Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
GPAC_2005_04_25
*NEW FILE* G PAC 2005 04 25 rA L • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA April 25, 2005 7:00-9:00 p.m. OASIS Senior Center 5th and Marguerite 7:00 I. Call to Order 7:05 II. Approval of Minutes March 7, 2005 7:15 III. Methodology for Minimum/Maximum Alternatives for Traffic Model Analysis 8:00 IV. Environmental Analysis of Land Use Alternatives 8:45 V. Discussion of Future Agenda Items 8:50 VI. Public Comments Public Comments are invited on items generally considered to be within the subject matter jurisdiction of this Committee -- Speakers are asked to limit comments to 5 minutes. Before speaking, please state your name and city of residence for the record. *Reports are available on line at www.nbvision2025.com DRAFT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, March 7, 2005, at the OASIS Senior Center. Members Present: Roger Alford Ronald Baers Phillip Bettencourt Carol Boice Elizabeth Bonn John Corrough Grace Dove Nancy Gardner Gordon Glass Members Absent: Patrick Bartolic Gus Chabre Lila Crespin Laura Dietz Staff Present: Louise Greeley Bob Hendrickson Mike Ishikawa Kim Jansma Mike Johnson Bill Kelly Donald Krotee Phillip Lugar Marie Marston Ledge Hale Tom Hyans (sick leave) Lucille Kuehn William Lusk Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia Temple, Planning Director Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant Members of the Public Present: Philip Arst Allan Beek Laura Curran I. Call to Order Brandon Johnson Carol Martin James Quigg Nancy Gardner called the meeting to order. Jim Naval Charles Remley John Saunders Jan Vandersloot Tom Webber Ron Yeo Raymond Zartler Barbara Lyon Catherine O'Hara (sick leave) Larry Root Hall Seely Peggy Spaulding Sharon Wright II. Approval of Minutes • Don Krotee asked that the tape from the December 13th meeting be reviewed, he felt comments he had made were omitted from the minutes. (NOTE: Staff reviewed the tape and comments were found on page 5 of the minutes.) The minutes for the December 13, 2004 meeting were approved as submitted. III. Other Land Use Alternatives Woodie Tescher reviewed the Other Land Use Alternatives Discussion Paper. The group discussed and voted on policy options for each section of the paper. 1. Lido Isle Gordon Glass asked if adding 300 properties was a real possibility. Ms. Temple responded that it might be difficult, but not impossible. John Saunders commented on adding additional restrictions such as design guidelines and felt that the committee should hear from homeowners who have had problems getting their improvements approved under current restrictions and suggested maybe we could recommend removing restrictions instead of adding more. Philip Bettencourt asked about the environmental baseline. Ms. Wood indicated our • environmental baseline is the higher number which is in the current general plan. Charles Remley asked if current regulations would allow a homeowner who currently, has a house on three lots to tear it down and rebuild two or three houses. Mr. Tescher stated the legal answer is yes. Ms. Gardner asked if there were any representatives from Lido Island on the committee. No one responded. Mr. Webber asked if this policy question would be asked for other areas in the City, such as Balboa Island. Mr. Tescher indicated right now it only pertained to Lido Isle. Mr. Tescher then called for a poll, asking for those in favor of limiting the number of units on Lido Isle to the existing development - a majority voted in favor. Mr. Glass asked if this policy had been approved by the City Attorney to make sure the City had the ability to take this action. Mr. Tescher indicated that it had not, but we would do that. Mr. Webber asked Mr. Tescher to poll the group also for those opposed on the question. When Mr. Tescher asked for hands for those opposed or those who wished to abstain no one raised their hand. Mr. Bettencourt stated he would feel better if we had input from Lido Isle residents or Community Association on this issue. • Mr. Glass also wanted to make sure that proposals being endorsed are actually doable. 2 Mr. Saunders suggested we look at reducing trips instead of looking at the maximum. • Mr. Tescher explained that under CEQA we were required to examine the worst case condition. Ron Baers asked if it was possible to get an opinion from the Association. Ms. Wood indicated that during this process we will have a public workshop which will include this issue; she also recalled the issue being raised in one of the Neighborhood Workshops during the Visioning Process. Ron Yeo recommended not waiting until the public hearing, and instead suggested notifying the Association to get their comment. Jim Naval stated he thought this committee's job was to listen and make recommendations about each issue, without getting caught up in laws and policies. Don Krotee asked where the ideas in the discussion paper came from. Ms. Wood indicated Ms. Temple had been talking about this issue for 9 years. Mr. Webber asked why this policy was not being looked at for other parts of the city. Ms. Temple stated she thought the only other area with a similar trend was on Balboa Island, she offered to do more research to check. Mr. Remley felt that most of the older homes that were built on split lots have been torn down and rebuilt. • 2. Balboa Peninsula, West Newport, and Balboa Island R-2 Districts Mr. Yeo asked if an existing duplex unit wanted to add another 200 sq. ft. to a 1,000 sq. ft. unit, could they do that. Mr. Tescher answered no, existing units would be grandfathered in but expansion of a unit exceeding the standard would be precluded. Mike Johnson asked if an R-2 burns down, under these rules could another R-2 be rebuilt or would it be prohibited? Ms. Temple explained under those circumstances they may be able to rebuild the non -conforming structure. Mr. Bettencourt asked if this would preclude a condominium because the ancillary unit would be too small. Ms. Wood indicated a small one would be allowed, whether it would be marketable is another question. Grace Dove stated she thought this was downzoning and eliminating affordable housing in these areas and she asked if the Coastal Commission would allow this type change. Mr. Tescher thought the ancillary units might be more affordable than 2 full size units on the site. Ms. Wood added that some of the older duplexes might be affordable; however the newer ones are not affordable. Mr. Glass asked if there had been a survey of the area to determine the ramifications of this change based on owner occupied, owner occupied with rental of second unit and absentee landlords. Ms. Wood indicated that residents at the District 2 Neighborhood Workshop indicated they wanted to promote more home ownership. It was felt that • where there are 2 units of equivalent size they are more likely to be short term rentals versus owner occupied units. 3 Mr. Johnson asked if a unit in his neighborhood recently converted from a duplex to a • single family residence could it convert back to a duplex under current circumstances. Ms. Temple responded that it could be done if they met the development standards, which would include parking requirements. Allan Beek asked that the Beacon Bay single family homes still be allowed to have servant or guest quarters incorporated into the houses. Laura Curran stated that if the restrictions were approved owners would think twice before redeveloping their properties, she also thought that more analysis should be done because of the difference in lot sizes and character between Corona del Mar and Balboa Island. Mr. Tescher called for the poll asking all those who support the policy option — 16 were in favor. 6 opposed. Mr. Tescher also addressed the Beacon Bay area and asked if that area should be redesignated R-1 which reflects the current development there — the vote was unanimous in favor. 3. Multi -Family Residential Area Bounded by Irvine Avenue, 151" Street, St. Andrews Road and Coral Place. Ms. Jansma spoke as a resident of the area and supported the trend toward single family homes to reduce the density of the area. Jan Vandersloot agreed stating we should do whatever possible to reduce traffic and • density. Mr. Yeo asked what the area was currently zoned. Mr. Tescher responded multi -family residential. Mr. Saunders also supports single family housing. Mr. Glass pointed out that condos would encourage home ownership and be more affordable, he also stated he wasn't sure if all the traffic is generated by the people who live in the area. Lucille Kuehn was not able to attend the meeting, however asked Ms. Wood to encourage the committee to think about affordable housing when considering these policies, she feels that it is needed in the community as well as greater diversity. Mike Ishikawa doesn't think the infrastructure in the area is set up for affordable or multi -family housing unless the traffic issues are addressed. Mr. Tescher called for a poll asking for those in favor of keeping the area as multi- family — 8 voted. When asked for those who would recommend going to single family — 13 voted in favor. 4. Multi -Family Residential Area Bounded by Westcliff Drive, Rutland Road (southern frontage), Mariners Drive and Buckingham Lane 0 Mr. Johnson thought the area should be considered for senior citizens. Mr. Hendrickson suggested considering density bonuses in this area to encourage • affordability. Ms. Jansma agreed pointing out the area had easy access and could handle higher density. Mr. Baers thought one of the attributes of the area is the mix of housing types. Mr. Vandersloot stated he would argue for lower density because of the high traffic at Irvine and 17t' Street. Brandon Johnson stated that multi -family units are more valuable than single family homes and if the area was rezoned the apartment buildings would never be refurbished. Mr. Tescher called for a poll asking for those in favor of retaining the multi -family designation — 20 voted. When asked for those in favor of single family designation — 3 voted. S. Santa Ana Heights: Properties Abutting Mesa Drive Ms. Gardner pointed out that medical offices require more parking and generate more trips. Ms. Temple confirmed that and indicated medical office generates more in the character of retail which is 3-4 times higher than conventional office and requires more parking. • Mr. Glass indicated he drove this area and didn't find any medical offices. Ms. Temple indicated there have been inquiries about locating there. Ms. Wood stated there was at least one application in the works for medical office there. Mr. Yeo asked if they were allowed there now. Ms. Temple stated they were allowed but no there is no policy to encourage. • Mr. Krotee asked if there was a benefit for the City having a general plan designation to welcome medical uses. Mr. Tescher stated the policy would be an economic strategy to bring more medical related uses to the city. Ms. Dove asked if inhere was any economic benefit to medical offices. Ms. Wood thought it might be better to discourage medical in this area and encourage it closer to Hoag Hospital. Ms. Gardner indicated that's what had been recommended. Ms. Jansma was concerned about increased trips between this area and the hospital which would heavily impact Irvine Avenue. Mr. Hendrickson thought this was the worst place to locate medical offices. Mr. Tescher called for a poll asking for anyone who would support emphasizing medical office in the area — no one voted in favor. 5 6. Westcliff Drive Southern Frontage West of Irvine Drive, and Dover • Drive Northern Frontage South of Westcliff Drive Mr. Saunders suggested dividing the area into 2 sections, top along Westcliff and bottom along Dover with Sea Gull extending up to divide. He recommended the Dover portion transition into multi -family residential. Mr. Glass stated these properties along Dover were not very deep and it would be very difficult for residential, placing the units between a very busy street and apartments. Mr. Hendrickson suggested higher density medical facilities. Ms. Gardner stated the area provides enough variety and flexibility to meet the needs of the owners and residents; so she doesn't see a need to change the designation. Mr. Vandersloot thought a multi -family or senior affordable housing would work well in this area. Phil Arst indicated studies show that office buildings lose money for the city; medical offices are worse and create more traffic; multi -family residential units cost the city more in services than they produce in property taxes. Laura Curran suggested considering mixed use with medical on one floor and residential lofts or condominiums above. Mr. Tescher called for a poll about the properties along Westcliff. The first question • was asking for those in favor of keeping it administrative professional office — 4 voted. The next question was to make it 100% retail — no votes. The last question was for those in favor of mixed use —18 voted. Ms. Jansma stated she was concerned about increasing the density with mixed' use development because of the traffic at Irvine and 17th Street. Mr. Tescher reminded everyone that the results from tonight's discussion will be used to fine tune the traffic analysis; however it has been found that mixed use reduces trips by 18-20% below commercial or office. Mr. Hendrickson asked for clarification on the term mixed use, is the committee being asked to vote on a mix of uses or is it residential above another use. Mr. Tescher explained we were currently talking about vertical mixed use, residential above. Mr. Tescher then called for a poll on the Dover area. First he called for those in favor of keeping the designation administrative professional office — 6 voted. Next he called for those in favor of multi -family residential — 4 voted. Next was changing the designation to vertical mixed use —13 voted. Mr. Glass pointed out that because of the size of the properties here we need to be careful to make recommendations that will work. 7. Coast Highway Bayfront Properties Southwest of the Bridge Ms. Gardner asked Mr. Corrough for his opinion about whether this change would help isbring marine related uses to the area. 0 Mr. Corrough indicated he had been working with the Nautical Museum's long range • plan and they have had to pull back some activities based on resident input from Linda Isle. He also thought that the site cannot handle an intensification of usage and added that access was very difficult now. Mr. Yeo stated he understood that the owner wants to convert the area to residential housing. Mr. Glass pointed out that the committee is charged with looking into the character of the city and that area is one of the few places that is a window to the bay. Mr. Corrough added it was one of the few places you can see tall ships, people building boats and kids learning about the water. Mr. Yeo added there is an alternative to preserve the museum as an educational museum. Mr. Tescher asked if there was anyone in the group that would suggest intensification of this property — no one responded. 8. Area Bounded by Jamboree Road, Camelback Street and Bison Avenue Mr. Hendrickson thought there would be room for one of the existing churches to expand but didn't think there would be room for additional facilities. Mr. Yeo asked what was considered underutilized on the property. Ms. Wood didn't think The Irvine Company would need to retain the corporation yard. Ms. Temple added the mini storage at one time was considered an interim use and that the corporation yard and Comcast were underutilized. Mr. Glass asked if the land that the post office is located on is government owned or privately owned and leased to the government. Ms. Wood indicated the latter. Ms. Boice stated she lives in the area and on Sundays parking spills over into the Bison Center, so it doesn't appear they have enough parking for the two churches there now. Mr. Glass suggested letting the market decide. Mr. Tescher called for a poll asking if anyone would be in favor of encouraging the clustering of churches in this area — I voted. 9. CalTrans Property Bounded by the Corona del Mar/73 Freeway, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard and University Drive Ms. Boice asked for clarification of the area because the San Diego Creek was not shown as well as catch basins and gullies and the roads are raised in the area. Ms. Wood indicated that the area is about 5 acres that does have some flat area at the bottom; the biological study showed there wasn't anything valuable there so there are no environmental concerns. Mir. Glass asked if it was CalTrans property or does the City have control over it. Ms. • Wood indicated that CalTrans owns the property but we can plan it. 7 Ms. Boice asked about access to the property. Ms. Wood indicated access would be off • MacArthur. Mr. Vandersloot made a motion to keep this area open space as well as area #10. Mr. Corrough thought access to the area would be too difficult and maybe unsafe and agreed it should be left open space. Ms. Gardner called for a vote on the motion — unanimously in favor of open space. 