HomeMy WebLinkAboutIS043_GPA080-1 DOCUMENTATION I5043
DRAFT
INITIAL STUDY
' FOR GPA 80-1
A proposed amendment to the Land Use,
Residential Growth, and Recreation and
Open Space Elements of the General Plan
of the City of Newport Beach , California .
tPrepared by and fo•r:
City of Newport Beach
3300 West Newport Boulevard
' Newport Beach, California 92663
( 714) 640-2197
' DRAFT COMPLETED : 2/5/80
FINAL COMPLETED:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Cover Page i
Table of Contents
I . Introduction 1
II . Project Description 3
III . Environmental Checklist Questions 5
IV . Environmental Checklist 11
V. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Analysis of Project 12
Mitigation Measures 13
Analysis No Development Project
• discussion 16
• description 16
comments 17
• mitigation measures 18
VI . Environmental Determination 19
VII . Nonstatutory Advisement 20
Appendix I - Analysis of potential impacts
not discussed in Section V . 23
Appendix II - Comments and Responses to Notice
of Nonstatutory Advisement 34
Appendix III- Minutes 54
Appendix IV - Staff Reports 80
I . INTRODUCTION -
This Initial Study summarizes and evaluates the environmental impacts
of proposed amendment to the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recre-
ation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan desig-
nated G. P . A. 80-1 . The purpose of this report is to comply with the
California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines , and
City Policy related to the aforementioned .
The document will be expanded and revised based upon comments received
during the official review periods and Planning Commission determin-
ations on the proposals .
This Initial Study consists of this document , subsequent revisions to
a said, staff reports on G. P .A. 80-1 , and other information presented
to the City of Newport Beach including public testimony at the Planning
Commission and City Council meetings .
The focus on this Initial Study is on the Environmental Impacts that
can be anticipated from the Amendment to the Newport Beach General
Plan ( G. P .A. 80-1 ) .
In order to accommodate possible Planning Commission and City Council
changes to the project, a Reduced Project and a No Development Project
are discussed in accordance with CEQAC in addition to the proposed
project.
This document has been prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, "State EIR Guidelines" and City Policies
on the aforementioned, specifically Section 15080 of the "State EIR
Guidelines . " Final action on the proposed project will not be taken
by the City of Newport Beach until such time as determination of
environmental impact through either a Negative Declaration or Environ-
mental Impact Report occurs .
The purposes of this Initial Study are to : 1 . ) Identify environmental
impacts ; 2. ) Enable the City to modify the project, mitigating adverse
impacts before an EIR is written or required; 3 . ) If an EIR is required,
to focus said document on only those potentially significant environ-
mental effects ; 4. ) To facilitate environmental assessment early in
the design of the project; and 5 . ) To provide documentation of the
factual basis for findings in a Negative Declaration if the proposed
project will not have a significant effect on the environment. This
Initial Study will be used in the following manner as defined in the
"State EIR Guidelines . "
" (d) Uses .
(1 ) The Initial Study shall be used to provide a written
determination of whether a Negati've Declaration or an EIR shall
be prepared for a project.
(2) Where a project is revised in response to an Initial
Study so that potential adverse effects are mitigated to a point
where no significant environmental effects would occur, a Negative
Declaration shall be prepared instead of an EIR. If the project
would still result in one or more significant effects on the environ-
ment after mitigation measures are added to the project, an EIR shall
be prepared .
(3) The EIR shall emphasize study of the impacts determined
to be significant and can omit further examination of those impacts
found to be clearly insignificant in the Initial Study . "
It is the intent of the City of Newport Beach to issue a Negative
Declaration for this project which could have 'a significant effect
on the environment, if the City can find on the basis of this
Initial Study that the project will not have a significant effect
on the environment. This will be accomplished as required by
Section 15083 of the "State EIR Guidelines . "
The City will prepare an EIR on this project if the findings , argu-
ments , or issues contained in Section 15084 listed below are sub-
stantial through the environmental documentation, process .
" 15084 . Decision to Prepare an EIR. (a) If the Lead Agency
finds after an Initial Study that the project may have a significant
effect on the environment , the Lead Agency must prepare or cause
to be prepared an Environmental Impact Report.
(b) An EIR should be prepared whenever it can be fairly argued
on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have
a significant effect on the environment.
(c) An EIR should be prepared when there is serious public con-
troversy concerning the environmental effect of a project. Con-
troversy not related to an environmental issue does not require
the preparation of an EIR. "
1
II . PROJECT DESCRIPTION -
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 80-1
An amendment to the Land Use , Residential Growth , Recreation and
Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan to include :
a) Chevron Service Station - proposed change on . 2± acres
■ northwesterly of the intersection of Coast Highway and
Dahlia Street, in Corona del Mar, from "Low Density
Residential " to a mixture of "Retail and Service Com-
mercial " and "Administrative , Professional , and
Financial Commercial " uses . Chevron USA, Inc. has
requested to expand their existing service station:
This amendment would make the land use designation
on the . 2 acres consistent with that of the existing
service station site.
b) Freeway Reservation East - proposed change on 25± acres
easterly of MacArthur Boulevard in Harbor View • Hills
from "Medium Density Residential " with a maximum of
one hundred units to "Low Density Residential " at
four D/U' s per buildable acre or "Recreational and
Environmental Open Space . "
c) Buildable Acreage - proposed change to the Land Use and
Residential Growth Elements of the General Plan , adding
policy language stating that at the time the Planning
Commission and/or City Council should review a Planned
Community Development Plan , Tentative Map and/or
environmental documentation •for a particular project,
consideration shall be given to deleting certain
sensitive areas from •the calculation of the total
number of residential units or square footage of
commercial development: to be allowed on a site as
follows :
1 . Riparian and other environmentally-
sensitive habitat areas ;
2. Flood plain areas ;
3. Coastal bluffs and bluff setback areas ;
For residential development, noise impacted
areas ; that is , areas where outside , miti -
gated noise levels are 65 CNEL or greater.
3
d) Location of Structures - proposed change to the Land
Use and Residential Growth Elements of the General Plan
adding to the list of areas where no structures shall
be built :
1 . Flood plain areas
2. Areas of slope greater than two to
one (2 : 1 ) .
e) • Master Plan of Bikeways - proposed change to the Recrea-
tional Environmental Open Space Element of the General
Plan as follows :
1 . Add a backbone bikeway on the westerly side
of MacArthur Boulevard from Ford Road to
the northerly City boundary.
2. Add secondary bikeways :
a. Bison Avenue from Jamboree Road
to MacArthur Boulevard,
b. Santa Barbara Drive from Jamboree
Road to Newport Center Drive West.
c. San Miguel Drive from Newport Center
Drive Fast to San Joaquin Hills
Drive .
d. Versailles Bluff-top bikeway from
Superior Avenue to Coast Highway
a.t Newport Boulevard.
e. Placentia Avenue from Superior
Avenue -to northerly City boundary
near 16th Street. A connecting trail
�, should be shown in Costa Mesa,
- III . ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST QUESTIONS -
FNVIRONMENTAL CNECFLIST FORM
Environmental Checklist Form
('ro Be Completed By Lead Agency)
i. Background
1. Name of Proponent City. of Nawnnrt Beach
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 3300 West New'
ew Ort
Boulevard Newaort Beach CA 92663 714 640-2197
3. Date of Checklist submission N/A
4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Newport Beach
S. Name of Proposal, if applicable General Plan Amendment 60-1
Ii. Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached
sheets.)
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, com-
paction or overcovering of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground
surface relief features? Y,
d. The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features? _
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion
of soils, either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of
beach sands, or changes in siltation,
deposition or erosion which nay modify
�• the channel of a river or stream or the
bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or
lake•? _—� "---
5
YES MAYBE. TO
y. I'a pu• ire uI people or prop.- :;. [u
geological hazards such ns rarth-
• quoi vs, �laud:lides, mudslid.•s, ground . . _ .. ..
tniIto 4•, or •.imilar hazard^?
7. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deteri-
oration of ambient air quality? _
b. The creation of objectionable odors? _
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture
or temperature, or any change in
climate, either locally or regionally?
9. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or
direction of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters? _
b. Changes in absorption rates., drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff?
C. Alterations to the course of flow of
flood waters? _
d. Change in the amount of surface water ^—
in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters or in
any alteration of surface water
quality, including but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or —
turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow of ground waters? _! _
g. Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions interception
withdrawals, if through
--— -- `-
interception of an aquifer by cots
ior excavations?
h. Substantial reduction in the amount -
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as
flooding or tidal waves? _
'� 6
' PI'F-7A:27
YES MAYBE tX)
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
�I a. Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any species of plants
(including trees, shrubs, grass, —
crops, and aquatic plants)?
�i
j b. Reduction of the numbers of any
11 unique, rare or endangered species
of plants?
C. Introduction of new species of
plants into an area, or in a barrier
to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any
,i agricultural crop? _
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including reptiles,
fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, —
or insects)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? _
C. Introduction of new species of ani-
mals into an area, or result in a -
barrier to the migration or movement
of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or ^_
wildlife habitat?
6. Noise. ` Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise �-
levels?
7. l.i_ft and Clark. Will the proposal produce
new light or flare?
S. Land the. Will the proposal result in a
subntnntial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area? _
ITS NAYHF NO
I 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
n. Increase in the rate of use of any `
natural resources?
b. Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
10. Risk of Crpset. Does the proposal involve
a risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiatiori) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? '
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the
location, distribution, density, or growth
rate of the human population of an area? —
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect
' existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
b. Ef`ects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazardous to
motor vehicles, bicyclists or
Pedestrians?
14. Public 6rrvice<, Will the proposal have an
�' rff:cr .;pon, nr result in a need for m_w or
nl!•.•red ;nvernmental services in any of the
foliow;:"; n-ea:: :
YES MAYBE 1:0
a. Fire protection? _
b. Police protection? _
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? _.
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
' f. Other governmental services?
15. Energy Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy? �.
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of !.
energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a
need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? _
b. Communications systems? _
c. Water?
I -
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17. Human llealth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
16. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open
�^ to the public, or will the proposal result
in the creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to public view?
i � 9
YES MAYBE NO
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result
in an impact upon the quality or quantity
I of existing recreational, opportunities?
20. Archeological/Historical. Will thv
proposal result in an alteration of a
significant archeological or historical
site, structure, object or building? _
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
' a. Does the, project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
or wildlife population to drop below
self—sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal'community, j
reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant ;
or animal. or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
I
( b. Does the project have the potential to t
achieve short—term, to the disadvantage
of long—term, environmental goals? (A F
short—term impact on the environment is
one which occurs in a relatively brief
definitive period of time while long—
term impacts will endure well into the
future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu—
latively considerable? (A project
may impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on each
resource is relatively small, but
where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment is —
sipnificant.)
d. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human Seings,
either directly or indirectly?
II ! . niscubsion of environmental Evaluation
1l'• R••ternination
On he :ompl�tvd by the lead Agency)
�0
Gema@Au PLAN PAepomewT 80-\
rl
I .i:w. 4,. r. 1p c(.L nO.• •4• - -�'c•.`,a�.a, Wit.":ie_r n" .. .. .. ._ ... �
fez
CA
Ck
10
it
n
•_ { F,,«t�.i.,t.';>. �''.a:.•.�:e::,�=r ••=o:�i:•. ::'f`'£µq�, 14,���s�>r,.�:.�Si•»±f'�:`:t n
xi ;x
9 q
. .. . .q a, 5 t. ';+N?;�,,. .'>'�Z'. � 4�:,�^`�,:t..:•�:C?S�i�Ce�• y'�iY',,jYS ... � � - � '
b t ,
b `{' 4i'3,�e-}.xl:l st•`��4f 1� ��C���y,•.•: 1 •C' t .._.._-._.._.___.
- b :.?. Ft,���:;1 sa t. , 1Y,1�rt�.�rS '" =•�'. set' ae1�1''t�S�" -::.'.•:��:�__:�,:..v_
C 41ryt,7�.r• 1 v"+ix„ 'n.'�u . .e v—; .. `i.• SCE � ...-_...-.�. . .'_ ._—..«_«.._.___
p ,fd,.. J; ,�Pt,u dt :, •-z � a1:�4k-•�>.Y.,1
•C!SiI�•'.'66L�.e84'V..l 1 .• .. Y
4. LO
� �Ir T'vC •' I'SitS `ii+rkwia3j i ,..�:b*'t:,jk'
IF
' q . . . .;:..,a^..:%}G'1°e:• C''�"^ I!+«e'r'� �'..'', .�� .,. 1� � SEE A.Pf�ETlonoC � :.._. -.• •_ . . .�_... .
_'• _� b .`r" '� e1�4'.y .�+�t v' FY'.r•�:5'S,,�7de,'{ ;v��{.'yx�,'t',^ in
.. If. .ro�:}:.t„'"1'ift.• ett.`•Ynf,HppM bn':�'�' � 4JY .Y,t•, •"Lq, �''�.rv?l�`!tl «_ ....__._..... _ .._ -_•._',_ ?_ •_..•__.�_-_._ __._
.. . . .n ._iY44...'�C, •�Jri;"Wt :.�".°bu;tilM1' •'i•Glt Jn•.ssI tL•�:a? °�Puij:>�"•�$�•��• .. ., ..._:J�L- QP t) •3sapYt3�^
. 1.3 N4 m�.•y{ r%', •.w �t l�f.ti':.ir.aPt ,�-Af �.W'19'd7 �RC'1M,tt avy_T:, _ _.. .. ... .. ._......_. ._.._ .-.•'_........... ... :. _ _-
r•� ,�.„ n
1• Buslcan+A�lc AcecabC
2 I, QTtoA o STt'uc izcs"
3 c�cveon3.5cc�tcc. Scnt�ot.�
'{. Mhstec l'laN —.�tcyde
5 . FRwy Rcsccvp.-claQ —E.t�sc, (A•P.r�.uct�. e�.wloPc�}
- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION -
ANALYSIS
Comments ( 3 & 5A)
1 2 3 4 5s 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 , 12 , 13, 14, & '15 : The potential
impacts on the natural physical environment i .e . earth , air, water,
plant life, and animal life) that might come from the project are for
the most part attributable to the preparation of the site for develop-
ment and not to the long-term use and occupancy of any, all , or any
portion of the site . Appropriate measures to mitigate impact have
been suggested and incorporated into the project.
16 & 17 : The long-term use and occupancy of the site will increase
existing noise levels and might expose people to se noise levels .
The increase in noise levels from automobile traffic is within the
planning parameters established by the City' s Noise Element, based
upon the project being a reduction from 1973 anticipated levels of
development, therefore impacts are not significant. Additionally,
project incorporates measures designed to mitigate potential impacts .
18: The long-term use and occupancy of .individual site might create
new light and glare. Appropriate mitigation measures have been
suggested .
19 : The proposed project is an alteration of present planned land
use of one iste . No significant effects are anticipated, as all
alterations will be accomplished within established legal parameters
for such changes .
20 & 21 : The "Reduced Project" will reduce the existing supply of
housing within the community . The impact of this reduction of 260
units and 910 people when viewed in terms of projected total city
population and housing stock is not considered significant.
22 : The proposed project will create a demand for new parking facili -
ties . Appropriate measures designed to mitigate impact are suggested.
23, 24 25 26 27 28 & 29: The proposed 'project will create a demand
for addition al quasi -puV is and public services and facilities .
Appropriate measures designed to mitigate impact are suggested.
30 : The proposed project may expose people to potential health
hazards from high noise levels adjacent to arterial roadways, appro-
priate measures designed to mitigate impact are suggested and incor-
porated in project.
12
MITIGATION MEASURES
1'. Environmental documentation will be required in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, State EIR Guidelines and City Policy, prior to
the development of any project proposed on the sites designated in General Plan
Amendment 79-1 .
2. Development will be prohibited on all sites to, be included within the scope
of investigation of the City of'Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, until
such time as that program is approved 6r it can be determined that the project
is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Coastal Act and supportative
policies adopted pursuant to said.
3. That any project on the undeveloped sites will conform to the requirements
of the Uniform Building Code.
4. That any project on the undeveloped sites will be in conformance with the
subdivision map act and city policy thereon.
5. That a proposed development project on the undeveloped sites will be in
accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
6. Development proposals for the undeveloped sites will be consistent with the
Traffic Phasing Ordinance and City Policy s-1 .
7. Development proposals for sites exempt from the requirements of the City
Traffic Phasing Ordinance will be subject to the approval of Traffic
Phasing Plans and be developed in accordance with said.
8. Development proposals for residential development will be consistent with
the Park Dedication Ordinance.
9. Development proposals adjacent to bluffs will be consistent with the Bluff
Top Ordinance.
10. Landform alteration on any site will be subject to the approval of a grading
permit. The grading permit will be prepared by a Civic Engineer based upon
recommendation of an engineering geologist. The grading permit will include:
a) . An investigation of surface and subsurface drainage.
b). A complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities.
c). A erosion and dust control plan.
d) . An erosion and siltation control plan approved by the California
1 Regional Water Quality Control Board.
e). A comprehensive soil and geologic investigation
f). A surface drainage plan that will not create downstream erosion.
g). Erosion control measures on all exposed slopes.
11 . All projects will provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for
all water-using faciliites.
12. All projects will provide for the sorting of recyclable materials from other
solid wastes:
1.3
MITIGATION MEASURES-CONTINUED
13. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy
regarding the Orange County Airport will be included in all leases or sub-
leases for space in the project and shall be included in any Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions which maybe recorded against any undeveloped
site.
Disclosure Statement
The Lessee herein, his heirs, successors and assigns, acknowledge that:
a. ) The Orange County Airport may not be able to provide adequate air
service for business establishments which rely on such service;
b. ) When an alternate air facility is available, a complete phase out
of jet service may occur at the Orange County Airport;
c. ) The City of Newport Beach may continue to oppose additional commercial
air service expansions at the Orange County Airport;
I -
d. ) Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns, will not actively oppose
any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to phase out or limit jet
air service at the Orange County Airport. _
14. chat should any resources be uncovered during construction on a site, that a
qualified archaeologist or paleontologist evaluate the site prior to
(I completion of construction activities, and that all work on site be done in
accordance with the City's Council Policies K-5 and K-6.
I 15. Prior to the development of any site, written verification will' be provided ~
i that public and quasi-public facilities and services will be available.
I Further, that prior to occupancy of any project, it will be demonstrated that
the aforementioned are available.
16. Prior to the development of any site, it will be demonstrated that a
proposed project will not be likely to cause serious public health problems.
1 17. Prior to the development of any site, it will be demonstrated that the project(s) -
will not substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife of their habitat.
18. Prior to any development of any site noise impacts from highway association,
fixed wing and non-fixed wing sources will be analyzed and mitigated to
�I City and State standards.
19. All multy-family residential developments will provide car wash facilities
so that run-off can be directed to sewer facilities.
20. All proposed developments will provide for vacuum street 'sweeping services for
non-dedicated streets.
21 . All proposed developments will provide for vacuum sweeping of parking
areas for Commercial & Industrial Areas and all common parking areas of
residential projects.
14
MITIGATION MEASURES-CONTINUED
22. All proposed developments of Commercial & Industrial Use will provide
on-site retention basins and for the maintenance in a manner sufficient
to control First flush pollutants.
2.3. Any proposed development will be subject to the approval of a landscape
plan. The landscape plan will„ include the following:
a. ) An irrigation plan which minimizes water, use and prevents over-
watering.
b. ) Heavy emphasis on the use of drought-resistant native vegetation.
c. ) A maintenance program for the control of the use of fertilizers
and pesticides.
d ) A plan for the integration of landscaping and construction schedule.
24. All development on any site will be in accordance with the Newport Beach
General Plan.
25. Required environmental documentation of any future project in conformance with
G.P.A. 79-1 wi'll analyze air pollution effects from said project-related
construction and traffic. The context of these impacts will be reviewed
through a discussion of ambient air quality conditions, State and federal
standards, the Air Quality Maintenance Plan, and any adopted State
Implementation Plan.
26. . That all projects, developed in accordance with G.P.A. 79-1 , will be
designed to conform to Title 24, paragraph 6, Division T-20, Chapter 2,
sub-chapter 4 of the California Administrative Code dealing with energy
requirements.
27. That all projects developed in accordance with ,G.P.A. 79-1 will be designed
and certified by an electrical engineer to eliminate any glare and ambient
light to adjacent public roadways and/or residential communities.
28. That all projects developed in accordance with G.P.A. 79-1 , will investigate the
use of alternative energy sources (i .e. solar) and to the maximum extent
economically feasible incorporate the use of said in project designs.
29. That all residential projects will provide for solar heating, or provide
written documentation that alternetive measures have been taken in project
design that provide equal energy/natural resource conservation.
30. The City will require environmental documentation of a transfer of
development rights viewing said requests as discretionary revenues and
therefore subject to the requirements of C.E.Q.A.
IL
ANALYSIS NO DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Discussion
The City Council and Planning Commission may wish to consider, as the
Planning Commission did, the designation site in this project fo.r no
further development . The following areas of environmental concerm as
they relate to a no development project have been analyzed in the
attachment.
1 . Traffic Impacts/Generated 4. Sewer Capacity
2. Openness of Vista or View 5. Energy
3. Cost/Revenue 6 . Impacts on John Wayne-
Orange County Airport
Due to this more detailed analysis, those portions of the " Checklist"
dealing with the aforementioned were not addressed. The transfer of
ownership to create parks ( i .e . Recreational' and Environmental Open
Space) is not subject to CEQAC. CEQAC will apply when a management plan
is proposed that will change the area from its natural condition . There-
fore, at such time as a management plan is prepared environmental docu-
mentation on the effects of said plan on the natural physical environment,
Urban development, and public quasi -public facilities and services would
be accomplished in project level detail .
Description
At the direction )of the Community Development Director, the City Staff
has analyzed as a portion of this Initial Study the potential environmental
effects of a no development project for any, all , or any combination of
the sixteen sites under consideration . The purpose of this analysis is
to allow the City Council the maximum flexibility in their determinations
1 on General Plan Amendment 80-1 within the parameters of the laws govern-
ingsuch decisions .
The remaining undeveloped areas of the sixteen sites would be designated
on the Land Use Plan for " Recreation & Environmental Open Space" which
is defined in that element text as follows :
" RECREATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL OPEN SPACE :
This sub-category includes major parks , wildlife refuges ,
golf courses , bluffs , canyons , and beaches . Wherever the
zoning of private property designated as open space by
the Land Use Element is inconsistent with said element,
it is the intent of the City to seek the agreement of pro-
perty owners for rezoning to the open space district, or
to seek public acquisition of such open space areas .
' No changes in land use on property designated for open
space purposes shall be permitted which are not consistent
with the policies and objectives of the General Plan. "
�L
Comments ( 5B)
ND-1 , 2 , 3, 4 : The potential impacts on the natural physical
environment i .e . earth, air, water, plant life , and animal Tife)
that might come from the project are for the most part attributable
to the fact that no development will occur on the sites to mitigate
and said ( i . e . existing natural erosion) . Additionally, some impact
could be anticipated from the development of individual sizes for
recreational uses . Mitigation measures that would eliminate said
impacts have been suggested. '
ND-5: See Comment "3 & 5A" No . 19 .
ND-6 & 7: The no development project may create an adverse environ-
mental effect in terms of adding to existing demand for housing stock
for certain economic aspects of the community. This effect is not
deemed significant as the existing general plan and all previous
suggested alternatives did not specifically require conservation of
new housing stock to meet demand for all economic aspects within the
community.
ND-8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14, & 15: The "No Development" project may
create adverse environmental effects on public and quasi-public services
and facilities . Appropriate mitigation measures have been suggested.
1
17
i
MITIGATION MEASURES
1 . Prior to the public acquisition of any site(s ) designated for
" Recreational and Environmental Open Space" by General Plan
Amendment 80-1 a management plan and environmental documenta-
tion will be developed.
2 . The provision of alternate uses wither as primary or secondary
1 use should be considered by the City Council .
3. The concerns on the natural physical environment, urban environ-
ment, and public and quasi -public facilities and services as
expressed by the checklist shall be addressed in the management
plan and its environmental documentation .
i
i
- ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION -
On the basis of the information contained in this initial
study , I find that although the proposed project could have
a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because the mitigation mea-
sures listed in section Y have been added to the project. • A
Negative Declaration is attached .
Date Signatur
For the' Environmental Affairs
Committee of the City of
Newport Beach .
