HomeMy WebLinkAboutFEBRUARY 1975 GPA SESSION*NEW FILE*
FEB 197**GPA SESSION
R7is
PERSONS NOTIFIED OF THE MAY 12', 1975 PUBLIC HEARING 'BEFORE
CITY COUNCIL ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS:
General Plan Amendment No. 20 - Left message with Albert
Auer's secretary (The Irvine Comp"any) on May 12, 1975.
General Plan Amendment No. 22 - No one.
a
PERSONS NOTIFIED BY TELEPHONE OF THE APRIL 14, 1975 CITY COUNCIL
MEETING:
General Plan Amendment No. 22 -- no one notified.
General Plan Amendment No. 20 -- per Tim City Council will set for
public hearing, so do not call The Irvine Company.
General Plan Amendment No. 16 -- Ron Yeo notified on 4-11-75.
The following persons were notified of the March•24, 1975 City
Council public hearing regardin-g .General Plan Amendments:
Paul Ryckoff - Amendment No. 21 - notified by telephone on
i
March 18, 1975. °
Billie Hickok - Amendment No. 19 - notified by telephone -.on
March 20, 1975.
The following persons were also notified because they submitted
a letter of interest regarding Amendment No. 21'
Joseph Surra, President
Bluff's Homeowners Association - notified by telephone on
March 22, 1975.
Thomas C. Wolff, Jr.
The Irvine Company - left word with his secretary on March 20, 1975.
Valerie R. Murley
CEQCAC - notified in person on March 20, 1975.
Jean Morris - notified by telephone on March 20, 1975.
Betty Ripley - notified by telephone on March 20, 1975.
Jean Watt - notified by teleph.on.e on March 21, 197'5.
I'P Shirley Knutsen - notified by telephone on March 22, 1975.
III' Alice Morgridge - notified by telephone on March 20, 1975.
Mrs. King Burstein - noti.fied by telephone on March 22, T975.
Planning Commission Meeting March 20, 1975
Agenda Item No. 4
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
March 11, 1975
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 18 (Public Hearing) --
Proposed amendment to the Land Use and Residential
Growth Elements to change the land use designation
of the Pacific View property (50 acres, north of
Pacific View Memorial Park) from "Governmental,
Educational and Institutional" to "Low -Density
Residential". (Requested by Broadmoor Homes, Inc.)
The public hearing on this General Plan amendment request was
continued from the February 20, 1975 Planning Commission meeting
since the E.I.R. was not completed.
The E.I.R. is not yet complete. Staff anticipates that the
E.I.R. will be completed by March 25, 1975, in time for review by
the Citizens' Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee
at their March 26, 1975 meeting.
Recommended Action
Staff suggests that the Planning Commission hear all persons and
continue the public hearing on General Plan Amendment No. 18
to the April 3, 1975 Planning Commission meeting.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
R. V. Hogan, Director
WM
\_� iim uo en
Advance PlaWfrfng Administrator
TC:jmb
Planning Commission Meeting March 20, 1975
Agenda Item No
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
March 13, 1975
TO: Planning Commission
5
FROM: Department of Community Development
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment,No. 20 (P.ublic Hearing) --
Proposed amendment to the Land Use and Residential
Growth Elements to change the land use designation for
the property on the north side of Coast Highway
easterly of Jamboree Road from "Low -Density Residential"
to "Administrative, Professional and Financial
Commercial". (Requested by The Irvine Company,
property owner.)
The public hearing on this proposed General Plan Amendment was
continued from the February 20, 1975 Planning Commission meeting.
Attached is the previously -distributed staff memo and the material
submitted by The Irvine Company.
Recommended Action
Please refer to the discussion of recommended action in the
attached memo.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
R. V. Hogan, Director
By=AeArA
i owelI
Advance Planning Administrator
TC:jmb
Att.
Planning Commission Meeting February 20, 1975
Agenda. Item No. 8
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH _
February 14, 1975
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 20 (Public Hearing)
Proposed amendment to the Land Use and Residential
Growth Elements to change the land use designation for
the property on the north side of Coast Highway easterly
of Jamboree Road from "Low -Density Residential" to
"Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial".
(Requested by The Irvine Company, property owner.)
This proposed amendment was initiated by the Planning Commission
at the request of the property owner, The Irvine Company. Attached
is the letter of request and supportive material prepared by
The Irvine Company and their traffic consultant, Crommelin-
Pringle and Associates. Also attached is a letter from the Citizens'
Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee indicating
their concern with traffic generation from this site.
While there are several considerations involved in this land use
question, the major external impact involved is the effect of the
proposed amendment on traffic. The Crommelin-Pringle report
indicates a net increase of approximately 1,000 trips per day for
the office use. This report also indicates that the traffic impact
of the overall development of Newport Center, including office
development on the subject property, will be somewhat lower than
projected by Alan M. Voorhees and Associates in their traffic study.
This reduction is the result of revisions to the Newport Center
plans since the AMV.study was completed, notably the relocation
(and probable reduction in scale), of the cultural center.
Other considerations involved in this decision are discussed in the
letter from The Irvine Company. In staff's opinion the major
TO: Planning Commission - 2
factors are:
1. The appropriateness of this site for residential use. The
Irvine Company contends that residential use at this
location is improper due to the noise and pollution created by
heavy traffic on Coast Highway and Jamboree Road. While this
argument is certainly legitimate, it.is also possible that there
are design solutions which could substantially mitigate
these adverse impacts, including clustering the units away from
the highway and the use of mounds, walls, and landscaping
as buffers.
2. The improved aesthetic effect of office development. While
the visual quality of an office development may provide more
openness, and while the residential development may be more
"closed -off", particularly if adequately bufferred, it
should be possible to design the residential development to
be attractive.
3. The economic impact of office development. Staff supports the
contention that office development will provide a'much more
favorable cost/revenue picture than residential. Based on
the City's "Preliminary Cost/Revenue System", low-rise
offices should generate an annual surplus of approximately
$645 per acre while residential development would result
in an annual deficit of approximately $1,200 per acre (in
terms of cost of City services exceeding City revenues generated).
If we apply these figures to the approximately 20 acres of
the subject property, the annual surplus from office
development would be about $12,900 while the annual deficit
from residential use would be about $24,000. Thus, an actual
net benefit of approximately $36,900 per year could acrue from
the change to office use.
Environmental Significance
The Environmental Affairs Committee reviewed this proposed
amendment to the General Plan, and concluded that the major
impact of the change from a residential use to an office use
would be an increase in traffic. Committee also reviewed the
traffic study prepared by Crommelin-Pringle and Associates.
TO: Planning Commission - 3
The Committee further concluded that a complete E.I.R. is
not required at this time but should be prepared at the time
a specific project is proposed for this site.
Recommended Action
The basic question which must be answered is: "Do the potential
benefits of office use at this location override the adverse
impact of the increase in traffic?" If the Planning Commission
determines that the answer to this question is "yes", the
recommendation to the City Council should be that General
Plan Amendment No. 20 be adopted, revising the Land Use Plan and
the Residential Growth Plan (maps) to change the designation
of the subject property from "Low -Density Residential" to
"Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial", and
to add the following wording to the third paragraph on Page 23
of the Land Use Element:
"Office development on the property on the north
side of Coast Highway just east of Jamboree Road
shall be limited to a maximum total floor area
of 191,600 square feet."
(This 191,600 square feet is based on The Irvine Company
proposal.)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
R. V. Hogan, Director
By rvfl�/
v TNCowell
Advance Planning Administrator
TC:jmb
Att.
610 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92663
Albert J. Auer
Vice President
Commercial Division
February 10, 197S
Newport Reach Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, California 92660
Gentlemen:
We appreciated your granting us the opportunity to
appear informally at your study session in the month
of December. We are now pleased to be allowed to
discuss with you at a formal hearing on February 20th
the possibility of a change in the General Plan for
the area located at the northeast corner of Jamboree
and Pacific Coast Highway.
The General. Plan now calls for this area to be developed
in a residential manner. We would like td suggest that
a more compatible use for this land would be to develop
it commercially. Several reasons are stated below as
to why we feel it would be a better commercial project
than a residential one.
The economic benefits to the City are far greater
in a commercial versus a residential development
in view of the tax base generated by commercial
office buildings and the need for limited services
as a cost factor to the City.
It is a poor planning area for residential use due
to the noise and the pollution caused by excessive
traffic at this key intersection. Office buildings
would he far less affected and would be a better
planning solution.
There is a need in the future for this type of a
commercial office building market - one that
would bring desirable headquarter companies to the
Newport Beach Planning Commission February 10, 1975
Newport Beach area, thereby generating additional
tax base and also additional buying power for the
various commercial and residential developments.
4. Newport Center is designated as the urban develop-
ment area for Newport Beach and all urban uses
should be concentrated here and the area should
not be diluted since a strong base of commercial
development now exists.
S. By locating all commercial uses in one area, the
ability of rapid transit to be effective is far,
greater than if there is a smattering of these
uses over a broad area.
6. The Environmental Protection Agency is recommending
exactly the same argument as advanced in item 5
above.
7. The identity of this location is very important and
the land values, which in turn generate tax revenue
to the City of Newport Roach, would be higher
because of the ability of the commercial users to
pay for the identity location.
8. By a careful placing of office buildings on this
location with a view toward open corridors to the
golf course, the auto traffic on Pacific Coast
Highway will have a better view of the golf course
than they would if the area were residential and
closed by a fence. The beauty and integrity of
the entire center plan would thus be preserved.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to be heard on
February 20th and will look forward to seeing you at
that time.
SigE '?ly) .
Albert J`Auer
AJA:sj
Analys*f Circulation and Access for
Proposed Co mercial Development
Location: Northeast corner - Pal at Jamboree Road
Preface
The Irvine Caupany has requested the City of Newport Beach to amend the General
Plan Land Use Element to reflect carmercial zoning in Newport Center along PCH
east of Jamboree Road. As defined by Planning Administration, the amendment and
related development proposal specifies approximately 20 acres currently zoned for
residential development at 8/du's/acre be changed to office ccumercial use at
approximately 10,000 s.f./acre. The consulting firm of Cramelin-Pringle & Associates
has been retained by Cammercial Division to analyze the traffic implications of
this proposal.
The purpose of this report is to define the general criteria for circulation and
access of a ca=ercial project in support of this proposed General Plan Amendment.
Due to the lack of a specific development program for this project, the concepts
described are general in nature and are therefore intended only to demonstrate the
design flexibility of implementing a development program of the nature proposed.
Highway Sections
Pal:
This project must reserve sufficient right-of-way to provide an arterial highway of
the caliber established for other segments adjacent to Newport Center (i.e., Corporate
Plaza). Specific designs and sections have not been established for this section of
PCH. However, the minimum right-of-way of this major highway is defined in the
City's standard plans as 128'. The current right-of-way for the major portion of
the site frontage of this project is 100'. This additional 28' will be required of
the project on the North due to the existing improvements on the South at Irvine
Terrace and Promontory Point. In addition, segments of this roadway will require
additional right-of-way beyond the 28' to acccamodate design requirements of channel-
ization which will be defined by future traffic analysis of specific site plan proposals.
-1-
,
Jamboree Road:
The existing full improvements (112' curb to curb) adjacent to the service station
On Jamboree North of Pai are in excess of the minimum 104' required, although double
left turn channelization will ultimately be required for southbound Jamboree at PCH.
The existing right-of-way at this location is 132' with 66' on each side of centerline.
This section is consistent with the dedication of other segments along Jamboree and
therefore, should be extended for the frontage of this project. However, a reduction
of this section could and should be considered North of Back Bay Drive.
The previous studies of this project area for multi -tenant office facilities have
identified'the desireability to provide a collector road free Country Club Drive
westerly to at least the single full site access proposed East of Jamboree Road.
This frontage road is a desireable element to serve the long, narrow frontage of this
parcel. The road will provide two functions: 1) provision for the interaction
between areas of the site without the need to utilize Jamboree, and 2) provisions for
multiple joint use access opportunities to the site.
If this frontage road can be extended to intersect Jamboree at Back Bay Drive
(Alternates B and C), its value is significantly enhanced. This connection will
provide joint access to the multiple sites for'ingress/egress on PCH and Jamboree.
Vehicular trips with origins or destinations within this project are not required
to utilize the intersection of Jamboree and PCH, thereby mitigating much of the
traffic concerns of this proposed project.
It should be noted that access at Jamboree opposite Back Bay Drive will require
signalization.
ACCESS
PCH:
Full access is proposed at this site from two locations. The existing intersection
of Club ]louse Drive and the access to the Irvine Terrace development is proposed
-2-
as an auxiliary access for this site. Therefore, as previously stated, an on -site
connection will be required if a subsequent traffic analysis of the specific site
development proposals identifies the need. The primary access is proposed approxi-
mately 750' East of the centerline of Jamboree. However, depending on the configura-
tion of the collector, this access could be located up to 1,000' East of Jamboree.
Supplemental right turn ingress/egress may be considered along the frontage of this
site. However, minimum spacing should be maintained between successive points of
access. In addition, depending on anticipated volumes, acceleration and/or
deceleration lanes may be required.
Jamboree Road:
Full access to Jamboree is proposed at the intersection of Back Bay Drive. If it
is not possible to provide a connection to the site to this location, all access
will be restricted to right turn ingress/egress. As previously stated, restricting
access on Jamboree to right turns only will increase the mandatory use of the
intersection of PCH at Jamboree. Southbound vehicles seeking access.to the site will
be required to make a left turn onto PCH and again from PCH to the primary site access.
PCH/JM-1BOREE INTERSECTION CRANNELIZATION
The design concept for this intersection proposes full free right turn channelization
from westbound PCH to northbound Jamboree and southbound Jamboree to westbound PCH.
In addition, double left turn pockets are assumed for southbound Jamboree to eastbound
PCH. Double left turns may also be required on eastbound PCH to northbound Jamboree.
This need is to be defined in subsequent studies.
The significant channelization element affected by this project is the westbound
PC11 to northbound Jamboree free right turn. The specific design and location of
this element will be defined in conjunction with site plan studies.
ADDITIONAL Oa2=S
Transit:
the City of Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element proposes provisions for
transit on segments of POI. The additional setbacks of reserved right-of-way and
-3-
the ultimaLc section for Pal which will be developed in conjunction with subsequent
studies will satisfy this need. However, there are major obstacles Fast and West
of Newport Center (i.e., Newport Bay crossing) that would conflict with a fixed
guideway transit system in separate right-of-way. It is our belief that transit
best serves the needs of the public when an appropriate, convenient destination is
provided. Therefore, we believe a vehicular transit system (bus, tram, etc.) which
directly serves elements of Newport Center to be the,optimal solution. Nevertheless,
the proposal for this and other projects on PCH has not precluded City options with
respect to transit on PCII.
PMESTRIAN/BICYCLF FACILITIES
Elements of the City of Newport Beach Master Plan of Bicycle Trails, together
with local pedestrian/bicycle facilities, will be discussed in conjunction with the
site planning efforts.
MISTING SERVICE STATION
It is possible that the existing station at the corner of PCH and Jamboree could be
retained if desireable. however, due to PCH widening it will be necessary for on -site
modifications to be made. The extent of encroachment and, therefore, modification will
be defined in site plan studies if this facility is to be retained as a part of the
project.
-4-
CR®4aJ1iMr—_ 1LaN 0G\,O -.BILE. AMM, r �Z_ OW-00z:13 MS1.0N1C.
URBAN TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERS
17000 VENTURA BOULEVARD ENCINO, CALIFORNIA 91316 TELEPHONE (2/3)'786-9570
February 7, 1975
Mr. Daniel S. Dickinson, Project Manager LCJ% 1
Commercial Divis ion,e
The Irvine Company `'QY',�C
610 Newport Center Drive`
Newport Beach, California 92663E
Subject: 'Lone Change - Coast Highway and Jamboree Road
Dear Mr. Dickinson:
As authorized, we have conducted a preliminary engineering study concerning
the traffic impact of a change in the city's land use plan for a parcel
located northeast of the Coast Ilighway/Jamboree Road intersection in the
City of Newport Beach, California. The parcel has been referred to as
West PCH in this report. The objective of the study was to identify dif-
ferences in traffic generation between the present use planned for that
area and that proposed as part of the revision. In addition, our study
analyzed alternative access schemes for the parcel and makes recommenda-
tions suitable for use in developing detailed site plans. Besides the
West PCH parcel, this study considers the traffic impact of a parcel
located at the northwest corner of Coast Highway and Newport Center Drive,
referred to as East PCH.
Summary of Findings and Recommendations
The change of land use for West PCH (see Figure 1) from residential
to office will increase daily traffic volumes generated by these specific
areas by approximately 1,000 vehicles per day over that estimated by Alan
M. Voohrees and Associates (ANV) in their transportation study for the
City of Newport Beach. The East PCH parcel presently is shown on the land
use plan as commercial office but was assumed as a residential use in the
AMV study. This increase will be more than balanced by a decrease in
Block "0" (east of Newport Center Drive) density, yielding a net decrease
of approximately 1,800 vehicles per day for the overall area. Even though
the parcel in question will have a net increase in daily traffic volume,
it' should be noted that office uses have minimal traffic generated on week-
ends; residential uses would contribute much higher volumes during this
critical period in Newport Beach.
