No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIS044_GPA 80-2 LAND USE GROWTH ELEM (2) *NEW FILE* Isooaa SsovY � Ofl ' CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 80-2 ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' Prepared by: Planning Department ' City of Newport Beach 3300 West Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 October 1, 1980 VOLUME I CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL,DOCUMENT Y GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 80-2 ' CI.Tr"'OF NEWPORT BEACH ' Prepared by: Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 West Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 9z663 ' October 1, 1980 I ' TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I I. Project Description ' II. Notice of Determination III. Proof of Publication IV. City Council Minutes V. City Council Staff Reports VOLUME II ' VI . Initial Study f I . PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 1 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' General Plan Amendment 80-2 amended the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach. The amendment ' changed the existing General Plan from: EXISTING GENERAL PLAN ' General Plan Designation Acreage Multiple-Family Residentail 9.805 Retail and Service Commercial 7.170 General Industry 37.930 which we anticipated to develop as follows: Multiple-Family Condos 9.805 acres/ 147 DU's Office 3.800 acres/ 331,056 sq. ft. General Commercial 3.640 acres/ 202,976 sq. ft. ' Industrial 36.072 acres/ 1,571,296 sq. ft. ' Church .320 acres/ 2500 sq. ft. Private School 1.000 acres/ 400 students to: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 80-2 General Plan Designation Acreage ' Multi.ple-Family Residential 37.348 Retail and Service 'Commercial 11.000 General Industry 4.100 Which we anticipate to develop as follows: Multiple-Family Condos 37.348 acres/ /47 DU's ' General Office 7.340 acres/ 319,730 sq. ft. General Commercial 3.640 acres/ 102,788 sq. ft. Industrial 4.1 acres/ 178,596 sq. ft. Church .32 acres/ 2500 sq. ft. Private School 1.000 acres/ 400 students r m m m .ma- r a alioouc�ll.µ rls,ca � �}} Q � 14 tq bTRtE1 , _ � r J,• > AOVANCH PLANNING DIVISION r II . NOTICE OF DETERMINATION 1 1 O NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: ❑ Secretary for' Resources FROM: Sacramento, rramento Tenth SCAee95814- Planning Department trt DO 1; \ � �� City of Newport Beach v'C ® Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 3300 Newport Boulevard County of Orange- Box 687 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Santa Ana, CA 92702 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of DeterminatiofiAn compliance with Section 21108 or - 21152 of the Public Resources Code. F ITLE: •General-Plan Am endment' (GPA) .80-2 OCATION: County Triangle areaESCRIPTION: See attache d.Initial Study , LCONTACTERSON: Fred Talprico ;i ; TELEPHONE NO. (714)' 640-2197 ARINGHOUSE NUMBER N/A This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has made the following determinations . regarding the above described project: = 1 . The project has been © approved by the City of Newport Beach. ❑ disapproved 2. The project ❑ will have a significant effect on the environment. ® will not ' 3. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. nX A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project ft-s-M'Qftt ' o t em provisions of CEQA. A copy of the Negative De/claratiiate � .r il` VE AIEXANDEP, C_Ipr DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: c: t.e soar a :,;_r• •;rs Env ronmentAl rnnreinatnr Date_ _ 9/23180 ' III. PROOF OF PUBLICATION 1 f j � T'�3t�_�.s for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp THE N EW PORT ENSIGN 1 PROOF OF PUBLICATION 1 (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Orange, Notice 1 I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the Proof of Publication of County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled Amendment 80-2 1 matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the Newport Harbor Ensign newspaper of general circula- tion, printed and published weekly in the city of Newport Beach, County of Orange, and which news- 1 adjudged newspaper general r; _ xPoenc aaT3 ` '` paper has been ad'ud ed a news a er of 1toTlaor cItEAABIr- -( circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Or- ;xa><.L3»rinr9 w.MOP -2. IDtr CovimlrWu of ur ange, State of California, under the date of May 14, =34.chwNlnrd; .0 'orNnmoR oen n.dpabuah..n. 1951, CASE NUMBER A-20178 that the notice, of ;Wv2un 1h:'tiDphc: WoF:w«cl"t ' 1 which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not udlt.tl d.u4 riW-th B1. d .mnt. i at the smaller than nonpareil) has been published in each 47au.I P1.-toi po.Nan.of eoony bi regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in 'u`n Wahl*the arse oammodr m"i, g 'o.;tb-"Ca.etr Td.n,J,,-,, ,,U, any supplement thereof on the following dates to-wit: ho..d.d,'by s.P.doc Av.aw Gnu Abe -Er4h dvemv Plece no theNodh.nd 1 Ni-iod B..ch Cur hcvvd.ir•ou•W. 'WiR,',11iiWou.' Woludi"+yauWlr Published Aug. 6, 1980 f�pG04 to and u...d.dYv.U.w idd t ........................................... t ded,;Wm.vt^Int.'vWv Azhen neii ` CV dWpvyidr e.n.rilPl.a Am.adnuht n �t.tlaMci li l,.ibr'IudMr;'ylr.dthil;: R EC E I V Et7 7 ,•..id<eomd.d.hwluv-urh.•h:w ow.; {Ih.1lM agafAuyv.Y,1t1A0;.tth.hvuve' ........................................... i`ti t...ni9$ '/ 3a1rt70.D.m.ifh.CaunW Ch.mhim bf Vu N d Pl Dweh Ctd a if.t.w in. wJ�ljjf _mil ytle.am Dtrw•,n cuya bamoo,m.. AU 7 19801` 't�iiaPy�r aoarb:.►;w7 //••��t N.Ne.b]i.nbr Fnrl6�or y!r.o Ihil U� :T`•'OF .tti.tl+d.rWonhub«n PnPud-f 1 NVw n°EACH, F� m.w<u 'u.�N.p aw oha�.io•n' .n�1:. \' ,filh.D�wat Wlmtlasat W.Cltr Waa" I certify(or declare) under penalty of perjury that the 6 e,% Pt the N-q.di.C.cl.;.tlnn.na'riP regain is true and correct. Dated at Newport pj i:PO-Ugz:d s6ionle.i. hD*e dpubi Qt� Beach,Ca 'fornia,this6 dayofAU $0 '°"""" �"`a�"tR.an-'w.? 1 g'' '�.u!•-fta�C.fiP r of the Ngntlri•n DPodWP dha od in. .x..ion-et t e puhlW nvl.w wd!t. . Newcity d N.-pee•ngtB .' 330p �W. i Newport DIN..N.,moes..vh„c.wa:... . •• ..• .... -vi..91tb3.(71a)810.1181. Cam., 3weN.n.'PlimtoQ•, •Cammtaoa Carol N.-pod H..eh... �A4 Wh. 1 Signature 1 1 THE NEWPORT ENSIGN 2721 E.Coast Hwy.,Corona del Mar,California 92625• PROOF OF PURTICATTON ' IV. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' COUNCILMEN MINUTES n'' A CORRECTED FL Senteaber 8 1980 (9/18/80) ' 40LL CALL C INDEX I i (c) Claim of Rhea Clemance Dunlop for personaDunlop injuries and property damage when she w involved with another bicycle on July , 1980 on the bicycle trail along Jamb ree Roa north of Eastblu£f. Claimant alle es the City is at fault for not proper designing or maintaining the trail. (d) Claim of John Vaul/for erty damage to aula his parked automobne 30, 1980 at Agate and Park Strit was hit by a City truck trying ate a turn. (e) Claim of Gary D. C . for Gary D. Curtis Curtis, Jr., a 34nor, for personal injuries on August 8, 1Q80 while he was swimming dur- ing a City-eEE ,acted recreational swimming ' program atAe Newport Harbor High School and workm n accidentally released chlorine , gas in the pool - several persons inhaled the and were taken to Hoag Hospital for ' tre ment. 6. .S AND COMPLAINTS: None. ' 7. ? DEST TO FILL PERSONNEL VACANCIES - For approv- (66) (A report from the City Manager) (a) One Water Plant Operator, Utilities Depart- ment, to fill a position to be vacated. 