blvd. 47 43 4 - - - - - - - - .4 .9 1. 2 2. 6 .36. 1. 5 6. 3 1 5 41.9 97.5 2..6 5.2 . 1 2. 0. 9. 243-477 University Dr. Corona Del Mar Fwy. California Ave. 65 43 22 . 1 . 2 .7 1. 1 . 3 . 5 .4 . 6 .7 1. 1 .2 3 2. 3 3. 5 1. 9 2. 9 9.5 14. 6 . 8 1.2 3 5 4 6 3 .5 .3 .5 4 .-6 6 9 - - 4.3 6. 6 Outside Newport Beach City Limits { EXHIBIT 4 NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE Revised Trip Generation Table For Zone 16 Sub Land Sq. Ft. or Trip Zone Use Other Units Factor ADT 11 Office 40, 000 13/1000 520 2 Office 200, 000 13 2, 600 3 Office 150, 000 13 1, 950 4 Offices 1, 148, 000 13 14, 920 5 Office 420, 000 13 5, 460 6 Condos 245 D,U . 8/D.U. 1, 960 7 Office 300, 000 13 , 3, 900 8 Hotel 371 Rooms 10/Room 3, 770 9 Retail 1,200, 000 45/1000 54, 000 10 Office 560, 000 13 7, 200 11 Office 150, 000 13 1, 950 12 Medical 150, 000 40/1000 6, 000 13 Office 80, 000 13 1, 040 13 A Theatre 500 seats . 5/seat 250 14 Office 150, 000 13 1, 950 15 Office 165, 000 13 2, 150 16 Cultural Ctr - - 4, 500 17 Specialty Sh. 120, 000 30/1000 3, 600 18 Office 320, 000 13 4, 160 19 Country Club - - 1, 700 20 Residential 528 D.U. 10 5, 280 21 Auto Dealer - - 400 129, 340 EXHIBIT 4 A NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE STUDY REVISIONTS OF EXHIBIT 3 FOR ZONE 16 Zone 16 Vol. in Thousands Road ADT Thousands & �c n Defic'ent Links in Roa<lo Network Segment Assi ned Vol Deficiency �.na Revised No. Road Name From To Orig. Rev. Cap. Orig. Rev.1 Vol.I Vol. % 220-221 Coast Highway Bayside Dr. Jamboree Rd. 64 60 43 21 17 20.7 32.4 16.6 27.7 221-222 Coast Highway Jamboree Rd. Newport Ctr.Dr. 59 54 43 16 11 23.6 40. 1 18.9 35.0 222-286 Coast Highway Newport Ctr. Dr. MacArthur Blvd. 46 44 43 3 1 7.5 16.3 6.0 13.6 23t.-226 Coast Highway MacArthur Blvd. E.of Marguerite 52 50 32 20 is 7.5 14.4 6.0 12.0 231-236 Jamboree Rd. San Joaquin Hills Bonita Cyn. Rd. 52 44 43 9 1 37.7 72.5 30.2 68.7 229-233 MacArthur Blvd. San Joaquin Hills Ford Rd. 55 47 43 12 4 37.7 63.6 30.2 64.3 234-239 MacArthur Blvd. Ford Rd. Bonita Cyn. Dr. 49 43 43 6 0 31.6 64.6 25.3 58.8 231-229 San Joaquin Hills Jamboree Rd. MacArthur Blvd. 47 38 43 4 0 45.9 97.7 36.7 96.7 243-177 * - University Dr. Corona Del Mar California Ave. 65 63 43 22 20 9.5 14.6 7.6 12. 1 • Freeway Outside Newport Beach City Limits EXHIBIT 5 Roadway Capacity Roadway capacity is defined as the maximum number of vehicles that can pass over a given section of a roadway during a given time period under prevailing roadway and traffic conditions. In expressing capacity, it is essential that prevailing roadway and traffic conditions be stated. In Newport Beach, we have assumed maximum capacity with standard conditions such as good roadway surface, standard lane widths, relatively level terrain, clear weather, and no disruptive effects such as road maintenance or accidents. Roadway capacity can be defined in terms of vehicles per lane per hour or per day, in one or both directions. For long range planning it is most practical to define capacity in terms of Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for a particular type of roadway. The ADT 's used for various types of road- w-ys in Newport Beach are as follows: Roadway type. ADT Secondary 15, 000 Secondary with 2-way left turn lane 22, 000 Primary 27, 000 Primary with parking prohibited during peak hours 32, 000 - 36, 000 Major 43, 000 6-lancfreeway 110, 000 8-lane freeway 150, 000 These volumes represent maximum roadway capacity under standard conditions. At these volume levels, speeds would be relatively low, for instance about 30 miles per hour for free flowing conditions on a freeway, and stoppages may occur. In terms of Level of Service, this would be considered as E Traffic volume demands greater than this would create constant stop-go conditions, and substantial delays would result. Level of Service D was used in Newport Beach Traffic Study. • The two attached Figures graphically illustrate typical traffic volume conditions on roadways operating within capacity limits, and with demand exceeding capacity. Figure I shows a typical roadway operating within capacity limits. Roth the A,%I and PM peaks are relatively sharp. Figure 2 illustrates what occurs wlicn demand exceeds capacity. Between 2 PM and 3 PM the roadway begihs to carr� the maximum capacity and does not fall below this maximiun until after 6 PM. This is essentially what frequently occurs at Coast highway and Dover Drive when demand exceeds capacity. The volume reaches maximum capacity and stays that way for several hours. Speeds are low, delays may be lengthy, congestion is very evident, and accidents are likely to occur. Conditions are less than tolerable and such locations are constant sources of aggravation to the motorists. Since traffic is not likely to decrease (but rather increase), locations such as Coast Highway and Dover Drive operate at capacity for increasingly longer periods, sometimes all afternoon and into the evening hours. NOTE: For a more detailed explanation of capacity, see Highway Research Board Special Report 87, Highway Capacity Manual, 1965. Maximum Capacity A� PM Peak Ay AM Peak 1=1 a O 12M •2A 4A 6A SA 10A 12N 2P 4P 6P 8P lop 12M ,RIME OF DAY FIGURE 1 TYPICAL ROADWAY OPERATING WIT1-IIN CAPACITY LIMITS Demand Exceeds . Maximum Capacity Capacity in —PM Peak AM Peak 14 a a 0 y 12M ?.A 4A 6A 8A 10e% 12N 2P 4P 6•P 8P lop 12M : Ili. D'.Y FIC.URE l . L :+ •+I. riv.,u+ .+ i w ,ii it} 1j.L&IAIvD LXC.LLDS CAPACITY DURING I'M PEAK EXHIBIT 6 Other Information furnished to the City Community Development Department as a Part of This Study. Plots one sheet showing the projected traffic assigned to the road network . 18 sheets showing individual plots of traffic assignments for the 18 zones analyzed. Trip Generation - Trip Generation Reference Table Tabulations from Computer Analysis: NO. Il. Select Tree Minirrmni Time Paths VI. Trip End Summary of Revised Trip Table VII. Traffic Assignment to Road Network Including Turn Volumes Vill. & Link and Turn Volumes for 18 Individual Zones IX. NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE LIST OF EXHIBITS 1 Traffic Zones Analyzed 2 Population, Employment and Trip Generation 2A Newport Center Trip Generation 2B Newport Center Sub Zone-Land Use Map 3 Comparison of Network Volumes and Traffic Deficiencies in Newport Beach with Volume of Traffic Generated From Zones in Newport Beach 4 Revised Trip Generation Table for Zone 16 4A Revisions of Exhibit 3 for Changes in Zone 16 5 Explanation of Capacity and Level of Service 6 Other Information ® by o �O\U NTY O F ' TELEPHO : 9 4-20E0 ? AREA CODE 714 aox 41 ns e 400 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE VEST RANG E SA�NrTaA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 PLANNING DEPARTMENT July 18, 1974 DO'NOT REMOVE SUBJECT: DRAFT EIR 74-27 For: Orange County 1983 Land Use Element, First 1974 Amendment. Dear Recipient State and County Environmental Impact Report regulations require consultation between the County of Orange and all public agencies having jurisdiction over projects for which EIR's are prepared (i .e. , between the "Lead Agency" and all "Responsible Agencies"). These procedures also encourage consultation with others having special expertise over the projects. In accordance with these beneficial requirements we are notifying you that a copy of the Draft EIR on the above project is available for review at the Environmental Services Division of the Planning Department located in the Old County Court House, 211 W. Santa Ana Boulevard, Santa Ana. Planning Commission consideration of the Final EIR' and the corresponding project has been scheduled for August 20, 1974. As the County is the Lead Agency on this project and is therefore obligated to respond to all comments generated during the review process and to include same in the Final EIR, we request that your comments be returned to the County Planning Department, (Atten: Environmental Services Division, P.O. Box 4108, Santa Ana, California 92701) by no later than August 5, 1974. If you have any questions concerning this EIR and project, or the date of the Planning Commissions consideration thereof, please call Mr. Bryan Speegle at 834-3077. Thank you very much for your cooperation and assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT '} 'y H. G. Osborne, Interim Director r!> 4 tK i. t 'r R0C�C\°`and 00 JohA 1day, Se Planner D o"p IOTA Environmental Services Divisions" !� Enclosure I t C, \ JLA:BGS:cc cc: see attached sheet P•, 0. BOX 41D8 f�SEfilry�f o GENERAL PLANNING PROGRAM !. y� PM 211 WEST SANTAANA BLVD. �. 19 JUL SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 f9 7 a � ,�=• -� ��, ., ,.,„, � ' Mr. Richard Hogan Community Development Director i City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 -7.0 7 ALAH M. VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION & PLANNING CONSULTANTS 7606 Old Springhouse Road 703/803-4310 Westgate Research Park June 27, 1974 McLean, Virginia 22101 Contract To: City of Newport Beach Job 256 '(LF-65) 3300 Newport Boulevard Invoice 6-9792 Newport Beach, California 92660 Period April 27, 1974 thru May 31, 1974 Terms: Payablo upon receipt For professional services rendered in connection with the Newport Alternative Land Use Study. Salary of Record x 2. 5 (See Schedule) $ 87. 93. Other Direct Costs Travel $44. 40 Reproduction 12. 70 Telephone . 31. 33 Supplies & Miscellaneous 3. 00 91. 43 Plus 10% Handling 9. 14 Total Other Direct Costs 100. 57 Computer 10. 00 AMOUNT DUE THIS INVOICE $198. 50 . 0 RECEIVED A7AflACERR Community JUG OFFICE DevDept �ane L I 1974 s lU� 1 197E earn' �yy NElraorr vRg0 `\ CITY of 9 CAt' li © e S1E`VpoRT BEACH,CA IF. DO SNOT REMOVE PLEASE RETURN ONE COPY OF THIS INVOICE WITH REMITTANCE, 17 l62 '2 1Ir -1F '!�—r--- 1-�i�_L_I_. _.—•—1 � I'_� r 4 � ! it • ! .I I i � s " ' i � -j�l '� y-` I c4lJ.a7 �� L� j+ Ir 1 l !;12 z y I I 13ii I j ! I 14 14' I ! I! , 16 I I II i 11 I ! I I { I I li F I ! r 4 k ' 11 1 I Ii 1 I I r.12 t; �I 12 II , 1 a I %20 21 2t I I x I i22 Il I I ,i 22 23 ;23 it 1 E !1c 25 25 I I II I I ! i, 11 I. •j Ir I iI I I '`26 II 1.27 2it 28 1 Yr7 26 ' '2! i' ` y it .29 y !'26 17 ! I-�-; II I I I! i i t 32 I 1 2 I ' - I . , • i - I i i� i I I 11 1 1 •1 I( i i � r � r l I __ r 3]1, !I 1 { yam--- -r ; -- - 34 ~ ii ! '-! L• - — T e 3637'. _ ` 1 ` 37 31� r ;- !•.T- was - 451i it I 1J I,{ I ! it 11 I r I rl _! i 1. I _' 1 i f i •I m U 5 n --- �AT•AVI•L tore. t ' �WILiON IONCL fAMYANY G]506 GPCCN -_- --- •- _-•�--Y'e�r:.e�^'..r • MEMORANDUM TO: Dick Hogan DATE: 20 June 1974 Director, Community Development City of Newport Beach FROM: Al Krier JOB: 256 SUBJECT: Report on Newport Beach Alternate Land Use Study Enclosed are four (4) draft copies of the subject study. Tim Cowell said that you are trying to get this to the Planning Commission by July 1. In the interest of saving time, perhaps we can discuss your comments by telephone, then finalize the report. For the purpose of this draft, Exhibit 3 (fold-out sheet) has been spliced together. I will try to get it printed on one continuous sheet for the final report. You will note that on the last page of the report under attachments, it is mentioned that certain information has been turned over to the City. Actually, all of this information has not been turned over to you, but I will do so when we know that the report is finalized. Enclosures ' v O G • '�� ruyl �" AAN-F-75-11 5252 BALBOA AVENUE, SAN DIEGO, OFORNIA 92117 714/278-3363 ALAN M. VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS 19 June 1974 AMV REF. 256. 000 Mr. Richard Hogan, Director Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. Hogan: In November, 1973, following discussion with you and your staff, we outlined a work program for analyzing possible land use revisions in Newport Beach which might lessen traffic impacts at critical capacity locations. As a result of this work outline, you authorized us to pro- ceed with this investigation the latter part of December, 1973. You later furnished us with revised land uses for zones within Newport Beach, for which detailed investigation was to be made. The following report follows the outline and work tasks described in our November letter. All exhibits mentioned in this text are attached to this report. The purpose of this analysis is first, to determine the traffic impact, created from 18 selected traffic zones, on those road segments which are considered over capacity, and then consider revisions in the land use to alleviate capacity problems, should that appear to be a practical solution. The 18 traffic zones are shown on Exhibit 1. The following steps and procedures were used in conducting this study: 1. Revise Network The last revisions made to the Newport Beach Traffic Study road network were during Phase II of the study. In Phase III of that study a Composite Network was developed which incorporated some signi- ficant changes to the selected network, Alternate B-C. These revisions and others which were recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council were as follows: Changed University Avenue from primary to major road status between Newport Freeway and Corona del Mar Freeway. Deleted second bay crossing. Bison Avenue changed from major to primary OC. • LC'.O YJ • HONOLULU • OEHVER • ORLANDO • TORONTO • ST. LOUTS • CARACAS • SEATTLE • OOSTON • SANJUAN • HOUSTON • AT.4-J- • '.', DIEGO • LOS ANGELES Is ZURICH • NEVJ ORUH5:VICK 0 DALLAS • CHICAGO 0 PHSAOELawA a SAN FRANCISCO 0 L'ELODURM 0 Mr. Richard Hogan City of Newport Beach 19 June 1974 Page 2'/ 256. 000 MacArthur Boulevard (new) deleted from Ford Road to Corona del Mar Freeway. Changed Ford Road from secondary to primary between Jafnboree Road and Corona del Mar Freeway. Changed 22nd Street from secondary to primary. Delete Cliff Drive from General Plan network Change Coast Highway from major to primary (modified) from Newport Boulevard to Dover Drive, and from MacArthur Boulevard to east of Canyon Crest Drive. Realign Corona del Mar Freeway down coast, and designate Coyote Canyon Drive as a primary road. Show Newport Boulevard as a major road between Coast Highway and 32nd Street. Add link on southerly end of Newport Freeway to connect into Newport Boulevard. Realign section of Culver Drive between Bonita Canyon Drive and San Joaquin Hills Road. 2. Analyze Revised Network After incorporating the above changes, the-revised network was analyzed to determine if logical trip patterns were being produced. Paths from selected zones were traced and the network was found to be producing those paths which a motorist would logically choose between the trip origin and destination. 3. Assign Traffic The trip table which was used in Phase II of the Newport Beach Traffic Study was modified to include changes in zones as furnished by the Community Development Department. These changes are shown on Exhibit 2, and the total trip generations for the previous and revised zones are compared. Of the 18 zones examined, eight de- creased in trip generation, four increased, and six were unchanged. The revised trip generation totaled 646, 447, while the previous trip generation total was 627, 677, or a net gain of 18, 770. The trip generation and zone map for Zone 16 (Newport Center) are shown on Exhibits 2A and 2B. This new trip generation was incorporated into the previous trip table and the assigned to the revised network. A plot of these volumes was made for the entire network. Road segments in Newport Beach Mr. Richard Hogan City of Newport Beach 19 June 1974 Page 3' / 256. 000 having traffic volumes in excess of Level of Service E were tabulated for further analysis. For explanation on capacity and Level of Service, see Exhibit 5 at the end of this report. 4. Plot Travel Patterns for Zones in Newport Beach Individual machine traffic plots were made for the 18 traffic zones being analyzed. These plots show the paths taken by the traffic going to and coming from the individual zones to all other zones within the network. For any particular road segment within the network, the amount of traffic contributed by each zone can be determined. From these plots it is possible to make an estimate of the change in traffic impact which may occur from changed land use or density. This information was reviewed at a meeting with members of the City Community Development Department. 5. Analyze Traffic Volumes and Patterns A summary table was prepared (Exhibit 3), which shows those road segments having a traffic capacity deficiency in Newport Beach. Included in Exhibit 3 are volumes and percentages of traffic which each of the 18 zones contributes to those capacity deficient road segments. For this analysis, any zone contributing 10%. or more of the total ADT to a capacity deficient road segment was considered to have-significant impact on that road segment. Combinations of zones can also be considered. The following two examples are used as further explanation. Example 1. - Single zone contributing 10% or more of the total ADT to a road segment. Referring to Exhibit 3, road segment 432-520, relocated Coast Highway from Brookhurst Street to the Newport Shores area has an assigned ADT of 46, 000. Of this ADT, Zone 2 contributes 15. 2ejc (from Exhibit 3), Zone 4, 10.40/c, and Zone 32, 10. 6%. The other zones each contribute less than 107c to road segment 432-520. These three zones were then further investigated to determine if the land uses could be changed or modified, and what effects may occur from such revisions. Example Z. - Several zones individually contributing less than 107C of the ADT to a road segment. Almost all the road segments listed in Exhibit 3 would fall in this category. For instance, road segment 155-158, which is Coast Highway from Newport Boulevard to Riverside Avenue, has three zones over 107c (2, 16 and 21), while there are six zones ranging between 4. 77c and 7.4%, and totaling 387c of the ADT. Changes or Mr. Richard Hogan City of Newport Beach 19 June 1974 Page 4`/ 256. 000 modifications in the land uses in these six zones might collectively or in combination have a significant impact on road segment 155-158. Two separate meetings were held with City staff members to discuss the information in Exhibit 3. Representatives of the Irvine Company were invited and attended these meetings. At the first meeting (April 30) Exhibit 3 was reviewed in considerable detail. Information was distributed on land use and trip generation which went into the development of this analysis. If was determined that many of the zones could be eliminated from further consideration since the land uses could neither be reduced in density or modified due to existing developments. A meeting was scheduled for May 14 to further review those zones having a significant impact on road segments showing traffic capacity deficiencies, and to arrive at some conclusions how they may be treated. At the May 14 meeting we were informed by representatives of the Irvine Company that the retail (Fashion Island) square footage in Zone 16 (sub zone 9) was not 1. 76 million as used in the analysis, but instead 1. 