HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 - Protection from Traffic and Density InitiativeCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date:
o��EVUPaR O PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item No.:
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person:
u $ NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
°,uFOwa�� (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250
REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
REVISED
SUBJECT: Analysis of Protection from Traffic and Density Initiative
July 11, 2000
16
Patricia L. Temple
(949) 644 -3228
ACTION: Receive and file, and make copies of the report available to the public and
on the City's web site.
Background
On February 28' the City Council authorized the City Manager to hire an outside consultant (John
Douglas of the Planning Center) to analyze the Protection from Traffic and Density Initiative,
which will appear on the November ballot.
The City Council authorized the analysis for two primary purposes:
1. To assess which of the Statistical Areas will immediately be subject to the Initiative's majority
voter approval upon its passage since they have reached the cumulative thresholds already.
2. To identify which General Plan amendments considered by the City in the last ten years were
subsequent to achieving the cumulative thresholds established in the initiative for each
Statistical Area.
For both of these purposes, we decided to consider information on General Plan amendments
approved during the most recent ten -year period only (1990- 2000). We wanted to keep the analysis
as simple as possible, and to provide the information we will need to determine which future
amendments will require majority voter approval should the Initiative become part of the City
Charter in November.
Summary
The analysis found that the six Statistical Areas listed in Table 1 currently exceed the development
thresholds contained in the Initiative, considering General Plan amendments approved in the past
ten years (factored at the 80% level). Additionally, Statistical Area Kl (Newport Dunes Area) is
very close to the threshold.
The complete analysis prepared by Mr. Douglas is attached, including the detailed spreadsheets
used in the analysis. Table 3 within Mr. Douglas' analysis is the one of greatest interest, as it shows
the chronological accumulation of the development thresholds of the Initiative, and shows when
each of the six Statistical Areas crossed them, based on information from 1990 to 2000.
Table I
Statistical Areas Where Development Thresholds
Have Been Exceeded
Statistical
Area
Neighborhood
Date Threshold Was
Reached
Hl
Old Newport Boulevard
3/97
Ll
Newport Center
8/94
L3
North Ford
9/95
L4
Airpo rt Area
1/99
M3
Pacific View
6/95
M6
Bonita Canyon
11/97
Report Revisions
After the report prepared for the City Council meeting of June 27' was released, proponents of the
Initiative questioned some of the findings made in the report. They specifically identified one
provision of the Initiative that deals with an instance when a General Plan amendment would count
towards the cumulative total. This provision exempts from the cumulative total any project
submitted to the voters. The study did not account for this provision, and incorrectly continued to
count the development authorized by voter approvals in the cumulative totals.
As a result, the study concluded that all amendments subsequent to the one that crossed the
threshold would have to be submitted to the voters. The correct conclusion, based on information
from the past ten years, is that only a project that individually met any of the development
thresholds would have required approval by the electorate. These projects (11 of the 18 approved
after exceeding the initiative's thresholds) are shown shaded in Table 2. If the study had gone
further back in time, however, it is possible that more projects would meet the criteria for
submission to the electorate, as the development allowed by earlier General Plan amendments
would have been included in the cumulative total.
Mr. Douglas has made additional changes to Tables 2 and 3 of the Consultant's Report to correct
some errors in calculations and the Statistical Area assignment of one project.
Analysis of Protection from Traffic and Density Initiative
July 11, 2000
Page 2.
0
Y. J
11
Table 2
Amendments Approved After Development Thresholds Were Exceeded
General Plan
Project Name
Summary
Amendment
92 -1(C)
Old Newport Blvd.
Comprehensive update to the Old Newport Blvd. Specific Plan,
Specific Plan
including an increase to the permitted floor area ratio (FAR) in
the area
91 -2
407 Bolsa
Redesignation from Retail & Service Commercial to Two-
Family Residential 4 units
94 -1
Edwards Theater
Add entitlement for 897 -seat expansion
94 -1(A)
Granville Apartments
Increase entitlement for Administrative, Professional and
Financial Commercial office use by 5,000 s . ft.
94 -2(B)
Fashion Island
Increase entitlement for Retail & Service Commercial by
Expansion
266,000 sq.ft.