10. Remnant Property Adjoining the Corona del Mar/73 Freeway, North of Bison Avenue Mr. Tescher indicated there was no need to discuss 10 — no one objected. 11. Community -Serving Commercial Centers Located Throughout City (multiple sites) Ms. Wood explained that during the certification of our housing element, the State Department of Housing and Community Development suggested looking at strip shopping centers as other cities in the county had been doing. Mr. Ishikawa asked if we could consider mixed use. Mr. Tescher indicated we could. Roger Alford asked if this question changes decisions made previously by the subcommittees. Mr. Tescher indicated this question pertained to areas not discussed • previously. Ms. Gardner asked if this designation would help in terms of identifying potential sites for affordable housing requirements. Ms. Wood indicated that this change should only be made if we intend to implement it and if it makes sense for land use purposes. Mr. Saunders thought the policy should cover all retail centers, including the ones already looked at, or we should pick and choose each site. Mr. Vandersloot thought this policy would create more density in the city which is contrary to what people want. Mr. Remley talked about a market in Balboa Village that is closing after 50 years and the rumor is that family housing will be replacing it. Mr. Tescher called for a poll and asked for those in favor of this universal consideration of alternative uses at other commercial centers —1 voted. Mr. Saunders suggested having staff identify locations suitable for this change and then we could discuss each individually. Mr. Tescher indicated that this task would be too difficult, generally these areas are doing well and would be difficult to separate out those warranting consideration. Mr. Bettencourt thought it would be interesting to look at the trip making characteristics in a hypothetical model. • Mr. Henderickson felt that there are other areas of the city where affordable housing could be part of a redevelopment rather than redevelop these retail sites. Ms. Greeley asked about the affordable housing requirement and if we have • commitments for the development. Ms. Wood responded that the numbers .were assigned by SCAG and currently no development plans are in the works. 12. Child Care Facility on North Side of San Miguel Drive, East of San Joaquin Hills Road, and West of West Newport Hills Drive Mr. Glass indicated that speeds on San Miguel are very high and access is limited to signalized intersections; he felt the logical thing would be to let the Baywood owners add another building to the complex with access from within the complex. Mr. Hendrickson agreed that multi -family made sense with the condition that there be no access from San Miguel; this would eliminate a very dangerous traffic issue. Mr. Saunders pointed out that allowing multi -family creates tremendous value for The Irvine Company. Brandon Johnson stated he spoke with someone at The Irvine Company in charge of the property and that the school was going to transfer their long-term lease but The Irvine Company bought them out with the intention of turning it into multi -family residential. Mr. Tescher called for a poll asking for all those in favor of multi -family, with the restrictions discussed — 18 voted. Then he called for those in favor of the current designation of government, educational, institutional — no one voted. • Mr. Vandersloot asked if affordable housing could be required there. Ms. Wood indicated not in the land use element, but maybe in the housing element. Mr. Henderickson asked about current regulations/fees for affordable housing. Ms. Wood stated developers are required to pay a fee or provide the units on site. Mr. Krotee asked about the size of the parcel. Mr. Tescher indicated it was less than an acre. 13. Property West of Big Canyon Reservoir, North of Pacific View Drive Mr. Hendrickson asked if the multi -family designation allowed for condominiums as well as apartments. Mr. Tescher answered yes. Mr. Tescher called for a poll asking for all those in favor to re -designate multi -family residential where existing multi -family is today — unanimous vote in favor. IV. Discussion of Future Agenda Items Mr. Tescher indicated that at the next three meetings (April 25, May 2 and May 9) we will be reviewing the results from the environmental, fiscal and traffic models. Next there will be a public workshop. After reviewing all the information we will start selecting the preferred plans, which will then go to the Planning Commission and City Council. 0 Mr. Glass asked for a summary of the changes the Council had made after their review • of the land use alternatives. is V. Public Comments Allan Beek talked about affordable housing and indicated he felt in a beach community the only way,to make housing affordable was to subsidize the development. Brandon Johnson of Corona del Mar spoke about the Costa Mesa revitalization plan stating the need for this plan came from the affordable housing which had increased the crime rate and decreased the property values. Mr. Johnson also pointed out that people of his generation will be excluded from buying property in the city if housing is limited to single family homes. Phil Arst spoke about the affordable housing requirements in the housing element and thought that instead of saying affordable housing could go here, areas should be designated where housing could actually be built. Laura Curran of Corona del Mar thought we should consider looking at the Koll property area for housing because the large towers being built in Irvine will bring in desirable residents that could move to Newport Beach if the housing was built here. James Quigg of Costa Mesa spoke in favor of open space for Banning Ranch. 10 41Corporate Park Suite 300 Irvine.CA92606 949.660.1994main 949.660.1911fax www.urbanxroods.com April 20, 2005 Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Subject: Model Trip Generation for Subarea Land Use Alternatives Mr. Tescher: This letter has been prepared to document trip generation rates for the subarea alternatives suggested for analysis of the overall minimum and maximum intensity (in terms of trip generation) land use alternatives. Full analysis with the traffic model will be 191 run on four alternatives. Thirteen subarea land use tables were provided to Urban Crossroads, Inc. staff. Each table contains land use data quantities and comparisons for each option being considered for the subarea, as well as for the currently adopted General Plan. Several of the subareas are further segmented into individual Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) or even blocks. In some cases, the TAZ is larger than the study area. A total of 67 discrete alternatives have been evaluated. Urban Crossroads, Inc. staff has performed calculations on each subarea (or TAZ or block) to determine the approximate trip generation from the Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM). A separate sketch planning tool has been developed specifically for this task. Daily and peak hour trips have been computed. The resulting trip generation is used to determine the minimum and maximum intensity alternative from a traffic standpoint. We recommend that the identification of minimum and maximum be based on the PM peak hour, as the PM peak hour is the timeframe in which the highest number of operational deficiencies has been identified under the currently adopted General Plan. Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES • April 20, 2005 Page 2 1.0 TRIP GENERATION RATES AND ADJUSTMENTS In this letter, we provide information on trip generation issues (including adjustments to some standard/typical rates). Coastal trip generation for residential land use is compared with general residential trip generation by type. Mixed Use refinements are discussed. High-rise apartments trip generation rates are evaluated in comparison to typical apartments. Overall model trip generation rates are included as Table 1. These are typical calculations which change slightly based on changes in input variables such as median income. A. Coastal Trip Generation As the Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM) was developed, Urban Crossroads, Inc. staff determined (during model validation) that the traffic patterns/trip generation • rates in the coastal areas were different from elsewhere in the City of Newport Beach. The existing traffic model volumes were higher in the coastal areas than the count data. Occupancy factors and trip rates were developed for residential uses in the coastal areas during the validation process. The shoulder season (spring/fall) occupancy rate for typical City of Newport Beach residential uses is 95%. For Coastal areas, the occupancy rate is 90%. Trip generation rates from the model have been provided as part of Table 2. The trip rates in Table 2 include the occupancy factor. For total AM, total PM, and Daily trip rates, the range is between 79% and 88% of typical residential trip rates. The PM peak hour is the timeframe in which the highest number of operational deficiencies has been identified, and in the PM peak hour, the coastal trip rates are between 85% and 87% of typical. B. Mixed Use Developments Mixed Use trip generation information has been included as Appendix 'TG". Information has been gathered from sampling done by ITE and documented in Trip Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES • April 20, 2005 Page 3 Generation, 5i' Edition (ITE, 1991). More recent versions of ITE's Trip Generation do not include information on mixed use sites. There are two examples of mixed use developments containing residential uses in the 5th Edition. Internal capture (the proportion of traffic that would typically be generated, then distributed to the surrounding system that is instead served on -site as a result of the land use mix) has been identified. The first example contains 606 dwelling units and 64,000 square feet of commercial/office. The internal capture rates are 27% for the PM peak hour and 17% for the daily. The second example is for a larger site, with 2,300 dwelling units and over 160 thousand square feet of total commercial, office, restaurant, and medical center • uses. This site also includes schools, a church, and a day-care center. The internal capture for this site is substantially higher (45% or more for all time periods). An additional data resource was the Santa Monica Civic Center study. The Santa Monica Civic Center study included a 50% reduction for the retail component, but no reduction was done on other uses. The net result in the analysis was an overall reduction of approximately 10% A final data resource consulted was the San Diego Association of Governments trip generation handbook. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAL) trip generation handbook suggests up to a 10% reduction. Based on the examples cited, an adjustment factor of 10% of traffic for mixed uses will provide a conservative representation of trip generation. The factor is applied in cases where the land use has been defined as mixed use development. Where both the mixed use and coastal factors are applicable, only one is applied to avoid Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES • April 20, 2005 Page 4 overstating trip generation benefits. Later sections of this letter will discuss individual sub -area land use representation. To assist with land use planning refinements in mixed use areas, conversion factors have been developed from the rates presented in Table 1. Table 3 contains the results of this analysis for the PM peak period. As shown in Table 3, for the PM peak hour, a reduction of one single-family detached residence allows 220 square feet of commercial without an increase in trip generation. A transfer the other direction (from commercial to single-family detached residential) could be performed to increase dwelling units by 4.49 for every thousand square feet of commercial lost. Similar conversion factors are included for single-family attached and apartment residential uses. • The factors presented in Table 3 are related to the PM peak period (consistent with other trip generation calculations for Newport Beach modeling purposes). Conversion factors could potentially be related to daily traffic or AM peak hour, or a subset of AM or PM peak hour total. These factors are included in Table 4. The worst case conversion for each type of residential use is included in Table 5. To provide the most conservative conversion, AM peak hour inbound rates should govern for converting residential uses to commercial (approximately 70 to 120 square feet per dwelling unit). To convert from commercial to residential using the worst case conversion factor, the AM outbound should be used (and 1.25 to 1.67 units would result from a reduction of 1 thousand square feet of commercial). C. High -Rise Apartments High-rise apartments are a special apartment use. As defined by ITE Trip, Generation Manual, 7t' edition (2003), high-rise apartments have more than 10 floors and typically include one or two elevators. Trip Generation rates for high-rise �J Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES • April 20, 2005 Page 5 apartments are compared to general apartment trip generation rates in Table 6. As shown in Table 3, the ratio of trip generation for high-rise apartments to apartments ranges from 0.56 to 0.63 trips, depending on the time period. Because the ITE rates show a trip reduction of 37 to 43% the factor of 20% used for high-rise apartments in this General Plan analysis is conservative. 2.0 SUBAREA LAND USE ALTERNATIVES A. Airport Area For the Airport Area, three alternative scenarios (in addition to the currently adopted General Plan) have been presented. All residential use in the Airport Area is either high-rise apartments, or mixed use residential. Option 2 contains 295 mixed use • residences and 2,104 high-rise apartments. Option 3 includes 589 mixed use residences and 6,633 high-rise apartments. There is no residential component for the currently adopted General Plan or for Option 1. Table 7 summarizes the results of the analysis. PM peak hour trip generation ranges from 10,168 peak hour trips to 13,556 peak hour trips. The currently adopted General Plan generates the lowest number of trips, while option 3 generates the most PM peak hour trips. Daily trip generation follows the same pattern as for the PM peak hour (currently adopted General Plan has the minimum and option 3 has the maximum). The AM peak hour minimum and maximum follow the same pattern as PM peak hour and daily, but options 1 and 2 are switched. B. Balboa Village For Balboa Village, five land use options, in addition to the General Plan scenario, have been evaluated. Options 4 and 5 each have a mixed use component. There are 440 mixed use residences and 281,986 square feet of mixed use commercial in • Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES • April 20, 2005 Page 6 Option 4 and 308 mixed use residences with 205,150 square feet of mixed use commercial in Option 5. Table 5 summarizes the results of this analysis. PM peak hour trip generation ranges from 1,677 peak hour trips to 1,932 peak hour trips. Option 4 generates the highest number of trips, while option 3 generates the fewest PM peak hour trips. AM peak hour and daily trip generation follow the same pattern as for the PM peak hour (option 4 generates the most trips and option 3 generates the fewest trips). C. Banning Ranch For Banning Ranch, four alternative scenarios (in addition to the currently adopted General Plan) have been presented. Banning Ranch has not been analyzed as part of the coastal area. Table 9 summarizes the results -of the analysis. PM peak hour • trip generation ranges from 12 peak hour trips to 2,057 peak hour trips. The currently adopted General Plan generates the highest number of trips, while option 1 generates the fewest PM peak hour trips. Trip generation for AM peak hour and daily traffic follow the same pattern as for the PM peak hour (currently adopted General Plan has the maximum and option 1 has the minimum). D. Cannery Village Cannery Village is composed of two Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs), each of which is analyzed individually, as the options are not related and can be considered separately in the overall minimum