2 million. How this occurred is not clear, but the change makes a considerable difference in the results of the analysis. In addition, Irvine Company representatives also stated that their studies in February 1974 in Newport Center showed that generation from office space is 13 trips per 1, 000 square feet rather than the 15 which was used in the analysis. There are of course, varying trip factors for office use, with the factor of 15 being commonly accepted. However, with the specific information being furnished by the Irvine Company (although belatedly), its use was recommended. These changes resulted in a reduction in daily trip generation in Zone 16 from 161, 910 to 129, 340, for a net reduction of 32, 570 or about 201c. The reduction in retail space accounts for about three- fourths of this reduction. The revised trip generation table for Zone 16 is tabulated on Exhibit 4. These changes affect the traffic assignment in several ways. Trips attributed to retail land use are based on the relative attract- ion between residential areas and the retail services offered. In general, we can say that much of the reduction in trips generated by this retail would be from residential zones outside Newport Beach, although there may be some reduction from residential areas within Newport Beach. An estimate of the reduction in traffic volumes on the individual links in the road network can be obtained by reducing all the volumes on the plot (tree) for the Zone 16 traffic assignment. The result of this would be revisions in the data previously described in Exhibit 3 . This revised data is shown on Exhibit4A. It should be noted that the traffic volume deficiencies for road segments 234-239 and 231 -229 have been eliminated, while for the segments 222-286 and 231-236, the deficiency has been reduced to 1, 000. If road Mr. Richard Hogan City of Newport Beach 19 June 1974 Page 5: / 256. 000 segment 229-233 is eliminated from further consideration because of the small deficiency (4, 000), then there are only three segments left to consider in Newport Beach. These segments are 220-2Z1, 221-22Z and 286-Z26, which are all on Coast Highway. A further review of all zones still under consideration for reducing traffic impacts showed that Zone 32 in West Newport was the only other zone over which some exercise of control by the City may be practical. Much of Zone 32 is virtually free of development, while some redevelop- ment can also be expected to occur. Referring again to Exhibit 4A,the first three road segments listed have 10. 6%, 34. 51a and 16. 87c, respect- ively, of the total traffic contributed by Zone 32. The total traffic gen- eration for Zone 32 (from Exhibit 2) is 32,400 which is a reduction of 6, 200 from that used in the Newport Beach Traffic Study. Much of this impact comes from what would be a limited major road system in the area, causing this traffic to load on to the network at two loca- tions. 6. Possible Measures and Effects From review of Exhibit 4A, the effects of changing the retail use in Zone 16 from 1. 76 million square feet to 1. 2 million square feet can be seen. Although some major deficiencies still exist, the overall impact has been substantially lessened. These of course, are esti- mates and the exact effect cannot be determined without going through a complete traffic reassignment. Additional reduction in retail or other uses in Zone 16 may further reduce the traffic impact. However, it should be understood that a certain minimum level of goods and services are necessary for the community. If these are not provided, then there must be travel outside the community to obtain these goods and services. The road system around Zone 16 has been designed to accommodate anticipated traffic with one exception, that being Coast Highway. Coast Highway is currently deficient in capacity and, on the segments in questions, the improvements planned will not remove these deficiencies. It is not possible to remove these deficiencies on the road system through revising or reducing land use density in Zone 16; they can only be alleviated. Again referring to Exhibit 4A, consider segment 220-221 for example, which is Coast Highway from Bayside Drive to Jamboree Road. The revised volume on that segment from Zone 16 is 16, 600, while the capacity deficiency is 17, 000. What this means is that to remove this deficiency simply by considering reducing Zone 16 means that Zone 16 would have to cease to exist. Zone 32 in West Newport is a different situation from Zone 16 in that the road system is limited due to the type of land use proposed (recreational-marina development). The traffic assignment shows 26, 000 loading directly on to Coast Highway with over 21, 000 of this Mr. Richard Hogan City of Newport Beach lg June 1974 Page 6-*/ 256. 000 on the segment immediately to the south of the zone. It is possible to reduce the impact in this area through either providing more choices of traffic distribution (through more roads) or to change the land use to reduce trip generation. If effect, what we are concluding is that the concept of reduction in traffic through reduction or change in land use density cannot be applied with much success unless spread over a large area. Strict growth policies may produce results, but may also take a long time to do so. Part of the answer lies in control over redevelopment, which is also long term. Land use change or density revision in Zone 16 and 32 will alleviate,but not by themselves eliminate, traffic capacity deficiencies in Newport Beach. Very truly yours, ALAN M. VOORHEES & ASSOC. A. H. Krier Regional Manager AHK:js Attachments In addition to the attached Exhibits 1 through 5, Exhibit 6 lists those items which were developed for this study and turned over to the City. t NnVPORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE LIST OF EXHIBITS 1 Traffic Zones Analyzed 2 Population, Employment and Trip Generation 2A Newport Center Trip Generation 2B Newport-Center Sub Zone-Land Use Map 3 Comparison of Network Volumes and Traffic Deficiencies in Newport Beach with Volume of Traffic Generated From Zones in Newport Beach 4 Revised Trip Generation Table for Zone 16 4A Revisions of Exhibit 3 for Changes in Zone 16 5 Explanation of Capacity and Level of Service 6 Other Information •�_ _ _ ^. . ' y,i _ r. s. f.i- .' .i 1 i�. .. 'll '+.:. .•,:i::::" .� l:r li Z'.IL7� _{1_ r" 't != . 'i` .. 1 :,I .i rirr::�.ii� J1• �j r:.'!';4 ��..r —r• _ .,�.t .. , '.. ;, r.. I hc .t }i-_ li-r.•;a'tti + ,``_�..n IJ,'la:_ 1 - .�°1.u� :° ' ..{ ;_ u9, - tl I,'•hlty(�t� �itljlt_F:•~•�-1� t-'7 t�LPat' sr :� •. ' •/. IF" 1{•�_ u.{� 'L�n.r �t•' � n (1����. .1 j^ 1,.. J'-..... .`.._:::�_„%,,= 1 l^ -. '• ! _•, f ' r�'F1'5};1r='i♦}i�lrtt:rL..js�f,,8s.r,1 S-�•!�alh:J1!•,t'�-''i,t!�F^I•S�"C;,Lh'•'�7l C'-�t r-r"t''i•�•i1`� �_'I_.1yi. ea�.BJz 1 i'+ 1-1__ri b}i_, rj.?t.'-4r.•� _u^l i`ii i'Y59 r:•s'�l'�-:'�$1 f�r::•i._•.I,I'II:s:I 1 rt_'I•,41f' _•i.It1_ r1^=•.-s'-I s�11-�.fI. y, . 1 1 i`\ 9? �I,�T!:. 7F,}A u s s! a V _... 42 . `hP S •Zinet'^ 16. 41' ,. So - �. • 62 44 1 49 148 ^47 57 1, .-{j•{I�- la` f4it3'' •yJ:: �::��f:1i_ -, _ ^a -1i";}� � 63 ` -i•..' 'r=";TJ •• -�iv �.,:%' •'•:d5•,,;t�•• ' r1a6�+-F, �t����.+...,,,.,,,��.•...'"� 64 Lei „ ' ,t Il:t ,• ?4 i- } bs,' 1t1 \ 1`Yr t f ^21 '-:,`Ii.j23+.�` C f.11r- , t-�` '\-- 1 — • �/ .. .; � -'It'i _, ^ ` ,IL•..�y' . e :.? ?,a't� 1'•. 67 66. 73 µme_Lr IF •)U'E At .c - - 37 -_ '•,• •V M 36 •�I 38. , 'nL I.XS 4" 475 7 69 +". .,1 ; _ice _y,: -t... _ r W - •/�, If 25 40 �'' 1 'ljc7. ..• . . � i '� 1 r �:'; '�! i '•.;33'�y� Vy 1 t \fit}llil r T� 1t:! 69 3x •'f. `t •la •�I• •.! 37•1 ...''° Yi.••.:+ .20 .19 :ems' 17 10 13 �-• rM r,rt, �� u ! '1 J�ij•• 1 ='3 EXHIBIT 1 9 NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE TRAFFIC ZONES ANALYZED �', • •t; 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 31, 32, 74, 75 EXHIBIT 2 NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE STUDY POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT & TRIP GENERATION Rerlred Previaua 4a • Employment Trip Gen. Factor. 1990 Trlp Gene ratlon Employment Trlp Gen. Faclore 1990 Trip Genrratlun 2uoe Pop. Total RtWtF3.0 Employ. Pap. Employ. Total [8133 op. Totnl Reh11 Pop. Employ. Pop. Employ. Tout 1 2172 - - - 6,520 6520 450 - - 3.0 7350 7350 2 6321 2479 508 15 19,000 37,200 56,200451 2479 500 3.0 15 19,300 37.200 $6.500 4 7652 Ste 63 15 22,900 7,900 30,800 652 518 63 3.0 15 22.900 71900 10,800 5 SZ26 3ZZ 139 IS 15,700 4,900 20,600498 322 139 3.0 IS 16,Soo 4.900 21,400 7 7827 985 199 15 23,500 14.70D 38,200 985 199 3.0 15 24,400 14,700 39.100 IIZ)e 8500 153 94 on 21.20D no 39.700 8709 153 94 2.5 1S 21,800 21200 39,700 14 4200 6732 265 3.1 10.500 20,897 31.397 6091 6732 265 2.5 3.1 15,200 20,897 36,097 15 7540 613 105 2.5 15 18,800 9.200 28,000 5623 03 105 2.5 15 14,100 9.200 23,300 16 1500 10,300 2400 3.0 Varlabia 4,500 157,410 161,910 3020' 14.656 1.525 2.5' 8 7,550 116.950 124.500 11 IZ00 587 95 3.0 15 3.600 81800 12.400 4534• S87 95 2.5 15 11,300 8.800 20,100 to 2330 570 ZIS 3.0 IS 7,000 8.470 15,470 2330 570 215 2.5 IS 5.830 8.470 14,300 19 3000 742 17 2.5 IS 7.500 11,120 18,620 Z071 742 17 2.5 .15 5,130 11.120 16.300 20 Z414 852 152 2.5 15 6,030 12,870 18.900 2414 852 152 2.5• 1S 6,030 12,870 18.900 21 4003 1478 232 2.S 15 10,600 16.100 26.100 4003 1067 171 2.3 1S 10,000 16.100 Z6,I00 31 4191 4740 575 2.5 3.1 10,900 9.830 20,730 6561 3138 278 2.5 3.1 16,300 9.830 26,130 32 ISM 1384 247 2.5 8 •21.300 11,100 32,400 11,001 1384 247 2.5 a 27,500 11.100 39,6v0 74 33,500 33.500 33,500 33.500 75 22.252 Z99 55,000 55,000 No Ghu2a from prrvloue arrl8mmont 55,000 55,000 646,447 627.677 I Partially In City of l"Ins as Pn�le.a la!tan N4trport!Such Taf(le Stody .. EXHIBIT 2A NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE Newport Center Trip Generation Zone 16 Sub Land Sq. Ft. or Trip Zone Use Other Units Factor ADT 11 Office 40, 000 15/1000 600 2 Office 200, 000 15 3, 000 3 Office 150, 000 15 - 2, 250 4 Office 1, 148, 000 15 17, 220 5 Office 420, 000 15 6, 300 6 Condos 245 D.U. 8/D.U. 1, 960 7 Office 300, 000 15 4, 500 8 Hotel 377 Rooms 10/Room 3, 770 9 Retail 1, 760, 000 45/1000 79, 200 10 Office 560, 000 15 8,400 11 Office 150, 000 15 2, 250 12 Medical 150, 000 40/1000 6, 000 13 Office 80, 000 15 1, 200 13 A Theatre 500 seats . 5/seat 250 14 Office 150, 000 15 2,250 15 'Office 165, 000 15 2,480 16 Cultural Ctr - - 4,500 17 Specialty Sh. 120, 000 30/1000 3, 600 18 Office 320, 000 15 4, 800 19 Country Club - - •1, 700 20 Residential 528 D.U. 10 5,280 21 Auto Dealer - . - 400 161, 910 LAND USE Sub Zone 1 40, 000 S.F Office 2 200, 000 S.F. Office i San Joa9ut❑ Hi Its gd. 3 150, 000 S.F. Office 1 2 !� 3 4 4 1, 148, 000 S.F. Office 5 420, 000 S.F. Office 6 24.5 D.U . Condominiums 10 5 , J 7 300, 000 S.F. Office / 8 Hotel 377 Rooms �- 6 \ 11 9 1, 760, 000 S. F. Retail 9 10 560, 000 S.F. Office 7 12� ^ \ 11 150, 000 S.F. Office 12 150, 000 S.F. Medical 13A 13A Theatre 8 13 \ 9 13 80, 000 S.F. Office 14 150, 000 S.F. Office /\ 14 N 15 165, 000 S.F. Office \\ to G lb C+� 15Ituxal Centre y 19 17 120, 000 S. F. Specialty Shops ti 16 . 18 320, 000 S.F. Office y Numbers Indicate Sub-Zone 19 Country Club o 17 20 66 Acres, 528 Units 18 21 Auto Dealer Coast Highway 20 EXHIBIT 2B. SUB ZONE - LAND USE MAP FOR NEWPORT CENTER ZONE 16 d. Ea • Tti sae - C+f � LLl YS1GE HO AT LAUNCH Uj Mod I HIGHWAY COAST PACT FIG 9ry ' :S AEUH EN E. LEE PARKING 11 ( LEI � ,Z b,fA •� IfIL✓( P&fN(AD ... � � f11 •+. rvY CNANNE! iSJ tr -- �,t• < i ..cnr a PN.r o•c rCOUNTY CF°r_rCR_NGE CEPMTWNT OF RE4 NP( RTY SEPVKES [fLLSLT_:!YWCrLYI f a NEG(PORT BAY INMe. ..xar mo. ti EXHIBIT 4 NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE Revised Trip Generation Table For Zone 16 Sub Land Sq. Ft. or Trip Zone Use Other Units Factor ADT 11 Office 40, 000 13/1000 520 2 Office 200, 000 13 2, 600 3 Office 150, 000 13 1, 950 4 Office 1, 148, 000 13 14, 920 5 Office 420, 000 13 5, 460 6 Condos 245 D.U. 8/D.U. 1, 960 7 Office 300, 000 13 3, 900 18 Hotel 377 Rooms 10/Room 3, 770 I 9 Retail 1,200, 000 45/1000 54, 000 10 Office 560, 000 13 7, 200 11 Office 150, 000 13 1, 950 12 Medical 150, 000 40/1000 6, 000 13 Office 80, 000 13 1, 040 13 A Theatre 500 seats . 5/seat 250 14 Office 150, 000 13 1, 950 15 Office 165, 000 13 2, 150 16 Cultural Ctr - - 4, 500 17 Specialty Sh. 120, 000 30/1000 3, 600 18 Office 320, 000 13 4, 160 19 Country Club - - 1, 700 20 Residential 528 D.U. 10 5, 280 21 Auto Dealer - - 400 129, 340 EXHIBIT 4 A NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE STUDY REVISIONS OF EXHIBIT 3 FOR ZONE 16 Zone 16 Vol. in Thousands Road ADT Thousands & 0/c n Defic'ent Links in RoacP Networ5I Segment Assi d Vol Deficienc n Dina tevisc No. Road Name From To Orig.ne Rev. Cap. Orig. Rev. Vol. °ic Vol. 220-221 Coast Highway Bayside Dr. Jamboree Rd. 64 60 43 21 17 20.7 32.4 16.6 27.7 221-222 Coast Highway Jamboree Rd. • Newport Ctr.Dr: 59 54 43 16 11 23.6 40. 1 18.9 35.0 .222-286 Coast Highway Newport Ctr. Dr. MacArthur Blvd. 46 44 43 3 1 7.5 16.3 6.0 13.6 286-226 Coast Highway MacArthur Blvd. E.of Marguerita 52 50 32 20 18 7.5 14.4 6.0 12.0 231-236 Jamboree Rd. San Joaquin Hills Bonita Cyn. Rd. 52 44 43 9 1 37.7 72.5 30.2 68.7 229-233 MacArthur Blvd. San Joaquin Hills Ford Rd. 55 47 43 12 4 37.7 68.6 30.2 64.3 234-239 MacArthur Blvd. Ford Rd. 'Bonita Cyn. Dr. 49 43 43 6 0 31.6 64.6 25.3 58.8 231-229 San Joaquin Hills 'Jamboree It.d. MacArthur Blvd. 47 38 43 4 0 45.9 97.7 36.7 96.7 243-477 * University Dr. Corona Del Mar California Ave. 65 63 43 22 20 9.5 14.6 7.6 12.1 Freeway * Outside Newport Beach City Limits EXHIBIT 5 • Roadway Capacity Roadway capacity is defined as the maximum number of vehicles that can pass over a given section of a roadway during a given time period under prevailing roadway and traffic conditions. In expressing capacity, it is essential that prevailing roadway and traffic conditions be stated. In Newport Beach, we have assumed maximum capacity with standard conditions such as good roadway surface, standard lane widths, relatively level terrain; clear weather, and no disruptive effects such as road maintenance or accidents. Roadway capacity can be defined in terms of vehicles per lane per hour or per day, in one or both directions. For long range planning it is most practical to define capacity in terms of Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for a particular type of roadway. The ADT Is used for various types of road- wpys in Newport Beach are as follows: Roadway Type ADT Secondary 15, 000 Secondary with 2-way left turn lane 22, 000 Primary 27, 000 Primary with parking prohibited during peak hours 32, 000 - 36, 000 Major 43, 000 6-lane freeway 110, 000 8-lane freeway 150, 000 These volumes represent maximum roadway capacity under standard conditions. At these volume levels, speeds would be relatively low, for instance about 30 miles per hour for free flowing conditions on a freeway, and stoppages may occur. In terms of Level of Service, this would be considered as E ". Traffic volume demands greater than this would create constant stop-go conditions, and substantial delays would result. i. Level of Service D was used in Newport Beach Traffic Study. The two attached Figures graphically illustrate typical traffic volume conditions on roadways operating within capacity limits, and with demand exceeding capacity. Figure 1 shows a typical roadway operating within capacity limits. Both the AM and PM peaks are relatively sharp. .Figure 2 illustrates what occurs when demand exceeds capacity. Between 2 PM and 3 PM the roadway begins to carry the maximum capacity and does not fall below this maximum until after 6 PM. This is essentially what frequently occurs at Coast Highway and Dover Drive when demand exceeds capacity. The volume reaches maximum capacity and stays that way for several hours. Speeds are low, delays may be lengthy, congestion is very evident, and accidents are likely to occur. Conditions are less than tolerable and such locations are constant sources of aggravation to the motorists. Since traffic is not likely to decrease (but rather increase), locations such as Coast Highway and Dover Drive operate at capacity for increasingly longer periods, sometimes all afternoon and into the evening hours. NOTE: For a more detailed explanation of capacity, see Highway Research Board Special Report 87, Highway Capacity Manual, 1965. Maximum Capacity .GPM Peak CAM Peak N a O 12M 2A 4A 6A 8A 10A 12N 2P 4P 6P 8P lOP 12M 'TIME OF DAY , FIGURE 1 TYPICAL ROADWAY OPERATING WITHIN CAPACITY LIMITS Demand Exceeds Maximum Capacity Capacity in —PM Peak AM Peak W a O 12M 2A 4A 6A 8A 10A 12N 2P 4P 6P 8P 10P 12M TIME OF DAY FIGURE 2 TYPICAL ROADWAY WHERE DEMAND EXCEEDS CAPACITY DURING PM PEAT{ EXHIBIT 6 Other Information Furnished to the City Community Development Department as a Part of This Study. Plots - one sheet showing the projected traffic assigned to the road network . 18 sheets showing individual plots of traffic assignments for t1le 18 zones analyzed. Trip Generation - Trip Generation Reference Table Tabulations From Computer .Analysis: NO. II. Select Tree Minimum Time Paths VI. Trip End Summary of Revised Trip Table VII. Traffic Assignment to Road Network Including Turn Volumes VIII. & Link and Turn Volumes for 18 Individual Zones IX. ALAN M, VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION & PLANNING CONSULTANTS -�UZ4 V 7600 Old Springhouse Road 703/693-4310 Westgate Research Park May 20, 1974 McLoon, Virginia 22101 Contract To: City of Newport Beach ,lob 256 (LF-65) 3300 Newport Boulevard Invoice 5-9558 Newport Beach, California 92660 Period ] 'March 30, 1974 thru April26, 1974 Terms: Payable upon receipt For professional services rendered in connection with the Newport Alternative Land Use Study. Salary of Record x 2. 5 (See Schedule) $877. 35 Other Direct Costs Telephone $6. 01 Plus 1016 Handling . 60 'Total Other Direct Costs 6. 61 Computer 10. 00 AMOUNT DUE THIS INVOICE $893. 