95 -2(C)
Corona del Mar Plaza
Redesignate the allowable use from Governmental,
Educational, Institutional Facilities to Retail and Service
Commercial and increase the entitlement by 5,000 sq.ft.
97 -3
Four Season Hotel
Increase the entitlement by 100 hotel rooms
99 -2(E)
Newport Sports
Increase entitlement for Administrative, Professional and
Foundation
Financial Commercial office use by 1,000 s . ft.
95 -1(D)
Fletcher Jones Mercedes
Redesignation of the site from Administrative, Professional and
Financial Commercial to Retail and Service Commercial and
increase the entitlement by 88,000 sq.ft.
96 -1(B)
Temple Bat Yahm
Increase entitlement by 40,000 sq.ft. for expansion of
synagogue com lex
96-3(E)
Dahn Mini-Storage 11
Increase entitlement by 86,000 sq.ft. for mini -stora a facility
98 -1(C)
HEV/Lennar
Increase entitlement by 149,122 sq.ft. for office building and
304 hotel rooms
98 -3(B)
1300 Dove St
Increase Administrative, Professional and Financial
Commercial entitlement by 2,350 sq.ft. to allow expansion of
existing office building
97 -3(E)
Pacific Club
Increase Administrative, Professional and Financial
Commercial entitlement by 15,000 sq.ft. to allow expansion of
existing health club
99 -2(A)
Extended Stay America
Increase Retail and Service Commercial entitlement by 17,890
sq.ft. to allow construction of a 164 -room hotel
94 -1(F)
Pacific View Memorial
Increase the allowable floor area for buildings and mausoleums
Park
by 113,680 sq.ft.
97 -2
Bonita Canyon Planned
Establish pre- annexation entitlements for the Bonita Canyon
Community
ro e
99 -1(E)
Harbor Day School
Increase the allowable floor area by 42,822 sq.ft. to allow
addition of a @Masium
Submitted by:
SHARON Z. WOOD
Assistant City Manager
Attachment: Mr. uglas' Analysis of Initiative
Prepared by:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE
Planning Director
�AIV0
Analysis of Protection from Traffic and Density Initiative
July 11, 2000
Page 3.
Analysis and Findings
Newport Beach Protection from Traffic and Density Initiative
June 19, 2000
Executive summary
The Planning Center has been retained to assist in clarifying the assumptions and
methodology that should be used in analyzing previously approved General Plan
Amendments pursuant to the Protection from Traffic and Density initiative, and
to compile a summary of General Plan amendments approved since November
1990 in each of the City's 46 statistical areas. Under the cumulative provisions of
the initiative, any General Plan amendment in a statistical area where the
threshold has been exceeded would require that the amendment be submitted
for a referendum. This analysis found that the development thresholds specified
in the initiative have been exceeded in 6 of the 46 areas, and one additional area
is just below the threshold. The analysis also found that 18 General Plan
amendments approved in these 6 areas would have required referenda if the
initiative had been in effect.
Background
On February 8th the City Council authorized the City Manager to retain the
services of The Planning Center to analyze the effects of -the Protection from
Traffic and Density Initiative on the planning process in Newport Beach. The
initiative deals with technical issues that would require some interpretation prior
to implementation. The consultant was assigned the task of developing
assumptions and methodology to be used in the preparation of implementation
guidelines if the initiative is adopted by the voters in November, and also to
compile a comprehensive list of General Plan amendments that have been
adopted in the last 10 years. This exercise also helped to clarify areas of
ambiguity so that the initiative's implications can be better understood.
At the City Council meeting of March 28, City staff and the consultant presented
a list of proposed assumptions and methodology to be used in the evaluation
_previous GPAs.
The scope of this assignment did not include an assessment of legal issues or the
merits of the initiative.
Assumptions and Methodology
A key component of this study is determining when an amendment would be
subject to confirmation by the voters. While the thresholds for what constitutes
The Planning Center Page 1
Protection From Traffic and Density Initiative Ana lysis June 19, 2000
•
a " major" amendment are specified in the initiative, the provision requiring
consideration of amendments during the past 10 years requires some
interpretation. In order to determine the effect of the initiative if it is approved,
a comprehensive list of General Plan amendments approved since November
1990 was compiled. The source of this list was the City Planning Department,
with verification from City Council records maintained by the City Clerk.
