HomeMy WebLinkAbout2301 UNIVERSITY DR_INTERPRISE CENTERFINA
(As adopted by the City Council 6/14/93)
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
UPPER NEWPORT BAY REGIONAL PARK
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-3(E)
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 31
AMENDMENT NO.779
USE PERMIT NO.3488
A $NViRQNW AL DOCUMENT
Resolution No. 93-42 making the required findings under CEQA for acceptance of
Final E1R No. 525 prepared by the County of Orange as Lead Agency and approval
of the project by the City of Newport Beach as a Responsible Agency.
Mitigation Measures:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading, the construction
documents for the Interpretive Center, including the final geotechnical report,
shall be submitted to the Manager, Development Services. The report will be
based on 80-scale maps and will primarily involve assessment of potential soil
related constraints and hazards, such as landslides, settlement, liquefaction,
or related seismic impacts where determined to be appropriate by the County
of Orange. The report shall also include evaluation of potentially expansive
soils and recommend construction procedures and/or design criteria to
minimize the effects of these soils on the proposed project, as well as an
analysis of soils properties to determine any existence of soluble sulfate in the
soil. The report shall also establish foundation design parameters. This
report shall recommend appropriate mitigation measures for the grading and
shall be completed in a manner specified by the County of Orange Grading
Code.
2. Prior to the award of a construction or grading contract, the contract plans
shall be submitted to the Program Manager, Transportation Planning
including requirements to meet: SCAQMD Rule 403 which will require
watering during earth moving operations, soil binders to be spread on
construction sets or unpaved roads and/or parking areas, street sweeping of
roads -adjacent to the project site, that tricks be washed off before leaving the
construction site, that construction equipment be properly maintained and
tuned, and that grading be suspended during second stage (or worse) smog
alerts.
,
ERNEST SEIDEL
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
DESIGN �MENTAGENCY
EtNIRONMENTAI`lAANAO 300N.FLOWER ST.
FOURTH FLOOR
p.O. BOX 4040
HARBORS,BFACHES&PARKS SANTAANhCA027024W
(714) 834.88a .
FAX(714)8344744
Go
z
�c
}
3. Prior to the award of a construction or grading contract, the contract plans
shall be submitted to the Program Manager, Transportation Planning
including requirements that construction personnel should be provided with
preferential parking for carpools, bicycle racks, and free bus passes. Parking
for construction personnel should not interfere with traffic flows. Personnel
parking and construction vehicle staging areas shall be placed in a manner to
avoid sensitive resources on the property. Construction affecting roadways
should be performed during non -peak hours. A flag .person should be
provided during times when construction affects roadways , and one lane in
each direction should remain open.
4. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, the following
measures shall be incorporated into the project in a manner meeting the
approval of the Program Manager, Transportation Planning:
a. Encourage the use of alternate transportation modes by promoting
public transit usage and providing secure bicycle facilities.
b. Provide mass transit accommodations such as bus turnout lanes, park
and ride areas, and bus shelters.
C. Provide energy -conserving lighting.
d. Provide landscaping with native drought resistant plant species to
shade buildings during summer.
S. Prior to the execution of a construction or grading contract, the following
drainage studies shall be submitted to and approved by the Manager, Harbors,
Beaches & Parks/Parks Design:
a. A drainage study of the project site including diversions, off -site areas
that drain onto and/or through the project, and justification for any
diversions; and
b. A drainage study demonstrating that proposed drainage patterns will
not overload existing storm drains; and
C. Detailed drainage studies indicating how the project grading in
conjunction with the drainage conveyance system including applicable
swales, channels, street flows, catch basins, storm drains, and flood
water retarding will allow building pads to be safe from inundation
from rainfall which may be expected from all storms up to and
including the theoretical 100-year flood.
2
6. Prior to the execution of a construction or grading contract, the contract and
plans, including the following improvements, shall be submitted for approval
to the Manager, Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Parks Design:
a. All provision for surface drainage; and
b. All necessary storm drain facilities extending to a satisfactory point of
disposal for the proper control and disposal of storm runoff.
Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, said improvements
shall be constructed in a manner meeting the approval of the Manager,
EMA/Construction Division.
7. Prior to the initiation of grading, the applicant (County or contractor) shall
obtain approval of an NPDES permit from the Regional Water Quality
Control Board. Said permit shall specify appropriate storm water Best
Management Practices to be incorporated into the project to ensure an
acceptable level of control of non -point pollution sources.
8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading, the construction
documents shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Manager,
EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Parks Design. Said plans shall indicate
the following:
a. Landscaping and trails are sited in such.a manner as to not disturb, the
scattered populations of Southern Tarplant. Individual plants to be
disturbed shall be transplanted to appropriate habitat; and
b. If establishment of the "vernal pool" is undertaken, it shall be done in
a manner so as to not disturb the hydrologic or vegetative character of
the area, especially the limited alkaline wetland habitat adjacent to the
proposed "Vernal Pool'; and
C. The "Vista del Playa" access shall be relocated such that the California
Gnatcatcher habitat which it currently crosses is not disturbed.
d. The trails serving the Interpretive Center shall be relocated, or
appropriate buffer provided, to protect the burrowing owl nesting site.
9. For any archaeological site which may be adversely impacted, a County -
certified archaeologist shall be retained by the applicant to perform a
subsurface test level investigation and surface collection as appropriate. The
test level report evaluating the site shall include discussion of significance
(depth, nature, condition and extent of the resources), final mitigation
recommendations and cost estimates. Excavated finds shall be offered to the
County of Orange, or designee, on a first refusal basis. Applicant may retain
said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved
in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum
in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at this time,
in which case items shall be donated to County, or designee. Final mitigation
shall be carried out based upon the recommendations and a determination as
to the site's disposition by the Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and
Parks/Program Planning Division. Possible determinations include, but are
not limited to, preservation, salvage, partial salvage or no mitigation
necessary.
Prior to award of any construction or grading contract, the contract and plans
shall be provided to the Chief, EMA/Regulation/Grading Section, including
written evidence that a County -certified archaeologist has been retained, shall
be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for
archaeological resource surveillance, and shall establish procedures for
temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the salvage, sampling,
identification, and evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If additional or
unexpected archaeological features are discovered, the archaeologist shall
report such findings to the Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and
Parks/Program Planning Division. If the archaeological resources are found
to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate
actions for exploration and/or salvage. Excavated -finds shall be offered to the
County of Orange, or designee, on a first refusal basis. Applicant may retain
said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved
in Orange County, unless'said fords are of special significance, or a museum
in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at this time,
in which case items shall be donated to County, or designee. These actions,
as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to
the approval of the Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Program
Planning Division.
10. Prior to award of any construction or grading contract, the contract and plans
shall be provided to the Chief, EMA/Regulation/Grading Section, including
written evidence that a County -certified paleontologist has been retained to
conduct pregrading salvage, observe any grading activities, salvage fossils as
necessary, and prepare a catalogue of the exposed resources. The
paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish
procedures for paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish
procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the salvage,
sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major paleontological
resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting of
grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the Manager,
F1
EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Program Planning Division. The
paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions to ensure proper
exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the County of
Orange, or designee, on a first refusal basis. Applicant may retain said finds
if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange
County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange
County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at this time, in which
case items shall be donated to County, or designee. These actions, as well as
final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the
approval of the Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Program
Planning Division. The paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for
approval by the Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Program
Planning Division, which shall include the period of inspection, methodology,
an analysis of the artifacts found, a catalogue of artifacts, and their present
repository.
11. Prior to issuance of a building permit including grading, for the Interpretive
Center, plans shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Manager,
EMA/Harbors, Beaches and Parks/Parks Design and the Newport Beach
]Building Director. Said plans shall demonstrate compliance with the Citv of
Newport Beach 24L28-foot height limit shall be designed so as to minimize
adverse impacts to public views from Irvine Avenue, and shall indicate that
non -reflective glass shall be used on all windows overlooking Upper Newport
Bay.
12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading, the construction
documents shall be submitted for approval to the Manager, Development
Services and the Newport Beach Building Director for the area surrounding
the Interpretive Center, ensuring that the parking lot shall be landscaped,
equipped for irrigation, and improved as stated below:
a. Preliminary Plan - Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a
preliminary landscape plan, indicating use of native and drought
tolerant species, and a cost estimate shall be submitted for the
review and approval of the Manager, Subdivision Division.
b. Detailed Plan - Prior to the initiation of construction, a detailed
landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the
Manager, Subdivision Division and the Newport Beach Public
Works Department Detailed plans shall show the detailed
landscaping and irrigation deign and the preservation of views
from Irvine Avenue.
5
r
C. Installation Certification - Prior to the issuance of final
certificates of use and occupancy, said improvements shall be
installed and shall be certified by a licensed landscape architect
as having been installed in accordance with the approved
detailed plans. Said certification shall be furnished in writing
to the Manager, EMA/Public Works/Construction Division and
the Newport Beach Building Director.
13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading the County shall
submit an application to the City of Newport Beach for amendment of the
City's General Plan and Local Coastal Program to accommodate the 10,000
square foot Interpretive Center as proposed. After approval by the City, said
approvals and an application for a Coastal Development Permit shall be
referred to the State Coastal Commission for approval.
14. (Deleted)
15. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading, an access and
parking plan for the Interpretive Center shall be submitted for the review and
approval of the Director, EMA/Transportation and the City of Newport
Beach Traffic Engineer. Said plan shall indicate that access and parking have
been designed to appropriate standards for sight distance, parking and
accessways, bus and vehicle turn -outs, etc.
16. Construction activities shall be conducted in accordance with the City of
Newport Beach Municipal Code, which limits the hours of construction and
excavation work to 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. on Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction,
remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering, or any other
related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner
which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal
sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or on any
holiday.
17. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading, the construction
documents shall be submitted for approval to the Manager, Development
Services, including written evidence that:
a. All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated
within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly
operating and maintained mufflers.
b. All operations shall comply with Orange County Codified Ordinance
Division 6 (Noise Control).
1.1
C. Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as
practicable from dwellings.
B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-30
Resolution No. 93-43 approving General Plan Amendment 92-3(E).
C. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO, 31
Resolution No. 93-44 approving Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 31.
D. AMENDMENT NO, 779
Ordinance No. 93-13 approving Amendment No. 779.
E. USE PERMIT NO. 3488:
Findings:
1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, and is
compatible with surrounding land uses.
2. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of
property within the proposed development.
3. That the establishment of the regional park will not have any significant
environmental impact.
4. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3488 will not result in abrupt scale
relationships between the subject site and the neighboring properties.
5. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3488 for the establishment, maintenance
and operation of the proposed regional park use will not, under the
circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals,
comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the
neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements
in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City.
7
Conditions:
1. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved
General Development Plan and Resource Management Plan for Upper
Newport Bay Regional Park except as noted below.
2. That all the Mitigation Measures contained in Final EIR 525 shall be fulfilled
as conditions of approval.
3. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the Westbay portion of
the park, the County of Orange shall prepare and record an easement
acceptable to the City Attorney showing the relocation of the pedestrian and
bicycle trails if these trails are not provided in the location shown in the
existing easement.
4. That a Coastal Development Permit shall be required prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
5. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by
movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic
control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of
equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and
local requirements.
6. That the entire site shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner.
7. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to
this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use
permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this
use permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals,
comfort, or general welfare of the community.
8. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date
of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090(A) of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code.
9. In addition, the normal hours of park operation specified in the County's
General Development Plan and Resource Management Plan for Upper
Newport Bay Regional Park shall not be interpreted so as to prohibit visitors
from using park trails at other times when the park is not staffed.
10. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the Westbay portion of
the park, the County of Orange shall prepare and record an easement
ij
I , ,
acceptable to the City Attorney showing the relocation of the existing
pedestrian and bicycle trail easements to the locations shown in the General
Development Plan, with the addition of at least one east -west connection
across the Westbay parcel so as to provide a loop trail system. A final copy
of the GDP showing the revised trail network shall be provided to the
Planning Director prior to issuance of a grading or building permit.
11. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the Westbay portion of
the park, the County of Orange shall submit a revised General Development
Plan and Resource Management Plan to the City Planning Director indicating
that equestrian use is permitted on the unpaved trail paralleling University
Drive and Irvine Avenue.
12. Dogs on leash shall be permitted in the Westbay parcel. Prior to issuance of
any grading or building permit for the Westbay parcel, a revised General
Development Plan shall be submitted to the Newport Beach Planning
Director stating this policy.
f.\...\JOHN-D\UNB"\FINAL F&C
0
this urea 43 drown to Mde face of retdning wdis &
outside face of os omerwa4s
cod program cdcdated shaded area cs9,967.1 square feet
thIs urea Is drev to outside face ofoG weds
cad program calculated shaded area as 10.050.9 square feet
this orea Is drown to Mde face of retaining wolfs &
ouls$de face of a0 other wells
cad progromcalNoted shooed urea as IQ0566 square feet
this urea Is drawn to oumde face of all wa%
cod program cdcdated shaded area as 1Q1404 square feet
this area Is drown to Inside face of retolning walls &
outside face of all other walls
cad program calculated shaded area as 10,182.4 square feet
this area Is drawn to outside face of c l Walls
cad program colculoted Moded area as IQ2661 square feet
2T ca c o r mthTasdrcol fo ted st s
catl program COICWafetl stwtletl area as 9,976.7 squae feet
tlWe:
V=-I'M13.2: .559Sgtt=27'-B moddes2
oWldg hcomposetl of 30 motlWes pluswell Shlcknesses
N
L h
I,
�: . ,�
f _..
r
Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental'
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
UPPER NEWPORT BAY
INTERPRETIVE CENTER
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
FOR
COUNTY OF ORANGE
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY
A.O. 2877A-Al-OC APRIL 30, 1996
•
Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental
1446 East Chestnut Avenue • Santa Ana, California 92701 • (714) 647-0277 • FAX (714) 647-0745
April 30, 1996
W.O. 2877A-Al-OC
County of orange
Environmental Management Agency
300 N. Flower Street
Fourth Floor
Santa Ana, California 92702-4048
Attention: Mr. Ernest Seidel
Subject: Geotechnical Investigation for the Upper Newport
Bay Interpretive Center, Newport Beach, California
References: 1. Morton, P.K and Miller, R.V., 1981 "Geologic
Map of Orange County, California, Showing
Mines and Mineral Deposits," Bulletin 204,
Plate 1, Scale 1:48,000
2. Blake, T., 1989, "EQFAULT, A Computer Program
for the Estimation of Peak Horizontal
Acceleration from Digitized California
Faults," User's Manual, 77pp
3. OCEMA, Materials Laboratory, "Geotechnical
Report for Proposed Interpretive Center at
Upper Newport Bay," W.O. No. EHo8831, dated
June 8, 1994
Gentlemen:
This report presents the results of GSI's geotechnical
investigation for the subject site. The purpose of this study is
to provide geotechnical input for the proposed Interpretive Center
foundation design.
The scope of this investigation included drilling two borings,
obtaining representative soil samples, performing laboratory
testing and engineering analyses, and the preparation of this
report.
county of orange
Environmental Management Agency
Page 2
April 30, 1996
A.O. 2877A-Al-OC
SITE LOCATION AND PROPOSED STRUCTURES
The project site is located southeast of Irvine Avenue and
University Drive, over -viewing Upper Newport Bay and Delhi Channel
in the City of Newport Beach, California. The approximate site
location is shown on the Site Location Map (Figure 1). The
proposed development of the site is anticipated to be a
subterranean building supported by pad and caisson footing
foundations.
FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation was performed on April 22, 1996. The
approximate locations of the exploratory borings are shown on the
Site Plan, Plate I.
The borings were advanced to a maximum depth of 36.5 feet below the
existing ground surface by 2R Drilling Company using a truck
mounted hollow stem auger drill rig. The diameter of the boring
was approximately 8 inches. GSI's field geologist observed the
drilling operations and collected bulk and drive samples for visual
examination and subsequent laboratory testing. Drive samples were
collected with a 2.4-inch inside diameter (3.0-inch outside
diameter) Sprague and Henwood (S&H) split barrel sampler lined with
1-inch high brass rings, and a standard split spoon sampler (SPT).
Soils encountered in the test boring were classified in general
accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), as
described on Plate A. The log of the test boring is presented on
Plates A-1 and A-2 and was prepared based on visual examination of
the samples, cuttings obtained during drilling operations, and
results of laboratory tests.
GeoSoils, Inc.
0
UPa::
AFT
>
4
I
ETA
PM
y a @
r �
§ 11•[ A
� a :_ 1
m leyJ4Ey sVVVVVV•LLLLLLZ
q
F ✓� Ni fq, 4 b sMu
F uuP O
XL W ^ M1F
' /, /�
/ 1 I
PANG
Ftmwr
I(Ip4iR
Ns
n:
IF)Jr� /
.�
tS�y FEMIPEFF
GOLF r
1C1� � EOOFSC ♦'�
MAiS �� • 1
. NEA'PoFT PEwcRr(R
'` • T;p . 61M'ES I R r 1
,•E FESORE
a ,� ers tutor
cLLe
SE[ B C:
1 umin wR
t rwxu [.
i m�au
i ui�"sa u
i vi °ii[li
f mwmn
ii m�nlu n.
1) nIN V�nr
15 n[n
BONIT,
,
lem
n
�rYrd
Polr
b I
wrr
BIIB0.11)00: k[ [} rBSyy— a-ti°WrF _ N r°�0 i �hy 9'• b PCMgPi `�, t��•%la _� gg }A
nmeY 't
;y .pu(wye; l� °°. OOgsT ;lam.[�n u"' � mMrFr 4'PM
.fit' c • B x '9iP ,.... +nM pN
•asp I pp Qfibo. HHYta°
MODIFIED FROM THE THOMAS GUIDE, PAGE 889, 1996 1"-2400'
SITE LOCATION MAP
S� DAT E 4-30-96 1 W.O. NO. 2877-A-Al-OC
Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental
FORM 89/22 FIGURE
County of orange Page 3
Environmental Management Agency April 30, 1996
A.O. 2877A-Al-OC
LABORATORY TESTING
Selected soil samples were tested for moisture content, dry
density, compaction, direct shear, consolidation and Atterberg
Limits. soils were classified in our laboratory in general
accordance with the USCS (Plate A). Test results are presented on
the boring logs (Plates A-1 and A2) and on Plates B-1 through B-5.
Moisture Content/Dry Density
Moisture content/dry density was performed in general accordance
with the ASTM D4959-89 test method. Test results are presented on
the boring log (Plates A-1 and A-2).
Atterberg Limit Test
One set of an Atterberg Limit Test was performed on a
representative soil sample to evaluate the plasticity of on -site
soil. The test was performed in accordance with ASTM D-4318.
Results of the Atterberg Limit test is presented in Plate B-1.
Compaction Test
A compaction test was performed in general accordance with the ASTM
D-1557-91 test method. A maximum dry density of 132.0 pounds per
cubic foot (pcf) and an optimum moisture content of 9.5 percent
were obtained for a near surface sample (see Plate B-2).
Direct Shear Tests
Strain -controlled direct shear tests were performed on undisturbed
samples and samples remolded to 90% relative compaction in general
accordance with the ASTM D-3080-90 test method. Test results are
presented on Plates B-3 through B-6.
Consolidation Tests
Consolidation tests were performed in general accordance with the
ASTM D-2435-80 test method. Results are presented on Plates B-7
and B-8.
GeoSoils, Inc.
County of Orange Page 4
Environmental Management Agency April 30, 1996
W.O. 2877A-Al-OC
SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS
The subsurface soils encountered at the boring location consist
generally of reddish brown, medium dense to dense silty sand and
sand of terrace deposit overlying bedrock materials. Bedrock
materials were questionably assigned to Pliocene age of Niguel
Formation which consist of gray -brown clay siltstone and yellow -
brown silty sandstone to the maximum depth explored (approximately
36.5 feet).
GROUND WATER AND LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
Ground water and seepage condition were encountered during our
field investigation in Boring B-2. The liquefaction potential of
the onsite soils is considered relatively low due to the presence
of dense underlying terrace and bedrock materials.
SEISMICITY
The site is not within the Alquist-Priolo special studies zones.
As such, surface rupture due to fault movements is considered
unlikely to occur. However, the site, similar to most of the
southern California areas, could experience moderate to high
intensity ground shaking with major contribution from movements
along faults within a radius of approximately 60 miles. A
deterministic seismic hazard analysis was performed for the project
site using the computer program EQFAULT (Blake, 1989). The results
of these analyses are presented on Plates C-1 through C-5. The
closest known active fault to the site is the Newport -Inglewood
fault zone. An active strand of this fault zone is located
approximately 4.1 miles away from the site. Based on historical
records, the anticipated Repeatable High Ground Acceleration (RHGA)
is predicted to be approximately 0.295g assuming this fault zone
GeoSoils, Inc.
county of orange
Environmental Management Agency
Page 5
April 30, 1996
A.O. 2877A-Al-OC
could possibly generate a magnitude 5.90 Maximum Probable Event
earthquake within the next 100 years. The anticipated RHGA is
predicted to be approximately 0.473g assuming the fault could
possibly generate a magnitude 7.1 Maximum Credible Event
earthquake.
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
All recommendations presented in Referenced Report No. 3 remain
valid and applicable, unless superseded in this report.
caisson Foundation
1. The proposed shear walls may be supported on a drilled caisson
foundation system founded in competent native soils.
2. For caissons founded in competent native soils, the axial and
uplift capacities for various lengths and diameters of piers
are presented on Figure 2. These capacities assume that the
pier spacing is at least eight (8) pier diameters. The
spacing between piers shall not be less than 3 pier diameters.
The following table provides efficiency factors for group
effect.
GROUP EFFICIENCY FACTORS
Pier
Minimum 3 Pier
8 Pier
spacing
Diameter
Diameter
Axial
0.65
1.0
Capacity
Uplift
0.55
1.0
Capacity
Note: The efficiency factor can be interpolated
for intermediate spacings
GeoSoils, Inc.
DRILLED PIER CAPACITY - AXIAL LOADS
500
450 —
400
350 • —
N
a
`1 300 —
i^
m 250
a
m
U
m 200 —
'x
Q
150
100 —
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Embedment Depth of Piers (Feet)
250
200
50
0 L
0
DRILLED PIER CAPACITY - UPLIFT LOADS
40 45 50
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Embedment Depth of Piers (Feet)
--0 24 inch
$ 36 inch
--* 48 inch
•—* 14 inch
—* 18 inch
--e 24 inch
$36 inch
-* 48 inch
•- * 14 inch
•-CIF-18 inch
FIGURE 2
county of Orange
Environmental Management Agency
Page 6
April 30, 1996
A.O. 2877A-Al-OC
3. The lateral load capacity, lateral deflection and maximum
moments are given on Figure 3. These assume that the pier
spacing is at least eight (8) pier diameters. Lateral
deflection and maximum moments for spacings less than eight
(8) pier diameters can be provided upon request.
4. The excavation and installation of the drilled caissons should
be observed and documented by the project geotechnical
engineer to verify the desired depth.
Shallow Foundations
For shallow foundation recommendations, please refer to Referenced
Report No. 3. The bearing capacity presented in Referenced Report
No. 3 is also valid for all footings greater than 24 inches wide
and 24 inches deep.
Retaining Wall Design
The lateral earth pressure distribution behind the restrained
retaining wall is presented on Figure 4. Figure 4 includes both
static and seismic lateral earth pressures. The pressure presented
on Figure 4 does not include surcharge loads imposed by structural
elements located in the fills retained by the walls.
Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid
having a density of 250 pcf, with a maximum earth pressure of 2000
psf.
An allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of
0.35 may be used with the net dead load forces.
When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the
passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third.
GeoSoils, Inc.
LATERAL LOADING ON DRILLED PIERS
Foundation Type
Lateral Load
(Kips)
Lateral Deflection
inches
Maximum Moment
(Kip -inch)
14 inch iers
5
0.05
-1.53E+05
10
0.1
-3.05E+05
15
0.15
-4.58E+05
20
0.22
-6.33E+05
25
0.33
30
0.49
35
0.67
40
0.9
&241E+06
45
1.2
50
1.5
18 inch piers
5
0.03
-2.05E+05
10
0.05
-4.10E+05
15
0.08
-6.15E+05
20
0.1
-8.20E+05
25
0.13
-1.03E+06
30
0.15
-1.23E+06
35
0.18
-1.44E+06
40
0.2
1.64E+06
45
0.24
-1.89E+06
50
0.3
-2.16E+06
24 inch piers
10
0.03
-5.11E+05
20
0.06
-1.02E+06
30
0.09
-1.53E+06
40
0.13
-2.05E+06
50
0.16
-2.56E+06
60
0.19
-3.07E+06
70
0.22
-3.58E+06
80
0.26
-4.15E+06
90
0.32
-4.81 E+06
100
0.39
-5.52E+06
36 inch piers
10
0.02
-7.04E+05
20
0.03
-1.41 E+06
30
0.05
-2.11 E+06
40
0.07
-2.81 E+06
50
0.08
-3.52E+06
60
0.1
-4.22E+06
70
0.11
-4.93E+06
80
0.13
-5.63E+06
90
015
6.33E+06
100
0.17
-7.04E+06
48 inch piers
20
0.02
-1.77E+06
40
0.04
-3.54E+06
60
0.06
-5.31 E+06
80
0.08
-7.07E+06
100
0.11
-8.84E+06
120
0.13
-1.06E+07
140
015
-1.24E+07
160
0.17
-1.42E+07
180
0.19
-1.59E+07
200
0.21
-1.77E+07
FIGURE 3
}i ,
�*45xH p4(
5TAT 1 C
H
P��sM�c
0.6H
14x H2 p4
LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE
DATE 4/30/96 1W.0. N 0 2877A-A1-0C 1
Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental
FORM 89/22
FIGURE 4
County of orange Page 7
Environmental Management Agency April 30, 1996
A.O. 2877A-Al-OC
INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS
The materials encountered on the project site and previously
utilized in our laboratory are believed representative of the total
area; however, soils may vary in characteristics across the project
site.
Since our investigation is based upon the site materials observed,
selective laboratory testing, and geologic and engineering
analyses, the conclusions and recommendations are professional
opinions. It is possible that variations in the soil conditions
could exist beyond the point explored in this investigation. Also,
changes in ground water conditions could occur at some time in the
near future due to variations in temperature, regional rainfall,
and other factors.
These opinions have been derived in accordance with current
standards of practice, and no warranty is expressed or implied.
This report is subject to review by the controlling authorities.
GSI sincerely appreciates this opportunity to provide geotechnical
engineering services. If you have any questions regarding this
report, please call.
Respectfully submitted,
GeoSoils, Inc.
By:
Sanjay Govi , Ph.D., P.E.
Project Engineer
FA/SG/ARK/agw
Civil Engineer, RCE 16351
Geotechnical Engineer, GE 476
Attach: Figure
1
- Site Location Map
Figure
2
- Drilled Pier Capacity - Axial Loads -
Uplift Loads
Figure
3
- Lateral Loading on Drilled Piers
Figure
4
- Lateral Earth Pressure
Plate
I
- Site Plan
Plate
A
- Unified Soil Classification System
Plates
A-1
& A-2 - Log of Boring
Plates
B-1
- B-8 - Laboratory Testing Results
Plates
C-1
- C-5 - EQFAULT Output
Dist: (6) Addressee
GeoSoils, Inc.
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
CONSISTENCY OR RELATIVE DENSITY
Group
CRITERIA
Major Divisions
Symbols
Typical Names
GW
WasVoced Vr.v+ and greve�
-
Olsen
sand R1droa • little or no fens
Standard Ponetratfcn Teat
GP
Poorly traded or and
Gravels -
Gravels
50% or more
aave"a,d morose.. Intle or
Coarse-
of coarse
rho fires
Grained
fraction
Soils
retained on No.
Gravels
GM
sty grwera. Wsvala vet
Penetration
4 wove
With
^ores«
Rowstanae N Relative Derwry
More
Fines
(blowa/ft)
GC
Ow"gravew gravereanb
0-4 Very Lowe
then
50%
day r so
retained
on
SW
Wawgraded saraM and grayest
4.10 Loose
No. 200
Sends
Clean
sad.• atde or rho rates
SP
Poorly graded saiaY and
sieve
More than
Sands
10.30 Medium
'50% of coarse
craven,, aanoe, little or no fa»a
fraction passes
_
No. 4 slow
Bonds
SM
Salty .oral.. a lldt [mice«
30-50 Dense
With
Fines
SC
CLWW sends, esxi clay
> 50 Very Deese
moVIUr«
ML
Inorgaac site, vw Me epos.
Standard Penetntion Test
roa Hour. airy or Carey fine
Silts and Clays
s`1et
CL
hdaoaac dale of low to
Liquid Limit
Unconfined
Final-
50% or less
meaun isssaooiy. gravely
Penetration Compress"
Grained
days. sandy days. salty days.
Restatarioo N Strength
Soils
lean days
(blowsfft) Consistency (tonioRts)
OL
aroav: Win end °mere; wily
<2 Very Soft <0.25
50% or
rnors
die of low piesaoity
MH
looroaree sdm n+oaoenai or
coasts
2-4 Soft 0.25-.050
No. 200
distuneeaan me soma or
slew
Silts and Gays
sin. a4eoo gilts
4-8 Medium 0.50-1.00
CH
lrrorparae din of high
Liquid Unut
8-15 Stiff 1.00.2.00
greater then 50%
Plano ty, tat Wye
OH
orgerac dap at m to
15.30 Very Stiff 2.00.4.00
high Mesonw
>30 Hard >4:00
Highly Orgen is Sala
PT
Past, m cic. and other lagndy
oro•« sods
is
3' 3r4• I4 #10 s40 9200 U.S. Standard Sieve
Unified Soil
Classification
Cobbles
Gravel
Sand
Sur or Clay
coarse
fires
coarse
medium fine
MOISTURE CONDITIONS
Dry
Absence of moist; dusty, dry to the touch
Slightly Moist
Below optimum moisture content for compecoon
Moist
Near optimum moisture content
Jery Moist
Above optimum moisture content r
Wet
Visible free water; below water table
MATERIAL QUANTITY
OTHER SYMBOLS
trace
0-5 %
.. Core Semple
law
5 - 10 %
S SPT Semple
little
10 - 25 %
8 Bulk Sample
some
25 - 45 %
1 Groundwater
Qp Pocket Penetrometer
..ASIC LOG FORMAT:
Group name, Group symbol, (grain sizel, color, moisture, consistency or relative density. Additional comments: odor, presence of roots, mica, gypsum.
-cane grained particles, etc.
- XAMPLE:
Send fSPI, fine to medium grained, brown. motet, loose, trace silt, little fine gravel, few cobbles up to 4" in size, some nelr roots and rootlets.
PLATE A
BORING LOG
GeoSoils, Inc.
PROJECT: COUNTY OF ORANGE
sample
t
+
O
v
U.
O
\
t
-IC
NJ7
300.0Ln
C
�fA
O
m
to
25
SM
W.O. 2877-A-Al
BORING B-1 SHEET 1 OF �-
DATE EXCAVATED 4-22-96
DRILLING METHOD 811 Hollow Stem
3 ® Standard Penetration Test ELEVATIoM 45+
}^ L
U + 11: ® Undisturbed, Ring Sample LOGGED BY FA
a Ln
o0 Description of Material
Silty Coarse Sand, red -brown, slightly moist, medium
dense; slightly rooted; trace of clay
25 I SM 1 115.1 I 4.9 II:dI Same as above
18 1 SP
15
47
3.8 Sand, red -brown, slightly moist, medium dense; medium
grained
@ 13' grades to Coarse Sandy Clay
99.9 26.7 Silty Fine Sand, red -brown, moist, medium dense
BEDROCK (Tn9)•
Clayey Siltstone, gray -brown, very moist, very stiff;
thin Sandy interbeds, bedding inclined 20-25 degrees
26.7
90.7 30.4 Becmes hard, vertical fractures with rusty FeO along
fractures
TOTAL DEPTH = 26.5
NO WATER
HOLE BACKFILLED
DRIVING WEIGHT 140# PER 30" DROP
GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE 2-1
BORING LOG
GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 2 677 -A-A1
PROJECT: COUNTY OF ORANGE BORING B-2 SHEET I OF 1
DATE EXCAVATED 4-22-96
Sample DRILLING METHOD S" Hollow Stem
.t- 3 ® Standard Penetration Test ELEVATION 43+
v LPL } L
in N w .� ® Undisturbed, Ring Sample LOGGED BY FA
t o
.c Y — 3 (A.0 Q. N�'
om Co —�° En o Description of Material
En
SM
t
TFRRACF ❑ P❑RTT (❑t).
Silty Sand, red -brown, slightly moist, medium dense;
slightly rooted; trace oof clay
5
31
114.9
7.6
Clayey Sand to Silty Sand, red -brown, slightly moist,
medium dense
10
12
34
— BEDROCK (Tn?):
7
— Clayey Siltstone, light gray -brown, very moist, stiff,
— highly weathered, iron stain along fractures
15
36
117.0
9.3
Silty Sandstone, yellow -brown, moist, medium dense,
poorly cemented
20
15
10.4
Same as 15'
25
18
4.7
Same as 15'
3 0
22
22.3
Sandstone and Siltstone interbedded
Water at 33.5'
35
21
25.2
Sandsone, yellow -brown, wet, medium dense; medium
grained
TOTAL DEPTH = 36.5'
WATER AT 33.5'
40
HOLE BACKFILLED
GeoSoils, Inc.
A-2
PLATE
60
A -Line
50
CH
t�
40
x
w
a
z
H
>.
30
f-
H
H
CL
20
MH
r OH
10
ML-CL
CL-ML
ML or D
0
10 20
30 40 50 50 70 80 90 100 110
LIQUID LIMIT W
Boring
Depth
LL(i) PL W PI W
No.
(feet)
I
I
i
I
• B-1
20
50 29 21
ATTERBERG LIMITS
PLATE
GeoSoils,
Inc.
B - 1
Date: APR 96 W.O.: 2877-A-A1
150
145
10 '. to
at i on
140
135
130
a 125
r"
(Hn 120
z
w
(x 115
110
105
100
-
-
95
90,
5
10 15 20 25
30 35
MOISTURE CONTENT
%
MAXIMUM DRY
OPTIMIUM MOISTURE
Boring No.
DEPTH (feet) Test Method
DENSITY, pcf
CONTENT %
• B-1
5.00 ASTM 01557-91
132.0
9.5
LABORATORY MAXIMUM DENSITY
TEST
PLATE
GeoSoils,
Inc.
B - 2
Date: APR 96
W.O.:
2877-A-Al
6
5
N
4
Y
2
F-
Z
w
F-
y
3
o:
w
Cn
2
1
0
0
2 3 4
6
5
" 4
N
Y
2
F
Z
z
W
N 3
w
x
2
1
0
1
2
3
4 5
6
NORMAL PRESSURE
ksf
Boring
Depth
Nature
Cohesion Fric.
Angle
No.
(feet) Test Method Moist.
Saturated
(Psf) (degree)
i B-1
15.00
UNDISTURBED
X
1000 26
SHEAR
TEST DIAGRAM
PLATE
GeoSoils,
Inc.
B - 4
Date: APR 96
W.D.: 2877-A-A1
6
5
* 4
N
Y
(D
z
Z
W
Q:
N 3
w
x
2
1
0
1
2 3
4 5
6
NORMAL PRESSURE
ksf
Boring
Depth
Nature
Cohesion Fric.
Angle
No.
(feet) Test Method Moist.
Saturated
(ps ) (degree)
• B-1
25.00
UNDISTURBED
X
600 28
SHEAR
TEST DIAGRAM
PLATE
GeoSoils,
Ihc.
B - 5
Date: APR 96
W.O.: 2877-A-A1
6
5
4
N
Y
x
H
C9
Z
w
x
y 3
of
x
2
1
00
1
2
3
4 5
6
NORMAL PRESSURE
ksf
Boring
Depth
Nature
Cohesion Fric.
Angle
No.
(feet) Test Method
Moist.
Saturated
(psf) (degree)
• B-2
15.00
UNDISTURBED
X
450 24
SHEAR
TEST DIAGRAM
PLATE
GeoSoils,
Inc.
B - 6
Date: APR 96
W.O.: 2877-A-A1
-1
0
1
2
3
z
0
H
4
O
H
0
O
z
z
O rJ
U
6
7
e
9
10.1 1 10
NORMAL PRESSURE (ksf)
Boring No. B-1 Depth (feet): 15.00 Sample: SATURATED
CONSOLIDATION TEST PLATE
GeoSoils, Inc.
B - 7
Date: APR 96 W.O.: 2877-A-A1
-1
0
1
2
3
z
0
H
4
0
H
0
O
U
Z
O cJ
U
6
7
8
9
10.1 1 10
NORMAL PRESSURE (ksf)
Boring No. B-2 Depth (feet): 15.00 Sample: SATURATED
CONSOLIDATION TEST PLATE
GeoSoils, Inc.
6-8
Date: APR 96 W.O.: 2877-A-A1
DATE: Tuesday, April 23, 1996
x r
* E Q F A U L T
+ +
* Ver. 2.20
+ +
x +
+xxxxxxx++++++xx+++++++++xxxxx++xxx++
(Estimation of RHGA Horizontal Acceleration
From Digitized California Faults)
SEARCH PERFORMED FOR: OCEMA
JOB NUMBER: 2877A-Al-OC
JOB NAME: UPPER NEWPORT BAY INTERPRETIVE CENTER
SITE COORDINATES:
LATITUDE: 33.654 N
LONGITUDE: 117.884 W
SEARCH RADIUS: 60 mi
ATTENUATION RELATION: 2) Campbell 6 Bozorgnia (1994) Horiz. - Soft Rock
UNCERTAINTY (M=Mean, S=Mean+1-Sigma): S
SCOND: 0
COMPUTE RRGA HORIE. ACCEL. (FACTOR: 0.650 DISTANCE: 20.0 ma)
FAULT -DATA FILE USED: CALIFLT.DAT
SOURCE OF DEPTH VALUES (A=Attenuation File, F=Fault Data File): A
PLATE C-1
-----------------------------
DETERMINISTIC SITE
_____________________________
PARAMETERS
Page 1
_____________________________________________________________________________
IMAX.
CREDIBLE
EVENTIIMAX.