and maximum intensity alternatives. TAZ 1449 is located west of Newport Boulevard south of 32nd Street while TAZ 1454 is east of Newport Boulevard south of 32nd Street. Because of the location, the mixed use residential in Option 1 of TAZ 1449 may be represented as coastal residential. The same is true of mixed use residential in TAZ 1454. In both cases, coastal 0 Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES • April 20, 2005 Page 7 representation has been used. TAZ 1449 also includes 96,050 square feet of mixed use commercial. TAZ 1454 contains 206,910 square feet of mixed use commercial. Table 10. summarizes the results of the analysis. Scenarios for TAZ 1449 include only the currently adopted General Plan and Option 1. For TAZ 1464, the currently adopted General Plan is considered, in addition to options 1 and 2. For TAZ 1449, PM peak hour trip generation ranges from 334 peak hour trips to 444 peak hour trips. The currently adopted General Plan generates fewer trips than Option 1. Trip generation for AM peak hour and daily traffic follow the same pattern as for the PM peak hour (currently adopted General Plan is the minimum and Alternative is the maximum). • For TAZ 1454, PM peak hour trip generation ranges from 280 peak hour trips for option 2 to 1061 peak hour trips for option 1. The currently adopted General Plan - falls into the middle, with 950 PM peak hour trips generated. Trip generation for AM peak hour and daily traffic follow the same pattern as for the PM peak hour (option 2 is the minimum and option 1 is the maximum). E. Corona Del Mar For Corona Del Mar, two alternative scenarios (in addition to'the currently adopted General Plan) have been presented. For Option 1, the 181 mixed use dwelling units have been represented as 45 mixed use units and 136 coastal units (depending on location). The same is true for Option 2. Options 1 and 2 each also include 90,256 square feet of mixed use commercial. Additional (non -mixed use) coastal apartments are included in Option 2. Table 11 summarizes the results of the analysis. PM peak hour trip generation ranges from 4,058 peak hour trips to 4,500 • peak hour trips. The currently adopted General Plan generates the highest number Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES • April 20, 2005 Page 8 of trips, while option 2 generates the fewest PM peak hour trips. Option 2 also generates the fewest AM peak hour and daily trips, and the currently adopted General Plan generates the most AM peak hour and daily trips. F. Lido Isle Table 12 summarizes the results of the Lido Isle analysis. Two land use options, have been 'evaluated (adopted General Plan and option 1). No trip generation adjustments have been made. Option 1 is equivalent to the existing condition. PM peak hour trip generation ranges from 718 peak hour trips to 916 peak hour trips. The adopted General Plan generates the most trips, and the option 1 generates the fewest PM peak hour trips. Trip generation for AM peak hour and daily traffic follow the same pattern as for the PM peak hour (option 1 generates the fewest trips and . the currently adopted General Plan generates the most trips). G. Lido Village Lido Village is composed of two Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs), each of which is analyzed individually, as the options are not related and can be considered separately in the overall minimum and maximum intensity alternatives. TAZ 1452 is located northeast of Via Lido. TAZ 1453 is located between Via Lido, 32nd Street, and Newport Boulevard. Table 13 summarizes the results of the analysis. Scenarios for TAZ 1452 include the currently adopted General Plan and options 1, 2, and 3. Option 1 contains 250 mixed use dwelling units represented as coastal and Option 3 contains 312 mixed use dwelling units represented as coastal. Options 1 and 3 for TAZ 1462 each contain 187,199 square feet of mixed use commercial. For TAZ 1453, the currently adopted General Plan is considered, in addition to options 1 and 2. Option 2 contains 61 mixed use dwelling units represented as coastal, and 30,274 square feet of mixed use commercial. 0 Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES • April 20, 2005 Page 9 For TAZ 1452, PM peak hour trip generation ranges from 579 peak hour trips to 874 peak hour trips. The currently adopted General Plan generates the fewest trips, and option 1 generates the most trips. Trip generation for AM peak hour and daily traffic follow the same pattern as for the PM peak hour (currently adopted General Plan is the minimum and option 1 is the maximum). For TAZ 1453, PM peak hour trip generation ranges from 558 peak hour trips for the currently adopted General Plan to 711 peak hour trips for option 2. Trip generation for AM peak hour and daily traffic follow the same pattern as for the PM peak hour (option 2 is the maximum and currently adopted General Plan is the minimum). H. Mariner's Mile For Mariner's Mile, two alternative scenarios (in addition- to the currently adopted General Plan) have been presented. For traffic modeling purposes, options 1 and 2 are identical, as the. model does not differentiate between different types of commercial uses ("marine -related" vs. "typical" commercial uses in this case). Mariner's Mile has not been represented as having coastal residential characteristics, so the mixed use apartments in Opions 1 and 2 are represented as mixed use. The mixed use commercial has been factored as well. Table 14 summarizes the results of the analysis. PM peak hour trip generation ranges from 4;599 peak hour trips to 5,304 peak hour trips. The currently adopted General Plan generates the fewest trips, while option 1 or 2 generates the most PM peak hour trips. The AM peak hour and daily trip generation follow the same pattern as the PM peak hour (adopted General Plan trip generation is less than option 1 or 2). I. McFadden Square McFadden Square is composed of two Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs), each of which is analyzed individually, as the options are not related and can be considered 9 Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES • April 20, 2005 Page 10 separately in the overall minimum and maximum intensity alternatives. TAZs 1450 and 1451 have been analyzed separately, with each having a currently adopted General Plan scenario and an alternative scenario. TAZ 1450 located east of Newport Boulevard in the vicinity of the intersection of Balboa Boulevard and Newport Boulevard. TAZ 1451 is located west of TAZ 1450. Table 15 summarizes the results of this analysis. TAZ 1450 contains mixed use residential (represented as coastal) and mixed use office. For TAZ 1450, PM peak hour trip generation ranges from 366 peak hour trips for the currently adopted General Plan to 601 peak hour trips for the alternative. Trip generation for AM peak hour and daily traffic follow the same pattern as for the PM peak hour (currently adopted General Plan is the minimum and the alternative is the maximum). Only the coastal residential adjustment applies to TAZ 1451. For TAZ 1451, PM peak hour trip generation ranges from 391 peak hour trips for currently adopted General Plan to 550 peak hour trips for the alternative. Trip generation for AM peak hour and daily traffic follow the same pattern as for the PM peak hour (currently adopted General Plan is the minimum and the alternative is the maximum). J. Newport Center / Fashion Island For Newport Center / Fashion Island, three alternative scenarios (in addition to the currently adopted General Plan) have been presented. All new apartments in Newport Center are High Rise apartments. Table 16 summarizes the results of the analysis. PM peak hour trip generation ranges from 10,178 peak hour trips to 12,289 peak hour trips. The currently adopted General Plan generates the lowest number of trips, while option 1 generates the most PM peak hour trips. AM peak hour trip generation follows the same pattern as for the PM peak hour (currently L� Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES • April 20, 2005 Page 11 adopted General Plan has the minimum and option 1 has the maximum). Daily minimum and maximum trip generation is in the same pattern as PM peak hour, but the two in the middle (Option 3 and Option 2) are switched. K. Old Newport Boulevard Three land use options, in addition to the General Plan scenario, have been evaluated for Old Newport Boulevard. Although there is a true mixed use development in Old Newport Boulevard for Options 1, 2, and 3, the size of the development precludes it from qualifying for mixed use factoring. Table 17 summarizes the results of this analysis. PM peak hour trip generation ranges from 830 peak hour trips to 1,471 peak hour trips. Option 1 generates the most trips, while the currently adopted General Plan generates the fewest PM peak hour trips. • Trip generation for AM peak hour and daily traffic follow the same pattern as for the PM peak hour (option 1 generates the most trips and the currently adopted General Plan generates the fewest -trips). L. West Newport Highway And Adioining Residential West Newport Highway and Adjoining Residential is composed of three blocks (A, B, and C), and one non -study area, each of which Is analyzed individually, as the options are independent of one another, and no land use allocation by block for the currently adopted General Plan is available. The currently adopted General Plan scenario contains all of the areas. Block B contains only one option, as does the non -study area. Blocks A and C each have four options. Alternatives have been defined for the 16 combinations of Block A and C options (with Block B and non - study area included in each for total TAZ alternatives). The only mixed use development is in Option 1 for Block C (348 mixed use dwelling units and 86,902 square feet of commercial). Table 18 summarizes the results of the analysis. PM 0 Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES • April 20, 2005 Page 12 peak hour trip generation for the TAZ ranges from 665 peak hour trips to 981 peak hour trips. The highest traffic generator for the PM peak hour is alternative 5. Alternative 5 contains option 2 (special needs housing) for Block A and option 1 (mixed use) for Block C (in addition to Block B and non -study area). Alternative 5 also generates the most AM peak hour trips and the most daily traffic. The lowest traffic generator is Alternative 16. Alternative 16 contains option 4 for both Block A (parking lot) and Block C (limited retail, housing, and hotel) (in addition to Block B and non -study area). Alternative 16 also generates the lowest AM peak hour and daily traffic, of all the alternatives. M. West Newport Industrial For West Newport Industrial, three options (in addition to the currently adopted . General Plan) have been presented. No adjustments have been made for this subarea: Table 19 summarizes the results of the analysis. PM peak hour trip generation ranges from 5,146 for Option 3 to 6,238 for Option 2. AM peak hour and daily trip generation follow the same pattern as the PM peak hour traffic. 3.0 SUMMARY Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide this letter report for your use. Based on the sketch planning analysis provided in the report we have provided recommendations to represent the overall least and most intense General Plan Buildout land use alternative for modeling purposes, as well as least intense alternative for options not including the General Plan. On Table 20, we have presented the alternatives for each subarea that will generate the fewest PM peak hour trips, the alternative for each subarea that will generate the most PM peak hour trips and the options for each subarea (excluding the currently adopted General Plan) that will generate the fewest trips. Traffic modeling of these three alternatives will commence upon receipt of your 0 Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES • April 20, 2005 Page 13 approval. Table 21 provides an overview of trip generation minimum, maximum, and currently adopted General Plan for all subareas selected for evaluation. Table 21 does not include the entire City of Newport Beach. Please provide any comments as soon as possible. Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide this letter report for your use. Please do not hesitate to give us a call if you have any questions. Sincerely, URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. wrtoo� Principal CW:MW:js JN:01232-17 • Attachments • h��c./G%2: � --�... M rlie Whiteman, P.E. Senior Engineer xc: Ms. Sharon Wood, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mr. Rich Edmonston, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Ms. Patricia Temple, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • • TABLE 1 MODEL TRIP GENERATION RATES NBTM LAND USE CODE NBTM LAND USE DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNITS TRIP RATE AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL DAILY 1 Res -Low SFD -Coastal 1 DU 0.19 0.50 0.69 1 0.41 0.27 0.69 7.50 1 Res -Low SFD 1 DU 1 0.21 0.64 0.84 0.49 0.30 0.79 8.63 2 Res -Medium (SFA)-Coastal 1 • DU 0.12 0.41 0.53 0.32 0.19 0.52 5.64 2 Res -Medium (SFA) 1 DU 0.13 0.55 0.68 0.40 0.21 0:61 6.66 3 Apartment -Coastal 1 DU 0.11 0.38 0.49 0.31 0.19 0.49 5.37 3 Apartment 1 DU 0.12 0.48 0.60 0.36 0.20 0.56 6.12 4 Elderly Residential 1 DU 0.11 0.29 0.40 0.27 0.18 0.45 4.90 5 Mobile Home -Coastal 1 DU 0.10 0.34 0.44 0.29 0.18 0.46 5.06 5 Mobile Home 1 DU 0.11 0.45 0.66 0.34 0.20 0.54 5.92 6 Motel 1 ROOM 0.40 0.13 0.53 0.23 0.34 0.57 6.08 7 Hotel 1 ROOM 0.51 0.17 0.68 0.28 OA3 0.71 7.58 9 Regional Commercial 1 TSF 1.14 0.49 1.64 0.93 1.25 2.18 23.48 10 General Commercial 1 TSF 1.78 0.80 2.59 1.53 2.02 3.55 38.24 11 Comm./Recreation 1 ACRE 2.12 0.80 2.92 1.42 2.04 3.46 MR 13 Restaurant 1 TSF 2.39 1.07 3.46 2.05 2.70 4.75 61.18 15 Fast Food Restaurant 1 TSF 2.94 1.32 4.25 2.51 3.32 5.83, 62.78 16 Auto Dealer/Sales 1 TSF 1 1.74 1 0.74 2.48 1.38 1.86 3.24 34.84 17 Yacht Club 1 TSF 1.30 0.49 1.79 0.87 1.25 2.12 22.71 18 Health Club 1 TSF 1 1.30 0.49 1.79 0.87 1.25 2.12 22.71 19 Tennis Club 1 ' CRT 1.35 0.54 1.89 0.98 1.37 2.35 25.26 20 Marina 1 SLIP 0.12 0.05 0.17 0.09 0.13 0.22 2.39 21 Theater 1 SEAT 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.34 22 Newport Dunes 1 ACRE 0.96 0.42 1.39 0.80 1.00 1.86 20.02 23 General Office 1 TSF 0.84, 0.26 1.10 0.39 0.65 1.04 11.08 24 Medical Office 1 TSF 1.14 0.39 1.53 0.64 0.98 1.63 17.38 25 R&D 1 TSF 0.57 0.17 0.74 0.25 0.42 0.67 7.10 26 Industrial 1 TSF 0.48 0.13 0.62 0.18 0.33 0.52 5.48 27 Mini-Stora eMarehcuse 1 TSF 0.40 0.11 0.51 0.16 0.28 0.43 4.61 28 Pre-School/Da Care 1 TSF 2:08 0.65 2.73 1.04 1.68 2.72 29.05 29 Elementary/Private School 1 STU 0.18 0.02 020 0.04 0.07 0.11 1.30 30 Junior/High School 1 STU 0.18 1 0,02 0.20 0.04 0.07 0.11 1.30 31 Cultdral/Learning Center 1 TSF 1.13 0.35 1.48 0.54 0.89 1.43 15.22 32 Library 1 TSF 1.13 0.35 1.48 0.54 0.89 1.43 15.22 33 Post Office 1 TSF 1.54 0.49 2.03 0.78 1.25 2.03 21.63 34 Hospital 1 BEDS 1.10 0.32 1.42 0.47 0.80 1.27 13.57 35 Nursin /Conv. Home 1 BEDS 0.12 0.08 0.20 0.08 0.10 0.18 2.00 36 Church 1 TSF 0.48 0.14 0.62 0.21 0.36 0.57 6.09 37 Youtervice 1 TSF 2.08 0.65 2.73 1,04 1.68 2.72 29.05 38 Park 1 ACRE 0.18 0.06 0.23 0.09 0.14 0.23 2.49 39 Regional Park 1 ACRE 0.18 0.06 0.23 0.09 0.14 0.23 2.49 40 Golf Course 1 ACRE 0.27 0.10 0.37 0.17 0.25 0.42 4.55 41 Resort Golf Course 1 ACRE 0.27 0.10 1 0.37 1 0.17 1 0.25 0.42 4.55 U AUcJobsl 01200101232\TG calc\ITGcalculator5.xlsl Rates lk I TABLE 2 MODEL RESIDENTIAL TRIP GENERATION RATE REVIEW NBTM LAND' USE CODE NBTM LAND USE DESCRIPTION UNITS TRIP RATE AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR I IN I OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL DAILY 1 Res -Low (SFjD)-Coastal DU 0.19 0.50 0.69 0.41 0.27 0.69 7.50 1 Res -Low SFD DU 0.21 0.64 0.84 0.49 0.30 0.79 8,63 Res -Low (SFD) Ratio 0.92 0.78 0.81 0.84 0.91 0.87 0.87 2 Res -Medium SFA -Coastal DO 0.12 0.41 . 