8. STAFF REPORTS - None. 9. IUBL CHEARING_SCHEDULING - Set for oub1iSJear- i^ on .en m_b 14R0: ' (a) General Pla AmendmEnt_.HoJ a report GPA/80-2 initiated by the City of Newport Beach to (45) consider proposed amendment to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the General Plan for portions of the County territory within the area commonly known as the "County Triangle," generally bounded by Superior Avenue on the east, Production Place on the north, and Newport Beach city boundnry on the west; and the neceptance of an Environmental Document. Revisions include possible changes in the land use designations and development intensities and are designated as General Plan Amendment I 80-2. (A report from the Planning Depart- meat) 1 Volume 34 - Page 221 . n CI . Y OF NEWPORT BE 3H /✓ C UNCIL MINUTES yy t .0 )tEGULAR COUNCIL MEETING �i PLACE: Council Chambers y yG TIME: 7:30 P:M. ROLL CALL N�9 9 DATE: September 22, 1980 .INDEX Present x x x x x x x A. ROLL CALL. ' Motion x B. The reading of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of All Ayes September 8, 1980 was waived, and the Minutes were approved as written and ordered filed. Motion x C. The reading in full of all ordinances and resolu- Al1 Ayes tions under consideration was waived, and the City Clerk was directed to read by titles only. ' D. HEARINGS: j 1. Mayor Heather opened the public h arink re ardinz GPAJ80-2 Ge¢erala Plan Amendmen *]0 8 2 a request initiated (45) by the City of Newport Beach to consider proposed amendment to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the General Plan for portions of the County territory within the area commonly known as the "County Triangle," generally bounded by Superior Avenue on the east, Production Place on the north, and Newport Beach City boundary on the west; and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. Revisions include possible changes in the land use designations and development intensities and are ' designated as General Plan Amendment 80-2. A report was presented from the Planning Depart- ment. A letter received after the agenda was printed was presented from R. V. Hogan requesting consideration for three properties in subject area which are proposed for development and going through the Permit process in the County. The following people addressed the Council and, in general, supported the annexation, with varying versions of density from 16 to 20 dwelling units ' per acre: Gerald Lane, a Director of the Golden West Mobile Homeowners League; Deborah Pernice, who read in full a letter from the Newport Crest Homeowner's Association; Elizabeth Ann Hess, repre- senting herself, Roland Dick and three neighbors; ' Dick Hogan, who urged that the City'honor the permit for the three properties in the area which have been granted permits for development; and John Barr, one of the owners of the Newport Terrace Mobile Home ' Park at 15th and Placentia. Mayor Heather closed the public hearing. Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director Ron Whitley ' gave a brief report on the lack of park space in the area. ' Volume 34 - Page 225 C UNCIL Q TY OF NEWPORT BLaCH y MINUTES ROLL CALL N 9 Se tember 22, 1980 INDEX Motion x The Environmental Document was accepted with the ' All Ayes following findings: (a) That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Cali- fornia Environmental Quality Act, the Negative Declaration and Initial Study are hereby ap- proved, and that their contents have been con- sidered in the decisions on this project. (b) That based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce poten= tially-significant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in significant ' environmental impacts. (c) That while the proposed residential densi- ties are higher than would normally be acceptable, they are slightly lower than would be permitted under the County's juris- diction, and should not be interpreted as establishing a precedent for higher densities in other areas of the City. and Resolution No. 9880, approving amendments to the H-9880 Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the General Plan (General Plan Amendment 80-2), was adopted, as amended to include language to the ' effect that projects which had received discretion- ary approvals by the County Planning Commission as of this date may proceed without additional discre- tionary approval by the City. ' and The staff was directed to transmit to the Hoard of Supervisors the City's desire to proceed with the annexation. 2. Mayor Heather opened the public hearing regard g UP/1946 the appeal of Prank Spangler and 1510 Balboa Spangler Limited from the decision of the Planning mmis- (88) Sion on September 4 denying Use Permit N 1946 (3 ayes/3 noes tie vote), a request to ermit the conversion of an existing apartment mplex into a condominium project to be leased n a weekly, time-sharing basis. Property to ted at 1510 West Balboa Boulevard on the oa Peninsula; zones C-1-H. A report was presented fr the Planning Depart- j ment. ' A newspaper article rom the Sunday Los Angeles Times was submittg by Councilman Hummel after the agenda was Tinted regarding problems relating to time-shari 9 plans in Hawaii. ' Volume 34 - Page 226 ' V. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTS IF- ' City Council Ming September 8 , * 1980 Agenda Item No. H-9 ' CITY OF NEWPpRT BEACH September 2, 1980 �e Ey ~f ' �� y TO: City Council ' FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 80-2 A request initiated by the City of Newport Beach to consider proposed amendment to the Land Use and ' Residential Gro.wth Elements of the General Plan for portions of the County Territory within the area commonly known as the "County Triangle, " generally bounded by Superior Avenue on the east, Production Place on the north , and Newport Beach City boundary on the west; and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. Revisions include ' possible changes in the land use designations and development intensities and are designated as General Plan Amendment 80-2. Suggested Action If desired, set for public hearing on September 22, 1980. Background At its meeting of August 21 , 1980, the Planning Commission adopted - ' a resolution setting forth its recommendations on General Plan Amend- ment 80-2. This General Plan Amendment has been initiated in con- junction with the proposed County Triangle Annexation. Copies of the Planning Commission Staff Reports and minutes will be forwarded ' to the Council prior to the September 22 meeting. ' Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director by 69& _ ROBERT P. LENARD Advance Planning Administrator RPL/kk City Council Meeting September 22 , 1980 ' Agenda Item No . D-1 ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 16 , 1980 TO City Council ; FROM: Planning Department ' SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No . 80-2 (Public Hearing) An amendment request initiated by the City of ; Newport Beach to consider proposed amendments to •the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the General Plan for a portion of County ' territory within, the area commonly known as the- "County �,County Triangle, generally bounded by . . Superior Avenue on the east, Production Place ' on the north , and Newport Beach City boundary on the west; and the acceptance of an Environ- mental Document. Revisions include possible changes in the land use designations and develop- ment intensities and are designated as .General Plan Amendment 80-2 . ' Applicable Legislation and Policies Title 25 , California Administrative Code , Section 65361 , permits - local governments to amend their general plans no more than three times a year. Council Policy Q-1 provides for the amendment of the ' City ' s General Plan . This General Plan Amendment is the second ; amendment during 1980 . Suggested Action Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, adopt Resolution approving amendments to the Land Use and Residential Growth'Elements ' and maps of the Newport Beach General Plan, and accept the Environ- mental Documentation with .the following findings : ' FINDINGS: 1 ) That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California