Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPA 85-1(B) VOL 5_RESPONSE TO COMMENTS111111111 lill 11111111111111111111 *NEW FILE* GPA 85=1(B) VOL 5 I 1 � Newport Center � and � Peripheral Sites � GPI 85=1(B) � Environmental � Impact Report 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I Responses to Comments Volume 5 sanchez talarico associates 1 DRAFT EIR: JUNE 19, 1986 CERTIFIED FINAL EIR-: JULY 14, 1986 CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 'REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-1(B) NEWPORT CENTER AND PERIPHERAL SITES STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 85061211 VOLUME 5 PREPARED FOR: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 PREPARED BY: SANCHEZ TALARICO ASSOCIATES 359 SAN MIGUEL DRIVE, SUITE 200 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 JULY 14, 1986 ii VOLUME 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION..................................................1.1 II. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES...................................2.1 III. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORTS.............................3.1 IV. COMMENTS......................................................4.1 V. RESPONSES.....................................................5.2 VI. REVISED MITIGATION MEASURES...................................6.2 VII. ERRATA........................................................7.2 APPENDIX A LETTER REPORT: BASMACIYAN-DARNELL INCORPORATED VOLUME 6 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS VOLUME 7 CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL Introduction 1.2 I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this document is to transmit all comments received related to the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for General Plan Amend- ment 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites [GPA 85-1(B)] State Clear- inghouse Number 85061211 (SCH #85061211). It further responds to comments in accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, Public Review Period The Draft Environmental Report for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites project was distributed to various public agencies, responsible agencies, citizens groups, and interested individuals. The report was made available for public review and comment for a period of 45 days. The public review period for the Draft EIR established by the State Clearinghouse commenced on April 14, 1986 and expired on May 29, 1986. Public Comment The City of Newport Beach has utilized several methods to solicit input on the Draft EIR. These methods have included holding several noticed hearings on the Draft EIR. Public Hearings The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach held public hearings on the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Meeting minutes are provided in Section II. Copies of the Staff Reports are provided in Section III. Copies of the legal notices are provided on pages 1.3 - 1.4. I I I I I I Authorized to Pubhsh Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California, Number A-6214, dated 29 September. 1961. and A-24631, dated 11 June, 1963 STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Orange PVW,C NOI,u AdrsrllsIng COVY*d or Inn Ahloar,l a W A 7 "M +Ilh 10 pica Column �ID ,I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the tpNEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, rinted and published 1n the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that- a toticeof PUBIC H'_AICING f which copy attached hereto is a true and complete opy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna each issues of said newspaper for —I t:ma consecutive weeks to wit the issue(s) of :iar r•:- 10 198 6 I , 198_ I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Xecuted on march 11 198 6 t Costa Mesa, California. i I I ,.1 I Authortred to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Number A-6214, dated 29 September, 1961. and A-24831. dated 11 June, 1963. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Orange Pub,, Not" Aev.rewna WvrMd by IN, 6111440 Is W n 7 POW Mee to P" cokum Mate 1 am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the NEWS -PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that a Notice of PUBLIC HEARING ' of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna Beach Issues of said newspaper for 1 time consecutive weeks to wit the issue(s) of April 14 t98 6 198- 198— 198_ I , 198_ f declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. ftExecuted on April 15 1198 6 at Costa Mesa, California. SI nature ` t 1.5 NOTICE OF COMPLETION A Notice of Completion was filed on April 14, 1986 with the State Office of Planning and Research. PERSONS RECEIVING NOTICE OF COMPLETION The persons listed on the following pages received a copy of the Notice of Completion. I I I I I I L __ I �J 11 I I I I I I i I I PERSC } Hollaway if. Coastal. Comm. Howard Street,,4th F1. San Francisco, CA-94105 I Bill Murphy t. Housing & Comm.Dev. loth St., 5th Floor cramento, CA 95814 les M. Doyle Dept. Parks & Recreation Box 2390 ramento, CA 95811 t. Fish & Game d A. Worthley Jr.,Mgr. 245 West Broadway In Beach, CA 90802 ate Land Commission 07 13th Street cramento, CA 95814 Attn: Ted Fukushima I Orange Co. Transit District 1 0. Box 3005 rden Grove, CA 92642-3005 tn: Environ.Coord. tristine Huard -Spencer wport-Mesa Un.School Dist. P.O. Box 1368 awport Beach, CA 92663 tn: Helen Dietz Cific Bell 39 East Coronado, 1st F1 Anaheim, CA 92807 Itn: L.C. Arthington wport Beach Police Dept. 0. Box 7000 ewport Beach, CA 92660 Un: Randy Nakashima pity of Costa Mesa �j Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 t. Calif. Edison Co. tt333 Bolsa Avenue stminster, CA 92683 tn: Bill McIntosh California Coastal Commission South Coast District Office 245 N. Broadway, Ste. 380 P.O. Box 1450 Long Beach, CA 90801-1450 Loretta Allen Native Amer.Heritage Comm. 915 Capitol Mall, Rm. 268 Sacramento, CA 95814 Ken Fellows Dept. Water Resources 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Reg.Water Quality Control,#8 6809 Indian Ave. Suite 200 Riverside, CA 92506 Attn. Joanne E. Schneider Mary Kelly CalTrans - DOTP P.O. Box 1499 Sacramento, CA 95807 County Sanitation Dist. O.C. 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Attn: Hilary Baker So. Calif. Gas Co. P.O. Box 3334 Anaheim, CA 92804-3334 Attn: D.M. Glover Newport Beach Pub. Library 856 San Clemente Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attn: Judith Clark Clerk of Board of supervsrs. P.O. Box 687 Santa Ana, CA 92702 City of Irvine 2810 McGaw Avenue P.O. Box 19575 Irvine, CA 92713 Harvey Collins Department of Health 714 P Street, Rm. 430 Sacramento, CA 95814 Nick del Cioppo Office of Historic Preserv. 1050 20th St. Sacramento, CA 95814 Wayne Ballentini Dept. Transport. Dist.7 120 Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 State of California Office of Planning & Research 1400 Tenth St., Rm. 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 Attn: Dan Conaty So.Cal.Assoc.of Government 600 S. Commonwealth Ave.,1000 Los Angeles, CA 90005 Attn: Mark Alpers South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. 9150 E. Flari Dr. E1 Monte, CA 91731 Attn: Brian Farris So. Calif. Edison Co. 7333 Bolsa Avenue Westminster, CA 92683 Attn: Mike Martin Newport Beach Fire Dept. 475 32nd Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Attn: Don Jones Count of Orange, EMA-EAD Bill Olson P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 City of Laguna Beach 505 Forest Avenue Laguna Beach, CA 92651 jFriends of Upper Newpt.Bay P.O. Box 2001 Newport Beach, CA 92663 I Ms. Jean Morris 1032 Sea Lane Corona del Mar, CA 92653 Mr. Barry Allen 1021 White Sails Way Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Audubon Society Sea and Sage Chapter 'P.O. Box 1119 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Friends of the Irvine Coast P.O. Box 714 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Lucille Kuehn '1831 Seadrift Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 SPON c/o Jean Watt 4 Harbor Island Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dept. of Fish and Game Carl Wilcox 442 Swarthmore Lane Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Ms. Joan Carr 1038 Sea Lane Corona del Mar, CA .92625 The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive P.O. Box 1 Newport Beach, CA 92658-0015 Sierra Club Orange County Group P.O. Box 5367 Fullerton, CA 92635 Pat Wilson Langdon-Wilson-Mumper 4100 MacArthur B1vd.,Ste.200 P.O. Box 1440 Newport Beach, ICA 92658-8971 Susan Boyd 125 34th Street Newport Beach, CA Orange County Harbor Dist. 1901 Bayside Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harbor View Hills Comm.Assn. P.O. Box 54 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Ms Jane Lyon 1014 Sea Lane Corona del Mar, CA 92625 League of Women Voters of Orange Coast 1701 Westcliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 The Koll Company 4490 Von Kerman Newport Beach, CA 92660 Jim Wood 2443 E. Coast Highway Corona del Mar, CA 92625 League of Women Voters Santa Ana YWCA 92663 1411 N. Broadway, Rm.10 Santa Ana, CA 92706 IJim Tattersall Bob Fournier c/o Bob Burns Restaurant c/o Old Time Photo 1 P.O. Box 1979 308 Marine Ave. Santa Monica, CA 90406 Balboa Island, CA 92662 Linda Shey 60 Royal St. George Newport Beach, CA 92660 IHarbor View Knoll Comm. Assn Joan Fisher, Pres. 2770 Hillview Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Cliff Haven Community Association Barbara Whitford. Pres. 406 Snug Harbor 1 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Beacon Bay Comm. Assn Tom Hay, Pres. 68 Beacbn Bay Newport Beach, CA 92660 Central Newport Beach Community Association Lee Malloy III, Pres. 1916 Court Ave. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Harbor View Community Association Phil Glasglow, Pres. 1842 Port Margate Newport Beach, CA 92660 Milton Hand 122 Abalone Balboa Island, CA 92662 Belcourt Master Association Margaret Lerschan c/o Villageway Mgmt. P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Canyon Mesa Community Association Betty Robinson, Pres. 5 Rue Montreaux Newport Beach, CA 92660 Bayshores Comm. Assn. Rem Burbank 2611 Bayshore Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92663 hina Cove Condo Assoc. teve Arganbright, Pres. 317 Dahlia Place orona del Mar, CA 92625 Lido Sands Community Assoc �udy white, President 820 River Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 Sea Island Community Assn. Phil Wiltse, President 9 Sea Island Drive ewport Beach, CA 92660 Iilla Granada Comm Assn David Rossi, President 1 35 Amigos Way, #4 lewport Beach, CA 92660 eawind Community Assoc. /o Villageway Management P. 0. Box 4708 rvine, CA 92716 ary Mecklenburg, Pres. ewport Harbor Area C. of C. od Rodheim, President 470 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 1 Versailles Association /o Mercury Property Mgt 670 Barranca Parkway Irvine, CA 92714 tilla Balboa Comm Assn Bill Lund, President 4t/o Mercury Property Mgt 670 Barranca Parkway Irvine, CA 92714 Lark Lido Association' lice Rail, President 434 Orion Way INewport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Island, Inc. Stewart Hayward, President P. 0. Box 1162 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Shores Community Assn Gil Lukoskey, President 441 Prospect Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 anyon Crest Community Association heila Walters, President Cherry Hills Lane Newport Beach, CA 9266Q lelcourt Park Homeowners Associatic alerie Vandeziler, Pres. P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Rendevous.Condominium Assn. Jack C. Prebicin, Pres. P. 0. Box 893 Newport Beach, CA .92661 Harbor View Hills Com Assn c/o Villageway Management ,P. O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Denise Newcomer Newport Terrace Condo Assn c/o Management Services Co 17601 17th Street Ste 218 Tustin, CA 92680 Sea Pine Community Assn c/o Villageway,Management P. O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Richard Grundy, Pres. West Newport Beach Assn. North Bluff Bayview Comm Tom Orlando, President John Coombe, President 15 Balboa Coves 2900 Quedada Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newoprt Beach, CA 92660 Corona del Mar Chamber of Com. Jean Kiger, President P. 0. Box 72 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 North Bluff Villa Comm Ass. Jim Stevens, President c/o Villageway Management P. O. BOx.4708 Irvine, CA 9J716 Plaza Homeowners Comm Assn c/o Mercury Property Mgt 4670 Barranca Parkway Irvine, CA 92714 Promontory Bay Homeowners Assn Richard Bare, President 700 Harbor Island Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Spyglass Ridge Comm Assn Everett (Terry) Stahl, Pres. 1618 Reef View Circle Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Harbor Woods H.O. Assn. c/o Villageway Mgmt. P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 North Bluff Park Comm. Hugh Gourdin, Pres. 462 Vista Roma Newport Beach, CA 92660 North Bluff Park Com Assn Bob Belknapp, Pres. 2638 Vista del Oro Newport Beach, CA 92660 Seaview Comm Assn. Larry Freedman, Pres 2019 Yacht Resolute Newport Beach, CA 92660 Shorecliffs Comm Assn J. Christopher Woodward 235 Driftwood Road Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Spyglass Hill Comm Assn Robert McClean, Pres. c/o Villageway Mgt P. 0. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Spyglass Hill Community Association Robert Mc Clean, Pres. c/o Villageway Mgmt. P.O.Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 North Bluff Park Comm. Assn. Bob Belknapp, Pres. 2638 Vista del Oro Newport Beach, CA 92660 Assn. Harbor View Broadmoor Comm. Assn. Bill Cunningham, Pres. 1223 Goldenrod Ave Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Canon hills Community Assn /tnny Bibb, President o Villageway Management P. 0. Box 470E arbor View Homeowners Assn ohn M. Clark, Pres. 621 Seabreeze Lane orona del Mar, CA 92625 arbor View Community Assn. Phil Glasgow, President 842 Port Margate ewport Beach, CA 92660 arbor View Knoll Comm Assn ohn Fisher, President 2770 Hillview Drive ewport Beach, CA 92660 rvine Cove Community Assn homas Pitcher, President . 0. Box 2490 Newport Beach, CA 92663 1 Irvine Terrace Comm Assn an Van Landingham, Pres. 501 Santanella Terrace orona del Mar, CA 92625 Island Lagoon Association John Hartunian �7 Ocean Vista ewport Beach, CA 92660 asmine Creek Comm. Assn hristine McGraw, Gen Mgr 110 Jasmine Creek Drive Iorona del Mar, CA (2625 ido Isle Community Assoc /o Lido Isle Comm. Assoc 01 Via Lido Soud Newport Beach, CA 92663 Lido Marina Village /11 o Traweek Western Prop. gt Company, D. Mosher P. 0. Box 6348 range, CA 92667 Dover Shores Community Assn. C/o Villageway Management P. 0. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Attn: Pete Drummond Linda Isle Community Assn Jack Raub, President #2 Linda Isle Newport Beach, CA 92660 Little Balboa Isl. Owners Assn Mr. Fio Rito, President III Crystal Balboa Island, CA .92662 Mai Kai Community Assn. c/o Management Services 17601 17th Street, Ste. 218 Tustin, CA 92680 Mariners Community Assn Allan Beek, President 1945 Sherington Apt G-109 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Center Association Karen Kennedy, Managing Dir. 180 Newport Center Drive #180 Newport Beach,,CA 92660 Channel Reef Community Assn President C/O 2525 Ocean Boulevard Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Crest Homeowners Assn President 201 Intrepid Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Heights Comm. Assn Robert Clarke, President P. O. Box 3444 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Hills Comm. Assoc Denise Newcomer, Pres. 1747 Port Manleigh Newport Beach, CA 92660 Eastbluff Apartment Owners Assn - c/o Villageway Mgt P. 0. Box 4708 , Irvine, CA 92716 Attn: Dorothy Unligh Eastbluff Homeowners Comm C/O Ms. Carrier Reid Total Property Management 18025 Skypark East, Ste. M Irvine, CA 92714 Fashion Island Mgt Assoc. Barbara Roppolo, Gen'l Mgr #62 Fashion Island Newport Beach, CA 92660 Four Four's Association Ms. Zada Taylor, Pres. 2514 University Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harbor Island Comm Assn Philip Lyons, President 9 Harbor Island Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harbor Ridge Crest Community Association Mr. Arlan Flaum, Pres. 2 Lucerne Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harbor Ridge Estates Assn Ken Agid, President 29 Montpellier Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harbor Ridge Master Assoc. Caroline Maddock, Pres. 31 Montpellier Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harbor Hills H. O. Assn. C/o Merit Property Mgt 24422 Ave dela Carlota,460 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 c/o Susan Finley,Acct Exec Harbor View Broadmoor Community Association Bill Cunningham, Pres. 1223 Goldenrod Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 alboa Coves Comm. Assoc. Belcourt Park Homeowners Assn. on Soll, President Valerie Vanderzilzer, Pres. #20 Balboa Coves P. O. Box 4708 1ewport Beach, CA 92663 Irvine, CA 92716 Canyon Island Comm. Assn. R. A. McKittrick, Pres. 11 Rue Fontaine Newport Beach, CA 92660 alboa Improvement Assoc. Belcourt Master Assn. Canyon Lakes Comm. Ass. harles Bauman, Pres. Margare, Terschan Howard Land, President 150 Miramar c/o Villaaewav ::ot• 16 Rue Villars alboa, CA 92661 p,O. Bx 4708 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Irvine, CA 92716 Balboa Island Business Assoc Big Canyon Community Assn. Canyon Mesa Community Assn Silver, Pres. Bernie Samson, President Betty Robinson, Pres. toward /o Balboa Island T-Shirt 3 Inverness Lane 5 Rue Montreaux 319 Marine Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Island, CA 92662 Oalboa alboa Island Improvement Assn The Bluffs Homeowners Assn. Canyon Point Comm. Assn. Natalie Fogarty, Pres. Caryle M. Levinson, Pres. Sam Yngve, President 16 Garnet 400 Carlotta 10 Rue Deauville alboa Island, CA 92662 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 alboa Peninsula Point Assn harles Bauman, President t150 Miramar alboa, CA 92661 say Island Club, Inc. r. Howard H. Morgridge 1 Bay Island iewport Beach, CA 92661 Bayside Cove Comm. Assn. im Caswell, President 008 Bayside Cove East Newport Beach, CA 92660 kameo Community Association ,eorge Thagard, Pres. 810 E. Coast Highway, #4 orona del Mar, CA 92625 Broadmoor Hills II Comm Assoc Dr. Bruce Walter, President 2821 Bluewater Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Breakers Drive Assoc, Inc. Bob McAllister, President 3116 Breakers,Drive Corona del Maxi, CA 92625 Cliff Haven Community Assn. Barbara Whitford, President 406 Snug Harbor Newport Beach, CA 92663 Canyon View Comm Assn. Jack L. Hanson, Pres. #14 Rue Cannes Newport Beach, CA 92660 Central Newport Beach Community Association Lee Mallory III, Pres. 1916 Court Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 Bayside Village H.O. Assn Matt Gemmell, Pres. 307 Lexington Circle Newport Beach, CA 92660 Corolido Community Assn. Bayshores Community Assn. John Sipple, President Rem Burbank, President 490 Morning Canyon Road 2611 Bayshore Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Canyon Crest Community Assn. Corona del Mar Comm Assn. Sheila Walters, President Richard Nichols, Pres. Cherry Hills Lane P. 0. Box 516 tewport Beach, CA 92660 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Canyon Crest Estates Corona Highland Property omeowners Assoc. owners Association Dennis O'Connor Mike Miller, President Canyon Crest 468 DeAnza orona del Mar, CA 92625 Corona del Mar, CA' 92625 Beacon Bay Community Assn. Tom Hay, President 68 Beacon Bay Newport Beach, CA 92660 Belcourt Hill Comm. Assn. Wolf Stern, President 49 Southhampton Court Newport Beach, CA 92660 Jim Wood 2443 East Coast Highway ' Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Lucille Kuehn 1831 Seadrift Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Susan Boyd 1 125 34th Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 I I I� I P I CJ I Jim Tattersall c/o Bob Burns Restaurant P.O. Box 1979 Santa Monica, CA 90406 Belcourt Terrace H.O. Assn. Dick Allen, Pres. c/o Villageway Mgmt. P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Broadmoor Sea View H.0 Gene Huigbretse Pres. c/o Villageway Mgmt. P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Beacon Bay Comm. As Arthur Strock, Pres 23 Beacon Bay Newport Beach, CA Canyon Fairway Comm Bill Fischel, Pres. c/o Villageway Mgmt P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Harbor View Comm. A Susan Weir, Pres. c/o Villageway Mgmt P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Seawind Newport Com c/o Villageway Mgmt P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Gary Mecklenburg, P Corona del Mar ' Sandcastle Comm. As Jim E. Peterson, Pr, P.O. Box 4708, ViU Irvine, CA 92716 Assn. 1.12 I PERSONS RECEIVING THE DRAFT EIR The persons listed on the following pages received a copy of the Draft EIR. I i 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 11 I 1.13 I r� J 'J I I I I I I E I u I w PE I Newport Center EIR Sign -out List Volumes I & II: Karen Harrington, Newport Heights Community Association Debbie Allen David Dmohowski Cathy Devine, BDI (Vol. 1, 3 & Traffic Study) Sins. Zarifi, Orange County Transit District Planning Department Bob Burnham, City Attorney Newport Libraries Quality of Life Committee Howard Eisenberg, Newport Beach Police Dept. Sandy Nichols for Dick Nichols, Corona del Mar Association Jean Watt, SPON Dee Edwards Southern California Gas Co., Lou Heulbutt Taylor Grant Mr. Fio Rito, Balboa Island Association Jerry King Beverly Nestande, Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce Paul Johnson Alan Beek Jean Morris Tom Orlando Spyglass Hill Community Association Preston Porter Volumes I, II, III, & IV: Planning Commission Jim Hewicker ' Bob Lenard Pat Temple Don Webb David Dmohowski City Council Terry Watt, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger Rich Edmonston Robert Wynn, City Manager Bob Burnham, City Attorney Newport Beach Librart Taylor Grant (Vol IV) Mr. Fio Rito (Vol IV) Jerry King (Vol IV) Debbie Allen (Vol IV Joel Kuperberg Dick Nichols (Vol IV) Jean Watt (Vol IV) I I 85061 11 s - Sens >r tam s - Sa[tL trr Clearsgnouse O Al- ?tom, iCtn > O Dept. Cf : S c•.•..ert ct ?aP't. U31 S Stma SureL, Jtn ?IOOC Street, SaCr-. l n . CA 95814 sa=-' Sato' CA 95814 916/322-5161 916/324-d657 3Serbav Syv�tal ?.evtewer Depe. of 3oat-M S waLen+a9a' O 915 ca �mec can ?rrisa3? Cow. L629 3 3traec 915 Capital "�" aam �8 Sacrmmnto. CA 95814 Secrmm=, CA. 95814 9WI23-94M 916/322-7791 Ca 4=0r.IAL Coastal Cam. =Ice• of ''cork ?reserascum (�v J 531 Smmrd St-ac, 4M ?+-or I.C. a= 2390 San ?-racism. Cx 94105 =ars'emmLo. Cx• 95811 415/543-3555 916t445-d006- mahbouse Jamm N. Coyle Orr.a Zmrg7 Cc=dssim Cepc. of ?Arles. and aa=-n= n O1516 V= Streec, ft. 200 O P.O. 8oz 2390 SA=wmnt.0, CA 958i4 Sac^24-64 Ck ^�J811 916/324-3222 916/24-ate 3 carl'0acfosr Ceo� eer>tc CaLt: ear - Oivisicrt at Aetenau�n P.utl:0 Ct:':4 es �-,^•' ••' ", O1120 Y Stmem 350 wrAIIister St-ac Sacraasseo, CA 95814 Sea ?:easeise0. CA 94102 916/122-506 415/557-3396 �'9 UU, Birk Sta+anrt ?Got;ss- 'lmffiag 10255 , Str_ac� Floor 1120 Y Steee O w U= _ =, CA 95814 Secrame =,, CA, 95U4 916/445��32 916/323-r= Cenois.O'Brpaae �e1 scbmrts Ceps- 0r COmeraatias RMUM ZIM 'aarrt 1416 Anrd Street, Roan U26-2 1416 kdm=,St.-eee Sa==m=. CA 95814 Secrammso. CA 95814 916/322-3a73 916/U5-2458 Div. or ,tine= and' Geoloav Robart :at S.:. 8ay Comer mr-4 n ?r Cev't. C=- r Mv. 0r Oil and Gas: O 30 Pan Vass Avenue, Re= 20U CA 94102 OQuad 2asout-aw 2r0tacc. 0sit 415/56 0 r;adw iic "Aber ODapt. of Food and .13r'-eas7.suce Ca1:.�. = Street. YArma 4 3 d 1220 Y Stteae O LO20 mto C914- 300 Sac —NM, CA 95814 Saa-mmso, G1 95814 916/322-1992 916/322-0464• ' OCepc. of %res=7 State-Laada COcmissloa L416 ;bats Straec. ?nam 1516-2 � 1607 - 13ts Straee Sacnmenw, CA 95814 X SL=MMN=, CA 95834 916/=-.01�28 .y 99166/322-1813 SOAVamea• oaY.._ C" ..'Jor war 'Al ODept. of oenes'a.l Ses-,'Leos ` - Dept. in xacer iesourees .125 '-.wen Streae X 1416 Vizsetx 3trxt Saco-lmmw, Ca 95814 g 6• 5-tol6CA 95814 ' 916/324-4209 4 714 ? 0t '. c, 3 O ' uc r Straae, ?seen L2 :acramestto, CA 9581w 916/445-L248 s-0612: an-_� ma n.-A arri Gem& - Rey'.aral MY"_aes ' Oagar at .-=rperut:L= lo-,o Strew =Mica. CA Mal O A.. NaYlar, ?es. L= L tt� ceparcmertt cc n= and Gdm 501 loc-r ?adding. CA 96001 916/m5-230a i 7a7/442-2313 1. U-7 ?r nn d ?. Je rmen, Regional Nareger i O Cepament of ra r al-itrlcs 2 1557 Tivereida ce--m Padding, CA 96001 l 1 �••/ Cepercoeac of ?+1lr and Game 1761 Mmorn 3wnt. Sulte ,L %r=bs Cordova,, CA 95670 916/355-3922 916/225-2:06- O aftarr• J. SrtCr Ceper=ArM Of 1Ysnspareasi.err Jutrl.cc 3 at eec Karysoille; CA, 95WL O 3. 3mter, Regiaral .1hrager Oeparmarnc of '?iffir and Game, 7329. Silverado :-ail %M' CA 94558 707/9"-2011 916/741-427r " Ceper-eaa of '!hanspor'aGom Yet -lac 4 Sea ?raacueo, CA 94120. 415/537-8532 O G. Nouns, 2eg4cnal :Wrrager Ceparmterrc of ;a+%ft arri Game 1234 East Shaw Avmue: 209/222-3761 Jarr9 taccer Ceparoaetc of t-mmsporcati= Dlaer!cs 5 r�rs Straac Sam Wis Gb19pc, Ca 9340L ?red A. 'docti leg Jr., Reg. 1A%mgar Deparcmms cc ?+ali and law 245 West 3roadwar tong Beach, CA 90802 2:3/590-5113' 805/549�3161 ' ,Mare ?ar! m- epacemerse or " 3rsPaceac3at. aistrics o 10 :blr Mall 'Mares ?Aso u ces• .'.egtcsr 245•wese arosdwas. ConS ter, CA- 90802. ?res a, CA 53M =/590-5155• 209/48a-4088: Waym sellarrmim State Suter Reds uees' Caserol Board i O Cwparrm mt of ".�uporeatl.om 0utrict 7 UO prizg. Stree Los Angeles. CA 90012 213/620-5335 O Joey rureacich Stacy 'datar Resources. Ceacrol Board Civislai of clew 'Water- areacs• P.G. Bu,c 100 Sacremersta, CA. 958ai i O Ospar Rooerc loss Oeoartmene of '-rsnsporcaCicn 0utrics 8 Hess Shea San 3ernardImm, CA 9240T 14/353-41;a. Oayalc daunt or 'Comporeasica Olasrict 9 l:'T3 =aura�Maia Street �\ ( ) �J 916/322-3413 Ed Anon. Starr '•:acar Raaources Control ?card, Civisl.aa of Water Cual1A7, z.o. 3r 1aa Uareaenco, CA 9580L 916/445-955Z ,arrq Jatars state Natwr Rescureas CcatroL Board ' Blanco, CA 94514 714/873-am Ulm atd.t P.O. 3oz 10a SacrMMK=, CA 95801 ' Ocepar'^a1Qlt of %imupOrtaturr. aiss-!ct 10 �Aa stockson, CA 95201 209/946-1875 Jim Chmnira O Al UM. State Water Pasauass. Control 3oa rd OLVLOM ofwater Riom 9a1 ? Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916Y324�T16 O.eparaara: or '„'YOpmreati0r4 01ssr!cs 11 %gicnaL Water lulic? CaM=I. 302rd 2829 San MOV,CA atrea=38' RagLar �� Citq �irr I s, �G EIR's Distibuted by Sanchez Talarico Associates ' County of Orange City of Irvine ' Orange County Transportation District Water Quality Board Southern California Association of Governments I 1 I I p 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 i r 1 Planning Commission Minutes 1 a.a 'COMMISSIONERS March 20, 1986 MINUTES 111 A C O ' f V 9 9 z m C y 'm i C z 0 p C O O a = City of Newport Beach 9 ROLL CALL I I I I INDEX 7. That the typical sections shown for La Vida and versity Drive be modified to show the toe and top of slope 2 feet outside the right of way li and to show 10 foot sidewalks on University ive and 8 foot sidewalks on the easterly side La Vida. 8. That a traffic co of plan prepared by a registered Traffic Engi r shall be included in the improvement plans. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:40 and ' reconvened at 8:50 p.m. A. General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) (Public Hearing) Item No.8 Request to consider amendments to the Land Use, Circu- GPA 85-1B ' lation and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the 'Newport Beach General Plan for eight sites within and Amend.No.9 three sites on the periphery of Newport Center. to LCP/LUP Es AND Continued B. Amendment No. 9 to the City of Newport Beach to a ' Certified Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan (Public Hearing) future date Request to amend the Certified Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan for the Newporter North, Bayview Landing, ' and PCH/Jamboree sites. ' INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the subject public hearing is to provide an opportunity for the Planning Commission and the public to receive simultaneously, the presentation of The Irvine Company for the buildout for Fashion Island, Newport Center, and the'peripherial sites around Newport Center. Mr. Hewicker explained that The Irvine Company has made presentations throughout the community, but that this ' will be the first formal presentation of the plan to -23- a�3 March 20, 1986 ., MINUTES ' of Newport Beach I the Planning Commission and staff. He said that the General Plan Amendment was initiated by the ' City in February, 1985, and has been under intense review by the City staff and consultants for the past thirteen months. Mr. Hewicker further commented that the backup material, which is a required ingredient for the amendment process, is in the review stage by the staff. He said that the backup material is not a part of the subject public hearing, and is not a part of the notice procedure for the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Hewicker stated that staff has requested that following the presentation by The Irvine Company and by the City staff, that the public refrain from addressing the "pros and cons" of the General Plan Amendment and limit , their comments to the identification of issues that they feel may not be covered in the Environmental Impact Report or during the public hearing process ' which is estimated to take several weeks and several different Planning Commission meetings. The public hearing was opened in connection with this , item. Mr. David Neish, Urban, Assist, Inc. appeared before the Planhing Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Neish briefly stated that the proposed General Plan Amendment has been in the planning process during the past thirteen monthst that the General Plan Amendment represents a major application; that the process will be complex and will require several public , hearings; and that after the public hearings the Planning Commission will be able to render a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Neish stated , that the subject public hearing will present a detailed project description of the proposed General Plan Amendment. ' Mr. Neish introduced the format of the presentation as follows: Mr. Thomas Nielson, President of The Irvine Company will make opening remarks; Mr. Roger Seitz, ' Vice President for Urban Design and Planning, The Irvine Company, will present the project; Mr. David Mudgett, President of Irvine Retail Properties Company, will present the specific details of Fashion Islandt ' and Mr. Seitz will make the closing remarks. Mr. Thomas H. Nielson, 3 Monaco, Newport Reach, Appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Nielson stated that The Irvine Company representatives have been meeting with members of the community, sharing ' with residents and merchants The Irvine Company plans -24- • a•� March 20, 1986 'D MINUTES I ROLL I �I -J 7 J d I c o f x v> M m i C m m z a 9 2 r. O S C 2 z U ar. O O a m O > T 2a Z 9 2 �n m M of Newport Beach for Newport Center and listening to their interests and comments about the plan. He further stated that the result before the Planning Commission incorporates the ideas raised by Newport Beach residents at the various meetings, from a day care center to a community entertainment plaza and expanding cultural opportunities. Mr. Nielson said that the plan includes The Irvine Company's vision for the road improvements that should offset many of the concerns that have been raised about increased traffic from Newport Center. Mr. Nielson stated that from the outset of the planning efforts, that The Irvine Company had as a goal a determination to transform Newport Center into an active meaningful community center for all of the residents of Newport Beach, and he commented that he hoped that at the end of the public hearing process that the Planning Commission would agree that The Irvine Company is presenting a plan that allows for the accomplishment of that goal. Mr. Nielson concluded his opening remarks by stating that The Irvine Company is proud of the plan, and that they feel that the plan is all encompassing and addresses community concerns as well as providing many community opportunities. Mr. Roger Seitz, ' 1418 Seacrest Drive, Corona del 'Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Seitz stated that the General Plan Amendment consists of approximately 175 acres of land in and around Newport Center, including 75 acres of vacant land in the 600 acre Newport Center plus 100 acres of vacant land in peripheral sites. He said that The Irvine Company is describing the long term development program as the "Renaissance of Newport Center". Mr. Seitz described the variety of amenities, services, and activities currently in Newport Center, and he stated that the plan proposes additional retail, residential, business and cultural opportunities that should be offered in Newport Center. Mr. Seitz said that The Irvine Company recognizes that Newport Center is nearly twenty years old, and that there is a need to make Newport Center responsive to community needs for the next twenty years. Mr. Seitz stated that during the process in planning Newport Center, that The Irvine Company sifted through many issues and came to focus. on 5 planning challenges or objectives: Community Focus; Retain Economic -25- INDEX March 20, 1986 l MINUTES of Newaort Beach Vitality; Complete the Centert Improve Transportations and Enhance the Center. In referring to Community Focus, Mr. Seitz stated that it is important to continue to make Newport Center and Fashion Island much more of a focal point for the community. He said that there is a need for a place to gather as a community to celebrate civic and cultural events; a need to provide more variety of goods and services; a need to retain sales and tax revenue within Newport Beach; and that the expansion of nearby residential opportunities will allow more people to live closer to work and shopping. In reference to Retain Economic Vitality, Mr. Seitz commented that the firms and organizations that do business in Newport Center are an important part of the community fabric. He said that approximately 25 percent of the employees who work in Newport Center live in Newport Beach; that businesses provide goods and services direct to the community; they provide employment opportunities; they pay taxes; and they contribute as corporate citizens by sponsorinq charities and c kural programs and serve on committees and civic organizations, Mr. Seitz commented that the Newport Center plan has two important functions: to keep the best tenants in Newport Center, and to allow the tenants to continue to stay and grow. in reference to Completion of the Center, Mr. Seitz commented that The Irvine Company is trying to achieve a balance of retail, residential, and office uses, to function as has always been planned by responding to the needs of business and to the needs of the community. He further commented that the current concept is much the same as the original Newport Center plan. In reference to Improve Transportation, Mr. Seitz stated that The Irvine Company is aware of the concerns about traffic and that The Irvine Company shares those concerns. He said that The Irvine Company wants to provide for the transportation needs of Newport Center and to contribute to regional traffic solutions. Mr. Seitz pointed out that even if there is no new building within Newport Center, there will still be more traffic going through town due to regional growth, and he said that The Irvine Company wants to be a part of the solution by completing the major road system around -26- 7 1 I I I E I t I] ' ` COMMISSIONERS :. March 20, 1986 c o s F + y > 9 m z c m> m z C 2 N p r. 0 0 z z z A= T m f City of Newport Beach I C, F I 7 L n J Newport Center by constructing Pelican Hill road, a major bypass around the city. He commented that the proposed development will finance those improvements at no cost to taxpayers. In reference to Enhance the Center, Mr. Seitz commented that The Irvine Company has a desire to enhance Newport Center's appearance, identity, and quality, all of which reflects the special character of the Newport Beach community and the values of local residents. He further commented about the commitment to quality by referring to the Atrium Court project, the new landscaping, and signage within Newport Center. Mr. Seitz stated that The Irvine Company sees the General Plan process as the first step to achieving the aforementioned goals. Mr. Seitz described how The Irvine Company re-evaluated Newport Center and Fashion Island, as previously stated by Mr. Nielson. He commented that in more than thirty separate meetings with community groups, that The Irvine Company has concluded that the people want more variety, more culture and more entertainment possibilities, and more fun shops like record stores, electronics, photography, and upbeat shops. Mr. Seitz stated that the plan shows four basic land uses. Retail: Fashion Island is the centerpiece of the plan, that Fashion Island will become a better place to shop, to become more like a town center where people naturally go for entertainment, dining, civic events or people watching. He said that the variety of shops and activity in Fashion Island will be geared to the needs of local residents and to the employees in Newport Center. Mr. Seitz pointed out that two other retail proposals, Bayview Landing, East Coast Highway and Jamboree Boulevard, and Newport Village, will provide restaurants and local services. Mr. Seitz stated that 50 percent of the undeveloped land in the plan is devoted to new residential opportunities in Newport Center and in peripheral sites. He opined that the housing will allow more Newport Center employees to live closer to their work, and he pointed out that a significant portion of the new residences will meet the objectives of the city's housing element which calls for a balance of housing types and price ranges. Mr. Seitz advised that the plans for Big Canyon/MacArthur Boulevard, Villa Point, -27- MINUTES INDEX 'AN\ISSIONERS LD xx eo i = 9 C S m z c m r m z a p n z r 0 z M= N o;M'�City , z i of z i z* m �.7 March 20, 1986 and the Newport North site will complete the residential portion of Newport Center. In reference to residential use, Mr. Seitz stated that The Irvine Company has come to the conviction that the residential sites in and next to Newport Center provide opportunities for creating or adding to real residential neighborhoods. He pointed out the two sites in Newport Center designated for residential use: Block 800 and Newport Village, and stated that they would be surrounded by non-residential uses and would become virtual enclaves. He explained that the proposed plan allows The Irvine Company to provide for residential communities with the amenities that people look for. Mr. Seitz stated that the office component of the plan consists of two multi -story office sites and three low rise garden office sites. He advised that the office proposal overall has a floor area ratio which is consistent with the city's guidelines used in other parts of the city. Mr. Seitz pointed out that expanded quality office space is necessary to compete in the market place. The goal of Newport Center is to insure viability in the coming decades. Mr. Seitz said that the retail, residential and office uses will function in a mutually supportive and inter -dependent way to meet that goal. He pointed out that the office and residential uses help support retail and the convenience stores support the office and residential uses, and overall contributes to a substantial tax revenue to the city. He pointed out that the new development will contribute more than $1 Million per year in surplus tax revenue over and above the costs of providing public services. MINUTES 1 Mr. Seitz commented that another benefit from a mixed use concept is that traffic impacts are reduced because housing, shopping and employment are closer together. He pointed out that many of the vehicle trips projected by the new development will never have to leave Newport Center, that they will have their origin and destination inside the area covered by the plan. Mr. Seitz described the proposed major cultural facility in the Civic Plaza area. Me pointed out that The Irvine Company has been 'working with the Newport Harbor Art Museum and the Newport Beach Library to -28- C1 I LI 1 Ll I I 11 W March 20, 1986 MINUTES '7 n L 11 x x c o x a m z 2 1 m m 9 9 Z r G1 2 r a v m 0 m i z a = s z m m of Newport Beach develop a plan for creating a cultural art complex which would combine an expanded museum, an improved library, and an auditorium and meeting facility to be used by the museum, library and the general public. Mr. Seitz presented slide pictures of the proposed plan and described each site as follows: Retail Sites and Major Roads: Fashion Island has proposed an additional 180,000 square feet of retail space which will allow The Irvine Company to completely renovate and reconfigure the existing shopping center, an increase of about 15 percent of what is there now. Newport Village - MacArthur Boulevard/East Coast Highway: 60,000 square feet of retail space would be allocated for restaurants and service -oriented retail in addition to the garden offices proposed. Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard: - 10 acre site which was previously reserved as right-of-way for the Corona del Mar freeway extension. Approximately 80 apartments or ,Itownhomes are proposed similar in characteristic :to the existing apartments apartments in Big Canyon. Newporter North - Jamboree Boulevard: Over 80 acres which provide an opportunity to create a complete residential community of up to 490 apartments and townhomes. He said that there are archaeological and topographic problems which would have to be worked out in detail planning of the project, but The Irvine Company believes there is a significant opportunity for a residential community. .nt - East Coast Boulevard: 10 acres currently designated for office use. The Irvine Company is proposing that the area be changed to residential, that the new project should be attached visually and conceptually to the Villa Point project with 130 additional units. Mr. Seitz commented that all of the residential projects reinforce an image of quality and design in terms of architecture and landscaping. Mr. Seitz further commented that The Irvine Company has attempted to address the objectives to the City's housing element -29- INDEX a.Ci MMISSIONERS Co z e m m i `z H o; o a m o m r ° City of z a z a z* m March 20, 1086 Beach by providing a significant portion of the units as affordable housing. Block 600 and Block 800: Block 600 next to the 4 Seasons Hotel has one office building of 300,000 square feet proposed, similar in height to existing buildings in the rest of the block. Block 800, 440,000 square feet is proposed, envisioned with two structures similar in size and characteristics to the existing Pacific Mutual building in the same block. He commented that these two office sites would complete the crescent of taller buildings in Newport Center which is consistent with the original urban design concept of Newport Center. He said that the remaining office uses would be low-rise garden structures around the perimeter of Newport Center. Avocado -MacArthur site: 6 acres. One-half of the site area is committed to the Orange County Transit District for a "park and ride" facility, and the remaining half of the site area would accommodate one or two small office buildings up to 40,000 square feet. Newport village site: 33 acres. Proposed is a total of 345,000 , square feet df office space for one and two story low rise garden offices. These garden offices would be planned and designed to respect the view planes of the adjacent neighborhood. Corporate Plaza West: 100#000 square feet is proposed to complete the 10 acre site. The building would be very similar in size and general character to the development that is currently there. Civic Plaza Expansion: The Irvine Company has requested 50,000 square feet to establish the cultural arts complex which would include the existing museum, library, and community meeting facilities. Mr. David Mudgett, 2012 Seadrift Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission, and described the proposed renovation of Fashion island by pointing out sites on a display chart. Mr. Mudgett commented that the design, opportunities and greater variety of shopping, food and entertainment after the opening of Atrium Court have created excitement in Fashion Island. Mr. Mudgett explained that these same elements will be continued into a major redevelopment program for the rest of Fashion Island. He commented that the proposed design -30- MINUTES 1 I I I I I I I I r� March 20, 1986 MINUTES x x f V r 9 2 C m m 9 z m 2 r z 0 ' s o m i _ 2 9 = y = m of Newport Beach ROLL CAL- INDEX Now will include improved circulation, the same mediterranean design as in Atrium Court, new surfaces, landscaping, and fountains. ' Mr. Mudgett commented that The Irvine Company's reconfiguration of Fashion Island will allow movement of tenants, to change the tenants square footage, and to create a selection and broad mix of tenants. He further commented that the proposed clustering of tenants is for more efficient shopping. ' Mr. Mudgett stated that The Irvine Company will be adding food operations throughout Fashion Island: fast food restaurants, outdoor sidewalk cafes, family dining restaurants, and fine dining restaurants. He further ' stated that two restaurants are proposed in the service corridor between Buffums Department Store and Bullocks Wilshire that will take advantage of the ocean view. He pointed out the proposed parking facilities around Fashion Island, and he also stated that there will be an increase in outdoor seating to take advantage of the ' newly acquired spaces. Mr. Mudgett cTTluded his presentation by emphasizing the energy and vitality that Fashion Island will have, and the inner -action between Newport Center activities and the activities within Fashion Island. Mr. Roger Seitz reappeared before the Planning Commission by stating that transportation improvements are an essential component to the Newport Center "Renaissance". He said that the approval of the General Plan will enable The Irvine Company to finance road improvements which will exceed the needs of the proposed development and will contribute to regional traffic solutions that will benefit the entire ' community. Mr. Seitz pointed out that a major component is the construction of Pelican Hill Road providing a by-pass around Corona del Mar for regional through traffic that does not have any destination in Newport Beach. Mr. Seitz stated that The Irvine Company is committed to implementing Pelican Hill Road at the earliest possible time, and that The Irvine 1 Company has already submitted plans for the road to the County for their original review and approval. He said ' that assuming General Plan approval for Newport Center, The Irvine Company expects to be under construction for Pelican Hill Road a year from now and have at least two lanes open to traffic by late 1988. -31- t a.�a March 20, 1986 i') of Newport Beach MINUTES I Mr. Seitz stated that road improvements around Newport Center include completing Jamboree Road adjacent to Newport Centers completing MacArthur Boulevard from East Coast Highway to Bonita Canyon Roads on MacArthur Boulevard between East Coast Highway and San Miguel Driva, the plans are to lower the roadway, moving the roadway further to the west, underground the utilities and create a landscape median and parkway, all of which will reduce noise and improve views from adjacent residences; a creation of a landscaped open space parkway along MacArthur Boulevard between the Corona del Mar freeway and San Joaquin Hills Roads the Avocado Avenue couplet in the City's plan would be deleted and be replaced by the MacArthur Boulevard improvements and intersection improvements around Newport Center. Mr. Seitz stated that The Irvine Company will be experimenting with transportation alternatives to the increase in automobile traffic, such as initiating a comprehensive transportation management program on an experimental basis which will provide expressway bus service for Newport Center employees connecting with the "park and ride" facility in the North County area, and using the car pool lanes on the Costa Mesa freeway. He said that cuing the day the buses would provide a free shuttle service inside Newport Center. He commented that this shuttle service would also compliment the trolley system that has been initiated by the City. He said that there will be a full time transportation manager to coordinate car pooling, and to encourage better utilization of existing roadway facilities. He stated that all of the proposed types of transportation programs may not be successful to start with, but that The Irvine Company is hoping that other companies will also utilize the transportation facilities. Mr. Seitz stated that The Irvine Company is currently negotiating with day care operators in orderto provide a day care center, they are working with the museum and library to expand cultural facilities, they are bringing in national fast food outlets to Fashion Island, and they are talking to family health club operators for a family health club. -32- I I I 11 I Ll I U 1 I MINUTES M COMISSIONERS March zo, 1986 ' x n c o = F y v v m z 9 = a = T ° City of Newport Beach a INDEX ROLL CALL In concluding the presentation, Mr. Seitz stated that The Irvine Company wants Newport Center to be a place of great diversity and vitality, and a place with great potential for the future as Newport Beach's town Plan is a long term center. He said that the General plan, a long term vision, with development to occur over a ten to fifteen year period that would be phased ' with road improvements. Ms. Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator, ' outlined the major issues associated with the General Environmental Impact Plan Amendment, the scope of the Report in preparation, the anticipated schedule for distribution of documents and the possible schedule for ' other applications associated with the General Plan Amendment. Ms. Temple stated that the issues will also be addressed in the staff reports, and an ultimate recommendation by the staff on the project. Ms. Temple stated that the Transportation Model has been updated, and computerized to enable the City to analyze alternatives requested by the Planning Commission in a very short order. She said that the most important to analyze is the capacity of the ' circulation system at Master Plan buildout to sustain General Plan plus the additional development of the proposed project. Ms. Temple commented that major revisions to the Circulation Element Master Plan are ' being proposed as part of the project including the elimination of the Avocado/MacArthur Boulevard one-way couplet. She commented that regional roadway ' completion is proposed by The Irvine Company as part of role in the the project and plays a substantial transportation and circulation needs of the project. She cited that the proposed project must comply with ' the provisions of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Ms. Temple stated that one of the sites does have significant cultural resource value and the preservation or salvation of these resources is going to be an item of significant discussion. She said that of particular importance to the staff is the affect the presence of archaelogical resources has on the timing ' of the residential development. Ms. Temple stated that land use issues include compatibility ,of the proposed land use with the ' development pattern within the City, the appropriate mix of office, commercial and residential uses within the plan, and the issue of residential uses within -33- a.IJ March 20, 1986 " co v r ti zC m �m a m O 1 w z a z a z of Newport Beach Newport Center which has been a consistent concern of the City in the past. Ms. Temple stated that the noise issue to be analyzed includes the impact of the additional traffic on adjacent residential uses, and particularly, the noise impact associated with the change in the Circulation Element Master Plan. MINUTES ' Ms. Temple stated that the recreation issues identified include the appropriate requests for local parks and recreation facilities to serve the new residents and also demands for regional parks. Ms. Temple stated that the fiscal issues have been identified and a fiscal impact analysis has been prepared. She said that staff believes that the benefits resulting in the implementation of the project and benefits and costs from the denial of the project need to be discussed. Ms. Temple stated that housing has been a concern of the City for many years, and the role these proposals play in the City's overall housing program will be discussed in drtail. ' Ms. Temple stated that the phasing issues that need to be addressed include phasing of residential with commercial development, phasing of project components with circulation system improvements, and the phasing of the project with the installation of regional roadways. Ms. Temple stated that the Environmental Impact Report includes all of the mandatory discussions required by the California Environmental Quality Act including a detailed discussion of project alternatives, and the implications of the project include significant irreversible issues of the project, growth inducing impacts, cumulative effects and incremental impacts. Ms. Temple cited that a number of technical reports have been prepared. Ms. Temple advised that the traffic report includes specific analysis of both the long-range ability of the circulation system to sustain planned and proposed development as well as the function of intersections to accommodate the project, which has been prepared under the criteria of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance prior to -34- I I 1 11 r a �s March 20, 1986 MINUTES 'L7 d P of Newport Beach December, 1985. She further cited that the technical appendices will be available with the exception of the archaeological report. Also to be reviewed are the Newport Center Planned Community zoning Text, the supplemental Traffic Study prepared in accordance with the revised Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and a Development Agreement. Ms. Temple advised that the aforementioned items will be available following the General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program, and Environmental Impact Report hearings, allowing the documents to be prepared to reflect and implement the Planning Commission's action on these items. Chairman Person asked that the subject public hearing be limited to issue identification only. Mr. Barry Allen, 1021 White Sails Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission representing the Harbor View Hills Homeowner's Association. Mr. Allen requested that no widening of MacArthur Boulevard be considered until after Pelican Hill Road is constructed. Mr. Allen commented that Pelican Hill Road should be connected to SanlJoaquin Hills Roa6. He also suggested that Avocado Avenue be increased to four lanes, and he asked how many vehicles would use the roadway in comparison with other roadways if Avocado Avenue would be straightened from San Joaquin Hills Road to East Coast Highway. Mr. Allen requested. that a new public hearing be held and a new General Plan Amendment be required before MacArthur Boulevard is considered for widening. Mr. Allen representing himself, inquired where the 75 vacant acres are, and if the 75 acres are considered the golf course; and he further inquired what the increase of traffic on East Coast Highway. will be allowed before there will be consideration given by the City to remove parking from East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. Mr. J. R. Blakemore, a former board member of Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Blakemore stated his concerns regarding the MacArthur Boulevard/East Coast Highway Newport Village retail and commercial land use; that if a post office is proposed for Avocado Avenue that the post office be developed away from East Coast Highway; -35- a16 MMISSIONERS ! March 20, 1986 "� MINUTES ' r 9 m a a= I r 0 ,} a m o y r a City of za z M :o 3' * m Beach 1 r1 that Pelican Hill Road be made a condition; that Avocado Avenue remain a couplet, however that the ' roadway be straightened. Ms. Jean Watt, No. 4 Harbor island, representing SPON, ' appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Watt defined "Renaissance" as a flowering of the arts and literature, and a beginning of modern science. She opined that the arts and literature within the plan is ' good, and she said that SPON wants to see the modern science approach to mitigation of traffic congestion, air quality and run off. She asked for consideration of four issues as follows: Traffic. Mo. Watt opined that Pelican Hill Road is presented as the attraction but the long term affect as ' the Irvine Coast is developed is not being discussed, that this is a strategy for short term traffic mitigation. She further opined that in the interim, Pelican Hill Road will take some traffic around Newport Beach, but the roadway's real function is to serve the Irvine Coastal Development which is not being discussed. Me. Watt asked what will the impact of ' traffic be from the Irvine Coastal Development, and if there is not 44 exact project f{r the Irvine Coast, then a range of projects is needed to analyze. she , also stated that Pelican Hill Road is being used to divert attention of traffic impacts in Newport Beach. She quoted from the Environmental Impact Statement prepared in conjunction with the widening of Pacific , Coast Highway that the work commercial traffic demand is rapidly approaching the recreational level of travel demands therefore, development of a transportation system to accommodate the peak weekday traffic demand , will provide capacity for recreational demand that occurs in the off day peak period. in summary, Ms. Watt stated that the City cannot use recreational ' traffic as an excuse for being unable to plan for an acceptable level of services and in addition, an origin and destination study shows that 80 percent to 85 percent of traffic along Pacific Coast Highway begins and ends in the city. Ms. Watt opined that the City cannot use regional traffic as an excuse foe being unable to plan for an acceptable level of service. She asked if this project will cause or make worse an acceptable level of service on Newport Beach roads and intersections. Buildout: The height limit of the Planned Community Zoning in Newport Center is 375 feet. , if this is the buildout, does the zoning allow for more , -36- . a.n I . COMMISSIONERS March zo, 1986 '". :s :. A c o = f y a v m z c m> m z z a z 9= T m City of Newport Beach 1 j Lotion t11 Ayes n or will this need to be made compatible. Run off: Ms. Watt opined that the state of the art is less precise, but the question is, is there some more sophisticated method of mitigation than the improvement techniques that have been used. Mr. Dick Nichol, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Nichol opined that traffic has reached gridlock in Corona del Mar, and he pointed out roadways within Corona del Mar that have congestion. Mr. Nichol opined that upon reaching gridlock, that there is a need for a more sophisticated traffic analysis, and he suggested that the traffic analysis be revised and improved to show the real situation. Mr. Nichol stated his concern regarding the noise and pollution issues along East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. He pointed out that parked automobiles that are idling are much more inefficient than automobiles that are moving. Mr. Nichol stated his concern that there is not an alternative means to provide traffic going south of Corona del Mar. In summary, Mr. Nichol asked if the area is in gridlock, should there be consideration of retail and residential expansion in Newport Village. Ms. Karen Har�fington, 441 Santa jAna Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Newport Heights Community Association. In reference to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance issue, Ms. Harrington asked if Pacific Coast Highway will be widened, and if so, what numbers will be used. The public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Turner made a motion that the public hearing not be reopened until such time as all of the backup material is available to the public and to the Planning Commission, and that the public hearing notices not be sent out until the documents are available. Chairman Person advised that he would support the motion as a direction to staff. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. The Planning Commission recessed at 10:05 p.m. and reconvened at 10:15 p.m. -37- MINUTES INDEX MMISSIONERS April 24, 1986 ;. MINUTES x C O 6 A _ M , T w City of Newport Beach � _ INDEX ' A. General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) (Public Hearing) Item NO.6 Request to consider amendments to the Land Use, Circu- GPA 85-19 lation, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, so as to allow construction ' Amendment of an additional 1,275#000 sq.ft. of office uses, No. 9 to 248,000 sq.ft. of retail and restaurant uses, and 700 LCP/LUP residential units on property located in Newport Center and various peripheral sites. Also proposed is a Continued revision to the Circulation System Master Plan to to delete the Avocado -MacArthur one -way -couplet and 5-22-86 establish MacArthur Boulevard as a two-way major ' arterial roadway, and the acceptance of an environ- mental document. ' AND B. Amendment No. 9 to the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, Land Uaa Plan (Public Hearing) , Request to amend the Certified Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan for the Newporter North, Bayview Landing, ' and PCH/Jamboree sites. INITIATED BY: ThelCity of Newpoit Beach ' Mr. David Neish, Urban Assist, Inc., 3151 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission, representing The Irvine Company. Mr. Neish ' reviewed The Irvine Company's proposed project that was formally presented during the Planning Commission public hearing on March 20, 1986. , Mr. Neish complimented the staff and the City's environmental and traffic consultants for the work and preparation of the documents that have been prepared ' for the proposed project. Ms. Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator, presented the staff's analysis and recommendation. ' Ms. Temple stated that in analyzing the proposed General Plan Amendment staff has four primary objectives from a land use standpoint: land use ' compatibility; intensity of land use and compatibility to the adjacent areas; that no residential reductions were desirable; and that the City did not want to leave ' floating or transfer residential units within Newport Center. -14- a, 19, COMMISSIONERS `= April 24, 1986 = MINUTES x X n c o = ' -9 > y m z 9 z A= T° City of Newport Beach 'OI L CALL I I I I I I 9 INDEX Ms. Temple stated that The Irvine Company's proposal is ' in keeping with the land use patterns established in the original concept of Newport Center, and in the development that has occurred over the years. She said ' that the proposal in terms of intensity and style of the use is compatible with the existing development and existing land use pattern. She cited that the proposal is not consistent with the long standing effort on the part of the City to maintain an increased planned housing stock in the City, both in Newport Center and the City in general. Ms. Temple stated that the ' concern over the housing stock stems from two areas: the compliance with the State Planning Law and programs in the City's Housing Element, and the circulation ' system balancing effects of a mixed use development. In terms of intensity, Ms. Temple said that the project fits within intensity limits within the City and the ' prior actions of the Planning Commission. She stated for the that when calculated for commercial sites and combination of the commercial and residential sites in Newport Center, the Floor Area Ratio under the existing ' General Plan is 0.41 and if the proposed project is included the F1oof,,Area Ratio it 0.47. When the land taken for recreational uses is included, the country club and the tennis club, the Floor Area Ratios are .30 the other and .35 respectively. In comparison to Planned Communities in the City, Newport Place has a 0.37 Floor Area Ratio permitted, and Koll Center ' Newport has a 0.525 Floor Area Ratio permitted. She said that the older commercial areas within the City allow 'significantly higher intensity ranges: Campus ' Drive at 0.50 Floor Area Ratio; Mariner's Mile and and other Cannery Village at 1.0 Floor Area Ratio; older commercial areas such as Corona del Mar are at 2.0 or 3.0 Floor Area Ratio. Ms. Temple analyzed the individual sites as follows: Fashion Island: Generally consistent with the established land uses. The high-rise tower proposed in Block 600 is similar ' in size to the three existing office towers in Block 600 and is considered compatible with both these and the hotel use which is currently under construction. ' i 1 a. ao r WWSSIONERS `� April 24, 1986 •' MINUTES xX f ~ i ~ v m w ° City of Newport Beach INDEX Civic Plaza area is developed with office and also the ' existing City library and art museum. The proposal to add 50,000 square feet of office use is compatible and it is also compatible if the use is institutional. ' Block 800 proposal would allow additional 440,000 square feet of office use. Block 800 currently has two eight -story office buildings and a restaurant. From a ' land use standpoint the proposal is considered compatible, but the existing Floor Area Ratio in Block 800 is .55, The proposal, if approved as requested, would result in a Floor Area Ratio of 1.55 on the ' vacant portion of the site or would increase the overall intensity of Block 800 to 92. In this respect intensity proposed is significantly higher than that ' which exists in the area. East Coast Highway/Jamboree Boulevard: there are currently two residential areas which are immediately , adjacent, Sea Island to the north and the approved Villa Point apartment project to the east. The addition of 130 apartments in this area would be a ' continuation of the Villa Point apartment project and can be considersdj compatible, particularly since the development is a multi -family residential use which can be accommodated in the arterial highway location ' proposed. Corporate Plaza West is an office development of ' 100,000 square feat which is similar in nature to the Corporate Plaza existing to the east. This use is considered compatible from a land use standpoint. , office and retail commercial requested on Newport Village is proposed to be an extension of the existing Corporate Plaza development, but is a slightly higher ' Floor Area Ratio. The only incompatibility that staff would foresee of approval of this proposal 'is some possibility of aesthetic impact on the residents across MacArthur Boulevard which may result from signage or parking lot lighting. These types of impacts are mitigable. t Avocado/MacArthur Boulevard is proposed for garden offices and is very similar to the Newport Village proposal. It is generally compatible with the land uses in the area although at a far less Floor Area ' Ratio than the Block 400 development across Avocado Avenue. -16- a.a I ' COMMISSIONERS April 24, 1986 MINUTES x F n ' c o = f y y a 9 m z a= 9 z r A City of Newport Beach INDEX CALL C 4Ll C� I Il Big Canyon/MacArthur Boulevard is proposed for an additional BO apartment units which would be an extension of an existing apartment development in Big Canyon. This use is considered compatible. Bayview Landing is proposed for a restaurant complex totaling 60,000 square feet. The location is immediately adjacent to the Newport Dunes Aquatic Park and the Newporter Resort, and it is considered appropriate for visitor related commercial uses. There are some constraints on the site including dedication for roadway improvements, the stability of coastal bluffs and public view opportunities which may limit the intensity which is appropriate on the site. The proposed residential project on Newoorter North is similar in nature and density to other bluff -top developments surrounding Upper Newport Bay such as Eastbluff and Westcliff. Most of the Upper Newport Bay is developed with residential uses in the medium or multi -family density ranges. Park Newport morth of the site is 24.5 dwelling units per acres. Depending upon the amount of site approved for development, the units proposed could elsult in density r, nging from 7.5 to 25 dwelling unit�s�per acre. The primary land use issue associated with the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard couplet is one of site planning. The one-way couplet would isolate the land in between roadways requiring additional ingress/egress points, and in more land used for roadway facilities. The reversion to MacArthur Boulevard as a two way street will allow for more favorable site planning and broaden the uses to which the land in between can be used. Amending the Master Plan 'of Streets and Highways is therefore, considered compatible with the existing land uses and would allow for greater flexibility and site planning in the area. Ms. Temple stated that one of the primary concerns of staff, the community, the Planning Commission, and the applicant is the ability of the circulation system to sustain both planned development and the additional development proposed in the Newport Center plan. She said that the City did extensive traffic work including an analysis of the circulation system as a whole, and as a result, certain findings were made as followst -17- a.ask ' COMMISSIONERS April 24, 1986 MINUTES Xx co Z r T City of Newport Beach ROLL. CALL INDEX In the existing circulation system the traffic ' volumes exceed capacity in certain areass East Coast Highway between Poppy Avenue and Newport Boulevards MacArthur Boulevard between San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road; Jamboree Road between East Coast Highway ' and Back Day Drive. if the existing General Plan were built out along with the planned circulation system, the projected ' traffic volumes would exceed capacity in these areas: East Coast Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and Marguerite Avenues the Coast Highway Bay Bridget Nest ' Coast Highway in Mariners' Mile; MacArthur Boulevard northerly of the couplet to Jamboree Roads Jamboree Road east of MacArthur Boulevard; Marguerite Avenue south of Fifth Avenget Bristol street North west of ' Birch street$ Bristol Street west of Birch Street. If the project is added, traffic volumes exceed capacity on East Coast Highway between Marguerite Avenue and Poppy Avenue in addition to the segments previously noted. ' In terms of overall capacity, Ms. Temple stated that the circulation) system is estimatdd to be in balance with planned and proposed uses. Areas which remain , deficient are East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar which has been considered by the City as a "planned deficiency"; Pacific Coast Highway bridge; West Coast ' Highway in Mariner's Mila; MacArthur Boulevard north of San Joaquin Hills Road; Jamboree Road east of MacArthur Boulevard which is in the airport area. She cited that the deficiencies in the plan are not caused by the project, the project adds traffic volumes in the range of 2 percent to 3 percent, and in the immediate vicinity of the project 7 percent to 11 percent. , Ms. Temple stated that one of the key issues in considering the General Plan Amendment is the possible deletion of the Avocado/MacArthur Boulevard one-way ; couplet. She pointed out that detailed studies in terms of intersection capacity and total traffic volume were done in order to analyze this proposed change. In 1989 and 1993, which is the build out parameter of the proposed General Plan Amendment, the one-way couplet and the two-way MacArthur Boulevard function appears equivalent. Me. Temple pointed out that if the couplet ' is not installed, the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road is the intersection that experiences the most capacity ' -18- CO3'4NMISSI0NERS - April 24, 1986 ; MINUTES H I H I II i I I cx o z C v p v m i z p= 9= T° j City of Newport Beach problems, with the couplet the intersection of East Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard experiences some capacity problems. she stated that one advantage with two-way MacArthur Boulevard is that there would be no access granted on MacArthur Boulevard, all access to sites westerly of MacArthur Boulevard would be from Avocado Avenue, thereby limiting the ingress/egress or conflict traffic on MacArthur Boulevard, and would also reduce some out -of -direction travel necessitated by the couplet. Ms. Temple stated that there has been a suggestion that MacArthur Boulevard between East Coast Highway and San Miguel Road be limited to four lanes. She cited that based on a six lane MacArthur Boulevard, the volume to capacity ratio at build out is estimated to be .87; however, if MacArthur Boulevard remains at 4 lanes, the volume to capacity ratio goes up to 1.3, which is in excess of the roadway capacity. Ms. Temple said that in staff's estimation the circulation element designation for MacArthur Boulevard should be a six lane arterial. Ms. Temple stated that San Joaquin Hills Road is currently designated as a major arthrial which is a six lane divided roadway. She said that based on all of the information in the traffic study and traffic studies done by the County of Orange, the volumes do not warrant this magnitude designation. She said that staff is recommending that the Master Plan in the City be changed to indicate the road as a primary arterial which would be a four lane divided designation easterly of Spyglass Hills Road, requiring the City to request the County to amend the County's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. Ms. Temple stated that regional roadways play a significant role to sustain the traffic proposed to come onto the circulation system. She pointed out that of particular importance in the short term is construction of Pelican Hill Road/Bonita Canyon Road bypass between Pacific Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard. She said that based on the information in the traffic studies in the origin and destination survey, the Pelican Hill Road would divert approximately 23 percent of the traffic on East Coast Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and the easterly City Boundary and 22 percent of the traffic on MacArthur Boulevard. Ms. Temple stated that in addition -19- LJ April 24, 1986 MINUTES ' y S r 9 z c m > m C Z N p; O Z Z Z ! 2 of Newport Beach to providing additional capacity, the road serves to improve Intersection Capacity Utilization ratios at the intersections along these two routes as well. She commented that the construction of Pelican Hill Road will be a primary component of the improvement program for this project if it is approved. Me. Temple stated that the extension of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road could also divert some traffic during peak hours although it is not estimated to divert nearly as much as Pelican Hill Road. in terms of the proposed project, Ms. Temple commented that the San Joaquin Hills Road extension would serve traffic directly going into Newport Center. The Pelican Hill Road connection primarially will serve development which occurs north of Newport Center and in the airport area. Ma, Temple stated that in the long term, the most important roadway in the City is the installation of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. She pointed out that the Corridor provides substantial relief to East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar and MacArthur Boulevard. Additionally, the traffic study indicates thatl }all of the connections currently anticipated by the County's planning for the Corridor are needed for the Newport Beach circulation system to function equitably on a system wide basis. She pointed out that if San Joaquin Hills Road is not constructed between Pelican Hill Road and the Corridor, the traffic volumes increase on Ford Road and through the Harbor View Homes area, particularly along San Miguel Road, and if the Ford Road interchange is eliminated, the traffic volumes along MacArthur Boulevard increase significantly. Me. Temple stated that the Traffic Phasing ordinance was amended in December, 1985. A supplemental Traffic Phasing Ordinance will be prepared and must be considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council prior to final action of this project. She said that the Traffic Phasing ordinance and the Planned Community Text along with the Development Agreement processed for this project would follow the Planning Commission's consideration of the General Plan Amendment and the Local Coastal Program Amendment. -20- I d I I I F i I I a.as COMMISSIONERS April 24, 1986 MINUTES z c D 9 C 2 m 9 cx o o m z z r 0 2 p; 0 0 0 m m m 2 p 2 A Z � m H G I n I I n of Newport Beach in response to the noise impact in the change in the roadway configuration from the one-way couplet to a two-way MacArthur Boulevard, The Irvine Company proposed a mitigation measure which involves the lowering of MacArthur Boulevard. Ms. Temple pointed out that MacArthur Boulevard would be lowered from zero to 13 feet and in order to do this, the centerline of the roadway would also move westerly approximately 50 feet, thereby providing a significant noise mitigation. Ms. Temple stated that the Fire Department has indicated that the proposed project will significantly affect the demand for emergency services from the Santa Barbara Drive station. She said that the Fire Department has indicated that a desirable location for an additional fire station in the north part of the City would be the San Diego Creek North site. She pointed out that the site is designated as "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities", allowing a "park and ride" facility, and could also be used for a fire station. Ms. Temple stated that a fiscal impact analysis was done as part of the work for the Gen ral Plan Amendment and indicated thatlif the proposed project is approved, and constructed, the project would result in revenue in excess of expenditures of approximately $1 million annually. She pointed out that the City's consultants feel that the City's fiscal model used in generating this estimate is conservative and that the project could generate an additional annual surplus of $160,000.00 to $320.000.00. Ms. Temple stated that denial of the project could have some revenue impacts on the City. The City would not gain the revenue that could be accrued by approval of the project, but also the circulation system master plan improvements may have to be partially paid for by the City. Ms. Temple cited that the primary consideration regarding staff's recommendations of land uses was housing and employment balance. She pointed out that this is important both from a housing standpoint and also peripheral benefits in terms of the circulation system since residential and commercial uses generally produce traffic in opposite directions. Ms. Temple presented staff's recommendations as follows: -21- INDEX a.aL .. MMISSIONERS x X 111 c0 n X' = • m 2 C 111 M 2_ 09 A 2r O C 2 N O i 0 0 T7= I l/'� (�'�j/�' Of 22 a M V'�y April 24, 1986 Beach eayvi. Landings A site that has some access and slope stability problems. The request is for 60,000 square feet of or rcial use for restaurants. Staff's recommends that the request be reduced to 20,000 square feet, and that the development be limited to the lower portion of the site which would gain access directly from Hack Bay Drive. Ms. Temple recommended that the upper portion be held as an open space to allow for improvements at the Jamboree Road/East Coast Highway intersection, a view park, and a bicycle and pedestrian path and staging area. NMEter Norths Me. Temple commented that there are significant archeological sources which exist on the site. Staff recommends the site for residential development and has suggested that the area of the site which is taken up by archeological resources be held as a cultural resource reserve and that the 490 units requested be developed outside those areas. This would result in a project approximately the density of the Park Newport Apartments. Big Canyon/MacArthur Boulevards Staff has suggested no land use changes, and has recommended that the project be approved as requested with 80 as residential units. Civic Plazas The Irvine Company requested to delete 11350 theater seats and to increase the office/ institutional use by 50,000 square feet. The uses proposed are compatible with existing development and staff therefore recommends approval. Fashion island: Staff suggests that seats deleted from Civic Plaza be placed in the Fashion island Retail Center. Further, the 40,000 square feet which staff suggested not be built on Bayview Landing also be allowed in the Fashion island Retail Center. This will result in an overall increase of 168,000 sq.ft. of retail uses and 11350 theater seats. Block 600% A 300,000 square foot office tower is proposed. The three other office towers in the area are generally in the range of 300,000 square feet as is the Four seasons Hotel. Staff recommends that this project be approved as requested. MINUTES I I I H 11 n -22 1 1 i; 11 a, a� April 24, 1986 MINUTES C ,0 ' £ p 9 1 9 r 9 z c m a m m 2 r 0 0 0 9 m 2 9 0 = > D 2 of Newport Beach ' Block 800: The intensity is proposed somewhat higher than --in rest of the block, and staff suggests that the office project be allowed to go forward, but at a ' reduced intensity at a maximum of 300,000 square feet. Corporate Plaza West: The garden offices are similar to the existing uses in Corporate Plaza and staff has ' recommended that the project be approved as requested. E2 rt Village: The site has recently been designated ' as predominently multi -family residential. Ms. Temple that the site stated that staff feels very strongly remain residential and rather than allow any commercial development which is allowed by the existing General ' Plan, staff is recommending that the entire 33 acres be designated multi -family residential at a maximum of 530 residential units, a similar density to that which ' is in the existing General Plan. Avocado/MacArthur Boulevard: 44,000 square feet of garden offices is requested. Staff feels that the request is appropriate and has recommended that the project be approved. Ms. Temple stated t that other land use element changes are: that are a result of the overall analysis San Diego Creek North: Staff has recommended that a 2.5 acre fire station reservation be added to the site in addition to the "park and ride" facility. ' Westbay: Currently has 161 units designated, 75 to Newport percent of those units are transferred Center under the existing General Plan. In the overall land use recommendation, the floating transfer units ' disappear, leaving 40 residential units on the Westbay site. As part of the General Plan Amendment, staff is recommending that the 40 units be deleted and Westbay ' be designated for recreation and environmental open space. Ms. Temple stated that the modified project will result in 1,414 new residential units constructed in Newport Center, and on the adjacent sites. Staff has recommended that the affordable housing required of this project be consistent with the City's Housing ' Element providing a total of 453 low and moderate income units, and that this would include total accounting for the remaining Baywood expansion, no -23- a.aa April 24, 1986 MINUTES Of Beach KOLL CALL I l i l l l IINDEX floating units, no transfer units, and no pool affordable units. Also recommended is that these residential units be made available for twenty years. Ms. Temple stated that there has been a desire by staff to insure completion of residential units early in the Newport Center Development Program, and staff usually keys c. i rciol development programs to the construction of residential units. The following land use phasing is proposed by staff: 1) No Newport Center residential units required for Fashion Island expansion; Civic Plaza expansions or any residential on the periphery of Newport Center, 2) 400 residential units in Newport Center must have building permits issued and substantial progress in construction before building permits are issued for Block 600; Bayview Landing and Avocado/MacArthur. 3) 400 additional residential units in Newport Center must have building permits issued and substantial progress in construction before issuance of occupancy permits for Block ¢00. 4) Completion and Certificate of Occupancy for 800 residential units, which are the two previous 400 residential unit phases, must be issued before building permits are issued for Block 800 and Corporate Plaza West. Ms. Temple stated that the completion of the proposed project should also be phased with roadway construction4 She pointed out that there are five components of the circulation system which will be required to be constructed by The Irvine Company as part of the project approval. The five components are: 1) Dedication of Right of -way for East Coast Highway improvements. 2) Completion of Jamboree Road to six -lane major arterial standards from East Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road. 3) Completion of MacArthur Boulevard to six -lane major arterial standards from East Coast Highway to Route 73. -24- a.aCA April 24, 1986 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 0 a Flo m a = 9 = ? ° City of Newport Beach 9 OLL CALL INDEX 4) Construction of Pelican Hill Road/Bonita Canyon Road between Pacific Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard. ' 5) Construction of San Joaquin Hills Road between Road. Spyglass Hill Road and Pelican Hill Ms. Temple stated that these improvements shall be required in the following phases: 1) Prior to issuance of any building permits for any ' component of GPA 85-1(B) all dedications from The of the Coast Irvine Company necessary for completion Highway Improvement Program shall have been made. ' 2) The following projects may proceed after Coast Highway dedications but before installation of Pelican Hill Road: one-half of Fashion Island; Civic Plaza; and any residential sites. 3) The balance of Fashion Island may proceed after Coast Highway dedications and the completion of Jamboree Road, but before installation of Pelican Hill Road. t 1 1 4) Building or grading permits may be issued upon Hill Road and commencement of construction of Pelican MacArthur Boulevard improvements for Block 600; Bayview Landing; Avocado/MacArthur. 5) Certificate of occupancy shall not be issued for Block 60o until the completion of Pelican Hill Road. 6) Building or grading permits for Block 800 and Corporate Plaza West may be issued upon commencement of construction of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill ' Road. Mr. Mike Erickson, Director of Transportation, The ' Irvine Company, 550 Newport Center Drive, appeared stated before the Planning Commission. Mr. Erickson that Pelican Hill Road is a roadway that The Irvine Company is pursuing as quickly as possible because of the roadway's important relationship to the Newport Center General Plan Amendment. Mr. Erickson reviewed The Irvine Company's proposal of Pelican Hill Road. Mr. ' Erickson stated that Pelican Hill Road begins at horse used to Pacific Coast Highway, where the stables be and where the main entrance to the State beach is on the southside of Pacific Coast Highway. He described -25- MMISSIONERS '� April 240 1986 MINUTES xX C O E y ry r' m t m T ° City of Newport Beach za '* z azm INDEX ' how the roadway climbs up the hill to Pelican Hill ' Ridge, how the roadway intersects with Bonita Canyon Road near the Coyote Canyon access road, and how the four lanes will intersect with MacArthur Boulevard. He said that the project is approximately six miles long, ' at a cost of $15 million to $20 million. Mr. Erickson stated that the road provides an alternate to the current traffic problems in Corona del Mar and MacArthur Boulevard, that the roadway is shorter with fewer intersections, thereby less time would occur to drive the route, and would become very attractive to drivers that want to come from South County up into the ' airport business complex area. He said that 10,000 to 12,000 trips per day have been projected, a 33 percent diversion at the point where Pelican Hill Road takes off from Pacific Coast Highway. Mr. Erickson stated that The Irvine Company has completed staff reviews with the State, the City of , Irvine, the City of Newport Beach, and the County under whose direction The Irvine Company is processing, as well as discussions with the Coastal Commission. in , reference to the Environmental Documentation, Mr. Erickson commented that the notice of preparation should be circulated within a week: He said that The Irvine Company is anticipating the circulation of the Draft Environmental impact Report around July with the certification in September or October of this year, and the start of construction about a year from today. He ' commented that the project should take approximately 18 months to complete, an expectation of opening day in October, 1988. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:08 p.m. and reconvened at 9:20 p.m. Commissioner Koppelman referred to the height of the noise barriers on MacArthur Boulevard as documented in the Environmental Impact Report, and she asked how many lanes are assumed to be in for that noise barrier, and assuming implementation of the depression, would the barrier height exceed what is presently existing. Ms. Temple replied that staff would address these questions in the following General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) staff report. Commissioner Koppelman asked how many completed lanes ' the Pelican Hill Road will have in October, 1988, Mr. Webb replied that the roadway would immediately have -26- COMMISSIONERS April 24, 1986 x a co z Fa v 9ry m 1= a z a z r m City of Newport Beach one lane in each direction with climbing lanes at the steep hill areas; however, the grading would be done ' for the entire six lane roadway. Commissioner Koppelman asked who owns the Ford Road/Bonita Canyon area. Mr. Webb replied that the City of Newport Beach owns all of the existing Ford Road, and any further extensions of Ford Road would be in the City of Irvine. In response to .a question posed by Commissioner 1 Winburn, Mr. Webb replied that approximately 25 percent County of orange, of Pelican Hill Road will be in the and 75 percent will be in the City of Irvine. ' Chairman Person asked if Pelican Hill Road involves discretionary approval? Mr. Erickson reappeared before the Planning Commission and stated that there is a need for discretionary approval. He said that The Irvine from the City of Company has a General Plan conformance Irvine on Pelican Hill Road, and that they are presently going through the process with the City of ' Irvine. Hewickerl,'! Planning Diredtor, stated that James letters have been distributed by staff to the Planning "Resolution Commission from Jacques Furriers, Russo's, of Support" from the Newport Center Association, SPON, ' and The Balalis Corporation. Mrs. Deborah Allen, 1021 Whitesails Way, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Allen stated that 1 she strongly supports staff's recommendation of the use of Newport village residential site and the mixed residential/office/commercial in Newport Center. Mrs. Allen referred to the widening of MacArthur Boulevard between East Coast Highway to San Miguel/San Joaquin Hills Road and stated "don't fix it if it is not broken". She said that the Harbor View Hills ' Homeowners Association does not have any objection to north of San what is done to MacArthur Boulevard Joaquin Hills Road. She commented that she strongly supports deleting the one-way couplet, she supports an ' Avocado Avenue that is two lanes and a straight road. She presented statistics indicating that MacArthur Boulevard is not "broken" now. Mrs. Allen commented ' that Pelican Hill Road is expected to reduce traffic on and if the San MacArthur Boulevard by 20 percent, Joaquin Hills Traffic Corridor is built that will make the road utilization even lower. She suggested that the widening of MacArthur Boulevard to six lanes should ' -27- MINUTES INDEX MMISSIONER5 April 24, 1986 2 MINUTES xX ti 9 " 2 r t m Cit of Newport Beach ' INDEX ' not be considered at this time and that the issue cone back in another General Plan amendment when MacArthur Boulevard is "broken", and she recommended that the time to cow back would be when the City had more information on the Transportation Corridor. She cosmanted that according to the Newport Center Environsental Impact Report the Newport Center expansion project will not add significantly to MacArthur Boulevard. Mrs. Allen referred to the couplet which was a roadway considered to be six lanes - three lanes on MacArthur Boulevard and three lanes on Avocado Avenue, and she cited that if MacArthur Boulevard is left at four lanes and there would be four lanes on Avocado Avenue there would be eight lanes. Chairman Person asked Mrs. Allen for her opinion of the proposed land use and density as it relates to the proposed project and staff's recommendations. Mrs. Allen replied that she had not had time to compare the General Plan Amendment 80-3 as approved by City Council with the proposed project. She emphasized that she strongly supports the residential land use in Newport Center. j Ms. Luvena Haytoh` Transportation Chairman, Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce, appeared before the Planning Commission. Me. Hayton stated that the Chamber of Commerce does not accept staff's recommendation that one-half of Fashion Island, Civic Plaza, and the proposed residential sites proceed after East Coast Highway dedications but before installation of Pelican Hill Road. She stated that 21,949 automobile trips are projected to be added, and that there will not be any traffic ease for Corona del Mar. Ms. Hayton referred to the proposed traffic improvements and pointed out that not one of the improvements addresses Corona del Mar. She asked that San Joaquin Hills Road be left a major arterial, six lanes divided, instead of decreasing to four lanes divided, because San Joaquin Hills Road is the only planned outlet for the traffic that is now congested on East Coast Highway. Me. Hayton cited that the taxpayers have built and maintained San Joaquin Hills Road including landscaping. Me. Hayton requested a contingency deadline earlier than stated by staff for construction of the San Joaquin Hills Road or the connection of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road, which is the last -28- I I I I I I a .33 r�nmmISSIONERSI April 24, 19es MINUTES Z y v co 9'v m i s m> m z m 9 = r O S C z m p; O O a m o m> m m � 2 9 2 9 Z r m n I I I I of Newport Beach phase of construction. She commented that this phasing is totally unacceptable to Corona del Mar. Ms. Hayton stated that the Chamber of Commerce agrees with staff that Newport Village be changed to residential, because even with the proposed circulation improvements the area cannot bear the extra traffic and congestion that commercial site of stores and restaurants would add. She opined that there is more of a need for housing than a need for more retail, offices, and restaurants. Ms. Hayton complimented The Irvine Company for the many courtesies that they have shown to the community in the presentation of the proposed project, and the listening attitude to the concerns of the residents. She said that the Chamber of Commerce has never opposed the build -out of Newport Center, only the increase in traffic. She said that the build -out will affect the quality of life in Corona del Mar by adding traffic that cannot be absorbed without circulation improvements. Ms. Hayton stated that the Chamber of Commerce does not care for "planned deficiency". in response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Ms. Hayton replied that the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce is rec8m6ending immediate construction of the Pelican Hill Road - San Joaquin Hills Road connection. Mr. Gary Pomeroy, President of the Harbor View Hills Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Pomeroy stated that the Harbor View Hills Community Association is requesting that Pelican Hill Road be built in order to relief traffic on MacArthur Boulevard, and they are also opposing the widening of MacArthur Boulevard until they find out the impact of Pelican Hill Road. He said that if traffic is still serious on MacArthur Boulevard after Pelican Hill Road and San Joaquin Hills Road have been built, then he asked that the widening of MacArthur Boulevard be examined. Mr. Bill Hamilton, President of the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce and President of Western Canners, owners of the Cannery Restaurant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hamilton read a letter from the Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce in support of the proposed General Plan Amendment for Newport Center. He said that the local businessmen and businesswomen of the Chamber of Commerce approve of the balance of office, retail, residential and residential -29- 721101-0 a.3Li Y\MISSKONERS April za, 1986 �1 MINUTES , c0 = i y a z , 0 ° ; ° , City of Newport Beach ,m o maT z, z „gym development which will revitalize and enhance the business environment, and the compatibility of the project with the surrounding residential communities. He opined that Newport Center and Newport Beach have lost some of their former prestige as a place to do business because of the lack of expansion apaca, and due to government requlations, there is not a reasonable amount of commercial growth, consequently, many local firms needing space to expand have relocated in surrounding communities. He pointed out that many Newport Beach residents have had to spend their dollars outside Newport Beach due to inadequate retail shops, activities, and services at Fashion island. Mr. Hamilton explained how Newport Center could become a focal point to the residents of the community, and that Newport Center is an important source of City tax revenues. He cited that the General Plan Amendment provides an opportunity to the City to secure a commitment to complete the Master Plan of roads and highways plus the construction of Pelican Hill Road to provide the bypass for Corona del Mar. Mr. Hamilton expressed his desire that this generation cam the Newport Beach area forward so that future generations can enjoy the area as, much as the residents have enjoyed the past work by thobe who have previously changed Newport Beach. In response to a question posed by Commissioner xoppelman regarding the Chamber of commerce's position regarding the phasing of the roads and construction, Mr. Hamilton replied that the Chamber of Commerce saw nothing in the General Plan that they oppose as far as the mixed use or the plan of phasing the various traffic mitigating activities in the build -out. Mr. Hamilton stated that the Chamber of Commerce took this position before the Environmental impact Report or the Traffic Study was distributed. Chairman Person asked what the Chamber of Commerce's position is regarding the recommended housing units and the housing that would be available for the employees of Newport Center. Mr. Hamilton replied that in general, the Chamber of Commerce feels that the commercial use of Newport Center is more important in providing revenue for the amenities that the City would like to have and that these would be better funded by commercial activities than they are by residences. The Chamber of Commerce feels that The Irvine Company is on the right track to provide more commercial space than housing space in Newport Center to help pay for the expensive traffic circulation requirements. -30- I I LJ I I I ,' a,3s 2r April 24, 1986 ;] MINUTES xx c o ' z c m m C 2 m 9 N > m Z r 0 O C A m Z 9 o Z m > " 9 2 T ROLL of Newport Beach Ms. Dorothy Hardcastle, 507 Jade Street, Balboa Island, President of Speak Up Newport (SUN) appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Hardcastle stated that the Board of Directors feel strongly about the implementation of General Plan Amendment 85-1(B), and are breaking their policy of only discussing plans and issues without taking a position. She said that in so doing, the Board of Directors are in complete accord on the necessity of completing Newport Center and asked for approval of the project. She further stated how the proposed project will enhance the needs of the employees and residents of the community. She also suggested that 25 percent of the residential units be made available to those of lower and moderate incomes. She cited the need for the road improvements and the need and conveniences of Pelican Hill Road. Ms. Hardcastle stated that Fashion island is the largest single source of revenue in Newport Beach and that the proposed project would increase the City's revenue - She cited that the Board of Directors of SUN are urging approval of the General Plan Amendment. Mr. Jack Ryan, 48 Fashion Island, appeared before the Planning Commiss,s#n. Mr. Ryan Pq.nted out that The Irvine company Is proposing to bring in additional medium priced stores that will be catering to the career woman comparable to his store. He stated that 60 percent of his customers are Newport Center employees, and that the success of many of the Fashion Island businesses depend upon the approval of the General Plan Amendment. He pointed out that The Irvine Company will be implementing an express bus line from communities outside of Newport Beach to bring in employees and customers to Newport Center. Mr. Bruce Lambert, 215 Atrium Court, President of the Fashion Island Merchant Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. He said that -the 100 retailers in Fashion island support the General Plan Amendment in order that Fashion island may be expanded and improved to the benefit of the entire community. He pointed out that residents will benefit by the broader mix of retail opportunities, and that they will not have to drive long distances to outlying shopping malls. Mr. Lambert pointed out the proposed amenities that Fashion Island will offer. He cited that residents in the community have stated that they would like to see Fashion Island become a "people place". -31- �'1 a.3L April 24, 1986 MINUTES ' { 4 9 � I m ci H usoo Cit a , O A > =f = az Beach n response to a question Posed by Commi,ssionar Turner, II r. Lambert replied that the Fashion Island Merchants sue of housing ,ssociation has sc not tar wandsthat ed tthe ° they would come back rithi Newport rith an answer at a later date. Chairman Paxson agreed rith Cosissioner Turner that the opinion of the Fashion Island Merchants Association would be helpful, he &ISO sfioxdabla housingkwi hin thearea, for their opinion regarding Ms. Gail D'Vorsk, Vice President and GeneralCMdser of Heiman MarCns, appeared before the Planning Ms. D'Vorsk raegnsended approval of the General lof an AmendMent, and the vital affect that the employees the surrounding office buildings have on the success 01 of Neiaan Marcus. She coamented that the 9 Newport Center will serve the needs of future generations. Mr. Barry Allen, 1021 Whitesails Wayr appeared before the Planning COMrission. Mr. Allen referred to the ataffI s recomwndat$ and he staat MacArthur that Boulevard is widened to si?C� lanesr study does no `support the staffis xecomglandation. He cited thatMacArthur levard is not operating at ated that including the build -out full capacity. the future of Newport Center and future development,percent usage of MacArthur Boulevard will drop to sixty capacity with the building of Pelican Hill Road, the which does not take into consideration the cited Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, ation il remove even more traffic from the area. Mr. Allen stated that the following traffic figures do not appear in the Environmental Impact Report- 15,000 automobiles a day reduced through Corona del Her on East Coast Highways 14,000 automobiles a day reduced on MacArthur Boulevards 10,000 automobiles reduced on Jamboree Road, in addition to the reduction that will take place in the building of the Pelican Nil' Road' Mr. Allen stated that the aforeDme ti oned of traffic raffic figures came from Mr. Ban Nolan, or Works, told to the City , when San Joaquin HillsCouncil in November,SFreeway the City decided to loin the Agency. He said that the traffic studies that era now in existence and that have been done show no reason to and nSan MacArthur Joaquin Hills Boulevard d. Mr.asAllen coast submitted I I I I 1 I -32- I April 24, 1986 MINUTES cx O E a s> v m m S= r Z O Z C 2 N O i O O a m O m f m � 2 n i A S� m ■ ROLL of Newport Beach traffic figures pertaining to the current travel and capacity of MacArthur Boulevard, and Pelican Hill Road completion. He further commented that there is no reason to widen MacArthur Boulevard, leave it at four lanes. Mr. Allen commented that there are three lanes proposed going down to East Coast Highway, which is going to remain at two lanes in each direction, unless the parking is taken away. He opined that roads are proposed to be built and are being designed for six lanes, which means that there are attempts to build a six lane road on East Coast Highway. He further commented that parking will be taken off of East Coast Highway, and that there will be six lanes through Corona del Mar, creating the Coastal Freeway. He advised that the Coastal Freeway must be stopped by not allowing the widening of roads when the roads do not need to be widened. He opined that allowing MacArthur Boulevard to be widened is building another freeway on -ramp to the Coastal Freeway. Mr. Allen stated that Corona del Mar would be destroyed because no one wants to shop next to a freeway. Mr. Allen concluded his presentation b� !stating that these is nothing wrong with MacArthur Boulevard, that the, road is not broken, so don't fix it. Ms. Karen Harrington, 441 Santa Ana Avenue, President of the Newport Heights Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Harrington commented that The Irvine Company presented the proposed project to the Newport Heights Community Association, and that the Association approves of the build -out of Fashion Island, including the cultural improvements. She stated that the Association agrees with staff's recommendations regarding Bayview Landing, however, they would recommend one restaurant, leaving the remaining area as open space, and to develop Newport Village as residential including a park. Ms. Harrington stated that the 1,200,000 square feet of proposed office space in Newport Center is more than adequate to meet the needs of the clients and the clients that The Irvine Company may want to attract, which would create more open space. Ms. Harrington stated that the Newport Heights Community Association, Cliffhaven Community Association, and Mariner's Mile Business Association are on record opposing the widening of West Coast Highway to six lanes, and the INDEX -33- a. 3 r6 'AN\ISSIONERS r April 24, 1986 MINUTES C O � = r ro m 1 9 0 2 z z r O S m o a x% r" I City of 1 2 Z A M Newport Beach , traffic intersection improvements, specifically Tustin Avenue and Riverside Avenue, which would encourage the traffic flow into the residential neighborhood. Ms. Harrington expressed a concern regarding the protection , of the bluffs in the Hack Bay area, and keeping development away from the bluffs. Mr. Richard H. Marowitz, President of Newport Center Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Marowits read the "Resolution of Support for General Plan Amendment 85-l(B)" which stated that the completion of Newport Center is necessary to the vitality of Newport Center and the City of Newport Beach; that the Newport Center Association has reviewed ' and considered all aspects of the proposed General Plan Amendment; and that the Board of Directors unanimously recommend and endorse the approval by the City of Newport Beach. Mr. Marowitz stated that the ' Association recognizes the need for The Irvine Company to build out Newport Center and the need of the 11,000 work constituencies. He said that the completion of , Newport Center will balance and enhance the existing and proposed ;business, retailIp and professional locations and will provide the residents and guests a wider variety of services and merchandise and price ' points. Mr. Marowitz stated that successful businesses should ' have the opportunity to expand, and that opportunity is virtually non-existent because the office buildings are approximately 96 percent leased, and that many businesses have never been able to reach their , potential. He pointed out that the adoption of the General flan Amendment will be a major factor in allowing the retail and professional businesses to ' bring their greater potential to fulfillment. He pointed out that the opening of Irvine Ranch Farmer's Market and Atrium Court has been incredible, that the posture of the retail community has changed significantly. Mr. Marowitz opined that what is needed now is the balance of the plan. He reflected back to the time that Fashion Island was opened in 1967 when ' the goal was that Fashion Island was not only to be a _ place to shop, to work, but also a place to come to and to be. He opined that the new Irvine Company has the same goals and he urged the approval of the General Plan Amendment. -34- ' a.e3 C� 't COMMISSIONERS '� April 24, 1986 MINUTES c o = 01 z = = r a City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I FM I I INDEX C In response to questions posed by Commissioner Turner, Mr. Marowitz replied that the Newport Center Association opposes staff's recommendation of residential development in Newport Village, that the garden offices would be more useful to Newport Center. Mr. Dick Nichols, 519 Iris Avenue, appeared before the Planning commission on behalf of the Corona del Mar Community Association. Mr. Nichols stated that The Irvine Company has presented the project to the Association, however, he has not read the Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Nichols stated that they oppose the high density of proposed Block 600, Block 800 and Newport Village. He stated that the traffic in Corona del Mar has come to a standstill and that there is a need for mitigation. He commented that the Downcoast Development does not appear to be in the Environmental Impact Report/Traffic Study. Mr. Nichols opined that the Association approves of staff's recommendation for residential at Newport Village, because there would be less traffic, and there would also be off -hour traffic. Mr. Nichols stated that the Association agrees with the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce as previously stated by Ms. Haytonr that Pelican Hill Road should be constructed much•?sooner= however, �wo lanes may not be adequate. Mr. Nichols stated that the Association opposes staff's recommendation that MacArthur Boulevard be widened to six lanes, and he described how lanes could merge into MacArthur Boulevard between East Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road. Mr. Nichols stated that the fact that tenants proposing to move out of Newport Center because of inadequate office space should not be a factor. Mr. Nichols opined that The Irvine Company should have built additional east -west roadways during the period when The Irvine Company was developing Corona del Mar. Ms. Pat Frey, 708 Avocado Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Frey stated that she approves of the General Plan Amendment as a young businesswoman who would like to remain in the Newport Beach area, and she stated her approval of the affordable housing element of the General Plan Amendment. Ms. Grace Secketa, Planner from the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency Parks and Recreation, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Secketa requested that the County of Orange Harbor, Beaches, -35- ;1.