The next step was to prepare an inventory of the amount of development and
peak hour traffic represented by the amendments for each of the City's statistical
areas. Development was tabulated according to the number of residential
dwelling units and the amount of non - residential floor area. When non-
residential entitlement was stated in a form other than floor area (e.g., hotel
rooms or theater seats), floor area was estimated using building plans or
information presented in staff reports. As required by the initiative, peak hour
trips were determined using the Trip Generation Manual, e Edition (1997)
published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers. Although the initiative would
allow the City to fine -tune trip generation rates up to a 5% difference from ITE,
our analysis used ITE rates whenever available. For land uses not included in
the ITE manual, guidance on the appropriate trip generation rate was provided
by the City Traffic Engineer.
Once all amendments were identified and summarized, a cumulative analysis of
development and traffic was prepared for each statistical area. Since the
initiative does not contain explicit guidance on how some of its provisions should
be interpreted, it was necessary to make some assumptions regarding the intent
of the measure's proponents. For example, the initiative does not address
situations where the allowable use is changed from one type to another (e.g.,
residential to commercial) or where the traffic generated by the new use would
be less than that generated by the existing use. For purposes of this analysis,
when the new use would result in a decrease in peak hour traffic as compared to
the current entitlement, the new development entitlement was not added to the
cumulative totals. No credit was given for land uses eliminated or for a decrease
in peak hour trips.
Table 1 contains a detailed discussion of the assumptions used in the analysis.
Findings
Table 2 contains a summary of all General Plan Land Use Element Amendments
approved since November 1990 in chronological order for each of the 46
statistical areas. (Note: Amendments that did not change the development
entitlement for a specific property were not included in this analysis) The table
shows statistics for land uses added, land uses deleted, peak hour trips
The Planning Center Page 2
Protection From Traffic and Density Initiative Analysis June 19, 2000
a represented by the uses added or deleted, and the net increase (or decrease) in •
dwelling units, non - residential floor area, and peak hour trips.
One noteworthy aspect of the Newport Beach General Plan is its unusual level of
specificity. Unlike many General Plans for other jurisdictions, the Newport Beach
plan identifies the exact development limits for each neighborhood in the city.
As a result, General Plan amendments are sometimes required for even very
small projects if the statistical area is "built out ". For example, GPAs were
required to allow a large single - family lot to be subdivided into two single - family
lots on Bayside Drive [GPA 92 -2(B)] and to allow four homes to be built on the
former Ebell Club site on Balboa Peninsula [GPA 95- 1(E)]. GPAs have also been
required for minor boundary adjustments such as for the Crown Pointe
(Summerhouse) development [GPA 96 -1(C)] and the Shelton residence [GPA 98-
1(D)].
Table 3 shows the cumulative analysis of General Plan amendments by statistical
area. This analysis indicates that since November 1990 the development
thresholds specified in the initiative (i.e., 100 dwelling units, 40,000 square feet
of non - residential floor area, or 100 peak hour trips) have been exceeded in the
following 6 of the City's 46 statistical areas. Therefore any GPA in these areas
would require a referendum if the initiative is approved. In addition, the
threshold has nearly been reached in Statistical Area Kl. •
Statistical Areas Where Development Thresholds
Have Been Exceeded
Statistical
Area
Neighborhood
Date Threshold
Was Reached
H1
Old Newport
Boulevard
3/97
Li
Newport Center
8/94
L3
North Ford
9/95
L4
Airport Area
1/99
M3
Pacific View
6/95
M6
Bonita Can on
11/97
During the 10 -year study period as required by the initiative, there were a total
of 18 General Plan Amendments that were approved after the threshold specified
in the initiative was reached. These are summarized below. Based on the stated
assumptions and methodology, each of these amendments would have required
a referendum prior to final approval had the proposed Charter amendment
already been in effect. •
The Planning Center Page 3
•
0
Protection From Traffic and Density Initiative Analysis June 19, 2000
Amendments Approved After Development Thresholds Were Exceeded
General
Plan
Project Name
Summary
Amendment
92 -1(C)
Old Newport Blvd.
