Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TPO037_POLICY S-1 AMENDMENT
IIIIUIQIIIIIIIIUIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIII ' TP0037 • Planning Commission Meeting June 15 , 1978 Study Session Item No . 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 6 , 1978 TO : Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Requests for Exceptions to Council Policy S-1 and Proposed Traffic Phasing Ordinance Introduction At their meeting on June 12 , 1978, the City Council referred three ( 3) projects to the Planning Commission for consideration of traffic reports in compliance with Council Policy S-1 and the proposed Traffic Ordinance , and to make findings for these projects per the criteria in the policy. These projects are the Bayside Square Office Buildings , Westcliff Grove (residential ) , and the Bank of Newport Office and Residential Project. Since none of these projects have been issued grading and building permits , they would not be excepted as on-going projects . Therefore , traffic studies have been prepared , according to the criteria in Council Policy S-1 , to analyze the peak hour impacts of the proposed developments . Analysis The Report of Findings from the City ' s Traffic Engineer and the traffic analysis prepared by the consultants are attached to this report (Exhibits -A , B , C) . In each case , the City ' s Traffic Engineer Desig- nated which intersections would be at Level of Service D , or worse , either before , or as a result of, the project, and would also be affected by project generated traffic.' A 2 . 5 hour peak period was designated , and the existing volume and the project generated peak hour traffic was calculated for that 2 . 5 hour period. In each case it was determined that the project generated traffic would be less than 1 % of the existing 2 . 5 hour peak volume ; therefore , meeting the criteria for being excepted from the Policy. Recommended Action If so desired , the Planning Commission may find that the traffic analysis prepared for each project in compliance with Council Policy S-1 demonstrates that the projects will contribute less than 1 % to the peak hour volumes , and will not have a significant impact on the circulation system . If the City Council concurs with this finding, this will authorize the issuance of grading and building permits for these projects provided all other City requirements and conditions of approval are met. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R . V . HOGAN , Director By V RLY E 1 OD DEnviro ental Coordinator BW/dt Attachments AIL EXHIBIT A REPORT OF FINDINGS PROJECT NAME: Bayside Square Office Building PROJECT LOCATION : Bayside Drive at Marine Avenue DESCRIPTION: The construction of *two (2) office buildings containing a total of •37,500 square feet. (1 .51b acres) FINDINGS_-: A traffic analysis was prepared in compliance with Council Policy, S-1 and the proposed addition of Chapter 1.5 .40 to the Newport Beach Municipal Code : Ref. 15.40.030 Traffic Impact Limitation (d) Exceptions . According to the analysis of the proposed project, based on the assumptions and data contained therein , the following finding can be made: The traffic during the designated 2.5 hour peak period, on L^ L each street which will have an unsatisfactory level of traffic service prior to, or as a result of, the project, will be increased by - less than 1 % by the traffic generated from the proposed.. project during that 2 . 5 hour period. Elr'-( The traffic during the designated .2 .5 hour peak period , on each street which will have an unsatisfactory level of "traffic service prior to , or as a result of, the project , will be increased by more than 1 % by the traffic generated from the proposed project during that 2 .5 hour period. REMARKS : PROJECT HISTORY : Site Plan - Planning Commission 10/6/77 City Council 11/14/77 (on appeal) Resubdivision 961 - Planning Commission 10/6/77 Resubdivision 569 - Planning Commission 1 /5/78 Bill E. Darnell Traffic Engineer y4 r . • j TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ® erman CONSULTANTS Kimmel and Associates , Inc. PRINCIPALS: 4242 CAMPUS DRIVE,SUITE E-6 NEWPORT BEACH,CALIF.92660 1714) 546.9814 HERMAN KIMMEL H.WILLIAM DICKSON May 30 , 1978 � O City of cS? �0 11 . do Newport Community P P Development Department 3300 Newport Boulevard a oFs Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 9 ��y a�ot�taF j Attention Beverly Wood Environmental Coordinator W Traffic Phase - Policy Analysis Bayside Square City of Newport Beach Gentlemen: Our analysis of traffic increases at City selected intersections on East Coast Highway, that are caused by the "Bayside Square" development, concludes that there will be less than a 1% increase to existing traffic volumes . The analysis was based on distribution of traffic to East Coast Highway at Jamboree Road, Bayside Drive, and Dover Drive , using the following data: Office Gross Area = 37 ,500 S .F. Daily Traffic Generation Rate = 13 Trips per 1000 S .F. ADT = 488 2 . 5 P.M. Pk. Hr. Generation Factor(1) = 25% x ADT 2. 5 P.M. Pk. Hr. Vol. = 122 Directional Split - (Inbound = 25%) (Outbound = 75%) Distribution Pattern = 30% to Bayside West y 30% to Bayside East 30% to Jamboree North 10% to Marine South Table 1 shows existing traffic data provided by City, and site traffic data based on previous factors . The analysis shows that Tf�CALTRANS 9th Progr ss Report on Trip Ends • y I Page 2 May 30 , 1978 Newport Beach site increase in traffic is less than 1% of existing traffic, therefore the project is within •the "Exempt' section 15 ,40 .030 (D) (ii) . If you wish additional information relating to this project, please contact our office any time, Respectfully submitted, HERMAN KIMMEL E ASSOC. , INC. H. William Dickson RCE No. 19417 RTR No. 39 cc: Bill E. Darnell Traffic Department A TABLE 1 ; BAYSIDE SQUARE EXISTING 6 SITE TRAFFIC DATA (3 : 30 P.M. to 6 : 00 P.M. ) Direction Coast Highway @ Jamboree Coast Highway @ Bayside Coast Highway @ Dover Exist. Site Exist. Site Exist. Site NB 11015 27 17875 27 242 - SB 2295.9 6 180 - 22100 3 • EB 42264 - 42847 9 5 ,279 6 WB 3 ,185 3 3 ,860 31489 27 TOTAL 112423 36 10 ,762 36 112110 36 +0 . 330 % Change +0 . 320 % +0 . 320 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING lj8rman CONSULTANTS Kimmel and Associates,Inc. L EXHIBIT B REPORT OF FINDINGS PROJECT NAME: Westcliff Grove' PROJECT LOCATION : - S/o Westcliff Drive SE/o Dover Drive DESCRIPTION: The construction of •29 single family dwelling units. FINDINGS : A traffic analysis was prepared in compliance with Council Policy. S-1 and the proposed addition of Chapte.r 15.40 to the Newport Beach Municipal . Code : Ref. 15.•40.030 Traffic Impact Limitation (d) Exceptions . According to the analysis of the proposed project, based on the assumptions and data contained therein , the following finding can be made: The traffic during the designated 2. 5 hour peak period, on each street which will have an unsatisfactory level of traffic service prior to, or as a result of, the project, will be increased by less than 1 % by the traffic generated from the proposed project during that 2 .5 hour period . Elr-j The traffic during the designated •2 .5 hour peak period , on each street which will have an unsatisfactory level of traffic service prior to., or as a result "of, the project, will be increased by more than 1% by the traffic generated from the proposed proiedt during that 2 . 5 hour period. REMARKS : PROJECT HISTORY : Amendment No. 476 - Planning Commission 1/20/77 C1tv Pntanrt7 /la/77 Tentative Map 9620• - Planning Commission 1/20/77 City Council 3/14177 Final Map 9620 - Planning Commission 3/2/78 City Council 3127/78 Approval in Concept #386-77 - 4/4/77 Coastal Permit - Received 6/3/77 ill E. Darnell Traffic Engineer -i Si RECEIVED- „ � C Community E t, DenaopmenS. - DepX.. MOHLE, PERRY B ASSOCIATES J U]V 2'.-;_a97S&-- c CiTyOr ?.�• xa, ? ' NEWPORT 8c`ACH, 31,- 1978 I ` CAl1F, t May ! x N y,- ' f ; Ms., Beverly Wood r " Environmental Coordinator , Department of Community Development City Sall 3r 41x tLt 3300:Newport:Boulevard rfk••- Newport Beach, CA 92663 y,-, �.�m :* Subject Traffic' Analysis Westc1i197Grove rkftf� y +� u Your Letter Dated May_;26. <Kd Dear'Ms.. Wood �„ l?'i. `'" In accordance .with your'.,subject authorizing letter, we .have tL completed the •"first step analysis for the 29-unit• "; traffic singlerfamily ,development .known as Westcliff. Grove. '' The analysis has been made in ;accordance .with the recently adopted 5 .40 to the Newport Beach Municipal ordinance adding Chapter :1 Codetwhich'establishes.a;traffic phasing plan. : The following '- o- .<.;: analysis has also been made in c with the City r Traffic.Engineer,. Mr. Bill. E. Darnell. r L` I DESCRIPTION �... PROJECT ECT ry,.,.. . The proposed project consists of 29 single family dwelling units-,and designated "Tentative Tract_9620" -to be located. on ` the '=southerly side of Westcliff Drive southeasterly of"Dover Drive:.-r',Access: to the tract. will be from Dover Drive at 'the r unsignalized intersection. northerly of Westcliff Drive For .more specific information concerning the proposed "develop- menu-reference 'is made to the publication titled "Initial ,Study , Westcliff Grove ,Subdivision, Tentative Tract 9620 , Newport Beach, California" on file in the Communitg Development Department. Thin-report is: dated December 1, 1976. SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF ANALYSIS : . The purpose of this analysis is to determine. if the estimated traffic to be generated from the proposed development for the two and one-half hour period from 3: 30 p.m. to 6 : 00 p.m.', which has-been designated by the City Traffic .Engineer as the peak M1 „ MUNICIPAL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS 2565 E.Chapman Ave.,.Suite 124, Fullerton,CA 92631 • (7141738-3471 6055 E.Washington Blvd.,Commerce,CA 90040 (213)723-1452 ..I v..�JlL�Vw -..re`la7ldfi.,�+,rti � J.,+.." /•Levn}L .._Y+•T -e 4. ..,.i1,.t -. Ms, Beverly Wood Environmental Coordinator City -of.' Newport Beach May 310 1978 ' Page 2 - r SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF ANALYSIS: (continued) period in accordance with the ordinance, exceeds one percent of the total entering traffic volumes of the critical intersec tions designated by the City Traffic Engineer for analysis for this particular project In accordance with the-City'.s work authorization letter,' this initial. analysis isto be done prior to possible subsequent m analyses which would only`+be undertaken' if any one of the three `. sri'°� K;a designated critical intersections,. experience.',more than 'atone percent;:increase in total entering traffic volumes for the two ' and-,one-half P.M..."peak period w'' =fi' x ; •r , TRAFFI&GENERATION ANALYSIS ° The `following Table l titled "Traffic;Generation Analysis indicates. the 24-hour and two and one-half hour-peak period volume estimated to be generated by this proposed development. The table indicates that the total estimated peak hour genera k' `tion by, the development ;is 58 vehicles on a.`daily basis with 35' vehicles--in-bound to the:.project, with -23 vehicles out-bound_ tT The peak w period factors ere"derived' from separate studies con =a+` ducted-:;by the City Traffic Engineer' s office.