96 I ev � 3 1 _ PLEASE RETURN ONE COPY OF THIS INVOICE WITH REMITTANCE. MEMORANDUM TO: Dick Hogan - Rod Gunn DATE: 7 May 1974 FROM: Al Krier JOB: 256 SUBJECT: Newport Beach Alternate Land Use I At our meeting on April 30, we discussed Exhibit 2, which is a "Com- parison Of Network Volumes And Traffic Deficiencies In Newport Beach With Volume of Traffic Generated From Zones in Newport Beach. " Some of the 18 zones investigated do not have a substantial impact on the road network. On the attached Exhibit 2, I have cf.ossed out those zones which I suggest can be eliminated from further investigation because of small impact on the road network. They are Zones 1, 5, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 31, 74, and 75. The suggestion for eliminating these zones from further investigation should be taken in the context that they should be eliminated from individual consideration. Its possible that some of these zones could be modified in combination with other zones. This should be on our May 14 meeting agenda for discussion and resolution. Please note on Exhibit 2 that I have circled the percentages in the remaining zones which exceed 10% so that they can be readily identified and compared with other zones for the same street segments. Attachment Pb v 3 a a mm4ma t 1 A��i0 FUL E C"01, Y ti DO NOT REMOVE AMV-F-75-A r 6C" j�9L ` 5252 BALBOA AVENUE, SAN DIEGO, CRCIFORNIA 92117 tdt� 714/278.336.3•� �Di 4 ,•� e 9197 ALAN M. VOORHEES ,1L IN ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS 3 May 1974 RECEIVED Community 1) eDlo ant AMV Ref. 256 p MAY 6 1974o- CITY OF jQ NEWPORT BEACH, Mr. Rodney Gunn J� City Plan Administrator Community Development Dept. City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Rod: Following our meeting on Tuesday morning, April 30, we discussed with Ben Nolen the importance and significance of having additional zones analyzed fof the Alternate Land Use Study. The six zones specifically mentioned were 8,, 9, 10, 11, 69, and 72. The work necessary to analyze these additional zones includes assign- ment of the traffic to the network for each zone, plotting of the zonal traffic volumes to the network, analysis of these zones to determine impacts, and inclusion of these zones in our in discussions and report. I am assuming that land use modifications will not be included since these zones are outside the City of Newport Beach. I estimate that the above work for the six zones can be performed for $2, 100, and the data can be supplied in approximately one week to ten days. If you prefer, we can proceed on your verbal authorization pending issuance of a purchase order. To simplify accounting operations, we would prefer that any purchase order issued be an add-on to the existing purchase order with the same contractural arrangements, and we would consider it as an add-on to our existing Project No. 256. If the above is satisfactory, please notify me when to proceed with this additional investigation. Very truly yours, v"e A. H. Krier Regional Manager AHK:js cc: Ben Nolen �LEP: Y H. Millison Accounting DO NOT REMOVE tt'<[HItIGJUl. OC • _0100G • HONVLULU • DRIVER In ORLANDO • TORONTO • ST.LOUIS • CARACAS • SEATTLE • BOSTON Is SANJUAN • HOUSTON Ln,-.in • .11 ZGT� • AN CIE60 • _ A%GELES • ZURICH • TIEW BRUNSWICK • DALLAS • CHICAGO • PHILADELPHIA 0 SAG FRANCISCO 0 MELBOURNE A'\WN � ALAN M. VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 5252 BALBOA AVENUE, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92117 r 4 nMT-3171. Mr. Rodney Gunn - City Plan Administrator Community Development Dept. City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 "[FIE IRVINE COMPANY- Genie,r)ri%tp Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 April 15, 1974 _AEG C Z2 Ql Q'o�' 2• om�Qm� ZJ O' Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Attention: R. Hogan, Director of Community Development Subject: OPEN SPACE ZONING DESIGNATION, S. E. CORNER SANTA BARBARA DRIVE AND JAMBOREE ROAD Gentlemen: At the time the General Plan, Land Use designations were being finalized and adopted by the City, it was The Irvine Company's understanding that the Open Space designation in the vicinity of subject property was to be limited to the golf course. It was also The Irvine Company's understanding that subject property, between the golf course and subject intersection was to be designated similar to the remainder of Newport Center in that area, Commercial-Office. We believe this was also the City's understanding. It appears a graphic error followed, as subject property is now shown with an Open Space designation. The Irvine Company, therefore, respectfully requests the General Plan designation and corresponding zoning be revised to properly reflect the understood intent. The Irvine Company, further, respectfully requests this matter be handled administratively as we are now negotiating with the Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce reference subject site and time is of importance. If it is your determination that the correction of this error cannot be accomplished administratively, please consider this letter as a request hearing. i Plan at the earliest possible4 for an Amendment to the General 1 Very truly yours, Lawrence B. Moore` Assistant Director ° (� f LBM:rkg DO NOT 11CUOVE cc: C. Buchanan L. Miller, Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce Page 2-a PLANNING C01MMISSION : rpm `�""" 'F Dear Members , ke, aw The west side os Ixv.ine Avenue, between &E4teenth and sixteenth streets has tong been an eyesore to the zuxxound,ing went-kept ne.ighbo,thoods os Newport Beach. We have passed this btoek 6evexccZ times daZEy Sox the east 20 years, hoping each day that someone would start connecting the s,i.tuation. It was with this ,in mind, and much positive thought, that toe punehased the tot situated .in the center os the hodge-podged area. We axe bet.ievexs that one good exampte os construction and ptant.ings can sometimes change an entire ne.ighbox- hood. We have seen this happen many times .in other bt.ighted axeas . The duptex we wish to bu.i.ed w.itt not only be beaut.isut, but w.itt serve as tovety homes Son two Sam.i.C.iez with high sehoot-age ch.itdxen. Since the tennis counts axe in theix Sxont yaxd, Newport may .some day have Davis Cup winners . Are you membexz aware that the apartment ownex n.e.ighboxs o� the high sehoot w.itt not accept tenants with high school ch.itdxen? This ,is d.iscn,i.m.inat.ion and we wish to do oux part .in corxecttng that situation. In conctus.ion, we wish to say, we bet.ieve our plans axe best box the City os Newport Beach, ate os .its xesi- _ dents, and the genexat ne.ighboxhoo'd. it. wocced not be" , a wise use os tand, on econom.ieatty Seas.ibte to bu,itd one house on this huge tot .in the .spot zoned area. S.incenety, v • ^ r Robvit F. blcG.iss.in - Jane E. McG.iss.in e v ' .i 4rtwy bt}F4 LETS MAKE ALL OF NEWPORT BEAUTIFUL! .;y Y _ i • '4'Y•�. t�1Y4�.•. �. 1. Rir`Nf�--...•r+..�. InnY^+fw'T �_ — - RW -707' _ ,r k CurciTurner Company _.r1 7 t7 Lido Park Drive•Newport Beach,California•Phone: (714)673-1060• Mailing Addre :Box 1457.Newport Beach,Cal' -663 \ ,� 1 ! December 11 , 1973 . e ,,_ :�. Oil^r^.:r.,;f \� `j pr:eiaPment City Council i DEC City of Newport Beach �� crrvo9 ,cr+, G .�i 3300 W. Newport Boulevard � �-�4 � �� IEWPCALi � \2 Newport Beach, California 92660 Gentlemen: DOP70Y RGC.90VE ! i N ' This letter is written in protest to the recommendations of the Planning Commission to amend- the Residential Growth and Land Use Elements of the City' s General Plan as related to the Lido Peninsula. The proposed amendments are scheduled for public hearing and- action at the Council meeting December 17, 1973. As the owner of approximately 22 acres on the Lido Peninsula, Curci- Turner Company objects strenuously -to the Planning Commission recom- mendations that the texts of the two adopted plan elements be amended to state that residential uses on the Peninsula be- restricted to 8 dwelling units- per gross acre; with up to 15 units per acre. permitted upon a showing of adequate 'public. facilities and support systems. The reasons for our objections are as follows: 3 ) The texts of the. two elements as adop•i;ed unanimously- by both the Planning' Commission and the City Council a few short months ago (after' many months of study and numerous public hearings) reflect a reasonable"'concensus between public and private concerns. This sudden, arbitrary revision has no valid justification., , in our. opinion, 2) The original , adopted language respects the landowners' prefer- ence for maintaining arid' upgrading present uses , and effectively allows the maintenance of existing rzs-intial densities if ,and when new development occurs. We consider this reasonable and fair, and wish to emphasize that we have no plans at this time for conversion to other uses on our property, and that any sub- stantial Change 'in uses must be approved by the City. (See pp .. 14-15 of adopted-..La.nd -Use- Blem�nt, .._.....------••--_----_-_--...__---- 3 ) The adopted Land Use Element recognizes-,the Lido Peninsula as a unique area of the City which is deserving of special planning treatment if and when redevelopment occurs , it is inappropriate to lump this area with other future residential developments , and particularly with vacant non-waterfront acreage. Continued. " -� Council December 11 , 1973 U i L Page 2 tj We doubt seriously That the Counci7 ' s initial request and sub- sequent clarifying advice to the Planning Commission was intended to apply to the Lido Peninsula, especially since the clarifying motion asked the Commission only to "review those properties which are undeveloped and unclassified. , , " Our property obviously does not qualify for such review. It has long been developed and classified. 5) We have understood that the Council ' s main concern is that re- strictions on 'future development be studied, but was not to be applied arbitraFrF y to reduce densities ' in established neighbor- hoods. We note that the Planning Commission and Council have not undertaken either wholesale or selective reductions in resi� dential densities 'in the older, developed parts of the City due to very real problems of practicality and fairness. 5) Why has Lido Peninsula been the single exception; other properties in established' areas of the City developed and/or classified simi- larly were not recommended fora reduction. The Commission' s action seems .to 'us discriminatory.. 7) The proposed reduction in density could effectively mean an arbitrary 47% loss in allowable dwelling units on the Lido Penin- sula , but a numerical reduction of only 125 units to the. City as a whole. 8) If the Lido Peninsula were restricted effectively to 8 dwelling units per acre, the resulting development would be inconsistent and .out of character with nearby neighborhoods , including Lido Isle (over . 9 d.u. ' s/acre) . or Statistical Area B as . a whole -- -iover 15 d.u. ' s/acre) . F'inally,. we believe strongly that . the integrity and reliability of the General Plan process is at issue. We believe that a plan thoroughly studied, publicly reviewed, and officially and unanimously adopted only last May should be one that a .property owner can depend upon for more than ,"our or five months, We respectfully urge that you disapprove the recommended amendments. in the interest of reasonable planning , fairness, and common sense. Sincerely, CURCI-TURNER COMPANY /` o n Curci L. A. /Turner FRIENDS OF NE PORT RAY BOX 4088, IRVINE STATION NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92664 November 21 , 1973 TO: Mayor and City Council and City Planning Commission City of Newport Beach FROP4: Ray E. Williams, President, Friends of Newport Bay SUBJECT: Proposed amendment to Land Use Element of the General Plan We wish to request the deletion of any possibility of com- mercial development for the open lands east of Irvine Avenue and south of University Avenue in the northwest section around Upper Newport Bay, Our first choice for this land, of course, remains in having it utilized as open space. We maintain that this land is sufficiently close to Upper Bay to be considered a part of its environment. As such, commer- cial development would not be compatible with the atmosphere of a "flora and fauna reserve. " It seems to us that commercial develop- ment, if needed, could be located farther from the Bay where it would not detract from it. A commercial development in the northwestern area around Upper Bay would add additional traffic burden to this area. This burden could be located further from the Bay, if needed at all, in order to preserve the integrity of the Bay. Friends of Newport Bay feels that the only appropriate use of the open lands left around Upper Bay is as open space. As such, we question the necessity of second-choice designation of this land as P-C (planned community) . According to Selby Realty vs, the City'of San Buenaventura (1973) , the designation of private property as public open space as part of a general or specific plan is not inverse condemnation and does not require compensation. Sincerely, 4 l CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA 92660 eA6 �41FO P City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. (714) 673.2110 CITIZENS' ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO: THE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF NEWPORT BEACH ` SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN DATE: NOVEMBER 20, 1973 At its meeting of March 13, 1973, the CEQCAC passed a motion to delete the potential for commercial use in the Northwest portion of the Upper Newport Bay. In a statement dated March 15, 1973, speaking on behalf of the Committee, we stated that "the commercial section should be .deleted as Unnecessary and incompatible with the area....While we are sure there is sufficient population to justify the convenience center in this section, there is no need for it and no popular desire. We don^t want or need a paved parking lot, more traffic, or more commercialism in the Upper Bay." Since March significant progress has been made in assuring the preservation of the wetlands of Upper Newport Bay as a wildlife preserve. The essential nature of the uplands has been noted by several environmental groups concerned with providing a buffer for the preserve. This sentiment is reflected in the Planning Commission's recommendations on the Recreation and Open Space Element. In view of these actions, the Citizens' Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee passed a motion on November lq, 1973, reaffirming its statements of March 1973. If we are to support statements regarding the essential nature of these uplands, we must confirm this by allowing any potential development to be only of the 'lowest intensity of use. The CEQCAC urges your support of this amendment to delete all reference to a commercial development at the intersection of University Drive and Irvine Avenue (southeast corner). Respectfully submitted you - Valerie R, Mprley Chairman L E Do NOT =A0VE SYh$•_,unL.,li,sigmad, u+ Ce Li stv tha- last i,1%c vflI )J= 1t. \"���•� � noZ''•'awiistari and noA'?i1:.Cs:a ullloT'3 of U:pp:r- Nek'pot t bay be dt;D .ic ad a ;ark31iie and t.3at ..ts scon?o 'UB3.;7. "'4 .U.'s ileoIea.,;Lana,I and acologicsJ. ?t? LtE3$ be +?:ifl59T B" for I2 ':T jJu 381Tv OS Y} ?^aeT.v and 'f'L1j future Saperat:�.OX'..iN a N^ ^ I 13V+3..tr,tt: T'C• .C7I' t.._.•_B a.. L.i'�"I 2] ,."E.... •, ''C" �'.:':.� C "..`".ig O'iST°t?"f?.i;3 iT. -:i CC' n6 ? j?es -1rmc 3S.'jyyy and a h, T�',1=t I.'!.l-1 to t•=OF'1 ': iitl;l.Z%r1 •,ii_.�t7:tir .'.'tS� '3 1'::%�.LS.:L'fy' 1,1„i i�w �'; 1;� T'?•9u J.Al 't eiir'�,t, .,>rlrotilt;i ; olh, C)27.F J t`..'.6'>iy J::.'L.ivyllr; 11d"G'•lY'.^-.a. "I£•_UeS. but 1?T3:`F.aie noi3E ;-.nt brat-le Jnlclnay arad, p i°1.1L1`u O_". and ero.ion proole.13 on, the water-Si o o he bal,, / .,.� _. _��Gf'ZC�SZ.<.G !c� �`I�dr'/_L A�� •'i?�i�? c3 ,.CGZS' a�J �v {�G73 a Z �'"J: `i,in.e L-FI.U�'� •�r' y%.v .•........,....a,_.,,,....,�... Z•<'L.,.� l� - '; �/Y J,Yd�/��/,r...,.,.....�'�.y:3 .»��Cn!ill'<��/.�FS/r0 ./,�/'�.i£'..r'.,�.a,.��'/'✓v ,�z � >„ a ._. l/!o}aa .i/4-,/3 7�_�!.,. �sS�/ ,4 Li _ 7 Z-22- '�� l'V��I>..N'�....-�>,.. .f''.4 �ML_..��.���.�,I/��4.Sw'.�' � �� tt- Y......:•,��.....Nls� /Ci/1 C.�— 3 ,1..••�3^�� eel 6�1, �-•K... �'7 7 1'c-r�*i'e f�-e.el..L_ �r✓ a��. :..�.•a-Gl.� d�-'— Z�j"'� t K�• CE"'1'IFIED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF ONE PAGE OF A 6� PAGE PETITION BEARING 1A TOTAL OF 1 363 SIGNATURES. w S' Date; November 20, 1973 A' oe mmu�+ED ity Jerk of the City f Newport Beach �e/,,, y NOV treAt. e t ,r��aa Cam` £ 21 l97 a. 9 F�L 5: IVE,.yp 17V of Z CA(F FACH, �/� DO NOT RE-MOVE 707 • h ;A . October 10, 1973 Mr. David DePierro Santa Anita Oavelopment Corporation " Post Office Box 1830 Newport Beach , California 9268O Dear Mr. DePierro: Pursuant to our telephone conversation of October 10, 1973, this letter is to confirm that thl3 Land Use Clement of the Newport Beach General P'lan,, adopted on May 29 , 1073, desig- nates the property at the s-outheast corner of Bristol Street and Cypress Street (currently in an unincorporated area but within the Newport Beach Spbere of Influence) as commercial use, either retail or office. Pd Very truly yours , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPIARTMENT 0 T' RODNEY L. GUNN " '• ADVANCE PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR Y, . '' : ' • By T. r. CoWl . en or Mliner TEC/ddb 44 EA �'t''}t • LM—.-,4-iII ,,yy ifr•y DO NOT }}.. ALAN M. VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES, INC. y� TRANSPORTATION & PLANNING CONSULTANTS L 7600 Old Springhouse Road 703:893-4310 Westgate Research Park McLean, Virginia 22101 October 5, 1973 Contract To: City of Newport Beach Job 256 (LF-65) 3300 Newport Boulevard invoice 9-8237 Newport Beach, California 92660 Period April 28, 1973 thru August 31, 1973 Terms:. Payable upon receipt For professional services rendered in connection with the Newport Alternative Land Use Study. Salary of Record x 2. 5 (See Schedule) $34.45 Other Direct Costs Telephone $3. 28 Plus 1016 Handling . 33 Total Other Direct Costs 3. 61 AMOUNT DUE THIS INVOICE $38.06 Summary Total Amount Billed as of 8/31/73 $1, 860. 32 Less: Payments Received as of 8/31/73 1, 822. 26 Total Amount Due Including This Invoice $ 38. 06 l PLEASE RETURN ONE COPY OF THIS INVOICE WITH REM TTANCEI �� ALAN M. VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES, INC. e TRANSPORTATION & PLANNING CONSULTANTS 7600 Old Springhouse Road 703.593-4310 Westgate Research Park McLean, Virginia 22101 October 31, 1973 Contract To: City of Newport Beach Job 256 (LF-65) 3300 Newport Boulevard Invoice 10-8415 Newport Beach, California 92660 Period September 1, 1973 thru September 28, 1973 Terms: Payablo upon receipt For professional services rendered in connection with the Newport Alternative Land Use Study. Other Direct Costs Telephone $. 55 Plus 101a Handling . 06 Total Other Direct Costs $ . 61 Computer 25. 00 AMOUNT DUE THIS INVOICE $25. 61 40. 0 CITY P. hoar rIEWPOPT BEACH, CALL . Ao��?o T�g� Jt �\ \ L PLEASE RETURN ONE COPY OF THIS INVOICE WITH REMITTANCE. CALIFORNIA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT 7 7 2082 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE SUITE 215 IRVINE, CA. 92664 e o 714 -833.0322 Qv� C25,pA August 29, 1973 <060 of 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Attn: Planning Director Gentlemen: California Pacific is a local Orange County building company and as such we are continuously seeking sites to develop. With the advent of environmental consider- ations and comprenhensive planning, it is now necessary to be fully informed of a municipalities plans for future growth. Consequently, we approach land acquisitions with these elements clearly in mind. We would appreciate your forwarding, at your earliest convenience, copies of your General Land Use Plan accompanied by narrative interpretation of the plan, if available. Should the narrative portion not be available please indicate on the plan the density criterion appro- priate to all residential land uses. Very truly yours, PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS, INC. J es Wilso`n/,{vl co � ,. RE0S �o �0 oe""aap Ati9�3~ jt of,Po�\� n NAP�►'�\k• ter? DO VOT REMOVE I II - - i 7-o August 16, 1973 ; Department o-f ' Redl Property Services . 