PROBABLE
EVENTI
( I
APPROX. I___________________
11
-------------------
I
( ABBREVIATED IDISTANCE
I
MAXI
RHGA I
SITE II
MAXI
RHGA I
SITE I
I FAULT NAME I
mi
(km) ICRED.1
SITE IINTENSIIPROB.I
SITE IINTENSI
I
I
MAG.IACC. gI
MM 11
MAG.IACC. 91
MM I
-------------------------- I
IANACAPA 1
---------
55
I
( 88)1
----- I
7.001
----- I------
------ I
0.0511
I______
------ 11
VI 11
11_____
----- I
5.701
I______
------ I
0.0181
I
------ I
IV I
------ I
I-------------------------- I
ICASA LAMA-CLARK (S.Jacin.)1
---------
50
---------
I
( 81)I
7.001
----- I
0.0611
------ I
VI II
------ II
7.001
----- I
0.0611
------ I
VI I
------ I
I-------------------------- I
ICATALINA ESCARPMENT 1
35
I
( 56))
7.001
-----
0.1041
------ I
VII 11
------ 11
6.101
----- I
0.0471
------ I
VI I
------ I
-------------------------- I
ICHINO 1
---------
22
I
( 35)1
I
7.001
----- I------
0.1951
I______
Vill 11
11_____
5.401
I______
0.0621
I___
VI I
-_-I
I-------------------------- I
ICLAMSHELL-SAWPIT 1
---------
37
I
( 59)1
6.601
0.0711
I______
VI II
11_____
4.901
I
0.0181
------ I______i
IV 1
I-------------------------- I
ICORONADO BANK-AGUA BLANCA 1
---------
21
I
( 34)1
----- I------
7.501
0.2641
IX 11
6.701
-----
0.1561
------ I
VIII I
------ I
-------------------------- I
ICUCAMONGA 1
---------
37
I
( 60)1
----- I
6.901
----- I------
------ I
0.0861
I______
------ 11
VII 11
II_____
I
6.101
I
0.0461
------ I
VI I
------ I
-------------------------- I
IELSINORE 1
---------
23
I
( 36)1
7.501
----- I
0.2431
------ I
IX 11
------ 11
6.601
----- I
0.1321
------ I
VIII I
------ I
I-------------------------- I
1ELYSIAN PARK SEISMIC ZONE 1
---------
30
I
( 48)1
7.101
0.1381
VIII 11
5.801
----- I
0.0521
------ I_
VI I
-____I
-------------------------- I
IGLN.HELEN-LYTLE CR-CLREMNTI
---------
44
I
( 71)1
----- I
7.001
------ I
0.0741
------ 11
VII 11
6.701
0.0561
------
VI 1
------I
I-------------------------- I
IHOT S-BUCK RUG.(S.Jacint0) 1
---------
56
---------
I
( 90)1
----- I
7.001
----- I------
------ I
0.0521
I______
------ 11
VI 11
II_____
----- I
6.101
I______
I
0.0231
I
IV I
--____I
I-------------------------- I
]MALIBU COAST 1
47
I
( 75)1
6.901
0.0611
VI It
11_____
5.601
I______
0.0211
I______I
IV I
I-------------------------- I
INEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (NORTH) 1
---------
20
I
( 32)1
I
----- I------
6.701
----- I------
I______
0.1071
I______
VIL I
11_____
4.201
I______
0.0121
I
III 1
------ I
-------------------------- I
INEWPORT-INGLEWOOD-OFFSHOREI
---------
4
( 7)1
7.101
----- I
0.4731
------ I------
X 11
11_____
5.901
I______
0.2951
I
IX I
------ I
I-------------------------- I
INORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE 1
---------
51
I
( 82)1
7.701
----- I------
0.1101
I______
V11 11
11_____
6.001
I______
0.0251
I______
V I
I
I-------------------------- I
INORTHRIDGE HILLS 1
---------
52
I
( 84)1
6.501
----- I------
0.0371
I______
V 11
II_____
5.501
I______
0.0171
I
IV I
------ I
-------------------------- I
IOAK RIDGE (Eastern Blind) 1
---------
53
I
( 86)1
7.001
I------
0.0801
I______
VII II
11_____
5.501
I______
0.0241
I
V I
------ I
-------------------------- I
IPALOS VERDES HILLS 1
---------
15
I
( 24)1
-----
7.201
0.1971
VIII 11
6.201
-----
0.1041
------ I
VII I
------ I
I-------------------------- I
IRAM40ND 1
---------
35
I
( 56)1
----- I
7.501
----- I------
------ I
0.1471
I______
------ II
VIII 11
11_____
I
4:901
I
0.0201
------ I
IV I
------ I
-------------------------- I
IROSE CANYON 1
---------
45
I
( 72)1
7.001
----- I
0.0721
------ 1
VI 11
------ 11
5.901
----- I
0.0271
------ I
V I
------ I
-------------------------- I
ISAN ANDREAS (Mo3ave) 1
---------
50
1
( 80)I
8.001
----- I
0.1411
------ I ------
VIII 11
11-----
7.401
I______
0.0881
I
VII I
------ I
I-------------------------- I
ISAN ANDREAS (S. Bern.Mtn.)1
---------
49
I
( 79)1
8.001
----- I ------
0.1431
I ------
Vill 11
11
6.701
----- I
0.0481
------ I
VI I
------ I
-------------------------- I
ISAN CLEMENTE - SAN ISIDRO 1
---------
56
I
( 90)1
8.001
----- I ------
0.1221
I ------
VII 11
11
6.501
----- I
0.0331
------ I
V I
------ I
-------------------------- I
ISAN DIEGO TRGH.-BAHIA SOL.1
---------
46
I
( 75)1
7.501
0.1051
------
VII 11
11
6.201
----- I
0.0341
------ I ------
V I
I
I-------------------------- I
ISAN GABRIEL 1
-------------------------- I
---------
38
---------
I
( 62)1
I_____I------
----- I ------
7 401
I
0.1251
I______
VII 11
11
5.601
_____I______
0.0261
I______I
V I
PLATE C-2
-----------------------------
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
Page 2
1
I
IMAX. CREDIBLE EVENTIIMAX. PROBABLE EVENTI
I
I APPROX. I
-------------------
I)
-------------------
I
I ABBREVIATED
IDISTANCE I
MAX .1
RHGA I
SITE 11
MAX.1
RHGA I
SITE I
I FAULT NAME
) mi
(km) ICRED.I
SITE 11NTENSIIPROB.1
SITE IINTENSI
I
I
I
MAG.IACC. gl
MM II
MAG.IACC. gl
ME I
I--------------------------
ISAN GORGONIO - BANNING
I ---------
146
I
( 73)1
----- I
7.501
----- I------
------ I
0.1001
I______
------ 11
Vix 11
11_____
----- I
6.601
I______
------ I
0.0501
I
------ I
VI I
------ I
I--------------------------
ISAN JOSE
I ---------
1 28
---------
I
( 45)1
I
6.701
----- I------
0.2081
I______
VIZ 11
11_____
5.001
I______
0.0241
I
IV I
------ I
--------------------------
ISANTA MONICA - HOLLYWOOD
I
1 38
( 61)•1
7.001
0.0901
VII 11
5.801
0.0351
V I
------ I
--------------------------
ISANTA MONICA MTNS. THRUST
I ---------
1 40
I
( 64)1
----- I------
7.201
I______
0.1431
11_____
VIII 11
I______
6.301
I
0.0731
VII I
I--------------------------
ISANTA SUSANA
1---------
1 57
I
( 91)l
----- I------
6.901
----- I
I______
0.0451
------ 1
II_____
VI 1.1
------ 11
I
6.301
----- I
------ I
0.0281
------ I
------ I
V I
------ I
I--------------------------
[SIERRA MADRE-SAN FERNANDO
I ---------
1 33
I
( 53)1
I
7.301
----- I
0.1361
------ I
VIII 11
------ 11
6.301
----- I
0.0651
------ I
VI I
------ I
--------------------------
IVERDUGO
I ---------
1 35
( 57)1
6.701
----- I
0.0801
------ I
VII 11
------ 11
5.201
----- I
0.0241
------ I
V I
------ I
I--------------------------
IWHITTIER - NORTH ELSINORE
I ---------
1 5
I
( 8)1
7.101
----- I
0.4291
------
X II
------ 11
6.001
----- I
0.2681
------ I ------
IX I
I
I--------------------------
)WILSHIRE ARCH
I ---------
1 35
---------
I
( 56)1
5.701
I
0.0571
I
VI 11
------ 11_____1
5.001
0.0321
------ I ------
V I
I
I--------------------------
rr+++rr+r+++rrrrxrr+rrr+++r+r+rr+++rrrr+rr+++++++++++++++rrr++++r
I 1_____1------
rr+rrr++++++
-END OF SEARCH- 34 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS.
THE NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD-OFFSHORE FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE.
IT IS ABOUT 4.1 MILES AWAY.
LARGEST
LARGEST
SITE ACCELERATION: 0.473 g
SITE ACCELERATION: 0.295 g
PLATE C-3
0 50 100
�I
SCALE
\ l
SAN FRANCISCO
L ELES
SITE LOCATION ------------
Latitude — 33.6540 N
Longitude — 117.8840 W
UPPER NEWPORT BAY INTERPRETIVE CEN
CALIFORNIA FAULT
PLATE C-4
w
Y
a
co
°0
cY
a
S x
Ld
W
xx x x
v
~
—i
x
U
CD
Z
W
m
Q
X
r
n
�
Z
c�
O
L'
N
Q
G
I hill I I I
• •• Y
I.-
M Q
LIi
CO
WM
Y
YI
�• O Y M ••
TO
�•�.%/'�
'�
� ///
O
Q
O
(6) NOLVa3-1300V -IVINOZWOH NV3d
w
F-
X
Ld
w
a
LL_
Q
O
n
Or,
Z
i=-
0
4�
xX,y, X, x
x
c /
W
X
.�
ry
w
XX x x
x
W
Q
—�
Q
n
m
x
0
x
p
O
�
(,
U
Q
�
I
r
m
Q.
.. Y . . . . . .
o
N
o 0
0
o
o
p
Z
(6) NOLV83'1300V -IVINOZ]HOH NV3d
m
O
PLATE C-5
!L
N.
L
ru k
r
.75 Z
UNIVERSITY DRIVE 757
PARK_SIGN PARK ENTRY-SlIGN
WATERSHER-,INT RPRETIVE BOULDERS
LLJ DROP-OFF
PLAZA
z
RIPPLE MOUNDS APC S
LLJ
> bitrk.Y ANb'L,6A qG
v
<
LIJ PEDESTRIAN
z NFORMATION KIOSK I
z WATERSHE-I.. V
Ax II o I (MAIN PATH)
I If
GRASSLAND N, PEDESTRIAN
WATERSHED PATH
U�
IT
1AT11ON'
10
2
f 'Ap OXIMAiE,L CATION-OF-EXPLOWORY
QRINP,'
a I
I TeRPRET N E POU
, t.0
'PACIFIC FE hy
jig 1;
_MI RA
a
r
PEDES MAN
WATERSHED PATH E V
Z
IKE� RAIL
0.1
p
Lu it I s i
a
QIASTRIIAN�AND
KING PQQTH
X,
kv
%
t
AI
'PEDESTRIAN
a
WATERSHED PATH %
At
ERSHED INTERPRETIVE BOOLDERS.
--Z:
LOS ANGELES CO.
RIVERSIDE GO.
ORANGE CO-
f DIEGO CO. SAN
•
7 4. PR0JECT UPPER NEWPORT BAY CENTER
W. 0. 2877-A Al DATE 4-30-96 SCALE T=40" PLATE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 20 40 130 120 200
4 INCHES ON ORGINAL DRAWING North
EDAW
U,&cape Arditect=
1910 Kin Std. Sim 450
IT, be, CL!lfomia 92714
711 660.804A
711660.1046-f-x
I
w
rc
----------C-
0.5 \ /
A ` /
3
53.1
z
0
wl
N
13 I 14 15 1n6 16 5 17 18 9
l' r'
Ii i 8 r/ tY CONC. WALL Ertoe F-1
v.4
151, tiyF / ; N
F �aI _ PC-5' \ PC_n KV-f l°'V 1' `\ Ok `\
—I--F-2 ------ F-2------- 711^` O 9 �w. r—�
- -
_____—�/ \ .\P PC-4
------- — �_7.;
— — — — ----
tA
PC-2 r L/%_PC-2 PC-2
PC-2 /r
/
,
/ / RECESSED SLAB
/� FOR kILE
,
\\\m/ c/
/ :• / / RECESSED SLAB �//
\ A\� U� /\ V F / FOR TILE
\ S CONC. SLAB�N GRADE �/ ' \\ t\\ , Kl'�l��A ��ptQ'
\\ // �� 1E• A / / ` 04' �� ' / / W/ 240147 0 C / / r)l 1
3 / / 'Yr'7 P•ey (IT' �/ / \ /� FA. WAY /\ \\ / X 9 6 �� ` , - <,� I ��pJ ,
v a _ p r J / / // / �� �—
`\q, ' <g \A\ �� \/,/Q4 706 evi PC-3 ,�(/ r : P \ ��( \ PC_5 0 /
0 ><L iG' PC-3 i \ Ok'gy�a_� -- (J" \ PC-3 ( ':'. .. ?. .; .... J/•(— __—_ --- ___ Fi = =_— GB-L_ _
y0 <r o_ GB-1 _ I --- �e—� ---- IJ /�i' . ' ___ GB—t GB-- ------ __ _= _ __ _ PC-4
DkL
V S3.1
C_7 ELEVATIONELEV
S
r �V c+
4g t
V/// PC-3I`%o" /�
/ 53.1 \ \ �/ \ \ FC • Q) L7 rT --lJ °• \\ /'y�. r. \ \ / / , 4.l-= 3t
1i \ \ /i/ ` `3 \`\ ` 0 E'15�7•S „L
/'/ a ELEVATION \" \ // wY ` i\` o1���V0/// \ \\ Ot Ill \ < '..::..
q($�d\3 x\' S\s y4�// (jtF'� �y3 �\\ // of C/,/ \ \ IP {L' �tP
8%� {{� Y(,<�P r6't; ett�' QOT�O `J�/ �_ GB-2 \��U / o E{t)GB_z-----i �/�I' J PC-5 \ Pc-5 E tAa4 t�s /
Ot 9'�,e\` V� �\0� �ayo--Ice-1—_--L _ GB-1 _ r----- -- _ IV 4----_ _ _ -----� I------------
t, \ 1 -'PC-3 r PC-5 PC-5 C- P - ` \ ' / , / ` / / \ \
It CONC. WALL / \�' / 441`' // / \ / / \\\ -- /
\cm la1 3'f' //\\\ \ V0 \ / \ T'P. U.N.O. , \\i (7 YL' /, / / </ \t\ '
_ \ J y /
4 P \\
\\\\� � OXy1i yd�� / / \\\\ // \ O�V'4a1� / \ K \� o•85D'F'�� i' /` / /%/f. / \A\gym '
ot
PC 3aaBQtA �/� \\\\Pm (AlY t Ot E31�52q r. r 4
\ PIT L q// L' Om'r% \ E➢0 / \\i /
a
ev
_- ✓� GB-Z l
ti�..
Ok\
a
PC-3
W
L 2tik \5
,Px� �.E °
5
D'$
�1 A ' � , ELEVATION A Ot E
r h PC-5 / / /
\\\ /l//< � \ Ox\r's.u'S Pit � \\ \\� / <// \t / '\
Qbp
A \ �v /
�-------'-- I ` ------ _—_--1--- ----
-----------I /
PC-4 PC-4
�PC_3 I PC-2 �---------------------- ` K / PC-5 PC-
_J
\\` / kV, a.\ 3a = 31 PS
1 0 OtLr83� 6.d50,6037, O 6= 5Z kL,e3
rND'(%tFTy e•35D _S kt
/
I ^ n
i
4—
PC-4 I
1
I
1
I
of
U'
W
to
3
53.7
FOUNDATION PLAN
a D 1,8„ -0°
N O R T H
wis
EDAW
Landscape Architecture
RON YEO, FAIA ARCHITECT INC.
Suite 400
Irvine, California 92614
500 JASMINE AVENUE
CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625
1
714.660.8044
Phow 714-644-SM Fax' 714-644-0449
714.660.1046 fax
(1 INDICATES 187E CONCRETE PILE x 40'-T LONG U.N.O.
UNLESS NOTES OTHERWISE, SEE SCHED. ON SHT. S4-1
r—�
PC_41 I INDICATES PILE G4P, SEE SCHED. ON SHEET 54.1 FOR SIZE &REINFORCING
LOJ
GB-1
INDICATES GRADE BEAM, SEE SCHED. ON SHEET S4.1 FOR SIZE & REINFORCING
CC-11 INDICATES 187E CONC. COLUMN, SEE SCHED. ON SHEET S5.1 FOR SIZE & REINFORCING
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION USE
THESE P MS HAVE BEEN PRINTED PRIM TO ISSUANCE
OF A MOM PERMIT AND PRE SUBJECT TO CWN(L
REVISIONS ORANGE COUNTY
P R E P A R E D U N 0 E R ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY
S U P E R V I S I O N O F IARx DATE DESCROPTION IIARx DATE ocsawnaN
UPPER NEWPORT BAY REGIONAL PARK
2301 University Drim Newport Beach. CA 92660
s[ET nnE
— -- -- - -- ---- - — — - — FOUNDATION PLAN
DE4aFD: SRA ➢ - DW aEaa,: JGS "ETS2.1
$Cl1L• DA2 mmmD No, p
D A T E D A T E Ile1'-D' __----- _...._. .......�....,.e,..,,.. ,.. ,.,7�,w __-
I
i TY OF NE`9PORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS O�
June 14, 1993
ROLL CALL
programs which are provided by the
Public Works Department. The CVB
would like the City to terminate
its requirement of the $50,00
payment from the CVB now.
Richard Gartrell, President of the
Newport Beach Conference and Vi tors
Bureau, addressed the Council, sting
that on behalf of the Bo rd of
Directors, he is requesting the arliest
possible release of the trap ortation
funds, so that this money n go back
into their marketing fund fo next year.
After it was determined t t no one else
i ue, the
wished to address this public
hearing was closed.
Motion was made b Council Member
of
otion x
x x x x
Sansone to accept t recommendation
x the Budget Commit e, adopt Ordinance
.yes
bstained x
No. 93-12, and iminate the annual
t of $50,000 from the
payment requirem
Convention and isitors Bureau, which
motion carried
A further mo ion was made by Mayor Pro
lotion x
x x x x
Tem Watt t hold back on releasing the
x $50,000 re uirement until September 30,
eyes
\bstained x
1933, wh motion carried.
Counci discussion continued, and Mayor
-lotion x
Pro T Watt made an additional motion
\yes x
that he Convention and Visitors Bureau
Voes x x x x
x not a released of the requirement to
pr ide $50,000 of its portion of the
T sient Occupancy Tax to the City for
September 30, 1993
ansit use until
hen it will be released of this
requirement, unless the City has found
a use for the money, which motion
FAILED.
Mayor Turner made a motion that the City
Motion x
release the $50,000 to the Convention
Ayes x x x x
x an s ors ureau e a e y, w e
Noes x
motion carried.
4. Mayor Turner opened the public hearing
regarding:
A General Plan Amendment No. 92-3(E) -
Request to amend tho Land Use and
Circulation Elements of the General Plan
so as to increase the allowable size of
the
the pproposed Interpretive Center on
Westbay parcel of the Upper Newport Bay
Regional Park site from 8,000 sq. ft. to
10,000 sq. ft. and delete a secondary
bicycle trail along the Westbay parcel;
and the acceptance of an environmental
document;
AND
B. Local Coastal Program Amendment No.
31 - Request to amend the Local Coastal
Program Land Use Plan so as to increase
the proposed
the allowable size of
Interpretive Center on the Westbay
parcel of the Upper Newport Bay Regional
Park site from 8,000 sq. ft. to 10,000
sq. ft.;
AND
Volume 47 - Page 136
MINUTES
' INDEX
/��
(Revenue/
GPA 92-3(l
(45)
LCPA No-3
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
COUNCIL MEMBERS
June 14, 1993
�ni i rai
INDEX
C. The contract will be for
Revenue/
three years and the base
Finance
numbers of $5.833 mill io
UTOTax
and $.625 million will b
increased by the Consum r
Price Index on an ann 1
basis.
D. Payments of any amount to
the CVB will be mad on
July 30 (following the
close of a fiscal ear),
after it has been
determined whethe the
thresholds have been
achieved.
In addition to the it ms above
that would need to be i orporated
into a new agreement, a parties
agreed that in the ordinance
providing for an inc ease in the
TOT rate, it would state that
existing weekly or nthly rental
agreements that ape ify the lower
rate (8t) will b held at the
lower rat" throu h October 1,
1993. This is o address the
issue raised by he managers of
the monthly ren 1 properties at
the last City C nail meeting.
Also, an issue as been raised by
several hot-e s regarding the
payment of t TOT for "persons"
(including firms/corporations)
occupying or renting rooms on an
ongoing bas s. In the past, these
"contract" ocros have been exemppt
from payi g the tax. In tha
original p oposal these "contract"
rooms wou d have paid the tax. A
compromi a has bean proposed that
rovide that these contracts will
e axe t, as long as they are
contin ed in place through
July 1 1998, or five years from
the effective data of the
ordi nee.
One ssue that has complicated the
dis ussion with the CVB is the
is us of the $50,000 that is
r uired in the City's contract
w th the CVB to be paid to the
ity from the current 1% they
eceive through the Visitors
Service Fee. The contract
provides that the City is to use
these monies for the establishment
and operation of a "transportation
system" in the City --if they are
not used for this purpose,
(presumably a trolley or similar
«)± ^r b•ss A"ttem) then these
'fie
monies are to used for any
other transportation purpose. In
the last four years these monies
have not been earmarked for any
specific transportation program,
nor have they been segregated and
set aside in reserve, but have
been used in the General Fund,
indirectly for "transportation"
Volume 47 - Page 135
JITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS
June 14, 1993
LL CRLL
MINUTES
i 9�I o
RO
C. Amendment No. 779. proposed
PCA 779
ORDINANCE NO. 93-13, being,
Ard 93-13
Zoning
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING A PORTION
OF DISTRICTING MAPS N0. 36, 39, 40, 42,
43, 44 AND 61 SO AS TO RECLASSIFY THE
SANTA ANA HEIGHTS AND EASTBLUFF PARCELS
OF THE UPPER NEWPORT BAY REGIONAL PARK
PROPERTY FROM THE U (UNCLASSIFIED)
DISTRICT, R-3-B AND R-4-B-2 DISTRICTS TO
THE PC (PLANNED COMMUNITY) DISTRICT;
AND
D. Use Permit No. 3488 - Request to
U/P 3488
approve a General Development Plan and
Resource Management Plan for the Upper
Newport Bay Regional Park, which would
serve as a Planned Community Development
Plan and regulations for the regional
park.
The applications requested would
establish General Plan, LOP, zoning and
use permit entitlement for the County's
Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. The
proposed General Development Plan and
Resource Management Plan would serve as
the planned community development plan
and regulations governing the use and
operation of the park property.
Report from the Planning Department.
Letter from Charles B. Caldwell,
requesting that the City review street
improvements and the traffic circulation
element for University Drive (street
termination).
The Council was advised that
communications were received after the
agenda was printed from the following
people who have concerns for the
proposed development of Upper Newport
Bay Regional Park:
Frances Gioia
Mary Auerback
Annette and Warren Lindsay
Rick Dayton
Gayle Gardner
For the record, the Mayor's office
received additional letters and
telephone messages for the file.
The City Manager introduced John
Douglas, Principal Planner, Advance
Planning Division, to provide comments,
who stated that he would like to
summarize the proposed County project
and explain toe i,ity 7 s rvlo, aria go into
some of the details of the previous
actions and recommendations of the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Douglas advised that the Upper
Newport Bay Regional Park comprises
approximately 138 acres in three parcels
forming an are around the northern
portion of the bay. The County acquired
Volume 47 - Page 137
"ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Jua,e 14, 1493
OLL CALL
MINUTES
INDEX
ownership of this property in several
GPA 92-3(E)
stages, the most recent of which was the
1989 dedication of 114 acres in the
Westbay parcel by The Irvine Company.
The Westbay parcel extends along the
west side of the bay between Irvine
Avenue and the Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Reserve from Santiago Drive
north to University Drive and the Santa
Ana -Delhi Flood Control Channel, The
Santa Ana Heights parcel is bounded by
the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel, Jamboree
Road, the Ecological Reserve, the
Bayview project and the private
development in Santa Ana Heights, The
Eastbluff parcel runs between Back Bay
Drive and the private property in
Eastbluff from Eastbluff Drive south to
the mouth of Big Canyon. The Back Bay
Drive right-of-way is under the
jurisdiction of the City and is not
within the park.
Hr. Douglas further advised that the
Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks
Department is requesting a General Plan
Amendment, a Local Coastal Program
Amendment, zone change and use permit,
which would increase the maximum size of
a visitors center on the Westbay parcel,
from 8,000 sq.ft. to 10,000 sq.ft. Also
delete the secondary bicycle trail
through the Westbay parcel and establish
a development plan and operational
guidelines for the park, The rationale
behind the County's plan is in
recognition of the unique environmental
resources that the Bay represents, and
its wildlife resource value, The plan
also recognizes that previous
uncontrolled access has led to
deterioration in that environmental
resource value and wildlife habitat.
The proposed plan attempts to balance
environmental restoration and public
recreation opportunities by controlled
access and uses that are more
restrictive than what the public has
been subject to in the past. The City
is a "Responsible Agency" under
California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), due to the fact that the
Majority of the park area is within the
corporate boundaries of Newport Beach,
but the existing proposal in not
consistent with the General Plan and
Local Coastal Program, therefore an
amendment is proposed. The City also has
ownership of a six acre parcel along
Irvine Avenue and also a joint ownership
of a five acre parcel near the
intersection of 23rd Street and Irvine
Avenue, and the City and County jointly
have relocatable easements that cross
the Westbay parcel. With respect to the
City's jurisdiction over the County
property, governmental agencies are
generally immune from each others
regulatory powers; however, the City's
ownership of the parcels and easements
on the Westbay parcel area do affect the
Volume 47 - Page 138
2ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Fs June 14, 1993
MINUTES
INDEX
ROLL CRLL
City's legitimate interests regarding
GPA 92-3(E;
regulations for the County park. In
addition to the City's approval, the
Orange County Board of Supervisors will
be asked to approve the project and also
the Coastal Commission since the project
is located in the Coastal Zone. I£
there are any aspects of the park that
will affect the Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Reserve, the Department of
Fish and Game's approval will also be
required.
Mr. Douglas advised that before this
project was submitted for formal review
to the City, the County held a series of
13 workshops which extended over a 1-1/2
year period, and many residents and
staff attended those workshops. In
November of 1992, the County presented
the project to the City Parks, Beaches
and Recreation Commission, who
unanimously recommended approval. In
April/May 1993, the City Planning
Commission held public hearings and at
the conclusion, unanimously recommended
approval of the County plan with six
additional recommendations for
consideration by the City Council:
1) Pedestrian trail access to the
Ecological Reserve - The Upper Bay and
the property surrounding the Bay is
under the Department of Fish and Game
jurisdiction, and there is a series of
informal trails that now exist and
extend into the Reserve from the County
Park, and at the Planning Commission
hearings, representatives from the Fish
and Game explained that those are
informal trails and it is Fish and
Game 's policy to not allow unescorted
pedestrians into the Reserve. The
Planning Commission recommends that the
City Council ask the County to
coordinate with Fish and Game to explore
the possibility of extending some trails
into the Reserve, if it can be done in
an environmentally sensitive manner;
2) Trail Pattern in the Westbay oarcel -
The proposed County Plan for the Westbay
parcel includes two pedestrian trails,
one adjacent to University Drive and
Irvine Avenue, and the other near the
blufftop. As proposed, there is no
connection between these trails except
at the park entrance on University
Drive. All of the other existing paths
and informal trails would be eliminated
and revegetated under the current plan.
The City and County are joint owners of
relocatabla pedestrian and bicycle trail
easements on the Westbay parcel. The
terms of the easements sj,,:,.if) ;....L
may be relocated to area providing
"reasonably comparable access." Two of
these easements cross the property from
east to west in the vicinity of Santa
Isabel Avenue. The Planning Commission
recommends that the County's plan be
Volume 47 - Page 139
TTY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
COUNCIL MEMBERS
040*\__.
\\ June 14, 1993
modified to include an east -west
connection between the two proposed
trails in order to create a loop
pattern. In making this recommendation,
tha Commission believes that such a
connection is necessary to pLovide the
reasonably comparable access required
under the terms of the existing
easements. If the City Council concurs
with the Planning Commission
recommendation, staff has suggested a
condition of approval;
3) Equestrian Trails - The original plan
would not allow any horses within the
Vestbay parcel (south of University
Drive, and southwest of the flood
control however as a result Of
testimony atethe public hearings. the
County and members of the equestrian
representatives met and worked out a
compromise that would allow equestrians
to use the trail paralleling University
Drive and Irvine Avenue to be shared by
pedestrians and equestrians. The
Planning Commission recommended approval
of the plan ewith a proposed
to revision
the
allowing equestrian access
Vestbay parcel;
4) A ro riateness of the Planned
Community Zonink Desi natio - During
the Planning Commission hearings some
residents expressed their concern that
the proposed Planned Community (PC)
tninpsithio Cbe
to open e County proerty to
additional development
erit beyond
o dexplt is
currently proposed.
that the PC ed
an
administrative mechanism designation
s which the
detailed development plan and
operational regulations can be specified
and adopted. The uses and development
within the PC zoning are controlled by
the PC development plan, which is
subject to approval by the City Council.
Regarding the "Open Space" designation
an alternative to the proposed PC
designation was discussed at the
Planning Commission hearing, and the
Zoning Code provides for two categories
of open space-, -If active and pas ive.
pnation
arperi intensive " ive
mitsineniverecreational
development such as ball fields,
recreation centers, and marinas, and
would not be low -
intensity usespproposed riate ore theUpper
Newport Bay Regional Park. The "Open
Space/Passive" designation would be
considered appropriate for the park,
although some of the proposed uses such
as the Interpretive Center and parking
a,ot are nuo permiLLed t",Ji r the existing
zoning code. Staff recommended that a
decision on changing the regional park
desiguntilnthe osection of the n to "Open cZoning deferred Code is
updated through the Planning
volume 47 - Page 140
92-3(B)
ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS
�'A `�f t9�
Fs y Ep June 14, 1993
MINUTES
INDEX
KVLL I.nLL
Department's zoning implementation work
GPA 92-3(E;
program. Both the Zoning Code revision
and the redesignation of the park
property would require new public notice
and hearings by the Planning Commission
and City Council;
5) Back Bav Drive - Mitigation Measure
No. 14 in the County's EIR would require
that prior to grading or construction
for the park, a plan for the ultimate
use and configuration of Back Bay Drive
shall be submitted for the review and
approval of the Director,
EMA/Transportation and the City of
Newport Beach Traffic Engineer. In
adding this mitigation measure to the
Draft EIR, the County anticipated that
the issue of Back Bay Drive would have
been resolved by the time park plans
were submitted to the City for approval.
Since the Back Bay Drive issue remains
open and the County has no jurisdiction
over the roadway, County staff believes
it would be inappropriate to require
that park development be contingent upon
resolution of this issue. The Planning
Commission feels that it would be
prudent to resolve Back Bay Drive before
the park be developed, and therefore,
they recommended that the mitigation
measure remain as part of the project
approval. Staff has suggested a
compromise, if it is the City Council's
desire to "allow the development of the
park to proceed prior to the Back Bay
Drive resolution;
6) Park Policy regarding dons -
According to the existing plan, dogs
would not be allowed in the Westbay
parcel, although they would be permitted
on a leash anywhere in the park. The
Planning Commission recommended that
dogs be allowed on leash anywhere in the
park, even in the Westbay parcel. If
the City Council believes that the
Planning Commission's recommendation is
correct, there is a suggested condition
of approval in the staff report.
Mr. Douglas introduced Robert Fisher,
Director of the Orange County Harbors,
Beaches and Parks Department, and
acknowledged County staff Mary Murray,
and those in the audience who worked on
the plan.
Following Council inquiry, Mr. Douglas
advised that the Back Bay Drive road
issue could be dropped entirely without
holding up the construction of the park.
Council Member Debay, regarding bicycle
access, suggested'that she -•-^u11 li`.c to
see bicycle speed control addressed
(signing) and add the matter of
pedestrian access to Mitigation Measure
No. 14.
Volume 47 - Page 141
"TTY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS
�`F VA0k� �o\_%\i une14, 1993
Bob Fisher, Director of Orange County
Harbors, Beaches and Parks Department,
addressed the Council commenting that
the County is pleased to be able to
present a very fine plan for a very
theoCitytofiNewportpBeach- Thety ated in
County
has provided for a regional park and
master plan for many, many years, and in
coordination with the City, have
identified the property as Open Space
usage. The difference between the
city's General Plan designation and the
County's prol.osal for a regional park,
is 2,0o0 sq.ft. for the Interpretive
Center, the City's plan calls for 8,000
sq,ft „ and the County's plan calls for
10,000 sq.ft. Most of the property was
acquired from The Irvine Company in
1989, and it was a donation to the
County to help implement the Master Plan
of Regional Parks, and served soma other
purposes. The Irvine Company had been
pressured to give up some of that land
for open space use, as part of the
overall settlement of the Newport Center
expansion. When The Irvine Company
granted that property to the County, it
had some of those factors in mind,
imposing rather stringent restrictions
on what the County could do with that
property. it provided for a strictly
passive, recreation use, one which is
compatibla and consistent with the
adjoining ecological reserve.
Mr, Fisher commented that people learned
about the park plan rather late, but
May
people were invited to participate.
The major sentiment is with the park
plan now being presented. The County
terms of responsibility tedaiono ands be the
the
environmental stewards of the property,
and also as a rol
the uses in a way thark at the Countyrator to can
minimize and/or avoid impacting upon the
ecological reserve.
Mr. Fisher advised that the County has
put together a plan which would
emphasize natural resource restoration,
protection and interpretation (an
interpretive center with people
stationed there who can help the public
andnt
whysnd thereyareirestrictionsarea is ). This
will promote the public's desire to
protect the property, a sense of
ownership and a desire to keep it as it
is. There will be trails for bicycles,
pedestrians and equestrians, but not all
in the same places, and they think this
is important to provide some degree of
separation and control over the trails.
His assistant, Hazy Murray, pointed
on the wall map those trails that are
provided for bicycles (Jamboree, across
the top of Back Bay, extending all the
way over to the Santa Ana -Delhi
Channel), and the county's plan is to
extend that along University Drive, then
parallel to Irvine Avenue. Bicycles are
also allowed on trails on Back Bay
Volume 47 - Page 142
MINUTES
PA 92-3(E)
'ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS
�oA
Fs �2F June 14, 1993
ROLL CALL
MINUTES
INDEX
Drive, so that there is a complete
GPA 92-3(E
surrounding of the Bay and the park with
bicycle trails. Equestrian trail use is
provided from Jamboree Road, along the
top of the Upper. Bay, with a connection
to Santa Ana Heights, and down to the
Delhi Channel. As a result of the
Planning Commission hearings, and
sentiment to have equestrian access to
the Westbay, the County has agreed to an
equestrian trail that generally
parallels the bicycle trail, although
extending only a part of the way down
Irvine Avenue. Provision for pedestrian
use would be a separate trail in one
location in the Westbay which comes out
from the Interpretive Center and the
parking area, skirts the Upper Bay and
extends where most of the interpretive
opportunity would be provided for
rangers to interact with visitors to the
park. There is a connection also at
Constellation Drive because the
residents there felt that was important
to them. Ms. Murray also pointed out
two spur areas that take people somewhat
closer to the Bay to have a closer look,
and this is the only area where
pedestrians would be free from conflict
with other uses.
Regarding the 10,000 sq. ft-.--•
Interpretive Center, at a cost $1.8
million, Mr. Fisher advised that the
estimated 'cost for development of the
entire park would be $6 million, which
is a lot of money and the County feels
that the center is worth the investment.
The Center will accommodate the Fish and
Game and County staff, with some room
for visitors, the Friends of Upper
Newport Bay and major exhibits so the
public can understand why the total
estuary is important to this area. They
have already received a $1 million
contribution, and have received other
grants and are applying for further
grants, but the rest of the park will be
paid for by the Harbors, Beaches and
Parks fund, a County -wide tax district,
and is not separately assessed to the
City of Newport Beach. A $2.00 charge
will be made for parking for each car,
and there is no separate charge for
entrance fee. The park will be
available for use throughout the day, up
until sunset. If the people choose to
access the park after that time this is
allowed, as long as there are no
complaints from residents or the City of
illegal activity.
Mr. Fisher stated that the County
generally concurs with the City staff
report and re'commendafic",
they have satisfied all the major user
groups, not to their total satisfaction,
but generally in a balanced way, and
think that this is a park that the City
of Newport Beach will be very proud of.
Volume 47 - Page 143
iTY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS
\�F��\\ nod" June 14, 1993
MIMUTES
INDEX
OLL CRLL
Mr. Fisher pointed out an error that is
GPA 92-3(E;
contained in the report relative to
dogs, which says that dogs on leash
shall not be permitted in, the Wsstbay
parcel, if it isn't otherwise provided.
He stated that dogs on leash would be
provided for in the Westbay parcel, with
access over the equestrian trail and the
bicycle trail, just not on the
pedestrian trail to keep a controlled
interpretive experience without looking
out for dogs.
In response to Council inquiry, Mr.
Fisher stated that the $6 million
includes the balance of the construction
of University Drive, and parking will be
allowed along University Drive, unless
the City decides that there will be no
parking there, As far as the views,
there will be low -profile fencing so as
not to interfere with the views from the
roads or residences across the way, low
berming wood -type rail fence or a
landscaped mound, just enough to
delineate the park and encourage
entrance at the appropriate locations.
There will be no other building on the
park, except for the Interpretive
Center, and the audience was encouraged
to inspect the schematic model provided
by the County.
In response to previous Council inquiry,
the public Works Director, in an attempt
to clarify a question raised about the
trail location parallel to Irvine
Avenue, advised that it is entirely on
the park side of Irvine Avenue. In
answer to question regarding the
dangerous curve from Santiago Avenue
around the Bay, he stated that there are
two or three major difficulties, 1) Five
to six acres of additional right-of-way
would be required, 2) There was no
funding identified for the cost of this
very significant project, and 3)
Wetlands impact. The City did address
a letter to the County requesting that
they look at it. The City and the County
jointly proposed the cooperative project
to complete the construction of the
improvements on the easterly side of
Irving Avenue, adjacent to the park, and
to construct the parallel trail, but
that did not relate to any potential
realignment of Irvine Avenue.
The following people addressed the
Council with regards to the amount of
money to be spent on development of the
park, damage to the environment, and
regulations imposed on the use and
access of the park:
Carla Brockman, 2700 Harbor View
Drive
Craig Bluell, 2282 Waterman
Martin Graff, Costa Mesa
Frances Gioia, 392 Sunrise, Cr,
Costa Mesa
Gayle Gardner, 315 Santa Isabel
Avenue, Costa Mesa
Volume 47 - Page 144
;ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS
�S' ` iN June 14, 1993
Rni i ca��
MINUTES
INDEX
Robert Gardner, 823 W. Balboa Bl.
GPA 92-3(E)
Nancy Bird, 1923 Galatea Terrace
Dolores Otting, 17 Hillsborough
Jane Farwell, 2426 Santiago Dr.
