Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
22.91 IRVINE COAST LCP
111111111 lill 11111111111111111111111111 lill III *NEW FILE* 22.91 IRVINE COAST LCP OU NTV CDP F a i ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLANNING all NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA (714) 834,1643 October 21, 1981 RECEIVED Phitn"�;! OCT 2 0 1981�- y`r' i 4� w CA'T. C4` MURRAY STORM DIRECTOR, EMA I ROBERT G. FISHEn TOR OF PLANNING I LING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4040 A ANA, CA 02702 FILE LCP-Irvine Coast Orange County Board of Supervisors 10 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, California SUBJECT: Irvine Coast: Local Coastal Program and General Plan Amendment TOP 80-4 (District 5). SYNOPSIS: The California Coastal Commission has denied the Irvine Coast Land Use Plan as approved by your Board on May 6, 1981 and has approved a modified version, with the exception of the downgrading of Sand Canyon Avenue and a reduction in commercial development intensity, the modifications are substantially in conformance with those which were fount to be the sense of the Board on June 17, 1981. The Planning Commission has recommended your approval of the modified version of the plan. Members of the Board of Supervisors: The Local Coastal Program for the Trvine Coast Planning Unit was approved by your Board at public hearings on December 17, 1980 and May 6, 1981 and was subsequently transmitted to the State Coastal Commission for certlfl- cation. The Land Use Plan (TOP Phase II) was accepted for consideration by the Coastal Commission. however, the Commission did not accept the ImplomentaLion Program (LCP Phase ITT) because of the lack of post ccrtiff- cation procedures. 'these ary currently under preparation. On .tune 17, 1981, in responso to Coastal Commission staff concerns regarding the Land Use Plan, the Supervisor from the Fifth District presented suggested modifications to your Board. 'These were found to he the. "sense of the board" by GeAolution No. 81-964 and woro subsequently transmitted to the CoasLal Commission. On July 21, 1981, the Coastal Commission denied the Land Use Plan as originally submitted by the County and approved a modified version. The attached document (Attachment 1) incorporates the modifications made to the Land Use Plan. The major modifications are as follows; Orange County Board of Supervisors Page Two 1. Changes to the dedication program including, among other things, provisions for public recreation trail casements prior to fee dedi- cation of parcels and a new formula, for dedication phasing (Pages IV-1 through IV-6). 2. Downgrading of Sand Canyon Avenue from a four -lane arterial highway to a two-lane highway (Pages IV-35 through IV-36 and Exhibits IV-9 and IV-10). 3. Reduction in development intensity of the visitor -serving commercial site at Sand Canyon Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway (Pages IV-23 through IV-24). 4. A new policy package for Environmentally Sensitive habitat Areas (Pages TV-10 through IV-12). 5. Revisions to the Low Density Residential grading policies (Pages 1V-30 through 1V-31). All of these modifications, except Ttem 2, the downgrading of Sand Canyon Avenue, and Item 3, the reduction of the development intensity of the Sand Canyon Avenue visitor. -serving commercial site, pre substantially in con- formance with the proposed modifications found 'to be the "sense of the Board" on June 17, 1981. Although the downgrading of Sand Canyon Avenue is not consistent with EMA'projections of need and will cause what- we believe to be unnecessary congestion on Pacific Coast- Highway, there will be oppo2tunities before the road is built to apply to the Coastal Commission for an amendment. Sand Canyon Avenue will be phased with later develop- ment in the Irvine Coast, and future conditions may enhance our ability to convince the Commission of the need for four Lanes. In this regard, the sample resolution proposed for adoption below provides for the reclassifi- cation of Sand Canyon Avenue from a Primary Arterial Highway to a Commuter Highway (with Right -of -Way Reserve designation) from Pacific Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road. The Right -of -Way Reserve designation will assure the reservation of adequate right-of-way for a wider road. Because of the Coastal Commission's reduction in the number of .Lanes for S,od Canyon Avem.te, a change in Condition 10 to the Irvine Coast Plan is c"nsidered necessary at this time. This condition was adopted by resolution No. 80-2085 as a condition on the General Plan Amendment for the Irvine Coast on December 17, 1980, but is not a part of the Local'Coastal Program (i.e. not subject to Coastal Commission approval). Resolution No. 81-944 found a modified Condition 10 to be the "sense of the Board" on June 17, 1981. Condition 10 as included in Resolution No. 81-944 is shown on Attachment 2. A recommended new Condition 10 is shown on Attachment 3. The new condition would basically call for the Irvine Company to provide right -of. -way for four lanes and grade and construct two lanes. V Orange County Board of Supervisors Page Three Right--of-way for four lanes would he desirable in the event at some time in the future four lanes are approved based on travel demand. In the event four lanes are constructed, there would be a shared responsibility between the Irvine Company, County and State under the proposed condition. Resolution No. 81-944 (Juno 17, 198t) also found modifications to four other conditions of Resolution No. 80-2085 to be the "sense of the Board". These are Condition 3 involving an Annual Monitoring Program, Condition 11 involving dedication of righ(-Of-way for the San Joaquin Hills Transporta- tion Corridor, Condition J2 involving the establishment of the alignment for the inland extension of Pelican lull Road and Condition 13 involving construction of the inland extension of Pelican Bill. Road. 'These proposed modified conditions are shown on Attachment 2. On October G, 1981, the Planning Commission considered the modified version of the Irvine Coast Land Use Plan and related General Plan Amendment- and recom- mended adoption by your Board and submittal to the Coastal Commission for final certification. Subsequent to the Planning Commission action, communication with the Coastal Commission staff has revealed two nonsuhstantive tent changes which are r"commended to Make the Land Use Plan consistent- with the Coastal Commission's approval conditions. 'these involved the resource value of areas to he developed and dedicated for open space, and are indicated in script on Page IV-5 of Attachment 1, Paragraphs AW-c (1) and (2). Attached is a sample resolution (Attachment 4) which, if adopted by your Board, will: (1) make environmental findings, (2) approve the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program ns modified by the California Coastal Com- mission, (3) amend the Circulation Klement of the General Plan to reclassify Sand Canyon Avenue from a Primary Arterial Highway to a Commuter highway (with Right-of-way Reserve designation) between Pacific, Coast highway and San Joaquin hills Road and (4) modify Conditions 3, 10, 11. 12 and 13 of Resolution No. 80-2085. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA: Local Coastal Programs are statutorily exempt from CEQA requirements pursuant to Section 20180.0, Division 13, of the Public Resources Code. however, KIR 237 was prepared for the Irvine Coast Plnnning Unit LCP and General Plan Amendment (LCP 80-4) and was Certified by your Board on December 17, 1980. The Environmental. Nnangement Agency has reviewed the above mentioned modifications in light of the information contained in Certified KTR 237. An explanation of the modifications, in the same order as listed above, follows: A Orange County Board of Supervisors Page Four 1. The dedication program constitutes a Policy change with no adverse environmental Lmpacts. 2. The downgrading of Sand Canyon Avenue was discussed in the California Coastal Commission's letter commenting on the contents of Draft EIR 237 dated October 28, 1980. The County responded by indicating that the environmental impacts associated with the construction of Sand Canyon Avenue will be evaluated along with future levels of project review. 3. The reduction in intensity of visitor -serving commercial use at Sand Canyon Avenue and Pacific Coast• highway is considered a positive environmental impact. The EIR, in this case, provides a worst case analysis. 4. A now policy package for environmentally sensitive habitat areas consitutes a policy change with no adverse environmental impacts. 5. Revisions to the Low Density RcsLdential Grading policies constitutes a Policy change with no adverse environmental impacts. 'Phu above discuss Lon indicates that the modifications to the frvine Coast LCP will either have no adverse environmental impacts or have been discussed Previously in Certified EIR 237, The attached sample resolution contains recommended environmental findings. RECOMMENDA770N: Adopt Resolution, Respectfully submitted, M. Storm, Director KCW/RLR:jbc Winter: 5387 Attachments: 1. Modified Land Use Plan. 2. Conditions 3, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of Resolution 81-944. 3. Propomvd now Condition 10. 4. Sample Resolution. (", The following conditions of LCP approval set forth in Resolution 80-2085, beginning on Page 4 are amended to read as follows: 3. An Annual Montor•ing Report shall be prepared by the developer for the review by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, identifying the amount and type of construction planned, under construction and/or completed in the year being monitored. It is the intent of the County to propose additional regulatory action in the event that significant continuous trends toward fiscal/infrastructure imbalances occur. 10. Concurrent with the approval of any area plans, tentative tract maps or other implementing regulations for areas inland of Pacific Coast Highway (except those on Laguna Canyon Road), The Irvine Company, or its successors or assigns, shall prepare a phasing program which shall provide for the construction of ultimate street improve- ments in the Irvine Coast area for Pelican Hill Road as a major arterial highway and Sand Canyon Avenue as a primary arterial highway, in a timely manner meeting the approval of the Director/EMA. Relative to Sand Canyon Avenue within the Irvine Coast area, The Irvine Company, its successors or assigns, shall provide the right-of-way and grading for four lanes and construction of two travel lanes including, where required, parking lane, curb, gutter and median improvements; the County and the State of California shall construct two travel lanes including, where required, parking lane, curb, gutter and sidewalk and median improvements commensurate with the use of the road by visitors to Crystal Cove State Park. Notwithstanding the above provisions, The Irvine Company shall only be responsible for right-of-way dedication, grading and construction of two (2) travel lanes of Sand Canyon Avenue where the alignment of said road forms the boundary between Irvine Company property and public property. The Irvine Company shall not be responsible for right-of-way dedication, grading and construction of -Sand Canyon Avenue where the alignment of said road is located totally within public property. Relative to Pelican Hill Road within the Irvine Coast area, The Irvine Company, its successors or assigns, shall be responsible for providing the right-of-way, grading an the construction of six (6) travel lanes including, when required, parking lane, curb, gutter and median improvements. 11. Concurrent with the recordation of the first subdivision map in the Irvine Coast area, The Irvine Company, its successors or assigns, will offer to dedicate the ultimate right-of-way for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor between Sand Canyon Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard. For development within the Irvine Coast area, The Irvine Company, its successors or assigns, shall have no further responsibility with regard to the construction of said corridor. 12. Prior to the recordation of the first' subdivision map inland of Pacific Coast Highway, The Irvine Company, its successors or assigns, shall establish a road alignment to connect Pelican Hill Road within the Coastal area to the vicinity of Bonita Canyon Road and MacArthur Boulevard. 13. Prior to issuance of the building permit for the one -hundred and first (101st) single family residence inland of Pacific Coast Highway or the issuance of the building permit for the three -hundred and fifty-first (351st) jrotel or motel room (and directly related suoport facilities not to exceed 26,000 sq.ft), the developers shall construct two (2) travel lanes of the new inland road as defined in 12 above. CONDITIONS 3, 10, 11, 12, AND 13 OF RGSOLU'rION NO. 81-944 ATTACHMEN,r 2 10. Concurrent with the approval of any area plans, tentative tract maps or other implementing regulations for areas inland Of Pacific Coast Highway (except those on Laguna Canyon Road), The Irvine Company, or its successors or assigns, shall prepare a phasing program which shall provide for the construction of ultimate street improvements in the Irvine Coast area for Pelican Hill Road as a major arterial highway and Sand Canyon Avenue as a primary arterial highway, in a timely manner meeting the approval of the Director./rMA. a. Relative to Sand Canyon Avenue within the Irvine Coast area, The Irvine Company, its successors or assigns, shall provide the right-of-way within its ownership for four lanes and grading and construction of two travel lanes including, where required, parking lanes, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and median improvements. If, at the time that Sand Canyon Avenue imple- mentation within the Irvine Coast commences, the Orange County General Plan and Local Coastal Program are amended to provide for four (4) travel .lanes for Sand Canyon Avenue, The Irvine Company, its successors or assigns, shall provide right-of-way within its ownership and grading for four (4) travel lanes and construction of two (2) travel lanes including, where required, parking lanes, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and median improvements; the County and the State,of California shall construct two travel lanes including, where required, parking lanes, curb, gutter and sidewalk and median improvements commensurate with the use of the road by visitors to CrvsLnl Cove Slate Park. Notwithstanding the above Provisions for a two (2) or four (4) lane road, The Irvine Company shall only be responsible for rig;hL-oC-way dedication, grading and construction of two (2) travel lanes of Sand Canyon Avenue where the alignment of said road forms the boundary between Irvine Company property and public properly. The Irvine Company shall not be responsible for right-of-way dedication, grading and construction of Sand Canyon Avenue where the alignment of said road is located totally hithin public property. b. Relative to Pelican Hilt Road within the Irvine Coast area, The Irvine Company, its successors or assigns, shall be responsible for providing the righL-of-way, grading and the construction of six (6) travel lanes including, when required, parking; lanes, curb, gutter and median improvements. J ATTACHMENT 3 SAMPLE RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTS' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS I RV I NI: COAST LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM October 21, 1981 n On motion of duly seconded and carried, Lhe following Resolution was adopLcd: WHEREAS, the County of Orange has submitted to the California Coastal Commission the Land Use Plan portion of the Local Coastal Program for the Irvine Coast Planning Unit Ln accordance with Lhe Public Resources Code; and WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission has denied the submitted version and approved a modified version of the nand Use Plan; and MIEREAS, the County of Orange on ,tune 17, 1981 and Jul;; 13, 1981 and Lhe California Coastal Commission on .tune 18, 1981 and .fitly 21, 1981 have held public meetings on the SuhmitLed Land Use flan and propnHvd modifica- Lions; and WHEREAS, Lhe Land Use Plan must be constsLent with Lhe various elements of the Orange County General Plan.includiug LIo: Latin Use and Circulation Elements; and WHEREAS,.Lhu Environmental Management Agency has evaluated the modified Land Use Plan; and MIEREAS, certain vondiLluns adapted in the approval of Conernl Plan Land Use Element Amendment LCP 80-4 by Resolution No. 80-2085 (not apart of the LCP), Decomher 17, 198n, are arlocLed by the modified Land Use Plan; and WHEREAS, SecLion 20180.9, Division 13, of the Public Resources Code suunLorily exempts Local Coastnl Programs from CEQA rvquirvmenLn. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Lhis Board finds: 1. All mitigatton measures contained in Draft ErR 237 with atLendnnt staff report, all 9001r:, policies, and dvvelopmenL guidelines contained in the Land Use Element and Scenic highways Element of the Orange- County General Plan, the Orange County 'Zoning Code and Cho California Coastal Act of 1976 as deemed reasonable and feasible, are appropriate mitigation measures for Lhe proposed General Plan Amendments and Local Coastal Program (LCP; 1 of 5 ATTACHMENT 4 n 2. Changes or niternaLiVes.havc been required in or incorporated into the proposed Ceneral Plan Amendment (LCP 80-4), Irvine Coast., either In design or by condition or approval which mitigate or avoid the signi.Eieant environmental effects no gculogy/soils, hydrology/drainage, biological resources, cultural/scientific resources, air quality, Lrafric/circulation, noise, acsLheLics, public servfvvsluLIIftips, and consistency with the General. Plan Clements and identified acts, plans, and 'Zoning Code ordinances as identified in proposed Final C1R 237 and accompanying staff report; 3. Proposed Final RIR 237 is complete and adequately addresses the environmental effects or the proposed project, contains all Feasible miti- gation measures to be incorporated into the Irvine Coast- Ceneral Plan Amend- menL (LCI' 80-4), has bean considered in this Board's actinns on the project; said proposed Final KJR consists of the following elements: (a) Draft CTR 237. „ (b) The MM Eonmenlat Analysis Division (EAU) Report dated Nnvcmhur 18, 1980 (c•) The Minutes of the: Planning Commission hearings on this project. (d) The vnMMunivaLloas 'Kl ached to the Environmental Analysis Division Report dated November 18, 1980 as referenced in Section V, Pages 11-12. (e) Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 80-2085 dated December 17, 1980. BE IT FVRTHER RESOLVED, that this Board finds that: I. The Land Use Plan, ddtcd July 21, 1981, is consistent with the policies or Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act or 1076; 2. The Open Space Dedication Program contained in said Plan offsets potential adverse environmental Impacts which ;are not otherwise mitigated; and 3. On balance, the provisions of said flan are the MM prutecLive nl natural resources and recreational opponnniCivs. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that valuable social and public henviits will floor from imblementaLJon of the Land llsc flan, which benefits include the dedication and preservation of'lnrgo areas or open space for public purl: purposes, the development or the remaining lands in an cnvironmentnlly 2 of 5 sensitive manner at relatively low densities and with a combination of uses that wilt enhance the recreational and housing opportunities of the region and the completion of a needed transportation system. t, lit IT FURTIPIR RESOLVED, that this Board approves the document referenced a.; the land Use Plan of Lhe Local Coastal Program for the Irvine Coast Plan- ning Unit and directs Lhe Environmental Management Agency to transmit. same to Lhe California Coastal Commission for final cert.LfLeation. BE IT PUR'I'IIER RESOLVED, Lhut the Director of the Environmental Management Agency or his designee is authorized to reptcsenL Chc County of Orange at. necessary prncoodfngs on the land Use Plan. BE 1T FURTHER RESOLVED, that. the Circulation Element. or the Orange County General Plan is hereby amended to classify Sand Canyon Avenue as a commuter highway (Eight of way Reserve designation attached) between Pacific coast Highway and San Joaquin hills Road. OF IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Conditions 3, 10, 11, 12 and 13 on Pages 4, 5, and 6 of Resolution No. 80-2085 (not a part of Lho LCP), dated December 17, 1980, are amended to road as follows: 3. An Annual Monitoring Report shall he prepared by the developer for the review by Lhe Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, identifying Lhe amount and Lype of construction planned, under construction and/or com- pleted in the year being monitored. It is Lhe ontenL of the County to pro- pose additional regulatnry action in the event that significant continuous trends toward fiscal/Lnfrastructure imbalances occur. 10. Concurrent with Lhe approval or any area plans, tentative tract mops or other implementing regulations for areas inland nr Pacific Coast: Highway (except. those on Laguna Canyon Road), Lhe Irvine Company, or its sucessors or assigns, shall prepare a phasing program which shall provide for the c,ntslruetNO of ultimate sLreer improvcmenl's in Lhe Irvine Coast area for Pelican Hill Road as a major arLerint highway and Sand Canyon Avenue ns a primary nrtcridl highway, in a LimeLy manner meeting Lhe approval of the DirecLor/EMA. , I of 5 a. Relative to Sand Canyon Avenue within the Irvine Coast area, The Irvine Company, its successors or assigns, shall provide the right - of way within its ownership for four lanes and grading and construction of two travel lanes including, where required, parking lanes, curb, gutLer, sidewalk, and median improvements. If, at the time that Sand Canyon Avenue implementation within the Irvine Coast commences, the Orange County General Plan and Local Coastal Program are amended to provide for four (4) travel lanes for Sand Canyon Avenue, The Irvine Company, its successors or assigns, shall provide right-of-way within its ownership and grading for four (1) travel lanes and construction of two (2) travel lanes including where required, parking lanes, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and median improvements; the County and the State of California shall construct two travel lanes Including, where required, parking lanes, curb, gutter and sidewalk and median improvements com- mensurate with the use of the road by visitors to Crystal Cove State Park. Notwithstanding the above provisions for a two (2) or four (4) lane road, The Irvine Company shall only be responsible for right-of-way dedication, grading and construction of two (2) traveL Lanes of Sand Canyon Avenue where the alignment of said road forms the boundary between Irvine Company property and public property. The Irvine Company shall not be responcihip for right-of-wny dedication, grading and construction of Sand Canyon Avenue where the alignment of said road is located totally within public property. b. Relative to PelLcnn Bill Road within the Irvine Coast area, The Irvine Company, its successors or assigns, shall be responsible for providing the right-of-wny, grading and the construction of six (6) travel lanes including, when requited, parking lanes, curb, gutter and median improvements. 11. Concurrent with the recordation of thu first subdivision map in the Irvine Coast area, The Company, its successors or assigns, will offer to dedi- cate the ultimate right-of-way for the San .Joaquin lulls Transportation Corridor between Sand Canyon Avenue and McArthur Boulevard. For development within 4 of the Irvine Coast area, The NOW Company, its successors or assigns, shall have no further responsibility with regard to the construction of said corridor. 12. Prior to the recordation of the first subdivision map inland of Pacific Coast Highway, The Irvine Company, its successors or assigns, Wall establish a road alignment• Lo connect Pelican Hill Road within the Coastal. area to the vicinity of Bonita Canyon Road and MacArthur Boulevard. 13. Prior to issuance of the building permit for the one -hundred and first (101st) single family residence inland of Pacific Coast Highway or the issuance of the building permit• for the three -hundred and fifty-first (351st) hotel or motel room (and direcLly related support facilities not to exceed 26,000 sq. ft.), the developers shall construct two (2) travel lanes of the new inland road as defined in 12 above. 9 5 of 5 9 a r i MURRAYSTORM DIRECTOR, EMA NCO, lJ NTY O F Cl o RANG G ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY PLANNING 811 NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA (714) 834-4643 November 2, 1981 Dear Recipient: ROBERT G. FISHER DIRECTOR OF PLANNING MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CA 92702 FILE LCP Bolsa Chica The attached draft Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program for the Bolsa Chica Segment of the North Coast Planning Unit has been prepared in compliance with the mandate of the California Coastal Act of 1976. The plan includes among other things the five components (Resource, Access, Transportation, Recreation and New Development, Energy) identified in the Local Coastal Program Work Program approved by the California Coastal Commission. A copy of the draft document is attached for your review and comment. A Planning Commission hearing on the draft Land Use Plan will be held Tuesday, November 17, 1981 at 1:30 p.m., in the Planning Commission meeting room (ground floor), Orange County Hall of Administration, 10 Civic Center Plaza, Broadway at Santa Ana Boulevard, Santa Ana, California. In addition, a Board of Supervisors hearing will be held on the draft Land Use Plan on Wednesday, December 16, 1981 at 9:30 a.m., in the Board of Supervisors Hearing Room (ground floor), Orange County, Ball of Administration, 10 Civic Center Plaza, Broadway at Santa Ana Boulevard, Santa Ana, California. In order to facilitate the incorporation of your concerns into the final Local Coastal Program, we would appreciate receiving your input in writing as soon as possible. If you have any specific questions regarding the Bolsa Chica Program, please contact Ron Tippets at (714) 834-5394. More generalized questions regarding the Local Coastal Program should be addressed to Ken Winter at (714) 834-5387. Thank you for your cooperation. very t my you s, r Robert G. Fisher Director of Planning RT:jbc Attachment SAMPLE RESOLUTION IRVINE COAST LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM ' October 6, 1981 On motion of , duly seconded and carried, the following Resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, the County of Orange has submitted to the California Coastal Commission the Land Use Plan portion of the Local Coastal Program for the Irvine Coast Planning Unit in accordance with the Public Resources Code; and WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission has denied the submitted version and approved a modified version of the Land Use Plan; and WHEREAS, the County of Orange on June 17, 1981 and July 18, 1981 and the California Coastal Commission on June 18, 1981 and July 21, 1981 have held public meetings on the submitted Land Use Plan and proposed modifications; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Plan must be consistent with the various elements of the Orange County General Plan including the Land Use and,Circula- tion Elements; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Management Agency has evaluated the modified Land Use Plan; and WHEREAS, certain conditions adopted in the approval of General Plan Land Use Element Amendment LCP 80-4 by Resolution No. 80-2085, December 17, 1980, are affected by the modified Land Use Plan; and WHEREAS, Section 20180.9, Division 13, of the Public Resources Code statutorily exempts Local Coastal Programs from CEQA requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED-, that this Board finds that: (1) the Land Use Plan, dated July 21, 1981, is consistent with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976; (2) the Open Space Dedication Program contained in said Plan offsets potential adverse environmental impacts which are not otherwise mitigated; and (3) on balance, the provisions of said Plan are the most protective of natural resources and recreational opportunities. page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT 5 Ir .J BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that valuable social and public benefits will flow from implementation of the Land Use Plan, which benefits include the dedication and preservation of large areas of open space for public park purposes, the development of the remaining lands in an environmentally sensitive manner at relatively low densities and with a combination of uses that will enhance the recreational and housing opportunities of the regional and the completion of a needed transportation system. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board approves the document referenced as the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program for the Irvine Coast Planning Unit and directs the Environmental Management Agency to transmit same to the California Coastal Commission for final certification. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Director of the Environmental Management Agency or his designee is authorized to represent the County of Orange at necessary proceedings on the Land Use Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Circulation Element- of the Orange County General Plan is hereby amended to classify Sand Canyon Avenue as a commuter highway between Pacific Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Conditions 3, 10, 11, 12 and 13 on pages 4, 5 and 6 of Resolution No. 80-2085, dated December 17, 1.980, are amended to read as follows: 3. An Annual Monitoring Report shall be prepared by the developer for the review by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, identifying the amount and type of construction planned, under construction and/or completed in the year being monitored. It is the intent of the County to propose additional regulatory action in the event that significant continuous trends toward fiscal/ infrastructure imbalances occur. page 2 of 3 .0 10. Concurrent with the approval of any area plans, tentative tract maps or other implementing regulations for areas inland of Pacific Coast Highway (except those on Laguna Canyon Road), The Irvine Company, or its successors or assigns, shall prepare a phasing program which shall provide for the construction of ultimate street improvements in the Irvine Coast area for Pelican Hill Road as a major arterial highway and Sand Canyon Avenue as a primary arterial highway, in a timely manner meeting the approval of the Director/MiA. a. Relative to Sand Canyon Avenue within the Irvine Coast area, The Irvine Company, its successors or assigns, shall provide the right-of-way within its ownership for four lanes and grading and construction of two travel lanes including, where required, parking lanes, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and median improvements. If, at the time that Sand Canyon Avenue imple- mentation within the Irvine Coast commences, the Orange County General Plan and Local Coastal Program are amended to provide for four (4) travel lanes for Sand Canyon Avenue, The Irvine Company, its successors or assigns, shall provide right-of-way within its ownership and grading for four (4) travel lanes and construction of two (2) travel lanes including, where required, parking lanes, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and median improvements; the County and the State of California shall construct two travel lanes including, where required, parking lanes, curb, gutter and sidewalk and median improvements commensurate with the use of the road by visitors to Crystal Cove State Park. Notwithstanding the above provisions for a two (2) or four (4) lane road, The Irvine Company shall only be responsible for right-of-way dedication, grading and construction of two (2) travel lanes of Sand Canyon Avenue where the alignment of said road forms the boundary between Irvine Company property and public property. The Irvine Company shall not be responsible for right-of-way dedication, grading and construction of Sand Canyon Avenue where the alignment of said road is located totally within public property. b. Relative to Pelican Hill Road within the Irvine Coast area, The Irvine Company, its successors or assigns, shall be responsible for providing the right-of-way, grading and the construction of six (6) travel lanes including, when required, parking lanes, curb, gutter and median improvements. 11. Concurrent with the recordation of the first subdivision map in the Irvine Coast area, The Irvine Company, its successors or assigns, will offer to dedicate the ultimate right-of-way for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor between Sand Canyon Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard, For development within the Irvine Coast area, The Irvine Company, its successors or assigns, shall have no further responsibility with regard to the construction of said corridor. 12. Prior to the recordation of the first subdivision map inland of Pacific Coast Highway, The Irvine Company, its successors or assigns, shall establish a road alignment to connect Pelican Hill Road within the Coastal area to the vicinity of Bonita Canyon Road and MacArthur Boulevard. 13, Prior to issuance of the building permit for the one -hundred and first (101st) single family residence inland of Pacific Coast Highway or the issuance of the building permit for the three -hundred and fifty-first (351st) hotel or motel room (and directly related support facilities not to exceed 26,000 sq. ft.), the developers shall construct two (2) travel lanes of the new inland road as defined in 12 above. page 3 of 3 The following conditions of LCP approval set forth in Resolution 80-2085, beginning on Page 4 are amended to read as follows: 3. An Annual Montoring Report shall be prepared by the developer for the review by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, identifying the amount and type of construction planned, under construction and/or completed in the year being monitored. It is the intent of the County to propose additional regulatory action in the event that significant continuous trends toward fiscal/infrastructure imbalances occur. 10. Concurrent with the approval of any area plans, tentative tract maps or other implementing regulations for areas inland of Pacific Coast Highway (except those on Laguna Canyon Road), The Irvine Company, or its successors or assigns, shall prepare a phasing program which shall provide for the construction of ultimate street improve- ments in the Irvine Coast area for Pelican Hill Road as a major arterial highway and Sand Canyon Avenue as a primary arterial highway, in a timely manner meeting the approval of the Director/EMA. Relative to Sand Canyon Avenue within the Irvine Coast area, The Irvine Company, its successors or assigns, shall provide the right-of-way and grading for four lanes and construction of two travel lanes including, where required, parking lane, curb, gutter and median improvements; the County and the State of California shall construct two travel lanes including, where required, parking lane, curb, gutter and sidewalk and median improvements commensurate with the use of the road by visitors to Crystal Cove State Park. Notwithstanding the above provisions, The Irvine Company shall only be responsible for right-of-way dedication, grading and construction of two (2) travel lanes of Sand Canyon Avenue where the alignment of said road forms the boundary between Irvine Company property and public �- property. The Irvine Company shall not be responsible for right-of-way dedication, grading and construction of Sand Canyon Avenue where the alignment of said road is located totally within public property. Relative to Pelican Hill Road within the Irvine Coast area, The Irvine Company, its successors or assigns, shall be responsible for providing the right-of-way, grading an the construction of six (6) travel lanes including, when required, parking lane, curb, gutter and median improvements. 11. Concurrent with the recordation of the first subdivision map in the Irvine Coast area, The Irvine Company, its successors or assigns, will offer to dedicate the ultimate right-of-way for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor between Sand Canyon Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard. For development within the Irvine Coast area, The Irvine Company, its successors or assigns, shall have no further responsibility with regard to the construction of said corridor. 12. Prior to the recordation of the first subdivision map inland of Pacific Coast Highway, The Irvine Company, its successors or assigns, shall establish a road alignment .to connect Pelican Hill Road within the Coastal area to the vicinity of Bonita Canyon Road and MacArthur Boulevard. 13. Prior to issuance of the building permit for the one -hundred and first (101st) single family residence inland of Pacific Coast Highway or the issuance of the building permit for the three -hundred and fifty-first (351st) hotel or motel room (and directly related support facilities not to exceed 26,000 sq.ft), the developers shall' construct two (2) travel lanes of the new inland road as defined in 12 above. CONDITIONS 3, 10, 11, 12, AND 13 OF -RESOLUTION NO. 81-944 ATTACHMENT 3 10. Concurrent with the approval of any area plans, tentative tract maps or other implementing regulations for areas inland of Pacific Coast Highway (except those on Laguna Canyon Road), The Irvine Company, or its successors or assigns, shall prepare a phasing program which shall provide for the construction of ultimate street improvements in the Irvine Coast area for Pelican Hill Road as a major arterial highway and Sand Canyon Avenue as a primary arterial highway, in a timely manner meeting the approval of the Director/EMA. a. Relative to Sand Canyon Avenue within the Irvine Coast area, The Irvine Company, its successors or assigns, shall provide the right-of-way within its ownership for four lanes and grading and construction of two travel lanes including, where required, parking lanes, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and median improvements. If, at the time that Sand Canyon Avenue imple- mentation within the Irvine Coast commences, the Orange County General Plan and Local Coastal Program are amended to provide for four (4) travel lanes for Sand Canyon Avenue, The Irvine Company, its successors or assigns, shall provide right-of-way within its ownership and grading for four (4) travel lanes and construction of two (2) travel lanes including, cohere required, parking lanes, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and median improvements; the County and the State of California shall construct two travel lanes including, where required, parking lanes, curb, gutter and sidewalk and median improvements commensurate with the use of the road by visitors to Crystal Cove State Park. Notwithstanding the above provisions for a two (2) or four (4) lane road, The Irvine Company shall only be responsible for right-of-way dedication, grading and construction of two (2) travel lanes of Sand Canyon Avenue where the alignment- of said road forms the boundary between Irvine Company property and public property. The Irvine Company shall not be responsible for right-of-way dedication, grading and construction of Sand Canyon Avenue where the alignment of said road is located totally within public property. b. Relative to Pelican Hill Road within the Irvine Coast area, The Irvine Company, its successors or assigns, shall be responsible for providing the right-of-way, grading and the construction of six (6) travel lanes including, when required, parking lanes, curb, gutter and median improvements. ATTACHMENT 4 AW i a �Qi 1 5', R F�FrtrFO 9 2 3 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF G" ocir5 ' 1198N. 10 ll 4 ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA ," Na. le L �•�41F. 5 December 17, 1980 6 On motion of Supervisor Riley, duly seconded and carried, the following Resolution was adopted: 7 WHEREAS, the County of Orange has elected to prepare a Local Coastal Program in 8 accordance with the Public,Resources Code; and 9 WHEREAS, Section 30511(c) of the Public Resources Code and Section 00032 of the Local Coastal Program Regulations allow a local government to submit its Local Coastal 10 Program in separate geographic units consisting of less than the local government's jurisdiction lying within the coastal zone; and 11 WHEREAS, Section 30511(b) of the Public Resources Code provides for the separate 12 processing of land use plans and implementing ordinances and actions; and 13 WHEREAS, the Coastal Zone has been divided into four planning Units consisting of North Coast, Irvine Coast, Aliso Creek and South Coast; and 14 WHEREAS, the County of Orange has prepared a Local Coastal Program which is con- W, uZz 15 tained in the document entitled Local Coastal Program - Irvine Coast Planning Unit, uo� dated November, 1980; and "" W 16 4=i WHEREAS, the Local Coastal Program as presented herewith for the Irvine Coast ooa 17 Planning Unit recommends changes to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the Wo General Plan; and 18 WHEREAS, the Local Coastal Program further refines and specifies the land use and 19 circulation plans, policies and development guidelines of the General Plan; and 20 WHEREAS, if any conflicts arise between.the Local Coastal Program and the existing General Plan, the Local Coastal Program shall take precedence; and 21 WHEREAS, the County of Orange has held public hearings for the purpose of obtaining 22 public comment on the Local Coastal Program; and 23 WHEREAS, the Local Coastal Program was heard by the Planning Commission on December 2, 1980, and by Planning Commission Resolution NO. 12-80 was recommended for 24 adoption by the Board of Supervisors; and 25 WHEREAS, the proposed Local Coastal Program and Circulation and Land Use Element Amendments for the Irvine Coast Planning Unit could have adverse environmental effects 0 26 and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 237 has been prepared to address those effects; N N A e 27 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board finds: U. ® 28 JRG:dh Resolution No. 80-2085 Local Coastal Program LCP 80-4, Irvine A.7-rAC111%F1 r z . Coast Planning Unit, Land Use and Circulation Element Amendment LCP 80-4 1. 1 2 3 4 5 G 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 J uz oz15 U0u W IG ,t o z.n 3 0 17 u 18 19 .20 21 22 u 23 24 25 26 27 M 1. All mitigation measures contained in Draft EIR 237 with attendant staff report, all goals, policies and development guidelines contained in the Land Use Element and Scenic Highways Element of the Orange County General Plan, the Orange County Zoning Code and the California Coastal Act of 1976 as deemed reasonable and feasible by this Board, are appropriate mitigation measures for the proposed General Plan amendments and Local Coastal Program (LCP). 2. Changes or alternatives have been required in or incorporated into the pro- posed General Plan amendment (LCP 80-4), Irvine Coast, either in design or by condition lof approval which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects on geology/ soils, hydrology/drainage, biological resources, cultural/scientific resources, air quality, traffic/circulation, noise, aesthetics, public services/utilities, and con- sistency with the General Plan Elements and identified acts, plans, and Zoning Code ordinances as identified in proposed Final EIR 237 and accompanying staff report. 3. Proposed Final EIR 237 is complete and adequately addresses the environmental effects of the proposed project, contains all feasible mitigation measures to be incorporated into the Irvine Coast General Plan ?kmendment (LCP 80-4), has been con- sidered in this Board's actions on the project; said proposed Final EIR consists of the following elements: a. Draft EIR 237. b. The Environmental Analysis Division (EAD) Report, dated November 18, 1980. c. The Minutes of the Planning Commission hearings on this project. d. The communications attached to the Environmental Analysis Division Report, dated November 18, 1980, as referenced in Section V, pages 11-12. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board does hereby certify as complete Final Environmental Impact Report 237 for the Local Coastal Program and Circulation and Land Use Element Amendments (LCP 80-4) for the Irvine Coast Planning Unit. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that valuable social and public benefits will flow from implementation of LCP 80-4, which benefits include the acquisition by gift and otherwise and the preservation of large areas of open space for public park purposes, the develop- ment of the remainder of the land in an environmentally sensitive manner subject to LCP 80-4 at relatively low densities and with a combination of uses that will enhance the recreational and housing opportunities of the region, and the addition of needed transportation system. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board finds that the Local Coastal Program for the Irvine Coast Planning Unit was prepared pursuant to the provisions of the California Coastal Act of 1976. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board finds that: 1. Section 30222 of the California Coastal Act requires that "the use of private lands suitable for visitor -serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general residential or general commercial development . . . ." Section 30223 of the California Coastal Act provides that "upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses shall be reserved for such uses, where feasible." 2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 J W� az 15 W U u V 16 4 F LL o=¢ 0u 17 u 18 19 20 21 22 �l 2. The Irvine coastal plan carries out the foregoing policies by: a. Providing major day use and overnight facilities in close proximity to a major state park and, in particular, at locations in close proximity to the major beach areas. b. Providing tourist commercial areas which not only will fill a long-term need but will also provide facilities that cannot be provided by the state park system due to the limitations on park development posed by the presence of the trailers and the homes in the Moro and Crystal Cove areas. In essence, public provision of recreational facilities that will be required to support park use will be severely limited for the period of time that the trailers and homes remain occupied; the Irvine visitor -serving facilities will likely fill a substantial portion of the gap in services. 3. By providing substantial day use (e.g., restaurants, food facilities, etc.) and parking facilities within walking distances of the beach (including a pedestrian overpass at Crystal Cove), the need for construction of extensive support services on state park land seaward of Pacific Coast Highway will be substantially reduced. This not only carries out Section 30223 of the California Coastal Act, but also furthers the goals of Section 30221 by diminishing the need for construction of facilities in the viewshed from the highway toward the ocean. In this way, more of the coastal bluff park area can in fact be used for actual recreational use pursuant to Section 30221 of the California Coastal Act. 4. Projections of commercial recreation needs indicate a significant demand for new overnight facilities (e.g., the figures cited in the Dana Point Specific Plan). S. The California Coastal Act provides for locating visitor -serving facilities at "selected points of attraction for visitors." Sec. 30250(c). On the entire Orange County coast only three other undeveloped areas remain with the potential for accom- modating visitor -serving uses (Dana Point, the Dana Point Headlands, and AVCO's Laguna Niguel). Only one site with existing development is being considered for redevelopment as commercial recreation. Thus, the Irvine Coast is one of the few remaining areas where commercial recreation can be provided and is the only site with convenient pedestrian access to a major new state park. 6. The concentration of visitor -serving facilities on two sites will to some extent decrease traffic impacts on local communities by providing convenient overnight facilities for users of Crystal Cove State Park who would otherwise be forced to find accommodations in Laguna Beach or Newport Beach, thus driving through those communities on their way to and from the new state park. The provisions of extensive day use facilities will also diminish automobile traffic movement by providing food and other services readily available to park users. By concentrating development at two locations the use of transit facilities operating from Laguna Beach and Newport Beach down Pacific Coast Highway will also be enhanced. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following be added to Chapter IV, Land Use Plan, Section D.1, Roadways, of said Local Coastal document: I. Last sentence of the second paragraph to read: The State of California shall also participate in the construction of Sand Canyon Avenue., 27 28 II 23 24 25 26 3. 1 2. Add the following subsection: 2 k. In consideration of the need for Sand Canyon Avenue for access to Crystal Cove State Park, The State of California shall participate in the 3 construction of Sand Canyon Avenue. Such participation shall include appropriate right-of-way dedication, grading, street improvements and a 4 minimum of two (2) travel lanes of the required four (4) lanes. 5 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board approves the document referenced above as amended by this Board as the Land Use Plan (LCP Phase II) of the Local Coastal 6 Program for the Irvine Coast Planning Unit and directs the Environmental Management Agency to transmit the Local Coastal Program to the California Coastal Commission for 7 certification. 811 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of the Environmental Management Agency or his designee i$ authorized to represent the County of Orange at necessary Coastal 9 Commission proceedings on the Local Coastal Program. 1011 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proposed Amendment LCP 80-4, Irvine Coast Planning Unit, to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the Orange County General Plan, 11 including land use designations, reclassification and deletion of arterial highways, 12 and conditions herein listed below, is hereby adopted by this Board. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Irvine Coast Fiscal Impact Report dated November, 13 1980, is hereby approved as part of the Irvine Coast General Plan Amendment. 141 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions are deemed necessary as a NF statement of development policies and are hereby adopted by this Board as conditions o>> 15 of approval of General Plan Land Use Element Amendment LCP 80-4: Wy0 ;W,4w 16 1. The absolute dwelling unit limit for the plan shall be 2,000 units, to which O;e bonus units for affordable housing shall be added. To the extent that the Federal, 01 17 State or County governments purchase any portion of the property which has been designated for residential for a*national or state park or other recreation or open 18 space project of the Federal, State or County governments, the maximum number of dwelling units (2,000) shall be reduced by the following number of units in the areas 19 designated: 20 a. Frontal slopes of Wishbone Hill: 85 units. b. Muddy Canyon: 75 units. 21 c. State park expansion area: 55 units. 22 2. The policy determination of the Board of Supervisors in the adopted Orange 23 County Housing Element shall apply. 3. An annual monitoring report on implementation of the Irvine Coast Plan shall 24 be prepared by the developer and become part of the•County's Development Monitoring Program and will be reviewed in open meeting by the Planning Commission and this Board 25 for the purpose of determining the extent to which plan implementation is commensurate Ua with facilities planning and open space dedication goals as specified in the Irvine N 26 Coast Local Coastal Program. Said report shall contain, from time to time, special a analysis of subjects determined of critical importance by this Board for its immediate k 27 attention. It is the intent of this Board to use the Development Monitoring Program, 28 as augmented by the annual Irvine Coast monitoring report, to determine whether the infrastructure can properly accommodate further development in the area. In the event 4. 1 2 3 4 5 G 7' al 9 10 11 12 13 14 J Wy 0Z; 15 Wpo uuu W 16 4 2 o=< 00 17 u 18 19 20 �'. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 0 that this Board identifies significant imbalapces in the planned infrastructure due to the proposed project, further development approval shall be deferred in the affected areas until approaches capable of resolving imbalances are proposed to and approved by this Board. ' For purposes of this condition, the word "infrastructure shall include, but not be limited to, all facilities deemed by this Board as necessary to support, and the ability of the property and 'surrounding property to absorb impacts from, the number of dwellings or the number of inhabitants or uses projected by this Board to be generated as a result of further approvals of development. Such facilities may include water, gas, power facilities and supply, waste, sewer, surface drainage capacities, roads, transit systems air pollution, air transportation and open space. The enumeration is exclusive. 4. Approval of area plans, tentative tract maps or other implementing regulatory mechanisms shall contain specific provisions for carrying out the Local Coastal Program approved as part of this Lbcal Coastal Plan/General Plan amendment. It is this Board's intent that approval of any discretionary approvals or authorizations which are deter- mined by this Board to violate the policy intent of this plan will be withheld. 5. Prior to any development approvals within the watersheds of Buck Gully, Los Trancos Canyon and Muddy Canyon, a plan for urban runoff management for the entire watershed in which the development is located shall be prepared by the developer and shall be approved by the Director, EMA. Any flood control work shall be designed in an environmentally sensitive aryl aesthetically pleasing manner. 6. Proposed development which will drain into the Laguna Canyon watershed shall not be approved until the Director, EMA is satisfied that said development will not unacceptably contribute to the Laguna Canyon flooding problem and appropriate drainage facilities to serve the development are provided. 7. In the event of application for city annexation of all or part of the Irvine Coast Plan area, a fiscal impact report shall be prepared by the petitioners to assess the cost -revenue impact of such annexation on the County and special districts serving the property to be annexed. 8. Prior to any map recordation within the Irvine Coast Plan area, CC&Rs or other method or procedure, including the establishment of homeowner associations or other acceptable mechanisms which will guarantee the development and continued maintenance of the local parks, private roadway system, and any other private services required, shall be submitted to and approved by the Director, ERA and County Counsel and shall then be recorded. 9. Prior to any map recordation within the Irvine Coast Plan area, the subject property shall either be annexed to the Orange County Landscape and Lighting Assessment )istrict or the developer shall present an alternative method for financing street Lighting in the proposed area of development which is satisfactory to the Director, EMA which may include financing by the homeowners association established for the area. 10. Concurrent with the approval of any area plans, tentative tract maps or other Lmplementing regulations for areas inland of Pacific Coast Highway (except those on Laguna Canyon Road), The Irvine Company, or its successors or assigns, shall prepare a )hasing program which shall provide for the construction of ultimate street improvements Ln the Irvine Coast area for Pelican Hill Road as a major arterial highway and Sand ;anyon Avenue as a primary arterial highway, in a timely manner meeting the approval ;f the Director, EMA. Relative to implementation of Sand Canyon Avenue within the 5. a3. o 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0 U U W 16 4'u 4 O?e ca 17 U 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 n 26 N N o '27 :L �w Irvine Coast area, The Irvine Company, or its.successors or assigns, and The State of California shall participate in providing the right-of-way and grading for the full arterial highway (four (4) lanes divided) and the construction of two'(2) travel lanes with parking lane, curb, gutter and sidewalk and median improvements, while The State of California shall be responsible for construction of the additional two (2) lanes in consideration of their need for Sand Canyon Avenue for Crystal Cove State Park access. Relative to Pelican Hill Road within the Irvine Coast area, The Irvine Company, or its successors or assigns, shall be responsible for providing the right- of-way and grading for the full major arterial highway (six (6) lanes divided) and the construction of four (4) travel lanes with parking lane, curb, gutter and sidewalk, and median improvements and, if the annual Development Monitoring Program shows that the additional two (2) lanes are necessary to adequately serve residential, Tourist Recreation/Commercial and/or recreational transportation needs, no additional develop- ment of any kind shall be approved until The Irvine Company and County agree on provisions for timely construction of the additional two (2) lanes. 11. Prior to any development inland of Pacific Coast Highway, a program shall be established by the developer, subject to the approval of this Board, to assist in financing of improvements and dedication of right-of-way for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. 12. Prior to recordation of the first tract inland of Pacific Coast Highway, the developer shall establish a program for providing an adequate inland circulation system, which system shall include at least one new road connecting to acceptable inland highways to serve the plan area other than Pacific Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road. Such circulation system program shall meet the approval of the Director, BMA and shall include a phasing program for the developer construction of such new inland access road. 13. Prior to issuance of the building permit for the one hundred and first (101st) single family residence or the issuance of the building permit for the three hundred and fifty-first (351st) hotel or motel room (and directly related support facilities not to exceed 26,000 square feet) inland of Pacific Coast Highway, the developer shall construct and complete a new inland road connection to serve the area other than Pacific Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road, all in accordance with the approved Inland Circulation System Program. 14. The developer shall offer for dedication a site in the vicinity of Pelican Hill Road and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor to be specifically used for a fire station. Said location shall be to the satisfaction of the Assistant Chief/ Support of the Orange County Fire Department. In addition, the developer shall participate proportionately in the construction of said fire station in a manner meeting the approval of the Assistant Chief/Support, Orange County Fire Department. 15. Prior to approval of any development, the property owner shall cause to be prepared a development and dedication agreement which shall be submitted to this Board for approval. Such agreement shall be substantially consistent with the policies and Eindings relative to open space dedication as contained in the adopted Irvine Coast Planning Unit, Local Coastal Program. 16. If the property now or previously owned by The Irvine Company is transferred to other persons or entities in whole or in parts, the provisions of these conditions shall be relevant and appropriate to the various parts of the property as entitlements to development or use are sought or authorized. 6. 1 2 3 4 ' 5 6 7 8 9, 10' 11 I 12 li 13 14 ur of o"zz 15 �o �Uu 4>0 16 LL F = OZe � ; 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 N 26 N N O 27 LL W.- AYES: SUPERVISORS THOMAS F. RILEY, PHILIP L. ANTHONY, HARRIETT M. WIEDER, EDISON W. MILLER, AND RALPH B. CLARK NOES: SUPERVISORS NONE ABSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, JUNE ALEXANDER, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of December, 1980, and passed by a unanimous vote of said Board. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 17th day of December, 1980. nt Vim! �t �S ,!•�j•'� t ALE. ANDER — Clerk of the Board.of Supervisors of Orange County ,M1 Y •• • • •.............. VA II II a 1 1 1 II II I 1 II I 1 LOCAL COASTAL PROG RAM ��`f�"'~" LAND USE PLAN IRVINE COAST PLANNING UNIT ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY I A7- -TAcA\N\ER--C -.I- I I I I 0 JULY 21,-1981 LOCAL COASTAL PROG RAM LAND USE PLAN IRVINE COAST PLANNING UNIT ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY I CONTENTS I. Introduction I-1 A. Purpose and Intent I-1 B. Organization I-1 C. Public Participation I-1 D. Planning History 1-5 E. Public Acquisition Programs 1-7 F. Area Description 1-7 LAND USE PLAN II. Land Use Plan Summary II-1 A. Open Space II-1 B. Visitor -Serving Facilities II-1 C. Circulation II-1 D. Residential 11-2 III. Resource Description III-1 A. Existing Conditions III-1 B. Issues and Findings III-3 IV. Land Use Plan IV-1 A. Resource Conservation and Management IV-1 1. Open Space Dedication IV-1 2. Conservation Category IV-7 3. Interim Conservation Management IV-8 4. Historic District Category IV-8 5. Archaeology IV-8 6. Paleontology IV-9 7. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas IV-10 8. Erosion and Urban Runoff Control IV-13 9. Development/Open Space Edges IV-17 B. Coastal Access IV-18 1. Transportation/Circulation IV-18 2. Public Recreation IV-19 3. Visitor -Serving Commercial IV-22 C. Residential IV-29 1. Low -Density Residential IV-29 2. Medium -Density Residential IV-31 3. Affordable Housing IV-32 4. Residential Recreation IV-33 5. Watershed Management IV-34 D. Public Works/Infrastructure IV-35 1. Roadways IV-35 2. Drainage IV-37 3. Water IV-37 4. Sewer IV-38 5. Schools IV-38 6. Gas, Electric, and Telephone IV-38 7. Special Conditions IV-39 PG22al I i V. Special Treatment Areas V-1 A. Frontal Slopes of Wishbone Hill V-1 B. Muddy Canyon V-1 C. State Expansion Area V-3 D. Los Trancos Canyon Watershed Management Program V-3 VI. Coastal Act Policy Analysis VI-1 A. Shoreline Access VI-1 B. Recreation and Visitor -Serving Facilities VI-1 C. Housing VI-2 D. Water and Marine Resources VI-2 E. Diking, Dredging, Filling, and Shoreline Structures VI-2 F. Commercial Fishing and Recreational Boating VI-2 G. Environmental Sensitive Habitat Areas VI-3 H. Agriculture VI-3 1. Hazard Areas VI-3 J. Forestry and Soil Resources VI-4 K. Locating and Planning New Development VI-4 L. Coastal Visual Resources and Special Communities VI-4 M. Public Works VI-5 PG22a2 1 LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT I-1 Regional Location 1-2 I-2 Orange County Coastal Planning Unit I-4 I-2A Summary of Public Participation Program I-4A I-3 Place Names I-6 I-4 Public Acquisition Programs I-8 *II-1 Land Use Plan 11-3 II -IA Land Use Summary II-4 III-2 Dominant Visual Forms from PCH III-4 *IV-1 Development and Dedication Areas IV-2A IV-1-1 Relative Resource Values of Subareas IV-3 *IV-lA Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas IV-10A IV-2 Circulation IV-18A IV-3 Public Recreation IV-19A IV-4 Visitor -Serving Commercial IV-22A IV4a Sand Canyon VSC Development Standards IV-23A IV-4b Pelican Hill VSC Areas IV-24A IV-4c Pelican Hill VSC View Analysis IV-25A IV-4d Pelican Hill VSC Development Standards IV-25B *IV-4e Low Density Residential Grading Policy Areas IV-30A *IV-5 Pelican Hill Road Concept Plan IV-36A *IV-6 Sand Canyon Avenue Concept Plan IV-36B IV-7 Typical Pelican Hill Road Sections IV-36C ' IV-8 Typical Pelican Hill Road Sections IV-36D IV-9 Typical Sand Canyon Avenue Sections IV-36E IV-10 Typical Sand Canyon Avenue Sections IV-36F IV-11 Typical Entry Road Sections IV-36G IV-12 Typical Collector Road, Residential Street IV-36H and Driveway Section IV-13 Water Master Plan IV-38A IV-14 Sewer Master Plan IV-38B IV-15 Gas Master Plan IV-38C IV-16 Electrical Master Plan IV-38D r. IV-17 Telephone Master Plan IV-38E IV-18 Components of Fuel Modification Zone IV-39A V-1 Special Treatment Areas V-2, ' * The small exhibits in the text are approximations of the offical maps which have been adopted as part of this LCP. PG22b29 A I. INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE AND INTENT The Coastal Act of 1976 requires that every coastal city and county prepare a Local Coastal Program (LCP) to be submitted to and approved by the California Coastal Commission. The Act defines a Local Coastal Program as "a local govern- ment's land use plans, zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and implementing actions, which, when taken together, meet the requirements of, and implement the provisions and policies of, the Coastal Act at the local level." The purpose and intent of this document is to meet the requirements of the Coastal Act of 1976 for the Irvine Coast Planning Unit of the County of Orange's Local Coastal Program. This document contains the land use plan, land use poli- cies, zoning regulations, and other implementing measures necessary to fulfill the requirements of the law. The County of Orange has adopted this program as amendments to the County's General Plan and zoning map, and through other imple- menting measures. B. ORGANIZATION The Local Coastal Program consists of the Land Use Plan and Implementation Program. Land Use Plan. This is the general planning and policy component of the LCP. It illustrates the distribution of private and public open space, residential and commercial uses; identifies the major road network; and sets the overall land use intensity. The land use plan consists of the Land Use Map and four related com- ponents: Resource Conservation; Coastal Access, Residential, and Public Works/ Infrastructure. Implementation Program. The proposed "Irvine Coast Planned Community Regula- tions" together with other Orange County Codes provide development regulations for each of the land use categories. The implementation program for the Irvine Coast is contained in separate documents. C. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The general public of Orange County participated in the development of this Local Coastal Program in seven principal ways: first, through TICMAP (The Irvine Coastal Community Multi -Agency Planning Program); second, through public hearings attendant to the adoption of a General Plan amendment by Orange County in August, 1976; third, through the participation of State and regional agencies and review and comments on the plan as it was being prepared; fourth, through public briefings and field trips conducted by The Irvine Company that were designed to inform people about hearings on the LCP; fifth, through public hearings on the first LCP; sixth, through public hearings and field trips on the Concept Plan; and seventh, through public hearings on the full LCP. I PG22a3 I-1 no im, � Mal ow Aw so low m I December 1973 - July 1975 10 TICMAP Meetings July 1975 - August 1976 24 General Plan Amendment Hearings March 1978 - April 1978 4 Public Hearings on LCP May 1978 - June 1978 2 Preliminary Reviews by State and Regional Commissions January 1979 - February 1979 5 Regional Commission LCP Hearings August 1980 - September 1980 2 County Hearings; 2 Public Field Trips; 2 Coastal Commission Hearings on the Con- cept Plan Hearings September 1980 - December 1980 4 LCP and General Plan Amendment ANovember 1980 - March 1981 4 LCP and Zone Change Hearings March 1981 - May 1981 3 LCP Amendment Hearings June 1981 - July 1981 3 Coastal Commission Hearings The planning process for the Irvine Coast has had a long history. A detailed chronology of the most recent public participation program which resulted in this particular land use plan and implementation program is presented in Exhibit I-2A. PG22a4 I-3 I IRVINE COAST PLANNING UNIT JASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY SUNSET SANTA ANA NEWPORT AQUATIC PARK RIVER ESTUARY DUNES NORTH COAST PLANNING UNIT LEGEND INCORPORATED r-� UNINCORPORATED I ALISO CREEK PLANNING UNIT i LLD SOUTH LAGUNA DANA CAPIS LAGUNA NIGUEL POINT BEACI SOUTH COAST PLANNING UNIT Exhibit 1-2 Orange Co. Coastal Pianning Units IRVINE COAST PLANNING UNIT .3 miles, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM RFJYOIYrtNYL YNI:F�N*AOENLY COUNTY OF OPANGE as aiii I 0" i•I 1116 Am am Aw so 10 �a go ON lI= an 00 low ar SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Document Review Body Date Activity Participants LCP/LUP 80-4 N/A July 7, 1980 Notice of Preparation Various public agencies and LUE 80-41 of EIR distributed community groups Zone Change LCP/LUP 80-4 N/A July 24, 1980 Meeting State Department of Parks LUE 80-4/ and Recreation, Orange Zone Change County EMA, The Irvine Company, Larry Seeman Associates, Inc. Concept Plan Planning Commission August 12, 1980 Public Hearing Planning Commission Concept Plan Board of Supervisors August 13, 1980 Public Hearing Board of Supervisors LCP/LUP 80-4 N/A August 14, 1980 Meeting Fred Talarico, City of New- LUE 80-4 port Beach, Orange County EMA, The Irvine Company, Larry Seeman Associates, Inc LCP/LUP 80-4 State Coastal Commission August 15, 1980 Field Trip State Coastal Commission, LUE 80-4 citizens Zone Change LCP/LUP 80-4 State Coastal Commission August 18, 1980 Field Trip State Coastal Commission, LUE 80-4 citizens Zone Change Concept Plan State Coastal Commission August 19, 1980 Public Hearing State Coastal Commission Concept Plan State Coastal Commission September 16, 1980 Public Hearing State Coastal Commission Continued... EXHIBIT I-2A SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (Continued) Document Review Body Date Activity Participants LCP/LUP 80-4 N/A September 25, 1980 Draft EIR Distributed Various public agencies, LUE 80-4/ community groups and Zone Change private citizens LCP Planning Commission September 300 1980 Public Hearing Planning commission, Orange County EMA, The Irvine Company LCP Newport Beach Transpor- October 7, 1980 Briefing Session Committee Members tation & Environ. Comp. LCP Planning Commission October 20, 1980 Public Hearing Planning Commission, Orange County EMA, The Irvine Company LCP/LUP 80-4 Newport Beach Planning October 23, 1980 Briefing Session Not Available LUE 80-4 Commission LCP Joint Session, Laguna November 10, 1980 Public Hearing Planning Commission, City Beach Planning Commis- Council, Orange County EMA sion and City Council LCP/LUP 80-4 Planning Commission November 18, 1980 Public Hearing Planning Commission, LUE 80-4 Orange County EMA, The Irvine Company, Pam Davis - California State Horsemen's Association of Orange County, Michael Scott - Laguna Greenbelt, Audrey Moe - Cameo Shores Home- owner's Association LCP/LUP 80-4 Planning Commission December 2, 1980 Public Hearing Planning Commission, The Irvine Company, Bill Ward City of Newport Beach, a resident of Cameo Shores Homeowner's Association, Pam Davis, California Stat 1- Horsemen's Association I Continued... M I � M am OW Am low JW M 'o ,l 00 Ao Imo. X:m IN Am m tt = M M W AUMIre r M M! At it *w M" 1M SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (Continued) Page 3 Document Review Body Date Activity Participants LCP/LUP 80-4 Board of Supervisors December 17, 1980 Public Hearing Board of Supervisors Zone Change Planning Commission January 26, 1981 Public Hearing Planning Commission, Orang County EMA, Audrey Moe and Sherry Loofbourrow - Cameo Community Association, The Irvine Company Zone Change Board of Supervisors March 4, 1981 Public Hearing Board of Supervisors LUP Amendment N/A March 25, 1981 Distribution of Draft Various public agencies, LUP Amendment community groups, and private citizens LUP Amendment Planning Commission April 15, 1981 Public Hearing Planning Commission, Orange County EMA, Coastal Commission staff LUP Amendment Planning Commission April 21, 1981 Public Hearing Planning Commission, Orange County EMA, Coastal Commission staff, Depart- ment of Parks and Recreation LUP Amendment Board of Supervisors May 6, 1981 Public Hearing Board of Supervisors, Orange County EMA, Ron Kennedy, Friends of Irvine Coast, Laguna Greenbelt, CEED, The Irvine Company Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (Continued) Page 4 Document Review Body Date Activity Participants LUP Coastal Commission June 2, 1981 Public Hearing Coastal Commission, Depart- ment of Fish and Game, Friends of Irvine Coast LUP Coastal Commission June 18, 1981 Public Hearing Coastal Commission, Depart- ment of fish and Game, Friends of Irvine Coast, SPON, Laguna Greenbelt, County of Orange, The Irvine Company, community groups, and private citi- zens LUP N/A July 18, 1981 Workshop County of Orange, The Irvine Company, SPON, Laguna Greenbelt, commun- ity groups, and private citizens LUP Coastal Commission July 21, 1981 Public Hearing Coastal Commission, County of Orange, The Irvine Company, various community groups, and private citizens am rs AN alr rr w A M Mw low am low Aft it D. PLANNING HISTORY In January 1974, The Irvine Company started "The Irvine Coastal Community Multi -Agency Planning Program (TICMAP)." Its purpose was to provide a forum for participation in the company's coastal planning activity by more than 20 interested organizations, among them State, Federal, and local government agencies and en- vironmental groups. Under the TICMAP program, ten public meetings were held. During these meetings, participants articulated a number of issues of concern. The concerns focused largely on transportation and open space needs, development of the ridgelines, protection of the Laguna Greenbelt, access to the beach, annexation, spheres of influence, and housing considerations. As a result, a plan was sub- mitted by The Irvine Company to the County of Orange in 1975. It was called the TICMAP plan. After receiving The Irvine Company's submittal, the County Environmental Man- agement Agency staff developed four additional land use and circulation alterna- tives. These alternatives reflected many concerns expressed during public hear- ings. They also incorporated proposals of the Coastal Zone Conservation Commis- sion. The major differences between the plan submitted by The Irvine Company and the alternatives developed by the County were the extent of urban uses and the amount of land to be set aside for public recreation and open space uses. Based upon the Planning Commission's recommendation, one of the County staff's alternatives was adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on August 18, 1976. The Coastal Act was not passed until December 1976, and the Irvine Coast Plan had to wait for the establishment of the new coastal commissions and procedures for the submittal of mandated Local Coastal Programs. In August 1978, and after preliminary reviews by the State and regional com- missions, the County of Orange submitted an LCP (land use portion) for the Irvine Coast which was based on the approved General Plan amendment. In February 1979, the South Coast Regional Commission denied the proposed LOP and it is currently on appeal with the State Coastal Commission. Since that time, there have been marked changes which make the previous LCP outdated. The acquisition of Crystal Cove State Park in December 1979, by the State of California, the passage of the Orange Coast National Urban Park Bill by the House of Representatives in May 1980, a gift of approximately 500 acres along Moro Ridge by The Irvine Company to the State of California for park purposes, and a proposal by the landowner to reduce the number of residential units from approximately 12,000 to approximately 2,000, together with an approximate 2,650-acre open space dedication, provide the opportunity for an entirely new and dramatic planning concept for the Irvine Coast. Based on these events, the Orange County Board of Supervisors, by Minute Order of June 4, 1980, directed the Environmental Management Agency, in cooperation with The Irvine Company, to prepare a new Local Coastal Program for Irvine Coast, in- cluding necessary General Plan amendments, zoning ordinance, and appropriate envi- ronmental documentation for consideration by the Board in December, 1980. In the course of carrying out this directive, a Concept Plan was prepared for consideration by the Orange County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors, and the State Coastal Commission. The Concept Plan provided a concise statement of the principal elements of an LCP, describing the general type, location, and acreage of IPG22a5 I-5 ■■e m r =r air . IM 1a or A rr as ,M im am '� .As no m sr land uses, the arterial highway system, the interrelationship between the various land uses, and open space commitments by the landowner. On August 13, 1980, the Orange County Board of Supervisors concurred with a Concept Plan for the Irvine Coast and authorized its transmittal to the State Coastal Commission. The State Coastal Commission considered the Concept Plan on August 19, and Septem- ber 18, 1980. The Commission as a whole took no action on the Plan, but individual commissioners indicated support for the basic concept. E. PUBLIC ACQUISITION PROGRAMS Five separate acquisition programs currently affect the Irvine Coast. These are illustrated in Exhibit I-4 and described as follows: State Park. The cornerstone of the public acquisition program is Crystal Cove State Park, an area of 1,898 acres acquired from The Irvine Company in December 1979. The park includes all but 50 acres of the land between Pacific Coast Highway and the ocean, as well as land in and around Moro Canyon. The location of the park and the commitment of the Department of Parks and Recreation are such that future expansion of State management to surrounding lands is appro- priate and feasible. State Expansion Area. In addition, the State has the right to purchase 393 acres adjacent to upper Moro Canyon. The Irvine Company has agreed to a fixed price for this area until September 1981. Moro Ridge Gift. The Irvine Company has donated 500 acres of Moro Ridge as a gift to the Department of Parks and Recreation. This ridge gives the park most of the Moro Canyon watershed and provides additional opportunities for inland access to the park. Dedication. The Irvine Company is also willing to dedicate an additional 2,650± acres, including all of the Emerald Canyon watershed, to the County of Orange in exchange for the development of designated residential and commercial areas of the LCP. National Park. The Orange Coast National Urban Park Bill proposes the crea- tion of a 12,000-acre park in the general location of the Laguna Greenbelt. Within the Irvine Coast, 931 acres in Muddy Canyon and on the frontal slopes of Wishbone Hill are proposed for Federal purchase. Proposed Sand Canyon Avenue forms the northwestern boundary of the Federal park, with the exception of the frontal slopes of Wishbone Hill. The proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor forms the northeastern boundary. F. AREA DESCRIPTION The Irvine Coast Planning Unit contains 9,400 acres and is located along the southern coast of Orange County between Newport Beach and Laguna Beach. The Irvine Coast generally extends from the ocean to the ridge of the San Joaquin Hills. Geographically and topographically, the coastal area of the Irvine Ranch contains five distinct areas: the shoreline, the coastal shelf, gently sloping coastal hills, picturesque canyons, and prominent ridgelines. PG22a6 I-7 Three and one-half miles of meandering shoreline offer a variety of scenic views, recreational opportunities, and marine habitats. The coastline contains both sandy beaches and rocky shores. The shoreline itself is generally a narrow strip isolated between the ocean and the coastal bluffs. Perched atop the coastal bluffs is a flat shelf extending inland to Pacific Coast Highway. This shelf offers great potential for coastal access, recreational opportunities, and scenic development sites. Inland from Pacific Coast Highway, in the northern portion of the coastal area, sit the gently sloping hillsides of Pelican Hill and Wishbone Hill. These hillsides provide a majority of the developable land area outside the coastal shelf. The hillsides are divided and defined by three of the five major canyon areas which extend perpendicular to the shoreline. Starting at the west, the canyons are Buck Gully, Los Trancos Canyon, and Muddy Canyon. Farther to the east are Moro and Emerald Canyons. The southern portion of the coastal area, inland from Pacific Coast Highway, is dominated by three prominent ridgelines. No -Name Ridge is located between Muddy and Moro Canyons. Moro Ridge extends inland from Moro Hill and is bounded by Moro and Emerald Canyons. Finally, Emerald Ridge contains a broken series of steep hillsides between Emerald and Laguna Canyons. The vast majority of the 9,400-acre coastal area is currently vacant. Signif- icant existing land uses include the Irvine Coast stables, Crystal Cove community, Moro Cove community, E1 Moro School, and three unimproved beach parking areas. There are two major property owners within the Irvine Coast Planning Unit. The Irvine Company owns approximately 7,000 acres. The State of California owns approximately 2,400 acres, acquired through purchase of 1,900 acres for the Crystal Cove State Park and donation by The Irvine Company of 500 acres. ' PG22a7 I-9 LAND---USE--.PLAN II. LAND USE PLAN SUMMARY The land use plan for the Irvine Coast (see Exhibit 11-1) recognizes the special qualities of the land, the need for protection of the environment, and sensitive utilization of coastal resources. It proposes land uses, open space, and resource protection which on balance are the most protective of the environment, the public interest, and private property rights; as such it meets the intent of Section 30007.5 of the California Coastal Act of 1976. A. OPEN SPACE A minimum of 5,640 acres (60%) and potentially as much as 6,950 acres (74%) is proposed for open space. The Local Coastal Program for the Irvine Coast recognizes the special quali- ties of the land, the diversity of environmental conditions, and the unique oppor- tunities for public access, recreation, and open space. The land use plan proposes a low -intensity, mixed -use concept which balances environmental protection, public interest, and private property rights. The centerpiece of the land use plan is the existing and proposed park and open space lands. The State of California has acquired 1,900 acres of Crystal Cove State Park through purchase and an additional 500 acres through a gift from The Irvine Company. The State also has the right to purchase an additional 393 acres of park land. In addition to the State Park, 931 acres of the proposed Orange Coast National Urban Park are located within the Irvine Coast Planning Area. Finally, the property owner has agreed to dedicate approximately 2,650 acres in conjunction with development of the residential areas. These public lands, com- bined with 570 acres of private recreation, will result in 60-74% of the entire planning area remaining in open 'space and recreational uses. B. VISITOR -SERVING FACILITIES Visitor -serving commercial sites will be located inland of Pacific Coast Highway. Increased public access to and use of the park and open space complex will be provided by two visitor -serving commercial sites located in the central part of the project site. Located off of Sand Canyon Avenue and Pelican Hill Road, both are easily ac- cessible to visitors. Visitor -serving facilities will include hotels, restaurants, commercial recreational facilities, offices, and tourist -commercial shops. Two small sites in Laguna Canyon are intended for small-scale facilities. C. CIRCULATION The arterial highways within the planning unit, other than Pacific Coast High- way, are Pelican Hill Road and Sand Canyon Avenue. Pelican Hill Road and Sand Canyon Avenue will provide access to the visitor - serving and public park facilities and relieve congestion on Pacific Coast Highway and other coastal access routes located northerly and southerly of the Irvine PG22all Coast. In a regional context, these roads become the most direct routes for inland -generated traffic to achieve coastal access to recreation areas on the Irvine Coast. They reduce the need to use Pacific Coast Highway as a distribution route for traffic that would otherwise come from MacArthur Boulevard and Laguna Canyon Road. Sand Canyon Avenue provides the major link in the recreational transportation system by providing access to most of the public recreational areas on the Irvine Coast. The roadway is planned to run in a general north -south direction from beyond the San Diego Freeway to Pacific Coast Highway, connecting with the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Sand Canyon Avenue is designated as a primary arterial highway (four lanes) on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). Pelican Hill Road is designated a major arterial highway (six lanes). Residential areas will be served by private road systems. D. RESIDENTIAL A maximum of 2,000 market -rate dwelling units will be allowed on the property. A majority of residential dwelling units will be dispersed single-family dwelling units on large lots. They will provide a sense of open space, reduce grading, preserve canyon bottoms, and enhance the compatibility of private develop- ment with public open space. Two areas of single-family detached or clustered units compatible with their Newport Beach neighbors are proposed adjacent to Cameo Shores and upper Pelican Ridge. Potential public purchase areas in the National Urban Park Bill are desig- nated for low -density residential use. If acquired for park purposes, these areas can be redesignated for public recreation/open space uses. PG22a12 II-2 r r r r m m r= m ■r ■r r r= m m r r= IRVINE _..._..._.. _.. ••1 MD NEWPORT BEACH �' •� A r' •�.• �A (ESE rd 124 MD PH k Crystal Cove , • -•`, . LEGEND LD LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL I0-1 DU'AC) C CONSERVATION MD MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 135b,5DU'A(;) H HISTORIC DISTRICT V VISITOR -SERVING COMMERCIAL PRELIMINARY ROADWAY R RESIDENTIAL RECREATION ALIGNMENTS PR PUBLIC RECREATION M -_l f n MOio Pao Exhibit 11-1 Land Use Plan IRVINE COAST PLANNING UNIT f- 3000' , LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM FNWIONNFHTAL IMNWXWNT AGENCY CaMTVO !)MANGE -* ALTERNATIVE LAND USE — AFFORDABLE HOUSING TABLE II-1 LAND USE SUMMARY RESIDENTIAL Low Density Medium Density Total COMMERCIAL Visitor -Serving Commercial OPEN SPACE Residential Recreation Public Recreation Historic District Conservation Total GRAND TOTALS % of Maximum Gross Total Dwelling Acres(l) Acreage Units (2) Population 3,529 37 2,000 6,625 58 1 3,587 38 2,000 6,625 122 580 6 - 2,835 30 - 12 - - 2,296 24 - - 5,723 60 - - 9,432 100 2,000 6,625 Notes: 1. All acreages are approximate. 2. Maximum figure does nt include units required as part of any affordable housing program. PG22a13 II-4 III. RESOURCE DESCRIPTION A. EXISTING CONDITIONS Vegetation (Flora). The diversity of terrestrial biological resources of the Irvine Coast area is exemplified by the wide range of habitats occurring within the area. Vegetative cover types include grassland, scrub, chaparral, riparian/oak woodland, and those plants associated with coastal beaches and cliffs. The coastal sage scrub plant community in its classic form is well represented on the site. The most extensive vegetative growth in the area is the scrub, chaparral, and scrub -chaparral combination cover types. Fish and Wildlife. The diversified habitats of the Irvine Coast area support a faunal complement abundant in both numbers of species and numbers of individuals. The area during all or part of the year can support a variety of species. These include many wildland species, as well as species associated with urban agricul- tural habitats. There are no designated rare or endangered mammalian, reptilian, or amphibian species whose distribution and habitat requirements include the Irvine Coast area. There are five species of birds (California brown pelican, southern bald eagle, American peregrine falcon, prairie falcon, and mountain plover) whose range and life history characteristics include the Irvine Coast area. The brown pelican has been seen along the beaches of the Irvine Coast area. The bald eagle and peregrine and prairie falcons are wide-ranging species which may use the Irvine Coast area as a feeding ground. No nesting sites for these species are known to occur in the Irvine Coast area. The mountain plover has not been sighted in the Irvine Coast area, but has been observed recently in similar habitat near the area. Ecological Interrelationships. The present use of the majority of the Irvine Coast area is for cattle grazing. Human activities have had a major impact on the vegetation of the area. The coastal bluffs were farmed for a number of years, but now support naturalized weedy plant species. Brush clearing and herbicide spraying of brushlands have been used to artificially expand the grasslands for improved cattle grazing and to prevent the invasion of brush into "pasture" area. Grazing itself has precipitated changes in vegetative species composition. Evidence of overgrazing (the presence of artichoke thistle and an abundance of cactus) is found in some locations in the area. As with other California grass- lands, native perennial grasses have been replaced by introduced (naturalized) annual species. PG22al4 III-1 The variety of habitats available is reflected in the diversity of wildlife species supported in the area. The number and diversity of species are further enhanced by the presence of ecotones (edges between one habitat type and another) created by the variation in habitats, the small area covered by many of the habitat stands, and the mix of stands. The vegetation and wildlife of the Irvine Coast area are continuous with adjacent similar areas. The beach and cliff portion of the area, however, is a separate entity; interaction between inland and coastal flora and fauna is minimal. Wildlife utilizes natural features such as wooded canyons and ridgelines and manmade features such as roads and firebreaks. Some water is available year-round for wildlife use in the form of a few seeps and springs in some canyon bottoms and stock water-ing tanks on the ridges. Marine Resources. The 3.5-mile shoreline of the Irvine Coast area is a series of coves with sandy beaches, interspersed with a few areas of rocky shore and headlands. Offshore, the sedimentary bottom is interrupted by jagged, rocky reefs extending from the intertidal zone to depths of 40 to 50 feet. A few deeper rocky outcroppings occur at depths of 60 to 600 feet. The floral and faunal complements of these areas are highly diversified, particularly the rocky intertidal areas and the offshore kelp bed community. In 1971, the Irvine Coast shoreline was designated by the California Depart- ment of Fish and Game as the Irvine Coastal Marine Life Refuge. It is the largest marine life refuge in California -- approximately 20,000 feet in length and 600 feet wide (600 feet seaward of the "Line of Ordinary High Tide"). This area received its refuge status in order to protect and preserve the tide pools from excessive, consumptive public use. The area has been listed as a potential educational reserve in the California Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan (California Department of Navigation and Ocean Development, 1972). The Irvine Coastal Marine Life Refuge was designated by the California State Water Resources Control Board as an Area of Special Biological Significance. The rationale for designating the Irvine Coast as an Area of Special Biological Significance included its status as a marine life refuge, its offshore kelp bed, and the offshore reefs and pinnacles which support a rich and diversified flora and fauna. Paleontologic Resources. The great bulk of the Irvine Coast Planning Unit is underlain by marine sedimentary rocks of Miocene age. These include units of the Vaqueros Formation, the Topanga Formation, the San Onofre Formation, and the Monterey Formation. On a sensitivity scale of 1 to 10 (1 = lowest; 10 = highest), the Miocene rocks are rated from 6 to 8 and are considered to be of high -order paleontologic significance. Along the coast on both sides of Pacific Coast Highway, marine terrace de- posits of late Pleistocene age are present. These deposits consist of silt, sand, PG22a15 III-2 and gravel and have yielded important fossils from a number of localities. These deposits are considered to be of high -order (9) paleontologic significance. Archaeological Resources. According to archaeological site survey record files maintained at several institutions and locations, numerous archaeological sites have been recorded to date within the Irvine Coast Planning Unit. These sites represent a variety of resources, including probable seasonal village sites, occupied rock shelters, rock art sites, and a pottery cache. At least nine separate archaeological surveys have been conducted within the planning unit. Many of the earlier surveys do not conform to current professional standards. Research and field survey work is currently under way. This work will consolidate and recheck previous surveys as necessary and will survey previously unsurveyed areas. Historical Resources. Historical resources are defined as items, deposits, structures, and foundations which have either local, State, or national historic significance and are generally older than 50 years. One Historical District has been identified at Crystal Cove. Placed on the National Register of Historic Places as an historical district in 1979, Crystal Cove consists of a small coastal resort community of some 44 cottages built during the 1920s and 1930s. Visual Resources. The Irvine Coast can be divided into two visual zones: coastal plain and coastal hills. The coastal plain, while relatively small com- pared to the entire project area, is the most important visual resource. This is due to the proximity and compelling nature of the ocean. The balance of the area is best described as typical California coastal hills. The most common visual experience is the overlapping and multiple infoldings of canyons and ridges that describe the horizon. The most significant visual resources which can be seen from Pacific Coast Highway are the ocean and three landforms identified on Exhibit III-2. In all situations, the ocean is the most dominant visual resource. B. ISSUES AND FINDINGS The intent of the Coastal Act, as described by the legislators in the early sections of the Act, is primarily to protect coastal resources and provide for public access. The Legislature also recognized, however, in Section 30007.5, that conflicts might occur when trying to carry out all of the Act's policies. The Legislature, therefore, established what has been called the "balancing" test. This test allows the Commission to approve a plan which, although it may cause some damage to an individual resource, on balance is more protective of the environment as a whole. Public acquisition of large, continuous open space areas is recognized as a superior means to guarantee the preservation of coastal resources such as vegetation, wildlife, and natural landforms, and the creation of new public access and recreation opportunities. The Irvine Coast Plan has struck a balance in two ways which are consistent with the intent of the Act. First, the plan proposes low intensity development in most of the northern portion, thereby reducing the amount of potential damage to the environment that would normally require mitigation. Secondly, with the State PG22a16 III-3 IRVINE n 1 >:�: Areti:Roel LEGEND © PROMINENT LANDFORMS 4- VIEWS FROM OOAST WGNWAY 0 Crystal Cove 2 E1 1 R� •:% Ly' • ! r t f.y C•Kt: M.0ro Core,•'`:: Exhibit 111-2 Significant Visual Resources IRVINE COAST PLANNING UNIT 1'=3000' LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM 1.� TlNiM HTAt IAM"IAHTAGQXY Cp TY OF OpAMG[ acquisition and the Irvine Company's gift and future dedications, assurances can now be given for the permanent protection of large resource areas. A successful balance between protection and development has now been achieved. Resource protection issues are addressed by the LCP in two principal ways. First, a substantial portion of the area is designated for preservation in its natural state, thereby protecting all coastal resources contained therein. Second, policies have been developed to address a wide range of issues in areas of the Irvine Coast designated for development and to mitigate any adverse impacts. ' PG22al7 IV. LAND USE PLAN The Land Use Plan for the Irvine Coast LCP consists of maps, policies, and supporting text. The plan is composed of four separate but interrelated compo- nents: Resource Conservation and Management, Coastal Access, Residential, and Public Works/Infrastructure. Each of these components complements and supports the Land Use Map (Exhibit II-0. The adopted Orange County General Plan consists of all nine elements as re- quired by State Law. Zoning and subsequent actions by the County must be consis- tent with the policies in these elements. This land use plan is consistent with the General Plan, but it contains land use descriptions and policies which are in some instances more specific and which apply exclusively to the Irvine Coast. A. RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT 1. Open Space Dedication The purpose of the open space dedication program is to protect certain speci- fied coastal resources to offset adverse environmental impacts in residential development areas which will not otherwise be mitigated. Permanent protection and preservation of major canyon watersheds, visually significant ridgelines, stream courses, archaeological and palentological sites, riparian vegetation, coastal chapparal and wildlife habitat is provided by dedication to a public agency (the County of Orange or its designee). Environmental impacts to be mitigated by the dedication program include habitat and archaeological impacts caused by residential and road development on Pelican Hill, habitat impacts on Los Trancos Canyon and Muddy Canyon caused by the construction of Pelican Hill Road and Sand Canyon Avenue, public view and use impacts caused by residential construction in the Cameo Shores area, and scenic resource impacts caused by residential and tourist commer- cial development on the frontal slopes of Pelican Hill and Wishbone Hill. The overall habitat protection strategy being pursued in the Orange County Coastal Zone is the permanent protection of large, contiguous open space areas through large-scale master planning rather than the protection of smaller, discon- tinuous habitat areas that might result from a project -by -project site mitigation approach. An example of such an approach is the creation of the Aliso greenbelt in conjunction with the approval of the Aliso Viejo planned community. With the creation of Crystal Cove State Park through State purchase and the Moro Ridge gift by The Irvine Company, a much greater degree of habitat and open space protection can be achieved by means of a dedication program directed toward the assembly of large blocks of habitat area contiguous with Crystal Cove State Park than would be the case if mitigation measures were directed primarily toward limiting impacts in or near areas proposed for development. (Also see Coast Commission Appeal No. 326-80, Broadmoor, Page 18.) While specific mitigation measures are being included for potential impacts within or near the development areas (e.g. erosion control measures), the primary mitigation measure for impacts that are not thus avoided is the phased dedication program. In addition, a significant degree of habitat protection will be assured for the Los Trancos Canyon and Buck Gully habitat areas as a result of their designation as limited private recreational use areas. PG13al IV-1 The landowner is required to dedicate designated areas of Emerald, Boat and Laguna Canyons to the County of Orange after development of residential and commer- cial areas in accordance with the following: a. Lands to be Dedicated: The Dedication Area includes approximately 2,650 acres of Emerald Canyon, Emerald Ridge, Laguna Canyon, and Boat Canyon as delineated on Exhibit IV-1. Because the relative resource values within the Dedication Area vary substantially, subareas have been delineated which contain identifiable resource types, i.e., environmentally sensitive habitat areas, ridgeline, landforms visible from PCH, etc. Each subarea has been assigned a percentage which reflects its resource value relative to the whole Dedication Area (Exhibit IV-1-1). b. Lands to be Developed: The development Area includes all areas desig- nated for residential and commercial uses on the Land Use Map. Because the relative resource values within the Development Area vary substantially, subareas have been delineated which contain identifiable resource types, i.e., recreation suitability, significant landforms, etc. Each subarea has been assigned a percentage which reflects its resource value relative to the whole Development Area. (1) Should the State of California acquire the 393-acre parcel known as the "State Expansion Area" (Exhibit I-4) before October 1, 1981, said acquisition parcel will be excluded from Subarea D-7 and the proportional resource value assigned to said parcel will be reassigned to the residual portion of Subarea D-7. (2) Except as provided in (1), should the federal government or other public agency acquire any lands within the development area, upon such acquisition the "relative resource impact value of the acquired lands shall be reassigned proportionately to all other development sub -areas. If development of any development area was proceeded such that dedications have already been offered or granted, additional dedication corresponding to the reassigned relative resource impact value shall be similarily offered or granted within 30 days of the acquisition. c. Easements: (1) Upon the recordation of the first subdivision map for the Irvine Coast, a temporary easement will be recorded for all the Dedication Sub- areas for the purpose of implementing the interim conservation management policies of the Local Coastal Program (Section IV-A3). Said easement will be terminated upon the earlier of the following events: (a) A fee title conveyance of the area to the County or its designee. (b) Termination of the Dedication and Development Agreement or the inability of The Irvine Company to obtain specific performance under the DDA where a court has determined, as a matter of law, that the Company has fulfilled its obligations pursuant to the terms of the DDA. PG13a2 IV-2 I = = m m = = = = = = = = m m m = m m �! O-2 1i D-4 D-7 ' t i ' O-1 ?. r� O-4 i D-2 D-5 i D-6 �._.. 