400 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, California " 92701 ATTN: Ms. Veronica Ray, Real Property Agent Dear Ms. Ray: In regard to your letter of August 9 , 1973, concerning the operation of a bait and seafood barge at the De Anza Day- side Boat Launch, the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach .General Plan skates the foilowingr "Newport Dunes Parks' It is proposed that the County-owned Newport Dunes ' area remain as a public, marine-orientt4 park, in keeping with the uni"quc"Hess of this valuable gublic resource. BASide Y111a a Mabilehame Park and Soat Launching i ; this area has been designated as "recreational and r marine commercial" with the intent of encouraging such uses as; boat launching and storage, marinas , restaurants , hotels and motels , tennis courts , etc. The intensity of these uses should be limited, in view of traffic generation and environmental impact. It is probable that the mobilehume park will be phased out as nand values and market demand increase, Meanwhile, all existing uses should be allowed to continue and be up-graded, but any substantial changes should be subject to an approved area plan," Such a use is , therefore, not in conflict with the City's f f: . DO NOT Rcmave a9 ( t t'. Department of Real Property Services Page »2- i General Plan , Should you have any ,44esttons , please feel free to contact this department, Very truly yours , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RODNEY L. GUNN , ADVANCE, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR by Craig ue ssoc ate anner 4 CT9/fb J, 1 ' I ' t x STANLEY E. KRAUSE, SR/WA © O SO U NTY O C DIRECTOR f GEORGE H. CORMACK, SRAM SR/WA 1 MANAGEMENT DIVISION © ® AN G E A JOSEPH A. HE NN ESSEY, SP/WA AOSEPH A. DIVISION JOHN R. SHADDY, SRAM SR/WA VALUATION DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF REAL PROPERTY SERVICES 400 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST SANTA ANAL CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE: S34-2550 August 9 ,• 1973 AREA CO DE 714 \ �` .Q NA PM 1008-15 ?° b@� Upper Newport Bay mow.a g Por Mr. R. V. Hogan, Director 4 Community Development City of Newport Beach, City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 ' The County presently rents, on a month-to-month basis, a portion of its tidelands outlined in red on the attached map and located in your City, to De Anza Bayside Boat Launch, which conducts a slip rental and boat 'launching facility there. Recently, a bait and seafood barge has begun operating from one of the Bayside Boat Launch slips . Though the use is agreeable to the County, the present Agreement does not provide for it. We, therefore, plan to rewrite the Agreement between De Anza Bayside Boat Launch and the County, on a month- to-month basis, allowing operation of the bait and sea- food barge and requiring a portion of its ,gross- income as rental. Please determine if the proposed use is in conformance with the City 's General Plan, as required by Government Code Section 65402. Thank you very much for your prompt attention to this mat/ter. 120-Al Veronica Ray Real Property Agent VR/sc Attachment NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE STUDY COMPARISON OF NETWORK VOLUMES AND TRAFFIC DEFICIENCIES IN NEWPORT BEACH �N'iTII VOLUMI: OF TRAFFIC GENERATED FROM ZONES IN NEWPORT BEACH Road Location ADT, Thousands Traffic Volumes in 1, 000's on Deficient Links in Road Network From Various Zcnes; %c is Zone Volume on Link Divided by A Assigned Segment Road Name No Defic• 1 2 4i 5 7 12 14 15 16 17 18 _ 19 20 21 31 32 74 75 From To Assigned Capacity iency Vol °/c Vol % Vol % Vo.l "ic Vol % Vol % Vol F % Vol F °lc Vol I Vol % 'vol °k Vol % Vol °/c Vol % Vol °/c Vol °/c Vol % Vol 432-520 Coast Hwy. (Reloc) Brookhurst Newport Shores Area 46 43 3 . 8 1. 7 7. 0 15. 2 4. 8 10. 4 . 8 1 . 7 1 . 2 Z. 6 , 4 . 9 - - - - 1. 3 2. 8 . 2 .4 1. 5 3. 3 1.7 3. 7 1. 8 3. 9 Z. 9 6. 3 3. 2 7. 0 4. 9 10. 6 520-228 Coast Hwy. (Reloc) Newport Shores Area Interchange 62 43 19 1. 1 1. 8 9. 2 14. 8 5. 6 9. 0 1 . 1 1 . 8 1 . 4 2. 3 . 6 1 . 0 1 . 2 1 . 2 2. Z 3. 6 . 3 . , 5 1 . 7 2. 7 2. 0 3. Z 2. 1 3.4 3.4 5. 5 4. 3 6. 9 21 .4 34. 5 . 1 . 2 . 2 . 3 228-553 Coast Hwy. (Reloc) Interchange 15th Street 50 43 7 3. 6 7. 2 11. 8 23. 6 7. 0 14. 0 1. 2 Z. 4 1 . 6 3. 2 - - - - - - Z. 5 5. 0 .4 . 8 2. 2 4.4 - _ _ - 4. 4 8. 8 5. 4 10. 8 8.4 16. 8 _ 155- 158 Coast Hwy. Newport Blvd. Riverside Ave. 51 36 15 1. 3 2. 5 12.4 24. 3 3. 8 7. 4 2.4 4. 7 3. 2 6. 3 . 5 1. 0 . 7 1.4 . 5 1. 0 8.2 16. 1 , 8 1. 6 3. 5 6. 9 1. 3 Z. 5 1. 3 2. 5 14. 2 27. 8 2. 8 5. 5 3. 7 7. 3 158-159 Coast Hwy. Riverside Ave. Dover Dr. 43 36 7 1. 0' 2. 3 10. 2 23. 7 3. 0 7. 0 2. 8 6. 5 3. 6 8.4 . 8 1. 9 . 9 2. 1 . 7 1. 6 9. 7 22. 6 . 9 2. 1 3. 9 9. 1 1. 3 3. 0 1. 3 3. 0 5. 8 13. 5 2. 4 5. 6 3. 2 7. 4 220-221 Coast Hwy. Bayside Dr. Jamboree Rd. 64 43 21 . 8 1. 3 7. 2 11. 2 Z.4 3. 8 5. 9 9. 2 7. 2 11. 2 1. 6 2. 5 2. 0 3. 1 1. 7 2. 7 20. 7 32.4 1. 6 2. 5 6. 5 10. 2 6. 6 10. 3 6. 7 10. 5 5. 0 7. 8 1. 9 3. 0 2. 9 4. 5 221-22Z Coast Hwy. Jamboree Rd. Newport Ctr. Dr. 59 43 16 . 6 1. 0 5. 8 9. 8 2. 0 3. 4 6. 4 10. 8 9. 5 14.4 1. 9 3. 2 - - 1 . 2 23. 6 40. 1 . 7 1. 2 4. 1 7. 0 4. 9 8. 3 5. 0 8. 5 4. 0 6. 8 1. 7 2. 9 2. 6 4. 4 ZZZ-286 Coast Hwy. Newport Ctr. Dr. MacArthur Blvd. 46 43 3 .4 . 9 3. 6 7. 8 13.0 28. 3 3. 2 7. 0 12. 2 26. 5 2. 3 5. 0 .4 . 9 - - 7. 5 16. 3 . 6 1. 3 2. 1 4. 6 2. 5 5.4 2. 5 5.4 2. 3 5. 0 1. 1 2.4 1. 7 3. 7 . 1 . 2 1 2 286-226 Coast Hwy. MacArthur Blvd. E of Marguerite Ave. 52 32 20 . 3 . 6 2. 8 5.4 10. 8 20. 8 2. 6 5 . 0 Z4. 7 47. 5 2. 1 4. 0 . 5 1. 0 . 4 . 8 7. 5 14.4 , 6 1. 2 1. 6 3. 1 1. 9 3. 7 2. 0 3. 8 2. 0 3. 8 1. 0 1. 9 1 . 5 2. 9 . 3 . 6 . 5 1 . 155-156 Newport Blvd. Coast Hwy. Via Lido 59 50 9 .4 . 7 33. 2 56. 3 20.2 34. 3 . 7 1 . 2 . 9 1. 5 . 4 . 7 . 5 . 8 5 . 8 3.1 5. 3 . Z . 3 . 9 1, 5 1, 0 1. 7 1. 0 1. 7 3. 1 5. 3 2. 0 3. 4 . 9 1. 5 . 3 . 5 . 6 1 . 156-214 Newport Blvd. Via Lido McFadden Pl, 62 32 30 . 3 . 5 2.4 3. 9 22. 8 36. 8 . 1 . 2 . 2 . 3 1 . 2 . 1 . 2 1 . Z . 7 1. 1 _ _ 1 • 2 . 2 . 3 1 . 2 . 7 1. 1 .4 6 . 7 1, 1 1 . 2 2 3 231-236 Jamboree Rd. San Joaquin Hills Rd. Bonita Canyon Rd. 52 43 9 . 1 . 2 . 8 1. 5 . 2 .4 6. 4 12. 3 . 4 . 8 - - 2. 9 5. 6 8. 9 17. 1 37. 7 72. 5 7. 1 13. 7 1. 6 3. 1 . 8 1. 5 . 9 1.7 . 5 1. 0 - - - - . 5 1. 0 . 6 1 . ZZ9-233 MacArthur Blvd. San Joaquin Hills Rd. Ford Road 55 43 12 - - - - - - - - 9. 0 16. 4. - - 7. 0 12. 7 - - 37. 7 68. 6 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , 6 1. 1 . 8 1 . . Z34-239 MacArthur Blvd. Ford Road Bonita Canyon Dr. 49 43 6 - - - - - - - - 8. 5 17. 3 - - - - - - 31. 6 64. 6 - - 8 1. 6 1 . 2 2 . 442-464 MacArthur Blvd. Michelson Dr. San Diego Fwy. 55 43 12 - - . 2 . 4 . 2 .4 . 1 .2 .2 .4 . 2 .4 . 3 . 5 . 3 . 5 1.9 3. 5 . 1 . 2 . 1 . 2 - - . 1 . 2 . 1 . 2 . 1 . 2 . 2 .4 6. 9 12.. 5 10. 8 19. 231-229 San Joaquin Hills Rd. Jamboree Rd. MacArthur Blvd. 47 43 4 - - - - - - - - .4 . 9 1. 2 2. 6 6. 5 13. 8 6. 3 13.4 45. 9 97. 7 2:6 5. Z _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 , 2 . 1 . 2 243-477' University Dr. Corona Del Mar Fwy. California Ave. 65 43 22 1 2 . 7 1. 1 . 3 . 5 .4 . 6 . 7 1, 1 , 2 . 3 2. 3 3. 5 1. 9 2. 9 9. 5 14. 6 , 8 1, 2 . 3 5 4 , 6 . 3 . 5 . 3 . 5 .4 6 6 9 - - 4. 6. 6 'F Outside Newport Beach City Limits COMMON SENSE COALITION -- BALBOA ISLAND SPEC 703 East Balboa Blvd., Balboa, Calif. 92661 MAY ° C ( • CITY O ,yE1,NPO B , CALAL IF The city fathers planned to down-zone all of the developed areas in New eh: As this plan has been stopped4n the other areas of the city, the property owners of Balboa Island, where it has already been down-zoned to the R-1.5, want to have their zoning returned to the original R-2. The R-1,5 means building to only 1-1/2 times your build- able area. This cuts down on the value of your property, and certainly on your income. It has been concluded that these smaller units will not appreciably cut down the number of people; it will only have them living in smaller rooms, thus not attracting as fine a class of people. + It is incongruous to down-zone Balboa Island, • while blessing Promontory Point and the hundreds of apartments now being built on the Bluff. These residents will feed onto the Island for the beaches and recreation, while the property owners are denied their just rights, in order to eliminate perhaps not more than 90 people. The crowds come from inland residents, and tourists anyhow; and this cannot be helped. As for the parking problem which is so complained about, if the illegal garage apart- ments were eliminated, it would probably eliminate 500 residents. Then people could park in their garages instead of having some one living in them with their added cars. There is a group on Balboa Island that would like to have the zoning changed back to the original R-2. This does not mean high-rise or over development. Our existing ordin- ances, if enforced, take care of this. • ,v r All property owners, show your interest by filling out the ballot below and return it with the questionaire and $2.00 (to cover the cost of mailing) and return it to the above address. We will keep your informed of any progress made. Any questions? Call Kay, 644-0425 1. I would like zoning on Balboa Island to return to R-2. •2. I• would like ' to become a member of the Common Yes No Sense Coalition. Yes No I � " s Mr. John P.Owens PM 1c a MaS 29 MAY Califll�91202 J OON P �0 1973 � y FF0 L , V • oA DO NOT REMOVE f '1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER May 8, 1973 TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF MODIFICATIONS MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO THE RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ELEMENT (RGE) AND LAND USE ELEMENT (LUE) At the continued public hearing held Monday, May 7, 1973, the Council amended the proposed Residential Growth Element (RGE) and Land Use Element (LUE) . The summation of the suggestions prompting the modifi- cations and the specific modifications to both the RGE and LUE are as follows: 1 . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. By minute action, the Council moved conditional acceptance to the EIR of the RGE and the LUE, with the understanding that a more in-depth review will occur when the General Plan in its entirety is reviewed. 2. BANNING PROPERTY. It was suggested that the RGE and LUE be more "generally" described pending further flood control studies, transportation studies, greenbelt studies, etc. Action: RGE. Statistical Area A-1 (Page 7) : The second para- graph shall be replaced with the following: "This entire area has been designated as a 'specific plan' area and all proposals for residential or other uses shall be reviewed as a part of that specific plan." Action: RGE. Statistical Area A-2 (Page 8) Subparagraph 2 shall be replaced with the following: ' 2 Residential develop- ment west of Superior Avenue shall be permitted in all areas except the M-1 district. However, the area included in the 'Specific Plan' area on the land use plan may include uses other than residential . Maximum density shall be 15 dwelling units per gross acre in the area south of the westerly extension of 16th Street to the present City boundary and a maximum density of 6 dwelling units per gross acre north of the extension of 16th Street." Action: LUE. West Newport Harbor (Page 9): The four paragraphs under the title West Newport Harbor shall be replaced by the following: "Beeco, Ltd. (Banning)_ Property: This area, north of 'Newport Shores' and extending easterly from the Santa Ana River is designated as a 'Specific Plan' area on the Land Use Plan. This will permit the development of an overall plan for the area after the completion of investigation of economic and physical feasibility of a small craft harbor in the lowlands area extending northward into Costa Mesa. Volume 27 - Page 115a F0LIL77 k_t,;U e if DO,NOT REMOVE "Such a harbor, if feasible, would provide full marina, marine service, and commercial recreational facilities. In addition, a public riding and hiking trail and parking area is proposed as part of the county-wide Santa Ana Greenbelt Project. The remainder of the land would be used for resi- dential development as discussed in the 'Residential Growth Development' , modified, if and as necessary, to relate to the overall harbor plan. "If the harbor is not feasible, alternate plans, including residential with associated commercial service facilities, should be considered. In any event, the property owners should have the responsibility for developing a plan for ap- proval by the City at the time any land use proposals are made. The development shall be consistent with the criteria set forth in the General Plan." 3. BALBOA BAY CLUB, BEACON BAY MARINAPARK. It was suggested that these three City-owned- pieces of property be designated to permit a number of options pending more detailed study. Action: RGE. a) Statistical Division H (Page 20) Subpara- rg aph 4 should be changed to read: "No further residential development shall be Dermitted in the remaining commercial districts in Division H, and any further residential develop- ment on the Balboa Bay Club site shall be permitted only in accordance with a specific area plan to be prepared by the Balboa Bay Club and approved by the City. Said plan is to be prepared within five years after the adoption date of the General Plan." b) Statistical Division G Page 19 Subnaragraph 1 should be changed to read: "All of the residential district in Beacon Bay shall remain until a specific area plan is develop- ed and approved. Said plan is to be prepared within five years after the adoption date of the General Plan." c) Statistical Division D (Page 13) Subparagraph 6 should be changed to read as follows: ' "The beach and the Newport Beach Elementary School may be rezoned to the OS - open space district; the City-owned property at Marinapark shall continue as a mobilehome park until such time as that use is phased out, at which time the property may be rezoned to the OS - open space district. " Action.. LUE. a Balboa Bay Club Site (Page 14) should be changed to rea : "It is proposed that in keeping with the uniqueness of this harbor front site, that the City study a multiplicity of uses. The exact nature of the uses will be determined by a specific area plan to be developed prior to the expiration of the current lease. Said plan is to be pre- pared„ within five years .after the adoption date of the General Plan. Volume 27 - Page 115b I . y Action: LUE (b) Beacon Bay Area (Page 13) should be changed to read: "It, is proposed that in keeping with the unique- ness of this site that a multiplicity of uses be considered. The exact nature of the uses should be determined by a speci- fic area plan to be developed prior to the expiration of the current lease. Said plan is to be prepared within five years after the adoption date of the General Plan." Action: LUE c Marinapark (Page 13) should be changed to read: "Marinapark shall continue as a mobilehome park until such time as that use is phased out, at which time the property may be rezoned to the OS - open space district." 4. CASTAWAYS SITE. It was suggested that the Castaways site density be increased from 8 d.u. 's per acre to 15 d.u. 's per acre, unless residential use is permitted in Newport Center. Action: RGE. Statistical Division J (Pape 21 ) Subparagraph 1 was changed to read as follows: "Residential development in the southernmost vacant area (The Castaways Site) shall be limited to a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per gross acre unless adequate open space is provided under a specific area plan': 5. NEWPORT CENTER. It was suggested that three condominium towers be permitted in the commercially zoned Newport Center. Action: RGE. Statistical Division L (Page 24) Subparagraph 2 should be changed to read: "That additional residential de- velopment in Newport Center be permitted on the vacant area on Jamboree Road and the Coast Highway which backs up on the Country Club with a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per gross acre and that sites for residential development at a density not to exceed 35 dwelling units per acre, subject to the approval of the City, be permitted. " The City Council requested comments from the Planning Commission on the feasibility of considering the vacant area on Jamboree Road and the Coast Highway in two parcels with the parcel on Coast Highway having less density than the 15 d.u. 's per gross acre. 6. THE BLUFFS. It was suggested that the former high-rise sites ensd� ity be increased from 5 d.u. 's per acre to 8 d.u. 's per acre. Action: RGE. Statistical Division K (Page 23) Subparagraph 2 should be changed to read: "Res dential development in tfiie two southernmost 'high-rise' sites in the Bluffs should be limited to a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per gross acre." 7. VILLAGE CONCEPT. It was suggested that the village concept of Newport Beach be encouraged and that the formation of municipal advisory groups and special assessment districts be encouraged. Action: LUE. Overall City Form (Page 2) . The following should be added to the first paragraph: "The City shall encourage the Volume 27 - Page 1 5c �L • formation of independent municipal advisory groups within each of the villages that go to make up the City and the City will cooperate with such village representatives for the im- provement of the environment and physical facilities within its villages." 8. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS. It was suggested that no portion of the General Plan be adopted which would necessarily result in a budget deficit. Action: RGE. Introduction (Page 1 ) . The following should be added to the only paragraph: ' By the use of 10 year revenue and expenditure projections and by managing needed capital im- provements, the City shall assure a favorable budget posture." Action: LUE. Land Use Summary (Page 8). To conclude the second paragraph add: "By t e use of 10 year revenue and ex- penditure projections and by managing needed capital improve- ments, the City shall assure a favorable budget posture." 9. WEST NEWPORT. It was suggested that the reduction of multiple dwelling units by 27% and an increase of single family dwellings by 20% is inconsistent and that the trend growth projection be allowed. . Action: RGE. Statistical Division B> Subparagraph 3 (Page 10) should be changed to read: "All R-2 and R-3 districts shall remain as currently zoned and the table for this statistical area reflect this density." 10. BALBOA PENINSULA. It was suggested that the recommended reduction by 45% in multiple dwellings and the 58% reduction in duplexes is excessive and that the trend growth projection be allowed. The City Council took no action on this suggestion, but requested comment from the PLanning Commission on the following: Statistical Division D (Page 13) Subparagraph 1 , 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 be deleted and following renumbering of the remaim'ng para- graphs replaced by the following: All residential zones currently in existence shall be maintained with the understand- ing that appropriate development standards will be developed. Where appropriate, commercial zones may be reclassified to a residential zone . " Earlier on the agenda the Council took action to approve of the Edgewater condominium project. This necessitated the following change in the RGE. Action: RGE. General City-wide Zoning Policies (Page 4) Sub- paragraph 1 . The following was added: "and Edgewater con- dominiums will be permitted a density of up to 21 dwelling units per acre. " 11 . OLD CORONA DEL MAR. It was suggested that the reduction of multiple family zoning was too severe and that the trend growth projections should be allowed. Volume 27 - Page 115d Action: RGE. Statistical Areas F-2, F-3 and F-4 Page 17) . The second paragraph shall be replaced with the following: "All R-2 and R-3 districts shall remain with appropriate de- velopment standards to be prepared and the table for these statistical areas shall reflect this policy. The effect on traffic and parking is to be studied in greater depth and, if necessary, remedies are to be reflected in the development standards." 