En- vironmental Quality Act, and that their contents have been considered in the decisions on this project. TO : City Council - 2 . ' 2) That based on the information', 'contained in the - Negati-ve Declaration , the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measure's to reduce potentially- significant environmental effects , and that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts . ' Planning Commission Recommendation ut The Planning Commission 's recommended action is presented in the discussion and the attached resolution . General Plan Amendment 80-2 was approved unanimously. ' Background Amendment 80-2 is being processed as part of the "County Triangle" annexation . Only two more steps remain to complete the annexation ' process : 1 ) approval of General Plan Amendment 80-2 and 2) approval of the annexation by the Orange County Board of Supervisors . The annexation will then be recorded by LAFCO . ' For many years the City has discussed the possibility of annexing the "County Triangle" because it is located entirely within the in- corporated City limits and is similar in character to surrounding incorporated areas . At the City Council meeting of October 9 , 1979 , the Council adopted a Resolution of Application for Annexation of 1 the "County Triangle" and directed staff to complete the other elements of the annexation application package . On January 7, 1980 , • the City Council reviewed the completed annexation application and directed staff to file the application with the Local Agency Forma- tion Commission . The application for annexation was heard at the LAFCO public hearing on February 13, 1980. ' At the February 13th meeting, the hearing was continued to the meet ing of April 23, 1980 because of the opposition to annexation ex- _ pressed by the property owners and residents . The purpose of the continuance was to allow the City time to hold public meetings to inform residents and property owners of the City 's reasons for annexation and clarify what land use and zoning designations- would be applied to the area . The City held a public meeting on March 26 , ' 1980. After explaining the City ' s reasons for initiating annexa - tion proceedings , City representatives invited comments and questions from the residents and landowners in attendance . Some of the issues ' that were raised included future residential growth , the fate of existing mobilehome parks in the area , current Newport Beach General. Plan designations , and allowable residential densities . Addition- ally , the residents and property owners spoke with the Planning Commission about future land use designations at the April 10 , 1980 Planning Commission Study Session . At the April 14, 1980 City Council Study Session , landowners and residents discussed future General Plan ' designations and development intensities with the City Council . On April 23, 1980, LAFCO held the continued public hearing on the annexation . The Commission heard testimony both favoring and oppos- ing the annextion proposdl . Primary concern still centered around 176: City Council - 3. future land use designations and development intensities . After all testimony was heard, the Commission discussed the annexation and took the following action as recorded in their minutes : ' "On motion of Commissioner Anthony, duly seconded and unanimously carried, the Commission sustained the deter- mination that the proposed annexation was categorically p exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approved , as recommended, the County "Triangle" ' Annexation No . 87 to the City of Newport Beach with the additional recommendation to the Board of Supervisors that they not proce'ed until the City of Newport Beach has concluded its general plan amendment. ' AYES: COMMISSIONERS PHILIP L. ANTHONY, JAMES T. JARRELL , EDISON W . MILLER, DONALD J . ' SALTARELLI AND ROBERT E . DWYER NOES: COMMISSIONERS - NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS - NONE Resolution No. 80-33" ' At the Planning Commission meeting of July 24, 1980, the Commission received a planning study describing several planning alternatives for the "Co-unty Triangle . " Since this area is not a part of the t City but is currently involved in annexation proceedings , these plan- ning alternatives took into consideration the results of- several annexation meetings and public hearings recently held before the ' City Council , Planning Commission and Local Agency Formation Commis- sion . In addition , the planning alternatives attempted to provide for future development compatible with both the existing land uses and policies and goals of. the City's General Plan. Based on the testimony given at the July 24th Planning Commission hearing by the landowners and residents of the affected area and the t findings of the planning study, the Commission selected a planning alternative for Staff to develop as General Plan Amendment 80-2. In addition the necessary environmental documentation was prepared ' and circulated. At the Planning Commission meeting of August 21 , 1980, the Commission discussed General Plan Amendment 80-2, took public testimony, ac- cepted the environmental document and approved General Plan Amend- ment 80-2. Based on the opposition to annexation expressed by the property owners and the discussion at the LAFCO hearing, it is Staff' s opinion that the annexation will be successful only if the City ' s General Plan is amended to generally conform with the County ' s , and agreement can be reached with the property owners regarding the ' intensity of development. Discussion I . Site Description TO: City Council - 4 . ' ' i1 : • ' The County Triangle is located on the west side of Newport Beach. It is -bounded - on the southwest by Superior Avenue , and by City boundaries to the north and southeast. The "Triangle" con- sists of approximately 61 .12 acres . It is inhabited and substan- tially developed with a mixture of residential , commercial , and industrial land uses . The land uses surrounding the annexation ' area include apartments , townhomes , and condominiums to the south and east, a hospital and medical professional offices to the eAst and general .industrial uses to the north . To the west the land is vacant and planned for residential development. The estimated ' population of the "Triangle" is 967; there are 403 registered Y, voters and 91 property owners . ' 2. General Plan Designations A. - County General Plan (see attached map) ' Westerly of Monrovia is designated "Light Industrial •; " easterly of Placentia is designated "Community Commercial ; " and the remainder of the territory is designated "Heavy Density Resi - dential , " with a small corner at Superior Avenue and Placentia Avenue designated "Community Commercial . " ' B. City General Plan (see attached map) That portion •of the "Triangle" southerly of Medical ' Lane extended is shown for "Multi -Family Residential " uses . Northerly of Medical Lane , the Land Use Plan shows an " Industrial " designation . Most of the• area easterly of Placentia Avenue is "Retail and Service Commercial " with the small northerly strip ' designated "Industrial . " C. General Plan Amendment 80-2 (see attached map) ' General Plan Amendment 80-2 permits a maximum resi - dential development density of twenty dwelling units per buildable acre . This density would 'permit continued redevelopment of under- developed sites with more intense residential uses . Two large sites which total 13. 378 acres comprise 60% of the underdeveloped residential acreage . These sites are currently developed with ' mobilehome uses . Redevelopment of these sites may permanently - displace mobilehome park residents . ' Nonresidential uses can be developed to a maximum of •2.0 times the buildable area as permitted by the existing zoning districts . In the long run these maximum intensities would probably be achieved ' because the value of the land would justify the additional con- struction expense . An example of this type of expenditure would be subterranean parking. Development at the maximum permitted by zoning is •not typical , and current development intensities are ' between 5 and 1 . 