- N r u TABLE, l TRAFFIC'GENERATION ANALYSIS P.M. PEAK** P.M. PEAK** 1 LAND NUM3E$ . "'GENEf�LTION ,. ` TRIP PERIOD FACTORS PERIOD;VOMME ;v USE `. OF.'UNITS` RATE]* ', "GETIERATION* ^IN.- - OUP IN `' OUP Single ' [ Family. 29 12 TE/Unit 348 TE l.z' 0.8 35 23 *24 hcur **Vehicle volurre in 2' hours - 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 P.M. TE trip ends,, Ms. Beverly Wood Environmental,'Coordinator City of Newport Beach May 31 ,;- 1978 Page 3 . CRITICAL INTERSECTION ANALYSIS- The intersections of .Dover Drive and Pacific: Coast Highway, Dover Drive and'Westcliff Drive, and Irvine Avenue and .Westcliff Drive were determined .by the City,Traffic Engineer as the three intersections most critically impacted by the proposed,,develop- ment Table .2 .,titled "Critical Intersection Traffic Distribution" indicates the existing peak: period or each of .the three �{ = intersections information was'counted'by, the City,. . The:: table. also indicates,that-'it '.is estimated that of. the' total, peak `f n period<:araffic generated theproject 17"vehicles will',utilize ww the ,Dover ;and ,PCH':intersection,' 35 .vehicles. ,wi11:'be entering the Dover`''and`SPestcliff"'Drive"intersection, and '17. vehicles ,.will. utilize ;the .Irvine''Avenue::and Westcliff. Drive-,inter sect ion The table1aIso indicates the percentage impact that the esti mated:,generated peak period volumes will have on the existing . ' peak 'period volumes now utilizing the three study intersections. Footnotes: to the table also indicate the directional distribution utilized. in deriving the`-,information :contained in Table .2 . r ' TABLE 2 , CRITICAL INTERSECTION TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION GENERATED PEFC= OF PFCGECr** EXISTING PEAK TRAFFIC FRaq TRABFIC OF =STING IN`PRRS3�C ICN =CD VCMj * : pRWECr* INTII?SECTION VOr.01E Dover &,P.C.H_ i11,12a `. 17` 0.15 Dover &5 '} Westcliff Dr. 4,176 , Irvine Ave.- & Westcliff,.Dr. 8,094 " . ' 17 0.21 *231 hours 3:30 p.m. 6:00 p.m, (total vehicles entering intersection) **Based on a directional distribution of: 40% northbound 30% soutlibound 30% westbound is Ms. Beverly Wood Environmental Coordinator ' City of,. Newport. Beach May 31; , 1978 Page . 4;: _ rt CONCLUSION: It is concluded that the'generated traffic from the proposed . development will ,have a- less than one percent impact on each of the designated intersections; and, therefore, the project would be-' "exempted" in accordance with Code Section 15.40 .030, paragraph (D) (ii) Please,give me a_ call if you have any questions concerning this • analysis., r1'.cla+ { Respectfully submitted, * t 4,e' b.•4 W'- r Kk lx{t �, .. trp / 'fir. 1 .{+ ay T •: MOHLE--PERRY '& ASSOCIATES; � „ ,~ �., �_�' � &,cap ++a •�:. r . ter, ; r t.. I er . R_ Henry e Vice President RHM vP: L r '1 fkr f.lc 17 W - f 1 J �.., r, S. t /,:: d�1. .. . • ., (;k>3�&..,�. /'>ffi3+if.Y C,� .Mlt .-- .sY 1l . .._e,>R.A�t.wr>1F.`i EXHIBIT C REPORT OF FINDINGS PROJECT NAME : Bank of Newport Office "& Residential Complex PROJECT LOCATION : Pacific Coast Highway at Avocado Avenue - DESCRIPTION: The construction of a 45,000 square foot office building and the-conversion-- of existing apartments to a 45-unit 'condominium complex . FINDINGS : A traffic analysis was prepared in compliance with Council Policy. S-Land the proposed addition of Chapter 1.5 .40 to the Newport Beach Municipal Code : Ref. 15 ..40 .030 Traffic Impact Limitation (d) Exceptions . According to the analysis of the proposed project, based on the assumptions and data contained therein , the following finding can be made : The traffic during the designated 2 .5 hour peak period, on X each street which will have an unsatisfactory level of traffic service prior to',* or as a result of, the project, will be increased by less than 1 % by the traffic generated from the proposed project during that 2 .5 hour period. The traffic during the designated 2 .5 hour peak period , on ; each street which will have an unsatisfactory level of traffic service prior. to, or as a result of, the project, will be increased by more than 1% by the traffic generated - from the proposed project during that 2 .5 hour period. REMARKS : PROJECT HISTORY- - Use Permit No . 1857 - Planning 'Commission 3/2/78 Amendment No. 503 - Planning Commission 3/2/78 Cit Council 3 • 7 enta Me Tract 10274 - Planning Commission 3/2/'78 Cit ..Council 3 27 78 Final ap 0274 - Planning Commission '6/15/78 pprova in' oncept #380-78 4/18/78 Bill E . Darnell Traffic Engineer • 1Z Ort'h�nry 41 � 1 ,y CIn....d ♦ d-./ MAY A+. STY r,;, �•) May 30, 19?8 ti r/::ry 7145 Little Harbor Drive Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Bcvarly Wood Environmental Coordinator Dept of Community Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Na;vport Beach, Ca. 92663 Subjects Traffic Analysis, Bank of Newport Your letter of May 26, i978 Dear Beverly, Following is an analysis of traffic volumes in conjunction with t%e proposed Bank of Newport development. This analysis is prepared pursuant to your City Council Policy S-1, 1 Prior to making the necessary calculations in relation to the "Exception" criteria of the policy, the following assumptions were madec 1. Directional distribution of traffic which was based on the' Newport Center Traffic Study. Plase II is assumed to be 55% easterly on Pacific Coast Highway and 45% westerly on Pacific Coast Highway to and from the project site. 2. 2$o of the average daily traffic from the project will be generated during the 2'J hours from 3:00 PM to 5130 PM. 3. As discussed with Bill Darnell, City Traffic Engineer, the additional traffic to and from the project site passing through the intersections of Pacific Coast Highway and Jamboree; P.G .H. and MacArthur; and P.C .H. and Marguerite during the hours of 3t00 PM and 5:30 PM on a weekday will be• compared. to the total existing volumes at these intersections during the same hours. If the percentage increase of traffic caused by the project is less than one percent, the project will be considered exempt from further analysis as provided in Policy S-1. Prior to making the calculations, it should be pointed out that the volumes from the project represent the anticipated increase based on -the change in uses from existing apartments and motel to proposed bank, offices, and condominiums. This analysis does not take into Beverly Wood Environmental Coordinator City of Newport May 30s 1978 Page 2 account the fact that the existing traffic from the Bank of NeWPO vino on the north side of Pacifro ectic ssitegonathetsouthasidedo s sWhenya pro- across the street to the P j resent site of the Bank of posed development to be located on the present should- take the Newport is analyzed by a traffic consultant, presently generated traffic from the site into account since it was not included in this study. The tabulation of the necessary calculations folZowss Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Percentage Inter_`se�l�� Existi�n Volum�e Added Volume Increase pCH & Jamboree 11,359 53 0.6• PCH & MacArthur •99059 lg 0.2 PCH & Marguerite As can be seen from the above table, the preceentincrease at efore, the three critical intersections is less than one perc the Bank of Newport project should be exempt from the Traffic Impact Limitation Policy. Please contact me if you have any questions on this matter. Very truly Yours, Paul E. Cook PEC sme cot Bill Darnell C�1 Y OF NEWPORT EACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES 9��9G 22 'v o y� ROLL CALL �0 �s June 12 1978 INDEX Motion x Resolution No. 9363., authorizing the Mayor and Ayes x x x x x x x City C erl Z-to-execu_te,an agreement between the City of Newport Beach and-The-Jr_Mine Company for the Sea Island Resubdivision Park Dedieation,-_was adopted. �- 4. A status report was presented from the Community Building Development'"IPepartment regarding the development Moratorium of Bayside Square, Westcliff Grove, Bank-of (2589) ..Newport and Civic Plaza projects. A report was presented from the City Attorney regarding vesting. A letter was presented from the Bank of Newport stating they have a vested right to proceed with their development. The following people addressed the Council in connection with the projects they represent: Wally Geer for Bayside Square who presented the Council with the findings of an independent traffic consultant; Dennis Harwood, attorney for the Bank of Newport; and David Neish of The Irvine Company regarding Westcliff Grove presented the Council with a traffic survey. Motion x David Neish was granted an additional five minutes Ayes x x x x x x x for his presentation. Motion x David Neish was granted an additional minute for Ayes x x x x x x x his presentation. Motion x It ways tdetermi_ned that Bayside Square, Westcliff Ayes x x x x x Grove and the Bank of Newport do not have vested Noes x x rig®, hts Motion x Mayor Ryckoff made a motion that the rights of Civic Plaza were not vested with these findings: a) Civic Plaza Planned Community contains 26.12 acres. b) Approximately'85 per cent of the land within the planned community boundaries has not been developed. c) The only development in existence on the Plaza site relates to public and quasi- public facilities which are distinguishable from other planned communities in Newport Beach. d) All improvements on the site other than the Art Museum and the library were installed prior to the Civic Plaza Planned Community text. Motion x Councilman Strauss made a substitute motion to postpone the matter of Civic Plaza's vesting to July 10. Peter Kremer addressed the Council and advised that The Irvine Company had accomplished the rough mass grading of the entire site and had paid for all of the roads surtounding the project. Ayes x x x x A vote was taken on Councilman Strauss' substitute Noes x x x motion, which motion carried. Volume 32 - Page 132 - 4 • City Council Meeting June 12, 1978 Agenda Item No . F-4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 6, 1978 TO: City Council FROM: Department of community Development SUBJECT: Requests to Except Projects from Council Policy S-1 and Proposed Traffic Phasing Ordinance Recommended Action If so desired, the Council may find that the Civic Plaza Planned Com- munity meets the criteria for vesting as an on-going project and there- fore shall be excepted from the policy. The remaining projects , along with the appropriate traffic analyses, can be referred to the Planning Commission for their consideration of the matter as directed by Council Policy S-1 . Introduction At the Council Study Session on May 22, 1978, requests were made for further consideration of the following projects in relation to Council Policy S-1 and the proposed Traffic Phasing Ordinance : 1 ) Civic Plaza 2 • Westcliff Grove 3 Bayside Square The Bank of Newport project on Coast Highway has been added to the list because of its similar circumstances in the permit review process . mao approvals,This retand theende current statusto outleofheachJof thesecteristics prior projects . Analysis 1 . Civic Plaza A. Major Characteristics: Planned Community - Site Size - 26. 