12. EAST CORONA DEL MAR. It was suggested that the reduction in duplex zoning by 85% is too severe and that the trend growth projection be allowed. Action: RGE. Statistical Areas F-5, F-6, F-7 and F-8• Paqe 18 Subparagraphs 1 and 2 shall be replaced by the fol- lowing: "The R-2 districts in this area shall remain and no zone change shall be granted which would permit an in- tensification of development. The table shall reflect this policy." 13. UPPER BAY - NORTHWEST. It was proposed that the commercial con- venience center at the intersection of Tustin Avenue and University Park be eliminated. Action: LUE. Vacant site Northwest of Upper Bay (Page 15) . The second sentence shall be replaced by the following: "Such alternative development may be permitted only in ac- cordance with a specific area plan with the residentially developed portions of the plan to be maintained at a maximum density of 6 dwelling units per gross acre as discussed in the Residential Growth Element." 14. THE BLUFFS - LAND TRADE REMNANT. It was suggested that the wording in the RGE and LUE was satisfactory, but that the map should be modified to show the land trade remnant as part of the Upper Bay classification. The Council , by minute action, approved modifi- cation of the Upper Bay boundaries. 15. RGE. Residential Zoning Policy for Statistical Division K (Page 231 Subparagraph 1 . The Council requested comment from the Planning Commission on the feasibility of permitting only 8 dwelling units per gross acre on the property north of the Newporter Inn. Pursuant to the requirements of State law, please have the Planning Commission comment on the above which would permit the City Council to take action adopting the RGE and the LUE. ROBERT L. WYNN 5 Volume 27 - Page 115e Y• BEECO, LTD. Q7 UCB BUILDING 1010 NORTH MAIN STREET SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92701 (714) 5SS-9333 May 7, 1973 City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 West Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Calif. 92660 Gentlemen: Your Community Development Department, in their communication to you of April 23, 1973, observed that the undeveloped areas of Statistical Areas Al and A2 owned by our company are to be included in a "Specific Plan" area and that an extension of 16th Street - Pxoduction Place industrial development is intended only as a possibility. Using the above as an example, we are concerned, reasonably we believe,that the text and maps comprising the Residential Growth and Land Use elements be absolutely clear that no land use decisions have been made concerning this "Specific Plan" area at this stage. To indicate one land use possibility in a given sector to the exclusion of others could be misinterpreted at some later date and given validity and importance not now intended. We believe that we are in agreement with Mr. Hogan that the proposed text and land use maps can and should be simplified with regard to our property by elim- ination of pinpointing specific use alternatives within this "Specific Plan" area. Then, when such factors as the marina feasibility study, the transportation element and flood control and green belt studies provide us with the necessary guidance, the land use plan can take form. . Therefore, we suggest the following changes for your consideration: 1. Residential Growth Element. Substitute the following for sub-paragraph 2, page 8: "2) Residential development west of Superior Avenue shall be permitted in all areas except the M-1 district. However, the area included in the 'Specific Plan' area on the land use plan may include uses other than resi- dential. Maximum density shall be 15 dwelling units per gross acre in the area south of the westerly extension of 16th Street to the present city boundary and a maximum density of 6 dwelling units per gross acre north of the extension of 16th Street. " 1 y . u -2- 2. Land Use Element. On page 9, substitute the following for the paragraph headed 'West Newport Harbor":, "Beeco, Ltd. (Banning) Property: This area, north of 'Newport Shores' and extending easterly from the Santa Ana River is designated as a "Specific Plan' area on the Land Use Plan. This will permit the develop- � ment of an overall plan for the area after the completion of investigation of economic and physical feasibility of a small craft harbor in the lowlands area extending northward into Costa Mesa. "Such a harbor, if feasible, would provide full marina, marine service, and commercial recreational facilities. In addition, a public riding and hiking trail and parking area is proposed as part of the county-wide Santa Ana Greenbelt Project. The remainder of the land would be used for residential development as discussed in the 'Residential Growth Develop- ment', modified, if and as necessary, to relate to the overall harbor plan. "If the harbor is not feasible, alternate plans, including residential with associated commercial service facilities, should be considered. In any event, the property owners should have the responsibility for develop- ing a plan for approval by the city at the time any land use proposals are made. The development shall be consistent with the criteria set forth in the general plan . I • 3. Modify the Land Use Plan Map so that for the area in question it simply shows the words "Specific Plan Area" and is otherwise white showing no land uses. 4. Modify the Residential Growth Plan Map to make it consistent with the revised Land Use Map. This can be done by simply shading the entire subject area with tlB color code indicating areas with alternative uses. Sincerely, BEECO4"'e LTD. L el By laz� 1 Gc� Hancock Banning III HB:DD 7©7 theSLU/)PHOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION 2414 VISTA DEL ORO In Eastbluff, on the Irvine Ranch NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORINA May 7 , 1973 The Honorable• Mayor and City Councilmen 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach , California 92660 Gentlemen : The Bluffs ' Homeowners Association is vitally concerned with the proper and compatible development of certain presently vacant land which is situated within the planned' unit develop- ment known as The Bluffs . It has come to our attention that The Holstein Company is seeking a variance to increase the permissible density of homes per acre for the affected tracts- We respectfully request that the council limit development of the subject parcels to the currently existing tract densities . Attached is a density per acre chart projecting conforming density development . The primary reason for our request is that the proposed increased density would create a nonconformity with the existing develop- ment originally built and marketed by the Holstein Company . We do not feel that the term "minitenament" is an overstatement to describe the appearance the proposed new development would create . Further, the orginal plans for the area development , upon which home purchasers relied, was for highrise site development. The latter structures were to be self-contained in terms of recreational facilities and separate homeowners associations . Now it is evident that the burden of the proposed development will fall upon the present Association . Increasing the density will create an adverse impact on the living environment and facilities . We believe that -any further development should not proportionately exceed the pattern originally established and marketed by the Holstein Company . DO)NOT REMOVE Page 2 May 7 , 1973 If, for any reason , the Council elects to •grant a variance from the current conforming density and./or use pattern , we would like to receive notice , have time to prepare formal oppo-sition and be given an opportunity for an open hearing on this matter. Your careful evaluation of our submission and request is appreciated . Very truly yours , THE BLUFFS HOMEOWNERS TION 17ig/n%G - G ✓- William W . Pangman President WWP : tm Enclosure BLUFFS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DENSITY PER ACRE CHART Tract Homes _ Gross Acres Homes per Acre 5878 88 18 .040 4 .878 Proposed Holstein Appropriate Number of Homes • Development Site - Lot 89 for Conforming -Density,; Acres 8 .048 or 8 homes 1 . 65 5435 124 23 .220 5 . 34 Proposed Holstein Appropriate Number of Homes Development Site - Lot 125 for Conforming Density Acres 1 . 75 9 .345 or 9 homes • 6230 81 13 . 350 6 . 067 Proposed Holstein Development Site - Lot 83 Apprdpriate Number of Homes for Conforming Density Acres 6 .74 homes or 7 homes 1 .111 • April 25, 1973 Fred Sorsabal , City Manager City of Costa Mesa Post Office Box 1200 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Dear Mr. Sorsabol : Attached are one copy each of the proposed Residential Grpwth and Land Use Elements of the City of Newport Beach General Plan. Both of these Elements are presently being considered by the City Council and we are forwarding them to you at this time for your review. If you have any comments , please contact the undersigned as soon as possible. Very truly yours, 11 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By { ADVANCE PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR RLG/ddb Attchmts. (2) DO NOT REMOVE 1 MEMORANDUM Z, To: City of Newport Beach April 18, 1973 r Community Development Department 2387. 01 Attention: Mr. Rodney L. Gunn, Advance Planning Administrator Mr. Richard V. Hogan, Director of Community Development From: Development Research Associates Subject: REVIEW OF PROPOSED LAND USE ELEMENT OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN INTRODUCTION In accordance with the provisions of Phases III, IV and V of our agreement for consulting services on the Newport Beach General Plan Program, Development Research Associates has thoroughly reviewed the Proposed Land Use Element for the Newport Beach General Plan, along with supporting documents (Residen- tial Growth Element, Cost Revenue Analysis of Plan Alternatives,General Plan Policies) and has developed conclusions'and recommendations which are de- scribed in this memorandum report. This review has'also included discussions with the Community Development Department Director and staff, review of all previously prepared DRA inputs to staff as well as staff-prepared data and information provided to DRA, and has taken into account changes in data, trends; issues, and general economic factors potentially affecting the earlier work performed by DRA.. The purpose of this review has been to provide: (as per contract requirements) "An evaluation of various alternative general plan proposals and the economic implications of the amount, distribution, and character of future land uses. " Additionally the review assesses the economic impact of the cost/revenue factors associated with the proposed Land Use Plan and the earlier-developed Trend Growth Plan, as developed by the Community Development Department, and discusses the regional economic and policy contests within which the plan will most probably be implemented and accomplished over time. FILE capy i p BACKGROUND AND PARAMETERS OF REVIEW DRA believes that it is important to briefly review the "origins" of the proposed Land Use Element in terms of past DRA-CD staff efforts concerning the General Plan Program, since it represents one of a number of "alternative futures" for Newport Beach. One of these futures has been portrayed by the Trend Growth Plan, previously described by CD staff, and developed from the statistical base and assumptions of the "Trend Growth Model" developed by-DRA at the onset of the General Plan Study. To a considerable degree, the Trend Growth Plan represents a "worst case" alternative future since it portrays the consequences of quantitative growth without qualitative control, or without consideration of the environmental, economic, functional, or aesthetic consequences. At the other end of the range of alternative futures is a No Growth Plan, which in effect could be represented by "freezing" the physical composition of Newport Beach as it exists in 1973. Unfortunately economic and physical forces acting from outside of a regionally situated community such as Newport Beach insure that it cannot (like an isolated community) remain totally static, since, at the very least the costs of services and other economic factors would continue to rise. This alternative has not-been formally developed, because it is not realistic within the regional context or policy structure of the General Plan, but its consequences serve as a cautionary example at the opposite end of the scale from the Trend Growth Plan, illustrating the opposite extreme from that of unrestricted growth.. Finally there is the alternative future illustrated by the currently proposed Land Use Element, which represents a Limited Growth alternative, and which is directed at achieving an appropriate balance between quantitative and quali- tative growth for Newport Beach over the next two decades. However, in order to properly assess this alternative in terms of its potential economic effects, DRA has made a number of assumptions which have formed the parameters, or limits of definition, of this analysis: o That the local implementation of the General Plan in ,both technical and policy terms will proceed generally along the lines implied in the Limited Growth alternative. o That no outside factors will require major changes in approach toward this implementation during the course of the next two decades. (A reversal to the Trend Growth alternative, for example. ) -2- o That no major changes in the area or land use compo- sition of the city will occur through annexation other than those described in the plan. o That it is assumed that, in its currently proposed form, the plan achieves the major environmental, aesthetic, and functional objectives ascribed to it, and that the subject of this analysis is solely to determine if its general economic objectives, as well as other economic considerations, might be achieved. o That there is built-in flexibility to meet specific small- area needs within the overall plan through the Specific Plan Area process, and that a periodic assessment of the plan's success in achieving its objectives will be made, with changes effected as necessary, within the framework of the plan and its policies. While the above listing may seem like a set of idealized requirements, it should be noted that many communities in the U. S. have maintained effective plan implementation programs over significant periods of time within this, same framework, with the result that they are now used as prototypes by other cities and by consultants in studying the growth control question. DRA believes that the City of Newport Beach has the potential to be added to this listing as a positive "second generation" approach to the problems and issues of growth limitation, if the proposed Land Use Element is adopted. Additionally it must be'pointed out that if certain aspects of an alternative plan are not assumed as "constants" or "givens" as has been done in this listing then it is impossible to assess the impacts of a.single factor such as economics, since every aspect of the plan remains a potential or actual variable over time. GENERAL ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED LAND USE ELEMENT The basic questions to be addressed in determining the Limited Growth Alter- native's economic implications are, we believe: o What is the probable effect of the Land Use Element's recommendations upon the city's fiscal structure over time? -3- o Are the amounts of land designated in the various use categories of the Land Use Element in line with the estimated Newport Beach "share" of regional market demand for these uses? o What is the probable effect of the Land Use Element's recommendations upon the current and potential city resident and property owner's financial situation (Property Taxes, Property Value, etc. )? o What is the probable effect of the proposed Land Use Element on the general economy of the Newport Beach area (including employment levels, retail sales, other expenditures, transfer payments, etc. )? o What Is the probable effect of the proposed Land Use Element on the economic aspects of real estate develop- ment, and construction activities in the Newport Beach Area, and in the Orange County Area? Answers to these questions have been developed by DRA to the extent that data and the consultant's role permit, with the understanding that the proposed Land Use Element is subject to further refinement. These answers are in the form .of statements of opinion based upon the consultant's experience specific to Newport Beach, as well, as in similar situations. The emphasis of the planning effort at this time precludes consideration of the economic impact upon a single property, or of exhaustive statistical "proof" of the consultant's profes- sional opinion. Where available data can be used to illustrate the conclusion, it has been included, and where we believe further•analysis is needed to establish the validity of a conclusion, this has also been indicated. Effect on City's Fiscal Structure The apparent long term effect of the proposed Land Use Element upon the city's fiscal structure (using the Community Development Department's Cost/Revenue System as the indicator) is positive. The cost/revenue system, as currently developed, can only be utilized as a measure of the "order of magnitude" of differences related solely to land use, but as can be seen from Table 1 (Source: Community Development Department) the Limited Growth Alternative provides a greater surplus that the Trend Growth alternative. Other effects on the city's -4- t� COSt/REVENUE ANALYSIS ESTIMATED COSTS AND REVENUES FOR EXISTING "TREND-GROWTH" AND PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN DEVELOPMENT Land Use 1972 1980, Trend-Growth 1995 Development Land Use Plan 1995 Development Category (Net Acres)(± $/A2)=EFFECT (Net Acres)(t $/A2)=EFFECT (Net Acres)(.* $/A .)=EFFECT ({Jet Acres ±)( $/A)=EFFECT Resi- (2500)(-$900)3=-$2,250,000 (3500)(-$900)=-$3,l6O,000 (4,000)(-$900)--$3,600,000 (4,150)(-$90 3,735,000 dential �f-$ Hotel/ Motel (29)(+$10,000)=+$ 290.000• (60)(+$10,000)=+$ 600,000 (87)(+$10,000)=+$ 870,000 ($7)(+$10,000)=+$ 870,000 Rest./ Bar (36)(+$10,000)=+$ 360,000 (44)(+$10,000)=+$ 440,000 (62)(+$10,000)=+$ 620,000 (62)(+$10,000)=+$ 620,000 General Comm' I . ' (361 )(+$5,300)=+$1 ,913,300 (411 )(+$5,300)=+$2,178,300 (521 )(+$5,300)=+$2,761 ,300 . (516)(+$5,300)=+$2 ,731,800 Hi-Rise Offices (25) (+$8,000)=+$ 206,000 (74)(+$8,000)=+$ 592,000 (113) (+$8;000)=+$ 904,000 (ll3) (+$8,000)=+$ 904,000 Low-Rise Offices (103) (+$600)=+ $ 61 ,800 (15O)(+$600)=+$ 90,000' (200)(+$600) =+ $ 120,000 (315) (+$600) = +$ 189,000• Industry (298) (-$7 ,000)=-$ 298,000 Vacant (448)(-$1 ,000)�-$ 448,000 (6l9)(-$1.,000)--$ 619,000 (434)(—$1 ,000)=-$ 434,000 Land (2470)(+$150) 4=+$ 370,500 (670)(+ $150) =+$ 100.500 --- --- _-- ___ TOTAL + + $3,195,600 + $4,000,800 + $5,275',300 + $5,317,800 TOTAL - - 2,548.000 - 3,598,000 - 4,219,000 - 4,169,000 ANNUAL EFFECT + $ 647,600 + $ 402,800 + $1 ,056,300 + $1 ,148,800 ESTIMATED COST OF MAJOR NEW CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 5 - 562,000 • 562,000 - 562,000 562,000 NET ANNUAL EFFECT + $ 85,600 - $ 159,200 + $ 494,300 + $ 586,800 ! 