0-11 DEVELOPMENT & DEDICATION AREAS EXHIBIT IV-1 FFil Develoi a Subarea LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM F6:1-1 Dedr ion Subarea WV WE COAST VLANNWO MT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AOENCT COUN"WomNaE Relative Resource Values of Subareas Development Areas EXHIBIT IV-1-1 Resource Approx. Impact Subarea Acreage Value D-1 50 20% D-2 890 20% D-3 70 10% D-4 740 10% D-5 490 25% D-6 40 5% D-7 1,450 10% Totals 3,730 100% Dedication Area Resource Approx. Protection Subarea Acreage Value 0-1 910 45% 0-2 780 5% 0-3 230 20% 0-4 730 30% Totals 2,650 100% PG13a3 IV-3 (c) Any court decision or action of a public agency which in the opinion of a third party arbitrator mutually agreed to by the County and Company prevents further sale of lots or commercial con- struction according to the terms of the original development approval. (2) Upon the recordation of the first subdivision maps in Subareas D-1 and D-2 and the approval of the first building permit in Subarea D-3 or after eighteen (18) months from the recordation of the first subdivision maps in subareas D-1 and D-2, a temporary public access easement will be recorded for Subarea 0-1 for the purpose of construction, operation and maintenance of a public recreation trail system provided that the County will accept responsibility for all liability and maintenance, including fuel modification, fire breaks, fire access, drainage control and erosion control. Said easement will also include a public access route through the western portion of Subarea 0-4 from a public road in Laguna Beach to the lower portion of Subarea 0-1. (3) Upon the recordation of the first subdivision maps in Subareas D-4, D-5 and D-7 and the approval of the first building permit in Subarea D-6 or after eighteen (18) months from the recordation of the first sub- division maps in subareas D-4, D-5 and D-7, a temporary public access easement- will be recorded for Subareas 0-2, 0-3 and 0-4 for the purpose of construction operation and maintenance of a public recreation trail system provided that the County will accept responsibility for all liability and maintenance, including fuel modification, fire breaks, fire access, drain- age control and erosion control. (4) The Easements of (2) and (3) above will be terminated upon the earlier of the following events: (a) A fee title conveyance of the area to the County or its designee. (b) Termination of the Dedication and Development Agreement or the inability of The Irvine Company to obtain specific performance under the DDA where a court has determined, as a matter of law, that the Company has fulfilled its obligations pursuant to the terms of the DDA. (c) Any court decision or action of a public agency which in the opinion of a third party arbitrator mutually agreed to by the County and Company prevents further sale of lots or commercial con- struction according to the terms of the original development approval. Said easements will contain, among other things, the following provi- sions: (a) The County is responsible for ensuring public access to area through the adjoining State Park. (b) The County will provide reasonable security and management to safeguard resurces within the area in accordance with the Local Coastal Program and to prevent trespassing onto the Company's adjoining property. PG13a4 Iv-4 (c) The Company will discontinue all agricultural operations in the area which are determined inconsistent with the County's management programs. d. Development to Dedication Ratio: For purposes of the Open Space Dedication Program, the resource value of the total Development Area is equal to the total resource value of Dedication Area. (1) The value of each Development Subarea or portion thereof relative to the total Development Area will be mitigated by Dedication Subareas or portions thereof with equal value relative to the total Dedication Area. (2) The resource values within any subarea are assumed to be equal. Therefore, the assigned value of a portion of a subarea equals the percent- age of land area of that portion to the total land area of the subarea. e. Development and Dedication Phasing: (1) As each tract map for residential land uses within one of the Development Subareas is submitted for tentative map approval, the portion of the Dedication Subarea to be offered for dedication will equal the resource value of the individual development tract. (2) As building permits for commercial uses within one of the Develop- ment Subareas are received, the portion of the Dedication Subareas to be offered for dedication will equal the resource value of the commercial site. (3) Development Subareas are not required to be developed in any particular sequence. Dedication Subareas 0-1 and 0-2 and portions thereof will be offered for dedication in a sequence to be determined by the County of Orange and approved by the Executive Director of the Commission. Dedication Subareas 0-3 and 0-4 and portions thereof will be offered for dedication in numerical sequence after all of Subareas 0-1 and 0-2 have been offered for dedication. (4) The boundaries and phasing of dedication subareas may be modified by agreement of the Company, the County and the Commission. Such modifi- cations may be treated as a minor amendment to this plan at the direction of the Executive Director of the Commission. f. Procedures for Conveyance of Title: The landowner records the final ' subdivision map and simultaneously records an offer of dedication on a dedica- tion increment. (1) Each offer of dedication will provide that the title for each ' subarea identified in section a above shall be automatically conveyed upon acceptance by a qualified agency named in the offer at such time as the ' earlier of the following two events occurs: (a) 75% of the lots within residential subdivisions have been sold ' or 75% of certificates of use and occupancy for commercial development have been received; or PG13a5 IV-5 (b) Seventeen (17) years have elapsed from the date of recording of the offer of dedication. (2) At such time as (1)(a) or (1)(b) above occurs, the County of Orange will have ten years to accept the offer of dedication, after which the State of California will have two years to accept the offer of dedica- tion, after which any agency named in the offer may accept it within the remaining term of the offer. (3) If pursuant to part f(1) above offers of dedication can be accepted and title can be conveyed as to any complete subarea (i.e., 0-1, 0-2, 0-3 or 0-4), the County of Orange will have only two years to accept such offer of dedication, after which the State of California will have only one year to accept the offer, after which any agency named in the offer may accept it within the remaining term of the offer. (4) If after twenty-nine (29) years from the date of recording of the offer of dedication, no public agency has accepted said offer, The Irvine Company will regain full title and unencumbered use of the offered land. (5) Acceptance of the offer of dedication pursuant to part f(1) above will be qualified by the requirement that the dedication will not occur if The Irvine Company is prevented from completing the'development by opera- tion of federal, state or local law or by any court decision. However, if after ten (10) years have elapsed from the date of recording the final subdivision map, the dedication cannot be executed, the County may within one year require The Irvine Company to offer for dedication a portion of a Dedication Subarea equal to the resource value of that portion of the subdivision map in which lots within residential subdivisions have been sold and building permits or conditional use permits within commercial sites have been received. (6) Each offer of dedication will specify the procedure for keeping track of lot sales and for determining when the Company is required to deliver the deed to the dedication area to the offeree. (7) The Dedication Program will satisfy all local and State recrea- tion, preservation, conservation, and open -space land dedication require- ments for zoning, site plans, tract maps, and all other discretionary approvals within the Irvine Coast, except for local park requirements which will be fulfilled in the private recreation areas. All dedicated lands will be used for public park, conservation and open space purposes. g. Implementation: The County of Orange and The Irvine Company will enter into a Dever opment and Dedication Agreement" which implements the dedication program before development begins. Provisions which relate to the dedication shall be reviewed and approved by the Executive Director of the Commission as sufficient to carry out the provision of this land use plan. Iv-6 PG13a6 2. Conservation Category The Land Use Map (Exhibit II-3) shows approximately 2,296 acres in the Conser- vation category. This category indicates those lands in which natural resources are to be preserved and enhanced after acquisition by a,public agency. Uses which are of a passive recreational nature (such as viewpoints), of limi- ted active recreational nature (such as .hiking and equestrian trails), concerned with scientific study and interpretation, or involve public safety, facilities, and utilities are to be permitted. The conservation category is not intended to identify specific resources (such as environmentally sensitive habitats, archaeological sites, and stream courses) for preservation. Rather, it is applied to a broad area under the assumption that a large, contiguous area of undeveloped land 1) enhances preservation opportunities for the largest number and variety of resources, 2) provides a buffer area for any significant or environmentally sensitive resources which may be contained therein, 3) can be complemented and enhanced by adjoining public recreation lands (Crystal Cove State Park), and 4) can be managed more efficiently and protected more surely. The following policies and declarations apply to those lands which have been designated Conservation after acquisition by a public agency. a. Wildlife habitats will be preserved by controlling human access to Emerald and Moro Canyons. b. Key areas of chaparral and coastal sage will be protected from human intrusion. c. Stream courses in Emerald and Moro Canyons will be retained in a natu- ral state or enhanced. d. Significant riparian areas will he preserved as sources of shelter and water for wildlife. e. Improvements will be compatible with the natural environment and will not damage landforms, vegetation, or wildlife to any significant degree. f. All archaeological sites and paleontological sites will be preserved. g. Any buffer areas necessary for the protection of habitat are located within the Conservation category. h. All existing trees and rock outcroppings will be preserved in Moro and Emerald Canyons unless in -kind replacement can be made. i. Lands within 350 feet of Laguna Canyon Road and less than 30 percent slope may be used for trail heads, recreation staging areas, public utilities, drainage, floodand erosion control facilities, and other similar public uses. Development of these areas for such uses shall not constitute a significant effect on landform, vegetation or wildlife for purposes of 2(b), 2(d), and 2(e) above. PG13a7 IV-7 U ' 3. Interim Conservation Management Most of the Conservation lands are currently under private ownership and will be transferred in increments to a public agency over a period of time. Prior to transfer, the landowner will be responsible for the maintenance and management of t these lands. This section provides an interim management program which will preserve natu- ral resources for future public stewardship in an economically sound manner. The objective of the program is to maintain the lands in their current condition. Not- withstanding the provisions of the Conservation category, the following policies shall apply to lands designated Conservation and subject to the Dedication and ' Development Agreement while they remain in private ownership. a. The landowner may continue existing agriculture uses including cattle ' grazing and may construct and maintain any fencing, firebreaks, fuelmodifica- tion zones, water pipes, cattle -watering facilities, and access roads necessary for the continued use and protection of the property. ' b. No new development will occur, except for improvements to existing facilities, new fences, and fire, flood and erosion control facilities. c. New fences will be designed so that wildlife, except large mammals such as deer, can pass through. d. No alteration to existing stream courses or landforms in Emerald Canyon ' will occur except as necessary to provide fire protection. e. No excavations of archaeological and paleontological sites will be per- mitted. No artifacts will be removed from archaeological sites unless endan- gered by vandalism. 4. Historic District Category ' The land use map identifies a portion of Crystal Cove in the Historic District category. The purpose of this category is to preserve the historic re- source values of the property listed on the National Register of Historic Places while providing for public recreation and park use. Uses within the Public Rec- reation category will be allowed provided they do not interfere with or degrade the historic resources present. ' 5. Archaeology Surveys within the Irvine Coast have recorded 74 archaeological sites. Approx- imately 26 sites are located within development areas and may be impacted. The majority of the recorded sites are located in recreation and conservation land use categories and are designated for preservation. ' In order to ensure appropriate mitigation for archaeological and paleonto- logical resource sites, Orange County has established policy and procedural guidance for cultural/scientific resources in the Conservation Element of the General Plan and Board Resolution No. 77-866 (adopted 5/24/77). Methods for archaeological and paleontological resource protection are contained in "A Report on Cultural/Scientific Resources for the County of Orange," dated March, 1977. ' PG13a8 IV-8 a. A literature search by a qualified archaeologist for valid archaeologi- cal surveys will be required. If such a search determines that no valid survey has been performed within a project area, such a survey will be performed. b. Grading of a resource area will be temporarily deferred if archaeologi- cal resources are discovered during grading in order to determine the extent and relative scientific value of the site; to determine prior to resumption of grading whether to preserve, salvage or destroy the site. c. A report and test of impact areas will be required if evidence is found that an archaeological resource is being or will be impacted by a project. To submit the report to the approving agency for the project, defining the scien- tific importance of the find and a recommendation as to its disposition, d. A site disposition determination based on any required reports prior to project approval will be made. e. When the determination is made that a site is to be salvaged, the project developer and the archaeologist shall coordinate their activities so as to adequately salvage the site. An archaeologist will be retained to observe grading activities in areas where a survey, report, or other information indicates the probable presence of archaeological resources. 6. Paleontology a. A literature search by a qualified paleontologist for valid paleonto- logical surveys will be required. If such a search determines that no valid survey has been performed within a project area, such a survey will be per- formed. b. Further grading of a resource area will be temporarily deferred if paleontological resources are discovered during grading in order to determine the extent and relative scientific value of the site; or to determine prior to resumption of grading whether to preserve, salvage, or destroy the site. c. A report and test of impact areas will be required if evidence is found that a paleontological resource is being or will be impacted by a project. To submit the report to the approving agency for the project, defining the scien- tific importance of the find and a recommendation as to its disposition. d. A site disposition determination based on any required reports prior to project approval will be made. e. When the determination is made that a site is to be salvaged, the pro- ject developer and the paleontologist shall coordinate their activities so as to adequately salvage the site. f. A paleontologist will be retained to observe grading activities in areas where a survey, report, or other information indicates the probable presence of paleontological resources. PG13a9 IV-9 I 7. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas ' The overall habitat protection strategy involves the establishment of the Emerald Canyon area (dedication area) as the highest priority habitat protection area. In this area, neither substantial physical nor visual intrusion is allowed. In other habitat areas, such as the recreation and residential development areas, the habitat values are not as high a priority as the Emerald Canyon habitat when considered in the context of the Irvine Coast's resources. Thus, the standards of protection are not as absolute as in Emerald Canyon. Recreation areas such as Moro and Los Trancos are established as second priority habitat protection areas in which some physical and visual intrusion is allowed. Residential and Commercial areas have no direct function as habitat protection areas. In summary, the funda- mental habitat protection occurs in the dedication area, and the LCP policies have been developed in that context. For purposes of Section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act, natural drainage courses designated by a dash and three dot symbol on the USGS 7.5 Minute Series map, Laguna Beach Quadrangle, dated 1965, photorevised 1972 (hereafter referred to as t "USGS Drainage Courses"), riparian vegetation associated with the aforementioned drainage courses, coastal waters (near shore, rocky intertidal areas, and kelp beds), wetlands, estuaries and habitats of rare or endangered species are classi- fied as "environmentally sensitive habitat areas" (ESHAs). ' The location of all known ESHA's within the Irvine Coast is found in Exhibit IV-1A. No wetlands, estuaries, habitats of rare, threatened and endangered spe- cies, or areas of special biological importance are known to exist in the Irvine ' Coast. Most of the significant ESHAs are located within conservation and recreation land use categories. The Land Use Plan recognizes that the preservation of these particular resources and the open space dedication program are more protective of coastal resources than the protection of more isolated and relatively less signifi- cant habitat areas within designated recreation and commercial development areas. ' The potential loss of any ESHAs through the construction of public facilities such as arterial highways is offset by the coastal access benefits derived from these roadways. The potential loss of any ESHAs through other development is offset by the open space dedication program. In accordance with Section 30007.5 of the Coastal Act, it is the intent of this LCP to establish the preservation and de- velopment balances described above and allow the completion of the residential and commercial land uses as described herein in order that specified open spaces will ' be preserved. In order to clarify the treatment of ESHAs with respect to their relative ' significance and the function of the open space dedication program, the following ESHA categories have been established. ' a. ESHA Category A: USGS Drainage Courses and associated riparian/oak woodland vegetation are the most significant habitat areas in the Irvine Coast and subject to the most protection. Except for Muddy Canyon, they are located entirely within the Residential Recreation, Public Recreation and Conservation land use categories. Much of the vegetation lining the major canyon bottoms on the Irvine Coast is oak trees. Typical riparian plant species such as willows or sycamores PG13a10 IV-10 - :fir. _'Z la• _ � �•.. ,, '��__�. + , '^``— J'' r � �.�__��Y� Ail - It _``tom<• .1k ." �+�. _. Sy. � tir ;.-r 1♦ 1 [ \, t 'Its N �`. 1 ' ..♦sv � ..._._ /f' psi .� .. ' i c i- r , - .�, \ '\ . 1 If 51 41 :'A.T � I i•rJ ram• •i \� 1 / �/�♦— � w.' ..i .y • �� '.! ' ` 1 �—♦�_ � / ��/ice ' ' s`J� f c l.-�f1/`i t"•f l a i `14• x{..A; '., '� �_..� dr n[;: ;.� :, ji ,%J_st q';L� %,' '%�, :';��; �,��� •`gam-;: '��' •�' ; _ � n.:ds-; ✓.:::Lis >• EXHIBIT IV—lA ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREAS �Wc'aoaA—°'+>.wc�a.rrw.�. V+ MOW c.Mour a-w.wa oar.• c- Wu1J Wtlra LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM vl"�C "" WME COAST i"A QUNR ENYNIONMENTAL MANAOTMENTAOENCY COUNTY OF LYfANOE . I are not found in substantial amounts. In final EIR 134 (8/18/76) the oak wood- land was mapped in combination with the more representative riparian species as riparian/oak woodland vegetation in Figure 25. Nine surface water sources were identified in EIR Figure 25 in the Irvine Coastal area in Buck Gully, Los Trancos and Moro and Emerald Canyons. All nine water sources come from natural seeps, although two of the three sources in Buck Gully are probably augmented by percolating irrigation runoff from adjacent devel- opment. Flow from all nine seeps occurs all or most of the year during average rainfall years, although downstream flow may be very limited. These USGS Drainage Courses are the most significant ESHAs in the Irvine Coast because they contain all of the following habitat characteristics: 1) standing or flowing water all or a significant part of the year; 2) a definitive stream bottom (i.e., banks with a sandy or rocky bottom); and 3) adjacent riparian/oak woodland vegetation lining the water course. The following policies shall apply to Category A ESHAs which are identified on Exhibit IV -IA. (1) The natural drainage course will be maintained in its existing state except as follows: (a) Where existing access roads and trails cross streams, where emergency roads are required by state or county fire officials and where access roads are required to serve residential units in Muddy Canyon, the channel may be modified to allow the construction and maintenance of existing or new road or trail crossings. Such modification shall be the least physical alteration required to maintain an existing road or to construct a new road and shall be undertaken, to the extent feasible, in areas involving the least adverse impact to stream and riparian habitat values. (b) Where drainage and erosion and related facilities are needed for new development and to protect the drainage course, the channel may be modified to allow construction of said facilities. Such modification shall be the least physical alteration required to construct and maintain such facilities and shall be undertaken, to the extent feasible, in areas involving the least adverse impact to the drainage course. Where feasible, drainage and erosion and related facilities will be located outside the drainage course. (c) Where the construction of Sand Canyon Avenue as shown on Exhibit IV-6 requires filling or other modification of drainage courses. (2) Setbacks from the centerline of the natural drainage course will be reserved for the propagation of existing riparian/nak woodland vegetation except as follows: (a) Where access roads and trails exist or where new emergency roads are required by state or county fire officials, vegetation may be removed in the maintenance or construction of said roads and trails. PG13all IV-11 (b) Natural riparian vegetation may be thinned or selectively removed when habitat enhancement and/or fire control advantages can be demon- strated. Existing vegetation which cannot be classified as riparian/oak woodland may also be removed. (c) Where drainage and erosion control and related facilities are needed to protect surrounding areas and the streams, vegetation may be removed in the construction and maintenance of said facilities. Such removal will be the least required to construct and maintain such facili- ties and shall be undertaken, to the extent feasible, in areas involving the least adverse impact to riparian/oak woodland vegetation. Where feasible, drainage and erosion and related facilities will be located outside areas containing riparian/oak woodland vegetation. (d) Where the construction of Sand Canyon Avenue as shown on Exhibit IV-6 requires the removal or alteration of natural vegetation. (3) Existing natural springs will be preserved. (4) Where feasible, the separation of scrub and chaparral from riparian habitats will be avoided. Vegetation offering escape cover will be allowed adja- cent to riparian and oak woodland areas wherever feasible. (5) Nothing in this section shall require the replacement or restoration of natural features which are destroyed or modified by natural causes such as fire, flood, erosion and draught. b. ESHA Category B: USGS Drainage Courses which are of relatively less habitat value and which are located in Residential Recreation, Public Recreation, and Conservation land use categories. These areas contain water flows only when it rains and small amounts of riparian vegetation. The policies for Category A ESHAa will apply to Category B ESHAs. c. ESHA Category C: The coastal waters along the Irvine Coast have been designated as both a Marine Life Refuge and an Area of Special Biological Signifi- cance. They contain near shore reefs, rocky intertidal areas and kelp beds, and are located entirely within Crystal Cove State Park. The Department of Parks and Recreation will be responsible for providing protection for tidepools and other marine resources from park users. Protection of water quality is provided by the Erosion and Urban Runoff Control policies (Section IV A-8) and Watershed Management policies (Section IV C-5). d. ESHA Category D: USGS Drainage Courses which are of relatively less habitat value and which are located in residential and commercial land use cate- gories and two specific Public Recreation sites. These areas contain water flows only when it rains and small amounts of riparian vegetation. Most of these ESHAs will be impacted to varying degrees by development, and that impact is mitigated by the open space dedication program. The policies which apply to Category D ESHAs are those which apply to the specific land use category in which the ESHA is located. PG13al2 IV-12 F I I I I 8. Erosion and Urban Runoff Control a. General The primary measure for minimizing potential erosion and urban runoff impacts is the permanent preservation in open space of 60% of the Irvine Coast, through a combination of state purchase, the gift of Moro Ridge and the phased dedication program. Within the areas to be developed, the reduction in plan density from the original 12,000 units to 2,000 units has resulted in a reduction in grading and the amount of impervious surface, thereby signifi- cantly reducing both potential erosion and urban runoff impacts. Additionally, specific development standards provided below will assure that unavoidable impacts within the development areas are mitigated. The major objective of the erosion and urban runoff management policies for the Irvine Coast is to assure that erosion and runoff rates do not signi- ficantly exceed natural rates while at the same time assuring sand replenish- ment provided within the coastal watershed is maintained (The Irvine coast littoral cell is extremely limited and is heavily dependent on the local watershed for sand replenishment). In order to meet this objective concern, the following overall policies will apply to all areas of the Irvine Coast: (1) Sediment movement in the natural channels will not be signifi- cantly changed in order to maintain stable channel sections and maintain the present level of beach sand replenishment. (2) Streets will be located to minimize grading impacts, provided that horizontal and vertical alignments are consistent with approved design standards. I 7 II 1 I (3) Removal of natural vegetation will be limited to graded areas and that required for fuel modification. Native vegetation will be reestab- lished along edge conditions when not in conflict with fuel modification requirements. (4) Erosion control measures for grading and construction done during the period from April 15 to October 15 will be implemented by October 15 and maintained as necessary through April 15. For grading and construction commencing in the period from October 15 to April 15, erosion control measures will be implemented in conjunction with the project. Erosion control measures for areas not affected by grading and construction are not required. b. Information Requirements Each site plan, subdivision map and/or major public works development shall include the following information where applicable: (1) Accurate contours at 2-foot intervals for slopes up to 15 percent and 5-foot intervals for slopes over 15 percent showing both the existing and the finished grade topography of the ground to be graded and filled or cleared and the 15 feet adjacent to such area. ' PG13al3 IV-13 PG13al4 (2) A subsurface soil and geological report including subsurface investigations. For the purpose of preparing the soil and geological reports, subsurface investigations shall be performed throughout the area to sufficiently describe the existing conditions. In particular, subsur— face investigations shall be conducted where stability may be lessened by proposed grading or filling or where any of the following conditions are discovered or proposed: (a) At fault zones within 300 feet of an Alquist—Priolo zone, formations, (b) At contact zones between two or more geologic (c) At zones of trapped water of high table, (d) At bodies of intrusive materials, (e) At historic landslides or where the topography is indicative of prehistoric landslides, (f) At adversely sloped bedding plains, overturned folds, and other geologic formations of similar importance, (g) At locations where a fill slope is to be placed above a cut slope, (h) At proposed cuts exceeding 20 feet in height, (i) Locations of proposed fills exceeding 20 feet in height, (j) Where side hill fills are to be placed on existing slopes steeper than 15 percent, ' (k) Wherever groundwater from either the grading project or adjoining properties is likely to substantially reduce the subsurface stability. (3) A revegetation program specifying the methods to be used following completion of the project. The final density of vegetative cover to be established shall be estimated. This information shall be used where appropriate in the drainage element. This element shall include a report and a map showing the existing and the proposed tree and vegetative cover of the site. (4) A program showing extent and manner of tree cutting and vegetation clearing, including plans for disposing of cut trees and vegetation, and means for protection of remaining vegetation. (5) A schedule showing when each stage and element of the project will be completed, including estimated starting and completion dates, hours of ' operation, days of week of operation, and the total area of soil surface which is to be disturbed during each state of construction. IV-14 ' C? U I li 11 n 7 It r II c. Erosion Standards (1) Erosion shall be allowed to continue at rates approximating the natural or existing level before development. (2) As much as possible, existing vegetation shall be maintained on the construction site. (3) Areas of disturbed soil shall be reseeded and covered with vege- tation; mulches may be used to cover ground areas temporarily, other mechanical or vegetative techniques to control erosion may be used where possible or necessary providing that they are fully discussed in the approved plan. (4) Erosion control devices shall be installed in coordination with clearing, grubbing and grading of upstream construction; the plan shall describe the location and timing for the installation of such devices and shall describe the parties responsible for repair and maintenance of such devices. d. Sediment Standards (1) The need for sedimentation control structures shall be addressed in the plan to be submitted. (2) Required sediment basins (e.g., debris basins, desilting basins or silt traps) shall be installed in conjunction with the initial grading operations and maintained through the development/construction process to remove sediment from runoff wastes draining from land undergoing develop- ment. (3) To prevent sedimentation of off -site areas, vegetation shall be maintained to the maximum extent possible on site. Where necessary, vegetation should be replanted to help control sedimentation. (4) Temporary mechanical means of controlling sedimentation such as hay bails, earth berms or sand -bagging around the site, may be used as part of an overall grading plan, subject to the approval of the permit - issuing agency. (5) Design of sedimentation control devices shall be coordinated with run-off control structures. e. Runoff Standards (1) Peak flood discharge rates of storm water flows in the major streams shall not exceed the peak rates of storm water runoff from the area in its natural or undeveloped state unless it can be demonstrated that an increase in the discharge of no more than 10% of the natural peak rate will not significantly affect the natural erosion/beach sand replen- ishment process. PG13al5 iv-15 (2) Drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed in ac- cordance with the Orange County Flood Control District Design Manual. (3) Provisions shall be made to direct storm runoff water to storm drains or suitable water courses and to prevent surface runoff from damag- ing faces of cut and fill slopes. (4) Adequate maintenance of retention basins shall be assured at the design as a pre -condition to the issuance of the grading permit. f. Soils/Soils Disposal (1) After disturbance, soils shall be stabilized with temporary or permanent stabilizations techniques by October 15th of each year. All work occurring between October 15 and April 1 must be performed so that the project can be protected against rainfall effects within 24 hours. In order to demonstrate compliance with this provision, applicants shall submit a proposed grading schedule. (2) Construction equipment shall be limited to the actual area to be , disturbed according to the approved plans. (3) Temporary stabilization techniques equivalent to those described herein may be used on areas which will be redisturbed during future construction. Permanent stabilization techniques as described herein or equivalent must be used in all other areas. (4) Disposal of earthen materials removed during any of the operations described above shall be as follows: (a) Top soil for later use in revegetation shall be stockpiled on the site in previously designated areas approved by the permit -issuing authority. Runoff from the stockpiled area shall be controlled to prevent erosion. (b) Other earthen material shall be disposed of at a location approved by the permit -issuing authority. (c) No materials shall be placed within the 100-year floodplain of coastal waters and streams. g. Vegetation (1) Vegetation not to be removed by the operation shall be protected ' from damage during construction or grading and related activities. (2) Where construction activities during the rainy season would involve substantial foot or vehicle traffic, or stockpiling of materials in a manner that would prevent establishment of temporary vegetation, alterna- tive temporary stabilization methods shall be used, I PG13al6 IV-16 ', 11 II I 11 I (3) All cut and fill slopes in a completed development involving grading shall be stabilized through planting of native annual grasses and shrubs or appropriate non-native plants valuable for erosion protection. All cut and fill slopes shall be planted by hydroseeding, under the direc- tion of a licensed landscape architect, sufficient to provide a mixture of deep rooted permanent plants and nursery crops valuable for temporary stabilization. (4) During construction, the permittee shall provide barriers around all adjacent native vegetation not to be removed. Vegetation removed during clearing operations shall be disposed of by chopping and stockpiling in the manner and at a location approved by the permit -issuing authority. (5) All soils disturbed but not completely in place, including graded pads, shall be planted or otherwise protected prior to October 15th by temporary erosion control methods. 9. Development/Open Space Edges The treatment of the edge between open space in the conservation, residen- tial recreation, and public recreation land use categories and development is important to the protection of coastal resources and the safety of future resi- dents. Along this edge a buffer zone will be established which serves one or more of the following functions: protection of open space and habitat values from development, protection of public views, and provision of fire safety. The edge conditions throughout the Irvine Coast vary greatly and the lines shown on the land use map do not necessarily define the ultimate development/open space boundary. One or more of the following or other treatments will be used to define the width and function of buffer zones between development and open space. a. Irrigated landscaping will screen development from public view and minimize the need for fuel modification on down slopes. b. Where development adjoins coastal scrub and chaparral in dense stands, an "ecotone" area will be created by thinning out woody plants in the buffer zone. Within the "ecotone" area grasses will be introduced or allowed to in- vade the open spaces. Such an "ecotone" will enhance and protect wildlife and reduce fuel in case of fire. The establishment and maintenance of the "ecotone" area shall conform to the requirements of the Orange County Fire Marshall. c. Fuel modification, consisting of one or more of such measures as selective thinning of natural vegetation, clearing and revegetation, instal- lation of irrigation may be required. (1) Reasonable efforts will be made in the siting of structures and selection of construction materials to minimize the need for fuel modifi- cation. (2) Where feasible and consistent with habitat management objectives, fuel modification will be located toward the development side of the edge. (3) Fuel modification will be limited to the selective brush clearance and thinning and the introduction of fire resistant vegetation in order to ensure an appropriate transition from the natural area to urban develop- ment. Grading or discing for fuel modification shall not be permitted. IPG13al7 IV-17 d. The location of buildings with respect to topographic conditions will contribute to fuel modification and habitat protection and limit visual impacts of development. e. Landscape screening including low walls, shrubs and trees and topo- graphic screening including berms and contour grading will be used to soften visual impacts and limit intrusion. B. COASTAL ACCESS There are three major elements of the Coastal Access Component of the LCP: transportation/circulation, recreation, and visitor -serving facilities These three elements have been designed to provide residents and visitors with a safe, effi- cient means of traveling to the coast, and to then provide an opportunity to enjoy the significant recreational opportunities and natural resources. 1. Transportation/Circulation There is a hierarchy of roadways which will serve the Irvine Coast. These include the regional freeway and highway network, subregional arterial highway network, local collectors, and private streets. Outside the coastal zone the regional network providing access to the Irvine Coast includes segments of both the Interstate Freeway System and the State Highway System. Currently, the only direct access is provided by Pacific Coast Highway (SR 1). South of the Irvine Coast, in the City of Laguna Beach, Pacific Coast Highway connects to inland areas via Laguna Canyon Road/Laguna Freeway (SR 133). North of the Irvine Coast, in the City of Newport Beach, Pacific Coast Highway connects to inland areas via MacArthur Boulevard (SR 73), Jamboree Road, and Newport Boulevard/Costa Mesa Freeway (SR 55). These routes in turn provide connection to the San Diego Freeway (1-405) and the Santa Ana Freeway (1-5). Major additions to the regional network which are planned to occur are the extension of the Costa Mesa Freeway, the extension of the Corona del Mar Freeway, and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor which will provide direct access to the inland edge of the planning area. Within the coastal zone, arterial highways are the principal means by which the public is provided access to the visual and recreational resources of the coast. Currently, Pacific Coast Highway is the only arterial highway which serves the Irvine Coast. Two three arterial highways are proposed to be extended into the Irvine Coast from the north: San Joaquin Hills Road, Sand Canyon Avenue and Pelican Hill Road. Both the latter two arterials will connect to Pacific Coast Highway and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. From the west and adjacent to the coastal zone, San Joaquin Hills Road is proposed to connect to Pelican Hill Road and Sand Canyon Avenue. a. Access to the arterial highways from development will occur by means of primary, secondary, and emergency access points. Access points on Pacific Coast Highway will be minimized and located in a manner to ensure safe and efficient traffic flows. b. Resident-ial areas will be served by private local streets connecting to the arterial system, with the possible exception of residential developments adjacent to Cameo Shores and Laguna Beach. PG13al8 IV-18 am on ON ON i MAW IMP sm sm ap so Im ,an Im "M �w an C. The prime arterials will provide access for public and private buses. Because of topographic constraints, no exclusive bus or HOV lanes are to be provided. d. Commercial areas and/or the State Park will provide parking space for private (charter) buses and transit stops for public buses where feasible. e. Transportation opportunities for mini -buses within the park areas should be explored by the State Parks Department. This may include shuttle service from parking areas located inside or outside the park to various park facilities and between different areas within the park. f. Parking on the coastal shelf between the ocean and Pacific Coast High- way and within the State Park will be minimized as inland parking areas become available. g. A regional Class I (off -road) coastal shelf (Site 1, Exhibit IV-3) Master Plan of Bikeways. To the extent meander through the State Park area. 2. Public Recreation biketrail will be located along the in accordance with the Orange County feasible, this facility is intended to The land use map shows approximately 2,835 acres in the Public Recreation category. This category identifies lands suitable for a variety of outdoor recrea- tional activities. Public recreation lands include Crystal Cove State Park, portions of the Dedication Area, and some small parcels which may remain in private ownership or which may be acquired by a public agency at some time in the future. The California Department of Parks and Recreation is required to prepare a general development plan for Crystal Cove State Park. This plan will provide for beach access, trails, vista points, restroom facilities,, family overnight camping and visitor centers. Land use policies concerning Public Recreation are directed at the specific sub -areas identified in Exhibit IV-3. a. Coastal Shelf (Site 1) (1) Structures on the beach shall be limited to those required for public safety and having minimum visual impact. (2) With the exception of public access and drainage improvements, no development will alter the coastal bluff face. (3) All structures and landscaping will be sited and designed to pre- serve maximum views to the ocean from Pacific Coast Highway and inland areas. (4) No more than 20 percent of the total land area (excluding coastal bluffs and sandy beach) will be developed with structures, pavements, or other impervious materials. PG13a19 IV-19 on wn wo oft ow ml� an .mm POI 06 w am go ma 1�! (5) Principal permitted uses include informal outdoor games, swimming, picnicking, sightseeing, hiking and equestrian trails, nature study, resource interpretation, skin diving, surf fishing, surfing, and sun- bathing. (6) Except for the existing structures within the Historic District, all recreation support structures will be small scale, limited to a cumul- ative total of 5,000 square feet, and oriented to day recreational users. (7) Parking facilities will be minimized and designed in a manner to preserve existing ocean views from Pacific Coast Highway. (8) The Department of Parks and Recreation will include a program for the preservation and enhancement of tide pools and other marine resources in its general development plan. (9) Structures and trails will be set back a sufficient distance from the bluff edge to be safe from the threat of bluff erosion for a minimum of 50 years. The County will determine the required setback. A geologic report may be required by the County in order to make this determination. (10) Grading, as may be required to establish proper drainage, install landscaping, construct trails and related improvements, and improve bluff stability, may be permitted. (11) To the extent feasible, a bluff top trail will be constructed along the entire length of the coastal shelf. b. Los Trancos Staging Area (Site 2) (1) This site will be developed as a staging bus stop and parking area in order to provide access to Site 1. (2) Access to the shoreline of Site 1 will be provided by means of pedestrian walkways and/or shuttle system from Site 2. c. Lower Moro Canyon (Site 3) (1) This site will provide the majority of support facilities for the beach activities of Site 1. Principal permitted uses include parking, tent camping, family overnight camping, youth hostels, hiking and equestrian trails, activity areas, picknicking, playing fields, equestrian centers and limited commercial facilities. Public utilities and schools are also allowed. (2) Access to the shoreline of Site 3 will be provided by means of pedestrian walkways and/or shuttle system from Site 2. (3) Road access will be provided from Pacific Coast Highway and Sand Canyon Avenue. (4) The existing mobile home park is a permitted use, but no expansion of such facility will be allowed. PG13a20 IV-20 it d. Upper Moro and Emerald Ridges (Sites 4 and 5) (1) Principal permitted uses include parking, tent camping, stables, youth hostels, hiking and equestrian trails, activity areas, picknicking and playing fields. (2) Where possible, trails and roads will incorporate existing trails and roads. (3) Access roads will be limited to two lanes. (4) No more than 15 percent of the total land area will be developed with structures, pavements, or other impervious materials. (5) Recreation lands in Site 5 are part of the proposed dedication program and currently under private ownership. Prior to the transfer of ownership to a public agency, the landowner is allowed to continue any and all existing uses, including but not limited to cattle grazing, and to con- struct and maintain any fencing, access roads, firebreaks, fuel modifica- tion zones, water pipes and cattle -watering facilities necessary for the use and protection of the property. (6) Recreation improvements will allow for wildlife movement across portions of Moro and Emerald Ridges. e. Upper Moro and Emerald Canyon (Sites 6 and 7) (1) Principal permitted uses include hiking and equestrian trails, picknicking, and passive recreation facilities such as viewpoints and rest stops. (2) Except for emergency and maintenance vehicles, vehicles will be prohibited in canyon bottoms. (3) Where possible, trails and roads will incorporate existing trails and roads. (4) No more than 5 percent of the total land area will be developed with structures, pavements, or other impervious materials. (5) Stream courses in Emerald and Moro Canyons and significant ripar- ian vegetation will be maintained or enhanced. f. Laurel Canyon Residual Parcel (Site 8) Although technically within the coastal zone, this parcel is part of the flat canyon floor of Laurel Canyon which lies outside the zone. Principal permitted uses include educational and cultural facilities, parking facilities, recreation support and commercial facilities, cattle grazing and other agricultural uses. Natural drainage courses as desig- nated by a dash and three dot symbol shown on the USGS map will be filled in this site. g. Laguna Canyon Parcel (Site 9) There is one small parcel adjacent to Laguna Canyon Road which may serve special functions related to the City of Laguna Beach. Permitted uses PG13a21 IV-21 may include parking facilities, educational and cultural facilities, recreation support facilities, flood control and drainage facilities, and public utili- ties. USGS Drainage Courses will be filled in this site. As an alternative to public recreation uses, affordable housing is permitted in accordance with an approved Housing Element Implementation Plan. 3. Visitor -Serving Commercial The land use map shows approximately 145 acres in the Visitor -Serving Commercial category. These areas facilitate a mix of uses emphasizing recreation - oriented commercial activities. Typical uses include recreational facilities; gift and specialty shops; food and drink establishments; hotels and motels including accessory and incidental uses; conference facilities; office facilities; and required parking facilities. Camping and recreational vehicle facilities are not included in this designation, but are to be provided for in the Recreation cate- gory. A maximum of 1,750 hotel rooms will be allowed in the Irvine Coast. Section 30222 of the Coastal Act requires that "the use of private lands suitable for visitor -serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general residential or general commercial development... Section 30223 of the Coastal Act provides that "upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses shall be reserved for such uses, where feasible." The Irvine coastal plan carries out the foregoing policies by: Providing major day use and overnight facilities in close proximity to Crystal Cove State Park and, in particular, at locations in close proximity to the major beach areas. Providing tourist commercial areas which not .only will fill a long-term need but will also provide facilities that cannot be provided by the state park due to the limitations on park development posed by the presence of the mobile homes and the homes in the Moro and Crystal Cove areas. In essence, public provision of recreational facilities that will be required to support park use will be severely limited for the period of time that the mobile homes and homes remain occupied; the Irvine visitor -serving facilities will likely fill a portion of the gap in services. By providing substantial day use (e.g., restaurants, food facilities, etc.) and parking facilities within walking distances of the beach the need for construc- tion of extensive support services on state park land seaward of Pacific Coast Highway will be substantially reduced. This not only carries out Section 30223 of the Coastal Act but also furthers the goals of Section 30221 by diminishing the need for construction of facilities in the viewshed from the highway toward the ocean. In this way, more of the coastal bluff park area can in fact be used for actual recreational use pursuant to Section 30221 of the Coastal Act. In addition to day -use needs, projections of commercial recreation needs indicate a significant demand for new overnight facilities (e.g., the figures cited in the Dana Point Specific Plan) which will be fulfilled by the provision of major hotel facilities. The Coastal Act provides for locating visitor -serving facilities at "selected points of attraction for visitors" (Section 30250(c)). On the entire PG13a22 IV-22 IRVINE n 0 M 0 Z D v m r D I Gal 0 a " Crystal Cove Mpro Exhibit IV-4 �� Visitor -Serving Commercial IRVINE COAST PLANNING UNIT 9'=3000' LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM ENV*X*# N YANRGEMENTAGEHCY (:OUNTY OF OflPN(:E Orange County coast, only three other undeveloped areas remain with the potential for accomodating visitor -serving uses (Dana Point, the Dana Point Headlands, and AVCO's Laguna Niguel). Thus, the Irvine Coast is one of the few remaining areas where commercial recreation can be provided and is the only site with convenient pedestrian access to a state park. The primary visitor serving centers in the Irvine Coast are located at Sites 1 and 2, Pelican Hills Road and Sand Canyon Avenue respectively (Exhibit IV-4). Both sites are located immediately adjacent and inland of Crystal Cove State Park and will provide public use facilities and services to both the Coastal Shelf and inland open space areas of the park. The concentration of visitor -serving facilities on two sites will to some extent decrease traffic impacts on local communities' arterial roads by providing convenient overnight facilities for users of Crystal Cove State Park who would otherwise be forced to find accomodations in Laguna Beach or Newport Beach, thus driving through those communities on their way to and from the state park. The provision of extensive day use facilities will also diminish automobile traffic movement by providing food and other services readily available to park users. By concentrating development at the Pelican Hill and Sand Canyon locations, the use of existing transit facilities operating between Laguna Beach and Newport Beach down Pacific Coast Highway will be encouraged and enhanced. Additionally, shuttle service provided as part of normal hotel operations will decrease road utilization between John Wayne Airport and the site. Landscaping for these two sites will accentuate the character of the recreation facilities, shield from public view less attractive support facilities such as parking, focus public view opportunities, and complement adjacent residen- tial areas. This will be accomplished with treed landscaping zones, earthen berms mixed with low vegetation and/or other treatments along the site edge. The existing terrain within the visitor -serving commercial areas is rela- tively flat and will require minimal landform alterations with the exception of certain natural drainage courses as designated by a dash and three dot symbol shown on the USGS map and one sub -area in Site 1. Cut and fills will be balanced on each number site on Exhibit IV-4 except for Area "D" in Site 1. a. Sand Canyon VSC (Site 2) Visitor serving facilities at Sand Canyon Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway will include 250 overnight accommodations including accessory and incidental uses, retail commercial, recreation and parking facilities. No office facilities are planned for this location. VSC facilities will be oriented to a variety of income levels and limited to a maximum height of 30 feet. A major vehicular access to the site will be via Sand Canyon Avenue. At the Sand Canyon VSC site the following standards and policies shall apply (Exhibit IV-4a): (1) Maximum height of structures = 30 feet (2) Maximum site coverage (not including parking structures) = 45% (3) Minimum site landscaping = 15% PG13a23 IV-23 r m W ". Wn ar am " on so Jim as A va a !s m W m 10' 10' 0 1 f a) ' � Q 10' 30' HEIGHT I o 50ca 100' i -----------------� j CO Pacific Coast Highway SAND CANYON VSC SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS EXHIBIT IV-4a (4) Minimum building setback (surface parking is permitted in setback area): (a) From PCH - 100 feet (b) From Sand Canyon Avenue - 50 feet (c) From internal access roadway - 20 feet (d) From adjacent property line = 10 feet (5) Maximum number of overnight accommodations - 250 (6) Incidental and accessory commercial development shall not exceed 25,000 square feet. (7) Incidental and accessory commercial development shall include only uses supportive of and directly related to the adjacent park, the hotel, and recreational visitor activities. There will be no other uses, in- cluding affordable housing, permitted at this site. (8) The proposed development will be designed in a manner that is sensitive to the visual quality of the site, and the development shall be sub- ordinate to the visual open space environment. b. Pelican Hill VSC (Site 1) The Pelican Hill site is composed of four areas (A,B,C,D - refer Exhibit IV-4b) intended to serve both day and overnight users to the coast. These area will contain approximately 1,500 overnight accommodations including accessory and incidental uses; conference center; recreation facilities; retail commercial and office facilities; and parking facilities comprising surface and/or subterranean strutures. A conference center of approximately 50,000 square feet will include large multi -purpose rooms, various seminar rooms, exhibit spaces, an audio-visual center, support spaces and general circulation. It is intended that the conference facility will serve groups ranging from 30-50 individuals for periods of 3-4 days. The conference center is presently planned for either Area "A or B" but may be located in any area. In order to gain the benefits associated with concentrating visitor -serving facilities near the major beach access areas (see discussion above regarding Coastal Act policies), the tourist commercial areas will create a much more defi- nite urban physical presence than the low density residential development. In order to reconcile the need for concentrating development with the Coastal Act's requirements for maintaining public views to and along the coast, specific policies have been included in the sub -area descriptions to establish height, building mass, landscaping and set back criteria, in some areas, particularly relating to poten- tial public views from Pelican Hill Road, the creation of view corridors requires the use of mid -rise structures. For this reason, structures within the Pelican Hills site range from 5 stories in height (Area "C") to a mixture of 3-10 stories in height (Areas "A" and "B"), to terraced building forms (Area "D"). In addition, the use of mid -rise structures reduces site coverage, thereby providing more usable public open space areas at ground level. I' PG13a24 IV-24 �r M W m aw aiiiir iw w is 4i mom s WOMMpia IM no {rlil_i 10 Stories ® 5 Stories C� 4 Stories or Less ® Terraced Structure HuZcmgs Shown Are For Musffadve Purposes Only Pacific Coast PELICAN HILL VSC AREAS EXHIBIT IV-4b v State Parking Area Los Trancos Canyon n Important public view opportunities of the inland hills and sea are to be protected by means of specific view corridors, limitations on height, massings and required distance between structures as illustrated in Exhibit IV-4c and as pro- vided by specific policies set forth in the sub -area descriptions. Views 4 and 5 in Exhibit IV-4c pertain to the automobile passenger moving seaward along Pelican Hills Road. Views 1, 2 and 3 are views of major inland landforms from PCH and the blufftop areas of Crystal Cove State Park. In some areas (e.g., view 1 and view 3), the massing of building structures will be defined in relation to inland land forms. For example, the particular building form in Area "D" will be "terraced" to enhance the public view of the mouth of Los Trancos Canyon and to reflect the existing slope landform of this particular site. To accomplish this, it is anticipated that substantial grading of this site will occur. (1) Pelican Hill Area "A" Visitor serving facilities in Area "A" will include 500 overnight accomodations including accessory and incidental usesy recreation and parking facilities. The natural drainage course as designated by a dash and three dot symbol shown on the USGS map located in this area will be filled. In Site "A" the following standards shall apply (Exhibit IV-4d): (a) Maximum height of structures - 10 stories and 150 feet (not including elevator towers and necessary equipment on the roof) (b) Maximum site coverage (not including parking structures) - 40% (c) Minimum site landscaping - 20% (d) Minimum building setback (surface parking is permitted in setback area): (1) From PCH (a) Buildings 4 stories and 60 feet in height or less - 100 feet (b) Buildings more than 4 stories and 60 feet in height = 250 feet (2) From Pelican Hill Road - 50 feet (3) From internal access roadway - 20 feet minimum (4) From buildings 4 stories and 60 feet in height or less in Area "B" = 50 feet (5) From adjacent property line - 10 feet (e) Buildings in excess of 4 stories and 60 feet in height in Area "A" will be located at least 400 feet from buildings in excess of 4 stories and 60 feet in height in Area "B" in order to preserve view corridors. PG13a25 IV-25 W iM W > m " No• in irk "afts vp [� am 10 Stories ® 5 Stories 4 Stories or Less ® Terraced Structure �y Significant Public Viemr Buadings Shown Are For UlustraUue Purposes Coast / State Parking Area PELICAN HILL VSC VIEW ANALYSIS EXHIBIT IV-4c Los Trancos Canyon 1�1 Pelican Hilt Road � � �'�� �� �uu 10 Stories -?`.7 j"- —.. ---_�\ Above 100' -200 200' 2`` �\ \ Contour 10 �20 Access Road 20 Z* / �20 \ , Stories200, 50' 200'r . ° ' ' 5 Stories \` Af 10' 10' 10 �/ 501�` State •---J • �\ � Stories �------_I�� 100' 4 Stories c ' ' 4 Stories, 3 Stories '} 20` Parking ------�-t-----E-�' — r=_.---�I Area Pacific Coast Highway 4 Stories PELICAN HILL VSC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS EXHIBIT IV-4d Contour Los Trancos Canyon. a* fm it s mw� 00 om 00 aml OW lot $Wj o Am tow iw ` ;i♦Ii1 so '00 (2) Pelican Hill Area "B" The facilities located in Area "B" are in close proximity to the substantially day —use commercial office facilities in Complex "C". The number of overnight accommodations planned is 650. These facilities are within walking distance of the State Park parking areas as well as coastal shelf and beach (via the existing tunnel). In that it is anticipated that many of the support facilities in Area "B", especially the shops, restau— rants, and plazas, will be utilized in conjunction with those located in Area "C" — no setback between structures is required to allow for physical connections between the two areas. Landscaping will accentuate the presence of facilities within -Area "B" through minimal buffering along the PCH view corridor, heavier land— scaping between Areas "A" and "B", and minimal landscaping between Areas "B" and "C". Structures in excess of 4 stories will be limited as to location and distance to adjacent like structures to preserve and enhance public views inland from PCH and to the sea from Pelican Hill Road. The natural drainage course as designated by a dash and three dot symbol on the USGS map located in this area will be filled. In area "B" the following standards shall apply (Exhibit IV-4d): (a) Maximum height of structures = 10 stories and 150 feet (not including elevator towers and necessary equipment on the roof) (b) Maximum site coverage (not including parking structure) = 40% (c) Minimum landscape coverage = 15% (d) Minimum building setback (surface parking is permitted in setback area) : (1) From PCH (a) Buildings 4 stories and 60 feet in height or less = 100 feet (b) Buildings more than 4 stories and 60 feet in height = 250 feet (2) From internal access roadway = 20 feet (3) From buildings 4 stories and 60 feet in height or less in Area "A" = 50 feet (4) From property line in Area "A" = 10 feet; (5) From property line in Area "C" = none. (6) From Pelican Hill Road = 200 feet for buildings more than 4 stories and 60 feet in height (e) Buildings in excess of 4 stories and 60 feet in height in Area "B" will be located at least 400 feet from buildings in excess of 4 stories and 60 feet in height in Area "A" in order to preserve view corridors. PG13a26 Iv-26 (3) Pelican Hill Area "C" Facilities within Area "C" are composed of a diverse combination of facilities intended for substantial recreational use. Area "C" is prima— rily a commercial facility of 250,000 square feet (not including parking structures, mall circulation, service, loading, etc.) and may include 250 overnight accommodations provided in conjunction with Area "B". If con— structed, these 250 accommodations will be deleted from other areas so the maximum of 1500 units is not exceeded for the Pelican Hill site. No less than 50,000 square feet of visitor —serving retail space will be provided and is intended to be utilized in conjunction with a minimum of 60,000 square feet of support commercial incidental to the various hotels (comprising a total of at least 110,000 square feet of day use commercial space). Office space comprises no more than 200,000 of the 250,000 allowable square footage. Parking areas reserved for workday office use will be made available for public usage on evenings and weekends at market rates and utilized in conjunction with the State Park and pro— posed commercial facility parking. Structures in Area "C" will be low rise (no more than 5 stories) to provide view corridors from PCH to the inland hills and especially, a public view corridor from View Point 4 on Exhibit IV-4c. In Area "C" the following standards shall apply (Exhibit IV-4d): (a) Maximum height of structure (not including elevator tower) 5 stories and 75 feet 45% (b) Maximum site coverage (not including parking structures) (c) Minimum landscape coverage = 15% (d) Minimum building setback (surface parking is permitted in setback area) : (1) From PCH (a) Buildings 3 stories and 45 feet in height or less = 100 feet (b) Buildings more than 3 stories and 45 feet in height 250 feet (2) Internal access road = 20 feet (3) From property line in Area "B" = none; (4) From property line of state park = 20 feet (5) From Pelican Hill Road - 200 feet for buildings more than 4 stories and 60 feet in height. As stated previously, office commercial uses provide a source of parking facilities for park users on weekends and holidays (typically peak PG13a27 IV-27 use periods). In addition office uses help provide a source of patrons for the visitor -oriented day use facilities, thereby helping to enhance the economic viability of the commercial recreation retail areas during slack recreational periods (November -May). Due to the fact that the Irvine coast visitor facilities will be competing with nearby established areas such as Laguna Beach and Newport Beach, it is not possible to commit at this time to visitor serving retail in excess of 60,000 square feet to be located within the hotel complex and the 50,000 square feet to be located in Area "C". However, if at some future point, visitor serving retail facilities prove to be viable in excess of 50,000 square feet, such facilities can be provided within the total 250,000 square feet allotted to commercial facilities in Area "C". The first phase commercial development in Area "C" will include: 50,000 square feet visitor serving retail and 100,000 square feet office commer- cial. (4) Pelican Hill Area "D" Facilities in Area "D" will be the most physically removed from public activity areas. Extensive landform alteration will be required to develop the area. Terraced building forms are to be utilized to reflect the character of the existing landform and to accentuate its location at the mouth of Los Trancos. Three hundred and fifty overnight accommodations are planned. Adequate setbacks will be provided from the ravine of Los Trancos to insure no disturbance to the existing stream bed. Setbacks from property lines and structures in Area "B" will insure a public view corridor to the sea from the crest of the adjacent Pelican Hill Road. Trails in Los Trancos may be made available for use by individuals in this facility as well as those utilizing facilities in other areas. In Area "D" the following standards shall apply (Exhibit IV-4d): (a) Maximum height of structures (not including necessary equipment on the roof and elevator towers) = 10 stories and 150 feet from base of structure (approximate 100 foot contour line) and 3 stories above the highest elevation of Pelican Hill Road abutting Area "D". (b) Maximum site coverage (not including parking structure) = 40% (c) Minimum landscape coverage - 20% (d) Minimum building setback (surface parking is permitted in setback area) : (1) From Pelican Hill Road (a) Buildings 4 stories and 60 feet in height or less = 50 feet (b) Buildings more than 4 stories and 60 feet in height = 200 feet (2) From internal access roadway = 20 feet minimum (3) From Los Trancos streambed - above 100 feet contour line (not including recreation facilities) PG13a28 IV-28 (e) Buildings in excess of 4 stories and 60 feet in height in Area "D" will be located at least 500 feet from buildings in excess of 4 stories and 60 feet in height in Area "B" in order to preserve view corridors. c. Laguna Canyon (Sites 3 and 4) (1) Access to the VSC facilities will be via Laguna Canyon Road. (2) The height of the VSC facilities will be a maximum of four stories. (3) As an alternative to VSC facilities, each of these sites may be used for affordable housing. (4) Natural drainage courses as designated by a dash and three dot symbol on the USGS map will be filled in Sites 3 and 4. C. RESIDENTIAL All of the residential density categories are described in terms of character and dwelling units per gross residential acre. Application of these categories is intended to include public and quasi -public facilities which are designed to be supportive of the residential category, such as local schools, libraries, post offices, hospitals, and parks. Other uses such as public and private recreation facilities and local commercial uses are consistent with the residential designation, provided proposals for those uses conform to other goals, policies, and objectives of the LCP. 1. Low -Density Residential The intent of this category is to provide dispersed, single-family dwelling units on large lots. Lot sizes will range from approximately 33,000 square feet to 10 acres. Local commercial facilities to serve residential areas are not specifically identified on the land use map and may be provided in this category. The following policies apply to this category. # I a. A maximum of 10 acres of local commercial facilities should be provided within or near residential areas. b. The visual effect of grading required for housing will be minimized and/or mitigated by contouring and landscaping. c. Modifications to existing rural road standards to achieve roads which are visually and functionally appropriate to low -density development will be considered. Gradients, width of road, radius of curvature, and lighting will be evaluated. d. All dwelling units will be sited on land sloping generally less than 30%. PG13a29 IV-29 e. Landscaping plans will consider preservation, compatibility, and augmentation of native species and restoration of overgrazed areas. f. Prior to commencement of construction, a detailed landscape plan for any portion of the project area immediately adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway will be prepared including the following: (1) Building setbacks from Pacific Coast Highway for landscaping and buffering purposes will be as follows: (a) 100 feet between Cameo Highlands and Pelican Hill VSC. (b) 50 feet between Los Trancos Canyon and Sand Canyon VSC. (2) Principal structures between Cameo Highlands and Pelican Hill VSC excluding tennis courts, swimming pools, etc, will be set back 200 feet from Pacific Coast Highway. (3) Setbacks from Pacific Coast Highway will be planted and maintained with vegetation that screens residential development from view from PCH while maintaining public views of major landforms from PCH. g. Existing landforms within the residential areas vary from relatively flat coastal terraces to steep embankments and ridges. In order to respond to this topographic diversity, three types of grading policy categories have been defined to apply to specific areas located in Exhibit IV-4e. (1) Limited Grading Area I Areas identified on Exhibit IV-4e contain areas of high visi- bility from Pacific Coast Highway, steep topography, and/or major rock outcroppings. No cuts or fills will be allowed in these areas except for the following: (a) Construction entry roads, collector roads, residential streets, drainage facilities and utilities. (b) Construction of driveways to three or more lots when the route involves the least amount of grading required to obtain access to the lots and the amount and location of fill is required for the roadbed only. (c) Construction of earth screens and drainage facilities in specified PCH setback areas. M(d) Construction of individual structures provided that: (1) USGS Drainage Courses are not filled, (2) Cuts or fills do not exceed 15 feet in height, and (3) The average natural slope does not exceed 30 percent. (e) Where collector roads cross major USGS Drainage Courses which are to be preserved as open space, bridges will be provided to minimize grading impact. PG13bl IV-30 ti'� �> r�'" ��� n ._.�--5',r��:: emu• t' . ..�J•� - .mil Z - .: t lY,r .' ... ...� _w� {•, mil. w4i- • T� w! III 'r 4 t• t•,Y•_ � s • w T. LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL GRADING POLICY AREAS 1-IfY*m UNADM ■ - ixilY anAcwa ■-A100ESUYE WAOM LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM 0WV"A btAK l[r EXHIBIT IV-49 [NYI[OMY[NTAI YAMAOOI[MYAO[MCY �p{WY►OF pYN[[ '.. (2) Light Grading Area II Areas identified on Exhibit IV-4e where light grading is allowed comprise the majority of residential land within the project. The concept for this category is to allow grading for the required street system and lot access. Cuts and fills required for home construction or necessary to develop view lots will be in conformance with the Orange County Grading Ordinance and the following: (a) Lots will be contour graded to provide finished graded slopes which vary to conform to the surrounding natural terrain. (b) The construction of entry roads, collector roads, and resi- dential streets may fill USGS Drainage Courses. (c) A smooth and gradual transition between graded and existing slopes will be maintained. (d) Landscaping onsite will insure that newly graded areas are screened from view of Pacific Coast Highway. (3) Moderate Grading Area III Areas identified on Exhibit IV-4e where moderate landform modifi- cation is allowed are generally less visible from Pacific Coast Highway and remote from any major or highly visible landforms. Cuts and fills required for home construction or necessary to develop view lots will be in conform- ance with the Orange County Grading Ordinance and the following: (a) A smooth and gradual transition between graded and existing slopes will be maintained. (b) A combination of different slopes will be used to reflect a natural appearance. (c) Landscaping onsite and/or along the PCH setback will insure that newly -graded areas are screened from view from Pacific Coast Highway. 2. Medium Density Residential The intent of this category is to provide single-family detached dwelling units and/or townhomes, cluster arrangements or condominiums. Density ranges from 3.5 to 6.5 dwelling units/gross acre. For the purpose of calculating allowable dwelling units, densities may be averaged for the total area of any parcel which is in the Medium Density category. a. Notwithstanding the density provisions of the medium density category, no more than 215 units will be constructed in the 50-acre residential area adjacent to Cameo Shores. b. Prior to commencement of construction, a detailed landscape plan for any portion of the project area immediately adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway and Crystal Cove State Park will be prepared. PG13b2 IV-31 c. Primary structures adjacent to Cameo Shores will be designed and supported so that the stability of such structures will not be affected by bluff erosion for a minimum of 50 years. Setbacks, deep foundation support and/or other methods may be used subject to a geologic report and County approval. (1) Any setback will be subject to an open space easement as a condition of development approval. (2) Grading, as it may be required to establish proper drainage, install landscaping, construct trails and related improvements, protect adjacent development, repair bluff slopes, and improve bluff stability, may be permitted within the setback. d. New development adjacent to Cameo Shores will provide for a bluff top trail which connects to Crystal Cove State Park where topographic and geologic conditions permit and if needed to complement a trail system similarly located within the State Park. e. Land£orm alteration will be allowed in the medium density category. Cuts and fills required for home construction or necessary to develop view lots will be in conformance with the Orange County grading ordinance and the fol- lowing: (1) Cuts and fills will be balanced on each site (ocean -side of PCH only). (2) Landscaping will insure that newly -graded areas are screened from view from Pacific Coast Highway. (3) A smooth and gradual transition between graded and existing slopes will be maintained. 3. Affordable Housing a. The Housing Element of the Orange County General Plan is the housing component of the Irvine Coast LCP. b. Affordable units pertaining to the Irvine Coast project may be located in any or all of the following incorporated or unincorporated areas: (1) Within the Irvine Coast low density and medium density categories, except for the frontal slopes of Wishbone Hill (Site A, Exhibit V-0, (2) Within Site 3 and 4, Exhibit IV-4. (3) Within Site 9, Exhibit IV-3, (4) Adjacent to the project area in the vicinity of the San Joaquin Hills Road extension and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, and/or (5) Elsewhere in the coastal zone. PG13b3 IV-32 c. The provision of affordable units will be made subsequent to the initial approval of market rate units/lots in accordance with the following: (1) No affordable units shall be required to be provided or proposed until such time as The Irvine Company has recorded final tract map(s) which include 500 lots or units. (2) Prior to final map approval of the 501st unit or lot, The Irvine Company shall attain compliance with the affordable housing requirement. Compliance shall be demonstrated by the attainment of certificates of occupancy for a number of affordable dwellings equal to or greater than one affordable dwelling unit for every three market rate units or lots having received final discretionary approval by the County of Orange. (3) Following the recordation of tract(s) including 500 market rate units or lots, each subsequent market rate housing development proposed shall be supported by a concurrent or prior approval of the required number of affordable units. (4) At any time, The Irvine Company may provide affordable housing units in excess of the number of units required to support the number of market rate units or lots approved or proposed. Credit for affordable units in excess of that required at any time shall be transferred to subsequent phases of market rate units or lots. d. Affordable units will be over and above the 2,000 dwelling unit limit allowed in the LCP. e. When provided within the Irvine Coast, affordable housing may be constructed at 18-28 dwelling units per acres. f. Secondary units in low -density residential development will qualify as affordable housing units if use by appropriate income groups is demonstrated. g. A program demonstrating the means by which affordable housing require- ments will be met will be prepared by the residential developer for approval by the County of Orange. 4. Residential Recreation The land use map shows approximately 580 acres in the Residential Recrea- tion category. The intent of this category is to allow for passive recreation and (except for Buck Gully) limited active recreation while preserving slopes and open space values of canyons. a. Los Trancos Canyon: (1) Residential recreation lands in Los Trancos Canyon will be owned and maintained by homeowner associations, adjoining property owners, and/or special assessment districts. (2) Residential lot lines from adjoining properties may extend into the Residential Recreation area. PG13b4 IV-33 (3) Permitted uses may include local parks, riding and hiking trails, bikeways, drainage control facilities utilities, tennis courts, swimming pools, community centers, and equestrian centers. (4) A maximum of 5% of the total lands designated in this category may be developed with impervious surfaces (i.e., structures, roads, etc.). (5) Identified environmentally sensitive habitat areas (Exhibit IV—lA) will be protected. (6) Recreational facilities will be located on slopes generally less than 30%. (7) Vehicular access will be limited; parking and staging areas may be provided in appropriate locations subject to the provisions of a(4) above. (8) Archaeological and paleontological sites will be preserved except where impacted by existing roads. b. Buck Gully (1) Residential recreation lands in Buck Gully will be owned and maintained by homeowner associations, adjoining property owners, and/or special assessment districts. (2) Residential lot lines from adjoining properties may extend into the Residential Recreation area. (3) Permitted uses will be limited to passive parks, riding and hiking trails, bikeways, drainage control facilities and utilities. (4) Natural land£orms Will be retained by locating recreational facilities in the flatter portions of the canyon bottom. (5) A maximum of 5% of the total lands designated in this category may be developed with impervious surfaces (i.e., trails, roads, etc.). (6) stream courses and riparian vegetation identified environmentally sensitive habitat areas (Exhibit IV—lA) will be maintained or enhanced protected. (7) Recreational facilities will be located on slopes generally less than 30%. (8) Except for emergency and maintenance vehicles, vehicular access will be prohibited. (9) Archaeological and paleontological sites will be preserved. 5. Watershed Management In order to protect marine resources, the following policies will be imple— mented for the Buck Gully, Los Trancos Canyon, and Muddy Canyon watersheds. PG13b5 IV-34 . a. Prior to development in each watershed, a hydrology study will be com- pleted, analyzing the effects of development and planning drainage facilities. b. A drainage plan will be prepared prior to tentative tract map review. This plan will address drainage course stabilization, erosion control, and the effects of new drainage systems on the existing natural drainage system. c. Marine water quality will be protected by using natural drainage courses and through erosion control. Additional control of non -point sources will be implemented if necessary to comply with Regional Water Quality Control Board standards. These measures may include streetsweeping, catch basin cleaning, efficient landscaping practices, and control of chemical applica- tions. d. Facilities will be designed and constructed to prevent increases in the existing rate of erosion of drainage courses. e. Runoff water from or caused by development will be directed through drainage devices to canyon bottoms. f. Recreational trails will be planned and constructed to minimize ero- sion. g. All graded areas will be vegetated to stabilize soil. h. Sewers will be provided to residential units where feasible. Septic tanks or other sewage disposal methods where utilized must meet the require- ments of the County of Orange and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. D. PUBLIC WORKS/INFRASTRUCTURE In order to support and provide services to the public recreation, commercial, and residential areas contained in this Local Coastal Program, a variety of infra- structure and public works facilities will be required. System plans for specified facilities are contained herein; all collection and distribution facilities within residential and commercial areas necessary to support designated land uses from these systems are automatically made a part of this LCP. 1. Roadways The arterial highway system for the Irvine Coast Planning Unit includes Pacific Coast Highway, Pelican Hill Road, and Sand Canyon Avenue. Pacific Coast Highway and Pelican Hill Road are designated as six -lane major highways. Sand Canyon Avenue is designated as two-lane arterial highway. Because of the topog- raphy, one or both of these will need to be modified to include an extra uphill lane in order to accommodate anticipated truck and bus traffic. Local streets in the residential areas will be private and will be designed with reduced sections in order to minimize grading and construction impacts. Circulation within the commercial areas will be provided by conventional roads, driveways, and parking areas. Roadways within the public acquisition areas will be designed by the State Department of Parks. PG13b6 IV-35 Pelican Hill Road has been designated as a "major" highway, having a six -lane section, while Sand Canyon is designated as an arterial highway, having a two-lane section. In both cases a raised median would be included as part of the roadway sections. The conceptual alignments for each of these -roadways are enclosed as Exhibits IV-5 and IV-6. While some variations may occur during the actual final design process of these roads, the attached alignments should be a close represen- tation of the final alignments. Criteria utilized during determination of these alignments included: conformance to safe design standards, minimization of grad- ing, consideration of geologic factors, attempting to fit the roadways to the lay of the land and provision of access to the study area. Typical sections are shown in Exhibits IV-7 and IV-10. During the detailed design of these roadways, opportunities for emergency parking turnouts and scenic vista turnouts and modifi- cations to sections will be examined. A private road system will serve residential areas in the Irvine Coast. This system consists of entry roads, collector roads, residential streets and private driveways. Typical sections are shown in Exhibits IV-11 and IV-12. Modifications to meet special site conditions or safety needs may be approved by the County of Orange. The construction of the arterial highway system will be phased with development in order to meet the demands generated by development on the Irvine Coast. In addition, The Irvine Company has agreed to provide roadway capacity beyond the needs attributable to development on the Irvine Coast in order to enhance public access to coastal recreation areas and further mitigate off -site transportation impacts. Periodic reassessment of the phasing plan will occur through the county's development monitoring Program. The following general policies shall apply to the design, location and con- struction of roadways. a. Roadway design will generally reflect a rural rather than urban char- acter. Where possible, roadway alignments shall preserve the natural topo- graphy and avoid environmentally sensitive areas. b. Modifications to existing roadway standards will be carefully consid- ered where safety and circulation considerations justify. c. Continuous sidewalks will not be required in low -density residential areas. d. Public vistas to the ocean and harbors will be afforded to enhance public views along Pelican Hill Road where feasible. e. Grading shall be blended into existing topography by the contour grading. Retaining walls and other structures may be used to minimize grading. f. Visibility of terrace drains will be minimized. PG13b7 IV-36 0 �. " -1- -ell C, 'ter. •_��,��t�»:�,.� ,� �-v��TLr PELICAN HILL ROAD CONCEPT PLAN z/61 Prepared by HOF d Mond FnQr. m x x W W H 1--1 G 1 h' S :- ." . 3 EXHIBIT IV-6 PELICAN HILL ROAD TYPICAL SECTIONS 120' 44' 6 44' 9' 19' 12' 1314' 13` 12` I 19' ' BASIC SECTION 131' 44' 55' Climbing Lane r 9r I ,2r13, r 111 12, SECTION WITH CLIMBING LANE PELICAN HILL ROAD SCALE EXHIBIT IV-7 TYPICAL SECTIONS 1" = 20' IRVINE COAST L.C.P. PELICAN HILL ROAD TYPICAL SECTIONS Left turn lane 9' 19' 12' 13' 1 10',4',_ 13' 1 12' 1 19' 9' SECTION WITH LEFT TURN LANE ,dn1 Left turn lanes 9' t 19' 1 12' 1 13 1 0'1 10' 4' 13' 12' 19' ! 9' SECTION WITH DOUBLE LEFT TURN LANE PELICAN HILL ROAD` TYPICAL SECTIONS IRVINE COAST L.C.P. SCALE I EXHIBIT IV-8 V - 20' SAND CANYON AVENUE TYPICAL SECTIONS r ! 21' 21' 81 ' 8' 13' 4' 13' 8' 8e BASIC SECTION 74' 21' _ 33' y Climbing Lane 8' 8' 13' 4', 13' 12' 8' 8' SECTION WITH CLIMBING LANE SAND CANYON ROAD i SCALE 1" = 20' EXHIBIT IV-9 TYPICAL SECTIONS IRVINE COAST L.C.P. ;` SAND CANYON AVENUE TYPICAL SECTIONS 80' Left turn lane 8' 12' 13' 10' 4' 13' 12' 8' i SECTION AT INTERSECTION WITH LEFT TURN LANE, BUS STOP, AND RIGHT TURN AND ACCELERATION LANE. SAND CANYON ROAD SCALE 1" = 20' EXHIBIT IV-10 TYPICAL SECTIONS IRVINE COAST L.C.P. 56' ENTRY ROAD 10' 8' i 20' 30' 20' 70' 86' ENTRY ROAD SCALE 1" = 20' 1 EXHIBIT IV-11 RESIDENTIAL ENTRY ROAD TYPICAL SECTIONS a 10' 8' 12' 12' S' 10' R/W 30' 30' R/1 COLLECTOR ROAD R/W 26' 26' RESIDENTIAL STREET <500 ADT PRIVATE DRIVES R/W RESIDENTIAL STREETS SCALE 1" - 20' EXHIBIT IV-12 TYPICAL SECTIONS IRVINE COAST L.C.P. g. All graded areas will be landscaped to stabilize soil and mitigate appearance of the graded slope. h. Landscaping on public roads will reinforce key vistas and local scen- ery. i. Road landscaping will make a gradual transition into native vegeta- tion. j. Adequate landscape, topographic, and setback screening to adjacent residential units will be provided. 2. Drainage a. A drainage plan will be prepared prior to tentative tract map review. This plan will address drainage course stabilization, erosion control, and the effects of new drainage systems on the existing natural drainage system. b. Marine water quality will be protected by using natural drainage courses and through erosion control. Additional control of non -point sources will be implemented if necessary to comply with Regional Water Quality Control Board standards. These measures may include streetsweeping, catch basin cleaning, efficient landscaping practices, and control of chemical applica- tion. c. Facilities will be designed and constructed to prevent increases in the natural erosion of drainage courses. d. A grading and erosion control plan will be developed as an integral part of the subdivision design. e. Natural drainageways will be riprapped or otherwise stabilized below drainage and culvert discharge points in accordance with County policies. f. Runoff from development will be conveyed to a natural drainageway or drainage structure with sufficient capacity to accept the discharge without erosion beyond that occurring naturally. g. Sediment catch basins and other erosion control devices will be con- structed and maintained in accordance with an overall erosion control plan. 3. Water The Irvine Coast Planning Unit is entirely within the Irvine Ranch Water District except for a limited portion of the dedication area and two small resi- dential areas which are within the Laguna Beach County Water District. The area generally west of Muddy Canyon is within IRWD Improvement District Number 141, while the area generally east of Muddy Canyon is within IRWD Improve- ment District Number 142. The residential areas will be served by five pressure zones. All necessary improvements including pipelines, booster stations, and other facilities will be PG13b8 IV-37 designed in conjunction with the tentative tract maps and installed during lot preparation. Water reservoirs will be located above ground. The water system will be designed to provide adequate fire flows. Exhibit IV-13 identifies the basic order in which trunk facilities of the water system will be extended. This phasing plan has been developed with the most current information available from the utility company, but is subject to refinement at more detailed stages of planning. Necessary above -ground utility facilities will be located and designed to minimize visual impacts. 4. Sewer Sewer service will be provided by a combination of agencies. The area west of Muddy Canyon is within Orange County Sanitation District Number 5.- At the time that this area was annexed to OCSD #5, IRWD agreed to provide local sewer service and collection, and OCSD #5 agreed to provide regional sewage collection, transmission, and treatment. The area east of Muddy Canyon will be served by IRWD through the Aliso Water Management Agency. All necessary improvements including pipelines, pump stations, and other facilities will be designed in conjunction with tentative tract maps and installed during lot preparation. Exhibit IV-14 identifies the basic order in which trunk facilities of the sewer system will be extended. This phasing plan has been developed with the most current information available from the utility company, but is subject to refinement at more detailed stages of planning. Necessary above -ground utility facilities will be located and designed to minimize visual impacts. 5. Schools The area is currently within three school districts: Newport -Mesa, Ir- vine Unified, and Laguna Beach Unified. The Newport -Mesa School District will serve the major residential areas in existing school facilities in Newport Beach. The Laguna Beach Unified School District will serve the remainder of the real- dential areas in existing facilities, including El Moro Elementary School which is located within the coastal area. The Irvine Unified School District has indi- cated that its boundary will be adjusted inland to the transporation corridor. 6. Gas, Electric, and Telephone Natural gas will be provided by the Southern California Gas Company. Elec- tricity will be provided by Southern California Edison Company. Telephone service is split between Pacific Telephone and General Telephone. All necessary facilities will be designed in conjunction with tentative tract maps. Except for 66 KV and above -ground transmission lines, all utility systems will be located underground. Exhibit IV-15 through IV-17 identify the basic order in which trunk facil- ities of the gas, electric, and telephone systems will be extended. This phasing plan has been developed with the most current information available from the utility company, but is subject to refinement at more detailed stages of planning. Necessary above -ground utility facilities will be located and designed to minimize visual impacts. PG13b9 IV-38 I W .4; AT u ' -4> m . xV r gp.Lr�! '.: \t 1i��`i�� 1%'rl.Y•I„�ll.J f�i, %IS��..ir..v .L^ � l�` �ir f� A•�>;j PS for. WA -y t7 , gWi"A EV XF1 AW VJ,v, �51 b V A 3 t-3 A- ReSev -loserv.0t, n star C S. J, = lk '0144 '), rM. ILL r FEET: Existina Transmission Lino &ion PC -*' . WATER SYSTEM PHASING MASTER PLAN FACILITIES I gassagass LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM Iv- =E COAST KAN"G mar � g t ONMENTALMAWAQUUENTAWNCV cwlwfwON ag EXHIBIT IV-13 r - ,',L :kP.;LiY.,y . - \• 1 .'a^n r�'R I • _.'� 1�(�J11- ♦r . ') } r ` , 2 '! - - . %'Iq¢-,1-'�i' fir' i ,Td; � %/•'4 ; � .:�= C.�' ,•,^....... -•v'� H -+�=�sa'� p+ '4- r � I4.r .•..5" a .`i � � r I~ 'SC.,G`�:l `'.'�f. r� ''.b� �lisil>;-�-''.:� l: i'' � r ' r g -'�_ O � . � ,,...� � � f : _:.• �:+� It. A�� % '.7-_ _ ; I t}_ 2 ' " it.r� 1 i '< ���2. - � II l (a.• r � "'•u' 7V11� /Ir ` � ��, r ;�'..._s ,LW i :.�!•'y_ .S' n• \. '\ • � myµ ; _. � � s • ,r,4 •rt��n' iG^ .a�.'1 r 1,ii1 • d t 5�le;-^��'-`(. '/-.r s, �r+•?:,,�yit •. ItL/, •A..'i� � Y r� r N�^l' . 1i '. ��•i l•, v,, I � re�,K•y. � , e, -Aid' ~ r � _ y Tr s� ! t cif r:A.��' py T�1 !i '�i• Ir S { .y:..y'r�K Y YY •. : (r Y �.0 '1.... ry .,2jre ^) 1" > ` �a�h -'�'. ,I�il .Q•` 1��. {9:,'.t 1 ±-'i' \_'i5�„i'a`.s ,. ,�•1/s >��r'�. �,{,'- L 1. �xiY , •� ' _Tr � a1�Y� S•. Jj-_ ' 1 i ��«�}�. •. -irt i S 1' 'X►. �r +ci rirl � 1;. .. 3 :�.• / 7• ^•' t, ��. ! i � ",•-r`'T�iv.c c r''l1 r ..r' / „i . ,i r ,1�' i ` K 4i 11( 1 ('- a ���Sj{iy�r „ ,�,.� ii';. i � ti t:•: k � tom• . , ,� . �` 1` � 1 F �yy1 ♦ ':.," !. A {u7�" F�.r' ,1( z. 3 1� >>• .� ♦ , F 1• •t 1 -\�!. 1' .r�•.-` � i .1"3R �- 33 r F 'et.:,t�.• W. , :'�,�i d • � • _T !� � •�♦ of -a ,,u' ''♦�1!rr�\lu •'i /�iti�� /.i�.'C �.-..11,.fr•[ '.f _�. T'r ,l'•Y>;< R °_7 ik.• :''_ •`i •. :�S .i"-i. ,7 .",� 'r�, r �+, ' -�'v..1 'r-1' ' %� _ ••t �r �„-' :z: r!" ,I�» � K,+y�rr • r ?�Lc�A�ty�( - : a ;"i. i ..-r.5.;'y. f�: ; . '' •f •. , x• '�, N / t ; aat,�.` ` is a� �i�i 1 • _ C :f `;•r•- rt,, y` `!{T.'�i..-r ) to �� �..5 t4 \ u.-.',[ -.,.J: •>, ' II• �.-�- "`t �/ j•Y 1 ��. �d: ; ?;�„l r Via; si•' -. .. - : ...y`\" i S 5 r •>r 4. 4 :•1 __ kjY uS-Y ♦._ �i '� .rid N- i(� +ti,-� ,a� r T� ♦ ! 1�R7 ,•^:- �a :, RF�-i�'Y rl�4�}F'r,-`,3 �•:.i.a'i'T.';i•.a rF _i. ,,�'.•. rrr.'-�t'�I` 5?>'�• ,,.,. . { . ^: R�`c\\r ' `�'i" _;`i•. .,.,�e.'t#i6xr.(`f .•: :�',:,'; 4�. .{'q,^z•�;�`: `�;HE •. .1 .�:, - • •4 T__ 1}__`'}°_.f'� _N, 'r c v- 'r^!:(Mt-• r ��.��: �-:�••�r- -'' :1'f'+ �. 41-: i•�i%�L4 �=i: .': r•+ '" • a : • 'i�•!- _ - �:%' : '"li'N•7` � S' °' : @C..r•Id.... s '# '.{, r v. �r;p ,•C; '-C r;• j_._"' ,� _ ----yy``��\\!�`r�� � - • I 1 y I- -C. ). !4' �11 ]j 1�� i � - ',. t/'t.. w'��r'+y ,: - t ` - "� ��`y�-f •71,' r - �t _� r.? #^ i..l j'1 A.. .k •�-. ,; `. ,... �.-,�nw1''i�•..'. i:- .3C• ', Y .Y a�-. it t'.-'.i.: •� .,"`:�'Cl" - �.' /i •'• ,1 YY 17j f.ttk•':^t'6r,EgJ `� .te. -: •.,�lV:yT.EJ_ 1•• . - • ,�a� r ,' 1- (`^}�'. � _ .y.ry f:� 5J F'^��:i•Q.'�;``� ,l+ i "�.5r'� "7;' r, Ir-.y`�: ":a."• •' `` ��.'.lf< / M � � i i ' T I �r. � nt`'e•77 •- x•.11l. YYY-� r . �\:' f � ., i ', . �� >t. •' lsr"; .,Y '.I l �. l(.'•r�'_7 i� _. �. `',�C���,1�^ 1,i: �� b' v:{ii t�'?...__- k �-� Y � � •`ry. jff/•� 'f`yr;/(l�:i i J: T r )�- 4• ' �f `.�`ij�ys ^`iY r�` •yf-' ,) u'�✓�k '.i :'`1;:,,�'.y�•r. ;`- .��+l�s(7', ..'�:5 ,� �F r'y' j^} `a.` •?Ij' '' > .�.v/iv.' }. I'�` a - •r iti''L�'!' 11�♦�=e-• .` ✓ `'S 1 T`{:�.- `. Lam'-Y+y Fr :.-rc� I, r wFWap tat •' t' * . - '• ore.maN l,- 1.J _ `• al "l.,k' ��=. 3 r.7 t. _ ExMIM076' J : 1. ♦' - ,1!•- 'fi'Ni-• �5 i�%Y�' n' "i6 - ,. .t S, fr...af -�• _- !L>�.' U 4 L�� I I r Forcama Jt •i J ; ,: � � yc� Y • h , _ 1�`''-� _� J • •tL w.�w n.rw al E>aMiMp PumpMp 9tab'±i� [�j!(• �r ' r.w SEWER SYSTEM PHASING I ........�.� MASTER PLAN FACILITIES II LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM III IV ,�•�•-••�•� YtY.LeoAST tRAlYYra 1MR L tlW* lalWK$ffT A=XMlWAo[MGY eouxrroFcomae MA111011 IV— 14 Fm m m m m No m m! m i m m m m m! m m r' ��r \ - •xr' z r, ;a: "l�•'' . " 1 Y '•• ,;i �l, '`'[c' r t c '``,�� �� j ;:„��� . �•t Il_,.-.��• _ '.:.s� ���i � T.._�..- - ,y.. ;a;"lt(,'r r � x. . •. t :'', ..\�„'f_r• y,�. Fi i. �. -,if(df 1,},, ,\ .%S1-. _ - )..3 :T .nl �`;x41':l. }Yk''}•... ,.', �,••�w• 'lx '7f�, ilk=r�l1,:.d`s x g .k�Jl�i!. it ':rr.r�. 11., •''•r .y.,� r,-. rt\ /j�1)1! al, d'- fQ( lr. P •r i ' 1_ ' 'r` � Li �' �-V (• �f1` � � y. M1,•daEa" J _ .i . 'Ir%, .'.+-; ,`, �(' 1 I .. ��• I. .\1 � �. /{ rl. \, 1 � 1 1 ! �`� fr 4'1 },t.y% t �`%.'`ti� IrR�-l'' ,J J•J ` .1 •� i",<^:l i'• � ;1. 7 �x. �....)t, r ,•\ A �i r�} �(• •'IJ^A t � _i .v,e _ .. 4 (a � ! 6 �1r S� i \ c'� 1..,.,Wq, t_-v; q• �• ,r > t�.;;r+;!� Ir ..;,. �r ',tr•':l+ )'. Jr• � .n � .% .e �.tr'�, A�,° i'';: �\�`� 4� •'�t, D�.raru.ir't^.;�3 rv,�.,• kk�'y }r�, ;. .'u: .t!� �'`+ c� ,✓;P7i 1i�. i. cit- ;'.: �y';': .,- 4^` r(- \ ,,��,}',:r(-, .[',�i r. �'p ,'„":vt; ?:''t?�;'t"-''1Ft •`•" If''•:;;''.�-r;-•� �i M �"�.; r.....: ti �Y.•yr,,`i{r i o� "- I-� 1�'* , , �`'- x 4 , 1 i/,£'a4 ..r1�,' xd' � ,t" �'!-:"' ' ,•;' _ s' �_�'. 7'1• r,.t (�.. �r \,';, ..J!...,,1.'� 1�.., 1\ t� ��)r, r i +��4`� :c� .:.. r.a..' .F'�f•1.}. 1%li s::..:. ,i .,y A .i c 3 _ "+ I i.! Y r� t ��1 r ip;F ., ,;r7�i"': •':.r 11 �--�1'�iY i\.. .'J. �_,).,`"'*..\ ;.'�''v:, , n - "�•- r w r %%J -�r 1 ��• 1 GZ' �,- I ' i :#.r �,i�. .!„'{.ifi'r 1�• ` l iJ� :>.:...., .ti.s 4. � 43. ,J•.. l+a '•�/1.1 '+�, q (\� . �il} 4 3 '.v 5 Z.•rt✓\(`1.1, ^ 1 r i ''' ' i , i? : t, •rl ). :)q:: ` 1t t' `,,:.'i^ •t �.'r?Jl(/!.- :t"" � t' fi�l�. <"�l ,�• �jQ• J�%;.' ;Ti� ✓��'�!•?'.. 71 :'1 I! . r:. �� .< <' +i `'s..• ';,e. - �..' `�.'� / fi.� , �4i i;t `'t�.. >�•3 i- 1.0. "r ,1^'i ,r,... .. s" �,j{. -�^t `T`:.. lx9 �- �{r-: 4�„1w:.) jj//''r '.r'r I1/ $h.. e'i�"',•y! t l':",f .'1 r r.�A••5 , -`r, ;- - "'� •�•.Y�F- .if'... ri...'i_ „� -'/ �l�,R, 'Y l' '. �i•T:'(�, 11%�ib4:ii�V,G�1 :t": 1�•�..: A„'tS.j .+FTrc••,_•.•-r v.: ', �`� r�(�'-<-�' .�,` � 4 '` b7/ li •r: .-:�'� � �11 ` `h.a4;: •✓.' -.y' ,YI s ;,- ._� iJP `1'-...V ," .i� Ei ;i. ��s` ..6: (' '1 •r 4': I.h. '1}L_-�' '7`._ r';,,,_ •.•br 1 rlllx•.tt`. �`�,.�.. >, A�',_;w.l•`•:t�_iTr• •y,?ram.: •.� ltz i /B!!,' 4 l.. .4.i•.�; A.f ..V�• (mil rt f . ,•_. ' 1 , �' , l- 'Y f `• ^l, - � �•1 Ur % - �Idt �,,�I't4F . iti;. „�;..� 1':� '+.."..:-. .✓s 1 : l ' .t. •'/ i �'Tcti .,1•/l ".+ti `f.:il4�'1„ ��.�-- �Ir. ,14�,- ..0 �� ,_,y •y' ,,i ':.. - ��. � �:� '!:, l� r� _ _ l ,� i -li• •}i2y''/'.x`� i`"'i•.1 '� t��f ;� .\. •�J'-f• II T.�ri ��:... L��r1 .r" t.- ��. —. i vl"\..�'{ '� k 1 ,Af�''�\)4 4' o r:2r'..h..k i�«<.. 1„!; Z,". ,�. A )3;-`'.:.. �`. ;1••••. _ J}7� / �;,_. s sx' i''y:" ' �;�' •��"r� tll%tt _'k'! • 'tt `t" f �l.\, . i "�(;� •. 5� •_id-��':, fir. .. t%•,' u • • ^` `� E"-- `( - r a` ' r. t: cy'! -.r/ t,� r{ 1'• ! A• il• , xA. .1`: , l ',. / i` Y '`�f• 1/ ori �l' )•1,: i�lS• s.^n , �. ! r.� �. / A• rl) 1 .la:.^ I r.':`.�i)Jv ,,: >.�-• .A iP� `• _'�' ' \T` - ! kjTA ' \:��<�') ti'-� ••l ,1.,. '._ • , ' " �r ',�•�l i' \:(i'� �i` 'I , �i'Y'F,:,'E`.�r ,t y4y�.� _ _ `t_ Y I ` 11��' \ / ti.' t�"� •� ., x •tis t,` '•F. , n f` c I:'il �' « . ,:- � ., ie' �. 4' . 4 � _ � •' °• A ! f . \. �./v \�J JI •Ij ''A,"'i'?ti;`1 �!. {;� ,' ! .Y / i. �:r 1'_'i� a>. _ `1'... r•^.....3 �• v�.P. if/Y ` c_: r''"s:;'"�n.:� -' •=f :•,r,, `,� :.:ti�'.aA�•�' i-•�{Crs•. i s �.S_- '_•,� • �' �I. 1 d'' ��:, • -tr. _kZIP `ra'� t,; l�q.t. = ` f '::r'' _ :n• r •' !' ' , t ,r' .1<' •.': ''3•"y xJ ., - I A•;1 -e \\', ".i:- /,"_:i �. r......L •:• 's\�- r, `•i�1 -,���. RA •s- d +.r' t ',-{��': is .. lay. -. yJ r,'� . (q �M1"Vi+'h�. ' � i�f�%'-��' •1. rr .!. •�• �i'', H•t �f1 •� -I.i •"�•_ tri'<,�.,•''•f; >: ���i,••� •" ?;. -.yam -5i"' ,a: Peeauro Rgo for } }•'+ r' 8 ,1; ` 6 -• {: f r•'>� _ tS ,s',s.. '• - s, r`;�-�rr� .�r, _`_.6'.� r._j ait.S•iM,� -iti'--r'.. , Reo+nlgrnvA t Rpuro or ,l!',:" � o Proaeuro o Ate; ' - "' -6_ , - • ,' } .1;,, •� J #. : �,.ti�: ��'•� - w.�rw Exlating 72' �• High Preoaaro Uno along PCH 'Sf j ` FEET: e u n. Pow ' GAS SYSTEM PHASING MASTER PLAN FACILITIES I ......... �F LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM III ---- IRMECOAST PlAMWOFAIT IV-----i�w�i� �[ ENVIRONMENTALYARAOENENTAOENCY COII C*`OOANOE -,- EXHIBIT IV-15 ["i�ll4 !.^far' yS?a',�1 ��.�,aT=�t-::?t •t�� •. f^!_•- ' fy 'PP,�.`�'•4irr'�y- } •�;� ' ��;�' �t `�� r: c[�1=.�-.v'l_�:iZ : i�l��'�P. -. •4S'_) j• .rr ., j ,: �i•� ,, , ''/ „n _� „_ • i�.Ls•-�5-,�",\`+ , ti•:• ,ht :4 - s {•`�/�'llilttt�/' �'> r'iii',',;l:i� �•� ��.•�, "t� s•,'T _• •" " :.r':' . • +aG ll.�[/ fr[ : �^,�f.`S / ���,(it r i�,•{.,,,�[!1 °!`'r,•r1 �� ir'Si'�h�'I^ -- b.. [':! ). .0 '.:' •�Y`' iwl7",. r. E 1. � . -J' 'T w •. !". � • i� �d;� t�' I!,'1`�.��Li'� . r: -'�I Y;S,ti."' -•r \'. 1 ' 'r i , 7.A c \ � � % •T„ ._ � ,» .rr.� ,- ;t � � ,. J�T �.,�ti'v . \ p� � ,r� G• t l l�: a�''t -••��,• `\ • \';« n'r�;<t:4 . ' t :� ��E ! 1a� - ,• �y-�.ti�ti'1} t"'V" •�f'�' ryi+ ..�� ;,,..T•4 if.r,�\�i4 •. �. �J� L-,: r�y�r+ � [':r t y' -�' 1 1i �' :. '" i W'•,� ,a'. ti j.>� `yE, :- •., �,itw.,Iy� •'Y,4 rl,• ,i 1i� + t• c•.ta:..q �. , _ "• 1 '7(" j ;: � a 7 ,,((< •` . a L;l „ ,� -'C �:�\�•, xi• �!�it i.i i "�j• •i}7• ir�t , <, TyL' Ai. Y. •: � i. 'h' '• •-�.- L • •L•,.,.E"S+,r f'�tf o.: ,a .r'1•;t: ti \ r-,y➢Ir ti;s_r?' t 'x;:e,r`'el-•f,.f, ',�=t v�.- F . ( L[r .i-t ^ �?.�f,e J•�.','% ' ��.• f. t• 1, : �• �. }, II•�'•e f� J e ) •�i"•. � �r , ir.• i l r'•- l,� t '�' ��:, \� �nv:�.� [� i d.... {�t�"�'-U'� .L!'.a ,-,t;'r.ii"i'J.-„^_,_::�. ' � r+ a[� _ '� t1� ^ ?''F'; ,f'.�� � ',�?� ��[ k•, t' l r '�,�S'.. t . TS'>'�Sl:.� rr dG \,•:41,r •,� f •i• . i .{ � .^ y,, � lr��/�} �-••. ./:.��� s ).�. .�..e)�1..,'�.�. 1���,`' �gj�+ '`'',,.� u yj '�11.,. \-�-r..:+ t x'• ��r �F: ;�� � R s� ..-�3'^.i. �T••,--^ ,.�,sr,y -, ��ll l�:f5` •°•11bi.i 1 �vlr.F'[ ••�J�.[r4y{I l.j r'j .. `t„s.L: "� _ 1 �'\' %t riiti. ..r...:. /- ;, {�14.-cam, _..(••'.rk�_;, \_� .[ •:i .i ta.� •.(11 � * •.1_• JF.. \. Y �, . •l.la. • '•2 f. \ a':�`,Y 1': , ,f r'rv'1 � p �'illll•`: „- • [ \ ice' t , p`' •- l al=•�• tf �'� Y t rQ11'' ,,. 1 >�.v a: \t:f3. �.,N•11 ,.', =.,1. y.F r M t r +t +, ,} •� � - d+. .afi�'r.lt' 1 V✓ A•'i 1 �[`t}t 1 \. '•i�••• .w C 1 � 1 l! f �: ♦ �. ♦ -SC•M 4 7. +c �?• w f 'A'•�In, i 11 ,., ..!'�1ti;f!/ Jy f r�•r' 1 ] �}'- a L t- • '�r�., i��1•.3 ,"i j\_'�s.2.�`f.'• .�s+r i-"a,.`.y lrr :[+[. �l� -r IN-:'J'•rt_y yN�.M .:!rl.j` 'M.h:: �� ,i' 01. •;�. •11 ''': n-1�\,,(7(::t f' i rit q.•.� T'.i' 'l.jj` ..t F�%'N�.,,. ,�. �, dR: itY ri i:.:,,�`, T' n,j+[ 1 't •!1 I - If �%�2 OuctO.i'. '•!`•' ^ 1 ri? r f �•[ ::.J•.).d • }•K.'�1: l �` [ N 41,. y 9�•'` • ��T;;;; s a, ,i '� ,}'. :.t';'•� % .ky4'•,5. C• f • "� � • j - t^•;�%�,J,-r' '��r�a `�F:d�'�r", : i �; �,Jtg,�„fy�Yr w ��;�r � A t:-q,.',�. ' ,C•.. � ,.`�?�. ' (� f ; Y �/'. ' 'ri/• • i F'4S r N• �c ` -h Pam,. �' . k '��'�:�t. g a. J, qY-••�,"; K,•�a•:�' ., `" Y',`-t �, } •- ` ! ��+G aL,=h,� R�,.-�. —s •d` , G � {. �-^..t!' `-A' ,i,i , f.• "�•' . ',a" t. _ ) }`'. 'i' i,rv/y. �'t<'le f''. ';1'\, :4 t•. `si;' 4eAw,-�'.,,;,%.. 1 ./ s• '' �2`'9 Dunin[�'':•f: •_ ],s ', »U'Y`y `'�•ft, ,_ ,•2-,, `.�•.�Jj{=f •vy✓rt'- +t•`s tt�i"j'�`: / •' a = .N 1rrt:: f tt���. 'k•%7-: {•''S�,_,-rr )f .`. i_d.Yt', -ire}... '•,r'r,,, l•:Z:,A+. F':�:�. ,' =til j u�• r \ i' 31T . ` i );_.eT. `�1'' `%•-•» 'j-,��,a,; i•�' -. f'. .i�t'i'�I 1 Nii\.. it - +t -�+ �- _ '�'- ;�it_Y, .... 1�- - .•1 �,2C, ,�,>, t<y �ii •'•+,r.+-:•`'Fl,�l `st,=.u✓l� ='."' j4r _���••r'.•.. ,k.: _ -V ^"`�2 `.fa'iet ' ,. 'a Ii• ♦.r• � _ k: ' .� � �''• i ..•:C' 1 7� f�. .,f�'�e ..r t. :d '-. _ ' � � {' A. yI+ per'( ` L, r_ , • 12K\F O,tl. S is .2 Ducts } � ` t ,' `, 'E' •t! ,}ISI i« ! `l�l d i .i{}[ ��[,, E r`S tiff±:' ).f:. , • r r • 4f ~\'•,_rY 1 i5 (m , ' +,• '"nl f • SSc-4'f`.�''1�' �•,\' -: r"��.•ir �'� }` r ' ti � 'F ',r . - i -. '. �,.. �'.� ,,« ; pp •'' •. 1;•fi ).• '' a .: ti .;5,�,•%r •a'•`k`e:,? r .:>:...1.�'n r� �.� y, 't i tt �j j - w• y `a�--`�,.�� � 1 t � (,},,•y'a"S,( ct� • .: • •' I: J 3-8uct ��'aaa���rrr 1; re ,r,�t, �Q. C',S. .f:�r� '•. ' ,y AS 'I,L ._i. -'•. _ l oaf '', S•r-v.. . it1� ,; h 15.:- ..t� 1. .\ •'. 4 [ �; ii; i17 r' ii f^}� - ) .^'.n:. eta .[ , �• s.' . �" Y: ''� i ((�� . i4 t' .. .., - •. t. 5 .I!.• \ �, l,fi� �`4•• .`� .S�-�l.,•�;, r. 'q5!'}• ay ri,{:%• `L' r • 'iet • IZV 4.1t'{.Z?i&Jzr 1 "t'4 `IV"'1 'yf: �2 '.w�,�,'! ;faf i••, •:._,>,,, 1'•S2'C'i! >1 ` t p,,,... •�. ., r -.. - � , - tr/� Zt t ._ 's. �=''F �c , ,ly �� ..`I` Y�-. rtr.'•�+., ' `fi= '*1 i yY'i •:`>[. c P_ ` Y � r \ � ""tt ) � � L-r •r •'t 0 ! �1' %!\• �'i�-4� \ ft t.+�.-. �'''�,•'�-i:- , : 1• iR`it:�(;.r;.� -. _.a.. �Z%:%'i a 1� •-:.vt., .1 �a :. ,-r\��:(�.. \ — �.. "f ,,�',,.-r-c-' ..i.P �,I�r_- .��•-' _y�t.st�.- �. !•i'i _.: y�ri �a • a' .?..e-'^ "'rf:" 4-,^-t:--rR r`� _i'"a.1<, r C.. •a) � ��-.: • j Uee • 1 tqu[rrynu - 3 Di[eIt � , P `t • - \ ,}i_ � fr�,,,.f?, ;�k� [i[� �•�.,• •_ }rS.• .y [,f'Js"-!�'Y a+Aw . 'h" ".•r` i -. _- rro: - F+; ti.`-.'4•R),. 'ii,i! j Aw..w ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PHASING MASTER PLAN FACILITIES I It LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM °1 rvnc OOAS FtANr,ot IV �••�•�•••••� tKYlAONMEWAL rAKAWEMEW AGMT comet OFe"Nal - � � r� rr air � a�. rs i � rrr �+� r r �■. �I ■IR �.. 0. rr •`^ll =i•r' ..; J':"f'st.e ;f .xr`=`: 4.`^:=v.�.1_�r""•'G�"2. V. »..,k, - ':,•'- y •+. ; ` d i•• , �t==.•..r�.:' 3i' i.fa? -kti c .. ry e, i� _ • 7, - . ' '�'7�<,.. t li/,Ill Y : -3 `Ci'*.♦,Jd'i �!i ': �i�Zl��'�',`C•i j ��' - >. .'3 :'. _ S- i, • f` `,T.' t ' ,a. _ - `` a f -'.'✓!T 1 ijr ►^••�i� , \ Yn, 't •`\\t��^ r(i�p. •�•,( t'. /• 2`i,' ' _ 'f<t _` a - .t ��'' •f' �'� .�j `�� Y"^�.r� :,,iYl• i'ti 4l s :L, J _.t' F .6.�'�. �{< 1• r1�r ,�� �� r 15 TOluC Ono I�' -�•' '+�41T- Y' �.',._'• 'j `r f`. .'s:. -n , --Ci'. i• '.I l,.'•• i-'' ' f�•"� c Tole h'ne {./-i:: •ISi/,I,�♦C?' :. •"�:-\fir . -t�4 +.� `.'�. l ':i• ., ; . 2 t.. _ ,'� • b :^1 �) .-��.-S��a• :.��'�F���•;� -� .b..\ e t'�-x.- , fr `C,vJ�.�t'• ) -:;`l,..r y' ,� '' .i. 7, G 4� �n '� , 'A _:ilj'Z'J�sY ((J �."fir .'JJ- FI 1 i �'t't `A\:.., 1•�\�{�!\fl '\ ; +� � .,.c,!(: ,'.�}'\' 'r.F ,`I; i..: •1 •.`, ,• 'fie �.ti - � l 'a;�'l`'/.. ' f"-'•,<fi 5�.�• �))))), rS1A\' i f'ys:. t `{rlh4' _ r_... •. -^!'•F.+..z � • A%�;: .r�rV+i -V .•t�jL.. •. 41•;�: ' r C ,f?Tr'n"(.`> tl Il�t �"'`a Y ,. �,!-.P--.. a,•�.'re1 �' t `': 1: a, t �'x-"'0 -'� :I'tx.\ 4 a-\ I,. `r• •TF.`;� � .%I. .I. r.�'• df '' •�'r )._ G.:,A v �'-C�'o � < V." -' '• ,l ����jj11 r "'•' I v� .'.�j•,IFj{�:`a� s f i :.I I p,,, ` 1 r S. ,.4 I ,r 1. ,ram•._„ r _pr ,4. l,Ill t,..,. �. �• � `t r i li' %n1.1�=.°, � "i 4 ,Y•b• (L. ^\ .)�w r I•�'`�' '� g�.nl � •" �- .,1 +o f.\ Y t°' ) • , �" . , G ,! ,. t, Lh \ _�'; �` k ' �✓ t •. I (� .I: .. �r.i . ', . �i 11 - �s�� -��• rr •{ ., � ;+ - _ i,. ,,. :,, f .aq� ,, •Gc is=lp c:3};-�I,)f:, .Ey-„ .:�:. K q • %:�' , tr�!. l� h � e;. , hs•+.� �` �•'�s' 4 �: � :.;, t>: <. `'r� ^4�'lu 1')7.'; , ;;� ,.aJ�:�;, 9�;1:',.� �! t;.'.��.:'-'-r+,�•��C `�+: , ��jt �' rl :V I III A'' I}� i f•�FlJi nr, fa'i' I:. i•'i ♦` r 1 .li 6ili''\ Ill,. , wr tsl .., v f tC '• �\1r� ` <�\.' ' � �;, r�` Y4; ♦ � kI. >�1 4•, "F� .�' �' / �5( 1 +� ��° U C1i; �: f; �., �.%i , . ExlallnG PeClllC.{}♦ Y��.•h'��tt -.,j. )� h.r . ."I"t`�}". �.Y- ). .: t�,, AD': � :' � +f '. "?�' _. i1• a ri `j; r� a�(a�.�1i\.' ` +,l � ��S 1y-t: "X . ` r<--•''lr _r••; d' f1^�.1,,ff •., _ \ Tolophono Ttunk :'� C' )/� • ` y' E ,� ):'><`(, •.:. �� AC A Y/ �• •!il ; '::? !:\,S •♦.,'^i `%:7Y. r. '`i�f{i-@^ ij, 'gin•-i I2 ,l {t v<, r i }. .-, ;4�. Ir irF.., ((\� I yy ��pp , {. �^� . t{',' `.%,,5... 'ill 'I" • d `L-.' .t+\'"S '? .. /'• 1. '�"\`a`s�•I,•+=f,:\„µ yl :'h.. ` f ; }ri-I)- {a^�:,'�r fi Y ^ ��: ,',.�.'',. r,-;'lf:..r+1?, ,.�,q. .. � r, r _< t/l: t 4{u:•Z:S. , S �. -„-a: "i , `.. _:Y,av: >"/ p ,.)l-•''' -aayy'' , _�•;i((��•,v'i`•f*"y%-".f'l4?,:�`,•;t�->r:l..�'t,=-s 7 f.,. 4i1, .14 ��- .'.\e-.`. !.: .g: '•jlllryt�'y�,t-,,�:1 N "a,� •,� :��a-) • 'r�Y' .� {+C', _I ,! \a.._-'i+ 1R\I. t yG ry:' ;7f,i r„ir.( il(... r \�\., i•� •^_F - - 'V �`'ur / ` b1 Y•', ` e Y i \. r,: {-' li SS ,ytl \._)- { t - '"'a p• r} j _�• . � � ��,•>�.'�.F � :!.I\ fN: %l/'' •. j���/.«:a�' :Y e%; i!'l','(15rt.._♦ 1,..�a lr." _ tf -.si. ys.., sV. !!/1 _ _ ''X' ;'•)r( �� 2-'=•. 'Ik'�.I,.'L rfi,•a'z (�.al� f� `::: _ a; i,.•'' - �\ .r '. � i i - • • 1 r., a: I �: p,d._- fi . , �_3, .�r• , p+r�Rii ,r' r � d- "!' '+:,C(' t-• ' 1 F ;�'_�,/. -K t.•iG y: R lri. ,,- �E"� it .<(' +• ��;6: •'I `'(gig i-'j ?d)n,�\I(' �'irSN'='fit•. -:_ 'c/: -a`ki !, t \°° t;; r,:•:` .,��,S- lir•.dt. 5 Jna. 4�,,+j; �r�. �' „� 4' �':fl• .. '.• :. .�iL �' .r,.. t� ti '•�i "`• �4,'=t'1 ` - w _ )� _ . • � ry"1_�_ 'i; "� -1' Jau. T" a:�i�- .,,,F't, ,+.,•; Jl :l...l+ <'a r:.. iC �( 1 v ' a 'P. /' "!+l j.'� �:�.� ri�� +1.. fit% t, •y/ :)..�-• .{,�`.,• '. �``� t--� � f 1 `�i (�i' i�' �•r'^, i 'J;°'(I/A7 �i, . �Q tl�' �1...�5 .♦\\.,•,�99'i d'''S.r I�rfn^' a4.'�.�.�.�,'T,"�r ` a _ <�� .I ��-%+fa (ti ` ''. rf,• rT:{F' rJ"�'1$'� ;R('a,r::S `iT ••"i ��' V :!%i I t±' _.r •+'..- —!r\ � @ _ ° ♦of!:Y+*'t max' ) =�'>. ♦.:, rh.a ,+^j rr:- %` .';4T': '- •{ t.�.i �•' * G._ d z r '��• ,1,5\ , a� ,�♦ � .�)'' _. \ sip )'. _ - �y rc,.. '<� I> t F3 5' ,';'•• a-d'I Toia hone "Trun C �' i �/ - � •Ay 1 F � -_ ti .�, YY _'i7} n F "( �' f� Fi,' � ' F `rl �'r�,�-..� '1 P _ k� t.�.•1 f''.. -) _..� .� i_ 'E ate• A. � t- . �.. � � L\.'':.` . 1=n'j6 .. � : -• .�. ,-� � .Ye ' .� ��)Sa`:� _ �• ll 1 \ r '-� ✓:r -, _}l'' .: .�a�.':'r/�.' Ti 'i`.-• -_ �A.. f`i1 ' ; j; . _ ,00Aar rYYIWA - 4, "'.' _ 1..- }' �: ti: - iin 1T"� • 4a), t i(.� J '� Ir- : \ _,F.:'.`i' o�,,,,r en.''.._ :S- .i• � �. � ' f _.� "°'m': - ��� } {•T•' F�a - �.t FEET;. f a ee40 PaclflC Tolophono Gonural Tolophono AervnrtM = TELEPHONE SYSTEM PHASING MASTER PLAN FACILITIES I P A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM NYNE COAST PLANNWG UNIT IV � / --'- ENYIIIONMENTALMANAGEMENT AGENCY COUNTYOFCMNGE EXHIBIT IV-17 / I l 7. Special Conditions a. Grading plans will be prepared as part of tentative tract map review and will be subject to review and approval of the County of Orange. b. A preliminary geologic and soil engineering report will be prepared prior to tentative tract map review. c. An erosion and runoff control program for the development areas will be developed and will be subject to approval by the County of Orange. This program will address erosion control during grading operations and pursuant to development. d. Development will not be located in any area of geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated by current engineering practices. e. A comprehensive program of fuel modification zones and firebreaks shall be formulated for each structure, cluster of structures, or development area as required. The width and type of the fuel modification zone will be determined by the siting of structures, access of firefighters, density of vegetation, terrain, direction of prevailing breezes, etc. The fuel modification zone will which provide a smooth transition from IV-1S): be comprised of the following subzonea structure to native vegetation (Exhibit (1) Structure or edge of development. (2) Landscape Zone: An irrigated zone with plan material. (3) Transition zone: A zone of existing vegetation in which the groundcovers are removed, larger trees and shrubs pruned and thinned out and a fire -resistive groundcover is introduced. (4) Natural vegetation. f. Structural elements, including fire-resistant materials and sprinkler systems, shall be included in individual buildings as necessary. PG13b10 IV-39 Rms LomsegP6 - ofti: 101r D- PLAT MAT"[. -1iVV 9 T pt4RcN �f"FIrNt�W� o�t�T►l� Imfowc ION or I COMPONENTS OF FUEL MODIFICATION ZONE EXHIBIT IV-18 1 V. SPECIAL TREATMENT AREAS In this section, specific issues are addressed for the areas identified on Exhibit V-1. A. Frontal Slopes of Wishbone Hill 1. In order to protect visual resources of the frontal slopes, residential dwelling units will be limited to a maximum of 85. 2. House sites will be accessed directly from an interior loop road, short cul-de-sacs, or shared driveways off the loop road system. 3. A local road between Wishbone Hill and the frontal slopes will be provided through the central ravine which bisects Wishbone Hill. 4. Short cul-de-sacs or shared driveways will utilize both the ravines and/or ridges and be screened by vegetation. 5. Lot sizes will be a miminum of two acres unless topographical and/or geological constraints necessitate minor variations. 6. A portion of the exposed wall and roof area of each house will be screened with vegetation, while maintaining the views available from each of the house sites. 7. Houses on the lower slopes of Wishbone Hill will be separated from Pacific Coast Highway by a change in level and visually screened by vegetation. 