0.53 0.32 0.19 0.52 5.64 2 Res -Medium (SFA) DU 0.13 0.55 0.68 0.40 0.21 0.61 6.66 Res-Medlum (SFA) Ratio 0.90 0.75 0.78 0.82 0.90 0.85 0.85 3 Apartment -Coastal DU 0.11 0.38 0.49 0.31 0.19 0.49 5.37 3 Apartment DU 0.12 0.48 0.60 0.36 0.20 0.56 6.12 Apartment Ratio 0.92 0.78 0.81 0.85 0.92 .0,87 0.88 4 Elderly Residenfiai DU 0.11 0.29 0.40 0.27 0.18 0.45 4.90 5 MobileHoma-Coastal DU 0.10, 0.34 0.44 0.29 0.18 0.46 5.06 5 Mobile Home DU 0.11 0.45 1 0.56 0.34 0.20 0.54 5.92 Mobile Home Ratio 0.90 0.76 0.79 0.83 0.89 0,85 0.85 U:IUcJobsl 012001012321TGCalclLandUseAltsTGComparel[rateReduceinvesttoation.xisl Res Rates 0 TABLE 3 CONVERSION FACTORS BASED ON PM TOTAL ONLY STARTING LAND USE I UNITS ENDING LAND USE I UNITS CONVERSION FACTOR Res -Low SFD DU General Commercial TSF 0.22 Res -Medium (SFA) DU General Commercial TSF 0.17 Apartment DU General Commercial TSF 0.16 General Commercial TSF Res -Low SFD DU 4.49 General Commercial TSF Res -Medium (SFA) DU 5.82 General Commercial TSF Apartment DU 6.32 ' TSF = thousand square feet DU = Dwelling Units • U:\UcJobsi 01200\01232\TGcalc\LandUseAltsTGCompare\[rateReduceinvestigation.xls]Conv(1) • IV TABLE 4 OVERALL MIXED USE CONVERSION FACTORS STARTING LAND USE I UNITS ENDING LAND USE UNITSI i PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN I OUTI TOTAL1. IN I OUT ITOTALI Res -Low SFD DU General Commercial TSF 0.12 0.80 0.33 0.32 0.15 0.22 0.23 Res -Medium (SFA) DU General Commercial TSF 0.07 0.68 0.26 0.26 0.11U0.170.17A artment DU General Commercial TSF 0.07 0.60 0.23 0.24 0.10General Commercial TSF Res -Low SFD DU 5.68 1.25 3.06 3.12 6.71 General Commercial TSF Res -Medium SFA DU 13.94 1.46 3.83 3.87 9.42General Commercial TSF A artment DU 14.66 167 429 4.25 10.05 2 TSF =thousand square feet DU = Dwelling Units U,\UcJobs\_01200\01232\TGcalc\LandUseAltsTGCompare\[rateReducelnvestigation.xis]Conv (2) • 0 TABLES ABSOLUTE WORST CASE CONVERSION FACTORS STARTING LAND USE I UNITSZ ENDING LAND USE UNITS I TIME PERIOU/1 DIRECTION CONVERSION FACTOR Res -Low SFD DU General Commercial TSF AM IN 0.12 Res -Medium (SFA) DU General Commercial TSF AM IN 0.07 Apartment DU General Commercial TSF AM IN 0.07 General Commercial TSF Res -Low SFD DU AM OUT 1.25 General Commercial TSF Res -Medium (SFA) DU AM OUT 1.46 General Commercial TSF Apartment DU AM OUT 1.67 2 TSF = thousand square feet DU = Dwelling Units U:\UcJobs\ 01200\012321TGcalc\LandUseAltsTGCompare\[rateReducelnvestigation.xls]Conv (3) • d 0 • • TABLE 6 APARTMENT TRIP GENERATION RATE COMPARISON' LAND USE I ITE CODEJ UNITS211 PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN I OUTI TOTAL 1 IN I OUTT TOTAL Apartment 220 DU 0410.3501 040022 0.2 6.12 -Rise Apartment 222 U 00.010 23 0 21 .High 35 4.2 0 Ratio (High -Rise Apt. /Apartment) 0.59 0.56 0.63 Source: ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition, 2003. DU = Dwelling Units U:1UcJobsl 012001012321TGcaiclLandUseAltsTGComparel[rateReducelnvestigation.xlsjTG 6 1] C C u N� Cl C J TABLE 8 BALBOA VILLAGE SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY COASTAL RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE YOUTH RES- RES- LOW MEDIUM APART- APART- GEN. COMMJ GEN. POST CTRI ALT (SFD) DU (SFA) DU MENT DU MENT DU COMM. SF HOTEL ROOM COMM. S REC. AC MARINA SLIP THEATER SEA OFFICE SF LIB. SF OFFICE S CHURCH S SERVICE SF TRIPS AM PM DAILY Option 4 O 6on 5 Adopted 3601 360 815 815 242 242 396 276 253.787 184.635 0 330 2AGOI 2.400 425 425 14 14 350 350 0 0 4.8 4.8 1.7 1.7 2 2 4.97 4.97 1.714 1.691 1.932 1.856 20.964 20.115 General Plan O 'to'1 0 8on 2 O 8on 3 375 381 378 375 815 815 815 815 242 242 242 242 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 34 34 34 217.34 214.34 214.33 217.34 4.25 425 4.25 4.25 14 14 14 14 350 - 350 350 350 89.26 89.26 89.26 60 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 2 2 2 2 4.97 4.97 4.97 .97 1,513 1,509 1.507 1.481 1.708 1.701 1,699 1.677 18.50411 18.432 18.410 18,180 U:1UcJobs\ 012001012321Exoe8[01232-17.xls]Balboa Village N, CJ 0 • ALT APARTMENT l HOTEL ► ^* TABLE 9 BANNING RANCH SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY GENERAL COMMERCIAL SF GENERAL OFFICE SF) INDUSTRIAL SF ELEMENTARY/ PRIVATE SCHOOL STU PARK AC TRIPS AM I PM I DAILY 50 235.6 164.4 0 0 2,163 2,057 22,335 75 0 0 500 771 1,621 1,560 17,016 35 0 0 500 401 884 828 9,059 25 0 0 0 101 302 328 3,528 0 0 0 0 201 13 12 134 Land use inclues 14 units outside Banning Ranch but in overall Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs)_ U:1UcJobsl_012001012321Excell[01232-17.xls]Banning Ranch N TABLE10 CANNERY VILLAGE SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY COASTAL RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE GENERAL COMMJ GENERAL YOUTH CTR/ RES-LOW RES-MEDI M ALT (SFD) (DU) (SFA) DU APARTMENT (D COMM. COMM. gsF RECREATION OFFICE ITSFI SERVICE TRIPS AM I PM I DAILY TAZ 1449 Option 1 Adopted 95 192 86.445 0 1 01 1 363 4441 4,810 General 1 Plan 95 0 74.9 20.02 1 264 334 3,601 TAZ 1454 option 1 Adopted 0 01 4141 186.2191 53.270 0.85 r 5T 4.65 830 1,061 11,457 General Plan 0 tion2 41 0 172 152 0 0 0 165.528 201.78 53.27 0.85 0.85 101.5 0 4.65 4.65 764 23- 950 280 10,239 3,029 U.\UcJobs\ 01200\01232\Excel\[01232-17.xis]Cannery Village �3 TABLE 11 CORONA DEL MAR SUBAREATRIP GENERATION SUMMARY MUCED MIXED RES-LOW SFD V APARTMENT USE USE GEN. GEN. POST COASTAL DU OTHER DU COASTAL2 DU OTHER DU ALT APT. DU COMM. SF CO IM. SF THEATER SEA OFFICE SF LIBRARY SF OFFICE SF CHURCH SF JPARK TRIPS AM PM I DAILY Adopted General Plan Option 1 0 lion 2 1629 16291 1629 1584 1684 1584 0 1361 211 54 541 79 0 41 41 0 81.185 81.185 538.63 428.839 335.411 500 500 5001 148.06 129.E 4.879 3.8 3.8 3.8 5.0 5.0 5.0 12.34 12.1 12.34 6.1 6.1 6.1 4.075 4.070 2,205 4,500 4,468 4,058 48,807 48,476 44,087 Land use inclues land use outside Corona del Mar but in overall Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs). s Some Coastal apartments also qualrfy as mixed use, but the coastal attributes are used. U:1UcJobsl 012001012321Fxce11[01232-17.xis]CoronaDelMar t'x. Cl TABLE12 LIDO ISLE SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ALT COASTAL RESIDENTIAL TRIPS RES-LOW (SFD) (DU) RES-MEDIUM (SFA) DU APARTMENT DU) AM I PM I DAILY Adopted General Plan 1040 102 26 885 916 10,021 O tion 1 797 98 26 694 718 7,858 U.\UcJobs\ 01200\01232\ExceR[01232-17.xls]Lidolsle It., TABLE 13 LIDO VILLAGE SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ALT COASTAL RESIDENTIAL HOTEL ROOM GENERAL COMMERCIAL (TSF) MIXED USE COMMERICAL (TSF) THEATER SEA) GENERAL OFFICE TSF) YOUTH CTRI SERVICE SF I CHURCH TSF TRIPS RES-MEDIUM (SFA) (DU) APARTMENT inin, AM PM I DAILY TAZ 1452 Option 1 0 250 200 0 168.479 0 0 6 0 707 874 9,420 Option 2 0 0 200 199.679 0 0 0 6 0 699 867 9,325 Option 3 0 312 0 0 168.479 0 0 6 0 600 761 8,224 opte General Plan 12 0 0 130.510 0 0 90.22 6 0 459 579 6,229 TAZ 1453 Option 2 01 611 01 125.7621 27.1991 6851 m on4l nl 26.01 567 7-ilT 7,644 Option 1 0 120 01 125.762 01 6851 98.004 01 26.01 525 642 6,907 opte General Plan 0 0 0 111.58 0 685 119.900 0 26.01 455 558 5,989 U:\UcJobs\ 01200\01232\Excel\[01232-17.xls]LidoVillage a { TABLE 14 MARINER'S MILE SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY RES- MLKLU USE MIXED JUNIOR NURSING YOUTH LOW APART- APART- USE GEN. GEN. /HIGH POST ICONV. CTRJ (SFD) MENT MENT HOTEL COMM. COMM. MARINA OFFICE SCHOOL OFFICE HOME CHURCH SERVICE PARK TRIPS AL7 DU DU DU ROOM SF S SLIP STU SF BED AC AM PM DAILY O tion 1 or 2 837 274 543 204 157.189 758.921 130 363.557 2184 0 68 59.68 35.68 0.4 4720 5,304 57.493 dopted General Plan 837 186 0 204 0 779.8 130 466.19 2184 9.9 68 59.66 35.68 0.4 4,122 4,594 49,783 U:1UcJobsl 01200101232\Excei1[01232-17.xis]MarinemMile TABLE 15 McFADDEN SQUARE SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY COASTAL RESIDENTIAL GENERAL MIXED USE GENERAL YOUTH CTRI RES-LOW RES-MEDIUM ALT((DU) (SFD) (SFA) (DU) APARTMENT DU MOTEL ROOM HOTEL ROOM COMMERCIAL (TSF) OFFICE S OFFICE S SERVICE S TRIPS AM I PM I DAILY TAZ 1450 Alternative opte 0 1591 1341 901 741 81.79 im 1991 nI 0 529 601 6.481 General Plan 0 159 3 16 0 67.59 0 35.75 0 305 366 3.955 TAZ 1451 Itemative To 22 110 5 3 183 93.218 0 0 Al457 550 5,926 General T4,221 Plan 22 110 5 3 22 82.75 0 8 0 313 U:1UcJobs\_01200\012321Exce11[01232-17.xls]McFaddenSquare N4 TABLE 16 NEWPORT CENTERIFASHION ISLAND SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY RES- HIGH RISE CULTURALI MEDIUM APART- APART- GEN. TENNIS GEN. MEDJGOV. LEARNING GOLF (SFA) MENT MENT HOTEL REG. COMM. CLUB THEATER OFFICE OFFICE CENTER LIBRARY COURSE TRIPS ALT (SU) (DU DU ROO COMM. S(CRT) SEA S _ SF S F AC AM PM I DAILY O tion 1 419 245 861 1513 1559 501.248 22 3850 3570.803 5 00.002 981 651 99.4 11,098 12,289 I 131,908 O tion 3 419 245 981 1036 1633.84 302.98 22 3850 3283.721 351.95 401 651 99.41 9,789 IFITRI 116,168 O 5on 2 419 245 120 1038 1464 312.98 22 3850 4167.652 351.95 401 651 99AI 9.929 10,839 116.216 tlop General Plan 419 245 0 10361633.84 302.98 22 3850 3283.72 351.95 4D 65 99.4 9.129 10,178 109,174 U:1UcJobs\ 01200101232xExceR[01232-17.x1s]NewportCenter TABLE 17 OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ALT RES-LOW i (SFD) (DU) RES-MEDIUM (SFA) (DU) APARTMENT I DU HOTEL ROOM ] GENERAL COMMERCIAL (TSF) GENERAL OFFICE SF MEDICAL OFFICE SF TRIPS AMI PM I DAILY Option 1 200 379 297 53 169.786 0 169.231 1,337 1,471 15,899 Option 3 200 379 416 53 120.879 0 0 1,02,1 1,089 11,816 option 2 200 459 250 53 120.879 0 0 978 1,045 11,333 Adopted General Plan 205 379 8 53 66.381 135.731 11291 808 830 8,980 U:\UcJobs\ 01200\01232\Excei\[01232-17.xis]Old Newport IR TABLE 18 WEST NEWPORT HIGHWAY AND ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ALT RES-LOW (SFD) (DU) APARTMENT (DU) MIXED USE I APARTMENT (DU) HOTEL l(ROOM)l(ROOM) MOTEL GENERAL COMMERCIAL S MIXED USE COMMERCIAL S PARK AC TRIPS AM I PM I DAILY Altemative 5 462 291 313 0 0 0 78212 0 956 981 10,676 Ado ted General Plan 4621 2931 ol 01 901 50.031 ol 01 7431 7591 8.241 Altemative 16 462 Z-(31 ol ol 1451 18.1051 01 01 6781 6651 7,233 U:\UcJobs\ 01200\01232\Excel\[01232-17.xis]WNewportHwyRes TABLE 19 WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ALT RES-LOW (SFD) DU APARTMENT DU NURSING HOME (BEDS) GENERAL COMMERCIAL (TS GENERAL OFFICE (TSFl MEDICAL OFFICE SFl HOSPITAL BEDS INDUSTRIAL (TSF) DAY CARE (TSF) SCHOOL I (STU) PARK (AC) TRIPS I AM I PM I DAILY Option 2 98 2818 593 121.021 306.67 1023.03 1265 888.882 7.7 622 0.17 6,518 6,238 67,039 Option 1 98 2649 593 72.17 373.73 410.55 1265 1191.72 7.7 622 0.17 5,620 5.206 55,961 dopted General Plan 98 2649 593 72.17 373.73 410.55 1265 1191.72 7.7 622 0.17 5,620 5,206 55,961 0 lion 3 98 3172 534 72.17 502.03 348.92 1265 499.457 7.7 622 0 5,530 5,146 55,398 U:1UcJobs% 012001012321Exce11[01232-17.xs)WestNewportlndust .e 0 TABLE 20 RECOMMENDED OVERALL ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY SUBAREA TRUE MINIMUM SUBAREA OPTIONS ONLY MINIMUM SUBAREA OPTIONS ONLY MAXIMUM Airport Area Adopted General Plan Option 2 Option 3 Balboa Village Option 3 Option 3 Option 4 Banning Ranch Option 1 Option 1 Option 2 Cannery Village TAZ 1449 Adopted General Plan Alternative Alternative Cannery Village TAZ 1454 Option 2 Option 2 Option 1 Corona Del Mar Option 2 Option 2 Option 1 Lido Isle Option 1 Option 1 Adopted General Plan' Lido Village TAZ 1452 Adopted General Plan Option 3 Option 2 Lido Village TAZ 1453 Adopted General Plan Option 1 Option 2 Mariner's Mile Adopted General Plan Option 1 or Option 1 or McFadden Square TAZ 1450 Adopted General Plan Alternative Alternative McFadden Square TAZ 1451 Adopted General Plan Alternative Alternative Newport Center / Fashion Island Ado fed General Plan Option 2 Option 1 Old Newport Boulevard Ado tea General Plan Option 2 Option 1 West New ort High and AdjoiningResidential Alternative 16 Alternative 16 Alternative 5 West Ne ort Industrial O ton3 Option 3 O tion 2 ' Only alternatives considered are option 1 (e)isting densities) and currently adopted General Plan U:\UcJobsl_01200\01232\ExceI\[T17.xls]T20 "I I:t TABLE 21 OVERALL ALTERNATIVES SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY' SUBAREA MINIMUM CURRENTLY ADOPTED GP MAXIMUM AM PM DAILY AM _ [ PM DAILY AM PM DAILY Airport Area 9,692 10,168 108,771 9,692 10,168 108,771 13,181 13,35 145,76 5 Balboa Village , , , 1,513 1,708 18,504 1,714 20,964 Banning Ranch 13 12 134 2,163 2,057 22,335 2,163 2,057 22,335 Cannery Village TAZ 1449 264 334 3,601 264 334 3,601 363 444 4,810 Cannery Village TAZ 1454 231 280 3,029 764 950 10,239 830 1,061 11,457 Corona Del Mar 3,730 4,042 43,915 4,061 4,484 48,635 4,061 4,484 48,635 Lido Isle 694 718 7,858 885 916 10,021 885 916 10,021 Lido Village TAZ 1452 459 579 6,229 459 579 6.2291 707 874 9,420 Lido Village TAZ 1453 455 558 5,989 455 558 5,989 567 711 7,644 Mariner's Mile 4,100 4,566 49,473 4,100 4,566 49,473 4,698 5,275 57,183 McFadden Square TAZ 1450 305 366 3,955 305 366 3,955 529 601 6,481 McFadden Square TAZ 1451 313 391 4,221 313 391 4,221 457 550 5,926 Newport Center/ Fashion Island 9,129 10,178 109.174 9,129 10,178 109,174 11,098 12,289 131,908 Old Newport Boulevard 808 8301 8,9801 808 830 8,980 1,337 1,471 15,899 West Newport Highwayand Adjoining Residential 678 665 7,233 743 759 8,241 956 981 10,676 West Newport Industrial 5,530 5,146 55,398 5,62 1 5,206 55,961 6,518 6,238 67,039 OTAL 37,882 40,510 436,140 41,274 44,050 474,329 50,064 53,440 576,163 1 Summary includes subareas only and not the entire City of Newport Beach U:\UcJobs\_01200\01232\Excel\[01232-17.xis]TGrange M I; 11 • TRIP GENERATION An Informational Report Sth Edition W F� INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS LJ The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) is a professional society of more than 10,000 transportation engineers and planners who are responsible for the safe aA4 efficient movement of people and goods on streets, highways, and transit systems. Since 1930 the Institute has been providing transportation professionals with programs and resources to help them meet those responsibilities. Institute programs and resources include professional development seminars, technical reports, a monthly journal, local, regional, and international meetings, and other forums for the exchange of opinions, ideas, techniques, and research. • nir rr INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS 525 School St., S.W., Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20024-2729 USA Telephone: 202/554-8050 Telex: 467943 ITE WSH Cl FAX: 202/863-5486 © 1991 Institute of Transportation Engineers. All rights reserved. PUb1¢1t10n ND. IM16C IMIAGS1291 LJ • V111. Multi -Use Developments/ Quantifying Capture Rates Background A trip generation rate or equation is often used to forecast trips at a proposed development. This rate or equation is generally based on the trip -malting characteristics observed at similar stand-alone existing developments. Often a forecast of trips for a development consisting of several different types of land uses, or a multi- use development, must be made. A common method of developing this forecast is to apply the trip rate or equation for each individual land use in the proposed development and then add the forecasts together. This method does not take into consideration the fact that some of the trips counted at stand-alone sites are now being made within the multi -use development, either by vehicle or an alternate mode such as walking or transit. Probably the most common example of this trip -making occurs at mull -use developments containing residential and shop- ping areas. Some of the residents work trips and shopping trips are .made to the on -site shopping area. Another example is the devel- opment containing offices and a shop- ping/service area. Some of the trips made from the offices to shops, to restaurants, or to banks may be made on -site. These types of trips thus become internal to the multi -use site; they are "captured" on -site. Definitions A capture rate can therefore be generally de- fined as a percentage reduction in traditionally developed trip forecasts to account for trips in- ternal to the site. Depending on the methodol- ogy being used, the reduction may be applied to the total trips forecast or to individual land uses or components of the multi -use develop- ment. It is important to note that these "reduced" trips are applied externally to the site —at entrances, at adjacent intersections, and • Trip Generatdo,t, January 1991 ; on adjacent roadways. The reductions to inter- nal site traffic volumes would be appropriate if the internal trips are made by modes other than private vehicles. The trip reduction for captured or internal trips is separate from the reduction for pass -by trips described earlier. These are two distinct phenomena, and both could be appli- cable for a proposed development. Multi -use developments can be classified into two categories. The first consists of a combination of residential and non-residential land uses, and the second.consists of a combi- nation of non-residential land uses only. Cate- gory I will typically consist of one or more types of residences and a shopping and/or office component. Category II will typically consist of offices and a shopping/retail component, with possibly a hotel or motel. A central business district (downtown) is the ultimate case of a multi -use development. Downtown areas have a mixture of very diverse employment, retail, residential, and commercial recreation/hotel uses. Extensive pedestrian in- teraction occurs because of the scale of the downtown area, the ease of access, and the proximity of the uses. Some downtowns have excellent transit