1980 Development is expected to be approximately the' same under the "Trend-Growth" project and (Results tsein a $92,500 the Land Use Plan. p projected annual surplus) All costs and revenues shown in constant dollars; no accounting for inflation has been made. • -$900 per acre used as average net effect for all residential types and densities. Based an estimated average assessed value of $0.30 per ,sA.ft. for vacant land. Includes estimated costs for new fire stations, libraries, parks .and expansion of City Hall and i> City Yard facilities -- see attached sheet. n 1 non-land use related fiscal operations are not measured, but, based on earlier preliminary analysis by the consultant and CDD staff, it is projected that revenues in these areas of operation will exceed costs. (More discussion of this aspect of the cost/revenue system will be contained in the consultant's final report. ) The implication of these figures, and the identification of a "positive" effect for the proposed Land Use Element are that, since the system can only provide a proportional order of magnitude answer, the dollar amounts are not signif- icant, but the relative relationships between amounts and types of land use (the land use "mix") and between the type of land use and its per-acre cost or revenue (the cost-revenue "factor") are important. Thus it must be assumed that subsequent actions will be taken by the City of Newport Beach if and as necessary to maintain or enhance the balance inherent in these relationships. These actions could include the possibilities of: "rationing" land use develop- ment by pace and amount over periods of time (moratorium, total annual acreage or unit "ceilings"); increases in tax rates or other revenue sources for specific types of land use to bring revenues more in line with costs; more stringent review of all development proposals, including cost/revenue impact; restructing of city service delivery systems related to land uses to achieve lower costs. For example, if the city wishes to continue a policy of keeping property taxes at a relatively low level over the future, then other revenue sources would have to be developed to defray the rising costs of services to these land uses, and the costs of capital improvements in the city at large. Projected Land Use Amounts Versus Market Demand For Uses The proposed Land Use Element provides for the eventual development (1995) of the following amounts of land uses: (not including public uses) Variation From 1972 Trend Growth 1995 Residential 4, 150 acres +1,650 -150 Hotel-Motel 87 acres + • 58 Same Restaurant-Bar 62 acres + 26 Same General Commercial 516 acres + 155 - 5 High Rise Office 113 acres + 88 Same Low Rise Office 315 acres + 212 -U15 Industry 434 acres + 136 -185 Total 5, 677 acres +20325 -155 t},2`��?�w t7'.?�l>, r.vS�GiC'l3 ra3�Cl�'S"tea � • -6- In its economic base analysis DRA projected that the Newport Beach Market Area 1990 capture share of Orange County regional demand in these categories of land use would approximate: (Newport Beach Market Area varies in size from city area -- generally larger. ) Residential 6, 500 acres Estimated City Share 5, 500 acres Hotel-Motel 120 acres Estimated City Share 95 acres Restaurant-Bar 85 acres Estimated City Share 75 acres General-Commercial 680 acres Estimated City Share 580 acres High Rise Office 150 acres Estimated City Share 120 acres Low Rise Office 560 acres Estimated City Share 450 acres Industry 1,200 acres Estimated City Share 720 acres Totals 9,295 acres 7,540 acres As can be seen from the above figures the market demand for land uses in Newport Beach in 1990 is well in excess of either Trend Growth projections (5,832 acres) (which assumed the maximum utilization of all land in the city under existing zoning and anticipated use in non-zoned areas) or of the levels of land use development proposed in the Land Use Element (5, 677 acres). Thus long range market demand for land uses exceeds Trend Growth by over 1,700 acres or'29 percent and the Land Use Element by 33 percent, or 1, 860 acres. This situation exists in all land use categories but is more critical in some significant categories. The potential capture of demand for residential, low rise office, and industrial uses is extremely high, and would result in a very rapid buildout of all available land as well as pressures to create more land for these demand categories. While at first glance, this might appear to be an enviable position, in which there will always be an excess of demand over supply, its consequences are potentially damaging: o If the development pace occurs at, or above, theoretical market demand levels, an overbuild situation could easily occur, in which vacancy rates, lower sales levels due to excess competition,service delivery problems and other problems resulting from "too much too soon" would be created. Similar situations have occurred -- in Marina del Rey with the overbuilding of restaurants requiring a two-year moratorium, apartment over- building in the 169-170-171 period throughout Southern California. 4 o The excessive pressures for rezonirig, the ".boom and bust" cycles of property values resulting from heavy speculation, and other economic pressures would destroy any chance to retain an essentially low density, "villages" atmosphere in Newport Beach. DR.A believes that, by being extremely selective as to type, quality, timing, and planning/design of land uses permitted within an overall General Plan framework, the city can achieve the quality levels of development, cost/revenue "balance", and overall physical/functional character which are the adopted policies and objectives of the General Plan. Newport Beach will thus continue to maintain an image of a high quality, low/ moderate density area desirable as a prestige location for residence and business, as well as recreation and entertainment with some unique older areas and uses along the lines of a Santa Barbara or Carmel/Monterey (areas in which this image is strongly controlled, rather than accidentally achieved as a product of market forces and natural amenity). DRA also believes that the city will not in general suffer either economic hardship or declining interest as a potential location for development or business efforts, or for residence, due to adoption of a Limited Growth policy and General Plan over the next two decades. On the contrary we feel that it will be the very concepts of semi-exclusivity, prestigious location, and stability and enhancement of major use areas, and preservation and enhancement of natural amenities which will continue to attract the highest quality levels of economic potential to the community. Our experience has been that�and our projections indicate,in a major growth area such as Orange County (and Southern California), the potentials for economic growth and investment are so great and widespread, that the theoretically"untapped" excess demand ascribable to Newport Beach will be rapidly absorbed in other locations, particularly those with larger amounts of as-yet undeveloped land, and which are looking for the initial development of an economic base. (New city of Irvine, for example. ) A quick review of the potential absorption rates and buildout•years under alternative growth assumptions is useful. In all cases, the 1973-1980 period is expected to be a period of high growth potential, and consequent high absorption rates, with rates slacking off somewhat in the 1980-1990 period, as available land is used up, and as uses built in the high growth period achieve full occupancy. (Some exceptions to this change in rate would occur, linked to increased population. ) Based upon absorption rates indicated by the acreage figures at 1980 in Table 1 (CD Cost/Revenue Analysis) the average annual absorption rates by type of land use would be as follows: (1981-1995 estimates are DR.A projections. ) -$- 'ea''tPCt1 ,iSSOC 12?:, 1972-1980 1981-1995 Residential 125. 0 acres per year 75. 0 acres per year Hotel-Motel 3. 9 acres per year 2'. 0 acres per year Restaurant-Bar 1. 0 acres per year 1. 5 acres per year General Commercial 6. 25 acres per year 8. 0 acres per year High Rise Office 6. 0 acres per year 9. 0 acres per year Low Rise Office 5. 9 acres per year 12. 0 acres per year Industry 18, 75 acres per year 5. 0 acres per year If the projected absorption rates for the various uses in the 1981-1995 are maintained through balancing market demand with permitted development amounts and rates, the approximate final absorption years (year in which all available land designated for this use within the General Plan is finally absorbed by development) for the major"land uses would be: Residential approximately 1990 Hotel-Motel approximately 1990 Restaurant-Bar approximately 1993 General Commercial approximately 1994 High Rise Office approximately 1991 Low Rise Office approximately 1994 Industry approximately 1992 (These estimates do not indicate year of actual completion of construction or 100 percent occupancy -- merely the year in which the land category is com- pletely "sold out" for its designated use. However, we would estimate that construction would be 'completed on most land within 1 to 2 years of final -absorption. ) If an accelerated absorption rate is applied to these land uses, based upon an 'lunlimited growth" policy, in response to market demand,final absorption years would be much earlier, rapidly outstripping the ability of circulation, utilities, public services, schools, and other infrastructure elements to accommodate them in a balanced cost/revenue approach (or even in a mere "provision of needs" approach). Typically these final absorption years might be: Residential 1985 or earlier Hotel-Motel 1986 or earlier Restaurant-Bar 1987 or earlier General Commercial 1988 (parallels housing development) High Rise Office 1986 Low Rise Office 1988 Industry 1985 One possible approach toward combining limited growth and market maximization objectives might be to utilize a sliding scale of permitted development paces, related to individual land uses, with those whose cost/benefit impact is highly positive (restaurant-bar) being permitted to develop at a pace directly res- ponding to market demand (assuming potential overbuild situations are con- trolled), while others (residential, industrial) are permitted to develop at a pace commensurate with cost/benefit and functional efficiency of city operation. Effect on Property Owner The general effect on the economic "position" of the average property owner of the proposed Land Use Element will be neutral, to slightly positive. The reasoning behind this conclusion is based upon the following: o A recognition that some individual property owners will suffer some negative economic effects, no matter what plan or fiscal approaches are taken, but that the objective of the plan is to maximize potential benefits of all types (economic, physical, etc. ) to the community at large and to avoid creating economic hardship on major numbers of.people due to actions affecting them as a group (location, type of ownership, etc. ). o That to keep property tax rates, business taxes, and other revenue producing sources at the current proportionate levels to costs of providing services, other sources of revenue will have to be sought, and that very gradual rises in all tax rates may occur in any case, but generally commensurate with rises in property values, service levels, and other benefits to property owners. o That preservation and enhancement of the unique nature of the community will serve to stabilize, and insure realistic increases in, property values, and that permitting the community to enter additional cycles of speculative economic "boom and bust" will result in city physical and fiscal chaos, along with diminished demand for inflated-value properties. o That, under a low/moderate density "villages" concept which builds on quality levels and density/economic relationships already known in the community, the -10- General Plan could result in a greater economic premium and unit value (both speculative and "normal market") for land zoned for low/moderate density'uses that might have been the case for higher density uses. This economic phenomenon requires time to become established, so that noticeable economic benefits of down zoning from R-3 to R-2 or R-1 might not occur for several years until the image of the areas potential is changed from high intensity apartments to high value single or very low density multiple dwellings. In stable areas with "overzoning" (good R-1 areas zoned for R-3) this would not be difficult to achieve, but much less so in areas whose potential is already being compromised by indivi- dual parcel changes. Thus, the economic effects of a zoning rollback on an area are a function of: ° The areas initial quality level ° The amount of physical transition already present ° The amount of inflated value property present ° The degree of application and continuing enforcement of the rollback to all properties Y The ability to demarcate specific small areas, and designate them for a particular zoning category commensurate with economic market potentials "believable" in Newport Beach. Some interesting, but admittedly fragmentary evidence of the destruction of the myth of "significant higher value for high density multi-family residential property" (than for similarly situated single family residential property) can be seen in a recent survey (by city staff) of adjacent differently zoned areas on the Balboa Peninsula. (DRA stresses that this is an isolated example and should not necessarily be applied as-a standard for Newport Beach because of the wide variation in areas in the city. ) A sampling of assessed values (dollars per square foot of land only) on interior lots within the peninsula yields the following relationships: (These zoning designations and value relationships have remained constant over approximately the past decade. ) • -11- R-1 lots average assessed va?Le per square foot = $2. 40 R-2 lots average-assessed value per square foot = $2. 41 R-3 lots average assessed value per square foot = $2. 20 R-4 lots average assessed value per square foot = $2. 20 If these figures are extrapolated to an estimated fair market value, then the potential sales prices would be: ($9. 60; $9. 64; $8. 80; and $8. 80, respecitvely) Similarly, bay front lots are: R-1 @ $8. 00 per square foot (and $6. 50) R-2 @ 7. 84 per square foot 'R-3 @ 5. 34 per square foot R-4 @ 6. 25 per square foot These figures indicate an interesting phenomenon peculiar to the bay front area, in which, except for extremely prestigious single family sections ($8. 00 per square foot) the highest economic potential for the property owner' (not developer or others) is a two family use definition (as can be seen from existing develop- ment patterns), rather than as a high density apartment development (under R-4). The above figures should only be construed as a minimal sample -- DRA believes, however, that actual implementation of a "reduced density" General Plan would, over time, result in extensive substantiation of these relationships, possibly resulting in a greater net gain to property owner, developer, and city from a high value low and moderate density approach than from a high density plan. An unlimited growth approach would, without question, result in the need for major increases in tax rates and other costs on an immediate and repeated basis, (rather than a graudal change) even if other revenue sources were obtained. Additionally, it would result in a highly speculative land market, but with high land costs and rapidly increasing construction costs, might not result in actual construction, or if it did, in poorer quality, higher density development to offset high costs of land and development. There is no way in which an absolute "guarantee" of certain economic results can be made for the proposed Land Use Element for each property owner or business operator in the City of Newport Beach. DRA, however, believes that through careful specific area planning, fiscal programming, and constant monitoring of an effectively enforced "limited growth" plan, greater economic benefits would accrue to both city and the great majority of property owners in the city. • -12- .. • • it Effect on General Economy The effect on the general economy of the Newport Beach area of either Trend Growth or Limited Growth plans over time would be positive that is, there would be a net increase in all economic indicators over current levels (discount- ing inflation, other macro-economic factors). However, the degree and type of effects and particularly, the avoidance of potential fluctuations are somewhat different between the two alternatives. An "unlimited growth" local economy would be subject to potential fluctuations in several areas: the possible effects of an "overbuild" situation might create high vacancy rates in housing; excessive competition in some types of retail and industrial uses could create a higher degree of business failure, with subsequent retail/industrial space vacancies, unemployment, and lowered sales and sales tax revenues. Additionally, overdependence upon one economic sector (aerospace phenomenon -- tourism, boating industries'are other poten- tial "hazard" areas) and over expansion in the sector could severely depress the overall economy. Thus a balanced approach in which tourism related uses are proportionately balanced by non-seasonal employment and sales generators (restaurants, retail, residential) such as is possible under a limited growth approach would seem to be favored. Additionally, placing quotas or moratoria on total residential units and square feet of other uses which could be developed during critical periods (high vacancy levels, etc. ) and to help maintain cost/revenue balances, would be a desirable product of a limited growth plan. Published performance criteria for developers, as well as annual or semi-annual monitoring of pertinent cost/revenue, general economy, housing market, and construction industry factors would also be useful adjuncts to such a plan. Effect on Real Estate/Development Activities We believe that the net, long term effect on the performance these sectors of the economy will be positive. To a great extent, the potential effects have already been discussed in the preceding sections, but the basic differences between the two plans with respect to these industries are: -13- o While an explicitly described, consistently implemented limited growth.plan offers some opportunity for rational private and public decision making, based on announced, quantifiable factors, an "open-ended" unlimited growth plan provides only a situation in which the maximum possible economic exploitation of "exceptions" is possible, with "reaction" (in terms of both fiscal and public works action) to each exception rather than advance planning the only option for the city. o The competition for a more limited number of develop- ment opportunities offered under a limited growth plan will insure a high level of performance in terms of private sector development, and a counterbalancing high degree of service delivery quality on the part of the city, to provide incentive and support of this qualitative approach. o The effect on the real estate market and business .of a clearly expressed plan and related implementation policies will be to stabilize the market's view of the various areas and land uses within the plan, and hope- fully, to "promote" them based upon the probable positive effects of the