8. Ancillary buildings, tennis courts, and swimming pools will be adequately screened from Pacific Coast Highway. 9. If any portion of the frontal slopes is purchased by a public agency, any necessary buffer or transition zones between the public purchase and private lands will be located within the purchased public lands. 10. Any portion of the area acquired by a public agency will be changed from Low Density Residential to Public Recreation. E. Muddy Canyon Area 1. In order to protect the visual and habitat resources of Muddy Canyon, residential dwelling units will be limited to a maximum of 75. 2. Where dwelling units are proposed to be on ridgelines and within 200 feet of the boundary of public recreation lands, setbacks, landscape screening, and topographic screening will be used to soften the visual impact of development as viewed from public lands. 3. Any portions of the area acquired by a public agency will be changed from Low -Density Residential to Public Recreation. 4. I£ any portion of the area is purchased by a public agency, any necessary ' buffer or transition zones between the public purchase and private lands will be located within the purchased public lands. ' PG22b16-17 V-1 m m m M M M M m m s m m= m m m m m m I C. State Expansion Area 1. Residential dwelling units will be limited to a maximum of 55. 2. Where dwelling units are proposed to be on ridgelines and within 200 feet of the boundary of public recreation lands, setbacks, landscape screening, and topographic screening will be used to soften the visual impact of development as viewed from public lands. 3. Any portions of the area acquired by a public agency will be changed from Low -Density Residential to Public Recreation. 4. If any portion of the area is purchased by a public agency, any necessary buffer or transition zones between the public purchase and private lands will be located within the purchased public lands. D. LOS TRANCOS CANYON WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM This program is intended to meet the requirements of Section 3 (a) of the Orange Coast National Urban Park Bill (HR 4975). It is composed of the following policies: 1. Prior to development in the Los Trancos Canyon watershed, a hydrology study will be completed, analyzing the effects of development and planning drainage facilities. 2. A drainage plan will be prepared prior to tentative tract map review. This plan will address drainage course stabilization, erosion control, and the effects of new drainage systems on the existing natural drainage system. 3. Marine water quality will be protected by using natural drainage courses and through erosion control. Additional control of non -point sources will be implemented if necessary to comply with Regional Water Quality Control Board standards. These measures may include streetsweeping, catch basin cleaning, efficient landscaping practices, and control of chemical applica- tions. 4. Facilities will be designed and constructed to prevent increases in the existing rate of erosion of drainage courses. 5. Runoff water from or caused by development will be directed through drainage devices to canyon bottoms. 6. Recreational trails will be planned and constructed to minimize ero- sion. 7. All graded areas will be vegetated to stabilize soil. 8. Sewers will be provided to residential units where feasible. Septic tanks or other solid waste disposal methods where utilized must meet the requirements of the County of Orange and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. I PG22b18 V-3 VI. COASTAL ACT POLICY ANALYSIS This section analyzes the Local Coastal Program for the Irvine Coast Planning Unit with respect to the policies of the Coastal Act. Each policy group is sum- marized and findings and declarations are presented. A. SHORELINE ACCESS Policies. Sections 30210-30212 require that public access and recreational opportunities be provided for all the people of the state, that development not interfere with the public's right of access, and that, if necessary, new develop- ment provide public access to the shoreline. Findings and Declarations. 1. The public, through the State Department of Parks and Recreation, owns the entire shoreline of the Irvine Coast Planning Unit from the City of Newport Beach to the City of Laguna Beach. In addition, the public owns 90% of the coastal shelf between Pacific Coast Highway and the coastal bluffs. No new development will in any way interfere with the public's right of access or ability to enjoy the full range of coastal recreational opportunities. 2. The State Department of Parks and Recreation will develop a Master Plan for development and management of Crystal Cove State Park. This Master Plan will provide for beach access, trails and vista points, restroom facilities, overnight camping and family overnight camping, appropriate day use facilities, and inter- preting facilities. The Management Plan will include a program for preservation and enhancement of the valuable tide pools and other marine resources. 3. The Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program contains a specific public access component which identifies circulation and vehicular access needs, public recrea- tional facilities, and commercial visitor -serving facilities. 4. The LCP is entirely consistent with these policies. B. RECREATION AND VISITOR -SERVING FACILITIES Policies. Sections 30212.5, 30213 (part), 30220-30223, and 30250(c) require the provision of public and low-cost recreation and visitor -serving facilities, and encourage the provision of commercial recreational and visitor -serving facilities by requiring that suitable land be reserved for such uses and that such uses be given priority over other uses. Findings and Declarations. 1. Crystal Cove State Park will provide a range of public and low-cost recreation and visitor -serving facilities. 2. The tourist/recreational commercial areas will provide a variety of commer- cial recreation and visitor -serving facilities. 3. Public and commercial visitor -serving facilities have been given priority over private residential and other uses. PG22b19 VI-1 4. The LOP is entirely consistent with these policies. C. HOUSING Policies. Section 30213 requires that housing for persons with low and moderate income shall, where feasible, be provided, and that new housing develop- ments conform to local housing elements. Findings and Declarations. 1. Affordable housing shall be provided in accordance with the housing requirements of the County of Orange. Affordable housing units equal to 25% of the constructed units will be located in accordance with the provisions of the LOP. 2. The LOP is entirely consistent with these policies. D. WATER AND MARINE RESOURCES Policies. Sections 30230, 30231, and 30236 require the preservation, enhance- ment, and restoration of water and shrine resources including coastal waters, streams, and wetlands. Findings and Declarations. 1. In 1971 the Irvine Coast shoreline was designated by the California Department of Fish and Game as the Irvine Coastal Marine Life Refuge. The State Department of Parks and Recreation will cooperate with the State Department of Fish and Game to protect and enhance these resources. 2. Four streams have been designated in the LOP as significant resources, and policies have been included to ensure their preservation. 3. The Local Coastal Program is entirely consistent with these policies. E. DIKING DREDGING FILLING AND SHORELINE STRUCTURES Policies. Sections 30233 and 30235 establish conditions under which diking, dredging, filling, and the construction of shoreline structures may occur. Findings and Declarations. 1. No diking, dredging, filling, or construction of shoreline structures is proposed within the Irvine Coast. F. COMMERCIAL FISHING AND RECREATIONAL BOATING Policies. Sections 30224, 30234, and 30255 encourage increased recreational boating, require the preservation of boating facilities, and give precedence to coastal -dependent development. Findings and Declarations. No boating or coastal -dependent facilities exist or are proposed with the Irvine Coast. PG22b20 VI-2 G. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREAS Policies. Section 30240 provides for the protection of environmentally sensi- tive habitat areas by restricting uses within or adjacent to such areas. Findings and Declarations. 1. Between 60% and 74% of the entire Irvine Coast Planning Unit will be preserved as recreation and open space. The permanent dedication of 2,600 acres of natural open space will provide for habitat preservation in compensation for the loss of any habitat area in the development areas. 2. The LCP is entirely consistent with these policies. H. AGRICULTURE Policies. Sections 30241 and 30242 provide for the preservation of agricul- tural lands and establishes criteria for the conversion of such lands to non- agricultural uses. Findings and Declarations. 1. There is relatively little prime agricultural- land within the planning unit. There is no agricultural use except for cattle grazing. 2. The current level of grazing is very low and is considerably below the criterion of one animal per acre used in defining prime agricultural land. 3. No significant agricultural resources or activities are being displaced. I. HAZARD AREAS Policies. Sections 30253(1) and (2) require new development to minimize risks in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard, and to prevent damage to bluffs and cliffs. Findings and Declarations. 1. No unique geologic or flood hazards exist. The low intensity of develop- ment will preclude the necessity of mass grading and will permit theicareful siting of development. 2. All development will comply with fuel modification and fire prevention programs. 3. No development is proposed on cliffs or bluffs. 4. The LCP is consistent with these policies. PG22b21 VI-3 J. FORESTRY AND SOIL RESOURCES Policies. Section 30243 requires that the long-term productivity of soils and timberlands be protected. Findings and Declarations. There are no forestry reservoirs within the Irvine Coast. K. LOCATING AND PLANNING NEW DEVELOPMENT Policies. Sections 30244, 30250(a), 30252, and 30253(3) and (4) provide criteria for the location of new development. Generally new development should be concentrated in areas of existing development, preserve public access, provide adequate support facilities including provisions for recreation facilities, and preserve archaeological and paleontological resources. Findings and Declarations. 1. The proposed development areas are located adjacent to developed areas of Newport Beach and Laguna Beach. 2. A full range of support and recreation facilities is included in the plan. 3. Two new arterial highways are proposed to ensure adequate access to the coast. 4. Archaeological and paleontological resources will be preserved within a public acquisition area. 5. The LCP is consistent with these policies. L. COASTAL VISUAL RESOURCES AND SPECIAL COMMUNITIES Policies. Sections 30251 and 30253(5) require the protection of scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas, and the preservation of special communities. Findings and Declarations. 1. The Plan will preserve the panoramic views of the ocean from Pacific Coast Highway. 2. The low -intensity development will preserve the significant visual qual- ities of the coastal hills. 3. The two new arterial highways will alter the visual qualities of the hillsides, but will provide two magnificent scenic highways. These will provide new views of hillsides, canyons, and the shoreline. 4. The Crystal Cove community has been declared an historical district. , 5. The LCP is consistent with these policies. PG22b22 VI-4 J M. PUBLIC WORKS Policies. Section 30254 limits the construction or expansion of public works facilities to the capacity required to provide service to only those uses permitted by the Coastal Act. Findings and Declarations. 1. All utilities and services will be designed to serve the uses proposed in the LCP. 2. The LCP is consistent with these policies. PG22b23 VI-5 AY ~ aa.�l 0 ® `OUNTY OF o UT ) 1 RANGE ENVIRONMENTAL MjkNAGEMENT AGENCY ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION 811 NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA H. G. OSBORNE DIRECTOR RICHARD G. MUNSELL ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ADVANCE PLANNING Advance Planning, Dept. of Community Development City of Newport Beach Attn: Michael Ocorr 3300 West Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 October 31, 1979 TELEPHONE. 834.4643 AREA CODE 714 MAILING ADDRESS. P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 FILE % V RECEIED \ iE Iity Dr,. ::n nent ( r-pt. NM 8 19799*- CITY OF NEWPORi u:ACH, i . CAL . SUBJECT: Orange County Local Coastal Program \: The County of Orange, in following its work program to complete a Local Coastal Program (LCP) by January 1, 1981, is contacting all federal, state, and local agencies to ensure coordination and to seek resolution of competing interests. The Orange County LCP staff is currently preparing the Resources Component of the LCP with a deadline for a draft by early November 1979. The Components of Transportation, Access, Recreation, and Recreation and New Development, will be prepared subsequently. Each affected agency could benefit the LCP by providing information on resources located within the coastal planning area (see attached map) and information regarding programs which address coastal resources. Specific tasks, described in the attachment, appear closely related to the function of your agency. The County LCP staff would appreciate any information you may have available for completion of these tasks. In order to coordinate the concerns of various agencies within the Resources Component (draft due in early November), we would appreciate receiving input from your agency at the earliest possible date. Please recognize that as development of the LCP progresses, the County may require additional data and further coordination with your agency. If you have any general questions regarding the County's LCP, please contact Ken Winter at (714) 834-5387. Specific questions or information regarding the North Coast Planning Unit may be addressed to Fred Bell at (714) 834-5374, and regarding the South Coast Planning Unit may be addressed to Steve Ray at (714) 834-5378. We look forward to you future participation. SL:slg Ver-y-;,truly ours --lttchard G. Mu"nselY(Assistant Dir c or Advance Planning r i h� D04 Estimate unmet and future demand for coastal/recreational access and access trails in North Coast. (Unmet demand refers to areas where there is currently insufficient access and over- crowding). Estimate unmet and future demand for recreational and visitor -serving facilities. D05 Determine appropriate locations for additional visitor -serving and commercial -recreational facilities, including low-cost, short term accommodations, providing access and access trails where projected demands exceed capacities. D06 Prepare a circulation/transportation facilities program, including parking considerations, and trail access systems to serve bqth existing and proposed shoreline and upland recrea- tion developments. D22 Identify, map and describe areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and water and marine resource areas, and recreation areas where development standards to prevent significant adverse impacts. D22 Develop appropriate criteria (e.g., land use designations, development controls, etc.) to prevent cumulative adverse im- pacts on coastal water quality from existing and proposed developments. D23 Evaluate the biological impacts of alternative boating facility locations, including the Bolas Chica, Santa Ana River Mouth, Sunset Aquatic Park, and Newport Dunes. (Apply to Policy Group F) D29 Summarize the cumulative impact of shoreline structures. Identify alternatives and mitigation measures for proposed projects. Particular attention will be given to activities which will alter sand transport or cirtulati6n.,� Identify policies,to protect and/or enhance the shoreline. D30 Gather existing information and inventories of areas undergoing and proposed for dredging activities; assess the cumulative im- pact of dredging activities. Identify alternatives and miti- gation measures for proposed activities. Particular attention will be paid to activities which will impact upon coastal re- sources, including endangered species and other wildlife. Identify policies to mitigate any adverse environmental impacts. D31 Summarize proposed harbor developments and boating facilties, paying particular attention to activities which would alter sand circclation; require dredging activities; impact manage- ment of lJolsa Chica and/or Huntington State.�Eeacheg,•' And' "other- wise impget coastal resources, including endangered species. IdentifAblicies to mitigate any adverse environmental impacts. (Coordinate with Policy Group D/G). T� 0 IRVINE COAST PLANNING UNIT )ASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY-, et Park CHT CNICA RAVER ESTUARY lEIOWT3 A NORTH COAST PLANNING UNIT INCI © UNII Dunes EMERALD ALISO CREEK PLANNING UNIT hG IOUELA POINT SOUTH COAST PLANNING UNIT CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION �1 a, 631 Howard Street, San Francisco 94105—(415) 543-8555 fV. May 41 1979 — Qy �O{Ov 11� *Qo, ' G TO: COMMISSIONERS AND INTERESTED PERSONS SUBJECT: IRUINE'COAST LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN, COUNTY OF ORANGE (For Commission hearing and action as to Substantial Issue at Ma6, SYNOPSIS Background The approximately 9,400 acre Irvine Coastal property is one of the last remaining unspoiled open coastal areas in the Los Angeles -Orange County region. A coop- erative planning process (TICMAP) resulted in adoption by Orange County of an Irvine Coast General Plan Amendment in 1976. Preliminary review of the plan by Regional and State Commissions followed in May, 1979. The County formally submit- ted the Irvine Coast LOP Issue Identification and Land Use Plan to the South Coast Regional Commission on August 23t 1978; the Regional Commission held hearings on the plan in January/February 1979; with the Regional Commission failing to reach a majority concensust the plan was denied on February.l3t 1979. The County of Orange appealed the denial by resolution on April 31 1979. The plan is now before the State Commission, which must make a determination on substantial issue. Subse- quently,.if substantial issue is determined, the State Commission may hold hearings and take action on the plan. Commission Action Hold a public hearing and make a determination on substantial issue. Key Recommendations It is recommended that the Commission determine that the land use plan as submitted by the County raises numerous substantial issues as to conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976. Since many of the substantial issues pertain to the entire plan and none were resolved at the Regional Commission, it is recommended that the entire plan be determined to raise substantial issue. The approximately 9,400 acre Irvin Coastal property is one of the last remaining unspoiled open coastal areas in the Los Angeles -Orange County region. A coop- erative planning process (TICMAP) resulted in adoption by Orange County of an Irvine Coast General Plan Amendment in 1976. Preliminary review of the plan by 9 2 , . Regional and State Commissions followed in May, 1975. For the preliminary review, a joint staff report and subsequent staff memo highlighted major staff concerns with the County's plan as submitted. These concerns were further explained in a June 23, 1978 letter to the Orange County Phvironmental Management Agency. The County formal- ly submitted the Irvine Coast LCP issue identification and land use plan to -the. South. Coast Regional Commission on August 23, 1978. On September 11, 1978, the Orange County Board of Supervisors requested an 11 week extension of the 90-day time limit for the Regional Commission to take action on the LCP land use plan. After three public hearings in January and February, the Regional Commission, on Feb- ruary 13, 1979, failed to reach a concensus by majority, effectively denying the plan. The Regional Executive Director discussed the reasons for the denial in a letter to the Executive Director of the Orange County Environmental Management Agency (Exhibit 1). On April. 3, 1979, the Orange County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution appealing the denial of the plan. The LCP Regulations require that the State Coastal Commission determine substantial issue within 45 days of receiving the -appeal, and take final action on the plan within 60 days of receipt. A joint Regional and State Commission staff report and recommendation were prepared for the Regional hearings. Should the Commission determine substantial issue as recommended, that joint staff report (with possible additions and modifications to reflect recent developments) will serve as the staff report for'the State Commission hearings. The following summarizes the recommendations and conclusions in the joint staff report: "The land use plan for approximately 91400 acres is basically a goad one. It proposes intense development of a community of 30,000 residents with much of the remaining area placed in a "Reserve" category for future review. It is recommended that the plan be adopted subject to modifications by the Count which would result in the following (refer to Conditions A-M for specifics: 1. Redesignation of proposed land uses: Moro Ridge from residential to commercial recreation use; mouth of Los Trancos Canyon from TRC to Conservation. 2. Urban development contingent upon a phased dedication program. 3. Los Trancos Canyon protected by a preservation program. _ _ 4. Development subject to assurances that preservation programs will nab be encumbered by past or future public services financing. 5. A low and moderate housing program as an integral pant of the plan. 6. A public access component consisting of specific provisions to ensure physical and visual access, especially concerning the coastal shelf. 7. Specific grading and urban run-off policies sufficient to protect habitat areas. 6. Habitat corridors 800 feet in width. 9. Sand Canyon Road reduced in size and significance as a through road. • 3 • 10. A 6—year pilot program providing recreation —serving shuttle bus service. 11. Guidelines for land use and intensity designations in areas shown as "Potential State Park Land Acquisition" areas. 12. Specific means and measures to guarantee protection of sensitive coastal resources (visual, sensitive habitat, archeological/ paleontological)." The recommended modifications reflect and address specific concerns with the County's land use plan as submitted. Staff recommended that the plan be modified as indicated in order to meet the requirements of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976. Staff is recommending that the Commission determine that the entire plan raises sub— stantial issues based on the following: ' — The issues and concerns addressed in the joint staff report remain unresolved. — The Regional Commission and the public emphasized the staff's concerns, and raised new concerns at the public hearings on the plan. These concerns remain unresolved and raise substantial issues (See Exhibits 11 2. and'3)• SUMMARY OF REGIONAL COMMISSION HEARING AND ACTION The Regional Commission held three public hearings in January and February, then met a fourth time to take action on the proposed Irvine Coast Land Use Plan. The action taken by the Commission effectively denied the plan as submitted and con— ditioned by staff. The Regional Commission Executive Director's explanation of that action is described in Exhibit 1, the letter from the Executive Director to Mr. Osborne, Executive Director of the Orange County Environmental Management Agency. Regional Commissioners had many concerns with the plan and with the conditions for approval recommended by staff. The Commissioners formulated changes and additions to the staff recommendation to: eliminate residential development except in the third of the segment proposed for intense urbanization; eliminate residential dev_eloDment on the coastal shelf (i.eo the proposed extension of Cameo Shores) and on Wishbone Hill; protect Buck ddlly end: Mbrning'Cariy6ftf provide lbw-d6d moderate= cost housing; increase the size of wildlife corridors; protect archeological resources; ensure proper sizing of access road systems; and address impacts on Pacific Coast Highway. These changes are detailed in Exhibit It However, since the Commission ultimately failed to adopt the staff recommendation, these modifi— cations of that recommendation were not formally adopted, 4 Of most significant concern to Commissioners present was ensuring that the status of proposed public open space and conservation areas (which would ostensibly be left undeveloped in return for intense urbanization of a portion of the LCP segment) be guaranteed by means of a dedication program. The Commissioners indicated the desire that such areas should not be left open for possible future development. A minority of the Regional Commissioners appeared to favor approval of the land use plan as submitted by the County without the conditions recommended by staff. Other concerns and questions raised during the Commission's discussion and consider- ation of the plan included: - the question and concern about the fiscal costs of the proposed development infrastructure, and the fact that no study of this aspect of the project was available; - concern about air quality impacts; - concern about the potential impacts of urban run-off from the proposed Cameo Shores extension on the off -shore marine preserve; - concern with the overall development magnitude and density; - the desire to meet the requirements of the Coastal Act by preserving wildlife habitat areas, not only representative wildlife population. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Public testimony at the Regional Commission hearings was extensive and diverset as indicated by the list of those who testified at the hearings and the staff summary of testimony (Exhibit 2). Notably, with the exception of the County and the Irvine Comp- any, most of those testifying expressed dissatisfaction with the plan as submitted by the County. Some speakers concurred with the conditions recommended by staff, and other speakers criticized the staff recommendations for not adequately addressing the impacts which would be associated with plan implementation. Public testimony also raised several issues which were not addressed previously. It is impossible to adequately summarize the concerns of the public expressed at the Regional hearings within the confines of this report. Many of the speakers provided detailed written texts; these written comments have been distributed to State Commis- sioners. Since the Regional hearings resulted in no resolution of the major issues of the land use plan, most of the concerns raised at the Regional Commission hearings are relevant to the State Commission decision. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the Commission adopt the following resolution: The California Coastal Commission hereby determines that Orange County►s Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan raises substantial issues as to conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976. Findings The 9,400-acre Irvine Coastal property is one of the last remaining undeveloped coastal areas in Southern California. It is immensely important to the people of Southern California by virtue of its great natural beauty and unspoiled open space, its potential for recreation, and its development potential. While the plan for the area submitted by the County addresses some of the requirements of the Coastal Act for Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan certification, a number of significant issues (identified in a letter of July 61 1976 to Executive Director Osborne of Orange County EMA, the Preliminary Review, and the Joint Staff Report prepared for the Regional Commission Hearing) remain unresolved as follows: 1. Permanent Protection of Natural Resource Areas The land use plan does not assure the permanent protection of the natural resource areas designated on the County Plan map "Wildlife Habitat and Conservation areas," and the habitat buffer and recreation potential of the areas disignated 5.4 located in the eastern portion of the Irvine coastal area. Rather these areas are shown either under a "Reserve" classification, which allows for the possibility of future development, or as possible acquisition areas (e.g. Los Trancos Canyon) with no assurance of funding availability. If development of the intensi— •ty proposed in the County plan is to be found consistent with the requirements of the Coastal Act, the LOP must contain provisions assuring the permanent protection of the identified resource areas. 2. Air Quality and Low Income Housing The land use plan has the potential to contribute to significant regional and local air quality problems and could conflict with the goal of attain— ment of health —related ambient air quality standards. The Air Resources Board has negotiated an agreement with a nearby developer proposing a _large residential project near major southern.Orange.County-job_.center-sr - requiring that the proposed development include 35% "affordable" housing in order to reduce vehicular miles travelled by workers from home to job centers. Provision of lower-cost`housing•is also a concern of the Coastal Act. 3. Protection of Emerald and Moro Canyons The potential exists for severe degradation of valuable riparian habitat in Emerald and Moro Canyons which would result from the grading and intrusion associated with residential development. 4. Transportation The plan as proposed would have significant local and regional traffic im— pacts which could interfere with public access to the coastal zone. 5. Sand Canyon Road As proposed, Sand Canyon Road could result in significant habitat destruction, as well as serious negative traffic impacts. 6. Recreational Development The types and intensity of public and commercial recreation developments on the coastal shelf, beach and upland areas, are of concern. Such recreation — oriented uses are a high priority under Coastal Act Policies. However, the intensity and location of such uses must meet other Coastal Act policy re— quirements, including consideration of traffic and environmental implications. Appropriateness of residential development along the coastal shelf is also of concern. 6 . 7. Visual Impacts Development of Pelican Mill and Wishbone Hill and the frontal areas below these hills, may result in negative visual impacts both as viewed from Pacific Coast Highway as well as view points within the parcel. 8. Grading and Urban Runoff The greatest visual and habitat impacts associated with implementation of the proposed plan will result from grading. The urban runoff from the areas proposed for development would be significant. 9. Housing The plan makes no specific, explicit commitment.to require that a propor- tion of the total units proposed will be available to households of low to moderate income. The specific sections of the Irvine coastal plan raising these issues are referenced and described more tally in the Preliminary Review staff report of May 1978 and the Joint Staff Recommendation 6f February 1979. .STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN 1R., Gav�rnor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SOUTH COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION 666 E. OCEAN BOULEVARD, SUITE 3107 F O. BOX 1450 LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90801 (213) 590.5071 (714) 846.0648 Mr. H. G. Osborne, Director Environmental Management Agency County of Orange 811 N. Broadway Santa Ana, CA 92702 Dear Mr. Osborne: EA T 11�11+ 1 0 February 26, 1979 Section 13534 of the Coastal Commission Rules and Regulations requires that the County of Orange be provided a written ex- planation of the reasons for denial of the Irvine Coast Land Use Plan by the Regional Commission. This section further states that the -County may elect to submit a modified plan or it may appeal the decision of the Regional Commission to the Commission. Such appeal shall be in writing and shall be re- ceived at the Commission's office within forty-five (45) days of the transmittal of this letter. As you are aware, the Regional Commission conducted public hearings on the Irvine Coast Land Use Plan at Huntington Beach City Hall. At its meeting of February 13, 1979, the eight members present, acting as -a recommending committee to the Commission as a whole, reviewed the County's proposed Irvine Coast Land Use Plan and the Commission staff recommendations thereon. As a result of this meeting, the committee accepted certain portions by vote and failed to accept other portions. Attachment One sets forth the committee recommendations. Subsequent to that meeting, the Commission on February 15, 1978 received the committee report and accepted further recommended changes from commissioners. These were: (1) That Buck Gully and Morning Canyon be removed from the recommended Condition I and be placed under recommended Condition G; (2) That Condition F incorporate the El Morro Homeowners Association into the record; and (3) That Condition K be modified to state that prior to any development, the County submit a traffic plan approved by the Department of Transportation to handle the traffic problems from Dana Point to Huntington Beach to be approved by the Commission. Mr. H. G. Osborno Director Page 2 February 26, 197 The voting motion was entered to approve the plan with the staff recommendations as modified by the Commission. The motion failed by a vote of six yes, five no, and 1 absent. Based on the testimony and questions asked by the Commission, it is my opinion that the paramount problems causing concern and which led to the denial are the following: (1) The traffic circulation and traffic impacts on. Coast Highway, Culver Boulevard and Sand Canyon Road would be serious. An underlying principle involved here was the fact that both the County and the Irvine Company were depending upon Cal Trans•to solve the traffic impact on Newport Beach, Laguna Beach and the City of Irvine; (2) The residential development proposed for such areas as Wishbone Hill and Cameo Shores were not palatable to a majority of the Commissioners; (3) There was great concern for the environmental impacts created by development in Area A upon Buck Gully; (4) The mouth of Los Trancos Canyon should be designated as recreation use only; (5) Twenty percent of the housing should be developed as low- and moderate -income housing. The Commission did agree separately that the Land Use Plan must be consistent with the County's newly adopted Housing Element which requires 25% low- and moderate -income housing; (6) The wildlife corridors proposed by the County were insufficient in width in the opinion of the Com- missioners; (7) The Archaeological/Paleontological provisions of the plan were inadequate. Your attention in this matter is invited to the detailed comments provided to you in writing by Commissioner Erickson; (8) There was great concern regarding the proper sizing and use of the access road systems. Here again, the underlying principle was the Pacific Coast Highway capacity and the effects of additional traffic on Newport Beach, etc.; (9) The last and probably most important issue that I discern is the need for permanent designation of land Mr. H. G. Osbo� Director • Page 3 February 26, 1979 uses within the "Reserve" areas. The Commissioners indicated that no areas should be left open to future changes. Parallel to this problem was the considera- tion of dedication of land in exchange for development in areas A & B. As you and your staff can perceive, six of the votes were in favor of the proposed rec- ommended dedication condition and five were opposed. In separate discussions with the commissioners, I believe the five opposed were in favor of mandatory dedication, but not to the extent as that proposed. In that the Commissioners made no expressions of reasons for denial, I have attempted to highlight what I believe were the basic reasons for the denial. In no way does this letter attempt to express a viewpoint of the Commission or Commissioners. Sincerely yours, SOUTH COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION M. J. CVnte Executi Director MJC/sws cc: Mike Fischer Richard Munsell N ATTACHMENT ONE 0 • ~ February 15, 1979 IRVING COAST LCP Summary of Commission Actions of 2/13/7.9_ The Coastal Commission staff report entitled County of Orange Local Coastal Program Irvine Coast_ remains the Commission staff recommendation. The following material has been developed at the request of the Commission and reflects actions taken at the Commission meeting of February 13, 1979 and language modifications proposed by those Commissioners present. For purposes of this report, all motions which obtained a majority of votes of those Commissioners present are considered passed. 1. Condition A.-- Approval of the Land Use Plan No action taken. Deferred until after individual conditions have been considered. 2. Condition B.- Phased Dedication Program A motion was made to approve Condition B per staff. Motion passed by a vote of 5 YES, 3 NO. 3. Condition C - Los Trancos Preservation Program A motion was made to approve Condition C with the following modifications: 1. No residential development in Areas B and C. 2. No residential development on the extension of Cameo Shores. 3. No density transfers. Motion failed 4 - 4. A motion was made to approve Condition C per staff with modification to designate the mouth of Los Trancos Canyon as 5.3 Recreation. Motion approved 7 YES, 1 NO. 4. Condition D - Public Services Funding Approved per staff, 7 YES, 0 NO. 0 - 1 - 5. 6. Condition E - Housing A motion was made to modify Condition E-l(a) to read: "20% of the proposed residential units shall be developed as low and moderate -income housing units, as conditioned below." (Delete 2nd sentence of Section E-l(a). Motion failed 4-YES, 4 NO. A motion was made to modify Condition E to require that the Land Use Plan be consistent with the adopted Orange County Housing Element and the Air Quality Management Plan and that a minimum of 20% low- and moderate -income housing be provided in the coastal zone. Motion was approved 7 YES,•0 NO, 1 ABSTAIN. Condition F - Public Access Component A motion was made to approve Condition F with'the following modifications: 1. No residential development on the extension of Cameo Shores. 2. Development of a condition to protect existing residents by phase -out program for existing residential units at E1 Moro Cove and Crystal Cove. Commission instructed staff to clarify wording of the proposed condition. Motion passed 7 YES, 1 NO. Regarding the existing units at El Moro and Crystal Cove, the current leases at E1 Moro expire on December 31, 1983, with option to cancel after April 30, 1979. Current leases at Crystal Cove are owned by the Irvine Company and leased on a monthly basis. It is unclear what the Commission's legal ability is to require the Irvine Company to continue those leases for low/moderate units beyond that time. A condition requiring replacement units is covered in staff recommendation Condition (E). A condition could be imposed to require that existing units be allowed to stay for the remaining terms of the leases, in the event the site is purchased by a public - agency. In all cases, any condition imposed by the Commission should be reviewed by the Commission legal staff in order to resolve any legal questions regarding the leaseholds. - 2 - The County proposed the following policy at the 2/13/79 hearing: "Local or State government shall take appropriate steps to protect those residents who qualify as having low or moderate income. Any government agency receiving dedication or acquiring this land shall prepare a relocation plan designed to protect such low and moderate income residents." Commission staff was contacted on 2/14/79 by Bill Payton of the El Moro Investment Company, who offered the following position of the leaseholder: 1. The E1 Moro Investment Company holds the Master Lease and is the owner of all im- provements. Individual units'are subleases of the Company. Leases expire January 1, 1984. 2. The E1 Moro Investment Company wants the State to purchase the site and allow the trailer park to remain for 20 years. 3. The El Moro Investment Company would make an agreement that after 20 years no relocation pay would be due and no severance pay of any kind required. 7. Condition G - Grading/Urban Runoff A motion was made to approve per staff. Motion passed 6 YES, 2 NO. 8. Condition H - Visual/Recreation Resources A motion was made to approve per staff. Motion approved 8 YES, 0 NO. 9. Condition I - Protection of Habitat Areas A motion was made to approve per staff with the following changes: 1. Wildlife corridors in Condition I(1) shall be one -quarter mile width corridors. 2. Findings shall be revised to reflect changes of mouth of Trancos Canyon to 5.3 Recreation. Motion passed 6 YES, 2 NO. Staff will make appro- priate language modifications in the findings. - 3 - Buck Gully - The Commission instructed staff to develop a condition to mitigate runoff impacts. Staff recommended that the following condition could be added to Condition I: 1. The implementation phase of the land use plan shall include standards and criteria to miti- gate and or minimize runoff/siltation in Buck Gully. 10. Condition J - Archaeological/Paleontological Resources A motion was made to approve per staff with the following changes: 1. Condition J(1) shall be modified to change the 3rd/4th line to read..."archaeologist selected by the County and approved by the Coastal Commission based on the recommendations and requirements of the Society of Professional Archaeologists." 2. The Commission instructed staff to modify conditions to reflect language in the AWMA archaeological conditions which related to qualifications. Motion passed 8 YES, 0 NO. The AWMA conditions (P-4365) included conformance with the following mitigation measures: Paleontological Resource Preservation Portions of the proposed facilities will be located in areas believed to contain paleontological resources. The "Archaeological Report, Aliso Water Management Agency" recommended that the following six actions be taken. It should be noted, however, that any paleonto- logical resources found are the property of the landowner, and the landowner must agree to their transfer as recommended by the following: 1. Designate the Los Angeles County Museum (and other non- profit, public research/education oriented institutions as deemed appropriate) as the salvage and repository for any fossils found during trenching. The Los Angeles County Museum is a public, regional museum that is a recognized responsible systematic collection holder, and museum personnel are already engaged in research in this area. 2. Select a paleontological inspector(s) to be on the site during the grading and excavating of potentially fossili- ferous sediments (see areas designated on Plate II-6). - 4 - This person(s) should be approved by the Los Angeles County Museum paleontologists. He or she, should always be notified if fossils are found. 3. A representative of the repository institution and/or paleontologic Inspector should be present at any pre- grading/excavating meetings and should be kept apprised of commencement of trenching of key segments. 4. The Inspector will have the right to flag off any grading or trenching activity from a fossil occurrence that he and/ or the repository institution deem in need of salvage. 5. The Inspector must be allowed to collect fossils, by himself, or call in a salvage team for large and more complicated specimens. 6. The fossils should be deposited in a recognized bio- systematic research/education oriented center, such as the Los Angeles County Museum, University of California at Riverside, Cal -State, Fullerton, and Chapman College. This construction EIR recommends that the AWMA implement these actions as a portion of the construction activities. 11. Condition K - Coastal Access Road System Motion was made to approve per staff. Motion failed 1 YES, 3 N0, 3 ABSTAINS, 1 PASS. Commission instructed staff to develop alternative road system conditions - The staff recommendation is that Sand Canyon be reduced from 4 to 2 lanes as outlined in Condition K of the Staff Report. Staff indicated at the hearing of 2/13/79 that Sand Canyon could be 4 lanes on the ridgetop to the resort destination at Wishbone Hill but the connection from this area to the development area (landward of PCH shall be limited to 2 lanes and conform to Condition K(3) The League of Women voters and others have supported an alternative road system which would be a 4-land extension of Sand Canyon from the San Diego Freeway to its inter- section with the San Joaquin Hills Road, then west to where Culver would extend from San Joaquin Hills Road to PCH as a 6-lane road west of Los Trancos Canyon Watershed. The Commission staff report has proposed transportation alternatives. - 5 - 12. Condition L - Public Transportation A motion was made to approve Condition L with the following modifications: 1. That costs of this system'be shared continually with Caltans and Department of Parks and Recreation. Motion passed with 6 YES, 1 NO, 1 ABSTAIN. 13. Condition M - Guidelines for Areas ShoWn as Potential State Parkland -Acquisition Approved per staff. 7 YES, 1 NO. sws - 6 - SPEAKERS AT REGIONAL COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE IRVINE COAST LCP LAND USE PLAN Don Wilson, Fish and Game Bob Radovich, Fish and Game Allan Beek, 2121 16th R-105, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Michelle Bolden, League of Women Voters.; 133 Promenade, Irvine, CA 92715 Barbara Bomen, 8811 North Coast Highway, Lagun4 CA 92651 Terry Timmins, 452 Aster, Laguna, CA 92651 Robert Yantes, 20701 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Bill Vernor. 1305 La Mirada Street, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Duane Stroh, 213 'z 15th, Seal Beach, CA 90740 Norbert Dall, Sierra Club Jeff Georgevich, Friends of Irvine Coast Michael Schley, 1215 Branguyn Way, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 (Laguna Greenbelt) Bill Ives 31620 Scenic Drive, South Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Jack L. Roger, 811 Pacific Coast Highway, Laugna, CA 92651 Anthony Grasso, Eugene Atherton, Frances Engelhardt, 1723 Thurston Drive, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Gwynne Kirkpatrick, 1515 Skyline, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Evelyn Gayman Linda Ristow, 917 Quintra, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Irwin Hoffman, 130 Shorecliff Rd., Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Betty Heckel 290 Dolphin Way, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Penny Conroy, 1950 San Remo, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Ann Long, 101 Dahlia, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Don Cameron, Irvine Co, Newport Center Co. Michael Scott, Laguna Greenbelt Inc. P.O. Box 860, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 John Trautmann, Associated Students of Laguna Beach High School Don Graney, E1 Morro Mobile Home Park Paul Hummel, City Councilman, Newport Beach David Dmohonski, Community Development Department, Newport Beach Sue Ficker Edward T. Walter, 532 Treasure Island, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 -2- Ezequiel Guiterrez, Alan Emkin, 4790 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Long Bea Lpa�hAi C� Founda 9030 tion Ronald Kennedy, 550 Hazel Drive, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 o Long Beach) Galen Colwell, 8811 Coast Highway (El Morro) Wes Marx, 18051 Butler, Irvine Larry Agran, City Councilman, Irvine Dave Hall, 16291 Kim Lane, Huntington Beach, Verlyn Marth, Costa Mesa, Loynne S. Frieth, 100 Pomona Neall West, Pomeroy, CA Hal Thomas, Environmental Coalition of Orange County, 206 W. 4 Street, Santa Ana, CA James W. Dieley 3 STAFF SUMMARY OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY ("Correspondence" cited below refers to the complete packet of correspondence and written testimony distributed to State Commissioners. Correspondence is available for public review at Regional and State Commission offices). The following is a necessarily abbreviated summary of major points raised during the Regional Commission hearings. The purpose of this summary is merely to indicate the variety and nature of the public testimony, and to convey a general sense of what occured at the Regional hearings, and not to convey a complete record of the proceedings. 1. Concerns of the County of Orange: County representatives explained the plan as submitted, and provided a detailed report of the County's rationale and position. (See Correspondence, p. 1-63). 2. The Irvine Company representative summarized a six -page letter submitted to the Commission (See Correspondence, pp. 64-70). The Company basically supports the County's position and comments. 3. A combined presentation by representatives of the Laguna Greenbelt and Friends of the Irvine Coast (with concurrance from the Ehvironmental Coalition of Orange County) raised a number of issues concerning the plan and the staff recommendation. Their position is expressed in writing in Ihclosure , pp. Major points included the importance of considering the Irvine Coast LCP along with the Aliso segment LCP; support for the conditioned approval approach to considering the plan; the statement that the dedication commitment is the most important aspect of the plan; the importance of pre— serving watersheds by riot developing ridgetops; the need to preserve the coastal shelf by not allowing residential development on it; objection to high cost resort use of Crystal Cove; serious concern with the traffic cir— culation impacts associated with the plan if the San Joaquin Hills Corridor is not built; presentation of an alternative road system; the request that the requirement for the Irvine Company pay the cost of a mass transit system be extended to a time period of 60 years; and the request that families currently living at Moro and Crystal coves be relocated at the expense of the Irvine Company, not the State. 4. A representative of the Irvine High School student body requested adequate pedestrian access in the plan area. 5. Representatives and residents of the Moro Mobile Home Park stated that the Park provides low and moderate cost housing opportunities, that there is nowhere to relocate present residents, and requested that the park be pre— served. 6. Representatives of the City of Newport Beach City Council referred to a letter from Mayor Rykoff ( Corres. pp7 111-;112 ). They expressed con— cern with the phasing of development with adequate circulation improvements, and that Culver and Sand Canyon be sized according to the County plan in order to minimize impacts on Newport Beach, and attract traffic away from Corona del Mar. Concern was expressed regarding grading impacts, especially on Buck Gully. Attention was called to Newport Beachts own grading ordi— nance. 7. A citizen expressed concern that the County's plan condones grading practises that totally degrade Upper Newport Bay and therefore, the staff proposed grading conditions are necessary. * 4 4 h 8. Mr. Ed Walter provided a handout (Correspondence, pp. 281-287) which raised.a number of points including the request that the entire coastal shelf be designated for public recreational use, and that the County's TR/C designation be eliminated or more clearly defined. 9. Representative of the Legal Foundation of Long Beach stated that the plan as submitted is not adequately protective of housing in the Coastal Zone, (Correspondence, pp. 202-216). The Shapell agreement was cited as an example of how to meet housing needs in a manner economically feasible for the developer. 10. Residents of Buck Gully expressed serious concern about the effects of development —associated grading and urban run—off on Buck Gully and Morning Canyon and effects on Little Corona Beach. Correspondence, o. 231). They requested that Buck Gully be designated 5.41 Conservation, and that mitigation measures be required. A petition with more than 200 signatures was presented, 11. Wesley Marx agreed with the staff recommendation concerning circulation, air quality, dedication and bonded indebtedness. He stated that consideration of the land use plan is premature without the transportation corridor being pinned down. He stated that the tremendous natural and public values in the area justify the requirement that a commitment to dedication be made, and called attention td the unique kelp forests and submarine rock reefs. 12. Mr. Hegrin of the Irvine City Council expressed concern that the plan and the staff recommendation are in conflict with the Cityts general plan concerning road extensions (See letter in Correspondence, pp, 106-110). 13. The State Department of Fish and Game felt that the staff recommendation was generally responsive to biological needs, but that several concerns remain, including the destruction of valuable habitat on Pelican Hill and in Buck Gully, and the failure to provide adequate wildlife corridors (for Fish and Game concerns, see Correspondence, pp, 70-85). 14. Alan Beck, a citizen of Newport Beach who also happens to be a planning commissioner, called for limited growth, and requested that the Coastal Commission require the Irvine Company to plan innovatively, and construct a self—contained community with homes near work, with only limited, 2—lane ingress and egress road building, not a commuter corridor. 15. The League of Women Voters presented a statement, (Correspondence, pp. 133-136) including major points such as the importance of clarity in the County's policies, (as provided in the annoted version prepared by Commission staff); the importance of ensuring permanent open space by the means recommended by staff; the inadequacy of the County's 5.4 "open spaceft designation; the importance of concentrating development and keeping it off the ridges; and deep concern with circulation which would provide adequate access without substantially degrading the land and air environment. The League expressed support of the alternative road system suggested by the Friends of Irvine Coast/Laguna Greenbelt, and urged that the 6 year experimental time frame for the proposed snuttle system be extended. 16. The Citizens Town Planning Association of Laguna Beach strongly supported the staff recommendation and urged approval of the plan as conditioned by staff. 17. Sierra Club representatives stated that the coastal shelf must remain open, and that proposals for resorts on the shelf are ludicrous and displace day users; that residential development on Moro Ridge is an intrusion on habitat and would result in detrimental run—off; that the LCP should be based on the protection of resources; that infra —structure must precede development; and that they support the permanent preservation of open space. - - -_ = 18, The Irvine Teachers Association stated support for preservation of open space in perpetuity. 19. The Coalition of Neighborhood Associations of Laguna Beach requested that funding for the proposed shuttle system be guaranteed for 60 years. 20. A researcher from the Cal Tech marine biology laboratory expressed concern regarding conservation of off shore kelp beds. She referred to a restoration project, and stated that the kelp beds support commercially and recreationally important species. She stated the importance of controlling sediment and urban run—off from Buck Gully and Morning Canyon. 21. The South Laguna Civic Association expressed support for the Greenbelt/Friends recommendations, and expressed concern that the LCP effort is too fragmented, and that impacts on Pacific Coast Highway and existing communities be consid— ered. 22, A number of other individuals testified (See "LTst of Speakers at Public Hearings"), Miscellaneous additional comments not mentioned above included: — the statement that Huntington Beach represents an example of how development destroys a naturally productive area, as the proposed.Irvine project would destroy existing watersheds. — finger —like development as proposed in the County's plan will encourage more development later. — the development proposed is in violation of the air quality act, as it will worsen air quality. — the Orange County PMA was not responsive to public comments and input. — all proposals for development should be rejected, they constitute "land rape"; the people want the land saved; up —zoning has made the land too expensive for its best use, as park land and grazing; now is the time to assemble the land into a park. — the Commission has the citizenst support to save this area by requiring dedi— cations* — several years ago the Irvine Company proposed a completely compact pedestrian oriented communityt a "Mediterranean town"; what happened to that proposal? — the proposed plan is a ruses it will benefit few at the expense of many. — the public must bear the cost of public services/taspayers must bear the cost of infrastructure and improvements. - - Students for the Laguna Greenbelt are glad that there is a Coastal Commission. kyHlal r 3 IRVINE COAST: CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY RECEIVED BETWEEN OCTOBER 1978 AND APRIL 13 1979 TABLE/SUMMARY OF CONTENTS* *(Correspondence and written testimony are in no special order, material is simply grouped according to type of correspondent and ordered randomly within each group. The texts of all material listed are being distributed to all State Coastal Commissioners) FROM Drange County and Irvine Company County of Orange EMA County of Orange EMA The Irvine Company; Donald Cameron Regional, State,Federal Agencies State Dept. of Fish & Game: Fred Worthly Jr. Regional Mgr.,Region 5 DATE CONTENTS 2/7/79 County staff comments on Coastal Commission staff recommendation 1/31/79 County staff preliminary response to Coastal Commission staff recommendation 1/31/79 Company response to Coastal Commission staff summary and recommendation 2/7/79 Oral comments presented before the South Coast Regional Commission on February 7, 1979 it 1/30/79 Oral comments presented to the South Coast Regional Commission on January 30, 1979 State Dept. of Fish & Game Robert Montgomery: Regional Mgr., Region 5 If If State Water Resources Control Board U.S. Bureau of Mines U.S. Dept. Of the Interior Fish & Wildlife Service Orange County Transit District, Robert Hartwig Director of Planning 10/4/78 Comments on Irvine Coast Issue I.D. and Land Use Plan 11/28/78 Comments on addendum to Irvine Coast Land Use joint staff working report 12/28/78 Letter of clarification concerning October 4, 1978 memo 2/5/79 Copy of resolution designating areas of special biological significance 2/8/79 Comments to Orange County EMA on County of Orange Irvine Coast Issue I.D. & Land Use Plan 1/10/79 Comments on Irvine Coast Issue I.D. and Land Use Plan 2/6/79 Comments to Orange County EMA on staff recommendation and summary PAGE 1 53 64 70 73 76 81 82 86 94 99 102 . PACE 2 i F FRO-1 DATE CONTENTS PACE cities City of Irvine: 3/2/79 Comments and concerns with 106 William Woolett, Jr. Irvine Coast LCP City Manager City of Newport Beach: 2/15/79 City position on San Joaquin 111 Paul Ryckoff, Mayor Hills transportation corridor City of Newport Beach: 1/31/79 Comments/position of City on 112 Paul Ryckoff, Mayor Irvine Coast LCP; related materials on grading and the City's grading ordinance City of Garden Grove, 2/2/79 Concerns with the proposed County 130 Elerth S. Erickson, Mayor Plan for the Irvine Coast addressed to Orange County EMA Public and Private Interest Groups League of Women Voters 2/7/79 Comments on Commission staff summary 133 of Orange County: Michelle and recommendation on the Orange County Bolden, Grace Winchell Local Coastal Program Friends of the Irvine Coast, 2/7/79 Comments and attachment, 137 Fern Pirkel, President "Specific word changes to the conditions of approval" Friends of the Irvine Coast 1/31/79 Submittal including a summary of rec— 149 Inc., and Laguna Greenbelt, ommended changes to the land use plan, Presidents Fern Pirkel & Tom need to consider regional perspective, Alexander detailed changes, information on "greenline park" concept, list of resource people. Friends of the Irvine Coast, 4/6/79 Letter to Michael Fischer commenting 183 Jeff Georgevitch, Executive on State Commission staff report on Director the Irvine Coast LCP Citizens of Orange County, 2/2/79 200 signature petition, photographs 186 organized to preserve Little Corona and 3rd Beach, Marine Reserve Legal Aid Foundation 2/2/79 Opposition to Irvine Coast LCP regard— 202 of Long Beach, ing Land Use Plan, zoning and other Exequiel Gutierrez, Jr. implementing actions " 2/1/79 An update to opposition to approval & 204 certification of the LOP FRCM Exequiel Gutierrez, Jr. • DAIS Attorneys A71ard,Shelton & OfConnor: Douglas M. Elwell Attorneys Allard,Shelton and O'Connor: Wynne S. Furth El Morro Investment Co., James W. Peyton • CONTENTS PACE 3 1/30/79 Opposition to approval and certification of the LOP 10/27/78 Results of Housing Survey of E1 Morro Mobile Home Park 2/7/79 E1 Morro/Irvine Coast Land Use Plan 2/14/79 E1 Morro Beach Mobile Home Park Pacific Coast Archeological 1/30/79 Irvine Coast Commission staff Society, Inc., Laura Lee summary and recommendation Mitchell, Chairperson, Research Committee Village Laguna, Arnold Hano, Chairman Laguna Hills Audobon Society Irvine Teachers Assoc. Citizens Town Planning Association, Board of Directors Orange Coast College, Terry Timmins, Associate Professor of Sociology Homeowners along Buck Gully, Ronald Kennedy, Corona del Mar Homeowners Assoc. Corona Highlands Property Owners Assoc., Richard Adamson, President Crystal Cove Residents Assoc., Martha Padve Property owners along Buck Gully; Ronald Kennedy, Corona del Mar 2/3/79 Statement concerning LOP 2/7/79 Wilderness Park & Resource Conservation Area resolution PAGE 209 217 220 223 225 226 227 2/5/79 Statement supporting staffs recommendation 228 2/6/79 Statement supporting approval with 229 conditions 2/7/79 Statement concerning LOP 230 1/31/79 Statement requesting protection of 231 Buck Gully and Morning Canyon 2/9/79 Statement concerning Fifth Ave., 232 Buck Gully and Morning Canyon 1/25/79 A profile of Crystal Cove: 233 Residents and Uses 1/29/79 Request for changes in staff recommen- 240 dation and policies to protect Buck Gully; request for policy change concern- ing Fifth Ave.; supporting excerpts from staff recommendation, plan, and correspondence • • PACF, 4 b'FiUM DATE CONTENTS PACE Individual Citizens Mary & Paul Sullivan, 1/30/79 Comments on El Morro Home Park 277 Laguna Beach James Dilley, 1/31/79 Comments on open space preservation 278 Laguna Beach Betty Heckel, 2/13/79 Comments desiring open space 279 Laguna Beach Bill Nyholm, 1/2/79 Support of Laguna Greenbelt/ 280 Newport Beach Friends of Irvine Position Edward Walter, Treasure 1/31/79 Presentation to the Commission, 281 T.land, Laguna Beach urging only public recreation on coastal shelf and elimination or more definition of tourist recreation, commercial designation Barney & Claire 2/7/79 Comments urging preservation of 288 Markowitz, Laguna Beach open space Adolph Zukkor II, 2/4/79 Request for preservation of open 289 Laguna Beach space Elinor Davis, 2/8/79 Letter to Governor Brown requesting 291 Laguna Beach preservation of open space David Magruder 3/12/79 Request to Governor Brown for 292 preservation of open space Mildred Hannum, 2/4/79 Comment regarding San Joag,i,, proposed 293 Laguna Beach corridor b. March 12, 1979 Mr. Dorill Wright, California Coastal 631 Howard Street San Francisco, Cal 0 FILE COPY DO NOT PE LOVE CITY OF NEWPORT BEA.CH2a.9' Chairman Commission - 4th Floor ifornia 94105 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR (714) 640-2110 Re: Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program Dear Mr. Wright: The purpose of this letter is to express the position of the City of Newport Beach regarding the proposed Local Coastal Program for the Irvine Coast. As stated in previous corres- pondence, the City of Newport Beach has been greatly concerned with four general issues: 1. The intensity of development proposed for the Irvine Coast, and in particular, the impacts of this develop- ment on adjacent residential neighborhoods in Newport Beach. The impact of the proposed development on the City's street system, especially Coast Highway through Corona del Mar and San Joaquin Hills Road. _3. The impact on physical support systems and public services. 4. The considerable expected environmental impacts, including loss of open space and natural habitat, alteration( of natural, landforms, and potential effects on air and water quality. These concerns are a-ddressed in greater detail below. Intensity of Proposed Development Approximately 4,000 acres of the Irvine Coast adjoining Newport Beach are within the City's Sphere of Influence. A substantial majority of the 11,000 dwellings proposed would be located in this area, with densities ranging from two to twenty-eight dwelling units per acre. Due to the scale and intensity of City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 Mr. Do rill Wright,Rairman California Coastal Commission Page 2. March 12, 1979 development proposed here, the City of Newport Beach requests that residential development should be limited to the lowest level which will not cause adverse impacts on the City's street system. With respect to commercial uses, particularly those of a regional or tourist -oriented nature, development intensity should be limited to the lowest reasonable level taking into account impacts on the City's street system. In our view, the amount of land area designated for tourist commercial in the proposed plan is excessive in terms of potential traffic impact on adjacent com- munities and in terms of the environmental carrying capacity of this area. Circulation and Phasing of Development Due to the substantial traffic impact of the proposed plan, par- ticularly with regard to Coast Highway in Corona del Mar and San Joaquin Hills Road, the City requests that any development in the Irvine Coast be phased in strict compliance with the road- way improvement plan. No connection of San Joaquin Hills Road to the downcoast area road system should be permitted until sufficient capacity exists along the transportation corridor alignment and Culver Drive to accommodate the projected develop- ment. The San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor is essential to relieving congestion on Coast Highway. Also the north -south arterial system connecting with the Corridor, including Culver Drive and Sand Canyon Road, needs to be of sufficient capacity and design so as to attract trips away from Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. The Fifth Avenue Corridor in Corona del Mar is not an alternative route available to relieve traffic on Coast Highway as'a result of development in the downcoast area. The City of Newport Beach has developed a computerized traffic model which is capable of assessing the impact of proposed development in the Irvine Coast planning area. We would be happy to furnish the results of this study when they become available in the near future. The traffic model could be made available for use in the Coastal Commission's further review of development proposals in'the Irvine Coast. Impacts on Support Systems The proposed development will require significant investment in physical support systems such as roads, sewers, and water. Mr. Dorill Wright, airman -California Coastal Commission Page 3. March 12, 1979 These may have an impact in Newport Beach. Also, public services - and school facilities required will impose additional tax burdens in this region. Environmental.Impacts The proposed development will alter the scenic value of the Irvine Coast and result in the loss of natural habitat areas. On this issue, the City of Newport Beach has supported public acquisition of all or a portion of the Irvine Coast for recreation and open space purposes. It should be recognized, however, that public acquisition would not eliminate the need to provide adequate road- way improvements in this area to assure that streets in Newport Beach are not further impacted by regional or -recreational traffic. Regarding alteration of natural landforms and grading policies, development in the Irvine Coast could cause significant damage to Buck Gully and Morning Canyon due to erosion generated by urban runoff. Grading practices would also have an impact on ocean water quality. The City would urge the strictest applica- tion of grading and erosion controls to preserve riparian habitat areas and natural drainage courses, including Buck Gully and Morn- ing Canyon in Newport Beach. The City of Newport Beach has welcomed the opportunity to comment on the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program. We hope to participate in future public hearings before the Coastal Commission on this matter. Very truly yours, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PAUL RYCKOFF Mayor PR/kk Q& aa. q t CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE MAYOR (714) 640-2110 March 12, 1979 Mr. Bradford Lundborg, Chairman California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street - 4th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Re: Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program Dear Mr. Lundborg: The purpose of this letter is to express the position of the City of Newport Beach regarding the proposed Local Coastal Program for the Irvine Coast. At stated in previous corres- pondence, the City of Newport Beach has been greatly concerned with four general issues: 1. The intensity of development proposed for the Irvine Coast, and in particular, the impacts of this develop- ment on adjacent residential neighborhoods in Newport Beach. 2. The impact of the proposed development on the City's street system, especially Coast Highway through Corona del Mar and San Joaquin Hills Road. 3. The impact on physical support systems and public services. 4. The considerable expected environmental impacts, including loss of open space and natural habitat, alteration of natural landforms, and potential effects on air and water quality. These concerns are addressed in greater detail below. Intensity of Proposed Development Approximately 4,000 acres of the Irvine Coast adjoining Newport Beach are within the City's Sphere of Influence. A substantial majority of the 11,000 dwellings proposed would be located in this area, with densities ranging from two to twenty-eight dwelling units per acre. Due to the scale and intensity of City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 i I- �A 0 Mr. Bradford Lundborg, Chairman California Coastal Commission Page 2. March 12, 1979 development proposed here, the City of Newport Beach requests that residential development should be limited to the lowest level which will not cause adverse impacts on the City's street system. With respect to commercial uses, particularly those of a regional or tourist -oriented nature, development intensity should be limited to the lowest reasonable level taking into account impacts on the City's street system. In our view, the amount of land area designated for tourist commercial in the proposed plan is excessive in terms of potential traffic impact on adjacent com- munities and in terms of the environmental carrying capacity of this area. Circulation and Phasing of Development Due to the substantial traffic impact of the proposed plan, par- ticularly with regard to Coast Highway in Corona del Mar and San Joaquin Hills Road, the City requests that any development in the Irvine Coast be phased in strict compliance with the road- way improvement plan. No connection of San Joaquin -Hills Road to the downcoast area road system should be permitted until sufficient capacity exists along the transportation corridor alignment and Culver Drive to accommodate the projected develop- ment. The San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor is essential to relieving congestion on Coast Highway. Also the north -south arterial system connecting with the Corridor, including Culver Drive and Sand Canyon Road, needs to be of sufficient capacity and design so as to attract trips away from Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. The -Fifth Avenue Corridor in Corona del Mar is not an alternative route available to relieve traffic on Coast Highway as a result of development in the downcoast area. The City of Newport Beach has developed a computerized traffic model which is capable of assessing the impact of proposed development in the Irvine Coast planning area. We would be happy to furnish the results of this study when they become available in the near future. The traffic model could be made available for use in the Coastal Commission's further review of development proposals in the Irvine Coast. Impacts on Support Systems The proposed development will require significant investment in physical support systems such as roads, sewers, and water. u ,y Mr. Bradford Lundborg, Chairman California Coastal Commission Page 3. March 12, 1979 These may have an terms of limited school facilities in this region. impact in Newport Beach, particularly in sewer capacity. Also, public services and required will impose additional tax burdens Environmental Impacts The proposed'development will alter the scenic value of the Irvine Coast and result in the loss of natural habitat areas. On this issue, the City of Newport Beach has supported public acquisition of all or a portion of the Irvine Coast for recreation and open space purposes. It should be recognized, however, that public acquisition would not eliminate the need to provide adequate roadway improvements -in this area to assure that streets in Newport Beach are not further impacted by regiona•1 or recreational traffic. Regarding alteration of natural landfor development in the Irvine Coast could c to Buck Gully and Morning Canyon due to urban runoff. Grading practices would ocean water quality. The City would ur tion of grading and erosion controls to areas and natural drainage courses, incl ing Canyon in Newport Beach. ms and grading policies, ause significant damage erosion generated by also have an impact on ge the strictest applica- preserve riparian habitat uding Buck Gully and Morn - The City of Newport Beach has welcomed the opportunity to comment on the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program. We hope to participate in future public hearings before the Coastal Commission on this matter. Very truly yours, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PAUL RYCKOFF, Mayor PR/kk March 8, 1979 WC TO: Mayor Paul Ryckoff,. City of Newport Beach. Mayor Bill Vardoulis, City of Irvine Mayor Jack McDowell, City of Laguna Beach FROM: J. A. Georgevich, Executive Director Friends of the Irvine Coast, Inc. SUBJECT: IRVINE COAST-LAGUNA GREENBELT AREA The future of the Irvine Coast -Laguna Greenbelt area is the subject of several governmental studies and massive public concern. The future use of this area will have major impacts on the three adjacent Cities. The Friends are pleased that the Cities are meeting together to discuss mutual concerns and are very grateful for the opportunity to participate in these discussions. We hope to assist the Cities by outlining our goals, summarizing recent and on- going governmental studies, listing.areas of anticipated agreement and disagree- ment, and recommending certain immediate actions. A. GOALS OF THE FRIENDS OF THE IRVINE COAST, INC. AND LAGUNA GREENBELT, INC. The Friends and Laguna Greenbelt, Inc. have prepared a land use plan for the entire 25,000-acre area currently under study by the National Park Service. Copies of this Open Space and Recreation Plan are attached. Our goals and specific policies are described in detail on pages 11 - 19 of the report. These goals are summarized below: 1. Establish a Public Park so that the natural resources in the area will be preserved and utilized for public benefit. 2. Maximize public use of the Park by providing various types of recreation, ranging from passive recreation in sensitive wiidlife habitat areas to high intensity use of suitable areas. 3. Ensure the permanent preservation of the areals scenic and natural resources by: a) using natural boundaries, such as watersheds and rtdgelines, to de- fine boundaries; b) transfer or eliminate proposed residential uses and major highways that would infringe on the Park; c) limit recreational use of habitat areas in order to permanently preserve these living resources, Page 2 4. Minimize the economic burden of the Park on taxpayers by encouraging recrea- tion concession leasebacks with private firms as one way to provide facil- ities and generate revenue for Park maintenance, 5. Encourage and cooperate with all efforts aimed at establishing a transit system that will provide inland residents with access to the Park and beaches. in order to accomplish these goals, the proposed land use plans for the Irvine Coast and Aliso Viejo must be modified. The Friends and Laguna Greenbelt, Inc. are trying to inform all of Orange County about these land use plans and the feasibility and desirability of the proposed National Park. B. GOVERNMENTAL ACTIONS 1. National Park Service: In November of last year, Congress authorized a National Park Service study of the feasibility and desirability of making the Irvine Coast -Laguna Greenbelt part of the National Park System. Park service staff were in Orange County during December and January. They toured the area and met with the landowners and representatives of the Friends and Laguna Greenbelt, The draft version of the Park Service study should be available for public comment next week. The Park Service recently mailed a brief background re- port to interested parties. A copy of this report is attached, Congress will receive the final report and recommendations in May of this year, 2. South Coast Regional Coastal Commission: The South Coast CRegionall Coastal Commission took action on the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Plan Land Use Plan on February 15th, They rejected the Countyt's plan Cori•ginally prepared by the Irvine Company) as inadequate, and then extensively modified the plan by adopting numerous "Conditions of Approval." The trvtne Company said they would rather have the plan rejected than have it adopted with "Condi- tions of Approval." to the end, the Commission couid not muster seven votes in favor of the modified plan, so it was rejected, Orange County is expected to appeal the Regional Commllssl'onts rejection to the State Commission within 45 days. The State Commission then has 60 days to act. in effect, the State Commission received no formal guidance from the Regional Commission, so the State must do extenai,ye work to devise its, own plan. The Regional Commission was poorly informed about actions by the three Cities on traffic control and circulation, The State Commission will be very receptive to input from local cities, but probably will not actively solicit Input. The "Conditions of Approval" drastically improved the feasibility of the proposed National Park, The Commission modified the Irvine Company -Orange County plan to eliminate all residential development from the proposed National Park area Cthat is, all residential in Areas B and C, plus the extension of Cameo Shores were eliminated); mandated the phased dedication Page 3 of 3,600 acres of Open.Space; expanded wildlife corridors through urban areas from 200 feet to one -quarter mile; required a watershed management program for Buck Gully and Morning Canyon; required the County to develop a regional traffic plan U ncluding funding sources) prior to any develop- ment; and established a gradual phase -out of residential use in Crystal Cove and El Morro Trailerpark, 3. Orange County-Aliso Vie.io Plan: The Planning Commission adopted the Aliso Viejo General Plan Amendment on February 20th and sent it to the Board of Supervisors for final action on March 21st, While the existing General Plan allows 30,000 people, the Aliso Viejo Plan allows 6Q„QQQ people.. The Aliso'Viejo Plan allows major residential development in the proposed National Park (7,600 of the proposed 20,000 units would be in the Parkl. if the Board of Supervisors approves the proposed plan, -It will be sent to the Coastal Commission for review and modification in May or June. 4. State Department Parks and Recreation: The State has $22,6 million for purchasing parkland in the Irvine Coast, This purchase has been delayed several times, and there is IFttle information on when the purchase will occur. The State should receive from 2,40Q to 3,1Q0 acres for its $22,6 million. C. AREAS OF AGREEMENT 1. Circulation: The proposed land use plans call for a six or eight -lane San Joaquin Hills Freeway, plus six -lane extensions of Culver Drive and San Joaquin Hills Road, and an extension of Alta Laguna, I think we all agree this circulation system fails to meet the concerns of local citizens, A new system must be devised, 2. Transit: The Irvine Coast LCP calls for a six -year demonstration project for a shuttle/tram system to serve residential and recreational needs. This system will extend to Laguna Beach., Newport Center, and existing QCTD routes. 3. National Park: i think we all agree on the concept of preserving open space. There may be.concerns over the precise boundaries of the Park and public access to the Park through the adjacent Cities, 4. Phasing: The Friends feel all development in Southeast Orange County must be phased in accordance with regional circulation system capacities, D. AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT San Joaquin Hills Corridor:. The Friends and Laguna Greenbelt, Inc. are strongly opposed to this Freeway, We feel the cost of the road will prevent its ever being built, and that continued approval of residential development based on the assumption of the Freeway construction will create unbearable traffic impacts on local Cities, L_ I Page 4 2. Density: There may be disagreement on both the feasibility and desirabil- ity of the proposed densities in both the Irvine Coast and Aliso Viejo. E. ACTION BY THE LOCAL CiTiES We urge you to take the following actions as soon as possible: 1. Re -affirm your previous resolution supporting maximum preservation of open space in the Irvine Coast; 2. Instruct staff to monitor and participate in the review of the National Park Service study of the area; 3. Instruct staff to monitor and participate'in the Coastal Commission review and revision of the Irvine Coast LCP, with particular emphasis on future regional circulation impacts, funding of a mass transit system, and pubitc access to the Irvine Coast. �. ♦e,t Hl O, j W --2- United States Department of the Interior .A IN REPLY REFER TO: NATIONAL PARK SERVICE WESTERN REGION 450 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE, BOX 36063 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 IRVINE COAST/LAGUNA NEW AREA STUDY NEWSLETTER This is our second report to you on the Irvine Coast/Laguna New Area Study. We are on schedule. We have defined the study area and completed the resource description. We have identified significant resources along with concerns about the threats to them, and we have developed feasible adminis- trative and resource management alternatives. Since many of you are interested in the boundary of this 24,000 acre study area, we have attached a map of the area. From our study and research and the information provided by interested individuals and organizations, we have developed 'and are now analyzing the following alternatives: (1) Status Quo: The area would be developed according to present state, county, local and private programs. The National Park Service would not acquire land, provide money or technical assistance to any entity. (2) National Park Service Management: A majority of the 24,000 acres in the study area would be acquired in fde by the Federal government and managed as an NPS unit in accordance with Department of Interior and National Park Service policy, regulations and law. (3) State Management: Under this alternative the Federal government would assist the State in the present plans to acquire portions of the coastline and Moro Canyon for a State Park. In addition, the possibility of expanding the area under State management will be analyzed in cooperation with the State Department of Parks and Recreation. The potential expansion areas could include the drainages of Muddy and Laurel Canyons, as well as those undeveloped portions of Emerald and Boat Canyons. `(4) "Greenline" Approach: This alternative would involve cooperative efforts between Federal, state, local and private entities. An advisory commission would be established to assist in planning and management of the study area. Federal financial and technical assistance also would be involved in this alternative. During February we plan to complete a draft of the Study of Alternatives with an analysis of each alternative. The team plans to visit the area sometime in March to discuss with you the contents of the study, and more specifically the alternatives for management. We appreciate your assistance and cooperation in this planning endeavor. We will be contacting you soon to arrange a time and place for our March meeting. I 1 , Y STUDY AtEA T IRVINE COAST/ h L AG U•N A -CALIF. ;T a 1_ "_�`c�'"'=: - qn.� 4(1� { ���' ���''f1'>�!''n'��-'�;'`Ci;"s`�/��4..:..Y "_-� ^�'• Ems,"";�' ^�w _��..}�J .'-f��'�«,- ;_ry_,J',_:'��°}S.i:.;>.,.��' .,r� UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIQRaL `^\\ tt 'tut 2�tr_CJ' 41L-�`_� F/ ,fir/y i .\} •�`\J �p�`n t: „_ -'1 .�- �v�;�:•Yj� 3000 600 ° _•..�4� - - `,.1:'-.1-•r;t_ - ( d- P 1 yes V, ,, ts', y 4�.i��cj �N 0 .3000` 0 •�Ti.. .,,4 '.e){iQl l\-:•_.Ip}'•151�iI _ /- ..� {� �D�. - tE \,jam •r yr, •j l��p k, :.� -6000• - -- :if:��^ r-p�r_.<� g ✓ x. _...�.�:c- -.'� - _ fi>>r�`�'«Q�k,A`F^.t: ncale t, feet k \ !C ,t , . Iti� � ^ \ •f`♦ ispt �Niii' n -S l� +�! '' ?'_: •; ti. `1_ ! � �' •�.. ...' 1 ° �; .wdi{'= _i�c/j (• y1, y r •� _ ,_ :.�.:' 3.r •-L.�.;� _ Rct.. 20,000 79 _ �•♦ I} f f T SdR _ � -'ai) ur• �^{rl� ' �i�� ^ ''`°�[! Ii1t• , 1° N%J i- r 4 wn[e la r%{ili_i: WI �-_\.,rT ' r: r'F''Tn�I. A4'J�� `'T •,`%1' - <i - q'llo <..1,_ rw "ems a\,4 't . -••'� b ♦: f -, tiff i.`,+', -_,. i.,_ r .• _I •{1 ��. -Y. r. eO �' \ _!,.r,-4�rO :•l/ `'`.h+\"•-.r `�,y[t••r'il at4 r.•' �lf'�•A�.��-F`: x_ -, 'i ^� ^l`>, tih �� t,'.' `�'^`.GF + P, ,• , ,a'' - e• `-�, :/,'fir .r ^v,.l a,�^° ,. La✓ Erse , ♦�`�' - �` r \ {' ct - 1 I lt�e"' 'H_.e- __ - 'Y �'i�.r ru�l'�V1�IL�'k ± � r F N•\1�: \aroY '' `! ii� 1 rFl� �y• ,r i z. st f- y ? .. .i lh. - -- _'„ pGlt4�� Pacific mcean Q cl GALA \ t y [q l 9q TO: DATE 1 N 1 ❑ MAYOR ❑ COUNCIL ❑ MANAGER ❑ ADMIN. ASST. ❑ ATTORNEY ❑ CITY CLERK fACOMM. DEV. ❑ DATA PROC. ❑ FINANCE ❑ FIRE % ❑ GEN. SERVICES ❑ LIBRARY ❑ MARINE ❑ PARKS & REC. ❑ PERSONNEL ❑ POLICE ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ PURCH, At[N'P\ -t 1 ' s� o - FOR: ❑ ACTION & DI�POSITIQN`,'' ❑ FILE ❑ INFORMATION, ❑ REVIEW $, COMMENT y� ❑ RETURN �� FAR 'o 44 co a, rU- � •- .. , .tom �. .. �. ,-��.. - .. _.--�..,.'tr _...an..r.........w.-..w�.vi.....+iM..:r.+.w'��...{...'.ro.......... erinWNP4r�uiri.. 1rMJJ•u.iMl�.uw.nryfyp". „�:nY �'�iMF K� i 0 2�1/ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE MAYOR (714) 640-2110 Y February 15, 1979 Dr. Donald Wilson, Chairman South Coast Regional Commission 666 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 3107 Long Beach, CA 90801 Dear Dr, Wilson: RE: City Position on San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Our letter of February 6, 1979 indicated our support for the construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and its connection to the Corona del Mar Freeway. In conjunction with this, we consider it vital that other aspects of the transportation network serving the downcoast area be completed, including the remainder of the San Joaquin Corridor to the San Diego Freeway and completion of Culver Drive from the Coast Highway north. The City of Newport Beach would experience serious impact from any use of San Joaquin Hills Road from the south without completion of the above improvements prior to completion of development. Very truly yours, PAUL RYCKOFF Mayor PR:jmb City Hall - 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 -�a q1 February 12, 1979 Mayor Paul Ryckoff City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California .92663 Dear Mayor Ryckoff s The future of the Irvine Coast has once again become the subject of considerable public debate and concern. The Friends of the Irvine Coast, Inc., and our sister group, Laguna Greenbelt, Inc. appreciate the oppurtunity to express our views�on the Irvine Coast to the Citsp Council. The primary purpose of our presentation is •to bring the City Council up to date on the activities of the National Park Service and Coastal Commission and to solicit your active involvement in 'these on —going studies. The Friends and the Laguna Greenbelt, Inc. hope to preserve the Irvine Coast — Laguna Greenbelt area as an open space and recreational resource by establishing it as an element of the National'Park system. Our -goals are described in detail in a report ti ed Open Space and Recreation Plan for the Pronosed Wilderness Park and Resource Conservation Area. Copies of this report have been circulated to the City Council. Legislation authorizing a National Park Service study of the•area was passed last year. Draft versions of the study should be available in March. A final recommendation to Congress by the Secretary of Interior is expected by June. The Federal government is not the only body interested in the Irvine Coast — Laguna Greenbelt area. The California Department of Parks and Recraetion has $22.6 million for acquisitions in the Irvine Coast. Orange County and Laguna Beach have begun a joint acquisition program in the Sycamore Hills — Laguna Lakes area. The Coastal Conservancy is working Mayor Ryckoff February 12, 1979 Page 2 with the Aliso Viejo Company to preserve the area south of El Toro Road (please refer to.ma.p on following page,.which.shows the regional location of the Irvine Coast and proposed National Park). The South Coast Regional Coastal Commission is expected to complete its review of the Irvine Coast LCP tomorrow afternoon. Major changes to the County's proposed land use plan are expected. The Regional Commissions recommendations will be transmitted to the State Commission, which has 60)days'to make a final decision. The State Commissions review may be extended to allow time to review the changes recommemded by the Regional Commission. The County's proposed plan entails 11,600 units for 33,000 people on 9 000 acres. Densities will range as high as 23d.v./acre, with the overall average being 6.3 du/acre. The area adjacent to Corona del Mar will bear the brunt of this development, with 7,500 of the 11,600 units located on the 2,000 acres closest to Newport Beach. Of the 21,000 population proposed for location in this area, 9,000 will be in areas with densities between 11 and 23 du/acre (please see map on page 4). This density is much greater than the three to four units per acre in the Spyglass Hill area. The amount and intensity of development will impact drainage in Buck Gully and Morning Canyon. A map of watersheds in the Irvine Coast has been included as the last page of this report. This map indicates massive urbanization of Buck Gullys watershed. The habitat value of Buck Gully, which is recognized by the Newport Beach General Plan, will be. severely impacted by this increase in drainage. Little Corona beach will also be impacted. The County's proposed land use and circulltion system will impact roads in Newport Beach. The 33,000 population will require a six -lane San Joaquin Hills Freeway, a six -lane San Joaquin Bills Road, expansion Of PCH to six -lanes through Corona. del Mar, plus extensions of two roads (Culver and Sand Canyon) over the ridge from Irvine. The fact that Irvine opposes any extension of Culver Drive and the absence of any potential funding source for the Freeway makes the proposed road system infeasible. Except for Sand Canyon Road, all regional access to the Irvine Coast will be through Newport Beach. In order to resolve the circulation pro- blem, the Friends and Laguna Greenbelt have proposed a. new road system - I•RVINE NEWPORT BEACH . 'OPEN CORONA DEL MAP e! LACUNA HILLS PARK N AREA SOUTH LAGUNA • • . Trvfq e CoaS �vu� dare/ MISSION V IEJ 0 DANA POINT BcACH�O I] 1 46 s ..� nil An t ,,•,� \ (. !2 / \ '� .. d 47 �! nil AA \ mi \ s nil.A A5 ♦� � m \ 43 SI b nil 0 • f 29a �•.'.'.n' \ �� 39 in 0 in \\\j 26 a o �1 \� ♦.• �37 �� 1 6 21 19 23 j4 i•'•'. d .LJ.'. SA 20 i ml nil nil m 36 J5: •�•.: • \ —1� ♦ h m h ,:t5 •= to • 13 6 " 5 • • �\—�--V Il,c1`rl^ �-- '12in 4::.. Il ' c ry Pelican P1 2 6 t0 0 inn \ _Abalone PI APp,or. Scnie J Land Use Plan -Land Use Component , ((ml Madlum Low Density Iryine Coast Local Coastal Program t•.•1 Medium Density COUNTY OF ORANGE h Higb Density tiesyy Density Reerenlion Tourist ____ Study Area necrealinn/Commerclot Oe°"• Ptnpntied rtpnd other +— — Conalnl Zone Cortservollon -- NOTE —Areas are nnmbetrd norm lot tetrt.nce only j' 0 0 O o { 33 a • m a :5 ZS CD o 01 =IJ -n n O O G U r CD K ci. D Y• < r-r .I •I I It 7 H 9 z U Mayor Hyckoff February 12, 1979 Page 5 which is depicted in the map on page 4. This road system,,coupled with a mass transit system linking parking lots adjacent to the San Diego Freeway with recreational facilities in and adjacent to the Irvine 'Coast, will mitigate existing and future traffic congestion problems. .We feel that Newnort'Beach should take an active role in determin. g the future of the Irvine Coast. Towards that end, we urge the City Council to take the following actions. 1) Re -affirm your previous resolution supporting maximum preservation of open space in the Irvine Coast; 2) Instruct staff to monitor and participate in the review of -the National Park Service study of the area; 3) Instruct staff to monitor and participate in the Coastal Commission review and revision of the Irvine Coast LCP, with particular emphasis on grading and urban runoff impacts on Buck.Gullly; future circulation impacts on the City; desirable densities; and the design and funding of a regional mass transit system . 4) The Friends fell. that recently adopted ordinances on traffic phasing and grading'should be used as model ordinances for inclusion in the Irvine Coast LCP. The Friends appreciate this oppurtunity to present our views to the City Council. We feel that it is important that the City remain up to date and active in the future of the Irvine Coast, and look forward to cooper- ating with your staff on this subject. If we can can be of any assistance, please don't hesitate to call us. Sincerely yours, Mef ce' rgevi r Executive Director x - a.\` _ •_lam - _ _ ... �L2['J � �% 46 1.23� r t tC. e.I L41(5) I•Mfs) 5.3 I - •�• 541-' Iftw. Pde r � III 5.4 541 J 54 I 'Ilk 54 541 . i 1 •`• DATE: FEET' - � MF.c1.An IRVINE COAST- PlanningUnit li Land Use Plan - Land Use Component " i nE - •,-,- �ti���J� RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM LOW DENSI U T-xS4LOW E 5DD0.D OPEN SPACE Sj -- RECREATION LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM �P ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY COUNTY OFOMNGE lT%`v1 MEDIUM DENSITY >> O50D,A�,T,.,DM,C 61 riFvuN AE4lFw IAe�I .. NION OErG1iY s"Id OU.AGe 5-IE SUWAC Iii INEAVY DENSITY IR)AESERVE `_� HEA DU%C TOOPISTNECNEATIOx:COMMEPCiAL OTHER OPEN Wv E CONSERVATION RURAL RESIDENTIAL 1 ' _ A—� — —_s JsI - ^" A. 6yN*ry coF J C_f .. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION 811 NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA H. G. OSBORNE FEB 7 1979 DIRECTOR RICHARD G. MUNSELL A.`SISTLNT OIFLCTOR ADVANCE PLA+.VINO South Coast Regional Commission California Coastal Commission b66 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 3107 Long Beach, California 9U$U1 SUBJECT: Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program Commissioners: TELEPHONE' 634-4643 AREA LODE 714 MAWNG ADDRESS P.O BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 FILE The Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program includes 9,30U acres of undeveloped and agricultural land in southeast Orange County. The Land Use Plan phase was origin- ally adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors in August, 191b, as a General Plan amendment and policy supplement. The following County staff comments are directed to the January 22, 1979 Coastal Commission staff report that contains conditions and recoLvaendations for the Irvine Coast LCP. The County's comments are intended to state our position on Conditions A through M found on pages lb through 6U of the staff report. The method of analysis to be followed consists of a statement of the coastal colmnis- sion staff recommendation, the county position, and a discussion of our position together with alternative policy wording if applicable. This method of analysis is admittedly cumbersome and lengthy due to the scope of material presented in the staff report. It is our intent, however, to use this procedure as a method for stating the County's position on all relevant policy changes being proposed by Coastal Commission staff so this may be entered into the recurd for future Coastal Commission public hearings. CONDITION A. Approval of the County's Irvine Coast LCP Land Use Plan_ (page 16 through 17 of staff report) 0 I, A-1. .The County's,Irvine Coast Policy Supplement: Certification of the Policy Supplement shall be conditioned on its mod- ification as follows: See, Attachment 11, Irvine Coast Policy Suo ement:.• (a) The policy document shall be certified by the County with specific language changes in a number of policies as indicated in Attachment 11 and as discussed in the conditions and findings -below. (b) The Coastal Commission shall certify as part of the LCP land use plan all policies necessary to comply with the requirements of the Coastal Act of 19716 for a certifiable LCP. Certifiable policies shall include all policies indicated in the Irvine Coast Policy Supplement (Attachment 11) as being of "statewide" significance, as well as a number of policies which the County proposed to be of "regional" or "local" significance. The sections of the Coastal Act requiring certification and inclusion of policies in the land use plan that were indicated by the County to be of "local" or "regional" significance are referenced to each of those policies in Attachment 11. County Position: Conditionally Acceptable. Discussion: County staff will limit our analysis to those County policies included in the main body of the Coastal Com- mission's staff report. This is'necessary due to the time limitations inherent in the process, and our belief that a concensus on the material presented herein would con- stitute an approved LCP for the Irvine Coast. Policies to be certified by the State and their relation- ship to the County LCP policy supplement (Attachment 11), will be examined in greater detail later in this report. It is the position of the County that certification of policies of "statewide significance" is a justifiable exercise of the Coastal Act. Those policies identified by the County as having "regional" or "local" significance should be certified by the Coastal Commission only if they are clearly an issue of state jurisdiction or statewide significance. Some regional and local policies found in the staff report, that have been identified for state cer- tification, do not meet that test in our opinion. Examples of this will be examined in greater detail in other sections of this report. Categorizing policies in terms of local, regional, and state- wide significance is admittedly a subjective exercise as it relates to the provisions of the Coastal Act. We have attempted to demonstrate this relationship in terms of the -2- t '• • relative importance of a given policy to Chapter 3 of the Act together with the significance of a coastal resource or the jurisdictional limitations of a local, regional, or state agency in carrying out the intent of that policy. The County iias argued that policies uses, or issues, of less than statewide significance should not be certified as state policy. We continue to stand by that belief in its application to Orange County. Once policies have been certified by the Coastal Commission, the County is placed in the position of being the implemen- tation body charged with the responsibility of carrying out these policies with guidance provided by appropriate state agencies when applicable. The County's primary concern in adhering to this requirement is the protection of coastal resources as required by the Act when faced with competing or conflicting state agency objectives. When faced with competing interests in an issue, it is difficult to understand the role of a local agency in deciding appropriate state • responsibility or actions. We therefore request the Coastal --------Commission provide guidance on how this will be accomplished 4 during the implementation phase. A-2. Land Use Plan Exhibit Maps: The following maps shall be certified by the Coastal Commission and adopted as part of the Irvine Coast LCP Land Use Plan: (a) Land Use Plan Component, Attachment 1: The land use plan component map shall be certified with the redesignations and modifications indicated in the conditions below and their associated findings. (b) Circulation Component, Attachment 9: The circulation component (Attachment 9) shall be certified with the modifications and con- ditions specified in Conditions K and L below and their associated findings. (c) Major Landform Features, Attachment 12: The major Landform Features map shall be certified as part of the Land Use Plan as submitted by the County. (d) Wildlife Habitat/Conservation Areas, Attachment 1U: This map shall be certified as part of the Land Use Plan as submitted by the County. County Position: Conditionally Acceptable. Discussion: Comments on the Land Use Plan Component and Circulation Component will be addressed later in the report. The Urban/Reserve phasing map should be included in the certifiable package. It has.direct application to the County's reserve guidelines related to the phasing of future -3- development infrastructure within the immediate future (i.e'., the next ten years), and long range development within the agriculture preserve areas. The State Parkland Acquisition Map may not be applicable depending upon the State's final acquisition program for the Irvine Coast. The map included in the County's LCP package did not include all the candidate areas being con- sidered by the State Department of Parks and Recreation. The value of this map is questionable considering that state'acquisition is not a County jurisdictional respon- sibility. The map entitled "Recreation Use Concept" submitted as part of our LCP package, should be included as part of any cer- tification of the Irvine Coast LCP. It is a necessary adjunct to other maps and policies such as the W;.ldlife Habitat and Conservation Area map thus indicating appropriate levels of recreation intensity and location. A-3. The conditions•recommended below and their associated findings shall be incorporated into the land use plan as indicated in each individual condition. County Position: Conditions recommended for inclusion in the LCP will be discussed under succeeding sections of this report. (Note Conditions B, C, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, and M in this County Report). A-4. The Phased Dedication Map and Schedule (Attachment 14) shall be certified as part of the Land Use Plan. County Position: Unacceptable. Alternative proposed. Note discussion on this item under Conditions B2-B6. CONDITION B. Phased Dedication Program (pages 18 through 24 of staff report) B-1. All areas designated 5.4, "Other Open Space" shall be redesignated 5.41 "Conservation." In accordance with the County's 5.41 desig- nation, these areas shall remain undeveloped conservation and wild- life habitat protection areas in perpetuity, with uses therein limited to educational nature study, and in some cases controlled very low intensity passive recreation as follows: In the most fragile steep canyon habitat areas, public -access shall be prohi- bited except for special study and educational purposes. �Un more -4- 0* Accessible ridgetops, where terrain is more gentle and minimal trails are possible without seriously disturbing habitat, day -use hiking and picnicking shall be permitted; County Position: Unacceptable. Discussion: The County continues to support the concept of conservation on only those lands appropriate for coastal resource pre- servation (i.e., habitat areas). A blanket Conservation designation over all "open space" land implies that all these areas have significant open space values requiring total preservation. This is not true. The lower portion of Moro Ridge, for example, is capable of limited forms of recreation, but is not a significant visual amenity or habitat area such as most of the lands within upper Emerald and Laguna Canyons. Consequently, the Plan should identify the differing degrees of habitat protection or landform preservation typified by the major canyon systems and the coastal bluffs. The three layers or levels of resource protection should a) Other Open Space (visual amenity or open space with limited recreation potential); b) Recreation (areas identified by a public agency for potential acquisition for public parkland purposes); and c) Conservation (areas that due to their unique resource features or development constraints should be preserved under any circumstances.) Additional policies may be included in the LCP that would narrow the types of permitted uses with accompanying development constraints within the "other open space" land use designation. B-2. The recording of an open space easement and of the authorizing documents for the dedication program (i.e., basic offer of dedication) over all dedication areas simultaneously with the recording of the first tract map for any urban development or the commencement - of construction of any major development (e.g., Culver Blvd.), whichever first occurs: The open space easement and offer of dedication authorization shall be free of all prior liens,•encumbrances and obligations (except for tax liens); B-3. The phasing of specific.offers•of dedication for specific resource . areas in the order shown on the dedication maps and in accordance -with a schedule to'be developed in the.implementation phase of the LCP (Attachitent 13). The offers of dedication shall be made to the State • -5- t � • Coastal Conservancy and the State Department of Parks and Recreation for a minimum term of 20 years; a B-4. Each area to be offered for dedication will be so offered upon the commencement of construction of major infrastructure improvements or the issuance of certificates of occupancy for units located in development tracts as specified in the dedication schedule. Each dedication will occur upon the date of the construction or the issuance of the minimum number of certificates of occupancy specified in the dedication -schedule; in any event, all dedications shall be finalized within forty (4U) years from the date of the Coastal Conmission approval of the Local Coastal Program for the Irvine Coastal Area; B-5. If the zoning for any development area is modified as the result of the Commission's approval of an amendment to the Local Coastal Program resulting in a decrease in intensity of use, other than a change in use requested by the landowners, the corresponding dedication area will be reduced proportionately; An-y-easements for utilities, -access and roadways to be re-tained -- -- by the landowner shall be specified in the approved implementation phase of the Local Coastal Program and shall conform with the re- source protection and access policies set forth in the approved land use plan; County Position: Unacceptable. Alternative proposed. Discussion: The phased dedication program outlined on pages 18-24 of the staff report would require the dedication of approx- imately 3,960 acres in five phases beginning with Emerald Canyon and ending with Buck Gully/lower slopes of Pelican Hill. This results in a ratio of developable lands to dedication lands of 1 to 1.78, or 2.94 D.U.'s per acre of dedicated land. Although the County clearly has the authority to accept dedications of open space lands, we are unable to find justification in support of the de,,ree of open space ded- ication that is required under the conditions listed in the staff report. Furthermore, the County questions the authority of the state to require dedications in the quan- tity being proposed. Relative to this point, we again repeat our request that the Coastal Commission seek a legal opinion from the state Attorney General's office concerning: 1) the authority for the State Coastal Commission to require dedications of open space lands; and 2) the test of reasonableness that should be applied in any future open space dedications relative to coastal resource protection and/or preservation. The following dedication program may be pursued as a con- dition for development within the "developable areas" shown on the Land Use Plan component subject to a favorable attor- ney general opinion regarding its test of reasonableness (Requested above): 1) Recognize the wildlife habitat areas and the wildlife habitat corridors as important resource areas requiring permanent preservation; 2) Require the dedication of development rights to the wildlife habitat areas and wildlife corridors as des- ignated on the "Wildlife Habitat and Conservation Map" within Buck Gully/Blackhawk Canyon; Los Trancos Canyon; Muddy Canyon; Emerald Canyon; and Laguna Canyon to a responsible public agency (area comprising approximately 2,380 acres); 3) The habitat areas within Moro Canyon would not be included - —" in this proposed dedication program due to its status as a candidate area for acquisition by the State; and 4) Phase the dedications of these habitat areas with develop- ment, beginning with those habitat areas within "Area C" and ending with "Area A". Open space lands located southeast of Moro Canyon should remain in the Other Open Space designation and would be subject to the conditions and restrictions of the "reserve" designation. Additionally, any change in use would require an LCP amendment which is subject to the Coastal Commission certification process. The following alternative wording is proposed for areas shown as open space, but which may not be acquired by a responsible agency within a reasonable time: "The acquisition of these lands by a public agency shall be completed within ten years following the certification of the Irvine Coast LCP, or the expiration of the agricul- ture preserve contracts (whichever occurs first). In the event that such an acquisition is not forthcoming, the land- owner could pursue the following development objective: 1) Those lands designated as Other Open Space and located southeast of Moro Canyon may be processed for general plan and LCP amendments that could permit development of large lot, estate type resi- dential uses subject to conditions and restrictions specified in the implementation phase; -7- I 2) For purposes of establishing a context of develop- ment intensity, land uses will be consistent with the County's Rural Residential designation and densities are proposed to be calculated at an average of 1 unit per 20 acres with no lot smaller than 4 acres; 3) Dwelling units that may be constructed on these lands will not be visible from Pacific Coast Highway or Laguna Canyon Road by use of setbacks, screening techniques, or other methods appropriate to the open space theme of the Laguna Greenbelt; 4) open space easements for trails and trail oriented staging areas will be incorporated into any estate lots per the requirements of the Recreation Use Concept map or a refinement of such a map approved by the County, state, or other appropriate governmental agencies. 