12 acres Permitted Uses Office Park 320 ,000 sq.ft. Art Museums 30,000 sq. ft. Library 30 ,000 sq .ft. Theater 20,000 sq . ft. (650 seats) Restaurant 8,000 sq. ft. B. Prior Approvals : Amendment 455 and EIR Approved by Planning Commission 11 /20/75 Approved by City Council 12/22/75 Resubdivision 501 Approved by Planning Commission 11/20/75 Approved by City Council 12/22/75 Recorded Grading Permits Museum - Issued 10/14/76 ; Finaled 4/22/77 Library - Issued 10/20/76 Building Permits Museum - Issued 10/14/76 Library - Issued 5/11/78 TO: City Council - 2 . C. Current Status : The property is subdivided into three lots . C Construction has commenced on the library and the museum. According to City Council Resolu- tion No. 9009 which set limits on development of Newport Center, the following permitted uses are yet to be constructed in this Planned Community Development: Office Park 390 ,000 sq. ft. Theater 650 seats Restaurant 8,000 sq.ft. 2. Westcliff Grove A. Major Characteristics : Construction of 29 Single-Family Dwelling Units B. Prior Approvals : Amendment No. 476 Approved by Planning Commission 1/20/77 Approved by City Council 3/14/77 Tentative Map 9620 Approved by Planning Commission 1/20/77 Approved by City Council 3/14/77 Final Map 9620 Approved by Planning Commission 3/2/78 Approved by City Council 3/27/78 Approval in Concept #386-77 4/4/77 Coastal Permit - Received 6/3/77 C. Current Status : No building or grading permits have been issued. Application for grading permit on file with• Department of Community Development. 3. Bayside Square Office Buildings A. Major Characteristics : - Construction of office buildings totaling 37,500 sq.ft. at the corner of Bayside and Marine Avenues . B. - Prior Approvals : Site Plans Approved by Planning Commission 10/6/77 Approved by City Council 11/14/77 (on appeal ) Resubdivision 561 Approved by Planning Commission 10/6/77 Resubdivision 569 Approved by Planning Commission 1/5/78 C. Current Status : No building permits or grading permits have been issued. • TO: City Council - 3. 4. Bank of Newport A. Major Characteristics: The demolition of an existing motel , the construction of a bank headquarters ' building (45,000 sq. ft. ) , and the conversion of exist- ing apartments to forty-two condominium units . } B . Prior Approvals : Use Permit No. 1857 Approved by Planning Commission 3/2/78 Amendment No . 503 Approved by Planning Commission 3/2/78 Approved by City Council 3/27/78 . Tentative Tract No . 10274 Approved by Planning Commission 3/2/78 Approved by City Council 3/27/78 Final Map 10274 Approved by Planning Commission 6/15/78 Approval in Concept #380-78 4/18/78 C. Current Status : No building permits or grading permits have been issued. Summary Of the four projects , only Civic Plaza has been issued building and grading permits for partial development of the site. The construction sites in the Planned Community comprise 3.97 acres of the 26 .12 acre site. The commencement of construction on a portion of the project may qualify the entire project for exception status , under the admin- istrative interpretation of the policy, as a vested project provided there are no substantial changes which would result in a significant impact on traffic . The remaining three projects on the list are in various stages of permit processes with Westcliff Grove requiring only building and grading permits , and the other two projects requiring Coastal Commission action prior to the issuance of grading or building permits . Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . HOGAN, Director By — 4En R 4 OD vr mental Coordinator BW/kk ( CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH \ Office of CITY ATTORNEY June 12, 1978 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council F-4 From: City Attorney Subject: Vested Rights When a property owner or developer desires to construct a project in the City of Newport Beach, he must first obtain a building permit which is issued upon a showing that the pro- posed development will be in conformity with the local zoning regulations and applicable structural standards. Unless a property owner has acquired a "vested right" to use his property in a certain manner, the property is not exempt from the operation of a subsequently enacted amendment of the zoning ordinance, despite the fact that the owner has an application pending for, or has previously obtained, a building permit. On the other hand, if the property owner has acquired a vested right, the permit cannot later be revoked or modified, and the owner will have a right to construct the project in accordance with the land use- regulations existing at the time of his application. Unfortunately, there is no hard-and-fast rule by which to deter- mine when rights vest. The judicial decisions relative to the "vested rights" issue have not always been consistent, resulting in considerable confusion in this area of the law. Generally, the rulings of the courts rely on a balancing of the equities under the particular facts and circumstances in each case. Perhaps the leading case in California on the subject of vesting is Avco Community Developments, Inc. v. South Coast Regional_ Commission decided by the Supreme Court in 1976, 17 Cal. 3d 785. The Court in Avco held that, if a property owner has performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance upon a permit issued by the government, he acquires a vested right to complete construction in accordance with the terms of the permit. However, under the Avco rule of f f i June 12, 1978 Page Two Vested Rights vesting, a developer cannot secure a vested right as against subsequent zoning regulations, no matter how great his expen-. ditures, unless he has obtained a building permit before the effective date of the subsequent regulation. In contrast to Avco, there are a line of cases which accept the matter of timing of building permit issuance as the pri- mary consideration relative to the issue of vesting, but also take into consideration other factors as well. The other criteria include good faith of the city, good faith of the owner/developer, and expenditures and liabilities incurred by the property owner in good faith reliance upon the permit being issued. In other words, a court could still find that a property owner' s rights have vested even before issuance of a building permit, if the evidence showed that the city' s zoning . / action was taken for the primary purpose to block a specific l project, or if the owner incurs "substantial" expenditures and liabilities in good faith reliance upon the final approval allowing construction. When confronted with making a decision on whether property rights have vested, the Council must look at the facts and consider whether substantial construction has commenced and, if not, has the property owner or developer in good faith incurred material expenses, obligations and liabilities in reliance on the City's representation that the final permits would be approved. Based on the above statement of the law on vested rights and after a review of the facts as set forth in the report from the Community Development Department, it would be the opinion of this office that vesting has not occurred in the Westcliff Grove, Bayside Square and Bank of Newport projects because neither grading or building permits have been issued. Assuming the definition of "project" as being the whole of an action is used, then it would appear from the facts that a strong argument could be made that rights in the Civic Plaza project have vested. This is because substantial development has occurred in part of the Civic Plaza planned community. June 12 , 1978 / Page Three 1 Vested Rights It is important to keep in mind that "vesting" for purposes of interpreting the Traffic Phasing Ordinance includes the issuance of either a building or grading permit, with commence- ment of work under the permit or incurrence of substantial liability for work or materials. Also, under the proposed Ordinance a project can' still qualify for an exception if it can satisfy the traffic impact formula regardless of the question of vesting. 44�d DENNIS D. O NEIL City Attorney DDO/kb i • • EXHIBIT A REPORT OF FINDINGS PROJECT NAME : Bayside Square Office Building PROJECT LOCATION : Bayside Drive at Marine Avenue DESCRIPTION : The construction of two (2 ) office buildings containing a total of •37,500 square feet-. ( 1 . 5lo acres ) FINDINGS : A traffic analysis was prepared in compliance with Council Policy. S-1 and the proposed addition of Chapter 15 . 40 to the Newport Beach Municipal Code ! Ref. 15 . 40. 030 Traffic Impact Limitation (d) Exceptions . According to the analysis of the proposed project, based on the assumptions and data contained therein , the following finding can be made : The traffic during the designated 2 . 5 hour peak period, on I " each street which will have an unsatisfactory level of traffic service prior to , or as a result of, the project, will be increased by less than lq by the traffic generated from the proposed project d'urin.g that 2 . 5 hour period . The traffic during the desi'gnated .2 . 5 hour peak period , on j_...j each street which will have an unsatisfactory level of • "traffic service prior to, or as a result of, the project , will be increased by more than 1 % by the traffic generated from the proposed project during that 2 .5 hour period . REMARKS : PROJECT HISTORY : Site Plan - Planning Commission 10/6/77 City Council 11/14/77 (on appeal ) Resubdivision 561 - Planning Commission 10/6/ 77 Resubdivision 569 - Planning Commission 1 /5/78 Bill E . Darnell Traffic Engineer TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ® erman CONSULTANTS Kimmel and Associates , Inc. PRINCIPALS: 4242 CAMPUS DRIVE,SUITE E-6 NEWPORT BEACH,CALIF.92660 (714) 546-9814 HERMAN KIMMEL H.WILLIAM DICKSON May 30 , 1978 00) Q City of Newport Beach Community Development Department 3300 Newport Boulevard o��o�. Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 �1Q Op' Attention Beverly Wood c, A Environmental Coordinator /A) W Traffic Phase - Policy Analysis Bayside Square City of Newport Beach Gentlemen: Our analysis of traffic increases at City selected intersections on East Coast Highway, that are caused by the "Bayside Squarer' development , concludes that there will be less than a 1% increase to existing traffic volumes . The analysis was based on distribution of traffic to East Coast Highway at Jamboree Road, Bayside Drive , and Dover Drive , using the following data: Office Gross Area = 37 ,500 S .F. Daily Traffic Generation Rate = 13 Trips per 1000 S .F. ADT = 488 2 . 5 P.M. Pk. Hr. Generation Factor(1) = 25% x ADT 2 . 5 P.M. Pk. Hr. Vol. = 122 Directional Split - (Inbound = 25%) (Outbound = 75%) Distribution Pattern = 30% to Bayside West 30% to Bayside East 30% to Jamboree North 10% to Marine South Table 1 shows existing traffic data provided by City, and site traffic data based on previous factors . The analysis shows that TIT-CALTRANS9th Progress Report on Trip Ends Page 2 • • May 30 , 1978 Newport Beach site increase in traffic is less than to of existing traffic, therefore the project is within the "Exempttl section 15 . 40 .030 (D) (ii) . If you wish additional information relating to this project, please contact our office any time. Respectfully submitted, HERMAN KIMMEL 8 ASSOC. , INC . kzt, % H. William Dickson RCE No, 19417 RTR No. 39 cc: Bill E. Darnell Traffic Department 1 TABLE 1 BAYSIDE SQUARE EXISTING & SITE TRAFFIC DATA (3 : 30 P.M. to 6 :00 P.M. ) Direction Coast Highway @ Jamboree Coast Highway @ Bayside Coast Highway @ Dover Exist. Site Exist. Site Exist. Site NB 1,015 27 ' 11875 27 242 - SB 2 ,959 6 180 - 2 ,100 3 • EB 4 ,264 - 4,847 9 5 ,279 6 WB 3 ,185 3 3 ,860 3 ,489 27 TOTAL 11,423 36 10 ,762 36 11,110 36 % Change +0 . 