plan. Speculation opportunities would continue to exist, but would be more in line with clearly defined potentials (via plan) rather than "pie-in- the-sky" chances to capitalize upon unknown "possibilities, " through the absence of definite information as to timing, . location, intensity, etc. This, of course, presumes that the credibility of the plan to the private sector is maintained by effective, consistent, and politically/ technically sensitive enforcement, with continual reports on progress, updating, etc, made available to the general public. o The often described potential "loss" of development activity, construction payroll expenditures, and other revenues, direct and indirect, to the community from adopting a less intensive approach to future growth is, we believe, a fallacy. In the case of the Limited Growth Plan, the actual revenues to the city from this plan are expected to exceed those of the Trend Growth Plan by at least 15 percent, and the revised mix of land uses could be expected to provide higher "secondary" revenues as well -- business license fees, sales taxes, etc. -14- Additionally, the "flow" of development activity would be more regularly distributed under the Limited Growth Alternative, avoiding wide fluctuations in construction activity and employment, and providing a more stable flow of construction financing activity. o The "image" offered by a Limited Growth Plan in an area of the known prestige and desirability of Newport Beach would seem to the consultant to offer endless "promotional" possibilities for city, chamber of commerce, realtors, local financing and development entities. A plan that is intended to be environmentally and functionally cost effective and politically realistic, while projecting a concept of a carefully planned collection of villages is certainly as "saleable" a place as any ever offered by the major private land developers of Southern California. Capitalizing on some recognized unique strengths and• amenities, while avoiding mistakes of others, and borrowing from Successes elsewhere, the plan would appear to have'excellent potential, as well, with state and federal government sources who might in the future:be approached for funds for various city projects. o The one cautionary aspect of the plan however, is that, unless the private sector responds favorably to its concept and its implementation procedures, the plan may suffer from too many "adjustments" to specific concerns to be meaningful, and to maintain environmental, func- tional, and economic objectives. DRA believes that economic simulations of private sector decision making processes should be included in all specific area plans, updates, and reviews of the plan to insure that it meets both public and private "performance levels"-for con- tinuing success. JCCorrough:jg -15- 7, c4- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Office of CITY ATTORNEY April 9, 1973 To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: City Attorney Subject: Effect of Proposed Land Use Element and Residential Growth Limits Com- ponent of the General Plan on the Balboa Bay Club Lease By letter addressed to the Mayor and City Council dated April 4, 1973, Mr. Thomas J. O'Keefe, attorney for the Balboa Bay Club, has recommended that the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Residential Growth Limits Component of the General Plan be revised to delete those provisions which are claimed to be in conflict with the present zoning and existing lease agreement covering the Balboa Bay Club site. The purpose of this memorandum is to answer the concerns of the Balboa Bay Club as expressed by Mr. O'Keefe. PROPOSED LAND USE ELEMENT The Land Use Element of the General Plan with reference to the Balboa Bay Club site proposes that upon expiration of the lease that this property is to be converted to public marine- oriented recreational uses as determined by a master plan to be developed prior to the expiration of the lease. Mr. O'Keefe argues on behalf of the Bay Club' s management that this con- clusion may be prejudicial to the future best interests of the City. We cannot agree with Mr. O' Keefe for the following reasons : By law the . City is required to have a General Plan con- sisting of a statement of development policies including diagrams and text setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals. Among the many elements required in the General Plan is a land use element which must, among other things, desig- nate the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land for housing, business, industry and recreation. DO NOT REMOVE Re: Balboa Bay Club Lease -2- April 9, 1973 The Balboa Bay Club site is a unique parcel of property in that it is publicly owned and located adjacent to a public body of water. Because of this uniqueness, it would be most difficult to prepare detailed background comparison studies. Iiowever, based on present trends, such as increased popula- tion and leisure time and a decrease in water-front recrea- tional areas, together with existing public sentiment in favor of maximizing physical and esthetic access to tidelands and public water-oriented areas, the proposed use of the Balboa Bay Club property can be justified as ' a matter of present day policy. Of course, a future Council could amend the General Plan if the aforementioned trends and public sentiment charge. In summary, the City is required by law to have a General Plan showing proposed future land uses throughout the City. Based on our best knowledge, in light of the existing data as it re- lates to this unique piece of property, we have concluded that it is in the best interest of the City to show the subject property as a future recreational area and open space. RESIDENTIAL GROWTH LIMITS COMPONENT The proposed Residential Growth Limits Component of the General Plan provides that no further residential development be per- mitted on the Balboa Bay Club site, Mr. O' Keefe argues on behalf of the Bay Club' s management that this proposal is in conflict with the purpose of the lease between the City and the Bay Club. The expressed purpose of the lease is that the property may be used for any purposes not prohibited by law, other than industrial purposes. In other words, by restricting future 'residential development, Mr. O' Keefe contends that this violates the terms of the lease, The law as to whether or not a city can use its police power to avoid a contractual obligation is unclear. There is some ques- tion in the first instance, of the City' s authority to contract away this power. It could be argued that the City did not have the ability to agree that the zoning would not be changed at some future date. As a matter of fact, the zone was changed a couple of years ago to limit the height of future buildings on the Bay Club property. The lease provides that the property may be used for any purpose (other than industrial) not prohibited by law. Zoning laws by their very nature. are subject to change and what may be a permissible use under the zoning laws in exis- tence at the time the lease was executed may be a prohibited use in the future if the zoning law is changed. On the other hand, a city could not enter into a contract and then by some arbi- trary action frustrate the entire purpose of that agreement_ This would obviously show bad faith. Re; Balboa Bay Club Lease -3- April 9, 1973 Should the zoning be changed on the Balboa Bay Club site, it would be for a valid public purpose in setting the residential growth standards throughout the City, and not just a singling out of the Bay Club. In summary, the issue of impairment of contractual obligations vs . the City' s police power to rezone is a difficult and unclear area of the law. The City may never have intended nor may it have been legally possible for it to bargain away the power to change zoning in the public interest. n DENNIS O'NEIL City Attorney DON dm CC-. City Manager City Clerk Community Development Department CITY dF WPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 3.tBJ W. Nowporf•Blvd.' 1 ING DEPARTMENT Phono 673-211p , ;yam • 'APP'LICATIO FOR E3'UILRING' PERIVITT ASSESSOR'S •DU ILDING (� PARCEL NO. ADDRESS _ O_ No. 6113 DATE: LOCALITY APPLICANT TO FILL 1N AREA WITHIN NEAREST HEAVY LINES ONLY. CROSS ST. 'tl WLbINO +•� �( CENSyS TACT [GROUP 4'YPD PROCESSED 9Y A11 ESS G I �`( `L4' H CONST. LO ND� BLOCK T T 'STAT)STICAL CLASSIFICATION VACANT SITE NO.OFbLBGS,IO CLASS NO.�DWELL UNITS— YES Iy�NO SIZE OF LOT NOW ON LOT B 5 0. /� USE ZONE "AP ,r—+ 9TRUCTr11RP A1 �. VALUATION$ i_ ^ NO. 7 7S r� tEL �d00 'SPECIAL OWNER Q? 0 Ga.�P NO.' FIRE ZONE CONDITIONS ADDRESS 7 �} ry SLOG.SETBACK FROM CITY N• 1 U• _ FRONT FROM LINC OF (STRCET) DESCRIPTION OF WORK BLOC.SETBACK FROM SIDE PROP.LINO OP (STRCET) NEW {/ ADO ALTER REPAIR DEMO I Yards: Rear R.S. L•S• SO.FT. BLDG. }f NO.OF NO.OF 512C : GARAGE STORIES FAMILIE " taVOa: Fo RaaT R.S. L.S'. WORK TOO BE L1;, 1w(r r�n1VG r(�• PLOT PLAN CHECK A APPRV. Curb Cut Cen t• C/t hGS SF(R&-T71,2 PL N APP OYA Ow a, Rldr. Form 07-1 J Excise Tax R•APPROYA San. Dlsf. *S z4aez 00Ee ARCHITYR ' s y OTEL. No, 3^3� O ENGINEER � 2175551 / �2 / a—sower cane. f"/ HEALTH DEPT. PPROVAL: �7 w AbORE55 C'�L7 �JII-V�2 b ,e �bAl% '/��s•��'12/ n`s ' Water Cann. T PLAN C ED Y ` Total Duo � rGhFFRAGYBR• ! SPECIAL I SPE TOR r ED Q' . FOR STATE I AODRF_SS LICENSE NO. IIOVA TO I SU LICENSE 5 CITY CLASS CONSY. LENDER TEL. NEWPORT I NO'!' O. LICE#' •BRANCH BIONUUNE OF •,/ ADDRESS I • APPLICANT _ Ai'PROVALS bATC 19 ECTR P.C, OtH RR PMT. SIGNATURE FFE�''JS' FEES S FEE S FOUNDATION,LOCATION /J/�' ✓• I ' �� / /,nn �Jr h•�0 FORMS MATERIALS / ✓ NV y -/3 .�;Es/1 GC 1 hrreby acknowledge givenisco ect; 1 have th rear) This application; that the ialermalion gent b correct; and agree I am the pl DtIlh city anfiled duly ryEINFORC. STEEL / � 4•, Y ! I nolhoregn1 llu of the owner. I ngroi to complyy with dly and stale —� Inws reaulalinq eonslrudlonl and in doing the warF Sulhor(sad thereby� � na prnan will A� od to viol Ilan el . L or Code of t o Wm an' •Comp s lion Imnranco• gHEAYHINOIFRAMINGd � _/ ^ FINAL CERT. OF OCCUR PLAN CHECK VALIDATION M.O. cnsH PERMIT VALIDATION CK. M.D. CASH �/ d �r g�� (� r'>//Ive" 3p..�5 0,V /�.G:�V //4 &I A€il' J/�/V�'6` �PO 0 o 490 , `•L'_ fieLK/sPr^�CxY CT/Ylty trN�/f 4f"/l� "�'�'-- . _ c _� - 1 _ t so,G 5'SizC-C[ A _ ass AOQ-;az ~ • I (f Cam. ��• , G ice.'{t. LAW OFFICES 01EEFE.RECHT £Y GRIEPP I N C 0 R PO R AT EO SUITE 400 2323 NORTH BROADWAY THOMAS J.O'KEEFE P.O.BOX 6099 ORVILLE F. RECHT WINSTON P.GRIEPP SANTA ANA.CALIFORNIA 92706 HENRY J.COOPERSMITH TELEPHONE [714] 6315-1100 DOUGLAS E.MORRISON April 4 , 33 Mayor and City Council City of Newport Beach �1 �� I 1 3300 West Newport Boulevard 1�T3w pp Newport Beach, California 92660 h {; Pr OF CAt1,�B�'C�S Re: Effect upon Balboa Bay Club, Inc. Leasg of Proposed Land Use Element of General c� Q Plan and Residential Growth Limits Com- ponent of General Plan Gentlemen: The purpose of this letter is to call to your attention certain provisions of the current drafts of the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Residential Growth Limits Component of the General Plan which have been recommended. by the city staff and planning commission 'to the City Council for adoption which, if adopted without further amendment, would conflict with certain contractual provisions of the Lease Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and Balboa Bay Club, Inc. Recommendation number 4 pertaining to statistical divi- sion H of the proposed Residential Growth Limits Component of the City of Newport Beach General Plan provides "that no further resi- dential development be permitted in the remaining commercial dis- tricts in division H, nor shall further residential development be permitted on the Balboa Bay Club's site". The Lease Agreement provides under the section entitled "Purpose of Lease" as follows: "The real property hereinbefore described may be used by the Club for any purpose not prohibited by law, other than industrial purposes, and the Club agrees that it will not use the demised premises for any purpose not authorized by law or for any industrial purpose without the written consent of the City first had and obtained. " The lease further provides under the section entitled "Improvements, Fixtures and Equipment" as follows : "The Club shall have the right and privilege of erect- ing and constructing such buildings, structures and improvements at, in or about the demised premises as it may deem to be desir- able or necessary and as shall comply with the existing building ordinances of any governmental authority having jurisdiction over Mayor and City Council April 4, 1973 Page Two. the demised premises then in force and effect, and shall like- wise have the right and privilege of placing at, in or about the demised premises such trade fixtures and personal property as may appear to be desirable or necessary for the operation of any busi- ness or other activity conducted thereat. " The management of the Balboa Bay Club is in the process of conducting studies concerning the most beneficial long-term use of the property under lease from the City of Newport Beach for the purposes of improving the aesthetic appearance and function- ibility of the property, possible development of additional beach areas and maximization of revenues both to the City and the Club. in view of these pending studies, it is recommended that no action be taken at this time which would prejudice the full consideration of all facets of the studies for the proposed beneficial utilization of this very important municipal asset. Similarly, the proposed Land Use Element of the Gen- eral Plan proposes, with reference to the Balboa Bay Club's site, that "this property be converted to public marine-oriented recreational uses (after the current lease expires in 1998) . The exact lay-out and nature of the uses will be determined by a "Master Plan" which should be developed prior to the expira- tion of the current lease. Certain commercial recreation con- cessions could be included. " The management of the Balboa Bay Club submits that the proposed conclusion that the property be converted to public marine-oriented recreational uses after expiration of the lease is premature in view of the fact that the alternative beneficial uses of the property have not yet been fully explored. The adop- tion of a conclusion at this time regarding the ultimate use of the property in 1998 by which future Councils may feel bound can only prejudice the best interests of the City of Newport Beach since a conclusion adopted at this time would have to be hastily made under pressure of recent state legislation and without benefit of full studies or knowledge of subsequently developing needs and interests of the City it could only serve to prejudice the future best interests of the City. For these reasons and because of the earlier contract- ual commitments of the City it is respectfully recommended that the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Residential , . Mayor and City Council April 4, 1973 Page Three. Growth Limits Component of the General Plan be revised to delete the provisions referenced above which are in conflict with the present zoning and existing lease agreement covering the Balboa Bay Club site. Very truly yours, . O'Keefe & Recht, Incorporated By Thomas J. O'Keefe TOK:7J cc: Mr. W. D. Ray use Ap 2nd, 1973 aP The Planning Commission Oo� City of Newport Beach 7. California rn Dear Chairman Glass and Members of the Planning Commission: Since we apparently misunderstood the Planning Commissionts move in closing the Public Hearing last Thursday evening, not realizing that the Bearing would then be reopened Friday morning for the dis- cussion of the Environmental Impact Report on the Land Use Element of the General Plan, we failed to present our testimony at that times a statement which is urging that .the Environmental Impact Report be only grovisiona115 accepted since the effect of the land use proposals on the natural environment and public facilities ( such as transportations drainage, and indeed air) has not yet been ascertained. We do not see how, in the absence of such knowledge, the impact report can make the assertion that no si nificant adverse environmental impacts are ''anti. cipated"(paragraph 7) or that there 'twill belt no significant adverse environmental impacts (paragraph 8) . Surely, the quality of life in this City, upon which the impact report appears to place so much emphasis, will be crucially affected, for instance, by the amount of noise and air pollution potentially engendered by various land use proposals. I attach enclosures to indicate how intimately land-use and trans- portation controls and environmental quality are interconnected even in recent legislations and how appropriate it would be for this City to fully consider this interrelationship prior to the adoption of the land use proposals., and indeed perhaps even the proposals concerning residential densities , it is true that the City does propose a ''limited growth" policy in the Residential Density Element of the General Plan ( al- though this policy may actually act as an inducement to growth in the presently relatively undeveloped or open space areas of the City unless it is accompanied by a specific timing or phasing provision) $ but this policy does not clearly apply to the commercial or industrial zoning. Do we really only deal with acres here, as is suggested in the Cost-Revenue projection which accompanies the Land Use Element of the General Plan, or do we not also deal with eL off$ for instance$ tourists who might crowd into this City and use the numerous projected commercial ( and industrial) facilities$ so putting a stress on the CitIts environment,--a stress which one had tried precisely to remove Z from it through the adoption of some sort of re 4dential growth policy. Should one not obtain a more clear idea of the nature and scale of the proposed commercial ( and industrial) ,facilities, and whether they are designed primarily to satisfy the need of ( or provide employment for) local residents or whether they may stimulate a large population in" flux from outlying areas? Some 'sort of analysis ( and perhaps break- down into public cost and benefit and private profit) appears mandatory for the sake of the Cityts existing residential community. In the ab- sence of such an analysis ( and thorough environmental impact statement) , any Cost-Revenue study, even the present conservative study done by the City Staff$ remains incomplete and perhaps unrealistic in its failure to reveal to us the hidden costs of the land use proposals. Obviously, we do not want to bind future generations to a land.. use pattern which may turn out to have been economically unrealistic at DO NOT REMOVE 0 seg the very point of its cone eption and neglectful of the greater public interest. To quote from a letter from the State Department of Public Health (by Dr, John R. Goldsmith, Head, Environmental Epidemiology Unit., California) : "Historically, the considerations of public health have been considered to take precedence over considerations of convenience or economic motivation. It seems to me that in this case the same principle applies, namely, that additional population increases, if the emission of pollution per capita continue as they have in the p st, will aggravate the public health