5) Access to the estate lots will be consistent with fire safety requirements and grading will-be-subj'ec' to re=- strictions specified in the implementation phase of the LCP." The remaining "Other Open Space' areas within "Area A" and "Area B" (designated as dedication areas 3, 4, and 5 on Attachment 13) should be treated in the following manner: 111) The 200 acre "Other Open Space " areas located southwest of Pelican Hill and within lower Buck Gully should be dedicated to a public agency or purchased by a public agency capable of holding land for public recreation purposes. In the event this has not taken place by the time devel- opment commences on Pelican Hill and/or Cameo Highlands (extended), the lower slopes of Pelican Hill and the lower portion of Buck Gully designated as (5.4) Other Open Space will be owned and main- tained by adjacent property owners on Pelican Hill, Cameo Highlands (extended), and lower Pelican Hill as an open space preserve in perpetuity. 2) The 153 acre "Other Open Space" area located south and east of Wishbone Hill should be dedicated to a public agency or purchased by a public agency capable of holding land for public recreation pur- poses. In the event this has not taken place by the time development commences on Wishbone Hill, the lower slopes of Wishbone Hill and southwest Muddy Canyon will be owned and maintained by ad- jacent property owners on Wishbone'IJill as an open space preserve in perpetuity." B-7. The agency accepting the offer of dedication may use the dedication area only in a manner consistent with the land use plan designations. Any dedication area shown on the plan as submitted by Orange County as a 5.41 "Conservation" area may be used only for purposes set forth in the current Orange County definition of Conservation area. Any dedication area shown on the plan as submitted by Orange (County as a 5.4 "Other Open Space" area, may be used for day use activities such as hiking, horseback riding and picnicking provided that a trail plan is first reviewed and approved by the State Department of Fish and Came as consistent with the protection and management of the 5.41 Conservation areas and the policies set forth in the approved land use plan; County Position: Acceptable with qualifications. Discussion: This condition appears to conflict with condition B-1 on page 18 of the staff report. It should be modified so as to recognize that the Coastal Commission staff is recommending that all "Other Open Space" areas be redesignated as Con- servation. This condition has already been addressed by earlier County staff comments and recommendations. A trail system and recreation use intensity map already accompanies the County's LCP submittal and yet this graphic appears to have been ignored or overlooked. We feel that such a map is needed to establish at least conceptually what types, kinds, and locations of recreation uses are appropriate for the diff- erent areas within the property. B-8. In order to carry out the phased dedication program, the County plan policies set forth below require the following modifications: County policy ill, p. 18, Coastal Commission Acquisition Recommen- dations.. "To acquire significant lands for recreation purposes. as reeomm- ended in the Coastal Commission's Acquisition Progrars and €€ such lands are not acquired within a reasonable period of time, eon- aider an amendmen3 to the General Elan to evaluate £ucthat uzba- itation of the area being considered for acquisition by the Goaatal Commission:" County Position: Conditionally Acceptable. Alternative proposed.. Discussion: Change the policy to read as follows: "To acquire significant lands for recreation purposes as recommended in the Coastal Commission's Acquisition Program and if such lands designated as "Other Open Space" are not acquired within a reasonable perled o€ time ten years, con- sider an amendment to the General Plan and LCP to evaluate L � • further urbanization of the area hated as 'Other O Space" located southeast of Moro Canyon that is being con- sidered for acquisition by the Geaqtal Geffialsrian State." B-8. County policy #2, p. 18. Open Space Dedication Within Laguna Greenbelt. "To eneearage require the transfer of open space and conser- vation lands southeast of Moro Canyon to public ownership . with a land use designation of Recreation, and phase the transfer of these lands with the development of•Pelican Hill ,and Upper- Mqr-a Ridge provided these latter sites are not pur- chased for the public. hy *h^ C:a;aR'Q' County Position: Conditionally Acceptable. Alternative proposed. Discussion: Subject to a favorable attorney general opinion regarding the test of reasonableness, we recommend the policy be changed to read as follows: - -- "To eneeur-aAe require the transfer of Conservation lands Canyon, Emerald Canyon, and Laguna Canyon to public owner- ship with land.des . at4e . e f ",,,.real;^, and phase the transfer of these lands with the development of "Area_ A" and "Area B". .._. sea The acquisition of lands designated (5.4 southeast or rioro Canyon by a public agency, snail be com- pleted within ten years following the certification of the Irvine Coast LCP, or the expiration of the agriculture pre- serve contracts (whichever occurs first). In the event that such an acquisition is not forthcoming, the landowner may pursue a General Plan and LCP amendment. Land uses that may Rural Residential designation and densities will be calculate, at an average of no more than 1 unit per 20 acres with no lot B-8. County policy #3, p. 26. Open Space Acquisition Program. "To establish a planned acquisition program and/or dedication program phased with development for all designated open space areas, including conservation, recreation and open space uses." County Position: Acceptable. Alternative proposed. Discussion: Change policy to read as follows: "To establish as part of the zoning and implementation phase, -10- t • • a planned acquisition program and/or dedication _r0S.ram phased with development for all designated open space areas, includinh conservation, recreation and open Space Uses." ,J B-8. County policy lit, p..35. Reserve Designation. "To designate areas B and C as until such time that they eenply wieh she nine eeit-er-4a in tha Land Use f:leaexiG." County Position: Unacceptable. Retain policy as is. B-8. County policy lil, p. 44. Greenbelt Acquisition Time. "fie dee-ide w#8hla €lva years e€ as ag-reeaeat ran be aahieued �rit}i sake-d�v3ae-Geapaay-#ur-a-long_texm_pxogram_tn_acgnire_sig- nYfYnant-npen-space-4ands-that-are-being-pregesed-€es-deuelepmant vrit'htn-tfia-�agmza-6reenbe�t-E3pn n-Sgaee-psi e rl s y-a searaad-a� €-sus h an-ag�eemens-eaeaee-be-aek:ieued-an-amendRent_to_the_yeneral_Yla¢ ` County Position: Discussion: JK:dec673a(1) Unacceptable. Retain policy with modification. Change policy to read as follows: "To decide within ten 44-vLe years if an agreement can be achieved with the landowner for a long term program to acquire significant open space lands designated Other Open Spacf n r AevRJ-04i "r within the Laguna Greenbelt Open Space Priority Area, and if such an agreement cannot be achieved an amendment to the General Plan and the LCP may be considered." 8-8. County Policy #4, p. 19. Recreation lands - Open Space. "To protect land areas containing recreational resources. by <teszgxaEi-ag -t-lose• areas-as-o-pan-space . " County Position: Unacceptable. Alternative proposed. Discussion: Change policy to read as follows: "To protect land areas containing recreational resources by designating these areas as Other Open Space and Recre- ation." CONDITION C. Los Trancos Canyon Preservation Yro ram (page 25 of staff report) C.I. Los Trancos Canyon shall be redesignated 5.41, which is the County's "Conservation" designation providing for wildlife habitat protection and conservation. If Los Trancos Canyon is not voluntarily dedicated to a public agency or is not purchased by a public agency by the time that development commences on Pelican Hill, Los Trancos shall be owned and maintained by adjacent property owners as a wildlife con- servation preserve in perpetuity. All development located on Pelican Hill and Wishbone Hill and in any other area bordering Los Trancos Canyon shall be included in an improvement district or in a master set of covenants, conditions and restrictions established for purposes of managing and protecting the resources of Los Trancos Canyon. The resource management dis- trict shall be authorized to finance any improvement described in a management program approved by the State Department of Fish and Game as necessary to offset the impacts of urban development in the areas bordering Los Trancos Canyon; the erection and maintenance of protective fencing and the construction and maintenance of sedi- mentation and runoff control measures in conformance with and adequate to carry out the resource protection policies of the approved land use plan shall be included in the management program. Construction of Culver Drive shall commence only after the formation of said management district and only after the recordation of an open space easement over the area shown on Attachment 15 limiting the uses of Los Trancos Canyon to those uses specified in the current Orange County definition of a "Conservation" area. County Position: Unacceptable. Alternative proposed. Discussion: The County recognizes that a large portion of Los Trancos Canyon includes sensitive habitat areas that will require some form of preservation. This would include limiting the kinds and intensities of activities that would be permitted within the Canyon as specified by the policies in the LCP. -12- t 1J CONDITION D. The County has no objection to redesignating this portion of the County (5.41) Conservation. The remaining portions of the Canyon should be retained in the Recreation desig- nation. It does not seem reasonable, however, to expect a homeowners association assessment district to have responsibility for the maintenance, liability, and protection of a canyon coin - prised of over 760 acres. The assessment district would Include all development areas surrounding the canyon includ- ing Pelican Hill, Pelican Ridge, lower Pelican Hill, Wishbone Hill, and Signal Ridge - most of these locations would include the majority of future affordable housing opportunities for the Irvine Coast. The assessments on a canyon system as large as Los Trancos would all but preclude any affordable housing in any quantity. The County would recommend subject to a favorable attorney general opinion regarding a test of reasonableness, that the -portion of the canyon designated as a wildlife habitat area on the "Wildlife Habitat and Conservation Areas" map, e included as a e ica ion area togeLTier with tffie—habitat areas included in Condition B above. This would create a management unit to be owned and managed by a public agency such as the State Department of Fish and Game for nature study and public education programs. The remaining portions of Los Trancos Canyon (the upper and lower Canyon), if not purchased by a public agency by the time that development commences on Pelican Hill and Pelican Ridge, could be developed with very low intensity types of commercial recreation activities that would be compatible with the sensitive nature of the habitat resource located in the central portion of the Canyon. These uses should be based upon the types of uses indicated on the Recreation Use Concept map. Public Services Funding (Page 26 of the staff report) D-1. No development, including any division of land, shall occur until the State Coastal Commission has received binding assurances, which the Commission determines to be legally sufficient, that the resource area dedication program, the Los Trancos Canyon preservation program and any public park purchase program will not be encumbered in any way by past or future financing for public services in the Irvine Coast area. However, to the extent that these programs use public services, they shall be subject to user fees in the same manner as any user of public services. -13- County Position: Unacceptable. Not a suitable condition for an LCP. This issue is seen as essentially a matter to be decided between the landowner anI the State. CONDITION E. Housing (pages 27 through 29 of the staff report) E.1. The Plan shall include an affordable housing program for the de- velopment of rental and owner -occupied units, as follows: a. 20%, or approximately 2,400, of the approximately 12,000 proposed residential units shall be developed as low and mod- erate income housing units, as conditioned below. The County, at its discretion, may award a density bonus to increase the number of dwelling units in the planning area by up to 5U% of the total number of low/moderate income units actually con- structed. - ___ County Position: Conditionally Acceptable. Alternative Proposed. Discussion: The County generally concurs with this part of the condition as an approach to providing affordable housing for persons displaced by parkland acquisition programs and for employees of visitor serving facilities. The provision for 20% of the dwelling units constructed may be a reasonable condition with the assurance that a sizeable proportion of those units would be constructed utilizing government subsidies. It should be noted, how- ever, that increases in housing densities in the form of density bonuses on areas #22, #28, and 939 (located on attach- ment #1), are extremely limited based on limited additional travel demands that can be accommodated on the lateral ar- terial highways (i.e., Culver Drive/Pelican Hill Drive and Sand Canyon Avenue). Note: Affordable housing projects should be exempted from any requirement to participate in an open space assessment district such as proposed by Coastal Commission staff for Los Trancos Canyon. We recommend the following wording be added to the conditon: on consistent with of Oranee." E.I. b. No less than 33% of the low and moderate income units must be developed as low income units, subject to the availability of subsidies, such as HUD Section 8. If the subsidies are not available by 1990, this percentage shall be developed for moderate income housing. -14- L County Position: Conditionally Acceptable. Discussion: Condition should be reworded to read as follows: "No less than 50% 3-1G of the low and moderate income units must be developed as low income units, subject to the availbility of subsidies, such as HUD Section 8. If the subsidies are not available by 1494 the time development commences at Crvstal Cove and Pelican Hill (Tourist Recrea- tion/Commercial uses only), this percentage could sha-fib be developed for moderate income housing. The Irvine Com- pany shall develop a Housing Program as part o£ the zoning and implementation phase that is consistent with the County The County generally agrees with this condition per the modifications recommended above. It has been the County's position, that lower income housing opportunities within the Irvine Coast are extremely limited due to topographic constraints, limited ability to take advantage of housing density bonuses due to circulation limitations, and the provisions listed in Condition B requiring homeowner assess- ment districts for maintenance of open space areas in lower Buck Cully, lower Pelican Hill, and lower Wishbone Hill (as per the County staff recommendations). Therefore, govern- ment subsidy programs are essential for implementation of lower income housing objectives. It is important that lower income housing opportunities are available to employees of visitor serving facilities as these resort areas become operational. This could be accomplished through a phased program that would require subsidized housing be made available as visitor serving uses are completed. The landowner/developer should not be penalized if government subsidies are not available by 199U. This could happen if the visitor serving uses located at Crystal Cove would be among the first projects to be developed as is contemplated by the landowner. For this reason, the proposed 12 year time frame (by 1990) does not seem reasonable and is not in keeping with the need to phase affordable housing opportunities with the creation of lower paying jobs. B-1. c. Of the remaining low and moderate income units, a mix of both rental and owner -occupied units should be developed; both ren- tals and owaer-occupied units would be subject to speculation controls, with implementation of such controls the responsi- bility of public or non-profit agencies. d. Low and moderate income units will be rented and sold to fam- ilies selected by a non-profit agency, such as the orange County Housing Authority, with preference given to employees of comm- ercial and visitor -serving facilities in the Irvine Coast Segment. -15- e. Speculation controls for moderate income rental units will allow rentals to be raised by a recognized inflation factor only, and will be included in a deed restriction or other form of land security device. f. Speculation controls for moderateincome owner -occupied units will include the right of first refusal to a designated non- profit agency, such as the Orange' County Housing Authority, at a purchase price of the original' unit cost plus a cost -of - living increase factor, or less, which will be incorporated into a deed restriction or other form of land security device. County Position: Generally acceptable. Discussion: This set of conditions appears reasonable. However, pro- vision should be made to use anti speculation controls and continued availability mechanisms as included in the County Housing Element's Implementation Program. be reasonably dispersed throughout the development to the ex- tent allowed by funding constraints; generally reflect the average number of bedrooms per dwelling units or variety of housing types for the development as a whole; and be designed to harmonize with other residential structures and units in the development. County Position: Conditionally Acceptable. Alternative proposed. Discussion: Condition should be reworded to read as follows: "Low and moderate income units required by this condition shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the development to the extent allowed by funding constraints and the avail- ability of an adequate infrastructure; generally reflect the aver-agenumb- of ,._a..eemper- ,,. elluniLrs-e-rvariety of housing types for the development as a whole; and be designed to harmonize with other residential structures and units in the development." Separate maintenance units could provide a substantial per- centage -of the affordable housing not included in government subsidized projects. It would be difficult to provide large. separate maintenance type units with three or more bedrooms such as suggested in the above Commission staff policy. E-1. h. Low and moderate income -units required by this condition shall be developed concurrently with or prior to the development of the other residential structures and units in the development to the extent 41lowed by funding availability. -16- ` ° • County Position: Acceptable. Discussion: The phasing of affordable housing projects with urban development is important as noted in earlier discussions. E-1. i. For the purposes of this condition, low income is defined as 50%-80% of the median income of the County of Orange and mod- erate income is defined as 80%-12U% of the median income of the County of Orange, or these standards as modified by the federal government or the County of orange. J. Any low or moderate income housing opportunities eliminated through commercial or public recreation development at Moro Cove or Crystal Cove shall be offset through the above con- ditions; any low or moderate income persons displaced by these developments shall have priority in the new units. County Position: Acceptable. The definition of low and moderate income housing generally conforms to that being utilized by the County. County staff would underscore the importance of condition E-l(j). One of the primary objectives of lower income housing in the Irvine Coast is to provide opportunities for persons that may be displaced by the State's purchase of Moro Cove and Crystal Cove for recreation purposes, for those persons who qualify for lower income shelter. E-2. Densities in Areas #22, #28 and #39 may be increased, as necessary, to ensure the development of 12,000 dwelling units maximum in the Irvine Coast, as proposed by the County, as a response to the de- letion of residential uses in Areas #50, #51 and #52. County Position: Unacceptable. Discussion: This will be discussed in greater detail under the headings of Conditions "I" and "K". As the condition is stated above, the County has concerns regarding infrastructure and the ability to accommodate density. E-3. The County's policies related to housing shall be adopted with the following modifications (Policies not subject to modifications shall be adopted as proposed by the County): County Policy #2, p. 21, Low and moderate Income Housing "To provide multiple use high intensity urban clusters which will provide the opportunity for limii-e+ low and moderate in- come housing." -17- County Position: Acceptable. Discussion: [lord change is interpreted as essentially non substantive. E-3. County Policy #2, p., 21, Medium to High Income Housing "To provide a variety of housing types in the Irvine Coastal Area. that-via-1 genrra44q-accomodate-fami�ins-wi h-nadsam tD-iTiZir-iTrcomt'-izvei5 County Position: Unacceptable. Retain wording as is. Discussion_: The project will include housing that would accommodate persons of low to high income means. The revision of the policy would seem to imply that all housing will be for low to moderate income persons which is not true. State Housing Element Guidelines require that Housiing be provided for all -economic segments of the community. E.3. County Policy #1, p. 21, Employee Housing "To require 6% -a-propo-rtio-n of the housing units constructed be affordable to lower income households (i.e., households whose annual income is equal to or less than 8U% of Orange County's median income), and that the provision of such units shall be accompanied by a mechanism to insure that such units are owned or rented by lower income households with an emphasis on housing the persons employed in the area." . County Position: Conditionally Acceptable. Alternative proposed. Discussion: CONDITION F. "To require 10% 2t-Ttove:-r+4&r1-of the housing units constructed be affordable to iowcr low income households (i.e., households whose annual income is equal to or less than 80% of Orange County's median income), and that the provision of such units shall be accomplished through government subsidies such as HUD Section 8 and will be accompanied by a mechanism to in- sure that such units are owned or rented by low is households with an emphasis on housing persons employed the area or displaced through State purchase of Irvine S. Public Access Component. (pages 30 through 37 of the staff report) -18- E ,, F_1 The County's policies.shall be modified as follows: County Policy #11, page lU, Tourist Recreation/Co=erical Guidelines "To require that facilities accommodating overnight tourists be permanent structures." County Position: Unacceptable. Retain original wording. Discussion: The County's Tourist Recreation/Commercial designation pro- vides for permanent type accommodations only a an appropriate type of visitor serving use. Camping facilities, recreation vehicle camping, and picnicing facilities shall be provided in the (5.3) Recreation designation. F-1. County Policy #6, page 18, Visitor Facilities Cost Range "To ensure the availability of visitor facilities with a range of costs, including lower cost public facilities, such as camping in state or regional parks and recrea-tional--- facilities, and in private commercial recreation areas near Crystal Cove and on Wishbone Hill." County Position: Unacceptable. Alternative proposed. Discussion: The County's General Plan has made a clear distinction be- tween the types of uses considered appropriate for the Tourist Recreation/Commercial designation versus the Recre- ation designation. The proposed modification to the subject policy does not distinguish between uses appropriate to these designations. Policy should be reworded to read as follows: "To ensure the availability of visitor facilities with a range of costs, including lower cost public facilities, such as camping in state or regional parks Mid or lower cost recreational facilities in private commercial recre- ation areas at Crystal Cove." F-1. County Policy #7, page 19, Bluff Open Space Setback "To retain an-25--foot--wide area adjacent to the top edge of the coastal bluff as ripen space for development as a coastal walk. The area dedicated for blufftopaccess shall be wide to ears." t a County Position: Conditionally Acceptable. at least that Discussion: County staff recognizes that an adequate setback from the coastal 'bluff edge is necessary for coastal access and to minimize bluff erosion. We are ndt clear why the modified -19- condition includes the provision for the dedication to run for a 30 year period; we request a clarification on this modification from Coastal Commission staff. F-1. County Policy #5, page 19, Commercial Accomodations Cost Range "To offer a range of commercial accommodations and recrea- tional facilities, adjacent to the coast for low, moderate, tv and high income visitors." County Position: Acceptable. Discussion: Modification is interpreted as essentially non substantive. F_1. County policy #6, page 15, Blufftop Setback "To require a minimum setback of 35-feet for all private structures along the blufftop for purposes of public access. The setback shall be wide enough to account for Potential setback over at least thirty years. over s 2rotective devices. County Position: Conditionally Acceptable. Discussion: Staff comments on this are similar to the modified condition cited above. We request a clarification from Coastal comm- ission staff as to the thirty year provision relating to the 25 foot setback from the bluff edge. F-1. County policy #2, page 17, Commercial -Shoreline Accessways "To encourage require commercial development to provide pe- destrian access to the shoreline by providing walkways and viewing points for the visitor." County Position: Acceptable. Discussion: Modification is interpreted as basically non -substantive. F_1. County policy #3, page 17, Non -Vehicular Shoreline Access "To emphas=ze require non -vehicular access to the shoreline by means of pedestrian walkways fr6m inland areas, a bluff - top walkway, residential access to the bluff -top walkway, and public inland parking." County Position: Conditionally Acceptable. Alternative proposed. -20- Discussion: Condition should be reworded as follows: "To emphasise provide for non vehicular access to the shoreline by means of pedestrian walkways from inland 'Areas, a bluff -top walkway, residential access to the bluff -tap, walkway, and public inland parking." F-1. County policy #4, page 30, Beach and Blufftop Structures "To limit structures on the beach and within the 25 foot coastal walk and blufftop parks to those required for public safety and convenience and having minimum visual impact." County Position: Acceptable. Discussion: Modification is interpreted as basically non substantive. F-1. County policy #9, page 32, Bluff Geologic Study "To require a detailed geologic study of the area. 2 including base, face, top of all bluffs and cliffs and area of the bluff top inland from the the bluff a distance approximately equal to the luff_ as part of Dr000sals for development on t blufftop. County Position: Acceptable. Discussion: Modification is interpreted as essentially non substantive. F-1. County policy #14, page 37, Community Plan Requirement "To require a community plan prior to approval of any development in Area A. It County Position: Unacceptable. Retain original wording. Discussion: The purpose of Community or Specific level of Planning is to indicate the relationship of the project within Area A during the implementation phase. The Cameo Shores extension will necessitate site plan review during the implementation phase and consequently we are unable to determine why this area needs to be included as part of a community plan for Area A when it is basically an extension of -existing resi- dential uses in Cameo Shores. F-2. The Plan shall include the provision of a dedicated open space easement alog,the bluff top with development limited to walkways, landscaping and vista points. -21- F-3. The Plan shall include a beach access easement measured from the dean High Tide inland to the toe of the bluff. The location and extent of all public easements and access areas shall be mapped in relation to the dean High Tide line and shall be incorporated into the land use plan. County Position: Acceptable. Discussion: The above conditions appear to reiterate existing County poli- cies presently in our LCP submittal and deal with vertical and lateral access to�the shoreline. The second sentence in condi- tion F-3 deals viith locating and mapping public easements. This policy appears premature in light of major unanswered ques- tions relating to the extent of park development both inland and seaward of PCH. F-4. Access along the bluff and the beach shall be continuous to the extent topography will permit. All accessways shall be connected and designed to allow for maximum public use. To meet these objectives, the zoning portion of the LCP shall contain -specific standards regulating any struc- tures proposed to be located in close proximity to public recreational use areas, including the following: a. All portions of new structures should generally be set back from the nearest point of the public access easement a distance equivalent to two times the height of the main structure above finished grade of the development located closest to the public use area. b. Any development, especially those proposed with a lesser setback than the standard provided above, shall be required to demonstrate that landscaping or other buffer techniques will be provided to assure that the structure and any appurtenances will minimize intrusion upon the public use area, and so that the public uses will 'not intrude upon adjacent development. County Position: Conditionally Acceptable. Delete references to sections that should be included in implementation phase. Discussion: County staff feels that the first two sentences of condition F-4 are appropriate to the objective being pursued in the public access component. The remaining policies are too specific for the land use plan phase and should more prop- erly be included in the implementation phase. F-5. The Plan shall contain a program, instituted in conjunction with development on the shelf and in the Crystal Cove area, to protect the tidepool resources at Pelican Point and Cameo Shores and to monitor the resources. The program shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Fish and Game in consul- tation with the Coastal Commission and the County. The implementation phase of the LCP shall contain specific provisions for assuring tidepool protection, including measures such as limited access, buffer areas, etc. County Position: Unadceptable. Alternative proposed. -22- Discussion: County does not disagree with the objective being pursued within this condition. It basically paraphrases the County's existing LCP policy dealing with preventing overconsumption of fragile tidepool resources. An underlying disagreement with the wording included with this condition relates to the narrative provided by the County in Condition A dealing with appropriate agency responsibility. The tidepool resources located along the shoreline have been designated as of statewide significance by the Coastal Commission staff and the County • concurs in this interpretation. As noted by our position in Condition A, such a designation carries with it the lead agency responsibility of the State and one of its departments or agencies. Clearly this should apply to the subject of coastal tidepool resources - it is the responsibility of the State Department of Fish and Game to prepare a tidepool protection program in conjunction with the County and other interested agencies and citizen groups. Condition should be reworded as follows: "The Plan shall contain a program, instituted in conjunction with--devel-opment- on -the -shelf -and- in -the -Crystal Cove area, to protect the tidepool resources at Cameo Shores, Pelican Point, Crystal Cove, and in the Reef Point Area and to moniitor the resources. This program shall be prepared by the Depart- ment of Fish and Game - epp-rr'� in consultation with the Coastal Commission and the County. -T 8- 1iialted aeeess-y-bugf-er- areas; et -en" F-6. Access Signs. In addition to the requirement that all public use areas be clearly identified, the implementation phase shall prohibit the erec- tion or placement of signs or other devices on adjacent property that could be interpreted as deterring use of designated public access areas. F-77. Phasing Public Access Improvements. A public accessway improvement plan shall be developed providing for the phasing of improvements of public use areas. The plan shall include: a. Dedication requirements for those portions of the proposed accessways not currently in public ownership or under public control; b. Provisions for funding and constructing the improvements for the access - ways; and c. Provisions for completing or bonding accessway improvements as each shoreline area is dedicated or developed, and provisions for completion of continuous accessways within lU years. County Position: Unacceptable. The conditions included in this portion of the public access Discussion: -23- section of the staff report are too specific for the land use,plan phase. They call for specific action programs that are more properly addressed together with zoning and other implementing actions. F-8. The Plan shall assure that blufftop trails and walkways shall link to the system of inland trails connecting recreation and wildlife areas. Where possible, trails shall utilize existing jeep roads and trails. In areas designated as wildlife habitats, trails shall meet requirements established by the Department of Fish and Game. County Position: Conditionally.Acceptable. Alternative proposed. Discussion: The County has recognized the importance of linking -major recreation opportunities located along the shoreline to those recreation areas located inland of PCH. This was the primary motivation for the inclusion of the Recreation Use Concept map included in the LCP submittal. As noted on page 35 of the staff report, it has been sug_ - -- - gested that t e ten ounty p an-n-e -foot widse trailthrough _ habitat areas with additional or clear zone areas on both sides of the trails. We are unable to understand where this interpretation originated- there is a County policy calling for ten foot wide trails that would accommodate bicycles. However, due to the unique resources of the upper canyons and the steep topography, it would be impossible to accom- modate bicycle trails in this portion of the property. Con- dition should be reworded to read as follows: "The Plan shall assure that blufftop trails and walkways shall link to the system of inland trails connecting recrea- tion and wildlife areas as indicated by the "Recreation Use Concept" map. Where possible, trails shall utilize existing jeep roads and trails. In areas designated as wildlife hab- itats, trails shall meet requirements established jointly by the Department of Fish and Game and the County of Orange." F-9. With the exception of public access improvements, no development shall alter the coastal bluff face. County Position: Acceptable. Discussion: Condition is interpreted as reiterating existing County LCP policy. F-10. The principal permitted use for each area shall be as follows: a. Area #7 (Reef Point) will be an information/education center or commercial recreation use (e.g., restaurant) with scenic overlook and parking limited to a maximum 5% site coverage, sited and designed so as not to be visible from Pacific Coast Highway; -24- 4 b. Area #9 (beach) will be minimum beach support facilities such as lifeguard towers and first aid facilities necessary for public safety; c. Area #11 (Crystal Cove), Areas 1112 A and #12B (Coastal Terrace), shall be limited to small-scale recreation and visitor -serving commercial uses, such as tent camping, small shops, small inns or restaurants, and hotel/motel facilities clustered at Crystal Cove. A minimum of 30% of the allowable uses shall consist of lower cost visitor and recreational facilities for persons of low and moderate income. Any uses or structures in the view corridor defined in Condition F-11 shall be limited to day use facilities which will not impair the view from Pacific Coast Highway and the frontal slopes, such as playing fields, picnicking and equestrian facilities. The plan should provide for the preservation of the historic value of the Crystal Cove area by maximizing, where feasible, the use of existing structures for allowable visitor -support commercial and recreational uses; d,. Areas #14 and #15 (Frontal Slopes of Pelican Hill). Residential uses shall not be allowed (with the exception of employee housing)_____ ana uses shall be limited to recreation and visitor -support commercial uses, such as overnight accomodations, restaurants, shops, and day use parking, as a staging area. County Position: Unacceptable. Discussion: Conditions F-10 (a), (b), (c), and (d), provide for "permit level" restrictions on the types and intensities of recrea- tion uses that would be permitted along the coastal shelf. Condition F-10 (c), for example, does not distinguish between the uses permitted under the County's Recreation designation and the Tourist Recreation/Commercial designation located between Cameo Shores (extended) and Crystal Cove. County staff would recommend that recreation use location, intensity, and permited uses under the (5.3) Recreation desig- nation be governed by the "Recreation Use Concept" map. F-11. The Plan shall include policies that ensure that development in any area of the Coastal Shelf be sited and designed to preserve the maximum view corridor from Pacific Coast Highway and the inland frontal slopes. This policy shall be carried out in the implementation phase by the following minimum requirements: a._ Limiting the intensity of development through means such as maximum lot coverage, maximum height and bulk of structures, and limited parking. b. Structures shall be clustered so as to allow views between them. C. In the area from Crystal Cove to Cameo Shores, (Areas #12 A, B and C) where roadway and shelf elevation are approximately the same, a view corridor, consisting of that portion of the property which is -25- Iti parallel to at least two-thirds of the road frontage shall be kept free of all structures and landscaping rising higher than a reason- able vZewline from vehicles on Pacific Coast Highway. d. Where structures adjoin the shoreline or bluff edges the height of the structures shall step down at the points closest to the shoreline or bluff edge to allow a perceived transition from open space areas to development. County Position: Unacceptable. Discussion: The conditions included in the public access section of the staff report are too specific for the land use plan phase. They call for specific action programs that are more properly addressed together with zoning and other implementing actions. CONDITION G. Grading/Urban Runoff. (pages 38 through 41 of the staff report) G-1. Runoff Control Policies •Couc}ty Policy #1, p. 22, Marine Water Quality "To protect marine water quality by using natural drainage courses for surface water runoff and/or through the control of harmful water contaminants. Where feasible urban runoff shall be channeled away from the preservation areas (as show on Attachment 10) and shall be discharged in a manner that will not allow urban pollutants or land- scaping materials (such as fertilizers) to enter into any preservati area." County Position: Conditionally Acceptable. Discussion: The key phrase in the modification of this policy is "Where feasible urban runoff shall be channeled away from the Pre- servation areas...."; a basic concept of the Plan is to utilize the natural drainage courses within the canyons as discharge channels thus avoiding boxed channels that are not in character with the natural condition of the canyons. In most cases, it will be impossible to construct alternative discharge channels without additional disruption of landforms through grading and visually obtrusive artificial watercourses. G-1. County Policy #2, p. 22, Water Energy Dissipation "To direct runoff water from or -caused by developed areas through drainage devices to the canyon bottoms where it will flow through energy-dissipators before running downstream. All development shall be designed and constructed to prevent increases in runoff that would erode natural drainage cbµrses. Limit erosion rates and runoff rates_ flow. Flow from graded areas shall be kept to an absolute minimum, not exceedine the current normal rate of erosion and runoff from that -26- of the undeveloped lands." County Position: Conditionally Acceptable. Alternative proposed. Discussion: Peak runoff flows will occur during the rainy season and will very likely exceed the existing runoff characteristic of the undeveloped coastal hills. It will be difficult to assure that flows from graded areas will not exceed the current runoff from that of the undeveloped lands. Addition to policy should be reworded to read as follows: I "...Where feasible, 43� development shall be designed and constructed to prevent increases in runoff that would erode natural drainage courses. Limit erosion rates and runoff rates flow. Flow from graded areas shall be kept to an �..L....l .✓.. eJam the > arouuail rtt.e � minimum. .,.. ,. .,..�...,.. .__.. ....,.. G-1. County Policy #1 , p. 23, Natural Canyon Streams County Position: Unacceptable. Retain policy as is. Discussion: There may be circumstances where remedial environmental protection measures are desirable. G-1. County Policy #14, p. 46, Canyon Bottoms "To minim#ae prevent erosion or scouring of canyon bottoms." County Position: Unacceptable. Retain policy as is. Discussion: It should be recognized that under existing conditions, erosion is taking place within the canyon bottoms. The modification to this policy implies that canyon erosion is non essential to beach sand replenishment. G-2. County Policy #4, p. 22, Erosion and Sedimentation "To implement a watershed program that is phased with development to prevent excessive erosion and sedimentation and emphasizes the prevention of excessive siltation in marine waters. Erosion and Sedimentation. Prior to division or development of any pares in the watersheds of Los Trancos Canyon, Muddy Canyon, Moro Cany or Emerald Canyon, a watershed hydrology study analyzing the effi of development shall be completed, and drainage facilities meetii the policy requirements o£'the plan shall be master -planned. Tni drainage facilities necessary to meet the policy requirements of Land has use plan shall be constructed in a phased manner with -27- t the development of subdivisions, and shall ensure that the rate of runoff does not increase over natural runoff rates. Subdivision Design. A grading and erosion control plan shall be developed as an integral part of subdivision design. The grading and erosion control plan shall serve as the implemen- tation mechanism for the erosion control policies of the plan (a) The grading plan shall include the following types of information: i (1) topographic map showing existing contours, drainage areas. and rock outcroppings; (2) subsurface soil limits of be protec (8) waste phasing o (b) The erosi types of r areas to be graded; �S) proposea hazard areas, unstable slopes; (5) truction; (b) existing vegetation to (7) existing topsoil to be protected osal areas; (9) schedule of areas, control plan shall znclude_t ormation: site map of soil type, depth, and erosion soil description, existing coefficient of (4) drainage structures retention devices, dissipation structures; (5) grading season; (b) temporary stabilize tion of disturbed areas; (7) permanent stabilization of disturbed areas; (8) coefficients of runoff for natural Q1nnPS and for finished slopes: and (9) professional ce County Position: Condition G-2 conditionally acceptable; alternative pro- posed. Conditions G-2(a) and G-2(b) unacceptable; delete. Discussion: Grading considerations and erosion control measures have been recognized by County staff as essential factors to be monitored and regulated during the implementation phase and subsequent subdivision tract design. County staff is sympathetic to the objective beiing pursued in the above revisions to the County's policies dealing with runoff and erosion. We would once again point out, however, that the level -of-site specific.details enumerated in the policy changes can only be -dealt with during later phases of im- plementation. It is impossible to assess during the land use plan phase whether a watershed control plan comprised of a grading plan and an erosion control plan will in fact ensure that the rate of runoff does not increase over natural runoff rates. • Supplement to policy should be reworded to read as follows: • Add "Buck Gully" to condition G-2 to read: "...watersheds of•Buck'Gully, Los Trancos Canyon, Muddy Canyon,..." -28- Delete the last sentence of condition G-2 to read: "...with development of subdivisions. a,,d- hall that thVQ�p __ __v_af deesnet4!nereaseevera1 run9ff " G-3. Site Specific Conditions In order to carry out the watershed protection program, the following criteria shall govern developments that drain into Los Trancos Canyon, Moro Canyon, Muddy Canyon and Emerald Canyon: a. Except for the major arterial roads described in Condition A-10, development requiring major grading shall not be allowed on slopes greater than 309 in the low -medium density areas designated in the County plan as 1.2, 1.23, 1.3 and 5.5. County Position: Conditionally Acceptable. Alternative proposed. Discussion: The County's LCP includes a policy restricting urban develop- ment on slopes in excess of 30%. Consistent with this policy, we would generally agree with the condition -as worded'-V=r— a provision that recognized the differing nature of minor canyon systems, ravines, and gullies in terms of viewshed protection from major highways such as Pacific Coast High- way. Staff agrees that "major grading" should not be allowed within these areas that feature slopes in excess -of 30%. Grading criteria, however, should be examined on a site . specific basis during the area plan/feature plan stage that would be included as part of mandatory site plan review. Condition should be reworded to read as follows: Add "Buck Gully" to opening statement to read: "... Develop- ments that drain into Buck Gully, Los Trancos Canyon, Moro Canyon, ...". "Except for the major arterial roads described in Condition A-10, development requiring major grading shall not be allowed on slopes greater than 3U% in the low -medium, medium, and rural residential density areas designated in the County plan as (1.2), (1.23), (1.3), and (5.5). A definition of "major grading" will be included as part of the feature plan in conjunction with mandatory site plan review that will assess the tollowinQ criteria: of eradin¢ from s physical proximity of any grading operations to wiidiite habitat areas or wildlife corridors; (3) The size and con- figuration of the relief feature as it relates, to natural drainage, visual amenity, and the ability to mitigate any adverse impacts from aradinQ operations through contour gr -29- ing, revegetation of graded slopes, and siting structures so as to minimize their visual impact." G.3. b. Development shall be allowed in the 30% slope areas designated as high -heavy density (1.4 and 1.51) provided that the Runoff Control Policies and Watershed Management Policies are complied with. County Position: Acceptable. Discussion: The areas designated as High and Heavy density residential are also subject to mandatory site plan review. The site specific level of detail included in the Runoff Control Policies and Watershed Management Policies should be incorporated into the site plan review stage to the extent feasible. G-3. c. Development shall not be allowed in areas designated as rural (5.5) where development would require the construction of roads which would violate the runoff control policies stated above. --County Position: Acceptable. Discussion: The Rural Residential designation contains numerous conditions and criteria that must be complied with in order to obtain a development permit. County sees no discrepancies between these criteria and the runoff control policies stated above. G-3. d. Moro Ridge Road shall be limited to two lanes and both Moro Ridge and Sand Canyon Road shall be located on the ridge top rather than on side slopes. County Position: Unacceptable. Discussion: Limiting Moro Ridge Road to a commuter level roadway (two lanes) would provide insufficient capacity for residential and recreation users along the San Joaquin Hills ridgeline and upper Moro Ridge. Small area traffic studies have in- dicated that a four lane roadway will be needed to provide adequate capacity for both work and recreation related trips in this portion of the Irvine Coast. Locating Moro Ridge Road and Sand Canyon Avenue along the top of the ridgeline may be possible in some locations; the visual impact of grading and its relationship to drainage will not be known until specific alignments have been es- tablished for these and other roadways. G-3. County Policy #3, p. 35, Ridge Road Dedication Requirements -30- road-f-r-am-Sa-- the .a AtA = ar a; aiternati from Areas Qf a—=atF1�a�—d:lS.1S:.._—S.Ft,'5.��t` •a t h ti 't,. r. v....t, County Position: Unacceptable. Alternative proposed. Discussion: The elimination of this policy ignores the need for some form of'access to the residential uses designated along the San Joaquin Hills ridgeline. Further comment will be pro- vided under Condition I (page 4b of staff report) regarding the residential uses proposed for upper Moro Ridge. Policy should be reworded to read as follows: "To insure access to the residential and/or commercial rec- reation development proposed for Upper Moro Ridge, Moro Ridge Road shall be dedicated and constructed as a two lane restricted access road from Sand Canyon Avenue to the proposed recreation staging area located on the central portion of _ Moro Ridge; alternative access from these residential/ com- merical recreation development areas in the event of a natural disaster shall be provided through Moro Canyon Park consistent with fire safety requirements." G-4. Grading Season and Vegetation Restoration Policies. County Policy #2, p. 34, Soil Restoration "To*prevent erosion in places cohere earth recontohring has occurred by requiring soil cover to be replaced and vegetation established. Land shall be developed in increments of workable size which can be_ completed during a single construction season both to insure that soils are established well in advance of the rainy season and to assure that no construction occurs during rainfall periods. All soils disturbed but not completed during the construction season, including graded pads, shall be planted and stabilized in advance of the rainy season. All disturbed slopes in a completed develop- ment involving grading shall be stabilized as soon as possible through planting of appropriate vegetation." County Position: Conditionally Acceptable. Alternative proposed. Discussion: Erosion from disturbed soils during the rainy season is of major significance as it affects water quality and the visual impact of graded slopes. The supplemental material added to the County's policy appears to reflect the greater rainfall problems of Northern California rather than the Orange County area. The residential construction industry does not have an effective rainy season cycle since our average rainfall of 11 to 16 inches occurs during only 33 days of the year (Average number of days of measurable rain- fall in orange County). County suggests that building con- -31- struction should not have a negative impact on erosion or grading operations, but could have significant impacts on water quality and the stability of disturbed slopes. Policy should be reworded to read as follows: "To prevent erosion in places where earth recontouring has occurred by requiring soil cover to be replaced and vegeta- tion -yeaseEoa established. Land shall be developed in in- crements of workable size which can be completed in advance of the rainy season and to assure that no e�& _ 1,,,-;.,o rainfall nericds. All soils disturbed but not advance rainy season including graded pads, and snail De scaDiiize❑ as soon as possible through planting appropriate vegetation. G-5. Related Policies In order to carry out the above policies, the County -Plan -policies set forth below shall be modified as follows: County plan policy #15, p. 43, Hillside Road Standards "To-nngidaF require modifications to road standards where consis- tent with safety needs (such as grade requirements, rights -of -ways, median and shoulder requirements, and design speeds) so that hill- side roads may be adapted to natural topography and constructed with minimum requirements for cut and fill." Countx Position: Acceptable. Discussion: Modification to policy is seen as not substantive. G-5. County plan policy #18, p. 44, Ridgetop roads "To protect canyons and hillsides from extensive cut and fill by keeping arterial roads perpendicular to Pacific Coast Highway ae&O on the ridge topis or t' ides ^` theeanygns. except where roads descend from Wishbone Hill and Pelican Hill to Pacific Coast County Position: Conditionally Acceptable. Alternative•proposed. Discussion: Locating roads on the ridge -tops could have a negative im- pact on visual resources. One of the original thoughts behind locating roads near ridge tops was to tuck•these road systems below the ridgeline thereby reducing the visual ,impact of an arterial when viewed from an adjacent ridge system. The County is sympathetic to the objective of re- ducing grading impacts whenever possible a's this would relate to visual resources and th0 wildlife habitat areas. -32- Policy should be reworded to read as follows: "To protect cafiyons and hillsides from extensive cut and fill by keeping arterial roads perpendicular to Pacific Coast Highway either near or on the ridge tops vr-e-he urger si r}es- o-f- tertyotzs except whexe roads descend from Wishbone Hill and Pelican Hill to Pacific Coast High- way. In either case, it shall be recognized that specifil alignments for ridgetdp arterials will be -located in such a manner as to minimize their visual impact from adjoinin; t Highway. CONDITION H. Visual/Recreational Resources (pages 42 through 44 of the staff report) H-1. Pelican Hill Foreslopes (Areas #15, 17, 19, 20, and 23) a. The natural, forked drainage area located on the Pelican Hill frontal slopes, —beginning in�rreas 1fl�and !(Z0, meeting iri area #17 and continuing to Pacific Coast Highway, shall be retained in its natural state, and no development requiring extensive grading shall be allowed on Alopes in this drainage area exceeding 30%. This area may be used to receive drainage from adjacent developed areas. b. The natural drainage area located on the Pelican Hill frontal slopes, beginning in Areas #20 and #23, meeting in Area 1115 and continuing to Pacific Coast Highway, shall be retained in its natural state, and no development requiring extensive grading shall be allowed on slopes in this drainage area exceeding 30%. This area may be used to receive drainage from adjacent developed areas. County Position: Conditionally Acceptable. Alternative proposed. Discussion: The two drainage areas referenced in the above condition are located between Pelican Hill and Pacific Coast Highway. The major issues related to preservation and/or protection of these drainage courses are their visual prominence from PCH, and lo- cating trail systems within the drainage areas that would link the recreation opportunities seaward of PCH to Pelican Hill. It is not clear what criteria the Coastal Commission staff utilized in formulating the above conditions. It is the position of the County that the visual prominence of landforms and canyons as viewed from PCH, and as depicted on the County's "Major Landform Features" map, should be controlling as to resource protection or preservation. The drainage areas should also be utilized as functional trail linkages between recreation opportunities along the coastal shelf and the open space area below Pelican Hill as to2oogr2phy permits. -33- It should be recognized that most of the drainage area referenced in condition H-l(a) is not visible from PCH as noted from the "Major Landform Features" map. Therefore, it does not seem reason- able to require total preservation of this drainage system as suggested by the wording of the condition. Policy should be reworded to read as follows: "No development requiI ring extensive grading shall be allowed on slopes in excess of 30% within the natural, forked drainage area located on the Peloican Hill frontal slopes, beginning in Areas #19 and #20, meeting in Area #17 and continuing to Pacific Coast Highway. This area may be used to receive drainage from adjacent developed areas. The drainage area will be maintained as private open space by adjacent property owners." The majority of the drainage area referenced in condition H-10) has already been preserved by the open space designation on the LCP. This was done in recognition of the visual prominence of this small canyon system as reference by the "Major Landform Features" map. The County has no objection to the preservation of the lower portion of the drainage area as suggested by this the visitor serving facilities to be located at Crystal Cove and the open space area below Pelican Hill. Condition should be reworded to read as follows: "The natural drainage area located on the Pelican Hill frontal slopes, beginning in Areas #20 and #23, meeting in Area #15 and continuing to Pacific Coast Highway, shall be retained in its natural state, and no development requiring extensive grading shall be allowed on slopes in this drainage area iieee lag that exceed 30%. This area may be used to receive drainage fzom adjacent developed areas. If this drainage area is not pur- chased by a public agency by the time that development commences on lower Pelican Hill, the drainage area shall be owned and main- tained by adjacent property owners as an open space system in nernetuity through use of an improvement district. A local ng trail will be proyiaea by a sulLapie puoiic to link the visitor serving facilities at_Crystal Wishbone Hill (Areas #34 and #35) H-2. Uses shall be limited to resort hotels and related support facilities. H-3. Development shall be sited and designed to preserve the visual quali- ties of Wishbone Hill. This policy shall be carried out through the following minimum requirements: a. Permitted development on Area #34 shall be limited in height and bulk and the height of any structures shall'be stepped down in any steep sloped areas (no more than two stories above existing grade) in order to maintain &.low profile relative to the ridge and Area #35. Permitted uses shall be limited in intensity by limiting site coverage parking -34- and clustering to provide open space between structures. b. Permitted development in Area #35 shall be limited in height and bulk and the height of structures shall step down in any steep slope areas (no more than two stories above the existing grade) in order to maintain a low profile relative to the ridge. c. on slopes of 30% or greater in areas designated for development, any use shall be a conditional use. County Position: Condition H-2 is Acceptable. Condition H-3 is Conditionally Acceptable; alternative proposed. Discussion: These conditions refer to the Tourist Recreation/Commercial nodes designated on the frontal portion of Wishbone Hill. Any development sited on this portion of Wishbone Hill will be highly visible as noted on the "Major Landform Features" map. We assume that the purpose of the above conditions is to protect the frontal portions of Wishbone Hill from develop- ment not suited to the topography. We question, however, the purpose of restricting the height of any structure to no more than two stories at this stage of the Plan. Additionally theme towers and/or accent features may prove desirable as an aesthetic focal point. Controls on the height, bulk, and setback restrictions should more properly be included during the implementation phase. Conditions could be reworded as follows: a. "Permitted development on Area #34 shall be limited in height and bulk, and the height of any structures shall be stepped down in any steep sloped areas R^ ^beve ;i^tine epads in order to generally maintain a low profile relative to the ridge and Area #35. ; tteuses 61,..11 be 14ire ..t. _,'_t„ 1 and Gloster-lng to pr-ov-ide between ^t,- e;; `" b. "Permitted development in Area #35 shall be limited in height and bulk and the height of structures shall step down in any steep sloped areas '-- iftere thea ^ above the a '^ting grade) in order to generally maintain a low profile relative to the ridge." H-4. The County's policies related to Visual Resources shall be adopted with the following modifications: County policy #6, page 42, Percentage Open Space "To retain at least seventy-five percent of the total Irvine Coastal Area as permanent "open space", including conservation and recreation and open spaep demIg^^ted '^^d " uses as designated and conditioned in the LCP." -35- County Position: Unacceptable. Discussion: The County has previously'stated its objection to the redes- ignation of all "Other Open Space" lands to Conservation as noted in Condition B. H-4. County policy #15, page 43, Hillside Road Standards "To e&fi ider require modifications to road standards where consis- tent with safety needs (such as grade requirements, rights -of -ways, median and shoulder requirements, and design speeds) so that hillside roads may be ado-pted adapted to natural topography and constructed with minimum requirements for cut and fill." • County Position: Acceptable. (Note: This policy is also found on page 40 of the staff report). Discussion: Rewording of policy is interpreted as not substantive. -1i-4.--County policy 414-, page 45, Inland Views - - -- "To consider in the development of hillsides, ridgelines and canyons the views of these areas from major access roads, the beach, aatd- the coastal plain and public park areas so that the outstanding scenic qualities of these areas are protected." County policy #2, page 45, Cluster Development "To permit variation in the minimum lot size associated with land use designations in order to facilitate cluster development when 3r} t-heo--at:ea f-s-d� }Eecl-€os•-teed-ice low-�aci--aaecli rk-dcjiks-i-G-}L-la�x!- use r-24 (1) it can be demonstrated that changing or varying the lot sizes would assist in clustering houses to maintain more open space within development areas-a*d —4 or otherwise further the attainment of erosion control and runoff policies, and (2) there is no overall population increase in the development p2rcel due to the changes in lot sizes." County policy #9, page 46, Hillside Public Facilities "To eeasi4er- require changes in the design standards for public facilities when they are to be located in hillside areas." County policy #5, page 45, Landform Preservation "To preserve significant landform and topography resources through public acquisition, and b __-_lading dedication to the County or other public or non-profit entities." -36- County policy #11 , page 46, Residential Siting "To hlghl#ght- preserve the scenic values of landforms by the strategic siting of settlements and improvements." County Position: Acceptable for four policies. Unacceptable for County policy titled "Hillside Public Facilities"; retain existing wording. Discussion:* The proposed changes to four of the county LCP policies I are intepreted as refinements to existing County policy. CONDITION I. Protection of Habitat Areas (pages 45 through 49 of the staff report) I-1 The width of residential and commercial development set back from the wildlife corridor identified by the County on Wishbone Ridge (between Areas #39 and #37) shall total approximately 8UU feet; in upper Moro Canyon on the or ors of Area i __the__ wildlife corridor easement shall be increased to approximately one -quarter mile. County Position: Unacceptable. Alternative proposed. Discussion: The Jones and Stokes wildlife study documented in the EIR suggests a wildlife corridor of approximately 200' in width as a minimum requirement for the migration habits of larger animals such as the deer population. The justification for a wider corridor has not been demonstrated. Due to the unique topography of the canyon/ridge systems within the Irvine Coast, it would be ecologically and economically unfeasible to construct grade separated 800 ' wide corridors across areas such as Signal Ridge (page 47 of the staff report). A bridge over such a ridge saddle would require extensive excavation or a visually obtrusive raised design permitting a clear space beneath the structure. Even more destructive would be the recommendation of the Department of Fish and Game Representative (January 31, 1979 Regional Commission Hearing), to reroute roadways into canyons, such as Buck Gully, in order to create a bridge structure for an unnecess- arily grade separated crossing. Condition should be reworded to read as follows: "The width of residential and commercial development set back from the wildlife corridor identified by the County on Wlahbeee Sigial Ridge (between Areas #39 and #37) shall EeBa-epgt-eienet-ely-�414-€eet- be a minimum width of 2UU feet; in upper Moro Canyon (on the borders of Area #49) the wildlife corridor easement- shall be iReeased-t-e-appsaximaLal3��ae=c}uaxtar mile a minimum width of 200 feet." ; -37- f • • I-2. Where feasible and necessary to protect the needs of wildlife, roads in sensitive habitat areas shall cross canyons and identified wildlife corridors on bridges. J County Position: Conditionally Acceptable. Discussion: Condition should be reworded to read as follows: "Where feasible and necessary to protect the needs of wildlife, roads in sensitive habitat areas shall cross canyons and identi- fied wildlife corridors ea over grade separated wildlife cross- ings such as bridges or culverts." I-3. County policy #6, page 28, Domestic Animal Impact, shall be modifed as follows: "To eaeourage deve opine plan'`"' require fencing or other similar techniques that minimizes the impact of residents' domestic animals on primary wildlife habitat area in order to prevent harm to wild- life, their habitats and their food sources; permanent fences or other similar technioues for limiting human and domestic animal established in conformance wi to environ- tive habitat areas in Los Trancos County Position: Unacceptable. Alternative proposed. Discussion: County staff questions the utility or value of fencing for purposes of limiting human and domestic animal intrusion. Fences do not offer an acceptable solution to limiting contact between domestic animals (particularly cats) and wildlife indigenous to the canyons. County policy could be changed to read as follows: "To eaeeurage require development planning that minimizes the impact of residents' domestic animals on primary wildlife habi- tat areas in order to prevent harm to wildlife, their habitats, and their food sources." I-4. Development adjacent to Conservation and Recreation areas shall be set back to minimize visibility from public use areas and to protect habitat areas. I-5. To the maximum extent feasible, development shall not intrude into Los Trancos Canyon, Moro Canyon, and Emerald Canyon. County Position: Acceptable. -38- Discussion: Addition of these conditions essentially paraphases existing sI County LCP policies. I-6. The County's policies related to habitat shall be adopted with the following modifications: County policy #21, page 47, Underground Utilities "To require underground distribution facilities whenever it is teclmseal}q-and-ecaransicailq fisilrte. No distribution facili- ties with the potential for an adverse environmental effect shall be located in, near or over an area designated as a conservation_ or Potential acquisition area." County Position: Unacceptable. Retain original policy. Discussion: The policy as included in the County's LCP requires the undergrounding of utility distribution facilities thereby protecting habitat areas to the extent it is technically feasible. No additional qualifications are needed. I-6. County policy #8, page 26, Vegetation Identification for Protection "To require the designation of the boundary limits of vegetation to be retained in areas impacted by development and at the designated boundary require the clear identification of tYYeT¢lace- able this vegetation in order to protect-eltem it during construction and development." County policy #2, page 28, Slope Revegetation "To require that revegetation of manufactored slopes and development borders be designed, whenever possible, to include species of plants native to the Orange County Coastal area to avoid the introduction of landscape species which are non-native and which tend to colonize away from managed areas; at development edges, a diversity of ve e- tation should be developed to increase thesuality and diversity strip as a County Position: Conditionally acceptable. Modification proposed. Discussion: The term native should be understood to mean drought resis- tant vegetation of similar characteristics and appearance to indigenous vegetation of the area. I-6. County policy #7, page 27, Biological Resource Area Improvements "To limit improvements in biological resource areas identified -39- I for preservation to secondary roads 3eading-t�res4dents3-seas an<I-access wags-ivr �dncatiroxzr} ; reereat��n, for fire protection and safety purposes." CountyPosition: Unacceptable. Retain policy as is. Discussion: Moro Ridge road is needed for access to residential and recreation uses along the upper.portion of Moro Canyon. The modification to the policy as suggested by Coastal. Commission staff would prelude this type of access. I-7. Redesignation of Upper Moro Canyon (Area ail) Upper Moro Canyon shall be designated a conservation area (5.41), following the configuration of the County -designated Wildlife Habi- tat and Conservation Areas boundary (Attachment 10) for Moro Canyon. Development shall be limited to access trails and other uses of a passive recreational nature, including scientific study and interpre- tation facilities. ---County Position: Acceptable: Discussion:' The County's Recreation designation for all of Moro Canyon is predicated on the public purchase of this canyon system. It was the intent, based on the policies in the LCP, that future recreation uses within the wildlife habitat areas (including upper Moro Canyon), would be restricted to appropriate passive recreation uses such as depicted on the Recreation Use Concept map. I-9. Moro Ridge - Areas #50 - 52 a. Uses shall be limited to low -intensity, small-scale recreational and commercial facilities, such as tent camping and recreational vehicle camping. Other uses may include support facilities, such as grocery stores and restaurants, stables and/or equestrian support facilities, and parking. Moro Ridge shall be designated a recreation area (5.3). b. Access to these areas shall be limited to a two-lane road on the ridgetops, rather than on the side -slope as shown on the County plan, sited to protect designated wildlife corridors in these areas, and terminating in the adjacent staging area, Area #3. County Position: Conditionally Acceptable for Condition I-8(a). Unacceptable for Condition I-8(b). Discussion: a. Moro Ridge - The first condition would result in the elimina- tion of approximately 450 dwelling units from upper Moro Ridge without an appropriate alternative location. The County believes that residential uses are appropriate on the ridge -40- ,w when timed to occur after 10 years. Commercial recreation uses may also be appropriate in the near term. An "overlay" type of designation that would be phased with future state acquisition may.provide a reasonable mechanism to maximize compatible development of this area. The type of intensity of commercial recreation uses appropriate for this location will not be known until the state makes clear its intentions for the future use of park lands. The uses suggested on Page 46 of the staff report (i.e., tent camping, recreational vehicle camping, grocery stores, restaurants, stables, etc.) may not be appropriate if the parkland purchase does not take place or may not be the optimum uses within the future Moro Canyon state park. Since this area is presently within an agriculture pre- serve, substantial time is available for the development of a park plan and marketing analysis of commercial recrea- tion potential. In order that reasonable uses are considered, however, we suggest that after 10 years, resi- dential uses be allowed to proceed from the San Joaquin Hills ridgeline, consistent with the requirements Of -the - Reserve designation.* Cormercial recreation uses, if any have been developed, would have started at the staging area and worked upslope as the needs for ancillary types of rec- reation support uses were needed. At the point where the two uses meet (i.e., residential and commercial recreation), a substantial buffer would be provided through site plan review thereby establishing protection for both the permanent residences and the recreation facilities. It should be noted that a transfer of 450 dwellings units to Signal Ridge and/or Pelican Ridge/Cameo Highlands would very likely result in an overloading of the County adopted circulation system that serve these two ridge systems. Sand Canyon Avenue in particular would be severly impacted by additional residential units. If the highway is further restricted in capacity, as suggested by the state staff's recommendation, opportunities for density transfer to the Wishbone Hill/Signal Ridge System are not feasible. b. Moro Ridge Road - The second condition would severly restrict access to the residential units proposed for the San Joaquin Hill ridgeline and the recreation uses proposed•for upper Moro Ridge and central Moro Ridge. Small area traffic studies for this sector have demonstrated the need for a secondary highway (four moving lanes) between Sand Canyon Avenue and Moro Ridge. (Note. County's comments on ridge tbp roads included in the discussion under Condition G-5.) -41- 1-9. Redesignation of Mouth of Trancos Canyon (Area #13) The T.R.C. designation (Tourist -Recreation -Commercial) on the County's plan shall be deleted. This area shall be redesignated a conservation area and shall remain undeveloped. County Position: Unacceptable.! Alternative proposed. Discussion: The Tourist Recreation/Commercial designation shown near the mouth of Lou Trancos Canyon is needed to provide parking opportunities'for recreation Mes of Los Trancos Canyon and the beachiareas at Crystal Cove. Revised wording should read: "The TR/C designation at the mouth of Los Trancos Canyon shall be restricted to uses such as parking and staging area for recreation uses, restrooms, beach related commercial, and service facilities." CONDITION J. Archaeological and Paleontological Resources (page 50 of the staff report) J-1. As a prerequisite to approval of any development, the measures out- lined in the County's policies shall be implemented by a qualified archaeologist, selected by the County, based on the recommendations and requirements of a recognized archaeological society. J-2. The use of the archaeological site(s) shall be assured by a deed restriction to run with the land and bind all successors in interest. J-3. In areas designated for development, whereever necessary, archaeolo- gical and paleontological sites shall be incorporated into the design of local parks and open space. County Position: Acceptable. Discussion: The addition of these three conditions merely reiterates or refines existing County LCP policies related to A & P preservation and/or protection. J-44. The County's policy's shall be modified as follows: County policy #19, page 38, A & P Site Acquisition "To acquire.especially unique or significant archaeological and paleontological sites for long-term preservation and educational programs ^d,_a to an + coordinated with development phasing. Where feasible, development shall be con- -42- ditioned to preserve such sites by incorporating them into local open space recreational use areas." Count Position: Conditionally Acceptable. Alternative proposed. Discussion: It may be impractical to incorporate large archaeological or paleontological sites into local park designs, if research indicates that total preservation is warranted. Policy should be reworded to read as follows: "To acquire especially unique or significant archaeological and paleontological sites for long-term preservation and educational programs according to an acquisition program or through offers of dedication coordinated with development phasing. Where feasible, development shall be conditioned to preserve such sites by incorporating them into local open space and recreation use areas." J-4. County policy #24, page 40, A & P Survey Requirements "To require a professional survey for archaeological and paleontological resources to be conducted by means of litera- ture research and field surveys 9 prior to any development approval." County Position: Acceptable. Discussion: A & P surveys through literature research and field surveys should be accomplished prior to the beginning of construction. Change in wording is interpreted an non substantive. CONDITION K. Coastal Access Road System (pages 51 through 53 of the staff report) K-1. Culver Drive shall consist of two-lane segments, or three -lane seg- ments (i.e., 4-6 lanes) separated wherever possible in order to minimize grading, to limit cut and fill -related impacts on Los Tran- cos Canyon's habitat value, and to minimze sedimentation and run-off. County Position: Acceptable. Clarification requested. Discussion: The condition is essentially recognizes Culver Drive as a Major arterial highway with a potential for six moving lanes within a 120 foot right of way. The County requests a clari- fication of who will determine where 4 lanes are appropriate, 6 lanes, etc. K-2. The connection of Culver to the coastal shelf seaward of PCH shall be via a 2 lane overpass, underpass or similar interchange design that avoids the creation of a signalized intersection at PCH and Culver. The interchange at the intersection of PCH and Culver shall be located -43- and designed: (1) to avoid impacts on the habitat resources in the mouth of Los Trancos Canyon, (2) to allow for the'locat,ion of recrea- tional or commercial support facilities in parcels created by the overpass configuration, and (3) to minimize visual impact to the greatest extent possible. County Position: Acceptable. Alternative proposed. Discussion: The County agrees that a grade separated interchange would be preferable to a signalized intersection as a means of expediting traffic flows from PCH to Culver Drive. We stress the importance of condition K-2(3) in mitigating the adverse impacts of an overpass design. We recommend that the wording - "...a 2.1ane overpass" and the portion of the condition K-2(1) that reads "... on the habitat resources in the mouth of Los Trancos Canyon," be deleted. The interchange design is best accomplished by qualified designers sensitive to the objectives of condition K-2(3). There is no documentation that indicates the mouth of Los Trancos Canyon contains any habitat resource.-- K-3. Sand Canyon Road shall be reduced from 4 to 2 lanes. At the time that any recreational development occurs in Areas #2 or 4, the existing road access to the development landward of PCH at Moro Cove shall be relocated to a location paralleling the western edge of Area #5. This new access road shall be limited to 2 lanes and shall serve recreational development in Areas #2, 4 , 6 and 35. The connection from this road to the develop- ment areas on Wishbone Hill shall be built as a service road and shall vary from County standards for a 2 lane road if necessary to minimiie visual and habitat impacts. The intersection of this road with PCH shall be designed to avoid the need for signalization, if feasible, through structural techniques such as those set forth in Condition K-2 above or through limitations on left turns onto and off of PCH and the use of merge lanes. County Position: Unacceptable. Delete condition in its entirety. Discussion: The existing and proposed County road network shown on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) was based on projected needs documented in the Southeast Orange County. Circulation Study (SEOCCS) and subsequent small area traffic studies. The underlying thesis for the 1976 SEOCCS study was to bring land use and circulation systems in balance. This objective has been met for the Irvine Coast for both regional as well as locally generated traffic. Sand Canyon Avenue serves as an essential through link in this system, and has been desig- nated as a proposed primary arterial highway. The reduction of Sand Canyon Avenue to a commuter highway (i.e., reducing the capacity of the roadway from four moving lanes to two lanes), would severely constrict the movement of traffic to and from Pacific Coast Highway, thereby overloading Culver -44- Drive. -The reduction in capacity will also impact and further overload MacArthur Boulevard and Laguna Canyon ltoad.' In addi- tion, a•redesignation of the potential capacity of Sand Canyon would reduce its traffic capacity from 30,000 ADP to 10,000 ADT, and thus would be incapable of serving adjacent land uses. The wording of this condition related to access roads is confusing. It is difficult to visualize what is being proposed in this -section of the conditioA, and its purpose is elusive. The County requests Chat the Coastal Commission staff clarify with a graphic depiction of where the two lane access roads will be located and their projected traffic relationship to the Sand Canyon Avenue corridor. K-4. In order to prevent conflicts between residents and recreational users on major access roads, the following County Plan policies shall be modified as follows:, County policy #19, page 44, Avoid Strip Commercial - —"fio avoid -the adveise visual impact"-o-f-strip commercial by concen- trating commercial recreational development at selected locations along Pacific Coast Highway. No local commercial development will have direct access off PCH or Culver Boulevard. County Position: Acceptable. Discussion: County concurs with this policy refinement. K-4. County Policy #9, page 16, Coastal Access "To provide an alternative route between Pacific Coast Highway and the San Joaquin Hills Corridor by the development of Culver Drive or Pelican Hill Drive/Culver Drive, and in either case require 1) the dedication of right-of-way (Pacific Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor), 2) the determina- tion of improvement responsibility, and 3) the construction of at least a two-lane road throughout the right-of-way, as a minimum condition for approval of development plans in Area A, except for development on those lands in Area A on the seaward side of Pacific Coast Highway. Phase expansion of Culver to have suf- ficient capacity at all stages of development." County Position: Acceptable. Discussion: Additonal wording to policy is interpreted as non substantive. -45- CONDITION L. Public Transportation (pages 54 through 56 of the staff report) LL=1. The County's policies pertaining to public transportation shall be adopted, with the following modifications: County Policy V , page 36, Transit Impact on Air Quality "To reduce the impact of transportation on air quality by organi- zing land uses to minimize vehicle miles traveled, concentrating development in high density areas convenient for mass transit, minimizing traffic congestion associated with resort and recrea- tional facilities, and providing alternate means of transportation." County Position: Acceptable. Discussion: Change of wording is interpreted as non substantive. L-1. County Policy #7, page 37, Local Transit ------ "To provide local transit facilities that are compatible with the County's physical environment, satisfy the needs and design theme of the community, and minimize undesirable environmental impacts. eueh as aelse n el ""4e- " County Position: Unacceptable. Retain wording as is. Discussion: Alternative wording does not appear to strenghten the policy as we assume it was intended to do. L-1. County Policy #8, page 37, Recreational Transit "To eneguraga develop the deve opine s: a public transit system designed to meet the recreational needs of visitors and residents_ County -Position: Conditionally Acceptable. Discussion: We interpret this statement to mean a joint effort at pro- viding a public transportation system that would involve the State, County and surrounding cities. L-1. County Policy #15, page 37, AQMP Support "To eat be consistent with the Air Quality Maintenance Program set forth by the Air Resources Board in subsequent phases of planning." County Position: Acceptable. Refinement proposed. -46- Discussion: Consistent with the wording presently being utilized by the Air Resources Board; County staff suggests the policy be' changed to read as follows: To consider be consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District Marti-Qi t Rrograe set €o�ttr try the Air ilesozirees Boax4L in subsequent phases of planning." 1-2. The County will develop an experimental six -year demonstration tram/ minibus shuttle system to serve recreational needs which shall be initiated following the completion of 4,000 residential units or the development of 50% of the commercial recreation areas, whichever occurs first. Factors the County should include in designing the Shuttle System are: it would connect with systems in Laguna Beach, Newport Beach and the City of Irvine, and with the OCTD. Headway times shall be adequate to maximize ridership during peak recreational hours (e.g., 15 minutes). Routes shall be along PCH from Newport Beach to Laguna Beach; along Culver Drive from PCH to the Newport Center commercial parking areas and other appropriate staging areas; between staging areas and the proposed Culver Drive/PCH intersection and Laguna Beach; and along Laguna Canyon road. The system shall be financed by fees paid by the developer based on a per -unit cost, or by direct subsidy by the developer, or by an assessment district applied to the proposed commercial recreational complex, by a combi- nation of these means, or by any other source of funds within the County's authority to provide. The recreation -serving service shall be nominal in cost, comparable to the fees of the Corporate Plaza permit shuttle. The implementation phase of the LCP shall examine the feasibility of funding a portion of the costs of the shuttle system on an ongoing basis, (after the initial 6-year demonostration project expires) through assessments or other revenue -generating sources obtained from the commercial recreation developments. The specifics of this shuttle system program shall be adopted as an integral part of the zoning implementation phase of the LCP. County Position: Unacceptable. Discussion: The operation and maintenance of a tram/minibus system would be the responsibility of the Orange County Transit District (OCTD). Comments on the necessity for and the ability to comply with the condition above, is included in the attached correspondence from the OCTD. The County has some observations on the equity and approp- riate agency responsibility related to the above condition The County has recognized that the provision of•a viable public transportation system is a necessary ingredient in relieving congestion on surface streets and providing an alternative mode of travel. It is our understanding based on the information in the condition above, that the ptimary -47- 4 purpose of the shuttle bus system is to serve visitor recreation needs. Coastal Commission staff and the County have agreed that the recreation opportunities of the Irvine Coast are of statewide significance in terms of their proximity to the coast- line and the major undeveloped areas within the Laguna Greenbelt. Consistent with this understanding, it is the County's position that the provision for, and the maintenance of a shuttle bus system to serve recreation needs is clearly the responsibility of the State. The burden should not be placed on the County nor the land -owner to provide and operate a shuttle bus system that is serving State parks and recreation areas. It would seem appropriate that the lead agency responsibility for the planning, design, purchase, operation and maintenance of the proposed shuttle bus system should be shared by the California Department of Transportation (Cal Trans) and the State Department of'Recreation and Parks in coordination with OCTD and surrounding cities. L-3. All roads shall be designed to accomodate bus -stop turnoffs in convenient locations, bicycles, and other forms of transit alternatives to the private automobile. Where consistent with safety needs, conventional County road standards shall be waived for intra-community roads in order to accomodate public mass transit and in -order to minimize grading, cut and fill, and other actions which destroy natural habitat and visual quality. County Position: Acceptable. Discussion: This condition appears to paraphase existing County LCP poli- cies presently in the submittal, except it is more specific in its application. CONDITION M. Guidelines for Use and Intensity Designations in as "Potential State Parkland Acquisition" (pages of the s Status of Parks Acquisition/Significance for Commission Review of Land Use Plan County Position: The County believes that the Land Use Plan phase is not the appropriate vehicle for the site specific listing of recrea- tion uses and intensities such as has been suggested by Coastal Commission staff for the areas designated (5.3) Rec- recration. The County has no objection to limiting the uses and intensities of land uses to be permitted in the Tourist Recreation/Commercial designations at Crystal Cove and Wishbone Hill. However, a specific listing of permitted uses within the areas designated (5.3) Recreation is premature until more detailed studies have been completed by the State Department of Parks and Recreation or another appropriate public agency. -48- In order to better serve the recreation needs of future visi- 'tors, we recommend that recreation use, location and intensites be confined to a,conceptual listing such as has been provided in the "Recreation Use Concept' map submitted by the County. Development Guidelines, Moro Canyon (page 58 of the staff report) M-1. Uses in the undeveloped area of lower Moro Canyon should be limited to low -intensity, small scale recreation and visitor -support commercial uses, such as tent camping and day use recreation, such as horseback riding, playing fieldh, archery and picnicking. In the existing trailer park area, permitted uses should be limited to lower cost recreational facilities such as recreational vehicle camping, tent camping, and low-cost visitor -serving accomodations (e.g., motels) and beach related commercial facilities. M-2. w Uses in the undeveloped area of the Moro Canyon frontal slopes should be limited to low -intensity, small scale recreation and visitor support commercial uses, such as tent camping, and day use recreation, such as horseback riding, stables and picnicking. In the existing trailer park area, permitted uses should be limited to moderate cost-visi-tor— accomodations (e.g.., motels) and interim housing for current trailer park residents, as neccessary. The area immediately landward of the trailer park in Area #4 could be used for relocation housing or low/ moderate income overnight facilities. M-3. These areas may be served by one access road off Pacific Coast Highway of no more than two lanes, terminating within the parcels as provided in Condition K-3. M-4. The implementation zoning ordinance should ensure that the commercial recreational uses do not overburden the traffic capacity on Pacific Coast Highway. This may be accomplished by limiting intensity of development through means such as lot coverage standards, building heights standards, by requiring adequate parking and by providing that use permits be required so that each potential commercial -recreational use may be evaluated for its traffic generating impact. County Position: Unacceptable. Alternative proposed. Discussion: The four conditions listed above provide site specific restrictions on the use of the (5.3) Recreation designation. The County disagrees with the statement made on page 57 of the staff report (i.e., "Thus the LCP will provide the type, location and intensity of use regardless of ownership.") The County cannot support specific listings of uses suggested for the areas designated "Recreation" until the State or another public agency makes clear its intentions for the future use of park lands. The types and intensity of recreation and non recreation uses suggested -on Page 58 of the staff report (i.e., recreational vehicle camping, tent Camping, motels, stables, and interim housing for .current trailer park residents), may not be appropriate as to the'uses -49- 1 0. • • suggested if the parkland purchase does not take place or if theses uses are not compatible with uses within the coastal shelf unit of a future state park system. Since this area is presently within the Reserve designation, substantial time is available for the development of a park plan and marketing analysis of commercial recreation and recreation potential. The County suggests that the four conditions be reworded to read as follows: M-1. "Uses in the undeveloped area of lower Moro Canyon should be limited to low -intensity, small scale recreation and visitor -support commercial uses; sueh as ent Gawpiug and day use recreation; ^ie4 as `arseb^^" riding, playing €4:e1de,-arGhhoxy,-and pas. •^1,;..S In thc_existing trail,,.. park --area, —pe-mit ed ,. ^ ^h^1d ti ,, l;m;..^lower cost -recreational facilities) stte l ..: ^^ teat low-cost visitor serving accomodationsi Re.g-, motels) and beach related commercial facilities." M-2. "Uses in the undeveloped area of the Moro Canyon frontal slope should be limited to low -intensity, small scale recreation and visitor support -- commercial uses; ^'; as "^n' ^awpi ngand day use recreation_ sugh es harsebaele riding, seables, and rking in rho,-,.^;1^- -1. -itted uses ^+^ moderate cost visitor accomodations;ce,g , - l 1 and- lnre�Ja house{n^ �o i eF park re idenes, es neeeesa-- Th, Ye^ "that", y l ^. dWa -d ^F the Id be used c . 1 ^ .; ^ hauslaff or low/mode- rate income overnight facilities." M-3. (This condition should be deleted in its entirety.) M-4. "The implementation zoning ordinance should ensure that that commercial recreation uses do not overburden the traffic capacity on Pacific Coast Highway. This may be aeeamplished b 14- hy vaquiring adequate parking and by prqv4r����eqttired tl f oaGh-potential l {.. ..luse may—hA 0 ..1. ,.r..a F,. Its trai Development Guideline. Moro Canyon Staging Areas (page 53 of the staff report) 14-1. Uses should be limited to parking, overnight camping and picniking. County Position: Conditionally Acceptable. Alternative proposed. Discussion: The staging areas proposed for the Moro Canyon area, are very important for relieving recreational related traffic impacts on PCH upon the realization of a state park (i.e., Moro Can- yon). The County would suggest the following modification to the condition: -50- "Uses should be limited to parking_ �i.�.n9low intensity, small scale recreation and visitor sup2ort commercial uses; and day use recreation." a delines. Frontal Slopes of Wishbone Hill (page 59 of staff report) M-1. Uses should be limited to low -intensity, small-scale recreation and visitor support commercial uses, such as restaurants, and day use recrea- tion, such as horseback riding, stables, hiking trails. Development should be subordinated to the natural forms, with limited site coverage and no more than three developed parcels. To prevent the need for exten- sive grading for building pads or access roads in this highly critical visual resource area, development should be allowed only in areas that are essentially level with access roads requiring the least cut and fill possible. M-2. This area should be served by an access road off Pacific Coast Highway of no more than two lanes, terminating within the parcel as provided in Condition K-4. —_ _ - -- County Position: Unacceptable. Alternative proposed. Discussion: The County's comment on these two conditions are similar to that provided on conditions #1 through #4 listed on page 58 of the staff report. The County suggests that the two conditions be reworded to read as follows: M-1. "Uses should be limited to low -intensity, small-scale recreation and visitor support commercial uses3 suQ4" xastnur2n c, and day use recreation. id#ns,-stahlos, 114klngeever-agr is ounmoars� a ti, ^- and tb thr- ,I. of '- To prevent the need for extensive grading for building pads or access roads in this highly critical visual resourse area, development should be allowed only in areas that are essentially level with access roads requiring the lease cut and fill possible." M-2 (This condition should be deleted in its entirety.) -51- I ' 0 0 SUMMARY Due to the complexities and specific word changes included within the Coastal Commission staff report (1-22-79), and the County's response as noted above, we would recommend once again the importance of capturing the major issues of the LCP. You may wish to review again the issues presented in the County's six position papers. We believe they have captured the most significant issues of the Irvine Coast project in a concise form and present the implications, County posi- tion, relevant LCP policies, and implementation considerations available for each. You should note that the County's foregoing analysis of the January 22, 1979 staff report has not included an additional line by line critique of the state staff's modifications to the County's LCP policies included in Attachment 11 of the staff report. We believe that the major conditions and modifications to those County policies included in the main body of the staff report require a resolution before any meaningful dialogue can take place regarding the proposed policy changes in the appendix to the staff report. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input into this very important project yours, Richard G. Munsell Assistant Director Advance Planning GK:hsm673(1) Attachments -52 Letter from the UCTD to ERA . C. ■ � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH u f� OFFICE OF THE MAYOR ox G41FOR��;' (714) 640-2110 February 6, 1979 Dr. Donald Wilson, Chairman South Coast Regional Commission 666 East Ocean Blvd. - Suite 3107 Long Beach, CA 90801 Re: City Position on San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Dear Dr. Wilson: During our presentation of testimony at the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program hearing of January 31, 1979, the Coastal Commission inquired as to the position of the City of Newport Beach regarding the San Joaquin Hills Trans- portation Corridor. As set forth in City Council Resolution No. 9272, adopted February 13, 1978, the City of Newport Beach has supported the early construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transporta- tion Corridor and its connection to the Corona del Mar Free- way to relieve traffic congestion on Coast Highway and other arterial highways in this area. The City's previous correspondence on circulation -related issues in the Irvine -Coast Local Coastal Program has been consistent with this basic position. A copy of Resolution No. 9272 is attached for the Coastal Commission's informa- tion. Please contact me if I can be of further assistance. Very truly yours, P UL RYCKOFF,'Mayor 'U City of Newport Beach Attachment: Resolution No. 9272 PR/DD/gg City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 L ^-v ;y » f C�Ltii:11. %il; •:� '' ''�A••l .: ;�•=:N RESOLUTION NO. 9 27 9 A RESOLUTION OF TIIE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT PEACH SUPPORTING THE SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AND ENDORSING THE SPECIFIC ALIGNMENT INDICATED ON EXHIBIT A WHEREAS, the Southeast Orange County Circulation Study identified the need for a San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Supervisors amended the Master Plan bf Arterial Highways in August, 1976, incorporating a conceptually proposed alignment for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Supervisors authorized a route location study for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor in August, 1977; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach supports the early construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and the Corona del Mar Freeway connection to relieve traffic congestion on the Pacific Coast Highway, San Diego Freeway and other affected arterial highways; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach endorses for further stiAdy and environ- mental evaluation the San Joaquin Hills Corridor alignment indicated on Exhibit• A; BE IT FUhTNER RESOLVED that the City Council of the CLty of Newport Beach does not support a construction phasing plan that would temporarily terminate the Sin Joaquin Hills Transportation Cor.•ridor at Laguna Canyon Road; 3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of 'the' City of Newport Beach looks forward to continuing participation in the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Route Location Study. n t ADOPTED 13th day of February , 1978. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor DDO/bc L/7/78 THE IRVINE =PAW 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 January 31, 1979 Donald E. Wilson, Ph.D., Chairman South Coast Regional Commission Post Office Box 1450 Long Beach, CA 90801 Subject: IRVINE COAST LCP - Commission Staff Summary and Recommendations Dear Dr. Wilson: You have before you the Irvine Coast LCP which is the result of one of the most extensive planning programs in the state. Considering the magnitude and value of the 10,000 acre parcel and the public interest it generates, The Irvine Company has long realized the need for long-range planning. After years of preliminary study, The Irvine Company brought together in 1973 expert consultants and repre- sentatives from a variety of public agencies and interest groups in an effort to develop an environmentally sound land use plan. After receiving the Company's proposal, Orange County developed four additional alternatives, incorporating Coastal Commission comments and state acquisition proposals. Accordingly, the LCP submittal represents a balance of many competing, often conflicting goals concerning environmental protection, housing, and public recreation. The LCP is not the land use plan The Irvine Company originally submitted to the County three years ago. It is not a guideline for the most intensive uses possible, nor is it a declaration of total open space. It is a compromise which has been achieved after long study and heated debate. The primary difference between the LCP and our original plan lies in the amount of open space, conservation, and recreation that is depicted by the plan. Many urban and low intensity residential uses were deleted from the Company plan and put into various open space categories, resulting in a loss of developable acreage and allow- able dwelling units. This change oecurred without any effective exchange of open space for development. This is not a "trade-off" plan, as has been suggested in public. It is a real compromise, reflecting major concessions by The Irvine Company. The Irvine Company had believed that its original plan met the spirit and intent of Proposition 20 and environmental preservation goals. However, we recognized the desire of some interests to have more public open space, and in a plan that was to be implemented over a 20 to 30 year period, we believed there would be ample time for public agencies to prepare acquisition proposals. The Company, therefore, agreed to the County -adopted compromise with the understanding that public acquisition of open space, conservation and recreation areas would ultimately be necessary to imple- ment the plan as proposed. If public acquisition were not possible after a reasonable period (say 5 years), The Irvine Company could seek low intensity uses consistent with the resource protection policies of the County Plan and the Coastal Act. Dr. Wilson Page Two January 31, 1979 The Irvine Company's position regarding acquisition of open space, conservation and recreation lands in the County Plan has been a matter of public record for years. If there is general public benefit to be derived from any lands, the public should own and maintain them. The Company does not intend to be responsible for the main- tenance of large amounts of government -required open space in perpetuity, nor does it believe that future residents should pay to maintain open space which is of general public benefit. In accordance with these beliefs, The Irvine Company is happy to make open space lands available for public acquisition, subject to four major con- ditions: 1. A public agency must agree to acquire specified lands and be party to an agreement within a reasonable period. 