Tom Tierney, 2412 Mesa Drive,
Santa Ana Heights
Elizabeth Tierney, 2412 Mesa Dr.,
Santa Ana Heights
Marilee Terrell, 1725 Port Charles
Place
Jim Evans, 20372 S.W. Cypress,
Santa Ana Heights
Jeff Farwell, 2426 Santiago Dr.
The following people addressed the
Council in support of development of the
park:
James Stamper, 1954 Vista Caudal
Lane Koluvek, 610 Tustin Avenue
Peter Bryant, 426 Vista Parade
Frank Robinson, 1007 Nottingham
Road
Jim Cokes, 3438 Irvine Avenue
The public hearing was closed at this
time.
At the request of Council, Mr. Fisher
commented that the County acquired the
property in 1989, and started the
process of planning with people that
were.. interested enough to come to the
monthly meetings, consultants, planners,
landscape architects, biologists, etc.,
by reviewing the property and trying to
understand what is happening today, what
people were using it, how, and what
natural processes were going on. The
biological consultants pointed out to
the County, that while the property is
undeveloped, open and enjoyable in its
present state, that does not equal the
term, natural. A lot of people today,
think that if it is undeveloped that it
is natural, but it isn't here. This area
has gone through quite a transformation
from its natural state, mostly from the
negative, as it is deeply eroded in some
places, scarred, the landscaping on the
property today was introduced, and not
natural. Biologists pointed out that
there is a potential for restoring what
was once the natural condition of the
property, but it needs to be rested and
controlled, or it will continue to
deteriorate. The County wants to
reproduce in some areas of the park, the
natural condition that it once had, and
to allow a nice recreational experience.
The more people find out about what the
area is like, the more they will want to
protect the area, and the Interpretive
Center allows the public, young and old,
to get a better understanding, than just
comingand looking for
because the nocturnal animal life cannot
be seen during the daytime, and the
birds that are there are only there at
certain times of the year.
Volume 47 - Page 145
.:ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
9LL
COUNCIL MEMBERS
\` ��,O June 14, 1993
In answer to Council inquiry, Mr. Fisher
advised that the park would be open from
7:00 a.m. to sunset, but that doesn't
mean that there is a gate that closes to
keep people out. But, he feels that the
City would appreciate having some
control at night, and the regulations
are not as restrictive as they seem.
The Public Works Director advised the
Council that there is a proposed
cooperative project between the City and
the County to complete the improvements
to the easterly aide of Irvine Avenue,
and to construct the parallel
bicycle/pedestrian trail. The proposal
is to abate the cost of these
improvements 50/50, with the additional
proviso that if Regional Bike 'frail
funds are approved for that project, it
would come off the top. Application has
been made for those Regional Bike Trail
funds. it is expected that the net cost
that the City has provided for in the
proposed 1993-94 budget would be
approximately $230,000. ongoing
maintenance costs for the Irvine Avenue
Street improvements would be comparable
to maintenance of any other street in
the City. The bicycle/pedestrian trail
within the park would become a part of
the park facilities and would be
operated and maintained by the County.
Regarding Council inquiry conveying the
property in return for mitigation on
some other development offsite, Mr.
Fischer stated that the County made no
such agreement with The Irvine Company
that this would compensate or mitigate
for some particular project elsewhere.
The Irvine Company has a standard policy
that applies to all lands donated or
dedicated for open space purposes, that
they retain the right to undertake a
mitigation project within the park at
their expense to create the kind of
landscaping project that is called for
in a general development plan, and they
may seek from some other governmental
agency mitigation credits, such as the
Department of Fish and Game, the Corps
of Engineers, etc., but that is up to
The Irvine Company to arrange. The City
has no obligation to accept mitigation
credits and the County doesn't either.
Question was raised that if this project
doesn't take place, what will happen to
the money, wherein Mr, Fisher advised
the Council that the $1 million is for
this pro�ect, and we would have to
return the money to the donor, the
grants would have to return to the State
alid cne iiaitbors, 'neaci,es and "Parks funds
would be reallocated to some other park
elsewhere in the County.
Volume 47 - Page 146
MINUTES
92-3(E)
I �,
,ITY OF NMORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES
Fs ti F�
June 14, 1993 INDEX
MULL ld7LL N
N,
Regarding the question about the loop
GPA 92-3(E)
trail connection for pedestrians, Mr.
Fisher stated that there could be a
barrier to stop the bicycles and horses
from using the trail connection, and
that an access somewhere along Irvine
Avenue could be made. However, the
reason that the County doesn't have a
planned access point elsewhere on Irvine
Avenue, is that they had a traffic
consultant analyze the potential of
injury to people crossing the street
there, as it is a very busy street, and
if access were made here it would
encourage people to dash across the
street, and take a shortcut to the park,
leaving the County liable for creating
a traffic nuisance and endangering
people, and not good planning practice.
In response to Council inquiry, the
Public Works Director, advised that a
larger part of the cost could
potentially come from the SB $21 State
Regional Bikeway Funds. In addition to
that there is a remaining cost, that
would not be funded by that, and that is
the cost referred to in the foregoing.
However, there is a possibility of
offsetting a portion of the cost that is
locally allocated to SB 821 Regional
Bikeway Funds.
x
Mayor Turner addressed the audience
otion
stating that not everyone will be
satisfied regardless of all the efforts
that have been made, but they will have
to compromise. To truly preserve the
Back Bay, one would have to expose the
public to a tremendous educational
process, and one way is to have an
Interpretive Center, and therefore, made
the following motion:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 93-42 making
Res 93-42
the required findings under CEQA
for acceptance of Final EIR No.
525 prepared by the County of
Orange as Lead Agency and approval
of the project by the City of
Newport Beach as a Responsible
Agency; and
2. Adopt Resolution No. 93-43
Res 93-43
approving General Plan Amendment
92-3(E); and
3. Adopt Resolution No. 93-44
Res 93-44
approving Local Coastal Program
Land Use Plan Amendment No. 31;
and
4. Adopt Ordinance No. 93-13
approving Zoning Amendment No.
'779; and '
5. Sustain the action of the Planning
Commission in approving Use Permit
No. 3488 for the Upper Newport Bay
Regional Park General Development
Plan and Resource Management Plan;
including approval of the follow-
ing additional recommendations of
the Planning Commission:
Volume 47 - Page 147
,ITX OF NEWPORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS
�*\0 \ 0 rod\A
)LL
June 14, 1993
a. Resolution No. 93 43 [CPfolowinis added A 92-
3(E)]:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the
County of orange is hereby
requested to coordinate with the
Department of Fish and Came to
explore the possibility of
extending designated trails from
Upper Newport Bay Regional Park
into the Ecological Reserve in
order to provide additional
recreational access where such
trail extensions would not cause
significant environmental damage.
b. The following conditions of
approval are added to Use
Permit 3488:
Prior to issuance of a
grading or building permit
for the Westbay portion of
the park, the County of
Orange shall prepare and
record an easement
acceptable to the City
Attorney showing the
relocation of the existing
pedestrian and bicycle
trail easements to the
locations shown in the
General Development Plan,
with the addition of at
least one east -vast
connection across the
Westbay parcel so as to
provide a loop trail
system. A final copy of
the GDP showing the revised
trail network shall be
provided to the Planning
Director prior to issuance
of is grading or building
permit,
Prior to issuance of a
grading or building permit
for the Vastbay portion of
the park, the County of
Orange shall submit a
revised General Development
Plan and Resource
Management Plan to the City
Planning Director
indicating that equestrian
use is permitted on the
unpaved trail paralleling
University Drive and Irvine
Avenue;
Dogs on leash shall be
permitted in the Westbay
parcel. Pilur to iaauauce
of any grading or building
permit for the Westbay
parcel, a revised General
Development Plan and
Resource Management Plan
shall be submitted to the
Newport Beach Planning
Director stating this
policy;
volume 47 - Page 148
MINUTES
:PA 92-3(E)
'ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS
on; i rcat �0\19�;
June 14, 1993
MINUTES
o
6. The City's participation in
GPA 92-3(E)
the cooperative design and
construction of
improvements to Irvine
Avenue is subject to the
receipt of SB 821 Funds, or
possible funding through
another source.
otion
x
Council Member Hedges made a substitute
motion to support alternative 6.5 as
contained in the SIR which allows for
the construction of the Interpretive
Center and retains the existing pattern
of unregulated access and uses as exist
today, and recommend that the City leave
it to the County to develop those trails
and uses such that it will enhance the
users of that area, rather than become
a barrier to them.
x
Following discussion, the substitute
.yes
Ines
x
x
x
x
x
x
motion was voted on and FAILED.
ryes
x
x
x
x
x
The main motion was voted on, and
Toes
x
x
carried.
Public hearing regarding PRELIMINARY
udget/
BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1993-94,
FY 1993-94
pursuant to Section 1102 of the Newport
(40)
Beach City Charter; AND APPROPRIATIONS
LIMIT FOR THE 1993-94 FISCAL YEAR,
1993-94 FY
ursuant to Article RIIIB of the State
Aprprtns Lm
nstitution and Government Code Section
79 0.
Repo s from the City Manager and
Finan Director regarding Budget Check
List.
The City nager gave an overview of the
Budget f Fiscal Year 1993-94,
reporting t t the City's Gann limit,
Article RI B of the California
Constitution, as been calculated at
$56.3 million, d taxes subject to the
Gann limitation are $40.7 million,
indicating that the City is sub-
stantially below is appropriations
limit.
He advised that the B dget before the
Council tonight is balan ed and is based
on several key factors. a City will
lose $4 million in pro erty taxes,
through the State Budget p cess. The
City expects a small modest provement
in revenues which it relies o because
of both the national state a local
economic low level activity th t has
taken place receftly. In order t
balance the budget which has signif ant
reductions in state property taxes nd
very limited growth in revenues, Lie
City staff is presenting a budget whic
assumes that expenditures are $2.7
million lower than the amended 1992-93
Budget, and reductions that are
Volume 47 - Page 149
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS
June 14, 1993
MINUTES
INDEX
CVLL k.MLL
primarily in the Citq's personnel costs
Budget/
and staffing levels because of some key
FY 1993-94
things; salaries and Benefits equal 69%
of the General Fund costs; over 90% of
the Operations and Maintenance accounts
are fixed run (controllable); an
because the Capital Outlay Expenses hav
been substantially reduced over the la t
three years. The results of those
reductions are the elimination of 47
full time positions, and 13 full ime
equivalent "hard cut" positions w thin
the organization, and most of th s has
been accomplished through attrit on and
early retirements, although it ppears
now that there will still be six
involuntary layoffs, in addit n to the
ipditures ha are lower
than the199293figures,he City's
Expenditures this year, 199 -94 are $8
million less than 1991-92, so the $2.7
million reductions are on top of some
already significant reduc ions. in the
Budget document presented tonight, staff
is adding expenses o the early
retirement, generally $ 0,000 in costs.
Two years from now, th City will not be
incurring those expe as, and will be
saving an additional stimated $850,000
in ongoing costs because of the
elimination of po tions through the
-
--
early retirement p ogram.
The City Manage further advised that
there are 17 ems that the Council
placed on the udget Check List; four
items that Co cil proposed to add to
the budget in he sum of $139,000 and 13
items propos for deletion, for a total
of $1,177 m lion,
The Coune took the following straw
votes (gr an light yea; red light no)
and dir cted staff to prepare a
resolut n for the Council Meeting of
June 2 , 1993, formally adopting the
Fiscal ear 1993-94 Budget.
POIA be artment
x
x
x
1. Professional Video Tape Services -
;Teen
$12,000
led
x
x
x
( of included in the budget)
:reen
x
x
x
x
x
CAD Computer Programming Services
-$10,000
Led
x
(included in the budget)
;teen
x
x
x
x
x
3. Computer Consultant Services -
Led
x
$10,000
(Iacluded in the budget)
:teen
x
x
x
x
x
x
4. Patrol - Helicopter CFI Training
Class $1,600
%iu�iuu�u i" Lhe YUugl?1.�
vvlu�e 47 - Page 150
. N
RESOLUTION NO. 93-42
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING FINDINGS REGARDING
THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS IDENTIFIED IN FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 525 FOR THE
UPPER NEWPORT BAY REGIONAL PARK
WHEREAS, Final Environmental Impact Report No. 525 (DEIR 525) was prepared
pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (hereinafter
"CEQA"- Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines
(California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq. - hereinafter "Guidelines") by the
County of Orange as Lead Agency for the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park General
Development Plan to address the environmental effects, mitigation measures, and project
alternatives associated with the proposed Upper Newport Bay Regional Park; and
r
WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach, as a Responsible Agency, is required by
CEQA to consider the information contained in the Final EIR prepared by the Lead Agency
and to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks
in determining whether to approve the components of the proposed project for which the
City has jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, Section 21081 of CEQA and Section 15091 of the Guidelines require
that a Responsible Agency make one or more of the following findings prior to approval of
a project for which an EIR has been completed identifying one or more significant effects
of the project, along with statements of facts supporting each finding:
FINDING 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as
identified in the EIR.
FINDING 2 - Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such
changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by
such other agency.
FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR; and
Upper Newport Bay Regional Park
CEQA Resolution - Page 1
WHEREAS, Section 15093(b) requires that, where the decision of a Responsible
Agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the EIR, but not
mitigated, the Agency must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the
EIR or other information in the record; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed all environmental documentation
comprising DEIR 525 for the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park and has found that DEIR
525 considers all environmental effects of the proposed project and is complete and
adequate and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. The City Council hereby affirms that it has reviewed and considered Final
EIR 525 in detennimng whether to approve amendments to the City's
General Plan, Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance,
and a Use Permit for the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. The Final EIR
is composed of the following elements:
a. Draft EIR 525 for the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park General
Development Plan
b. Appendices to Draft EIR 525
C. Comments received on Draft EIR 525 and response to those comments
d. All attachments, incorporations, and references delineated in items a.
through d. above
All of the above information is on file at the City of Newport Beach Planning
Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA and the County
of Orange, Environmental Management Agency, Environmental Planning
Division, 12 Civic Center Plaza, Room G-19, Santa Ana, California, 9?702.
2. After reviewing and considering all of the information contained in the Final
EIR, City staff reports and public testimony presented at the public hearings
the City Council has determined to approve the proposed project as described
by the County of Orange as Lead Agency in the Final EIR with the following
changes:
Upper Newport Bay Regional Park
CEQA Resolution - Page 2
a. The County of Orange is hereby requested to coordinate with
the Department of Fish and Game to explore the possibility of
extending designated trails from Upper Newport Bay Regional Park
into the Ecological Reserve in order to provide additional
recreational access where such trail extensions would not cause
significant environmental damage.
b. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the
Westbay portion of the park, the County of Orange shall prepare
and record an easement acceptable to the City Attorney showing
the relocation of the existing pedestrian and bicycle trail easements
to the locations shown in the General Development Plan, with the
addition of at least one east -west connection across the Westbay
parcel so as to provide a loop trail system. A ,final copy of the
GDP showing the revised trail network shall be provided to the
Planning Director prior to issuance of a grading or building permit.
c. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the
Westbay portion of the parr the County of Orange shall submit
a revised General Development Plan and Resource Management
Plan to the City Planning Director indicating that equestrian use
is permitted on the unpaved trail paralleling University Drive and
Irvine Avenue.
d. Mitigation Measure #14 regarding Back Bay Drive is deleted
e. Dogs on leash shall be permitted in the Westbay parcel Prior
to issuance of any grading or building permit for the Westbay
parcei, a revised General Development Plan and Resource
Management Plan shall be submitted to the Newport Beach
Planning Director stating this policy.
f. The City' continued participation with the County of Orange
in the cooperative project to design and construct improvements to
Irvine Avenue and on the parallel trail adjacent to the regional
park shall be subject to the City' receipt of state SB 821 grant
funds or other equivalent supplemental funding for this project.
2. The City Council adopts the Findings with respect to each environmental
effect and project alternative identified in the EIR and the explanation of its
rationale with respect to each such finding set forth in the document entitled
"CEQA Statement of Findings and Facts" attached hereto and marked as
Exhibit A and made a part hereof.
3. The mitigation monitoring requirements of Public Resources Code Section
21081.6 will be met through the required compliance with the mitigation
measures identified in Exhibit A which are hereby adopted as conditions of
Upper Newport Bay Regional Park
CEQA Resolution - Page 3
f • .
approval. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project is
attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.
4. All of the findings set forth in Exhibit A accurately reflect the independent
judgement of the City Council.
ADOPTED this 14th day of June, 1993.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Attachments
Exhibit A: State
Exhibit B: Mitig
EXHIBIT A
CEQA STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS
UPPER NEWPORT BAY REGIONAL PARK
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 525
FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
J. EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Based on the Initial Study, the Environmental Impact Report, and the substantial evidence
contained therein, it has been determined with certainty that no significant impact to the
environment will occur in the following areas:
• There are no unique geologic or physical features which will be destroyed for
modified by the project.
nB
• The project will not result in increased air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality beyond projection by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
• The project will not result in any significant changes in air movements, either locally
or regionally.
WATER
• The project will not adversely impact groundwater resources in the vicinity.
• Implementation of the proposal will not cause a substantial reduction in public water
supplies.
• The project will not result in the exposure of people or property to water -related
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves.
ENERGY
• The project will not result in the use of abnormally high amounts of fuel or energy.
• The project will not increase the demand upon existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy.
LAND USE
• The proposal will not cause the conversion of valuable agricultural land to
development.
• The project will not preclude natural resource extraction.
Upper Newport Bay Regional Park
CEQA Resolution - Page A-1
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
• The project will not generate additional vehicular traffic beyond that projected in
regional analyses.
• The current condition of Back Bay Drive does not conform to current design
standards in terms of pavement width and parking. In the Final EIR the County of
Orange has identified this as a potentially significant adverse impact of the project.
However, the Newport Beach City Council believes this is an existing condition and
not a direct result of the proposed project, therefore it is not considered to be a
significant environmental effect requiring mitigation.
• The project will not alter waterborne, rail, or air traffic.
PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
• The project does not involve the risk of explosion or the release of hazardous
substances, including oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation in the event of an
accident or upset condition.
• The project will not result in the exposure of persons or property to wildland fire
hazards.
• No previous use of the site will result in the exposure of persons to hazardous
substances, including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation.
• The project does not place present or future surrounding residents at risk of exposure
to toxic or radioactive gas, explosions, or industrial fires.
• The proposal will not interfere with an emergency response plan or evacuation plan.
• The project will not use or dispose of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic
substances, flammables, or explosives.
LIGHT AND GLARE
The project will not produce significant new sources of light and glare.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
• The project will not adversely impact fire protection, police protection, schools, parks
and recreation, or solid waste disposal services.
Upper Newport Bay Regional Park
CEQA Resolution - Page A-2
II EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGABLE BELOW THE LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Based on the information contained in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), it has been
determined that the following potentially significant impacts will be reduced to a level that
is less than significant with the imposition of the mitigation measures contained in the EIR
as enumerated below:
EARTH RESOURCES
Significant Effect
• The project site will be subject to ground -shaking and potential surface rupture
during a seismic event.
• Liquefaction will be a significant concern during the maximum credible earthquake
on the Newport -Inglewood Fault in areas of sandy soils.
Fin in
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the
EIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been
adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
Facts in SUDnort_ f Fin in
The significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the
Standard County Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR
and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading, the construction
documents for the Interpretive Center, including the final geotechnical report, shall
be submitted to the Manager, Development Services. The report will be based on
80-scale maps and will primarily involve assessment of potential soil related
constraints and hazards, such as landslides, settlement, liquefaction, or related seismic
impacts where determined to be appropriate by the County of Orange. The report
shall also include evaluation of potentially expansive soils and recommend
construction procedures and/or design criteria to m;nim;e the effects of these soils
on the proposed project, as well as an analysis of soils properties to determine any
existence of soluble sulfate in the soil. The report shall also establish foundation
design parameters. This report shall recommend appropriate mitigation measures
for the grading and shall be completed in a manner specified by the County of
Orange Grading Code.
AIR QUALITY
Significant Effect
• Grading for the project will result in the generation of approximately 0.10 tons of
fugitive dust on a daily basis. This is considered more of a local nuisance than a
long-term health problem.
Upper Newport Bay Regional Pork
CEQA Resolution - Page A-3
0 The project does not propose activities of sufficient magnitude that it would meet
threshold requirements for review under the Air Quality Management Plan/State
Implementation Program Guidelines.
Findin
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the
EIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been
adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
Facts in Su000rt of Findin
The significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the
Standard County Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR
and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following:
2. Prior to the award of a construction or grading contract, the contract plans shall be
submitted to the Program Manager, Transportation Planning including requirements
to meet: SCAQMD Rule 403 which will require watering during earth moving
operations, soil binders to be spread on construction sets or unpaved roads and/or
parking areas, street sweeping of roads adjacent to the project site, that trucks be
washed off before leaving the construction site, that construction equipment be
properly maintained and tuned, and that grading be suspended during second stage
(or worse) smog alerts.
3. Prior to the award of a construction or grading contract, the contract plans shall be
submitted to the Program Manager, Transportation Planning including requirements
that construction personnel should be provided with preferential parking for carpools,
bicycle racks, and free bus passes. Parking for construction personnel should not
interfere with traffic flows. Personnel parking and construction vehicle staging areas
shall be placed in a manner to avoid sensitive resources on the property.
Construction affecting roadways should be performed during non -peak hours. A flag
person should be provided during times when construction affects roadways, and one
lane in each direction should remain open.
4. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, the following measures
shall be incorporated into the project in a manner meeting the approval of the
Program Manager, Transportation Planning:
a. Encourage the use of alternate transportation modes by promoting public
transit usage and providing secure bicycle facilities.
b. Provide mass transit accommodations such as bus turnout lanes, park and ride
areas, and bus shelters.
C. Provide energy -conserving lighting.
d. Provide landscaping with native drought resistant plant species to shade
buildings during summer.
Upper Newport Bay Regional Park
CEQA Resolution - Page A4
DRAINAGE/HYDROLOGY
Significant Effect
• Implementation of the project will result in an incremental increase in the impervious
surfaces on the property, which will result in a commensurate increase in runoff and
the introduction of urban pollutants into Upper Newport Bay.
Fin in
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the
EIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been
adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
Facts in Support of Findine
The significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the
Standard County Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR
and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following:
5. Prior to the execution of a construction or grading contract, the following drainage
studies shall be submitted to and approved by the Manager, Harbors, Beaches &
Parks/Parks Design:
a. A drainage study of the project site including diversions, off -site areas that
drain onto and/or through the project, and justification for any diversions; and
b. A drainage study demonstrating that proposed drainage patterns will not
overload existing storm drains; and
C. Detailed drainage studies indicating how the project grading in conjunction
with the drainage conveyance system including applicable swales, channels,
street flows, catch basins, storm drains, and flood water retarding will allow
building pads to be safe from inundation from rainfall which may be expected
from all storms up to and including the theoretical 100-year flood.
6. Prior to the execution of a construction or grading contract, the contract and plans,
including the following improvements, shall be submitted for approval to the
Manager, Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Parks Design:
a. All provision for surface drainage; and
b. All necessary storm drain facilities extending to a satisfactory point of disposal
for the proper control and disposal of storm runoff.
Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, said improvements shall
be constructed in a manner meeting the approval of the Manager,
EMA/Construction Division.
7. Prior to the initiation of grading, the applicant (County or contractor) shall obtain
approval of an NPDES permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Said permit shall specify appropriate storm water Best Management Practices to be
incorporated into the project to ensure an acceptable level of control of non -point
pollution sources.
Upper Newport Bay Regional Park
CEQA Resolution - Page A-5
BIOLOGICAL
Significant Effect
• The Interpretive Center and nearby interpretive node, as well as future horticultural
plantings of trees in the grasslands on the north side of the bay will have an adverse
impact on portions of a scattered population of sensitive Southern Tarplant.
0 Work toward the establishment of the vernal pool may result in the loss of
Southwestern Spiny Rush. The loss of individual plants is not considered significant,
however, any degradation of the limited alkaline wetland habitat occupied by this
plant would be considered significant.
• Habitat for the California Gnatcatcher would be disturbed by a proposed trail
connection and the increased human and domestic animal encroachment associated
with it.
• A burrowing owl nesting site (a species of special concern) is located in the area
where trails near the Interpretive Center are to be located.
Fin in
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the
EIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been
adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
Facts in Sunoort Findin-
TheThe significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the
Standard County Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR
and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following:
8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading, the construction
documents shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Manager,
EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Parks Design. Said plans shall indicate the
following:
a. Landscaping and trails are sited in such a manner as to not disturb the
scattered populations of Southern Tarplant. Individual plants to be disturbed
shall be transplanted to appropriate habitat; and
b. If establishment of the "vernal pool" is undertaken, it shall be done in a
manner so as to not disturb the hydrologic or vegetative character of the area,
especially the limited alkaline wetland habitat adjacent to the proposed
"Vernal Pool"; and
C. The "Vista del Playa" access shall be relocated such that the California
Gnatcatcher habitat which it currently crosses is not disturbed.
d. • The trails serving the Interpretive Center shall be relocated, or appropriate
buffer provided, to protect the burrowing owl nesting site.
Upper Newport Bay Regional Park
CEQA Resolution - Page A-6
CULTURAL/SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES
Significant Effect
• A total of 16 archaeological sites were recorded within the boundary of the park. A
portion of each of these sites will be impacted by planned development within the
park.
• All of the rock units present on the site have a high potential for the discovery of
significant paleontological resources.
Fin in
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the
EIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been
adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
Facts in SuDDort_ of Fin in
The significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the
Standard County Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR
and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following:
9. For any archaeological site which may be adversely impacted, a County -certified
archaeologist shall be retained by the applicant to perform a subsurface test level
investigation and surface collection as appropriate. The test level report evaluating
the site shall include discussion of significance (depth, nature, condition and extent
of the resources), final mitigation recommendations and cost estimates. Excavated
finds shall be offered to the County of Orange, or designee, on a first refusal basis.
Applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be
properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or
a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at this
time, in which case items shall be donated to County, or designee. Final mitigation
shall be carried out based upon the recommendations and a determination as to the
site's disposition by the Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Program
Planning Division. Possible determinations include, but are not limited to,
preservation, salvage, partial salvage or no mitigation necessary.
Prior to award of any construction or grading contract, the contract and plans shall
be provided to the Chief, EMA/Regulation/Grading Section, including written
evidence that a County -certified archaeologist has been retained, shall be present at
the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for archaeological resource
surveillance, and shall establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting
work to permit the salvage, sampling, identification, and evaluation of the artifacts
as appropriate. If additional or unexpected archaeological features are discovered,
the archaeologist shall report such findings to the Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches,
and Parks/Program Planning Division. If the archaeological resources are found to
be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions for
exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the County of
Orange, or designee, on a first refusal basis. Applicant may retain said finds if
written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County,
unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates
a desire to study and/or display them at this time, in which case items shall be
donated to County, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and
Upper Newport Bay Regional Park
CEQA Resolution - Page A-7
disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Manager,
EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Program Planning Division.
10. Prior to award of any construction or grading contract, the contract and plans shall
be provided to the Chief, EMA/Regulation/Grading Section, including written
evidence that a County -certified paleontologist has been retained to conduct
pregrading salvage, observe any grading activities, salvage fossils as necessary, and
prepare a catalogue of the exposed resources. The paleontologist shall be present
at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for paleontological resource
surveillance, and shall establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting
work to permit the salvage, sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If
major paleontological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or
redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the Manager,
EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Program Planning Division. The paleontologist
shall determine appropriate actions to ensure proper exploration and/or salvage.
Excavated finds shall be offered to the County of Orange, or designee, on a first
refusal basis. Applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that
they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special
significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or
display them at this time, in which case items shall be donated to County, or
designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources,
shall be subject to the approval of the Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and
Parks/Program Planning Division. The paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report
for approval by the Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Program Planning
Division, which shall include the period of inspection, methodology, an analysis of the
artifacts found, a catalogue of artifacts, and their present repository.
AESTHETICS
Si_yificant Effect
• Because of the prominent location of the proposed Interpretive Center, at generally
the high point of the park property, it has the potential to result in significant impacts
on views of the bay and park from proposed trails and other closely adjacent
viewpoints.
Fin in
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the
EIR.
Facts in Support of Findine
The significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the
Standard County Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR
and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following:
11. Prior to issuance of a building permit including grading, for the
Interpretive Center, plans shall be submitted for the review and
approval of the Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches and
Parks/Parks Design and the Newport Beach Building Director.
Said plans shall demonstrate compliance with the City of
Newport Beach 24/28-foot height limit, shall be designed so as
to minimize adverse impacts to public views from Irvine
Avenue, and shall indicate that non -reflective glass shall be
used on all windows overlooking Upper Newport Bay.
Upper Newport Bay Regional Paris
CEQA Resolution - Page A-8
12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading, the
construction documents shall be submitted for approval to the
Manager, Development Services and the Newport Beach
Building Director for the area surrounding the Interpretive
Center, ensuring that the parking lot shall be landscaped,
equipped for irrigation, and improved as stated below:
a. Preliminary Plan - Prior to the issuance of a building
permit, a preliminary landscape plan, indicating use of
native and drought tolerant species, and a cost estimate
shall be submitted for the review and approval of the
Manager, Subdivision Division.
b. Detailed Plan - Prior to the initiation of construction, a
detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and
approved by the Manager, Subdivision Division and the
Newport Beach Public Works Department. Detailed
plans shall show the detailed landscaping and irrigation
design; and the preservation of views from Irvine
Avenue.
C. Installation Certification - Prior to the issuance of final
certificates of use and occupancy, said improvements
shall be installed and shall be certified by a licensed
landscape architect as having been installed in
accordance with the approved detailed plans. Said
certification shall be furnished in writing to the
Manager, EMA/Public Works/Construction Division
and the Newport Beach Building Director.
LAND USE
Sigiiificant Effect
• The project proposes the construction of a 10,000 square foot Interpretive Center on
the site. The City of Newport Beach General Plan and Local Coastal Program Plan
limit on -site structures to 8,000 square feet.
Findiniz
1. Changes or alterations have been required -in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the
EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the
Standard County Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR
and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following:
13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading the County shall submit
an application to the City of Newport Beach for amendment of the City's General
Plan and Local Coastal Program to accommodate the 10,000 square foot Interpretive
Center as proposed. After approval by the City, said approvals and an application
for a Coastal Development Permit shall be referred to the State Coastal Commission
for approval.
Upper Newport Bay Regional Park
CEQA Resolution - Page A-9
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Significant Effect
• Construction of the Interpretive Center and parking lot could create bazards for
motorists and pedestrians if not properly designed with appropriate sight distances,
turnouts, bus loading areas, etc.
Findine
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the
EIR.
Facts in Support of Findine
The significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the
Standard County Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR
and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following:
14. (Deleted)
15. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading, an access and parking
plan for the Interpretive Center sball be submitted for the review and approval of
the Director, EMA/Transportation and the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer.
Said plan shall indicate that access and parking have been designed to appropriate
standards for sight distance, parking and accessways, bus and vehicle turn -outs, etc.
RECREATION
Significant Effect
• The restrictions on access to areas of the park property may be viewed as an adverse
impact by those who have historically taken advantage of unregulated access to the
park property under both public and private ownership.
in in
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the
EIR.
Facts in Support of Findine
The significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the
Standard County Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR
and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following:
• Implementation of the General Development Plan results in a balance between
recreational access and resource management and preservation, reducing the
significant impact to a level of insignificance.
Upper Newport Bay Regional Park
CEQA Resolution - Page A-10
NOISE
Significant Effect
• During construction of the Interpretive Center and related improvements, and
improvements to University Drive, temporary construction noise will intermittently
reach 95 dBA on the construction site. Residential structures located as close as 50
feet to the construction site will be exposed to this noise. This noise level is in excess
of County and City of Newport Beach standards.
This impact was reported as a significant, albeit temporary, unavoidable adverse
impact of project development in the Draft EIR. Subsequent to distribution of the
Draft EIR, County staff responsible for reviewing noise and acoustical studies
provided substantial and credible evidence indicating that such construction noise
impacts are not significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the project. This
substantial evidence, correspondence dated September 10, 1992 from Paul Wang of
Development Services - Acoustics, which correspondence is incorporated herein by
this reference, stated that the impact is not considered significant because it is
temporary, lasting only for the duration of the construction project, and that the
proposed mitigation measures will reduce the identified construction noise impact to
a level of insignificance. The City Council has considered the evidence in the Draft
EIR and that provided by County staff and has concluded that the impact has been
reduced to a level of insignificance subject to the findings and facts enumerated
below. As part of this action, the City Council finds that none of the criteria
mandating a significant effect on the environment, as described in §15065 of the
California Code of Regulations (State CEQA Guidelines) are present.
Finding
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the
EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The significant effect has been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard
County Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and
incorporated into the project. These measures include the following:
16. Construction activities shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Newport
Beach Municipal Code, which limits the hours of construction and excavation work
to 7:00 am. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 am. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No
person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition,
painting, plastering, or any other related building activity, operate any tool,
equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could
disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any
Sunday or on any holiday.
17. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading, the construction
documents shall be submitted for approval to the Manager, Development Services,
including written evidence that:
a. All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000
feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained
mufflers.
b. All operations shall comply with Orange County Codified Ordinance Division
6 (Noise Control).
Upper Newport Hay Regional'Park
CEQA Resolution - Page A-11
C. Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable
from dwellings.
M. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS
IMPLEMENTED
All significant environmental effects that can be feasibly avoided have been eliminated or
substantially lessened by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and
incorporated into the project as set forth above. Further, as set forth above, substantial
evidence supports the finding that the unavoidable adverse impact resulting from
construction noise is, in fact, reduced to a level of insignificance by the application of the
mitigation measures proposed and because the impact is temporary, lasting only as long as
the construction activity. Therefore, all impacts of the project have been reduced to a level
of insignificance and no significant impacts which cannot be avoided will result from
implementation of the project.
IV. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Five project alternatives were presented in the EIR. These alternatives have been reviewed
and considered in light of the adverse environmental effects which may result from the
project in the reduction or elimination of such effects which might be accomplished by
selection of one of the alternatives.
Each alternative is summarized below and specific economic, social, or other considerations
that rendered such alternatives infeasible are set forth. The discussions below are intended
to summarize and not fully restate the evidence contained in the Draft EIR, Response to
Comments, and the administrative record as a whole.
Findings
1. The project has been designed in a manner so as to provide the greatest public
involvement in the planning and CEQA process.
2. The following provides a brief description of the project alternatives.
3. The alternatives were rejected in favor of the current project proposal as revised.
4. The rationale for rejection of each alternative is provided below.
5. The rejection rationale is supported by the public record including, but not limited
to, the Final EIR.
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE (6.1)
The No Project Alternative assumes that use of the park property would remain as it exists
today. Under the County's Interim Operations Plan, pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian use
is limited to dirt and paved trails and a ranger is on -site to enforce the operations plan.
Under the Pre -County Ownership condition, access to the site is uncontrolled.
Fin in
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the No Project Alternative
described in the Final EIR in that:
1. The No Project Alternative does not achieve the goals established for the park by the
Citizen's Advisory Committee.
Upper Newport Bay Regional Park
CP.QA Resolution - Page A•12
2. The No Project Alternative would not control access in areas where increased human
encroachment might damage or destroy sensitive biological resources.
3. The No Project Alternative would leave the County open to liability claims from
individuals that may suffer personal injury on the property.
4. The No Project Alternative would not provide for the improvement of trails,
including the stabilization of slopes and unimproved drainage channels which convey
urban runoff and silt into the Upper Newport Bay during storms.
LOW INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE (6.2)
The Low Intensity Alternative would provide for a less intense improvement program and
use pattern on the property. The Interpretive Center would not be constructed if this
alternative were implemented.
Findings
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the Low Intensity
Alternative described in the Final EIR in that:
1. The Low Intensity Alternative does not achieve the goals established for the park by
the Citizen's Advisory Committee including:
• The alternative significantly limits the public's ability to access and enjoy the
site.
• The alternative eliminates, or severely limits, the opportunity for educational
and interpretive programs which would increase public understanding and
appreciation of the significant natural and cultural resources of the site.
MEDIUM INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE (6.3)
The Medium Intensity Alternative provides a similar level of access and recreational
opportunities as the proposed project. The major difference between the alternative and
the project is increased access opportunities to the bay on the Westbay parcel.
Findings
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the Medium Intensity
Alternative described in the Final EIR in that this variation does not have the ability to
reduce or eliminate impacts identified in the EIR and it actually has the potential to
increase impacts to biological resources by allowing increased human contact with the bay.
HIGH INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE (6.4)
The High Intensity Alternative provides a significant increase in access opportunities for
pedestrians, equestrians, and bicyclists. The expanded recreational opportunities include
increased access to the bay and its associated resources.
Findinizs
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the High Intensity
Alternative described in the Final EIR in that this variation does not have the ability to
reduce or eliminate impacts identified in the EIR and it actually has the potential to
increase impacts to biological resources by allowing increased human contact with the bay.
Upper Newport Bay Regional Park
CEQA Resolution - Page A•13
CURRENT LEVEL OF HUMAN ACTIVITY (6.5)
This alternative represents a hybrid between the project case and current levels of use. The
alternative contains two basic components: construction of the interpretive center, parking
lot, and other related facilities described in the GDP; and the retention of the existing
pattern of unregulated access and use as exists today.
Findings
The project approved by the City Council incorporates some aspects of this alternative,
including continued access by horses and dogs, and the addition of a loop trail connection
in the Westbay parcel. Spec economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible
other aspects of the Current Level of Human Activity Alternative described in the Final
EIR in that it would not substantially reduce any of the impacts described in the EIR and
has the potential to increase impacts to biological resources by allowing increased human
contact with the bay.
F.\...\rOHN-D\UNBRP\CC-RESO.E(R
Upper Newport Bay Regional Park
CBQA Resolution - Page A-14
EXHIBIT B
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY
UPPER NEWPORT BAY REGIONAL PARK
GPA 92-3(E)/LCP NO.31/A779/UP 3488
Mitigation wl a
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grad-
ing, the construction documents for the Interpretive Center,
including the final geotechnical report, shall be submitted to
the Manager, Development Services. The report will be
based on 80-scale maps and will primarily involve assess-
ment of potential soil related constraints and hazards, such
as landslides, settlemen% liquefaction, or related seismic
impacts where determined to be appropriate by the County
of Orange. The report shall also include evaluation of
potentially expansive soils and recommend construction
procedures and/or design criteria to minimize the effects of
these soils on the proposed project, as well as an analysis of
soils properties to determine any existence of soluble sul-
fate in the so0. The report shall also establish foundation
design parameters. This report shall recommend appropri-
ate mitigation measures for the grading and shall be com.
pleted in a manner speed by the County of Orange Gra-
ding Code.
Z Prior to the award of a construction or grading contract,
the contract plans shall be submitted to the Program Man-
ager, Transportation Planning including requirements to
mcet: SCAQMD Rule 403 which will require watering dur-
ing earth moving operations, soil binders to be spread on
construction sets or unpaved roads and/or parking areas,
street sweeping of roads adjacent to the project site, that
trucks be washed off before leaving the construction site,
that construction equipment be properly maintained and
tuned, and that grading be suspended during second stage
(or worse) smog alerts.