` 0 April 24, 1986 MINUTES , z c m m z of Newport Beachmt INDEX ' and Parks District be designated the recipient of the 82 acres on westbay. She pointed out that the County ' of Orange started the District and would like to continue to do so. , Mr. Chuck Hirsch, businessman and a member of the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hirsch pointed out that business and residential growth generate traffic, and that traffic is also generated from communities adjacent to Newport Beach. He said that the growth of traffic cannot be stopped but development agreements ' can be provided to improve the circulation of traffic. He said that Pelican Hill Road can divert an increase of traffic off of East Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard. He suggested that traffic noise could be ' also diverted by the lowering of MacArthur Boulevard and the construction of sound walls. Mr. Hirsch recommended the approval of General Plan Amendment , 86-1(B). Mr. John McKerren, 2520 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission stating that he opposes the ' reduction of Sgqnlicaquin Hills Rof}d from six lanes to four lanes, anal that he agrees tiith Deborah Al1en's previous remarks regarding MacArthur Boulevard "don't , fix it until it is broken". He stated that he is very impressed with the amount of work that has been generated by staff and The Irvine Company regarding the ' proposed project and he stated his approval of General Plan Amendment 85-1(B). Ms. Irving Garn, Corona del Mar, appeared before the ' Planning Commission. Ms. Garn stated that she shops in Fashion Island, however she supports a wider range of prices to enable more shoppers to leave their dollars ' in Fashion Island. Mr. Tim Paone, 1470 Jamboree Road, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Paone stated that he has not ' been able to find adequate office space within Newport Center to accommodate the growth of his law office; however, he pointed out that everyone in the law office has requested to remain in Newport Center because of the vitality and identity that Newport Center brings to a business. Mr. Paone commented that businesses feel a part of the community, and that there are not many commercial areas in the surrounding communities that businesses can feel that way. -36- 1 a.-i ► I COMMISSIONERS April za,.l9ee MINUTES x 0 co = f ti 9 m 9 = A = w ° City of Newport Beach ROLL CAL► INDEX Ms. Edith Goodwin, 4810 Park Newport, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Goodwin stated her approval of the General Plan Amendment and commented that she walks to Newport Center. She opined, that Atrium Court/Fashion island is a sophisticated way of going downtown. Ms. Goodwin stated that as a businesswoman she sees the necessity of the "Renaissance of Newport Center", so that businesses can survive and expand. Mr. Bob Duke, 27 Bodega Bay, representing Spyglass Hill Homeowners Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Duke stated that the Association supports the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, and the Association does not oppose the proposed project providing that •the increase in traffic is properly addressed. He stated that the Association has a concern that the Environmental Impact Report and the Traffic Study have addressed the present traffic problems in addition to the increase in traffic from projects which are now under construction, as well as those that are included in the proposed project. Mr. Duke stated that the Association opposes the widening of San JoaquiniH311s Road from foJr lanes to six lanes. He cited Resolution 85-11, approved by the City Council on February 25, 1985, stating that San Joaquin Hills Road would not exceed four lanes. The Planning Commission recessed 'at 10:43 p.m, and reconvened at 10:50 p.m. Mr. Taylor Grant, 1985 Port Edward Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Grant asked for a clarification regarding traffic, "that if there would be a "do nothing" approach and Newport Center only builds out on existing approval, and Pelican Hill Road is not constructed, the traffic goes to a, state of "badness"; however, if •Pelican Hill Road is constructed, would actually improve upon the situation even with the buildout of Newport Center". Ms. Temple replied that the total buildout of the General Plan in 2010 is included in all of the traffic projections. Mr. Grant asked for a traffic model that goes out to 2010. Mr. Grant referred to the removal of East Coast Highway parking in Corona del Mar during peak traffic hours. Mr. Webb replied that the removal of parking would not substantially improve the traffic flow through Corona -37- :7 a.y a April 24, 1986 1 MINUTES ' x co i C v r a m 9 A = rr. o z m O > m ;cM ; 9i of Newport Beach del Mar, that there are narrow curb lanes and parking lanes, and that there would not be sufficient room for two full lanes of traffic in the amount of space that there is currently. He explained that normally there would be 20 foot lanes and the lanes are currently striped at 19 feet, which would be two 9 1/2 foot lanes which is too narrow to carry a substantial amount of traffic. Mr. Grant questioned the revenue potential for Newport Center, and he asked if it were possible to rerun the analysis based on staff recommendation, and also to run the same analysis based on the past recommendations because he stated that he is concerned that there would be considerable financial impact by the removal of some of the square footage that staff is suggesting. He also asked for an analysis of fiscal benefit, if there would be an additional 200,000 square feet of office space. He opined that this is a consideration that has to be made, since after transportation improvements are made, if additional revenue is generated the City could spend the dollars elsewhere such as on the park problem in West Newport or to improve an intersection in upper Newport Heights. }} 1 Mr. Grant referred to the schools, and the number of school children generated by the proposed plan. He opined that the school system operates better if there are more children. In reference to Bayview Landing, Mr. Grant approved of staff's recommendation, that the additional square footage be transferred to Newport Center. He opined that Newport Village is a poor site for housing because of the noise factor. Mr. Grant concluded his presentation by stating that the General Plan Amendment is an opportunity to get some of the dollars back that have been going to adjacent communities. Commissioner Turner stated that the proposed project includes a substantial amount of area for restaurants, and he asked staff to come back with a report regarding same. Commissioner Eichenhofer stated that she has a concern regarding the noise factor at the intersection of East Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard. She asked it it would be possible to develop commercial at the point of land at the intersection as' a sound buffer, and the remaining area be developed as residential. -38- 1 1 I I I aApril 24, 1986 •" MINUTES x x c o i s m, M s m a a= r n x C z pC 0 0 9 0 m z T T M 2 9 2 T 2 M m 1 1I IJ I7 LJ Of Chairman Pe MacArthur intersection affect and residential previously Landing and Beach rson expressed his concern regarding the Boulevard and East Coast Highway He asked if there could be a green belt some commercial, rather than purely a development. He commented that he has stated concerns regarding the Bayview Newporter North sites. Commissioner Kurlander stated that he does not recall the reference to the Downcoast traffic generated in the Environmental Impact Report, and how the Downcoast area would affect the proposed development, Pelican Hill Road, or Corona del Mar. He opined that the Downcoast area could have affect on the proposed project, and that maybe it could be the "straw that breaks the camel's back" to some of the proposed project. Mr. Webb replied that the traffic modelling and projections comprised in the General Plans for the surrounding areas including the Downcoast areas, and those traffic projections are currently in the documents. Chairman Person stated that it may be appropriate for staff to show more detail of those traffic projections. He pointed out that the public perceives that there will be some development Downcoast, and he requested that the the Countlj "#of orange, The lr;Vine Company, and the State plans be included. Commissioner Goff stated that he will be asking staff questions after he has thoroughly studied the Environmental Impact Report of the proposed project, and that he would like those questions addressed. He asked for a parking impact regarding the additional 40,000 square feet in Fashion Island and the additional theater seats as recommended by staff. Commissioner Koppelman referred to the MacArthur Boulevard widening to six lanes, and the question of the removal of parking on East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. She asked staff to obtain an answer from Cal -Trans regarding exactly what the situation is in Corona del Mar. Commissioner Goff stated that Commissioner Koppelman's question also pertains to West Coast Highway and the Mariner's Mile area, and he asked staff to address the issue in the staff report. -39- 1 COAAAAISSIONERSI itApril 24, 1986 , MINUTES ' Co 0 t C v > m ' m o r w° City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Motion Ayes I IxlxlxIxlx Abstain x Chairman Person referred to the possible phasing of lanes on MacArthur Boulevard, and if an Environmental ' Document would be necessary at such time. Commissioner Turner stated that because of the voluminous documents to be studied, he made a motion to , continue the General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) Public Hearing and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 9 Public Hearing to the Planning Commission Meeting of ' May 22, 1986. Commissioner Goff stated that he would support the motion to allow him enough time to study and absorb the documents as much as possible. ' Motion voted on to continue General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) Public Hearing and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 9 Public Nearing to the Planning Commission Meeting of May 22, 1986. MOTION CARRIED, * * It ' A D J 0 U R N M E N Tz 11:10 P.M. Adjournment * It It ' PA*4 EICHENHOFER, (SECRETARY CITY OF NEwpORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION ' 1 i ' -40- a,ys ' COMMISSIONERS MINUTES May 22, 1986 x x 0 co = z 9 9 v m a =, a = T m City of Newport Beach 9 INDEX ROLL CALL permitted and all requirements imposed as con- ditions to its acceptance. ' CONDITION: 1. That all remaining conditions imposed by the City ' Council on January 13, 1986 in conjunction with No. the approval of the Tentative Map of Tract 11949 shall be fulfilled. A. General Plan Amendment No. 85-1(B)(Continued Public Item No.2 Hearing) General Request to consider amendments to the Land Use, Circu- Plan lation, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Amendment ' Newport Beach General Plan, so as to allow construction No.85-1(B) of an additional 1,275,000 sq.ft. of office uses, 248,000 sq.ft. of retail and restaurant uses, and 700 Resolution residential units on property located in Newport Center No.1139 and various peripheral sites. Also proposed is a revision to the Circulation System Master Plan to Approved .delete the Avocado -MacArthur one -way -couplet and ' establish MacArthur Boulevard as a two-way major arterial roadway, and the acceptance of an environ- mental document. AND B. Amendment No 9 to the City of Newport Beach Local Amendment Coastal Program Land Use Plan (Continued Public No. 9 Hearing) LCP/LUP Request to amend the Certified Local Coastal Program, Resolution No.1140 Land Use Plan for the Newporter North, Bayview Landing, and PCH/Jamboree sites. Approved ' INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that Ms. ' Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator, would review 'the material distributed by the staff to the Planning Commission. ' Ms. Temple advised that The Irvine Company is in agreement with the recommendations previously submitted ' -3- COMMISSIONIERS1 MINUTES ' x x May 22, 1986 eo 0 f y 9 r v m 1 a = T ° Cityof Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX ' by staff on the following sites: Block 600; PCH/ Jamboree Road; Corporate Plaza West; Big canyon/ MacArthur Boulevard; Newporter North; and the deletion of the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard Couplet. , Ms. Temple stated that The Irvine Company is in basic agreement with some suggested modifications on the sites as follows: ' Fashion Island: The Irvine Company requested a slight- ly greater increase in the retail and theater develop- ment than what was originally recommended by staff. ' The Irvine Company has requested an additional 60,000 square feet of retail and commercial development and a total of 2,500 theater seats. Ms. Temple stated that the staff reviewed the request and feels that the , expansion of Fashion Island is a community benefit, and that staff is recommending approval of The Irvine Company's additional request. ' Civic Plaza Expansion: The Irvine Company has indicat- ed that in order to accommodate the expansion of the Art Museum and the City Library, that an additional ' 15,000 square feet be added to their original 50,000 square feet. Me. Temple stated that the staff is in agreement if the total additional 65,000 square feet is ' used for the Art Museum and the City Library expansion. New Villages The Irvine Company is in general agreement with the change in land use from commercial, ' office, and retail to residential, and is recommended by the staff. The Irvine Company has requested that Corporate Plaza be increased to 84,800 square feet, totalling 450,,000 square feet which was the original planned development of Corporate Plaza. The Irvine Company has indicated 80,000 square feet will be utilized for an athletic or health club. Ms. Temple ' stated that if a limitation to this use is agreed to by The Irvine Company, the staff is in agreement with this request. ' Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard: The Irvine Company agrees with staff's recommendation and has made an additional request to accommodate a 10,000 square foot ' day care facility. Ms. Temple stated that staff is in agreement that an establishment of a use of this nature is appropriate within Newport Center, and that the ' location is acceptable. ' -4- ' COMMISSIONERS x 111 c o = m F c mm z > C Z N O r 0 0 19 m O m> T T z S z 9 z T m H 1 Q. 41 May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach Ms. Temple stated that The Irvine Company disagrees with the staff recommendations on three sites: Block B00: The Irvine Company has indicated opposition to the proposed deletion of 140,000 square feet. Ms. Temple stated that staff maintains that the intensity of use is out of scale with adjacent areas, and that staff continues to recommend the maximum 300,000 square feet. Bayview Landing: The Irvine Company disagrees with the reduction to 20,000 square feet of restaurant use with the limitation to the lower site level only, and is requesting instead of the original 60,000 square feet, a development of 35,000 square feet which would allow approximately four facilities with construction to be allowed on the upper site level as well as the lower site level. The Irvine Company would agree to develop a view park in conjunction with the project. Ms. Temple stated that the staff has reviewed the proposal and feels that the site's development potential is limited, and maintains that public viewing is a significant benefit to the community. Ms. Temple further stated that staff's request has been revised from 20,000 square feet to 25,000 square feet to allow approximately three restaurant facilities, and that the site could accommodate the proposed teen center. Affordable Housing: Ms. Temple stated that staff has received some indication of tentative agreement; however, staff has not received a firm indication as to what would be an acceptable affordable housing program from The Irvine Company. Ms. Temple stated that since there is nothing to respond to that staff will continue to maintain the original recommendation. Land Use Phasing: The Irvine Company believes that staff's requirement of 800 dwelling units under con- struction by the time of occupancy of the Block 600 project was filled is too stringent; however, The Irvine Company did not indicate what would be an acceptable program. Ms. Temple stated that staff will continue to maintain the former recommendation with the exception that any of the residential projects would fulfill the requirement. MINUTES Circulation system Phasing: The Irvine Company is in agreement with the phasing program, but has requested some minor modifications in terms of the Jamboree Road -5- Q .'1t S MINUTES ' May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach Phasing. Ma. Temple stated that The Irvine Company requests that the Jamboree Road dedications occur early with construction completed as an adjacent improvement of Newporter North. Me. Temple stated that staff has reviewed the request and is in agreement. In refer- ence to San Joaquin Hills Road, Ms. Temple stated that The Irvine Company has requested that this segment not be incorporated into the circulation system phasing program, but they have indicated that they will pursue construction of the road as soon as possible. Ms. Temple stated that staff would agree to the change so long as all dedication and bonding for construction be accomplished in the previously suggested phase. Ms. Temple pointed out that the supplemental staff report addresses questions previously asked by the Planning Commission, and that the revised Resolution incorporates the changes in the staff recommendations and additional language requested by some members of the Planning Commission. Those recommendations include recommending initiation of Amendments to the Circulation Element for MacArthur Boulevard northerly of Ford Road, and San Joaquin Hills Road easterly of Spyglass Hills Road, instead of acting on these amendments at this time. Me, Temple stated that in response to community concerns, staff developed additional language regarding the phasing of MacArthur Boulevard improvements. she stated that staff maintains its position that the six lane major arterial roadway designation and the requirement for the con- struction very early in the phasing program is the most appropriate and desirable from a technical standpoints however, staff has provided some language which would allow the specific segment between Harbor View Drive and the extended centerline of Crown Drive to be deferred to some point in the future subject to specific criteria. Mr. Roger Seitz, The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission regarding the proposed land- scaping of MacArthur Boulevard from East Coast Highway to the intersection of the Corona del Mar Freeway and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Mr. Seitv. stated that The Irvine Company wants to convey that MacArthur Boulevard is an important entry to the city and should be treated in a way that introduces visitors and residents in an organized and environ- mentally pleasing manner. He further stated that The Irvine Company has developed a concept that envisions MacArthur Boulevard as a completed and totally land- scaped and inviting entry into the City. Mr. Seitz -6- I 1 r 1 11 a. -15 May 22, 1986 MINUTES ROLL I L' x x c o z c m> m z m a `= A N z r °_ °; ° 01City v m o m> T r of 2 9 S 9 2 T m t Beach explained that Zone 1 includes the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor interchange and would require low maintenance, drought -tolerant plant material; Zone 2, Bison Avenue to Ford Road would reflect the same type of landscaping currently at Belcourt; Zone 3, Ford Road to San Joaquin Hills Road, would have a broad open space area such as meadows and drought -tolerant landscaping; Zone 4, San Joaquin Hills Road to East Coast Highway. He said that the landscaping would include eucalyptus trees in the inland region to the pine trees in the coastal region. Mr. Seitz described how the intersections at MacArthur Boulevard will have palm trees and tropical planting that is occurring at Belcourt and at Newport Center. He said that consistent median planting would unify MacArthur Boulevard. Mr. Seitz explained that The Irvine Company is interested in pursuing the landscape plan with the Planning Commission and staff, develop the landscape concept and then dedicate the landscaped land to the City. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person regarding the annual cost of maintaining the landscap- ing, Mr. Seitz replied that the estimated maintenance cost would be from $70,000.00 to $90,000.00. Chairman Person stated that assuming the land would be developed and dedicated, the City would maintain the property. Mr. Seitz replied that the major investment would be to install and establish the landscaping, and that the idea is to have a drought tolerant, low maintenance environment. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding the square footage of the 245 dwelling units proposed for General Plan Amendment 80-3, in Block 800, Ms. Temple replied that based on 2,000 square feet for each dwelling unit, the size of the project would have been approximately 500,000 square feet. Commissioner Koppelman asked if the recommended teen center at Bayview Landing is a different land use designation than the restaurant/commercial use. Ms. Temple replied that the teen center is a restaurant/night club operation, and would be considered a retail commercial land use similar in nature to the restaurants proposed for the site. . Mr. David Neish, Urban Assist, Inc., appeared before the Planning Commission representing The Irvine Compa- ny. Mr. Neish explained that the areas of differences -7- INDEX F vvWSSIONERS P. So May 22, 1986 ' MINUTES C 0 n e o = 1 v r M m ieF M Zm a 2 ° = H ° n ° ° s m o m s T r zs z zzwm , City of Newport Beach of opinion are limited in number between the staff and The Irvine Company, and that The Irvine Company has tried to be flexible in working with staff and the community in trying to achieve the goals of these bodies, and that some significant changes have been made to the proposed Plan that The Irvine Company has agreed to. He commented that the desire of The Irvine Company is to end up with a Plan which they feel is feasible from a land use standpoint as well as from a financial standpoint. Mr. Neish commented that Newport Center has been developed during the past twenty years and that the Master Plan for Newport Center is nearly completed. He explained that the mixed land use concept has been preserved, and that the intensity of Newport Center has been reduced. Mr. Neish stated that the office compo- nent of the Plan was established and has been imple- mented as a key component of the Plan. Mr. Neish explained that because the property is under one ownership, The Irvine Company was able to provide a relatively completed circulation and utility infra -structure for Newport Center from the outset. Mr. Neish commented that these reasons are important to consider as part of the proposal. Mr. Neish addressed the areas of disagreement as follows: Block 800: The office space requested is critical to the proposal and Mr. Neish opined that everyone agrees with the land use for the site, that the addition of the high quality mid -rise office space is important in order to support the retail vitality of Fashion Island as well as the retention of the existing tenants needing expanded space, and the attraction of new tenants to broaden the range of services available in the Newport Center complex. He pointed out that the site is a key financial component to The Irvine Company that enables commitment to transportation improvements and the affordable housing that are being requested. Mr. Neish commented that the site is physically suited for the amount and type of office space proposed. He pointed out that the only question is the intensity, and that staff is proposing a reduction of 140,000 square feet. He said that when considering the entire General Plan Proposal, Newport Center is less dense than any comparable development within Orange County. He said that staff is not requesting a change in a footprint to the two buildings proposed, but the elimination of approximately three stories per tower. -8- I t I MINUTES May 22, 1986 x A C O f 9 r 9 ' z C m m C Z m m N > m z r m O i 0 X m 2 m O 2 m > X i CI u Of He said that in an negligible and the identifies no impacts, mitigated. Beach area where view impacts are environmental documentation that cannot be automatically Mr. Roger Seitz reappeared before the Planning Commis- sion. Mr. Seitz pointed out the characteristics of the site at the model and advised that there would be two 20,000 square foot office building footprints and a parking structure. He said that 20 percent of the site would be occupied by the buildings, 35 percent would be occupied by the parking structure, and the remaining 45 percent would be open space. He said that the buildings are approximately eleven stories. Mr. Seitz explained that the upper end of Newport Center contains the tall buildings and the base of the circle contains the one and two story buildings. Mr. Seitz referred to the impact of the buildings and pointed out the adjacent golf course and the views. Newport Village: Mr. Neish stated that 345,000 square feet of office space and 60,000 square feet of retail space were proposed for Newport Village before The Irvine Company agreed to change to residential use. Mr. Neish pointed out that the elimination of the square footage has had significant financial implica- tions to The Irvine Company. He said that they intend to attempt to provide 560 residential units; however, some of the constraints associated with the project such as setbacks, access provisions and the noise mitigations may not make it feasible to provide 560 units. Bayview Landing: The plan originally proposed 60,000 square feet of retail on the site, the request was modified to 35,000 square feet, and staff is recommend- ing 25,000 square feet, 10,000 square feet less than The Irvine Company desires. Mr. Neish pointed out that staff's main concern is the construction of any devel- opment on the upper level of the pad, adjacent to East Coast Highway, in order to maintain public views of Upper Newport Bay from the upper level. Mr. Roger Seitz reappeared before the Planning Commis- sion. Mr. Seitz commented that 60,000 square feet represented six restaurant sites on the Bayview Landing property; however, when the concerns were raised because of the requirements of the bluff maintenance a.sa "MISSIONLR5 1986 MINUTES May 220 x o n co C a v m x 9 = _ M m City of Newport Beach and the right-of-way requirements, The Irvine Company realized that it was not realistic to think of six sites but rather four sites. He said that The Irvine Company was also very cognizant of the view potential. Mr. Seitz pointed out the model photos and described the view of the Upper Bay, the view from the restau- rants, the parking arear view park, and bike trails. He said that the proposed plan includes approximately 34,000 square feet, and that the non -utilized portion of the site is roughly thirty percent of the entire site. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person regarding what the thirty percent represents, Mr. Seitz explained that the view park represents six percent; the bluff represents ten percent; and the bike path represents fifteen percent. Mr. Seitz confirmed Chairman Person's comment that the parking and building site would cover seventy percent of the site. Commissioner Goff commented that the model photos show access from East Coast Highway and from Jamboree Road. Mr. Seitz stated that the access would be across from Promontory Point on East Coast Highway, and ingress/egress from Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive. Donald Webb, City Engineer, explained the possible ingress and egress from East Coast Highway and Jamboree Road and the problems that could occur, and he con- firmed Chairman Person's remark that it is difficult to determine the ingress/egress of the site at this time. Commissioner Koppelman asked Mr. Webb that if the in- gress/egress from East Coast Highway and Jamboree Road accesses are not possible, is the entrance at Back Bay Drive sufficient to carry the traffic generated. Mr. Webb replied that the intersection of Back Bay Drive and Jamboree Road will be signalized and that there would be sufficient capacity on Back Bay Drive to accommodate the Dunes and the proposed project. in response to a question posed by Chairman Person regarding the status of the development of the Dunes, Mr. Hewicker replied that plans are going forward to develop the Dunes. Commissioner Turner stated his concern regarding the impact of traffic on Back Bay Drive going through the ecological reserve. Mr. Webb pointed out that Back Bay Drive is a one-way road and that there is an assumption that there will not be an impact of traffic. -SO- I I I [J I 0 I D. e3 May 22, 1986 MINUTES i I xx co 2 2 c v > v m > m m a 9 i t 0 s m o m i of Newport Beach Westba : The Irvine Company believes that the elimina- tion of residential development is not related to the planning issues pertinent to Newport Center and would suggest that future discussions with the City and with the County over the feasibility of establishing an Upper Bay Regional Park would be the appropriate time to address the site. Mr. James Parker, attorney, 5000 Campus Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the proposed Plan and Block 800 expansion requested by The Irvine Company. Mr. Parker explained the economic relationship of the developer/consumer costs of infrastructure. He said that the office space pays for the infra -structure improvements which benefit residential uses that are adjacent to Newport Center and would keep homebuyer costs down. Ms. Audrey Moe, Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission representing the Natural History Foundation of Orange County. Ms. Moe explained why the Newporter North site should be considered a future site for a Natural History Museum, specifically because of the close proximity to the Art Museum and to the City Library, that the Museum will be moving to an area within orange County, and that the Newporter North site is an archeologically sensitive region. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding the requested square footage of the Natural History Museum, Ms. Moe replied that the first phase would be 6,000 square feet, similar in size to the facility that contains the Natural History Museum currently in the Eastbluff area, and adequate room to accommodate triple expansion. In response to questions posed by Chairman Person regarding other museum sites within the proposed development of Newport Center, Ms. Moe advised that the ideal would be a Museum complex that would be conve- nient for the public to visit. She stated that the Natural History Museum could be located at either the Newporter North site or the Civic Plaza site. Mr. Hewicker commented that the Planning Department recently received a letter from Mr. Ron Yeo, Natural History Foundation, asking the City to take a look at -11- INDEX 1 5y M MINUTES t MMISSIONERS May 22, 1986 x 0 CI co x £ 1 v r 9 m = m o M > ° ° City of Newport Beach z z = a z m the City owned land in Westbay. Ms. Moe commented that the Westbay site has been considered for an interpreta- tive center, not for a major Museum, and that the Museum is currently involved in a number of interpreta- tive centers. Mr. Mark Deven, Recreation Superintendent for the City and staff liaison for the Youth Ad Hoc Committee. Mr. Deven referred to the report that was previously submitted to the Planning Commission from the Ad Hoc Committee recommending consideration of the youth restaurant/community facility previously referred to as the "teen center" be accommodated at the proposed Bayview Landing site either by the maximum square feet indicated by staff, or the expansion or revision of the maximum square feet which would allow the facility to be included in addition to what has been already proposed at the site. Mr. Deven stated that the background of this particular issue is that on January 13, 1986, the Ad Hoc Committee that was previously formed, was charged with the responsibility to determine the feasibility of a teen youth facility to provide activities for the City's teenage high school students, and for the possibility of other community uses. He said that the Committee established and looked at a number of alternatives to establishing a facility, including the use of existing sites and the development of a new site. He advised that it was the consensus of the Committee that a new site would be preferred, the operational concept was that a facility could be made available to teenage students, mostly from Newport Harbor High School and Corona del Mar High School, and that the facility would need to be accessible to both student bodies. He said that the teen center would be utilized on weekend evenings, for special events, and activities for youth, and that daytime and week night uses would be for other community organizations. Mr. Deven stated that in addition to the operation concept they entered into discussions with The Irvine Company in terms of how such a facility could be established and could be built. The Irvine Company responded by including the facility in the proposed Bayview Landing site, which was a site that was accessible to both high schools. On April 21, 1986, The Irvine Company gave the Ad Hoc Committee a proposal and following a study of the proposal by the Committee with the assistance of the Newport Beach Restaurant Association, the Committee I D t I E Cl 1 a. 5S MINUTES May 22, 1986 x 7 c o = C 9 r 9 = 'a Z 0 zp i. O O a m o m s r r za z nz*"' C U 1 L I of Newport Beach responded with a counter -proposal which was submitted to The Irvine Company on May 12, 1986. He stated that the actions by the Planning Commission and The Irvine Company are very critical in order for the Ad Hoc Committee to make a determination of whether this facility would be supplied by the City Council. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner, Mr. Deven replied that the Youth Ad Hoc Committee is requesting a 7,500 square foot to 10,000 square foot site. Ms. Luvena Hayton, Transportation Chairman of the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Hayton read a letter dated March 10, 1986, from the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce to the Newport Beach City Council stating that the Chamber of Commerce approves of the buildout of Newport Center but only if Pelican Hill Road is con- nected to San Joaquin Hills Road and in place before the buildout. Ms. Hayton commented that the Chamber of Commerce supports Newport Village as a residential community. She cited the number of automobiles parked at the State Beach south of Corona del Mar on a Sunday afternoon, and how automobiles affect the "quality of life" of the local residents. Ms. Hayton emphatically stated that a time limit must be set to connect San Joaquin Hills Road and Pelican Hill Road. Mr. Tom Bay, 324 Marguerite Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the General Plan Amendment. Mr. Bay stated that he serves on the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors and has heard several presentations given by The Irvine Company concerning the traffic generated by the buildout of Newport Center. Mr. Bay reasoned how the construction of Pelican Hill Road will divert traffic around Corona del Mar. Ms. Deedee Masters, 140 Fernleaf Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Masters commented that she approves that San Joaquin Hills Road is recommended as a separate project from Pelican Hill Road because there could be a delay in construction, or litigation of the roadways. Ms. Masters pointed out how the traffic congestion has affected the maintenance of the commercial property on East Coast Highway. She -13- a. 56 MMISSIONERS May 22, 1986 x s c o 1 v m 9 2 = w ? City of Newport Beach stated that she approves of the subject General Plan Amendment; however, she urged that San Joaquin Hills Road be connected to Pelican Hill Road so that the traffic will not go through Corona del Mar's residen- tial streets. Ms. Bonnie Rohrer, Balboa Island, employer in Newport Center, President of Newport Center Association, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the General Plan Amendment. Ms. Rohrer stated that the Newport Center Association enlisted a child care consulting group who took a survey and found there is a need for a child care facility on -site with a minimum capacity for 75 children. The survey concluded that 3,960 employees in Newport Center would have a future need for child care. Ms. Rohrer said that the Newport Center Association office has a copy of the findings on file. Ms. Rohrer stated that The Irvine Company has been very receptive to the need for a child care center and has two sites presently under consideration, that within the next few months The Irvine Company will begin a request for proposals from child care operations interested in the Newport Center project, and that a list of ten private enterprises have shown an interest in making a proposal. Ms. Rohrer commented that Senator Marian Bergeson has sponsored a bill which is presently in Committee that would add child care centers to the list of approved projects for funding using industrial development bonds. Ms. Rohrer stated that as an employer of Newport Center she has lost a competent staff due to the lack of affordable child care. in response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Ms. Rohrer replied that the recommended 10,000 square feet recommended for a child care center at the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard site would be adequate, and that she is only aware that another site within Newport Center has been considered. Mrs. Mary Westbrook, 2531 Blackthorne, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the day care center. Mrs. Westbrook commented that she has been investigating day care centers in Newport Beach because she will be needing one soon, and she has found there are long waiting lists. Mrs. Westbrook explained that many of her fellow workers in Newport Center take their children to day care centers throughout Orange County, -14- MINUTES r I 1 1 J I I I I MINUTES I ROLL n n F 1 L May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach she said that the alternatives to day care centers would be to have family members take care of the children or to pay a high cost each week to have someone come into the home. Mrs. Westbrook commented that she would like to have a day care center near where she is employed to enable her to be near her child during the working hours. Mr. Bill Hamilton, owner of the Cannery Restaurant, President of the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce, member of the Newport Beach Restaurant Association, and a member of the Youth Ad Hoc Committee appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the teen center at the Bayview Landing site. Mr. Hamilton stated that staff's recommendation of 25,000 square feet at the Bayview Landing site equates to three restaurant sites; however, Mr. Hamilton asked that 34,000 square feet be considered to allow three restaurants for The Irvine Company plus the teen center. He said that The Irvine Company would help provide a more viable community and teen center if there would be four sites instead of three sites. In response to questions posed by Chairman Person, Mr. Hamilton replied that if three restaurants plus the teen center would be approved then the teen center would be twenty-five percent of the total site instead of thirty-three percent of the total site as recommended by staff, and then the teen center would be in a better position to deal with The Irvine Company. He said that the Bayview Landing site is what is needed for the youth center to work. Mr. Hamilton further replied that The Cannery Restaurant is approximately 9,000 square feet and that the teen center would be about the same size. Mr. Ted Fuller, 2522 Vista Drive, member of the Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the amended General Plan Amendment, including the child care center and the teen center. He pointed out that the Master Plan did not include either facility twenty years ago and he commended The Irvine Company and staff for planning into the future. Mr. Michael Shea, Vice President of Beacon Bay Enter- prises, appeared before the Planning Commission in favor of the General Plan Amendment. Mr. Shea stated that his facilities within Newport Center are the -15- INDEX r May 22, 1986 MINUTES 1 C 'zm >m S A O A> w za z a: ffl of Newwrt Beach automobile wash that was constructed in 1968, and the Beacon Bay Building that was constructed in 1972. He pointed out that he built the facilities not only for economic reasons but because of the discreet signing, landscaping, and construction program The Irvine Company was putting into Newport Center at that time. He said that through the years the program has been followed well and he would like to see the project completed. Mr. Shea commended the staff and The Irvine Company for the concessions made on both sidesi and the wide flexibility of facilities proposed for Newport Center. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:05 p.m. and reconvened at 9:18 p.m. Mr. Taylor Grant, 1985 Port Edward Circle, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of The Irvine Company's original plan. Mr. Grant opined that the traffic coming through Newport Beach on East Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard is to avoid the con- gestion of the San Diego Freeway, and that while the adjacent cities have chosen to grow we have been left with some of the traffic that should be generated on the San Diego Freeway. Mr. Grant stated that Pelican Hill Road would reduce the traffic on MacArthur Boulevard from South Orange County. He commented that the Environmental Impact Report states that there will be congestion in 2010 no matter what is developed in Newport Center unless Pelican Hill Road is constructed as an alternative, and, furthermore, the traffic impact will be influenced more by the growth beyond the City's control. Mr. Grant stated his approval of the widening of MacArthur Boulevard, and the long term objective for the City. He asked that recreation potentials adjacent to Harbor View Homes be examined. Mr. Grant cited that Newport Center contributes 10.2 percent of the City's revenue, while only using 5.8 percent of that as costs, meaning that Newport Center provides many dollars for the City. He pointed out that if the original proposed Plan would be approved, an excess of $1.2 Million would be generated, and he said that the plan as recommended by the staff, would reduce the total revenue by the City by approximately $400,000.00. Mrs. Jean Watt, representing SPON, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Watt commented that she was of the opinion that the comment period was over on May 29, 1986, and that the Planning Commission could not -16- 1 1 1 1 1 u 1 1 1 P P t r u 1 1 1 a.65 MINUTES I ROLL 1 I III I 1 t I x x co T 9 Z C m Z m m 9 a = r 0 vm o °mi M Z 9 = p = M May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach vote on the subject General Plan Amendment until May 29, 1986. Ms. Temple replied that the certification of an Environmental Impact Report and the approval of a project cannot occur prior to the closing of the Environmental Impact Report period. Ms. Temple cited that the City Council will take final action on the subject General Plan Amendment; therefore, the City Council cannot take final action before May 29, 1986. Ms. Watt stated that one thing that seems to be of concern is that there is a "cart before the horse" concept, that is, there are numerous parts of the circulation element that stands right now that are controversial and they are controversial by various homeowners associations as well as by SPON which has been working toward getting some sort of a standard of acceptable level of service. She commented that what is presently needed is a drawing or a model of some of the mitigation measures that are planned for the future such as flyovers or possibly a diamond shaped overpass. Mrs. Watt opined that there is nothing wrong with the project, but to look at a model of mitigation measures or to have a model of the traffic on the sections where mitigation has been deemed to be not feasible, then there would be a model of what SPON is trying to say. She said that SPON feels that the circulation system needs to be looked at with attention to the fact that many segments of the circulation system may not materialize or cannot materialize the kind of mitigation that would be needed. Mrs. Watt recommended a public review and hearing before a vote on such a large expansion. Mrs. Watt pointed out that she has a 1964 City map of the original Plan that shows all of the freeways as well as many other roads, and she opined that the roadways are not there. Mrs. Watt stated that SPON's comments will be in by May 29, 1986. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Eichenhofer regarding the detailed illustrations of major intersections, Mrs. Watt replied that she has not read Volume 3 and Volume 4 of the Environmental Impact Report but that she plans to do so. In response to questions posed by Chairman Person, Mrs. Watt replied that members of the City Council have given several homeowner's associations the impression that they will not promote the expansion of certain roads and inter- sections. She emphasized that the circulation element -17- * ti 9 May 22, 1986 of Newoort Beach has not been reviewed with that in mind, and those issues serve a constraint on what could happen and that is not being considered. She concluded her statement that the development is what is being looked at, and hot the residents. Mr. Dick Nichol, 519 iris Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Nichol stated that The Irvine Company proposes that they will stay two lanes ahead on Pelican Hill Road, and based on 2,150 hotel rooms in the downcoast area, 10 automobile trips per day, that the two lanes on Pelican Hill Road will be needed just for the hotels. Mr. Nichol opined that the roadways through Corona del Mar have stopped operating, that the traffic is earlier in the morning and later at night, that the 5s00 p.m. peak hour traffic is a disaster, and that the residents are traveling on residential streets in order to get through town, Mr. Nichol opined that the residents and businesses along East Coast Highway are being exposed to sound and pollution. Mr. Nichol stated his support of Newport Village as a residential site because it gives more off -hour traffic and more reverse flow. He said that the lowering of the density of the high rise would be a mitigation measure, and that all of the traffic going in to Newport Center is rush hour traffic when there is peak load everywhere. Mr. Nichol concluded by commenting that Corona del Mar is beyond that point, that all of the intersections are "bottle -necked" and showing capacity problems, and he opined that traffic figures do not indicate this. Chairman Person asked Mr. Nichol if he supported the Pelican Hill Road and the extension of San Joaquin Hills Road. Mr. Nichol replied that he supports the development of the two roadways, and he further sup- ports an alternate route to the downcoast area. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person regard- ing the project as it has been mitigated by the staff, Mr. Nichol replied that the mitigation is good but not sufficient, that the high rise needs to be looked at, that the theory of the project is nice but he opined that there may be consequences. Mr. Nichol further commented that the the proposed plan is the same build -out as it was when the Coastal Freewayo San Joaquin Hills Freeway, and Corona del Mar Freeway, were planned to drain off traffic and he opined that none of the roadways are existing, that the proposed project is the same size without the mitigation. -18- MINUTES ' I 11 I I 1 LI I a.41 May 22, 1986 MINUTES I x 0 c o � f x C 9> v m z c m> m 2 C 2 N p; O O a m o m s m M z z z a z r m 1 I CAI I 11 I of Newport Beach Mr. J. R. Blakemore, Harbor View Hills, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Blakemore stated that he supports the extension of Corporate Plaza into the Newport village site. He stated his concern that a post office has been recommended. Mr. Blakemore commented that The Irvine Company has promised to build out Pelican Hill Road by October, 1988, and that he recommends that The Irvine Company should be held to that deadline, and that San Joaquin Hills Road should be no more than six months behind October, 1988. Mr. Blakemore commented that the Avocado Avenue couplet should be given further consideration, and he favors Avocado Avenue straightened out. Ms. Barbara Aune, realtor, appeared before the Planning Commission, in support of the proposed project, and she said that she is delighted at the number of residential rentals that are being proposed. Mrs. Deborah Allen, 1021 Whitesails Way, appeared before the Planning Commission representing the Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association. Mrs. Allen stated that there is no demonstrated need to widen MacArthur Boulevard to six lanes. She commented that Volume 4 of the Traffic Study and the origin and destination study, indicate that sixty-eight percent to seventy-two percent of the traffic on East Coast Highway through Corona del Mar come from out of town, and most of that traffic from South orange County. Mrs. Allen pointed out that staff has indicated that they assume Pelican Hill Road, for the purpose of the traffic study, to be six lanes, and that a six lane roadway has the capacity of 54,000 automobiles a day; however, staff assumes that 19,000 or 20,000 automobiles a day are actually going to use Pelican Hill Road. Mrs. Allen explained why more than 20,000 automobiles per day would need to use Pelican Hill Road to connect to San Joaquin Hills Road to get into Newport Center, and to connect with Bonita Canyon Road. She said that 20,000 automobiles a day means one-third of capacity in 2010, that East Coast Highway would be jammed up, and that MacArthur Boulevard would be jammed up. Mrs. Allen recommended the following: that there is not a demonstrated need to widen MacArthur Boulevard; to condition any approval on Pelican Hill Road to Bonita Canyon, complete San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road, and have those improvements in place before considering widening MacArthur Boulevard to six lanes. -19- 1 May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach Commissioner Koppelman asked Mrs. Allen her opinion regarding the recommendation that certain traffic generation figures would have to be reached on a segment of MacArthur Boulevard between East Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road prior to the actual two extra lanes being implemented. Mrs. Allen respond- ed that 154 Harbor view Hills homes replied to a poll and answered not to approve the General Plan Amendment, to take out the Avocado couplet and replace it by widening MacArthur Boulevard to six lanes. Mrs. Allen said that she personally feels that it is a step in the right direction, that her concern is that there is not enough criteria in it, that Sand Canyon be in place, some language regarding San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, that there would be public hearings by the Planning Commission and the City Council, that there would not be restrictions if they did not want to widen the roadway. Mr. Paul Franklin, 633 Rockford Road, realtor, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the proposed plan including the infrastructure. Dr. Paul Johnson, 1425 Santanella Terrace, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the proposed project. He stated that Pelican Hill Road and San Joaquin Hills Road should be completed before occupancy. In response to a question posed by Dr. Johnson, Mr. Hewicker replied that it is possible to designate a land use for senior housing. Dr. Johnson commented that the Newport Beach senior population is exploding and he stated that Newporter North could be a senior housing site, and that The Irvine Company and the staff have been receptive to the concept. He asked that Newporter North be designated for senior housing. Mr. Hewicker replied that the City has one senior citizen development, the Planning Commission has approved a final map for another senior housing proj- ect, last week the Coastal Commission approved a Coastal permit for a senior project, He commented that if Newporter North is approved for residential that senior housing would be allowed on site, and that there does not have to be a special site designation for senior citizens to allow senior citizen development. Mrs. Pam Howard, 1827 Tahuna Terrace, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the teen center. Mrs. Howard complimented The Irvine Company for -20- MINUTES ' 1 I r I I I I 1 ' COMMISSIONERS x 0 c o ox a n y m z C 2 m> m z m m z Z r x Iv m o m i r z m = m= m m Red Green Absent x a.�3 May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach supporting the teen center, the child care center, and the Natural History Foundation Museum. At this time there appeared to be no additional persons wishing to testify, and discussion was taken up by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Turner stated that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Development Agreement for the General Plan Amendment will be on the agenda at a subsequent public hearing and that intersection issues will be raised at that time. Commissioner Turner recommended that the Planning Commission vote following the Resolution as a format and as prepared by staff, vote per item, and then take action on the General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) and Amendment No. 9 to the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. Commissioner Goff suggested that the item be continued for two weeks because there was new testimony, and that SPON will be submitting written comments. Commissioner Koppelman concurred that the item should be continued. She stated that the Teen Center, the day care center, and the Natural History Museum are issues that she had not previously considered. Chairman Person recommended a vote on whether to continue the item for two weeks (green) or to take action as indicated by Commissioner Turner (red). The Planning Commission voted to take immediate action. The public hearing was closed at this time. Discussion followed between the Planning Commission and Ms. Temple regarding the "WHEREAS" on page 2 of the Resolution, and Ms. Temple explained that the "WHEREAS" are the "findings" as opposed to the "conditions", and that after the Planning Commission goes through the actual components of the General Plan Amendment and when the final revised resolution is prepared, staff will revise all of the "WHEREAS" sections or the "findings" to be consistent with the final action. -21- MINUTES a. c 4i May 22, 1986 MINUTES ' Motion Ayes Absent Motion Ayes Absent Motion Ayes Absent f d 9 x x x 0 O w of Newport Beach Land Use Element: Motion was made to approve (1) Fashion Island. Add 188,000 square feet for general and regional retail commercial uses and 2,500 theater seats. Total allowed development in Fashion Island is 1,429,250 square feet and 2,500 theater seats, Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made to approve (2) Block 600: Add 300,000 square feet for general office development. Total allowed development in Block 600 is 1,100#000 square feet and 325 hotel rooms. Commissioner Koppelman referred to the institutional use on the Civic Plaza expansion that covers the City Library and the Art Museum, and she asked if there is any indication as to what square footage the Art Museum has requested, Me. Temple replied that the Art Museum does not know, and discussion followed between the Planning Commission and staff regarding the expanded use. Ms. Temple commented that the City Library and the Art Museum are not committed to any specific development scenario, that the square footage is to accommodate their future planning program and that the Planning Department cannot be specific as to the breakdown of the exact uses. Commissioner Koppelman asked about the square footage allotment if the Natural History Museum would be included on that site. Chair- man Person opined that by adding 15,000 square feet to the 50,000 square feet that the Planning Commission is precluding the Natural History Museum from being included in the site. Motion was made to approve (3) Civic Plaza Expansion: Add 50,000 square feet for office or institutional use, or a total of 284,706 square feet of office and 48,000 square feet of institution. An additional 15,000 square feet of institutional may be allowed subject to use of all of the above described 50,000 square feet for institutional uses. In this scenario, total development is 234,706 square feet of office and 113,000 square feet of institutional uses, and that the additional 15,000 square feet might be available for use by the Natural History Museum. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would support the motion. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -22- I r I n I r I I I I I MINUTES May 22, 1986 I I F I IMotion Substitute Motion F1 11 I Motion Ayes Absent of Newport Beach In reference to Block 800, Commissioner Koppelman stated that she will be requesting to amend and to approve The Irvine Company's requested amount of 440,000 square feet of office development in Block 800. She reasoned that the footprints of the building are not going to be any larger in either development scenario, and the buildings are not going to be any taller than the surrounding buildings. She pointed out that Newport Center is an urban center, and that future tenants expect to rent offices, and they expect to have retail. She pointed out that Bayview Landing, Westbay, and Newporter North are valuable environmental resources, and that once the sites are developed they cannot be taken away or be replaced, however, square footage can be added to buildings. Commissioner Koppelman said that some environmental integrity must be maintained of the areas surrounding Newport Center. Motion was made to add 440,000 square feet for office development in Block 800. Commissioner Turner stated that he is sensitive to the financial situation involved with Block 800, and sensitive to the cost of Pelican Hill Road. He stated that he is also sensitive to the density in the area. Commissioner Turner concluded that the recommended 300,000 square feet is too low, and that 440,000 square feet is too high. Substitute motion was made to add 340,000 square feet for office development in Block 800. Commissioner Goff made a suggestion as an alternative to either of the two motions to postpone the voting on Block 800 until the Planning Commission voted on the Circulation Phasing, specifically San Joaquin Hills Road. He pointed out that the Circulation Phasing vote would influence his vote on Block 800. Commissioner Turner and Commissioner Koppelman stated that they would agree to postponing the Block 800 vote. Chairman Person deferred action on Block 800 until after the Planning Commission has discussed the Circu- lation Phasing. Motion was made to adopt (5) PCH/Jamboree: Change the land use designation from "Recreational and Marine Commercial" to "Multi -Family Residential." Add 130 dwelling units. Also, change the land use designation -23- LI COMMISSIONERS a' L b MINUTES ' xx May 22, 1986 ' C O o E v ~ v m m o ° Cityof New ort Beach 2 9 i 7 t I" m ROLL CALL INDEX ' for Villa Point (PCH Frontage) from "Low Density Residential" to "Multi -Family Residential," not to exceed 154 dwelling units. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion x Motion was made to adopt (6) Corporate Plaza west: Ayes x x x x x x Change the land use designation from "Retail and Absent x Service Commercial with Alternate Land Use to"Admin- istrative, Professional and Financial Commercial." Add 100,000 square feet for office development for a total of 123,400 square feet. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion x Motion was made to adopt (7) Newport Village: Change the land use designation from "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Multi -Family Residential," not to exceed 560 dwelling units. Add 84,800 square feet to Corporate Plaza, or a total of 450,000 square feet. 80,000 square feet can be constructed only for an athletic/health club. Substitute Chairman Person made a substitute motion to change Motion x $4,800 square feet to 80,000 square feet, all of which ' can be constructed only for an athletic/health club, and further, "any construction shall be subject to the Newport Center Sight Plane". in response to a question posed by Commissioner Turner, Chairman Person stated that the intent to change the 84,800 square feet to 80,000 square feet is that , Avocado Avenue will be moved, and that The Irvine Company has requested 80,000 square feet for an athlet- ic/health club. Commissioner Turner commented that under those circumstances that he would withdraw his motion. Mr. Hewicker commented that the Planned Community Zoning for Newport Village requires that any develop- ment in that area be subject to the height limitation of the view plane coming from Harbor View Hills and that the added statement would not be necessary. Chairman Person commented that he would withdraw that language. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Chairman Person replied that the aforementioned is based on the assumption that Avocado Avenue will be a , straight street. Ayes x x x x x x Motion voted on to amend Newport Village. MOTION Absent x CARRIED. -2d- 1 a' 61 MINUTES COMMISSIONERS May 22, 1986 x x o c O x p = A = T a City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Motion x Substitute Motion f Ayes x Absent x Motion Ayes Absent x x Motion was made to adopt (8) Avocado/MacArthur: Change the land use designation from a mixture of "Low Density Residential" and "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" and "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities." 44,000 square feet of office uses are permitted with a transit facility, and 10,000 square feet for a day care facility. Commissioner Turner commented that the day care center is long overdue for this area, and that there is a social obligation to meet to provide these facilities. Commissioner Kurlander commented that he would like to support the motion; however, he would like to see the day care center expanded to 15,000 square feet because there appears from the testimony that there is a big need for the facility in Newport Center. He made a substitute motion to increase the day care center to 15,000 square feet. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would support the substitute motion if it is found that 10,000 square feet is not ample. she further stated that there is a social need for the day care center and she would like to see some flexibility to expand the facility. Commissioner Turner commented that the substitute motion has been made with the understanding that the day care center could be developed up to a maximum of 15,000 square feet. Commissioner Turner withdrew his motion and stated that he would support the substitute motion. Chairman Person commented that there has been a waiting list at the day care facility that his son has been attending on the Balboa Peninsula and that he is aware of the need. He said that he would support the motion. Motion voted on to amend Avocado/MacArthur. MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made to adopt (9) Big Canyon/MacArthur: Change the land use designation from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" to "Multi -Family Residen- tial," at a maximum of 80 dwelling units. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -25- Motion MMISSIONERS 0.48 MINUTES , x x May 22, 1986 Co n x f y 9 r 9 m H ° ; ° ° City of Newport Beach z m o A s w za z az * m INDEX Commissioner Koppelman commented that (10) Bayview Landing falls into the category of one of the tradeoffs that Block 800 be increased to 440,000 square feet. She said that the sensitive site is an important site because it is at a major intersection in the City. Commissioner Koppelmah reasoned that the site has the ' potential of viewet it is in an area that has heavy traffic; The Irvine Company has requested seventy percent of the site be covered with buildings and ' parking lotst the increase in traffic generated by this particular sitet the access of the traffic coming out from Back Bay Drive and perhaps through the natural habitat of Back Bay and the possible detriment to those who use Back Bay Drive as an environmental sanctuary; she concluded that a significant decrease in this site is warranted because once it is gone it will never come back. Commissioner Koppelman referred to previous testimony that The Cannery Restaurant is between 8,000 to 9,000 square feet, and she suggested two restaurants or a restaurant and a Teen Center. She said that the site could accommodate two buildings and also accommodate environmental and recreational use. Motion was made to adopt Bayview Landing, to allow a total of 16,000 square feet for restaurants of visitor serving commercial use and two facilities, one of which may be used as a Teen Center. She commented that the Teen Center is a commercial use, and if the Teen Center was not located on that site it could be sited in any commercial area within Newport Center. She opined that ' there is some flexibility if the Bayview Landing site is not the location that the Teen Center wishes to be in. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person, Ms. Temple replied that the Bayview Landing site is approx- imately 20 acres. Commissioner Kurlander commented that the grade sepa- ration that is being proposed is one of the alterna- tives to widening of East Coast Highway, and will take a substantial amount of this particular property. He said that if the dedication is going to be made for the widening of East Coast Highway and Jamboree Boulevard, that the dedication should include the right-of-way sufficient to provide for the grade separation even though it may not be constructed at this time, which would reduce the useable area. ' -26` t 1 a.toy May 22, 1986 MINUTES i 1 1 Substitute Motion 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 i 1 of Newport Beach Chairman Person stated that the motion is to reduce the site to two structures, 16,000 square feet, for restaurant or visitor serving commercial uses on the lower pad. Commissioner Goff made a substitute motion to approve Bayview Landing as recommended by staff. He reasoned that a person could enjoy a view from the bay in a restaurant just as well as outdoors which is an amenity that some people enjoy. He further reasoned that to reduce the site to two buildings, one of which may not be available to the public to enjoy the view from an enclosed area, is reducing the site too far. Chairman Person referred to staff's recommendation "the structure shall not be any higher than the upper pad level", and asked if there is any suggestion regarding parking on the upper terrace of the site? Ms. Temple replied that staff's recommendation would not involve parking on the upper pad. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Kurlander, Mr. Webb described the grading design for East Coast Highway in the vicinity of the subject site. Mr. Hewicker commented that The Irvine Company site plan takes into consideration the right-of-way that would be necessary for the grading operation; however, he said that he did not know what design criteria they used. Chairman Person commented that he is not in favor of parking on the bluff and that as long as staff contem- plates not parking on the bluff that he could support the substitute motion. Commissioner Turner commented that he would support the substitute motion. He reasoned that the site is difficult; that it is going to take a fair amount of money to develops and that there is a substantial reduction from the original 60,000 square feet. Commissioner Turner asked for a change in the language "that all access for commercial use is to be provided via Back Bay Drive" to be changed to "all access for commercial use is to be provided to the satisfaction of the City staff", which enables City staff to review the ingress/egress layouts as time goes on, and if there is a possibility to provide some additional forms of ingress/egress use without jeopardizing the public safety that this should be taken advantage of. He -2,- 1 Ayes Noes Absent Motion "MISStONERS a. 7 J MINUTES May 22, 1986 0 ao * - e m >,e m o 'I ) ° City of Newport Beach =,=�m KI opined that this is a commercial site and he is very sensitive to the access to the site in order to make it ' economically viable as time goes on, and also that there is further protection to prevent patrons from going up the Back Bay along the ecological reserve. Commissioner Goff replied that he would be willing to defer that to the City Engineer. He reasoned that if there is no parking on the upper level then East Coast Highway would be ruled out and to gain access to the site at the lower level off of Jamboree Boulevard would be as close to Back Bay Drive as to be unfeasible, which leaves Back Bay Drive as the only access to the site. Chairman Person stated that the substitute motion is 25,000 square feet for three restaurant facilities, all structures shall not be higher than the upper pad level, access for commercial uses shall be determined by the City Engineer, one of the facilities may be used as a Teen Center, Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made to adopt (11) Newporter North: Change the land use designation from "Low Density Residential" to "Multi -Family Residential" at a maximum of 490 dwelling units. Significant cultural resources which exist on the site shall be preserved in a manner acceptable to the City, with development clustered in other areas. , Commissioner Goff noted that the site had been previ- ously suggested for the Natural History Museum. Commissioner Turner commented that a sizeable area has been not aside for archeological and it would not be precluding at some future date to establish a Natural History Museum although it would seem illogical to establish it in a residential area. In response to ' Commissioner Turner, Ms. 'Temple replied that the Recreational and Open Space Element as proposed by staff includes a four acre City Park and that within that designation the land use discusses resource values. She said that staff's opinion is that if the City or another agency decided to accommodate a museum at that location it could be accommodated very easily ' within that Recreational and Environmental Open Space Designation, and that the museum would not require a separate category. Chairman Person commented that it would not be precluded. In response to Commissioner -28- COMMISSIONERS x x co = -I 9 r 9 = W A 9 Z L1 n S �=Z N °;°°City of a m o m r z s z s z' m ,Ayes x x x x Absent x ,Motion x I I Ayes x Absent x Motion x Ayes x Absent x 1 Motion x Ayes Absent x May 22, 1986 Beach Goff's inquiry if it would be necessary or helpful to include the museum in the paragraph for consistency or clarification, Mr. Hewicker replied that a museum is included in the Recreational and Open Space Element. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made to adopt (12) Westba : Change the land use designation from "Low Density Residential" to "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" in partial consideration for increased development in Newport Center and on the peripheral sites. Commissioner Turner reasoned that this site is impacted by airplane noise and that it would be a reasonable change. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made to adopt (13) San Diego Creek North: Add a 2.5 acre Fire Station reservation to the site. The reservation shall be in effect for a period of 5 years. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Recreation and Open Space Element: Motion was made to adopt: 1. Bayview Landing: Maintain the existing "Recre- ational and Environmental Open Space" designation, but preclude development from the upper level. MINUTES 2. Newporter North: Maintain existing "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" designation, but add unmapped environmentally sensitive area desig- nation for preservation of significant on -site cultural resources. 3. Westbay: Designate the site for regional park facilities with unmapped environmentally sensitive areas and public access where appropriate. A natural history facility may be allowed on the site subject to approval of the City. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -29- a. 7a May 22, 1986 MINUTES I Motion Ayes Absent Motion 9 9 ma 9 > '0 a A arr a) i m o or r is x a:� x M Circulation Elements Beach Motion was made to adopt: (1) designate MacArthur Boulevard as a Major Arterial (six lanes, divided); designate Avocado Avenue as a Secon- dary Arterial (4 lanes) between Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive. This circulation element revision is subject to ap- proval of the County of Orange. In response to a clarification posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Commissioner Turner commented that Avocado Avenue will be straightened. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED, In response to a clarification posed by Commissioner Goff, Chairman Person commented that San Joaquin Hills Road is currently designated as six lanes, divided. Commissioner Goff reasoned that the designation of San Joaquin Hills Road easterly of Spyglass Hill should remain six lanes, divided; however, he commented that when the Planning Commission arrives at the Circulation Phasing he will propose an initial installation of San Joaquin Hills Road of four lanes with dedication of the additional two lanes available at some future time as needed. Motion was made to adopt (2) MacArthur Boulevard between Ford Road and Route 73 as a Major -Modified Arterial (8 lanes, divided), with the deletion of (a) designate San Joaquin Hills Road easterly of Spyglass Hill Road as a Primary Arterial 4 lanes, divided). Further, recommend to the City Council that final action on this amendment be taken concurrent with the action on GPA 85-103). Commissioner Goff clarified his motion by stating that San Joaquin Hills Road is currently six lanes] there- fore, it need not be amended. In response to clarifications posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Ms. Temple replied that San Joaquin Hills Road easterly of Spyglass Hill is in unincorporated County territory and that the portion of San Joaquin -30- I P I I 1 i I 11 I I I I I a.73 May 22, 1986 MINUTES i 71I IIj ROLL I xx c o f y a 9 m 2 C M> M z W a a= r 0 2 a r a m o m i 2 9 2 a 2 n m Ayes Absent x I IMotion I I I I I I I I itv of Newport Beach Hills Road that is in Newport Beach which is currently six lanes, will not change. In response to Commissioner Turner, Commissioner Goff explained that San Joaquin Hills Road will remain a six lane designated road. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. The Planning Commission recessed at 10:50 p.m. and reconvened at 10:55 p.m. Affordable Housing: Motion was made to adopt: Based upon the granting of additional commercial development, increased density for residential develop- ment, and governmental financial assistance such as Mortgage Revenue Bonds, the following program is required: 1. Thirty percent (30%) of the total dwelling units constructed on all sites shall be affordable to low and moderate income families. 2. The affordability mix shall be as follows: 66.7% County Low Income* 33.3% City Very Low Income* (with rents not to exceed HUD Section 8 "Fair Market Rents") *per Housing Element 3. Preference shall be given to Section 8 Certificate holders for the "City Very -Low Income" units. 4. The term of affordability shall be 20 years from the date of initial occupancy. 5. The affordable units may be located on any site, however they shall be phased proportional to the market rate residential units. 6. Additionally, the 29 remaining "pool" affordable units in the Haywood expansion shall be committed for a period of 20 years, with 80% at County median and 20% at County low income. -31- I a .7'; Ayes Absent Co m e =_ z m y m G:9 A G: a m o Mr m i ICity Of z a z z a * m x Motion Ayes Absent x Motion Substitute Motion ,M May 22, 1986 Beach MINUTES ' I 7. Prior to issuance of building permits for any development permitted by GPA 85-l(B), the appli- ' cant shall enter into an affordable housing agreement with the City guaranteeing the provision of the affordable units. This agreement may be included within the development agreement. ' x x x x x x Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. ' Land Use Phasing: Motion was made to adopt: Phase I: No residential x (PCH/Jamboree, Newport Village, Newporter North* Big Canyon) units required for: A. Fashion Island Expansion B. Civic Plaza Expansion Center x x x x x x Motion voted on, 140TION CARRIED. Motion was made to adopt: Phase IIa: 400 units must x have building permits issued and substantial progress in construction (;Foundations plus some framing) before ' building permit issuance for: A. Block 600 B. Bayview Landing C. Avocado/MacArthur D. Corporate Plaza ' Chairman Person made a substitute motion stating that in the beat interest of the community that the develop- x ment which is to take place at the site commonly known as Newport Village occur first. He moved to strike 400 units and the following be inserted: The Newport Village residential units must have building permits issued and substantial progress in construction, foundation and some framing before building permit issuance for Block 600, Bayview Landing, Avoca- do/MacArthur, and Corporate Plaza. ' Chairman Person affirmatively confirmed Commissioner Turner's inquiry that included up to 560 units. , Commissioner Goff asked Chairman Person why he felt that the units in Newport Village are more important than other locations, and did he intend that all 560 units must have substantial progress in construction , prior to building permits being issued for the four locations. -32- a, 75` May 22, 1986 MINUTES i I E r I �1 i L I cx o E c v � 9 m z c m m z m s `= a N z r n_ ; ° v m o m> m °City of z s z s z M m Beach Chairman Person replied that 560 units have been designated for Newport Village, and that he believes that the site is essential to the overall development of Newport Center. He commented that the Planning Commission looked at the site in GPA 83-1, as a site to meet the City's needs in terms of housing and that it is in the best interest, to insure that residential buildout does occur in Newport Center prior to the peripheral sites. He opined that it is important for the City that those units be the first to be constructed. Commissioner Turner asked Chairman Person if he would consider addressing Ilb and change the 400 additional units to 800 units. Chairman Person replied that would be a part of his motion, In response to Commissioner Turner, Chairman Person replied that a total of 800 residential units must have building permits issued before occupancy permits for Block 600, and those 800 units aside from those units indicated in Newport Center could be developed anywhere. Commissioner Turner stated that he would withdraw his motion. Commissioner Goff asked if there was a minimum number of units in Newport Village that would be required. Chairman Person replied "no". Chairman Person agreed with Commissioner Goff that whatever was initially built prior to getting building permits for the four sites listed would be all of the units that would ever be permitted on the Newport Village site. Chairman Person reasoned that by requiring that substantial progress in construction then the tentative tract portion would have been passed, and further discretionary approval might be necessary for the Planning Commission to approve development of that site. Commissioner Turner commented that it would have the affect of requiring the alignment of Avocado Avenue, MacArthur Boulevard, and East Coast Highway. Commissioner Koppelman commented that as a result the site must be started and developed first. Chairman Person replied there would have to be substantial construction. Commissioner Koppelman opined that there would be no flexibility for The Irvine Company at all in terms of whatever their financing is or whatever residential projects are in line. She stated that she could not support the motion. -33- INDEX a.74 Substitute Motion Ayes Noes Absent Motion Ayes Absent Motion Ayes Absent Motion Ayes Absent X X s c 9 r 7 m y m 01 9 S = P O z m O M> T 2 D 2 X i F3 FA May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach Chairman Person advised that Phase I allows The Irvine Company to develop Fashion Island expansion and Civic Plaza Center. In regard to the residential goals, he pointed out that staff has been firm that the site remain residential and that it is important for that particular site in view of the possibilities for the realigning and lowering of MacArthur Boulevard. Chairman Person opined 'that it is the choice of this Planning Commission to have all the development in that strip in place. Commissioner Goff opined that he is not in a position to know the economics of the situation, and what the restrictions of The Irvine Company may be. Chairman Person pointed out that The Planning Commission has designated the site for residential before and that The Irvine Company has come back and asked for commercial at that site. Commissioner Goff replied that there is nothing to preclude them from doing that again. Commissioner Goff made a substitute motion to adopt Phase Ila as recommended by staff. Substitute motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made to adopt Phase IIb: 400 additional units must have building permits issued and substantial progress in construction before issuance of occupancy permits for: Block 600. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED, Motion was made to adopt Phase IIi: Completion and xlxlCertificate of Occupancy for 800 dwelling units before building permits issued fort A. Block 800; B. Corporate Plaza West. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Fi Circulation Phasing: Motion was made to adopt (1) Prior to issuance of any building permits for any component of GPA 85-1(B), all dedications from The Irvine Company necessary for completion of the Coast Highway Improvement Program shall have been made. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Kurlander, Mr. Webb replied that the item was primarily to cover dedications between Jamboree Boulevard and Bayside Drive. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -34- MINUTES ' L I L G I I I I L COMMISSIONERS C o o Co = f v 9 v m z c m> m z m 9 a z r O 2 G Z p; 0 0 — 'sm ms r r 0 zs z zz � M IMotion Ci 1 1 n I I I a.77 May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach Motion was made to adopt (2) The following projects may proceed after Coast 'Highway, Jamboree Boulevard, MacArthur Boulevard, and Avocado Avenue dedication and/or bonding before installation of Pelican Hill Road: A. All of Fashion Island B. Civic Plaza C. Newport Village To delete (3): The following project may proceed after Coast Highway dedications and completion bonding and dedications for Jamboree Road, but before installation of Pelican Hill Road: - Balance of Fashion Island MINUTES (4) would become (3): building or grading permits for the following projects may be issued upon commencement of construction of Pelican Hill Road and MacArthur Boulevard improvements (as described below): A. Block 600 B. Big Canyon/MacArthur Boulevard C. Avocado/MacArthur Boulevard D. Corporate Plaza E. Newporter North F. PCH/Jamboree Boulevard (5) would become (4): Certificate of occupancy may not be issued for the following project until the com- pletion of Pelican Hill Road: and the commencement of construction of the extension of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road: A. Block 600 B. Block 800 Commissioner Kurlander asked Chairman Person if that means the beginning of construction for San Joaquin Hills Road and not the completion, and he opined if San Joaquin Hills Road should not be completed also. Chairman Person replied that there has been discussion regarding possible litigation which may make the actual construction difficult, although he opined that he would like to have it in place, but that he did not want to hold the entire project up. Commissioner Goff opined that the point is that if commencement of -35- MINUTES ' �.78 May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach construction of San Joaquin Hills Road can be accomplished, completion can be accomplished, that it is the commencement that is in question as a function of litigation. chairman Person commented that he would be willing to amend to have completion of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road. Commissioner Goff stated that commencement of San Joaquin Hills Road should be accomplished as soon as possible but to tie it in with the same phasing of Pelican Hill Road may be putting it in jeopardy. Chairman Person stated that he is not tying it in with the building of Pelican Hill Road, but that his motion assures that Pelican Hill Road is built and in place before they can step foot inside one of the buildings with a tenant. He opined that they are going to want to have San Joaquin Hills Road built and completed, and if there is litigation they will want to settle the issue in a hurry. Discussion followed how San Joaquin Hills Road can be in and operating with Pelican Hill Road without putting the applicant into a bind because of possible litigation. Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, stated that litigation could happen before, during or after construction. Commissioner Turner commented that because the appli- cant is relying upon the construction of Block 800 to pay for Pelican Hill Road, he asked Chairman Person if it would be acceptable to leave Block 800 in (6) that would become (5) contingent upon the construction of San Joaquin Hills Road. Chairman Person stated that would be acceptable. Chairman Person modified his motion to state: (4) Certificate of Occupancy may not be issued for the following project until the completion of Pelican Hill Road- - Block 600 (5) Building or grading permits for the following projects may be issued upon the commencement of con- struction of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road: A. Block 800 B. Corporate Plaza West C. Bayview Landing -36- I I I a, 79 May 22, 1986 MINUTES I 1 I d of Newport Beach Commissioner Goff requested that the motion be amended to clarify the point that four lanes of San Joaquin Hills Road would be initially installed. Commissioner Kurlander opined that recommendation would be under "Other Requirements". Commissioner Koppelman commented that the motion may be at odds with the land use phasing just adopted, by explaining that the net result is that Newport Village would be developed first. Chairman Person responded that it would not have to be developed first. Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator., pointed out that the Newporter North and the existing Villa Point projects have commitments through cooperation with the County of Orange for mortgage revenue bond financing. He suggested that the Planning Commission may want to consider keeping those projects, which will probably end up being expansions of that bond issue, in one of the earlier stages. He explained that one of the reasons to have suggested early phasing was so that they could take benefit of mortgage bond financing. Mr. Lenard stated that if the projects are held off for one or two years there may be a chance The Irvine Company would lose the mortgage revenue bond financing which is valuable to the City's affordable housing goals. He opined that if the two items were moved down to the next phase it does have the affect of making Newport Village the first residential project. Commissioner Koppelman opined that staff recommended the phasing was to indicate the City's desire to encourage residential development and she suggested that (d) Corporate Plaza, (e) Newporter North, and (c) Avocado/MacArther Boulevard be moved back up to Phase 2. Chairman Person replied that to balance the housing needs of the City and the Circulation system, and that after hearing testimony from Corona del Mar residents concerning Pelican Hill Road and the circulation system improvements in place, that the purpose of his motion is to try to achieve balance at the earliest possible date. Chairman Person explained the primary reason for the changes suggested are if considerations are going to create more traffic on East Coast Highway without insuring that those two projects are in place early on in this development scheme. Commissioner Koppelman asked what is accomplished by all of Fashion Island in Phase I, and the deletion of residental and moving that down into another Phase? -37- INDEX C ROLL Substitute Motion Amendment to Motion Ayes x Absent x Ayes x Absent x May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach Chairman Person replied that Fashion Island is the "hub" of the development and that the Fashion Island portion of the development would probably be tied together in terms of development, and that it made more sense rather than cut one development into two to do it, because as indicated by staff and testimony it was desirable to have the Fashion Island project completed. Mr. Hewicker commented that the motion does not mean that all of Fashion Island be built, it is saying that if The Irvine Company wanted to go ahead and build all of it they could, or they could build half of it now and half of it later. Ms. Temple commented upon the residential moving down in the phasing program, and opined that it would preclude development of the residential that is needed in the phasing program in order to get building permits for some of the other projects. She said that it in important that residential projects be phased early so that the land use phasing requirements can be met. Chairman Person stated that he would support moving Pacific Coast Highway/Jamboree Boulevard and Big Canyon/MacArthur Boulevard to Phase 2. He opined that Newporter North is too dense a project to have built before construction of Pelican Hill Road. MINUTES , Commissioner Koppelman cited that Newporter North is one area that had bond financing. She made a substi- tute motion that Phase 2 would remain the same with the exception that Newporter North, Pacific Coast Highway/Jamboree Boulevard, Big Canyon/MacArthur Boulevard and all of Fashion Island be added to Phase 2. Commissioner Goff stated that he would support the substitute motion, because there has been plenty of inducement for The Irvine Company to start Pelican Hill Road and San Joaquin Hills Road. Chairman Person advised that he would accept Commis- sioner Koppelman's suggestion as an amendment to his motion. Commissioner Koppelman concurred. Motion voted on to adopt Phase 2: MOTION CARRIED. Motion voted on to adopt Phase 3: MOTION CARRIED. -38- I t MINUTES Ayes ,Absent 'Ayes Absent Motion ,Ayes Absent (Motion Ayes Absent ,Motion Ayes ,Absent x x x Motion x Ayes ' Absent x x Ix May 22, 1986 of Newport Beach Motion voted on to adopt Phase 4: MOTION CARRIED. Motion voted on to adopt Phase 5: MOTION CARRIED. other Requirements: Motion was made to adopt (1): A landscape program for MacArthur Boulevard shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to issuance of any building or grading permits for any component of GPA 85-1(B). The landscaping shall be installed concurrent with MacArthur Boulevard improvements. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made to adopt (2): That the full dedica- tions for 6-lane MacArthur be required. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made to adopt (3): That MacArthur Boulevard be improved to lower the grade and move the road westerly, as described in the Environmental Impact Report. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Webb referred to (4) and commented that there was no explanation of the limits for the construction of only two outside through lanes on MacArthur Boulevard in each direction, and that the area referred to is the area between Harbor View Drive and the prolongation of the centerline of Crown Drive in that, at San Miguel Drive and East Coast Highway, intersection configuration would require six lanes. He recommended that (4) state: "that the two outside through lanes on MacArthur Boulevard between Harbor View Drive and a prolongation of the center line of Crown Drive be constructed so that any additional lanes would occur towards the centerline of the roadway. Motion made to adopt (4), Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Webb suggested that staff's intent for (5) as follows: That prior to construction of through lanes in excess of four on MacArthur Boulevard between Harbor View Drive and a prolongation of the centerline of Crown Drive the following criteria be met: -39- Motion MMISSIONE 8 a MINUTES 0 - May 22, 1986 eo = a O z c m y m mz z o _ ' ' zm� City of Newport Beach 9 m O y w A z a z� m a. Completion of Pelican Hill Road to Major Arterial configuration (6-lanes, divided) between Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road. Completion of San Joaquin Hills Road to Primary Arterial configuration 4-lanes, divided) easterly of spyglass Hill Road and connection to Pelican Hill Road. C. An average weekday volume -to -capacity ratio of 1.15 is reached in the vicinity of Harbor View Drive on MacArthur Boulevard. A public hearing shall be conducted by the City Council to verify satisfaction of all criteria. Commissioner Goff made a motion to adopt (5) as recom- mended by Mr. Webb with the following modifications: "the following criteria as a minimum be met": (b) "completion of San Joaquin Hills Road to Major Arterial configuration (6-lanes, divided)t "a public hearing shall be conducted by the Planning Commission and City Council". Commissioner Turner asked that the motion be amended to include the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor as follows (5 d) "that all discretionary decisions be made regarding the construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor including ultimate number of lanes, provided, however, that the responsible entity making such decisions or determination shall have done so by July 1, 1995". He said that his intent is that at the time of the review that there will be consideration regarding the impact of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and what it will do to the expanding of MacArthur Boulevard. Commissioner Goff stated that he concurs with everything but the date. Commissioner Turner replied that the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor may not happen and that it would not be fair to anyone to say that this cannot happen until the Corridor is planned because it may not be planned. Chairman Person suggested that Sand Canyon Road be included, and Mr. Webb stated that The Irvine Company Local Coastal Plan Development shows Sand Canyon as a two lane arterial going from Pacific Coast Highway inland and connecting into Sand Canyon and would be a part of the Local Coastal Plan. Commissioner Koppelman -40- I� I I 1 L I May 22, 1986 MINUTES I r- iL_j c o F r 9 m Z c m> m z m a a= r S 0 s m o m> T T z s z a z m m ROLL CALL 1 Ayes x 1 Noes Absent x Motion x of Newport Beach stated that should could not support sand Canyon Road. Commissioner Turner clarified his previous suggestion that the future Planning Commission and the future City Council verify the desirability of expanding MacArthur Boulevard. Commissioner Goff reviewed the motion, and added (d) as suggested by Commissioner Turner as follows: "the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor be installed for all discretionary approvals either going ahead or deleting it be done up through 1995. A public hearing shall be conducted by the Planning Commission and the City Council to verify satisfaction of all criteria". Commissioner Turner clarified his suggestion that it was not his intent to say that the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor be started or constructed but that it would be taken into consideration so that they will know what the impact of the Corridor might be upon the City. Discussion followed if the motion included "and the desirability of adding two additional lanes to MacArthur Boulevard", and "public hearing/public hearings". Commissioner Goff concurred that the motion would include "A public hearing shall be conducted by the Planning Commission and the City Council to verify satisfaction of all criteria, and the desirability of adding the two additional lanes to MacArthur Boule- vard", to insure that the Planning Commission had a chance to review the change in the Circulation Element. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made to adopt (6) All mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR shall be required. Commissioner Kurlander opined that he wanted to indi- cate that Pelican Hill Road should be developed as a minimum four lane road initially. Chairman Person said that he would indicate that at the end of the dis- cussion. Commissioner Kurlander said that would be in conflict with what the mitigation measures are in the EIR. Chairman Person said that the language in the motion will state "except for the lane configuration of Pelican Hill Road for the first phase". In response to questions posed by Commissioner Goff regarding mitigation measures in the EIR, discussion -41- a. S4 May 22, 1986 kx co x f 9 IV v m am H a ° _ ° ° nl Cityof Newport Beach p zs z a:'* m A2� ROLL MINUTES , I followed between staff and the Planning Commission. Ms. Temple commented that the EIR does incorporate a list ' of intersection improvements as mitigation measures and those do include the intersection improvements along Coast Highway in Mariners' Mile. She said that the , intersection improvements can be required as part of the TPO study. Commissioner Turner recommended that the motion be amended to state "that all mitigation measures outlined in the EIR which are consistent with ' the action taken shall be required". Ayes Absent x x x x x x x Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made to adopt (7): The Irvine Company shall Motion x aggressively pursue all necessary approvals and con- struction of San Joaquin Hills Road from Spyglass Hill , Road to Pelican Hill Road. Commissioner Kurlander inquired if "constructed as a four lane road" should be included. Mr. Hewicker , replied that the four lane road has already been Ayes x x x x x x designated. Absent x ' Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion Motion made to adopt (8)1 A Development Agreement and x overall Planned Community Development Plan for Newport ' Center shall be prepared and approved concurrent with or prior to any further discretionary actions, and in any case, prior to issuance of building permits for the ' development allowed by this General Plan Amendment. Ayes Absent x x x x x x x Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Motion made to adopt (9): The initial construction of Motion x Pelican Hill Road shall be a minimum of four lanes. Ayes x x x x x x Absent x Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Person referred to Land Use Element: Block 800: He reviewed the motions that remained on the , —r.motion to allow the increase of office develop- ment of Block 800 to 440,000 square feet, and a substi- tute motion to add 340,000 square feet. Commissioner Kurlander stated that he would not support the substitute motion because the footprint of the buildings would not change. ' -42- 1 a. s s ' COMMISSIONERS May 22, 1986 �o ' Fi , v > m = m o m _ - ° j City of Newport Beach L r— J I Ayes Noes ' Absent Ayes ' Noes Absent 'Motion Ayes Absent I Commissioner Turner commented that originally a two lane Pelican Hill Road was contemplated and since has been increased to four lanes which would increase the construction costs. He said that he would like to withdraw his substitute motion and make the substitute motion to add 380,000 square feet. Commissioner Goff said that because of the current status of. the circulation element that the original 440,000 square feet as asked for by The Irvine Company can be accommodated from a traffic standpoint and he pointed out that the traffic study showed that the 440,000 square feet could be accommodated, and that it is a reasonable tradeoff to add the 440,000 square feet. He said that he would support the original motion. x x x x Substitute motion was voted on to increase the office x development to 380,000 square feet. MOTION FAILED. x x Motion was voted on to increase the office development x x to 440,000 square feet. MOTION CARRIED. X Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1139 recommend- ing approval of General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) and x accepting the environmental document, and Resolution x x x x x x No. 1140 recommending approval of Amendment No. 9 to x the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. The Planning Commission recessed at 12:08 a.m. and reconvened at 12:15 a.m. s -43- MINUTES ;). 