2. A definite schedule of acquisition must be established, even though it might be phased over a period of time. 3. If public acquisition is not implemented after a reasonable period, The Irvine Company must retain an economic use of the land. 4. The public must be willing to provide fair compensation. Since 1968, when The Irvine Company initiated its studies of its coastal property, we have tried to ascertain the interests of various levels of government in acquiring lands for recreation or conservation. The County of Orange, the State of California and the U. S. Department of Interior have all studied this property, and all are now re -studying it. No government agency has yet been willing or able to make a speci- fic acquisition commitment, over and above a position of general interest. A total of $22,600,000 has been allocated by the legislature to State Parks for acquisitions within the Irvine Coast. The Irvine Company is a willing seller, and 3170 acres are being appraised by the State for possible acquisition. The State has had an expressed interest in acquiring a park in the Irvine Coast since 1974, but the specific land area it would like to acquire and the uses it contemplates are still unknown. In compliance with Coastal Act policies, a primary function of the Irvine Coast plan is to identify and preserve major coastal resources, and this has been done, we believe, through an array of land use overlays and policies. The detail of the plan and the wording of each policy was carefully developed to ensure meaningful direction at later stages of planning. The measure of control effected by these various policies on the development which is allowed by the plan must be thoroughly evaluated in order to understand the checks and balances inherent in the County's submittal. Greater specificity will be developed through the zoning phase of the LCP and later community level planning. Too much detail in a plan to be implemented over decades can only make the plan immediately obsolete and cause a need for numerous amendments. We believe that the level of specificity in a land use plan under the Coastal Act should be the level contemplated in the Government Code for elements of a general plan. Dr. Wilson Page Three January 31, 1979 We are well aware of the desire of the Coastal Commission staff to have all un- certainty removed. But long term land use planning for such a significant parcel can never be simple or static. We did not have all the answers in 1976 when this plan was first adopted, and we do not have them now. The Coastal Act recognizes this dynamic situation by allowing amendments. Any action by local government which would authorize land uses other than those designated in the certified LCP would be considered an amendment of the LCP requiring State Commission certification. This continuing role of the State Commission ensures implementation that is con- sistent with Coastal Act policies, and it is not necessary that every conceivable land use decision be finalized prior to LCP certification. The Coastal Commission staff report is a very thoughtful and no doubt well-intentioned document, but too often it ignores the realities of land use planning, the require- ments of the development process and the limits of economic feasibility. The report's recommended conditions are numerous and detailed; they range from broad land use restrictions to detailed word changes in the County submittal. Instead of posing real solutions, they raise more issues. The plan cannot work if these staff con- ditions are imposed; they generate economic risks that no prudent business would willingly undertake. From The Irvine Company's perspective, it would be better to see this plan denied than have unworkable conditions placed upon it. There are several unstated philosophical and technical issues concerning the Coastal Act which are unresolved. First, we do not consider the LCP to be a "giant coastal development permit," in which specific site design solutions are mandated. It is surprising, for example, that the Commission staff feels itself qualified to dictate interchange design when precise road alignments and traffic flows have yet to be determined. Coastal develop- ment permits are normally at the end of the development process. This LCP, on the other hand, is only the first in a long series of required planning approvals. Second, a land use plan subject to numerous future local government and state agency reviews cannot be expected to be a picture of an end state. Public acquisition cannot be -guaranteed for the same reason that the building of 11,600 dwelling units cannot be guaranteed. In enacting the Coastal Act, the Legislature maintained that the primary responsibility for local land use decisions should remain with local government, and•only local government can grant building permits. Coastal issues and public priorities will change many times before any plan for the Irvine Coast is fully implemented. Third, the conditions in the staff report are unilateral. They mandate local and private action without a corresponding state commitment. It would not be sensible for this Company, for example, to dedicate easements or lands without assurances of fair compensation, the acceptance of the dedication by a public agency, and other appropriate considerations. Dr. Wilson Page Four January 31, 1979 In addition to problems of Coastal Act interpretation, we disagree with many of the Commission staff's specific findings and conditions for the Irvine Coast, and we offer the following discussion as a brief summary of our major concerns. Protection of Natural Resources Areas The"Wildlife Habitat and Conservation Areas" are protected by general policies and land use restrictions which will be more precisely defined at the zoning phase. The Commission staff has applied "habitat" and "conservation" to other areas and limited human uses without any factual basis. For example, the report states that the mouth of Los Trancos contains significant riparian vegetation and wildlife habitat. Our biological consultant has made no such finding, and we would be interested to know the source of the staff's information. in applying the County's "conservation" designation to thousands of new acres, the staff has prohibited cattle grazing. Although not an economic use, cattle operations have been used on these lands for decades to help manage the land and defray costs. This restriction is unnecessary and irresponsible. Air Quality and Low and Moderate Income Housing Although any new urbanization can be said to contribute to the overall quality problem, the land use configurations of this plan or any alternative cannot be proven to con- tribute to significant air quality problems, nor is it possible to determine differences between them. The provision of specific numbers of low and moderate income housing cannot be proven to measurably reduce vehicular miles travelled. Several of the staff conditions, however, may increase congestion and thereby increase pollutants generated. Low and moderate income housing was not a primary public issue when the County plan was developed. Environmental preservation was the primary public policy issue and that fact is reflected in the policies and the concentrated land use concept which comprise the LCP submittal. The feasibility of providing low and moderate income housing in the Irvine Coast is complicated by the high site development costs of hillside areas, and environmental restrictions inherent in the County plan which raise construction costs and reduce unit yields. The Irvine Company is a leader in the development of low and moderate income housing in more appropriate areas which are centrally located and adjacent to employment centers and major transportation routes. Nevertheless, we recognize a social need to provide some low and moderate income housing, particularly for prospective employees in the Irvine Coast. We suggest that 10 percent of the total built units is an appropriate Company commitment at this level for this area, not because this number or any number is economically feasible, but because it is of social importance. Protection of Emerald and Moro Canyon As in the case of all development, mitigation measures are available to avoid habitat impacts. A change from residential to recreation use does not better ensure the enforcement of those mitigation measures. Contrary to the staff report, there are no riparian areas adjacent to the proposed development; they are located in the Canyon bottoms and draws. Dr. Wilson Page Five January 31, 1979 Transportation The staff's entire approach to traffic does not recognize the realities of traffic engineering, safety and energy efficiency. They suggest that access and use of the coast is improved by reducing the capacity of roads. The conclusion of the Commission's study that traffic for Sand.Canyon can be carried by Culver Drive is inaccurate and based upon invalid assumptions. Analysis of the roadway -system does not recognize existing and projected regional coastal traffic needs external to the Irvine Coast. Private subsidy for public transit is not a reasonable condition. Public transit opportunities are enhanced by the provision of new arterial highways. Recreational Development All areas designated for "Recreation" in the LCP submittal had been assumed to be acquired by the public for park purposes. Without this assumption, the appropriate- ness and feasibility of the "Recreation" designation for some of these lands is doubtful. It must be recognized that if public acquisition proves impossible, The Irvine Company will have the option of seeking an LCP amendment for better economic uses of at least some of these lands. Excessive limitations on recreational uses can only increase the need for numerous LCP amendments. It is also difficult to understand how the staff can recommend limiting recreational uses in "consideration of traffic and environmental implications" without any supportive analysis of traffic generation and use compatibility. Visual Impacts Under the County plan, portions of larger ravines, drainage areas, and steep slopes will be retained to preserve the visual characteristics of the natural landform as viewed from Pacific Coast Highway. These areas have been identified on the Signifi- cant Landforms Map in the LCP submittal and will be subject to site plan review. It is only at a more detailed design level that meaningful judgments can be made concerning these smaller visual resources. The more significant visual landforms, such as the frontal slopes of Pelican and Wishbone Hills have been preserved in an open space designation. Contrary to the opinion of the Commission staff, the drainage areas located below the frontal slopes of Pelican Hill play no role in forming any functional system of inland trails. The primary visual issue is one of scale and the intent of the County plan is to retain the basic landform of the frontal slopes as perceived from Pacific Coast Highway. The smaller ravines and the upper areas of larger ravines which are not generally perceivable except from the air can be included in develop- ment without major visual effect. The frontal slopes of Wishbone Hill, for example, are visually prominent, but most of the area proposed for development does not extend over these slopes. The develop- ment area is very restricted in area (less than 25 acres in each of Areas #34 and #35), and conditions which excessively limit height and bulk or reduce the buildable area make the proposed commercial uses infeasible. Dr. Wilson Page Six January 31, 1979 Gradinq and Urban Runoff Although the Commission staff's objectives may be laudable, some of its recommended conditions require what is technically impossible and make interpretation of County policies more difficult. These stringent controls coupled with the recommended ex- pansion of "Conservation" areas essentially make drainage impossible. The report does not seem to recognize that there is an extensive development review process by the County. There is also a basic conceptual misunderstanding on the nature of project design, and this is reflected in the staff's unswerving belief in the use of arbitrary criteria. These reduce flexibility, raise costs and, most importantly, do not ensure the achievement of original goals. For example, restricted slopes may be totally useless as visual open space or local recreation because of their size and relationship to development. Grading will not necessarily be more sensitive; development will not fit into the natural landscape; better engineering and drainage solutions will not be provided, and the most environmentally sensitive solutions may in fact be precluded. The portion of the Irvine Coast westerly of Muddy Canyon has been annexed to Orange County Sanitation District 5. The area easterly of Muddy Canyon is in Assessment District 77-1 which was formed to finance the cost of participation by the Irvine Ranch District (IRWD) in certain wastewater facilities of the Aliso Water Management Agency (AWMA). These actions were necessitated when AWMA had to design and construct facilities to serve existing and projected regional needs. Any owner should be willing to pay for public services which it plans to use. As part of any public acquisition program, the receiving agency can demonstrate the degree to which existing infrastructure capacities are or are not needed. We still believe that the Coastal Act can be made to work along the Irvine Coast, but we all have a long way to go. We hope that the Commission will allow The Irvine Company to be of assistance in this continuing - and at times seemingly endless - endeavor. Very truly yours, Donald C. Cameron Director of Planning CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE MAYOR January 31, 1979 Mr. Donald Wilson, Chairman South Coast Regional Commission 666 East Ocean Boulevard - Suite 3107 Long Beach, California 90801 (714) 640-2110 FILE 00,Ply, D® NOT Re: Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program Dear Mr. Wilson: The purpose of this letter is to reiterate the position of the City of Newport Beach regarding the proposed Local Coastal, Program for the Irvine Coast. As you may be aware from previous correspondence, the City of Newport Beach has been most con- cerned with the proposed intensity of development, the impact of traffic, and the considerable environmental impacts which will result from this development. At this time we desire to have included in the record a number of additional comments as follows: 1) Circulation and Phasing of Development Due to the substantial traffic plan, particularly with regard Corona del Mar and San Joaquin requested that any development phased in strict compliance wi ment plan. impact of the proposed to Coast Highway in Hills Road, the City has in the Irvine Coast be th the roadway improve - Regarding the proposed circulation plan for the Irvine Coast, it is our recommendation that Culver Drive and Sand Canyon Road be of sufficient capacity to attract through -traffic away from Coast Highway. The suggestion contained in the Coastal Commission's staff report, that Sand Canyon Road be designated for only two lanes, is not consistent with our assessment of the projected regional traffic volume in this area. We would support the circulation plan as reflected in the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways. The City of Newport Beach has developed a computerized traffic model which is capable of assessing the impact City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 Mr. Donald South Coast Page 2 January 31, Wilson, Regional Commission 1979 of proposed development in the Irvine Coast planning area. We would be happy to furnish the results of this study when they become available in the near future. The traffic model could be made available for use in the Coastal Commission's further review of development proposals in the Irvine Coast. Also, for the Coastal Commission's information, the City of Newport Beach has adopted a Traffic Phasing Ordinance, which is intended to assure that adequate roadway capacity will be available to serve proposed development. The criteria and methods of traffic impact analysis described in this ordinance might be applicable to the zoning and implementation phase of the Irvine Coast LCP. A copy of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is attached. 2) Grading Controls The level of development contemplated is expected to have significant impacts on the scenic quality of this area. The City of Newport Beach has requested strict adherence to grading and development standards designed to mitigate the impacts of development on natural land - forms. The City recently adopted a revised grading code which is recognized as one of the strictest in this area. Additional revisions to strengthen controls on landform alteration and erosion control are contem- plated in the near future. A copy of the City's revised Grading Code is attached for the Coastal Commission's consideration. 3) Impacts on Buck Gully The proposed LCP land use plan locates substantial development in the watershed area of Buck Gully near the eastern city limits of Newport Beach. However, there are no adequate assurances in the proposed plan that the issues of urban runoff, erosion control, and water quality will be addressed in the case of Buck Gully. Thank you for the opportunity to again comment on this proposed plan. Very truly yours, PAUL RYCKOF , Mayor Vu City of Newport Beach Attachments: 1) 2) Traffic Phasing Ordinance Grading Code NEWPORT ENSIGN - Thursday, January 18, 1979 Park Considered For Irvine Shore Area The National Park Service is considering making the rugged coastline between Corona del Mar and Laguna Beach, and the un- developed hilly areas flanking La- guna a part of the nation's park system. In addition to the NPS plans, the state already is negotiating for a major park in the Morro Bay area; all of rugged Morro Canyon would become a major state park under California plans. The state also has been offered a strip of land along the bluff atop the Corona del Mar -to -Lagu- na Beach coastline, the same area the National Park Service has been inspecting. The NPS would take in thou- sands of acres of San Joaquin "Hills westerly of Laguna Canyon Road, from the coast to the San Diego Freeway. And it wants the Sycamore Hills area of Laguna Canyon, which both the county and city has proposed buying jointly as an initial part of the proposed Laguna Greenbelt. In all, NPS is looking at 17,000 acres, mostly Irvine land. The Irvine Company's coastal Parks Service Looks At Coast (Continued from page 1) An Environmental Management Agency official said that they county could benefit because the park would become a reality sooner. "The federal government has more money than we have," he said wryly. The EMA official also noted that plans for a high-speed free- way atop Sari Joaquin Hills, lead- ing inland behind Laguna Beach and connecting with the San Die- go Freeway in the Laguna Hills- LaiJuSfa'Ni jtte'l1'areo Wduld be' "a natural" tc'f`tinnel°vfsitors to the proposed Kew parkland. The Irvine Company is planning developments on much of its 10,000 acres of coastal land be- tween Corona del Mar and Irvine Cove at Laguna Beach. But much of its land would be open. It has not planne& any projects on the inland side of the San Joaquin Hills, the area NPS is studying. program manager, Rick Carmak, said that the company is cooper- ating- "fully" with the NPS in its proposals. Laguna Greenbelt promoters, known as Laguna Greenbelt Inc.; the Sierra Club and Friends of the Irvine Coast, along with other groups, have long proposed a ma- jor park in the Irvine holdings, among the last undeveloped land in the county close to the coast. Orange County officials said they are "delighted" that the fed- eral agency is looking at the land. (Continued on page 3) STATE OF CALIFORNIA RRAI G. BROWN JR., Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSI SOUTH COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION 666 E. OCEAN BOULEVARD, SUITE 0107 PO, Box wo LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90801 (2M 59"D71 p14) 946-0648 January 5, 1979 IS IRVINE COAST ISSUE IDENTIFICATION AND LAI\TD USE PLAN CERTIFICATION 01; A Public Hearing is scheduled before the South Coast Regional Commission on January 22, 1979, at 2:00 p.m., in the Huntington Beach City Council Chambers, at 2000 Main Street in Huntington Beach, on the certification of the County's Local Coastal Program (LOP) Issue Identification and Land Use Plan for the Irvine Coast Planning Unit. At that time, a presentation will be made, public testimony taken, and,the Commission will discuss the Plan. The Commis- sion may vote or elect to continue the matter to a future date. However, it is anticipated that additional hearings will be required on January 31, and February 7, 1979. The LOP Regula- tions require that the Regional Commission hold public hearings on an LOP Land Use Plan no later than 60 days after formal submittal, and action must be taken within 90.days after formal submittal. When approved, the Plan will be transmitted to the State Commission for hearing and final action. - Persons wishing to testify on this matter may appear at the hearing or comment by letter to the Commission prior to any action taken. You may submit written comments of any length; oral testimony may be limited by the Commission. Copies of the County's documents will be available upon request from the Regional Commission after January 5, 1979. A Coastal Commission staff report will be available after January 15, 1979, and mailed to all persons currently on the Orange County and Irvine Coast mailing list. For additional information, contact Elaine Miller at (213) 590-5078 or (714) 846-0648, or Helene Kornblatt at (415) 543-8555• Description of the Plan The County has submitted a Land Use Plan for the 9460 acre Irvine coastal area which encompasses 3.5 miles of coastline between the Cities of Newport and Laguna Beach. Agriculture and natural open space are the predominant existing land uses. The Plan includes six sections: 1) Plan Background Information; 2) Policies of the Land Use Plan; 3) A Public Access Component; 4) Public Participation; 5) Applicability of CEQA; 6) A general indication -of zoning and implementing actions that will be used. Continued ... - 1 - The Plan proposes 176 acres of tourist/recreational/commercial uses. Residential development is proposed for the northern one-third of the area at densities ranging from 1 unit/10 acres to 23 units/acre. A major element of the Plan is an open space/ greenbelt system linking recreational and open space/conservation uses. Major regional access is provided by the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Subregional access will be provided by Pacific Coast Highway, San Joaquin Hills Road, Culver Drive and Sand Canyon Avenue. The latter two roads will extend over the ridgeline from the City of Irvine. The Plan features phasing of development with circulation and service systems. One-third of the area is designated "Urban" use. Ti-to- thirds is.in "Reserve" designation with urban uses and parkland acquisition proposed in this sector. The projected population for the Plan is about 32,900 persons. - 2 - Or aa�qi CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA December 12, 1978 Mr. Michael L. Fischer, Executive' Director California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street - 4th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Re: Irvine Coast LCP Dear Mr. Fischer: The Community Development Department and Public Works staffs have reviewed recent -correspondence and staff from the Coastal Commission pertaining to -the Irvine Area Land Coastal Program. The City of Newport Beach this project with interest from its inception due to substantial impact on Newport Beach of development in Area. 92660 City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. (714)Yr79K21i0 640-2137 p0 mOT kmovs Department reports Coastal has followed the potential the Coastal The City is particularly concerned with the Coastal Commission's apparent position regarding the desirability of implementing the circulation-plan'approve•d by Orange County -for this area.- Several references have appeared regarding the possible deletion or modi- fication of north -south arterial connections with Pacific Coast Highway. This has been suggested with respect to proposed Sand Canyon Road and, by implication, Culver Drive. The Newport Beach City Council is on record in support of public acquisition of all or a part of the Irvine Coastal Area. However, the City recognizes that due to the limited availability of public funds, some development in the Coastal Area is likely to occur within the next ten years. Accordingly, it has been our position that the north -south arterial highway system in the Irvine Coastal Area.needs to be of sufficient capacity and design so as to attract vehicle trips away from Coast Highway in Corona del Mar, which is operating in excess of capacity at present. The connec- tion of Culver Drive and Sand Canyon Road with Coast Highway is viewed as essential if any meaningful improvement in existing traffic conditions is to be accomplished in adjacent coastal com- munities. These comments apply to any planning alternative under consideration which intensifies the use of this area, whether it be for urban development or public recreational purposes. Mr. Michael L. Fischer, Executive Director California Coastal Commission Page Two December 12, 1978 Copies of previous correspondence on this issue are attached for reference. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, DEPART4E4T)OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT uireetior RVH/DJD/kk Enclosures xc: South Coast Regional Commission The Irvine Company County of Orange City of Laguna Beach CITY OF NEW PORT BEACH C'9CIFOKN�P".. April 10, 1978 Orange County Planning Commission 400 Civic Center Drive Santa Ana, CA 92701 Gentlemen: OFFICE OF THE MAYOR (714) 640-2110 RE: Local Coastal Program for Irvine Coast During the County's review of the Land Use Element amendment for the Irvine Coast in 1976, the City of Newport Beach participated in public hearings and stated in correspondence the City's concerns with proposed'developme'nt plans for this 'significant coastal area, of which approximately 4,000 acres•are within Newport Beach's sphere of influence. These concerns relate generally to three issues: 1) The intensity of development proposed for the Irvine Coast, including the number of dwellings, density, projected population and level of tourist -oriented commercial development. 2) Traffic impact on Newport Beach, particularly c1_6vel-opment on Coast fii hwa in Corona del P4ar Hills Road. 3) Environmental considerations, including preservation of scenic values and significant natural landforms. It is the City's understanding that the County intends to submit the Irvine Coast land use plan, adopted by the Board of Supervisors in August, 1976, as the Local Coastal Program for this area.. Therefore, --*the same concerns expressed by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the general plan amendment apply also to the proposed Irvine Coast Local•Coastal Program. The City of Newport Beach would like to reiterate its position on development plans for the Irvine Coast in the following areas: 1) Density and Population: Residential development should be limited to the lowest reasonable density, consistent with adjacent residential areas in Newport Beach (3 to 4 dwellings per acre). 2) Commercial Intensity of Development: Commercial development - particularly that of a regional or tourist -oriented nature, such as hotels -- should be limited to the lowest reasonable level. City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 Orange County Planning Commission Page Two April 10, 1978 The land area designated for tourist commercial in the proposed plan (176 acres) is considered excessive in terms of potential . traffic impact on adjacent communities and in terms of the environmental holding capacity of this area. 3) Circulation and Phasing of Development: The traffic impact of the projected level of development on Coast Highway portends to be considerable. The City requests that my development occurring in this area be phased in strict compliance with the roadway•improvement plan. The San Joaquin Hills Trans ortation Corridor is essential to relieving congestion on oast » way. Also the north -south arterial system connecting with the Corridor, including Culver Drive, needs to be of sufficient'. capacity and design so as to attrac from oast Hi wa . The Fifth Avenue Corri or is not an a hternative route available to relieve traffic on Coast Higtway as a result of development in the downcoast area. 4) Fiscal Impact: The extent of roadway improvements required to serve proposed development is expected to have a significant ,impact on local taxes. School facilities required will impose an additional tax burden. 5) Environmental Impacts: The level of development contemplated is expected to have a significant impact.on the scenic value of the Irvine Coast area. The City requests strict adherence to grading and development standards designed to mitigate impacts on significant natural landforms. 6) Public Acquisition: The City has gone on record supporting attempts to acquire all or a portion of the Irvine Coast for public open space and recreation use. The LCP for this area needs to be sensitive also to the potential traffic problems associated with intensive recreational use. In conclusion, the Local Coastal Program for the Irvine Coast needs to recognize the potential significant impact of the plan on coastal resources and on the City of Newport Beach, since the major portion of proposed development is located adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods.in Newport Beach. The City appreciates the opportunity to comment on this important project. Respectfully, 11iTan••Dosta1,Mayor —' City of Newport Beach, California F,D:DD:jmb July 27, 1976 Orange County Board of Suparvisors . -•` ' S15 P1. sycmmore P. 0. Box 637:..:. Santa Ana, CA 92702 .. -._:hoc •)ll Gentleman: Relative to the TIC2•iAP Coastal Area, between m:r i•.e:,rport Beac:' and Laguna Beach, the City of ; _ ��= ••• P;ewvort Brach wishes to state that .it endorses_ ` `. �:.: fi: z:.• a county policy or ma -IL- m preservation for this coastal area within aDpropri.ate economic... restraints iia?cing any cecisi the Irvine Coast. Sincerely, • HO',�ARD ROGERS Mayor • t cc: city of Irvinv II,ity of LaZuaa Beach Frisnds of irvire Coast bcc: David N;eisix The Irvine*:Company Fent plan. for •r• l • iTY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 132 1976 Orange County Planning Commission 400 Civic Center Drive . Santd Ana, -CA 92701 •Ladies•and Gentlemen: RE: TIC14AP General Plan Amendment and Proposed Policy Package The purpose of this letter is to reaffirm the position of the City of ' Newport Beach with respect to the TICRO General Plan Amendment as stated in our letter -of May 25, 1976 (copy attached). In addition, we would offer several comments and suggestions regarding the policy package proposed by the County staff. Our letter of May 25, 1976, called to your attention concerns of the City of Newport, Beach over the magnitude and intensity of development con- h D v+ EIR and the resulting adverse temolated in the TIU'1AP Plan and t e ra impacts. - In Paragraph No. 1 the City 'requested that population, density•and in- tensity of commercial development be limited to the lowest reasonable level. In this connection it .is further requested that an overall policy be adopted providing for maximum preservation of -the TICMAP area within;. appropriateeconomic restraints and calling for cons! deration•of public •acquisition•'of all or substantial parts of the area before making any decision on a development plan. In support of this request the following is submitted:. . 1. The proposed development plan for the Ites hv+ho CountycofaOrange potential for massive public costs "Ii has estimated to be at least $100,000,000 for the major road network in this area alone, the major portion of vtnich will be borne by the taxpayers. 2. T',e proposed development plan creates potential for serious additional traffic cengastion on existing major roadways in the City of N2wpert Beach. City Mall 3300 '1\Tc port Loalerwr1, Nieviport Beach, California 92603 •I E •y Orange County Planning Commission Page Two July 13, 1976 3. The proposed development plan would seriously diminish this great coastal open space as a source.of beauty .and enjoy- ment for the public at..large. 4. The possibility exists for purchasing of all or substantial ; portions of the area using existing Federal and State funding sources. With respect to specifics of the General Plan Pinendment, it is apparent that many of the concerns of the City of Newport Beach have been addressed in the proposed policy' package. However, it is felt that additional policies would be desirable in the areas of grading; and the provision of schools and public facilities. : ..With respect to grading and hillside development policy, the City would like to reiterate its concern over the considerable visual and environmental im-_ pacts which might result from the proposed development. He would urge the County to adopt'a specific grading ordinance acid more detailed hillside development standards prior to development in the TICMAP area.• In order to ' preserve natural: topographic features in the TICMAP area, the following guidelines, based on the City's adopted Hillside Development Standards, are recommended for inclusion in the policy package: 1. The proposed development should preserve�'the natural skyline and the significant topographic features of the site. Particular attention should be given to the number and distribution.of structures, the design of the street'system,. and the location of open space. :- 2. The proposed development should protect and retain signifi- cant vegetation, particularly mature trees, on the -site. 3. -The proposed development should retain•and..create'open . 'space and view areas... 4. The proposed development should provide public access to . view areas•and other natural'features. 5. The grading plan for the proposed development should include various slope ratios and undulating slopes.. 6. The proposed development should provide adequate setbacks from steep slopes, natural canyons, and natural bluffs in order to prevent structures from detracting from the visual character of these areas and in order to -avoid accelerated erosion and to. ensure the safety and stability of these areas. 7. The proposed development and grading plan should include specific provisions for the control of all surface and subsurface drainage from the site, paying particular attention to the quality of Crater entering the ocean. Orange County PlanrCommission `y Page Three J ✓ July 13, 1976 8. The proposed development should retain the natural topography and should minimize successive padding and terracing of building sites. . With respect to the provision of school facilities,'we would cite the recent letter from the Superintendent of the Newport -Mesa Unified School District (copy attached) indicating that the cost of providing new schools in the TICMAP area would exceed the resources of the District. Similarly, means of financing other public facilities and services have not been treated ad- equately. The City is suggesting that policies relating to such services and facilities be 'included to assure that development in the TICMAP area does not require subsidy from, other areas of the County. ' In conclusion, the City of Newport Beach again -requests that residential density in the area west of Los Trancos Canyon be'limited to•a level consist- ent with adjacent neighborhoods in. Newport Beach (3 to 4 dwelling units per. .acre for the area 'designated.for residential use), resulting in a maximum of 5,500 dwelling units. The City appreciates the opportunity to'respond to the proposed policy package and to participate -in the review of the TICMAP General P1an,Amendment. P.espectfully submitted, HOWARD P.OGERS Mayor HR: pg .. Attached: 1)-City's letter.of May 25, 1976 2) School District letter.of July 13, 1976 _ _,��. '•" . � � `...e, i � -cam,:° - . 7) CITY OF INEWPORT BENCH IC A11FORNiA May 25, 1976 Orange County Planning Commission 400 Civic Center Drive Santa Ana, California .92701 'Re:.. TICMAP .General Plan 'Amendment Gentlemen: 9Z660 ' City Hall 3300MenwrtI31A (714)3*X) M •640-2110 In response to the County's request, the City of Newport Beach has reviewed the proposed TICMAP General'Pian Amendment and Draft'EIR. Many of the concerns expressed.herein were stated previously in the City's response to the County position papers on the TICMAP General Plan Amendment. Given the potential impact of the TICMAP proposal, it seems appropriate to reiterate the'City's concerns and offer additional commentary on the TICMAP General Plan Amendment and 'Draft EIR. -We are hopeful that the County Planning Commission will incorporate the City's sugges- tions into the policies and implementing resolution to be'adopted as part of the General Plan Amendment. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PO5LTION ON THE.TICMAP.PROJECT The project description sections of the -Draft EIR give rise to a number of serious concerns on the part of the City of' Newport. .Beach. The'TICMAP Plan contemplates an overall development of UP to 192000 dwellings and a projected -population of 48,000. While the overall density of the project is less than two dwell- ings per gross acre,'individual project densities range from 2.75 dwellings per acre up to twenty-two dwellings per acre. In addition, supporting commercial development, tourist facili-, ties, and a major road system are proposed. A"substantial portion. Of this proposed development would be concentrated in the areas immediately adjacent to Newport Beach; therefore, the -expected impacts of this development would not be distributed equally within the planning area. Significant impacts of the proposed project identified in the Draft EIR,which can be expected to have an adverse effect on the City of Newport Beach, are summarized below: • 11 Orange County Planning Commission - Page 2. May 25, 1976 Increased traffic and severe congestion on Pacific--Co-ast Highway in Corona del Mar. Increased traffic on San Joaquin Hills Road_. Increased traffic on MacArthur Boulevard. Increased demand for air travel. - Loss of visual open space and visual impact due to lan¢form modification. Contribution to air quality problems in Orange County and the South Coast Air•Basin. Potential.degradation of ocean water quality. Increased runoff impacting on Buck Gully and Evening Canyon. It is recognized that many of these impacts are unavoidable effects of urbanization and that mitigation measures and conditions have been proposed in the Draft EIR which might reduce the impact on the City of Newport Beach. The City requests that the County take the appropriate actions, to assure: 1. That overall population, residential density and intensity of commercial development in the TICMAP area be limited to the lowest reasonable level, and that a policy be adopted for the area adjacent to Newport Beach, specifically that area west of Los•Trancos Canyon, which would limit the density to a level consistent with adjacent residential -neighborhoods in -Newport Beach (three to four dwellings per acre for the areas designated for residential•use), resulting in a maximum of 5,500 dwelling units in Phases I . and IIB. The City has no objection to the clustering of units for the purpose of maintaining open space, as long as the total number of units'is not exceeded., 2. That no develo ment be permitted i.nthe �TICMAP area until a�gaate a ternate_ deans "of" zccess in addition to Pac fic -_ �- Coast High��ay �s commuted -for: `This a terna a •means of , , • access should include provision of a trans ortation corridor trrou b the San Joaouin Hills between the Corona del Mar Freeway and the San Oiero Freaway, and connecting north/south routes such as Sand Canyon oad an u ver rive_ ei er the widening of Pacific coast _Highway nor the construction area. The traffic impact of the TICMAP development must be mitt gated through other circulation system improvements and a reduction in intensity of development. Orange County Planning Commission Page 3. May 25, 1976 3. That policies and standards for grading, slope protection, and hillside development be adopted to preserve the visual resources of the area. 4. That policies be adopted to assure that the provision of governmental services and facilities in the TICMAP•area, in both the early phases and at full development, will not require subsidy by the taxpayers in other areas of the County. 5. That•policies be adopted to assure the preservation and%or salvage of archaeological and paleontological resources and to assure that a detailed inventory of such sites is completed prior to zoning and final subdivision approval. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH EVALUA'TIO9 OF THE DRAFT.EIR - Although, .in general the Draft EIR represents a fairly comprehen- si-ve and adequate evaluation of the impact of the TICMAP Plan as proposed, additional analysis and mitigating measures seem. warranted in a few areas. As a general comment, the alternatives to the ,proposed TICMAP Land.. Use Plan (presented in Part VII of the Draft EIR under Alterna- tives to the Proposed Project) are not extensively evaluated in terms of the degree to which they might reduce the impacts. The . City requests that the County seek clarification of.the anticipated .impacts of alternative land use proposals,.particularl'y the pos- _ sible reduction in the severity of impacts_on adjacent cities. i4ore-specific comments'on the Draft EIR, organized -.by subject'area, are as' follows: Circulation - The Draft EIR p a result of the filqhWay-capa-c-ll venue b py ass__a ina •e some cur �0 ects travel demands on Coast Highway as 9 proposa ar in excess of ex__i_s_ing �TRia 'TIR"�s Dr000slT- o prov'l e d l t na/or pr cuts on of.'he pt, o t on -street parking ago erim- t ig way.in orona a Har ach actions; neither o ese o icy an ave met wit con- ra1''-tinmanimars an usinessmen. tion'reduction ntensntensit-y oT-eve opmenT--� - A commitment for circulation system improvements a`develo meat an for phasing of eve opmen z June ion vri h. tg l)ay improvements, and the nee rior to rnn- _ ,y r1aim ing'Commission - Page 4. May 25, 1976 transportation corridor through the San Joa uin Hills wi connect1ng nort -sout arterials in addition to roast H�ghwa should be �ncor orated into additional mitigating measures." • Residential Density.and Population - Table 2 in the Project Description sections'of the Draft E•IR describes a ,range of projected populations (35,000 to 62,000) and residential densities, which could be expected 'to have differential impacts on adjacent communi- ties, particularly Newport Beach. The City is suggesting that the resulting range of probable impacts should be ' accounted for more adequately; since the overall intensity of the project is subject to revision during.the General Plan -Amendment review process. -• A more definite statement'of carrying capacity of the down'coast area in terms of population and intensity of,' development, as related to the natural ecology -and support systems, is needed. It is requested that the County, in approving any General Plan Amendment for the TICMAP area, establish density .limits and specific population limits to reduce the impacts on adjacent communities.' Additional clarification of -the probable•impact of the ..open space/residential reserve" designation is warranted. Additional residential development could occur with a future. General Plan Amendment which Would 'remove. the reserve designation and result in additional environ- me'ntal impacts.' Visual _Impact Graphic illustrations in the Draft EIR of the probable visual impact of development are.not provided fbr the planning area adjacent to Newport Beach, as they are for other areas downcoast. The City suggests that such illustrations would be desirable,"since the TICMAP Plan proposes the most intensive development in this area. The•proppsed mitigation measures should ;Include a more_ specific statement of policies relating to grading, landform alteration, and hillside development. An additional mitigating measure should be included Which would call for open space/greenbelts which would Jrange County Planning Commission Page 5. May 25, 1976 serve to separate development in the TICMAP area from existing development in Newport Beach. Provision of Governmental.ServiEes -- Cost/Revenue Impact The probable fiscal impact of public facilities construction should be addressed in greater'detail. School facilities requirements,'in particular, could impose a serious cost and tax burden on the school district during the earlier phases of the TICMAP development. : The capabilities of the County, or•any adjacent City, to'absorb the additional costs of servicing this area (particularly in the early phases of development) and the relationship of these costs to anticipated revenues should be assessed. Dela-y ' . .. '• In the event that adequate answers or mitigations are not readily available, the City of Newport Beach requests delay to a time•that these answers are available. • , Again, the City of Newport Beach appreciates the cooperative' approach that -the. County is taking in the review of this important project. It. is hoped that the suggestions of the City of Newport. Beach will be incorporated -into the County Planning Commission's action on ,the TICMAP General Plan Amendment.' We are looking forward to'co- operating, further in this effort. Respectfully submitted, HOWARD ROGEP.S, Mayor)y""' City of Newport Beach HR/kk - :u?r, ''•} day 0C CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 28, 197.7 Mr. Herbert Rhodes Director California Department -of Parks & Recreation 1416 9th Street . .. Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Mr. Rhodes: . It has come to our attention that the State Department of Parks and Recreation is evaluating the acquisition of land recommended by the California Coastal Zone Commission ,for State ownership in the Irvine coastal (TICHAP) area between the cities of Newport Beach and Laguna Beach. The Newport Beach City Council'is on record in•support of area. we strongly urge that the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Resources Agency seek maximum appropria- tions from Proposition 2.bond funds or other sources with the objective of acquiring, as much as possible of these unique coastal resources before encroaching development•makes their preservation infeasible.. We wish to be kept advised of the results of the current evaluation of potential purchases and offer our assistance and that of -the City staff if we can be helpful,' :.,Very truly yours, MILAN M. DOSTAL : Mayor MMD%bc. cc: Mrs. Claire T. Dedrick Mr. Melvin B.'Lane The Honorable Dennis E. Carpenter The Honorable Ronald Cordova City IIall 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92563 F DSOF November 28, 1978 This is an invitation to a STUDY SESSION on the IRVINE COAST LOP C with members of COASTAL -COMMISSION STAFF aV A/ a Members of both the State and Regional Coastal Commissions will be present at this study session. The purpose of the session is to.allow the public to express their opinions and concerns directly to the Commission staff. This study session has been set up by the Friends of the Irvine Coast. The Friends have been bitterly protesting the failure of the County and Irvine Company to incorporate public input into the Local Coastal Plan. We hope that this meeting will help rectify the previous abuses of the citizen participation process for the Irvine -Coast LCP. We request that you attend this important hearing and find out whats going on with the LOP. Both written and verbal comments to the staff will be accepted. The meeting will be held: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1978 at 8:00 p.m. in the NEWPORT BEACH CITY HALL ANNEX. The Annex is located directly behind City Hall in the building with the kity Attorney]sign. Parking is available next to the Annex. For further information, call Jeff at (714) 548-4936. 4s 0 0 MAILING LIST for the Irvine Coast LOP Study Session The following individuals and organizations have been sent a copy of the invitation to the Study Session. An attempt has been made to contact all of the organized groups that have appeared at previous public hearings or have otherwise expressed interest in the LOP. Please feel free to contact organizations that don't appear on this list. However, the purpose of this meeting is to a study session between Coastal Commission staff and representatives of groups already involved with the Irvine Coast. The meeting will probably be most productive if attendance is kept below thirty people. The Friends of the Irvine Coast - Board Members Laguna Greenbelt - Tom Alexander, Mike Schley, James Dilley League of Women Voters - Micelle Bolden, Nancy Feit, Joan Petty, Ruth Saddi Sierra Club - Paul Wright, Gordon Smith, Ed Walters City of Newport Beach - Paul Ryckoff, Ray Williams, Allan Beek City of Laguna Beach - Sally Bellerue, Phyllis Sweeney City of Irvine - Mary Ann Gia.do, Larry Agran, Ray Catalano, Joan Turner Environmental Coalition of Orange County - Hal Thomas Irvine Tomorrow - Wesley Marx, David Kidd E1 Morro Trailerpark - several residents, plus their legal and environ- mental consultants were sent invitations Cameo Shores Homeowners Assoc.- John Anderson. MCP ��Qpj -Co / U 30, (q7 8 N�� 9301 La Jolla Cr. Huntington Beach, Cal. November 7, 1978 Dear Mr. Munsell; .As a concerned seaside resident, I would like to inquire about what determination you are considering for Crystal Cove in Irvine. My class has visited the tide pools there for many years, and we found it an area very rich in its variety of sea -life. I also feel that the rook formations are very unusual. Mrs. Norby, of the Huntington Beach Coastal Program, suggested that you might put me on your notification list. If there is anything that I can do to assist your program, please let me know. co Mr. Dmohowski Sincerely, Mrs. Margaret Class 9 pp4 pep- N(>, dt'' 1 J� 0 �r iA-*LID :PY Mrs. Margaret Class 9301 ha Jolla Cr. F Nov Huntington Beach,'C Mr. David Dmohowski I 3300 Fewport Blvd. • Newport Beach, Cal. 92CC3 I *% t 1 J COUNTY OF ORANGE Local Coastal Program Irvine Coast Land Use Plan n �I ADDENDUM TO,IRVINE COAST LCP DOCUMENT DATED AUGUST 8, 1978 RCommun YD 9 Develop o�ent Depiw S g1113 7a~ CST{ 6 p,CFII ��, N�P�p41F• Due to the County's budgetary constraints together with the substantial cost of a general mailout, the County is not mailing out additional copies of the Irvine Coast LCP document dated March, 1978. Copies of the LCP, Planning Commission minutes, and public comments are available to individuals requesting these materials. NOTE: The Board of Supervisors on June 28, 1978 approved the Irvine Coast LCP GK:rja document dated March, 1978 and environmental documentation with minor modifications noted in the attached resolutions. Please retain your present copies of the Irvine Coast LCP document until advised of changes forthcoming as a result of Coastal Commission actions. • UNTY OF N G E ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION RII NORTH &ROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA H. G. OS80RNE DIRECTOR RICHARD G. MUNSELL 45SISTANT DIRCCTOR ADVANCE PLANNING Mr. Melvin J. Carpenter Executive Director South Coast Regional Commission Post Office Box 1450 Long Beach, California 98081 August 8, 19 TELEPHONE: 834.4643 AREA CODE 714 MAIUNC Aoono S: P 0 BOX 40�4 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 FILE SUBJECT: Formal submittal of the County of Orange Local Coastal Program (LCP) Issue Identification and Land Use Plan for the Irvine Coast Planning Unit Dear Mr. Carpenter: SUMMARY OF IRVINE COAST The Board of Supervisors at its regular meeting of June 28, 1978 authorized the formal submission of the County of Orange Irvine Coast LCP Issue Identi- fication and Land Use Plan to the South Coast Regional Commission pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 30511(c) and LCP Regulations Section 00022(c) (Resolution 78-1018). The County hereby requests: 1. Separate processing of the Land Use Plan and the Zoning/Implementation actions; 2. -That the Coastal Commission and the State Parks Department remove from consideration any immediate parkland acquisition program affecting E1 Morro Mobile Home Park (Resolution 78-1017); 3. Approval of the Issue Identification and certification of the Land Use Plan for the Irvine Coast planning unit for purposes of adequately addressing the intent of the California Coastal Act; and 4. Approval of final Environmental Impact Report No. 134 as adequately addressing the environmental effects of the Land Use Plan phase of Local Coastal Program for the Irvine Coast, and contains all feasible mitigation measures. Mr. Melvin J. Carpenter 1 41 IRVINE COAST LCP As noted in the table of contents, the LCP document dated March 1978 is divided into five separate reports: 1. Request for Separate Area Designation (Segmentation) On January 24, 1978, the County Board of Supervisors approved a division of the County's coastal zone into four separate planning units (Irvine Coast is Planning Unit II). The State Coastal Commission on May 16, 1978 partially responded to the County's request for segmentation by approving the Irvine coast as a separate planning unit. 2. Issue Identification The County has included an identification of coastal issues for public and agency review as required by Section 00022(b) of the Local Coastal Program Regulations. The most significant aspect of this report is the breakdown of issues into state-wide, regional, and local signifi- cance which provides a distinction between the jurisdictional responsi- bilities of various levels of government. 3. Alternative Methodology The existing Irvine coast general plan and policy supplement is being submitted to the Coastal Commission for certification as the land use plan portion of the Local Coastal Program. Section 00040.5 of the Local Coastal Program Regulations requires the statement of planning method- ology utilized in preparing the General Plan Amendment be included as part of the Local Coastal Program. 4. Land Use Plan This report together with applicable maps comprises the "heart" of the Local Coastal Program or the portion to be certified by the Coastal Commission. 5. Data Sufficiency This section provides an overview of the environmental impact report-' (EIR) documentation. The Final Environmental Report No. 134 (Irvine Coast General Plan Amendment 76-3), which was certified as complete by the County Board of Supervisors on August 18, 1976, was updated to include all public and agency comments received in conjunction with the amendment public hearings. PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE IRVINE COAST LCP The State and Regional Coastal Commissions held public hearings on the draft Irvine Coast LCP for the purpose of providing a preliminary review of the content and format of the LCP document. The meetings were scheduled as follows: P) Mr. Melvin J. Carpent• April 18: State Coastal Commission held a work study session on the Irvine Coast Issue Identification and Land Use Plan; May 1: South Coast Regional Commission held a preliminary review Public Hearing on the Irvine Coast Issue Identification and Land Use Plan; May 16: State Coastal Commission held a preliminary review public hearing on the Irvine Coast Issue Identification and Land Use Plan and approved the request for segmentation on the Irvine coast as a spearate planning unit; and June 7: State Coastal Commission held a work study session on the Irvine Coast Issue Identification and Land Use Plan to pro- vide final comments to both Coastal Commission and County staff. .The main purpose of the preliminary review process was to acquaint the Coastal Commission with the issues involved with this project and to provide direction to the County as to whether the Irvine Coast Land Use Plan would require signifi- cant modification or merely fine tuning. Several broad areas of concern were raised by Commission members; however no consensus action or direction was pro- vided. Where State staff recommended specifics, such as removal of a transporta- tion network link (Sand Canyon), no justification was provided nor were the County's extensive transportation studies discredited in any way. The Commission failed to endorse or adopt the recommendations in the staff report and thereby failed to provide explicit or substantive direction. It should be noted here that Commission staff have consistently maintained that only the Commission can speak for the Commission. STATEWIDE REGIONAL AND LOCAL SIGNIFICANCE A basic weakness in the LCP process is lack of direction over what the appropriate agency responsibility is for managing coastal resources and uses. It would seem appropriate that the LCP be the vehicle for designating agency responsibilities particularly in an area of numerous interjurisdictional duties between federal, state, regional and local governmental agencies. LAND USE AND ZONING Section 30511(b) of the Public Resources Code provides for the separate processing of (1) land use plans and (2) implementing ordinances and actions. In view of the recently completed countywide zoning ordinance revision study and anticipated new zoning for the large coastal zone area, it is proposed that the County process zoning and other implementing actions with some overlap to the Land Use Plan schedule but with completion targeted after certification of the Land Use Plan. CITIZEN AND AGENCY PARTICIPATION Consistent with Section 00050 of the LCP regulations all materials submitted to the County have been included in an appendix for your information. 3 Mr. Melvin J. Carpenter We would appreciate a written response as to the scheduling of Regional and State Coastal Commission public hearing dates at your earliest convenience Very truly yours, /���yc rector _ H. G. Os orne, Director GK:RGM:pb Attachments: 1. Board Resolutions 78-1018 and 78-1017 2. P. C. Minutes 3. Irvine Coast UP 4. Public/Agency Comments cc: Michael Fischer, Executive Director California Coastal Commission i : 1 ,, 311 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF 411 ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 5 11 June 28 1978 6 On motion of Supervisor Riley, duly seconded and carried, the 71 following Resolution was adopted: 81 WHEREAS, the County of Orange has elected to prepare a Local 911 Coastal Program in accordance with the Public Resources Code; and 10 11 12 13 14 W LL"0.5 o=' 30 WUVU rru 16 0 Z O ZQ o0 17 VV WHEREAS, Section 30511(a)"of the Public Resources Code and Section 00032 of the Local Coastal Program regulations allow a local government to submit its local coastal program in separate geographic units con- sisting of less than the local government's jurisdiction lying within the coastal zone; and WHEREAS, Section 30511(b) of the Public Resources Code provides for the separate processing of land use plans and implementing ordinances and actions; and 1811 WHEREAS, Section 00034 of the local coastal program regulations 1911 identifies the Irvine Coast as a pilot project eligible for special 20 provisions; and 21 WHEREAS, the County of Orange has held numerous public meetings 22 and hearings for purposes of obtaining public comment on the Irvine 23 Coast Local Coastal Program; and 24I WHEREAS, the Irvine Coast LCP is intended for only the preparation 25 N 26 N N 27 ® LO :dw of the land use plan phase; and WHEREAS, the draft environmental impact report was distributed for public circulation in April, 1976, and after seven Planning Commission Resolution No. 78-1018 RECEIVED Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program JUL 1 01978 (LCP) I. E. - M. A. I 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 of oz; 15 Do u°u -.uw 16 4'u LL�Z Oz� 00 17 M 19 20 21 22 23 1 24 25 N 26 N N 0 27 LL IN public hearings was recommended for approval; and WHEREAS, this Board has previously certified Environmental Impact Report No. 134, as it was originally prepared for land use and circula- tion amendments to the Orange County General Plan in,the Irvine Coastal area; and WHEREAS, the final Environmental Impact Report 134 was distributed to the Planning Commission on March 6, 1978, for consideration in action on the Local Coastal Program for the Irvine Coastal area. In addition to the draft, Final EIR 134 contains the following information: 1. Minutes from Planning Commission hearings on the general plan amendment and environmental impact report; 2. Resolutions from the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commis- sion adopting the amendment and EIR 134; 3. Environmental Management Agency staff reports; 4. Responses and comments received from over twenty interested agencies and individuals during the draft review period; 5. Supplemental reports on air quality and cost revenue; and WHEREAS, this Board has considered staff reports, Planning Commis- sion recommendations, and expressions of opinion from the general public with respect to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 134 for the Irvine Coast; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that previously certified County Final•EIR 134 adequately addresses the environmental effects of the Land Use Plan Phase of the Local Coastal Program for the Irvine Coast, contains all feasible mitigation measures and has been considered in the Board of .Supervisor's action. The following elements are added to the Final EIR for this project: 1. The Environmental Management Agency Report on the Project; 2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 u y. oZ; 15 0 u�u w 16 02Z Q 00 17 u 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 W. 2. Minutes of the Planning Commission public hearings on this matter. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, as identified in Final EIR 134, measures to mitigate impacts of the project on public safety,.water, and air quality, noise, public services, energy, and land use have been adopted as County policy; and that as expressed in public hearings on the EIR on April 20, May 25, June 1, June 21, July 26, August 3, and I7August 18, 1976, and March 6, March 27, and April 10, 1978, specific economic, recreational and other land use needs make infeasible mitiga- tion measures or project alternatives for impacts on landform modificat biological resources, cultural scientific resources, housing, traffic and open space/visual amenities. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board hereby requests the Coastal ICommission approve the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program for the Unin- corporated Orange County Coastal Zone consisting of Planning Unit II. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director, Environmental Management Agency is -hereby authorized and empowered to execute on behalf of the County of Orange all necessary applications, agreements and amendments thereto to implement and carry out the purposes specified in this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, prior to approval of development on the Irvine Coast (TICMAP area), a phasing plan of development shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and Board of.Supervisors identifying infrastructure costs and mechanigisms for funding. AYES: SUPERVISORS THOMAS F. RILEY, RALPH B. CLARK, PHILIP L. ANTHONY, LAURENCE J. SCHMIT, AND RALPH A. NOES: SUPERVISORS NONE ABSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE 3. • • ` 1 2 3 4 5 G 7 A 9 10 11 12 13 14 Wt oz; 15 �o wou W 16 4'u 4 z 2 0Z< 0, 17 U 1 c.� 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 N 1 28 0 LL STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, JUNE ALEXANDER, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the 28thday of June 1978 , and passed by a unanimous vote of said Board, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set• ip,'.h'and,,-and seal this 28thday of June , 19 78. �;' Clerkof;.Che Board of Supervisors of Orange--bunty, California ' •.. ki 4. 0 1 I 4 13 14 u o z z , -. :)o o, yW 16 z z 'o c 17 W 1s 19 20 21 22 23 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFONRIA pl June •28, 1978 On the motion of Supervisor Riley( duly seconded and carried, the following Resolution was adopted: VHEREAS, the residents of El Morro Mobile Home Park have expressed their concern over the State of California'••s proposed purchase of the Irvine Coast; and WHEREAS, this Board believes it is possible and proper to acquire thee, Irvine Coast while demonstrating sensitivity to those currently living at El Morroi and WHEREAS, there are existing leases with the Irvine Company; NOW, THBREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board does hereby request the Coastal Commission and the State Parks Department that Phase One of any acquisition program not include'residences in the El Morro Mobile H (Park. 24 AYES: SUPERVISORS THOh4AS F; RILEY, RALPH B. CLARK, PHILIP L. ANTHONY,) LAURENCE J. SCHMIT, AND RALPH A. DIEDRICH P 25 NOES: SUPERVISORS NONE 26 N (ABSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE 0 27 t LL ® 28 ! Resolution No. 78=1017 :sb Il Request Exemption of El Morro 14obile Home Park from Irvine Coast (Acquisition Program (Phase I) RECEIVED JUL12 1978 E:. M. A. 5 G 7 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 tiz oZ; 15 �" 'ou 4FV 16 0 =� O 00 17 " 18 19 20 21 22 23 E STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) - I, JUNE ALEXANDER, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the said Board at.a regular meeting thereof held on the 28th day of June,...-.- 19 78, and passed by a unanimous vote of said Board. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto se•t"my Fiend 'and seal this 28th day of June , 19 78. _ 'J U` JUNE ALEX.ANDER Clerk, or t"-the Board. -of -Supervisors of Orange -eoun�CK, • California 11 2. DAILY PILOT - 7/17/78 Coars wl Panel Weighs Funds For Newport Members of the State Coastal Commission meeting in Los Angeles are slated to discuss a $50,000 grant to the City of d Newport Beach Wednesday. The money would help defray the city's costs in preparing a Local Coastal Program (LCP) a planning document required by state law as part of the proc- ess of handing coastal controls from the commission to local P The allocation has been ree ommended for approval by the regional commission. Preparation of the LCP is ex- pected to take about 18 months during which city regulations on land uses in the coastal area are to be brought into conformance with commission procedures i and policies, The hearing,on the proposal is' one of the last items on the com- mission's agenda. Com- missioners will meet at 9 a.m. at the Airport Marina Hotel in Los Angeles_`____ __ ___ DAILY PILOT - 7/17/78 ILNG Controversy, Panel &eking Offshore fshore Site P SAN FRANCISCO CAP) — Faced ` with a July 31 deadline for a decision on an application to build a liquefied # natural gas terminal at' Point Con- : ception, the state Public Utilities 'Commission now confronts a report „ targeting the best site as one 12 miles offshore from Ventura. A draft report issued by the California Coastal Commission said the offshore site is superior to the mainland site being eyed by utilities for the terminal because it would be unbothered by earthquake tremors, is further from, populated areas and would have less impact on the environ- ment THE COMMISSION'S selection of the offshore site was controversial because state law requires California's first LNG terminal to be on the mainland. But the PUC staff has warned the Point Conception site may not be approyable because of earthquake faults. The commission released its report Saturday, saying it wanted, to generate public comment before the PUC ruling on Point Conception SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Gas Co., which is involved in the Point Conception project, criticized the commission for selecting an offshore site And, it said, "One cannot as. sumo that putting an LNG terminal offshore will eliminate serious op. position to it, such as the possibility of lawsuits." Despite its benefits, the Ventura Flats site chosen by the Commission would still require special safety measures, the report said. It warned of risks to public safety from a large unconfined oil spill "even eight miles from shore," but'said the Ventura site 12 miles offshore would provide "a substantial safety zone." AN OFFSHORE TERMINAL would receive LNG from tankers, vaporize it back into natural gas and pipe the gas to shore through un- derwater pipelines that would connect with the main ges distributionnetwork forCalifornia. The cost of an offshore terminal was estimated as about equal to a mainland terminal — about $400 Federal legislation pending before Congress would have to be approved before the terminal could be built on the Ventura offshore site, the report said, adding that passage seems likely. PUBLIC HEARINGS on the report will be held Aug. 15.16 in Los Angeles, with workshops at Ventura, Los Angeles and San Clemente. Ventura is a coastal city about 75 ! miles north of downtown .Los Angeles 0 THE NEWPORT ENSIGN - 7/20/78 ' shes', or Downcoast US Park Congressman Jerry Patterson (D-Santa Ana) visited the Irvine Coast Monday to dramatize his ef- forts to get the entire area desig- nafed as a national park. Facing TV cameras, Patterson said he supports enviromnentalist efforts to get a vacant 7,000-acre coastal area between Corona del Mar and Laguna Beach, plus' 10,000 acres of the Laguna Greenbelt around Laguna -Can- yon, dedicated as a federal park. Excluded from the park would be 3,000 acres adjoining Corona del Mar, which would be developed , by the Irvine Co. Last week, Patterson cot the House of Representatives to ear- mark $50,000 for a study of the park idea. The appropriation is part of ah omnibus $1.2 billion parks bill and is being, supported a a�i COUNTY OF ORANGE Local Coastal Program Irvine Coast Land Use Plan ADDENDUM TO IRVINE COAST LCP DOCUMENT DATED JUNE 28, 1978 Due to the County's budgetary constraints together with the substantial costs of a general mailout, the County is not mailing out additional copies of the Irvine Coast LCP document.dated March, 1978. Copies of the LCP, Planning Commission minutes, and the public comments are available to individuals requesting these materials. NOTE: The Planning Commission on April 10, 1978 approved the Irvine Coast LCP document dated March, 1978 with minor modifications noted in the Planning Commission minutes. Please retain your present copies of the Irvine Coast LCP document until advised of changes forthcoming as a result of Board or Coastal Commission actions. PG:kh x • • VA) SAMPLE BOARD RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA June 28, 1978 On motion of Supervisor , duly seconded and carried, the following Resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, the County of Orange has elected to prepare a Local Coastal Program in accordance with the Public Resources Code; and WHEREAS, Section 30511(c) of the Public Resources Code and Section 00032 of the Local Coastal Program regulations allow a local government to submit its local coastal program in separate geographic units consisting of less than the local government's jurisdiction lying within the coastal zone; and WHEREAS, Section 30511(b) of the Public Resources Code provides for the separate processing of land use plans and implementing ordinances and actions; and WHEREAS, Section 00034 of the local coastal program regulations identifies the Irvine Coast as a pilot project eligible for special provisions; and WHEREAS, the County of Orange has held numerous public meetings and hearings for purposes of obtaining public comment on the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program; and WHEREAS, the Irvine Coast LCP is intended for only the preparation of the land use plan phase; and WHEREAS, the draft environmental impact report was distributed for public circulation in April, 1976 and after seven Planning Commission public hearings was recommended for approval; and WHEREAS, this Board has previously certified Environmental Impact Report No. 134, as it was originally prepared for land use and circulation amendments to the Orange County General Plan in the Irvine Coastal area; and WHEREAS, the final Environmental Impact Report 134 was distributed to the Planning Commission on March 6, 1978 for consideration in action on the Local Coastal Program.for the Irvine Coastal area. In addition to the draft, Final EIR 134 contains the following information: 1. Minutes from Planning Commission hearings on the general plan amendment and environmental impact report; 2. Resolutions from the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission adopting the amendment and EIR 134; ' 3. Environmental Management Agency'staff reports; 4. Responses and comments received from over twenty interested agencies and individuals during the draft review period; 5. Supplemental reports on air quality and cost revenue; and WHEREAS, this Board has considered staff reports, Planning Commission recommendations, and expressions of opinion from the general public with respect to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 134 for the Irvine Coast. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that previously certified County Final EIR 134 adequately addresses the environmental effects of the Land Use Plan Phase of the Local Coastal Program for the Irvine Coast, contains all feasibl:: mitigation measures and has been considered in the Board of Supervisor's action. The following elements are added to the Final EIR for this project: 1. The Environmental Management Agency Report on the Project; 2. Minutes of the Planning Commission public hearings on this matter. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, as identified in Final EIR 134, measures to mitigate impacts of the project on public safety, water, and air quality, noise, public services, energy, and land use have been adopted as County policy; and that as expressed in public hearings on the EIR on April 20, May 25, June 1, June 21, July 26, August 3, and August 18, 1976, and March 6, March 27, and April 10, 1978, specific economic, recreational and other land use needs make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives for impacts on landform modification, biological resources, cultural scientific resources, housing, traffic and open space/visual amenities. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board hereby requests the Coastal Commission approve the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program for the Unincorporated Orange County Coastal Zone consisting of Planning Unit II. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director, Environmental Management Agency is hereby authorized and empowered to execute on behalf of the County of Orange all necessary applications, agreements and amendments thereto to implement and carry out the purposes specified in this resolution. 2. f r \ ELEPHO (�s J l AREAA C/ Box © 1 1 RP'1� 4.71E 400 1C` E 1 �ti)_ WEST gtiOE\gym\tY '� 5 Os�`mp�en� [t PLANNING COMMISSION JUN 2 8 1978 PA The Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Orange SUBJECT: Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program SYNOPSIS: The Planning Commission has held public hearings on the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program and recommends Board approval of same. Gentlemen: On January 24, 1978, your Honorable Board approved a division of the county's coastal zone into separate planning units (Irvine Coast is Planning Unit II). The Environmental Management Agency subsequently distributed copies of the Irvine Coast Land Use Plan and Issue Identification Document to interested persons and affected agencies for review and comment. The draft LCP has been the subject of three Planning Commission public hearings/study sessions (March 6, March 27, April 10, 1978). The LCP document, dated March 1978, represents the Planning Commission's recommendation for the Irvine Coast Land Use Plan phase of the county's Local Coastal Program. The Planning Commission public hearings featured a discussion of the draft LCP document with the main points of the discussion addressed to the Issue Identification report, the Land Use Plan report, and the breakdown of issues and policies into state-wide, regional, and local significance: IRVINE COAST LCP As noted in the table of contents, the LCP document dated March, 1978 is divided into five separate reports. 1. Request for Separate Area Designation (Segmentation) on January 24, 1978, your Honorable Board approved a division of the county's coastal zone into four separate planning units (Irvine Coast is planning unit II). The State Coastal Commission on May 16, 1978 partially responded to the County's requestfor segmentation by approving the Irvine Coast as a separate planning unit. The Honorable Board • -2- of Supervisors * 0 " 2. Issue Identification The county staff has included an identification of coastal issues for public and agency review as required by Section 00022 (b) of the Local Coastal Program Regulations. The most significant aspect of this report is the breakdown of issues into state-wide, regional, and local significance which will provide a distinction between the jurisdictional responsibilities of various levels of government. 3. Alternative Methodology The existing Irvine Coast general plan and policy supplement is being submitted to the Coastal Commission for certification as the land use plan portion of the local coastal program. Section 00040.5 of the Local Coastal Program Regu- lations requires the statement of planning methodology utilized in preparing the general plan amendment be included as part of the local coastal program. 4. Land Use Plan with applicable maps comprise the "heart" of coastal program or the portion to be certified by the coastal commission. Again, the most important aspects of this report are the policy content and the breakdown of policies into state-wide, regional, and local significance which will provide a distinction between the jurisdictional responsibilities of various levels of government. 5. Data Sufficiency This section provides an overview of the environmental impact report (EIR) documentation. The Final Environmental Impact Report No. 134 (Irvine Coast General Plan Amendment 76-3), which was certified as complete by your Honorable Board on August 18, 1976, was updated to include all public and agency comments received in conjunction with the amendment public hearings. ISSUE OF STATE-WIDE SIGNIFICANCE A number of concerns were raised at previous Planning Commission public hearings regarding the status of the E1 Morro Mobile Home Park. The discussion that followe would further point out the need to identify the level of jurisdictional responsi- bility for carrying out the intent of the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program. Although the issues raised by the E1 Morro mobile home residents are important and have been addressed in the county's local coastal program, they concern an acquisi- tion program initiated by the State Parks and Recreation Department. The county has provided a forum for these comments and has incorporated them into the draft LCP for the Irvine Coast. However, the issue of state purchase of portions of the Irvine Coast for park land purposes is clearly the responsibility of the State of California and is being addressed in this manner within the local coastal program. PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE IRVINE COAST LCP The State and Regional Coastal Commissions held public hearings on the draft Irvine Coast LCP for the purpose of providing a preliminary review of the content and format of the LCP document. The meetings were scheduled as follows: of Supervisors April 18: State Coastal Commission held a work study session on the Irvine Coast issue identification and land use plan; May 1: South Coast Regional Commission held a preliminary review Public Hearing on the Irvine Coast issue identification and land use plan; May 16: State Coastal Commission held a preliminary review Public Hearing on the Irvine Coast issue identification and land use plan and approved the request for segmentation of the Irvine Coast as a separate planning unit; and June 7: State Coastal Commission held a work study session on the Irvine Geist issue identification and land use plan to provide final comments to both Coastal commission and county staff. The main purpose of the preliminary review process was to acquaint the Coastal Commission with the issues involved with this project and to provide direction to the County as to whether the Irvine Coast Land Use Plan would require s:;ni- ficant modification or merely fine tuning. On this basic question, the p:-:iiminary review meetings of the regional and State Commission's failed to provide ary written, substantive, or well-defined comments. Thus, no formal summary of their remarks is being transmitted to the Board for consideration. CITIZEN AND AGENCY PARTICIPATION Consistent with Section 00050 of the LCP regulations all materials submitted to the county have been included in an appendix for your information. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA That previously certified Final Environmental Impact Report 134 applies to this project and is attached for Board's consideration and action. SUIMARY RECONDI NDATIONS 1. Receive public input; 2. Recertify Environmental Impact Report No. 134 as noted in the sample resolution dated June 28, 1978; 3. Approve the Irvine Coast LCP for purposes of adequately addressing the intent of the California Coastal Act for the land use plan phase of planning unit II; and 4. Authorize transmittal of the final draft Irvine Coast LCP document to the South Coast Regional Commission for certification. r William R. MacDoug"L e--C Man Orange County Plannipg-�Cibmmission GK:vg600a(l) Nunes X 5375 Respectfully submitted, H. G. Osborne, Director Environmental Management Agency Attachments: Sample Board Resolution Planning Commission Minutes Irvine Coast LCP Public Comments "�, :State of California, Edmund G. BrcfJr., Governor California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th floor San Francisco, California 94105 (415)543-8555 June 23, 1978 Mr. Richard Munsell Assistant Director, Advance Planning County of Orange Environmental Management Agency P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, Califo pia 92702 Dear NKn.-Munsell: RECEIVED \lily C4'u nunity Dev-topcac rit t, Dept. -t JU!_U 1978r� �.` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. ./ REC 6V D /V�_ ENVIRONMENTAL AAMCIEh1ENT AGENCY, JU N 2 b 1978 Your June 12th letter raises a number of issues which we would like to address in this letter and in the attached enclosures. The purpose of the "preliminary review" provided for in the Coastal,Commission's Local Coastal Program regulations is to provide an informal forum for reviewing planning proposals suggested by local governments in advance of formal submittals. The thrust of the preliminary review hearings is to try to identify any major concerns on the part of the public, government agencies or the Coastal Commissions. It is our view that the recently concluded hearings have in fact provided a focus for a number of important issues. Your letter appears to focus on three areas of concerns: (1) the question of whether major modifications will be sought to the existing county general plan for the Irvine coastal area; (2) your rationale for dividing general plan policies into policies of "Statewide, Regional and Local Significance," and your proposal to limit your submission to the Coastal Commissions only to policies of "Statewide" significance' and (3) questions relating to a number of substantive matters, Including air quality, open space preservation, Sand Canyon Road, the Burke trans- portation study, and zoning for tourist commerical uses. We will respond to your concerns in that order. With regard to the question of major modifications to the county's Irvine area general plan, most of the Commission staff analysis was addressed to the existing plan and there was a clear recognition of the excellent past efforts of the county in improving on the original land use proposals of the Irvine Company. Because the purpose of the preliminary review is to focus on the plan as presented by the local government, only limited attention can be paid to major'Tand use alternatives. In the case of the Irvine plan, these alternatives are set forth on pp. 18-20 of the staff report of May 5, 1978. If the concerns expressed by the public, governmental agencies, the coastal commission staffs and the Coastal Commissions can be resolved, we would expect that the Irvine coastal plan could be compared favorably with the other major land use alternatives as a well designed major development alternative for the reasons cited on pp. 18-19 in our staff report of May 5, 1978. However, as you are aware, the review of alternatives requirements of the Coastal Act and CEQA can only be made at the time of formal review and only in the context of weighing the alternatives in relationship to one another. Page 2 Richard Munsell • June 23, 1978 We believe that our concerns with the provisions of the existing plan are well documented and quite explicit. The Commission staff report of May 5, 1978 contains 10 pages of analysis of major land use concerns grouped both by subject matter and by geographic area; the issues reviewed closely parallel those cited in Mr. Bodovitz's letter of July 6, 1976. These concerns were focused and abbreviated even more in our'listing of key issues contained in our staff memo of May 15, 1978. At the May 16th and June 7th hearings, individual state commissioners stated issues of particular concern to each commissioner. Additionally, state and regional staff members have spent approximately six hours with your staff going over your proposed submittal line by line in reviewing both the substance of the plan's policy language and the questions of state versus regional and local significance. While your staff indicated that these review sessions involving extended discussions of policy language provided them with a firm basis for understanding our policy concerns, we are enclosing a marked -up version of the Irvine plan policies indicating specific language modifications to provide further assistance. Generally, Dick, I think the commission's discussion indicated that the issues yet to be resolved, while of major importance (e.g., resource area transfers, public access), would not radically alter basic concept of the plan: relatively intense development near the major employment centers, permanent preservation of habitat and potential recreation areas, the provision of major public and commercial recreation facilities. However, following a review of Commission comments, we would like to stress the need to resolve the key issues summarized in our May 15 memo. Moving on to the second area of concern expressed in your ltter, namely the grouping of policies into those of Statewide, Regional and Local significance: we find considerable difficulty with the rationale you have cited for the distinctions. You have stated that "those policies and issues that are deemed to be of statewide significance should be the sole responsibility of the State of California" and that "if it is of sufficient scale or importance to be of statewide significance, then the State should acquire it." We absolutely disagree with this approach to your task. Please abandon it. Under Public Resources Code Section 30513(e), a land use plan can be approved only if the Coastal Commission finds that a land use plan meets the requirements of, and is in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3" of the Coastal Act of 1976. The preface to Cahpter 3 (Public Resources Code Section 30200) states that "the policies of this chapter shall constitute the standards by which the adequacy of local coastal programs ... and the permissibility of proposed developments subject to the provisions of this division are determined." The Legislature has clearly mandated that review authority over coastal development is to be turned over to local government, but only after it has been determined by the Coastal Commission that the local plan "meets the requirements of, and is in conformity with" the policies of Chapter 3" of the Coastal Act. The very essence of the Coastal Act is that local government, not the State of California, are to assume the responsibility for managing and protection signi- ficant coastal resources. But the delegation of such authority and responsibility cannot take place if policies addressed to the protection and management of coastal resources are not included in the local coastal program certified by the coastal commissions. Page 3 Richard Munsell June 23, 1978 • u Moreover, we cannot statewide concern m so intended, it set Coastal Conservancy the Coastal Act of the San Francisco B Bay and the coast o but in both cases t regulatory rather t believe that the Legislature intended that any resource of ust be acquired in order to be managed. Where the Legislature up acquisition programs entrusted to agencies such as the or the State Department of Parks and Recreation. In contrast, 1976 is clearly a regulatory program comparable in intent to ay Conservation and Development Commission. Both San Francisco f the State of California are clearly of statewide significance; he Legislature has entrusted their protection primarily to han acquisition programs. Therefore, we would hope that you would submit the policies required to meet the standards set forth in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. In addition to the many hours our staff has spent reviewing the county's policy classifications with your staff, we are enclosing a marked -up version of your policy submittal with references to specific Coastal Act sections related to the individual policies. The final area of concern expressed in your letter dealt with a number of substantive issues. The following are our responses to each substantive area: 1. Air Quality The Coastal Commission is required by the Coastal Act to address and satisfy those concerns raised by the ARB concerning the air quality implications associated with such new development as that proposed in your draft land use plan. As the 5/10/78 letter from the ARB concerning the Irvine LCP states, "One of the rime directives of the Coastal Act is to ensure that new develo ment is conslstent wtt the requirements imposed by the. Air Resources Board ARB and the Southern California Tir Oua1 NU Management District SC�{OMD Chanter 3. Article 6. Section 30253 .' In any event, the concerns of the Al, related environmental documentation. planning The existence of the tentative and preliminary regional air quality modeling results referred to in the 6/12 letter in no way alters the importance of adequately quantifying and mitigating the potential air quality impacts associated with the Irvine Coast LCP. The ARB staff considers these modeling results to be very preliminary and tentative; they are not meant to serve as the basis or justification for individual land use decisions. Moreover, the modeling results referred to have no bearing on the Coastal Commission staff's observations on housing and road linkages, and these observations and suggestions'remain unchanged. As is stated in the 5/16/78 ARB memorandum, "The emmiss.ion factors for mobile sources used to calculate project emmissions needs to be updated. The January 1978 EPA factors are two to three times higher than those previously used." In addition, in order to satisfy ARB concerns, The supplemental air quality impact analysis needs to include an evaluation of mitigation measures which could reduce the air quality'impacts of the project. Cost of implementation, ease of implementation, and expected emissions reduction are three factors which need to be included." Accordingly it appears that a local area air quality impact analysis is needed to relate "the increase in VMT (and associated emissions) resulting from the project" to the impact on local air quality. In summary, the concerns of the ARB regarding air quality must be satisfied. While it is obviously important to coordinate the I Page 4 Richard Munsell • • June 23, 1978 Irvine Coast LCP with the pioneering effort to use modeling to project future region -wide air quality, the results of the initial phase of that modeling effort in no way obviates the need to analyze the specific air quality implications associated with the Irvine proposed Land Use Plan, and to address specific housing and transportation concerns expressed in the Commission's staff report. If substantial funding is necessary to complete the necessary work, we will work with you to attempt to seek funding through the ARB's A2MP process, or through other means. Implementation of Resource Area Transfer Program On June 8, 1977 our staff sent you a proposal for a phased dedication program, along with a preliminary response from the Irvine Company, and asked for your comments. To date we have not received any response from your agency. We have also not received any comment from you on our letter of April 27, 1978 to the Irvine Company dealing with the same issue. The only communication we have received from your office is a not -for -publication preliminary schedule of dedication areas. We need your formal response to the program described in the above -mentioned letters, in order to proceed with further work in this area. 3. Sand Canyon Road The rationale for our proposal to delete Sand Canyon is set forth on pp. 16-17 of our staff report of May 5, 1978 and in Jim Burke's transportation study referred to in your letter of June 12. We have discussed this issue at great length with your staff and would be prepared to meet further on this and other questions of the circulation system. 4. Status of the Burke Study Mr. Burke's study was relied upon by the State Coastal Commission in adopting final conditions dealing with the permit for the AWMA outfall. Mr. Burke was a consultant to the Commission and Sea Grant at the time of his study and we believe that Mr. Burke's study constitutes an important contribution to an understanding of the recreational access issues inherent in the development of the southern Orange County coastal area. We doubt that you wish us to summarize the study in a letter but, as we stated above, we would be prepared to meet with your transportation planners to discuss the circulation issues further. In particular you expressed surprise that our staff suggested a need for an analysis of the implications of building all or a portion of the San Juaquin Hills freeway or of not building it. However, not only have members of your staff indicated that the failure to build the freeway might necessitate a reduction of allowable population in the Irvine area of around 8,000 persons, but our staff report of May 5, 1978 pinpoints this concern on pp. 12-13 and p. 17 (note especially the second paragraph of the paragraph titled, "San Joaquin Hills Road and Freeway"). The minutes of the preliminary plan hearing also contain an explicit statement by Commissioner Wilson highlighting his own concerns over this issue. You might also consult the comments of the City of Newport Beach on this matter. Page 5 . • Richard Munsell June 23, 1978 5. Visitor Serving Facilities As you stated in your testimony on May 16, 1978, your staff and our staff have discussed policy standards for designating the kind, location and intensity of commercial recreation uses as required by Public Resources Code Section 30108.5. We have suggested that you consider policy language that would limit facilities seaward of Pacific Coast Highway to day -use facilities such as restaurants, water -oriented shops and other activities that would complement public and commercial recreational day use of the bluff and beach areas. Also, because the proposed tourist commercial area at the terminus of Culver Blvd. would be the only development located seaward of PCH (with the possible exception of the proposed extension of the Cameo Shores area), we have suggested that the plan policies should include criteria for view protection and also for assuring continuous public access along the bluffs in a manner that would connect what may be segments of a state park. We have suggested further that major parking facilities and overnight facilities be concentrated in the tourist commercial areas designated landward of PCH and that consideration be given to consolidating parking facilities of the state park and the private commercial ventures. Given the visual sensitivity of the tourist -commercial area proposed for Wishbone Hill, we have also suggested that special view protection policy standards be adopted for that area. We have further suggested that consideration be given to providing for a limited access road or other transportation system from the Wishbone tourist facilities to the proposed state park in More Canyon (see pl. 17 of our May 5, staff report). While we have not had an extensive opportunity to review the tourist -commercial guidelines enclosed in your June 12th letter, we do have some concern about the lack of definition for the amount of residential uses allowed in the tourist - commercial zone. It is possible that relocation housing for persons who might be displaced by state parks acquisition could be located in the tourist -commercial zone due to its proximity to the beach areas but, in light of the high density residential areas proposed adjacent to the tourist -commercial areas, we have considerable concern about adding significant residential uses to the tourist area without a careful analysis of potential traffic impacts and the potential for displacing facilities that may be needed to satify future recreational demand. We also note that the County's TR/C designation does not include camping. This is of concern, since many of the areas which are proposed for this designation would be suitable for much -needed tent camping and recreational vehicle use. We hope that the above responses are of assistance to you. Dick, I remain firmly committed to a cooperative approach in the preparation of the County's Local Coastal Program. We hope that these response are of assistance as you prepare to present the Irvine Coast segment to your Board of Supervisors. If you have further questions which should be resolved before they act, please call. It's in both of our interests to avoid surprises or major changes after " • , Page 6 • • Richard Munsell June 23, 1978 the Supervisors adopt a formal proposal. Th nk dr your cooperation. 4 �Si ce'rely,_OF MICHAEL L. FISCHER Executive Director fd enc. cc: Mel Carpenter cc: State Commissioners cc: Air Resources Board cc: Irvine Company 0 TY O F AN G E • ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION &11 NORTH &ROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA H. G. OSBORNE DIRECTOR RICHARD G. MUNSELL ASSISTANT OIRCCTOR ADVANCE PLANNING Mr. Michael Fisher Executive Director California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street San Francisco, California 94105 Dear Mr. Fisher: June 12, 1978 TELEPHONE 604.1543 AREA CODE 714 M A41eD ADDALlf P.O. sox 4044 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 02702 FILE We were particularly disappointed in the June 7th Coastal Commission meeting related to the County's Irvine Coast plan. The staff report did not respond to Chairman Lundborg's request of May 17th to report back as to whether the Irvine Coastal Plan would require significant modification or merely a fine tuning. On this basic question rests the direction of all our efforts. If the answer is major modification(s), then we need to stop quibbling and budget appropriate funds to do whatever work your staff feels is relevant. If minor changes or fine tuning is all that is required, then please mark up a copy of our draft report with the wording you want to see and we'll consider it. We were amazed to hear Bill Boyd indicate to the Commission that he had asked the County to prepare alternative studies to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Cor- ridor in the area of the Irvine Coast and the airport. We are aware of no such request. Our preliminary estimate for such an effort is $35-40,000. We will, however, initiate the study upon receipt of your proposed scope of work and com- mitment to funding. Mr. Boyd also indicated during the luncheon break that the County should initiate studies suggested in a recent ARB letter to your staff. We indicated that: 1. ARB may wish to reconsider their letter since the environmental assessment on growth forecast alternatives in the SCAG region indicates no significant difference in air quality between concentrated and dispersed population alternatives. 2. The Orange County Environmental Management Agency is the designated sub -regional air quality agency for Orange County. We are working on the Orange County por- tion of the AQMP and will provide the best state of the art information at the earliest appropriate time. Mr. Michael Fisher • 3. We asked ARB to perform similar studies two years ago and they informed us they were unable to do what they wanted us to do. We estimate $15-20,000 may be adequate to provide updated air quality data if required prior to the completion of our AQMP. 4. The air quality model used in the SCAG assessment is•the result of a joint effort by ARB, the Regional Air Quality Maintenance District, CalTrans and SCAG. The findings therefore represent the best state of the art available. Unfortunately for some, it does not bear out certain basic preconceived' assumptions about air quality. ' While we didn't discuss the implications on the 8th, it is apparent that the Coastal staff's position on housing and road linkages should be reevaluated wherever outdated air quality assumptions have been used. Several other points raised by Coastal staff following the May 17th meeting require clarification: 1. What steps do you propose between designating open space and implementation? A draft contract including all parties may be in order. Can you provide it? 2. What is the rationale for removal of the lower portion of Sand Canyon Road? If the removal is based on aesthetics, please identify transportation impacts. This suggestion seems to conflict with a desire to facilitate alternative forms of transportation. 3. What is the status of the Burke study? Is it an official document? What in your opinion does it say? 4. What specific conditions, restrictions and development guidelines do you feel appropriate for the control of visitor serving facilities '(enclosed are ex- amples of General Plan and zoning for our Tourist Recreation/Commercial (TRC) areas)? 5. Mr. Boyd continues to insist that most of the policies in the County's policy supplement are to be considered of statewide significance. It may be useful to reiterate the County's position on distinguishing levels of Jurisdictional responsibility which is the underlying reason for the breakdown of policies into Statewide, Regional and Local significance. A basic weakness in some LCP documents from other jurisdictions seem to stem from a lack of direction over what the appropriate agency responsibility is for managing coastal resources and uses. It would seem appropriate that the LCP be the vehicle for designating agency responsibilities particularly in an area of numerous interjurisdictional duties between federal, state, regional, and local governmental agencies. It is our position that those policies and issues that are deemed to be of state- wide significance should be the sole responsibility of the State of California and its various departments and offices for the management, liability, monitoring, and control of coastal resources. If, for example, the Coastal staff feels that the creation of a Watershed Protection Program to control erosion and sedimentation to & Mr. Michael Fisher •Kjellberg Commissioners is of statewide significance, then this function Should be controlled by the State Fish and Game Department and the State Water Quality Control Board. This level of jurisdictional responsibility should therefore be included in the LCP for future reference by other bodies of government. we repeat an earlier statement, "If it is of sufficient scale or importance to be of statewide significance, then the State should acquire it." If the item is related to statewide concerns but appropriately managed and regulated at the local level, we will take the responsibility. 44 Michael, we have consistently requested written responses to the issues listed above. We cannot respond to the vague generalities or broad scale questioning of basic tenets of the plan without explicit direction and supporting funding. We would appreciate a written response to the question of whether your staff is proposing significant plan modification(s) or a fine tuning exercise, and we request an annotated response to the other issues raised in this letter. Very truly y6urs, c Alfred C. Bell for Richard G. Munseli Assistant.Director Advance Planning RCM:pb Enclosure cc: Mel Carpenter i A j Greenville -Banning c I Channel T ° � 1 L 0 SEWAGE c Ate% DISPOSAL ti HUNTINGTON/ I` F I E L D BEACH l c 15 �'1>0� ' 100:t Acres Wildltie� Ir`` 4-Tlgatlon And P-eservai:an N \Y ,: A-aa \<i i�Tice Gate Existing', +. Least Tern�Qc Sanctuary ion c Scnto Anay�IT Ricer Mouth v� 4r N - I 10 1/4 1/2 ?MILE UNITED STATES DEPA0T4E4T OF THE INTE>• _3R .FISH AND WtLCLIFE SERVICE PROPOSED F1ITIGATION AND PRESERVATION AREAS SANTA ANA RIVER c+:S`N AND ORANGE C=.JNTY FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT - CORPS OF ENGINEERS ORANGE, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO CO CAiii=:ZRN1A DECEMBER 1975 PORTLAND, C==?ZGON PLATE = NEWPCRT—`, ;::.. BEACH LOCATION, MAP N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE MAYOR. (714) 640-2110 May 25, 1978 Mr. Michael L. Fischer Executive Director California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Dear Mr. Fischer: RE: Local Coastal Program for Irvine Coast During Orange County's review of the Land Use Element amendment for the Irvine Coast in 1976, the City of Newport Beach participated in public hearings and stated in correspondence the City's concerns with proposed development plans for this significant coastal area, of which approximately 4,000 acres adjoin Newport Beach and are within Newport Beach's sphere of influence. These concerns relate generally to three issues: 1) The intensity of development proposed for the Irvine Coast, including the number of dwellings, density, projected population and level of tourist -oriented commercial development. 2) Traffic impact on Newport Beach, particularly the impact of down - coast development on Coast Highway in Corona del Mar and San Joaquin Hills Road. 3) Environmental considerations; including preservation of scenic values and significant natural landforms. The same concerns expressed by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the County General Plan Amendment apply also to the proposed Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program. The City of Newport Beach at this time would like to reiterate for the benefit of the Coastal Commission its position on development plans. for the Irvine Coast in the following areas: 1) Density and Population: Residential development should be limited to the lowest level which will not cause adverse impacts on the City's street system. The City of Newport Beach is now completing work on a computerized traffic model which will assess the impact of the projected level of development in the Irvine Coastal area. The City will furnish the results of this study for the County's and the Coastal Commission's use during subsequent consideration of the Irvine Coast L.C.P. City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 Mr. Michael L. Fischer Page Two May 25, 1978 2) Commercial Intensity of Development: Commercial development -- particularly that of a regional or tourist -oriented nature -- should be limited to the lowest reasonable level taking into account the potential impact on the City's street system. The land area designated for tourist commercial in the proposed plan (176 acres) is considered excessive in terms of potential traffic impact on adjacent communities and in terms of the environmental holding capacity of this area. 3) Circulation and Phasing of Development: The heavy traffic impact of the projected level of development on Coast Highway is of great concern to Newport Beach. The City requests that any development occurring in this area be phased in strict compliance with the roadway improvement plan. The San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor is essential to relieving congestion on Coast Highway. Also the north -south arterial system connecting with the Corridor, including Culver Drive, needs to be of sufficient capacity and design so as to attract trips away from Coast Highway. The Fifth Avenue Corridor in Corona del Mar is not an alternative route available to relieve traffic on Coast Highway as a result of development in the downcoast area. 4) Fiscal Impact: The extent of roadway improvements and other infrastructure required to serve proposed development is expected to have a significant impact on local taxes. School facilities required will impose an additional tax burden. 