19
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TO: Secretary for Resources FROM: Community Development Department
1400 Tenth Street City of Newport Beach
Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard
Clerk of the Board of Newport Beach, CA 92663
�X'
Supervisors 1LE COP Y P. 0. Box 687 d �,d Y
t Santa Ana. CA 927Q2 DO NOT
NIME OF P.ROJFAC& GPA 80-1 : A proposed amendment to the Land Use, Residential Growth, and
ecreation ty en Space Elements of the General Plan of the Ci of Newport Beach, CA.
PROJECT LOCATION: See Attached Initial Study
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
See Attached Initial Study
FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to
procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality
Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project
and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect
on the environment.
MITIGATION MEASURES: -
See Attached Initial Study I L E D
FEB 6 - 1980
3'I ' rw0
JUNE ALEXANDER, Clerk
Q( the Board of Supervisors
By Deputy,
INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: City of Newport Beach
INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA
DATE. RECEIVED FOR FILING:
Environmental Coordinator
Date: February 5, 1980
- VII . NONSTATUTORY ADVISEMENT -
A " Nonstatutory Advisement" of this project has been
• distributed to interested parties on this project. The
purpose of this advisement is to quickly and informally
consult with interested parties in this project in accord-
ance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The
review period for this advisement ended on February 6 , 19.80 .
The list on the following page indicates those notified .
r
21
MAILING LIST FOR NONSTATUTORY ADVISEMENT ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 80-1
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Airport Land Use Commission
Air Resources Board
Big Canyon Community Association
Broadmoor Hills Community Association
CALTRANS
Canyon Hills Community Association
Canyon Island Community Association
Chamber of Commerce
City of Costa Mesa
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Coast Community College
Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce
County Sanitation Districts
Friends of Upper Newport Bay
Harbor District
Harbor View Community Association
Harbor View Hills Community Association
L. E .A. F.
Newport Hills Community Association
Newport Mesa-Unified School .
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
S .A. R. W .Q. C .B .
S. C.A. G.
S . C.A. Q. C :B.
SPON
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
Teleprompter
i U .N .B . E . R. T.A. C.
22
APPENDIX I
Analysis of potential impacts not
discussed in Section •v.
This discussion is based on the Environmental Checklist Questions
contained in Section III of the Initial Study. Each individual
element of GPA 80-1 (a through e) is treated separately.
' 80- 1 -a Chevron Service Station
Natural Resources (9a ,b ) . The proposal would cause a slight
increase in the rate of use of non-renewable natural resources ,
however, because of the scale of the project, this effect is
minimal (see attached February 1 , 1980 staff report) .
Transportation/Circulation ( 13a , c, d,e , f) . The proposal will
not result in a substantial increase in traffic generation .
Any demand for new parking will be provided on-site in con-
formance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. There will
not be any substantial impact on the existing transportation
system, or major alterations to present circulation patterns .
Waterborne , rail , and air traffic will not be effected . There
will be no substantial increase in traffic hazards (see attached
February 1 , 1980 staff report) .
Parks ( 14d) . , The proposal will not create demand for any
additional parks .
Energy ( 15a ,.b) . The proposal will not require the use of sub-
stantial amounts of fuel or energy , or require the development
of new energy sources (see attached February 1 , 1980 staff
report) .
Utilities ( 16a , d) . The proposal will not create substantial
demand for any major new power , natural gas , or sewer facili -
ties (see attached February 1 , 1980 staff report) .
Aesthetics ( 18) . The proposal will not obstruct any public
views or create an aesthetically offensive site open to public
view.
Recreation ( 19) . The proposal will not have an adverse impact
on the quality and quantity of existing recreational opportunities .
' 80-1 -b Freeway Reservation East
Natural Resources (9a ,b ) . The proposal will not cause an
increase in the rate of non- renewable natural resources (see
attached February 1 , 1980 staff report) .
23
Transportation/Circulation ( 13a , c , d,e , f) . The proposal will not
' result in a substantial increase in traffic generation . Any
demand for new parking will be provided on-site in conformance
with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. There will not be any
substantial impact on the existing transportation system, or
major alterations to present circulation patterns . Waterborne ,
rail , and air traffic will not be effected. There will be no
substantial increase in traffic hazards (see attached February 1 ,
1980 staff report) .
Parks ( 14d) . The proposal will not create demand for any additional
' parks .
Energy ( 15a,b ) . The proposal will not require the use of sub-
stantial amounts of fuel or energy, or require the development
of new energy sources (see attached February 1 , 1980 staff report) .
Utilities ( 16a, d) . The proposal will not create substantial
demand for any major new power, natural gas , or sewer facilities
' (see attached February 1 , 1980 staff report) .
Aesthetics ( 18) : The proposal will not obstruct any public views
or create an aesthetically offensive site open to public view .
Recreation ( 19 ) . Any residential project would be subject to the
City ' s park dedications ordinance , and therefore would have no
adverse impacts on existing recreation opportunities .
80- 1 -c Buildable Acreage
The net effect of this proposal would be to reduce allowable
development by deleting certain sensitive areas from the cal -
culation of buildable acreage . Natural Resource and Energy Con-
sumption will be reduced, as will traffic. Demand for Parks
' and new Utilities will be reduced . The proposal will not re-
sult in anything aesthetically offensive , and recreation oppor-
tunities will not be reduced .
' 80- 1 - d Location of Structures
The net effect of this proposal would be to establish policy
direction for the location of structures on a building site .
Natural Resource Consumption , Transportation/Circulation , Parks ,
Energy Consumption , Utilities, and Recreation opportunities would
not be impacted. Since structures could not be placed in slope .
areas greater than 2: 1 , the aesthetics of projects would be effected .
However, through the descretionary reveiw process , projects would be
' designed so as not to be aesthetically offensive
80-1-e Master Plan of Bikeways
Natural Resources , Parks , Energy Consumption, Utilities and
Aesthetics would not be adversely effected. Recreation oppor-
tunities would be enhanced by these additions to the system,
as would be the Traffic and Circulation System.
24
Planning Commission Meeting February 7 , 1980
Agenda Item No . 8
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
February 1 , 1980
iTO : Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No 80-1 (Public Hearing)
INITIATED BY : The City of Newport Beach
Background
On January 10, 1980, The Planning Commission set General Plan Amendment
' 80- 1 for public hearing. The Amendment includes five components as
follows :
GPA 80- 1 (a) Chevron Service Station
GPA 80-1 (b) Freeway Reservation-East
GPA 80-1 (c) Buildable Acreage
GPA 80-1 (d) Location of Structures
GPA 80-1 (e) Master Plan of Bikeways
Environmental Significance
In accordance with The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ,
environmental documentation for General Plan Amendment No . 80-1 is
under preparation . Notices of Non-Statutory Advisement were mailed
to Responsible Agencies and Interested Parties on January 25, 1980 ,
with a deadline for comments established on February 6, 1980.
The Initial Study is being prepared and will be available for the
Planning Commission to reveiw at the February 7, 1980 meeting. Due
to the 15-day statutory review requirements , during which time all
Responsible Agencies and Interested Parties can review The Initial
Study, it is suggested that the Planning Commission refrain from
action of GPA 80- 1 until its meeting of February 21 , 1980.
GPA 80-1 (a ) Chevron Service Station
' +his portion of the General Plan Amendment consists of a change to 0. 2 acres northwesterly of the intersection of Coast Highway and
Dahlia Avenue in Corona del Mar, from "Low Density Residential " to
a mixture of " Retail and Service Commercial " and "Administrative ,
Professional and Financial Commercial " uses . Chevron USA, Inc.
is proposing to expand their existing service station into the Low
25
• _ �•• .nan� �.V PII'I1 JJIVIY -�_
Density Residential area northerly of 5th Avenue+extended . This amend-
ment would make the land use designation on the -0. 2 acres consistent
with that of the existing service station site .
This site , as part of the " Fifth Avenue Parcels" , was recently subject
to General Plan revisions considered under Amendment No . 79-1 . This
Amendment resulted in a density allowance of 4 DU' s per Buildable Acre.
Approval of the change to a commercial/office designation could result
in a reduction of one dwelling unit from the potential allowable
dwelling units on the Fifth Avenue Parcels.
' Additionally, this amendment will allow development in the area of the
5th Avenue traffic corridor. If at any time the City should desire to
improve 5th Avenue in this area , the costs to the City will be increased
by having to acquire a developed parcel .
If this General Plan Amendment is approved , some addition discretionery
approvals will be required. Prior to any issuance of building permits ,
the applicant will have to submit applications for a zone change amend-
ment, a resubdivision and a use permit.
Analysis : For the purposes of this analysis , the GPA 79-1 factors
are used.
c ,W.
��F/t 51TE S21t AYE
' W
' Alternative Uses : -
1 ) Existing General Plan 1 DU ,
2) Retail and Service Commercial /Administrative,
Professional and Financial Commercial - 2 , 000 sq . ft.
Traffic Generation - Following is a summary of the trips generated by
' the two alternative land uses . The figures shown are twenty-four hour
volumes .
' 1 ) Existing General Plan - 11
2) Retail and Service Commercial /Administrative ,
Professional , and Financial Commercial - 70
' Views - There are no significant views on the site.
.. . I 11"Inu Uumm1JJ1UN -3-
Cost/Benefit - Following is an estimate of the net fiscal impact ()revenue
minus cost) for the two alternative uses .
1 ) Existing General Plan $218
2 ) Retail and Service Commercial/Administrative -
Professional , and Financial Commercial . $220
Sewer Generation - Long range facilities planning is based on the City is
existing General Plan . The following estimated generation (in thousands
of gallons ) can be used to determine the relative demand for these
facilities created by the two alternatives .
1 ) Existing General Plan - 142
2) Retail and Service Commercial/Administrative -
Professional , and Financial Commercial 136
Energy Requirements - Following are estimates of the demand for non-
renewable energy resources generated by the two alternative uses .
Electrical Natural Gas Gasoline
Thous .KWH Mill . Cu/ft) Thous . Galt)
1 ) Existing General Plan 13. 5 . 125 . 275
2) Retail & Serv. Comm/
Ad. , Prof. , & Fin. Comm 96 . 2 1 . 2
GPA 80- 1 (b ) Freeway Reservation East
This portion of the General Plan Amendment proposes a change on the
1*25 acres easterly of MacArthur Boulevard adjacent to Harbor View Hills
from Medium Density Residential " with a maximum of 100 units to "Low
Density Residential " with a maximum of 4 DU ' s per buildable acre or to
"Recreational and Environmental Open Space" .
1
' p Rv
W
Q N
w sqN O �
.r
PAW/p/�,
Z7
IU : PLANNING COMMISSION -4-
It is the intent of this amendment to examine alternative uses in the
same manner as was ddne for vacant sites in GPA 79-1 . An analysis of
three alternatives follows :
Alternate Uses :
1 ) Existing General Plan 100 DU' s
2) Low Density Residential - ± 76 DU ' sl -
' 3 Recreational and Environmental Open Space - -0-
Analysis : For the purposes of this analysis, the GPA 79-1 factors
are used .
' Traffic Generation - Following is a summary of the trips generated by
each of the alternative land uses . The figures shown are twenty-four
hour volumes .
1 ) Existing General Plan _ 1100
2) Low Density Residential 836
3) Op.en Space - 125
Views - There are no significant views related to this site.
Cost/Benefit - Following is an estimate of the net fiscal impact
( revenue minus cost) for each of the alternatives :
1 ) Existing General Plan - $21 ,800
2 Low Density Residential $16,568
3 Recreational and Environmental Open Space - -0-
Sewer Generation - Long-range capacity and facilities planning are
based on the City ' s existing General Plan . The following estimated
generation ( in thousands of gallons ) can be used to determine the
' relative demand for these facilities created by each of the alter-
natives .
1 ) Existing General Plan _ 14150
2) Low Density Residential 10754
3 Recreational and Environmental Open Space - -0-
Energy Requirements - Following are estimates of the demand for non-
renewable energy resources generated by each alternative land use :
Electrical Natural Gas Gasoline
Thous . KWH Mill . Cu/ft) Thous . Gal )
1 ) Existing General Plan 1350 12. 5 27. 5
2) Low Density Residential 1026 9. 5 20. 9
3) Rec. & Environ . Open Space -0- -0- -0-
' 1 . Assumes 19 Buildable Acres (25% reduction from Gross ) .
7�
. v . I inn1141,u "19P113alur1 -�j-
GPA 80-1 ( c ) Buildable Acreage
This portion of the General Plan Amendment proposes to change the Land
' Use and Residential Growth Elements of the General Plan , adding policy
language stating that, at the time the Planning Commission and/or City
Council reviews a Planned Community Development Plan, Tentative Map
' and/or environmental documentation for a particular project, consider-
ation shall be given to deleting certain sensitive areas from the cal -
culation of the total number of residential units or square footage of
commercial development to be allowed on a site as follows :
1 ) Riparian and other environmentally sensitive habitat areas ;
2 Flood plain areas ;
' 3 Coastal bluffs and bluff setback areas ; and,
4) For residential development, noise impacted areas ;that is , areas
where outside, mitigated noise levels are 65 CNEL or greater .
' The central issue in regards to the adoption of a policy to eliminate
these areas from density calculations is in the definitions used to
describe these areas . The discussion which follows points out. various
alternatives and concerns which should be considered.
' RIPARIAN AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREAS
In defining reparian and other environmentally sensitive habitat areas ,
two basic approaches can be considered . The first is to utilize U.S .
' Fis'h and Wildlife Critical Habitat Areas definitions and mapping cri -
teria to define reparian and other environmentally sensitive habitat
areas . The advantage to this approach is that the criteria is defined,
allowing densities to be established as soon as the site studies and
mapping is completed . The disadvantage is a loss of flexibility in
Judging individual development proposals . The second approach is to
' require that this concern be addressed in depth during the Planned
Community Development, Tentative Map and/or environmental documentation
review process . The advantage to this approach is that a maximum amount
of flexibiltiy is given to the City in the review of individual projects.
' The disadvantage is that neither the City nor the developer will have
specific knowledge as to allowed square footage or number of dwelling
units until the project is submitted and hearings are completed.
FLOOD PLAIN AREAS
' In defining flood plain areas ,a specific frequency of occurance is gen-
erally used to determine hazard areas . Currently, the City of Newport
Beach has a Flood Damage Prevention ordinance which utilizes a City and
Federal Government developed map in defining flood hazard areas . On
this map, the City is divided into Zones A,B , C and V . Zone A is the
100 year riverine flood area which currently requires structures to be
designed to specified criteria . The only vacant parcel in Zone A is
a portion of the San Diego Creek site . Other, developed portions of the
City in Zone A are Balboa Island and certain areas in Central and West
Newport. Zone 8 is a 100-500 year riverine flood area . The only vacant
parcel in Zone B is a very small portion of the low-lying part of the
Castaways site . Other, developed portions of the City in Zone B are the
29
' � • �MII fJlu uummlbSIUN -6-
remaining bay islands , the remainder of the Balboa Peninsula and West
' Newport and areas southerly of Coast Highway and westerly of the Coast
Highway Bay Bridge . Most of the remainder of the City lies i.n Zone C,
which are areas of minimal flooding. Ocean front areas in Zone V are
' subject to . tsunami , hurricane wave wash, and storm waves and high tides .
Restricting buildable area in any of these flood affected zones will
result in some problems relative to discretionary approvals in developed
' portions of the City . For example, if the Zone A-100 year riverine flood
area criteria were used to determine flood hazard areas , any project
requiring discretionary approval , such as a use permit or a variance
on Balboa Island would not conform to the General Plan since the site
would not be considered "buildable" . This problem could be alleviated
by applying Flood Plain Area criteria only to new Planned Community
Districts and Tentative Map projects .
' BLUFFS AND .BLUFF TOP SETBACKS
' In defining Bluffs and Bluff Top Setbacks it is suggested that existing
definitions contained in the Zoning ordinance be used as follows :
' a ) Definition of Bluff: Any landform having an average slope of
26 . 6 degrees ( 50%) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet
or greater.
' Where there is some questionas to the applicability of this
definition to a specific land form, a determination as to whether
or not the specific land form constitutes a bluff shall be made by
' the Planning Commission .
b) Setback' Requirement: As a general guideline , the property line setback from the edge of a bluff should be located no closer to
the edge of a bluff than the point at which the tip of the bluff
is intersected by a line drawn from the toe of the bluff a,t an
angle of 26 ..6 degrees to the horizontal . A greater setback dis-
tance shall be required where warranted by geological or ground-
water conditions , but in no case shall a property line be located
closer than 40 feet to the edge of the bluff.
In addition , no part of the buildable area of a site shall be
located- closer than 20 feet to the bluff side property line . This
' requirement may be increased or decreased by Planning Commission
in the review of a development plan .
' RESIDENTIAL' 65 CNEL
The mitigated 65 CNEL, for determination of buildable area for resi-I
' dential development, is a very precise definition . If this standard
is adopted, consideration should be given to two specific questions .
First, a time frame should be set for acceptable noise studies since
the 65 CNEL area can change over time as an area develops and traffic
' patterns change . Second, a policy should be considered to define
acceptable design standards for mitigation measures . For example , a
15 foot high solid block wall could. -mitigate noise impacts on a certain
' site , but this form of mitigation may not be acceptable to the City from
an aesthetic standpoint.
i
3c
' , v . rLh1111111U LUMMIS1SON - ]-
GPA 80- 1 ( d) Location of Structures
This portion of the General Plan Amendment proposes to change the Land
Use and Residential Growth Elements of the General Plan adding to the list
' of areas where no structures shall be built as follows :
1 ) Flood Plain Areas
2) Areas of slope greater than two to one (2 :1 ) .
Again , the primary considerations in regards to adding these items to the
list of criteria for location of structures are the definitions used
to describe these areas .
FLOOD PLAIN AREAS
As discussed above , currently used definitions for flood plain areas
in the city of Newport Beach present problems when related to this General Plan Amendment. If the existing Zone A designation is used
(100 year rivering flood area ) discretionary approvals requiring
environmental documentation will be precluded on the basis of General
Plan non-conformance . This problem could be alleviated by applying
this standard only to new Planned Community Districts and Tentative
Map projects .
2 : 1 SLOPE
Areas of slope greater than two to one (2: 1 ) is a precise definition
and these areas are relatively easy to map when initial site planning
and topographic studies are done . There are some concerns relative to
including this provision in restrictions regarding the locations of
1 structures . This provision could, under a strict interpretation , allow
buildings on specific portions of a site, but preclude the roads
needed to gain access to those buildings , thus negating potential
development on a difficult site .
' GPA 80-1 (e ) Master Plan of Bikeways
This portion of the General Plan Amendment proposes changes to the
Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan as follows :
1 ) Add a backbone bikeway on the westerly side of MacArthur Boulevard
from Ford Road to the northerly City boundary .
' 2) Add secondary bikeways :
a ) Bison Avenue from Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard.
b ) Santa Barbara Drive from Jamboree Road to Newport Center
Drive West .
c) San Miguel Drive from Newport Center Drive East to San Joaquin
Hills Drive .
d) Versailles Blufftop Bikeway from Superior Avenue to Coast
Highway at Newport Boulevard .
e) Placentia] A-venue from Superior Avenue to northerly City
boundary near 16th Street. A connecting trail should
be shown in Costa Mesa .
3 /
1 TO : PLANNING COMMISSION -8-
1 These changes , requested by the Public Works Department, are considered
housekeeping measures to keep the Master Plan of Bikeways shown in the
General Plan up-to-date . The Bicycle Trails Citizens ' Advisory
Committee has reviewed the proposed changes , incorporating into the
Master Plan of Bikeways , facilities which have either been constructed
or are planned for construction by developers as approved conditions for
development.
Su9aested Action
Open public hearing, hear all related public testimony, and continue the
public hearing to February 21 , 1980 to allow for completion of the
environmental documentation .
Respectfully submitted,
' PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D . HEWICKER, DIRECTOR
i
BY Y�C�2 C `
Patricia LJ. emple
Senior Planner
PLT:nm
1 Attachments : 1 ) Changes to Master Plan of Bikeways (Map)
2) Irvine Co . Letter addressing "Buildable Acreage" .
1
1
1
1
I
1
r 32.
m man m m m w m m r m m m m m we ■. m
F
� o�
L
' ,�'yi'l�t:+`�i 7`� \\ Y" J � (/ J r• �j IMP�•�•1
�Pi// •..'" � 1.� J�,f�+ .l�'Str-,�• �j + � � f ,�=a y ii�:s � -<rr+- �\
r' ��\���\ /r\� -'\`•o � r♦• L_ 1, �I•,�. t� <Ti • s5j4• map •�✓.,;i v� �.
4, `;+:-�',�'t3, 1��'S��••\ jR.Fr� '.� ��:�;t ����.�`�'rrt .rl mro�+a"""m `:: :v:rye '\� °,
ry
FKE WA YS
IN
'� 1,;? a a'-: �; 'A �.., 3�,d .3, J'•Yr'a-> . ^- ` �i,�n'` =1 ,4y.:.' �- � - _ '— r�f—`=
\ �r �( �C\�� , �•f \�`t\�yft^ .,..-`>jt-1^ _X�#`r:. rid i�. ,•v � - �!• //i" �I: }'�` � .�\
�� I 'sf s� / ` r�,. i •b:\a .. .:Il-" � ! dl t\� s �l r �Ju \' ,°��' _. ce{::
SE
f'\ %%l.'% �!� 'i'\i Jamie =' il` ti �v =r ! �, •l r'ial r 'l. s .._ Zr... rnk4 �PPIy� T
� 11 �. �: '�h �, %ram S` �� •. q`�•1 J'i�17 ,,,t, j �? g _ � .�, a+ \ . .
/ �' ���, i\ h :� � t Y:,i n.•..��. '•`•r:-E .' i.o - �' .. , t 4un ,\\''l':�
/`i �, '� �.. F�1 : 4'F Fit' i`. f •( ._ a\ ''\\ 1 _P` _ m� .�-'t 7�� 'r�`J�¢..l'��'
.O 4 b ,._� �. ���- of ,\'�".�• _z `� ` ,( • . + ,`,,t 1!\ TJ
! a
� !. ��a �� • '1+.g`+`�.• d•Fr ! .!. �» ,i: .I a<s ��� :unia+PlN�r.7n41n+u �~ ..j ,`;_T, ��-
.l ` � � \ \/� '/��:�. 1. 1 l.v�•.n...•.:_:!: menu Rica+°"+ s.,.;•ear.(:t.;_ ur�l�l�n m '�.�. !^`�..✓
ism• %_ 1" 1 u �1 $��,�+ il�i•<.�"i\4—_ ✓io Y C\'-2�:-f » 13., r:1 r 1'•'.r. 2"�
'I��lb r� r0aa\C ••,fli. T \4l\'�.l ).te. .. r:l*���,' 1.0 �C-�is yy�.
_._6 �� �� � a• urulCp{m(IO_.. �� •• �'•)f�N'i �. v -rGf:•:O7'.. ti-�..�al�'�C�'/,:''4S!
. ._ _ lYr:• » rNSmQ� 1�;�-. i. .T - - J_yii• a\a��i� '�(-. :9i • .. rl/ynlnl�F(rb"•✓�_
_ -- mr fo' n`me\.r: !§� s . i i liii iXil:ii.•.•i 'F Y�f \.. ..». 17/.1`hu��ro7;r6u"uWmi ..
_ _ �-rmllhittMtR' .i+brtT.. +\. >[}Y + �y-� � ��•. • d a \s: t w.+^ ;i.. .4, •� l.'f{ �( v °
it�f li! .. . dr�<"�+���, :.• �v�9 `n'Ft..ZT�x��F�•�F3.I \r. �-}!ill y(f �^•. � '\\�. �y``1 I\t�••(�).�\• i
...... tllll .,`t.� t.•`1• e.xt... n�.s. 'rr :`x•: �•__ `�•' ...�`"\. /_�/(�:• ;- 1 1
CITY OF HEWPORT!EACH
• / `/I i ,/ I � / ' C ����p_ C E /\ 'V a•u.v«wn,....rmw ,_� _ __
�, .� 8►KE WAYS To BE aAa�v
Uu mar COSTA MESA CONNECTED $lKEWAY
1 APPENDIX II
1 Comments and Responses to Notices
of Nonstatutory Advisement
1
1
1
1
1
1 ,
1
1
1
1 34
1
1
i
1 - COMMENTS -
Official Review Period
From : January 25, 1980
To : February 6 , 1980
1
1
1
1
1
1 �s
'•�� Fila 110. — Airport 1 To: Ai Land Use ,rom:
rP , Planning Department
Commission for
3300 Newport Blvd.
General Plan Amendment 80-1 Orange County � , Newport Beach, CA 92663
18741 N Airport Way 1
l- >
PI;FUSE RETURN FNIS NOTICE WITH YOUR COMMENTS BY February 6, 1980
1 PROJECT TITLE: GPA 80-1: A proposed amendment to the Land Use, Residential
Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan of the City
of New ort Beach California
1 PROJECT LOCATION: ��-
See attached Project Description
u
z
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
a
See attached Project Description
^+ DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF YOJR AGENCY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT
gS. a
c
N ti
x T A LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: (USE Ab=NAL PAGES AS NECESSARY):
V o 9 •v,
w A! RECEI'
v JAN311980�
CONTACT PERSON TITLE we HONE
10
DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA OF EXPERTISE/INTEREST:
Land use in the vicinity of airports.
LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS (USE ADOMIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY):
N1. Residential development in noise impacted areas.
a2. Buildings whose heights would exceed the ftimaginary surfacest, for John
.� a. Wayne Airport, orange County (defined in Part 77 of the Federal
o Aviation Regulations).
r
w '
s
W
• CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE
Shirli A. Reithard Planner 833-1505
1 DATE MAILED BY DATE RECEIVED BY RESPON- DATE RECEIVED BY� DATE RESPONSC
LEAD AGENCY SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE INTERESTED PARTY RECEIVED BY THE
January 25, 1980 R CC E I V E p LEAD AGENCY i
JAN ,:5 is'eu
1 •
1 36
1 W i i ie 1_4. o:
Corona del Mar Chamber o�j ' Planning Depdrtment
Commerce f 3300 Newport Blvd.
General Plan Nnendment 80-1 Newport Beach, CA 92663
' 2855 E. Coast Hwy i ! 1
PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR COMVF;TS t; Februaryy
1 ^ PROJECT TITLE: GPA 80-1: A proposed amendment to the Land Use, Residential
Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan of the City
of Newport Beach, California
PROJECT LOCATION: — I
See attached Project Description
z
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENV IK:P•fE:ITAL ISSUES
w See attached Project Description
m M DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF YOITR AGENCY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT
pc C o
6 N.c
N•OH
LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: (USE AUDTfIONALPAGES AS NECESSARY):
a a
w � uvo
'm. NcyO1^^
Y O
N p F U
« = n CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE
DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA OF EXPERTISE/INTEREaT:
a) Chevron Service Station, Coast Highway and Dahlia Street
Corona del Mar
LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS (USE ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY):
w We concur with the Chevron Service Station's proposed change
to expand their existing service station.
6
' w Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce
f-
w
w
z CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE
Luvena Hayton Director 673-2674
rDATE MAILED BY DATE RECEIVED BY RESPON- DATE RECEIVED BY DATE RESPONSC
LEAD AGENCY SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE .INTERESTED PARTY RECEIVED BY THE
' January 25, 1980 LEAD AGENCY
`
t F P
7
I L. No. To: �I
County Sanitation Dist. Planning UeparLment t
( P. O—Box 8127 � ( 3300 Newport Blvd. f
I General Plan Amendment 80-1 Fountain Valley, CA 9270 Newport Beach, CA 92663 it
PLEASF RLTURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR COMMENTS 1-, February 6, 1980-
1 _ PROJECT TITLE: GPA 80-1: A proposed amendment to the Land Use, Residential -
Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan of the City
of Newport Beach, California
PROJECT LOCATION:
See attached Project Description
a DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Q ` RrrRri �' 9
See attached Project Description
I1 JAN3I1980•. iD
d DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF YOUR AGENCY RELATED TO TNI CT
N�V
Tm u LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: (USE Alft) ZONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY):
' w v c >
0.
w dueto
.m.
z w 'i+ o
CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE
'DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA' OF EXPERTISE/INTEREST:
Sewer service - County Sanitation District No. 5 of orange County
r LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS .(USE ADDITI4AL PAGES AS NECESSARY):
With regard to Item b) Freeway Reservation East - This is within the
w newly created Zone 2 and is subject to the temporary suspension
of sewer connection. Please refer to Ordinance 510 of District No. 5
a adopted January 15, 1980.
' o
g-�� Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer (714)540-29.10
w '
w
CO ACT P SON TITLE PHONE
DATE MAILED BY DATE RECEIy D By RESPON DATE RECEIVED BY DATE RESPONSE
LEAD AGENCY SIDLE AGENV 'WHERE APPLICABLE JilTERESTED PARTY RECEIVED BY THE
January 25, 1980
LEAD AGENCY
Mr, Milton Ideka
'fo:CALTRANS "°
, i Planking Department
1210 North St. ; ) 3300 Newport Blvd.
General Plan Amendment 80-1 Sacramento, CA 958141 Newport Beach, CA 91.663 :
PLEAS[ RC•IURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR COHI•+E'!TS 'iY February 6, 1980
— — — PROJECT TITLL: CPA 80-1:_A proposed amendment to the Land Use, Residential��
Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan of the City
of Newport
Beach,
each California
ti PROJECT LOCATION:
See attached Project Description ;.•�
u .l
z
w
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISS
r: FFg7 „ i-T
See attached Project Description Sc'Qy�
I
ro SCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AAUTHORI/TY OF Y06R AGENCY RE�A[ED TOJ $,PROJECT,
/
I
s ra LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: (USE ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY):
W O C Y / /'W_jfl!"/ f�A'�GIG //�S /�7/!�i� �I�� � N•�.,�c_(.G'!L/
ail cao, GL!/•-C) /Mf!/L� t, 0c•tJ SCbGSy� QOu.MHstloy� �LvJ K�•TlP�L-Ci"�
R 2
� F-•� ••-y CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE �713
DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA OF EXPERTISE/INTEREST:
' LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS (USE ADDTTIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY):
to
.w.
C
6
O
F
N
K
W
CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE
DATE MAILED BY :DATE [D,!ECEIVED BY
LEAD AGENCY STED.PARTY RECEIVED BY THE
' January 25, 1980 LEAD AGENCY
5 J LAiJ t.f�^5„e E-t1 Sf/, ,has
IORANGE COUNTY DIVISION • R. O BOX 3334. ANAHEIM, CALIF W803
January 30, 1980
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
SUBJECT: GPA-80-1
This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the
proposed project, but only as an• information service. Its intent is to notify
you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where
the above named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be pro-
vided from an existing main as shown on the attached atlas sheet without any
significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with
the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public
Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made.
The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based
upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public
utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the
California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of
federal ,regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects
gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will
be provided in accordance with revised conditions.
Residential (system Area Average) Yearly
Single Family 1095 Therms/,year/dwelling unit
Multi-Family 4 or less units 640 Therms/year/dwelling unit
Multi-Family 5 or more units 580 Therms/year/dwelling unit
These estimates are based on gas consumption in residential units served by
Southern California Gas Company during 1975 and it should not be implied that
any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy.
This is particularly true due to the State's new insulation requirements and
consumers' efforts toward energy conservation.
1980,E
n,.
' We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to
provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy
conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further
' information on any cf our energy conservation programs, please contact
this office for assistance.
Sincerely,
J.D. Allen
Technical Supervisor
' Els/es
Attach.
1
1
1
1 .
1
1
1
1
1
1 41.
i
�• ``� t1r 5�5 . i5 p 'r�.w." Sys 1�i �+ ,
J t'
,f�` 1;` � t� *'!Py''.�%-• \ .yip
Ev=a�� Q at • N
'4'� �-4G •• � I+ �, •'� o* � ,8 � ^cam
P?� ` �L Y �;t �1�• 1 _ • I
� � r ■r i �r �■r ■r �r r r s +r +r �r �r �r ■r +�.
Jam•'. ) t ? �, i / 'J'P` /J'.''/• /
t
1\ t 1, l.r i • \'
( M -,•t=lam\r' �• � /.. - \ �� i /
A
' STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Govemor
' AIR RESOURCES BOARD
1102 Q STREET
P.O. BOX 2815
SACRAMENTO, CA 95812
February 7, 1980
ARB No. 791216
James Hewicker
Planning Department
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
' Dear Mr. Hewicker :
We have reviewed the January 25, 1980 Notice of Preparation for the
General Plan Amendment 80-1 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).
1 Enclosed is a recommended outline which may assist you in the prepa-
ration of the air quality analysis for the proposed project.
For additional information, please contact Jerry Schiebe of my staff
at (916) 445-0960.
Sincerely,
' GZAg1`D, Chief /
Urban Programs Branch
' Enclosure
1�• .1
DEB 519g0J>s
\/, Q
41�
' RECOMMENDED AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS FOR A GENERAL OR COMMUNITY PLAN!
In conjunction with the preparation of a general plan, the environmental
evaluation required by CEQA needs to contain an air quality analysis.
Integration of this analysis with the preparation of the plan will
assist decision makers in assessing air quality constraints and in
determining which plan alternative should be adopted as the general
plan. The air quality analysis should be based on the forecasts (popu-
lation, employment, land use, etc.) stipulated in the general plan
alternatives. We recommend the following information be contained in an
' air quality analysis.
I. Environmental Setting
A. Air population potential (individually discuss meteorology,
climate, and topography of the project area and their re-
lationships which create conditions allowing the formation of
air pollution).
B. Environmental effects of air pollutants on receptors.
C. Regulations effecting air quality (federal , state, regional ,
county, and city), including air quality planning efforts.
' D. Existing air quality.
1 . Microscale and regional conditions and trends.
2. Present and future sources of emissions.
a. Stationary sources.
' b. Mobile sources.
3. Ambient air quality data related to standards.
' II. Impact of the Proposed Plan
A. Areawide impact (tons/day and/or concentrations).
1 . Stationary source calculations (CO, NOx, HC, TSP, S02) .
2. Mobile source calculations (CO, NOx, HC) .
' 3. Summarize data in tabular form and compare it to existing
emissions.
B. Microscale impacts (calculate potentially large CO concentrations
in areas of concern and assess their impact on sensitive
receptors) .
�Pform 002 43
' III. Mitigation Mea
sures asures for Preferred Alternative
' A. All feasible measures.
I . Measures to reduce stationary source emissions.
2. Measures to reduce mobile source emissions.
B. Measures selected for incorporation into the plan.
1 . Measures to reduce regional stationary source emissions.
2. Measures to reduce regional mobile source emissions.
3. Assessment of effectiveness to reduce project emissions
' (tons/day).
IV. Growth Inducing Impact of Preferred Alternative
Present an air quality analysis as- outlined in Section II of this
outline. The basis of this analysis would be those projects induced
or encouraged to develop from the implementation of the preferred
alternative.
Consult with the local air pollution control district or contact
the State Air Resources Board for additional information or assistance.
1
' FEB
'
1
- RESPONSES -
' (Comments received as of
February 19, 1980)
47
t
� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
( 714) 640-2197
' February19
, 1980
Airport Land Use Commission
18741 North Airport Way
Santa Ana , CA 92702
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 80-1
Gentlemen :
The City of Newport Beach has received your comments
on General Plan 80-1 .
� Your comments have been forwarded to the City ' s
Planning Commission for their consideration in the
review of this project.
Very truly yours ,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES HEWICKER , DIRECTOR
By G.i
Frec al rico
Environmental Coordinator
FT/nm
1
' City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulev ',�Newport Beach, California 92663
r��ti�va°RT�a,
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
�t R PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(714) 640-2197
February 19, 1980
Mrs . Luvena Hayton , President
Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce
2855 East Coast Highway
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 80-1
Dear Mrs . Hayton :
The City of Newport Beach has received your comments
on General Plan 80- 1 .
Your comments have been forwarded to the City' s
Planning Commission for their consideration in the
review of this project.
Very truly yours ,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES HEWICKER, DV RECTOR
w
By
Fred Ta arico
Environmental Coordinator
' FT/nm
City Hall • 3300 Newport Bouleva4 "llewport Beach, California 92663
0.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GtixaisN�r• PLANNING DEPARTMENT
( 714) 640-2197
February 19 , 1980
County Sanitation Districts
P . 0 . Box 8127
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
' SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 80-1
Gentlemen :
The City of Newport Beach has received your comments
on General Plan Amendment 80-1 .
' Your comments have been forwarded to the City ' s
Planning Commission for their consideration in the
review of this project.
' Very truly yours ,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES HEWICKER, DIRECTOR
o ..
BY
4FrT
' Environmental Coordinator
FT/nm
' City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevau:2. , Newport Beach, California 92663
��EWPpR�,
u fj. @ r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
' �01 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
�41FORN�P'
( 714 ) 640-2197
' February 19, 1980
J. D. Allen , Technical Supervisor
Southern California Gas Company
Orange County Division
P . 0 . Box 3334
Anaheim, CA 92803
' SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 80-1
' Dear Mr. Allen:
The City of Newport Beach has received your comments
on General Plan Amendment 80-1 .
Your comments have been forwarded to the City' s
Planning Commission for their consideration in the
' review of this Project.
Very truly yours ,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES HEWICKER, DIRECTOR
1 By JFT rico
Environmental Coordinator
' FT/nm
City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevaxt-fewport Beach, California 92663
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
C�tFi oR�� PLANNING DEPARTMENT
( 714) 640-21:97
1
i
February 19, 1980
Mr. Gary Agi d
' Air Resources Board
1102 Q Street
P . 0. Box 2815
Sacramento, CA 95812
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 80-1
1 Dear Mr. Agid :
The City of Newport Beach has received your comments
1 on General Plan Amendment 80-1 .
' Your comments have been forwarded to the City ' s '
Planning Commission for their consideration in the
review of this project.
Very truly yours ,
1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES HEWICKER, DIRECTOR
1 BY
Fred a arice
Environmental Coordinator
1 FT/nm
1 -
1
' City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard Neu-port Beach, California 92663
o �PoR m
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
' (714) 640-2197
February 19, 1980
' Mr. Milton Ikeda
CALTRANS
1210 North Street
' Sacramento , CA 95814
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 80-1
' Dear Mr. Ikeda :
The City of Newport Beach has received your comments on
' General Plan Amendment 80-1 . Your comments have been
forwarded to the City' s Planning Commission for their
consideration in the review of this project.
The City of Newport Beach will require encroachment permits
as indicated by your department. Further, environmental
documentation may be required at that time to address
' specific project related environmental concerns .
Very truly yours ,
' PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES HEWICKER,,dDIRECTOR
By
' Fre Talarico
Environmental Coordinator
FT/nm
1
City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevardds ewport Beach, California 92663
' APPENDIX III
' Minutes
1
1
1
54
,i %.vrvuvu»ivrvcn.) M'(NUTES
" January 10 , 1980
w a n m
O to �N O W cu D N P7 W :3 City of Newport Beach
M
a
kC>i L CALL INDEX
Motion x mendment to the Motion was made that nding No.
6 be deleted .
Commissioner McLaughlin accepted mmissioner
1 Beek ' s Amendment to be included s part of her
lotion .
fes x x *x x x Wotion was then voted on , ich MOTION CARRIED.
sent
r. Hewicker explained hat the required condition
that the applicant a y for abandonment should
1 also be a required 0ndition for Resubdivision
Nos . 646 , 647 and 48.
tion x Motion was ma that the Planning Commission make
es x x x x the finding as indicated in Exhibit "A" of the
sent * Staff Repo and approve Resubdivision Nos . 646 ,
647 and 8, subject to the revised conditions
as ind " aced in Exhibit "A" of the Staff Report .
■ ea
uest to consider an amendment to Section Item #10
20. 87 . 140 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as
it pertains to the definition of the term "Dwell - AMENDME_N_
ing Unit" , and the acceptance of an Environmental 90 . 538
Document .
APPROVED
INITIATED BY : City of Newport Beach
tion x lotion was made that this item be tabled until sucli
es / x x x x xtime as there is additional relevant material re-
Abs;$'t garding this item.
Set for public hearing proposed amendments to the Item #I I
Land Use , Residential Growth , Recreation and Open
Space , and Circulation Elements of the General GENERAL
Plan . PLAN
'ATrMD M E N
INITIATED BY : City of Newport Beach $I'—'
SET FOR
ames Hewicker , Planning Director, informed the PUBLIC
Planning Commission- that they were requested by HEARING
1 the City Council to proceed with the General Plan ONFEB-
Amendment 80-1 as quickly as possible and to com- RUARY 7_,
1980
55
-23-
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
K January 10 , 1980
n =
oc a C7 W
D Qlw _D
N 5 " y X (0 � City of Newport Beach
Rota CALL INDEX
plete their deliberations in such a fashion that RESOLU-
the City Council can start their public hearings TION NO .
on the amendment no later than March 10 , 1980. 1049
He also suggested regarding the Circulation Ele-
ment of General Plan Amendment 79-2 that this not
be included as a part of General Plan Amendment
80-1 because the Environmental Documentation for
that project will not be available for staff re-
view until the early to middle part of February
and it would not be able to go forward to the
City Council in the same timely fashion as some of
the other General Plan Amendments . He explained
that the City Council' policy provides that the
City initiate the General Plan Amendment and that
the Planning Commission at the time of setting
the hearing can discuss the merits of setting a
General Plan Amendment on a particular proposal ,
but that in the event the Planning Commission
finds that there is no merit in a particular
item, they may elect to recommend to the City
Council that -it not be included in the Amendment.
He explained further that in such case , the indi -
vidual has the opportunity to address the City
Council and the City Council can either sustain
the Planning Commission or direct that the Plan-
ning Commission initiate the hearing on that par-
ticular request.
Ation x Motion was made that the Circulation Element not
Ayes x x x x x xbe included in consideration of General Plan
sent Amendment 80-1 at this time , upon which a Straw
Vote was taken .
Commissioner Beek inquired regarding Koll Center ,
to which Hugh Coffin , City Attorney , commented
that under the City Council policy on General
Plan Amendments , the Planning Commission should
etermine after examination whether or not the
project is worthy of consideration , and that it
ould be appropriate for the Planning Commission
to make a determination that this particular re-
quest is not at this time worthy of consideration ,
due to the fact of pending litigation against the
1 City regarding the effect of General Plan Amendmen
79-1 to the Koll Center Hotel .
tion x Motion was made that Koll Center not be included i
es x x x x x xconsideration of General Plan Amendment 80-1 at
sent this time, due to the fact that this particular
56
C.UMMISSIONEKS MINUTES
-K January 10 , 1980
� 0. ro
w CO N City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL INDEX
request on Koll Center is not worthy of considera-
tion , due to the fact that litigation is presently
pending , upon which a Straw Vote was taken .
Sotion x Motion was made that North Ford not be included
in consideration of General Plan Amendment 80-1
at this time, as the Irvine Company is asking
the Planning Commission to overrule the City
Council , which he felt was not an appropriate
thing for the Planning Commission to consider.
Commissioner Allen stated her understanding that
there is still litigation pending on North Ford ,
to which Mr. Coffin reported that the litigation
regarding North Ford is still pending and has not
been dismissed , as the Irvine Company had some
concern regarding the specific condition attaching
that industrial development could not occur unless
it was after or at the same time as the residentia
development and application is to modify that one
particular condition. He added, however , that
Irvine litigation does not involve General Plan
Amendment 79-1 .
The Public Hearing was opened regarding this item
and David Dmohowski , Irvine Company , stated that
they are perfectly willing to commit to a resi -
dential use of the parcel , consistent with the
City Council ' s action , but that they are request-,
ing the City to consider perhaps an alternative
means of insuring that this parcel becomes resi -
dential in terms of perhaps a legal instrument
against the property such as a C . C . & R. deed
restriction , an easement of some sort , or a de-
velopment agreement rather than the actual fact
of residential construction prior to or concurrent
with industrial .
Commissioner Balalis posed a question , to which
Mr. Coffin replied that this particular condition
is now in the General Plan and cannot be amended
until the Planning Commission has made its recom-
mendation on whether or not it is a good idea to
amend that condition .
1yes x x K Straw Vote was then taken on the Motion , which
Noes x x x MOTION FAILED .
sent
57
-25-
IVIIINU ICJ
1 g = - January 10 , 1980
-4 r- W
: 'Co a n co
�p j o co a >
N 5 City of Newport Beach
SQCRL"A7H!lVrd'A! �
ROLL CALL INDEX
Commissioner McLaughlin stated her understanding
that the reason the City Council put this tie in
on this project was to insure the fact that there
would be residential development and that there
is an instrument that is possible to tie this in
within a reasonable time frame and for that rea-
son she would vote to hear the project.
otion x Motion was made that Items c, d , e , g (bike trails
and h (freeway reservation east) be set for public
hearing .
lotion x Amendment to the Motion was made that Items a , c ,
d, e , g and h be set for public hearing .
#otion x Amendment to the Amendment was made that Item a
be excluded from consideration .
Commissioner Allen commented regarding Item c ,
stating that she was not comfortable setting
for public hearing an item on which she considered
to be not enough information to warrant such .
Mr. Dmohowski commented that the Irvine Company
owns the land and that the applicant is a lessee
to the Irvine Company , which is requesting a
change on approximately 10 ,000 sq . ft. on an adja-
cent parcel to allow an expansion of an existing
service station use and is not related to the en-
tire parcel .
r. Hewicker informed the Planning Commission that
the area is two tenths of an acre.
es x xStraw Vote was then taken on the Amendment to the
es x x x x mendment, which MOTION FAILED.
sent
es x x x Straw- Vote was then taken on the Amendment to the
es x x x otion , which MOTION FAILED .
sent
es x x xStraw Vote was then taken on the Motion , which
es x x AOTION FAILED .
tsent
ommissioner Balalis commented that the only argu-
ent is whether or not North Ford should be con-
idered and stated his understanding ,that they are
of being asked to .change the decision of the City
ouncil as it pertains to the residential and in-
ustrial amounts built or to change the timing .
53
-26-
\.VI VII V IIJJIVI VLI�J MINU1 ES
9: January 10 , 1980 -
0x
w X W � City of Newport Beach
ROIL CALI H INDEX
UWUQUIMO=�,
r. Hewicker commented that the recommendation of
the City Council in approving General Plan Amend-
ment 79-1 was that the residential would either
be built prior to or concurrent with the industria
portion and at this time the only necessary deci -
sion for the Planning Commission is whether or not
to set this question for a public hearing and in
no way obligates the Planning Commission to either
approve or disapprove the request at a later date .
Commissioner Balalis stated his understanding that
they would be hearing North Ford and limiting dis-
cussion on such to only the item pertaining to the
phasing of the two items to the commercial and in-
dustrial .
Commissioner Allen stated her understanding that i
was not a request by the City Council but by the
Irvine Company to rescind a condition on the de-
velopment of the North Ford P-C adopted by the
City Council as part of General Plan Amendment
79-1 , which solution is now being worked out be-
tween the City Council and the Irvine Company and
she expressed her concern relative to pre-empting
the City Council .
Mr. Dmohowski stated that the reason they are re-
questing it at this time is because the negotia-
tions are ongoing and should the City Council
decide to reconsider, then the current General
Plan conditions may or may not be a stumbling-
block to implementing a solution and they are
asking that the Planning Commission keep the
option open and not asking that they prejudge
1� the request at this time .
M■■otion x Motion was made to reconsider the previous Motion .
es xx x x x
sent k Motion was made to adopt Resolution No . 1049 and
Motion x set for public hearing at the regular Planning
Commission meeting on February 7 , 1980 Items
c, d , e , g and h with the understanding that the
staff will report to City Council the Planning
Commission ' s concerns and votes on Item a and
ask whether the City Council wishes to direct
the Planning Commission to set said item for
public hearing .
-27- 59
C.UMMISSIUNEKS MINUT ES
January 10 , 1§80
o C m
N 5 N W �' ) City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL. INDEXI
ommissioner Allen inquired whether it is the con-
sensus of the Planning Commission that their con-
ern regarding this item is that it is currently
eing worked ou't by the City Council and Mr.
ewicker replied that there are ongoing negotia-
ions between the applicant and the City Council
nd the Planning Commission did not desire to pre-
mpt them.
r. Balalis stated his understanding that this
as the consensus of 3 of the members of the
Nanning Commission , but that the other 3 wanted
o set it for public hearing while the negotia-
ions were taking place , so that the item would be
efore the Planning Commission when the negotia-
ions were concluded and the concern was whether
o set it for public hearing at this time or at
he next meeting.
Ayes x x * x x x otion was then voted on , which MOTION CARRIED .
sent
* * *
r. Hogan commented regarding the tabling of
mendment No. 538, stating his interest in said
item as the portion that would remove the minimum
of 600 sq . ft. required for a dwelling unit. lie
NINN explained that the size of the senior citizen ' s
housing project for the Lutheran Church has'to
be reconsidered because of HUD requirements
wand that they would like to**see this requfre-
illant removed.