Implementing
Action, Condition
Method of liming of Responsible
or Mechanism
VaiGution VetiSotion Peam
Huilding(grading
Plan Check Prior to issuance of a OCEMA/Manager, Devel-
permit
building permit in- opment Services
cluding grading
Construction/grading Plan Check Prior to award of a OCEMA/Manager, Trans
contract: AQMD construction or grad- portation Planning
regulations ins contract
Upper Newport Bay Regional Park
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Page E-1
mitiption Measure
3. Prior to the award of a construction or grading contract,
the contract plans shall be submitted to the Program Man-
ager, Transportation Planning including requirements that
construction personnel should be provided with preferential
parking for carpools, bicycle racks, and free bus passes.
Patting for construction personnel should not interfere with
traffic Rows. Personnel parting and construction vehicle
staging areas shall be placed in a manner to avoid sensitive
resources on the property. construction affecting roadways
should be performed during non -peak hours. A flag person
should be provided during tines when construction affects
roadways , and one lane in each direction should remain
open.
Lm>ting
Action, Condition Method of Timing of Respo iblc
or Mcchanimt VeriGation Veriiwtiaa Person
Construction/grading Plan Check
contract
4. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupan- Use & occupancy
cy, the following measures shall be incorporated into the certificate
project in a manner meeting the approval of the Program
Manager, Transportation Planning:
a. Encourage the use of alternate transportation
modes by promoting public transit usage and pro-
viding -cure bicycle facilities.
b. Provide mace transit accommodations such as bus
turnout lanes, park and ride areas, and bus shcl-
ters.
C. Provide energyeonserving lighting.
d. Provide landscaping with native drought resistant
plant species to shade buildings during summer.
Plan Check
Prior to award of OCEMA/Manager, Trans-
construction/grading portation Planning
contract
Prior to issuance of OCP.MA/Manager, Trans -
certificate of use & portation Planning
occupancy
Upper Newport Bay Regional Park
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Page B-2
LzIPlemenmg
Action, Condition Method of Timing of Resp000ble
Mitigation Measure or Mechanism Verification Verification Person
5. Prior to the execution of a construction or grading con- Construction/grading Plan check Prior to award of OC.EMA/Managcr, HBP-
tract, the following drainage studies shalt be submitted to contract oonstrumon/gtadmg Design
and approved by the Manager, Harbors, Beaches do Parks/- contract
Parks Design:
a. A drainage study of the project site including diver-
sions, of -site areas that drain onto and/or through
the project, and justification for any diversions; and '
b. A drainage study demonstrating that proposed
drainage patterns will not overload existing storm
drains; and
.. Detailed drainage studies indicating how the pro-
ject grading in conjunction with the drainage con-
veyance system including applicable swales, chan-
nels, street flows, catch basins, storm drains, and
flood water retarding will allow building pads to be
safe from inundation from rainfall which may be
expected from all storms up to and including the
theoretical 100-year flood
6. Prior to the execution of a construction or grading con- Construction/grading Plan check Prior to execution of OCEMA/Manager, HBP-
tract, the contract and plans, including the following im- contract construction/grading Design
provements, shall be submitted for approval to the Manag- contract
er, Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Parks Design:
a. All provision for surface drainage; and
b. All necessary storm drain facilities extending to a
satisfactory point of disposal for the proper control
and disposal of storm runoff.
Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupanry,
acid improvements shall be constructed in a manner meet-
ing the approval of the Manager, EMA/Construction Divi-
sion.
T. Prior to the initiation of grading, the applicant (County NPDES permit Permit verifica- Prior to initiation of OCPMA/Manager, HBP-
or contractor) shall obtain approval of an NPDES permit tion grading Design
from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Said
permit shall specify appropriate storm water Best Manage-
ment Practices to be incorporated into the project to ensure
an acceptable level of control of non -point pollution sourc-
es.
Upper Newport Bay Regional Park
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Page B-3
Implementing
Action, Cooditica Method of Timing of
Mitigation Measure or Machanism Vedfitatim Vui6ution
8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grad- Building/grading Plan check
in& the construction documents shall be submitted for the permit
review and approval of the Manager, P-MA/Harbors, Beac-
hes, and Parks/Parks Design. Said plans shall indicate the
following:
a. Landscaping and trails are sited in such a manner
as to not disturb the scattered populations of Sout-
hem TarplanL Individual plants to be disturbed
shall be transplanted to appropriate habitat; and
b. If establishment of the 'vernal pool" is undertaken,
it shall be done in a manner so as to not disturb
the hydrologic or vegetative character of the area,
especially the limited alkaline wetland habitat adja-
cent to the proposed Wemal Pool"; and
C. The `Vista del Playa' access shall be relocated such
that the California Gnatcatcher habitat which it
currently crosses is not disturbed.
d. The trails serving the Interpretive Center shall be
relocated, or appropriate buffer provided, to pro-
tect the burrowing owl nesting site.
Prior to issuance of
grading permit In-
cluding grading
upper Newport Bay Repoaal Park
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Page B-4
Responsible
Yenon
OCPMA%Manager, HBP-
Dedgn
Mitigation Mea sae
9. For any amhaeologiat site which may be adversely im-
pacted, a County -cued archaeologist shall be retained by
the applicant to perform a subsurface test level investiga-
tion and surface collection as appropriate. The test level
report evaluating the site shall include discussion of signifi-
cance (depth, nature, condition and extent of the resourc-
es), final mitigation recommendations and cat estimates.
Excavated finds shall be offered to the County of Orange,
or designee, on a rust refusal basic. Applicant may retain
said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be
properly Preserved in Orange County, unless said finds arc
of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indi-
cates a desire to study and/or display them at this time, in
which au items shall be donated to County, or designee.
Final mitigation shall be carried out based upon the recom-
mendations and a determination as to the sites disposition
by the Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Pro-
gram Planning Division. Possible determinations include,
but are not limited to, preservation, salvage, partial salvage
or no mitigation necessary.
Prior to award of any construction or grading contract, the
contact and plans shall be provided to the Chief, E.MA/R-
egulation/Grading Section, includingwritten evidence that a
Countycertified archaeologist has been retained, shall be
present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish proce-
dures for archacological resource surveillance, and shall
establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting
work to permit the salvage, sampling identification, and
evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If additional or
unexpected archaeological features are discovered, the ar-
chaeologist shall report such findings to the Manager, EM-
A/Flarbors, Bathes, and Parks/Program Planning Division.
If the archaeological resources are found to be significant,
the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate
actions for exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds
shall be offered to the County of Orange, or designee, on ■
fist refusal basic Applicant may retain said finds if written
assurance is provided that they will be properly Preserved
in Orange County, unless said finds are of special signify
canes, or a museum in Orange County initiates a desire to
study and/or display them at this time, in which case items
shall be donated to County, or designee.
Implementing
Actioa, Condition Method of Timing of Resp000ble
or Mechanism Verification Verification Pecan
Construction/grading Contract review; Prior to award of OCENWC hief,Orading
contract review of moni- construction or grad-
toring procedures ing contract
Upper Newport Bay Regional Park
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Page B-S
Mitigatim Measure
'Duce actions, as wall as final mitigation and disposition of
the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Man-
ager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Pada/Prognm Planning
Division. preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are
of special signlficawcx or a museum in Orange County
indicates a desire to study and/or display them at this time,
in whkh use items shall be donated to County, or design-
ee. These actions, as wcU as final mitigation and disposi-
tion of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the
Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Program
Planning Division.
impk�6n
Action, Condition Method of Timing of Responsible
or Mechanism Verification Verification Person
Upper Ncwpott Bay Regional Part
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Page Bb
Mitigation Measure
10. Prior to award of any construction or grading contact,
the contact and plans shall be provided to the Chief, EM-
A/Regulation/Grading Section, including written evidence
that a County -certified paleontologist has been retained to
conduct pregading salvage, observe any grading activities,
salvage fossils as necessary, and prepare a catalogue of the
exposed resources. The paleontologist shall be present at
the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for
paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish
procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to
permit the salvage, sampling, identification, and evaluation
of the fossils. If major paleontological resources ace discov-
ered, which require tong -term halting or redirecting of
grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the
Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Program
Planning Division. The paleontologist shall determine
appropriate actions to ensure proper exploration and/or
salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the County of
Orange, or designee, on a first refusal basis. Applicant may
retain raid finds if written assurance is provided that they
will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said
rinds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange
County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at
this time, in which rase items shall be donated to County,
or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and
disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval
of the Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Pro-
gram Planning Division. The paleontologist shall submit a
follow-up report for approval by the Manager, EMA/Hatb-
ors, Beaches, and Parks/Program Planning Division, which
shall include the period of inspection, methodology, an
analysis of the artifacts found, a catalogue of artifacts, and
their present repository.
11. Prior to issuance of a building permit including grading,
for the Interpretive Center, plans shalt be submitted for the
review and approval of the Manager, EMA/Harbors, Bac-
he$ and Parks/Parks Design and the Newport Beach Build-
ing Director. Said plans shall demonstrate compliance with
the City of Newport Bach 24/28-foot height limit, shall be
designed so as to minhniw adverse impacts to public views
from Irvine Avenue, and shall indicate that non -reflective
glass shall be used on all windows overlooldng Upper New-
port Bay-
Implementing
Action, Condition Method of Timing of Responsible
orMahanism Verification Verification Person
Construction/grading Contact review; Prior to award of
contact review of moni- construction or gad-
toring procedures ing contact
Building/grading Plan check Prior to issuance of
permit building permit in-
cluding grading
Upper Newport Bay Regional Park
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Page B-7
OCEMA/Chief, Grading
City of Newport Beach
Building Director,
OCEMA/Manager, HBP-
Design
Mitifatiou Measure
implementing
Action, Condition Method of liming of Responsible
or Mechanism Verification Verification Person
12 Prior to the issuance of a building permit including Building/grading Plan check Prior to issuance of City of Newport Beach
grading, the construction documents shall be submitted for permit building permit in- Building Director,
approval to the Manager, Development Services and the cluding grading OCFMA/Manager, Dent -
Newport Beach Building Director for the area surrounding opment Services
the Interpretive Center, ensuring that the parking lot shall
be kndscapcA, equipped for irrigation, and improved as
stated below•.
a. Preliminary Plan - Prior to the issuance of a build-
ing permit, a preliminary landscape plan, indicating
use of native and drought tolerant species, and a
cost estimate shall be submitted for the rcview and
approval of the Manager, Subdivision Division.
b. Detailed Plan - Prior to the initiation of construc-
tion, a detailed landscape plan shall be submitted
to and approved by the Manager, Subdivision Divi-
sion and the Newport Beach Public Works Depart-
ment. Detailed plans shall show the detailed land-
scaping and irrigation design; and the preservation
of vim from Irvine Avenue.
Installation Certification - Prior to the issuance of
final certificates of use and occupancy, said im-
provements shall be installed and shall be certified
by a licensed landscape architect as having been
installed in accordance with the approved detailed
plans. Said certification shalt be furnished in writ-
ing to the Manager, PMA/Public Works/Construc-
tion Division and the Newport Beach Building
Director.
13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including Building/grading
grading the County shall submit an application to the City permit; Coastal Act
of Newport Beach for amendment of the Citys General
Plan and Local Coastal Program to accommodate the 1-
0,WO square foot Interpretive Center as proposed. After
approval by the City, said approvals and an application for
a Coastal Development Permit shall be referred to the
State Coastal Commission for approval.
14. (Deleted)
Plan check Prior to issuance of Newport Beach Building
building permit in- Director, Newport Beach
cluding grading Planning Director
Upper Newport Bay Regional Park
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Page BS
WAkston Measure
15. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including
grading, an access and parking plan for the Interpretive
Center shall be submitted for the review and approval of
the Director, EMA/rransportation and the City of New-
port Beach Traffic Engineer. Said plan shall indicate that
access and parting have been designed to appropriate stan-
dards for sight distance, parking and accessways, bus and
vehicle turnouts, etc.
16. Construction activities shall be conducted in accordance
with the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, which
limits the hours of construction and excavation work to 7:00
a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction,
remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plaster-
ing, or any other related building activity, operate any tool,
equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud
noise that disturbs, or could' disturb, a person of normal
sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sun-
day or on any holiday.
ImPka—mg
Action, Coadition
or Mechanism
Building/grading
permit
Code requirement
17. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including Building/grading
grading, the construction documents shall be submitted for permit
approval to the Manager, Development Services, including
written evidence that:
3. All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or
mobile, operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling
shall be equipped with properly operating and
maintained mufflers.
b. Ail operations shall comply with Orange County
Coed Ordinance Division 6 (Noise Control).
C. Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be
located as far as practicable from dwellings.
F:\.-\UNBRP\MM TBL
6/14/93
Method of
verification
Plan check
Feld inspection
Plan check
ziming of
Verification
Prior to issuance of
building/grading
permit
During construction
Prior to issuance of
building/grading
permit
Upper Newport Bay Regional Park
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Page B-9
Newport Beach Traffic
Engineer, OCEMA/Dire-
ctor of Transportation
Newport Beach Building
Department
OCEMA/Manager, Devel-
opment Services
MICHAEL M. RUANE
DIRECTOR, EMA
4
5
UN- Y OF
'J\RANGE
ROBERT G. FISHER
DIRECTOR OF HARBORS, BEACHES & PARKS
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY
HARBORS, BEACHES AND PARKS
TO: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Planning Department
3300 Newprot Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768
FAX:
LOCATION:
300 N. FLOWER ST.
FOURTH FLOOR
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA
MAILING ADDRESS:
P.O. BOX 4048
SANTA ANA, CA 92702.4048
TELEPHONE:
(714) 834-6667
FAX # 834-4744
ATTN " Genia Garcia, Associate Planner
PROJECT: UPPER NEWPORT BAY REGIONAL PARK
WE ARE TRANSMITTING: THE FOLLOWING: ACTION:
[] BY MESSENGER ORIGINALS [j AS REQUESTED BY:
[] BY MAIL 1[}] PRINTS/COPIES
BY HAND [] WORKING DRAWINGS FOR APPROVAL
[] BY FAX * [] SPECIFICATIONS [] REVIEW & COMMENT
[] [] REDLINED COMMENTS [j INFORMATION/FILE
NO.COPIES DESCRIPTION
1 'Application for approval in concept
1 General Development Plan
1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement No. 525
xssxxsxxxxsszzzzzzzzsmaszazaaxxssxxxxxsassxzxss saxxxsxmsxsasasxsxxxxaxxxxssev
* We are transmitting a total of pages, including this cover page.
If you have a problem with the transmission, please call (714) 834-6661.
REMARKS:
This package is submitted for city approval. In a recent telephone conversation
with John Douglas the fee was waived and John stated he would make sure the
application was processed in a couple of days. Please call me for pickup.
Thank you for your assistance. Should you have any questions, please call me.
SENT BY. Ernest Seidel (834-6668 COPY TO: File
DATE: October 26, 1993
FINAL
(As adopted by the City Council 6/14/93)
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
UPPER NEWPORT BAY REGIONAL PARK
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-3(E)
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO.31
AMENDMENT NO. 779
USE PERMIT NO.3488
A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
Resolution No. 93-42 making the required findings under CEQA for acceptance of
Final EIR No. 525 prepared by the County of Orange as Lead Agency and approval
of the project by the City of Newport Beach as a Responsible Agency.
itieation Measu_re_&
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading, the construction
documents for the Interpretive Center, including the final geotechnical report,
shall be submitted to the Manager, Development Services. The report will be
based on 80-scale maps and will primarily involve assessment of potential soil
related constraints and hazards, such as landslides, settlement, liquefaction,
or related seismic impacts where determined to be appropriate by the County
of Orange. The report shall also include evaluation of potentially expansive
soils and recommend construction procedures and/or design criteria to
minimize the effects of these soils on the proposed project, as well as an
analysis of soils properties to determine any existence of soluble sulfate in the
soil. The report shall also establish foundation design parameters. This
report shall recommend appropriate mitigation measures for the grading and
shall be completed in a manner specified by the County of Orange Grading
Code.
2. Prior to the award of a construction or grading contract, the contract plans
shall be submitted to the Program Manager, Transportation Planning
including requirements to meet: SCAQMD Rule 403 which will require
watering during earth moving operations, soil binders to be spread on
construction sets or unpaved roads and/or parking areas, street sweeping of
roads adjacent to the project site, that trucks be washed off before leaving the
construction site, that construction equipment be properly maintained and
tuned, and that grading be suspended during second stage (or worse) smog
alerts.
3. Prior to the award of a construction or grading contract, the contract plans
shall be submitted to the Program Manager, Transportation Planning
including requirements that construction personnel should be provided with
preferential parking for carpools, bicycle racks, and free bus passes. Parking
for construction personnel should not interfere with traffic flows. Personnel
parking and construction vehicle staging areas shall be placed in a manner to
avoid sensitive resources on the property. Construction affecting roadways
should be performed during non -peak hours. A flag person should be
provided during times when construction affects roadways , and one lane in
each direction should remain open.
4. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, the following
measures shall be incorporated into the project in a manner meeting the
approval of the Program Manager, Transportation Planning:
a. Encourage the use of alternate transportation modes by promoting
public transit usage and providing secure bicycle facilities.
b. Provide mass transit accommodations such as bus turnout lanes, park
and ride areas, and bus shelters.
C. Provide energy -conserving lighting.
d. Provide landscaping with native drought resistant plant species to
shade buildings during summer.
5. Prior to the execution of a construction or grading contract, the following
drainage studies shall be submitted to and approved by the Manager, Harbors,
Beaches & Parks/Parks Design:
a. A drainage study of the project site including diversions, off -site areas
that drain onto and/or through the project, and justification for any
diversions; and
b. A drainage study demonstrating that proposed drainage patterns will,
not overload existing storm drains; and
C. Detailed drainage studies indicating how the project grading in
conjunction with the drainage conveyance system including applicable
swales, channels, street flows, catch basins, storm drains, and flood
water retarding will allow building pads to be safe from inundation
from rainfall which may be expected from all storms up to and
including the theoretical 100-year flood.
2
6. Prior to the execution of a construction or grading contract, the contract and
plans, including the following improvements, shall be submitted for approval
to the Manager, Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Parks Design:
a. All provision for surface drainage; and
b. All necessary storm drain facilities extending to a satisfactory point of
disposal for the proper control and disposal of storm runoff.
Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, said improvements
shall be constructed in a manner meeting the approval of the Manager,
EMA/Construction Division.
7. Prior to the initiation of grading, the applicant (County or contractor) shall
obtain approval of an NPDES permit from the Regional Water Quality
Control Board. Said permit shall specify appropriate storm water Best
Management Practices to be incorporated into the project to ensure an
acceptable level of control of non -point pollution sources.
8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading, the construction
documents shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Manager,
EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Parks Design. Said plans shall indicate
the following:
a. Landscaping and trails are sited in such a manner as to not disturb the
scattered populations of Southern Tarplant. Individual plants to be
disturbed shall be transplanted to appropriate habitat; and
b. If establishment of the "vernal pool" is undertaken, it shall be done in
a manner so as to not disturb the hydrologic or vegetative character of
the area, especially the limited alkaline wetland habitat adjacent to the
proposed "Vernal Pool'; and
C. The "Vista del Playa" access shall be relocated such that the California
Gnatcatcher habitat which it currently crosses is not disturbed.
d. The trails serving the Interpretive Center shall be relocated, or
appropriate buffer provided, to protect the burrowing owl nesting site.
9. For any archaeological site which may be adversely impacted, a County -
certified archaeologist shall be retained by the applicant to perform a
subsurface test level investigation and surface collection as appropriate. The
test level report evaluating the site shall include discussion of significance
(depth, nature, condition and extent of the resources), final mitigation
3
recommendations and cost estimates. Excavated finds shall be offered to the
County of Orange, or designee, on a first refusal basis. Applicant may retain
said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved
in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum
in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at this time,
in which case items shall be donated to County, or designee. Final mitigation
shall be carried out based upon the recommendations and a determination as
to the site's disposition by the Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and
Parks/Program Planning Division. Possible determinations include, but are
not limited to, preservation, salvage, partial salvage or no mitigation
necessary.
Prior to award of any construction or grading contract, the contract and plans
shall be provided to the Chief, EMA/Regulation/Grading Section, including
written evidence that a County -certified archaeologist has been retained, shall
be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for
archaeological resource surveillance, and shall establish procedures for
temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the salvage, sampling,
identification, and evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If additional or
unexpected archaeological features are discovered, the archaeologist shall
report such findings to the Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and
Parks/Program Planning Division. If the archaeological resources are found
to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate
actions for exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the
County of Orange, or designee, on a first refusal basis. Applicant may retain
said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved
in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum
in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at this time,
in which case items shall be donated to County, or designee. These actions,
as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to
the approval of the Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Program
Planning Division.
10. Prior to award of any construction or grading contract, the contract and plans
shall be provided to the Chief, EMA/Regulation/Grading Section, including
written evidence that a County -certified paleontologist has been retained to
conduct pregrading salvage, observe any grading activities, salvage fossils as
necessary, and prepare a catalogue of the exposed resources. The
paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish
procedures for paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish
procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the salvage,
sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major paleontological
resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting of
grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the Manager,
0
EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Program Planning Division. The
paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions to ensure proper
exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the County of
Orange, or designee, on a first refusal basis. Applicant may retain said finds
if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange
County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange
County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at this time, in which
case items shall be donated to County, or designee. These actions, as well as
final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the
approval of the Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Program
Planning Division. The paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for
approval by the Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Program
Planning Division, which shall include the period of inspection, methodology,
an analysis of the artifacts found, a catalogue of artifacts, and their present
repository.
11. Prior to issuance of a building permit including grading, for the Interpretive
Center, plans shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Manager,
EMA/Harbors, Beaches and Parks/Parks Design and the Newport Beach
Building Director. Said plans shall demonstrate compliance with the City of
Newport Beach 24J28-foot height limit shall be designed so as to minimize
adverse impacts to public views from Irvine Avenue. and shall indicate that
non -reflective glass shall be used on all windows overlooking Upper Newport
Bay.
12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading, the construction
documents shall be submitted for approval to the Manager, Development
Services and the Newport Beach Building Director for the area surrounding
the Interpretive Center, ensuring that the parking lot shall be landscaped,
equipped for irrigation, and improved as stated below:
a. Preliminary Plan - Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a
preliminary landscape plan, indicating use of native and drought
tolerant species, and a cost estimate shall be submitted for the
review and approval of the Manager, Subdivision Division.
b. Detailed Plan - Prior to the initiation of construction, a detailed
landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the
Manager, Subdivision Division and the Newport Beach Public
landscaping and irrigation design, and the 12mervation of views
from Irvine Avenue.
C. Installation Certification - Prior to the issuance of final
certificates of use and occupancy, said improvements shall be
installed and shall be certified by a licensed landscape architect
as having been installed in accordance with the approved
detailed plans. Said certification shall be furnished in writing
to the Manager, EMA/Public Works/Construction Division and
the Newport Beach Building Director.
13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading the County shall
submit an application to the City of Newport Beach for amendment of the
City's General Plan and Local Coastal Program to accommodate the 10,000
square foot Interpretive Center as proposed. After approval by the City, said
approvals and an application for a Coastal Development Permit shall be
referred to the State Coastal Commission for approval.
14. (Deleted)
15. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading, an access and
parking plan for the Interpretive Center shall be submitted for the review and
approval of the Director, EMA/Transportation and the City of Newport
Beach Traffic Engineer. Said plan shall indicate that access and parking have
been designed to appropriate standards for sight distance, parking and
accessways, bus and vehicle turn -outs, etc.
16. Construction activities shall be conducted in accordance with the City of
Newport Beach Municipal Code, which limits the hours of construction and
excavation work to 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. on Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction,
remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering, or any other
related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner
which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal
sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or on any
holiday.
17. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading, the construction
documents shall be submitted for approval to the Manager, Development
Services, including written evidence that:
a. All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated
within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly
operating and maintained mufflers.
b. All operations shall comply with Orange County Codified Ordinance
Division 6 (Noise Control).
C. Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as
practicable from dwellings.
B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-3(E)
Resolution No. 93-43 approving General Plan Amendment 92-3(E).
C. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO, 31
Resolution No. 9344 approving Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 31.
D. AMENDMENT NO. 779
Ordinance No. 93-13 approving Amendment No. 779.
E. USE PERMIT NO. 3488:
Findings:
1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, and is
compatible with surrounding land uses.
2. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of
property within the proposed development.
3. That the establishment of the regional park will not have any significant
environmental impact.
4. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3488 will not result in abrupt scale
relationships between the subject site and the neighboring properties.
5. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3488 for the establishment, maintenance
and operation of the proposed regional park use will not, under the
circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals,
comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the
neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements
in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City.
7
Conditions:
1. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved
General Development Plan and Resource Management Plan for Upper
Newport Bay Regional Park except as noted below.
2. That all the Mitigation Measures contained in Final EIR 525 shall be fulfilled
as conditions of approval.
3. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the Westbay portion of
the park, the County of Orange shall prepare and record an easement
acceptable to the City Attorney showing the relocation of the pedestrian and
bicycle trails if these trails are not provided in the location shown in the
existing easement.
4. That a Coastal Development Permit shall be required prior to the issuance
of a'building permit.
5. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by
movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic
control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of
equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and
local requirements.
6. That the entire site shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner.
7. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to
this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use
permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this
use permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals,
comfort, or general welfare of the community.
8. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date
of approval as specified in Section 20:80.090(A) of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code.
9. In addition, the normal hours of park operation specified in the County's
General Development Plan and Resource Management Plan for Upper
Newport Bay Regional Park shall not be interpreted so as to prohibit visitors
from using park trails at other times when the park is not staffed.
10. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the Westbay portion of
the park, the County of Orange shall prepare and record an easement
acceptable to the City Attorney showing the relocation of the existing
pedestrian and bicycle trail easements to the locations shown in the General
Development Plan, with the addition of at least one east -west connection
across the Westbay parcel so as to provide a loop trail system. A final copy
of the GDP showing the revised trail network shall be provided to the
Planning Director prior to issuance of a grading or building permit.
11. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the Westbay portion of
the,park, the County of Orange shall submit a revised General Development
Plan and Resource Management Plan to the City Planning Director indicating
that equestrian use is permitted on the unpaved trail paralleling University
Drive and Irvine Avenue.
[:\...V0HN-D\UNBU\FINALF&C
acceptable to the City Attorney showing the relocation of the existing
pedestrian and bicycle trail easements to the locations shown in the General
Development Plan, with the addition of at least one east -west connection
across the Westbay parcel so as to provide a loop trail system. A final copy
of the GDP showing the revised trail network shall be provided to the
Planning Director prior to issuance of a grading or building permit.
11. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the Westbay portion of
the park, the County of Orange shall submit a revised General Development
Plan and Resource Management Plan to the City Planning Director indicating
that equestrian use is permitted on the unpaved trail paralleling University
Drive and Irvine Avenue.
12. Dogs on leash shall be permitted in the Westbay parcel. Prior to issuance of
any grading or building permit for the Westbay parcel, a revised General
Development Plan shall be submitted to the Newport Beach Planning
Director stating this policy.
f.\...\JOHN-D\UNBRP\F[NAGF&C
City Council ivieeting JLunne 14. 1993
Agenda Item No.
Supplemental Report
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT. A General Plan Amendment No 92-3(E) (Public Hearing)
B. Local Coastal Pram Amendment No 31 (Public Hearing)
C. Amendment No 779 (Public Hearing)
D. Use Permit No 3488 (Public Hearing)
Attached are copies of the minutes of the Planning Commission hearings for these items,
which were inadvertently omitted from the staff report.
Respectfully submitted,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER,D,irc
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Minutes of April 8, 1993
2. Planning Commission Minutes of April 22, 1993
3. Planning Commission Minutes of May 6, 1993
R\...\UNBU\CC-RPr.3
Attachment No. 1
COAUMSSIONERS
MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Apt 8, 1993
OLL CALL
INDEX
sss
A General Plan Amendment No 92-3(E) (Public HeLnn-91
Item No.1c
Request to amend the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the
General Plan so as to increase the allowable size of the proposed
Interpretive Center on the Westbay parcel of the Upper Newport
Bay Regional Park site from 8,000 sq. ft. to 10,000 sq. ft. and
delete a secondary bicycle trail through the Westbay parcel; and
the acceptance of an enviromnental document.
cPA92-3E
LCP #31
A779
UP3488
AND
Cont' d to
4/22/93
B. Local Coastal Program Amendment No 31 (Public Hearing)
Request to amend the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan so
as to increase the allowable size of the proposed Interpretive
Center on the Westbay parcel of the Upper Newport Bay Regional
Park site from 8,000 sq. ft. to 10,000 sq. ft.
INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach
LOCATION: The Westbay parcel, located at 2200 Irvine
Avenue, southeasterly of the intersection of
Irvine Avenue and University Drive.
AND
C. Amendment No 779 (Public Hearing)
Request to amend a portion of Districting Maps No. 36, 39, 40, 42,
43, 44 and 61 so as to redesignate portions of the Upper Newport
Bay Regional Park property from the "U" (Unclassified), R-3-
B and R-4-B-2 Districts to the P-C (Planned Community) District.
LOCATION: The portions of the Upper Newport Bay
Regional Park between the Santa Ana -Delhi
Channel in Santa Ana Heights and Jamboree
-30-
COMIVIISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPOR.T BEACH
MINUTES
April 8, 1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
Road (201 Bayview Way); and between
Eastbluff Drive and the Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Reserve boundary adjacent to the
mouth of Big Canyon (1900 Hack Bay Drive).
ZONES: R-3-B, R4-B-2 and Unclassified
APPLICANT: The County of Orange
OWNER: Same as applicant
AND
D. Use Permit No 3488 (Public Hearing)
Request to approve a General Development Plan and Resource
Management Plan for the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park,
which would serve as a Planned Community Development Plan
and regulations for the regional park.
LOCATION: Upper Newport Bay Regional Park surrounds
the northern portion of Upper Newport Bay
in three separate parcels forming an arc from
approximately Santiago Drive on the west to
the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve
boundary adjacent to the mouth of Big
Canyon on the east (2200 Irvine Avenue, 201
Bayview Way and 1900 Back Bay Drive).
ZONES: P-C, R-3-131 R-4-B-2 and Unclassified
APPLICANT: The County of Orange
OWNER: Same as applicant
James Hewicker, Planning Director, requested that Item No.10 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 22,1993,
-31-
3
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
April 8, 1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
to allow staff and the Planning Commission additional time to
review the item.
Motion was made and voted on to continue Item No. 10 to the
Motion
*
*
*
*
*
*
April 22, 1993, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION
Ayes
Absent
*
*
CARRIED.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS:
Add l i
Business
Gifford
Motion was made and voted on to excuse Commissioner Gifford
Motion
*
*
*
*
*
*
from the April 22,1993, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION
excused
Ayes
Absent
*
CARRIED.
•e*
ADJOURNMENT: 9:15 p.m.
Adjourn
HARRY MERRILL, SECRETARY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
-32-
COWWSSIOXERS
Attachment No. 2 .•
MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Aari122. 1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
determination that the operation which is the sub' of this
use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental the health,
safety, peace, morals, comfort or gen welfare of the
community.
7. That this use permit shall pire if not exercised within 24
months from the dat approval as specified in Section
20.80.090A of th ewport Beach Municipal Code.
tt.
The nning Commission recessed at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened
:35 p.m.
t t t
A General Plan Amendment 92-3_(E) (Continued Public
ItemNo.
Hearing)
GPA92-3E
LCP31
Request to amend the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the
General Plan so as to increase the allowable size of the proposed
Interpretive Center on the Westbay parcel of the Upper Newport
A779
Bay Regional Park site from 8,000 sq. ft. to 10,000 sq, ft, and
delete a secondary bicycle trail through the Westbay parcel; and
UP3488
the acceptance of an environmental document.
Cont d
AND
to
5/8/93
B Local Coastal Program Amendment No 31(Continued Public
Hearing)
Request to amend the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan so
as to increase the allowable size of the proposed Interpretive
Center on the Westbay parcel of the Upper Newport Bay Regional
Park site from 8,000 sq, ft. to 109000 sq. ft.
INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach
-31-
5
coYOUSSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
April 22, 1993
LOLL CALL
INDEX
LOCATION: The Westbay parcel, located at 2200 Irvine
Avenue, southeasterly of the intersection of
Irvine Avenue and University Drive.
AND
C. Amendment No 779 (Continued Public Hearing)
Request to amend a portion of Districting Maps No. 36, 39, 40, 42,
43, 44 and 61 so as to redesignate portions of the Upper Newport
Bay Regional Park property from the "U" (Unclassified), R-3-
B and R-4-13-2 Districts to the P-C (Planned Community) District.
LOCATION: The portions of the Upper Newport Bay
Regional Park between the Santa Ana -Delhi
Channel in Santa Ana Heights and Jamboree
Road (201 Bayview Way); and between
Eastbluff Drive and the Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Reserve boundary adjacent to the
mouth of Big Canyon (1900 Back Bay Drive).
ZONES: R-3-B, R-4-13-2 and Unclassified
APPLICANT: The County of Orange
OWNER: Same as applicant
AND
D Use Permit No 3488 (Continued Public Hearing)
Request to approve a General Development Plan and Resource
Management Plan for the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park,
which would serve as a Planned Community Development Plan
and regulations for the regional park.
LOCATION: Upper Newport Bay Regional Park surrounds
the northern portion of Upper Newport Bay
-32-
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
\V\�O� �\
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 22, 1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
in three separate parcels forming an arc from
approximately Santiago Drive on the west to
the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve
boundary adjacent to the mouth of Big
Canyon on the east (2200 Irvine Avenue, 201
Bayview Way and 1900 Back Bay Drive).
ZONES: P-C, R-3-13, R 4-B-2 and Unclassified
APPLICANT: The County of Orange
OWNER Same as applicant
John Douglas, Principal Planner, presented an overview of the
proposed project to change the designation for the Interpretative
Center from a maximum of 8,000 square feet to 10,000 square
feet, to delete a secondary bicycle trail through the Westbay
parcel, and to establish a Development Plan and operational
guidelines for Upper Newport Bay Regional Park.
Mr. Douglas stated that the Planned Community designation can
refer to any type of use and the uses are established through a
Development Plan under the Planned Community Zoning District.
The project does not comprise any commercial or residential
development, and the only building proposed is the Interpretative
Center on the Westbay parcel. The Planned Community
designation allows the plans and regulations to be tailored
specifically to the piece of property involved, and the subject use
permit would serve as a Development Plan for the property under
the Planned Community designation. It is a mechanism that is
being proposed to adopt a Development Plan for the Park.
Back Bay Drive is not located within the Park boundaries, and is
located on State property that is administered by the Department
of Pish and Game. It is a public street right-of-way that is under
the control of the City. It is discussed in the County Park Plan but
it is not before the Commission as a decision item.
-33-
COMMISSIONERS
d�� q��p�pAlt�iQ `09�0�0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
April 22, 1993
INDEX
ROLL CALL
Mr. Douglas stated that staff received letters from the County
Harbors, Beaches & Parks Department, dated April 21, 1993, and
from Craig and -Charlotte Bluell, residents of the area, dated April
19, 1993, prior to the public hearing.
In response to questions posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr.
Douglas replied that the existing zoning designation for the
Westbay property on Irvine Avenue is currently Planned
Community. The zoning was adopted when The Irvine Company
owned the property and the intention was to construct a residential
development; however, a Development Plan was never adopted.
The Santa Ana Heights parcel and the Eastbluff parcel are either
designated Unclassified or Residential. Mr. Douglas further
explained that during the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
the draft EIR was processed for public review and the City
process
submitted comments that were included in the EIR. Individual
members of the City staff, acting as private citizens, participated
in a series of public hearings that the County held prior to
developing the General Development Plan. The County proposal
is being submitted to the City for consideration. The City is
involved because most of the Park is within the City limits and the
City has either exclusive ownership or shares ownership in some
of the property and some easements exist on the property. In
addition to City approval, Coastal Commission approval will be
required in addition to the County Board of Supervisors. The City
is one of the agencies that will be required to give approval to the
project.
In response to questions posed by Chairman Edwards, Mr.
Douglas replied that the Planned Community designation is an
administrative mechanism; however, an Open Space designation
could also accommodate the plan that the County is proposing.
James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that the City has an
Open Space District that carries designations of Open Space
Active and Open Space Passive. Open Space Active primarily
allows higher intensity uses, active recreation type facilities, ball
fields, etc. A use permit would be required to establish those uses.
Open Space Passive requires a use permit to establish grading or
-34-
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
April 22, 1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
a Building Permit for a passive recreation facility. Staff has
considered revising the Open Space Zoning District descriptions;
however, that action has not commenced and that is the reason
staff chose to take the existing Planned Community Zoning
District that has existed on the Westbay property since the late
1970's. There is no reason why the property cannot be zoned
Planned Community adopt a Development Plan for the Park, and
have it developed under the Planned Community zone. The Local
Coastal plan and the General Plan designation will be for Open
Space and there is no way possible that anyone can change the
Open Space designation on the General Plan or on the Local
Coastal Plan without going through the public hearing process. If
the Commission requests to change the zoning on the entire
property to Open Space that would be an alternative. It would
involve not only adding the Open Space designation to the portion
of the park side that is on the Eastbluff side and the Santa Ana
Heights portion of the property, but it would also require changing
the zoning on the Westbay property.
Bob Fisher, Director of County Harbors, Beaches, and Parks
appeared before the Planning Commission. The project was an
open and a very much participated process with the City staff.
The property is land which was acquired from The Irvine
Company. The Irvine Company planned to develop the property
for residential uses; however, there were objections from the City
and the Department of Fish and Game which owned the adjacent
ecological reserve and from the Coastal Commission which saw an
inappropriate use for the property. During the course of
negotiations over resolving a dispute involving the intensification
of the Newport Center, it was suggested that The Irvine Company
could allow the subject property to become public Open Space.
The Irvine Company agreed to the suggestion and they contacted
the County with the idea that the County would take the land and
create a regional. park. The County identified the land as a
regional park site for many years in the County's General Plan and
with the City's plans and LCP. The County planning staff had to
recognize The Irvine Company had imposed deed restrictions on
the property requiring it to be used for only passive recreation
-35-
C
1
COMMSSIONERS
OCR 9��p�Cp O16O
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
April 22, 1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
It was further recognized that the Department of Fish
purposes.
and Game was very insistent about the uses surrounding the
ecological reserve. Based on the idea that the land is located in a
sensitive area in the Coastal zone, staff had to take into account.
the fact that the Coastal Commission has the final determination
of what can be done with the property. The County proposal is
the result of the respectful views of the City and the community,
and the proposal attempts to meet most of their objectives.