32% +0 . 33% +0 . 32% TRAFFIC ENGINEERING " ®F{erman CONSULTANTS Kimmel and Associates,Inc. EXHIBIT B REPORT OF FINDINGS PROJECT NAME : Westcliff Grove PROJECT LOCATION : S/o Westcliff Drive SE/o Dover Drive DESCRIPTION : The construction of 29 single family dwelling units. FINDINGS : A traffic analysis was prepared i•n compliance with Council Policy, S- 1 and the proposed addition of Chapte.r 15.40 to the Newport Beach Municipal Code : Ref. 15 . 40 . 030 Traffic Impact Limitation (d) Exceptions . According to the analysis of the proposed project, based on the assumptions and data contained therein , the following finding can be made : The traffic during the designated 2 . 5 hour peak period, on each street which will have an unsatisfactory level of traffic service prior to, or as a result,.of, the project, will be increased by less than 1 % by the traffic generated from the proposed project during that 2 . 5 hour period . The traffic during the designated 2 . 5 hour peak period , on each street• which will have an unsatisfactory level of "traffic service prior to,, or as a result 'of„the project , will be increased by more than 1 % by the traffic generated from the proposed project during that 2 .5 hour period . REMARKS : PROJECT HISTORY : -Amendment No. 476 - Planning Commission 1 /20/77 �( i +� ( ni�nril 4/14/ 77 Tentative Map 9620 - Planning Commission 1 /20/77 City Council 3/14/77 Final Map 9620 - Planning Commission 3/2/78 City Council 3/27/78 Approval in Concept #386-77 - 4/4/ 77 Coastal Permit - Received 6/3/ 77 F /'41 / 77 o i.11 E . Darnell Traffic Engineer .o RECEIVED Con7munity C' Dev,,tJPmenj1W y UePt. MOHLE, PERRY&ASSOCIATES J UN 2 1978as. 9 CITY OF NEWPORT EEACH, May 31, 1978 CALIF •7 �i i Ms. Beverly Wood Environmental Coordinator Department of Community Development City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Traffic Analysis - Westcliff Grove Your Letter Dated May 26 , 1978 Dear Ms. Wood: In accordance with your subject authorizing letter, we have completed the "first step" traffic analysis for the 29-unit single family development known as Westcliff Grove. The analysis has been made in accordance with the recently adopted ordinance adding Chapter 15.40 to the Newport Beach Municipal Code which establishes a traffic phasing plan. The following analysis has also been made in coordination with the City Traffic Engineer, Mr. Bill E. Darnell. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project consists of 29 single family dwelling units and designated "Tentative Tract 9620" to be located on the southerly side of Westcliff Drive southeasterly of Dover Drive, Access to the tract will be from Dover Drive at the unsignalized intersection northerly of Westcliff Drive. For more specific information concerning the proposed develop- ment reference is made to the publication titled "Initial Study, Westcliff Grove Subdivision, Tentative Tract 9620 , Newport Beach, California" on file in the Community Development Department. This report is dated December 1, 1976 . SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF ANALYSIS : The purpose of this analysis is to determine if the estimated traffic to be generated from the proposed development for the two and one-half hour period from 3: 30 p.m. to 6 :00 p.m. , which has been designated by the City Traffic Engineer as the peak MUNICIPAL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS 2565 E.Chapman Ave.,Suite 124, Fullerton,CA 92631 - (714)738.3471 6055 E.Washington Blvd.,Commerce,CA 90040 - (213)723-1452 Ms, Beverly Wood Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach May 31, 1978 Page 2 SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF ANALYSIS: (continued) period in accordance with the ordinance, exceeds one percent of the total entering traffic volumes of the critical intersec- tions designated by the City Traffic Engineer for analysis for this particular project. In accordance with the City's work authorization letter, this initial analysis is to be done prior to possible subsequent analyses which would only be undertaken if any one of the three designated critical intersections experience more than a one percent increase in total entering traffic volumes for the two and one-half p.m. peak period. TRAFFIC GENERATION ANALYSIS: The following Table 1 titled "Traffic Generation Analysis" indicates the 24-hour and two and one-half hour peak period volume estimated to be generated by this proposed development. The table indicates that the total estimated peak hour genera- tion by the development is 58 vehicles on a daily basis with 35 vehicles in-bound to the project with 23 vehicles out-bound. The peak period factors were derived from separate studies con- ducted by the City Traffic Engineer's office. TABLE 1 TRAFFIC GENERATION ANALYSIS P.M. PEAK** P.M. PEAK** LAND NUMBER GEMMMICU TRIP PERIOD FACTORS PERIOD VOLUME USE OF UNITS RATE* GNFRATICN* IN OUT IN OUT Single Family 29 12 TE/Unit 348 TE 1.2 0.8 35 23 *24-hour **Vehicle volume in 2'k hours - 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. TE = trip ends 1 Ms. Beverly Wood Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach May 31, 1978 Page 3 CRITICAL INTERSECTION ANALYSIS: The intersections of Dover Drive and Pacific Coast Highway, Dover Drive and Westcliff Drive, and Irvine Avenue and Westcliff Drive were determined by the City Traffic Engineer as the three intersections most critically impacted by the proposed develop- ment. Table 2 titled "Critical Intersection Traffic Distribution" indicates the existing peak period volume for each of the three intersections. This information was counted by the City. The table also indicates that it is estimated that of the total peak period traffic generated by the project 17 vehicles will utilize the Dover and PCH intersection, 35 vehicles will be entering the Dover and Westcliff Drive intersection, and 17 vehicles will utilize the Irvine Avenue and Westcliff Drive intersection. The table also indicates the percentage impact that the esti- mated generated peak period volumes will have on the existing peak period volumes now utilizing the three study intersections. Footnotes to the table also indicate the directional distribution utilized in deriving the information contained in Table 2. TABLE 2 CRITICAL INTERSECTION TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION GENERATED PER= OF PROJECT** EXISTING PEAK TRAFFIC FROM TRAFFIC OF EXISTING INTERSECTION PERIOD VO7.,UME* Pro JE=* INTERSECTION VOLUME Dover & P.C.H. 11,120 17 0.15 Dover & Westcliff Dr. 41176 35 0.84 Irvine Ave. & Westcliff Dr, 8,094 17 0.21 *2� hours r 3:30 p.m. 6:00 p.m. (total vehicles entering intersection) **Based on a directional distribution of: 40% northbound 30% southbound 30% westbound Ms. Beverly [flood Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach May 31, 1978 Page 4 CONCLUSION: It is concluded that the generated traffic from the proposed development will have a less than one percent impact on each of the designated intersections; and, therefore, the project would be "exempted" in accordance with Code Section 15 .40 . 030, paragraph (D) (ii) . Please give me a call if you have any questions concerning this analysis. Respectfully submitted, MOHL�E, PER Y & ASSOCIATESR. Henry Mo e Vice President RHM:vp • • EXHIBIT C REPORT OF FINDINGS PROJECT NAME: Bank of Newport Office -& Residential Complex PROJECT LOCATION : Pacific Coast Highway at Avocado Avenue DESCRIPTION : The construction of a 45 ,000 square foot office building and the conversion- of existing apartments to a 45-unit 'condominium complex.. FINDINGS : A traffic analysis was prepared in compliance with Council Policy. S- Land the proposed addition of Chapter 15.40 to the Newport Beach Municipal Code : Ref. 15 . 40 .030 Traffic Impact Limitation (d) Exceptions . According to the analysis of the proposed project, based on the assumptions and data contained therein , the following finding can be made : The traffic during the designated 2 . 5 hour peak period, on X each street which will have an unsatisfactory level of traffic service prior to , ' or as a result of, the project, will be increased by less than 1 % by the traffic generated from the proposed.• project d'uring that 2 .5 hour period . The traffic during the designated 2 . 5 hour peak period , on each street which will have an unsatisfactory level of -'traffic service prior- to , or as a result of, the project, will be increased by more than 1 % by the traffic generated - from the proposed project during that 2 .5 hour period . REMARKS : PROJECT HISTORY • Use Permit No . 1857 - Planning Commission 3/2/78 Amendment No. 503 - Planning Commission 3/2/78 CityCouncil 3 27 8 Tentative Tract 10274 - Planning Commission 3/2/ 78 City.-Council 3/27/ 78 Final Map 10274 - Planning Commission 6/15/78 Approval in Concept #380-78 4/18/78 ` Bill E . Darne r Traffic Engineer- ` • • � 03 Crn:rassr��43 Ac�G 'Ont MAY a May 30, 1978Ilk 7145 Little Harbor Drive Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Beverly Wood Environmental Coordinator Dept of Community Development " City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach. Ca. 92663 Subjects Traffic Analysis, Bank of Newport Your letter of May 26, 1978 Dear Beverly, Following is an analysis of traffic volumes in conjunction with the proposed Bank of Newport development. This analysis is prepared pursuant to your City Council Policy S-1., Prior to making the necessary calculations in relation to the "Exception" criteria of the policy, the following assumptions were made: 1. Directional distribution of 'traffic , which was based on the Newport Center Traffic Study, Plase II is assumed to be 55/ easterly on Pacific Coast Highway and 45( westerly on Pacific Coast Highway to and from the project site4 2. 25% of the average daily traffic from the project will be generated during the 22 hours from 3,00 PM to 51,30 Pm. 3. As discussed with Bill Darnell, City Traffic Engineer, the additional traffic to and from the, project site passing through the intersections of Pacific Coast' Highway ,and Jamboree; P.C .H: and MacArthur; and P.C .H. and Marguerite during the hours of 3,00 PM and 500 ,PM on a weekday will be compared to the total existing volumes at these intersections during the same hours. If the percentage increase of traffic caused by the-, project is less than one percent, the project will be considered exempt from further analysis as provided in Policy S-1. Prior to making the, calculations, it should be, pointed out that the volumes from the project represent the anticipated increase based on the change in uses from existing apartments and motel to proposed bank, offices, and condominiums, This analysis does nbt take into I Beverly Wood. Environmental Coordinator City of Newport May 30. 