I
ommissi P_r Beek stated his agreement.*
Motion x lotion was made reconsider the previous Motion
elative to Amendm t No . 538.
ommissioner Allen state that she would abstain ,
s she would not vote on an 'tem on which she had
of received a staff report.
es x x x lotion was then voted on , which MOT CARRIED .
es stain x x otion was made that the Planning Commiss '�n re-
Absent * ise Section 20. 87. 140 of the Zoning Code to eli -
inate the portion which reads , " . . . there mum,
e a minimum of 600 sq . ft. . .
w
- - - - MIN It
3 = — February 7 , 1980
o m w
3 ' x W D City of Newport Beach
N 7 W' (D 4!
]YSah72Ykd3ID4/�.ZGCi.T ¢ .SS'.aN 4.ti:3�.h'GP.T�!�t,
ROLL CALL INDEX
Commissioner Beek expressed feeling that the
Local Coastal Planning Cori tee has already given
the Planning Commission very clear indication of
the direction they wa to be taken , and that is
that they want to e more waterfront dependent us s .
Commissioner alis stated that he would not sup-
port the m on because of his feeling that water-
front to ions are unique and are for the use of
many ple and not just the individuals that own
boa and that it had been his experience by fre-
nting the Cannery Restaurant that a lot more
people have had the opportunity to view the water-
010 front since it became a restaurant .
yes x 010 x x Motion was then voted on , which MOTION CARRIED .
Noes K x
Ibsent * Motion was then made that the Planning Commission
otio x make the findings as indicated in Exhibit "B" of
e x x x the Staff Report and deny Resubdivision No . 650.
s x
sent
Request to consider proposed amendments to the Item #8
Land Use , Residential Growth and Recreation and
Open Space Elements of the General Plan , and the GENERAL
acceptance of an Environmental Document. PLAN
AMENDMEN
INITIATED BY: City of Newport Beach R . 80-1
CHEVRON SERVICE STATION CONTINUE
James ewic er , anning Director, explained that TO FEB-
this is only the first step in the process for RUARY 21
this particular General Plan Amendment and that 1980
the second step is a zone change and the third
step is a use permit and resubdivision , so that
there are at least three other discretionary
actions that must be taken by the City prior to
�- the time that the construction contemplated by
this request would actually occur .
The Public Hearing continued regarding this item
and Chuck Nbodland , representing the Chevron Oil
Company , appeared before the Planning Commission
and explained that the purpose of their proposal
is to completely reconstruct their service station
61
- 19-
IVIIIVV 1 CJ
February 7 , 1980
-1 0 w
O CEO W w D
3 `� X U n
T. f/1 7 City of Newport Beach
N
ROLL CALL 31
INDEX
alum
at Pacific Coast Highway and Dahlia . He stated
that the existing facility is on about 8 ,000 sq .
ft. of land and is about 25 to 30 years old . lie
added that the proposal includes diesel fuel
availability at the pump lock and that they would
like to upward certify , doubling the size .
In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Allen , Bob Lenard , Advance Planning Administrator,
replied that all of the commercial portion of
Corona del Mar is now shown on the General Plan
as a mixture of retail and service-commercial and
administrative , professional and financial -com-
mercial uses .
In response to a second question posed by Commis-
sioner Allen , Mr. Hewicker commented that if the
Planning Commission permits the expansion of the
strip commercial area in Corona del Mar into this
area, that it further reduces the options for a
highway down the Fifth Avenue extension .
In response to a third question posed by Commis-
sioner Allen , Mr. Woodland replied that in ac-
quiring the additional property from the Irvine
Company , they did not acquire square footage that
is really satisfactory for them. He added that
the property they acquired was acquired with the
Fifth Avenue property.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Beek , Mr. Hewicker replied that this area still
exists as a C-1 zone until such time as the Speci -
fic Area Plan is adopted , at which time the zoning
would be changed.
In response to a second question posed by Commis-
sioner Beek , Mr. Hewicker replied that the desig-
nation on the General Plan is a mixture of retail
and service commercial and administrative , pro-
fessional and financial -commercial .
ommissione•r Beek stated his preference to direct
this project in the commercial direction .
62
-20-
MINUTES
g = — February 7 , 1980
-1rm
`° � w � � City of Newport Beach
W 5 m 0 v
+ i¢�J1uS2SxCG�.S'AJ'S"Li13d1AI'Jt.."A."":'CSt'r-vrve,7•�?^'C'J
ROIL CALL �INDEX
In response to a comment from Mr. Hewicker, Don
Webb , Assistant City Engineer , stated that it
did not appear to him that this would preclude a
Fifth Avenue alignment that was northerly of the
existing Fifth Avenue and the frontage road ; how-
ever , , if Fifth Avenue were extended directly
through to join Pacific Coast Highway , it would
be in the way.
FREEWAY RESERVATION-EAST
David Dmohowski , Irvine Company , appeared before
the Planning Commission regarding the freeway re-
servation-east and stated that the Irvine Company
does not have any specific proposals to make with-
in the next five years , and also stated that they
have no problem with the proposal to redesignate
it low-density residential at 4 dwelling units
per buildable acre ; however , that they would ob-
ject to the suggestion in the Staff Report to
redesignate it Open Space.
Commissioner Thomas suggested that this area would
be a good location for a high-occupancy vehicle
lane.
BUILDABLE ACREAGE
Regarding the subject of buildable acreage , Com-
missioner Beek suggested getting some topo maps
to specifically determine where the slopes , ri -
parian areas and setbacks are.
Commissioner Bala lis suggested aerial photographs .'
Mr. Webb commented that they have available aerial
photos for the entire City which are horizonally
controlled , but that they do not have the area im-
mediately around the bay or the bay itself.
Mr. Lenard informed the Planning Commission that
the Planning Department is funded this year to con
duct a whole new aerial survey which could be 'used
on an overhead projector.
Mr. Hewicker commented that the direction of the
City Council was that the specific wording that
as to be added to the General Plan Amendment was
to allow at the time that the Planning Commission
-21- 63
_ __. .v u vv l✓
_ February 7 , 1980
0 ° n n a)
w 5 � d 77 ° D City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL
INDLX
and the City Council were considering a Planned
Community Development Plan or Tentative Map and
that they could consider the deletion of certain
areas in the calculations of permitted densities
or square footages . He added that it was not the
intent of the City Council to direct the Planning
Commission to begin planning and defining these
particular areas on every vacant site around the
upper bay at the present time and get back to them
with a recommendation in time for them to hear it
at the first City Council meeting in March .
L LOCATION OF STRUCTURES
ommissioner en commented regarding a statement
in the Staff Report stating that this regulation
may preclude roads needed to gain access to the
buildings , inquiring as to which areas this might
be a problem'. Mr. Hewicker answered that this re-
ferred to Westbay and approximately 20% of New-
porter North .
Mr. Dmohowski commented that they had undergone
some site evaluations as, far as slope and that
these evaluations indicated , except in a few
cases , that the 2: 1 condition wouldn ' t have an
impact on where they would locate structures , or
how many structures they would build . He added
that it might have an impact on whether or not
they could put a street through in a certain lo-
cation . He used as an example the Castaways site ,
in which case the best location for gaining access
to that lower commercial portion where the trailer
park is right now would require altering the slope
along Dover Drive to get the proper turning ra-
dius . He concluded that they did not feel that
it would affect any area covered by the Bluff
Ordinance .
MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS
In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Thomas regarding the bikeways , Mr. Webb replied
that in setting aside the Master Plr of Bike-
ways , they did not make a determina n as to
whether they would be onstreet or o , street.
Commissioner Thomas expressed his concern that
there be a major buffer between the roads and the
bikeways .
-22- 64
MINUTES
a: February 7 , 1980
0 � 5000 ' a
N N N City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL AVIMMUUMMr
INDEX
rakr
Mr. Hewicker advised the Planning Commission that
if it is their intention to determine buildable
acreage and deletion of buildable acreage with
individual sites , then the EIR and legal notifi -
cation would necessarily have to be changed.
Commissioner Bal.alis expressed his feeling that
natural riparian areas possibly should be excluded
from buildable acreage and that photographs would
aid in this determination .
1 Commissioner Beek stated his preference to using
topo maps .
tion Motion was made to continue General Plan Amendment
es x x x No. 80-1 to the regular Planning Commission meet-
sent * * ing of February 21 , 1980.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDI-
TIONAL
Public Hearing was set for March 20 , 1980 for an BUSINESS
amendment pertaining to residential uses in the
M- 1-A District. RESOLU-
* * * TION NO .
1050
tion x Mo ' n was made to excuse Commissioner Haidinger
les x x x from a regular Planning Commission meeting of
Abstain Februar 1 , 1980.
sent
* * *
There being no fu her business , the Planning
Commission adjourne at 11 : 00 P. M.
Debra Allen , Se
cre ry
Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
' 6
...... . ej � uuIIU : : I,It a III 1 •••,• ••+ •�
� x .Dime : February
P . Mary DRAFT
Date : February 21 , 1980
� 5 W � f :) City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL INDEX
resent M x x
bsent * * EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS
James Hewicker, Planning D Y,6 or
Robert Burnham, Assistaa.PP ity Attorney
STAFF MEMBERS '
William Laycock Current Planning Administrator
�- Robert Lenar Advance Planning Administrator
Fred Ta.lar ' o , Environ-mental Coordinator
Donald W Assistant City Engineer
Glenna ipe , Secretary
* x *
Minutes Written By: Glenna Gipe
* * *
000
Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning
Commission meeting of February 7 , 1980 was post-
poned to the regular Planning Commission meetin'g
of February 21 , 1980 .
Or-
Request to consider proposed amendments to the Item #1
Land Use , Residential Growth and Recreation and
Open Space Elements of the General Plan , and the GENERAL
acceptance of an Environmental Document. PLAN
AMENDMEN
INITIATED BY : City of Newport Beach 80-1
Commissioner McLaughlin RESOLU-
i g posed a question , to which TION NO
Robert Lenard , Advance Planning Administrator, re- 10ON
plied that the real co-Darison that should be made
49
would be the parcel net, less the church site , APPROVE
less the 2 : 1 slope , less parks and streets and
that the real difference now should be the habi -
tat areas , which is 1. 4 acres in this case .
In response to a second question posed by Com-
missioner McLaughlin , Xr. Lenard replied that
the 37 . 8 acres should not be referred to , except
I 66
- 1-
MINUTLS
w February 21 , 1980
7 ,� o co A
5 N y City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL INDEX
for informational purposes only. He explained
that said figure was the property owner ' s esti -
mate at the time of General Plan Amendment 79-1
and that since then the Irvine Company has pre-
pared slope maps that show 2: 1 slope areas and
that the City has mapped the habitat areas . He
added that this resulted in an entirely new set
of numbers . He concluded that 1 . 4 acres is an
approximation of what the difference would be .
In response to a question posed by Comnissioner
Thomas regarding the bluff setback , Mr. Lenard
replied that the Bluff Preservation Ordinance
does not reduce the buildable acreage calculation
by 3. 2 acres in this case , but would prohibit
the location of structures .
Mr. Lenard then commented that what would be
changing with the adoption of General Plan Amend-
ment 80-1 would be that the habitat areas would
be subtracted from the calculation of buildable
i � acreage .
In response to a question posed by Commissioner'
Thomas , Mr. Lenard replied that there is a parcel
net of 70. 4 acres and that the Sea Island Park
and Orange County Flood Control property are al -
ready deleted from the site , as are the 2: 1
slope areas of 7. 8 acres . He added that the
blufftop setback area of 2 . 9 acres is an area that
would be deleted with the passage of General Plan
Amendment 80-1. He stated that the 18 acres of
habitat area would be deleted with the passage of
General Plan Amendment 80-1 , and that the 14
acres of noise-impacted area similarly would be
deleted . He concluded that the present parks and
streets figure is 2 . 9 acres , or 15% , so that the
gross difference would be approximately 36 acres .
In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Thomas , Mr. Lenard replied that noise impact areas
can be mitigated at the time of tract filing , but
that in this particular situation , this is air-
craft noise , which cannot be mitigated in the
same way. He added -that General Plan Amendment
79-1 already prohibits the location of structures
in areas that, are noise-impacted, so that it would
prohibit the location of structures in those
areas . He concluded that under the existing Gen-
f 67
IV 111 \V IL✓
w 'February 21 , 1980
RiR R
W UR y City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL INDEX
eral Plan , the Irvine Company would be credited
with the 14 acres of buildable acreage .
The Public Hearing continued regarding this item
and David Dmohowski , Irvine Company , appeared
before the Planning Commission and stated that
the figures provided the staff during General
Plan Amendment 79-1 were based on the current
definition of buildable acreage , or the net site
area minus the streets , parks and slopes greater
than 2 : 1 and that the difference between those
figures and Mr. Lenard ' s figures are due by and
large to the effects of General Plan Amendment
80-1 ; that is , deleting the bluff setbacks , habi -
tat areas and noise-impacted areas .
In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Balalis , Mr. Dmohowski replied that the figure
should begin with 70. 4 acres parcel net and sub-
tracting the Sea Island Park Dedication , this
should bring the figure to 64 . E acres , and that
the 2 . 9 acres figure for parks and streets is
' too low a figure.
Mr. Lenard explained that shrinking the size of
the remaining allowable development down from ap-
proximately 40 acres to approximately 20 acres
and subtracting 15% for streets and parks , 15%
is being subtracted from a much smaller area ,
so that there could be as much as 10 acres dif-
ference.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Beek , Mr. Dmohowski replied that subtracting the
bluff setback of 2. 9 acres , the habitat areas
at 18.0 acres , and the noise-impacted areas of
14. 0 acres would bring the net difference between"
what they estimate as buildable under the cur-
rent definition , which would change under General
Plan Amendment 80-1 .
Mr. Dmohowski stated his unde-rstanding that the
1 40. 3 acres figure was arrived at by the parcel
net acreage , minus the 2 : 1 slope of .7 . 8 acres ,
minus the estimate for the amount of streets and
parks , assuming approximately 161 dwelling units ,
i -3- 68
MINUTES
V February 21 , 1980
8 5-
City of Newport Beach
INDEX
which figure was roughly 15% of the 40 . 3 acres
figure. He added that they also subtracted the
Sea Island Park , but did not subtract the flood
control .
Commissioner Balalis stated his understanding
that there would be a difference of 18 acres ,
T which leaves a general figure of approximately
22 acres or 23 acres of net buildable .
Mr. Lenard explained the figures relating to New-
.porter North , stating that the original parcel
net is 86 acres and the 2: 1 slope is 9 . 2 acres , s
that the 86 acres minus the 9. 2 acres is equal
to 76. 8 acres , and 25% subtracted from this fi -
gure for park dedication and streets gives a
total of 57. 6 acres . He added that the blufftop
setback areas are approximately 2 acres , the habi -
tat acreage is 45 acres and the streets are only
4. 5 acres . He concluded that the new difference
for Westbay is 24 . 2 acres .
Commissioner Thomas stated his understanding that
the figures could be made more realistic if they
adopted the habitat areas , riparian vegetative
assemblage and the conditional riparian areas
alone. He expressed his feeling that -the ripar-
ian areas are the most important areas .
Mr. Lenard stated his understanding that Fish and
Game ' s position was that they felt very strongly
about the disturbed grassland areas , which are
quite a large portion of the Newporter North and
Westbay sites . He added that the only areas
they would not consider as sensitive habitat
areas are the disturbed grasslands on flat ter-
rain .
Mr. Dmohowski stated that the only area they woul
consider as a bona fide riparian area would be
the area known as the John Wayne Gulch of roughly
between 6 acres and 10 acres . He added that the
area that Fish and Game has identified as a sig-
nificant riparian area north of that near the
terminus of Santa Barbara Drive is , in fact , an
unimproved drainage channel . He concluded that
_4_ 69
• tvurvv t CJ
w February 21 , 1980
N x N 7 City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL
INDEX
it is their position that this area is not a
significant environmental habitat, but is , in
fact, an unimproved drainage channel . He con-
cluded that it is their position that this area
is not a significant environmental habitat area ,
but is , in fact, a drainage ditch that hasn ' t
been very well maintained in recent years .
Mr. Dmohowski agai.n appeared before the Planning
Commission and expressed their general feeling
that there is no justification for amending 'the
definition of "buildable acreage" , because the
only intended purpose seems to be a further re-
duction in residential density on those undevelop-
ed parcels . He stated that they had recently
completed a 2 year general ,plan review , which re-
sulted in a reduction of the number of units al -
lowed on those sites of between 70-100% in some
cases . He added that they do not feel that there
has been any new information offered by anyone
since the conclusion of the general plan review
which would justify a further reduction of the
number of units allowed eit-her in terms of traf-
fic impacts , environmental concerns or any other
reasons . He concluded that regarding the loca-
tion of structures , from a planning 'standpoint
they do not hold any concerns with this , with
one exception ; that is , the proposal to prevent
any grading or location of structures on what is
now 2 : 1 slope would pose a particular difficulty
in the Big Canyon area. He also concluded that
there are small patches of 2: 1 slopes scattered
throughout the Big Canyon Area 10 Site .
In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Beek , Don Webb , Assistant City Engineer , responded
that they would prefer to have the entrance into
the residential -commercial site be opposite to
Cliff Drive , so that there could be a traffic
signal installed to let people in and out.
Mr. Dmohowski stated that the John Wayne Gulch
area is , in fact , valuable riparian habitat; how-
ever, they have made drainage improvements in an
-5- 70
IV Ill vV ILJ
w — February 21 , 1980
a
x City of Newport Beach
[ x Im �e�.,.=d --- - �nzxax,:.;�rttanfrcm:<•��r,;r..I. ,,.::r. ,.r.:sua ,rv:.cv;�,�v.>raanvtzY.::.
ROLL CALL INDEX
.s�"�.'�t^m:cs»i'�t�'rrstua7—_�acta'.�.:,��sms.[es'se,�'+tr .carry„trstek7rtr_s;�
unimproved area where they have provided on-site
siltation control which now supports a variety
of native vegetation through artificial irriga-
tion runoff. He added that they did not feel
they should be penalized in terms of buildable
acreage for allowing that condition to exist.
He stated that at the time the site plan is pre-
pared and the P-C zoning application comes before
them, there would be a possibility for negotia-
tion over the preservation of these areas in a
manner satisfactory to the City. He concluded
that regarding the concept of establishing den-
sity by way of the 65 CNEL noise contours , they
do not feel that it is an appropriate variable
in determining the appropriate density for a
given site .
Commissioner Balalis stated his understanding
that they feel that General Plan Amendment 79-1
is sufficient and that they would like to see the
process continue that way and then when a plan is
presented to the City either as a P-C District or
as a map , at that point in time the City would .
have an opportunity to review and eliminate loca-
tion of structures within the 65 CNEL or the ri -
parian areas or the bluffs . He further stated his
understanding that at the same time , however , the
want to maintain the total number of dwelling
units .
Mr. Dmohowski expressed their feeling that on the
Newporter North site for example , roughly 212
dwelling units could be constructed , preserving
the riparian areas and the bluff setbacks and
that the net density resulting from thlat would
not be much greater than 4 dwelling units per
acre on a site-by-site basis . He concluded that
they could not necessarily agree to a specific
allocation of dwelling units and transference .
Motion x Motion was made that the Planning Commissio-n adop
Ies x x ' x x a policy that structures not be located on slopes
sent * * greater than 2: 1 , upon which a Straw Vote was
taken .
Ition x Motion was made that structures not be located in
Ayes x x x x x flood plain areas , upon which a Straw Vote was
sent
6 71
-� r- d February 21 , 1980
w a n M
w W N � City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL INDEX
taken .
James Hewicker, Planning Director , inquired re-
garding the slopes greater than 2 : 1 in terms of
the Planning Commission ' s policy on location of
structures , asking whether it was the intent of
the Planning Commission that an existing slope
of greater than 2: 1 could not be mitigated or
could not be graded and therefore become build-
able. He further inquired whether this pertained
to existing slopes or the situation at the site
after it is prepared for development.
Commissioner McLaughlin responded that the City
should be allowed to repair an erosion problem.
Commissioner Thomas stated his understanding that
if in its natural state the slope is greater than
2 : 1 , then it is unbuiidable and would imply a
prohibition on regrading the slope down to less
than 2 : 1 .
Commissioner Beek expressed his feeling that the
2: 1 slope requirement should include only those
slopes greater than 25 ' , to which the other com-
missioners agreed. They then incorporated the
25 ' or more figure into their definition .
r. Dmohowski stated that they had no problems
complying with the 2 : 1 slope requirement , except
in the case of Big Canyon Site 10 , at which site
they have a man-made slope of which roughly 25%
may be 2 : 1 or greater. He further stated that
in order to accommodate development of this site ,
there would be a need for some grading and some
ecompacting of the existing material in order to
stabilize the slope for development . He added
that as part of this project, there would be a
restructuring of the existing material in order
o stabilize the slope for development. He con-
cluded that also as a part of this project , there
ould be a restructuring and a repairing of an
xisting slope structure near the entrance to Big
anyon . He also concluded that the direction of
he Planning Commission would prevent them from
72
MINU 1 tJ
0 w V February 21 , 1930
0 g o C3 m D
y N y D City of Newport Beach
ROI L CALL INDEX
d8'79�Th'IG7�tA' g�yq�61�0¢ pY9@
preparing that slope and developing that parcel .
He suggested that this policy apply to natural
land forms or non-manufactured slopes .
Commissioner Allen stated her understanding that
the intent of the previous Motion basically took
care of the Public Safety problem by intent.
Mr. Hewicker stated his understanding that the in- '
tent was to permit a grading or repair of a slope
greater than 2: 1 if it is less than 25 ' in height ,
and if it is greater than 25' in height, then it
comes under the classification of a bluff, which
cannot be altered .
The Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Hewicker.
They also agreed that this related only to un-
developed sites .
Commissioner Thomas commented that he would like
to see the Fish and Game maps incorporated by
' reference in talking about the areas identified
in the legend as : 1) ripar.ian vegetative assem-
blage , 2) disturbed grassland, and 3) conditional
riparian areas , as previously described .
Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney , replied
that to do this would be to designate certain
reas , which would be outside the scope of a po-
licy. He added that they would be making a find- "
ing of fact based upon maps that are contained
ithin a staff report that may not be sufficient
vidence to support that finding .
In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Balalis , Mr. Burnham stated that the more specific
policy is made , the less it becomes a policy ,
and the closer it comes to a designation as some-
thing that cannot be altered upon on an individual
asis , given different considerations for dif-
erent sites .
Commissioner Balalis stated his understanding that
he definition of environmentally-sensitive habi -
tat areas can be as broad or as specific as anyone
fishes to make it and the Planning Commission ' s
73
-a-
IVUINU 1 CJ
x February 21 , 1980
-Ira
3 ? a0 CO WD
N � N X N D City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL
INDEX
intention is to make it a little more specific
than broad .
Mr. Burnham advised that the further away they get
from the specific description of the project, the
less environmental documentation there will be
with respect to General Plan Amendment 80-1 , and
to expand the definition of habitat areas or
change any of the definitions as they are pre-
sently understood, the further away they would
get from adequate environmental documentation ,
because the environmental documentation prepared
has been based solely on the definition of the
project presently before them.
Commissioner Balalis expressed his concern that a
broad definition would allow that about 4 years
from now, additional items could be added to the
environmentally-sensitive habitat areas , and the
entire parcel could become unbuildable , to which
Commissioner Thomas agreed.
�iotion x Motion was made that the Planning Commission
adopt an interpretive guideline to staff, instruct "
ing them that for determining policy on buildable
acreage, they should consider environmentally sen-
sitive habitat areas .consisting of riparian vege-
tative assemblages .
Mr. Burnham expressed his feeling that this does .
not solve the problem they have ; that is , what
future Planning Commissions are going to do with
respect to what parcels they are considering in
the future .
Fred Talarico , Environmental Coordinator, explain-
ed' that there would be no problem with preparing a
ore specific environmental document, but that
the environmental documentation before them is
geared more to a general project . Ne added
that regarding. buildable' acreage , they geared
it more "in the direction that at the time
the Planning - Commission and/or City Council
reviews the P-C Development Plan , Tentative Map
or Environmental Documentation on a particular
-9- 74
wrvuvu»iv NrKD MINU I tS
w February 21, 1980
o IS o U7 D
y N N City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL INDEX
intention is to make it a little more specific
than broad.
Mr. Burnham advised that the further away they get
from the specific description of the project, the
less environmental documentation there will be
with respect to General Plan Amendment 80-1 , and
to expand the definition of habitat areas or
change any of the definitions as they are pre-
sently understood, the further away they would
get from adequate environmental documentation ,
i because the environmental documentation prepared
has been based solely on the definition of the
project presently before them.