0 times the buildable area . General Plan Amend- ment 80-2 would limit nonresidential uses to 1 .0 times the build- able area . T0; City Council - 5 . In addition, the mobilehome park located on Superior Avenue at 1 . 7 acres could redevelop with commercial uses , thereby permanently displacing those mobilehome park residents . In order to preserve existing mobilehome uses in both the resi - dential and commercial areas of the "County Triangle" a mobilehome overlay zone would be developed that- preserves the existing t mobile- home home uses and requires discretionary review through a use permit to convert them to another type of use. General Plan Land Use designations for the area are as follows : ' (percentages are approximate) County City GPA 80-2 Commercial 4% . 10% 4% ' Multi-Family Residential 71 % 16% 71% Industrial 25% 74% 25% . TOTAL 100% 100%- 100% ' 3. Existing Zoning A. County Zoning (see attached map) 1 The existing County zoning on the site is as -follows : , Westerly of Monrovia Avenue is designated for M-1 ( Industrial ) uses ; easterly of Placentia Avenue is designated C-C (Commercial Community) allowing commercial uses ; and the. remainder of the territory (be- tween Monrovia Avenue and Placentia Avenue) is R-2/1800 and R-3/1800" (Multi-Family Residential ) with a small corner at Superior and ' _ Placentia Avenues shown C-C ( Commercial Community) . B. City Zoning t Because of the unincorporated status of the "County Tri- : angle" the City does not have zoning designation in this area . Zon- ing conforming to the General Plan designations would be adopted ' after annexation . , 4: Existing Land Use (see attached map) ' There is a mixture of land uses within the annexation site . -• Westerly of Monrovia Avenue industrial uses predominate . There ' are also single-family residential and office uses in the area . Between Monrovia and Placentia Avenues most of the land is used for multi -family and mobilehome residential uses . The area also con- tains some commercial , office industrial and single-family -resi - dential uses . Easterly of Placentia Avenue commercial uses are the most prevalent with industrial and multi -family uses also in the area. T0: City Council 6. ..yfr:t ' _.EXI.STIN6, LAND- USE INVENTORY Single Family Residential 2.2 acres4 ? Multi-Family Residential 31 .2 acres • ' Duplex 2 .1 acres i Mobile Home 15 .1 acres Commercial 8.7 acres Office 3.6 acres" i Industrial 6 .9 acres; Institutional 1 . 3 acres Total Developed Acreage 50.3 acres Vacant - 4.6 acres Total Acreage (excludes `streets) 54.9 ,acres . ' 5 . Zoning Regulations County zoning regulations currently "control development in ' the County Triangle . In general the County ' s M-1 standards for industrial development are more permissive than City standards . Neither a height limit nor an intensity of development standard are established by the County Code. The City ' s Zoning Code would con- trol height through Chapter 20.02 "Height Limits . " The standards most applicable to the "County Triangle" would be the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation Zone . Intensity of development is limited to three times the buildable area of the site by the City 's Code. -County parking requirement's for M-1 zone are one parking space per 1000 square feet of gross floor area for office and storage or manu- facturing and storage uses and one parking space per 400 square feet of multiple industrial uses . The City has not established a parking standard for the M-1 . - For purposes of _ the following development analysis , a future development intensity of 1 .0 was used to project ' industrial development. The commercial designation established by County zoning is (C-C/35) ' Community Commercial with thirty-five foot height restriction. In the case of commercial zoning, County standards are slightly more permissive. In terms of permitted height, the County's standards ' allow up to thirty-five feet while the City ' s standards would be - 32. 50 feet. The County does not have an intensity standard but the City ' s Code would limit development to two times the buildable area of the site . County parking standards are similar to City standards ' in that the County Code requires that retail uses have one parking space per 200 square feet of gross floor area while the City's stan- dard is one space per 250 square feet of floor area and one loading ' space for each 10 ,000 square feet of gross floor area. Required PTO: City Council - 7. ' parking for office uses as established by County zoning is one parking space •for-each-250- square feet of gross floor area . The City ' s standard is one parking space for each 250 square feet of ' net floor area . In order to project future commercial and office. development, a development intensity of 2 .0 was used for existing County and City General Plans and an intensity of 1 .0 was used for• ' General Plan Amendment 80-2 . Residential designations established by the County Zoning Code are R-2 (1800) and R-3 ( 1800) . Both designations restrict building ' heights to 35 feet and require 1800 square feet of lot area per unit., which permits 24.2 dwelling units per buildable acre . Park- ing requirements for both districts are also the same: ' One covered parking space and 1 /2 open parking space . for each one bedroom unit ' One covered parking space and 1 open parking space for each two bedroom units Two covered parking spaces and 1/2 open parking space 7. =z " ,for each , three bedroom units ' Plus .2 open parking spaces for guest use per unit. ~ The City ' s R-3 designation restricts building heights to 28/32 feet and requires 1200 square feet of lot area per unit, which permits 36 . 3 dwelling units per buildable acre. Parking requirements for • the R-3 _ District are as follows : a) Not less than two garage spaces for each single- ' family dwelling-. ; ' li) Not less than one garage space for each family unit in any duplex, triplex, or dwelling group of four : or less family units . ' c) Not less than one garage space for each two guest * -.rooms in any rooming house . . ' d) Not less than one parking space for each two guest rooms in any hotel . ' e) Not less than one garage space for each of the first four family units , and two off-street parking spaces , one of which must be a garage space, for each addi - tional family unit, in any dwelling group of more than four family units . f) Not less than two garage spaces per family unit in ' any residential "B " District. The City ' s General Plan permits a maximum density of fifteen dwelling ' units per buildable acre; ' TO: City Council - 8. In order to project future residential development, 24.2 dwelling • ,4 units per buildable acre was used for projecting future residential development under County standards , `fifteen dwelling units per ' buildable acre was used to project permitted City intensities and r , twentydwelling units g per buildable acre was used as a "Trend Growth Intensity" for General Plan- Amendmen-080-2. Trend Growth was established by averaging a recently completed project, two ' projects under construction, and two projects currently propose°d and in the hearing process . City and County standards for Commer- cial and Industrial designations are similar; however, the multi - family zoning is substantially different. Analysis of General Plan Alternatives '• 1 . Housing (see attached table) ' A. Existing Conditions A total of 732 dwelling units are either in existence or under development in the study area. These include nine single- - . family units , 95 condominiums , 418 apartments, and 213 mobile homes . The major portion of the condominium units (55 units) have not yet been completed. Selling prices for the new condominium' units are anticipated to be in excess of $125,000. Based on a selling price of three times the annual household income , a first-time homebuyer purchasing a new unit would be expected to have an annual income of . approximately $400000, well above the 'County median. Apartments in the study area generally run about $350 to $400 a month for one bedroom units , about $50 more for two bedroom units,, and about $50 less for bachelors . Based on a monthly income of four times housing costs , household income in the apartments would be . expected to be about $1 ,300 to .