Alternative points of access were considered for the two office parcels.
It is recommended that the easterly site have access to Newport Center
Drive as well as Coast Highway, utilizing a modified entrance to the Country
Club. The westerly site should have access to Jamboree Road in the vicinity
of Back Bay Drive, as well as to Coast Highway through a new intersection
located 1,100 to 1,200 feet east of Jamboree Road.
nrrlrrn IN I nn ANCIM rn ANn nnANnr nnIINTIFn
1 '.
Fir. Daniel S. IliAsun •
February 7, 1975
Pate (2)
Recommendations are contained in the body of the report concerning needed
widenings of'Coast highway and Jamboree Road in order to minimize area con-
gestion anti optimize traffic flow. As has been noted .in numerous other
studies, the intersection of Coast Highway and Jamboree Road will have f
deficient traffic capacity under current plans from a long-range viewpoint.
The recommended improvements will yield a lessening of current traffic con-
gestiou in the morning peak period with traffic conditions approximately
equal to those occurring currently during the evening peak hour.
Ceneral Project Description and Data Sources
Vacant lands north of Coast Highway between Jamboree Road on the west and
Newport Center Drive on the east include: (1) a 28.217 apartment site on
Jamboree Road, opposite the Newporter Inn; (2) the West PCH site proposed
for office uses consisting of 19.16 acres located north of Coast Highway
;between Jamboree Road and Amlings Nursery; and, (3) the East PCH site con-
sisting of 11.92 acres located northeast of the Coast llighway/Newport Center
Prive intersection. The West PCH site currently is planned for residential
development whereas the Irvine Company is requesting a change to aIlow commer-
cial office uses.
Numerous traffic and transportation studies have been prepared concerning
this portion of the City of Newport Beach. Most pertinent to this current
analysis was the July 19, 1974 study prepared by Alan M.. Voohrees and Asso-
ciates for the City as well as a May 30, 1974 report prepared by Crommelin-
Pringle and Associates, Inc. (CP&A) entitled "Newport Center Traffic Study".
The AMV study pertained to citywide traffic and transportation needs whereas
the CP&A study was conducted for the Irvine Company and pertained to future
traffic generation of various undeveloped sites within the Newport Center
Project.
Comparison of Daily Traffic Generation
The West PCH parcel presently is planned for residential uses. This sec-
tion describes the differences in daily traffic volume if the same land
area was developed with office uses at a density of 10,000 sq. ft. per
Acre on the westerly site. This site, as well as East PCH and the apartment
site on Jamboree Road, were included in the AMV study as Subzone 20 and were.
assumed to have 528 dwelling units yielding 5,280 daily trips. As shown on
Table 1, the proposed zoning mix of office and residential would yield a
total of 6,270 daily trips, an increase of 990 daily trips. This increase in
daily traffic generation is balanced by a decrease from AMV Subzones 16 and 18
(Block "0") which formerly contained a cultural center and office space esti-
mated to generate 8,660 daily trips. This latter block now is proposed to
contain only office space, generating an estimated 5,850 daily trips. Thus,
for the properties on the Coast Highway frontage between Jamboree Road and
Avacado Avenue, the net change in traffic generation with the rezoning is a
decrease of 1,820 daily trips.
Considering only Subzone 20, the increase in traffic generation of 990 daily
trips will not have a noticeable impact upon the adjacent street system. In
fact, the change from residential uses to office uses could have a beneficial
effect since the office space generates virtually no traffic during the cri-
tical weekend period.
Iry
NO SCALE
LOCATION MAV
East / West P C H Parcels Traffic Study
Tab)c I
ALT RNATE
LAND USE VS. TRAFFIC
GENERATION
DAILY
ADT
TRAFFIC
CONDITION
LOCATION
USE
QUANTITY
PER UNIT
VOT.UME
(vpdj
(vpd)
AMV Subzone(a)
20
Residential
528 d.u.
10/d.u.
5,280
Present Estimated
16
Cultural Center
--
--
4,500
Generation
(AMV Study)
18
Office
320,000
13/1000
4,160
sq. ft.
Total
13,940
Proposed Land Use
20
Residential
226 d.u.
8.5 d.u.
1,920
20
East PCH Office
143,000
13/1000
1,860
sq. ft.
20
West PCH Office
191,600
13/1000
2,490
sq. ft.
Subtotal
6,270
16/18
Block 0-Office
450,000
13/1000
5,850
sq. ft.
Total
12,120
Difference 1,820 ,
(a) Newport Beach Traffic Study, Alan M. Voorhees & Associates letter of July 19,
1974 to Richard Hogan.
P I
Mr. Hanle' S. Di0'nson •
February 7, 1975
Page (3)
Alternate Access Schemes
'%Bile detailed site planning will be a later phase, it was felt that it is
important at this time to recognize the problems of site access and to analyze
the impact of various access alternatives upon the critical intersection of
Coast Iligliway and Jamboree Road. The East PCH parcel is situated so that
it may have its principal access to Newport Center Drive along its northern
boundary as well as the Country Club on its westerly boundary. It wru ld be
desirable to revise the joint Country Club access so that at least 200 feet
of storage is available southbound before any division in traffic flow.
Access to the West PCH site has several alternatives which include: Scheme
A - major driveways serving both Coast Highway and Jamboree Road; Scheme B -
access only to Jamboree Road; and, Scheme C - primary access only to Coast
Highway.
The most critical intersection which will receive traffic impact from de-
velopment of the West PCH site is the Coast Highway/Jamboree intersection.
The access scheme which would minimize impact upon this intersection would
be the most preferable.
In order to compare the future operational efficiencies of the alternate
access chemes, a volume -capacity analysis was made at this intersection.
The method used was to determine the proportion of total signal time needed
in one hour for each conflicting movement.and to compare it with.the total
time available (100 percent of the hour). For example, a movement with
1,000 vehicles per hour (vph) on an approach with a capacity of 3,000 vph
would require 33 percent of the total available signal time. The capacities
noted are for Level of Service "E" as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual.(')
At Level of Service "E", traffic volumes will be at or near the capacity of
the highway, flow will be unstable, and there may be stoppages of momentary
duration. Continuing this procedure for each critical approach signal phase
will yield the total amount of time required to meet traffic volume demands.
The technique utilized in estimating the intersectional volume -capacity
ratios describes Level of Service in terms of "Intersection Capacity Utili-
zation" (ICU).(2) ICU represents the proportion of the total hour required
to accommodate intersection traffic volumes if all approaches are operating
at capacity (Level of Service "E"). This does not mean that Level of Service
"E" is appropriate for urban design, but the evaluation of present and future
operating conditions in terms of total capacity is more easily understood
by lay persons. In an urban area, Level of Service "D" (0.90 ICU) normally
would represent- the maximum acceptable design value. The definitions and
abbreviations sheet included at the end of this report describes traffic
flow at the six possible levels of service as well as other terms used in
this report.
(])Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 87, Highway Research Board,
National Academy of Sciences, 1965
(2)"Employing Intersection Capacity Utilization Values to Estimate
Overall Level of Service" Robert W. Crommelin, Traffic Engineering,
July, 1974
r•.
Mr. Daniel S. Die on •
February 7, 1975
Page (4)
Table 2 summarizes the results of calculations for the Alternate access
schemes. Scheme A, with Primary access to both Coast Highway and Jamboree
Road, results in the least impact upon the Coast Ilighway/Jamboree inter-
section. The proper location for the Jamboree Road access would be oppo-
site Back Bay Drive; the location for the principal access which would
serve full turning movements on Coast Highway could be 1,100 to 1,200
feet east of Jamboree Road in order to best fit into traffic signal timing
for a potential signal system on Coast Highway. A less desirable alterna-
tive would be to utilize a frontage road along the north side of Coast
Highway tying to the Country Club entrance intersection.
Access to the apartment site on Jamboree Road opposite the Newporter Inn
cannot be determined at this time. Its location would have no impact
upon traffic volumes passing through the Coast Highway/Jamboree intersec-
tion. A separate study should be conducted at the time of detailed design
of this project concerning the proper location of access points.
Recommended Roadway Improvements
During the volume -capacity analysis as part of the study of'alternate
access schemes for the West PCH parcel, relationships were calculated
for the Coast Highway intersections with Jamboree Road and Newport Center
Drive. Crommelin-Pringle and Associates, Inc. had conducted traffic counts
in December, 1973 which were adjusted to peak days of the year. The CMA
study of Newport Center developed traffic generation estimates and direc-
tional assignments for all undeveloped projects within the Newport Center
area. By adding in traffic volumes from all projects expected to be com-
pleted by 1977 to the existing traffic volumes, it was possible to deter-
mine a 1977 base year volume for the two intersections of primary interest
in this study. We then compared 1977 intersection capacity utilization
totals with and without the proposed Bast/West PCH projects. Table 3
summarizes the future volume -capacity relationships for the Coast Highway/
Jamboree and Coast Highway/Newport Center Drive intersections. In order
to provide a reasonable level of service, certain highway improvements
were assumed. As an example, it was found that a double left -turn lane
was necessary to serve southbound Jamboree Road traffic at Coast Highway
and an additional westbound through lane was required on Coast Highway at
that intersection. No changes were necessary at the Coast Highway/Newport
Center Drive intersection.
The following listing indicates recommended roadway improvements which
should be completed by 1977 in order to supply reasonable capacity for
this area. As may be noted in Table,3, the roadway improvements contem-
plated will provide better operating conditions during morning peak hours
than exist currently at an equivalent level of service during the evening
peak hour, assuming that virtually all projects within the Newport Center
area have been occupied as of that year.
Table 2
ALTE. ATE ACCESS SCHEMES - WEST PCH 10CRI,
ACCESS TO
SCHE " PCH JAMBOREE
A Yes Yes
B No Yes
C Yes No
INTERSECTION
Coast Hwy/Jamboree Rd.
AM Peak flour
PM Peak Hour
Coast Hwy/Newport
Center Drive
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
V/C RATIO (TCU
AM PEAK IIR PM PEAK 11R
0.94 1.06
0.99 1.19
0.98 1,19
Table 3
FUTURE VOLUME CAPACITY RELATIONSHIPS
LEVEL OF SERVICE
AM PEAK 11R PM PEAK HR
,
D E
E F
E F
V/C RATIO (ICU) LEVEL OF SERVICE
1977 1977
12 3 W/0 Proi. With Proi. 12 3 W/O Proi. With Proi.
1.06 0.90 0.94 E D D
1.04 0.97 1.06 E D E ,
0.55 0.62 0.68 A A A
0.58 0.73 0.77 A B C
SAMPLE CALCULATION - ACCESS SCHEME, A
Coast Highway and Jamboree Road - 1977 Volumes With Project
PEAK HOUR
VOLUME
V/C RATIO
(ICU)
MOVEMENT
AM
PM
CAPACITY
AM PK. HR.
PM PK. HR.
REMARKS
(vph)
(vph)
(vph G)
NB
Thru/Rt
450
280
3,500
0.13
0.08
Existing Lanes
SB
Lt
460
360
2,270
0.20
0.16
Dbl Lt + 2 thru
EB
Lt
705
755
21270
0.31
0.33
Dbl Lt + 2 thru
WB
Thru
1,045
1,855
4,940
0.21
0.38
Lt + 3 Thru+l Rt
yellow
0.09
0.11
0.94
1.06
r
• Vtr. Ual11L'1 0. I1141son •
February 7, 1975
Page (5)
Assimicd Roadway improvements by 1977
1. Coast Highway/Jamboree Road
a. Eastbound on Coast Highway - provide two through
and double left -turn lanes. (widen by one lane)
b. Westbound on Coast Ililhway - provide one left -
turn lane, three through lanes, and separate
right -turn lanes. (Widen by one lane)
c. Southbound on Jamboree Road - provide double
left -turn lane, two through lanes, and separate
right -turn lane. (Widen by one lane)
2. Coast Highway/Golf Course Access
a. Eastbound on Coast Highway - Single left -turn
lane and three through lanes. (Widen by one lane)
b. Westbound on Coast highway - three through lanes
plus right -twin lane. (Widen by two lanes)
C. Golf Course Access - four lanes divided by median.
e. Coast Highway/Newport Center Drive
No changes required.
We anticipate that this analysis will be of value to you in allowing judg-
ment concerning the relative traffic impact of a redesignation of the land'
use for the West PCH parcel from residential to office use. In addition,
the comments concerning access to the West PCH parcel should be noted as part
of your final design of this project. We will be happy to explain the findings
and conclusions as may be required as part of your future work on these projects.
It has been a pleasure to serve the Irvine Company on this project.
Very truly yours,
CROMMELIN-PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Robert W. Crommelin, P.E. Gw m No•9667
President 6\0
CIV1\_
RWC:mak
Attachments
IleT IN1F l:h AND AHIM X iA 1111.4
In .... u•P.o h, tern+ All. .sell ddeh tie a. meI la the Ttal Ile lwgi nee ring: Innrra•d,nl but Amy tell, he clan) tit ntbera. TW
A . LI.•Inadetrt it lon,t . .I.. a m •su lly s.A t,•um ,Av Add It [,in it Jer lot I. Ions may he found in the Ta_f f i r_i'ne'I nr crier Ian n•Ihm.k. In-
tlltel. .•I It III I Inc l rarer,. R•, ail net eat, 11.G.I 1All 5 or file Il ti•lhwly ('.I eat Itv Manes 1, Spoe lilt Repe rt 871 IIINI,w.y HeA..reh Boned,
t..` ."tort. n.C.. 11,65.
(0)DI1S A&IRI'VIATIPN:,
VIr:
eau yr d.I I Ir. f f I
\^,;
nrh net• uvkdq traffic
i nJ:
aantrnl husinra, di,t let
11•q it
^ales fret In 1000'-
vt^a.if
vrL le to -miles
1•k air•
pr.Ik I.,... v.qunr
vpd:
eehicle, per day
spill:•
v.a,ialen per I... to of
,,,an (11gna1 time)
Lt-
left
It
right
TRAFFIC
AVEKACI. n•\11.5 m%FrlC (ART): the total volume during
a Riven fir.- period (...ally one year) divided -by the
number of Ana in that time pelted.
vt NlcLCs FIR P%Y (vpd): file total volume of trnflle
passing A point, .,.,fly In bell, directional fur A 24
hour pooled In .,,at traffic anllyaes prepared by us,
."pd" refer, to average weekday traffic
VICAR µuric WMIC• the highest number of vehicle% food
to be pas,lne ervrr a section of is lane Or A roadway dur-
ing bit tonvcutive minutes, usually designated na the
morning peak hour and the evening peak hour.
DENSITY: the nonber of vehicle% occupying a unit length
of the through trafllc lanes of a roadway at any given
Instant. OmAtly exprasnod in vehicles per Attie.
L.IIAD FACTOR: a ratio of the total number of green alg-
Del Intervals that err fully utilized by traffic during
the peak hmo to the total number of green Intervals for
that api lit during the name period. It. Aximnm At-
Wtvibie value Is one.
PFAk HOUR FACTOR: a ratio of the volume occurring dur-
Ina the peak boor to the maximum rate of flaw during a
given tier paned within the pock hour. It 1s A men.nrc
of peaking, charaeteri%Elan, whose maximum attainable
value is no. The term moor be gwnllllcd by A 'specified
Ahurt period within file hour: till, is ua.nlly 5 or 6 min-
utta for frreuny apera elan end 15 minotes for Interneetfnn
Apra, hen.
19•'1RIAM: if.. dlre,tlen .lung the m.ndw,y from which the
vlilt Ie 11..v under tnnnldrrntina bon inner.
DNOLRIREAM: lire direction alonµ the rnadwny toward which
the vehicle flow under consideration In moving
bOrrLF,FCK: A conitricelon along A traveled way which
limit, the .-,,,at of traffic which An procrcd dan,trcem
from Ica location.
PLATOON: a closely grouped elemental component AI traf-
fic, comport] of irveral vehicles, moving or standing
,rally to move over a roadway with clear spaces ahead and
behind.
CORWIN: an Ins Binary line around an area aerns% which
vehlcir,, prrson,, or other items arc counted (In And out).
VEHICLE MiLre: a mrnsure of the amount of unngr of A aee-
llnn of I.Igi.wny n•amnlly d rd in Accident Anniynls to com-
pare %Imlla, Id vlm.t/,. Obtained by multiplying, the average
daily traffl, by 165 And dlvldinµ by Il,r length of section
in mile,, us.hally stated in millions.
Canttnued an reverse
TRAFI'IC
IN IP: till, neving of .1 perann or vehicle from nnr m-
ention (origin) to nnothlr (destinitlnn).