86 MINUTES ' G O T i i A w m zc m �m z C Z p; O O a m o 0 ICity (_�/' O z a z 2 a M r � : � m June 51 1986 Beach The applicant has requested that this item be with inasmuch as those portions of the subject wall and wrought iron gate that exceed the permitted height limit in the front yard setback will rei as required by the Aeronutronic Ford PlanComm Development Standards. R R R In response to a questi from Chairman Person, Planning Director Hewicke ndicated that the staff has started to prepare the.1,14evelopment standards for the proposed Central Salb9t Specific Area Plan. * R R XCommixn discussed the problems with the on WashingtonStreet adjacent to the Fun status of the bike racks that were to be the developers of the Pun Zone property. Webb will report back to the Commission with this matter. Chairman Person referred to Item No. 5 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1139 (GPA 85-1(8) for Newport Center) pertaining to the criteria which would have to be met prior to construction of through lanes in excess of four lanes on MacArthur Boulevard between Harbor view Drive and the prolongation of the centerline of Crown Drive. Chairman Person referred to Mr. Wobble statement of May 22, 1986, regarding the MacArthur Boulevard widening between the prolongation of Crown Drive and the Coast Highway-.ointersection and recommended that the language contained in Resolution No. 1139 be clarified and the intent of the Planning Commission be explained without physically changing the Resolution. Mr. Webb confirmed that he had discussed this matter with Chairman Person and that the clarification Chairman Person had in mind was the same language that he had used in his statement to the Planning Commission on May 22, 1986. -41- I 1 Additional Business Central +� Balboa SAP , Washington Scree_ t � Resolution' un. 1119 r I .1, 87 June 5, 1986 MINUTES ROLL 1 n u Motion L IL x x co i f a v v m z c m o m z co g S z r x c 2 N p; 0 01 9 m O m > � of Newport Beach Discussion followed between Planning Commissioners regarding the need for the clarification and the desire to eliminate any confusion which might arise. Following discussion by the Planning Commission, Mr. Hewicker stated that it was his understanding from the foregoing that the intent of the Planning Commission was to express the fact that "the City would not be precluded from constructing intersection improvements at Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard and at MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive, said intersection improvements having been described in the EIR for GPA 85-1(B). It is further understood that said intersection improvements may result in 6 lanes on MacArthur Boulevard in the areas adjacent to said intersections with a tapering to 4 lanes on MacArthur Boulevard between Coast Highway and Harbor View Drive and between the prolongation of the center line of Crown Drive and San Miguel Drive." Mr. Hewicker further stated that if this language reflects the intent of the Planning Commission then it will be forwarded to the City Council along with the original action taken by the Planning Commission on May 22, 1986. Ms. Korade advised that the Planning Commission's clarification to the City Council could be forwarded as an attached memo, or by staff in the staff report to City council, but that the Planning Commission could not prescribe the wording. In response to Commissioner Goff, Ms. Korade replied that the Planning Commission can convey the intent but that it would be inappropriate to suggest amended language to the Resolution or to amend the Resolution. Chairman Person made a motion to direct staff to forward the concerns of the -Planning Commission to City Council concerning language of Item No. 5 "Other Requirements", Resolution No. 1139, and that concern be indicated in the language prepared in the staff report going to the City Council, and that as a possible alternative to language which is contained in the Resolution, the staff attach the language signifying the intent of the Planning Commission. Mr. Hewicker repeated Chairman Person's request by stating that the Planning Commission has asked staff to convey to the City Council what the intent of the -42- IJ y 9 rT 019 9 = P 0 z s = y i Ayes Abstain a.xs June 51 1986 of Newport Beach Planning Commission was in adopting the language as set forth in the Resolution, and at the same time, if the City Council concurs, for the staff to provide the City Council with the change in language that might be more desirable in order to clarify the language. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Comatbaioner Goff directed staff to review the drainage problems en automobiles are being washed at the Avon Rent-A-Car p rty located at 3939 West Coast Highway (Use Permit No. (Amended)). R R ADJOURNMENTS 10 s45p. PAT EICHENHOrER, SECRETARY CITY Or NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -43- MINUTES LI 1 FI 1 1 1 rl r-, 'II 1 1 i 1 1 1 F 1 i Planning Commission Staff Reports 1 71 I TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Meeting March 20, 1986 Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Planning Department J A. General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) (Public Hearing) Request to consider amendments to the Land Use, Circu- lation, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan for eight sites within and three sites on the periphery of Newport Center. IM Request to amendjthe CertifiedlLocal Coastal Program, Land Use Plan for the Newporter North, Bayview Landing, and PCH/Jamboree sites. ' INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Introduction ' On February 25, 1985, the City Council concurred with a recommendation of the Planning Commission and initiated General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) for Newport Center and Peripheral Sites. The preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project commenced in June of 1985. Included in the work program for the EIR and traffic studies was a complete update of the City's Transportation Model to a 1985 base year and conversion of the operation of the Model from an ' IBM mainframe computer to an IBM PC. The Environmental Impact Report is currently undergoing staff review and will be available the week of March 31, 1986. The purpose of this public hearing is to initiate the process by receiving the presentation of the proposed project by The ' Irvine Company. Staff is also prepared to outline the major issues of the GPA. Since this hearing is taking place prior to provision of the staff and environmental analyses, it is suggested that the Commission ' discussion and public testimony be limited to issue identification with no discussion of the merits of the plan. 1. TO: Planning Commission - 2. Project Description The proposed General Plan Amendment involves eight sites within , Newport Center, three sites on the periphery of Newport Center and a component of the Circulation Element Master Plan of Streets and Highways. The Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan Amendment involves ' one site in Newport Center and two peripheral sites. The components of the project and the specific amendments to the General Plan are listed below: Specific Sites 1. Fashion Island: Increase the allowed development in Fashion r Island by 128#000 sq.ft. This development is in addition to the 66,000 sq.ft. transferred to the site from Newport Village and Civic Plaza, and will bring the total development in Fashion , Island to 1#369,250 sq.ft. New development will be a mix of commercial retail and restaurant uses. No change in the land use designation is necessary. 2. Block 600, Increase the allowed development in Block 600 by 300,000 sq.ft. of office. This development is in addition to the existing 800,000 sq.ft. of office and the 325 room hotel current- ly under construction, and will bring the total office develop- ment in the block to 1#100,000 sq.ft, No change in the land use designation is necessary. t 3. Civic Plazat Increase thr#allowed developm nt in Civic Plaza by 50,000 sq.ft. This development is in addition to the 14,000 sq.ft. of additional institutional use allowed by the General , Plan, and will bring the total development in Civic Plaza to 332,706 sq.ft. of office and institutional uses. 1,350 theatre seats will be deleted from Civic Plaza. New development will be , a mixture of office and institutional uses. No change in land use designations are necessary. 4. Block 700/800: Increase the allowed development in Block 800 by , 440,000 sq.ft. This development is in addition to the 9,500 sq.ft. recently approved for Pacific Mutual (Block 700), and will bring the total development in Block 700/800 to 991,900 sq.ft. of ' office and restaurant use. 245 residential dwelling units will be deleted from Block 800. New development will be office uses. A change in land use designation from "Multi -Family Residential" ' to "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial' for a portion of Block 800 is necessary. 5. PCH/Jamboree: Increase the allowed development by 130 residen- tial dwelling units. The project will form an extension of the previously approved Villa Point project (154 du's). An unde- termined amount of office and related uses will be deleted from PCH/Jamboree. A change in land use designation from "Recreation- al and Marine Commercial' to "Multi -Family Residential' is necessary for both the General. Plan and Local Coastal Program. ' 6. Corporate Plaza west: Increase the allowed development in Corporate Plaza West by 100#000 sq.ft. This development is in addition to 8,400 sq.ft. of additional floor area currerta allowed in the General Plan, and will bring the total development ' in Corporate Plaza West to 123,400 sq.ft. New development will be office uses. A change in land use designation from "Retail t and Service Commercial" with alternate use of "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" to "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" is necessary. 7. Newport Village: Increase the allowed development in Newport Village by 345,000 sq.ft, of office and 58,250 sq.ft. of commer- cial retail. This development is in addition to 750 sq.ft. of commercial currently allocated to the site, and will bring the total development in Newport Village to 405,000 sq.ft. 360 residential dwelling units will be deleted. New development will ' be in office, retail and restaurant uses. A change in land use -designation from "Multi -Family Residential" and "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Administrative, Professional and Finan- cial Commercial" and "Retail and Service Commercial" is neces- sary. Deletion of the neighborhood park designation from the Recreation and Open Space Element is also required. 8. Avocado/MacArthur: Increase the allowed development in Avoca- do/MacArthur by 44,000 sq.ft. This development is in addition to a transit terminal currently planned for the site. New develop- ment will be office and transit facility uses. A change in land use designation from a mixture of "Low Density Residential". and "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercia],"j and "Governmenial, Educational and ' Institutional Facilities" is necessary. 9. Big Canyon/MacArthur: Increase the allowed development in Big ' Canyon/MacArthur by 80 residential dwelling units. A change in land use designation from "Recreational and.Environmental Open Space" to "Multi -Family Residential" is necessary. 10. Bayview Landing: Increase the allowed development in Bayview Landing by 60,000 sq.ft. 76 (alternate use) residential dwelling units will be deleted. New development will be predominantly restaurant with some retail commercial possible. A change in land use designation from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" on the upper portion and "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" with alternate "Low Density Residential" on the lower portion to "Retail and Service Commercial" is necessary. The Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan designation of a mixture of "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" and "Retail and ' Service Commercial" must also be changed to "Retail and Service Commercial." ' 11. Newporter North: Increase the allowed development on Newporter North by 278 residential dwelling units. This development is in addition to 212 du's currently allocated to the site, and will bring the total development to 490 du's. A change in land use designation from "Low Density Residential" to "Multi -Family Residential" is necessary for both the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. TO: Planning Commission - 4. t Circulation System ' 1. Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard One -Way Couplett Delete the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard One -Way Couplet and establish MacArthur Boulevard as a Major Arterial Roadway (6 lanes, divid- ' ed) . Issues ' The following outline lists the major issues associated with the proposed projects ' Transportation/Circulation Issuess ° The capacity of the circulation system at master plan buildout to sustain additional development allowed in the ' General Plan plus the proposed project. ° Revisions to the Circulation System Master Plan including the one-way couplet. , " The role regional roadways play in a adequate roadway capacity within the City. ° The compliance of the project with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. , Cultural Resource Issues: ° Cultural resource preservation versus salvage. ' ° The affect presence of cultural resources has on the timing of residential development. , Land Use Issues: ° The compatibility of the proposed land use with the develop- ment patterns of the City. ° The mix of office, commercial and residential uses within ' the plan. ° Residential uses in Newport Center. ' Noise Issuess ° The noise impacts of additional traffic on adjacent residen- tial uses. ° The noise impacts associated with a change in the Circu- lation System Master Plan (one-way couplet). Recreation Issuess ° Appropriate locations for local parks and recreation facil- ities to serve new residents. ° Demands for regional park and recreation facilities. ' Fiscal Issues: ° Financial costs and benefits resulting from implementation ' of the project. ° Financial costs and benefits resulting from denial of the project. _ ' TO: Planning Commission - 5. II II II II II II II II II II IL II Housing: ° Role of the housing proposals in the City's overall housing program and the affordable housing program. Phasing Issues: ° The phasing of residential with commercial development. • The phasing of the project, components with circulation system improvements. ° The phasing of the project with the installation of regional roadways. Suggested Action Receive presentation of the project by the applicant, open the public hearing, and continue the hearing to April 10, 1986. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Environmental Coordinator �{ SR14/jm Attachment: Vicinity Map r II ATTACHMENT CIVIC SLs ROAD BIG CANYON/ PLAZA BLOCK 600 MACARTHUR AVOCADO/ 00000/ MACARTHUR BLO BLOCK 500 , p� G LOOK � G w BLOCK BLOCK 't a00 FASHION ISLAND 400 a}d, NEWPORTER W I NORTH BLOCK FAO >� BLOCK O 300 MTV BLOCK W NEWPORT 200 VILLAGE BLOCK o NEWPORTER SEA NEWPORT BEACH ISLAND COUNTRY CLUB 100 O RESORT CORPORATE !�- j PLAZA CORPORATE < PCH/FRONTAGE PLAZA WEST JAP/ E EAST COAST HIONWAY BAYVIEW LANDING Sanchez talarico PROJECT: 85-10 assx a,es I r%m NEWPORT CENTER & PERIPHERAL SITES EIR no scale GPA 85-1(B) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' Planning Commission Meeting April 24, 1986 ' Agenda Item No. 6 tCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) (Public Hearing) Request to consider amendments to the Land Use, Circulation, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of as to allow the Newport Beach General Plan, so construction of an additional 11275,000 sq.ft. of office uses, 248,000 sq.ft. of retail and restaurant ' uses, and 700 residential units on property located in Newport Center and various peripheral sites. Also proposed is a revision to the Circulation System Master ' Plan to delete the Avocado -MacArthur one -way -couplet and establish MacArthur Boulevard as a two-way major arterial roadway, and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND B. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 9 (Publi, Hearing ' Request to amend the Certified Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan for the Newporter North, Bayview Landing, and PCH/Jamboree sites. ' INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach ' Suggested Action ' Hold hearing; if desired, give direction to or request additional information from staff, and continue to May 8, 1986. Background On February 25, 1985, the City Council concurred with a recommendation of the Planning Commission and initiated General Plan Amendment ' e5-1(B) for Newport Center and Peripheral Sites. On March 20, 1986, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the purpose of receiving the formal presentation by The Irvine Company of the ' proposed project, and to allow members of the public to identify particular issues of interest. At the conclusion of testimony, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing, with the direction to 3.5 ■ TO: Planning Commission - 2. ■ staff that the subsequent public hearing not be advertised and set , until receipt of all environmental documents. Project Description The proposed General Plan Amendment involves eight sites within Newport Center, three sites on the periphery of Newport Center and a component of the Circulation Element Master Plan of Streets and Highways. the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan Amendment involves one site in Newport Center and two peripheral sites, The components , of the ,project and the specific amendments to the General Plan are listed below: Specific Sites 1. Fashion Island: Increase the allowed development in Fashion island by 128,000 sq.ft. This development is in addition to the 66,000 sq.ft. transferred to the site from Newport Village and Civic Plaza, and will bring the total development in Fashion Island to 1,369,250 sq.ft. New development will be a mix of ' commercial retail and restaurant uses. No change in the land use designation is necessary. t 2. Block 600: Increase the allowed development in Block 600 by 300,000 sq.ft. of office. This development is in addition to the existing 800,000 sq.ft. of office and the 325 room hotel current- t ly under construction, and will bring the total office develop- ment in the block to 1,100,000 sq.ft. No change in the land use designation is necessary. 3. Civic Plaza: Increase the allowed development in Civic Plaza by 50,000 sq.ft. This development is in addition to the 14,000 sq.ft, of additional institutional use allowed by the General ' Plan, and will bring the total development in Civic Plaza to 332,706 sq.ft. of office and institutional uses. 1,350 theatre seats will be deleted from Civic Plaza. New development will be , a mixture of office and institutional uses. No change in land use designations are necessary. 4. Block 700/800: Increase the allowed development in Block 800 by ' 440,000 sq.ft. This development is in addition to the 9,500 sq.ft. recently approved for Pacific Mutual (Block 700), and will bring the total development in Block 700/800 to 991,900 sq.ft. of ' office and restaurant use. 245 residential dwelling units will be deleted from Block 800. New development will be office uses. A change in land use designation from "Multi -Family Residential" ' to "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" for a portion of Block 800 is necessary. 5. PCH/Jamboree: Increase the allowed development by 130 residen- tial dwelling units. The project will form an extension of the previously approved Villa Point project (154 du's). An unde- termined amount of office and related uses will be deleted from PCH/Jamboree. A change in land use designation from ' 1.k0 TO: Planning Commission - 3. "Recreational and Marine Commercial" to "Multi -Family Residential" is necessary for both the General Plan and Local ' Coastal Program. 6. Corporate Plaza West: Increase the allowed development in ' Corporate Plaza West by 100,000 sq.ft.- This development is in addition to 8,400 sq.ft. of additional floor area currently allowed in the General Plan, and will bring the total development ' in Corporate Plaza West to 123,400 sq.ft. New development will from "Retail be office uses. A change in land use designation and Service Commercial" with alternate use of "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" to "Administrative, ' Professional and Financial Commercial" is necessary. 7. Newport Village: Increase the allowed development in Newport Village by 345,000 sq.ft. of office and 59,250 sq.ft. of commer- cial retail. This development is in addition to 750 sq.ft. of commercial currently allocated to the site, and will bring the total development in Newport Village to 405,000 sq.ft. 360 residential dwelling units will be deleted. New development will be in office, retail and restaurant uses. A change in land use designation from "Multi -Family Residential" and "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Administrative, Professional and Finan- cial Commercial" and "Retail and Service Commercial" is neces- sary. Deletion of the neighborhood park designation from the Recreation and Open Space Element is also required. 8. Avocado/MacArthur: Increase the allowed development in Avoca- do/MacArthur by 44,000 sq.ft. This development is in addition to a transit terminal currently planned for the site. New develop- ment will be office and transit facility uses. A change in land use designation from a mixture of "Low Density Residential" and ' "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" and "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities" is necessary. in Big 9. Big Canyon/MacArthur: Increase the allowed development Canyon/MacArthur by 80 residential dwelling units. A change in land use designation from "Recreational and Environmental Open ' Space" to "Multi -Family Residential" is necessary. 10. eayview Landing: Increase the allowed development in Bayview ' Landing by 60,000 sq.ft. 76 (alternate use) residential dwelling units will be deleted. New development will be predominantly restaurant with some retail commercial possible. A change in ' land use designation from "Recreational and Environmental open "Recreational Environmental Space" on the upper portion and and Open Space" with alternate "Low Density Residential" on the lower portion to "Retail and Service Commercial" is necessary. The ' Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan designation of a mixture of "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" and "Retail and Service Commercial" must also be changed to "Retail and Service Commercial." 3.►► To: Planning Commission - 4, 11. Newporter North: Increase the allowed development on Newporter North by 278 residential dwelling units. This development is in addition to 212 du's currently allocated to the site, and will bring the total development to 490 du's. A change in land use designation from "Low Density Residential" to "Multi -Family Residential" is necessary for both the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. Circulation System MacArthur Boulevard as a Major Arterial Roadway (6 ed) . Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses Delete the and establish lanes, divid- Newport Center is a major regional commercial center bounded by Coast Highway, MacArthur Boulevard, San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road in the City of Newport Beach. The center is currently developed with a wide variety of uses, including high-rise and garden offic,region- al and local support retail commercial, hotel, governmental institutional, recreation and open space and residential uses, There are approximately 18.5 vacant acres in Newport Center. This estimate of vacant acres does not include the Newport Beach Country Club, which is 128.5 acres. The three peripheral sites are all vacant. The project area is easterly of Upper Newport Bay. Developments on the westerly side of the project include the Newport Dunes, the Newporter Resort, and the Park Newport Apartments. To the north of the project is the Big Canyon Planned Community. Easterly of the project are residential developments including the Baywood Apartments, Harbor View Homes, Harbor Point, and Harbor View Hills. Irvine Terrace and Corona del Mar are southerly of the project site. Environmental Significance An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the proposed project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy K-3. Based upon information contained in the environmental document, the project will result in significant impacts in the areas of land use, aesthetics, transportation and circulation, sir quality, energy, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources and public services and utilities. A copy of the draft Environmental Impact Report has been previously distributed to the Planning Commission, and it is requested that the document be brought to the public hearing. As required by the State CEQA Guidelines, the draft Environmental Impact Report has been circulated to the Governor's office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse) and State and regional agencies. Copies of the document are available for review by members of the public at the City Planning department and all City libraries. 1 I [1 1 I I TO: Planning Commission - 5. ' Additionally, a copy of the draft EIR may be obtained by any interest- ed person from the Planning Department. Discussion ' The buildout of Newport Center has been an issue of on -going concern of Resolu- to the City of Newport Beach since 1977, with the adoption the first action taken on the part of tion 9009. Resolution 9009 was the City to limit development in Newport Center on a comprehensive 78-2, which basis. In 1978, the City adopted General Plan Amendment the allocations provided for in Resolution 9009 by 549,600 reduced sq.ft. of office, 51,000 sq.ft. of commercial, and 12,000 sq.ft, of ' institutional. GPA 79-1 further reduced development limits by 763,744 sq.ft. of office and 650 theater seats. GPA 79-1 added 166 residential dwelling units to Newport Center. ' General Plan Amendment 80-3 was the first compre ensi pr made 8osal by The Irvine Company for Newport Center. As approved, ould ' have increased office development by 713,750 sq.ft. and hotel development would have development by 465 hotel rooms. Commercial been reduced by 38,750 sq.ft. Residential development remained approximately the same, but was allocated in a different manner: 589 City Council ' units plus 225,000 sq.ft. GPA 80-3 was rescinded by the at the request of The Irvine Company in 1982. ' Since 1982, there have been a number of general plan amendments for on the individual sites. GPA 81-3 increased allowed hotel development Marriott Hotel site by 234 rooms to a total of 611 hotel rooms. GPA 81-2 increased allowed office development in Block 400 (Rhodes) by 82-2(A) added 325 hotel rooms to 80,000 sq.ft. to 380,000 sq.ft. GPA Block 600 allowing construction of the Four Seasons Hotel. These three amendments were all processed in response to development ' proposals from the private sector. As part of the Housing Element implementation program, the City processed General Plan Amendment 83-1(E), which added 428 residential units to Newport Center. This amendment established a program of incentives to development of affordable housing units. ' Two subsequent amendments made small changes in Newport Center devel- Point) reduced residential develop- opment limits. GPA 83-2(C) (Villa and GPA 85-3 increased allowed office development in ment by 24 units Block 700-Pacific Mutual, by 9,500 sq.ft. it is evident from this chronology that, since the approval of GPA ' 80-3 was rescinded, "components" of a Newport Center buildout program basis. This is tend to be processed on an individual site development not the most desirable way to address this project from the City's viewpoint, since it does not allow for land use patterns, land use ' intensity, and development effects to be evaluated on a comprehensive basis. Comprehensive planning allows for analysis and project re- quirements and mitigation measures commensurate with the cumulative effects engendered from the project approved. With this fact in mind, 1 To: Planning Commission - 6. the City Council and City staff have worked with The Irvine Company to bring a buildout plan for Newport Center back before the City. Analysis The proposed project is extremely complex, involving eleven develop- ment site proposals and a major component of the circulation system. Additionally, the environmental document included discussion of virtually every other site within Newport Center, seven other sites within the City owned by The Irvine Company, and seven other compo- nents of the local and regional circulation system in order to give the staff, Planning Commission and City Council the greatest ability to discuss, analyze and mitigate the project under consideration. In ' order to keep the staff report as concise and readable as possible, restatement of the EIR analysis has been minimized. Cross-references will be provided when necessary. Analysis will be in the areas of ' land use, recreation, housing, cultural resources, transporta- tion/circulation, noise, public services, fiscal, and phasing. Recommendations will be in two areas: 1) land use, intensity and land use phasing; and 2) transportation/circulation improvements and , phasing. Land Use ' In reviewing the proposed General Plan Amendment from a land use standpoint, staff has four primary objectives: 1. Land use compatibility 2. Land use intensity compatibility 3, No residential reductions ' 4. No floating or transfer residential units. The discussion of land use will address Newport Center generally, then each site individually. Newport Center and Peripheral Sites. Newport Center and the peripher- al sites lie in a developed urban environment. Both within and ' surrounding the project areas, the land uses are mixed and include virtually all of the land uses included in the project proposal, as well as development intensities of a similar nature. The Irvine , Company proposal is generally in keeping with the land use patterns established in the original concept plan for Newport Center. Not only is commercial and office development proposed in areas already used in A similar manner, but intensity and style patterns (high rise, garden) have been maintained. The proposed project is, therefore, compatible with existing land use patterns. ' The project proposal is npt, however, consistent with the long stand- ing effort on the part of the City to maintain and increase the planned housing stock, both in Newport Center and on a city-wide ' basis. The concern over the housing stock stems from two basic policy areas: 1) compliance with State planning law and the programs and policies of the City's Housing Elements and 2) the circulation system ' "balancing" effects resulting from mixed use developments, since 1 ' 1,ILA TO, Planning Commission - 7. ' residential and commercial uses generally have opposite directionality characteristics. The proposed project in Newport Center, if approved, would increase commercial/office development by 1,466,250 square feet and reduce residential development by 490 dwelling units. including the peripheral sites, commercial/office development would increase by ' 1,526,250 square feet and decrease residential development by 122 'in dwelling units. It should be noted that the decrease residential units assumes maintenance of the 145 transfer units in Newport Center ' which are not likely to be constructed in this development scenario. In terms of intensity of development, the project proposal fits generally within intensity limits within the City and prior actions of ' the Planning Commission. When calculated for commercial sites only and for commercial and residential sites combined, the Floor Area Ratio permitted by the existing Grineral Plan is 0.41 FAR, and as ' proposed in GPA 85-1(B)is 0.47 FAR. When the land area occupied by the recreation uses are included, the Floor Area Ratios reduce to 0.30 FAR existing and 0.35 FAR proposed. These compare to the two other ' major commercial Planned Communities: Newport Place = 0.39 FAR The commercial permitted; Koll Center Newport = 0.525 FAR. older areas allow significantly higher intensity ranges: Campus Drive at 0.5; Mariners' Mile and Cannery Village at 1.0; and other older ' commercial areas at 2.0 or 3.0 FAR. ' Fashion Island. Proposed is expansion of existing regional 'retail uses; the project is consistent with established land uses. Block 600. The proposed high-rise office tower is similar.in size to the three existing office towers in Block 600. Office uses are considered compatible with the hotel use which is under construction in the block. Civic Plaza Expansion. The proposed site development area is adjacent to the existing library and art museum sites and the Civic Plaza office area. The proposal to allow an additional 50,000 square feet of institutional or office use is compatible with these uses. The additional square footage requested would allow structures of a scale similar to those which exist in the area. It is currently anticipated that most, if not all, of the additional development requested will be for museum and library expansion. Block 800. The proposed project would' allow construction of an additional 440,000 square feet of office use in Block 800. Block 800 is currently developed with two eight -story office buildings and a restaurant. The proposed land use is considered compatible. The developed portion of Block 800 has a Floor Area Ratio of 0.55 FAR. If IAssumes 15 sq.ft. per theater seat, 1000 sq.ft. per hotel room. Existing General Plan residential calculated at 1200 sq.ft. per du; proposed at 1500 sq.ft. per du. I1 1,(5 To: Planning Commission - S. , approved as requested# the vacant portion of Block 800 would be developed at a 1.55 FAR with the overall FAR of Block 800 increasing to 0.92 FAR. The intensity proposed in Block 800 is significantly ' higher then that which exists in the area. PCH/Jamboree. The project site lies in the corner of Coast Highway , and Jamboree Road between the existing Sea Island residential develop- ment and the approved Villa Point apartments. The additional 130 apartments are expected to be a continuation of Villa Point. the use is considered compatible with surrounding land use, and the major arterial location, since multi -family development can easily be mitigated for noise effects. As found for the Villa Point project, ' the residential density is considered compatible with the area, considering the site location between Coast Highway and the Newport Beach Country Club. Corporate Plaza West. Proposed is an office development of 100,000 ' square feet which will be added to the existing allocation of 8,400 square feet. New development will be similar in nature to the Carver ' office building recently completed on the site as well as Corporate Plaza (East) across Newport Center Drive. Development intensity of the two projects is also similar with Corporate Plaza West requested to be 0.27 FAR, and Corporate Plaza (East) allowed at 0.21 FAR. Newport Village. The office and retail commercial project requested is proposed to be an extension of the existing Corporate Plaza devel- opment, but at a slightly higher floor area ratio (,28 FAR). The proposed land use is compatible with uses in the area, but will require design measures to avoid aesthetic (signage, parking lot lighting) impacts to residential uses across MacArthur Boulevard. Avocado/MacArthur. The 44,000 square feet of office requested will result in "garden" style offices similar to the Newport Village proposal, and is at the same floor area ratio. immediately across Avocado Avenue from the site is Block 400 which has an allowed floor area ratio of 0.55 FAR. Some design controls will be needed here as ' well to avoid impacts on residential uses across MacArthur Boulevard. The transit terminal proposed does not involve any significant struc- tural ,intensity and is for use as a daytime transfer area. No storage ' or routine maintenance of OCTD vehicles will occur on the site, Land uses proposed are compatible. Big Canyon/MacArthur. Eighty apartment units are proposed for the northwesterly corner of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road, forming an extension of the existing Big Canyon apartments along San Joaquin Hills Road. The use is compatible with other residential ' uses in the Big Canyon Planned Community. Bayview Landing. A restaurant complex is proposed for this site ' totalling 60,000 square feet. The location immediately adjacent to the Newport Dunes aquatic park and near the Newporter Resort is appropriate for visitor -related commercial uses. Site constraints, ' including roadway improvements, coastal bluffs and public view oppor- tunities, may limit the intensity of development the site can support. I TO: Planning Commission - 9. Newporter North. The residential project proposed (490 du's) is ' similar in nature and density to other bluff -top developments sur- of the existing rounding Upper Newport Bay. In fact, virtually all development surrounding the Upper Bay is residential in the medium or multi -family density ranges. The Park Newport project immediately ' north of the site is 24.5 du's per acre. Depending on the amount of the site approved for development, the units proposed could result in ' densities ranging from constraints on the site 7.5 to 25 du's per acre. Cultural resource are discussed in a subsequent section of this report. I 1 I I J t i I I I Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard Couplet. The primary land use issue associated with the Avocado/MacArthur Couplet is one of site planning. The one-way couplet "isolates" the land in between the roadways, requiring additional ingress/egress points and more land used for road facilities. Reversion to a two-way MacArthur Boulevard with Avocado Avenue a secondary two-way facility will allow for more flexible site planning and broaden the uses to which the intervening land can be put. Amending the Master Plan of Streets and Highways to delete the couplet is compatible with existing land uses and would reflect the existing character of MacArthur Boulevard with an in- creased number of lanes. Noise impacts associated with this change are addressed in a subsequent section of this report. Recreation and Open Space The Master Plan of Parks currently designates two neighborhood parks within the project area: one on Newport Village of approximately 4 acres to serve residents and business communities; and one on Newporter North for public view and neighborhood recreation. The request to change the Newport Village site from residential to commer- cial/office would also remove the neighborhood park designation. The development requested on the Newporter North site would require 5.5 acres of park dedication and/or fees. The project would, therefore, enable implementation of the Master Plan of Parks at the time of development. The PCH-Jamboree and PCH-Frontage (Villa Point) area has no designated master plan park. The open space designation on the Big Can- yon/MacArthur site was originally for freeway reservation and later a roadway reservation for the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard Couplet. Both of these sites are in areas which are able to utilize park credits established at the time of dedication of the Mouth of Big Canyon. The approved villa Point and the Big Canyon Villas projects will also use these credits. The accounting for Mouth of Big Canyon Park Credits is as follows: 3. ►`1 1 TO: Planning Commission - 10. Credits Established 5.0 Acres Big Canyon Villas 0.9 acres remainder 4.1 acres Villa Point 1.7 acres ' remainder 2.4 acres proposed Big Canyon MacArthur .9 acres remainder 1.5 acres proposed PCH/Jamboree 1.5 acres remainder 0.0 Currently 145 floating units are allocated in Newport Center as a result of mandatory residential transfers from the Eastbluff Remnant (24 du's) and Westbay (141 du's). An indicated in the land use discussion, it is an objective of this amendment to eliminate any floating units in Newport Center. Whether considered a deletion of units or as an allocation to one of the residential proposals, the net result is to finalize the elimination of development rights on Eastbluff Remnant and to significantly reduce development on Westbay. The County of Orange is currently pursuing acquisition of the Westbay site for a regional park. City staff has been working with County staff and The Irvine Company to establish a mechanism to implement the park. The expansion of Newport Center is a significant project on a regional scale and can be considered to increase demand for regional ' park facilities. As such, consideration should be given to elimina- tion of the remaining 40 residential units on the Westbay site and require dedication of the developable area for regional park purposes. , Housing Housing Element Policies. The Newport Beach General Plan Housing Element, as amended in June of 1984, contains various policies which apply to the mixed residential and commercial project proposed. Housing Element Objective IV is "To encourage, wherever feasible, mixed -use development that achieves a balance between residential and appropriate commercial/industrial activities." In addition, the implementation plan for Objective IV indicates that "In major projects involving commercial and industrial uses, the City shall encourage, wherever feasible, the development of housing that is geared to the affordability range of the projected labor force." Housing Element Objective V is "To achieve an appropriate balance between employment and housing." The implementation plan for Objec- tive V indicates that the City will prepare a housing impact analysis ' on proposed major commercial and industrial projects. Housing Element Objective VI is "To encourage the housing development industry to respond to the housing needs of the community, as well as I ' 3,lSs TO; Planning Commission ' the demand for housing as perceived by the industry." The implementa- tion plan for Objective VI indicates that in projects assisted with mortgage revenue bond financing and where development incentives are granted by the City, that the developer should provide between 20% and 30% of the total project as affordable units. The 20% at County low-income level corresponds to the County mortgage revenue bond "City is requirement. The additional 10% at very -low income" required only where development incentives are granted. Consistent with Housing Element objective V, a detailed housing impact analysis was prepared for the proposed project by Nattelson, Levander, Whitney Inc. on March 28, 1986. This housing impact analysis is Appendix C to the Environmental Impact Report on the proposed project. EIR Housing Discussion. The housing impacts of the proposed project are also discussed in detail in the housing section of the Environ- mental Impact Report prepared by Sanchez Talarico Associates. This I. The Nattelson, discussion is on pages 217 through 242 in Volume Levander, Whitney report and the Environmental Impact Report discuss the housing impacts of the proposed project in the context of region- al, subregional and localized impacts. The reports analyze the income levels and commuting patterns of existing Newport Center employees in an attempt to project future demand for housing at different income ' levels generated by the proposed commercial development being con- sidered in conjunction with General Plan Amendment 85-1(B). The proposed development is estimated to generate 5,859 employees. Based on an average of 1.5 workers per household (which is documented in the 5,859 employees Nattelson, Levander, Whitney report) these additional would generate demand for 3,906 additional housing units on a regional basis. Following is the estimated demand generated by income group ' (based on County median income): Very Low (0-50%) 733 Low (50-80%) 688 Median (80-100%) 589 ' Moderate (100-120%) 440 Middle (120-150%) 443 Upper (150% plus) 1:014 Total 3,907 The EIR concludes that because of the City's existing policies and 1 requirements regarding affordable housing and the City's efforts to meet the regional demand as reflected in the Southern California Association of Government's Regional Housing Allocation Model, that no ' additional mitigation measures with respect to affordable housing are necessary and that there are no significant housing impacts related to the project. ' Regional Housing Allocation Model (SCAG). SCAG attempts to forecast both employment and housing for the SLAG region as reflected in the SCAG Growth Forecast. In addition, through the Regional Housing ' Allocation Model, SCAG attempts to balance employment and housing within the SCAG region. The employment -housing balance concept is extended to the subregional level, but not the individual city level 1 TO: Planning Commission - 12, in the RHAM. The subregion in which we are located, includes our community as well as the cities of Irvine, Laguna Beach, and other cities and unincorporated areas south to San Clemente. Although there is not very much vacant residential land within the City of Newport Beach, there are substantial amounts of vacant residential land in the other communities within our subregion. Periodically, the Regional Housing Allocation Model and the SCAG Growth Forecast is updated to reflect increases in commercial and office development and measure the increased demand for housing within the subregions and the region. The next update to the RHAM will occur in 1989. SCAG has also pre- pared a draft Regional Housing Element (September 1985) which discuss- es issues regarding regional housing and proposes policies for the region. Included in the 1985 draft SCAG Regional Housing Element are policies regarding "Jobs/Housing Balance." in this document, SCAG proposes policies which would encourage communities with a jobs/employment imbalance to move towards more balance, whether they be jobs rich or housing rich. In November of 1985, the City responded to these proposed SCAG policies indicating that the concept of jobs/housing balance is more reasonably applied at the subregional and regional level than it i■ on an individual community basis. Cultural Resources Paleontological Resources. As indicated in the Environmental Impact Report, Newport Beach is an area where paleontological resources (plant and animal fossils) are known to exist. Any or all of the subject sites could contain these resources. The City has standard policies and requirements which enable these fossils to be recovered at the time of discovery during development. The presence of paleontological resources is not considered a constraint to develop- ment. Archeological Resources. As indicated in the Environmental Impact Report, five sites being considered for development have identified archaeological resources: Block 800, PCH/Jamboree, Newport Village, Bayview Landing, And Newporter North. As for paleontological re- sources, the presence of archaeological resources on a site is not generally considered a constraint for development. Standard City policies and requirements require salvage of a site prior to commence- ment of grading, if it will be destroyed by the proposed development. Standard resource recovery requirements are considered adequate and appropriate mitigation for the Block 800, PCH/Jamboree, Newport Village, and Bayview, Landing sites. Newporter North, however, requires some special consideration. Newporter North site is located westerly of Jamboree Road between John Wayne Gulch and San Joaquin Hills Road. There are five archaeological sites identified within the project boundaries, covering approximately 20-25 acres. Of the five sites, CA-Ora-51, -52, -100, and -518 are of a nature that standard resource recovery requirements are appropriate. One site, CA-Ora-64, is a unique site for which a mitigation program requires careful design and implementation. Ora-64 is approximately 20 acres in size. In 1977, a test level investigation was conducted by Archaeological Research Incorporated to determine the extent and ' 3. ao TO: Planning Commission - 13. 1 resource value of the site. This investigation confirmed that the site is of significant value. The site contains artifacts from more than one cultural tradition indicating occupancy by man for a longer period of time than is generally the case in Orange County. The size ' and quality of this site makes it an important regional resource. Mitigation measures for preservation, partial preservation and salvage have been presented in the draft EIR. Ultimately, whether the site is preserved or developed, adequate mitigation can be required. The basic decision to be made is whether the site should be salvaged now or later. it is the understanding of staff that the professional archaeological community generally favors preservation of this site, primarily because of the belief that archaeological science will become more refined and better able to garner knowledge from the site in the future. However, there are some additional practical consid- eration which may affect the decision of the Planning Commission. If the salvage and development option is chosen, residential development will be able to proceed on the entire site, allowing less clustering of the requested development or perhaps an increase in dwelling units from the requested 490 du's. Salvage will also delay at least a portion of the development since it will require at least three years or more to complete. One additional consideration is the cost of ' salvage. Resource recovery of this magnitude is very costly. The size and nature of the Newport Center request is such that the costs of the program could reasonably be required of the developer. ' As previously discussed in the land use section, the timing of res- idential development is an important component of the Newport Center GPA. In the past, the City has traditionally tried to require res- ' idential development to proceed before or concurrent with large commercial and office projects. Archeological mitigation will defer development of a portion of the site either for the term of resource ' recovery or indefinitely if preservation is required. Transportation and Circulation A key area of analysis for any development is the impact the project has on the roadway system. Traffic impacts are a major area of concern to the community, decision makers, and staff. In order to provide the best and most complete traffic information for the the system proposed project, a comprehensive analysis of circulation was prepared in addition to the standard traffic phasing ordinance requirements. Major components of the study are as follows: 1. Origin and Destination Study - An origin and destination study was conducted to help quantify the possible diversion around Corona del Mar that Pelican Hill Road would provide and also to quantify the amount of traffic using local Corona del Mar streets to avoid East Coast Highway at times of peak congestion. Transportation Model is a 2. Transportation Modelling - The City's useful tool in the analysis of the ability of the circulation system to sustain the planned development in the long term. The ' model also allows information to be provided on the effects of Pelican Hill Road, the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, 3 , X, , T0: Planning Commission - 14. end the various connections to the Corridor. It was also used to cross -verify the anticipated diversion resulting from Pelican Hill Road, ' 3. Traffic Phasing ordinance - Traffic Phasing ordinance analysis was prepared for the project using the methodology in effect ' prior to December 131 1085. while this portion of the study must be supplemented to include morning peak hour analysis prior to a TPO approval, the information provides good information on intersection impacts and improvements which will be of aid in the ' consideration of the General Plan Amendment. 4. Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard Couplet Analysis - Inter- section and roadway link analysis was used to access the ad- visability of deleting the Primary Couplet designation for Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard in favor of a Major Arterial classification for MacArthur Boulevard. Discussion of traffic and circulation will be in the areas of circu- lation system capacity at buildout under the General Plan and with the project, revisions to Circulation system Master Plan, regional roadways, and traffic phasing. ' Circulation System Capacity. The analysis of circulation system capacity at bulldoUt of the master plan is done primarily using the city's Transportation Model. The traffic model of the City of Newport Beach involves an intensive analysis of a subregion defined by the Pacific ocean, Beach Boulevard, Edinger Avenue, and the I-5 Freeway. outside of this area the model makes use of the orange County Trans- portation Model (OCTAM). Model analysis is done in the time£rame of ' 25 years, or in this case, the year 2010. The City's General Plan anticipates the City to be essentially builtout in this timeframe. it is important to understand in using traffic modelling that traffic engineering is not a precise science, in that projections must always be made as to the distribution of traffic into any area. The dis- tribution of traffic in the future is based on a combination of factors, including current traffic patterns and planned locations for future residential and commercial development. To estimate ultimate traffic generation, the City uses a "Trend Growth" estimate which assumes complete buildout of all zoned land uses in residential and newer commercial areas, and maximum buildout estimate in older commer- cial areas (such as Corona del Mar) taking height limits and parking requirements into consideration. Circulation system capacity is generally presented as a volume to capacity ratio, with 1.00 representing a roadway used to its technical capacity. Table 1-44, page 247, SIR Volume I, presents existing volume to capacity ratios, Table 1-AAA on page 256, SIR Volume I, presents trend growth traffic volume to capacity assuming completion of the circulation system as currently planned. Table 1-MMM, page 312, EIR Volume I, presents trend growth plus project volume to capacity ratios. Findings are summarized below. TO: Planning Commission - 15. Existing Roadway Configuration: Existing traffic volumes exceed I capacity in the following areas: ° Coast Highway between Poppy Avenue and Newport Boulevard, except east of Newport Center Drive, ° MacArthur Boulevard between San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road ° Jamboree Road between Coast Highway and Back Bay Drive At buildout of the land use and circulation system master plans, ' traffic volumes,exceed capacity in the following areas: ° Coast Highway between MacArthur and Marguerite; the Coast Highway Bay Bridge; and Coast Highway in Mariners' Mile ' • MacArthur Boulevard northerly of the couplet to Jamboree Road ° Jamboree Road east of MacArthur Boulevard • Marguerite Avenue south of Fifth Avenue ° Bristol Street Northwest of Birch Street ° Bristol Street west of Birch Street ' with the proposed project added, traffic volumes on the following links exceed capacity in addition to those above: Coast Highway between Marguerite and Poppy This volume to capacity ratio for the Marguerite to Poppy link is ' increased from 0.99 to 1.03 by the project. It should be noted that the 1.03 V/C ratio projected is less than that which exists today (1.08). This is due to the fact that Pelican Hill Road and ' the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor remove substantial traffic from Coast Highway through Corona del Mar. In fact, with the exception of the Coast Highway Bridge and Jamboree Road east ' of MacArthur, volume to capacity ratios improve upon completion of the circulation system as planned with buildout of the General Plan plus the proposed project. ' In terms of overall capacity, the circulation system is in balance with planned and proposed land uses. Areas which remain deficient in capacity are Coast Highway in Corona del Mar (the planned deficiency), L the Coast Highway Bridge, Coast Highway in Mariners' Mile, MacArthur Boulevard north of San Joaquin Hills Road, Jamboree Road east of MacArthur, and the Bristol Couplet west of Birch Street. These deficiencies are not caused by the proposed project, and are worsened by the project generally, in the range of 2-3%. In the immediate vicinity of the project, volumes are increase in the range of 7-11%. Circulation System Master Plan Revisions. A complete discussion of the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard Couplet deletion is discussed in EIR Volume I, pages 315-323, and in EIR Volume IV, pages 5-1 to 5-20. The findings of the traffic study are summarized as follows: 1.a3 , TO; Planning Comni"ion - 16. 1. In both 1989 and 1993 Intersection Capacity Utilization analysis (ICU), the function of the one-way couplet versus two-way , MacArthur appears equivalent. Without the couplet, the inter- section of MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road experi- ences capacity problems. With the couplet, the intersection at Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard experiences capacity ' problems. 2. In the long term, the couplet and two-way MacArthur also appear equivalent. The capacity of the Primary Couplet and a Major Arterial Roadway are the same. Additionally, site access to the Newport Village and Avocado/MacArthur sites would be provided on Avocado Avenue in the two-way MacArthur scenario, eliminating ingress/egress conflicts with through traffic, Elimination of the couplet also reduces out -of -direction travel necessitated by the couplet configuration. , Other Master Plan Considerations ° Avocado Avenue, It has been suggested that Avocado Avenue be required to be a "straight" road, so that it might serve as an alternate route to MacArthur Boulevard. It is the opinion of staff that in the two-way MacArthur configuration, through traffic will not use Avocado Avenue as a bypass route. This is due to the proximity of the intersection of Avocado/San Joaquin Hills to MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills. There is not sufficient distance between these intersections to allow a safe right turn across three travel lanes to the left -turn bay, particularly since the queing length for the left -turn pockets extend westerly of Avocado Avenue. ' A right -turn -out could not be provided without a traffic signal at Avocado Avenue coordinated with the traffic signal at MacArthur Boulevard to ensure that left -turn storage on eastbound San Joaquin Hills Road would be available for the vehicles making the right turn from Avocado Avenue and then desiring to turn left onto MacArthur Boulevard. If a signal were to be provided and were to be coordinated with the signal at MacArthur Boulevard, the operation would have to be designed to stop eastbound left and through traffic on San Joaquin Hills Road to provide the clearance between intersections to permit Avocado Avenue traffic to have sufficient room to cross the through lanes and enter the eastbound left -turn lanes. This design option is better than the ' full access option. it has the negative impact of requiring eastbound San Joaquin Hills Road through traffic to be stopped at the same time the eastbound left -turn to northbound MacArthur Boulevard traffic is stopped. This is necessary to prevent eastbound left -turn ' traffic from staying in the through lanes and maneuvering into the left -turn lanes after they pass Avocado Avenue (bypassing the left -turn lanes). This later movement would be expected to result in the eastbound left -turn lanes at MacArthur boulevard to I ' 3. a -i TO- Planning Commission - 17. fill, resulting in no room for Avocado traffic to enter the -turn lanes. Ileft ° MacArthur Boulevard. It has been suggested that MacArthur Boulevard between Coast Highway and San Miguel Road be limited to to capacity four lanes. Based on six -lane MacArthur, the volume Plan buildout plus ratio is estimated to be 0.87 at Master the V/C ratio is 1.30. project. If MacArthur remains four lanes, to delay the widening of MacArthur until after the It is possible completion of Pelican Hill Road. In fact, it is anticipated to occur in that sequence, since the MacArthur improvements are frontage improvement requirements for Newport Village and Avoca- do/MacArthur, which will be phased after Pelican Hill Road. It is is the opinion of staff that six -lane MacArthur Boulevard Further, traffic warranted based on projected roadway volumes. volumes indicate that MacArthur Boulevard north of Ford Road but it should be emphasized that this is warrants eight lanes, needed whether GPA 85-1(B) is approved or not. Coast Highway -Mariners' Mile. Concern has been expressed over the impacts the project may have on Coast Highway in Mariners' Mile, most particularly whether the project necessitates the ' widening of Coast Highway to master plan configuration (6 lanes). This segment of Coast Highway is projected to carry traffic in V/C excess of capacity at General Plan buildout. The estimated ratio with six lanes is 1.26. If existing road configuration is GPA 85-1(B) maintained, the ratio is 1.52. With the addition of traffic, these ratios increase to 1.30 and 1.56 respectively. The increase in traffic from the project is 2,200 ADT or 3% of ' projected volume. ° San Joaquin Hills Road. San Joaquin Hills Road is designated on the City's Circulation System Master Plan as a Major Arterial - six lanes, divided. The roadway is also shown as a major arterial on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. ' The traffic study indicates that the ultimate traffic volumes on Hill Road does not San Joaquin Hills Road easterly of Spyglass warrant the major arterial designation. Projected traffic volumes can be accommodated by a Primary Arterial - four lanes, ' divided. Regional Roadways. The master plan roadway facilities proposed for construction easterly of the City play a vital role in the adequate functioning of the City's circulation system. Of particular impor- tance in the short-term is the construction of Pelican Hill Road/Bonita Canyon Road to MacArthur Boulevard. This road is estimated to divert approximately 23% of traffic forecast on Coast Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and the easterly City boundary, ' and 22% of traffic forecast on the roadwBoulevard. to additiimprovon to ICU providing additional capacity, Y serves ratios at intersections along these routes as well. As such, the ' early construction of Pelican Hill Road is an important part of the improvement program expected for a Traffic Phasing Ordinance approval. r I.as' TO: Planning Commission - 18. The extension of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican still Road will also divert some traffic during the peak hours, although it will not divert ' nearly as much as Pelican Hills Road. In terms of the proposed project, the San Joaquin Hills Road extension will serve traffic with a destination in Newport Center, whets Pelican Hills Road primarily serves north Newport Beach and airport area trips. ' In the long term, the most important of the future roadways is the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. The Corridor provides substan- tial relief for East Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard. Addition- ally, the Traffic Study indicates that the planned connections of San Joaquin Hills Road and Ford Road are also important to the local circulation system. if San Joaquin Hills Road is not constructed between Pelican Hill Road and the Corridor, traffic volumes increase at Ford Road and through Harbor View Homes on San Miguel Road. When the Ford Road interchange is also eliminated, volumes on MacArthur ' increase by approximately 25%. Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The project will be reviewed for compli- ance with the Cit4ry Traffic Phasing Ordinance as part of the final approval action. Currently, morning peak hour traffic counts and distribution data are being compiled. A supplement to the TPO section of the traffic study will be prepared as soon as morning data is , available. initiation of the project, preparation of the EiR and the Traffic Study commenced many months prior to recent revisions to the Traffic Phasing ordinance. The TPO information provided in the Traffic Study and EIR was prepared consistent with the ordinance prior to revision in December 1985. Complete 11 test, ICU analysis and intersection mitigation has been conducted for the afternoon peak hour. It is anticipated that the additional morning analysis and the update of the afternoon analysis to current TPO criteria will show the same inter- sections with capacity constraints, and a similar, if somewhat expand- ed mitigation program. It is not anticipated that any additional intersections with no available improvements will be affected by the , project. The complete TPO Analysis is contained in Chapter 4 of the Traffic Study (EIR Volume IV). Findings are summarized as follows: 1989 (Phase 1): ' Analyzed Intersections 37 Intersections increased by It as a result of the project: 37 1985 ICU over .90s 9 1989 ICU over .90 (no committed improvements): 18 1989 ICU over .90 plus project ' (no committed improvementa)s 22 Twelve intersection improvements have been required of previously approved projects and are considered to be "committed." Standard I ' 3.a6 TO: Planning Commission - 19. ' practice of the City is to include all committed improvements at ' intersections affected by the project as approval conditions. This insures that intersection improvements will occur with the first projects constructed. ' Intersections with improvements still needed after "committed" improvements: 10 ' Intersection improvements have been proposed to satisfy 1989 TPO requirements and are described in detail in EIR Volume I, pages 280-283. Briefly, feasible intersection improvements are identified for five intersections: Coast Highway at: Superior Avenue Jamboree Road at: Campus Drive Bison Avenue Santa Barbara Drive Pelican Hill Road reduces ICU values sufficiently to satisfy TPO requirements at four intersections: ' Coast Highway at: Goldenrod Avenue Poppy Avenue MacArthur Blvd. at: San Joaquin Hills Road San Miguel Drive ' One intersection has been identified for which staff cannot identify a feasible improvement until the widening of Coast Highway westerly of Dover Drive. Therefore, the following intersection is not considered ' mitigatable at this time: Coast Highway at: Dover Drive ' 1993 (Phase 2): 1 Analyzed Intersections: 37 Intersections increased by 1% as a result of the project: 37 ' 1993 ICU over .90 with committed improvements and 1989 miti- gation measures: 10 1993 ICU over .90 plus project: 12 Intersection improvements have been proposed to satisfy 1993 TPO requirements and are described in detail in EIR Volume I, pages ' 290-294. Briefly, intersection improvements are identified for eight intersections: L_.I i. al ' TO: Planning Commission - 20. Coast Highway at: Superior Avenue Riverside Avenue Tustin Avenue ' Sayside Drive Jamboree Road att Campus Drive ' Eastbluff Drive North MacArthur Blvd, ats San Joaquin Hills Road ' San Miguel Drive one additional improvement has been identified, but may not be feasi- ble due to insufficient right -of -May: Jamboree Road at: ford Road Three intersections have no feasible identified improvements: Coast Highway ats Dover Drive Jamboree Road Goldenrod Avenue As previously discussed, Dover Drive improvements are not considered , feasible until the widening of Coast Highway westerly of the inter- section. Additional widening at Goldenrod Avenue is not considered feasible, Existing traffic volume at Coast Highway and Jamboree Road signifi- cantly exceed the intersection capacity, resulting in an existing ICU value greater than 1.00. Traffic at this intersection is expected to increase considerably in the future. Unlike other intersections along Coast Highway, the situation at Coast Highway and Jamboree Road is complicated by an extremely heavy eastbound left -turn demand from , Coast Highway onto Jamboree Road, which conflicts with the heavy westbound through movement. Some of the heavy eastbound left -turn demand is attributable to the fact that Coast Highway and Route 73 , (Bristol Street and Bristol Street North) are the only facilities available for travel between the western and eastern portions of Newport Beach. Thus, a considerable amount of "around -the -bay" traffic is included in this msovesent. There is also a substantial southbound right -turn movement which also includes considerable "around -the -bay" traffic. As part of the committed widening of Coast Highway, improvements would be made at this intersection (adding through and turn lanes). These improvements would meet TPO requirements for 1989, but would leave the i ICU value at a high level (1.08). After the implementation of the 1989 improvemente, it would be vir- tually impossible to provide additional lanes at the intersection of Coast Highway/Jamboree Road. Accordingly, for 1993, in lieu of adding lanes at the intersection, two alternatives were considered: TO: Planning Commission - 21. 1. The extension of Back Bay Drive to a signalized intersection with Coast Highway, to accommodate some of the vehicles making east- 1 bound -to -northbound left turns. This option has been evaluated in detail in prior studies, and in fact is considered to be a "committed" project. However, the improvements included in the 1989 conditions were considered to be preferable, and that set of intersection improvements were used as the "committed" conditions for 1989. The extension of Back Bay Drive could still be ' considered an option for 1993, however. 2. The construction of a grade separation at the intersection of Coast Highway/Jamboree Road to carry the through traffic on Coast ' Highway over and across Jamboree Road without having to stop at a signal. ' For the extension of Back Bay Drive to satisfy TPO requirements, the from 1.15 ICU at Coast Highway/Jamboree Road would need to be reduced to 1.10. This could be achieved if about 21 percent of the vehicles ' turning left from eastbound Coast Highway to northbound Jamboree Road Highway/Back Bay Drive could be diverted to make a left turn at Coast Extension. To reduce the ICU at Coast Highway/Jamboree Road to 0.90, about 90 percent of the left turns would need to be diverted. This is considered impractical, since it would necessitate the provision of three eastbound left -turn lanes at Coast Highway/Back Bay Drive Extension and would create congested operating conditions there. Thus, the option of the Back Bay Drive Extension can at best be considered to be a measure that could bring about some improvements in operating conditions at Coast Highway/Jamboree Road, but cannot be I considered a long-term solution. The construction of a grade separation at the intersection of Coast Highway/Jamboree Road is considered to be a long-term solution, and ' one that would achieve satisfactory operating conditions. The concept would consist of a grade separation structure to carry Coast Highway through traffic uninterrupted over Jamboree Road. Thus, much of the conflicting traffic would be eliminated, and turns would be made opposing much lesser levels of traffic. From an intersection capacity standpoint, ICU values can be reduced to levels below 0.90, depending on the number of lanes provided for turning movements. It is for further improvements at Important to note that the need Jamboree/Coast Highway are necessary with or without the proposed ' project. Noise As discussed in detail in the draft EIR (Volume II, pages 1-45), there are no significant noise increases associated with the implementation of the project except in the immediate vicinity of Newport Center. ' The most significant noise impacts flow from the elimination of the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard Couplet in favor of two-way MacArthur Boulevard at six lanes. A mitigation program has been identified by The Irvine Company which involves the lowering of the grade of MacArthur Boulevard at the time of improvements by as much as 3.ac ' To: Planning Commission - 22. 13 feet. This proposal would also shift the centerline of MacArthur Boulevard west an average of 50 feet. , Noise wall heights have been calculated for the couplet alternative noise generation and the two-way MacArthur with depression alterna- tive. The average noise wall height for the couplet is 3.1 feet. The average noise wall height for two-way, depressed MacArthur is 2.6 feet. on an individual basis for the 25 affected lots, the noise wall height is the same for either alternative in 7 locationat is higher ' for the couplet in 12 locationst and higher for two-way MacArthur in 6 locations. Noise barrier height requirements are listed for each lot on Table 2-I, EIR Volume Ii, page 37. Public Services The Piro Department has indicated that the proposed project will , significantly affect the demand for emorgancy services from the Santa Barbara Drive station. The City has boon seeking for the past several years an appropriate site close to the airport area for an additional fire station. In fact, a fire station reservation was made as part of the approval of the General Plan Amendment for North Ford, even though the location was not considered the best available. The Fire Department has now determined that a more appropriate lo- cation for this future facility is slightly further north, across from the Bayview development on the San Diego Creek North site. This site is currently designated for "Governmental, Educational and institu- tional Facilities" with an allowed use of a Park -and -Ride facility. it is estimated that 2.5 acres of the 12-acre site would be needed for a fire station. Fiscal t A fiscal impact analysis for GPA 85-1(B) was prepared by the firm of Nattelson, Levander, Whitney. The analysis utilized the methodology , of the City's Fiscal Impact Analysis model, and indicates that the project would generate revenue in excess of expenditures of approxi- mately $1 million annually. Approximately 75% of this revenue is attributable to four sites (Fashion Island, Block 600, Block 800, and ' Newport Village). it should be noted that the fiscal consultant believes the city's model significantly understates prospective sales tax generation, which they feel could be 50-100% greater, or an , additional surplus of $160,000 to $320,000 annually. Denial of the project could have revenue impacts upon the City as well. in addition to not accruing the revenue benefits enumerated above, some costs could be incurred by the City. Most significant would be the possibility that Circulation system Master Plan improve- ments which The Irvin* Company has indicated they will either con- struct or dedicate right-of-way for on Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, and MacArthur Boulevard, would then have to be partially financed by the City. I L, 3.30 TO: Planning Commission - 23. Phasing There are three phasing components which must be determined in any approval granted. ' 1. Residential/Commercial. The City is interested in assuring that as construction of the residential projects occur as early The proposed phasing schedule of The Irvine Company ,possible. show all proposed residential units occurring in Phase I by 1988. ' Only retail commercial projects (Fashion Island and Bayview Landing) precede residential projects. The office development in Block 600 and one-half of Newport Village is proposed to be constructed concurrent with the residential. All other development follows completion of the residential projects. 2. Circulation Improvements in the City. The commercial and res- (road idential project components will be phased with master plan widening) and intersection (TPO) improvements in the City. Phasing for master plan improvements will be determined based upon relation to the individual projects geographically. TPO improvements will be tied to occupancy of individual projects ' within the major completion phases analyzed (1989, 1993). 3. Regional Roadway Improvements. The Irvine Company has proposed completion of Pelican Hill Road in Phase I (est. 1988-1989). It ' will be necessary to specify which projects may be occupied prior be to to this roadway. Additionally, consideration should given phasing some portion of the project with the extension of San IJoaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road. ' Conclusions and Recommendations The conclusions and recommendations are presented in two segments: 1) land use, land use intensity, and land use phasing; and 2) circulation system improvements and phasing. The recommendations of staff result density and inten- from consideration of land use balance, compatible sity, and affects on the circulation system. Land Use Land use conclusions and recommendations are presented on a comprehen- ' sive project and individual site basis, followed by housing and land use phasing. Newport Center and Peripheral Sites. The project as requested by The with existing Irvine Company is generally consistent and compatible uses in the area, both from a use and intensity standpoint. The project does have individual components which are more intense than ' that which occurs in the immediate vicinity. In terms of the overall plan, the project represents an increase in commercial and office development allowed in the existing general plan of 1,523,000 square I feet and a reduction in allowed residential development of 122 dwell- ing units (267 dwelling unit reduction with floating units). This is 1-61 ' To: Planning Commission - 24. undesirable from both an employment -housing balance and traffic directionality standpoint. It is therefore the conclusion of staff that a reduction of commercial/office development and an increase in , residential development is appropriate and desirable. The individual site land use recommendations flow from this basic conclusion. ' In order to better relate the land use recommendations, the order of site discussion maintained in the EIA Traffic Study and staff report has been changed. Project recommendations are followed by recommenda- tions for sites other than those in the project requested by The Irvine Company. Bayview Landing. Due to site constraints and the high trip generation ' rates (restaurant) at an intersection with capacity problems, it is recommended that the development on Bayview Landing be limited to a maximum of 20,000 square feet, for restaurant or retail commercial ' use. The development should be limited to the lower portion of the site where the use can interface with other visitor -serving uses on the Newport Dunes. Site access will be from Back Bay Drive, The upper portion of the site should remain as designated in the General Plan: open space for view park and pedestrian/bicycle facilities. It is also recommended that sufficient land for a grade separated inter- section be designated as roadway reservation for 15 years. The 40,000 , sq.ft. should not be deleted, but moved to Fashion Island. Civic Plaza Expansion. The proposal to add 50,000 sq.ft. of of- fics/inatitutional to Civic Plaza is in keeping with established uses and development intensities in the area. Staff recommends approval of this component of the General Plan. It is also proposed that the 1,350 theater seats, which are in the existing General Plan, be maintained in Newport Center and allocated to Fashion island. Fashion Island. The maintenance of the viability of the Fashion , Island retail center is desirable from both a community amenity and fiscal viewpoint. The only comment of staff is that the center could , be expanded beyond that requested by the applicant, A long-standing effort has been made by the City to increase night-time use of Newport Center. It is the opinion of staff that evening activity in Fashion Island will lead the way to more evening use of the center in general. it is therefore recommended that the request of The Irvine Company be approved with the addition of 40,000 sq.ft. from Bayview Landing and 1.350 theater seats from Civic Plaza. The increase in Fashion Island ' would then be 165,000 square feet + 1,350 theater seats. Block 600. The proposed office tower in Block 600 is similar in size to the three existing office towers and the hotel which currently exist. Staff recommends approval of the Block 600 proposal. PCH/Jamboree. This site will be a logical extension of the approved ' Villa Point project, and will result in less traffic impacts than the previously planned office development. Staff recommends approval of this request. n 3.3 A T0; Planning Commission - 25. ' Corporate Plaza West. The proposed garden office complex is an appropriate use and is at an intensity similar to other office devel- opments in Newport Center (Corporate Plaza, Civic Plaza). Staff recommends approval of the request. Avocado Avenue/MacArthur. The site is appropriate for office develop- develop- ment and is proposed at a floor area ratio less than existing ment in the area. Staff recommends approval of the project as re- quested. Big Canyon/MacArthur. The site is available for development if the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard one-way couplet is deleted from the Master Plan of Streets and Highways. The proposed residential project is similar in nature to existing multi -family development in the Big Canyon Planned Community. Staff recommends approval of the project as ' proposed. Newporter North. The primary constraint to development on this site is the presence of significant cultural resources. The site, estimat- ' ed to be eighty acres in size, still has substantial areas which are not subject to such constraints. The 490 dwelling units can be accommodated on the remaining acreage, if only twenty buildable acres ' are identified on -site, the resulting density would be 24.5 du's/b.a., which is the same as the adjacent development of Park Newport. It is therefore recommended that the area of the site necessary to protect and preserve the CA-Ora-64 site be designated as a cultural resource to be capped reserve and the mitigation measures requiring the site with clean fill soil be adopted (Preservation - Option W . It is recommended that the remainder of the site be designated for Mul- ti -Family Residential with a maximum 490 dwelling units as requested by the project proponent. ' Block 800. The development intensity proposed in Block 800 is signif- icantly greater than the surrounding area (1.55 vs. 0.55). if ap- proved as requested, the overall intensity of Block 800 would be .92 FAR. if the residential development currently planned were construct- higher in intensity than ed, it would be anticipated to be somewhat the existing developments. Since office use surrounds the site, it is the recommendation of staff that the change to office use be approved, ' but that the size of the project be reduced to 300,000 sq.ft., or approximately the size that could be anticipated from the residential project allowed in the existing General Plan. ' Newport Village. The proposed office project, while in an area which is appropriate for the use, is also in an area which was converted to 1 a planned, multi -family use relatively recently. The Newport Village City's overall housing project was one of the major components of the program. The deletion of the project, which results in an overall decrease of dwelling units in the City, has an adverse affect on the ' established housing program. As a result, it is the opinion of staff that the project as a whole is inconsistent with the policies of the city's Housing Element. In order to preserve the integrity of the overall Newport Center Plan with established City policies, it is recommended the 345,000 sq.ft. of office and 59,250 sq.ft. of retail 3,33 TO: Planning Commission - 26. i� not be approved, and that the remaining 750 sq.ft. of retail in the block be deleted. The former Newport Village residential project ' allowed 360 residential units, or an estimated 25 du's/buildable acre (18 gross acres; 14.4 buildable acres), Staff recommends that the entire 33 acres of Newport Village be designated for multi -family residential uses, with a 4-acre park maintained on the recreation and open space plan. 560 residential units are recommended, or an es- timpted density of 24.5 du's/b.a. other Land Use Element Changes San Diego Creek North. As part of the mitigation program, it is recommended that a 2.5-acre fire station reservation be added to the San Diego Creek North site. 7 Westba . As part of the mitigation program, it is recommended that , the remaining 40 units on Westbay be deleted and the site designated for Recreational and Environmental Open Space. Any portion of the site not acquired by a public agency through other mechanisms shall be dedicated to form a regional park. 1 I r I 1 L_ i k 3.3y To: Planning Commission - 27. LAND USE RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY Site Proposed Project Fashion Island 128,000 (C) Block 600 Civic Plaza Block 800 PCH/Jamboree Corporate Plaza West Newport Village Avocado/MacArthur Big Canyon/MacArthur Newporter North Bayview Landing vile qv7 300,000 (0) 50,000 (0/I) 440,000 (0) 130 (R) 100,000 (0) 345,000 (0) 59,250 (C) 0 (R) 44,000 (0) 80 (R) 278 (R) (212 - 490) 60,000 (C) 11279,000 (0) 247,250 (C) 0 (T) 488 (R) Recommended Project 168,000 (C) 1,350 (T) 300,000 (0) 50,000 (0,I) 300,000 (0) 130 (R) 100,000 (0) 0 -750 (C) 560 (R) 44,000 (0) 80 (R) 278 (R) (212 = 490) 20,000 (C) 794,000 (0) 187,250 (C) 1,350 (T) 1,048 (R) TO: '20.3s Planning Commission - 28. DAILY TRIPS FROM LAND USE RECOMMENDATION Recommended Site Proposed Project Project Fashion Island 4,992 7,092 Block 600 31900 30900 Civic Plaza 1,334 1,334 Block 800 5,720 3,900 PCH/Jamboree 845 845 Corporate Plaza West 11300 1,300 Newport Village 7,410 31640 Avocado/MacArthur 572 572 Big Canyon/MacArthur 520 520 Newporter North 31185 3,185 Sayview Landing 4,500 1,500 TOTAL 34,278 27,788 Affordable Housing Recommendations After reviewing the housing element objectives regarding balancing commercial and residential development, and after reviewing the housing impact analysis prepared in conjunction with the proposed project, staff has suggested some modifications to the project which significantly reduce the demand for additional affordable housing and, at the same time, increase the supply of housing. The proposed modifications to the project would reduce commercial office develop- ment by 545,000 sq.ft. and increase residential development by 560 dwelling units. The commercial office reductions would decrease the demand in the low- and very -low income ranges from the 1,421 dwelling units previously indicated, to approximately 900 dwelling units. in addition the increased residential development offers an opportunity for the City to encourage the construction of additional affordable units in conjunction with the project. TO: Planning Commission - 29. I 1 I 1 Staff Proposed Affordable Housing Requirements. Based on the modified project, there would be a total of 1,414 new residential units con- structed on Newport Center and the adjacent sites. with the exception of the Newport Village site, mortgage revenue bond financing has been made available for the remaining residential sites. It is anticipated that mortgage revenue bond financing would also be available for the Newport Village residential site. It is proposed that a total of 453 low- and moderate -income units be provided in Newport Center and on the surrounding sites, including the Baywood Expansion project, as follows: Orange County Median -Income Units: 23 Orange County Low -Income Units: 289 City Very -Low Income Units (at Fair Market Rent): 141 It is proposed that these rental units be made available for a period of 20 years. The City very -low income units, which would be estab- lished at fair market rents, would give priority to occupants who were participants in the Orange County Section 8 Certificate Program, which provides rental subsidies to Orange County very -low income families. The following chart indicates the number of units in each affordabil- ity range and the estimated current maximum incomes and maximum rents for a two -bedroom unit as well as the anticipated market rate rents (based on the North Ford project). Maximum Maximum # Units Income Rent Market Rate 990 --- $41,549 t$900 $987 County Median 23 289 $33,239 $789 County Low 0 $29,022 $689 City Very Low Fair Market Rents 141 $18,400 $657 1,443* * includes 29 units in Baywood Expansion n L � 3.3'1 I TO. Planning Commission - 30. Land Use Phasing in order to insure completion of residential units early in the development program, the City usually keys commercial development to the residential development program. Using the phasing program ' originally proposed by The Irvine Company, staff recommends the following land use phasing programs Phase I - No Newport Center (PCH/Jamboree, Newport Village) r units required for: A. Fashion Island Expansion ' B. Civic Plaza Expansion C. Any residential on the periphery of Newport Center ' Phase Ila - 400 units in Newport Center must have building permits issued and substantial progress in construction (foundations plus some framing) before building permit issuance for: 1 A. Block 600 ' B. Bayview Landing C. Avocado/MacArthur Phase Ilb - 400 additional units in Newport Center must have ' building permits issued and substantial progress in construction before issuance of occupancy permits for: A. Block 600 Phase III - Completion and Certificate of Occupancy for 800 du's before building permits issued for: A. Block 800 B. Corporate Plaza West Traffic and Circulation Circulation system recommendations are in three segments: 1) Circu- lation system Master Plan, 2) Traffic Phasing requirements, and 3) ' Phasing. Circulation system Master Plan. Recommendations are as follows: 1. Delete the Primary Couplet designation for Avocado Avenue ' and MacArthur Boulevard. Designate MacArthur Boulevard as a Major Arterial - six lanes, divided. Designate Avocado ' Avenue as a Secondary Arterial - four lanes. Request the County of Orange to amend the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. ' ' 3.3 t TO: Planning Commission - 31. 2. Designate MacArthur Boulevard northerly of Ford Road to ' Route 73 as a Major -Modified Arterial - eight lanes, divid- ed. Request the County of Orange to amend the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. I n I 1 3. Designate San Joaquin Hills Road easterly of Spyglass Hill as Primary -Arterial - four lanes, divided. (The current designation is for Major Arterial - six lanes.) Request the County of Orange to amend the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. TPO Requirements. Intersection improvements will be finalized at the time of the approval of the project under the Traffic Phasing ordi- nance. TPO conditions are not applied as part of a General Plan Amendment, but stand separately within the parameters of the TPO approval. when the final list of intersection improvements is estab- lished, staff will tie each specific improvement to a particular project, taking into consideration the relationship of the project to the specific improvement and the priority of each improvement. Phasing. The local and regional circulation system improvements will be tied to the project phases within the context of the General Plan. Circulation System improvements identified are: 1. Dedication of Right -of -Way for Coast Highway improvements. 2. Completion of Jamboree Road to six -lane major arterial standards from Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road. 3. Completion of MacArthur Boulevard to six -lane major arterial standards from Coast Highway to Jamboree Road. 4. Construction of Pelican Hill Road/Bonita Canyon Road between Pacific Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard. 5. Construction of San Joaquin Hills Road between Spyglass Hill Road and Pelican Hill Road. These improvements shall be required in the following phases: 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits for any component of GPA 85-1(B) all dedications from The Irvine Company necessary for completion of the Coast Highway Improvement Program shall have been made. 2. The following projects may proceed after Coast Highway dedications and before installation of Pelican Hill Road: a. one-half of Fashion island b. Civic Plaza c. Big Canyon/MacArthur Blvd. d. Newporter North e. PCH/Jamboree f. Newport Village 1 3 "1 y TO: Planning Conanission - 32. 3. The following project may proceed after Coast Highway dedications and the completion of jamboree Road, but before installation of Pelican Hill Road' - Balance of Fashion Island 4. Building or grading permits for the following projects may be issued upon commencement of construction of Pelican Hill Road and MacArthur Boulevard improvements: a. Block 600 b. Bayview Landing c. Avocado/MacArthur Blvd. 5. Certificate of occupancy may not be issued for the following project until the completion of Pelican Hill Road: Block 600 6. Building or grading permits for the following projects may be issued upon commencement of construction of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Roads a. Block 800 b. Corporate Plata west PLANNING DEPARTMENT DAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By J'_ PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Environmental Coordinator SR15/jm Attachmentes 1. Correspondence 2. Fiscal impact Analysis A unique blend of people and place Corona del Mar —1 CHAMBER of COMMERCE n, ' March 10, 1986 Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California ' THE PELICAN HILLS ROAD - SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD•CONNECTION ' It was the unanimous decision by the Board -of Directors of the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce to approve the build -out of Newport Center within the codes and restrictions as may be determined by the City Planning c©mmission and the City Council, ' but only if Pelican Hills Road is connected to San Joaquin Hills Road and in place before the build -out. 1 L Corona del Mar can no longer bear the burden of increased traffic with no viable alternate route around the city to destinations in Newport Center and the airport area. Our residents are "up in arms over the increased use of our narrow residential streets as bypasses to already saturated Pacific Coast Highway. The Pelican Hills Road alignment as it is now planned to Bonita Canyon Road and termination at.Mac Arthur will indeed eliminate some of the traffic that is destined for the airport area, but it in no way alleviates the Newport Center -bound traffic that is suffocating Corona del Mar. Why must an already severly affected area suffer more when it is apparent that some relief could be felt if the Pelican Hills - San Joaquin Hills Road -connection is made? Corona del Mar is caught between the State Park and down -coast developments of the south and the Newport Center build -out on the north; it would seem very poor economics and poor judgment as well not to utilize a six -lane road that was designed to avert this tremendous traffic congestion. ' 2855 East Coast Highway • Post Office Box 72 • Corona del Mar, California 92625 • 714/673-4050 3a I 3 ''j t Page two Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 THE PELICAN HILLS ROAD - SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD CONNECTION The taxpayers of old Corona del Mar who have supported the city for many, many years, and whose taxes paid for their share of building that road, as well as the huge expense of maintaining the road and its beautiful landscaping for twenty years, deserve to have this investment brought to fulfillment as it was intended - to reduce traffic on Pacific Coast Highway and Corona del Mar. This vital link which was started in 1966, twenty years ago, should no longer be a pawn of selfish interests# but should be connected to Pelican Hills Road as soon as construction on that roadway reaches that connection point. The residents and businesses in Corona del Mar deserve your thoughtful and impartial consideration of this vital problem. Luvena Hayton, Corona del Mar Transportation Chairman Chamber of Commerce Newport Beach City Planning Commission, James C. Person, Chairman Clarence J. Turner, 1st Vice Chairman Revana M. Coppelman, 2nd Vice Chairman Patricia Eichenhouser# Secretary David Goff John A. Kurlander Joan S. Winburn The Irvine Company, Ron Hendrickson, Director of Design and Planning Mike Ericksen Il I rF I LJ I 33-R I 3.Lia 1 1 1 NEWPORT CENTER MEDICAL PLAZA March 18, 1986 Mayor and City Council City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members: I am writing you as President of the Newport Center Medical Plaza Association, an organization of 170 physicians and dentists who practice in the medical buildings at Newport Center. Our Board members have expressed several concerns regarding the parking situation adjacent to the medical buildings. 1. Access to the 1401 Avocado building can be made only through the San Miguel Drive entrance and this is an awkward entrance to explain to patients. It has been proposed that cutting an additional entryway between the 1401 Avocado and 1441 Avocado buildings would greatly ease the access to these two buildings. In addition, it is very difficult to drive through the parking lot between the 1401 and 1441 buildings and we feel a direct driveway through the middle of the lot would aid in the parking and traffic flow. 1 2. PIES SWYE 3' Juloc' nilmen nager 4. A'lr•^•v u 6 R Dir. Planning Dif lice Chief S. 'Other Di We are aware that the City has plans to convert Avocado Avenue to a one way street from Pacific Coast Highway inland. We feel this would make access to our buildings even more difficult for patients who are elderly and who are easily disoriented. We are also aware that the Irvine Company plans to build two garden office buildings between Avocado and MacArthur. We are concerned regarding the increased traffic flow on Avocado that would be produced by these buildings. We are concerned that the appropriate numbers of handicapped parking spaces, which are wide enough and identified appropriately, be clustered close to the entrance of the various medical buildings and not scattered or spread out over the lot. We feel that the Council should be aware that the required number of parking spaces for commercial buildings are usually inadequate for medical buildings due to their high volume of patient traffic and high number of employees per square foot of office space. We are hoping that with the completion of the 360 San Miguel building that adequate spaces have been anticipated. 3y 1.91 , I 6. We remain concerned that adequate signage on the medical buildings identifying ' them as medical buildings has not been created. The 2 foot high caduces on the ' second floor level are inadequate. The Newport Center Medical Plaza is the largest collection of doctors west of the Rockies not connected to a hospital. As an Association, we are are planning a patient ' Information and education center as well as a major diagnostic center which we expect to attract patients from a Very wide area. Therefore, we feel that it is important that these buildings be clearly Identified as medical buildings and that their access and ' facilities are clearly marked. If you would like to discuss any of these Issues, please feel free to contact me at my , office (714) 720-1163. Sincerely, Ba=araJes:in, M.D. President ' cc: Gene Rhodes ' Jacqueline Heather (Dictated but not read) , F L 3,Hy I 1 1 I� 1 1 CORONA DEL MAR REALTY CO. P.O. BOX 116, CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 Honorable Mayor and Members of Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 TELEPHONE 714 673.4120 March 19,1986 Re: Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce letter dated March 10, 1986 concerning Pelican Hills Road, San Joaquin Hills Road and Newport Center Build Out. Members of City Council: We are in complete agreement with the views expressed in the above referenced letter. When GPA 80-3 came before Planning Commission and Council, it was approved with the contingent requirement that Pelican Hills Road and the connection to SJH Road be in place according to a specific schedule. This contingency should be specific to approval of the proposed amendment to the general plan. in addition to building and maintaining SJH Road at taxpayer expense, we would like to point to the incalculable expense of pedestrian accidents in the cross walks of Corona del Mar. Traffic to Newport Center which would be diverted by Pelican and SJH Roads will alleviate, to some extent, this problem. DM/is Copy to: ./Chairman, Planning Commission The Irvine Company CDM Chamber of Commerce Very truly yours, ChaYles W. & Doris B. Masters 190 E 3 . `•r S HARBOR VIEW HILLB COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. 0. Pox 34 Corona del Mai^, 'CA 92625 Narch 26, 198 "embers of the Plannift 'GOMmissiOn , CITY OF NEWPORT PEACH '!.300 Newport Blvd. +• Q 198L�. •°r Newaor•t Beach, CA 92660 REs NEWPORT CENTER BENERAL PLAN AMCNDIYiENT Dear Commissioners, Harooi' View Hills Community Association xs composes; +f 146 homeowners. Our Association borders on the east side of MAotIrthur, directly across the street from Newport Center. 'r000sed plans for Newport Center were presented to our Assooc ation by the Irvine Company, at a_u^ annual homeowners meeting in January, 1986. Following the presentation there was a 'er•gthy discussion among bur association's homeowners about these plans. IT IS OUR ASSOCIATIONS VERY FIRM POSITION THAT MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD SHOULD MOT HE WIDENED TO'•SXX LANES. jipfrre the issue of the widening of MacArthur to six lanes ;s even considered, the following should be cornpleteds 1. Pelican Hills Road thould 'be in place and open for travel. 2. Pelican Hills Road should fr'ave a connection with San joaduin Hills Road. :. Avoce.do should be four lanes wide and str-aicnternec tc -..3-ninat■ the cyrves as on present plans. 'his would. as 1S „clrooriate, encourage some of the north/south traffic tr_ stay wi. ti in the r renter. st�-dies to date have discussed the tremendous amount of traffic tMAt pelican Hills Road will divert around Corona del Mar. T.'ims. w:deninc_ of MacArthur would be needed when Pelican Hills Road t b tilt. Tne decision to widen MacArthur should be mostponeG +1; traffic studies demonstrate the affect of Pelican Hills Rinao. If pelican Hills Road does significantly reduce the :rprfic In -ad through Corona del Mar there would be no nee❑ to «j: dnn MacArthur. rw,l.herrnnro, we are concerned that, if MacArthur is widened to s.,x lanes there will be increased pressure from city/county/state widen PCH through old Corona del Mar, and make our small ausiness district truly inaccessible and a very under:rable place to c oo and walk. yt+ur'U, 7 1 t v W. PJ meroy, President 3.yL H 11 I April 11 1986 Corona del Mar CHAMBER of COMMERCE A unique blend of people and place ' Newport Beach City Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 LJ THE PELICAN HILLS ROAD - SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD CONNECTION It was the unanimous decision by the Board of Di- rectors of the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce to approve the build -out of Newport Center within the codes and restrictions as may be determined by the City Planning Commission and the City Council, but only if Pelican Hills Road is connected to San Joaquin Hills Road and in place prior to occupancy of the first phase of the build -out. C John L. Blom President s 7 nr?`u' tatr: , 2855 East Coast Highway - Post Office Box 72 - Corona del Mar, California 92625 • 714/673.4050 3` c Wg ndham �sG�gh R.WPORT FA!_P April 16, 1966 NBMPOAT NEACH PLANNING COIMIBBION City of Newport latch P.O. BOX 1766 Newport Batch, CA 92663-3$14 Door Mr. Chairman and Webers of the Commission: on Narch 16, 1916 the Board of Directors of Merchants Association adopted a resolution Center General Plan Amendment. Bualosod is resolution. 