$1 ,600 per month , a moderate income. ' Mobilehome spaces generally rent for $110 to $210 per month , depend- ing upon the park and the size of the mobilehome space. ' A large ' number of persons residing in the mobilehome parks are retired and have fixed incomes in the low and moderate range . Although resi - dents• must purchase their own mobile homes in addition to paying space rental , current housing costs in the mobilehome parks provide% ta source of moderate income housing . B . County Buildout ' This alternative would allow the construction of 903 uni.ts at 24.2 units per acre . This would increase the available housing ' stock by approximately' 170 units . Assuming present development trends in the area were to continue, most new units and replacement housing for older units would be condominiums . The income required to purchase the units would be expected to be somewhat higher than ' that needed to reside in rental Units -or mobile homes . '- TO: City Council - 9 . ' C. . Newport Beach General Plan a The existing Newport Beach General Plan would allow a total of 147 dwelling units at a density of fifteen units per build- able acre. Available housing would be decreased by 585 units . Due to the permitted densities and existing housing trends , new units would probably be condominiums rather than mobile homes or apart- ments . Reduction of housing density below existing levels and ' levels permitted by the County would result in the distribution of fixed costs for such, factors as raw land, infrastructure im- provement, etc . , among fewer units in a development. Housing prices would be expected to increase due to higher fixed costs per unit and to market pressures caused by the decreased availability of housing . ' D. • General Plan Amendment 80-2. _ . General Plan• Amendment 80-2 would allow a maximum of ' 747 residential units at approximately twenty dwelling units per buildable acre . Through an overlay zoning designation of "Mobile- home Parks , " existing mobilehome parks would be encouraged to remain thereby preserving existing low and moderate income housing as long as. possible . The overlay zone would require discretionary review through a use permit to convert the parks to another type ' of use . At 'the time of discretionary review, the City would con- sider the conversion of mobilehome parks in relation to the policies contained in the adopted Housing Element of the General Plan. 2. Traffic Generation (see attached table) The �trip generation information provided enables a comparison ' of the effects of various land uses on traffic demand. Traffic gen- eration rates used to analyze the various land use alternatives are . commonly acdepted values most of which have been locally verified. The daily .rates occurring most frequently are : 6 .0 to 8 .5 trips per dwelling unit, with mobile homes having the lowest generation rate ; 13 trips per thousand square feet of office space; 35 trips per ' thousand square feet of commercial/retail area ; and 40 trips per acre of industrial land use . For this analysis all office square footage was assumed to be administrative and professional . If medi- cal offices were developed the ADT would increase from 13 to 45 . , The distribution of these trips throughout the day is also a function of land use . The number of trips generated i•n the afternoon peak hour (generally considered to be 4: 30 p.m. to 5 :30 p.m. ) ranges from 8% of the daily value for low density residential to 18% for office developments . This factor is of concern because typically the transportation system is subjected to the highest traffic volumes during the afternoon peak period. Because traffic is generally' heavier in one direction on a highway than the other, the orientation of vehicles either toward or away from a development in Newport Beach can impact the congestion of the A ` Y Y ' TO: City Council - 10 . ' transportation system. Residential developments p generate trips in an inbound to_ outbound -ratio of approximately 2 :1 during the after- ` ''. .noon peak hour. By comparison , commercial developments exhibit more nearly a 1 : 1 ratio and office developments are characterized ' by a 1 : 3 ratio for the same time period. h The existing traffic in this area is well below the capacity of the " I ' street system. As an example, one of the busiest intersections` is Superior and Placentia Avenues , which has an existing ICU level of approximately .55 . Based on the worst case of "County Buildout" ' the estimated volumes at • the Superior/Placentia intersection wou-Id be roughly equivalent (20,000 ADT for both streets ) to the existing, level of traffic at the intersection of Irvine Avenue and Westcliff Drive - 17th Street. While turning volumes have not been estimated ' for the Placentia/Superior intersection , they should be similar to those at Irvine/Westcliff - 17th, which has a present ICU of 0. 77. Thus , it appears that even in the case of "County Buildout," the 1 . ' street system' will handle the additionai 'traffic. The principal street improvements contained in the City 's Circulation ' " ' .Element affecting this area are the extension of Balboa Boulevard northerly of Coast Highway and the extension of 15th Street west- erly past the extension of Balboa Boulevard and down to Coast High= ' way . No schedule exists ,for either of these improvements at this . time . 3. Cost/Revenue (see attached table) : -- The attached table shows an estimate of the net fiscal impact (costs minus revenues ) for each of the alternatives . Section 993 ' of the Tax and Revenue Code requires the City and County to nego- tiate a property tax distribution settlement before the annexation can be final . The League of California Cities and Orange County have developed a conceptual agreement regarding negotiations and ' -distribution of property tax 'revenues . Applicable sections of the. proposed agreement between the County of Orange and the Cities of Orange County, to provide for property tax distribution in annexed ' areas, are as follows : y "When a city annexes a County Unincorpora£ed area that is " fully developed or substantially developed the following distribution method will be used: "a. The County Auditor-Controller shall select, by random sample , several Tax Rate Areas (TRA''s ) within each Orange County City. The city 's tax factor (% of the $4.00 tax rate) and the County's ' tax fa-ctor in these randomly selected TRA's will be averaged to produce an average city tax factor ( for each individual city) and an average County tax factor (in each individual city) . "The sum of the two average tax factors represents ' the combined city and County General Fund tax TO: City Council - ll . t "effort in an 'individual city. Dividing the , average city 'tax factor or the average County tax factor by the sum of the two, produces a ' percentage ratio between the two factors that : represents the city and County historic tax ratio for each individual city. ' "b. Property tax affected by ' this agreement is the s 1 ) -amount of revenue in an annexing area that