1R11'-F;;1h: one end of a trip At rtthrr the origin or
dent In, t l tin; 1..• reel, trip ha+ two trip -ends.
TRIP PI,RPOCE: the rvn, on why tilt trip In m1do (to Of
Trial, wok, hnpping, adn.ol, etc.).
SCRLI❑-LINE: An rnh,;in hey line or physical feature
nern,is which ell trlP1 are counted, normally to verify
the validity of lOo mlti(tl 'raffle mreleln.
TRIIe GF:f111ATfO:; TA(TOd: A traffic v.l.ma a-[1-lung
tun 1. from st,nitr•a of •Jnllnr land use,. the Amount
of traffic (trlpl) produced by or attracted to thn
Wed use In related to rune i,lentlfyln,; emit such a,
land Area, Irons floor area, population. I.Ploymrnt.
etc. and applied to the amount of that unit for the
land use under study. For example. 10 trips per day
per dwelling unit refers to 5 trips inbound and 5 trips
outbound from the generating unit.
GENERAL DF.STGN MRS
GEOUETRie DISTC.N: the arrnngcment of the visible etc-
mrnts of A roan, inch as Alignment, grades, alght tit. -
forces, width,, slopes, etc.
1NTERCIMME: it ryatcm of interconnecting roadways In
conjunctinn with A grade nep.irAtion or grade scparA-
clons prnviding for the interchange of traffic between
two or more Intersecting roadwiyo.
NFU IAN: the portion of a divided highwiy separating
the traveled wnya for traffic in opposite directions.
TRAVELED NAY: the portion of the roadway for the move-
ment of vehicle. exclusive of shoulders and auxiliary
lanes.
AUXILIARY LANK: file portion of the roadway adjoining
the traveled way for parking, spred change, or for other
purposea supplementary to through traffic movement.
SI10111 Di R• the pat LlaU of the roadway ennttk.nus with
tl.e traveled w.ty for Atrnrnnalntion of atapprel vehicles.
file eovmgenay tint, And ror lateral support of Will and
nwrfacr cnurpro.
TRAFFIC LANE: the pnrtinn of the traveled way for the
movement of a single line of vehicles.
RIGHT or wily: the land need by a public Aganey which
include+ the r.adhed• sidowalka, and other areas such
an those uicd for planting strips.
CIIANNF.LI7ATION: the separation of regulation of can-
flleting traffic movements into definite paths of tra-
vel by the use of ,.orient marking-, raised [elands,
or other sul L,ble .,.an, to fneflitde• the into and or-
derly movements of both volliclrs and pcdcstrlAna.
wFAVING SECTION: A length of one-way roadway, designed
to Accommodate weaving, at one end of which en nnc-may
roadways merge and at the other end of which they aep-
.rate.
RAMP: A connecting roadway between two intersecting
highways at an Interchange.
P
P
S:t \FI'If SIC\\IS
\na .L•aue, whrtln. •^nwdtla. .lost tan lla, ill nmllnul-
rA l•Iv .•ryv tt. •1, by wLlah U.0 f 1. Is 'it ... sal rlv dl n•cted
it. ,top aeJ Permitted tit Plea' el,. •
S L•a\I I\1110ilm.: the Ill u.l Oat tun of A lnaf(lc ACent, l
Lan• snob alms Jn Lr fir n e.+rhtunlh•n of +rvernl
L•t-. .�,•. eq,,valrnt Jry L•rs at tit.- rams tit"...
TIMt t\t'l Y: for CC me- per l.wl Irgotred (Or our cemPirtr
a•gurm. ••I Ugnal Indlcnlle'l+.
pRA,): + I•irt of tit,' t 1me Clete nllecat,tl to Anv trar-
fla r+ •^•ant .•, to Ant L, mh Ioat ion of Craft le movements
t"orb tow It, rlµbt-,(-wtV +Im,Atnneuualy during om• er
m.•n bit.., atv.
1•RI I I•D II, b.\V: a-tvpe of Ile l r le a•0,1 rill signal which
It u.•11. tl all It b• ,t0P .,all
••ualls III ee it • p. . .I In nc-
,.•bm Lae with prr•.heb•rmin"d lime It, hedu lva.
ik\11 IC -Al It Am, SLhAi.: A type al halite c.•atlol SIR'
ntl bt wbIVI, Ill., lnbrvol+ nrr-varied In aCC,.rd.,ncv with
lbr .J.+tnik al tnallle A, rr µl,l"n•d by tM1r actuation of
It. t.0 bat.
! h. ml-naffiasnet ottea slhnn l: n type of traffic
aatu,t.d +l,n,l In wb(vh mans .t., prOvld"d for
tl.11llc a,tmal L`n In one ••I mere but not all lip-
+ piously+ to it,,, Inton"atlon. -
Full trAftlr-actuated slµr.Al: a type of traffic
a rtuat"I ,l peal In which mans .ire provided for
trAll(c aeleAI: en on•sll npproaehr+ to the (nter-
a•etlrn, I.
I. PadavtrCnn-netuAted ,Ilµnal: a type of traffic
control signal which may be Actuated by a peden-
trlan.
pg00RESSIVE SYSTEM: a signal system In which the succes-
sive signal faces Controlling a given street give "goo
indication, In accordance with A time schedule to permit
(As nearly A+ pow lble) continuous-operntlon of geoupa of
vehicles along the street at a planned rs to of speed,
which nay very In dlffeeene parts of the system.
ROADWAY TYPE.
ARTERIAL IIItdIN.\Y: A general term denetlag A hfitllwny
primarily f.•r through trA(/lc, u,ualiy on A conllnt-
a.s rout"
ERpRESSW\Y: A divided Arterial hlgbwny for through
traffic with full It, part Cal central Of acce,s.
FRIE11.\Y: an "a press way with full control of -cocas -
and all Rein, CroA,ing, eliminated
CONTROL OF ACCESS: tbv condition where the right a(
owner+ or occupant, of abutting land fir other per+nns
it, tee,•,,. light. air. or vivo In eann,etlun -fill s
hi' -Ay 1, fully fir partially controlled by public
Auth..rity
PM K,,,y: an Arterial highway for mlneummrrelal Clef -
lie, with (ull or partial control of seers s, And usu-
ally lncattd within a part or a ribbon of parklike de-
v"Iopel t
10\IOR STREET OR MIAR 111411WAY: an arterial hlxlrosy
with lntprIrct Ioa, at Arad" and direct nets•++ to abut-
ting property, and fin which geometrle de,ll:n And [raf-
fle control meA,orel Are used to expedite the -Ale
movement of through traffic.
LOCAL STRUT OR IIICAL ROAD: A atr.," or road prl-
marliy Imr acc.os to resld,nce, bu+Inr+s, or Other
AM1w t.ng Pr.m,rty
T.IROGGII STREFT: curry highway or portico theme( at
the entrance to ath Cch vehicular traffic frill, Cater-
seettex h4.hwnyt 1+ required by la- to atop before
entering or ern sling the same and when slap signs are
erected.
DIVIDED IIIGI1WAY; a hlyhway with +rparattd rnadwnya
for traffic In oppo+lte directions.
FPOMfALF ROAD: .t Ivial street or road AI.xllinry to
and l,•Iatnl en 1be ,Id, of an arterial highway (or
atovlt, to ah..tt Jrx pr.•prrty and rdlaeent ".fin a•OI
f.•r bmtrol of Arcesa.
rill -III -SAC STREFT• a local ntrerl up.•n at our end only.
Anil with ,pedal provlxl.ma for turning around.
IIIf:111ny V1111 :f_I•'f
CAPACITI: CI.,• m.xlun, mw9... I Of mhlcle A•••1.!f. hat
n rennunoble .xp.tJnt t••n of pnsslnA liver n v1-+•n n.•e-
tie, of o Ise" fir A r.andwny In our fir both dlr,•ttlnna
dnrinµ A RJV.n tin,• period under pr,•vAiling rrmdwa/
and traffic tondltlnnn.
IkVI I. III' r.rlty Iel6 A ter,. waif •ly hrrmdl/ Int••r pr•: bad.
drnetrn Any sue of ou Catlett. I. ronnhvr wf dlfferlm: enn-
binntiunt of Operating, r..ndltlona time ma/ ncenr on a
Olive., Inn, er rnnd•ny when It 1+ fit n,e+ad at (n, •nrloo+
traffic vnlumen. L,rci of Servle, IA n guslitatl•re
mrnnurc of tl..• rff,.ct of n noeb,r of foetus, which ln-
elude np,•rd all travel tin,, traffic Intrrnipttnnc,
frrrdem it, mnnrOver, slb•ty, driving Innforc And cnn-
vvn:en,c. and upernllnOt n.a w. In practice, .Ilse ted
npretfle level, are derinel In terms of pirtlufsr Iim-
itlnR vtlurn Of certain of ti.e,e fa.-t"C".
Six L,vcls nI lervlec have. I,,"- d•ai/n well h/ Ieturs
to rapres,nr the Mast amditlnn ("A" fret. (I••vtrt) old
Cite ur,t ("F" fer,ld (law nt very I..0 11e1111) Our
m,lly. Level.. %" f••Lah it fl.w) Or 't(i' (uanlabie floe
but to L•rnblc operatlonn) are used for d,,Ill:n purposes.
SERVICE. VOIA IE.: the ry afeet, .,.her ..f vehicle, that
can pan, ever A give, •.eetion of n lane ur r.adwty in
nnr dlreetipn on multilane hlLhway+ (cc in both direc-
tion, an a tun- or three -Lute highway) during n nptci-
fled flux, period wblle operating condition are main -
coined carrenpondlnR to the +elected or speclFILd level
of aervlce. In the Absence of a time modifier. service
volume is an hourly volume
LEVEL OF SERVICE VS., OPERATLHG COARACIERISTICS
LEVEL OF
SERVICE DI'ScIlPTtOH
OPERATT•'C CHf RACTFp1STICS
A Free flow
Le. volumes, hina spell,
(best)
s"I,etivlty, low density.
—
Drivers not impaired by
other traffic. .\t signals
no driver waits more than
one signal cycle and all
turns arc easily made.
If Stable flow
Ope,nting speeds beginning
'
to be restrleta by traffic
condlcinnu. Suitable for
rural design vnlua•s. At
'
signal, drivers beginning
to feel sonewhat restricted.
C Stable flow
Volume restricts driver's
(design value)
spud and nanuV, al,411ty;
soltahb- for urban design
valt.rs. At si,:nnls, drl-
"
very may have to occasslon-
ally wait more than one
cycle to clear.
D Approaching
Temporary reatrfctlons cause
unstable flow
drop in volume and speed;
comfort and convenience is
low but tolerable for short
-
periods. At signals• short
peaks nay develop queues .
which will clear during
later cycles. Excessive
back-up does not occur.
E unstablu flow
Speeds on freeways at 00 mph
(Capacity)
with momentary stoppages.
At signals there may be long -
queues of vehicles vith de-
-
lays Op to several signal
cycles. Onsultahle, for use
In deslpa.
F Forced flow
Ian speeds, may, stoppages
(worst)
on frecw.iyn, long queues,
and hiSh delays; roadway
beccmcs storage area. Rack-
up fron one signal My block
adjacent intersections. Vol -
'once carried are unpredict-
able.
� Y Y
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport -Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660
714/67372110
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CITIZENS' ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
SUBJECT: GENERAL -PLAN AMENDMENT #2O JAMBOREE AND COAST HIGHWAY
DATE: FEBRUARY 13, 1975
Consistent with our comments on the Ryckoff amendment, the
CEQCAC recommends that the subject property located at Jamboree
and Coast Highway be designated as commercial only with the fol-
lowing stipulation: that the traffic generation be no greater
than from the allowable residential development.
The overriding problem with this site is the traffic genera-
tion. Therefore, the CEQCAC would not favor residential versus
commercial so long as the traffic generation is the same or lower.
This statement assumes the comparison is based upon low
density residential as defined in the Ryckoff amendment or as
now defined.
Respectfully submitted,
YCl lc• � J<• s i.��,..� .�
Valerie R. Murley
CEQCAC Chairman
Planning Commission Meeting March 20, 1975
Agenda Item No.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
March 13, 1975
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
11
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 16 (Public Hearing) --
Proposed amendment to the Land Use, Residential
Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements to
add a park area on the west side of Marguerite Avenue
at Harbor View Drive. (Requested by Ron Yeo.)
The public hearing on this proposed General Plan Amendment was
continued from the February 20, 1975 Planning Commission meeting.
Attached is the previously -distributed staff memo and the memo
from the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission, recommending
against adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 16.
Recommended Action
Staff suggests that the Planning Commission recommend to the City
Council that General Plan Amendment No. 16 not be adopted.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
R. V. Hogan, Director
Tin(fiowefl
Advance Planning Administrator
TC:jmb
Att.
n
Planning Commission Meeting February 20, 1975
Agenda Item No. 9
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
February 13, 1975
TO: Planning Commission
FROMa
Department of
Community
Development
SUBJECT:
General Plan
Amendment
No. 16 (Public Hearing) --
Proposed amendment to the Land Use, Residential
Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements
to add a park area on the west side of Marguerite
Avenue at Harbor View Drive. (Requested by
Ron Yeo.)
This proposed General Plan Amendment was discussed by the
Planning Commission and the City Council during the previous
General Plan Amendment session. The City Council, on
recommendation of the Planning Commission, referred the
requested amendment to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation
Commission for review and comment as to the desirability of '
designating the subject property as public open space and
adding the acquisition of this site as to the list of priority
projects in the Recreation and Open Space Element.
Attached is a memo from the Parks, Beaches and Recreation
Commission recommending against adoption of General Plan
Amendment No. 16 at this time.
Environmental Significance
This proposed amendment was reviewed by the Environmental Affairs
Committee on February 12, 1975, and it was determined that there
is no environmental significance (in terms of the California
Environmental Quality Act). The Environmental Affairs Committee's
decision was made subject to the understanding that detailed
environmental analysis will be undertaken at the project level.
Recommended A
Staff suggests that the Planning Commission recommend to the
TO: City Council - 2
City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 16 not be
adopted.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
R. V. Hogan, Direct
f
r
By .
Tim Yowell
Advance Planning Administrator
TC:jmb
Att.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALIFORNIA
February 7, 1975
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 16
92660
City Hall
3300 Newport Blvd.
(714) 673-2110
At the regular meeting of the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
on February 4, General Plan Amendment No. 16 was discussed. After a
thorough review, the following motion was made and carried:
"The PB & R Commission recommends that General
Plan Amendment No. 16 not be adopted but, at
some future time, should it become apparent that
the open space designated in the 5th Avenue
corridor not be available for park purposes,
that this site should be reconsidered at that
time."
The PB & R Commission is vitally interested in open space and recrea-
tion facilities along the 5th Avenue corridor and should other properties
that are presently under consideration for acquisition not be available
to the City, then the Commission would like to take another look at the
property identified in General Plan Amendment No. 16 for possible ac-
quisition and development as parks and open space.
9,-,,�°
Jean Morris, Chairman
JM:CCS:h
Planning Commission Meeting March 20, 1975
Agenda Item No. 7
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
March 13, 1975
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 22 (Public Hearing) --
Proposed amendment to the Land Use Element to designate
the "Old Newport Boulevard Area" for a Specific Area
Plan by adding a Specific Area Plan boundary designation
on the Land Use Plan (map). (Initiated by the City
of Newport Beach.)
The public hearing on this proposed General Plan Amendment was
continued from the February 20, 1975 Planning Commission meeting.
Attached is the previously -distributed staff memo.
Recommended Action
Staff suggests that the Planning Commission recommend to the City
Council that General Plan Amendment No. 22 be adopted.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
R. V. Hogan, Director
By 4&211
lJ Tif✓Cowe11
Advance Planning Administrator
TC:jmb
Att.
Planning Commission Meeting, February 20, 1975
Agenda Item No. 10
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
February 13, 1975 r
TO: Planning Commission
FROM:
Department of
Community
Development
SUBJECT:
General Plan
Amendment
No. 22 (Public Hearing) --
Proposed amendment to the Land Use Element to
designate the "Old Newport Boulevard Area" for
a Specific Area Plan by adding a Specific Area
Plan boundary, designation on the Land Use Plan
(map). (Initiated by the City of Newport Beach.)
This proposed General Plan Amendment was initiated at the
suggestion of staff, and consists merely of the addition, to
the Land Use Plan, of a Specific Area Plan boundary around
the "Old Newport Boulevard" area.
The preparation of a Specific Area Plan for this area was
called for by the Planning Commission at their October 18, 1973
meeting, when the City -initiated zone change from C=l to
A-P was withdrawn.
Environmental Significance
This proposed amendment was reviewed by the Environmental Affairs
Committee on February 12, 1975 and it was determined that
there is no environmental significance (in terms of the
California Environmental Quality Act). The Environmental Affairs
Committee's decision was made subject to the understanding
that detailed environmental analysis will be undertaken at the
project level.