In response to a question posed by Chairman Edwards, Mr. Fisher
replied that the County is requesting that the Commission
recognize the proposal is an improvement upon the existing
condition of the property. The property has been surveyed as to
the present condition, biologically and otherwise, and the County
believes that the property is deteriorating under the present
conditions. The County is liable for the property, the County is
responsible to be certain that the area is protected, and the
County wants to make improvements for all of the citizens of
Orange County.
Ms. Mary Murray, Project Manager for the General Development
Plan, appeared before the Planning Commission. The General
Development Plan was prepared over two years, and the Resource
Management was prepared in conjunction with the Development
Plan to assure that there would be proper ongoing management of
the park as it is proposed. The park planning process commenced
in 1990, and at that time the first public meeting was held to
discuss the development of the park. At the public meeting a
Citizens Advisory Committee was formed, and the 40 members
consisted of local homeowners, special interest groups, City and
County staff members, Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife Service,
and others expressing an interest in the project. Ms. Murray
discussed the Committee's agenda over a period of one and one-
half years. The Committee developed park goals to establish a
consensus on where to , go with the park, and how to make
decisions on future development and management issues relating
to the park, resulting in a park plan that established a balance of
recreational needs. The Upper Newport Bay is one of the refuges
-36-
I�
cotuussioNvas
CITY OF NEWPOR'T BEACH
MINUTES
April 22, 1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
that remain for a large number of rare, sensitive, and endangered
animals and plants. The significance of the site and the sensitivity
of the resources as well as deed restrictions dictate that all
development should be limited on the site and to focus primarily
on resource, interpretation, and management.
Ms. Murray advanced to the display area where she described the
parcels of the Upper Newport Bay: the Eastbluff parcel, Santa
Ana Heights Parcel, and Westbluff parcel,
The Eastbluff parcel has Back Bay Drive as its boundary along the
bay. The County has proposed two small parking bay areas that
would hold eight vehicles each, revegetation, and a trail that would
provide pedestrian and bicycle access to Eastbluff Park.
The Santa Ana Heights parcel would maintain pedestrian,
equestrian, and bicycle access to San Diego Creek, formalizing it
on the Orange County Master Plan of Riding and Hiking Trails,
The County intends to revegetate the site with natural or native
plant materials, providing access for pedestrian, equestrian, and
bicycle access to Mesa Drive and revegetating and consolidating
the trails to Santa Ana -Delhi Channel. The County proposes
pedestrian and bicycle access across the Channel and recommends
keeping the equestrians on the approved Master Plan of Riding
and Hiking Trails so as to take access to the Santa Ana -Delhi
Channel and through San Diego Creek.
In reference to the Westbay parcel, Ms. Murray stated that the
County, in conjunction with the City's Public Works Department,
is preparing construction documents for a cooperative project in
design and construction of a bicycle trail. The deed restrictions
request an Interpretative Center within 500 feet of the intersection
of University Drive and Irvine Avenue. She described the areas
that are proposed for the pedestrian trails.
Commissioner Glover stated that she was proud that The Irvine
Company gave the land for a regional area for the public.
However, she stated that she was disappointed that the EIR
-37-
COIVMSSIONERS
�Oc� 9��o�•Q �'O��O
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
April 22, 1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
devoted only a few pages to the alternatives. Mr. Gary Medeiros
County Environmental Planning Division, appeared before the
Planning Commission. He explained that the EIR includes a
range of alternatives that cover from no project to restrictive use.
to the trails that are proposed. Commissioner Glover expressed
her concern that the County was proposing a 10,000 to 12,000
square foot Interpretative Center and the taxpayers would have to
contribute $6 million. She concluded that the proposal has become
a development project instead of open space. Mr. Fisher
reappeared before the Planning Commission to respond to
Commissioner Glover's concerns. Mr. Fisher explained that the
park consists of 140 acres, and the Interpretative Center would
serve 800 acres of the Upper Newport Bay, including the
ecological reserve. The Interpretative Center would house the
County Park Ranger staff and the State Department of Fish and
Game staff.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy
regarding the groups that have opposed the proposal, Ms. Murray
replied that the equestrian people would like to have access on the
Westbay parcel, and off -road or dirt bicycle users would like to
have access throughout the Westbay parcel. Bicyclists and
pedestrians would like to have access to the water's edge; however,
the park property does not go to the water's edge.
In response to a question posed by Chairman Edwards regarding
the proposed Westbay bicycle path, Ms. Murray explained that the
City approached the County and informed them that street
improvements needed to be made on Irvine Avenue. The City
indicated that bicycle improvements could be made via a
cooperative agreement between the County and the City. The idea
would be to share in the cost and development of one bicycle trail
and to provide a more pleasant experience for the bicycle riders
by removing them from Irvine Avenue and to give them more of
a park experience by allowing them to meander along Irvine
Avenue and University Drive. The pedestrian path would be
constructed inside the bicycle trail.
-38-
iy
COMMSSIONERS
o
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
April 22, 1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
Mr. Patrick Marr, Architect from Ron Yeds office, appeared
before the Planning Commission, and he described the location
and design of the Interpretative Center on the Westbay parcel off
of University Drive indicating that it would scarcely encroach in to
the view of the Back Bay. He explained that the structure would
be located mostly underground to retain the natural look of the
site. The roof would be covered with native grasses to fit in with
the character of the site. The 10,000 square foot Interpretative
Center would provide an expansive view of the bay; would be
divided into non-public areas and public areas; approximately
3,600 square feet would consist of exhibit area; offices would be
provided for the County Ranger and Fish and Game staff; public
restrooms; exhibit preparation; and library.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner DiSano, Mr.
Marr explained that the two towers would identify the
Interpretation Center, and they would function as wind towers to
provide circulation within the building.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner DiSano, Ms.
Murray explained that according to the biologists the region is an
area in Southern California that has the potential for native
grasslands, and native grasslands are significant for habitat in the
area.
Commissioner Glover addressed her concerns regarding water
conservation and the need to irrigate the new native vegetation
that would replace the existing vegetation. Ms. Murray explained
that it would be necessary to irrigate the new vegetation for a year
or two to establish the new vegetation.
Commissioner Pomeroy was cognizant that specific grasses have
been introduced in Southern California that are not native, and
the grasses tend to choke out the habitat for animals. The Fish
and Game and Fish and Wildlife staffs are attempting to do their
Job to be certain that there is an environmental balance, and there
are those individuals who use an Environmental Document to stop
anything from occurring. An Interpretative Center is appropriate
-39-
l�
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
April 22,.1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
for the overall area of the Back Bay; however, what appears to
have happened is an almost elitist use of the parcel and the public
is being restricted. The environment has been used as a method
to restrict the public, and he concluded that there is not an
environmental balance in the EIR.
Ms. Carla Brockman, 2700 Harbor View Drive, and a property
owner on Mesa Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission.
Ms. Brockman stated that when The Irvine Company gave the
property to the County one of the precluded uses for the property
was office space wherein she indicated that over 50 percent of the
Interpretative Center would be used for office space. She
questioned the need for over 5,000 square feet of office space.
The EIR addresses Current Human Use, Alternative 6.5, to allow
an Interpretative Center, and to provide the public with the use
that currently exists; however, improvements would be made to the
parks and trails that need to be developed to prevent further
erosion. The County would not be liable for injury because there
is no liability in the State of California for anyone that enters a
property if it is for recreational purposes. Ms. Brockman
addressed her concerns regarding the restrictions of the Westbay
parcel. In response to a question posed by Chairman Edwards,
Ms. Brockman replied that she does not oppose the Interpretative
Center. Ms. Brockman stated that the land was deeded into two
parcels whereby she pointed to the Eastbay and Westbay parcels
on the display maps, and the EIR addresses three parcels. The
passive uses dictated in the deed for the Westbay parcel were
hiking, biking, equestrian, barbecuing, picnics, and nature study.
Ms. Brockman referred to the enlarged photographs that she had
taken of the Santa Ana Heights area and established equestrian
trails, and she pointed to the Santa Ana Heights areas that provide
for 400 horses. She further explained that 400 horses are housed
on the County Fairgrounds. The equestrians currently use the
Westbay parcel; however, the proposed plan would only allow the
equestrians to use a one mile trail from the Delhi Channel to
Jamboree Road, with dogs on leashes which would now be
precluded on the Westbay parcel. She expressed her concerns that
one trail would accommodate equestrians, dogs on leashes;
-40-
1'�
COMIVIISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
April 22, 1993
TOLL CALL
INDEX
bicyclists, and pedestrians in a one mile area, and the removal of
the existing vegetation. She suggested the "No Plan", Alternative
6.1, or "Current Human Usage", Alternative 6.5, which would allow
the Interpretative Center and the equestrians in the Westbay
parcel. Santa Ana Heights is in the City of Newport Beach Sphere
of Influence, and the City's plan would allow a commercial stable
overlay that would increase the number of horses in the area.
Santa Ana Heights wants to be a unique part of the community
that is respected, and the residents have a desire to use the area
that they considered their neighborhood.
Commissioner Pomeroy commented that it appears an appropriate
solution would be if the Commission does not approve the County
proposal that the County would come back with another proposal
rather than attempt to select an alternative that has not been given
the same amount of time and diligence. Mr. Hewicker responded
that the Commission makes all of their recommendations directly
to the City Council.
In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Ms.
Brockman replied that the residents are requesting equestrian use
of the Westbay parcel which is encouraged and suggested in the
deed of gift. He asked Ms. Brockman if she would oppose the
park if there was a defined trail in the Westbay parcel whereby
she said that she would not necessarily oppose the project,
particularly if the trail would be located on the blufftop.
Mr. Jim Evans, 20372 Cypress, Santa Ana Heights, and a Mariners
Mile businessman, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr.
Evans stated that he has been very involved with the project and
he has been a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee. He
indicated that there are many people who are not happy with the
project and he concluded that the City is being "boon-doggled" by
the County. He addressed his personal involvement regarding the
Westbay parcel when he was employed by The Irvine Company.
He stated that he did not agree with the County that equestrian
and bicycle uses cannot be used because of a biological problem.
Mr. Evans agreed that there is a biological and very sensitive area;
-41-
l�
COMMISSIONERS
OCR qN@'Z O��S'O
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
April 22, 1993
INDEX
ROLL CALL
however, equestrian use is not ruining it. If the bicycle trail is
proposed to be paved then it should be reconsidered. He
emphasized his desire that the proposal be studied carefully by the
City.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr.
Evans replied that the proposal is not a consensus of the people.
He opposed the idea that the parcels are sensitive biological areas
and that specific uses cannot be tolerated. He expressed his
opposition to the 10,000 square foot Interpretative Center and the
parking area. He suggested that an alternate Interpretative Center
be considered, i.e. a vehicle that could be mobilized to the schools.
He opposed the proposed $6 million that it would cost for the
proposal. He questioned the County's objective whereby he
commented that it is the City's responsibility to protect the citizens
and what is occurring on the parcels.
Commissioner DiSano and Mr. Evans discussed the feasibility of
providing mixed -uses that are compatible with the parcels.
Commissioner Glover addressed the Alternatives listed in the EIR
and she referred to the Current Level of Human Activities that
includes the 10,000 square foot Interpretative Center, fountains,
and multiple areas of cement and signage, and she concluded that
it would become a modernized urban situation. She asked if there
could be a balance between human activity and environmental
concerns whereby she indicated that she opposes the idea of the
park turning into a development project. She asked if there could
be a current level of human activity and also meet environmental
concerns. Mr. Evans explained his opinions why there needs to be
moderation on both sides, and he suggested that riding and hiking
trails could be properly designed as common use areas.
Ms. Kathy Mohs, teacher in the Newport -Mesa School District,
appeared before the Planning Commission to emphatically express
her support of the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park as it
currently exists; that there is no need for an Interpretative Center;
-42-
COMMSSIONERS
NRIP� Oneho
CITY OF NEW PORT BEACH
MINUTES
April 22, 1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
and the students tour the Upper Newport Bay frequently and there
are parking spaces available for the school busses.
Ms. Martha Wetzel, 13742 Onkayha, Irvine, appeared before the
Planning Commission. She said that she is the Chairman of the
City of Irvine Riding and Hiking Trail Committee. The action by
the City of Newport Beach regarding the Regional County Park
will affect the County Riding and Hiking Trail System. The denial
of equestrian access in the Westbay parcel and the failure of the
County to provide an equestrian staging area in the Upper
Newport Bay Regional Park are counter to the County's Master
Plan of Riding and Hiking Trails, and would affect many more
people than just the local equestrians. She said that it was
apparent from the outset that the ultimate plan for the Westbay
parcel to exclude equestrians and include a large Interpretative
Center was determined before public input began. She addressed
the staff report statement that The purpose in limiting the amount
of space devoted to trails is to maximize the area for native vegetation
and wildlife habitat and she asked how that would be achieved by
constructing a 10,000 square foot Interpretative Center with towers
and a parking lot. Ms. Wetzel indicated that she is not
categorically opposed to an Interpretative Center but she is if it
would be developed at the expense of the riding and hiking trails
supported by existing documents: City of Newport Beach General
Plan; City of Irvine General Plan; and the Orange County Master
Plan of Riding and Hiking Trails. She addressed a statement in
the report that previous equestrian access to the parcels was
unregulated wherein she explained that it is so but it was not
illegal. She recommended that the Commission consider
Alternative "No Project" or "Alternative 5". The consensus of 80
plus people at an August,1990, meeting which allowed for limited
equestrian use on the Westbay parcel was never included in the
minutes of the meeting,
Ms. Wetzel recommended the following mitigating measures:
require the County to provide an equestrian staging area in or
near Upper Newport Bay near the Delhi Channel as described in
-43-
1
COMMISSIONERS
QoyPoysl0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
April 22, 1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
the Master Plan, and require the connecting link between Trails
44 and 45 be drawn on the map.
Chairman Edwards determined that the County is proposing.
preservation and restoration and at the same time introduce items
that would be introducing further deterioration of the area and
also too much structure without giving credence to some of the
suggestions that have been presented to them. He said that what
he is looking at is the manner in which to maintain the present
state of the property with certain amounts of restoration, i.e.
runoff and trash problems. He asked Ms. Wetzel if she could see
a way to maintain the status quo and allow restoration of the area
to a more pristine area and allow the continued mixed -use. Ms.
Wetzel responded that there is an Alternative that allows
equestrian use on existing trails at the blufftop and allows for an
Interpretative Center at a more modest size.
In response to questions posed by Commissioner Glover, Ms.
Wetzel replied that Alternative A is included in the June 6, 1990,
document. Commissioner Glover commented that the foregoing
Alternative indicates that a method of identification would allow
markers on the ground if there would not be an Interpretative
Center to designate the plants.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Ms.
Wetzel explained that Interpretative Centers can be quite rustic,
and she recommended that the facility could be built to a
maximum of 5,000 square feet whereby she expressed her
opposition to the subject site being used for office space or for
private organizations.
Commissioner Merrill and Ms. Wetzel discussed the documents
that included her comments. Chairman Edwards stated that Ms.
Wetzel recommended an Alternative at the Citizens Advisory
Committee that was the consensus of the Advisory Committee. It
was her opinion that the comments would be considered an
Alternative which would be included in the EIR; however, the
comments were not included as an Alternative but were included
-44-
I�
COMMSSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
April 22,1993
ROLL CALL
INDPX
as required in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and the comments were responded to as required under CEQA.
Mr. John Boertje, 2412 Azure, appeared before the Planning
Commission to express his concerns that if the open field above
the bird sanctuary is developed that there would be numerous
restrictions. Mr. Boertje submitted photographs of the Westbay
area depicting fenced off areas, and he presented the Commission
with a framed photograph of the Back Bay as it presently exists.
He emphatically expressed his comments that numerous people
have enjoyed and used the undeveloped dirt trails that are located
in a natural setting.
Mr. Frank Robinson,1007 Nottingham Road, appeared before the
Planning Commission on behalf of Friends of Newport Bay, who
have participated in and support the County proposal. In response
to aforementioned comments, Mr. Robinson referred to the staff
report's map of existing trails in the Westbay area wherein he
explained that as the areas are cut up to become smaller that the
animals are being wiped out instead of being reduced. One
purpose for the project is if the area would be consolidated that
there would be a much better chance for restoration. The Friends
of Newport Bay have guides who try to keep the public together
and the proposed trails would prevent damage to the area. The
Interpretative Center would provide services for a total system.
Mr. Robinson stated that the deed restrictions from the Irvine
Company states that the park shall be compatible with the reserve
which puts everything in a much higher standard to protect the
reserve, i.e, the horses are not permitted in the reserve even
though they have been there for many years and dogs running
loose are nothing but hunters.
Commissioner Pomeroy stated that it would appear that there are
individuals who want the land to be an ecological reserve.
However, it was his understanding that when it was dedicated that
it would be a regional park, just not a part of the ecological
reserve. It would appear that public access has been severely
restricted from what everyone thought was going to happen. Mr.
-45-
iC1
COAnnMSSIONERS
�2r`�p4'o'4os0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
April 22, 1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
Robinson said that in 1975 when the reserve was created that
there was very serious consideration for including the Westbay
parcel at the time. He said that there are no restrictions on
people inasmuch as the documents indicate that the public can
enter the park when it is not open. He commented that when
parcels are cut up into trails that it definitely affects the erosion.
Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that one non -paved trail for
bicycle use and one non -paved trail for equestrian use along the
top of the bluff be considered. Mr. Robinson replied that if an
trail would be included as a part of the County Trail
equestrian
System, it would not just open it up to the local people in Santa
Ana Heights, but to people using horse trails throughout the
County.
Commissioner Glover stated that she was surprised that Mr.
Robinson supports the amount of development that is proposed.
Mr. Robinson replied that one of the services of the Interpretative
Center would be to bring the people together, to keep them in
groups, and to advise them of the unusual area. He stated that the
Friends of Newport Bay currently conduct a similar program on
the Back Bay Road. He indicated that he foresees a deterioration
of the area under the present uses.
In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr.
Robinson replied that the guided tours conducted by the Friends
of Newport Bay congregate on Back Bay Road in an open area.
He said that the guided tours vary from between 200 to 500
people. Mr. Robinson expressed his support of the proposed
Interpretative Center and he described how the facility would be
used. Commissioner Ridgeway asked if Mr. Robinson had
considered an off -site Interpretative Center and he referred to an
adjacent building that would be available for use on University
Drive. Mr. Robinson replied that he had not considered an off -
site Interpretative Center and he did not know if an office building
could be used. He commented that a certain ambiance would be
created if the structure would be located on -site.
-46-
gD
COMMISSIONEAS
MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
Chairman Edwards said that there is a structure in the Dunes park
that the Park Ranger operates from, and public discussions are
periodically held at the site regarding the Back Bay. He asked
why there is a need for a duplication. Mr. Robinson replied that
the structure is located on private property and the building is
used because nothing else is available. In response to Chairman
Edwards regarding Mr. Robinsods earlier comments regarding
horse trails, Mr. Robinson explained that the horse trails would be
opened up to the Trail System. He further explained that he has
been informed that horses are not allowed in special areas because
the pounding of horses over a period of time destroys root systems.
The public hearing was closed at this time.
Commissioner Pomeroy requested that staff provide information
pertaining to the deed. Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney,
replied that it is a private deed between the County and The
Irvine Company. As far as making an interpretation of what has
occurred the City does not have the ability to enforce it, and the
enforcement and the provisions are between the parties.
Commissioner Pomeroy pointed out that the deed states that
certain uses are going to be permitted on the site, i.e.; hiking,
bicycling, running, horseback riding, picnicking, environmental
sensitive habitat mitigation staging areas for bicycles and
equestrians, and nature study.
Commissioner Ridgeway agreed that the documents do not include
equestrian use and the deed indicates that equestrian use is a
compatible use. He said that the Commission needs to know why
the deed is not being respected. Mr. Hewicker said that there
does not have to be an elaborate discussion of why an activity was
eliminated, and there has been testimony as to why equestrian use
was not considered. Chairman Edwards stated that the
Commission is requesting a reasonable appraisal of what the deed
means and as Mr. Hewicker indicated, the foregoing uses are
permitted but they are not necessarily exclusive uses. Ms. Flory
stated that the Commission can make its own interpretation of the
deed. She said that the Commission makes a determination of the
-47-
ai
cdMM SSXO lERs
MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
Prl , ''
INDEX
overall plan in connection with the EIR, and the deed can be
considered, but as to enforcing the terms of the deed and making
determinations from that point of view, the City would not do that.
Commissioner Glover stated that what has been presented to the
Commission has not been reasonable, i.e.: the Commission is not
in a position to consider $6 million improvements on the piece of
property when the citizens of the City want a more natural setting.
She stated that it is a marvelous respite to drive by or to walk
by the area because it is a natural environment. She said that her
idea of an Interpretative Center would be four large posts with a
covering, a structure that is natural and would fit in the setting,
and where groups of people can begin tours. She does not
consider an Interpretative Center to be gift shops, offices, etc. or
a 500 car parking lot. She emphasized that the people should be
able to use the regional park. The taxpayers would not understand
spending $6 million when the public is very cognizant of the
economy of the State, County, and the City.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr.
Fisher reappeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher
explained that the $6 million comes from a variety of sources:
private donations, grants, State grants, and County funds. None of
the money would come from the City of Newport Beach.
Commissioner Ridgeway requested that staff provide information
with respect to how much land would be displaced if a defined
equestrian trail would be created. He said that no where in the
document is there a discussion about what land area is being
displaced in the park.
Commissioner Pomeroy commented that the Interpretative Center
is important to the overall 800 acre site. Revegetation, because
there is deterioration, is important and if the grass that is there is
damaging to the ecology, then revegetation should be considered.
He said there is no way to convince him that equestrian use
cannot be accommodated and bicycle use, and not be able to walk
a dog on a leash and not have it in conflict. The balance has gone
-48-
2 2,
COMMISSIONERS
MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
ri
, 1993
INDEX
in the direction of individuals who believe that it should be an
ecological area and not a regional park that can be used by the
public. He said that he would not support what has been
presented.
Commissioner DiSano supported Commissioner Pomeroy s
foregoing Comments regarding the Interpretative Center and the
revegetation.
Motion was made and voted on to continue the General Plan
Amendment No. 92-3(E), Local Coastal Program Amendment No.
31, Amendment No. 779, and Use Permit No. 3488 to the May 61
1993, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT, 11,45 p.m.
Ad3ourn
HARRY MERRILL, SECRETARY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
-49-
223
COMMISSIONERS
Attachment No. 3
MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 6, 1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
A. General Plan Amendment 92-3 (E) (Continued Public
Item No.3
Hearin
GPA 92-3E
Request to amend the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the.
(Res 1329
General Plan so as to increase the allowable size of the proposed
LCP 31
Interpretive Center on the Westbay parcel of the Upper Newport
(Res 1330
Bay Regional Park site from 8,000 sq. ft. to 10,000 sq. ft. and
delete a secondary bicycle trail through the Westbay parcel; and
A779
the acceptance of an environmental document.
(Res 1331
AND
E R
(Res 1328
B. Local Coastal Program Amendment No 31 (Continued Public
Approved
Hearin
Request to amend the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan so
as to increase the allowable size of the proposed Interpretive
Center on the Westbay parcel of the Upper Newport Bay Regional
Park site from 8,000 sq. ft. to 10,000 sq. ft.
INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach
LOCATION: The Westbay parcel, located at 2200 Irvine
Avenue, southeasterly of the intersection of
Irvine Avenue and University Drive.
AND
C. Amendment No 779 (Continued Public Hearing)
Request to amend a portion of Districting Maps No. 36, 39, 40, 42,
43, 44 and 61 so as to redesignate portions of the Upper Newport
Bay Regional Park property from the "U" (Unclassified), R-3-
B and R-4-B-2 Districts to the P-C (Planned Community) District.
LOCATION: The portions of the Upper Newport Bay
Regional Park between the Santa Ana -Delhi
Channel in Santa Ana Heights and Jamboree
-8-
7,q
COMMISSIOIVI;RS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
Mav 6. 1993
LOLL CALL
INDEX
Road (201 Bayview Way); and between
Eastbluff Drive and the Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Reserve boundary adjacent to the
mouth of Big Canyon (1900 Back Bay Drive).
ZONES: R-3-B, R4-B-2 and Unclassified
APPLICANT: The County of Orange
OWNER: Same as applicant
AND
D. Use Permit No 3488 (Continued Public Hear!nel
Request to approve a General Development Plan and Resource
Management Plan for the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park,
which would serve as a Planned Community Development Plan
and regulations for the regional park.
LOCATION: Upper Newport Bay Regional Park surrounds
the northern portion of Upper Newport Bay
in three separate parcels forming an are from
approximately Santiago Drive on the west to
the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve
boundary adjacent to the mouth of Big
Canyon on the east (2200 Irvine Avenue, 201
Bayview Way and 1900 Back Bay Drive).
ZONES: P-C, R-3-B, R-4-B-2 and Unclassified
APPLICANT: The County of Orange
OWNER: Same as applicant
Commissioner Gifford stated that inasmuch as she was absent
from the April 22, 1993, Planning Commission meeting, that she
listened to the audio tape of the proceedings.
-9-
CortUMSSIONERS
.00 �Olpr��dlydrs,
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
May 6, 1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that subsequent to the
April 22, 1993, Planning Commission meeting, the City Attorney's
Office has advised that the City's ability to govern the
development of the Park, in terms of the zoning and general plan,.
is very limited. The Park is by and large owned by the County, and
the County has the authority to plan, develop, and manage a
County Park on the subject site. However, the City maintains
Local Coastal Program responsibility over the site and the City
and the County jointly share control, location and use of several
easements on and across the site, and the City alone owns 6 acres
of fee land in the middle of the site. The pedestrian and bicycle
easements run the length of the site on the bay side of the
The two easements that cross the site and connect with
property.
Irvine Avenue are located between Santa Isabel Avenue and 23rd
Street, and between Monte Vista and Santa Isabel Avenue. The
six acres that are owned by the City are located south of Monte
Vista. It is desirable that the County and the City concur on the
size of the Interpretative Center and the location and use of the
cross -easements which are to be relocated and the use of the Park
land currently owned by the City. It is not the role of the City to
micro -manage the use of the Park facilities. The County is
presenting their plan to seek a final recommendation by the City
Council.
The basic issues as the staff perceives them are: (1) Should the
existing bicycle trail on the east side of the Park be split with a
pedestrian trail only on the top of the bluff and a bicycle
pedestrian trail along Irvine Avenue. (2) Should the two
bicycle/pedestrian easements that cross the site be combined into
a single easement parallel to University Drive or should there be
two easements: one parallel to University Drive and one parallel
to the flood control channel which could be connected to a closed
loop around the Park. (3) Should the Interpretative Center be
increased in size from 8,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet.
Commissioner Pomeroy referred to the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) wherein it states that the EIR provides sufficient
information for the public and decision makers to construct an
-10-
:L�
COPMOSSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES'
May 6, 1993
LOLL CALL
INDEX
array of alternatives even beyond those included in the project
alternative section of the document. He indicated that it would
appear that any combination of elements within the Park that are
in the best interests of the public are appropriate for the Planning.
Commission to consider. John Douglas, Principal Planner, stated
that CEQA, does not require that alternatives be precisely defined
in an EIR to be approved or selected. Alternatives are presented
in order to provide a variety for a range of reasonable choices or
alternatives, with the purpose of finding a project that can avoid
or minimize environmental damage through a change in the
project or a change of location. It is not necessary that the
alternative in the EIR describe exactly the project that is being
approved.
Commissioner Glover recommended that the "Planned
Community" zoning designation for the Park property be
redesignated to "Open Space". Mr. Hewicker stated that in order
for the Commission to redesignate the park property it would be
necessary that the public hearing be readvertised. Mr. Hewicker
explained that if it would be the desire of the Commission to
ultimately see the park property in the "Open Space" zone that
once the language of the Zoning District is made to satisfy all of
the parties concerned, that it would be feasible to rezone the
property from "Planned Community" to "Open Space". The
General Plan currently designates the property as "Open Space
and Recreational Use", and the only area within the General Plan
that would need to be changed is the language pertaining to the
size of the Interpretative Center. The General Plan would allow
an Interpretative Center not to exceed 8,000 square feet, and if the
Commission approved a Center larger than that, then the General
Plan and the LCP could be amended so that the General Plan and
the LCP are consistent with the plan.
The public hearing continued at this time.
Bob Fisher, Director of County Harbors, Beaches and Parks,
appeared before the Planning Commission, Mr. Fisher stated that
subsequent to the April 22,1993, Commission meeting that County
-11-
z�
COAMUSSIONERS
4A0 G��Or��'d`Ldfs
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
May 6, 1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
staff met with individuals regarding their desirability of an
equestrian trail on the Westbay parcel, and also that the County
would consider their environmental concerns. He presented the
County's amended proposal to accommodate the public's concerns,
as follows.
Mr. Fisher referred to the exhibit area, and he described the area
within the Westbay parcel that would provide the equestrian and
pedestrian trail. The trail would terminate at the highest point
along Irvine Avenue where there is the greatest vista point and a
logical turn -around area. Below the vista point is a drainage
channel (Santa Isabel Channel) which creates a barrier for trail
use; therefore, it would be difficult to bring the equestrian trail
further south and it introduces more opportunities for erosion and
animal waste would be carried into the drainage channel and into
the bay. Since continuation of the trail south of the vista point
should not provide a greater equestrian experience it would appear
to be a logical terminus. Mr. Fisher stated that the County along
with other cities has tried to complete a trail system that would
extend up San Diego Creek, to Peters Creek, through Irvine,
Tustin, Orange and into Irvine Regional Park. A second
connection would be up San Diego Creek in Irvine, through
Mason Regional Park, Bommer and Shady Canyons, and to the
County's Laguna Coast Wilderness Park.
Mr. Fisher addressed the Interpretative Center. He said that it is
incorrect that 50 percent of the Center would be allocated for
office space inasmuch as 10 percent would be devoted for office
use and the balance is for exhibits, meeting rooms, research, and
supplies area. The estimated cost of $1.8 million for the Center
includes the parking area and the entry structure. A $1 million
donation has been made for the construction of the Center. The
parking plan provides parking for 100 automobiles. The Center
and the parking lot would displace approximately 1 acre of the
entire property or .6 percent of the park and .01 percent of the
Upper Bay complex that the Center is intended to serve. Of the
footprint, 10,000 square feet of the Center will be partially
subterranean with a natural soil and vegetative cover. Slides were
-12-
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
May 6, 1993
LOLL CALL
INDEX
then shown to the Commission displaying the concept for the
proposed Center that is based on the Anza Borrego State Park
Interpretative Center.
The total cost of the park is estimated at $6.2 million, including
the $1.8 million Interpretative Center, trails at $350,000., repair
and control of erosion at $600,000., revegetation and irrigation
needed to establish the plant material at $2.5 million. Long term
maintenance will be paid for by funds from the residents of the
Harbors, Beaches, and Parks Service area and from tideland
revenues from the Newport Dunes.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy
regarding dogs on leashes, Mr. Fisher explained that the plan for
the park provides for dogs on leashes except for the pedestrian
trails. Commissioner Pomeroy concluded that dogs would not be
allowed on the blufftop trail but they would be allowed on the
equestrian portion of the Westbay area.
Commissioner Glover commented that Interpretative Centers
normally represent thousands of acres wherein she pointed out
that the Anza Borrega Interpretative Center is 7,000 square feet.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover
regarding the equestrian/pedestrian trail, Mr. Fisher explained
that pedestrians would be allowed to use the bicycle trail in
addition to the equestrian trail.
Commissioner Gifford asked if the County discussed the expansion
of the equestrian trails and the concerns regarding ecology with
representatives of the City's Parks and Recreation Department
subsequent to the April 22, 1993, Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Fisher responded to the negative. Commissioner Gifford
asked if the equestrian trails that lead to Peters Canyon and
Laguna Wilderness are a shared trail system or exclusive
equestrian. Mr. Fisher explained that the trails consists of bicycle
trails, and equestrian/pedestrian trails. In response to a question
posed by Commissioner Gifford with respect to the parking plan,
Mr. Fisher explained that parking would be provided on University
-13-
�f�
COMMISSIONERS
OAp��Clpl';'s�dlp�S,
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
May 6,1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
Drive outside of the park, and 100 automobiles would be parked
on -site.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr..
Fisher explained that the 100 parking spaces would be for
employees and visitors to the Park.
Chairman Edwards -asked if in the attempt to preserve and support
the ecology of the Back Bay area, did the County take into
consideration the affect that the airplanes may have on the horses,
people, and the floor of the fauna of the area. Mr. Fisher
explained that although staff may not have made a specific
correlation of the factors, certainly that would be a part of the
existing environment. In response to a question posed by
Chairman Edwards, Commissioner Pomeroy stated that Borrego
Springs consists of 600,000 acres. Chairman Edwards addressed the
proposed size of the Interpretative Center and the size of the
regional park. Mr. Fisher explained that the park is 140 acres, and
the ecological reserve and the park combined are approximately
850 acres. The intent is that the regional park would work with
the ecological reserve and the Center will accommodate the Fish
and Game and the County Park Ranger staffs to interpret and
manage the entire area. Chairman Edwards stated that given that
the County has utilization of a building in the active part of the
Bay which is in excess of 1,000 square feet and the County is
proposing to construct an at least 8,000 square foot Center for
approximately 800 acres, it would appear that the Center would be
disproportionate when considering Borrego Springs. Mr. Fisher
explained that the proposed Center would accommodate many
more visitors than the Borrego Springs facility. Orange County
school children will be visiting the Center on a regular basis in the
midst of a very large populated area. The function of the Center
would be to try to provide some degree of control and direction of
how the site is used. If there would be a gateway for visitors to
the area there would be an opportunity to educate them to'
understand what they are visiting. Commissioner Merrill
concurred that there would be a vast difference between the
Borrego Springs facility from the proposed Center.
-14-
30
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTIM
May 6,1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
In response to a question posed by Commissioner DiSano, Mr.
Fisher explained that the requested increase in size of the
Interpretative Center from 8,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet
would accommodate the projected functions of the Center.
Mr. Hewicker requested that Mr. Fisher comment on the proposed
long "U" circulation pattern as opposed to the closed loop. Mr.
Fisher stated that the pedestrian trail extends around the bay to a
point where it terminates rather than connects to another trail
except for a minor connection, and one that would not be
encouraged on Constellation Drive, Staff considered the
possibility of making a connection between the bicycle and
equestrian trails near Irvine Avenue to the pedestrian trail on the
bluff top thinking that individuals may want to take the loop;
however, when staff considered the public's experience of being
close to the bay and away from autombiles why would they choose
to make a connection to where it would be impacted with
automobile noise and bicycles. Mr. Hewicker addressed the
existing road used by the Flood Control District to clean and
maintain the Flood Control channel, and if people use the road
and it is not shown on the plan then it would appear the people
would be trespassing. Mr. Fisher commented that the County
would discourage the use of the connection between the bicycle
trail to the pedestrian trail because the primary users would be
mountain bikers.
Commissioner Pomeroy described an area at the end of the trail
above the marshy area adjacent to Constellation Drive that has an
established path and has a spectacular view of the bay. Mr. Fisher
stated that it is feasible that the area has a high biological value
and that may be the reason why the foregoing trail was not
perpetuated. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the path creates
a natural loop at the end of the trail. Mr. Fisher explained that
the area consists of habitat values that are significant: vernal pools,
and gnatcatchers, etc. Chairman Edwards and Commissioner
Pomeroy discussed the issue of standing water in the area;
however, Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the area provides a
natural loop and the path is the closest to the bay because it is
-15-
�I
Cor4MSSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
May 6, 1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
close to the bluffs. Mr. Douglas stated that a portion of the trail
is within the ecological reserve and the County may not have the
authority to establish a trail at the foregoing site.
Commissioner Ridgeway addressed the Back Bay Drive. Mr.
Fisher explained that the County originally proposed that Back
Bay Drive be integrated into the park and that the road be given
more of a recreational and pedestrian character than it currently
has with automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, etc. and the County
would maintain the road. In response to questions posed by
Commissioner Ridgeway, Don Webb, City Engineer, explained
that Back Bay Drive is a one-way road, and is open 24 hours a
day. Mr. Webb explained that the City Council has considered
several and to date the Council has not recommended
proposals
a closure. The Commission currently has no function regarding
Back Bay Drive. Commissioner Ridgeway commented that there
is an inherent conflict between the regional park and Back Bay
Drive wherein Mr. Webb disagreed.
Chairman Edwards referred to the letters that were submitted to
the Commission prior to the public hearing.
Mr. Craig Bluell, 2282 Waterman Way, Costa Mesa, appeared
before the Planning Commission. He referred to his letter
expressing his concern regarding the continued secured future use
of the public resource, and that access to the park be of utmost
importance to the facility. He did not object to the development
the that the loop trail system be maintained. He
with exception
said that the loop trail system would provide a different
experience, i.e. a different path and a different opportunity for the
individuals. In reference to the trail previously addressed by
Commissioner Pomeroy at Constellation Drive, Mr. Bluell stated
that inasmuch as the subject project is a coordinated effort that
the County could work out an agreement with State Fish and
Game to use the trail, and particularly since there is a significant
elevation difference between the bay and the location of the trail.
There is not only a vertical separation but there is also a
horizontal separation. It was explained to Mr. Bluell by the Fish
-16-
'3'Z
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
May 6,1993
ZOLL CALL
INDEX
and Game Department that if the trail is so significant that it
could be considered for use by the public. There are numerous
signs posted along the area of the Upper Day that allows hiking
and running in the established trails in the park area. He,
addressed the importance of preserving the lower trails to protect
the habitat. The decomposed granite surface that will be used for
the proposed trails will be excellent for jogging.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford, Mr.
Bluell indicated that he could not foresee a problem on the
proposed shared trails.
Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the regional parks have a
combined access of hiking, jogging, dirt biking, and equestrian use,
wherein he indicated that it was his experience that the uses co -
habitat in harmony.
Assistant City Attorney Flory explained that to the extent that the
trails are not connected or coordinated with the City owned
easements and trails, the Commission has minimal jurisdiction
over the trails: their use, where they are going to go, and what
they arc going to be used for. The concept of inner -governmental
immunities affects the ability of the City or the Commission to
make the land use decisions as detailed as they might be in other
situations. Chairman Edwards concluded that the Commission can
consider general macro -recommendations with regard to land use.
Mr. Hewicker addressed the three easements controlled by the
City and County wherein he indicated that the County is proposing
to take two cross -easements that are relocatable and put them in
one location adjacent to University Drive and not provide a
second crossing further south. He asked if it is a good idea to
have one connection at the top of the park parallel to University
Drive or should there be two connections as they currently exist;
therefore, creating a loop.
Mr. Wayne Koluvek, 610 Tustin Avenue, appeared before the
Planning Commission. He stated that the bay does not exist as it
once did wherein he explained that the impact usage has an affect
-17-
3�
COMMISSIONERS
MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
May 6, 1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
on the habitat, and if the trails would be limited there would be
a reduction in impact. He cited reasons why the restoration of the
bay would protect the native vegetation and habitat. The 10,000
square foot Interpretative Center is needed for the volunteers,
inasmuch as the existing facility is too small. Mr. Koluvek
submitted letters to the Commission.