1978 Page 2 account the fact that the existing traffic from the Bank of �Ikgwport on the north side of Pacific Coast Highway at Avocado is' simpl,y moving across the street to the project site on the gouth side. When a pro- posed development to be located on the present site of the Bank of Newport it analyzed by, a traffic consultarnt* , theyshould take the presently generated traffic from the; site into account since it was not included in this study,- ,, The tabulation of the, necessary calculations followss t Peak 22 Hour Peak 2� Hour Percentage Intersection Existing Volume Added Volume Increase PCH & Jam o ee 11#359 38,7 0.3 PCH & MacArthur 9.059 53 0,6 PCH & Marguerite 64578 1.8 0,2 As can be seen from the above table# the precentage increase at the three critical intersections is less than one percent, Therefore, the Bank of Newport pr•oject, should' be exempt from the Traffic Impact Limitation Policy. Please contact me if you have any questions on this matter, Very truly-,yours, , Paul E., .Cook PEC,smc cot Dill -Darnell • City Counci•Meeting June 12 , T978 Agenda Item No . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 6, 1978 T0 : City Coun cil FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Requests for Exceptions to Council Policy S-1 and Proposed Traffic Phasing Ordinance Introduction There have been several requestsfto except projects from Council Policy S-1 and the proposed Traffic Ordinance in order to allow the issuance of grading and building permits . Among these projects are included Bayside Square Office Buildings , Westcliff Grove (residential ) , and the Bank of Newport Office and Residential Project. Since none of these projects have been issued grading or building permits , they would not be excepted as on-going projects . Therefore, traffic studies have been prepared, according to the criteria approved -by the Council , to analyze the peak hour impacts of the proposed developments . Analysis The Report of Findings from the City ' s Traffic Engineer and the traffic analyses prepared by the consultants are attached to this report. ( Exhibits A, B, C) . In each case, the City ' s Traffic Engineer desig- nated which intersections would be at Level of Service D, or worse, either before, or as a result of, the project, and would also be affected by project generated traffic. A 2.5 hour peak period was designated, and the existing volume and the project generated peak hour traffic was calculated for that 2. 5 hour period. In each case it was determined that the project generated traffic would be less than 1Z of the existing 2 . 5 hour peak volume ; therefore, meeting the criteria for being excepted from the Policy . Recommended Action If so desired, ' the Council may find that the traffic analysis prepared for each project in compliance with Council Policy S-1 demonstrates that the projects will contribute less than l % to the peak hour volumes , and will not have a significant impact on the circulation system. This will authorize the issuance of grading and building permits for these projects provided all other City requirements are met. If the Council does not wish to take action , the matter may be refer- red to the Planning Commission for further consideration . Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . HOGAN, Director By ABEVJRW OD Envental Coordinator BW/kk Attachments for City Council Only EXHIBIT A REPORT OF FINDINGS PROJECT NAME : Bayside Square Office Building PROJECT LOCATION : Bayside Drive at Marine Avenue DESCRIPTION: The construction of 'two (2) office buildings containing a total of 37,500 square feet. ( 1 .51.0 acres ) FINDINGS : A traffic analysis was prepared in compliance with Council Policy. S-1 and the proposed addition of Chapter 15 .40 to the Newport Beach Municipal Code : Ref. 15 .40 . 030 Traffic Impact Limitation (d) Exceptions . According to the analysis of the proposed project, based on the assumptions and data contained therein , the following finding can be made : The traffic during the designated 2 .5 hour peak period, on each street which will have an unsatisfactory level of traffic service prior to,' or as a result of, the project, will be increased by - less than lq by the traffic generated from the proposed_ project during that 2 . 5 hour period . The traffic during the designated 2 .5 hour peak period , on each street which will have an unsatisfactory level of traffic service prior to, or as a result of, the project, will be increased by more than 1 % by the traffic generated from the proposed project during that 2 . 5 hour period. REMARKS : PROJECT HISTORY : Site Plan - Planning Commission 10/6/77 City Council 11/14/77 (on appeal ) Resubdivision 561 - Planning .Commission 10/6/77 Resubdivision 569 - Planning Commission 1 /5/78 Bill E . Darnell Traffic Engineer TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ® erman CONSULTANTS Kimmei and Associates , Inc. PRINCIPALS: 4242 CAMPUS DRIVE,SUITE E-6 NEWPORT BEACH,CALIF.92660 1714) 546.9814 HERMAN KIMMEL H.WILLIAM DICKSON May 3.0 , 1978 61 O City of Newport Beach Community Development Department3300 port Boulevard Newport wBeach, Calif. 92663 Attention Beverly Wood Environmental Coordinator liar W Traffic Phase - Policy Analysis Bayside Square City of Newport Beach Gentlemen: Our analysis of traffic increases at City selected intersections on East Coast Highway, that are caused by the "Bayside Square" development , concludes that there will be less than a 1% increase to existing traffic volumes . The analysis was based on distribution of traffic to East Coast Highway at Jamboree Road, Bayside Drive , and Dover Drive , using the following data: Office Gross Area = 37 ,500 S .F, Daily Traffic Generation Rate = 13 Trips per 1000 S .F. ADT = 488 2 .5 P.M.- Pk. Hr. Generation Factor(1) = 25% x ADT 2. 5 P.M. Pk. Hr. Vol. = 122 Directional Split - (Inbound = 25%) (Outbound = 75%) Distribution Pattern = 30% to Bayside West 30% to Bayside East 30% to Jamboree North 10% to Marine South Table 1 shows existing traffic data provided by City, and site traffic data based on previous factors . The analysis shows that TI-T-CALTRANS 9th Progress Report on Trip Ends Page 2 May 30 , 1978 Newport Beach site increase in traffic is less than 1% of existing traffic , therefore the project is within the "Exempt" section 15 . 40 .030 (D) (ii) . If you wish additional information relating to this project, please contact our office any time. Respectfully submitted, HERMAN KIMMEL & ASSOC. , INC. I 01vuLaira H. William Dickson RCE No. 19417 RTR No. 39 cc: Bill E. Darnell Traffic Department TABLE 1 BAYSIDE SQUARE EXISTING 6 SITE TRAFFIC DATA (3 : 30 P.M. to 6 : 00 P.M. ) Direction Coast Highway @ Jamboree Coast Highway @ Bayside Coast Highway @ Dover Exist. Site Exist. Site Exist. Site NB 1,015 27 1,875 27 242 - SB 2 ,959 6 180 - 23100 3 i EB 41264 - 4,847 9 5 ,279 6 WB 3 ,185 3 3 ,860 3 ,489 27 TOTAL 113423 36 10 ,762 36 11,110 36 % Change +0 . 32% +0 . 33% +0 . 32% r • -', TRAFFIC ENGINEERING t M( rman CONSULTANTS Kimmel and Associates,In EXHIBIT B REPORT OF FINDINGS PROJECT NAME: Westcliff Grove- PROJECT LOCATION : S/o Westcliff Drive _ SE/o Dover Drive DESCRIPTION : The construction of 29 sinole family dwelling units. FINDINGS : A traffic analysis was prepared in compliance with Council Policy. S-1 and the proposed addition of Chapte.r 1.5.40 to the Newport Beach Municipal - Code : Ref. 15 .40 . 030 Traffic Impact Limitation (d) Exceptions . According to the analysis of_ the proposed project, based on the assumptions and data contained therein , the following finding can be made : The traffic during the designated 2 . 5 hour peak -period, on each street which will have an unsatisfactory level of traffic service prior to, or as a result of, the project, will be increased by less than 1 % by the traffic generated from the proposed_ project during that 2 . 5 hour period . The traffic during the designated 2 . 5 hour peak period , on L� each street which will have an unsatisfactory level of -'traffic service prior to , or as a result 'of, the project , will be increased by more than 1 % by the traffic generated from the proposed project during that 2 . 5 hour period . REMARKS : PROJECT HISTORY : Amendment No. 476 - Planning Commission 1/20/77 rity f niinril 3/14/77 Tentative Map 9620 - Planning Commission 1 /20/77 City Council 3/14/77 Final Map 9620 - Planning Commission 3/2/78 City Council 3/27/78 Approval in Concept #386-77 - 4/4/77 Coastal Permit - Received 6/3/77 ✓ E . Darnell Traffic. Engineer .a Sr ' d 4 .rtfJn;ty DeGt> MOHLE, PERRY &ASSOCIATES . J U11 2g c CITY OF' IQ . NEWPORT £cACH, May .31, 1978 CALIF r Ms.-, Beverly Wood Environmental Coordinator Department of Community Development City; Hall q 33M,,Newport Boulevard Newport Beach_, ,CA 92663 Subject: Traffic Analysis - Westcliff 'Grove Your Letter Dated May .26 , 1978 ;r Dear Ms. . Wood: In -accordance with your subject authorizing letter, we have completed the "first step" traffic analysis for the 29-unit single family development 'known as Westcliff Grove. The analysis has been made in"accordance with the recently adopted ordinance adding Chapter 15. 40 to the Newport Beach Municipal Code 'which 'establishes a traffic phasing plan. The following analysis has-also' been made in coordination with the City Traffic Engineer, Mr. Bill E. Darnell.' PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project consists of� 29 single family dwelling units'.and designated "Tentative Tract :9620" ,to be located on the southerly side of Westcliff Drive southeasterly of Dover Drive. '- Access to the tract will be from Dover Drive at the unsignalized intersection northerly of Westcliff Drive. For more specific information concerning the proposed develop- ment-reference is made to thepublication titled "Initial Study, Westcliff Grave Subdivision, Tentative Tract 9620 , Newport Beach, California" on file in .the Community Development Department. This- report is dated December 1, 1976 SPECIFIC" pURPOSB OF ANALYSIS : The purpose of this analysis is to determine if the estimated traffic to be generated from, the proposed development for the two and one-half hour period from 3: 30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.', which has been designated by the City Traffic Engineer as the 'peak MUNICIPAL AND TRANSPORWON ENGINEERS' 2W E,.Chapman Ave.,Swe 124,Fullerton,CA 92631 • (714) 738-3471 5055 E.Washington Blvd.,Commerce.CA 90040 • (213) 723-1452 lk Ms, Beverly wood Environmental Coordinator :` City `of. Newport Beach May 31 , 1978 Page. 2 sr SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF ANALYSIS: (continued) period in accordance with the ordinance, exceeds one percent of the. total entering traffic volumes of the critical intersec- tions, designated ,by the City, Traf£ic Engineer for analysis for this particular project. Tn accordance with "the City work authorization letter,' this initial analysis is to be done prior to possible subsequent analyses which would onlybe undertaken if any one of the three designated critical:intersections experience more than a:'.one percent increase in total _entering traffic volumes for the two and_ one-half'`p.m.: peak period. _> ' TRAFFIC GENERATION ANALYSIS: V . r The following Table '1" t"itled "Traffic Generation Analysis" indicates the 24-hour and two and one-half hour peak period volume estimated to be generated by this proposed development. The table indicates :that the total 'esti_mated peak hour genera- tion by, the development -is '58 vehicles on a:. daily basis with 35' vehicles in-bound to the project with 23 vehicles out-bound. The peak period factors were derived from separate studies con t ductedby the. City';Traffic. Engineer' s office.