service. Auto occupancy, par- ticularly during peak commuting hours, is usu- ally higher in the CBD than in the outlying ar- eas. For these reasons, trip generation character- istics in a downtown environment are different from those found in outlying or suburban areas. Accordingly, trip generation characteristics in this text, and specifically in the case of apture rater at multi -use developments, are app icable to sites outride the downtown. A shopping center is also an example of a multi -use development. However, it has histor- ically been considered as an individual or single land use, and the associated trip generation rates and equations already reflect the "multi- use" nature of the development because of the way shopping center data in this report have been collected. Accordingly, capture rates are not 1-41 3� •I applicable and should not be utilized in the fore- casting of trips for shopping centers. Likewise, a subdivision or planned unit development con- taining general office buildings and support services such as banks, savings and loan institu- tions, restaurants, and service stations arranged in a park- or campus -like atmosphere should be considered as an office park, not as a multi -use development. Similarly, office buildings with support retail or restaurant facilities contained inside diouilding should be treated as general office buildings because the trip generation rates and equations already reflect this situation. Finally, it should be noted that the database for Land Use 270, residential planned unit development (PUD), contains sites that are generally only a combination of residential land uses. Accordingly, these trip rates and equations are generally not applicable to a Cat- egory I multi -use development. The PUD data may possibly be used if the non-residential component is an extremely small part of the overall site. Available Data Very little information is available on quantify- ing capture rates. The information generally consists of interview data where people are asked about their trip -making, actual vehicle trip counts, or a combination of both. Follow- ing is a brief summary of the known database, The Permanent Trip Generation Committee would be very appreciative of receiving any data not reported here. 1. Trip Generation at Special Sites, Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, Virginia, VHTRC 84-R23, January 1984. Driveway vehicle counts are available from one multi -use site. The site is located in a densely developed area located in the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C., and is served by transit. It contains 606 rental units, 555 of which are located in a high-rise, the remainder being multilevel townhouse units. There are ap- proximately 64,000 square feet of retail/office area, including a delicatessen, a commercial cleaning company office, two building contrac- tor offices, a restaurant, a bank, a hospital consulting firm, a direct -mail advertising firm, a real estate firm, a management consulting firm, and a dentist. Based on applying trip gen- eration equations, the following comparisons were made: Trin Pnrlc A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Haur Dall 7 -9A.M. 4-6P.M. ITE Calculated• 337 764 8222 6 803 Field Counted 440 559 205 27% 1 419 17% Ca tured 0 I Accordingly, 17% of the daily trips and 27% of the P.M. peak trips were internal to or captured on the site. During the A.M. peak hour the calculated trips were less than the measured trips, which implies there were no internal trips. This finding points out a problem inher- ent in this'method of calculating a capture rate. That is, it is assumed in the calculation that the ITE equation is valid for this site. In fact, the ITE equation represents an average of several sites, and appears to understate the A.M. trips at this site. This further suggests that the P.M. and 1.42 4 daily ITE calculated trips are understated, which would mean that the aforementioned capture rates are low. 2. The Brandermill PUD Traffic Generation Study, Technical Report, JHK & Associates, Alexandria, Virginia, June 1984. Brandermill is a large, planned residential de- velopment located approximately 10 miles southwest of Richmond, Virginia. At the time of the study there were approximately 2,300 Institute of Transportation Engineers d0 11 • occupied dwelling units, with 180 townhouse - style condominiums and 2,120 single-family detached units. Commercial development con- sisted of a 82,600-square feet shopping center, a 63,000-square feet business park, a 14,000- square feet medical center, and a 4,400-square feet restaurant. There were also recreational facilities, including a golf course, tennis courts, swimming facilities, and several lakeside recre- ation facilities. Finally, there was a day-care center, a church, an elementary school, and a middle school. The study had the overall goal of deter- mining the on -site (internal) and off -site (external) traffic generation at Brandermill. Data collected included the following. • Automatic machine counts at selected roadways or driveways serving specific land uses, • Manual driveway counts to supplement the machine counts, • Land use inventory, • Travel questionnaire distributed to resi- dences, • Travel questionnaires administered to pa- trons and employees of non-residential land uses, • Turning movement counts at selected lo- cations. Based on the various data collected, the follow- ing comparisons were made: Trip Ends A.M. Peak Hour 7-9A.M. P.M. Peak Hour 4-6P.M. Dail Total Generated 2,570 2,935 33,540 External 1,420 1,325 16 280 Captured 1150 45% 1 610 55% 17260 51% Thus, 51% of the daily trips, 55% of the P.M. peals -hour trips, and 45% of the A.M. peals hour trips were internal to or captured on the site. Additionally, 46% of persons employed in Brandermill also reside in Brandermill. Since the generated trips were actually measured, rather than calculated based on ITE rates or equations, this method eliminates the problem described in the first study. The travel questionnaires provided the following information: Hours Home -Based Trips with Destinations within Brandermill Home -Based Trips with Origins � within Branderml)& 7 A.M. to 9 A.M. 18.1% 50.9% 9 A.M. to 4 P.M. 44.4% 50.2% 4 P.M. to 6 P.M. 55.2% 34.4% 6 P.M. to 7 A.M. 40.6% 33.6% Daily 35.2% 39.1 % Shopping Center Trips with Shopping Center Trips with Origins Destinations Hours within Brandermill within Brandermill' 11 A.M. to 1 P.M. 65% 66% 4 P.M. to 6 P.M. 52% 66% Trip Generation, January 1991 TC't� I-43 a� 3. Trip Generation for Mixed Use Develop- ments, Technical Committee Report, COI- orado-Wyoming Section, Institute of Trans- portation Engineers, January 1986, This study was undertaken to determine how trip generation estimates using ITE rates com- pared to actual driveway counts at multi -use It is noted that some of the sites would be con- sidered a shopping center for trip generation results of the study are shown in purposes. The Tables VIII-1 through VIII-3.The following conclusions were drawn from the results of the driveway count comparison: a. Total daily trip generation for a multi -use site can be accurately estimated using ITE generation rates applied to individ- ual uses within a multi -use development. The 80/b difference observed in the study is not statistically significant. (Note: Based on the method of calculating cap- ture rates in the first study, overall 71/0 of the daily trips were captured.) b. Peak hour trip generation for a multi -use site using ITE generation rates applied to individual uses within a multi -use devel- opment may result in an overestimation of an average 2.5%. (Note: This means that for multi -use sites, peak hour trips as a percentage of daily trips is 2.5% lower than that calculated from ITE data. Based on the method in the first study, overall 28% of the A.M. peak hour and I-44 1 a to developments in Colorado and Wyoming. Also included were interviews that were aimed at de- termining whether persons entering and leaving multi -use sites came there for multiple pur- poses. The nine sites included in the study had the following sizes and land uses: 24% of the P.M. peal, hour trips are cap turgid.) The following conclusions were drawn from the results of the interviews. a. The percent breakdown by number of purposes for persons entering a multi -use site based on data contained in Tables VII1-1 and VIII-2 were determined to be: E erofPurpores Percent(Sto s) 7712 16or more 7 Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 • • .. Table VIII-1 Number and Percentage of Persons Entering by Number of Purposes (Stops) and Primal Multi -Use Sites Percent Frimary Destination 1 2 3ormore Total BanWSayin s and can 27 90.0 2 6.6 1 3.4 30 100.0 Hardware Store 20 66.7 9 30.0 1 3.3 30 100.0 Supermarket 189 79.1 40 16.7 10 4.2 239 100.0 Theater 27 93.1 2 6.9 0 0.0 29 100.0 OHlceWork Location 48 67.6 22 31.0 1 1.4 71 100.0 Small Retell Sho etc. 120 72.7 21 12.7 24 IIA.6 165 100.0 Restaurant Health Club 105 P80.8 18 13.8 7(5.4) 130 100.0 Post Office 7 100.0 1,41 1 D 0.0 12 fqO.4 0 0.0 7 100.0 Other 4 100.0 0 0.0 6 16.2 0 0.0 37 100.0 Total (Average 566 76.3 126 17,0 50(6.7) 4 742 100.0 Source: Colorado-wyon,Inp Section. ITE. 100.0 b. Using the interview data obtained in the study, it was determined that multi -use devel- opments could reduce trip generation of indi- vidual uses within the development by 24% (if all of these uses are present in the proportion noted). Because the 8% difference in driveway volumes in the first part of the study was not statistically significant, it has been concluded that most of the secondary trip purposes indi- cated by interviewees occur because of the availability of multiple retail outlets in close Proximity to major primary destinations, such as work locations, supermarkets, banks, restau- rants, hotels, and theaters in multi -use ddvel- opments. If the secondary destinations were not in close proximity to die primary destinations, trips to the secondary destinations would not occur or would occur at a much lower level. Trip generation for multi -use sites is largely a function of the square footage of primary desti- nation uses cited above. Table Vill-2 Number and percentage of Persons Exitinn Miati.i t.e ct.e� Trip Generation, January 1991 T(� I-45 to • • Table VIII.3 rrc r.t_ r]n.nrca inn with rlrlup_waV Counts Gom arisenvttry rrr Counted ",_.... ITE A.M. ,....... Counted _.. _.--- Counted Counted Counted ITEA.M. A.M. Pk. Pk. Hr. of A.M. Pk ITEP,M. P,M• Pk. Hr. ITEP.M. Pk. Hr. of PM, Pk. Hr. of ITE Dolly Dolly Tdps Pk. Hr. of Generato Hr. of Generator AdJ. Street Hr. of AdJ. Street Pk. Hr. of Generator of Generator Ad).Street AdJ.Street Site Trips (VPD NPDJ r (VP0) (VPH) (VPH) NPH) NPD1 (VPH) (VPH) (VPH) i 7,015 7,910 712 (11 1682 2) (7 9) (7 9) 920 0L2 J) (4.6) (4-6) 2 5 10678 6,830 952 505 248 247 1,368 1,806 5B6 1,078 1(46) 513 3 13, 61 11,706 1,734 (1172 1(7.9) T9 (121) (4.6) 4 14,815 13,716 1.339 1,136 0 1,984 (121) 1,460 .138 1(46) 5 5,388 5,179 445 (576 11.12) (7- 9) 6B2 (jg) (4.6) (4-6) 6 12.182 13,695 1.219 (1112) (7.9) 649 1,455 1,105 1.254 4-5) 7 27,004 24,462 3,603 (11.012) 2,448 3,8 _9 9) 2. 4B 3,827 (4-5) 2,891 (4.5) 3,765 2,891 (4.5) 8 14481• 18,303 1,575 (,44 1,180 343 (7.8) 551 1,810 1,556 (45) 1,334 1,556 (4-5) 9 11,873• T372 1,162 (11.12 676 (7.9) 9 1,479 (4 5) 697 1,200 (� , Total 116,997 109,IN 12,741 (1162) 9'160 8,520 6,162 15,331 10,801 13,211 10,074 Sourfe: Colondu-Wyommgscctmn, us:. t These numbers reflect a 25% sifter vacancy rate estimated by Grubb & His, March 31, 1985, for the Deaver o6ice mar cc. The data base in the study was used to develop the information in Table VIII-4, This table was derived by applying Fourth Edition Trip Gen- eration equations or rates to those sites in the Colorado Wyoming study that are not'shop- ping centers. The site numbers in Table VIII-4 correspond to the previous site numbers. Table 11III-4 Comparison of ITE Trip Generation with Driveway Counts Using 4th Edltlon Trlp Generatlon and Excluding Shopping Centers n u m....l.._, 1A_.,-1 Valiv A.M. Peak Hour r y ran. , �� , ,��, - Site No, ITE Counted Ca lured ITE Counted Captured ITE Counted Captured 1 323 365 0 640 1,491 700 821 D 6178 12,Q38 7 910 11,706 0 132 1,9oe 3 1,217 855 336 45/0 4 922 640 1,337 1,138 15,119 13,718 1,9/1 148 184 3282 0 461 504 15/9 0 4.8 5 179 0 5 7 3,878 2,448 1,430 4,019 2,891 1,128 1 30,408 24,462 5,946 20 % 37% 28% The following observations were made from the Table VIII-4 comparisons. a. Internal trips at multi -use sites can be significant; however, the capture rate varies considerably. During the A.M. peak the capture•rate at the three sites I-46 Tod having internal trips ranged from 30% to 37%, with an average of 33%. The aver- age rate was 29% during the P.M. peak, ranging from 15% to 45%. Finally, on a daily basis the average capture rate was 13%, with a range of 9% to 201/b. Institute of Transportation Engineers • • b. It is important to again note the problem inherent in calculating a capture rate by this method. However, the two sites that have basically retail and office land uses did not appear to have internal trips, All three sites having internal trips had a ho- tel or motel. 4. Travel Characteristics at Large -Scale Subur- ban Activity Centeta, JHK &.Associates, NCHRP Project 3-38(2), Report 323, October 1989. The findings of this study are !known to be ap- plicable only in major activity centers. The ob- jective of the project was to develop a compre- hensive database on travel characteristics for various types of large-scale, multi -use suburban activity centers. Data were collected at six -sites having the characteristics shown in Table VIII- 5. Data collection activities are shown in Table VIII-6. ary of finns er. tment to !internal is for neach of the and uses listed. It is noted that `larger centers" refers to the three centers having at least 15 million square feet each, whereas "smaller centers" refers to the remaining three having less than 8 million square feet. a Numbar of rooms at surveyed sItes,o Trip•Ceneration, January 1991 Office a. The proportion of employees who made intermediate stops within the activity center on their way to work ranged from 7% to 159/6> with an average of to%, The proportion on the way home from work ranged from 6% to 16%, with an average of 11%. The percentages were higher at the sites having relatively little retail activity immediately outside their boundaries, and vice -versa. b. The proportion of employees making midday trips internal to the center ranged between 290/6 and 33% at sites with at least 6001u of the work force in professional, technical, managerial, or administrative positions. If the propor- tion in these positions was less than 60%, the midday trips internal to the center ranged between 20% and 23%. c. The proportion of employees who used on -site facilities ranged as follows for the listed land use: Restaurant 6% to 65% Batik Health Club 1 to /oto8/8% o Travel Services 1 % to 12% Medical Office 1% to 5% Ta6fa vut_e TO 1-47 Ay r_1 LJ • Table VIII-6 d. The proportion of office visitors coming from within the center ranged from 15% to 5900n the A.M. peak period and from 15% to 680/a in the P.M. peals. Averages at the smaller centers were 30% in the A.M. and 33% in the P.M. For the larger centers these averages were 54% in the A.M. and 58% in the P.M. Retail a. 0 The proportion of trips generated by the retail sites that were internal to the activ- ity centers ranged from 7% to 68%, with an average of 37%, during the midday peak and from 7% to 57%, with an aver- age of 24%, during the P.M. peak. For the larger centers these percentages were 47% during midday and 31% dur- ing the P.M. peak. The smaller centers exhibited percentages of 23% and 14% midday and evening, respectively. Note: These percentages were derived from surveys at seven regional malls ranging in size from 970,000 square feet to 2.2 million square feet. Residential a. C. I.48 The proportion of employed residents who woik within the activity center ranged between 13% and 50%. This percentage averaged 31% for owner -oc- cupied units and 281/o for rental units. For the larger centers 33% of the em- ployed residents worked within the cen- ter. This percentage was 27% for the smaller centers. The impact of this relatively high internal trip -making on overall center travel pat- terns was minimal for two reasons. First, the number of units (and therefore the number of potential employees) is rela- tively small compared to the total num- ber' of jobs. Second, many of the resi- dential developments attract senior citi- zens and therefore have lower propor- tions of employed residents. Hotel a. The proportion of trips with origins or destinations within the activity center ranged from 13% to 53% in the A.M. peak period and from 15% to 46% in the P.M. peak period. b. For the larger centers the average per- centages were 37% in the A.M. and 36% in the P.M. In the morning peak period 29% of the trips entering the hotels originated within the center and 44% of the trips leaving the hotels were destined to locations within the center. In the evening peals period 35% originated from and 36% were destined to locations within the center. c, For the smaller centers the average per- centages were 19% in the A.M. and 27% in the P.M. In the morning peak period 14% of the trips entering the hotels originated within the center and 27W of the trips leaving the hotels were destined to locations within the center. In the evening peak period 33% originated from and 18% were destined to locations within the center. 