Comprehensive update to the Old Newport Blvd. Specific
Specific Plan
Plan, including an increase to the permitted Floor area
ratio (FAR) in the area
91 2
407 Bolsa
Redesignation from Retail & Service Commercialto Two-
Family Residential 4 units
94-10
Edwards Theater
Add entitlement for 897 -seat expansion
94 -1(A)
Granville Apartments
Increase entitlement for Administrative, Professional
and financial Commercial office use by 5,000 s . ft.
94 -2(B)
Fashion Island
Increase entitlement for Retail & Service Commercial by
Expansion
266,000 sq.ft.
95 -2(C)
Corona del Mar Plaza
Redesignate the allowable use from Govemmental,
Education, Institutional Facilities to Retall and Service
Commercial and increase the entitlement by 5,000 sq.ft.
97-3(D)
Four Seasons Hotel
Increase the entitlement by 100 hotel rooms
99 -2(E)
Newport Sports
Increase entitlement for Administrative, Professional
Foundation
and Financial Commercial office ustby 1,000 s . ft.
95 -1(D)
Fletcher Jones
Redesignation of the site from Administrative,
Mercedes
Professional and Financial Commercial to Retail and
Service Commercial and increase the entitlement by
88,000 sq.ft.
96 -1(B)
Temple Bat Yahm
Increase entitlement by 40,000 sq.ft. for expansion of
synagogue com lex
96 -3(E)
Dahn Mini - Storage II
Increase entitlement by 86,000 sq.ft. for mini - storage
facilitv
98 -1(C)
HEV /Lennar
Increase entitlement by 149,122 sq.ft. for office building
and 304 hotel rooms
98 -3(B)
1300 Dove St
Increase Administrative, Professional and Financial
Commercial entitlement by 2,350 sq.ft. to allow
expansion of existing office building
97 -3(E)
Pacific Club
Increase Administrative, Professional and Financial
Commercial entitlement by 15,000 sq.ft. to allow
expansion of existing health club
99 -2(A)
Extended Stay
Increase Retail and Service Commercial entitlement by
America
17,890 sq.ft. to allow construction of a 164 -room hotel
94 -1(F)
Pacific View Memorial
Increase the allowable floor area for buildings and
Park
mausoleums by 113,680 sq.ft.
97 -2
Bonita Canyon
Establish pre- annexation entitlements for the Bonita
Planned Community
Canyon property
99 -1(E)
Harbor Day School
Increase the allowable floor area by 42,822 sq.ft. to
allow addition of a gymnasium
Conclusions
This analysis has examined the Protection from Traffic and Density initiative and
identified assumptions and methodology to determine the anticipated impacts of
The Planning Center Page 4
Protection From Traffic and Density Initiative Ana lysis
June 19, 2000
j the initiative if approved by the voters. Based on these assumptions, a list of
General Plan Amendments approved since November 1990 has been compiled
and a determination made of the amendments that were approved after the
development threshold was reached in each of the City's statistical areas. This
analysis found that 6 of the City's 46 statistical areas have reached the
development threshold specified in the initiative, and 18 amendments were
approved after the threshold was reached.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1 — Map of Statistical Areas
Table 1 — Assumptions and Methodology
Table 2 — General Plan Amendment Summary
Table 3 — General Plan Amendment Cumulative Analysis
P: \CNB -04 \Products \Reports\Council report 2 revised 6- 19.doc
The Planning Center
•
0
��'` s 'J �i � ` �V .: !.. yr � M � �, /5��� ° ✓'"` � "' �; �y ����� �Yb n icy
v"!Co
lie
C
Q
s
h
aA
Q R u
y R c
..r R
L, L
7 H
N E
h
Q w
C
O
i+
u
L
Pn
u
a
e
0
0
0
O
N
as
z
U
9
0
A
p
v
C
s
E
E
p
O
_
a
n
3
y
s
o
c
A
v
o
u
o f
T
s
v m
E c
y
o Y c
Q- m m
3
v
-y a u
m
ti
N
cd
d
A F
•c
�
,�
W dl
�
C
•-
.N.
o
�=
dsa
�o.a
��s
s
•o A'c
o
N
n,
m,c
°
o
E s
v v
o•
FU., c° s F`-
•a„°
v
3 y
c
m
c
'v
E H
A
E
•
t
O
� N
E
N V
�«
3 m
E
k `v �
v«
E `�
��
m
E
v
o
v"
a- N
c
v
Y.
v
v
aci
s
°•
a
`-'
Q°
m> '° v
o>
v°
m
`p
sv,
•"m°sv..