Recommended Action
Staff suggests that the Planning Commission recommend to the
City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 22 be adopted.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
R. V. Hogan, Director
By
v Ttaf Cowell
Advance Planning Administrator
TC: jmb
E
Planning Commission Meeting February 20, 1975
Agenda Item No. 4 to 10
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
February 13, 1975
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendments
At the January 16, 1975 Planning Commission meeting, the
Commission set General Plan Amendments Nos. 16, 18, 19,
20, 21, and 22 for public hearing on February 20, 1975.
At the direction of the City Council, at their meeting of
January 27, 1975, General Plan Amendment No. 23 (regarding
the Circulation Element recommendations for Coast Highway)
has also been set for public hearing at the February 20, 1975
Planning Commission meeting.
Attached are individual staff memos on each proposed
General Plan Amendment.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
R. V. HogWIDirefor
By
wCowe I1
Advance Planning Administrator
TC:jmb
Att.
'NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of
Newport Beach will hold a public hearing to consider the following
proposed amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan:
1. An amendment to the Land Use and Residential Growth• Elements
to change the land use designation of the Pacific View property
(50 acres, north of Pacific View Memorial Park) from
H�. "Governmental, Educational and Institutional" to "Low -
Density Residential".
i
2. An amendment to the La-nd Use and Residential Growth Elements
to change 'the land- use designation of the lot at 809 East
Bay Avenue (in Central Balboa) from "Retail and Service
Commercial" to "Two -Family Residential".
3. An amendment to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements
to change the land ,use designation for the property on the
north side of Coast Highway easterly'of Jamboree And from
"Low -Density Residential" to "Administrative, Professional and
Financial Commercial".
4. An amendment to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements
to redefine "Low -Density Residential" and to create a hew
category: "Medium -Density Residential"; iflOT-apply. m0f-in-ed'
"Low -Density Residential" designation to Castaway, North
Newporter, and a portion of Jamboree/Coast Highway vaca-nt
sites; to apply new "Medium -'Density Residential" designation
to a portion of Jamboree/Coast Highway vacant site; and to
change wording i)n Residential Growth Element.
5. An amendment to the Land U`se, Residential Growth, and
Recreation and Open Space Elements to add a park area on the
west side of Marguerite Avenue at Harbor View Drive.
6. An amendment to the Land Us,e Element to designate`thg,030ld
Newport Boulevard Area" for a Specific Area Plan by adding a
Specific Area Plan boundary designation on the Land Use
Plan (map).
7. An amendment to the 'Circulatio�h Element as it pertains
to recommended improvements for Coast Highway and possible
c+ amendments to the Land Use and Residential Growth
Elements pertaining to intensity a•nd p'h•asing of development.
6
Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be
held on the 20th day of February, 1975, at the hour of 7:00 p.m.
in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, at
which time and place any and all persons interested may appear
}. .
and be heard thereon.
Ow
James M. Parker, Secretary
Newport Beach City
Planning Commission
" Publication Date Feb:rua-iy .6.,11945
Received for
Publication
M
Persons notified by telephone of January 27, 1975 City
Council Meeting regarding the Planning Commission's
Action Re Setting of General Plan Amendments for
Public Hearing:
John Curci (Notified on January 23, 1975.)
John Kingsley (Notified on January 23, 1975.)
Victor Yack (Notified on January 23, 1975.)
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
NEWPORT HARBOR ENSIGN
STATE OF CALIFORNIAJ as.
County of Orange
ARVO E. HAAPA
I, ......................................................................... being first
drily sworn, and on oath depose and say that I am the
printer and publisher of the Newport Harbor Ensign, a
weekly newspaper printed and published in the City of
Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California,
and that the.NOTICE CF PUBLIC HEARING
of which
copy attached hereto is a true and complete copy, was
printed and published in the regular issue(s) of said
newspaper, and not in a supplement, ..... 1........... consecu-
tive times: to -wit the issue(s) of
Feb. 6, 1975
..............................................................
c-'> /
(Signed).......................-T-.`......Z...1...................
Subscribed and sworn to before me this�.th...... da of
.................pmember 1915..
Nota ublic inand for the
Coun of Orange, State of California.
OFFICIAL SEAT.
MARY A. HAAPA
Notary Pabllc- Collfornio
PRINCIPAL OFFICE
IN
ORANGE COUNTY
MY COMMISSION
EXPIRES DEC@MBER 16.1 C/7%
LEGAL NOTICE LEGAL NOTICE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
and's portion of Jamboree/
HEARING
Coast Highway vacant sites;
i Notice 1s herebygiventhat
to apply new "Medium -Den -
the Planning Commission of
sity Residential" deslgna-
the City of Newport Beach
tion to a portion of Jam- ;
will hold a public hearing
boree/Coast Highway vacant
to consider the following
site; and to change wording
proposed amendments to the
in Residential Growth Ele-
Newport .Beach General
ment; I
Plan: I I
' 5. An amendment to the
1. An amendment to the
sand Use, Residential
Land Use and Residential
Growth, and Recreation and
Growth Elements to change
Open Space Elements to add
the land use designation of
a park area on the west
the Pacific View property
side of Marguerite Avenue
(50 acres, north of Pacific
at Harbor View Drive. '
View Memorial Park) from
6. An amendment to the
"Governmental, Educational
Land Use Element to desIg-
and Institutional' to "Low-
nate the "Old Newport
Density Residential."
Boulevard Area" for a Spe-
2, An amendment to the
cifie Area Plan by adding
Land Use and Residential
a Specific Area Plan bound -
Growth Elements to change
ary designation on the Land
the land use designation of
Use Plan (map).
the lot at 809 East Bay
7, An amendment to the
Avenue (in Central Balboa)
Circulation Element as it
from "Retail and Service
pertains to recommended
'Cbmmdncfal."h_3o-"Two-,
improvements for Coast
Family Residential"
Highway and , possible t
3. An amendment to the
amelidments io the Land Use /
Land Use .and Residential
and Residential Growth Ele-
Growth Elements to change
ments pertaining tointensity
I the land use designation for
and phasing of development,
the property on the north
Notice Is hereby further
side of Coast Highway east-
given that said public bear-
erly of Jamboree Road from
ing will be held on the 20th
"Low -Density Residential"
day of February, 1975, at
to "Administrative, Pro-
the hour of 7:00 p.m, in
fessional and Financial
the Council Chambers of the -
Commercial."
Newport Beach City Hall, at
4. An amendment to the
which time and place any
Land Use and Residential
and all persons interested
Growth Elements to reds-
may appear and be heard
fine "Low Density Rest-
thereon. ;
dentlai" and to create a
James M. Parker, d
new category: "Medium-
Secretary
Density Residential"; to ap-
Newport Beach City
ply redefined "Low -Density
Planning Commissioh
Residential" designation to
Publish: Feb. 6, 1975, In the
Castaway, North Newporter,
Newport Harbor Ensign. __
City Council Meeting January 27, 1975
Agenda Item No. G-3
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
January 22, 1975
TO: City Council
FROM: Department of Community Development
SUBJECT: Planning Commission's Action Regarding Setting of
General Plan Amendments for Public Hearing.
At the January 16, 1975 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission
received requests for initiation of General Plan amendments for
the next amendment session and decided to set six of the seven
suggested amendments for public hearing at the February 20, 1975
Planning Commission meeting.
The Planning Commission decided that consideration of the amendment
suggested by the Lido Peninsula Community Association was
unwarranted. This amendment would change the land use designation
of Lido Peninsula to prohibit further commercial development.
In making this decision, members of the Planning Commission
discussed the fact that the current designation for Lido Peninsula
requires the development of an overall plan by the property owner
which will be reviewed at public hearings before both the
Planning Commission and City Council prior to any further development;
this gives the City complete control over the type of development
and gives the citizens ample opportunity for public input.
Attached are copies of all letters requesting Planning Commission
0 •
TO: City Council - 2
initiation of General Plan amendments, and all letters relating
to these requests.
Following is a list of all of the suggested amendments considered
by the Planning Commission:
Element(s)
2.
3.
4.
5.
Land Use and Residential
Growth
Land Use and Residential
Growth
Land Use and Residential
Growth
Land Use and Residential
Growth
Land Use and Residential
Growth
Proposed Amendment
Change land use designation of
Pacific View property (50 acres,
north of Pacific View Memorial Park)
from "Governmental, Educational
and Institutional" to "Low Density
Residential". (Requested by Broadmoor
Homes, Inc.)
Change land use designation of lot
at 809 East Bay Avenue (in Central
Balboa) from "Retail and Service
Commercial" to "Two -Family Residential"
(Requested by Billie M. Hickok,
property owner.)
Change land use designation for
Lido Peninsula to provide for only
residential use for all areas currently
under residential use and to prohibit
further commercial development.
(Requested by the Lido Peninsula
Community Association.)
Change land use designation for the
property on the north side of Coast
Highway easterly of Jamboree Road
from "Low -Density Residential" to
"Administrative, Professional and
Financial Commercial". (Requested
by the Irvine Company, property owner
Redefine "Low -Density Residential";
create new category: "Medium
Density Residential"; apply redefined
"Low -Density Residential" designation
to Castaway, North Newporter, and
a portion of Jamboree/Coast Highway
vacant sites; apply new "Medium
Density Residential" designation to a
portion of Jamboree/Coast Highway
vacant site; change wording in Resi-
dential Growth Element. (Requested by
Paul Ryckoff.)
TO: City Council - 3
Element(s) Proposed Amendment
6. Land Use, Residential (Reset General Plan Amendment No. 16)
Growth, and Recreation Add park area on the west side of
and Open Space Marguerite Avenue at Harbor View
Drive. (The Parks, Beaches a-nd
Recreation Commission is reviewing,
as directed by City Council, and will
submit recommendation prior to the
February 20, 1975 public hearing.)
7. Land Use Element Designate "Old Newport Boulevard
Area" for a Specific Area Plan by
adding Specific Area Plan boundary
designation on Land Usd Plan (map).
The Planning Commission's decisions were made pursuant to Council
Policy Q-1 which provides that: "If the Planning Commission,
after examination, is convinced that the proposed change is
worthy of consideration, it may initiate amendment as set forth
above. If not, the Commission shall forward the request to the
City Council with its recommendation that consideration of
amendment is unwarranted." Council Policy Q-1 further states that
the: "City Council, after consideration of the request and of the
report from the P1'anning Commission, may either direct the
Commission to initiate public hearings on the proposed amendment,
or may return the request to the originator without further action."
Recommended Action
Pursuant to Council Policy Q-1, the City Council should either:
1) Uphold the Planning Commission decision against setting a
public hearing on the requested General Plan amendment for
Lido Peninsula, and direct that the request be returned to
the originators without further action; or
2) Direct the Commission to initiate a public hearing on the
0 0
TO: City Council - 4
proposed amendment for Lido Peninsula.
Respectfully submitted,
COMMUNITY jDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
. V. H o gAwn , u;rrgc f o r
RVH:TC:jmb
Att.
BROADM0016HOMES, INC.
v 17802 Irvine Blvd • Tustin, Calif.92680 • (714)544-4230
December 17, 1974
Mr. Richard Hogan
Director of Community Development
City of Newport Beach
3300 West Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92660
Reference: Pacific View Property
Dear Mr. Hogan:
RECEI'J EG
Co .niiy
i Div ,,,,1ant
...4,t.
DEC 171974
i CITYOF
NEWVORf BEACH,
CALIF.
\\U•J/
Broadmoor Homes has entered into an escrow for the purchase of
approximately 50 acres of Pacific View property located in the
City of Newport Beach. Subject property is more specifically
located by the boundaries of New MacArthur Boulevard on the west,
existing Spyglass Hill development on the east, Big Canyon reservoir
on the south and The Irvine Company Sector 4 proposed development
on the north.
We are hereby requesting an amendment to the General Plan from
the existing designation of "Government, Educational and Institutional
Facilities" to Low Density Residential.
We will be soliciting input from the surrounding homeowners, in order
for us to prepare our conceptual plans for submittal to your staff and
the Planning Commission prior to hearings on the General Plan amendment,
which we understand are scheduled for February 6 or 20 of 1975.
Cordially,
BROADMOOR HOMES, INC.
L. R. L\�R. /Lizotte
Vice President
LRL:ew
cc: Mr. Richard B. Smith, Broadmoor Homes, Inc.
December 16, 1974
PLANNING COMMISSION
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California
ATTN: Mr, Tim Cowell
Mrs. Billie Hickok
809 E. Bay Avenue
Newport Beach
California
RccEIvEO Ns\
Commumiy �A
Oevnlopme It
Deaf.
0EC 1 �31974- •c
CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH,CALIF. V
'�• i
N
RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, 809 EAST BAY AVENUE, IN
CENTRAL BALBOA, CALIFORNIA.
Gentlemen:
As owner and resident of the subject property, I am requesting
an amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan in order to pro-
vide for rezoning the property to R-2 from the current C-1 de-
signation and to replace the obsolete single family residence
with a new duplex residence. The existing structure represents
a legal non -conforming use in the C-1 district.
The specific amendment requested is to change the designation
of my property from "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Two -
Family Residential" as shown on the Land Use Plan and the
Residential Growth Plan. This amendment, and subsequent rezon-
ing, would result in the addition of one lot to the existing
row of R-2 lots on the south side of Bay Avenue.
Changing the Plan to allow a new residential use would be con-
sistent with the adjacent R-2 zoning and new duplexes to the
east, and would maintain the residential character of this
bayfront street, (see attached plan).
In addition, the replacement of the existing obsolete structure
would greatly improve the quality of the general area.
I would like to maintain my residence at the subject property,
but conditions necessitate a new building, Therefore, your
review and approval of this request would be greatly appreciated.
Respectfully,
jJ .�00 Gl2/h'
Billie M. Hickok
Enclosure
AIEb PORT
84 Y - /SUBJECT
U, S, PIEQHEAD L/.vim ✓' �
MC:0479.710 Us,GOV'LMEANDE•RW.�� VAL.CQ�•3! '
<'OGEt•YA cam' ;�Z' .4 T
/Iz13y"' E'i
— — 8 AY
D d7 5 N .8of Do7• ? D// B/J' .fli
Dacaoa M el
o N o o
w_ �. / ;2o.a63 5 0 Cr
4 C o- -�
0 6' m La .p
z•3 Q •702 :1 aa• I790. - .a
_ AVE. 133� 81 V.C.P.
BAY ' 240' 8, V.C.P. ; o 12 C0 p, 5
° 16 0+4.
8-0430 0+39 GONG904
0« I °
/0«40 N 63 �0+
0 45 e O Sig
p+70 8 +o o /OOr84 0+�0/4 C. Gsp, I'G N�\ PUMgg.'D18
0+81 1 00 Q �^ 1+03 // .%� \OS 1• gst
4 1.04 1«25� «+°. .00
lP P l�
I«34
Jr 1+37 11�5
�0V 10
I � t�5. n 3_ S N.n tP W n" �. '• .n f3
� _�- t�/•�S. BV Hr-A11 .
4
VAC — 0 0 i
OD
eEa.sT6L N N N iD W O a' O
/2
3 Q 5 tO 9,e .sso tzz03 •�u .,,
� 2
OZ, .. 8" V•� r
go 226 r r
46
P.1
r /p .9/9' 9TJ• `
_.T .au•1.9L .,. 1 11 �2
12-16_74'.
LIDO PENINSULA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
c/o 711 Lido Park Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
D?cember 17, 1974 �1t C l i; fps •• ; ,
CITY or.
To the Planning Commission i{, nev✓acrlr ,_,,r.F{ /
and The City Council CALIr.
City of Newport Beach o�*,
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92660
SUBJECT: Amendment to Change the General Plan Zoning and Land Use
Element for Lido Peninsula
Gentlemen:
We, tile undersigned, representing the residents of Lido Peninsula,
ask that the zoning for Lido Peninsula be changed to RESIDENTIAL
ZONING for all parcels currently under Residential Uses, And all
proposad commercial plans be stopped...
We believe the present General Plan "PC" Zoning and the Land Use
Elements are grossly in error and should be changed to restrict
Lido Peninsula to Residential Uses Only for the following reasons:
1. To make Lido Peninsula a more desireable living area for
present and future residents and for the City of Newport
Beach...
2. To protect and insure the future appreciation and growth of
over 25 million dollars of our residential property values
now existing... and for subsequent long term benefit of future
residents and the City of Newport Beach...