1 � yy a \r grip, t 1986 t the Fashion Island ' in support of the Newport a copy of that The Fashion Island Merchants Association represents over one hundred retailers in Fashion Island, We support the Newport Center General Plan Amendment in order that Fashion Island may be ozpanded and Improved for the benefit of the antftle community. We foal that with a broader six of retail opportunities, Newport leach residents will find it advantageous to shop at Fashion Island rather than travel long distances to outlying shopping malls. The proposed entertainment plate and increased diming opportunities will offer our community more than just a place to abop, Fashion Island will become a center for Newport leach cultural, social, educational, and charitable activities. We also support the proposal tot a day care facility in or adjacent to Newport Center. This facility will allow our retailers to attract and retain quality employ*** who might otherwise seek employment in locations where child care is more readily available. As son and women with a dedicated commitment to the community, the Fashion Island Merchants Association support of the Newport Center General Plan Amendment provide not only additional revenue to the city but, isarnational recosUtion as one of the outstanding country -- an bond which we can all share. lmetea'ra- rt, President Fashion Island Marchants Association future of our urge* your -- it will as wall, centers in the 1 1 I Wyndham Leigh Diamonds Inc. 215 Atrium Court, Fashion Island, Newport Center, Newport Beach, California 92660 Telephone 1714, 644•U • •Aye .�r � �' •i ' .'sT:AI�•"�yr;71'. I 1 1 .. FASHION ISLAND MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION 1 RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF 1 NEWPORT CENTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1 1 i i i 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 RESOLVED, that Fashion Island Merchants Association hereby supports the General Plan Amendment for completion of Newport Center as proposed by The Irvine Company. The foregoing Resolution has been adopted by the Board of Directors of Fashion Island Merchants Association this /_ day of March, 1986. W141 1 A 2.49 1 Planning Commission Meeting April 24, 1986 Agenda Item No. 6 Supplemental Information CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A. General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) (Public Hearing) AND Local 1 I I I 1 This supplemental report has been prepared in response to questions ' raised by the Planning Commission on the above referenced project. 1. Resolution No. 9009 In June, 1976, the consulting firm of Crommelin, Pringle, and Associates, Inc., prepared and submitted a report analyzing the traffic impacts of the ultimate development of Newport Center. The report was prepared for The Irvine Company with the par- ticipation of the City of Newport Beach. The traffic analysis was based on an ultimate buildout projection provided by The Irvine Company which was significantly less than the C-0 Zoning District would allow (est. at 30 million sq.ft.). The projected buildout was as follows: Office 6 Medical Commercial/Retail/Restaurant Theater Hotel Residential Civic/Cultural Automotive Golf Course Tennis Club 4,299,600 sq.ft. 1,301,000 sq.ft. 4,400 seats 377 rooms 538 units 122,100 sq.ft. 5 acres 18 holes 24 courts The major outcome of the study was the adoption of Resolution No. 9009, which established these projected buildout projections as the development limits for Newport Center. Compared to Resolution No. 9009, the general plan amendment request is an increase of $5,156 sq.ft. of office; 191,406 of retail; and 90 residential units. The City has already approved an increase of 559 hotel rooms. The GPA request is a decrease of 11 I I 1 I 3, So T0: Planning Commission - 2. ' 2,000 theater seats and 16,000 sq.ft. of institutional uses from ' Resolution No. 9009. The staff recommendation is an increase of 116,250 sq.ft. of retail and 390 residential units; and a de- crease of 429,844 sq.ft. of office; 650 theater seats; and 16,000 ' sq.ft. of institutional uses from Resolution No. 9009. 2. Newporter North views ' Currently, there are no public views across the Newporter North site to Upper Newport Bay from the primary pedestrian/vehicular access, Jamboree Road. Because the site is vacant, development ' on the mesa across the bay (Westcliff) can be viewed from places along Jamboree Road. High-rise commercial development in Newport Center has views of and over the site. Depending on location, orientation, and height location within a building, the proposed ' development of Newporter North could affect available views from these structures. Views from commercial development have not been a concern of the City in the past. ' The Newporter North site itself has significant views of Upper Newport Bay. The Recreation and Open Space Plan, which would be implemented with the development of the site, calls for the ' Newporter North Park to be a "special view park" located at the road bluffs. The City also has the option of requiring an access with parking along. the bluff, similar to Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar. 3. Newport Village Residential ' The existing General Plan designates the Newport village site for 18 acres of Multi -Family Residential and 15 acres of Retail and Service Commercial. Development allocated is 360 residential ' units (150 of which are affordable) and 750 sq.ft. of commercial. from the site to 58,000 sq.ft. of commercial was transferred Fashion Island with a written acknowledgement by The Irvine ' Company that this may result in vacant land with no development rights. This land use designation was established by the City of Newport Beach in the approval of General Plan Amendment 83-1(E). This amendment was one of several recent general plan amendments ' processed as part of the Housing Element implementation program. The amendment established a program of incentives to the develop- ment of affordable housing on Baywood, Fifth Avenue/MacArthur, and Newport Village by granting additional market rate units (up ' to 278 units) in Newport Center on a one -for -one basis for affordable units on these sites. if the existing general plan program were implemented, the ' Newport Village residential development could be 20 du's per gross acre, 25 du's per buildable acre (est.), and 42% afford- able. The staff's recommendation in GPA 85-1(B) would result in 17 du's per gross acre, 24.5 du's per buildable acre and 30% affordable. P -�.5I I To: Planning Commission - 3. 1 In addition to the "incentive/floating" units in Newport Center resulting from GPA 83-1(E), there are also 145 "float- ing/transfer" units in Newport Center resulting from GPA 79-1. As indicated in the staff report previously distributed, it is one goal of staff to remove transfer/floating/incentive units in ' Newport Center if this project is approved. 4. Block 600 Structures ' Estimated gross square footage of Block 600 structures is as follows: Union Bank 319,576 sq.ft., 19 stories AVC0 Building 277,106 sq.ft.., 17 stories Wells Fargo 293,895 sq.ft., 17 stories Four Seasons 334,017 sq.ft., 20 stories 5. Clarification of Staff Recommendations Staff would like to clarify or correct the recommendations contained in the staff report, as follows: ° Page, 30, Circulation System Master Plan recommendation , number 1: Designation of Avocado Avenue as a Secondary Arterial is between Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive. ' ° Page 31, Master Plan recommendation number 2: Amendment to the Circulation System Master Plan for the City of Irvine Will also be required, since most of this roadway is in that ' City. ° Page 31, Phasing Improvements, identified number 3: MacArthur Boulevard to be completed to six -lane, major arterial standards from Coast Highway to Route 73, not Jamboree Road. Also, this improvement includes the "de- , pression" and westward re -alignment of MacArthur Boulevard between Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMESSDD.. HEWICKER, DirectorBy , PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Environmental Coordinator SR15/jm Z.52. U 1 F F F1 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 22, 1966 Agenda Item No CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A. General Plan Amendment 85-1 2 Request to consider amendments to the Land Use, Circu- lation, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, so as to allow construction of an additional 1,275,000 sq.ft. of office uses, 248,000 sq.ft. of retail and restaurant uses, and 700 residential units on property located in Newport Center and various peripheral sites. Also proposed is a revision to the Circulation System Master Plan to delete the Avocado -MacArthur one -way -couplet and establish MacArthur Boulevard as a two-way major arterial roadway, and the acceptance of an environ- mental document. 1 .; AND Request to amend the Certified Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan for the Newporter North, Bayview Landing, and PCH/Jamboree sites. Background On March 20, 1986 and April 24, 1986, the Planning Commission held public hearings on the General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment for Newport Center and Peripheral sites. On April 24, 1986, the Planning Department staff presented to the Planning Commission and the public its recommendations on the Newport Center Plan. During the course of the public hearing, questions and issues were raised by the Commission and members of the public relative to the project and the staff recommendation. Subsequent to the public hearing, The Irvine Company has also responded to the staff recommen- dation. Questions and issues faised at the public hearing are addressed in this report. The discussion is presented on a topic basis, rather 3.s3 TO: Planning Commission - 2. than responding to each individual question separately. Topics include noise, a comparison to the GPA 80-3 approval, cost/revenue, Newport Village commercial, Westbay Park, restaurants, building heights, landscape treatment on MacArthur Boulevard, parking impacts of the Fashion Island addition, and traffic and circulation. The staff has also prepared an analysis and recommendations on the revised proposal of the Irvine Company. Discussion Noise. Several questions have been raised in regards to the noise issues associated with the General Plan Amendment. Most of these relate to the change in MacArthur Boulevard from a one-way couplet to a two-way major arterial. This circulation element amendment alters the future noise contours in the area. However, with the proposed depression of MacArthur Boulevard, the heights of required noise barriers for Harbor View Hills compared to those which would be required by the couplet are generally lower. On the Newport Village site, the residential development recommended by staff is not anticipated to pose a problem from a noise mitigation standpoint. Generally speaking, multi -family development can be designed to provide its own sound attenuation, through the orientation of buildings and outdoor living spaces away from the roadway. There is a wall on MacArthur Boulevard near the Harbor View Hills development. This wall steps down with the grade of MacArthur and ranges from three to five feet in,height. The sound attenuation wells needed for MacArthur Boulevard with the depression of the road are generally within this range. There is some apparent misunderstanding as to the design of the "depressed" MacArthur Boulevard. As proposed, the Newport Village site will also be reduced in elevation. MacArthur Boulevard would not be in a "canyon," but would be lower and further away from Harbor View Homes. General Plan Amendment 80-3, The comparison of either the proposed project or the staff recommendation to the project approved in GPA 80-3 is difficult since the sites addressed are not the same. The following chart illustrates the proposals: E t I LI rJ I 3.sy TO: Planning Commission - 3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT COMPARISON GPA 80-3/GPA 85-1(B)/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Future Allowable l Location GPA 80-3 GPA Request Staff Recom.l Block 600 225,000 (0) 300,000 (0) 300,000 (0) 225,000 (R-sq.ft.) -- 100 (R-Du's) -- 300 (H) (325) (H) (325)(H) Block 800/PacMut 245 (R-Du's) -- -- -- 440,000 (0) 300,000 (0) Block 800/CivPza -- 50,000 (0/1) 50,b00 (0/1) Avocado/MacArthur 100,000 (0) 44,000 (0) 44,000 (0) TRANSIT TERMINAL TRANSIT TERMINAL TRANSIT TERMINAL Newport Village 208,750 (0) 345,000 (0) 560 (R) 20,000 (C/Rest.) 60,000 (C) Corporate Plaza West 123,400 (0) 108,400 (0) 108,400 (0) (15,000) (0) (15,000)(0) Fashion Island -- 194,000 (C) 234,000 (C) t }i } 1,350 (T) PCH/Jamboree 80,000 (0) -- -- -- 130 (R-Du's) 130 (R) PCH Frontage 57 (R-Du's) (154) (R-Du's) (154)(R) Block 900 165 (H) (234) (H) (234)(H) 10,000 (0) (10,000) (0) (10,000)(0) Floating (145) (R-Du's) (145) (R-Du's) -- 747,150 (0) 1,312,400 (0) 827,400 (0) 20,000 (C) 240,000 (C) 234,000 (C) 465 (H) 559 (H) 559 (H) 547 (R) 429 (R) 844 (R) 225,000 (R-sq.ft.) 1,350 (T) 1includes all requested and approved GPAs on subject sites in Newport Center. Approved projects shown in (parentheses). Legend C - Commercial H - Hotel I - Institutional O - Office R• Residential T -.Theater i TO: Planning Commission - 4. Cost/Revenue. As requested by the Planning Commission, the fiscal impact of the staff's recommendation has been calculated. A yearly revenue benefit estimate of $871,000 would result if the staff recommendation were approved and constructed. The fiscal consultant again qualifies this number, since it is his belief that the City's Fiscal Impact Model is overly conservative in some revenue estimates. The revised fiscal impact charts are attached. A statement was made in the course of the public hearing that residen- tial development is more favorable to the City from a cost/revenue standpoint. The City's Fiscal Impact Model indicates that all uses in the City provide revenues in excess of expenditures. However, commer- cial development generally results in a more favorable revenue advan- tage than residential uses. This is due to the fact that commercial property is generally valued higher than residential property and provides more types of revenue (such as sales tax or bed tax). For example, The Irvine Company request for Newport Village would result in a yearly revenue advantage of $122,000 (est.), where the staff s recommendation for residential development would result in $48,000 (est.) . Newport Village Commercial. A question was raised by the Planning Commission as to whether some commercial development would be appropriate on the corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Coast Highway in gewport Village. Cptrently, there are temporary commercial uses in this area, and its continued use is possible. Staff has concerns with this proposal. A commercial development in this location would be immediately adjacent to residen- tial uses recommended by staff. This would create the same type of residential/commercial conflicts which are prevalent in older areas of the City such as Central Balboa and Corona del Mar. A limited commer- cial development may have ingress -egress problems due to close prox- imity to the Coast Highway/MacArthur Boulevard intersection. Addi- tionally, it is the opinion of staff that in the review of a site plan or tentative map for a residential development in Newport Village, a substantial portion of this area may be taken by landscaped edge treatments and building setbacks. Westbay Park. The County of Orange testified at the public hearing, requesting that the City designate the County of Orange as the receiving agency for any park dedications. The Orange County Regional Recreation Facil- ities' plan map (attached) designates Westbay as a proposed County Regional Park. It is the purpose of staff's recommendation to enable this regional park, and staff also recognizes that if a regional park is established, the County is the logical agency to own and maintain it. There does exist, however, the possibility that some of the site may be required to be dedicated to another agency, such as the State 1 U 1 H P U U ' TO: Planning Commission - 5. ' Department of Fish and Game. For this reason, staff prefers to keep 1 the receptor agency undefined. Restaurants in Newport Beach. ' Questions were raised by the Planning Commission regarding the amount of restaurants requested by The Irvine Company in the General Plan Amendment. The request included 60,000 sq.ft. on Bayview Landing, ' approximately 15,000 sq.ft. (est.) on Newport Village and approximate- ly 43,200 sq.ft. (est.) in Fashion island (22% of expansion). Specif- ic concerns were expressed in regards to creation of a "restaurant ' row" and the viability of such uses. Staff believes that any concerns in this regard should be reduced by the staff recommendation which eliminated the subject use on Newport Village and reduced the develop- ment on Bayview Landing by two-thirds. The placement of additional ' development in Fashion Island would be anticipated to be retail development rather than all restaurant use. However, staff can make the following"observations. iI I n L 1 I 1 1 Newport Beach is historically a resort community. The City has always provided recreational facilities for the region. This is, of course, due to the amenities of the beach and bay. One way of providing public access to the shoreline is through the development of visitor -serving uses in waterfront commercial areas. While the City reviews restaurants in great detail to assure compatibility with neighboring uses, the use itself has never been considered inappropri- ate by the City. In fact, the Local Coastal Program puts restaurants into a priority category. In terms of viability of the use, the City has never intruded into the economic and marketing decisions of the private development community, or attempted to define an acceptable level of risk for development proposals. Further, the concern of a "single use structure" being left vacant if a restaurant operation is not successful, is one which is no more or less pertinent than any other use or structure. By and large, almost all structures are "single purpose" (residential, office, retail, medical office, hotel, hospital, etc.). As has been illustrated by Atrium Court in Fashion Island, even when replacing one use with another in the same class, substantial renovations can be necessary. Block 600 and 800 Heights. Heights in Block 600 are contained in the EIR in Volume 1, pace 157. Heights of existing buildings are as follows: Wells Fargo 247 feet Avco 240 feet union Bank 285 feet Four Seasons Hotel 214 feet 631 inches An eighteen -story building at 1331 feet per floor would result in a 243-foot building. TO: Planning Commission - 6. Heights in Block 800 are contained in the EIR in Volume 1, page 161. Heights of existing buildings are as follows: Pacific Mutual 77 feet Pacific Plaza 1 158 feet Pacific Plaza 2 158 feet ' A twelve -story building at 1A feet per floor would result in a 162-foot building. MacArthur Boulevard Landscape Treatment. ' The concept of MacArthur Boulevard as a landscape parkway has been a long-term objective of the City of Newport Beach. This item was inadvertently omitted from the previous staff report on the project. With the widening of MacArthur Boulevard as required in the project ' phasing, landscape treatments will be required for both sides of the roadway and the median strip. It is the opinion of staff that this area should be a minimum of 35 feet wide, exclusive of any hardscape ' (sidewalks, fences, etc.) and wider whetwer possible. Some of the current plan components help implement this landscape corridor, such as the lovering of MacArthur, which will provide a landscape berm area between the road and Harbor view Hills. The most significant land use ' issue associated with the landscape plan for MacArthur is on the Freeway Reservation East site adjacent to Harbor View Homes. It is anticipated that after the required widening and landscaping, the site ' would be virtually eliminated, with the exception of a small site at the corner of MacArthur Boulevard,ind San Joaquin Hills Road. Fashion Island Parking. The proposed Fashion Island improvements include the construction of ' two parking structures. A question was raised as to the impact of the staff recommended additions on Fashion Island parking. The retail center has long had an adequate parking supply, and adequate parking ' for the expansion will be required as part of the proposed addition. The added square footage suggested by staff may require an additional parking structure level. Traffic and Circulation. Before addressing individual questions on traffic and circulation, ' some additional discussion of traffic study assumptions is warranted. There were many comments regarding what developments were included in the Traffic Study. It is important to understand that the study is essentially two totally separate studies which provide different types of information and use different base data. The long-term traffic volume projections are developed using the ' City's Transportation Model. This allows estimation of the ULTIMATE traffic volume on each roadway segment at build -out. This means, it I 1 3,Gs TO: Planning Commission - 7. LI' F L 1 I 1 11 1 not only includes build -out of the City under the General Plan, but assumes build -out of the entire County of Orange and all Orange County cities as provided for in their General Plans. The database, there- fore, includes all the projects mentioned during the public hearing, including the development of the Downcoast area as provided in the Orange County General Plan. The "Increased Trend" model information includes all this development, plus significant developer requests not yet approved but under consideration in the vicinity. The' intersection analysis has been prepared pursuant to the require- ments of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The base data includes all existing traffic, all "committed" development through the year of analysis and a yearly growth factor through the year of analysis. The TPO analysis has always been a "Point in Time" type of analysis rather than a "Build -Out" type of analysis. Therefore, committed projects, all projects which have received all discretionary approvals and have the right to construct, would be included as background traffic, if the anticipated date of completion is on or before the analysis year. Projects which are not committed or are anticipated to be completed subsequent to the analysis year are accounted for only as a part of the yearly growth factor. As a result, in the intersection analysis for this project, approved developments such as the Newport Dunes, Bayview, and IBC in Irvine, can be factored in as committed projects in the appropriate year. Developments such as the Downcoast develop- ment are not directly added to the background because there are many discretionary actions necessary before considered committed, and there is no way to establish an anticipated completion date at which time the traffic generated would appear as part of the background traffic. 11 1 MacArthur Boulevard Volumes. Many questions and comments were made regarding the appropriate roadway designation for MacArthur Boulevard. Currently, the Master Plan designates Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard as a primary couplet with three through lanes in each direction. it is anticipated that if the couplet were constructed, some additional acceleration/deceleration, left and right turn, and ingress/egress lanes would be required in addition to the six through lanes. The roadway capacity for MacArthur Boulevard at six lanes, with Avocado Avenue as a secondary road, is essentially the same as the one-way couplet. Even though Avocado Avenue between Coast Highway and San Miguel may be constructed as' a four lane road, it cannot be anticipated to carry any through traffic, but will only serve for local circulation on the east side of Newport Center. 'A rather lengthy discussion was included in the previous staff report (pages 16-17) on the inability of Avocado Avenue to serve as an alternate facility for through traffic. In considering the General Plan Amendment for the Circulation Element, it is important for the Commission to consider the function of the overall circulation system. It is the long-standing position of the City that the planned roadway system be adequate to serve planned development. It is staff s firm recommendation that MacArthur Boule- vard not be downgraded from a six lane road (either with or without couplet) to the four lane road requested in the public hearing. Volumes and capacities -in the traffic study are as follows: 3,59 TO- Planning Commission - S. Without Project/With Couplet ' Volume 4-lane v/c 6-lane We w/o project capacity ratio capacity ratio ' MacArthur Blvd. (couplet) n/o Coast Hwy. 46,200 36,000 1.28 54,000 .86 n/o Harbor View 46,700 36,000 1.30 54,000 .86 n/o San Miguel 30,300 36,000 0.84 54,000 .56 With Project/Without Couplet ' Volume 4-Zane v/c 6-lane v/c with project capacity ratio capacity ratio MacArthur Blvd. n/o Coast Hwy, 46,800 36,000 1.30 54,000 .87 n/o Harbor View 49,100 36,000 1,36 54,000 .91 n/o San Miguel 31,000 36,000 0.86 54,000 .57 F L It is important to note that bot�:of these scenarids assume completion ' of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and all planned connections, as well as completion of the entire City and County Master Plans of Circulation (except University Drive). The testimony , received stating that the traffic volumes do not account for further volume reductions which result from the SJHTC and Pelican Hill Road is in error. The projected volumes on this roadway segment without the t corridor are as follows: With Project/Without Couplet/Without SJHTC/With Pelican Hill ' Volume 4-lane v/c 6-lane v/c with project capacity ratio capacity ratio MacArthur Blvd. n/o Coast Hwy. 51,700 36,000 1.44 54,000 .96 n/o Harbor View 540200 360000 1.51 54,000 X.00 ' n/o San Miguel 48,100 36,000 1.34 54,000 .89 3.60 ' TO- Planning Commission - 9. ' If MacArthur Boulevard were not constructed to the necessary 6-lane ' configuration, the road would be congested at build -out. As is currently experienced in Corona del Mar due to the "planned deficien- cy," traffic will seek out less congested routes during peak periods. Since the 6-lane MacArthur is needed even after installation of ' Pelican Hill Road, it is anticipated that any diversions will occur closer to MacArthur. The road which staff anticipates would receive most diversion traffic is Marguerite Avenue to San Joaquin Hills Road ' in both directions. Thus, if MacArthur Boulevard is kept at a 4-lane configuration, the use of local Corona del Mar streets for through traffic could begin to increase, defeating all that the City has t worked for in requiring construction of Pelican Hill Road. Another related effect is noise impacts on Harbor View Homes. Without the depression and the westward shift of the centerline of roadway, ' noise walls along MacArthur Boulevard will need to be much higher. (Similar to the "No Couplet-Alt.B" depicted on Page 37, Volume 2 of the EIR, but higher since the centerline of a 4-lane road is closer to the residential area than a 6-lane road.) It should be noted that intersection improvements along this segment of MacArthur Boulevard will be required at the time of project devel- opment. These improvements (at Coast Highway, San Miguel, and San Joaquin Hills Road) will require three through lanes in each direction in order to comply with TPO criteria. were MacArthur to be left at four lanes, the effect of the intersection improvements with adequate merging tapers will leave only the road segment between Harbor View Drive and Crown Drive (extended �t a 4-lane width. A concern was raised regarding the flow of three lanes southbound on MacArthur into Coast Highway which is two lanes east through Corona del Mar. The intersection in question is a three -leg or "T" inter- section and allows for both right and left turns. East of MacArthur, Coast Highway is two lanes eastbound; west of MacArthur, Coast Highway is currently two lanes westbound, and will soon be widened to three ' lanes westbound. Therefore, the three lanes of MacArthur merge not into two lanes, but into four (current) or five lanes (future) since traffic does, in fact, make right as well as left turns. MacArthur ' Boulevard will have dual left turn pockets flowing into the two eastbound Coast Highway lanes. If MacArthur Boulevard intersection improvements were made as required, it may be possible to delay the widening of MacArthur between Harbor View Drive and Crown Drive (extended). It should be pointed out that this will delay the noise mitigation benefits derived ' by the lowering and shift westward of MacArthur which will accompany the road improvements. Were the Commission to remove this segment of the MacArthur Boulevard improvements from the Circulation Phasing ' program, the widening could then accompany the development of Newport Village as an adjacent improvement. If it is the desire of the City to delay the implementation of the 6-lane segment further, it is recommended that the road be constructed to a full 6-lane width with an extra -wide median strip. Four lanes could then actually be paved, TO: Planning Commission - 10. With the additional lanes added towards the road centerline at such time as they are warranted. Coast Highway -Corona del Mar. A question was raised regarding the ' possible pressure to remove parking along Coast Highway in Corona del Mar in order to provide additional through capacity. It has been the policy of the City for many years to prohibit the removal of parking along this road segment for any road widening or intersection improve- t ment reasons. Instead, the City and community have accepted the concept of "Planned Deficiency." It is interesting to note that at build -out (2010), the volume on Coast Highway east of Poppy is antic- ' ipated to be lower than current volumes so long as the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor is constructed. Mariners Mile Improvements. eased upon the EIR traffic study, it is , apparent that the City can require intersection improvements on Coast Highway at Riverside Avenue and Tustin Avenue with this project. It is always possible for the Planning Commission and City Council to approve the project without requiring the improvements or a contribu- tion to the improvements. Land Use Impncte of Couplet. There are two major land use impacts ' associated with maintaining the Primary Couplet designation for MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue. The most significant to the project is on the Big Canyon/MacArthur site. If the couplet is constructed, the site will no longer be appropriate for development due to noise impacts and access Constraints. The couplet would also affect the Avocado/MacArthur site and the Newport Village site (wheth- er commercial or residential). Site planning, noise mitigation and site access become more difficult with the couplet. Pelican Hill Road. A question was raised as to the adequacy of 2-lane ' Pelican Hill Road as proposed for early construction by The Irvine Company. It should first be noted that Pelican Hill Road is designat- ed as a 6-lane, major arterial roadway on the County's Master Plan of ' Arterial Highways. The implications of the construction of Pelican Hill Road were an- alyzed in detail, to assure that the road would, in fact, provide the ' anticipated benefits to the City of Newport Beach and Corona del Mar in particular. The detailed discussion is contained in Volume 4, pages 3-38 through 3-44 of the EIR. Generally, in the timeframe associated with the Newport Center project, two lanes of Pelican Hill ' Road are considered adequate. The capacity of a 2-lane road is 18,000 average daily trips. The total anticipated volume on the road in the year 2010 with buildout of all planned development, including the downcoast development and without the Corridor, does not exceed 22#500. In the 1992 timeframe and prior to the downcoast development, the two lanes will be adequate. It should be ,noted that at such time ' as the downcoast development occurs, further improvements to Pelican Hill Road will be required. In fact, the downcoast project phasing will result in Pelican Hill always being two lanes wider than the 1 capacity required by the -development. This assures that the diversion benefit in Corona del Mar will not diminish. 3,6a TO: Planning Commission - 11. San Joaquin Hills Road. Questions were raised regarding the staff ' recommendation to downgrade the designation of San Joaquin Hills Road from Major (6 lane) to Primary (4 lane) status. Clarification of this proposal is, perhaps, warranted. The staff recommendation is for San Joaquin Hills Road easterly of Spyglass Hill Road. The Major Arterial designation would be maintained westerly of Spyglass Hill Road to Jamboree Road. This proposal is made since both the City's and County's Transportation Model project the ultimate volumes along this road to be well within the capacity of a 4-lane road. Pelican Hill Road/San Joaquin Hills Road. Testimony was received requesting that the City mandate the processing of Pelican Hill Road and San Joaquin Hills Road connection as one project. While staff understands the desire of the community to have the maximum improve- ments as early as possible, the request could actually prove counter productive to the community goals. The Irvine Company has prepared a report on the timing of the San Joaquin Hills Road (attached). In summary, tying the two projects together would add a minimum of four ' months to the Pelican Hill Road implementation schedule. If San Joaquin Hills Road is allowed to follow a separate but equally aggres- sive path, it is possible the two roads could actually complete construction in the existing Pelican Hill Road implementation sched- ule. This is due to the fact that additional time needed to complete the engineering and environmental studies can be made up with the shorter construction time needed by the shorter roadway connection. ' An added advantage is that Pelican Hill Road construction will be allowed to proceed as a separate project if San Joaquin Hills Road incurs any delays or becomes subject to litigation. Impact of Staff Recommendations. As indicated in the previous staff report, the adoption of the staff recommendation would result in a reduction of 6,490 average daily trips from the project proposed. The Planning Commission requested that the impact to intersections which may result from the project be analyzed. Four intersections were analyzed because they would be the likely locations for ICU increases ' associated with staff's land use recommendations. It is expected that all other ICU values would remain unchanged or be lowered by the staff land use alternative. The intersections analyzed are: Coast Highway at: Goldenrod MacArthur Boulevard at: San Joaquin ' San Miguel Coast Highway At Coast Highway and Goldenrod, the ICU value decreases by 0.01 in both 1989 and 1993 with the staff alternative. At MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road, the ICU values do not change in either ' 1989 or 1993. At MacArthur and San Miguel, the ICU increases by 0.01 in 1989 and is unchanged in 1993. At MacArthur Boulevard and Coast Highway, the ICU value increases by 0.01 in 1989 and decreases by 0.02 in 1993. A complete report prepared by the City's traffic consultant, ' Basmacyian-Darnell, Inc.., is attached. 1 4. 3 ' T0: Planning Commission - 12. The Irvine Company Response, The Irvine Company has submitted a response to the staff recommenda- tion on General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) (attached). The response is summarized, as follows: The Irvine Company is in agreement with the staff recommendations on the following sites: Block 600, PCH/Jamboree, Corporate Plaza West, Big Canyon/MacArthur, and Newporter North. They are also in agreement with the staff recommendation on the deletion of the Avocado Ave- nue/MacArthur Boulevard Couplet. The Irvine Company is in basic agreement with some suggested modifica- tions on the sites, as follows: ° Fashion Island: Agrees with the suggested increases, but re- quests addition of 60,000 sq.ft. instead of 40,000 sq.ft. and an , addition of 21500 theatre seats instead of 1,250 seats. The Irvine Company indicates that the additional retail sq.ft. is not likely to be used for additional mall shops, but may be used by major tenants such as Bullock's Wilshire or Neiman Marcus, The ' Irvine Company has explored the possibility of a mall cinema with various operators and has determined that a minimum of 2,500 seats are necessary to assure a successful operation. ' ° Civic Plaza Expansion: Agrees with staff recommendation. The Art Museum has now indicated a need for more than the 50,000 ' sq.ft. originally proposed. The Irvine Company, therefore, is requesting an additional, 116,000 sq.ft., for institutional facilities. 1 ° Newport Village: Agrees with staff recommendation. The Irvine Company requests an addition of 840800 sq:ft. in Corporate Plaza to bring the General Plan allocation to consistency with the ' existing P-C District Regulations. 80,000 sq.ft. would be designated for athletic/health club use. ° Avocado/MacArthur: Agrees with staff recommendation. The Irvine Company requests an additional 10,000 sq.ft. for use as a day-care facility. The Irvine Company disagrees with the staff recommendations -on three sites: ° ' Block 800: The Irvine Company is opposed to any deletion of square footage in Block 800. It is the position of TIC that the high-rise office is essential to funding the roadway improvements and still agree to the residential program for Newport Village , and the overall affordable housing program. ° Bayview Landing: The Irvine Company would agree to a smaller ' reduction in development but opposes the preclusion of develop- ment from the upper portion of the site. Proposed is 35,000 sq.ft, for restaurant uses. TO: 3.6ki Planning Commission - 13. ° Westbay: The Irvine Company disagrees with a reclassification of Westbay in connection with the proposed General Plan Amendment. The Irvine Company agrees to the affordable housing program, but has ' concerns regarding the mix of low and moderate -income units and the period of affordability. ' The Irvine Company does not agree with the commercial/residential phasing program. The requirement of issuance of permits and substantial construction on 800 units prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Block 600 is considered unrealistic. The Irvine Company is in general agreement with all circulation system phasing conditions, except in regards to the construction on Jamboree ' Road and San Joaquin Hills Road in their particular phases. Suggested is that the Jamboree Road dedications occur early with construction completed as an adjacent improvement of Newporter North. The Irvine Company does not wish San Joaquin Hills Road construction to be tied to any phase, but will commit to construction at the earliest possible time subject to all necessary government approvals. A complete description of The Irvine Company position is contained in their letter (attached). tAnalysis of The Irvine Company Response and Staff Recommendation No analysis is necessary for Block`' 600, PCH/J"oree, Corporate Plaza West, Big Canyon/MacArthur, Newporter North, and the one -Way Couplet. ° Fashion Island: The Irvine Company has requested a slightly ' greater increase in retail and theater development than recom- mended by staff. As previously stated, it is staff's opinion that the success of the Fashion Island Retail Center is important ' to the City and that additional development there is appropriate and desirable. The addition of theater seats is seen as an important part of increasing the night-time viability of Fashion island. Staff therefore can agree with the applicant's request and recommend a total increase for Fashion Island of 188,000 sq.ft, of retail commercial and 2,500 theater seats. Civic Plaza Expansion: The Irvine Company has requested an increase in development in order to accommodate the current expansion plans for the art museum and city library. If all the additional allowable is used for institutional uses, staff has no objection to the request and recommends approval of 50,000 sq.ft. for office or institutional use, or 65,000 sq.ft. of institution- al in the Civic Plaza Expansion. The original request has been maintained as an option in the event theart museum expansion is scaled down or fails to proceed. Newport Village: The Irvine Company has concurred with the staff recommendation, but has requested' an additional amount of 1 TO: 3,(.s' ' Planning Commission - 14. development on Corporate Plaza. Not to be confused with Corporate Plaza West, Corporate Plaza is an existing Planned Community within Newport Center bounded by Coast Highway, Newport ' Center Drive, Parralon Drive, and Avocado Avenue. The maintenance of the residential designation on Newport Village has the effect of making the "straight" alignment of Avocado Avenue ' the most appropriate. This makes the original Corporate Plaza planning area the same as exists in land use regulations today. Currently, the Newport Beach General Plan designates the site for 365,200 sq.ft, The P-C development text includes a site plan accommodating 450,000 sq.ft. The reduction in square footage was part of the reductions imposed in GPA 79-1. in agreeing to the Newport Village residential designation, The Irvine Company wishes to re-establish the 450,000 sq.ft. originally planned in Corporate Plaza, of this 84,800 sq.ft, addition, the applicant ' has indicated that 80,000 sq.ft. would be limited to use for an athletic/health club. If approved, the request of The Irvine Company would result in an , overall floor area ratio of 0.28 in the Corporate Plaza area. This is identical to the proposals for Corporate Plaza West and Avocado/MacArthur previously recommended for approval by staff. The establishment of this use (athletic club) is beneficial in ' two ways: 1) The use will expand the activity hours in the Corporate Plaza area, As previously stated, the expansion of evening, night-time and weekend activities in Newport Center is ' considered a benefit] and 2) An athletic club has a high likeli- hood of attracting a numb r; of Newport Center employees before To and after working hours. a result, many vehicular trips can be deflected from peak hour use of arterials by such a development. Staff is, therefore, in agreement with the request and recommends approval. , Avocado/MacArthur. The Irvine Company agrees with the staff recommendation, but wishes to request addition of a day-care facility on the site of 10,000 sq.ft. The establishment of a daycare center in Newport Center is not opposed by staff. The location on Avocado/MacArthur is considered acceptable. Block 800: The Irvine Company opposes any deletion of office , development in Block 800 ftom the original request+ indicating that it is the mid -to -high rise office which provides the revenue stream necessary to fund roadway improvements and sustain the , affordable housing program. Staff maintains the previously stated position that the requested ' intensity of development is far out of scale with surrounding development. Staff continues to recommend a reduction in addi- tional development to a maximum 300,000 sq.ft. Bayview Landing: The Irvine Company disagrees with the staff recommended reduction in development on the Bayview Landing site. Now requested is 35,000 sq.ft, to allow approximately four I J 3.a` I I Ji I I CI' TO: Planning Commission - 15. restaurant facilities with construction allowed on the upper level of site. Staff continues to oppose a high level of devel- opment on this site, and also opposes construction on the upper pad level. It is possible that structures could be placed in the slope area. This could achieve The Irvine Company goal of some views of Upper Newport Newport Bay from the structures while still maintaining public views from the upper level. This type of development would, of course be permitted only if agreed to by the California Coastal Commission. There has also been some discussion that the proposed Teen Center could be accommodated on this site. Staff is, therefore, revising the previous recommen- dation to allow three restaurant facilities with a maximum total development of 25,000 sq.ft. One of these facilities may be used for a Teen Center. Development should still be precluded from the upper level of the site, but may occur on the lower level or on the slope. No structure should be allowed which is higher than the upper site level, and should be sited and designed to preserve views of Upper Newport Bay and Newport Dunes. ° Affordable Housing: The Irvine Company is in agreement with most components of the affordable housing program, including the 30% affordability requirement subject to resolution of the mix of low and moderate income units and the term of affordability. There is a full discussion of the staff's affordable housing recommendations in the 4/24/86 staff report. The housing impact analysis indicates the proleAt generates a hiigh need for housing in the lower income range§:t; The City's Housing Element estab- lishes certain affordability standards based upon the govern- mental incentives uses. The affordable housing requirements proposed by staff are stricter than those applied to previous projects because of revisions to the City's Housing Element policies which occurred in 1984. The staff recommendation on GPA 85-1(B) will result in additional commercial/office development in excess of 1 million square feet. Although this represents a reduction from the applicant's proposal, it should provide a significant financial incentive to allow the construction of affordable housing in conjunction with the project. Since The Irvine Company has not offered a viable alternative, staff's original recommendation stands. Although a development agreement will be required for this project, it is staff's opinion that the affordable housing requirements should be determined at the General Plan Amendment stage, which allows them to be considered concurrently with the granting of significant development incentives. ° Land Use Phasing: Staff recommended an aggressive land use phasing program, requiring commencement of construction of 400 du's prior to issuance of building permits for Block 600, Avoca- do/MacArthur and Bayview Landing and commencement of construction of an additional 400 du's prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Block 600. All 800 units were to be completed prior to issuance of building permits for Block 800 and Corporate Plaza 3,(._7 ' TO- Planning Commission - 16. West. All 800 units were those within Newport Center, that is, Villa Point and Newport Village. The Irvine Company states that this program is not realistic, but offers no alternate program. Staff continues to recommend the above stated residential phasing program, with the exception that any of the residential projects can satisfy the phasing condi- ' tion. ° Circulation Phasing, The Irvine Company agrees to the proposed phasing program, but requests that right-of-way dedication for Jamboree Road and a commitment to construct San Joaquin Hills Road as early as possible be substituted for actual commencement of construction as proposed by staff. Staff has reviewed this , proposal and suggests that bonding for completion and right-of-way dedication occur in the specified phases, with the provision that The Irvine Company commit to aggressively pursue all necessary permits and completion of construction of these improvements as soon as possible. The ' attached resolutions include the revised staff recommendations contained in this report. 1 Suggested Action Hold hearings if desired, , 1) close hearing, take straw ',votes on thelvarious components of the proposed project (using the attached summary charts), and adopt Resolution No, recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) and accepting the environmental document and Resolution No. recommending approval of Amendment No. 9 to ' the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plans or 2) take straw votes on the various components of the proposed project and continue to June 5, 1986. I i 1, 6.8 TO: Planning Commission - 17. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By PATRICIA L. TEMPLE/ Environmental Coordinator GPA851/jm Attachments: 1. Summary Charts. 2. Cost/Revenue Chart - Staff Recommendation. 3. May 12, 1986 letter from The Irvine Company on San Joaquin Hills Road Implementation. 9. May 12, 1986 report from BDI, Inc., on ICU changes resulting from staff recommendation. 5. May 15, 1986 letter from The Irvine Company. 6. Draft Resolution - GPA85-1(B). 7. Draft Resolution - LCP Amendment No. 9. 8. May 8, 1986 letter from Natural History Foundation of Orange County 9. Letter from Harbor View Hills Community Associations 10. Orange County Master Plah of Regional{Parks. LAND USE OPTIONS xxxx-sszaazaaxxaxxxzsszzaaassass=zzssszrxxssxxzssszzsaszzzxzazzsaxxxzu�axszxszuazsazssz = szzzssszzz=zzxazzszzes:z I (Existing I Original ]Staff Recoa. 1 TIC IStaff Recoa. I I 1 Site IGener. Plan I Project 1 4-24-86 1 Response 1 5-22-86 1 Other I I--- --- -------------- 1----- ------ ---1------------- I----- --------- I----- -------- 1------ - ------- t------ ------- I (Fashion Island 1 66,000 CC) 1 194,000 CC) 1 234,000 CC) 1 254,000 CC) 1 254,000 CC) 1 1 I 1 1 1 1,350 (T) 1 2,500 (T) I 2,SOO (T) 'I 1 1------------------ i-------------- I-_-----------1----^------- I------------- I------------- I-------------- i IBlock 600 1 0 (0) 1 300,000 (0) 1 300,000 (0) 1 300,000 (0) 1 300,000 (0) 1 I I--------------- ----- I---- --------- 1------------- -I --------------- I-- ------------- I--- ---- - ----- I ---------------I [Civic Plaza Expansion] 0 (0) 1 50,000 (0,I)1 50,000 (0,I)1 50,000 (00,I)1 500000 (00I)1 I 1 t 14,000 (I) 1 1 for 65,000 (I) for 65,000 (I) 1 i I------------------- I ----- ---- ---- 1-------- - ----- 1---------- ---- 1 ^----------- I------------ I --------------- t IBlock 800 1 0 (0) 1 440,000 (0) 1 300,000 (0) 1 4400000 (0) 1 300,000 (0) 1 I t t 245 (R) 1 0 (R) 1 0 (R) 1 0 CR) 1 O (R) t 1 1----^-------^ t---------------1- ----I --------------1-- - I ---_ -- t------------ i IPCR/T_aiboree I n/s (0) 1 130 (R) 1 130 (R) 1 130 (R) 1 130 CR) I I (Corporate Plaza Vest I 8,400 (0) 1 - 8,400 (0) 1- 1080,400 (0) '1 108,400 (0) 1 108,400 (0) 1 1 1Newport Village 1 0 (0) 1 345,000 (0) 1 0 (0) t 0 (0) I 0 (0) 1 I t 1 750 CC) 1 60,000 CC) -1 0 CC) 1 0 CC) 1 0 CC) t 1 1 t 360 (R) 1 0 CR) 1 560 CR) 1 560 (R) 1 560 CR) 1 1 (Avocado/MacArthur i n/a-(Rl .1 44,060 (0) 1 ".44,000,(0)•-;I 44,000 (0) 1 44,000 (0) 1 1 i 1 n/s CC) I 1 1 -10,000 (C) 1 10,000 CC) I 1 1-------- ----------- 1-^---------(----- ---1-------------1 -^--I ^^----1-------------1 IBig Canyon/MacArthur 1 0 (R) 1 80 (R) I- 80 (R) 1 8o (R) 1 80 CR) t I I------------ ---- 1------------I-----------1-------------1----------1--------- i------------- t INewporter North 1 212 (R) 1 490 CR) 1 496 CR) 1 490 CR) 1 490 CR) 1 I t-----»-------- t---- - ----- --I ------------- i----------1------------- i----------- i --------- t 13ayview Landing I est. 1(R) 1 60,000 CC) 1 20,000 CC) 1 3S,000 CC) 1 25,000 CC) I 1 1--------------------- i -----------t ----------- t -^____^__-1----------- I ------- --- I ----- -------- i (Corporate Plaza 1 101,174 (0) 1 101,174 (0) 1 101,174 CO) 1 185,974 (0) 1 185,974 (0) 1 1 szs-szaza:axasazsssslzassazszxazzzsalzzas:ssszsa:autzzzs:zaz:a:zzssj �xxvsa:::azas l'zsszz:sazzzs:zatszzaa:s:szxasss) IADDITIONAL I 309,574 (0) 11,187,400 (0) 1 802,400 (0) 11,129,374 (0) 1 988,374 (0) 1 t IDEVELOP)1£NT I 66,750 CC) 1 314,000 CC) I 254,000 CC) 1 299,000 CC) 1 289,000 CC) I I (TOTALS 1 0 (T) 1 0 (T) 1 1,350 (T) 1 2,500 (T) 1 2,500 (T) 1 I 1 1 832 (R) 1 700 (R) 1 1,260 (R) 1 1,260 (R) 1 1,260 (R) I i 1 1 14,000 (I) 1 0 CI) 1 0 (I) for 65,000 (I) for 65,000 CI) I I zszzz=szsxsxxxaxasxaxsszzszsass:azxxsaaszazszzzzzszaxzzszzzzaa:zzzza:zxxsssszaszaszzzasazz:assassassasxzzszzxsxzszsxszs Totals include existing allowable plus proposed projects. U, I cl .a 3,-70 Circulation System Options Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard: ° delete couplet: MacArthur Boulevard Major Arterial Avocado Avenue Secondary Arterial (Coast Highway to San Miguel Dr.) ° maintain Primary Couplet designation MacArthur Boulevard north of Ford Road to Route 73: ° Major -Modified Arterial (8 lanes, divided) ° Major Arterial (6 lanes, divided) San Joaquin Hills Road east of Spyglass Hill Road: ° Primary Arterial (4 lanes, divided) ° Major Arterial ( 6 lanes, divided) 1.1 1 Other Provisions: All other affordable housing, land use phasing, and circulation system phasing are as defined in the draft GPA 85-1(B) Resolu- tion. GPA851 FAOFM TAZB-JJMU Calalate an a Cre lots Far All Ilres STIEEf MILE Fmm Expaditwes INWsI i p blic Yw1a IUtle n Trial Lacs Arfoe Met We Nai: and Tress title a Tatar Expoditwes Strut Ntlss M Table IN Fat Far Strout NiU Iil Table d MMM LW IETFME MM EUF rtw PIOXE 01 FwIm Rf14116 M3 CM OF NOWN, SIM FWL lMM M & 1190 MIPwt�et ltewlgmdswf �!o w x m x B Wh Na iwlspnet volae pr Caae 14* Esttnte 1• ANMW WIIO Im A W ty Ta bin 1Lfi ads Fr NO Aaewad Wlxn CwrwA Itie fir TOO W-001 i 70 W-Ml xws Aaael Ewaltdia Fctri LM it; Mrs Na Arole NYtsl The 1Sli h Arm newt *an act iuloda aw mammal p jwtlaa =611 tit reWr alalato a sigU Year at amplatiae of darolop Ll 16511 1,741 Sm 0 7e46 M14 S,1R ' REC�ywEp� ptp."^M MAY.15 J !s NEWP CRY.-s �II iZAW' I� Qfmitinyed an next page ..... ... Table 2 315M L97 P03M 61111f1TT 90 ME FICI 1 FILL PRflDP M 151147e6 Newport Center Braelopard amps Staff P VMI Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 T B 9 11 It Corporate Bit Cary/ Civic Block Block Mocadof Newport Plaza Fashion Sayview PL7V Nee Nngorter Plaza Its 680 M Nc kthr Village Rest Island lading Jukron Frthr North Espan Total MOMENT OFMIITIES Como r Building Space 19F) Office ^ M ^ M 44,1M 1 iM,NI 1 1 t 1 1 51,M1 794,Me Retail t 1 1 t t 234,IM 1 1 e 1 t 234,eM Restaurant 1 1 t 1 1 1 24M 1 a t ISM) I2,1M I Total 31km 3M,M1 44,eM a IKSM 234,111 21,Mt 1 t 1 42,1M 1,1M,1M Theatre Bests 1 t 1 1 t 1,351 1 1 t 1 11,350 1 •Hamming Units t 124M 1 20 1 1 1 in 11 Zion 1 443 Street Niles 1 1 1 / 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 a EEN MOMENT YME FFCW 111 Per SF Co•er Bldg Space WIN 2M 2M 173 175 175 175 Retail 125 I9 125 Ikstaerant 225 225 Per theatre Seat-__ -. 2M1 ON Per H oasiq lout M,MI 51,1M Skits M,111 M,IM a 10 REVRDRE)II vam y VRIE (Sows) Com neial building Space Office 61,eM 61* 7,7M 1 17,50 1 1 1 1 t b,751 IA951 Retail e 1 1 1 1 35,101 1 4 t t t 35,1M Restaurant t 1 1 1 1 1 4,= 1 1 1 (1,SM) 2,70 Total 61,Mg 6%M 7,701 1 17,SM 356IM 4,5M 1 1 1 6,9M 191,751 Theatre 1 e 1 1 1 2,711 t t 1 t (47M) e Hmiq limits t t19,6M1 1 1661M 1 t 1 11,411 6,411 22,M 1 33,444 Total 69,10 4164M 7,71e 116,011 17,506 37,81111 4,50 11,4411 6,418 22,241 4,41 227,191 EXISTING RaSEM VFL (tMels) 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 a • e 1 ASMSED YR. ICOM (t11B's) 61,I01 AM 7,70 16,M1 17,50t 37,BM 4,518 11,40 Fy4M 22,24e 4,251 227,191 a In 1955 Constant Sollars. Source: City of Newport Beach; The Irvine Cowpony; Natelson Levarder Witney. t�J Tame I WAVAtad........... pep 21 3151Cf2 IV l KWK M WBKTW K61H.TIM FR7i NW14/16 PER ClIT F IEI M Iiml nsx 1MRT am It= on" Cantor I "Impowt ltaaaas Z am FrCMM................. �eidrmitaI Cep Sigle- home- kiti- "it local Ienowl art WAR - Family Faeily Farylon Family IMr MWI 1eta11 et Aimee net ]ads lbtel Iidmii FX7M WIS Pli Umit W Umit Far limit it limit Ier SF its r hr f Ks i Itr: Itr 110111 ow mmm I limits 17,7Y 7,431 430 93 w f$ sl 421 361% 11,719 M I 4655 WMK FICI the k'eFaK7 Taew-Urennt LM lM LM Lr LOW LVW LOW LOAF LM57 MIND All MsiWe alaatiw tar Taos Tam War them kgwit WO i Is Tao All star 1ST.93 Lima ILA IL67 IL14 Lad/ LMM _LIM LU43 LISO LM Ml Vari*k Allocation, he Tables M, p, E AlI Total i37 ISLSI MIA Mt IILSI 3514 121M La! 0,29" LOM, LSMT _LIDS L67 LIM 1^14 ill Wriaae lUlocou" Per TWs Mt, p, EMI LIM 1.9111 LIM 1,01.06 utpon E Iarmits ibe of"i F,,ty 1125 110 SS9 SLS► IL75 3S37 ILle LIM LOW LMU LOU LOU JOB 141 *riaum, Mlatlem far Tablos lK, p, i q1 Asar From Star Afe tin 7173 44.13 SLM SSA 3L3 L0471 Last L-071 Last LKII LOIS[ La71 Lan M25 MI MriWe Allocation par TWs K1, or, i MI ttJ ILeVd it ierieas QQ Rtl RLT RD t®I LM tM! LOIY Ltlli! LOM 4.91 Mt Variable AlloctUw Rr tables a, p, I AlI Rbr Billed id ..IST! 1MSI ML33 1tl.S LOULima Lima Lail Lit LIM LOU 17.4 MI Vri" situation Par TAM" Ma p, i qI j M i *nsation Food HASILM 11M 14.2 LMII LMM LMM LMM LMM ME let YriWr Mlatis Iftr Table as-p, i Ml/a ub" Font MY LO JI M in LMM MIS LIIM LIM LMM LM LM All Vri*b Allatlem fir Ta►in KI, p, E AlI PAW is Ls Fd 3LM ZLS L1.f1 EL23 LMM LMI LOW LMM LMM LM at Variable Allocation her Tables a, p, i-MI Rny Frhit i Pa: Food Wit 1L.il 61.11 OLtt LMR LOU L15U LOW LMR tLSI All Varlabie Allocation Per Taus N p, a MI Imildiy beise In Fd L71 L71 - L71 L71 LW4 LMA 'LM74 LM14 MI Vr7We Alloretion For Tablas a, p, i MI Lima L41 MI VNIWe Allocation Ks Was K1, p, i AlI TOW fa+aer Tattees Ef181IW FXIi E47.76 ML31 417.0 SO.9 U114 1.11M L4M L3M6 LSM y5a.a feral r-"M ! lilie Safety 7.M 111 Wit 12114 7.11 tIMR 7.110 ULU Lima Lima LMa LOU LOU 1.91 Ml Variable AlIocatlea he Tablas 16, IK, i Tait i� � ►oblie lerhe MIS SLSI 3LM SLM 8.3713 LMM LM3 LMI Lila LMM 1.4131 LMM Luz ALIT 11111 Vririle Allation tar Tablas O, a, b Kit II Ubrary 1st LSS SO LA LMM LOW LMM LMM LMM LMM LM Ibrlabie AlIQ Par Taos M )4 i Mt for a rfs Only My Iwebos i Motivation 71.47 StM X15 WIN LMI LMM LIM LMM LMM LM LM MI VariWe Allocation Per Table )R Ill, I All Capital Iepm m eds SL2E SLA M.X SLa Lao &OW LIM Lab 0,1M Variable Alix ter Tlbls )4 M. i Mi Earl Strart Trams M71 MI Variable Allocation Par Tablas )6, )1, 4 AlI TOW Ebpd ratan 43LW 3XII 411.16 3M.1E LUM 96141 LIM 1.M LIM IM91 - )ET NEV IM Ev 2IL79 MM IL75 IM42 L07t 1.6311 LIII2 LIM 2.47114 y41s.91 �! late. theme faettee " free Me *dvd Fiscal Impact 1bdel of Ibraro IMS, blow Ale toe Citys 19" bmi1a4• '. Sao": City of kwt seact,; Aateisan 1.erandr. Nitrey. 1_� !_ ' M M M M M M M� Table 3 315M L57 RKIRL CITY OF NEWPBIT 1130.11EVr7oE o EIPWITUIE PROMIM 15/l4/06 1 1 FILL DEVElo FMT tiN 19M m6TNIT W- AP5) Newport Center Derelopma Dhanges Staff Proposal f t 2 3 4 5 Site 6 7 a 9 11 11 Corporate oil Gay/ Civic BIC& Rod Avocado/ Newport Plus Fadiim Bgvis PCIV Nac Nsportor Plan Its 608 oM Rilthor Village Ilest Island LwWiag Jamboree Athir North Espan Total in thoasads of dollars REARS Property Taxes Secured 1t2 75 14 31 33 71 a 19 12 41 a 424 ", Ikeecroxd 14 14 2 1 5 it 1 1 1 1 2 40 Total 126 19 16 31 37 at 9 19 2 41 11 472 lases Other Than property Sales I Use-Tu 32 12 5 17 1t 212 31 it 7 23 011) 347 All Other 6 (I) 1 7 3 9 1— 5 3 11 1 47 Total 41 li 6 24 13 211 39 —•' 15 9 34 (9) 395 Licenses 1 Permits 15 12 2 3 5 12 1 2 1 4 2 59 On of Nora• o Property 14 1 2 11 5 it 1 7 4 /5 2 74 Avv From Other Agencies 5 (3) 1 7 2 4' 1 4 3 9 1 31 Charles for Service 16 1 2 13 5 13 1 1 5 11 2 64 Other General Find 26 1 4 21 9 21 2 13 1 21 4 134 Park 1 Amereatim Ford 1 (3) 1 3 1 1 a 2 1 4 1 6 Likwy FLrd 1 it) 1 1 a / 1 1 / 1 1 2 State Gas Tax Ford 1 (5) 1 4 1 1 1 3 2 6 9 9 Fires, Forfeit 1 Pen Ford 16 1 2 13 5 13 1 a 5 11 2 13 luildirl Excise Tax Ford 2 1 ' 1 2 1 2 1— 1 1 2 1 .12 ' Total Reeenaes 261 lie 36 129 12 367 55 14 52 1M 14 1,362 ETIiNDITIRES Beim I6uenrent 2 1 1 1 1 I / 1 1 2 1 11 Public Safety 31 (22) 4 43 11 124 21 20 17 64 (6) 319 Public Works 1 (13) 1 11 1 1 1 7 4 15 9 23 Library 1 (1) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Park, Beaches 1 Recreation 1 IIR 1 a 1 1 1 5 3 11 9 17 Capital Improvements 23 1 3 to 1 11 2 12 7 25 3 121 Total Experdlturs 55 (45) 1 02 to 144 31 53 33 114 (3) 491 NET SIIIP1.113/(DEFICIT) 215 141 21 47 64 223 25 31 19 65 17 871 —Y to Total Revenue 78.73 144.23 77.53 36.37 77.53 61.81 45.65 36.37 X37 36.37 119.36 63.90 —s to Total Expeiditures 370.22 (32&111 344.93 57.15 344.99 155.19 8199 57.15 57.15 57.15 (616.50) 177.61 tJ i %j Sourcei City of Newpvt Peach; The Imae Ccupany; Welton Levarder fttaey. h� THE IRVINE COMPANY May 12, 1986 Ll Ms. Patricia Temple ' Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach - 3300 Newport Boulevard ' Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Pat: Subject: Newport Center G.P.A. - Timing of San Joaquin Hills , Road Implementation At your request, and in response to questions raised during the last , Newport Center GPA Planning Cottmtission hearing, I have asked the consulting firm of Larry Seeman Associates, Inc. (LSA) to give me an ' assessment of the potential timing of implementing the extension of San Joaquin Hills Road between its current terminus at Spyglass Hill Road and Pelican Hill Road. They asso4sed the potential processing and implementation schedule under two scenarios: its inclusion into the ' Pelican Hill Road process, and its schedule if processed as an independent project. As you can see in the attached, even if processing were to go smoothly, inclusion of the San Joaquin Hills Road extension would add approximately four (4) months to the Pelican Hill Road implementation schedule. , However, such a processing strategy has a strong potential of further delay which seems quite risky in light of the potential implementation schedule for San Joaquin Hills Road as an independent project. I would like to add that the independent processing schedule for San ' Joaquin Hills Road may be a bit optimistic since the July issuance of an "NOP" assumes completion of a fair amount of detailed engineering work ' within the next six (6) weeks that, realistically, would take longer and is not yet under way. This could well add one to two (1-2) months to the schedule, but would not appear to change the conclusions. 1 I] 620 Newport Center Drive. PC. Box I, Newport Beach, California 92658.8904 • (714) 720.2000 Ms. Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach May 12, 1986 Page 2 I hope the attached assessment from LSA provides the information you were looking for regarding this issue. Please call me at 720-2363 if you have any questions. Very truly yours, A M. E. Erickso Director, Transportation (ETU) Policy Management & Entitlement ME40/j d Attachment cc: Rich Edmonston Don Webb I Natural Resource Management ' Lisa Transportation Engineering Environmental Assessment ' Community Planning nt:NURANoun ' To: Mike Erickson From: Carol lyn Lobel ' Subject: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD EXTENSION TO PELICAN HILL ROAD Date: May 9, 1986 This memo is intended to address several questions regarding the rela- tionship of the proposed San Joaquin Hills Road extension to the ongoing studies of Pelican Hill Road. We have examined two alternatives for proces- sing the environmental clearances for these two roadways. The schedule.for the Pelican Hill Road FIR anticipates a Draft FIR in June, 1986, and certi- fication of the FIR in November, 1986, The constr ction schedule calls for a start date of April, 1987, and gompletion in October of 1988, ' The first alternative for environmental processing is to incorporate the San Joaquin Hills Road into the Pelican Hill Road FIR. This would require that additional traffic studies be prepared and field work be conducted, ' since this alignment has not previously been completely surveyed. The area in the immediate vicinity of the San Joaquin Hills Road extension is highly sensitive for archaeological and cultural resources, and a survey would need to be conducted. In addition to cultural resource surveys, field work would ' include biological surveys. Although this area has been mapped in previous reports, the project site would need to be spot checked to confirm the con- clusions of prior documents. It is expected that this preliminary research ' and analysis would require a two month period. In addition, other environ- mental topics such as air quality and noise would have to be analyzed for the San Joaquin Hills Road in the FIR. This analysis would require an additional four weeks during preparation of the screencheck document. The result of ' this scenario is that a Screencheck FIR for the Pelican Hill Road FIR, which includes the San Joaquin Hills Road extension, would be completed some time between late September and late October, 1986. It is expected that such a ' document could be certified by the County in March or late April, 1987. Assuming concurrent construction of both roads and a start date of July, 1987, project completion would be in January, 1989. ' The second alternative would be for San Joaquin Hills Road to be pro- cessed as a separate, stand alone, project from the Pelican Hill Road FIR. ' 0 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 555 a Newport Beach, Catdornfa 92660 • j714) 640.6363 ' Cl 2606 Finhth Sfrpm 0 Rprkpipv C'ahrnrpu a4vIns 141QI Rd I.A04n 3.'78 The schedule would be typical of a roadway EIR, assuming the City of Newport Beach as the lead agency. Two considerations with this 'scenario are con- straints relative to amending the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) (from six lanes to four lanes), and potential coastal zone implica- tions. However, our preliminary research has concluded that the amendment to the MPAH would be handled as a discretionary action in the EIR, and such an amendment would be processed and requested concurrently with the environ- mental clearance process. It also appears that a portion of the San Joaquin Hills extension is on the border of the coastal zone boundary. However, ' since the proposed four -lane road is consistent with the adopted LCP, any review and permit approval by the Coastal Commission would be verifying the project's compliance with such plan. The schedule for completion and certi- fication of an environmental document for this type of an EIR would require approximately eight to nine months. This would mean that if the NOP were issued in July of 1986, certification could be expected to occur in approxi- mately March or April of 1987. This assumes that adequate design information is available to start the EIR, and that the County does not review the Screencheck EIR. Given a construction start of July, 1987, and a nine month construction period, the project would be complete in March of 1988. ' In conclusion, it does not appear ,advantageous to combine these two projects in one environmental do�Cument; due to the fact that the Pelican Hill Road EIR is well underway. The San Joaquin Hills Road is actually a sepa- rate, independent project which will have several issues and concerns unique and unrelated to Pelican Hill Road. For example, there are residential neighborhoods immediately adjacent to the existing portions of San Joaquin ' Hills Road which would be tied into the extension. Input from these home- owners regarding the impacts of the roadway could be a major factor during analysis of the project. The intent of the Pelican Hill Road document is to be a construction level EIR. In order to analyze the San Joaquin Hills Road extension at the same level of detail, extensive engineering, geotechnical, traffic and field work studies would have to be conducted and prepared prior to issue analysis in the EIR. The end result is that these studies would add ' considerably to the time frame of completing such a document and to the construction schedule. ' CL/md(738) 1 ._ 3190 CG1 Airport Loop Drive May 12, 1986 BASMACIYAN-DARN ELL,, INC. Costa Mesa, CalHornia 92626 Ms. Pat Temple City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 ENGINEERING AND PLANNING Transportation, Trattic, Municipal, Transit I (714) 557-5760 ' Subject: Proposed Newport Center General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) Additional ICU Computations for Land Use Alternative Recommended by Staff Dear Ms. Temple: In accordance with our discussions on this subject, we have performed additional intersection capacity utilization (ICU) computations at four intersections to assess differences between the traffic impacts associated with the land use alternative recommended by staff and the land uses originally proposed. The four intersections included t4 this supplemejntal analysis are: o MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road o MacArthur Boulevard at San Miguel Drive o MacArthur Boulevard at Coast Highway o Coast Highway at Goldenrod Avenue These four intersections were selected for the supplemental analysis, because they would be the likely locations for poten- tial increases in ICU, if any, associated with the land use alternative recommended by staff, compared to the originally proposed land uses. At other intersections, ICU values would be expected to remain unchanged or to be lower. The ICU computations have been performed for the land use alter- native recommended by staff in the staff report presented to the Planning Commission at its meeting on April 24, 1986. For purposes of the ICU computations, it is assumed that the phasing of development would be consistent with the initially proposed phasing for each parcel. Thus, it is assumed that the land use would be developed within the timeframe as originally proposed, even though the type and intensity of the use would be different. P I I ' Ms. Pat Temple City of Newport Beach May 12, 1986 Page Two I� I t 17I The analysis indicates that the differences in ICU are very small. The ICU values at the four intersections differ by approximately .01 between the originally proposed project and the currently proposed land use. Attached is a summary table presenting the differences'in ICU for each intersection. ICU worksheets are presented following the summary table. Please call me if I can answer any questions, further information. Sincerely, BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. Herman Basmaciyan, P.E. or if you require 1989 Existing Traffic, Plus Regional Growth, Plus Committed Projects, Plus Phase I of GPA B5-1(B): o With Existing Lanes o With Committed Improvements o With Additional Improvements SUMMARY OF COMPARISON OF ICU VALUES MacArthur/ MacArthur/ MacArthur/ Coast Highway San'Joaquin San Miguel Coast Highway Goldenrod Original* Staff** Original* Staff** Original* Staff** Original* Staff** 1.08 1.08 1.01 1.02 1.04 1.04 1.31 1.30 1.05 1.07 1.01(a) 1.02(a) 0.84 0.85 1.31(a) 1.30(a) 0.91 0.91 0.87 0.88 (b) (b) 1.14 1.13 1993 Existing Traffic, Plus Regional Growth, Plus Committed Projects, - Plus Phase I of GPA 85-1(B); o With 1989 Improvements 0.92 0:92 O.83 0.83 O.77 0.76 1.16 1_I6 I � o Plus Phase II of GPA 85-1(B); 0.99 0.99 0.94 0.94 0.79 0.77 1.18 1.17 _ with 1989 Improvements _ o Plus Phase II of GPA 85-1(B); 0.90 0.90 0.81 0.81 (c) (c) (d) (d) with 1989 and Additional 1993 _... Improvements * Land uses at Newport Center and peripheral sites as proposed by the Irvine Company and presented and analyzed in the traffic study for the EIR for the proposed GPA. ** Land uses at Newport Center and peripheral sites as presented as the staff recommendation to the Planning Commission at its meeting on April 24, 1986 (a) No committed improvements at this location (b) No additional 1989-improvements beyond the committed are required at this intersection; however, the construction of Pelican Hill Road will reduce the 1989 ICU further. (c) No further 1993 improvements would be necessary beyond the committed improvements and the construction of Pelican Hill Road. (d) No additional I993 improvements were identified at this intersection. 3.$a. 1 I 7 �J 1 si* THE IRVINE COMPANY May 15, 1986 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California SUBJECT: Newport Center GPA 85-1b Chairman Person and Commission Members: RECEIVED PlanninS Dc!plrm0nt MAY 161986 CITY OF NEV/POW BEACH CALIF. ' Our company has reviewed the staff recommendation regarding GPA 85-1b as presented in your staff report of April 24, 1986. We would like to offer a number of comments and responses to staffs recommendations. ' Before discussing specific issues, we would like to provide for the Commission's consideration a brief overview of our planning concept for the completion of Newport Center. ' Planning Ob.iectives At this stage, Newport Center is twenty years old. We believe it is critical at this stage of its development to reassess and reconfirm future directions for Newport Center as(a lOiness, retail, and residential focal point in the Newport Beach community., Our general planning objectives for Newport Center include the following: ' o Make Newport Center more of a community focal point by providing a greater variety of goods, services, activities and residential opportunities in an exciting architectural setting. ' o Resolve long-term planning, transportation, and housing issues for Newport Center and peripheral sites. ' o Complete the undeveloped parcels in and around Newport Center and upgrade existing uses so as to ensure the long-term vitality and economic viability of the Center. ' o Provide for a continuing strong balance of mutually -supportive land uses and activities including residential, office, retail and recreational. ' o• Improve transportation, by completing the city's arterial system in the Newport Center area, and by contributing to regional transportation solutions through the construction of Pelican Hill Road. We are also implementing transportation system management techniques such as an experimental shuttle service. ' 550 Newport Center Drive, PO Box I, Newport Beach, California 92658-8904 • (714) 720-2000 31 Given these basic objectives, we submitted to the City a plan which we believe achieves a desirable balance between land use and transportation , needs, and is responsive to the needs of the local business and residential community. We believe that our plan for Newport Center, as submitted, is an appropriate and defensible plan, and this is born out by the conclusions and recommendations of the environmental impact report. The plan has evolved ' somewhat during the last year as we have discussed our goals for Newport Center with the community. In addition to our original proposal for Newport Center and Fashion Island, it is our desire to provide for a variety of ' special uses or amenities such as day care, a health club, cultural and community facilities, and additional dining and entertainment opportunities which people in the community have said they would like to see here. , Response to City Staff Recommendations We greatly appreciate the City staff's thoughtful evaluation of our planning ' proposal. It represents a thorough analysis of the land use, transportation and environmental issues pertinent to Newport Center. As a general comment, we are willing to work with the City in examining alternatives to our original proposal where such alternatives are appropriate and feasible. In most cases, staff's recommendations are compatible with our planning objectives for Newport Center as outlined above. ' There are, however, a number of the recommended staff alternatives to our proposed plans which raise some significant concerns on our part or which require further discussion and resolution. These are as follows: ' o Significant reductions in office space recommended by staff, particularly in Block 800. ' o Substitution of residentiallunits�lfor office and retail space in Newport Village. ' o Requirements for construction and phasing of affordable housing which are significantly stricter than applied to previous projects. ' o Ability to provide special uses and amenities (such as day care, health club) if reductions in commercial use are adopted. The office space in Block 800 requested in our proposal is critical to our , goal of providing additional high quality mid -rise office space in order to support retail vitality at Fashion Island, to retain existing tenants needing expansion space and to attract new office tenants that are needed to broaden , the range of business and professional services available in the Center. Further, office development of this type provides our company with the financial ability to commit to major community benefits such as ' transportation improvements and to provide for affordable housing. The Block 800 site is physically suited to the amount and type of office space proposed. And the City's environmental documentation identifies no impacts from our proposal that cannot be adequately mitigated. ' Regarding the City staff's desire for additional housing in Newport Center, ' we believe that multi -family housing as recommended on the Newport Village site is a feasible use of that property. However, our ability to pursue residential development at this location in lieu of office and retail is ' impacted by the significant reduction of office space suggested by staff in Block 800. The City's Housing Element policies call for "development incentives" to encourage the private production of affordable housing. Yet, the staff recommendation as proposed imposes some significant disincentives to our company in the form of reduced office development opportunities and in potential increased housing subsidy requirements. In terms of requirements to phase residential with office construction (page ' 30 of the April 24, 1986 staff report), it is recommended by staff that 400 DU's be under construction prior to issuance of building permits for Block 600, Bayview Landing and Avocado/MacArthur, and that another 400 DU's be ' under construction prior to occupancy of Block 600. This condition is not a practical one in terms of the time needed to resolve site planning issues and secure building and coastal permits for residential projects. It is our intent to construct the residential projects at the earliest possible time. ' In fact the Newporter North and Villa Point projects have Mortgage Revenue Bond Financing commitments which require early construction in order to retain this favorable financing. The development agreement for Newport Center will guarantee the City completion of all of the residential units prior to completion of all of the office portions of the project. ' Lastly, with respect to special uses such as day care, a health club and additional civic/cultural facilities, we request Planning Commission consideration of allocating development rights for those specific uses. These amenities will enhance Newport Center as more of a community focal ' point. ' More detailed comments on issues relating to land use, housing and phasing of development are attached for your consideration. Wg look forward to further ' resolution of these issues in the bbstlinterest of the Newport Beach community and Newport Center. Sincerely, Monica Florian Vice President Policy Management and Entitlement ' MF:lw Attachment i lJ z_ IRVINE COMPANY RESPONSE TO CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GPA 85-1b LAND USE Irvine Co. Staff Irvine Co. Site _Request Recommendation Comments Fashion Island 1281000 (C) 168,000 (C) We concur with staff recommendation for 10350 (T) additional retail sq. ft. We could utilize up to 20,000 sq. ft. above what staff recommended (total of 188,000 sq.ft.) for future remodelling of existing department stores. We agree with staff regarding theatre seats. However, a minimum of 2500 seats would be needed for a feasible cinema complex. Block 600 300,000 (0) 300,000 (0) Concur with staff. Civic Plaza 50,000 (O/I) 50,000 (O/I) Request additional 15,000 (I) to allow more — flexibility in planning for museum, library, — community meeting facilities. Block 800 440,000 (0) 300,000 (0) Disagree with proposed reduction. Office supports Fashion Island retail. Office space needed to accommodate expansion needs of major tenants. office helps finance roads and other City objectives. Site is physically suited to amount and type of — development proposed. There are no impacts in EIR that cannot be mitigated. City will be able to review design at site plan review stage. PCH/Jamboree 130 (R) 130 (R) Concur with staff. Corporate Plaza 1000000 (0) 100,000 (0) Concur with staff. West C- Commercial O- Office I- Instutional R- Residential T- Theatre 5/15/86 Irvine Co. Staff Irvine Co. Site Request Recommendation Comments Newport Village 345,000 (0) 0 (0) Residential designation acceptable, provided 59,250 (C) 0 (C) provided mid -rise office is retained in 0 (R) 560 (R) plan as requested Avocado/ 44,000 (0) 44,000 (0) Request additional 10,000 sq. MacArthur ft. for day care facility. Big Canyon/ 80 (R) 80 (R) Concur with.staff. MacArthur Newporter North 278 (R) 278 (R) Concur with staff. (490 total) (490 total) Bayview Landing 60,000 (C) 20,000 (C) Request 35,000 (C) for 4 restaurants. Our company will construct a view park in _ conjunction with construction of restaurant use on upper portion of site. corporate Plaza Not part of -- -- _ We request an additional 80,000 sq. ft. original request for a health club/fitness center. Existing general plan allows 365,000 (0) total. Existing P-C text site plan is designed to accommodate a total of 450,000 sq. ft. The requested sq. ft. would be compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the intensity of use originally planned for Corporate Plaza. AFFORDABLE HOUSING Staff Recommendation County Median -Income: 23 DU's County Low -Income: 289 DU's City Very Low -Income: 141 DU's (Fair Market Rent) 5/15/86 Irvine Company Comments Housing Element policies pertinent to residential projects under GPA 85-lb, including Newport Village, call for up to 30% of dwelling units produced as affordable to low and moderate income households. Our company could agree to this requirement, subject to resolution of the mix of low -2- AFFORDABLE HOUSING (cont.) Affordable term: 20 Years Priority to section 8 Certificate Program Proposed phasing requires start of construction of 800 DU's prior to occupancy of first major office project. TRANSPORTATION PHASING Pages 30 through 32 of the April 24, 1986 staff report sets forth recommendations and conditions of approval relating to the deletion of the Avocado Couplet, Traffic Phasing ordinance requirements, dedication of right-of-way, and phasing of transportation improvements with development. 5/15/86 W T and moderate income units and the period of affordability, based on an economic assessment taking into consideration 1) overall permitted development under the GPA, 2) phasing requirements, 3) the total cost of transportation improvements, fees, dedications, and other City -imposed costs, and 4) the availability of governmental assistance for affordable housing, and favorable financing. Staff recommended phasing requirements not realistic or necessary. Due to Mortgage Revenue Bond Financing commitments, we will construct 400 or more units, including a percentage of affordable units, early in overall development program. Development agreement will ensure production of housing. We agree generally with the staff recommendations with the following exceptions: — o Regarding the completion of MacArthur Blvd. to 6-lane arterial standards between PCH and San Miguel, we are agreeable to deferring ultimate improvements until the effects of added capacity from Pelican Hill Road can be assessed. We will dedicate ultimate right-of-way and grade for ultimate improvements as part of adjacent development. (page 31, #3) -3- M M M M M M M' M M M � M M M M M "itMaf"ecc darn _ M M M Irvine Company comments OPEN SPACE city staff Recommendation Regarding Westbay, consideration should be given to eliminating the remaining 40 residential units on the Westbay site and require dedication of the developable area for regional park purposes. (page io) 5/15/86 o Regarding phasing of the final 50% of Fashion Island with the completion of Jamboree Road south of San Joaquin Hills Road, we disagree that this improvement is needed to serve Fashion Island development. We will agree to early dedication of the necessary right-of-way and will pur§ue implementation of the Jamboree improvements early in the development program in conjunction with residential development of the Newporter North site. (page 32,#3) o With respect to the extension of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road, our company agrees that this is a significant improvement which will serve longer -term _ regional transportation needs, but is not required to serve the proposed development in Newport Center. This improvement should not be tied to any specific development project in Newport Center. We will work _ with the City and County to confirm the appropriate master plan designation of ti:is roadway, and we will construct the road extension at the earliest possible time subject to all necessary governmental approvals. (page 32,#6) Irvine Company Comments The recommended deletion of allowed residential development on Westbay plus dedication for regional park purposes are not reasonably related to to the planning issues pertinent to Newport Center. The Newport Center plan already incorporates significant open space benefits including: -4- City Staff Recommendations Irvine Company Comments 5/15/86 o 120 acres of recreational open space in the form of a golf course. o Major commitment to roadway landscaping and upgraded landscaped edge treatment throughout Newport Center. o View park and public trail improvements at Bayview Landing site. o View parks, preservation of major habitat areas, and public recreational use of bluff setback areas on the Newporter North site. o Neighborhood park to be developed as part of Newport Village residential development. --Given these open space amenities, the Westbay dedication is not justified as part of the Newport Center GPA. Issues regarding the ultimate use of the Westbay parcel should be resolved through future discussions with the City and County over the feasibility of establishing an upper Bay regional park. -5- M I ' RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE, AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BE ADOPTED, AND, IN RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SAID AMENDMENTS, • RECOMMEND THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROJECT BE CERTIFIED AS ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT I F F n H u WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan, the Land Use, Recreation and Open Space, and Circulation Elements have been prepared; and WHEREAS, said elements of the General Plan set forth objec- tives and supporting policies which serve as a guide for the future development of the City of Newport Beacht and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach, the Planning Commission has held B public hearing to consider certain amendments to the above referenced elements of the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, it is the goal of the City to address the com- pietion of Newport Center in a comprehensive manner, enabling the phasing of the project1with significant improvepents to the local and s regional circulation systems and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City to provide for a balance of employment and housing in the consideration of mixed use developments and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has, in the General Plan Housing Element, established policies to increase the production of housing in the community and to provide affordable housing oppor- tunities in the City; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes its responsibility to designate sufficient vacant land for residential use with appropriate standards to produce housing at the lowest possible cost consistent with Section 65913 of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, it is the goal of the City to provide a balanced community, with a variety of housing types and designs and housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community; and WHEREAS, it is the goal of the City to preserve and increase affordable housing for low and moderate income households# and ' WHEREAS, it is the policy of the city to eliminate con- to housing increase density, ' straints production and allowed wherever possible# and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City to provide incentives ' to the building industry to facilitate the provision of housing for low and moderate income households# and ' WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach recognises the unique opportunity to provide housing opportunities in conjunction with commercial development in and around Newport Centers and , WHEREAS, residential development in and around Newport Center housing for will promote opportunities all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin or colot# and t WHEREAS, approval of the project, with all related land use provisions, circulation system improvements and phasing, will provide , for a balance between the planned land uses in the City and the circulation system; and ' WHEREAS, implementation of the project will provide the city with a significant annual revenue benefit; Ad WHEREAS, construction of the project will be phased with ' major circulation system improvements, including the construction of Pelican Hill Road and the completion Of Jamboree Road and MacArthur ' Boulevard# and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has prepared an Environ- mental Impact Report (EIR) in compliance with the California Environ- mental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State EIR Guidelines# and ' WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR in making its decision on the proposed amendment to the Newport Beach General Plant ' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach that amendments to the General Plan with ' related provisions and requirements as described herein are recommend- ed for approval to the City Council. ' I I IJ Land Use Element: Adopt and include in the Land Use Element The development limitations for each block in Newport Center as specified on the "Newport Center Development Limits" chart, attached hereon as "Exhibit I," Amend the Land Use Element and Map to provide for the following increases in development in Newport Center. 1. Fashion Island: Add 188,000 sq.ft. for general and regional retail commercial uses and 2,500 theater seats. Total allowed development in Fashion Island is 1,429,250 sq.ft. and 2,500 theater seats. 2. Block 600: Add 300*000 sq.ft. for general office development. Total allowed development in Block 600 is 1,100,000 sq.ft. and 325 hotel rooms. 3. Civic Plaza Expansion: Add 50,000 sq.ft. for office or institutional use, or a total of 284,706 sq.ft. of office and 48,000 sq.ft. of institution. An additional 15,000 sq.ft, of institutional my be allowed subject to use of all of the above described 50,000 sq.ft. for institutional uses. In this scenario, total develop- ment is 234,706 sq.ft. of office and 113,000 sq.ft. of institutional uses. 4. Block 800: Change the land use designation from "Multi -Family Residential" to "Administrative, Profes- sional and Financial Commercial.." Add 300,000 square feet for office development in Block 800, or a total of 553,100 sq.ft. in Block 800, S. PCH/Jamboree: Change the land use designation from "Recreational and Marine Commercial" to "Multi -Family Residential." Add 130 dwelling units. Also, change the land use designation for Villa Point (PCH Frontage) from "Low Density Residential" to "Multi -Family Res- idential," not to exceed 154 dwelling units. 6. Corporate Plaza Nest: Change the land use designation from "Retail " Service Commercial with Alternate Land Use" to "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial." Add 100,000 sq.ft, for office development for a total of 123,400 sq.ft. 7. Newport village: Change the land use designation from "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Multi -Family Residential," not to exceed 560 dwelling units. Add ' 84,800 sq.ft, to Corporate Plaza, or a total of 450,000 sq.ft. 80,000 sq.ft. can be constructed only if for an athletic/health club. S. Avocado/MacArthur: Change the land use designation "Low "Retail from a mixture of Density Residential" and and Service Commercial" to "Administrative, Profession- al and Financial Commercial" and "Governmental, Educa- tional and Institutional Facilities." 44,000 sq.ft. of office uses are permitted with a transit facility And 50,000 sq.ft, for a day care facility. 9. Big Canyon/MacArthur: Change the land use designation from "Recreational and Environmental open Space" to "Multi -Family Residential," at a maximum of 80 dwelling units. 10. Bayview Landing: Change the land use designation on the lower portion of the site from "Recreational and Environmental open Space" with an alternate of "Low Density Residential" to "Retail and Service Commer- cial." Allow 25,000 sq.ft. for restaurant or visitor t!/ u serving commercial uses three restaurant facilities may be constructed, one of which may be used as a Teen Center. All access for commercial use is to be provid- ed via Back Bay Drive. Structures shall not be higher than the upper pad level, and shall be sited and designed so as to provide for views of Upper Newport Bay and Newport Dunes. 11. Newporter North, Change the land use designation from "Low Density Residential" to "Multi -Family Residential" At a maximum of 490 dwelling units. Significant cultural resources which exist on the site shall be ' preserved in a manner acceptable to the City, with development clustered in other areas. 12. westbays Change the land use designation from "Low "Recreational ' Density Residential" to and Environmental Open Space in partial consideration for increased development in Newport Center and on the peripheral sites. 13. San Diego Creak Morths Add a 2.5 sure Fire Station reservation to the site. The reservation shall he in effect for a period of 5 years. ' Recreation and Open Space Clements 1. eayview Landings Maintain the existing "Recreational , and Fnvironmental open Space" designation, but preclude development from the upper level. 2. Newporter Norths Maintain existing "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" designation, but add unmapped environmentally sensitive area designation for preser- vation of significant on -site cultural resources. 3. Nestbay: Designate the site for regional park facil- ities with unmapped environmentally sensitive areas and public access where appropriate. A natural history facility may be; Alloved on the mitt subject to approval of the City. ' Circulation Elements 1. Delete Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard Primary Couplet designations designate MacArthur Boulevard as a Major Arterial (six lanes, divided)s designate Avocado Avenue as a secondary Arterial (4 lanes) between coast Highway and San Miguel Drive. ' 2. Designate San Joaquin Hills Road easterly of Spyglass Hill Road as a Primary Arterial (4 lanes, divided). 3. Designate MacArthur Boulevard between Ford Road and ' Route 73 as a Major -Modified Arterial (B lanes, divid- ed). All circulation element revisions are subject to approval of the county of orange. The redesignation of MacArthur ' Boulevard North of Ford Road is subject to approval of the City of Irvine. ' Affordable Housings Based upon the granting of additional commercial develop- ment, increased density for residential development, and ' governmental financial assistance such as Mortgage Revenue ' Bonds, the following program is required: 1. Thirty percent (30%) of the total dwelling units constructed on all sites shall be affordable to low and moderate income families. 2. The affordability mix shall be a follows: 66.7% County Low Income* ' 33.34 City Very Low Income* (with rents not to exceed HUD section 8 "Fair Market Rents") ' *per Housing Element 3. Preference shall be given to Section 8 Certificate holders for the "City Very -Low Income" units. 4. The term of affordability shall be 20 years from the date of initial occupancy. 5. The affordable unite may be located on any site, ' however they shall be phased proportional to the market rate residential units. 6. Additionally, the 29 remaining "pool" affordable units in the Haywood expansion shall be committed for a period of 20 years, with 80% at County median and 20% at County low income. 7. Prior to issuance of building permits for any develop- ' ment permitted by GPA 85-1(B), the applicant shall enter into an affordable housing agreement with the City guaranteeing the provision of the affordable units. This agreement may be included within the development agreement. Land Use Phasing:; t ' Phase I - No residential (PCH/Jamboree, Newport village, Newporter North, Big Canyon) units required for: A. Fashion Island Expansion B. Civic Plaza Expansion ' Center Phase IIa - 400 units must have building permits issued and substantial progress in construction (foundations plus some framing) before building permit issuance for: A. Block 600 B. Bayview landing C. Avocado/MacArthur Phase IIb - 400 additional units must have building permits - issued and substantial progress in construction before issuance of occupancy permits fore A. Block 600 Phase III - Completion and Certificate of Occupancy for 800 L du's before building permits issued for: A. Block 800 B. Corporate Plaza West _ 5 1 1/J 3,qE circulation Phasing: 1. Prior to issuance of any building Permits for any component of GPA all dedications from The Irvine company necessary for completion of the Coast Highway Improvement Program shall have been made. 2. The following projects may proceed after Coast Highway dedications and before installation of Pelican Hill Road: A. one-half of Fashion island e. civic Plaza C. Big Canyon/Machtthur Blvd, D. Newporter North E. PCH/Jamboree F. Newport village 3. The following project may proceed after Coast Highway dedications and completion bonding and dedications for Jamboree Road, but before installation of Pelican Hill Road: - Balance of Fashion Island e. Building or grading permit& for the following projects may be issued upon commencement of construction of Pelican Hill Road and MacArthur Boulevard improvements: A. Block 600 B. Bayview Landing C. Avocado/MacArthur Blvd. 5. Certificate of occupancy Puy not be issued for the following project until the completion of Pelican Hill Roads - Block 600 6. Building or grading permits for the following projects may be issued ;upon dedications aqd completion bonding for San Joaquin Hills Abed to Pelican Hill Road: A. Block 800 B. Corporate Platt Nest other Reguirementae 1. A landscape program for MacArthur Boulevard shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to issuance of any building or grading permits for any component of GPA BS-1 (B). The landscaping shall be installed concurrent with MacArthur Boulevard improve- ments. 2. MacArthur Boulevard improvements shall include the lowering of the roadway grade as discussed in .the Environmental Impact Raport. 3. All mitigation measures outlined in the Ell shall be required. 4. The Irvine company shall aggressively pursue all necessary approvals and construction of San Joaquin Hills Road from Spyglass Hill Road to Pelican Hill Road. 5, A Development Agreement and overall Planned Community Development Plan for Newport center shall be prepared and approved concurrent with or prior to any further discretionary actions, and in any case, prior to issuance of building permits for the development allowed by this General Plan Amendment. -6- I BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the planning Commission recom- mends acceptance and certification of the Environmental impact Report. ADOPTED this day of , 1986, by the following vote, to wit: AYES NOES ABSENT BY CHAIRMAN BY SECRETARY RES02/jm , EXHIBIT 1 3•'i 7 NEWPORT CENTER DEVELOPMENT LIMITS (Location I Allowable I I sazxxxxxsxsasiixzssssxzsozzxxlaixxx_ xxxxxxxsl (Block 0-Corporate Plaza 1 450,000 (0)t I I------------------------------I----------_---- (Block 100-Gateway Plaza 1 I---------------------- 165,000 (0)1 --------I --------------- IBlock 200-Design Plaza 1 1500000 I (0)) I----- ------------------------- I --------------- I IBlock 300 1 80,000 (0)l 1 1 2,400 (T)l I---------------- '------------- I --------------- IBlock 400-Medical Plaza 1 380,000 I (0)I I- ------- ------ m-------------- I ----- ),Block 500 1 '--------- 323,550 I (0)1 I------------------------------ I -------- - ------ i IBlock 600 1 1,100,000 (0)1 1 1 325 (H)l I---- ------------------------- I --------------- I IBlock 700-Pacific Mutual 1 290,860 (0)I I------ ------------------ -----'I --------------- IBlock 800 1 553,100 I (0)1 I 1 8,000 (C)l I-------------------'-----------I----------^-----I (Blocks 700/800-Civic Plaza 1 284,706 (0)I 1 1 48,000 (I)l I 1 or I 1 1 234,706 (0)I I 1 113,000 (I)l I"'-'------------------------- 1- -------------- I IBlock 900-Marriott Hptel 1 1611 (H)l 1 Granville Apartmental 67 (R)1 I 1 10,000 (0)1 1------------------------------ 1---^----------- I (Avocado/MacArthur 1 44,000 (0)I I 1 10,000 (C)l I---------------'--��---------- I --------------- I (Newport Village 1 I------------------------------I--------------- 560 (R)l I (Corporate Plaza West 1 123,400 (0)l I------------------------------ 1------- '------- I (Villa Point 1 284 (R)l I------------------------- -'_"-I--'-^ (Fashion Island I ---------- 1,429,250 I (C)l I I 2,500 (T)l 1 - _ _- --^-I ^ __ -I (Sea Island 1 1-- 132 (R)l --------- '--- - -------------- I ------------ IMiscellaneous 1 ---1 I 1 Institutional 1 58,100 (I)I I Golf-18 holes 1 i I Automotive-5 acres I I I Tennis-24 courts I I i szxxizsxsxsassasssaxzxs=ascaeziisixssxsarsxxsil ITOTALS I 3,954,556 (0)1 1 I 1,447,250 (C)l 1 1 4,900 (T)l 1 1 936 (li) 1 1 1 1,043 (R)l 1 1 106,100 (I)I _..___...._._....-aCCCGGxxxxxaxCCaaCaxOOpC�xxxxrxp xOC I I I 11 II I F RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 9 TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, LAND USE PLAN AND MAPS NO. 29, 30, 37, 38, 48, and 60 AND RELATED TEXT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-1(B). WHEREAS, the Coastal Act of 1976 requires the City of Newport Beach to prepare a local coastal programs and WHEREAS, as a part of the development and implementation of the Coastal Act, the City established a Local Coastal Program Advisory Committee, which held 29 public meetings to develop the goals, objec- tives, and policies of the City's Local Coastal Programs and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach considered the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan at three public hearings prior to recommending the approval and adoption to the City Council; and WHEREAS, two public hearings were held by the California Coastal Commission in conjunction with the certification of the City's Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan; and WHEREAS, said Land Use Plan sets forth the objectives and i supporting policies Which serve as a guide for the future development in the coastal zone in the City of Newport Beacht and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has initiated General Plan Amendment 85-1(B)t and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a duly noticed public hearing to consider this amendment to the Local Coastal Pro- gram, Land Use Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, in considering this amendment to the Local Coastal Program, has determined that this amendment is consistent with all of the stated goals and policies of the California Coastal Act, the City of Newport Beach General Plan, and the City's Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach that the Local Coastal Program, Land Use y; Plan and Maps No. 29, 30, 37, 38, 40, and 60, be recommended for approval to the City Council as met forth in Exhibit "A". ADOPTED this day of , 1986, by the following vote, to wits EY CHAIRMAN AY SECRETARY RES02/jm Attachsnntt Exhibit OA" I I AYES NOES _ _. ... ASSENT - 2 .. 3,100 I 1 1 I I I I P 11 lJ I I I i EXHIBIT "A" NEWPORT CENTER, BAYVIEW LANDING Newport Center (Maps 37, 48, 49). Approximately one-third of the Newport Center site falls within the Coastal Zone. Most of the area is occupied by the Irvine Coast Country Club, shown as "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" on the Land Use Plan. The Marriott Hotel site is designated for "Administrative, Professional and Finan- cial Commercial" uses to reflect the hotel use on the site. Permitted office uses on the Corporate Plaza West and Chamber of Commerce sites are shown by the "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commer- cial" designation and residential use is shown on the Sea Island site by the "Hedium-Density Residential designation. The PCH/Jamboree and PCH Frontage Site is designated for "High -Density Residential" allow- ing 284 du's. Be iew Landing (Maps 37, 38). This site, adjacent to the Newport Dunes site, is designated for "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" on the upper portion of the site for public recreation uses, with a view park and a bike path. The lower portion of the site is designated for "Retail and service Commercial" use to allow visi- tor -serving commercial and restaurant use. All access to commercial uses shall be from Back Bay Drive. The structure may be constructed on the slope area, but no portion of any structure may be higher than the upper level of the site. Structures shall be sited and designed to provide for views of Upper Newport Bay and the Newport Dunes. UPPER NEWPORT BAY AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES Newporter North (Maps 38, 60). This site, located on Jamboree Road northerly of the Newporter Inn, is designated for "High -Density. Residential" with a maximum of 490 du's. The structures shall be clustered to accommodate archaeological sites and marsh sites. A public bikeway/walkway jii proposed for this sitp. Any development of this site shall be sitedand designed to adequately protect and buffer the environmentally sensitive area(s) on this site. westbay (Maps 29, 30). The Westbay site is a large vacant parcel adjacent to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve at Irvine Avenue. This Bite is designated for "Recreational and Environmental Open space" uses, to permit a regional park. Also permitted is a natural history muBeum with possible joint use as an interpretive center for the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. A public bikeway/walkway is shown for the Nestbay site, but careful consideration shall be given at the time it is developed to the environmentally sensitive nature of the site in locating the accesaway. Any development which occurs shall be located in order to preserve sensitive habitat areas located on the site. Views from Irvine Avenue shall be maximized. Any development of this site shall be sited and designed to adequately protect and buffer the environmentally sensitive area($) on this site. _ GPA851 IN 3.Lb1 1 Natural History Foundation of Orange County 2627 Vista del Oro P.O. Box 7038 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92656.7038 (714) 640.7120 May 8, 1986 RECEIVED s PUnnlra TO: Planning commission MAY�12 986 ► � City of Newport Beach b 3300 Newport Blvd om'OF Newport Beach, Ca 92658-8915 NEWPORTBEACH. I� `.. CALIF. ti RE: General.Plan Admendment-Irvine Center ' Honorable Members, I We concur with the Staff recommendation that "Development Rights" around the Back Bay be transferred as part of this admendment. We operate the only Natural History Musuem within the County(near the Back Bay) and have been working for the past several years with the City, Fish and Game, the County, U.C.I., The Irvine Co., the Department of Education, Friends:of Newport Bay and other organizations in coalescing the goals of each group in order to develop a passive regional park. There are many benefits to a cooperative overall planning program for trails, access, circulation, utilities as well as scientific, educa- tional and passive recreational activities -looking at the West Bay areas, Big Canyon and Newporter North. We anticipate the incorporation of a 6,000 sq. ft. interpretive center, parking and staging area within the park. If space and opportunity permit, expansion would be helpfull. We are currently researching and ranking potential sites for our ultimate science center/museum, and the Back Bay might meet our criteria. Sincerely yours, - Ron Ye 171 Chairman Museum Planning/Site Committee , enclosure RY;lks r.