5) Environmental Impacts: The level of development contemplated is expected to have a significant impact on the scenic value of the Irvine Coast area. The City requests strict adherence to grading and development standards designed to mitigate impacts on signifi- cant natural lan"dforms. 6) Public Acquisition: The City has gone on record supporting attempts to acquire all or a portion of the Irvine Coast for public open space and recreation use. The LCP for this area needs to be sensitive also to the potential traffic problems associated with intensive recreation use. In conclusion, the Local Coastal Program for the Irvine Coast needs to recognize the potential significant impact of the plan on coastal resources and on the City of Newport Beach, since the major portion of proposed development is located adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods in Newport Beach. 0 Mr. Michael L. Fischer Page Two May 25, 1978 The City appreciates the opportunity to comment on this important project. Respectfully, Paul Ryckoff, Mayor City of Newport Beach, California PR:jmb State of California, Edmund G. Broor., Governor California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th floor San Francisco, California 94105 (415)543-8555 May 19, 1978 Mayor Paul Ryckoff City of Newport Beach 3300 West Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mayor Ryckoff: Subject: Irvine Coast Local Coastal Plan Mayor City of Newport y, Beach As you may be aware, the State Coastal Commission held a Preliminary Review hearing on Orange County's proposed Irvine Coast Local Coastal Land Use Plan on May 16. At that time, the Commission expressed considerable concern re- garding the cumulative impacts of development proposed in the plan, and existing and proposed development in neighboring jurisdictions. Additionally, the Commission expressed interest in hearing the concerns of neighboring cities regarding potential impacts of the plan on those cities, whose future will undoubtedly be influenced by the plan. The City of Irvine did in fact express its concerns clearly at the hearing. It would be extremely helpful and enlightening for the Commission to be similarly informed of the concerns of your City-. Issues of significance related to the plan which might concern Newport Beach include potential transportation and traffic circulation impacts (e.g. on San Juaqui.n Hills Road, Pacific Coast Highway, MacArthur Blvd., etat), the impacts associated with providing new infrastructure (sewer, water, roads) to areas that are presently undeveloped and not currently served, and the implications of proposed major new commercial resort development for Newport Beach. Although the Public Hearing has been closed, the Commission will be continuing its discussion of the Irvine LOP at its northern California meeting on June 6. It would be most helpful and appreciated if your response indicating your concerns regarding the plan could be received prior to that date. Please feel free to contact me or Bob Joseph to discuss this important matter. I MIGHAEL L. FISCHER Executive Director Z4 C 0 DATE ! = J i-f — DATE TO: p M YOR p GEN. SERVICES p MAYOR ❑ GEN. SERVICES p COUNCIL p LIBRARY T ❑ LIBRARY ❑ COUNCIL ❑MANAGER ❑MARINE { • I � ' ANAGER p MARINE ❑ ADMIN. ASST. ❑ PARKS & REC. ❑ ADMIN. ASST. [I PERSONNEL ❑ ATTORNEY p PERSONNEL ❑ ATTORNEY ❑ CITY CLERK ❑ POLICE ; ❑ CITY CLERK. ❑ POLICE tffCOMM. DEV. ❑ la -10{�L�RKS ( ❑ COMM. DEV. ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ DATA PROC. R -AIA 1 I i ❑DATA PROC. .. ❑PURCHASING ❑ FINANCE l R IC�� ❑ TRAFFIC ❑ FIRES\/f�Lj��dJL•'ITFES 4y' ❑ FIRE ❑ UTILITIES FOR: ❑ ACTION & DISPOSITI_et� • •,yo v�G� FOR: ❑ACTION &DISPOSITION ❑ FILE \` G`���<• `; ❑ FILE ❑ INFORMATIO , s�� GP c �� �/ ❑INFORMATION ❑ REVIEW & COM ' 'E; ❑ REVIEW?, COMMENT ❑ RETURN aFT1 IRN., E r of N G E may" RECEIVED, Con ",nity \ T Devalopment Dept. MARS r 1978;B- C CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. J ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEW�Ny ADVANCE PLANNING DIVT51 811 NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA H. G. OSBORNE DIRECTOR RICHARD G. MUNSELL ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ADVANCE PLANNING TO: Interested Agencies and Citizen Groups SUBJECT: Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program aa.q/ TELEPHONE: 834.4843 AREA CODE 714 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4108 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 FILE In accordance with the requirements of the Coastal Act of 1976 the County of Orange is preparing a Local Coastal Program (LCP) for the unincorporated county coastline that includes the Irvine coastal property. The purpose of the I.CP is to bring local plans and regulations and the plar_s of all public agencies into conformity with state-wide policies. e attached draft ants effort of producing a certified local coastal program. As noted in the tabl of contents the document is divided into five separate reports each of which has a different significance to the Coastal Commission. Request for Separate Area Designation On January 24, 1978 the Board of Supervisors approved a division of the county's coastal zone into four separate planning units (Irvine coast is planning Unit II). This segmentation must be approved by the Coastal Commission. Issue Identification Because the Irvine coast is a "Pilot Project" as defined by the Coastal Commission, it is the county's priority LCP project. Consequently, the ErIA is not producing a work program for the area but nevertheless is required to submit an issue identification for,public and Coastal Commission review. The most important section of this report is the breakdown'of uses and issues into state, regional and local•signifi.cance. By suggesting this distinction of coastal issues, the EPtA is attempting to sort out inter- agency jurisdictions between various levels of government. This breakdown is not fixed and is subiect to change during the public participation Phase. The final action on issue identification by the Coastal Commission will be an approval of the issues with comments. (The issues will not be a part of the certified LCP) Alternative Methodology (Not included in general mailout) The purpose of this section is to clarify the type of input utilized in the preparation of the Irvine coast LCP. It is intended for review and . "To Interested Agencies and Citizen Groups Page 2 % A Irvine Coast Local C*tal Program comment by the Coastal Commission, but will not be "certified" as part of the LCP process. Land Use Plan This report represents the first phase of the LCP for the Irvine coast. The second phase, Zoning and Implementing Actions, will be submitted separately from the land use plan phase. The important sections of this report are: (1) the land use plan; (2) policies of the land use plan; (3) public access component; and (4) public participation. These sections will comprise (together with applicable maps) the "heart" of the LCP or the portion to be certified by the Coastal Commission. Again the distinc- tion between state regional and local policies needs to be clarified before __... __.._.__I ._v- n_.....-'--4-- Th. 'hran L-anrm of nnlln.ps 1s not fixed ect to Data Sufficiency This report essentially deals with Environmental Impact Report (EIR) documen-, tation. It is being updated by the Environmental Services Division and will accompany the-LCP as a resource document to be -approved for adequacy by the Coastal Commission. It is not possible'to mail copies of the Irvine Coast EIR due to the size and complexity of the document. If additional information is desired regarding environmental documentation, contact the County of Orange or the South Coast Regional Commission. ' The Environmental Management Agency requests your comments on the LCP (preferably written comments) for purposes of finalizing the draft document. In order to integrate comments into the final draft, please forward any input to Gene Kjellbe'. MIA staff will make three Planning Commission presentations in March and April concerning the preparation of the Irvine coast LCP. These meetings will be • public hearings with an emphasis on discussion of the issues and policies of MONDAY, MARCH 6 - 1:30 P.M, Planning Commission Hearing Room 400 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana MONDAY, MARCH 27 - 7:00 P.M. City of Irvine Council Chambers 17200 Jamboree Road, Irvine MONDAY, APRIL 10 _ 7_:00'_P.M. City of Irvine Council Chambers 17200 Jamboree Road, Irvine ' Subsequent hearings on the land use plan will be held before the South Coast Regional Commission and the State Coastal Commission. We look forward to your continuing participation in the local coastal program. Very truly yours, GK: ac �' Richard G. 'Munsel:r Assistant Director Advance Planning Attachment CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 631 *rd Street, San Francisco 94105 — (415) 390 9 S' RECEiVF Commonity 9 May 5 197g DevpeVt , � 197$ � TO: STATE COMMISSIOSIMTERESTED PERSONS MAYTyoG Act, io NER WP�PT FROM: E. JACK SCHOOP, CHIEF PLANNER SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF IRVINE COAST GENERAL PLAN/ISSUE COUNTY OF ORANGE Introduction .� The County of Orange has requested a Preliminary Review of their Isrline Coast General Plan by the Regional and State Commissions for guidance in meeting the requirements of the Coastal Act of 1976. In anticipation of the Review and due to the magnitude and complexity of the plan, a briefing was held at the State Commission meeting of April 18. The basic features of the plan and the regional context were explained at that time, but no public testimony was taken. The Regional Commission held a Preliminary Review on May 1 at which time public testi- mony (summarized below) was received and the Regional Commission commented (also summarized below). The State will hold a Preliminary Review and hearing May 16, 1978 at 9:00 a.m. at the Airport Marina Hotel in Los Angeles. This is not intended to be a repeat of the Regional Commission hearing. Persons wishing to testify should not address issues already presented at the Regional Commission as ammnarized on pp 2-4• Persons wishing to testify on this matter may appear at the hearing or may present their concerns to the Commission by letter. Copies of all correspondence will be provided to the Commission. SYNOPSIS The County of Orange has submitted a draft Local Coastal Plan for the Irvine Coastal Area for Preliminary Review. Regional and State Commission Staff prepared a Joint Staff Report highlighting major staff concerns with the plan as submitted (see Joint Staff Report pp. 10-13). The Regional Commission held a Preliminary Review and public hearing on May 1. Major points made by public testimony and by Regional Commissioners are summarized in this addendum to -the Joint Staff Report (pp.2•y). Orange County will highlight its concerns at this State Preliminary Review as it did at the Regional Review. The Irvine Company submitted a critique of the Joint Staff Report at the Regional Hearing (copies available). KEY ISSUES Major concerns with the plan are listed on p. Z of this addendum, and dis- cussed on pp. 10-13 of the Joint Staff Report. COMMISSION ACTION There is no requirement for Commission action at this time. The purpose of the Preliminary Review is to receive public testimony and to comment on and discuss the plan, thereby providing informal guidance to the County in order to facilitate the LOP process. Orange County's request for Preliminary Review of the Irvine Coast land Use Plan 1(i11 be conducted pursuant to. the Coastal Commission's ICP Regulations. Joint Staff Report (dated April 21,1978) was prepared by State and Regional Commission Staff as the basic staff summary for both the Regional and State Preliminary Reviews. The only change in the joint staff report which was mailed for the Regi- nal Preliminary Review is the addition of "Attachment 0 ", Pertinent Newspaper Clippings. This attachment is enclosed. Persons who did not receive a copy of the Joint Staff Report may request one from the Regional or State Commission offi- ces. The primary purpose:of this addendum to the Joint Staff Report is to convey to the State Commissioners the major comments that were made at the Regional Preliminary Review by the public and by the Regional Commissioners. This addendum will also summarize additional information generated as a result of questions by Commissioners at the Briefing and the Regional Preliminary Review. Summary of the Joint Staff Report The Joint Staff Report Summarizes the history of the Irvine Coastal area planning .effort, and of prior staff comments on proposals for the area. It establishes the regional context of the Irvine Coastal Area. The report describes the major features of the plan, and it also includes an Executive Summary which provides more detail concerning the plan. The Joint Staff report's "Summary of Major Concerns" explains major staff concerns with the plan as submitted (pages 10- 13). These include: Preservation of Habitat and Recreation Areas, Air Quality, Protection of Emerald and Moro Canyons, Transportation, Sand Canyon Road, Acquisi- tion Areas, Recreational Development, Los Trancos Canyon Acquisition, and Visual Impacts. The joint staff report also analyzes the plan by geographic and physical features, providing more detailed analysis of the major concerns listed above and suggesting additional areas of concern. Finally, the report examines major alternatives to the plan as submitted which must be considered in exaluating the ICP Land Use Plan (pp. 18-20). These include Maximum Development, Ranchettes plus Parks, Maintaining.. the Areain Agricultural Use Commercial Recreational Develop- ment of the Entire Area, and Public Park Purcbase of the Entire Area or a Significant Portion. Public and Regional Commission Comments Following are summaries of public, and Regional Commission comments. (Note: Orange County made a presentation and comments which will presumably be repeated at the State Commission hearing. Therefore, these comments are not summarized here. Additionally,. the Irvine Company submitted a written critique of the Joint Staff Report. This critique is being distributed to all Commissioners and copies wi11 be available at the State Commission meeting.) Public Comment: Summary of Manor Points 1. Plan Specificity: The plan is much too general. It lacks specificity and relies on general guidelines instead of specific policies. This will cause implementation problems. The plan should include site specific use designations. 2. Segmentation: There is no data establishing how the cumulative impacts of development in Orange County will be dealt with. 3. Acquisition: The plan as submitted ignores the alternative of total acquisi- tion for an urban park, which has a broad base of support in the county. 4. Natural Resources: The plan as proposed will result in the destruction of natural resources which would be protected by total acquisition for a park. Planning should be based on coastal resource values, and not rely on public acquisition for protection. 5. Levels of Significance: The breakdown of issues in the I,CP document into "Local", "Regional" and "Statewide" is erroneous and misleading., 6. Reserve Zones: The plan should not rely on the "Reserve Zones" to protect open space, since these areas could ultimately be developed. 7. Pilot Status/Precedents: The Coastal Act provides that a pilot area such as Irvine should serve — e as a useful model. The plan as proposed is, on the con- trary a dangerous precedent. It allows significant destruction of coastal resources without even providing low-cost housing to balance the destruction. S. Grading/Landform Alteration: The plan is in violation of the Coastal Act, as it provides for significant grading and destruction of the landform at Pelican Hill and Wishbone Hill. 9. History, Archeology, Paleontologyt These aspects of the site, which is rich in these resources, are virtually ignored by the plan. These resources should be mapped, analyzed and•:protected. 10. Low -Cost Housing: The plan gives inadequate and low -priority treatment to this issue. The mobile home park at E1 Moro Cove is low cost housing for some residents and should be maintained. Residents feel a high intensity commercial recreational development at Moro Cove would destroy the fragile environment there. 11. Public Sentiment: The County held hearings on the plan, and of the testimony received 10 io was against this plan. 12. EIR: The EIR that was submitted is outdated and incomplete. 13. Joint Staff Report: Both positive and negative comments were received con- earning the Staff report. The County and the Irvine Company felt that the report was not specific enough and lacked technical data. Staff Reaction to Public Comments: Staff feels that the majority of comments were supportive of staff positions expressed in the joint staff report. Excep- tions are:, 1. Staff feels that maximum public access as required by the Coastal Act may not be realized by maintaining the Moro Cove trailer park. Low cost housing needs of specific residents may be met through relocation. 2. Regarding specificity and technical data in the Joint Staff Report: The plan as submitted is extremely general and non-specific; staff analysis was of necessity limited by the general nature of the plan. The purpose of the informal Preliminary Review is not to generate new studies and voluminous data but is to provide general direction and establish major concerns regarding the plan. :S�4 Technical data substantiating staff observations are available in the commission offices and will be provided or referenced in subsequent staff meetings with the Orange County staff as the work on the plan continues. Summary of Maior Points Raised by the Regional Commission 1. The EIR submitted was apparently approved by the county, but seems to be significantly deficient in public input. 2. SCAG has written a letter to Orange County stating that the extension of Sand Canyon Road would be detrimental and undesirable in the context of regional trans- portation planning. SCAG also stated the need to include in the plan specific enforcement techniques for purposes of ensuing maintenance of open space. SCAG supportsHCDts suggestion that the county explore other than the standard programs for providing low-cost housing in the Irvine coastal area. 3. The plan should much more specifically approach the issue of providing adequate supporting roads and utilities,to accommodate proposed development. 4• The proposed residential development on the ridge between Emerald and Moro canyons is an inconsistent and intruding use. 5. The proposed land use plan is much too general and more specificity is needed. The latitude in intensity and nature of uses provided by the present plan is unacceptable. New Information Regarding Water Treatment Facilities Since the Joint Staff Report was written, additional information has been gathered concerning wastewater treatment facilities to serve the Irvine Coastal Area pro- posed development. The Irvine Ranch Water District has called for a special elec- tion June 19, to form and revise water and sewer improvement districts and authorize bond issues totaling $1 billion. Four of the proposed districts appear to be located in the undeveloped Irvine Coastal Area. There is concern that the proposal has not been given adequate environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and the plan for these public works has not been reviewed by the Coastal Commission. The proposal could result in significant growth inducing impacts. It would result in costly capital improvements which would be funded by public dollars, and would raise significantly the assessed value of land which may later be publicly acquired. Past Commission actions on the Aliso Water Management Agency (AWMA) projects (AWMA encompasses the 4 proposed Irvine Coastal Area districts) established that without constriction of roads to serve traffic generated by development accommo- dated by the additional treatment capacity, coastal access would be severely impaired. The Commission would have the opportunity to consider these issues as they relate to Coastal Act policies if the project undergoes evironmental review pursuant to CEQA. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 27, 1978 TO: City Council and Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Coastal Commission review of County Local Coastal Program (LCP) for Irvine Coastal Area. Staff attended the April 18, 1978 State Coastal Commission briefing on the LCP Land Use Plan for the Irvine Coastal Area. Attached is a copy of the report that was distributed to the State Coastal Commission for that meeting. On May 1, 1978 a preliminary review of the plan will be conducted by the South Coast Regional Commission, to be held in the Huntington Beach Council Chambers. Staff will be in attendance. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. Hogan, Director Robert P. Lenard Senior Planner RPL:jmb Attachment: 1) Report distributed to the State Coastal Commission. 0 &LIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSI00 631 Howard Str at, San Francisco 94105 — (415) 391.6800 , April 5, 1978 • Y • I t •: JI' It • I • Y�I'1', Ymlt ' �1' al FROM: - E. JACK SCHOCP, CHIEF' PLANNER -•1 : : al: !!: • 1 • a'"1 Y a: al' :I' N:N' • al " � • • HJI I;H` Orange County has asked the Commission to undertake an informal Prelimin- ary Review of the draft Irvine Coast LCP Issue Identification/Land Use Plan, as provided for by Section 0061 of the LOP Regulations. Due to the complexity, significance and large physical scale involved, staff believes it would be useful to schedule this briefing on the Irvine Coast Plan prior.to the Regional and State Commission Preliminary Review hearings. The schedule for.the briefing session and the two Preliminary Reviews is: APRIL.18, 1978: Briefing before State Commission, Los Angeles. MAY 1, 1978:. Preliminary,review by the South Coast Regional Commission, Huntington Beach. MAY 16, 1978: Preliminary review by the State Commission, Los Angeles. ' The Regional Commission and all interested parties have been advised of and invited to attend today's initial briefing as an opportunity to become familiar with this complex LCP. The purpose of this briefing is not to elicit comments from Commissioners or the public concerning the Irvine Coast LCP, but rather to identify major elements and features of the Plan, and to set it in a regional planning context. Ample opportunity for a more detailed examination of the Plan, raising questions of policy and substance, discussion by the Commission, and public testimony will be provided at the time of the Commission's Preliminary Review hearing on May 16. The briefing will consist of a presentation by the County of the Land Use Plan, and a discussion by staff of the regional context and major features of the Plan, to be followed by any questions by the Commission concerning further information on specific provisions and features of the Plan, including the LOP process as it pertains to the Irvine Coast. STAFF NOTE: , The following informational report is intended to summarize three aspects of the Plan that is before the Commission for preliminary review. In the first 0 2 0 section of the staff report, staff has attempted to place the Irvine property in a regional perspective so that the 109000 acres can be placed in a regional planning context. The staff report draws heavily on the Irvine general plan EIR for an identification of regional concerns in such areas as 'recreational use, transportation access and air quality. The second section of the staff report presents a summary of the County general plan for the Irvine coastal area, derived primarily from County planning materials. The final section of the staff report summarizes a set of comments that were transmitted by the Commission's staff to Orange County during the County's review of the Irvine general plan amendment in 1976. The primary purpose of this report is to present a summary of the major features of the Irvine plan and past staff analysis of the County's general plan proposals. Since this report is directed toward a synopsis of the plan, a more complete presentation of staff concerns will be set forth in a second staff report to be presented prior to the South Coast hearing scheduled for May 1, 1978. This subsequent staff report will present those issues that the staff believes warrant close commission scrutiny during the preliminary review hearings at South Coast on May 1, 1978 and at the State Commission hearing on May 15, 1978• I REGIONAL CCNTEXT (See Attachment D "Regional -Location MaU'") The Southern California region is composed of over 3.1 012111on people, greater than 38,100 square miles, and consists of seven counties. Orange County, specifically the Irvine Coastal Area, is within one -hour drive of the six counties and majority of populus. The Orange County Coastal. Zone extends over 23 miles and contains about 34 square miles of land. The Irvine Coastal Area is located in southwestern Orange County, Calif— ornia. It is part of the.Irvine Ranch and is in an unincorporated area of the county. It is bounded on the north by the City of Newport Beach, on the south by the City of Laguna Beach, on the west by the Pacific Ocean and on the east by unincorporated and undeveloped lands of the Irvine Ranch. The City of Newport Beach is a major residential, commercial business, and recreation center. The Orange County Airport is located at the northwestern edge of the City. Land uses immediately adjacent to the Irvine Coast are pri— marily low density residential or open space. The City of Irvine is located to the north, inland from the San Joaquin Hills Ridge. Within it are residential villages, a University of California campus, industrial areas adjacent to Orange County Airport, and the East Irvine Industrial Complex next to the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station. The City of Laguna Beach is primarily a residential community with tourist commercial development along Pacific Coast Highway and Laguna Canyon Road. The major impetus to urbanization of Orange County began in the 1950's with completion of the Santa Ana Freeway. The subsequent pattern of urban develop- ment has been heavily influenced by the location of major highways and free- ways. Urbanized areas are currently concentrated in the northwestern and coastal sections of the county. Since 19501more than 2/3 of the agricultural land in Orange County has been converted to other uses. Most of the remaining acreage is found in south eastern Orange County. Industrial areas in the county are clustered primarily in the Anaheim- F,Uerton and Santa Ana -Irvine area. Major retail shopping centers are scatter- ed throughout the urbanized portions of the county. The Newport Beach -Irvine area and the Santa Ana -Anaheim area are major business/administrative centers in the county. RECREATION The primary recreational areas in the Newport -Irvine -Laguna region consist of the beaches and recreational commercial developments of Newport Beach and Laguna Beach, the 345-acre University Regional Park in Irvine, and various local park facilities. Orange County has a relatively low ratio of recreational open space to population. SCAG, State and National Park planning agencies recommend varying standards for parks, starting at 15 acres or more of regional parks and 10 to 15 acres of local parks per thousand population. Orange County's proposed standard is 15 acres of regional parks and 4 acres of local parks per 11000 ation. However, Orange County currently has only 6 acres of regional parks this includes State beaches) and 1.6 acres of local parks per 11000 population. A recent Department of Interior Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Study (National Urban Recreation Study: _Los Angeles/Long Beach/Anaheim, Sept., 1977) identifies the Irvine Coast -Laguna Greenbelt as one of three areas in Southern California .worthy of consideration for public acquisition for open space use.• The County has undertaken an ongoing 18-month open space study which will re-evaluate and prioritize recreation and open space areas. The Laguna Greenbelt is an -open space and habitat protection system pro- posed to protect a crescent -shaped green belt area surrounding the City of Laguna. It includes approximately Wo of the eastern portion of the Irvine Ranch adjacent to the City of Laguna. It also extends through the Aliso Canyon and Wood Canyon in the Aliso Viejo area. The County's 1973 Aliso Creek Corridor study recommended preserving these 6anyon bottoms, with limited or no develop- ment along the related ridge lines. Therefore, potential exists for a co ntirk- uous linked open -space green belt, including Irvine Coastal Area open space and adjacent areas. The State Department of Parks and Recreation has an approved allocation of $22.5 million dollars designated for State acquisition of open space in the Irvine Coastal area. Currently, a plan for acquisition, including a list of potential sites, has been submitted to the Real Estate Services section, which is performing a detailed appraisal of subject properties, and formulating a relocation plan including estimates of relocation costs. Results of this work will be available in early Jvne. Parks and Recreation will then make a decis- ion regarding specific acquisitions, based on appraisal results and current zoning and planning. , REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT ISSUES The extent of existing and proposed development in the Newport -Irvine - Laguna region is illustrated in Attachment E, a map of "Existing and Proposed 0 4 Development". The areas proposed for future urban development include parts of Newport Beach, the Avco property (South Laguna) and the A lino Viejo property (south of Laguna Beach) with a population potential of approximately 378,E to 506,000 for the Sub -Regional Planning Area. TRANSPORTATION ACCESS A major regional development constraint in addition to degraded air quality is the capacity of the already impacted transportation system. As the draft Irvine Coast plan indicates, successful plan implementation is contingent upon development of a major expressway (San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor) and other roads through the presently undeveloped property. CALTRANS has thus far taken no position concerning a San Joaquin Hills corridor. CALTiRANS reports that levels of service on Highway 1 in the Newport Beach -Irvine Coast -Laguna Beach area generally average at Level D-E. Through the Irvine property itself, the traffic flow is generally better than this, flowing relatively freely ex- cept during peak recreational times. However, in Newport Beach and Laguna, traffic conditions can degenerate to Level F during peak times. CALTRANS long- range plans include a proposed widening of Pacific Coast Highway (Route 1) in Orange County from Huntington Beach through Dana Point. R QUALITY Air quality management responsibilities exist at local, state and -federal levels of government. Legislation enacted in 19147 authorized each county to form a local air pollution control district. In 1970, legislation was enacted which made it mandatory for each county to be within such a district. The Irvine Coastal Area is in the Southcoast Air Quality Management District. The entire County including the Irvine Area is characterized by severe air quality problems which constitute a major constraint to growth. Orange County is designated health impact -related ambient air Oxidant (smog), particulates and II. MAJOR FEATURES OF THE PLAN as a Non -Attainment Area in relation to the quality standards for: hydrocarbons, NO%, carbon monoxide. Attachment A, "Irvine Coast Land Use Plan: Executive Summary of Main Features" contains more detailed information. Both Attachment A and the fol- lowing represent the plan as presented by the County. They do not necessarily represent staff opinion of conclusions. �WD USE FEATURES Land use features are identified in map form in Attachment B, "Land Use Plan —Land Use Component". The plan emphasizes residential, commercial, re- sort, tourist accommodations, public recreational use and open space within the Coastal Zone. The majority of the total of approximately 11,600 mixed residential units in the coastal zone will be in "hilltowns" located on the upland plateaus and ridge areas near urban centers. Densities will range from 10-23 units per acre. Moderate income rental and other lower cost housing are planned as subsidies are made available through government assistance programs. 0 Very low density rural residential to medium density (5 vnits per acre) will be located in remaining rldge]ine areas consistent with environmental and terrain limitations. Virtually a11 residential uses are located in the north- ern one-third of the area. Total projected population within the Coastal Zone is 32e� Persons. Approximately two-thirds of the site is in some type of open space including "Conservation", 'Recreation and Other Open Space (latter could be developed ultimately). EN(RRONMENTAL FEATURES The plan includes an open space green belt system between Crystal Cave and the City of Laguna Beach, providing a system of interconnected wildlife habitat areas as well as recreational opportunity. TRANSPCRTATION FEATURES Transportation features are mapped in Attachment C, "Circulation Compo- nent". The transportation network is designed to encourage development of public transportation, with roadways designed to serve public vehicles. Regional access to outlying areas of the County and beyond is proposed to be provided by the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Coridor which would pro- vide a connection to the State freeway and expressway system. Subregional access will be provided by Pacific Coast Highway, San Joaquin Hills Road, Culver Drive and Sand Canyon Avenue, with the latter two roads' extended over the ridgeline from -the City of Irvine. USING. (See Attachment G "Urban Reserve Status") Phasing of development with adequate circulation and other service sys- tems is stressed in the plan. A "Reserve" area is set aside for conditional development, to occur when adequate services and/or access are provided. Some areas are designated "Reserve" pending decisions regarding parkland acquisition, and some pending re-examination.through subsequent General Plan Amendments to determine the extent of urban uses based on availability of urban services and facilities. I= HISTORY OF CCIumssION STAFF COMM ON PRCPOSALS FCR IRPINE COAST PLANNING The staff of the Coastal Commission has participated in the planning pro- cess for the Irvine Area and staff comments have been transmitted to Orange County on the various plan proposals. Initially, representatives of the Commission participated in the Irvine Company Multi -Agency Planning Program (TICMAP). The Irvine Company set up TICMAP in 1973 to allow interested parties to provide input into the planning process. The culmination of the TICMAP Study is the plan under consideration at this time., In 1976 the County issued a proposed General Plan for the TICMAP and an EIR. The State Coastal Commis- sion staff commented by letter on that proposed TICMAP General Plan and Draft EIR (see Attachment K, Letter of July 61 1976). The comments made at that time essentially represent and summarize past Commission staff posture regarding the Irvine Coastal Area. 0 6 Briefly, the Commission Staff indicated that a plan for the Irvine Coastal Area should: 1. Protect coastal resources, including coastal air quality and water quality. 2. Provide substantial and varied opportunities for the public to enjoy the recreational potential of both shoreline and canyons, and pro - provide visitor -serving accommodations in a variety of price ranges. 3. Concentrate residential and other development in the north and northwest parts of the TICMAP area, adjacent to existing development and employment centers, to keep development costs low, to allow retention of other parts of the property as open area, to reduce vehicle miles travelled, and help to protect air quality. 4• Protect the ability of -Pacific Coast Highway to provide public access to the coast by restricting arterial connections that would fur- ther impede traffic flow on Coast Highway, by providing public transit service for developed areas, and by providing inland access to serve new development in the TICMAP area so that residents don't have to rely on Coast Highway. 5. Require that development of the TICMAP area be carefully phased, so that at each stage of development, adequate public access and trans. portation improvements are provided. ' 6. Consistent with the above resource protection and public access goals, provide for substantial housing and commercial recreation oppor- tunities. The staff comments noted that no commitment was being made to specific levels of development. Staff comments focused on several major areas of con- cern, including concentration of development in the western third of the property in close proximity to major employment centers, the permanent pro- tection of open space and habitat areas �n the central and eastern portions of the property, the need for phasing development with public services, the need for directing recreational traffic to destination areas within the Irvine property rather than to other nearby cities, the need to minimize road system intrusions into recreational and habitat areas and the need to provide modexk.. ate cost family tourist accommodations. -More specifically, commission staff suggested that the concentration of development in the western portions of the property could be achieved by increases in density and site coverage if the resulting development pattern provided for permanent protection of the major open space and habitat areas in the central and eastern portions of the property. Staff commented that any significant amount of development should be phased with the provision of adequate transportation facilities. Staff noted that in light of the substantial funds proposed for park acquisition, "it is essential that the approved land use plan for the area provide both road capacity and transit service necessary for the public to reach with rela- 7 tive ease these coastal and canyon recreational areas." Staff comments were also directed toward a number of issues relating to the tremendous recreational potential of the Irvine coastal area. Staff suggested that "planning for adequate public access should focus on distri— buting trips within the TICMAP area, not on providing for through traffic to Laguna Beach or Newport Beach via Coast Highway". Accordingly, staff expres— sed concern with the extension of one of the two main roads, Sand Canyon Road, through part of a major habitat area and the proposed state park acquisition; staff suggested that this major road could provide substantial access without adverse environmental impacts if it were terminated in the hilltop area. With regard to the types of recreational use proposed for the commercial recrea- tion areas, staff commented that at least one of the two proposed resort areas make specific provision for moderate cost family tourist accommodations. In conclusion, Mr. Bodovitz observed that "the Irvine Coastal property and the Santa Monica Mountains represent the last opportunities to create major coastal recreational areas for the•10 million people of the Los Angeles Basin, areas comparable to the heavily used Golden Gate National Recreation Area in northern California". a Irvine Coastal Area - List of Attachments Attachment A: Irvine Coast Land Use Plan: Executive Summary of Main Features Attachment B: Land Use Plan Attachment C: Circulation Component ' Attachment D. Regional Location Map Attachment E: Existing and Proposed Surrounding Development Attacbpent F: Place Names Attachment G: Urban -Reserve Status Attachment H: Preservation Areas Attachment I: Significant Landform Features Attachment J: Proposed Acquisition Parcelp Attachment' K: Adopted Spheres of T^fluence- Attachment L: July 6, 1976 Letter from Executive Director Bodovitz to Director H.G. Osborne Attachment M: Irvine Coast Interpretive Guidelines Attachment A IR9INE COAST LAND USE PLAN: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF MAIN FEATURES Introduction This ;and Use Plan together with its related policies is being submitted according to the Local Coastal Program Regulations adopted in May of 1976. However, because the Irvine Coast has been designated as a pilot project and the existing land use plan is being submitted, sections of the regulations that will not be used in other parts of the County are being followed. The following is a brief outline of the proceduree being followed. Orange County is requesting the Coastal Commission to approve four separate plan— ning units in the County for the preparation and certifiction of Local Coastal Programs, the Irvine Coast is one of these areas. The Regulations allow this request to be submitted separate from and prior to any other documents required as part of a Local Coastal Program. A copy of this request is. available in the first section of the LCP document. An Issue Identification was prepared evaluating the consistency between the Coastal Act and the existing Land Use Plan. The Issue Identification was dis— tributed for public review and comment at the same time public notice was given on the availability of this Land Use Plan. A minimum of 75 days was allowed for public review of the Issue Identification and Land Use Plan before it was scheduled for transmittal to the Coastal Commission as the.County's Local Coastal Program for the Irvine Coast. Three public hearings before the County Planning Coimmi.ssion were utilized to obtain additional public comment on the planning issues and policies. Following completion of the public hearings on the Issue Identification and the Land Use Plan, the County Board of.Supervisors transmitted the existing Land Use Plan, together with testimony received, to the Coastal Commission for certification. The Board of Supervisors will reserve a final action on the certified plan pending the result,of any conditions or changes in the existing Land Use Plan, that may be imposed by the Coastal Commission. This final action will constitute an initial step in establiahing the Orange County Local Coastal Program. The Land Use.Plan for the Irvine Coast indludes the following six sections: 1. Land Use Plan Background Information 2. The Policies of the Land Use Plan 3. A Public Access Component 4. Public Participation 5. The applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 6. A general indication of the zoning and implementing actions that will be used to implement the Land Use Plan IRVINE COAST LAND USE PLAN BACKGROUND INFORMATION GENERAL INFOMMON Planning Hi.stox�r The Irvine Coast originally was part of the 33,000-acre South Irvine R.ench General Plan adopted by the County in 1964. In 19731 the County amended the Land Use Element to reflect anticipated development by 1953- In January 1974, The Irvine Company started "The Irvine Coastal Community Multi - Agency Planning Program (TICMAP)." Its puu+pose was to provide a forum for participation in the company's coastal planning activity by more than 20 interested organizations, among them state, federal and local government agencies and environ- mental groups. Under the TICMAP program, ten public meetings were held. During these, participants articulated a nunber of issues of concern to them. The concerns focused largely on transportation and open space needs, development of the ridge - lines, protection of the Laguna Greenbelt, access to the beach, annexst3:on, spheres of influence, and housing considerations. These issues and concerns were translated into six different scenarios, or land use concepts on possible future uses of the 10,000-acre property. The concepts embraced: lj total open space; 2) a self-sufficient community, 3) an estate com- munity; 4) two separate communities; 5) a balanced coastal community; and 6) a unique destination resort. Further refinement of the concepts by participants of TICMAP and The Irvine Company extracted certain key features from each individual land use concept. These were subaequently incorporated into a composite plan'for the site. This composite plan was submitted by The Irvine Company to the County of Orange in 1975• it was called the TICMAP plan. The County Environmental Management Agency during this same period developed four alternative land use and circulation proposals for all of southeast Orange County, including the Irvine Coast. The alternatives featured projected population build - cuts for the Irvine Coast ranging from 30,000 to 709000. Much of the information generated by the Southeast Orange County circulation study was used in the County+s evaluation of the TICMAP plan. After receiving the Irvine Companyls formal submittal, the County Environmental Management Agency staff developed four additional land use and circulation alterna- tives specifically for the Irvine Coast. These alternatives reflected many con- cerns expressed during public hearings. They also incorporated recent actions of the California Coastal Commission, including its published Coastal. Plan and pro- posed acquisition areas. In its critique of the TICMAP plan, the County found little disagreement with the "developable areas" described in the projectes Environmental Impact Report. The major differences between the plan submitted by the Irvine Company and the alternatives developed by the County was the extent of commitment to urban uses and the lands to be set aside for the public in the form of recreation and open uses. Based upon the Planning Commission's recommendation, the County staffs "Alternative No. 511 was adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on August 16, 1976. Both the Planning Commission's recommendation and the Board's final approval were unanimous. 2 • PbYsical Features of the Area The coastline portion of the Irvine Coast encompasses about 4 miles of beach between Cameo Shores and Abalone Point. Elevations range from sea level to 1,163 feet at Signal Peak, located about 3 miles inland on the ridge of the San Joaquin HIlls. This major ridge crest parallels the shoreline. Six major capyons and their intervening ridges connect the ridge crest and the ocean. The canyons are deeply incised with slopes in many areas greater than 2:1. Approximately, one-half of the 914.00-acre parcel adjacent to Newport Beach con- sists of relatively flat terrace areas and rounded ridge tops. Conversely, the half nearer to Laguna Beach is characterized by steeper slopes, narrow canyons, and more rugged terrain. The land throughout contains a variety of common wildlife, supported by four major kinds of vegetation habitats -riparian, oak woodland, coastal sage scrub, and grasslands. The coastal strip consists largely of alternately rocky shoreline and narrow sandy beaches with naturally eroding bluffs as a backdrop. Existing Uses Agriculture (grazing) and natural open space are the predominant existing land uses. The southeasterly two-thirds of the 'site (near Laguna Beach) is under con- tract as an agricultural preserve. This area includes two small clusters of residential development on leased land. One cluster is of short-term leased cottages -at Crystal Cove; the other is a trailer park at Moro Cove. Other existing land uses include an elementary school, a reservoir, horse stables, and -several utility sites and easements. Cattle grazing continues in the area as a maintenance practice. Due to'the rough terrain and limited grass areas, the existing oattle operation is a marginal use.. Surrounding Cities The City of, Newport Beach is a major residential, commercial business, and. recreation center. The Orange County Airport is located at the northwestern edge of the City. Land uses immediately adjacent to the Irvine Coast are primarily low density residential or open space. The City of Irvine is located to the north, inland from the San Joaquin Hills Ridge. Within it are residential villages, a University of California campus, industrial areas adjacent to Orange County.Airport, and the East Irvine Industrial Complex next.to the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station. The City of Laguna Beach is primarily a residential community with tourist commercial development along Pacific Coast Highway and Laguna Canyon Road. The Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission on September 87 1976, approved spheres of influence for the cities of Newport Beach and Laguna Beach which divide the area, almost equally, between these two cities. FEATURES OF THE PLAN Land Use Features Along the Coast,,the Plan emphasizes resort, tourist accommodations, and open space uses. Approximately 126 acres of tourist recreation commercial uses are proposed along the shoreline in the Crystal Cove area, with an additional 50 acres located on the frontal portion of Wishbone Hill. 3 0 • The higher density residential areas are located on the upland plateaus and ridge areas. These hi]ltown locations, close to the urban centers of Newport Beach and future transportation facilities, will contain densities from 10-23 units per acre. The majority of the Irvine Coast's residential units will be provided at these locations. These high density clusters will include moderate income rental housing, in addition to lower cost housing as subsidies are made available through government assistance programs. The remaining ridgeline areas will contain residential uses ranging from very low density rural residential at 1 unit per 10 acres, to medium density use at 5 units per acre, consistent with the limitations of terrain and sensitive environmental resources. Virtually all residential development is concentrated in the northern one-third of the area. The projected population for the Land Use Plan within the Coastal Zone is about 32,900 persons. Approximately two-thirds of the site is in some type of open space use. These open space uses include "Conservation" (very restrictive); "Recreation" (proposed parkland areas); and ItOther Open Sapcett (which could permit very limited development). Environmental Features An open space greenbelt system between Crystal Cove and the City of Laguna Beach is a major element of the plan. The system provides continuity to the recreation systems planned for Los Trancos and Moro Canyons. It would also link the other smaller canyon systems (Muddy and Emerald) that feature open space and conservation uses. In addition to providing a coastal recreation experience for the public, the plan minimizes urban uses along Pacific Cosst Highway. The open space/8reenbelt system also includes a system of interconnected wildlife habitat areas.. This system, consists of corridors connecting open space areas through urban areas and contains sufficient acreage of each native plant community to assure the maintenance of vegetation and associated wildlife. The plan includes an overlay map delineating a "Wildlife Habitat/Conaervation Area." This designation embraces the wildlife and vegetation areas, together with other resources, such as large trees, rock outcroppings, and land forms considered to be of environmental importance. The Habitat Area Plan overlays all open space areas of the General Plan to assure that even in recreation areas, wildlife pro- tection is given a high priority. Transportation Features The Irvine Coastal area's transportation system provides a network designed to encourage the development of public transportation. The roadways are designed and phased not only to serve private and public vehicles, but also to minimize their impacts on hillside terrain. Major regional access to distant parts of Orange County and beyond to Los Angeles and San Diego is provided by the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor which will provide a connection to the state freeway and expressway system. Subregional access to the Irvine Coast will be provided by such facilities as Pacific Coast Highway, San Joaquin Hills Road, Culver Drive, sad Sand Canyon Avenue. The latter two roads would be extended over the ridgeline from the City of Irvine. 9 •. • Phasing A major feature of the Irvine Coast Land Use Plan is the phasing of development with adequate circulation and other service systems. The line dividing "Urbane uses from the future "Reservell areas is the easterly boundary of Los Trancos Canyon along Signal Ridge,.Wishbone Hill, and Crystal Cove. The urban areas which lie north of this line, together with the potential parkland use.of Los Trancos Canyon, have a common requirement - the need for Culver Drive .to provide access for both local and regional (recreational) travel demands. The remaining portion of the site is retained in a "Reserve" designation for several reasons. The primary concern is the extent of urban uses proposed for Signal Ridge, Wishbone Hi111 No Name Ridge, and Moro Ridge and the proposed parkland acquisition proposals in this sector. These areas must be reexamined through subsequent General Plan Amendments before urban uses will be permitted. This reexamination will focus on the availability of urban services and facilities, in accordance with recently adopted County guidelines. i s T• M r a is • •• is The Irvine Coast Land Use Plan consists of several overlapping but independent General Plan documents. Future development must comply with each of these documents, or elements, as well as several County -wide ordinances and adopted County policies applicable only to the Irvine Coast. The General Plan The adopted General Plan consists of all nine elements as required by Stake Law. Zoning. and subsequent actions, by the County must be consistent with the policies in these elements. _ Irvine Coast Policy Suuol.ement In addition to the County -wide policies of the General Plaa, policies have been adopted exclusively for the Irvine Coast. These supplementary policies, were adopted to provide specific guidance beyond that provided by the General Plan policies. Because these policies duplicate many of the policies included in the General Plan, and are more precise in nature, these are the policies which serve as the "Heart" of the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program. in those areas where the supplementary policies did not provide as complete guidance as those of the General -Plan, the General Plan policies have been added to the Local.Coastal Program. Several of the supplementary policies refer to specific areas or resources on the site. For this reason the Board of Supervisors adopted three supplement maps which are designed to provide more detailed guidance on land use decisions as part of the Policy Supplement Package: 1) Wildlife Habitat (Conservation Areas); 2) Urban Reserve Designations; and 3) Significant Landform Features. Reserve Area Guidelines The Reserve Area Guidelines play a vital part in implementing the policies of the General Plan for phased growth. As an overlay of the Land Use Element, almost two-thirds of the Irvine Coast is designated as "R" Reserve. The removal of this 5 0 0 "R" designation, through a General Plan Amendment is required before urban uses can be developed. The adopted criteria and guidelines are discussed more com- pletely in the Implementing Actions section of the LCP. However, the nine criteria include such items as the adequacy of public services, planned and budgeted trans- portation facilities, opportunities for low and moderate income housing, air and water quality standards, and the mitigation of natural hazards. Site Plan Review This designation is utilized where urban uses have been adopted, but due to unique environmental, aesthetic, recreational, or conservation considerations, the normal General Plan land use designation is used and followed by the letter "S" (example: 1*4&-High Density Residential, site plan review). The site plan review designation is used where the intent is to: 1, Treat urban development as a use infringing into an area which has environ- mental, aesthetic, recreational open space or conservation value, particu- larly at a community or regional scale, but where the nature and extent of commitment to the preservation of'the area in open space remains to be established. 2. Emphasize primary concern for sensitive treatment to successfully accom- modate urban uses. 9. Clearly delineate open spade -urban use relationships through detailed plan review in order to carry out the General Plan intent. Land uses should be consistent with the ,open Space and Conservation Elements of the General Plan as well as the Land Use Element. It �s intended that approval of implementing zoning will be limited to considerationof only those regulations which require a site plan review or other specific plan or�precise plan approval. Under certain circumstances, such re- view may also include architectural considerations. In any event, there is no intention to reduce the overall density within a particular urban category by virtue of the "S" designation. M 0 n IRVINE COAST STATISTICAL SUMMARY URBAN (AREA"A") LAND USE CATEGORY RESIDENTIAL ACRES DWELLING UNITS POPULATION (1.2, 1.23) Low -Medium Density 569 1,698 6,623 (1.3, 1.31) Medium Density 392 1,961 5,393 (1.4) (1.41) High Density 132 1,434 4,632 (1.5) High Density 105 2,419 .4,596 Sub Total 1,198 7,512 21,244 OPEN SPACE (5.5) Rural Residential 74 7 27 (5.3) Recreation 873 (5.41) Conservation 216 (5.4) Other Open Space 185 (5.31) Tourist Recreation/Commercial 126 Sub Total 1 TOTAL • •2,672 7,519. 21,271 RESERVE (AREAS "B" AND "C") RESIDENTIAL ACRES DWELLING UNITS POPULATION (1.2, 1.23) Medium -Low Density 514 1,477 5,761 (1.4) High Density 50 608 1,964 (1.51) Heavy Density 88 2,013 3,825 Sub Total 652 4,098 11,550 OPEN SPACE " (5.5) Rural Residential 296 30 93 (5.3) Recreation 2,083 (5.41) Conservation 1,684 (5.4) Other Open Space 1,904 (5.31) Tourist Recreation/Commercial 76 Sub Total 6,043 TOTAL 6,695' 4,128 11,643 TOTAL FOR COASTAL ZONE 9,367 11,647 32,914 7 C3 i� C f t r MOP _1 ty. �. yt i'J(ih,^r FlY4� '. p "',;,� �xr '�;`� •t• 't r; ,` ;,.+\ ++�.�_ i'• ��1 �T%, i.� �.. ..�(rj•(s�Y:•• �, ""''c: t'�"1�-•t�?v 4 J, ,� F.w� / �•• � Y.�. ♦ / .. `-�``'.. /�'- -i �'•-• M..I•�/`�1 .. �.1y0,•r'�-�/?}`�'�' •�-rt:'�,/ �'�\'1 { IF^�`{''-�'' `_�. ~t~' "•� �'..�-i: 1 _ '_ii Y�'• ._'-'�F- •t :,>.•y'•'Y#"i1 ':'��Fd`Z at-�;.`x is •.-. �.,}��, rZ }.�?'�-i.• \• •-Vn-/ •' f� T - '� •F,r•>��•C \\ � � a.�. � � 1{.,I _•t' r.1 VT ;'l `tt F :. .. -,I+.X { f/Y ' • - •. rl t'.: \ .i "'���l,I�-y`� V�•!. :r >\ 1 '� r �. �_ •�`�: �\' :1.•��.. �.. .-t ,��. < ��:?. �C'-y�,�-1, L.: �'^. it•i -_y!�_+�F2:i-.i` '.� V�'i ,�¢�, �,t�t :ri �.{ �. �,+''•�o'..r.111�.=: -•'..!_: `_� i`." - '. Y�vr, ''y�'+x`.q.. I •� }`m�tila�'. +..� .'%�-:X: ��� c j ;t> -. �:. �t�.i '� •{ 'w.:•.:.'a �. w-.a +•ii} �`i• ' } t1'.. 'i... _ �.`° r� •fl(r i � lw,: 1 FS i�'- � 3 ' t'a r.� � - .' Ji •-'•, ,�,�f• r / �iL Y � j, '• .��V i.'.•�' .t b,!-� ..y, ... .. � ^•:ii•i. fj�,.� '' r i` 'w''a»C /.' i .F=:ly,�F .S.' Z�-•�'j�%"� F� (S. i,.t �"•:_ 2•`.�� ..1;. r`" a +t.! _ '.r.: :='-:�+='.y^"•' 4:: F• ` x .. •Y` • -. 4 '\���`' -'!:at r •>ll� rI ri.: .�'•i' f ': �'>'�j' ,.: J r - _;�3 .` ••.` - .a� '{. •- • 7 i t _ , i.t ..t T 1_ +V / :-r_';iU� � '�/r •a •.r ?{Y� •,l{�:• -' .yf :.r-r .•-c�-zj.:�i ,r.�l} .. �.. }- i'_-. •k'�i1t • r .Y�\1' \k(i�F1jb ..i ( r: t• ..j �. y+' .a:- --•-i .. ' - _ �\ ,jam i ���,`' 111 D 1 .q. '1 � - ,\•k +y, ` L.r"' •'.�'l� • �� a ' ...\ ,%��• 1:i:✓L•ret• . � T� i y ._ ' L/ - ',y` - /-. C 'y .' S l• - t 1 �, a..{ � : - c_ s�" � �}'+ lJ ,j+=>I. t a� . .J�: �a•�� Fs->'•.�• L.F. "IL''._ _ yig( i,.- j: �'�.-l�k. r.E:. .'t;+`t�a'" - _ •r +r,'Z�,'fY '1- �'• W liu -� �•1 n Adopted C7waj t W Systern =13M r, SECOND AKMM CORFIDOO IRVINE COASTAL AREA STUDY '�0N t�nvraemMwa� 'n" s.'r'�'n..'�o`:M+�7i.`�•vcvw • • 10 It• MH BONANDiNO Ca LOS ANQKUM CO. Newport Beach IRVINE COASTAL AREA oea ef�ach i C i Dana Point ' e 7-1 I0 10 20 miles Location Map IRVINE COASTAL AREA ORANGE COUNTY Ilivaeaios CO. SAN DIEGO CO. ATTACF3fi'FIT D H b n r5 + y 41 • •• ` T7hMA POIt.f(' I KV (NE 60M)TAt. AEA ® Irvine, CoaeUl Area Surround i nc� aKiI hV)j end rr0F?VfA Pevelcrmen-V exizt'uj arA What Ped6torwke-b ' 0 2 �milvs north jvvr--e4 Vb\worw► ** ' � .� � �o�ariTr'err�nrlaf'►on Corridor sx.�e: ►a-v►Ns ea.5rl4►.p�lArr+r�-�A. �cuv(, rite lrJ�rlG GoMi 1 U 0 I I R r& .4 NEWPORT REACH ' T M1 -1, P� r ir-..,' ij r! HPAC Place Names ca 05 Kr4M COASTAL AREA STUDY VIENW91KCAM" Urban - Reserve Status MNE COASTAL AREA STUDY lawwwwaxwIlaw Significant Landform Features rd DOMINANT IFFIONTILLIPPOOMONTORIES FM LAWWORMSOf:!&AJORVLWALPWMMBiCEVISRUE FROM ExISIMANopiK)pOSEoAnTERIALHWVSJMAJORDVJUNW3ELCUEM IRVINE COASTAL AREA STUDY M FOREGROUND PEIOMOWMWS a c� OR 4 Proposed Acquisition Parcels KMNE COASTAL AREA STUDY 1IENlvOXCOMFOW COl WPAQPMWflFG10 MPAHK EMU 6=9 PMK /lflM1 n0H FNHCHS CwugL CMASSMM PEWNTY mms {' \ `• \v�•- /gyp 4 �-Ji Qq � is ,. � ' I �`,` - � % ') : •� .i��.j tr`� '�.°`:-,' '•M.l�l'ly�� `>�r) lih� � -�`• ',�. - y pit ..;� _ \ ? Pn9 •:It, ??. I.�wiT>i,aa�ritI7!••r; - `i' t $ ,y- 4\0, ...i �a t } a' 1 � •�N 1� - "i+'. ..-"'. ` ►.. .!.r 2., ti;}. .� 11 -'•.+c • '� �� 1 z/:. �, 6 • 7� •5y+/'^�'�� -k..r ''i � 2y'Y••tCQ`)�N �'i�}�, ,'." j {�'(y��A�;���k�.�\ -j�•-��t� r•1:1 � • L .3,. �f:� .i - _ � � 1�, !•: 61 =�'k"' �����: „� 4 '_,'di�� �%� ��%� .S:;T• .a 1�� r� .. a-• S4� r - f � !<'l1 �\� _ . / �• n � F' ,-A�h w�, '7?i'.wt. .�`t,P 4) I `��1�i1Y�� _ '�-_r',:' — •��Nt n _"" /o' S � Ck' \ a, t �� rrrt-" ��� III�H'a �`'xi •; i � ' ' :-„' � 1 �i _ �-,ht- < Y.. `: ].�" j!� `� -•��� � �' / il'(7� il� ,�.,/ � r j• 1 a ,1�• l;:•a. , .y,, 8 •,. `�.yt;,tom �:-_ //^lv( .`_. i` .\,(t•L� t . . `. �; • R.�`` 0 1f ' •w 4 -% vkf�,., 1.` , C , .i }'k' - 1t-''. I t {�y' .'c i tit i:. II.-i._ Y � Z _ •. Qt'' _ % ��1 :i`':.. 1 )� I�Jy'yfi''� ';� �,.� .:�}��:}.:. �+`� iYt:.. `, f� 1?,k?:� - "�': 9 r'� .> - • d - •^ -� .' •�i� `` -t, [ H Adopted Spheres of influence l UNINE COASTAL AREA STUDY r•� �J�' +fir ri • STAB Of CAMMIA MMUND D. mow" 11. G"WW CAUFORNIA COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION COMMISSION Ise MM= bn W1 2,d PLOD! AAM h10C WA CAUPOMW 14102 M10ft (418) !S 1001 July 6, 1976 H. G. Osborne, Director Environmental Management Agency 831 North Broadway Santa Ana, CA. 92702 Dear Mr. Osborne: I am writing in response to your recent request for Coastal Commission review of the proposed TICMAP General Plan and draft EIR. Time has not a -lowed for formal review by either the South Coast Regional Commission or the State Coastal Commission, but our staffs have reviewed the documents in light of the Commissions' policies and the Coastal Plan. The comments that fol ow are thus those of staff, not Commission, but are based solely on the Commissions, Plan recommendations. . We are•pleas6d to have participated with the Irvine Company and many State -'and local agencies in the TICMAP plu ing that has taken place over the last few years. Everyone involved in that effort clearly recognized the importance of the Irrinecoastal property, and the benefits to be achieved by wise planning for it. Our initial question was whether the Irvine coastal lands could or should remain largely undeveloped, providing a substantial open area in a rapidly -urbanizing region. Whatever the merits of that alternative, we have been unable to detect any enthusiasm on the part of public agencies —Federal, State, or local —for purchase of the entire undeveloped coastal area. ,• Moreover, the TICMAP planning program has indicated that substantial development of the property can, if concentrated and wall planned, allow for retention of sizable open areas. And we are further concerned that a "no development' alternative, while leaving the Irvine lands open, could have the unintended effect of encouraging sprawling development into other parts of southeast Orange County. What then should a plan for the TICMAP area provide? We believe its goals should include the following) 1. Protect coastal resources, including coastal air quality and water quality. 2. Provide substantial and varied opportunities for the public to enjoy the recreational potential of both shoreline and canyons, and provide visitor-eerving accommodations in a variety of price ranges. _2_ • 0 3. Concentrate residential and other development in the north ,and northwest parts of the TICMAP area, adjacent to existing development and employment centers, to keep development costs low .,to allow retention of other parts of the property as open area, to reduce vehicle miles travelled, and help to protect air quality. 4. Protect the ability of Pacific Coast Highway to provide public access to the coast by restricting arterial connections that would further impede traffic flow on Coast Highway,by providing public transit service for developed areas, and by providing inland access to serve new development in the TICMAP area so that residents don't have to rely on Coast Highway. 5. Require that development of the TICMAP area be carefully phased, so that' at each stage of development, adequate public access and transportation improvements are provided. 6. Consistent with the above resource protection and public access goals, provide for substantial housing and commercial recreation opportunities. It may not be possible to design a plan that meets all of these objectives to the same degree, but we believe that Alternatives 4 and 5 as presented by your staff come the closest. Both of these alternatives are a substantial improvement over the land.use proposal contained in the draft EIR, particularly with regard to concentrating development in areas northwest of Trancos Canyon and preserving an integrated recreational landscape consisting of the coastal shelf, the Commission's proposed , public acquisition areas, and'the upland ridges and canyons southeast of Moro Canyon. If the TICMAP area is viewed in isolation, the resource protection character of Alternative 4 could be considered superior to Alternative 5 because of its greater commitment to open space, recreation, and preservation, and because of its lower development and population potential. From a regional perspective, however, Alternative 5 appears preferable because it provides for nearly as much resource protection and public recreation as Alternative 4, while at the same time providing for a considerably higher level of development that should help to mitigate continuing pressures to develop other coastal and inland areas in the southeast county farther removed from existing population and employment centers. Thus, we consider Alternative 5 to be the most promising of the alternatives being considered. As a variation of Alternative 50 your Commission may wish even to consider density increases, provided the density is matched by public facility improvements and further provided the intensification does not adversely affect public coastal access, coastal resources, or adjacent communities. Please understand, however, that these comments do not represent a staff commitment to specific levels of development. A determination of specific population and development levels must continue to reflect adequate protection of coastal resources and provisions for public access to the coast. 0 3— Our remaining comment that, despite its overall protect coastal resources recreation. s are directed to Alternative 5. We believe merits, additional work is needed to fuLlq and to insure adequate public access and 1. Circulation and Public Access. The Coastal Commissions and the State Department of Parks and Recreation have proposed purchase of portions of the Irvine coastal property that might cost in total as much as to,0001000. If the people of California are to invest this sum, it is essential that the approved land use plan for the area provide both road capacity and transit pervice necessary for the public to reach with relative ease these coastal and canyon recreational areas. Our review of both the County SEOCCS report and the Drachman Study (completed for the Irvine Company) indicates that neither traffic report dealt adequately with the character of recreational travel in the'TICMAP area, particularly weekend recreational travel. We are currently working with EMA staff, the Irvine Company, and the State Department of Transportation to supplement exd*ting aubregional recreational traffic data and we expect to complete this work soon. We cannot yet provide the comments we hope to be able to provide soon, but preliminari]y, we are concerned about these transportation aspects: a. TICMAP Area Recreational Travel Patterns. Recreational traffic entering the TICMAP area perpendicular to the coast probably will be bound for sites•within the plan area rather than other locations up.or down coast. Planning for adequate -public -access should focus on distrituting trips within the TICMAAP area, not on providing for through traffic to•Lagma Beach or Newport Beach via Coast Highway. This means that there are viable alternatives to linking either the San Joaquin Hills Road or Corridor to Coast Highway with major arterials. Public access planning should focus on directing a substantial share of the incoming recreational traffic to key upland recreation areas adjacent to the canyons. These upland areas would provide needed parking and be linked to coastal and other recreation sites within the TICMAP area by both shuttle service and trails, thus allowing inland visitor's a choice of access that does not rely on the use of Coast Highway.. b. San Joaquin Hills Corridor. At this time we seriously question the concept of a ridgetop transportation corridor extending from Corona del Mar to San Juan Capistrano. The corridor could encourage the continued sprawl of residential development into the southeast county and result in substantial adverse impacts on public access to the coast. We even question whether that portion of the corridor in the TICMAP is essential, since it appears to us that the /-lane extension of San Joaquin Hills Road to Culver Drive provides sufficient capacity. If the corridor is approved by the Planning Commission, however, we support the EKA staff recommendations to realign the corridor out of Laurel Canyon and limit initial construction to a 2—lane road. c. Extension of San Canyon Road to Coast HiAhwaY. We also question the proposed extension of this primary highway beyond Wishbone Hill to link with Coast Highway. Alternative 5 eliminates the high density residential and commercial formerly proposed to be located adjacent to Coast Highway near this intersection and, since this area is now designated for recreational use, there no longer appears to be a need to complete this costly and • —4— • 2A environmentally -damaging extension. Why not end San Canyon Road at Wishbone Hill? It would -still adequately serve the proposed resort./ destination complex, while avoiding the proposed public purchase area. The following factors cause us to urge further review of the proposed extension to•Coast Highway: (1) Coast Highway is already congested, and the addition of another intersection and more lateral traffic cannot be accommodated without widening Coast Highway to 6 lanes. (2) The State Department of -Transportation indicates that no money is available for Coast Highway except for needed -safety improvements; therefore, the Count v would have to pay for the widening of the highway as proposed in the EMA staff alternatives. (3) Extension of a primary arterial through the proposed acquisition area would substantially diminish the value of the parkland, both visually and functionally; given the high acquisition costs associated with this parcel, such a road extension could even jeopardize the proposed purchase of an area 'bat both EMA and our staff agree is the single most important acquisition proposal recommended by the Coastal Commission in the TICMAP area. (4) Adequate public access to the nouth of Moro Canyon, the terrace area, and Reef Point can be provided from Wishbone Hill via either tram or private cars with a much smaller and less obtrusive road designed strictly to serve such a•need. d. Adverse Impact of Culver Drive on Trancos Canyon. 'There is no question of the need for, or the capacity of, Culver Drive. We are concerned, however, with the potential impacts of the Culver Drive roadbed fill on the neck of Trancos Canyon and recommend that a more westerly alignment be considered. 2. Phasing of Transportation Improvements and development. One deficiency of the TICMAP draft MR was its failure to relate the incremental buildout of the TICMAP area to transportation improvements. According to Table 3 in the EIR (p.35), the first of the proposedinland access arterials was not scheduled for completion until development phase IIB. This meant that almost 5,000 dwelling units would be built before an inland access alternative to Coast Highway is available. In other words, more than 50,000 average daily trips would be forced onto the Coast Highway segment through Corona del Mar, already one of the most congested roadways in Southern California. Given this kind of potential impact, we can understand why the City of Newport Beach recommended limiting population and densities adjacent to its boundaries. We believe that with proper planning adverse impacts such as the above can be avoided. In response to these concerns, it is essential that an alternative inland road be provided early in the first phase of TICMAP development to relieve pressures on Coast Highway and to avoid the adverse traffic impacts on the City of Newport Beach. And the adopted land use plan should assure that at dny stage of buildout, new development is conditioned on the availability of road capacities sufficient to meet the needs of both the residential population and recreational travel. The Coastal Commission's recommendations for major public parkland acquisitions in the TICMAP area clearly were based on the assumption that there would be adequate public access to the purchase areas. It is doubtful that the Commission would continue to recommend the expenditure of public funds if development approved in the immediate vicinity of the parklands were to effectively preclude access by inland residents to the Irvine Coast. It follows that any land use plan for such an extensive development as that proposed for the TICMAP area should carefully relate the phasing of developmerrt7 to the provision of transportation services adequate to assure meaningful public access to the coast. 3« Imgact of Alternative 5 on coastal commissions• pcgw aZtilvn Recommendations. Alternative 5 reflects most of the Coastal Commissions' acquisition recommendations, but it does not include the Pelican Hill or Upper Moro Ridge sites. If these sites are not bought by the public, then we strongly believe that the areas designated for open space and conservation uses east of Moro should be permanently designated for recreational uses and transferred to public ownership prior to any develop- ment on Pelican Hill. Transfer of these lands would constitute a natural addition to existing public acquisition proposals and provide permanent protection for the area's open space and natural habitat values. The transfer would also complement the efforts of Laguna Greenbelt Incorporated and provide the final commitment to the preservation of a recreational landscape extending from Trancos Canyon to and including the Laguna Greenbelt. In view of the importance of such dedication (which, we believe, would be in accord with criteria of the State Department of Perks and Recreation), there could be consideration of relating the . ` dedication to density increases iti the•northwest portion of the TIdHAP area. In our opinion, however, any density increases in the northwest area should be preceded by the dedication of the area east of Moro Canyon. 4. The Need for Moderate Cost Family Tourist Accommodations. The location of the Irrina coastal property near many established tourist attractions, together with the continued growth in the Orange County tourist industry, indicate that there will be a growing demand for moderate -cost tourist and recreation facilities serving family needs. Because of its setting and land values, it is doubtful that the Crystal Cove resort recreation complex will provide a very large share of these needed accommodations. We recommend that the Wishbone Hill resort recreation complex be expanded to help meet the expected need for additional low -coat and moderata-cost accommodations. The strategic location of Wishbone Hill immediately adjacent to the terraces connecting Trancos and Moro Canyons, and close to Reef Point, Crystal Cove, and the mouth of Moro Canyon, provides the kind of immediate access to a variety of recreation attractions that would be an ideal family destination. We appreciate having been given the opportunity to comment on this extremely important planning matter. The Irvine Coastal property and the Santa Monica Mountains represent the last opportunities to create • major coastal recreational areas for the 10 million people of the Los Angeles Basin, areas comparable to the heavily —used Golden Gate National Recreation Area in northern California. We look forward to working with you further as the planning proceeds. cc: State Commissioners South Coast Regional Commission I ours very truly, JOSEPH E. BODOVITZ Executive Director 0 0 M ATTACHMENT M WINE COAST Hecausa this unndevleoped property of 10,000 acres and almost 3.5 miles of shoreline is in a single ownership, because it combines shoreline fron- taga with substantial upland acreage, and because it is in the reereation- deficient Los Angeles metropolitan area, the Irvine Coast presents an unparal- lelled apportuaity for development of many types, %ftUe insuring increased opportunities for a variety of public recreation and for open space , protection. overall_ Guidelines. New'development should be concentrated near already - developed areas and employment centers, to protect wildlife habitat and open apace and to reserve substantial areas for public recreatiea. Development and public facilities should be phased to protect long-term pubLc access to ' proposed shoreline and upland recreation areas. Development should include a substantial amount of low- and moderate -cost visitor facilities. Development Guidelines. 1. Concentrate Development. Private residential and commercial develop- ment should generally be landward of Coast highway an the ridges •north and west of Moro Canyon. a. Trances Canyon, the upper terraces and slopes below Wishbone F.i1l, -Moro Caryon, and the area east of Moro Ridge should, remain undeveloped for recreation and open space uses. b. Limited residential development should be allowed seaward of Coast Highway, adjacent to the existing Cameo Shores residential area. c. To minimize non -recreational travel on the already -congested Coast Highway, neighborhood and other general commercial developments serving residents of the area should be away from Coast Highway. d. Resort and visitor -serving facilities should be concentrated at the point of Wishbone Ridge and at Crystal Cove to mini.ae the need to use Coast Highway and to reserve the rest of the area seaward of Coast Highway for public recreation uses. ,• 2. Egg^eation 0pportvnities and Coen Soace. New development should in- clude the creation of as integrated open space system connecting the major can yons and ridges and linking upland areas to the shoreline. This system should provide substantial and varied opportunities for public use and enjoyment - a. The Moro Carqon, bluff top, and beach areas now authorized for acquisition by the State Department of Parks and Recreation, as well as the first -priority sites recommended by the Coastal Commission in 1976 should be reserved for recreational use except that development proposed for the Pelican Hill. and Moro Ridge sites that the prior Coastal Commission recommended for public acquisition and public - areas eastof More Canyon are made. o4e'd if substantial dedications of comparable •. dlife b. Ultimate buildcut should be based on a concluded agreement specifying a schedule and technique for transferring designated open space and recreation areas to appropriate public agencies. X w .: v` • c. Public recreation. should specifically include the development of major overnight facilities by public or private groups on the upper terraces landward of Coast Highway. Day -use activities should be varied and linked by an integrated trail system, which should also link the public areas with the shoreline and other visitor: -serving facilities. 3. c Circulation and Public Access. New development should include a circulation system emphasizing internal dispersal of incoming traffic rather than seeking to accommodate all through traffic using Coast Highway. a. The ability of Coast Highway to provide public access to the coast should be protected by restricting lateral arterial connections to Culver Drive. Approval of the proposed connection of Sand Caron Road to Coast Highway would require conclusive evidence that such a connection is necessary to provide adequate public access to shoreline and upland recrea- tion facilities. Other proposed lateral roads would be terminated before they intersect with Coast Highway. b. 'Improvements to Coast Highway should be limited to alterations needed to improve safety. The capacity of the highway should not be increased. c. Because of the potential adverse impacts of the proposed 6-lane San Joaquia Hills Corridor on coastal resources in the South Orange County Coast, extension of the road should be limited to a 2-lane road that termin- ates at the Laguna Freeway. ' cl. The proposed alignment of Culver Drive should' be. moved westward C_ at the neck of Trancos Caron to protect the carryon from the ,effects of con- $traction of the roadbed. e. Development and transportation improvements -should be phased to assure that Culver Drive and other needed inland arterial connections are completed in the first phases of development. This will be essential to avoid forcing the traffic generated by 4-51000 residential units onto the already - congested Coast Highway. A specific phasing plan should be required, to assure this and to assure that residential buildout will be related to ex- tended and improved bus service. 4. Need for Visitor Facilities.. The resort complexes proposed for Wishbone Hill and Crystal Cove should' include facilities and concessions priced to serve a full range of users. The Wishbone Hill site, because of its strategic central location adjacent to the terraces connecting Moro and Trancos caronsr is especially well suited to the development of such moderate -cost, family facilities. 0 0 M 9.1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SOUTH COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION s 666 E. OCEAN BOULEVARD, SUITE 3107 P.O. BOX 1450 LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90801 (213) 590-5071 (714) 846.0648 April 21, 1978 TO: COMMISSIONERS/INTERESTED PERSONS FROM: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF IRVINE COAST GENERAL PLAN/ISSUE IDENTIFICATION, COUNTY OF ORANGE The County of Orange has requested a Preliminary Review of their Irvine Coast General Plan by the Regional and State Commissions for guidance in meeting the requirements of the Coastal Act of 1976. The Regional Commission's Preliminary Review is scheduled for 3:00 p.m. at the May 1, 1978 meeting in Huntington Beach City Council Chambers, Huntington Beach, California. At that time a presentation will be made, public testimany will be taken and the Regional Commission will review and discuss the plan. Persons wishing to testify on this matter may appear at the hearing or may present their concerns to the Commission by letter on or before the hearing date. You may submit written comments of any length; oral testimony may be limited to five minutes for each speaker. TO: COMMISSIONERS/INTERESTED PERSONS FROM: REGIONAI/STATE STAFF SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF IRVINE COAST GENERAL PLAN/ISSUE IDENTIFICATION, COUNTY OF ORANGE INTRODUCTION The County of Orange has requested a Preliminary Review of their Irvine Coast General Plan by the Regional and State Commissions for guidance in meeting the requirements of the Coastal Act of 1976. The County intends to submit the document for formal re- view in July, 1978, as the Land Use Plan of their Local Coastal Program for the Irvine Coast area. The Regional Commission's Preliminary Review is scheduled for 3:00 p.m. at the May 19 1978 meeting in Huntington Beach. At that time a presentation will be made, public testimony will be taken and the Regional Commission will review and discuss the plan. Preliminary review by the State Commission is scheduled for May 16, 1978, at the Airport Marina Hotel in Los Angeles. Persons wishing to testify on this matter may appear at the hear- ings or may present their concerns to the Commissions by letter on or before the hearing dates. Copies of all correspondence will be provided to the Commissions. Written comments may be any length; oral testimony may be limited to five minutes for each speaker. Orange County's request for a Preliminary Review of the Irvine Coast General Plan will be conducted pursuant to the Coastal Commission's LCP Regulations.. The major portion of the staff sum- mary is directed toward a review of the existing plan as it relates to the Coastal Act of 1976. However, if Orange County formally submits the existing Irvine Coast General Plan as presently plan- ned, the Coastal Commission will be required, under the terms of CEQA and the Coastal Act of 1976, to conduct a complete reveiw of alternatives to the proposed plan. Therefore, this staff report includes a discussion of the identified major alternatives to the existing plan. In reviewing these alternatives, it will be necessary to carefully review the status of federal, state and county acquistion proposals, especially in light of renewed in- terest in federal funding for a major park acquistion of some or all of the areas proposed for development. Orange County undertook an extensive analysis of the various de- velopment plans presented by the Irvine Company when the Irvine General Plan Amendment was adopted in 1976. The following staff report considers the Irvine Coast General Plan as the major high intensity development alternative to be reviewed, analyzes the major components of the proposed plan,and delineates the major areas of concern under specific provisions of the Coastal Act. 1. Orange County has made an attempt in its Issue Identification for the Irvine Coast General Plan to separate issues "by level of importance relative the jurisdiction of state, regional and local authorities." In numerous cases the staff does not agree with the County's interpretation and approach in defining Coastal Act issues. For purposes of the Preliminary Review staff will consider the Irvine Coast General Plan as submitted, including all issues and policies regardless of the County's categoriza- tion. The staff report will suggest the major areas of concern under the Coastal Act and present possible measures which could be undertaken to address those concerns. The staff report contains the following sections: 1. Background and Summary of Previous Staff Comments on the General Plan; 2. Regional Context in which the Plan should be reviewed; 3. Summary of Major Plan Features; 4. Summary of Major Concerns; 5. Geographic Area Analysis of Major Concerns; and 6. Major Alternatives to the Plan as submitted. For purposes of public testimony and commission comment, staff suggests that primary emphasis be placed on the analysis of major concerns and the statement of concerns for each geographic area. Comments should also be addressed to the summary of major alternatives to the existing plan to assure that all possible alternatives have been clearly delineated. Since the purpose of the Preliminary Review is to provide a clear indication of potential concerns with aspects of an existing or proposed land use plan or ordinance, public and commission com- ments are encouraged. No formal vote will be taken by the commission on any matter as the Preliminary Review is intended to be informal. 2. 0 I. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF PRIOR STAFF COMMENTS The Irvine Coast General Plan Amendment, which Orange County intends to submit as the Land Use Plan of their Local Coastal Program for the area, was approved by the County Board of Sup— ervisors on August 1$, 1976. The Irvine coastal area has been the subject of land use planning studies on three occassions in the past. It was a part of the South Irvine Ranch Master Plan which was formally adopted by the County as an amendment to the General Plan in 1964. The 10,150 acre Irvine coastal area was included in a plan for extensive residential development of 33,000 acres with several large resort developments on the coastal shelf. The second Irvine coastal area study was conducted from 1963-73 by a group of Irvine Company consultants assembled to study the area and analyze the resources. The Irvine Company was prepared to propose an amendment to the Orange County General Plan in 1973 but reevaluated their position in light of the Coastal Zone Conservation Act (Proposition 20) and the "Friends of Mammoth" California Sumpreme Court decision which required local govern— ments to prepare EIRs for projects they approve. In December, 19739 the Irvine Company established a committee of representatives of local government, interested public agencies and environmental organizations to participate in a series of workshops to discuss all aspects of environmental data, physical design alternatives and proposed policies that would accompany their plans for develop-Ing the area. This study was called "The Irvine Coastal Community Multi —Agency Planning Program" (TICMAP). The Irvine Company reexamined the area in terms of its environ— mental resources and its potential for development by analyzing environmental studies, evaluating the "urban" and "open space" potentials of the site, and creating various plans that attempted to balance both development interests and environmental protect— ion. These proposals were submitted to TICMAP. With some mod— ifications by the County of Orange, Plan Alternative Five was the one adopted in 1976. The new Coastal Commission, as authorized by the Coastal Act of 1976, recognized the effort that went into the County's General Plan Amendment by designating the Irvine Coast as'a "Pilot Proj— ect," thereby allowing non —substantive deviations in the Local Coastal Program format. Orange County states there are "no sig— nificant conflicts between existing County plans and Coastal Act policies" and intends to submit the Irvine Coast General Plan in its present form to the Coastal Commission for certification. While the staff of the Coastal Commission participated in the TICMAP process it had concerns over the plans proposed by the Irvine Company and transmitted staff comments to Orange County on the various proposals. In 1976, when the County issued the proposed General Plan Amendment and the accompanying EIR for the, Irvine Coast, the State Coastal Commission commented by letter (see Attachment K, Letter from Joseph Bodovitz, July 6, 1976)• The comments made at that time essentially represbnt and summar— ize past Commission staff posture regarding the Irvine Coastal Area. 3. NOTE: The following is* excerpt from the aforemAk-oned letter: Briefly, the Commission staff indicated that a plan for the Ir- vine Coastal Area should: 111. Protect coastal resources, including coastal air quality and water quality. 2. Provide substantial and varied opportunities for the pub- lic to enjoy the recreational potential of both shoreline and canyons, and provide visitor -serving accomdations in a variety of price ranges. 3. Concentrate development in the north and northwest parts of the TICMAP area, adjacent to existing development and employment centers, to keep development costs low, to al- low retention of other parts of the property as open area, to reduce vehicle miles travelled, and help protect air quality. 4. Protect the ability of Pacific Coast Highway to provide public access to the coast by restricting arterial con- nections that would further impede traffic flow on Coast Highway, by providing public transit service for develop- ed areas, and by providing inland access to serve new de- velopment in the TICMAP area so that residents don't have to rely on Coast Highway. 5. Require that development of the TICMAP area be carefully phased, so that each stage of development, adequate public access and transportation improvements are provided. 6. Consistent with the above resource protection and public access goals, provide for substantial housing and commer- cial recreation opportunities." Staff noted that no committment was being made to "specific lev- els of development." There were several major areas of concern, including concentration of development only in the western third of the property close to major employment centers; permanent pro- tection of open space and habitat areas in the central and east- ern portions of the property; the need for phasing development with public services; the need for directing recreational traffic to destination areas within the Irvine property rather than to nearby cities; the need to minimize road system intrusions into recreational and habitat areas; and the need to provide moderate Cost family tourist accommodations. More specifically, commission staff suggested that the concentra- tion of development in the western portions of the property could be achieved by increases in density and site coverage if the re- sulting development pattern provided for permanent proFection of the major open space and habitat areas in the central and eastern portions of the property. Staff noted that any significant amount of development should be phased with the provision of adequate transportation facilities. In'light of the substantial funds 4. proposed for park acquisition, staff noted "it is essential that the approved land use plan for the area provide both road capacity and transit service necessary for the public to reach with relative ease these coastal and canyon recreational areas." Staff also directed comments toward issues relating to the tre- mendous recreational potential of the Irvine Coastal Area, sug- gesting that "planning for adequate public access should focus on distributing trips within the TICMAP area, not on.providing for through traffic to Laguna Beach or Newport Beach via Coast Highway." Accordingly, staff expressed concern with the exten- sion of Sand Canyon Road through a major habitat area and the proposed state park acquistion, suggesting that this major road could provide substantial access without adverse environmental impacts if it were terminated in the hilltop area. With regard to the types of recreational use proposed for the commercial rec- reation areas, staff commented that at least one of the two proposed resort areas should make specific provision for moderate cost family tourist accommodations. Mr. Bodovitz observed that "the Irvine Coastal property and the Santa Monica Mountains represent the last opportunities to create major coastal recreational areas for the 10 million people of the Los Angeles Basin, areas comparable to the heavily -used Golden Gate National Recreation Area in northern California." These past concerns have not been resolved and additional con- cerns have surfaced. II. REGIONAL CONTEXT (See Attachment D, "Regional Location Map" The following information is intended to place the Irvine prop- erty in a regional perspective so that the 10,000+ acres can be considered in a regional planning context. Staff is drawing heavily on the Irvine General Plan EIR for an identification of regional concerns in such areas as recreational use, transporta- tion access and air quality. The 38,000 square mile Southern California region is composed of seven counties with a population of over 11 million people. Orange County --specifically the Irvine Coastal Area --is within a one hour drive of the other six counties and most of the pop- ulus. The Orange County Coastal Zone extends over 23 miles and contains about 34 square miles of land. The Irvine Coastal Area itself extends approximately 3z miles along the coast. The Irvine Coastal Area is part of the Irvine Ranch and is lo- cated in an unincorporated area of southwestern Orange County. It is bounded on the north by the City of Newport Beach, on the south by the City of Laguna Beach, on the west by the Pacific Ocean, and on the east by the unincorporated, undeveloped lands of the Irvine Ranch. 5. Pi The City of Newport Beach is a major recreation center. The Orange County northwestern edge of the City. band to the Irvine Coast are primarily low open space. residential, business and Airport is located at the uses immediately adjacent density residential or The City of Irvine is located to the north, inland from the San Joaquin Hills ridge. Within it are residential villages, a major business/shopping center, a University of California campus, industrial areas adjacent to the airport, and the East Irvine Industrial Complex next to the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station. While the City of Laguna Beach is primarily a residential com- munity, it attracts many tourists because of its special quali- ties, impacting Pacific Coast Highway and Laguna Canyon Road, the only access roads to the area. The major impetus to urbanization of Orange County began in the 1950s with completion of the Santa Ana Freeway. The subsequent pattern of urban development has been heavily influenced by the location of major highways and freeways. Urbanized areas are currently concentrated in the northwestern and coastal sections of the county. Since 1950, more than 2/3 of the agricultural land in Orange County has been converted to other uses. Most of the remaining acreage is found in -southeastern Orange County. Industrial areas in the County are clustered primarily in the Anaheim/Fullerton and Santa Ana/Irvine areas. Major retail shopping centers are scattered throughout the urbanized portions of the County. The Newport Beach/Irvine area and the Santa Ana/ Anaheim area are the major business/administrative centers in the County. The Orange County Board of Supervisors has adopted Alternative #5 of the Southeast Orange County Circulation Study (SEOCCS) which combines land uses corresponding to a' -+target" popula- tion of 711,000 (SEOCCS Alternative #4) with a circulation network designed to serve a population of 917,000 (SEOCCS Alter- native #1). The SEOCCS study area, which corresponds to the southern half of Orange County, presently has a population of 192,000. Of these, 113,053 live in the coastal subregion; 47,520 within the coastal zone boundary. The SEOCCS study led to Orange County's development of their Master Plan for Arterial Highways, (MPAH). Based on the pro- jected populations in the SEOCCS' study, the County determined the necessity for the San Joaquin Hills 'Corridor, Culver Drive and Sand Canyon Road, among other proposed roads needed to serve the projected growth. 6. Recreation The primary recreational areas in the Newport/Irvine/Laguna region consist of the beaches and recreational commercial de- velopments in Newport Beach and Laguna Beach, the 345 acre University Regional Park in Irvine and various local park facil- ities. Orange County has an extremel .low ratio -of recreational open space to population. SOUG—a-H7 state and federal park plan- ning agencies recommend varying standards ..of, parks, starting at 15+ acres for regional parks and 10-15 acres .of local parks per thousand population. Orange County's proposed standard is 15 - acres .'of regional parks and 4 acres of • local parks per thous- and population. However, Orange County currently has only 6 acres of regional parks per thousand (this•iricludes State beaches) and 1.6 acres of local parks per thousand population. A recent Department of Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Study V V tI Vt/{{Nt+i, i/( ( � iLLV11V i�.iVLL Va.V i i aV VVµv V� L.\b we.µ as one of three areas in Southern California worthy of consider- ation for public acquisition for open space use.- The County has undertaken an ongoingl$ month open space study which will -re- evaluate and prioritize recreation and open space areas. The Laguna Greenbelt is a proposed open space and habitat pro- tection system to protect a crescent -shaped greenbelt area around the City of Laguna Beach. It includes approximately 50% of the eastern portion of the Irvine Ranch adjacent to the City of Laguna and extends through Aliso and Woods Canyons in the Aliso Viejo area. The County's 1973 Aliso Creek Corridor Study recommended preserving these canyon bottoms, with limited or no development along the adjacent ridgelines. The Aliso Viejo Com- pany -has recently proposed to retain all of the designated Green- belt area in their domain as permanent open space. The City of Laguna Beach has an option to purchase the Sycamore Hills section of the Greenbelt. Potential still exists for a contiguous link- ed open space Greenbelt, including the open space in the Irvine area. The State Department of Parks and Recreation has $22.5 million dollars designated for State acquisition of open space in the Irvine Coastal Area. Currently a plan for acquisition, includ- ing a list of potential sites, �ias been submitted to the Real Estate Services section, which is performing a detailed appraisal of subject properties and formulating a relocation plan, includ- ing estimates of relocation costs. Results of this work will be available in early June, 1978. Parks and Recreation will then make a decision regarding specific acquisitions, based on apprais- al results and current zoning and planning. There has been increased interest by the Federal government re- cently in parks that serve urban populations. As a result of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation study cited above, there may be legis- 7. lative support for a major park project managed by the state or the county. Regional Development Issues The extent of existing and proposed development in the NeUrport/ Irvine/Laguna region is illustrated in Attachment E, a map of "Existing and Proposed Development." The areas proposed for fu- ture urban development include parts of Newport Beach, the Avco property (South Laguna) and the Aliso Viejo property (South of Laguna Beach) with a population potential of approximately.'3759000 to 506,000 for the sub -regional planning area. Transportation Access 4 A major regional development constraint, in addition to degraded air quality, is the capacity of the already impacted transporta- tion system. As the draft Irvine Coastal Plan indicates, success- ful plan implementation is contingent upon development of a major expressway (San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor) and other major roads through the presently undeveloped property. Both the County and CALTR.ANS project that even when (if) the corridor is built, the estimated growth will take all the capacity of the corridor and Pacific Coast Highway. CALTR.ANS 'reports that levels of service'on Highway Lin the Newport Beach/.Irvine Coast/Laguna Beach area generally average at Level D-E. Through the Irvine property itself, the traffic flow is generally better than this, flowing freely except during peak recreational times. However, ,in Newport Beach and Laguna Beach, traffic conditions can degener- ate to Level F during peak times. CALTR.ANS has long range plans for widening Pacific Coast Highway (Route 1) to six lanes from Huntington Beach through to Dana Point. CALTRANS has thus far taken -no position concerning the proposed corridor. Air Quality Air quality management responsibilities exist at local, state and federal levels of government. Enabling legislation enacted in 1947 authorized each county to form a local air pollution con- trol district; in 1970, legislation made it mandatory for each county to be within such a district. The Irvine Coastal Area is in the Southcoast Air Quality Management District. Orange County, including the Irvine area, is characterized by severe air qual- ity problems which constitute a major constraint to growth. Orange County is designated as a Non -Attainment Area in relation to the health impact -related ambient air quality standards for: hydrocarbons, NOX, Oxidant (smog), particulates, and carbon mon- oxide. III. MAJOR FEATURES OF THE PLAN Attachment A. "Irvine Coast Land Use Plan: Executive Summary of Main Features" contains more detailed information on this sub- ject. Both Attachment A and the following represent the plan as presented by the County of Orange. They do not represent staff opinion or conclusions. Land Use Features Land use features are identified in map form in Attachment B, "Land Use Plan -Land Use Component." -The plan.emphasizes res- idential, commercial, resort, tourist accommodations, public rec- reational use, and open space within the Coastal Zone. The ma- jority of the approximately 11,600 mixed residential units in the Coastal Zone would be in "hilltowns" located'on the upland plateaus and ridgetop areas near Newport Beach. Densities range from 10-23 units per acre. Moderate income rentals and other lower cost housing are planned --as subsidies are -made available through government assistance programs. ; Very low density rural residential to medium density (5 units per acre) are -planked for the remaining ridgeline areas, con- sistent with environmental and terrain limitations. Virtually all residential usEsare located in the northern one-third of the property. Total projected population within the Coastal Zone is 32,000 persons. Approximately two-thirds of the site is in some type of open space, including "Conservation," "Recreation" and "Other Open Space" (latter could be developed ultimately). Environmental Features The plan includes an open space/greenbelt system between Crystal Cove and the City of Laguna Beach, providing a system of inter- connected wildlife habitat areas as well as recreational oppor- tunities. Transportation Features Transportation features are mapped in Attachment C, "Circulation Component." The transportation network is designed to encourage development of public transportation, with roadways designed to serve public vehicles. Regional access to outlying areas of the County and beyond is proposed to be provided by the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor which would provide a connection to the State freeway and expressway system. Subregional access would be provided by Pacific Coast Highway, San Joaquin Hills Road, Pelican Hill Road, Culver Drive, and Sand Canyon Avenue, with the latter two roads extended over the ridgeline from the City of Irvine. a Cl • Phasing Phasing of development with adequate circulation and other ser- vice systems is stressed in the plan. A "Reserve" area is set aside for conditional development, to occur when adequate ser- vices and/or access are, or can be, provided. Some areas are designated "Reserve" pending decisions regarding parkland accuisi- tion, and some pending re-examination, through subsequent Gen- eral Plan Amendments, to determine the extent of urban rises based on availability of urban services and facilities. IV. SUMMARY OF MAJOR CONCERNS Following is the summary of major staff concerns regarding the Land Use Plan as submitted (Section V analyzes the plan by geo- graphic and physical features, providing more detail, explainin those major concerns and suggesting additional areas of concern. A. Preservation of Habitat and Recreation Areas The land use plan divides the Irvine coastal property into two basic types of areas: 1) the "Urban" designation which "delin- eates those areas where varying degrees of development should occur within the next ten years;'f and 2) the "Reserve" designation which indicates areas where large-scale development is not en- couraged "at this time." Except for a proposed state park ac- quisition of a portion of the Irvine property, the general plan contains no mechanism for assuring the long term preservation of major resource areas in t- he ON and eastern portions of the Irvine property, consistent with the requirements of Sect- ion 3„0250 of the Coastal Act. To consider the high intensity development proposed in the ,plan preferable to low intensity development or commercial alterna- tives described in Section VI below, it is necessary that the land use plan assure development would be concentrated in 'close proximity" to existing developed areas in a manner that does "not have significant adverse effects either individually or cumulatively on coastal resources" (Section 30250 of the Act). Since the areas designated as "Reserve" can be developed at a future date, it would not be possible to make the finding that development in the Irvine Coastal Area will in fact be concen- trated near the major employment centers. The implementation of the concentration of development policy through the preservation of resource areas is also reinforced by the provisions of Section 30007.5 of the Coastal Act. Under Section 30007.5, potential adverse resource impacts resulting from a conflict between Coastal Act policies dealing with con- centration of development and resource protection could be al- lowed if the Commission finds that the resulting land use plan 10. is "on balance the most pr6tective of coastal resources" (empha- sis a 'e _.If the land use plan assured that the habitat and potential recreation areas located i7=e central and eastern areas were to be ermanentlprotected in return for extensive development, given tze lan uses to be converted, the total pop- ulation, the location of high intensity uses, and the concommitant loss of resource areas in the western and northern areas, it might be possible to make the findings required by Section 30007.5. The land use plan will likely have significant adverse impacts on the following resources located in the western area of -the Irv- ine property which is proposed for substantial development: 1. The loss of major habitat and archaeological resources on Pelican Hill; 2. The elimination of the area's most visually distinctive scenic resources, comprise of the Pelican -Hill ridgeline and the frontal areas below Pelican Hill;. 