On
v
[i
r
c
�`a
o°
c
m
o 3 a•Oi v
c
A °u: `-°
c 3
,�
y
>
,y
o
c
•_
u
a
c
u
m
.0 c
3 u
[r a
v :: p v
'o
m m
v;
s°
'j
a+
^�
o
o
°'
m Cu •E =
a
c N E
u E
> >�
H
'C
t>>
v v
v
v
L 'r
V
N p
O
Q
'C
O
m C
'O
O. M
c
`
t
O
v W
6 iE
Y v
c O v
°-
N
t D
C �^
E a
v L
a.
a
o
E o
°c°
o °1
- 'O
>?
o A o
o
m v
c
v o
O
v
E c
o f
Y
c v
`vi
o
>
c
` m
w u=
a m
v
u w
u v
0
m
E
A
to
u�
y
;:-. >
,a
O
o v
G_
�. `= v e0
u«
H
m
v
`N•^'°O
A
•�
3
u
m"
E
`' s
'..
.: O .? o o' m
° a
v;
'O v
m
c •v
c `°
E
`°
.c. N
m p
a v a c
.-°'
v •«
c
•- '°
a
m
c
.E
u
t
a
.y s
v y T> m •N
a E E
OE a.E
d
to
.E
°o=FaYNO
cv�u
voc
°�'a�
°Eyv•�s.�
4^ v v c
u
to
U
E
.0
O v
G«
v
N N
O
E
N
o
m
.�
c E
.E
=o .« s v "'
•`
c .0 3
.« v
u
u
is
N_
s
m
.>o.
c
.`7v
`•
c
°
v
s c
'c 'v °�' 0 c
y
'yO y
2
E °o
E
v
'-
a'o
cu
Y c .. 3 A
A v a
m
m
v s
•°
u
v
•o
•v
e,-
a
o
A
o N iy
v
E
u
u m
aci o
03
v
E "
o
E
•x
ER-
r
v >
o
v n O
F
o F c
°
i
i
[E
to to
T
4=. 'U
v
O
.-
F
o A C in
y
o
t
A
a
u E y
o
3 m
Zm
Ovn�
a
m
N
� U
.�.
R
•C
O
.t...
°
N
s
� �
d
0
M'
C
p
s
A O
u
d
v
m
v
3 'O •p
`
a
o -v
_
•C
N
N v
GI
m>
>
m lO
•c
N
o
v
y
u v
c«
c
m
E
c °-
Op
O
ov
�-
o'°
`o oom
a
o
•v
= E
_a
v
u
O
y
�y
y
�a
y
v
D
Q
a
U •v° u A
a
m
m a
c e
uO .E
u
a
e
0
0
0
O
N
as
z
U
9
0
m
E
E
C q
d
r E� °ea
w o o�
m (D
E z m
Q O �
c
m U
a
E
d
CD
0
pppp
a
a
C
�
R
a
°
ASS
ff
4
a�
s
3i
np<
4
Wx8
r
$
8$
+R
xR
$
E4E�
g4ccg�BRq
cc
�&
g
Igg
°q$
$
JI$¢g$E`x
8edi
p� €{
pLg
S45
§�
�¢
lE
R
aP
gg�i�EE
ii
N
m
&g
a
35
8
ig
a
b
y(
;
�
y
a'
m'
8
u
mo
R
E
E
3
N y1
m e
J C8"
co
Q Ez�
tea;,
c L
N U
FL
A
d
c
a,
C7
�
R
2
9
N
s
4
§
i
a
; n T
ery
E•
!
3
3
3
8
4
3
2
t
!
t
!
$
j E
i
�
e
$
�
!{
Ai
Q
_s
•;.
Z.