- TABLE, 1 ; TRAFFIC GENERATION ANALYSIS M. PEAK**' P.M. PEAK** LAND NUMSER' GII7EI221TI�3 TRIP PERIOD FACTORS PERIOD VOLUME USE OF UNITS RATE* GFZ�ERATION* IN OUT IN OUP Single ' Family 29 12 TE/tdt ' " 348 TE 1.2'' 0.8 35 23 *24-hour **Vehicle volume in 2- hours - 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. TE = trip ends Ms. Beverly Wood Environmental-,Coordinator City oflNewport Beach May 31, 1978 Page 3,' CRITICAL INTERSECTION ANALYSIS: The intersections- of Dover' Drive.and Pacific Coast Highway, Dover Drive and'Westcliff Drive, and Irvine,Avenue and;-Westcliff Drive were determined by;the City Traffic Engineer as the three intersections most critically impacted by the proposed develop- ment. :. ,. Table :2 titled "Critical Intersection- Traffic Distribution" indicates the:existing "peak period volume for:'each of, the three ` intersections: This information was counted by the City. The # ' table also- indicates that`'it is 'estimated that of the total peak period.traffic generated by the project 17 vehicles'.will utilize the .Dover and PCH., ntersection, 35 vehicles will be entering the ' Dover And Westcliff; Drive"intersection, and17 vehicles -will f ellr '. .utilize the .Frvine-Avenue "and Westcliff Drive- intersection. The table also indicates the percentage impact that the esti- mated :generated peak period volumes will have on the existing peak period volumes now utilizing the three study intersections:. Footnotes to the table also indicate the directional distribution utilized in deriving the information contained in Table 2. TABLE 2 CRITICAL INTERSECTION TRAFFIC.DISTRIBUTION GENERATED PERCENT OF PRJECP** EXISTING PEAK TRAFFIC FRCM TRAFFIC OF EXISTING INTERS C TTON PERILS VOLUfl E* P *` INTERSECTION VOLUME Dover & `P.C.H. 11 120 17: 0.15 Dover & Westcliff? Dr. Ae176 35 0.84 Irvine Ave. & Westclif-f Dr. 8,094 17 0.21 *2' hours R 3:30 p.m, - 6:00 p.m. (total vehicles entering intersection) **Based an a directional distribution of: 40% northbound 30% southbound 30% westbound Ms. Beverly Wood Environmental Coordinator City of:,`Newport Beach May 31r 1978 Page 4, CONCLUSION: It is concluded that the generated traffic from the proposed development will;;have a less than. one percent impact on each of the designated intersections and, therefore, the project would be- "exempted" in accordance with Code Section 15. 40.030, paragraph (D) (ii) . Please give me a call if you have any questions concerning this , analysis Respectfully submitted MOHLE; PER Y & ASSOCIATES ;' ,.,, R. Henry' Mo e Vice President RHM:vp u .a EXHIBIT C REPORT OF FINDINGS PROJECT NAME: Bank of Newport Office •& Residential Complex PROJECT LOCATION : Pacific Coast Highway at Avocado Avenue DESCRIPTION: The construction of a 45,000 square foot office building and the conversion- of existing apartments to a 45-unit 'condominium comple'x.. FINDINGS : A traffic analysis was prepared in compliance with Council Policy. S- Land the proposed addition of Chapter 1.5.40 to the Newport Beach Municipal _ Code : Ref. 15 .40.030 Traffic Impact Limitation (d) Exceptions . According 'to the analysis of the proposed project, based on the assumptions and data contained therein , the following finding can be made : . The traffic during the designated 2 .5 hour peak period, on X each street which will have an unsatisfactory level of traffic service prior to , ' or as a result of, the project, will be increased by less than 1 % by the traffic generated from the proposed project during that 2 .5 hour period . El'' The tra.ffic during the designated 2 .5 hour peak period , on . ; each street which will have an unsatisfactory level of traffic service prior to, or as a result of, the project, will be increased by more than 1% by the traffic generated from the proposed project during that 2 .5 hour period . REMARKS : PROJECT HISTORY:- Use Permit No ., 1857 - Planning.•Cominission 3/2/78 Amendment No. 503 - Planning Commission 3/2/78 Cit Council 3 27 8 Tentative Tract 10274 - Planning Commission 3/2/78 City.-Council 3 27 78 Final Map 10274 - Planning Commission •6/15/78 Approval in' Concept #380-78 4/18/78 Bill E. Darnell Traffic Engineer �` Dg Da AC,Iaty 1._ MAY -Rt "nt 31 1978 Ji;rrt May 30. 1978 •' 7145 Little Harbor Drive Huntington Beach, Ca. 9264.8 Beverly Wood Environmental Coordinator Dept of Community Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 ' Subjects Traffic Analysis, Bank of Newport Your letter of May 26, 1978 Dear Beverly, Following is an analysis of traffic volumes in conjunction with the proposed Bank of Newport development. This analysis is prepared pursuant to your City Council Policy S-le Prior to waking the necessary calculations in relation to the "Exception" criteria of the policy, the following assumptions were mades 1. Directional distribution of traffic which was based on the ' Newport Center Traffic Study, Plase II is assumed to be 55ro easterly on Pacific Coast Highway and 4.5% westerly on Pacific Coast Highway to and from the project site . 2. 2% of the average daily traffic from the project will be generated during the 22 hours from 3s00 PM to 5130 PM. 3. As discussed with Bill Darnell, City Traffic Engineer, the additional traffic to and from the project site passing through -the intersections of Pacific Coast Highway and Jamboree= P.C .H. and MacArthur; and P.C .H. and Marguerite during the hours of 3s00 PM and 500 PM on a weekday will be compared_ to the total existing volumes at these intersections during the same hours. If the percentage increase of traffic caused by the project is less than one percent, the project will be considered exempt from further analysis as provided in Policy S-1. Prior to making the calculations , it should be pointed out that the volumes from the project represent the anticipated increase based on the change in uses from existing apartments and motel to proposed bank, offices, and condominiums, This analysis does not take into Beverly Wood Environmental Coordinator City of Newport May 30, 1978 Page 2 account the fact that the existing traffic from the Bank of t4ewport on the north side of Pacific Coast Highway at Avocado is simply -moving across the street to the project site on the south side. When a pro- posed development to be located on the present site of the Bank of Newport is analyzed by a traffic consultant, they should take the presently generated traffic from the site into account since it was not included in this study. The tabulation of the necessary calculations follows: Peak 22 Hour Peak 2J Hour 'Percentage Intersection ' Exist* Volume Added Volume Increase__ PCH & Jamboree 11,3 9 _38 ' 0.6• PCH & MacArthur .9.059 53 18 0.2 PCH & Marguerite 6►578 As can be seen from the above tablet the precentage increase at' the three critical intersections is less than one percent. Therefore, . the Bank of Newport project should be exempt from the Traffic Impact Limitation Policy. Please contact me if you have any questions on this matter. Very truly yo(urrs, Paul E. Cook PECsmc cc: Bill Darnell 1 City Council Meeting May 22, 1978 Study Session Agenda Item No . 5(c)2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH .f May 17, 1978 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Council Policy S-1 There are two areas of ambiguity in the administration of Council Policy S-1 regarding which the staff has had to make interpretations . The term "project" was not defined in the policy nor is there any provision for exemption nor recognition of vesting. As a consequence the staff has found it necessary to make a preliminary determination of these terms and the actions which needed to be taken to administer the policy. As a basis for making the determinations , the staff has used the Traffic Phasing Initiative Ordinance and the preliminary . draft of the ordinance as prepared for consideration by the Council . Definition of Project As proposed in the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Initiative , the staff has interpreted the term "project" in Council Policy S-1 as it is defined in the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) and the State ' s Administrative Guidelines . The full definition is contained in Attachment 1 to this report, and the following excerpted defini - tion contains the primary points applicable to Council Policy S-1 : "Project means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately . . . The term project refers to the activity which is being approved .and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by govern- mental agencies . The term ' project ' does not mean each separate governmental approval . " In using this definition, the staff has interpreted "project" in the broadest meaning, i .e . , an entire Planned Community District would be a project and each individual building would be part of that project. Therefore, the policy would apply to the entire development as a whole . Similarly, the development of one lot in a subdivision containing ten lots or more would be part of the larger "project" - the development of the entire tract. Application of the Policy to Projects One of the difficulties that the staff has encountered in administer- ing the policy has been the determination of which projects will be affected by the policy, since there is no "exception" provision for projects which have substantially been commenced prior to the adoption of S-1 . Such a provision is contained in the proposed Traffic Phasing Initiative . It states that projects which have received grading or building permits prior to the effective date of the ordinance, and have commenced construction , can be excepted from the requirements of the ordinance. Using the definition from CEQA and the Administrative Guidelines as noted above, this would mean that if a grading or a building permit had been issued in a Planned Community District, for instance, then the entire project, and all parts thereof, would be excepted from the policy . The same would be true of residential developments where grading or construction had begun. Individual building permits for i J TO: City Council - 2. that tract would also be excepted under that provision . Using this interpretation of the policy, the projects contained- in the list in Attachment 2 to this report would be excepted from the requirements of the policy. Projects listed in Attachment 3 would have to comply with the requirements of this policy either because no 'building or grading permits have been issued or- because further discretionary action is required before any construction can take place. It should be noted that any amendments to approved plans or requests for further discretionary approvals such as resubdtvisions would be covered by the policy and not excepted. For example, in the case where a developer wishes to resubdivide a portion of a previously approved Planned Community District, a traffic study, as required by Policy S-1 , would be performed and the Planning Commission and/or City Council would be required to make the appropriate findings prior to approving the resubdivision . Therefore, it appears that at least some of the projects on the list in Attachment 2 may or may not re- quire traffic studies depending on whether further discretionary actions are required. Recommendation If it so desires , the City Council may concur with the administrative interpretation of the policy, in particular the definition of "project", and clarify the exception for vested projects by adding the following text to Section 1 of Policy S-1 : "c. That the City has issued a building or grading permit for the project prior to May 8, 1978 and that the person to whom such permit was issued has in good faith and in reliance upon such permit diligently commenced construction and performed and incurred substantial liabilities for work and materials.._ _ No change causing a substantial increase in traffic volumes may be made in such a project except in accordance with the provisions of this policy. " Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director By 7BEV,ERLYA/4D . WUUD Enviroinental Coordinator BDW/kk Attachments : 1 ) Definition of Project 2) Projects Which Would Be Excepted Under Council Policy S-1 (with map) 3) Projects Which Would Have to Comply With the Requirements of the Policy (with map) 4) Council Policy S-1 (adopted May 8, 1978) _ � 1 • ATTACHMENT 1 DEFINITION OF PROJECT Ref: California Administrative Code, Title 14, Resources , Sec . 