Mr. Mike Murphy, appeared before the Planning Commission to
express his support of the Upper Newport Bay as it exists. He
suggested that the County consider leasing space in a structure
that exists adjacent to the subject site instead of constructing an
Interpretative Center and parking lot. The proposed Center would
increase the number of people visiting the area. Commissioner
Ridgeway supported Mr. Murphy's idea of utilizing adjoining
structures for an Interpretative Center; however, he said that after
he researched the idea he discovered that the idea was not
feasible.
In response to comments posed by Commissioner DiSano, Mr.
Murphy explained that it was his opinion that the Upper Newport
Bay Regional Park is safe.
Mr. Jim Cokas, 3438 Irvine Avenue, appeared before the Planning
Commission to support the County's plan for the management of
the park, and the Interpretative Center. He expressed his concern
regarding the exodus of the wildlife in the area. The housing
developments have cut off their transit routes and more people are
using the bay for recreational purposes in an unregulated fashion.
Ms. Marilee Terrell,1725 Port Charles Place, appeared before the
Planning Commission to oppose the proposed project and to
express her desire to preserve the environment. She addressed the
expense of the project and the entrance fees that would be
charged to the public to use the park. She expressed her concern
that the development of the Interpretative Center would drive
away the wildlife in the area. Ms. Terrell questioned why dogs on
a leash would be restricted in the area.
-18-
3q
COMMISSIONERS
�t,. �p�W10%\0
c
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES'
May 6, 1993
ROLL CALL
WDEX
The Commission recessed at 9:07 p.m. and reconvened at 9:17
p.m.
Ms. Patty Huber, representing the Orange County Department of
Education and Board of Education, appeared before the Planning
Commission to state that the Interpretative Center and the
regional park would be an educational benefit for students of all
ages in Southern California. Commissioner Glover asked Ms.
Huber if the Interpretative Center would be an opportunity to use
the facility as a natural museum. Ms. Huber concurred wherein
she explained that the Upper Newport Bay is unique not just
biologically but historically and the Center would incorporate
natural history.
Mr. Hewicker explained that the 8,000 square foot facility was
approved in the Amendment to the General Plan in 1988.
Ms. Denise Sullivan, 34 Baycrest Court, appeared before the
Planning Commission. She submitted a petition with over 350
signatures requesting that the Commission continue the request of
the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park to June 10, 1993, so the
option can be clarified and so the Commission can make a well-
informed decision. The Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve
adjacent to the park is a very sensitive and important area. The
Upper Newport Bay Regional Park surrounds and should honor
the ecological reserve but the current recommended plan is not
acceptable. They requested additional time so as to make the best
possible recommendation to the Newport Beach City Council. She
acknowledged the County's revised proposed project and the
residents' concerns regarding the equestrian and bicycle trails.
The biggest impact and one of great concern is the enlargement
of the Interpretative Center and the parking area. In response to
a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Ms. Sullivan replied
that her primary concern is the Center and the parking area.
Ms. Donna McMeikan, 20422 Bayview Avenue, appeared before
the Planning Commission to express her concerns regarding the
"Planned Community" zoning. She indicated that many people
-19-
35
COMMISSIONERS
c� l�'s' `'Pos'o
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
May 6, 1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
would feel more comfortable with an "Open Space" zoning
designation inasmuch as it would not leave any options open.
Ms. Penny Pilgrim, 3436 Irvine Avenue, appeared before the,
Commission to support the proposed County plan and
Planning
the 10,000 square foot Interpretative Center. She stated that she
questions the importance of the recreational needs when it is at
the expense of the wildlife. The existing facilities are not adequate
for the number of tours that are currently being provided.
Mr. Frank Robinson,1007 Nottingham Road, appeared before the
Planning Commission. The 8,000 square foot Interpretative Center
was originally suggested without any study for the project, and the
10,000 square feet came into existence after the architect was
hired and worked out the design of the needs. The purpose of the
minimized trails is to consolidate as broad and as large an area as
possible to do the maximum amount of restoration for the wildlife
system, and that is much easier in large areas than in small spaces.
Mr. Gus Chabre, 1130 East Balboa Boulevard, appeared before
the Planning Commission, and he expressed his support of the
10,000 square foot Interpretative Center. He is a volunteer with
the Upper Newport Bay Reserve group, and as a group they are
volunteering over 9,000 hours of time or nearly double from when
the group started a few years ago. There is a great need to expose
the park to the public inasmuch as it will have an influence on the
children who are not exposed to the great resources.
Mr. Dean Cheley, 15201 Brighton Street, Westminster, appeared
before the Planning Commission as a high school student and one
of the naturalists in the program. He stated that the regional park
allows the students to have a hands-on experience, and he
expressed his support of the 10,000 square foot Interpretative
In
Center if it would provide the students with more information.
response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Cheley
stated that he is a volunteer naturalist with the program and he
works closely with the rangers.
-20-
3�
COMMI89IONNR8
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
May 6,1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
Mr. Frank Selby, 307 Catalina, appeared before the Planning
Commission as a volunteer naturalist at the regional park on it
daily basis. He expressed his objections of the equestrian trails
and riders. In response to a question posed by Chairman
Edwards, Mr. Selby explained that the 10,000 square foot
Interpretative Center is a compromise and the existing facility is
inadequate.
Ms. Shirley Green,10211 Cliff Drive, Huntington Beach, appeared
before the Planning Commission as the tour guide coordinator for
the regional park, and coordinates the tours for the school
children. She has scheduled 145 school tours during the past 18
months and the average size of the tour is approximately 60
children. Ms. Green explained the experiences that the school
children are provided when they visit the park and the benefits
they would have from an Interpretative Center.
Mr. Bill Anderson, 2089 Orange Avenue, Costa Mesa, appeared
before the Planning Commission. He addressed his concerns
regarding the proposal to restrict dog owners with their dogs
whereby he commented that the back bay belongs to dog owners
and dogs as much as they do to other users.
Mr. John Scholl, Wildlife Naturalist with the Department of Fish
and Game, assigned to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological
Reserve. For the past four years the County of Orange and the
Fish and Game Department have worked together to develop an
outdoor education program, and a volunteer program with the idea
that as the number of school children are increased it is necessary
to have an educational center for supplies and it would provide an
opportunity to meet program needs and schedules. He
emphasized the importance of the Upper Newport Bay Estuary
wherein he indicated that it is the largest estuary in Southern
California.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr.
Scholl stated that the trail at Constellation Drive previously
addressed by Commissioner Pomeroy is currently not a designated
-21-
3'l7
CO.MNIISSIONERS
OHO �CtOf�OdlG9rS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
May 6, 1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
trail and restoration work needs to be done in the area. There is
an ongoing problem with people letting dogs off leash into habitat
that is critical and needs to be protected. A portion of the area
is in the ecological reserve and a wildlife biologist would have to.
determine what impact the trail would have.
Commissioner DiSano addressed the dirt road above the Santa
Isabella channel and the fence and gate that currently exist
wherein he asked if a path could be connected from the pedestrian
path to the equestrian path.
Commissioner Ridgeway stated that it was his impression that the
public is not allowed in the ecological reserve. Mr. Scholl stated
that there is an opportunity for guided tours within close proximity
into a part of the ecological reserve; however, the Department is
protective of the reserve because of the habitat that exists there.
Mr. Scholl stated that there are no designated trails entering the
ecological reserve with the exception of Back Bay Drive that runs
along the edge of the estuary system. Mr. Scholl, Commissioner
Ridgeway and Mr. Webb discussed how the estuary will be
maintained in consideration of the watershed that is above it, i.e.:
the silting and the ongoing cooperative effort between
governmental agencies. Commissioner Ridgeway concluded that
if something is not done then the estuary becomes landfill and
then what good is the park.
Commissioner Pomeroy concluded there is an established trail at
bay level in Westbay that is below the bluff and there is access
from the wood bridge. The trail travels below the bluff with the
exception of 100 yards. He stated that approximately 90 percent
of the bluff is covered with natural vegetation without massive
erosion. Mr. Scholl explained that as there is more volunteer
there will be designated trails as a part of the ecological
power
reserve to add to the County trails. Commissioner Pomeroy stated
that portions of the trail could be opened up without damage to
the ecology. In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Ridgeway, Mr. Scholl explained that the County is not currently
_22_
L
CO1v MOSIONERe
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
May 6, 1993
LOLL CALL
INDEX
developing a trail at the bays edge with the Fish and Game
Department.
Ms. Frances Gioia, 392 Sunrise Circle, Costa Mesa, appeared
before the Planning Commission. She said that the Interpretative
Center would be impractical for the public that is using Back Bay
Drive. She pointed out that toursarecurrently being conducted on
Lastbluff Drive and the proposal would shift the traffic to the
Westbay area. In reference to the trail at the bottom of the bluff
proposed by Commissioner Pomeroy, she explained that the trail
is the quietest area on the Westbay parcel for the public to use.
Mr. Jeff Hamilton, 20102 Cypress Street, appeared before the
Planning Commission. He described his experiences as a National
Park Service Ranger in sensitive environmental areas and he
indicated that the parks did not have Interpretative Centers
because it was not the philosophy of the park service. He stated
that the students need hands-on experiences in the field and not
an indoor Interpretative Center.
Mr. Jim Dixon, 2115 Indian Springs Lane, appeared before the
Planning Commission. He indicated that access to the park has
been limited to University Avenue with minor access off of
Constellation Drive. The public has been provided access to the
park by walking directly across Irvine Avenue to the park and it
would be inconvenient to be forced to go to University Avenue.
Ms. Martha Wetzel, 13742 Onkyha, Irvine, appeared before the
Planning Commission. She commended the County for recognizing
the public's concern requesting an equestrian trail on Westbay
parcel. The trail satisfies the Orange County Master Plan of
Riding and Hiking Trail goals which calls for establishment of new
trails as logical extensions of existing trails, especially where local
demand is high. She requested a verification from the County that
the extension would be shown as Trail No. 44 in both the text and
graphics of the Orange County Master Plan of hiding and Hiking
Trails.
-23-
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
May 6, 1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
The public hearing was closed at this time.
Commissioner Pomeroy asked if there would be time restrictions
for use of the bluff top trail. Mr. Fisher reappeared before the.
Planning Commission to explain that the park hours have been
established from 7:00 a.m. to sunset; however, there will be people
that will access the park before and after the designated hours.
The County does not want to encourage the public to come to the
park at any hour for safety purposes. Commissioner Pomeroy
suggested that the hours be amended from sunrise to sunset. Mr.
Fisher explained that the hours of operation are intended to define
when the park will be staffed and when the facilities will be
available, and there is no definition of open but unstaffed.
Commissioner Pomeroy asked if dogs on leashes will have use of
the bluff top trail. Mr. Fisher responded that it would not be
under the County's proposal; however, the dogs would have use of
the equestrian trail on the Westbay parcel. Commissioner
Pomeroy asked if the County considered access to the lower bay
area in cooperation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Mr. Fisher explained that the issue was asked of the County's
biologist and the Fish and Game Department has concluded that
access should not be provided to the public.
Commissioner Glover asked why there is not a walking entrance
from Irvine Avenue to the regional park. Mr. Fisher explained
that the County was strongly advised on the issue by the County
Traffic Engineer and it is an understanding that the City Traffic
Engineer concurs with that decision. The access would encourage
people to dangerously run across the street and the County would
be establishing a liability.
Commissioner Ridgeway asked why the County has not taken an
active role in developing a trail along the bay. Mr. Fisher
explained that the biological consultants and the Fish and Game
Department have indicated that there would be a problem for
wildlife. In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Ridgeway, Mr. Fisher stated that the proposed bicycle trail along
Irvine Avenue has not been designed; however, the existing bicycle
-24-
L/U
COMMSSIONERS
CITY OF NEW PORT BEACH
MINUTES
Mav 6. 1993
TOLL CALL
INDEX
trail is immediately adjacent to the curb and gutter of Irvine
Avenue and the preliminary design moves the trail inward from
the present area. Commissioner Ridgeway and Mr. Fisher
discussed Commissioner Ridgeway's concerns that pedestrians
would not have access to a trail adjacent to Irvine Avenue whereby
Mr. Fisher indicated that the pedestrians would have access to the
bicycle trail in the park although there would not be a posted sign
indicating that the park is open. Mr. Fisher stated that if there
would be a problem concerning the pedestrians then the County
could modify the park opening ordinance to provide for a trail.
Mr. Hewicker explained that the property line between the edge
of Irvine Avenue and the park is 10 feet inside the face of curb,
and that the bikeway and pedestrian trail will meander between
back of curb and the inside edge of the park as it goes along
Irvine Avenue. Once the new trail is established then the asphalt
bicycle trail along Irvine Avenue will be removed. Commissioner
Ridgeway stated that he wanted to encourage a meandering trail;
however, he is requesting that the trail be open to the public 24
hours a day. Mr. Hewicker stated that if a bicyclist or pedestrian
are not able to use the new trail that parallels Irvine Avenue, then
the users would be forced to use the westside of Irvine Avenue.
Commissioner Merrill asked if it is the intention of the County to
include displays, replications, and audio visual items that will be
presented to the students in the Interpretative Center. Mr. Fisher
stated that the displays will depict everything that occurs in the
ecological reserve.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Ms.
Nancy Bruland, park ranger assigned to Upper Newport Bay
Regional Park, appeared before the Planning Commission, Ms.
Bruland stated that over 12,000 people participated in the
interpretative programs in 1992; however, there is no record of the
number of people that enter through the Westbluff parcel, the
Santa Ana Heights parcel, or the Eastbay parcel. She estimated
that an average of 1,800 walk-ins enter the park on a monthly
basis. The 12,000 people does not include the Orange County
Department of Education, the City of Anaheim, or the colleges.
-25-
COMMISSIONERS
�AO ��p�,tOr�O��drS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
May 6, '1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Ms.
Bruland explained that the program commences at Shellmaker
Island where her office is located. The individuals involved with
canoes, kayaking, or marine functions would take place off of
Shellmaker Island; however, walking tours would commence the
majority of the time from the Interpretative Center.
Mr. Webb said that the County Traffic Engineer made a
recommendation that no perpendicular connections be made
because there,could potentially be liability if a connection lined up
with the street and a pedestrian was injured crossing the street
because there are no controls at the intersections. In reference to
the City's records, Mr. Webb stated that there is no record that of
a pedestrian accident from the surrounding streets to the park. He
questioned the lack of perpendicular access into the park at least
in one or two different places. The City has a six acre parcel at
Monte Vista Avenue that could be considered for perpendicular
access, and would be in the middle of the park. Commissioner
Ridgeway pointed out that there would be a two foot wall at the
parameter of the park and it could be difficult for certain
individuals to climb over a two foot wall. Mr. Webb stated that
those concerns are design details that will be considered by the
City.
Commissioner Ridgeway referred to page 82, of the EIR, stating
that the current condition of Back Bay Drive does not conform to
safety standards and has potential liability problems.... and he
indicated that mitigation measures are recommended in the EIR
concerning the safety issues. He stated that it would be
irresponsible of the Commission not to make a recommendation
concerning the Back Bay Road. Commissioner Ridgeway made a
recommendation that there be a good faith attempt between the
County and the City to work out an agreement regarding safety
concerns and access on Back Bay Drive.
Commissioner Pomeroy addressed the High Intensity Alternative
in the EIR, page 116, wherein it states that it is the opinion of the
City of Newport Beach that the alternative may be superior to the
-26-
CO11 USSIONERS
MINUTES
CITY OF NE'WPORT BEACH
May 6, 1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
project because it affords the same human activity in the park that
currently exists. Mr. Douglas responded that it is the official staff
position to make no staff recommendation. Mr. Fisher stated that
the consultants that prepared the Ella sought an opinion from staff
regarding the issue and received that response to their question;
however, staff has now formulated a position at a later date as a
result of subsequent meetings.
Commissioner Pomeroy concluded that there is a conflict between
active and passive use and he questioned if that issue could be
resolved to the satisfaction of everyone. He suggested that the
Commission should accommodate to the highest degree possible
the preservation of open space and active use of the open space.
He commended the County for returning to the Commission with
an equestrian trail in the Westbay, and he supported the City's
concern about not having loop trails in the area. He would not
support the recommended plan without having loop trails that
make access more convenient, i.e. a method of connecting the
bicycle and equestrian hiking trail with the bluff top trail at the
southern end of the park otherwise the public will find a method
to enter the preserved area. He emphasized that there is no
reason why dogs cannot be on leashes on the bluff top trail. He
suggested that the County explore with the Department of Fish
and Game access to the lower bay providing it can be facilitated
without damaging the environment. He would not support hours
of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. if they would be posted
in that manner; however, he would support sunrise to sunset. He
supported the 10,000 square foot Interpretative Center inasmuch
as it would be planning for the future and it is important to the
entire 880 acre parcel.
Commissioner Glover acknowledged the County's revisions to the
project based on the concerns expressed during the April 22,1993,
Planning Commission public hearing, and the County's
recommendation of the Westbay equestrian trail. She indicated
she was opposed to an Interpretative Center, including the
approved 8,000 square foot Center. Primary concerns would be
-27-
COMMISSIONERS
�\000"� O
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
May 6, 1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
that the Center would include retail and office uses. The proposed
park is more of an urban park and, in the future years, will the
Center continue to grow so it can be larger. Will the Coastal
Commission require more than 100 parking spaces. Based on the.
number of people currently visiting the park, the traffic will be
moved from Jamboree Road to Irvine Avenue. She stated that the
facility will require employees, and unless the State of California,
County of Orange, and City of Newport Beach say "no", problems
will continue and the children will have many problems. The
classrooms are bulging over and it is difficult to educate the
children in the confines of a classroom wherein she indicated that
she has fiscal concerns.
Commissioner Ridgeway commented that he considered the EIR
inadequate and he stated that the following were not addressed in
the document: the watershed that flows into the Upper Bay
Ecological Reserve; he was not certain of the flights or expansion
of the airport; fuel coming into the plant life; the document
addressed flora and fauna in areas that were not in the park and
animal life at the University of Irvine. He requested that the Back
Bay Drive conflict be worked out. Inasmuch as the City of
Newport Beach owns six acres, and the park is in the Sphere of
Influence, the Commission has a function to make
recommendations to the City Council. He concurred with
statements made by others that the regional park is deteriorating;
he supports the loop trail, the equestrian trail, dogs on leashes on
trails, replanting, the zoning should ultimately be amended to
Open Space, and support a trail along the bay on the Westbay
parcel to the extent that it does not upset the habitat.
Commissioner Ridgeway stated that there is no adequate
populating using the park to support a 10,000 square foot
Interpretative Center, and an 8,000 square foot structure would be
adequate. If the same parking ratio would be used then the
lot would correspondingly be reduced to 80 autombiles,
parking
it would reduce the land area by about 10,000 square feet.
and
He suggested that the parking lot consist of landscape islands with
the native vegetation.
-28-
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
r
MINUTES
May 6,1993
ROLL CALL
MEX
Commissioner Gifford commended the County for addressing the
concerns of the people. She suggested that the Commission not
attempt to micro -manage the regional park. There may be a great
deal of degradation in the environment and it may be necessary to,
back off to permit restoration and allow the habitat to be restored;
however, the area could open to the public more as appropriate.
She would not support the issues of where the dogs should be
allowed on leashes, or exactly what the posted hours should be,
She supported the Interpretative Center based on the amount of
education would be provided about the bay and the contribution
it would make to the future preservation of the area. The public's
usage figures should determine the size of the Center so as to
adequately serve the area. The office use would be limited and
the remaining area would be effectively used for the volunteers
and for educational purposes. She supported the basic plan;
however, she would not support the recommendations that tread
into the area of micro -management. Commissioner Ridgeway and
Commissioner Gifford discussed the issue of the Commission
making recommendations of micro -management.
Motion
*
Commissioner Pomeroy concurred that the Commission should not
micro -manage. Motion was made to recommend to City Council
Environmental Impact Report No. 525 (Resolution No. 1328),
General Plan Amendment No. 92-3(E) (Resolution No. 1329),
Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 31(Resolution No.1330),
Amendment No. 779 (Resolution No. 1331), and Use Permit No.
3488 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", subject
to the following modifications: that a provision be made for loop
trails to provide access from Irvine Avenue trails to the bluff top
trail; that dogs on leashes be allowed on the bluff top trail; and
that the County be encouraged to work with the Fish and Game
Department to provide access from the regional park to the lower
bay.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr.
Hewicker confirmed that the equestrian trail on the Westbay
parcel would be included in the foregoing County proposal.
-29-
y5
COMUSSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
May 6, 1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
Commissioner Ridgeway requested an amendment to the motion
that would include a mutual agreement between the City and the
County on Back Bay Road. Mr. Hewicker explained that the
concern is an on -going issue that is being considered between the.
County and the City. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that the City
Council will be charged with certifying the EIR, and the EIR
states that a permit cannot be issued without working out the
agreement.
Ms. Flory explained that the City is a responsible agency and does
not approve the EIR in final form. The Commission is making a
determination on the zoning considerations, and the issues of trails
and how they would be used can be made as a recommendation
but cannot be made as a condition of approval. The EIR is not an
approval of the project, it is looking at alternatives and making
recommendations of the alternatives in the EIR. Chairman
Edwards clarified that the Commission is not the decision making
body with regards to the EIR, that is a County purview. Mr.
Douglas explained that the EIR contains a mitigation measure
regarding Back Bay Drive, and following a discussion with the
County, Mr. Fisher recommended that the mitigation measure be
deleted from the City's approval action because at the time the
EIR was written and the mitigation measure was inserted, the
County felt that the issue would have been resolved by the time it
came to the City; however, the issue has not been resolved and the
two legal questions regarding CEQA would be "would deletion of
the mitigation measure cause any significant adverse
environmental affects, and would the deletion of the mitigation
measure cause a substantial change to the project description. A
"yes answer to either of those questions would require that the
EIR be revised and recirculated. The question to the Commission
and the City Council is would any significant adverse affects result
from deleting it, or would it be a substantial change to the project.
Substitute
Substitute motion was made to recommend to the City Council
Motion
*
General Plan Amendment No. 92-3(E), Local Coastal Program
Amendment No. 31, Amendment No. 779, and Use Permit No.
3488, subject to Exhibit "A". Commissioner Merrill stated that he
-30-
�6
COivu SSIONERS
``4.��o4ct�R
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
May 6. 1993
tOLL CALL
INDEX
could not support the recommendations as stated in the original
motion; therefore, he suggested that the Commission straw vote
the recommendations as stated in Exhibit "A".
Commissioner Gifford supported the substitute motion as
requested by Commissioner Merrill.
Commissioner Merrill suggested that the project be approved with
a Planned Community designation with the recommendation that
the Open Space designation be considered in the future.
Chairman Edwards stated he would not support the substitute
motion because he does not support the size of the Interpretative
Center.
Ayes
*
*
Substitute motion was voted on, MOTION DENIED.
Noes
*
*
*
*
Motion
Commissioner Pomeroy withdrew his original motion so as to take
Withdrawn
*
straw votes of recommendations to the City Council.
Lower Hay
Straw vote was taken regarding access to the lower bay provided
Access
there is cooperation between the County and the Fish and Game
Yes
*
*
*
*
Department. In response to a question posed by Commissioner
No
*
*
*
Gifford, Chairman Edwards explained that the intent is to make
a recommendation to explore the idea.
Loop
Trail
Straw vote was taken regarding loop traits.
Yes
No
**
*
*
**
Straw vote was taken regarding revised equestrian trails as
Equestria
proposed by the County.
Yes
No
*
Straw vote was taken to redesignate the Planned Community
Rezoning
zoning to Open Space zoning.
Yes
No
**
*
*
**
Straw vote was taken regarding accommodation between the City
Hack Hay
and the County regarding the Back Bay Road. Commissioner
Yes
*
*
*
*
*
*
Ridgeway recommended that the issue be worked out prior to the
certification of the EIR and the approval of the entire projeeL
-31-
COMMISSIONERS
�69�111P i'04-ce0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
May 6, 1993
ZOLL CALL
INDEX
Mr. Douglas explained that the mitigation measures states that
prior to issuance of building and grading permits or construction
on the park, the issue of Back Bay Drive has to be resolved. In
response to Ms. Flory, Commissioner Ridgeway explained that his.
request is to make a recommendation to the City Council to
address the issue now and not later.
Dogs on
Leash
*
*
*
*
Straw vote was taken regarding dogs on leash.
Yes
*
No
Straw vote was taken regarding the Interpretative Center. (Green
Interpret
light approved the 10,000 square feet, White light approved less
Center
*
*
*
*
than 8,000 square feet, and Red light approved the 8,000 square
Green
White
*
*
feet).
Red
Motion made to recommend to City Council Environmental
Motion
*
was
Impact Report No. 525 (Resolution No. 1328), General Plan
Amendment No. 92-3(E) (Resolution No. 1329), Local Coastal
Program Amendment No. 31 (Resolution No. 1330), Amendment
No. 779 (Resolution No. 1331), and Use Permit No. 3488 subject
to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", including the results
of the straw vote recommendations.
In response to a question posed by Mr. Douglas, Commissioner
Pomeroy explained that the loop trail would provide access from
the bluff top trail to Irvine Avenue.
All Ayes
Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
Finding:
That the Planning Commission has reviewed Final EIR No. 525,
prepared by the County of Orange as Lead Agency, and finds that
it satisfies the requirements of CEQA for the City of Newport
Beach in its capacity as a -Responsible Agency.
-32-
COM1 SSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
May 6. 1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
Mitigation Measures,
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading,
the construction documents for the Interpretive Center,,
including the final geotechnical report, shall be submitted
to the Manager, Development Services. The report will be
based on 80-scale maps and will primarily involve
assessment of potential soil related constraints and hazards,
such as landslides, settlement, liquefaction, or related
seismic impacts where determined to be appropriate by the
County of Orange. The report shall also include evaluation
of potentially expansive soils and recommend construction
procedures and/or design criteria to minimize the effects of
these soils on the proposed project, as well as an analysis
of soils properties to determine any existence of soluble
sulfate in the soil. The report shall also establish
foundation design parameters. This report shall
recommend appropriate mitigation measures for the
grading and shall be completed in a manner specified by
the County of Orange Grading Code.
2. Prior to the award of a construction or grading contract, the
contract plans shall be submitted to the Program Manager,
Transportation Planning including requirements to meet:
SCAQMD Rule 403 which will require watering during
earth moving operations, soil binders to be spread on
construction sets or unpaved roads and/or parking areas,
street sweeping of roads adjacent to the project site, that
trucks be washed off before leaving the construction site,
that construction equipment be properly maintained and
tuned, and that grading be suspended during second stage
(or worse) smog alerts.
3. Prior to the award of a construction or grading contract, the
contract plans shall be submitted to the Program Manager,
Transportation Planning including requirements that
construction personnel should be provided with preferential
parking for carpools, bicycle racks, and free bus passes.
-33-
COMMISSIONERS
AF �ofo�v�s
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
May 6, 1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
Parking for construction personnel should not interfere with
traffic flows. Personnel parking and construction vehicle
staging areas shall be placed in a manner to avoid sensitive
resources on the property. Construction affecting roadways
should be performed during non -peak hours. A flag person
should be provided during times when construction affects
roadways , and one lane in each direction should remain
open.
4. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy,
the following measures shall be incorporated into the
project in a manner meeting the approval of the Program
Manager, Transportation Planning:
a. Encourage the use of alternate transportation modes
by promoting public transit usage and providing
secure bicycle facilities.
b. Provide mass transit accommodations such as bus
turnout lanes, park and ride areas, and bus shelters.
C. Provide energy -conserving lighting.
d. Provide landscaping with native drought resistant
plant species to shade buildings during summer.
5. Prior to the execution of a construction or grading contract,
the following drainage studies shall be submitted to and
approved by the Manager, Harbors, Beaches & Parks/Parks
Design:
a. A drainage study of the project site including
diversions, off -site areas that drain onto and/or
through the project, and justification for any
diversions; and
-34-
5�
COMM OSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
May 6, 1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
b. A drainage study demonstrating that proposed
drainage patterns will not overload existing storm
drains; and
c. Detailed drainage studies indicating how the project
grading in conjunction with the drainage conveyance
system including applicable swales, channels, street
flows, catch basins, storm drains, and flood water
retarding will allow building pads to be safe from
inundation from rainfall which may be expected
from all storms up to and including the theoretical
100-year flood.
6. Prior to the execution of a construction or grading contract,
the contract and plans, including the following
improvements, shall be submitted for approval to the
Manager, Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Parks Design.
a. All provision for surface drainage; and
b. All necessary storm drain facilities extending to a
satisfactory point of disposal for the proper control
and disposal of storm runoff.
Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and
occupancy, said improvements shall be constructed
in a manner meeting the approval of the Manager,
EMA/Construction Division.
7. Prior to the initiation of grading, the applicant (County or
contractor) shall obtain approval of an NPDES permit from
the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Said permit
shall specify appropriate storm water Best Management
Practices to be incorporated into the project to ensure an
acceptable level of control of non -point pollution sources.
8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading,
the construction documents shall be submitted for the
review and approval of the Manager, EMA/Harbors,
-35-
SI
CobZUSSIONERS
c�� o�ctc�.p°'Po�'Po�o
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
May 6, 1993
30LL CALL
INDEX
Beaches, and Parks/Parks Design. Said plans shall indicate
the following:
a. Landscaping and trails are sited in such a manner as.
to not disturb the scattered populations of Southern
Tarplant. Individual plants to be disturbed shall be
transplanted to appropriate habitat; and
b. If establishment of the "vernal pool" is undertaken,
it shall be done in a manner so as to not disturb the
hydrologic or vegetative character of the area,
especially the limited alkaline wetland habitat
adjacent to the proposed "Vernal Pool"; and
C. The "Vista del Playa" access shall be relocated such
that the California Gnatcatcher habitat which it
currently crosses is not disturbed.
d. The trails serving the Interpretive Center shall be
relocated, or appropriate buffer provided, to protect
the burrowing owl nesting site.
9. For any archaeological site which may be adversely
impacted, a County -certified archaeologist shall be retained
by the applicant to perform a subsurface, .test level
investigation and surface collection as appropriate. The
test level report evaluating the site shall include discussion
of significance (depth, nature, condition and extent of the
resources), final mitigation recommendations and cost
estimates. Excavated finds shall be offered to the County
of Orange, or designee, on a first refusal basis. Applicant
may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that
they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless
said finds are of special significance, or a museum in
Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display
them at this time, in which case items shall be donated to
County, or designee. Final mitigation shall be carried out
based upon the recommendations and a determination as
-36-
5L
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
May 6, 1993
LOLL CALL
INDEX
to the site's disposition by the Manager, ENIA/Harbors,
Beaches, and Parks/Program Planning Division. Possible
determinations include, but are not limited to, preservation,
salvage, partial salvage or no mitigation necessary.
Prior to award of any construction or grading contract, the
contract and plans shall be provided to the Chief,
EMA/Regulation/Grading Section, including written
evidence that a County -certified archaeologist has been
retained, shall be present at the pre -grading conference,
shall establish procedures for archaeological resource
surveillance, and shall establish procedures for temporarily
halting or redirecting work to permit the salvage, sampling,
identification, and evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate.
If additional or unexpected archaeological features are
discovered, the archaeologist shall report such findings to
the Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Program
Planning Division. If the archaeological resources are
found to be significant, the archaeological observer shall
determine appropriate actions for exploration and/or
salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the County of
Orange, or designee, on a first refusal basis. Applicant may
retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they
will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said
finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange
County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at
this time, in which case items shall be donated to County,
or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and
disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval
of the Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and
Parks/Program Planning Division.
10. Prior to award of any construction or grading contract, the
contract and plans shall be provided to the Chief,
EMA/Regulation/Grading Section, including written
evidence that a County -certified paleontologist has been
retained to conduct pregrading salvage, observe any grading
activities, salvage fossils as necessary, and prepare a
-37-
53
CO,MNIISSIONERS
O
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
May 6, 1993
INDEX
ROLL CALL
catalogue of the exposed resources. The paleontologist
shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall
establish procedures for paleontological resource
surveillance, and shall establish procedures for temporarily.
halting or redirecting work to permit the salvage, sampling,
identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major
paleontological resources are discovered, which require
long-term halting or redirecting of grading, the
paleontologist shall report such findings to the Manager,
EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Program Planning
Division. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate
actions to ensure proper exploration and/or salvage.
Excavated finds shall be offered to the County of Orange,
or designee, on a first refusal basis. Applicant may retain
said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be
properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are
of special significance, or a museum in Orange County
indicates a desire to study and/or display them at this time,
in which case items shall be donated to County, or
designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and
disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval
of the Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and
Parks/Program Planning Division. The paleontologist shall
submit a follow-up report for approval by the Manager,
EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Program Planning
Division, which shall include the period of inspection,
methodology, an analysis of the artifacts found, a catalogue
of artifacts, and their present repository.
11. Prior to issuance of a building permit including grading, for
the Interpretive Center, plans shall be submitted for the
review and approval of the Manager, EMA/Harbors,
Beaches and Parks/Parks Design and the Newport Beach
Building Director. Said plans shall demonstrate compliance
with the City of Newport Beach 24/28-foot height limit,
shall be designedso as to minimize adverse impacts to
public views from Irvine Avenue and shall indicate that
-38-
5�
COMMISSIONERS
CIrT'Y OF NEWPORT BEACH
r
MINUTES
May 6. 1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
non -reflective glass shall be used on all windows
overlooking Upper Newport Bay.
12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading,
the construction documents shall be submitted for approval
to the Manager, Development Services and the Nenort
Beach Building Director for the area surrounding the
Interpretive Center, ensuring that the parking lot shall be
landscaped, equipped for irrigation, and improved as stated
below:
a. Preliminary Plan - Prior to the issuance of a building
permit, a preliminary landscape plan, indicating use
of native and drought tolerant species, and a cost
estimate shall be submitted for the review and
approval of the Manager, Subdivision Division.
b. Detailed Plan - Prior to the initiation of
construction, a detailed landscape plan shall be
submitted to and approved by the Manager,
Subdivision Division and the Newport Beach Public
Works Department Detailed plans shall show the
detailed landscViing and irrigation design, and the
preservation of views from Irvine Avenue.
C. Installation Certification - Prior to the issuance of
final certificates of use and occupancy, said
improvements shall be installed and shall be
certified by a licensed landscape architect as having
been installed in accordance with the approved
detailed plans. Said certification shall be furnished
in writing to the Manager, EMA/Public
Works/Construction Division and the Newport
Beach Building Director.
13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading
the County shall submit an application to the City of
Newport Beach for amendment of the City's General Plan
-39-
55
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
May 6, 1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
and Local Coastal Program to accommodate the 10,000
square foot Interpretive Center as proposed. After
approval by the City, said approvals and an application for
a Coastal Development Permit shall be referred to the.
State Coastal Commission for approval.
14. Prior to the award of a construction or grading contract,
whichever occurs first, a plan for the ultimate use and
configuration of Back Bay Drive shall be submitted for the
review and approval of the Director, EMA/Transportation
and the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer. Said plan
shall consider, at a minimum, the following:
a. access controls (e.g., gates, etc.)
b. hours of use
C. vehicle connections to the Eastbluff area
d. ultimate pavement cross-section
e. bicycle access.
15. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading,
an access and parking plan for the Interpretive Center shall
be submitted for the review and approval of the Director,
EMA/Transportation and the City of Newport Beach
Traffic Engineer. Said plan shall indicate that access and
parking have been designed to appropriate standards for
sight distance, parking and accessways, bus and vehicle
turn -outs, etc.
16. Construction activities shall be conducted in accordance
with the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, which
limits the hours of construction and excavation work to 7:00
a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction,
remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting,
plastering, or any other related building activity, operate
any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which
-40-
h�
cOMMISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
r
MINUTES
May 6. 1993
tOLL CALL
INDEX
produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person
of normal sensitivitywho works or resides in the vicinity, on
any Sunday or on any holiday.
17. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading,
the construction documents shall be submitted for approval
to the Manager, Development Services, including written
evidence that:
a. All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or
mobile, operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling
shall be equipped with properly operating and
maintained mufflers.
b. All operations shall comply with Orange County
Codified Ordinance Division 6 (Noise Control).
C. Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be
located as far as practicable from dwellings.
B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92 3(E)
Adopt Resolution No. 1329 recommending City Council
approval of General Plan Amendment 92-3(E).
C. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO.31
Adopt Resolution No. 1330 recommending City Council
approval of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 31,
D. AMENDMENT NO 779
Adopt Resolution No. 1331 recommending City Council
approval of Amendment No. 779.
E. USE PERMIT NO, 3488:
-41-
y�
COMMISSIONERS
MINUTES
\N160
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
May 6, 1993
LOLL CALL
INDEX
Findings:
1. That the proposed development is consistent with the
General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land
uses.
2. That the design of the proposed improvements will not
conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large
for access through or use of property within the proposed
development.
3. That the establishment of the regional park will not have
any significant environmental impact.
4. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3488 will not result in
abrupt scale relationships between the subject site and the
neighboring properties.
5. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3488 for the
establishment, maintenance and operation of the proposed
regional park use will not, under the circumstances of this
case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals,
comfort and general welfare of persons residing and
working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious
to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the
general welfare of the City.
Conditions:
1. That the development shall be in substantial conformance
with the approved General Development Plan and
Resource Management Plan for Upper Newport Bay
Regional Park except as noted below.
2. That all the Mitigation Measures contained in Final EIR
525 shall be fulfilled as conditions of approval.
-42-
co.umsSIONER6
'�ai .pC�lof kd�s
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES'"
May 6, 1993
1OLL CALL
INDEX
3. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the
Westbay portion of the park, the County of Orange shall
prepare and record an easement acceptable to the City
Attorney showing the relocation of the pedestrian and
bicycle trails if these trails are not provided in the location
shown in the existing easement.
4. That a Coastal Development Permit shall be required prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
5. That disruption caused by construction work along
roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall
be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment
and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of
equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance
with state and local requirements.
6. That the entire site shall be maintained in a clean and
orderly manner.
7. That the Planning Commission may add or modify
conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to
the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a
determination that the operation which is the subject of this
use permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health,
safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the
community.
8. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24
months from the date of approval as specified in Section
20.80.090(A) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
9. In addition, the normal hours of park operation specified
in the County's General Development Plan and Resource
Management Plan for Upper Newport Bay Regional Park
shall not be interpreted so as to prohibit visitors from using
park trails at other times when the park is not staffed.
-43-
J�
Ir
City Council eting Mu 24. 1993
Agenda Item No. Jo
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: A General Plan Amendment No 92-3(E)
Request to amend the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the
General Plan so as to increase the allowable size of the proposed
Interpretive Center on the Westbay parcel of the Upper Newport Bay
Regional Park site from 8,000 sq. ft. to 10,000 sq. ft. and delete a
secondary bicycle trail along the Westbay parcel; and the acceptance
of an environmental document.