5. Shared Parking, Barton-AschmanAssociates and The Urban Land Institute, 1983. This report contains data on the effect of the captive market. Table VIII-7 summarizes Ex- hibit 23 from that report, indicating the per- centage of employees who were patrons in the same nearby developments. This study reports sharing for parking, not trips. Institute of Transportation Engineers a4 • Table VIII-7 Effects of Captive Market Type of Develo ment I Averatte I Ran a Average Ran e Sln Ie-Use Site 29 0-76 19 G-78 Mixed•Use Site 61 22-85 28 0-83 All Sites 43 0-85 1 24 0-63 The ULI report also indicated a strong linkage between hotel guests and nearby restaurants or retail uses. In one survey of eight hotels, 73% to 100% of the guests indicated that they were also patrons at nearby retail establishments and/or restaurants, Another survey of six hotels indicated a range of 80% to 90%. It further stated that these results appeared to be consis- tent for both downtown and suburban hotels, G. State DOT Capture Rate Guidelines Florida has formal guidelines describing factors such as location of the site, market area!, and specific combination and amount of land use types. Florida DOT's capture rate guidelines are as followsl: Internal capture describes trips that are sat- isfied entirely on -site by using an internal circulation system. Internal trips that must use the external roadway network cannot be considered internally captured trips. 1, Use caution when allowing large num- bers of internal capture for a mixed -use development. A study by the Col- orado/Wyoming Section of ITE, Trip Generation Technical Committee, showed a lack of proof that large mixed - use developments have a significant in- ternal capture rate.2 2. Things to consider when looking at in- ternal capture are as follows: . I Excerpted from "Minimum Guidelines for the Review of Developments of Regional Impact (DIU)," Draft, November 1989. 2.Trip Generation for Mixed Use Developments," ITEIvurnal, pebmary 1987. • Trip Generation, January 1991 a. How remote is this project? b. What is the timing for construction of commercial facilities as compared to the timing for residential construction? c. Can those who work on -site afford to live on -site? d. Office uses may not attract on -site home -based work immediately, e. The commercial land use intended for drug and grocery stores will have larger internal capture percentages than large regional malls. f. What types of establishments off -site are there that will compete with on - site development? g. Is there an internal circulation system that enhances or discourages internal trips? h. Is there an internal shuttle system proposed and financially committed to? Conclusions Internal or captured trips can be a significant factor in the travel patterns at multi -use devel- opments; however, very few studies have been conducted to quantify this phenomenon. Be- cause of the very limited data base, it is not rea- sonable to draw conclusions regarding the specific value of capture rates or allowable re- ductions in trips to account for internal trips. Based on the studies reported in this chapter, however, several general conclusions can be stated: 1. Internal trip making varies according to the combination of land uses. a. Sites having both residential and non- residential components have the most T 11 I-49 a\1 • I-50 potential for internal trips, especially during peak periods. b. Sites having only non-residential com- ponents have the least potential for in- ternal peak hour trips; however, the pres- ence of a hotel or motel increases the potential. 2. Internal trip making varies by time of day; i.e., the capture rate can be expected to be different during the morning peak, evening peak, midday, and on a daily basis The variation can be expected to foMw logical rrip-malting patterns. For .example, there is little trip making be- tween residences and shopping/retail ar- eas during the morning peak hour. On the other hand, there is considerable trip - making between residences and offices during both morning and evening peaks. As a final example, there are considerable internal trips made between offices and shopping/retail during the midday, par- ticularly for lunch. 3. Use of existing ITE trip rates or equa- tions to calculate the base on which to derive capture rates is inherently incor- rect. The assumption is made that the individual land uses within the site being studied are "average," and thus the ITE rates•or equations accurately calculate the individual land use trips. The correct way to develop a capture rate is to actually count the individual land use trips and compare them with a count of external trips at the site. 4. The specific results reported in NCHRP 323 should probably not be universally applied to all sizes and configurations of multi -use sites. There are relatively few sites being developed and/or reviewed that have the size and configuration characteristics of suburban activity cen- ters (as defined in NCHRP 323). It is not clear whether the findings from such large sites are transferable to the much smaller sites that are much more common. Data Request for Multi -Use Developments The Institute is very much interested in in- creasing the data base on multi -use develop- ments and would be most appreciative of re- ceiving additional data. Submittal of multi -use development data is described in this chapter. The remainder of this chapter presents information on conducting a study of multi -use developments. Data Collection for Multi -Use Developments A trip generation study of a multi -use site re- quires careful selection and gathering of drive- way volumes for the site, interviews of the users and residents of the site, and the comparison to anticipated trip generation as if the site were a series of discrete, individual, isolated land uses. In selecting a site for a multi -use study, the following criteria should be adhered to: 1. The site should be fully developed. Sites new and only partially developed may not have reached a mature state and would not nec- essarily generate trips at the rate that a fully de- veloped site would. 2. The driveway serving the site must not serve any other adjacent property. If driveways are shared with another site, it is not possible to separate that traffic destined for the multi -use site. 3. Multi -use developments must meet the criteria described earlier. A great deal of data must be collected to conduct a multi -use trip generation study. A list of these data follows, adapted from the ITE Colorado -Wyoming Section report. Driveway volumes should be gathered for as long a period as possible. Some previous studies have gathered only 24 to 48 hours of data. If these are all that can be obtained, the time period should be during mid -week (Tuesday through Thursday) to avoid daily variations that may occur on Fridays and Mon- days. Ideally, seven consecutive days of data should be gathered, from which daily variations can be computed, and a weekday average and weekend average can also be calculated. Mini- mally, driveway counts should be made during tc, IZ Institute of Transportation Engineers w� NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS COMPARATIVE SUMMARY Airport Business Area Implementation of Option 3 under the Airport Business Area, which involves a significant increase in housing, would result in the highest demand for electricity, solid waste, schools, water, and wastewater services. Option 1, which involves an increase in commercial and office uses, would require the least demand of all three options. Similarly, Option 3 would also generate the highest amount of air pollutants related to reactive organic gases, nitrogen oxide, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide, while Option 1 would result in the least amount. Balboa Village Out of the five land use alternative options for the Balboa Village area, each alternative would require a variety of different service levels for electricity, solid waste, students, wastewater, and water demand. For example, implementation of Option 4, which involves new mixed -use within the subarea, would require the highest demand for electricity use and solid waste demand. Option 5, which would include new mixed -use with visitor serving accommodations, would require the greatest demand for water and wastewater use. Implementation of all land use options would result in approximately the same number of additional students within the subarea. Lastly, Option 4 would result in • the highest generation of air pollutants, while implementation of Option 3 (includes new water -related commercial uses) would generate the least amount. Options 1 and 2 both involve the reuse of existing commercial to residential uses, and would result in similar demand for public services and utilities. Banning Ranch Under the Banning Ranch land use alternatives, Option 1 (Open Space) would clearly represent the best -case scenario with regard to demand for public services and utilities, and generation of air pollutants. In addition, the entire subarea would be used as open space, and all biological resources onsite would be preserved. Conversely, implementation of Option 2 (Taylor Woodrow) would generate the most students and would result in the highest water and wastewater demand. Additionally, implementation of this land use option would also generate the highest amount of air pollutants, and disturb biological resources that have a rank value of 2 and 3. Options 3 (Reduced Taylor Woodrow) and 4 (Resort) would be substantially similar in their respective demands for electricity, solid waste, schools, water and wastewater use. However, Option 3 would generate fewer demands on electricity and solid waste services, but would generate higher demands in all other service categories (students, wastewater, and water) when compared to Option 4. Cannery Village Under the three land use alternatives for the Cannery Village area, Options 1 and 3 would • produce substantially similar demands, although for different service categories. Option 1 involves new mixed -use in Block A, while Option 3 would include new mixed -use in • Block B. Option 1 would generate the fewest middle school and high school students as well as the least demand for water and wastewater. Similarly, Option 3 would generate the least electricity, solid waste, and water demands and would also generate the fewest elementary school students and air pollutants. However, it should be noted that Option 3 would generate the greatest wastewater demands of all three alternatives as well as the most middle school students. Conversely, Option 2 (new residential use in Block A) would have the greatest service demands since this alternative would generate the greatest electricity, solid waste, and water demands, as well as generate the greatest amount of air pollutants. In addition, Option 2 would also generate the most elementary and high school students. Consequently, overall, Option 1 would represent the least intensive land use alternative under these three scenarios. Corona Del Mar In general, implementation of Option 1, which includes mixed -use of commercial and residential uses, would result in higher demands for electricity, solid waste, wastewater, and water demand. Implementation of Option 2 would include intensifying the commercial nodes with residential uses, which would result in slightly less amounts of criteria air pollutants (reactive organic gases, nitrogen oxide, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide). Lido Isle • Under the two land use alternative options for Lido Isle, Option 1 would result in no change from existing conditions. Implementation of Option 2, which is continuation of the existing General Plan, would result in greater demands for electricity, solid waste, schools, wastewater, and water when compared to Option 1. Option 2 would also generate a greater amount of criteria air pollutants. Lido Village Option 5, which would involve infill development consisting of retail use and mixed retail and residential uses, would generally represent the least intensive development option. Although Option 5 would only correspond with the lowest demand for water and wastewater when compared to all five alternatives, this option would require nearly the lowest service demand for the other public services and utilities as well. Conversely, Options 1 and 3 would represent the most intensive development alternative scenarios. Option 1, which would include mixed -use with visitor accommodation uses, would generate the greatest electricity and solid waste demand. Option 3 (mixed retail and residential uses) would generate the greatest water demand as well as the highest number of elementary and high school students. In addition, both Options 1 and 3 would represent nearly the greatest demand for wastewater services. Options 2 and 4 would be substantially similar, with development intensities falling between those of Option 5 and of Options 1 and 3. Option 2, which would include retail and visitor accommodation uses, would generate the fewest students. Option 4, which would involve retail infill uses on Block B and residential uses on Block C, would result in the lowest generation of electricity and solid waste services. However, overall as discussed above, Option 5 L] J would generate the lowest increase in service demand compared to all five land use • alternatives. Mariner's Mile The two land use alternatives proposed for the Mariner's Mile area would represent similar demand for electricity, solid waste, schools, wastewater, and water demand. Additionally, implementation of both alternatives would also generate similar amounts of criteria air pollutants as related to reactive organic gases, nitrogen oxide, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide as both options would result in the same extent of development. Specifically, Option 1 would represent no change from existing conditions, while Option 2 involves a conversion of 40 percent of existing uses to commercial - marine related uses. McFadden Square There are two land use alternatives proposed for McFadden Square. Option 1 would allow lodging or overnight visitor accommodations to be included in the area, while Option 2 would include mixed residential and office uses. Option 2 would represent the least intensive development alternative, requiring the lowest demand for electricity, solid waste, schools, wastewater, and water demand, as well as generating the least amount of criteria air pollutants. Newport Center/Fashion Island Under the three land use development alternatives proposed for Newport Center/Fashion • Island, Option 2 would result in the lowest generation and demand for solid waste, students, wastewater, and water, as well as criteria air pollutants. Conversely, Option 1 would represent the most intensive development under the proposed land use alternatives because this alternative would generate the greatest demand for electricity, solid waste, wastewater, and water services. Implementation of Option 1 would also generate the greatest amounts of criteria air pollutants (reactive organic gases, nitrogen oxide, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide). It should be noted that Option 3, although it would represent the mid -point between the service demands of Options 1 and 2, would generate the most students. Old Newport Blvd. Implementation of land use Option 1 would include medical office and retail uses, and vertical mixed -use (commercial and residential) within the Old Newport Boulevard area. Option 2 would include vertical mixed -use (commercial and residential) and an intensification of residential uses. The third land use option for the area would include also vertical mixed -use of commercial and residential, and affordable workforce housing. Under the three land use development alternatives proposed for Old Newport Blvd., Option 1 would generate the fewest students as well as the least water and wastewater