Q
I{
Q
8
n
a9a
„
�
i1
R
6
i
i
aSa
@fig
$�3�
g
a
;9
E
yy
"¢
fl
�
yg
j$£
ig
6
69
b[
P
Y F
yygg
$$pp
JJ
33gE
aa
6j
gjz
s
3
s
a
g
G
3
g
g
3
c
a
c
g
g
3
c
e
e
g
c
G
s
A
E
E
y
d m
N E m °o
W r O N
C
c
a "
m
d
C
8
� g o
N 4 E $ o
i
9 5
E gees x,�
y!g ' E
E
.�
a °sa @�ms;a
$ga��ta _ye`c °qi�
i K
N
17
3
9_
i
3
°
$
Man
E
8
R
s"
3
�
l,pe
@
a
::
a
a
€a8
89
g�
Jill-
3
°
e
a
4£
a
a
s
all
a
a
Tag
Q'
Y.
4
STee
5
R
QS,
d d,
a
_
➢
3�E
€
d
A
I
a
P
F
G
ell
RIF
Be
a
a
•Hpvan�aE�
€�fil6
$'3
a
3
6
S
!
ji
1
1
G
.a
9
a
e
e
3
a
'E
&
w
3
6
e
ail
om
d
3
a
@
JUL
s4
8
� g o
N 4 E $ o
i
9 5
E gees x,�
y!g ' E
E
.�
a °sa @�ms;a
$ga��ta _ye`c °qi�
2
cc
£
C
\
J
w§
m §
�]
E
k
IL
�
�
k
o
z
#
77 !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ,
, !
! ,
, ,
, ,
,
f�{
} }
}{
!)
|•| ■
\
■,§ |
\ }
}!t \
| \
{ \
(
|!f 7
7§I {
2!§| )
) (
!•: G
G� |
| !
\ 2
!)0 !
!
]
kk \
\.|!
�
k
}
2
�
f
«
$
E
LU
E
�]
J
m
IL
)
k
§■ cc
f\
�
/
)
k
|
)�
:ORzo
�!
$!!
{�.
I
;!�
;!
$;
ga
C
/
{ §2|
\)
J|!
13
!
\k,
§ |§
!!
!
777
§ia
222,`;.1
«
e
|
e
■
f
|77
/
}
m
2m
{
�
%
|
;§
\
!#
!
-�
*
!
�£
2
k
\
)
!
|
!
t
E
\
!
|
!
f
I
!
k
-
°.
!
!
!
)
k
|
!
-
At
-
;
At
I ■
§
)
)
}
§
:§
;
!
;
G
/
)
k
|
N
T
is
C
a
CD
R
7
CO
V
J
m E
E
a
a
m
L
d
d
L
A
M
O
0 n
a
3
z C
O
U
T
a�
0
z°
z°
z
z°
z°
z°
z
z°
z°
z°
z
$
x
IM
ue
d
0
pqq ~
p
p
Z
N
00 0
W
�
N
N
7
2
Y q
O
O
N
IV
d _R
df
IL
0 C
m
O
O
O
N
C
o-
N
M
M
N
$ LL
z
Z
C ?
a
n
d
a
8
$rsq�.E
2A
W
°
s
gags
a�
S�V
&zd#��
c
ca om
Y
M
m
Y
W
w
i
m
a
m
w
o
a
w
w
m
W m
m Q
a
3
3
"a
A
3
a
3 a
d E
pN
M
r
W
N
N
l7
m
N
0
N
Z
W
W
w
W
W
W
m
W
c
y
N
Y
Q
2
0
�
N�
IM
W
W
EE
o
,L;
Z
d
LL
L
c
d
c
U
n
?