� � L Y 7 r LFem G � •BIM1�Ie WIIe on i ii r a p _ pPa1I, , hxC+ • 1 yy. ,a • ,+a•,v .. lSA�wf b' I '� • 1 Li{hto 3 Light Ioc :"Ric renal •�`��A 34 /°u¢m ~ Ne'W_ 3724 f/ V;g�q Ia.il3iU`\�i -` iu 712 ppas //aa �,^.,>;orona del My 3120 .-%\sl[ w•a �F• x J—}f[CN�,gI v 1� jT 65 I It o IrvinAN Cnas lrbor . ro "'� ' *"'• �Coun C1ut1I'�^ S F_ 0� �.�>_!_S C[1COri —M1ln\`CSC uu oa 17Bi�T� E �� ���I*Y.= o\\I\� am. ii i'ir $ �.,•�. t. .:Ig}jl•�_� 1 \•+:`U� :'R, � • ^v ' Wu i' f HARBOR VIEW HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS Newport Beach Planning Commission Members: The Newport Center Buildout Special Committee of Harbor View Hills wishes to inform this Commission that, after careful consideration, it unanimously approves of Residential designation for Newport Village and the straightening of Avocado along its west side. The Committee rejects any mix of commercial and residential. Sincerely, Jean Morris, Association Vice President and Chairman of the Buildout Committee R } t I s MAY ED b p c16 4. •. A Planning Commission Meeting May 22, 1986 Agenda Item No. 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Supplemental Information Additional information requested by the Planning Commission in regards to General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) ' and Amendment No. 9 to the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach ' MacArthur Boulevard As discussed in detail in the primary staff report for this hearing, it is the opinion of staff that the appropriate designation of MacArthur Boulevard in a two-way configuration is as a Major Arterial (6-lane divided). The anticipated traffic volumes at general plan I buildout requires this size of roadway. Several questions have been raised in regards to this designation, given the additional desig- nation of Avocado Avenue as a Secondary Arterial (4 lanes). The two roadways in combination result in a total of 10 traffic lanes; where the Primary Couplet designation of Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard would be three through lanes in each direction. Important to note is that the couplet would have a total of 6 through lanes; but would probably total 10 lanes in each direction after provision of the necessary access/turning lanes needed to provide ingress/egress points for development along the roadway. As stated in previous reports, the recommended reversion to two-way roads for both Avocado Avenue and ' MacArthur Boulevard allows for separation of the through traffic from local circulation traffic. I Staff discussed in great detail in the April 24, 1986 staff report the inability of Avocado Avenue to serve any significant amount of through traffic, due to the close proximity of the San Joaquin Hills Road intersections of Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard. Additional i analysis of a two-way Avocado Avenue extended across San Joaquin Hills Road to an intersection with MacArthur Boulevard approximately in the same alignment as the one-way couplet as been requested. While the ' proposal would address the operational problems arising from a right -turn movement from Avocado Avenue to San Joaquin Hills Road, some problems remain and new problems are created. The intersection of Avocado Avenue would still cut through the left -turn pocket on San Joaquin Hills Road. There is, additionally, not sufficient room for a I 3. WC ' T0: Planning Commission - 2. standard intersection with MacArthur Boulevard, necessitating a partial grade separation, with a "fly -over" taking the northbound traffic on Avocado Avenue over MacArthur Boulevard, to ultimately merge into the easterly lanes of MacArthur Boulevard. It is the opinion of staff that there are only two alternatives which provide sufficient roadway capacity for planned development: the , Primary Couplet of Avocado and MacArthur, or a Major Arterial desig- nation for MacArthur Boulevard. There are four major reasons for the staff recommendation deleting the couplet: 1. Equivalent capacity and similar intersection function. 2. Greater safety due to separation of local ingress/egress 1 from through traffic. 3. Increased flexibility in land use and site planning. , 4. Better noise mitigation for Harbor View Hills. As discussed in the April 24, 1986 staff report, if the depression and relocation west of MacArthur Boulevard is mandated with the 6-lane road, better noise mitigation would result when compared to the couplet configuration. Timing of MacArthur Boulevard Implementation It is the continued recommendation of staff, that not only should MacArthur Boulevard be designated a six -lane roadway, but the com- pletion of the improvement to major arterial status be required as part of the circulation system phasing program for the GPA. It is one of the primary benefits that the master planned circulation system be constructed for Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, and MacArthur Boulevard concurrent with the project. As indicated by staff in the primary staff report for this hearing, it is possible to defer actual con- struction of MacArthur Boulevard to six lanes between Harbor View Drive and Crown Drive. If it is the desire of the Planning Commission to defer completion of this segment, the following is recommended: 1. That the full dedications for 6-lane MacArthur be required. 2. That MacArthur Boulevard be improved to lower the grade and move the road westerly, as described in the Environmental Impact Report. 3. That the two outside through lanes be constructed so that any additional lanes would occur towards the centerline of the roadway. 4. That prior to construction of through lanes in excess of four, the following criteria be met: ' a. Completion of Pelican Hill Road to Major Arterial configuration (6-lanes, divided). 3.106 To; Planning Commission - 3. ' b. Completion of San Joaquin Hills Road to Primary Arte- rial configuration (4-lanes, divided) and connection to Pelican Hill Road. C. An average weekday volume -to -capacity ratio of 1.15. I A public hearing shall be conducted by the City Council to verify satisfaction of all criteria. Alternate Land Use Recommendations with Couplet The sites directly affected by maintenance of the couplet are Newport ' Village, Avocado/MacArthur, and Big Canyon/MacArthur. With the couplet, the Big Canyon/MacArthur site becomes unbuildable due to ' reduced site size and severe access constraints. The recommended office uses on the Avocado/MacArthur site would still be feasible with the couplet, but staff would recommend that the day-care center be relocated to Corporate Plaza, since the couplet would tend to isolate 1 the site from the rest of Newport Center. The recommendation for the Newport Village site is the most difficult. The existing general plan shows most of the Newport Village site for multi -family residential ' use, even with the couplet. This land use designation was adopted by the City as part of the Housing Element implementation program. This was done in spite of the acknowledgement that the location of residen- tial "sandwiched" between two arterial roadways is not the best of planning. However, if confronted with the alternative of recommending a project which results in a significant employment housing imbalance, staff would probably continue to recommend residential use of this site. If one steps outside the general concern for housing, it is staff's opinion that office use is the most appropriate for the site, since that use would result in the least traffic conflicts in this area. If office use of Newport Village is preferred by the Planning Commission, staff would further recommend a residential designation of Corporate Plaza West, an increase in density of the PCH/Jamboree and L Villa Point sites and perhaps a reversion of a portion of Block 800 to residential use. Staff Recommendations ' It has been pointed out to staff that while the EIR provides suffi- cient information to warrant proposed changes, the City Council has ' never officially initiated amendments to the General Plan for the staff recommended Circulation Element revisions for MacArthur Boule- vard and San Joaquin Hills Road. Staff has, therefore, refined the draft resolutions to a recommendation of initiation of a General Plan Amendment for these elements of the circulation system. The addition- al GPA will be processed using the Newport Center EIR and, after all necessary notices, will be brought back to the Planning Commission. it is anticipated that both GPA's can ultimately be acted on by the City Council concurrently. T0: 3 . W-1 Planning Commission - 4. 7 u The additional development in Corporate Plaza recommended by staff was omitted from the Land Use and Circulation System Phasing Program. The revised resolutions reflect the proposed phasing of this development. Staff has also refined the draft resolution to incorporate the MacArthur Boulevard improvement criteria discussed in this report. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director Sy PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Environmental Coordinator SR15/jm Attachment: Revised GPA Resolution 1 G 11 11 1 1 1 �I 1 1 1 11 I 1 1 3, qua RESOLUTION NO - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE, AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BE ADOPTED, AND, IN RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SAID AMENDMENTS, RECOMMEND THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AS PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROJECT BE CERTIFIED ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-1(B)). 1 I II I d Jr WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan, the Land Use, Recreation and Open Space, and Circulation Elements have been preparedl and WHEREAS, said elements of the General Plan set forth objec- tives and supporting policies which serve as a guide for the future development of the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider certain amendments to the above referenced elements of the Newport Beach General Plant and WHEREAS, it is the goal of the City to address the com- pletion of Newport Center in a comprehensive manner, enabling the phasing of the project with significant improvements to the local and regional circulation systems and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City to provide for a balance of employment and housing in the consideration of mixed use developments; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has, in the General Plan Housing Element, established policies to increase the production of housing in the community and to provide affordable housing oppor- tunities in the Cityr and WHEREAS, the City recognizes its responsibility to designate sufficient vacant land for residential use with appropriate standards to produce housing at the lowest possible cost consistent with Section 65913 of the Government Codef and WHEREAS, it is the goal of the City to provide a balanced community, with a variety of housing types and designs and housing opportunities for all economic segments of the communityt end FI u 3,to9 WHEREAS, it is the goal of the City to preserve and increase affordable housing for low and moderate income householder and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City to eliminate con- straints to housing production and increase allowed density, wherever possible; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City to provide incentives to the building industry to facilitate the provision of housing for low and moderate income houseboldst and WHEREAS, the city of Newport Beach recognizes the unique opportunity to provide housing opportunities in conjunction with commercial development ih and around Newport Contort and WHEREAS, residential development in and around Newport Center will promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin or color; and WHEREAS, approval of the project, With all related land use provisions, circulation system improvements and phasing, will provide for a balance between the planned land uses in the City and the circulation systems and WHEREAS, implementation of the project will provide the City with a significant annual revenue benefit; and WHEREAS, construction of the project will be phased with major circulation system improvements, including the construction of Pelican Hill Road and the completion of Jamboree Road and McArthur Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has prepared an Environ- mental Impact Report (EIR) in compliance with the California Environ- mental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State EIR Guidslineq and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR in making its decision on the proposed amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan# NOW, THEREFORE, BB IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach that amendments to the General Plan with related provisions and requirements as described herein are recommend- ed for approval to the City Council. -y E 3, Ilo Land Use Elements Adopt and include in the Land Use Element ' the development limitations for each block in Newport Center as specified on the "Newport Center Development Limits" chart, attached hereon as "Exhibit l." Amend the Land Use Element and Map to provide for the following increases in development in Newport Center. 1. Fashion Islands Add 188,000 sq.ft. for general and regional retail commercial uses and 2,500 theater seats. Total allowed development in Fashion Island is ' 1,429,250 sq.ft. and 2,500 theater seats. 2. Block 600: Add 300,000 sq.ft, for general office development. Total allowed development in Block 600 is 1,100,000 sq.ft. and 325 hotel rooms. 3. Civic Plaza Expansion: Add 50,000 sq.ft, for office or institutional use, or a total of 284,706 sq.ft. of office and 48,060 sq.ft, of institution. An additional 15,000 sq.ft, of institutional may be allowed subject to use of all of the above described 50,000 sq.ft. for institutional uses. Ln this scenario, total develop- ment is 234,706 sq.ft. of office and 113,000 sq.ft. of institutional uses. 4. Block 800: Change the land use designation from "Multi -Family Residential" to "Administrative, Profes- sional and Financial Commercial." Add 300,000 square ' feet for office development in Block 800, or a total of 553,100 sq.ft. in Block 800. 7 L.J I I I I I I I I 5. PCH/,jamboree: Change the land use designation from "Recreational and Marine Commercial" to "Multi -Family Residential." Add 130 dwelling units. Also, change the land use designation for Villa Point (PCH Frontage) from "Low Density Residential" to "Multi -Family Res- idential," not to exceed 154 dwelling units. 6. Corporate Plaza Nests Change the land use designation from "Retail and Service Commercial with Alternate Land use" to "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial." Add 100,000 sq.ft, for office development for a total of 123,400 sq.ft. 7. Newport Villages Change the land use designation from "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Multi -Family Residential," not to exceed 560 dwelling units. Add 84,800 sq.ft, to Corporate Plaza, or a total of 450,000 sq.ft. 80,000 sq.ft. can be constructed only if for an athletic/health club. S. Avocado/MacArthurs Change the land use designation from a mixture of "Low Density Residential" and "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Administrative, Profession- al and Financial Commercial" and "Governmental, Educa- tional and Institutional Facilities." 44,000 sq.ft. of office uses are permitted with a transit facility and 10,000 sq.ft. for a day care facility. 9. Big Canyon/MacArthur: Change the land use designation from "Recreational and Environmental open Space" to "Multi -Family iesidential," at a maximum of 80 dwelling units. 10, Bayview Landings Change the land use designation on the lower portion of the site from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" with an alternate of "Low Density Residential" to "Retail and Service Commer- cial." Allow 25,000 sq.ft. for restaurant or visitor - 3 - 3.W serving commercial uset three restaurant facilities may , be constructed, one of which nay be used as s Teen Center. All access for commercial use is to be provid- ed via back Day Drive. Structures shall not be higher than the upper pad Leval, and shall be sited and designed so as to provide for view of Upper Newport ' Day and Newport Dunne. 11. Newportar Mortht change the land use designation from 'Low Density Residential- to "Multi -easily Residential" at a maximum of 450 dwalling units. significant ' cultural resources which exist on the site shall be preserved in a ma:met acceptable to the City, with - development clustered in other are". 12. Neathays Change the land use designation from "saw Density Residential" to "Recreational and Environmental open space" it partial consideration for increased development in Newport Center and on the peripheral sites. 13. Dan Diego Creak Worths Add a 2.5 acre Pire Station reservation to the site. The reservation shall be in effect for a period of 5 years. , Recreation and Open bWoe blements 1. Dayview Landings Maintain the existing "Recreational and Lnviroi ntal open space" designation, but preclude - development free the upper level. 2. Newporter Mortht Maintain existing "Recreational and Rnviroteantal open Dpaaa- designation, but add unmapped ' environmentally "naltive area designation for preser- - Vation of significant on -site cultural resources. 3. N ogthayt Designate the site for regional park facil- ities with unmapped environmentally sensitive areas and public access where appropriate. A natural history facility any be allowed on the sits subject to approval of the City. , circulation xlementt 1. Delete Avocado Aveaua/MacArthur boulevard Primary Couplet designations damignate MacArthur boulevard as a _ major Arterial (six lotus, dividod)t designate Avocado Avenue as a secondary Arterial (4 lanes) between Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive. ' This circulation element revision is subject to approval of the co mty of Orange. 2. Reeoamend to the City council initiation of amendments to the Circeiatich b1emant of the Newport beach General Plan tot a. Designate wen Joaquin Hills load masterly of spyglass Dili road as a Primary Arterial (4 lanes, divided) . b. Designate MacArthur boulevard between rood road and Routs 73 as a Major -Modified Arterial (s lung, divided). rurther, recommend to the City Council that final action on this awaWwont be taken concurrent with the action on GPA 65-10). - 4 - 1 19 Affordable Housing: ' Based upon the granting of additional commercial develop- ment, increased density for residential development, and governmental financial assistance such as Mortgage Revenue Bonds, the following program is required: ' 1. Thirty percent (30%) of the total dwelling units constructed on all sites shall be affordable to low and moderate income families. ' 2. The affordability mix shall be a follows: 66.7% County Low Income* 33.3% City Very Low Income* (with rents not to exceed HUD Section 8 "Fair Market Rents") *per Housing Element 3. Preference shall be given to Section 8 Certificate holders for the "City Very -Low Income" units. 4. The term of affordability shall be 20 years from the ' date of initial occupancy. S. The affordable units may be located on any site, however they shall be phased proportional to the market ' rate residential units. 6. Additionally, the 29 remaining "pool" affordable units in the Haywood expansion shall be committed for a period of 20 years, with 80% at County median and 20% ' at County low income. 7. Prior to issuance of building permits for any develop- ment permitted by GPA 85-1(B), the applicant shall enter into an affordable housing agreement with the City the provision of the affordable guaranteeing units. This agreement may be included within the development agreement. Land Use Phasing: i I I A Phase I - No residential (PCH/Jamboree, Newport Village, Newporter North, Big Canyon) units required for: A. Fashion Island Expansion H. Civic Plaza Expansion Center Phase IIa - 400 units moat have building permits issued and substantial progress in construction (foundations plus some framing) before building permit issuance for: A. Block 600 B. Bayview Landing C. Avocado/MacArthur D. Corporate Plaza Phase IIb - 400 additional units must have building permits issued and substantial progress in construction before issuance of occupancy permits fort A. Block 600 - 5 - /O Phase III - Completion and Certificate of Occupancy for 800 du's before building permits issued for: , A. Block 800 B. Corporate Plaza Nest Circulation Phasingo 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits for any ' component of GPA 85-1(B), all dedications from The Irvine Company necessary for completion of the Coast Highway Improvement Program shall have been made. 2. The following project$ may proceed after Coast Highway dedications and before installation of Pelican Hill Roads A. One-half of Fashion Island B, civic Plaza C. Big Canyon/MacArthur Blvd. D. Newporter North E. PCH/Jamboree ' F. Newport Village 3. The following project may proceed after Coast Highway dedications and completion bonding and dedications for Jamboree Road, but before installation of Pelican Hill Roads 4. - Balance of Fashion Island Building or for the following grading permits projects may be issued upon commencesnnt of construction of Pelican Hill load and MacArthur Boulevard improvements (as described below)s ' A. Block 600 B. Bayview Landing C. Avocado/MacArthur Blvd. D. Corporate Plaza ' S. Certificate of 'Occupancy may not be issued for the following project until the completion of Pelican Hill Roads - Block 600 6. Building or grading permits for the following projects may be issued upon dedications and completion bonding , for Ban Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Roads A. Block 000 B. Corporate Plaza vast Other Requirements; 1. A landscape program for MacArthur Boulevard shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to issuance of any building or grading permits for any component of GPA 86-1(5). The landscaping shall be installed concurrent with MacArthur Boulevard improve- ments. 2. That prior to construction of through lanes in excess of four, the following criteria be mats a. Completion of Pelican Hill Road to Major Arterial ' configuration (6-lanes, divided). ' 6 - 3.M b. Completion of San Joquin Hills Road to Primary Arterial configuration (4-lanes, divided) and connection to Pelican Hill Road. C. An average weekday volume -to -capacity ratio of 1.15. A public hearing shall be conducted by the City Council to verify satisfaction of all criteria. 3. All mitigation measures outlined in the EIR shall be required. 4. The Irvine Company shall aggressively pursue all necessary approvals and construction of San Joaquin Hills Road from Spyglass Hill Road to Pelican Hill Road. S. A Development Agreement and overall Planned Community Development Plan for Newport Center shall be prepared and approved concurrent with or prior to any further discretionary actions, and in any case, prior to issuance of building permits for the development allowed by this General Plan Amendment. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recom- mends acceptance and certification of the Environmental Impact Report. ADOPTED this day of , 1986, by the following vote, to wit: BY CHAIRMAN BY SECRETARY RES02/jm AYES NOES ABSENT - 7 - F 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 J 1 1 u i Comments i 4.2 IV. COMMENTS Copies of all comments received as June 19, 1986 are contained in the com- ments section of this report. Comments have been numbered and responses have been correspondingly numbered. Responses are presented for each com- ment which raised a significant environmental issue. I I IF 7 u 4.3 Commentors Cpmm*Ut/Response Series 1. Letter - May 29, 1986 OPRa 1 John B. Ohanian Office of Planning and Research State of California 2. Letter - June 2, 1986 OPRb 1 John B. Ohanian Office of Planning and Research State of California 3. Letter - June 4, 1986 OPRc 1 John B. Ohanian Office of Planning and Research State of California 4. Letter - May 28, 1986 NHF 1-3 Audrey Moe Natural History Foundation of Orange County 5. Letter - May 22, 1986 YAHO 1.3 Mayor Philip R. Maurer Youth Ad Hoc Committee City of Newport Beach 6. Letter - April 23, 1986 BC 1-7 Paul L. Balalis The Balalis Corporation 7. Letter - January 28, 1986 IRPC 1 David E. Mudgett Irvine Retail Properties Company 8. Letter - April 19, 1986 MJ 1 Michael Jacques M. Jacques 9. Letter - April 22, 1986 NCA 1 Richard H. Marowitz Newport Center Association 10. Letter - April 21, 1986 SPONa 1-5 Jean Watt SPON 4.4 91 r— LI 11. Letter - April 21, 1986 Louis F. Russo Russo's Pets, Inc. 12. Letter - March 10, 1986 Luvena Hayton Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce 13. Letter - May 27, 1986 Jack C. Parnell Department of Fish and Game State of California 14. Letter - May 1, 1986 R. Paige Talley Native American Heritage Commission State of California 15. Letter - June 6, 1986 Murray Storm Environmental Management Agency County of Orange 16. Letter - May 29. 1986 Karen J. S. Harrington Newport Heights Community Association 17. Letter - May 29, 1986 Richard A. Nichols 18. Letter - May 29, 1986 Monica Florian The Irvine Company 19. Memorandum - June 12, 1986 Quality of Life Committee City of Newport Beach 20. Letter - May 28, 1986 Terry Watt Shute, Mihaly, and Weinberger 21. Memorandum May 28, 1986 Nancy Olden California Regional Water Quality Control Board M-W CDM 1-4 FG 1-3 NAHC 1-3 ERA 1-24 NHCA 1-2 RN 1-11 TIC 1-31 QOL A-8 SMW 1-76 WQ 1-4 4.5 22, better May 27, 1986 CCC 1-5 Wayne 0. Woodroof California Coastal Commission 23. Letter - May 28, 1986 SPONb 1.32 Jean Watt SPON 24. Memorandum - May 23, 1986 DOT 1 W. B. Ballentine Department of Transportation 11 11 ATE OF CAUFORNIA—OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR "OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH .�4�DD TENTH STREET 11CRAMENTO, CA 95814 u Patricia Temple City of Newport Beach 330 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, -CA 92660 GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Go wm r May 29, 1986 Subject: General Plan Amendment 85-1 (B) Newport Center & Peripheral Sites Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 85061211 Dear Ms. Temple: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named draft Environmental M7pact Report (EIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and the comments of the individual agency(ies) is(are) enclosed. Also, on the enclosed Notice of Completion, the Clearinghouse has checked which agencies have commented. Please review the Notice df Completion to ensure that your comment package is complete. If the package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Your eight digit State Clearinghouse number should be used so that we may reply promptly. Please note that recent legislation requires that a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make substantive comments on a project which are within the area of the agency's expertise or which relate to activities which that agency must carry out or approve. (AB 2583, Ch. 1514, Stats. 1984.) 1 I These comments are forwarded for your use in preparing your final. EIR. If you need more information or clarification, we suggest you contact the commenting agency at your earliest convenience. Please contact Glenn Stober at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, John B. Ohanian i Chief Deputy Di or o Office of Planning and Research cc: Resources Agency , oaQ' 1gB Ir Enclosures •" C� 6EP� -W Min IOPRa 1 STATE OF CAUFORNIA--Off ICE OF THE GOVERNOR GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, ron r' OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1I0D TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 9651A Ems^ 916/445-0613 Patricia Temple City of Newport Beach 330 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 9 General Plan Amendment 85-1 Environmental Impact Report. Temple: (B) Newport Center & Peripheral SCH# 85061211 The enclosed comments on your draft environmental documents were received by the State Clearinghouse after the end of the state review period. We are forwarding these cc mtents to you because they provide information or raise issues which may assist you in project review. To ensure the adequacy of the final document you may wish to incorporate these additional commenta into the preparation of your final environmental document. Please contact Glenn Stober at 916/445-0613 if yod have any questions concerning the review process. When you contact the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Inian Chie£ Deputy Director ' RECEIVE Pbnhll>� Deportmpnt JUNS 1986 r CITY OF NEWPORT 8""CN CALIF. °i ATE OF CALIFORNIA—OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR GEORGE DEUKMFJIAN, Go"Mr (140FO FICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH TENTH STREETCRAMENTO, CA 95814 ' 916/445-0613 ' Patricia Temple June 4, 1986 City of Newport Beach 330 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' Subject: General Plan Amendment 85-1 (B) Newport Center & Peripheral Site EIR - SCH# 85061211 ' Dear Ms. Temple: The enclosed comments on your draft environmental documents were received by the State Clearinghouse after the end of the state review period. We are ' forwarding these comments to you because they provide information or raise issues which may assist you in project review. To ensure the adequacy of the final document you mey wish to incorporate these OPRcl additional comments into the preparation of your final environmental document) ' Please contact Glenn Stober at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions concerning the review process. When you contact the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Sincerely, ohn B. Ohani.an " Chief Deputy Director ' Enclosure y ~" S 0 cc: Resources Agency R E c e 1 v e D b DIepa,1rYr� 9 ,LUNG 1986 '' OF ' £ c -r L �CAUFEACH.'! r Natural History Foundation of Orange County 2627 Vista del Oro P.O. Box 7038 ' Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92658.7038 (714) 640.7120 May 28, 1986 Ms. Pat Temple City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Ms. Temple, After Thursday's, May 22, Planning Commission Public Hearing, i feel a brief explanation is due you concerning several of the questions asked of me by the Planning Commissioners. In reponse to the question about whether we had considered the Civic Plaza site, I found that although this location: near the Art Museum — would be ideal, we did not suggest it for NHFOC because we thought there was not enough space available. Five acres seems to be the minimum we would need for a major, permanent museum. If this amount of land is available at the Civic Plaza site, we would certainly be interested. The other question was concerning Ron Yeo's letter of May 8, 1986. It may not have been clear that we consider the West Bay site appropriate for an interpretive center and Newporter North site appropriate for a major museum. At any rate, we are interested in locating in Newport Beach priate site can be found. Sincerely yours, /fevAudrey Mo President Board of Directors AM:lks a NHF 1 NHF 2 if an appro-I NHF 3 rt q ErvEa s N3 tn" N� C1 er9a6. t r-4U,e NCH 0 I I 1 L r i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' DATE: May 22, 1986 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Youth Ad Hoc Committee ' SUBJECT: Proposed Youth Restaurant/Community Facility at Bayview Landing ' Recommendation: ' In consideration of the specific sites proposed in General Plan Amendment 85-1 (B), it is recommended that the Planning Commission accommodate the development of a Youth Restaurant/Community Facility at Bayview Landing. It is further recom- YP mended that development of the facility be designated through either the maximum C square feet recommended in the May 22 Planning Department staff report (Agenda I Item No. 2) or through a revision of the maximum square feet which will include the facility in addition to the restaurants already proposed by The Irvine Company. Background: On January 13, 1986, the City Council adopted Resolution 86-7,, expanding the Youth Ad Hoc Committee's responsibilities to include a study on the feasibility of a Teen/Youth Center. As a means of determinipg the feasibility of a Teen/ Youth Center, the committee reviewed numerous alternatives associated with the ' establishment of a facility. It is the unanimous consensus of the committee that such a facility would be accepted by students and parents and could be completely self-supporting. The YA facility will also be multi -functional in order to accommodate other community uses during hours when not used as a youth center. The facility will not only HC ' serve as a center for youth oriented events, but as a training and employment 2 site for youth in the hospitality industry which is so vital to Newport Beach. This concept has been endorsed by students, parents and restaurant management members of the committee who feel that the facility will be utilized by youth ' on weekends and by community organizations which need luncheon or week night meeting rooms. The self-sustaining nature of the facility will allow its ' management and operation as a separate entity. In addition to defining the operational concept of the Youth Restaurant/Community Facility, the committee has entered into discussions with The Irvine Company regarding terms and conditions for a new development and long term lease. On ' April 21, The Irvine Company responded by including the facility in the proposed Bayview nding site under terms and conditions which provided the basis for La further negotiations, including The Irvine Company financing of a building loan YA ' and no annual rent for the first three years of a fifteen year ground lease. HC This development excited the committee since the Bayview Landing site is equally 3 accessible to both Newport Harbor and Corona del Mar High School students. With the assistance of the Newport Beach Restaurant Association, the committee sub- mitted a counter proposal on May 12 requesting concessions on the ground lease and building loan payments considered more favorable to a self-sustaining, yet ' non-profit, public facility. -2- 1I This report has included background information and a recommendation to the ' Planning Commission as it affects the proposed Youth Restaurant/Community Facility. y H The actions of the Planning Commission and The Irvine Company will be critical k factors in the committee's eventual report to the City Council regarding the feasibility of a Youth Restaurant/Community Facility in Newport Beach. ' r 1 1 r 1 1 i [I I 1 R THE BALALIS CORPORATION April 23, 1986 STATEMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING COMPLETION OF NEWPORT CENTER Mr. Chairman and Planning Commissioners: As a former Planning Commissioner and former Chairman of this board, I want to share with you my perspective on the build -out of Newport Center. I was involved in the City's review of a plan for the completion of Newport Center almost 5 years ago -- as part of General Plan Amendment 80-3. That plan, like this one, sought to resolve the long term land use and transportation issues associated with the ultimate development of Newport Center. That previous plan brought with it many of the same'issues and.many of the same benefits such as major road improvements and significant surplus tax revenues to the City. So in many respects I view this as unfinished business. In my view, the plan as proposed by The Irvine Company represents a reasonable balance of land uses and a reasonable balance of private development rights vs. public benefits. I applaud both the City and The Irvine Company for working to tackle this project in a comprehensive fashion -- that is in everyone's best -interest. ' However, I believe this plan should be approved by the City only with the firmest possible commitment from The Irvine Company on a number of important issues. ' First, regarding transportation, let's be sure that major road improvements such as Pelican Hill Road will be in place before any ' significant amount of new traffic is allowed to occur. The Irvine Company has asked for a lot more retail and office development which should be allowed to occur here so that Newport Beach remains ' economically sound and competitive. But the residents of Newport Center should not have to shoulder any add�.'tional traffic burdens without substantial off -setting road construction. This Newport Center plan by itself cannot solve all of the City's or the region's ' transportation problems, but it can make a meaningful contribution toward traffic relief in the parts of town easterly of the Upper Bay. BC I BC BC 1 _.^ �, 1:1 ��•1'i� �� ..p.�.l`(VPi�la 'rl• (•+j i1 :11: \')���i '••1•I l�Vli�lti �•:If i ^�.. Page 2 ' The wishes of the people of the Harbor view area should be addressed and MacArthur Boulevard should not be moved eastward nor should it r I be widened at this time. Additionally, the one-way caplet should BC be reviewed and perhaps abandoned with MacArthur Boulevard, if possibly depressed to eliminate a large level of the noise currently occurring. Second, regarding what's in it for -the communit , people have asked for a number of features which Would make Newport Center more responsive to the needs of the local community such as greater variety of shopping, ' entertainment and nightlife. Additional amenities such as day-care for office workers, cultural facilities, a community meeting room, and health club have also been suggested. I understand The Irvine B Company has been willing to consider these things as part of the plan but there needs to be a firm specific commitment which the City should require -- because these are the amenities and things that will distinguish Newport Center from the other business centers in the County and will make it more of a real community asset for Newport Beach. ' Lastly, regarding quality of design and appearance, the Planning Commission and City C57ET .C-should carefully review at subsequent stages, the site planning details, architecture and landscaping to assure that Newport Center at buildout will be compatible with the surrounding residential community, and will enhance the image and , character of Newport Beach. In some cases, such as The Bay View Landing, the requested square footage may also be decreased to be more in line with the staff recommendations. In conclusion, many of us, as I said, treat this plan as unfinished business. If -it's approved subject to the commitments I have mentioned I am confident it will turn out in the long run to be a good plan for New rt Center and a good plan for the City of Newport Beach. ' Sit rel t Paul L. Balalis /sd 1 w•. wow._ ..n tiib.l.���t4w���«'� '_��. �.,a, y1 .. .: "i +�.. r IRVINE PROPERTIES RETAIL David E. Mudgett President January 28, 7986 Mr, Dick Marowitz President Newport Center Association 180 Newport Center Drive Suite 180 Newport Beach, California Dear Dick: We appreciated the opportunity today 2." and other representatives of the to meet with •;' to discuss You Your interest in fast food port Center Association can be assured of our company's recognizable fast food o commitment totbring Yau := island. peration toJNewport Center/Fashion We look forward to periodically briefing your Association on our progress in this effort. 'd •-fin:' Ir •� Y :Yf! •nl X S' cerely, i David E. Mudgett C.C. Dave Dmohowski Bill Pope IRPC 1 550 Newport Center Dnve, P.o. Box I, Newport Beach, Caldomia 92858.8904 A Ovann of Tne Inane Comm'y y Y Srjf DESIGNERS AND MANUFACTURERS OF WORLD'S FINEST FURS * 14FASHIONISLAND • NEWPORTCENTER • NEWPORTSEACH,CALIFORNIA 92660 AEG jACques April 19, 1986 Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport- Beach P.O. Box 1769 Newport Reach, Calitornia 92663-3884 Attention: James Buzz Person, Chairman, David Goff, Rena Koppleman, Joan Winburn, Clarence Turner, John Kurlander, Pat Eichenhofer Dear Mr. Chairman and Commissioners: (7i4) 644-41, As a merchant in Fashion Island for the past nineteen years, it is in my best interest, as well as the City of Newport Beach, for the General Plan Amendment proposed by the Irvine Company to be adopted. I am writing to urge your strong support in favor of this resolution at the upcoming Planning Commission Meetings this month, and tAe City Council Meetings later. We need the revitalization plans to go forward! Many of our customers tell us they like what is happening here at Fashion Island. With the addition of more shops, there is a better diversity of goods and services available to them, but they want more. We also need more and better restaurants and entertainment centers. Attractive places for the people to meet and do things other than shop. The people of Newport want to spend their money in a beautiful, safe atmosphere like Fashion Island, if they can find what they want. Therefore, it is beneficial for the growth to continue at Fashion Island and Newport Center. More people will mean more business...* for me, for the other merchants, and for the City, more Tax Dollars. Please help us to continue to grow. Sincerely, - d PM. Jacque MJ:jo �I I 1 mil I !rl t I 1 'I ' Newport Center Association 180 Newport Center Drive Suite 180 Newport Beach, California 92660 ' (714)640-1861 1 U BOARD OF DIRECTORS Richard N. Marbi President owner Newport Chddreal Bddtary David R. Carmichael, Vice President 2o0WCaPmbenl Associate General Counsel Pangs Mutual Life insurance Company Hank Adler, Vice President Partner Tou he Noss a company Bernard E. Schneider, Esq., Treasurer Pannet Bunultar. Normal. Felas Chrysde blbunger Lynn Stanton. M.D., Secretary Bonnie L. Rohrer. hit President Vice president Onstntl Manager GseetAmenan RM SOV"s Bank Wafter B. Brandt, M.O., M. Ed. Thomas C. Casey Seniorwtt President FrMAmencan Trust Compary Devid Omohowskf Manager. Governmental Retaliate The lmne Company Robson English. Jr. Wtt Pmsdem Bank 01 America Wllllaen A. Goring Witclorof pro DeM Management C=01 elopment Raymond Kovacs General Atamger Newport Bearn 11 Motel B Terms Club Roller L Neu, J.D., C.P.A. Maya 0.Tenter General Manager FourSeasone Hotel EX•OFFICIO DIRECTORS Richard Wehrs Exaca Director NewporaMarborAma CromDsr of Commerce Barbara Reliable, Director Fammn ISWat Management EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Karen Kennedy RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-1 Whereas, the completion of Newport Center is necessary to the vitality of Newport Center and the City of Newport Beach; Whereas, the Newport Center Association has thoroughly reviewed and considered all aspects of proposed General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) Now Therefore Be It Resolved, that the Board of Directors of the Newport Center Association do hereby unanimously recommend and endorse the approval byithe City ofj Newport Beach of General Plan Amendment 85-1(B). to Richard H. Marowitz, President NCA 1 0 P.O. DO 102 9AL 0A 16:.AMD, April 22, 1986 City of Newport Beach Planning Commissioners Chairman Person 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: GPA 85-1 (B) Chairman Person and members of the Commission, Please accept a few preliminary comments with respect to the newly circulated EIN for Newport Center and peripheral sites. In the summary of alternatives (Vol. I�, Table i-c) the first two alternatives are identified as:environmentally superior, Considerinq the traffic impacts alone of this project, it would seem that the City should seek such an "envi'ronmentally superior" alternative. As regards the project objectives (Vol. I, p. 50 , #6) it is stated that one of the objectives is . . , ."to provide capacity for the traffic that will be attributable to Newport Center." We do not believe that this project, as presented, will achieve that objective. Under the amended Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the project will be able to qualify If a majority of the impacted intersections are improved. Clearly, many intersections will be unimproved under this scenario and, in fact, will operate at level of service F. Of note are intersections such as PCH/Dover and PCH/Bayside which have only recently been made acceptable by the new Upper Bay bridge. This project will be the greatest contributing factor to their deterioration. It is of concern that traffic analysis figures are made by committed projects and a trenl analysis. Committed projects are described as those (in Newport) which "have an adopted Traffic Phasing Plan or approved traffic study." These pro- jects do not include those in Newport's sphere of influence. In the discussion of proposed General Plan Amendments, 1 1 (Vol. I, P. 104, Table 1-2, item #8) it is stated that the Santa Ana Heights proposed land use is not available. Yet the ground is broken for the Bayview project and various scenarios have been available for the older Santa Ana Heights 1 area. We believe these figures would have a significant impact on the traffic analysis for such roads as Jamboree. 1 We have requested earlier that the traffic figures and dispersal of traffic be included for the Irvine Company's Irvine Coast project. This project continues to be excluded even though the County had studied earlier plans even to the 1 extent of traffic fiqures and dispersion. We believe that the Irvine Coast project should be considered at the same time as Newport Center in order to accurately assess the 1 impact on Corona del Mar. 1 1 J 1 n 1 1 1 i 1 L Very Truly 'fi Jean Watt, .673-8164 Yours, Presiding Officer SPONa 5 , )IS LARGEST PE7 STORE 1 2201 FRANCISCO DRIVE, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 926601 (714) 642-5522 April 21, 1986 James Person, Chairman Newport Beach Planning Commission P. 0. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 92663-3884 Dear Chairman Person: We are completely in favor of the "build -out" of Fashion Island. The City needs a bigger tax base. Very ruly yours, .2 iouis F. Russ Russo"s Pets, Tnc. I I 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 0 I 1 RUSSO'S WORLO'S LARGEST PET STORE • 3724 SOUTH BRISTOL ST., SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92T04 • U141 f114914 • 12 FASHION SQUARE, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 12101 • (714j 616-011 * SS FASHION ISLAND, NEWPORT $EACH. CALIFORNIA 12M0 6 p141 S44.O$S0 • 24161 LAGUNA HILLS MALL, LAGUNA HILLS. CALIFORNIA MS2 v (714) US-3112 Y RECC,,,•-���-` 21986 .. CITv n. Corona del Mar CHAMBER of COMMERCE March 10, 1986 Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport.Beach, California A unique blend of people and place THE PELICAN HILLS ROAD - SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD•CONNECTION It was the unanimous decision by the Board,of Directors of the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce to approve the build -out of Newport Center within the codes and restrictions as may be determined by the City Planning Commission and the City Council, but only if Pelican Hills Road is connected to San Joaquin Hills Road and in place before the build -out. b Corona del Mar can no longer bear the urden of increased traffic with no viable alternate route around the city to destinations in Newport Center'and the airport area. Our residents are "up in arms" over the increased use of our narrow residential streets as bypasses to already saturated Pacific Coast Highway. The Pelican Hills Road alignment as it is now planned to Bonita Canyon Road and termination at.Mac Arthur will indeed eliminate some of the traffic that is destined for the airport area, but it in no way alleviates the Newport Center -bound traffic that is suffocating Corona del Mar. Why must an already severly affected area suffer more when it is apparent that some relief could be felt if the Pelican Hills - San Joaquin Hills Road connection is made? Corona del Mar is caught between the State Park and down -coast developments of the south and the Newport.Center build -out on the north; it would seem very poor economics and poor judgment as well not to utilize a six -lane road that was designed to avert this tremendous traffic congestion. I DM I DM 2 DM- 3 CDM 1 2855 East Coast Highway * Post Office Box 72 * Corona del Mar, California 92625 * 714/673-4050 Page two Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 THE PELICAN HILLS ROAD SAN JOA UIN HILLS ROAD CONNECTION The taxpayers of old Corona del Mar who have supported the city for many, many years, and whose taxes paid for their share of building that road, as well as the huge expense of maintaining the road and its beautiful landscaping for twenty years, deserve to have this investment brought to fulfillment as it was intended - to reduce traffic on Pacific Coast Highway and Corona del Mar. CDM This vital link which was started in 1966, twenty years ago, should no longer be a pawn of selfish interests, but should be connected to Pelican Hills Road as soon as construction on that roadway reaches that connection point. The residents and businesses in Corona del Mar deserve your thoughtful and impartial consideration of this vital problem. aJ_�%l�yG'� Luvena Hayton, Transp/ortation Chairman Corona del Mar Chamber of Cbmmerce cc: Newport Beach City Planning Commission, James C. Person, Chairman Clarence J. Turner, 1st Vice Chairman Revana M. Coppelman, 2nd Vice Chairman Patricia Eichenhouser, Secretary David Goff John A, Kurlander Joan S, Winburn The Irvine Company, Ron Hendrickson, Director of Design and Planning Mike Ericksen 5 I. I 11 I [_I 1 1 U (tote of California The Resources Agenry �morandum 1. Prcyject/� Coodinator Date : May 27, 1986 Reour¢es A ency ' 2. City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92560 Department of Fish and Game General O Plan Amendment 85-l(SCH ), Newport Center and Peripheral 1.. e county - I n I L� LI We have reviewed the Draft EIR for GPA-85-1(B) describing proposed development on eight sites in Newport Center including residential, office, institutional, transit, and commercial uses. We have the following comments for your consideration. Of primary concern to Newport that aeminimum cause f its proximity to upperPortBay. 100-foot buffer of native or Wayneturbed Gulch.VeThistisnneededdtoe left along the bluff top and protect the biological integrity non-nativeoplantnspecies.and to mlpnmize human intrusion and invasion by anBi Canyons McArthur)eefforts coastalshouadsae sbeumade tob is e�rotectsent athiswhabitatg type. Planning efforts should be made to minimize any increases in runoff to Upper Newport Bay. This would help limit the impact of the project on the water quality of the bay. it would also minimize indirect impacts to salt marsh resulting from the introduction of fresh water. The project sponsor should be advised that diversion or obstruction of the natural flow or changes in the channel, bed or bank of any river, stream, or lake will require notification to Fish thecodDepartment epart enotificationnawithefee) as candetheosubsequentr in the lagreementsh and me s. must be completed prior to initiating an:ojecty such s angpproved by the Notification should do be made of Eafter Engineersthe I also bepcontacted as thereagency. bThe e a need for a Section "404" per as required under regulations of the Clean Water Act. d 6 Lid ,r 986 �D FG 1 FG 2 FG 3 -2- project. ifryouhnehaveoanyuenquestionsvlplease contact FredhA- Suit 350, Long Beach# CAMa90802-4467; telephone number (213) 590-5113e Jack C. Parnell� Director STATE OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor 'NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 Capitol Mall, Room 288 Sacramento, California 95814 CEIYED 9 ' (916) 322-7791 4'. R Ep;annint i 1 May 1986 u� c+�an 1986'' 10� prJRT BEACH. IJ Patricia Temple 4, NfN Chtif City of Newport Beach _ 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' Re: General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites Environmental Impact Report. ' SCH # 85061211 Dear Ms. Temple: Given the manner in which the Commission receives Draft EIS and Draft/Final/ ' Supplemental/Subsequent EIR notices, unless the actual report is forwarded us directly it is not reviewed. The Commission's response is to a one page notice of intent from the State Clearing House. Thus, if you have already NAHC ' solicited and subsequently incorporated Native American concerns into your mitigation measures (inclusive of monitoring grading), please disregard this letter and accept our appreciation for ensuring that the local Native ' American community is afforded the opportunity for participation in the environmental report/review process. The Commission recognizes it is standard procedure that an archaeologist be involved in the planning and implementation of any mitigation program; however, we encourage consultation with the local Native American community as well. Since the cultural heritage of Native Americans is under examination,, NAHC ' it is only appropriate their assistance is sought as an aid in the reduction/ avoidance of adverse impacts to archaeological/ethnographic sites maintaining sacred or religious value (pursuant to the Public Resources Code Section 5097.9 et seq). Enclosed, please find a lists) providing the name and address of your regional Commissioner and the Native Americans from whom you may seek advice, ' guidance, and consultation with respect to your project. Please be advised NAHC that the enclosure(s) is furnished as a measure for ensuring that the concerns of the local Native American community are addressed and, therefore, is not for public disclosure. 1 Please keep us apprised of the progress of the above referenced project. RespectfUllv yours, R. Paige Talley -Special Assistant Enclosure(s) RPT:gt Vincent Ibanez, Commission Member P.O. Box 181 Temecula, CA 92390 I ORANGE COUNTY COUNTY REFERRAL LIST NAME, ADDRESS �! TELEPI40NE NO. 1 TRIBAL I AFFILIATION AREA(S) B C R S W OTHER Ray Belardes Juaneno Orange I; 16760 Paradise Mt. Road Valley Center, CA 92082 (619) 74972312 Beatrice Alva Gabrielino Los Angeles, 122 East Pearl, 4 Orange San Gabriel, CA 92776 . j i Art Morales Gabrielino ! Orange, Los 4257 Meadow Street Angeles Laverne, CA 91750 (714) 593-8227 v lFred Morales Gabrielino Orange, Los i 211 East Main Street Angeles i San Gabriel, CA S1776 (818) 285-4401 ., Jim Velasques Gabrielino' Orange ` 1226 West Third Street (Coastal) Santa Ana, CA 92703 ! Capistrano Indian Council Juaneno :; Orange 1 ;: c/o Mission San Juan ! Capistrano Capistrano, CA 92600 !'• Attn: Juanita Foy ! I Art Alvitre Tongva, Ataxam Los Angeles, ;j• 4126 Potrero Road (Gabrielino) Parts of Kerr , Newbury Park, CA 91320 Orange, (805) 498-0305 Riverside, and Ventura Cindi M. Alvitre • - Gabrielino I Orange, X X X X X I; 1149 Jadestone Lane I Los Angeles t. Corona, CA 917.20 I i (714) 737-2049 I (, Capistrano Indian Council Mixed Affiliation Orange P.O.Box 304 �q San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 i (714) 493-1892 ; Contact: Teeter Maria Romero Steve Rios KEY: f B: Burial plane/Cemetery S: Sacred/Pdwer area C: Collection Area W: Worship/Ritual area R: Rock art (picto.. petro., intaglio, etc.) 1/86 ORANGL COUNTY I COUNTY REFERRAL LIST PAGE 2 TELEPHONE NO. AFFILIATION AREA(S) S C R 5 w OTHER ' Juaneno Band of Mission Juaneno Orange Indians P.O.Box 1382 } San Juan Capistrano, CA 92674 Spokesman*: Ray Belae4es ` , 1 I t A I! I' • i � I r1'r I t.• KEY: B: Burial place/Cemetery C: Collection Area R: Rock art (ri-cto., Petra., intaglio, etc.) • 1!I 1 A S: Sacred/Power area W: Worship/Ritual area �I ' I' I O F CAFE NVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY Mr. Robert L. Wynn City Manager City of Newport Beach P. 0. Box 1768 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 June 6, 1986 MURRAY STORM DIRECTOR, EMA 12 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA MAILING ADDRESS- P.O. 80% 4048 SANTA ANA, CA 92702.4048 FILE NCL 4128 TELEPHONE: (714)834.2306 SUBJECT:, Draft EIR for General Plan Amendment 85-1(B): Newport Center and 1 Peripheral Sites Dear Mr. Wynn: ' The County of Orange has reviewed the above referenced Draft Environmental Impact Report for Newport Center and Peripheral Sites. The project proposes ' development of eight sites in NewportlCenter and three on the periphery of the City, and will also include an amendment to the circulation element of the General Plan. The proposal encompasses residential, office, institutional, transit and commercial uses. -The document was reviewed by this Agency's divisions of Advance Planning, Project Planning, Parks and Recreation Program Planning, Transportation Planning, Public Works' Flood Control Program and Development Services. Our comments from these respective areas are attached for your consideration. I would particularly like to call your attention to the comment regarding land dedication in support of the proposed Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. Specifically, we are recommending that the above project be conditioned to provide for the dedication of approximately 82 acres owned by the Irvine Company ' in the Westbay area to the Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District. This complements the County's own dedication requirement from the Bayview Development for the first increment of the Park,•and recognizes our interest in acquiring the Westbay site for regional park purposes. The dedication affords an opportunity to support the development of a regional park at Westbay that would benefit both Orange County and Newport Beach 1 residents, as well as maintain and protect the environmental integrity of the Upper Bay. EMA 1 I Mr. Robert L. Wynn Page 2 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. We would appreciate the Opportunity to review the Response to Comments one week prior to the date scheduled for EIR certification. If you have questions or comments on this matter, please contact Brian Helvey at 834-6735. Very truly yours, {fat�� M. Storm, Director BHsmgPL02-23 6154 Attachments cc% Patricia Temple City of Newport Beach COMMENTS OF IORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY SUBJECT: Draft EIR for General Plan Amendment 85-1(B): Newport Center and Peripheral Sites Water Quality o In response to the Notice of Preparation, the Orange County Environmental Manag¢ment Agency noted that further urbanization in Newport Beach would increase the incidence of runoff to the Bay. we specifically requested that ' the EIR "should fully assess the impact of such runoff into the Bay, and EMA 2 should offer detailed proposals for reducing the entry of street contaminants such as solid matter, oil and grease into the storm drain system." The ' draft EIR, while concluding that the proposed development "will add to a significant cumulative impact on water quality in Newport Bay," fails to, provide specific mitigation measures. o Currently, Newport Center adheres to the City of Newport Beach policies and requirements sited in the EIR, but still impacts the water quality of the Bay on a regular basis, as shown by the following examples: 1. At the Baha Corinthian Yacht Club, complaints have been received regarding the discharge of trash, oil and grease from the storm drain serving Newport Center. The Orange County Health Care Agency monitors total coliform, fecal coliform and enterococcus levels at this site. The results show that standards for water contact sports have been exceeded frequently compared with an equivalent site at Lido Yacht Anchorage, which has no storm drain (70% versus 19% for total coliform). EMA 3A 2. At Newport Dunes Aquatic Park, samples taken from the dunes drain outlet in the swimming lagoon show that bacterial levels have exceeded the standards for water contact sports and shell -fish harvesting in over 75% of cases throughout the year. The lagoon has very poor flushing characteristics and is susceptible to coliform upsurges following freshwater inputs from the watershed. This situation is likely to be exacerbated by the proposed development of boat slips at the lagoon entrance. Three other monitoring sites in the Dunes Lagoon are not as severely impacted as this drain from the east bluffs area, demonstrating the localized impact of this storm drain. ' o For a number of years, efforts have been made by the County of Orange, the City of Newport Beach, the•Department of Fish and Game, the Coastal Commission and other interested parties, including the proponent, to Improve the environmental quality of the Bay. Some progress has been made and further actions have been planned. Any deteriorative action, however small, EMA 3B is detrimental to this goal and should be avoided, wherever reasonably possible. The draft EIR should fully evaluate all possible on -site 1 mitigation measures for reducing the harmful effects of runoff to the Bay, including, but not limited to, the following: -1- r o The EIR should include a discussion of the impacts resulting from the development of Bayview Landing on the Newport Dunes Regional Recreation Facility in Upper Newport Bay. Circulation 1. Improvements to source control practices such as the frequency of street sweeping, refuse pick-up and drain cleaning. A national study recently concluded that "sweeping just prior to the rainy season could produce same benefit in terms of reduced pollution in urban runoff in an area which had pronounced wet and dry seasons." 2. Mechanical methods of separating trash from runoff water. 3. oil/water separators, as requested by the Coastal Commission in the mid 1970's. 4. Installation of retention basins and/or other viable treatment technologies. 5. Alternative location of outfalls for storm drains. Parks and Recreation o The EIR should provide a discussion of the Master Plan of Regional Recreation Facilities/Recreation Element of the Orange County General Plan. this plan identifies the Westbay area as the proposed Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. The County has required through dedication the first increment of this regional park from the Bayview Development. In light of these considerations, and the fact that the County is interested in acquiring the Westbay Site for development, operation and maintenance as a regional park at no cost to the City, the orange County Environmental Management Agency recommends that approval of the subject project be conditioned to provide for the dedication of a mipimum of ±82 acres of the Westbay area as follows: Within 60 days of final approval of the General Plan Amendment, the developer shall make an irrevocable continuing offer of dedication to the Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District over that property currently owned by The Irvine Company totaling approximately 82 acres adjacent to Upper Newport Bay and Irvine Avenue in the City of Newport Beach for regional park purposes. The irrevocable offer shall be in a form approved by the Manager, Orange County Environmental Management Agency, Parks and Recreation/Program Planning Division and suitable for recording fee title. The offer shall be free and clear of monetary and all other encumbrances, liens, leases, fees, assessments and unpaid taxes. Easements (recorded or unrecorded) shall be in a form approved by the Manager, OCEMA, Parks and Aecreation/Prog"am Planning Division. J8MA 1 IF1 :J I I I I EMA ,, I I I c The volume to capacity (V/C) ratios listed on Page 257 for the San Joaquin , Hills Traffic Corridor (SMM) are based on ADT volumes and not a peak hour analysis. As a result, they generally do not reflect V/C ratios forecast by EMA .the County as part of the SJHTC traffic analysis. Attached is a more detailed analysis of ADT and peak hour volumes, as well as V/C ratios by -2- 1 direction on the SJHTC. The V/C ratios for the SJHTC are highlighted by direction for the Newport Beach area. Of particular concern is that an extremely high volume on the SJHTC of 222,000 west of Jamboree is forecast 1 in the EIR; in contrast, the modeling completed for the SJHTC forecasts a volume of approximately 166,000 for this section of RT 73. This is 56,000 ADT discrepancy is something that deserves further explanation and/or evaluation. o Any modification required to the Master Plan of Arterial Highways should be EMA 7 coordinated with the County in accordance with the Arterial Highway Financing Program (AHFP) Procedure Manual. o Existing traffic data and associated V/C ratios shown on PCH (Page 249) are EMA 8 much lower than the County's traffic flow map. o The SJHTC is projected to be operational in 1992. Current projections for the opening of the Corridor are being used to develop a Phase 1 project for construction (i.e., lane configuration, interchanges, etc.). If the EMA 9 _proposed project will aggravate.the projected opening day conditions on the SJHTC, then a discussion should be included in the EIR. o The proposed project significantly intensifies land use in the Newport Center area. Traffic concerns are of foremost importance. The proposed project calls for extension of University Drive. However, the City of Newport Beach has eliminated this link in their adopted Local Coastal Plan. The city should clearly state whether they will be amending their LCP to add EMA 10 this link. If•this is not the city's intent, then the city should concurrently amend their transportation element to delete University Drive and add the road improvements necessary in lies of a University Drive. I' These actions should be clearly delineated in the EIR. Air Quality o .,Volume 2, Page 49 Table 2-R: The current California air quality standards for suspended particulate matter have been revised from 100 micrograms per cubic meter (24-hour averaging time) to 50 micrograms per cubic meter. The EMA 11 new standards are for "Inhalable" particles, which are defined as those particles less than 10 micrometers aerodynamic diameter, PM10' o Volume 2: The Air Quality Section should state if the project is consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The SCAG-82 growth forecast includes population, housing units, and employment; therefore, sufficient details are available to determine consistency with the AQMP. In general, EMA 12 projects in Orange County not consistent with Orange County OCP III growth forecast could be construed as being inconsistent with the SCAG-82 forecast, and thus inconsistent with the AQMP. o If a project proves to be inconsistent with the AQMP, there are several options: EMA 13 1. The project could be modified to become consistent; -3- 2. A General Plan Amendment could be prepared, subject to the requirement of State planning laws; 3. An EIR could be certified for an inconsistent project if a Finding is so made and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is included. This option is not available if a Negative Declaration is used. o Volume 21 Page 53: The EIR should include a quantitative estimate to the fugitive dust emissions generated by the grading and construction operation of the project. The fugitive dust emission should be calculated using realistic assumptions (i.e., estimate the number of acres and months/days that would be required to complete the grading operation, then apply the appropriate emission rate). Bikeways o The Master Plan of Countywide Bikewaya (MPCB) depicts a number of bikeways in the project vicinity. These bikeways include San Joaquin stills Road as a Class I facility (off -road) from Backbay Drive to the eastern City limits; Jamboree Road as a Class I bikeway from Mast Bluff Drive to the Pacific Coast Highways Pacific Coast Highway as a Class I bikeway through the City; and Bayside Drive as a Class I bikeway from Marine Avenue to Marguerite Avenue. In addition, the MPCS shows Marine Avenue as a Class II bikeway (on -road, striped lanes) from Pacific Coast Highway to Balboa Avenue# and Backbay Drive as a Class III bikeway (on -road# signed only) from Pacific Coast Highway to Eastbluff Drive. There is also an existing Class II local bikeway on Santa Barbara Drive from Jamboree to Newport Center Drive. c Inconsistencies with the proposed project includd the depiction on Exhibit 55 of the Class I bikeway along Pacific Coast Highway as being on the inland side of the Highway; the MPCS shows this bikeway on the Coastal side. The San Joaquin Hills Road off -road bikeway is shown on the MPCB as extending past Jamboree Road to Back Bay Drive; the Exhibit shows this link as a "secondary" (on -road?) bikeway. Bayside Drive is also depicted on the Exhibit as a secondary bikeway; the MPCB shows a Class I facility from Marine Avenue to Marguerite Avenue. Finally, although Jamboree Road/Marine Avenue is depicted on the MPCB as Class SI south of Pacific Coast Highway, the Exhibit shows Class 1. o The inconsistencies between the project plan and the MPCB should be discussed in the document. If the City is indeed proposing to make such modifications, the City should coordinate the update to the Transportation Element of the Orange County General Plan with the County to ensure consistency between City dnd County plans. o The CalTrans document, Planning and Design Criteria fo California, details specific design standards for Clam addition, the Transportation Element of the Orange,Cou include# overriding specifications required for the MP which are considered the regional network of bikeways have attached copies of the CalTrans and Orange Count Class I bikeways as this project has a large number o y f a I bikeways. In my General Platt CB Class I facilities, ENA1g in orange County. We specifications for them in the vicinity. -4- I Land Use Planning 1 o The impacts associated with the proposed 375-foot height limit for structures are dismissed in the EIR as insignificant, or as mitigated to acceptable levels. This is a bold statement by the City, particularly in the context of the proximity of the site to the primary departure route for EMA 19 aircraft from John Wayne Airport. FAR Part 77 Regulations, "Objects Affecting Navigable Air Space," will need to be followed. Additionally, the ' City or future developers may he required to purchase avigation easements. o The proposed project will result in significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. Should the city wish to approve the proposal despite EMA 20 the impacts, a statement of overriding considerations is required pursuant to Section 15093 of the State of California CEQA Guidelines. Growth Monitoring o The project includes area within Orange County Transportation Analysis Model JOCTAM) .zones 418, 419 and 420. By applying standard County employment factors to information provided in Table i-A of the EIR, the project would EMA 21 generate approximately 4,666 additional employees at buildout. Within OCTAMs 418 and 419 the project would generate 162 and 4,504 additional employees respectively. o Exhibits 1-8 through 1-20 in the EIR indicate that the net result of the project is a decrease of allowed dwelling units at buildout. Within OCTAMs ERA 22 418 and 420, the net result of the project is an increase of 202 and 80 dwelling units respectively. However, in OCTAM 419, the net decrease of allowed dwelling units is 475. 1 1 o Essentially, the project proposes intensification of employment uses and a reduction and dispersement of dwelling units. Given the proposed increase in development intensity, infrastructure improvements will need to be phased .in conjunction with development in order to avoid system overload. Since EMA 23 the project is a proposed general plan amendment, the additional employment ' and reduced dwelling units generated by the project were not included in the adopted Orange County Preferred Growth Projection 1985-2010 (OCP-85). Flood Control Compliance with City of Newport Beach policies and requirements, and implementation of mitigation measures described in the EIR should be adequate to EMA 24 ensure that development of the proposed project will provide for an appropriate ' flood drainage system. Issues relating to increased impervious areas, erosion, and sedimentation appear to be sufficiently addressed in the EIR. f PL02-23 -5- 4.+ i S.11lt S - -, - al. MI ]Y11111 NIL1517M16MlTlTll11 mRlDlllt 1030 *MFIC FOC:GT i avllawrE lltn NOW t4a'YC MD)1i totFtc[om vau4rroracm Nei carton 14<,1K xan (l4mctF>rss (alverctfrc[tt eta N1t41 71C1MTn+f-1rtS�E7-OMCI., v m CT6'ACM ""VRt/ES"-CY'NC[T) ipTIQ'art----ICR"5x V0t III INNVM M . D M is ® El El 17 YI M x 1 JMw!EtflM mTNR 4 1,200 73T- ---a..w -4--7727}-tr702-(502)--!%0>•7-' - 0 •- R KT 11 136.1 4 7,200 5.6n 0.71 xxa 4 7.200 7,50 934B) 1.05 0 0 ALT 12 156.8 4 7,200 SIM 0.71 +aax 4 7,20 71548 rml 3.C4 0 0 ' VIM 540 ------ 0") i.05-^ •- -4 --0 KT C2 13LI 4 7,200 , UZZ 0.71 axaa 4 7,200 7,541 (34B) 1.05 C. 0 K:al(11WllSd F-atT , , KT Bl 133.3 4 7,200 31951 Met arxa { 7.200 7.231 tSil 1.01 0 0 z 1� KT 12 133.3 - 4 7.200 5,15t 0.01 xax 4 7.2M 71251 (30 1.01 0 0 ' ! ILT C2 133.3 4 7,200 5.051 0.11 axx 4 71 M 71251 1315 1.01 0 0 , BIMWFC41 ' KT It 125.4 4 7.200 6,446 0.90 axx 4 7.200 6,BB3 0.76 0 0 j KT P22 123.4 4 7.270 6,446 a." Sax, 4 7,200 6,135 0.% 0 0 ' �-1L KT C2 -123.4 4 7,200 6" 0." xax - 4 7µ00 61003 0.4E 0 0 1 F15N)FftlCall _ ' -'--IICTA , • KT at 137.2 4 7,200 L361 (167) 1.02 assx S a 7.920 7.747 01-3 0 0 ,� KT 12 131.2 4 7,2% 7,361 (161) 1.02 axx 4 6.120 7,747 (I'M 1.27 0 0 ,e, et ill 2 4 hl00 I,,*? 4t01 he xxa 5. 7 9-e "4? .90 0- KT C2 331.2 4 7,200 7,367 (1671 1.02 axx 4 6,120 7.747 0,6M 1.27 0 0 i etl.IryUuslx R66-��-- _ � r , a. S ---115t'-11f1 KT It 174.3 i 7,200 7.921 (72I) 1.10 axx So 7.4.1 8.750 (B30) LIO 0 0 , KT 22 134.3 4 7,200 7,921 (721) t.10 axx 4 6,120 8,750 12,6'0) 1.43 0 0 :140- KT 134.3- - 4 7,200 7,921 1721) t.10 aaxa 4 6.120 11730 12,630) 1.43 0 0 , MC2� ` .� -r. - tla a=tm ' - - atT 1 b 1 000 tYIS S r ), , ---t151--t(5 KT 11 145.0 4 712M VIM (2,660) 3.37 xaaa 5 a 7.920 9492 (772) 1.10 0 0 KT l2 116.0 4 7,200 9,Y61 Iz.66B) 1.37 xxa 4 6,120 9.692 (2,5721 1.42 0 0 , KT CI - 4° •-.7.200 9,bW • If xxa 4 6,120 0.842 Q.S721 1.42 0 0 y , ,145.0 *.I2,iiQ - 4 • -.i•--742- ACT It 14M - 5 # 7.01 91301 t1llm 1.11 +aax 4 712M Y•4Rt 91.291) 1.11 0 0 KT 02 143.1 4 4,120 Mm (3, I= 1.32 axx 4 7.2M 11481 41,201) 1.111 0 0 KT C2 �'.••;_• •'` t .t ,, 143.1 ;,; +y' "6,I20- r` 9,3pt ,13A1�_• -- 1 not { 7,200 "• BN;I J--2 ', (l.ailll 2 4.1Y 0 0 [ABIIVI/FL'10N . - • `�`- _ is s t _ t KT 11 a` 144.1 4 ,s7,2* 1.1)S (1,673) 1.23 xax 4 7,2M 1.426 ' 11.2^.6) 1.17 0 0 KT itz 141.1 4 7,200 1,Y7S (1.675) 1.23 xax 4 7"M Y•426 HIM) 1.17 0 0 ftl et KT CZ ya'4 IMe1 r- 4' �h240 �• /.073 'iri- 11,J7A �C i S.a., aaaM 4 , h2M $,426 22 = 11'r 1.17 0 0 u aTURME4T LOCI- _ } _ rf x.s� 5- , KT 11 - f• U2.! �,"�.v'.•t 4t� :'T.200+, b87 LI'm . %a .; 05 „ q 5xaaa 3 a 7.920 2,036 1116) Lot 0 0 z PLYR ' +' 141.1 4 " � h200..a 1,26T - tha 71 't 1.15 , ..` : xxa 4 6,120 1,034 (1.916) 1.33 0 0 • ,+ Ki C2 { :? 141.1 ':+' 4 : a • :7,200-i='.IM':t1t,06" 1�5 aaxa 44 6,,12p0y���T, I'M - : 11,116) 1.31 0 0 4 II �, :�ti�:"i{'if w.'�3'c'-G },�{i�h'4•r.�'•..?^.i �,Ft'�'. 'I Y•` 7Js. r. ' r i't F ' _ ;- k�'�T�1 iJf ��/b_,7 'Y 7.. •.T''•" ,.Y �,: iFif: __..���___ .__ F ry •- :3! �:$k IA4WR116, 19B6 . , T', r ' u .. ..kY � AVEVA-MIL, RimICIENTI--VCttt,"EACAr",;:i�ii 'ITT-FSX`IIOICr-fCcFICIEMt--J'i:`EiC%�:ITY' r±' HRr 1 TRAFFIC IAOT) aa+a OF LANES CAPACITY VOLUMES CAPACITY RATID as OF LAM VOLLRES CAPACITY PATIO a,a r, ."3 +a 1 VOL IN iNU1STFt05 MB NB IIB {Ad EB ® EB (B K3 E8 1 ALTA ', 126.0 •_;•� -'_ 3a' :-�7,9ror,�'; 6630 Q. S iai.+ �'_ ..4 �• 7,2W 6r451 O. *6 .6 ALT St _"-;s's:'*,'��Z 123.3 ,' • 3 a' `; ].920 - - 6,964 _ • • . 0.88 aaa - "4 7.200 61808 0.75 0 0 -ALT c. '. a 1 S--18441--'-1:14--araa+-'S-71<01-6:6M3- -e:93--'-'-o -•'0 x ALT Cl 123.5 5 + 7,920 6,764 Q.BB +a+++ 4 7,200 6.B08 0.95 0 0 ALT C2 123.5 4 6, 120 d,964 (044) 1.14 aau 4 7,200 61BW 0.55 0 0 x ALT A ' 104.0 4• •� h200_ ," 3.896 ! t . - 0.82 '. ' :xa+ 4 71200 5,634 Oda 486 +88 T. Fe AZT B1 ;`_: .. _ 106.8 4 "_ w', 7,200 6,264 0.B7 +aaa 4 7,200 6,007 0.53 0 0 x ALT , ;Z64---0:BY--+m.-4 1�6i00T--0.9! __. _ _ 0 - -0 n ALT Cl _ 106.8 4 Go 6,264 0.87 a+aaa 4 71200 6.007 0.93 0- 0 z ALT C2 106.8 4 7,200 6,264 0.87 aaa 4 7,200 6,007 0.63 0 0 F' z ry ALTA'•".;; ., 98.0'•,• :• '-. 411.x';7,200 '•i Sr 178 F:i .0.72 'ana -'4 7.200 4,903 0.68 4E6 486 AZT BI ." 96.0 'tr 4 ": •-712M 5,560 '�. " 9.77 '_'v:' aaa ' ' =4 .'7.200 1 5,291 i 0.73 0 0 s -ACT. - • na. 4 7,200 i291 -'0.73 ___--0 _.0. .. ALT Cl 96.0 4 7,2DO 51560 0.77 aaa 4 7,200 51291 0.73 0 0 ALT C2 96.0 4 7,200 5,560 0.77 +aaa+ 4 7,200 5,291 0.73 0 0 {, SOi.O='`Sr-'- 3".'�;',`_3, 400 `r�i,; 5,246` +`• .. : 0.97 »aa . 4 a 6, 120 •" ,4,636 0.76 4B6 4B6 ALT Bi ,- ° • 101.9 '_ "'ti} 3 ,a _3,400 - y 5,627 (22T) ';• . f.01 aaa 4 + 6, 120 •SA29 Q.B2 0 0 tar-3-4F32¢-3i c ALT Cl 101.9 3 5,400 5,627 (2227) 1.04 an+ 4 + 6.120 5." 0.32 0 0 0 ALT C2 101.9 3 5,400 5,671 1227) 1.04 aaa 3 4020 5,029 (709) 1.16 0 0 T A T4.Gq"i•�'•:��,+,.j:CL.`,+;5,400' '�`=. 4r417' -„ ,' `-' 0.82. .: anaa r %�, }/ , t - l• 3 "' S.4M 3,824 0.71 0 0 1 ' ALT BI PIT-----A1: _ .• �" ^ +4`.1;72.3?„r.4y-,T-3;.2,,5,400?+;'. 4,329 �7;:,j:,,;':`� • 0.80 �,' } aaaa+ 3 Y' 5.400 3,748 0.64 0 0 , x : ,E; .I ALT Cl 3,400 72.5 3.5,400 4,329 0.80 aaaa 3 5,400 3,748 0.69 0 0 OI ALT C2 72.3 3 5,400 4,327 O.BD +a++ 3 5,400 3,748 0.69 0 0 1 � •, ,1 ;�J.,.i•s4 :�p..y�..ly: y,.�•if�.'+�'?�'>.-;��•>�:,�,.,�y'i, 3ti`:•': ,04. _, .. •t��; yri.:`i,C�' .' •.. p:, r z{($ y .t;., l.. t, `4F.,,,-s iy rY.• _ .. ';t � ; 1, s4'„�Y::";{,-'•,'��-;6x'��-,'�1.< �rv,ar`:,''��--'•i+,3„''', n aIN0.1AE5 CLIMBING LAE� as WC RATIO OUTER THAN 1.0 i VOLM EKCUDEB CAPACITY ,• u aasa ROT VOLUMES FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES INCLIIOE NOV TRIPS P ALT A - BASIC PROJECT : i `s rF i.s,',`y?.h =y5: •',5v tti ""-q:+s'tG',2N".4. '(• c�" •"-ram„ 7A;'; 3 `'.:'•-':a} „ •' m s.' ,�f �4 re %`Yy `'i�. �"` i...- •. ' ''.:x '# •) .: n .*. ?.•8{i «•," IW'S I�p Ii1TWUT TRUO(5 '•v ";' Y'-;' .'.`'f r - ;'iY1' . pLTS Bl L'C1 •BASK pIi07ECTTN1ifEUf . - BASIC W 1, -IF'I. w ASSUMPTIONS! _ "{:'� '!+gyp ,�^ - 2t .a j'Y ^''�{fi.R`'`'.,.,''�l;'.,�Py. J•�F�� .i '�rs101i' L^ �a'ti lr.l i.f t4OX 1F I800 Ut 720 TRH.-'^ t i 1- ' ".T '" ..�i �'�' •••; 2. CLIMBING .A. LANE CAPACITY k.. ` t. fa •i r yy,, .a.• I•. ',}�>A ",F�'"`.')` r{�.•ll,' a: FOUR 6QERA. PI4POSE`LANES PLIIS.ME CLIN81N8 LAIE!�/NTNIOfi O.+H3800)`I'''-:i•:d,y'.y4Y - 4. FW VOLUMES ARE REPRESENTED IN VEHICLE TRIPS ;<;• a , y•vRep`StS,cA ..v: _z. .Fi: - ;•?c •!•i t _ k' and Design (Nays rnia . t to: Sections 2373, 2374, 1 2375, and 2376 of the Streets and Highways Code ADRIANA GIANTURCO Director of Transportation June 30,1978 Of California ess and Transportation Agency tmnt of Transportation II DESIGN CRITERIA CLASS I BIKEWAYS Class 1 bikeways (bike paths) are facilities with exclu- sive rights -of -way, with cross flows by motorists minimized. Section 2373 of the Streets and Highways Code describes Class I bikeways as serving "the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians". However, experience has shown that if significant pedestrian use is anticipated, separate facilities ' for pedestrians are necessary to minimize conflicts. Sidewalk facilities are not considered Class I facilities ' because they are primarily intended to serve pedestrians, generally cannot meet the design standards for Class I bike- ways and do not minimize motorist cross flows. (See Class ' III Bikeways" for discussion relative to -sidewalk bikeways.) By State law, motorized bicycles ("mopeds") are pro- hibited on bike paths unless authorized by ordinance or approval of the agency having jurisdiction over the,.path. Likewise, all motor vehicles are prohibited from bike paths. These prohibitions can be strengthened by signing. (See Figure 16.) Widths ' The minimum paved width for a two-way bike path shall be 8 feet. The minimum paved width for a one-way bike path shall be 5 feet. A minimium 2-foot wide graded area shall be provided adjacent to the pavement. (See Figure 1.) A.3-foot graded area is recommended. Where the paved width is wider than the minimum required, the ' graded area may be reduced accordingly; however, the graded area is a desirable feature regardless of the paved width. Development of a one-way bike path should be undertaken only after careful consideration due to 1 the problems of enforcing one-way operation and the difficulties in maintaining a path of restricted width. Where heavy bicycle volumes are anticipated and/or significant pedestrian traffic is expected, the paved width of a two-way path should be greater than 8 feet, preferably 12 feet or more. Dual use by pedestrians and bicycles is undesirable, and the two should be separated wherever possible. Another important factor to consider in determining the appropriate width is that bicyclists will tend to ride side -by -side on bike paths, necessi- tating more width for safe use. 1 Experience has shown that paved paths less than 12 feet wide sometimes break up along the edge as a result of loads from maintenance vehicles. I -10- r' 1 ' FIGURFE 1 TWO-WAY BIKE PATH ON SEPARATED RIGHT-OF-WAY Graded'. r 2Win.): �+ ` Graded .. ' TYPICAL CROSS SECTION BIKE PATH ALONG HIGHWAY �21 Graded ArealMin) Edge of paved 1 *One -Way: a Minimum Width Two -Way; a Minimum Width - 1i- 1 'I Where equestrians are expected, a separate facility should be provided. Clearance to Obstructions A minimum 2-foot horizontal clearance to obstructions shaZZ lie provided adjacent to the pavement. (See Figure 1.) A 3-foot clearance is recommended. Where the paved width is wider than the minimum required, the clearance may be reduced accordingly; however, an adequate clearance is desirable regardless of the paved width, as bicyclists traveling along the edge of the pavement will be subject to potential hazards without it. If a wide path is paved contiguous with a continuous fixed object (e.g., block ' wall) a 4-inch white edge stripe, 1 foot from the fixed object,, is recommended to minimize the likelihood of a bicyclist hitting it. The clear width on structures between railings shall be not less than 8 feet. It is desirable that the clear width of structures be equal to the minimum clear width of the path (i.e., 12 feet). I The vertical clearance to obstructions across t.4e clear width of the path shall be a minimum of.8 feet. 1 Striping and Signing A yellow centerline stripe may be used to separate opposing directions of travel. A centerline stripe is particularly beneficial in the following circumstances: (1) where there is heavy use; (2) on curves with restricted sight distance; and, (3) where the path is,unlighted and nighttime riding is expected; (Refer to section on "Uniform Signs, Markings and Traffic Control Devices" for signing and striping details.) Intersections with Highways Intersections are a prime consideration in bike path design. If alternate locations for a bike path are available, the one with the most favorable intersection conditions should be -selected. Where motor vehicle cross traffic and bicycle traffic is heavy, grade separations are desirable to eliminate intersection conflicts. Where grade separations are not feasible, assignment of. right-of-way by traffic signals should be considered. Where traffic is not heavy, stop or yield signs for bicyclists may suffice. When crossing an arterial street, the crossing should either occur at the, pedestrian crossing, where ' motorists can be expected to stop, or at a location completely out of the influence of any intersection to permit adequate opportunity for bicyclists to see . turning vehicles. When crossing at midblock locations, .rights -of -way should be assigned by devices such as yield signs, stop signs, or traffic signals (which can be activated by bicyclists). Even when crossing within -12- or adjacent to the pedestrian crossing, stop or yield signs for bicyclists should be placed to minimize ' potential for conflict resulting from turning autos. Where bike path signs are visible to approaching auto traffic, they should be shielded to avoid confusion. In some cases, Bike Xing signs may be placed in advance of the crossing to alert motorists. Ramps should be installed in the curbs, to preserve the utility of the bike path. Separation Between Bike Paths and Highways A wide separation is recommended between bike paths and adjacent highways. Bike paths closer than 5 feet from the edge of a highway shall include a physical divider to prevent bicyclists from encroaching onto the highway. Suitable dividers could include chain link fences or dense shrubs. Low barriers (e.g., dikes, raised traffic bars) next to a highway are inappropriate because bicyclists could fall over them and into oncoming auto- , mobile traffic. In instances where there is danger of motorists encroaching into the bike path, a positive barrier (e.g., concrete barrier, steel guard railing) should be provided. (Refer to Page 35 for criteria relative to bike paths carried over highway bridges.) Bike�aths immediately to streg�and , highways' are .not _rgcom�ne�,d��; They sTiould not be con- sidered a substitute for the street, because many bicy- cl s:t�swill .find.-it.less_.g:onvenient to ride on" there —types facilities with the i—MIarly of as compared streets;"pai for utility trips. Some problems wi�h bike paths located follows: immediately adjacent tb roadways are as They require one direction of bicycle traffic to ride against automobile traffic, contrary to normal rules of the road. When the bike path ends, bicyclists going against traffic will tend to continue to travel on the wrong side of the street. Likewise, ' bicyclists approaching a bike path will often travel on the wrong side of the street in getting to the path. Wrong -way travel by bicyclists is a 1 major cause of bicycle/auto accidents. At intersections, motorists entering or crossing ' the highway often will not notice bicyclists coming from their right, as they are not expecting contraflow vehicles. Even bicyclists coming from the left may go unnoticed. When constructed in narrow roadway rights -of - way, the paved shoulder is often sacrificed, thereby decreasing safety for motorists and bicyclists using the roadway. .13- 1 ' Many bicyclists will use the highway (legally) instead of the bike path because they may feel the highway is safer, more convenient or main- tained better. Bicyclists using the highway are often subjected to harassment by motorists, who feel they should be on the path, instead. Bicyclists using the bike path generally are required to stop or yield at all cross streets ' and driveways, while bicyclists using the highway will usually have priority over cross traffic. Stopped cross street motor vehicle traffic will often block the bike path crossing. Because of the closeness of motor vehicle I traffic to opposing bicycle traffic, barriers are often necessary to keep motor vehicles out of bike paths and bicyclists out of motor vehicle lanes. These barriers cause many problems. They can be a hazard to bicyclists and motorists, and they can complicate maintenance of the facility. For the above reasons, bike lanes or bike routes (shared use) are generally the best way to accommodate ' bicycle travel along highway corridors, when it has been determined that bikeways are appropriate. Bike Paths in the Median of Highways_ As a general rule, bike paths in the mqdian of highways are not recommended•;because they require movements contrary to normal rules of the road. Specific problems with such facilities include: Bicyclist right turns from the center of roadways are unnatural for bicyclists and confusing to motorists. Proper bicyclist movements through intersections with signals are unclear. ' Left -turning motorists must cross one direction of motor vehicle traffic and two directions of bicycle traffic, which increases conflicts. 1 Where intersections are infrequent, bicyclists will enter or exit bike paths at midblock. Where medians are landscaped, visual relation- ships between bicyclists and motorists at 1 intersections are impaired. For the above reasons, bike paths in the median of highways should be considered only when the above problems can be avoided. -14- Design Speed The proper design speed for a bike path is dependent on the expected type of use and on the terrain. The minimum design bpeed for bike paths shall be 20 mph. The following design speeds are recommended: Design Speed Bike Paths with Prohibited Bike Paths with Permitted Bike Paths on Long Downgrades (steeper than 4 percent, and longer than 500 feet). Installation of "speed bumps" or other similar surface obstructions, intended to cause bicyclists to'Wow down in advance of intersections, shall not be used. Such devices can cause bicyclists to fall and can result in serious injuries. These devices cannot compensate for improper Horizontal Alignment and Superelevation Minimum recommenced curve radii and superelevations for various design speeds are shown in Figure 2. when minimum curve radii are selected, increased pavement width on the inside of the curve is recommended to com- pensate for bicyclist lean. straight 2 percent cross slope is recommended sections. Superelevations steeper than 2 pe be avoided on bike paths expected to have adu e traffic. Stopping Sight Distance Figure 3 indicates the minimum stopping sigh distances for various design speeds and grades. two-way bike paths, the descending direction will the design. Length of Crest Vertical Curves Figure vertical cu FIGURE 2 CURVE RADII & SUPERELEVATIONS 110U. MEN =11hom ME 0 �qbhh- OEM i NEE No MEWS IM MMNMn M�Emqm c [Y co c0 O N O O 0 0 O O Superelevotion Rate - Ft./ Ft. N plot of: AR = ianBanf 0 where:V = velocity, ft./sec. g =acceleration due to i gravity, ft./sec? R = radius of curvature,ft. N f =coefficient of friction on e dry pavement = 0.4 E (based on maximum 20°lean) o ton 0 = superelevoiion rate, ft./ft. 0 11 - lb- Lateral Clearance on Horizontal Curves Figure 5 indicates the minimum clearances to line - of -sight obstructions for horizontal curves. The required lateral clearance is obtained by entering Figure 5 with the stopping sight distance from Figure 3 and the proposed horizontal curve radius. ' Grades Bike paths generally attract less skilled bicyclists, so it is important to avoid steep grades in their design. ' Bicyclists not physically conditioned will be unable to negotiate long steep uphill grades. Since novice bicy- clists often ride poorly maintained bicycles, long down- grades can cause problems. For these reasons, bike paths with long, steep grades will generally receive very little use. The'maximum grade rate recommended for bike paths is 5 percent. It is desirable that sustained grades be limited to 2 percent if a wide range of riders is to be accommodated. Steeper grades can be tolerated for short segments (e.g., up to about 500 feet). Where • "steeper grades are necessitated, the design speed should be increased and additional width should be provided for maneuverability. ' Structural Section ' The structural section of a bike path should be designed in the same manner as a highway, with considera- tion given to the quality of the basement soil and the anticipated loads the bikeway gill experience, Principal loads will normally be from maintenance and emergency vehicles. A minimum pavement thickness,of 2 inches of asphalt concrete is recommended. Type "A" or "B" asphalt 'concrete (as- described in Department of Transportation Standard Specifications), with 1/2-inch maximum aggregate and medium grading is recommended. Consideration should be given to increasing the asphalt content to provide increased pavement life. ' Drainage For proper drainage, the -surface of a bike path should have a cross -slope of 2 percent. Sloping in one direction usually simplifies longitudinal drainage design and surface construction, and accordingly, is -the preferred practice. Ordinarily, surface drainage from the path will be ade- quately dissipated as it flows down the gently sloping shoulder. However, when a bike path is constructed on the side of a hill, a drainage ditch of suitable dimensions may be necessary on the uphill side to intercept the hill- side drainage. Where necessary, catch basins with drains should be provided, to carry intercepted water across the path. -18- Culverts or bridges are necessary where a bike path crosses a drainage channel. Barrier Posts ' It may be necessary to install barrier posts ("bollards") at entrances to bike paths to prevent motor vehicles from entering. When locating such installations, ' care should be taken to assure that barriers are well-' marked and visible to bicyclists, day or night (i.e., install reflectors or reflectorized tape). Otherwise, the posts can represent hazards greater than that posed ' by unlawful entry of motor vehicles. Figure 6 shows a cross section of a barrier post design that may be used. ' It includes the use of a heavy rubber food belting sleeve around and above the post to reduce the hazards of impact. Striping an envelope around the barriers is also recom- mended. If sight distance is limited, special advance warning signs or painted pavement warnings should be provided. Where more than one post is necessary, a 5-foot spacing should be used to permit passage of .bicycle-towed.trailers, adult tricycles and to assure ' adequate room for safe bicycle passage without dismounting. Barrier post installations should be designed so they are removable to permit entrance by emergency and service vehicles. Generally, barrier configurations that preclude entry by motorcycles present safety and convenience problems for bicyclists. Such devices should be used only where extreme problems are encountered. I I -20- r FIGURE 6 BARRIER POST -150dia --� SECTION 10� Yellow sir PLAN -21- , t I 1 Rubber sleeve (food belting) 18"wide 3/I6" thick attached , to steel pipe - ' 2„ wide Silver Reflective Tape (or install reflectors) 6" Dia, steel pipe 18" long (removable) 3/4„ Dia. 8 long galvanized bolt with a 3/8" hole for padlock Pavement " 5 Id Dia, steel pipe(well casing) 24" long Concrete footing r NOTE. Post pointed bright yellow for visibility r 1 r r r .. ;y.. .YCt��•r�\-'iYlrJtfi Jt rz:Bti:'':t.•.`'y3'`:;t^il .Yi'y;v>i"a..::�:;: �` �i•• ti�r+�\i sr���r`-3F.�'^r': , � ��� t_;'� :ryv <�:-tit"'>Itr'�' y'.,..^::?i J,✓ !il'•.�.7v'.-�'=t••7 v '�' .•i' Y' f.' :, �l .. � - rti" lv.. • � ] .v;•'n • J • '..tom` • a" i' f s; `�' ' • Mp SnH-esygg'-J-s•'•'r i �w4'ti}xy •i!' a CS . or .�:t."<. l-i �..: 'r,- yt ):-rtv y,• )c-gyn ; .. !'�`� t. •:1•a, t: d'•=:, �r':'Y v2�F.a ���i: 7i-. :r=;.yr-i n.•^ :{i• .v �3a.� ^��nr' {�'if:.�'•i..r .. �y RTAT..Mp'i'i" ~-iY- "'%,Frr,•y'FT'l'`":ur•:r�:�,: ..., •�` ®: ELEMENT •[y<�l..i,\n{:- _ _ q may:::,••.^. „ri '"'�'.ei'�iF'f. ;..e 7ti �..•: :,' � (t tir:' •t•• ', •l�':.'nhYF. •':: a.:ti ,'_i MY•'�;, 4." a'r:-� �Pnl,. :i' .z�.-.,:r�.{�3 M .�(y$,Re-J�i.+r+.l'i•,r ..: � Y� � r . ,. %J':, %'•M� .liA :H' L::E-�'•Y`1 "F'rvl'• . �y�yY�J3"`•„�Q', '.•.C^ A+M<("a17...n R. .�t1, C !� "-S. I' •� ._,3l'�'i'^`:•r,.:^�F A<-�'.: j�•:Y�.�.Rs:F-„zs"--`WY^t h: "rae'"rlr y: �"L•''s•�,'x7.�^•r•-.Y.> �i z„lz,�-1�.at'`:...:..{y w .%' � ✓ ��� ' = � "'.tt.. '� .]' �c`72r,'• Fa.. "+-FAT-'r: w' ' �: y r� •l. 'z:-`�; ✓''c. _ a♦,�y.y �'yy'1in :'...7 `M:i+."-�:'�'.:1.# •, ri•Y{ 41'yap�J'�%nq:v'+•:f''?a4i, si"".�1•.,-�'�y! :-•„�.ii cy'cfo-v'�.,. ?-`=" _ �_�''-.°�SP?x'•.=F:'�:a'';"!;_ :. �`.;,`'S�'.:-c� :Jr._ ��s"�.7.q`. rt`-• o,4i j�t' r�i5'^:??y��-t .�y:S :�: :y`�q:lC; L. „t.'�,iy<. �-l. },.•v:�,.. ^':.e`er .j?p-L.-�;s. i+uT-:.Ci•':awK7�.M-ju.J=,;<i� •d:. .':-a .�q, `'r qri.: Y�":i:: t ;'Fti��:', •:ti�'`t q'un�.y�,•.`�.."'i"-j.. Ate. .r',� 'i}�,•' ` .>• <`'7y'i$'' 14`e. 7.n-)�i;,.„..:'-_ 1: N, ... jq. ;Y^�T •rV :•sgfp•i;" M�j{!,•�' R:.,. - .a. ;11::fi_ '•i•-. •.•s�'�'!.'i!�''i•,t• �i^v. L,= VA:tCE:=f:, 'L-it' ,t�M/^.'tuY .�.F'.f.Y'd.wlnY.•YZiJ.f�••. .. .. '. * rr :e:f..•^•.,%s„'iI.?]•.>. 'Yw - . ,�.•�. Jtf.,i_r_.::'ry :: ..F: %..c2�.%�n:..JoR-r.�i.. 1.L•c:.-�••,F it ti np,\ n�ei_ :tr'� afl2.' ci;'' 7 or =t :"y'fl:.. wty `'''«e,-�F•,'.�:"%'F:=.A ""�:,l�F;n -- ':jc.t: "}fix _c^ s`ii•n-�t•.;,Pll:�un, ±7;Sj.' �.: - t:-.'.:.....'i.ik"_r:!. �•f <¢,::'.^�•:`r,+'ai:� F ;r-7: �t-r r.:£-.tr`,r.ibi.:.0 .�, r ,'. •� .2:'i• .Ni'r". '} �zl ;`"�ti"t"#�54.-.r :`'t"'- i',:^' +.: t+"F ':qCe `!. „ •; ;r _' w% g°..e•'i.; 6•s',irT- j�.v w NSTt• .rl 5' G'.tc �L:••l•_ •.1We=.v:�r:M' ;:.-1F` _'�:a - -. at , {•� :.. �t y tc+r ' ':'+G' .:J^ - „wi ��4. SGe �=..++c ::y• ni.5: s, .✓.. :-i-t::'-Vt p ... S�, 'S-. 1.xet2�2•iY�K >,Xi .:y: �•e .r� - _ _':.�v- K•Y rt���G�i"''i.:`tC ;z"'.,"''�'Yt;s::� n•-j;:' i�r:ts ^-°�rti:'^'.'Y,'� mJ.:!,�t� z _ : ,t:: :. _ ' • � .n.�F,- .. �. .ar•.�i:- a. .r}�:i4:<'i"-t+i'•'� '2�. •1' '•l•ti ^•:i: _ •••ram' i'K ':vrv-t'`itJ a•E:r,�vs$. �" ,,.�+ :.,'7 t .�77i nY ♦:te':;r. ..nry J'e� w -.�1'S � •.�•.�.:�. _- ..r :•ti:. r., r�r-n.r5,'h a�,F :P+N'• g :s,J '>�[,.'1'• Aut i.4`. ,.\rif:i: - '(Y-_- �: !. - .'.t-,'.vY :�'Y 1 ti.$<.�i t(:'rrytti,' f. ...:.� ••`�..• r •titr:w'a..'i'i r+'-:.:.::YiI �'Nn • I'n i-'✓.:i i'y�:.k...t .a !''��:t"^i n::, "r. '; ..tm f .•.! t94 q 1iFY. . '•_ r, v4 1 -,Una •T3, n:. .'ram ; : S:S '•, • - -' " F:fTt'. `•?-' vY=`"„ - ;�4':. .. -• ii :)'•tip.... y..� S: ;. n�.•:jr.+ �r y,. �' q +'•lvr .. Y��- :•]: .f'..i".:.:•�li•'+- '..d�•at �= -' Y:il..-- ]'- .> � n.•- 1' ��wvT J.] t''�, r41 , i�t -t„ - .'•.4c-iY `��..:,+- La•..i :q•{ � CrC[3u':'x:?�1:=.„.`. n- T' `{�, " "co - .. _ •. v' tti: f:CL'r,.7+-i•�t•.cs• . r. 1'i:"-'{ti;•:. '�)�:�f_^r„ •:�-1 tn.r:. i.Y f: C: :i1.i -'J ,rqr - ,�� •j!: �.•gi:.:y.h. 25'• trrr •t^, .,Y f,V -, y th•: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT-'': AGENCY • • - .-• - �� of 0�9 ,• • .. ,' 2'-0' (MIN.) 10'-0' (MIN, WIDTH) PAVED -� (MIN.) GRADED GRADED TWO-WAY BIKE PATH FIGURE 1 ON SEPARATED RIGHT: -OF -WAY E' SOLID WHITE STRIPE 3'-0' CHIN.) (MIN.) 1 4'-0' MOTOR VEHICLE LANES 4-0 (MIN.) (MIN.) (MIN.) ' BIKE LANE BIKE LANE FIGURE 2 I BIKE LANE PARKING PROHIBITED I I ' PARKING STALL OR OPTIONAL 4' SOLID STRIPE ' ASOLID WHITE STRIPE L-sy , -0. MOTOR VEHICLE (MIN.) (MINaA LANES PAR K4NG-I;A#E WM PARKING LANE BIKE FIGURE 3 BIKE LANE PARKING PERMITTED' E. PLAN CQNCEPTS The map depicting the Master Plan of Countywide Bikeways indicates the ' general location and classification of all existing and proposed regional bikeways in Orange County. (Appendix D) A description of each facility type and its design standards follows. The discussion on design standards is meant for planning purposes only. The Caltrans publication "Planning and Design Criteria for Bikeways in California" can be referenced for clarification and specific detail on design speeds, signing, striping and other related design. issues. This document has been adopted by EMA for the design of bikeways. An EMA-adopted addendum to the Caltrans document can be found in Appendix B. Additional information can be found in the County's adopted Standard Plans and in Appendix C which provide basic guidelines regarding appropriate bikeway class designation. Regional Bikeway System Characteristics 1. Class I Bikeway (Bike Path or Trail) ' A bike path is a facility which is physically separated from.the roadway and designated primarily for the use of bicycles, with crossflows by pedestrians and motorists minimized. Bike paths serve corridors not ' served b streets and highways or where there is sufficient right-of-way to constect a separate facility. They can provide both recreational opportunities or potentially commuter routes. These facilities often ' bridge gaps -in the system caused by man-made or natural barriers. They often utilize abandoned railroad tracks, utility easements, river beds or parks. ' Width The minimum paved width of the two-way Class I Bikeways listed on the Master Plan of Countywide Bikeways should be 10 feet with a 2-foot wide graded area immediately adjacent to each side of the trail pavement (see Figure 1). In instances where there is restricted right-of-way due to physical limitations, such as a narrow bridge or severe topography, an 8-foot wide bike path is permissible. In such instances the graded area adjacent to the bike path may be reduced from the required 2 feet. 2. Class 1I Bikeway _(Bike Lanes) ' A bike lane is a striped lane on the paved area of a road for preferential use of bicycles. It is usually located along the edge of the paved area outside the motor vehicle travel lanes or between a parking lane and the first motor vehicle travel lane. A bike lane delineates the right-of-way assigned to the bicyclists and motorists and provides for more predictable movements by each. A bike lane is identified by a "Bike Route" or "Bike Lane" sign, special lines, and "Bike Lane" stencils on the pavement. Bike lanes are one-way facilities. MPCB-4 i 3. Widths ' A bike lane must be a minimum of 4 feet wide and should provide at least ` 3 feet between the traffic lane and the longitudinal joint at the concrete gutter, since the transition between the gutter and street may not be ' "smooth (see Figure 2). On arterial highways without curbs and gutters a minimum of 4 feet is required. I ' Where parking Is permitted, a minimum width of '41 feet is required to accommodate both the parking lane and the bike lane. The bike lanes must be at least 3 feet wide and located between the motor vehicle travel ' lane and the parking lane (see Figure 3). If bike lanes are to be located on one-way streets, they should be placed on the right side of the street minimizing left turn conflicts with motorists. Class III (Bike Routes) A bike route Is a bicycle facility Identified by "Bike Route" guide signing ' only. There are no special lane designations and bicycle traffic shares either the roadway with motor vehicles or the sidewalks with pedestrians, and, In either case, bicycle usage Is secondary. Bike• routes are , established as a means to connect discontinuous segments of bikeways not served by Class I or II bikeways. F 1 MPCB-S ' �I 1 Newport H4 May 29, 1986 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA hts Community Association Nport Beach, California / RECEIVED Plannirt D^oanment MAY 3 01986 1"- CRy of Nei OR7 BEACH l Dear Planning Commission Chairman and fellow Commissioners: The Board o found that concerning pact of the Mile. f Directors of the Newport Heights Community Association has the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Amendment CA NB the expansion of Newport Center lacks discussion of the im- 1 road mitigations for the Pacific Coast Highway in Mariners The Board of Directors of the Newport Heights Community Association has taken a strong stand against widening the Pacific Coast Highway and also against improvements at the intersections of Riverside Drive and Tustin Avenue. We believe that the Pacific Coast Highway should be kept in its present state to encourage Mariners Mile as a destination point. We also are concerned with the many children who cross the Highway to and from schools and beaches. We would like to see the Highway improved in an L_.; aesthetic fashion _, and are currently developing ideas in this direction We also believe that improved intersections would encourage traffic through our neighborhood. One possible improvement we would find accept- able would be longer turn pockets to avoid tying up traffic in the through lanes. However, double turn pockets ¢nd widened intersections ar unacceptable. Thank you for your attention to this very important matter! S'ncerely, Karen J.�`Srr�-�_ g President Newport Heights 722-8413 Community Association v ,3Q 519Iris Avenue Corona del Mar, May 29, 1986 Ms. Patricia Temple OF Newport Beach Planning Dept. (rt 3300 Newport Blvd. N G�1SF Newport Beach, CA 91658-8915yDear Ms. Temple: j Cat .c' A Re: Newport Beach GPA 85-I(B) EIR Report Issues Znyironmental Impacts : Noise and Air Pollution CA 92625 ' �. r 1. PCH traffic effects on business and homes along PCH in Corona del Mar have not been considered and no mitigation is offered. It is Newport Beach City policy that homes are not allowed to be built in 65 dba CNEL range of highways without sound mitigation. Mitigation measures were proposed for Harbor View homes along MacArthur. The recently published Point del Mar EIR points out Future Traffic Noise Levels along PCH. Table l RN [1 Distance to CNEL Contour From ' Centerline of Roadway (feet) Roadway 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL MacArthur Blvd. 116 250 538 Pacific Coast Highway 105 227 490 ' Z6 Our point is that all businesses directly fronting Pacific Coast High- yray in Corona del Mar and all residences in at least the 65 CNEL range RN 2� should be noise mitigated by sound instillation etc. This is not discussed 1 councilmen although it was brought to Staffs attention numerous times before and during , 1 fAanoger the EIR. 7 P::orney 3 D:dq. Dir. au6ury Dir. Similarly air pollution and toxic chemical exposure of people laving K 6 R Dir. and working adjacent to PCH in Corona del Max should be discussed. With 3 Planning Dir. the bottlenecking of PCH, shop owners, employees and nearby residents RN 3 Police Chief :3 P.W. Dirincreasingly are increasin ly being exposed to higher doses of air and toxic pollution ,] Other including in particular benzene. I Chi Recreation and Open Space The April 24, 1986 Planning Commission Staff Report Item No. 6 shows that most Newport Center housing park dedication with the excep- tion of Newporter North and Newport Village is from 5 acres at the mouth of Big Canyon. This acreage is unusable by the population and therefore RN 4 serves no resident recreation need. Further, other projects have credits in this area. Hence between 5 and 10 acres of residential parks are in- stead a marsh with a, we suspect, Park Department paid for storm sewer. Further, between 9. 5 and 10. 