3. To stop and reduce further environmental problems of noise,
air, water and traffic pollution of Lido Peninsula in
particular... and Newport Beach in general. We can do this
only be DECREASING TRAFFIC, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS and by
DISCOURAGING TOURISM onto our land locked, primarily
Residential area...:
4. Lido Peninsula is NOT SUITED to commercial developments
whose success is greatly dependent on drawing large numbers
of people from wide areas over major traffic arteries! The
present restaurants on Lido Peninsula are largely responsible
for slow sales of condominiums recently completed and have
greatly affected present resales of established condominiums
and mobilehomes on the Lido Peninsula. Futher invasions of
commercial developments can only be more disastrous to all
of us! Vie do not wish our area to be an experiment for
determining if an "...interesting mix..." of commercial and
Lido Peninsula Amendment
Page 2
residential can be successful...: We believe it will be
detrimental and should not be attempted.,.:
5. To protect the present merchants in our already over -
commercialized, poorly -planned, restaurant and shopping
areas near Lido Peninsula. Failures, high turn -over,
low sales and high vacancy factor in the Cannery.,.Lido
Shops, Lido Village Shopping Center strongly indicate the
undesireability of any additional dilution of their business
with additional commercial ventures just a few blocks away
in our residential area!
6. To insure that Newport Beach residential and commercial
areas be SEPARATED and NOT "...mixed..." so that each may
live and prosper without detriment to each other.
7. Lastly, WE WANT THE LIDO PENINSULA TO BE A RESIDENTIAL AREA --
VIE DON'T NEED ANY MORE RESTAURANTS OR COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHI-
MENTS ON LIDO PENINSULA... WE DON'T EVEN NEED THOSE THAT
PRESENTLY EXIST AND WOULD LIKE THEM MOVED NORTH OF
LAFAYETTE AND OFF THE PENINSULA...!
We believe the angry and ignored protests of over 680 petitioners at
recent hearings who were and are strongly opposed to Commercial
Invasions of the Lido Peninsula are, " ..the voice of the people.,."
and should be heard and acted on...: THIS IS OUR MANDATE TO THE
PLANNING COMMISON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF AND THE CITY COUNCIL..,
In accordance with California State Law, we request this ammendment
be considered by the planning commission at the February meeting and
that we be heard in the matter. -
%,iyr Li 71,
V
''`� �.�s';"�r-w'L-LI '7 / / �d a ��( �-',may' , •
Signed Address
r
all
Lido Peninsula Amendment Page 3
Signed Address
�,,-1 ..;z` : ,;r �.v ,�l�--vim
�.
N IT
(�
il•�{,2�..Lr.n-t�;ti� ��' �(.id:��CLrz(� cf�IASL
,
i�491,e SI12. IY4��j/L3L%`i�-.�
a
..�•C- ^'� • Cif-l't CC..�
r
`•`�� / �V1.V.) 6 \ � wLl�Lr1/ ��' ICY•/�. ,Ai i,��.+ta ��•....��C�-�1. �7 `'1_1.'7
THE
550 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92663
(714) 644-3011
December 18, 1974
Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92660
Attention - R. Hogan, Director of Community Development
Gentlemen:
Subject: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PROPERTY LOCATED ON PACIFIC
COAST HIGHWAY EASTERLY OF JAMBOREE
The Irvine Company respectfully requests that the General Plan of the
City of Newport Beach be amended concerning the property located along
Pacific Coast Highway easterly of Jamboree. This parcel is presently
shown as residential and we are requesting that this land use be changed
to "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial".
This property was formerly reserved for the Pacific Coast Highway and
was not included in the overall Newport Center development plans. Since
the deletion of the freeway, land use studies have been prepared and
indicate that the existing designation is not compatible with the sur-
rounding development because of the close proximity to Pacific Coast
Highway and the noise, pollution and traffic associated with the high-
way.
Thank you very much for consideration of this matter, and if we may be
of any help please contact me at your earliest convenience.
Verytrulyyours,
David B. Neish
Manager
Planning Administration
DBN:ms
cc: A. Auer
C. Buchanan
D. Schnorr
January 2, 1975 of
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Paul Ryckoff
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
I request that the following General Plan amendments be considered:
Land Use Element - Page 4, Residential. This section has three sub -categories
Low Density, Two Family, and Multi -Family. Low Density Residential includes
varying densities up to a maximum of ten dwelling units per gross acre.
It is proposed that this classification be redefined to Low Density
Residential with varying densities up to a maximum of four d.u. per
buildable acre. An example of this density is Irvine Terrace, an
attractive and successful residential development.
It is proposed that Medium Density Residential be established as a
sub -category to cover from the Low Density Residential standards to
a maximum of eight d.u, per buildable acre.
Residential Growth Element
"The Effect of Residential Growth on Support Systems" - Page (i). At present
this element states there are no physical constraints (in terms of limited
capacity of the physical systems) and no major economic threshold points" in
the cost of providing services. It states in effect that severely limiting
growth would bring "some reduction in potential traffic volume on certain links
of the street system."
Now over a year later this analysis requires amendment and the objectives should
be restated to reflect current priorities.
Similarly, the paragraph "The Effect of Residential Growth on the Environment"
should be amended. The following language is proposed:
"The Effect of Residential Growth on Support Systems" - It is apparent
that support systems in keeping up with growth have reached plateaus
of effectiveness, cost and environmental acceptance. In Newport Beach
a number of problems are evident. Traffic, like air pollution, seems
to be a continually increasing problem. Despite all the efforts and
expenditures made, no improvement is in sight; in fact, control seems
unattainable unless fuel cost becomes so high as to curtail driving.
Similarly, electrical energy is not the limitless source it was thought
to be. Now the Edison Company warns of energy curtailments unless
fuel becomes more available and it is allowed to build more plants.
The addition of fossilfull plant has been denied because of the severe
degradation of air quality resulting from its operation. This may be
a particular problem in -Newport Beach as the air patterns spread the
effluent from the Huntington Beach plant back and forth over this area.
Natural gas shortages are indicated with the prospect of curtailing supply
• -2-
to interruptible sources. Solid waste disposal is a constraint nation-
wide.
If support systems are limited as indicated, then it is logical that
growth be structured so as to not exceed their capability. These
limits are so compelling as to make other objectives secondary. En-
couraging redevelopment in certain areas is desirable, encouraging
innovative architecture and attractive residential building is desir-
able, the conflict between taxation and the desirability of low in-
tensity land use is recognized, yet these concepts must be subordinated
to existing support conditions.
It appears that new developments, added population and commercial activity,
will draw on support systems at the expense of the existing users. The
only possible conclusions call for economy in their use by existing
users, and addition of new users in a controlled manner.
The Effect of Residential Growth on the Environment - Page (ii) and
Page iii . The local environmental problems which result from popu-
lation growth have both local and regional sources. However, it is
apparent that a reduction in potential residential growth will mitigate
these problems.
In view of these considerations, it can be said that the major issue
is Quality of the Living Environment, and secondarily, Community
Character.
Traffic and air quality problems are noted above as becoming progress-
ively worse. Air pollution is a function of energy consumption, which
has been a function of population growth.
Newport Bay water quality has deteriorated as a result of growth in Newport
Beach and Orange County to the point of being off-limits to swimming
(upper bay) and visually repugnant as well in lower bay. Any new develop-
ments that would significantly add run-off and drainage pollutants in the
bay should be curtailed until control of this problem is achieved.
The visual environment is affected by the type and character of develop-
ment and the proposals in this report reflect consideration for the
housing mix and the size of residential structures. Based on this con-
sideration and the policies in the General Plan Policy Report, the
Residential Growth Element proposes to:
1) Assure a continuing predominance of single-family and
duplex units and limit the potential number of multi-
family units.
2) Limit the size of residential structures to prevent massive,
boxy and out -of -character buildings and overbuilding of
small lots.
Until a point system or other means of keying support systems and environ-
mental issues directly to zoning and growth is adopted, this element
proposes to set guidelines to limit growth to that compatible with the
physical and environmental limitations noted.
-3-
General City-wide Residential Zoning Policies (Page 1) should be amended to
include a definition of buildable acreage as follows:
Buildable acreage includes the entire sites less areas with a slope
of greater than two to one and does not include any portion of
perimeter streets or open space.
Specific zoning policy changes are proposed as follows:
(Page 23) - Statistical Division J, Castaways site. It is proposed
that the residential portion of this area be classified Low Density
Residential, as defined above. The revised section would read as
follows:
1) Residential development in the southermost vacant area
(the Castaways site) shall be limited to a maximum over-
all density of 4 dwelling units per buildable acre.
The effect would be as follows:
Castaways - Div. J:
+ 54 a. Gross x 8 DU's/a. = 432 DU's
+ 48 a. Buildable x 4 DU's/a. _ (-) 192 DU's
240 DU Reduction
(x 3.3 persons/DU = 792 Pop. Reduction)
(Page 25) - Statistical Division K, vacant site north of the Newporter.
It is proposed that this area be classified Low Density Residential
as defined above. The revised section would read as follows:
1) Residential development in the large vacant site north
of the Newporter Inn shall be limited to a maximum over-
all density of 4 dwelling units per buildable acre.
The effect would be as follows:
Newporter - Div. K:
+ 80 a. Gross x 8 DU's/a. = 640 DU's
+ 70 a. Buildable x 4 DU's/a. + (-) 280 DU's
360 DU Reduction
(x 3.3 persons/DU = 1,188 Pop. Reduction)
(Page 27) - Statistical Division L, Jamboree Rd. and Coast Highway.
It is proposed that the area fronting on Jamboree Rd. across from the
Newporter be considered medium density residential with a maximum of
six d.u. per buildable acre. The area fronting on Coast Highway, east
of Jamboree Rd. should be designated for Low Density Residential as
defined above, and for commercial as an alternate use, with floor area
ratio control to insure low intensity use with low traffic generation.
Low intensity use with low traffic generation should result in no
greater traffic impact than Low Density Residential. The revised
section would read as follows:
2) Residential development shall be permitted on the vacant
area on Jamboree Road and the Coast Highway which backs
up on the Country Club with a maximum average density
of 6 dwelling units per buildable acre on that portion
of the site fronting on Jamboree and 4 dwelling units
per buildable acre on Coast Highway. Additional sites
for residential development in Newport Center shall be
permitted at a density not to exceed 35 dwelling units per
acre, subject to the approval of the City.
The effect would be as follows:
Jamboree and Coast Highway Site - Div. L:
+ 47 a. Gross x 8 DU/s/a. = 376 DU's
+ 40 a. Buildable:
Jamboree Frontage: + 24 a. x 6 DU's/a. = 144 DU's
Coast Highway Frontage: + 16 a. x 4 DU's/a.= 64 DU's
Site Total:
168 DU Reduction
(x 3.3 persons/DU = 686 Pop. Reduction)
As can be seen, the reductions are significant in each area. They do not appear
as significant in the City-wide figures or even Division figures. However, it
is suggested that the area figures are important in considering the mitigation
of the effect of growth on support systems and the environment.
The element states (Page ii) that major issues are quality of the living environ-
ment and community character, and as a policy (Page 1) that density of all
future residential development shall be limited to the lowest feasible and
reasonable level. The above amendments are proposed to bring about a more
reasonable growth and to comply with community sentiment which has been affronted
by developments which, in character, density, scale, or mass are totally out
of harmony with the City and the immediate environment. Compelling reasons
for the amendments are the concepts outlined in the "Effect of Residential
Growth on Support Systems" and "Effect of Residential Growth on the Environment."
" ;
PAUL RYCKOFF
E
1"(10 JASNI.� I- ,:0.;_NUE f ' N `•.ij
City Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA. 92660
Regarding,: Land Use Plan
Corona Del Mar, CA.
Honorable Council Members:
,;AL:1'O11NIA 926,�5 - (714) 644 81 i 1
ff - -3 (a-)
19 August, 1974
/ c�ryFc�
The above mentioned Land Use Plan indicates a "Recreational
and Environmental Open Space" Corridor -along the northwest
side of Marguerite Avenue adjacent to Jasmine Creek Development.
There is currently under construction a ten foot concrete
sidewalk, a small landscaped space and a concrete block wall
para+biil to that area. Either the tentative tract was approved
without conforming to the open space plan, or our City's
standards are so.low they need upgrading.
Bayside Chive has a much wider greenbelt corridor, but it is
not indicated on the Land Use Plan.
There is also a graphic conflict between elements. The Open
Space Element indicates a neighborhood park along Marguerite
Avenue between Harbor View and 5th Avenue, whereas the Land
Use Plan indicates half of this area devoted to low -density
residential housing.
It would appear prudent to admend the Land Use Plan deleting
the non-existent greenbelt and adding the park area to the
plan. This park area is one of the significant open spaces
within the City. It offers a rare window of the Bay as you
drive down Marguerite toward the ocean. This should be
preserved.
cc: Mr. Warren James
The Irvine Co.
Very truly yours,
nz/ i%:
Curd -Turner Company
717 Lido Park Drive - Newport Beach, California - Phone: (714) 673.1060 - Mailing Address: Box 1457, Newport Beach, Calif. 93663
January 14, 1975
The Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92660
Re: Proposed Amendments to the General Plan Affecting Lido Peninsula
Gentlemen:
I am writing to you with reference to the request by the Lido Peninsula
Community Association to change the existing P-C zone.
Curci-Turner Company is the owner of approximately 75% of the property
on Lido Peninsula which substantially represents the remaining property
that might be subject to redevelopment at a later date. Curci-Turner
Company is not in support of any zone change at this time. We feel
that the existing P-C zone provides the community more than adequate
control over any substantial changes to the existing uses on our pro-
perty. Under the current P-C zone any substantial change in the exist-
ing uses would be subject to an approved Area Plan. This safeguard,
we feel, provides the Lido Peninsula Community Association with an
ample opportunity to participate in the planning process at the time any
substantial changes are proposed.
Further, under the P-C zone, the diversity of uses that now exist, i.e.
Lido Shipyard, Lido Mobile Home Park and Lido Yacht Anchorage, can best
be operated under the language of the text of the P-C zone. We are
presently satisfied with the businesses that we are operating and do
not have any intention of changing those operations in the near future.
Lastly, the policy guidelines of the General Plan encourage the preserva-
tion of marine repair services and other related uses, and we feel that
the current P-C zone and the current use of the property deals with this
policy,
We therefore ask that the Commission not consider any changes to the
P-C zone for our property.
Very truly yours,
CURCI-TURNER COMPANY
r
Jo n L. Curci
JLC:eg
RECEIVED
C.,, ••:,njty
D_. _,,prnent
Dept.
JAN 1519752,-
CITY OF
NEWPORfBEACH,�
CALIF.
1151 DOVE ST., rl-hW NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 714/675-5530 831.3434
January 14, 1975
To: Newport Beach Planning Commission
Concerning: Proposal submitted by Paul Ryckoff to amend the Land
Use Element and Residential Growth Element of the
General Plan.
I would like to recommend, as a member of SPON, that the proposal
identified above be set for public hearing for the following rea-
sons:
We believe that the quality of life in Newport Beach is deter-
iorating as a result of the increased traffic and increased
drainage into the bay caused by over -development; without ap-
propriate constraints in the case of the bay; and without an
imminent solution to roadway congestion in the case of traffic.
We believe that the vested interests of the homeowners must
supercede those in conflict with the idea of further limiting
density in Newport Beach until such time as the deterioration
of the quality of the bay is defined and remedied and until
the congestion of our major roadways, such as Coast Highway,
Dover Drive, and Bayside Drive is clearly destined for a so-
lution which will unequivocally accommodate any proposed ad-
ditional traffic load.
Any deterioration of the environmental quality of Newport
Beach is also of interest to the visitors who come here for
a uniquely enjoyable recreational experience --a factor which
must be weighed against other national concerns such as need
for housing.
Sincerely,
�CGs/J GUl1.Z�i
Jean Watt
4 Harbor Island
Newport Beach
California, 92660
�1
1151 DOVE ST., #150 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 714/675-5530 834-3434
January 1,4, 1975
Planning Department
Newport Beach City Hall
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, Calif. 92660
Dear Sirs:
I have had an opportunity to read the General Plan Amend-
ments presented to your department by Mr. Paul Ryckoff. Iam
in complete agreement with the fact that density should be
based on buildable acreage instead of gross acreage.
It is evident in the traffic situation alone that our
present support systems cannot accommodate the present density
level of 8 units per gross acre, so I also recommend that this
density be lowered to 4 dwelling units per buildable acre
in residential developments.
You may know, that the SPON group has presented a morator-
ium on building permits on undeveloped acreage to the City
Council because of the run-off and drainage pollutants dumped
into the bay infringe on the vested rights of the homeowners
of Newport Beach. This is a problem we have right now, any
further development without restrictions or laws to prevent
such deterioration of the bay will only complicate the problem.
Sincerely,
Shirley,Knutsen
321 Coral Ave.
Balboa Island, Calif.
v
9 REc�`•"..t2 � �
5-I P of „�N.
'OS�•` NEvae°�'i•' • 12
r.NAw• S vrs
•
MRS. HOWARD H. MORGRIDGB
#1 BAY ISLAND
BALBOA, CALMORNIA 92661
ow►v.o .N%4, 1 q 7 S
v� p�r��•'�O w avh W� r.R. v-�,h��'S► a�l� 4 �w.. Y�•�•�
vv�k
0
v 0
•
u 3�
inrs. Yinq Gurslein
051 BAYSIOR ORIVR NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92642
i N v J
af0022
.S
Commun•CO
Da
t
VnoLne
c`LL
JAN l 61975,.