3. The loss of a major potential public or commercial recre- ation area where the extension of the Cameo Shores resi- dential area is proposed on the western end of the coast- al shelf; 4. The loss of a potential public recreation area due to the resort proposed for the coastal shelf; 5. The potential adverse impacts on the Buck Gully habitat area as a result of being surrounded by urban development; 6. The impacts of urban runoff and Culver Boulevard construct- ion on Los Trancos Canyon; 7. The potential for habitat impacts from development on Wishbone Hill above the Muddy Canyon habitat area; 8. The potential for pre-empting some portion of public beach use by visitors to commercial resort areas (i.e., limited areas that could be overloaded through demand generated by users of the resorts --See Avco permit for tract 7885 ); 9. The potential for converting the state park area to a local park for residents of the Irvine property unless sufficient recreation areas are dedicated at the scale of regional parks; 10. The overuse of the narrow beach and tidepools; and 11. The loss of recreation capacity on road system as a result of residential development use. 11. The permanent preservation of the habitat areas, scenic resources, and recreational potential of the central and eastern portions must be established or it is highly unlikely that the plan can be deemed to be the No �rottec_tiivee of coastal resources," under Section 30007.5, in a manner t� ,justifies the loss of the afore- mentioned coastal resources. Therefore, to satisfy the requirements of Sections 3000"- 5, 302409 30242, and 30250 of the Coastal Act, a system for assuring the preservation of the areas described above should be considered for incorporation into the land use plan. One possible approach would be the provision of a system of phased dedications which would provide for dedications of the central and eastern resource protection areas in increments as specific.increments of develop- ment occurred in the western portion of the. property. .Because some of the development in the western area of the property can be justified only on the basis of dedications, pursuant to Sec- tion 30007.5, any public purchase of a proposed dedication area should result in a concomitant reduction in development inten- sity in resource areas such as Pelican Hill. I B. Air Quality The draft land use plan would have significant air quality prob- lems and could conflict with the,goal of attainment of health - related ambient air quality standards. In order to comply with Section 30522 of the Coastal Act, the land use plan should be o examined for consistency with the Air Quality Maintenance Plan (AQMP).Air Resouraes(ARB)advises. that "affordable"°.housing should be located close to major job -centers, such as Newport Center and the Irvine industrial areas, for purposes of reducing vehi- cle miles travelled between individual homes and employment centers; this is also a concern of the Coastal Act. C. Protection of Eknerald and Moro Canyons The potential exists for severe degradation of valuable ripar- ian habitat in Emerald and Moro Canyons. Consideration should be given to redesignation of the proposed land use for the ridge between these two canyons to minimum density recreational uses or to transferring the proposed residential development to an- other location. D. Transportation The plan as proposed would have significant local and regional traffic impacts which could interfere with public access to the coastal zone. There should be a public transit component for any plan considered for the area: Development studies should be related directly to the phasing of all transportation improve- 12. E. F G H. I. ments. The relationship of the proposed plan, or any alterna- tive plan considered for the area, and the proposed San Joaquin Hills Corridor should be studied. The impacts on Pacific Coast Highway from major laterals, such as MacArthur Boulevard, Jam- boree Road, and Laguna Canyon Road, resulting from the proposed development should also be considered (Sections 30252,30254). i Sand Canyon Road As proposed, Sand Canyon Road could result insignificant habi- tat destruction and serious negative traffic impacts. Alterna- tives, such as deletion of the road, downgrading it and/or shortening it to provide a connection with the State park area landward of Pacific Coast Highway should be considered (Section 30223, 30231, 30240, 302507 30252, 30253, 30254). Acquisition Areas The status of proposed State park acquisition areas and their relationship to the Laguna Greenbelt is of major importance to the future of the plan area. Of primary concern is'whether or not these areas will be ac uired and the timing of their acquisition. (Sections 30220, 302231. Recreational Development The types and intensity of public and commercial recreation developments on the coastal shelf, beach and upland areas, are of concern, as such developments have traffic and environmental impli- cations which must be planned for (Sections.30212, 30212.5, 30213', 30220, 302239 302409 30254). Los Trancos Canyon Acquisition The status of the planned acquisition of Los Trancos Canyon needs to be determined (Section 30240). Visual Impacts A serious major concern is the potential negative development of Pelican Hill and Wishbone Hill and below these hills, both from the outside as well point inside the parcel (Section 30251). visual impact of the frontal areas as viewed from any 13. V. (Refer to Attachment B, "Land Use Plan" and "Place Names", Attachment F) The following section analyzes the plan by geographic and physical features, providing more detailed analysis of the major concerns above and suggesting additional areas of concern. The specific geographic area concerns are described beloiy in a manner commencing with the westernmost portion of the property on the Newport Beach side and moving to the east toward Laguna Beach. Major Residential Development Area (Area "A", Urban area adjacent to Newport Beach) The plan provides for approximately 120000 residential units, of which, 7,500 are planned for the Pelican Hill area. Of the total proposed plan population of about 33,000 people, approximately 22,000 would be located in this area. The development of this area will result in unavoidably severe impacts on the visual quality of the area and the viewshed. In order to address this visual impact concern, consideration should be given to including specific site planning and architectural design guidelines as an integral part of the plan. Density is a primary design and environmental concern and low -density development may not be a viable,option for this area. Higher site densities may be necessary for successful implementation of a plan of this type in order to preserve the maximum amount of open space for recreation, air quality and habitat protection purposes. Low -density single- family development could result in even worse visual impacts similar to those in the Spyglass Hill. and Harbor View developments in Newport Beach. Alternatives to current County road design standards should be studied forany proposed internal road system in order to minimize grading impacts that would result from over designed roads. To reduce the magnitude of the internal nature, the plan should expli- citly ensure clustered high -density development in the urban area. A major concern is the lack of specific commitment in the plan to provide lower -cost "affordable" housing, and this aspect of the plan should be reexamined. The County should consider the phasing of commercial expansion to ensure commercial recreation uses are clearly designated before adjacent residential development occurs on contig- uous residential parcels, and to avoid residential/commercial conflicts. Specific planning should ensure that local commercial activities (e.g., shopping centers) not have direct access off of the major coastal access roads, Pacific Coast Highway and Culver Drive. This should protect scenic values and minimize traffic impacts, such as those that have occurred in Laguna Niguel (Sections 30213, 30222, 30223, 30251, 30252). 14. Pelican Hill Heavy residential development (between 1000 and 1800 units) is proposed for this area, which was originally proposed for park acquisition. Pelican Hill was deleted from consideration as a possible park open space/preservation area in return for a dedica- tion of open space park land elsewhere, pursuant to Section 30007.5 of the Coastal Act of 1976. However, the draft plan fails to guarantee that the dedicated open space area will be preserved in perpetuity. The"reserve'designation does not accomplish this, as such areas are subject to possible future development. Means should be investigated ensuring that permanent preservation of the alterna- tive area, in exchange for development on Pelican Hill, is guaranteed by the plan. In addition, the means chosen to address this concern should provide the flexibility necessary to respond to the possibility of public acquisition of the dedication area accompanied by a conco- mitant reduction in the magnitude and intensity of development on Pelican Hill and other resource areas that are developable (Section 30007.57 30240, 30250). Coastal Shelf Area (Crystal Cove Vicinity) The concern here is the same as that expressed for Pelican Hill above. The resort development area and Cameo Shores residential extension shown in the draft plan were also potentially part of a park acquisition area and were redesignated for resort and residen- tial use in exchange for dedication of open space elsewhere. The concern to be addressed is the guarantee of the preservation of the open space to be dedicated in consideration of the allowed resort and residential development designation, which will generate substantial demands by local residents and resort uses, thereby limiting regional bench and park access (Sections 30220, 30221), Buck Gully This area is designated as a conservation area by the draft plan. However, it is surrounded by extensive development and will be most likely severely degraded. In the proposed plan, Buck Gully would have little value as a quality habitat area due to the impacts of surrounding development; accordingly, its preservation should not be considered a major public benefit (Sections 30240, 30250), Culver Road and Pelican Hill Road at Pacific Coast Highway There is potential for severe traffic impacts where these roads,meet Pacific Coast Highway if these junctures are simply stoplight inter- sections. Alternatives, such as modified minor interchanges, should be studied for possible inclusion in the plan. Consideration should be given to grade separation or other techniques for minimizing impacts on Los Trancos Canyon (Sections 30252, 30254). 15. Resort Areas (West of Pacific Coast Highway and Lower Wishbone) These proposed resort areas are located in extremely sensitive view - shed areas and should be evaluated accordingly. Consideration should be given to exploring ways that the plan can explicitly guide devel- opment, e.g., the nature and intensity of permitted uses. Means for integrating tourist/commercial development features of the plan with State park uses should be explored. Possible plan provisions to achieve this could be shared parking/stagin areas (e.g., at the termination of Culver and Moro Canyon mouth and physical connections between the park and the coastal shelf, such as a pedestrian overpass or underpass, a bluff -top pedestrian bike way, etc. The two resort areas could also be linked through other techniques, such as an aerial tramway or other approaches that have minimal site and visual impacts (Sections 30220, 302219 30222, 30223, 30240, 30251", 30252)• Ridge between Moro and Emerald Canyons This ridge is designated for considerable residential development. As proposed, the residential uses would severely degrade the habitat and open space values of the canyons below, which are planned for public open space use. Additionally, this proposed isolated resi- dential development could not be feasibly served by public transpor- tation. In view of these concerns, consideration should be given to possible redesignation of this area for minimum intensity commer- cial/recreational use or relocation of the proposed residential use to other areas designated for development (Sections 30222, 30223, 30243, 30251). Sand Canyon Road This element of the plan is of great concern due to its potentially severe negative impacts. If constructed as proposed, Sand Canyon Road would: - severely degrade the habitat value of the area, - eliminate a natural stream course, - require extensive grading which would have severe visual and habitat impacts, - intrude into and bisect a proposed State recreation area along the road length below Wishbone Hill and at its interchange with Pacific Coast Highway, - severely impact Pacific Coast Highway traffic whether a traffic light or an interchange is provided, - facilitate development in "reserve" areas of the draft plan, -.funnel all types of traffic to Pacific Coast'Highway, which should be reserved for State park and Laguna Beach traffic. 16. FJ In view of the significance of these major issues raised by the proposed Sand Canyon Road, consideration should be given to such alternatives as deletion of the road, downgrading it and/or shorten- ing it to provide a connection with the State park area landward of Pacific Coast Highway. A less major road could be built on the flat ridge top rather than on the side of Muddy Canyon (Sections 30240, 30251, 30252, 30254). Recreation Area Landward of Moro Cove and Pacific Coast Highway This area has already been impacted by extensive grading. In view of its present state, consideration should be given to designating the area as a major high-intensityy recreation -serving parking/staging area (Sections 30223, 30212 T. San Joaouin Hills Road and Freeway These major transportation elements would be located largely outside the coastal zone. However, they are of considerable concern as they relate to the plan and to the regional transportation network. The corridor would carry considerable volume: the associated traffic, and air quality impacts are issues which the plan should address. The development of the corridor could also put development pressure on the central and eastern areas of the Irvine Property. Plan provisions to counter such potential pressure should be explored. The importance of providing sufficient road capacity to accommodate traffic flow from the residential area to the Newport and Irvine employment centers should be reflected in the plan. The relationship of San Joaquin Hill Road to the proposed San Joaquin Hills Freeway should be studied for purposes of defining potential coastal access impacts of both the construction of the freeway and the absence of the freeway (Sections 30252, 30253, 30254)• Proposed State Park Acquisition Areas (These areas are indicated on Attachment J). Plan alternatives, in the event that some or all of these areas cannot be or are not acquired, should be investigated. Possible alternatives include: - dedication of these areas, - maintenance in private ownership and designation for low -intensity commercial -recreational zoning, with provision of a public trail system, - zoning these areas for ranchette development (e.g., minimum one unit per 40 acres) with provision of public trail systems (Sections 30222, 30223, 30240, 30250, 30251, 30252, 30253)- 17• • . • Proposed Open Space Dedication Area A major concern is ensuring that dedication areas are preserved in perpetuity as the urban plan area develops. A phased dedication schedule with specific commitments keyed to development levels should be prepared, providing for the dedication of most significant habitat areas first (Sections 30231, 30240, 30250, 30251, 30253)• Laguna Greenbelt Areas These areas overlap with State park/open space concerns. It is extremely important that the resource protection and recreation aspects of the plan mesh with and support the Laguna Greenbelt. The plan should be reviewed, revised and implemented with the express goal of maintaining the integrity of the Greenbelt. Pacific Coast Highway Coastal planning policies stress the importance of reserving Pacific Coast Highway capacity for public access to the coast to enable the public to take maximum advantage of coastal recreational and open space opportunities. Care should be taken to ensure that the plan's circulation component stresses the channeling of vehicles to destina- tion sites within the plan area, thereby reserving Pacific Coast High- way for State park and Laguna Beach traffic (Sections 302500 30252, 50253, 30254)- VI. MAJOR ALTERNATIVES TO THE PLAN AS SUBMITTED When the LCP Land Use Plan is formally submitted to the Coastal Commis- sion for review, the Commission will be required to examine the implica- tions of alternatives to the plan in order to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Coastal Act. The following discussion is a brief summary of alternatives that staff be- lieves should be examined in order to address issues of major importance from a state and regional Coastal Commission perspective. These alternatives will also provide a context for analysis of recent and pending input from state and federal sources concerning park acquisi- tion. Maximum Development Alternative This alternative basically consists of the plan as proposed, including extensive/intensive urban development in Area A and reserve areas for later possible phased development or possible acquisition and/or dedication. Other high -intensity alternatives were considered as the Irvine coastal area planning process evolved. The currently proposed plan is the product of lengthy analysis and extensive work by the County; this plan, if conditioned to meet Coastal Act requirements, would be the optimal high -intensity plan for the area, should it be determined that a high -intensity urban alternative is appropriate. 18. Most of the high -intensity urban development would be located near employment centers. The plan could be conditioned to allow for maximum feasible public transit and maximized open space, thereby addressing recreation and air quality protection concerns, as well as access and habitat protection issues. However, this alternative has significant disadvantages due to the magnitude and intensity of urban development proposed. The natural habitat value of Buck Gully would essentially be lost. Surface runoff would increase significantly and extensive grading and fill would have substantial adverse impacts. Negative impacts would occur if Sand Canyon Road is constructed as proposed and the ridge between Moro and Emerald Canyons is developed in residential use, as discussed above. The "reserve areas" may only delay development, and may not preserve open space permanently. The existing outstanding visual quality of the area would be perma-' nently degraded, especially in the urbanized areas. The public would lose considerable open space area, especially in the coastal shelf, while paying for some of the development -supporting infrastructure. This alternative also makes no provision for guaran- teed "affordable" housing. Proposed resort areas west of Highway 1 and in the Lower Wishbone area would intrude into extremely sensitive view/habitat areas. Proposed roads could create congestion on Pacific Coast Highway if interchanges are not adequately designed. This alternative may result in significant air quality degradation in an already degraded airshed. While these impacts are potentially quite significant, if the issues discussed in this report, and referred to in the July 6, 1976 letter from Director Bodovitz to Director Osborne of Orange County (see Attachment), were resolved, the plan could provide for extensive development combined with protection of signif- icant resource areas. Ranchettes plus Parks Alternative (e.g.. Hollister Ranch) This alternative would provide for development o£ the entire Irvine Coastal property as 20-40 acre "ranchettes" combined with public acquisition of some park lands. It would have the advantage of main- tenance of many of the visual and natural habitat values of the area. Most traffic and air quality impacts could be avoided. However, with this alternative, the public could end up with less open space/recrea- tion area (assuming that alternative 1 could be conditioned to guaran- tee dedication of such areas, which it does not at this time). Additionally, this alternative would probably preclude providing affordable housing in the area. Maintain the Area in Agricultural Use This alternative would basically keep the area as a ranch with grazing and some crops (e.g., grapes). It would maintain the visual attributes of the area, and most natural habitats would be protected. Air quality and traffic impacts would be avoided; the beneficial role of the ranch in mitigating, instead of causing, air pollution problems would maintained. However, with this alternative, the public would lose some potential recreational benefits. The already over grazed 19. ranch could be further degraded with significant adverse bitat areas without proper management. Additionally, question regarding the economic feasibility of maintain - in primarily agricultural uses, Commercial/ Recreational Development of the Entire Area This alternative would involve zoning the entire area for light- and medium -intensity commercial recreation uses, according to resource protection requirements. This approach would reduce traffic and air quality impacts compared to the maximum development alternative. The public would have a major recreational resource. A high degree of maintenance of visual and natural habitat values would be possible. The major drawback associated with this alternative would be the difficulty of ensuring property owner and multiple -agency concurrence regarding implementation. - This alternative is currently under study by the U.S. Department of the Interior. It would have the major advantage of maintaining visual quality and natural habitat values of the area. Most traffic and air quality impacts associated with urban development would be avoided. This alternative would create a major recreational asset in a rapidly urbanizing area sorely deficient in recreational facilities and open space. Such a major park would be a significant addition to the regional and state-wide public open space recreation system. A partial park purchase approach would involve reductions in the intensity and magnitude of proposed urban development if proposed dedication areas purusant to Section 30007.5 (discussed above) were involved. A major concern with this alternative would be the difficulties associated with its'implementation. Interagency and property owner negotiations would be complicated due to the high cost of purchase of the property. J IRVINE COASTAL AREA - LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Irvine Coast Land Use Plan Executive Summary of Main Features Attachment B: Land Use Plan Attachment C: Circulation Component Attachment D: Regional Location Map Attachment E: Existing and Proposed Surrounding Development Attachment F: Place Names Attachment G: Urban -Reserve Status Attachment H: Preservation Areas Attachment I: Significant Landform Features Attachment J: Proposed Acquisition Parcels Attachment J-1 Laguna Greenbelt Attachment K: Adopted Spheres of Influence Attachment L: July 6, 1976 Letter from Executive Director Bodovitz to Director H. G. Osborne Attachment M: Irvine Coast Interpretive Guidelines Attachment N: Orange County EMA Final EIR Summary 21. Attachment A IRVINE COAST LAND USE PLAN: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF MAIN FEATURES Introduction This Land Use Plan together with its related policies is being submitted according to the Local Coastal Program Regulations adopted in May of 1976. However, because the Irvine Coast has been designated as a pilot project and the existing land use plan is being submitted, sections of the regulations that will not be used in other parts of the County are being followed. The following is a brief outline of the procedures being followed. Orange County is requesting the Coastal Commission to approve four separate plan— ning units in the County for the preparation and certifiction of Local Coastal Programs; the Irvine Coast is one of these areas. The Regulations allow this request to be submitted separate from and prior to any other'documents required as part of a Local Coastal Program. A copy of this request is available in the first section of the LCP document. An Issue Identification was prepared evaluating the consistency between the Coastal Act and the existing Land Use Plan. The Issue Identification was dis— tributed for public review and comment at the same time public notice was given on the availability of this Land Use Plan. A minimum of 75 days was allowed for public review of the Issue Identification and Land Use Plan before it was scheduled for transmittal to the Coastal Commission as the Countyts Local Coastal Program for the Irvine Coast. Three public hearings before the County Plannuzg Commission were utilized to obtain additional public comment on the planning issues and policies. Following completion of the public hearings on the Issue Identification and the Land Use Plan, the County Board of Supervisors transmitted the existing Land Use Plan, together with testimony received, to'the Coastal Commission for certification. The Board of Supervisors will reserve a final action on the certified plan pending the result of, any conditions or changes in the existing Land Use Plan, that may be imposed by the Coastal Commission. This final action will constitute an initial step in establishing the Orange County Local Coastal Program. The Land Use Plan for the Irvine Coast includes the following Bix sections: 1. Land Use Plan Background Information 2. The Policies of the Land Use Plan 3. A Public Access Component 4- Public Participation 5. The applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 6. A general indication of the zoning and implementing actions that will be used to implement the Land Use Plan GENERAL INFOEMATION Planning History The Irvine Coast originally was part of the 33i000-acre South Irvine Ranch General Plan adopted by the County in 1964. in 1973, the County amended the Land Use Element to reflect anticipated development by 1983- In January 1974, The Irvine Company started `The Irvine Coastal Community,Mvl.ti- Agency Planning Program (TICMAP):' Its purpose was to provide a forum for participation in the company's coastal planning activity by more than 20 interested organizations, among them state, federal and local government agencies and environ- mental groups. Under the TICMAP program, ten public meetings were held. During these, participants articulated a nurtber of issues of concern to them. The concerns focused largely on transportation and open space needs, development of the ridge - lines, protection of the Laguna Greenbelt, access to the beach, annexation, spheres of influence, and housing considerations. These issues and concerns were translated into six different scenarios, or land use concepts on possible future uses of the 10,000-acre property. The concepts embraced: 1j total open space; 2) a self-sufficient community; 3) an estate com- munity; 4) two separate communities; 5) a balanced coastal community; and 6) a unique destination resort. Further refinement of the concepts by participants of TICMAP and The Irvine Company extracted certain key features from each individual land use concept. These were subsequently incorporated into a composite plan for the site. This composite plan was submitted by The Irvine Company to the County of Orange in 1975- It was called the TICMAP plan. The County Environmental Management Agency during this same period developed four alternative land use and circulation proposals for all of southeast Orange County, including the Irvine Coast. The alternatives featured projected population build - outs for the Irvine Coast ranging from 30,000 to 70,000. Much of the information generated by the Southeast Orange County circulation study was used in the Countyts evaluation of the TICMAP plan. After receiving the Irvine Companyts formal submittal, the County Environmental Management Agency staff developed four additional land use and circulation alterna- tives specifically for the Irvine Coast. These alternatives reflected many con- cerns expressed during public hearings. They also incorporated recent actions of the California Coastal Commission, including its published Coastal Plan and pro- posed acquisition areas. In its critique of the TICMAP plan, the County found little disagreement with the "developable areas" described in the projectes Environmental Impact Report. The major differences between the plan submitted by the Irvine Company and the alternatives developed by the County was the extent of commitment to urban uses and the lands to be set aside for the public in the form of,recreation and open uses. Based upon the Planning Commission's recommendation, the County staff Is "Alternative No. 5, was adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on August 18, 1976• Both the Planning Commission's recommendation and the Board's final approval were unanimous. 2 Physical Features of t7ze Area • V The coastline portion of the Irvine Coast encompasses about 32 miles of beach between Cameo Shores and Abalone Point. Elevations range from sea level to 1,163 feet at Signal Peak, located about 3 miles inland on the ridge of the San Joaquin HI71s. This major ridge crest parallels the shoreline. Six major canyons and their intervening ridges connect the ridge crest and the ocean. The canyons are deeply incised with slopes in many areas greater than 221. Approximately, one-half of the 9t4OO-acre parcel adjacent to Newport Beach con- sists of relatively flat terrace areas and rounded ridge tops. Conversely, the half nearer to Laguna Beach is characterized by steeper slopes, narrow canyons, and more rugged terrain. The land throughout contains a variety of common wildlife, supported by four major kinds of vegetation habitats -riparian, oak woodland, coastal sage scrub, and grasslands. The coastal strip consists largely of alternately rocky shoreline and narrow sandy beaches with naturally eroding bluffs as a backdrop. Existing Uses Agriculture (grazing) and natural open space are the predominant existing land uses. The southeasterly two-thirds of the site (near Laguna Beach) is under con- tract as an agricultural preserve. This area includes two small clusters of residential development on leased land. One cluster is of short-term leased cottages at Crystal Cove; the other is a trailer park at Moro Cove. Other existing land uses include an elementary school, a reservoir, horse stables, and several utility sites and easements. Cattle grazing continues in the area as a maintenance practice. Due to the rough terrain and limited grass areas, the existing cattle operation is a marginal use. Surrounding Cities The City of Newport Beach is a major residential, commercial business, and recreation center. The Orange County Airport is located at the northwestern edge of the City. Land uses immediately adjacent to the Irvine Coast are primarily low,density residential or open space. The City of Irvine is located to the north, inland from the San Joaquin Hills Ridge. Within it are residential villages, a University. of California campus, industrial areas adjacent to Orange County Airport, and the East Irvine Industrial Complex next to the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station. The City of Laguna Beach is primarily a residential community with tourist commercial development along Pacific Coast Highway and Laguna Canyon Road. The Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission on September 8, 1976, approved spheres of influence for the cities of Newport Beach and Laguna Beach which divide the area, almost equally, between these two cities. FEATURES OF THE PLAN Land Use Features Along the Coast, the Plan emphasizes resort, tourist accommodations, and open space uses. Approximately 126 acres of tourist recreation commercial uses are proposed along the shoreline in the Crystal Cove area, with an additional 50 acres located on the frontal portion of Wishbone Hill. K The higher density reside9lal areas are located on the up�and plateaus and ridee i areas. These hilltown locations, close to the urban centers of Newport Beach and future transportation facilities, will contain densities from 10-23 units per acre. The majority of the Irvine Coast's residential units will be provided at these locations. These high density clusters will include moderate income rental housing, in addition to lower cost housing as subsidies are made available through government assistance programs. The remaining ridgel3ne areas will contain residential uses ranging from very low density rural residential at 1 unit per 10 acres, to medium density use at 5 units per acre, consistent with the limitations of terrain and sensitive environmental resources. Virtually all residential development is concentrated in the northern one-third of the area. The projected population for the Land Use Plan within the Coastal Zone is about 32,900 persons. Approximately two-thirds of the site is in some type of open space use. These open space uses include "Conservation" (very restrictive); "Recreation" (proposed parkland areas), and "Other Open Sapcell (which could permit very limited development). Environmental Features An open space greenbelt system between Crystal Cove and the City of Laguna Beach is a major element of the plan. The system provides continuity to the recreation systems planned for Los Trancos and Moro Canyons. It would also link the other smaller canyon systems (Muddy and Emerald) that feature open space and conservation uses. In addition to providing a coastal recreation experience for the public, the plan minimizes urban uses along Pacific Coast Highway. The open space greenbelt system also includes a system of interconnected wildlife habitat areas.. This system, consists of corridors connecting open space areas through urban areas and'contains sufficient acreage of each native plant community to assure the maintenance of vegetation and associated wildlife. The plan includes an overlay map delineating a "Wildlife Habitat/Conservabion Area#" This designation embraces the wildlife and vegetation areas, together with other resources, such as large trees, rock outcroppings, and land forms considered to be of environmental importance. The Habitat Area Plan overlays all open space areas of the General Plan to assure that even in recreation areas, wildlife pro- tection is given a high priority. Transportation Features The Irvine Coastal area's transportation system provides a network designed to encourage the development of public transportation. The roadways are designed and phased not only to serve private and public vehicles, but also to minimize their impacts on hillside terrain. Major regional access to distant parts of Orange County and beyond to Los Angeles and San Diego is provided by the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor which will provide a connection to the state freeway and expressway system. Subregional access to the Irvine Coast will be provided by such facilities as Pacific Coast Highway, San Joaquin Hills Road, Culver Drive, and Sand Canyon Avenue. The latter two roads would be extended over the ridgeline from the City of 'Irvine. 4 Phasing • • A major feature of the Irvine Coast Land Use Plan is the phasing of development with adequate circulation and other service systems. The line dividing "Urbane uses from the future "Reserve', areas is the easterly boundary of Los Trancos Canyon along Signal Ridge, Wishbone Hill, and Crystal Cove. The urban areas which lie north of this line, together with the potential parkland use of Los Trancos Canyon, have a common requirement — the need for Culver Drive to provide access for both local and regional (recreational) travel demands. The remaining portion of the site is retained in a "Reserve" designation for several reasons. The primary concern is the extent of urban uses proposed for Signal Ridge, Wishbone Hill, No Name Ridge, and Moro Ridge and the proposed parkland acquisition proposals in this sector. These areas must be reexamined• through subsequent General Plan Amendments before urban uses will be permitted. This reexamination will focus on the availability of urban''. services and facilities, in accordance with recently adopted County guidelines. THE GENERAL FLAN AS AN I14PLI24ENTATION DOCUMENT The Irvine Coast Land Use Plan consists of several overlapping but independent General Plan documents. Future development must comply with each of these documents, or elements, as well as several County —wide ordinances and adopted County policies applicable only to the Irvine Coast. The General Plan The adopted General Plan consists of all nine elements as required by State Law. Zoning and subsequent actions by the County must be consistent with the policies in these elements. Irvine Coast Policy Supplement In addition to the County —wide policies of the General Plan, policies have been adopted exclusively for the Irvine Coast. These supplementary policies, were adopted to provide specific guidance beyond that provided by the General Plan policies. Because these policies duplicate many of the policies included in the General Plan, -and are more precise in nature, these are the policies which serve as the "Heart" of the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program. In those areas where the supplementary policies did not provide as complete guidance as those of the General Plan, the General Plan policies have been added to the,Local Coastal Program. Several of the supplementary policies refer to specific areas or resources on the site. For this reason the Board of Supervisors adopted three supplement maps which are designed to provide more detailed guidance on land use decisions as part of the Policy Supplement Package: 1) Wildlife Habitat (Conservation Areas); 2) Urban Reserve Designations; and 3) Significant Landform Features. Reserve Area Guidelines The Reserve Area Guidelines play a vital part in implementing the policies of the General Plan for phased growth. As an overlay of the Land Use Element, almost two—thirds of the Irvine Coast is designated as "R" Reserve. The removal of this 5 0 "IV, designation, through a General Plan Amendment is required before urban uses can be developed. The adopted criteria and guidelines are discussed more com- pletely in the Implementing Actions section of the LOP. However, the nine criteria include such items as the adequacy of public services planned and budgeted trans- portation facilitiest opportunities for low and moderate income housing, air and water quality standards, and the mitigation of natural hazards. Site Flan Review , This designation is utilized where urban uses have been adopted, but due to unique environmental, aesthetics recreational, or conservation considerations, the normal General Plan land use designation is used and followed by the letter OSII (example: 1 JCS -High Density Residentialt site plan review). The site plan review designation is used where the intent is to: 1. Treat urban development as a use infringing into an area which has environ- mental, aesthetic, recreational open space or conservation value, particu- larly at a community or regional scale, but where the nature and extent of conadtment to the preservation of the area in open space remains to be established. 2. .1hphasize primary concern for sensitive treatment to successfully accom- modate urban uses. 3. Clearly delineate open space -urban use relationships through detailed plan review in order to carry out the General Plan intent. Lend uses should be consistent with the Open Space and Conservation Elements of the General Plan as well as the Land, Use Element. It is intended that approval of implementing zoning will be limited to consideration of only those regulations which require a site plan review or other specific plan or precise plan approval. Under certain circumstancea, such re- view may also include architectural considerations. In any event, there is no intention to reduce the overall density within a particular urban category by virtue of the 'IS" designation. 0 IRVINE COAST STATISTICAL SUMMARY URBAN (AREA"A") LAND USE CATEGORY RESIDENTIAL ACRES DWELLING UNITS POPULATION (1.2, 1.23) Low -Medium Density 569 1,698 6,623 (1.3, 1.31) Medium Density 392 1,961 5,393 (1.4) (1.41) High Density 132 1,434 4,632 (1.5) High Density 105 2,419 4,596 Sub Total 1,198 7,512 21,244 OPEN SPACE (5.5) Rural Residential 74 7 27 (5.3) Recreation 873 (5.41) Conservation 216 (5.4) Other Open Space 185 (5.31) Tourist Recreation/Commercial 126 Sub Total 1, 7 TOTAL 2,672 , 7,519 21,271 RESERVE (AREAS "B" AND "C") RESIDENTIAL ACRES DWELLING UNITS POPULATION (1.2, 1.23) Medium -Low Density 514 1,477 5,761 (1.4) High Density 50 608 1,964 (1.51) Heavy Density 88 2,013 3,825 Sub Total 652 4,098 11,550 OPEN SPACE (5.5) Rural Residential 296 30 93 (5.3) Recreation 2,083 (5.41) Conservation 1,684 (5.4) Other Open Space 1,904 (5.31) Tourist Recreation/Commercial 76 Sub Total 6,043 TOTAL 6,695' 4,128 11,643 TOTAL FOR COASTAL ZONE 9,367 11,647 32,914 E G' Co,,mty General Plan Amendment 76-3 —Land Use EllsrTieifi IRVINEC0ASTAL&REA--mxll— OL 4000feet K TWEIMe00KC"A r north P.ESI0E4TI:.L YfC �Y•JW GEVatT• m� �� uE'�•Y CE, -Y 1H D ,.un ctv^rr OPEN SPACE To":, I TU4P,:I IGJEJTIDa•CUYYEAc,II ITAEa coFiEAY1mm 4 I �� ALPµ It 4r. IF �ir ��-.%:r� !+-`•: •�••��1_"lam '. � -' j�tih U�t•• 7• ,� L ,, 1 5-...:. .E, ea / �: ' „•tom.. `'r='''+.�a..—�' _ . j iR, �� �'•sC ` { '; Jl Ott :R �,-i.; -for t�`� �: �_�- ..yy , _ ; , • �!_ � ':'�, ,`� n,'�''f eti` r ar': �� .1 T 'Xl �. .�/• �1 •pP �• 1��;� ((� � i �f\ i r h. .'....'R . 1 • .'� •c .�• nt' f• "• _. J Y7•c+`-� 1f\,,t s"�ar .'tw1'*`"f_•sf• ;t. f i f c ,l•. .H . ,`� . =• ,S : � ')•<' .�'�:.j�..�/1, ,.�� i�b" • :\,• .ip jO" il' i_�-t, f �t }fse •: i:_Y,} R`Y�v 1•, Y.. r fr�� �i • _ ". ' YK - �`'�, ' '' I;On\4�• • R� . �• 1}i��r - 'u+�r %.r'• �, •i;' .;1 , ' ", c_,"i r _`• 'F-. �!� :Ml.•,a. j� `�1 fy5-r �, .?� � ,/�; S' : S -`r-r. +'•fi'-w`TY� ' ti� ,�. h'ty �.I ..• •i r ,.. .rFr�!� "i �: T�ki. r; - -ram A- h Y _ �` ',\ jl -F i+l-''`:'�= >!. 6..23� <� K�S• `(„<,. �-•.��� r, b, f'.., ' ; r. ;i .. � � `�? `` -'� r '��' f' �� ., fy .y is :=�,t 5 � G '' _.-_ 1'�'- •`�t._�.i:,•T-�' .,} y1 �.11=; "I � ( If -r '.i �, .r '. ti r-, v'� 0 t 'r`•(� 1 •'r•' Lr, , � i ' �� r'� _•`pf. +� n'�;t �'RI y`t- `-li1F �, �`•'ir `-,r r-. '.'i -�s'�. .t �,ii �1: .. •_I _ .-. �S-..�, ,- f i .a VF :r ,•''V' _ i. i- `f, ,..1 `y,f: w,.. w"i .At-,S..�P•tf-"• �;� (`• q_�,�7i• ._L,�s��E-fit' x"` ,1.•:F.l'�" . ��.~,. - "•i{' ' • ��'' k'"\:•'' _L. � .�1.' 1,•r' . ^,� - R-t tJ �`( -f' �f`+, _ i� + , � �'t �tA.�. E.: '�+.�k' :• A: �yk�tl'�' is ''i:..• r ,,,.� • . , - { , j ice' i .: 1:1_� _ � � - ` CC/ '•�;._ .�.. "--, 1 �•t � ``% ,-Y. •. .:.:` - x�f �Y i, _L-k •,f.��+f'�f�,fJ`?' ��j /fk, :, : •1`�`:' a'•i �',�"t� � .4_r. s. �j4' t ' ;` �� ,;4 a'.3 '•�`•*� .*•(ti �'� ``jT.�.-• � t'`'t l„1, If 1 J:. '`�F• .�^• ei _ .. P '� \. I�.. � yt •' - �. •:�' (, .�:� � - M1�,#(�.=.* ,,fs �•• �. ..,'s J,-+'1,.'` ::. 4. �,,,.=:• r.�i � .,:�l.T' "e •� � J 1 r � 'Y'��, i`�'�M1_i�:- � • ' LTC .�4:• �E{ vM` F'r.;(Y. , � ��:.',; r t -' +,.�E.,y, � .� .1\`��� I. ♦ . •'11M I�. ;. �,\'.;`7��,'yY�y;k .t 1 - f"ks--ti'' � 1, i�.r• w rcEr na rw !.� T t Adopted Circulation System MAIM ARnMML PPoMMYAMMAL IRVINE COASTAL AREA STUDY === A WR TEgrAWCx✓My I EYY, L,YSVW"nhpr ea B3 OMCdh r I r / SAN BERNARDINO CO. "--\,LOS ANGELES CO. 71 C' , RIVERSIDE CO, .ri. Anahei `� n 7,1 Long Beach Santa Ana r5 , 1 gel,••"'>,% Newport Beach t IRVINE COASTAL AREA �--� " 7 'o Laguna Beach Q San Ju�epapldrt(ro �� Dana Point c 0 SAN DIEGO CO, c F q N 0 10 2omiles Location Map IRVINE COASTAL AREA ORANGE COUNTY Oceanalda ATTACHIDIEtdT D �S,��r:y�.3.-j'''�i �.: t T4'•`''e.""--. ,ct � . �,. .,� t -1 . t:. �••tr•-+-'�Ifv�i.�C}Y,+i?q.'= 3 } y;.,. k!.T�,.o i'3:,t�F .: ••F :.. _ 1. •yif.:'-. _'•� - %'� � t /iL 't�tFF •" 1 ,3�_l ��r;i S, ni'}t��,j -.. •t; -� :••�•'h '£'�4 - F�\'�•�•�'h.-",�'�£ Eft'���5 yj -}' �' �-w .. :ti i✓' "}:.i=:.L%,.3 • ::• :.�fd: _ � I! � - �'. ` b_.'tf .. _ 3- f.Y":�.a ,F .5-.'"C''.nf:n:_ . -3=�„1 {,.,..., 'n L � i.... »n•- :• � �t, an .F.S, tY 3f/• J: }`'s •'•`•l:. 1.. � S S \..s ,!• J,� � :?ti �' �tt3s �j,.,•;a}*;�t'•s _ t~wY ) ij �_.�>, ,3, w a�•J�:i: 's•-: �0 :fir:.>.t .. .: `` ',,•j'fi^ 'f �•Y`•"'>wi/"'f• — \ •' t ' - £ l k?�.�n�-I�i fir.(t ,r" %`.£�'.{`3,Y 4 \ - \ � ®tea � • ,• t; Z� •".S -': ;.i• w^ i :.A:S �2,3 i<;' t `Cs'•si - �"' 3'1 ... �I:r, H':t7 F:,� '^fy µ�' �-'1 {,. •i��.�.Af ter.• l/ St `� %•: r;�2iay j�ror.•�'Y• � ���'4�3.>• � •• N•jti•••- �' n' -�:::: - ° -•a' NEW PO£'ZJ'- 7Jf:AGf{- € -`� � j r Df-�NPt POI t�fr I N I - £uu Irvine, Goan-W Area me-y l- t �Ct• •• � � L,�. exish£riq and Pdrlial Pe-vetci=mevrl- I _ L7 fTrem�or-la"f'£on Gxridor • • J NEWPOW BEACH i' �'r\"`{�:e ,F i; pp ,.=-;� � Few - ^cn_:/:A\ j��/.y.� � ." `.�'.'"-i .-'::i.t' -• ry �'•.: ;j tl'}i'R / i ij`,f' r_r p. y:,..1. • (t � A•t "'L M•�•• ' ,'=7k '' >. l • t • .C:^(Y'.,217,•i".. ,_ "` as Y^-e`.. �•'1 $ a � �ti, .>'` / I' � 1'�1 ri}4�r�� +1- S•~ � � � •. •" -`>'.Z-�' •��/'' ti ♦tom. i� ••'' �.".� `C ' 77 p�+N ' �a ^y, � wcsHBo]4E �y�="F.ti •. - Z� _ `• ..z. � w - �'`" „ HSIJ.. �_. � ""i ._ i_ f ����`-• �—+�Ii �'i•.�...- :s;'F --ter: _�r ��}-- �•c=•• `V�� � �--,5: �BEACH� ., 1`•, -mil• c,- �1�/] +'!'•-.•,+,j w���' ��">ILT,: S•...%1n\\ i •s., t PAGIFlG .tlgA'ST HSUHWAy , •� - 'i• x.J. \ GOVE {2�� DOVE • PotriT Place Names FMNE COASTAL AREA STUDY WNFA EmEwx 0 Urban - Reserve Status IRVINE COASTAL AREA STUDY a PrFFr J3 It A I I L--i Iii I�'`f}. '•. ,' ��' 1' rr� P;v •�_••''`l�.t `4 �"i`' tG:"{.'S.w�....'% +'Y:.4'—'R`"��- .��'�-t•—�F—j%Il�f.` is _ y `f. � � Y !! n� ! i . 1�7.1 .i}! ;A'r I�(���_ ,(q!�� ,,.f'� _ n"( f• ^;^„•,,,,:.. t � \ '�.'r I i �tl.� � II It 1 �• i. ",- .�,i H,,y� iY;•-+ �Cf�'.•. �. "� � y �'�'`'• �: .. ti "`•�' I I(!_7• ���I�..,^ ��•f'ill t'-`-:'12'a-•'�;?4'I��%:i„('�F ;II;•S,�f.!' :- ,•1� tS+:LY•� •ri� • It "12, / C �..f .',"' ( 1•, jt 't .'+�•%: i4•I•' •t .` �. t �� IY'l- dy'• 1}. + u. �(^7`[1 \I �, 'f • y��.- : �,,. [',. r .'�,'r- t s `7 �y� f t :. St,,,:�' i 4ti' • '. ,��• . r i- :r .• ' .� ��```�J? ci'i=i �< 1 F?A✓ ti r �°� S. \t p j �tikS !j'' r'. +.,�,IS •..S4i:• •t .fj N' \ '✓>n• ,.y,�bfEp iris''\�.�F,+' i �Yi. �r '1 �•''l.-,.}s'iCx �. :i7 -, \ it .�„j ,?{ 1} 'SA�; 1i''\•• f If ,� :t -F. ' ^.t i• r 1 -� ?-/I'.. t •„1�}'yj �"1)S'` `'t .'t'�..14\,', .j, ' Z 11 1�- IC 'k •` �,-I y' ' x•: .•� 1 � i,'�'. A' '��• �v3k�� ��-."`('1'4, �� ' ��.•• !- -!/". .I_ i . Y /Ul �, ,. 1 : ,,iyi. ,1 4 J 's . �(45: 1 c V. p ,•t r.r . 'Yp 1 1 ' •�"� .k 1 bP . >•g f :,1 1- } ..{ :y •t' rfir 7 w �,11'S . P {f 1� .. �+.; ..'.Y'$ .� It :iY"'j1 `T,: '� ,, �'i:' .`1.F ! ! ti:.i ®j-x'h y,IP r,i !.' ♦ +.i,a ir� i` t4, � . .. S•. .YI 11 � �-.', y _ '1 �S Vti>\'aA :'���! r _•�-a�'{.-'1i, �:�•'l� .t• 7,,.i .)�) .f' "�'� � 1•..L �� �.' �ir: � w,p ` `�'.:.yii+e.. ' � !+, �'' 1 `S �, _� - .a�L�i '• 1 ..J' �1; ... �'i{;4?.L+:. � .. .. Yp-_ � ' t' ._t. �• r,/s �,,,.7 _.,4,L,•;t. ..ip V i i 4 • t3 :l ,�' s:t , ,x, - I;r,: •,�=�;;�, ._ -• ' '� Tel �` �� 'Y� �. � ) i y �( r i. / ' }; '' � � , it •r � ,y le!� �f I �p _ �•• , e+r�•,�,,,..'�� t1� Y'yr a' x�.'� , i I , , �. „� a t/ ,;. •e. r...G ,•': " 17 j �(- r .+' - 'w!I •y :'§, I fi �'�'' �`. P.... .=.:a ! vCs.?y.;'' - .•�,;^`�:� n• T .n- � 1 1 l � ins 1:' ijwV'�•'i,n � \��/"J (.. S•����'�4 •t 'i <y�„�� ('t It Ij Significant Landform Features H IRVINE COASTAL AREA STUDY IWII DOMINANT FRONTAL PROMONTORIES M18 LANDFORMSOFMAJORVISUALPROMINENCEVISIRLEFROM EXISTING AND PROPOSED ARTERIALIiWYS./MAJOR DIVIDING ELEMENTS 65 M FOREGROUND PROMONTORIES N- tiy'1 '•yr - �. 1 t' aloe r as 3 Proposed Acg"tion Parcels Y IRUINE COASTAL AREA Sl UDY 71Emvx CCFiWif 4� t3�t•'�'1'{tF, V. tJ... •}.�a. Y Q COUNTY PROPOSED REGIONAL PARK STATE PAWL AOUtSITION PARCELS EM COASM COM.SSSION PRIORITY PARCELS k P. LAOUNA 61RE6NI5Lirl' o � 4milc5 J north �Nal'e:Thie is a s�hewletio r rtbenf�ticn 'f 9ree4c,47area - nct }o scale. ® Irvin& coder Area }i EXi-ilni and owVial Pe-delormcni " w anfib�o�dTrenspor Ighon Corridor mI 11 0 Ll y - r.•q!7. ?> 'T f"� -, m:ydi,1 ,,r .�� S. , `..n , a `I JI) � � r J '-.Ai, ):..y 1 i_ a 5r' }"il } �.. \ r C !�w � S .d `,t� 'i .. �• �'"' ; ' �ti�``+•1: �. �.r,- 'r�l l�fj �'1 6` i�•�� y+ i • tA\ �r ti,• �' w Pi iF-, 5 C �''+" .'y ram•' •;a }'e ., . _� .l.� • i�'�, 1 ' �;' ;yY . •e'E l';' � ! "" Y'i517'. U, / I ,1 tl,J,rlJ+ iba;.+"`y� Xy`,,* r a^+� .�?•.i' �'..:�-: Y `,:.L : /.c� i •;t? 4 �� 1) t p[,� � )� �;M.,� ��,1 ;y .- ;rr/l.�'v'ii., i,�,'''�ikFFRRR6' a�j;,?r`��'t���l i''�:'� ,�j1, M� �^1 '� >��la,,�4 �g`�.F��.�I;' t,�: • .!`i ;; \t\ • / i /, r\ `\ = 'I't'yi •/i i l` 1� {: � iy���,j 1, � �, '' R f V ��,�"S1•�t ) `� P ��:.•) lir � '( �+"• e' •: /!'it}[ 'i .• i .A���.t�'� 1�4. f •'n'� �l�+�tr41�1�.,'rt.'fr.= Flr'��'"�"'4ry.:„l�g�:: /�•�� •�• :T .) t,+.CAE' •L- r 1T � -i•�' �[,( �! ( �a.� ,i ) ' s . �b i � )(} 1} i�" � )• i \I . �•"+� r � � t r+ ti �• �• e , a '�,1 y. �•�, a. o: \ (i4+• I qi:+ � ! •' �,: t !t L a, 1 1 a ••��/'{�1� ',�� tt?� I�G}�-yr �1y r". a'i�(„ A'. �•�� IA�raj•_ \.,1. E' t.-. i'.n j,p< f `� ./,-are / %' - A' y�tr,n E�•I.r`.' llje:}/. (,'�L �. }I •'{. _F•-2 ri' /`'4'�w1 U[: a�>!',`; � ^t• - 'I ) �.�"''� I' 7 r/, lea c�}� 4••Ln.'»', t.'r, r i/ uE M1 •2:,• ritFr�. .�,\c a li.•• yl.h_ � •`••-+`t,. ,i� �.1+ �',�j; „e,,h r•t �"-0l Si .Y�, ri: •. .,(r ibC. ,.' �� tE�.;•; 'fit : 4 . � � 'Ii - •{ .. \ �� t{ l„ ^` .k , •.�l t �� 'i,ii%r '�.. = . ! � A, .( 1,• , � , , 't 4 r• .,, [. • '-i ~ ` :i Imo. t+` •�',•_A." ,(j�" il,r,'.�1.r}i;,tjl�;tlji. t F ;GifA,'- �3_ � --'��7�-' j `l,i' ri 1j,1._.�}. ,bll-�4= >•liy-fit"�pE, P���i3+.t _Z�. '.P•.� jS� �::/�+':.. \• r E 1 } �•� � ty✓ •)`. 4\En.• 4 �•;p>Y-Sf �` �' t •/„ Etll';e �j "l(•iay�lI .�I(' ��j{41• 1, �1 �1.��''b, ,> � F � ••�� � • -.l l �.SSy�..A �. r.Y tilts i � l �ti- l•' •S�••• � l: ITi,� .4 �,� �• } ' - r- )l % �^-,�(•• A 'h•�r ¢, t IJ,�tit`,'.- L�.t� FF�'`.t�, .��1 .t 4 � + �I ' �t ��-1'l' 1._ _ � ,�t,lj'!�.T•,r�,E'��Ii��1y !�����tR"t.�`F,ll a i�if l/+•�'�'}T�`�!�+•�i A,• ;• �� lr t � � ^. �i lam,` �j�I}+ slt "h ri��:i ,,,. �.P.:r�Y' isj,/i, E••r.'(t_i�fi• i;•: {^ •! , '4. .:. =� 1 �2 \ o ll � 1 ='rr� 1�,k b•ii"7)•i�3'\. r T?� -.,;"y . :. J:' q , �_ %�."�,' •t ,i S •-\- r `. r <t•1�j .l•a ,1 r 14 �,'rtl 4 `:<' tr�{� ). 4., - _ ,—... { _ rA�;., • '•5:�,.t. jtal y, �"'ir1 t� 1 � F,-' �':� �:'r - „' " �� A .a t , CI \.�_ j,i' �ji\� )] , . \A �.%h 7"! 't '.�' (`\_ •ra''`��+�fi : ,r�'t'��.1•.w r• • �`W '..' Ya' �, � �, t• �.. r l i�-U �.- •+ . "`/jp, C ! .., 9ji. �f%/•: - i _ 1,_S { � �����\ /. ��CY •..lj • .{.r F•• j�• .y a,. f `E, 1 ,' ;" l\.J\q�7E�r'J/,��.+ _ ,tom: �' r ; ��., ,/.a. j tl`�- � �� ', r)1, _ �r•r.J�' :+ yid , + • y " ( 1. :`.. 1`r � ^-!' + — sa � � [ t(fy�/I'..l J_\•__ � f+ i. f�1�. fir' � {•�ati,.�+ p ' %i..y -�; E - ' A�.c�-�Z,�ir'i_`I ' •� . ra raw rrrw t Adopted Spheres of Influence IRVINE COASTAL AREA STUDY � a+ERur�mr>rsntt ATTACIu"•E:AT L • r STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Garernor CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION COMMISSION 1540 MARKET STREET, 2nd FLOOR " SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 PHONE, (413) 557.1001 July 6, 1976 i H. G. Osborne, Director Environmental Management Agency 811 North Broadway Santa Anal CA. 92702 Dear Mr. Osborne: I am writing in response to your recent request for Coastal Commission review of the proposed TICMAP General Plan and draft EIR. Time has not allowed for formal review by either the South Coast Regional Commission or the State Coastal Commission, but our staffs have reviewed the documents in light of the Commissions' policies and the Coastal Plan. The comments that follow are thus those of staff, not Commission, but are based solely on the Commissions, Plan recommendations. We are pleased to have participated with the Irvine Company and many State and local agencies in the TICMAP planning that has taken place over the last few years. Everyone involved in that effort clearly recognized the importance of the Irvinecoastal property, and the benefits to be achieved by wise planning for it. Our initial question was whether the Irvine coastal lands could or should -,remain largely undeveloped, providing a substantial open area in a rapidly —urbanizing region. Whatever the merits of that alternative, we have been unable to detect any enthusiasm on the part of public agencies —Federal, State, or local —for purchase of the entire undeveloped coastal area. Moreover, the TICMAP planning program has indicated that substantial development of the property can, if concentrated and well planned, allow for retention of sizable open areas. And we are further concerned that a "no development" alternative, while leaving the Irvine lands open, could have the unintended effect of encouraging sprawling development into other parts of southeast Orange County. What then should a plan for the TICMAP area provide? We believe its goals should include the following: 1. Protect coastal resources, including coastal air quality and water quality. 2. Provide substantial and varied opportunities for the public to enjoy the recreational potential of both shoreline and canyons, and provide visitor —serving accommodations in a variety of price ranges. • -2- 0 3. Concentrate residential and other development in the north and northwest parts of the TIC14AP area, adjacent to existing development and employment canters, to keep development costs lows to allow retention of other parts of the property as open area, to reduce vehicle miles travelled, and help to protect air quality. 4. Protect the ability of Pacific Coast Highway to provide public access to the coast by restricting arterial connections that would further impede traffic flow on Coast Highway,by providing public transit service for developed areas, and by providing inland access j to serve new development in the TIC14AP area so that.residents don't have to rely on Coast Highway. 5. Require that development of the TIC14AP area be carefully phased, so that at each stage of development, adequate public access and transportation improvements are provided. 6. Consistent with the above resource protection and 'public access goals, provide for substantial housing and commercial recreation opportunities. It may not be possible to design a plan that meets all of these objectives to the same degree, but we believe that Alternatives 4 and 5 as presented by your staff come the closest. Both of these alternatives are a substantial improvement over the land use proposal contained in the draft EIR, particularly with regard to concentrating development in areas northwest of Trancos Canyon and preserving an integrated recreational landscape consisting• of the coastal shelf, the Commission's proposed public acquisition areas, and the upland ridges and canyons southeast of Moro Canyon. If the TICMAP area is viewed in isolation, the resource protection character of Alternative 4 could be considered superior to Alternative 5 because of its greater commitment to open space, recreation, and preservation, and because of its lower development and population potential. From a regional perspective, howeverr, Alternative 5 appears preferable because it provides for nearly as much resource protection and public recreation as Alter native 4, while at the same time providing for i a considerably higher level o development f t yhat should het to �P mitigate continuing pressures to develop other coastal and inland areas in the southeast county farther removed from existing population and employment centers. Thus, we consider Alternative 5 to be the most promising of the alternatives being considered. As a variation of Alternative 5, your Commission may wish even to consider density increases, provided the density is matched by public facility improvements and further provided the intensification does not adversely affect public coastal access, coastal resources, or adjacent communities. Please understand, however, that these comments do not represent a staff commitment to specific levels of development. A determination of specific population and development levels must continue to reflect adequate protection of coastal resources and provisions for public access to the coast. • -3- 46 r Our remaining comments are directed to Alternative 5. We believe that, despite its overall merits, additional work is needed to fully protect coastal resources and to insure adequate public access and recreation. 1. Circulation and Public Access. The Coastal Commissions and the State Department of Parks and 'Recreation have proposed purchase of portions of the Irvine coastal property that might cost in total as much as $30,000,000. If the people of.California are to invest this sum, it is essential that the approved land use plan for the area provide both rdad capacity and transit service necessary for the public to reach with relative ease these coastal and canyon recreational areas. , Our review of both the County SEOCCS report and the Drachman Study (completed for the Irvine Company) indicates that neither traffic report dealt adequately with the character of recreational travel' in the TICMAP area, particularly weekend recreational travel. We are currently working with EMA staff, the Irvine Company, and the State Department of Transportation to supplement existing subregional recreational traffic data and we expect to complete this work soon. We cannot yet provide the comments we hope to be able to provide soon, but preliminarily, we are concerned about these transportation aspects: a. TICMAP Area Recreational Travel Patterns. Recreational traffic entering the TICMAP area perpendicular to the coast probably will be bound for sites within the plan area rather than Other locations up or down coast. Planning for adequate public access should focus on distributing trips within the TICMAP area, not on providing for through traffic to Laguna Beach or Newport Beach via Coast Highway. This means that there are viable alternatives to linking either the San Joaquin Hills Road or Corridor to Coast Highway with major arterials. Public access planning shoLu'd focus on directing a substantial share of the incoming recreational traffic to key upland recreation areas adjacent to the canyons. These upland areas would provide needed parking and be linked. -to coastal and other recreation sites within the TICMAP area by both shuttle service and trails, thus allowing inland visitors a choice of access that does not rely on the use of Coast Highway. b. San Joaquin Hills Corridor. At this time we seriously question the concept of a ridgetop transportation corridor extending from Corona del Mar to San Juan Capistrano. The corridor could encourage the continued sprawl of residential development into the southeast county and result in substantial adverse impacts on public access to the coast. We even question whether that portion of the corridor in the TICMAP is essential, since it appears to us that the 6-lane extension of San Joaquin Hills Road to Culver Drive provides sufficient capacity. If the corridor is approved by the Planning Commission, however, we support the EMA staff recommendations to realign the corridor out of Laurel Canyon and limit initial construction to a 2-lane road. C. Extension of San Canyon Road to Coast Highway. We also question the proposed extension of this primary highway beyond Wishbone Hill to link with Coast Highway. Alternative 5 eliminates the high density residential and commercial formerly proposed to be located adjacent to Coast Highway near this intersection and, since this area is now designated for recreational use, there no longer appears to be a need to complete this costly and -k- environmentally-damaging extension. Why not end San Canyon Road at Wishbone Hill? It would still adequately serve the proposed resort destination complex, while avoiding the proposed public purchase area. The following factors cause us to urge further renew of the proposed extension to Coast Highway: (1) Coast Highway is already congested, and the addition of another intersection and more lateral traffic cannot be accommodated without widening Coast Highway to 6 lanes. (2) The State Department of Transr A stion indicates that no money is available for Coast Highway except for needed safety improvements; therefore, the County would have to pay for the widening of the highway as proposed in the 51A staff alternatives. (3) Extension of a primary arterial through the proposed acquisition area would substantially dimin'ush -.he value of thy:,parkland, both visually and functionally; given the high acquisition costs associated with this parcel, such a road extension could even jeopardize the proposed purchase of an area that. both 194A and our staff agree is the single most important acquisition proposal recommended by the Coastal Commission in the TICMAP area. (4) Adequate public access to the nouth of Moro Canyon, the terrace area, and Reef Point can be provided from Wishbone Hill via either tram or private cars with a much smaller and less obtrusive road designed strictly to serve such a need. d. Adverse Impact of Culver Drive on Trancos Canyon. There is no question of the need for, or the capacity of, Culver Drive. We are concerned, however, with the potential impacts of the Culver Drive roadbed fill on the neck of Trancos Canyon and recommend that a more westerly alignment be considered. 2. Phasing of Transportation Improvements and Development. One deficiency'of the TIC14AP draft EIR was its failure to relate the incremental buildout of the TICMAP area to transportation improvements. According to Table 3 in the EIR (p.35), the first of'the proposed inland access arterials was not scheduled for completion until development phase IIB. This meant that almost 51000 dwelling units would be built before an inland access alternative to Coast Highway is available. In other words, more than 50,000 average daily trips would be forced onto the Coast Highway segment through Corona del Mar, already one of the most congested roadways i.:i Southern California. Given this kind of potential impact, we can understand why the City of Newport Beach recommended limiting population and densities adjacent to its boundaries. We believe that with proper planning adverse impacts such as the above can be avoided. In response to these concerns „it is essential that an alternative inland road be provided early in the first phase of TICMAP development to relieve pressures on Coast Highway and to avoid the adverse traffic impacts on the City of Newport Beach. And the adopted land use plan should assure that at any stage of buildout, new development is conditioned on the availability of road capacities sufficient to meet the needs of both the residential population and recreational travel. -5- The Coastal Commission's recommendations for major public parkland acquisitions in the TICMAP area clearly were based on the assumption that there would be adequate public access to the purchase areas. It is doubtful that the Commission would continue to recommend the expenditure of public funds if development approved in the immediate vicinity of the parklands were to effectively preclude access by inland residents to the Irvine Coast. It follows that any land use plan for such an extensive development as that proposed for the TIC1+IAP area should carefully relate the phasing of development to the provision of transportation services. adequate to assure meaningful public access to the coast. J 3. Impact of Alternative 5 on Coastal Commissions' Acquisition . " Recommendations. Alternative 5 reflects most of the Coastal Commissions' acquisition recommendations, but it does not include the Pelican Hill or Upper Moro Ridge sites. If these sites are not bought by the public, then we strongly believe that the areas designated for.operi space and conservation uses east of Moro should be permanently designated for recreational uses and transferred to public ownership prior to.any develop- ment on Pelican Hill. Transfer of these lands would constitute a natural addition to existing public acquisition proposals and provide permanent protection for the area's open space and natural habitat values. The transfer would also complement the efforts of Laguna Greenbelt. Incorporated and provide the final commitment to the preservation of a recreational landscape extending from Trancos Canyon to and including the Laguna Greenbelt. In view of the importance of such dedication (which, we believe, would be in accord with criteria of the State Department of Parks and Recreation), there could be consideration of relating the dedication to density increases in the northwest portion of the TICMAP area. In our opinion, however, any density increases in the northwest area should be preceded by the dedication of the area east of Moro Canyon. 4. The Need for Moderate Cost Family Tourist Accommodations. The location of the Irvine coastal property near many established tourist attractions, together with the continued growth in the Orange County tourist industry, indicate that there will be a growing demand for moderate -cost tourist and recreation facilities serving family needs. Because of its setting and land values, it is doubtful that the Crystal Cove resort recreation complex will provide a very large share of these needed accommodations. We recommend that the Wishbone Hill resort recreation complex be expanded to help meet the expected need for additional low-cost and moderate -cost accommodations. The strategic location of Wishbone Hill immediately adjacent to the terraces connecting Trances and Moro Canyons, and close to Reef Point, Crystal Cove, and the mouth of Moro Canyon, provides the kind of immediate access to a variety of recreation attractions that would be an ideal family destination. We appreciate having been given the opportunity to comment on this extremely important planning matter. The Irvine Coastal property and the Santa Monica Mountains represent the last opportunities to create major coastal recreational areas for the 10 million people of the Los Angeles Basin, areas comparable to the heavily —used Golden Gate National Recreation Area in northern California. We look forward to working with you further as the planning proceeds. ours very truly, JQSMH B. BODOVITZ Executive Director cc: State Commissioners South Coast Regional Commission ' ATTACH1,1ENT PO • IRVINE COAST Because this undevleoped property of 10,000 acres and almost 3.5 miles of shoreline is in a single ownership, because it combines shoreline fron— tage with substantial upland acreage, and because it is in the recreation — deficient Los Angeles metropolitan area, the Irvine Coast presents an unparal— lelled opportunity for development of many types, while insuring increased opportunities for a variety of public recre/ation and for open space, protection. Overall Guidelines. New development should be concentrated near already — developed areas and employment centers, to protect wildlife habitat and open space and to reserve substantial areas for public recreation. Development and public facilities should be phased to protect long—term public access to proposed shoreline and upland recreation areas. Development should include a substantial amount of low— and moderate —cost visitor, facilities. Development Guidelines. 1. Concentrate Development. Private residential and commercial develop— ment should generally be landward of Coast Highway on the ridges north and west of Moro Canyon. a. Trances Canyon, the upper terraces and slopes below Wishbone Hill, -Moro Canyon, and the area east of Moro Ridge should remain undeveloped for recreation and open space uses. b. Limited residential development should be allowed seaward of Coast Highway, adjacent to the existing Cameo Shores residential area. c. To minimize non —recreational travel on the already —congested Coast Highway, neighborhood and other general commercial developments serving residents of the area should be away from Coast Highway. d. Resort and visitor —serving facilities should be concentrated at the point of .Wishbone Ridge and at Crystal Cove to mi.nize the need to use Coast Highway and to reserve the rest of the area seaward of Coast Highway for public recreation uses. 2. Recreation ODportunities and Open Space. New development should in— clude the creation of an integrated open space system connecting the major can— yons and ridges and linking upland areas to the shoreline. This system should provide substantial and varied opportunities for public use and enjoyment. a. The Moro Canyon, bluff top, and beach areas now authorized for acquisition by the State Department of Parks and Recreation, as well as the first —priority sites recommended by the Coastal Commission in 1976 should be reserved for recreational use except that development proposed for the Pelican Hill and Moro Ridge sites that the prior Coastal Commission recommended for public acquisition could be approved if substantial dedications of comparable wildlife habitat and public —use areas east of Moro Canyon are made. b. Ultimate buildout should be based on a concluded agreement specifying a schedule and technique for transferring designated open space and recreation areas to appropriate public agencies. • 2 �J c. Public recreation should specifically include the development of major overnight facilities by public or private groups on the upper terraces landward of Coast Highway. Day -use activities should be varied and linked by an integrated trail system, which should also link the public areas with the shoreline and other visitor -serving facilities. 3. Traffic Circulation and Public Access. New development should include a circulation system emphasizing internal dispersal of incoming traffic rather than seeking to accommodate all through traffic using Coast Highway. a. The ability of Coast Highway to provide public access d the coast should be protected by restricting lateral arterial connections to Culver Drive. Approval of the proposed connection of Sand Canyon Road to Coast Highway would require conclusive evidence that such a connection is necessary to provide adequate public access to shoreline and upland recrea- tion facilities. Other proposed lateral roads would be terminated before they intersect with Coast Highway. 4 b. Improvements to Coast Highway should be limited -to alterations needed to improve safety. The capacity of the highway should not be increased. c. Because of the potential adverse impacts of the proposed 6-lane San Joaquin Hills Corridor on coastal resources in the South -Orange County Coast, extension of the road should be limited to a 2-lane road that termin- ates at the Laguna Freeway. d. The proposed alignment of Culver Drive should be moved westward at the neck of Trancos Canyon to protect the canyon from the effects of con- struction of the roadbed. e. Development and transportation improvements should be phased to assure that Culver Drive and other needed inland arterial connections are completed in the first phases of development. This will be essential to avoid forcing the traffic generated by 4-5,COO residential units onto the already- congested,Coast Highway. A specific phasing plan should,be required, to assure this and to assure that residential buildbut will be related to ex- tended and improved bus service. 4. Need for Visitor Facilities. The resort complexes proposed for Wishbone Hill and Crystal Cove should include facilities and concessions priced to serve a full range of users. The Wishbone Hill site, because of its strategic central location adjacent to the terraces connecting Moro and Trancos canyons, is especially well suited to the development of such moderate -cost, family facilities. 'I_... _.. • • Attachment N ENVIROMIENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY REPORD �^�;(� LV L APR 11 1978 DATE: April 10, 1978 CALIFORNIA TO: Orange County Planning Commission COASTAL CONWISSION FROM: Environmental Services Division !' SUBJECT: Final EIR 134 For The Irvine Coast - I. BACKGROUND Environmental Impact Report 134 was originally prepared for land use and circulation amendments to the Orange County General Plan in the Irvine Coastal. area. The draft environment impact report was distributed for public circulation in Spring, 1976 and after seven Planning Commission public hearings was certified complete by the Board of Supervisors on August 18, 1976. Final Environmental Impact 134 was distributed to this Com- mission on March 6, 1978 for consideration in action on the Local Coastal Plan for the Irvine Coastal area. In addition to the draft, Final EIR 134 contains the following information: 1. Minutes from Planning Commission hearings on the general plan amendment and environmental impact report. 2. Resolilti,;rs from the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission adopting the amendment and EIR 134. 3. Environmental Management Agency staff reports. 4. Res;nnses and comments received from over twenty interested agencies and individuals during the draft review period. 5. Supplemental reports on air quality and cost revenue. II. ANALYSIS Enviroraental Impact Report 134 represents the most compre- hensive approach at analyzing the environment consequences of a project yet prepared on a general plan amendment. It describes the existing conditions of the area, summarizing a large number of background studies contained in appendices to the EIR. Envir- onmental impacts are analyzed and mitigation measures are proposed 0 EMA 4/10178 Page 2 ` as a series of policies which are to be implemented at subsequent, more specific levels of planning, design, and approval. Alternatives to the proposal are discussed in addition to those reviewed during the County planning review process. The major environmental issues addressed in the Draft EIR and during the public review process are as follows: A. Landform modification B. Public safety �. C. Loss of biological resources including wildlife habitat D. Impact on cultural -scientific resources 1 E. Displacement of existing housing and preclusionpf low and moderate income housing F. Additional traffic generation G. Loss of open'space and visual amenities A: Landform Modification The proposed General Plan amendment will result in major alteration of several prominent topographic features. Speci- fically, Pelican Hill, Wishbone Hill, and the coa$tal terrace from Reef Point to Newport Beach will be subject to the most significant amount of potential earth moving. The ridgelines in the southerly half of the study area wi7'1 be subject to re- latively less alteration. Alteration of landform will result from several activities. Preparation of building sites for production and custom housing, road construction, landslide stabilization and fuel modification programs will all contribute to landform alteration. Quantitative evaluation of the effects of grading is impossible to accomplish without detailed studies, but it is assumed that some degree of modification will occur wherever urban land uses are shown on the Land Use Element. } Et•it\ 4/10/78 Page 3 The principal orientation of mitigation measures proposed for landform modification is to establish a general policy which will serve to influence decisions at more precise planning levels regarding modifications to development standards. Specific solu- tions to problems resulting from grading are'not proposed. Macy of the proposed mitigation measures are items which would be re- quired of the applicant by zoning, the subdivision code, LCP or - other local regulations. B. Public Safety The large number and areal extent of unstable and potentially unstable slopes within the study area indicates that geologic hazards could significantly affect development within the area. Earthquake potential could result in severe public safety problems in several portions of the project site. Additional safety hazards may result from erosion of the bluff face if insufficient protection for the bluff is provided. Also, a significant fire hazard exists on the property, especially on steep slope areas inland of Pacific Coast Highway. The general planning process has successfully dealt with potential geologic hazards in that urban uses are designated in a manner that avoid hazardous areas. Additionally, policies are included in the plan that call for the continued investigation of geologic hazards at more specific levels of planning. C. Biological Resources The proposed project will have substantial adverse impacts on biological resources. On a regional scale, -the project will ul- timately result in the loss of a major natural area, one of the last along the southern California coast. The cumulative effect of the project will be to convert the range and natural areas to an urban environment with natural "islands" connected by open space corridors. Vegetation and wildlife diversity will be lowered somewhat as a result of this project. Isolated populations of genetically unique plants may be destroyed. Animal species intolerant of human occupation will cease to occupy one area. Non-native plant and animal species will be introduced into the study area, which will further degrade natural ecological processes. 0 0 EMA 4/10/78 Page 4 Areas left "natural" will be subject to fuel modification programs, recreational use, potential fire, intrusion by weeds and human -related animal species (rats, dogs, cats, etc.) and other ecological stresses. Designated natural areas may not.be of sufficient sizes location, and isolation to remain representative of their origins. The proposed project may also have adverse impacts on marine biological resources. Fertilizers and other organic pollutants may reduce water quality in thm nearshore area. Increased sewage generation will increase discharge quantities from outfalls located in the region. Adverse effects on the offshore kelp beds may result from development of the coastal area. The Irvine Coastal Plan has been prepared with a great deal of attention given to biological resources., Vigilance on the part of all regulatory agencies responsible for future development proposals will be necessary to ensure that all the policies are carried out and remaining biological resources are maintained. Y D. Cultural/Scientific Resources Any development within the study area will directly or indirectly affect cultural -and sci,:rtific resources. Certain areas may be more significant than others. Pelican Hill is known as a significant archaeological and biological resource. The proposed plan will result in the destruction of that re- source. Most of the site has not been.surveped for archaeo- logical and or paleontological resources, and such resources were not considered a development constraint in the preparation of the General Plan amendment. {Jhile the Plan policies provide for site -by -site miti- gation, there is no guarantee that resources will be preserved on the basis of scientific value alone. Also, there is no consideration of the value of the assemblage of sites, which, in itself, could provide valuable information on aboriginal Californians. The Irvine coastal area is undisturbed relative to other open areas in Orange County, and the lack, of access to the area has resulted in preservation of archaeological sites. Scientific surveys conducted on the property in ac- cordnace with the County Plan and Procedures for Preservation 0 11 EMA 4/10/78 - Page 5 will ensure that an evaluation of resources will be conducted as well as analysis of location and extent of sites. E. Housing Displacement of residents in the existing 43 cottages. in Crystal Cove will occur. Eleven of the units are occupied by permanent residents. In E1 Moro Trailer Park, the existing 294 units will be displaced and the entire property will be acquired by the State. ' The plan for the Irvine coastal area makes no provision for low priced housing and little provision for moderately priced units. Most employees of the Irvine coastal area re- creational and commercial facilities and many from nearby employment centers will be economically precluded from ob- taining housing in the Irvine coastal area. Plan policies propose that a specific program for relo- cation be developed for those residents of Crystal Cove and El Moro Trailer Park. In addition, a proportion of the housing units are to be affordable to those households whose income is less than 80% of the Orange County family median income. F. Traffic/Circulation Traffic projections and iuformation contained in the Draft EIR were based on traffic mod -ling studies conducted by J. D. Drachman and the Environmental Management Agency. Major conclusions of the analysis are: 1. The highest percentage of total ADT attributable to the project will occur on summer Sundays on San Joaquin Hills Road and Pacific Coast Highway through Corona del Mar and the study area. This condition assumes that the transportation corridor and other major roadways are constructed. 2. Traffic conditions on Pacific Coast Highway will increase only slightly (5000 ADT) with development of the proposal and construction of the corridor. However, these volumes will contribute to a condition that already exceeds highway capacity by 10,000 - 15,000 ADT. • EMA 4/10/78 Page b 3. If the proposed transportation corridor is not con- structed, significant traffic increases will occur on Pacific Coast Highway, San Joaquin Hills Road ands' Laguna Canyon east of Culver Drive and Laguna Canyon Road. 4. More than half of the projected ADT on the proposed transportation corridor will be for trips which have neither an origin nor destination in the coastal area. Only on summer Sundays on the segment of the corridor west of Laguna Canyon Road will the study area contri- bute more than 50% of total ADT. 5. Laguna Canyon Road will experience substantial increases in traffic with or without the project. F. Open Space/Visual Amenities Approximately 25% of the 9,300 acre coastal site will be converted from visual open space/grazing land to urban uses. Views of the ocean and the coastline between Newport Beach and Laguna Beach will be significantly reduced for travelers on Pacific Coast Highway. Development on ridgelines and hill- sides in the upland portions of the coastal area will have an adverse impact on visually sensitive land forms as seen from Pacific Coast Highway, Laguna Beach, and other vantage poirL: The reduction of open space and coastline view shed as seen from Pacific Coast Highway is largely an unavoidable ad- verse impact of the'plan. While mitigation measures will help to avoid a complete blockage of coastline views, a primary impact of the plan will be to transform an area of important scenic value to commercial urbanization. The proposed policies r-id guidelines in the plan provide a sophisticated attempt to minimize the visual impact of pro- posed development. However, it must be recognized that the existing appearance of the site will be radically altered due to the extent of the proposed development and the topo- graphic and geologic constraints of the site. Much of the project area is underlain by sandstone bedrock formations which may be exposed by grading. Re -vegetation of manufac- tured slopes in these areas will be extremely difficult due to the sterility of the sandstone material. As a result, certain graded areas may create a stark, stripped appearance which may be visible from great distances. s EMA 4/10/78 Page 7 The problem of landscaping manufactured slopes is aggri- vated by the extensive amount of grading necessary to depelop the site as planned. Steep slope conditions combined with areas of geologic instability will necessitate substantial grading much of which may create permanent, unavoidable visual impacts. Mitigation measures offered in EIR 134 are,presented as a series of policies which are to be implemented at sub- sequent, more specific levels of planning. Therefore, the ultimate measure of the effectiveness of these policies will be the willingness and capability of the responsible agencies to integrate them into decisions made on zone change appli- cations, tentative subdivision maps, grading permits, and other permits required prior to development of the property. 4 III. RECONZEENDATIONS A. That previously certified•County Final EIR 134 adequately addresses the environmental eff:cts Land Use Phase of the Local Coastal Program for the Irvine Coast, contains all feasible mitigation measures, and has been considered in the Planning Commission's action; and recommend teat the Board of Supervisors find and consider the same. The fol- lowing elements are added to the Final EIR for this project: 1. This Environmental Management Agency Report. 2. Minutes of the Planning Commission public hearings on this matter. B. That, as identified in Final EIR 134, measures to mitigate impacts of the project on public safety, water, and air quality, noise, public services, energy, and land use have been adopted as County policy; and that as expressed in public hearings on the EIR on April 20, May 25, June 1, 0 EMA 4/10/78 Page 8 June 21, July 26, August 3, and August 18, 1976, specifiq• economic, recreational and other land use needs make in— feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives for . impacts on landform modification, biological resources,' cultural scientific resources, housing, traffic and open space/visual amenities. F Submitted by, De ni' L. Sun4trre�om, Manager Vironmental Services Division DTW:mv City Council Meeting April 10, 1978 M Study Session Agenda No. H(c)l CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 6, 1978 TO: City Council FROM: Department .of Community Development SUBJECT: Orange County Local Coastal Program for the Irvine Coastal Area. Background Orange County is in the process of holding public hearings on the plan for the Irvine Coastal Area, approved by the Board of Supervisors in August of 1976. It is their intention to submit the previously - approved Land Use Plan, the policies for the Irvine Coastal Area, and other detailed General Plan policies as the Local Coastal Program for the area. The Orange County Planning Commission recently held public hearings on the Plan on March 6 and March 27, 1978. One additional Planning Commission hearing will be held April 10, 1978, and written comments will be accepted through April 14, 1978. The document will then be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for final action before formal submittal to the Coastal Commission. Prior to any Board action, the Plan may be submitted to the Coastal Commission for informal review. It is staff's impression that the County intends to submit the Land Use Plan, approved with the 1976 General Plan amendment, without any major modifications. In January, 1974 The Irvine Company started "The Irvine Coastal Community Multi -Agency Planning Program (TICMAP)." Its purpose was to provide a forum for participation in the company's coastal planning activity by more than 20 interested organizations, among them state, federal and local government agencies and environmental groups. Under the TICMAP program, ten public meetings were held. A composite plan was developed for the site and submitted by The Irvine Company to the County of Orange in 1975. After receiving The Irvine Company's formal submittal, the County Environmental Management Agency staff developed four additional land use and circulation alternatives specifically for the Irvine Coast. These alternatives reflected many concerns expressed during public hearings. They also incorporated recent actions of the California Coastal Commission, including its published Coastal Plan and proposed acquisition areas. The major differences between the plan submitted by The Irvine Company and the alternatives developed by the County was the extent of commitment to urban uses and the lands to be set aside for the public in the form of recreation and open space uses. The City of Newport Beach participated in the County's review of the TICMAP plan and formally commented on the Plan in letters to the Orange County Planning Commission dated May 25, 1976 and July 13, 1976. These letters generally expressed City concern over the magnitude and intensity of development contemplated in the TICMAP Plan, and traffic impacts to existing major roadways in the City of Newport Beach. In addition, it was mentioned that the City was concerned with possible public costs that would be incurred with development of the major road network in the area, the conversion of existing open space to urban uses, and adequate provision of school facilities in the area. Based upon the Planning Commissi•on's recommendation, the County staff's As TO: City Council - 2 Alternative No. 5 was adopted by the Orange County Board of kupervisors on August 18, 1976. Summary of Adopted TICMAP Plan A Land Use Plan map of the Irvine Coastal Area is attached. Along the coast, the Plan emphasizes resort, tourist accommodations, and open space uses. Approximately 126 acres of tourist recreation commercial uses are proposed along the shoreline in the Crystal Cove area, with an additional 50 acres located on the frontal portion of Wishbone Hill. The higher density residential areas are located on the upland plateaus and ridge areas. These hilltown locations, close to the urban centers of Newport Beach and future transportation facilities, will contain densities from 10-23 units per acre. The majority of the Irvine Coast' residential units will be provided at these locations. The remaining ridgeline areas will contain residential uses ranging from very low density rural residential at 1 unit per 10 acres, to medium density use at 5 units per acre. Virtually all residential development is concentrated in the northern one-third of the area. The projected population for the Land Use Plan within the Coastal Zone is about 32,900 persons. Approximately two-thirds of the site is in some type of open space use. These open space uses include "Conservation" (very restrictive); "Recreation" (proposed parkland areas j; and "Other Open Space" (which could permit very limited development). Two-thirds of the Irvine Coastal Area is in a reserve designation. These areas must be reexamined through subsequent General Plan Amendments before urban uses will be permitted. This reexamination will focus on the availability of urban services and facilities. In Urban Area "A", the portion of the Irvine Coastal Area adjacent to the City of Newport Beach and not designated for reserve status, 7,512 dwelling units are proposed. Following is a statistical summary of development proposed in the County Land Use Plan for the area. URBAN (AREA "A") LAND USE CATEGORY RESIDENTIAL ACRES DWELLING UNITS POPULATION (1.2, 1.23) Low -Medium Density 569 1,698 6,623 (1.3, 1.31) Medium Density 392 1,961 5,393 (1.4) (1.41) High Density 132 1,434 4,632 (1.5) High Density 105 2,419 4,596 Sub -Total 11198 7,512 21,244 OPEN SPACE 5) Rural Residential 74 7 27 3) Recreation 873 41) Conservation 216 4) Other Open Space 185 31) Tourist Recreation/Commercial 126 Sub -Total 1,474 TOTAL 2,672 7,519 21,271 TO: City Council - 3 RESERVE (AREAS "B" AND "C") RESIDENTIAL ACRES DWELLING UNITS POPULATION (1.2, 1.23) Medium -Low Density 514 1,477 608 5,761 1,964 (1.4) (1.51) High Density Heavy Density 50 88 2,013 3,825 Sub -Total 652 4,098 11,550 OPEN SPACE (5.5) Rural Residential 296 30 93 (5.3) Recreation 2,083 (5.41) Conservation 1,684 (5.4) Other Open Space 1,904 5.31) Tourist Recreation/Commercial 76 Sub -Total 6,043 TOTAL 6,695 4,128 11,643 TOTAL FOR COASTAL ZONE 9,367 11,647 32,914 Copies of the Irvine Coastal Area Issue Identification and Land Use Plan have been forwarded to the Council. Suggested City Response Attached is a draft letter to be forwarded to the Orange County Planning Commission restating the City's concerns with the Plan. Staff will attend the April 10, 1978 Orange County Planning Commission hearing on this matter, and will make a presentation on the City's position as desired by the City Council. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. Hogan, Director By U'QMo' & David Dmohowski Advance Planning Administrator DD:jmb Attachment: 1) Land Use Plan 2) Statistical Area Map 3) Suggested Letter Zv fir- . •� �,✓.r.: � I.0<m • Lerthi ". 1 '.�'• nI . ?49 i sue" ' mat GA wo as WO / 1 I' s -' }� S2ffY .I L23t+7 � r!• €m � - t! - �{d T -' p3 .1/.�/LiI/���"�.f.- r,�\ �} �• x S41 l uw if LAN `s ue "Do 9Nw 4sa m �sE+dT '� • c 1 :k' IRVINE COAST PlanningUnit 11 RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE Land Use Plan- Land Use Component �s•I2, fn� ] 1 Off, UO, W11C mmum DENS" Sa I' 11Ed1G110N TO Isr�ECI1E�ilONK0mm0 L •^•r l�HOWGO)•i,,OW�G —SA OTNEAOrENSowx LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM UtS EtYN KYA Ste!' CONSENWTOM U111[fE11IE 'n B.2#0 51T' `9 11tN1AL W310[NTLlL [MYIIIOIYIEIRAL YAMAOEIIENi AO[NOY COOYT•Of ORAMOE 0 0. r _ - _4 ' / , ^yam �.-���•% A 1 1 lCitr. RH ,��~'lr'r DATE. FEET: a ran VaIch !! r x IRVINE COAST- Planning Unit if Land Use Plan - Urban/Reserve Status LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM 9-7URBAN DESIGNATION e%c. RESERVE DESIGNATION ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY COUNTYOFORANGE 0 'a tjz •: t .. MTE: MEET• aw aea. ra.ah•n ���� IFMNE COAST- Punning Urrt tt _ �+MAM ARTMUAL NMMYS Land Use Plan -Circulation Component -�-,a •tl" . t.a w11Y •^w-r — — PFJMAAY ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS .t[.rl.1 I"I"tt. that adsfa- a,tL t[ SECONDARYAHTERAL H6NVAYS aaa. haaa h... bl.. aaa h,." w ,band LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM "" °"''"" "'°` " `"` "`""''"" ' ' ' SCENIC HIGHWAYS .! 0e <nnrllae .Il Mz .t wane ,rn- Y/,1, w.t[aa�,e,i aN hyn.o n,3wn". TRAHSPORGRION CONAIOOR ENYINGMMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY COVNiYOFOMNOE lli hr .rt.a,1". Q_ r .�1 CITY OF IMNE -`• ^ �- •:� .�-..ter � ... • - _ • Peak. ' 15 ` 8 i Spyglass, HIII T Pelican .. ~�l. •♦ HIII '" •41! -#' f ..- �, — -- '•• wi` Wishbone a c� Harbor View r 1 Il ��\.. Hill mE\�• ; E •��1,1 Hills .� ■. t.. �'S`m �. Moro w HID a Z. �} LAGUNA ` ' I '. ''`• _ 1 BEACH r ighlands • �• �NEWPORT.'—_-. -, 1 EmeraldB2y.i �, BEACH '" ( _ •- `F hOteS. Crystal Cove •; Mom 1rt mCoScotchrrian vt I�' �•; Pelican Point Reel Point - DATE. FEET:. Abalone Point x..cnsm 1RVINE COAST- Planning Unit 11 Land Use Plan- Sub Areas — — — SPHERE OFINFLUENCE BOUNDARY LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY COUNTYOFORANOE - a� J • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE MAYOR (714) 640-2110 April 10, 1978 Orange County Planning Commission 400 Civic Center Drive Santa Ana, CA 92701 Gentlemen: RE: Local Coastal Program for Irvine Coast During the County's review of the Land Use Element amendment for the Irvine Coast in 1976, the City of Newport Beach participated in public hearings and stated in correspondence the City's concerns with proposed -development plans for this significant coastal area, of which approximately 4,000 acres are within Newport Beach's sphere of influence. These concerns relate generally to three issues: 1) The intensity of development p-roposed for the Irvine Coast, including the number of dwellings, density, projected population and level of tourist -oriented commercial development. 2) Traffic impact on Newport Beach, particularly the impact of downcoast development on Coast Highway in Corona del Mar and San Joaquin Hills Road. 3) Environmental considerations, including preservation of scenic values and significant natural landforms. It is the City's understanding that the County intends to submit the Irvine Coast land use plan, adopted by the Board of Supervisors in August, 1976, as the Local Coastal Program for this area. Therefore, the same concerns expressed by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the general plan amendment apply also to the proposed Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program. The City of Newport Beach would like to reiterate its position on development plans for the Irvine Coast in the following areas: 1) Density and Population: Residential development should be limited to the lowest reasonable density, consistent with adjacent residential areas in Newport Beach (3 to 4 dwellings per acre). 2) Commercial Intensity of Development: Commercial development -- particularly that of a regional or tourist -oriented nature, such as hotels -- should be limited to the lowest reasonable level. City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 IR Orange County Planning Commission Page Two April 10, 1978 The land area designated for tourist commercial in the proposed plan (176 acres) is considered excessive in terms of potential traffic impact on adjacent communities and in terms of the environmental holding capacity of this area. 3) Circulation and Phasing of Development: The traffic impact of the projected level of development on Coast Highway portends to be considerable. The City requests that my development occurring in this area be phased in strict compliance with the roadway improvement plan. The San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor is essential to relieving congestion on Coast Highway. Also the north -south arterial system connecting with the Corridor, including Culver Drive, needs to be of sufficient capacity and design so as to attract trips away from Coast Highway. The Fifth Avenue Corridor is not an alternative route available to relieve traffic on Coast Highway as a result of development in the downcoast area. 4) Fiscal Impact: The extent of roadway improvements required to serve proposed development is expected to have a significant impact on local taxes. School facilities required will impose an additional tax burden. 5) Environmental Impacts: The level of development contemplated is expected to have a significant impact on the scenic value of the Irvine Coast area. The City requests strict adherence to grading and development standards designed to mitigate impacts on significant natural landforms. 6) Public Acquisition: The City has gone on record supporting attempts to acquire all or a portion of the Irvine Coast for public open space and recreation use. The LCP for this area needs to be sensitive also to the potential traffic problems associated with intensive recreational use. In conclusion, the Local Coastal Program for the Irvine Coast needs to recognize the potential significant impact of the plan on coastal resources and on the City of Newport Beach, since the major portion of proposed development is located adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods in Newport Beach. The City appreciates the opportunity to comment on this important project. Respectfully, (filan Dostal, Mayor City of Newport Beach, California MD:DO:jmb '0' CAMEO SHORES • U'�;,�. tJrp CAMEO COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 1523 • NEWFORT BEACH • CALIFORNU 92663 April 10, 1978 Mr. Richard G. Munsell, Assistant Director Advance Planning Division County of Orange Environmental Management Agency 811 North Broadway Santa Ana, California Dear Mr. Munsell, ,7]a /Tx CAMEO HIOHLANy� �Q,lI ((/ o ' � 4i0 FFoQ Qti• ,�� ,Z'. Q• 0�,"00 oQ �9 Q G� A,4zQ �Q G� 2 SUBJECT: Statement of the Cameo Community Association regarding the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program The Cameo Community Association is vitally concerned with the Irvine Coastal Program. As residents of,Cameo Shores and Cameo Highlands, the adjacent development of Irvine land 011 have an 'important impact upon our local community. In addition, because we live here we have firsthand experience with the beaches and tidepools which are of both regional and statewide importance. With this in mind, we call to your attention the following concerns: LOCAL IMPACT The design and height of new dwelling units. We are concerned that an ocean view be preserved for homeowners in Cameo Highlands and the south side of Cameo Shores. Many of these homeowners look out over the undeveloped land to the water. New dwelling units should be designed so that they do not impair this view. In addition, we request that a green belt_buffer (low trees, grass, shrubs) be provided between the exisiting homes and the proposed residential area. Many of our homeowners also enjoy views of the hills_ In some cases, this el Is their home's only view. Any devopment of the hills, especially those behind Cameo Highlands should be made with this in mind. Access to proposed development. We request that access to any proposed development be via Pacific Coast Highway and not through Cameo Shores or Highlands so that our community integrity may be retained. REGIONAL IMPACT Density. Any plans for increased density in homes should take into consideration the impact of new traffic generated on an already -congested Pacific Coast Highway and additional beach usage of fragile tidepool areas. LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATEWIDE IMPACE Beach Access. r•CAAt1p SHORES April 10, 1978 • CAMEO COMMUNITY • ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 1523 • NEWPORT BEACH • CALIFORNU 92663 CAMEO HIGHLANDS Page 2 We understand completely the feeling that as many people as possible should have access to the beaches which are, afterall, a public resource. Our concern is that this sentiment may have caused you to overlook several facts. Are you aware that during high tide periods there is often very little beach left exposed along the area between Cameo Shores and Laguna? At the same time, there are miles of white sandy public beach available from Newport Beach through Huntington Beach and further north. In many of these places, the problem is not public access but that there is little public parking and much traffic congestion. Perhaps the public would be better served if funds were provided for more parking and shuttle service in these other areas rather than increased use of a not -very -satisfactory beach. Tidepool Access. Increased usage of the Irvine Coastal beach will mean increased traffic through the Marine Life Refuges in the coves below Cameo Shores. At low tide there is direct access from the Irvine Beach around the rocks to the tidepools below our community. 1 i The tidepools are a national resource which the State of California, Orange County Fish and Game Commission,'Orange County Harbor District and City of Newport Beach are working hard to preserve. For many years these areas have played an important part in the activities of marine biologists and people from all educational levels. Because of their accessibility the areas were greatly depleted by unrestricted collecting activities.. In 1968, the California Legislature established the Orange County Marine Refuges under the California Fish and Game Code. The sea is becoming more and more important as an energy, food and oxygen- %i providing resource. The tidepools offer a unique opportunity to glimpse the delicate balance of plant and animal life in the sea. By studying the tidepools, interested persons of all ages can increase their understanding of this vast but fragile resource. Public access now exists to these tidepools both at Little Corona and at the Irvine Beach. At low tide all the rocks are exposed along the area between these two areas. In addition, as a community we do all we can to encourage interested groups to enjoy and study the tidepools. Nursery school children, elementary school students, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Indian Guides, Indian Maidens all come and study the marine life. The OASIS (Corona del Mar's Senior Citizens Center) has a tidepool study group and an Orange Coast College instructor brings his class here for ocean studies. K_ j CAMEO SHORES • . CAMEO HIGHLANDS CAMEO COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 1523 • NEWPORT BEACH • CALIFORNIA 92663 April 10, 1978 Page 3 Any plans for opening the Irvine Beach to more people should keep in mind the ramifications of increased traffic in the tidepool area. Many of these people may be insensitive to the delicate balance of nature in the marine environment and deplete it by rapid shell, rock and animal collection thus depriving future generations of this opportunity to study and wonder at nature. Sincerel o n Anderson President Cameo Community Association JA;vjs CC; Orange County Planning Commission 400 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, CA 92701 South Coast Regional Commission P.O. Box 1450 Long Beach, CA 90801 City of Newport Beach, Community Development Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 CITY Off` NEWPORT BEACH April 10, 1978 Orange .County Planning Commission 400 Civic Center Drive Santa Ana, CA 92701 Gentlemen: OFFICE OF THE MAYOR (714) 640-2110 PiQ.0, g- RE: Local Coastal Program for Irvine Coast During the County's review of -tile Land Use Element amendment for the Irvine Coast in 1976, the City of Newport Beach participated in public hearings and stated in correspondence the City's concerns with proposed development plans for this significant coastal area, of which approximately 4,000 acres adjoin Newport Beach and are within Newport Beach's sphere of influence. These concerns relate generally to three issues: 1) The intensity of development proposed for the Irvine Coast, including the number of dwellings, density, projected population and level of'tourist-oriented commercial development. 2) •Traffic impact on Newport Beach, particularly the impact of down - coast development on Coast Highway in Corona del Mar and San Joaquin Hills Road. 3) Environmental considerations, including preservation of scenic values and significant natural landforms. It is the City's understanding that the County intends to submit the Irvine Coast land use plan, adopted by the Board of Supervisors in August, 1976, as the Local Coastal Program for this area. Therefore, the same concerns expressed by the City of Newport Beach, in connection with the general plan amendment apply also to the proposed Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program. The City of Newport Beach would like to reiterate its position on development plans for the Irvine Coast in the following areas: 1) Density and Population: Residential development should be limited to the lowest level which will not cause adverse impacts on the City's street system. The City of Newport Beach is now completin work on a computerized traffic model which will assess the impact of the projected level of development in the Irvine Coastal area. City Plall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 Orange County Planning Commission Page Two April 10, 1978 The City will furnish the results of this study for the County's and the Coastal Commission's use during consideration of the Irvine Coast L.C.P. 2) Commercial Intensity of Development: Commercial development -- particularly that of a regional or tourist -oriented nature -- should be limited to the lowest reasonable level taking into account the potential impact on the City's street system. The land area designated for tourist commercial in the proposed plan (176 acres) is considered excessive in terms of potential traffic impact on adjacent communities and in terms of the environmental holding capacity of this area. 3) Circulation and Phasing of Development: The heavy traffic impact' of the projected level of development on Coast Highway is of great concern to Newport Beach. The City requests that any development occurring in this area be phased in strict compliance with the roadway improvement plan. The San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor is essential to relieving copgestion on Coast Highway. Also the north -south arterial system connecting with the Corridor, including Culver Drive, needs to be of sufficient capacity and design so as to attract trips away from Coast Highway. The Fifth Avenue Corridor is not an alternative route available to relieve traffic on Coast Highway as a result of development in the downcoast area. 4) Fiscal Impact: The extent of roadway improvements required to serve proposed development is expected to have a significant impact on local taxes. School facilities required will impose an additional tax burden. 5) Environmental Impacts: The level of development contemplated'is expected to have a significant impact on the scenic value of the Irvine Coast area. The City requests strict adherence to grading and development standards designed to mitigate impacts on significant natural landforms. 