15037. 15037. Project (a) Project means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly or rtltimately, that is any o the following: (1) An activity directl undertaken by any public agency includ- ing but not limited to public works construction and related activities, clearing or grading of land, improvements to existing public struc- tures, enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof pursuant to Government Code Sections 65100-M700. (2j An activity undertaken by a person which is supported in wholle or in part ibm public agency contracts;grants,subsidies, loans,or other forms oFasdstance from one or more public agencies. (3) An activity involving the issuance to a person of a lease,permit, license,certificate,or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies. (b) Project does not include: �1 Anythingg specifically exempted by state law. 2; Proposab fo}•legislation to be enacted by the State Legislature other than requests bpstate agencies for authorization or funding for projects independentl y from the Budget Act (3) Continuing administrative or m*tenanoe activities, such as purchases for supppli�e_s,personnelrelated`actions,emergency repairs to public service fac+dlitles,general��{{cY and procedure making (ex- cept as they are applied to specific instances covered above),feasibil- ity or planning studies. or(4) Thof a p��t�m proposy.al;to a vote of the people of the State (c) Theterm"profit"refers to the activity which isbeigapproved andd which ma be subject to several discretionary approvals y govern- mental agencies. The term "project" does not mean each separate governmental approval. HGtarr.1. Amendment of subsection(s)(1)and new ndreclien(c)filed 12-14-73 as on effecttw upon Rlina.Cerdpaats of Compliance included ( a 50). & Amendment hind WA designated effective 4.1.73(Reghter 75,No.P. 3 Amendment filed'10&76k effective thirtieth day thereand' (Reaitter 76, No.41).Notet Older dedpated that compliance with tb(a amendment is autborised but not mandatory before 1.1-77. I I ATTACHMENT 2 PROJECTS WHICH WOULD BE EXCEPTED UNDER COUNCIL POLICY S-1 (as amended) Planned Community Districts which have commenced construction: ( Note: Amendments, Resubd.ivisions , Use Permits , etc . would not be excepted) 1 . Koll Center Newport 2. EMKAY Newport Place 3. North Ford Planned Community r 4 G4vic—ftla.Ha... 4 Corporate Plhza 9--� '.i g""' Harbor Vie Hills 16. Versaille( 7. Jasmine Qreek Other proje is which have been issued building or grading permits: 1 . Gilber Property (13 DU) 2. Newpo t Terrace Phase II i Newport Newport6 . ` �N ICan n Area09. Jasmine Creek 0 7. Harbor Vie Hills B. Versailles A. Gilbert Property lE_N_ 4 B. Newport Terrace P as e��Il •� r , '�F j�•j.G•1 r• I �+, AWI MOW �� ej• 1t�O' �/�'�` � ty ��� ar.a't ralarrr i R� 15l�/�tl 4 Rim {ut djgj, ATTACHMENT 3 PROJECTS WHICH WOULD/HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE POLICY (as amended) I� 1 . Ford Aeronutronic / 2. Prudential (Bl-ock 600, `ewport Center) 3. Pacific Mutual (Block 800, Newport Center) 4. Newport Center Condominiums (Block 800) 5 . Newporter North 6 . Castaways r , 7. Westbay 8. CALTRANS Properties ' (East/West) �9. Freeway Reservations 10. Baywood Expansion i 11 . San Diego Creek North and South 12. Bayview Landing II I 13. MacArthur/Avocago Parcel (Newport Center) 14. Corporate P1aza�West 15. Sea Island 16 . Bayside Square io ffice Building 17. Westcliff Grove 18. Roger's Gardens 19 . Bank of Newpo t Office and Residential 20. Grading Permi - 2222 University Drive - Apt. 21 . Grading Permi - 3700 Campus Drive Building Permit - 3700 Campus Drive 22. Building Permi - 3440 Irvine - Office Building 23. Sundance Terr ce. U. Gvic� Roe*a- 2s. O +crG"rsj &CWu 10 t I . Ford Aeronutronic ) 2. Prudential (Block 600, Newport Center) 3. Pacific Mutual (Block 800, Newport Center 4. ewport Center Condominiums (Block 800) 21 5. N&wporter North 6. Cast ays 7. Wes tbay, ; 8. CALTRANS operties (East/West) 9. Freeway Res vations 10. Baywood Expansion 11 . San Diego Creek NDrth and South 12. Bayview Landing 13. MacArthur/Avocado Parc (Newport Center) 7 20 14. Corporate Plaza West 15. Sea Island 16. Bayside Square Office Buildin 17. Westcliff Grove .� 18. Roger' s Gardens �a , 19. Bank of Newport Office and Residenti 1 20. Grading Permit - 222 University Drive N-4-/A t. 21 . Grading Permit - 3700 Campus Drive Building Permit - 3700 Campus Drive ter ' ~ •Y A -'` 22. Building Permit - 3440 Irvine Avenue 23. Sundance Terrace r AI Y _ S DDaa� � e , � .• _. ____ �z ---moo : - ..;s�,e t i: � - '_" '• .to �'� ® •� p�©QO©Q�V � \ 1 � �' `i•, O h�1> =o®O � I can op xcxPoxr Be e s � 1% � F ♦ Q t- � C E A �' a..a mn.wam �__ —_ . • • `q ATTACHMENT 4 COUNCIL POLICY S-1 Adopted May 8, 1978 POLICY TO COORDINATE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WITH TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES The City Council of the City of Newport Beach finds that overdevelopment of real property located in the City of Newport Beach has created an uncon- trolled demand on the City's street system, which is har#ul to the public's health, safety and general welfare. Pending a revision -to the City's General Plan, which will be aimed at preventing further overcrowding and traffic congestion, the City Council wishes to adopt this policy as a guideline for the City Staff, City Council, Planning Commission and persons wishing to develop property in the City of Newport Beach prior to said revisions in the General Plan. Section 1. No building or grading permit shall be issued for a commercial or industrial project having a gross floor area equal to or more than 10,000 square feet, or any residential project which is equal to or more than ten dwelling. units, unless the Planning Commission and/or City Council make the following findings: a. That traffic 'during any 2.5 hour peak traffic period on each "major," "primary-modified" or "primary" street which will have an unsatisfactory level of traffic service prior to, or as a result of, the project will be increased less than 1% by traffic generated from the project. b. If by a vote of 4/5ths of the entire Planning Commission and/or City Council that the benefits of the project to the City of Newport Beach outweigh the project's anticipated negative impact, the project may be approved, notwithstanding the requirements of Section l.a above. Section 2. "Unsatisfactory level of traffic service" for the purposes of this policy means peak period traffic service which is worse than "Level of Service V for more than one hour, determined according to standard traffic engineer- ing practices. "Level of Service D" is that level of traffic service set forth in the Highway Capacity Manual (1965), or any subsequent edition thereof; provided, however, that such level of service does not exceed the following criteria: (i) intersection capacity utilization of 0.90; (ii) 1,450 vehicles per hour using Critical Movement Summation Method; or (iii) volume-capacity ratio of 0.90. r S-1 C . 5/8/78 POLICY TO COORDINATE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT j WITH TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES - Page 2 r Section 3. i The City Traffic Engineer, subject to review by the Planning Commission, shall be responsible to conduct the necessary studies and to evaluate the project pursuant to the regulations of this policy. The Traffic Engineer, subject to review by the Planning Commission, shall exercise responsible discretion in determining traffic periods on "major," "primary-modified" or "primary" streets, intersections which will be significantly affected by the proposed project, volume-capacity ratio studies and other criteria essential for the administration of this policy. If ambiguity exists in the administration of this policy, the Planning Commission and/or City Council is to be consulted to provide the proper interpretation. f C r 1 Adopted - May 8, 1978 • i ATTACHMENT 2 PROJECTS WHICH WOULD BE EXCEPTED UNDER COUNCIL POLICY S-,1 (as amended) Planned Community Districts which have commenced construction : ( Note : Amendments , Resubdivisions , Use Permits , etc . would not be excepted) 1 . Koll Center- Newport 2 . EMKAY Newport Place 3. North Ford Planned Community 4. Corporate ,Plaka 5 . Harbor View Hillsl 6 . Versailles 7. Jasmine Creek Other projects which have been issued building or grading permits : 1 . Gilbert Property (13 DU) 2. Newport Terrace Phase II • V Y / " N f � 1 1 . Koll Center Newport 2 2 . EMKAY Newport Place 3. North Ford Planned Community 4. " Corporate Plaza Ems' • 5 . Harbor View Hillst 6. Versailles u 7. Jasmine Creek 4� A. Gilbert Property (13 DU) 3 B. Newport Terrace Phase II NY s L 0 W INMAo a RM © sJ411JC9F7o• \ � ��j �•K`�.71SUL�1� �GIYT"r.:\` , ^_ ._ —• ,� �a a l.�aff©©��� �.`�; r,� ...� .. �� o��6oav,�aaog400� r p ►�i»I{t °:- „Op `Y � 0 a0t7ooa40fl!)Q17Q�C�%"�'� .��, - �—'—� - a;rtl�r"d illii� %fil'f'•ii.-_;'�,.�"_ 1���...,.� ` ° ga'&g©QQ©FYQ � u��r 11{IIISiif{:1.ii.: e`"`.. 3 1.' z -s+¢ �S,nn"' �•�•�� � \ _ S-+Y.� CITY OF NE PORT 9FAGH , �j � ) /' � F � O 'S I'—�� C E A N nu�mnr.rurm♦ "__= w_ t9 ATTACHMENT 3 PROJECTS WHICH WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE POLICY (as amended) 1 . Ford Aeronutronic 2. Prudential (Block 600 , Newport Center) 3. Pacific Mutual (Block 800 , Newport Center) 4. Newport Center Condominiums ( Block 800) 5 . Newporter North 6 . Castaways' 7. Westbay 8. CALTRANS Properties ( East/West) 9. Freeway Reservations 10 . Baywood Expansion 11 . San Diego Creek North and South 12. Bayview Landing 13. MacArthur/Avocado Parcel ( Newport Center) 14. Corporate Plaza West 15 . Sea Island 16 . Bayside Square Office Building 17. Westcliff Grove 18. Roger ' s Gardens 19 . Bank of Newport Office and Residential 20 . Grading Permit - 2222 University Drive - Apt. 21 . Grading Permit - 3700 Campus Drive Building Permit - 3700 Campus Drive 22 . Building Permit - 3440 Irvine - Office Building V 23 . Sundance Terrace 24. Civic Plaza 25. Big Canyon Area 10 1 . Ford Aeronutronic 2. Prudential (Block 600, Newport Center) 3. Pacific Mutual (Block 800, Newport Center) 4. Newport Center Condominiums (Block 800) • 5. Newporter North 6. Castaways 21 7. Westbay i 8. CALTRANS Properties (East/West) 9. Freeway Reservations j 10. Baywood Expansion • 22 ,11 . San Diego Creek North and South 112. Bayview Landing 13. MacArthur/Avocado Parcel .