demand. However, the proposed uses would generate the greatest amount of criteria air pollutants when compared to the other two land use options for the subarea. Option 3 would represent the most intensive development alternative because this option would • result in the greatest electricity, solid waste, water, and wastewater demand. In addition, 3 both Options 2 and 3 would generate the most elementary and high school students. • Implementation of Option 2 would generate the least amount of criteria air pollutants (reactive organic gases, nitrogen oxide, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide) when compared to the other two land use alternatives. West Newport Hwy & Adjoining Residential Four land use alternatives are proposed for the West Newport Highway and Adjoining Residential uses. Option 1 would include new multi -family residential uses, as well as vertical mixed -use of commercial and residential uses. Option 2 would allow special needs housing and hotel uses. Park and open space, as well as new commercial uses with lot consolidation, would be incorporated under Option 3. Option 4 would retain a parking lot and include limited rental housing and hotel uses. Implementation of Option 1 would require the greatest demand for electricity, solid waste, and school services. Option 2 would generate the greatest demand for water and wastewater services, and the least demand for electricity and solid waste services. Demand for these public services and utilities for Options 3 and 4 would fall in between. West Newport Industrial Under the three West Newport Industrial alternatives, Option 2 (intensification of medical uses with additional commercial and residential uses) would generate the fewest students and the least demand for electricity, water, and wastewater services. However, • Option 2 would generate the greatest demand for solid waste services, and result in the greatest amount of criteria air pollutants that include reactive organic gases, nitrogen oxide, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide. Conversely, Option 3 (expansion of existing mobile home uses) would generate the most students and demand for water and wastewater. However, it should be noted that Option 3 would generate the least demand for solid waste services. Meanwhile, implementation of Option 1 (no change from existing conditions) would fall in between the other two alternatives with regard to increased service demand; however, Optionl would generate the smallest amount of criteria air pollutants but the highest electricity usage. Overall, Option 2 would represent the least intensive land use alternative. 4 NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR LAND USE ALTERNATIVES The following table shows the percent increase or decrease in demand for public services and facilities under each land use alternative when compared to existing conditions. Specific public services and utilities evaluated for change in demand include electricity, solid waste, school service, wastewater, and water. :' WPERCEMT CIiANGE IN DErviAND = Y+ i _ `COMPAREI)To EXISTING CONDITIONS' Elementary Middle School High School ElectricitySolid Waste School Students Students Students Wastewater Water Aitport Business Area 0 addt'l 0 addt'i 0 addt'l Option 1-Increase in commercial and office uses 25.1'/c 27.2% students students students 29.1°/o 29.1% 408 addt'l 24 addt'l 48 addt'l Option 2-Slight increase in housing 26.4% 34.7% students students students 46.2% 50.7% 1,228 addt'I 72 addt'l 144 addt'l Option 3-Significant increase in housing 42.1% 56.5% students students students 107.7% 116.8% Balboa lrlla e Option 9--Reuse of existing commercial to residential uses 12.9% 6.7% -6.9% -14.0% A1.9% 5.9% 5.9% Option 2-Reuse of existing commercial to residential uses 12.8% 6.5% -7.3% -14.4% -12.3% 5.6% 5.6% Option 3-Water-related commercial uses 9.5% 5.3% -7.6% -14.8% 42.7% 4.4% 4.4% Option 4-Mixed-use 32.5% 22.4% -9.10/u A6.6% -14.4% 2.7% 20.4% Option 5-Mixed-use with visitor serving accommodations 16.2% 13.2% -9.1% -16.6% -14.4% 9.10/0 216% Banning Ranch 0 addt'l 0 addt'l Option 1-Open Space 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% students students 0.0% 0.0% 96 addt'l 105 addt'l Option 2-Taylor Woodrow 38015.2% 45986.5% 15080.7% students students 18161.9% 18140.8% 48 addt'l 53 addt'l Option 3-Taylor Woodrow Reduced 31072.3% 35755.8% 7532.4% students students 9325.2% 9313.9% Option 4-Resort 85616.4% 91028.10% 571.4"/o 1 addtl 2 addt'l 2057.0% 2057.4% April 19, 2005 N } -tfS"�.'?,v _ xs. .:i `�'-•����'~T��r wn '�'f^. .i?e-�.�74'.YgJ�KY''�": xisTWG,C6 iDMorts Electricity Solid Waste Elementary I School Students I Middle School Students High School Students Wastewater Water medical office, and addition of City Hall Option 2-Increase in commercial 22.0% 19.3% 30.5% 7.8% 13.9% 20.2% 20.2% Option 3-4ncrease in residential 17.3% 213% 249.4% 63.8% 113.2% 26.4% 26.496 Old New ort Boulevard Option 1--Block A -medical office & retail; Block B- vertical mixed use of commercial & residential 47.9% 12.8% -37.8% -91.0% -82.1% -57.10/o -22.2% Option 2-Black A -vertical mixed use; Block B- intensification of residential uses 17.1% -19.1% -37.9% -84.5% -75.2% -65.1% -35.9% Option 3-Block A -vertical mixed use of commercial & residential; Block B-affordable housing 9.8% -4.2% -12.3 % -87.4% -74.8% -61.8% 32.5% West Newport ANy & Adjoining Residential Option 1--Block A -multi -family residential -91.2% -94.5% -92.2% -98.5% -97.2% -93.8% -93.8% Option 2-Block A -special needs housing -89.10/0 -93.2% -90.3% -98.190 -96.5% -92.3% -92.3% Option 3-Block A -park, open space -100.0% -100.0% -100.0% -100.0% -100.0% -100.0% -100.0% Option 4-Block A -parking lot -71.30/. -89.6% -100.0% -100.0% -100.0% -100.0% -100.0% Option 5-Block B-no change, est. exist DUs -95.40/a -96.4% -95.4% -97.2% -96.8% -96.0% -96.0% Option 6-Block C-vertical mixed use -33.7% -74.2% -63.2% -92.9% -86.6% -93.1% -63.9% Option 7-Block C-DUs & hotel -91.3% -94.6% -92.3% -98.5% -97.2% -93.9% -93.9% Option 8-Block C-coml w/lot consold 79.3% -100.0% -100.0% 100.0% 100.0% -94.3°/u -94.3% Option 9 -Block C -limit rtl, hsg, & hotel 86.1% 94.6% 92.3% 98.5% 97.2% 92.4% 92.4% West Newport Industrial Option 1-No change from existing conditions 41.2% 37.7% 6.2% 2.2% 4.2% 18.4% 18.4 o Option 2-Intensification of medical uses with additional commercial and residential uses -36.4% 51.6% -65.4% -74.5% -69.9% -41.6% -41.7% Option 3-Expansion of existing mobile home uses 19.9% 13.9% 26.1% 1 30.0% April 19, 2005 0 n u NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR LAND USE ALTERNATIVES The following table shows the percent increase or decrease in air pollutant generation under each land use alternative when compared to the City's currently adopted General Plan. Specific air pollutants modeled include reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxide (NOx), particulate matter (PND, and carbon monoxide (CO). PERCENT CHANGE IN AIR POLLUTANTS = COMPARED TO ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN Air Pollutants %change ROG NOx PM CO Airport Business Area Option 1-Increase in commercial and office uses 70 75 75 75 Option 2-Slight increase in housing 78 74 73 73 Option 3-Significant increase in housing 109 85 83 83 Balboa Village Option 1-Reuse of existing commercial to residential uses 1 0 0 0 Option 2-Reuse of existing commercial to residential uses 0lsi7 0 Option 3-Water-related commercial uses -1 -1 Option 4-Mixed-use 24 15 Option 5-Mixed-use with visitorserving accommodations 16 7 Banning Ranch Option 9.-Open Space -100 -1 400 -99 Option 2-Taylor Woodrow -29 -25 -27 -27 Option 3-Taylor Woodrow Reduced 0 -60 -61 -61 Option 4—Resort -86 -83 -84 -84 Cannery Village Option 1-Block A -Mixed use 72 48 47 47 Option 2-Block A— New residential 1 3550 1 59.1 43 3247 Option 3-13lock B-Mixed use 455 105 80 5905 Corona Del Mar Option :--Mixed-use with commercial and residential uses 2 1 1 1 Option 2-Intensifying commercial nodes with residential uses 4 8 -9 -9 0 1 a C� J Beach General Plan D I S C U S S 1 0 N P A P E R Based on GPAC Review and Comments — March 7, 2005 EIP Associates INTRODUCTION A number of areas have been identified by City of Newport Beach staff in addition to those previously discussed by the GPAC as exhibiting conditions that may warrant revisions to the current General Plan land use designation or development standards. Generally, these are small in area and do not suggest the breadth of land use changes that were considered for the targeted study areas. This discussion paper describes the existing conditions, key planning issues, and land use and policy approaches recommended by the GPAC to address these issues for 13 areas of the City. These areas are shown in the following figures, and the location numbers in the text below correspond to the ones in the figure. PLANNING SUB -AREAS • 1. Lido Isle Existing Conditions and Planning Issues ■ Area is predominantly developed for single-family residential units. ■ It was subdivided originally for 30 foot wide lots; however, properties were sold by the foot rather than the parcel boundary. This resulted in a diversity of actual development, with many instances of housing that spans multiple lots (e.g., two units built on three lots). ■ Under the existing General Plan, theoretical buildout of the original subdivision would result in the construction of as many as 300 additional units. ■ Using typical trip generation factors for single family residential this could result in 3,000 to 3,600 additional vehicle trips per day on the Via Lido bridge. Policgy Recommendation (GPAC generally agreed with pursuing the merger program. Some members expressed need for further need for study and to obtain input from home owners association.) Re juired lot merger program, to be consistent with existing development. This would prohibit an increase in the number of residential units that may be constructed. •1. •r. to m*% iu —I I '.. f�;.\� •.. �;'i\ �; \`�`\`�I•x'4 �, \ �t '� \'t,� �'� ` '� 'on itsTSy t / /W42�ji \,!� ^• `,• t f 1 'fir I I f 'ti NEWPORT r:. SHORES SANTA ANA RIVE JETTY ti �• _[ice.;,^,( " ,�-, � _� 't; d'\`� �a"\, r4 \ Y T' ■ . t 'V� �I //� �`;/,'�;'1 "" \. ����` \\ /ff,<4 NORTH / STAR I ~ ~} ttlt. `-'Z�/<f\Cj�t �Q" \\,/ i .•+.. ti t.:._S.^'�� BEACH�..�' r �tV Pot `\`LINDAI LS E�\�\\� S� , *tf�r(f �' ,� \'\ :�,�'•r � \! ..`-�.!% J BEA`CO�N�.''"----`��-r`�-'�, 1 LIDO ISLE COLLINS r.... _. ISLAND -;i��2 t BAY ISLANDr NEWPORT ' `i-C7�r�,`�Y+. PIER �"�-K�•'' '"' 'g17Ji`.,LA' BALBOA ISLAND 4~ Z FIGURE 1 Not to Scale - Other Land Use Alternatives p 10794-00 Source: EIP Associates, 2005 City of Newport Beach ^ • • • z 2 pYA G NORTH JQ < STAR BEACH p 3\ 'Sr ySr 00, a z 0 a �O WEST COAST 7 _ _ - NEWPORT Y DUNE �? N t LINDA �NaO ISLE FIGURE 2 Not to Scale —INS— Other Land Use Alternatives r n 10794-00 Source: EIP Associates, 2005 City of Newport Beach T • • FF�q f Cj 00 w D.p Y 9 �Fs 00 9GR UPPER NEWPORT BAY tz o��ru Bf50N yE Qm - Ue FIGURE 3 Not to Scale -�- Other Land Use Alternatives 10794.00 Source: EIP Associates, 2005 City of Newport Beach kA • 0 GPAC DISCUSSION PAPER OTHER LAND USE ALTERNATIVES • Implications ■ Maintains and does not worsen existing level of impacts on traffic, parking, infrastructure and service demands, and general community character. This would reduce the potential degradation of the traffic level of service at the Lido Isle bridge that is projected to result from the theoretical buildout of the existing General Plan. ■ Eliminates the possibility for additional housing units in the area. 2. Balboa Peninsula, West Newport, Balboa Island, and Beacon Bay-"11-2" and "R-1.5" Districts Existing Conditions and Planning Issues ■ Areas contain a mix of single family and duplex housing units, with Beacon Bay developed solely for single family detached housing. ■ In recent years, there has been a trend to replace duplexes with single family detached units, due to land and housing values. ■ Beacon Bays residential was developed from tidelands and may be restricted from developing at higher densities. ■ Visioning Process neighborhood workshops revealed that the community is largely supportive, as this would likely result in higher rates of owner occupancy. • Policy Recommendation (GPAC vote: 16 for and 6 against) ■ Re -designate "R-2" and "R-1.5) areas as "R-1" with an overlay zone that allows accessory second units by right, where these would be limited in size to be consistent with the "small beach rental' character. • Implications ■ Depending on the scale of replacement, this would reduce impacts on traffic, parking, infrastructure and service demands. ■ At the same time, it will likely continue to enhance property values and provide more opportunities for housing ownership. ■ Small second units are unlikely to exacerbate infrastructure demands, as there would be no net increase in total housing units from existing conditions. ■ Small second units would result in lower parking demands than the existing "R- 2" and "R-1.5" designations. 3. Multi -Family Residential Area Bounded by Irvine Avenue,15th Street, St. Andrews,Road, and Coral Place Existing Conditions and Planning Issues Designated for "multi -family" and developed with a mix of housing units, including older apartments, small lot units, and single family detached units. 2 0 GPAC DISCUSSION PAPER OTHER LAND USE ALTERNATIVES • ■ The area is transitioning, with the replacement of higher densities for small lot single family residential and detached units. Rental units are changing to condominiums. Policy Recommendation (GPAC vote: 13 for and 8 against, with those opposed supporting retention of multi -family zoning) ■ Re -designate the area for single family residential. Implications ■ Provides more opportunities for home ownership, while reducing capacity for affordable units. 4. Multi -Family Residential Area Bounded by Westcliff Drive, Rutland Road (southern frontage), Mariners Drive, and Buckingham Lane Existing Conditions and Planning Issues ■ Designated for "multi -family" and predominately developed with older apartments. ■ The area is transitioning, with the replacement of higher densities to detached units. • Policy Recommendation (GPAC vote: 20 for and 3 against) ■ Retain the area for multi -family development and opportunities for affordable units, which may need to establish a required minimum density or establish a policy to preclude an overall reduction in the area's total number of housing units from existing. Implications ■ Provides the opportunity to assure capacity for more affordable units. S. Santa Ana Heights: Properties Abutting Mesa Drive Existing Conditions and Planning Issues ■ Designated for "Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial" uses. ■ The area has been re -developing largely for medical -related uses. Policy Recommendation (GPAC vote: unanimous) ■ Retain the existing land use designation and allow the mix of development to occur as driven by the marketplace. Implications ■ Neutral in comparison with existing designation. 3 GPAC DISCUSSION PAPER OTHER LAND USE ALTERNATIVES 6. Westcliff Drive Southern Frontage east of Irvine Drive, and Dover Drive Northern Frontage south of Westcliff Drive Existing Conditions and Planning Issues ■ Designated for "Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial' uses. ■ Area contains a diverse mix of uses including small professional offices, medical offices, financial institutions, specialty and boutique retail, restaurants, and similar uses. The mix serves both local residents and the greater region. ■ Some properties on Dover Drive are underdeveloped and offer opportunities for intensification. ■ Some redevelopment has been occurring. ■ Some conflicts with adjoining multi -family housing, where apartment tenants and visitors park in the commercial areas. Policy Recommendations ■ Westcliff Drive: designate the properties for "mixed use," allowing a mix of office and retail commercial uses (GPAC vote: 18 for and 4 against) ■ Dover Drive: designate the properties for "mixed use," allowing a mix of office and multi -family residential. (GPAC vote: 13 for and 10 against, with 6 of the former supporting APF and 4 supporting multi -family residential) • 7. Coast Highway Bayfront Properties Southeast of the Bridge Existing Conditions and Planning Issues ■ Designated for "Recreational and Marine Commercial' uses. ■ Area contains restaurant, museum, and other low -intensity commercial uses. It is likely that the water front location would warrant higher value and more intense development. ■ Permitted development intensity: floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.3 (equivalent to a one story building with surface parking). Policy Recommendation (GPAC vote: unanimous) ■ Maintain the existing designation and density. S. Area Bounded by Jamboree Road, Camelback Street, and Bison Avenue Existing Conditions and Planning Issues (same as preceding sub -area) Designated for "General Industrial' and "Government, Education, and Institution" uses. ■ Area contains a diverse mix of uses including churches, mini -storage facilities, SCE substation, Post Office, Irvine Company corporation yard, Comcast, synagogue, church, and Calty (Toyota design facility). • 4 GPAC DISCUSSION PAPER OTHER LAND USE ALTERNATIVES • ■ Many properties are considered as underutilized and offer opportunities for re- use and/or intensification. Policy Recommendation (GPAC vote: 1 opposed) ■ Maintain existing land use designations. 