7 acres of needed parks are being trans- ferred from Newporter North and Newport Village to West Bay for a county regional park not even bordered by Newport Beach on its longest side. CDM and Balboa are deficient in Parks by Park Dept, survey. Harbor View Hills, CDM and East Bluff are dependent on closed school property for RN 5 recreation facilities. The fields at Lincoln, East Bluff adjacent the Boy's Club and the 1 /3 of Grant Howald Park formthe backbone of our recreation facilities. W by is the Park Dept not tying up the s e facilities and why a r e we not expanding facilities inihe Grant Howald Park area for the sizeable expected and current needs. The Parks have been gutted in Newport Beach by: 1. The redefinition of a park from a square flat useable recreation area to an almost anything (i, e. View Park, Nature Park, etc). This has allowed large areas as the mouth:'.of Big Canyon to ]be classified as parks. 2. The allowance as public park credit of private recreation facilities. These facilities are unavailable to other citizens but do not deter these project citizens from demanding current park rights; -and, RN 6 3. The determination by the city that neighborhood parks are not needed but that instead these resident paid for parks should be used for industrial league parks, nature preserves and unusable rolling lawns for a priveleged few'. This should not be allowed and the actions and effects of such pro- posals should be addressed in the applicable EIR's. Traffic and Circulation The traffic study and impact analysis, on one hand assume unlimited capacity on a given road, and on the other hand, the figures at quite low RN i traffic levels are used to justify road* expansions. t 11 For example a 4 lane road capacity is assumed at 360 000 vpd and is used to justify a 6 lane highway on MacArthur from PCH to San Miguel on the otherhand PCH from Marguerite to MacArthur is assumed able to handle 53. 8K to 62.4 K vpd (Fig. 3-6 Vol 4) without problem, We would note the EIR does not even know the traffic in this segment (Fig. 2-1 and Table 2-1 Vol 4). Virtually everyone knows traffic conditions are worse now than in 1980, yet the 1980 traffic figures from the City show traffic figures of 43K vpd on Sunday and 46 K vpd on weekdays (see attached figures), if both figures are correct then traffic is so bottlenecked that capacity re- ductions are being experienced. What we wish to point out is that traffic projections of 53. 8K vpd and 62.4K vpd cannot be achieved during the same or moderately extended operating hours. Therefore the traffic analysis is invalid. We point out that staff has gone into considerable analysis to determine how many cars are going on side streets through CDM but they continue to use 1600 vph per lane of green time for all intersections. Similar and rea- sonable analysis would show such traffic cannot be achieved on most resi- dential streets. On the other hand greater densities may be justified on open highway segments such analysis should be done. Similarly, actual conditions should be considered. Certainly a limited access 4 lane Mac- Arthur can handle more traffic than PCH in CDM which has parking, nu- merous curb cuts, intersections every block, etc. The EIR should take these actual circumstances into account, i I Finally there is no indication that down coast development is included in Pelican Hills traffic analysis. It is not listed in Puxhibit 1.35 or 1-36, Vol. I. Further volumes shown do not show this traffic generation. In any event the down coast traffic should be included and its effects made very clear in the EIR. We apologize that our comments are not more complete. We are led to believe on the basis of our cursory analysis that a deliberate attempt has been made to keep from public view the Westbay and Jamboree/PCH overpass trade-offs. The trade-off of Pelican Hills and 6 lane PCH has not been mentioned publicly. We believe people should be allowed to dis- cuss what affects them and these discussions should be clearly outlined in the EIR. Very truly yours, fhard.A. Nichols RAN:sn cc: Newport Beach City Council t I RN 8, I RN 9, RN 30 RN 11 1 I m m m m m m m m M- M m m m m m m m m m _ /� �\\1.\. \\\ice,•' '\ -� ._. /i ie �•t _ :. .. \, � % �, .. ' Sri, �: t r•^' � , • wo '( �� _� i �'.'`, .•1\ �'i., ' .• r•'w \T.'^�"t ,q e �10' oi•� ... '.tea .� ' � -.'�J,� •m �t �a3�rl �'.- xs '.tte '^7 d`F d�:'• :•:.;. �I`u � _ • � _" mot; '' i':Maw �`. x, .. °xE �r. `•a I f•1I Ju i� .. \i__ , r �. O '• {• 7:ri �`a' 1. "•� .wr'• tom• _,y. r � ;,i �..-.> „ a,� \ -��_. hn �? aw �� 1 no Li•`i`ij.�,•fw � - eec_'%''• \\��'.�" :1�`-- •1° I - �� ./I { Ilf ••' :, N o00 1..1... � � � , • —sv ,.L•�•� ♦"':°:j r/•!I�:L " .. 1 J tft131143i 11{ � ryT 1� _� I, Yeti` Non �• 1 • ..`• _•._ tf ♦ �•' :trirtJ .r-•°r . - 7 �ITY a xcrronr .rxx - --- 1980 • ' "•°"! ni• -• - -.- .......`..'r"q` TRAFFIC FLOW•!��- J.. L_ lm t7�tYlpfy '- .• •-� t�•��`'�\\1.``•\\\ is �+_ _ i `f •�'M :`w,�..rr ),-. - y\�C\,. \'+ ~ ;+... 1% ir! "'-raw.. _ �� ' ,ice %�. � :" _� .•``:\\`_� ;t �!!�.' �i'' I ` ! is �\�. •p) � +t _ r\\. yr . t tlti: iiii). iii.)w1'f�2Y:,1• `. . • ."` F J ,~a�.F •a\`/✓-1}� I. RBI it :.• Ti�:s,�yj.� aft�ijt� - .- �. — WWI S� THE IRVINE COMPANY ' RECEIVED Piannire May 29, 1986 9 Deoartrr,er,t MAY 2 91986 d- C1TY of %OEo"ACH, Ms. Patricia L. Temple CALIF.Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach N 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 ' SUBJECT: NEWPORT CENTER GPA 85—l(B) EIR ' Dear Ms. Temple: The Irvine Company has reviewed the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for GPA 85-1(B) and would like to take this opportunity to ' comment on the document. First, we would like to emphasize that we appreciate the ' extensive work and documentation that has gone into preparing the EIR. Our comments specifically address some items in the report that, in our opinion, need clarification or further ' explanation. Our suggestions are provided in the interest of assuring that the Final EIR is complete and contains an accurate assessment of the project. We have framed our comments in the attachment in this order: 1. Comments on the Analysis of Development Sites and Alternatives 2. Comments Regarding Transportation Issues 3. Section by Section Comments on Mitigation Measures We would be pleased to answer any questions or provide further ' clarification on these comments, if necessary, through Dave Dmohowski, who can be reached at 720-2335. Sincerely, 4 ' Monica Florian Vice President ' Policy Management & Entitlement MF:jtm ' enclosure 1 550 Newport Center Drive, PO. Box I, Newport Beach, California 92658-8904 • (714) 720.2000 I. COMMENTS ON THE ANALYSIS OF DEVELOPMENT SITES AND ALTERNATIVES ' We do not believe the draft SIR clearly addresses the planning ' rationale underlying the overall project or the planning/urban design reasons for the project's individual components in sufficient detail. Because of the absence of a clear statement and articulation TIC 11 of the project's overall and individual component planning objectives, the analyses of development proposals for each site and the inter -relationships between the sites do not reflect the planning rationale which formed the basis for proposing site -specific uses. In turn, the alternatives suggested for consideration for each site are difficult to assess in relation to proposed uses because these planning considerations are not reflected in the SIR discussion. Frequently, the text of the draft SIR Will conclude that an alternative is "environmentally superior" without stating the TIC planning/environmental rationale for such a conclusion or in any way comparing the proposed project with the alternative in terms of the ' planning and design criteria that must provide the basis for any comparison. GPA 85-1(B) is the result of many years of experience on the part of The Irvine Company and the City in developing Newport Center and the ' surrounding environs. Many planning considerations that were an TIC integral part of the preparation of the proposed GPA are not ; reflected in the assessment of the project and of the alternatives to the project, in many instances, an alternative is proposed in the draft SIR without fully acknowledging the planning and design efforts reflected in our proposal. In order to treat these issues adequately in the SIR under CEQA, we believe that the alternatives section should be amplified to include a full presentation of the planning TIC 4 objectives for Newport Center and for each of the alternatives which the SIR suggests. Such a presentation would then allow for a comparison of the proposed project and alternatives in more meaningful terms. , We further believe that our proposed project not only reflects an internally consistent and sound planning rationale but also conforms with and carries out City policies and the Southern California Association of Governments' regional land use policies which call for , grouping of activities. The City's Land Use Element of the General Plan and SCAG policies encourage concentration of development into TIC 5' villages and "planned communities" to strengthen physical identity and functional efficiency. Each of the suggested alternatives in the SIR must be measured against both the urban design and public planning principles underlying GPA 85-1(B) before any conclusion can be reached as to whether the proposed project or an alternative is "environmentally superior". -1- I I 1 LJI I Planning Concept of Newport Center Fashion Island and the surrounding Newport Center complex is an inter- dependent combination of uses first master -planned over twenty years ago. The overall concept for Newport Center was, and is today, to provide a center of focus for the community. The complex contains, in a single destination point, a compatible mix of uses which: (1) attract daylong business and commercial activity; (2) provide civic and entertainment facilities and (3) provide housing for an economically diverse group of homeowners and renters in close proximity to employment centers. The proposed development included in GPA 85-1(B) is intended to strengthen and reinforce this fundamental concept of complementary uses. In attaining this basic goal of complementary uses serving as a focus for the community, Newport Center's planning program has been guided by the following basic principles: 1. Enhance the community center function by providing for new entertainment areas and additional civic functions; 2. Provide a broader mix of shopping opportunities and associated entertainment/support functions (e.g. restaurants) to further accentuate public center activities and to enhance Fashion Island's long-term viability as a shopping/gathering place; 3. Concentrate major employment centers through infill to enhance transit/ridesharing opportunities and to create a pedestrian -accessible office complex!; 4. Use "infill" as a guiding principle to accentuate existing use patterns and foster interaction between use areas (e.g. office employees shopping at Fashion Island, thereby reducing auto trips and office buildings located in close proximity to hotels); 5. Provide low-rise offices on the edge of the major employment areas as a visual transition to local arterial roads, PCH and existing low-rise development. 6. Provide a mutually supportive mix of office and residential uses which in turn support the economic vitality of Fashion Island. Importantly, the mix of uses in Newport Center has been carefully balanced to provide a firm economic and functional base for: - Regional transportation facility improvements (Pelican Hill Rd, MacArthur Blvd, Pacific Coast Highway, San Joaquin Hills Road, Jamboree Road); r - Transit opportunities; - Affordable housing opportunities; - Expansion of civic and cultural facilities. -2- TIC E I Each development site within Newport center is planned to be 1 compatible with, and complementary to, the existing pattern of development. Bach site strives to carry out the objectives of the original master plan by William Perrera on an "infill" basis. 9y in filling within the existing pattern with compatible uses, Newport TI center maintains existing open space and recreational amenities, maintains view corridors, creates a new view park within the Bayview 1 Landing site, and maintains Newport Center as the focal point of activity, acting as a town center for the entire community of Newport Beach. 1 We feel that the planning and design objectives on which we base our plan provide the appropriate mix and placement of uses to best fulfill the potential for the site. Newport Center offers one of the few 1 commercial office sites between San Francisco and San Diego which can capitalize on the ocean views within an established urban setting. TIC 8 The proposed development of the 600 and 800 blocks fulfills this potential, while fitting into the development pattern established 1 years ago with the development of the existing towers and mid -rises. .1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 i -3- 1 ' II. COMMENTS REGARDING TRANSPORTATION ISSUES ' The EIR contains an extensive and thorough discussion of the transportation impacts and issues related to GPA 85-1 (B). In the interest of ensuring that the key elements of this transportation analysis are clearly understood, we would offer the following ' comments to help summarize and highlight conclusions in this portion of the EIR. ' A. Need to Differentiate Clearly Between Impacts Generated/Caused by the Project and Impacts Caused by Regional Development. ' o We are concerned that, though data on pages 305 and 308 of TIC Volume I of the EIR show the projected difference in daily traffic between the existing General Plan and the proposed ' amendment of 25,330 (a 20% increase), this important information is not highlighted for the reader. ' o We are even more concerned that the relative level of impact of the previously mentioned incremental project traffic generation is not clear to the casual reader of the EIR. It would appear to have been clearer if a table such as attached ' Exhibit 1 were included (which is merely the difference between the "Trend Growth" + GPA data in Table 1-AAA and the TIC "Trend Growth" data in Table 1-MMM,) to show the relative ' share of project traffic to the ultimate daily projections. This would also clarify how the EIR concluded on page 310 that the relative project impact on the key roadway segments in the ' vicinity of the project is limited to one to six percent (1-6t) of the total traffic on affected roadway segments. n ' B 1 IA o We are concerned that the EIR does hot clearly state the conclusion that the projected ultimate roadway capacity deficiencies identified in the traffic study are not caused by TIC the proposed project (as stated on page 15 of the Staff Report) in spite of the evidence it contains, as shown by attached Exhibit 1. o The capacities assumed in the T.P.O. calculations for 1989 and 1993, and the future capacities information included in Table 1-MMM, reflect the following major roadway improvements that will be required in conjunction with the project as defined on page 31 of the Staff Report to the Planning Commission for the April 24, 1986 meeting, as follows. 1. Dedication of right-of-way for Coast Highway improvements. 2. Completion of Jamboree Road!to six -lane major arterial standards from Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road. -4- J •,,,I i i.i• ii. {•i • •, 3. Completion of MacArthur Boulevard to six -lane major ' arterial standards from Coast Highway to Jamboree Road. 4. construction of Pelican Hill Road/Bonita Canyon Road between Pacific Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard. 5. Construction of San Joaquin Hills Road between Spyglass Hill Road and and Pelican Hill Road. Although it is ' our understanding that this comprises a list of projects that may be required as a part of the project, that fact is not clearly defined in the EIR. ' 0 The EIR does not clearly state the conclusion that the daily capacity added to the roadway system by the construction of the above circulation improvements is in excess of the incremental demand of 25,330 vehicles per day added by the proposed project, This can be seen by comparing the 25,000 additional daily trips created by the proposed amendment vs 37,000 to 52,000 additional daily capacity , provided through roadway improvements.. The additional capacity is generated as follows: o Pelican Hill Road diversion 81000 to 16,000 T11 7 o Jamboree 2 lanes 0 18,000 o MacArthur 2 Lanes 0 91000 to 18,000 ' Total Capacityi I35,000 to 52,000 It is also important to note that the diversion of up to ' 16,000 vehicles per day resulting from construction of Pelican Hill Road is far above the incremental addition of 800 to 5400 vehicles per day to Pacific Coast Highway through Corona Del , Mar, as shown in attached Exhibit 1. o It is our understanding that the ultimate project mitigation package will also require participation, in keeping with ]TI I requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, in intersection improvements with their implementation timing to be determined later in the process. ' o Although the information included in pages 315-323 indicates that deletion of the one-way couplet provides sufficient capacity, both at the interim time -frames and ultimately, and documents the recommended systems benefits regarding safety, accessibility, reduction of out of direction travel, and general operational superiority, the draft EIR makes no conclusion as to its technical superiority. TIP ] o Also, in the discussion on pages 33 and 34 regarding "Affected] ' Links/Intersections" we believe clarification is needed in order to ensure that this section accurately reflects the moreTIC detailed information in the traffic study (Volume IV) of the ' EIR. -5- 11 E I I I u u .1 H n EXHIBIT 1 COMPARISON OF TREND GROWTH PLUS GPA 85-1B TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS TO TREND GROWTH FORECASTS Roadway Segment COAST HIGHWAY: East City Limits e/o Poppy Avenue e/o Marguerite Avenue e/o MacArthur Boulevard e/o Newport Center Dr. e/o Jamboree Road e/o Dover Drive w/o Dover Drive e/o Newport Boulevard West City Limits MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD: n/o Ford Road n/o Bison Avenue n/o Jamboree Road s/o Birch Street JAMBOREE ROAD: n/o Bayside Drive n/o Coast Highway n/o Santa Barbara Avenue n/o San Joaquin Hills Road n/o Ford Road n/o Bison Avenue s/o Bristol Street e/o MacArthur Boulevard s/o Birch Street SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD: e/o Jamboree Road w/o MacArthur Boulevard e/o MacArthur Boulevard e/o San Miguel Drive e/o Marguerite Avenue i Increase in Average Daily Traffic Due TO GPA 800 1100 1200 5400 1300 3100 2500 2200 2200 1000 2600 1700 500 400 2500 3000 1300 2900 3400 3800 No addition No addition 700 5200 1800 1200 1 -6- COMPARISON OF TREND GROWTH PLUS GPA 85^1B TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS TO TREND GROWTH FORECASTS Roadway Segments SAN MIGUEL DRIVE: w/o MacArthur Boulevard e/o MacArthur Boulevard n/o San Joaquin Sills Road a/c Ford Road FORD ROAD: a/c Jamboree Road 0/0 MacArthur Boulevard a/c San Miguel Drive BISON AVENUE: a/c Jamboree Road e/o MacArthur Boulevard MARGUERITE AVENUE: s/o Fifth Avenue n/o Fifth Avenue BRISTOL STREET N: W/o Birch Street W/o Spruce Street B91STOL STREET: w/o Birch Street a/c Birch Street SAN DIEGO (I-405) FREEWAY: n/o Culver Drive n/o Jamboree Road n/o MacArthur Boulevard SJHTC/ROUTE 73: e/o Sand Canyon Road a/c Pelican Hill Road a/c Bison Avenue W/o Jamboree Road Increase in Average Daily Traffic Due , To GA 2000 400 00 3 300 , 300 , 400 1100 , 300 ' 100 No addition No addition 1300 1400 Soo 1200 700 1300 900 No addition 1100 3000 1400 -7- COMPARISON OF TREND GROWTH PLUS GPA 85-1B TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS TO TREND GROWTH FORECASTS Increase In Average Daily Traffic Due Roadway Segment To GPA PELICAN HILL ROAD: n/o Coast Highway s/o San Joaquin Hills Road n/o SJHTC SAND CANYON ROAD: n/o Coast Highway s/o SJHTC d 5500 400 600 •y • • • yly+ • y • L__y_ j�_ - 1 volume I 174 Land Use/Block 600 1-4. The proposed parking structure shall be an expansion of the Four Seasons Hotel parking structure (currently under construction) and shall not be located adjacent to San Joaquin Hills Road. No impacts are identified which would call for such a mitigation measure. In fact, impact analysis suggests that a parking structure located near the hotel structure could have a detrimental effect on hotel parking - an observation also not explained or documented. Two separate structures are needed and are proposed to serve the pool parking concept in Block 600 for hotel and office uses. Restricting the location away from San Joaquin Hills Road could cause the proposed office building to be relocated closer to San Joaquin Hills Road raising additional impacts aesthetically and in terms of shadow impacts -- none of which is addressed. The recommended mitigation is not appropriate and could in itself result in an environmentally less desirable siting of proposed development. Later sections of report suggest that these issues can be resolved at site plan stage. page Section/site Reeommgnded Mitigation 174 Land Use/Block 800 1-5. !The maximum allowable height shall be 12 stories. No environmental impact identified justifying this recommended height limit. Historic and existing height limits at this location allow up to 3750. Precise height should be established at site plan review stage when more complete site plan, and architectural data is available. F=--- 212 Aesthetics/ 1-8. No exterior signs shall be permitted All Sites -above the second floor elevation of any structure (except Fashion Island). Comment/Response No impacts identified which conclude that this mitigation measure is needed. Suggest revising to read: "All exterior signs shall be permitted as defined under the City's Sign Ordinance or by the Planned Community text, the most restrictive measure for the specific land use will apply in matters of conflict". - 1 1 H I [J TIC 1 H 1 -1 11 TIJ J 1 1 TIC I J I -9- III. SECTION BY SECTION COMMENTS ON MITIGATION MEASURES (Cont.) IPage Section/Site ' 212 Aesthetics/ Block 800 Comment/Response Same comment as on 1-5 above. ' Page Section/Site Recommended Mitigation 1-14. The maximum height of all new struc- tures shall not exceed 12 stories. Recommended Mitigation TIC 20 ' 213 Aesthetics/ 1-15. A landscape edge treatment shall be PCH & Jamboree provided on Jamboree Road and East Coast Highway and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with subdivision or site plan review. Comment/Response TI Reference to "entry statement" in second sentence is confusing in that no 23 entry to the project is proposed at the intersection. Suggest the following revision: "A landscaped edge treatment should be provided on Jamboree Road and East Coast Highway adjacent to the site, and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with subdivision or site plan review". Page Section/Site 213 Aesthetics/ Avocado/ MacArthur Comment/Response Recommended Mitightion 1-22. No illuminated building signs shall be permitted on any building oriented toward MacArthur Blvd. IIntent would be clarified if reworded to read: "No illuminated building signs oriented toward MacArthur Blvd. shall be permitted". Page Section/Site ' 214 Aesthetics/ Big Canyon/ MacArthur Comment/Response Recommended Mitigation 1-26. Landscaped edge treatment shall be provided on San Joaquin Hills Rd. and MacArthur Blvd. Landscaped entry statements shall be approved by the Planning Department. Reference to "entry statement" in second sentence potentially confusing since no entry to project is proposed at intersection. Suggest delete reference to entry statement. 122 TIC 23 ' -10- III. SECTION BY SECTION COMMENTS ON MITIGATION MEASURES (Cont pace Section/Site Recommended Mitigation 214 Aesthetics/ 1-32. Landscaped entry statement shall be Hayview Landing provided at the intersection of Jamboree Rd. and E. Coast Highway. TI1 Comment/Response 24 Same comment as on 1-26 above. No entry is proposed at intersection. ' Paae Section/Site Recommended Mitigation -( 215 Aesthetics/ 1-36, Landscaped entry statements shall be Newporter N. provided at the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Rd. and Jamboree Rd. TIC Commend Response 25� Same comment as in 1-26 and 1-32 above. ' Pace Section/Site Recommended Mitigation 215 Aesthetics/ 1-37. The height limitations shall be 35 ft. Newporter N. for the Newporter North site. ' Comment/Response ) TI ' 261 No impacts identified dictating this specific height limit. Suggest a height limit of 40 feet to allow design flexibility. Height will be confirmed at site plan review stage. Paae Section/Site Recommended Mitigation 324 Transportation/ 1-39. Prior to occupancy of each individ- vehicular/All Sites ual structure permitted by GPA 85-1 (t), a site specific TMS component shall be prepared and approved by the City Public works and Planning Departments. TIC Comment/Response 27' Specific site impacts will already be addressed by overall transportation improvements and overall TXS program for Newport Center called for in mitigation measure 1-38. It is not practical to establish a T14S program for each separate commercial building or for each dwelling unit as this recommendation suggests. No impacts are identified which justify this approach. III. SECTION BY SECTION COMMENTS ON MITIGATION MEASURES (Cont.) IVolume II ' Page Section/Site Recommended Mitigation 39 Noise/All Sites All construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturday and 10 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday and ' holidays. Comment/Response With respect to Fashion Island, this mitigation would unnecessarily and unfairly impede interior demolition and construction work during renovation of mall. Due to need to keep existing shops open during normal business hours, it will be necessary to do some demolition and construction during nighttime hours. Fashion Island is sufficiently isolated from existing residential or other noise sensitive uses such that nighttime activity will not cause any off -site impacts that cannot be mitigated. 'kgcje Section/Site Recommended Mitigation 122 Biological/ 2-56. Setbacks of development from the bluff Newporter N. edge shall be'no less than 100 ft. to provide partial buffer between development and resource area as well as protect the Comment/Response bluff ;face coastal sage scrub. ' 'Since no setback lesser or greater than 100 ft. is evaluated the specific 100 foot distance seems arbitrary. The precise distance should be established during site plan review with flexibility for a greater or lesser distance as appropriate. Page Section/Site Recommended Mitigation 140/ Archeological/ 2aa/dd. Prior to issuance of grading 141 Newport Center and or demolition permits, the applicant ' Peripheral Sites shall waive the provisions of AB-952 related to City of Newport Beach responsibilities for the mitigation of archaeological impacts in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. ' Comment/Response We would suggest that the City Attorney review this measure, as we do not 'believe it is a legal mitigation measure. It is not a proper exercise of the City's police power to require a project applicant to absolve the City of a legal responsibility imposed by State law in the area of archeological mitigation. Whatever fiscal implications this obligation might impose on the City should be evaluated. No impact is identified in the EIR which justifies this recommended mitigation measure. 1 -12- �r III. SECTION BY SECTION COMMENTS ON MITIGATION MEASURES (Cont.S r Paae ,Section/Site Recommended Mitigation 199 Public Service/ 2-105. The project proponent shall provide r a five-year reservation for a fire station on the San Diego Creek south site in a ford acceptable to the City. Comment/Response TIC 31rNo impacts in fire service identified which justify reservation of a fire station site ad remote from the project area. EIR should consider alternatives which address the site specific impacts and needs regarding fire service such as incrementally expanding personnel and equipment at the Newport Center fire station which could be supported by the substantial tax revenue surplus generated by the project. r I r r ,1 r -13- r .1 MEMORANDUM ' TO: City Council, City of Newport Beach ' FROM: Quality of Life Committee DATE: June 12, 1986 RE: NEWPORT CENTER AND PERIPHERAL SITES GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-1(B) --------------------------------------------------- iThe Quality of Life Committee has met with representatives of the proponent of proposed GPA 85-1(B) and with representatives of Sanchez Talarico Associates, the consultants who prepared the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for GPA 85-1(B). Based on the foregoing and the Committee's review of two volumes of the EIR (volumes three and four were not provided to the Committee for review), the Committee has ' determined that the EIR is inadequate for various reasons, including the following: 1. The failure of the EIR to adequately identify and assess all environmental impactsiresulting from QOL A proposed GPA 85-1(B), including impacts resulting from proposed mitigation measures such as further expansion of and "improvements t" o major streets and highways in Newport Beach; 2. The failure of the EIR to identify the location, type and intensity of the total proposed project QOL 1 t development. The unspecified sites mentioned in the EIR could dramatically change the intensity of impacts, 3. The mitigation measures necessary to eliminate or QOL 2 reduce the identified impacts have not been J satisfactorily explored; J 4. The use of dated and inaccurate statistical information in the EIR, such as the use of 55 daily QOL 3 flights as the statistic for the number of daily flights at John Wayne Airport; 5. A complete discussion of the proposed concept of a development agreement is missing. The development QOL 4 agreement is mentioned two times but there is no discussion of this subject; I I City Council City of Newport Beach June 12, 1986 Page Two , 6. The adoption of Planned Community Development standards and a Planned Community Development Plan is 1 QOL 5 also mentioned without further discussion; 1 7. Finally, the EIR is inadequate as a document to inform the public of the environmental impacts of proposed GPA 85-1(B). The document lacks organization and an QOL index, it is redundant, and it is difficult to read. Its very size discourages careful analysis except by paid consultants -- this is counter to citizen participation. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the City Council QOL determine that the EIR is inadequate and decline to certify or approve it. In addition, the Committee has considered proposed GPA ' 85-1(9) as a development project and finds that the proposed increases in future allowable development are excessive. The Committee feels that the proposed increases in office space (a requested 43% increase from 747,150 square feet to 1,312,400 square feet) and in commerUal space (a requested increase of 12 times the commercial space permitted under GPA80-3), and the QOL elimination of 225,000 residential square feet, together with the proposed changes in uses and densities, would be of considerable environmental detriment to the community. In light of the substantial allowable development permitted under GPABO-3 and the current problems of traffic congestion, lack of adequate parking, and air, bay and visual pollution in Newport Beach, the Committee can find no justification for the adoption of proposed GPA 85-l(B). The Committee recommends that the City Council deny approval of proposed GPA 85-1(B). I I r I I I SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER ATTORNEYS AT LAW E. CLEMENT SHUTE, JR. 396 HAYES STREET TERRELLJ. WATT, AICP MARK 1-UTINBERCER SAN FRANCISCO, CAUFORNIA 94102 U"AN PLANNER MARC B• MIHALY, A C. (415) 552.7272 DANIEL S. MILLER ALLETfA D'A.BELIN ENVIRONMENTAL FELLOV FRAM M.LAYTON RACHEL B. HOOPER May 28, 1986 U FEDERAL EXPRESS Ms. Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator and Project Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RECEIVED Plannirr Department MAY 2 91986 CITY OF NRIPORT BEACH, ,( CALIF. i Re: General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites Environmental Impact Report jDear Ms. Temple: We submit the following comments on behalf of Stop Polluting Our Newport (hereinafter "SPON"). The purpose of this letter is to call to your attention our client's concerns regarding the legal sufficiency of the Environmental Impact Report (hereinafter "EIR)" Rroposed for General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) (hereinafter "GPA'), in addition to concerns related to the specific project proposal. Set forth below are our specific comments regarding the adequacy of the EIR, questions regarding its contents, and related issues. COMMENTS GENERAL The purpose of an EIR is to inform decision -makers and the public about the potential environmental impacts of the project, to identify how those impacts can be reduced or avoided and to prevent adverse impacts through use of alternatives and mitigation measures. The Newport Center EIR is intended to provide information and analysis relating to the proposed GPA, local Coastal Plan Amendment, Development Agreement (hereinafter 'IDA") and Planned ' Community Development Standards and Plans. We submit that the EIR fails to accomplish these purposes. First, the EIR , SMW i I I Ms. Patricia Temple May 28, 1986 Page 2 I does not reveal a substantial portion of the "project", with the result that a proper and complete analysis cannot be done. For example, the EIR specifically refers to its use in evaluating the development agreement, yet only two paragraphs in approximately 1300 pages of EIR and attachments even refer to the DA (at 49 and 51). Both references, though brief, leave no question as to the importance of the development agreement to the overall SMW success of the project as it relates to environmental issues 1 in particular. As is typically the case, the DA will state very specifically the exact terms of project implementation, including the phasing and financing of necessary public facilities and improvements in conjunction with development. In the absence of a full description of the DA, it is unlikely that the EIR adequately discloses its consequences to the public. The DA should be described in detail in the EIR SMW 1 and evaluated as part of he project. Likewise, the specific planned community d0elopment standards should be 3 SMW 4 described in detail and analyzed in the EIR. Alternatives to both should be described as well. SMF,'' A second major deficiency in the EIR is its poor presentation of the information it does disclose. The size alone of the document is likely to prevent any well-intentioned citizen from ascertaining pertinent facts. The EIR includes countless repetitions of entire discussions SMW and lacks clear organization; the result is an obfuscation of the true project impacts and necessary mitigation measures. The size of the document should be scaled down substantially and reorganized to minimize redundant discussions. This will make room for the substantive discussions which the EIR is presently lacking, as will be described infra. Another deficiency in the EIR is that impact discussions focus on discrete parcels with little analysis , given to the project in its entirety. Instead of directing the bulk of impact analyses to the project in its entirety, every parcel is broken out and discussed separately in each SMW impact section. While a useful and needed exercise, the 1 emphasis is taken away from the total project. A simple organizational change would eliminate the misleading nature , I r Ms. Patricia Temple May 28, 1936 Page 3 of the majority of discussions. One section of the EIR should be devoted to the parcel -by -parcel analysis with each J SMW 8 thoroughly described in a subsection including all impacts and mitigation. The parcel -by -parcel analysis in the rest of the EIR should be focused on how alternative developments on each parcel might reduce overall project impacts in a given area. For example, the overall project description and impacts discussion under aesthetics should be expanded SMW 9 to indicate exactly how sensitive views may be obscured and neighborhood and city-wide visual qualities altered. Specific mitigation measures might then include reducing heights in Block 600 and on the Newporter North site, in addition to retention of specific viewsheds free of development. In the absence of a focus on the overall project, the real environmental issues are obscured or SMW 10 appear insignificant, and needed creative solutions in the form of mitigation and alternatives are not discernible. In short, the EIR for Newport Center and the peripheral sites lacks the necessary organization and basic SMW 11 elements required for an adequate informational document and the planning insight for a reasonable accounting of mitigation measures and alternatives. Specific examples of such deficiencies are as follows. SPECIFIC COMMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION An EIR's project description must include a general description of the project's technical, economic and environmental characteristics, consider the principal engineering proposals and supporting public service facilities. ' As pointed out earlier, some very basic elements of the project are missing from the description, including the development agreement and development standards. In SMW 12 addition, other project components which are improperly omitted from the project description include but are not limited to the number, size and location of parking I .1 Ms. Patricia Temple May 28, 1986 Page 4 I facilities, a listing and description of the roads and roadway improvements required to carry out the project, and any other infrastructure and facilities required for the successful implementation of the project. The project's description section should be rewritten to include this information at a minimum. In addition, as part of the GPA, sites for which there is no defined land use should be specified. (See Elk SMW 13 at page 35) Short of this the general plan will be inadequate in that it will not specify the type and J J intensity of development as required. The proposed uses should then be added to the project description and any additional impacts discussed. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS The analysis of enii}ronmental impacts contained in the EIR is flawed for at least two major reasons: First, the project description does not reveal the entire project, and consequently not all probable impacts are discussed. This SMW 14 omission violates the Court of Appeal's holding in County of In o v. Cit of Los An eles, 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193 t at a n accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." econ3� the EIR fails to include the Worst case analysisi the EIR should consider, for example, a scenario in which all development proceeds yet needed infrastructure is not in place or lacks necessary funding and approvals. SMW 5 The EIR s failure to analyze the project s significant adverse impacts contravenes CEQA Guidelines section 15126 and cases construing the requirements contained therein. See, e.g., County of Inyoo, supra, 71 C41.App.3d at 192-93. Growth Inducing Impacts The Elk fails to adequately address the growth inducing impacts of the project. The analysis overlooks aspects of the project which will result in vastly more SMW16 liberal standards for determining what constitute developable areas and what intensity of development is acceptable. Specifically, the project proposes development I I Ms. Patricia Temple May 28, 1986 Page 5 of the following areas: 1) parking lots; 2) areas designated as recreational and open space; 3) areas that contain significant cultural resources; 4) areas that provide unique and needed visual relief and view opportunities; and 5) areas that contain sensitive resources. In addition, the project calls for building heights greater than before, and establishes a new precedent for allowing development to occur which is inconsistent with the standard in the SMW 17 original Traffic Phasing Ordinance and general plan policies which require development to occur only within roadway capacity limitations. The EIR should analyze and quantify the levels of growth which could occur under these new and precedential standards. How many more acres of land could SMW 18 be developed in Newport Center if parking lots were all allowed to develop and lots undergrounded or confined to highrise parking structures? How much additional square Swig footage would result if parcels were allowed to develop at 20 stories in height? How mta y more acres of land in the 7 SMW 20 ' city, designated for recreation and open space could be developed? To what extent will the City allow traffic SMW 21 service levels to slip and continue to allow developments? J J Another major factor which should be explored in the growth inducing discussion is the proposed roadway system to accommodate this project. A'new standard is being SMW 22 set in this area as well. Suddenly major grade separations and unlimited lanes are acceptable mitigation measures. The EIR should describe the other possible major improvements of this type which could be constructed to facilitate even more development. Specifically, where could other grade SMW 23 separations be considered? Is the Coast Highway through Corona del Mar ripe for additional lanes and redevelopment? ] SMW 24 Traffic Impacts A number.of issues related to the deficiencies in the traffic analysis have already been raised (e.g., the absence of complete information in the project description of roadway improvements integral to the project). Before additional deficiencies can be identified, the public requires clarification regarding the following aspects of the traffic discussion. I I I Ms. Patricia Temple May 28, 1986 Page 6 I 1, It is not clear what the relationship of lists of local and regional projerlt/s in Volume 1 is to the various traffic impact scenarios.— It appears from the discussion at p. 4-1, Volume 4, that only approved projects are considered in the key analysis. The EIR should list and describe the projects that contribute to the regional SMW 21 traffic growth component; and the "committed" component of the analysis. In addition, projects which contribute to the various trend analyses should be specifically identified. if a percentage growth figure is simply worked into the formula, the percentage and its basis should be revealed. 2. It is not clear why a comparison of Tables 1-YY and l-AAA indicates less daily traffic on some roadway links under trend growth than under exiting conditions. Please explain? In particular, the figure SMW 2 showing fewer cars on Coast )i�;ghway is puzzling since presumably the Irvine Coast l elopment will be contributing more traffic at that time. Is this the case? 3. What exactly is the status of Pelican Dill Road? Is it a required improvement under the Irvine Coast SMW 21 Plan? When will it be in place and operating? 4. What is the status of the San Joaquin Hills Corridor? The EIR left this discussion quite vague. Is it required to achieve acceptable levels of service for Phase I SMW 2� and/or II of this project? How much of the financing needed for this corridor is already earmarked? I 1. In the same vein it is not clear how this list applies to analysis of cumulative impacts elsewhere in the EIR. This should be clarified. Where projects are described in terms of specific impacts, (air quality, traffic, noise, utility demand, etc.) this information should be provided to demonstrate how conclusions about the significance of cumulative impacts was reached. L I I Ms. Patricia Temple May 28, 1986 IPage 7 5. What is the basis for Trip generation figures for apartments (Table I-JJJ)? It would seem that with the SMW 25 growing number of dual employee, mid -to upper -income families, trip generation would be closer to 10 daily trips ' per unit? 6. What reasonably foreseeable projects were included in the various traffic analyses? Please list and SMW 26 describe the projects as well as anticipated trip generation rates for each. 7. Specifically. what proposed improvements are in the not required to be reflected in SMW 27 already general plan, the general plan and/or require amendment of the general plan? 8. Explain how this project maintains consistency between the geneLil plan land use element and SMW 28 circulation element. 9. What are the respective costs of improvements 7SMW 29 listed in Table 1-GGG and 1-III? Which of these 1SMW 30 improvements require additional approvals and environmental J review? What is the timing of review for those requiring :]SMW 31 additional approval? What source(s) of financing are SMW 32 anticipated? 10. Daily trip rates for general office (13 per — 1000 sq.ft.); general retail (40 per 1000 sq. ft.); and SMW 33 fashion island (30 per 1000 sq.ft.) are low compared with trip generation figures developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Please produce support for these low rates. 11. Once all the proposed improvements are in �SMW 34 place, will there be excess capacity to further buildout Newport Center (i.e. parking lots, vacant areas; redevelopment of underutilized parcels, etc.)? 12. How is it possible that the same roadway SMW 35 system, largely at or approaching capacity, can accommodate two major development projects, Newport Center and the i L Ms. Patricia Temple May 28, 1986 Page 8 Irvine Coast, which will generate traffic on the same critical links? Please provide an explanation focusing on these two projects and their traffic generation. 13. In the final analysis, how many intersections SMW will never operate at LOS D or better at buildout of Newport Center? Please identify these. 14. It is common knowledge among transportation engineers that an auto -oriented transportation system cannot SMW adequately serve medium to high density development. Is the assumption underlying the project that TMS or transit will eventually mitigate this situation? If so, to what extent SMW does this project rely on TMS and/or transit to avoid I gridlock? What percentage trip reduction is anticipated JSMW through TMS? 15. How much of t6d project could be approved under the original TPO without an override vote? Please SMW specify specific components of the project or overall types and intensities of development which would pass the TPO standard. 16. Identify those proposed or necessary roadway improvements which have already been the subject of an EIR SMW or are a condition of another project approval? Where another EIR is being relied upon to discuss impacts, �SMW relevant sections should be summarized in this EIR. The traffic section provides a confusing array of possible scenarios, all of which indicate that unacceptable levels of traffic service will occur even with massive and costly improvements. Even so, the impacts are understated, The analysis fails to identify the impacts of the roadway improvements themselves'in terms of other tripps they may attract or development approvals which could be based upon them. Additional impacts which are not adequately explored and should be discussed in the EIR are as follows: 1) the impact upon transit development by focusing mitigation and funding on roadway improvements; 2) the impacts of roadway improvements themselves; 3) impacts upon achievement of coastal and general plan goals for environmental quality and SMW I I 1 41 41 I I I I I Ms. Patricia Temple May 28, 1986 ' Page 9 access if there is gridlock for increasing periods of time; and 4) impacts of this project on other vacant or J unidentified parcels due to its absorption of remaining roadway capacity. Specifically, with regard to the latter analysis,. how many parcels will not be able to be developed SMW 45 ' because insufficient roadway capacities remains (i.e. would have required an override vote under the prior TPO)? 1 Air Transportation Impacts The City of Newport Beach has concluded that John Wayne Airport (hereinafter "JWA") will never be capable of SMW 46A meeting the region's air transportation demand. Under the circumstances it would seem prudent to minimize approval of projects which will contribute to demand until an alternate ' site has been secured and development is underway. At a minimum, the EIR should quantify the increased demand for air transportation use likellyIto result from this project so SMW 46B that decision -makers can be apprised of the full consequences of their actions on activity at JWA. In addition, cumulative impacts on JWA should be quantified. tWater Quality Impacts Of equal or greater importance to the overall quality of the Newport Beach environment is water quality. Adverse impacts upon water quality from the project could have serious repercussions on public health and safety as well as on wildlife. The EIR's discussion of such likely effects is dismally inadequate 'for a number of reasons: SMW 47 First, the discussion fails to provide even the most basic information about the project's impacts, including how much runoff will increase with the project, what constituents, toxic and otherwise, will be contained in the urban runoff; and what capacity remains in the various drainage systems that serve the project areas (1969 data should be updated). Second, the EIR provides no indication of the quality of water now flowing into the bay from Newport Center, though I SMW 48 the system has been in place for years and studies must have been done on impacts of the outfalls on plant and animal life and overall water quality. Third, the analysis of SMW 49 impacts on sensitive sites, Bayview Landing and Newporter ' I I u ks. Patricia Temple May 28, 1986 Page 10 i �J North, are particularly weak. Studies of impacts should not be deferred until a later time, but should be undertaken as SMW 5� part of the EIR so that adequate mitigation measures and project alternatives can be adopted. At a minimum, this section should be rewritten to contain a quantification of the aforementioned impacts and technical information regarding the contents and effects of SMW 5� "urban runoff pollutants." Particularly important is an inclusion of a complete analysis of impacts on sites within the Coastal Zone as per coastal plan policy requirements. The EIR should also provide a description of existing water quality, whether or not it meets the standards in the �SMW 5� outfall areas, and indicate the degree to which the project may frustrate attainment of any standards. Cnnmi_AtPnnV with tha [:Pnarml anel (Inautal Plana As mentioned earlier, the approval of this project appears to take a whole new policy direction than that set forth the general and local coastal plans. Specifically, the general plan calls for development in a manner which ' preserves and enhances present assets associated with Newport's high quality of life, and prohibits development which would adversely affect the quality or efficiency of SMW 5 the planned public support systems. The proposed roadway improvements are a good example of aspects of the project which eliminate present assets (the attractive visual environment) and do not assure timely and adequate transportational service for the project. In addition, the project does not conform to the following stated policies of the general plan., 1) The City shall provide for recreation areas SMW 54 in close proximity to each resident of the community. (The project removed planned recreation areas in Newport Center and surrounding areas.) 2) The City shall continue the active �SMW 51 investigation of all planned local and regional transportation systems to determine the impact of each on , I I 1' Cl 1 r I I I r I I I I I I I r I Ms. Patricia Temple May 28, 1986 Page 11 the community, and to ensure that all such facilities serve to protect and maintain the sociological, ecological, economic and aesthetic environment of the Newport Beach area. (The EIR oes not an�e roadway improvements in this manner.) 3) Freeways, in particular, [and other roadways,] shall not bisect or isolate individual communities, neighborhoods, etc. 4) Recognizing the vital relationship which exists between the street and highway network and the use of land, the City shall limit and control the distribution, character, and intensity of all land uses which would generate increased levels of traffic beyond the existing or planned street system. The EIR should dis�cjss the consistency of the project with these and other policies of the general plan, for California law requires that the general plan be internally consistent and fully integrated. Concerned Citizens of Calaveras Count v. Board of Su ervisors, b a 'pp. In a anion, the ana ysis of the projects conformance to housing element goals and objectives should be completed as part of the EIR rather than deferred to a later time. Finally, the EIR should provide reasons in support of intensifying land uses in areas where the LCP calls for lower intensity use (e.g. Newporter North and Bayview). In theory, a great deal of effort went into the selection of land uses in the LCP for these sensitive areas. Yet, the project ignores the constraints that led to these designations. A portion of the LCP consistency discussion should be devoted to whether or not the project adequately protects viewsheds and sensitive coastal resources involving water quality, habitats and the like. 1 SMW 56 SMW 5,7 SMW 58 SMW 59 SMW 60 SMW 61 I r Ms. Patricia Temple May 28, 1986 Page 12 MITIGATION MEASURES ' Section 21000 of CEQA requires that an EIR ' describe in detail mitigation measures that could minimize the project's significant environmental impacts. See also CEQA Guidelines section 15126(a). An EIR which fa=s to 0 include a detailed proposal of mitigation measures is SMW 6 fatally defective. People v, County of Kern, 62 Cal.App.3d 761 (1976). The discussion om t gation measures in the Newport Center EIR, for the most part, is defective in this manner, for it constitutes nothing more than a disappointing array of boiler plate measures which are likely to lead to more impacts rather than to solutions. In the the case of traffic mitigation this is particularly the case. While the go-ahead is given to massive roadway improvements, more creative solutions, such as TMS measures, are given no more than two paragraphs. More specific measures should be included which lead to quantUiable impact reductions. For SMW example, mitigation measures regarding TMS plans might quantify the goal for trip reduction through TMS measures, and tie future project approvals to specified goals. Mitigation measures specified for water quality, , aesthetics, noise, air quality and biological resources lack the specificity needed to achieve the needed impact SMW 64 reductions. For example, specific view corridors for retention in open space should be mapped, in particular, on sites within the coastal zone. The EIR also fails to analyze the impacts of the , mitigation measures themselves. Where impacts are likely to 5 SMW 6 result from a mitigation measure, these should be subject to 5 mitigation or an alternative proposal. Likely mitigation measures to cause impacts are roadway improvements, noise barriers and the like. Finally,.the list of mitigation measures includes such items as: 'The project shall be verified as being in conformance with the AQMP". (at xli). Statements like this SMW 6� do not constitute mitigation of project impacts. The EIR should provide an analysis of whether or not the project is consistent with the AQMP. Please provide such an analysis. I I Ms. Patricia Temple May 28, 1986 Page 13 Likewise the EIR should contain a determination of project gmw 61 conformance with the housing element and any other 'relevant plans, policies and standards. ' SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The adverse impacts listed in the summary section of the EIR contradicts, in some cases, the text of the EIR. ' For example, significant impacts listed under Land Use SMW 68 include the introduction of the public into setback areas of the Newporter North site. Contrary to this, the mitigation in the biological section implies that setbacks would be respected. Which is the case? Impacts listed as significant include the following: 1) "Changes to the development plan in Civic Plaza have not been submittediand must be considered as creating potentially significant impacts until they can be SMW 62 reviewed", and "The lack of specific site plans for Block 600 precludes the identification of potential shadows on adjacent properties" (at xxv, xxvi). First, the EIR states that it will address impacts from development plans ' and standards. However, these plans and standards are missing from the analysis. Second, it is not enough for the EIR to state broadly that the development plan for Civic Plaza is a significant impact, or that shadow impacts cannot be identified. The EIR must discuss the specific project SMW 70 impacts so that they may be properly mitigated or the decision -makers can determine that the impacts'are justified by overriding considerations. If the plans and standards are to be completed at a later date, the EIR should be revised and recirculated at that time, or a supplement prepared and circulated to address those issues. The SMW 71 listing of these vague impacts further confuses the issue of what are the significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the project. This list should be clarified. In addition, it is not clear why certain significant impacts cannot easily be avoided through ' alternate project design. For example, the change in use on SMW 72 Bayview Landing and extensive coverage of the site seem unwarranted given coastal act requirements and a lack of ' J 1 Ms. Patricia Temple May 28, 1986 Page 14 evidence to show that the proposed use is warranted. The EIR should more clearly list all unavoidable adverse significant impacts and indicate those reduced to a level of insignificance and by which mitigation measures. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT The law is clear that an EIR must provide a meaningful discussion of project alternatives. CEQA Guidelines section 15143(d). The Newport Center EIR provides a lengthy discourse on project alternatives, yet this section is of limited value. The most glaring deficiency is the lack of analysis of project alternatives which are consistent with the present roadway system and/or would not require major costly and impactful improvements. Since traffic was identified as a major issue, it would seem logical to define a project which is within existing roadway capacity. I In addition, insufficient discussion was given to other reasonable alternatives such as; 1) postponing development until TMS measures reduce traffic levels and improve traffic flows; 2) development of underutilized and vacant areas for useful recreation related to Newport Center; and 3) postponement of further expansion plans until presently allowed development is built -out and an evaluation can be made of traffic and other impacts at that time. COMMISSION'S FINAL ACTION WAS PREMATURE It is of particular concern to our client that the Planning Commission acted on the EIR on May 22, 1986 prior to the conclusion of the written comment period and completion of the final EIR. The length of the EIR made it impossible for those commenting to adequately review the document and testify on all aspects of the project and EIR prior to the Commission's final action. Please indicate how the Commission's hasty action on the EIR is justified in light of its obligation to allow for a full understanding of public concerns and questions regarding the project and EIR. 1 I SHW J5 I 1 1 i ' Ms. Patricia Temple May 28, 1986 ' Page '15 ADVISABILITY OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. ' Last, we seriously question whether the public will benefit from the proposed development agreement, or whether that benefit rests only with the applicant. Binding I future Planning Commissions and City Councils to a massive development plan when future circumstances may be drastically different seems unwise and may well prove unconstitutional. It would be more consistent with the ' public interest to grant approvals for project components only for the period of time that impacts can be accurately ' determined and mitigated. Please comment on this matter and provide thoughts on any alternatives which might be acceptable in place of the DA approach. Very truly yours, !SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER JW1 (iA& TERRY WATT Urban Planner TW:lb 614/sp3 cc: Monica Fiorian, Irvine Company David Hamilton, Deputy Attorney General I SMW 76 I State of California Memorandum To j Dr, Gordon F. Snow Dale: May 28, Assistant Secretary for Resources fit I a ,O)SG-) Nancy A. 0 on Environmental Technician from : California Regional Water Quality Control Board —Santa Ana Region 8e0e INDIANA AVENUE, SUITE 100. RIVIRSIDE, CA eafOS (ATSS) 632-4130 �REcZI' Pill' - De, nMtrt MNI 281986 CITY OF NEWPORT hEACH, c w tv I Subject: DEIR: GENEM PLAN AMENDMENT 85-1(B) NA4PCRT CENTER AND PERIPHERAL SITES EIR, SC318 85061211 1* have reviewed the Draft Environmental Ihpact Report regarding this project and have the following comments to offer. In the discussion of %titer Resources (Volume 2, pages 93-107), the DEIR states correctly that hVlementation of the proposed project will result in changes in drainage patterns both on and off -site, as well as increase in the amount and WQ velocity of runoff due to increases to impervious surfaces. The DEIR also recognizes the resultant increase in input of urban runoff pollutants to Newport Bay but describes this primarily as a short-term impact (p. 98-99), It is noted that the project "will add to a significant cumulative impact on water quality in Newport Bay" (p, 106) but there is no detailed evaluation of the project's tong -term impacts on the water quality or beneficial uses (e.g. WQ 2' wildlife, recreational activities) of. the Bay. Thi Final EIR should incorporate this discussion and include alternatives to the project or other measures which , would mitigate adverse impacts. The project proponent, should be advised that an ongoing gasoline recovery pro- ject at the PCH/Jamboree Road site. Prior to development at this site, the extent of sot and ground carter contamination must be determined. WQ 3 Kurt Berchtold of this office and Seth Daugherty (714-834-8182) of the Orange County Health Care Agency can provide specific information about the procedures , needed to conduct this investigation. In addition, if dewatering is necessary and the discharge of wastewater to receiving waters is proposed, an NPDES permit (waste discharge requirements) will be required from this office prior to initiating the discharge. In addi- WQ 4 tion, any dewatering of the area affected by the on -site gasoline leak will require extensive treatment prior to discharge. Processing of an ROES permit may take as tong as 120 days. Any questions pertaining to this permit hay be addressed to Mr. Gary D. Stewart of this office. Enclosure: State Clearinghouse Form , cc: Pat Temple, City of Newport Beach i, NAO:kyb 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Gommor 1 CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION o-, SOUTH COAST AREA 245 WEST BROADWAY, SUITE 380 LONG BEACH, CA 90802 �C, E\ �, .•� ' (213) 590.5071 /,g 1 S May 27, 1986 ' Ms. Patricia Temple City of Newport Beach Planning Department ' 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Reference: Draft EIR, SCH #85061211 Dear Ms. Temple: ' Thank you for this opportunity to review the referenced EIR, Due to time constraints and heavy workload, we are unable to provide you with our detailed comments. As we have informed you via our letter dated June 21, 1985, two of the peripheral sites are within the coastal zone, and any land use change would require an amendment to the city's LUP. All our concerns stated in the referenced letter (see attached) are still our concern. We shall evaluate these project/ changes in the land use designation,ouring the reviewlprocess of the amendment request. Please accept our apologies at this time for not being able to provide you with additional comments. Sincerely, 1 4� iWe e 0. odroo ' Assistant District Director i 1 1 L_ 1 WOW/PG:mr Enclosure: Letter of June 21, 1985 cc: Glenn Stober, State Clearing House 1 :t State of California, George Deukmejian, covertwr California Coastal Commission SOUTH COAST DISTRICT 245 West Broadway, Suite 380 P.O. Box 1450 Long Beach, California 90801.1450 (213) 590.5071 i7tme 21, 1985 Patricia Temple The City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Pats Thank you for this opportunity to review the City of Newport Beach's Notice of Preparation of a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for General Plan Amendment (GPA) 85 1(B1. In general, the docu- ment has covered most of the issues adequately; however, as you know, any change in land uses designation on sites within the Coastal Zone will require an amendment to the City's Land Use Plan (,LVP1. The Commission would be concerned about issues covered by Chapter 3 CCC of the Coastal Act; therefore, it would be appropriate to consider the Policies of the Coastal Act in the project's evaluation and preparation of the EIR. Out of the eleven sites included in the GPA 85 1 (B), four sites are in the Coastal Zone. Keeping those rites in consideration, the following are the specific (comments. I. Public access to the Coast 'in one of the most important components of the Coastal Act, The EIR needs to evaluate CCC this issue, at the regional as well as sub -regional and city-wide level. [It should evaluate the impact during peak beach season as well as off beach season. 2. Section 30222 of the Coastal Act provides priority to visitor -serving commercial over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development. During the CCC preparation of the EIR and evaluation of the project, this section of the Coastal Act should be considered. 3. Section 30254 of the Coastal Act requires that new or expanded public works facilities shall be designed and limited to accomodate needs generated by the developmant where such facilities can accomodate only a limited amount CCC of new development that services to coastal dependent land uses, public recreation, commercial recreation and visitor -serving land uses shall not be precluded by other development. During the preparation of the EIR, this section of the Coastal Act should be considered. I 2 ' 3 1 1 4 I t ' Patricia Temple June 21, 1985 Page 2 4. Section 30251 of the Coastal Act requires protection of scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas which includes, CCC 5 but not limits to, minimize alteration of natural land forms. During the preparation of the EIR, this section of the Coastal Act should be considered. These comments represent some of the major concerns the Commission ' would have with the project. The staff will evaluate this project in detail at the time of the LUP amendment request. There may be other issues raised during that evaluation when the staff will have better details and more timeto evaluate the project. ' If you have any questions, please contact me at (2131 5H -5071. Sincerely, Praveen Gupta PG:lkj Rjc� inA MY Of NE P.Q. FOX I= BALBOA ISLAND, CALIFORNIA 92662 ' May 28, 1986 City of Newport Beach Planning Department c/o Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: General Plan Amendment 85-1(8), Newport Center and Peripheral Sites Environmental Impact Report ' Dear Ms. Temple, The following are comments submitted by the Steering ' Committee of SPON taking into account our members' primary concerns. OVERVIEW: , SPON's earlier comments (Vol. 3, Appendix A) specifically addressed the following items: , 1. The need for assessment and attention to community needs for family type recreational opportunities. Such ideas as bowling, ice skating, roller skating were suggested as examples of those lacking in Newport Beach. Though the SPONb1 _ cultural, social and food amenities are provided, the teen center is still a non -defined token in this regard. ' The golf course, though providing a visual relief, provides nothing else to the general community. 2, The need for amendment of the circulation element with proper environmental documentation and public hearings. Amendments to the circulation element are being considered SPONb2 in a piecemeal fashion using the project's EIR when, in ' fact, the project's EIR does not address the impacts of the circulation system changes themselves. 3. The need for a complete list of Traffic System Management techniques which could be used to improve traffic flow or reduce the need for road improvements. Such a list has also been called for by the South Coast Air Quality Manage- ment District in their comment letter (Vol. 3, Appendix A). A discussion appearsin Vol. 4, p. 6-23 of the EIR. Here it is stated that an earlier report shows that 20% of Newport Center employees use ride sharing and 35% could , Fi ' GPA 85-i(B) SPON comments p. 2 ' be achieved. It fails to bring forth or analyze new infor- mation about cities which are requiring and succeeding in achieving a 45% reduction in commuting traffic. ' 4. The need to list all possible plans and techniques which could provide mitigation for polluting run-off. Though the State Water Resources Department letter (Vol. 3, ' Appendix A) stated that "consideration should also be given SPONb4 to a comprehensive program to use reclaimed water for irri- gation purposes in order to free fresh water supplies for beneficial uses requiring high quality water", the idea of ' a holding lake and re -use of water was not explored or offered as an alternative. 5. The question.of recreational open -space opportunities re- mains as there has been no discussion of it with respect to the proposed housing in Newport Village. The transfer of park credits to the Wesfbay site seems to be detrimental SPONb5A ' to the overall General Plan requirements for recreational open space accessible to all residents. The Regional Park designation for Westbay is a benefit to residents of the ' County as a whole but should not totally eclipse the -prior park dedication standards for Newport Beach residents. ' OUTLINE OF ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: I. Intensity of project SPONb 5B ' A. Justification of: 1. Significant changes in land use; 7SPON h 2. Significant changes in circulation;- 3. Erosion of General Plan policies. ]SPON 7 B. Substantive issues left unanalyzed j ' 1. No information for Planned Community standards ISPON 8 which will replace prior C-O-H designation. J 2. Cumulative issues - historical trend shows this ]SPON 9 ' is not "buildout" as implied; 3. Impacts of proposed circulation system changes; ISPON 10 4. Details of Development Agreement. ]SPON 11 ' II. Effects of failure to provide necessary mitigation JSPON 12 III. Conclusion ]SPON 13 EXPANSION OF OUTLINED COMMENTS ' The project represents an even more intense development than the prior GPA 80-3. In reviewing the plan and -the EIR we are SPON 14 looking for the justification for such increases in the city's GPA 85-1(B) SPON comments p. 3 development plans and densities, The increase in office space amountsto a 15% increase in this use over the present in the City. It is our observation that many respondees are concerned that the justification for such increased intensities are lacking. Qualitative issues are at stake. The quality of life, a constant concern among residents is threatened by the increased traffic loads and the enormous roads and interchanges planned to accom- modate such traffic loads. This project represents a very sig- nificant change in the size of the circulation system and con- flicts with residents' views of the circulation system. The project represents -an erosion of General Plan Policies in that it favors commercial development over a residential/recreational balance. The purpose of the roject as stated on -the Notice of Comple- tion of the EIR (4/14/86� is to "address the buildout of the area comprehensively." In doing so, the EIR has been prepared as a Program EIR (Vol. 1, p. 2) to allow for analysis of all impacts associated with the amount and type of development proposed at the General Plan level without analyzing impacts associated with the actual construction of the development. It seems to have failed in providing an analysis of the overall impacts. For instance, if later EIR's for such projects as widening of Mac- Arthur Blvd. to 8 lane "parkway" status or grade separations at PCH/Jamboree prove the projects to be infeasible or undesirable, it would be too late to change the course oW events and still provide for the traffic. The grade separation at PCH/Jamboree is proposed as a mitigation in Phase II of the project but no adequate visualization of this facility is provided and it appears that the ICU at Jamboree will still be unacceptable. Yet, this grade separation is listed int the EIR under insignificant impacts. In addition, the discussion of the Bayview project has taken place without complete details of the impact of the grade separation on this site. Many substantive issues are left unanalyzed due to lack of information provided at this time. Though this project calls for 1,275,000 sq. ft. of office space, which could be the equivalent of 7 new high rise buildings in this area and a great increase in density, facts about this part of the project are lacking. Descriptions and visualizations are lacking. The project is billed as the "completion" of Newport Center which is a misuse of the term completion and misleading to the public. Future amendments could take place and based on historical trends, cer- tainly will. For exapmple: current trends indicate increasing densities, undergrounding of parking, building in parking lots and open space, increasing building heightpi recent history shows that existing buildings in Newport Center have been expanded because of purported need, i.e.: a hotel was expanded, the medical plaza has been expanded, parking lots are being filled, Pacific Mutual was expanded. These facts along with the height limitation of 375' foretell the future. Using the history of changes and the causes for such changes, the analysis should have included the potential demand for increases and the resulting impacts GPA 85-1(B) SPON comments D. 4 ' and cumulative effects. The same lack of consideration of true cumulative impacts is true of the traffic analyses. The transportation model in- cludes traffic from the county and cities' existing General Plans. This apparently accounts for what is considered the Trend Growth figures. Another set of figures is shown as the increased Trend Growth analysis. This analysis includes those projects which have been requested but do not yet show up on the various General Plans. It is stated that a proposed in- crease of General Plan densities in the airport area of Newport Beach is included in the increased Trend Growth analysis. But it is not clear whether other huge projects such as one in _ ' Irvine prposed just this -week are included. It appears that the increased Trend Growth is a misnomer and, since all projects included in such a forecast -are known projects, it should be ' considered the Trend Growth. An increased Trend Growth fore- cast should be those that would tend to still be proposed due to the cumulative forces of expansion. I i F J SPON 24 SPON 25 The most critical aspect of this proposed project to residents who are concerned that the city does grow in a true SPON phased manner with adequate support systems is the proposed Development Agreement. The Tables provided for the assessment of needs in the.Phase II period are confusing. .Table 1-III, p. 295, Vol 4 purports to describe the ICU analyses after full mitigations for that phase butidoes not specify what the mitiga- SPON tions are as does the prior Table, i-JJJ for the 1989 improve- ments. In addition, ICU's are still high even with the improve- ments. It would seem virtually impossible to conclude a proper Development Agreement using the information provided in the EIR. SPON It is certain that the decision makers would need to decide which1 traffic model they believe is realistic. In addition, any justi fication of this project based on its economic benefits or the SPON benefits of road improvements should be considered further with a full understanding of the relationship of Pelican Hills Road to the Irvine Coast Development. Since the road is a condition 1 of development for the Irvine Coast it would seem inadvisable to I SPON give road development credits to the developer twice. CONCLUSION "The primary objective of the City of Newport Beach is that the timing and pace of future development be controlled to en- courage phased and orderly development consistent with the efficiency of the plan's public support system." (Vol. 1, p ix). With respect to this goal, though it is true that traffic will increase and improvements are needed and this project is a source of such funds, this project in its entirety only adds insult to injury. The only way to protect the residents and the stated General Plan Policies is to review all land uses and circulation facilities,so that decisions can be made to: 1) provide for an acceptable level of traffic service throughout the city, and; 2) provide for an equitable distribution of land use based upon the road system. 26 27 m iQ 30 31 i GPA 85-1(B) 1 SPON comments P• 5 1 The Planning Commission has voted on the adequacy of the 1 8IR prior to the conclusion of the comment period which was sated on the Notice of Completion to be May 29, 1986. The 1 Commission has voted without the benefit of final comments and without the benefit of the answers to such comments. We consider the Planning Commission a review body which has been SPON 32 requested by the City Council- to preview public testimony, but, in this case, since their vote took place prior to the conclusion of the public testimony process, we believe it 1 should be discounted as part of the actual hearing process or reopened to review the final comments and answers, , Very Truly Yours, 1 Presiding Officers Jean Watt Len 1 Seltzer 1 1 1 1 1 1 i to of California .,r �`emorandum To : EXECUTIVE OFFICER ' Office of Planning & State Clearinghouse Sllect : 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Research W. B. BALLANTINE - District 7 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Project Review Comments SCB NUMBER 85061211 Business, Transportation and Housing Agency Date : May 23, 1986 File : IGR Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR We have reviewed the EIR for GPA 85=1(B) and have the following comments: The developments at Bayview Landing, Corporate Plaza, Corporate Plaza West, Newport Village, Avocado MacArthur, and Big Canyon MacArthur are adjacent to state highways and may encroach on Caltrans right-of-way. When detailed plans are available, we will wish to review them to insure that there are no conflicts with state plans in the project area. • Encroachment permits would be required for any work in Caltrans right-of-way. To limit the possibility of delays in permit issuance, early coordination is recommended. W. B.'BALLANTINE, Chief Environmental Planning Branch Transportation District 7 Clearinghouse Coordinator For information, contact Al Fisher (ATSS) 640-3935 or (213) 620-39.35 Attachment DOT 1 J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 Responses 5.2 V. RESPONSES The following section responds to all comments related to the Draft Envi- ronmental Impact Report. Several comments do not address the completeness or adequacy of the EIR, do not raise significant environmental issues, or ' request additional information. A substantive response to such comments is not appropriate within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act. Such comments are responded to with a "comment acknowledged" refer- ence. This indicates that the comment will be forwarded to all appropriate Idecisionmakers for their review and consideration. L 1 5.3 1 OPRa 1 Comment The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and the comments of the individual agency(ies) is(are) enclosed, Also, on the enclosed Notice of Completion, the Clearinghouse has checked which agencies have commented. Please review the Notice of Completion to ensure that your comment package is complete. If the package is not in order, please notify the state Clearinghouse immediately. Your ' eight digit State Clearinghouse number should be used so that we may replay promptly. Please note that recent legislation requires that a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make substantive comments on a project which are within the area of the agency's expertise of which relate to activities which that agency must carry out or approve. (AB 2583, CH. 1514, Stats. , 1984.) These comments are forwarded for your use in preparing your final EIR. If ' you need more information or clarification, we suggest you contact the com- menting agency at your earliest convenience. Please contact Glenn Stober at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions ' regarding the environmental review process. OPRa 1 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. , OFFICE OF PANNING AND RESEARCH (OPRb) OPRb 1 Comment The enclosed comments on your draft environmental documents Mere received , by the State Clearinghouse after the and of the state review period. We are forwarding these comments to you because they provide information or raise issues which may assist you in project review, t To ensure the adequacy of the final document you may wish to incorporate these additional comments into the preparation of your final environmental ' document. I I 5.4 ' Please contact Glenn Stober at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions concerning the review process. When you contact the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use eight digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may ' respond promptly. OPRb 1 Response ' Late comments were received after the close of the official review period established by the State Clearinghouse.. The comments are responded to in this document as responses. OFFICE OF PLANNING AND,RESEARCH (OPRO ' OPRc 1 Comment The enclosed comments on your draft environmental documents were received ' by the State Clearinghouse after the end of the state review period. We are forwarding these comments to you because they provide information or raise issues which may assist you in project review. To ensure the adequacy of the final document you may wish to incorporate these additional comments into -the preparation -of your final environmental ' document. Please contact Glenn Stober at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions concerning the review process. When you contact the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use eight digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. ' OPRc 1 Response Late comments were received after the close of the official review period established by the State Clearinghouse. The comments are responded to in ' this document as responses. ' NATURAL HISTORY FOUNDATION OF ORANGE COUNTY (NHF) NHF 1 Comment After Thursday's May 22, Planning Commission Public Hearing, I feel a brief explanation is due you concerning several of the questions asked of me by the Planning Commissioners. ' In response to the question about whether we had considered the Civic Plaza site, I found that although this location near the Art Museum would be ' ideal, we did not suggest it for NHFOC because we thought there was not 1 5.5 I enough space available. Five acres seems to be the minimum we would need for a major, permanent museum. If this amount of land is available at the NHF 1 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. NHF 2 Comment The other question was concerning Ron Yeo's letter of May 8, 1986. It may not have been clear that we consider the West Bay site appropriate for an interpretive center and Newporter North site appropriate for a major museum. NHF 2 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmikers. NHF 3 Comment At any rate, we are interested in locating in Newport Beach if an appropri- ate site can be found. NHF 3 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers, YAHC 1 Comment In consideration of the specific sites proposed in General Plan Amendment 85-1(B), it is recommended that the Planning Commission accommodate the development of a Youth Restaurant/Community Facility at Bsyviaw Landing. It is further recommended that development of the facility be designated through either the maximum square feet recommended in the May 22 Planning Department staff report (Agenda Item No. 2) or through a revision of the maximum square feet which will include the facility in addition to the res- taurants already proposed by The Irvine Company. i I 1 I H [1 1 11 1 I 5.6 I 1 1 YAHC 1 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. YAHC 2 Comment On January 13, 1986, the City Council adopted Resolution 86-7, expanding the Youth Ad Hoc Committee's responsibilities to include a study on the feasibility of a Teen/Youth Center. As a means of determining feasibility •! of a Teen/Youth Center, the committee reviewed numerous alternatives asso- ciated with the establishment of a facility. It is the unanimous consensus of the committee that such a facility would be accepted by students and parents and could be completely self- supporting. The facility will also be multi -functional in order accommo- date other community uses during hours when not used as a youth center. The facility will not only serve as a center for youth oriented events, but as a training and employment site for youth in the hospitality industry which is so vital to Newport Beach. This concept has been endorsed by stu- dents, parents and restaurant management members of the committee who feel that the facility will be utilized by youth on weekends and by community organizations which need luncheon or week night meeting rooms. The self- sustaining nature of the facility will allow its -management and operation as a separate entity. YAHC 2 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. YAHC 3 Comment In addition to defining the operational concept of the Youth Restau- rant/Community Facility, the committee has entered into discussions with The Irvine Company regarding terms and conditions for a new development and long term lease. On April 21, The Irvine Company responded by including the facility in the proposed Bayview Landing site under terms and condi- tions which provided the basis for further negotiations, including The Irvine Company financing of a building loan and no annual rent for the first three years of a fifteen year ground lease. This development excited the committee since the Bayview Landing site is equally accessible to both Newport Harbor and Corona del Mar High School students. With the assis- tance of the Newport Beach Restaurant Association, the committee submitted a counter proposal on May 12 requesting concessions on the ground lease and building loan payments considered more favorable to a self-sustaining, yet non-profit, public facility. 5.7 YARC 3 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. YARC 4 Comment This report has included background information and a recommendation to the Planning Commission as it affects the proposed Youth Restaurant/Community Facility. The actions of the Planning Commission and The Irvine Company will be crit- ical factors in the committee's eventual report to the City Council regard- ing the feasibility of a Youth Restaurant/Community Facility in Newport Beach, YARC 4 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. to 1 Comment As a former Planning Commissioner and former Chairman of this board, I want to share with you my perspective on the build -out of Newport Center. I was involved in the City's review of a plan for the completion of Newport Center almost 5 years ago -- as part of General Plan Amendment 80-3. That plan, like this one, sought to resolve the long term land use and transpor- tation issues associated with the ultimate development of Newport Center. That previous plan brought with it many of the same issues and many of the same benefits such as major road improvements and significant surplus tax revenues to the City. So in many respects I view this as unfinished busi- ness. 30 1 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. IC 2 Comment In my view, the plan as proposed by The Irvine Company represents a rea- sonable balance of land uses and a reasonable balance of private develop - I I i I 11 1 I I 1 ' 5.8 ' ment rights vs. public benefits. I applaud both the City and The Irvine Company for working to tackle this project in a comprehensive fashion that is in everyone's best interest. ' However, I believe this plan should be approved by the City only with the firmest possible commitment from the Irvine Company on a number of impor- tant issues. BC 2 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. ' BC 3 Comment First, regarding transportation, let's be sure that major road improvements ' such as Pelican Hill Road will be in place before any significant amount of new traffic is allowed to occur. The Irvine Company has asked for a lot more retail and office development which should be allowed to occur here so ' that Newport Beach remains economically sound and competitive. But the residents of Newport Center should not have to shoulder any additional traffic burdens without substantial off -setting road construction. This Newport Center plan by itself cannot solve all of the City's or the ' region's transportation problems, but it can make a meaningful contribution toward traffic relief in the parts of town easterly of the Upper Bay. BC 3 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. BC 4 Comment The wishes of the people of the Harbor View area should be addressed and MacArthur Boulevard should not be moved eastward nor should it be widened at this time. Additionally, the one-way couplet should be reviewed and perhaps abandoned with MacArthur Boulevard, if possibly depressed to elimi- nate a large level of the noise currently occurring. BC 4 Response The comment is noted. Mitigation Measure 2-13 requires the project propo- nent to construct a sound barrier in conjunction with the chosen configura- tion for MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue. Implementation of the measure will reduce existing and future noise levels to acceptable levels. 5.9 1 BC 5 Comment Second, regarding what's in it for the community, people have asked for a number of features which would make Newport Center more responsive to the needs of the local community such as greater variety of shopping, enter- tainment and nightlife. Additional amenities such as day-care for office workers, cultural facilities, a community meeting room, and health club have also been suggested. I understand The Irvine Company has been willing to consider these things as part of the plan -- but there needs to be a firm specific commitment which the City should require -- because these are the amenities and things that will distinguish Newport Center from the other business centers in the County and will make it more of a real commu- nity asset for Newport Beach. BC 5 Response The comment is noted. Future discretionary actions required of the pro- posed project include Site Plan Review. Implementation of the project has been suggested through the approval of a Planned Community (P-C) District for all of Newport Center. This would in combination with the approval of a Development Agreement (DA) represent a substantial implementation commit- ment by the project proponent and City. BC 6 Comment Lastly, regarding quality of design and appearance, the Planning Commission and City Council should carefully review at subsequent stages, the site planning details, architecture and landscaping to assure that Newport Cen- ter at buildout will be compatible with the surrounding residential commu- nity, and will enhance the image and character of Newport Center. BC 6 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. Future discretion- ary actions required of the project include Site Plan Review. BC 7 Comment In some cases, such as the Bayview Lending, the requested square footage may also be decreased to be more in line with the staff recommendations. BC 7 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. r u 1 I I 1 5.10 t I� 1 1 BC 8 Comment In conclusion, many of us, as I said, treat this plan as unfinished busi- ness. If it's approved subject to the commitments I have mentioned I am confident it will turn out in the long run to be a good plan for Newport Center and a good plan for the City of Newport Beach. BC 8 Response The comment is noted and included in the Final record of the project for review and consideration of appropriate decisionmakers. IRVINE RETAIL PROPERTIES COMPANY CIRPC) IRPC 1 Comment We appreciated the opportunity today to meet with you and other represent- atives of the Newport Center Association to discuss you interest in fast food opportunities. You can be assured of our company's commitment to bring a recognizable fast food operation to Newport Center/Fashion Island. We look forward to periodically briefing your Association on our progress in this effort. IRPC 1 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. M. JACOUES (MJ) MJ 1 Comment As a merchant in Fashion Island for the past nineteen years, it is in my best interest, as well as the City of Newport Beach, for the General Plan Amendment proposed by The Irvine Company to be adopted. I am writing to urge your strong support in favor of this resolution at the upcoming Plan- ning Commission Meetings this month, and the City Council Meetings later. We need the revitalization plans to go forward. Many of our customers tell us they like what is happening here at Fashion Island. With the addition of more shops, there is a better diversity of goods and services available to them, but they want more. We also need more and better restaurants and entertainment centers. Attractive places for the people to meet and do things other than shop. 5.11 I� The people of Newport want to spend their money in a beautiful, safe atmo- sphere like Fashion Island, if they can find what they want. Therefore, it is beneficial for the growth to continue at Fashion Island and Newport Cen- ter. More people will mean more business for me and the other merchants, and for the City, more Tax Dollars. NJ 1 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. NCA 1 Comment Association has thoroughly reviewed and considered all aspects of proposed General Plan Amendment 85-1(B). Now therefore, be it resolved that the Board of Directors of the Newport Center Association do hereby unanimously recommend and endorse the approval by the City of Newport Beach of General Plan Amendment 85-1(B). NCA 1 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. SPONa 1 Comment Chairman Person and member of the Commission, please accept a few prelimi- nary comments with respect to the newly circulated EIR for Newport Center and Peripheral sites. In the summary of alternatives (Vol. I, Table i-c) the first two alterna- tives are identified as environmentally superior. Considering the traffic impacts alone of this project, it would seem that the City should seek such an "environmentally superior" alternative. SPONa 1 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. Section 15126 (d) (3) requires that the Draft EIR identify "an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives". The Draft EIR goes beyond the requirements of the CBQA Guidelines to identify each alternative that is environmentally superior to the project. i I 11 I I I 1 I 5.12 The CEQA and CEQA Guidelines do not require that the decisionmaker choose an environmentally superior alternative. The law only requires that: "(b) A public agency shall not decide to approve or carry out a pro- ' ject for which an EIR was prepared unless either: (1) The project as approved will not have a significant effect on the environment, or (2) The agency has: ' (A) Eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible as shown in find- ings under Section 15091, and (B) Determined that any remaining significant effects on the 'environment found to be unavoidable under Section 15091 ' are acceptable due to overriding concerns as described in Section 15093. ' (c) With respect to a project which includes housing development, the public agency shall not reduce the proposed number of housing units as a mitigation measure if it determines that there is another feasible ' specific mitigation measure available that will provide a comparable level of mitigation." ' SPONa 2 Comment As regards that project objectives (Vol. I, p. 50, #6) it is stated that ' one of the objectives is . . . . "to provide capacity for the traffic that will be attributable to Newport Center". WE do not believe that this pro- ject, as presented, will achieve that objective. Under the amended Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the project will be able to qualify if a majority of the impacted intersections are improved. Clearly, many intersections will be unimproved under this scenario and, in fact, will operate at level of ser- vice F. Of note are intersections, such as PCH/Dover and PCH/Bayside, ' which have only recently been made acceptable by the new Upper Bay bridge. This project will be the greatest contribution factor to their deteriora- tion. ' SPONa 2 Response The comment has been taken out of context. The objective of providing ' capacity for the traffic that will be attributable to Newport Center is predicted on securing sufficient entitlements to support provision of traf- fic improvements. Further, the objective identifies that traffic improve- ment should be "in phase with development". n F 5.13 1 $PONa 3 Comment It is of concern that the traffic analysis figures are made by committed projects and a trend analysis. Committed projects are described at those (in Newport) which "have an adopted Traffic Phasing Plan or approved traf- fic study". These projects do not include those in Newport's sphere of influence. SPONa 3 Response Response to be provided under separate cover prior to final action on the EIR. SPONa 4 Comment In the discussion of proposed General Plan Amendments, (Vol. I, p. 104, Table 1-2, item #8) it is stated that the Santa Ana Heights proposed land use is not available. Yet the ground is broken for the Bayview project and various scenarios have been available for the older Santa Ana Heights area. We believe these figures would have a significant impact on the traffic analysis for such roads as Jamboree. SPONa 4 Response The Bayview project under construction is under the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach. It was annexed in 1985 to the City. The complete build out of said project is included in the report analysis. The Santa Ana Heights area was also included in the analysis based on data provided by the County of Orange. SPONa 5 Comment We have requested earlier that the traffic figures and dispersal of traffic be included for the Irvine Company's Irvine Coast project. This project continues to be excluded even though the County had studied earlier plans even to the extent of traffic figures and dispersion. We believe that the Irvine Coast project should be considered at the same time as Newport Cen- ter in order to accurately assess the impact on Corona del Her. SPONa 5 Response Response to be provided under separate cover prior to final action on the EIR. H 1 D I 1 1 1 I E ' 5.14 ' RUSSO'S PETS. INC. (RP) RP 1 Comment 1 I I I I I F111 I I I We are completely in favor of the "build -out" of Fashion Island. The City needs a bigger tax base. RP 1 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project. for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. CORONA DEL MAR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (CDM) CDM 1 Comment It was the unanimous decision by the Board of Directors of the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce to approve the build -out of Newport Center within the codes and restrictions as may be determined by the City Planning Com- mission and the City Council, but only if Pelican Hills (sic) Road is connected to San Joaquin Hills Road and in place before the build -out. CDM 1 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. Mitigation Measure No. 1-I would require the completion of Pelican Hill by 1989. CDM 2 Comment Corona del Mar can no longer bear the burden of increased traffic with no viable alternate route around the City to destinations in Newport Center and the airport area. Our residents are "up in arms" over the increased use of our narrow residential streets as bypasses to already saturated Pacific Coast Highway. CDM 2 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. CDM 3 Comment The Pelican Hills Road alignment as it is now planned to Bonita Canyon Road and termination at MacArthur will indeed eliminate some of the traffic that 5.15 is destined for the airport area, but it in no way alleviates the Newport Center -bound traffic that is suffocating Corona del Mar. CDM 3 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. The origin and destination patterns of traffic in Corona del Mar is discussed in detail in Volume III of the Draft EIR on pages 2-10 through 2-25. CDM 4 Comment Why must an already severely affected area suffer more when it is apparent that some relief could be felt if the Pelican Hills -San Joaquin Hills Road connection is made? Corona del Mar is caught between the State Park and down -coast developments of the south and the Newport Center build -out on the north; it would seam very poor economics and poor judgment as well not to utilize a six -lane road that was designed to avert this tremendous traf- fic congestion. CDM 4 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review And consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. The connection of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road is required by Mitigation Mea- sure 1-J in 1993. CDM 5 Comment The taxpayers of old Corona del Mar who have supported the City for many, many years, and whose taxes paid for their share of building that road, as well as the huge expense of maintaining the road and its beautiful lands- caping for twenty years, deserve to have this investment brought to ful- fillment as it was intended to reduce traffic on Pacific Coast Highway and Corona del Mar. The vital link which was started in 1966, twenty years ago, should no longer be a pawn of selfish interests, but should be connected to Pelican Hills (sic) Road as soon as construction on that roadway reaches that con- nection point. CDM 5 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for consideration by appropriate decisionmakets. I I I I I 5.16 I I I I I I I I I I II I FISH AND GAME (FG) FG 1 Comment Of primary concern to us is the Newporter North site because of its proxim- ity to Upper Newport Bay. We believe that a minimum 100-foot buffer of native or undisturbed vegetation should be left along the bluff top and John Wayne Gulch. This is needed to protect the biological integrity of each location and to minimize human intrusion and invasion by non-native plant species. On other sites where coastal sage scrub is present (Bayview and Big Canyon MacArthur) efforts should be made to protect this habitant type. FG 1 Response The comment so noted. The recommended 100 foot buffer from the bluff top and John Wayne Gulch suggested by the comment concurs with the setback recommended in the Draft EIR. FG 2 Comment Planning efforts should be made to minimize any increases in runoff to Upper Newport Bay. This would help limit the impact of the project on the water quality of the bay. It would also minimize indirect impacts to salt marsh resulting from the introduction of fresh water. FG 2 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. FG 3 Comment The project sponsor should be advised that diversion or obstruction of the natural flow or changes in channel, bed or bank of any- river, stream, or lake will require notification to the Department of Fish and Game as called for in the Fish and Game Code. This notification (with fee) and the subsequent agreement must be completed prior to initiating any such changes. Notification should be made after the project is approved by the lead agency. The Corps of Engineers should also be contacted as there may be a need for a Section "404" permit as required under regulations of the Clean Water Act. FG 3 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. The State Depart- 5.17 ' ment of Fish and Game is shown on pages 53 of Volume I of the Draft EIR as a Responsible Agency. NAHC 1 Comment ; Given the manner in which the Commission receives Draft EIS and Draft/Final/Supplemental/Subsequent EIR notices, unless the actual report is forwarded us directly it is not reviewed. The Commission's response is to a one page notice of intent from the State Clearing House. Thus, if you have already solicited and subsequently incorporated Native American con- cerns into your mitigation measures (inclusive of monitoring grading), please disregard this letter and accept our appreciation for ensuring that the local Native American community is afforded the opportunity for partic- ipation in the environmental report/review process. NAHC 1 Response , The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. NAHC 2 Comment The Commission recognizes it is standard procedure that an archaeologist be involved in the planning and implementation of any mitigation program; how- ever, we encourage consultation with the local Native American community as well. Since the cultural heritage of Native Americans is under examina- tions, it is only appropriate their assistance is sought as an aid in the ' reduction/avoidance of adverse impacts to archaeological/ethnographic sites maintaining sacred or religious value (pursuant to the Public Resources Code Section 5097.9 it ggq). NAHC 2 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. The contacting of the Nature American community is a viable recommendation. Such a provision is incorporated into Coastal Commission procedures under which several of the important sites would be investigated. NAHC 3 Comment Enclosed, please find a list(s) providing the name and address of your regional Commissioner and the Native Americans from whom you may seek ' advise, guidance, and consultation with respect to your project. Please be I t ' 5.18 ' advised that the enclosure(s) is furnished as a measure for ensuring that the concerns of the local Native American community are addressed and, therefore, is not for public disclosure. ' NAHC 3 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for ' review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY CEMA) EMA 1 Comment I would particularly like to call your attention to the comment regarding land dedication in support of the proposed Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. Specifically, we are recommending that the above project be conditioned to provide for the dedication of approximately 82 acres owned by the Irvine Company in the Westbay area to the Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District. This complements the County's own dedication requirement from the Bayview Development for the first increment of the Park, and recognizes our interest in acquiring the Westbay site for regional park purposes. The dedication affords an opportunity to support the development of a regional park at Westbay that would benefit both Orange County and Newport Beach residents, as well as maintain and protect the environmental integ- rity of the Upper Bay. ' EMA 1 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. ' EMA 2 Comment In response to the Notice of Preparation, the Orange County Environmental Management Agency noted that further urbanization in Newport Beach would increase the incidence of runoff to the Bay. We specifically requested that the EIR "should fully assess the impact of such runoff into the Bay, and should offer detailed proposals for reducing the entry of street contami- nants such as solid matter, oil, and grease into the storm drain system." The draft EIR, while concluding that the proposed development "will add to a significant cumulative impact on water quality in Newport Bay," fails to provide specific mitigation measures. I 5.19 EMA 2 Response ' Response to this comment will be transmitted under separate cover prior to final action on the EIR. , EMA 3 Comment _ Currently, Newport Center adheres to the City of Newport Beach policies and requirements sited in the EIR;, but still impacts the water quality of the Bay on a regular basis, as shown by the following examples: 1. At the Baba Corinthian Yacht Club, complaints have been received re- garding the discharge of trash, oil and grease from the storm drain ' serving Newport Center. The Orange County Health Care Agency monitors total coliform, fecal coliform and enterococcus levels at this site. The results show that standards for water contact sports have been exceeded frequently compared with an equivalent site at Lido Yacht ' Anchorage, which has no storm drain (70% versus 196 for total coli- form). 