would,- were the area not annexing, be distributed to the Orange County General Fund, * and 2) Amount of revenue in an annexing area that would have been distributed to certain special districts , but because of the annexation, the city will be assuming the provision of those services formerly provided by the special district(s,) . ' "c . The combined property tax• revenue determined 'in 'b ' (above) in the base year, will be multiplied b' y the historic City and County tax ratios and • - divided among the two jurisdictions accordingly. = "d. Each annual- increment or increase over the prior ` t yearls. base , due to increases in assessed value .' will be distributed between the- city and County - according to the same division by the historic tax ratios of the two agencies . - "The base year for pending jurisdictional changes shall be FY 1980-81 . " If this agreement is approved, little to no fiscal impact can be anticipated with respect to cost/revenue. If the agreement-is not approved the actual cost/benefit relationship will not be known until the City -completes property tax negotiations. Approval of this agree- ment is expected to occur�by late October. . Based on letters received from the various City Departments during _ ' s'a : previous annexation studies , certain one time costs are estimated r ° as follows : Tree trimming $' 1 ,848.00 Manufacture & install 15 street name signs 300 .00 T�• Manufacture & install 5 speed limit signs 165 .00 Miscellaneous street striping . 100 .00 Miscellaneous patching of streets with t asphaltic concrete 250.00 Put in approximately 20,200 sq . ft., of sidewalk 30, 300 .00 Put in approximately 1 ,940 linear ft. of curb and gutter 219340 .00 Overlay Monrovia Ave. with 210 tons of asphaltic concrete to re-establish street crown & restore proper drainage 5 ,250 .00 TOTAL $59 ,553.00 • �. i• ' 30: City Council - 12 . t ' Much of the major improvement work would be the responsibility of the adjacent property as it developed or redeveloped. The largest item, 15th Street widening and improvement (estimated at 1 .2 million ' dollars ), has a very low priority of need at the present time. Other,,- services , some of which are being provided (emergency police and ;. fire service), could be- provided with existing staff and equipment. 4. Sewer Capacity (see attached table) Count buildout would generate the' y g greatest amount of sewage while all other development alternatives would generate signifi - cantly less sewage. Therefore the sewage disposal system would sustain lesser impacts from development in accordance with any of the other alternatives . 5 . Energy - -. � -. .' :. • . . . _ - - ' Energy consumption for the study area was calculated based on the following standard consumption rates . ' Electricit-v Industrial/Commercial 32.-3 kwh/sq . ft./yr. Commercial/Retail. 47.8 kwh/sq . ft./yr. High Density Residential ' 5280 kwh/DU/yr. . tLow Density Residential 10800 kwh/DU/yr. ' Natural Gas Industrial/Commercial 39.6 cu. ft./sq-. ft./yr. , Commercial/Retail 120.0 cu:ft./sq.ft.'/yr. "'_` High Density Residenti,al' , ' , 63,960 .cu. ft./unit/yr. ' Low Density Residential . 109,600 cu.ft./unit/yr. Gasoline ' 15 miles per gallon . (10 miles per trip) Calculated energy consumption for each alternative land use scheme is summarized in the attached table . As shown in the table, build- . out according to the Orange County General Plan would result in the highest consumption of natural gas and gasoline.' However,development under the Newport Beach General Plan would result in the highest amount of electricity consumption due to the large amount of industrial development permi-tted under this alternative. ' Environmental Documentation - Negative Declaration Based on the findings of the initial study which evaluates the en- vironmental impacts of General Plan Amendment 80-2, nonresidential development intensities were limited to 1 .0 times the buildable area' " in order to mitigate the environmental impacts , specifically those caused by vehicle traffic . further, discretionary review would be TO : City Council - 13. ' required for changes to the existing mobilehome parks and no change to the mobilehome park sites be approved without a finding as to conformance with the Housing Element of the Newport Beach General ' Plan . Residential development intensities were limited to 20 DU's per buildable acre .- Suggested General Plan "Language" LAND USE ELEMENT "County Triangle" The area designated as the "County Triangle" has a combination ' of Industrial , Commercial and Residential uses . The area west of Monrovia Avenue is designated for Industrial uses .with a maximum development intensity of 1 .0 times the buildable area , .The area between Monrovia Avenue and Placentia Avenue , with ' the exception of the Commercial area west of the intersection of Placentia Avenue and Superior Avenue, is designated Multiple ,--,- Family Residential uses . Due to historical precedence and established land use - patterns which developed prior to annexa- tion of the "County Triangle, " the maximum residential density permitted is 20 dwelling units per buildable acre. The area between- Placentia Avenue and Superior Avenue and the Commercial area west of the intersection of Placentia Avenue and Superior. , . =.• Avenue is designated Retail and Service Commercial with a maxi- mum development intensity of 1 .0 times the buil-dable area. RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ELEMENT ' "County Triangle " Statistical Area A3 The residential portion of the "County' Triangle•"" between ' ' Monrovia Avenue and Placentia Avenue is designated for _ Multiple-Family Residential uses . Due to historical precedence and established land use patterns which developed prior to annexation of the "County Triangle , " the maximum residential '• density permitted is 20 dwelling units, per buildable acre- ; • ; In addition , a mobilehome park overlay zone will be developed• . ' that preserves the existing mobilehome uses and .requires discretionary review through a use permit to convert them to another type of use . ' The language quoted above incorporates two changes to the original text reflected in findings made by the Commission . In making find- ings , the Commission adopted a mitigation measure providing for discretionary review of proposed land use changes involving mobile home park sites , and found justification for increased densities based upon previous development. Staff is of the opinion that these ' findings should be incorporated into the language which constitutes the amendment to the General Plan. ' TO: City Council - 14. ' ESTIMATED RESIDENTIAL GROWTH LIMIT11FOR STATISTICAL AREA A3 BASED ON THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING POLICY Total No. Estimated Housing Type Breakdown t of ' Dwelling Single- Multi- Mobile Estimated Units Family Duplex Family Homes -Population ' As of 7/1/80 735 9. - •• `. • 8 - - 505 213 • 1092 ' Residential Growth Limit Based on the- . , Residential ' Zoning Policy ' ; 747 -- . .-747 - .•-- . 