9. Cal Trans Property Bounded by the Corona del Mar/73 Freeway, Jamboree Road, Macarthur Boulevard, and University Drive Existing Conditions and Planning Issues ■ Vacant property; remnant from freeway construction. • The property does not have a General Plan or zoning land use designation. Policy Recommendation (GPAC vote: unanimous) ■ Designate for "open space." 10.Remnant Property Adjoining the Corona del Mar/73 Freeway, North of Bison Avenue Existing Conditions and Planning Issues ■ Vacant property owned by the Irvine Company, a remnant from immediately • abutting residential developments located to the west and functions as drainage corridor. ■ Designated by the existing General Plan as "Undesignated." ■ Topography and configuration limit its suitability for development. • Policy Recommendation(GPAC vote: unanimous) ■ Re -designate as "open space." Implications ■ Preserves open space and local drainage. 11.Community-Serving Commercial Centers Located Throughout City (Multiple Sites) Existing Conditions and Planning Issues ■ Designated by the existing General Plan as "Retail and Service Commercial' with a permitted development intensity of an FAR of 0.35. ■ Generally developed with a mix of community and local serving commercial uses including grocery stores, drug stores, small clothing stores, restaurants, and similar uses. 5 T 'GPAC DISCUSSION PAPER OTHER LAND USE ALTERNATIVES ■ Largely, buildings are set back from the street frontages, with one or two story buildings, surface parking, and extensive landscaping, and provide little or no direct access to adjoining neighborhoods or districts. ■ Most are economically stable. Policy Recommendation (GPAC vote: unanimous) ■ Retain existing land use designations and densities —no change. 12.Child Care Facility on North Side of San Miguel Drive, East of San Joaquin Hills Road, and West of West Newport Hills Drive Existing_ Conditions and Planning Issues ■ Single parcel developed with a vacant building formerly used as a child care facility (now vacant), abutting multi -family residential uses. ■ Designated by the existing General Plan as "Government, Educational, and Institutional." Policy Recommendation (GPAC vote: 18 for) ■ Allow conversion for multi -family residential uses, consistent with adjoining uses, and re -designate as "Multi -Family Residential," with no access from San Miguel • Implications ■ Provides additional opportunities for affordable housing. ■ Site size would limit increases in additional local traffic. 13. Property West of Big Canyon Reservoir, North of Pacific View Drive Existing Conditions and Planning Issues ■ Developed with church and senior affordable housing. ■ Designated by the existing General Plan as "Government, Educational, and Institutional." Policy Recommendation (GPAC vote: unanimous) ■ Re -designate as "Multi -Family Residential' to reflect existing uses on the site, protecting the seniors affordable housing. Implications ■ Maintains commitment for affordable housing. E G E CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2005 Meeting Schedule (Updated 4/20/05) OASIS Senior Center 5t" and Marguerite 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. April 25 May 2 May 9 May 16 • Future dates to be determined �1 E IP City of Newport Beach General Plan Update CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION REVISIONS OF GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Summary April 25, 2005 Planning Commission ■ Newport Center: add an alternative that increases residential capacity and reduce retail and office capacity to levels prescribed by existing General Plan. • Mariners Mile: delete GPAC alternative for the inland relocation of Coast Highway. ■ West Coast Highway Corridor: revise alternative to reduce retail commercial and increase housing capacities, while maintaining lodging capacity. City Council ■ Balboa Village: delete alternative for the conversion of all retail commercial and office for residential. • Airport Area: increase the capacity fox residential development (double levels defined by the GPAC) and reduce office/industrial capacity. • Corona del Mar: add an alternative that provides for the development of housing only along portions of the corridor. • West Newport Industrial: add an alternative that increases the capacity for housing on existing mobile home sites. i �- . N GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE • Monday, April 25, 2005 Roger Alford Ronald Baers Patrick Bartolic Phillip Bettencourt Carol Boice Elizabeth Bonn Gus Chabre John Corrough Lila Crespin Laura Dietz Grace Dove Nancy Gardner • Gordon Glass Louise Greeley Ledge Hale Bob Hendrickson Tom Hyans Mike Ishikawa Kim 7ansma Mike Johnson Bill Kelly Donald Krotee Lucille Kuehn Philip Lugar William Lusk Barbara Lyon LJ 1 Marie Marston Jim Navai • • GENERAL PLAN &ISORY COMMITTEE Monday, April 25, 2005 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESS/PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS /crc. 9 9 J-c;t cLl �f i.n 5cA &Qrp/ &v7i'I C6rqbQ V4on\� 60 C � GENERAL PLAN &ISORY COMMITTEE Monday, April 25, 2005 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESS/PHONE 11 E-MAIL ADDRESS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, April 25, 2005, at the OASIS Senior Center. Members Present: Phillip Bettencourt Carol Boice Elizabeth Bonn Gus Chabre John Corrough Lila Crespin Laura Dietz Nancy Gardner Gordon Glass Louise Greeley Members Absent: Roger Alford Ronald Baers Patrick Bartolic Staff Present: Ledge Hale Bob Hendrickson Mike Ishikawa Kim Jansma Mike Johnson Bill Kelly Donald Krotee Phillip Lugar William Lusk Marie Marston Grace Dove Tom Hyans (sick leave) Lucille Kuehn Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia Temple, Planning Director Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant Carleton Waters, Urban Crossroads Members of the Public Present: Allan Beek Jim Candelmo Marcia Dossey I. Call to Order Brandon Johnson Jill Kanzler Carol Martin Phillip Lugar called the meeting to order. Jim Navai Charles Remley Larry Root John Saunders Hall Seely Jan Vandersloot Tom Webber Ron Yeo Raymond Zartler Barbara Lyon Catherine O'Hara (sick leave) Coralee Newman • II. Approval of Minutes The minutes for the March 7, 2005 meeting were approved as submitted. III. Methodology for Minimum/Maximum Alternatives for Traffic Model Analysis Carleton Waters reviewed the report provided with the agenda packets. Ron Yeo asked if traffic on Jamboree took into account the' fact that Irvine has the residential and Newport has the jobs. Mr. Waters said yes, this information is considered in the modeling process. Lila Crespin asked for a more clear explanation of the adjustments made for the coastal areas. Ms. Wood explained that the model uses standard trip generation rates, and a model run was completed for existing conditions. When the results were compared to the actual traffic counts, they found the model numbers were much higher than the actual numbers in the coastal areas, so the model was adjusted to make the numbers match the actual traffic counts. Kim Jansma asked why the high-rise developments generate less traffic. Mr. Waters explained that the type of people who choose to live in these homes have smaller families or are professionals who have no children. Data from areas with high-rise developments show a decrease in traffic generation reduction between 35%-50%. Ms. • Jansma also asked about mixed use developments. Mr. Waters stated a good mixed use project would include housing, commercial and neighborhood serving commercial. Jan Vandersloot asked about the reductions and asked if that meant that more density equals less traffic. Mr. Waters explained that he was not saying that, he explained that if you were to put 20 units where there were previously 5, instead of the traffic increasing by 400%, it would only increase by 360%. There would be increases but not on a 1 to 1 basis. He added that they have been very conservative when determining the reductions, they do not want to understate what the City is facing in terms of traffic generation. Don Krotee asked if the same assumptions and reductions were used in the last general plan. Mr. Waters indicated that this process was modified from the previous structure, however Rich Edmonston indicated that this process is very consistent when what he has seen previously. John Corrough asked why beaches were not listed on Table 1. Mr. Waters indicated that beaches draw people mostly on the weekends and during the summer. The data collected was for .the shoulder season weekdays. Mr. Waters indicated that most visitors during this time also come for dinner or shopping so he felt the numbers were collected. . Gordon Glass asked about the regional traffic and if those numbers were included. Mr. Waters stated they were included as background assumptions for every alternative. 2 • Regional projections have been entered as well as some land uses for the cities of Irvine and Costa Mesa. Mr. Yeo asked if traffic counts had been taken during the summer months also. Mr. Waters stated they had been and had been presented to this committee in an earlier report. Mr. Vandersloot indicated according to Tables 20 and 21, if our primary focus is on traffic we should keep the currently adopted General Plan in 9 areas of the City. Ms. Wood explained that might be one option, however there may be other changes that could be made to reach the same goal. Ms. Gardner added that we are looking at several studies and we have to weigh all the factors, not just traffic. Marie Marston asked about the use of PM peak hour versus AM peak hour and if the model assumed there would be no improvements to any of the deficient intersections. Mr. Waters indicated that the PM peak hour was used due to the extra volume of traffic during that hour. He also indicated that the model would evaluate each of the alternatives using the same intersection configuration so that we would be comparing apples to apples. Gus Chabre asked if the study areas on the peninsula would be grouped together in order to get a feel for the type of traffic issues on Balboa Blvd. and Newport Blvd. Mr. Waters indicated that will be done in the modeling process. • IV. Environmental Analysis of Land Use Alternatives Woodie Tescher reviewed the Environmental Impacts Comparative Summary provided with the agenda packets. He reported there was a technical glitch in the data which dropped all of the single family residential in Corona del Mar out of the model, corrected tables will be distributed at the next meeting. Mr. Glass asked if there was a real chance high-rise developments would work in Newport Beach given the saturation of the market in Irvine and Santa Ana. Mr. Tescher suggested asking the fiscal analysis consultant that question. Ms. Wood added she had the same question, however developers have shown interest in bringing residential developments in our airport area. Patty Temple added that whenever properties become available there are more inquiries about residential than commercial development. Carol Boice asked about schools for the 1200 new students projected for the high-rise developments. Mr. Tescher thought the projection number was probably high however it would not bring it down to zero. He also pointed out that it is the responsibility of the school district to provide the schools. Ms. Boice also asked about the lack of data regarding the 7-12 grade students. Mr. Tescher indicated they were going to go back to the school district to check the information, because that is where this data • originated. 3 • Phillip Bettencourt asked about what school district covers the airport area. He also pointed out that some of the areas report number of students and others use percentages. Mr. Tescher indicated that in areas without residential they used percentages, however agreed it would be best for comparison if they were consistent. Mr. Bettencourt also pointed out that in the Banning Ranch area, even if the open space alternative was selected, it would be disingenuous to report that a 20 acre public park would not generate a demand and cost for electricity, traffic signals, street lighting, public restrooms, trash collection, etc. Tom Webber pointed out that the tables reporting a 90,000% increase is not really informative, the amount could have gone from a fraction to a manageable number, it might be more helpful to report the kilowatts instead of percentages. Mr. Tescher indicated they have that data, however they were attempting to simplify it for review purposes. Ledge Hale agreed that reporting kilowatt hours would be much easier to digest. Mr. Webber also asked if we could get the total number in Newport Beach today. Mr. Tescher explained that might be more difficult since they ran the calculations only on the study areas and not the full City, so it would not be a fair comparison. Mr. Vandersloot asked why the comparison did not include the existing conditions and currently adopted general plan. Mr. Tescher indicated that could be done. Ms. Boice asked if City Hall and a conference center were still part of the Newport Center area. Mr. Tescher said to scratch City Hall. Ms. Wood did not recall a conference center in the area. Mr. Yeo said he recalled discussion of a conference center as part of Option 1, and found a table dated August 23rd showing it in Block G. Mr. Tescher indicated he would check on it. Charles Remley asked if pollution from the airplanes at the airport as well as auto exhaust was included in the report. Mr. Tescher explained that this is strictly a calculation of amount of pollutants generated by the uses and the airport was not included. An air quality modeling study is different than what is required for general plans. Ms. Wood added she thought that may have been included in the EIR for the settlement agreement with the airport. She also added that this is the percent increase for land uses in Newport Beach and the airport is not in the City. Bob Hendrickson asked if we get all our water from the Metropolitan Water District. Ms. Gardner responded that we get some from our well. Mr. Tescher indicated information on this could be found in the technical background report. Marcia Dossey, Newport Beach, asked for clarification about why the airport fallout was not being considered, especially for the peninsula. Ms. Gardner indicated we are only evaluating land uses in the City, we are not evaluating the overall air quality within the City. Ms. Wood added that we are evaluating the impacts if changes were made to our current general plan. 0 • Hall Seely asked if the City is attempting to negotiate situations at the airport that would impact the level of use. Ms. Wood stated we are, however that's a long range plan. V. Discussion of Future Agenda Items Mr. Tescher indicated that next week Doug Svensson would be at the meeting to discuss the fiscal impacts of the land use options. Then the following two meetings Carleton Waters will be back to review the traffic analysis. He also reminded everyone about the public workshop scheduled for Saturday, June 25rn Kim Jansma asked for an explanation of the summary received tonight. Ms. Wood explained that after GPAC developed the land use alternatives for further study, they were presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council. After presentation, they made some changes and this is a summary of the changes they recommended. Mr. Yeo asked if this committee had been given a new matrix with the changes. Mr. Tescher said not yet, but it could be done. Mr. Bettencourt asked if staff could provide information on the public facilities component due to some of the properties that have been taken out of this process, i.e. Marina Park, City Hall, school sites, etc. Ms. Wood thought that would be too specific at this point. Ms. Boice asked if there was no location for a new school in the airport area, would that mean reducing the density of the plan. Ms. Gardner said that's what we are going to look at, if we look at an area and the plan doesn't make sense we can remove that option. VI. Public Comments No comments offered. 40 I7