N�WP CITY op
CALIF.�CH,
a
r o�a S c4 r\ Pam. 3\Z
�r0 U 2 Q rDYy-v�rNlor1
A
rO �.� ��S
�6C5S
1HE IRVINE QON
610 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92663
Albert J. Auer
Vice President
Commercial Division
January 8, 1975
oo° o
Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach �L000ij�
3300 Newport 9 Ry�rBT 9�S
Newport Beach, California 92660
Attention: Robert.L. Wynn, City Manager p ril
Gentlemen:
We appreciate your granting us the opportunity to appear
informally at your study session on Monday, January 13,
1975. We would like to discuss with you at that time
the possibility of a change in the General Plan for the
area located at the northeast corner of Jamboree and
Pacific Coast Highway.
The General Plan now calls for this area to be developed
in a residential manner. We would like to suggest that
a more compatible use for this land would be to develop
it commercially. Several reasons are stated below as to
why we feel it would be a better commercial project than
a residential one.
1. The economic benefits to the City are far greater in
a commercial versus a residential development in•view
of the tax base generated by commercial office
buildings and the need for limited services is a cost
factor to the City.
2. It is a poor planning area for residential use due to
the noise and the pollution caused by excessive
traffic at this key intersection. Office buildings
would be far less affected and would be a better
planning solution.
3. There is a need in the future for this type of a
commercial office building market - one that would,
bring desirable headquarter companies to the Newport
Members -of the City Council
City of Newoo•rt Beach January 821675
.Beach area, thereby generating additional tax base
and also additional buying power for the various
commercial and residential developments.
4.t Newport Center is designated as the urban develop-
ment area for Newport Beach and all urban uses
should be concentrated here and the area 'should not
be diluted since a strong base of commercial devel-
opment now exists.
S. By locating all commercial uses in one area, the
ability of rapid transit to be effective is far
greater than if there is a smattering of these Uses
over a broad area.
6. The Environmental Protection Agency is recommending
exactly the same argument as advanced in item,5
above.
7.1 The identity of this location is very important and
the:land values, which in turn generate tax revenue
to the City of Newport Beach, would be higher
because of the ab"ility of the commercial users to
pay for the identity location.
8. By a careful placing of office buildings on this
location with a view toward open corridors to the
golf course, the auto traffic on Pacific Coast
Highway will have a better view of the golf course
than they would if the area were residential and
closed by a fence. The beauty and'integrity of the
entire center plan would thus be preserved.
We shall look forward to, visiting with you.on Monday,
January 13th.
Sincerely,
r
'A�
�
ert Auer
AJA:sj
January 17, 1975
Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
3303 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92660
Members of the Planning Commission:
Subject - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST NO. 5
The Irvine Company respectfully
report list for proposed General
public hearing in February.
67•IV, JL
550 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92663
(714) 644-3011
requests that Item 5 on the staff
Plan Amendments not be set for
The suggested amendment is unwarranted in our judgement for the
following reasons:
It appears to select certain Irvine Company parcels
for discriminatory treatment.
2. Barely a year has passed since General Plan criteria
for these parcels, and the City as a whole, were
arrived at by th6 Planhing Commission and City Council,
after extensive studies and public hearings. We do
not believe that circumstances today are substantially
different in terms of the conclusions that were reached
a year ago. To reopen the subject would appear to be
an unwarranted exercise in reassessing information and
decisions validly reached.
The suggested amendment clearly has serious implications
for areas designated for residential use throughout the
City, whether or not this was intended by the author.
We question whether the proposal has had sufficient analy-
sis as to its City-wide implications, to be the subject
of meaningful consideration.
4. Finally, we feel compelled to remind the Commission that
in the events leading to last year's adoption of the
General Plan by the City Council, The Irvine Company made
numerous adjustments and compromises from its earlier plans
and projections in order to accommodate City policies di-
rected to reducing the City's ultimate population. You
will recall that substantial downward adjustments in
Planning Commission 2 January 17, 1975
City of Newport Beach
allowable density for the parcels in question were im-
posed by the City and accepted by The Irvine Company
reluctantly, but in the context of setting standards
on which the Company could rely for all remaining un-
developed Irvine lands within the City.
We strongly feel that the spirit of cooperation and accommodation
which resulted in the adoption of the General Plan last year, with
the support of The Irvine Company, should not be abrogated.
We urge most strongly that the suggested amendment be tabled.
Ver truly urs,
omas C. Wol f, Jr.
Senior Vice President
Land Development
TCW:ms
r.
RESOLUTION NO. 905
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DECLARING ITS
INTENTION TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF VARIOUS
AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach
sets forth objectives and supporting policies to be followed in
the planning of the future development of said City; and
WHEREAS, Section 707 of the City Charter of the City of
Newport Beach requires the Planning Commission to hold a public
hearing prior to the adoption of any amendment of the General
Plan,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning
Commission intends to consider adoption of the following various
amendments:
(1) An amendment to the Land Use and Residential Growth
Elements changing land use designation of Pacific View property
(50 acres, north of Pacific View Memorial Park) from "Governmental,
Educational and Institutional" to "Low Density Residential";
(2) An amendment to the Land Use and Residential Growth
Elements changing land use designation of lot at 809 East Bay
Avenue (in Central Balboa) from "Retail and Service Commercial"
to "Two -Family Residential",
(3) An amendment to the Land Use and Residential Growth
Elements changing land use designation for the property on the
north side of Coast Highway easterly of Jamboree Road from "Low
Density Residential" to "Administrative, Professional and Financial
Commercial";
(4) An amendment to the Land Use and Residential Growth
Elements redefining "Low Density Residential"; creating a new
category, "Medium Density Residential"; applying redefined "Low
Density Residential" designation to Castaway, North Newporter
and a portion of Jamboree/Coast Highway vacant sites; applying new
"Medium Density Residential" designation to a portion of Jamboree/
Coast Highway vacant sites; and changing the wording in the Resi-
-1-
dential Growth Element;
(5) An amendment to the Land Use, Residential Growth
and Recreation and Open Space Elements changing the land use
designation -of the vacant parcel at the corner of Harbor View
Drive and Marguerite Avenue from "Low Density Residential" to
"Open Space";
(6) An amendment to the Land Use Element to designate the
Old Newport Boulevard area for a specific area plan,
at a public hearing to be held on the 20th day of February, 1975,
at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport
Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the Newport
Beach Planning Commission is hereby directed to publish notice of
said hearing in accordance with the requirements of law.
Regularly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission
of the City of Newport Beach, State of California, on the 16th
day of -January, 1975.
1, 1
Chairman Willia Hazewinkel
HRC:kb
-2- 1/22/75
PEOPLE NOTIFIED ON FEBRUARY 18, 1975 CONCERNING FEBRUARY 20, 1975
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS:
G.P. Amendment #16
Ron Yeo (left word with secretary).
G.P. Amendment #18
No one.
G.P. Amendment #19
Billie Hickok
G.P. Amendment #20
No one.
G.P. Amendment #21
Betty Ripley
Jean Watt
Shirley Knutsen (Tim called)
Alice Morgridge
Mrs. King Burstein
Bill Banning (Phoned on 2-19-75)
G.P. Amendment #22
No one.
G.P. Amendment #23
Per Fred,T. the following people who own businesses on
the Coast Highway were notified of the meeting:
Don Haskell (message left with his secretary on 2-19-75).
John Jakosky (notified 2-19-75)
Everett Bieger (message left with his wife(?) on 2-19-75).
Dick Stevens (message left with his secretary on 2-19-75).
`COMMISSIONERS . CITY OF NEWPORT F&ACH
71!a
Regular Planning Commission Meeting
=vPlace: City Council Chambers MINUTES
ipNTime: 7:00 P.M.
Im Date: January 16. 1975 IuncY
I Present
Motion
All Ayes
Motion
Ayes
Abstain
X
X
X
X
X
X
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS
R. V. Hogan, Community Developmdnt Director
Hugh Coffin, Assistant City Attorney
Benjamin B. Nolan, City Engineer
STAFF MEMBERS
James D. Hewicker, Assistant Director - Planning
William R. Foley, Environmental Coordinator
Robert Lenard, Associate Planner
Shirley Harbeck, Secretary
X
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 19,
1975 were approved as written.
X
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 2, 1975
X
X
X
X
X
were approved with the amendment that Page 6
X
reflect that prior to the motion in connection
with Use Permit No. 1677, discussion and consider-
ation was given to the availability of public -
parking in the adjacent areas, both on street and
in the parking lots, as a means of minimizing any
impact which may be created by the restaurant.
Request to permit the extension of a use permit
USE
which allows the operation of a commercial nursery
PERMIT
and related retail sales, including the sale of
1683
garden furniture, in the R-A District.
EXTENSION
Location: Portion of Block 93, Irvine's
GRANTED
Subdivision, located on the south
C N�Df—
side of San Joaquin Hills Road
TION�ILLY
between MacArthur Boulevard and
proposed New MacArthur Boulevard,
in Harbor View Hills.
Zone: R-A
Applicant: Roger's Gardens, -Newport Center
Owner: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach
Page 1.
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF INEWPORT WCN
yfilmD m 9 m�
n m p
m �m ya mR v
Z A P 0
PART T
lanuary 16. 1975
MINUTES
WHEY
Assistant Community Development Director Hewicker
reviewed the request and the staff report with the,
Commission.
Planning Commission discussed amending the General
Plan to reflect the actual use of the property
should the determination be made that such an
amendment was necessary.
Planning Commission questioned notification of the
homeowners in the area and Assistant Community
Development Director Hewicker advised that notice
had been sent to the Broadmoor Community Associa-
tion and subsequent contact disclosed that there
were no objections to extending the lease; they
were pleased with the development; and their only
request was that the condition under the original
use permit which limited height of buildings be
extended to include the landscaping.
Planning Commission discussed the length of the
lease and continuation of the use which was
originally considered as being of a temporary
nature.
Lewis Whitney, General Manager of Roger's Gardens
appeared before the Commission and advised of the
problems involved in obtaining long term financing
under the present use permit and therefore request-
ed that the use permit be extended to cover a
period of 55 years to coincide with the term of
the lease on which they had a verbal commitment
from the landowner and which will be finalized if
the use permit is extended.
Motion
y
Following discussion, motion was made to grant the
Ayes
X
X
X
Y
Y
extension of Use Permit No. 1683, subject to the
Noes
following conditions, and that an amendment to the
General Plan was neither necessary nor desirable
as this was a specific type of use uniquely
compatible,with the area:
1. That this approval shall be for a period of
time to coincide with the lease of the site
but not to exceed 55 years.
2. That all remaining applicable conditions of
Use Permit No. 1683 and Resubdivision No. 401
shall be fulfilled.
3. That the remaining public improvements along
Old MacArthur Boulevard frontage, which
include pavement widening, curb and gutter,
Page 2.
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT %kCH
n m �
m'i`m a � rcC
m�Z Pp u+
19 107G
MINUTES
j Inunn
sidewalk, and street lights, shall be
completed.
4. That the maximum height of all landscaping
on the site shall not exceed 279 feet above
Mean Sea Level.
Commissioner Seely stepped down from the dais and
refrained from deliberation on the following
matter and was therefore deemed absent.
Item #1
Request to amend a previously approved variance
VARIANCE
,1032
that permitted an increase in the allowable floor
area of a duplex'for additional garage space. Said
AMENDED
amendment is requested so as to cover an addition-
al portion of the subterranean parking area and
APPROVED
thereby further increase the allowable floor area
CC ff- —
and reduce the required easterly side yard from
TION7TLY
3 feet to zero.
Location: Lot 6, Block 60, Ocean Front,
located at 6011 Seashore Drive on
the southeasterly corner of 61st
Street and Seashore Drive in West
Newport.
Zone: R-2
Applicant: Earl Dexter, Newport Beach
Owner: Same as Applicant
Public hearing was opened in connection with this
matter.
Earl Dexter, applicant, appeared before the
Commission and advised of problems with vandalism
and noise. The area in question had been tempor-
arily covered, however, since construction did
not meet the Uniform Building Code, Mr. Dexter
was advised that the cover would have to be re-
constructed to conform to code. Mr. Dexter
agreed to making the required changes.
There being no others desiring to appear and be
heard, the public hearing was closed.
On the basis that the Planning Commission origin-
ally allowed the encroachment in order to park
Page 3.
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT *ACH
ILL
Motion
Ayes
Absent
m
Y
A
January 16 1975
MINUTES
r
' INDEX
five cars off the street and that the need to
cover the parking was substantiated by the appli-
X
cant, motion was made to amend Variance No. 1032,
X
X
X
X
X
subject to the following conditions:
X
1. That the enclosure of the subterranean garage
shall be reconstructed so as to comply with
the provisions of the Uniform Building Code.
Said enclosure shall be placed at a height
above the garage floor which will provide a
minimum clearance above the hoods of the
vehicles stored in the garage. However, in
no event shall the enclosure be constructed
less than 30 inches from the top of the
existing 6 foot high masonry wall along the
easterly side property line.
2. That building permits shall be obtained for
all new construction.
3. That all construction debris remaining in the
easterly side yard setback shall be removed.
Commissioner Seely returned to the dais.
Item #2
Proposed amendment to the Newport Beach Municipal
AMENDMENT
NO. 435
Code pertaining to the control and regulation of
signs.
APPROVED
Initiated by: City of Newport beach
AS
REVISED
Previous actions of the Planning Commission con-
cerning this matter were reviewed and it was the
concensus of the Planning Commission that much
public input had been received at previous hear-
ings and therefore discussion was in order to
arrive at some conclusion. Staff presented the
Commission with a"Proposed Order of Discussion"
agenda which was followed.
Environmental Coordinator Foley reviewed the
section regarding amortization.
There was much discussion by the Commission on
the issue of amortization vs. grandfathering and
in order to develop some concensus as to the text
Page 4.
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF N EVWPORT OkCH
➢� m y m Y R' �
n m �
G Z A u
PAII m
lanuary 16. 1975
MINUTES
INnEX
of the proposed sign ordinance, "straw votes" were
taken to determine changes to the draft ordinance
dated 11/25/74 as follows:
Proposal
X
That the section on amortization as outlined be
Ayes
X
X
approved increasing the differential cost from
Noes
X
X
X
X
Y
$100.00 to $500.00 and changing the period of time
for painted wall signs and signs costing less than
$500.00 from 120 days to 2 years. Proposal failed
Proposal
X
That the section on amortization as outlined be
Ayes
X
X
Y
approved increasing the differential cost from
Noes
X
X
X
X
$100.00 to $500.00 and changing the period of time
for painted wall signs and signs costing less than
$500.00 from 120 days to 2 years; deleting the
last two paragraphs on page 19, and providing that
all nonconforming major signs must be made to con—
form with all the provisions of this ordinance
when there is a change in either type or identity
(name) df a business. Proposal failed.
Proposal
X
That the section on amortization as outlined be
Ayes
X
X
X
X
approved increasing the differential cost from
Noes
X
X
X
$100.00 to $500.00, changing the period of time
for painted wall signs and signs costing less than
$500.00 from 120 days to 2 years, deleting the
last paragraph on page 19 and providing that all
nonconforming major signs must be made to conform
with all the provisions of this ordinance is
follows: Signs constructed prior to the enactment
of this ordinance must be made to conform with all
the provisions of this ordinance when there is a
change in either type of business or identity
(name) of a business and in any case by January 1,
1990. Proposal carried.
The proposed ordinance as it related to number of
signs was reviewed and discussed by the Commission
They also discussed the total sign area concept.
Following the discussion and in keeping with the
concept of obtaining a concensus by means of
"straw votes", the following proposals were made:
Proposal
N
That the limit on the number of signs and the
Ayes
X
X
X
X
X
Y
total sign area as proposed in the ordinance for
Noes
X
individual businesses (page 5) be as proposed
except that the maximum sign area be changed to
150 sq. ft.
Proposal
X
That the criteria for wall signs (page 11) remain
Ayes
X
X
X
X
Y
as proposed with the change that the maximum area
Noes
X
be 150 sq. ft.
Page 5.
COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT *4CH
MINUTES
Z f P N
0^11 eAll m January 16. 1975 iunEx
r
Proposal
X
That the recommendation pertaining to free -
Ayes
X
X
X
X
X
standing signs (page 12) remain as proposed.
Noes
X
Proposal
X
That the recommendation pertaining to projecting
Ayes
X
X
X
X
X
signs (page 11) remain as proposed.
Noes
X
Proposal
That the recommendation pertaining to roof signs
All Ayes
(page 12) be as proposed with the deletion of sub-
paragraph (a) and (b) and provide a maximum height
above grade of 26 feet.
Proposal
X
That lighting of signs (page 10) be approved as
All Ayes
recommended with the deletion of sub -paragraph (b).