Commissioner Balalis expressed his concern that a
broad definition would allow that about 4 years
from now, additional items could be added to the
environmentally-sensitive habitat areas , and the
entire parcel could become unbuildabl'e , to which
Commissioner Thomas agreed.
Motion x Motion was made that the Planning Commission
■■ adopt an interpretive guideline to staff, instruct
ing them that for determining policy on buildable
acreage, they should consider environmentally sen-
sitive habitat areas .consisting of riparian vege-
tative assemblages .
Mr. Burnham expressed his feeling that this does
not solve the problem they have ; that is , what
future Planning Commissions are going to do _with
respect to what parcels they are considering in
the future .
Fred Talarico , Environmental Coordinator, explain-
ed that there would be. no problem with preparing a
ore specific environmental document, but that
the environmental documentation before them is
geared more to a general project. He added
that regarding. buildable' acreage , they geared
it more -in the direction that at the time
the Planning Commission and/or City Council
reviews the P-C Development Plan , Tentative Map
or Environmental Documentation on a particular
C VMM1!>!AUNLK5I MINUTES
w February 21 , 1.980
3 ? W City of Newport Beach
ROIL CALL INDEX
project , that consideration shall be given at
that time, based on the evidence presented, to
making these deletions . He concluded that at
that time they would have well -documented infor-
mation before them to make these determinations .
Commissioner Allen expressed her concern that
they communicate to the City Council that it is
not the intention of this Planning Commission to
delete all those areas on the maps from buildable
acreage. She inquired whether they could accom-
plish this end by not using those maps and by
giving the City Council an approximation of their
intent.
Commissioner Balalis stated that he could support
leaving the units there if they can establish the
guidelines in a more clear way .
Mr. Burnham suggested letting their thoughts be
known to City Council as to the areas of emphasis .
He added that if they attempt to make more speci -
fic a definition in the form of some interpretive
guideline to be applied by staff, they would have
a problem. He concluded that the Attorney Gener-
al states that if they pass a resolution or, ordi -
nance that specifies that something may happen
in the future, they still must provide environ-
mental documentation.
Commissioner Beek then withdrew his Motion .
otion x Motion was made to include environmentally-sensi -
yes x x tive habitat areas in the policy on buildable
Noes x x acreage , upon which a Straw Vote was taken .
9bsent
otion x Motion was made to include coastal bluffs in the
yes Y x policy on buildable acreage , upon which a Straw
oes x Vote was taken.
bsent * *
oti•on x Motion was made to include blufftop setback areas
Ayes x x x x in the policy on buildable acreage , upon which a
oes YStraw Vote was taken.
bsent
otion x Motion was made to include riparian areas in the
yes x policy on' buildable acreage , upon which a Straw
oes x x x Vote was taken .
Obsent
-10- 75
(_UMMb5 )IUNLK5 MINUTES
3 w
� February 21 , 1980
j -.
Co W
�'R CO
F g City of Newport Beach
to 5 -� f/1 7� fA 7
ROLL CALL INDEX
Motion x Motion was made to reconsider the previous Motion .
Ayes x x
Noes X Motion was made to include riparian areas in the
Absent * * policy on buildable acreage , upon which a Straw
Motion x Vote was taken.
Ayes x
Noes K x > Mr. Lenard explained that with external mitiga-
' Absent * tion in the case of highway associated noise , it
was possible to mitigate, but as in the case of
aircraft noise , there is nothing that can be done
to mitigate the outside noise.
Mr. Hewicker stated that the specific wording is
that noise impacted areas are areas where outside
mitigated noise levels are 65 CNEL or greater.
Commissioner Allen stated her understanding that
were the Motion to pass , it would be in the land-
owner' s best interest to get the maximum number
of dwelling units on his property by erecting a
concrete block wall as near as possible to the
highway.
Motion Motion was made that residential noise impacted
areas exceeding 65 CNEL with external mitigation
be included in the existing definition on build-
able acreage, not affected by aircraft-associated
noise.
Commissioner McLaughlin then express,e.d her concern
regarding the Westbay property, which upper area
is already residential .
Mr. Lenard suggested making a provision excluding
airport associated noise.
Mr. Hewicker explained that highway noise can be
mitigated by construction of a wall or berm , but
that it is very difficult, if not impossible , to
mitigate aircraft noise.
Commissioner McLaughlin' then withdrew her Motion .
'Motion x Motion was made that residential noise impacted
areas exceeding 65 CNEL with external mitigation
be included in the existing definition on build-
able acreage.
76
-11-
MINU I t5
w February 21 , 1980
W W D City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL INDEX
Mr. Dmohowski suggested adding to Item No. 4,
Page 3., " . . . except for 65 CNEL noise attribu-
table to aircraft. " He explained that in which
case the Irvine Company wouldn ' t be penalized be-
cause of the very extreme aircraft impact on the
site.
Commissioner Thomas expressed his concern that
this would mean building walls all the way around
the Upper Bay and that views would be destroyed .
Commissioner Allen stated her understanding that
current policy does not permit structures to be
located in areas over 65 CNEL. She further stated
that she did not want to be confronted with the
problem later on of it being to the landowner' s
advantage to build walls . She concluded that
she would not support the Motion .
' Commissioner Beek also spoke in opposition to the
Motion.
�■�l tyes K Straw Vote was then taken on the Motion.
oes x x x
Absent * * Motion was made that residential noise impacted
(otion x areas exceeding 65 CNEL be included in the policy
yes x on buildable acreage , upon which a Straw Vote was
oes x K x taken.
tbsent
otion x Motio-n was made that flood plain areas be deleted-
yes x x x K from the calculation of buildable acreage , upon
Noes x which a Straw Vote was taken.
Absent
otion x Motion was made that the designation of the ±. 2
yes x x A acres northwest of the intersection of Pacific
oes x Coast Highway and Dahlia Avenue be changed from
bsent low-density residential to retail and service-
commercia.l uses (Chevron Service Station site) ,
upon which a Straw dote was taken.
' In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Beek , Mr. Hewicker replied that the landowner ha.d
' indi-cated that they would be opposed to recrea-
tional and environmental open space zoning on this
site .
-12- 77
' l UMMUAUNtKJ MINUTES
w February 21 , 1980
:r a0 a)N 0 W y City of Newport Beach
ROIL CALL INDEX
Motion x Motion was made that the designation of the ap-
yes x xx proximately 25 acres east of MacArthur Boulevard
oes adjacent to Harbor View Hills (Freeway Reserva-
�bsent * tion-East) be changed from medium-density resi-
dential to low-density residential , with a maxi -
mum of 4 dwelling units per buildable acre , upon
which a Straw Vote was taken.
rIn response to a question posed by Commissioner
Beek , Mr. Webb replied that the City Council , when
they heard the conditions on the Hoag Hospital
site , indicated that as a result of this trail
not being on the Master Plan, that they would not
consider requiring Hoag Hospital under that par-
ticular use permit to construct a section on Hoag
Hospital property. He added that by incorporating
it in the system, the next time they come through
' with a use permit or a development of the CalTrans
site directly below it, it would allow for the
connection of the trail which would be provided
with Versailles to Coast Highway near Newport
Boulevard.
Commissioner Beek stated his preference that the
segment of the bicycle trail along San Miguel
Drive not cross MacArthur Boulevard.
Motion x Motion was made to adopt the proposed amendments
to the Master Plan of Bicycle Trails and delete
the amendment pertaining to the segment of the bi -
cycle trail along San Miguel Drive between Mac-
Arthur Boulevard and Newport Center Drive East.
Mr. Webb commented that the cul -de-sating of San
Miguel Drive was not a permanent cul -de-sac and
as not a change in the Master Plan , but that San
Miguel is still a primary arterial on the system.
He 'added that it was only to be cul -de-saced until
such time as it was shown to be needed and that
even if the street is cul -de-saced , a trail coming
down to the cul -de-sac to MacArthur Boulevard
would have a traffic signal . He concluded that
San Miguel Drive would come out to at least Mac-
Arthur Boulevard and would provide for a circula-
tion of bicycle traffic into the center from the
Harbor View Homes area. He also concluded by ex-
73
' -13-
' LUMMNSIONERS v MINUTES
m February 21 , 1980
o to o U1 ipD
N y I City of Newport Beach
n
ROIL CALL INDEX
pressing his feeling that even though the road is
cul -de-saced, it would still be a good place for
a bicycle trail .
Ayes x x Straw Vote was then taken on the Motion .
Absent
Motion Motion was made that the Planning Commission adopt
Ayes x x x Resolution No. 1049 , recommending to the City
Absent * * Council the adoption of General Plan Amendment
80-1 , and the acceptance of the- Environmental Do-
cument , and make the finding that although the
proposed project could have a significant impact
on the environment, the mitigation measures con-
tained in the Initial Study are adequate to insure
that there will be no significant adverse environ-
mental impacts .
' 1 The Planning Commission recessed at 9 :45 P. M. and
y
reconvened at 9 : 55 P.M.
Request to create three parcels of land for single Item #2
family residential development where one lot now
exists , and the acceptance of an Environmental RESUB-
cument. DIVISION
NO . 651
LOCA ON: Lot 1, Block B, First Addition to
Newport Heights , located at 2957 DENIED
Cliff Drive and 2900 Avon Street,
`. between Cliff Drive and Avon
treet, southeasterly of Santa Ana
A nue in Newport Heights .
ZONE : R-1
' APPLICANT: Emma M. Co Newport Beach
OWNER : Same as Appli•ca
ENGINEER : Gary Siegel & Compan Tustin
' The Public Hearing was opened regarding th ' item
and Gary Siegel , Engineer for the Applicant,
' -14-
APPENDIX IV
' Staff Reports
' 80
Planning Commissior Feting January 10, 1980
Agenda Item No. 11
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
January 4, 1980
TO: Planning Commission
' FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 80-1 (Discussion)
' Set for public hearing on February 21 , 1980,' proposed amendments
to the Land Use, Residential Growth, Recreation and Open Space,
and Circulation Elements of the General Plan.
' INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach
Background. •
Section 65361 of the Government Code limits the number of times a City may amend
its General Plan to 3 times per year. In order to retain the ability to amend the
General Plan 2 or more times during 1980, it is recommended that General Plan
Amendment 80-1 include the Circulation Element Revisions previously referred to as
General Plan Amendment 79-2. The Environmental Impact Report on GPA 79-2 should
' be completed early in February, in time for the Planning Commission meeting on
the 21st. Three different property owners have requested that the Planning Com-
mission consider amendments, and the City Council has requested the Planning
Commission to consider amendments relating to "Buildable Acreage" and "Location
of Structures". In order to simplify the amendment procedure, staff suggests that
General Plan Amendment 80-1 be divided into 6 component parts as follows:
a) North Ford
b) Koll Center
c Chevron Service Station
d) "Buildable Acreage"
' e) "Location of Structures"
f) Circulation Element (formerly 79-2)
If the Plannin� Commission has any obi proposed amendments, they should be added
to the' list at this time, and set for hearing on the 21st of February.
City Council Policy Q-1 provides that:
' "A citizen and/or property owner may request an amendment
to the General Plan. Such request shall be submitted in
writing to the Planning Commission a minimum of fourty-
' five days prior to the month for which public hearings are
scheduled. The request should clearly set forth the reason
for which the request is made, and should contain infor-
mation substantiating the need. If the Planning Commission
' 81
Planning Commission -2- "
after examination, is convinced that the proposed change is
worthy of consideration, it may initiate amendment as set
forth above. If not, the Commission shall forward the request
to the City Council with its recommendation that consideration
of amendment is unwarranted. City Council, after consideration
of the request and of the report from the Planning Commission,
may either direct the Commission to initiate public hearings on
the proposed amendment, or may return the request to the orig-
inator without further action."
In the case of GPA 80=1 (a,b, and c) the Planning Commission has the option of
setting these items for hearing on February 21, 1980, or forwarding the requests
' to the .City Council with a recommendation that consideration is unwarranted.
GPA 80-1(a) North Ford
During City Council consideration of GPA 79-1, a condition was placed on the North
Ford property that, "the residential portion of the project shall be constructed
prior to or concurrently with the commercial and industrial uses." The Irvine
' Company is requesting that this condition be removed (see attached letter dated
December 18, 1979).
GPA 80-1(b) Koll Center
Aetna Life Insurance Company is requesting that 135,000 sq. ft. of office space
,and the Hotel, deleted by the City Council in GPA 79-1 , be restored (see attached
letter dated December 14, 1979).
GPA•80-1(c) Chevron Service Station
Chevron USA, Inc. is requesting that the land use designation on ± 2 acres north-
westerly of the intersection of Coast Highway and Dahlia in Corona del Mar be
changed from "low density residential" to a mixture of "retail and service com-
mercial" and "administrative, professional and financial commercial" uses con-
sistent with their property adjacent Coast Highway (see attached letters dated
December 7, 1979, and December 10, 1979).
' GPA 80: 1(d) Buildable Acreage
The City Council has requested that additional areas be considered for deletion
from the calculation of "buildable acreage" (see attached memo from City Manager
' dated December 11, 1979).
GPA 80-1(e) Location of Structures
In anticipation of a City Council Policy prohibiting structures in areas of
slope greater than 2:1 , this amendment is suggested. This would be in addjtion
to the areas excluded as a result of GPA 79-1.
GPA 80-1(f) Circulation Element (formerly GPA 79-2)
The Environmental Impact Report should be completed in time for consideration
t
82
iPlanninrCommission -3-
1 at the meeting of February 21, 1980.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER, DIRECTOR
1
1 By
Robert P. Lenard
Advance Planning Administrator
1 RPL/nm
1 Attachments:
Irvine Co. letter dated 12/18/79
Koll Co, letter dated 12/14/79
Chevron USA letter dated 12/10/79
Irvine Co. letter dated 12/7/79
City Manager memo dated 12/11/79
Proposed Council Policy U-1
1 •
1
1
1
i
1
1
83
� bDU Noe7¢rrt Cunlr:r Ihrvt:,P U. Eh m I ------ -'•--"----..._ ----------
•!`,'I Newport Caldornin 926w
`.11• . (714) 644-3011
1 December 18, 1979
' H anuing Commission
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
' Newport Beach, California 92663
Subject; General Plan Amendment 80-1:
' Request .to Amend Condition Applied To Development
of North Ford Planned Community District
1 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission;
The Irvine Company hereby requests that the Planning Commission consider
an .amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan to rescind a condition o..
the development of the North Ford P. C. District, adopted by the City
Council as part of General Plan Amendment 79-1. As the Planning
Commission is aware, -the City Council on December 10, 1979 amended the
1 General Plan for the North Ford parcel to require that the allowed
residential uses be utilized before or concurrent with construction
of the commercial/industrial uses. This condition would impose a
hardship on The Irvine Company in the processing of development approvals
' and in complying with the requirements of Planning Commission Am
No. endment
514.
1 Additional information in support of this request will be furnished prior
to the: Planning Commission's setting of the public hearing for General
Plan Amendment 80-1.
' Sincerely, /
David Dmohowski
Manager, Government Relations
1 cc: R. Wynn, City Manager
R. Shelton
R. Cannon � �y'RDFIV ED
T. Nielseno'�• PLA:Ni"�' h
' ,,I ; DCN1FTt+S q
I ilkO
`'`/
1
84
CONTRACTOR
December 14, 1979
' Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
' 3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Attention: Paul Balalis
Chairperson
Re: General Plan Amendment 80-1
1 Gentlemen:
On behalf of Aetna Life Insurance Company, owner of the
Koll Center Newport project, we hereby request your
• consideration of the ametulment •of the General Plan of the
City of Newport Beach, General Plan Amendment 80-1, •(i) to
increase the permitted office space density on the Kell,/
' Aetna property by 135,000 square feet, and (ii) to permit
construction of a hotel on Site A as permitted by the ,
Planned Community Text for. the Kell Center Newport project
' prior to adoption of General Plan Amendment 79-1.
Permitting the development of the increased office space
will be consistent with the development of the project
which has occured to-date and will reflect a decrease of
30% from the original Planned Community zoning for the
project and will be equal treatment to the density reduction
applied to The Newport Place Planned Community.
Construction of the hotel would be subject to a use
permit as provided in the existing Planned Community
Text which would permit the City to fully evaluate the
effect of the hotel on the John Wayne Airport and orr
traffic within the City of Newport Beach. An environ-
mental impact report for the hotel has already been commenced
' at the expense of Koll/Aetna and will be available in
the very near future.
' 4490 Von Karman Avenue- Newport Beach- California 92660-(714)8333030
85.
Planning Commission
Page Two
December 14, 1979
Attention: Paul Balalis
' Deletion of the hotel and the office space from the
General Plan was accomplished without evaluation of the
environmental impacts and without adequate or full considera-
tion of any factual evidence supporting the expressed
concerns regarding the office and hotel construction.
Consideration of the hotel and office space in the General
Plan Amendment 80-1 will permit the proper consideration
-of these factors.
Very truly our ,
1 �t
Timothy' L. Strader
' Senior Vice President
and General Counsel
TLS:klk
cc: Mr. James Hewicker, Director
Department of Community Development
' Mr. Robert T. Lenard
Department of Community Development
' Mr. Lowell C. Martindale
O'Melveny & Myers
Mr. Robert Wiesel
Aetna Life Insurance Company
' 86
1
1 �
Chevron
Chevron U-SA. Inc.
Mail Addns P.O. nux 28,13, 1-a Ilabra, CA 90631 . Phune (213) 69. , 7792
I1UI 5 n4 NO,(11 loll".".,In IlnLid,G.Ailurnia q
Marketing Department
' December 10, 1979
Chevron Service Station
Pacific Coast Highway and Dahlia
Corona Del Mar, California
Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
330.0 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
' Attention: Mr. Bob Leonard
Gentlemen:
' Confirming our recent telephone conversation, Chevron U.S.A. requests your
consideration to amend the land use plan for property located northwesterly of
the intersection of Coast Highway and Dahlia in Corona Del Mar. A map and
legal description of the property is attached.
The plan amendment is requested in order to completely reconstruct and expand
' the existing service station facilities. Attached is a letter of authorization from
the Irvine Company, our Lessor and property owner, authorizing Chevron to seek
city approval.
' Due to the time involved in securing necessary development approvals, we are
hopeful our request can be considered at the earliest possible date.
1 Please contact me at (213) 694-7792 if further information is required.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.
' C. P. Woodland
Property Management Specialist
CPW:km
' Attachment
100 Years Helping to Create the Future
' '87
I THE E I - -
�iVIVE CCIIlIP,MIY
55 Newport Center Drive/P 0 Vex 7
Newport Bea^h,Cnhfornia 09653
Daniel M.Lamkin
Vice Presid^_nl,Properly Mana(i;•inent
' December 7, 1979
Mr. James D. Hewicker
Director of Planning
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, Cal. 92663
Re: Authorization for Chevron U.S.A. to Request Development Approvals
to expand an Existing Service Station Use
Dear Mr. Hewicker:
This letter is to inform your office that The Irvine Company has granted
authorization for Chevron U.S.A. , our lessee, to seek City approval for
expansion of an existing service station use, located northwesterly of
the intersection of Coast Highway and Dahlia Avenue in Corona del Mar.
A map and legal description of the property in question is attached.
The proposed expansion would occur on property north of the existing i
site which we understand to be in the Planned Community District and
designated for Medium Density Residential use. A General Plan
Amendment, Zoning Amendment, Use Permit, and Resubdivision may be
required. Representatives of Chevron U.S.A. will contact your office
regarding the processing of whatever development approvals are
necessary.
Please contact me if additional information or assistance is required.
Cordially, I {
l
Attachment
1 88
CNEVROR, O.S.A.
(Corona del Mar)
heal property situated in the City of !:,•a[,art Brach, County
of Orange, State of California, described as:
Parcel 1
That portion of Lots 2, 3 and A, Block r, of Tract NO.. 470,
as per map filed in Book 17, page 28 of Miscellaneous Maps , re-
cords of said County, described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the Southerly line of said
' Block K, distant thereon North 740 36' East 32.00
feel: from the Southwest corner of said block, said
point being also on the Easterly right of way line
of California State Highway VII - ORA - 60B,, as it
now exists; thence North 150 24' West 120.00 feet
.along said Easterly right of w% line; thence leaving
said right of way line North 74 36' East 54.84 feet
to the Northeasterly line of said Block K; thence
along the boundary of said block the following courses
and distances: South 500 22' East 73.52 feet; South
390 38' West 104.25 feet and South 740 36' West 11 .51
feet to the Point of Beginning.
Parcel 2
That portion of Block 93 of Irvine's Subdivision as per map
filed in Book 1 , page 88, Corona del Mar at per map filed in Book 3,
pages 41 and 42, and of Lots 1 and 2, Block K of Tract No. 470 as
_ per map filed in Book 17,.page 28, all of.Miscellaneous Maps, records
of said County, described as follows:
Beginning at the most Easterly corner of said Block K;
thence North 50 22' West 73.52 feet along the North-
easterly line of said block to an angle point in the
boundary of Parcel 1 described above; thence South 740
36' West 54.84 feet along the Northerly line of said
parcel to the Northwesterly corner thereof, said cor-
ner being on a non-tangent curve concave Southeasterly
having a radius of 67.50 feet, a radial to said point
bears South 870 53' 26" West; thence Northerly, North'
easterly, Easterly and Southeasterly '145.61 feet along
said curve through an angle of 1230 35' 52"; thence
South 500 30' 4g" East 64.80 feet to the Northeasterly
prolongation of the Southeasterly line of said Block K;
thence SouN 390 38' West 76.00 feet along said North-
easterly prolongation to the Point of Beginning.
REVISED EXHIBIT "A-l"
Page 1
39
I
• A2 N! //Bb'
3LOC41 93
558°30'�Z E
\tip�hkh�\ b o
PUCEL Z
.o\ CO201/A^ /JEL MA2 3/4/ 42 °,2 P.O.
M.M. - N50 'W )
73.52' �PCL.2
�
c.
O./BA t 3 7 ) I
Fore
F� "Oleo / T I
T`' 57
Pa t i
9,
9`6
1 SCALE:/'=40'
2EV/SED EXfl1617' 'A-/"PAGE 2
THE IRVINE COMPANY PROJECT:
550 H[WPany C[m(N on IV(•vlo 6".3011 CNEV,QON, U.S.A. (COQONA /JEL MAR)
H(WPORi °(ACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 TULEI BOUVOAwY PUI
_� DWN.DYbgp DATE ocL Al,79 SUCT / or /
No. REVIS(D or OFFS CKD.BYCAQ OlSC UM FILF, tiD
tiw�`...(�r'MTl`\'f •.Jw:'..+u.'. J +' ... .J4,. 'y i��r.�4.� .. ..
'y,�I"•Ir "?e\ �y��uY^l S/ s.�^:i-'.m,:.^.Ji't �•r':��e�"n/Ji V'..• ...;i%.,•.�: ,��,. ;
' 90
1
CITY OF' NEWPORT W..CH
OFFICE OF THE CITY K4NAG! R
December 11 , 1979
TO: PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: 'BUILDABLE ACREAGE DEFINITION IN THE NEXT BATCH 'OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
Attached is a copy of a memo from Bob Lenard concern-
ing buildable acreage. The City Council has requested the
Planning. Commission to consider language in the next General
Plan Amendments consistent with Page 2 of Lenard's memo, dated
December 4, 1979.
u
ROBERT L., YYJ NN
Attachment
91
r
to I 0 F
1
10: Mayor Paul Ryckoff .. _
IINIM: L'ub Laniu d, Advance Planning Adiiuisl,rt:Lur
SUBJECT: "BuiIdable Acreage"
Attached is a copy of the report I sent to Bob Wynn on July 26, 1979, discussing
the definition of "buildable acreage" and the possibility of prohibiting structures
in areas not counted as buildable (i .e. slope,greater than 2:1, parks, perimeter
open space, and public and private streets).
During the Planning Commission hearings on General Plan Amendment 79-1 , the Land
Use Element definition of buildable acreage was discussed. In addition to the
areas now deleted from a site to determine buildable acreage, the Commission con-
sidered the following areas:
1. Environmentally-Sensitive Habitat Areas
N__Al2. View Corridors
* 3. Flood Plain Areas
4. Coastal Bluffs
5. Blufftop Setback Areas
6. Riparian Areas
7. Geologic Hazard Areas
8. Residential Developments - Areas impacted by noise levels of 65
CNEL or greater.