WR9
B. Local Coastal Program Amendment No 31
Request to amend the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan so as to
increase the allowable size of the proposed Interpretive Center on the
Westbay parcel of the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park site from
8,000 sq. ft. to 10,000 sq. ft.
INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach
0
C, Amendment No 779 (Ordinance Introduction)
Request to amend a portion of Districting Maps No. 36, 39, 40, 42, 43,
44 and 61 so as to redesignate portions of the Upper Newport Bay
Regional Park property from the U (Unclassified) District, R-3-B and
R4-B-2 Districts to the PC (Planned Community) District.
0
D Use Permit No. 3488
Request to approve a General Development Plan and Resource
Management Plan for the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park, which
would serve as a Planned Community Development Plan and regula-
tions for the regional park.
APPLICANT: The County of Orange
V
TO: City Council - 2.
,Applications
The applications requested would establish General Plan, LCP, zoning and use permit
entitlements for the County's Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. The proposed General
Development Plan and Resource Management Plan would serve as the planned community
development plan and regulations for the property.
General Plan Amendment procedures are set forth in Council Policy Q-1; Amendment
procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.84 of the Municipal Code; and Use Permit
procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.80 of the Municipal Code.
Suggested Action
If desired, introduce Ordinance No...._ (Amendment No. 779) and set General Plan
Amendment No. 92-3(E), Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment No. 31,
Amendment No. 779, and Use Permit No. 3488 for public hearing on June 14, 1993.
Background
Public hearings to consider these items were held by the Planning Commission on April 8,
April 22, and May 6, 1993. At the conclusion of the May 6 hearing the Planning
Commission unanimously recommended approval of the proposed actions with modifications
regarding equestrian trails proposed by the County of Orange and additional recommenda-
tions for consideration by the City Council. A discussion of the detailed Planning
Commission recommendations will be brought to the City Council for consideration
concurrent with the public hearing for these items.
Attached for the City Council's review are the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park General
Development Plan, Resource Management Plan, and EIR, which were prepared by the
County of Orange. Also attached are copies of the staff reports to the Planning Commission
and the Draft Ordinance for Amendment No. 779.
Respectfully submitted,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAME5 D. HEWICKER, hector
By
ohn H. Doug , AICP
rincipal Plariffier
Attachments:
1. Draft Ordinance No._(Amendment No. 779) S. Planning Commission Report of April 8,1993
2. General Development Plan 6. Planning Commission Report of April 22, 1993
Resource Management Plan 7. Planning Commission Report of May 6,1993
3.
3. Res urce 8. Planning Commission Sup. Report of May 6.1993
P:\...\U NB RP\CC-RPT.1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING A PORTION OF
DISTRICTING MAPS NO.36, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44 AND 61 SO
AS TO RECLASSIFY THE SANTA ANA HEIGHTS AND
EASTBLUFF PARCELS OF THE UPPER NEWPORT BAY
REGIONAL PARK PROPERTY FROM THE
UNCLASSIFIED, R-3-B AND R4-B-2 DISTRICTS TO THE
PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT.
(PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT N0.779)
WHEREAS, Section 20.84.010 of the Municipal Code of the City of Newport
Beach provides that Title 20 (the Zoning Code) may be amended by changing the zoning
designation of Districts and other provisions whenever the public necessity and convenience
and the public welfare require such amendment; and
WHEREAS, Section 20.84.020 of the Municipal Code of the City of Newport
Beach provides that an amendment to Title 20 may be initiated by resolution of intention
of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended to the City Council
the adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 92-3(E) and Local Coastal Program
Amendment No. 31 so as to amend the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General
Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan to increase the allowable size of the
proposed Interpretive Center on the Westbay parcel of the Upper Newport Bay Regional
Park site from 8,000 sq. ft. to 10,000 sq. ft. and delete a secondary bicycle trail along the
Westbay parcel; and
WHEREAS, land use decisions are legally required to be consistent with the
City's General Plan and Zoning; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to make the zoning districts of property in the
City of Newport Beach consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the consideration of the above referenced
amendments to the General Plan and Local Coastal Program the City has accepted an
Environmentai Document and it has been determ!ned that this document is adequate to
satisfy the ienai;c. cats of CEQA i}r this action; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20.84.30, the Planning Commission has
v
recommended that the City Council approve Amendment No. 779 to Title 20 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code amending Districting Maps No. 36, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44 and
61 so as to redesignate portions of the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park property from
the U (Unclassified), R•3-11 and R4-B-2 Districts to the PC (Planned Community) District;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20,84.050, the City Council has held a duly noticed
public hearing to consider Amendment No. 779 to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code,
THE CITY COUNCIL OP THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1, Districting Maps No. 36, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44 and 61 are hereby
amended for the Santa Ana Heights and Eastbluff parcels of the Upper Newport Bay
Regional Park property, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto, to
reclassify this property from the U (Unclassified), R-3-13 and R-4-B 2 Districts to the PC
(Planned Community) District,
SECTION 2. The Planning Director of the City of Newport Beach is hereby
directed to change Districting Maps No. 36, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44 and 61 referred to in Section
20.01.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and by such reference made part of Title
20, to reflect the changes described in Section 1 (above), and when said Districting Maps
have been so amended, the same shall be in full force and effect and be part of Title 20 of
the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
SECTION 3. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the
passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once In the official newspaper
of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its
adoption.
2
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Newport Beach held on the 24th day of May, 1993, and adopted on the _day of _
1993, by the following vote, to writ:
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS
EYHIBIt A
THE LAND RErERRED TO IS SITUATED IN TNH STATE 00 CALIFORNIA$
COUNTY Or ORANGE, IN Tilt CITY Or NENPORT BEACH AND IS DESCRIBED AS
rOLLONSI
PARCEL 1011A11
PARCEL 101(B11
PARCEL $411
NAPS RECORDED INOBOOKK ItPAGEOS Or MISD 52 Of CELW ZOOS KAPS, 10 TB`CR
OrriCC Or TEC COUNTY RECORDER Or SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS
rOLLONSI
L
HOST STCALY CORNER Or PER
245, PAGESS 10 THROUGE 11TRACT Or SAID,
A O�MISCE$230LLANEOUS
NCASTERLY AND SOUTNEASTERLY ALONG THE GENERAL
.NORTHEASTERLY LINES OP SAID TRACT N0. 6230, TO
BOUNDARY Or THAT CERTAIN LAND DESCRIBED IN THE
Or NENPORT BEACE RECORDED, NAY 171 1965 IN BOOK
OrrICIAL RECORDS IN THE OrrLCE Or SAID COUNTY
...._..........,..u. eNTrtta1<TeRLY ALONG TBE GENERAL
NU
or
AND
6 IM TNC DECO To Tilt
60
PARCEL $011
LOT 127 Or TRACT 904 SITS, PER NAP RECORDED IN bOOK 100, PAGES 11
TRROUOE 21 OP MISCELLANEOUS KAPB, IN THE MICE Or THE COUNTY
RECORDER Or SAID COUNTY, AND LOT 91 Or TRACT 140. 5671, PER MAP
RECORDED IN ROOK 229, PAGES 16 THROWN AO Or SAID MISCELLANEOUS
PAPS.
Planning Commission Meeting April 11993
Agenda Item No. 10
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: A General Plan Amendment No 92-3(E) (Public Hearine)
Request to amend the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the
General Plan so as to increase the allowable size of the proposed
Interpretive Center on the Westbay parcel of the Upper Newport Bay
Regional Park site from 8,000 sq. ft. to 10,000 sq. ft. and delete a
secondary bicycle trail along the Westbay parcel; and the acceptance
of an environmental document.
ME
B. Local Coastal Program Amendment No 31 (Public H 'n
Request to amend the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan so as to
increase the allowable size of the proposed Interpretive Center on the
Westbay parcel of the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park site from
8,000 sq. ft. to 10,000 sq. ft.
INITIATED BY: The City' of Newport Beach
LOCATION: The Westbay parcel, located at 2200 Irvine Avenue, southeasterly of
the intersection of Irvine Avenue and University Drive
0
Amendment No 779 CPublic Hearin
Request to amend a portion of Districting Maps No. 36, 39, 40, 42, 43,
44 and 61 so as to redesignate portions of the Upper Newport Bay
Regional Park property from the U (Unclassified) District, R-3-B and
R-4-B-2 Districts to the PC (Planned Community) District.
LOCATION: The portions of Upper Newport Bay Regional Park between the Santa
Ana -Delhi Channel in Santa Ana Heights and Jamboree Road (201
Bayview Way); and between Eastbluff Drive and the Upper Newport
Bay Ecological Reserve boundary adjacent to the mouth of Big Canyon
(1900 Back Bay Drive).
a-1
TO: Planning Commission - 2
ZONE: R-3-B, R4-B-2 and Unclassified
APPLICANT: The County of Orange
OWNER: Same as applicant
0
WTV-0 11favelIZE.11001 In• •.rr'�
Request to approve a General Development Plan and Resource
Management Plan for the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park, which
would serve as a Planned Community Development Plan and
regulations for the regional park
LOCATION: Upper Newport Bay Regional Park surrounds the northern portion of
Upper Newport Bay in three separate parcels forming an are from
approximately Santiago Drive on the west to the Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Reserve boundary adjacent to the mouth of Big Canyon on
the east (2200 Irvine Avenue, 201 Bayview Way and 1900 Back Bay
Drive).
ZONE: P-C, R-3-B, R-4-B-2 and Unclassified
APPLICANT: The County of Orange
OWNER: Same as applicant
SYNOPSIS
The orange County Harbors Beaches and Parks Department has prepared a draft General
Development Plan CGDP" - Attachment 10) and a draft Resource Management Plan
CRW - Attachment-11) that provide goals, development parameters and operational
guidelines for the 138-acre Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. The GDP and RMP
recognize the competing and sometimes incompatible interests of public recreation vs.
natural resource protection and enhancement. Due to the unique environmental resource
that the bay represents, the GDP and RMP attempt to provide a reasonable balance
between these competing interests by emphasizing protection and restoration of the natural
environment while providing public access opportunities that are more restrictive than
currently available.
Physical development within the park would be limited to a 10,000-square-foot interpretive
center, 100-space parking lot, consolidation of existing trails, and appropriate barriers and
a-J
TO: Planning Commission - 3
signage. Degraded areas are proposed for restoration using native plants while exotic plants
such as pampas grass would be removed. The County's total budget for the project
(excluding operation and maintenance) is $6.3 million, which will be funded solely from
County sources and private donations (see Attachment 6 and General Development Plan
'Figure 4-2).
Due to the park's location within the jurisdiction of Newport Beach and the City's property
ownership interests in various parcels and easements within park boundaries, the City is a
"Responsible Agency" under the California Environmental Quality Act. Approval of the
requested actions and Environmental Impact Report are therefore necessary prior to final
approval of these plans by the County Board of Supervisors and Coastal Commission.
Other issues related to park development but not included in this action are the
improvements and potential realignment of Irvine Avenue adjacent to the park, and the
ultimate disposition of Back Bay Drive.
BACKGROUND
Historical Overview
Upper Newport Bay Regional Park comprises approximately 138 acres of property in three
parcels forming an arc around the northern portion of the bay. The County acquired
ownership of most of this property in several stages, the most recent of which was the 1989
dedication of 114 acres in the Westbay parcel by The Irvine Company. The Westbay parcel
extends along the west side of the bay between Irvine Avenue and the Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Reserve from Santiago Drive north to University Drive and the Santa Ana -Delhi
Flood Control Channel. The Santa Ana Heights parcel is bounded by the Santa Ana -Delhi
Channel,' Jamboree Road, the ecological reserve, the Bayview project and the private
development in Santa Ana Heights. The Eastbluff parcel runs between Back Bay Drive and
the private property in Eastbluff from Eastbluff Drive south to the City and state property
boundary at the mouth of Big Canyon. The Back Bay Drive right-of-way is under the
jurisdiction of the City and is not within the park.
Park Muming and Development Process
Since completing the acquisition of this property, the County's Harbors, Beaches and Parks
Department ("HBP") has been developing a plan for the park's ultimate improvements and
operation. In October 1990, an Interim Operations Plan was adopted by the Board of
Supervisors as a stopgap management tool until a permanent plan could be prepared. The
Interim Operations Plan restricts bicycles to paved trails, and allows pedestrians, equestrians
and pets on leashes on all existing trails throughout the park.
During the past three years, HBP has been developing a draft General Development Plan
describing the general goals, objectives and development characteristics for the park. In
Gz-3
TO: Planning Commission - 4
addition, a draft Resource Management Plan has been prepared to provide guidance
regarding operation and management strategies to protect and enhance the park's natural
resources.
From March 1990 through May 1991 the County HBP hosted a series of 12 Citizens
Advisory Committee workshops in order to solicit the views of interested members of the
community and, if possible, to achieve a consensus regarding appropriate goals and
objectives for the park's development and operation. A wide variety of interests were
represented at the committee meetings, including bicyclists, equestrians, bikers, bird
watchers and naturalists. At the conclusion of these workshops the draft GDP and RMP
documents were prepared. Due to the nature of the competing interests represented on the
committee, it became clear that the resulting plan would not fully satisfy all of these various
groups and individuals. The plan that County staff has prepared attempts to balance these
competing interests by emphasizing resource protection and restoration while providing
recreational opportunities that are more restrictive than current patterns of use. These
restrictions are discussed in the Analysis section below.
On October 27,1992 the County Planning Commission held a public meeting to review the
County's proposed Final EIR for the park project (Attachment 12), and unanimously
recommended its certification,
On November 3,1992 the proposed General Development Plan and Resource Management
Plan were reviewed and unanimously recommended for approval by the Newport Beach
Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, with a caveat that there was discussion and
concern by the Commission about continuing to carefully monitor pedestrian and bicycle
access.
If the proposed General Development Plan and Resource Management Plan are approved
by the City Council, they will be submitted to the County Board of Supervisors and the
Coastal Commission for final approval. Subsequently, the County Harbors, Beaches and
Parks Department will prepare detailed design plans and construction documents.
Rok of the City of Newport Beach
As noted above, Newport Beach is a Responsible Agency due to the following property
ownership interests and approval authority over the project:
• City ownership of a 6-acre parcel in the vicinity of Monte Vista Avenue which
was previously dedicated to the City by The Irvine Company
• Joint City and County ownership of a 5-acre parcel in the vicinity of 23rd
Street which was acquired from The Irvine Company
• Joint City and County ownership of relocatable pedestrian and bicycle trail
easements crossing the Westbay parcel
04
TO: Planning Commission - 5
• City jurisdiction over Back Bay Drive right-of-way, which provides access to
the Eastbluff parcel of the park
• Required City approval of the County's Final EIR
• Required City approval of a General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal
Program Land Use Plan Amendment to increase the allowable size of the
proposed interpretive center from 8,000 sq. ft. to 10,000 sq. ft., and to delete
a secondary bicycle trail through the Westbay parcel from the City's Master
Plan of Bikeways
• Required City approval to amend a portion of Districting Maps No. 36, 39,
40, 42, 43, 44 and 61 so as to redesignate portions of the Upper Newport Bay
Regional Park property from "U" (Unclassified), "R-3-13" and "R-4-B-2"
(Multiple -Family Residential) to "PC" (Planned Community)
• Required City approval of a Use Permit for the GDP and RMP, which would
serve as the Planned Community Development Plan and regulations for the
regional park
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUAL17YACT
As the project sponsor, the County of Orange is the Lead Agency under CEQA for the
park's development and operation. The City of Newport Beach is a Responsible Agency
because of its jurisdiction and property ownership interests as described above. CEQA
requires the Lead Agency to prepare and certify an EIR, while a Responsible Agency must
make specific findings regarding a project's environmental effects prior to approving portions
of a project for which it has authority. A draft resolution containing the required CEQA
findings is provided in Attachment 2.
Draft EIR No. 525 was prepared by the County and circulated for public review from April
8 to May 26, 1992. Written comments and responses are provided in the Final EIR. The
issues raised in the comment letters are discussed in the Analysis section of this report. The
EIR contains an evaluation of all potential environmental impacts that could result from the
project, and proposes mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce potentially significant
impacts. The EIR concludes that if the proposed mitigation measures are adopted, all
potential impacts would be reduced to a level that is less than significant. With the
suggested revisions and conditions discussed in the Analysis section below, City staff concurs
with this determination.
The EIR also contains a discussion of alternatives to the project. These alternatives are
discussed in Chapter 6 of the EIR and range from leaving the park in its present condition
("No Project") to a "High Intensity Alternative" that includes a more extensive trail network
and allows equestrians and cyclists in the Westbay parcel.
TO: Planning Commission - 6
The alternatives presented in the EIR have been designed to present a palette of options
for consideration in finalizing plans for the park, and it would be possible to develop a
revised project description that combines aspects of different alternatives. The key
components of the various alternatives are reflected in the discussion of issues in the
Analysis section of this report.
AROIECTDESCRL TTON
The proposed project consists of the General Development Plan and Resource Management
Plan for Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. These documents set forth the general design
configuration and operational parameters governing the parles development and
management. As noted above, the City's involvement in the project includes approval of
General Plan and LCP I.and Use Plan amendments, a zoning amendment and a Use Permit
to accomodate the park proposal.
A detailed description of the proposal is contained in the GDP and RMP as well as Chapter
3 of the EIR and is summarized below.
• InteMreflve Center: A 10,000-square-foot Interpretive Center building is
proposed to be architecturally designed to conform with its function as an
educational facility, exhibition hall, and visitor orientation center. The
structure would be located within 500 feet from the centerline of University
Drive, provide 100 visitor parking spaces, and offer views of the bay from its
strategic placement on the Westbay parcel. This building is designed to be
mostly underground with a sod roof of native grasses in order to minimize
obstruction of views and provide increased natural habitat, The preliminary
design includes two towers as illustrated in the architectural simulation in
Attachment 7.
• Riding, Hikng and Blade 'hails: Existing informal trails are to be
consolidated to reduce and control impacts caused by trail use. Others are
to be eliminated and new ones created; trails are to be designed to facilitate
guided tours and access to the site. The location of existing and proposed
trails is discussed in the Analysis section below.
♦ Park Stabilization and Enhancement: Areas subject to erosion and bare,
degraded areas are to be stabilized and revegetated.
♦ Habltpt Enhancement: Ecologically -compatible native vegetation is to be
planted in place of current invasive populations so that wildlife native to
coastal wetland environs may successfully resist displacement by more
common competing species.
A_6
TO: Plane Commission - 7
• Back Bay Drive Interpretive Nodes: A limited number of interpretive nodes
are recommended along Back Bay Drive. These provisions would require
approval of and cooperation with the California Department of Fish and
Game and the City.
• Back Bay Drive Automobile Access Restrictions: Restriction of automobile
traffic on Back Bay Drive during weekends and during park closure (sunset
to 7:00 a.m.) is proposed for consideration. This would require approval of
the City, which has jurisdiction over the dedicated roadway easement.
• Back Bay Drive Parking and Handicap Access: Provision of parking bays and
access for handicapped users in the area along Back Bay Drive is
recommended for consideration. These provisions would require approval of
and cooperation with the State Department of Fish and Game and the City.
• University Drive Improvements: Improvements to adjacent segments of
existing University Drive and Irvine Avenue are proposed to be carried out
jointly by the City of Newport Beach and the County of Orange in conjunction
with park development. University Drive is proposed for widening from 35
feet to 56 feet (within the existing right-of-way). Entrance improvements and
a cul-de-sac are also proposed.
• Irvine Avenue improvements: Improvements to Irvine Avenue including curb,
gutter, pavement enhancement, and Class I bicycle trail are to be completed
by the County of Orange and City of Newport Beach through a cooperative
agreement.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES
The GDP and RMP raise a number of issues regarding the appropriate development and
operation of the park. As noted previously, the key policy question underlying each of these
issues is the appropriate trade-offs between public recreation and access vs. preservation and
enhancement of park resources. A summary of the major issues is provided below.
Appropriateness of the Westbay Interpretive Center Facilities
Existing Conditions: No interpretive or visitor facilities currently exist other than minor
signage.
Proposed Plan: The GDP proposes an interpretive center not to exceed 10,000 square feet
and a parking area with 100 spaces, along with a gated entry and signage. The interpretive
center would contain exhibit space, library, restrooms, gift shop, and office space for park
staff, and would be partially underground with a sod roof. The conceptual design includes
TO: Planning Commission - 8
two towers for unspecified purposes. The precise dimensions of the facility have not been
determined, but would be subject to the 10,000-square-foot limitation. More detailed plans
will be prepared in the subsequent schematic design phase of the project.
Analysis: Some residents have questioned the need for the interpretive facility, and would
prefer that the site remain free of structures. Since final design plans have not been
prepared, some residents are concerned about potential view impacts that may result from
the structure, particularly the proposed towers. The elevation of the parking lot is also a
concern, and some have recommended that it be sunken to avoid impacting views from
Irvine Avenue and University Drive. An additional area of concern is the proposed
landscaping along Irvine Avenue. The landscaping is proposed to be sufficiently dense and
high as to be a physical and psychological barrier to ingress to the park site from Irvine
Avenue. Staff does not believe that the landscaping should block any views of the bay from
Irvine Avenue.
The City's Zoning Code establishes a 24/28-foot height limit for the Upper Newport Bay
Planned Community (NBMC Sec. 20.02.035). Under this requirement, subsequent City
approval would be required for any structure exceeding and average roof height of 24 feet.
It is also typical City procedure to recommended that a condition of approval be adopted
requiring City approval of grading and building permits for the project. This may be
accomplished by modifying Mitigation Measures 11 and 12 in the Final EIR as follows:
11.
Prior to issuance of a. building permit including grading for the
Interpretive Center, plans shall be submitted for the review and approval
of the Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches and Parks/Parks Design and
hgwnort Beach Building Director. Said plans shall dg►monstrate
Avg, and shall indicate that non -
windows overlooking Upper Newport
shall be used on all
12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading the
construction documents shall be submitted for approval to the Manager,
Development Services and the Newport Beach Buil h Director for the
area surrounding the Interpretive Center, ensuring that the parking lot
shall be landscaped, equipped for irrigation, and improved as stated
below:
a. ,preliminary Plan - Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a
preliminary landscape plan, indicating use of native and drought
tolerant species, and a cost estimate shall be submitted for the
review and approval of the Manager, Subdivision Division.
t14
fro: Planni. Commission - 9
b. Detailed Plan - Prior to the initiation of construction, a detailed
landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the
Manager, Subdivision Division and the Newport Beach Public
Works Department Detailed plans shall show the detailed
Imrdscain� and rm_gation design; and the preservation of views
from Invite Avenue.
C. Installation C Ui cation - Prior to the issuance of final certificates
of use and occupancy, said improvements shall be installed and
shall be certified by a licensed landscape architect as having been
installed in accordance with the approved detailed plans. Said
certification shall be furnished in writing to the Manager,
EMA/Public Works/Construction Division and the NewportBeach
Building Director.
Public Pedestrian Access - Westbay Parcel
Existing Conditions: Over the years an informal network of trails has evolved on the
Westbay parcel. Access is currently available at the north end of the property from
University Drive, at the south end from Constellation Drive near Santiago Drive, and from
several unlocked gates in the fence along Irvine Avenue (see Attachment 8). The existing
trail network provides unrestricted access along the bayfront, along the blufftop, and across
the mesa at several locations. Pets are currently permitted on leashes. This area has been
subject to erosion and invasion of non-native vegetation in the past. Uses on this property
are currently controlled by the Interim Operations Plan adopted in 1990.
Proposed Plan: The proposed plan would consolidate the numerous existing trails as shown
in Attachment 9. Most notably, this plan would eliminate all access points except the main
entrance off University Drive and a secondary unmarked access from Constellation Drive.
A low (2-3 foot) masonry wall and landscaping would be built along the Irvine Avenue
frontage, and no direct access is proposed from Irvine Avenue. In addition, the restoration
plan would eliminate many of the existing trails, including those adjacent to the ecological
reserve at bay level and cross connections on the mesa. No dogs would be allowed, with or
without leashes.
Analysis: Some residents have expressed a concern that the proposed plan would require
them to walk a much greater distance to enter the park. In addition, they believe the
proposed trail system would prevent users from followingg-a loop pattern, severely restricting
the public's enjoyment of this resource. These residents see such changes as unreasonable
limitations on their right to use public parkland for relaxation and nature study. Some have
also expressed the opinion that informal trail connections will be established by users based
on historical patterns regardless of whether they are designated in the plan, and therefore
these logical connections should be formally provided to avoid potential conflicts.
a-�
TO: Planning Commission -10
The public currently enjoys bay level access immediately adjacent to the ecological reserve.
The Fish and Game Department desires to have a greater separation between the reserve
area and active pedestrian uses. The parallel bay level access will be eliminated and
provided at select locations on a guided tour basis only.
The GDP represents County staffs best effort to balance the competing objectives of public
recreation and resource preservation. In developing the GDP and RMP, County staff and
the Citizens Advisory Committee recognized these competing demands and established goals
that emphasize environmental protection over public recreation (see discussion of park goals
and strategies on pp.12-14 of the GDP). This represents a key policy decision affecting the
overall approach to the park planning effort.
Another factor influencing the proposed plan is the difficulty for pedestrians in crossing
from the neighborhood west of Irvine Avenue to the park. By eliminating access from
Irvine Avenue, the County has sought to discourage such pedestrian crossings except at
major intersections such as University Drive and Santiago Drive.
The City and County jointly hold an easement for pedestrian and bicycle access along the
easterly side of the Westbay parcel and across the parcel from Irvine Avenue in two
locations. The terms of this easement specify that it is relocatable for a similar easement
giving "reasonably comparable access". The County believes that the trails shown in the
GDP provide such reasonably comparable access. As a Responsible Agency and co-owner
of the easement, the City has authority to approve the relocation of these trails. If desired,
the Planning Commission may wish to recommend modifications to the proposed trail
system for consideration by the City Council. In addition, the following condition of
approval is suggested by staff, and has been included in the Conditions of Approval:
Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the Westbay
portion of the parr the County of Orange shall prepare and record
an easement acceptable to the City Attorney showing the
relocation of the pedestrian and bicycle trails if these trails are not
provided in the location shown in the existing easement
Equestrian Access
Existing Conditions: An improved riding and hiking trail is shown on the County's Master
Plan of Riding and Hiking Trails and currently exists from the University Drive/Irvine
Avenue intersection eastward through the Santa Ana Heights parcel to Jamboree Road and
continues to the San Diego Creek trail northward into Irvine, Equestrians take access to
this trail from two unimproved, informal trails connecting with the Santa Ana Heights area
along the east side of the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel and from the extension of Mesa Drive.
Access to other trails within the park is not controlled, however, and equestrians currently
use existing trails in all areas of the park.
Gt -
10
TO: PlannL Commission - 11
Proposed Plan: The GDP would allow equestrian access only on the designated trails within
the Santa Ana Heights parcel. Equestrians would not be permitted on the Westbay parcel
southwest of the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel bridge or in the Eastbluff parcel.
Analysis: Equestrians generally support greater access than proposed in the GDP. In
developing the access plan, County staff has attempted to minimize conflicts with resource
conservation goals and conflicts between equestrians and other park users. The purpose in
limiting the amount of space devoted to trails is to maximize the area for native vegetation
and wildlife habitat. Trails intended to serve multiple users must be designed to provide
adequate separation, which requires a much wider area of human disturbance.
Bicycle Access
Existing Conditions: Under the current Interim Operations Plan, bicycles are restricted to
hard surface trails in the park, which includes Back Bay Drive, the paved trail through the
Santa Ana Heights parcel, across the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel and along University Drive
and Irvine Avenue. Bicycles are prohibited on the dirt trails in the Westbay parcel.
Proposed Plan: Under the proposed GDP, bicycles would continue to be excluded from the
unpaved trails on the interior of the Westbay parcel. A new Class I (off -road) paved bicycle
trail is proposed adjacent to the park along the east side of Irvine Avenue and the south
side of University Drive. A cooperative agreement between the City and the County was
executed in August 1992 for the design and construction of this project. Bicyclists would
continue to be permitted on the paved trail through the Santa Ana Heights parcel with
connections to Jamboree Road, Mesa Drive and the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel, and on Back
Bay Drive in the Eastbluff parcel.
Analysis: The rationale for excluding bicycles within the Westbay parcel is to eliminate
potential conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians, and to minimize the disturbance to
sensitive wildlife species and vegetation.
The City's General Plan specifies a secondary bicycle trail along the bay in the Westbay area
of the park. One of the required City actions prior to approval of the park plan would be
an amendment to the Circulation Element to delete this trail. As noted above, the City and
County also jointly hold a relocatable easement for pedestrian and bicycle access along the
easterly side of the Westbay parcel and across the parcel from Irvine Avenue in two
locations. The terms of this easement specify that it is relocatable for a similar easement
giving reasonably comparable access". Although the GDP would prohibit bicycles on the
pedestrian trails within the interior of the Westbay parcel, the County believes that the GDP
would provide such reasonably comparable access with the new Class I trails along Irvine
Avenue and University Drive.
The existing relocatable bicycle/pedestrian access easements were intended to provide
access between Irvine Avenue and blufftop view areas. While it would be inconsistent with
0,11
TO: Planning Commission - 12
the desire on the part of the County to discourage access throughout the park from Irvine
Avenue. If the City desires to request this form of access, a potential location would be
across the 6 acre parcel owned by the City of Newport Beach within the Westbay parcel.
The City's LCP land Use Plan (p. 64) makes the following reference to the location of this
trail:
"A public bikeway/walkway is shown for the Westbay site, but careful
consideration shall be given at the time it Is developed to the environmentally
sensitive nature of the site in locating the accessway."
Staff believes the question of whether the pedestrian/bicycle easement should be relocated
from its present location is a policy decision for consideration by the Planning Commission
and City Council. A bicycle trail in the existing easement location would provide greater
recreational opportunities for cyclists but would compromise resource protection objectives.
Park Hours of Operation
Existing Conditions: The Interim Operations Plan currently specifies that the park is staffed
between 7:00 a.m. and sunset, but access to the property is unrestricted.
Proposed Plan: The GDP and RMP indicate that the park would follow standard County
park operating hours of 7.00 a.m. to sunset.
Analysis: Some park users are concerned that the proposed park operating schedule may
prevent them from enjoying the park in the early morning hours around dawn. County staff
has indicated verbally that the operating hours would apply to staffing of the visitor facilities
such as the interpretive center and parking lot rather than a restriction on access to the park
grounds, and users would not be prevented from entering the park at other times.
To avoid misunderstandings, City staff believes that it may be desirable to explicitly establish
park policy on this issue in the GDP and RMP. The following language has been added as
a condition of approval:
In addition, the normal hours of park operation specified in the
County's General Development Plan and Resource Management
Plan for Upper Newport Bay Regional Park shall not be
interpreted so as to prohibit visitors from using park trails at other
times when the park is not staffed.
Back Bay Drive/Eastbluff Parcel
Existing Conditions: Back Bay Drive is a public street under the jurisdiction of the City,
and is not within the boundaries of the park. It is designated a scenic drive, pedestrian trail,
and secondary bikeway in the City's General Plan. The right-of-way varies from 40 to 50
TO: Plan. .g Commission - 13
feet wide, although only a 20-foot section is currently paved. It is used by pedestrians,
cyclists and motor vehicles with a one-way northbound restriction for motor vehicles. A 15-
mph speed limit for all users was recently approved by the City Council.
In addition, informal paths provide access to this portion of the park from the vicinity of
Eastbluff Park near Vista del Playa.
Proposed Plan: Although the park plan acknowledges the City's jurisdiction over Back Bay
Drive, certain policy recommendations are included in recognition of its function as the
primary access for, the Eastbluff parcel of the park. The GDP proposes to restrict
automobile access on selected weekends and after park closure, although the specific terms
of such restrictions would require the concurrence of the City. The informal trails from the
vicinity of Eastbluff Park would also be consolidated into a single trail and the remaining
area would be revegetated.
The GDP also recommends the widening of Back Bay Drive by adding a 10-foot-wide
pedestrian path along with additional 10-foot-wide interpretive nodes at periodic intervals
along the west side of the road. Two small parking pockets for about five cars each are also
proposed.
Analysis: Because of the City's jurisdiction over Back Bay Drive, the recommended access
limitations will require further negotiation between the City and the County.
SUMMARYAND CONCLUSIONS
The General Development Plan and Resource Management Plan prepared by the County
Harbors, Beaches and Parks Department attempt to balance the competing objectives of
public recreation and resource protection. Due to the unique and sensitive nature of Upper
Newport Bay, these plans emphasize resource protection and restoration while providing
more limited recreational opportunities than previously available.
Because of the City's role as a Responsible Agency, City approval of this planning concept
is requested. The foregoing analysis attempts to identify the major areas of public concern
for consideration by the Planning Commission. Suggested conditions of approval and
modifications to the GDP and RMP have been provided to address these areas of concern.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
If desired:
1. Adopt Draft Resolution (Attachment 2) making the required findings for a
Responsible Agency under CEQA regarding the environmental impacts
identified in Final EIR No. 525 prepared by the County of Orange as Lead
Agency.
G1-13
TO:
Planning Commission - 14
2. Adopt Draft Resolutions recommending City Council approval of General
Plan Amendment 92-3(E), Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan
Amendment No. 31, and Zoning Amendment No. 779 (Attachments 3,4 and
5)
3. Recommend City Council approval of the proposed project subject to the
revisions, findings and conditions contained in Exhibit A (Attachment 1).
Very truly yours,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAME5 D. HEWICKER, Director
By:
J n H. Douglas, AVP
Principal Planner/Environmental Coordinator
1. Exhibit A: Findings and Conditions of Approval
2. Draft Resolution: CEQA Findings and Facts
3. Draft Resolution: GPA 92-3(E)
4. Draft Resolution: LCP No. 31
5. Draft Resolution: Amendment No. 779
6. General Development Plan Map
7. Westbay Interpretive Center Architectural Rendering
8. Existing Park Usage Patterns
9. Westbay Parcel Development Plan
10. General Development Plan
11. Resource Management Plan
12. Final EIR No. 525
�:\.,.\UNHRP\PGRPT.1
Attachment 1
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
UPPER NEWPORT BAY REGIONAL PARK
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-3(E)
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO.31
AMENDMENT NO.779
USE PERMIT NO.3488
A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
Findingz
That the Planning Commission has reviewed Final EIR No. 525, prepared by the
County of Orange as Lead Agency, and finds that it satisfies the requirements of
CEQA for the City of Newport Beach in its capacity as a Responsible Agency.
Mitigation Measures:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading, the construction
documents for the Interpretive Center, including the final geotechnical report,
shall be submitted to the Manager, Development Services. The report will be
based on 80-scale maps and will primarily involve assessment of potential soil
related constraints and hazards, such as landslides, settlement, liquefaction,
or related seismic impacts where determined to be appropriate by the County
of Orange. The report shall also include evaluation of potentially expansive
soils and recommend construction procedures and/or design criteria to
minimize the effects of these soils on the proposed project, as well as an
analysis of soils properties to determine any existence of soluble sulfate in the
soil. The report shall also establish foundation design parameters. This
report shall recommend appropriate mitigation measures for the grading and
shall be completed in a manner specified by the County of Orange Grading
Code.
2. Prior to the award of a construction or grading contract, the contract plans
shall be submitted to the Program Manager, Transportation Planning
including requirements to meet: SCAQMD Rule 403 which will require
watering during earth moving operations, soil binders to be spread on
construction sets or unpaved roads and/or parldng areas, street sweeping of
roads adjacent to the project site, that trucks be washed off before leaving the
construction site, that construction equipment be properly maintained and
tuned, and that grading be suspended during second stage (or worse) smog
alerts.
9-1
3. Prior to the award of a construction or grading contract, the contract plans
shall be submitted to the Program Manager, Transportation Planning
including requirements that construction personnel should be provided with
preferential parking for carpools, bicycle racks, and free bus passes. Parking
for construction personnel should not interfere with traffic flows. Personnel
parking and construction vehicle staging areas shall be placed in a manner to
avoid sensitive resources on the property. Construction affecting roadways
should be performed during non -peak hours. A flag person should be
provided during times when construction affects roadways , and one lane in
each direction should remain open.
4. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, the following
measures shall be incorporated into the project in a manner meeting the
approval of the Program Manager, Transportation Planning:
a. Encourage the use of alternate transportation modes by promoting
public transit usage and providing secure bicycle facilities.
b. Provide mass transit accommodations such as bus turnout lanes, park
and ride areas, and bus shelters.
C. Provide energy -conserving lighting.
d. Provide landscaping with native drought resistant plant species to
shade buildings during summer.
5. Prior to the execution of a construction or grading contract, the following
drainage studies shall be submitted to and approved by the Manager, Harbors,
Beaches & Parks/Parks Design:
a. A drainage study of the project site including diversions, off -site areas
that drain onto and/or through the project, and justification for any
diversions; and
b. A drainage study demonstrating that proposed drainage patterns will
not overload existing storm drains; and
C. Detailed drainage studies indicating how the project grading in
conjunction with the drainage conveyance system including applicable
swales, channels, street flows, catch basins, storm drains, and flood
water retarding will allow building pads to be safe from inundation
from rainfall which may be expected from all storms up to and
including the theoretical 100-year flood.
2
6. Prior to the execution of a construction or grading contract, the contract and
plans, including the following improvements, shall be submitted for approval
to the Manager, Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Parks Design:
a. All provision for surface drainage; and
b. All necessary storm drain facilities extending to a satisfactory point of
disposal for the proper control and disposal of storm runoff.
Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, said improvements
shall be constructed in a manner meeting the approval of the Manager,
EM?i/Construction Division.
7. Prior to the initiation of grading, the applicant (County or contractor) shall
obtain approval of an NPDES permit from the Regional Water Quality
Control Board. Said permit shall specify appropriate storm water Best
Management Practices to be incorporated into the project to ensure an
acceptable level of control of non -point pollution sources.
8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading, the construction
documents shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Manager,
EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Parks Design. Said plans shall indicate
the following:
a. Landscaping and trails are sited in such a manner as to not disturb the
scattered populations of SouthernTarplant. Individual plants to be
disturbed shall be transplanted to appropriate habitat; and
b. If establishment of the "vernal pool" is undertaken, it shall be done in
a manner so as to not disturb the hydrologic or vegetative character of
the area, especially the limited alkaline wetland habitat adjacent to the
proposed "Vernal Pool"; and
C. The "Vista del Playa" access shall be relocated such that the California
Gnatcatcher habitat which it currently crosses is not disturbed.
d. The trails serving the Interpretive Center shall be relocated, or
appropriate buffer provided, to protect the burrowing owl nesting site.
9. For any archaeological site which may be adversely impacted, a County -
certified archaeologist shall be retained by the applicant to perform a
subsurface test level investigation and surface collection as appropriate. The
test level report evaluating the site shall include discussion of significance
(depth, nature, condition and extent of the resources), final mitigation
3
a- l�
recommendations and cost estimates. Excavated finds shall be offered to the
County of Orange, or designee, on a first refusal basis. Applicant may retain
said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved
in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum
in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at this time,
in which case items shall be donated to County, or designee. Final mitigation
shall be carried out based upon the recommendations and a determination as
to the site's disposition by the Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and
Parks/Program Planning Division. Possible determinations include, but are
not limited to, preservation, salvage, partial salvage or no mitigation
necessary.