Planning Commission discussed signs which are part
of a planned community, signs permitted under a
use permit, specific signing districts, and sign
Proposal
X
exceptions. Following discussion, proposal was
All Ayes
made which provided that signs constructed in
accordance with a planned community development
or specific use permit issued within a planned
community development or specific signing district
or signs for which an exception permit was granted
prior to the effective date of this ordinance
shall have the status of legal, conforming signs.
The distinction between multiple commercial devel-
opments and multi -tenant buildings was discussed
including proposed signing for each type of
business and the following changes were proposed.
Proposal
X
That multi -tenant buildings (page 7) be described
All Ayes
as containing three or more stories, and that the
wall signs in connection therewith contain a
maximum of 150 sq. ft. and the free standing
signs contain a maximum of 35 sq. ft.
Proposal
X
That the last two paragraphs on Page 6 be deleted.
IAll Ayes
Planning Commission recessed at 10:00 P.M. and
reconvened at 10:20 P.M.
Assistant City Attorney Coffin commented on the
ordinance from a legal standpoint and pointed out
areas of concern where discretionary authority was
granted to the Director of Community Development
without setting specific standards. Planning
Page 6.
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT 10ACH
T m4.➢Z mrC v
P
ROLL CALL
January 16, 1975
MINUTES
INDEX
Commission discussed the various areas of concern
and felt that for the present, discretionary
authority should be with the Planning Commission
rather than the Community Development Director
and requested that the various changes be made
throughout the ordinance.
Assistant City Attorney Coffin also commented on
the ordinance as it pertained to advertising signs
on vehicles and requested clarification in order
.that the ordinance could be written as intended.
Discussion was opened to the public for their
comments relative to the sign ordinance as pro-
posed and revised by the Commission.
George Perlin, Balboa, appeared before the Commis-
sion and felt there was no problem with the exist-
ing sign ordinance and therefore the proposed sign
ordinance should be denied.
Michael Gering, 1350 Sussex Lane, Newport Beach,
appeared before the Commission on behalf of the
Newport -Harbor Chamber of Commerce and read a
prepared statement in opposition to the proposed
ordinance.
Caroline Clucas, 4403 Seashore Drive, appeared
before the Commission and presented information
on the favorable effects which have taken place
as a result of more restrictive sign ordinances
which have been enacted by the Cities of Palm
Springs and Fremont.
Andrew Johnson, 3500 East Coast Highway Corona
del Mar, appeared before the Commission and
requested that "agent" be included as permitted
copy in real estate signs because of the number
of out-of-town landowners. The Commission
concurred this was a reasonable request.
There being no others desiring to appear and be
heard, the public hearing was closed.
Motion
Following discussion, motion was made recommending
Ayes
X
X
X
X
approval of Amendment No. 435, incorporating the
Noes
X
various changes heretofore agreed upon and includ-
ing the changes recommended by the City Attorney
relative to discretionary authority.
Commissioner Parker commented on the need for a
grandfather clause as opposed to amortization and
felt there was a need for a new ordinance but this
was not it.
Page 7.
I Motion
I Motion
COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT I♦ACH
T m£ z m y MINUTES
1 Z A P N
m January 16. 1975 .....�.
Item #3
Request to set public hearing for General Plan
GENERAL
Amendments.
PLAN
AMEND -
Discussion was opened in connection with the
MENTS
various requests.
SET FOR
Larry Lizotte, Vice President of Broadmoor Homes,
HEARING
17802 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, appeared before
the Commission to answer questions in connection
with the request to amend the Land Use and Resi-
dential Growth Elements by changing the land use
designation of Pacific View property from Govern-
mental, Educational and Institutional to Low
Density Residential. He briefly reviewed the
proposed project and requested that the amendment
be set for hearing.
Planning Commission discussed what information
was needed at this time to determine justification
for setting the public hearing as well as the cost
and time factors involved.
Based on the potential problems of growing inten-
sity in the area and feeling that this proposal
X
would contribute to these problems, motion was
made that the request to change the land use
designation of Pacific View property as requested
by Broadmoor Homes not be set for hearing.
Planning Commission discussed the procedures for
determining which requests for General Plan Amend-
ments should be set for hearing and there was some
feeling that the guidelines were inadequate.
X
Commissioner Williams withdrew his motion and a
new motion was made to set a public hearing for
February 20, 1975 on all of the requested General
Plan Amendments.
Chairman Hazewinkel invited comment on any and all
of the proposed requests to amend the General Plan
and advised of his abstention on all matters
involving The Irvine Company. Commissioner Heather
chaired the meeting during the time Commissioner
Hazewinkel was absent.
Dave Neish, Manager, Planning Administration,
The Irvine Company, appeared before the Commissio
and requested that the amendment to the Land Use ,
and Residential Growth Elements of the General
Plan as requested by Paul Ryckoff and listed as
Page 8.
COMMISSIONERS
I OAII rAl
yG1^'Y m Y m�
n m �
M o m Dl m< y
Z A p N
l m
• CITY OF
January 16, 1975
NEWPORT WACH
MINUTES
Item 5 in the staff report not be set for hearing
for the reasons stated in a letter which he read
into the record, signed by Thomas C. Wolff, Jr.,
Senior Vice President, Land Development, The
Irvine Company, dated January 16, 1975.
Robert Shelton, 500 Newport Center Drive, appeared
before the Commission on behalf of Curci-Turner
Company in order to determine that a letter dated
January 14, 1975, signed by John L. Curci, opposing
a request to change the land use designation for
Lido Peninsula had been received and was made a
part of the record.
Mr. John Kingsley, Acting President of the Lido
Peninsula Community Association appeared before
the Commission and requested that the requested
amendment to the Land Use and Residential Growth
Elements of the General Plan relative to the Lido
Peninsula be set for hearing.
Jean Watt, #4 Harbor Island, appeared before the
Commission on behalf of S.P.O.N. and requested
that the amendment to the Land Use and Residential
Growth Elements of the General Plan as proposed by
Paul Ryckoff and listed as Item 5 in the staff
report be set for hearing in order to preserve the
environment and control density.
Bobbie Riddle,resident of Lido Peninsula appeared
before the Commission in favor of setting the
public hearing to amend the Land Use and Residen-
tial Growth Elements of the General Plan in
connection with the Lido Peninsula.
Commissioner Seely requested withdrawal of the
motion setting all the items for public hearing
in order that each matter could be considered
individually. Following discussion of the request,
the motion was withdrawn.
Action was then taken on the requests involving
The Irvine Company in order that Commissioner
Hazewinkel could return to the dais and partici-
pate in the other requests.
Motion
X
Motion was made to set for hearing on February 20,
Ayes
X
X
X
X
X
X
1975, the request to amend the Land Use and
Absent
X
Residential Growth Elements of the General Plan
by changing the .land use designation for the
property on the north side of Coast Highway east-
erly of Jamboree Road from Low Density Residential
to Administrative, Professional and Financial
Page 9.
COMMISSIONERS
r�°'my m v mi
.c 2 p j0 N
PAl l T
CITY OF NEWPORT WCH
January 16, 1975,
MINUTES•
rV11137
Commercial.(Requested by The Irvine Company,
property owner.)
Motion
X
Motion was made to set for hearing on February 20,
Ayes
X
X
X
X
1975, the request to amend the Land Use and Resi-
Noes
X
X
dential Growth Elements of the General Plan in
Absent
X
order to redefine Low Density Residential; create
a new category known as Medium Density Residential
apply the redefined Low -Density Residential desig-
nation to Castaway, North Newporter, and a portion
of Jamboree/Coast Highway vacant sites; apply new
Medium Density Residential designation to a por-
tion of Jamboree/Coast Highway vacant site; change
wording in Residential Growth Element. (Requested
by Paul Ryckoff.)
Commissioner Hazewinkel returned'to the dais.
Motion
X
Motion was made to set for hearing on February 2.0,
1975, the request to amend the Land Use and
Residential Growth Elements of the General Plan
changing the land use designation on Pacific View
property (50 acres, north of Pacific View Memorial
Park) from Governmental, Educational and Institu-
tional to Low Density Residential. (Requested by
Broadmoor Homes, Inc.)
Discussion indicated there was some feeling that
this request was a "cart before the horse" situa-
tion and that there were procedural problems
involved which needed further review. The questio
was raised as to how much preliminary information
would be necessary in order to make a decision at
the General Plan level and it was felt this also
needed further study.
Ayes
X
X
X
X
X
Following discussion, the motion was voted on and
Noes
carried.
Motion
X
Motion was made to set fo-r hearing on February 20,
All Ayes
1975, an amendment to the Land Use and Residential
Growth Elements of the General Plan to change the
land use designation of the lot at 809 East Bay
Avenue (in Central Balboa) from Retail and Service
Commercial to Two -Family Residential. (Requested
by Billie M. Hickok, property owner.)
Motion
X
Motion was made to set for hearing on February 20,
1975, an amendment to the Land Use and Residential
Growth Elements of the General Plan to change the
land use designation for Lido Peninsula to provide
for only residential use for all areas currently
under residential use and to prohibit further
Page 10.
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT B(#CH
:rl m Y m �
m
m F m Y� m� Y
CALL
(Ayes
Noes
(Motion
Ayes
Abstain
Motion
All Ayes
MINUTES
rvunuu.J .v, .+... R"VGA
commercial development. (Requested by the Lido
Peninsula Community Association.)
Discussion 'of the motion included the fact that
consideration was recently given to this matter,
that the area was appropriate for a specific area
plan to be developed within the General Plan
designation as presently established, that the
major landowner indicated a time factor of approx-
imately 10 years before redevelopment and any
planning by the staff prior to that time would be
premature.
X
Following discussion, motion was voted on and
X
X
X
X
X
failed.
Motion was made to set for hearing on February 20,
X
X
N
X
X
1975, an amendment to the Land Use, Residential
X
Growth and Recreation and Open Space Elements of
the General Plan changing the land use designation
of the vacant parcel at the corner of Harbor View
Drive and Marguerite Avenue from Low Density
Residential to Open Space.
Motion was made to set for hearing on February 20,
1975, an amendment to the Land Use Element of the
General Plan in order to designate the 0ld Newport
Boulevard area for a Specific Area Plan, by adding
a Specific Area Plan designation on the Land Use
Plan (map).
RESOLUTION
O.905
********
Planning Commission Resolution No. 905 setting a
SUMMARY OF
ITEMS SET
public hearing for February.20, 1975 to consider
FOR PUBLIC
Amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan
HEARING
included the following items as reflected by the
above actions:
FEB. 20
1. Land Use and Residential Growth Elements -
Change land use designation of Pacific View
property (50 acres, north of Pacific View
Memorial Park) from "Governmental, Educational
and Institutional" to "Low Density Residential".
(Requested by Broadmoor Homes, Inc.)
2. Land Use and Residential Growth Elements -
Change land use designation of lot at 809 East
Bay Avenue (in Central Balboa) from "Retail
and Service Commercial" to "Two -Family
Residential." (Requested by Billie M. Hickok,
property owner.)
Page 11.
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT *4C8
I ROIL CALL
Motion
All Ayes
Motion
Al Ayes
ro
x
l�nu�r+v 1G. 1079
MINUTES
3. Land Use and Residential Growth Elements -
Change land use designation for the property
on the north side of Coast Highway easterly
of Jamboree Road from "Low Density Residential
td "Administrative, Professional and Financial
Commercial." (Requested by The Irvine Company,
property owner.)
4. Land Use and Residential Growth Elements -
Redefine "Low Density Residential"; create new
category: "Medium Density Residential"; ap.ply
redefined "Low -Density Residential" designa-
tion to Castaway, North Newporter, and a
portion of Jamboree/Coast Highway vacant
sites; apply new "Medium Density Residential"
designation to a portion of Jamboree/Coast
Highway vacant site; change wording in
Residential Growth Element. (Requested by
Paul Ryckoff.)
5. Land Use, Residential Growth and Recreation
and Open Space Elements - Change the land use
designation of the vacant parcel at the corner
of Harbor View Drive and Marguerite Avenue
from "Low Density Residential" to "Open Space."
6. Land Use Element - Designate the Old Newport
Boulevard area for a specific area plan.
Item #4
Request to set public hearing for Public Safety
PUBLIC
SAFETY
Element of the General Plan.
ELEMENT
X
Motion was made adopting Resolution No. 906 set-
ting a public hearing for February 6, 1975 to
consider adoption of the Public Safety Element of
SET FOR
HEARING
the Newport Beach General Plan.
Item #5
Request to set public hearing for the HUD Block
HUD
-BLOCK
GRANT
Grant Program.
X
Motion was made adopting Resolution No. 907 set-
ting a public hearing for February 6, 1975 to
give consideration to the HUD Block Grant Program.
PROGRAM
SET FOR
HEARING
Page 12.
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT *kCH
■ "I11 T
rmn � m M < Y10
cIS
'° N
� m
lanuary lA_ 1975
MINUTES
,unov
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS:
Community Development Director Hogan presented
a request for remodeling property at the corner
of Ocean and "L" Street on the Peninsula and
requested an interpretation of the Municipal Code
pertaining to the open space requirement on the
front of the property. It was the Planning Com-
mission's determination that as long as the open
space was adjacent to a street, it would fulfill
the intent of the Residential Development Standard
and therefore would qualify as the open space
requirement within the development standards.
Motion
X
There being no further business, motion was made
All Ayes
to adjourn. Time: 12:10 A.M.
JAMES M. PARKER, Secretary
Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
Page 13.
•
i
Persons notified by telephone of January 16, 1975 Planning
Commission Meeting at which the Proposed Amendments to the
General Plan were set for public hearing on February 20, 1975:
L.R. Lizotte
Vice President
Broadmoor Homes, Inc.
17802 Irvine Blvd.
Tustin, Calif. 92680 (Message was left with his secretary on
January 13, 1975.)
Billie M. Hickok
809 E. Bay Avenue
Newport Beach, Calif. 92660 (Telephoned on January 14, 1975.)
John Kingsley and Victor Yack of Lido Peninsula Community
Association was telephoned on January 13, 1975; Bobbie Riddle
of the Lido Peninsula Community Association was telephoned
on January 14, 1975 (message was left with he•r hu.sband).
David B. Neish
Manager
Planning Administration
The Irvine Company
550 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, Calif. 92663
(Telephoned on January 13, 1975))
Councilman Paul Ryckoff (Telephoned on January 14, 1975).
Planning Commission Meeting January 16, 1975
Agenda Item No.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
January 8, 1975
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments to the General Plan
The next General Plan amendment session, according to Council
Policy Q-1, will commence with Planning Commission public
hearings in February.
Following is a list of all General Plan amendments requested
by citizens and property owners (all letters are attached):
Element(s)
1. Land Use and Residential
Growth
2.
3
4.
R
Land Use and Residential
Growth
Land Use and Residential
Growth
Land Use and Residential
Growth
Land Use and Residential
Growth
Proposed Amendment
Change land use designation
of Pacific View property
(50 acres, north of Pacific
View Memorial Park) from
"Governmental, Educational
and Institutional" to "Low
Density Residential".
(Requested by Broadmoor
Homes, Inc.)
Change land use designation
of lot at 809 East Bay, Avenue
(in Central Balboa) from
"Retail and Service Commercial"
to "Two -Family Residential".
(Requested by Billie M. Hickok,
property owner.)
Change land use designation
for Lido Peninsula to provide
for only residential use for
all areas currently under
residential use and to prohibit
further commercial development.
(Requested by the Lido Peninsula
Community Association.)
Change land use designation
for the property on the north
side of Coast Highway easterly
of Jamboree Road from "Low
Density Residential" to
"Administrative, Professional
and Financial Commercial".
(Requested by the Irvine Company,
property owner.)
Redefine "Low Density Residential";
create new category: "Medium
Density Residential"; apply
redefined "Low -Density Residential"
0
TO: Planning Commission - 2
Element(s) (Continued) Proposed Amendment (Continued)
designation to Castaway,
North Newporter, and a portion
of,Jamboree/Coast Highway
vacant sites; apply new
"Medium Density Residential"
designation to a portion of
Jamboree/Coast Highway vacant
site; change wording in
Residential Growth Element.
(Requested by Paul Ryckoff.)
Also, staff suggests that General Plan Amendment No. 16, regarding
proposed park area a-t the corner of Marguerite Avenue and
Harbor View Drive, be set for re -hearing. This amendment was
referred to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for
review and comment; their recommendation is expected prior to
the February public hearings.
In addition, staff would suggest that the Planning Commission
initiate an amendment to the Land Use Element to designate the
"Old Newport Boulevard" area for a Specific Area Plan. (The
preparation of a Specific Area Plan for this area was called
for by the Planning Commission at the October 18, 1973 public
hearings, when the proposed zone change from C-1 to A-P,
initiated by the City, was withdrawn.)