d
rn
Z
b
m
>
d
c
d
c
d
c
S;
d
d
d
d
X
m
o
3
m
E
z
z
z
z
v
v'
Z°
z
z°
M
u4
z°
x
I
W
d
~
N
6
O
VO
d
w
z
a
C
_
y
Z
3
Y
d
a
N
N
q
Cd
E
a
a
N
.N
N
C
Q
cc
7
E
M �
W r
J �
m c
d
E
Q
C
m
IL
L
d
C
,d
V
L
N
m c
GO c
o a
O N
CL
2 c
O A
w
9 �
O
9
0
F „U
W
e
C
m
W
O
O
jr'
O
a
a
N
tV
Y
O
Z LL
Z w
O
fO
f0
m
T
N
O
N
N
O
a
a
m
N
N
W L
q
N
Of
a
c
O
N
Z
q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
0
0
0
C
N
E
_
§
-E CD
n r�
P
g m
c g
LL
p
c6
n o
E
c.,
LL
vcpp
89
p
�aWV
lo`1'OO
o °._.gLL
a'
y,c
me E
a
w s
°¢
5 3�
o n
c c
LL Y
C
uo
m g
u mn
�q
g
n o
w
'9
trio
F
p��F(i
Y b
o
$5 d
yy '$
p°d
W
g
ng
c Fs
g2Et8
� ?+
$8ii�i
m<
g5 bl
y$
9
-
�ry5�
`Y3P
2a,-
Nz
Woo
C.�
a
0
N
w
T
T
O1
°1
W
W
W
W
W
m
dl
K
Y
A
�
a
a
W
W
Om
fOm
Z
m
W
0
W
W
W
W
W�
m
O
�
s
c_d
LL
°
C
E
L
L
o
d d
d
Q
U
LLi
Pr °.&
m
N
'E
.o
vU
ti c
0 Y
Eo
0
m W
O
m�li
E
U
O O
mU'mz
O d
m Y
mtm
U
U
O
C) Y
F
W N
F
Ix
—
Cc
C
d
U
o
n
m
C
m
LLv
Q
W
L
L
3 =
m
Z
J
h
J
a
Y
LL
N
O
C
Y
7
Q
N
N
T
is
C
Q
N
E
M 3
U
J d
m aE
C
d
E
Q
is
a
L
d
C
,d
V
s
V
d
m O
O
0 N
a
� N
2 C
O �
U
W
9 ti
0
g
}�
Z
z
Z
Z
Z
F�3
I1I��m
G
O
fO
w
N
w
O
O
O
O
IO
b
m
Y
1 f
W
O
qq
m 0
p
1<p
W
N
n
W
O
m
W
W
W
N
N
00
j
C 0
�W�yyw
QO
m
O
2 LL
,
p
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
U
m g
K c
u`Vi
f0
YN
�D
6 F
w
W
w
p
N
N
O
O
O
O
N
O
0
Y
N
Y
O
Z
v
2
LL
� ?
h
5
m q
LL
L. O
LL q
U O
LL
m E
3
- cv
K
p
w
m
WW
w
W
W
w
m
W
O
O
1W°
Ol
T
W
W
W
o
0
0
0
0
W �
a
a
v
$ m
E
0
U
1
LL
qo
s�
y J
m
O�
S
J-6>mO
Z
0 E
2
c
�
Z d
Z .'..
W
Z 2
Z-
Y
Y
Z
Z
4 i
2
Z
c°
Z
m
cZ
Z
J
J_
x
W
m
e
N
$
°
s
z
s
s
a
a
3
Um
a
$
Z�
0
e
��L
N
a
v
m
L
d
U
d
m
i
A
C
L
k
a
0
N
d
fi
c
n
0
'u
p
O
d
O
0
d
O
m
L
8
°c
N
m
w
a
n
0
cm
q
E
a
U'
7 -10 -2000 4 :26PM FROM
Clarence Turner,
Former Mayor
Newport Beach
Tom Edwards,
Former Mayor
Newport Reach
Marian Bergeson
Bob Wynn.
Former City Manager
Walt Howald, Member,
Governing Board Coast
Community Collage District
Jim Desoom.
Former Newport Mesa
School Board Chairman
Jan Debny.
City Councilmember.
City of Newport Beach
Lula Halfacre.
Smell Business Owner
Bin Hamilton.
Small Business owner
Citizens
for
Traffic Solutions
July 10, 2000
Mayor John Noyes
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
M
"RECEIVED AFTER AG ND
PRINTED" % - I c�
Re: Staff Report: Analysis of Protection from Traffic and Density
Initiative
Dear Mayor Noyes:
With regards to the staff report titled "Analysis of Protection from Traffic and
Density initiative," we hereby request that the city continue review for two
weeks in order for additional staff analysis to be completed. The report as
reviewed to date in our belief needs further analysis.
We look forward to working with you as this and other items come before the
city council.