1 After lengthly discussion, the Planning'Commission decided to use the existing
.definition of "buildable acreage" for purposes of determining densities. I think
this decision teas based on three concerns: . First, that the re-definition might so
drastically reduce the allowable number of units on a particular site; secondly,
that the determination of the allot-table number of units would become very complex„
requiring detailed studies, mapping and site planning in order to determine this
General Plan maximum number; and thirdly, that the Planning Commission and City
Council, at the General Plan Stage, would consequently be in doubt as to how many
units were allowed on a particular site.
The Planning Commission's recommendation is that, with the exception of Items 2 and
3, these areas be evaluated during discretionary review of individual projects.
Policy language should be added to the Land Use Element stating that as a result of
this rave1w, no structures shall be built in these sensitive areas, as determined by
the planning Coumiission ur Ciiy Couircfl. ^� -- ---'
This recommendation does not include the prohibition of struci.ur•es in areas of slope
greater than 2:1, although there was some discussion of that alternaLive.
The Planning Commission minority report recoma:ends that areas 1,3,4,5,6, and £i a n:
!in buildablc> conSistent with Lhr Planning Commission's prohibition of develepn >>nL
92
rl• :•..., d)'t` ' . , illlri I.11"I t`;otr`, Sliould tic)L b:! cola.t• ! i,.' i'�1" Ulf: ( %!I(Jlla(.I'.h Oi
!Jlo rlrf b:: palll'ii`.(i-0(IL Llla:. I11!: i ! '. IIIrI L.Ou.d!ISS I!41 i1rLU 11 I;;
(it :•�.�.I Ate;t ,i flood IIlcllllf.) fI'Oln the?II' rviow. :n(:uLl9!•i il:)t'a`ver, tel:: lillll;lr'Il:y
I'( oil •i UI'a f Ood plains Mvitild be c>:c.7u:•:`:I fao:.: UP:: calculation of allow,1111"
If Lh^ Council shares the concerns raised in this Pliourin;l Commission lit inority
rejtort. wilh regard to •inclu(1ing ,unbui1(labla" acreage in the ca I C ul a,ti oil of the
laaxirt;m allowable uluits p(:rrlitted on a site, titere is anothar al•ternaLivp you litay
'Wish tci•.consider._ Policy language could be added to tale Land Use Element of the
"Ccncr'al Plan, uildear the definition of "buildable acreage", stating. essentially that:
"At the time the Planning Commission and City Council review the P-C
development plan, tentative map, and environmental documentation for
a particular project, consideration shall be given to deleting. certain
additional sensitive areas from this calculation of the total number .
Of units to be allowed on a site as follows:
1 • Riparian and other environmentally-sensitive habitat areas.
2 Flood plain areas..
!� 3 Coastal Bluffs and bluff setback areas.
4) Noise impacted areas - noise levels of 65 CNEL or greater."
This We of policy language would allow the Commission and Council to base any•
i' further'density reductions on information prepared during the environmental docu-
rrentation and'plreliminary 'site planning phase of a project.
If the City Council designates a site for density transfer, this information would
need to be prepared even though no project is proposed for a particular parcel .
This would be necessary to determine the number of units to be transferred., and
would be clarified in an implementing ordinance for transfer of development rights.
Robert P.Lenard ,i.•
Advance Planning Administrator
RPL/nm t ;`
cc: Robert Wynn
Hugh Coffin
Jim Flewicker•
1 .
93
f
Cl I Y OF Ni
Df'I'/1R'IPiFflT OIL: CUi•i:•iJi•iI'I'r' 1)ia''eL�l;'i• :i'!'f
DATE.- July 7.6, 1.979
TO.- Robo,r. t• L. Wynn, City Aianagcr
FI1,01M Bob Lr..nard, Acting Advanec• Planning Aclmiiii.&Lr<;?.ar
SUBJECT: Buildable Acreage
CorIOral. Plan Arnondmcnt 26 (Resolution No. 8630) , adopted November. 1.0,
1975, revised the Land Use Element.to create a "medium-density
residential" category for developments of more than four DU' s per
buildable acre, and change "low-density residential" from a maximum
of 10 DU's 'per gross acre to a maximum of four DU's per buildable
acre. The definition of "gross residential acreage" was deleted, and
"buildable acreage" was defined as follows:
"Buildable acreage, includes the entire site, less
areas with a slope of greater than two to one,
and. does not include any portion of ,perimeter streets
' and perimeter open space."
General Plan Amendment 77-3-C (Resolution No. 9231) , adopted
December 12, 19770 revised the definition of "buildable acreage" at-
follows:
Buildable acreage, includes the entire site, less
areas with a slope greater than two to one, and
less anX_:�trea required to be dedicated to the City
for park purposes an' any per:uieter open space;
further, buildable acreage shall not include any
area to be used for street purposes. *,
The use of "buildable acreage" in the General Plan' is for the purpose
of calculating density. There are currently no provisions that would
1 • prohibit development on a site in areas of slope greater than two to 'one..
Ordinance: 1798, adopL-ed January 1979, regulates development of coa i-al
bluff sites in Planned Community Districts only
.y. The provisions pro-• .
hiirit c radint 2
.1 .1, cutting, and- filling of'natural bluff face:, toith a
slope of two to one (26, 6 degrees) or greater, and a vertical rise
OF 25 f:L, or .greater Structures c tua.es are prohib
ited icd within :.;i,>;t frel: of.
iau: hluf y
94
C i I
'I !)7F)
WJ.th Hin o=(1131:ion of the I'-C r(.1' ulij:. j.('r!."
t! on elc'Vc! IopimuliL. of c(vist.al
bluff sites, thr-1 'Jc: to rqhi(!:) 1;"�'rtJo:1,; ()I, a "t.LL'.c ill:(! �'zJJj -l:iJJ-JC!
11L
for Lhe lilaCUMC of., sLrticLurc-s has jx:f:"! j.taf3e durJ.ng Planning
COMMiS'Sion and City Counci.1 review Of l,-iaJjz; zuiel P-C
plans:, where inany competing site planning Cori Lions are aVitluat.ecl.
If the Council wants to specifically prol-libit placc-mont of
in areas of slope two to one or greater. ,
Policy lanc u'Jago Can 1)��
added to the Land Use Element of the General Plan in the upcoming
amendment. It will be necessary to decide how the policy would
apply toindividually-owned and subdivided lots (e.g. , Ocean Boulevard)
as well as major undeveloped Planned Community sites.
The Zoning Code General Provisions sections for Commercial,. Industrial,
and Residential, as well as the Planned Community regulations, would
also require amendment to prohibit placement of structures in slope
areas two to one or greater.
ROBERT P. LENARD
Acting Advance Planning Administrator
RPL:jmb
95
�6 Poli No. U-1 '
' BUILDABLE ACREAGE
It is the policy of the City Council of the City of Newport
Bench that at the: time the Planning Commission and/or City
Council should review a Planned Community Development Plan,
Tentative Map and/or enviromental documentation for a par-
ticular project, consideration shall be given to deleting
certain sensitive areas from the calculation of the total
number of residential units or square footage of commercial
development to be allowed on a site as follows:
1. Riparian and other enviromentally sensitive
habitat areas;
2. Flood plane areas;
3. Coastal bluffs and bluff setback areas;
4. • For residential development, noise impacted
areas, that is, areas where outside, mitigated
noise level's are 65 CNEL or greater.
LOCATION OF STRUCTURES
It is the policy of the City Council of the City of Newport
that at the time of discretionary review of individual projects,
.that
structures shall be built in the following sensitive areas,
as determined by the Planning Commission or City Council:
1. Enviromentally-sensitive habitat areas;
2. Flood plane areas;
3. Coastal bluffs;
4. Bluff-top setback areas;
5. Riparian areas;
6. For residential developments-areas impacted
by noise levels of 65 CIEL or greater;
7. Areas of slopes greater than two to one (2 to 1) ;
1
HRC/ap
1/2/BO
96
City Council Meeting January 21 , 1980
Study Session Agenda Item No. 4(c) l
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
January 15 , 1980
TO : City Council
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 80-1
I Planning Commission Recommendation
At its meeting of January 10, 1980 , the Planning Commission voted
(6 Ayes - 1 Absent) to set for public hearing on February 7, 198d
General Plan Amendment No. 80-1 , consisting of the following changes :
GPA 80-1 (a) Chevron Service Station
Chevron USA, Inc. is requesting that the land use designation on
t. 2 acres northwesterly of the intersection of Coast Highway and
Dahlia Avenue in Corona del Mar be changed from "low density resi -
dential " to a mixture of " retail and service commercial " and "ad-
ministrative, professional and financial commercial " uses consistent
with their property adjacent Coast Highway.
GPA 80-1 (b) Buildable Acreage
In addition to the areas already, deleted from the definition of the
term "Buildable Acreage , " the City Council has requested that at
the time of Planning Commission and/or City Council review of a
Planned Community Development Plan , Tentative Map and/or Environ-
mental Documentation for a particular project, consideration shall
be given to deleting the following sensitive areas from the calcu-
lation of the total number of residential units or square footage
of commercial development to be allowed on a site:
(I ) Riparian and other environmentally sensitive
habitat areas .
( 2) Flood plain areas .
(3) Coastal bluffs and bluff setback areas .
( 4) Residential development areas where outside ,
mitigated, noise levels are 65 CNEL or greater.
97
ATO: City Council - 2 .
GPA 80-1 c Location of Structures
I Under GPA 79-1 , language was added to the Land Use Element of the
General Plan stating that in the discretionary review of projects ,
no structures shall be built in the following sensitive areas ,• as
determined by the Planning Commission or City Council :
( 1 ) Environmentally-sensitive habitat areas .
( 2) Coastal bluffs .
( 3) Bluff-top setback areas .
(4) Riparian areas .
(5) Geologic hazard areas .
(6 ) Residential development areas impacted by noise
levels of 65 CNEL or greater.
It•would be the intent of this Amendment to add the following areas
to the list noted above :
(1 ) Flood plain areas .
(2) Areas of slopes greater than two to one ( 2 to 1 ) .
GPA 80-1 ( d) Master Plan of Bikeways
It would be the intent of this proposal to amend the Recreation and
Open Space Element of the General Plan to reflect certain housekeeping
changes to the Master Plan of Bikeways .
' GPA 80-1 (e) Freeway Reservation-East
This is a linear area of approximately twenty-six acres lying on the
easterly side of MacArthur Boulevard adjacent to Harbor View Homes..
The site is currently designated for low-density residential uses
which would permit approximately one hundred dwelling units . It
would be the intent of this amendment to examine alternative uses
in much the same manner as was accomplished under GPA 79-1 .
Other Items Considered
In addition to the intems noted above, the Commission also examined
two other requests which have not been included in GPA 80-1 as
follows :
1 . Koll Center Newport
Koll Center Newport, on behalf of Aetna Life Insurance Company, had
requested that consideration be given to restoring 135 ,000 sq . ft.
of office space and the hotel deleted under GPA 79-1 (see attached
letter) . The Planning Commission by separate vote (6 Ayes , 1 Absent) ,
voted not to consider this item pending resolution of the current
law suit.
93
TO : City Council - 3.
2. North Ford
' The Irvine Company had requested that the condition requiring the
residential use in the North Ford Planned Community, to be estab-
lished preceding or concurrent with the remaining commercial/
industrial uses , be deleted (see attached letter) . The Planning
Commission felt that no action should be taken on this request
pending the completion of the negotiations which are currently
under way between The Irvine Company and the City Council .
3. Proposed Amendments to the Circulation Element
The environmental documentation for the proposed amendment to the
Circulation Element, which was initiated as GPA 79-2, will - not be
submitted to staff until mid-February. It would therefore be the
intent of the Planning Commission to process this matter as a
separate amendment and not to include it as a part of GPA 80-1 .
City Council Policy Q-1 provides that the City Council , after con-
sideration of these latter requests and the report of the Planning
Commission , may either direct the Commission to initiate public
hearings on the proposed amendment, or may return the request to
the originator without further action.
Unless otherwise directed, the Planning Commission will proceed
with items (a) through (e ) as noted above and will conclude its
hearings and take final action on February 21 , 1980 . This will
allow the City Council to set the public hearing on GPA 80-1 on
February 25th and to proceed with the public hearing on March 10 ,
1980.
Respectfully submitted,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MES D. HEWICKER ,
hector
JDH/kk
Attachments : Letter from Koll Center Newport
Letter from The Irvine Company
99
t
CONTRAC 10:1
Dccombar 14, 1979
Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Attention: Paul Balalis
Re: General Plan Amendment 80-1
Gentlemen:
On behalf of Aetna Life Insurance Company, owner of the
Koll Center Newport projc,--t, we hereby request your
consideration of the amej:.:ment of the General Plan of the
City of Newport Beach, Gt:.neral Plan Amendment 80-1, W to
increase the permitted office space density on the Koll/
Aetna property by 135, 000 square feet, and (ii) to permit
construction of a hotel on Site A. as permitted by the
Planned Community Text for the Koll Center Newport project
prior to adoption of General Plan Amendment 79-1.
Permitting the development of the increased office space
will be consistent with the development of the project
which has occured to-date and will reflect a decrease of
jO% from the original Planned Community zoning for the
'
project and will be equal treatment -to the density reduction
applied to The Newport Place Planned Community.
Construction of the hotel would be subject to a use
permit as provided in. the existing Planned Community
Text .which would permit the City to fully- evaluate the
• effect of the hotel on the John Wayne Airport and on
traffic within the City of Newport Beach. An environ-
mental impact report for the hotel has already been commenced
at the expense of Kohl/Aetna and w"I'll be available in
the very near. future.
4490 Von Karrwui Avaiwe [P.-adi - California 92660-(714) 833.3030 100
J I ' •
Planning Commission
Page 'Rto
Duc:ember 14 , 1979
Attention: Paul Aalalis
Deletion of the hotel and the office space from the
General Plan was accomplished without evaluation of the
environmental impacts and without adequate or full considera-
tion of any factual evidence supporting the expressed
concerns regarding the office and hotel construction.
Consideration of the hotel and office space in the General
Plan Amendment 80-1 will permit the proper consideration
of these factors.
Very truly your ,
T.m 4 L. Strader
Senior Nice President
and General Counsel
TLS:klk
cc: Mr. James Hewicker, Director
Department of Community Development
Mr. Robert T. Lenard
Department of Community Development
Mr. Lowell C. Martindale
O'Melveny & Myers
Mr. Robert Wiesel
Aetna Life Insurance Company
• 1�1
'• I b:,!71w., :in.'I Cnnb;f I)flVf:,I.O. f.r _ ._.__._.._. ______ _ .. ..__ ___ .:__....__—__.,_._____ .._ .__..__...__.... __
.
j
•,•/ WfaJ :a;t l,::aeh, Ciddorni,i 091i(;3
D crmb(:r 18, 19Y9
Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Subject: General Plan Amendment 80-1:
Request to Amend Condition Applied To Development
of North Ford Planned Community District
iMr. Chairman and Members of the Commission:
The Irvine Company hereby requests that the Planning Commission consider
an amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan to rescind a condition o::
the development of the North Ford P. C. District, adopted by the City
Council as part of General Plan Amendment 79-1. As the Planning
Commission is aware, 'the City Council on December 10, 1979 amended the
General Plan for the North Ford parcel to require that the allowed
residential uses be utilized before or concurrent with construction
of the commercial/industrial uses. This condition would impose a
hardship on The Irvine Company in the processing of development approvals
and in complying with the requirements of Planning Commission Amendment
No. 514.
Additional information in support of this request will be furnished p).ior *
to the Planning Commission's setting of the public hearing for General
Plan Amendment 80-1.
Sincerely,
David Dmohowski
• Manager, Government Relations
cc: R. Wynn, City Manager
' R. Shelton
R. Cannon �•�i�• ngpGIVGD
T. Nielsen '� pLA:N1hG h
�i(.: D'cPARTtAF:IdT _
DE.0 81979a
CITY OF
5
Vr
CrJ
102
Planning Commission Meeting _ February 7, 1980 _
Agenda Item No . 8
' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
February 1 , 1980
TO : Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No 80-1 (Public Hearing)
' INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach
Background
On January 10, 1980, The Planning Commission set General Plan Amendment
80-1 for public hearing. The Amendment includes five components as
follows :
GPA 80-1 (a) Chevron Service Station
GPA 80-1 (b) Freeway Reservation-East
GPA 80-1 c) Buildable Acreage
GPA 80-1 d) Location of Structures
GPA 80-1 (e) Master Plan of Bikeways
Environmental Significance
In accordance with The California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) ,
environmental documentation for General Plan Amendment No . 80-1 is
under preparation . Notices of Non-Statutory Advisement were mailed
to Responsible Agencies and Interested Parties on January 25, 1980,
with a deadline for comments established on February 6, 1980.
The Initial Study is being prepared and will be available for the
' Planning Commission to reveiw at the February 7, 1980 meeting. Due
to the 15-day statutory review requirements , during which time all
Responsible Agencies and Interested Parties can review The Initial
' Study, it is suggested that the Planning Commission refrain from
action of GPA 80-1 until its meeting of February 21 , 1980.
GPA 80-1 (a ) Chevron Service Station
This portion of the General Plan Amendment consists of a change to
-0. 2 acres northwesterly of the intersection of Coast Highway and
Dahlia Avenue in Corona del Mar, from "Low Density Residential " to
a mixture of " Retail and Service Commercial " and "Administrative,
Professional and Financial Commercial " uses . Chevron USA, Inc.
is proposing to expand their existing service station into the Low
103
Density Residential area northerly of 5th Avenue+extended. This amend- ,
' ment would make the land use designation on the -0. 2 acres consistent
with that of the existing service station site .
' This site, as part of the " Fifth Avenue Parcels" , was recently subject
to General Plan revisions considered under Amendment No . 79-1 . This
Amendment resulted in a density allowance of 4 DU' s per Buildable Acre .
Approval of the change to a commercial/office designation could result
in a reduction of one dwelling unit from the potential allowable
dwelling units on the Fifth Avenue Parcels.
Additionally, this amendment will allow development in the area of the
5th Avenue traffic corridor. If at .any time the City should desire to
improve 5th Avenue in this area , the costs to the City will be increased
by having to acquire a developed parcel .
If this General Plan Amendment is approved , some addition discretionery
approvals will be required. Prior to any issuance of building permits ,
the applicant will have to submit applications for a zone, change amend-
ment, a resubdivision and a use permit.
Analysis : For the purposes of this analysis , the GPA 79-1 factors
are used.
r <
��Mc SttE S.71t AVE
co'sT
Alternative Uses :
1 Existing General Plan - 1 DU
2 Retail and Service Commercial /Administrative,
Professional and Financial Commercial - 2, 000 sq . ft.
Traffic Generation - Following is a summary of the trips generated by
the two alternative land uses . The figures shown are twenty-four hour
volumes .
1 ) Existing General Plan _ 11
2) Retail and Service Commercial/Administrative ,
Professional , and Financial Commercial - 70
Views -, There are no significant views on the site.
104
' IU : PLANNING COMMISSION -3-
' Cost/Benefit - Following is an estimate of the net fiscal impact ( revenue
minus cost) for the two alternative uses .
1 ) Existing General Plan - $218
2) Retail and Service Commercial/Administrative -
Professional , and Financial Commercial . $220
Sewer Generation - Long range facilities planning is based on the City ' s
existing General Plan. The following estimated generation ( in thousands
of gallons ) can be used to determine the relative demand for these
facilities created by the two alternatives . -
1 ) Existing General Plan 142
2) Retail and Service Commercial/Administrative
1 Professional , and Financial Commercial - 136
Energy Requirements - Following are estimates of the demand for non-
renewable energy resources generated by the two alternative uses .
Electrical Natural Gas Gasoline
Thous .KWH Mill . Cu/ft) Thous . Gals )
1 ) Existing General Plan 13. 5 . 125 . 275
2) Retail & Serv. Comm/ g6 . 2 1 . 2
Ad. , Prof. , & Fin. Comm
GPA 80-1 (b) Freeway Reservation-East
This portion of the General Plan Amendment proposes a change on the
±25 acres easterly of MacArthur Boulevard adjacent to Harbor View Hills
' from "Medium Density Residential " with a maximum of 100 units to " Low
Density Residential " with a maximum of 4 DU ' s per buildable acre or to
" Recreational and Environmental Open Space" .
o Fv
� W
1
� 4
1
PALIp�c �sT
yam`
t '
105
II ,
TO : PLANNING COMMISSION _4_
It is the intent of this amendment to examine alternative uses in the
same manner as was done for vacant sites in GPA 79-1 . An analysis of
three alternatives follows :
' Alternate Uses :
1 ) Existing General Plan 100 DU' s
2 Low Density Residential ± 76 DU ' sl -
3l Recreational and Environmental Open Space - -0-
Analysis : For the purposes of this analysis , the GPA 79-1 factors
are used .
Traffic Generation - Following is a summary of the trips generated by
' each of the alternative land uses . The figures shown are twenty-four,
hour volumes .
1 ) Existing General Plan 1100
2 Low Density Residential 836
3� Open Space - 125
Views - There are no significant views related to this site .
Cost/Benefit - Following is an estimate of the net fiscal impact
( revenue minus cost) for each of the alternatives :
1 ) Existing General Plan - $21 ,800
2) Low Density Residential - $16,568
' 3) Recreational and Environmental Open Space - :O_
Sewer Generation - Long-range capacity and facilities planning are
based on the City ' s existing General Plan . The following estimated
generation ( in thousands of gallons ) can be used to determine the
relative demand for these facilities created by each of the alter-
natives .
1 ) Existing General Plan 14150
2) Low Density Residential - 10754
' 3 Recreational and Environmental Open Space - -0-
Energy Requirements - Following are estimates of the demand for non-
renewable energy resources generated by each alternative land use :
Electrical Natural Gas Gasoline
Thous . KWH TMill . Cu/ft) Thous . Gal )
1 ) Existing General Plan 1350 12. 5 27. 5
2 Low Density Residential 1026 9. 5 20. 9
3 Rec. & Environ . Open Space -0- -0- -0-
1 . Assumes 19 Buildable Acres (25% reduction from Gross ) .
106
1
' IV. rLHIYIY111U WMMIbbIUN -5-
GPA 80-1 (c) Buildable Acreage
This portion of the General Plan Amendment proposes to change the Land
Use and Residential Growth Elements of the General Plan , adding policy
language stating that, at the time the Planning Commission and/or City
Council reviews a Planned Community Development Plan, Tentative Map
and/or environmental documentation for a particular project, consider-
ation shall be given to deleting certain sensitive areas from the cal -
culation of the total number of residential units or square footage of
commercial development to be allowed on a site as follows :
1 ) Riparian and other environmentally sensitive habitat areas ;
2) Flood plain areas ;
3 Coastal bluffs and bluff setback areas ; and,
4) For residential development, noise impacted areas ;that is , areas
where outside, mitigated noise levels are 65 CNEL or greater.
The central issue in regards to the adoption of a policy to eliminate
these areas from density calculations is in the definitions used to
describe these areas . The discussion which follows points out various
alternatives and concerns which should be considered.
RIPARIAN AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREAS
In defining reparian and other environmentally sensitive habitat areas ,
two basic approaches can be considered . The first is to utilize U.S .
Fish and Wildlife Critical Habitat Areas definitions and mapping cri-
teria to define reparian and other environmentally sensitive habitat
areas . The advantage to this approach is that the criteria is defined,
allowing densities to be established as soon as the site studies and
mapping is completed . The disadvantage is a loss of flexibility in
judging individual development proposals . The second approach is to
require that this concern be addressed .in depth during the Planned
Community Development, Tentative Map and/or environmental documentation
review process . The advantage to this approach is that a maximum amount
of flexibiltiy is given to the City in the review of individual projects.
The disadvantage is that neither the City nor the developer will have
specific knowledge as to allowed square footage or number of dwelling
units until the project is submitted and hearings are completed.
FLOOD PLAIN AREAS
' In defining flood plain areas ,a specific frequency of occurance is gen-
erally used to determine hazard areaa . Currently, the City of Newport
Beach has a Flood Damage Prevention ordinance which utilizes a City and
Federal Government developed map in defining flood hazard areas . On
this map, the City is divided into Zones A,B , C and V . , Zone A is the
100 year riverine flood area which currently requires structures to be
designed to specified criteria . The only vacant parcel in Zone A is
a portion of the San Diego Creek site . Other, developed portions of the
City in Zone A are Balboa Island and certain areas in Central and West
Newport. Zone B is a 100-500 year riverine flood area . The only vacant
parcel in Zone 8 is a very small portion of the low-lying part of the
Castaways site . Other, developed portions of the City in Zone B are the
107
IU: rLANNINu UUMMISSION -6-
remaining bay islands , the remainder of the Balboa Peninsula and West
Newport and areas southerly of Coast Highway and westerly of the Coast
Highway Bay Bridge . Most of the remainder of the City lies in Zone C,
which are areas of minimal flooding. Ocean front areas in Zone V a,re
subject to tsunami , hurricane wave wash, and storm waves and high tides .