6) Public Acquisition: The City has gone on record supporting attempts to acquire all or a portion of the Irvine Coast for public open space and recreation use. The LCP for this area needs to be sensitive also to the potential traffic problems associated with intensive recreation use. In conclusion, the Local Coastal Program for the Irvine Coast needs to recognize the potential significant impact of the plan on coastal resources and on the City of Newport Beach, since the major portion Orange County Planning Commission Page Three April 10, 1978 of proposed development is located adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods in Newport Beach. The City appreciates the opportunity to comment on this important project, Res a t` ul ly, Milan Dostal, Mayor City of Newport Beach, California MD: jmb 1 .City Council Meeting April 10, 1978 Study Session Agenda No. H(c CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 6, 1978 TO: City Council FROM: Department .of Community Development SUBJECT: Orange County Local Coastal Program for the Irvine Coastal Area. Background Orange County is in the process of holding public hearings on the plan for the Irvine Coastal Area, approved by the Board of Supervisors in August of 1976. It is their intention to submit the previously - approved Land Use Plan, the policies for the Irvine Coastal Area, and other detailed General Plan policies as the Local Coastal Program for the area. The Orange County Planning Commission recently held public hearings on the Plan on March 6 and March 27, 1978. One additional Planning Commission hearing will be held April 10, 1978, and written comments will be accepted through April 14, 1978. The document will then be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for final action before formal submittal to the Coastal Commission. Prior to any Board action, the Plan may be submitted to the Coastal Commission for informal review. It is staff's impression that the County intends to submit the Land Use Plan, approved with the 1976 General Plan amendment, without any major modifications. In January, 1974 The Irvine Company started "The Irvine Coastal Community Multi -Agency Planning Program (TICMAP)." Its purpose was to provide a forum for participation in the company's coastal planning activity by more than 20 interested organizations, among them state, federal' and local government agencies and environmental groups. Under the TICMAP program, ten public meetings were held. A composite plan was developed for the site and submitted by The Irvine Company to the County of Orange in 1975. After receiving The Irvine Company's formal submittal, the County Environmental Management Agency staff developed four additional land use and circulation alternatives specifically for the Irvine Coast. These alternatives reflected many concerns expressed during public hearings. They also incorporated recent actions of the California Coastal Commission, including its published Coastal Plan and proposed acquisition areas. The major differences between the plan submitted by The Irvine Company and the alternatives developed by the County was the extent of commitment to urban uses and the lands to be set aside for the public in the form of recreation and open space uses. The City of Newport Beach participated in the County's review of the TICMAP plan and formally commented on the Plan in letters to the Orange County Planning Commission dated May 25, 1976 and July 13, 1976. These letters generally expressed City concern over the magnitude and intensity of development contemplated in the TICMAP Plan, and traffic impacts to existing major roadways in the City of Newport Beach. In addition, it was mentioned that the City was concerned with possible public costs that would be incurred with development of the major road network in the area, the conversion of existing open space to urban uses, and adequate provision of school facilities in the area. Based upon the Planning Commission's recommendation, the County staff's 0 TO: City Council - 2 Alternative No. 5 was adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on August 18, 1976. Summary of Adopted TICMAP Plan A Land Use Plan map of the Irvine Coastal Area is attached. Along the coast, the Plan emphasizes resort, tourist accommodations, and open space uses. Approximately 126 acres of tourist recreation commercial uses are proposed along the shoreline in the Crystal Cove area, with an additional 50 acres located on the frontal portion of Wishbone Hill. The higher density residential areas are located on the upland plateaus and ridge areas. These hilltown locations, close to the urban centers of Newport Beach and future transportation facilities, will contain densities from 10-23 units per acre. The majority of the Irvine Coast' residential units will be provided at these locations. The remaining ridgeline areas will contain residential uses ranging from very low density rural residential at 1 unit per 10 acres, to medium density use at 5 units per acre. Virtually all residential development is concentrated in the northern one-third of the area. The projected population for the Land Use Plan within the Coastal Zone is about 32,900 persons. Approximately two-thirds of the site is in some type of open space use. These open space uses include "Conservation" (very restrictive); "Recreation" (proposed parkland areas); and "Other Open Space" (which could permit very limited development). Two-thirds of the Irvine Coastal Area is in a reserve designation. These areas must be reexamined through subsequent General Plan Amendments before urban uses will be permitted. This reexamination will focus on the availability of urban services and facilities. In Urban Area "A", the portion of the Irvine Coastal Area adjacent to the City of Newport Beach and not designated for reserve status, 7,512 dwelling units are proposed. Following is a statistical summary of development proposed in the County Land Use Plan for the area. URBAN (AREA "A") LAND USE CATEGORY RESIDENTIAL ACRES DWELLING UNITS POPULATION (1.2, 1.23) Low -Medium Density 569 1,698 6,623 (1.3, 1.31) Medium Density 392 1,961 5,393 (1.4) (1.41) High Density 132 1,434 4,632 0.5) High Density 105 2,419 4,596 Sub -Total 1,198 7,512 21,244 OPEN SPACE (5.5) Rural Residential (5.3) Recreation (5.41) Conservation (5.4) Other Open Space (5.31) Tourist Recreation/Commercial Sub -Total 74 873 216 185 126 1,474 27 TOTAL 2,672 7,519 21,271 TO: City Council - 3 RESERVE (AREAS "B" AND "C") RESIDENTIAL ACRES DWELLING UNITS POPULATION (1.2, 1.23) Medium -Low Density 514 1,477 608 5,761 1,964 (1.4) High Density 50 88 2,013 3,825 (1.51) Heavy Density Sub -Total 652 4,098 11,550 OPEN SPACE (5.5) Rural Residential 296 30 93 (5.3) Recreation 2,083 (5.41) Conservation 1,684 (5.4) Other Open Space 1,904 (5.31) Tourist Recreation/Commercial Sub-Total 6,043 TOTAL 6,695 4,128 11,643 TOTAL FOR COASTAL ZONE 9,367 11,647 32,914 Copies of the Irvine Coastal Area Issue Identification and Land Use Plan have been forwarded to the Council. Suggested City Response Attached is a draft letter to be forwarded to the Orange County Planning Commission restating the City's concerns with the Plan. Staff will attend the April 10, 1978 Orange County Planning Commission hearing on this matter, and will make a presentation on the City's position as desired by the City Council. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. Hogan, Director By &M,01"x David Dmohowski Advance Planning Administrator DD:jmb . Attachment: 1) Land Us.e Plan 2) Statistical Area Map 3) Suggested Letter -�wl • fey \'./•\' .I'.k'. ' LSE wb�. P -ky vLita`. •`� � �` � utw S ICI ,• _H• ` '.y �a�1..��.,. t� • �' 3 y • Ff U W a �� P !J 4z3{aj LeC •ot EE aawaW a4 3A 34I Esd r� 71 v .. • � S4 S. :.` La4 - -r 44 uni FEET, . °—av 1Wb.M W.C11 RNa N� F��� ` E IRVINE COAST- HESIOEMMO OPENSRECE Planru ••, Und if la:lb 213 1]>D�WRC as MEp1EATKN/ Land Use Plan- Land Use Component ance i3siIXOESmfDWaC sl'TdMSTIECMATWN/COMMEM}At Ii1STEEtaHaE M •••W HIGHDENSITY ES-Ii DWfCIO f-IaSW/K �� ouzo .vISRI= LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM lalabEaaE In „EDDESPY ,=a. CDNSEAVATIOM �; a'� FUMK LMYIMOMMEENTAE MAMACEMEM AWACY COONTECFCMAMOE i 'fit \,]� k� .�• � `. � - � �Y-'•. ' %'A • 1 s :/ f DATE: \FEET. M... h NA IRVINE COAST- Planning Unit 11 Land Use Plan - Urban/Reserve Status LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM a : URBAN DESIGNATION B-7 :RESERVE DESIGNATION ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENTAGEIICY COUNTYGFORANGE is E tW 4ti E I i Mrs. w "TE: FEET: r..ce•• IRNINE COAST- Planrnng Unit It �- :MA" ARTEMAL HIG&MYS Land Use Plan- Circulation Component PFUEARY ARTEAtAL HIGMAYS .tt.rt.t tat..,. tmu orfatn•t.atl..tt.n -..- SECONOM ARTEFM HGHWM .rN. lv.r born trur.rme txH m .lr.[N LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM „r vlrr. trl.r . w nrrwe�.c . . . sHc HrHwATs .e re me.rwr ra�.t, .t aer .re.- rt.t. rnvtm+r.nl .,e ntd-q r..swtlw. 405-"- TNANSVOHLlT10N CaxaIGGH [NVIEONYEWAL HANAOENENrAOEHM COON"CFONINOE clli )<a.cnJp. CITY OF iRVIHE YIN t /Peak' - 07 -.ra 5 • 8 3 i Spyglass H01 ' � 9 a s yi4`?�' - •- Pelican } � _ Hill t q] — +�y _ Wishbone "g�� c Q B�\`y':. P e • . Harbor View' r Hills �� �'i� Hill Moro 9 . Hill r LAGUNA ' - ^l BEACH VNEWPORT sue_ ghl_ands _ B9Y Emerald • i ' -: • :• _ . BEACH " 1' `�.�hges r. -' Cryatel cove• ScotchmanNc e� ICo '\ �•' \- - - PeNCen Point Point Red el 5 � GATE. FEET: o a . •o40 Abolom Point u... hwe IRVINE COAST- Planning unit 11 __ Land Use Plan- Sub Areas SPHERE OFINFWENCE eoUNDANY LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY COUNTYOFORANGE • •I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH cq<iFo Nor. April 10, 1978 Orange County Planning Commission 400 Civic Center Drive Santa Ana, CA 92701 Gentlemen: OFFICE OF THE MAYOR (714) 640-2110 RE: Local Coastal Program for Irvine Coast During the County's review of the Land Use Element amendment for the Irvine Coast in 1976, the City of Newport Beach participated in public hearings and stated in correspondence the City's concerns with proposed development plans for this significant coastal area, of which approximately 4,000 acres are within Newport Beach's sphere of influence. These concerns relate generally to three issues: 1) The intensity of development proposed for the Irvine Coast, in-cluding the number of dwellings, density, projected population and level of tourist -oriented commercial development. 2) Traffic impact on Newport Beach, particularly the impact of downcoast development on Coast Highway in Corona del Mar and San Joaquin Hills Road. 3) Environmental considerations, including preservation of scenic values and significant natural landforms, It is the City's understanding that the County intends to submit the Irvine Coast land use plan, adopted by the Board of Supervisors in August, 1976, as the Local Coastal Program for this area.. Therefore, the same concerns expressed by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the general plan amendment apply also to the proposed Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program. The City of Newport Beach would like to reiterate its position on development plans for the Irvine Coast in the following areas: 1) Density and Population: Residential development should be limited to the lowest reasonable density, consistent with adjacent residential areas in Newport Beach (3 to 4 dwellings per acre). 2) Commercial Intensity of Development: Commercial development -- particularly that of a regional or tourist -oriented nature, such as hotels -- should be limited to the lowest reasonable level. City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 + r Orange County Planning Commission Page Two April 10, 1978 The land area designated for tourist commercial in the proposed plan (176 acres) is considered excessive in terms of potential traffic impact on adjacent communities and in terms of the environmental holding capacity of this area. 3) Circulation and Phasing of Development: The traffic impact of the projected level of development on Coast Highway portends to be considerable. The City requests that my development occurring in this area be phased in strict compliance with the roadway improvement plan. The San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor is essential to relieving congestion on Coast Highway. Also the north -south arterial system connecting with the Corridor, including Culver Drive, needs to be of sufficient capacity and design so as to attract trips away from Coast Highway. The Fifth Avenue Corridor is not an alternative route available to relieve traffic on Coast Highway as a result of development in the downcoast area. 4) Fiscal Impact: The extent of roadway improvements required to serve proposed development is expected to have a significant impact on local taxes. School facilities required will impose an additional tax burden. 5) Environmental Impacts: The level of development contemplated is expected to have a significant impact on the scenic value of the Irvine Coast area. The City requests strict adherence to grading and development standards designed to mitigate impacts on significant natural landforms. 6) Public Acquisition: The City has gone on record supporting attempts to acquire all or a portion of the Irvine Coast for public open space and recreation use. The LCP for this area needs to be sensitive also to the potential traffic problems associated with intensive recreational use. In conclusion, the Local Coastal Program for the Irvine Coast needs to recognize the potential significant impact of the plan on coastal resources and on the City of Newport Beach, since the major portion of proposed development is located adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods in Newport Beach. The City appreciates the opportunity to comment on this important project. Respectfully, Ifilan Dostal, Mayor City of Newport Beach, California MD:DD:jmb CALIFORNIA-COASTAL COMMISS19Vas rn Ooward Street, San Francisco 94105 — (415)06800 ` 00 p o 0 April 51 1978 TO: STATE CQvomsiONERS AND OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS a FRan E. JACK SCHOOP, CHIEF PLANNER SUBJECT: BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR BRIEMG ON IRVINE COAST GENERAL PLAN BACKCRam -, Orange County has asked the Commission to undertake an informal Prelimin- ary Review of the draft Irvine Coast.LCP Issue Identification/Land Use Plan, as provided for by Section 0061 of the LCP Regulations. Due to the complexity, significance and large physical scale involved, staff believes it would be useful to schedule this briefing on the Irvine Coast Plan prior.to the Regional and State Commission Preliminary Review hearings. The schedule for the briefing session and the two Preliminaiy Reviews is: APRIL.187 1%78: Briefing before State Commission, Los Angeles. MAY' 11 1978a Preliminary review by,the Soukth Coast Regional Commission, Huntington Beach. MAY 16, 1978: Preliminary review by the State Commission, Los Angeles. The Regional Commission and all interested parties have been advised of and invited to attend today's initial briefing as an opportunity to become familiar with this complex LCP. The purpose of this briefing is not to elicit comments from Commissioners or the public concerning the Irvine Coast LCP, but rather to identify major elements and features of the Plan, and to set it in a regional planning context. Ample opportunity for a more detailed examination of the Plan, raising questions of policy and substance, discussion by the Commission, and public testimony will be provided at the time of the Commission's Preliminary Review hearing on May 16. The briefing will consist of a presentation by the County of the Land Use Plan, and a discussion by staff of the regional context and major features of the Plan, to be followed by any questions by the Commission concerning further information on specific provisions and features of the Plan, including the LCP process as it pertains to the Irvine Coast. STAFF NOTE: The following informational report is intended to summarize three aspects of the Plan that is before the Commission for prei.iminary review. In the first • 2 U section of the staff report, staff has attempted to place the Irvine property in a regional perspective so that the 109000 acres can be placed in a regional planning context. The staff report draws heavily on the Irvine general plan EIR for an identification of regional concerns in such areas as recreational use, transportation access and air quality. The second section of the staff report presents a summary of the County general plan for the Irvine coastal area, derived primarily from County planning materials. The final section of the staff report summarizes a set of comments that were transmitted by the Commission's staff to Orange County during the County's review of the Irvine general plan amendment in 1976. The primary purpose of this report is to present a summary of the major features of the Irvine plan and past staff analysis of the County's general plan proposals. Since this report is directed toward a synopsis of the plan, a more complete presentation of staff concerns will be set forth in a second staff report to be presented prior to the South Coast hearing scheduled for May 11 1978. This subsequent staff report will present those issues that the staff believes warrant close commission scrutiny during the preliminary review hearings at South Coast on May 11 1978 and at the State Commission hearing on May 15, 1978. I REGIONAL CONTEXT (See Attachment D "Reaional_Location Map") The Southern California region is composed of over 11 fi3.11ion people, greater than 38,000 square miles, and consists of seven counties. Orange County, specifically the Irvine -Coastal Area, is within one -hour drive of the six counties and majority of populus. The Orange County Coastal Zone extends over 23 miles and contains about 34 square miles of land. The Irvine Coastal Area is located in southwestern Orange County, Calif- ornia. It is part of the.Irvine Ranch and is in an unincorporated area of the county. It is bounded on the north by the City of Newport Beach, on the south by the City of Laguna Beach, on the west by the Pacific Ocean and on the east by unincorporated and undeveloped lands of the Irvine Ranch. The City of Newport Beach is a major residential, commercial business, and recreation center. The Orange County Airport is located at the northwestern edge of the City. Land uses immediately adjacent to the Irvine Coast are pri marily low density residential or open space. The City of Irvine is located to the north, inland from the San Joaquin Bills Ridge. Within it are residential villages, a University of California campus, industrial areas adjacent to Orange County Airport, and the East Irvine Industrial Complex next to the E1 Toro Marine Corps Air Station. The City of Laguna Beach is primarily a residential community with tourist commercial development along Pacific Coast Highway and Laguna Canyon Road. The major impetus to urbanization of Orange County began in the 1950's with completion of the Santa Ana Freeway. The subsequent pattern of urban develop- ment has been heavily influenced by the location of major highways and free- ways. Urbanized areas.are currently concentrated in the northwestern and coastal sections of the county. Since 1950, more than 2/3 of the agricultural land in Orange County has been converted to other uses. Most of the remaining acreage is found in south- eastern Crange County. Industrial areas in the county are clustered primarily in the Anaheim - Fullerton and Santa Ana -Irvine area. Major retail shopping centers are scatter- ed throughout the urbanized portions of the county. The Newport Beach -Irvine area and the Santa Ana -Anaheim area are major business/administrative centers in the county. RECREATION The primary recreational areas in the Newport -Irvine -Laguna region consist of the beaches and recreational commercial developments of Newport Beach and Laguna Beach, the 345-acre University Regional Park in Irvine, and various local park facilities. Orange County has a relatively low ratio of recreational open space to population. SCAG, State and National Park planning agencies recommend varying standards for parks, starting at 15 acres or more of regional parks and 10 to 15 acres of local parks per thousand population. Orange County's proposed standard is 15 acres of regional parks and 4 acres of local parks per 11000 opulation: However, Orange County currently has only 6 acres of regional parks this includes State beaches) and 1.6 acres of local parks per 1,000 population. A recent Department of Interior Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Study (National Urban Recreation Study, - Los Angeles/Long Beach/Anaheim, Sept., 1977) identifies the Irvine Coast -Laguna Greenbelt as one of three areas in Southern California worthy of consideration for public acquisition for open space use. The County has undertaken an ongoing,12-month, open space study which will're-evaluate and prioritize recreation and open space areas. The Laguna Greenbelt is an open space and habitat protection system pro- posed to protect a crescent -shaped green belt area surrounding the City of Laguna. It includes approximately 50% of the eastern portion of the Irvine Ranch adjacent to the City of Laguna. It also extends through the Aliso Canyon and Wood Canyon in the Aliso Viejo area. The County's 1973 Aliso Creek Corridor study recommended preserving these danyon bottoms, with limited or no develop- ment along the related ridge lines. Therefore, potential exists for a contin- uous linked open -space green belt, including Irvine Coastal Area open space and adjacent areas. The State Department of Parks and Recreation has an approved allocation of $22.5 million dollars designated for State acquisition of open space in the Irvine Coastal area. Currently, a plan for acquisition, including a list of potential sites, has been submitted to the Real Estate Services section, which is performing a detailed appraisal of subject properties, and formulating a relocation plan including estimates of relocation costs. Results of this work will be available in early June. Parks and Recreation will then make a decis- ion regarding specific acquisitions, based on appraisal results and current zoning and planning. PlAx"IrOVIAMI)MIAM•-0m ry The extent of existing and proposed development in the Newport -Irvine - Laguna region is illustrated in Attachment E, a map of "Existing and Proposed 4 Development". The areas proposed for future -urban development include parts of Newport Beach, the Avco property (South Laguna) and the A lino Viejo property (south of Laguna Beach) with a population potential of approximately 378,E to 506,000 for the Sub -Regional Planning Area. TRANSPORTATION ACCESS A major regional development constraint in addition to degraded air quality is the capacity of the already impacted transportation system. As the draft Irvine Coast plan indicates, successful plan implementation is contingent upon development of a major expressway (San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor) and other roads through the presently undeveloped property. CALTRANS has thus far taken no position concerning a San Joaquin Hills corridor. CALTRANS reports that levels of service on Highway 1 in the Newport Beach -Irvine Coast -Laguna Beach area generally average at Level D-E. Through the Irvine property itself, the traffic flow is generally better than this, flowing relatively freely ex- cept during peak recreational times. However, in Newport Beach and Laguna, traffic conditions can degenerate to Level F during peak times. CALTRANS long- range plans include a proposed widening of Pacific Coast Highway (Route 1) in Orange County from Huntington Beach through Dana Point. AIR QUALITY Air quality management responsibilities exist at local, state and federal levels of government. Legislation enacted in 1947 authorized each county to form a local air pollution control district. In 1970, legislation was enacted which made it mandatory for each county to be within such a district. The Irvine Coastal Area is in the Southcoast Air Quality Management District. The entire -County including the Irvine Area is characterized by severe air quality problems which constitute a major constraint to growth. Orange County is designated health impact -related ambient ' Oxidant (smog), particulates and II. MAJOR FEATURES OF THE PLAN as a Non -Attainment Area in relation to the air quality standards for: hydrocarbons, NO%, carbon monoxide. Attachment A, "Irvine Coast Land Use Plan: Executive Summary of Main Features" contains more detailed information. Both Attachment A and the fol- lowing represent the plan as presented by the County. They do not necessarily represent staff opinion of conclusions. LAND USE FEATURES Land use features are identified in map form in Attachment B, "Land Use Plan -Land Use Component". The plan emphasizes residential, commercial, re- sort, tourist accommodations, public recreational use and open space within the Coastal Zone. The majority of the total of approximately 11,600 mixed residential units in the coastal zone will be in "hilltowns" located on the upland plateaus and ridge areas near urban centers. Densities will range from 10-23 units per acre. Moderate income rental and other lower cost housing are planned as subsidies are made available through government assistance programs. 0 5 Very low density rural residential to medium density (5 -units per acre) will be located in remaining ridgeline areas consistent with environmental and terrain limitations. Virtually all residential uses are located in the north- ern one-third of the area. Total projected population within the Coastal Zone is 32,E persons. Approximately two-thirds of the site is in some type of open space including "Conservation", "Recreation" and "Other Open Space" (latter could be developed ultimately). ENQIROWENTAL FEATURES 't The plan includes an open space green belt system between Crystal Cove and the City of Laguna Beach, providing a system of interconnected wildlife habitat areas as well as recreational opportunity. • TRANSPORTATION EEATMS Transportation features are mApped in Attachment C, "Circulation Compo- nent". The transportation network -is designed to encourage development of public transportation, with roadways designed to serve public vehicles. Regional access to outlying areas of the County and beyond is proposed to be provided by the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor.which would pro- vide a connection to the State freeway and expressway system. Subregional access will be provided by Pacific Coast Highway, San Joaquin Hills Road, Culver Drive and Sand Canyon Avenue, with the latter two roads'ext.ended over the ridgel-Ine £rom`ths City of Irvine. PHASING(See Attachment G "Urban Reserve Status") Phasing of development with adequate circulation and other service sys- tems is stressed in the plan. A "Reserve" area is set aside for conditional development, to occur when adequate services and/or access are provided. Some areas are designated "Reserve" pending decisions regarding parkland acquisition, and some pending re-examination.through subsequent General Plan Amendments to determine the extent of urban uses based on availability of urban services and facilities. The staff -of the Coastal Commission has participated in the planning pro- cess for the Irvine Area and staff comments have been transmitted to Orange County on the various plan proposals. Initially, representatives of the Commission participated in the Irvine Company Multi -Agency Planning Program (TICKV). The Irvine Company set up TICMAP in 1973 to allow interested parties to provide input into the planning process. The culmination of the TICMAP Study is the plan under consideration at this time., In 1976 the County issued a proposed General Plan for the TICMAP and an EIR. The State Coastal Commis- sion staff commented by letter on that proposed TICMAP General Plan and Draft EIR (see Attachment K, Letter of July 6, 1976). The comments made at that time essentially represent and summarize past Commission staff posture regarding the Irvine Coastal Area. 0 6 • Briefly, the Commission Staff indicated that a plan for the Irvine Coastal Area should: 1. Protect coastal resources, including coastal air quality and water quality. 2. Provide substantial and varied opportunities for the public to enjoy the recreational potential of both shoreline and canyons, and pro - provide visitor -serving accommodations in a variety of price ranges. 3. Concentrate residential and other development in the north and northwest parts of the TICMAP area, adjacent to existing development and employment centers, to keep development costs low, to allow retention of other parts of the property as open area, to reduce vehicle miles travelled, and help to protect air quality. 4• Protect the ability of -Pacific Coast Highway to provide public access to the coast by restricting arterial connections that would fur- ther impede traffic flow on Coast Highway, by providing public transit service for developed areas, and by providing inland access to serve new development in the TICMAP area so that residents don't have to rely on Coast Highway. 5. Require that development of the TICMAP area be carefully phased, so that at each stage of development, adequate public access and trans- portation improvementsare provided. 6. Consistent with the above resource protection and public access ' goals, provide for substantial housing and commercial recreation oppor- tunities. The staff comments noted that no commitment was being made to specific levels of development. Staff comments focused on several major areas of con- cern, including concentration of development in the western third of the property in close proximity to major employment centers, the permanent pro- tection of open space and habitat areas }n the central and eastern portions of the property, the need for phasing development with public services, the need for directing recreational traffic to destination areas within the Irvine property rather than to other nearby cities, the need to minimize road system intrusions into recreational and habitat areas and the need to provide moder- ate cost family tourist accommodations. More specifically, commission staff suggested that the concentration of development in the western portions of the property could be achieved by increases in density and site coverage if the resulting development pattern provided for permanent protection of the major open space and habitat areas in the central and eastern portions of the property. Staff commented that any significant amount of development should be phased with the provision of adequate transportation facilities. Staff noted that in light of the substantial funds proposed for park acquisition, "it is essential that the approved land use plan for the area provide both road capacity and transit service necessary for the public to reach with rela- tive ease these coastal and canyon recreational areas." Staff comments were also directed toward a number of issues relating to the tremendous recreational potential of the Irvine coastal area. Staff suggested that "planning for adequate public access should focus on distri bating trips within the TICMAP area, not on providing for through traffic to Laguna Beach or Newport Beach via Coast Highway". Accordingly, staff expres- sed concern with the extension of one of the two main roads, Sand Canyon Road, through part of a major habitat area and the proposed state park acquisition; staff suggested that this major road could provide substantial access without adverse environmental impacts if it were terminated in the hilltop area. With regard to the types of recreational use proposed for the commercial recrea- tion areas, staff commented that at least one of the two proposed resort areas make specific provision for moderate cost family tourist accommodations. In conclusion, Mr. Bodovitz observed that "the Irvine Coastal property and the Santa Monica Maintains represent the last opportunities to create major coastal recreational areas for the,10 million people of the Los Angeles Basin, areas comparable to the heaPily-used Golden Gate National Recreation Area in northern California". Irvine Coastal Area - List of Attachments Attachment A: Irvine Coast Land Use Plan: Executive Summary of Main Features Attachment B: Land Use Plan Attachment C: Circulation Component ' Attachment D: Regional Location Map Attachment E: Existing and Proposed Surrounding Development Attacbment F: Place Names Attachment G: Urban -Reserve Status Attacbipent H: Preservation Areas Attachment I: Significant Zandform Features Attachment X. Proposed Acquisition Parcels Attachment &: Adopted Spheres of Influence- Attachment L: July 62 1976 Letter from Executive Director Bodovitz - to Director H.G. Osborne _ Attachment M: Irvine Coast Interpretive Guidelines Attachment A • IRV M COAST LAND USE PLAN: EMCUTM SUMMARY OF MAIN FEATURES Introduction This Land Use Plan together with its related policies is being submitted according to the Local Coastal Program Regulations adopted in May of 1976. However, because the Irvine Coast has been designated as a pilot project and the existing land use plan is being submitted, sections of the regulations that will not be used i[1 other parts of the County are being followed. The following is a brief outline of the procedures being followed. Orange County is requesting the Coastal Commission to approve four separate plan- ning units in the County for the preparation and certifiction of Local Coastal Programs; the Irvine Coast is one of these areas. The Regulations allow this request to be submitted separate from and prior to any other documents required as part of a Local Coastal Program. A copy of this request is. availahle in the first section of the LCP document. An Issue Identification was prepared evaluating the consistency between the Coastal Act and the existing Land Use Plan. The Issue Identification was dis- tributed for public review and comment at the same time public notice was given on the availability of this Land Use Plan. A minimum of 75 day's was allowed for public review -of the Issue Identification and Land Use Plan before it was scheduled for transmittal to the Coastal Commission as the.County1s Local Coastal Program for the Iryi.ae Coast. Three public hearings.before the County Planning Commission were utilized to obtain additional public comment on the planning issues and policies. Following completion of the public hearings on the Issue Identification and the Land Use Plan, the County Board of. Supervisors transmitted the existing Land Use Plan, together with testimony received, to the Coastal Commission for certification. The Board. of Supervisors will reserve a final action on the certified plan pending the result•of any conditions or changes in the existing Land Use Plan, that may be imposed by the Coastal Commission. This final action will constitute an initial step in establishing the Orange County Local'Coastal Program. The Land Use -Kan for the Irvine Coast.in6ludes the following six sections: 1. Land Use Plan Background Information 2. The Policies of the Land Use Plan 3. A Public Access Component 4. Public Participation 5. The applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 6. A general indication of the zoning and implementing actions that will be used to implement the Land Use Plan GENERAL INFOMTION Planning History - The Irvine Coast originally was part of the 33,000-acre South Irvine Ranch General Plan adopted by the County in 1964- In 19731 the County amended the Land Use Element to reflect anticipated development by 1983• In January 1974, The Irvine Company started "The Irvine Coastal Community Multi - Agency Planning Program (TICMA?P:' Its purpose was to provide a forum for participation in the company's coastal planning activity by more than 20 interested organizations, among them state, federal and local government agencies and environ- mental groups. Under the TICMAP program, ten public meetings were held. During these, participants articulated a number of issues of concern to them. The concerns focused larg6ly on transportation and open space needs, development of the ridge - lines, protection of the Laguna Greenbelt, access to the beach, annexation, spheres of influence, and housing considerations. These issues and concerns were translated into six different scenarios,t or land use concepts on possible future uses of the 10,000-acre property. The concepts embraced: 1j total open space; 2) a self-sufficient community; 3) an estate com- munity; 4) two separate communities; 5) a balanced coastal community; and 6) a unique destination resort. Further refinement of the concepts by participants of TICMAP and The Irvine Company extracted certain key features from each individual land use concept. These were subsequently incorporated into a composite plan for the site. This composite plan was submitted by The Irvine Company to the County of Orange in 1975• it was called the TICMAP plan. The County Environmental Management Agency during this same period developed four alternative land use and circulation proposals for all of southeast Orange County, including the Irvine Coast. The alternatives featured projected population build - outs for the Irvine Coast ranging from 30,000 to 70,000. Much of the information generated by the Southeast Orange County circulation study was used iii the County's evaluation of the TICMAP plan. After raceIivipg the Irvine Company's formal submittal, the County Environmental Management Agency staff developed four additional land use and circulation alterna- tives specifically for the Irvine Coast. These alternatives reflected many con- cerns expressed during public hearings. They also incorporated recent actions of the California Coastal Commission, including its published Coastal Plan and pro- posed acquisition areas. in its critique of the TICMAP plan, the County found little disagreement with the "developable areas" described in the projectes Environmental Impact Report. The major differences between the plan submitted by the Irvine Company and the alternatives developed by the County was the extent of commitment to urban uses and the lands to be set aside for the public in the form of recreation and open uses. Based upon the Planning Commission's recommendation, the County staffs "Alternative No. 511 was adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on August 18, 1976. Both the Planning Commission's recommendation and the Board's final approval were unanimous. 2 Physical Features of the Area The coastline portion of the Irvine Coast encompasses about 3J miles of beach between Cameo Shores and Abalone Point. Elevations range from sea level to 1,163 feet at Signal Peak, located about 3 miles inland on the ridge of the San Joaquin Hills.. This major ridge crest parallels the shoreline.' Six major canyons and their intervening ridges connect the ridge crest and the ocean. The canyons are deeply incised with slopes in many areas greater than 201. Approximately, one—half of the 9,400—acre parcel adjacent to Newport Beach con— sists of relatively flat terrace areas and rounded ridge tops. Conversely, the half nearer. to Laguna Beach is characterized by steeper slopes, narrow canyons, and more rugged terrain. The land throughout contains a variety of common wildlife, supported by four major kinds of vegetation habitats —riparian, oak woodland, coastal sage scrub, and grasslands. The coastal strip consists largely of alternately rocky shoreline and narrow sandy beaches with naturally eroding bluffs as a backdrop. Existing Uses Agriculture (grazing) and natural open space are the predominant existing land uses. The southeasterly two—thirds of the 'site (near Laguna Beach) is under con— tract as an'agricultural preserve. This area includes two small clusters of residential development on leased land. One cluster is of short—term leased cottages -at Crystal Cove; the other is a trailer park at Moro Cove. Other existing land uses include an elementary school, a reservoir, horse stables, and several utility sites. and •easements. Cattle grazing continues in the area as a maintenance practice. Due to'the rough terrain and limited grass areas, the existing cattle operation is a -marginal use. Surrounding Cities The City of Newport Beach is a major residential, commercial business, and, recreation center. The Orange County Airport is located at the northwestern edge of the City. Land uses immediately adjacent to the Irvine Coast are primarily low density residential or open space. The City of Irvine is located to the north, inland from the San Joaquin Hills Ridge. Within it are residential villages, a University of California campus, industrial areas adjacent to Orange Countx.Airport, and the East Irvine Industrial Complex next.•to the E1 Toro Marine Corps Air Station. The City of Laguna Beach is primarily a residential community with tourist commercial development along Pacific Coast Highway and Laguna Canyon Road. The Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission on September 87 1976, approved spheres of influence for the cities of Newport Beach and Laguna Beach which divide the area, almost equally, between these two cities. FEATURES CF THE PLAN Land Use Features Along the Coast, the Plan emphasizes resort, tourist accommodations, and open space uses. Approximately 126 acres of tourist recreation commercial uses are proposed along the shoreline in the Crystal Cove area, with an additional 50 acres located on the frontal portion of Wishbone Hill. 3 The higher density residential areas are located on the upland plateaus and ridge areas. These hilltown locations, close to the urban centers of Newport Beach and future transportation facilities, will contain densities from 10-23 units per acre. The majority of the Irvine Coast's residential units will be provided at these locations. These high density clusters will include moderate income rental housing, in addition to lower cost housing as subsidies are made available through government assistance programs. The remaining ridgeline areas will contain residential uses ranging from very low density rural residential at 1 unit per 10 acres, to medium density use at 5 units per acre, consistent with the limitations of terrain and sensitive environmental resources. Virtually all residential development is concentrated in the northern one-third of the area. The projected population for the band Use Plan within the Coastal Zone is about 32,9C0 persona. Approximately two -thirds -of the site is in some type of open space use. These open space uses include "Conservation" (very restrictive); linecreatiod' (proposed parkland areas); and "Other Open Sapce" (which could permit very limited development). Environmental Features An open space/greenbelt system between Crystal Cove and the City of Laguna Beach is a major element of the plan. The system provides continuity to the recreation systems planned for Los Trancos and Moro Canyons. It would also link the other smaller canyon systems (Muddy and Emerald) that feature open space and conservation uses. In addition to providing a coastal recreation experience for the public, the plan minimizes urban uses along Pacific Coast Highway. The open space/greenbeit system also includes a system of interconnected wildlife habitat areas.. This system, consists of corridors connecting open space areas through urban areas and contains sufficient acreage of each native plant community to assure the, maintenance of vegetation and associated wildlife. The plan includes an overlay map delineating a "Wildlife Habitat/Conservation Areas" This designation embraces the wildlife and vegetation areas, together with other resources, such as large trees, rock outcroppings, and land forms considered to be of environmental importance. The Habitat Area Plan overlays all open ,space areas of the General Plan to assure that even in recreation areas, wildlife pro- tection is given a high priority. Transportation Features The Irvine Coastal greats transportation system provides a network designed to encourage the development of public transportation. The roadways are designed and phased not.only to serve private and -public vehicles, but also to minimize their impacts on hillside terrain. Major regional access to distant parts of Orange County and beyond to Los Angeles and San Diego is provided by the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor which will provide a connection to the state freeway and expressway system. Subregionai access to the Irvine Coast will be provided by such facilities as Pacific Coast Highway, San Joaquin Hills Road, Culver Drive, and Sand Canyon Avenue. The latter two roads would be extended over the ridgeline from the City of Irvine. - 4 0 Phasinff A major feature of the Irvine Coast Lend Use Plan is the phasing of development with adequate circulation and other service systems. The line dividing "Urban"' uses from the future "Reserve" areas is the easterly boundary of Los Trancos Canyon along Signal Ridge,.Wishbone Hill, and Crystal Cove. The urban areas which lie north of this line, together with the potential parkland use .of Los Trancos Canyon, have a comnon requirement - the need for Culver Drive -to provide access for both local and regional (recreational) travel demands. , The remaining portion of the site is retained in a "Reserve" designation for several reasons. The primary concern is the extent of urban uses proposed for Signal Ridge, Wishbone Hill, No Name Ridge, and Morro 'Ridge and the proposed parkland acquisition proposals in this sector. These areas mitst be reexamined through subsequent General Plan Amendments before urban uses will be permitted. This reexamination will focus on the availability of urban services and facilities, in accordance with recently adopted County guidelines. THE GENERAL PLAN AS AN IMPLEMENTATION DOCUAENT The Irvine Coast Land Use Plan consists of General Plandocuments. Future developmen or elements, as well as several County --wid applicable .6n1y to the Irvine Coast. The General Plan t e several overlapping but independent must comply with each of these,documents, ordinances and adopted County policies The adopted General Plan consistd of ali nine elements as required by State Law. Zoning,and subsequent actions.by the County must be consistent with the policies in these elements. _ Irvine Coast Policy Supplement In addition to the County -wide policies of the General Plan, policies have been adopted exclusively for the Irvine Coast. These supplementary policies, were adopted to.provide specific guidance beyond that provided by the General Plan policies. Because these.policies duplicate many of the policies included in the General Plan, and are more precise in naturep these are the policies which serve as the "Heartl"of'the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program. In those areas where the supplementary policies did not provide as complete guidance as those of the General•Plan, the General Plan policies have been added to the Local,Coastal Program. Several of the supplementary policies refer to specific areas or resources on the site. For this reason the Board of Supervisors adopted three supplement maps which are designed to provide more detailed guidance on land use decisions as part of the Policy Supplement Package: 1) Wildlife Habitat (Conservation Areas); 2) Urban Reserve Designations; and 3) Significant Landform Features. Reserve Area Guidelines The Reserve Area Guidelines play a vital part in implementing the policies of the General Plan for phased growth. As an overlay of the Land Use Element, almost two-thirds of the Irvine Coast is designated as "R" Reserve. The removal of this 9 ago designation, through a General Plan Amendment is required before urban uses can be developed. The adopted criteria and guidelines are discussed more com- pletely in the Implementing Actions section of the LOP. However, the nine criteria include such items as the adequacy of public services, planned and budgeted trans- portation facilities, opportunities for low and moderate income housing, air and water quality standards, and the mitigation of natural hazards. Site Plan Review This designation is utilized where urban uses have been adopted, but due to unique environmental, aesthetic, recreational, or conservation considerations, the normal General Plan land use designation is used and followed by the letter uSu (example: 1.LHS-High Density Residential, site plan review). The site plan review designation is used where the intent is to: 1. Treat urban development as a use infringing into an area which has environ- mental, aesthetic, recreational open space or conservation value, particu- larly at a community or regional scale, but where the nature and extent of commitment to the preservation of'the area in open space remains to be established. 2. Emphasize primary concern for sensitive treatment to successfully accom- modate urban uses. ' 3. clearly delineate open space -urban use relationships through detailed plan review in order to carry out the General Plan intent. Lord uses should be -consistent with the open Space and conservation Elements of the General Plan as well as the Land Use Element. It is intended that approval of implementing zoning will be limited to consideration of only those regulations which require a site plan review or other specific plan or•precise plan approval. Under certain circumstances, such re- view may also include architectural considerations. In any event, there is no intention to reduce the overall density within a particular urban category by virtue of the 'IS" designation. IRVINE COAST STATISTICAL SUMMARY URBAN (AREA"A") LAND USE CATEGORY RESIDENTIAL ACRES DWELLING UNITS POPULATION (1.2, 1.23) Low -Medium Density 569 1,698 6,623 (1.3, 1.31) Medium Density 392 1,961 5,393 (1.4) (1.41) High Density 132 1,434 4,632 (1.5) High Density 105 2,419 .4,596 Sub Total 1',198 7,312 21,244 OPEN SPACE (5.5) Rural Residential 74 7 27 (5.3) Recreation 873 (5.41) Conservation 216 (5.4) Other Open Space 185 (5.31) Tourist Recreation/Commercial 126 Sub Total 1, 74 TOTAL • •2,672 7,519, 21,271 RESERVE (AREAS "B" AND "C") RESIDENTIAL ACRES DWELLING UNITS POPULATION (1.2, 1.23) Medium -Low Density 514 1,477 5,761 (1.4) High Density 50 608 1,964 (1.51) Heavy Density 88 2,013 3,825 Sub Total 652 4,098 11,550 OPEN SPACE (5.5) Rural Residential 296 30 93 (5.3) Recreation 2,083 (5.41) Conservation 1,684 (5.4) Other Open Space 1,904 (5.31) Tourist Recreation/Commercial 76 Sub Total 6,043 TOTAL 6,695• 4,128 11,643 TOTAL FOR COASTAL ZONE 9,367 11,647 32,914 7 N to ComiyGeneral Plan Amendment 76-3—Land Use Element RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE m' MEDIHMMIWDEN51 HCCHEATION 2.15 pUTAC/T].SO C M SSI:ipU/AC%JTMS SDVACmTo�ufflumC T1ON/COMMEHCIYHICHDENi1TY oTHEH IRVINECOASTAL AREA a000feet H xsDuac HEW DENSITY COIISEHVITNIN TI+E north D 1]•xSDW u r' .v'iR` �+i"+ itY • r• ' � %` • Sys•• t L�1•'•i .- +� � t! j4 - _ a a �? �'?. . • �^y w • Iv/ ).�L+z_. A+i.a' ,r tart•,f��..i °f� .� r`xi�• • i N ii �rj?•�r�.i''f ..f�"• `. L'r• �`�i ��:-r'y�:� _• `•.. arN' � ` �r,. :f, ' ..,,.`,'\l, ,.,k?''+ f 1'.1', +a' ((•• / f.••s•j•C^•1`Q�xir .i `i,C '%/�._ r _:+•l • , 'A •�• •�4�•! �i:, r'.•r'j •; }�• �j�r- `J�(. ,�� �.:.,���y. 3_ '» y � �.t r�j, •. �$(j(}'�,' t F h� f _ a• •'•�'t"i ':,r•�-'��••\ !/vim J .... ft �I_ 1:. i}j)1 ;w.." . 1ctt ,t `pC� >i..�, >" �• l�YI l�)�j`:... .1 ' f •. •t �' .':.. d. .-'1' 'el 14:1 • ;!I 1 r):'t..: a`"! ��'4'%`r- '•i .'T.t �•+:l /l•y`�iY1 �l\i y� `�:r .F t l�;• 1 Ifl``•. ) •A + f�r .. ••. 4 i t .� •,"7 ( a,. a\M c�•�J �"t�. � � :. 1`� 1. ��i.. t: s.i y � "� •�• • -.1 '..J 1 - •t ,'•' }- 4.1 �a�r,.� ++••��pp�� t3 ik••V/t a Tr j; � Qtu,.,-e Y,•••'_ -. ;.YY: .J �.Y, � �•� i Z �'i J.:��J .�. �l•....t %�1 ,1.\tj \, �'`�.yF,�, :'�yF�i�• j•.' r ,}ZYt• 'i �4\e'Q'` "',s 1. `• 1.0�•� !1 �J ' . {t »,`�- .i. '+(:!. i FCl �'1 �'4 !i!`I/ ♦1 .•f �^:•, ��`/"''�K��.=r •�. •••,Y _-....iy �a: ;•.6�'1.. • 'a. �' �. 4 .Y•'1+'.}' •l �?!,{,:-ji; ` •4 . fit•'• 11:,F.. � f-` • .•�> y}. l: Y i �'� aV r_ Yi x 11�--• • �ii '•"-:),) .,•: • 0`�`tY F� � :-y=.r•.11 a 5y/ : , - ^ k't.':' F . � .1 Y�Y] r ��r� J-�t w. J. . ` `n1-..)1 :'�1 C• � . ai,ix 7�`sc,.. 4.1; �•. ••. '�: 11V.) rl•:'.: _r,F iy 1� 1 »rr w: •�" ��''1 >: t-• � .F. If 4�;.��^`�"4 ..� 1;. ^.+•.i•�- ��:- ^ •.r. J '.I ���I y.'. yt'�{:"�.�.JJ'�'�I' ! �'1 j(i'a. F•t' s.r i. :,i..•'"'N � .c �.it fi"[ .4 `. °•.1:,-.,•�= ":�9'��" �..; : 1 ' •.• F htliy�••7i, -- �� 1.:• t5` isr, tii� l'.. ..t .n`�� y:1�1 \ •1•' di•1 � r!: •! T 4v� • •d4� 'L l - � t » ",� uM1 1, . ' t7 J . i:' d. i. �`�. +t.r. 3.�.';:..' • •. ! {3-• •: .-. i '' • a � • M-ai.•., •P?�'• ,i� �••F .r�j61i U!ry a1 `� � .-.N ` �I:�''•�. _ �'�{j J:+-] "'ram �j•:.: `� it i, = : - -'' 4__ •;'!-.. lv �•Y•'r!�" i�:7 `s` { i •i •�.. T'�v�(`r �a '�i �'./`aS •t�,.�' �i"y �.'�+,L.-•l .-. .• '�^_ `c,..+ _ 1• t `1_-!Jt- - y-! i F„1 -J .!' .-:f � �4Z� /r��•f! � �•t l-. ��r. ;.. - r• »ir ' •�{ `� � ' ( ,I f.: 7f .. � .i' {. Lam` v.�y•r ... •�.._.�y;.�. 1t j�:�•�-�.S.�1J� 1'(I_ �(J _ � _.. -� ''`�.": >'»"y 7 e,:�yc•,J.. r��\�1,, r_�� _.::• .. �`�„•r;_.sal�.cF :t 4 j - 1'/� 9+ a _e ,h r I` .1- 1 , T"�`i ti �; j , •:. •1� �� .. Il:tiy� ' y, fz:'.••»' :`r' Y "' : � .^ •11' .y" 1{� 4 ' -� .- :fir ,l ' • •t. •.. p i } •J '�..-..r, -•�, tom- `� i \Zo- .�r\•_r =-,p^• -,I�,•d,a .2y�.- - _..! ,j:�• *. .).. ~i... _ ` •.r {•' .:��%%%' `' -mot r. `� ��~ Imo;^`' - :�!� �` ' `S •C' �! ly'•. �' fT •41.w �.�•++' Y' -U-»--1r:-ram': - _.;/r%'•w'�,cJ%. -�'p W � •JlI _ •r c� 6, Adopted Circulation System &MM ARTMOL 1 rlrwwr�ma� IRVINE COASTAL. AREA STUDY =__ "`TON OOFt"D0R SAN BERNARDINO CO. 1 � L LOS ANQCLES C0. 4 e RIVERSIDE CO. 71 F n„ :i•��'', a:� ... - y nC f "toy•; '. `... ` .Z. \yam `�� ��"+, ,t .w .Y`"z,�..�=t' ..- . Long Beach ': :S'anYRnx'.' yx.:::w, �,p • .� ;• '•:.. tv ' Newport Bueh - ._-ri'``;•..=:;"z`.:.;; K - IRVINE COASTAL AREA � o :Sen..liiwCsp' fi! site Dana Point e 0 10 20 miles Location Map IRVINE COASTAL AREA -i ORANGE COUNTY SAN DI EGO C0. ATTACE.IENT D 10 DP(MA • � POIiV'► H I KV I NE 6DA5TAL ^r-EAc ® Irvine Go3ASI Area Surround i nc� E,�cistinq and i�ro�o5eti pe�ela�men-i' �� Exishr� arsci ter-tial G�/eto�mevci' o 'L �mitri3 �horfh jr-arv--ed mvetorwwt l 1 iirol�oeedTransf�r{zshon Corridor lW/lNS Cgar,,TAI.. AtCVA Z1.1b� / 1 YhE Irthy%g L )01ra rA M-1- �A_�MMMMVI 'A" M AN -X !1`4ak .IRS _Al -t ..F g: A \\'jf IBM Wishbono in lo or "A Ile 16 - zz� NEWPORT P; HEAC11 r WAY Place Names IRVINE COASTAL AREA STUDY 'H1EKrAM0X~ a H 9 H 0 ,,. Li ,J •k,�`v��' '� � t .,_ 'A`� •�y�a' t ' r�yr..AAY�sVVyy ,ta Y' � x � i g4 , aq•F-. vt ES ��3"1,' ,{ t•�•'t��'�j?,-i'�� I � F9.7' 4 '{ •,":�•'f a;SCplu����•.yp,• 1 ��'111111 V' nr�•� W Yr W Nrr �.Y MFi� M1iM 1ta1 11�--J�l r� H Preservation Areas IRVINE COASTAL AREA STUDY x ncwvwt: a,tv+vmn • • 1• . ,yy• I A`\-_� i�1 l`• �\ N "'1'],{ Y'J`N'^; : )I '�'k "� ,1.+� r .\ .'i; _� - '�V•I.• - of., <. TiY.lc}^�>)�(7t �1�1F.`.. •+..1'Yt �.a`j j, ..- •'t:,,, ." '"A• f ?N!' ,n F ( .4. , •+Y..�<',- , � 1..: r j ii.tt .��- •S� v. � M % Ijl. h .� •�Y 1 iv�"; �i�'y 1 :.n y • . �' ,. �°. ^. • � t 1•� i w•�' ��_ ;~�; t"'i�it'•-�� -�` �•:1 I �1��' .4 •r ''t.�.� l,T i.� •Y'.. L•. - ..ai. eT \ i ..�f• �t r' -.aY :1�'���3� �: �'_ , 'nl k. �,}t,•�r )..:%.. .1�(i�h !•f•it�."f � �1{ P POyY�{t•a' � .( a. l �'' )a. _;! n.: 4•:' tr rA tom: r al 1� � (.. rf�� rE� t��� a S _ .,' r � •",, `t , `il :>{• �.. ��y{i1IK Wlrii�l..jL 4.. •�.?..� �•.J�+^.�j-il �.t.'.. ', '• r`• •:� `.. _ .' _ , - •� r}. :E•�1 o y 1(� �'i�•�Y I•r t .•J•_•.. Jr• rf•• a• a )- ' l - i°" �.'n• .-; A.r�•rf �vf, , J �,S ' - k U ) ": ,+ ') - T' i •�; -i : L •. r� • �' •••.t' r. i�,•'+�; : i�'r . ) : �ii is ..': J - i:C' . i �,1��' .• .^.�,3i .. y��y -• '! - , i : � `` , t� • �i < ' �_ ^. �, v ',y 1. .,.,,,,,,. ^. -. •'', ..i .aye\ � `:ir��"•�'f `.�• _ i_ _ �J : � ',��� ,�1� ''`�ai • •:-..a - ,� tt-�7,' y , i ' a • - r s'r^M` - ,t y ' r_ •P' Irk lYi:'- �P.?•�... 1 .. •t 31 1 � •�ii�� � __ 1�� •, ..R. fG}f f ?I.,Y� k., .lei \ � "���• It+.'�1_ + rlr.. r • , • • M'... � �,:t` � ' �i r• _ .���i i t� , � � • � t`� ''ty <<+. al • t .4 J 'i'ii�-• •�:rP a �',' - 7 - '•l r-c; — s 1r; ..�.�\ SIR ., _ ' ate; � � ]�t, \•.`c-'r•�i ' • : - IX i'� : ,9: • • . �1 1�t _•t... l� o�� � ♦ 1 ' , �Tffr • '='�T—qg: a y •.%' �'p �_��� • .�»:? + , wr+.w ir•w •'. ,n�1 H• H Significant Landform Features DOMINANT FMML PBOMONMMFS • CM LANOMAUSOFMA"VM"PWMMENMVtSMILEFWM EXIS MANOPAOPOSEDAATEHi UMSJMA"IXVIMNGELP-MEWS H IRVINE COASTAL AREA STUDY IM FOREGROUND PHOMONTOOIES - AIEYNIJEO)1.lWN , H H n 4 a H n /l A:TTAGEOC L STAT! OF CAUFORNIA • • : EDMUND O. BROWN A. Cor. CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION COMMISSION 134a MAARV SMW, 2nd FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CAUFORNLA 94102 FNON& (415) SST-1001 July 6, 1976 H. G. Osborne,' Director Environmental Management Agency 811 North Broadway Santa Ana, CA. 92702 Dear Mr. Osborne: I am writing in response to your recent request for Coastal Commission review of the proposed TICMAP General Plan and draft EIR. Time has not allowed for formal review by either the South Coast Regional Commission or the State Coastal Commission, but our staffs have reviewed the documents in light of the Commissions' policies and the Coastal Plan. The comments that follow are thus those of staff, not Commission, but are based solely on the Commi.ssionsl Plan recommendations. We are pleased to have participated with the Irvine Company and many State and local agencies in the TICMAP planning tHat has takgn place over the last few years. Everyone involved in that effort clearly recognized the importance of the Irvinecoastal property, and the benefits to be achieved by wise planning for it. Our initial question was whether the Irvine coastal lands could or should remain largely undeveloped, providing a substantial open .area in a rapidly -urbanizing region. Whatever the merits of that alternative, we have been unable to detect any enthusiasm on the part of public agencies —Federal, State, or local —for purchase of the entire undeveloped coastal area. Moreover, the TICMAP planning program has indicated that substantial development of the property can, if concentrated and well planned, allow for retention of sizable open areas. And we are further concerned that a "no development" alternative, while leaving the Irvine lands open, could have the unintended effect of encouraging sprawling development into other parts of southeast Orange County. What then should a plan for the TICMAP area provide? We believe its goals should include the following: 1. Protect coastal resources, including coastal air quality and water quality. 2. Provide substantial and varied opportunities for the public to enjoy the recreational potential of both shoreline and canyons, and provide visitor -serving accommodations in a variety of price ranges. We • —2— • 3. Concentrate residential and other development in the north and northwest parts of the TICMAP area, adjacent to existing development and employment centers, to keep development costs lows to allow retention of other parts of the property as open area, to reduce vehicle miles travelled, and help to protect air quality. 4. Protect the ability of Pacific Coast Highway to provide public access to the coast by restricting arterial connections that would further impede traffic flow on Coast Highway, by providing public transit service for developed areas, and by providing inland access to serve new development in the TICMAP area so that residents don't have to rely on Coast Highway. 5. Require that development of the TICMAP area be carefully phased, so that'at each stage of development, adequate public access and transportation improvements are provided. 6. Consistent with the above resource protection and public access goals, provide for substantial housing and commercial recreation opportunities. I. it may not be possible to design a plan that meets all of these objectives to the same degree, but we believe that Alternatives 4 and 5 as presented by your staff come the closest. Both of these alternatives are a substantial improvement over the land .use proposal contained in the draft MR,. particularly with regard to concentrating development in areas northwest of Trancos Canyon and preserving an integrated recreational landscape consisting of the coastal shelf, the Commission's proposed public acquisition areas, and'the'uplAnd ridges and canyons southeast of Moro Canyon. I£ the TICMAP area is viewed in isolation, the resource protection character of Alternative 4 could be considered superior to Alternative 5 because of its greater commitment to open space, recreation, and preservation, and because of its lower development and population potential. From a regional perspective, however, Alternative 5 appears preferable because it provides for nearly as much resource protection and public recreation as Alternative 4, while at the same time providing for a considerably higher level of development that should help to mitigate continuing pressures to develop other coastal and inland areas in the southeast county farther removed from existing population and employment centers. Thus, we consider Alternative 5 to be the most promising of the alternatives being considered. As a variation of Alternative 51 your Commission may wish even to consider density increases, provided the density is matched by public facility improvements and further provided the intensification does not adversely affect public coastal access, coastal resources, or adjacent communities. Please understand, however, that these comments do not represent a staff commitment to specific levels of development. A determination of specific population and development levels must continue to reflect adequate protection of coastal resources and provisions for public access to the coast. • —3— • Our remaining comment s 1. Circulation and Public Access. The State Department of Parks and Recreation h of the Irvine coastal property that might $30,000,000. If the people of California essential that the approved land use plan capacity and transit service necessary fo ease these coastal and canyon recreation Coastal Commissions and the ave proposed purchase of portions cost in total as much as are to invest this sum, it is for the area provide both road r the public to reach with relative a1 areas. Our review of both the County SEOCCS report and the Drachman Study (completed for the Irvihe Company) indicates that neither traffic report dealt adequately with the character of recreational travel in the 'TICMAP area, particularly weekend recreational travel. We are currently working with EMA staff, the Irvine Company, and the State Department of Transportation to supplement exiting subregional recreational traffic data and we expect to complete this work soon. We cannot yet provide the comments we hope to be able to provide soon, but preliminarily, we are concerned about these transportation aspects: a. TICMAP Area Recreational Travel Patterns. Recreational traffic entering the TICMAP area perpendicular to the coast probably will be bound for sites• within the plan area rather than other locations up or down coast.. Planning for adequate public. -access should focus on distriimtingtrips within the TICMAP area, not -on providing for through traffic to'Laguna Beadh or Newport Beach via Coast Highway.. This means that there are viable alternatives to linking either the San Joaquin Hills Road or Corridor to Coast Highway with major arterials. Public access planning should focus on directing a substantial share of the incoming recreational traffic to key upland recreation areas adjacent to the canyons. These upland areas would provide needed parking and be linked to coastal and other recreation sites within the TICMAP area by both shuttle service and trails, thus allowing inland visitors a choice of access that does not rely on the use of Coast Highway. b. San Joaquin Hills Corridor. At this time we seriously question the concept of a ridgetop transportation corridor extending from Corona del Mar to San Juan Capistrano. The corridor could encourage the continued.sprawl of residential development into the southeast county and result in substantial adverse impacts on public access to the coast. We even question whether that portion of the corridor in the TICMAP is essential, since it appears to us that the 6—lane extension of San Joaquin Hills Road to Culver Drive provides sufficient capacity. If the corridor is approved by the Planning Commission, however, we support the 34A staff recommendations to realign the corridor out of Laurel Canyon and limit initial construction to a 2—lane road. c. Extension of San Canyon Road to Coast Highway. We also question the proposed extension of this primary highway beyond Wishbone Hill to link with Coast Highway. Alternative 5 eliminates the high density residential and commercial formerly proposed to be located adjacent to Coast Highway near this intersection and, since this area is now designated for recreational use, there no longer appears to be a need to complete this costly and environmentally -damaging extension. Why not end San Canyon Road at Wishbone Hill? It would•stili adequately serve the proposed resort destination complex, while avoiding the proposed public purchase area. The following factors cause us to urge further review of the proposed extension to -Coast Highway: (1) Coast Highway is already congested, and the addition of another intersection and more lateral traffic cannot be accommodated without widening Coast Highway to 6 lanes. (2) The State Department of Transportation indicates that no money is available for Coast Highway except for needed -safety improvements; therefore, the County would have to pay for the widening of the highway as proposed in the ERA staff alternatives. (3) Extension of a primary arterial through the proposed acquisition area would substantially diminish the value of the parkland, both visually and functionally; given the high acquisition costs associated with this parcel, such a road extension could even jeopardize the proposed purchase of an area that both E24A and our staff agree is the single most important acquisition proposal recommended by the Coastal Commission in the TICMAP area. (4) Adequate public access to the nouth of Moro Canyon, the terrace area, and Reef Point can be provided from Wishbone Hill via either tram or private cars with a much smaller and less obtrusive road designed strictly to serve such a need. d. 'Adverse Impact of Culver Drive on Trancos Canyon. 'There is no question of the need for, or the capacity of, Culver Drive. We are concerned, however, with the potential impacts of the Culver Drive roadbed fill on the neck of Trancos Canyon and recommend that a more westerly alignment be considered. 2. Phasing of Transportation Improvements and Development. One deficiency of the TICMAP draft EIR was its failure to relate the incremental buildout of the TICMAP area to transportation improvements. According to Table 3 in the EIR (p.35), the first of the proposedinland access arterials was not scheduled for completion until development phase IIB. This meant that almost 5,OW dwelling units would be built before an inland access alternative to Coast Highway is available. In other words, more than 50,000 average daily trips would be forced onto the Coast Highway segment through Corona del Mar, already one of the most congested roadways in Southern California. Given this kind of potential impact, we can understand why the City of Newport Beach recommended limiting population and densities adjacent to its boundaries. We believe that with proper planning adverse impacts such as the above can be avoided. In response to these concerns, it is essential that an alternative inland road be provided early in the first phase of TICMAP development to relieve pressures on Coast Highway and to avoid the adverse traffic impacts on the City of Newport Beach. And the adopted land use plan should assure that at any stage of buildout, new development is conditioned on the availability of road capacities sufficient to meet the needs of both the residential population and recreational travel. The Coastal Commission's recommendations for major public parkland acquisitions in the TICMAP area clearly were based on the assumption that there would be adequate public access to the purchase areas. It is doubtful that the Commission would continue to recommend the expenditure of public funds if development approved in the immediate vicinity of the parklands were to effectively preclude access by inland residents to the Irvine Coast. It follows that any land use plan for such an extensive development as that proposed for the TICMAP area should carefully relate the phasing of development to the provision of transportation services adequate to assure meaningful public access to the coast. 3. Impact of Alternative 5 on Coastal Commissions' Acquisition Recommendations. Alternative 5 reflects most of the Coastal Commissions' acquisition recommendations, but it does not include the Pelican Hill or Upper Moro Ridge sites. If these sites are not bought by the public, then we strongly believe that the areas designated for open space and conservation uses east of Moro should be permanently designated for recreational uses and transferred to public ownership prior to any develop- ment on Pelican Hill.. Transfer of these lands would constitute a natural addition to existing public acquisition proposals and provide permanent protection for the area's open space and natural habitat values. The transfer would also complement the efforts of Laguna Greenbelt Incorporated and provide the final commitment to the preservation of a recreational landscape extending from Trancos Canyon to and including the Laguna Greenbelt. In view of the importance of such dedication (which, we believe, would"be in accord with criteria of the State' Department of -Parks and Recreation), there could be•consideration of relating the . dedication to density increases is' the.northwest portion*of the TICMAP area. In our opinion, however, any density increases in the northwest area should be preceded by the dedication of the area east of Moro Canyon. 4. The Need for Moderate Cost Family Tourist Accommodations. The location of the Irvine coastal property near many established tourist attractions, together with the continued growth in the Orange County tourist industry, indicate that there will be a growing demand for moderate -cost tourist and recreation facilities serving family needs. Because of its setting and land values, it is doubtful that the Crystal Cove resort recreation complex will provide a very large share of these needed accommodations. We recommend that the Wishbone Hill resort recreation complex be expanded to help meet the expected need for additional low-cost and moderate -cost accommodations. The strategic location of Wishbone Hi11 immediately adjacent to the terraces connecting Trancos and Moro Canyons, and close to Reef Point, Crystal Cove, and the mouth of Moro Canyon, provides the kind of immediate access to a variety of recreation attractions that would be an ideal family destination. We appreciate having been given the opportunity to comment on this extremely important planning matter. The Irvine Coastal property and the Santa Monica Mountains represent the last opportunities to create -�- 0 major coastal recreational areas for the 10 million people of the Los Angeles Basin, areas comparable to the heavily --used Golden Gate National Recreation Area in northern California. We look forward to working with you further as the planning proceeds. ours very truly, t JOSEPH E. BODOVITZ Executive Director cc: State Commissioners South Coast Regional Commission C i J .. A'LTACHi�NT� .. • - - _ IR= COAST' Because -this u devlecped property of 10,000 acres and almost 3.5 miles of 'shoreline is in a single ownership, because it combines shoreline fron- tage with substantial upland acreage, and because it is in the recreation - deficient Los Angel as metropolitan area, the Irvine Coast presents an unparal- 1elled opportunity for development of many types, %file insuring increased opportunities for a variety of public recreation and for open space protection. Overall Guideli3es. New 'development should be concentrated near already - developed areas and employment centers, to protect wildlife habitat and open space and to reserve substantial areas for public recreation. Development and public facilities should be phased to protect long-term public access to proposed shoreline and upland recreation areas. Development should include a substantial amount of low- and moderate -cost visitor facilities. Development Guidelir-es. 1. Concentrate Development. Private residential and commercial develop- ment should generate be landward of Coast Highway on the ridges -north and west of Moro Canyon. a. Trancos Canyon, the upper terraces arse slopes below Wishbone F- 11, -Moro Canyon, and: the area east of'Moro Ridge should remain- undeveloped for recreation and open space uses:. b.. Limited residential development should be allowed seaward of Coast Highway, adjacent to the existing Cameo Shores residential area. c. To minimize non -recreational travel on the already --congested Coast Highway, neighborhood and other general commercial developments serving residents of the area should be away from Coast Highway. d. Resort and visitor -serving facilities should be concentrated at the point of Wishbone Ridge and at Crystal Cove to minize the need to use Coast Highway and to reserve the rest of the area seaward of Coast Highway for public recreation uses. 2. Recreation Opportunities and Coen Space. New development should in- clude the creation of an integrated open space system connecting the mayor can- yonns and ridges and ling upland areas to the shoreline. TP3s system should provide substantial and varied opportunities for public use and enjoyment. a. The Moro Canyon, bluff top, and beach areas now authorized for acquisition by the State Department of Parks and Recreation, as well as the first -priority sites recommended by the Coastal Commission in 1976 should be reserved for recreational use except that development proposed for the Pelican Hi-1 and Moro Ridge sites that the prior Coastal Commission recommended for public acquisition could be approved if substantial dedications of comparable wildlife habitat and public -use areas east of Moro Canyon are made. b. Ultimate buildout should be based on a concluded agreement specifying a schedule and technique for transferring designated open space and recreation areas to appropriate public agencies. a. Public recreation should specifically include the development of major overnight facilities by public or private groups on the upper terraces landward of Coast Highway. Day -use activities should be varied and linked the shorelineted trail and other visitor-s which arving facilities the public areas with 3. Traffic Circulation and Public Access. New development should include a circulation system emphasizing internal dispersal of incoming traffic rather than seeking to accommodate all through traffic using Coast Highway. a. The ability of Coast Highway to provide public access to the coast should be protected by restricting lateral arterial connections to Culver Drive. Approval of the proposed connection of Sand Canyon Road to Coast Highway would require conclusive evidence that such a connection is necessary to provide adequate public access to shoreline and upland recrea- tion facilities. Other proposed lateral roads would be terminated before• they intersect with Coast Highway. b. improvements to Coast Highway should be limited to alterations needed to improve safety. The capacity of the highway should not be increased. c. Because of the potential adverse impacts of the proposed 6-lane San Joaquin Hills Corridor on coastal resources in the South Orange County Coast, extension of the road should be limited to a 2-lane road that termin- ates at the Laguna Freeway. ' d. 'The proposed alignment of Culver Drive should be.mioved westward at the neck of Trancos Canyon to'protect the canyon from the.effects of con-- struction of the roadbed. e. Development and transportation improvements - should be phased to assure that Culver Drive and other needed inland arterial connections are completed in the first phases of development. This will be essential to avoid fording the traffic generated by 4-51000 residential units onto the already - congested Coast Highway. A specific phasing plan should be required to assure this and to assure that residential buildout will be related L ex- tended and improved bus service. 4. Need for Visitor Facilities. The resort complexes proposed for Wishbone Hill and Crystal Cove shoule'include facilities and concessions priced to serve a full range of users. The Wishbone Mal site, because of its strategic central location adjacent to the terraces connecting Moro and Trancos canyons, is especially well suited to the development of such moderate -coat, family facilities.) O [©] 1-1 o _<DUNTY OF CO H. G. OSBORNE DIRECTOR RICHARD G. MUNSELL ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ADVANCE PLANNING G E ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION Oil NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA To: Interested Agencies and Citizen Groups SUBJECT: Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program �tECEI"`O� C.0 ,eu •oVy Dcr-I�P11ent L.,Nt. e oO i , NEWP�ALEAOH IF. !' RZgl _EPHONE: 634-4643 AREA CODE 714 MAILING ADDRESS. P.O. BOX 4106 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 FILE In accordance with the requirements of the Coastal Act of 1976 the County of Orange is preparing a Local Coastal Program (LCP) for the unincorporated county coastline that includes the Irvine coastal property. The purpose of the LCP is to bring local plans and regulations and the plans of all public agencies into conformity with state-wide policies. The attached draft copy of the Irvine coast LCP represents the county's initial effort of producing a certified local coastal program. As noted in the table of contents the document is divided into five separate reports each of which has a different significance to the Coastal Commission. Request for Separate Area Designation On January 24, 1978 the Board of Supervisors approved a division of the county's coastal zone into four separate planning units (Irvine coast is planning Unit II): This segmentation must be approved by the Coastal Commission. Issue Identification Because the Irvine coast is a "Pilot Project" as defined by the Coastal Commission, it is the county's priority LCP project. Consequently, the EMA is not producing a work program for the area but nevertheless is required to submit an issue identification for public and Coastal Commission review. The most important section of this report is the breakdown of tises'and issues into state, regional and local significance. By suggesting this distinction of coastal issues, the ENA is attempting to sort out inter- agency jurisdictions between various levels of government. This breakdown is not fixed and is subject to change during the public participation phase. The final action on issue identification by the Coastal Commission will be an approval of the issues with comments. (.The issues will not be a part of the certified LCP) Alternative Methodology (Not included in general mailout) The purpose of this section is to clarify the type of input utilized in the preparation of the Irvine coast LCP. It is intended for review and " To Interested Agencies d Citizen Groups Page 2 Y Re Irvine Coast Local (6tal Program _j 16 • comment by the Coastal Commission, but will not be "certified" as part of the LCP process. Land Use Plan This report represents the first phase of the LCP for the Irvine coast. The second phase, Zoning and Implementing Actions, will be submitted separately from the land use plan phase. The important sections of this report are: (1) the land use plan; (2) policies of the land use plan; (3) public access component; and (4) public participation. These sections will comprise (together with applicable maps) the "heart" of the LCP or the portion to be certified by the Coastal Commission. Again the distinc- tion between state regional and local policies needs to be clarified,before submittal to the Coastal Commission.._ The breakdown of policies is not fixed Data Sufficiency This report essentially deals with Environmental Impact Report (EIR) documen- tation. It is being updated by the Environmental Services Division and will accompany the LCP as a resource, document to be>approved for adequacy.,by,.thg,, Coastal Commission. It is not possible to mail copies of the Irvine Coast EIR due to. the size and complexity of the document. If additional information is desired regarding environmental documentation, contact the County of Orange or the South Coast Regional Commission. The Environmental Management Agency requests your comments on the LCP (preferably written comments) for purposes of finalizing the draft document. In order to integrate comments into the final draft, please forward any input to Gene Kjellberg, Community Planning Division, no later than Friday, April 14, 1978. EMA staff will make three Planning Commission presentations in March and April concerning the preparation of the Irvine coast LCP. These meetings will bp-, public hearings with an emphasis on discussion of the issues and policies of the draft land use plan. MONDAY, MARCH 6 - 1:30 P.M. Planning Commission Hearing Room 400 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana MONDAY, MARCH 27 - 7:00 P.M. City of Irvine Council Chambers 17200 Jamboree Road, Irvine MONDAY, APRIL 10 - 7:00 P.M. City of Irvine Council Chambers 17200 Jamboree Road, Irvine „ Following the three public hearings and after all responses have been considered, a final draft of the issue identification and land use plan will be forwarded to the Orange County Board of Supervisors for final action. The board will then formally transmit the LCP to the Coastal Commission together with public comments. Subsequent hearings on the land use plan will -be held before the South Coast Regional Commission and the State Coastal Commission. We look forward to your continuing participation in the local coastal program. Very truly yours, GK: ac � 'Richard G 'Mf nsel Assistant Director Advance Planning Attachment 0 .w AP.111 City Council oting March 12, 1979 March 7, 1979 TO: Agenda Item No. H-11 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FILE CCI)PY City Council DO NOT PENIOVE FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: DOWNCOAST LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM - Discussion of City's position on Irvine Coast LCP and possible letter to State Coastal Commission Background This memo is intended to inform the City Council of the status of the LCP for the downcoast area (Irvine Coast), and to present for discussion a suggested draft letter to the State Coastal Commission reiterating the City's concerns in this matter. On February 15, 1979, the South Coast Regional Commission concluded a series of public hearings on the Irvine Coast LCP and voted six to five to approve the LCP land use plan with conditions proposed by the Commission staff. Because a majority vote of the twelve -member Commission is required to approve a Local Coastal Program, this action resulted in denial of the LCP. One Commissioner was absent at the time of the vote. The County of Orange, as applicant for the downcoast LCP, may file an appeal with the State Coastal Commission within fifty-five days of the Regional Commission's denial. If the State Coastal Commis- sion agrees to hear the appeal, final action on the LCP would need to be taken within sixty days (June 11) of the State Commission receiving the appeal. As yet no determination has been made by the County as to whether an appeal will be requested. This matter will be considered by the Board of Supervisors at a future meeting. The County appears to have three alternative courses of action available: 1) Appeal the Regional Commission's denial; 2) Modify the LCP and resubmit to the Regional Commission for a new round of hearings; or 3) Drop the plan from active consideration and resubmit at a later date. TO: City Council - 2. In the event that neither an appeal nor a resubmission is pursued at this time, it seems unlikely that the Coastal Commission would approve any development in the downcoast area on a permit -by -permit basis. Suggested Letter On the assumption that the County will appeal the Regional Commis- sion's denial, a suggested letter to the State Commission has been prepared restating the City's concerns. A copy is attached for the City Council's consideration. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director by l a-rX 6 r�'�/�� DAVTD DMO DISK Advance Planning Administrator DD/kk Attachment: Draft Letter S • • CITY 01 NEW PORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE MAYOR (714) 640-2110 March 12, 1979 Mr. Bradford Lundborg, Chairman California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street - 4th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Re: Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program Dear Mr. Lundborg: The purpose of this letter is to express the position of the City of Newport Beach regarding the proposed Local Coastal Program for the Irvine Coast. At stated in previous corres- pondence, the City of Newport Beach has been greatly concerned with four general issues: 1. The intensity of development proposed for the Irvine Coast, and in particular, the impacts of this develop- ment on adjacent residential neighborhoods in Newport Beach. 2. The impact of the proposed development on the City's street system, especially Coast Highway through Corona del Mar and San Joaquin Hills Road. 3. The impact on physical support systems and public services. 4. The considerable expected environmental impacts, including loss of open space and natural habitat, alteration of natural landforms, and potential effects on air and water quality. These concerns are addressed in greater detail below. Intensity of Proposed Development Approximately 4,000 acres of the Irvine Coast adjoining Newport Beach are within the City's Sphere of Influence. A substantial majority of the 11,000 dwellings proposed would be located in this area, with densities ranging from two to twenty-eight dwelling units per acre. Due to the scale and intensity of City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 y Mr. Bradford Lundborg, Chairman California Coastal Commission Page 2. March 12, 1979 development proposed here, the City of Newport Beach requests that residential development should be limited to the lowest level which will not cause adverse impacts on the City's street system. With respect to commercial uses, particularly those of a regional or tourist -oriented nature, development intensity should be limited to the lowest reasonable level taking into account impacts on the City's street system. In our view, the amount of land area designated for tourist commercial in the proposed plan is excessive in terms of potential traffic impact on adjacent com- munities and in terms of the environmental carrying capacity of this area. circulation and Phasing of Development Due to the substantial traffic impact of the proposed plan, par- ticularly with regard to Coast Highway in Corona del Mar and San Joaquin Hills Road, the City requests that any development in the Irvine Coast be phased in strict compliance with the road- way improvement plan. No connection of San Joaquin'Hiils Road to the downcoast area road system should be permitted until sufficient capacity exists along the transportation corridor alignment and Culver Drive to accommodate the projected develop- ment. The San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor is essential to relieving congestion on Coast Highway. Also the north -south arterial system connecting with the Corridor, including Culver Drive and Sand Canyon Road, needs to be of sufficient capacity and design so as to attract trips away from Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. The Fifth Avenue Corridor in Corona del Mar is not an alternative route available to relieve traffic on Coast Highway as a result of development in the downcoast area. The City of Newport Beach has developed a computerized traffic model which is capable of assessing the impact of proposed development in the Irvine Coast planning area. We would be happy to furnish the results of this study when they become available in the near future. The traffic model could be made available for use in the Coastal Commission's further review of development proposals in the Irvine Coast. Impacts on Support Systems The proposed development will require significant investment in physical support systems such as roads, sewers, and water. .. a Mr. Bradford Lundborg, Chairman California Coastal Commission Page 3. March 12, 1979 Fhese may have an impact in Newport Beach, particularly in terms of limited sewer capacity. Also, public services and school facilities required will impose additional tax burdens in this region. Environmental Impacts The proposed'development will alter the scenic value of the Irvine Coast and result in the loss of natural habitat areas. On this issue, the City of Newport Beach has supported public acquisition of all or a portion of the Irvine Coast for recreation and open space purposes. It should be recognized, however, that public acquisition would not eliminate the need to provide adequate roadway improvements in this area to assure that streets in Newport Beach are not further impacted by regional or recreational traffic. Regarding alteration of natural landforms and grading policies, development in the Irvine Coast could cause significant damage to Buck Gully and Morning Canyon due to erosion generated by urban runoff. Grading practices would also have an impact on ocean water quality. -The City would urge the strictest applica- tion of grading and erosion controls to preserve riparian habitat areas and natural drainage courses, including Buck Gully and Morn- ing Canyon in Newport Beach. The City of Newport Beach has welcomed the opportunity to comment on the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program. We hope to participate in future public hearings before the Coastal Commission on this matter. Very truly yours, PAUL RYCKOFF, Mayor PR/kk � aa.gi DAILY PILOT - January 25, 1978 Coa..t Planning Backed: County Would Tape Over Area Use..' omd is Proposals aimedatdeveloping Tuesday, the planning will be segment of the Laguna Green- ct coastal plan for 34 square done in four geographic seg. belt and property owned by Av. :miles of unincorporated Orange ments. co Community Developers Ine, County shoreline won_ the County officials said one of the - and the Aliso Viejo Company. unanimous approval of county first to be completed likely will The fourth segment is iden. supervisorsTuesday. be the 10,000-acre Irvine Coast, tified as the south coast and in. When completed and approved the subject of a detailed plan ap- eludes unincorporated shoreline by the California Coastal Com- proved by supervisors 18 months from South Laguna through mission, the plan will permit ago, Capistrano Beach. county officials to take over coastline' administration and The second segment will in. Cermak said public meetings will be held in coastal eom-' permitissuing. Rick elude the northern county coastline stretching through un- munities beginning in mid. Cermak of the county Environmental Management incorporated areas from Sunset February. At those maetings, he' explained,, county officials will Agency said county officials Beach through the Bolsa Chica marsh, then to Santa Ana explain the Coastal Act, plan. hope to complete planning and heights and Emerald Bay. ningproblems that should bead. � related rezoning of certain por,, dressed and'thc method for de. tions by December 1979. Another portion will include veloping the county's coastal, As approved by supervisors Aliso Creek as well as a large program. .�ti'VPpp 1 July 13, 1976 Orange County Planning 400 Civic Center Drive Santa Ana, CA 92701 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Commission Ladies and Gentlemen: RE: TICMAP General Plan Amendment and Proposed Policy Package The purpose of this letter is to reaffirm the position of the City of Newport Beach with respect to the TICMAP General Plan Amendment as stated in our letter of May 25, 1976 (copy attached).. In addition, we would offer several comments and suggestions regarding the policy package proposed by the County staff. Our letter of May 25, 1976, called to your attention concerns of the City of Newpqrt Beach over the magnitude and intensity of development con- templated in the TICMAP Plan and the Draft EIR, and the resulting adverse impacts. In Paragraph No. i the City requested that population, densi tensity of commercial• development be limite to t e o-1 west r In this connection it is further requested tnat an overaii po adopted providing for maximum preservation of the TICMAP area appropriate -economic restraints and calling for consideration acouisition of all or substantial parts of the area efore mama tu s req bte tev 6e in ublic an f lowi ng 1. The proposed development plan for the Irvine Coast creates potential for massive Public costs which the County of Orange has estimated to be at least 100,000,000 for the major road network in this area alone, the major portion of which will be borne by the taxpayers. 2. The proposed development plan creates additional traffic congestion on exis City Hall + 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 Orange County Plang Commission • Page Two July 13, 1976 3. The proposed development plan would seriously diminish this great coastal open space as a source of beauty and enjoy- ment for the public at large. 4. The possibility exists for purchasing of all or substantial portions of the area using existing Federal and State funding sources. With respect to specifics of the General Plan Amendment, it is apparent that many of the concerns of the City of Newport Beach have been addressed in the proposed policy package. However, it is felt that additional policies would be desirable in the areas of gradin4, and the provision of schools c raciiities. With respect to grading and hillside development policy, the City would like to reiterate its concern over the considerable visual and environmental im- pacts which might result from the proposed development. We would urge the County to adopt a specific grading ordinance and more detailed hillside development standards prior to development in the TICMAP area. In order to preserve natural topographic features in the TICMAP area, the following guidelines, based on the City's adopted Hillside Development Standards, are recommended'for inclusion in the policy package: 1. The proposed development should preserve the natural skyline and the significant topographic features of the site. Particular attention should be given to the number and distribution of structures, the design of the street system, and the location of open space. 2. The proposed development should protect and retain signifi- cant vegetation, particularly mature trees, on the site. 3. The proposed development should retain -and create open space and view areas. 4. The proposed development should provide public access to view areas.and other natural'features. 5. The grading plan for the proposed development should include various slope ratios and undulating slopes. The proposed development should provide adequate setbacks from steep slopes, natural canyons, and natural bluffs in order to prevent structures from detracting from the visual character of these areas and in order to avoid accelerated erosion and to ensure the safety and stability of these areas. 7. The proposed development and grading plan should include specific provisions for the control of all surface and subsurface drainage from the site, paying particular attention to the quality of water entering the ocean. Orange County Ping Commission Page Three July 13, 1976 8. The proposed development should retain the natural topography and should minimize successive padding and terracing of building sites. th respect to the provision of school facilities, we would iiLmAr area wouia exceea zne resources oT Lne uiszricz, aimiiariy, means of financing other public facilities and services have not been treated ad- equately. The City is suggesting that policies relating to such services and facilities be included to assure that development in the TICMAP area does not require subsidy from other areas of the County. In conclusion, the City of Newport Beach again regue density in the area west of Los Trancos Can on be li en t with adjacent neighborhoods in New ort Beach 3 acre forte area designated for res� entia use r of 5,500 dweliinqunits. The City appreciates t e o to the proposed policy package and to participate in TICMAP General P1an.Amendment. Respectfully submitted, HOWARD ROGERS Mayor HR:pg Attached: 1) City's letter of May 25, 1976 2) School District letter of July 1, 1976 y to respo ew of the 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA May 25, 1976 Orange County Planning Commission 400 Civic Center Drive Santa Ana, California 92701 Re: TICMAP General Plan Amendment Gentlemen: city halt 3300 Newport Blvd. (714)E73010 640-2110 In response to the County's request, the City of Newport Beach has reviewed the ,proposed TICMAP General Plan Amendment and Draft EIR. Many of the concerns expressed herein were.stated previously in the City's response to the County position papers on the TICMAP General Plan Amendment. Given the potential impact of the TICMAP proposal, it seems appropriate to reiterate the City's concerns and offer additional commentary on the TICMAP General Plan Amendment and Draft EIR. We are hopeful that the County Planning Commission will incorporate the City's sugges- tions into the policies and implementing resolution to be adopted as part of the General Plan Amendment. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH POSITION ON THE TICMAP PROJECT The project description sections of the Draft EIR give rise to a number of serious concerns on the part of the City of Newport_ Beach. The TICMAP Plan contemplates an overall development of up to 19,000 dwellings and a projected population of 48,000. While the overall density of the project is less than two dwell-' ings per gross acre, individual project densities range from 2.75 dwellings per acre up to twenty-two dwellings per acre. In addition, supporting commercial development, tourist facili- ties, and a major road system are proposed. A substantial portion of this proposed development would be concentrated in the areas immediately adjacent to Newport Beach; therefore, the expected impacts of this development would not be distributed equally within the planning area. Significant impacts of the proposed project identified in the Draft EIR,which can be expected to have an adverse effect on the City of Newport Beach, are summarized below: i Orange County Pan ninci Commission Page 7.. May 25, 1976 - Increased traffic and severe congestion on Pacific Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. - Increased traffic on San Joaquin Hills Road. - Increased traffic on MacArthur Boulevard. - Increased demand for air travel. - Loss of visual open space and visual impact due to landform modification. - Contribution to air quality problems in Orange County and the South Coast Air Basin. - Potential degradation of ocean water quality. Increased runoff impacting on Buck Gully and Evening Canyon. It is recognized that many of these impacts are unavoidable effects of urbanization and that mitigation measures and conditions have been proposed in the Draft EIR which might reduce the impact on the City of Newport Beach. The City requests -that the County take the appropriate actions, to assure: I. That overall population, residential density and intensity Of commercial development in the TICMAP area be limited to the lowest reasonable level, and that a policy be adopted for the area adjacent to Newport Beach, specifically that area west of Los Trancos Canyon, which would limit the density to a level consistent with adjacent residential neighborhoods in Newport Beach (three to four dwellings per acre for the areas designated for residential use), resulting in a maximum of 5,500 dwelling units in Phases I and IIB. The City has no objection to the clustering of units for the purpose of maintaining open space, as long as the total number of units is not exceeded. dF 2. That no development be permitted in the TICMAP area until an adequate alternate means of access in addition to Pacific Coast Highway s comm sited for This alternate means of access _should include provision of a transportation corridor through the San Joaquin Hills between the Corona del Mar Freeway and the San Die o Freeway, and connecting north/soutl routes suc as San Can on Roa and Culver Drive. Neither the widening of Pacific Coast Highway, nor t e construct n AT a ift Avenue Corri UVV, in New ort beachs ou e re ar a as a solution to tra fi" ro ems for t e 1AP area. The traffic impact of the TICMAP development must e m t» gated through other circulation system improvements and a reduction in intensity of development. Orange County lPanning Commission • Page 3. May 25, 1976 3. That policies and standards for grading, slope protection, and hillside development be adopted to preserve the visual resources of the area. 4. That policies be adopted to assure that the provision of governmental services and facilities in the TICMAP area, in both the early phases and at full development, will not require subsidy by the taxpayers in other areas of the County'. 5. That policies be adopted to assure the preservation and/or salvage of archaeological and paleontological resources and to assure that a detailed inventory of such sites is completed prior to zoning and final subdivision approval. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH EVALUATION OF THE DRAFT EIR Although, in general the Draft EIR represents a fairly comprehen- sive and adequate evaluation of the impact of the TICMAP Plan as proposed, additional analysis and mitigating measures seem warranted in a few areas. As a general comment, the alternatives to the proposed TICMAP Land Use Plan (presented in Part VII of the Draft EIR under Alterna- tives to the Proposed Project) are not extensively evaluated in terms of the degree to which they might reduce the impacts. The City requests that the County seek clarification of the anticipated impacts of alternative land use proposals, particularly the pos- sible reduction in the severity of impacts on adjacent cities. More -specific comments on the Draft EIR, organized by subject area, are as follows: Circulation - The Draft EIR projects a result of the TICMAP highway capacity. The Avenue bypass and/or D some cur travel demands on Coast Highway as proposal far in excess of existing CTD 1 oniblt_on-street m- depend on City of New ort Beach actions; neitherofthese proposal s are a opted City policy and have met with con- siderable resistance from local homeowners and businessmen. Mitigation measures should include reduction of density and intensity of development. A commitment for circulation system improvements prior to any development and for phasing of development in con- junction with highway improvements, and the need for a Orange County Planning Page 4. May 25, 1976 Commission • transportation corridor through the San Joaquin Hills, with connecting north -south arterials, in addition to Coast Highway should be incorporated into additional mitigating measures. Residential Density and Population Table 2 in the Project Description sections of the Draft EIR describes a range of projected populations (35,000 to 62,000) and residential densities, which could be expected to have differential impacts on adjacent communi- ties, particularly Newport Beach. The City is suggesting that the resulting range of probable impacts should be accounted for more adequately, since the overall intensity of the project is subject to revision during the General Plan Amendment review process. A more definite statement of carrying capacity of the downcoast area in terms of population and intensity of development, as related to the natural ecology and support systems, is needed. It is requested that the County, in approving any General Plan Amendment for the TICMAP area, establish density limits and specific population limits to reduce the impacts on adjacent communities. Additional clarification of the probable impact of the "open space/residential reserve" designation is warranted. Additional residential development could occur with a future General Plan Amendment which would remove the reserve designation and result in additional environ- mental impacts. Visual Impact Graphic illustrations in the Draft EIR of the probable visual impact of development are not provided for the planning area adjacent to Newport Beach, as they are for other areas downcoast. The City suggests that such illustrations would be desirable, since the TICMAP Plan proposes the most intensive development in this area. The proposed mitigation measures should include a more - specific statement of policies relating to grading, landform alteration, and hillside development. An additional mitigating measure should be included which would call for open space/greenbelts which would Orange County Planning Page 5. May 25, 1976 Commission C, J serve to separate development in the TICMAP area from existing development in Newport Beach. Provision of .Governmental Services _- _Cost/Revenu.e Impact - The probable fiscal impact of public facilities construction should be addressed in greater detail. School facilities requirements, in particular, could impose a serious cost and tax burden on the school district during the earlier phases of the TICMAP development. The capabilities of the County, or any adjacent City, to absorb the additional costs of servicing this area (particularly in the early phases of development) and the relationship of these costs to anticipated revenues should be assessed. Dew In the event that adequate answers or mitigations are not readily -available, the City of Newport Beach requests a delay to a time that these answers are available. Again, the City of Newport Beach appreciates the cooperative approach that the County is taking in the review of this important project. It is hoped that the suggestions of the City of Newport Beach will be incorporated into the County Planning Commission's action on the TICMAP General Plan Amendment. We are looking forward to co- operating further in this effort. Respectfully submitted, HOWARD ROGERS", Mayor — City City of Newport Beach HR/kk u NEEWPORT-MESAunified ,school District post office box 1363 • newport beach, culiforida 92663 v (714) 556-3200 JOHN P/. NICOLL, Superintendent July 1, 1976 Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 Gentlemen: The Environmental Impact Report regarding the southcoast area describes student population sufficient for 3 elementary schools, i middle school, and 1 high school within Newport — Mesa Unified School District's boundaries. This information is consistent with our estimates. The estimated total costs of the necessary sites, schools, and furnishings are currently esti— mated at $40,000,000. We believe that you and the public should be aware that the Newport —Mesa Unified School District has insufficient resources to provide for land, new school buildings, and equipment for these schools. Traditional methods of providing schools has been through bond issues. This method is not seen as feasible any longer due to the economy, and overwhelming resistance of the public to pass such issues. Although school buildings are an allowable cost with general purpose funds, the use of this method removes significant resources from instructional programs, and, thus, it is not seen as a feasible alternative. There is sufficient space in our existing schools to house the 3,949 students, if they are transported by bus. It would cause significant boun— dary changes for student attendance areas if the students were to be kept together'.- If the stu— dents were spread to vacant seats throughout the District, they would not be kept together in neighborhood groupings. This, also; is not seen as a feasible alternative. . We request your assistance in having this information become a part of the public record, and listed as one of the conditions surrounding property development. This would help to identify the total impact of developments in order to gain a broader base to resolve problems which are beyond the resources and/or control of local school districts. The above statements are estimates by the District's administrative staff, based upon current available information. These statements have been prepared by the administrative staff, and do not reflect an oFficiai position of the Board of Education es of this presentation. J. W. Nicoll Superintendent cc: Warren Roche, Irvine Company Dennis Sundstrom, Orange County Environmental Management Ag,ancy, �•Y'-'/)- ..lr '"i. C . F'_ r' , r.. ,..��. - r.=.G3.,.,-�.� ,R-,t'. �.,c� t'� vs �_ l.1 _ x . ,. f cl-n C110-. K1 •` m