(Newport Center) ' A 4 . Corporate Plaza West ' 15 . Sea Island 7 20 V 16 . Bayside Square Office Building 17 . Westcl'iff Grove I '18. Roger' s Gardens I r = aE 19. Bank of Newport Office and Residential S _ 1 •� j 20. Grading Permit - 2222UniVersity Drive 21 . Grading Permit - 3760 Campus Drive Building Permit - 3700 Campus Drive 22. Building Permit - 3440 Irvine - Office BuildingA '�� w wL t o_� 23. Sundance Terrace "' 7° 'h`` 24. Civic Plaza �A 25 . Big Canyon Area 10 24 ao `• �� iQ�� l7Q��. �'/' \`� 'y c19'�©AQaQq(7Gap s I I • x o `` -... S _ .. 4.,:.'© .-:;:__. _'_ •5. "'3% ec �, � �Z�i p pQ�®©©G �daOd %3 I i • _—e�• .,tip f iiji iiii S.(tl"t"� �?,y , «,.,. _`, a OO Q©©� '`�' I '� 'i .. __ - � uin=•�7-:....o _ on.; .,�,. ���1fEA. -� •Cyr• 1"_ �1 4r.._a''� �.,q' 0�]OQ(YB© • 7S11:IIII:Ilit:3:�)i}j}ha c' �. ': .__�_< ��,c,�om n"„ ,� . ....�. _ •✓'�. � ! --_ ... OM ° tJ'J"'��� �l�y�• =._—�—._ c 1_ .. �M —_ — �-..mac In or xewroxr eeacx - — / ♦ E A auwc mw,r,uuava r __ __ / o O t Department of Community Development z .i. C'1<IFOFL DATE: May 15 , 1978 TO: City Manager FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Council Policy S-1 Attached are the material to be considered by the City Council during further discussions of Council Policy S- 1 . They include : 1 . A list of building permits , currently in plan check , which are being held pending further direction to staff. 2. A list of projects which could be affected by the policy ih the future , and a map indicating their locations . (staff report, City Council meeting , May 8th ) . 3 . A discussion of the definition' of "project" as it pertains to the policy , an ordinance , or administrative procedures . 4. A preliminary draft of the procedures which might be necessary to implement the policy in a subsequent ordinance . a� SEW PORT • u i Department o•f Community Development DATE: May 11 , 1978 TO: Director FROM: Assistant Director-Building SUBJECT: Moratorium The Building Division is holding the following permits based upon our present understanding of the Council 's intent. We have determined that areas such as Promontory Bay (Harbor Island Drive) , individual lots in Spy Glass and Big Canyon as well as all commercial in Newport Center, Ford Aeronutronics, Emkay and Koll Center.are in the moratorium area. A review of the 1977-,78 log books revealed the following/jobs which are now listed as unissuable: ' PLAN CHECK NUMBER ADDRESS TYPE 1262-77 2421 E. Coast Highway Office 1293-77 1400 Bristol Street North "A" Office 1400 Bristol Street North "B" Office #19 Muir Beach Circle SFR 3880 Birch Street Auto Club 1379-77 736 Harbor Island Dr. SFR 1432-77 812 Harbor Island Drive SFR 1455-77 3631 Seaview SFR 1573-77 18 Corporate Plaza Office 386-77 29 Custom Lots Tr 9620 585-77 16 Oak Crest Lane SFR 719-77 648 Harbor Island Drive SFR 906-77 433 Harbor Island Drive SFR 1589-77 #8 Rocky Point Drive SFR 4-78 Grading - Jamboree Don Koll 26-78 Westcliff -Grading TR 9620 30-78 4320 Von Karman Office 37-78 210 Newport Center - Convert restaurant to health club. Commercial 49-78 100 Main Street Restaurant 52-3-4-82-3 Tenant Developments 1441 Avocado Commercial 66-78 2222 University Drive Grading r" Memo: To: Director Date: May 11 , 1978 RE: Moratorium PLAN CHECK NUMBER ADDRESS TYPE " 80-78 #1 Deerwood Lane, Big Canyon SFR 95-78 3840 E. Coast Highway Commercial 97-78 9, 10 Harbor Island Drive SFR 121-78' 17 Fashion Island Dr. Tenant Development 128-78 Sea Island Condo 1100 Jamboree , Condos 148-78 Tract 7967 M. J.. Brock - Jasmine Cr. 21 units 163-78 Grading - 25 Augusta Lane Grading 171-78 202-34 Newport Blvd. Grading 175-78 3700 Campus Drive Grading 190-78 4900 Birch-Koll Co. Office 198-78 1000 Bristol - "Sizzler" Restaurant 200-78 3700 Campus Office 206-78 222 N. Newport 223-78 T. D. 4101 MacArthur Tenant Development 250-78 Sundance Terrace Tract 269-78 4940 Campus-Koll Company Tenant Development 283-78 2831 E. Coast Highway Tenant Development 284-78 #7 Rocky Point Rd. Spy Glass SFR 286-78 1000 N. Bristol , Unit 20 Tenant Development 301-78 302-78 #4 Corporate Plaze Grading 309-78 4251 Martingale T.D. 331-78 014 Corporate Plaza Office 332-78 #17 Muir Beach Spy Glass SFR 333-78 #1 Roya1• St. George Grading 338-9-78 #4 Cherry Hills Lane Grading 348-78 660 Newport Center Drive T.D. 364-78 610 Newport Center Drive T.D. 372-78 4425 Jamboree F-2 392-78 #11 Deerwood Grading 396 #5 ,Corporate Plaza Office 399-78 600 E. Balboa Bank l' 1 Memo: To: Director Date: May 11 , 1978 RE: Moratorium PLAN CHECK NUMBER ADDRESS TYPE ' 409-78 Z660 E. Coast Highway Office 428-78 4590 Von Karman-Koll Co. Grading 435-78 4101-4141 Jamboree-Koll Co. Grading 4000-4040 MacArthur 437-78. #19 Corporate Plaza Office 442-78 369 Placentia Bank 447-78 #15 Corporate Plaza Office ' 484-78 3440 Irvine Office 488-78 4740 Von Karman Tenant Development 495-78 #4 Cherry Hills ' Grading 503-78 Tr 9860 Lots 15-37 Grading 519-78 Birch Street (Court House Plaza) Office 525-78 226 N. Newport - 536-7-78 Tract 8336 Grading A number of questions have been raised regarding several items: 1. Should we hold tenant developments within existing buildings when the tenant development is more than 10,000 square feet: 2. Should we hold buildings having a request for a change of occupancy (example: office space changed to restaurant)? 3. Should we stop issuing grading permits? 4. Should we hold permits for additions to commercial buildings when that addition would be in a project of more than 10,000 square feet, or would make the building itself larger than 10,000 square feet? ^ It should be noted that all buildings (residential and' commercial ) which are currently ready to issue and are held in the Department until after July 1 must be picked up by the owner or developer and redesigned to meet the new California energy regulations prior to our being able to issue permit. We will have to charge additional plan check fees and permit fees to check the redesigned buildings. The redesign will more than likely alter exterior appearance, interior layouts and all mechanical and electrical equipment. !�.%_ BF:rw BOB City Council Meeting May 8, 1978 Study Session Agenda No . 11 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 3 , 1978 TO : City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Major Development Sites Requiring No Further City Council Approvals Attached for the City Council ' s information is a table enumerating major development sites which require no further discretionary review or approval by the City Council . Also attached are maps indicating the locations of these sites . With the exception of several projects which may require Planning Commission approval of a Resubdivision or Use Permit (as noted in the "Remarks " column ) , all of the sites listed presently have all General Plan and Zoning approvals necessary to begin construction , subject to the issuance of a building permit. Decisions of the Planning Commission on Use Permits or Resubdivisions are subject to appeal to the City Council or may be reviewed by the City Council at its discretion . Respectfully submitted , DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . Hogan , Director B / % %) � David Dmohowski Advance Planning Administrator DD: jmb Attachments : 1 ) Table Enumerating Major Development Sites 2) Maps indicating the location of these sites MAJOR DEVELOPMENT SITES REQUIRING NO FURTHER PLANNING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL APPRO-VALS Allowable Site Area Allowable Development Site Vacant Uses Intensity Remarks 1 . Big Canyon Area 10 18.9 acres Multi-Family 338 DU 's Residential 2. Koll Center Newport (a) Office Site A 14.5 acres Hotel/Comm./ 350,000 sq. Hotel development would Office ft-. require approval of Use Permit by Planning Commission. (b) Office Site B 8.1 acres Comm./Ofc. 220,000 sq . ft. 3. Emkay Newport Place (a) Industrial Site i 3A 9.0 acres Ind./Ofc. 99,650 sq. ft. (b) Office Site 1 11 .2 acres Comm./-Ofc. 359 ,000 sq. ft. 4. North Ford P. C. 69.5 acres Ind./Comm./ 715 ,000 sq . ft. May require Resubdivision Ofc. approval by Planning Commission. • Use Permit may be required for certain commercial uses such as restaurants . 5 . Civic Plaza 26.0 acres Comm./Ofc. 348,000 sq . ft. 6 . Corporate Plaza 47. 8 acres Comm./Ofc . 450,000 sq . ft. 7. Prudential Center 11 .0 acres Comm./Ofc. 540,000 sq . ft. Requires approval of Resubdivision a pprox. (subject by Planning Commission. to Newport Center �� cs Resolution. • t i ' w 2 _ '\ 31 1 . Big Canyon Area 10 2. Koll Center Newport 3. Emkay Newport Place 4. North Ford P .C . 5 . Civic Plaza 6 . Corporate Plaza J" �� ' �c '��^'t c - • 7 . Prudential Center 3` �� _ � `��Z?t:," +tea ��✓= a,\ t\ �. � •i thy; q . ��/:}'e�l,t�y, _"���' —• l �i,::. t�t �`-'t r��(�s ly '.� y� — ' < < �� �6 I�N�, �.�. .ill, t -•� ' G .f`t� r��il •,.: i—J - � - I %`��' D ;� �,!.:�se- � t .. � � • L � nn iJt)v" �CGi).i� LM __ _:. .,\ - :3a..:- e' ,r�,au�• <(P,t I __. C1n�Gdu�.,'',%y � �= _ _ tS!l1;tI R1:31 f{:lil,(�."'�',Y��• r��_ -t a �. = Y+��`�+n'n .�ai��� �' y ! i� i � �' Y fle O'I i-�'•-� CRY OF NEIYPoRT BFACN rr�. s:�fz -�ir-�.^,��T"::ti' y�`•% •.4,�,�`{--»^t.yt} a 9� y Z .r��1..E r�i y,'.P,.!i:i�'"C•�':. it�^.Z{i".h `ti,�s' ��ti''rti '+_.F'�'.Sji._i..3�` 'r Yyi�"? 4r'• -»'e:_ av(�yy+{st .s L;n -k`• tt'l3�'-r 9� !- r:'�..-"�-�3t<'"I'ic !1�h`Cr{.�i_ C7 rc .ti:1'y tG•t•'.� n11„( yy.t Fl:J.•.�.. t.ite t'•1.-, rn4 C�T� .•O.`h s•J,. i�'.J;l� ,t✓Yz.•nz•�A '•; 1' •3 -fT. 12 7-1 .r.'a _} Ge`t,`.'.0 -•-�. ,'.bt"�.0 T,gfi' i ,�4•*, rt°-�ar'jt 1:f�' awn'y�• Fr`k' J,fi,• y���t ;:, _ - y sr;.i"S Ali+-.Y.gti Mp. Y •dy KYv1 "•'-.':•Y- aw 5•'• Urw� •.�•4� ' tt•Y f3s�r't ,,7J�� 6 •, .•�•• !% -'tfi'-4..�'Fr.-c' -•t*.fi � ,tpa�-f)i.-. ��:i,{�-,--r�� rttt'T•":£'a`%t iljr:?.fir 3 ;� niT• hieeTw••r.•'4" ��;5. fs;,'i ;r�% �4Tt. D`.^:tip' p -! .{•o .�:+ '[) 7,: .�'4k{ •C},�a.cr tip fL - "•��'-'� �h?s S� �t"•i�i^�Fy4,9P"�r`1y. ,{ay.i•� I�'.tw�$ZCvy!•.�t�:f+:ter'"•` -Xlr:: �(3 to$ '•"_'� s x��ti'}t � v1 : �-.. ,xtfr..;r.., ..e!a La?�� - i`a� 'ic1'�:.. °:{�,.�,t F,�rt•' �' - L'?-� SAN JOAO(W RILLS l - - ■ ROAD LEGEND ■ o�.,o>�Y�.�n., ■ � 1 a tW/•tLW�OfNF1YMSCD114. ■ ____ __ _ ® M[DNMM4N l0lSRf ItFSCO111LL ■� . . me �rAIF COV�SC ---------------- C�COu�PClrl SITE NO. 1 BIG CANYON AREA 10 f •• BIG CA N,NYO Amendment rnscrse wa 7 1 YJ / SITE NO. 7. KOLL CENTER NEWPORT OFFICE c Rn rum / / !E it! SERVICE / l.Ot{AC 1lT / /moo •'::,ittfp?�Y;.:Ati'::.:?:.:?.:::.:....:::: . OERItg D % ` '� , it .:;:;:.:.:•:.,:;::,:t;.;r:::,: .�. \I. ___ r _ �.�."::';+n%:' •��.'�::•j' COURTHOUSE / I�� w an i unr..w.n � l y�✓r /J1• I "op p r I d ♦I. I 1 l � ' LIGHT INDUSTRIAL WE w 21 1 llGllT IN]LIJ D`$iC lAllvrf Wl/ — 20210/S 1 ♦ S• ZZ it 41 m ti 7C—1 _. a-':: :::%AA'/if ' • SIT=JA ') ,[�y {m e w a am- o j / . . :::�:•i::.`vi n'r` I � �YS"V' i 4 6E 4 INDUSTRIAL SITE �a 4 rno vwrfr G �.I w> 4 / t «rf Jy�S' �:, / SP I� �� ..w / Bu nGY7D,{�.,QEFl�S'' ES IGr tea' ♦ / r / m /// % .;rN>a ra.rwwsrr>r ,< \� a >rr •::rq „�� `� / ,v4 to aan iC4ICA S2 SA � � •♦ � � \ /RCTr4 ♦ j \ iai f u� � , - I; �� r anco fre4RGec� •\ � -- , ,`/ •r. �I f�j � rrr..•a rew Wore n>r I ;3> A#alGq(r3irN `, > pp Iwncuu<I s.a..Kar M > J7 FET ,,\, uvwv oN / V ( I ..rr 'I" MAATINGILE„ WAY �C gyp• ` • ..e w I ♦ / KF2f SIT[JA AEJ26 I awlt?c oNAL / rrl..•uo+rnlwl LK Yfe Ti ; VS/ ESS AfF S JIC�f 3g` >wy�,�.,tl Ixry �a y,2 `' i wluu f>K,n./ u� Ifir �� iiM r• afK0 Cr \ ' .1 l faY Y4 • .� .s •1 �b t • � t