Restricting buildable area in any of these flood affected zones will
result in some problems relative to discretionary approvals in developed
portions of the City . For example, if the Zone A-100 year riverine flood
area criteria were used to •determine flood hazard areas , any project
requiring discretionary approval , such as a use permit or a variance
on Balboa Island would not conform to the General Plan since the' site
would not be considered "buildable" . This problem could be alleviated
by applying Flood Plain Area criteria only to new Planned Community
Districts and Tentative Map projects .
BLUFFS AND BLUFF TOP SETBACKS
In defining Bluffs and Bluff Top Setbacks it is suggested that existing
definitions contained in the Zoning ordinance be used as follows :
a) Definition of Bluff: Any landform having an average slope of
26 .6 degrees (50%) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet
or greater.
Where there is some question as to the applicability of this
definition to a specific land form, a determination as to whether
or not the specific land form constitutes a bluff shall be made by
the Planning Commission .
' b) Setback Requirement: As a general guideline, the property line
setback from the edge of a bluff should be located no closer to
the edge of a bluff than the point at which the tip of the bluff
is intersected by a line drawn from the toe of the bluff at an
angle of 26 . 6 degrees to the horizontal . A greater setback dis-
tance shall be required where warranted by geological or ground-
water conditions , but in no case shall a property line be located
closer than 40 feet to the edge of the bluff.
In addition , no part of the buildable area of a site shall be
located closer than 20 feet to the bluff side property line . This
requirement may be increased or decreased by Planning Commission
in the review of a development plan.
RESIDENTIAL 65 CNEL
The mitigated 65 CNEL, for determination of buildable area for resin
dential development, is a very precise definition . If this standard
is adopted, consideration should be given to two specific questions .
1 First, a time frame should be set for acceptable noise studies since
the 65 �CNEL area can change over time as an area develops and traffic
patterns change . Second, a policy should be considered to define
acceptable design standards for mitigation measures . For example , a
' 15 foot high solid block wall could mitigate noise impacts on a certain
site , but this form of mitigation may not be acceptable to the City from
an aesthetic standpoint.
r
108
IU. rLMIN IAU UUMMIaISUN -7-
' GPA 80-1 ( d) Location of Structures
This portion of the General Plan Amendment proposes to change the Land
Use and Residential Growth Elements of the General Plan adding to the list
' of areas where no structures shall be built as follows :
1 ) Flood Plain Areas
2) Areas of slope greater than two to one (2 :1 ) .
Again, the primary considerations in regards to adding these items to the
list of criteria for location of structures are the definitions used
to describe these areas .
FLOOD PLAIN AREAS
' As discussed above , currently used definitions for flood plain areas
in the city of Newport Beach present problems when related to this
General Plan Amendment. If the existing Zone A designation is used
(100 year •rivering flood area) discretionary approvals requiring
environmental documentation will be precluded on the basis of General
Plan non-conformance . This problem could be alleviated by applying
this standard only to new Planned Community Districts and Tentative
Map projects .
2: 1 SLOPE
Areas of slope greater than two to one (2 : 1 ) is a precise de.fi.nition
and these areas are relatively easy to map when initial site planning
and topographic studies are done . There are some concerns relative to
including this provision in restrictions regarding the locations of
structures . This provision could,under a strict interpretation, allow
buildings on specific portions of a site, but preclude the roads
needed to gain access to those buildings , thus negating potential
development on a difficult site .
' GPA 80-1 (e) Master Plan of Bikeways
This portion of the General Plan Amendment proposes changes to the
Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan as follows :
1 ) Add a backbone bikeway on the westerly side of MacArthur Boulevard
from Ford Road to the northerly City boundary .
' 2) Add secondary bikeways :
a) Bison Avenue from Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard.
b) Santa Barbara Drive from Jamboree Road to Newport Center
Drive West.
c) San Miguel Drive from Newport Center Drive East to San Joaquin
i Hills Drive
d) Versailles Blufftop Bikeway from Superior Avenue to Coast
Highway at Newport Boulevard .
e) Placential Avenue from Superior Avenue to northerly City
' boundary near 16th Street. A connecting trail should
be shown in Costa Mesa .
109
' TO : PLANNING COMMISSION -8
These changes , requested by the Public Works Department,, are considered
housekeeping measures to keep the Master Plan of Bikeways shown in the
' General Plan up-to-date . The Bicycle Trails Citizens ' Advisory
Committee ha,s reviewed the proposed changes , incorporating into the
Master Plan of Bikeways , facilities which have either been constructed
or are planned for construction by developers as approved conditions for
development.
' Suggested Action
Open public hearing, hear all related public testimony, and continue the
public hearing to February 21 , 1980 to allow for completion of the
' environmental documentation .
Respectfully submitted,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER, DIRECTOR
1 By �-�-
Patricia L . Temple
Senior Planner
PLT:nm
Attachments : 1 ) Changes to Master Plan of Bikeways (Map)
2) Irvine Co . Letter addressing "Buildable Acreage" .
' 110
ER
ry ,.,.•'t
a � �� •�� i � 1.�•ti r�irMnN�M1 .� i c M c. r
• I.\ie\`\yT.�� ✓ \l •�lj �� 'a � Ir IW�IN�Ir J`�t� �
\
r
`'?�I 3, A \tt' 1 s'.{�� _ `rl j:l 7 �~�•�'���\i �\6mmlm""" — ���-�� \\�
� � . :'� it6't<�';2 v1= T'. 'k;.�">•: r \1 r1��^.. r.f �uum � r �� J � '
>�:_ / ..f .r'a%. " f.�,. y .t o -x,� �!l�X=_:.?!"�hA�.+\\'�� '7J� ;✓ mmnid t';•- •='� `r:.
"�..',.• i ,1'\4d 9 . \ � � r-=., �l.Y VI; •' t myj ? ��� rm+'
ji. - �.�/':,�\.� 'i•.is�,.•'`Jl.t f�--�, '�i .�r�.'Y)rF it '�� trl x I \ i F� �.• - yam TQ-BE e/i j�/ . n fr'i_ �"`�; ^;�.,.�1.�11!. -^.n; ; 'Ll to �. ` L4 ��.. N(` (a' •
ON
','/ �' /•�c ! V\ �� 1 r!:i ...,..`�. ...:•�: ,-.��nT•!1.1 _ ..� , .. ,V`l�4nnnnn0`C>V .•.' ,
'�e .��> N�" Liar.. �� `.' � �� i=: ;r sit `.� >>'�\l n t \ t• "-:� ( rr_�•n
/• .r� 1t• \\ •��(� '! �i�{�':'� l rr�•�'.fl ...r,�.' '•: gat J n�tPO'ri",�qunMNW4r � '- •`:_v,
• ! ' \ rV / I M V1 MN 10tU �Mv 4v.'r Illnr '1.,_ ` fi\•
�: .3 \.i-•P �-�� ' b•` Y iI �' .:ii'%4, y
se %3 a •�y ��>`,' uL�:`i itw '•, �:i � Jarr. "
� .e. b lY w• G-. ,.�� -f?.a,.
-•r �'� Ste.( 4s A''G' a �>(tc �:�/ Ja: .rai..^:. £ji
nil nmll rMitP1L 4.•j' :�t>��).o�=••Y" '- 7a' r� �t�.
lr
drn r �' � l`c\"ton4+5�?•``�+ ii�i riii fit •j..:.r. :I, y. � r�^ �\`fir:� rn ' % ��imYhir�n •�i,muo/mr� 1 •
[[ ul rRRRAna rms�.._ .mu�'.��\ ., e'"'• t•I�t r
..'t" a •1 ��'i�'i`\.. ;� '::. �:e rh ,. !!.'(,/�,"
ya:-;t•.,t>..
.I tir ,� •"`eel Pam[ c ww a,^a. is__ �Cvr ,�, r� ./ _ •�
,,✓ ••j/pS>,. •, _�'' 4�•v�+:\ t'\�, " ter. .y== _ -',�'[�s`.>G:I...a.••,.• � - v--i': )
[ITT OF NLWPOftf BEACHIV
N KE WAY,5 To L2E ADD&D
'- '� COSTA MESA CONNECTED BIKEWAY
1
fib •
TW IRVINE (MMP W
500 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach,California 92663
(714) 644-3011
February 1, 1980
Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Subject: General Flan Amendment 80-1: Buildable Acreage
' Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission:
This letter is intended to express the position of The Irvine Company in
regard to the proposed changes in the definition of "Buildable Acreage" and
the proposed policies to restrict location of structures where certain site
conditions exist.
As a general comment, we question the merits and need for amendments of this
type, coming so shortly on the heels of a two-year long General Plan Review.
If it is intended to effect a further reduction in residential density by
' redefining "Buildable Acreage," we must object strenuously on the basis of the
substantial down-zoning which occurred under G.P.A. 79-1. The densities now
allowed on the remaining•vacant parcels, by whatever measure, are lower than
any existing developments in the City. If it is intended to establish regula-
tory authority in the location of structures over riparian habitat, noise-
impacted zones, or coastal bluffs, it should be recognized that such authority
is already available and frequently exercised through the normal subdivision
and zoning review process and through already adopted codes and ordinances.
No need for further down-zoning has been demonstrated, and we are not aware of
any technical justification for the amendment as proposed. Given the small
number of residential sites to be developed, we believe it would be better to
' deal with each site individually, rather than adopt a city-wide General Plan
amendment.
More specific comments on these proposed amendments are as follows:
Riparian Areas and Other Environmentally Sensitive Habitat
' Riparian habitat and other environmental resources are addressed typically in
the preparation of an environmental document for new developments. In addition,
the City has compiled extensive inventories of habitat resources through the
' preparation of General Plan elements and the Local Coastal Program. In our
opinion, the City is able to regulate impacts on such habitat through EIR-related
mitigation measures and conditions on development approvals.
112
1
-Z-
Definition of Buildable Acreage: Modifying the definition of buildable
acreage to exclude riparian/habitat areas poses some practical difficulties
in terms of defining what areas should be deleted and in calculating the
number of dwellings allowed on a particular site. Defining what constitutes
"riparian" habitat is not easily done at the General Plan level; neither is
it easy to determine what riparian area, once defined, is significant. Some
' riparian-type vegetation occurs in man-made drainage swales and in silt-reten-
tion basins and cannot be defined under any reasonable evaluation as signifi-
cant habitat. Should the landowner be penalized for maintaining interim
drainage facilities in a natural condition, or for providing erosion control
to protect the Upper Bay? There are adequate alternative methods to protect
habitat. Additional arbitrary rules will not help the process.
Location of Structures. The proposal to prohibit locating structures on
"significant riparian habitat areas" poses few practical difficulties. It
is our understanding that the riparian areas designated for preservation on
the Upper Bay p,.rcels in our own site planning correspond closely to those
' identified as sign ficant by the Department of Fish and Game. However, we
contend that such a policy should not be applied arbitrarily to riparian vege-
tation occurring in man-made drainage or siltation facilities. For example,
' on the Newporter North site there is vegetation near the terminus of Santa
Barbara Drive which was created by irrigation run-off from the golf course.
Preserving this vegetation would preclude providing access to the site at
its most desirable and feasible location. The siting of structures is pres-
ently controlled, in any event, through Planned Community development plan
and tract map approvals.
' Flood Plain Areas
Flood Plain Areas are addressed presently through federal flood plain regula-
tion's and City programs. ' Again, this is a site condition over which the City
' already has authority through the normal, EIR, zoning, and subdivision review
process.
Definition of Buildable Acreage: A flood plain area is not by definition
"unbuildable." with proper mitigation and engineering most such sites can be
made buildable. Since flood plain. areas on most sites can be modified, this
condition is not relevant to the issue of density.
' Location of Structures: The City currently has adequate regulatory authority
to prevent construction in areas subject to flood hazard.
' Coastal Bluffs and Bluff Setback Areas
The City's Bluff Ordinance (Ord. 1798) prohibits alterations or construction
on bluffs in the Planned Community Districts around the Upper Bay, and prohibits
any construction in the established 40-foot minimum setback area. This is
regarded as one of the strictest regulations of its type anywhere. Why do we
' need more regulations?
113
12
' -3-
' Definition of Buildable Acreage: The bluff slopes (defined as 2:1 slopes in
the Ordinance) are already excluded from.the computation of buildable acreage,
and would therefore have no additional effect on density. The bluff setback
area, on the other hand, would be excluded from the computation and would
reduce the number of dwellings allowed. The Irvine Company's response again
is that there is no need for any further reduction in density on the undeveloped
parcels.
' Location of Structures: _The Bluff Ordinance specifically and explicitly
prohibits locating structures either on the bluff face or in the setback area.
The proposed policy would neither increase nor decrease the City's control
over new development, and is thus superfluous.
65 CNF.L Noise Contours
' Noise is perhaps the most technical and conceptually difficult site condition
to deal with at the General Plan level. Noisq conditions and .proper mitigation
' are routinely evaluated as part of the environmental review process on a case
by case basis. The City imposes conditions on site planning and building
design consistent with the noise standards of the State Administrative Code.
Attached for the Planning Commission's information is a consultant report
' presenting an overview of the treatment of noise in new development. The
point we wish to draw from this report is that noise is a complex technical.
matter which is not easily applied to the issue of residential density.
' Definition of Buildable Acreage:' Defining buildable acreage using 65 CNEI.
contours raises serious practical problems. This concept is subject to
so many variables -- such as type of noise source (auto vs. aircraft) , type
of mitigation (berm vs. wall) , on-site topography, etc. -- that its use as a
zoning or density-limiting tool seems counter-productive. For example, use of
a sound-attenuating block wall would result in more buildable area and more
' dwellings than would use of a more aesthetically pleasing landscaped berm,
because the berm itself would use up buildable area and lower the number of
dwellings allowed. Also, the noise contours are only theoretical lines on a
map intended to reflect an estimated future traffic condition. Using such a
line to judge appropriate density is arbitrary and unreasonable.
Location of Structures: Current City review practices provide for the siting
' and/or mitigation of new development to prevent noise impact in excess of the
65 CNEL standard for outdoor noise. The proposed policy would duplicate City
policies already in effect through the Noise .Element and other City regulations.
' Areas of Slope Greater than 2 to 1
The siting and design of new development in relation to geologic conditions
' is presently regulated through numerous City codes ordinances and plans,
including: the grading code, building code, bluff ordinance, and Seismic
Safety Element. Comprehensive soils and geology evaluations are required
' prior to issuance of a building permit.
114
13
-4-
Definition of Buildable Acreage: Slopes greater than 2 to 1 are already
subject to the definition of buildable acreage. Areas having this slope
condition presently cannot be counted in determining residential density
and the number of dwellings allowed.
Location of Structures: The proposal to prohibit location of structures and
presumably grading on existing slopes of 2 to 1 raises a number of serious
' concerns. First, there has been no factual or technical evidence provided in
support of this proposal in terms of geologic or engineering necessity or in
terms of public safety. If enforced, such a policy could render some property
unbuildable and deprive the landowner of all economic use. Second, the ques-
tion is raised as to whether this policy is intended to prohibit grading where
2 to 1 slope conditions exist. If so, on what basis? Except for coastal bluffs,
current City regulations do not prevent alterations to mitigate a 2 to 1 slope
' condition. The Irvine Company believes it would be improper to adopt a de fac=o
amendment to the Grading Code through a General Plan policy, where State law
prescribes clearly the procedures for considering such code amendments.
' Conclusion
In conclusion, The Irvine Company objects strongly to further down-zoning of
' our residential building sites in the guise of making refinements to General.
Plan definitions, especially in view of the City's action on General Plan
Amendment 79-1. As a practical consideration, the proposed changes to the
definition of buildable acreage would only complicate and confuse the inter-
pretation of the General Plan density policies. For example, on the Castaways
site where 4 DU's per buildable acre are allowed, it would be necessary to
perform costly and time-consuming engineering or planning studies (including
surveying and appraising riparian areas, setback areas, and slope areas, and
performing detailed noise studies) merely to arrive at the number of dwellings
allowed under the General Plan. This appears to us a step backward in develop-
ing a General Plan which is intelligible to City officials, landowners, and
citizens. Further, none of the proposed changes adds any new authority or
discretion which the City does not already possess regarding development
approvals.
Regarding restrictions on locations of structures, there is nothing proposed
(except for the 2 to 1 slope restriction) which The Irvine Company, as a
' planner and developer, would consider an unreasonable design constraint.
Again, the City already has broad discretion in these areas at the site plan
level. We do object, however, to any arbitrary prohibition of construction or
grading on slopes. This is simply unjustified in terms of current engineering
' practices and would be confiscatory as to our property rights in some cases.
We have attempted to convey the complexities and practical difficulties asso-
ciated with the proposed amendment. It is hoped that the Planning Commission
will reject the proposals as .unnecessary additional government regulation.
i .
t 115
-5
1 The Trvine Compnny has appreciated the opportunity to comment- on these proposed
revisions.
1 Sincerely,
1 RoberL Shelton, Vice President
Government Relations
by
David Dmohowski, Manager
1 Government Relations
Attachment: Report• on Community Noise (Larry Seeman Associates)
1
I
1
1
1 116
I0 500 newport center drive,suite 525
newport beach, california 92660
phone (714) 640.6363
��-��r CI 2927 newbury street, suite c
u?` berkeley, california 94703
�^"✓ phone (415) 841-6840
LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES, INC.
COMMUNITY NOISE AND ITS
IMPACT ON LAND USE PLANI4ING
V
PREPARED BY
IVINCENT MESTRE AND ASSOCIATES
AND
LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES, INC.
500 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 525
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
(714) 640-6363
JANUARY 31, 1980
' 117
e �
1
L-Va
COMMUNITY NOISE AND ITS
IMPACT ON- LAND USE PLANIRNG
The purpose of this report is to briefly describe some of the aspects of
of community noise control and its effect on lane use planning. The report is
organized into four sections, the first of which provides a definition of the
noise metric used in land use planning. The secor:d section of this report pre-
sents a description of the effect that topography and barriers have on commun-
ity noise levels. This is followed by a description of the procedure through
which future noise levels are estimated. Lastly, some comments are made
regarding noise as an environmental design constraint as opposed to a land use
constraint.
I. DEFINITION
The noise metric Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is the most com-
monly used noise descriptor for land use planning purposes. Tire Noise Element
of the General Plan for the City of Newport Beach, as well as many State stat-
utes, establishes GG CNEL as the criterion for determining noise/land use com-
patibility. CNEL is a time-weighted 24-hour annual average noise level based
on the A-weighted decibel. It is worthwhile to examine CNEL in more illumi-
nating terms.
CNEL can be •more comprehensibly defined by describing its component
parts. CNEL is the combination of the number of noise events, the loudness of
each event, the duration of each event, and the time of occurrence of each
event. The idea behind CNEL is that noises that occur during some times of
the day cause more impact than those occurring at other times of the day.
Three distinct time periods have been identified: daytime, evening, and night-
time. These time periods have been defined as 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. for daytime, 7
p.m. to 10 p.m. for evening, and 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. fo,r nighttime. Noises that
occur during evening and nighttime are penalized because of increased noise
sensitivity during this period. The actual penalty that is applied differs
for the two periods and can be described in two .different but equivalent
ways.
One way of describing the penalties built into CNEL is to view, the penal-
ty as an "additional noise factor." For noises that occur during the evening
hours,, a 5 dB penalty is added to the noise. For, noises that occur during the
nighttime hours, a 10 dB penalty is added to the noise. This description best
explains flow the penalty works when applied to continuous noise sources such
as highways. Another way of describing the time-weighting factors is to view
the penalties as an increase in the number of noise events. This method is
118
17
l
2
lsa
used for event-oriented noise sources such as aircraft flyovers. Each flyover
that occurs during the evening hours is equivalent to three daytime flyovers
(i.e. , multiply evening noise events by three), and each nighttime flyover is
equivalent to ten daytime flyovers .(i.e. , multiply nighttime flyovers by ten).
It is easily seen that evening and nighttime noises are severely penalized for
occurring during noise-sensitive time periods.
The 65 CNEL criterion was selected by the State of California as the
result of substantial analysis and consideration of economic impacts. The
criterion was selected to protect public health and safety for the following
known effects of noise on people (listed in order of importance in selecting
the criterion):
1. !leering loss .
2. Speech interference
3. Sleep interference
4. Physiological responses
5. Annoyance
It is important to note that 65 CNEL is not an annoyance criterion only,
!f but. is a compromise criterion that reflects many effects, including economic.
The point is that, for sources of high single-event noise (airports), annoy-
ance can occur well outside the 65 CNEL contour.
When noise is considered in assessing the impact of a project, two points
of view should be examined: the impact of the project noise on surrounding
land uses and the impact of community noise on the project. For this reason,
existing noise levels must be defined as well as anticipated ultimate noise
levels projected to reflect future conditions. Estimating these noise levels
is discussed in the following paragraphs.
II. EFFECT OF TOPOGRAPHY AND BARRIERS
Noise propagating from a source is effectively attenuated by any solid
object which blocks the "line of sight" between the source and the receiver.
The "line of sight" is a common term for a straight line which connects the
effective source location and the observer's ears. The intervening solid
object must not have any holes or cracks and must be long enough to prevent
flanking or leaking of the sound around the ends. The amount of attenuation
or reduction in noise is dependent on the extent to which the object breaks
the. "line of sight." The greater the penetration, the greater the noise
reduction. If an object does not break "line of sight," then little or no
attenuation occurs (as the object approaches the line of sight, diffraction
occurs and small amounts of reduction do occur). For highway noise sources,
f 119
i
3
Uca
as soon as the object breaks line of sight, a 5 dB noise reduction occurs.
For very high penetrctions, up to 20 dB can be achieved by walls and 23 dB for
berms. The difference is due to the better absorptive characteristics of the
berm (landscaping, etc. ). Topography, walls, berms, combination walls/berms,
and intervening structures are good examples of objects that can effectively
attenuate noise.
Noise contours which are presented in Noise Elements, airport noise stud-
ies, and land use studies are generally "flat plane" or "tabletop" contours.
Th-is means that these are the theoretical noise contours that would occur if
the topography were flat and if there were no barriers. For situations in
which this is the case or the topography changes only gradually, the contours
are realistic. However, if the area is topographically uneven or if there are
-barriers, then the contours may not reflect actual noise conditions very
well.
When topography results in the "line of sight" between the noise source
and- the observer being broken, then a noise reduction occurs. This is shown
schematically for a highway noise source in Figure I. Estimating topographic
effects can be a very complex analysis process. For highways, consider that
for noise purposes motor vehicle traffic must be segregated into automobiles,
medium-weight trucks, and heavy-weight trucks. For each of these sources, the
effective source •height from the pavement is unique. When the line of sight
between the source and .receiver is broken by the topography, the amount of
noise attenuation achieved is dependent on the penetration through the line of
sight. For a specific situation in which critical observer locations and site
elevations are known, the geometry and corresponding noise attenuation can be
computed. This is 'a tedious task by hand, but can be analyzed quickly with
the aid of a digital computer. The general case of establishing noise con-
tours is not simply analyzed. For every potential observer location, the
effect of the topography may be different and the noise reduction unique.
This is also shown in Figure 2.
In addition to topographic effects, a barrier that is part of the project
design may significantly affect noise levels on the project site. This bar•
rier may be a solid wall or earthen berm, or a combination wall/berm. The
barrier may have been included for noise mitigation purposes or it may be
included for other purposes independent of noise (perimeter boundary walls,
retaining walls, landscaping berms, flood channels, security walls, etc. ).
Figure 3 shows some typical noise barriers. Acoustically, the effect of a
noise barrier is dependent on the same factors as topographic effects that are
described above. In fact, barrier attenuation is computed in exactly the same
way for walls as for topography.
120
1 '
FIGURE 1 4
TOPOGRAPHY AS A NOISE BARRIER;
NOTSF REDUCTION IS 5 DBA Ua
�—Roadway
I, Centerline _ _ ht„
�ine ofi si 9
l
40 feet
aseuacarnc+rvm�xau:-la� s2tm+saS1
121
z
0
FIGURE 2 5
UNIQUE TOPOGRAPHIC EFFECTS FOR
U IQUE BSERVER LOCATI NS
Observer 2
Observer 1
40 fees
Noise
Observer Reduction
1 5 dB
2 7 dB
122
zl
FIGURE 3 6
TYPICAL NOISE BARRIERS
L.�
_., ,�"`•• aa6 co��•asua�t+,a�ace�nvssx�csa•.•
Toadway
(centerline fWall f Observer
I
• , 40 feet �
Zerm
I
123
zz
7
LCM
There are, however, several differences between different types of barri-
ers from a site planning perspective. A wall can be located on the property
line and thus eliminate the entire site from within the 65 CNEL contour. In
addition, walls can provide improved security and require minimal maintenance.