1417 ' Respectfully submitted, • _ PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director by ' CIRAI T: BLUELL _ Seni r Planner CTB/kk. 1. Attachments - ' RESOLUTION NO. 105.4 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT' BEACH RECOMMENDING TO- THE CITY COUNCIL THAT CERTAIN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE AND RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ELEMENTS OF THE ' GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BE ADOPTED (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 80-2) ' WHEREAS, the Land'Use and Residential Growth Elements -of " the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach serve as a guide for future development of property within the corporate limits of the' City, and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach 'is presently involved in the annexation of approximately 64 acres of'unincorporated tier- ritory, entirely surrounded by the City of Newport Beach and more accurately depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A, - an'; • area commonly •referred to as the County Triangle. - WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the ' City of. Newport Beach, the Planning Commission has held a public, hearing to consider amendments to the Land Use-and Residential Growth Elements of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach ' as they relate to the County Triangle; and l ' WHEREAS, . the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of * . the ,City .of Newport Beach _General Plan contain guidelines for the- " - ' development of the County Triangle; WHEREAS, previously established land use patterns and ' densities developed while this territory was subject to County' land use controls warrant amendment of existing general plan ' provisions •relating to density limits and land use designations for property within the County Triangle, and that an increase in ' allowable densities is in the best interest of the City of Newport Beach. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach has read and reviewed the environmental documentation, con- sisting of an Initial Study and Negation Declaration, copies of . which are attached hereto as Exhibits B and C respectively, pre- pared in conjunction'with these proposed amendments, has deter- mined that the environmental documentation satisfies all of the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ' :and the State EIR Guidelines (GUIDELINES) promulgated pursuant to CEQA, and that the environmental documentation was considered• in the decisions reflected in this resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that mitiga- ttion measures, contained within the environmental documentation, and which modify the project to require discretionary review of tproposed land use changes involving existing mobile home parks within the County Triangle, reduce potentially significant , " environmental effects to the extent that the project will not result in significant.• environmental impacts, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend to ' the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that the Land Use ' Element of the Newport Beach General Plan", as it relates to land use within the County Triangle, be amended to read as follows: ' "County Triangle" ' The area designated as the "County Triangle" has a combi- nation of Industrial, Commercial and Residential uses. The area ' west of Monrovia Avenue is designated for Industrial uses with a maximum development intensity of 1.0 times the buildable area. The area between Monrovia Avenue and Plancentia Avenue, with the ' exception of the Commercial area west of the intersection of Placentia Avenue and Superior Avenue, is designated Multiple- Family Residential at a maximum of twenty dwelling units per acre. The area between Placentia Avenue and Superior Avenue and the 2 !7 Commercial area west of the intersection of Placentia. Avenue and superior-Avenue is designatediRetail and Service Commercial with a maximum development intensity of 1.0 •times the buildable area. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Residential Growth Element of the Newport Beach General Plan as it relates to resi- dential densities within the County Triangle be amended to read as follows: ' "County Triangle" Statistical Area A3 residentialThe portion the "County between MonroviaAvenue and Placentia Avenue is" designated Multiple-Family Residential at a maximum of twenty dwelling units per buildable acre. ; ' : Estimated Residential Growth Limit for Statistical Area A3 ;- Based on the Residential Zonin Polic ' . Total No. of 9 Single- _ S in �I Multi- Mobile- Estimated Units Family Du lex Family homes PoAulation T� As of 7/l/80 735 • Residential 9 8 505 213 - 1092 Growth Limit - ' Based on the = . Residential : ; t - • Zoning Policy 747 747 1417 ADOPTED this, day of 1980. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk - J v� ei3 • E Oro Af Oro . , : XNEIJXKAMLLM iEieiiiiEiiE3cie3ii3eiiE! i ? ei:?:::?::?::•• ? .i... ... ::::?q::::::;: 1.iSt city of NEWPORT BEACH 00 amsevessall or, A ease some, message owns gas gas Ir an a eon EXISTING NEWPORT BEACH COMM.RETAIL AND SERVICE UL -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ADVANCIII PLANNING city of DIVISION NEWPORT BEACH !!!i::::i �. 7 ` ........................ 3Q::3!33E333 1 3E3: . ;.....7:3i.iei! i3t �?ieEeeee�ii��ieei393993331eii333a63i3EEi333i3E3:;. E•.33iiiii e'i iilEe iEi . ' A ' 0 E► ::........i //� ..... ......... '1:9t3E:33: iEi � i3!�ii3? Ei ii:i33i3i;333' E3ii�!E3 '��iiiiil�lijl(�i � i(iliiiji�ll3�' • ::::3 city of Nil BE CH z F seesaw 0% use EXISTINd swasames, as mass an It, LANas USE GENERAL INDUSTRY awass so: RETAIL AND SERVICECOMM. an a so MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL VACANT ADVANCR PLANNING city of DIVIBION NEWPORT =EACH � ]lY.S_ .y(5{'�t�`e•fa a, -~ l .Y, i nx,'` .t� �"f 4 2n3nM tEMI KA0f kf2lte.PLAN.9fi01tlSE0 WWWk"All Afi10AEEI M•2.'AW 1eea7 fEWFAL MO An IMAM JMts I11,DAt n ta♦ n tic lMnHMI OMt w 3rt9tt 01MntMf KMn 1intYptION ft MIMI to O6roat►t1M iatsil.r Comugtton i HMt1Me (ta awnp Y117 tr19t) t10 hiltnl (10 P17Mr per Y7)' 1060 2ttrtt IMtrt 9tr 3wy Oft I0000. ft.per Yap) tl�Phan per M7) a Itf-hdi) t. MIN iE90 6710 xx 21.71{ I01.71t 1M.tM 70.0x iSt.tx M9.M0 7ri.2 MI:2 Ix1.0 t102.1 17.7x.t 57.76id 0u I213 ac s117 acm 741 tent r 1 n1 Offiq 3.0 1.34 7.31. 4306 61M BW 36146 N.110 70.3M 12.20 IWO 27.x3 M1191.1 10.27.3 20.654.6 13.109.0 MUM 2S.M.6 t069 2711 5542 6CM Knt 6tM . .. ft- wale f:3. 460 M itl 3.64 3.M l.M M4 307 71M 22.317 L.316 n.37 ll.7M SJS7 11.716 tx2.3 1913.3 Ont.3 21.3s7.1 12.3M.s 2/.3s7.1 1776 tNe f736 nlal KM acM tcM M.9x Iez.7M 202.976 intmtrial 36.072 4.1 6.1 1443 1M IM 06.217 x.ns 10.716 139.99 15,906 1S.901 30.752.9 5768.7 57M.7 62.M.3 x12n 7072.4 962 109 109 t«tt mm tam 1.571.299 I71I.s96 .32 .32 .32 as tl• a 0 0 e' SM •SW .S6o 32.5 -12.5 12.5 n.0 acm KM n.0 n.0 IL 12 tt .c.H 3 2500 25M 2sw so, t r1wL SdmT 1.0 1.0 ' 1.0 no' 00 III 0 0 0 30.000 IOMO ','10.000 40.0 48.0 16.0 IM.O 1110.0 100.0 537 5H 537 acm um acnS 400 400 100 n t _ . . t07AL {L9M 0.16 2/,IM 171.315 1M.507 2N.7x 205.375 101.01 251.525 71.961.9 25.01/.0 10.953.0 o9.N7.i 00,101.7 11.763.0 9975 IO.OM , t5.o79 rA Y WPp ...._, @� CITY ;OF NEWPORT BEACH e.c Planning Department 640-2261 August 19, 1980 ' 1 Brian Farris South Coast Air Quality Management District 91150 E. Flair Drive 1 E1 Monte, CA 91731 Re: Response to your letter of August 12, 1980 concerning Declaration for General Plan Amendment-80 Newport Beach GeneralNPlanive(Our ' DOO8110 Dear Mr. Farris: General Plan Amendment .80-2• is part of an annexation program.to bring the "County Triangle" under the Ci•ty's jurisdiction see 1 ( page 36 of the Initial Study, LAFCO motion) . The project, General Plan Amendment 80-2, is the 'amendment of the existing Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Designation to the proposed Land- Use Designation as describedon page 3 of the -Initial Study. The proposed Land Use Designations.1are the same as the County General Plan Designations which currently regulate development in the "County Triangle (see pages 291 and 308 of the Initial Study). ' Current County zoning (see pages 292, 293, and 294 of the Initial Stud ts greater development intensities than those proposed by General Plan Amendm �ent80-2 and the Mitigation Measures of the Initial Study (page 23 of the Initial Study) , Th erefore, byt this eamendment�since ethe aproposed t there aGeneralre �PlannAmendmentmand- the Mitigation Measures reduce impacts to approximately those of the existing City General Plan. 1 Should you have any questions,. please do not hesitate to contact Craig Bluell , • Senior Planner, at 640=2261. 