2. At Newport Dunes Aquatic Park, samples taken from the dunes drain out- let in the swimming lagoon show that bacterial levels have exceeded the standards for water contact sports and shell -fish harvesting in over 754 of cases throughout the year. The lagoon has very poor flushing characteristics and is susceptible to coliform upsurges fol- lowing freshwater inputs from the watershed. This situation is likely to be exacerbated by the proposed development of boat slips at the lagoon entrance. Three other monitoring sites in the Dunes Lagoon are ' not as severely impacted as this drain from the east bluffs area, demonstrating the localized impact of this storm drain. For a number of years, efforts have been made by the County of Orange, the City of Newport Beach, the Department of Fish and Came, the Coastal Commis- sion and other interested parties, including the proponent, to improve the ' environmental quality of the Bay. Some progress has been made and further actions have been planned. Any deteriorative action, however small, is detrimental to this goal and should be avoided, wherever reasonably pos- ■ible. The draft EIR should fully evaluate all gosa le on -mite mitigation measures for reducing the harmful effects of runoff to the Bay, including, but not limited to, the following: ' 1. Improvements to source control practices such as the frequency of street sweeping, refuse pick-up and drain cleaning. A national study recently concluded that "sweeping just prior to the rainy season could produce some benefit in terms of reduced pollution in urban runoff in an area which had pronounced wet and dry seasons." I I ' 5.20 I 2. Mechanical methods of separating trash from runoff water. 3. Oil/water separators, as requested by the Coastal Commission in ' the mid 1970's. 4. Installation of retention basins and/or other viable treatment technologies. ' S. Alternative location of outfalls for storm drain. ' EMA 3 Response Response to this comment will be transmitted under separate cover prior to final action on the project. EMA 4 Comment The EIR should provide a discussion of the Master Plan of Regional Recre- ation Facilities/Recreation Element of the Orange County General Plan. This 1 plan identifies the Westbay area as the proposed Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. The County has required through dedication the first increment of this regional park form the Bayview Development. In light of these consid- erations, and the fact that the County is interested in acquiring the West - bay Site for development, operation and maintenance as a regional park at no cost of the City, the Orange County Environmental Management Agency rec- ommends that approval of the subject project be conditioned to provide for I the dedication of a minimum of ±82 acres of the Westbay area as follows: Within 60 days of final approval of the General Plan Amendment, the developer shall make an irrevocable continuing offer of dedication to the Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District over that property currently owned by The Irvine Company totalling approximately 82 acres adjacent to Upper Newport Bay and Irvine Avenue in the City of Newport Beach for regional park purposes. The irrevocable offer shall be in a form approved by the Manager, Orange County Environmen- tal Management Agency, Parks and Recreation/Program Planning Division and suitable for recording fee title. The offer shall be free and clear of monetary and all other encumbrances, liens, leases, fees, assessments, and unpaid taxes. Easements (recorded or unrecorded) shall be in a form approved by the Manager, OCEMA, Parks and Recre- ation/Program Planning Division. EMA 4 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. I 5.21 ' EMA 5 Comment The EIR should include a discussion of the impacts resulting from the development of Bayview Landing on the Newport Dunes Regional Recreation ' Facility in Upper Newport Bay. EMA 5 Response The Newport Dunes Regional Recreation Facility is considered by the City of ' Newport Beach a committed project. The Dunes project was included through- out the EIR to determine potential impacts of the proposed project and was , included in the analysis of cumulative impacts, EMA 6 Comment i The volume to capacity (V/C) ratios listed on Page 257 for the San Joaquin Hills Traffic Corridor (SJHTC) are based on ADT volumes and not a peak hour ' analysis. As a result, they generally do not reflect V/C ratios forecast by the County as part of the SJHTC traffic analysis. Attached is a more detailed analysis of ADT and peak hour volumes, as well as V/C ratios by ' direction on the SJHTC. The V/C ratios for the SJHTC are highlighted by direction for the Newport Beach area. Of particular concern is that an extremely high volume on the SJHTC of 222,000 west of Jamboree is forecast in the EIR; in contrast, the modeling completed for the SJHTC forecasts a volume of approximately 166,000 for this section of Rt. 73. This is 56,000 ADT discrepancy is something that deserves further explanation and/or eval- uation. , EMA 6 Response Please sea letter report: Basmaciyan-Darnall, Inc. (BDI) - June 16, 1986. Appendix A. EMA 7 Comment ' Any modification required to the Master Plan of Arterial Highways should be ' coordinated with the County in accordance with the Arterial Highway Finan- cing Program (SHFP) Procedure Manual. EMA 7 Response ' Please as$ letter report: Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. (BDI) - June 16, 1906. Appendix A. I I 5.22 EMA 8 Comment Existing traffic data and associated V/C ratios shown on PCH (Page 249) are ' much lower than the County's traffic flow map. EMA 8 Response Please see letter report: Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. (BDI) - June 16, 1986, Appendix A. EMA 9 Comment The SJHTC is projected to be operational in 1992. Current projections for the opening of the corridor are being used to develop a Phase 1 project for construction (i.e., lane configuration, interchanges, etc.). If the pro- posed project will aggravate the projected opening day conditions on the SJHTC, then a discussion should be included in the EIR. EMA 9 Response Please see letter report: Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. (BDI) - June 16, 1986. Appendix A. IEMA 10 Comment I The proposed project significantly intensifies land use in the Newport Cen- ter area. Traffic concerns are of foremost importance. The proposed pro- ject calls for extension of University Drive. However, the City of Newport Beach has eliminated this link in their adopted Local Coastal Plan. The city should clearly state whether they will be amending their LCP to add this link. If this is not the city's intent, then the city should concur- rently amend their transportation element to delete University Drive and ' add the road improvements necessary in lieu of a University Drive. These actions should be clearly delineated in the EIR. EMA 10 Response Please see letter report: Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. (BDI) - June 16, 1986. Appendix A. EMA 11 Comment Volume 2, Page 49 Table 2-K: The current California air quality standards for suspended particulate matter have been revised from 100 micrograms per cubic meter (24-hour averaging time) to 50 micrograms per cubic meter. The I I 5.23 ' new standards are for "Inhalable" particles, which are defined as those particles less than 10 micrometers aerodynamic diameter, PM10 ' EMA 11 Response The comment is correct. The current California standard is 50 ug/m3 for particles less than 10 micrometers aerodynamic diameter over a 24 hour averaging period. This often referred to as the PM10 standard. At most ' monitoring stations sampling for the PM 10 standard began in late 1984. No data for 1984 for the Costa Mesa station was published by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The 1985 summary data has not been released by the SCAQMD. Therefore, at this time there is no available data ' for the Costa Mesa station regarding the new PM10 standard to present. EMA 12 Comment Volume 2, The Air Quality Section should state if the project is consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The SCAG-82 growth forecast includes population, housing units, and employment; therefore, sufficient details are available to determine consistency with the AQMP. In general, projects in Orange County not consistent with Orange County OCP III growth forecast could be construed as being inconsistent with the SCAG-82 fore- cast, and thus inconsistent with the AQMP. EMA 12 Response A representative of Sanchez Talarico Associates contacted SCAG to determine if the project is consistent with the SCAG-82 growth forecast. Me, Wendy Murphy of SCAG indicated that the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) is consistent with the SCAG-82 forecast. Therefore, it appears that the pro- posed GPA is also consistent with the AQMP. SCAG received a copy of the ' Draft EIR as did the Air Resources Board. The Air Quality Management Dis- trict received a Notice of Completion indicating the public review period for the Draft EIR had commenced and that the EIR was available for com- ments. EMA 13 Comments If a project proves to be inconsistent with the AQMP, there are several options: 1. The project could be modified to become consistent; 2. A General Plan Amendment could be prepared, subject to the re- quirement of State Planning laws; I 1 1 5.24 1 I 3. An EIR could be certified for an inconsistent project if a Find- ing is so made and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is included. This option is not available if a Negative Declara- tion is used. EMA 13 Response ' Please refer to EMA 12 Response. EMA 14 Comment Volume 2, Page 53: The EIR should include a quantitative estimate to the fugitive dust emissions generated by the grading and construction operation of the project. The fugitive dust emission should be calculated using realistic assumptions (i.e., estimate the number of acres and months/days that would be required to complete the grading operation, then apply the appropriate emission rate). EMA 14 Response 1 The Air Quality Section of the technical appendix presents a quantitative estimate of fugitive dust emissions. A daily average of 57 pounds per day is projected (see page 7 of the air quality report). Emissions were also projected for a worst case day and construction equipment. I EMA 15 Comment The Master Plan of Countywide Bikeways (MPCB) depicts a number of bikeways in the project vicinity. These bikeways include San Joaquin Hills Road as a Class I facility (off -road) from Backbay Drive to the eastern City lim- its; Jamboree Road as a Class I bikeway from East Bluff Drive to the Pacific Coast Highway; Pacific Coast Highway as a Class I bikeway through ' the City; and Bayside Drive as a Class I bikeway from Marine Avenue to Mar- guerite Avenue. In addition, the MPCB shows Marine Avenue as a Class II bikeway (on -road, striped lanes) from Pacific Coast Highway to Balboa Ave- nue, and Backbay Drive as a Class III bikeway (on -road, signed only) from Pacific Coast Highway to Eastbluff Drive. There is also an existing Class II local bikeway on Santa Barbara Drive from Jamboree to Newport Center Drive. IEMA 15 Response The information regarding bikeways in the project vicinity denoted on the 1 Master Plan of Countywide Bikeways in noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decision - makers. I 5,25 , EMA 16 Comment Inconsistencies with the proposed project include the depiction on Exhibit 55 of the Class I bikeway along Pacific Coast Highway as being on the inland side of the Highway; the MPCB shows this bikeway on the coastal side. The San Joaquin Hills Road off -road bikeway is shown on the MPCB extending past Jamboree Road to Back Bay Drive; the Exhibit shows this link , as a "secondary" (on -road?) bikeway. Bayside Drive is also depicted on the Exhibit as a secondary bikeway' the MPCB shows a Class I facility from Marine Avenue to Marguerite Avenue. Finally, although Jamboree Road/Marine Avenue is depicted on the MPCB as Class II south of Pacific Coast Highway, ' the Exhibit shows Class I. EMA 16 Response ' Errors to Exhibit 1-55, "Project Area Bikeways: Existing and Designated" are noted, A bikeway along East Coast Highway was incorrectly shown as being located on the inland side of the highway. The bikeway is located on the coastal side of East Coast Highway. As defined in the City of Newport Beach Recreation and Open Space Element , of the General Plan (adopted February 11, 1985), "Secondary Bikeways con- nect to backbone trails and serve cyclists and children riding to and from school." The designation allows for onstreet and offstreet bikeways. The designation by the County of Orange's Master Plan of Countywide Bike- ways from Marine Avenue to Marguerite Avenue as a Class 1 facility is not inconsistent with the City of Newport Beach's designation. The designation of Jamboree Road/Marine Avenue by the City of Newport Beach as a secondary bikeway is not inconsistent with the designation of the County. EMA 17 Comment The inconsistencies between the project plan and the MPCB should be dis- cussed in the document. If the City is indeed proposing to make such modi- fications, the City should coordinate the update to the Transportation Flement of the orange o+n y General Plan with the County to ensure consis- tency between City and County plans. ' EMA 17 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. 1 I I 5.26 I I I I I I I i 1 EMA 18 Comment The Caltrans document, Planning and Design Criteria for Bikeways in Cali- fornia, details specific design standards for Class I bikeways. In addi- tion, the Transportation of the Orange County General Plan includes over- riding specifications required for the MPCB Class I facilities, which are considered the regional network of bikeways in Orange County. We have attached copies of -the CalTrans and Orange County specifications for Class. I bikeways as this project has a large number of them in the vicinity. EMA 18 Response The information regarding bikeway design standards is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. It is recognized that the final design of all bikeways will be revised with the Site Plan Review for specific projects. At this time, bikeways design standards will be coordinated with all appropriate jurisdictions. EMA 19 Comment The impacts associated with the proposed 375-foot height limit for struc- tures are dismissed in the EIR as insignificant, or as mitigated to accept- able levels. This is a bold statement by the City, particularly in the context of the proximity of the site to the primary departure route for aircraft form John Wayne Airport. FAR Part 77 Regulations, "Objectives Affecting Navigable Air Space," will need to be followed. Additionally, the City of future developers may be required to purchase aviation ease- ments. EMA 19 Response Block 600 and Block 800 are two sites proposed for highrise towers as part of the proposed project. Both sites are currently allowed to build to a height of 375 feet. Mitigation measures are included in the Aesthetics section of EIR on page 212 to limit the maximum height of new structures to not exceed 20 stories and 12 stories in Block 600 and Block 800, respec- tively. However, as indicated in the Level of Significance After Mitigation analysis for the Aesthetics section, it is indicated that views of Newport Center and the peripheral sites will change with the introduction of new land uses, especially of Blocks 600 and 800. It is further stated that the "project represents an irreversible change that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance". The second part of the Environmental Management Agency's comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consider- ation by appropriated decisionmakers. 5.27 EMA 20 Comment The proposed project will result in significant unavoidable adverse envi- ronmental impacts. Should the city wish to approve the proposal despite the impacts, a statement of overriding considerations is required pursuant to Section 15093 of the State of California CEQA Guidelines. EMA 20 Response The comment so noted. The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency in the approval of this project. The Certified Final EIR will contain all com- ments and responses in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Additionally, since the project will have significant adverse effects on the environment, Findings pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the Guidelines will be submitted for consideration by the City of Newport Beach City Council. EMA 21 Comment The project includes area within Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) zones 418, 419, and 420. by applying standard County employ- ment factors to information provided in Table i-A of the EIR, the project would generate approximately 4,666 additional employees at buildout. Within OCTAMs 418 and 419 the project would generate 162 and 4,504 addi- tional employees respectively. EMA 21 Response This information regarding employment generation is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appro- priate decisionmakers. EMA 22 Comment Exhibits 1-8 through 1�20 in the EIR indicate that the net result of the project is a decrease of allowed dwelling units at buildout, Within OCTAMs 418 and 420, the net result of the project is an increase of 202 and 80 dwelling units respectively. However, in OCTAM 419, the net decrease of allowed dwelling units in 475. EMA 22 Response This information regarding allowed dwelling units is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. 5.28 ' EMA 23 Comment Essentially, the project proposes intensification of employment uses and a reduction and dispersement of dwelling units. Given the proposed increase in development intensity, infrastructure improvements will need to be phased in conjunction with development in order to avoid system overload. Since the project is a proposed general plan amendment, the additional employment and reduced dwelling units generated by the project were not included in the adopted Orange County Preferred Growth Projection 1985-2010 (OCP-85). ' EMA 23 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriated decisionmakers. EMA 24 Comment Compliance with City of Newport Beach policies and requirements, and imple- mentation of mitigation measures described in the EIR should be adequate to ensure that development of the proposed project will provide for an appropriate flood drainage system. Issues relating to increased impervious areas, erosion, and sedimentation appear to be sufficiently addressed in the EIR. EMA 24 Response I The adequacy of issues related to increased impervious areas, erosion, and sedimentation is so noted. ' NEWPORT HEIGHTS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ' NHCA 1 Comment The Board of Directors of the Newport Heights Community Association has found that the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Amendment concerning the expansion of Newport Center lacks discussion of the impact of the road mitigations for the Pacific Coast Highway in Mariners Mile. 1 NHCA 1 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. i dI I 5.29 I NHCA 2 Comment ' The Board of Directors of the Newport Heights Community Association has taken a strong stand against widening the Pacific Coast Highway and also against improvements at the intersections of Riverside Drive and Tustin Avenue. We believe that the Pacific Coast Highway should be kept in its present state to encourage Mariners Mile as a destination point. We also are concerned with the many children who cross the Highway to and from schools and beaches. We would like to see the Highway improved in an aes- thetic fashion and are currently developing ideas in the direction. We also believe that improved intersections would encourage traffic through our neighborhood. One possible improvement we would find acceptable would be longer turn pockets to avoid tying up traffic in the through lanes. However, double turn pockets and widened intersections are unacceptable. NHCA 2 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. �7 11 I I �J I L-I 5.30 J I 'u I RICHARD NICHOLS (RN) RN 1 Comment PCH traffic effects on business and homes along PCH in Corona del Mar have not been considered and no mitigation is offered. ..It is Newport.Beach City policy that homes are not allowed to be built in 65 dba CNEL range of highways without sound mitigation. Mitigation mea- sures were proposed for Harbor View homes along MacArthur. The recently published Point del Mar EIR points out Future Traffic Noise Levels along PCH. I Roadway MacArthur Blvd. I I I I I I I I I TABLE F FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS WITH PROJECT Pacific Coast Highway RN 1 Response Distance to CNEL Contour From Centerline of Roadway (Feet) 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 116 250 538 105 227 490 The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. RN 2 Comment Our point is that all businesses directly fronting Pacific Coast Highway in Corona del Mar and all residences in at least the 65 CNEL range should be noise mitigated by sound insulation etc. This is not discussed although it was brought to Staff's attention numerous times before and during the EIR. RN 2 Response The response to said comment will be provided under separate cover prior to final action on the project. 5.31 RN 3 Comment Similarly air pollution and toxic chemical exposure of people living and working adjacent to PCH in Corona del Mar should be discussed. With the bottlenecking of PCH, shop owners, employees and nearby residents are increasingly being exposed to higher doses of air and toxic pollution including in particular benzene. RN 3 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of 'the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. RN 4 Comment The April 24, 1986 Planning Commission Staff Report Item No. 6 shows that most Newport Center housing park dedication with the exception of Newporter North and Newport Village is from 5 acres at the mouth of Big Canyon. This acreage is unusable by the population and therefore serves no resident rec- reation need. Further, other projects have credits in this area. Hence between 5 and 10 acres of residential parks are instead a marsh with a, we suspect, Park Department paid for storm newer. RN 4 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. RN 5 Comment Further, between 9.5 and 10.7 acres of needed parks are being transferred from Newporter North and Newport Village to Vent Bay for a county regional park not even bordered by Newport Beach on its longest side. CDM and Bal- boa are deficient in Parke by Park Dept. survey. Harbor View Hills, CDM and East Bluff are dependent on closed school property for recreation facilities, The fields at Lincoln, East Bluff adjacent the Boys' Club and the 1/3 of Grant Howald Park form the backbone of our recreation facili- ties. Why is the Park Dept. not tying up these facilities and why are we not expanding facilities in the Grant Howald Park area for the sizeable expected and current needs. RN 5 Response A letter report related to this comment will be provided under separate cover prior to final action on the EIR. I I� I F I I I 1 I i r7 I I 5.32 RN 6 Comment The Parks have been gutted in Newport Beach by: 1. The redefinition of a park from a square flat useable recreation area to an almost anything (i.e., View Park, Nature Park, etc.). ' This has allowed large areas as the mouth of Big Canyon to be classified as parks. 2. The allowance as public park credit of private recreation facil- ities. These facilities are unavailable to other citizens but do not deter these project citizens from demanding current park rights; and, ' 3. The determination by the city that neighborhood parks are not needed but that instead these resident paid -for parks should be used for industrial league parks, nature preserves, and unusable rolling lawns for a privileged few. This should not be allowed and the actions and effects of such proposals 1 should be addressed in the applicable EIR's. RN 6 Response ' The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. I RN 7 Comment The traffic study and impact analysis, on one hand assume unlimited capac- ity on a given road, and on the other hand, the figures at quite low traf- fic levels are used to justify road expansions. RN 7 Response Please refer to letter report prepared by BDI dated June 17, 1986. Appen- dix A. RN 8 Comment For example a 4 land road capacity is assumed at 36,000 vpd and is used to justify a 6 land highway on MacArthur from PCH to San Miguel on the other hand PCH from Marguerite to MacArthur is assumed able to handle 53.8K to 62.4K vpd (Fig. 3-6 Vol. 4) without problem. We would note the EIR does not even know the traffic in this segment (Fig. 2-1 and Table 2-1 Vol. 4). Virtually everyone knows traffic conditions are worse now than in 1980, yet the 1980 traffic figures from the City show traffic figures of 43K vpd on 5.33 , Sunday and 46K vpd on weekdays (see attached figures). If both figures are correct, then traffic is so bottlenecked that capacity reductions are being experienced. What we wish to point out is that traffic projections of 53.8K vpd and 62.4K vpd cannot be achieved during the same or moderately extended operating hours. Therefore, the traffic analysis is invalid. RN 8 Response Please refer to letter report prepared by BDI dated June 16, 1986. Appen- dix A. ' RN 9 Comment We point out that staff has gone into considerable analysis to determine how many cars are going on side streets through CDM but they continue to use 1600 vph per lane of green time for all intersections. Similar and reason- able analysis would show such traffic cannot be achieved on most residen- tial streets. On the other hand greater densities may be justified on open highway segments such analysis should be done. Similarly, actual condi- tions should be considered. Certainly a limited access 4 land MacArthur can handle more traffic than PCH in CDM which has parking, numerous curb outs, intersections every block, etc. The EIR should take these actual circumstances into effect. RN 9 Response t Please refer to letter report prepared by BDI dated June 16, 1986. Appen- dix A. RN 10 Comment I Finally, there is no indication that down coast development is included in Pelican Hills traffic analysis. It is not listed in Exhibit 1-35 or 1-36, , Vol. I. Further volumes shown do not show this traffic generation. In any event the down coast traffic should be included and its effects made very clear in the EIR. AN 10 Response Please refer to letter report prepared by BDI dated June 16, 1986. Appen- dix A. RN 11 Comment ' We apologize that our comments are not more complete. We are led to believe on the basis of our cursory analysis that a deliberate attempt has r J 5.34 been made to keep from public view the Westbay and Jamboree/PCH overpass trade-offs. The trade-off of Pelican Hills and 6 lane PCH has not been mentioned publicly. We believe people should be allowed to discuss what ' affects them and these discussions should be clearly outlined in the EIR. RN 11 Response Please refer to letter report prepared by BDI dated June 16, 1986.- Appen- dix A. ' THE IRVINE COMPANY (TIC) TIC 1 Comment ' We do not believe the draft EIR clearly addresses the planning rationale underlying the overall project or the planning/urban design reasons for the project's individual components in sufficient detail. Because of the absence of a clear statement and articulation of the project's overall and individual component planning objectives, the analyses of development pro- posals for each site and the inter -relationships between the sites do not reflect the planning rationale which formed the basis for proposing site - specific uses. TIC 1 Response The comment is noted and include in the final record of the project for ' review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. TIC 2 Comment In turn, the alternatives suggested for consideration for each site are difficult to assess in relation to proposed uses because these planning considerations are not reflected in the EIR discussion. Frequently, the ' text of the draft EIR will conclude that an alternative is "environmentally superior" without stating the planning/environmental rationale for such a conclusion or in any way comparing the proposed project with the alterna- tive in terms of the planning and design criteria that must provide the basis for any comparison. TIC 2 Response ' The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. Following receipt of the comment letter from The Irvine Company, The Irvine Company was contacted for purposes of seeking clarification of the intent of its comments. As explained by The Irvine Company, these comments were intended to highlight The Irvine Company's concern that, in the consider- ation of each of the parcels included in the EIR analysis, their overall 5.35 planning rationale for the proposed CPA 85-1(B) not be lost or ignored, rather than to suggest any inadequacy in the Draft EIR itself. The Irvine Company's specific concern was that, in the consideration of potential alternatives for each of the parcels, the, overall planning rationale for CPA 85-1(B) should be considered along with the environmental concerns highlighted in the EIR, particularly in that the EIR, given the number of parcels involved in CPA 85-l(B), deals with those parcels individually as well as cumulatively. This comment sets forth an amplification of that planning rationale, summa- rized in the EIR at pages 49-50, from the standpoint of The Irvine Company. The planning rationale will be considered by the City in its consideration of CPA 85-l(B), as will the information in the EIR. As previously noted, with this clarification, the comment is noted as The Irvine Company's expanded statement of its planning justification of the proposed CPA. With respect to the "Comments on the Analysis of Development Sites and Alternatives", the City has reviewed the comments in relation to the state- ment of "Project Objectives" as defined by the City of Newport Beach and by the "Project Applicant" set forth on pages 49-50 of Volume I of the Draft EIR. The conclusion is that the objectives of the City as summarized in the Draft EIR,.appear to encompass.the specific planning objectives outlines in the letter of May 29,1986. The elaboration on project objectives set forth in your letter of May 29 are a useful amplification of the project propo- nent objectives in the Draft EIR. The basic planning objectives of the City stated in the Draft EIR itself do not require revision, nor would it be appropriate. The City, in proceeding to a final certification of CPA 85-1(B) EIR, will examine your project objectives against the policy objectives established by the City and reference in the Draft EIR. In finalizing the EIR, the City will determine the extent to which the project objectives, as embodied and carried out by the proposed CPA, are consistent with City policies and CEQA mitigation requirements. For this reason, your amplication of project objectives, while useful in elaborating on the planning rationale for the project, is not determinative of the objectives by which the project's impacts and other CEQA concerns will ultimately be judged. If the project's proposed impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable level or are otherwise deemed acceptable in the CEQA "Overriding Considerations" context, it will not be necessary to choose an alternative to the project. However, if the standard articulated in the Laurel Hills decision cannot be met, the City will turn to an analysis of project alternatives. Under such circumstances, the implication of project objectives will help in suggest- ing public policy considerations and environmental review criteria (e.g. concentrating employment opportunities to facilitate transit and ride shar- ing). It will ultimately be the City's planning policies will be determina- tive in terms of the alternatives analysis. Certainly, it would not be 5.36 ' appropriate to determine a project alternative to be "environmentally supe- rior" to the proposed project in a manner other than with reference to the public policy objectives applicable to Newport Center and to the project ' applicant's objectives to the extent that the latter furthers City goals and objectives. ' TIC 3 Comment GPA 85-1(B) is the result of many years of -experience on the part of The Irvine Company and the City in developing Newport Center and the surround- ing environs. Many planning considerations that were an integral part of the preparation of the proposed GPA are not reflected in the assessment of the project and of the alternatives to the project. TIC 3 Response ' The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. Please refer to TIC 2 Response. ' TIC 4 Comment In many instances, an alternative is proposed in the draft EIR without fully acknowledging the planning and design -efforts reflected in -our pro- posal. In order to treat these issues adequately in the EIR under CEQA, we believe that the alternatives section should be amplified to include a full presentation of the planning objectives for Newport Center and for each of ' the alternatives which the EIR suggests. Such a presentation would then allow for a comparison of the proposed project and alternatives in more meaningful terms. TIC 4 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. Please refer to TIC2 Response. ' TIC 5 Comment ' We further believe that our proposed project not only reflects an inter- nally consistent and sound planning rationale but also conforms with and carries out City policies and the Southern California Association of Gov- ernments' regional land use policies which call for grouping of activities. The City's Land Use Element of the General Plan and SCAG policies encourage concentration of development into villages and "planned communities" to strengthen physical identity and functional efficiency. Each of the sug- ' gested alternatives in the EIR must be measured against both the urban 5.37 design and public planning principles underlying GPA 85-1(B) before any , conclusion can be reached as to whether the proposed project or an alter- native is "environmentally superior". TIC 5 Response , The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. Please refer to TIC2 Response. TIC 6 Comment ' Fashion Island and the surrounding Newport Center complex is an interde- pendent combination of uses first master -planned over twenty years ago. The overall concept for Newport Center was, and is today, to provide a center of focus for the community. The complex contains, in a single des- tination point, a compatible mix of uses which: (1) attract daylong business and commercial activity; (2) provide civic and entertainment facilities and (3) provide housing for an economically diverse group of homeowners and renters in close proximity to employment centers. The pro- posed development included in GPA 85-1(B) is intended to strengthen and reinforce this fundamental concept of complementary uses. In attaining this basic goal of complementary uses serving as a focus for , the community, Newport Center's planning program has been guided by the following basic principles: 1. Enhance the 1 community center function by providing for new en- tertainment areas and additional civic functions; 2. Provide a broader mix of shopping opportunities and associated entertainment/support functions (e.g. restaurants) to further accentuate public center activities and to enhance Fashion Island's long-term viability as a shopping/gathering place; ' 3. Concentrate major employment centers through infill to enhance transit/ridesharing opportunities and to create a pedestrian - accessible office complex; 4. Use "infiil" as a guiding principle to accentuate existing use patterns and foster interaction between use areas (e.g. office employees shopping at Fashion Island, thereby reducing auto trips and office buildings located in close proximity to hotels); , 5. Provide low-rise offices on the edge of the major employment areas as a visual transition to local arterial roads, PCH and , existing low-rise development. P I 5.38 6. Provide a mutually supportive mix of office and residential uses which in turn support the economic vitality of Fashion Island. ' Importantly, the mix of uses in Newport Center has been carefully balanced to provide a firm economic and functional base for: - Regional transportation facility improvements (Pelican Hill Road, MacArthur Boulevard, Pacific Coast Highway, San Joaquin Hills Road, Jamboree Road); - Transit opportunities; ' - Affordable housing opportunities; - Expansion of civic and cultural facilities. 7 i i I I 1 I L._J TIC 6 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. Please refer to TIC2 Response. TIC 7 Comment Each development site within Newport Center is planned to be compatible with, and complementary to, the existing pattern of development. Each site strives to carry out the objectives of the original master plan by William Perrera on an "infill" basis. By infilling within the existing pattern with compatible uses, Newport Center maintains view corridors, creates a new view park within the Bayview Landing site, and maintains Newport Center as the focal point of activity, acting as a town center for the entire community of Newport Beach. TIC 7 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. Please refer to TIC 2 Response. TIC 8 Comment We feel that the planning and design objectives on which wd base our plan provide the appropriate mix and placement of uses to best fulfill the potential for the site. Newport Center offers one of the few commercial office sites between San Francisco and San Diego which can capitalize on the ocean views within an established urban setting. The proposed develop- ment of the 600 and 800 blocks fulfills this potential, while fitting into the development pattern established years ago with the development of the existing towers and mid -rises. 5.39 TIC 8 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriated decisionmakers. Please refer to TIC2 Response. TIC 9 Comment A. Project and Impacts Caused by Regional ° We are concerned that, though data on pages 305 and 308 of Volume I of the EIR show the projected difference in daily traffic between the existing General Plan and the proposed amendment of 25$30 (a 20% increase), this important information is not high- lighted for the reader. TIC 9 Response Please refer to letter response from BDI dated June 16, 1986, Appendix A. TIC 10 Comment We are evert more concerned that the relative level of impact of the pre- viously mentioned incremental project traffic generation is not clear to the casual reader of the EIR. It would appear to have been clearer if a table such as attached Exhibit 1 were included (which is merely the differ- ence between the "Trend Growth" + GPA data in Table 1-AAA and the "Trend Growth" data in Table 1-MMM,) to show the relative share of project traffic to the ultimate daily projections. This would also clarify how the EIR concluded on page 310 that the relative project impact on the key roadway segments in the vicinity of the project is limited to one to six percent (1-63) of the total traffic on affected roadway segments. TIC 10 Response Please refer to letter response from BDI dated June 16, 1986, Appendix A. TIC 11 Comment We are concerned that the EIR does not clearly state the conclusion that the projected ultimate roadway capacity deficiencies identified in the traffic study are not caused by the proposed project (as stated on page 15 of the Staff Report) in spite of the evidence it contains, As shown by attached Exhibit 1. [1 I I I I I r 11 r 1 5.40 I TIC 11 Response Please refer to letter response from BDI dated June 16, 1986, Appendix A. TIC 12 Comment B. Need to More Clearly Articulate Mitigation Measures -.Addressing Impacts Caused by the Project and Net Road Capacity Created by the Miti ag tion Measures ' The capacities assumed in the T.P.O. calculation for 1989 and 1993, and the future capacities information included in Table 1-MMM, reflect the follow- ing major roadway improvements that will be required in conjunction with the project as defined on page 31 of the Staff Report to the Planning Com- ' mission for the April 24, 1986 meeting, as follows. 1. Dedication of right-of-way for Coast Highway improvements. 2. Completion of Jamboree Road to six -lane major arterial stan- dards from Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road. 3. Completion of MacArthur Boulevard to six -lane major arterial standards from Coast Highway to Jamboree Road. 4. Construction of Pelican Hill Road/Bonita Canyon Road between Pacific Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard. 5. Construction of San Joaquin Hills Road between Spyglass Hill Road and Pelican Hill Road. Although it is our understanding that this comprises a list of projects that may be required as a part of the project, that fact is not clearly defined in the EIR. ' TIC 12 Response Please refer to letter response from BDI dated June 16, 1986, Appendix A. TIC 13 Comment ' The EIR does not clearly state the conclusion that the daily capacity added to the roadway system by the construction of the above circulation improve- ments is in excess of the incremental demand of 25,330 vehicles per day added by the proposed project. This can be seen by comparing the 25,000 additional daily trips created by the proposed amendment vs 37,000 to 52,000 additional daily capacity provided through roadway improvements. 5.41 ' The additional capacity is generated as follows: ' Pelican Hill Road diversion 8,000 to 16,000 Jamboree 2 lanes @ 18,000 MacArthur 2 lanes @ 9,000 to 18,000 Total Capacity 350000 to 52,000 It is also important to note that the diversion of up to 16,000 vehicles per day resulting from construction of Pelican Hill Road is far above the incremental addition of 800 to 5,400 vehicles per day to Pacific Coast Highway through Corona del Mar, as shown in attached Exhibit 1. TIC 13 Response Please refer to letter response from BDI dated June 16, 1986, Appendix A. ' TIC 14 Comment It is our understanding that the ultimate project mitigation package will also require participation, in keeping with requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, in intersection improvements with their imple- ' mentation timing to be determined later in the process. TIC-14 Response Please refer to letter response from BDI dated June 16, 1986, Appendix A. ' TIC 15 Comment Although the information included in pages 315.323 indicates that deletion ' of the one-way couplet provides sufficient capacity, both at the interim time -frames and ultimately, and documents the recommended systems benefits regarding safety, accessibility, reduction of out of direction travel, and general operational superiority, the draft EIR makes no conclusion as to ' its technical superiority. TIC 15 Response Please refer to letter response from BDI dated June 16, 1986, Appendix A. TIC 16 Comment Also, in the discussion on pages 33 and 34 regarding "Affected Links/Inter- ' sections" we believe clarification is needed in order to ensure that this section accurately reflects the more detailed information in the traffic study (Volume IV) of the EIR. ' I 5.42 I TIC 16 Response Please refer to letter response from BDI dated June 16, 1986, Appendix A. TIC 17 Comment No impacts are identified which would call for sucha mitigation measure. In fact, impact analysis suggests that a parking structure located near the hotel structure could have a detrimental effect on hotel parking - an ' observation also not explained or documented. Two separate structures are needed and are proposed to serve the pool parking concept in Block 600 for hotel and office uses. Restricting the location away from San Joaquin Hills Road could cause the proposed office building to be relocated closer to San Joaquin Hills Road raising additional impacts aesthetically and in terms of shadow impacts - none of which is addressed. The recommended mitigation is not appropriate and could in itself result in an environmen- tally less desirable siting of proposed development. Later sections of report suggest that these issues can be resolved at site plan stage. TIC 17 Response Mitigation Measure 1-4 in the Draft EIR has been revised. The measure was incorrect in stating the author's intent. The intent of the measure is to ' reduce or eliminate significant environmental consequences of the project. Changes to the suggested mitigation measures are provided below and included both in the Errata and Revised Mitigation Measure list. The changes are as follows: 1-4. The proposed parking structure shall be an expansion of the Four Seasons Hotel parking structure (currently under ' construction) and/or may be located adjacent to San Joaquin Hills Road and shall be consistent with ingress/egress, site design, and public safety concerns. ' TIC 18 Comment ' No.environmental impact identified justifying this recommended height limit. Historic and existing height limits at this location allow up to 375'. Precise height should be established at site plan review stage when more complete site plan, and architectural data is available. TIC 18 Response ' Please refer to the impacts discussion of the Aesthetics Section. No change to this mitigation measure is deemed appropriate. While it is true that "historic" height limits on the site allow for the construction of L 5.43 r structures of 375', the historic planned utilization of the property is for residential development. The departure from planned residential uses, construction of Pacific Plaza Twin Towers and the Marriott Hotel and Hotel expansion have all occurred since the "historic" height limit was put in place. As is correctly pointed out, a 375' tall structure would be out of scale with those exist- ing structures. The "precise" height will be established as site plan and architectural data becomes available. However, the overall height for the area needs to be established with the adoption of general design criteria (General Plan Land Use Element standards) and zoning (Planned Community Development Plan and District Regulation). TIC 19 Comment U" Section/Site Recommended Mitiration 212 Aesthetics/ 1-8. No exterior signs shall be permitted above All Sites above the second floor elevation of any structure (except Fashion Island). Comment/Response No impacts identified which conclude that this mitigation measure is needed. Suggest revising to read: "All exterior signs shall be permitted as defined under the City's Sign Ordinance or by the Planned Community text, the most restrictive measure for the specific land use will Apply in matters of conflict". TIC 19 Response Please refer to the impacts discussion for the Aesthetics section of the EXR. No change to this mitigation measure is deemed appropriate. In New- port Center, with the exception of the Marriott and Four Seasons Hotel and the Broadway signs, no signs have been permitted above the second floor elevation of any structure. If signs were to be permitted on all project structures above second floor elevations (potentially several structures) it could be anticipated that the remainder of the structures within the Center would request signs above the second floor. This represents a potential significant secondary impact of the project that would not be mitigated. Should this measure be eliminated, it is suggested that sufficient changes in the conclusions of the Aesthetics section would warrant recirculation of r r r i r r r i r r r r 5.44 I u the Draft EIR. This statement is based upon the information, concerns, and study of signs above the second floor witnessed by their discussion in the Certified Final EIR for both the Marriott and Four Seasons Hotels. TIC 20 Comment Page Section/Site Recommended Mitigation 212 Aesthetics/ 1-14. The maximum height of all new structures Block 800 shall not exceed 12 stories. Comment/Response Same comment as on 1-5 above. TIC 20 Response Please refer to the impacts discussion for the Aesthetics section of the EIR. No changes to this mitigation measure is deemed appropriate. TIC 21 Comment Page Section Site Recommended Miti a� tion 213 Aesthetics/ 1-15. A landscape edge treatment shall be PCH/Jamboree provided on Jamboree Road and East Coast High- way and shall be approved by the City in Con- junction with subdivision or site plan review Comment/Response Reference to "entry statement" in second sentence is confusing in that no entry to the project is proposed at the intersection suggest the following revision: "A landscaped edge treatment should be provided on Jamboree Road and East Coast Highway adjacent to the site, and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with subdivision or site plan review." TIC 21 Response Mitigation Measure 1-15 has been revised as follows: 1-15. A landscaped edge treatment shall be provided along Jamboree Road and East Coast Highway adjacent to the site and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with subdivision or site plan review. C I ' I 5.45 i TIC 22 Comment , egg Section/Site Recommended Mitigation 213 Aesthetics/ 1-22. No illuminated building signs shall be ' Avocado/MacArthur permitted on any building oriented toward Mac- Arthur Blvd. ' C6]mgnt/Response Intent would be clarified if reworded to read: ' "No illuminated building signs oriented toward MacArthur Blvd. shall be permitted." , TIC 22 Response Mitigation Measure 1-22 was incorrectly stated. It has been clarified as ' follows. Please refer to errata's Revised Mitigation Measure list, 1-22. No illuminated building signs oriented toward MacArthur ' Boulevard shall be permitted, TIC 23 Comment ' ag Section/Site Recommended Mitigation 214 Aesthetics/ 1-26. Landscaped edge treatment shall be ' Big Canyon/ provided on San Joaquin Hills Road and Mac - MacArthur Arthur Blvd. Landscaped entry statements shall be approved by the Planning Department. , Comment/Response Reference to "entry statement" in second sentence potentially confusing r since no entry to project is proposed at intersection. Suggest delete ref- erence to entry statement. , TIC 23 Response Mitigation Measure 1-26 was incorrectly stated and has been revised as fol- lows. Please refer to the errata's revised mitigation measure list. 1-26. A landscaped edge treatment shall be provided along San Joa- quin Hills Road and MacArthur Blvd, adjacent to the site and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with subdivi- sion or site plan review. r 5.46 ' TIC 24 Comment Page Section/Site Recommended Mitigation ' 214 Aesthetics/ 1-32. Landscaped entry statement shall be Bayview Landing provided at the intersection of Jamboree Road and East Coast Highway. Comment/Response ' Same comment as on 1-26 above. No entry is proposed at intersection. TIC 24 Response Mitigation Measure 1-32 was incorrectly stated and has been revised as follows. Please refer to the errata's revised mitigation measure list. 1-32. A landscaped edge treatment shall be provided along Jamboree Road and East Coast Highway adjacent to the site and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with subdivision or site plan review. TIC 25 Comment ' Page Section/Site Recommended Mitigation 215 Aesthetics/ 1-36. Landscaped entry statements shall Newporter N. be provided at the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road. ' Comment/Response Same comment as 1-26 and 1-32 above. TIC 25 Response ' Mitigation Measure 1-36 was incorrectly stated and has been revised as fol- lows. Please refer to the errata's revised mitigation measure list. 1-36. A landscaped edge treatment shall be provided along San Joa- quin Hills Road and Jamboree Road adjacent to the site and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with subdivi- sion or site plan review. L-1 I 5.47 TIC 26 Comment ' Pace Section/Site Recommended Mitigation 215 Aesthetics/ 1-37, The height limitations shall be 35 ' Newporter N. feet for the Newportar North site. Comment/Response ' No impacts identified dictating this specific height limit. Suggest as height limit of 40 feet to allow design flexibility. Height will be con- firmed at site plan review stage. TIC 26 Response ' The 35 foot height limit allows for the construction of structures of up to 40 feet in height with a pitched roof. This height limitation is typical of other residential Planned Communities in the City of Newport Beach. No , changes to the mitigation measures are necessary to accomplish the requested. , TIC 27 Comment an Section/Site Recommended Mitigation ' 324 Transportation/ 1-39. Prior to occupancy of each indi- Vehicular/All Sites vidual structure permitted by GPA 85-1(B), a site specific TMS component shall be ' prepared and approved by the City Public Works and Planning Departments. ' TIC 27 Response Mitigation Measure 1-39 has been clarified as follows: 1-39, Prior to occupancy of any individual structure permitted by GPA 85-1(B), a site specific TSM component shall be pre- pared and approved by the City Public Works and Planning Departments. Comment/Regoonsg Specific site impacts will already be addressed by overall transportation improvements and overall TMS program for Newport Center called for in miti- gation measure 1-38. It is not practical to establish a TMS program for each separate commercial building or for each dwelling unit as this recom- mendation suggests. No impacts are identified which justify this approach. 1 I 5.48 U t I n I I TIC 28 Comment Pape Section/Site Recommended Miti ag tion 39 Noise/All Sites All construction activities shall be lim- ited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, 8 a.m, to 6 p.m. on Saturday, and 10 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday and holidays. Comment/Response With respect to Fashion Island, this mitigation would unnecessarily and unfairly impede interior demolition and construction work during renovation of mall. Due to need to keep existing shops open during normal business hours, it will be necessary to do some demolition and construction during nighttime hours. Fashion Island is sufficiently isolated from existing residential or other noise sensitive uses such that nighttime activity will not cause any off -site impacts that cannot be mitigated. TIC 28 Response Based upon conversation with the staff of the City of Newport Beach, it is our opinion that it is not their intention to "... unnecessarily and unfairly impede" construction activities of the Irvine Company. Exceptions to the City of Newport Beach construction activities hours can occur under Section 10.28.050 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. TIC 29 Comment Pape Section/Site Recommended Mitigation 122 Biological/ 2-56. Setbacks of development from the Newporter N. bluff edge shall be no less than 100 feet to provide partial buffer between devel- opment and resource area as well as pro- tect the bluff fact coastal sage scrub. Comment/Response Since no setback lesser or greater than 100 feet is evaluated, the specific 100 foot distance seems arbitrary. The precise distance should be estab- lished during site plan review with flexibility for a greater or lesser distance as appropriate. 1 5.49 ' TIC 29 Response ' A setback of less than 100 feet would not prevent human activity from dis- turbing the normal behavioral patterns of wildlife when resting, feeding, and reproducing. The 100 foot setback has been agreed to by The Department of Fish and Game. It is appropriate to establish minimum setbacks from resources of statewide importance such as the Upper Newport bay Ecological ' Reserve at a general plan level of analysis. We agree that precise set- backs should be established at more precise levels of planning, but that they should in no instance be less than 100 feet. Setbacks of less than 100 feet were considered by the report authors. They were rejected. The authors do not believe any flexibility for a lesser distance would be appropriate. TIC 30 Comment Pace Section/Site Recommended Mitigation ' 140/ Archaeological/ 2aa/dd. Prior to issuance of grading or 141 Newport Center and demolition permits, the applicant shall Peripheral Sites waive the provisions of AB-952 related to , City of Newport Beach responsibilities for the mitigation of archaeological impacts in a manner acceptable to the ' City Attorney. Comment/Response ' We would suggest that the City Attorney review this measure, as we do not believe it is a legal mitigation measure. It is not a proper exercise of ' the City's police power to require a project applicant to absolve the City of a legal responsibility imposed by State law in the are of archaeological mitigation. Whatever fiscal implications this obligation might impose on the City should be evaluated. No impact is identified in the EIR which justifies this recommended mitigation measure. TIC 30 Response ' The comment is noted and include in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. TIC 31 Comment M Section/Site Recommended Mitigation ' 199 Public Service 2-105. The project proponent shall pro- vide a five-year reservation for a fire ' 1 5.50 station on the San Diego Creek south site in a form acceptable to the City. Comment/Response No impacts in fire service identified which justify reservation of a fire station site so remote from the project area. EIR should consider alterna- tives which address the site specific impacts and needs regarding fire ser- vice such as incrementally expanding personnel and equipment at the Newport Center fire station which could be supported by the substantial tax revenue ' surplus generated by the project. TIC 31 Response ' Report authors disagree completely with the comment that "no impacts in fire service identified which justify...." ' In the Public Services and Utilities section of the EIR, an excerpt of the response by the City of Newport Beach Fire Department to the proposed pro- ject is included as follows: ' "The City of Newport Beach Fire Department has indicated that the pro- posed land uses will increase the present demand for fire -related ser- vices in the area by an estimated 35 to 40 percent. The City of New- 1 H I port Beach Fire Department anticipates.an increased workload of 35 to 40%.... The purpose of this additional station would be, in part, to relieve the existing workload of the Newport Center Fire Station." Mitigation was identified in the EIR which would reduce adverse impacts on the City of Newport Beach Fire Department to a level of insignificance. No changes in the proposed mitigation are deemed necessary or appropriate. It is important to note that the five year reservation (1991) is substantially less than project buildout. The reservation does allow the City time to make a complete analysis of need, location, and other factors without pre- cluding future options or alternatives. QUALITY OF LIFE (OOL) QOL A Comment The failure of the EIR to adequately identify and assess all environmental impacts resulting from preposed GPA 85-l(B), including impacts resulting from preposed mitigation measures such as further expansion of and "impro- vements" to major streets and highways in Newport Beach. QOL A Response Please refer to response to comment SMW 65. 5.51 I QOL 1 Comment The failure of the EIR to identify the location, type and intensity of the total proposed project development. The unspecified sites mentioned in the EIR could dramatically change the intensity of impacts. QOL 1 Response Please refer to responses to comments SMW 1, SMW 12, and SMW 13. QOL 2 Comment The mitigation measures necessary to eliminate or reduce the identified impacts have not been satisfactorily explored. QOL 2 Response Please refer to response to comment SMW 62. QOL 3 Comment The use of dated and inaccurate statistical information in the EIR, such as the use of 55 daily flights as the statistic for the number of daily flights at John Wayne Airport, QOL 3 Response A letter report addressing said comment will be submitted under separate cover prior to final action on the EIR. QOL 4 Comment A complete discussion of the proposed concept of a development agreement is missing. The development agreement is mentioned two times but there is no discussion of this subject. QOL 4 Response Please refer to response to comment SMW 2. QOL 5 Comment The adoption of Planned Community Development standards and a Planned Com- munity Development Plan is also mentioned without further discussion. I I I I I E I I 5.52 ' QOL 5 Response Please refer to responses to comments SMW 2, SMW 3, and SMW 4. ' QOL 6 Comment ' Finally, the EIR is inadequate as a document to inform the public of the environmental impacts of proposed CPA 85-l(B). The document lacks organi- zation and an index, it is redundant, and it is difficult to read. Its ' very size discourages careful analysis except by paid consultant -- this is counter to citizen participation. QOL 6 Response Please refer to response to comment SMW 6. QOL 7 Comment Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the City Council determine that the EIR is inadequate and decline to certify or approve it. QOL 7 Response ' The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. QOL 8 Comment In addition, the Committee has considered proposed CPA 85-1(B) as a devel- opment project and finds that the proposed increases in future allowable development are excessive. The Committee feels that the proposed increases in office space (a requested 43% increase from 747,150 square feet to 1,312,400 square feet) and in commercial space (a requested increase of 12 times the commercial space permitted under GPA80-3), and the elimination of 225,000 residential square feet, together with the proposed changes in uses and densities, would be of considerable environmental detriment to the com- munity. In light of the substantial allowable development permitted under GPA80-3 and the current problems of traffic congestion, ,lack of adequate parking, and air, bay and visual pollution in Newport Beach, the Committee ' can find no justification for the adoption of proposed CPA 85-1(B). The Committee recommends that the City Council deny approval of proposed CPA 85-1(B). QOL 8 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. 5.53 BRUTE. MIHALY & WEINBERGER (SMW) SMW 1 Comment First, the EIR.does not reveal a substantial portion of the "project", with the result that a proper and complete analysis cannot be done. SMw 1 Response In accordance with Section 15124 of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR project description contains: (a) a delineating of the project's location; (b) a statement of project objectives; (a) a general description of the pro- jects characteristics; and (d) a statement of the intended uses of the EIR. A project as described in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines "...refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies. The term 'project' does not mean each separate governmental approval." SMW 2 Comment For example, the EIR specifically refers to its use in evaluating the development agreement, yet only two paragraphs in approximately 1300 pages of EIR and attachments even refer to the AA (at 49 and 51). Both refer- ences, though brief, leave no question as to the importance of the -develop- ment agreement to the overall success of the project as it relates to envi- ronmental issues in particular. As is typically the case, the DA will state very specifically the exact terms of project implementation, includ- ing the pbasing and financing of necessary public facilities and improve- ments in conjunction with development. In the absence of a full descrip- tion of the DA, it is unlikely that the EIR adequately discloses its consequences to the public. SMW 2 Response The subject development agreement has not been completed as of this writ- ing. The development agreement will serve as a mechanism for the implemen- tation of the project and mitigation measures. It is not presently antici- pated that the associated impacts would differ substantially from those addressed in the EIR. It is suggested that the following mitigation measure be included as a condition of approval for the project: "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Periph- eral Sites area, the development agreement shall be review in light of the GPA 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is deter - I I I n [1 H I J I 5.54 U ' mined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documenta- tion shall be completed prior to the approval of the ' agreement." The Development -Agreement for the proposed Newport Center and Peripheral Sites Environmental Impact Report project will require review and approval by the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council as part of a series of approvals for the proposed project. This EIR will serve as the environmental documentation upon which the guidelines proposed in the Development Agreement will be based. A phasing plan was submitted by the project proponent as part of the pro- posed project. This phasing plan was part of the environmental impact report analysis. The Development Agreement will implement the phasing pro- gram to be approved as part of the EIR. ' If the financing of public facilities and improvements are not accomplished with public funds, financing is not an issue. ' SMW 3 Comment The DA should be described in detail in the EIR and evaluated. -as part of the project. SMW 3 Response The subject development agreement has not been complete as of this writing. The project proponent requested that the Development Agreement be acted ' upon subsequent to the approval of CPA 85-1(B) Newport Center and Periph- eral Sites EIR. All mitigation measures in the EIR must be incorporated into the Development Agreement. Subsequent findings related to CEQA will be required for the approval of the Development Agreement. The City of New- port Beach consented to the request of the project proponent indicating that public hearings and Planning Commission and City Council review and approvals would be required for the Development Agreement. ' As.the development agreement will serve as a mechanism for the implementa- tion of the project and project mitigation measures. It is not anticipated that the associated impacts would differ from those addressed in the EIR. It is suggested that the following mitigation measure be included as a con- dition of approval for the Specific Plan: "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Periph- eral Sites area, the development agreement shall be ' review in light of the CPA 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated H 5.55 impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is deter- mined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documenta- tion shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." SW 4 Comment Likewise, the specific planned community development standards should be described in detail and analyzed in the EIR. SMW 4 Response The project proponent requested that the Planned Community (P-C) Development Standards be acted upon subsequent to the approval of CPA 85.1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR. All mitigation measures in the EIR must be incorporated into the P-C text. Therefore, subsequent findings related to CEQA will be referenced for the Approval of the P-C text. The City of New- port Beach consented to the request of the project proponent indicating that public hearings and Planning Commission and City Council review and approv- als would be required for the Planned Community Development Standards. The subject planned community text has not been eomplate as of this writing. As the P-C text will serve as a mechanism for the implementation of the pro- ject and project mitigation measures. It is not anticipated that the asso- ciated impacts would differ from those addressed in the EIR. It is sug- gested that the following mitigation measure be included as a condition of approval for the P-C text: " Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Periph- eral Sites area, the P-C text shall be review in light of the CPA 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that addi- tional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be com- pleted prior to the approval of the text." SMW 5 Comment Alternatives to both should be described as well. SMW 5 Response The DA and P-C represent the most restrictive implementation tools avail- able to the City under its present municipal regulation. All existing I L I I I I I t J P 1 5.56 alternative implementation tools being less restrictive would not foster project objectives. It can generally be assumed that they would. increase the potential for impact. SMW 6 Comment A second major deficiency in the EIR is its poor presentation of the infor- mation it does disclose. The size alone of the document is likely to pre- vent any well-intentioned citizen from ascertaining pertinent facts. The EIR includes countless repetitions of entire discussions and lacks clear organization; the result is an obfuscation of the true project impacts and necessary mitigation measures. The size of the document should be scaled down substantially and reorganized to minimize redundant discussions. This will make room for the substantive discussions which the EIR is presently lacking, as will be described infra. SMW 6 Response The City of Newport Beach appreciates your concern. The magnitude of the proposed project: development on 11 sites and an amendment to the Circula- tion Element of the City General Plan required a lengthier discussion than is typical in an EIR. Historically, the constituents of the City of Newport Beach including SPON . have requested that Newport Center be addressed and analyzed in a comprehensive manner. The City of Newport Beach required the submittal of Newport Center and Peripheral Sites as one project. This action was taken by the City of Newport Beach in response to community con- cerns. A distinct and comprehensive summary was provided at the beginning of the EIR to provide all readers of the document with a summation of the project description, major areas of controversy, major issues to be resolved, pro- ject impacts summary, list of existing City policies and requirements sug- gested for implementation for the project, suggested mitigation measures, and a summary of alternatives. Additionally, in the Alternatives section of the EIR, a comprehensive list of alternatives was provided. There are two summary sheets for each proposed project sites. Sheet one lists all of the alternatives for the individual site with a brief description and indi- ,.wcates-whether.any..of the alternatives should remain under consideration for approval. Sheet two is. an environmental summary of peach alternative by site. For each alternative it is indicated whether, by environmental issue (including, but not limited to, land uses, aesthetics, transportation and circulation) if the alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project for the individual site. It is felt that a reasonable attempt was made to prepare a comprehensive and very well organized EIR that could be understood by a "well-intentioned citizen". 5.57 SMW 7 Comment Another deficiency in the EIR is that impact discussions focus on discrete parcels with little analysis given to the project in its entirety. Instead of directing the bulk of impact analyses to the project in its entirety, every parcel is broken out and discussed separately in each impact section. While a useful and needed exercise, the emphasis is taken away from the total project. A simple organizational change would eliminate the mislead- ing nature of the majority of discussions. SMW 7 Response We disagree. For each environmental topic, the project (development on 11 sites) is analyzed comprehensively. The following outline was utilized to provide for a comprehensive discussion of the proposed project and to indi- cate the individual impacts of approval of an individual site. Environmental Topic (1.e, Aesthetics) Existing Conditions Regional (The regional area is defined as the Southern California Association of Government's mix county area) Subregional (the subregion refers to those portion of the Cities of Santa Ana, Irvine, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, and Newport Beach and unincorporated areas of ths4ounty of Orange adjacent to these jurisdictions which affect -or will be affected by the proposed project) Local (Local vicinity is defined am the corporate boundaries of the City of Newport Beach and its Sphere of Influence) Project: GPA 85-1(B) (The project in the eight Newport Center sites and the three peripheral sites proposed for development as part of GPA 85-1(b) and the circulation system links) All Sites Specific Sites-: Newport Center Fashion Island Block 600 Civic Plaza Expansion Block 800 PCH/Jamboree Corporate Plaza West Newport Village Avocado/MacArthur Specific Sites: Peripheral Big Canyon/MacArthur Bayview Landing Newporter North Specific Circulation System Link(s) Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard One -Way Couplet 1 1 t E U I 5.58 ' Impacts 1 1 J 1 1 Regional Subregional Local Project: GPA 85-1(B) All Sites Specific Sites: Newport Center Fashion Island Block 600 Civic Plaza Expansion Block 800 PCH/Jamboree Corporate Plaza West Newport Village Avocado/MacArthur Specific Sites: Peripheral Big Canyon/MacArthur Bayview Landing Newporter North Specific Circulation System Link(S) Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard One -Way Couplet Existing City Policies and Requirements Regional Subregional Local Project: GPA 85-1(B) All Sites Specific Sites: Newport Center Specific Sites: Peripheral Specific Circulation System Link(s) Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard One -Way Couplet Mitigation Measures Regional Subregional Local Project: GPA 85-1(B) All Sites Specific Sites: Newport Center Specific Sties: Peripheral Specific Circulation System Link(s) Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard One -Way Couplet Level of Significance After Mitigation Regional Subregional Local Project: GPA 85-1(B) All Sites 5.59 r Specific Sites: Newport Center Specific Sties: Peripheral Specific Circulation System Link(s) Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard One -Way Couplet As noted by the above outline, for: Existing Conditions, Impacts, Existing City Policies and Requirements, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Signifi- cance After Mitigation, a thorough discussion of the project is contained. SMW 8 Comment One section of the EIR should be devoted to the parcel -by -parcel analysis with each thoroughly described in a subsection including all impacts and mitigation. SHY 8 Response This comment relates to the organize of the environmental impact report and not to the EIR's adequacy, A discussion of the comprehensive impacts of the proposed project on the region, subregion, local vicinity, the pro- ject, the specific Newport Center sites, the specific peripheral sites, and specific circulation system links is provided. The substance of the EIR would not change by -the reorganization of sections of the EIR. SMW 9 Comment The parcel -by -parcel analysis in the rest of the EIR should be focused on how alternative developments on each parcel might reduce overall project impacts in a given area. For example, the overall project description and impacts discussion under aesthetics should be expanded to indicate exactly how sensitive views may be obscured and neighborhood and city-wide visual qualities altered. Specific mitigation measures might then include reducing heights in Block 600 and on the Nawportar North site, in addition to reten- tion of specific viewsheds free of development. BMW 9 Response As indicated in response number SMW/8, for, each environmental topic addressed in the environmental impact report a discussion of the comprehen- sive and individual site impacts on the region, subregion, local vicinity, the project, specific Newport Center and peripheral sites, and specific circulation system links is provided. The degree of specificity required for "an EIR on a project such as the adoption or amendment of a comprehen- sive zoning ordinance or a local general plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from the adoption or amendment, but the EIR need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction pro- jects that might follow.,, [CEQA Section 15146(b)] r 11 1 r r r r r LI r r r t r u 5.60 1 . ' Pages 211-215 of Volume 1 of the EIR contains numerous City policies and requirements and mitigation measures in regard to recommended maximum building heights and landscaping, site planes, and conformance of develop- ment with approved plot plans, floor plans, elevations, and sections. SMW 10 Comment In the absence of a focus on the overall project, the real environmental issues are obscured or appear insignificant, and needed creative solutions ' in the form of mitigation, and needed creative solutions in the form of mitigation and alternatives are not discernible. ' SMW 10 Response A conserted effort was made during the preparation of the EIR to provide a comprehensive analysis of the project as proposed. As noted in previous responses to the same comment, the EIR follows a basic outline allowing the reader to review the existing conditions, impacts, mitigation, and level of significance of impacts of the project on the region, subregion, local vicinity, the comprehensive project, specific project sites, and circula- tion system links. All efforts were made to provide an objective analysis under the guidelines of CEQA. Concise and easily readable summaries were ' provided to provide the reader with an overall review of the project prior to reading the entire EIR in detail. ISMW 11 Comment In short, the EIR for Newport Center and the peripheral sites lacks the ' necessary organization and basic elements required for an adequate informa- tional document and the planning insight for a reasonable accounting of mitigation measures and alternatives. Specific examples of such deficien- cies are as follows: SMW 11 Response The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmak- ers on this project. tSMW 12 Comment ' As pointed out earlier, some very basic elements of the project are missing from the description, including the development agreement and development standards. In addition, other project components which are improperly omitted from the project description include, but are not limited to, the number, size, and location of parking facilities, a listing and description of the roads and roadway improvements required to carry out the project, 5.61 and any other infrastructure and facilities required for the successful implementation of the project. The project'& description selection should be rewritten to include this information at a minimum. SXW 12 Response ' GPA 85-1(8) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites is a Program EIR. Section 15165 of the CEQA Guidelines defines a program EIR as "...an Elk which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either: (1) Geographically, (2) A logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions, (3) In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans or other gen- eral criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing pro- gram, (4) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways. The advantages of a program EIR are: ' "(I) Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consider- ation of effects and alternatives that would be practi- cal in an EIR on an individual action, (2) Ensure con- siderations of cumulative impacts that might be alighted in a case -by -case analysis....(4) Allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program -wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumu- lative impacts,..." ' The information provided in the EIR project description reflects the level of planning currently being considered. Section 15146 of CEQA states that "the degree ' of specificity required in an EIR will cor- respond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the Elk .... an EIR on a project such as the adoption or amendment of a ' comprehensive zoning ordinance or a local general plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from the adoption or amendment, but ' the EIR need not be as detailed as an Elk on the spe- cific construction projects that might follow." No specific assumptions were made as to the sit* information including building siting and size of parking structures. To include such specific assumptions in the project description would not reflect the level of plan- ning which is being addressed in the EIR (general plan and zoning). ' I 5.62 ' As detailed information and specific development proposals are submitted to the City of Newport Beach, these future discretionary actions will be con- sidered in light of previous environmental documentation. Please also refer to letter report prepared by BDI, June 16, 1986, Appendix A. SMW 13 Comment ' In addition, as part of the-GPA, sites for -which there is no defined land - use should be specified. (See EIR at page 35.) Short of this the general plan will be inadequate in that it will not specify the type and intensity of development as required. The proposed uses should then be added to the project description and any additional impacts discussed. ' SMW 13 Response On page 35 of Volume 1, Table A identifies the project characteristics for the proposed 11 project sites including type and intensity of use. The table indicates the Existing Development; Approved/Committed/ Additional Allowable; Existing General Plan Total Allowable Development; Proposed Pro- ject GPA 85-1(B); and Total Allowable Development GPA 85-l(B). On page 5 of Volume 1, the EIR Project Description states that "additional sites will be affected by the project. These sites are also described as a portion of the project for analysis in this EIR." On pages 22-23, the location of potentially affected sites within Newport Center are described and it is further noted that these sites " . may be selected as alternative develop- ment sites based upon analysis conducted for this general plan amendment." ' These sites are visually portrayed on Exhibit 1-7, page 13. On pages 37-38, the affected Newport Center sites are further discussed. The amount of existing square footage and types of existing and allowable development are indicated. On page 57, Table 1-C depicts the existing land uses by types of land use for all sites within Newport Center. Affected peripheral sites are visually portrayed on Exhibit 1-17, page 25 ' and discussed on pages 28 and 30. On pages 39-40, the affected peripheral sites are further discussed. The amount of existing square footage, types of existing development, and allowable development are indicated. Additionally, all -of -the affected Newport Center and, affect peripheral sites are included in the Alternatives analysis for the EIR. .- ISMW 14 Comment The analysis of environmental impacts contained in the EIR is flawed for at least two major reasons: First, the project description does not reveal the entire project, and consequently not all probable impacts are dis- cussed. This omission violates the Court of Appeal's holding in County of I I A 6.63 Inyo v. City of Los Angeles, 71 Cal.App.3d rate, stable, and finite project description informative and legally sufficient EIR." BMW 14 Response I 185, 193 (1977), that "an accu- ' is the sine gg Wn of an Please refer to SMW12. BMW 15 Comment Second, the EIR fails to include the worst case analysis; the EIR should consider, for example, a scenario in which all development proceeds yet needed infrastructure is not in place or lacks necessary funding and ' approvals. The EIK's failure to analyze the project's significant adverse impacts contravenes CEQA Guidelines section 15126 and cases construing the requirements contained therein. ,egg, g,.gy, County of Inyo, supra, 71 Cal,App.3d at 192-93. BMW 15 Response , As stated on page 316 of Volume 2 of the Cumulative and Incremental Impacts discussion, the discussion of transportation and circulation indicates that "in order to present a worst case cumulative analysis of future development, the traffic model was used to develop an additional traffic forecast. This forecast called Increased Trend Growth included projects both within and outside the City of Newport Beach, which if approved, would result in levels of development greater than assumed in the Trend Growth scenario." The cumulative and incremental impacts discussion of transportation and circulation impacts which is found on pages 316-337 of Volume 2 summarizes the traffic report which included, but was not limited to, traffic analysis , of future traffic conditions with and without the construction of the San Joaquin Hill Transportation Corridor, with and without pord Road Extension ans San Joaquin Hills Road Extension; without the San Joaquin Hills Trans- ,._portation Corridor, Pelican Hill Road, or Sand Canyon Road, without the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, but with Pelican Hill Road and Sand Canyon Road. If the infrastructure is not in place when required, this would constitute a new project requiring additional environmental analysis. ' The funding source for necessary infrastructure improvements is the project proponent. I li 5.64 SEW 16 Comment The EIR fails to adequately address the growth inducing impacts of the project. The analysis overlooks aspects of the project which will result in vastly more liberal standards for determining what constitute develop- able areas and what intensity of development is acceptable. .Specifically, ' the project proposes development of the following areas: 1) parking lots; 2) areas designated as recreational_and,open space; 3) areas that contain.. significant cultural resources; 4) areas that provide .unique and needed visual relief and view opportunities; and 5) areas that contain sensitive resources. SEW 16 Response ' The EIR addressed the growth inducing aspects of the project in detail on pages 311-314 of Volume II. No changes are proposed to the definition of buildable areas by GPA 85-l(B). With the exceptions of the Big Canyon/ MacArthur and Bayview Landing sites, the remaining nine sites are desig- nated on the City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Plan map for development. The Big Canyon/MacArthur site is designated for Recreational ' and Environmental Open Space and has been historically reserved by the City of Newport Beach as right-of-way for the designated Avocado Avenue/ MacAthur Boulevard One -Way Couplet. ' The Bayview Landing site is also designated as -Recreational and Environ- mental Open Space with an alternative use on the lower portion of the site ' for Low Density Residential uses on the lower portion of the site. The upper portion would be uses for public recreation uses with a view park and bike path on the upper portion and RV camping on the lower portion. ' The April 24, 1986, Staff Report to the Planning Commission which is included in this Response to Comments indicates that intensity/density lim- its proposed by the project is generally lower than other adopted develop- ment regulation (P-C's and older commercial areas). The five specific areas indicated above are necessarily include in the definition of "build- able area" of the Newport Beach Land Use Element is provided below: "Buildable Acreage" is defined as follows: Buildable acreage includes the entire site, less areas with a slope greater than two to one, and less any acre required to be dedicated to the City for park purposes and any perimeter open space; further, buildable acreage shall not include any area to be used for street purposes. Additionally, at ' the time the Planning Commission and/or City Council re- view a Planned Community development plan, tentative map, and/or environmental documentation for a particular pro- ject, consideration shall be given to deleting certain 5.65 , sensitive areas from the calculation of the total number ' of residential units or square footage of commercial deve- lopment to be allowed on a site as follows: Floodplain areas. , City policies and requirements and suggested mitigation measures are incor- porated into the EIR to offset any potential impacts to cultural. resources. Volume I page 76 and 150 provide statistical data regarding the intensity and density of development on the project sites under the current proposal and past projects. SHY 17 Comment , In addition, the project calls for building heights greater than before, and establishes a new precedent for allowing development to occur which is , inconsistent with the standard in the original Traffic Phasing Ordinance and general plan policies which require development to occur only within roadway capacity limitations. The EIR should analyze and quantify the lev- els of growth which could occur under these new and preeedential standards. SHY 17 Response In the General Plan Amendment 80.3 EIR, sites which were analyzed included Block 600, Corporate Plaza West, Newport Village, Avocado/MacArthur, PCH/Jamboree. No building heights were indicated in the EIR. The proposed CPA 85-1(B) EIR includes in the Aesthetics section of the EIR Mitigation measures to mitigate identified impacts. These mitigation measures are found on pages 212-215 of Volume 1. The suggested mitigation includes maximum number of stories, maximum building heights, and conformance with site planes. Building heights are consistent with height standards of the City of New- port Beach Zoning Ordinance. As noted in the EIR, building at these , heights would be taller than any existing site within the Center. Mitiga- tion Measures were suggested to eliminate the impact. SHY 18 Comment How many more acres of land could be developed in Newport Center if parking lots were all allowed to develop and lots undergrounded or confined to highrise parking structures? ' I I 5.66 I I I i i I I �J I SMW 18 Response Assuming that all land were to be covered -by underground lots as is sug- gested by the comment, all land in Newport Center coul& be covered with a combination of parking structures/buildings. This would be prohibited -by - proposed Mitigation Measures. SMW 19 Comment How much additional square footage would result if parcels were allowed to develop at 20 stories in height? SMW 19 Response Based upon the assumption that all land were to be covered by underground lots as suggested by Comment 18, 20 stories would equal a Floor Area Ratio of 20 times the buildable area. SMW 20 Comment How many more acres of land in the city, designated for recreation and open space could be developed? SMW 20 Response All lands designated for Recreational and Environmental Open Space on the Land Use Plan Map could theoretically be developed for urban -uses through amendment to the City General Plan. Such amendments are unlikely because of property ownership patterns (i.e., state, county, city, etc.). SMW 21 Comment To what extent will the City allow traffic service levels to slip and con- tinue to allow developments? SMW 21 Response This comment is noted and will be .forwarded to the appropriate,decisionmak-• ers on this project. SMW 22 Comment Another major factor which should be explored in the growth inducing dis- cussion is the proposed roadway system to accommodate the project. A new standard is being set in this area as well. Suddenly major grade separa- I 5.67 I tions and unlimited lanes are acceptable mitigation measures. The EIR should describe the other possible major developments of this type which could be constructed to facilitate even more development. BMW 22 Response ' Please see letter report from BDI dated June 16, 1986, Appendix A. ' BMW 23 Comment Specifically, where could other grade separations be considered? SW 23 Response Please see letter report from BDI dated June 16, 1986, Appendix A. BMW 24 Comment Is the Coast Highway through Corona del Mat ripe for additional lands and redevelopment? BMW 24 Response Please ' see letter report from BDI dated June 16, 1986, Appendix A. SMW 24s. Comment It is not clear what the relationship of lists of local and regional pro- jects in volume 1 is to the various traffic impact scenarios. It appears from the discussion at page 4-1, Volume 4, that only approved projects are considered in the key analysis. The EIR should list and describe the pro- jects that contribute to the regional traffic growth component; and the "committed" component of the analysis. In addition, projects which con- ' tribute to the various trend analyzes should be specifically identified. If a percentage growth figure is simply worked into the formula, the per- centage and its basis should be revealed. BMW 24a Response ' Please refer to BDI letter reported dated June 16, 1986, Appendix A. BMW 24b Comment t It is not clear why a comparison of Tables 1-YY and 1-AAA indicates less ' daily traffic on some roadway links under trend growth than under existing ' 5.68 conditions. Please explain? In particular, the figure showing fewer cars ' on Coast Highway is puzzling since presumably ,the Irvine Coast Development will be contributing more traffic at that time. Is this the case? SMW 24b Response Please refer to BDI letter reported dated June 16, 1986, Appendix A. SMW 24c Comment ' What exactly is the status of Pelican Hill Road? Is it a required improve- ment under the Irvine Coast Plan? When will it be in place and operating? ' SMW 24c Response Please refer to BDI letter reported dated June 16, 1986, Appendix A. SMW 24d Comment What is the status of the San Joaquin Hills Corridor? The EIR left the discussion quite vague. Is it required to achieve acceptable levels of service for Phase I and/or II of this project? How -much -of • the financing ' needed for this corridor is already earmarked? SMW 24d Response 1 Please refer to BDI letter reported dated June 16, 1986, Appendix A. SMW 25 Comment What is the basis for trip generation figures for apartments (Table 1-JJJ)? It would seem that with the growing number of dual employee, mid -to upper -income families, trip generation would be closer to 10 daily trips per unit? ' SMW 25 Response Response shall be submitted under separate cover prior to final action on ' the EIR. SMW 26 Comment What reasonably foreseeable projects were included in the various traffic analyses? Please list and describe the projects as well as anticipated trip generation rates for each. I 5.69 r I SMW 26 Response I Please see letter report from BDI dated -June 16, 1986, Appendix A. , SMW 27 Comment Specifically, what proposed improvements are already in the general plan, ' not required to be reflected in the general plan and/or require amendment of the general plan? SEW 27 Response ' Please see letter report from BDI dated June 161 1986, Appendix A. SMW 28 Comment Explain how this project maintains consistency between the general plan land use element and circulation element. SMW 28 Response As discussed in the 1986 City of Newport Beach staff report for the subject project, most intersections analyzed in the project traffic report are not , over capacity. Those intersections which are over capacity would be over capacity with or without the proposed project. One link: East Coast High- way between Marguerite and Poppy would be over capacity with the project. This link is located in a City of Newport Beach adopted area of planned , deficiency. State law requiring consistency between general plan elements does not dis- allow a concept of a planned roadway deficiencies. As stated on page 5, Volume 1 of the EIR's Project Description "The project requests an amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach, The Master plan of Streets and Highways, a compo- nent of the Circulation Element, would be amended to delete the proposed Avocado AVenue/MacArthur Boulevard One -Way Couplet and establish MacArthur Boulevard as a two-way major arterial highway. The project will also affect additional links of the circulation system. These links are also described as a portion of the project for analysis in this EIP." SEW 29 Comment I What are the respective costs of improvements listed in Table 1-GGG and 1-III? I I 5.70 1 1J I I J I SMW 29 Response Response to be provided under separate cover prior to final action on the EIR. SMW 30 Comment Which of these improvements require additional approvals and environmental review? SMW 30 Response All improvements require some additional approval. Each approval would require a CEQA determination and added environmental analysis if it is dis- cretionary. SMW 31 Comment What is the timing of review for those requiring additional approval? SMW 31 Response Additional approvals would be required prior to the occupancy of the struc- tures as stated in the proposed mitigation measures and phasing plan. SMW 32 Comment What source(s) of financing are anticipated? SMW 32 Response Project proponent is the anticipated source of most funds. Federal, State, and County road funds may be utilized in some manner for projects of regional/subregional importance. SMW 33 Comment Daily trip rates for general office (13 per 1000 sq.ft.); general retail (40 per 1000 sq.ft.); and Fashion Island (30 per 1000 sq.ft.) are low com- pared with trip generation figures developed by the Institute of Transpor- tation Engineers. Please produce support for these low rates. SMW 33 Response Please see letter report from BDI dated June 16, 1986, Appendix A. I 5.71 7 L-1 BMW 34 Comment Once all the proposed improvements are in place, will there be excess capacity to further buildout Newport Center (i.e., parking lots, vacant areas; redevelopment of underutilized parcels, ate.)? BMW 34 Response Please see letter report from BDI dated June 16, 19861 Appendix A. BMW 35 Comment How is it possible that the same roadway system, largely at or approaching capacity, can accommodate two major development projects, Newport Center and the Irvine Coast, which will generate traffic on the same critical links? Please provide an explanation focusing on these two projects and their traffic generation. BMW 35 Response Please see letter report from BDI dated June 16, 1986, Appendix A. BMW 36 Comment In the final analysis, how many intersections will never operate at LOS D or better at buildout of Newport Center? Please identify these. BMW 36 Response Please see letter report from BDI dated June 16, 1986, Appendix A. SMW 37 Comment It is common knowledge among transportation engineers that an auto -oriented transportation system cannot adequately serve medium to high density development. .Is the assumption underlying the project that TMS or transit will eventually mitigate this situation? BMW 37 Response Please see letter report from BDI dated June 16, 1986, Appendix A. I I Cl 71 I L� 1 I I LI 5.72 I ISMW 38 Comment If so, to what extent does this project rely on TMS and/or transit to, avoid ' gridlock? SMW 38 Response Please see letter report from BDI dated June 16, 1986,'Appendix A. ' SMW 39 Comment What percentage trip reduction is anticipated through TMS? SMW 39 Response Please see letter report from BDI dated June 16, 1986, Appendix A. SMW 40 Comment ' How much of the project could be approved under the original TPO without an override vote? Please specify specific components of the project or over- all types and intensities of development which would pass the TPO• stan- dard. SMW 40 Response Probably all of the proposed development sites, with the exception of Block 600 and Block, 800 could be approved in a site -by -site manner if the pro- posed project was developed incrementally so that every project proposed was less than 10,000 square feet or 10 dwelling units or less, or increase peak traffic by less than 18 the project could be approved under the origi- nal Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Since the withdrawal of CPA 80-3, all development in Newport Center have been approved on a site -by -site basis. SMW 41 Comment Identify those proposed or necessary. roadway improvements which have already been the subject of an EIR or are a condition of another project approval? SMW 41 Response An EIR and/or EIS has been approved or is under preparation for the follow- ing: 1. Pacific Coast Highway - MacArthur Boulevard to Newport Boulevard. �I I 5.73 r 2. Pacific Coast Highway - Newport Boulevard to Beach Boulevard. 