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission set all of the
requested General Plan Amendments for public hearing at the
February 20, 1975 Planning Commission meeting.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
R. V. Hogan,, Director
By Z
i Cowell
Advance Planning Administrator
TC:j
Attachments
► BROADM06R410MES, INC. G
V 17802 Irvine Blvd • Tustin, Calif.92680 • (714)544-4230
December 17, 1974
Mr. Richard Hogan
Director of Community Development
City of Newport Beach
3300 West Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92660
Reference: Pacific View Property
Dear Mr. Hogan:
RECEIVED
LaNt.
DEC 171974
CITY OF
NEWFORY BEACH,
CALIF.
Broadmoor Homes has entered into an escrow for the purchase of
approximately 50 acres of Pacific View property located in the
City of Newport Beach. Subject property is more specifically
located by the boundaries of New MacArthur Boulevard on the west,
existing Spyglass Hill development on the east, Big Canyon reservoir
on the south and The Irvine Company Sector 4 proposed development
on the north.
We are hereby requesting an amendment to the General Plan from
the existing designation of "Government, Educational and Institutional
Facilities" to Low Density Residential.
We will be soliciting input from the surrounding homeowners, in order
for us to prepare our conceptual plans for submittal to your staff and
the Planning Commission prior to hearings on the General Plan amendment,
which we understand are scheduled for February 6 or 20 of 1975.
Cordially,
BROADMOOR HOMES, INC.
L. R. Lizotte
Vice President
LRL:ew
cc:
Mr. Richard B. Smith. Broadmoor Homes. Inc. I
0
December 16, 1974
PLANNING COMMISSION
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California
Mrs. Billie Hickok
809 E. Bay Avenue
Newport'Beach
California
' RECEIVED
Community
Development
Dept.
DEC 181974►
CITY OF
NEWPORT SEACHr,�,
CALIF.
ATTN: Mr. Tim Cowell
RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT,, 809 EAST BAY AVENUE, Ili
CENTRAL BALBOA, CALIFORNIA.
Gentlemen:
As owner and resident of the subject property, I am requesting
an amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan in order to pro-
vide for rezoning the property to R-2 from the current C-1 de-
signation and to replace the obsolete single family.residenge
with a new duplex residence. The existing structure represents
a legal non -conforming use in the C-1 district.
The specific amendment requestdd is to change the designation
of my property from "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Two -
Family Residential" as shown on the Land Use•Plan and the
Residential Growth Plan. This amendment, and subsequent rezon-
ing, would result in the addition of one lot to the existing
row of R-2 lots on the south side•of•:Bay Avenue,,_,,
Changing the Plan to allow a new residential use would be con-
sistent with the adjacent R-2 zoning and new duplexes to the
east, and would maintain the residential character of this
bayfront street, (see attached plan).
In addition, the replacement of the existing obsolete structure
would greatly improve the quality of the general area.
I would like.to maintain my residence at the subject property,
bu> conditions necessitate a new building. Therefore, your
review and approval of this request would be greatly appreciated.
Respectfully,
Billie M. Hickok
ok
Enclosure
L
era
NEWPORT
QA y - ' ,SUBJECT PR
-U.S.
HEAO L/Nr- ✓
}
�9-
6�f
-GTE 4
Puesci
k/.+c.,e
arc O'co 3s/i•
y.46.O.ea
VAC:O•?O.71510
&.j.00VS-MEAN,7,6-R
�OGEsvA
cx ,`Z•
3 4 i 5 i G 7
/ L'33 5-
/ 14
}��
,ttB. ALB 9 of 'S
aAtOOA ,usc 8187 •5 �'
8AY
; :e0�..
.so'1.44
VE.
p e//•
—�
$/a• .ifS
o
o
3
CD
0.
m o O
z a
133' 8' V.C.P. CO 124 /Q
r �
BAY 240' s1, v.c.P. VE.
/2 60
t,v �' $ C�
$. Ot39 Ot30 ro D Iftas 90+ tL5�
° 2 to
/ 0+40 0�1 N�%'0.63 0+68
0 458
?� 0480 /4 0 5/ Y PUM
2 p.7o Q, ° /00�84 w .8 CONc.00gI i CO�N'C 1V
ot81 100 9 E I+o3 // �� �08 . v c.P� i x
.60 5
5 It37 Ir107,�6 7k1
1, 8 CONC i IT 0). 0
58
0 p, , (f Ii� $y 3
5�'s i 7OV (y N
5 0 0
ZIA
Nm (A "' S�` `g 12
L /NE
U 5.8V (HEAD y .
J go. A761
C 0
0
o
A b /
rn .4e1 .05.o7 � m �' !� ;
A. 03 .ads
v l 2 .9/a .4/F• qu'I 416'
V.
�Ja �
a .911 SAL _ I/ l
i�
'�,,QOP�a7r
12-16-74
PNo
LIDO PENINSULA COMIUNITY ASSOCIATION
c/b 711 Lido Park Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Dscember 17, 1974
To the Planning Commission
and The City Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92660
Y RECEIVE[,
Cammumty �
Dev'10A gent
D•n.t.
DEC 18'w4e•
CITY OF i,
NEWPORT 6FACH,
CALIF.
SUBJECT: Amendment to Change the General Plan Zoning and Land Use
Element for Lido Peninsula
Gentlemen:
We, the undersigned, representing the residents of Lido Peninsula,
ask that the zoning for Lido Peninsula be changed to RESIDENTIAL.
ZONING for all parcels currently under Residential Uses. And all
proposed commercial plans be stopped...
We believe the present General Plan "PC" Zoning and the Land Use _—
Elements are grossly in error and should be changed to restrict
Lido Peninsula to ReslZential Uses Only for the following reasons:
1. To make Lido Peninsula a more desireable living area for
present and future residents and for the City of Newport
Beach...
2. To protect and insure the future appreciation and growth of
over 25 million dollars of our residential property values
now existing... and for subsequent long term benefit of future
residents and the City of Newport Beach...
3. To stop and reduce further,environmental problems of noise,
air, water and traffic pollution of Lido Peninsula in
particular... and Newport Beach in general. We can do this
only be DECREASING TRAFFIC, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS and by
DISCOURAGING TOURISM onto our land locked, primarily
Residential area...:
4. Lido Peninsula is NOT SUITED to commercial developments
whose success is greatly dependent on drawing large numbers
of people from wide -areas over major traffic arteries! The
present restaurants on Lido Peninsula are largely responsible
for slow sales of condominiums recently completed and have
r- greatly affected present resales of established condominiums
and mobilehomes on the Lido Peninsula. Futher invasions of
commercial developments can only be more disastrous to all
of us! We do not wish our area to be an experiment for
determining if an "...interesting mix..." of commercial and
Lido Peninsula Amendment' Page 2
residential can be successful... :• We believe it will be
detrimental and should not be'attempted...!
5. To protect the present merchants in our already over -
commercialized; poorly planned, restaurant and shopping .
areas near Lido Peninsula. Failures, high turn -over,
low.sale.s and high vacancy fadtor in the Cannery,,.Lido
Shops, Lido Village Shopping Center strongly indicate the
undesireability of any additional dilution of their business•
with additional commercial ventures just a few blocks away
in our residential area:
6. To'insute that Newport Beach residential'and commercial
areas be SEPARATED,and NOT " ..mixed..." so that each.'may
live 'arid prosper without detriment to each other.
7. Lastly, WE WANT THE LIDO PENINSULA TO. BE A RESIDENTIAL AREA--
WE DON'T NEED ANY MORE RESTAURANTS OR COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHI-
MENTS. ON LIDO PENINSULA.-.. WE DON'T EVEN NEED -THOSE THAT '
PRESENTLY EXIST AND WOULD LIKE THEM MOVED NORTH'OF
LAFAYETTE•OD. OFF THE. PENINSULA..
Pie believe the angry a.nd;,ignored protests of over 680 petitioners at
recent hearings'who were and are strongly opposed to Commercial
Invasions of the Lido Peninsula are, " ..the voice of the people..."
and should be -heard and acted on:.." THIS IS.OUR MANDATE TO THE
PLANNING COMMISO"N, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF AND THE CITY COUNCIL...
In accordance with,California State Law,,we request this ammendmaltt
be considered by the planning commission at the February meeting and.
«,
t$a•t we be heard in the matter. ={:•
Signed Address
7/1
rZA
o
ill
✓.
s_ < .:'; x
Lido Peninsula Amendment
Signed
4
124
Page 3
Address
i 4evw WA
��
- 41�49 7
cu VZ,Ltee.
%iU(A
(p ( olx6G�r U..ti,Ge,
s
0
THE IRVINE
550 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92663
(714) 644-3011
December 18, 1974
Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92660
Attention - R, Hogan, Director of Community Development
Gentlemen:
Subject: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PROPERTY LOCATED ON PACIFIC
COAST HIGHWAY EASTERLY OF JAMBOREE
The Irvine Company respectfully requests that the General Plan of the
City of Newport Beach be amended concerning the property located along
Pacific Coast Highway easterly of Jamboree. This parcel is presently
shown as residential and we are requesting that this land use be changed
to Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial".
This property was formerly reserved for the Pacific Coast Highway and
was not included in the overall Newport Center development plans. Since
the deletion of the freeway, land use studies have been prepared and
indicate that the existing designation is not compatible with the sur-
rounding development because of the close proximity to Pacific Coast
Highway and the noise, pollution and traffic associated with the high-
way.
Thank you very much for consideration of this matter, and if we may be
of any help please contact me at your earliest convenience.' _
Very
truly yours,
David B. Neish
Manager
Planning Administration
DBN:ms
cc: A. Auer
C. Buchanan
D. Schnorr
RE�,m�t
a"aasvti Or
cts t o5SAQV%1
NSF 6AUF' !�.
January 2, 1975
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Paul Ryckoff
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
I request that the following General Plan amendments be considered:
Land Use Element - Page 4, Residential. This section has three sub -categories
Low Density, Two Family, and Multi -Family. Low Density Residential includes
varying densities up to a maximum of ten dwelling units per gross acre.
It is proposed that this classification be redefined to Low Density
Residential with varying densities up to a maximum of four d.u. per
buildable acre. An example of this density is Irvine Terrace, an
attractive and successful residential development.
It is proposed that Medium Density Residential be established as a
sub -category to cover from the Low Density Residential standards to
a maximum of eight d.u. per buildable acre.
Residential Growth Element
"The Effect of Residential Growth on Support Systems" - Page (i). At present
this element states there are no physical constraints (in terms of limited
capacity of the physical systems) and no major economic threshold points" in
the cost of providing services. It states in effect that severely limiting
growth would bring "some 'reduction in potential traffic volume on certain links
of the street system."
Now over a year later this analysis requires amendment and the objectives should
be restated to reflect current priorities.
Similarly, the paragraph "The Effect of Residential Growth on the Environment"
should be amended. The following language is proposed:
"The Effect of Residential Growth on Support Systems" - It is apparent
that support systems in keeping up with growth have reached plateaus
of effectiveness, cost and environmental acceptance. In Newport Beach
a number of problems are evident. Traffic, like air pollution, seems
to be a continually increasing problem. Despite all the efforts and,
expenditures made, no improvement is in sight; in fact, control seems
unattainable unless fuel cost becomes so high as to curtail driving.
Similarly, electrical energy is not the limitless source it was thought
to be. Now the Edison Company warns of energy curtailments unless
fuel becomes more available and it is allowed to build more plants.
The addition of fossil -full plant has been denied because of the severe
degradation of air quality resulting from its operation. This may be
a particular problem in -Newport Beach•as the air patterns spread the
effluent from the Huntington Beach plant back and forth over this area.
Natural gas shortages are indicated with the prospect of curtailing supply
-2-
to interruptible sources
wide.
Solid waste disposal is a constraint nation -
If support systems are limited as indicated, then it is logical that
growth be structured so as to not exceed their capability. These
limits are so compelling as to make other objectives secondary. En-
couraging redevelopment in certain areas is desirable, encouraging
innovative architecture and attractive residential building is desir-
able, the conflict between taxation and the desirability of low in-
tensity land use is recognized, yet these concepts must be subordinated
to existing support conditions.
It appears that new developments, added population and commercial activity,
will draw on support systems at the expense of the existing users. The
only possible conclusions call for economy in their use by existing
users, and addition of new users in a controlled manner.
The Effect of Residential Growth on the Environment - Page (ii) and
Page iii . The local environmental problems whi"cT result from popu-
lation growth have both local and regional sources. However, it is
apparent that a reduction in potential residential growth will mitigate
these problems.
In view of these considerations, it can be said that the major issue
is Quality of the Living Environment, and secondarily, Community
Character.
Traffic and air quality problems are noted above as becoming progress-
ively worse. Air pollution is a function of energy consumption, which
has been a function of population growth.
Newport Bay water quality has deteriorated as a result of growth in Newport
Beach and Orange County to the point of being off-limits to swimming
(upper bay) and visually repugnant as well in lower bay. Any new develop-
ments that would significantly add run-off and drainage pollutants in the
bay should be curtailed until control of this problem is achieved.
The visual environment is affected by the type and character of develop-
ment and the proposals in this report reflect consideration for the
housing mix and the size of residential structures. Based on this con-
sideration and the policies in the General Plan Policy Report, the
Residential Growth Element proposes to:
1) Assure a continuing predominance of single-family and
duplex units and limit the potential number of multi-
family units.
2) Limit the size of residential structures to prevent massive,
boxy and out -of -character buildings and overbuilding of
small lots.
Until a point system or other means of keying support systems and environ-
mental issues directly to zoning and growth is adopted, this element
proposes to set guidelines to limit growth to that compatible with the
physical and environmental limitations noted.
-3-
171
General City-wide Residential Zoning Policies (Page 1) should be amended to
include a definition of buildable acreage as follows:
Buildable acreage includes the entire sites less areas with a slope
of greater than two to one and does not include any portion of
perimeter streets or open space.
Specific zoning policy changes are proposed as follows:
(Page 23) - Statistical Division J, Castaways site. It is proposed
that the residential portion of this area be classified Low Density
Residential, as defined above. The revised section would read as
follows:
1) Residential development in the southermost vacant area
(the Castaways site) shall be limited to a maximum over-
all density of 4 dwelling units per buildable acre.
The effect would be as follows:
Castaways - Div. J:
+ 54 a. Gross x 8 DU's/a. = 432 DU's
+ 48 a. Buildable x 4 DU's/a. _ (-) 192 DU's
240 DU Reduction
(x 3.3 persons/DU = 792 Pop. Reduction)
(Page 25) - Statistical Division K, vacant site north of the Newporter.
It is proposed that this area be classified Low Density Residential
as defined above. The revised section would read as follows:
1) Residential development in the large vacant site north
of the Newporter Inn shall be limited to a maximum over-
all density of 4 dwelling units per buildable acre.
The effect would be as follows:
Newporter - Div. K:
+ 80 a. Gross x 8 DU's/a. = 640 DU's
+ 70 a. Buildable x 4 DU's/a. + (-) 280 DU's
360 DU Reduction
(x 3.3 persons/DU = 1,188 Pop. Reduction)
(Page 27) - Statistical Division L, Jamboree Rd. and Coast Highway.
It is proposed that the area fronting on Jamboree Rd. across from the
Newporter be considered medium density residential with a maximum of
six d.u. per buildable acre. The area fronting on Coast Highway, east
of Jamboree Rd. should be designated for Low Density Residential as
defined above, and for commercial as an alternate use, with floor area
0.
0
ratio control to insure low intensity use with low traffic generation.
Low intensity use with low traffic generation should result in no
greater traffic impact than Low Density Residential. The revised
section would read as follows:
2) Residential development shall be permitted on the vacant
area on Jamboree Road and the Coast Highway which backs
up on the Country Club with a maximum average density
of 6 dwelling units per buildable acre on that portion
of the site fronting on Jamboree and 4 dwelling units
per buildable acre on Coast Highway. Additional sites
for residential' development in Newport Center shall be
permitted at a density not to exceed 35 dwelling units per
acre, subject to the approval of the City.
The effect would be as follows:
Jamboree and Coast Highway Site - Div. L:
+ 47 a. Gross x 8 DU/s/a. = 376 DU's
+ 40 a. Buildable:
Jamboree Frontage: + 24 a. x 6 DU's/a. = 144 DU's
Coast Highway Frontage: + 16 a.'x 4 DU's/a.= 64 DU's
Site Total:
168 DU Reduction
(x 3.3 persons/DU = 686 Pop. Reduction)
As can be seen, the reductions are significant in each area. They do not appear
as significant in the City-wide figures or even,Division figures. However, it
is suggested that the area figures are important in considering the mitigation
of the effect of growth on support systems and the environment.
The element states (Page ii) that major issues are quality of the living environ-
ment and community character, and as a policy (Page 1) that density of all
future residential development shall be limited to the lowest feasible and
reasonable level. The above amendments are proposed to bring about a more
reasonable growth and to comply with community sentiment which has been affronted
by developments which, in character, density, scale, or mass are totally out
of harmony with the City and the immediate environment. Compelling reasons
for the amendments are the concepts outlined in the "Effect of Residential
Growth on Support Systems" pnd "Effect of Residential Growth on the Environment."
PAUL RYCKOFF