Prior to award of any construction or grading contract, the contract and plans
shall be provided to the Chief, EMA/Regulation/Grading Section, including
written evidence that a County -certified archaeologist has been retained, shall
be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for
archaeological resource surveillance, and shall establish procedures for
temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the salvage, sampling,
identification, and evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If additional or
unexpected archaeological features are discovered, the archaeologist shall
report such findings to the Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and
Parks/Program Planning Division, If the archaeological resources are found
to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate
actions for exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the
County of Orange, or designee, on a first refusal basis. Applicant may retain
said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved
in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum
in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at this time,
in which case items shall be donated to County, or designee. These actions,
as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to
the approval of the Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Program
Planning Division.
10. Prior to award of any construction or grading contract, the contract and plans
shall be provided to the Chief, EMA/Regulation/Grading Section, including
written evidence that a County -certified paleontologist has been retained to
conduct pregrading salvage, observe any grading activities, salvage fossils as
necessary, and prepare a catalogue of the exposed resources. The
paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish
procedures for paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish
procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the salvage,
sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major paleontological
resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting of
grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the Manager,
EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Program Planning Division. The
paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions to ensure proper
exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the County of
Orange, or designee, on a first refusal basis. Applicant may retain said finds
if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange
County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange
County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at this time, in which
case items shall be donated to County, or designee. These actions, as well as
final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the
approval of the Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Program
Planning Division. The paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for
approval by the Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Program
Planning Division, which shall include the period of inspection, methodology,
an analysis of the artifacts found, a catalogue of artifacts, and their present
repository.
11. Prior to issuance of a building permit including grading, for the Interpretive
Center, plans shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Manager,
EMA/Harbors, Beaches and Parks/Parks Design and the Newport Beach
Building Director. Said plans shall demonstrate compliance with the City of
Newport Beach 24/28-foot height limit shall be designed so as to minimize
adverse impacts to public views from Irvine Avenue. and shall indicate that
non -reflective glass shall be used on all windows overlooking Upper Newport
Bay.
12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading, the construction
documents shall be submitted for approval to the Manager, Development
Services and the Newport Beach Building Director for the area surrounding
the Interpretive Center, ensuring that the parking lot shall be landscaped,
equipped for irrigation, and improved as stated below:
a. Preliminary Plan - Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a
preliminary landscape plan, indicating use of native and drought
tolerant species, and a cost estimate shall be submitted for the
review and approval of the Manager, Subdivision Division and
the Newport Beach Building Director.
b. Detailed Plan - Prior to the initiation of construction, a detailed
landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the
Manager, Subdivision Division and the Newport Beach Buildins
Director. Detailed plans shall show the detailed landscaping
and irrigation design.
a-M
C. Installation Certification - Prior to the issuance of final
certificates of use and occupancy, said improvements shall be
installed and shall be certified by a licensed landscape architect
as having been installed in accordance with the approved
detailed plans. Said certification shall be furnished in writing
to the Manager, EMA/Public Works/Construction Divisionod
the Ngwoort_rBeach Building Director,
13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading the County shall
submit an application to the City of Newport Beach for amendment of the
City's.General Plan and Local Coastal Program to accommodate the 10,000
square foot Interpretive Center as proposed. After approval by the City, said
approvals and an application for a Coastal Development Permit shall be
referred to the State Coastal Commission for approval.
14. Prior to the award of a construction or grading contract, whichever occurs
first, a plan for the ultimate use and configuration of Back Bay Drive shall be
submitted for the review and approval of the Director, EMA/Transportation
and the City of Newport Beacb Traffic Engineer, Said plan shall consider, at
a minimum, the following:
a. access controls (e.g., gates, etc.)
b, hours of use
C. vehicle connections to the Eastbluff area
d. ultimate pavement cross-section
e. bicycle access.
15, Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading, an access and
parking plan for the Interpretive Center shall be submitted for the review and
approval of the Director, EMA/Transportation and the City of Newport
Beach Traffic Engineer. Said plan shall indicate that access and parking have
been designed to appropriate standards for sight distance, parking and
accessways, bus and vehicle turn -outs, etc.
16. Construction activities shall be conducted in accordance with the City of
Newport Beach Municipal Code, which limits the hours of construction and
excavation work to 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. on Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction,
remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering, or any other
related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner
which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal
sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or on any
holiday.
tt -'2d
17. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading, the construction
documents shall be submitted for approval to the Manager, Development
Services, including written evidence that:
a. All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated
within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly
operating and maintained mufflers.
b. All operations shall comply with Orange County Codified Ordinance
Division 6 (Noise Control).
C. Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as
practicable from dwellings.
B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-3(E)
Adopt Resolution No. recommending City Council approval of General Plan
Amendment 92-3(E).
C. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 31
Adopt Resolution No. recommending City Council approval of Local Coastal
Program Amendment No. 31.
D. AMENDMENT NO. 779
Adopt Resolution No. recommending City Council approval of Amendment No.
779.
E. USE PERMIT NO. 3436:
Findings:
1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, and is
compatible with surrounding land uses.
2. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of
property within the proposed development.
3. That the establishment of the regional park will not have any significant
environmental impact.
3. That the establishment of the regional park will not have any significant
environmental impact.
4. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3488 will not result in abrupt scale
relationships between the subject site and the neighboring properties,
5. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3488 for the establishment, maintenance
and operation of the proposed regional park use will not, under the
circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals,
comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the
neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements
in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City.
Conditions:
1. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved
General Development Plan and Resource Management Plan for Upper
Newport Bay Regional Park except as noted below.
2. That all the Mitigation Measures contained in Final EIR 525 shall be fulfilled
as conditions of approval.
3. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the Westbay portion of
the park, the County of Orange shall prepare and record an easement
acceptable to the City Attorney showing the relocation of the pedestrian and
bicycle trails if these trails are not provided in the location shown in the
existing easement.
4. That a Coastal Development Permit shall be required prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
5. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by
movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic
control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of
equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and
local requirements.
6. That the entire site shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner.
7. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to
this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use
permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this
use permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals,
comfort, or general welfare of the community.
0
a, zy
WHEREAS, Section 15093(b) requires that, where the decision of a Responsible
Agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the EIR, but not
mitigated, the Agency must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the
EIR or other information in the record.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed all environmental documentation
comprising DEIR 525 for the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park and has found that DEIR
525 considers all environmental effects of the proposed project and is complete and
adequate and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. The Planning Commission hereby affirms that it has reviewed and considered
Final EIR 525 in determining whether to recommend City Council approval
of amendments to the City's General Plan, Local Coastal Program Land Use
Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and approval of a Use Permit for the Upper
Newport Bay Regional Park. The Final EIR is composed of the following
elements:
a. Draft EIR 525 for the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park General
Development Plan
b. Appendices to Draft EIR 525
C. Comments received on Draft EIR 525 and response to those comments
d. All attachments, incorporations, and references delineated in items a.
through d. above
All of the above information has been, and will be, on file with the City of
Newport Beach Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport
Beach, CA and the County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency,
Environmental Planning Division, 12 Civic Center Plaza, Room G'-19, Santa
Ana, California, 92702.
2. This Planning Commission adopts the Findings with respect to each
environmental effect and project alternative identified in the EIR and the
explanation of its rationale with respect to each such finding set forth in the
document entitled "CEQA Statement of Findings and Facts" attached hereto
and marked as Exhibit A and made a part hereof.
3. The mitigation monitoring requirements of Public Resources Code Section
21081.6 will be met through the required compliance with the mitigation
measures identified in Exhibit A which have been adopted as conditions of
approval.
4. All of the findings set forth in Exhibit A accurately reflect the independent
judgement of the Planning Commission.
ADOPTED this _ _, day of 1993, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
BY
'Thomas Edwards
Chairman
BY
Harry Merrill
Secretary
Exhibit A: Statement of Facts and Findings
Exhibit A
EXHIBIT A
CEQA STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS
UPPER NEWPORT BAY REGIONAL PARK
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 525
FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL. EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT
Based on the Initial Study, the Environmental Impact Report, and the substantial evidence
contained therein, it has been determined with certainty that no significant impact to the
environment will occur in the following areas:
EARTH
• There are no unique geologic or physical features which will be destroyed or
modified by the project.
AIR
• The project will not result in increased air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality beyond projection by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
• The project will not result in any significant changes in air movements, either locally
or regionally.
WATER
• The project will not adversely impact groundwater resources in the vicinity.
• Implementation of the proposal will not cause a substantial reduction in public water
supplies.
• The project will not result in the exposure of people or property to water -related
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves.
0
Exhibit A
ENERGY
• The project will not result in the use of abnormally high amounts of fuel or energy.
• The project will not increase the demand upon existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy.
LAND USE
• The proposal will not cause the conversion of valuable agricultural land to
development.
• The project will not preclude natural resource extraction.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
• The project will not generate additional vehicular traffic beyond that projected in
regional analyses.
• The project will not alter waterborne, rail, or air traffic.
PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
• The project does not involve the risk of explosion or the release of hazardous
substances, including oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation in the event of an
accident or upset condition.
• The project will not result in the exposure of persons or property to wildland fire
hazards.
• No previous use of the site will result in the exposure of persons to hazardous
substances, including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation.
• The project does not place present or future surrounding residents at risk of exposure
to toxic or radioactive gas, explosions, or industrial fires.
• The proposal will not interfere with an emergency response plan or evacuation plan.
• The project will not use or dispose of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic
substances, flammables, or explosives,
5
Exhibit A
LIGHT AND GLARE
• The project will not produce significant new sources of light and glare.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
• The project will not adversely impact fire protection, police protection, schools, parks
and recreation, or solid waste disposal services.
a A
Based on the information contained in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), it has been
determined that the following potentially significant impacts will be reduced to a level of
insignificance with the imposition of the mitigation measures contained in the EIR as
enumerated below:
EARTH RESOURCES
• The project site will be subject to ground -shaking and potential surface rupture
during a seismic event.
• Liquefaction will be a significant concern during the maximum credible earthquake
on the Newport -Inglewood Fault in areas of sandy soils.
Finding
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the
EIR.
Facts in S tppgrt of Finding
The significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the
Standard County Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR
and incorporated into the project. 'These measures include the following:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading, the construction
documents for the Interpretive Center, including the final geotechnical report, shall
be submitted to the Manager, Development Services. The report will be based on
80-scale maps and will primarily involve assessment of potential soil related
constraints and hazards, such as landslides, settlement, liquefaction, or related seismic
impacts where determined to be appropriate by the County of Orange. The report
shall also include evaluation of potentially expansive soils and recommend
construction procedures and/or design criteria to minimize the effects of these soils
on the proposed project, as well as an analysis of soils properties to determine any
existence of soluble sulfate in the soil. The report shall also establish foundation
design parameters. This report shall recommend appropriate mitigation measures
7
Exhibit A
for the grading and shall be completed in a manner specified by the County of
Orange Grading Code.
AIR QUALITY
significant Effect
• Grading for the project will result in the generation of approximately 0.10 tons of
fugitive dust on a daily basis. This is considered more of a local nuisance than a
long-term health problem.
• The project does not propose activities of sufficient magnitude that it would meet
threshold requirements for review under the Air Quality Management Plan/State
Implementation Program Guidelines.
Findin
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the
EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the
Standard County Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR
and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following:
2. Prior to the award of a construction or grading contract, the contract plans shall be
submitted to the Program Manager, Transportation Planning including requirements
to meet: SCAQMD Rule 403 which will require watering during earth moving
operations, soil binders to be spread on construction sets or unpaved roads and/or
parking areas, street sweeping of roads adjacent to the project site, that trucks be
washed off before leaving the construction site, that construction equipment be
properly maintained and tuned, and that grading be suspended during second stage
(or worse) smog alerts.
3. Prior to the award of a construction or grading contract, the contract plans shall be
submitted to the Program Manager, Transportation Planning including requirements
that construction personnel should be provided with preferential parking for carpools,
Eta
A_�1
&hM A
bicycle racks, and free bus passes. Parking for construction personnel should not
interfere with traffic flows. Personnel parking and construction vehicle staging areas
shall be placed in a manner to avoid sensitive resources on the property.
Construction affecting roadways should be performed during non -peak hours. A flag
person should be provided during times when construction affects roadways, and one
lane in each direction should remain open.
4. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, the following measures
shall be incorporated into the project in a manner meeting the approval of the
Program Manager, Transportation Planning:
R. Encourage the use of alternate transportation modes by promoting public
transit usage and providing secure bicycle facilities.
b. Provide mass transit accommodations such as bus turnout lanes, park and ride
areas, and bus shelters.
C. Provide energy -conserving lighting.
d. Provide landscaping with native drought resistant plant species to shade
buildings during summer.
DRAINAGE/HYDROLOGY
SigWficant Effect
• Implementation of the project will result in an incremental increase in the impervious
surfaces on the property, which will result in a commensurate increase in runoff and
the introduction of urban pollutants into Upper Newport Bay.
"II TI.
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the
EIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been
adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
Exhibit A
Facts in Support of Finding
The significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the
Standard County Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR
and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following:
5. Prior to the execution of a construction or grading contract, the following drainage
studies shall' be submitted to and approved by the Manager, Harbors, Beaches &
Parks/Parks Design:
a. A drainage study of the project site including diversions, off -site areas that
drain onto and/or through the project, and justification for any diversions; and
b. A drainage study demonstrating that proposed drainage patterns will not
overload existing storm drains; and
C. Detailed drainage studies indicating how the project grading in conjunction
with the drainage conveyance system including applicable swales, channels,
street flows, catch basins, storm drains, and flood water retarding will allow
building pads to be safe from inundation from rainfall which may be expected
from all storms up to and including the theoretical 100-year flood.
6. Prior to the execution of a construction or grading contract, the contract and plans,
including the following improvements, shall be submitted for approval to the
Manager, Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Parks Design:
a. All provision for surface drainage; and
b. All necessary storm drain facilities extending to a satisfactory point of disposal
for the proper control and disposal of storm runoff.
Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, said improvements shall
be constructed in a manner meeting the approval of the Manager,
EMA/Construction Division.
7. Prior to the initiation of grading, the applicant (County or contractor) shall obtain
approval of an NPDES permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Said permit shall specify appropriate storm water Best Management Practices to be
incorporated into the project to ensure an acceptable level of control of non -point
pollution sources.
10
FAWt A
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Significant Effect
• The Interpretive Center and nearby interpretive node, as well as future horticultural
plantings of trees in the grasslands on the north side of the bay will have an adverse
impact on portions of a scattered population of sensitive Southern Tarplant.
• Work toward the establishment of the vernal pool may result in the loss of
Southwestern Spiny Rush. The loss of individual plants is not considered significant,
however, any degradation of the limited alkaline wetland habitat occupied by this
plant would be considered significant.
• Habitat for the California Gnatcatcher would be disturbed by a proposed trail
connection and the increased human and domestic animal encroachment associated
with it.
♦ A burrowing owl nesting site (a species of special concern) is located in the area
where trails near the Interpretive Center are to be located.
M t
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the
EIR.
The significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the
Standard County Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR
and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following:
8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading, the construction
documents shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Manager,
EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Parks Design. Said plans shall indicate the
following:
11
Exhibit A
a. Landscaping and trails are sited in such a manner as to not disturb the
scattered populations of Southern Tarplant. Individual plants to be disturbed
shall be transplanted to appropriate habitat; and
b. If establishment of the "vernal pool" is undertaken, it shall be done in a
manner so as to not disturb the hydrologic or vegetative character of the area,
especially the limited alkaline wetland habitat adjacent to the proposed
"Vernal Pool'; and
C. The "Vista del Playa" access shall be relocated such that the California
Gnatcatcher habitat which it currently crosses is not disturbed.
d. The trails serving the Interpretive Center shall be relocated, or appropriate
buffer provided, to protect the burrowing owl nesting site.
CULTURAL/SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES
Sienificant Effect
• A total of 16 archaeological sites were recorded within the boundary of the park. A
portion of each of these sites will be impacted by planned development within the
park
• All of the rock units present on the site have a high potential for the discovery of
significant paleontological resources.
Finding
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the
EIR.
Facts in Support of Findine
The significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the
Standard County Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR
and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following:
12
a_ 35
E,NbitA
9. For any archaeological site which may be adversely impacted, a County -certified
archaeologist shall be retained by the applicant to perform a subsurface test level
investigation and surface collection as appropriate. The test level report evaluating
the site shall include discussion of significance (depth, nature, condition and extent
of the resources), final mitigation recommendations and cost estimates. Excavated
finds shall be offered to the County of Orange, or designee, on a first refusal basis.
Applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be
properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or
a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at this
time, in which case items shall be donated to County, or designer. Final mitigation
shall be carried out based upon the recommendations and a determination as to the
site's disposition by the Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Program
Planning Division. Possible determinations include, but are not limited to,
preservation, salvage, partial salvage or no mitigation necessary.
Prior to award of any construction or grading contract, the contract and plans shall
be provided to the Chief, EMA/Regulation/Grading Section, including written
evidence that a County -certified archaeologist has been retained, shall be present at
the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for archaeological resource
surveillance, and shall establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting
work to permit the salvage, sampling, identification, and evaluation of the artifacts
as appropriate. If additional or unexpected archaeological features are discovered,
the archaeologist shall report such findings to the Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches,
and Parks/Program Planning Division. If the archaeological resources are found to
be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions for
exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the County of
Orange, or designee, on a first refusal basis. Applicant may retain said finds if
written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County,
unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates
a desire to study and/or display them at this time, in which case items shall be
donated to County, or designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and
disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Manager,
EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Program Planning Division.
10. Prior to award of any construction or grading contract, the contract and plans shall
be provided to the Chief, EMA/Regulation/Grading Section, including written
evidence that a County -certified paleontologist has been retained to conduct
pregrading salvage, observe any grading activities, salvage fossils as necessary, and
prepare a catalogue of the exposed resources. The paleontologist shall be present
at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for paleontological resource
ia- 0
Exhibit A
surveillance, and shall establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting
work to permit the salvage, sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If
major paleontological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or
redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the Manager,
EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Program Planning Division. The paleontologist
shall determine appropriate actions to ensure proper exploration and/or salvage.
Excavated finds shall be offered to the County of Orange, or designee, on a first
refusal basis. Applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that
they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special
significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or
display them at this time, in which case items shall be donated to County, or
designee. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources,
shall be subject to the approval of the Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and
Parks/Program Planning Division. The paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report
for approval by the Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches, and Parks/Program Planning
Division, which shall include the period of inspection, methodology, an analysis of the
artifacts found, a catalogue of artifacts, and their present repository.
AESTHETICS
,Significant Effect
• Because of the prominent location of the proposed Interpretive Center, at generally
the high point of the park property, it has the potential to result in significant impacts
on views of the bay and park from proposed trails and other closely adjacent
viewpoints.
Findin
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the
EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The significant effects have been reduced to a 'level of insignificance by virtue of the
Standard County Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR
and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following:
14
P+hM A
11. Prior to issuance of a building permit including grading, for the
Interpretive Center, plans shall be submitted for the review and
approval of the Manager, EMA/Harbors, Beaches and
Parks/Parks Design and the Newport Beach Building Director.
Said plans shall demonstrate compliance with the City of
. .. ... _ �_-#--' -- --
nue, and shall indicate that non -reflective glass shall be
used on all windows overlooking Upper Newport Bay.
17. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading, the
construction documents shall be submitted for approval to the
Manager, Development Services and the Newport_ Beach
Building Director for the area surrounding the Interpretive
Center, ensuring that the parking lot shall be landscaped,
equipped for irrigation, and improved as stated below:
a prelimnary Plan - Prior to the issuance of a building
permit, a preliminary landscape plan, indicating use of
native and drought tolerant species, and a cost estimate
shall be submitted for the review and approval of the
Manager, Subdivision Division and the Newtwrt Beach
Building Director,
b. lZt ilea Plan - Prior to the initiation of construction, a
detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and
approved by the Manager, Subdivision Division ad*
NO=rrt Beach Building Director. Detailed plans shall
show the detailed landscaping and irrigation design.
C. installation Cortif"ication - Prior to the issuance of final
certificates of use and occupancy, said improvements
shall be installed and shall be certified by a licensed
landscape architect as having been installed in
accordance with the approved detailed plans. Said
certification shall be furnished in writing to the
Manager, EMA/Public Works/Construction Division
and the Newport Beach Building Director.
15
d. hO
Exhibit A
LAND USE
Significant Effect
• The project proposes the construction of a 10,000 square foot Interpretive Center on
the site. The City of Newport Beach General Plan and Local Coastal Program Plan
limit on -site. structures to 8,000 square feet.
Findiniz
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been
adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
Facts in Support of Finding
The significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the
Standard County Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR
and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following:
13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading the County shall submit
an application to the City of Newport Beach for amendment of the City's General
Plan and Local Coastal Program to accommodate the 10,000 square foot Interpretive
Center as proposed. After approval by the City, said approvals and an application
for a Coastal Development Permit shall be referred to the State Coastal Commission
for approval.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
,Significant Effect
• The current condition of Back Bay Drive does not conform to safety standards and
has potential liability problems. These safety concerns include lack of pedestrian
facilities, inadequate width to accommodate bicycle and motor vehicle traffic, and no
improved parking areas.
Findin
16
FAhibit A
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the
EIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been
adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
Facts in Support of Finding
The significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the
Standard County Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR
and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following:
14. Prior to the award of a construction or grading contract, whichever occurs first, a
plan for the ultimate use and configuration of Back Bay Drive shall be submitted for
the review and approval of the Director, EMA/Transportation and the City of
Newport Beach Traffic Engineer. Said plan shall consider, at a minimum, the
following:
a. access controls (e.g., gates, etc.)
b. hours of use
C. vehicle connections to the Eastbluff area
d. ultimate pavement cross-section
e. bicycle access.
15. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading, an access and parking
plan for the Interpretive Center shall be submitted for the review and approval of
the Director, EMA/Transportation and the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer.
Said plan shall indicate that access and parking have been designed to appropriate
standards for sight distance, parking and accessways, bus and vehicle turn -outs, etc.
RECREATION
It i-.t ii
• The restrictions on access to areas of the park property may be viewed as an adverse
impact by those who have historically taken advantage of unregulated access to the
park property under both public and private ownership.
17
0.40
Exhibit A
Findiniz
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the
EIR.
Farts in Support of Findiniz
The significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the
Standard County Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR
and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following:
• Implementation of the General Development Plan results, in a balance between
recreational access and resource management and preservation, reducing the
significant impact to a level of insignificance.
NOISE
Significant Effect
During construction of the Interpretive Center and related improvements, and
improvements to University Drive, temporary construction noise will intermittently
reach 95 dBA on the construction site. Residential structures located as close as 50
feet to the construction site will be exposed to this noise. This noise level is in excess
of County and City of Newport Beach standards.
This impact was reported as a significant, albeit temporary, unavoidable adverse
impact of project development in the Draft EIR. Subsequent to distribution of the
Draft EIR, County staff responsible for reviewing noise and acousticalstudies
provided substantial and credible evidence indicating that such construction noise
impacts are not significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the project. This
substantial evidence, correspondence dated September 10, 1992 from Paul Wang of
Development Services - Acoustics, which correspondence is incorporated herein by
this reference, stated that the impact is not considered significant because it is
temporary, lasting only for the duration of the construction project, and that the
proposed mitigation measures will reduce the identified construction noise impact to
a level of insignificance. The Planning Commission has considered the evidence in
the Draft EIR and that provided by County staff and has concluded that the impact
m
ff' q1
FAIWt A
has been reduced to a level of insignificance subject to the findings and facts
enumerated below. As part of this action, the Commission finds that none of the
criteria mandating a significant effect on the environment, as described in §15065 of
the California Code of Regulations (State CEQA Guidelines) arc present.
Eindinl;
1. Granges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the
EIR.
Facts in Support o_ f Finding
The significant effect has been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard
County Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and
incorporated into the project. These measures include the following:
16. Construction activities shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Newport
Beach Municipal Code, which limits the hours of construction and excavation work
to 7:00 am. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No
person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition,
painting, plastering, or any other related building activity, operate any tool,
equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could
disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any
Sunday or on any holiday.
17. Prior to the issuance of a building permit including grading, the construction
documents shall be submitted for approval to the Manager, Development Services,
including written evidence that:
a All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000
feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained
mufflers.
b. All operations shall comply with Orange County Codified Ordinance Division
6 (Noise Control).
C. Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable
from dwellings.
19
JA- 4y
Exhibit A
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS
IMPLEMENTED
All significant environmental effects that can be feasibly avoided have been eliminated or
substantially lessened by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and
incorporated into the project as set forth above. Further, as set forth above, substantial
evidence supports, the finding that the unavoidable adverse impact resulting from
construction noise is, in fact, reduced to a level of insignificance by the application of the
mitigation measures proposed and because the impact is temporary, lasting only as long as
the construction activity. Therefore, all impacts of the project have been reduced to a level
of insignificance and no significant impacts which cannot be avoided will result from
implementation of the project.
20
l� . q3
FAlbit A
Four project alternatives were presented in the EIR. 'These alternatives have been reviewed
and considered in light of the adverse environmental effects which may result from the
project in the reduction or elimination of such effects which might be accomplished by
selection of one of the alternatives.
Each alternative is summarized below and specific economic, social, or other considerations
that rendered such alternatives infeasible are set forth. The discussions below are intended
to summarize and not fully restate the evidence contained in the Draft EIR, Response to
Comments, and the administrative record as a whole.
Findings
1. The project has been designed in a manner so as to provide the greatest public
involvement in the planning and CEQA process.
2. The following provides a brief description of the project alternatives.
3. The alternatives were rejected in favor of the current project proposal.
4. The rationale for rejection of each alternative is provided below.
S. The rejection rationale is supported by the public record including, but not limited
to, the Final EIR.
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
The No Project Alternative assumes that use of the park property would remain as it exists
today. Under the County's Interim Operations Plan, pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian use
is limited to dirt and paved trails and a ranger is on -site to enforce the operations plan.
Under the Pre -County Ownership condition, access to the site is uncontrolled.
Findiings
Specific economici social, or other considerations make infeasible the No Project Alternative
described in the Final EIR in that:
21
It, 11 q
Exhibit A
1. The No Project Alternative does not achieve the goals established for the park by the
Citizen's Advisory Committee.
2. The No Project Alternative would not control access in areas where increased human
encroachment might damage or destroy sensitive biological resources.
3. The No Project Alternative would leave the County open to liability claims from
individuals that may suffer personal injury on the property.
4. The No Project Alternative would not provide for the improvement of trails,
including the stabilization of slopes and unimproved drainage channels which convey
urban runoff and silt into the Upper Newport Bay during storms.
LOW INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
The Low Intensity Alternative would provide for a Tess intense improvement program and
use pattern on the property. The Interpretive Center would not be constructed if this
alternative were implemented.
Findin
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the Low Intensity
Alternative described in the Final EIR in that:
1. The Low Intensity Alternative does not achieve the goals established for the park by
the Citizen's Advisory Committee including:
• The alternative significantly limits the public's ability to access and enjoy the
site.
• The alternative eliminates, or severely limits, the opportunity for educational
and interpretive programs which would increase public understanding and
appreciation of the significant natural and cultural resources of the site.
MEDIUM INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
22
The Medium Intensity Alternative provides a similar level of access and recreational
opportunities as the proposed project. The major difference between the alternative and
the project is increased access opportunities to the bay on the Westbay parcel.
141 ITS
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the Medium Intensity
Alternative described in the Final EIR in that this variation does not have the ability to
reduce or eliminate impacts identified in the EIR and It actually has the potential to
increase impacts to biological resources by allowing increased human contact with the bay.
HIGH INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
The High Intensity Alternative provides a significant increase in access opportunities for
pedestrians, equestrians, and bicyclists. The expanded recreational opportunities include
increased access to the bay and its associated resources.
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the High Intensity
Alternative described in the Final EIR in that this variation does not have the ability to
reduce or eliminate impacts identified in the EIR and it actually has the potential to
increase impacts to biological resources by allowing increased human contact with the bay.
23
Att went 3
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF AN
AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE AND CIRCULATION
ELEMENTS OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL
PLAN TO INCREASE THE ENTITLEMENT FOR
INTERPRETIVE CENTER USE FROM 8,000 TO 10,000
SQUARE FEET AND DELETE THE SECONDARY
BICYCLE TRAIL WITHIN THE WESTBAY PARCEL OF
UPPER NEWPORT BAY REGIONAL PARK [GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT 92-3(E)]
WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport
Beach General Plan the Land Use and Circulation Elements have been prepared; and
WHEREAS, said elements of the General Plan sets forth objectives,
supporting policies and limitations for development in the City of Newport Beach; and
WHEREAS, said elements of the General Plan designate the general
distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land and building intensities in
a number of ways, including residential land use categories and population projections,
commercial floor area limitations, and the floor area ratio ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use and Circulation Elements are correlated as
required by California planning law; and
WHEREAS, the provisions and policies of the Land Use and Circulation
Elements are further implemented by the traffic analysis procedures of the Traffic'Phasing
Ordinance and the implementation programs of that Ordinance and the Fair Share Traffic
Contribution Fee Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport
Beach, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider a certain amendment
to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the circulation system will not be significantly impacted by the
proposed project; and
Gi, 0
WHEREAS, Final EM No. 525 has been prepared by the County of Orange
as Lead Agency for the proposed project as required by the California Environmental
Quality Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED by the PINW1 g Commission of
the City of Newport Beach that Amendment 92-3(E) to the General Plan is recommended
for approval to the City Council to increase the development allocation for interpretive
center use within the Westbay Parcel of Upper Newport Bay Regional Park Planned
Community from 8,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet and clarity the hours of publiepark
access as shown in Exhibit 1 attached hereto; and to delete the secondary bicycle trall
through the Westbay parcel from the Master Plan of Bikeways.
ADOPIED this __ day of 1993, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
BY -
Thomas Edwards
Chairman
BY,
Barry Merrill
Secretary
Exhibit 1: Revised Land Use Element Text
r.\..\Uerear<rcanso.orA
REVISED LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-3(E)
Westbay Area (Statistical Area A
3. Westbay. The Westbay site is bounded by Irvine Avenue, University Drive, the Santa
An -Deihl Channel and Upper Newport Bay. The site is designated for Recreational
and Environmental open Space, and may be used for regional park facilities, passive
open space or interpretive facilities related to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological
Reserve or the on -site cultural resources. Structures on this site shall not exceed
S;W I_1100 sq. ft. In addition the normal hours of park operation�spcgified in the
Plan fnr TTnner
Attachment 4
RESOLUTION NO,
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CPTY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING
CrrY COUNCILAPPROVALOFAMENDMENTNO.SITO
THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, LAND USE PLAN
(UPPER NEWPORT BAY REGIONAL PARK)
WHEREAS, the Coastal Act of 1976 requires the City of Newport Beach to
prepare a local coastal program; and
WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Coastal
Act, the City established a Local Coastal Program Advisory Committee, which held 29
public meetings to develop the goals, objectives and policies of the City$ Local Coastal
Program; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach
considered the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan at nine public hearings prior to
recommending approval and adoption to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach also hold nine
public hearings on the local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan prior to adoption; and
WHEREAS, two public hearings were held by the California Coastal
Commission in conjunction with the certification of the Newport Beach Local Coastal
Program, Land Use Plan; and
WHEREAS, said Land Use Plan sets forth the objectives and supporting
policies which serve as a guide for the future development in the coastal zone in the City
of Newport Beach; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a duly noticed public hearing
to consider this amendment to the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, in considering this amendment to the
Local Coastal Program, has determined that this amendment is consistent wlth all of the
stated goals and policies of the California Coastal Act, the City of Newport Beath General
Plan, and the City& Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of
the City of Newport Beach recommends that the City Council adopt Amendment No. 31 to
the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan to increase the development
allocation within the Westbay Parcel of Upper Newport Bay Planned Community from 8,000
square feet to 10,000 square feet and clarify the hours of public park access as shown in
Exhibit 1 attached hereto.
ADOPTED this _ day of 1993, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES
NO
ABSENT
BY
Thomas Edwards
Chairman
BY
Harry Merrill
Secretary
Attachment
Exhibit 1: Revised Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Text
P.%-%UNU"\PGRCS0J"
EXIWIT L
REVISED LOCAL COASTAL
AMENDMENT NO D USE PLAN TEXT
LCP
Weatbay Area
3. Wabay. The Westbay site Is bounded by l vine Avenue, University Drive.1,Santt
AUL.DthjCh&=Sland Upper NewportBay. The site is designated for Recreational
and Environmental Open Space, and may be used for regional park facilities, passive
open space or interpretive facilities related to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological
Reserve or the on -site cultural resources. Structures on this site sball not exceed
gggg 14.QQQ sq. ft. Any development of this site shall be sited and designated to
adequately protect and buffer the environmentally sensitive area(s) on this site. A
publicbikeway/walkway is shownforthe Westbaysite,butcaroful consideration shall
be given at the time it is developed to the environmentally sensitive nature of the site
in beating the accessway. Any development which occurs shall be located in order
to preserve sensldve habitat areas Located on the site. Views from Irvine AvenuC
shall be maximized.
0" !1-
Attachment 5
RESOLUTION NO.
-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCB,THE APPROVALOFAMENDMENT
NO. 779 AMENDING A PORTION OF DISTRICTING
MAPS NO. 36, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44 AND 61 SO AS TO
RECLASSIFY THE SANTA ANA HEIGHTS AND
EASTBLUFF PARCELS OF THE UPPER NEWPORT BAY
REGIONAL PARK PROPERTY FROM THE
UNCLASSIFIED, R-3-13 AND R4-B-2 DISTRICTS TO THE
PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, Section 20.84.010 of the Municipal Code of the City of Newport
Beach provides that Title 20 (the Zoning Code) may be amended by changing the zoning
designation of Districts and other provisions whenever the public necessity and convenience
and the public welfare require such amendment; and
WHEREAS, Section 20.84.020 of the Municipal Code of the City of Newport
Beach provides that an amendment to Title 20 may be initiated by resolution of intention
of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended to the City Council
the adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 92-3(E) and Local Coastal Program
Amendment No. 31 so as to change the land use designation of the subject property from
the Unclassified, R-3-13 and R4-B-2 Districts to the Planned Community District; and
WHEREAS, land use decisions are legally required to be consistent with the
City's General Plan and Zoning; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to make the zoning districts of property in the
City of Newport Beach consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the consideration of the above referenced
amendments to the General Plan and Local Coastal Program the City has accepted an
Environmental Document and it has been determined that this document is adequate to
serve as the environmental document for this action; and
a, 63
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20.94.30, the Planning Commission has held
a duty noticed public hearing to consider Amendment No. 779 to Title 20 of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code amending Districtiog Maps No. 36, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44 and 61.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of
the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council approve
Amendment No. 779 to 'Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code amending
Districting Maps No. 36, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44 and 61, attached as Exhibit 1.
ADOPTED this _ day of _ _ 1993, by the following vote, to wit:
BY
Thomas C. Edwards
Chairman
BY
Harry O. MerrIll
Secretary
E:-\uNDMPcMO=
AYES --
NOES
ABSENT
2 It, 6q
IAttachment 6
as aim An • Mi NA Jed MA wa a Mal m m wa Mt'i MA Y m m m
rr
N
Y y
,s>
S 1•
1
, A
(+f�A<s• r a`�7'Y V,Xfe. s .-y ..A,'"4'+ � '�f
i "♦..,t'T�JJ4 n .. h 7i 1 n��. f7�' i Y �� , 1•i'i
fMr
rye.
tier• , 1
K�.1 EMI. )�/;�iYKys,� d •�
Ya,'i i1♦. ri r 1.1x �®/<f,'1•�t,`�at`jt, ����T 4 yyi''Y
♦ C ( 4
A
1
nGUREA•2
Mgt: -14�. AM. =A. 'Ni --�, am. �. NMa �o �. am. �l WWI volft 1Sa � r
."tM1 jj
,.
sire::. �_•`'e.
t...
._�•
,�i�v � f .'•'''•.:.
�
}},,v .,y,`�Yi
:2.��..L�
�Jf•iL,.v .M�'a..- •4. ��.�:,i.-s.._w:,v" _•4 .,. •r ri... f •
•;. '.:
"W ��.G�+•7� •.�t-.lMyjs�� �,k•.i :.�n;:ii.''•_ .� '' � �+4+....fyV�Y. ..
.ati t... ��w}i±\�R .Y. �: tti• • \••..
`.~?..•.'.�•4T"
•
^1 �iTJ•T�"��tn^1�Ft��
f\' _:��
,'n�fi.e�
y„n. :_, n, �''y�^,.�,i?GJi`ieci�l!4:4y�'n�+J+.�r-...• __, „'r_ ,. .'•��: �'_.�••._�:._..
*`..
\L _.
M •
� �
iw O ; \ .IT�Ti1�.� iT•'_♦.t. . • • ry� v ry „•
y:i.!_�Kr. i'.�`!,'N�+li �-. •\.
A .S.�i. t: f.� •i�lAi.Y]�+i.✓...i':i.i Lf•A.'� v` .•al.C.l,.. L .� : f � "d`'
INTERPRETIVE CENTER MODEL
VIEW FROM THE BAY
FIGURE 4-4
.9
V
Io WN Asa ).w da w w rw .a rr s/r rar wa wt ar
Attachment 8
lrtt im M
Y
Attachment G
WESTBAY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
INTERPRETIVE CENTER PARKING
INTERPRETIVE CENTER
INTERPRETIVE PEDESTRIAN TRAIL
OUTDOOR GATHERING AREA
tt ~ f TYP. OVERLOOK AREA
� � f PERIPHERAL PEDESTRIAN TRAIL
TYP. B NCA RESTORATION
BLUFPTOP\PEDESTRIAN TRAIL
w%�� `— ; * a" ►— TYP. BICYCLE PULL—OUT'
A TYP. INTERPRETIVE NODE
ORNAMENTAL NATIVE
NORTH vr
F \�
n
100 400 6
0 Z� 800 l feet !� A G
FIGURE 4.3 a1, _J*t
Attachment S,
WESTBAY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
INTERPRETIVE CENTER PARKING
INTERPRETIVE CENTER
INTERPRETIVE PEDESTRIAN TRAIL
OUTDOOR GATHERING AREA
� TYP. OVERLOOK AREA
PERIPHERAL PEDESTRIAN TRAIL
vil
TYP. 'B-A P NCA RESTORATION
BLUFFTOP EDESTRIAN TRAIL
NORTH
100 400
LF�tJ
0 200 800 Feet
Attachment 8
yi 00 AM it rr WA MA ww rt AOK AAA+ AIR Pa AM >r R rr AMl AK
?i UNRESTRICTED USE AREAS
CURRENT LEVEL OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
Cu6eIwi,hWlulyFuoeYltl