3. Pelican Hills Road 4. San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor 5. Portions of MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road, University Drive, and Bison Road near the North Ford site. 6. Portions of Jamboree Road and Bristol Street near the Bayview (J.M. Peters) site. SMW 42 Comment Where another EIR is being relied upon to discuss impacts, relevant sec- tions should be summarized in this EIR. SMW 42 Ramponse Appendix B of Volume 3 indicates all EIRs and & EISs incorporated by refer- ence into CPA 85-1(B) EIR. CEQA Findings and Statement of Facts, the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Measures for the incorporated by reference. EIRs and EISs are provided to briefly summarize the documents. SMW 43 Comment The traffic section provides a confusing array of possible scenarios, all of which indicate that unacceptable levels of traffic service will occur even with massive and costly improvements. Even so, the impacts are understated. The analysis fails to identify the impacts of the roadway improvements themselves in terms of other trips they may attract or devel- opment approvals which could be based upon them. SMW 43 Response Please refer to letter report from BDI dated June 16, 1986, Appendix A. SMW 44 Comment Additional impacts which are not adequately explored and should be dis- cussed in the EIR are as follows: 1) the impact upon transit development by focusing mitigation and funding on roadway improvements; 2) the impacts of roadway improvements themselves; 3) impacts upon achievement of coastal and general plan goals for environmental quality and access if there is gridlock for increasing periods of time; and 4) impacts of this project on other vacant or unidentified parcels due to its absorption of remaining roadway capacity. I I I I I I 1 I I I I 5.74 1 ' SMW 44 Response An Orange County Transit District (OCTD) Transit Center facility is pro- posed for construction on approximately 2.5 acres of the Avocado/MacArthur site in Newport Center. The facility will serve- as a passenger waiting area and bus layover point with eight bus bays. Approximately 135 automo- bile parking spaces will be available for those using ridesharing or OCTD buses.. The facility is not part of GPA 85-l(B). It is a permitted use under the existing general plan. 1 The Orange County Transit District (OCTD) received a Notice of Preparation of GPA 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR. OCTD also received a questionnaire requesting information regarding existing service levels at the project sites and in the vicinity and requesting input regarding potential impacts created by the proposed project. The comments of OCTD were incorporated into the preparation of the EIR. Lastly, OCTD received a Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR and copies of the EIR for their ' review. No comments on the Draft EIR were received from OCTD. Please refer to the 79-2 EIR which is incorporated by reference in GPA ' 85-1(B) EIR. Gridlock is not anticipated. Peak coastal traffic -generally occurs at dif- ferent. times of the day than the AM and PM business peaks. As part of the project, the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the Local Coastal Pro- gram will be amended. ' The Local and Regional Setting section of the EIR includes a comprehensive analysis of all vacant parcels in the City of Newport Beach, all undevel- oped parcels, and parcels proposed for development. The Project Descrip- tion includes a discussion of sites in Newport Center and peripheral sites that would be affected by the proposed project or may be selected as alter- native development sites based upon the analysis conducted for the EIR. ' SMW 45 Comment 1 Specifically, with regard to the latter analysis, how many parcels will not be able, -to be developed because insufficient roadway capacities remains -- (i.e, would have required an override vote under the prior TPO)? ' SMW 45 Response A distinction should be made between parcels which could not be- developed 1 and those parcels that would require findings of overriding considerations. •A project which is less than 10,000 square feet, 10 or less dwelling units, or would add less than 1% to the existing 2.5 hour peak hour volume of any 1 1 1 5.75 I leg of a critical intersection could be approved. Further, most major developments are proposed or a presently developing outside of the City of Newport Beach. BMW 46 Comment The City of Newport Beach has concluded that John Wayne Airport (hereinaf- ter "JWA") will never be capable of meeting the region's air transportation demand. Under the circumstances it would seem prudent to minimize approval of projects which will contribute to demand until an alternative site has been secured and development is underway. At a minimum, the EIR should quantify the increased demand for air transportation use likely to result from this project so that decision -makers can be apprised of the full con- sequences of their actions on activity at JWA. In addition, cumulative impacts on JWA should be quantified. BMW 46 Response The City of Newport Beach is also concerned. Thank you for your comment. It will be noted and include in the public record for review and consider- ation. A quantified analysis will be transmitted under separate cover prior to certification of the EIR. BMW 47 Comments Of equal or greater importance to the overall quality of the Newport Beach environment is water quality. Adverse impacts upon water quality from the project could have serious repercussions on public health and safety as well as on wildlife, The EIR's discussion of such likely effects is dis- mally inadequate for a number of reasons: First, the discussion fails to provide even the most basic information about the project's impacts, including how much runoff will increase with the project, what constitu- ents, toxic and otherwise, will be contained in the urban runoff; and what capacity remains in the various drainage systems that serve the project areas (1969 data should be updated). BMW 47 Response A letter report will be provided under separate cover prior to final action on the EIR. BMW 48 Comment Second, the EIR provides no indication of the quality of water now flowing into the bay from Newport Center, though the system has been in place for I I I I [1 I I 5.76 1 1 1 7 L 1 LI 1 1 1 1 1 1 i j, 1 n Li I years and studies must have been done on impacts of the outfalls on plant and animal life and overall water quality. SMW 48 Response A letter report will be provided under separate cover prior to final action on the EIR. SMW 49 Comment Third, the analysis of impacts on sensitive sites, Bayview Landing and New - porter North, are particularly weak. SMW 49 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. SMW 50 Comment Studies of impact should not be deferred until a later time, but should be undertaken as part of the EIR so that adequate mitigation measures and pro- ject alternatives can be adopted. SMW 50 Response A letter report will be provided under separate cover prior -to final action on the EIR. SMW 51 Comment At a minimum, this section should be rewritten to contain a quantification of the aforementioned impacts and technical information regarding the con- tents and effects of "urban runoff pollutants." Particularly important is an inclusion of a complete analysis of impacts on sites within the Coastal Zone as per coastal plan policy requirements. SMW 51 Response A letter report will be provided under separate cover prior to final action on the EIR. 1 5.77 BMW 52 Comment The EIR should also provide a description of existing water quality, whether or not it meets the standards in the outfall areas, and indicate the degree to which the project may frustrate attainment of any standards. BMW 52 Response A letter report will be provided under separate cover prior to final action on the EIR. BMW 53 Comment As mentioned earlier, the approval of this project appears to take a whole new policy direction than that set forth in the general and local coastal plans. Specifically, the general plan calls for development in a manner which preserves and enhances present assets associated with Newport's high quality of life, and prohibits development which would adversely affect the quality or efficiency of the planned public support systems. The proposed roadway improvements are a good example of aspects of the project which eliminate present assets (the attractive visual environment) and do not assure timely and adequate traneportational service for the project. BMW 53 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. BMW 54 Comment In addition, the project does not conform to the following stated policies of the general plan: The City shall provide for recreation areas in close proximity to each res- ident of the community. (The project removed planned recreation areas in Newport Center and surrounding areas). BMW 54 Response Removal of residential development in Newport Center Will consequently remove recreational areas that would have been adjacent to the dwellings. BMW 55 Comment The City shall continue the active investigation of all planned local and regional transportation systems to determine the impact of each on the com- i I I I I 11 I I r I I 5.78 munity, and to ensure that all such facilities serve to protect and main- tain the sociological, ecological, and aesthetic environment of the Newport Beach area. (The EIR does not analyze roadway improvements in this manner.) ' SMW 55 Response The potential visual and noise impacts of roadway improvements is included ' in the Aesthetics and Noise sections of the EIR. The impacts are- included in, but are not limited to; discussions in the -Cultural -Resources: Archaeo- logical and Paleontological, Air quality, Earth Resources, Water Resources. rPlease refer to Response for a discussion of economic costs of roadway improvements. The comment regarding potential impacts of roadway improve- ments on the sociological environment is noted and included in the final record of the project for the review and consideration by appropriate deci- sionmakers. u I n I I iJ I SMW 56 Comment Freeways, in particular, [and other roadways,] shall not bisect or isolate individual communities, neighborhoods, etc. SMW 56 Response No freeways are proposed as part of -the project. All roads are in place with the exception of Pelican Hill Road which is located in the County of Orange. SMW 57 Comment Recognizing the vital relationship which exists between the street and highway network and the use of land, the City shall limit and control the distribution, character, and intensity of all land uses which would gener- ate increased levels of traffic beyond the existing or planned street sys- tem. SMW 57 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. SMW 58 Comment The EIR should discuss the consistency of the project with these and other policies of the general plan, for California law requires that the general 5.79 Plan be internally consistent and fully integrated. Concerned Citizens of Calaveras County v Board of Sugervisors, 166 Cal.App.3d 90 (1985). SHW 58 Response As part of the project, the City of Newport General Plan and the Local Coastal Program will be amended to insure consistency. These actions are described as part of the required discretionary actions listed on page 51, volume 1. SSW 59 Comment In addition, the analysis of the project's conformance to housing element goals and objectives should be completed as part of the EIR rather than deferred to a later time. SMW 59 Response Goals of the City of Newport Beach Housing Element are discussed on pages 226-227, Volume 1 of the EIR. The final action on the GPA will indicate how the project will meet the Housing Element's goals and objectives. SMW 60 Comment Finally, the EIR should provide reasons in support of intensifying land uses in areas where the LCP calls for lower intensity use (e.g. Newporter North and Bayview). SHW 60 Response Section 15121 of CEQA Guidelines states that "An EIR is an informational document which will inform public agency decision -makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effect of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project The public agency shall consider the informa- tion in the EIR along with other information which may be present to the agency." The purpose of an EIR is not to "provide reasons in support" of an action. I 11 I J 1 I r r I I 5.80 I I I I i I F i i I I i I I i i I SMW 61 Comment In theory, a great deal of effort went into the selection of land uses in the LCP for these sensitive areas. Yet, •the project ignores the con- straints that led to these designations. A portion of the LCP consistency discussion should be devoted to whether or not the project adequately pro- tects viewsheds and sensitive coastal resources%involving water quality, habitats and the like. SMW 61 Response Please refer to the Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources: Archaeological Resources and Paleontological Resources, and Water Quality sections of the EIR. SMW 62 Comment Section 21000 of CEQA requires that an EIR describe in detail mitigation measures that could minimize the project's significant environmental impacts. See also CEQA Guidelines section 15126(a). An EIR which fails to include a detailed proposal of mitigation measures is fatally defective. People v. County of Kern, 62 Cal.App.3d 761 (1976). The discussion of mitigation measures in the Newport Center EIR, for the most part, is defec- tive in this manner, for it constitutes nothing more than a disappointing array of boiler plate measures which are likely to lead .to more impacts rather than to solutions. SMW 62 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. SMW 63 Comment In the case of traffic mitigation this is particularly the case. While the go-ahead is given to massive roadway improvements, more creative solutions, such as TMS measures, are given no more than two paragraphs. More specific measures should be included which lead to quantifiable impact reductions. For example, mitigation measures regarding TMS plans might quantify the goal for trip reduction through TMS measures, and tie future project approvals to specified goals. SWM 63 Response Except as a performance standard, potential trip reductions for a TMS pro- gram cannot be quantified. I 5.51 BMW 64 Comment Mitigation measures specified for water quality, aesthetics, noise, air quality, and biological resources lack the specificity needed to achieve the needed impact reductions. For example, specific view corridors for retention in open space should be mapped, in particular, on sites within the coastal zone. SWM 64 Response Section 15146 of the CEQA Guidelines states that "the degree of specificity required in an EIR will cor- respond to the degree of specificity involved in the underly activity which is described in the EIR .... An EIR on a project such as the adoption or amendment of a com- prehensive zoning ordinance or a local general plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from the adoption or amendment, but the EIR need not be as detail as an EIR on the specific construction projects that might follow." BMW 65 Comment The EIR also fail to analyze the impacts of the mitigation measures them- selves. Where impacts are likely to result from a mitigation measure, these should be subject to mitigation or an alternative proposal. Likely mitigation measures to cause impacts are roadway improvements, noise barri- ers and the like. BMW 65 Response The purpose of including the topic "Level of Significance After Mitigation" is to 1) define the affect of implementation of City policies and require- ments and mitigation measures on the adverse impacts identified and 2) to analyze the impacts of the City policies and requirements and mitigation measures. This analysis occurred. 9HW 66 Comment Finally, the list of mitigation measures includes such items as: "The pro- ject shall be verified as being in conformance with the AQMP" (at x1i). Statements like this do not constitute mitigation of project impacts. The EIR should provide an analysis of whether or not the project is consistent with the AQMP. Please provide such an analysis. I I L.. V I r 1 I 5.82 L SMW 66 Response Please refer to response to comment EMA 12. SMW 67 Comment Likewise the EIR should contain a determination of project conformance with the housing element and any other relevant plans, policies, and standards. ' SMW 67 Response Goals of the City of Newport Beach Housing Element are discussed on pages 226-227, Volume 1 of the EIR. SMW 68 Comment ' The adverse impacts listed in the summary section of the EIR contradicts, in some cases, the text of the EIR. For example, significant impacts ' listed under Land Use include the introduction of the public into setback areas of the Newport North site. Contrary to this, the mitigation in the biological section implies that setbacks would be respected. Which is the case? SMW 68 Response ' Comment so noted. A 100 foot setback for the John Wayne Gulch wetland area as natural open space is recommended to preserve the biological resources of the gulch. Allowable uses within the 100 foot setback would be low ' intensity uses such as bicycle and hiking trails, educational signage, benches, and fencing to be approved to the Planning and Public Works Departments. SMW 69 Comment Impacts listed as significant include the following: 1) "Changes to the __development plan in ..Civic Plaza have-not been submitted and must be -con= sidered as creating potentially significant impacts until they can be reviewed"; and "The lack of specific site plans for Block 600 precludes the identification of potential shadows on adjacent properties" (at xxv, xxvi). First, the EIR states that it will address impacts from development plans and standards. However, these plans and standards are missing from the analysis. 5.83 SMW 69 Response The City of Newport Beach and the State of California have several tools one may use address the impacts of a proposed project. These include, but are not limited to, the City of Newport Beach General Plan, the City Zoning Ordinance, the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, existing City policies and requirements of the City, of Newport Beach, etc. As stated in Section 15146 of the CEQA Guidelines "the degree of specificity required in an EIR will cor- respond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR.... An EIR on a project such as the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance or a local general plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow for the adoption or amendment, but the EIR need not be as detailed as an EIR on the spe- cific construction projects that might follow." CEQA Guidelines do not require that an EIR for a general plan amendment utilize site plans or development plans. The City believes the analysis of impacts is consistent with the intent of CEQA. BMW 70 Comment Second, it is not enough for the EIR to state broadly that the development plan for Civic Plaza is a significant impact, or that shadow impacts cannot be identified. The EIR must discuss the specific project impacts so that they may be properly mitigated or the decision -makers can determine that the impacts are justified by overriding considerations. BMW 70 Response Please refer to SMW 69 Response. BMW 71 Comment If the plans and standards are to be completed at a later -date, the EIR - should be revised and recirculated at that time, or a supplement prepared and circulated to address those issues. The listing of these vague impacts further confuses the issue of what are the significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the project. This list should be clarified. BMW 71 Rosponsa Please refer to SMW 69 Response for a discussion of the level of detail required of general plan amendment environmental impact reports. LJ I I I L I 11 5.84 ' Section 15168 of CEQA indicates when a Program EIR is prepared "subsequent activities in the program must be examined ' in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. (1) If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, an new Initial Study would ' need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a Nega- tive Declaration." As noted in Volume 1, page 52 of the EIR, the following permits and actions are not covered by the EIR: Tentative Tract Maps, Parcel maps, Site Plan Review; Use Permits; Modifications; Coastal Development Permits; Grading ' Permits; and Curb Cuts. These are additional discretionary actions that would be required for the proposed project subsequent to the certification of the environmental impact report and approval of the project. ' SMW 72 Comment ' In addition, it is not clear why certain significant impacts cannot easily be avoided through alternate,project design. For example, the change in use on Bayview Landing and extensive coverage of the site seem unwarranted -given coastal act requirements and a lack -of evidence -to show that the pro- posed .use is warranted. The EIR should more clearly list all unavoidable adverse significant impacts and indicate those reduced -to a level of insig- nificance and by which mitigation measures. SMW 72 Response As discussed on pages 283-290, six alternatives to the proposed project for ' the Bayview Landing site are presented. Of the six alternatives, it was determined that five were environmentally superior to the proposed project and should remain under consideration during the review process. Only the ' alternative of Increase Commercial Development was rejected, as it was determined that the alternative was not environmentally superior to the proposed project. The intent of the presentation of alternative is to evaluate alternative which are capable of eliminating or reducing to a level -of- insignificance -- any significant adverse impacts associated with the propose GPA 85-1(B) project. The alternatives are presented in sufficient detail that an alternative could be selected instead of the development proposed in the project description. ' Section 15121 of CEQA Guidelines states that "An EIR is an informational document which will inform ' public agency -decision-makers and the public generally E 5.85 of the significant environmental effect of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. The public agency shall consider the informa- tion in the SIR along with other information which may be present to the agency." The purpose of an SIR is not to "provide reasons in support" of an action SMW 73 Comment The law is clear that an SIR must provide a meaningful discussion of pro- ject alternatives. The Newport Center SIR provides a lengthy discourse on project alternatives, yet this discussion is of limited value. The most glaring deficiency is the lack of analysis of project alternatives which are consistent with the present roadway system and/or would not require major costly and impactful improvements. Since traffic was identified as a major issue, it would seem logical to define a project which is within existing roadway capacity. SMW 73 Response In Section 15126(d) not Section 15143(d), it is stated that a range of reasonable alternative to the project or to the location of the project which could feasibly attain the basic objects of the project should be described and the merits of these alternatives should be compared. This section of the CSQA Guidelines does not require that alternatives be con- fined to those conforming to existing environmental parameters such as the present roadway system. Secondly, alternatives are not required to have mitigation that would be less costly. As stated in Section 15126(d) number 3, "the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alterna- tive capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmentally effects or reducing them to a level of insignificance, even if these alternative would impede to some degree the attainment to the project objectives, or would be more costly." Further, one alternative to the proposed project is No project. This assumed development of the 11 project sites under the existing General Plan. As noted in the SIR, the No Project Alternative was indicated to be environmentally superior to the development proposed for each specific site. The City of Newport Beach is not required to approve the project as pro- posed. Through Planning Commission and City Council meetings, there is the mechanism to review the proposed project and alternatives presented in the I Fl 1 11 I I 5.86 u EIR, and approve a project which may incorporate portions of the proposed project and portions of the alternatives which can include approval on less than 11 of the sites. SMW 74 Comment ' In addition, insufficient discussion was given to other reasonable alterna- tives such as: 1) postponing development until TMS measures reduce traffic levels and improve traffic flows; 2) • development of underutilized and vacant areas for useful recreation related to Newport Center; and 3) post- ponement of further expansion plans until presently allowed development is built -out and an evaluation can be made of traffic and other impacts at that time. SMW 74 Response 1: The effectiveness of TMS programs cannot be accurately predicted. ' Therefore, mitigation for the proposed does not rely on a TMS program to mitigate traffic impacts. The TMS program which is suggested in the EIR as mitigation may provide further relief to traffic conditions. The level of ' success with TMS programs has, historically, been linked with the intensity of development in an area. The effectiveness of a TMS program for Newport Center would, in part, rely on the intensity of development approved. 2: In the Alternatives section of the.EIR,.the PCH/Jamboree site, Corporate Plaza West site, Big Canyon/MacArthur sites, Bayview Landing site, and New - porter North site present recreational and/or open space alternative land ' uses to each proposed site. 3: The transportation and circulation analysis included in its entirety in Volume 4 of the EIR and summarized Volume 1. Future traffic volume fore- ' casts were prepared using the City of Newport Beach Traffic Circulation Model. Land use projections provided by the City are based on the "trend Growth" scenario of future development within the City. Trend Growth is ' developed from a combination of actual development built out in residential area, maximum development in other residential areas, and projections of maximum feasible commercial/industrial development allowed, which is con- sistent with General Plan limits and zoning constraints. Several other traffic projections were used for Newport Beach and the downcoast area. These models include the City of Irvine, County.of-Orange, and City of Hun- tington Beach. In order to present a comprehensive analysis, an Increased Trend Growth traffic forecast was prepared. This forecast include projects both within and outside the City of Newport Beach which would if approved , result in levels of development greater than assumed in the Tend Growth scenario. The intent of the traffic report prepared for the proposed project was to take into account all existing and reasonable foreseeable future projects on which to base and compare existing to future traffic and roadway condi- 5.87 tiona. It is felt that an adequate analysis was presented in order to make decisions for the evaluation of the project. SMW 75 Comment It is of particular concern to our client that the Planning Commission acted on the EIR on May 22, 1986 prior to the conclusion of the written comment period and completion of the final EIR. The length of the EIR made it impossible for those commenting to adequately review the document and testify on all aspects of the project and EIR prior to the Commission's final action. Please indicate how the Commission's hasty action on the EIR is justified in light of its obligation to allow for a full understanding of public concerns and questions regarding the project and EIR. SMW 75 Response Section 15087(g) of CEQA regarding public review of a Draft EIR states "public hearings may be conducted on the environmental documents, either in separate proceedings or in conjunc- tion with other proceedings of the public agency. Pub- lic hearings are encouraged, but not required as an ele- ment of the CEQA process." The City of Newport Beach encourages public participation throughout the preparation and review of environmental documentation. During Planning Commission and City Council meetings, the public hearing remains open until action is taken on the project in order to solicit public input into the review process. The City of Newport Beach Planning Commission is an advisory board to the City Council in the consideration of general plan amendments. The Planning Commission may recommend an action on a project. The City Council takes final action. SMN 76 Comment Last, we seriously question whether the public will benefit from the pro- posed development agreement, or whether that benefit rests only with the applicant. Binding future Planning Commissions and City.Councils to a mas- sive development plan when future circumstances may be drastically differ- ent seems unwise and may well prove unconstitutional. It would be more consistent with the public interest to grant approvals for project compo- nents only for the period of time that impacts can be accurately determined and mitigated. Please comment on this matter and provide thoughts on any alternatives which might be acceptable in place of the DA approach. I r r I 5.88 C SHW 76 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD-SANTA ANA REGION WQ-1 Comment In the discussion of Water Resources (Volume 2, pages 93-107), the DEIR states correctly that implementation of the proposed project will result in changes in drainage patterns both on and off -site, as well as increase in the amount and velocity of runoff due to increases in impervious surfaces. The DEIR also recognizes the resultant increase in input of urban runoff pollutants to Newport Bay but describes this primarily as a short-term impact (p. 98-99). ' WQ-1 Response Response to said comment will be provided under separate cover prior to ' final action on the EIR. WQ-2 Comment It is noted that the project "will add to a significant cumulative impact on water quality in Newport Bay" (p. 106) but there is no detailed evalua- tion of the project's long-term impacts on the water quality or beneficial uses (e.g. wildlife, .recreational activities) of the Bay. The final EIR should incorporate this discussion and include alternatives to the project or other measures which would mitigate adverse impacts. WQ-2 Response ' Response to said comment will be provided under separate cover prior to final action on the EIR. WQ-3 Comment The project proponent should be advised that an ongoing gasoline recovery project at the PCH/Jamboree Road site. Prior to development at this site, the extent of soil and ground water contamination must be determined. Kurt Berchtold of this office and Seth Daugherty (714-834-8182) of the Orange County Health Care Agency can provide specific information about the proce- dures needed to conduct this investigation. H 5.89 NQ-3 Response Response to said comment will be provided under separate cover prior to final action on the EIR. NQ-4 Comment In addition, if dewatering is.necessary and the discharge of wastewater to receiving waters is proposed, an NPDES permit (waste discharge require- ments) will be required from this office prior to initiating the discharge. In addition, any dawatering of the area affected by the on -site gasoline leak will require extensive treatment prior to discharge. Processing of an NPDES permit may take as long as 120 days. Any questions pertaining to this permit may be addressed to Mr. Gary D. Stewart of this office. NQ-4 Response Response to said comment will be provided under separate cover prior to final action on the EIR. CCC 1 Comment In general, the document has covered most of the issues adequately; how- ever, as you know, any change in land uses designation on sites within the Coastal Zone will require an amendment to the City's Land Use Plan (LUP). The Commission would be concerned about issues covered by Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act; therefore, it would be appropriate to consider the Policies of the Coastal Act in the project's evaluation and preparation of the EIR. Out of the eleven sites included in the GPA 85-1(B), four sites are in the Coastal Zone. Keeping those sites in consideration, the following are the specific comments. CCC 1 Response r I 11 1 11 Comment so noted. Comment was incorporated during the preparation of the ' Draft EIR. CCC 2 Comment 1 Public access to the Coast is one of the most important components of the Coastal Act. The EIR needs to evaluate this issue, at the regional as well as sub -regional and city-wide level. It should evaluate the impact during peak beach season as well as off beach season. I 5.90 1 1 I I 1 CCC 2 Response Comment so noted. This comment was considered during the preparation of the Draft EIR. CCC 3 Comment Section 30222 of the Coastal Act provides priority to visitor -serving com- mercial over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development. •During the preparation of the EIR and evaluation of the pro- ject, this section of the Coastal Act should be considered. CCC 3 Response Comment so noted. This comment was considered during the preparation of the Draft EIR. CCC 4 Comment Section 30254 of the Coastal Act requires that new or expanded public works facilities shall be designed and limited to accommodate needs generated by the development where such facilities can accommodate -only -a limited amount of new development that services to coastal dependent land -uses, public recreation, commercial recreation and visitor -serving land uses shall not be precluded by other development. During the preparation of the EIR, this section of the Coastal Act should be considered. CCC 4 Response Comment so noted. This comments was considered during the preparation of the EIR. CCC 5 Comment Section 30251 of the Coastal Act requires protection of scenic and visual _..,qualities.of_coastal.areas which includes, -but not limits to, minimize - alteration of natural land forms. During the preparation of the EIR, this section of the Coastal Act should be considered. CCC 5 Response Comment so noted. This comment was considered during the preparation of the EIR. 1 5.91 J 11 no ' SPONbl Comment The need for assessment and attention to community needs for family type recreational opportunities. Such ideas as bowling, ice skating, roller skating were suggested as examples of those lacking in Newport Beach. ' Though the cultural, social and food amenities are provided, the teen cen- ter is still a non -defined token in this regard. The golf course, through providing a visual relief, provides nothing also to the general community. ' SPOO 1 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. The bowling alley, ice skating, or rollerskating rink for Fashion Island or other areas where commercial land uses would be expanded would be permitted by the General ' Plan. Recreational commercial uses are permitted in this commercial desig- nation. SPONb 2 Comment The need for amendment of the circulation element with proper environmental ' documentation and public hearings. Amendments to the circulation element are being considered in a piecemeal fashion using the project's EIR when, in fact, the project's EIR does not address the impacts of the circulation ' system changes themselves. SPONb 2 Response , The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. The amendment to ' the Circulation Element was initiated by the City Council based upon recom- mendations of the Planning Commission. A Notice of Non -Statutory Advise- ment and was sent to SPON. SPON testified and/or attended two scoping ' meetings held by the City related to the contents of the Draft EIR. No ...oth*=,&msndmants to the Circulation Element are presently being considered ---- by the City. The last amendment to the Circulation Element GPA 82-1 was approved on October 24, 1983 Resolution 83.104. The City Council has not initiated an amendment to said Element since GPA 85-1(B), nor is there a request for an amendment being processed by the City staff. SPONb 3 Comment The need for a complete list of 'traffic System Management techniques which could be used to improve traffic flow or reduce the need for road improve- 1 5.92 I t ments. Such a list has also been called for by the South Coast Air Quality Management District in their comment letter (Vol. 3, Appendix A). A dis- cussion appears in Vol. 4, p. 6-23 of the EIR. Here it is stated that an earlier report shows that 20% of Newport Center employees use ride sharing and 35% could be achieved. It fails to bring forth or analyze new informa- tion about cities which are requiring and succeeding in achieving a 45% reduction in commuting traffic. SPONb 3 Response ' A -discussion of Transportation System Management (TSM) techniques does appear on pages 623-24 of Volume 4. In summarizing the 1981 "Transporta- tion Management Program for Newport Center", it states "...about 20 percent of Newport Center's office employees use transit or share rides to get to and from work. Also, 30 out of 32 employers interviewed as part ' of the survey indicated that there will be a need for a ride -sharing program." ' It does not indicate,that 35%of Newport Center employees would use ride sharing. ' On page 324 of Volume 1, the following mitigation measures were included in the EIR: 1-38. Prior to the occupancy of any GPA 85-1(B) per- mitted structure the project proponent shall ,implement an overall Transportation Management System (TMS) for Newport Center and the Peripheral ' Sties. The TMS for Newport Center and the Periph- eral Sites. The TMS shall be approved by the City of Newport Beach. ' 1-39. Prior to the occupancy of each individual struc- ture permitted by GPA 85-1(B), a site specific TMS component shall be prepared and approved by the City Public Works and Planning Departments. Also refer to letter report prepared by SDI dated June 16, 1986, Appendix A. SPONb 4 Comment The need to list all possible plans and techniques which could provide mitigation for polluting run-off. Though the state Water Resources Depart- ment letter (Vol. 3, Appendix A) stated that "consideration should also be given to a comprehensive program to use reclaimed water for irrigation pur- i J 5.93 I poses in order to free fresh water supplies for beneficial uses requiring high quality water", the idea of a holding lake and re -use of water was not explored or offered as an alternative. SPON 4 Response The use of the Newport Village site as a lake/desilting basin is brought forth in the Alternative Section as an alternative land use for the site. The lake/desilting basin was proposed as a to silt, debris, and other water pollutants trap/filter at this location. This alternative was considered in response to comments on GPA 80-3. The alternative was rejected in the Certified Final EIR for GPA 80-1. The GPA 80-3 EIR was incorporated by reference in GPA 85.1(B) EIR. SPONb 5a Comment The question of recreational open -space opportunities remains as there has been no discussion of it with respect to the proposed housing in Newport Village. The transfer of park credits to the Westbay site seems to be detrimental to the overall General Plan requirements for recreational open space accessible to all residents. The Regional Park designation for West - bay is a benefit to residents of the County as a whole but should not totally eclipse the prior park dedication standards for Newport Beach resi- dents. SPONb 5b Comment Intensity of project A. Justification of: 1. Significant changes in land use; SPONb 5b Response Please refer to response to comment SNW 60. SPONb 6 Comment 2. Significant changes in circulation; SPON 6 Response As previously noted, the purpose of an EIR is not to justify or provide reasons in support of an action (Section 15121 of CEQA Guidelines.) F �I I I 1 1 I 5.94 ' SPONb 7 Comment H I n 3. Erosion of General Plan policies. SPONb 7 Response Please refer to SMW 53 Response. SPONb 8 Comment B. Substantive issues left unanalyzed: 1. No information for Planned Community standards which will re- place prior C-O-H designation. SPONb 8 Response Please refer to SMW 4 Repsonse SPONb 9 Comment 2. Cumulative issues - historical trend shows this is not "build - out" as implied; SPONb 9 Response The local and Regional Setting section provides a general understanding of the regional, subregional, and local setting in which the project will occur if approved. The section provides data related to "Trend Growth" and "Increased-Trend".growth patterns within the City and subregional area. ` Cumulative impacts in the Draft EIR are related back to these assumptions. SPONb 10 Comment 3. Impacts of proposed circulation system changes; SPONb 10 Response The impacts of proposed circulation systems improvement and mitigation mea- sures are defined and disclosed throughout the report. The potential impacts (land use, air, noise, etc.) of several improvements including the lowering of MacArthur Boulevard, and grade separation at Jamboree Road and East Coast Highway are reviewed in detail. SPONb 11 Comment 4. Details of Development Agreement. 1 5.95 I SPONb it Response Please refer to SMW 2 and SMW 3 Responses, SPONb 12 Comment Effects of failure to provide necessary mitigation. SPONb 12 Response Please refer to SMW 62 Response SPONb 13 Comment Conclusion SPONb 13 Response The purpose of the EIR is not to draw conclusions related to the project. The purposes of the EIR are as provided in Section 15002(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. SPONb 14 Comment The project represents an even more intense development than the prior CPA 50-3. In reviewing the plan and the EIR we are looking for the justifica- tion for such increases in the City's development plans and densities. The increase in office space amounts to 15% increase in this use over the pre- sent in the City. It is our observation that many responders are concerned that the justification for such increased intensities are lacking. SPONb 14 Response The purpose of an EIR is not to provide justification for the proposed pro- ject. Section 15121(a) of CEQA states that "An EIR is an informational document which will inform public agency decision -makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effect of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. The public agency shall consider the informa- tion in the EIR along with other information which may be presented to the agency." 11 u I U 1 1 I H H 5.96 D I I I �I The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. SPONb 15 Comment Qualitative issues are at stake. The quality of life, a constant concern among residents is threatened by the increased traffic loads and the enor- mous roads and interchanges planned to accommodate such traffic loads. This project represents a very significant change in -the size of the circu- lation system. SPONb 15 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. SPONb 16 Comment The project represents an erosion of General Plan Policies in that it favors commercial development over a residential/recreational balance. SPONb 16 Response The comment is noted and included on the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. SPONb 17 Comment The purpose of the project as stated on the Notice of Completion of the EIR (4/14/86) is to "address the buildout of the area comprehensively". In doing so, the EIR has been prepared as a Program EIR (Vol. 1, p. 2) to allow for analysis of all impacts associated with the amount and type of development proposed at the General Plan level without analyzing impacts associated with the actual construction of the development. It seems to have failed in providing an analysis of the overall impacts. SPONb 17 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. SPONb 18 Comment For instance, if later EIR's for such projects as widening of MacArthur Boulevard to 8 lane "parkway" status or grade separations at PCH/Jamboree I 5.97 prove the projects to be infeasible or undesirable, it would be too late to change the course of events and still provide for the traffic. SPONb 18 Response Section 15168(b) regarding Program EIRs includes as advantages of program EIRs is that they can: "(1) Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consider- stion of effects and alternatives that would be practi- cal in an EIR on an individual action, (2) Ensure con- sideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case -by -case analysis....(4)Allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program -wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumu- lative impacts....". "Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. (1) If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a now Initial Study would need to be prepare leading to either an EIR or a Nega- tive Declaration." Please also refer to the BDI letter report dated June 16, 1986, Appendix A. SPONb 19 Comment The grade separation at PCH/Jamboree is proposed as a mitigation in Phase II of the project but no adequate visualization of this facility is pro- vided and it appears that the ICU at Jamboree will still be unacceptable. Yet, this grade separation is listed in the EIR under insignificant impacts. SPONb 19 Response Insignificant impacts of the proposed project are listed on pages xii- xviii. A possible grade separation at East Coast Highway/Jamboree Road is not identified as an insignificant impact. SPONb 20 Comment In addition, the discussion of the Bayview (Landing) project has taken place without complete details of the impact of the grade separation on this site. 1 t 1 n I n n I 1 1 1 1 n 1 5.98 SPONb 20 Response On pages 292-293 of Volume 1 is a discussion of traffic conditions at Coast Highway/Jamboree Road. The EIR states... "After the implementation of the 1989 improvements, it would be virtually impossible to provide additional lanes at the intersection of Coast Highway/Jamboree Road. Accordingly, for 1993, in lieu of adding lanes at the intersection, two alternatives were, considered:... 2. The construction of a grade separation at the inter- section of Coast Highway/Jamboree Road to carry the through traffic on Coast Highway over and across Jambo- ree Road without having to•stop at a signal.... The con- struction of a grade separation at the intersection of Coast Highway/Jamboree Road is considered to be a long- -term solution, and one that would achieve satisfactory operating conditions." The grade separation is discussed in detail in the Final EIS Pacific Coast Highway Improvement Project which was incorporated by reference in the GPA 85-1(B) EIR. As previously noted, "the degree of specificity required in an EIR will cor- respond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR. An EIR on a project such as the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance or a local general plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from the adoption or amendment, but the EIR need not be a detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that might follow." (Section 15146 of CEQA Guidelines). SPONb 21 Comment Many substantive issues are left unanalyzed due to lack of information pro- vided at this time. Though this project calls for 1,275,000 sq.ft, of office space, which could be the equivalent of 7 new high rise buildings in this area and a great increase in density, facts about this part of the project are lacking. 5.99 SPONb 21 Response As previously noted, "the degree of specificity required in an EIR will cor- respond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR. An EIR on a project such as the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance or a local general plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from the adoption or amendment, but the EIR need not be a detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that might follow". (Section 15146 of CEQA Guidelines). SPONb 22 Comment Descriptions and visualizations are lacking. The project is billed as the "completion" of Newport Center which is a misuse of the term completion and misleading to the public. -Future amendments could take place and based on historical trends, certainly will. For example: current trends indicate increasing densities, undergrounding of parking, building in parking lots and open space, increasing buildings in Newport Center have been expanded because of purported need, i.e.: a hotel, was expanded, the medical plaza has been expanded, parking lots are being filled, Pacific Mutual was expanded. These facts along with the height limitation of 375' foretell the future. SPONb 22 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. State Planning and Zoning laws provide that a city may amend its General Plan three times a year. The EIR does not describe the project as the buildout of Newport Center. The Project Description is contained on pages 5-33 of Volume 1 of the Draft EIR. SPONb 23 Comment Using the history of changes and the causes for such changes, the analysis should have included the potential demand for increases and the resulting impacts and cumulative effects. SPONb 23 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. The requested ana- 1 n I 1 1 C I 5.100 ' lysis would be speculative. Growth patterns analyzed have been gathered for each adjacent jurisdiction and the lead agency. ' SPONb 24 Comments The same lack of consideration of true cumulative impacts is true of the traffic analyses. The transportation model includes traffic from the county and cities' existing General Plans. This apparently accounts for. - what is considered the Trend Growth figures. Another set of figures is. shown as the increased Trend Growth analysis. This analysis includes those projects which have been requested but doe not yet show up on the various General Plans. It is stated that a proposed increase of General Plan den- sities in the airport area of Newport Beach is included in the increased Trend Growth analysis. ' SPONb 24 Response Please refer to letter report prepared by BDI dated June 16, 1986, Appendix A. SPONb 25 Comment But _it is not clear whether oxher huge projects such -as one in Irvine pro- posed just this week are included. It appears that the increased Trend ' Growth is a misnomer and since all projects included in such a forecast are known projects, it should be considered the Trend Growth. An increased Trend Growth forecast should be those that would tend to still be -proposed due to the cumulative forces of expansion. ' SPONb 25 Response ' Response will be submitted under separate cover prior to final action on the EIR. ' SPONb 26 Comment The most critical aspect of this proposed project to residents who are con- cerned that the city does grow in a true phased manner with adequate sup- port systems in the proposed Development Agreement. SPONb 26 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. I 1 5.101 n SPONb 27 Comment The Tables provided for the assessment of needs in the Phase II period are confusing. Table 1-III, p. 295, Vol. 4 purports to describe the ICU ana- lyses after full mitigations for that phase but does not specify what the mitigations are as does the prior Table, 1-JJJ for the 1989 improvements. In addition, ICU's are still high even with the improvements. SPONb 27 Response The comment is noted and includeed in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. SPONb 28 Comment It would seem virtually impossible to conclude a proper Development Agree- ment using the information provided in the EIR. It is certain that the decision makers would need to decide which traffic model they believe is realistic. SPONb 28 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. Prior to the approval of a Development Agreement (DA), the adequacy of the EIR will be evaluated related to its use in any approval of said DA. SPONb 29 Comment In addition, any justification of this project based on its economic bene- fits or the benefits of road improvements should be considered further with a full understanding of the relationship of Pelican Hills (sic) Road to the Irvine Coast Development. $PON 29 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. The Irvine Coas- tal Plan (County of Orange) requires the construction of Pelican Hill Road prior to the development of 150 dwelling units and 300 hotel rooms north of East Coast Highway in the jurisdiction of the County of Orange. H n I I r I I I J n I I 5.102 SPONb 30 Comment Since the road is a condition of development for the Irvine Coast it would seem inadvisable to give road development credits to the developer twice. SPONb 30 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. Credits are not being given for construction of the road. It is being required as mitiga- tion of project incremental impacts. SPONb 31 Comment "The primary objective of the City of Newport Beach is that the timing and pace of future development be controlled to encourage phased and orderly development consistent with the efficiency of the plan's public support system." (Vol. 1, p, ix). With respect to this goal, though it is true ' that traffic will increase and improvements are needed and this project is a source.of such funds, this project in its entirety only adds insult -to injury. The only way to protect the residents and the stated General Plan Policies is to review all land uses and circulation facilities so that decisions can be made to: 1) provide for an:acceptable level of traffic --service throughout the city,- and;.2) provide -for an equitable -.distribution of land use based upon the road system. ' SPONb 31 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. ' SPONb 32 Comment The Planning Commission has voted on the adequacy of the EIR prior to the conclusion of the comment period which was stated on the Notice of Comple- tion to be May 29, 1986. The Commission has voted without the benefit of final comments and without the benefit of the answers to such comments. We consider the Planning Commission a review body which has been requested by ' the City council to preview public testimony, but, in this case, since their vote took place prior to the conclusion of the public testimony pro- cess, we believe it should be discounted as part of the actual hearing pro- cess or reopened to review the final comments and answers. !I 11 1 5.103 I SPONb 32 Response ' Section 15087(g) of CEQA regarding public review of a Draft EIR states "public hearings may be conducted on the environmental ' documents, either in separate proceedings or in conjunc- tion with other proceedings of the public agency. Pub- ' lic hearings are encouraged, but not required as an ele- ment of the CEQA process." The City of Newport Beach has always encouraged public participation , throughout the preparation and review of environmental documentation, Dur- ing Planning Commission and City Council meetings, the public hearing remains open until action is taken on the project in order to solicit pub- lic input into the planning and environmental review process. The City ofNewport Beach Planning Commission is an advisory board to the City Council, The Planning Commission makes recommendations on actions on a project. The City Council takes final action. 7i DOT 1 Comment , We have reviewed the EIR for GPA 85-1(B) and have the following comments: The developments at Bayview Landing, Corporate Plaza, Corporate Plaza West, Newport Village, Avocado MacArthur, and Big• Canyon MacArthur are adjacent to state highways and may encroach on Caltrans right -of way. When detailed plans are available, we will wish to review them to insure , that there are no conflicts with state plans in the project area. Encroachment permits would be required for any work in Caltrans right-of- way. To limit the possibility of delays in permit issuance, early coordi- nation is recommended. bOT 1 Response t The comment is noted and included in the final report for the project for review by appropriate decisionmakers. I I 1 I C� E L I 11 u 1 I J IJ I 1 6.2 ' REVISED MITIGATION MEASURES The following list contains revised mitigation measures to GPA 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites Environmental Impact Report. REVISED MITIGATION MEASURES 1-4. The proposed parking structure shall be an expansion of the Four Seasons Hotel parking structure (currently under construction) ' and/or may be located adjacent to San Joaquin Hills Road and shall be consistent with ingress/egress, site design, and public safety concerns. ' 1-15. A landscaped edge treatment shall be provided along Jamboree Road and East Coast Highway adjacent to the site and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with subdivision or site plan review. 1-22. No illuminated building signs oriented toward MacArthur Boulevard shall be permitted. ' 1-26. A landscaped edge treatment shall be provided'along San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard adjacent to the site and shall ' be approved by the City in conjunction with subdivision or site plan review. 1-32. A landscaped edge treatment shall be provided along Jamboree Road and East Coast Highway adjacent to the site and shall be approved ' by the City in conjunction with subdivision or site plan review. 1-36. A landscaped edge treatment shall be provided along San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road adjacent to the site and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with subdivision or site plan review. t1-39. Prior to occupancy of any individual structure permitted by GPA 85-1(B), a site specific TSM component shall be prepared and approved by the City Public Works and Planning Departments. I I 6.3 1 NEW MITIGATION MEASURES ' Protect: GPA 95-10) ALL SITES ' 1-LA. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of New- port Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the ' development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85.1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required ' for the development agreement, said documentation shall be com- pleted prior to the approval of the agreement." ' 1-1B. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of New- port Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P-C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. I£ it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the devel- opment agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." 1, Li 1 I I i I I I u I I I I I I II I I 1 I I, I I Errata I 7.2 IERRATA The following corrections to the Draft EIR are as noted below: An error to Exhibit 1-55, "Project Area Bikeways: Existing and Designated" is noted. A bikeway along East Coast Highway was incorrectly shown as being located on the inland side of the high- way. The bikeway is located on the coastal side of East Coast Highway. ' volume 2, Page 49, Table 2-K: The current California air quality standards for suspended particulate matter have been revised from 100 micrograms per cubic meter (24-hour averaging time) to 50 micrograms per cubic meter. The new standards are for "Inhalable" ' particles, which are defined as those particles less than 10 micrometers aerodynamic diameter, PM10 1-4. The proposed parking structure shall be an expansion of the Four Seasons Hotel parking structure (currently under construction) and/or may be located adjacent to San Joaquin Hills Road and shall be consistent with ingress/egress, site design, and public safety concerns. 1-15. A landscaped edge treatment shall be provided along Jamboree Road and East Coast Highway adjacent to the site and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with subdivision or site plan review. 1 1-22. No illuminated building signs oriented toward MacArthur Boulevard shall be permitted. 1-26. A landscaped edge treatment shall be provided along San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard adjacent to the site and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with subdivision or site plan review. I1-32. A landscaped edge treatment shall be provided along Jamboree Road and East Coast Highway adjacent to the site and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with subdivision or site plan review. 1-36. A landscaped edge treatment shall be provided along San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road adjacent to the site and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with subdivision or site plan review. 1-39. Prior to occupancy of any individual structure permitted by GPA 85-1(B), a site specific TSM component shall be prepared and approved by the City Public Works and Planning Departments. I I I I j APPENDIX A I I I I 11 u I I I [1 I I 1 3190 C•1 Airport Loop Drive June 16, 1986 BASMACIYAN -DARN ELL, INC. ENGINEERING AND PLANNING Transportation, Traffic, Municipal, Transit Costa Mesa, California 92626 (714) 557.6780 Ms. Pat Temple City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Subject: Responses to Comments Enclosed are the responses to comments prepared by Basmaciyan- Darnel, Inc. (BDI). Responses to the following comments are presented: SMW: 12, 22, 23, 24, 24A, 24B, 24C, 24D, 25, 26, 27, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 43 TIC: 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 SPON: 3, 19, 24 RN: 8, 9, 10, 11 OC: 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Note: SMW stands for Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger Attorneys at Law TIC stands for The Irvine Company SPON stands for Stop Polluting Our Newport RN stands for Richard A. Nichols OC stands for County of Orange Environmental Management Agency Please contact me if I can provide further details or answer any questions. Sincerely, BASMACIYAN-DARNE1ILL�,r INC. /a CL)LCCL, JG'�- /Herman Basmaciyan, P.E. cc: Sanchez Talarico Associates RESPONSES TO COMMENTS I SMW COMMENT 12 ' As pointed out earlier, some very basic elements of the project are missing from the description, including the development ' agreement and development standards. in addition, other project components which are improperly omitted from the project descrip- tion include but are not limited to the number, size and location ' of parking facilities, a listing and description of the roads and roadway improvements required to carry out the project, and any other infrastructure and facilities required for the successful implementation of the project. The project's description section ' should be rewritten to include this information at a minimum. RESPONSE TO SMW COMMENT 12 The necessary roadway improvements are enumerated in Chapter 7 of the Traffic Study, Volume A of the EIR. The specific information is contained on pages 7-1 through 7-7 of the Traffic Study. The timeframe for the improvements is set forth along with the need for the road with or without the proposed General Plan Amendment GPA 85-1(B). ' The location and size of parking facilities is not set forth since this would not be a matter to discuss in conjunction with a General Plan Amendment. At such time as a specific development proposal is formulated, the amount of parking would be reviewed to ensure compliance with applicable ordinances and regulations. Likewise the site plan would be reviewed for internal circulation , and adequacy of access provisions to and from parking facilities. SMW COMMENT 22 1 Another major factor which should be explored in the growth inducing discussion is the proposed roadway system to accommodate this project. A new standard is being set in this area as well. Suddenly major grade separations and unlimited lanes are accep- table mitigation measures. The EIR should describe the other possible major improvements of this type which could be constructed to facilitate even more development. RESPONSE TO SMW COMMENT 22 Only one grade separation, at the intersection of Coast Highway and Jamboree Road, is being proposedThe proposed lane additions are not considered to be "unlimited" but comparable in nature and scope to lane additions elsewhere in the City. SMW COMMENT 23 , Specifically, where could other grade separations be considered? I RESPONSE TO SMW COMMENT 23 The need for grade separations other than at Coast Highway/ ' Jamboree Road was not identified in the Traffic Study. Because the need for other grade. separations was nov. identified in the Traffic Study the EIR has not speculated on where other grade separations might be considered. SMW COMMENT 24 Is the Coast highway through Corona del Mar ripe for additional lanes and development? RESONSE TO SMW COMMENT 24 The Traffic Study does not identify the need for additional lanes on Coast Highway through Corona del Mar, except for spot improvements. Whether Corona del Mar is ripe for redevelopment was not a subject of study in this EIR. ' SMW COMMENT 24A The EIR should list and describe the projects that contribute to the regional traffic growth component; and the "committed" component of the analysis. In addition, projects which contri- bute to the various trend analyses should be specifically identi- fied. If a percentage growth figure is simply worked into the formula, the percentage and its basis should be revealed. RESPONSE TO SMW•COMMENT 24A 1 . The comment has two parts. The first part pertains to the definition of "regional traffic growth" and "committed" component contained in the ICU Analysis, presented in Chapter 4 of the ' Traffic Study (Volume 4 of the EIR). The second part of the comment pertains to the Long -Range Traffic Growth Projections presented in Chapter 3 of the Traffic Study. ' The regional traffic growth component contained in the ICU compu- tations is identical to the regional traffic growth estimates in the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and has been estimated using the same methodology. The committed component of the traffic growth contained in the ICU computation pertains to the projects listed in Table 4-1 of the Traffic Study. The long-range traffic growth projections were prepared using the traffic circulation model for the City of Newport Beach. •The model is based on a methodology consistent with other transporta- tion planning work in Orange County. Future traffic volume estimates are not developed by the application of a percentage 1 growth figure. The traffic modeling process takes into consideration projected land use changes in Newport Beach, in adjoining cities, and the 1 unincorporated County area, including the downcoast area (Irvine 1 Coast). As stated on page 3-6 of the Traffic Study 'Trend Growth" in the City of Newport Beach is developed from a combina- tion of actual development built -out in residential areas, maximum development in other residential areas, and projections , of maximum feasible commercial/industrial development allowed, consistent with General Plan limits and zoning constraints, such as height limits and parking/site coverage requirements. The "Increased Trend Growth" scenario is described on pages 3-19 ' and 3-20 of the Traffic Study. Briefly, the intensification of land use in Koll Center Newport, in Corona del Mar, and in the Irvine Business Complex is assumed in the "Increased Trend Growth" scenario. SMW COMMENT 24B ' It is not clear why a comparison of Tables 1-YY and 1-AAA indicates less daily traffic on some roadway links under trend growth than under exiting (sic) conditions. Please explain? in particular, the figure showing fewer cars on Coast Highway is puzzling since presumably the Irvine Coast development will be contributing more traffic at that time. Is this the case? RESPONSE TO SMW COMMENT 24B The future daily traffic volumes for the trend growth scenario is ' based on expected changes in land use development and very importantly on the basis of a complete development of the circu- lation element both in Newport Beach, elsewhere in the surrounding area, and Orange County in its entirety, A number of major transportation facilities are contained in the Master Plan of Arterial Highways of the County of Orange, and these, when opened to traffic, will cause major changes in travel patterns. Thus, future traffic volumes would depend on growth and develop- ment, as well as the network of roads and streets available to serve traffic. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to specu- late that future traffic volume on a particular roadway segment will necessarily be higher than the existing traffic volume. if a percentage growth formula had been applied to existing traffic , volumes, then future volumes would have necessarily been higher on every roadway segment. The number of vehicles estimated for Coast Highway does take into consideration development at the "Irvine Coast." It also takes into consideration the completion of Pelican Hill Road and Sand Canyon Road in addition to the San Joaquin Hills Transporation Corridor. These facilities are expected to cause or bring about many changed in travel routing and will help divert traffic from Coast Highway to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. ' Comparing Figure 2-1 (Existing Traffic) and Figure 3-2 (Trend Growth), no instances are noted where future traffic volume is less than existing traffic volume on Coast Highway in Newport Beach. , ' SMW COMMENT 24C What exactly is the status of Pelican Hill Road? It is a required improvement under the Irvine Coast Plan? When -will it ' be in place and operating? RESPONSE TO SMW COMMENT 24C Plan and its Pelican Hill Road is part of the Irvine Coast construction is to be phased with the development of the Irvine Coast. Completion of Pelican Hill Road is now scheduled for the Fall of 1988. Planning and engineering work for Pelican Hill Road has been underway for some time. The environmental review process has been initiated. Notices of Preparation (of an EIR) have been issued and a Scoping Meeting has been held. SMW COMMENT 24D What is the status of the San Joaquin Hills Corridor? The EIR left this discussion quite vague. it is required to achieve acceptable levels of service for Phase I and/or- II of this project? How much of the financing needed for this corridor is already earmarked? IRESPONSE TO SMW COMMENT 24D The San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor is a component of I the Master Plan of Arterial Highways of the County of Orange. The corridor has been included in the MPAH for approximately 10 years and has been the subject of extensive engineering, planning and enviromental evaluations. An EIR for the SJHTC was certified by the County of Orange in 1979. The County is now preparing an EIS, which is scheduled to be circulated late in 1986. Public ' hearings are scheduled early in 1987. The SJHTC has been placed on the State Highway System and it is likely that the route will be designated as part of the Federal Aid Primary (FAP) System. I ;J I A Joint Powers Authority (JPA) has been formed to oversee the development of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. The JPA includes the County of Orange, the City of Newport Beach, and other cities in the SJHTC benefit area. The County and the Cities have agreed to impose developer fees to help finance the development of the Transportation Corridor. It is expected that about 48 percent of the total cost will be defrayed by the fee program. Other sources of funding are also being sought. The ICU apalysis for 1989 and for 1993 conditions do not take into consideration the completion of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. (The construction of Pelican Hill Road is assumed in the ICU computations.) The County of Orange indicates that the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor could be opened to traffic by as early as 1992. If the SJHTC is indeed opened in 1992, the ICU values for 1993 presented in the Traffic Study, Volume 4 of the EIR, would be overstated. Traffic conditions in 1993 would be better than depicted in the Traffic 1 Study, especially at the intersections along Coast Highway in ' Corona del Mar and along MacArthur Boulevard. SMW COMMENT 25 What is the basis for trip generation figures for apartments , (Table I-JJJ)? It would seem that with the growing number of dual employee, mid -to upper -income families, trip generation would be closer to 10 daily trips per unit? RESPONSE TO SMW COMMENT 25 ' The trip generation rates for apartments used in the traffic study are those used in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) studies in the City of Newport Beach. The rate of 6.5 trips per day is higher than the average rate for apartments indicated in the ITE Informational Report on Trip Generation. The rate of 6.5 trips per day is also higher than what has been observed at other apartment complexes in Newport Beach, such as Park Newport and others. SMW COMMENT 26 What reasonably foreseeable projects were included in the various traffic analyses? Please list and describe the projects as well as anticipated trip generation rates for each. RESPONSE TO SMW COMMENT 26 1 The projects listed in Table 4-1 (p.4-2, Volume 4 of the EIR) are the "approved" or "committed" projects included in the TPO analyses. The trip generation of each project and the impact at each intersection is available in file material. The cumulative impact of the "approved" or "committed" projects is reflected in the ICU computations, available as an Appendix to the Traffic Study. SMW COMMENT 27 ' Specifically, what proposed improvements are already in the general plan, not required to be reflected in the general plan ' and/or require amendment of the general plan? RESPONSE TO SMW COMMENT 27 ' The response to this comment is presented in reference to the summary of transportation system improvements presented on pages 7-6 and 7-7 in Volume 4 of the EIR. The alphabetical references below correspond to those on pages 7-6 and 7-7, A: Committed Improvements - These are consistent with the General Plan. I ' B: Intersection Improvements for 1989 - These are consistent with the General Plan. C: Pelican Hill Road - This is consistent with the 'General Plan. ' D and E: Intersection Improvements for 1993 - These are consis- tent with the General Plan. F.1: ,Six lanes on MacArthur Boulevard between Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road - This is subject to proposed General Plan Amendment 85-1(B); necessitates change in current General Plan. ' F.2: Six lanes on MacArthur Boulevard between San Joaquin Hills Road and Ford Road - The portion immediately north of San Joaquin Hills Road (as far north as the northern terminus of the Avocado/MacArthur One-way Couplet contained in the current General Plan) is subject to proposed General Plan Amendment 85-1(B). Remainder is consistent with General Plan. F.3: MacArthur Boulevard between Ford Road and Route.73/SJHTC - Six lanes on this segment is consistent with General Plan. Eight lanes would necessitate an amendment to the General Plan. (Note that eight lanes will be needed with or without proposed GPA 85-1(B). F.4: Six lanes on Jamboree Road - This is consistent with the General Plan. F.S: Bison Avenue and Ford Road Extensions to Bonita Canyon Road/SJHTC - These are consistent with the General Plan. F.6: San Joaquin Hills Road extension to Pelican Hill Road and SJHTC - The General Plan designates this extension as a ' Major Road (six -lane divided). The proposed extension would be Primary Road (four -lane divided). This would necessitate a change in the General Plan. The County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways would also be affected. ' SMW COMMENT 33 Daily trip rates for general office (13 per 1000 sq.ft.); general •retail (40 per 1000 sq. ft.); and Fashion Island (30 per 1000 sq.ft.) are low compared with trip generation figures developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Please produce support for these low rates. I RESPONSE TO SMW COMMENT 33 The office rate used in the Traffic Study (Volume 4 of the EIR) is 13.0 trips per day per thousand square feet. The "trip generation figures developed by the Institute of Traffic Engineers" for general office is 12.3 trips per day per thousand square feet. A higher rate has been used in the Traffic Study than the I.T.E. figure. The general retail rate used in the Traffic Study is 40 trips per day per thousand square feet. The I.T.E. trip generation rate is 40.7 trips per day per thousand square feet. These two rates are virtually the same. A trip generation rate of 30.0 trips per day per thousand square feet has been used in the Traffic Study for Fashion Island. The T.T.E. trip generation rate for a regional shopping center of 500,000 square feet to 1,000,000 square feet is 37.2 trips per day per thousand square feet. The rate for a center of 11000,000 square feet to 1,250,000 square feet is 37.1 trips per day per thousand square feet. Actual traffic counts at Fashion Island indicate that the prevailing trip -making rate for Fashion Island is less than 30 trips per day per thousand square feet. The use of a rate of 30 per day per thousand square feet in the Traffic Study would allow for any future increases in the trip -making rate. In,this case, where specific information is available, the use of a rate based on local experience is considered preferable to the more generalized T.T.E. rate, which represents an average of data from various sources. SMW COMMENT 34 Once all the proposed improvements excess capacity to further buildout lots, vacant areas; redevelopment etc.)? RESPONSE TO SMW COMMENT 34 I i 1 I are in place, will there be , Newport Center (i.e. parking of underutilized parcels, As pointed out in the traffic study (Volume 4 of the EIR)# many ' of the proposed improvements.are necessary to accommodate overall traffic growth resulting from developments throughout the City of Newport Beach and surrounding areas. The proposed GPA 85-1(,B) is only one component of the areawide growth and development. When the proposed transportation system improvements are in place, it is possible that there may remain excess capacity to accommodate , additional development at Newport Center. This matter would have to be evaluated at the time specific proposals, if any, are set forth, within the context of traffic conditions prevailing on the street system at the time and the anticipated traffic generation characteristics of proposed additional development at Newport Center. Ll �� I ' SMW COMMENT 35 How is it possible that the same roadway system, largely at or ' approaching capacity, can accommodate two major development projects, Newport Center and the Irvine Coast, which will generate traffic on the same critical links? Please provide an explanation focusing on these two projects and their traffic generation. RESPONSE TO SMW COMMENT 35 ' In conjunction with the developments at Newport Center and' the Irvine Coast, major roadway improvements are also to be in place. ' The most significant of these would be the construction of Pelican Hill Road, which will serve traffic that would otherwise use Coast Highway through Corona del Mar. The completion of Pelican Hill Road is scheduled for the Fall of 1988.• Subse- quently, the construction of other roadways, including the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and Sand Canyon Road will also help divert traffic off Coast Highway. While the proposed ' GPA 85-1(B) and the Irvine Coast development will generate traffic, substantial additional roadway capacity will also be provided. ' SMW COMMENT 36 In the final analysis, how many intersections will never operate at LOS "D" or better at buildout of Newport Center? Please identify these. RESPONSE TO SMW COMMENT 36 The Level of Service at the following intersections will be worse than "D" in the Year 1993, with or without proposed GPA 85-1(B): ' 1. Coast Highway at Balboa Boulevard/Superior.Avenue; 2. Coast Highway at Riverside Avenue; 3. Coast Highway at Tustin Avenue; 4. Coast Highway at Dover Drive/Bayshore Drive 5. Coast Highway at Bayside Drive 6. Coast Highway at Goldenrod Avenue In the case of all these intersections, except Coast Highway at Dover Drive/Bayshore Drive, mitigation measures have been identified that would make the 1993 ICU with the GPA with. the mitigation equal to or less than the ICU without the GPA. While a possible mitigation measure has been identified for the intersection of Jamboree Road/Ford Road/Eastbluff Drive, lack of right-of-way may make it impossible to implement the proposed improvements. If so, the intersection of Jamboree Road/Ford Road/Eastbluff Drive would operate at Level of Service "E" with proposed GPA 85-1(B). SMN COMMENT 37 It is common knowledge among transportation engineers that an auto -oriented transportation system cannot adequately serve medium to high density development. is the assumption underlying the project that TMS or transit will eventually mitigate this situation? RESPONSE TO SMW COMMENT 37 The comment is premised on very broad generalizations and an unsubstantiated assertion. What constitutes "medium -to -high density development?" Does this refer to residential development or to commercial/office development? What constitutes an "auto - oriented transportation system?" Without at least an attempt at defining these terms, just what is common knowledge among transportation engineers is uncertain and subject to much speculation. Also, it is unclear as to what situation is to be mitigated eventually. The transportation system improvements recommended in the Traffic Study would provide the roadway capacity, except at a few inter- sections, to accommodate overall traffic growth as well as the traffic that would be added in conjunction with proposed GPA 85- 1(B). Transportation System Management (TSM) measures can reduce vehicular travel demands. To the extent that vehicular travel demand is reduced as a result of TSM, traffic operating condi- tions would be improved. SMW COMMENT 38 If so, to what extent does this project rely on TMS and/or transit to avoid gridlock? RESPONSE TO SMW COMMENT 38 As stated in the response to SMW Comment 37, the proposed transportation system improvements would provide adequate roadway capacity, except at a few intersections, to accommodate overall traffic growth and additional traffic attributable to proposed GPA 85-1(B). Transportation System Management (TSM) techniques can reduce vehicular traffic and thus would bring about commensurate improvements in the quality of traffic flow. Just what the term "gridlock" implies is not explained in` the comment. The composite word would imply traffic congestion over the entire street "grid" of such magnitude that traffic in all directions is "locked" in place, or unable to move. The projected traffic flow conditiohs would not be even remotely described by "gridlock". SMW COMMENT 39 What percentage trip reduction is anticipated through TMS? I I LJ' I LJ 1] RESPONSE TO SMW COMMENT 39 As described on pages 6-23 and 6-24 of the Traffic Study (Volume 4 of the EIR), surveys conducted at Newport Center in •1981 indicated that about 20 percent of Newport Center office employees use transit or share rides to get to and from work. It was also estimated that the Transportation System Management (TSM) program recommended in the 1981 study 'could reduce peak hourly trips by 17 percent initially and by 35 percent after five years. It should be noted that any vehicular trip reductions attributable to TSM are not reflected in the traffic volume projections or ICU computations presented in the traffic study. SMW COMMENT 43 The traffic section provides a confusing array of possible scenarios, all of which indicate that unacceptable levels of traffic service will occur even with massive and costly improvements. Even so, the impacts are understated. The analysis fails to identify the impacts of the roadway improve- ments themselves in terms of other trips they may attract or development approvals which could be based upon them. RESPONSE TO SMW COMMENT 43 The array of scenarios presented in Chapter 4 of the Traffic Study (Volume 4 of the EIR) consist of: 1. Existing; 2. Existing Traffic Plus Regional Growth Plus Committed (Approved) Projects for 1989, a. with existing lane configuration, b. with committed intersection improvements; 3. Existing Traffic Plus Regional Growth Plus Committed Projects for 1989 Plus Phase I of Proposed GPA 85-1'(B), a. with existing lane configuration, b. with committed intersection improvements; 4. Existing Traffic Plus Regional Growth Plus Committed Projects'for 1993, Plus Phase I of proposed GPA 85-1(B); 5. Existing Traffic Plus Regional Growth Plus Committed Projects for 1993, Plus the entire proposed GPA 85-1(B). All of these scenarios are stipulated by- the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinace (TPO) and must be addressed. I As stated in the response to SMW Comment 36, after proposed ' transportation system improvements, the Level of Service in 1993 at 31 of the 37 intersections analyzed would be "D" or better. At 6 intersections, the Level of Service would be worse than "D". , Whether and to what extent'the intersection improvements might attract other traffic or might lead to other development , approvals are speculative. Such impacts, if any cannot be quantified. The need for roadway improvements, other than the intersections, is not brought about by the proposed GPA but to accommodate overall traffic growth. All roadway improvements, except three, are consistent with the City's General Plan. The three exceptions are: 1. MacArthur Boulevard as a Major Road, rather than the ' Avocado/MacArthur one-way couplet. This change to the General Plan would not increase the capacity in the corridor, but would merely change the location where the capacity is provided. , 2. San Joaquin Hills Road east of Spyglass Hill Road to be a Primary rather than a Major Road. This change would reduce, ' not increase, capacity in comparison to the General Plan. 3. MacArthur Boulevard between Ford Road and Route 73/San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor to be eight lanes, rather than six. This change would represent an increase in capacity. It is needed, because even without proposed GPA 85-1(B), projected traffic volume demand on this segment , would exceed the capacity of a six -lane Major Road. 1 I TIC COMMENT 9 A. o We are concerned that, though data on pages 305 and 308 of Volume I of the EIR show the projected difference in daily traffic between the existing General Plan and the proposed amendment of 25,330 (a 20% increase), this- important information is not highlighted for the reader. RESPONSE TO TIC COMMENT 9 . The additional traffic attributable to proposed GPA 85-1(B) would indeed represent about a 20% increase compared to the General Plan now in effect. TIC COMMENT 10 A. o We are even more concerned that the relative level of impact of the previously mentioned incremental project traffic generation is not clear to the casual reader of ' the EIR. It would appear to have been clearer if a table such as attached Exhibit 1 were included (which is merely the difference between the "Trend Growth" + GPA data in 1 Table 1-AAA and the "Trend Growth" data in Table 1-MMM,) to show the relative share of project traffic to the ultimate daily projections. This would also clarify how ' the EIR concluded on page 310 that the relative project impact on the key roadway segments in the vicinity of the project is limited to one to six percent (1-6%) of the total traffic on affected roadway segments. ' RESPONSE TO TIC COMMENT 10 The information contained in the table provided by the Irvine Company is appreciated. It is a useful comparison. Table 3-8 of the Traffic Study (Volume 4 of the EIR) provides a similar comparison of traffic volume forecasts along roadway segments, ' although it does not explicitly show the information provided in the TIC table. In response to TIC comment, attached is Exhibit 1, which presents the information in the format suggested by TIC. TIC COMMENT 11 1 A. I EXHIBIT 1 COMPARISON OF TREND GROWTH PLUS GPA 85-1(B) TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS TO TREND GROWTH FORECASTS Roadway Segment ------------------------- COAST HIGHWAY: East City Limits e/o Poppy Avenue e/o Marguerite Avenue e/o MacArthur Boulevard e/o Newport Center Drive e/o Jamboree Road e/o Dover Drive w/o Dover Drive e/o Newport Boulevard West city Limits MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD: n/o Ford Road n/o Bison Avenue n/o Jamboree Road s/o Birch Street JAMBOREE ROAD: n/o Bayside Drive n/o Coast Highway n/o Santa Barbara Avenue n/o San Joaquin Hills Road n/o Ford Road n/o Bison Avenue s/o Bristol Street e/o MacArthur Boulevard s/o Birch street SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD: e/o Jamboree Road w/o MacArthur Boulevard e/o MacArthur -Boulevard e/o San Miguel Drive e/o Marguerite Avenue NOTE: NSI = No significant increase vpd = vehicles per day Increase in Average Daily Traffic Due to GPA 900 vpd 1?100 1,200 $, 400 11300 3t100 2,500 21200 21200 11000 21600 11700 500 400 21500 61000 1f300 21900 3..400 31800 3t100 NSI NSI 10100 5e200 1,800 1,200 10900 7 Ll in r .1 1 1 1 i i 7 U 17 L _� J i i 1 cont. COMPARISON OF TREND GROWTH PLUS GPA 85-1(B) TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS TO TREND GROWTH FORECASTS Roadway Segment SAN MIGUEL DRIVE: e/o MacArthur Boulevard n/o San Joaquin Hills Road s/o Ford Road FORD ROAD: e/o Jamboree Road e/o MacArthur Boulevard e/o San Miguel Drive BISON AVENUE: e/o Jamboree Road e/o MacArthur Boulevard MARGUERITE AVENUE: s/o Fifth Avenue n/o Fifth Avenue BRISTOL STREET N: W/o Birch Street w/o Spruce Street BRISTOL STREET: W/o Birch Street e/o Birch Street SAN DIEGO (I-405) FRE n/o Culver Drive n/o Jamboree Road n/o MacArthur Bouleva SJHTC/ROUTE 73: e/o Sand Canyon Road e/o Pelican Hill Road e/o Bison Avenue w/o Jamboree Road NOTE: NSI = No Sign vpd = vehicles Increase in Average Daily Traffic Due to GPA ------------------- 400 vpd 600 300 NSI 300 1,100 NSI 100 NSI NSI cont. COMPARISON OF TREND GROWTH PLUS GPA 85-1(H) TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS TO TREND GROWTH FORECASTS Increase in Average Daily Traffic Due Roadway Segment to GPA -------- -------------- ------------------- PELICAN HILL ROAD: n/o Coast Highway 5,500 vpd s/o San Joaquin Hills Road 400 n/o SJHTC 600 SAND CANYON ROAD: n/o Coast Highway 100 s/o SJHTC 200 NOTE: NSI = No Significant Increase vpd = vehicles per day 0 ' o We are concerned that the EIR does not clearly state the conclusion that the projected ultimate roadway capacity deficiencies identified in the traffic study are not ' caused by the proposed project (as stated on page 15 of the Staff Report) in spite of the evidence it contains, as shown by attached Exhibit 1. RESPONSE TO TIC COMMENT 11 In Chapter 7 of the Traffic Study (Volume 4 of the EIR) those ' improvements needed to and from the proposed GPA are clearly identified and differentiated from those necessary to accommodate overall -traffic growth. ' TIC COMMENT 12 B. 7 u �rl d o The capacities assumed in the T.P.O. calculations for 1989 and 1993, and the future capacities information included in Table 1-MMM, reflect the following major roadway improvements that will be required in conjunction with the project as defined on page 31 of the Staff Report to the Planning Commission for the April 24, 1986 meeting, as follows. 1. Dedication of right-of-way for Coast Highway improvements. 2. Completion�of Jamboree Road to six -lane major arterial standards from Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road. 3. Completion of MacArthur Boulevard to six-lane'major arterial standards from Coast Highway to Jamboree Road. 4. Construction of Pelican Hill Road/Bonita Canyon Road between Pacific Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard. 5. Construction of San Joaquin Hills Road between Spyglass Hill Road and Pelican Hill Road. Although it is our understanding that this comprises a list of projects that may be required as a part of the project, that fact is not clearly defined in the EIR. RESPONSE TO TIC COMMENT 12 The comment is noted. As applicable, the 1989 and 1993 ICU computations and the comparisons of long-range volume -to -capacity computations are indeed based on the roadway improvements listed. TIC COMMENT 13 B. o The EIR does not clearly state the conclusion that the daily capacity added to the roadway system by the construction of the above circulation improvements is in excess of the incremental demand of 25,330 vehicles per day added by the proposed project. This can be seen by comparing the 25,000 additional daily trips created by the proposed amendment vs 37,000 to 52,000 additional daily capacity provided through roadway improvements. The additional capacity is generated as follows: o Pelican Hill Road diversion 8,000 to 16,000 c Jamboree 2 lanes @ 18,000 o MacArthur 2 lanes @ 91000 to 18,000 Total Capacity 35,000 to 52,000 It is also important to note that the diversion of up to 16,000 vehicles per day resulting from construction of Pelican Hill Road is far above the incremental addition of 800 to 5400 vehicles per day to Pacific Coast Highway through Corona Del Mar, as shown in attached Exhibit 1. RESPONSE TO TIC COMMENT 13 Comment is noted. The proposed roadway improvements will add capacity to the existing roadway system in excess of the amount of traffic proposed GPA 85-1(B) will add to the General Plan now in effect. TIC COMMENT 14 B. o It is our understanding that the ultimate project mitigation package will also require participation, in keeping with requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, in intersection improvements with their implementation timing to be determined later in the process. RESPONSE TO TIC COMMENT 14 This understanding is correct. Where intersection improvements have been identified to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development and have been included in the traffic analysis, building permits may be issued only after traffic system improvement timing has been confirmed as follows: J 1 1. It has been budgeted and committed for development by the City; or 2. The State or County or other governmental agency making the improvement has accepted bids; or ' 3. The improvement is to be installed or guaranteed by the applicant in conjunction with the development project and is approved by the appropriate governmental jurisdictions. TIC COMMENT 15 B. Need to More Clearly Articulate Mitigation Measures ' Addressing Impacts Caused by The Project and Net Road Capacity Created by the Mitigation Measures. ' o Although the information included in pages 315-323 indicates that deletion of the one-way couplet provides sufficient capacity, both at the interim time -frames and ultimately, and documents the recommended systems benefits ' regarding safety, accessibility, reduction of out of direction travel, and general operational superiority, the draft EIR makes no conclusion as to its technical superiority. RESPONSE TO TIC COMMENT 15 The overall evaluation of the one-way couplet is presented on pages 5-1 through 5-20 of the Traffic Study (Volume 4 of the EIR). The conclusion, as stated on page 5-20 (Volume 4), is that: U I� r� J "The one-way couplet and the two-way configuration option each has advantages and disadvantages compared to the other. The decision to select one over the other would involve a number of trade-offs and a great deal of discussion. It would appear that, all configuration would offer the one-way couplet." TIC COMMENT 16. 1 B. L _J J I things considered, the two-way more advantages compared to o Also, in the discussion on pages 33 and 34 regarding "Affected Links/Intersections" we believe clarification is needed in order to ensure that this section accurately reflects the more detailed information in the 'traffic study (Volume 4) of the EIR. F RESPONSE TO TIC COMMENT 16 The discussion on pages 33 and 34 of the EIR is to provide a brief summary of future roadway segments, not yet on the ground, ' but included in the Master Plan, which might be affected, however remotely, by proposed GPA 85-1(B) which includes the deletion of the Avocado/MacArthur Couplet. The connection of University ' Drive between Newport Beach and the City of Costa Mesa was not included in the travel forecasts or the ICU analyses, Future traffic volumes and the impacts of GPA 85-1(B) on the other roadway segments listed on pages 33 and 34 are discussed in ' considerable detail in the Traffic Study (Volume 4 of the EIR). I I 1 D I I SPON COMMENT 3 The need for a complete list of Traffic System Management tech- niques which could be used'to improve traffic flow or reduce the need for road improvements. Such a list has also been called for by the South Coast Air (duality Management District in their comment letter (Vol. 3, Appendix A). 'A discussion appears in Vol. 4, p. 6-23 of the EIR. Here it is stated that an earlier report shows that 20% of Newport Center employees use ride sharing and 35% could be achieved. It fails to bring forth or analyze new information about cities which are requiring and succeeding in achieving a 45% reduction in commuting traffic. RESPONSE TO SPON COMMENT 3 As stated on page 6-23 of the Traffic Study (Volume 4 of the EIR), Transportation System Management (TSM) techniques designed to reduce single occupant and/or private automobile usage, have been long recognized as effective means of reducing traffic volumes in and around major activity centers such as Newport Center. Transportation System Management strategies that can be effective in reducing traffic volumes include: - Car and van pooling, - Bus pooling or subscription bus service, - Staggered or flexible work hours, - Improved transit service and facilities, - integrated pedestrian/vehicular circulation facilities, - Parking management programs to favor car and van pools. Since the completion of the Traffic Study, two major actions ' have been taken to enhance the desirability of travel by transit to and from Newport Center. These actions are: ' 1. The initiation of express bus service to/from Newport Center using the commuter (HOV) lanes on Route 55, and 2. The initiation of an internal shuttle system at Newport Center. These actions. manifest the commitment of the Irvine Company to implement TSM measures, as appropriate, in conjunctioft" with Newport Center. SPON COMMENT 19- The grade separation'at PCH/Jamboree is proposed as a mitigation ' in Phase II'of the project but no adequate visualization of this facility is provided and it appears that the ICU at Jamboree will still be unacceptable. Yet, this grade separation is listed in the EIR under insignificant impacts. ui RESPONSE TO SPON COMMENT 19 , Figure 4-12 in the Traffic Study (Volume 4 of the EIR) presents a sketch of the lane configuration of the intersection of Coast Highway/Jamboree Road, assuming that a grade separation would be ' constructed. A scale model of the intersection area, including the grade separation is available at the City of Newport Beach. ' It is stated on page 4-34 of the Traffic Stuffy that the ICU in 1993 at Coast Highway/Jamboree Road would be 0.88 with the lane Configuration illustrated in Figure 4-12. It is also stated on ' page 4-34 that "more lanes can be provided to allow for growth and a margin of safety." SPON COMMENT 24 The same lack of consideration of true cumulative impacts is true of the traffic analyses. The transportation model includes , traffic from the county and cities' existing General Plans. This apparently accounts for what is considered the Trend Growth figures. Another set of figures is shown as the increased Trend Growth Analysis. This analysis includes those projects -which , have been requested but do not yet show up on the various General Plans. It is stated that a proposed increase of General Plan densities in the airport area of Newport Beach is included in the ' increased Trend Growth analysis. But it is not clear whether other huge projects such as one in Irvine prposed (sic) just this week are included. t RESPONSE TO SPON COMMENT 24 , The developments included in the Increased Trend Growth scenario are described on pages 3-19 and 3-20 of the Traffic Study (Volume 4 of the EIR). Briefly, these consist of Xoll Center Newport, , Irvine Business Complex (IBC), and intensification of land use in Corona del Mar. The reference to the project proposed in Irvine "Just this week" is unclear so it is not possible to state ' whether or not this project is included in the Increased Trend Growth scenario. r1 I I RN COMMENT 7 The traffic study and impact analysis, on one hand assume ' unlimited capacity on a given road, and on the other hand, the figures at quite low traffic levels are used to'justify road expansions. RESPONSE TO RN COMMENT 7 Unlimited capacity on a given road is not assumed in the Traffic ' Study (Volume 4 of the EIR). Existing and future roadway capacity values for each type of roadway are used consistently throughout the study. Similarly, in the intersection capacity computations, a consistent lane capacity is used. Improvements are developed, if needed, on the basis of estimated traffic volumes and taking into consideration committed improvements. RN COMMENT 8 ' For example a 4 lane road capacity is assumed at 36,000 vpd and is used to justify a 6 lane highway on MacArthur from PCH to San Miguel on the other hand PCH from Marguerite to MacArthur is assumed able to handle 53.8K to 62.4K vpd (Fig. 3-6 Vol 4) without problem. We would note the EIR does not even know the traffic in this segment (Fig. 2-1 and Table 2-1 Vol 4). ' Virtually everyone knows traffic conditions are worse now than in 1980, yet the 1980 traffic figures from the City show traffic figures of 43K vpd on Sunday and 46K vpd on weekdays (see ' attached figures). If both figures are correct then traffic is so bottlenecked that capacity reductions are being experienced. What we wish to point out is that traffic projections of 53.8K vpd and 62.4K vpd cannot be achieved during the same or ' moderately extended operating hours. Therefore the traffic analysis is invalid. ' RESPONSE TO RN COMMENT 8 The daily traffic figures presented in Figure 2-1 and Table 2-1 of the Traffic Study (Volume 4 of the EIR) are based on traffic counts conducted by the City of Newport Beach late in 1984 and early -in 1985. ' Figure 3-6 in the Traffic Study is to show how traffic volumes on Coast Highway would be affected if the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor were not to be constructed. It is 'not intended to assert that Coast Highway could "handle 53.8K to 62.4K vpd" without congestion. On page 7-2 of the Traffic Study, the possibilities for spot improvements to Coast Highway and likely traffic conditions on Coast Highway are described. I RN COMMENT 9 ' We point out that staff has gone into considerable analysis to determine how many cars are going on side streets through CDM but they continue to use 1600 vph per lane of green time for all ' intersections. Similar and reasonable analysis would show such traffic cannot be achieved on most residential streets. On the other hand greater densities may be justified on open highway segments such analysis should be done. Similarly, actual ' conditions should be considered. Certainly a limited access 4 lane MacArthur can handle more traffic than PCH in CDM which has parking, numerous curb cuts, intersections every block, etc. The EIR should take these actual circumstances into account. RESPONSE TO RN COMMENT 9 The •figure of 1600 vph per lane of green time has been substan- tiated by actual traffic counts in Newport Beach and elsewhere. This number is predicated on the availability of a line of vehicles on the approach to the intersection. A number of considerations enter into daily roadway segment , capacity computations. In addition to those listed in the comment, other considerations are the percentage of cars in the peak hour, signal timing, and directional split of traffic flow. ' RN COMMENT 10 Finally there is no indication that down coast development is , included in Pelican Hills traffic analysis. It is not listed in Exhibit 1-35 or 1-36, Vol. I. Further volumes shown do not show this traffic generation. In any event the down coast traffic ' should be included and its effects made very clear in the tIR. RESPONSE TO RN COMMENT 10 ' Down coast development is included in all future traffic volume projections contained in the Traffic Study (Volume 4 of the RN COMMENT 11 We apologize that'our comments are not more complete. We are led ' to believe on the basis of our cursory analysis that a deliberate attempt has been made to keep from public view the Westbay pnd Jamboree/PCH overpass trade-offs. The trade-off of Pelican Hills and 6 lane PCH has not been mentioned publicly. We believe ' people should be allowed to discuss what affects them and these discussions should be clearly outlined in the EIR. , I RESPONSE TO RN COMMENT 11 It is unclear as to what is meant by the "Westbay and Jamboree/ PCH overpass trade-offs." The options for improvements at the intersection of Coast Highway/Jamboree Road, including the option of Back Bay Drive Extension, are discussed fully in Chapter 4 of the Traffic Study (Volume 4 of the EIR). rThe construction of Pelican Hill Road will divert traffic off Coast Highway and will help ease traffic congestion along Coast ' Highway through Corona del Mar. Improvements to Coast Highway through Corona del Mar have been the subject of much public discussion over a long period of time. 1 J I 11 r OC COMMENT 6 The volume to capacity (V/C) ratios listed on Page 257 for the San Joaquin Hills Traffic Corridor (SJHTC) are based on ADT volumes and not a peak hour analysis, As a result, they generally do not reflect V/C ratios forecast by the County as part of the SJHTC traffic analysis. Attached is a more detailed analysis of ADT and peak hour volumes, as well as V/C ratios by direction on the SJHTC. The V/C ratios for the SJHTC are high- lighted by direction for the Newport Beach area. Of particular concern is that an extremely high volume on the SJHTC of 2221000 west of Jamboree is forecast in the EIR; in contrast, the modeling completed for thg SJHTC forecasts.a volume of approxi- mately 166,000 for this section of RT 73. This is 56,000 ADT discrepancy is something that deserves further explanation and/or evaluation. RESPONSE TO OC COMMENT 6 The detailed information on peak hourly V/C ratios for the SJHTC is appreciated. Discussions with County EMA staff subsequent to receipt of the County's comments indicate that the daily traffic volume of 166,000 quoted in the comment is for a link further west, between Campus Drive and Route 55. So the 166,000 and the 222,000 daily traffic figures are not directly comparable. In addition, the County model includes the extension of University Drive, which is not included in the City's model. The County has a projection of approximately 40,000 vehicles per day (vpd) on the University Drive extension. This accounts for a very large portion of the 52,000 vpd difference on the SJHTC between the County's and City's models. OC COMMENT 7 Any modification required to the Master Plan of Arterial Highways should be coordinated with the County in accordance with the Arterial Highway Financing Program (AHFP) Procedure Manual, RESPONSE TO OC COMMENT 7 Comment noted. OC COMMENT 8 Existing traffic data and associated V/C ratios shown on PCH (Page 249) are much lower than the County's traffic flow map, RESPONSE TO OC COMMENT 8 The daily traffic ratios are based of Newport Beach volumes on Coast Highway and the associated V/C on actual traffic counts conducted by the City late in 1984 and early in 1985. Since these I u I� I J I L C� F I1 LJ J n L_ J counts represent more recent information than what is depicted in the County's Traffic Flow Map, the City's counts were used in the EIR. OC COMMENT'9 The SJHTC is projected to be operational in 1992. Current projections for the opening of the Corridor are being used to develop a Phase 1 project for construction (i.e., lane configura= tion, interchanges, etc.). If the proposed project will aggravate the projected opening day conditions on the SJHTC, then a discussion should be included in the EIR. RESPONSE, TO OC COMMENT 9 As indicated in Table 3-8 of the Traffic Study (Volume 4 of the EIR), the additional traffic attributable to proposed GPA 85-1(B) on the SJHTC would be very small. A comparison of the first and second columns ("Trend Growth" and "Trend Growth Plus GPA") indicates that increases on the SJHTC attributable to proposed GPA 85-1(B) would be in the order of no more than 3,000 vehicles per day, or less than two percent. OC COMMENT 10 The proposed project significantly intensifies land use in the Newport Center area. Traffic concerns are of foremost -impor- tance. The proposed project calls for extension of University Drive. However, the City of Newport Beach has eliminated this link in their adopted Local Coastal Plan. The city should clearly state whether they will be amending their LCP to add this link. If this is not the city's intent, then the city should concurrently amend their transportation element to delete Univer- sity Drive and add the road improvements necessary in lieu of a University Drive. These actions should be clearly delineated in the EIR. RESPONSE TO OC COMMENT 10 The extension of University Drive is not assumed to be included in the long-range forecasting process or the ICU computations in -1989 and 1993. Thus, the assumptions for the traffic forecasting process are consistent with the adopted LCP. The daily traffic volume attributable to proposed GPA 85-1(B) is approximately 25,300 vehicles more than the daily traffic volume with the General Plan now in effect (about 153,700 trip ends with the GPA, compared to about 128,400 without the GPA). This represents about a 20% increase in traffic at Newport Center and peripheral sites. The portion of the comment about the deletion of University Drive from the City's Circulation Element is noted.