1 Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' 1 JAMES D. HENICKER, DIRECTOR ' 1 By Fred alarico 1 Environmental Coordinator FT/CB/dt - South-Coast - AIR-QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT: Wra1 OW ;' HEADQUARTERS, 9150 E. FLAIR DR., EL MONTE. CA 91131 ANAHEIM OFFICE, 16f0-E. BALL RD.. ANAHEIM, CA 92405 (714) 991-7200 br ` ' CARSON OFFICE, 930 DOVLEN PL.. SPACE E, CARSON, CA 90746 . (213) 532.4102 COLTON OFFICE, 22650 COOLEY DR., COLTON. CA 92324 (714) 624.2660 August 12, 1980 ' Fred Talarico _ • Planning Department" ' :'' " ,:, ~"=•':' ,; . .. City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. -Newport Beach .CA- ,. 92663 - a Re:. Pro r• ` posed Negative Declaration for CPA-80,_.»,.:. : _F, _ ..��=:•_��.,- . ,,,Y•;�=', Newport- Beach;General`•P1an ' (Our D00811C) . ' 'Dear Mr. .Talarico: .. The District feels: the' substantial increase in Multi- Family -Condos will have•'possib"le significant air-quality ' and growth inducing impacts and therefore an EIR will be required. ,• . • , Please focus on-all impacts ; direct and indirect, -and ..quantify where possible, ' Mi.tigations ,should also be : ' emphasized: ' ' • . .. - - If you •have any. questions;' rplease' contact- me at '(213) ' 572-6418 . ..t't '., �r'r. - `*�� - .. r-- Yam' • 4ii s: . :.��• ..f:* ':i" 'A�_ i:.,, .T S;'�" Sin''ce're1y, -- _ . .r.^r,:,' 'i:y::'�'-y.j'f '" . Brian Farris ' Head, Impact Analysis & Energy Resources Section Headquarters ' BF:js Check -List .for Whar is Necessary ' in the Air Quality Section h of an Environmental Impact Report I. Responsibility: It. is the responsibility of the Lead Agency to make sure that current information is being used in the EIR, that proper methodology is used, and - that the data presented is correct and complete. II. Content (a detailed description of the following• points can be found in the Air Quality Handbook for Environmental ' Impact Reports avail-aBle from the CAQMW ' A. Description of Environmental Setting of the Project Area 1: Climate• _ a. Temperature, rainfall, humidity, wind, cloudiness, inversions b.' Air Pollution Potential including weather factors that contribute to smog formation ' 2. Existing Air Quality (Information for the previous year is usually available in July) _ a. Number of days that either Federal or State - standards were exceeded. " b. Annual averages and maximum observed values . c. Pollutants should include ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide; • ' total suspended particulate, lead, sulfate, non-methane hydrocarbons , hydrogen sulfide and visibility reducing particles. ' 3. Existing Emissions a. Emission inventory (how many pounds per day ' of the primary pollutants are emitted) b. . Major• sources of emissions (freeways , factories, ' power plants , .etc.) 4. Sensitive receptors in the area (schools , hospitals , ' nursing homes , etc. ) ,2;- ; B. Environmental Impact of the Project, Tract or Facility ' 1, Site Preparation and Construction a. Duration b, Average daily emissions due to equipment used and dust. This includes transport ' and storage 'of materials , 2. 'Operation-of Completed Project, Tract or Facility a, Stationary Source Emissions i. Direct emissions are from .the use of natural gas and any by-product of an ' industrial, manufacturing, refining, utility or commercial process or from ' anything covered by any SCAQMD rules of regulations. • ii. Indirect emissions include these from electrical -power generation used at the site. Worst case should be assumed which means 100% oil fired power generation ' completely from the South Coast Air Basin. b, Mob ile •Emissions ' - i. Motor Vehicle Emissions from light duty '- gasoline powered vehicles, motorcycles , ' heavy duty gasoline powered vehicles, and heavy duty diesel •powered vehicles should be.calculated. - ii. Other mobile emissions should be calculated these may include air craft, boats, ships, trains , snowmobiles , etc. ' c, Other emissions may need to be estimated in special cases ' i, Emissions , from parking lots: ii. Emissions from tank farms. iii . Emissions resulting from an oil spill or tanker fire. • 1 27 -3_ 1 f - d. In special cases a diffusion analysis may be ' required. i, any project with a stack 1 ii. any line source like a £tee:•.=av .any project with large amount of associated ' vehicle miles- traveled. iv. a_r±y project which will emit a large amount ' of primary pollutants during any one day. e. All an:)rouriate emission factors , Qrowth factors , use factors , control factors and vehicle mix ' factors should be tabulated. f. An overall summary table of emissions , as well as , ' any appropriate individual source emission tables ., ` should be presented.' Nhere it is appropriate, emis- sions should be listed for an average day. 4. ' 3. Growth inducing effect (if this project will in any way ., stimulate growth then an emissions, inventory as described in II.B.2 above should be conducted for ' the project and the effected area for regular intervals. i.e. , 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995. ) 1 1 :v Agenda, but was rAceived too r the Agenda: �) r - i• THE R. V. HOGAN CO. POST OFFICE BOX 8443 n NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92660 I _UU ;) V r t714) 644•0021 U or cirt M September i7, 1980 SEi'1.7 L080� 3 ' SEP 9 9 1980 WIT OF Ni:4ifpw Ma tpy the CITY COUNCIL g CALIE ITY OF t1swPOAT ZEACH S Mayor and Council �+ a) ' City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 ' Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: ' The City is amending its General Plan .and preparing to annex the area commonly known as the "County Triangle" . within that area and south of 15th Street in the district zoned R-3 in the County are three properties proposed for immediate development and going through the permit process in ' the County. 1. One of these, a twenty-nine unit condominium project has received approval by the County ' Planning Commission and is now going through plan check in the County Building Department. t 2 . The second, a nine unit condominium will be heard by the County Planning Commission on the afternoon of September 22, 1980. It is ' anticipated that the structural drawings can be submitted for plan check to the Building Department by November i, 1980 and that a permit will be issued around December 1, 1980. ' 3. The third, an eight unit condominium project, will also be heard by the County Planning ' Commission on the 22nd of this month. The structural plan check has already been done by the County Building Department and the ' building permit can be issued after the , public hearing by the Planning Commission. The processing of the applications for these three projects }has been time consuming and expensive, requiring substantial 'at _ I architectural work as well as the usual environmental review, :0PIESS1111% etc. It is hoped that construction can begin on all of them j"Zasyor prior to completion of the annexation process so that they 13nonager will be vested, but this may not be possible. In any case, 1:) Attorney construction will not be completed on any of them if annexation Y1 Director I/MorriDt.4 Director EP)ther councilmen 9' �r Mayor and, Cowncil September 17 , 1980 Page Two occurs before the end of the year. As a consequence, it is requested that the City ' adopt the position that any project in the "County Triangle Area" that has received discretionary approval, i.e. , a Use Permit, under the ordinances of the County be allowed to continue processing in the County until construction has been completed. This request is being made in the hope of eliminating both the time and the fees involved in processing the projects ' through both the city and the County. Your consideration will -be greatly appreciated. Ve ruly yours, ! . RVH:mb r