Regards,
Clarence Turner
Former Mayor
Homer Bludau
Bob Wynn
Former City Manager
1280 Rican, Suite B9SS3 Newport Beech. CA 92660 949/262.7629
Paid for by Citizens For Tralne Saludom,loo pmd'arg.
cc:
Y.-
f�
W
�m
>
coo
UJI
° o
LJ
i�
(�
p
�r
0
Homer Bludau
Bob Wynn
Former City Manager
1280 Rican, Suite B9SS3 Newport Beech. CA 92660 949/262.7629
Paid for by Citizens For Tralne Saludom,loo pmd'arg.
Here is what would have happened if Greenlight had been in effect for the last ten years,
and the City Council had decided to start with a clean slate - -- not accumulating anything from before 1990
John Douglas's raw data
Area GPA Name
-- - - - -
-- 100 %---
- - - - --
-----------
- - - - -- 80 %-----------
- -
- - --
Vote?
D.U.
Sqft
Trips
D.U. To„i
Sqft
Told,
Trips
Ta j
B5
91 -3A 3008 -3012 W. Balboa Blvd.
3
-5,500
-13
2
0
0
88 -2E St. James Church
0
6,504
-20
0 2
5,203
5.203
0
97 -3A 3312 -3336 Via Lido
12
- 11,573
-24
10 12
0
5.203
0
D1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
98 -1A Bay Shores Inn .
-2
2,100
1
0
1,680
1
D3
94 -1D Central Balboa Specific Plan
40
0
0
32
0
0
95 -1E Ebell Club
4
-4200
0
3 35
0
0
E3
89 -2H Balboa Island Fire Station
0
2,275
14
0
1,820
11
Hl
92 -1C Old Nwpt. Blvd. Specific Plan 147
50,339
154
Vote
Vote
Vote
Yes
J1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95 -2E Lutheran Church
0
30,000
22
0
24,000
18
J6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
89 -2A Birch/Mesaproperties
-4
25,214
35
0
20,171
28
Kl
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
92 -2C Newport Landing Sr. Housing
120
0
0
Vote
Yes
L1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
91 -1C Library Exchange
0
15,000
106
Vote
Yes
93 -21) Family Fitness Center
0
3,805
16
0
3,044
13
94 -1B Edwards Theater
0
31,598
63
0
25,278
21.122
50
63
94 -1A Granville Apartments
0
5,000
8
0
4,000
32,322
6
69
94 -213 Fashion Island Expansion
0
266,000
995
Vote
32.322
Vote
69
Yes
95 -2C Corona del Mar Plaza
0
5,000
23
0
4,000
36,322
18
17
97 -31) Four Seasons Hotel
0
59,436
42
Vote
36,322
83
Yes
99 -2E Newport Sports Collection
0
1,000
2
0
800
37.122
2
g9
L2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
91 -3C Texaco Station
0
300
29
0
240
23
L3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
93 -313 Pac Tel - -- Dahn Mini- storage
0
90,600
-46
Vote
Yes
93 -2A Aeronutronic to residential
500 -
1,331,000 -1,145
Vote
Yes
95 -1D Fletcher Jones
0
88,000
560
Vote
Vote
Yes
96 -1B Temple Daughter of the Sea
0
40,000
126
Vote
Yes
96 -3E Dahn Mini - storage II
0
86,000
22
Vote
Yes
L4
90 -3A Sheraton Hotel
0
- 87,638
45
0
0
36
93 -2E Pascal's Restaurant
0
1,080
8
0
864
s64
6
42
98 -1B 1401 Dove
0
26,122
41
0
20,898
21.762
33
75
98 -1C HEV /Lennar
0
149,122
17
Vote
21.762
75
Yes
98 -313 1300 Dove
0
2,350
4
0
1,880,
23,642
3
78
97 -3E Pacific Club
0
15,000
65
23.642
Vote
N
Yes!
99 -2A Extended Stay America
0
17,890
-2,248
Vote
23.642
is
Yes!
M3
94 -1F Pacific View Memorial Park
0
113,680
0
Vote
Yes
99 -1E Harbor Day School
0
42,822
0
Vote
Yes
Amendments not shown give insignificant 80% totals
(that is, less than 1/16 of threshold).