problems posed by present air pollution. Similar statements may be appropriate on the basis of water pollution but I am not as well qualified to make them,. ., It, therefore, seems entirely reasonable, given these considerations, that a moratorium on large-scale residential developments be de" clared..,.and that this be applicable as lo4S as there is persisting air pollution which unfavorably affects the public health and until there are -policies which clarify the directions which further "a velo-pment tyke without producing 6 health problem. italics mine) We hope that the City will build into its Residential Density and Land Use policies clear provisions to direct development in the channels outlined above and discuss openly, in its Environmental Impact Reviews, potential hazards ( such as flooding, water and air pollution) and measures which can be taken to mitigate such hazards, And so it will, of course, follow in spirit the Guidelines, implementing the California Environmental. Quality Act of 1970, Truly Yours Mrs , Howard S, Babb 2507 Via Marina Newport Beach, California /o �r STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RE50UP.CES AGENCY RONALD REAGAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION P.O. BOX 2990 SACRAMENTO 95811 I�11, - /* c° `°?,iiPs��t ,3 March 27, 1973 i l 'n1 1 �r WIT, v a' Mrs. H. S. Babb 2507 Via Marina Newport Beach, California Dear Mrs. Babb: Governor Reagan has asked me to reply to your letter of March 1, 1973 concerning Upper Newport Bay. The lands of Upper Newport Bay that you refer to in your letter have been recommended for some time for inclusion in the State Park System but adequate funding has not been available to proceed further. In 1974 a park bond issue is to be presented to the electorate for their consideration. If the measure is approved, it will provide $90 million for acquisition of properties for the State Park System. Since Upper Newport Bay has been recommended for inclusion in the park system, it will be given further consideration in establishing priorities for the project to be funded from this bond program. Thank you for writing and expressing your concern for the preservation of these coastal lands. Sincerely, /William Penn Mc tt, 7r. Director L-340 April 2nd, 1973 City of Newport Beach California Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: �I li In order to least interfere with the Public Hearing and General Plan processes, I submit to you a copy of our letter to the Planning Commission for consideration prior to your proposed adoption of the Residential Density and Band Use Elements of the General Plan, and prior to your proposed acceptance of the respective Environmental Impact Reports, urging once more that all these• various statements be only Rrovis� ional11 approved at this time when their implications for the natural environment and public facilities have not yet been fully analyzed and their true economic impact not yet ascertained. Again, we wish to thank you and the City' s Staff for the thought which you have already given to the General Plan and the way you have heeded concerns expressed by various citizens. it is with pleasure that we Look to the future of this City. Truly Yours 4 e 1/1ee6 Mrs, Howard S. Babb 2507 Via Marina Newport Beach, Calif. 92660 N aopys City Manager Planning Staff Y • I ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY j REGION IX 760 Market Street San Francisco, California 94102 Mrs. Howard S. Babb APR 5 1971 2507 Via Marina N@Wpgrt 9@AEhr 9gll€enia 92669 Dear Mrs. Babb: Your letter of March 14, 1971 to Administrator William D. Ruckelshaus 11 has been referred to me for reply. I wish to thank you for taking the time, to .write the Environmental Protection Agency on such an important I ' issue to the health and welfare of residents of the South Coast Air Basin. Support by citizens such as yourself will ultimately result in our common goal -- a clean environment. I 'I I am pleased to inform you that the recently passed Clean Air Amendments of 1970 (enclosed) specifically require that the States and local air pollution control agencies consider land-use projections and transportation controls in attacking the problems of air pollution. Under these new amendments, 'the Environmental Protection Agency requires each state to submit an implementation plan for control of air pollution in each of their respective air quality control regions by January 30, 1972. The areas discussed in your letter are located within the Metropolitan Los Angeles Intrastate Air Quality [� Control Region. The implementation plan developed by the California Air Resources Board, in cooperation with the countywide air pollution control districts, must provide for meeting the Federally established ambient air quality standards. The Clean Air Amendments of 1970 further provide that should the state be delinquent or submit an unacceptable implementation plan, the EPA is authorized to prepare and enforce such a plan. Generally, the provisions of these plans for reaching healthful levels of air quality must be met within three years after their adoption, or late 1975. - I Of special interest to you are the provisions that the States consider such things as land-use projections to the point of possibly restricting motor vehicle traffic, increasing downtown parking fees, forced car-pooling, etc. A public hearing is required on this plan, probably in November or December I of this year, at which time you and your fellow citizens will have an oppor- tunity to express yourself on such important factors as emission limits, enforcement timetables, and transportation controls. As you are no doubt aware, the Clean Air Amendments also require that all new cars by 1975 be at least 90% cleaner than those currently produced by Detroit. Within the next few days, formal guidelines will be announced in the Federal Register that will explain to the State and local agencies how this imple- mentation plan must be prepared and v(hat factors are to be considered. If the i LJ I C ' Page 2 - Mrs. Howard S. Babb agencies preparing the plan fail to consider aspects such as land-use projections, the Administrator of EPA will have no choice but to turn down the plan and implement a Federal control plan. The California Air Resources Board has assured me, however, that they will consider land-use j and transportation controls in their plan for the South Coast Basin. Furthermore, the Clean Air Amendments of 1970 require an acceptable implementation plan for further Federal funds to support the State and local air pollution control agencies. In answer to your question on Federal assistance to the University of California at Irvine for studying air pollution problems, the Environmental Protection Agency is currently funding Irvine through the Pacific Southwest Universities Association. One of four universities included in this unique consortium, the Irvine campus will particularly concentrate on planning and its relationship to air pollution control. You may wish to talk to the staff on these matters. Once again, thank you for your interest in solving the air pollution problem. If our office can be of any further service to you, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely yours, 1 h a 1 re Falco, Jr. I terim Regional Coordin for Enclosure i d I N f . . 1. ` 1 / i � e Senate Bill No. 981 I CHAPTER 1338 An act relating to air pollution, and making an appropriation therefor. [Approved by Governor December 22,1972.Flied with • Secretary of State December 22,1972.1 it LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST .. SB 981, Nejedly, Air pollution. Requires the State Air Resources Board to prepare and submit,not later than July 1, 1973, a report to the Legislature on proposed guidelines, taking into consideration specified factors, for an air r pollution control element in general plans. Appropriates $50,000 from the Motor Vehicle Account iri the State Transportation Fund to the board. r The people of the State of California do enact as follows.- SECTION 1. The State Air Resources Board shall, in consultation i with the Office of Planning and Research and the Office of Intergovernmental Management, prepare and submit, not later than July 1,1973,a report to the Legislature on proposed guidelines for the preparation of an air pollution control element in general plans of counties and cities prepared pursuant to Article 5 (commencing�yith Section 65300), Chapter 3, Title 7 of the Government Code�The proposed guidelines shall focus local planning on abatement of air pollution through wise planning;taking into consideration at least the _ following: (1) federal and state ambient air quality standards and whether-they are being or are likely to be exceeded within the county or city, (2) ambient air quality in other portions of the air basin in which the county or city lies and in adjacent air basins which are or may be affected by pollutants emitted within the county or city, (3) the primary and secondary effects on ambient air quality of major commercial and ' residential developments, particularly of developments in areas currently held substantially as open space, (4) the secondary effects of proposed freeways and mass rapid transit corridors,and (5) the effects on ambient air quality of other elements .in the general plan not specifically included in the foregoing. SEC. 2. The sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) is hereby fi appropriated from the Motor Vehicle Account in the State Transportation Fund to the State Air Resources Board to prepare the report required under Section 1 of this act. 0 t °`';((�, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA City Hau cyt fir �R'� 3300 W. Nevr[wst Blvd, Area Code 714 673-2110 J., V, —n3 Lnvir onraer_'t al Quality Cant Lo 1 _4dv1 3ordy CO :rllt tee AiDril 16, 19173 To: Uewport Beach City Council Re ; Proposed Land Use Element of th3 General Plan. Suggested for inclusion as a requirement for all parhi,ag areas. 14OTIM: Vrien a. parking lot is _oermit•ted within an Open Space Zone, specific recuirements .-hall be set to reduce the visual impact of parking use, such as landscaping, perms, below grade parking. Example: parking facilities at the Parker-Hannifin plant in Irvine. DaleAPR 2 5 1973 0:' `\ Fro... the Office of �+''. ..SE�,�..TD'....� City Clerk TODAY'S MAIL r " n`y •� ~ F I )"'Wir Norl<n Director Date: i_ ❑ Other Attn: k�,,� Fj Gounelhnent El A� �f oeye�o unr�o qPR °Qa"x°"r 3 n �' N�WP irvOI? oF7.4��3�. 'DO NOT R[ct10VG S rn r, c'n climes Con ter) Caom�a'u-ss iac�ers ` �ue$e�o ion eho?�� Ioj73 5 March 15, 1973 � ' t0 G\,�z�;�OP° �e ! �r�d- (k5e �e men `'] o k, arming Commission of Newport Beach: OF My references tonight are to the property between 22nd Street and University Drive on the west side -of the Upper Bay. The proposed Land Use Element shows this area hs residential with 10 acres for a commercial convenience center. It is our proposal that this land be designated public open space. While we recognize that it is probably not feasible for the City of Newport Beach to acquire all of this land, there are other public agencies who have an interest in the area. All efforts to'obtain a wildlife preserve in the Upper Bay must be supported by concern for the bluff lands. This property is prime view park land which should be maintained for the public and as a buffer for such a preserve. To ask the county, state, or federal government to acquire the land we need the support of the city and the formal recognition that Newport Beach would like to see the land remain open. Recognizing that the property is now privately owned an alternative use must be listed in the event that public acquisition is not possible. Therefore, we request that the area in question be shown as open space with the alterna- tive use of residential stated in the element. That residential use should require and guarantee public access to the public tidelands. The commercial section should be deleted as unnecessary and incompatible with the area. We propose open space with the residential alternative for the entire area from 22nd to University. While we are sure there is sufficient population to justify the convenience center in this section, there is no need for it and no popular desire. We don't t or need a paved parking lot, more traffic, or more commercialism in the Upper Bay. We thank you for dour consideration of this proposal. Vajoa Submitted : by Valerie R. Mur ey Endorsed and supported by: Citizens' Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee League of Women Voters of Orange Coast Friends of Newport Bay CO DO�NO'f REpdOVE ALAN M. VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES, INC. n n�yT TRANSPORTATION & PLANNING CONSULTANTS 7606 Old Springhouse Road 703/6C3-4310 Westgate Research Park McLean, Virginia 22101 July 31, 1974 Contract To: City of Newport Beach Job 256 (LF-65) 3300 Newport Boulevard Invoice 7-9990 Newport Beach, California 92660 Period June 1, 1974 thru June 80, 1974 Terms: Payablo upon receipt For professional services rendered in connection with the NewportAlternative Land Use Study. Salary of Record x 2. 5 $54-2.22 Other Direct Costs Reproduction $6.80 Plus 101a Handling .68 Total Other Direct Costs 7.48 Computer 10. 00 AMOUNT DUE THIS INVOICE - $519. 70 Oil b2 PLEASE RETURN ONE COPY OF THIS INVOICE WITH REMITTANCE. 1 2 3 4 i - i Its I! �1 14 is II j i ; i t I I I I tt1 is � 17 I I I — I_ i i 7l is 19 i SD I i I I I2 123 i i I i I i 21 32 I I I' — ! TT I2 23 23 24 2 2 126 27 �� _�_ _. •— 1 I I I 1 r �• � -4- LI 20 29 31 33!'- 32 33 _-- .—_- _ --. �__ .. _ ._- I I I _ 3a 3B� 37 3Bi1 •I- I Q�fM ILSOY IAN[i C�)M'•A..Y O]90a Ofl ECH PAT.APPL fOn. - MADE 1'1 U S A 7 EXHIBIT 2 NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE STUDY L_ COMPARISON OF NETWORK VOLUMES AND TRAFFIC DEFICIENCIES IN NEWPORT BEACH WITH VOLUME OF TRAFFIC GENERATED FROM ZONES IN NEWPORT BEACH ORoad Location ADT, Thousands Traffic Volumes in 1, 000's on Deficient Links in Road Network From Various Zones: % is Zone Volume on Link Divided b ADT Assigned Segment Road Name Assigned Capacity Defic- 1 2 5 7 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 31 32 74 75 No, From To ienc Vol % Vol % Vol % Vol % Vol c Vol % Vol c Vol c Vol % Vol % Vol Ic Vol % Vol % Vol % Vol % Vol % Vol % Vol %a In 0 . 432-520 Coast Hwy. (Reloc) Brookhurst Newport Shores Area 46 43 3 8 1. 7 7. 0 15. 2 4. 8 10.4 . 8 1. 7 1. 2 2. 2 .4 9 - - - - 1. 3 2. 8 , 2 .4 1. 5 1 3. 3 1. 7 3. 7 1. 8 3. 9 2. 9 6. 3 3. 2 7. 0 4. 9 10. 6 - - - - W 520-228 Coast Hwy. (Reloc) Newport Shores Area Interchange 62 43 19 1. 1 1. 8 9. 2 14. 8 5. 6 9. 0 1. 1 1. 8 1. 4 2. 3 . 6 1 . 0 . 1 . 2 . 1 . 2 2.2 3. 6 , 3 . 5 1. 71 2. 7 2. 0 3. 2 2. 1 3.4 3. 4 5. 5 4. 3 6. 9 21.4 34. 5 . 1 . 2 .2 . 3 leg 228-553 Coast Hwy. (Reloc) Interchange 15th Street 50 43 7 3. 6 7.2 11. 8 23. 6 7. 0 14. 0 1. 2 2.4 1. 6 3.2 - - - - - - 2. 5 5. 0 ,4 . 8 2.21 4.4 - - - - 4.4 8. 8 5. 4 10. 8 8.4 16.4 - - - - Z 155-158 Coast Hwy. Newport Blvd. Riverside Ave. 51 36 15 1. 3 2. 5 12.4 24. 3 3. 8 7.4 2. 4 4.7 3. 2 6. 3 . 5 1. 0 . 7 1.4 . 5 1.0 8.2 16. 1 . 8 1. 6 3. 51 6. 9 1. 3 2. 5 1. 3 2. 5 14. 2 27. 8 2. 8 5. 5 3. 7 7. 2 - - - - 158-159 Coast Hwy. Riverside Ave. Dover Dr. 43 36 .7 1. 0 2. 3 10. 2 23. 7 3. 0 7. 0 2. 8 6. 5 3. 6 8.4 . 8 1. 9 . 9 2. 1 . 7 1. 6 9.7 22. 6 . 9 2. 1 3. 9 9. 1 1. 3 3. 0 1. 3 3. 0 5. 8 13. 5 2. 4 5. 6 3. 2 7.4 - - - - LL 220-221 Coast Hwy. Bayside Dr. Jamboree Rd. 64 43 21 -. 8 1. 3 7. 2 11. 2 2.4 3. 8 5. 9 9.2 7. 2 11. 2 1. 6 2. 5 2. 0 3. 1 1. 7 2. 7 20.7 32.4 1. 6 2. 5 6. 5 I10. 2 6. 6 10. 3 6. 7 10. 5 5. 0 7. 8 1. 9 3. 0 2. 9 4. 5 - - - - 221-222 Coast Hwy. Jamboree Rd. Newport Ctr. Dr. 59 43 16 . 6 1. 0 5. 8 9. 8 2. 0 3. 4 6. 4 10. 8 9. 5 14.4 1. 9 3.2 - - . 1 . 2 23. 6 40. 1 . 7 1. 2 4. 1 � 7. 0 4. 9 8. 3 5. 0 8. 5 4. 0 6. 8 1. 7 2. 9 2. 6 4.4 - - - 222-286 Coast Hwy. Newport Ctr. Dr. MacArthur Blvd. 46 43 3 .4 . 9 3. 6 7. 8 13.0 28. 3 3. 2 7. 0 12-2 26. 1 2. 3 5. 0 .4 . 9 - - 7. 5 16. 3 . 6 1. 3 2. 11 4. 6 2. 5 5.4 2. 5 5.4 2. 3 5. 0 1. 1 2.4 1. 7 3. 7 . 1 .2 . 1 . 2 286-226 Coast Hwy. MacArthur Blvd. E of Marguerite Ave. 52 32 20 . 3 . 6 2. 8 5.4 10. 8 20. 8 2. 6 5.0 24.7 47. 5 2. 1 4. 0 . 5 1. 0 .4 . 8 7. 5 14.4 . 6 1. 2 1. 6 f 3. 1 1. 9 3. 7 2. 0 3. 8 2. 0 3. 8 1. 0 1.9 1. 5 2. 9 .3 . 6 . 5 1. 0 155-156 Newport Blvd. Coast Hwy. Via Lido 59 50 9 .4 . 7 33.2 56. 3 20.2 34. 3 . 7 1.2 . 9 1. 5 . 4 . 7 . 5 . 8 . 5 . 8 3.1 5. 3 .2 . 3 . 9 1. 5 1. 0 1. 7 1. 0 1. 7 3. 1 5. 3 2. 0 3.4 . 9 1. 5 . 3 .5 . 6 1. 0 156-214 Newport Blvd. Via Lido McFadden Pl. 62 32 30 . 3 . 5 2.4 3. 9 22. 8 36. 8 . 1 . 2 . 2 . 3 . 1 . 2 . 1 . 2 . 1 . 2 . 7 1. 1 _ _ . 1 . 2 . 2 . 3 . 1 . 2 . 7 1. 1 .4 . 6 . 7 1. 1 . 1 . 2 2 . 3 231-236 Jamboree Rd. San Joaquin Hills Rd. Bonita Canyon Rd. 52 43 9 . 1 . 2 . 8 1.5 . 2 .4 6. 4 12. 3 .4 . 8 - - 2. 9 5. 6 8. 9 17. 1 37. 7 72. 5 7. 1 13. 7 1. 6 3. 1 . 8 1. 5 . 9 1.7 . 5 1. 0 - - - - . 5 1. 0 . 6 1.2 229-233 MacArthur Blvd. San Joaquin Hills Rd. Ford Road 55 43 12 - - - - - - - - 9. 0 16. 4. - - 7. 0 12. 7 - - 37.7 68. 61 - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . 6 1. 1 . 8 1. 5 234-239 MacArthur Blvd. Ford Road Bonita Canyon Dr. 49 43 6 - - - - - - - - 8. 5 17. 3 - - - - - - 31. 6 64. 71 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . 8 1. 6 1.2 2.4 442-464 MacArthur Blvd. Michelson Dr. San Diego Fwy. 55 43 12 - - . 2 .4 .2 .4 . 1 .2 .2 .4 . 2 .4 . 3 . 5 . 3 . 5 1. 9 3. 51 . 1 . 2 . 1 I . 2 - - 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 4 6. 9 12. 5 10. 8 16. 9 231-229 San Joaquin Hills Rd. Jamboree Rd. MacArthur Blvd. 47 43 4 - - - - - - - - 4 9 1. 2 2. 6 6. 5 14. 1 6. 3 13. 7 45. 9 97. 7j 2. 6 5. 2 - I - - - - - - - - - - - 1 2 . 1 . 2 • 243-477 University Dr. Corona Del Mar Fwy. California Ave. 65 43 22 . 1 . 2 .7 1. 1 . 3 . 5 .4 . 6 . 7 1.- 1 .2 . 3 2. 3 3. 5 1. 9 2. 9 9. 5 14. 6; , 8 1. 2 . 3 I . 5 .4 . 6 . 3 . 5 . 3 . 5 .4 . 6 . 6 . 9 - - 4. 3 6. 6 Outside Newport Beach City Limits N mil. a 7 f February 28, 1973 Robert N. Mayor, City Manager Petaluma California 94959 a bear Mr. Meyer. The City of Newport Beach, much like .Petaluma, has been experi- encing a rapid rate of growth- and 'is now preparing a new general 'l pIan to limit the City 's growth. After reading the article by M111iam McGivern , "Putting A Speed Limit on Growth", published in the November 19r2 issue of PLANNING, it became apparent that many of the problems experienced by Petaluma are similar to those facing Newport Beach, Th-e mothods •your city chose to salve its growth and development problems are most interesting and any in- formation you could send our papartment ,on this matter would be a great aid in preparing the oheral ' P'1an: If you have a stande-rd p-ackege df information that you make availa- ble to planning departments 'conderning your general plan program, it would be most appreciated •if' the fallowing particular items were also includeda' 1 . A copy of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. A copy of the Design Standards ; 3. The Residential Development Control System, Resolution No. 6113 N.C.S. August 21 ,- 1972; s' 4. A list of the Land Use Designations ; and S. The provisions establishing the Construction yy• Quota System. V Thank you for your assistance. Very truly yours , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V. NOGAN, DIRECTOR By ADVANCE PLANNING ADMINISTRATORjr � � RLG/CTB/ddb Wt:oor nz;tjoVe