Aesthetically, a wall provides a hard edge to a project which is often diffi-
cult to mitigate.
A berm provices 3 dB greater reduction than a wall of the same height.
However, a six-font high berm with 2: 1 slopes requires a base .28 feet wide
(including transition areas) and thus consumes a considerable amount of land.
Furthermore, a strip of land 14 feet wide remains within the 65 CNEL line_. A
berm also requires a significant amount of fill . Each linear 1,500 feet of a
six-foot high berm required one acre of land (of which one-half acre remains
within the 65 CNEL line) and approximately 4,500 cubic feet of fill . Aesthet-
ically, a berm provides a soft edge which can be landscaped. Maintenance
costs for berms are high.
Whether an acoustic barrier situation is the result of a wall or topog-
raphy, the noise attenuation that is achieved can radically alter the location
of the 65 CNEL contour. Walls and berms are a very effective way of mitigat-
ing highway noise impacts. Even when the unmitigated 65 C1IEL contour takes up
an entire site, a noise barrier can reduce noise levels on the entire site to
less than 65 CNEL.
III. NOISE PREDICTION MODELING
Estimating the noise levels associated with a noise source requires a
detailed knowledge of the source characteristics. For highway noise, the
traffic volume is the most critical parameter. Traffic volumes must be known
for existing conditions as well as future conditions. This requires the use.
of traffic projections. The traffic mix must also be known; ie., the portion
of the traffic that is automobiles, medium-weight trucks, and heavy-weight
trucks. Because CNEL weights noise according to time of occurrence, the traf-
fic flow distribution (including traffic mix) must be known as a function of
time of day. Vehicle speed also has an effect on noise. The greater the
vehicle speed, the louder the noise. Also, in order to estimate the propaga-
tion of the sound, some information about the ground characteristics must be
known. If the ground is very absorptive, then the highway will be less noisy
than if the ground were non-absorptive.
A recently published noise model developed by the Federal Highway Admini-
stration has proven to be very effective in estimating traffic noise. For
cases where the traffic volume, mix, and speed are well known, the model has
shown accuracy to within 1 dB (straight highways with only moderate topograph-
124
z3
8
Lsa
is changes). Of great concern is the sensitivity of the model to parameters
which are at best uncertain; i .e., future traffic volumes. The answer is that
noise models are not that sensitive; i .e. , a doubling of traffic volume pro-
duces a 3 dB increase in noise. When one considers that a 3 dB increase in
noise from a sourca like highways is barely perceptible to the human ear, one
can conclude that highway noise modeling can be used to determine the need for
and the design of mitigation measures to assure a satisfactory noise environ-
ment. however, when highway noise is used to constrain land use noise, model-
ing can introduce unacceptable errors; i .e. , errors which are not perceptible
to the human ear, but which indicate larger contours than actual , and will
cause land impacts that are not warranted. Even though errors may be small in
terms of noise (i.e. , dB), the error when projected on the ground may be
large. For example, consider a roadway in which it is projected (based on
traffic projections) that the CNEL contours lie the following distances from
the centerline of the road:
CNEL Contour Distance (Feet)
70 200
65 430
60 930
For this road, the area within 430 feet of the road exceeds 65 CNEL. Suppose
the traffic had been overestimated (because of unanticipated trafffic con-
straints) by 10 percent. This would have resulted in a 1 dB overestimate of
the noise. This difference would not be significant in terms of human hear-
ing; however, look at the following list of revised contour locations:
CNEL Contour Distance (Feet)
70 170
65 370
60 790
Note that the G5 CNEL noise contour was overestimated by 60 feet, for a 1
dB error in the noise estimate. For a project site with 1,000 feet of front-
age, almost 1.5 acres of land were affected.
Another key input to the noise modeling effort is the noise characteris-
tics of motor vehicles. Up to this point it has been assumed that it is rea-
sonable to use the noise characteristics of today's motor vehicle population
to estimate future (ultimate) noise levels. .Considering that ultimate traffic
volumes may not be reached until 1990 or thereafter, noise characteristics of
future vehicles should be considered.
125
g
Lsrn
The State of California has adopted noise standards in areas of regula-
tion not preempted by the Federal Government (the Federal Government has pre••
empted control of noise from aircraft, railroads, and Federal highways).
State standards regulate the noise level of motor vehicles and motor boats,
establish noise impact boundaries around airports, regulate freeway noise
' affecting classrooms, set noise insulation standards, and establish noise
planning standards.
The California Motor Vehicle Code sets operational noise limits for motor
vehicles (Section 23130), requires an adequate muffler in constant operation
and properly maintained (Section 27150), prohibits the sale or installation of
a motor vehicle exhaust system unless it meets regulations or standards (Sec-
tion 27151. 1), prohibits the modification of the exhaust system to amplify or
increase the noise above that of the original system (Section 27151), prohib-
its the sale of ni!w vehicles exceeding the noise limits (Section 27160), and
sets noise limits for the operation of off-highway motor vehicles (Section
38280). A summary of these standards is shown in Table A. As can be seen
from these standards, motor vehicle noise will decrease in future years as
newer vehicles replace older vehicles in the motor vehicle population.
It has been common practice to allow for a 3 dB reduction due to future
motor vehicle noise reductions. This was particularly true when the older
"HUD Conservative" noise model was in use. With the newer and more realistic
F1114A model , several questions have been raised. The question of future motor
vehicle noise levels becomes cloudy when one considers that an increasing pro-
portion of four-cylinder vehicles and diesel-powered automobiles is occurring
as a result of increasing fuel costs. The vehicles are noisier than the cur-
rently common eight-cylinder, gasoline-powered automobile.
It should also be pointed out that most eight-cylinder American cars are
quieter than existing noise standards require (Table A), therefore it is dif-
ficult to estimate actual future noise reductions. The point is that the
nature of estimating future noise levels must be considered approximate and
satisfactory for estimating community noise impacts, but of dubious value in
defining "hard line" noise boundaries.
IV. NOISE AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
CONSTRAINT VS. A LAND USE CONSTRAINT
Through site design, mitigation measures can eliminate the noise impacts
of highways, railroads, and stationary sources. Onsite noise levels from
these sources can be reduced to less than 65 CNEL with walls, berms, or inter-
vening structures. Noise from these types of sources affects project design
and cost and must be considered an integral part of the land use planning pro-
cess. Noise from these sources does not preclude residential land use.
126
ZS
TABLE A 10
STATE OF CALIFORNIA NOISE
STANDARDS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES
Noise Standards (dOA Values at
50 Feet Unless Otherwise Noted
Effective 55 mom--Over
Description Date or Less 35 mph
OPERATION OF VE:IIICI.FS AT POSTED SPEED
1. Motorcycle Before 1/1/73• 85 86
2. Vehicle with a GW of 6,000 lbs. or more After 1/1/73 88 90
(or combination) 86 90
3. Any other motor vehicle and any combi-
nation of motor vehicles towed by such
vehicle 76 82
SALE OF NEW VEHICLES
' 1. Motorcycles manufactured Before 1970 92
2. Motorcycles, other than motor-driven
cycles, manufactured After 1969, before 1973 88
After 1972, before 1975 86
After 1974, before 1978 80
After 1977, before 1978 75
After 1987 70
3. Vehicles with a GV11 of 6,000 lbs. or
more, manufactured After 1967, before 1973 88
After 1972, before 1975 86
After 1974, before 1978 83
After 1977, before 1988 80
After 1987
4. Any other motor vehicle manufactured After 1967, before 1973 86
After 1972, before 1975 84
After 1974, before 1978 80
After 1977, before 1988 75
After 1987
NOISE LEVEL LIMITS FOR THE OPERATION After 1/1/72, before 1/1/73 92
F FF- HIGHWAY MOTOR VEHICLES After 1/1/73, before 1/1/75 88
127
11 I'
On the other hand, airports are an exception to this concept. Airport
1 noise does not lend itself to practical outdoor noise mitigation through site
design. ., Airport noise mitigation occurs through controls on the airport and
land use constraints around the airport. Airport noise is, therLfore., a land
use constraint and does limit residential land uses in the impact- area.
128
Planning Commission Meeting February 21 , 1980
Agenda Item No . 1
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
February 15, 1980
1 TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 80-1 (Con ' t Public Hearing)
Request to consider proposed amendments to the
Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation and
Open Space Elements of the General Plan, and the
acceptance of an Environmental Document.
INITIATED BY : City of Newport Beach
Background.
At the February 7, 1980 meeting, the Planning Commission opened the
public hearing, received public testimony, discussed the components of
the proposed General Plan Amendment (80-1 ) ,• and continued the public
hearing to February 21 , 1980 .
The City Council has set GPA 80-1 for hearing at their meeting of
March 10, 1980 . In order to allow adequate time for staff to trans-
mit the action of the Planning Commission to the Council in time for
consideration at the March 10 meeting , it will be necessary for the
Planning Commission to take final -action on February 21 , 1980.
Please bring 'a copy of the February 1 , 1980, staff report to the
meeting.
Environmental Significance
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ,
an Initial Study was prepared . Based on the information and pro-
posed mitigation measures conta,ined in the Initial Study, a Negative
Declaration has been prepared for -consideration by the Commission .
History of "Buildable Acreage"
Following is a brief discussion of the development of "buil•dable
acreage" in the Newport Beach General Plan .
129
1
TO : PLANNING COMMISSION -2-
General Plan Amendment 26 (Resolution No . 8630) , adopted November 10,
1975, revised the Land Use Element to create a "medium density resi-
dential" category for developments of more than four DU' s per build-
able acre, and change "low density residential " from a maximum 10 DU' s
per gross acre to a maximum of four DU' s pe.r buildable acre. The defin-
ition of "gross residential acreage" was deleted, and "buildable acre-
age" was defined as follows :
"Buildable acreage , includes the entire site,
less areas with a slope of •greater than two to
one, and does not include any portion of per-
imeter streets and perimeter open space . "
General Plan Amendment 77-3-C (Resolution No . 9231 ) , adopted
December 12, 1977, revised the definition of "buildable acreage" as
follows:
"Buildable acreage , includes the entire site, less
areas with a slope greater than two to one , and
less any area required to be dedicated to the City
for park purposes and any perimeter open space ;
further, buildable a'creage shall not include any
area to be used for street purposes . "
The use of "buildable acreage" in the General Plan is for the purpose
of calculating density.
During the Planning Commission hearings on General Plan Amendment 79-1 ,
the Land Use Element definition of buildable acreage was discussed.
In addition to the areas now deleted from a site to determine build-
able acreage, the Commission considered the following areas :
1 . Environmentally-Sensitive Habitat Areas
2. View Corridors
3. Flood Plain Areas
4. Coastal Bluffs
5. Blufftop Setback Areas
6 . Riparian Areas
7. Geologic Hazard Areas
8. Residential Developments - Areas impacted by noise levels
of 65 CNEL or greater.
After lengthy discussion , the Planning Commission decided to use the
existing definition of "buildable acreage" for purposes of determining
densities .
GPA 79-1 Policy on "Location of Structures"
With the adoption of GPA 79-1 , policy language was ,added to the Land
Use Element of the General Plan stating that "in the discretionary
review of projects , no structures shall be built in the following
sensitive areas , as determined by the Planning Commission or City
* Council :
130
TO : PLANNING COMMISSION -3-
1 . Environmentally-sensitive habitat areas
2. Coastal bluffs
3 . Bluff-top setback areas
4. Riparian areas
5 . Geologic hazard areas
6. Residential development areas impacted by noise levels
of 65 CNEL or greater. "
Proposed Revisions to "buildable acreage"
This portion of General Plan Amendment 80-1 proposes to change the
Land Use and REsidential Growth Elements of the General Plan , adding
policy language stating that, at the time the Planning Commission and/or
City Council reviews a Planned 'Community Development Plan, Tentative
Map and/or environmental documentation for a particular project, con-
sideration shall be given to deleting certain sensitive areas from
the calculation of the total number of residential units or square
footage of commercial development to be allowed on a site as follows :
1 . Riparian and other environmentally sensitive habitat areas ;
2. Flood plain areas ;
3. Coastal bluffs and bluff setback areas ; and,
4. For residential development, noise impacted areas ; that is ,
areas where outside, mitigated noise levels are 65 CNEL or
greater.
Proposed Revisions to "Location of Structures"
This portion of General Plan Amendment 80-1 proposes to add the
following to the list of areas where no structures shall be built:
T . Flood Plain Areas
2. Areas of Slope greater than 2 : 1
Analysis
The following chart summarizes the effect of GPA 79-1 and proposed
GPA 80-1 on the General Plan policies for "Buildable Acreage" , and
"Location of Structures" :
131
� • ..nmul'IP I.V PII'I1 JJ lUIV �
Policy on Policy on Policy on
Excluded from Prohibition. Buildable Location
AREA Buildable Acreage of Structures Acreage of Structures
(Exist. Definition) (GPA 79-1) (GPA 80-1) (GPA 80-1)
Dedicated Parks
Perimeter Open Space
Private & Public Streets
Slope Greater Than 2:1
Environmentally-Sensitive
Habitat Areas
Coastal Bluffs
eBluff-Top Setback Areas
Riparian Areas
Geologic Hazard Areas
Residential Noise Impacted
Areas Exceeding 65 C.N.E.L.
Flood Plane Areas
In order to evaluate 'the potential impact of the proposed. policies in
GPA 80-1 , information is being prepared on Castaways, Westbay, Newporter
North , Area 10 Big Canyon, and Eastbluff Remnant. Recent aerial photos
and topographical maps will be available at the meeting on the 21st.
Attached are copies of 2: 1 slope maps prepared by the Irvine Company
and the Habitat area maps prepared by Bob Radovich of State Department
of Fish and Game during the review of GPA 79-1 .
Suggested Action
Adopt- Resolution No . recommending the adoption of GPA 80-1.,
and the acceptance of the environmental document, and make the finding
that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on
the environment, the mitigation measures contained in the initial study
are adequate to insure that there will be no. significant adverse environ-
mental impacts .
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAM�ES_ HE�WICCKKER
Robert P . Lenard, A Planning Administrator
RPL/nm
Attachments : 1 ) 2: 1 Slope maps 2) Habitat Area maps
132
3 . 3 .4c .
f.041 ao
0.14.dc. �•o3dc_.
65 A-c.
D.85 A,c.
0.32 Rc,
T ,
gl G CANYON 10
IN
w The Irvine Company
February, 1980 - --
r
1
r
o.3Ac•
4
r
Q
Zkc• 2:I
✓Vu 7/W
r CAST4 WA YS
r •
The Irvine Company
February, 1980 134
r
2: l .Slade 9.2 *a
■ o
o,I Ac
3.3dc..
✓r
The Irvine Company N f WPOR Tiff NORM
February, 1980 135
UNIYERSITy DRIVE
0.2 Ac.
�d
Ac.
' 2,7 Ar,.
Pamed4pea 64,11- A,:,.
2:1 Slope 7. 8 Ac,.
o.SAc.
/V0 o.SAc.
WESTBAY
i
The Irvine Company
February, 1980 136
1
1 LEGEND
1
i
+ ++ ++ Riparian vegetative
+ assemblage
Disturbed grassland
on flat terrain
South coastal sage ,
r.. h. scrub
1 Disturbed grassland
(with developmental
constraints previously
described) .
Disturbed grassland in
_ Y=� " conditional reparian"
'— areas as
1 previously
described
Buffer zone
1 Existing development
i 137
' Eastbluff Remnant
x x
x ,
X M
• x x
Y :• % x
. M M
YSL
138
,,...., : :.:::. .
'� ::� : :
1 westbay
r
A`
+
+
+ +
1 + �
1 139
A
' Newport er' Nort h
MU
IL
IL
r
r a
'•
1 .U
0
i
-1'=�'r ^y•t it-.} • e
r� Y=la-JJ ..�:D"S .� R X ilJ.✓r. r- • 1''•• t':�.
-�.;: 't: .fir'' r! + .'�•%._�:�',�' ,;,;i:.:�:_� •-;� f + T T •✓.}._i:'4..�:�:'.•r�'.`„�,.%
J -Y/ ♦
^t�, + + + + + + + + + + + •
v � �. _- r •• Y ��r�I.i•G �Jy. �I Jl �•^J' %:}� �!♦-�. �ii�i
Y (�
rt__v_•. 'i'Jh t.•
Mouth of Big Canyon
_ r ,
r�
3t.. .
a
Castaways S t 8 wSa
Y
•• • + Y
•.• ��t.ri
a;
t
1>t 1\
*,t r
c i�•:x.
�� ••�:- J + Ili
N
.j=
N
' Approximate impact of 80- 1 on
Castaways , Westbay , and Newporter North
Following are estimates of the impact on these sites from• GPA 80-1 .
The analysis assumes that all the areas eligible would be deleted
from the calculation of "buildable acreage . "
t Castaways . Based on the property owner' s estimate of buildable
acreage , GPA 79-1 reduced the allowable units to approximately 151
(based on 37 . 8 buildable acres ) .
Parcel Net 60 . 0
Church Site ( 3. 6)
2 :1 Slope (11 . 8)
Bluff Setback ( 3. 2)
Habitat Areas (1 . 4)
Parks and Streets ( 6 .0)
Buildable acres . . . . . . . . . 34 . 0
At 4 du ' s per buildable acre , 136 units would be allowed.
' Westbay . Based on the property owner ' s estimate of buildable
acreage , GPA 79-1 reduced the allowable units to approximately
161 (based on 40 . 3 buildable acres ) .
Parcel Net 70 .4
t Sea Island Park ( 6 .0)
O . C. Flood Control (2 .4)
2 : 1 Slope 7 .8
Bluff Setback (2. 9 )
Habitat Areas ( 18 . 0)
Noise Impacted Areas (14 .0)
Parks & Streets (15%) 2 . 9
' Buildable acres . . . . . . . . . 16 . 4
At 4 du ' s per buildable acre , 65 units would be allowed .
Newporter North . Based on the property owner 's estimate of build-
able acreage , GPA 79-1 reduced the allowable units approximately
212 (based on 53 . 0 buildable acres ) .
' Parcel Net 86 . 0
2 : 1 Slope (9 . 2)
Bluff Setback ( 2. 0)
Habitat Areas (45 .0)
Parks, and Streets (15%) 4 . 5
Buildable acres . . . . . . . . . 25. 3
At 4 du' s per buildable acre , 101 units would be allowed .
RPL/nm
2/21✓80
143
r
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Office of
CITY ATTORNEY
November 19, 1979
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR
CITY MANAGER
FROM: CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: THE IMPACT OF CEQA - GENERAL PLAN AMENDNE'NT 79-1
At the request of -the Mayor, I am preparing this Memoradnum to
the City Council regarding CEQA and its relationship to General
Plan Amendment 79-1.
The Department of Community Development Staff Report of October 23 ,
1979, which is the primary staff report for the hearing on General
Plan Amendment 79-1 indicates that the draft initial study on General
Plan Amendment- 79-1 has been prepared and considered by the City's
Enviromental Affairs Committee, which recommends that a negative
declaration be issued on the project. This finding appears to
comply with CEQA and the Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Enviromental Quality Act of 1970.
The project, which was considered in the draft initial study, was
the project as recommended by the Planning Commission. ' If new
information is developed through the public hearing process which
would alter the conclusions of the draft initial study in •the
opinion of the City Council, or if the City Council -desires to '
approve a project not addressed in the initial study, together
with its supporting materials, additional enviromental •documentation
will have to.be prepared.
The state adopted guidelines for the implementation of CEQA
strongly urge for the preparation of an enviromental- imdact report.
Section 15080 (a) provides in part,"if any aspects of the project,
either individually or cumulatively, may cause a •significant effect
on the enviroment, regardless of whether the overall effect ,of the
project is adverse or beneficial, , then an EIR must be, prepared. "
Further, provisions in Section 15081 provide that the "determination
of whether a project may have a significant effect on the enviroment,
calls for careful judgement on the part of the public agency
SUBJECT: THE IMPACT OF CEQA - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 79-1
Page 2 - November 19, 1979
'
involved, based to the extent possible on scientific ic and factual
data. "
Section 15082 sets forth the mandatory findings of significance.
Finally, Section 15084 provides general guidelines for the determi-
nation of whether an enviromental impact report should be prepared
or not.
In the instant. case, based upon the initial study together with its
mitigation measures, it appears that an enviromental impact report
is not required. Substantial changes to the Planning Commission
approved project, which were -not addressed in the draft initial study,
may : require further enviromental evaluation and it seems likely
will lead to the necessity of preparing an enviromental impact report
to comply with CEQA, the case law and guidelines.
UGH OFFiN
CITY ORNEY
HRC:ap
Department of Community Development
C�trtnar'�r � ! i
DATE: January 7 , 1980
TO: Bob Lenard
FROM: Fred Talarico - Environmental Coordinator
SUBJECT: Environmental Documentation - "General Plan Amendment 80-1 "
As you are aware , "General Plan Amendment 80-l " will require,
appropriate Environmental Documentation . The below indicates
actions and issues you should be aware of and accomplish:
1 . The amendment if, set, will require Environmental Documentation .
2. The following' documents/notices are required to be prepared :
A. Notice of Preparation ( ? )
B. Nonstatutory Advisement
C . Initial Study
D . Negative Declaration/Draft EIR
The normal response •time for 2-A and 2-B above is approximately
50 days . The Planning Commission hearing is to be only 42 days
away. The Planning Commission will 'therefore possible be taking
action without an -Environmental Document. If I can be of any
assistance in the preparation of the above , please notify me.
Fred larico'
FT/dt
w DATE�I�✓�.
TO: ❑ MAYOR ❑ GEN. SERVICES
❑ COUNCIL ❑ LIBRARY
❑ MANAGER ❑ MARINE
❑ ADMIN. ASST. ❑ PARKS& REC.
❑ ATTORNEY ❑ PERSONNEL
0D❑ ITY CLERK ❑ POLICE
COMM. DEV. ❑ PUBLIC WORKS
ATA PROC. ❑ PURCHASING
❑ FINANCE ❑ TRAFFIC
❑ FIRE ❑ UTILITIES
FOR: ❑ ACTION & DISPOSITION
❑ FILE
INFORMATION
❑ REVIEW& COMMENT
❑ RETURN
REMARKS:
FROM:
January 14, 1980
TO: BOB LENARD
FROM: Don Webb
SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO THE RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT--
MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS
The attached Master Plan of Bikeways shows the changes recom-
mended by the Bicycle Trails Citizens Advisory Committee at their
September 17, 1979 meeting.
The changes are listed below:
1 . Add a backbone bikeway on the westerly side 'of
.MacArthur Boulevard from Ford Road to the northerly
City boundary.
2. Add secondary bikeways:
a. Bison Avenue from Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard.
b. Santa Barbara Drive from Jamboree Road to Newport
Center Drive West.
c. San Miguel Drive from Newport Center Drive East
to San Joaquin Hills Drive.
d. Versailles Blufftop bikeway from Superior Avenue to
Coast Highway at Newport Boulevard.
e. Placentia Avenue from Superior Avenue to northerly
City boundary near 16th Street. A connecting
trail should be shown in Costa Mesa.
These changes are basically housekeeping measures to .bring
the Master Plan up to date.
D�n Webb
Assistant City Engineer S a�YF;ti 40
DW:jd b JAN �gaO�
Att. .` �EVdF�A�e" Ap
r
ER ,,era -
aday®
_�
F
{F/(^��}(�f(�.' S
ly
O BE
T FOR
r oN
ED
'�. � , - 1 \i'. �It , .€ � aa° - m�iMt•��'�egMruu irm +�. /,
� � I
T Z �afxuirrnlln,Num o11P1\4i.i"�1 � 5�i bY���F�$ � ��r .r.5� w�A�� 7 y'
e 1 .W�mse a c..- .\\ i 7 Vnli un iihir�Wu�OLI?i
.. �. � LL ha 7��' Y ��' ^t 1 4T :: ,1 1 .b_�.•�� '= S 1 .�'a_ _
i A. rfj 7. - ' /ram, 4�V'=' �.s:F••�•�� c ___ _
�=
"• H C Try` 1. U'u�\ ° ° �� CITY OF NEWPORT OGLN
\ _ _